KRN, time to admit your "source" on the civil aviation board is a fake. He "saw" stuff that ain't there.
Flight MH370 mystery gets deeper and weirder
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by thisnumbersdisconnected, Mar 11, 2014.
Page 4 of 8
-
-
Lol, here's another one of my Australian 'sources':
"I have spoken with someone who has seen high quality images that show the so called "debris field" much more clearly than the images released. The images he has seen will never be released because the owner of the "equipment" that produced the images do not want to demonstrate their true capabilities - standard national security stuff.
I can also tell you that he felt that the size and shape was consistent with a floating shipping container, in his opinion."
Post 178. -
That brings another issue to mind that I thought of this morning, and I wonder why all these "talking head experts" on the various news channels don't mention it.
1) The unidentified debris is floating at the very edge of the 3,200 mile flight-and-glide-path circle of which the aircraft was capable with its fuel load.
2) It was spotted eight days after the disappearance of MH370.
3) The location of the debris is smack in the middle of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.
4) A portion of the current breaks off to the north and becomes the West Australian Current that flows near the west coast of the continent/country.
5) Eight days before MH370 disappeared, the debris spotted 1,500 miles southeast of Perth would have been hundreds or thousands of miles west.
6) Four days after being spotted, it would be either a thousand miles or so further east, or floating up the west coast of Australia.
7) Therefore, debris spotted by the satellites couldn't possibly be debris from the aircraft.
Now, let me be the first to admit, I'm a dummy. But I figured that out. I'm pretty sure everybody who actually is an expert also figured it out. Yet they remain silent.
So what is this dog and pony show all about, anyway?
(That's a rhetorical question, by the way.) -
"SEPANG: Kazakhstan is being approached to be used as a staging point for the MH370 Search and Rescue (SAR) operations in the northern corridor.
They are being approached despite having confirmed that they did not detect any traces of MH370 in their air space.
Acting Transport minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said today that Kazakhstan authorities have assured that they have found no trace of MH370.
"We are awaiting permission for Kazakhstan to be used as a staging point," he said at the daily press conference at Sama- Sama Hotel...."
They've not stopped searching the northern route.
What's your expert opinion d-CON, will Kazakhstan be cooperative and become a staging ground for the search? -
-
....and the plot thickens:
Missing jet WAS carrying highly flammable lithium batteries: CEO of Malaysian Airlines finally admits to dangerous cargo four days after DENYING it
When asked days ago, he said it was carrying 'tonnes of mangosteens'
Lithium-ion batteries have caused 140 mid-air incidents in last 20 years
The devices are commonly used in mobile phones and laptops
Classed as dangerous by The International Civil Aviation Organisation
Reignites theory that missing flight may have crashed after on-board fire
Aviation expert said it re-affirm belief that flames started in cargo hold
One cargo plane crashed in 2010 after attempting an emergency landing
Safety report said battery caught fire and filled the flight deck with smoke
The revelation has thrown the spotlight back on the theory that the Boeing 777 may have been overcome by a fire, rendering the crew and passengers unconscious after inhaling toxic fumes.
Lithium-ion batteries - which are used in mobile phones and laptops - have been responsible for a number of fires on planes and have even brought aircraft down in recent years.
According to US-based Federal Aviation Administration, lithium-ion batteries carried in the cargo or baggage have been responsible for more than 140 incidents between March 1991 and February 17 this year..." -
No it can't be something as simple as that.
TND's elaborate conspiracy theories make for more interesting reading!
At any rate welcome to the fraternal order of the tinfoil hat society TND. :smilewinkgrin:
Let me give you an update. We of the fraternal order of tinfoil hats don't actually use tin foil anymore. That's a out dated conspiracy theory cooked up by the CIA and corporate media to demonize and marginalize our ever expanding brotherhood.
Today we use the latest technology. It's called Reflectix . . .
• The product consists of two 94% + reflective layers of film bonded to two internal layers of heavy gauge polyethylene bubbles (total thickness 5/16”).
• A wide variety of widths and lengths are manufactured. (Please refer to “Product Codes/Sizes” below.)
• Two product edges are available; a “standard edge” and a “staple tab edge”. When the insulation is installed on 16” or 24” centers, or inside cavities, the staple tab edge is easier to work with. (See renders to the left.)
• Product Benefits (R-value and/or Radiant Barrier) vary per application. Please refer to www.reflectixinc.com/r-values, or the webpage that contains the specific application of interest.
• A Single Bubble product configuration is also available for special applications, on request.
But we suggest the double bubble as this seems to work better at reflecting transmitted waves from outer space and as an insulator to keep your head warmer in winter. -
An onboard fire during flight would explain why the loss of communications and the apparent deliberate changes in course and restore the pilots' good names and reputations.
-
UPS lost another plane on the runway due to a lithium battery fire during rollout after the plane landed in Philadelphia in 2006. The crew escaped. In both cases, crews were able to communicate with air traffic or ground controllers to report their situation, and they did this despite the emergency and the demands of their attention on the aircraft. Since 2006, there have been 22 such incidents, and no less than 30 new directives issued by the FAA and international agencies to air crews regarding on board cargo hold fires to address the situation. By the way, all these have been fires -- no explosions as this article incorrectly claims.
Business Insider actually published such a scenario the other day, and it does fit the moves we know for a fact happened. The following bullet points are deep in the story, but nonetheless provide a plausible theory.
There are a few problems with it. The first is that FAA and international emergency procedures dictate a climb to 20,000 feet upon realization there is a cargo hold fire, in order to deprive the fire of oxygen. The plane was already at cruising altitude of 37,500 feet. The cargo hold containing cargo -- not pets or other animals in shipment -- is depressurized. There would be no fire at that altitude caused by lithium batteries. It couldn't burn.
There could have been another fire, however, from any number of causes, that fed off available oxygen inside the cabin, and once the pilots realized they had lost the aircraft, they would have put in a distress call with the outside hope that they could somehow get to an airport or even pull off a "Sully Sullenberger" landing at sea, and air-sea rescue could be scrambled from the regional coast guard agencies to rush to an approximate landing area. This is the second problem. No communication. I've heard numerous "expert talking heads" the last two weeks claim "They were too busy trying to fly the plane to communicate." That's utterly ignorant on their part. And though an immediate and catastrophic event would have prevented communication, such an event would have the plane down in minutes, if not seconds, and the debris would be in the Malacca Strait or on land in northwestern Malaysia.
Even in the direst of straits, the pilots would have made that call despite having to fly the aircraft, for one because they would be looking for a place to set down ASAP and would need air and ground controllers' cooperation in that effort, and for another, with the potential for being rendered unconscious, they would be hoping against hope because they were pilots, and pilots never give up. That's the way they are trained. Blodget didn't take that into account in his neat little but not-quite-realistic scenario.
The third problem is, had they pulled the busses, as he suggests, to extinguish the fire, that action would have also killed the auto pilot. Regarding that, he is just plain wrong. The autopilot is not powered separately. The plane would have gone down almost within sight of land. It would not be capable of continuing on as a flying coffin, as did golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet in 1999 when the aircraft lost pressurization and all aboard died within minutes. The Learjet is a lighter, more maneuverable aircraft, and with a dead stick goes first into "stick shaker" mode to alert the pilot, then engages the auto pilot automatically. There is no such function on a far larger, more cumbersome and complex aircraft like the 777.
Blodget's postulation is possible, if the pilots were overcome by the smoke in the fashion he describes, and didn't pull the power busses to extinguish the fire. Otherwise, it's another theory that doesn't quite explain it all. And like it or not, even though it may sound like a "conspiracy theory" that certain people on this board reject because it isn't "their kind of conspiracy theory" the terrorist event remains a more than plausible explanation of the whole thing. -
pinoybaptist Active MemberSite Supporter
TND-
my biggest problem with the offered speculation is that it has been said that the passengers' cellphones were ringing hours after the flight took off, and not diverting directly to voice mail as most cellphones do.....even the high-end networks and phones.
if the passengers saw smoke coming out of the cockpit, one or some of them would have called their people, like the 9-11 victims did.
having said all that, well, here's hoping they find the plane, whatever condition it's in. -
I remain convinced someone took the aircraft. It is entirely possible it crashed anyway. Perhaps passengers pulled a "Flight 93" on the hijackers. But until we find wreckage, we just don't know. -
"Malaysia Jet Search Revived by New Image of Drifting Object (1)
A Chinese satellite detected an object in the southern Indian Ocean that’s almost the width of an Olympic-size swimming pool, giving fresh impetus to the hunt for the Malaysian airliner that disappeared two weeks ago.
The image, taken on March 18, shows an object measuring 22 meters (72-feet) by 13 meters, according to a statement from China’s state administration of science, technology and industry for national defense. The item was located 120 kilometers from where possible debris was found by satellite two days earlier.
Today’s development rekindles hopes of a breakthrough in the mystery of the Malaysian plane after radar scans and visual searches failed to relocate the objects spotted in the earlier images and analysis of a flight simulator found at the home of the plane’s pilot’s produced no leads. The search is focused on an area of the Indian Ocean spanning 36,000 square kilometers." -
Given that speed and the fact that March 18 is ten days after the flight's disappearance, why in the world does anyone think these pieces of debris have anything to do with MH370?
This time, those aren't rhetorical questions. Any answer that is remotely plausible will do. -
-
If they are going to find debris from a southern route and crash, it will be northwest or south of Australia by now, depending on whether the wreckage was caught in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current or in the West Australia current. It is not going to be where they are looking.
Try again. -
...ah, if only we could all be as smaurt as you...I'm sure those satellite guys aren't very smaurt either...
-
It's scary if I can figure this out and they can't, don'cha think? The problem is, it's too obvious to ignore, yet the media of all stripes and the talking heads are doing just that. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
I don't really have a scenario, just two broad categories, accidental or deliberate. The revelation that this plane was carrying hazardous cargo (after previously being denied) adds credence to the accidental, and, gets away from wrongly impugning the character of the flight crew.
Every scenario out there has things that "don't add up", just some are more preposterous than others.
Page 4 of 8