Germanwings Muslim factor?

Germanwings Jihadist
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Everyone knows by now: Germanwings Flight 4U9525, en route to Düsseldorf, Germany from Barcelona, Spain, crashed into a mountainside in the French Alps. The copilot of that flight, one Andreas Lubitz, locked his captain out of the cockpit. He then set the autopilot to fly at 100 feet. The captain tried knocking on the door, then banging on it, and finally chopping it down with an ax. Or so one may infer from the cockpit voice recorder. Which, in the last seconds, plays back a cacophony of screams before the sound of impact.

The mainstream media, including the Fox News Channel, now have settled on a theory for what Lubitz did. Andreas Lubitz, the theory says, suffered from depression, took anti-depressant drugs, and broke up with his fiancée shortly before the flight. A psychiatrist wrote a note telling his employers not to let him fly. He tore it to shreds. Police found those shreds in his apartment.

Or did they find a torn-up sick note? Or something else?

A Germanwings 9/11?

The Germanwings Jihadist - Michael Mannheimer, via Speisa

“The Germanwings Jihadist: Andreas Günter Lubitz, the Germanwings copilot, intentionally flew the aircraft into the mountain. He earlier converted to Islam.” Taken from Michael Mannheimer’s blog apparently before its deletion. Host: Speisa.com.

Michael Mannheimer writes for Pi-News and keeps his own blog. Two days ago (Thursday, March 26), Mannheimer wrote: “Germany now has its own 9/11.” In detail he alleged: Lubitz went to a mosque in Bremen. And, either under orders, or taking a cue from the “book of terror” (likely the Koran), or acting on his own, he decided to take down a planeload of innocent people. Mannheimer went further: he demanded Germany invoke Section 129a of its Criminal Code to ban Islam and investigate all its followers.

Or so says the alternative site Speisa. Speisa even gave a link to a specific post. The problem: that link resolves to the Not Found page. And even the Wayback Machine has no archive of it.

Michael Mannheimer regularly writes against leftist or Muslim persons or agendas. English machine translation often fails. The programs often choose the wrong English words (“link” or “links”) for the German words Links or Linke or Linken, which mean “left.” So either Michael Mannheimer wrote that post, or someone who knew his site and work product well, forged it. In any case, Mannheimer, or his Web host, took that blog post down. And did it too fast for the Wayback Machine to capture it.

Pam Geller captured something else. Someone briefly built an “Andreas Lubitz fans” page on Facebook.com. Facebook took it down. (According to Gateway Pundit, that page really came from the Islamic State.) But before they did, Geller took a screencap of it. Several posts on that page praised what Lubitz did as a good Muslim thing to do.

This entry at Pi-News carries comments also speaking to whether the Germanwings copilot converted to Islam before the flight.

Another blog, Israel Matzav, also asks: what did the German police discover in Lubitz’ apartment? The International Business Times said questions about whether the Germanwings pilot converted to Islam, or had any faith, exasperated mainstream media reporters and government officials. Brice Rubin, the French prosecutor based in Marseilles, didn’t want to talk about it. A college professor at Northwestern University seemed to call such questions stupid, insensitive, and politically incorrect.

And from Fox News Channel and other mainstream outlets? Not a peep. They keep pushing the narrative: the Germanwings copilot suffered from mental illness. They quote his ex-girlfriend as describing his “torment” and wanting a “spectacular” end. No one mentions a Facebook page. No one mentions a German writer wanting to ban Islam and investigate its adherents as terrorists.

Cover-up?

True enough, a history of depression, and especially being on anti-depressants, could explain the Germanwings crash. Alternative-medical advisers routinely rail against anti-depressants. They claim they don’t treat the real problem. And sometimes they make a patient move from merely thinking of killing himself (or others) to really doing it.

But too many people have found evidence for a Muslim connection. German authorities have known about the Bremen mosque for years. (They raided it in December of 2014.) Why did authorities take so long to talk about finding the shreds of a sick-leave note in an apartment? Why didn’t Lubitz burn it, or feed it to a cross-cut shredder? Why did Michael Mannheimer delete his post as if it never had been? Who managed to “fix” the Wayback Machine?

That last begins to look like the cover-up in A Few Good Men. (Directed by Rob Reiner. Written by Aaron Sorkin. With Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Demi Moore, Kevin Bacon, Michael DeLorenzo, et al. Columbia Pictures/Castle Rock Entertainment, 1992.) A Marine barracks commander expunges all trace of a transport flight from official records. He does this to hide the negligence of his command in a hazing death on post. Do we now see that? Did the Bundeskriminalamt decide to hide Lubitz role as a “Germanwings Jihadist” (Mannheimer’s words)? Even to saying, Halt die Klapp! to an on-line writer and scrubbing his content?

The Wayback Machine does not say how soon they archive any content. They say they last crawled Michael Mannheimer’s blog on March 15. That seems typical.

Cockpit doors one could lock from the inside became standard equipment after 9/11. In that incident, nineteen dangerous men took over four cockpits. They flew three planes into buildings and crashed the fourth in an open field. Have Muslims now discovered a new way to take over a plane? By compromising the flight officer corps?

Maybe authorities don’t want to admit that. But such compromises has happened before. Recall EgyptAir 990. The copilot ditched that flight into the Atlantic Ocean, heedless of the shouted orders of his captain.

National-flag airlines in Europe have finally put in place the Two-person Rule: never leave one person alone in the cockpit. But international aviation safety needs more than this. Those investigating the Germanwings crash, and those reporting on it, must not lend even the appearance of cover-up. To see that happening, should disturb the flying public more than the crash itself. If:

  1. A flight officer compromised himself with a political religion,
  2. That religion advocates mass murder and strategic lying to advance itself,
  3. That flight officer crashed a plane full of people as that religion dictated, and
  4. No one in authority wants to talk about it or let anyone else talk about it,

then those authorities have disgraced themselves worse than any disgrace to the Germanwings or international flight officer corps.

<a href="https://www.sodahead.com/united-states/germanwings-muslim-factor/question-4764212/" title="Germanwings Muslim factor?">Germanwings Muslim factor?</a>

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

9 Responses to Germanwings Muslim factor?

  1. MatthewJ says:

    Has a post on CNAV ever been taken down?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Only once. And not after being up long enough for someone else to pick up and run with.

  2. MatthewJ says:

    Hmm. Looking at the Wayback Machine snapshots for CNAV I’m not sure that that number is correct, but then again in retrospect it’s a question to which one shouldn’t expect to get a reliable answer. One would hardly expect that an on-line writer who acquiesced to governmental pressure to purge content would then turn around and publicize that fact; that person would just be making themself a target again by doing so. And of course if the Wayback Machine itself can be ‘fixed’ then there’s really nothing to rely upon but our own faulty human memories.

    So I retract the question, and you can delete it and your response if you prefer.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Herr Mannheimer did not publicize the deletion. No one would have noticed it, except for one thing. Someone else found the post, linked to it, and translated it. Then the link goes 404. And about the original posting? Not one word. As mysterious as the motive for the crash.

  3. MatthewJ says:

    I don’t believe that you publicized whatever deletions you (or others) have made to CNAV, either; nor do I think that it has happened “only once” as you claim. Not if my memory and the Wayback Machine are to be trusted, anyway. In at least one case a post by another author was up long enough for several people to comment on it, including yourself, before being deleted. It’s your blog, and you are free to delete or edit posts as your conscience allows. I have no problem with that; for what it’s worth I don’t think you do it often or arbitrarily. Frankly the deleted content that I’m thinking of was just embarrassing and off-mission and I have no beef with its removal. Likewise I suspect that Mannheimer’s post was erroneous and an embarrassment, and he pulled it for that reason.

    I don’t think that you had nefarious purposes for deleting a post/posts, or that you were forced to do so and have been forced to keep silent about it. But do you not see that you are trying to drum up support for a conspiracy or cover-up of some sort based on behaviors that you yourself (or other CNAV editors) engage in? Deletion of a blog post without comment?

    I realize that you were ‘just asking questions’ about whether the _Bundeskriminalamt_ shut Mannheimer down. Just as someone could ‘just ask questions’ about whether the NSA or UN or Mossad shut you down, based on the same behavior. Both would have the same answer: no reason to think so, no. Mannheimer’s action is no more mysterious than your own blog editing.

    “But too many people have found evidence for a Muslim connection.”
    What is that evidence?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      What’s your take on Pamela Geller’s screencap of an ISIS Facebook page actually singling Andreas Lubitz out for high praise for doing something their religion dictates?

  4. MatthewJ says:

    I think that the world has no shortage of trolls who are eager and willing to put up hateful Facebook pages after all sorts of horrific events in order to get a rise out of people. I also think that ISIS has many media-savvy members who are similarly eager and willing to get people to think that their worldwide influence is larger than it is. No doubt ISIS is happy to celebrate any disaster that strikes the kafir. So even if the Facebook page was an authentic ISIS product, which I have no strong reason to believe, I would have no particular reason to take them at their word, barring corroborating evidence.

    In case you were unaware, there are non-Muslim groups who are lauding Lubitz as being a martyr to their causes, too: some particularly pathetic mens-rights splinter groups applauded him for lashing out because of his (presumed by them) _lack of proper respect by women because of the evils of worldwide feminism_. There’s a different Facebook page about how Lubitz is being framed by Lufthansa to hide mechanical problems that caused the plane crash. Is the existence of that page evidence that Lubitz didn’t cause the crash? Some folks have posted that the plane was brought down because one of the passengers was an assassination target. Other Internet crazies speculate that Lubitz was Jewish and brought the plane down to kill Germans in retaliation for the Holocaust. The claim doesn’t make it so; only evidence would.

    So, what corroborating evidence is there that Lubitz was Muslim, let alone a Muslim suicide agent for ISIS? At the moment I lend as much credence to that theory as the countervailing one that he was a Mossad agent under MKULTRA control running some cryptic false-flag operation targeting an American defense contractor passenger.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Well, we have the passenger manifest. The only Americans aboard that flight were tourists.

      Here’s the problem: in today’s world, enough people have a motive to suppress actively the sort of evidence you now demand. Under the circumstances, absence of evidence can no longer stand as evidence of absence.

  5. MatthewJ says:

    Do you not see the disconnect between claiming that evidence of Lubitz’ conversion to radical Islam has been suppressed, and the claim that we know that the only American passengers on the flight were tourists? I mean, if THEY can suppress evidence on the one hand, they can surely suppress it on the other. Absence of evidence of mind-controlled Mossad agents killing American defense contractors no longer means evidence of absence, right?

    Didja know that Yvonne Selke worked for a tech consulting company with a $315 million dollar contract with the Pentagon?

    Please note, I think that Lubitz was a suicidal individual who wanted to go out in a blaze of infamy. I do not subscribe to any of the dozens of different conspiracy theories that are currently circulating the bottom half of the Internet: Pentagon laser test gone awry, electromagnetic effect from CERN, competing German airline sabotage, etc. etc.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.