Posted on 06/07/2009 10:29:43 AM PDT by GeorgiaDawg32
Many years ago, before I "went Galt" and turned in my brain for bluejeans and a screwdriver, I was required to think up non-traditional answers to unorthodox problems which would arise from time to time. Because I was the only "Right-Brained" person working in a "Left-Brained" department, I was able to take entirely new perspectives to these problems and usually come up with non-traditional solutions.
Now, thinking non-traditionally, if this was a terrorist attack, it was performed in a most unorthodox manner.
IOW, a traditional attack is a bomb..now you're here, BOOM, now you're not. It's immediate and spectacular. However, the facts released thus far, if accurate, paint a different story in my mind.
The large number of error messages sent from the aircraft over a 14 minute period indicate a systematic shutdown of major airliner functions, i.e. auto-pilot etc. Now, from an unorthodox point of view, what if this were a terrorist attack from a SOFTWARE point of view. Put simply, what if a virus or some other method of disrupting the software of the plane was planted to go off at a certain time which would, system by system, shut down the computer operation of the plane up to and including communications? Many people have access to the onboard computer, I would guess, for upgrades, software checks, etc. Once the systems were shut down, the pilots ability to manually fly the plane "by the seat of their pants" would be virtually eliminated since system controls would not respond to manual input. This would mean that any variation in weather, speed, altitude etc. could not be controlled by the pilot and the plane was doomed.
IF this were the case, multiple backup systems controlled by the computer wouldn't work since the software bug remains.
I'm no aviation expert by any stretch of the imagination, but IF this were a terrorist attack, this is the only avenue I can see to carry it out, given available data.
Does this make sense to y'all??
1) Why
2) Who
3) Isn't the point of terrorism to “terrorize”, not to keep people in suspense as to why a plane went down?
Not if it was a test run for something bigger,,, who knows?
Isn’t the point of terrorism to terrorize,
if the object is to terrorize, why tell anyone who you are? wouldn’t that negate the point?
And if the same thing should happen again?
A third time?
1) If it was terrorism, since there have been no claims of responsibility, it was a proof-of-concept attack for a broader attack. I’d thought of some new sort of bomb that could be brought past security, but a software attack on the avionics would also fit.
2) Again *if* it was terrorism, Al Qaeda—their Algerian branch is a continuation of the Algerian Islamist movement that grew out of the anti-colonialist (anti-French) rebellion.
3) See 1).
Not necessarily, the point of terrorism is to coercion governments...
Governments profess they do not deal with "terrorist"
So I do think you get blackmailing act's that are not publicly revealed by the terrorist allowing the governments to concede to the terrorist demands wile publicly saving face...
But if it was a bomb, the results would be immediate and catastrophic..not a systematic shutdown of computer systems, IMHO..
Flight 447: airframe hr ~18,500. 4-yr old.
Automated messages: "The twelve warning messages with the same time code indicate that the autopilot and auto-thrust system had disengaged, that the rudder travel limit was removed.....
Flight 587's plane (A300 short widebody) was 14 yr old. It crashed allegedly due to structural failure during "normal" turbulence.
Among the many, many comment threads on various news sites, I could not help but snicker if only slightly at one comment; “We can be sure that the Air France stewardesses were snotty right to the very end.”
I’ve wondered the same and it has been speculated... just not in the media.
As for why no one has taken credit for it - why must anyone take credit? There was a bomb threat right before but no one checked the onboard computer system for any tampering of programs. It could very well be a dry run of what will and won’t normally be inspected. The guy could now be laughing his head off because no one bothered to check for a software bomb.
It could also have been that someone messed the some wiring. An intentionally loose or frayed or possible re-directing the wiring could cause a chain reaction of systems shutting down and no one would be the wiser. It wouldn’t matter if it were lost at sea or crashed on land. It would take months to make a determination and still it would be speculation. Of course a loose wire could be nothing more than a loose wire. Stuff happens.
> 3) Isn’t the point of terrorism to terrorize, not to keep people in suspense as to why a plane went down?
I dunno about you, but I find suspense pretty terrifying. Ever had to wait for a few days for a medical test to come back from the labs to tell you whether or not you are really horribly seriously ill? Every minute drags by, and it is terrifying. And it builds up and builds up right until you find out the answer.
I think he could be onto something. It sure is an interesting working hypothesis.
Among the many, many comment threads on various news sites, I could not help but snicker if only slightly at one comment; We can be sure that the Air France stewardesses were snotty right to the very end.
Your sub-theory that this was a trial fits right into the terrorist SOP:
1. We know that the 911 hijackers flew the flights they intended to hijack. And the English islamnutjobs who were going to use liquid bombs assembled in midair also did test flights.
2. The unsolved crash of a Brazil-France flight would not garner as much attention as say, a London-New York or LA-New York flight. Plus, a crash over an ocean would leave less evidence than a crash over land.
3. The Airbus is a EU product - and the Muslims have heavily infiltrated Europe, including (especially?) France, providing easier access to knowledge of Airbus operating systems and aircraft maintenance jobs than in the U.S.
As you say, this could have been the test run for a grand mid-Atlantic attack on 5 or 10 planes, just as the British liquid bomb job was planned to be.
Imagine the impact of 15 planes going down in a single day over the Atlantic?
According to a Rand report http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR989/MR989.chap2.pdf some of the most serious terrorist attacks have not been credibly claimed.
As for the why of terrorism, one has to include the terrorist’s desire to create multiple scenarios that would cause law abiding, peaceful citizens to question the trust they place in their government to provide that protection.
That kind of doubt on a national level could present an opportunity for a larger, more encompassing authority to step into the manufactured void and offer a conditional security.
Now, who would want to see that happen? Common sense should tell us that only a small group in a concentrated circle of power could pull that off and this past November provided ample evidence of their reach.
Hacking into anywhere should be a piece of cake for such a group.
It worked for Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum in “Independence Day”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.