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

[Meghan54]

All that shows is how YOU think.


I'll beet your wacky websites think that Obama crashed the planed to get Crimea off the news front, or was it puttin? ohhhhh..hmmmmm.. :whiste:

Can't blame them, really. Where were they in 2008 when Russia "annexed"/invaded the Repub. of Georgia during the Bush admin.? Certainly not blaming Bush for not seeing it coming, which his admin. and the Fox News talking heads said of that invasion.

Remember this? In August 2008, Vladimir Putin invaded the Republic of Georgia while George W. Bush was President of the United States. Where were the "weakness" complaints from Republicans? Well, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer — who has said that in the Ukraine situation Obama's "inaction created a vacuum" and who derided the President's statements on Ukraine as"weak" — said of the Georgia invasion back in 2008, "Well, obviously it's beyond our control. The Russians are advancing. There is nothing that will stop them."

Conservative Heritage Foundation national security staffer Peter Brookes exuded a similar calm in 2008: "There's no easy answer; there's only tough choices... Russia is a tough nut to crack." Apparently when a Democrat is president the situation is much simpler. Last Friday, Brookes explained that the Russian invasion of Crimea is proof that "this administration's policy toward Russia has been a failure." Hmmm....

There's another aspect to this Republican hypocrisy. McCain recently called Obama "the most naïve president in history" because of his foreign policy tactics. And yet it was George W. Bush who famously said, upon meeting Putin, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy, and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul." Did Republicans find him "weak"? "Naïve"?


Hmmmm....but this digresses from the subject at hand, the missing plane. I just hate the politics associated with any discussion about any subject in this forum. One cannot make any statement about anything without the right mouthpieces spewing drivel. Not saying Obama is pure and innocent, but to crap on him when he's doing exactly what the previous administration did in an almost identical situation is simply hypocrisy.

 

[norseamd]

the georgians might have provoked that confrontation with escalating a low intensity conflict with artillery fire

 

[woolfe9998]

I wasn't going to post in the thread, but decided to chime in when I saw AViking's post - just letting him know he wasn't alone in his confusion.

I have nothing against people being interested in this story, more power to ya.

Well that's good, because you apparently spend untold hours of yours days obsessing over criminal cases with underlying events that happened years ago and one single person dead. You'll forgive us for being interested in why a commercial airliner with hundreds of people on it is still whereabouts unknown after 5 days.

The location of the plane is a mystery, but there is zero mystery as to why this is a big story.

 

[rudder]

There's another aspect to this Republican hypocrisy. McCain recently called Obama "the most naïve president in history" because of his foreign policy tactics. And yet it was George W. Bush who famously said, upon meeting Putin, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy, and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul." Did Republicans find him "weak"? "Naïve"?

First off what the hell is Bush doing in a thread about an Malaysian airliner disappearing? Was the disappearance a initiation for George P. Bush into the illuminati or something?

Any if you were negotiating with someone who was not necessarily a friend to your interests... and you were having to make a public statement on that person... would you say what you really feel or would you say something feel good like "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy, and we had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul."

 

[Tweak155]

Stolen from OT thread - life raft found by fisherman, but lost to the bottom of the water:

http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-c...ont-fishermen-find-life-raft-near-pd-1.509222

 

[Saint Nick]

Stolen from OT thread - life raft found by fisherman, but lost to the bottom of the water:

http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-c...ont-fishermen-find-life-raft-near-pd-1.509222

From reddit...

It is confirmed that the body is not one of the passenger. Source is from our local news. http://www.astroawani.com/news/show/mh370-mayat-ditemui-di-selat-melaka-bukan-penumpang-pesawat-yang-hilang-31732
Title: Body found off Malacca Strait is not one of the passengers of the missing plane.
KUALA LUMPUR: The body found off Malacca Strait early this morning is not one of the passengers from MAS airplane flight MH370 which until now is still missing after last contact/detected on last Saturday.
Indonesian Police confirmed the body as Abdi Sasmita, 54 years old, Desa Bangun Sari resident in Serdang, North Sumatera.
Meanwhile, Transportation Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein also confirmed that there is no body found so far.
"There is no body which is connected with MH370 found so far" he said at the press conference at Hotel Sama-Sama, here, today.
Hishamuddin also confirmed an object, a raft which was found by a group of fishermen at Port Dickson is not related to flight MH370.
He added, until now there is no clue found related to the Boeing 777-200 plane owned by MAS.
p/s: sorry for my english
edit: copy and paste my translation (from my comment below) here since its higher.

 

[Fern]

Jeebus, now there are claims debris has been sited and, if so, the plane crashed right where they first thought.

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

Yeah, not certain yet, but looks like this image from a Chinese satellite may be the debris of the missing aircraft.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/12/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[Baasha]

really tragic.. wonder what happened? hmm... spontaneous combustion? lightning? life is precious.. enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[Dulanic]

And things get more interesting... now saying the plane flew for hours after it "crashed" based on possible engine data transmitted. If so.... curious what the goal could be? I mean who has the equipment to refuel and use the plane for something without being noticed further?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[MomentsofSanity]

This event has to be one of the most bizarre incidents I can recall. Whether it be incompetence, intentional withholding of information or what I just don't know what to make of this any more.

I feel for that families not knowing what became of their loved ones. Odd doesn't begin to describe this investigation.

 

[Dulanic]

This event has to be one of the most bizarre incidents I can recall. Whether it be incompetence, intentional withholding of information or what I just don't know what to make of this any more.

I feel for that families not knowing what became of their loved ones. Odd doesn't begin to describe this investigation.

Bizarre prob isn't even the right word anymore. Now the CEO of the airline is calling the reports false and then on top of that a official is now saying the reports that they searched the pilots homes is false too... really? You haven't even checked out the homes of the only people that really could have diverted the plane and possibly turned off the transponders?

I'm not one to toss on a tinfoil hat, but holy shit is someone trying to cover up something about this whole thing. The question is who.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

All this tin foil hatting and speculation is the dumbest thing ever.

I swear, in any accident like this, the official thing for everyone to do should be to shut up, just like NASA during a space accident. Shut and lock the damn doors.

People questioning workers at every turn on unconfirmed reports and shoddy journalism is why ignorance exists.

 

[cyclohexane]

It's rare to find politicians even more inept than American politicians, but Malaysian government definitely showed how corrupt and incompetent they are.

 

[rudder]

And things get more interesting... now saying the plane flew for hours after it "crashed" based on possible engine data transmitted. If so.... curious what the goal could be? I mean who has the equipment to refuel and use the plane for something without being noticed further?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Every airport in the world has a fuel truck. All the nozzles are the same for every jet. So it would not really be that hard to refuel.

I was wondering about this as well. Maybe they would repaint it to say United Airlines colors or something and possibly try to fly it somewhere. Like a plot out of a James Bond movie where the Soviets were planning to smuggle a nuke onto a U.S. base through a Carnival. Maybe something similar say like South Korea and set off a damaging explosion that results in the U.S. being asked to leave South Korea.

Just an out there theory since it would be pretty hard to sneak in an unscheduled international flight into a large city.

And surely by now intelligence services now the details of every person on board. So any nefarious characters would have been flagged by now.

In the absence of a debris field or crash site, the only theories that seems plausible are pilot suicide or hijacking gone wrong. For the suicide part, I would think the affairs of the pilots would have been combed over by now to see if they reveal any troubles that would lead to suicide. There could also be a case where hijackers took control, silenced that plane, but then lost control again (like flight United Flight97) after veering off course and flying for a while.

 

[Darwin333]

Ah, did not know that. I thought it was being tracked on ground radar. So the plane could be anywhere in more than a quarter of the globe if the hijackers either had a pilot on the inside or knew exactly how to shut down everything AND could get in to do so before a message could be sent. Well, not literally anywhere - only where they could make land without being reported on coastal radar, and also where there would be no ships which would report a 777 flying very low. So the hijackers would have to be very organized and very knowledgeable about radar coverage and the plane itself. Doesn't seem too likely. But then, neither did 9/11 before it happened.

I'm no pilot but aren't planes, especially huge ass jumbo jets, far less efficient at lower altitudes so if they DID fly below radar coverage wouldn't it significantly reduce their range?

 

[Darwin333]

This does raise a few questions for me....

First, why does the pilot need the ability to turn the transponder off? If he doesn't need it, why does he have it?

Second, the "black box" seems rather shitty considering todays technology. Surely there is a better way to make it much easier to find, transmit data during flight or after some event or a combination of the two. Hell I bet I could hire some Indian programmers to make a program that would have the black box send at the very least its GPS coordinates when an impact occurs or all the systems die at once or severe loss of altitude etc...

It just seems silly that with todays tech we have no idea where the hell a huge and highly sophisticated plane, that no one ever wants to lose, is.

 

[Gunslinger08]

There are really only two possible final outcomes: the plane crashed or it was hijacked and taken somewhere. To me, a successful hijacking seems extremely unlikely.

Hijackings are generally only done for 2 reasons: terrorism or money. Both of these groups like to claim responsibility (to produce fear or to get ransom) and yet we haven't heard a peep yet. Therefore, I rule out a successful hijacking.

The plane has crashed. It's really impossible to know why it crashed until we find the wreckage. It seems like we have almost no idea where the wreckage is, so who knows if we'll ever find it. This means all we can do is speculate. These are the leading possibilities for the cause I've heard:

- Terrorism: I think this probably didn't happen. Generally, these people want attention. Nobody has claimed responsibility and nobody is really terrorized.

- Failed hijacking: This is possible. These people want money, but they can't demand it until they have control. Maybe they fought for control of the plane (and maybe even got it), but crashed anyway. The disabled transponder and stolen passports are really the only things that support this. The passports seem like a non-issue to various governments/agencies and the disabled transponder has other explanations. I don't think it was a hijacking.

- Pilot error: They weren't at a low altitude, so the pilot would have been able to relay their rapid descent before crashing. It's probably not common for pilot error to kill comms.

- Mechanical failure: The most likely cause. The most compelling argument I've heard is about a known vulnerability in the fuselage near the comms. My guess is that this part of the fuselage failed and comms were destroyed/disabled. This failure in the fuselage caused decompression, which left the pilots unconscious. The fuselage continued to break up and the plane crashed.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Herp-der-derpa-derp,... terrorists,... der-derp-derpa-der.

 

[Jaskalas]

- Mechanical failure: The most likely cause. The most compelling argument I've heard is about a known vulnerability in the fuselage near the comms. My guess is that this part of the fuselage failed and comms were destroyed/disabled. This failure in the fuselage caused decompression, which left the pilots unconscious. The fuselage continued to break up and the plane crashed.

With 150-200 feet of water surrounding that region, you'd think we'd have a fairly easy time of finding the debris and black boxes.

 

[werepossum]

I'm no pilot but aren't planes, especially huge ass jumbo jets, far less efficient at lower altitudes so if they DID fly below radar coverage wouldn't it significantly reduce their range?

The degree would vary with the aircraft and I can't quantify it, but yes. Planes can fly much further at high altitude due to thin air having less friction, as long as the engines operate near as efficient. I can actually remember getting that question in college, but as the relative coefficients of friction and engine efficiencies were furnished it didn't really teach me anything useful except that principle. I think that all jet engines are as efficient at high altitude, unlike prop planes, some of which in WWII burned more fuel at high altitude. If memory serves, this was due to supercharger inefficiencies at high altitude. But even prop planes would go high and lean the mixture to eke out more miles, so I think the rule applies across the board with some few specific caveats. Either way it certainly applied to jet airliners which are designed to cruise at high altitude. Even little hops like Chattanooga to Atlanta they climb to maybe 25,000 ft.

With 150-200 feet of water surrounding that region, you'd think we'd have a fairly easy time of finding the debris and black boxes.

That's assuming the Malaysian military primary radar echos are false. If it reversed course as reported, then it could be in very deep water. Or in Somalia or maybe Yemen. I've heard Pakistan, but I have a hard time believing that one. I suspect (though I don't know) that due to Darwin's point the plane probably did not have enough fuel to make land without showing up on radar, especially given the proximity to India.

 

[rudder]

This does raise a few questions for me....

First, why does the pilot need the ability to turn the transponder off? If he doesn't need it, why does he have it?

Second, the "black box" seems rather shitty considering todays technology. Surely there is a better way to make it much easier to find, transmit data during flight or after some event or a combination of the two. Hell I bet I could hire some Indian programmers to make a program that would have the black box send at the very least its GPS coordinates when an impact occurs or all the systems die at once or severe loss of altitude etc...

It just seems silly that with todays tech we have no idea where the hell a huge and highly sophisticated plane, that no one ever wants to lose, is.

Even if you took away the on/off switches from the transponder, pilots still have access to circuit breakers. Plus there may be the need to power it off it the transponder starts transmitting some erroneous data and messing up ATC.

The second question is answered by money. Doing satellite updates would cost a lot of money to get a system in place for something that is an extremely rare event. I am sure it is coming withing a few years though,

 

[OutHouse]

UFO abduction.

 

[Fern]

UFO abduction.

Or, hit by a large asteroid/meteorite that vaporized it.

Or, it was simply repo'd.

Fern

 

[Jaskalas]

That's assuming the Malaysian military primary radar echos are false. If it reversed course as reported...

I was addressing the point of mechanical failure and crashing.

As for any media reports, much of them are contradictory and thus false. We have no idea what really happened.