Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68/SQ68 (another 777)? • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by joeguilmette » Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 9:50 AM UTC

jerf wrote: post #221

joeguilmette wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twenty blatant murders in China might - MIGHT - make to the sidebar on HuffPo. Hijacking an airliner has captivated the attention of the entire planet. If they wanted to get rid of these guys stealthily this is not the way.

This is a very important point. I haven't yet seen a satisfactory conspiracy theory that explains why anybody would pursue this sort of action in the full glare of international publicity, and it's hard to imagine someone being good enough to pull this off, yet not realize this would happen. There aren't many conspiracies that benefit from continuous, sustained attention of this scale, or that could plan on absolutel…

Perhaps a David Copperfield comeback?

...zing?

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

#392

Post by joeguilmette » Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 9:55 AM UTC

dandelany wrote: post #374

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they wanted to get rid of these guys stealthily this is not the way. // Isn't it a "hidden in plain site" sort of stealth though. Everyone assumes that the plane was lost naturally and so there is no-one looking to find those you've taken. Meanwhile you can have the plane melted down, dispose of bodies and cargo and keep whatever it was you wanted without any one (or country) knowing you've got it. Stealthy.

Who assumes that the plane was lost naturally at this point? Almost no one.

it's making a come-back. especially since the Malaysians have revised their timing on the comm-system shutdowns and there are no terror links to the passengers/crew.

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

#393

Post by 001sky » Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 11:12 AM UTC

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #387

001sky wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Neither of which are requirements to do serious damage" 777-200-er has the range of a tu with hunreds of thousands of pounds more payload and it hold 20x the fuel of a citation x with 10x the mass. It also has double the range of a 777 freighter, with a similar maximum takeoff weight. So these are not interchangeble, but yes they are options.

But they are still not requirements to do serious damage. Do you understand? Someone seeking to do serious damage has much less conspicuous options at their disposal.

"Serious damage" is unspecific and arbitrary.

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

#394

Post by mk001 » Wed, Mar 19, 2014, 3:57 PM UTC

User8712 wrote: post #343

cube13 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the kind of target that would have someone claiming responsibility. The plane wasn't from a country that's known for disproportionate responses to attacks(i.e. the US or Russia). I would figure that if any group actually did pull this off, they'd be making public announcements that they took down the plane, or were holding it for ransom.

Brace yourself, I'm going to go further into conspiracy land, but there's the possibility the end goal wasn't just to steal a plane for scrap metal, or to use it as a ride for the local fair. If that's the case, you'd want the world to continue thinking it disappeared in the ocean, and you don't want to raise any alarms by taking credit. The 777 is a fairly common long distance aircraft. Would it be possible to give…

I've had a feeling for several days, but I don't know if it is technically possible. After reading your post I wonder if it is possible to fly as high as possible until you reach the target and then you nose dive to the ground. I can't help thinking that the summit in The Hague next week would be a perfect opportunity if someone was planning such an act.

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

#395

Post by tripzilch » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 1:39 PM UTC

tn13 wrote: post #346

ianhawes wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If it is ISI it can simply buy a new Boeing plane from the kind of money that US is pouring into Pakistan in the form of aid.

unless you meant "aid in the form of money", I don't see how aid buys you a Boeing.

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

#396

Post by appreneur » Wed, Mar 26, 2014, 6:20 PM UTC

morbius wrote: post #328

appreneur wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are almost on the same page: here's my theory purely based on what I read! 1.Something happened like explosive decompression, Explosive decompression occurs at a rate swifter than that at which air can escape from the lungs, typically in less than 0.1 to 0.5 seconds.Everybody onboard(including pilots) would have died in less than a second due to castrophic mechanical failure which caused explosive decompression. 2…

Nearly half of your "theory" (which isn't based off of any sort of clinically proven fact, btw) is incorrect. First, the 777 is not an "old" plane. It's a very reliable and advanced aircraft with tons of redundancy; things don't just fail nowadays like they used to. Despite its age, there is absolutely zero reason why there should be a structural or mechanical failure. These aircraft aren't Chevrolets, they're built…

Morbius: Thank you for accepting atleast 50% of my theory was wrong...may be u r conceding that 50% might be right.That's good enough for me.

Here's where I got it almost right: "2.Plane was on autopilot there after ,nobody complained since nobody was alive.Fell silent into the ocean and rests there" The plane according to most was found near indian ocean some 2000 kms...it flew on autopilot for 7 hours.

>>Disintegration should have left debris. There was none. Debris is found some 2500 kms away..now resting in the ocean.

Boeing is being sued by one law firm today:"4.I dont know why boeing company is not talking about this much, they just are silent ....the biggest benefactor if pilot theory is right is boeing.Boeing benefits alot if its pilot error which caused the incident."

>> No "consipracy theory here" its indeed looking more like mechanical failure and the pilots died due to depressurization...boeing should own responsibility.

I might be wrong abt 787 , it was too much stretch to bring two 787 and 777 together but they are from the same company, that is my point,boeing needs to own some responsibility for this kind of failure either mechanical or design failure. They have put an off switch for ACARS?..why did they have off switch in the first place? Is it not design failure?

Finally they have only 2 hours of recording of cockpit in blackbox for an international flight which might be flying 7 hours...?Explain that design failure...how can they only have 2 hour recording...even kid will tell 2 hours is not enough for 250 million price tag.

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

#397

Post by appreneur » Wed, Mar 26, 2014, 6:22 PM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #233

appreneur wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are almost on the same page: here's my theory purely based on what I read! 1.Something happened like explosive decompression, Explosive decompression occurs at a rate swifter than that at which air can escape from the lungs, typically in less than 0.1 to 0.5 seconds.Everybody onboard(including pilots) would have died in less than a second due to castrophic mechanical failure which caused explosive decompression. 2…

WRT 787, the cracks were a consequence of two things. The new(ish) production methods involved in the aircraft, and the absurdly aggressive outsourcing of the production. The 787 is (was?) in many ways at the bleeding edge of carbon fiber manufacture. Combine that with the stupid notion their management had of sending out 99% of manufacturing outside of final assembly to dozens of different companies (as a consequenc…

I am off mark by bring 787 in this discussion may be but I must say 777 and 787 are same company, I cannot see not one time Boeing guys came out and spoke to media or press, its really disappointing.

We just have 2 companies monopoly of aircraft industry.....I am looking at young startups which will start in aircraft manufacturing industry and change the game.