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.

 

Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68 (another 777)?

page: 1
88
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+66 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   


With satellite pings showing where the plane could be after more than seven hours of flight, speculation has arisen that the plane could be on the ground anywhere along a path from northern Thailand to the border of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.

Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68 (another 777)?

This is my first serious & proper post in a while, so I am sorry if it doesn't belong here.

I came across this alternative theory as to what happened to flight MH370 and how it disappeared. Someone has done a lot of compelling research which suggests that it is possible flight MH370 was shadowing another 777 to avoid detection over particular parts of airspace it was flying through before continuing on to its final destination undetected.

This is probably the only well-thought-out theory I've seen as to what happened to the plane that didn't involve aliens, pointing fingers at terrorists or mentioning the new world order. What does everyone else think?
edit on 17-3-2014 by DigitalSea because: Clarification

edit on 17-3-2014 by DigitalSea because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by DigitalSea
 


How close together would these two aircraft had to have been to each other to appear as one aircraft?
The shadowed aircraft would have been alerted to the other by collision avoidance radar... or don't they have that? I honestly don't know.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DigitalSea
 


I had to log on to Star & Flag your post. This is the most well thought out & researched hypothesis regarding flight 370 that I have read. Thank you for posting it.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Very interesting - and though i have no aviation knowledge whatsoever - seems quite well thought out. Also might fit with the 'fact' that it was flying at 29,500 feet for a time, in between the 29,000 or 30,000 feet that other flights would be at.

The blogger only appears to have ever posted this one article, which is slightly suspicious - but i guess the account could have legitimately been created for this purpose.

Thanks for sharing



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 



The Boeing 777 utilizes a TCAS system for traffic avoidance; the system would ordinarily provide alerts and visualization to pilots if another airplane was too close. However that system only operates by receiving the transponder information from other planes and displaying it for the pilot. If MH370 was flying without the transponder, it would have been invisible to SIA68.


From the linked source.

This is one of the best theory I've read so far !

We have some pilots here on ATS and I hope they'll have a look at this and reply in this thread !

S&F.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
I am a pilot although I would call myself more of a stunt pilot then a commercial pilot and can confirm this is a plausible theory... err or maybe it isn't....well I have crashed more then landed but I walk away every time so I must be an ok pilot....well all the other players think I am in battlefield games....


Anyway this does sound like a damn good theory and I will star and flag this.

A hell of a lot better then what any governments have said.


+15 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Interestingly enough, there is a discussion over at Hacker News about the cargo manifest not being publicly released and that the plane had 50 less seats for public boarding then it would usually have. This raises some interesting questions; what was on the plane that took up the extra weight? Did it have anything to do with the 20 Freescale Semiconductor employees? Is it standard practice to reduce the number of passenger seats because of excess cargo on a passenger plane?

When you look into the areas Freescale are involved in; avionics, radar and defence systems (to name a few), it raises even more questions. Were any of the Freescale employees carrying classified devices capable of disabling a plane or rendering it invisible to the outside world (radar, detection systems). What if the tracking systems were never turned off, just blocked?

The blocking of passenger seats appears to indicate unusually heavy cargo was being carried on the plane. Could the plane have been landed somewhere and is currently being primed for a large terrorist act? Maybe that extra cargo was explosives of some kind capable of doing a lot of damage? 80kg average adult weight times 50 is 4000kg, if that was 4000kg of explosives, that would be one hell of a terrorist attack...

I don't want to jump to conclusions here about what happened because it is a horrible tragedy, but a plane has vanished, no wreckage has been found floating at all. No chunk of wing, not even a scrap of aluminium or anything has been found which is weird considering quite a lot of the materials of a plane such as the 777 will float if broken off the plane.
edit on 17-3-2014 by DigitalSea because: Freescale link



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
isn't it odd to anyone else that if they do not know where it went, going to the east, northeast, or southeast, is never considered?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   

DigitalSea
Interestingly enough, there is a discussion over at Hacker News about the cargo manifest not being publicly released and that the plane had 50 less seats for public boarding then it would usually have. This raises some interesting questions; what was on the plane that took up the extra weight? Did it have anything to do with the 20 Freescale chip engineers? Is it standard practice to reduce the number of passenger seats because of excess cargo on a passenger plane?


Interesting - could lead back to straight piracy then. Plane stolen to order.

If the SIA-68 shadowing theory is true, it would probably indicate that the pilot was indeed involved. I would imagine it would require all of his skills, experience and knowledge of the local airspace to pull off.

Much has been made of the fact the pilot and co-pilot didn't request to fly together, but can a pilot request a particular flight? Would they be aware in advance of a particularly valuable payload?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Sakrateri


Anyway this does sound like a damn good theory and I will star and flag this.

A hell of a lot better then what any governments have said.


Yep. Me too star and flag hope some others get on this thread to discuss this. I thought sia flight mmmm hoax I live in Australia Singapore airlines is SQ then I googled , SIA is also Singapore airlines maybe code share, this in my small brain seems plausible , but who would admit this in this day and age, if they did this, they can do it again and hit a major city if they wish .



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Why would we have seperation of air routes that cannot be tracked on radar?

I just find it hard to believe we intentionally design air corridors to be able to hide airplanes. I honestly doubt this on that reasoning alone. Interesting theory but I don't believe it.

Flight seperation rules surely are for multiple purposes 1) To be able to track planes individually on radar and 2) reduced wake turbulance (mostly an issue of sepereation when following lead aircraft) and 3) able to have adquate avoidance distance for reactionary times.
edit on 17-3-2014 by shappy because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
The more I dig deeper about Freescale Semiconductor the less crazy the theory about the cargo containing classified military grade weapons/devices sounds. Check this link out on Freescale's site: www.freescale.com...




Battlefield communications
Avionics
HF through L- and S-Band radar
Missile guidance
Electronic warfare
Identification, friend or foe (IFF)


Then there is the patent link. A Freescale patent was approved days before the plane went down which you can read here — 4 of the 5 Patent holders are Chinese employees of Freescale Semiconductor of Austin TX who were on the plane supposedly. The patent was split 20% between each holder, the fifth holder is Freescale Semiconductor. If a patent holder dies, his share is distributed to the remaining patent holders, the only live holder is Freescale Semiconductor.

Then the soup thickens once more. Who really owns Freescale? Jacob Rothschild through Blackstone who owns Freescale. Maybe it's clutching at straws, but there are so many different and eerie pieces here that make for an interesting story.
edit on 17-3-2014 by DigitalSea because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by DigitalSea
 


The answer is no. There has never been and never will be such a thing as a hijacking where the hijackers are uninterested in the destination of the plane. If you hijack a plane and then let it's route be dictated by regular commercial flight paths, you could have stayed at home and not hijacked a plane to achieve the same result.

Whatever you think is clever about this idea, it relies on you maintaining a position which literally sets off alarm bells for collision warnings with air traffic controllers. Just declaring your hijacking over the radio would get you the same amount of attention with far less effort and expertise required.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   

DigitalSea
Then there is the patent link. A Freescale patent was approved days before the plane went down which you can read here — 4 of the 5 Patent holders are Chinese employees of Freescale Semiconductor of Austin TX who were on the plane supposedly. The patent was split 20% between each holder, the fifth holder is Freescale Semiconductor. If a patent holder dies, his share is distributed to the remaining patent holders, the only live holder is Freescale Semiconductor.


That linked source shows 4 of the 4 patent holders to be said Chinese. Where'd you get the extra story from about the 5th?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   

hexillion
reply to post by DigitalSea
 


The answer is no. There has never been and never will be such a thing as a hijacking where the hijackers are uninterested in the destination of the plane. If you hijack a plane and then let it's route be dictated by regular commercial flight paths, you could have stayed at home and not hijacked a plane to achieve the same result.

Whatever you think is clever about this idea, it relies on you maintaining a position which literally sets off alarm bells for collision warnings with air traffic controllers. Just declaring your hijacking over the radio would get you the same amount of attention with far less effort and expertise required.


Not sure how you come to this conclusion that alarm bells are going to be set off for collision warnings with air traffic controllers when transponders where turned off on the plane.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I mentioned Freescale over on another thread here, and was told, and I accepted, that it had nothing to do with this.
I've changed my mind having been watching news reports and reading bits and pieces here.

Every time I see or read anything to do with this I keep getting flashes of the TV series Lost......
S&F....because I want to follow this thread...thank you for posting.

Rainbows
Jane



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   

amraks
Not sure how you come to this conclusion that alarm bells are going to be set off for collision warnings with air traffic controllers when transponders where turned off on the plane.

Which thread are we posting in? The one that proposes this complicated tactic had any purpose under those same conditions?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DigitalSea
 


To the idea of a large aircraft being able to fly undetected: The aircraft is known to have turned and flown back over Malaysia.

However, no one on the ground noticed it. A quote: "One thing that does bother me greatly is the fact that unidentified aircraft could navigate back over Malaysia and out to sea without a physical or material response to that fact," said Britain-based aviation security consultant Chris Yates.

If this is true than it negates all the experts claims that a large could not have flown back to the North to any destination undetected.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
that is one of the best theories I have seen so far. Not as fun as aliens. But if that is the case what about the people on board. I would imagine them being executed as most are probably unnecessary to what ever deed is planed now that "they" have the plane. If I had a family member on board and those people end up being executed ... I would have rather them die in a plane crash not at the hands of wacko extremist animals or an alphabet government org.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   

hexillion

amraks
Not sure how you come to this conclusion that alarm bells are going to be set off for collision warnings with air traffic controllers when transponders where turned off on the plane.

Which thread are we posting in? The one that proposes this complicated tactic had any purpose under those same conditions?


if this plan is so complicated for you to comprehend, I suggest you don't have input on the subject.




top topics



 
88
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join