Was the Malaysian Airlines Plane Stolen? A Criminological View

Was the Malaysian Airlines Plane Stolen?  A Criminological View

Of course, the supposition that flight 370 crashed was, and still is, empty conjecture. How much evidence is there in support of the crash proposition? The answer is: none.

It has been interesting to observe the evolution of  Establishment Media discussion and “analysis” of the fate of Malaysian Airlines flight 370. 

Speculation in the two or three days following the vanishing of flight 370 typically incorporated the assumption that flight 370 had, due to whatever causes or causes, crashed.

Thus, a representative March 10 Fox News article stated:

Possible causes of the crash included some sort of explosion, a catastrophic failure of the plane’s engines, extreme turbulence, or pilot error or even suicide. Establishing what happened with any certainty will need data from flight recorders and a detailed examination of any debris, something that will take months if not years.

Of course, the supposition that flight 370 crashed was, and still is, empty conjecture.  How much evidence is there in support of the crash proposition?  The answer is: none.

And the crash hypothesis is, at least at present, implausible not merely because debris has not yet been found.  This article presents criminological reasons as to why the most rational view of the fate of flight 370 holds that the aircraft was hijacked and stolen.

Here is an irrefutable criminological fact: Hijackings occur far more often than the disintegration of planes in mid-air.  They also occur far more often than plane crashes generally, although it is true that hijackings can generate plane crashes.

So, when 370 first vanished, the most rational initial assessment was that a hijacking had taken place.  The criminological question now is how to update the initial assessment in light of facts that have subsequently come into view.

It is best to begin analyzing the event from the moment of disappearance (when the best criminological view was a hijacking) and then work our way forward in time. A March 10 article in the Guardian states:

So when flight MH370 disappeared from plane tracking websites, it could mean the signals from the plane’s transponder were stopped deliberately (by pilots or others), or there was a complete electrical failure, or the plane disintegrated. Where the Malaysian plane was flying, the signals are picked up by sites only once a minute and only at a plane’s cruising height above 29,000 feet. So a dramatic loss of altitude could conceivably also see a plane drop off their radar but potentially continue to travel for some distance.

Thus, the Guardian offers three potential explanations of the disappearance (in terms of tracking, but each of the explanations is in principle applicable to other forms of communicative disappearance such as the loss of voice contact) of 370.  Notice that two of the three rationales are quite consistent with both hijacking as well as the destruction of the aircraft for reasons having nothing to do with hijacking (the complete electrical failure rationale would in all likelihood be the odd one out in terms of the hijacking possibility).

The key criminological move here is to observe that with nothing to justify preferring one rationale over the others (strictly speaking, the rationales are not mutually exclusive from a purely logical point of view, although in terms of empirical fact they almost always are), there was, at the time the Guardian published its article, no reason at all to depart from the initial, statistically based assessment of a hijacking (remember that hijackings occur far more often than wholly unexplained disappearances of aircraft). 

To be sure, there was also information that two passengers, one Iranian, used stolen passports to get on board.  Clearly, this is consistent with the hijacking prospect, although I suspect this may be a red herring.

In any event, as of March 10, the best view was still that the aircraft was hijacked.  And, since most hijackings do not result in crashes (click here for some evidence of this), the best evidence on March 10 implied that the plane had not crashed.  

March 11 brought new information.  For example, there was some indication that passengers’ mobile phones were still ringing, and some experts are now stating that at least with respect to some phones, this would not happen if the phones were either submerged in the ocean or destroyed (actually, this information was available in Chinese media on March 10.  US Establishment Media, for some reason, still really hasn’t considered it worth mentioning).

And, Malaysian military authorities appear to have scotched the instantaneous disintegration hypothesis.  They now believe that the plane traveled, at a minimum, some several hundred kilometers upon having lost contact with civil aviation authorities.

Furthermore, search areas have been broadened to include land.

In addition—and this is very disturbing—there is evidence that Boeing was informed as recently as November 2013 of 777 security issues pertaining to the hacking of onboard computer systems.

Meanwhile, CIA Director John Brennan (the fellow whose company Analysis Corp. breached Obama’s passport in 2008) is now telling the public that the CIA is investigating the possibility that pilot suicide (presumably followed by a crash) is a reasonable view of the fate of 370.

So, let’s sum up: all of the evidence so far is consistent with the hijacking scenario, and no evidence so far proves that the plane crashed.  There is some case-specific evidence, although admittedly not overwhelming in nature (such as the ringing cell phone information as well as the fact that authorities are now searching on land) consistent with the plane’s not having crashed.  There is also the very important criminological evidence that hijacked planes do not typically crash.

The evidence in support of the CIA’s pilot suicide theory is about as close to zero as you can get, which makes one wonder why they’re putting the notion out there in the first place.

Of course, in the words of the Guardian “Malaysian MH370 copilot entertained teenagers in cabin on earlier flight.”

If true, this would have been somewhat reminiscent of alleged pre 9/11 hijacker conduct. 

Did it really happen, or do certain elements merely want people to think it did?

Maybe it did happen, but even if it did, the link between such an event and suicide two to three years later is very weak indeed.

I would not at all be surprised, however, if the “pilot suicide” hypothesis is the one that ultimately catches hold in state-run US media.

On the basis of all of the foregoing, the most rational conclusion one can draw at present is this: 370 was hijacked/stolen and did not crash.  Therefore, it landed safely somewhere. 

While the probability is low, it is not out of the question that a stolen plane could be used to deliver a weapon of mass destruction—conceivably with human hostages on board.

©2014 American Uncensored News Network, All Rights Reserved

JasonKissner-jpg

Dr. Jason Kissner is Associate Professor of Criminology at California State University, Fresno.  You can reach him at crimprof2010@hotmail.com.

  1. Hijack possible, and the transponder issue does point that way. The evidence for a crash consists of the fact that the plane has to be down somewhere, and it hasn’t landed anywhere publicly.

    The fact that no debris have been found yet is not that surprising. It has happened before.

    The phone business is complete silliness, generated by distressed relatives. Look into it a little.

    The odd thing is the report by the Malaysian military that the plane veered off course and flew for some time. The government has made a statement that no such thing happened. If the government is right, the hijack probability goes down. The sample of hijacked planes to disentegrated planes is too small to mean anything. We don’t have any good evidence of what happened.

    An American military pilot took a fighter jet well off course and committed suicide by crashing into a specific mountain that had meaning to him. It took some time to find the jet and sort the entire story out. This happened in Colorado. Suicide by pilot is still in play.

    Reply
    • hasn’t landed anywhere *publicly*.
      There are a zillion islands out there.
      *Someone* knows where it is in military/government. 😉

      Reply
  2. Mermortal, it is a mystery, but today the authorities are now admitting it was completely off course, so Jason’s theory is being supported by that.

    Reply
  3. Osama bin Laden claims his birthdate as Mar 10, and was buried somewhere at sea, either in the Arabian Sea or The Indian Ocean.
    A coindence ??
    Go Figure, A Modern Day Sacriface, by a bunch of 14th century Heathen’s

    Reply
  4. Theft is the first thing that occurred to me when I saw the initial report. Photoshopped pictures, Malaysia changing statements, Muslim pilots, no distress signal or transponder signal, and no wreckage add up to more than just a plane crash to me. Good job on putting all the known facts in order.

    Reply
  5. WSJ now says in air for 5 hours after last contact. Engine data transmissions. It is strange how the majority of media ignored the obvious about there being no evidence of a crash. They are finally waking up now.

    By Andy Pasztor WSJ
    U.S. investigators suspect that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 stayed in the air for about four hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, according to two people familiar with the details, raising the possibility that the plane could have flown on for hundreds of additional miles under conditions that remain murky.

    Aviation investigators and national security officials believe the plane flew for a total of five hours, based on data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from the Boeing Co. 777’s engines as part of a routine maintenance and monitoring program.

    Reply
  6. Dr.Kissner is of course right, keep your focus on what you know, “just the facts.”

    Disregard any article or newscast which uses “could have,” “should have,” “maybe,” or lists a poll. Irrevelant. A group of mis-informed people who agree on something is no help.

    Politician and family speculation is also no help.

    To me the transponder being off is the key.

    Reply
  7. A few days ago I heard a report, I think on CNN, that there was some “seismic activity” an earthquake like event in the Andaman Islands. Did anyone see that anywhere else?

    A LARGE explosion could trigger the seismic sensors on the sea floor.

    Loading large amount of explosives on an airplane while smoking a cigarette for instance.

    Reply
  8. […] statistical reasons suggested a hijacking pretty much once the plane had vanished (click here and here for […]

    Reply
  9. In the summer of 2013 a latest model fighter jet was stolen at the “MAKS-2013” air show.There could be a connection between the stolen russian jet the maybe stolen flight 370. The stolen Boeing can be hijacked by the russins as revenge for the yet to be found fighter jet.

    Reply
  10. 4/17/14 As of 2:00 PM today:
    Things that point to larceny:
    No proof of crash. Plane dropped in altitude to tried to drop below radar. It passed over land. No one has shown that it did or didn’t land.
    So here’s the scenario. The flight between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing is known to be a route that large amounts of money/commodities/gold, etc. are transfered because of the lack of trust in banks and the need to do shady transactions. So someone (MA 370 pilots or pilot hijacker) in on the robbery, decompresses the cabin to knock out passengers, lands the plane. Unloads the loot. And either sends the plane back into the air via remote control or has someone do a take off, put it on autopilot and then parachute out. Somehow the plane flies away and is set to crash where the best possibility is for it not to be found. If the black boxes are recovered and shows it landed then we’re talking a new ball game in intrigue. Hopefully they unloaded the passengers along with the loot but that would be a logistical nightmare. The criminal usually like few witnesses.

    Reply
  11. http://blackobama.beep.com
    http://blackdiamondobama.beep.com/apps/photoalbum?aid=41136828

    They usually wear these jewels on official photos of the First Family and on informal events as well.
    They wear the God Hanuman as an amulet, who holds a Trisul in his hand. Hanuman cut down the head of god

    Ganesa’s (God of abundance) with this weapon, that’s why it is a head of an elephant on its place.
    The trishul is a trident, like the figure in Obama’s hand holds in it’s left hand.
    In mythology it’s not a good symbol anyway. The religious and ideological background represented by the jewels

    is hard to understand for the first time, but gather the facts we can we draw some very interesting

    consequences.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to joe sh!t Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *