posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 04:15 AM
In fact, because of your attitude, let's go through your post, shall we?
If terrorist succeed, the plane should already crash into something.
It has crashed - that much is certain! It's been missing for several days, no airliner can stay aloft for that long. What exactl;y is your point
If terrorist fail, plane should be there.
Again, what's your point? The plane "isn't there", wherever there is. The plane is missing, ergo if it was terrorism, they have succeeded.
If blow up, debris should already found
Talk about stating the obvious - what's your point here? If it crashed, blew up, broke up or was deliberately flown into the sea in a mad attempt to
divebomb a whale, then debris should be found. The fact that there is no plane at the destination is evidence enough it has gone down.
if hijacked and shut down transponder, radar still can detect them
Until it either crashes, or blows up.
Again, what's your point here - once more stating the obvious. I also never claimed a hijacking.
The plane went off radar, what's your
explanation for the sudden disappearance of an airliner?
If forced crashed, debris and radar will show evidence
You're not really making any points here and just stating the obvious. You'd think if you thought my "theory" as a "fail", you'd make an eloquent
argument. You do not. They have not found any debris yet and the plane vanished off radar - what explanation have you for that?
Let just wait until debris found shall we ?
So earlier you're against my "theory" but now you want to wait for debris? Can't have it both ways.
edit on 12/3/14 by stumason because: (no