161–170 of 397 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sadly, I feel like whatever happened, the amount of sophistication involved increasingly points toward the involvement of one or more state actors. If that's the case, I'm starting to doubt that we'll ever find out what happened to this plane... Indeed. And not just the "what", but the "why" as well.
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.
The folks over at airliners.net have pointed out that the 777's collision avoidance system only works if both planes' transponders are turned on. That doesn't mean this scenario is impossible, but it does raise the level of sophistication required. Sadly, I feel like whatever happened, the amount of sophistication involved increasingly points toward the involvement of one or more state actors. If that's the case, I'm…
I hope you're wrong. If a state was involved that would mean that boarding a plane is extremely dangerous from now on. This case is really suspicious but I still think this was just an accident.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you transport 25 tons of gold across land and sea? My guess is air freight is the safest method, does it matter if it goes on a DHL 777 or a Commercial 777? Either way, the plane could be hijacked. But I suspect you'd have somebody with an insurance claim for $1 billion in gold, and an insurance company going bankrupt as a result.
Yes, but Malaysia PM said there's only mangosteens in the cargo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sadly, I feel like whatever happened, the amount of sophistication involved increasingly points toward the involvement of one or more state actors. If that's the case, I'm starting to doubt that we'll ever find out what happened to this plane... Indeed. And not just the "what", but the "why" as well.
I think it's most likely the plane will be used in a terrorist action. For example in the next week there's a nucleair summit being held in The Hague: http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/EH-eSUP-2014-01-NSS.... It would be a very hard to reach target, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you expand on what groups might be able to orchestrate such a complicated hijacking? A rogue state like North Korea would have the capability, but they don't really have the motive since they can acquire passenger airplanes by other means. (North Korea's national airline has 27 planes -- if they wanted to make a nuclear kamikaze plane, they'd just use one of those.)
Not to imply I think it's possible, but deniability is an obvious reason not to use your own aircraft.
If the last contact of any sort had been the 'good night message', then we would never have known.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bit Bond/cyberpunk-esque, but one could imagine a scenario where an evil villain could short a company's stock and then kill off 20 extremely valuable employees of said company. Not saying that's what happened here, but 20 of the right employees of a company could be very significant.
It's a bit Bond/cyberpunk-esque, but one could imagine a scenario where an evil villain could short a company's stock and then kill off 20 extremely valuable employees of said company When was the last time you heard of 20 employees of a company being murdered? To do so by killing 220+ other people makes such a theory even more absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
my guess is that if it was hijacked by terrorists, the act is yet to come. They are after the plane, not the people.
This theory keeps coming up, but it doesn't make much sense. If your goal is to acquire a working Boeing 777, on a secret airfield somewhere in Western China or Eastern Kazakhstan (see this map for orientation: http://www.airliners.net/uf/109874/phpnIOEWi.jpeg ), then you don't have to be particularly smart or rational to realize that hijacking a commercial flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, with 240 people on boar…
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.
[deleted]
When the evidence you have stops fitting the (previously) most likely hypotheses, you have to consider the (previously) less likely hypotheses.
>An as aside: I don't know why reading such flippant comments about possibly murdering 240+ people upsets me so much.
It's not really flippant, it's speculation on the motive. Everyone wants to know why those 240 people were killed, or if they are possibly still alive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bit Bond/cyberpunk-esque, but one could imagine a scenario where an evil villain could short a company's stock and then kill off 20 extremely valuable employees of said company When was the last time you heard of 20 employees of a company being murdered? To do so by killing 220+ other people makes such a theory even more absurd.
Yeah, 10th of April 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_cr...
You'll need to explain that one for me.
Right now, it sounds awfully like you're trying to pin a story on an accepted tragedy. (for me at least...)