Malaysia Airlines plane crashes in South China Sea with 239 people aboard

[PottedMeat]

he is multi-engine rated. my ex brother in law used to fly for him. travolta would sometimes come to cockpit and fly for a bit

hmm i bet Xenu is involved. though he did love those DC-8's, it's time to upgrade.

 

[bshole]

It was a terrorist act, exactly as I called over a week ago. No brainer.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...egations-resurface-in-case-of-lost-plane.html

 

[MomentsofSanity]

It was a terrorist act, exactly as I called over a week ago. No brainer.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...egations-resurface-in-case-of-lost-plane.html

Yeah because that's conclusive. Jesus everyone who made any wild prediction can claim validation at some point in this.

 

[PG]

I think this guy figured it out. It makes sense to me anyway:

http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68

"After looking at all the details, it is my opinion that MH370 snuck out of the Bay of Bengal using SIA68 as the perfect cover. It entered radar coverage already in the radar shadow of the other 777, stayed there throughout coverage, and then exited SIA68’s shadow and then most likely landed in one of several land locations north of India and Afghanistan."

.
.
.


"So by now, you may have caught on or you may be scratching your head and wondering if I’ve gone insane! How does SIA68 have anything to do with MH370 disappearing? Remember the one challenge that is currently making everyone doubt that MH370 actually flew to Turkmenistan, Iran, China, or Kyrgyzstan? That challenge is the thought that MH370 couldn’t make it through several key airspaces such as India or Afghanistan without being detected by the military.

It is my belief that MH370 likely flew in the shadow of SIA68 through India and Afghanistan airspace. As MH370 was flying “dark” without transponder / ADS-B output, SIA68 would have had no knowledge that MH370 was anywhere around and as it entered Indian airspace, it would have shown up as one single blip on the radar with only the transponder information of SIA68 lighting up ATC and military radar screens.

Wouldn’t the SIA68 flight have detected MH370? NO! The Boeing 777 utilizes a TCAS system for traffic avoidance; the system would ordinarily provide alerts and visualization to pilots if another airplane was too close. However that system only operates by receiving the transponder information from other planes and displaying it for the pilot. If MH370 was flying without the transponder, it would have been invisible to SIA68. "

 

[TerryMathews]

I think this guy figured it out. It makes sense to me anyway:

http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68

"After looking at all the details, it is my opinion that MH370 snuck out of the Bay of Bengal using SIA68 as the perfect cover. It entered radar coverage already in the radar shadow of the other 777, stayed there throughout coverage, and then exited SIA68

 

[dphantom]

It was a terrorist act, exactly as I called over a week ago. No brainer.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...egations-resurface-in-case-of-lost-plane.html

you do not know that for a fact yet. Too many unknowns still.

 

[OCGuy]

Dave, have you ever started a thread where the title doesn't end up being completely false?

 

[fallenangel99]

This guy has an interesting theory...http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/

Did Flight 370 follow another plane?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

It was a terrorist act, exactly as I called over a week ago. No brainer.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...egations-resurface-in-case-of-lost-plane.html

Actually I very much doubt it was a terrorist act. If it were, presumably the group who carried it out would have taken responsibility by now. It doesn't fulfill any terrorist objective to take out a plane and leave it completely unclear what happened.

 

[bshole]

Actually I very much doubt it was a terrorist act. If it were, presumably the group who carried it out would have taken responsibility by now. It doesn't fulfill any terrorist objective to take out a plane and leave it completely unclear what happened.

Don, how do you know that the jet isn't being equipped for a terrorist attack at this very moment? I suspect they want to use the jet in 911 style attack. It would make a great weapon.

 

[dphantom]

Don, how do you know that the jet isn't being equipped for a terrorist attack at this very moment? I suspect they want to use the jet in 911 style attack. It would make a great weapon.

we don't and neither do you. To say it was a terrorist act is simply not true until we know more. You make it sound like fact when in actuality it is simply you guessing like everyone else right now.

 

[bshole]

we don't and neither do you. To say it was a terrorist act is simply not true until we know more. You make it sound like fact when in actuality it is simply you guessing like everyone else right now.

Out of curiousity, what is your guess?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Don, how do you know that the jet isn't being equipped for a terrorist attack at this very moment? I suspect they want to use the jet in 911 style attack. It would make a great weapon.

Obviously I don't know - how could I?

The idea you're proposing is possible, but it seems needlessly complicated to steal a jumbo jet for this purpose when used jumbo jets are readily available for sale. You can buy a jumbo jet for as little as a few hundred thousand dollars. Admittedly a 777 would be much more expensive, but if it's being used as a weapon, there would be no particular benefit to using a state-of-the-art plane.

 

[raildogg]

Can't help. I don't have much to offer the emo community.

Carry on then.

 

[dphantom]

Out of curiousity, what is your guess?

I think at this point, the plane crashed somewhere over water and that it was pilot suicide.

I like the possibility of the pilot or a group hijacking the plane and then flying elsewhere similar to a previous post. That has some credibility too.

But those are my guesses as I said. Tonight, I may have a different one.

 

[Fern]

I don't think much is 'off the table' at this point. Perhaps we can exclude sudden catastrophic failure/bomb.

The one thing that seems consistent to me is that the info released has been wrong, contradictory, incomplete or delayed/suppressed.

And I'm skeptical about the 7 hrs of pings by the ACARS/SATCOM system. So, the plane never got further/closer and this means an arc headed North, or one headed South. You know what else it fits? It fits if the ACARS is not moving.

The plane cannot have flown the northern arc because Pakistan etc didn't report seeing anything? I don't trust Pakistan or their secret service (ISI).

Some of the other countries don't even leave their radar on at night.

------------

Why steal a plane instead of just buying one?

Same reason criminals would rather use a stolen gun. You buy the plane and have some fundy nutjobs crash it. Well, they'll be tracking that plane right back to you.

Think a terrorist, or wanna be terrorist, buying an airliner won't attract attention?

Fern

 

[spidey07]

If they want to use it as a missle I'm sure we could shoot it down before it got close to our airspace.

 

[Balt]

I think at this point, the plane crashed somewhere over water and that it was pilot suicide.

But those are my guesses as I said. Tonight, I may have a different one.

That would be my guess as well. The guy decided he wanted to go out in a way that would create some mystery. Ditched the plane in deep water well off its flight path, hoping it would never be found.

 

[rudder]

Actually I very much doubt it was a terrorist act. If it were, presumably the group who carried it out would have taken responsibility by now. It doesn't fulfill any terrorist objective to take out a plane and leave it completely unclear what happened.

Not necessarily... My theory is the plane was going to be used for an attack. The people hijacking the plane figured people would assume it crashed and sank. After a long wait ... Maybe 6 months to a couple of years the plane would be used in an attack after people forgot about it.

The hijackers knew enough about the avionics to turn off the transponder and acars but did not know enough to climb into the avionics bay and disable other systems. The fact that the plane pinged satellites hours after it was supposed to have disappeared into the ocean... Makes it more difficult to hide the plane now.

 

[compuwiz1]

Grand theft of a very expensive plane anyone? There were also some high value people on board from the tech sector. What is all this worth? I think the reason there has been no call for ransom is because the perps are still working on their list of demands, which is probably enormous. There also could be a huge security & technology breach going on with intellectual property and technology falling into the wrong hands. What was in the cargo holds that might be of value?

This is worth huge money to someone, perhaps billions. Now we just need to find out where it's parked.

 

[PG]

New, simple theory from a pilot:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

The left turn is the key here. Zaharie Ahmad Shah was a very experienced senior captain with 18,000 hours of flight time. We old pilots were drilled to know what is the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us, and airports ahead of us. They’re always in our head. Always. If something happens, you don’t want to be thinking about what are you going to do–you already know what you are going to do. When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer.

Take a look at this airport on Google Earth. The pilot did all the right things. He was confronted by some major event onboard that made him make an immediate turn to the closest, safest airport.

For me, the loss of transponders and communications makes perfect sense in a fire. And there most likely was an electrical fire. In the case of a fire, the first response is to pull the main busses and restore circuits one by one until you have isolated the bad one. If they pulled the busses, the plane would go silent. It probably was a serious event and the flight crew was occupied with controlling the plane and trying to fight the fire. Aviate, navigate, and lastly, communicate is the mantra in such situations.

 

[Genx87]

Even in fire a pilot will let ATC know about it before pulling their electrical. That will at least alert authorities to get the airspace cleared and search and rescue ready. And his example of the Swiss Air DC-10 had them talking with ATC upto the point where the fire was literally in the cockpit. And the only power they pulled was for the cabin.

 

[PG]

Even in fire a pilot will let ATC know about it before pulling their electrical. That will at least alert authorities to get the airspace cleared and search and rescue ready. And his example of the Swiss Air DC-10 had them talking with ATC upto the point where the fire was literally in the cockpit. And the only power they pulled was for the cabin.

The professional pilot already covered that:

"Aviate, navigate, and lastly, communicate is the mantra in such situations. "

 

[PokerGuy]

New, simple theory from a pilot:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

That doesn't seem to jive with the reports that the plane was making computer-programmed turns, not manual turns, and also it doesn't seem to work with the reports that the plane at one point climbed to 40,000 feet and at one point dropped to 5000 feet.

It's a theory, but it doesn't seem to fit the reports so far. Of course the reports might be wrong as well, with all the conflicting information we've seen.....

 

[BUnit1701]

Obviously I don't know - how could I?

The idea you're proposing is possible, but it seems needlessly complicated to steal a jumbo jet for this purpose when used jumbo jets are readily available for sale. You can buy a jumbo jet for as little as a few hundred thousand dollars. Admittedly a 777 would be much more expensive, but if it's being used as a weapon, there would be no particular benefit to using a state-of-the-art plane.

Not to mention that without the cover of having a flight plan, it would be nearly impossible to get the plane to it's target.