Germanwings Flight 9525: The Convenient Dead
Within 48 hours of Germanwings Flight 9525 crashing into the French Alps on March 24, 2015, the world had its villain: Andreas Lubitz, the 27-year-old co-pilot who allegedly locked his captain out of the cockpit and deliberately flew 149 innocent people into a mountain. The narrative emerged with breathtaking speed—French prosecutor Brice Robin was briefing media on the assumed cause before investigators had even located the flight data recorder, while selective leaks of cockpit voice recordings to the New York Times cemented public perception before any meaningful analysis could begin. Case closed, blame assigned, institutional responsibilities absorbed by a dead man who could no longer defend himself. Yet for investigative journalist Sam Thorne, who spent decades documenting how systems fail and how those failures get buried, something about this rush to judgment felt profoundly wrong—not just the speed of it, but the seamless coordination between prosecutors, investigators, and media in constructing an explanation so convenient it practically wrote itself.
What Thorne uncovered, working alongside colleague Tim van Beveren who had accessed over 17,000 pages of official investigation files from German and French judicial authorities, reads like a catalogue of investigative failures so systematic they suggest either staggering incompetence or deliberate deception. The cockpit door’s emergency access system, designed specifically to prevent pilots from being locked out after 9/11, left no audible trace on the voice recorder of being activated or overridden—a technical impossibility if the official story were true. The copilot’s breathing pattern recorded until impact showed rates suggesting unconsciousness rather than conscious control, a finding even the French Gendarmerie Aviation Unit acknowledged in May 2015 when they stated “we do not know whether he was conscious.” The iPad allegedly containing incriminating search histories wasn’t even seized during the initial police search but was handed over days later, and it belonged not to Lubitz but to his partner. Perhaps most damning, despite this being positioned as a human factors disaster, no proper human factors working group was ever established as required by international aviation protocols, while the BEA’s designated human factors expert was never meaningfully involved in the investigation.
The implications stretch far beyond one crashed aircraft and 150 lost lives—this is about how modern disasters get packaged into digestible narratives that protect institutional power while sacrificing inconvenient truths. Thorne’s investigation reveals a pattern where complex systemic failures involving aircraft manufacturers, airlines, maintenance contractors, and regulatory bodies get reduced to individual blame, where media outlets become willing conduits for official leaks rather than independent investigators, and where families seeking answers are dismissed as being in denial. The human cost has been devastating: the victims’ families were denied comprehensive answers, while Lubitz’s family saw their son condemned without trial, branded a mass murderer in headlines despite the presumption of innocence that supposedly underlies democratic justice. For those still seeking truth about Flight 9525, Thorne has channeled his findings into his novel Silent Skies, a thriller that uses fiction to explore what journalism could not safely investigate, while continuing to examine unreleased technical data and witness testimonies for a forthcoming follow-up. As he writes, truth isn’t something fixed but something that must be fought for, tested, and re-examined—especially when the machinery of official explanation moves so swiftly and smoothly that it seems designed less to reveal what happened than to ensure certain questions never get asked.
With thanks to Sam Thorne.
SILENT SKIES: Ein investigativer Thriller by Sam Thorne | eBook | Barnes & Noble®
SILENT SKIES, eBook by Sam Thorne | an investigative thriller | 9783819437946 | Booktopia
1. Sam, could you please tell us about your journey to this point? What initially drew you to investigate the Germanwings Flight 9525 crash, and how did you come to write about this tragedy?
I didn’t set out to write a book about a plane crash. In fact, for years I resisted it. But as a journalist, I had spent decades following stories that reveal how systems fail — in politics, aviation, defence, intelligence — and how quickly those failures are buried.
When Flight 9525 crashed in March 2015, something about the speed and simplicity of the official explanation struck me as profoundly wrong. Within 48 hours, the world was told this was the act of a suicidal pilot — case closed. Yet evidence presented the two years later didn’t match that conclusion. That disconnect became impossible to ignore.
During my own work on the topic, I came into contact with a colleague, investigative journalist Tim van Beveren, who generously shared his extensive research with me — including more than 17,000 pages of official investigation files from German and French judicial authorities. I’m grateful to him that he later even offered the infrastructure of his own media company to make the publishing of Silent Skies possible.
What began as a fact-checking exercise turned into a multi-year investigation — one that ultimately became the novel Silent Skies.
2. For readers who may only know the official narrative, could you briefly outline what the public was told happened on March 24, 2015, versus what your research has uncovered?
The public story is simple: the copilot allegedly locked his captain out of the cockpit and deliberately crashed the Airbus A320 into a mountain, killing all 150 on board. It was framed as a tragic case of untreated depression.
This narrative was perfectly in line with the version that French prosecutor Brice Robin presented to the media just two days after the crash — and which his German counterpart, Christoph Kumpa, continued to reinforce in the following weeks: we have a “simple” explanation and a culprit who can no longer defend himself — an ideal figure of blame that neatly absorbs public outrage and institutional responsibility — a mentally ill copilot who killed 149 innocent people. And because he is dead, we even don’t have to prove this allegation in court.
This explanation was rarely subjected to serious scrutiny, despite a multitude of unanswered questions. Far worse, it became a persistent confirmation bias that poisoned not only the still ongoing civilian accident investigation but also the way this event was reported in the media.
What my novel Silent Skies presents, however, is not solely the result of my own research. Much of it builds on the meticulous investigation and expert analysis carried out by my colleague Mr. van Beveren, whose evidence-based report was made public two years after the crash.
Following its press conference in March 2017, additional sources came forward — including engineers and an individual with apparent access to the aircraft’s maintenance records, which were even offered to van Beveren for purchase through an intermediary. He told me he refused, of course, as such a transaction would violate basic journalistic ethics and could itself constitute a criminal act.
But one electrical engineer with a solid background in complex systems submitted a detailed, multi-page technical assessment challenging a key element of the BEA’s official findings: the claim that the copilot had already “practised” his later actions on the inbound flight to Barcelona while the captain was outside the cockpit. According to this expert, the amplitude patterns recorded by the Flight Data Recorder tell a very different story. They strongly suggest that the altitude inputs made on that flight were not deliberate actions at all but rather the result of a technical malfunction — possibly a short circuit — which the pilot then actively corrected.
This hypothesis was later supported in a three-part television documentary broadcast on SKY earlier this year, in which the described malfunction scenario was successfully demonstrated under controlled conditions using an original Flight Control Unit (FCU) from an Airbus A320. It casts serious doubt on the prosecutors and the BEA’s central conclusion that the crash was the result of intentional actions alone — and suggests that crucial technical factors were either misunderstood, ignored, or deliberately downplayed.
These two examples alone are pieces of a larger puzzle that, in my view, reveal a far more complex picture: likely data tampering on the flight recorders, clear inconsistencies in the recorded and transcribed cockpit audio, medical evidence contradicting the suicide narrative, and vital technical anomalies that were overlooked.
Last not least, in every modern air accident investigation, human factors are considered a crucial element. In fact, Annex 13 of the ICAO framework and its national implementations explicitly require the establishment of a dedicated human factors working group. Yet — despite the fact that this case practically cried out for such an analysis — no proper HF group was ever formed. The BEA’s designated human factors expert, a medical doctor, was never meaningfully involved, and his German counterpart — a psychologist who had co-authored a scientific study on pilot suicide together with two German universities — was not actively engaged either.
Instead, as something of an alibi exercise, a small selection of medical records seized by the public prosecutor’s office was handed over to two external experts with no aviation background for review. Both subsequently stated that they were “unable” to provide any reliable psychological assessment of the copilot on the basis of the limited documentation they had been given.
This accumulation during the course of an accident investigation indeed points either to “staggering incompetence or to deliberate deception”, as you phrased it in your book review.
So yes — unless fully explained and evidenced by the relevant authorities, there is substantial reason to believe that the investigation was shaped to protect institutional interests — from manufacturers and airlines to regulatory bodies — rather than to uncover the full truth.
3. The official story emerged remarkably quickly—within hours of the crash. What red flags did you notice about how rapidly this narrative was constructed and disseminated to the media?
Thank you for introducing the term ‘red flag’ — I will continue to use it, as it aptly conveys my own perspective on this case.
Red flag #1: Speed is the enemy of any thorough investigation. Within just a few hours, the French prosecutor was already briefing the media on an assumed cause — before the flight data recorder had even been located in the wreckage and long before the cockpit voice recorder had been fully analysed. That is unprecedented. Aviation accident investigations usually take months — sometimes even years — before any causal conclusions are announced. The haste suggested there was an agenda: to seize control of the narrative before inconvenient facts could surface. It also shaped global perception long before technical evidence was able to speak for itself — a textbook example of how framing can become more powerful than fact, or, in other words, how prejudicial public narratives can influence the course of an investigation and the interpretation of evidence.
Today, however, we live in a time when narratives often matter more than facts. Media, politics, and corporate interests are deeply intertwined, and once a story has been told, it tends to become reality — regardless of whether all the facts support it.
I myself have worked as a journalist for more than 25 years. In a sense, I still belong to the “old school” — a generation for whom journalism was far more uncomfortable precisely because more questions were asked and more things were challenged, across all sectors, including politics. I learned how to read files carefully, to read between the lines, to identify contradictions and, above all, to keep asking questions.
Red flag #2: Such questions were not asked — and those who did ask them received no or no meaningful answers.
But: you cannot understand a disaster by pointing the finger at one individual alone. To do so is to ignore the complex system in which such an event occurs. You have to examine the wider context: maintenance practices, oversight mechanisms, regulatory failures, economic pressures and possible foul play. When a catastrophe like this happens in aviation, it is almost always the result of multiple interacting factors that made it possible in the first place. And that is precisely what this case is about.
Red flag #3: This was one of the most serious aviation disasters in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany — and yet the investigation was conducted in an alarmingly superficial manner. Equally troubling, the media did not carry out their own independent inquiries but appeared largely content with the selective “bits and pieces” they were being fed by the authorities. In doing so, they effectively relinquished their critical watchdog function at a time when independent scrutiny was most urgently needed.
4. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) information was leaked to the New York Times before proper analysis was completed. How did this premature leak shape public perception and potentially compromise the investigation?
Red flag #4: The premature disclosure of sensitive CVR information to the media was one of the most damaging events in the entire investigative process. The New York Times reported details from the cockpit recordings — most notably the claim that the captain had been intentionally locked out — at a time when the data had not yet been properly analysed, verified, or contextualised. This alone is highly irregular and, from an investigative standpoint, deeply problematic.
The consequences of this leak were profound. By selectively releasing emotionally charged elements of the recording, public perception was immediately and irreversibly shaped. The narrative of a deliberate act by the copilot became globally cemented before investigators had even completed their work. This is not just a matter of journalistic overreach — it directly affected the course and integrity of the investigation. Once such a storyline dominates the public discourse, it becomes extremely difficult — even for seasoned professionals — to consider alternative explanations with the necessary objectivity.
In legal terms, this is a textbook example of how prejudicial public narratives can undermine investigative neutrality. Witnesses and experts alike are subconsciously influenced by information they encounter in the press, which can contaminate statements, shape interpretations of evidence, and even bias technical analyses. Furthermore, early public disclosure of CVR contents stands in direct conflict with the principles enshrined in ICAO Annex 13 and European law, which strictly limits the use and dissemination of cockpit voice data precisely to avoid such prejudicial effects.
Red flag #5: Equally concerning is the question of who had access to the recordings at that early stage — and who authorised the leak. At the time the New York Times published its report, the CVR should have been in the secure custody of the investigative authority, and only a very small number of people would have had access to its contents. The fact that key information nonetheless found its way into the press suggests either a serious breach of procedure or an intentional act designed to anchor a particular narrative in the public consciousness.
From that moment onward, the “pilot suicide” theory was no longer merely a working hypothesis — it had become a fixed “truth” in the public mind. And this, in turn, placed enormous pressure on investigators, prosecutors, and politicians to align their conclusions with that prematurely established narrative rather than risk contradicting it later.
5. You’ve written about technical anomalies that don’t align with the official narrative. Can you explain the significance of the cockpit door emergency access system and why the absence of certain sounds on the CVR is troubling?
Red flag #6: One of the most striking anomalies concerns the reinforced cockpit door system itself — a safety feature introduced worldwide in the aftermath of 9/11. These reinforced doors were retrofitted to all commercial aircraft with more than 50 seats and are designed to prevent unlawful access to the cockpit. The basic principle is simple: as soon as the aircraft and its systems are powered, the door locks automatically.
If someone outside the cockpit wishes to enter, they must enter a code on the keypad located next to the door. Doing so triggers a brief chime — a short tone lasting less than a second — to alert the pilots inside. To grant access, the pilots must then manually flip a switch in the cockpit, interrupting the door’s locking circuit and allowing it to open.
In addition, the cockpit door is equipped with an emergency access override designed precisely to prevent pilots from being locked out. By entering a so-called emergency code on the same keypad, the person outside can trigger a continuous audio alarm — distinct from the short standard chime — which signals to the pilots inside that emergency access is being requested. If this procedure is followed, the door will automatically unlock after a predefined time, unless the pilot inside actively switches the system to the lock position. If that happens, the continuous alarm stops immediately at the moment the lock is engaged.
However, according to the official CVR transcript, only a single short chime was recorded when the captain attempted to return to the cockpit. There are no audible sounds indicating that the copilot actively engaged the door lock from the inside. Even more striking is the complete absence of any subsequent attempts by the captain to use the emergency code — which, if entered, would have triggered the continuous tone.
The door’s security system involves several distinct layers of action that should leave audible traces on the CVR recording: audio cues, warning signals, mechanical sounds — yet none of these are present. If the emergency system was activated, why do we not hear it? If it was not, why not?
These missing elements raise serious and unresolved questions about whether the door system behaved as it was designed to — or whether the CVR recording itself is incomplete or may have been compromised. Either possibility fundamentally challenges the credibility of the official version of events.
6. The copilot was quickly portrayed as depressed and suicidal, yet his medical records and those close to him paint a different picture. What discrepancies did you find between the media portrayal and the actual evidence?
Red flag #7: The portrayal of the copilot was one-dimensional and sensationalised. Let’s examine the term depression for a moment, because it was central to the public narrative — and also widely misunderstood. There are essentially two main forms of depression: endogenous depression, which develops internally and cannot be explained by external circumstances, and reactive (or psychogenic) depression, which is triggered by life events or external stressors.
The copilot had been treated for a reactive depression years earlier, at the beginning of his pilot training. A closer look at the medical files — including doctors’ reports - reveals that terms such as burnout, overstrain, and difficulty adapting to unfamiliar living conditions were also used to describe his situation at the time. He sought professional help, received appropriate treatment, and recovered. He was subsequently declared fit to fly, successfully completed his training with flying colours, and continued to be closely monitored thereafter.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever of suicidal intent: there was no note, no behavioural red flags, and no reported deterioration in his mental state — not from those closest to him, nor from the pilots who flew with him in the period immediately prior to the accident.
On the contrary, the evidence points in the opposite direction. Only a few days before the crash, and in the presence of witnesses, he and his partner were reportedly discussing marriage plans. Are we seriously to believe that someone making wedding plans on Friday commits suicide on Tuesday? The two scenarios simply do not align.
The media — particularly the tabloid press — went even further, fabricating stories such as the existence of an alleged girlfriend to whom he had supposedly hinted at his “future act.” None of this is supported by any evidence. What is supported, however, is the fact that the copilot had noticed symptoms affecting his vision, which understandably concerned him, and that he sought specialist medical evaluations to determine their cause. We will return to this point later, but it is crucial to note that this medical concern — not any suicidal tendency — appears to have been the primary reason he consulted doctors in the period leading up to the accident.
7. The investigation seemed to focus exclusively on pilot suicide while ignoring other possibilities. What other potential causes or contributing factors should have been investigated but weren’t?
A complete list of all relevant details would go far beyond the scope of this interview. Many of them can be found in my book Silent Skies and, of course, in the expert report I mentioned earlier. But the core issue in this:
Red flag #8: The investigation was built almost entirely around a single hypothesis — that the copilot intentionally caused the crash — while other plausible scenarios were barely considered, if at all. This is a fundamental failure. Several alternative causes should have been examined thoroughly: a technical malfunction of the cockpit door system, contamination of cockpit air, possible interference with avionics or flight controls, and even external security breaches. None of these possibilities were pursued with any real rigour.
Instead, the investigators essentially reverse-engineered the evidence to fit one pre-selected narrative. That is not how a criminal investigation — nor any aviation accident investigation — is supposed to work. It also betrays the core principles of ICAO Annex 13, which explicitly require that all plausible scenarios be examined and that hard evidence must be found to conclusively exclude each one before any conclusions are drawn and presented to the public.
By failing to follow these basic investigative standards, the inquiry not only narrowed its own scope prematurely but also deprived the public — and the victims’ families — of a comprehensive and unbiased explanation of what really happened.
8. There are questions about missing or manipulated evidence, including browser history that doesn’t align with documented therapy sessions. How concerning are these inconsistencies in the official investigation?
Here we have red flag #9: Extremely concerning. In any serious inquiry, such anomalies would trigger deeper forensic scrutiny. Here, however, they were largely brushed aside. For example, browsing data that was presented as proof of premeditation does not match the copilot’s known schedule. One striking example: a book recommended to him by a doctor was ordered and delivered before his consultation with that very doctor even took place. Gaps in digital evidence coincide suspiciously with periods of high investigative sensitivity. Such inconsistencies raise the possibility that certain data were curated to support a predetermined conclusion rather than discovered in the course of impartial and coherent forensic analysis.
For example, why would a pilot working for the Lufthansa Group look up information about the cockpit door on the internet when he had full access, via his company laptop, to the extensive Lufthansa–Airbus documentation with all the technical specifications?
And here comes what is perhaps the most astonishing detail: the iPad on which the allegedly incriminating internet searches — those used to substantiate the suicide theory — were said to have been made, was not even seized by police during the initial house search. It was handed over to investigators several days later — and, as it turned out, it wasn’t even the copilot’s device. It belonged to his partner.
From a forensic and legal perspective, this is a deeply troubling breach of procedure. Any digital device that is to be used as evidence must be secured at the time of the search, under proper chain-of-custody protocols, to ensure its authenticity and integrity. The fact that this device was introduced into the investigation after the fact — and that it did not even belong to the suspect — calls into question the reliability of the entire digital evidence record.
9. You’ve also explored the possibility of contaminated cabin air (aerotoxic syndrome) affecting crew performance. Why wasn’t this angle properly investigated, especially given the maintenance performed on the aircraft just before the crash?
Red flag #10: It is important to know that at the time of the crash, Germanwings was the German airline with the highest number of reported fume events across its fleet. And, as the copilot’s flight logbook revealed, he had flown many of the aircraft involved in those incidents — not necessarily at the time of occurrence, but both before and after such events.
So, to answer your question with a question: why was this angle not investigated? Maybe because it was inconvenient?
Acknowledging the possibility of aerotoxic exposure – even only as a contributing factor - would have implicated aircraft manufacturers, airlines, maintenance contractors, and regulators — a potential legal and liability nightmare.
Yet there were strong indicators that should have prompted serious scrutiny:
• Engine seal and cleaning work that was not performed just days before the crash but was instead deferred.
• The fact that both engines were overdue for overhaul.
• Numerous reports of fume events on sister aircraft of the same fleet.
• And, most crucially, symptoms consistent with cognitive impairment.
The latter is particularly significant. The copilot’s breathing pattern, as captured on the cockpit voice recorder, is far above any normal physiological rate — a finding that suggests he may have been unconscious rather than consciously controlling the aircraft. This interpretation was even acknowledged by the French Gendarmerie Aviation Unit, which concluded in its final remarks on the CVR analysis in May 2015 (- just two months after the copilot was blamed by the prosecutor)
“Based on the recorded breathing sounds of the copilot until impact, we know that he was alive. However, we do not know whether he was conscious.”
Today we know more. Through several successful court cases brought and won at the Supreme Court by French pilots — in which contaminated cabin air was legally recognised as an occupational disease — and through the medical and scientific expert reports submitted in those proceedings, it has become clear that the eye-related symptoms reported by the copilot could indeed have been a direct consequence of exposure to contaminated cabin air.
So, in my view, ignoring the aerotoxic exposure aspect in this investigation was not an oversight - it was a deliberate choice.
10. The passenger manifest reportedly included individuals who weren’t who they claimed to be. What questions does this raise about the flight that have never been adequately answered?
First, we need to clear up a common misunderstanding: there is no verified evidence of passengers travelling under false identities in the legal sense. However, the real identities of certain individuals on board are noteworthy enough to raise the next red flag — because they point to questions that, to this day, have never been properly examined.
Red flag #11: For instance, among the passengers was — by sheer coincidence, we are told — a former superior of Edward Snowden, officially travelling to Europe on holiday with her daughter. Then there were several men from Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic once home to some of the region’s most significant nuclear weapons research. Add to that two Iranian journalists, scheduled to continue their journey directly from Düsseldorf via Vienna to Tehran.
Do you see the pattern? Each of these details might be perfectly coincidental — and perhaps they are. Yet the complete absence of any visible police investigation or thorough background checks into such potentially sensitive passenger profiles is striking, to say the least. It doesn’t prove anything on its own, but it certainly raises questions that should have been asked — and weren’t.
11. How did the French legal system’s structure, particularly with the state’s stake in Airbus, potentially compromise the independence of the investigation?
Red flag #12: France’s legal system places the control of aviation accident investigations firmly in the hands of the state — and the state itself is a major shareholder in Airbus. That’s a built-in conflict of interest: the very institutions that are supposed to investigate the case objectively also have a strong interest in protecting one of France’s most important companies. And we all know that when a nation’s industrial flagship is involved, real impartiality often becomes more of an ideal than a reality.
What many people don’t realise is that in France, prosecutors are not independent in the same way they are in some other countries. They work within a strict chain of command and must follow instructions from above. At the very top of this structure is the Minister of Justice, who sets the government’s overall policy on how cases should be handled and has the authority to issue instructions. Below the minister is the chief prosecutor (procureur général), followed by the local prosecutors (procureur de la République), who oversee investigations on the ground. Under them work the deputy prosecutors and assistants, who carry out these instructions in practice.
What this means in plain terms is that prosecutors are part of the executive branch of government. They don’t act completely independently, but rather as part of the state system — and they are expected to apply government priorities in sensitive cases.
In the context of the Germanwings investigation, that is highly relevant. Because the French state had a direct financial interest in Airbus, there was a real risk — even if only indirectly — that political or economic considerations influenced how the investigation was conducted. That doesn’t mean anyone gave explicit orders, but the structure itself creates a situation where independence is questionable and where decisions might be made with more than just the facts in mind.
12. Families who questioned the official narrative were often dismissed as being in denial. What has been the human cost of rushing to judgment in this case, particularly for the copilot’s family?
The human cost has been immense. The families of the victims were deprived of full and comprehensive answers. The copilot’s family, in particular, was vilified — their son condemned in absentia, without a trial, without the chance for a meaningful defence, and without the protections that are supposed to be guaranteed in any democratic society.
Some journalists even went so far as to use terms like “murder” and “mass murderer” in their reporting — without any hesitation and despite the fact that such terms should only ever be used in journalistic content following a verdict in a court of law. This is not just sloppy journalism; it undermines one of the most fundamental principles of our legal systems: the presumption of innocence. This principle is not a minor procedural detail — it is a cornerstone of the rule of law and a safeguard for every individual against arbitrary condemnation by the state or by public opinion.
The consequences extend far beyond the copilot’s family. The broader public — and indeed anyone who places their trust in the safety mechanisms of commercial aviation — lost a crucial opportunity to learn from potential systemic failures that, if properly addressed, could prevent future tragedies. Reducing a catastrophe of this scale to a single “bad actor” may be emotionally convenient, but it is intellectually lazy, legally problematic, and ethically corrosive.
13. Your work suggests a pattern where complex systemic failures get reduced to individual blame. Beyond Germanwings, where else have you seen this scapegoating dynamic play out in aviation or other industries?
It’s a familiar pattern. We saw it after the 737 MAX disasters, the disappearance of flight MH 370 and even recently with the Air India crash in Ahmedabad a few weeks ago. But we have seen it after industrial accidents, in the field of medicine and health care, even in banking crises: individuals are blamed while structural flaws remain untouched. It’s easier — and cheaper — to sacrifice one person’s reputation than to confront the uncomfortable reality that our systems are brittle by design. Scapegoating is not just about blame — it’s a strategy to protect power and profit.
14. Given everything you’ve uncovered, what do you believe actually happened to Flight 9525, and why do you think the truth has been so difficult to establish?
I believe Flight 9525 was the result of multiple failures - technical, procedural, possibly even criminal - that converged in a way authorities never wanted to expose. Whether deliberate tampering occurred remains an open question, but it’s clear the official story does not account for all the evidence and the evidence gathered in the files available does not support what we were told. The truth is elusive because revealing it would implicate powerful interests — and because once a narrative is cemented, institutional inertia resists any challenge to it.
Another obstacle is that much of our mainstream media has firmly committed itself to this version of events. Correcting it today would mean admitting not only that they failed to report the truth back then, but also that they did not critically question the official narrative or the statements they were fed. It would require nothing less than a complete 180-degree turn. But I doubt that they possess the courage and human integrity required for such a step.
15. What are you currently focused on regarding this case, and how can readers who want to understand more about the discrepancies between the official story and the evidence stay connected with your work?
History teaches us that time is a crucial factor — especially when it comes to uncovering the truth. I am continuing to examine unreleased technical data, legal documents, and witness testimonies that could shed new light on what really happened. So, the story of Flight 9525 is not over. It is still unfolding.
For anyone who wants to approach this topic in a “more digestible” way, I would strongly recommend reading my book Silent Skies and simply comparing it with the still-dominant “official narrative.” The book is available in English, German, and French — both as print-on-demand and as an eBook. Beyond that, there’s not much more I can add publicly at this stage.
I have already started working on a follow-up to Silent Skies, and in this next book it will be much easier for me to present all these additional aspects in a way that is understandable, relatable, and engaging — while still remaining firmly grounded in fact.
Truth is not something fixed. It is something that must be fought for — tested, challenged, and re-examined again and again. And the approach must be based on scientific methods, because science, at its core, is nothing more than the search for truth. This applies not just to investigators or legal experts, but especially to my younger colleagues in the media: journalism should raise questions, - even if the very act of asking makes you feel uncomfortable.
For me that’s the great thing about writing a novel: literature doesn’t have to be comfortable. My aim is simple: to keep pushing for transparency and accountability — because the truth matters, even when it’s inconvenient.
I appreciate you being here.
If you’ve found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.
Please make full use of the Free Libraries.
Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.
Stories
I’m always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com
Baseline Human Health
Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.
What's Your Reaction?
Like
0
Dislike
0
Love
0
Funny
0
Angry
0
Sad
0
Wow
0
