MH370 - Call for Search & Rescue Help

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › MH370 - Call for Search & Rescue Help

1 | ... | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ... | 54

5678 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1008916 19-Mar-2014 12:30

Fred99:
joker97: www.businessinsider.com.au/malaysia-plane-fire-2014-3

If in the air for many hours (which seems to be an accepted fact now), then on the course to Pulau Perak, if it carried on, then the plane must have flown over Northern Sumatra - through Indonesian airspace. The Indonesians would have seen it.

This assumes everyone is telling the whole truth, which I'm sure is not the case. There seems to be various kinds of misleading going on, with Thai authorities only now releasing their radar information because "no-one asked for it specifically". And some of the earlier Chinese photos "should not have been released".

For example, "for reasons of national security" Indonesia won't want to tell Malaysia (or Australia or anyone else) the extent of their radar coverage. Especially if they are doing something illegal/immoral/extremely clever to achieve it. So they may choose to NOT tell anyone if they saw the plane fly over their territory.

If it turned right when it was over Pulau Perak - as suggested (and generally accepted) did happen - then somebody was at the controls.

To be pedantically accurate... the autopilot *could* be programmed to follow a path from one waypoint to the next to the next, so it could have made the right turn. Although programming it that way in this case doesn't make any sense at all.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79140 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1009166 19-Mar-2014 17:34

And... http://mh370shadow.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1009206 19-Mar-2014 18:03

Geektastic:
joker97: Absolutely mate, this is a free world. Anyone is free to do whatever pleases them to whoever they like.

Sadly not. However they ARE free to judge people by their own criteria, surely?

Just to (hopefully) close a sub thread, my comment wasn't really "my criteria". I prefaced it by commenting "if I put my bigot hat on". I don't consider bigotry a good attribute, so if what I said was misinterpreted, I apologise for causing offense. I hope I am not a bigot - but I am an atheist.

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1009235 19-Mar-2014 18:54

Hmmm, I have no idea how accurate this is and if you look at the authors previous posts she appears to post a lot of stories that are anti, well, anti everything, so large grain of salt reqd. ,but it appears this wasn't the only plane that flew 'untracked'.

http://beforeitsnews.com/events/2014/03/malaysia-jet-flew-where-other-chaotic-boeing-did-last-year-2432818.html

this story (same author) also has some photos of the documentation
http://beforeitsnews.com/events/2014/03/mh370-sar-region-2013-untracked-boeing-you-never-heard-about-2432802.html

Technofreak

6527 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1009278 19-Mar-2014 19:22

freitasm: And... http://mh370shadow.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68

This scenario is very improbable for several reasons, timing would need to be almost to the second, at speeds of15 km a minute, and formation flying needs practice.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Technofreak

6527 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1009286 19-Mar-2014 19:27

turnin: Hmmm, I have no idea how accurate this is and if you look at the authors previous posts she appears to post a lot of stories that are anti, well, anti everything, so large grain of salt reqd. ,but it appears this wasn't the only plane that flew 'untracked'.

http://beforeitsnews.com/events/2014/03/malaysia-jet-flew-where-other-chaotic-boeing-did-last-year-2432818.html

this story (same author) also has some photos of the documentation
http://beforeitsnews.com/events/2014/03/mh370-sar-region-2013-untracked-boeing-you-never-heard-about-2432802.html

While the headline says untracked she doesn't really say they were untracked more like had dodgy documentation.

She also says flight MH370 had 5 hours 50 min of fuel, when in fact the actual fuel load hasn't been disclosed other than saying the normal fuel load. A lot of airlnes tanker fuel to Beijing so it could have had over 12 hours of fuel.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Batman

Mad Scientist
29717 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1009369 19-Mar-2014 21:14

as i said, there needs to be a motive - you can't meticulously plan to disappear, shadow SIA plane to the middle of asia/europe for the fun of it.

what was on the plane that was so important? (I don't thnk they plan to use the plane to get out of whereever they went. wherever the ended up, in this scenario, would be their final destination. you can't smuggle a 777 twice. if this theory is to hold, the 777 was smuggling something.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1009389 19-Mar-2014 21:39

joker97: as i said, there needs to be a motive - you can't meticulously plan to disappear, shadow SIA plane to the middle of asia/europe for the fun of it.

what was on the plane that was so important? (I don't thnk they plan to use the plane to get out of whereever they went. wherever the ended up, in this scenario, would be their final destination. you can't smuggle a 777 twice. if this theory is to hold, the 777 was smuggling something.

The only mention of "freight" I've read about was that it had two tonnes of mangosteens on board.
The most important thing on the plane were the people. Some idea that it was being used to smuggle something doesn't add up IMO.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1009393 19-Mar-2014 21:48

Technofreak:
She also says flight MH370 had 5 hours 50 min of fuel, when in fact the actual fuel load hasn't been disclosed other than saying the normal fuel load. A lot of airlnes tanker fuel to Beijing so it could have had over 12 hours of fuel.

I'm pretty sure that it's been reliably reported that the plane was carrying a normal fuel load. Enough for the route/load, with 45 mins (?) spare for delay/diversion.
The centre tank would have been empty - so there was conjecture that a "TWA 800" scenario could have happened.

Technofreak

6527 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1009411 19-Mar-2014 22:13

Fred99:
Technofreak:
She also says flight MH370 had 5 hours 50 min of fuel, when in fact the actual fuel load hasn't been disclosed other than saying the normal fuel load. A lot of airlnes tanker fuel to Beijing so it could have had over 12 hours of fuel.

I'm pretty sure that it's been reliably reported that the plane was carrying a normal fuel load. Enough for the route/load, with 45 mins (?) spare for delay/diversion.
The centre tank would have been empty - so there was conjecture that a "TWA 800" scenario could have happened.

But, what is the normal fuel load for a Malaysian 777 on this route? As I said it's normal practice for many operators to tanker fuel when going to China. Normal might be well over the 6 or so hours.

Air NZ operate their 777-200ER's up to the US with 12 hours plus of fuel and fill the seats. MH370 was a 77-200ER whether it is exactly the same spec I don't know. But consider this, MH 370 was only going on a 6 hour plus or minus flight. It left with 55 empty seats yet before 4 standby passengers could be on loaded there had to be 4 no shows off loaded. This says to me there was a weight limit. Why if it only had 6 hours fuel on board?

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Technofreak

6527 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1009435 19-Mar-2014 22:37

Interesting interview here with some very interesting observations. Though you do have to temper the conclusions with the fact this has come out of the US where they can be a little one eyed about their ability and importance. However he makes a plausible case.

He says Boeing/Rolls Royce know the aircraft is in Pakistan.

He asks; Why has the US Navy pulled back their efforts in the India Ocean? Why has Israel stepped up security? He says because they know something.

He claims the the HF and VHF radios were never turned off. How does he know that, were there other transmissions? He talks about the "great US vacuum cleaner" sucking up all sorts of information.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/03/18/lt-gen-mcinerney-flight-370-could-have-landed-pakistan

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1009438 19-Mar-2014 22:50

Technofreak:
Fred99:
Technofreak:
She also says flight MH370 had 5 hours 50 min of fuel, when in fact the actual fuel load hasn't been disclosed other than saying the normal fuel load. A lot of airlnes tanker fuel to Beijing so it could have had over 12 hours of fuel.

I'm pretty sure that it's been reliably reported that the plane was carrying a normal fuel load. Enough for the route/load, with 45 mins (?) spare for delay/diversion.
The centre tank would have been empty - so there was conjecture that a "TWA 800" scenario could have happened.

But, what is the normal fuel load for a Malaysian 777 on this route? As I said it's normal practice for many operators to tanker fuel when going to China. Normal might be well over the 6 or so hours.

Air NZ operate their 777-200ER's up to the US with 12 hours plus of fuel and fill the seats. MH370 was a 77-200ER whether it is exactly the same spec I don't know. But consider this, MH 370 was only going on a 6 hour plus or minus flight. It left with 55 empty seats yet before 4 standby passengers could be on loaded there had to be 4 no shows off loaded. This says to me there was a weight limit. Why if it only had 6 hours fuel on board?

At the point where contact was lost, it's been reported that it had 8 hours fuel (this conflicts with what I said above -it had more than 45 minutes margin). Malaysian airlines did make an official statement that it was carrying a normal fuel load - not extra.
More fuel would have been used (per mile - and per hour) flying at low altitude etc - so the "8 hours" can only be a guess.
The final once an hour "ping" was coincidentally about an hour before fuel would have run out - it's reasonable to assume that it never made the final "ping" because it had already crashed. There an approx 400 nautical mile "window" of distance it might have covered between the last "ping" received, and the ping which never came.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1009440 19-Mar-2014 22:59

Technofreak: Interesting interview here with some very interesting observations. Though you do have to temper the conclusions with the fact this has come out of the US where they can be a little one eyed about their ability and importance. However he makes a plausible case.

He says Boeing/Rolls Royce know the aircraft is in Pakistan.

He asks; Why has the US Navy pulled back their efforts in the India Ocean? Why has Israel stepped up security? He says because they know something.

He claims the the HF and VHF radios were never turned off. How does he know that, were there other transmissions? He talks about the "great US vacuum cleaner" sucking up all sorts of information.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/03/18/lt-gen-mcinerney-flight-370-could-have-landed-pakistan

It won't be in Pakistan. Fox news are abject dolts - and I won't bother to read that article because it will be nonsense. China (most of the passengers were Chinese) is a strategic ally of Pakistan in that region. The chance that Pakistan would have allowed an unidentified airliner enter and land in it's territory after it had been in Indian airspace is zero. The chance that it could have got that far undetected is zero.

While I'm sure that the US may not be telling us "everything" - his suggestion that Rolls Royce "know" something is BS - this isn't a James Bond movie, and the WSJ have retracted their comment that RR was monitoring MH370 pings/engine data anyway. The WSJ clearly had a good "source", but didn't have their original report correct.

Technofreak

6527 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1009445 19-Mar-2014 23:03

Fred99:
Technofreak: Interesting interview here with some very interesting observations. Though you do have to temper the conclusions with the fact this has come out of the US where they can be a little one eyed about their ability and importance. However he makes a plausible case.

He says Boeing/Rolls Royce know the aircraft is in Pakistan.

He asks; Why has the US Navy pulled back their efforts in the India Ocean? Why has Israel stepped up security? He says because they know something.

He claims the the HF and VHF radios were never turned off. How does he know that, were there other transmissions? He talks about the "great US vacuum cleaner" sucking up all sorts of information.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/03/18/lt-gen-mcinerney-flight-370-could-have-landed-pakistan

It won't be in Pakistan. Fox news are abject dolts - and I won't bother to read that article because it will be nonsense. China (most of the passengers were Chinese) is a strategic ally of Pakistan in that region. The chance that Pakistan would have allowed an unidentified airliner enter and land in it's territory after it had been in Indian airspace is zero. The chance that it could have got that far undetected is zero.

Perhaps you might like to watch the video first. No one said it went through Indian airspace. I don't think the nationality of the passengers will make any difference.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

turnin

509 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1009446 19-Mar-2014 23:04

Certain rhetoric used in that interview tells me it's going to be a very busy year for the Us military.

1 | ... | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ... | 54