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

Further to my post above on page 368. HERE




My own conclusion.

I don't think MH 370 crashed into the southern Indian Ocean. As I have said from the get go, I think the plane landed------on land. Rolls Royce are being prevented from making their data from the plane's engines public, probably even from releasing it to some governments. I think we can expect sometime in the future (I expect later in the year or perhaps 2015) they will pull some piece of a plane from somewhere in that garbage filled zone, and they will do it in a very public manner. But they won't pull any bodies.

The Malaysian government and Malaysia Airlines are actively being presented to us as culpable, but for what exactly? No crash has been confirmed by evidence. Only by the Malaysian government in a very hurried and unconventional manner. They are the scapegoats, whatever the deal they were faced with was, clearly it was an offer they couldn't refuse! I think they were told from the beginning they were not to ask about the plane. They can make up any story they like to keep face.

The question remains what was behind the disappearance. Yes what! It isn't a question of who, because only those engaged in the cover-up will seek to place the blame on individuals. That is one way you will know who is part of the cover-up and who is not.

Edit to answer the question in the post by Arbitrageur below.
Rolls Royce are being prevented from making their data public. Rolls Royce has NOT issued a public statement that they made a mistake the engines were not running in excess of 4 hours as initially reported in the Wall Street Journal. That piece of appended info came courtesy of a Malaysian newpaper!
SEE HERE
There is no way in the world they do not have that data, they have it. Period!

Tallone
Rolls Royce had the data all along that gave the duration of engine running time before shut down took place!

They say they didn't in an official statement, so why do you say they did? Because you believe the media reports they say were inaccurate?

MH370: Rolls Royce denies engine data report

Defence-cum-Acting Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said Malaysian authorities have checked with Rolls Royce, and the engine maker of the Boeing 777-200ER jet has categorically denied the reports...

“Yesterday, we rejected a media report in which unnamed officials said that engine data showed the plane had kept flying for hours after last contact. We checked with Boeing and Rolls Royce, who said the reports were not true.

“Today Rolls Royce released a statement saying, and I quote: Rolls Royce continues to provide its full support to the authorities and Malaysia Airlines. Rolls Royce concurs with the statement made on Thursday, March 13, by Malaysia’s Transport Minister regarding engine health monitoring data received from the aircraft’.

Now is Rolls Royce lying? I don't know, but I wouldn't accuse them of that unless I had something more substantial than "unnamed sources" to back up the claim, do you have anything more substantial or are you just sharing your "gut feeling" opinion without any factual basis?

reply to post by OatDelphi

I'm sorry where did you say it was opinion?

In my very next post!!!
Now where did I say it was a fact???

No wrong again... You commented on my post about suicides not always having precursors or notes. The fact that even just one has occurred w/o precursor or note proves my point. And by the way, the stats come from very reputable sources. I don't have to prove them because people much smarter than I already have.

Again, I never said you weren't right... In fact I agreed when I said 99.99%... So my opinion is that 0.01% of the time those stats are right!!!

An article citing an unnamed colleague! That's your source? Not to mention it's not even the original article. Here let me do your job for you...

The article I shared cited the original source so I wasn't exactly dodging it now was I!!!

Yes you missed reading the articles I posted about suicide although you thought you were wise enough to comment on them. And don't try to twist my words again, you know exactly what I meant when I was referring to the "readily available information".

Talk about Strawman and then ignore my question!!!
Nice one!!!
So what did the pilot say that was political???
I never twisted your words at all... I quoted you... You said that you weren't dealing with unverifiable hear say!!!
Make your mind up!!!

Oh I'm sorry I must have miss read this...

Yes you did!!!
I've been saying since the first week that F.S are a military target!!!
Not that they want/need/would hi-jack a plane!!!


Peace Oat!!!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thanks for the clarification about the batteries, I wasn't aware that the 30 days is a minimum timeframe of functioning

Talliostro
Thanks for the clarification about the batteries, I wasn't aware that the 30 days is a minimum timeframe of functioning

You're quite welcome, and yes it's supposed to be functioning fully for 30 days, but if they were supposed to replace the battery in 2012 and didn't do it, then it could fall below that minimum and the signal could already be weaker than it's supposed to be today even though it's not 30 days yet.

The battery is not replaceable by Malaysian airlines; they have to send it to the manufacturer for battery replacement, and the manufacturer said they never got it in 2012 which was the replacement date.

reply to post by Tallone


I have heard about Rolls Royce knowing where their engines are in real time.
It was mentioned on CNN, but never mentioned again.
So they do know and I think TPTB know along with them and for other unknown reasons this search is being stalled. Something is being covered up.

I don't think any bodies will be recovered either.

I am no expert here, but I do have 8 years ASW Aircrew experience in the cold war, 6 of which in the Acoustics SS1 seat of a P3. We chased Soviet nukes up and down the eastern seaboard and dropped hundreds of sonobouys to keep track of them.

I cannot understand, while having a signal present at 4 different intervals in the towed arrays of surface craft, why a P-3 or P-8 was not immediately dispatched and dropped a pattern on those locations.

A straight line pattern of 10 passives, oriented before and after the boats holding signal, spaced 2 miles apart, even after they lost their original signal. Turn 270 and drop 2 directionals 2 miles out on each side of the center line of that passive pattern as you cross it.

This is what we would have done.

Why are we not hearing about this? This is what they do, and supposedly, the reason they are there.

The equipment on these aircraft would pinpoint the location of that beacon, if there was any signal at all, and in short order.

I hate not hearing what they are doing, and as far as I can tell and from what I have heard, they have yet to execute this, most basic, of air/sea target acquisition and reconnaissance operations that these aircraft were built to perform.

reply to post by violet

I have heard about Rolls Royce knowing where their engines are in real time.
It was mentioned on CNN, but never mentioned again.
So they do know and I think TPTB know along with them and for other unknown reasons this search is being stalled. Something is being covered up.

I don't think any bodies will be recovered either.

There you go. Andy Pasztor & Jon Ostrower broke the story in the Wall Street Journal originally I think March 9th reporting on a statement. Those older articles need a login to read them. Someone might like to check the original. And my understanding was Richard Quest on CNN refuted the story soon after (Thursday that week) commencing the media shut down of the story. It was promptly and most voraciously denied by the Malaysian authorities who claimed they had never seen the data.

What is most telling is that neither Rolls Royce themselves nor Boeing (I am fairly certain the original source of the information the plane flew on in 4-5 hours) will say a word, NOT A WORD about the flight duration data. The will not confirm or deny.

Under the circumstances that there is a cover-up is near enough to certain.

The Depth of the Problem
I think this is a nice article about the problems with the depth of the ocean there. As you can see, the locator is lowered to around 4.600 feet depth and the oceanbed is at 15.000 feet depth.
So I guess surface buoys can't hear the faint "pings"

reply to post by Talliostro


Not necessarily so. The sonobouy's of today can detect at great range, especially with the signal processing that is done in the aircraft.
The broadband noise can be filtered out which boosts the sensitivity for detection of extremely faint discreet frequencies.
The ocean channels sound that looks like a warp field if you could visualize it. The right bouy(s) in the right place can be very effective. Initially, they were picking up this signal from very shallow hydrophones.

reply to post by charlyv

Why are we not hearing about this? This is what they do, and supposedly, the reason they are there.

The equipment on these aircraft would pinpoint the location of that beacon, if there was any signal at all, and in short order.

I hate not hearing what they are doing, and as far as I can tell and from what I have heard, they have yet to execute this, most basic, of air/sea target acquisition and reconnaissance operations that these aircraft were built to perform.

The simple answer is this is a civilian operation not a military one.
Never the two shall meet.

"CONFIRMED"

Experts confirm signals are from a black box

PERTH: Experts in Australia and the United States have confirmed that the pulse signals picked up by vessels searching for a missing Malaysian airliner in the southern Indian Ocean are from a man-made device and are not natural sounds from the sea, according to the Joint Agency Co-ordination Centre (JACC).

Its chief co-ordinator, Air Chief Marshal (Rtd) Angus Houston, said Wednesday the experts, from the Australian Joint Acoustic Analysis Centre (AJACC) in New South Wales and the black box manufacturer in the United States, had confirmed that the 33.31 kHz signals were from the flight data recorder of a black box.

However, it could not be confirmed whether the signals had come from the black box of the missing Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight, MH370, he said.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What was that 8 days after the plane disappeared? And that was a response to "american officials" not the press reports really.

Were american officials lying? And unless I missed it did the engine manufacture ever say at what point they did stop receiving data?

reply to post by auroraaus

Only for gullibles, I'm afraid

reply to post by Tallone


As has been discussed here, the engine data is sent from this plane via the ACARS system which was in what state? Not working for whatever reason. That's why RR had some from the beginning of the flight but none later.

Nochzwei
reply to post by auroraaus

 

Only for gullibles, I'm afraid

Why is this for the gullible ? Is it because the disappearance of the plane HAS to be a conspiracy and not just simply the plane crashed and they have indeed found the black boxes ?

auroraaus
"CONFIRMED"

Experts confirm signals are from a black box

PERTH: Experts in Australia and the United States have confirmed that the pulse signals picked up by vessels searching for a missing Malaysian airliner in the southern Indian Ocean are from a man-made device and are not natural sounds from the sea, according to the Joint Agency Co-ordination Centre (JACC).

Its chief co-ordinator, Air Chief Marshal (Rtd) Angus Houston, said Wednesday the experts, from the Australian Joint Acoustic Analysis Centre (AJACC) in New South Wales and the black box manufacturer in the United States, had confirmed that the 33.31 kHz signals were from the flight data recorder of a black box.

However, it could not be confirmed whether the signals had come from the black box of the missing Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight, MH370, he said.

See the last sentence in that news release? That's legalese speak. They're absolutely sure the signal is coming from black box pingers, but they can't confirm that it's black boxes from MH370. That leaves open the possibility that other decoy black boxes with weak batteries were dropped in this search area in order to validate all the search activity staying there instead of where the MH370 really is.

My opinion of where really is, would be in the water near Diego Garcia, landed at Diego Garcia, landed in Saudi Arabia, landed in Karachi, or landed in Mazari Sharif, Afghanistan at Camp Marmal.The last location would be ideal for the U.S. to use the plane to attack Iran and its nuclear facility and blame it on terrorists hoping to provoke another war.

Camp Marmal

See the last sentence in that news release? That's legalese speak. They're absolutely sure the signal is coming from black box pingers, but they can't confirm that it's black boxes from MH370.

My opinion of where really is, would be in the water near Diego Garcia, landed at Diego Garcia, landed in Saudi Arabia, landed in Karachi, or landed in Mazari Sharif, Afghanistan at Camp Marmal.

That's conspiracese for ignore any facts but throw in a few factless guesses.

Logarock
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

What was that 8 days after the plane disappeared? And that was a response to "american officials" not the press reports really.

Were american officials lying?

What American officials? It was a Wall Street Journal report, which the Wall Street Journal later corrected. My guess is they were confused between the satellite pings and the engine data which is not hard to understand since the engine data was transmitted via satellite at the beginning of the flight.

And unless I missed it did the engine manufacture ever say at what point they did stop receiving data?

I posted the only quote I've seen from them and they agreed with the transport minister's statement.

roadgravel
reply to post by Tallone

 

As has been discussed here, the engine data is sent from this plane via the ACARS system which was in what state? Not working for whatever reason. That's why RR had some from the beginning of the flight but none later.

The WSJ reported otherwise initially, but they later retracted that report and published a correction consistent with that. It seems like some people don't want to accept the WSJ correction to their initial report, but what you said is correct according to RR.