121–130 of 397 posts
All these theories... It's obviously at the bottom of the ocean. If not, it's here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y
a part of me wants the plane to suddenly re-appear exactly where it went missing with everyone on the plane unaware that it was lost
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they didn't want the plane, but someone on the plane. For example, those 20 Freescale Semiconductor employees. North Korea has a history of abducting foreigners, including a South Korean movie director kidnapped by Kim Jong-il to produce films for him.
There's an easier way of getting people. If you want 20 people taking an additional 200 people and an airliner with them seems overly complex compared to, say, hitting them on the back of the head as they're walking home and bundling them in a van.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cockpit isn't airtight - it would be at the same pressure as the rest of the cabin. The recommended limit around 43,100 ft. 45,000 ft isn't that far above it so it's possible that there may be no impact on passengers at that level (if you're saying 43,100ft is safe, you're going to have a margin for error, it's not going to depressurize at 43,101 ft). Certainly if it was part of your plan to incapacitate the pass…
There are not many ways to incapacitate hundreds of passengers.
But that doesn't change the fact that flying at 45,000ft probably wouldn't do it and would be a very risky way of not doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not familiar with the inner workings of planes, but from what I've gathered, the timing of disabling the two tracking systems, which are on either end of the plane, is just about the same time it takes to get from one end of the plane to the other, and disable the 2nd tracking system (blackbox). Therefore, it would be a great coincidence that both of these tracking systems would be disabled at the same time. It s…
So you say the pilot does not have switches in the cockpit to turn equipment on or off? They have to WALK through the whole plane to turn devices on or off?! Bollocks.
I have no problem with your questioning my logic and my response, as I'm not expert, but keep your bollocks to yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not familiar with the inner workings of planes, but from what I've gathered, the timing of disabling the two tracking systems, which are on either end of the plane, is just about the same time it takes to get from one end of the plane to the other, and disable the 2nd tracking system (blackbox). Therefore, it would be a great coincidence that both of these tracking systems would be disabled at the same time. It s…
So you say the pilot does not have switches in the cockpit to turn equipment on or off? They have to WALK through the whole plane to turn devices on or off?! Bollocks.
What surprises me the most: In today's world, doesn't someone have access to global, real-time satellite data that goes down to 1-3m resolution? I thought we already accepted this as fact. Wouldn't such data provide visuals?
Anybody else noticed that "Keith Ledgerwood" has exactly one post on his Tumbler blog? Conspiracy theorist looking for five seconds of Internet fame?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's highly unrealistic. The plan simply involves too many risks. First of all how could the potential hijackers know that the Malaysian military wasn't properly monitoring the radar? There would have been a huge risk of the Malaysian military discovering it and scrambling jets. The collision avoidance system only works when the transponder is enabled. So flying in the radar shadow of another aircraft would t…
...it's very unlikely that a bunch of amateurs could pull it off. The pilot had decades of experience and a flight simulator in his home where he could practice such things. If he was involved, he probably could have pulled it off. ...how could the potential hijackers know that the Malaysian military wasn't properly monitoring the radar?... We don't know what the contingency plan was, because fighters weren't dispatc…
And maybe we'll never know...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
time to figure out who was on that flight, perhaps it was someone so important that taking a plane full of passengers was worth the cost.
A team of freescale chip engineers for one. Also, the answer might well be "what" instead of who. Many people have pointed out that the cargo manifest hasn't been published, and that the airline declared 50 less seats as available for boarding than the plane had. This means it had several tons of cargo on board.
the blocking off of passenger seats often indicates an especially heavy or oddly weighted cargo.
something else that is notable is that you know several large world governments have continuous satellite tracking of this flight but are not sharing any information about it.
> There are too many oddities in this whole story that don’t make sense if this theory isn’t the answer in my opinion. Confirmation bias? Slow burn fire randomly taking out communications systems and electronics undetected over a long period of time. Pilots freak out and head West for the coast, program way points on autopilot. Fire then cracks the hull, leading to a slow depressurization, incapacitating crew. Plane…
2. Pilots turned off transponders before their last communication.