MH370 missing (Part 2)

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

And where is the evidence that it was carrying WMD components?

If the aircraft was almost out of their airspace, at cruising speed, they wouldn't launch fighters because they'd never catch up without using afterburner, and would be in danger of running out of fuel before they could get back anywhere near a tanker. They'd warn whoever it was heading towards and they'd launch fighters to intercept it.

That's classic.

You should read the Proliferation Security Initiative.

The plane IS the WMD.

a reply to: Psynic

Oh really? And the agreement specifies this where? Because I'm looking at it and don't see it. I don't see anything about shooting down non-responsive aircraft to stop them, or about aircraft as WMDs.

It doesn't change the fact that near the edge of their airspace, heading out is an almost impossible intercept.

From the glossary of the PSI treaty for WMD:

Typically refers to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, though there is some debate as to whether chemical weapons qualify as weapons of “mass destruction.”

www.nti.org...-weapons-mass-destruction

By all means though, since you've repeated it enough, give the exact section that both refers to aircraft as WMDs, and requires them to be shot down if they don't respond.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

And the agreement specifies this where? Because I'm looking at it and don't see it.
www.nti.org...-weapons-mass-destruction

I don't think you are looking at it.

You seem to be looking at the NTI link'

PSI is what you needed to search for.

Here LMGTFY since you seem to be having troubles.

www.psi-online.info...

Read the second paragraph where they talk about interdicting "in the air".

a reply to: Psynic

That's exactly what I was looking at. It doesn't specify aircraft as WMDs, or that they should be shot down.

So instead of a treaty, you're going on your interpretation of it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

That's exactly what I was looking at. It doesn't specify aircraft as WMDs, or that they should be shot down.

So instead of a treaty, you're going on your interpretation of it.

It does specify "delivery systems".

I don't know what your interpretation of "interdiction" is but if you think it's allowing 230 passengers on their way to Beijing to be re-routed towards Bangladesh, you're very much mistaken.

The official story, that Malaysia observed MH370 on radar and didn't launch it's interceptors to investigate is only the first of the lies.

What alternative would the RMAF have if after ignoring warnings, threats and tracer fire across the bow the hijackers still don't pay attention?

Let them fly into the towers again?

a reply to: Psynic

And then specifically mentions missiles.

There was no point in them launching fighters with the distance and direction involved. It would have been well out of their range by the time they got near where it first went radio out.

You keep pointing to this treaty as definitive proof that they're shooting down anything that doesn't respond. This treaty deals with WMDs and components. An aircraft, despite your definition is not a WMD.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

And then specifically mentions missiles.

There was no point in them launching fighters with the distance and direction involved. It would have been well out of their range by the time they got near where it first went radio out.

You keep pointing to this treaty as definitive proof that they're shooting down anything that doesn't respond. This treaty deals with WMDs and components. An aircraft, despite your definition is not a WMD.

There was every point in launching fighters and you haven't got a clue how long MH370 was being tracked by Malaysian Military Radar.

The Royal Malaysian Air Force is equipped with Mig 29s and F-18s which would quickly overhaul the airliner.

Hijacked aircraft and the Mass Destruction they caused 14 years ago are precisely the WMDs being referred to as 'Dual purpose material' in the Proliferation Security Initiative.

a reply to: Psynic

And then would promptly run out of fuel.

The MiG-29 at its cruising speed has a combat radius of about 440 miles. Its cruising speed is similar to a 777.

The F-18 armed for air to air only has a combat radius at cruising speed of about the same.

They also have Su-30MKIs. Their combat radius is about 800 miles at cruising speed.

If they were to do the entire flight supersonic, that would require afterburner the entire time. That would cut those ranges down to roughly a third of what they are.

So if planes are what they're talking about you shouldnt have any problem proving where it shows that in the treaty. Quote the relevant section that explains that.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

And then specifically mentions missiles.

What is an airliner in the hands of a terrorist?

According to the 911 Commission, " a guided missile".

a reply to: Psynic

And again, quote where the treaty specifically mentions aircraft. Not just your interpretation of it. It should be ready enough to do, for what, the fourth time now.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

And again, quote where the treaty specifically mentions aircraft. Not just your interpretation of it. It should be ready enough to do, for what, the fourth time now.

The treaty? Is that your "interpretation"?

The Proliferation Security Initiative is not a treaty.

It's an initiative, a decision to deny terrorists the ability to defy existing laws unchallenged.

I don't know what the point is you're belabouring. Aircraft are mentioned throughout the document. Section I, III, IV etc.

I linked it above; feel free to read it as many times as you like.

The PSI is an endorsement between nations to deny Terrorists the ability to transport WMDs AND there delivery systems or be subject to interdiction.

I don't know what you interpret an interdiction to be in the case of a hijacked airliner but if you paid any intention to Najib's speech he makes it quite clear, "When called upon to make an interdiction, Malayasia has never failed".

That doesn't sound like a sleeping Air traffic Controller to me.

a reply to: Psynic

Fine, the AGREEMENT.

You know perfectly well I'm talking about aircraft as weapons, and defined as WMDs. If it's so prevalent the quote it. It's that easy to put this to rest.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

Fine, the AGREEMENT.

You know perfectly well I'm talking about aircraft as weapons, and defined as WMDs. If it's so prevalent the quote it. It's that easy to put this to rest.

I have quoted it. Repeatedly.


PSI expressly mentions delivery systems.

That's as specific as they get.

We've already established aircraft to be guided missiles by the 9/11 commissions own description, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make

I'm saying that MH370 was intercepted and interdicted, just like Najib says it was.

Wiki:
Interdiction is a military term for the act of delaying, disrupting, or destroying enemy forces or supplies en route to the battle area.

a reply to: Psynic

The 9/11 commission can call them nuclear bombs, that doesn't mean that they are.

According to your logic they'd have to interdict all aircraft everywhere since they would be transporting WMD components to countries that aren't supposed to have them.

a reply to: Psynic

Your paraphrasing of me is wrong. I have never, ever claimed to be an expert.

I am a member of ATS with an interest in aviation and MH370 and am as entitled to comment upon and critique people whom YOU present as "experts" as anyone.

It is valid to point out that Tim Clark knows less about aviation than the average PPL

a reply to: Psynic

You have yet to get past first base yet.

The evidence that MH370 even made a detour through Straits of Malacca is so contradictory and false that you can't even prove that it flew some devious route yet. You're skipping the most important question. The credibility of your assumptions?





In the March 2015 Interim report it is now claimed military radar saw and tracked MH370 east of Penang but that is contrary to what they claimed on 21 March 2014 with the release of this image in Beijing:

I've read around that Malaysian Airlines was one of the few airlines post 9/11 that allowed (or didn't allow and had pilots breaking policy) in flight visits to the cockpit. If they did, I cant find an official stance on this anywhere from the airline itself. In the links the airline responded saying they were "shocked" at this and couldn't confirm it, but haven't heard anything about it at all other than that. I'm thinking either they knew about it but didn't want to admit it, or the pilots (including the co pilot of MH370 himself) who did this went against policy.

The first I read about the in flight visits, the post is a ways down, there's a picture in one of the replies to help find it if you go looking for it.
gawker.com...

I've tried to find the article the person is talking about, the in flight magazine for Malaysian is called Going Places but I can't find it. The facebook page for the magazine doesn't go further back than March 28, 2014. Idk if the page was created after MH370 or they deleted everything before the flight. Not sure the specific article would be there or not, but looked anyways.

Articles the co pilot allowed people in the cockpit during previous flight. (same people involved, different sources)
www.nbcnews.com...
www.cbsnews.com...

In a book, page 30-31
books.google.com... ZzsXKyz6spabN9Mohxs_i2ueU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=McIGVeKWErOAsQSmloHgAQ&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=malaysia%20airlines%20allowing%20in%20flight%20cockpit%20vi sits&f=false

Just thought this was interesting but haven't read anything about it other than this, it did get a response from the airline, but no follow-up that I can find.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic


According to your logic they'd have to interdict all aircraft everywhere since they would be transporting WMD components to countries that aren't supposed to have them.

Uhrm, no. According to my logic all aircraft in the hands of HIJACKERS would be considered WMDs.

See the difference there?

a reply to: Psynic

But they're supposed to be stopping the proliferation of WMDs to countries that aren't supposed to have them. That means that planes from Iran and North Korea should be interdicted, just like their ships were. Oddly enough they don't seem to be. So they interdict ships that are carrying legitimate government shipments and search and seize their cargo, but they don't seize planes that you claim are WMDs. Not much of an agreement.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

But they're supposed to be stopping the proliferation of WMDs to countries that aren't supposed to have them. That means that planes from Iran and North Korea should be interdicted, just like their ships were. Oddly enough they don't seem to be. So they interdict ships that are carrying legitimate government shipments and search and seize their cargo, but they don't seize planes that you claim are WMDs. Not much of an agreement.

You can't be accidentally misconstruing my words so drastically!

Your perfidiousness reeks of desperation.

I said they made an INTERDICTION.

An interdiction can take the form of seizing cargo, but only if the aircraft cooperates.

After that the PSI can do whatever is necessary to prevent the WMDs reaching destination.