It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Beijing-bound MAS plane carrying 239 people missing as of 20 mins ago.

page: 168
181
<< 165  166  167    169  170  171 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:02 AM
link   

tsingtao
reply to post by civpop
 


they could never fly under the radar for that far.

it takes more fuel.






Hope another user can confirm flying under radar uses more fuel.

Plane can land at bases/private owned airports to refuel and go, having said that, those places would have to be part of the plan/conspiracy... looking at nation states for that. 777 can't land on smaller runways though.

Question, could a 777 land on a transport ship (or whatever those big *** ships are that they use in navies to transport stealth bombers and stuff) to refuel? If possible, which state does said ship belong to? Highly interested here.
edit on 15-3-2014 by auroraaus because: Silly quote thingybob




posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Sky news reported Malaysian police told reuters they are searching home of one of the pilots?



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   
This is getting more and more bizarre.

The plane appears to have been hijacked either by pilot and co-pilot, other crew members or passengers or a combination of them.
The transponder and other comms equipment was switched off then the plane dropped altitude and flew below radar coverage for some hours after the last known position.
Flying at a lower altitude uses more fuel so the range would be reduced significantly and to do this would require a pilot and someone familiar with flying the 777.
Seems to be a planned and thought out hijacking. Ditching in the ocean after running out of fuel seems pointless but landing somewhere within the low altitude range of the fuel on board seems like it could be part of the plan. I'm thinking it could have landed somewhere remote but for what purpose who knows?



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Just heard now that the relatives of the Chinese passengers are being kicked out of their hotel by Malaysian Airways. Tonight is the last night they are being paid for by the airline now that the Malaysian government have come out and said it is probably a hijack. That means it is not Malaysian Airways "problem" any more but a governmental one

Many of these relatives are from different cities around China so they have to return home tomorrow whithout knowing the fate of their loved ones.

Bit harsh I would say. Maybe the Chinese government will take pity on them and let them stay for a while longer? (That would be good PR for China)



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   

civpop
There is some information here with a link about the Uighir passenger, I cant access the link as im in the UAE and its banned for some reason, although I did try, im now scared ill get a knock on the door lol

The passenger list is there with a lot of numbers but some of it I cant read.

Link


I decided to just screencap the article and another it linked to, since the text was way too long.

Here is the article you linked to.
i.imgur.com...
Here is a larger picture of the passenger list from that linked article.


And here is the article linked to as a source in the link you posted
i.imgur.com...



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:15 AM
link   

ManiShuck

civpop
There is some information here with a link about the Uighir passenger, I cant access the link as im in the UAE and its banned for some reason, although I did try, im now scared ill get a knock on the door lol

The passenger list is there with a lot of numbers but some of it I cant read.

Link


I decided to just screencap the article and another it linked to, since the text was way too long.

Here is the article you linked to.
i.imgur.com...
Here is a larger picture of the passenger list from that linked article.


And here is the article linked to as a source in the link you posted
i.imgur.com...


Blimey, thanks, that explains why I couldn't access it here in the UAE :O still waiting for the knock on the door for trying.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by civpop
 


This should be done normally, in my opinion. Like I stated previously, you investigate the other spouse when one spouse goes missing, if not for the only reason but to rule them out as a suspect.

I'm not sure how to feel, whether I'd want them to find something or not. One means the guy is innocent, the other may give them a lead as to where the plane went.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by auroraaus
 


There is no way a Boeing 777 could land on a ship, and flying at a lower altitude uses more fuel because the air is more dense and causes more drag. That's why jetliners cruise at 35,000ft+ it is the most fuel efficient altitude to fly at. Flying at sea level or close to it can use more than double the fuel flow for the same speed.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


Thanks Spock!



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ManiShuck
 


Based on the education we got on 9/11, it takes 3 to 4 people to steal an airliner. If the cockpit door was
open at the time, that would explain no distress signal. I cannot believe that as paranoid as India is, they
could miss skin painting a 200 ton, 200 ft. Wide radar signature. That excludes the Stans. No 200 ton airliner is gonna land
on a dirt strip. Preposterous. Where is OUR plane ?



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ManiShuck
 


Yes agree they will investigate all crew I would suspect.

Just as an aside, what about the Burma area and the area by Manipur there is a lot of military areas ive just seen on maps.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Why Iran would do such a crazy and complex action out of a James Bond movie (one with Sean Connery, not Tim Dalton)?
I don't see the logical stance, especially at the time they are negociating a deal on their nuclear program with EU, USA, RUSSIA,... if they think it is gonna be easier to negociate while hijacking a passenger plane...
But, could it be a False flag from one of their best enemy...to remind them that in no way they will have nuclear power.
edit on kam3bam3201473am000000 by kanbanozaurus because: add contents



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by civpop
 


There was an article I came across about Ann, Burma building up a big base and they apparently have a tense relationship with Bangladesh. And I believe both countries have relatively decent radar systems, so you would think they would have seen something come through. I'm not sure if either of them are working with the investigation, though.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   
If it was a hijacking, I couldn't imagine passengers not sending a message to the outside world about what's happening inside the plane. I mean there are over 200 passengers on board. Say there are 10 hijackers. 10 hijackers can't efficiently monitor 200 passengers. On the first minute the hijackers take over the plane, it's inconceivable that at least one passenger would not have sent a text message or something or even tried.

The captain is experienced...he could have somehow made a weird subtle maneuver or turned on an unecessary device. Anything subtle that can alert the authorities.

I mean does anybody here know the mandatory procedure or protocol if an airline pilot is confronted with a hijacking? Is there an international manual we could refer to?

Just saying.
edit on 15-3-2014 by IQPREREQUISITE because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:37 AM
link   

auroraaus

Hope another user can confirm flying under radar uses more fuel.


that is my understanding of the situation, i can't remember all the reasons for this right now. but there are reasons, just like if you ever look at an airline route map you will notice that "straight line" flight isn't common, but that they fly "arcs" instead.


Plane can land at bases/private owned airports to refuel and go, having said that, those places would have to be part of the plan/conspiracy... looking at nation states for that. 777 can't land on smaller runways though.


as i said just recently landing requirements are only 6,000 or 7,000 feet with a pilot claiming he would try if 5,000 feet, takeoff is the issue with 11,000 feet needed. and you could use any fairly level highway, packed sand, or even good old "pierced steel" could be used, proper airport/runway not needed. which in the end means any island or other landmass within range could be used.


Question, could a 777 land on a transport ship (or whatever those big *** ships are that they use in navies to transport stealth bombers and stuff) to refuel? If possible, which state does said ship belong to? Highly interested here.


i'll admit i didn't even consider that. tho landing on a moving, "pitching" deck is apparently a bit on the difficult side of things. i suppose they could try it, but chances are they would fail, never heard of a large aircraft landing even on an aircraft carrier, but they did launch medium bombers off of one in ww2, the "Doolittle raid". so i would think if not probable, it would be possible. one thing is such a ship would stand out like a sore thumb, since they would need to add a "flight deck", and get rid of any superstructure over the "flight deck" height. anyone who saw it, i would think would automatically report such a weird ship, and with satellite coverage, would not be easy to hide. oh they could camouflage it, by having a "tear down" superstructure, and even "containers", but that would be a heck of a lot of work, and if looked at closely still would be likely to be seen, as something "odd", and worth noting.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by auroraaus
 


Someone, anyone, convince me the air crew is not involved. A 777 is not a yugo, Vega, etc. Taking over an airplane
on cruise control is not impossible. Rendering 1~3 flight people is difficult. Cell phones would be useless over
ocean. You and I have the WWW. Let's find our plane before it finds us.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Are you aware of article by Tom Heneghan ? It seems interesting if you like the idea of "follow the money" as a method
for digging up truth. You can find it by searching "Chinese box revealed". It states, interestingly that there were Chinese
military personnel on board who have knowledge to incriminate Chinese Cabal regarding massive misuse of funds. This article states that Control Tower in Vietnam warned pilot to change course, that the Chinese were planning to shoot plane down.
Fascinating information. See what you think. It DOES fit in line with what others such as, but not limited to Ben Fulford have to say about Cabal dealings and finances. If it is a reasonable theory, it would explain why govts ( other govts including US involved too) have not come clean with info. Don't you just feel that they are withholding info or data?? If enough resonable people agree, maybe this idea should be made more visible. See what you think. I just want the truth!!



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:38 AM
link   
One thing I can't wrap my brain around is how the plane could fly below radar while still dealing with the mountainous topography in the region? I recall huge news stories in my lifetime but none quite this bizarre.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by IQPREREQUISITE
 


Im thinking that they were somehow incapacitated that's the only logical reason for no messages or any form of contact getting off that plane.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:45 AM
link   


as mentioned a few hundred posts back a $50 mobile jammer from ebay can easily wipe out mobile phones. There is a chance it may have wiped out VHF at the same time if it had the airband in the freq range as some do. In addition transponders operate in the high bands with ADSB operating on 1090 while cell phones operate 850 to 2100 so very close to those frequencys.


Link



new topics

top topics



 
181
<< 165  166  167    169  170  171 >>

log in

join