Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Malaysia Airlines plane Flight MH370 missing: New hostage theory

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


Fuel would have been a problem depending on how they allegedly had to fly to dodge the radars in the area (although how they knew where the warships in the area were I don't know). Fuel is set for the most direct course. If they had to fly almost to the Philippines and then back, or as some said, low enough to dodge radar, fuel certainly was an issue.




posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I'm going on the premise they flew a direct course, and did not dodge any radar. I am going on the premise that they were escorted by Chinese fighter jets.

Fuel in that case would not have been any difficulty.

The media wants us to look everywhere... but the water... and China.

So lets look at China then...since we already looked at the water.
edit on 13-3-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


I am going to need your help if we are to theorize down this road, you know the most about the reports concerning the landing in China.

I have to get off tonight, lets start, if you are willing.. to tell me everything you know concerning all these reports. If you will allow, I will ask you questions... I know a lot of those stories were deleted off the internet, so I am hoping you have saved some screen shots, or have a very good memory.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


So Vietnam just let armed Chinese fighters fly through their airspace, first to intercept the flight (that would have been intercepted by Vietnam, Malaysia, or Brunei first), then back escorting the flight?

That is like the US allowing Russia to fly fighters over the mainland to intercept a flight somewhere and escort it back to Russia.

First off, Vietnam and China have actively shot at each other in recent years over the Spratly Islands.

Second, the coordination and logistics of allowing an UNARMED fighter into another countries airspace is a pain (and that's for FRIENDLY countries). No nation is going to let armed fighters fly through their airspace unless they are close allies.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by OpinionatedB
 


So Vietnam just let armed Chinese fighters fly through their airspace, first to intercept the flight (that would have been intercepted by Vietnam, Malaysia, or Brunei first), then back escorting the flight?

That is like the US allowing Russia to fly fighters over the mainland to intercept a flight somewhere and escort it back to Russia.

First off, Vietnam and China have actively shot at each other in recent years over the Spratly Islands.

Second, the coordination and logistics of allowing an UNARMED fighter into another countries airspace is a pain (and that's for FRIENDLY countries). No nation is going to let armed fighters fly through their airspace unless they are close allies.
Well we're only assuming the Chinese escorted the plane from the northern border of VN to the final landing area. Maybe the flight proceeded as it had clearance for. Maybe the VN aren't coming clean. That would surprise you in some way? Maybe they're getting something out of the deal.

I know, lot's of maybes, but right now it's as plausible as anything else. If it went down anywhere along it's intended flight path, it would have been found by now. There's just too many resources looking for it to not find it. It's been my contention that the search has been manipulated, and I don't see any reason to doubt that either.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   

OpinionatedB
reply to post by Bilk22
 


I am going to need your help if we are to theorize down this road, you know the most about the reports concerning the landing in China.

I have to get off tonight, lets start, if you are willing.. to tell me everything you know concerning all these reports. If you will allow, I will ask you questions... I know a lot of those stories were deleted off the internet, so I am hoping you have saved some screen shots, or have a very good memory.
I don't know any more than what was in the online articles. Some of them are still up if you search for them. Some of them I posted in the other thread. The claims in them seemed too innocuous really, to look like a fabrication. They were the earliest reports too, which I would bet would be the most accurate. However someone somewhere didn't want that info out. Why? I don't have that pay grade ......................................... yet LOL



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


And if the crew was incapacitated and reports of it flying another four hours are true it's not going to be anywhere even close to the flight path and could take weeks to find.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Bilk22
 


And if the crew was incapacitated and reports of it flying another four hours are true it's not going to be anywhere even close to the flight path and could take weeks to find.
OK what ever. You keep trying to sell that line of thought. I just keep wondering why.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Bilk22
 


And if the crew was incapacitated and reports of it flying another four hours are true it's not going to be anywhere even close to the flight path and could take weeks to find.
I want to address this again. You believe it's possible the crew were incapacitated and possibly continued flying for another four hours on auto pilot? Where would that put it? Auto pilot would have been set for Beijing and a flight path over VN. So how does your theory work? Explain more please.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Bilk22

Zaphod58
reply to post by Bilk22
 


And if the crew was incapacitated and reports of it flying another four hours are true it's not going to be anywhere even close to the flight path and could take weeks to find.
OK what ever. You keep trying to sell that line of thought. I just keep wondering why.


To be fair, Zaph knows his stuff when it comes to planes and Occam's razor should be applied here. His explanation is simple and plausible, whereas yours is so dependent on what if's, maybes and collusion of many people and nations as to be wholly unlikely.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

stumason

Bilk22

Zaphod58
reply to post by Bilk22
 


And if the crew was incapacitated and reports of it flying another four hours are true it's not going to be anywhere even close to the flight path and could take weeks to find.
OK what ever. You keep trying to sell that line of thought. I just keep wondering why.


To be fair, Zaph knows his stuff when it comes to planes and Occam's razor should be applied here. His explanation is simple and plausible, whereas yours is so dependent on what if's, maybes and collusion of many people and nations as to be wholly unlikely.
He hasn't explained how his scenario works. First he claims that the plane couldn't circumvent radar. Now he says it could have flown for another four hours undetected by radar. So which is it?
edit on 03551Thursdayk22 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 



Possible scenario, The plane was hijacked... The only airfield it could have landed at without being detected at night is Quetta Airfield, Pakistan.. Not far from Afgahnistan... Flying a low enough to avoid radar detection... 1000 meters, means decreased fuel economy, therefore it probably crashed in the Arabian sea. If it did land Gov agencies wouldn't say because they would be organizing a covert operation to recover the aircraft and the passengers if they are still alive.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


I never said anything about it circumventing radar. But it will take awhile to sort through all the data and find the blip that might be the plane.

You have no idea how anything on a plane works do you? You don't program an autopilot with your destination and then it flies you there and you don't do anything.

When you activate the autopilot you set a course, then fly to a waypoint and turn to a new course. The flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing doesn't go straight there. They come out of Kuala Lumpur, over the Gulf through Vietnamese airspace, then turn more North into China.

Where they went off radar they still would have been heading towards the Spratly Islands before turning and heading towards China.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
>>
a ground radar would surely still pick up the aircraft
>>

This is correct but as to my understanding, ground radar has a VERY limited range, like 150-200mls.

Look at a map! For me, Pakistan sounds VERY reasonable. They could have turned and flown right into Pakistan over the ocean and there is nothing but thousands of miles of water..looking at a map the idea to fly to Pakistan and evading ground radar IS possible.

I say Pakistan since this goes well with the alleged direction when the plane turned, the distance is also "just right" to probably barely reach Pakistan.

BUT...let's now play this speculative game further.

Let's assume someone hijacked the plane and lets also assume the people are actually still alive...wouldn't already some group have come forward with their demands etc...after pretty much 7 days?



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Cryptonomicon
 


The only airfield it could have landed at without being detected at night is Quetta Airfield, Pakistan.. Not far from Afghanistan... Flying low enough to avoid radar detection... 1000 meters, means decreased fuel economy, therefore it would have crashed into the Arabian sea.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed
 


That depends on the intentions of the hijackers... surely they would believe a plane packed with explosives would be much more devastating than a couple of hundred hostages..



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by Bilk22
 


I never said anything about it circumventing radar. But it will take awhile to sort through all the data and find the blip that might be the plane.

You have no idea how anything on a plane works do you? You don't program an autopilot with your destination and then it flies you there and you don't do anything.

When you activate the autopilot you set a course, then fly to a waypoint and turn to a new course. The flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing doesn't go straight there. They come out of Kuala Lumpur, over the Gulf through Vietnamese airspace, then turn more North into China.

Where they went off radar they still would have been heading towards the Spratly Islands before turning and heading towards China.
You kept telling me that the plane could not have flown to Nanming because it would have been seen on radar. Now that's changed somehow? I plotted just that course and posted it. You said the Spratly Islands would have picked them up on radar. Now it seems as if you're ignoring your own statements.

You're correct I have no idea how to fly or how a plane operates. I only know what I've read here and in a few other places. I do know though, that you have made a lot of statements in past posts that now conflict with what you are stating here. First it was the fuel issue then the radar issue. Now that we know, because the world knows from reports, the range of that plane is pretty great. We don't know how much fuel it had, but we do know it had enough to get to Beijing, which is at a minimum, 2300mi. That flight is actually probably longer as you state it's not a straight line flight. It also had reserve. Considering it has a capacity for a range of 14000km, it's not unreasonable to believe it had enough fuel to go half that distance or about 4000mi.

I saw an interview on the news. A pilot that said once this plane is put on auto pilot, the crew has really nothing more to do to fly the plane. Now I'm sure he wasn't saying there weren't protocols the crew must follow like logging waypoints or what ever. But he pretty much said you could go to sleep and it would get you to the programmed destination.

Here's my map. Tell me where it could have flown for an additional 4 hours undetected as you said, radar from somewhere would have picked it up.





Edit; Please explain the scenario you're cionsidering. The auto pilot was off or on? We know the tracking was off, so was there a total electrical failure? If so, could the plane fly for another four hours? Etc... Pleas explain.
edit on 06433Thursdayk22 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Seriously mind boggling because I remember seeing on TV after 9/11 they boosted cockpit security and that the cockpit doors were bulletproof and force entry proof so if this planes cockpit was locked surely any sort of terror related incident they would immediately call mayday and land the plane.

After 9/11 flight regulations changed.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


Am I typing in a foreign language or something here?

Let me make it bigger to be sure.

I NEVER SAID IT WOULDN'T BE SEEN ON RADAR IF IT KEPT FLYING. Is that clear enough?

Identifying it would take time. There was no way to identify the flight in real time but when the investigators went back and looked they could eventually identify it based on where it came from, altitude, speed, etc.

We know there was a total electrical failure? Since when? There are a number of reasons to lose the transponder without losing power.
edit on 3/13/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by deviant300
 

Aparently the co-pilot had a habit of allowing passengers to travel in the cockpit... So much for security






top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join