Flight 370 - Nothing has hit a beach or been found in the Ocean

a reply to: Zaphod58
there was plenty of time for painting in the open air...
the passengers were colliteral damage and disposed...no oxygene in the plane while flying would do the job..

a reply to: ressiv

It takes about two weeks to repaint, and it needs to be done in controlled conditions. A Boeing 737, which is a lot smaller takes 11 days, and 18 people to repaint. You can't paint outside because even the wind can cause problems with the new paint as it goes on.

originally posted by: ressiv
a reply to: Zaphod58
there was plenty of time for painting in the open air...
the passengers were colliteral damage and disposed...no oxygene in the plane while flying would do the job..

Oh I see, they aren't just holding them against their will and torturing their families but the US plotted to asphyxiate the innocent Grandmothers and Grandfathers, Babies, Wives, Husbands and children from various countries.

For what reason again? Microchips? Technicians?

Nuh-uh. They'd find a way which didn't require cold blooded murder and the secret keeping ability of a crew of conspirators.

Did not happen.

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

My apologies to the OP for being offensive and ignorant.

I will wind my neck in.

Since the transponder was deliberately turned I think the plane was hijacked. If it hadn't been turned off id say its a crash. You see the transponders being turned off to avoid detection what more needs to be said.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

Except that you can't tell if it was turned off deliberately or was part of a cascade failure. There's no way to tell from the ground.

a reply to: Zaphod58

well I would say a plane is designed to keep the transponder going until the end, which means on probabilities it was deliberately turned off. If the plane suffered catastrophic explosion of cockpit there would of been debris found. The weight of probabilities point to it turned off.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

It ties to an electrical bus just like everything else on an aircraft. Lose that bus and you lose the transponder. The only things designed to work until the end are the recorders.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You telling me that a transponder is not connected to a batter if it loses main bus. I doubt that as it contravenes concept of safety design, un interrupted power. Do you have an electric schematic for a atypical passenger jet plane? I can read electrical schematics, give me that and ill debate you.

If I can see that I lll be able to see how power system is designed and where its points of failure are for the transponder.

If a safety system is taken down, something Catastrophic must of happened. Catastrophic in terms of large explosion. There was no one once of debris found!

a reply to: AthlonSavage

No it's not. On a long range flight, until the ADS-B transponder was put into use there was no radar system in the world that could track a plane the entire flight. They were in limited contact from about 250 miles out until about 250 miles from their destination. And that only by radio or data link. Having a transponder wouldn't do you any good. If you were closer Primary radar could track you.

It didn't have to be catastrophic at all. The SwissAir MD-11 that crashed off Nova Scotia lost elective power to a flight but didn't have a catastrophic failure until impact. The fire started in the IFE system and burned out the electrical system.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It didn't have to be catastrophic at all. The SwissAir MD-11 that crashed off Nova Scotia lost elective power to a flight but didn't have a catastrophic failure until impact. The fire started in the IFE system and burned out the electrical system.

Your speaking in generalisations. Be precise please. Show me the investigation data that identifies exactly into the failure scenarios when the transponder failed due to the loss of power you describe?

The fact the transponder cant be tracked fully by radar as you described adds further weight of it being deliberately turned off. That's why it was turned off when it was turned off.

Link the crash investigation report section which clearly addresses my question above and Link a electrical schematic as I previously requested so I don't have to keep replying to your generalistic views. If You cant link the data im requesting then there no point in me continuing this debate with you.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

So you have an opposing view and *I* have to provide the data to support YOUR view? I like how that works. It's out there, find it yourself.

You don't have any clue what your talking about, which is obvious. The only systems on the aircraft that have backup power supplies are the recorders. For a transponder to be able to use a battery backup (since this aircraft had an ADS-B unit), it would have to power the transponder plus a GPS unit it requires, plus the data link to transmit position. That's a lot of power for a battery backup.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

You'd think an Aviation Attorney would know what can be used in a lawsuit.

George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf said families seeking to sue Boeing may be able to argue that the missing plane’s tracking and telemetry shouldn’t have been vulnerable to being turned off or losing power during flight.
Battery Backup
Providing a battery backup for those systems would have been inexpensive and cost-effective design alternatives, Banzhaf said today by e-mail. Boeing’s failure to do so may constitute a design defect opening it to liability.
“Since a transponder is such an important safety feature, permitting it to be turned off during flight -- whether by accident, by technically sophisticated terrorists, by pilots voluntarily or while being held at gunpoint -- makes little sense unless there is a very compelling reason to do so,” he said.

www.bloomberg.com...

The pilot had some odd issues himself.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
The pilot had some odd issues himself.

Indeed.

The co-pilot too.

He had memorized the Qur'an.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: Zaphod58

well I would say a plane is designed to keep the transponder going until the end, which means on probabilities it was deliberately turned off. If the plane suffered catastrophic explosion of cockpit there would of been debris found. The weight of probabilities point to it turned off.

Kind of agree. If any kind of explosion or fire etc or decomp then plane break up on impact if not before at least to sum degree. So debris for sure. So I think it was disabled either by someone on board or remotely some how.
The question is: where is the plane and its passengers/cargo?

Its either US, China or Russia OR a terrorist group with connections.

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: Zaphod58

well I would say a plane is designed to keep the transponder going until the end, which means on probabilities it was deliberately turned off. If the plane suffered catastrophic explosion of cockpit there would of been debris found. The weight of probabilities point to it turned off.

Its either US, China or Russia OR a terrorist group with connections.

www.businessinsider.com...

Although this does not fit my hypothesis on motive, it is a match on destination.

This new theory of Russian retaliation must be considered.

I remember looking on googlemaps around the vicinity of where this planes last known location was. I have found islands, and in the middle of the jungles you can see landscapes that look like usages for landing strips. It is quite possible this plane has landed somewhere on those islands which is why wreckage was never discovered.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: Zaphod58

transponder's

The B777 has two.
One is powered by the left main bus (A) and the other one from the hot battery bus, which means that it can receive power from either one of the 4 engine driven generators, apu or battery.

I read in our Media (online newspaper) today that a hand towel has washed up on the west Australian coast.
1%