EPTMalaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Missing - Page 21
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16673 Posts
| ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On March 15 2014 19:42 vAtAZz wrote: So now my hypothesis is being confirmed. At least it looks like it follows the same path. The phone thing was debunked p/ages ago | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
| ||
|
Mithhaike
Singapore2759 Posts
Aliens. Afterall, they refuse to rule out ANY possibilities and they have no idea what happened anyway. Aliens is as good a reason as any. | ||
|
::Rhapsody
Canada124 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On March 15 2014 15:27 Doraemon wrote: confirms the hijacking theory...i guess that's "good" news for relatives? :S No one fucks around with hijacking anymore, post 9/11. My feeling is hijackers were seeking something from China, China gives no fucks, China takes down plane, US agrees with China's decision. Now they're seeking combination of who/how/why. Malaysian government has to "lead" the investigation due to international protocol, but it's not the real driver - it's trying to curate PR for China and the US off of limited information, and is probably being reprimanded as well. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
| ||
|
teddyoojo
Germany22369 Posts
On March 16 2014 04:05 gruff wrote: If we assume that it is a hijacking, what would be the odds that no one of 200 passengers would be able to get a message out that the plane's been hijacked? They allegedly flew for hours and then potentially landed on the ground and in a week there's been no word from the passengers or the hijackers. makes more sense than if the plane crashed noone gets a message out right? | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On March 16 2014 06:33 skyR wrote: There's no cell reception in the middle of the ocean from my understanding unless its a satellite phone or the plane is equipped with wifi so how would passengers get a message out? If I understand it correctly they would have flown over land after allegedly turning around and then if they took the north flight corridor like is suggested they'd also come over land and then they'd have to land somewhere. Just seems like there would have been plenty of opportunities for that. But of course I could be wrong, I'm not familiar with what kind of coverage they have in that part of the world, it just seems odd to me if they actually was hijacked and then landed somewhere given how many people were on the plane. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On March 16 2014 04:14 teddyoojo wrote: makes more sense than if the plane crashed noone gets a message out right? Not exactly sure what you were asking here but I believe a crash in the middle of the ocean sounds more likely. | ||
|
ElMeanYo
United States1032 Posts
"The Malaysian Prime Minister stopped short of calling the mysterious disappearance of Flight 370 a hijacking, but said Saturday the jet veered off course due to apparent deliberate action taken by someone aboard." "Evidence is consistent with someone acting deliberately from inside the plane," he said, officially confirming the plane's disappearance was not caused by an accident. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26591056 "The communications systems of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 were deliberately disabled, Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib Razak has said. According to satellite and radar evidence, he said, the plane then changed course and could have continued flying for a further seven hours. He said the "movements are consistent with the deliberate action of someone on the plane"." | ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
On March 16 2014 07:05 gruff wrote: If I understand it correctly they would have flown over land after allegedly turning around and then if they took the north flight corridor like is suggested they'd also come over land and then they'd have to land somewhere. Just seems like there would have been plenty of opportunities for that. But of course I could be wrong, I'm not familiar with what kind of coverage they have in that part of the world, it just seems odd to me if they actually was hijacked and then landed somewhere given how many people were on the plane. if it was indeed hijacked, the hijacker has good knowledge of the plane since they disabled the comms. they would most likely know the possibility of people using the phones. now, you probably will not get any reception when the plane is in the air and if it was hijacked, the plane would have been landed at a remote, deserted place, which probably would not have any cell phone reception. | ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
I still haven't seen a good idea for an explanation of why having a 777 would be useful. You don't go to this type of trouble to kill 1 person. The plane itself is now worthless as a plane, due to being shot down wherever it goes. Ransom demands would have been made already if that is what it was about. 777 parts aren't worth the trouble, neither is the tech (which would be a lot easier to steal from Boeing directly). Seems like way too much planning to extract (an agent) or kill/take hostage someone specific (which there's been no suggestion someone really important was on board). Unless there was 100s of millions of Gold on the plan for some reason, there doesn't seem a great reason to hijack this plane. The jihadists would have either blown it up or used it already. Is there an Aum Shinrikyo branch out of Malaysia? (Group that did the Sarin Gas attack in the Japanese subway) The reasons for this are going to be very strange, whenever its found out. | ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
On March 16 2014 08:12 Taf the Ghost wrote: The real question is still: what utility does stealing a 777 have? I still haven't seen a good idea for an explanation of why having a 777 would be useful. You don't go to this type of trouble to kill 1 person. The plane itself is now worthless as a plane, due to being shot down wherever it goes. Ransom demands would have been made already if that is what it was about. 777 parts aren't worth the trouble, neither is the tech (which would be a lot easier to steal from Boeing directly). Seems like way too much planning to extract (an agent) or kill/take hostage someone specific (which there's been no suggestion someone really important was on board). Unless there was 100s of millions of Gold on the plan for some reason, there doesn't seem a great reason to hijack this plane. The jihadists would have either blown it up or used it already. Is there an Aum Shinrikyo branch out of Malaysia? (Group that did the Sarin Gas attack in the Japanese subway) The reasons for this are going to be very strange, whenever its found out. you would take everything on/in the plane into account. sell the plane parts, and if you're really really sick, you would sell all possible human parts. demanding a ransom just increases the chances of you being caught. you would still make out pretty good, but i guess it depends on how many ways you gotta split. oh and if the plane is still out there in terrorist hands, i mean, im not sure how possible it would be, but they could make adjustments and make it seem like a completely different plane to radars? and still use it for other purposes | ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On March 16 2014 02:23 Jibba wrote: No one fucks around with hijacking anymore, post 9/11. My feeling is hijackers were seeking something from China, China gives no fucks, China takes down plane, US agrees with China's decision. Now they're seeking combination of who/how/why. Malaysian government has to "lead" the investigation due to international protocol, but it's not the real driver - it's trying to curate PR for China and the US off of limited information, and is probably being reprimanded as well. I could see China downing an aircraft (remember, the USA almost downed Flight 93, so considering the damage a plane can do by crashing into buildings, there's not much of an ethics issue involved), but the only problem with your idea is Overflight Privileges. They've have needed to come in over Burma to not start a massive incident. Even then, I'm not sure Burma would have been happy about it. Which means it probably would have gotten out. At the same time, if it did land some place, Burma makes a great destination. Though, still the big issue of "why"? Who benefits from having a captured 777 + possibly alive hostages? | ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
On March 16 2014 08:27 Taf the Ghost wrote: I could see China downing an aircraft (remember, the USA almost downed Flight 93, so considering the damage a plane can do by crashing into buildings, there's not much of an ethics issue involved), but the only problem with your idea is Overflight Privileges. They've have needed to come in over Burma to not start a massive incident. Even then, I'm not sure Burma would have been happy about it. Which means it probably would have gotten out. At the same time, if it did land some place, Burma makes a great destination. Though, still the big issue of "why"? Who benefits from having a captured 777 + possibly alive hostages? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiyVG9OCMAApXA6.jpg:large it could have been tibet. no need for burma really | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On March 16 2014 08:27 Taf the Ghost wrote: I could see China downing an aircraft (remember, the USA almost downed Flight 93, so considering the damage a plane can do by crashing into buildings, there's not much of an ethics issue involved), but the only problem with your idea is Overflight Privileges. They've have needed to come in over Burma to not start a massive incident. Even then, I'm not sure Burma would have been happy about it. Which means it probably would have gotten out. At the same time, if it did land some place, Burma makes a great destination. Though, still the big issue of "why"? Who benefits from having a captured 777 + possibly alive hostages? I am pretty sure someone's military in the region would have noticed an unidentified target enter their airspace and then explode... | ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On March 16 2014 08:29 zev318 wrote: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BiyVG9OCMAApXA6.jpg:large it could have been tibet. no need for burma really The Chinese would have needed to fly over some country's airspace to get into the Indian Ocean without being noticed by everyone else. Burma makes the most sense (given air-base location, flight paths, generally decent relations with China), but that means they would have downed it over the Indian Ocean somewhere. The massive issue is still "Why?". This is the type of operation that requires planning. Either some or all of the pilots were in on it, or one of the operatives involved has the ability to fly a 777. That takes time, money & coordination. Which dictates there's a very Big reason to do the hijacking. (Which means it's either persons on-board or some cargo) I guess there's also the chance it was a terrorist hijacking, they did have a bomb, but they didn't intend to set it off. And, for whatever reason, somewhere into the hijacking, it did go off. Actually, a botched-up hijacking would make a tad more sense. | ||
|
hp.Shell
United States2527 Posts
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/1-2-million-gold-bars-found-stashed-boeing-737s-bathroom-v21545372 Suppose someone was doing that again, and someone else found out about it. All you would need is control of the plane, and perhaps a faked crash, to get away with the gold. Going over the Indian Ocean is a relatively safe bet that you will get away. Not sure what would happen, if you would land on some remote island and then send it back up to explode, or what you would do, but either way it doesn't make sense to me to hijack a plane and divert it toward the Indian Ocean. | ||
| ||
