Missing 777

#51
truth said:
Thus far, to me, this seems to be the most likely scenario...

EXCLUSIVE: Did MH370 crew succumb to fire catastrophe? | Air Traffic Management | Air Traffic Management - ATM and CMS Industry online, the latest air traffic control industry, CAA, ANSP, SESAR and NEXTGEN news, events, supplier directory and magazin
Click to expand...

I have to think that if it crashed and burned it would have been found by now. Lots and Lots of piece of an airplane will float. Human bodies will float for awhile more so in saltwater. The latest today is that My ( and others) theory can't be ruled out but the experts can't see how you would hide the plane. Man these people are stupid and lack "thinking outside the box". No wonder 9-11 happened.

I don't think the plane is in the middle of the Australian Outback, or in the middle of the Desert. Fly the plane to a major airport, if possible reprogram the transponder to mimic another flight to keep from raising too much suspicion, land and park it in a hanger. It would only take a few dedicated radicals and if state sponsored (Iran) would be easier to pull off than anyone would like to believe. The "experts" also state that to use it for nefarious acts would require it to be refueled. No shit, hence the reason an airport is the most likely place.

As for the climb to 45,000 that could have been to take out the passengers as many have thought or what if that was the "struggle" in the cockpit.

The experts claim that it should have been picked up (in flight) by spy satellites. Really the world has enough satellites to watch all the troubled areas that need to be monitored 24/7 that they can just follow commercial jets around. Just like 9-11 it can't be possible because we can't imagine it.

In the two known pilot suicides the plane was crashed fairly quick. Even the experts agree it makes no sense for the plane to have flown for 7 hours if crashing it was the goal.
 
Last edited:
#52
Mystery solved. Next?

well-i-knew-it-was-aliens_c_2957729.jpg
 
#54
Very true, but supposedly it flew over land at low altitude, no international roaming signals, sat phone signal. I would think every passenger that had a phone would be turning it on at least, so that says to me that they were out of the equation already.
 
#60
The whole speculation over the plane reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from the original Carl Sagan’s Cosmos where he references the early ‘scientific’ observations of Venus (some of which were actually recorded in the scientific journals of the 18th and 19th centuries. Said Sagan:

“The absence of anything to see on Venus led some scientists to curious conclusions that the surface [of Venus] was a swamp, like the Earth in the Carboniferous Period. The argument – if we can dignify it by such a word – went something like this:

“I can’t see a thing on Venus.”

“Why not?”

“Because it’s totally covered with clouds.”

“What are the clouds made of?”

“Water, of course.”

“Then why are the clouds of Venus thicker than the clouds on Earth?”

“Because there’s more water there.”

“But if there is more water in the clouds, there must be more water on the surface. What kind of surfaces are very wet?”

“Swamps.”

“And if there are swamps, why not cyacads and dragonflies and perhaps even dinosaurs on Venus?

Observation: There was absolutely nothing to see on Venus. Conclusion: It must be covered with life. The featureless clouds of Venus reflected our own predispositions. We are alive, and we resonate with the idea of life elsewhere. But only careful accumulation and assessment of the evidence can tell us whether a given world is inhabited . Venus turns out not to oblige our predispositions.”

That quote always resonated with me as I look at conclusions that sometimes don’t seem to match the available evidence.

I tend to be a big believer in Occam's razor... and a crash (even of a hijacked plane) seems to me to be the simplest explanation. While it's a big plane, it's a really big piece of the planet in which it disappeared.

One thing that I have not seen noted is that before 9-11, passengers and flight crew were more or less 'programmed' with the idea that in the event of a hijacking, allow the plane to land and then negotiations will begin, etc. Now, passengers must assume that a hijacking will result in a crash or in the plane being used as a cruise missile. So are likely to go on the offensive against hijackers, perhaps resulting in a crash... I have a hard time believing that the cabin could have been de-pressurized or O2 starved... and that it could have been done without reaction from passengers? Incapacitating 250 passengers all at once is a pretty tall order, especially if it has to be done without them realizing anything is wrong.

Anyway, just my bloviating... which means about as much as anything else right now until we get more info... and that's not much.

That said, I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion and will be hijacking those Gilligans Island picture... classic.

Cheers,

Sirhr
 
#62
sirhrmechanic said:
The whole speculation over the plane reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from the original Carl Sagan’s Cosmos where he references the early ‘scientific’ observations of Venus (some of which were actually recorded in the scientific journals of the 18th and 19th centuries. Said Sagan:

“The absence of anything to see on Venus led some scientists to curious conclusions that the surface [of Venus] was a swamp, like the Earth in the Carboniferous Period. The argument – if we can dignify it by such a word – went something like this:

“I can’t see a thing on Venus.”

“Why not?”

“Because it’s totally covered with clouds.”

“What are the clouds made of?”

“Water, of course.”

“Then why are the clouds of Venus thicker than the clouds on Earth?”

“Because there’s more water there.”

“But if there is more water in the clouds, there must be more water on the surface. What kind of surfaces are very wet?”

“Swamps.”

“And if there are swamps, why not cyacads and dragonflies and perhaps even dinosaurs on Venus?

Observation: There was absolutely nothing to see on Venus. Conclusion: It must be covered with life. The featureless clouds of Venus reflected our own predispositions. We are alive, and we resonate with the idea of life elsewhere. But only careful accumulation and assessment of the evidence can tell us whether a given world is inhabited . Venus turns out not to oblige our predispositions.”

That quote always resonated with me as I look at conclusions that sometimes don’t seem to match the available evidence.

I tend to be a big believer in Occam's razor... and a crash (even of a hijacked plane) seems to me to be the simplest explanation. While it's a big plane, it's a really big piece of the planet in which it disappeared.

One thing that I have not seen noted is that before 9-11, passengers and flight crew were more or less 'programmed' with the idea that in the event of a hijacking, allow the plane to land and then negotiations will begin, etc. Now, passengers must assume that a hijacking will result in a crash or in the plane being used as a cruise missile. So are likely to go on the offensive against hijackers, perhaps resulting in a crash... I have a hard time believing that the cabin could have been de-pressurized or O2 starved... and that it could have been done without reaction from passengers? Incapacitating 250 passengers all at once is a pretty tall order, especially if it has to be done without them realizing anything is wrong.

Anyway, just my bloviating... which means about as much as anything else right now until we get more info... and that's not much.

That said, I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion and will be hijacking those Gilligans Island picture... classic.

Cheers,

Sirhr
Click to expand...

Sirhr,
You make a ton of sense and are keeping me grounded (I try to not get to far into the conspiracy theory). The fact is it a big area/planet.
 
#63
2ndamendfan said:
Plane should have had at least 2hrs of extra fuel, at 500 mph equals the original statement of 3500 miles.
Click to expand...

2Hrs reserve fuel? Maybe 30 years ago, when Jet A1 wasn't $400 a tonne.

These days, reserve fuel for, lets just say a MAJOR international airline, is 15min at 1500' at the PLANNED landing weight at the planned destination airport.
Contingency fuel will be dependent upon the destination, but lets just say around 4 tonnes.

This means that landing at home base for me means planned to land with 8 tonnes of gas. That's around 40min to DRY tanks. On my A/c. But the 777 will also be planned to land with only 40min to dry tanks. The quantity of fuel will be correspondingly less.

Sorry, but that's the facts of the matter.
 
#64
truth said:
Thus far, to me, this seems to be the most likely scenario...

EXCLUSIVE: Did MH370 crew succumb to fire catastrophe? | Air Traffic Management | Air Traffic Management - ATM and CMS Industry online, the latest air traffic control industry, CAA, ANSP, SESAR and NEXTGEN news, events, supplier directory and magazin
Click to expand...

This is a really good article.

It would be really interesting to see the cargo manifest. I like this theory. My money is on LIPO batteries.

Don't ask in open comms. And if you pm me, DON'T quote me.

N
 
#65
jrassy said:
Very true, but supposedly it flew over land at low altitude, no international roaming signals, sat phone signal. I would think every passenger that had a phone would be turning it on at least, so that says to me that they were out of the equation already.
Click to expand...

Usually the phone picks up a cell at around 6000', can be very embarrassing when you get a message from the dark side just as you're lining up on the ILS!

N
 
#66
aqualung said:
2Hrs reserve fuel? Maybe 30 years ago, when Jet A1 wasn't $400 a tonne.

These days, reserve fuel for, lets just say a MAJOR international airline, is 15min at 1500' at the PLANNED landing weight at the planned destination airport.
Contingency fuel will be dependent upon the destination, but lets just say around 4 tonnes.

This means that landing at home base for me means planned to land with 8 tonnes of gas. That's around 40min to DRY tanks. On my A/c. But the 777 will also be planned to land with only 40min to dry tanks. The quantity of fuel will be correspondingly less.

Sorry, but that's the facts of the matter.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% the facts do matter and at this point the reported facts are, the plane took off at 12:41 local time (scheduled to arrive in Beijing at 6:30am)-last known satellite transmission/reception was at 8:11 am. 6 1/2 hrs of flight or 1hr 40 mins over scheduled flight time. Using some time/distance math from the one satellite is how they have come up with the two arcs of possible location, can't get an exact location with only one satellite.

So as it is currently being reported, the facts support 3500 mile range. As originally reported.
 
#68
2ndamendfan said:
Hell yea, anything is plausible right now.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, NO.

The writer of that piece is not a commercial pilot. He clearly doesn't understand the limitations of TCAS, the difficulty of SEEING another a/c (It's a BIG sky!) and the difficulty of finding then formating on that a/c.

Ask any military pilot, formation flying is not easy, and it requires a lot of throttle jockeying, which burns fuel, thus reducing the available range.

Interesting theory though.

But it doesn't satisfy MY Occams razor...

N
 
#69
aqualung said:
Well, actually, NO.

The writer of that piece is not a commercial pilot. He clearly doesn't understand the limitations of TCAS, the difficulty of SEEING another a/c (It's a BIG sky!) and the difficulty of finding then formating on that a/c.

Ask any military pilot, formation flying is not easy, and it requires a lot of throttle jockeying, which burns fuel, thus reducing the available range.

Interesting theory though.

But it doesn't satisfy MY Occams razor...

N
Click to expand...


I didn't say it was likely, just plausible. While reading, the article I was thinking that it would have had to be a Blue Angel or Thunderbird pilot to pull that one off.
 
#70
Its a lot easier to see planes in the big sky at night.

But yeah, that's the stuff of Clancy novels...banking on the flight you want to spoof being on time, let alone all the other technical issues at play...
 
#71
Serious question to all of those that keep saying, 'it was stolen so that it can be filled with bombs, a nuke, elephant poop, whatever and attack Israel or the US'.

What would be MORE OBVIOUS than a large plane, without a registered flight plan and no signal or transmitting the signal of the missing flight flying around? it would have to pass through how many different air-spaces?? What would this achieve?

The only thing I can ever come up with in this scenario, and its a stretch, is that they then 'swap' this now bomb filled plane's signal/tail number/whatever ID they use with a regular plane (so then what happens to the regular plane??), manage to slide it through on the normal flight plan and then scream SURPRISE! at the end.
 
#72
CMH said:
So...if you are rerouted more than 40 minutes of flight time away from your original destination it is goodnight Gracie?
Click to expand...

Well, no, but going into Houston one dark and stormy night, having been re-routed down the Eastern seaboard instead of overland, we were EXTREMELY short of gas.

1 approach, then a "MAYDAY" if we went around, low fuel state QRH, and radar vectors by the shortest possible route to San Antonio for a straight in approach...

We got into IAH, but my arse was going 'sixpence/half a crown!'

I wasn't including 'Diversion' fuel, which you can use if you commit to destination.

The cost of fuel means that fuel planning is done with VERY sharp pencils these days.

If fuel looks like it's going to be short, you start looking at 'plan B' and divert to somewhere else...
 
#75
it is becoming obvious that one or more of the flight crew was involved. they wanted to throw off searchers for as long as they could. no ransom, no sightings. it seems like one of the pilots is trying to prove he can make a plane disappear and is smarter than the system
 
#76
truth said:
A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet | Autopia | Wired.com
Click to expand...
The nose gear has no brake, they're the lightest-loaded tires on the a/c, the nose gear wheel well is outside of the pressure vessel and the pressure vessel is rated to withstand fire for 20 minutes. The lone instance he can cite of a tire fire bringing down a commercial flight was a main gear tire fire, not a nose gear tire fire. Even if this did happen to be the first front wheel fire in the history of commercial aviation, unless both pilots were busy banging flight attendants, it still is highly improbable that smoke from the front wheel well could sneak up on and incapacitate the crew before they could get off a distress call.



Most likely, one of the flight deck crewmen went jihad and tried to seize control of the a/c, but the other pilot fought back. The dance floor in the cockpit of an airliner is pretty damned small, and while they were playing grab-ass, they fell across the center console and onto the throttle quadrant, advancing the power levers. Either the a/c was being hand-flown at the time or in their scuffling on the center console, they inadvertently commanded or otherwise caused the autopilot to disengage. When you increase the power on an airplane trimmed for level flight, the nose will pitch up. Now they are at a high power setting with the nose pitched up, autopilot off, flying purely off of trim, climbing like a raped ape. And still playing grab-ass. By the time the second pilot was subdued, the a/c already was above its service ceiling. The jihadi regained control of the a/c, flew until it was very low on fuel, then he firewalled that bitch and flew her 0° nose low into the ocean, striking the water at more than 600 knots. The impact was so violent, not a piece of aluminum larger than a gum wrapper was left. Because it was nearly out of fuel, there was no fuel slick.


They'll find Jimmy Hoffa is alive and well and posing as America's first black president before they find the remains of this airplane.
 
Last edited:
#78
TheGerman said:
Serious question to all of those that keep saying, 'it was stolen so that it can be filled with bombs, a nuke, elephant poop, whatever and attack Israel or the US'.

What would be MORE OBVIOUS than a large plane, without a registered flight plan and no signal or transmitting the signal of the missing flight flying around? it would have to pass through how many different air-spaces?? What would this achieve?

The only thing I can ever come up with in this scenario, and its a stretch, is that they then 'swap' this now bomb filled plane's signal/tail number/whatever ID they use with a regular plane (so then what happens to the regular plane??), manage to slide it through on the normal flight plan and then scream SURPRISE! at the end.
Click to expand...

Here is my idea. Starts with a question though.

What does it take to schedule a new flight? Let us say that Delta airlines decides that they need another flight from Salt lake City to Hawaii because the current one a day flight is over booked on a regular basis. Do they just come out and say we have a new flight or is there paper work to file with the FAA?

Now remember that the whole world is not run like the USA. So lets say in 6 months Iran air (state run) announces a new flight to Lebanon because there is demand(so they claim). Muslim country to Muslim country no one will think anything of it. Until at the last second on it's way to Lebanon it makes a hard left turn. They whole time it will have transponder and everything looking like a real flight.

If any new flights are scheduled in say 3-6 months, someone should ask "where did that aircraft come from".

Look I understand that this is all WAG, and speculation. I personally like the fire idea, although I would think that the pilots could have got one "MAYDAY" off with all the redundant systems but who knows.
 
Last edited:
#79
Fred_C_Dobbs said:
Most likely, one of the flight deck crewmen went jihad and tried to seize control of the a/c, but the other pilot fought back. The dance floor in the cockpit of an airliner is pretty damned small, and while they were playing grab-ass, they fell across the center console and onto the throttle quadrant, advancing the power levers. Either the a/c was being hand-flown at the time or in their scuffling on the center console, they inadvertently commanded or otherwise caused the autopilot to disengage. When you increase the power on an airplane trimmed for level flight, the nose will pitch up. Now they are at a high power setting with the nose pitched up, autopilot off, flying purely off of trim, climbing like a raped ape. And still playing grab-ass. By the time the second pilot was subdued, the a/c already was above its service ceiling. The jihadi regained control of the a/c, flew until it was very low on fuel, then he firewalled that bitch and flew her 0° nose low into the ocean, striking the water at more than 600 knots. The impact was so violent, not a piece of aluminum larger than a gum wrapper was left. Because it was nearly out of fuel, there was no fuel slick.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. The purpose of a terrorist act is to draw as much attention to your cause as possible by inciting fear either 9/11 style by turning the a/c into a missile while fully loaded with fuel or Iran hostage style by capturing innocents and holding them for the world to see. Why would they fly the plane in silence until it was out of fuel and then vaporize it into the water at max speed leaving only questions and mystery?
 
#80
truth said:
Why would they fly the plane in silence until it was out of fuel and then vaporize it into the water at max speed leaving only questions and mystery?
Click to expand...

It's an interesting thought, but if one thinks of this event as a giant denial of service attack perpetrated against the whole world... not knowing is what is causing massive resources to have to deal with the event. A DoS attack may be a 'computer' term these days, but one can be run just as easily against a population w.out using a computer... And is, at its heart, a core principle of psychological warfare.

The interesting point is that whether it is an act of terror or an accident, the effect is the same. Why claim credit when we're spinning way more wheels "not" knowing than we would be spinning if we knew...

Cheers,

Sirhr
 
#81
If this was a terrorist act----where's the manifesto, where's the suicide note, where's the jihad Youtube video??

My only guess is that this terrorist act is still ongoing. Meaning, we haven't seen the "big boom" yet. This may be a whole new world of terrorism.
 
#83
Reminds me of The Lord of the Rings. Creating a big distraction makes the "all seeing eye" look elswhere so you can preform the real opertion without being watched.
 
#87
Looks like it may be off the coast of Australia. If so then my idea of stealing it and using it as a weapon would be wrong. Which is fine. I think a fire could be low on the list now also, be hard for a plane on fire to fly 3500 miles (3200 since last radio contact). Have to wonder about the passengers. If and how they where subdued. Other than the turns the plane made it almost looks like a Payne Stewart kind of thing. Flight recorder could be 5+ hrs of silence.
 
Last edited:
#88
More a question than anything else... but don't we still have a SOSUS system? Don't submarine sonar receivers have much more capability when it comes to listening for pinging black boxes... than satellites looking at wave tops for debris? Would the sound of a plane hitting the ocean not create an event on an underwater sensor system? One that could be triangulated?

I mean, the amount of stuff washed out to sea just after the Japanese Earthquake/tsunami a few years ago would make me think that there is so much debris out there that the odds of finding plane parts are miniscule... any debris would be needles in a floating stack of needles?

On the other hand, large objects hitting water make noise... and the beacon sounds (I assume they have audible as well as radio signals???) would be much easier to pick up using underwater sensors, wouldn't they? Anyone know?

Ok you former U-Boat commanders... what are your thoughts? I'd think that a submarine would be far more useful right now than an aircraft.

Cheers,

Sirhr
 
#89
sirhrmechanic said:
More a question than anything else... but don't we still have a SOSUS system? Don't submarine sonar receivers have much more capability when it comes to listening for pinging black boxes... than satellites looking at wave tops for debris? Would the sound of a plane hitting the ocean not create an event on an underwater sensor system? One that could be triangulated?

I mean, the amount of stuff washed out to sea just after the Japanese Earthquake/tsunami a few years ago would make me think that there is so much debris out there that the odds of finding plane parts are miniscule... any debris would be needles in a floating stack of needles?

On the other hand, large objects hitting water make noise... and the beacon sounds (I assume they have audible as well as radio signals???) would be much easier to pick up using underwater sensors, wouldn't they? Anyone know?

Ok you former U-Boat commanders... what are your thoughts? I'd think that a submarine would be far more useful right now than an aircraft.

Cheers,

Sirhr
Click to expand...


Probably a valid thought but "if" the capability is there I wonder if the gov would be willing to reveal it.

Seems like every country out there is holding cards close to the chest either to conceal their fuck ups or their abilities.
 
#91
Maybe this has been discussed before. I didn't read all the posts.
The plane's auto pilot is GPS operated so why couldn't the NSA, or whoever operates the GPS system track it by the GPS satellite ID? If the NSA can turn on the GPS on my phone even if I turn it off how could they not be able to do the same with a multi-billion $ aircraft?
 
#94
And yet again the Malaysian government is saying "WE HAVE SOLVED THE MYSTERY" for what, the 18th time. Please. Find the damn thing first and then you can figure out what happened.
 
#96
The whole flight trajectory that would've placed them in the southern Indian Ocean doesn't make sense. There was nowhere in that area to land, and if crashing the jet was the goal, that could've been done anywhere.
 
#97
gimpy said:
The whole flight trajectory that would've placed them in the southern Indian Ocean doesn't make sense. There was nowhere in that area to land, and if crashing the jet was the goal, that could've been done anywhere.
Click to expand...

Couple thousand miles west/southwest of Perth is a bang-up location if the goal is to hamper or prevent recovery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PatMiles
Israeli Combat Engineers Begin to Tackle Hamas Tunnel Network
Replies
35
Views
2K
Big Phish
Big Phish
lash
What is Decivilization?
Replies
51
Views
2K
sirhrmechanic
sirhrmechanic
Bender
The last hope, Brunson v. Adams
Replies
62
Views
4K
SilentStalkr
SilentStalkr
Maggot
Si Speigel
Replies
3
Views
1K
lonegunman762x51
lonegunman762x51
Milf Dots
$15 million bounty on Iranian officer who killed 5 U.S. soldiers
Replies
28
Views
1K
Mr.BR
Mr.BR
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts