Flight 370 Critical Update – EMP Still Possible – “Massive Electrical System Failure”

by Scott Creighton

The latest reports on the investigation into the mysterious disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 are now centering on that Malaysian Air Force data that I mentioned in an earlier update that showed the flight turning abruptly back towards Malaysia and remaining in the air for approximately one hour until it disappeared for the last time.

In an even earlier report, I wrote about the possibility of an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapon having been used to take out the plane. With the lack of transponder data and any radio communications with the ground, it seemed at the time that the theory may indeed have had some credibility… especially when you consider the fact that various warmongers held a special conference at the CPAC convention to discuss Iranian EMP terrorism just two days before the plane vanished.

Some might conclude that this new revelation would negate my original theory but that would be an incorrect conclusion.

Turns out, this new info might prove me right.

According to experts on CNN, the plane probably suffered some kind of “massive electronic failure” on-board which took out most of their electronic systems including radio, transponders and navigation.

The expert who I just saw live on CNN, said that all of these planes have a shielded back-up energy source, which is designed to provide emergency power for the plane for just such an occasion.

That expert says the back-up source would have lasted “about an hour”

You see, in such an event, the pilots, lacking navigational abilities, would have made the best guess possible to turn the plane and return to land, which explains the flight path.

They would have also dropped their altitude considerably because the oxygen system in the plane would require power.

Had it been an EMp attack as opposed to some other electrical system failure, the pilots would not have been able to reset the radio on the plane no matter how much back-up energy they decided to sacrifice in order to get it up and running. An EMP burst would have fried the radio and transponder and probably most of the phones on the plane. If this assumption is correct, they would have been flying entirely by sight with no way to communicate with anyone outside the aircraft.

Given that scenario, it is unlikely they would have attempted to make it back to a busy airport as they would almost certainly collide with another plane on approach.

Perhaps the pilots attempted a water landing like the one we saw off that beach a couple years ago.

——————-

Help support independent journalism.

Please consider DONATING to American Everyman BY USING THE DONATE BUTTON ON THE RIGHT.

Or, you can contact me at RSCdesigns@verizon.net for other arraignments

Your donations will help spread authentic independent journalism to more people like yourself who are sick and tired of the lies and propaganda that’s called “news” these days.

Thank you.

About these ads

28 Responses

  1. This raises hopes that maybe there are a few survivors….. maybe….many survivors…. on the edges of some small island?
    their phones won’t work but maybe they will be found.

    What brave pilots….. cannot imagine the stress and fear they were enduring……

  2. If it was “terrorism” I think they would have said so right away. We shall see. You could be right. The authorities are hiding something…
    Journalist finds parallel between Malaysia Airlines, TWA 800 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgPydJBbH8M

    • the thing about an EMP false flag is they can’t call it terrorism until they find the wreckage and all the electrical systems on-board the plane are fried. If Killary were to come out now claiming it’s terrorism, folks would tend to wonder how she knew it before the plane was found. They kinda have to wait for other authorities to find the plane and discover the damage to the systems.

  3. If it is an EMP or better NNEMP attack (false flag), then how get any of two ¨axis of evil¨ countries involved…?

    Both Iran and the DPRK have exceptionally good relations with Malaysia.
    Only Malaysians can visit the DPRK without a visa, Kuala Lumpur and Pyongyang are the locations for their respective embassies and those cities connect by frequent air travel.
    For Iran on the other hand, Malaysia was one of only three countries to vote against a November 2009 IAEA resolution rebuking Iran. If anything Israel probably would not be to happy about Malaysia according to this: ¨Also in November 2009, Malaysian Deputy Foreign Minister A. Kohilan Pillay refuted allegations that Malaysia was aiding the Iranian nuclear program, saying that Malaysia “was not a center for nuclear weapons shipments to Iran” and denied any role in illegal export of nuclear weapons to the country. Kohilan did, however, name certain individuals and two Malaysian companies that were in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the United States Iran Embargo¨
    I have not searched in detail, but wikipedia cites no sudden breaks in the good relations to Malaysia for either countryb ut you never know what goes on behind the scenes of course.

  4. If the passengers thought they were crashing, they would have used their cell phones to call home. I am thinking EMP or similar disabling device also. The only other thing that would explain it is too far fetched – Philadelphia experiment II.

  5. An EMP would have taken out the passengers’ cell phones, but that clearly didn’t happen (as they were ringing before connecting, hours after the plane ‘disappeared’), so I doubt it was an EMP. As in all false flags (and this is obviously another false flag), we have to ask: Who benefits? and Why now?

    Who benefits?
    The mainstream media narrative is moving towards blaming Iranians (subtext Muslims/Islam), though stopping short of calling this a ‘t-word’ attack (while still, nevertheless, stressing that the ‘t-word’ attack remains a possibility). Whenever Iranians/Muslims/Islam are blamed, even obliquely, Israel and the West benefit, so I’d suggest that Mossad and some Western alphabet agencies are behind this what I believe should be referred to as an abduction. Keep in mind this abduction occurred in a plane originating in a Muslim country that’s on extraordinarily good terms with traditional enemies of the West. Also keep in mind that the plane was heading to Beijing before it was sidetracked and was more or less full of Chinese nationals as well as a goodly proportion of Muslims and only a handful of Westerners. Keep in mind that driving a wedge between China and Iran would also drive a wedge between best buds China and Russia (hearts and minds of the people, I’m referring to here, hearts and minds of the people), which again would benefit the West, should a war break out between the United States of Israel and Russia, and/or the United States of Israel and Iran. Mossad and Co. wouldn’t think twice about abducting and disposing of a plane full of Muslims and Chinese, but a Muslim certainly would.

    Why now?
    Another world war looms, cold or hot. The United States of Israel would benefit from a weakened Iran/Russian/Chinese alliance, again, in the hearts and minds of the people. If the “Iranian t-word” story sticks in the minds of Chinese (who are the main victims here), the average Chinese man/woman on the street may be less likely to side with Russia or Iran over the US of Israel. In the age of social media, popular consensus is nearly as mighty as the sword, and the Chinese love their social media.

    Conclusion:
    The false flag abduction was engineered by Western forces (probably carried about by Mossad agents), who unfortunately forgot to turn off the passengers’ phones, a little detail I’m guessing they won’t forget next time. The plane, after having been taken over by the abductors within the ship itself and diverted from its flight path, may have been accompanied and surrounded by cloaked craft, which then succeeded in cloaking the abducted airliner from subsequent radar detection until the flight was low enough to the ground to avoid further radar detection. I like to think that all of the abducted passengers are alive somewhere, but that may just be wishful thinking on my part. I’m sure some of them would have been useful for their tech skills, so perhaps some were spared, but I doubt they’ll ever be released.

  6. If it was indeed an EMP device that disabled the electronic devices on that plane and the pilot used the shielded secondary power to land or try to land coupled with the fact that the plane was spotted on the eastern seaboard of Malaysia, it had to cross the entire country which would have been caught on radar. In the case that the plane was flying really low to be caught on radar, it certainly would have been sighted (in daylight) or heard by someone on the land, wouldn’t it?

  7. […] Flight 370 Critical Update – EMP Still Possible – “Massive Electrical System Failure” […]

  8. So there is a ¨radar blip¨ heading west or in other words ¨an unidentified plot¨, in effect CROSSING the flight path and search is still concentrating east?
    We are not sure at this time if the ¨blip¨ military radar picked up came from the plane….
    Also, are they searching Malaca straits ¨shallow well travelled waters yet, or not?

    • I remember, very early into this story that I saw a graphic showing two distinct search fields. One was where the plane was last reported by the transponder and the second was off the West Coast of Malaysia in the strait. I wondered at the time why they would do, how they could be so far from the last reported location. That was two days before the story about the Malaysian Air Force tracking the flight an additional hour and 10 minutes came out. They can’t be positive that the blip they tracked was Flight 370 since, unlike the transponder, the blip didn’t contain detailed information about what flight it was, but they were certainly convinced enough to send ships into the area to search for wreckage which of course is not a decision they enter into lightly.

  9. Why is the oil rig worker and the headline saying ¨saw the plane go down¨, when that is not at all what he saw?
    “From when I first saw the burning (plane) until the flames went out (still at high altitude) was 10 to 15 seconds,” he wrote. “There was no lateral movement, so it was either coming toward our location, stationary (falling) or going away from our location.”

    http://globalnews.ca/news/1202910/oil-rig-worker-saw-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-go-down-report/

    • actually, that is exactly what he said he saw. You seem to have left out a key sentence… happens to have been the FIRST sentence.

      “Gentlemen, I believe I saw the Malaysian airline plane come down.”

      I’m not exactly sure how he could have made that any clearer

      The letter is included in my new article.

      • No, he didn’t see it coming down he believed he should have, but he didn’t actually see it in any lower than ¨high¨ altitude.

        • “I believe I saw the Malaysian airline plane come down.”

          funny. that’s not what he wrote.

        • What he claims to have seen is the plane on fire at a “lower than normal altitude” for approximately 10 seconds. What he saw wasn’t “moving laterally” which means, as he stated, it was either coming toward him or moving away. Clearly, it was “moving” and if not laterally, it was moving in his perspective, either up or down on the horizon (toward him, it would have seemed to be rising. Away from him, moving downward on the horizon). But, at that distance (50-70 km) and at night, it would have been very difficult for him to tell if it was moving away from his position, or in the process of going down into the water.

          and of course, he said as much in the letter… “there was no lateral movement so it was either coming toward our location, stationary (FALLING) or moving away from our location”

          you yourself used that very quote a minute ago. did it not register that he was saying he could have been seeing it “falling” into the ocean?

          CLEARLY, by giving the location and wind direction and water currents, the man THOUGHT it “went down”… especially since that is what he said he thought he saw… it “coming down”

          from that distance at night over the sea, once the plane flamed out, he wouldn’t have seen it actually hit the water. Especially if the pilot attempted to glide for as long as he could under no power.

          • I agree, he also said his position was perpendicular to the normal flight paths which would mean that the flight path that he saw from that ¨(plane)¨ at the time was at a 90 degree angle to its normal path, that is, if indeed that Malaysia plane would have normally taken a ¨normal¨path – why?

            • Just kidding man, fact is he would not be able to say if he saw a plane or perhaps a rocket…
              Gonna read your new article, cause I haven’t yet.

              • he might have seen Justin Beiber’s massive ego cloud floating around or a UFO transporting Elvis to a Dairy Queen. He might have seen nothing. But his description is pretty damn extensive and his efforts to set a position in hopes of a rescue seem pretty damn exhausting for a “hoax” as the MSM has called it.

            • well, if his story is too be believed, he says he only saw it once it was on fire in the air and already at a “lower than normal altitude”. Could very easily have been off course after having been hit and trying to recover or it went off course once it was locked on by the guidance system.

              • Definitely needs to be checked out and searched no question.
                But I really have another problem with his account.
                Is oil rig man saying that the distance from him to burning whatever was 50 -70 km ?
                Thats around 165000ft min.!
                You wouldn’t be able to see a plane that far away in the daytime, so if of course something is burning at night, then perhaps, but probably you would need binoculars.
                Anyway, at that distance he wouldn’t be able to know if lateral, perpendicular, up or down.

  10. So not an EMP, Rolls Royce confirms that the engine data was still being received 4 hours after the plane went off radar. Probably time to reach Diego Garcia! Agree with We See on methodology and probable culprit (although the US Defence wanting knowledge held by ‘defence experts’ on board is also good reason). Ultimate outcome probably the same as if a crash had killed all on board – unfortunately.

    But at least Rolls Royce knows where the plane is, or at least can tell us where the last signals received came from.

    China also knows. Why else would the release a grainy satellite image from March 9. Don’t tell me they don’t have images from March 8 from which you can count the rivets on each wing. The U.S. do!

    Finally, why has no one questioned the fact that even with the transponder turned off ground radar can pick up metal objects flying within their range (they simply can’t tell what aircraft it is – because that’s what the transponder tell them).

    Cheers

    • so if Rolls Royce had data being transmitted back to their offices, why did they take it to the Wall Street Journal and not the Malaysian authorities who have been looking for the plane for 6 days?

  11. Not sure of your point. I assumed that the Wall Street Journal was simply reporting the event (initially attributed to ‘US Investigators’). There is no mention as to whether Rolls Royce did or didn’t tell the Malaysian Authorities. I also assumed that someone somewhere knew that Rolls Royce collect data from all their engines on a daily basis and therefore would have sought the data had it not been offered. I further assume that this would be done with a system that would have a GPS tracking process included. But as with all us ‘theorists’, I could be making incorrect assumptions.

    • “There is no mention as to whether Rolls Royce did or didn’t tell the Malaysian Authorities.”

      yeah, well… that might be legit, except for this…

      “Acting Defense Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said that Rolls-Royce and Boeing, the maker of the Boeing 777, had denied the report, according to the AP.”

      source was TIME

      So after reading the report from the WSJ, Defense minister contacts these two companies who according to him, deny the report. Does that mean they’ve been “sharing this info with Malaysian authorities from the start”? Uh, no. It means the exact opposite.

      so yeah, your assumption is incorrect in this case.

      • Of course they deny the point. Just the same as the military doing a back flip on their radar info. Someone told them to stfu! Check out the sequence. Someone says what they know then later they do a back flip. Why. I appreciate your line that the US is innocent but……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,108 other followers

%d bloggers like this: