Beijing-bound MAS plane carrying 239 people missing as of 20 mins ago.

I agree with some of the posts on here that there may have been a fire/decompression that incapacitated everyone, including the flight crew, very quickly. There may have not been enough time to don oxygen masks, much less get off a distress signal. While it may have asphyxiated everyone, the autopilot continued to work. When the plane ran out of fuel, it crashed in the Indian Ocean. What remains of it is likely sitting on the very bottom of the ocean. There has been another large piece of debris found about 120 miles from where they have been searching recently. I think the fire could have impacted the transponder too, explaining why that wasn't on. This may sound far fetched, but I don't believe it is any more far fetched than some of the other theories that have been going on regarding this.

Of course, nobody knows, as there has been nothing found as of this point. It's all guessing until they start finding parts of the plane. I'm open minded as anyone, but I simply cannot accept that a large plane with over 200 passengers and crew can just vanish into thin air. That would be totally against the law of physics.

reply to post by sy.gunson


Ok...so if he didnt see the plane burning or whatever then why is his reported sighting listed as pertaining to flight 777? The implication is pretty clear.

Here is his exact quote:

"Gentlemen. I believe I saw the Malaysian Airlines flight come down. The timing is right. I tried to contact Malaysian and Vietnamese officials several days ago. But I do not know if the message has been received," he wrote last week. "I observed the plane burning at high altitude at a compass bearing of 265 to 275 degrees from our surface location.

He saw the plane "come down", he saw the plane burning at high altitude...ok, no explosion per se. Burning and coming down is sufficient for me.

Besides...my point was that eye-witness reports are unreliable. Not that I believed he actually saw 777 come down. Perhaps he did, perhaps he saw a meteor burning in the night sky. There is no way he could actually confirm that it was a plane. I guess we will know once the wreckage is found, since his rig is no where near where they are currently searching.

reply to post by sy.gunson

Nobody either myself or Mike McKay suggested an engine exploded... You made that claim. Not me.

Umm..I didn't say the engine exploded either. What I said was that his report of the "crash" was contradicted by the pings from the engines indicating continued operation. IF the plane went down when and where he said the engines would not have continued pinging hourly after the plane crashed since they would not have been operating any longer.

qmantoo

Me too...the rare times a plane has been held with passengers it was very public. Makes no sense that someone would go through all that trouble and not make sure the world didn't know what was going on.

Except that IF there was something interesting in the hold, then it would be worth far more than you would get from governments for the folks on board, so you might as well just take all of it and discard what you dont need. Yes, thats harsh and heartless to say, but may be what happened. Plus you would undoubtedly get a bunch of SAS guys coming along to take you out if you did a normal hijack.

As others have already said, IF the valuable cargo idea is even a remote possibility, then it may explain why so many governments are making so much effort and sending so many planes/ships into the search areas.

edit on 22 Mar 2014 by qmantoo because: (no reason given)

Sorry, but I find the idea of valuable cargo, such as what is suggested, having been shipped on a commercial passenger jet to be rather preposterous.

Not saying that they never carry cargo, but rather if the cargo were that pricey it would not have been shipped via passenger jet. That type of shipment is like: omg I gotta have it asap and will pay whatever to get it now...not: I have something of incredible value that I will entrust a passenger airline with, knowing they routinely lose luggage....

What is the latest story about the lithium-ion batteries in the cargo hold? Is that true? If it is that could be what Malaysian Air is trying to keep secret as the cause of the loss. If you Google Chinese-made lithium-ion battery recalls, you will see many pages of results. Also the FAA prohibited those batteries as cargo on passenger airliners. The 2010 UPS Cargo 747 that crashed in Dubai was supposedly caused by a large amount of lithium-ion batteries on board. I don't know if that was the actual cause, because there was a terror affiliate of Al-Qaeda that claimed a bomb was the cause of the fire. A lot of these battery recalls are the ones used in laptops too. I think Malaysian Air was shipping these defective batteries back to China, not mangosteens.

UPS 747 Crash Highlights Lithium Battery Danger

Accident investigators have traced a fire that destroyed a UPS Boeing 747 in the United Arab Emirates in 2010 to the lithium batteries being carried in the cargo hold. Unless something is done to prevent similar disasters, the FAA now says such crashes are all but inevitable in the future. Read more at www.flyingmag.com...

www.flyingmag.com...

As of September 8, 2010, the GCAA and UPS did not comment on the progress of the investigation.[17] According to Associated Press sources, people familiar with the investigation said that the fire may have started in the cargo compartment. The investigators are checking the cargo to determine what was loaded on the aircraft.[18] On September 8, 2010 the head of the GCAA, director general Saif al Suwaidi, said that it was too early to determine exactly what the cause of the crash was.[19] The investigation revived safety concerns about the effects of smoke in the cockpit. The crash also revived concerns over whether smoke hoods should be allowed in the cockpit.[20] Prior to the crash of UPS Flight 6, debate over whether manufacturers and regulators had been doing enough to prevent airborne fires had occurred.[21] Around the time of the crash, the National Transportation Safety Board had asked the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to install automatic fire extinguisher systems in the holds of cargo aircraft. UPS Airlines followed FAA regulations, which stated that pilots should depressurize the main cabin and climb to an altitude of at least 20,000 feet (6,100 m) upon detection of a fire so as to deprive the flames of oxygen.[22] On September 23, 2010, the GCAA reported that 100% of the material contained in the Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder was successfully downloaded by the NTSB and that the data was being analyzed.[23] In October 2010, Boeing announced that fire indication checklists were to be modified to instruct pilots that at least one of the three air conditioning systems must be left in operation in order to prevent excessive smoke accumulation on the flight deck.[24] In November 2010, a U.S. government official said that investigators so far had not found any connections to terrorism in regards to the crash.[25] On November 5, 2010, Al Qaeda's Yemen wing, the Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, took responsibility for Flight 6's crash as part of the 2010 cargo plane bomb plot.

en.wikipedia.org...

Just as a reminder...

The one piece of definitive evidence we do have is the very heart of all of this:

THE PLANE TURNED AROUND BEFORE THE FINAL VOICE TRANSMISSION.

That is why this whole thing stinks to high heaven.

bbracken677

The engines were pinging satellites during their operation. Wouldn't happen if the plane was not flying. These pings are separate from the ACARS transmitted info.

That is not true. Th RR data on that plane went through ACARS, which was not working. The pings were the sat doing keep alive on the connection in case the plane was going to send data. No data was sent.

The recent reports of the possibility of the flight being sabotaged during the gap in ATC contact sounds feasible to me. From then on who knows the possible scenarios, it could have flown elsewhere as the sat pings suggest, and could still be there.

en.wikipedia.org...

Inmarsat said that "routine, automated signals were registered" on its network,[32] although a company executive did add that "keep-alive message[s]" continued to be sent after air traffic control first lost contact and that these "ping signals" could be analysed to help estimate the aircraft's location.[33]

On 14 March, The Independent stated, based on the continued pinging by the aircraft, that it could not have disintegrated in mid-flight or had other sudden catastrophic occurrence: "all signals – the pings to the satellite, the data messages and the transponder – would be expected to stop at the same time".[16] A call for transponders to be automated and not arbitrarily controlled by humans gained momentum after the attacks of 11 September 2001, when three of the hijacked aircraft had their transponders switched off.[34] However, no changes were made as aviation experts opted for a flexible control, believing that transponders may need to be reset in case of a malfunction or an electrical emergency.[34]

On 17 March, The New York Times, citing "senior American officials," said that the scheduled flight path was pre-programmed to unspecified western coordinates through the flight management system before the ACARS stopped functioning,[48] and a new waypoint "far off the path to Beijing" was added.[48] With such a reprogramming the aircraft would make a banked turn at a comfortable angle of around 20 degrees and the passengers would not feel anything unusual.[48]

ltinycdancerg
...The one piece of definitive evidence we do have is the very heart of all of this:

THE PLANE TURNED AROUND BEFORE THE FINAL VOICE TRANSMISSION.

...

That is true...if the 'definitive evidence' is, in fact, true.
I know it was claimed as 'authoritative' (12 minutes into turn before "Alright, Good Night"), but, so many authoritative evidences seem to have been overridden by other authoritative evidences, that...I no longer believe ANY authoritative evidences coming forth (or that have come forth).
Just measure & compare each one against the ever-growing pile of puzzle pieces...to see if they belong with this...puzzle.

reply to post by WanDash


I concur.
Never has so much rested on the utterance of "all right, goodnight"

This "turn around" are we reffering to the right turn at the time the transponder went down from 25 degrees to 40 degrees?

It does seem a coincidence that these events happened at this exact time -

WanDash

ltinycdancerg
...The one piece of definitive evidence we do have is the very heart of all of this:

THE PLANE TURNED AROUND BEFORE THE FINAL VOICE TRANSMISSION.

...

That is true...if the 'definitive evidence' is, in fact, true.
I know it was claimed as 'authoritative' (12 minutes into turn before "Alright, Good Night"), but, so many authoritative evidences seem to have been overridden by other authoritative evidences, that...I no longer believe ANY authoritative evidences coming forth (or that have come forth).
Just measure & compare each one against the ever-growing pile of puzzle pieces...to see if they belong with this...puzzle.

Given the totally inept Malaysian govt's interpretation of data, information provided (they have no clue how to handle the press, given that there is no free press in Malaysia) there is no wonder that no one trusts the information provided so far as absolute. The sequence of events and timing have been reversed several times, so who knows?

It would be a whole different ball game if, indeed, the handover good night message was issued after the turn was made.

UKGuy1805
This "turn around" are we reffering to the right turn at the time the transponder went down from 25 degrees to 40 degrees?

It does seem a coincidence that these events happened at this exact time -

I believe the right turn was standard, it was the left turn practically reversing course that is the one that is out of procedure and would be explained by whatever theory holds true.

The problem i am having is apart from the only physical al be it internet proof i have in FR24 personaly watching flight 370 vanish of the screen, everything past this is at the mercy of TPB to follow on this to where ever it might go, from the most mundane and purely innocent to a complex web of illusions.

reply to post by bbracken677


Linked to my other post - appart from being told this - where is the proof????

roadgravel
That is not true. Th RR data on that plane went through ACARS, which was not working. The pings were the sat doing keep alive on the connection in case the plane was going to send data. No data was sent.

You beat me to it. All the pings tell is is how long the electrical system operated. As far as I know the electrical system can continue to operate without the engines operating, on the ram-air turbine for example, so we don't really know how long the engines operated after the last "good night" transmission, correct?

en.wikipedia.org...

A ram air turbine –a small retractable propeller which can provide emergency power– is also fitted in the wing root fairing.

I would guess the electrical system could continue returning pings to the satellite on battery power, but I don't know for how long.

CNN is giving an audio example of the black box pinger. I think they are preparing for the impending end of the 30 day lifespan of the pinger signal. Signal will be dead and no hope of finding the plane. In another week they will move on to something else.

The most significant problem I have with the 'in flight' fire (and, if considering sy.gunson's take on it - two explosions affecting the electrical system)...and then trying to accept that the oil rig worker saw a plane on fire 70 km (almost due west of his location) away in a midnight sky, is - we're talking about a fire/explosion that compromised the integrity of the hull (could the rig worker have seen it at such a distance, if it were confined to the cabin or cockpit?).
Such a compromise, imo, would surely affect the fuel efficiency - and, probably, dramatically -- like adding a couple of parachutes (or more) to the equation.
Likewise - while it may be possible, and even stand somewhere in line with good probabilities, that the subsisting hull integrity would remain in tact...for another 5 or 6 (or more) hours of autopilot - it seems that there is a good chance, more damage would have developed, growing more and more critical, as time went on.

*** ATTENTION ***

I'd like to remind everyone to discuss the topic and not each other, and to keep it civil.

Please don't respond to this message.

Not trying to regurgitate anything previously discussed but found this, it's also reported on several msm sites.

Captain receives call 2 minutes before take off from mystery woman.

Link

I don't know how they know so now raises the question, have they been trying to track cell phones?