Missing Malaysia Air plane MH370 - Part 3

[KenAdams]

Thread 1

Thread 2

Re the landing gear, do you need it for take off as well?

Um, how do you think a plane moves along a runway to take off?

The landing gear is the wheels the plane uses to get about with on land - I really doubt that you could get enough speed up to take off without them.

Sorry, perhaps that was a little sarcastic.

Apologies for not knowing stuff about the naming of bits on planes. I wasn't aware it incorporated the whole wheels as well, I thought it might be the bit that extended them out and not the wheels themselves.

I will just return to lurking so as not to insult anyone with my stupidity.

Nah theresahedger, not stupid, the equipment name is what's stupid! And if you asked it you can bet there are many others wondering the same but not brave enough to ask!

The thing about using it to crash and destroy a city is a bit unbelievable, isn't it? I mean, the moment that plane is detected it'll be shot to smithereens. I cannot see it being a more effective way of terrorism than a repeat of 9/11 - I know it would be harder these days, but not as hard as this whole thing, surely?!

I just can't see it.

Hostages? - well, it's been a week now and no word, unless the passengers managed to crash land.

Simply crashing - then why all the course changes, switching things off etc?

If I had to come up with a best match theory, I'd say someone controlled that plane remotely, turning stuff off, going this way and that, up and down, it's the kind if thing you'd do if you were testing out a remote control. And then they ditched it in the sea.

Nothing else sounds completely plausible to me.

Landing gear does make it sound like something you just need to land.

Agree re 'landing' gear naming!

It does sound a bit like testing a remote control. And of course that leads to the next thought - was this just a practice for the 'real thing'?

KaleCrochet,

Does anyone on here in the UK work in a government building?

I don't know if this is the answer that you want, but I can confirm that the MOD's security state has not gone up as a result of this. All MOD and military sites have remained on the same state as they were before.

But if it was being controlled remotely why would the co-pilot be talking as if things were normal after the tracking equipment was starting to be switched off?

I'm musing that the way they'd get it in to a city's airspace is the same way they likely got it out... tailgating another plane. Would be really difficult therefore to try and shoot it down... it could easily hit the wrong target. Plus it'll already be flying over a city with millions of people below. If the payload is something nasty... biological agents/dirty bomb, doesn't bear thinking about

I think that if military intelligence indicates that the plane landing intact in the norhtern arc is correct, we could very soon see all planes grounded like in the aftermath of 9/11 in the US, but globally. Totally unprecedented waters...

The thing about using it to crash and destroy a city is a bit unbelievable, isn't it? I mean, the moment that plane is detected it'll be shot to smithereens.

Maybe that's what they would be wanting though, if earlier theories of packing the plane with chemical/biological agents were the case? (Sorry if I'm straying into tinfoil hat territory)

Like many, I just hope that the poor passengers and crew knew nothing of what was happening.

Thanks LtEve

Think about it Psammead - the plan didn't need to work, it could have failed at any point and still been a complete success. Imagine the following scenarios:

1. Terrorist tries to hijack the plane using something he smuggled on board but fails. Result - increased checks at airports, longer to get through security, travelling becomes just that little bit shittier, less people travel because they can't be faffed with it = loss of economic output. See the shoe bomber and the pants bomber for how that works.

2. Terrorist manages to hijack the plane but the plane crashes. Result: as above plus more people will be scared to travel = greater loss of economic output.

3. Terrorist hijacks plane but is shot down. Result: as with scenario 2 plus everyone is pissed off with the country that shot the plane down.

4. Terrorist hijacks the plane and actually gets away with it. Result: as with number 2 but we all spend way too much of our working time speculating as to what has happened plus a huge search and rescue operation is mounted = even greater loss of economic output.

I don't think they would be practicing for the real thing. I do wonder if the plane is to be turned into a dirty bomb, though. That, beyond feeling awful about the passengers and their families, is what really worries the crap out of me.

X-post withKale

Psammead, I think your theory sound the most plausible at the moment.

I think this was a test run. Now they know what they are capable of it could happen again.

But they's have to get over the city first. Military jets would be able to shoot it down. And if they had to take a risk of shooting down the other possible plane by mistake in order to save many more souls, they would. I'm not buying it, it seems hugely complicated, prone to failure and very risky for just one plane.

I dunno. If it were thought to be a series of terrible coincidences that ended in a crash, sure lots of countries would be searching for it but so many putting in so much money & effort? Call me cynical, but it seems unlikely.

If piracy was the purpose, what is so extremely valuable that it warrants this much effort by so many? I'm sorry to say 230 people probably aren't enough.

If the plane were to be used as a weapon, why not just get on with it? Could have been a political hijack leading to a crash, I guess, which would terrify many nations, giving them motive to find out exactly how it was done, and by whom. This would also be true of Stromba's idea of a hacker doing experiments with a new bit of kit, ghastly thought as it is!

Oops, xposted with lots ... catching up.

I'm going to China soon (yes, I'm bricking it) and two things have occurred to me. No idea if they have been mentioned on the thread. One, checking the FO travel advice, there is no mention of this on the China page. Nor the Malaysia page. Why? If it might be a terrorist attack, why no warning for the areas? Do they not put a generic warning if it might be terrorism? I was in SE Asia during the Bali bomb aftermath and there were warning for every surrounding country.

Secondly, reading the guides for South Western China, March is traditionally a time of unrest in Tibet. The borders tend to be difficult and can be demos. Does anyone know why March is an issue and if so, could there be a link?

If planes can be controlled remotely (cyber attack) then why would anyone get on a plane again?

QueenStromba - but if someone hijacked the plane thinking that it may or may not work, he has to have some kind of plan in place for if it does work. That means somewhere to land etc. Quite a lot of shit to sort out I'd imagine, if you suddenly have a plane on your hands. Which would have to be done beforehand. So why run the risk of it not working? I mean... they'd have to be pretty sure it would work.

I think if it were terrorists, they'd have made the most of having the plane at the time because landing it, flying it again etc just increases the risk of the plan failing.

Also, if terrorists wanted to detonate a dirty bomb somewhere, they just would. They wouldn't need a plane.

Interesting alternative theory from an ex-IATA chief on CNBC television.

He suggested that disabling a transponder takes a lot of expertise.

Maybe the flight deck door had been opened by either pilot or co pilot deliberately or accidentally to allow someone else on to the flight deck from the passenger cabin and ultimately taking over the flight deck.

This explains why the plane climbed to 45,000 feet in the struggle that ensured and then the transponder was eventually switched off.

Just another theory of course.

ensured - ensued