Missing Malaysia Air plane MH370 - Part 3

[KenAdams]

Thread 1

Thread 2

I think the 2011 thing was cos they thought it was a google earth pic rather than a tomnod one? But she said it was from tomnod.

Oh, well then that is interesting.

There would be no need to hijack a plane for terrorism purposes, or face all the attendant risks. They can be bought.

And a bought plane flying to a target would run into radar just as a hijacked plane would because both would be unexpected flying objects.

Red

I think it's refreshing to see someone write clearly and knowledgably, and for people to respect that.

MN is 99% bullshit but the other 1% can be brilliant.

red not sure where you get that goldie's input has been debunked. I haven't read anything which is incorrect, particularly when up against the little evidence we do have. It's been very kind of her to take the time out to answer the multitude of questions we've all had.

Anyway, I still think they know what happened and are not letting on for one reason or another. Why all this contrary information about the data now? It's been this way from the beginning. My smoke and mirrors just turned into the Great Fire of London size smoke of epic proportions.

One thing I think must be the case - there are no survivors. It's so awful. I'm really a bit twitchy too that they may never tell us what really happened. How can you lose a plane like this?

mathanxiety that's very true but it doesn't have the same impact and drama does it? If they were to legally buy a plane and then do whatever. Something like this causes maximum fear and confusion, adding to the overall goal of terrorism.

But I think it's in the sea somewhere.

.

Back to the basic underlying point: we don't know what event was planned, by whom, or whether it went according to plan.

Dare I mention this but the Guardian had this snippet:

'The Malaysia Airlines CEO, Ahmad Jauhari Yahya, said investigators were looking at mobile phone records to see whether anyone on board tried to make calls or send texts, but so far there was no evidence of attempted contact.'

I understand that they are now doubting when the systems got turned off but I can't for the life of me understand it from the statement below.

'The minister said the last aircraft communications addressing and reporting system (Acars) transmission was at 1.07am, but added: "We do not know when it was switched off after that. It was supposed to transmit 30 minutes from then, but that [subsequent] transmission never came through." '

Nothing new again really asides from China saying none of their citizens had anything to do with it.

I've been following this thread (and relevant others on Pprune) avidly.

I've worked as crew on this particular aircraft and can say that the crew would have known the access codes for the flight deck.

Obviously, being a public forum, I can't elaborate further.

Sorry if this throws another tangent into the equation! I'm as baffled by this as the next person.

I would also add, that I think casting aspersions towards deliberate sabotage by either of the flight deck crew is premature given the limited information that has been released.

Living, it means that ACARS transmits every 30 minutes so all we can say is that it was switched off before 1.37am.

Livingzuid: you posted yesterday

There's not much to say at the moment I guess so they are looking for anything to talk about.

Remains true, especially if the Guardian is presenting the 1:07-1:37 window as new revelation. That came out yesterday.

They'll be looking at the phone records of all passengers to see who they have been calling or trying to call around the time of the flight and historically. Any links to known or suspected criminals or terrorists will be important to the investigation.

Some government (won't speculate who) out there knows what happened. I still stand by my false flag /or military shoot down theories.

There's something very very odd about this whole story.

False flag would bring more possibilities. But withholding information from a huge international investigation (involving companies as well as governments) would be immensely difficult and require considerable advance planning.

Especially as one of those investigating governments was bound to be USA, whose track record is to admit, not cover up, their shootings of both planes and Chinese entities.

To be fair, some of Goldie's guesses have been wrong.
And she has been dismissing things she cant talk about.

But her technical stuff has probably been correct afaik.

not weighing in on a conclusion but will state again that it is western governments and security sellers who profit most from a climate of fear, not 'terrorists'.

i don't really buy that terrorisms ultimate goal is to make people scared - bear in mind it is the perceiver not the perpetrator who calls it 'terrorism'. the 'terrorists' themselves presumably see it as fighting against an oppressor or enemy and their goal is to hurt their enemy.

it's our own governments who like us afraid, not terrorists.

goldie like the rest of us is having to modify her viewpoint as more facts come in and prove to be incompatible with earlier conclusions based on the facts available at the time. the drip drip of information (some of which then turns out to have come from nowhere and is discounted as nonsense) means theories have to be evolving.

Baking - with the false flag scenario do you think it was planned by a government to disable/shoot down the plane in advance to blame another country or organisation or that the government (which ever one you think it is) could have stopped it but didn't?

I just can't see which government could profit from this? Who would seriously want to piss off the Chinese? I would have thought that if it were a false flag then some concrete information on what happened would have come out by now as it seems a bit pointless.

Honey: that might be true, but it does not remove the actions of known terrorist - unless anyone is trying to say that all bombs and atrocities are carried out by Governments.

Organisations will aim to further their cause, and may use terror tactics feed that strategy. The physical "hurt" caused is only a minor part of that. To take a smaller scale example: when ALF set bombs against those associated with animal experiments, they wanted to deter people from applying for such jobs, increase security costs for the springing such facilities, and keep the issue in the public eye so that the campaigning which has resulted in E/W having some of the tightest licensing laws was successful.

TheHoney. I agree that it is some Governments who love to make people fearful.

2 thoughts.
If the pilot or pilots wanted to turn back for say Malaysia, would they know there way enough in the dark to do it without some instruments? That may be a daft question.

Forgotten the other one! Will post later.

Is there any evidence there were no instruments?

People are assuming that it is the Plane "they" want.....what if it is the people they want?

Sorry, I meant that some of the instruments were switched off.

My other question.
How common is it for people to have flight simulators in their homes? It seems that there were at least 3 people actually on the plane that had them.
I read a DM article. At the end of that there were about 5 posters who said that they too had them in their homes. Though I suppose only 5 from some of the country is not many.
Which actually brings me back to the supposed fact that at lease 3 people on the plane with them seems a lot?

Morning,

Popping in for two secs before taking DS2 off to the childminder.

"Someone (male) elsewhere was refusing to believe Goldie was anything more technical than an air hostess, based solely on her gender."

Is that right? Women can't be engineers, then, because we're women?

"Goldie keeps debunking things only to find out thats what happened later... sorry, but whilst I respect what she is saying I also think that she's not Queen of All Knowledge. I don't know why everyone is accepting what she says as unquestionable tbh. The only reason I can see for that is they don't know how to challenge / question the 'expert'."

Wow. Thanks for that. Other than I've just read that some cabin crew have direct access to the cockpit, can you please tell me what technical information that I've laid out on this forum in any of the 3 threads you have proved to be incorrect?

The only thing I have had to rethink is the overall theory that I favoured (depressurisation/hypoxia) when the Malaysian Prime Minister came out and said that it's definitely a criminal act, which was information we did not have before. I didn't say that hijack was impossible. I went out of my way to emphasise that stealing the aircraft was very unlikely but not impossible.

I particularly like the 'expert' in inverted commas as if to say 'so called'.

So, I have a 4 year degree from a UK University in aeronautical engineering and I've been working for a major aircraft manufacturer since 1996, having held various posts in the engineering field and now in junior management. What qualifications would I need to remove the inverted commas? And what qualifications in the field do you have, red? I await your debunking of what I said about TCAS functionality with interest.

I think your comment/tone a little unnecessary.