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

RP2SticksOfDynamite
It is interesting to note now that the last few pages of this thread appear to be suggesting it was all an accident.
Bravo the whole process of confusion/miss info and focus on the south and the IO appears to be working.
This in my opinion was no accident but im no expert, nor am I a blind ignorant gullible fool who believes coincidences are exactly just that!!
Too many C's + logistical anomolies + deflecting actions + the suggested crash location (making BB's non recoverable) = No accident!

But I could be wrong - but I aint!! Whatever the truth!

edit on 25-3-2014 by RP2SticksOfDynamite because: (no reason given)

Don't worry! We know there's a giant hangar at Karachi capable of hiding a 777 on the northern route. We know the Israelis went on high alert for flying 777 bomb and they happen to have an ex-Malaysian 777 (9M-MRI aka N105GT) sitting at Ben Gurion Airport as late as 4/11/2013. Perfect candidate for a false flag attack. GA Telesis has ex-Malaysian 777 (9M-MRK) in Fort Lauderdale, FL also a candidate for a false flag attack.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

And surprise surprise, the US is behind it. Because apparently we're to blame for everything bad that happens, and there are no accidents.

We certainly are not angels. Look at the recent past. Not responsible for everything, but a lot of bad stuff.

reply to post by Mikeultra


Never said we were did I? But of course, a plane goes missing and we shot it down and used our incredible power to hide it. A fly gets killed somewhere and the US did it. I'm just amazed at the incredible powers we have to be able to do all the things we get blamed for.

You know, and I know this is incredibly hard to believe, but sometimes things really are just accidents that take awhile to make sense.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra

 

There is also no proof that TWA 800 was shot down by the Navy. So why should they confess.

So you honestly believe that they're going to be able to shoot the plane down, pick up all the floating debris, somehow block the ELT signals if they went off, move the debris somewhere else without anyone knowing or talking about it, while getting at least two civilian companies to help them cover it up. Just how many people were in on this, a few thousand?

You are way too logical. Everyone knows that every disaster, every news worthy event is some act of conspiracy and/or a false flag event.

Why would you drag things like proof into a perfectly paranoid discussion about false flag conspiracies? There is no room for facts and proof...evidence is hearsay and conjecture obviously.

Zaphod58


But after looking at everything that's been put out, I've gone away from my initial theory of a decompression towards the fire. Fire makes more sense based on the evidence that's been released.

I disagree. When has any aircraft that's had a fire kept flying for so long? On one aircraft I used to fly we were taught that an uncontained fire would take 6 minutes to burn through the main wing spar.

I'm conducting a risk assessment on fire for the airline I work for currently. The industry consensus is that a fire will destroy an aircraft within 14 mins. Aircraft don't have 14 mins worth of fire fighting equipment on board. Some of the extinguishers last between 12-15 secs.

If you've got a fire onboard over Malaysia you do not program anything into the FMS with respect to Australia. You enter nearest suitable DIRECT. Every pilot knows if there's a fire to get it on the ground yesterday. One of the big issues with descending is that you descend into an environment that has more oxygen than the one you just left, hence further feeding the fire.

Angry Chinese are gathering at the Malaysian Embassy in Bejing. ##snipped## They know the official story is a lie!

reply to post by haveblue


And with a limited cockpit fire, similar to the EgyptAir fire, that went out but took the crew out, the aircraft could keep flying. They wouldn't want to go back to Malaysia, because of terrain they'd have to avoid, and possible strong turbulence off it, with unknown structural damage. So program a destination that you can plug in quickly, going in the right direction to get on the ground fast, and turn to fight the fire. They weren't trying to GET to Australia, but wanted to head to the nearest destination with a long runway while they fought the fire.

Yes, standard procedure is to get on the ground fast, but if the crew was overcome fairly quickly then there's no one to get it on the ground. Which means it keeps going until it either comes apart, or runs out of fuel.

Mikeultra
Angry Chinese are gathering at the Malaysian Embassy in Bejing. I hope they are allowed to burn it down. They know the official story is a lie!

So in other words you have already made your mind up that no matter what the black boxes show, what proof is shown, what the facts say that the only outcome is a lie.

Some of that distrust is the inevitable consequence of life in a country where a lot of information given by government officials and media sources cannot be trusted. “Chinese media is highly controlled and much of the information that is given out is done so by the government for government purposes,” said Rod Wye, associate fellow with the Asia Program at London-based think tank, Chatham House. “People are increasingly aware of that and tend to regard official pronouncements with a great deal of skepticism.”

www.nbcnews.com...

Sounds like the Chinese people have something in common with Americans.

opethPA

Mikeultra
Angry Chinese are gathering at the Malaysian Embassy in Bejing. I hope they are allowed to burn it down. They know the official story is a lie!

So in other words you have already made your mind up that no matter what the black boxes show, what proof is shown, what the facts say that the only outcome is a lie.

The black boxes will not be found. Nor will anything else. Maybe a few seat cushions will be tossed in from a search vessel and then retrieved so they can all go home.
EDIT: See above post.

Zaphod58
reply to post by haveblue

 

And with a limited cockpit fire, similar to the EgyptAir fire, that went out but took the crew out, the aircraft could keep flying. They wouldn't want to go back to Malaysia, because of terrain they'd have to avoid, and possible strong turbulence off it, with unknown structural damage. So program a destination that you can plug in quickly, going in the right direction to get on the ground fast, and turn to fight the fire. They weren't trying to GET to Australia, but wanted to head to the nearest destination with a long runway while they fought the fire.

Yes, standard procedure is to get on the ground fast, but if the crew was overcome fairly quickly then there's no one to get it on the ground. Which means it keeps going until it either comes apart, or runs out of fuel.

There's no such thing as a "limited" fire when it comes to flying planes, and the Egypt Air fire was on the ground so no comparison.

If they were turning to land due fire why not use Gong Kedak Airbase as that is only 100nm from waypoint Agari, the last point of contact. The descent and approach would have been over water, so no terrain. It's a SU30 base and is 2000m long. With respect to FMS and entering information, I'd be using heading mode to get me going in the right direction first, then entering data into the FMS.

Aside from all that it's clear that the aircraft was turned from Agari to another waypoint in the Mallaca Straight. Then turned Northwest! Seems like a lot of FMS programming if there's a fire onboard.

reply to post by haveblue


It may have started small, and one pilot was programming the autopilot, while the other fought it. Then he joined him because it was too much for one pilot.

There are cases of electrical fires on planes which have been limited to a very small area before going out. Especially if the crew was able to decompress the aircraft and starve it of oxygen. There are several ways I can think of where the crew was incapacitated during the event, and not able to get back to flying the plane and it kept right on going.

Fire or slow decompression makes a lot more sense than the US hijacking it to Diego Garcia for a huge false flag terrorism event. Or them shooting it down. Or it being hijacked and flown to the middle of nowhere to be vanished. Or crew suicide by flying out to the middle of the Indian Ocean before crashing. Or any of the other myriad theories I've heard on here.

Something else I just thought of, is that it could be an event similar to SwissAir 111. They were offered Boston and didn't want to go there because they were too heavy. They may have overflown the nearest landing areas, due to the weight of the aircraft when they would have gotten there and pressed on to another where they would be lighter and something happened between the areas they were going for, be it fire, or decompression or whatever.

A former security chief for El Al said that the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 points directly to Iran. Read more: Ex-El Al expert: Iran likely involved in MH 370.

Isaac Yeffet, who served as head of global security for Israel’s national carrier in the 1980s and now works as an aviation security consultant in New Jersey, said investigators were correct in homing in on the two fake-passport carrying Iranian passengers on the doomed flight, and they have wasted valuable time by exploring other leads.

www.timesofisrael.com...

This guy is a former security chief for El Al. He thinks it's hijackers.

Zaphod58
That or a slow decompression both fit the evidence nicely. There was a warning put out for 777s to watch for fuselage cracks up near where the transponder antenna is located.

If you're talking about the airworthiness directive, when that came up I pointed out the model numbers to which it applied didn't seem to apply to MH370. According to this site Boeing later confirmed it wasn't applicable as I suspected:

mh370lost.tumblr.com...

Update 3/13 2:36: Latest statement, straight from a Boeing spokesperson: The antenna covered by the pending AD was not installed on MH370, so that airplane is not subject to the AD or the related Service Bulletin.

If that's NOT the one you're referring to would appreciate more information about the warning you're talking about.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


There could have been an outflow valve failure as another way to lose pressure. Or another thing I've seen a couple of times is an EAD is issued, that is later expanded to cover more aircraft that don't fit the initial profile. They find out the hard way that it was the area in question, not what they initially thought. Or it could be something else that they haven't caught yet.

There are a number of ways it could happen honestly.

Zaphod58
reply to post by haveblue

 

It may have started small, and one pilot was programming the autopilot, while the other fought it. Then he joined him because it was too much for one

Firstly you would call in a flight attendant to assist, and therefore not have two pilots fighting the same fire while no one is flying the plane. Flight attendants are trained in fire fighting, and they are the crew that fight the fire if it's in the cabin.

Secondly if the fire was too much for one pilot to handle I suggest it's probably uncontained, or at least a big enough issue not bother with programming an autopilot immediately.

If the fire was contained then why didn't they land at the nearest suitable airport? The crew would have used the smoke removal proceedure and diverted to the nearest suitable alternate. No pilot would continue flying anywhere after they've extinguished a fire. If you've got a fire you squawk 7700, you don't turn the transponder off.

This seems to make sense, except the part about taking off from Diego Garcia just to crash into the ocean.

reply to post by haveblue


And I have yet to see any absolute proof they DID turn it off, and the failure of the transponder wasn't related to whatever problem they were having. "The Malaysian government said" just doesn't cut it for me.

As for both pilots fighting it, it wouldn't be the first time I've seen a pilot make a bad decision. But like I said it may have been something else completely. I personally think that fire fits the evidence to date, but I guess we'll find out when they find the recorders.

reply to post by Zaphod58

Thanks for the reply. I don't discount the possibility of pressure loss, just wondered if there was another warning I didn't know about, but I could see where a warning like that could be expanded.

Boeing wins patent on uninterruptible autopilot system

New technology can be activated by the pilots, government agencies, even on-board sensors; not even a tortured pilot can give up control; dedicated electrical circuits ensure the system’s total independence

www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com...

Well this is very interesting. Boeing has an autopilot system that can override the pilots in case of a hijacking! So Boeing flew MH370 into the South Indian Ocean.