Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)?

Post by exelius » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 4:49 PM UTC

ianhawes wrote: post #258

exelius wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they were hijacking a plane to stuff it full of chemical weapons / radioactive material (think dirty bomb) with the intent of flying it over a major city and detonating it. It would be hard to do it in a western nation, but if you were aiming at a city near the "frontier" of India, Pakistan, etc. a bad actor could likely execute the plan before the jets they scramble could intercept the jet. There's a lot of bad s…

Except your plan has one fatal flaw: assuming the plane was stolen to be used as a missile. If this were ISI or a state level actor, the absolute riskiest part would be hijacking a plane in flight with passengers. You risk them uprising, getting the word out about the hijacking, and then you'd have to execute them once you land. Why not steal an empty plane at an airport or buy an older plane through an intermediary?

Post by mikeash » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 4:55 PM UTC

fafner wrote: post #56

downandout wrote: post #13

There is a realistic possibility that those piloting the plane used this and/or other stealth techniques and landed intact. There are lots of groups around the world that would love to have a working $250M aircraft. Maybe there is a massive airplane chop shop that this went to, or someone wants to load it up with explosives and fly it to some country they disagree with. Unfortunately, whether it landed or not, the od…

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…

Post by ahlatimer » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 4:58 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #242

leoc wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I don't see any sign yet that the flight 370 hijacking involved unusual danger, difficulty or expense for the culprits: so far, as best we can see, it looks like stealing candy from a baby. Obviously to get people off it alive you'd need manpower and infrastructure, but either a dusty old Soviet-era airbase in metaphorical or literal Kazakhstan, or a ship to pick people up after a ditching in calm water somew…

Hijacking airplanes after 9/11 is much more risky. Until 9/11, there was never a plot that involved intentionally hijacking an airliner with the intent of using it as a weapon and killing everyone on board. The assumption was "Oh, if we just give them what they want they'll let us all live." Post-9/11, if anyone tries to hijack an airplane they're going to have every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 40 com…

Post by MPSimmons » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 5:14 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #257

herbig wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the level of sophistication required increasingly points to a much simpler explanation than terrorism.

why do people underestimate what terrorist groups are capable of? Some have training from various countries and quite a few have financial and material backing. If anything, the common theme on this site was to find every possible explanation other than terrorism. Sorry to be the party pooper, but there are people out there who operate without regard to our beliefs and at times love to exploit the stories we tell our…

Post by knowaveragejoe » Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 5:15 PM UTC

jimktrains2 wrote: post #263

rafe33 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a theory that the rapid ascent to 45,000 feet was done to deprive the passengers of oxygen and incapacitate them.

From what I've read that theory is bullocks because 45k is still in the safety margins the plane was designed for.