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: 299
181
<< 296  297  298    300  301  302 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


And what carrier is that? They don't normally operate in the Indian Ocean, unless they're operating with the Indian Navy. There are currently no carriers showing in that region, so where did the fighters come from?




posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


Read the report from the crew. It was initially identified as an F-14 on an approach that looked like a missile attack. It was only later when they looked at the radar data, and got reports of the debris that they realized it wasn't.

Radar has come a LONG way on ships since then, and procedures were changed because of that. The chances of that happening again are remarkably slim.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


And what carrier is that? They don't normally operate in the Indian Ocean, unless they're operating with the Indian Navy. There are currently no carriers showing in that region, so where did the fighters come from?


Maybe it wasn't shot down by a fighter off a carrier. Maybe it was shot down with a missile from a ship like the Vincennes!



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


Read the report from the crew. It was initially identified as an F-14 on an approach that looked like a missile attack. It was only later when they looked at the radar data, and got reports of the debris that they realized it wasn't.

Radar has come a LONG way on ships since then, and procedures were changed because of that. The chances of that happening again are remarkably slim.


July 17, 1996 TWA 800. There was a naval exercise going on in the area when that aircraft was blown out of the sky. USS Normandy, USS Knox, and Wallops Island, VA.
edit on 25-3-2014 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


And you have absolute proof that TWA 800 was shot down in an antimissile exercise. Not speculation, not "someone told me so", but absolute, take to court proof.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


So they shot it down with a ship, then, what, picked up debris and scattered it near Australia to cover it up? Instead of just saying it was an accident, like they have in the past? Because that makes a lot more sense right? Oh, and let's not forget they had to get Inmarsat and Rolls Royce in on it to show handshake data for 7 hours to make it look more convincing.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


So they shot it down with a ship, then, what, picked up debris and scattered it near Australia to cover it up? Instead of just saying it was an accident, like they have in the past? Because that makes a lot more sense right? Oh, and let's not forget they had to get Inmarsat and Rolls Royce in on it to show handshake data for 7 hours to make it look more convincing.


You have to consider that Immarsat is selling a satellite based technology for flight data that they are hoping to get governmental mandates for requiring this new equipment as a result of this incident. FLYHT has a new system to live stream data from airlines to replace black boxes.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


So they shot it down with a ship, then, what, picked up debris and scattered it near Australia to cover it up? Instead of just saying it was an accident, like they have in the past? Because that makes a lot more sense right? Oh, and let's not forget they had to get Inmarsat and Rolls Royce in on it to show handshake data for 7 hours to make it look more convincing.


They never confessed for TWA 800, why would they for MH370?



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


First off, they're a commercial company, that does nothing but pass data to Rolls Royce, or whoever else. Secondly black boxes will never be replaced. You will always need the physical box on the plane.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


There is also no proof that TWA 800 was shot down by the Navy. So why should they confess.

So you honestly believe that they're going to be able to shoot the plane down, pick up all the floating debris, somehow block the ELT signals if they went off, move the debris somewhere else without anyone knowing or talking about it, while getting at least two civilian companies to help them cover it up. Just how many people were in on this, a few thousand?



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


There is also no proof that TWA 800 was shot down by the Navy. So why should they confess.

So you honestly believe that they're going to be able to shoot the plane down, pick up all the floating debris, somehow block the ELT signals if they went off, move the debris somewhere else without anyone knowing or talking about it, while getting at least two civilian companies to help them cover it up. Just how many people were in on this, a few thousand?


Zaph, I greatly value your intel and opinion on any matter involving flight and military.

Haven't seen much input from you on this thread until now.

So may I ask, what is your take on what happened to MH370?

Cheers



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Seek_Truth
 


I was around for the beginning but had to take a break for a little while.

My personal belief is that there was a cockpit fire, in the oxygen system. The pilots punched in a destination in Australia to take them towards Langkawi(sp?), which has no terrain and a nice long runway, but were overcome by the fire/smoke, and it kept flying heading for the destination programmed until it ran out of fuel.

That or a slow decompression both fit the evidence nicely. There was a warning put out for 777s to watch for fuselage cracks up near where the transponder antenna is located.

But after looking at everything that's been put out, I've gone away from my initial theory of a decompression towards the fire. Fire makes more sense based on the evidence that's been released.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


First off, they're a commercial company, that does nothing but pass data to Rolls Royce, or whoever else. Secondly black boxes will never be replaced. You will always need the physical box on the plane.


www.telegraph.co.uk...

Watch the 1st video at the link above courtesy of plan2exist18 from page 293. At 1:44 Chris Mclaughlin says "...in this day and age he is dumbfounded that there isn't a requirement for automatic reporting of gps locations." (satellite). At 1:56 he mentions "...existing systems we have now installed on approximately 10,000 aircraft." At 2:05 he starts going on about "...government mandates for his equipment on all aircraft as the only way airlines will go along."

flyht.com...
edit on 25-3-2014 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


Of course government mandates are the only way. The airlines will not spend one dime that they don't have to. Until there is a written notice that they MUST comply, they're not going to. Just look at United 811 for proof of that. The FAA issued a directive that all 747s had to have their cargo doors modified to ensure that they locked properly. The immediately response of the airlines was that removing them from service, for the few hours it would take to modify them, would cost them too much, and put undue financial burden on them. They even threatened to sue to get the deadline extended. And this was right after 15 people died when the cargo door on a 747 ripped open the side of the aircraft.

The airlines are the bad guy here. There are a lot of safety features that could, or even should be installed in planes, that they refuse to unless they're forced to. Everything costs too much, or would cost them too much to have the planes down for modification.

I watched an interview with an American Airlines exec, who talked about a previous CEO of the airline, who used to brag about how he cut costs at a parts hanger, first by cutting security staff back to random nights, then by replacing them with a dog, then by cutting the DOG back to random nights, and finally by just playing a recording of a dog barking so they could save money on dog food.
edit on 3/25/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Mikeultra

RP2SticksOfDynamite

Seek_Truth

Mikeultra

Seek_Truth
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


I followed Wiki's source on the ETOPS to a pdf file created by Boeing.

Found this interesting to say the least:


Typical Policy Statement for Remote US Military Airports:

"The US Navy advises that NSF Diego Garcia may be identified as an Extended Range Twin Engine Operations (ETOPS) emergency landing site (en route alternate) for flight planning purposes. This is consistent with US government policy that an aircraft can land at any US military airfield if the pilot determines there is an in-flight emergency that would make continued flight unsafe. However, as NSF Diego Garcia is a military facility, it s incumbent on aircraft operators to continuously monitor NOTAMS which may temporarily restrict the use of the airfield, even for emergency diversions. It is imperative that aircraft diverting to NSF Diego Garcia comply fully with all air defense procedures, as non-compliance could be misconstrued as a hostile act.

Further, it s understood there are published criteria for ETOPS airfields, and our policy concerning emergency use is not agreement or certification that this airfield meets those criteria. NSF Diego Garcia is a remote location with resources (accommodations, medical, hangars, crash/fire/rescue, etc) limited to levels essential for support of assigned personnel and the military mission. The airfield is available "as is" for emergency use only as indicated above."

-Policy Statement for NSF Diego Garcia, 2002


Boeing PDF


Interesting... so if there were incapacitated pilots flying by autopilot and they didn't respond to Diego Garcia, they would be treated as hostile! That explains why Immarsat, a British company has misdirected the search to the far South Indian Ocean!


Exactly! Makes complete sense to me.

Edit to Add: This also explains why the pilot had Diego Garcia programmed into his flight sim. Most likely he needed to learn/practice the route and landing in case it applied to a real life scenario. In this case, it was a real life scenario, he did what he thought was best and flew towards Diego Garcia for an emergency landing w/out comms, and they shot him down.


edit on 25-3-2014 by Seek_Truth because: (no reason given)


Or he landed. if reaching DG how many hours would the plane have been in the air?


A 777 cruises at Mach .84 which is 639 miles per hour at 35,000 feet. Kuala Lumpur to Diego Garcia is 2136 miles. That's 3.34 hours flight time. I think it was shot down. The U.S. has done it before. Iran Air 655 July 03, 1988 en.wikipedia.org...
TWA 800 July 17, 1996 abcnews.go.com...

There was missile testing going on from Wallops Island, VA when TWA800 was downed by a anti-missile fired from a U.S. Navy ship.



So it was a total of 6 hours to DG. 1+1+4 = 6
So if reportedly in the air for 7 hrs then it wasnt shot down at DG (and they dont have the facilities for that?)
So did it land at DG and switch all off = 7 hrs. And is it still there or was it emptied and then took off again and ditched in the IO.
Or did it just head for Yemem/Somalia/Iran/P = 7 hrs, yes????
edit on 25-3-2014 by RP2SticksOfDynamite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Seek_Truth
 


I was around for the beginning but had to take a break for a little while.

My personal belief is that there was a cockpit fire, in the oxygen system. The pilots punched in a destination in Australia to take them towards Langkawi(sp?), which has no terrain and a nice long runway, but were overcome by the fire/smoke, and it kept flying heading for the destination programmed until it ran out of fuel.

That or a slow decompression both fit the evidence nicely. There was a warning put out for 777s to watch for fuselage cracks up near where the transponder antenna is located.

But after looking at everything that's been put out, I've gone away from my initial theory of a decompression towards the fire. Fire makes more sense based on the evidence that's been released.


If the pilots entered Langkawi in their auto pilot and succumbed to smoke and fire, their heading would have to be 195 from Langawi to match up with the search area 1500 miles west-southwest of Perth. That heading doesn't jive with the turn around from the original 25 heading and the location in the Gulf of Thailand making a left turn. It makes more sense that they turned left for a heading of 270 and passed out, with autopilot taking them towards Diego Garcia and ultimate fate there.
edit on 25-3-2014 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


Because they didn't program that in. In an autopilot with canned routes programmed in, they're programmed alphabetically. Which makes more sense when there is a fire right behind you, hitting the first airport that takes you anywhere near where you're trying to get to, or sitting there scrolling screen by screen until you get to the right airport?

Once it was programmed to take them towards it, the autopilot was going to fly to the appropriate waypoint (the closest to where they were), which wouldn't necessarily take them on the right course right off the bat.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

RP2SticksOfDynamite

Mikeultra

RP2SticksOfDynamite

Seek_Truth

Mikeultra

Seek_Truth
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


I followed Wiki's source on the ETOPS to a pdf file created by Boeing.

Found this interesting to say the least:


Typical Policy Statement for Remote US Military Airports:

"The US Navy advises that NSF Diego Garcia may be identified as an Extended Range Twin Engine Operations (ETOPS) emergency landing site (en route alternate) for flight planning purposes. This is consistent with US government policy that an aircraft can land at any US military airfield if the pilot determines there is an in-flight emergency that would make continued flight unsafe. However, as NSF Diego Garcia is a military facility, it s incumbent on aircraft operators to continuously monitor NOTAMS which may temporarily restrict the use of the airfield, even for emergency diversions. It is imperative that aircraft diverting to NSF Diego Garcia comply fully with all air defense procedures, as non-compliance could be misconstrued as a hostile act.

Further, it s understood there are published criteria for ETOPS airfields, and our policy concerning emergency use is not agreement or certification that this airfield meets those criteria. NSF Diego Garcia is a remote location with resources (accommodations, medical, hangars, crash/fire/rescue, etc) limited to levels essential for support of assigned personnel and the military mission. The airfield is available "as is" for emergency use only as indicated above."

-Policy Statement for NSF Diego Garcia, 2002


Boeing PDF


Interesting... so if there were incapacitated pilots flying by autopilot and they didn't respond to Diego Garcia, they would be treated as hostile! That explains why Immarsat, a British company has misdirected the search to the far South Indian Ocean!


Exactly! Makes complete sense to me.

Edit to Add: This also explains why the pilot had Diego Garcia programmed into his flight sim. Most likely he needed to learn/practice the route and landing in case it applied to a real life scenario. In this case, it was a real life scenario, he did what he thought was best and flew towards Diego Garcia for an emergency landing w/out comms, and they shot him down.


edit on 25-3-2014 by Seek_Truth because: (no reason given)


Or he landed. if reaching DG how many hours would the plane have been in the air?


A 777 cruises at Mach .84 which is 639 miles per hour at 35,000 feet. Kuala Lumpur to Diego Garcia is 2136 miles. That's 3.34 hours flight time. I think it was shot down. The U.S. has done it before. Iran Air 655 July 03, 1988 en.wikipedia.org...
TWA 800 July 17, 1996 abcnews.go.com...

There was missile testing going on from Wallops Island, VA when TWA800 was downed by a anti-missile fired from a U.S. Navy ship.



So it was a total of 6 hours to DG. 1+1+4 = 6
So if reportedly in the air for 7 hrs then it wasnt shot down at DG (and they dont have the facilities for that?)
So did it land at DG and switch all off = 7 hrs. And is it still there or was it emptied and then took off again and ditched in the IO.
Or did it just head for Yemem/Somalia/Iran/P = 7 hrs, yes????
edit on 25-3-2014 by RP2SticksOfDynamite because: (no reason given)


I believe Immarsat and Rolls Royce are lying about how many hours they were receiving pings from MH370. So they could send everyone on a goose chase into the South Indian Ocean. They need to keep the downing of MH370 secret. All they have to do is declare that it's a matter of national security and case closed.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Mikeultra
 


And surprise surprise, the US is behind it. Because apparently we're to blame for everything bad that happens, and there are no accidents.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
It is interesting to note now that the last few pages of this thread appear to be suggesting it was all an accident.
Bravo the whole process of confusion/miss info and focus on the south and the IO appears to be working.
This in my opinion was no accident but im no expert, nor am I a blind ignorant gullible fool who believes coincidences are exactly just that!!
Too many C's + logistical anomolies + deflecting actions + the suggested crash location (making BB's non recoverable) = No accident!

But I could be wrong - but I aint!! Whatever the truth!

edit on 25-3-2014 by RP2SticksOfDynamite because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
181
<< 296  297  298    300  301  302 >>

log in

join