Sott Talk Radio logo
Have you noticed anything strange about media coverage of the Germanwings Airbus A320 crash? Any contradictions, anomalies, or holes in the story? You're not alone! The farcical trial by-media of 27-year-old co-pilot Andreas Lubitz - immediately blamed for taking control of, and then deliberately crashing, the Barcelona-to-Dusseldorf Flight 9525 into the French Alps on March 24th - has been stunning to behold. But could this outrageous conspiracy theory actually be an important clue to what really happened to the plane?

Join your hosts as they go Behind the Headlines to find out what really happened to Germanwings Flight 9525 - Sunday, 5 April 2015, from 2-4pm EST / 11am-1pm PST / 7-9pm UTC / 8-9pm CET. If you have any comments or questions, join the chatroom or call into the show!

The Behind the Headlines talkshow takes place each Sunday on the SOTT Radio Network, the radio network of, your media source for independent, unbiased, alternative news and commentary on world events. Analyzing global impact events that shape our world and future, and connecting the dots to reveal the bigger picture obscured by mainstream programming, Behind the Headlines is current affairs for people who think.

Running Time: 01:42:00

Download: MP3

Here's the transcript of the show:

Joe: Hi, and welcome to Behind the Headlines on the sott radio network. I'm Joe Quinn and my co-host this week is Niall Bradley.

Niall: Hi everyone.

Joe: So, this week, we are going to talk a little bit - at least for a while - about, well it's almost two weeks ago now that the Germanwings flight from Barcelona to Düsseldorf crashed into the French Alps. So, we're going to talk a little bit about details of that situation and what might have really happened to that plane and all the people on it, because as you've probably guessed by now, we don't believe the official story and anybody in their right mind should not believe the official story because it is a tissue of lies.

Niall: It's crazy; I haven't seen anything like it in reporting of a plane crash since, well, a year ago: MH370 - Malaysian Airlines plane.

Joe: Yeah, although, this is kind of even worse because, I mean, my impression of the whole thing was that there was a narrative being built, you know? I mean, when the plane first crashed, when we heard about the plane crash on the news, and it was "Oops, a plane crashed" and all these people died and it was terrible; it was horrific and shocking; but at the same time, given all of the madness that has been going on in the world over the past few years, it's starting to kind of wear-off - especially for people like us because we're watching all of this stuff happening and looking at it and investigating it and reporting on it, etc; I mean, for me, it goes back at least as far as, well, you could almost say it goes back as far as 9/11 if you want, in terms of planes flying into buildings and killing civilians and mass civilian death; that's when, I suppose, it all started.

But, since then, there have been several similar episodes - most notably in the past year, actually - because this Germanwings flight was the fifth commercial plane to crash killing all of its passengers in the last year: it's five in a year. That's very strange.

But there was also the Air France flight in 2009...

Niall: Oh, Brazil.

Joe: That was flying from Sao Paulo back to Paris, and it crashed over the Atlantic. So we've been looking at these things for a long time and so at this point, it's always shocking but it's not as shocking as it might be to some people who forget things very quickly - we don't forget things very quickly, as a lot of other people do, because we're watching things all the time and we're making connections between different things.

So when we see a plane crash going down, we immediately start thinking about previous plane crashes that went down.

Niall: Mmm Hmm. On this time scale, to put it in a phrase: 'Planes are falling out of the sky'. Like, you could almost joke about it, like, "Oh it's happening again; what was the cause this time?"

Joe: Yeah, so, apart from the relative lack of shock over this incident, within the first few days, I started to get a really uneasy feeling about the whole situation, about the way it was being reported, and about the narrative - the story - that was being told, because it was palpable to me in the sense that they were creating a narrative as they went along.

Of course, they were justifying it by saying, "cockpit voice recordings saying, this or that or the other", but just the way they were going about it - the deliberate way that they were going about it to create the narrative of a suicide pilot - it seemed extremely disingenuous and to be honest, just extremely false - the way that they were going about it in a very deliberate manner. It was almost as if someone had planned or had the story set in advance and these investigators and whoever else were going around and collecting data to support a preformed belief or a preformed story. The feeling of the whole thing for me was very strongly of that.

Niall: That's right. And when you started looking at it, you saw that the very first suggestion that this scenario happened goes to the first day: Within a day, the New York Times 'cites' someone...

Joe: Well, absolutely - he was a 'high level' or an 'unnamed' French military official that was "involved in the investigation" was the way that he was described. Now this came out on the New York Times on the very morning after.

So I think the time on the New York Times article was early morning - maybe 5:00 AM or something like that - and then it was spread around very quickly to the other media outlets, which is the way the media does these kind of things: One source develops a story, puts it out there, and then it's pooled around to everybody else and that's why you see so many repeating stories or stories that are only slight variations of each other all across the media and all saying the same thing. Talk about complete lack of real investigative journalism; these people are just repeating a party line effectively, and this time it started with the New York Times and at about five o'clock on the morning after the crash - so this was less than 24hrs after the crash.

So, for them to get that out to print at 5:00 AM on the day after the Germanwings crash, obviously they had to be working on the story previous to that, which suggests that this unnamed French military official involved in the investigation had talked to the New York Times on the day of the crash; the day before; perhaps the evening of the crash. And this is where the first idea - the first mention of Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot - having crashed the plane.

This guy said that from the cockpit voice recordings, you could tell that one of them was locked out and when it crashed, only one of them was in the... I mean, he all but said, "This guy crashed the plane." I mean, it was the obvious conclusion from what he told the New York Times that it was a 'suicide pilot'; he did it on purpose.

So, that's amazing to me, that this guy would have... it's such a breach of regulations for someone like that - whoever it is - to go and seed that information to the media and have them disseminate it. It smacks completely of a deliberate attempt to establish a narrative within a few hours of the crash without anybody possibly being able to know what really happened, except on the basis of, I suppose, a cockpit voice recording.

Niall: And you don't need to be a crash investigator or seasoned investigator of any kind to ask yourself how they could have found this black box - the cockpit voice recorder or data recorder - they found it and analysed it and deduced from it what this guy, this anonymous French military official deduced from it, and then given the press in the space of a day...

Joe: Yeah, it was a complete farce, really. I mean, it made a farce of the investigation, obviously, to establish that concept or that idea at the very beginning to say more or less that they knew what had happened; in embryo, this guy didn't say he crashed the plane deliberately, but he said, "What we know is that when the plane crashed, only one pilot was in the cockpit and the other one had been locked out." That's what he said.
Of course, even allowing for the cockpit voice recording having recorded what they said, which is just this guy's breath; this French military official didn't say anything specifically as to what was on the cockpit voice recording other than what they had gleaned from it.

So, I mean, to conclude that it was a suicide pilot story wasn't even backed up by the actual evidence that he was presenting. The story that he gave the New York Times was extremely short on information. He just said, "All we know is that there was only one pilot in the cockpit when the plane crashed." And from that, the New York Times then said, "Okay, I get ya - I know what you're trying to say." So they ran with the suicide pilot story. They said "It seems therefore that he deliberately crashed the plane". So they knew what they were being told by this guy - you know, the guy said, "'Hint, hint', this is what was going on".

So it was completely contrived by the New York Times and this French military official to deliberately, on the basis of nothing, really - nothing officially, create a suicide pilot story. And then we say, in the days afterwards, them just building this case. I mean, they knew where they were going; somebody knew clearly where they were going and they were going to find evidence to back-up this pre-formed idea of a suicide pilot, without any evidence; they were going to look for the evidence.

So, what did they find? Well, they go and search his house and...

Niall: They find a note - a suicide note.

Joe: Well, not a suicide note.

Niall: A doctor's note - that was it. And gradually, there were other things found at the house that fleshed out the theory - or the official narrative - that this 27yr old had decided, "Right, that's it. I'm through with this. Next time we go up, I'm taking the plane out."

Joe: Exactly, yeah. So he's suicidal... I mean, this is all nonsense, right, because there's no evidence to back it up, really; there's only hearsay and circumstantial evidence that is being used and promoted as hard evidence, when it's not - it's circumstantial evidence.

The whole investigation is a complete farce, really. The way that it was carried on from the very beginning - like we've just said, they immediately seed the idea of a suicide pilot - that is completely irresponsible and completely in contravention of normal investigative policies or procedures.
I mean, the plane pieces should have been collected - sure, the cockpit voice recorder is collected - but in other cases, they collect the parts of the plane and reassemble it in a hangar somewhere to try and figure out what happened; it's a long process and nobody says anything about what the cause was until they've collected all the data.

And at the same time, you have this French prosecutor, because the New York Times had seeded the idea and the other media then ran with this idea of a suicide pilot, it immediately became a criminal investigation. So you have this French prosecutor, Bruce Robin, or whatever his name is, who's out there being the spokesman for the investigation, and he's has no knowledge... he has no history of investigation into aeroplane crashes; he's not an expert; he's simply a criminal prosecutor. If you look at his bio, he never investigated a plane crash in his life. He never even prosecuted a plane crash in his life. Yet, he's the one going on T.V. and telling people what's on the cockpit voice recorder and how to interpret it.

It's absolutely ridiculous. They didn't even use an experienced air crash investigator to report on these things. The only people who should have been speaking to the media on this, because they're experts officially on it, is the French version of the NTSB - the National Transport Safety Board - which is the body in France, the BEA, that investigates and deals with crashes of aeroplanes. Now, the only thing you got from them was the day after the crash, the chief of that BEA said that they had listened, supposedly, to the cockpit voice recording, and there was a lot of noise, there were voices that could be discerned, but there was nothing explicitly, he said, that would give any indication of what caused the crash. And that was the first and the last thing that he said; it was the first and the last thing that you heard from that official organisation that is tasked with investigating this - investigating aeroplane crashes.

The first and last thing you heard from those people was that statement: That there was nothing on the cockpit voice recorder that could indicate what caused the crash - nothing else. And all you have on top of it after that is just a media circus telling everybody what happened; this is JOURNALISTS telling people what happened, and where are they getting their information? Well, they're getting their information, obviously, from other sources like these 'unnamed, French military officials'. Who are these people? What's their agenda? Where are they getting their information from? They're not accountable, apparently.

The whole thing is a complete and utter farce.

Niall: Okay, the BEA guy said, "A lot of noise".

Joe: He said the word "noise" - different noises; it's very difficult to...

Niall: I take it they weren't saying that they could hear how the co-pilot was breathing - because that was bizarre.

Joe: He was being professional about it because, you listen to it and it takes a long time to analyse that kind of thing and come so some conclusion as to what happened, but he didn't say what was on it. He said that there was a lot of noise and various voices, but he said it takes a long time to decipher and determine what those noises and voices actually mean. And nobody in their right mind would come out and make some categoric statement as to what the cause of the crash was, based on that kind of information on the cockpit voice recorder. And that's where he left it.

But, he was apparently sidelined, and the media took over, and it was 'trial by media' - it was ridiculous.

Niall: It's incredible, the juxtaposition for the reliance of this narrative on the sounds heard in the cockpit - i.e., the second black-box, the cockpit data recorder - when, that was within one day; it's been nearly a year since MH17 went down, they've had the two damned black boxes since that time, very carefully guarded by the rebels in Donetsk, and we haven't heard a peep of what's really on that.

Joe: Well, they've actually said last year, not long after that crash, fairly quickly - equally ridiculous - the media investigators in Holland were reported as saying that the two black boxes would probably not provide anything useful in determining what caused the crash of MH17 because they said that if it was hit by a missile, that the missile would have destroyed the electronics or the electrics on the plane and would therefore have cut off power to the black boxes so you wouldn't hear anything. And of course, we still don't hear anything.

So, you know, somebody seeds these ridiculous notions and just says it as a fact - a fait accompli - there you go, it's over; so no one asks anymore what's on the black boxes from MH17. But in this case, you have the opposite, which is that immediately, on extremely little data, which no one should presume to make a determination about, they immediately developed this grandiose, horrific, tragic story about this suicide pilot and delve into his life and they're all like digging up his past, where he was with his girlfriend, raiding his home, grabbing scraps of paper from his trash and... aghhh... it's just bizarre.

I mean, MH17 is a very good analogy or comparison to make between that and this Germanwings crash, because both of them were clearly 'trial by media' - trial by sensationalist, yellow journalists - yellow journalism - where they basically just hype a story for ulterior motives. MH17, on the day after it happened, the broadsheets - particularly in the UK, but in the US as well - were, "Putin the killer", "Putin killed my baby"; and nobody in officialdom, as part of the investigation teams, in either of these cases, tried to stop the media from doing this - they were fuelling it. They were fuelling this trial by media, because they didn't want to do a proper investigation; they had no intention of doing a proper investigation; because if they did a proper investigation and told the truth, obviously it would not confirm what they want people to believe.

In the case of MH17, Putin shot down that plane with 198 people on board. In the case of Germanwings, this crazy suicide pilot just slammed the plane into a mountain because he wanted to kill everybody - and he even sped it up, you know, according to the flight data recorder now - the second black box that they discovered just a few days ago, supposedly.

Niall: Yeah. They initially said in that first New York Times report, there's a mention of the other black box having been found, and then later, "Oh, we may never find it." "And now we have found it and it confirms our theory." It's the mark of all these events, beyond just air crashes. We take interest in a particular story when you've got this flurry of news stories coming out immediately that are rapidly changed. And that's fine, you know, very often, somebody will go with something and actually, that wasn't accurate - that can happen.

But we're talking about very deliberately written material that cites unnamed people - senior investigators or people close to the investigation saying very specific things. Not just, "Oh I may have got this wrong because I was looking at the wrong page", or something, you know? That's when we start to look at these things and go, "Something is going on here. Specifically a narrative is being built that is essentially a cover-story."

Joe: Mmm hmm, yeah. So, the thing about the black boxes is that you have these conflicting reports initially saying that the second one was found - the one with the flight data recorder, which tells you what was happening on the plane.

At the very beginning, they said that the cockpit voice recorder had been found, no problem, and that's what they were using to back-up this narrative that they had already established which was, you know, the suicide pilot. So, they heard on the cockpit voice recorder that the pilot went to go to the bathroom, he closed the door, and then he tried to get back in and he couldn't get back in. There was banging on the door: "Open the God damned door!" blah blah blah.

Niall: He's alleged to have said they could hear those words being said.

Joe: And I wonder if you can hear that from the other side of a reinforced door? I suppose you would hear bangs and stuff, but would you hear someone shouting something through the door? I don't know. But anyway, this is what they claim.

So that was the cockpit voice recorder. And the breathing - which has been contested - the breathing of the co-pilot supposedly, just nothing but breathing until the crash actually happened - that's been contested by a long-term captain - the French captain of this plane who worked for Air France for eighteen years - he said there was no way you could discern breathing on a cockpit voice recorder. So he's directly questioned that.
This is a guy called... I can't remember his first name; his surname is Arnaud. He said that... because the official investigators said that they heard the breathing on the cockpit voice recorder and they heard a beep noise that when he pulled the knob out to twist the knob to set the altitude to one hundred feet, they heard a beep from that knob being pulled out and pushed back in to activate the descent. This guy said that that knob doesn't make any noise whatsoever.

Niall: He knows this plane inside out.

Joe: Right. He flew it for eighteen years, basically. And he also said that there's no mention of...

Niall: A noise that should have been heard.

Joe: There should have been a loud beeping - a strident, loud beeping noise coming from the attempts by the people outside to access the cockpit by using the emergency code on the panel outside the cockpit. You can push an emergency code into a keypad and when it tries to open the door there's an automatic, loud, strident beeping noise. But there was no mention of that. And it's inside the cockpit, so it should have been recorded on the cockpit voice recorder. But there was no mention of that.

They used, to justify or to explain or to provide evidence for their claim that the co-pilot had locked the pilot out, they used the banging on the door and the "Open the God damned door", which is not the best evidence to try and present because it's spoken words and it's in the context of the person being outside the cockpit and it's in the context of a noisy ambient noise cockpit, it would be far more reliable in terms of evidence to cite evidence of a known series of beeps - a type of beeping - because all of the different beeps and stuff that are produced on a plane can probably be discerned; particularly in conjunction with a flight data recorder, you know? But they didn't mention that at all.

Niall: The little info you can extract from the recordings of what took place inside a cockpit prior to a crash, there are very distinct features that should have been there, and there are features we're told were there that could not have been there, according to this French expert on this plane.
Okay, so that's what we've got so far. In the meantime, they're - to use the phrase of Gary Webb - they're 'controversialising' the hell out of this pilot, subsequently finding things in his home like, apparently, depressive episode some years back...

Joe: Before he joined the airline.

Niall: Right.

Joe: Which is just spurious.

Niall: They're trying to build a mental case...

Joe: Well, it's character assassination. I mean, anybody can do that. I mean, you go through... pick someone, some member of the public, and with a private investigator or access to their records you could demonize them and assassinate their character in the press, if you wanted. If you went through their trash, and you could pull up all sorts of things against these people and using the media you could make them look like a demon, if you wanted, probably - for the average person in the street, right?

So that's what they've done with this guy.

Niall: And the suggestion was that the airline was at fault for not noticing that this was going on in the head of one of their pilots.

Joe: Yeah, they're mind readers. It's ridiculous.

Niall: They're mind readers! They're supposed to have known. And was Lufthansa - the owner of Germanwings - was Lufthansa at fault for not noticing this earlier on? Well, what the hell?! You know? It's clearly spurious, because they're asking them to prove a negative.

Joe: Right.

Niall: There's no evidence for it.

Joe: No.

Niall: The only possibility there is that this guy's illness was so well hidden that he was passed with flying colours, at a young age; he's flying as a co-pilot on short-haul, European flights; and it somehow went under the radar and somehow it just manifested suddenly or a few days beforehand he just decided, "Oh, I'm going to do it this way"; that's all you got, really.

Joe: Yeah, and they're so desperate that they get his girlfriend to say that he had said to her at some point...

Niall: "People are going to remember me."

Joe: "One day I'm going to do something really important or really special and people will sit up and take notice, or remember me". How many people have said that to their girlfriends in pillow-talk or something like that? Even a bit narcissistic kind of thing, you know, "I'm gonna be king of the world" or "I'm going to be president, someday", or "I'm going to do something and people will remember me". Someone with a bit of grandiosity, you know? So, I mean, it's such a common thing, and taken out of context and placed in this context that they've already established bogusly of him as a suicide pilot - suddenly it becomes totally different; now it means that this was him admitting that he was going to blow up a plane. That's what they're saying.

Niall: Yeah, in trial by media, it's a confession.

Joe: Absolutely. It's ridiculous, you know? And the narrative is that he's depressed, right? So he wants to kill himself. He's a regular glider pilot...

Niall: As a hobby.

Joe: As a hobby, he flies gliders in the French Alps. But, he's not obviously just your average depressive who wants to kill himself: He wants to kill a bunch of other people as well. It's not just a case of suicidal tendencies here: He wants to be a mass murderer as well. Because obviously, he's compos mentis to the extent where he can still go to work and stuff and carry on a relatively normal life while being suicidal - suicidal thoughts come and go, maybe - but rather than think to himself, "Well, I'm going to jump off a bridge" or "I know: Next time I go gliding" which is in maybe a week, "I'll just crash my glider", because this guy doesn't just want to kill himself; obviously, he wants to be a mass murderer, right? I mean, he's got other options. Why would he make that choice?

Oh, but wait - it just came on him in the short one hour and thirty minute flight, in the first twenty minutes of it - it just suddenly dawned on him, "I know, I'll crash THIS plane. I'm suicidal. I'm going to crash THIS one. Yeah! Good idea!" Or he was just overtaken by some manic depressive moment, which is kind of contradicted by his discussions with his pilot previous to that, which were amicable and normal and fine. But then, all of a sudden, within a few minutes, boom! He's like, "I want to kill myself and everybody; right now." I'm going to ask this pilot to go to the toilet.

"Do you need to go to the toilet? Go to the toilet. Don't you wanna go to the toilet? Go to the toilet. Please go to the toilet. Go on. Don't you need to pee? Here, have some more tea. Please, get out there and go to the toilet."

Niall: Which is unusual on a short-haul flight. Pilots try to not...

Joe: Rarely ever do it, according to most pilots; RARELY. Because they know it's a short-haul flight; it's a pain in the ass to get up out of your seat and go back into the cabin and possibly wait in line with passengers to get into the toilet. If you need to go, you go before you get on the flight. Pilots do this every day - day in, day out - they have their pee schedule probably down pretty well. And they usually don't do it on a flight, unless it's a long-haul flight. If it's a short-haul flight...

Niall: Well, the only logical thing then is that both pilots conspired. Oh, no, they can't, because the second one - we're told - was desperately trying to save the plane. Hmm; he changed his mind maybe?

Joe: I tell you, it's just Hollywood-like. It's complete and utter Hollywood fantasy, you know? And anybody, everybody, should come to this conclusion looking at the way the whole situation has progressed. It's a farce. But, people are prevented from going there because of the implications.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: Because the implication is that it's a farce; it's a cover-up; it's a whitewash; they've created this narrative to cover up something else. What else are they covering up? And people don't want to go there, so they say, "You know what? For my own piece of mind, I'm going to go with the bullshit story - because it kind of makes sense, especially if I don't think too much about it."

It doesn't make sense even if you don't think too much about it. A cursory glance at it should leave you with a lot of questions. But people just go with it because of the implications; the implications obviously are that this is not true and the plane was crashed by someone else.

In the couple of articles that I've written about it, in the second article, I kind of - having thought about the possible options - obviously, one of the options is some kind of weather related situation, which we think has happened in previous crashes this year alone - and for example, the Airasia crash, the fact that it shot up very quickly and then shot back down very quickly suggests some kind of a strange, anomalous severe updraft and then a downdraft that basically picked the plane up and slammed it down into the ground.

Niall: There were severe thunderstorms in the area.

Joe: Yeah, with the Airasia crash. So, that's always a possibility that you look at, but then, there were no thunderstorms in the area at the time of the Germanwings crash - it was pretty much perfect flying conditions; it was 10:30 on a Tuesday morning; the sky was clear, so we can kind of rule that one out.

The other thing might be - as we suspect for the Air France flight in 2009 over the Atlantic, going from Brazil to France; it was at night, in the middle of the night - and on that one, we suspect - and I've also written an article on that one - and the evidence argues for a...

Niall: A sudden and cataclysmic...

Joe: Well, a meteorite explosion - of which, there have been many; an increasing number over the last ten years.

Niall: A pilot going in the other direction reported a flash.

Joe: Right. A pilot going in the other direction - I can't remember the airline but it was a Portuguese airline - saw a flash in the sky at around that time. So it's possible that that Air France plane in 2009 was taken down by a shock wave from a space-rock that exploded. And like we've said, they've been happening all the time, increasingly, over the past ten years. People around the world have been seeing them. If you check on YouTube you'll see dozens, hundreds, of dash-cam videos of these things flying through the sky and people hearing booms all across the planet.

So these things are flying through our atmosphere all the time; it's not unlikely that at some point a plane would get the wrong end of one of these.

Niall: Not necessarily a direct hit, but it creates an enormous blast radius high in the atmosphere.

Joe: Yeah, it creates a cone-shaped downward blast of air and even a kind of electromagnetic energy, effectively...

Niall: That knocks out the systems, yeah.

Joe: Right, that could knock out the electrical systems.

Niall: And in your memory of that investigation, they were also short on details then and cagey with...

Joe: Absolutely. It took them three years... FOUR years, I think, to actually come up with the final explanation and initially they came up with that there are these things called 'pitot tubes' that are little sensors outside the aircraft that detect the speed of the plane, and wind speed and ground speed and all that kind of stuff. And they said that they had frozen over, thereby giving wrong readings of speed...

Niall: To the pilot.

Joe: To the pilots, and the pilots tried to adjust and... you know... went into a dive and, you know, it's just so implausible as well because it's never happened before, really. And what the pilots in that case were expected to have done is just totally counter-intuitive and ridiculous. To make such a catastrophic judgement.

Niall: It in no way was suggested that this pilot on the Air France crash over the Atlantic deliberately crashed the plane.

Joe: Not deliberately; he did it through error.

Niall: Through error - okay. So, why didn't we hear that this time as a possible suggestion for the crash over France?

Joe: Yeah, well, because they couldn't come up with a good enough reason why he would make such a catastrophic error on such a short haul flight in perfect weather conditions in the daytime. The Air France flight: night time; not being able to see clearly. Of course, the idea that he didn't realise the plane was stalling and that he was going so slow, I mean, airline pilots know the sounds of engines - they hear them all the time, every day. The sound of an engine increases and decreases with the thrust and the throttle being pushed...

Niall: They probably have a very good sense for how a plane... the feel of the air...

Joe: Exactly, they know how they feel. It's like driving your car: It's like you saying that you don't know that you're not going fast anymore in your car. Even at night time.

Niall: Yeah, your speedometer is telling you it's at ten, "No, we're going fine here. The trees are flying by like lightning, but we're just at ten".

Joe: Okay, it was nighttime and they were over the Atlantic, but still, there's a kind of an atmospheric sense, if you know what I mean. In a car even, you know, you hear noises; you hear the noise of the plane rushing through the air inside the cabin of a plane and inside a car. The whole thing's just ridiculous, you know?

But one thing in the Air France flight was that a lot of the bodies were found without any clothes, which even investigators said suggested that it broke up in the air and that people fell out of the plane and the wind-speed ripped their clothes off. But they didn't really explain how it could have broken up in the air other than as it was tumbling down, maybe wings sheared off or something. But the idea that the fuselage of a plane would break apart simply by falling out of the air is completely bogus as well.

So there's so many inconsistencies and non-answers and ridiculous suggestions in these crashes and in the explanations for these crashes - it just boggles the mind. But people don't look at it too much and they assume that the investigating authorities are doing their job properly and whatever they say, they're being honest. But the fact is they're not. They're not going to be honest about a meteorite causing the crash of a plane; they're not going to be honest about a severe weather anomaly, because they don't like to convey to people that they're not in control.

I mean, you got government authority wanting to maintain its appearance of authority and not wanting to freak people out, and you've also got the aircraft manufacturers which is maybe even more important: The pressure that they would put on to make sure that the least damaging story of what happened to our plane - least damaging to us - is the official truth.

Niall: They are very reluctant to have the final stamp on any investigation be 'crash'. If possible, they find it veered into 'accidental this' or 'accidental that' - "Circumstances external to our company".

Joe: Yeah, it wasn't our plane, basically: That's what they always want to include, if possible. But in this case then, we rule out meteorite type activity; we rule out weather anomaly; what else can cause it? Obviously we rule out suicide pilot.

The only thing left - which is the kind of 'elephant in the room' is the fact that most commercial planes... we don't know for sure, but we assume given the things that have been said in the media in the past and reported from corporations like Boeing and Airbus, that a lot of commercial planes, maybe all commercial planes, are equipped with an 'uninterruptible autopilot system', which was presented in the years after 9/11 as a way to prevent hijacking of planes like 9/11 happening again, which was that planes can be commandeered remotely from the ground via satellite: The controls of the plane can be taken away from the pilots and the plane can be flown to a destination - this is in the event of a hijacking: They become aware that a hijacking is happening - the pilots say, "mayday" or whatever code they use - 700 - for a hijacking - and the authorities somewhere then get their assess in gear and, I don't know how they do it, but obviously it's not something that's just waiting to happen at any moment; they don't have some guy or a group of people sitting monitoring whatever it is, a hundred-thousand or hundreds of thousands of planes flying in the air at any point in time monitoring each one and just waiting for a hijack code and push a button and say, "Okay, take control of that one." That's not happening.

Niall: It really needs to be automated to a large extent.

Joe: No, it's not automated. Someone has to do it. Someone has to physically go and take control of a specific plane. I mean, what I'm saying is that it's ridiculous to think that there is anybody sitting around 24/7, 365 day a year, monitoring every single plane flying in the skies at any point in time and waiting with their finger on a keyboard to push it, to say, "Take control of that plane" via the uninterruptible autopilot system. That's not happening, obviously. That's not what's going on.

Niall: So, the technology exists, but the implied message to the masses is that, "That means we've got you covered in any event of any hijacking." But no, that can't be the case, because there's no way they can actually ensure that for every single flight that takes place every day.

Joe: But they can do it. The point is, it is possible if they chose to do it. So it's not so much an anti-hijacking' system, as a 'hijacking' system. It's better to call it a hijacking system, because that's what it is. If someone wanted to hijack a plane remotely and fly it somewhere else, they could do it, but they would pick a specific plane and take control of it and do whatever they wanted with it.
And I think, given the implausibility of all of the other options, that that's what happened.

Niall: Right...

The descent they've given, of this craft - would it make sense? They're claiming in the narrative that Andreas Lubitz changed the altitude setting to one hundred feet, but didn't change his actual course: Correct?

Joe: Mmm hmm.

Niall: And that he essentially didn't need to do anything else. He talked to the computer on the plane and the plane's computer dived it down, only based on... and what I was going to say is that the altitude shown, the path of it, is very steady and straight - almost 45 degrees...

Joe: Well that's because it's autopilot. The autopilot is going to take the plane down in a controlled fashion. It's basically the best possible descent of a plane. If the plane, for whatever reason, needed to descend from 38,000 feet to one hundred feet, when you set the dial to one hundred feet, the autopilot will navigate or bring the plane down to that altitude in a controlled, moderate fashion, that doesn't throw everybody out of their seats and doesn't throw luggage all around the place - that everybody's okay.

Niall: There's an intriguing possibility here: They kind of told a half-truth in that that did happen to the plane - is was adjusted on its regular course into Düsseldorf; that the altitude was adjusted to one hundred feet: Yes. But it wasn't the co-pilot that did it - it was done remotely.

Joe; Yeah, exactly. That's the most plausible explanation: That someone, using this remote system, simply changed the altitude setting on the plane in such a way that... well, they took control of the cockpit, effectively - all instrumentation - denying the pilots any access or any ability to change anything - and they simply adjusted the altitude - as it was flying over the southern Alps - adjusted the altitude to one hundred feet and the plane just said, "Okay, go to one hundred feet."

But then, I think that there may have been a certain amount of... well it may be the autopilot as well, because if you look at the trajectory of it, it goes down in this progressive fashion; it took about nine minutes to go from 38,000 feet to ground... well, it didn't go to ground level because it's in the mountains, right? But, the trajectory that's shown is that it goes down on this descent but then levels off for a very short distance before it hits the mountain. So that suggests to me that someone allowed the autopilot to descend the plane in this controlled fashion, but then once it got to a certain level, which was facing into a mountain range, that it was maybe... I don't know if that was someone who took control and then maybe changed the coordinates or changed the flight plan, changed the direction, or simply the autopilot did that; because the autopilot isn't going to take the plane down... you can't tell the autopilot to take it to zero, because the autopilot isn't going to put the plane into a nose-down descent and keep it going until the nose hits the ground, right, because that'll destroy the plane.

So I think that they said they lost radar tracking of it at about 6000 feet, but the mountains in that area are at about 6000 feet high, so it seems to me that it's possible that someone then levelled the plane off...

Niall: Effectively flew it remotely...

Joe: Flew it remotely for the last thirty seconds. And there's reports just today that it was the suicide pilot who did this, but they're saying that the speed was increased to almost maximum for the capabilities of the plane; it was increased as it flew into the mountain. So the people who did this obviously wanted maximum destruction - maximum speed; maximum destruction. And that's what happened.

Niall: Yeah. There's a retired airline pilot - Northwest Airlines - Field McConnell. He's retired because he's probably hit his retirement age, but he left under somewhat acrimonious circumstances in 2006 because he was one of the few pilots who actually spoke out and said, "I'm not happy."
I don't know how he learned about it, but he discovered that the planes he was flying - Boeings - were all fitted with this technology. The pilot's' issue with it was they did not want this to be uninterruptible - that there was no way for them inside the cockpit to override the system. Okay, fine, if something goes wrong it can be taken control of remotely from elsewhere, but in the event then that the pilots are actually fine or there's it's an error, that there's an ultimate oversight by a human on the plane.

And you've probably seen that there's a lot of discussion in the media: "Oh, should we introduce this technology?" "Oh, but we can't because the pilots associations are kicking up a fuss about this." "Well now look what they've gone and done." I mean, which was just totally absurd because a) it's already in place - maybe not on every single plane, but it appears to be on most Boeings and Airbuses - and b) it's so sickening because, again, it puts the blame on this particular pilot for this crash, but also throws it back in their faces, at the pilots who have a concern for their passengers that this system cannot be taken control of by them; it throws it back in their face that, "Oh, you're protesting this, but clearly the people are calling for it and we, the media, are just voicing their concerns."

And The Daily Mail, the British press on this are like, within two days of this crash, they had a headline. This is the whole headline: "Why can't airlines seize control of doomed jets from the ground? The technology exists, but pilots and companies refuse to use it". It's just... Aaghhh!

Joe: Pilots and companies - by companies, you mean airline companies - have no say; it's the manufacturer that installs them. And the manufacturer of these planes are Boeing and Airbus. Boeing is a defence contractor; Boeing is the US government; Boeing is up to its eyeballs in war crimes and warmongering, as is Airbus.

Niall: "New markets", remember?

Joe: So, putting these systems on a plane, discreetly, without telling the airlines, is a no-brainer. It's easy to do. I mean, it's probably a small kind of circuit board, basically. Well, is the pilot going to go in there and root around and try and find it? I mean, it's just ridiculous; they have no say. They can complain about it if they think it's there, but there's nothing they can do about it, you know?

And obviously, the idea of remote-controlling aeroplanes and flying them into solid objects has echoes of 9/11, obviously. Because... well, we're not going to get into 9/11, but the evidence suggests that all of the planes on 9/11 were remotely controlled in this way because this technology existed pre-9/11.

Niall: The evidence being that none of the alleged hijackers could fly a damned Cessna plane.

Joe: Of course, yeah. And that even a lot of them weren't actually... not only were they not on the planes, but they're still alive. But 9/11's a big, murky story.

Niall: But still, look at the extraordinary manoeuvres on that day. Some of those planes had got as far as Pennsylvania, turned around and come back to target buildings. I mean, to target specific buildings? Never mind: "Just hit a city, Mohammed." "Where?" "Oh, that direction - East." I mean, to actually go and find and hit very... I mean, that's like expert pilots, they'd be flying by the seat of their pants to try and do that.

Joe: It's the kind of thing that only really a computer could do, effectively. And that's what we're talking about.

Niall: The reason why we're bringing this up: The concept is that - the phrase that was used about 9/11 was that, "Well, we're in a new world now because even our airplanes can be turned into missiles and used against us." Well, exactly - that's exactly what this technology is for: It's turning aeroplanes into missiles in the sense that they can target, with surgical precision, where you want them to go. And that's scary in the hands of...

Joe: Well, it's scary for people, obviously, because it engenders a lot of anxiety and fear among the population because a lot of people might feel anxious or a bit nervous anyway in a plane...

Niall: At the best of times.

Joe: At the best of times. But, the idea now that they're not so secure anymore - it's not the safest way to travel anymore - certainly in the last year, it hasn't been the safest way to travel - creates a lot of disquiet and generalised fear among the population. But I don't think the point of this was to create fear, although it's a side-effect or a bonus, let's say. Assuming what we're saying is true - and it's the most plausible explanation, that someone deliberately chose this plane to fly into a mountain to kill all the people - why did they pick that plane?

Well, if you look at where the plane came from, the majority of the passengers, let's say, were Spanish, I think, weren't they?

Niall: About half.

Joe: Was it about half? Okay, so there was a fair number of Spanish people; obviously Germans; there was a lot of nationalities but the bulk of it was Spanish and German; flying from Barcelona; crashed in France. So you give the Spanish government, obviously, a 'heads up'; you give the French government a 'heads up', or a 'headache' - it's crashed on their territory, they have to deal with it; and you give the German government and the major German airline, Lufthansa, a problem; and obviously, Airbus is a European-owned - effectively, it's French, but also it's generally a European partnership...

Niall: It's French, German, Italian, yeah. It's a mix - a consortium.

Joe: It's a consortium, yeah. So, all of those people are involved. But, specifically Spain, France and Germany. So putting it in a wider context of why someone would want to send a warning of some description - to put them 'on notice' essentially - that, "We control all of your aeroplanes, or we can. And we can crash them wherever we want. We can turn them into missiles." like you just said.

But who would want to do that? Putting into the context geopolitically, with Germany, France, Spain - European countries - vis a vis Russia, for example: There's been a lot of effort made over the past year or two by the US and the 'elite' let's say, of this world, to make sure that Russia is marginalised in the global community. And as I wrote in another article a couple of weeks ago about a long-standing desire of the powers that be who are kind of centred in the US, let's say, to marginalise Russia and make sure that Russia never asserts itself on the world-stage as a dominant power in Eurasia and it kind of side-lines the US. And the way that they would do that or the threat that's felt by the US is that Western European powers in particular - Western European countries - would form an alliance of some description, or a close alliance, let's say, with Russia. And Eurasia would become the dominant power and unseat the 'exceptional' United States of America.

This is what they've been trying to do for over a hundred years, continuously, and in recent weeks and months, we've seen the French government, the Spanish government and the German government - the Italian government as well - making noises about the pointlessness and uselessness of sanctions against Russia and that they should not be reinstated when they expire this year, soon. And you can imagine what else is going on behind that or what that is indicative of. It's a kind of rapprochement or people engaging in realpolitik and European politicians realising what side their bread's buttered on, basically, and realising that following the dictates of the US is not in their own interests: It's self-destructive; it's pointless.

Niall: It might lead to war in Europe.

Joe: Yeah, exactly. Europe would ultimately pay a heavy price if anything went wrong. So you can imagine a lot of stuff going on in the background; you can imagine certain people in certain positions of power eavesdropping on those kind of conversations or getting wind of that mood, or a movement in that direction, and wanting to send a warning to Western European governments about that.

Niall: What is the content of that warning? What's the message?

Joe: Well, the warning is that, "We can take control of commercial airliners and we can fly them wherever we want."

Niall: "Including yours - including planes you fly on."

Joe: Well, theoretically, yeah. I mean, I would assume, especially after this, that politicians would not be flying in commercial airliners or would be quickly putting together a technical crew to take apart the cockpit of the presidential planes and look for an uninterruptible autopilot system and yank it out. You'd think they'd be doing that. Sure, that might make them feel a little bit better, but it doesn't make them feel so much better in the context of the generalised threat of being able to commandeer any commercial airliner - any other one - and fly it wherever they want. I mean, how often is Hollande in the Elysees?

Niall: Right!

Joe: And how well would he do if a plane on approach to Charles de Gaulle Airport happen do deviate into the Elysee? I mean, it's a direct threat to anybody. That's just imagining certain things, directly targeting Hollande or something like that, but obviously it's a major problem for them even if planes start falling out of the sky - planes start crashing into major cities; not the Elysee but into a major city - into Paris, into Berlin...

Niall: It's such a sick... I'm trying to see the logic in it and it seems like a very... well, apart from it being utterly insane - I mean, they've just killed 150 people - but there are going to be other ways to convey messages - even threatening ones - to the political elites in countries you're trying to...

Joe: Yeah, but you've got to remember these people get off on killing people.

Niall: Right, and that's got to factor into it because...

Joe: It does. I mean, we're talking about Sandy Hook, here.

Niall: Speeding the plane up before it hit the mountain?

Joe: Let's go back to Sandy Hook, you know?

Niall: Okay... 22 school children...

Joe: It's the same cadre of people - type of people - in the same organisation, in the same club, who actually not only are willing, but actually enjoy shooting 22 toddlers.

Niall: So, they might have a reason or motive for picking that school at this time and having a narrative ready to go with it, but the big factor in the whole reason why they're doing it is because they enjoy doing it.

Joe: It's a win-win as far as they're concerned, you know? They get their jollies and they also get to serve a broader agenda.
But just on the details of the Germanwings flight and the flight data recorders or the cockpit voice recorders, there's only three locations in Europe that analyse those, right?

Niall: One's in the UK, we know from MH17...

Joe: One's in the UK; I don't know where the other two are. I don't even know if there's one in France. But there's one in the UK and access to those rooms are strictly controlled; they're soundproofed rooms; they're electronically sealed doors, etc., and very few people are allowed to listen to the... basically the investigators. So, tampering with a cockpit voice recorder, there's a few different options, obviously: They could be completely misrepresenting... (inaudible)... certain people get access are the ones that listen to it and then misreport what was on it because only a few people are allowed to hear it; or they simply record what they want to be heard on a circuit board with various chips on it and it's hooked up to a computer and you download data from it. I mean it's not hard to switch one of those out, let's say. I mean, you get your hands on this circuit board from the manufacturer, you upload data to it, stick it in your pocket, you walk into the room and it could be as simple as an 'old switcheroo' type thing. They could get the genuine cockpit voice recorder that could be taken to this location, somebody with access goes in and just switches the two circuit boards.

Niall: And then you don't need a whole team of conspirators in that location; no, something's just done on the QT.
That reminds me: When the New York Times report from, basically, twelve hours - less than a day - after the crash... when they mentioned that second box, which is the actual data recorder - it's their main black box - they didn't just say it was found, but they said that, "Well, the memory card is missing".

Joe: Right. Well, that right there points to some kind of dodgy manoeuvre being done with the circuit board - the removable circuit board in the cockpit voice recorder. Somebody found it, someone took it to a location and it was lost on the way, or something. Or someone found it, it was taken down the mountain, packed into a car, driven off, taken somewhere, and then on its route to the cockpit voice recorder analysis centre someone removed the circuit board. So when it arrived there, it was, "Oh, it's missing." That's the first, initial reports.

Niall: It's not plausible.

Joe: Then it was found. Suddenly, then it appeared in the investigative centre where they analysed this data: "Oh, look, here it is! Where did this come from? I thought it wasn't in it when it got here?" "Oh, no, it was. It was just that it had fallen out... erm... well, we took it... because it wasn't seated properly..."

Whatever. I mean, if someone has an agenda and some control over a situation, it's not hard to do something like that, really.

Niall: Yeah. And just to give you an idea how tightly controlled the crash scene was: Cordoned off; it was an entire week before regular 'civilian' investigators were allowed near the site; there were a total of fifteen military personnel - the French Interior Minister reported just a few days ago - who were allowed at the site for an entire week. So, I mean, that's a tightly controlled situation.

Joe: Right.

Niall: And the idea then that within hours, somebody's on to the New York Times...The simplest explanation is that somebody just called and said, "Here are my credentials. This is what happened. Will you go with the story?" And not that they concocted to remove... you know, "Oh quick, get up to the mountain, take this memory card out and stick that one in." You know?

Joe: No. When you have fifteen military personnel only allowed for the first week, you have plenty of time to find the cockpit voice recorder, to find the flight data recorder, and to do whatever you want with them. And like you said, the guy that got on to the New York Times on the very first day, he knew what the quickly hashed-out plan was going to be, which was that it's a suicide pilot story. And it's possible that he said that without ever listening to the cockpit voice recording. The cockpit voice recording, clearly, in this situation, is not necessary; in fact...

Niall: In fact, they don't want it. They have to heard...

Joe: It's a problem. "Can't we just hide it? We've got a story that we're going to run with. We're not having an investigation here: You don't understand this. We're not having an investigation. We have a story of what happened and that's what we're going with and everybody just has to shut up." That's what's going on here.

Niall: Yeah. We mentioned that a whole number of crashes have happened in recent years. Obviously, there's a pattern of planes doing weird things, going back to 9/11, as Joe mentioned, so it's good to... you know, people are comparing events and trying to see similarities and so on. I think there are obviously going to be different reasons for different planes crashing - but the case for this one being remotely hijacked...
I just want to mention a recent story in... oh God, it's also The Daily Mail - I know, not reliable - nevertheless...

Joe: It's reliable for bullshit, for what they want to bullshit us with.

Niall: It's reliable for bullshit, okay. This is the bullshit they want to give us about MH370, the only evidence for which is that it just disappeared somewhere south of Vietnam, March last year.

So on March 16th, they were running with the story that one of the pilots may have had sudden suicidal inclinations and deliberately crashed the plane. The headline was: "Is missing Malaysian jet MH370 the world's first cyber hijack? Chilling new theory claims hackers could use a mobile phone to take over the controls".

I don't know about a mobile phone, but nevertheless, they seeded that little story and of course, that is what they can do; they can be remotely taken control of.

Now, they wanted to insinuate... well, it's kind of two stories in one. So, they kind of temporarily were running with the pilot of the Malaysian jet being suicidal, but they didn't stick with it, unlike with the recent Germanwings, they've gone completely overboard to try and scapegoat Andreas Lubitz. Nevertheless, and I don't like it at all - I hate it, they're seeding this idea - it's already long been out there, you know, that planes can be taken over remotely - and yeah, it's just chilling... I don't know whether they're a coincidence or not that, one year ago, almost to the week, MH370 disappears - probably for an entirely different reason - but, you can see the workings of the minds that, let's say, have an interest in covering up what really happened to it at work in both incidents.

'Cyber terrorists'. Well, I think, we know they can do it, but it isn't going on all the time. It's got to be extreme weather incidents - cosmic weather included: Meteor incidents; outright terrorism, in the sense of real terrorists - the powers that be, whoever the hell's doing this; and it's just rare... I mean, the statistics, in normal times, anyway, the statistics were right: It's very unlikely that a plane would just crash, even in extreme weather, planes are built to withstand all kinds of circumstances. Yeah, their fragile, but they can do a lot of things to cope with any number of circumstances.

Joe: Umm hmm; under normal conditions.

Niall: Under normal conditions.

Joe: But, we're not in normal conditions anymore.

Niall: We're not under normal conditions on two fronts. Namely, there is an increased 'random' factor by the fact that the environment is going absolutely haywire; that's the 'As above'. The 'So below' is that we're in this time when there are people in power who are doing increasingly desperate things to retain that control, in part, because the environment's going absolutely kerflooey.

Joe: Yeah, it's a feedback.

Niall: It's a feedback: One into the other, into the other... We suspect one of the Malaysian airliners was an extremely anomalous event but as a result of what's going on on this planet, and the other was a feedback in the sense that it was done deliberately by someone, obviously to frame Russia and Putin.

Joe: Umm hmm. Yeah.

Niall: So, they are connected, but not in the way that, you're not going to find one explanation - one theory - that will fit all of these incidents, but they do fit in a big picture though.

Joe: Yeah, well, it's generalised chaos on the planet - on the human level and on an environmental level and 'normal services have been suspended, people', you know? Normal is no longer here; it's abnormal, has been abnormal for quite a while, and it's going to get worse.
So, yeah. And I think there will be more of these. I mean, I think it's interesting that commercial aeroplanes are kind of targeted in this way by whatever or whoever, because it does...

Niall: They're very, very vulnerable.

Joe: Well, people are very vulnerable; there's a large number of people on it; there's a lot of 'bang for your buck' type of thing in that depraved way of looking at things; and it spreads fear: It's one of the most effective ways of spreading fear around the world, almost, because it's such a high profile story - it's a large number of people all dying in a very horrible way. And this is what these people in positions of power - the 'powers that be', whatever you want to call them - this is what they focus on; this is their agenda, is to spread fear amongst the human population and to control people through doing that because they're desperate to control people, because they're sick. They're fundamentally and profoundly sick, psychologically. But they're also very high functioning sick people. I suppose, really, they're high functioning psychopath-type thing: Someone who's very intelligent, very smart, but extremely and profoundly sick in an 'evil' kind of way, as we might define it as evil.

Unfortunately, not all evil people are crazy. The people who are ruling this world, basically, are evil, but they're not crazy in the sense of they're not going to do something stupid and get themselves thrown in jail or caught or whatever. They have insinuated themselves into positions of power through their evil natures by basically doing whatever is necessary to get into positions of power and once they're there, they have free reign to exploit or to give vent to their nature - their destructive, nihilistic, evil nature. And this is the kind of things they come up with, you know?

So, it's all good, like.

Niall: Haha, it's all good? I don't know...They're highly motivated to do it, and to do it right. Like you said, they don't want to get caught.
What I mean by motivated: Obviously, if you have power, you're motivated to keep it. But I think the place that people don't want to go - that we talked about at the beginning - is that they're highly motivated to do it because they enjoy it; I think they get their jollies from the idea of terrified people plunging into a mountain. And that's, in large part, why people will accept any old story that's given to them, because they don't want to go there, but the people that they kind of suspect are doing these kinds of things, it's totally different for them.

Joe: Yeah. Well, one way to get an idea of the type of person we're dealing with is to watch some YouTube videos on psychopaths. There are the Ted Bundys and the Jeffrey Dahmers and there's videos of these people being interviewed. There's one guy, what's his name? His name is Richard Kuklinski, who's called, "The Iceman": There's something on YouTube called The Iceman Tapes. If you watch some of that interview with that guy and watch it all the way through, and then understand that he's a kind of a lower level compared to the people in positions of power who are ruling over us and who are carrying out these kind of attacks on the civilian population, understand that the nature that is exhibited by this guy, Richard Kuklinski, is the same nature as the people in positions of power, but they are much more highly functioning, let's say.

They're careful to kind of 'cover their tracks'. Of course, they're in positions of power, so they can much more easily cover their tracks and get away with things and they're the ones formulating policy, etc. But in terms of their nature and what they enjoy doing and their complete lack of emotional response - the complete fearlessness they have when confronted with anything that would normally provoke fear very easily in a normal human being - these people don't have it. They don't have any kind of emotional qualms or any emotions whatsoever when they consider, for example, killing large numbers of people in a gruesome and bloody way.

Not only do they not have a fear-based or any kind of negative emotion in response to it, there's a kind of a curious... there's an enjoyment out of it, but it's a bit of a contradiction because they don't seem to enjoy things very much either and they're quite banal in that sense. But it's just this cold, calculating, machine-like motivation and drive to do these things, you know? It's very hard penetrate from a normal human perspective because it's just so alien, effectively; it's a completely alien human being in the sense of, there's something fundamentally wrong with their psychological wiring; they're not wired psychologically in the same way as a normal human being - they're just stone-cold. They can be charming and all that sort of stuff when they want to be, but when it comes down to it - when it comes down to just killing a bunch of people or planting a bomb - there's no consideration whatsoever of, "Is this right or wrong?"

They do it because they feel like doing it, because it serves a certain agenda they want to push or an aim they want to achieve. And it's a real problem.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: But on the Germanwings thing, people have probably heard about a video that was supposedly found, and it's interesting that it came out just in the past few days, and I think this may be a genuine video. Of course, they used it to try and back-up the official story.
They said it was a video found on a mobile phone and it was a very short video. This is a French magazine called...

Niall: Paris Match.

Joe: Paris Match, and a German daily rag, kind of like The Daily Mail in Germany, called Bild; supposedly someone gave it to them but didn't let them keep a copy, and it was a short video from the back of the plane and very blurry - you couldn't see anybody's faces, but you could hear people screaming, and that was about it.

And when they announced that they had this video and they wrote about it in their publications, the investigators of Germanwings immediately said that it wasn't... I got the impression that there was a little bit of panic.

Niall: They said it was a hoax.

Joe: Right. That was the panic. They immediately... which was a strange thing to say, you know? Paris Match is not trashy; it's not The Weekly World News, they have proper journalists. So, to immediately respond to something from a fairly reputable journalist or reputable magazine, to immediately respond to them saying that they have a video from the plane, to immediately say, "It's a hoax!", without any evidence, not having seen the video themselves - the investigators - and to immediately say it's a hoax, sounds like a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.

Niall: Absolutely! You can imagine why. You're leading an investigation and you haven't seen this damned video yet, and/or you haven't approved its release, and then it pops up. Initially, they didn't publish it, but the French and the German publications, their journalists said, "We've been shown it. We weren't given a copy of it but, yes, we've seen it and it backs up, well it shows..."

Joe: "And it seems genuine." And what it shows are the last moments of the flight, from the back of the plane, no faces visible, kind of shaky, blurry, but audio. And the audio backs up the idea that in the last moments of the flight, a lot of people were screaming before it crashed into the mountain. So, in that sense, it doesn't back-up anything in terms of the official story unless you accept the official story, right? This video is probably the only genuine proof - the only genuine evidence we have - of what happened to that plane and all we can conclude from it is that there were people on the plane and they were screaming before the plane crashed into the mountain.

But, of course, the narrative had been established for a week or ten days before that that it was a suicide pilot. So the investigators finally agreed that, "Okay, it could be true and if it is, then fine. But it just backs up our story." But it doesn't, because the bit that comes before about the suicide pilot has no genuine evidence for it.

So, these people had an immediate reaction. Again, some French military official who was part of the investigation said that it was, "Unwarranted", which is a strange thing to say.

Niall: It was like it was being done to him.

Joe: Like, "Stop that! What do you mean?! No, don't say that! Don't say that there's a video because I haven't seen it, and... just shut up!" But then it was like, "Well, okay, it's not so bad; it's not going to expose anything contrary to what we've been saying, so go ahead."

And it's interesting that it came out just recently, because it was just - like we said - for the first week, only fifteen French military personnel were allowed on the site, and then after that time, hundreds of other rescue workers came in, including a bunch from Israel, came in and started sifting through the site. So the idea is that one of these hundreds of people that were then allowed, subsequently, into the site after a week, that one of them happened upon a badly damaged mobile phone that the first gang had missed. They took it away. Maybe someone with a suspicion? Maybe someone who didn't believe the official story? And then decided to give it to the media to...

Niall: Or to show it. Someone must have gone into the offices simultaneously in Paris and Berlin, said, "Here's a briefcase", opened it up; "Here's a laptop. I can't give you a copy of it", and then the reporters describe what they see? It's all a bit...

Joe: If I was there, if I'd been watching the story for a week and then I was, in some reality, part of a rescue team that ended up on that site and I found a mobile phone, you can be damned sure I would not be handing it in to anybody. I'd be taking it straight home and looking at what was on it on my computer. So, it's possible amongst hundreds of people that there's a few, at least, who are suspicious of the story, along with most of the airline pilots or as represented by the Cockpit Association in Europe, they officially have come out and said that they're horrified at the way that the investigation has gone on, for the same reasons that we are. And this is an organisation that represents airline pilots throughout Europe.

Niall: I have the quote here: "The European Cockpit Association represents 38,000 European pilots." It says, "The role of the French prosecutor, working alongside the air accident investigation team, is a blurring of responsibilities and that the prosecutor's insistence, so soon after the crash, that the plane was brought down by the co-pilot is inappropriate." Of course it is.

Joe: It's GROSS misconduct is what it is, as part of an official investigation; and nobody can dispute this - nobody can and I don't care if they do or not; it's indisputable that this is a ridiculous and inappropriate way to conduct an investigation where you immediately, on the basis of some spurious narrative story told by some unnamed military official that it was the pilot who crashed the plane, that then the media goes and starts disseminating this ridiculous story and building on it and creating this narrative, that is not the way to conduct an investigation. It's grossly inappropriate.

Niall: You mention an Israeli team of air crash investigators going; what interest do they have?

Joe: Well, there's nothing really strange about that because there was one Israeli citizen who died on board and any time an Israeli citizen anywhere dies, they send a team over to get the body to take it back for burial in Israel, you know.
The reason I say there's probably nothing to see there is because they didn't arrive until after that first week; I mean, they weren't on the scene during that first week with those fifteen people, and they were just part of a bunch of international rescue organisations that came to help with picking up all the various different pieces, you know? So by that time, everything of importance had been removed from the site.

Niall: A reader wrote in to us today pointing out an observation of his own, that from the wreckage he's seen - footage of the wreckage and photos - the wreckage seemed a bit strange in that it was extremely rusted/in a very, very advanced state of decay...

Joe: You mean of the cockpit voice recorder?

Niall: No, the wreckage of the plane or what was left of it. Is there anything unusual about it?

Joe: I don't think so. Someone wrote in and said that the images that they have produced of the actual black box - which is orange - that was found is badly damaged but it has signs of rust on it, which is a bit strange for something that was found immediately afterwards. So, again, we talked about the idea of a switcheroo, you know, how hard is it to get a black box from the manufacturer? Not just the circuit board that contains the data inside, but the black box itself, and beat it up and...

Niall: Let it rust... to make it look genuine!

Joe: Get an old one, whatever. Who knows? I don't know, but that's going a bit too far into it; there's no way to prove one way or the other, but we don't need to.

But as far as the wreckage is concerned: Yeah, the plane flew into the side of a mountain at...

Niall: High speed.

Joe: Like 450 miles per hour.

Niall: Can it go at that speed that low?

Joe: Yeah, it was probably at the upper limits of what it can do, but it was probably at fairly full throttle - it was going quite fast - all the way down, and then there's the story that someone sped it up in the last few seconds, kind of gunned the engines to really ram it into the side of the mountain. And you know, it's aluminium and various relatively soft metals; a plane isn't a very sturdy structure, you know? It's meant to be relatively light. So at that speed, into a hard surface, it just crumbles completely. And immediately, the fuel - the kerosene or whatever - ignites and then you have a fireball. I mean, there's pictures of them actually testing planes - on YouTube again - testing planes by flying them into brick walls, and yeah, as soon as they fly at high speed into a wall, I mean, they just squash like an accordion and immediately thereafter a fireball erupts and there's an explosion. I mean, it's setting fire to however many thousands of gallons of flammable fuel.

Niall: Yeah, a plane would be pretty full of fuel if it wasn't long after take-off.

Joe: So you have a massive fireball, a massive explosion. Obviously, the explosion blows the plane to pieces, but the actual impact just destroys the plane because along with the actual explosion, you have the kinetic energy of the plane flying at that speed meeting an immovable object.

Niall: What about this report of some of the fuselage being found at a different site?

Joe: Yeah... I think that might have been a bit of diversionary tactics because there was also reports of the plane having smoke or an explosion and there being smoke seen from the plane before it crashed and stuff.

You'll notice in these what are effectively false flag events - I'm not sure you can call this a false flag, but certainly the truth of what happened is not what they're saying happened - you notice that in these kind of events by these kinds of people, they very often seed the narrative with little 'juicy morsels' for conspiracy theorists, or they will start a conspiracy theory immediately afterwards just to distract and divert and to get people going down the wrong...

Niall: They know there's a large-ish element of us out there who...

Joe: Yeah, well that's one of... 'Them' you mean... 'THEM'.

Niall: 'Them!' Those people who just don't believe stuff that they're told because they're told by authorities.

Joe: Right: That they question. And so, they throw in some crumbs to send people off in the wrong direction or just to start the rumour mill going, essentially, and give people something to work-over, you know? Most of these conspiracy theorists don't take that into consideration, that they themselves are maybe being fed lies and bullshit, you know?

Niall: Because they are part of the threat, that people would figure things out and then the masses of ordinary people would actually listen to them. They need to be taken care of.

Joe: Right. I think there's a generalised anxiety and concern; one of the things that drives these people in positions of power is a fear, some sense of a nebulous... in the background - I know I said they don't generally feel fear, but it's maybe more like a pressure. They don't feel fear in a normal human way, but the feel a kind of pressure on them to keep going and furthering their control and stuff and I think one of the things that produces that pressure on them is their awareness to whatever extent, or their nebulous understanding of the possibility of people finding out what they do - because they do know that what they do would horrify the population and that they would be strung up; not that they necessarily fear such an outcome, because they tend not to understand the results of their actions or care about what happens down the line - they just live for the moment and what they need to do, what they want to do.

But I think there's a general sense amongst them that that's a big threat, could be a threat, in terms of their overall desire to control as many people as possible - the possibility that that control wouldn't work so well any more or that people would start to question in large numbers, or that they might make a mistake or they might be found out is something that taxes them a little bit.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: It drives them on to do more of the same.

Niall: We've had a lot of anecdotal evidence in the years of looking at 9/11 and everything around it, that there are some people out there - pretty high-profile in the alternative community - who are almost definitely planted agents: That's to say, they are conscious agents, set up that way to be "9/11 truthing", set up that way in advance of the event. You know, they weren't like ad-hoc tacked-on. When it happened, there was an awareness that there would be some spill-over into a group of people or sets of people who will start to look at this: "We have got to be prepared to deal with them in advance of doing what we're going to do next."

Joe: Yeah, they're smart, you know? These people are smart and they are able to think things through in quite a complex manner and seed certain narratives for a story in advance. I suggest people watch videos of psychopaths: It's a quite disturbing thing to do, but I spent yesterday watching several interviews with Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy and this guy, "The Iceman", and I don't know if it was just because I was feeling a bit strange yesterday, but I felt a bit kind of infected, you know? I had to go out and play with the dogs afterwards and kind of do something normal after just listening to these people, you know?

So, the people that are the kind of clinical psychopaths, who are the criminal psychopath who get caught, seeing, watching them and getting an understanding of how defective, effectively, they are, in term of normal human psychology; how depraved they are, really, and abnormal; it only goes so far to understanding the people that we're talking about who are in positions of power, because they seem to be of a different calibre, of the same type of psychopath. They're much more high functioning; they're more aware and conscious; they're more ambitious and smart, I think; particularly the ones that are at the top of the pyramid, you know?

You see a lot of psychopaths in politics and stuff in the US who get caught doing things and get kicked out of congress or put in prison and stuff, but they're examples of your common or garden type variety, you know? But then there's people above that who are... I don't know - it's hard to describe, but they're just better able to...

Niall: A different breed.

Joe: Well, they are all a different breed, but these ones are suped-up in some way or another; they're very capable, but kind of 'evil mastermind' type capable, you know? So they shouldn't be underestimated.

So, I reckon that it's probably about time for a Pop Culture Roundup.

Niall: Indeed.

Joe: And here's our old friend, Relic, to bring you all the latest news.

Niall: Take it away, Relic!

Relic: Well, hello kids. It's time again for another edition of Pop Culture Round Up, with your host Relic, here, tuning in from my cosy little log cabin, sequestered on the icy shores of Upper Lake Canada.

You know, we get lots of wildlife up here in my neck of the woods; all kinds of strange and interesting creatures. Like, instead of a fox, we have the arctic fox and instead of the hare, we have the arctic hare, and so on and so forth. In fact, you could rename virtually any animal in the world and put an Arctic in front of it - you'd probably find it here.

Like, the rare arctic camel, for example. I just saw a herd of those crossing the back forty last week. And then, there's the ever popular arctic kangaroo; not very shy of humans, this animal. Yesterday I had one eating right out of my hand. And then there's the infamous Arctic crocodile; you've got to be real careful of them, hiding under the snow, all quiet like. I lost three cats one winter to one of those.
Anyways, where was I?

Oh, right! Hollywood gossip! Well, let's see what the webliverse has in store for us this week.

Our top story is from The Hollywood Reporter. Everyone here at Behind the Headlines is quite excited at the news that Fox Studios has announced the revival of their classic science fiction T.V. programme, The X Files, for a six-part mini-series, including the original cast. Once against we'll be able to follow the enigmatic adventures of agents Sculder and Mully as they investigate strange and mysterious phenomenon in the Universe.

For example, 'How is it possible that an imbecile like George W. Bush could win two consecutive terms?'

G.W. Bush: "And Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

Relic: 'How much money did Hillary Clinton actually receive when she sold her soul to the devil?'

[Audio clip of Hillary Clinton's spine-chillingly evil laugh]

And 'How does Sarah Palin manage to walk and talk without a functioning brain?'

Sarah Palin: "You can actually see Russia from inland here in Alaska."

Relic: We look forward to the premier.

In other news, Standard Online informs us that pre-eminent scientologists and Hollywood power-couple, John Travolta and Tom Cruise, have reportedly been engaged in a secret homosexual relationship for over thirty years. Well, surprise, surprise: Why don't they tell us something we didn't know? Like, "The Pope is Catholic" and "The Earth revolves around the sun". And while this isn't exactly breaking news, I can only imagine that the whole affair started when John Travolta came down with a case of Saturday Night Fever and then Tom Cruise made All the Right Moves and together they engaged in some Risky Business that could have been taken right out of a Pulp Fiction novel. And at the end, they both enjoyed a nice Cocktail.

Well, boys, needless to say, I hope you didn't forget to put some Grease on that Top Gun.

And whatever the case may be, I for one say kudos to the happy couple, as a thirty-year relationship in Hollywood is as rare as a three-legged Sasquatch sighting or an honest politician.

No if only these two mega-superstar lovers could find the courage to come out of that closet and finally admit to the world what everybody already knows.

[Music-clip] "Everybody knows. Everybody knows. That's how it goes. Everybody knows."

Relic: Our last story for the evening comes from Entertainment Online website where Hollywood movie actor, Sean Penn, recently gave an interview on the Conan O'Brien talk show, where he claims that the Islamic terror pop super-group, ISIS, was actually created by former president, George Bush, and former vice president, Dick Cheney.

Now, hold the phone, kids; this is outrageous! This is unbelievable! This is absolutely scandalous! Never in my life have I heard a Hollywood celebrity actually tell the truth on public television! Aghh, who is this Sean Penn person? First he punches-out a paparazzi and then he decides to divorce Madonna, and now he does this?! In baseball parlance, that's what we might call a 'dazzling triple-play'. Sean Penn, you are now officially my most favourite Hollywood actor. Hats off to you, sir.

[audio clip] "Oh no!"

Relic: Well, that's all for now, kids. Until next time, it's Relic here, warming my toes in front of a cracklin' fire and saying always remember: Keep your feet on the ground and your eyes on the stars.

Joe: So, there you go; that was the latest Pop Culture Round-up from Relic, from his winter wonderland up on the shores of Lake Canada.

Niall: I still haven't located it on google maps.

Joe: It's not on google maps. It's blocked out, actually, for national security reasons in Canada.
Anyway, I think we'll leave it there for this week, folks. Thanks for listening and thanks to our chatters and we'll be back next week - and thanks to Relic, obviously. Don't forget to check out our Health and Wellness Show on Monday nights and obviously...

Niall: The Truth Perspective next Saturday.

Joe: Yeah. Until then, see ya!

Niall: See you next week.