Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AF 447 - Was it a terrorist attack in a non-traditional sense?
Me | 6/7/09 | GeorgiaDawg32

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??


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: af447
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

1 posted on 06/07/2009 10:29:43 AM PDT by GeorgiaDawg32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32
Interesting theory, however you are missing three points

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?

2 posted on 06/07/2009 10:33:50 AM PDT by Perdogg (Sarah Palin-Jim DeMint 2012 - Liz Cheney for Sec of State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Not if it was a test run for something bigger,,, who knows?


3 posted on 06/07/2009 10:37:12 AM PDT by Mmogamer (<This space for lease>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

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?


4 posted on 06/07/2009 10:39:22 AM PDT by GeorgiaDawg32 (I'm a Patriot Guard Rider..www.patriotguard.org for info..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
"3) Isn't the point of terrorism to “terrorize”, not to keep people in suspense as to why a plane went down? "

And if the same thing should happen again?

A third time?

5 posted on 06/07/2009 10:40:42 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

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).


6 posted on 06/07/2009 10:43:29 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32
Well, if someone were to claim the attack as their own handiwork, there is still plausible deniablity because there has been only one downed plane. So, perhaps, more than one needs to be brought down to establish plausibility, then the claim for resposiblilty could be made. At this point, though, I would have to go with the idea that if this was a deliberate act, why has no one claimed responsibility? Personally, I think the Airbus has bugs. Major bugs. Major stay the hell off of them bugs.
7 posted on 06/07/2009 10:48:49 AM PDT by Excellence (What Madoff is to finance Gore is to global warming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Isn't the point of terrorism to “terrorize”, not to keep people in suspense as to why a plane went down?

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...

8 posted on 06/07/2009 10:51:23 AM PDT by tophat9000 ( We are "O" so f---ed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

But if it was a bomb, the results would be immediate and catastrophic..not a systematic shutdown of computer systems, IMHO..


9 posted on 06/07/2009 10:57:58 AM PDT by GeorgiaDawg32 (I'm a Patriot Guard Rider..www.patriotguard.org for info..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32
From Wiki-

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.

10 posted on 06/07/2009 10:59:40 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Big Ears + Big Spending --> BigEarMarx, the man behind TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32

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.”


11 posted on 06/07/2009 11:04:12 AM PDT by mkjessup (Jimmy Carter is the Skidmark in the panties of American history, 0bama is the yellow stain in front.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32

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.


12 posted on 06/07/2009 11:04:58 AM PDT by bgill (The evidence simply does not support the official position of the Obama administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

> 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.


13 posted on 06/07/2009 11:06:39 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

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.”


Not funny, not true, and not called for.


14 posted on 06/07/2009 11:07:24 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mmogamer

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.


15 posted on 06/07/2009 11:10:59 AM PDT by KAUAIBOUND (Hawaii - paradise infested with left-wing cockroaches and centipedes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32
I am not saying that is what happened, but it is something that could happen. Enough to ensure that the upcoming 787 Dreamliner has both firewalls and airwalls between the core system and what passengers have access to, just in case some 'enterprising' passenger (be it run of the mill hacker, or someone with more nefarious objectives) decides to try and mess up some operating aspect of the aircraft. As for Jihadis, the typical 'Allah worshiping suicide bomber type' is merely a mule ...there are some who are Western educated (e.g. the stories last year of British doctors who were Islamist), and who may have specialized skills in technology. As planes become smarter, and fly by wire permeates the entire industry, it is only a matter of time before terrorists start sneaking in brains rather than bombs.

Imagine the impact of 15 planes going down in a single day over the Atlantic?

16 posted on 06/07/2009 11:13:07 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

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.


17 posted on 06/07/2009 11:30:48 AM PDT by MurrietaMadman (Luke 23:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32

It worked for Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum in “Independence Day”


18 posted on 06/07/2009 11:33:35 AM PDT by Jeffrey_D.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32
My guess would be a bomb that started a cascade of failures but did not do enough immediate damage to bring the plane down. Second would be lousy French programming. Airbus has had several crashes due to “unforeseen” circumstances where the computers did EXACTLY the wrong thing and caused the crash. there has even been situations where the flight control system computers voted and the main system picked the minority vote for action to take - - very bad deal.
19 posted on 06/07/2009 11:34:19 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Nemo me impune lacessit (Two terms for politicians, one in office, one in jail.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32
Small bomb, small damage.
20 posted on 06/07/2009 11:34:54 AM PDT by mad_as_he$$ (Nemo me impune lacessit (Two terms for politicians, one in office, one in jail.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson