(CNN) -- A passenger flight carrying 239 people en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing is missing, Malaysia Airlines said Saturday.
The airline said in a statement that Subang Air Traffic Control in Malaysia lost contact with Flight MH370 at 2:40 a.m. (1:40 p.m. ET Friday).
The Boeing 777-200 departed Kuala Lumpur at 12:41 a.m. and was expected to land in Beijing at 6:30 a.m., a 2,300-mile (3,700 kilometer) trip.
It was carrying 227 passengers, two of them infants, and 12 crew members, it said.
"Malaysia Airlines is currently working with the authorities who have activated their Search and Rescue team to locate the aircraft," the statement said. The public can call +603 7884 1234 for further information.
The airline operates in Southeast Asia, East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and on the route between Europe and Australasia.
The airline's roots date back to 1937, when it operated passenger and cargo flights in Malaysia.
In April 1942, it was incorporated as Malaysia Airways Limited; it later became Malaysia Airlines.
The airline has its headquarters and registered office at Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport in Subang, Malaysia, and its main airline hub is at Kuala Lumpur International Airport, according to its website.
This is the type of thing I dread hearing in my line of work. I really hope this has a good ending...
That's awful - I'm surprised it's even possible to "lose" a 777 nowadays - surely they should have a GPS system or something? I'm no aviation engineer though.
I suppose at this point it's just a wait and a hope that they find survivors quickly.
I was just on a plane recently and we had some heavy duty turbulence over the ocean which felt like a magnitude 7 earthquake and it was scary as all get out. My condolences to the families of the passengers and crew.
-Shrike- wrote: feth me. They don't have GPS on something the size of a 777?
Anyway, really sorry to hear this; my thoughts go out to all those affected.
Of course they do. A GPS would tell the drivers where they are, but wouldn't be much good for people looking for wreckage.
What you're asking 'bout is a transponder, which the plane also certainly had. They'd more likely than not have a general fix of where they last were while still squawking. They also had radar contact with it, from what I understand. The fact that there was some initial uncertainty about the plane's fate suggests that either they didn't squawk 7700 before going down (or call in a mayday for that matter), or else nobody noticed it, which is pretty unlikely.
Khornholio wrote: I was just on a plane recently and we had some heavy duty turbulence over the ocean which felt like a magnitude 7 earthquake and it was scary as all get out. My condolences to the families of the passengers and crew.
Turbulence isn't actually dangerous. Scary yes but to Pilots it's more an annoyance than a threat.
As for the whole thing, horrible, I hope there are survivors and plenty of 'em
Aside from the jet that landed in the Hudson following a bird strike, there are very few examples of a successful ditching at sea by a plane the size of a 777.
Sadly, I think we're just waiting for a confirmation that the plane crashed and there were no survivors.
Flashman wrote: Aside from the jet that landed in the Hudson following a bird strike, there are very few examples of a successful ditching at sea by a plane the size of a 777.
Sadly, I think we're just waiting for a confirmation that the plane crashed and there were no survivors.
The girl is described by her father in the article as fragile, but damn if her spirit wasn't harder than a sack of hammers to give her strength to survive that ordeal.
Flashman wrote: Aside from the jet that landed in the Hudson following a bird strike, there are very few examples of a successful ditching at sea by a plane the size of a 777.
Just as a guess I doubt that was even a possibility. If they actually had time to attempt a safe landing then they should have been able to report the emergency. Suddenly disappearing while within radar and radio range suggests some kind of instantly-fatal disaster: in-flight collision, flying into the side of a mountain, etc. TBH I'm surprised there's no speculation about hijacking or a bomb yet.
Dark Apostle 666 wrote: That's awful - I'm surprised it's even possible to "lose" a 777 nowadays - surely they should have a GPS system or something? I'm no aviation engineer though.
I suppose at this point it's just a wait and a hope that they find survivors quickly.
The a 777 is literally smaller than a pixel on your computer screen relative to the rest of the world. Electromagnetic distortion, piss poor weather conditions, etc can easily lead to it being lost.
trexmeyer wrote: The a 777 is literally smaller than a pixel on your computer screen relative to the rest of the world. Electromagnetic distortion, piss poor weather conditions, etc can easily lead to it being lost.
But an airline flight is supposed to be in constant radar and radio contact, and the entire system depends on that tracking to function. Obviously there's some uncertainty about the exact crash location when something bad happens and contact is lost, but "disappeared" tends to mean "crashed and killed everyone". Any talk of finding it at some other airport or whatever is little more than wishful thinking and reluctance to admit that 239 people are dead.
Anyway, it happened over the sea, so a collision's unlikely. Nothing to hit but other aircraft. It didn't (entirely) explode in midair if they're finding oil slicks. Best guess is some kind of fire or explosion in the cockpit. Hypoxia is a possibility too, I guess, but very unlikely.
To be honest I'm not sure the passport thing is going to be related, they were stolen a long time ago, and plus passport forgery, stealing, and dealing over in that area of the world is pretty common, so a lot of people probably have stolen/forged/altered passports anyway.
Glaiceana wrote: To be honest I'm not sure the passport thing is going to be related, they were stolen a long time ago, and plus passport forgery, stealing, and dealing over in that area of the world is pretty common, so a lot of people probably have stolen/forged/altered passports anyway.
I'm pretty sure that Austria isn't really a hotbed of stolen passports.
Glaiceana wrote: To be honest I'm not sure the passport thing is going to be related, they were stolen a long time ago, and plus passport forgery, stealing, and dealing over in that area of the world is pretty common, so a lot of people probably have stolen/forged/altered passports anyway.
I'm pretty sure that Austria isn't really a hotbed of stolen passports.
They were stolen in Thailand. At least one of them last August.
Glaiceana wrote: To be honest I'm not sure the passport thing is going to be related, they were stolen a long time ago, and plus passport forgery, stealing, and dealing over in that area of the world is pretty common, so a lot of people probably have stolen/forged/altered passports anyway.
I'm pretty sure that Austria isn't really a hotbed of stolen passports.
They were stolen in Thailand. At least one of them last August.
That makes more sense then.
The bit I had read earlier was suggesting that the owner of one of the passports had it stolen in Austria and they were in an Austrian airport when the plane went down.
Glaiceana wrote: To be honest I'm not sure the passport thing is going to be related, they were stolen a long time ago, and plus passport forgery, stealing, and dealing over in that area of the world is pretty common, so a lot of people probably have stolen/forged/altered passports anyway.
I'm pretty sure that Austria isn't really a hotbed of stolen passports.
They were stolen in Thailand. At least one of them last August.
That makes more sense then.
The bit I had read earlier was suggesting that the owner of one of the passports had it stolen in Austria and they were in an Austrian airport when the plane went down.
I saw on the news that one was an Austrian passport and the other was Italian.
Well it didn't even occur to me to get on that plane, so God must be telling me I'm Jesus.
I was looking at the fact that at least not everyone had to deal with the loss of a loved one, but if you want to go off on an anti religious rant go right to it, the floor is yours.
Think the stolen passport thing is a red herring. There's probably a reasonable probability of someone travelling under dodgy documentation on any flight.
That said, the signs (no distress signal, plane just vanished) do kind of suggest foul play.
-Shrike- wrote: feth me. They don't have GPS on something the size of a 777?
Anyway, really sorry to hear this; my thoughts go out to all those affected.
Of course they do. A GPS would tell the drivers where they are, but wouldn't be much good for people looking for wreckage.
What you're asking 'bout is a transponder, which the plane also certainly had. They'd more likely than not have a general fix of where they last were while still squawking. They also had radar contact with it, from what I understand. The fact that there was some initial uncertainty about the plane's fate suggests that either they didn't squawk 7700 before going down (or call in a mayday for that matter), or else nobody noticed it, which is pretty unlikely.
The problem though is that that area of the ocean is notoriously littered with very deep ocean trenches, which can severely impair the range of the transponder.
So while they may know the rough area where the plane was before radar contact was lost, if it's gone down too deep, then the transponder ping may be reduced to only a couple hundred yards range of the ocean surface.
Note that it took them 2 years to find the main wreckage of that Air France plane that went down off of Brazil.
Well it didn't even occur to me to get on that plane, so God must be telling me I'm Jesus.
I was looking at the fact that at least not everyone had to deal with the loss of a loved one, but if you want to go off on an anti religious rant go right to it, the floor is yours.
You know people will be idiots. It's their God-given right. Ignore the bridge-dweller.
Experiment 626 wrote: The problem though is that that area of the ocean is notoriously littered with very deep ocean trenches, which can severely impair the range of the transponder.
So while they may know the rough area where the plane was before radar contact was lost, if it's gone down too deep, then the transponder ping may be reduced to only a couple hundred yards range of the ocean surface.
Note that it took them 2 years to find the main wreckage of that Air France plane that went down off of Brazil.
I meant prior to the crash, they'd have a good idea of where the plane last was. Post-crash, no, the chance that the IFF system or whatever else would still be active and giving them something to home in on is...low.
If it was terrorism someone would have made a claim by now.
Cabin asphyxia or a catastrophic failure like a fuel tank exploding are the two most likely causes. A more unlikely possibility is suicidal actions by a flight crew member acting alone.
The facts will only come out if they find the flight recorder I should think.
I'm leaning toward terrorism.
Hypoxia is extremely unlikely, If the engines were turning, the aircraft had air (Aircraft get their breathing air from the front of the engine, then cool it down so it's breathable).
If they lost their engines, then they'd have captions and horns going off all over the cockpit, and would have had time to make distress calls.
marv335 wrote: I'm leaning toward terrorism.
Hypoxia is extremely unlikely, If the engines were turning, the aircraft had air (Aircraft get their breathing air from the front of the engine, then cool it down so it's breathable).
If they lost their engines, then they'd have captions and horns going off all over the cockpit, and would have had time to make distress calls.
Air at that altitude doesn't provide anywhere near enough oxygen by volume to sustain consciousness. It's why commercial airliner cabins are pressurized, and why warrior-gods of the sky wear oxygen masks. It's also why they always warn you about how to use the little yellow oxygen masks in the event of loss of cabin pressure.
Hypoxia's a very real risk - a certainty, really - if the cabin or cockpit gets depressurized and the aircraft stays at altitude. I just think it's unlikely in this case because they were almost certainly on autopilot, and we'd be looking at a scenario where there was enough depressurization going on to induce hypoxia, not enough to trigger depressurization alarms, neither pilot noticed the effects prior to loss of consciousness, and at least one lost consciousness in such a way as to get the aircraft off autopilot and into a dive.
marv335 wrote: Hypoxia is extremely unlikely, If the engines were turning, the aircraft had air (Aircraft get their breathing air from the front of the engine, then cool it down so it's breathable).
Unless the pressurization system broke, or there was a big enough hole that it couldn't keep up with the leaks. There have been accidents before where the pressurization failed, the pilots for some reason weren't able to use their backup oxygen (or didn't realize they had a problem in time), and the plane just flew along on autopilot until it ran out of fuel and crashed. This seems a bit less likely in this case since they crashed short of their destination, but in theory the pilots could have stayed conscious long enough to shut off the autopilot and start a descent to a safe altitude, but not long enough to pull out of the dive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I just think it's unlikely in this case because they were almost certainly on autopilot, and we'd be looking at a scenario where there was enough depressurization going on to induce hypoxia, not enough to trigger depressurization alarms, neither pilot noticed the effects prior to loss of consciousness, and at least one lost consciousness in such a way as to get the aircraft off autopilot and into a dive.
It's possible though. Any idea how the autopilot on a 777 works? How quickly/easily can it be shut off if the pilots try to take control manually? I can imagine someone reacting to the alarm by starting an immediate descent, and if they failed to get their masks on fast enough that would leave the plane off autopilot and pointed down in a fatal dive.
Peregrine wrote: It's possible though. Any idea how the autopilot on a 777 works? How quickly/easily can it be shut off if the pilots try to take control manually? I can imagine someone reacting to the alarm by starting an immediate descent, and if they failed to get their masks on fast enough that would leave the plane off autopilot and pointed down in a fatal dive.
It's certainly possible, in that it's happened before, it just seems unlikely given the other particulars of this one. I'm not familiar with the 777's autopilot system, but I'd be shocked if it wasn't something you could override immediately. But if they were aware of the issue, there's no reason that wouldn't be an immediate mayday, or at the very least a call to en route ATC informing them that they were descending. Unconsciousness due to hypoxia wouldn't be instant, even with complete depressurization. It takes a while to progress to unconsciousness, and there are distinct symptoms all along the way.
Seaward wrote: It takes a while to progress to unconsciousness, and there are distinct symptoms all along the way.
True, but those symptoms include getting stupid, fumbling with tasks that are normally easy, etc. And there's pretty clear evidence from past accidents that hypoxia can disable a crew before they can make any mayday calls (or even take any appropriate action to fix the problem). So who knows, maybe someone remained conscious long enough to get the plane into a dive, but couldn't get the radio on the right frequency before it was too late.
Peregrine wrote: And there's pretty clear evidence from past accidents that hypoxia can disable a crew before they can make any mayday calls (or even take any appropriate action to fix the problem).
It can, yes. I'm unaware of any civilian examples that fit the profile our limited information in this case is providing, though. The sudden radar loss doesn't seem to indicate hypoxia, to me.
Hypoxia / gas poisoning. I've read several reports of fumes getting into the air system and causing problems. IDK if those stories are like WiFi allergy or something real.
marv335 wrote: I'm leaning toward terrorism.
Hypoxia is extremely unlikely, If the engines were turning, the aircraft had air (Aircraft get their breathing air from the front of the engine, then cool it down so it's breathable).
If they lost their engines, then they'd have captions and horns going off all over the cockpit, and would have had time to make distress calls.
Air at that altitude doesn't provide anywhere near enough oxygen by volume to sustain consciousness. It's why commercial airliner cabins are pressurized, and why warrior-gods of the sky wear oxygen masks. It's also why they always warn you about how to use the little yellow oxygen masks in the event of loss of cabin pressure.
Yes it does, how do you think the cabin is pressurised?
With air from outside the aircraft, delivered via the bleed air system (usually stage 4 of the compressor)
Fighter aircraft get their air he same way, and are also pressurised. The oxygen mask delivers normal cabin air, although it will mix in oxygen as the cabin altitude increases, and can be manually switched to 100%.
Fumes in the cabin are rare, and are usually due to improper component handling during a cold air unit change, or an engine problem.
marv335 wrote: Yes it does, how do you think the cabin is pressurised?
With air from outside the aircraft, delivered via the bleed air system (usually stage 4 of the compressor)
Fighter aircraft get their air he same way, and are also pressurised. The oxygen mask delivers normal cabin air, although it will mix in oxygen as the cabin altitude increases, and can be manually switched to 100%.
Fumes in the cabin are rare, and are usually due to improper component handling during a cold air unit change, or an engine problem.
I think you missed the point. I was disagreeing with the notion that as long as the engines are turning, hypoxia's impossible. Absolutely not the case. Air is indeed pressurized by the engine(s), but if there's, for example, a leak in the cabin, full pressurization - or even pressurization at all - can become impossible, which will lead to there not being enough oxygen by volume to sustain human consciousness. Or life, for that matter. Hypoxia can and does occur in both commercial and military aviation. A Greek airliner went down a while ago due to crew hypoxia, and we've lost at least one F-22 that way, if memory serves, not to mention several less expensive platforms.
And fighters are pressurized, to an extent, though not nearly as much as airliners. It's why oxygen masks are necessary.
Read now that they think it turned back prior to disappearing.
Very odd that there was no mayday communication at all, and makes you think it's terrorist involvement. Although, like Killkrazy says in that case why has no-one yet claimed responsibility?
What other kind of critical failure could have occurred that meant there were no comms? Possible that it was shot down accidentally?
The new line of enquiry is the two people flying on stolen passports.
(As an aside, what is the point of passports and Interpol listing stolen ones if airport security don't bother to check? </rhetorical> ++ Security Theatre++)
However we must suppose if they destroyed the aircraft they also got the means on board -- not difficult perhaps given the slack security.
Pacific wrote: Read now that they think it turned back prior to disappearing.
Very odd that there was no mayday communication at all, and makes you think it's terrorist involvement. Although, like Killkrazy says in that case why has no-one yet claimed responsibility?
What other kind of critical failure could have occurred that meant there were no comms? Possible that it was shot down accidentally?
Pilot suicide is probably more likely than a terrorist act... If there one thing all terrorist acts have in common, it's that they tend towards the dramatic and want a captive audience to witness their acts and know their cause.
Downing a random plane in the middle of nowhere kinda flies in the face of that common MO.
Pilot suicide is probably more likely than a terrorist act... If there one thing all terrorist acts have in common, it's that they tend towards the dramatic and want a captive audience to witness their acts and know their cause.
Downing a random plane in the middle of nowhere kinda flies in the face of that common MO.
It may look like the middle of nowhere to us, but that part of the world has issues with terrorism, too. Westerners don't hear about it as often, because it usually doesn't involve dead westerners (the Mumbai attack being a noticeable exception) but there are some very bad dudes running around that part of the planet. This particular plane on this particular flight might be some terrorist's idea of a high-profile target.
But I do agree with you that this doesn't look like terrorism, simply because nobody has claimed responsibility. You're right that terrorists want people to "witness their acts and know their cause" and if you blow up a plane and don't bother telling anyone about it, how do they know your cause? So yeah, I agree completely that this wasn't terrorism.
A general question to the thread... wasn't the 777 the plane that took forever to get delivered to the airline companies? Weren't there serious production problems that delayed it? Was this the type of plane that had serious mechanical issues a few months back? I'm wondering if something mechanical went wrong here and caused this crash.
Pilot suicide makes no sense at all. Planes like that have two pilots, and I can't imagine the suicidal pilot going with a plan that requires murdering their co-pilot to take control of the plane, taking another 200+ people with them, and not even bothering to leave an obvious suicide note. If you're just going to kill yourself and not make a big dramatic statement with it then there are much easier ways to die.
squidhills wrote: It may look like the middle of nowhere to us, but that part of the world has issues with terrorism, too.
Not the region, the exact crash site. It doesn't make much sense to crash or blow up a plane in the middle of the ocean where nobody can see it, and then not even bother to claim responsibility. There's a reason why the 9/11 hijackers attacked major cities instead of just crashing in a random corn field in the middle of nowhere.
A general question to the thread... wasn't the 777 the plane that took forever to get delivered to the airline companies? Weren't there serious production problems that delayed it? Was this the type of plane that had serious mechanical issues a few months back? I'm wondering if something mechanical went wrong here and caused this crash.
Every modern plane has "serious production problems", that's why everything is thoroughly tested before it's approved for commercial use. And if there's a known issue that could cause a crash then all of them are grounded until the problem is resolved. Obviously mechanical issues are going to be considered, but there's not much reason to suspect mechanical issues with this plane compared to any other type. In fact since the 777 is so new it's probably a bit less likely since there are fewer flying hours for poor design and/or maintenance to allow something to fail.
Pilot suicide makes no sense at all. Planes like that have two pilots, and I can't imagine the suicidal pilot going with a plan that requires murdering their co-pilot to take control of the plane, taking another 200+ people with them, and not even bothering to leave an obvious suicide note. If you're just going to kill yourself and not make a big dramatic statement with it then there are much easier ways to die.
A suicidal pilot doesn't need to kill or incapacitate their co-pilot. If you put a plane into a sudden steep enough dive for example it becomes an unrecoverable position.
Granted pilot suicide has only happened a few times in recent history, but there are still a couple of documented cases where pilots purposely crashed their jets and killed everyone else on board in the process.
The main point is that while unlikely, pilot suicide is still more probable in this case than an act of terrorism. (and if turns out to be terrorism, then it's likely got to be the world's worst ever attempt at it...)
Pilot suicide makes no sense at all. Planes like that have two pilots, and I can't imagine the suicidal pilot going with a plan that requires murdering their co-pilot to take control of the plane, taking another 200+ people with them, and not even bothering to leave an obvious suicide note. If you're just going to kill yourself and not make a big dramatic statement with it then there are much easier ways to die.
A suicidal pilot doesn't need to kill or incapacitate their co-pilot. If you put a plane into a sudden steep enough dive for example it becomes an unrecoverable position.
Granted pilot suicide has only happened a few times in recent history, but there are still a couple of documented cases where pilots purposely crashed their jets and killed everyone else on board in the process.
The main point is that while unlikely, pilot suicide is still more probable in this case than an act of terrorism. (and if turns out to be terrorism, then it's likely got to be the world's worst ever attempt at it...)
How does that account for the total loss of contact though? Even in an irreversible dive, there would have been enough time for the copilot to send out a mayday.
I've been reading that multiple agencies are starting to think an in air disintegration is the most likely explanation right now, and those require bombs.
If you were looking at a blank slate, statistically you'd probably be right, but it's not a blank slate. We have certain bits of info, so it moves the scale around, and with what we know, suicide is hardly the most likely option.
Pilot suicide makes no sense at all. Planes like that have two pilots, and I can't imagine the suicidal pilot going with a plan that requires murdering their co-pilot to take control of the plane, taking another 200+ people with them, and not even bothering to leave an obvious suicide note. If you're just going to kill yourself and not make a big dramatic statement with it then there are much easier ways to die.
A suicidal pilot doesn't need to kill or incapacitate their co-pilot. If you put a plane into a sudden steep enough dive for example it becomes an unrecoverable position.
Granted pilot suicide has only happened a few times in recent history, but there are still a couple of documented cases where pilots purposely crashed their jets and killed everyone else on board in the process.
The main point is that while unlikely, pilot suicide is still more probable in this case than an act of terrorism. (and if turns out to be terrorism, then it's likely got to be the world's worst ever attempt at it...)
How does that account for the total loss of contact though? Even in an irreversible dive, there would have been enough time for the copilot to send out a mayday.
I've been reading that multiple agencies are starting to think an in air disintegration is the most likely explanation right now, and those require bombs.
If you were looking at a blank slate, statistically you'd probably be right, but it's not a blank slate. We have certain bits of info, so it moves the scale around, and with what we know, suicide is hardly the most likely option.
Honestly I doubt it's a case of pilot suicide as there's only been what, like 2-4 cases in the past 30+ years? Basically just saying that it's more likely in this case than an act of terrorism...
The whole 'stolen passports' thing could more likely be the result of drug traffickers than terrorists, as IIRC, opium & heroine are big drugs in southeast Asia.
Mid air disintegration doesn't actually require a bomb however. Again, if I recall the cause properly, that flight which disintegrated just off New York's cost just before/after the year 2000 was caused by a spark in the fuel tank which caused an explosion and led to the entire plane coming apart in the air as it was heading out over the coast. (the one where eye witnesses claimed a missile strike took out the plane)
Granted the airline industry has supposedly worked to correct the fault that led to the wiring system sparking in the fuel tank, but, it's not impossible that something similar could've happened again here.
There's also the possibility of the plane's structure becoming compromised during take-off and a small stress fracture or tear in the plane's body finally becoming something much more serious & catastrophic as the plane hits different altitudes/air pressures.
Though again, not nearly as likely in this case as it's something more typically seen in planes used more or less for short haul domestic flights which can be taking off/landing half a dozen times or more in a single day, rather than the long range haulers like this plane.
Experiment 626 wrote: A suicidal pilot doesn't need to kill or incapacitate their co-pilot. If you put a plane into a sudden steep enough dive for example it becomes an unrecoverable position.
But a 777 isn't exactly a fighter jet. You aren't going to go from straight and level flight to an unrecoverable dive before the copilot can start fighting back, screaming on the radio, etc. And if you start speculating about planning out the perfect way to get the copilot out of the way instead of just an impulsive "I'm tired of life" then it doesn't make any sense that they wouldn't leave a suicide note.
Experiment 626 wrote: A suicidal pilot doesn't need to kill or incapacitate their co-pilot. If you put a plane into a sudden steep enough dive for example it becomes an unrecoverable position.
But a 777 isn't exactly a fighter jet. You aren't going to go from straight and level flight to an unrecoverable dive before the copilot can start fighting back, screaming on the radio, etc. And if you start speculating about planning out the perfect way to get the copilot out of the way instead of just an impulsive "I'm tired of life" then it doesn't make any sense that they wouldn't leave a suicide note.
I don't particularly believe in the suicide possibility. That said, in such a scenario, the copilot could've been asleep, in the can, whatever.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Problem with in air disintegration theory is that they should then have found more debris over a larger area.
agreed.
what I find interesting is that the plane appears to have made at least an attempt to turn back if the radar reports are true.
the real puzzler is: if they had time to turn back then why was no mayday sent?
Jehan-reznor wrote: Problem with in air disintegration theory is that they should then have found more debris over a larger area.
agreed.
what I find interesting is that the plane appears to have made at least an attempt to turn back if the radar reports are true.
the real puzzler is: if they had time to turn back then why was no mayday sent?
Maybe there was something wrong with their equipment and they could not send a mayday?
My company has people in and out of Kuala Lumpur on a regular basis, so I was watching this news report most of the weekend. Fortunately, I haven't heard anything from my boss about our people being on board (he who would know), so I'm taking this as no news is good news for us, at least.
Frazzled wrote: If you were a terrorist, wouldn't you claim the credit?
Not necessarily. Usually credit is claimed as quickly as possible and as publicly as possible, but in some instances credit is not what is being sought but rather just the sense of uncertainty and unease that something might have been a terrorist act.
The only terrorists I can think of would be the Chinese separatists no?
In terms of what? Operating in Malaysia? Operating in Asia at large?
Frazzled wrote: If you were a terrorist, wouldn't you claim the credit?
Not necessarily. Usually credit is claimed as quickly as possible and as publicly as possible, but in some instances credit is not what is being sought but rather just the sense of uncertainty and unease that something might have been a terrorist act.
Gotcha, truth that. That always seemed a poor plan though as planes crash on their own, but I only destory bathrooms with Mexcian food bombs so I might not be on the same mental wavelength as them.
The only terrorists I can think of would be the Chinese separatists no?
In terms of what? Operating in Malaysia? Operating in Asia at large?
I was thinking either in Malaysia or China, but again you're right. It could be others. What others?
Jehan-reznor wrote: Problem with in air disintegration theory is that they should then have found more debris over a larger area.
They have to first figure out where exactly to look first, and with the facts that the plane appears to have pulled a U-turn, yet they don't how which direction it was made in, makes finding the likely crash site about as easy as finding a needle in a haystack that's lost in a blizzard at night!
There's also the possibility that the plane hit the water mainly intact and came apart under water. And considering the number of ocean trenches in that part of the world, they may never find it. The black box pingger has a battery that'll keep sending it's ping for about a month, but if it's buried under wreckage, or at the bottom of a trench, then it's range at the surface would be severely reduced. (to the point you might literally have to stumble within a few hundred yards of the crash site.)
Iron_Captain wrote: agreed.
what I find interesting is that the plane appears to have made at least an attempt to turn back if the radar reports are true.
the real puzzler is: if they had time to turn back then why was no mayday sent?Maybe there was something wrong with their equipment and they could not send a mayday?
The chances of both the radio and the transponder failing at the same time are pretty slim.
Frazzled wrote: If you were a terrorist, wouldn't you claim the credit?
Not necessarily. Usually credit is claimed as quickly as possible and as publicly as possible, but in some instances credit is not what is being sought but rather just the sense of uncertainty and unease that something might have been a terrorist act.
Gotcha, truth that. That always seemed a poor plan though as planes crash on their own, but I only destory bathrooms with Mexcian food bombs so I might not be on the same mental wavelength as them.
It really is dependent upon the group in question. Some might just be trying to show "Look we can do this" to not just the world, but its members and other groups that they might be trying to align themselves with. That is when you will see groups claiming responsibility--or in some extreme cases where it is something BIG, all kinds of groups will take responsibility whether they had a hand in it or not.
The only terrorists I can think of would be the Chinese separatists no?
In terms of what? Operating in Malaysia? Operating in Asia at large?
I was thinking either in Malaysia or China, but again you're right. It could be others. What others?
Well there are a large number of Pakistani terror groups, Kashmiri groups, etc.
What is interesting though is that one of the travelers using a stolen passport is reported to have been black/African, which might point to some kind of Islamic terror group link given the number of those groups in Africa(more particularly though--Somalia).
At this moment I'm thinking some kind of mid-air failure is most likely. The plane would have been quite heavy with fuel that far into it's journey and.. even though it's pretty unlikely from what we have read about the 777's track record, it appears to me more likely at this time than a terrorist attack considering all of the circumstances surrounding it.
djones520 wrote:
d-usa wrote: So good old trusty CNN is reporting that the tickets the stolen passports traveled on were purchased by an Iranian national.
They've also ID'd one of the guys with the stolen passports, but they haven't publicly made it available.
They'd booked onward flights, and apparently at least one of them was African? The lack of anyone claiming credit so far also makes me think it is less likely (not impossible) that it is a terrorist group.
It might be of course that CNN does have something, but is being a bit more cautious after the business with the Boston bombing.
Frazzled wrote:Am I the only one thing, if you're going to be a terrorist, at least hit targets you're whining about? Me no comprende.
I've read there is a certain amount of antagonism between hardline Muslims in Malaysia, and secular and religious groups in government. Might be something there? If it was a strike against China (there were predominantly Chinese nationals on the plane) why destroy a Malaysian Airlines plane?
Seaward wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote: agreed.
what I find interesting is that the plane appears to have made at least an attempt to turn back if the radar reports are true.
the real puzzler is: if they had time to turn back then why was no mayday sent?Maybe there was something wrong with their equipment and they could not send a mayday?
The chances of both the radio and the transponder failing at the same time are pretty slim.
I've just read that the turn the plane was making was consistent with its flight plan, so perhaps not indicative of anything going on at all?
Another theory is that the transponder could have been turned off from the airplane.
CNN being cautious after the Boston Bombing? They then went on to completely butcher the Naval Yard shooting. CNN just doesn't give a damn about facts anymore.
At any rate, I saw that there was a claim of responsibility, but right now it's being treated as someone just looking for fame, and not really credible.
d-usa wrote: So good old trusty CNN is reporting that the tickets the stolen passports traveled on were purchased by an Iranian national.
They've also ID'd one of the guys with the stolen passports, but they haven't publicly made it available.
They'd booked onward flights, and apparently at least one of them was African? The lack of anyone claiming credit so far also makes me think it is less likely (not impossible) that it is a terrorist group.
Actually credit IS being claimed by the same Chinese Muslim group that performed the mass knifing last week.
So looks like Terrorism might be on the back seat again as far ar theories go.
One of the "stolen passport" passengers was ID'd as an 19 year old Iranian that was trying to emigrate to Frankfurt. They have not ID'd the other passenger that was traveling on a stolen passport, but since they previously reported that they were both purchased by an Iranian national I am guessing that both passengers were emigrants.
Mr Nobody wrote: Apparently, phones from some of the passengers are still active. so the plane hasn't exploded and sunk into the ocean. Unless they're Nokias.
I do believe that this has been debunked. The claim is "you get a ringtone when you call them, so they have to still be active", and the response is that you get a ringtone while the towers are still looking for your phone and haven't found it yet.
Nah, Team wienie doesn't like to fly due to the security hassle. We object about having to run our collars through the Xray, and holding up our front paws for the body scanner can be difficult.
Frazzled wrote: Nah, Team wienie doesn't like to fly due to the security hassle. We object about having to run our collars through the Xray, and holding up our front paws for the body scanner can be difficult.
kronk wrote: Also, crashing the plane to prevent a hostage situation is rather extreme.
But crashing the plane to prevent another 9/11-style attack is a perfectly rational thing to do. If you expect to die anyway you might as well die crashing into the middle of nowhere instead of crashing into a major city and killing thousands of people.
kronk wrote: Also, crashing the plane to prevent a hostage situation is rather extreme.
But crashing the plane to prevent another 9/11-style attack is a perfectly rational thing to do. If you expect to die anyway you might as well die crashing into the middle of nowhere instead of crashing into a major city and killing thousands of people.
The only thing that makes me question this kind of situation is the complete lack of communication from anyone on that plane. I know that the plane spend quite some time over the middle of the ocean there, so that would make things quite a bit more complicated, but I would have thought that some people would have tried to reach their families on their cell phones if they were aware of something going on. Especially if the idea that the plane turned around and crossed over land again has any merit.
kronk wrote: Also, crashing the plane to prevent a hostage situation is rather extreme.
But crashing the plane to prevent another 9/11-style attack is a perfectly rational thing to do. If you expect to die anyway you might as well die crashing into the middle of nowhere instead of crashing into a major city and killing thousands of people.
The only thing that makes me question this kind of situation is the complete lack of communication from anyone on that plane. I know that the plane spend quite some time over the middle of the ocean there, so that would make things quite a bit more complicated, but I would have thought that some people would have tried to reach their families on their cell phones if they were aware of something going on. Especially if the idea that the plane turned around and crossed over land again has any merit.
This was the exact conversation I was having with some people only a few hours ago. No one on the plane called family when they thought the plane was going down?
I could understand not getting a signal over the stretches of ocean. But don't those planes have on-board phones as well? I guess they could have disabled them too from the cockpit if it was a hijacking.
kronk wrote: Also, crashing the plane to prevent a hostage situation is rather extreme.
But crashing the plane to prevent another 9/11-style attack is a perfectly rational thing to do. If you expect to die anyway you might as well die crashing into the middle of nowhere instead of crashing into a major city and killing thousands of people.
The only thing that makes me question this kind of situation is the complete lack of communication from anyone on that plane. I know that the plane spend quite some time over the middle of the ocean there, so that would make things quite a bit more complicated, but I would have thought that some people would have tried to reach their families on their cell phones if they were aware of something going on. Especially if the idea that the plane turned around and crossed over land again has any merit.
This was the exact conversation I was having with some people only a few hours ago. No one on the plane called family when they thought the plane was going down?
They might not have had time. Or been near to a cell tower. I mean it is ocean out there after all.
Commander Cain wrote: No one on the plane called family when they thought the plane was going down?
Depends on exactly what happened. IIRC the 9/11 victims only got to make phone calls because the planes descended low enough, and they were over densely populated areas with plenty of cell phone towers. And of course if it was an accident and not a hijacking then there may not have even been an opportunity to try to make a call.
For me the "nobody called?" is more of a question that makes me think it wasn't a hijacking. Especially if the plane flew for an hour or more after contact was lost and flew over land during that time. If it was hijacked for that long I think at least one person would have been able to make some sort of contact.
If it was a catastrophic crash, then I wouldn't expect any calls.
If the oxygen failed and made the pilots hypoxic to where they pushed wrong buttons and went on some strange course then I would expect the passengers to be hypoxic as well and wouldn't be surprised if they didn't do anything while the plane coasted to an empty fuel tank.
The communications systems of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 were deliberately disabled, Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib Razak has said.
According to satellite and radar evidence, he said, the plane then changed course and could have continued flying for a further seven hours.
He said the "movements are consistent with the deliberate action of someone on the plane".
The plane disappeared a week ago with 239 people on board.
The Kuala Lumpur-Beijing flight last made contact with air traffic control as it headed east towards the South China Sea, about one hour after take-off.
Mr Razak told a news conference that new satellite evidence shows "with a high degree of certainty" that the aircraft's communications systems were disabled just before it reached the east coast of Malaysia.
According to a military radar, the flight then turned and flew back over Malaysia before turning north-west.
Continue reading the main story
The passengers
153 Chinese including a delegation of artists
38 Malaysians including an official who was due to start a job at a branch office in Beijing
2 Iranians using false passports in a bid to seek asylum in Europe
3 Americans including an IBM executive who had recently relocated to Kuala Lumpur
2 Canadians returning to Beijing after a business trip
7 Indonesians, 6 Australians, 5 Indians and 4 French
2 each from New Zealand and Ukraine; one each from Russia, Taiwan and Netherlands
Passengers' stories
Theories swirl around flight MH370
Why do planes crash?
A satellite was able to pick up a signal from the plane for some seven hours after it lost radar contact, although it was unable to give a precise location, Mr Razak said.
He went on to say that based on this new data, investigators "have determined the plane's last communication with a satellite was in one of two possible corridors":
a northern corridor stretching from the border of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan through to northern Thailand
a southern corridor stretching from Indonesia to the southern Indian Ocean
Mr Razak said that in light of the new evidence, the investigation had "entered a new phase" and would focus on the crew and passengers on board.
Addressing reports that the plane had been hijacked, he said only "we are still investigating all possibilities as to what caused MH370 to deviate".
The families on board the flight have endured an agonising wait for news since the plane disappeared on 8 March.
An extensive search of the seas around Malaysia - involving 14 countries, 43 ships and 58 aircraft - have proved fruitless.
Mr Razak's news conference goes some way to addressing the speculation that had begun circulating in local media that the plane had been hijacked and had somehow landed intact.
If this was a hijack why no news or demands? if the jet landed - and there cannot be many places for a commercial jet liner to land safely- why has no one seen it?
even the plane carried on flying talk seems to be based partially on unnamed US intelligence sources saying the planes engines carried on transmitting data
and if the US did have a satellite that had conclusively picked up this info that was being freely broadcast by the plane (so no OOH SPYING to worry about) I'm sure they'd have had a named official giving a press conference as finding out what has happened is important of airline safety worldwide and for the sales of a big US company
(the Malaysian military radar data may indeed suggest this too but the degree of interpretation that seems to have been needed makes me less than convinced)
I know this is a tragedy, so I'm not trying to soften and insult the situation, but...where is that history channel guy with the crazy hair and the aliens thing. The meme.
marv335 wrote: I'm beginning to think it's sitting on a runway somewhere.
If it had crashed, some wreckage would have been found by now.
I'm beginning to think it's crashed somewhere.
If it had landed, it would have been found by now.
There are only so many places an airliner can land safely. Landed there would surely be some communication via mobiles. A landed aircraft could be spotted.
A successful hijack would have seen some communication by the hijackers by now.
An over land crash would probably result in a visible footprint, visible damage to the land it crashes in.
It doesn't make any sense.
Added to the information about the aircraft travelling after critical systems were turned off. It is somewhere between Malaysia and Turkmenistan OR between Malaysia and the Southern Indian Ocean. So, it could be anywhere in-between.
The BBC reported it tonight and it has officially been classed as a terrorist act by the Malaysian goverment. The tracking signal was turned of by someone who knew how to do it but yet the satalite signal was still tracked for 6 hours and it did a 90 degree turn to travel up the globe.
There is further evidence for this as the pilots house was raided by police and they found suspicious diary entries.
timetowaste85 wrote: I know this is a tragedy, so I'm not trying to soften and insult the situation, but...where is that history channel guy with the crazy hair and the aliens thing. The meme.
He is busy kidnapping a plane and making it mysteriously dissapear, so that he can blame aliens for it
But seriously, this is weird. It is like the entire plane just dissolved into thin air.
Have there been crashes before where they couldn't find any wreckage? Or do we have a new Bermuda Triangle here?
I don't think it has been hijacked, in that case we probably would've heard something by now. After all, a plane has to land somewhere, doesn't it?
Well there were crashes in the past where a plane disappeared, but that was when we didn't have all this ability to track them or get out and search before the debris would have time to sink and oil slicks could dissipate.
I've read one article that says it could have entered Indian air space without them knowing, because in some areas their radar isn't always switched on.
timetowaste85 wrote: I know this is a tragedy, so I'm not trying to soften and insult the situation, but...where is that history channel guy with the crazy hair and the aliens thing. The meme.
I was surprised this thread made it 5 pages before someone post this meme.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dammit, never mind!
If it came down slowly then it might not have broken up so much and sunk whole. If they flew for hours since their last known location they could be over a huge range if sea which would make it extremely hard to find. I find the suggestion that it's parked on a runway somewhere less plausible.
The plane flew for hours after someone switched off the transponder.
Whoever switched off the transponder knew what they were doing.
There have been no credible claims of responsibility from terrorist groups.
No wreckage has been found.
The plane has not been found on the ground.
No cell phone calls have been made by the passengers.
No demands have been made by the hijackers.
Nothing about this makes sense, which means the only logical answer is:
Shadowrunners.
Seriously. Some corp Johnson wants the stock of Malaysian Air to drop, so he hires a team to make a plane disappear in mid-flight. But it can't look like a terrorist strike, because that wouldn't be Malaysian Air's fault (and wouldn't affect the stock price as much). So the team can't just blow the thing up... So, they do the next best thing; they steal it in mid-flight. They smuggle narcojet vapor onto the plane and gas the crew and passengers (dosing themselves with stimulants and wearing gas masks to keep themselves unaffected) then their rigger jacks into the plane's systems and shuts down the transponder. The team diverts the plane to a clandestine airstrip (one used by smugglers, or more likely a secret air strip owned by the corporation the team's Johnson works for) and lands. They confiscate cell phones from the passengers while they are unconscious (and bring a portable cell phone jammer, in case they missed any) so no calls get made. The plane lands, and is quickly and quietly cut up chop-shop style so there is nothing for satellites to find if they should happen to photograph the area the plane landed (and since it landed hundreds of miles away from where it should have been, they had time to cut it up before anyone looked in that area). The passengers are given new corporate identities as low-level wage slaves at one of the Johnson's secure facilities.
Estimated payout for this run: Y20,000 per runner. A job like this would usually pay more, but the team uses the facilities of their Johnson a lot on this one, so they don't get paid as much as they would, had they not relied so heavily on corp support. If the team doesn't use corp support on this, and uses a smuggler airfield with smugglers cutting up the plane, then the payout could be as high as Y40,000 per runner.
Swedish newspapers, citing Sky News, are now reporting that the transponders were turned off in a small window of radio silence which exists due to Malaysian ATCs handing the plane over to their Vietnamese counterparts, which would seem to implicate one of the pilots (or someone with similar experience).
squidhills wrote: The plane flew for hours after someone switched off the transponder.
Whoever switched off the transponder knew what they were doing.
There have been no credible claims of responsibility from terrorist groups.
No wreckage has been found.
The plane has not been found on the ground.
No cell phone calls have been made by the passengers.
No demands have been made by the hijackers.
Nothing about this makes sense, which means the only logical answer is:
Shadowrunners.
Seriously. Some corp Johnson wants the stock of Malaysian Air to drop, so he hires a team to make a plane disappear in mid-flight. But it can't look like a terrorist strike, because that wouldn't be Malaysian Air's fault (and wouldn't affect the stock price as much). So the team can't just blow the thing up... So, they do the next best thing; they steal it in mid-flight. They smuggle narcojet vapor onto the plane and gas the crew and passengers (dosing themselves with stimulants and wearing gas masks to keep themselves unaffected) then their rigger jacks into the plane's systems and shuts down the transponder. The team diverts the plane to a clandestine airstrip (one used by smugglers, or more likely a secret air strip owned by the corporation the team's Johnson works for) and lands. They confiscate cell phones from the passengers while they are unconscious (and bring a portable cell phone jammer, in case they missed any) so no calls get made. The plane lands, and is quickly and quietly cut up chop-shop style so there is nothing for satellites to find if they should happen to photograph the area the plane landed (and since it landed hundreds of miles away from where it should have been, they had time to cut it up before anyone looked in that area). The passengers are given new corporate identities as low-level wage slaves at one of the Johnson's secure facilities.
Estimated payout for this run: Y20,000 per runner. A job like this would usually pay more, but the team uses the facilities of their Johnson a lot on this one, so they don't get paid as much as they would, had they not relied so heavily on corp support. If the team doesn't use corp support on this, and uses a smuggler airfield with smugglers cutting up the plane, then the payout could be as high as Y40,000 per runner.
....What? That's at least as plausible as aliens.
Slow clap!
That's why I know longer play Shadowrun. I can just switch on the news instead.
Mega-corporations? Check
Cyber-decks? Check
Johnsons and Salarimen? Check
The matrix? Check
Bionics? Check
Orks, Trolls, and Dragons? Check.... errr.... okay not that one....... YET!
My thoughts (tin-foil hat time): Terrorist action, either on the part of the cabin crew or other passengers (is the passport situation a red herring or indicative of something else?), whatever organization is responsible for it has considerable resources, plane was flown to remote airfield, landed, refueled, and moved (or hidden in a really big hangar that nobody noticed???) to a corner of the world where nobody would notice. Intent is to use the plane as a delivery system for a dirty bomb (or maybe just smuggle large quantities of drugs).
Alternate theory: Government knows whats up and is being tight-lipped for whatever reason.
Alternate Alternate theory: Putin, because Russia and Ukraine.
Alternate Alternate Alternate theory: aliens
Alternate alternate alternate alternate theory: Copilot, because he said 'good night'.
Alternate alternate alternate alternate alternate theory: It crashed.
but why would people go through all the steps required to make that crash "invisible" to the local authorities? especially only to crash it mysteriously?
why was the crashing plane taken off its tracker, why did it issue no distress calls, why were there deliberate maneuvers completely unrelated to a crash after losing contact?
so sure, crashing is a probable scenario, but it likely was not the intent of the hijackers to crash the plane (again, IF it crashed)
not much would be gained by crashing it, and stealing a large intercontinental plane has been on lots and lots of terrorist's "to do" lists for quite some time.
since in america, its already been done, security is much higher, so it would make sense for some terror org to try this "out in the boonies" so to speak to steal a plane, only to later spoof its recognition codes or something.
gossipmeng wrote: I'm still finding it very hard to believe that no government was able to track it.... regardless of the explanations they have given.
It's not hard to believe that nobody tracked it. The air traffic control system is designed to operate under the assumption that everyone is cooperating and trying to avoid a disaster (or just extra work for the poor controller), which includes communicating properly, having a working transponder to identify yourself as a plane, etc. Similarly, military radars are designed to look for specific kinds of targets in specific areas and wouldn't necessarily care at all about a random airliner with a broken transponder flying nowhere near a likely attack route. Even if the plane is somewhere in the raw radar data it's very likely that nobody was actually paying attention to it and able to tell you where it was without going back to a (possible) recording of the radar data and trying to figure out which random dot is the missing plane.
easysauce wrote: since in america, its already been done, security is much higher, so it would make sense for some terror org to try this "out in the boonies" so to speak to steal a plane, only to later spoof its recognition codes or something.
There are no "recognition codes" to spoof. Aircraft have two identification numbers:
1) A FAA database number to identify all of the plane's owners/maintenance records/etc, which is painted on the plane somewhere. Technically you can see it at any time, but it is never used for anything while in flight. If you don't have a flight number (like a scheduled airline flight) assigned to you then you'll use it to identify yourself when talking on the radio, but your identity is never verified, it's just to make sure everyone has a unique radio name and knows who is talking to who. If I call ATC as N3513K nobody cares if I'm actually flying that specific Cessna 172, they just care that nobody else in the area is also using that number and would be confused if they said "N3513K, cleared to land".
2) A transponder which returns a four-digit number when the plane is hit by a radar beam. This number is completely arbitrary and used only so that air traffic control can identify which dot on the radar is which plane, it has nothing to do with the specific plane. Whenever you talk to a new controller they will tell you which number to set your transponder to . And of course to do this the pilots have full control over the transponder, but setting it to a different number would just get an annoyed controller to ask you to fix it. You'd only be confused with another plane if you set it to a number that was already in use at the moment, but then all you'd do is have the radar operator see two planes tagged 1234 on their screen for a few moments until they get one of them to change numbers.
In neither case would there be any kind of "spoofing" to pretend to be a different plane, and there is no plausible scenario in which you have to hijack a plane in advance to mess with them.
So we know there are four individuals on the flight with stolen passports, yet now the focus is suddenly on the pilots? Yeah sure. The media is surprised that the pilot had a flight simulator in his house? Really?
There has been a major shift in the focus of attention on this story. A lot of smoke is being blown in our faces right now.
If it is terrorists I'm not surprised they haven't said anything yet. Their probably not done yet. Most likely to try and use the plan. "9/11 anyone". Also not surprised if the government's do know and aren't saying since it would tip their hand early.
wowsmash wrote: If it is terrorists I'm not surprised they haven't said anything yet. Their probably not done yet. Most likely to try and use the plan. "9/11 anyone". Also not surprised if the government's do know and aren't saying since it would tip their hand early.
If someone were planning to use the plane in a 9/11 style attack, announcing that you took the plane before using it would be a dumb idea, as you say.
I just hope that if it was hijacked that the passengers are OK. But honestly, if it was hyjacked, why wasn't a single text, email, or phone call sent? There is no way you can take 239 people's cell phones without someone getting off a text. I just don't buy it.
SickSix wrote: So we know there are four individuals on the flight with stolen passports, yet now the focus is suddenly on the pilots?
Passports are stolen for a lot of reasons that don't involve hijacking airplanes. Drug smuggling, illegal immigration, etc. I'm sure they were investigated, but they probably turned out to be unrelated. For example, there was discussion about one of the passengers using the stolen passport being a pretty clear case of illegal immigration, with the flight chosen simply because it was the cheapest one available.
That is 100% more plausible than the other theories out there. So it can't be true!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SickSix wrote: So we know there are four individuals on the flight with stolen passports, yet now the focus is suddenly on the pilots? Yeah sure. The media is surprised that the pilot had a flight simulator in his house? Really?
There has been a major shift in the focus of attention on this story. A lot of smoke is being blown in our faces right now.
SickSix wrote: So we know there are four individuals on the flight with stolen passports, yet now the focus is suddenly on the pilots? Yeah sure. The media is surprised that the pilot had a flight simulator in his house? Really?
There has been a major shift in the focus of attention on this story. A lot of smoke is being blown in our faces right now.
There were two people with stolen passports. They have been identified and cleared of suspicion of involvement with terrorism.
The pilots are the only ones on board known to have the technical knowledge to disable the transponder systems and put the plane through manoeuvres.
However if you knew the reasons and progression of the whole thing a couple of weeks ago, it is very irresponsible of you not to notify the relevant authorities.
wowsmash wrote: If it is terrorists I'm not surprised they haven't said anything yet. Their probably not done yet. Most likely to try and use the plan. "9/11 anyone". Also not surprised if the government's do know and aren't saying since it would tip their hand early.
If someone were planning to use the plane in a 9/11 style attack, announcing that you took the plane before using it would be a dumb idea, as you say.
I just hope that if it was hijacked that the passengers are OK. But honestly, if it was hyjacked, why wasn't a single text, email, or phone call sent? There is no way you can take 239 people's cell phones without someone getting off a text. I just don't buy it.
I'm pretty sure cellphones don't work over Oceans... right?
SickSix wrote: So we know there are four individuals on the flight with stolen passports, yet now the focus is suddenly on the pilots? Yeah sure. The media is surprised that the pilot had a flight simulator in his house? Really?
There has been a major shift in the focus of attention on this story. A lot of smoke is being blown in our faces right now.
There were two people with stolen passports. They have been identified and cleared of suspicion of involvement with terrorism.
The pilots are the only ones on board known to have the technical knowledge to disable the transponder systems and put the plane through manoeuvres.
However if you knew the reasons and progression of the whole thing a couple of weeks ago, it is very irresponsible of you not to notify the relevant authorities.
I'm sorry where did I ever imply that? Why don't you stop trying to sound so smug before you make a fool of yourself.
SickSix wrote: So we know there are four individuals on the flight with stolen passports, yet now the focus is suddenly on the pilots? Yeah sure. The media is surprised that the pilot had a flight simulator in his house? Really?
There has been a major shift in the focus of attention on this story. A lot of smoke is being blown in our faces right now.
There were two people with stolen passports. They have been identified and cleared of suspicion of involvement with terrorism.
The pilots are the only ones on board known to have the technical knowledge to disable the transponder systems and put the plane through manoeuvres.
However if you knew the reasons and progression of the whole thing a couple of weeks ago, it is very irresponsible of you not to notify the relevant authorities.
wowsmash wrote: If it is terrorists I'm not surprised they haven't said anything yet. Their probably not done yet. Most likely to try and use the plan. "9/11 anyone". Also not surprised if the government's do know and aren't saying since it would tip their hand early.
If someone were planning to use the plane in a 9/11 style attack, announcing that you took the plane before using it would be a dumb idea, as you say.
I just hope that if it was hijacked that the passengers are OK. But honestly, if it was hyjacked, why wasn't a single text, email, or phone call sent? There is no way you can take 239 people's cell phones without someone getting off a text. I just don't buy it.
I'm pretty sure cellphones don't work over Oceans... right?
There are communication satellites over the ocean, yes. Also, eventually they will be near land. If there are any towers around or satellites overhead, then a call can be made, or a call trying to be made will get through. There is no way they were so thorough that they got every phone. I just don't buy it. I've been on too many planes to know that I can stash a phone under a seat where it won't be found, let alone when you have 239 people to frisk.
So I implied I knew what happened weeks ago in my post? Sure...
What I implied is that the media focus keeps shifting and we shouldn't believe most of what we are being told. And that is basically the same thing many others here are saying.
So I will accept that the stolen passport holders are logically ruled out.
But does anyone seriously find it newsworthy that a pilot has a flight simulator?
And has there been any verification about the report that there were technicians on the plane that were working on 'cloaking' technology?
And wouldn't cell phones be out of range at high altitude?
Pff. I beat this guy to the punch way back on page 1:
Seaward wrote: Not as much radio contact as you'd think.
Anyway, it happened over the sea, so a collision's unlikely. Nothing to hit but other aircraft. It didn't (entirely) explode in midair if they're finding oil slicks. Best guess is some kind of fire or explosion in the cockpit. Hypoxia is a possibility too, I guess, but very unlikely.
wowsmash wrote: If it is terrorists I'm not surprised they haven't said anything yet. Their probably not done yet. Most likely to try and use the plan. "9/11 anyone". Also not surprised if the government's do know and aren't saying since it would tip their hand early.
If someone were planning to use the plane in a 9/11 style attack, announcing that you took the plane before using it would be a dumb idea, as you say.
I just hope that if it was hijacked that the passengers are OK. But honestly, if it was hyjacked, why wasn't a single text, email, or phone call sent? There is no way you can take 239 people's cell phones without someone getting off a text. I just don't buy it.
Thats why it went up to 45,000 feet. Lose sufficient compression/air. No more passenger problems.
Shouldn't worry about where it could have landed. Worry about the fields long enough and maintained enough for it to take off from. Its a huge plane and there was a report that there are about 20 fields in flight distance sufficient enough to take off from again.
I bet satellites and drones are all over those now, if anyone left in Washington is still competent.
SickSix wrote: So I implied I knew what happened weeks ago in my post? Sure...
What I implied is that the media focus keeps shifting and we shouldn't believe most of what we are being told. And that is basically the same thing many others here are saying.
So I will accept that the stolen passport holders are logically ruled out.
But does anyone seriously find it newsworthy that a pilot has a flight simulator?
And has there been any verification about the report that there were technicians on the plane that were working on 'cloaking' technology?
And wouldn't cell phones be out of range at high altitude?
'Cloaking' technology. Now you are sounding paranoid.
The Flight simulator, itself, is not alarming. If they find that he's been simulating flying 777's into land mark buildings by searching his hard drive, then that is alarming.
SickSix wrote: And has there been any verification about the report that there were technicians on the plane that were working on 'cloaking' technology?
Taking one article about anything as "proof" is silly.
I didn't present it as proof. I presented it as one source of a theory that is out there.
I like to keep an open mind. Unlike most people that can't accept anything that is not spoon feed to them by the mainstream media. Crazy is crazy. But there are little shreds of truth in almost every thing you hear or read. It's about piecing it all together.
It is just funny that no one has any clue what really happened but some feel they have enough information to clearly disregard one theory over another when there is the same amount of evidence for either.
SickSix wrote: It is just funny that no one has any clue what really happened but some feel they have enough information to clearly disregard one theory over another when there is the same amount of evidence for either.
Except there isn't equal evidence for either. There's decent evidence for hypoxia and/or other mechanical problems. There are plausible theories about hijacking, but we're still waiting on evidence to confirm any of them. There is no evidence that some magic secret cloaking device hid the plane, other than the same kind of obsessive search for "meaning" in irrelevant coincidences that leads people to believe tinfoil hat theories like "aliens did 9/11 because two of the victims posted on UFO forums". Which is more likely:
1) The plane was cloaked by some secret weapon we've never seen before. Why? How? Who knows, but it's really cool to speculate about it.
or
2) The plane "disappeared" because the system that tracks airline flights assumes that everyone has a working transponder and wants to be tracked (so they don't crash and die), and isn't very good at tracking planes that aren't cooperating. The plane is probably somewhere in the raw data the radar systems received, but without a working transponder to identify which dot is the plane finding it will be difficult and it will be even harder to confirm any theory about which one it is.
I bring up the Freescale Semiconductor people because someone may have wanted them ! Not because I think they cloaked the plane.
They would make great ransom bait or assets due to their knowledge.
So someone wants to kidnap 20 people that might be working on a super-secret "cloaking device" and they also have the resources to know enough personal information about them to know that they work on a super-secret cloaking device and also what flights they take and when, so that makes the easiest and most obvious way to apprehend said people is to develop an extremely complex plan involving the full scale take over of a Boeing 777 and effectively hide it's location and the passengers from every country in the world?
Logic would dictate that if a person or persons have the resources and the technical knowledge to pull off so a complex and convoluted plan involving everything I just described, it would be much, much, much easier just to abduct those people from their houses or cars or grocery store or local mall.
Putin orchestrated the whole deal with Crimea as a cover; he was actually after the £250bn in gold that the Liechtensteinean government had hidden in the aircraft.
What I don't understand is that it can't just vanish from radar if it was hijacked. If you were sitting at your desk watching a blip across the screen labeled mh370 and then the flight turns of all its transponders it will still be on Rader just it won't say mh370 anymore. So how can it just dissappear? Unless maybe there is a small area when the plane was switching over to Vietnam airspace in which it was perfect to just slip out of radar coverage. But you would have to know that and time it perfectly.
tuiman wrote: What I don't understand is that it can't just vanish from radar if it was hijacked.
Because, as I've said, the civilian* air traffic control system works under the assumption that everyone is cooperating and trying to to crash and die. There are a variety of ways in which a plane could disappear: it could be in a gap in radar coverage where controllers depend on verbal position reports, it could be automatically filtered out as junk data without the transponder return, it could be too inaccurate without the transponder altitude data to help determine the aircraft's position, or it could simply be an anonymous dot on the radar that nobody connects with the "missing" plane because nobody knows there's a problem, etc.
*Of course the military doesn't assume everyone is cooperating, but the military probably has very little interest in what's going on with random airliners far away from anything of strategic interest and wouldn't even consider worrying about a "missing" plane until someone asked them to help find it.
If you were sitting at your desk watching a blip across the screen labeled mh370 and then the flight turns of all its transponders it will still be on Rader just it won't say mh370 anymore.
Sure, if you were doing nothing but tracking mh370 that would be the case. But you're not just tracking that one plane, you're dealing with a lot of them. It would be very easy to get distracted by dealing with something that requires your active involvement, not pay much attention to a plane that's going to be flying straight and level for a while without going anywhere near any other traffic, and not notice anything has happened to it until long after it has lost its ID tag and gone somewhere you don't expect it to be (or even disappeared entirely).
But you would have to know that and time it perfectly.
If you fly that route frequently enough you probably do know where the dead spot (if one exists) is because you have to make verbal position reports (or, if you're below a certain altitude, you're just on your own with no ATC help) when you're in it. So you just wait until you're in the spot where you have no
I bring up the Freescale Semiconductor people because someone may have wanted them ! Not because I think they cloaked the plane.
They would make great ransom bait or assets due to their knowledge.
That would be an unwilling asset extraction job, and I already posted a Shadowrun hypothesis back on page 5. And FYI, no runner team capable of pulling off a job like this would actually do it... grabbing those guys by stealing an entire fraggin' airplane is too complicated when you can just snatch them from whatever corp housing block they live in.
And I apologize to anyone who has no idea what I'm talking about. I'm currently GMing a Shadowrun game, and I have it on the brain a lot, lately.
Maybe the giant crab from skyrim has it?
Oh I know, cannables were on the plane and get this,they ate everyone and themselves.
Russian sleep experiment did it?
Golum thought the ring was in the engine.
I know the internet is aflame with the latest "electrical fire" theory (pun intended), but it seems to not take in to account other information that we know about the plane after it lost contact with controllers.
If there was distinct, level maneuvering after the initial turn and contact loss, then yeah, somebody was at the controls, so fire starts to make less sense. In a post-9/11 world, nobody's getting out of the cockpit and making room for hijackers without at least squawking hijack first, so that puts it on the pilots, in my mind.
No worries. CNN has something that tops even The Event.
Josh Feldman wrote:CNN’s Don Lemon: ‘Is It Preposterous’ to Think a Black Hole Caused Flight 370 to Go Missing?
CNN’s Don Lemon has been entertaining all sorts of theories about the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, including the chance something “supernatural” happened, but on Wednesday night, he actually asked panelists about the possibility a black hole was involved.
Lemon brought this up along with other “conspiracy theories” people have been floating on Twitter, including people noting the eerie parallels to Lost and The Twilight Zone, and wondered, “is it preposterous” to consider a black hole as a possibility?
Mary Schiavo, a former Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation, said, “A small black hole would suck in our entire universe, so we know it’s not that.”
Here’s another theory I’ll just throw out there: what about the plane entered a wormhole into another dimension? I don’t know if that’s how the science works, though.
FOXNews is targeting the "right wing" demographic and MSNBC is targeting the "left wing" demographic. CNN appears to be targeting the "I get my news from tabloid magazines" demographic. Remember when CNN actually did news?
Breotan wrote: No worries. CNN has something that tops even The Event.
FOXNews is targeting the "right wing" demographic and MSNBC is targeting the "left wing" demographic. CNN appears to be targeting the "I get my news from tabloid magazines" demographic. Remember when CNN actually did news?
there's a joke to be made here about right wing, left wing, and lost airplanes but i'm too tired to make it.
Breotan wrote: No worries. CNN has something that tops even The Event.
FOXNews is targeting the "right wing" demographic and MSNBC is targeting the "left wing" demographic. CNN appears to be targeting the "I get my news from tabloid magazines" demographic. Remember when CNN actually did news?
there's a joke to be made here about right wing, left wing, and lost airplanes but i'm too tired to make it.
More "evidence" for both sinister stuff and non-sinister stuff keeps on coming up, although it seems like they are getting pretty certain of where it crashed.
They keep on talking about the pilot erasing stuff from his computer and flight simulator and how that might mean that he had a secret plan for the plane and was covering his tracks.
But the presumed location of the crash (southern coridor) seems to also back up the theory of the plane making the sharp turn to head towards the specific airport because of some possible emergency on the plane and then just cruising on that path until it ran out of fuel. Also sounds like the last recorded automated reporting system showed that the computer was programmed to head to the original location and that it was not preprogrammed to turn when it did. Also looks like the plane made a drop in altitude which might point towards the pilots trying to get to an altitude that would have enough oxygen to support the pilots and passengers.
Kanluwen wrote: Well, I'd say just to mess with people...as that certainly seems to have worked.
You don't kill more then 200 people just to "mess with people".
Depending on the psychological state of the pilot, if this was indeed a case of "suicide in the workplace" as has been suggested--then it could have an element of fame seeking behavior attached to it.
Maybe he just erased his porn collection because his girlfriend was coming over. If I had a cockpit with that many screens you could watch all your dirty videos at once while learning to control your joystick!
Of course there are a ton of non-shady reasons why he could have been erasing stuff on his simulator. And it seems like the fact that he erased stuff is the biggest "evidence" for wrongdoing.
This story that the Malaysian powers that be are creating, where the pilot is a terrorist linked to the former Prime Minister (who is in jail for false charge of sodomy) is just way too convenient.
sebster wrote: This story that the Malaysian powers that be are creating, where the pilot is a terrorist linked to the former Prime Minister (who is in jail for false charge of sodomy) is just way too convenient.
Is that what they are saying now? I haven't heard any news since Friday, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Malaysian government was trying to forge a narrative and push facts into holes until they fit. Last I heard, several knowledgeable groups (the FAA among them) have offered to assist in the investigation side of things (figuring out what happened and why) but have been politely rebuffed by Malaysian authorities. It seems the Malaysian government is eager to accept help in the search side of things (as they haven't turned anyone with an airplane, satellite, or boat away) but really wants to have sole responsibility for the investigation itself. It may not be for sinister reasons; it may just be a case of the Malaysians wanting to prove they are as capable as any western investigative agency. But if they are trying to stitch up the pilot without any hard evidence, that may come back to bite them when the black box is found. After all, if they say "the pilot was a terrorist and he was in league with criminals and enemies of the state" and the black box actually shows it was an accident, they are going to look awfully foolish.
squidhills wrote: Is that what they are saying now? I haven't heard any news since Friday, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Malaysian government was trying to forge a narrative and push facts into holes until they fit. Last I heard, several knowledgeable groups (the FAA among them) have offered to assist in the investigation side of things (figuring out what happened and why) but have been politely rebuffed by Malaysian authorities. It seems the Malaysian government is eager to accept help in the search side of things (as they haven't turned anyone with an airplane, satellite, or boat away) but really wants to have sole responsibility for the investigation itself. It may not be for sinister reasons; it may just be a case of the Malaysians wanting to prove they are as capable as any western investigative agency. But if they are trying to stitch up the pilot without any hard evidence, that may come back to bite them when the black box is found. After all, if they say "the pilot was a terrorist and he was in league with criminals and enemies of the state" and the black box actually shows it was an accident, they are going to look awfully foolish.
After the first few days the Malaysian government has been putting out stories about the pilot, that he was a die-hard supporter of Anwar Ibrahim, he was at his trial hearings etc, and therefore trying to tarnish Anwar with the brush of this apparent suicide terror thing done by the pilot.
Whether any of that is just fiction by the Malaysian authorities, or whether he is actually a supporter I have no idea. But lurching from him supporting Anwar to a conclusion that he was a terrorist who did this because of his ties to Anwar strikes me as a very convenient fiction.
Kanluwen wrote: Depending on the psychological state of the pilot, if this was indeed a case of "suicide in the workplace" as has been suggested--then it could have an element of fame seeking behavior attached to it.
But then where's the suicide note? If you're going to commit suicide and murder 238 people just for the fame then why wouldn't you do everything you can to make sure that everyone knows it? Why risk letting it become just another tragic accident with unknown causes? And why not even bother trying to crash on land instead of the middle of the ocean where the wreckage may never be found? Or in the middle of a city to maximize your mark on history?
squidhills wrote: But if they are trying to stitch up the pilot without any hard evidence, that may come back to bite them when the black box is found. After all, if they say "the pilot was a terrorist and he was in league with criminals and enemies of the state" and the black box actually shows it was an accident, they are going to look awfully foolish.
That's assuming anyone has the attention span to care. Crash investigations take a long time even when the black box and wreckage are found, so who really cares if a full report is published a year from now and hardly anyone bothers to read it or put it in a prominent position in the news? And who will really care about how the government was wrong about something a year ago when there are current problems to worry about?
djones520 wrote: Yeah, this just keeps getting weirder and weirder. Why would he do all this stuff just to fly the plane to the south Indian Ocean and crash it?
If it was a real inflight emergency/fire.... chances are he succumbed to smoke or whatever with the rest of the crew. Depressing as it might sound in that circumstance everyone aboard was dead by the time that plane hit the water.
They've clarified that the text messages were in addition to contacting them personally. Although, does seem a bit of a risky thing to do (and why bother if they have spoken to them?)
Heard that some hi-tech equipment from the US that can find the black box is on its way to where the 2 satellites think they may have found the plane. I suppose it is only once they are found that we might find out what has happened.
Pacific wrote: They've clarified that the text messages were in addition to contacting them personally. Although, does seem a bit of a risky thing to do (and why bother if they have spoken to them?)
Heard that some hi-tech equipment from the US that can find the black box is on its way to where the 2 satellites think they may have found the plane. I suppose it is only once they are found that we might find out what has happened.
Well i hope that they find it soon, if only to give a sense of closure to the family's.
This is truly bizarre and sad. I've been following this on cctv cause american news doesn't give any real out of country coverage aside from xenophobic propaganda.
As I said, this is truly bizarre. There seems to be no mundane answer that will explain everything, so we are left guessing. I mean this sounds like a James Bond plot intro where the evil genius makes a jumbo jet disappear.
One of the air crash investigators interviewed stated that right now he feels that people are not being imaginative enough on the possible cause. He clarified that in the past, investigations have shown that the causes of many of the most deadly crashes ended being things of which people had never even considered the possibility of occurring.
For some reason I immediately wondered if this could be the first case of computer hacking hijack. Not really saying I believe it is such. Just that this is where my imagination went after listening to the expert essentially say that we should be open to possibilities not considered.
If I was going to really guess. Carbon monoxide or toxic gas build up in cockpit that slowly asphyxiated the flight crew. While being slowly asphyxiated they could easily make errors in the auto pilot settings that would lead them to go off course.
Sorry if the speculation is in bad taste. Just trying to come to grips with how something like this could happen in this day and age.
Captain Avatar wrote: There seems to be no mundane answer that will explain everything, so we are left guessing.
No, there are plenty of mundane answers. So far the best theory seems to be that the plane encountered some kind of mechanical problem, and the pilots turned on a direct course for a nearby airport that would have been a good emergency option but were dead or unconscious soon after and the plane flew along on autopilot until it ran out of fuel and crashed. We've seen this exact kind of accident in the past, and the only real uncertainty here is exactly what the mechanical problem was.
For some reason I immediately wondered if this could be the first case of computer hacking hijack.
No. This is not even close to possible.
Just trying to come to grips with how something like this could happen in this day and age.
It could happen because flying is an inherently dangerous activity with very little margin for error. Air travel is only as safe as it is because of constant awareness of that danger and strict safety regulations that are often based on learning the hard way how things can go wrong.
If you guys remember, the Malaysian gov had said 3 weeks ago that the last words of the pilot on the plane were "All right, good night."
Now they admit it was something completely different: "Good night, MH370"
It's not weird at all. Both of them express the same content, and are pretty typical final statement to the controller as you're departing their area and transferring to another controller. "Good night, {flight number}" means "ok, bye", just like "all right, good night" does. The most likely explanation is that the actual statement was "good night, MH370" (the more technically correct form, since you're supposed to end each radio message with your flight number), and in some step of passing on the message from person to person it got paraphrased into "all right, good night".
(CNN) -- A Chinese patrol ship looking for signs of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 in the southern Indian Ocean discovered Saturday a pulse signal with a frequency of 37.5 kHz, state news agency Xinhua reported.
"That is the standard beacon frequency" for both so-called black boxes -- the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder, said Anish Patel, president of pinger manufacturer Dukane Seacom.
"They're identical."
But experts cautioned that no confirmation had been made that the signal was linked to the missing plane. "This could be a variety of things," said oceanographer Simon Boxall, who said the frequency is used by a variety of instruments.
"We've had a lot of red herrings, hyperbole on this whole search," the lecturer in ocean and earth science at the University of Southampton told CNN. "I'd really like to see this data confirmed."
He added, "It could be a false signal."
You almost hate to get your hopes up at this point in time, but maybe...
I used to work in oceanic survey.
We could sometimes have trouble finding the beacons on our sensor platforms despite having the exact GPS co-ordinates of their location.
Until it's on the deck of the ship, they've not found it.
It could happen because flying is an inherently dangerous activity with very little margin for error. Air travel is only as safe as it is because of constant awareness of that danger and strict safety regulations that are often based on learning the hard way how things can go wrong.
That and I think people often underestimate just how truly large the world still really is, and how easy it is to lose something. Combine that with books, TV, and movies making it seem like governments are omnipotent with tracking and you get a sense of confusion as to why something could go missing.
Who do you believe to be the mastermind behind this incident?
- Uygur muslims to the Xinjiang: Their hatred against Han populations traces back a millenium ago. Where their lands were conquered (Possibly by Genghis Khan, by then China had all been annexed) but the real grudge began when Hans ousted the Mongols and created Ming dynasty (whom strongly adhere to Sinocentrism, Chinese forms of Imperialism which believes in Sino Superiority over 'barbarian races'). Uygurlands were annexed and ruled over by Hans, (there were occasions where Han bureaucrats who committed serious crimes were 'exiled' there, but exiled WITH ONE'S AUTHORITY PRESERVED does NOT really punish him. instead it created a big space for him to 'express one's own resentment' upon Uygur populations. if there's no uprising, fine and once the 'servitude' is over and he can return to the east. but it usually ends with regional uprising (and he ended up being whacked by local rebels long before the Imperial forces were amassed to put them down). The Uygur VS Hans continue up to present day. modern Chinese government did Not try anything to appease these people, instead encouraging Hans to settle there (and sometimes promoting Christianity of any form so to dissolute the influences of 'religions of the rebels'). If there's no real reform, the only way out is that Xinjiang must be freed to form the nation of Turkmenistan
- China. Don't forget that famous books involving the use of dirty tricks to win the war and politics originated in China long before Niccolo Macchiavelli wrote The Prince. Sanguozi, and Sun Tzu's Art of War are the prime examples. Chinese 'Uygur problems' may be easier to be solved with violence if they frame Uygur of this incident. don't forget that
1. Flight crews were all muslim, Captain himself is 'radical ones' so he's more than happy to play his part in this grandscale transgression
2. Majority of passengers were ethnically Chinese.
Another 'conspiracy'. somebody said that 'Americans' (particularly the CIA) engineered this incident. new evidences suggested that the 'captain' has been nabbed, the last video transmission is 'made by Malaysian hijackers' signalling that 'mission accomplished'.
Reasons behind this incident is said to be that one of the passengers have 'an artifact' the 'Americans' in question wants to fetch but does artifact involves with ASEAN 'Game of Thrones'?
Everyone knows the only artifacts that the Americans want are in a temple in...I want to say Peru? Anyway, it's guarded by sort-of-Jaguars, so good luck.
Another 'conspiracy'. somebody said that 'Americans' (particularly the CIA) engineered this incident. new evidences suggested that the 'captain' has been nabbed, the last video transmission is 'made by Malaysian hijackers' signalling that 'mission accomplished'.
Reasons behind this incident is said to be that one of the passengers have 'an artifact' the 'Americans' in question wants to fetch but does artifact involves with ASEAN 'Game of Thrones'?
Lies. How do I know?
I DESTROYED THE PLANE.
All of your conspiracies are lies and ignorance. The pathetic CIA couldn't even dream of a plot like this. How do I know? Because I run the CIA as a diversion from my real schemes. The simple truth is that everything is part of my grand plot to generate forum flame wars. The Obamacare arguments were getting too boring, so I hijacked the plane with my robot minions and crashed it into the ocean. All of the posts are MINE.
Another 'conspiracy'. somebody said that 'Americans' (particularly the CIA) engineered this incident. new evidences suggested that the 'captain' has been nabbed, the last video transmission is 'made by Malaysian hijackers' signalling that 'mission accomplished'.
Reasons behind this incident is said to be that one of the passengers have 'an artifact' the 'Americans' in question wants to fetch but does artifact involves with ASEAN 'Game of Thrones'?
Lies. How do I know?
I DESTROYED THE PLANE.
All of your conspiracies are lies and ignorance. The pathetic CIA couldn't even dream of a plot like this. How do I know? Because I run the CIA as a diversion from my real schemes. The simple truth is that everything is part of my grand plot to generate forum flame wars. The Obamacare arguments were getting too boring, so I hijacked the plane with my robot minions and crashed it into the ocean. All of the posts are MINE.
) aircraft.
