If 370 was hijacked by a secretive cell, those same actors might very well reason that a second “vanishing” would accomplish many of the social psychological, economic, and geopolitical objectives that 9/11 did while minimizing the risk of physical reprisal.
By: Dr. Jason Kissner
Establishment Media have finally come round to the view that Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 was hijacked.
Now, the cardboard puppets in the Establishment Media are sounding the line of their ventriloquist masters in the Spy State–the line that the pilots, and possibly passengers, were the culprits.
The problem with this view is that, at least at present, criminological data do not support it. Things might change by way of the introduction of specific evidence, but right now we can say confidently that hijackings are very rarely committed by pilots and/or copilots (although they do happen; one happenes to have occurred as recently as February, 2014), and when they do, it’s very frequently attributable to the desire to escape truly dire political circumstances.
More particularly, the Telegraph has this to offer regarding the backgrounds of the pilot and co-pilot of 370. I see no evidence that would justify leaping to the conclusion that either pilot is guilty.
The same is true, in my judgment, with regard to the information that has been published about passengers.
Sure, Captain Shah had a flight simulator, but he also had revealed that to the world via YouTube.
My overall point regarding the pilots is intimately related to a point about the Establishment Media/Government hybrid: we are once again supposed to trust the hybrid; the same hybrid that we already know lies inveterately and habitually. They’re now allowing us to focus on the prospect that the plane was hijacked (before they called hijacking theories “conspiracy theories”), and they’re now demanding that we concentrate on the guilt of the pilots–something for which there is very little, if any, evidence.
When we concentrate on that (and there is little reason to at the moment) what we are really doing is merely waiting for, and not thinking about, the future. The hybrid will tell us what to think and believe when it is good and ready, and the source will be–you guessed it–the ubiquitous, simultaneously omniscient and ignorant, “unnamed government official.”
Moving right along and doing our own thinking: Many now believe, rightly in my view, that 370 was hijacked. It may still be, to be sure, that the plane simply crashed. It might also be that the plane was hijacked and then subsequently crashed.
But, it might also be that the plane was hijacked and safely landed somewhere.
This last possibility has prompted many to speculate that the putative perpetrators might repurpose 370 in such a way that it could become a 9/11 type weapon of mass destruction.
Maybe; we cannot, and should not, rule that out at this point.
We might ask, though, whether we are rushing to that conclusion simply because we cannot conceive of anything else. Terror consists in part in surprise, and carefully considered plans usually incorporate that element. Arguably, in times of warfare, it is when we are at a complete loss for solid explanations of harrowing events that we should be most on guard against surprise.
So, there are other possibilities, which, if realized, would be even more surprising. To the best of my knowledge the following has not been publically discussed–which signals something about the potential for surprise.
Consider, for a moment, the possibility that a second plane will be vanished and simply “stashed.”
If 370 was hijacked by a secretive cell, those same actors might very well reason that a second “vanishing” would accomplish many of the social psychological, economic, and geopolitical objectives that 9/11 did while minimizing the risk of physical reprisal. Arguably, doing so would even produce, from the perspective of the monsters who would perpetrate such deeds, additional “benefits.”
When assessing the impact of events, the importance of genuine surprise really cannot be underestimated. In addition, all else equal, repeated horrors are not as impactful as horrors that echo earlier horrors, but also contain novel horrors. The vanishing of a second plane would satisfy each of these criteria and would reverberate powerfully with 9/11.
Also, if a second plane were vanished and simply stashed, then for a rather protracted period of time governments would almost certainly be on very high alert and citizens would be terrified. Commerce might be seriously impaired. And yet, with no destroyed buildings, no bodies visible in the streets, and a rather precarious geopolitical situation, the evidence required to support at least overt forms of physical reprisal might be rather high. Even if certain governments responded more or less without regard to who did it, serious and sustained conflict could ensue–which could very conceivably be what those who arranged the hijacking (if such it was) of 370 wanted.
Plus, stashed planes could be used later anyway, perhaps even with hostages on board–which would augment the terror even more. The probability of the preceding scenario increases if the plane was in fact hacked, which I consider a reasonable possibility for the reasons discussed here.
Dr. Jason Kissner is associate professor of criminology at California State University, Fresno. You can reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org.