Swissair crash may not have been an accident: ex-RCMP

Originally posted by ItsEvolutionBaby
!!!
All that loss of life---
And a half a BILLION dollars of diamonds and gems missing-- holAY
Smoking guns!!

There are people out there who would happily blow up a plane to cover-up a half-billion dollar theft... Something to consider anyway.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


Here's a funny thought... Maybe the plane was brought down, not because of the prince but maybe because of the "diamonds" and other artifacts. Maybe, they were all fakes and once back in Geneva or wherever they were going, the owners would have found out. So maybe any investigation should have been looking at someone at the museum doing a "hot swap." I mean seriously, are $100 million to $500 million in fake diamonds, artifacts and paintings worth hiding? Survey say! Yes!

In thirty or forty years, if we're still around, watch for an auction of Picasso's "The Painter" and the cold case trail will begin.

Cheers - Dave

I read about this on the CBC website, I was very surprised to hear about this "new" information regarding the tragedy. I don't really have much input after reading the replies but I'm not impressed with myself that I entertained the thought/idea that a new enemy has been fabricated for the public to fear and thus giving leeway for s*** disturbing courtesy of our Governments to take invasive action, or take actions that otherwise would not be permitted. I'm not saying I believe this, I'm just saying it would suck if that was the case. If there was a culprit with a bomb, the opportunists could still render his identity and directive in a variety of different ways, to adhere to their "master plan"? I donno. I'm at myself, to an extent...I hope ATS hasn't changed me It would be great to get the absolute truth of why the plane went down, if we haven't already heard it.

The theory is valid that someone could have stolen the diamonds, cash and painting before takeoff. Then used a device to crash the plane and cover up the crime.

But if that were the case, why use an incindiary device rather than an explosive device?

Originally posted by allenidaho
The theory is valid that someone could have stolen the diamonds, cash and painting before takeoff. Then used a device to crash the plane and cover up the crime.

But if that were the case, why use an incindiary device rather than an explosive device?

Your theory is precisely the same one that our kitchen table round table came up with.

These were diamonds and other artifacts that were in a high profile location for a long time...giving potential thieves a very long time to plan a heist.

The special diamond exhibition at the museum opened in November and was originally scheduled to close on April 26. But it was so popular, drawing more than 250,000 visitors, that it was extended through Aug. 30. The exhibition included cultural objects like jewelry, crowns, figurines and the Bible of Catherine the Great.

All of the items of value were placed into a big aluminum box for transport...how convenient.

Swissair confirmed this week that Flight 111 was carrying a valuable cargo of diamonds, watches and jewelry, along with a large quantity of cash and two pieces of artwork, one of them an original painting by Picasso. Swissair officials said that the painting, ''Le Peintre,'' was probably destroyed in the crash because it was shipped as general cargo, inside a wooden frame.

The diamonds and other valuables were packed in a locked aluminum case, about four feet high, that has not been located by Navy divers trying to retrieve material from the crash site.

My guess is that somewhere between the point at which the goods left the custody of the Museum and were to be placed in the aluminum box, and was then supposed to be physically placed on the plane...it took a detour. The guys actually loading the plane would not have a clue if something did, or did not make it onto the plane...they are drones.

But if somebody did actually sign a shipping document that suggests he witnessed the box going onto the plane...well, start your investigation with him.

And to answer your question...because if they used a bomb, we would have known for sure that foul play was involved - and the missing diamonds (etc.) would have been the most obvious motive. To start an "electrical fire" in the cockpit that would lead to a crash would be far better - and as is obviously the case, took investigators down the right path.

That makes sense. I suppose one or more people could have posed as ground crew. Maybe even been the ones loading the cargo. While that was happening, prior to boarding, a devices could have been placed inside the plane.

It wouldn't be the first time a major robbery went down at an American airport. Point in case, the Lufthansa Heist.
en.wikipedia.org...

Just bumping this thread, as I missed it the first time around. (thanks ATS search engine)

For those of you, who like myself missed this thread the first time, the following link has videos and great onsite links to the full tidbits, including a documentary story on the crash. link

Clearly, when someone whose credibility and expertise throughout his career and until now has been respected and believed, when that man comes out and makes a public statement, we know that something very suspicious is underfoot. And although the government and CSIS, RCMP, try to tell everyone that it would be insensitive to families of the deceased to drag this up again, it is merely trying to put the blame on those who question, and rightly so.