Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Malaysia Airlines plane Flight MH370 missing: New hostage theory

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 05:22 AM
link   
edit on 3/13/2014 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by truthgirl
 


what is your point?



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Apparently the plane didn't fly on...

I call BS. The plane turned around for a reason, and i believe there were some eye witness reports from Malaysia, where individuals witnessed a plane fly low overhead...

Not to mention that the information from the plane's engines automatically get transferred to the HQ...if the information there states that the plane chugged on for another couple of hours, then it did. MA is screwing us...



www.couriermail.com.au...



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


Live news brief from Kuala Lumpur; The head of the Malaysia Transport Authority speaking, has denied allegations made by the Wall Street Journal yesterday concerning the plane being in contact with Rolls Royce, maker of the engine for the Boeing 777 for an additional 4 hours.

He stated unequivocally that the last data transmission was at 1:07 am (their time) and the reports indicated that there was nothing wrong with the plane's engine.

Confirming the report by New Scientist he said the plane sent two data transmissions, one during take-off and the other as the plane leveled out for the trip to Beijing. Both transmissions reported normal conditions for the engines. The speaker again reiterated the last data transmission was at 1:07 (their time) and after they lost contact with the plane there was never another data transmission.

He repeated it has taken months to find other planes in the past which crashed. He says they are searching for a crashed plane and he believes they just have not located the plane yet. He stated they are using sophisticated equipment and it is a multinational effort to locate the missing aircraft. They are doing all they can, but it can take time.


Video: Malaysia Defends Missing Jet Search Nothing to Hide Over Plane Search.
edit on 13-3-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   
I really would like to know the names of everyone on board.

Aside from the false passports people I am wondering if someone else was not who she/he appears to be.

The only other theory I can think of is The Langoliers (sarcasm)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 05:58 AM
link   
this story keeps getting weirder...



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


www.malaysiaairlines.com...

Passenger manifest for the flight. Have fun!



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Xcathdra
I really would like to know the names of everyone on board.

Aside from the false passports people I am wondering if someone else was not who she/he appears to be.

The only other theory I can think of is The Langoliers (sarcasm)


Here's the passenger manifest.


www.malaysiaairlines.com...



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


reply to post by OpinionatedB
 



Thank you both.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


No one should believe a word from any Malaysian "Officials", as they have already shown deception and agreed that the photos of the Iranians were photoshopped. I think a few of these "Officials" ie: Monkeys should be taken to a secluded place and Interragated until the real truth comes out. Also apparently the plane was seen by a ship/boat at around 1000 m in the air. Something is definitely wrong here. I don't think China would shoot down a civilian airliner, unless they mistook it for a Milatary Aircraft, which Is very unlikely.
edit on 13/3/2014 by Skyline74 because: spelling/grammar



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Arken
THE FAKE "TERRORIST" Plot...


Something BIG around here....
Who take the responsability to tell the truth?


The person who made that has tactically put the red line in place. The original document is fairly blatant. The two sections or turso and body are not even connected in the original, obviously done for an "artist impression".



It looks to me like they took the guy on the right printed on a piece of paper... took the torso of the guy on the left and overlayed ontop of the guy on the right and scanned it. That gap looks like scans and faxes i've done in the passed when the overlayed paper lifts.



they have clearly just attached legs to the original images that must have looked like


edit on 13-3-2014 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-3-2014 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-3-2014 by tdk84 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   
see my post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This particular model of aircraft runs on a standard ethernet network. There are no firewalls between the entertainment network, and flight ops. If someone knows what they are doing, they can take over the plane from the comfort of their seat in coach and there isn't a damned thing the pilots can do about it.

It can then be flown anywhere they have the gas for.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Given all the strange facts and circumstances about this flight, the only thing that surprises me about this new theory is - the source. Wall Street Journal!? Wow.

Anyways...I think this WSJ reporter has been reading ATS because members have been speculating this for a while.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


In my opinion that is the only plausible explanation.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Stealthbomber
 


Read the EAD. All 777 operators were warned of cracks that could cause a leak near the SATCOM antenna. Which also happens to be near the GPS, and ADS-b. Comms didn't have to go out at all. They were nearing 35,000 when they disappeared. The crew would already be going slightly hypoxic at least, depending on when the leak started.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Yeah hypoxia crash is an unfortunate likeliness when it comes to crash scenarios, unless someone knows of ways you could disable 100 mobile phones in one quick go? However I would've thought flight crews were better trained about this since the Helios 522 incident some years ago.

The problem is, that in itself wouldn't turn the transponders off. Unless the cracking around this apparent "weak spot" was so intense the whole thing snapped off, and at around the same moment or just minutes before, the hypoxia had kicked in.

But I read that although it was an FAA instruction that their could be a problem, Malaysia Airlines did not have that antenna that had this fault fitted to their 777's. The same as they possibly didn't have the real-time data (for engines etc) setup, because that too is an "optional extra". Someone might want to try and confirm those facts for themselves, I'm not sure I can find the articles again in all the churning news...

I don't want to stoke the fire really...but this is ATS, so I will


I also found Malaysia's involvement (SAR) interesting. Sounded impressive on paper, looked appaulling on camera.
edit on 13-3-2014 by markymint because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by markymint
 


The SATCOM antenna is just in the area the cracking occurs. I don't believe they proved conclusively the antenna caused it.

The phones, interestingly, continued to ring until some time after the plane ran out of fuel. By the next day they weren't ringing anymore.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Yup, but I found it now, Boeing have insisted the faulty antenna was not on MH370



However, Boeing released a statement saying the type of antenna in question was not installed on MH370.

‘‘That airplane is not subject to the AD [airworthiness directive] or the related Service Bulletin,’’ it said. ‘‘’The AD impacts only 777 airplanes with SATCOM antenna adapters installed.’’

Read more: www.smh.com.au...


Source: www.smh.com.au...

So if the antenna wasn't there in the first place, there is no reason for the cracking to occur... ?

EDIT. Oh I see what you mean, it could just be an area, not caused by the antenna. My bad
edit on 13-3-2014 by markymint because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by markymint
 



No, according to reports Malaysia did not have real time data transfer. They did opt out of that and the data goes to the airlines first which they transmit to Rolls Royce, since they did opt to share the data.

I think the real-time data transfer probably cost more... that is why it is an option. That is only my opinion but I dare say it sounds terribly expensive...

Link


edit on 13-3-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I see. So, they had ACARS on the plane, which sounds like an old 1980's system for sending data - which is probably what gave those 'two bursts of engine info' on take off and levelling out. But no AHM (and additional info) installed to give real-time (and constant) readings.

So modern plane operating with the bare minimum. A bit like a brand new car, with just the steering wheel and engine, not a lot else. Not even an aerial by the sound of it... Well I think Boeing have just gauranteed themselves some sales of AHM now, haven't they..!!!

A bit like that myth: "Light bulbs could last thousands of years, but they are designed to break, to ensure we continue to buy them."

Hm, I wonder if the pilot was concerned that Malaysia Airlines had opted out of these extra safety features?
edit on 13-3-2014 by markymint because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join