Malaysian Airline plane disappears

Really? We need to carry on with this crap?Even in the face of logic?

It hardly helps the victim's families to come to terms with their loss if armchair theorists can't shut up about ridiculous claims and I'll roll my eyes all I want to.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

...as for 'conspiracy' theories, well some are obviously verging on absurd, such as invisibility cloaks and the such, but there are many reasons or ideas that are not far-fetched in the least.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories but neither do I consider scientific breakthroughs in the field of invisibility cloaks as "absurd".

"By improving the technique, the team hopes to be able to create larger pieces of the material with engineered optical properties, which would make it practical to produce for real-life device applications. For example, the team could develop large-area metamaterial absorbers, which would enable fighter jets to remain invisible from detection systems."

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Plenty of isolated military and deserted ex-military airfields scattered all over the 'stans. The desire to acquire an aircraft for nefarious purposes could have been long in the planning.

In the absence of any evidence of its demise in the Indian ocean and very little effort put into looking on the equally possible northern route.



Will this do?

yeah man excellent

---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 13:28 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

What's the motive ?,usually the motive is political and the hijackers do it in full view of the public so as to get their cause noticed by as many people as possible ,definitely not hijacked imo

mob hit or CIA MI5 some other security agency. Motives could be as simple as something a single of the passengers had done.

---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

But how does a 777 get there without being seen or picked up on Radar? Even if you say Malaysia lost it and Pakistan didn't track it then it would still have had to go over Indian airspace, including the border with Pakistan, without being noticed?

CIA MI5 or other security service could have organised it

---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

But if the transponder was doctored, it would have to have a flight plan logged (for the supposed "original" flight), and when it didn't arrive, there would have been a search for that missing plane.

If there wasn't a flight plan logged, the doctored transponder would have been logged as an unauthorised flight - seems to be getting very complicated.

that does not in any way mean anything

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Really? We need to carry on with this crap?Even in the face of logic?

It hardly helps the victim's families to come to terms with their loss if armchair theorists can't shut up about ridiculous claims and I'll roll my eyes all I want to.

The only way you can say it did not happen in any way was to be involved was you involved ???






oh look I can do it too

oh and I seriously doubt any relatives of the lost will be looking at this forum and if they are Hello :-)

and of course anyone who has expressed a theory in this thread are all armchair theorists anyway including you Maggy

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But if the transponder was doctored, it would have to have a flight plan logged (for the supposed "original" flight), and when it didn't arrive, there would have been a search for that missing plane.

If there wasn't a flight plan logged, the doctored transponder would have been logged as an unauthorised flight - seems to be getting very complicated.

On the contrary: A private jet from a private airstrip wishing to overfly Indian and or Pakistan air space in order to get to some Russian oligarchs private airstrip in one of the 'stans.

If they'd done it right a trip that would have been done several times so that the controllers would be familiar with the transponder and plan.

Stolen jet then flies same route with same transponder in from the south beyond radar control and out to the north beyond radar control.

Only needs a very few in the know to bring it off plus one pilot on the jet to take over when the co-pilot is off the flight deck and the doors locked.

Not as crazy as some stupid suicide stunt that some here have accepted hook, line and sinker.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

On the contrary: A private jet from a private airstrip wishing to overfly Indian and or Pakistan air space in order to get to some Russian oligarchs private airstrip in one of the 'stans.

If they'd done it right a trip that would have been done several times so that the controllers would be familiar with the transponder and plan.

Stolen jet then flies same route with same transponder in from the south beyond radar control and out to the north beyond radar control.

Only needs a very few in the know to bring it off plus one pilot on the jet to take over when the co-pilot is off the flight deck and the doors locked.

Not as crazy as some stupid suicide stunt that some here have accepted hook, line and sinker.

Well it is a bit more crazy. First of all why would they need the plane? Surely whatever purpose would be served by now. You need a landing strip quite large and a place to hide a 777, and no-one who saw it over Pakistan/India. What do you do with the people that were on board and why hijack a relatively populous and focused flight that draws a lot of attention? Especially since, in your example, they already have access to a private jet.

The plane ditching over the ocean is not only the best lead we have but also the more logical outcome.

[Pierre]

It's at the bottom of the ocean and everyone's dead.

No one knows what happened, and we probably never will.

The huge vacuum of knowledge that leaves, is therefore filled by some of stupid theories presented by the cable forum's Lone Gunmen.

[Uncle Peter]

Why commit vast amounts of resource and money to searching the Southern Indian Ocean for the sake of a cover-up?

That would imply all nations involved and Inmarsat are complicit in a consipiracy which is, on the face of it absurd.

Perhaps the Malaysian authorities do know more than they're letting on: the cargo, the crew, maintenance records for example. Let's face it, they have proved that they are not equipped to deal with this situation and seemingly incapable of defending their own airspace. It's safe to say that their conduct and handling of the crisis has been worse than appalling. That doesn't mean to say that the aircraft is somewhere other than where Inmarsat and their peers have estimated.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It's at the bottom of the ocean and everyone's dead.

No one knows what happened, and we probably never will.

The huge vacuum of knowledge that leaves, is therefore filled by some of stupid theories presented by the cable forum's Lone Gunmen.

I think you are correct for the main part (it's at the bottom of the ocean). How it came to be there I don't know - neither do any of us here.

That said, my opinion does not mean fact or that other theories are not possible and I'm very open to be proven otherwise. as Tizmeinit says, unless you were actually there, you simply won't know.

however, I don't think that ideas that try to explain away what may have happened should all be classed as 'stupid' or irrelevant or just be dismissed outright, just because they don't fit what most people deem as the most 'likely' of causes or results. 'most likely' does not equal 'actually happened'.

i believe it would be closed minded to think anyone here 'knows' what happened. at present, every opinion that anyone here presents is purely speculative and is therefore no less a theory than the next person's opinion.

---------- Post added at 15:19 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Uncle Peter

Why commit vast amounts of resource and money to searching the Southern Indian Ocean for the sake of a cover-up?

If it were a cover-up, this is precisely the sort of action I would expect. the result of a successful cover up may far outweigh the cost of performing the cover up itself. the end result may not even be based on a fiscal measurement. we don't know. after all, it wouldn't be a very good cover up if they were not seen as trying to do something, would it?

Originally Posted by Uncle Peter

That would imply all nations involved and Inmarsat are complicit in a consipiracy which is, on the face of it absurd.

what makes you say that? what if the disappearance and successful cover up were to prevent a war...?

Originally Posted by Uncle Peter

Perhaps the Malaysian authorities do know more than they're letting on: the cargo, the crew, maintenance records for example. Let's face it, they have proved that they are not equipped to deal with this situation and seemingly incapable of defending their own airspace. It's safe to say that their conduct and handling of the crisis has been worse than appalling. That doesn't mean to say that the aircraft is somewhere other than where Inmarsat and their peers have estimated.

maybe. maybe not.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

I think you are correct for the main part (it's at the bottom of the ocean). How it came to be there I don't know - neither do any of us here.

That said, my opinion does not mean fact or that other theories are not possible and I'm very open to be proven otherwise. as Tizmeinit says, unless you were actually there, you simply won't know.

however, I don't think that ideas that try to explain away what may have happened should all be classed as 'stupid' or irrelevant or just be dismissed outright, just because they don't fit what most people deem as the most 'likely' of causes or results. 'most likely' does not equal 'actually happened'.

i believe it would be closed minded to think anyone here 'knows' what happened. at present, every opinion that anyone here presents is purely speculative and is therefore no less a theory than the next person's opinion.

Good post.

I wonder how many people would have thought that hijacked planes would be flown into skyscrapers until 9/11 happened?

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by martyh

What's the motive ?,usually the motive is political and the hijackers do it in full view of the public so as to get their cause noticed by as many people as possible ,definitely not hijacked imo

There could be plenty of motives for wanting a Boeing 777, so there doesn't have to be a political reason for a hijacking. As well as having a potential flying bomb, I guess it's a lot cheaper to steal a 777 than it is to buy one. Not sure if it's feasible to wipe identifying marks and similar signals (like the engine transmit) and then have it re-furbished as a private liner, like what the basketball stars, some arabs etc have. Or it could be used for expensive parts.

If someone wanted to make a big political fuss out of a hijacking, they would have done it by now. So even if it was hijacked you would have to consider the passengers dead/executed.

Until we get information that says otherwise. we have to assume it's at the bottom of the sea and guess at how it got there. Hijacking that went wrong, military shot it down, pilot suicide or something that lead to loss of oxygen causing the pilots to pass out after they set an autopilot, we just don't know. The obvious most plausible theory isn't always the correct one.

Originally Posted by Qtx

There could be plenty of motives for wanting a Boeing 777, so there doesn't have to be a political reason for a hijacking. As well as having a potential flying bomb, I guess it's a lot cheaper to steal a 777 than it is to buy one. Not sure if it's feasible to wipe identifying marks and similar signals (like the engine transmit) and then have it re-furbished as a private liner, like what the basketball stars, some arabs etc have. Or it could be used for expensive parts.

If someone wanted to make a big political fuss out of a hijacking, they would have done it by now. So even if it was hijacked you would have to consider the passengers dead/executed.

Until we get information that says otherwise. we have to assume it's at the bottom of the sea and guess at how it got there. Hijacking that went wrong, military shot it down, pilot suicide or something that lead to loss of oxygen causing the pilots to pass out after they set an autopilot, we just don't know. The obvious most plausible theory isn't always the correct one.

True - but it usually is.... (Occam's Razor).

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Good post.

I wonder how many people would have thought that hijacked planes would be flown into skyscrapers until 9/11 happened?

Oh you obviously never got the email. It never happened...

[Derek]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I wonder how many people would have thought that hijacked planes would be flown into skyscrapers until 9/11 happened?

Well Tom Clancy had a hijacked 747 hitting the Capitol building as a major plot point in one of his books written in 1994 so it wasn't as if using planes as weapons against landmarks was first dreamt up in a cave somewhere.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Derek

Well Tom Clancy had a hijacked 747 hitting the Capitol building as a major plot point in one of his books written in 1994 so it wasn't as if using planes as weapons against landmarks was first dreamt up in a cave somewhere.

Perhaps 'would have thought' should be read as 'expected'.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Good post.

I wonder how many people expected that hijacked planes would be flown into skyscrapers until 9/11 happened?

---------- Post added at 16:51 ---------- Previous post was at 16:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Oh you obviously never got the email. It never happened...