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

I'n not positive on how reliable this source is, but this fits what some of you are saying.

[Quote]A new report circulating in the Kremlin today prepared by the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces (GRU) states that Aerospace Defence Forces (VKO) experts remain “puzzled” as to why the United States Navy “captured and then diverted” a Malaysia Airlines civilian aircraft from its intended flight-path to their vast and highly-secretive Indian Ocean base located on the Diego Garcia atoll.

According to this report, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (also marketed as China Southern Airlines flight 748 through a codeshare) was a scheduled passenger flight from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing, China, when on 8 March this Boeing 777-200ER aircraft “disappeared” in flight with 227 passengers on board from 15 countries, most of whom were Chinese, and 12 crew members.

Interesting to note, this report says, was that Flight 370 was already under GRU “surveillance” after it received a “highly suspicious” cargo load that had been traced to the Indian Ocean nation Republic of Seychelles, and where it had previously been aboard the US-flagged container ship MV Maersk Alabama. What first aroused GRU suspicions regarding the MV Maersk Alabama, this report continues, was that within 24-hours of off-loading this “highly suspicious” cargo load bound for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the two highly-trained US Navy Seals assigned to protect it, Mark Daniel Kennedy, 43, and Jeffrey Keith Reynolds, 44, were found dead under “suspicious circumstances.”

Both Kennedy and Reynolds, this report says, were employed by the Virginia Beach, Virginia-based maritime security firm The Trident Group which was founded by US Navy Special Operations Personnel (SEAL’s) and Senior US Naval Surface Warfare Officers and has long been known by the GRU to protect vital transfers of both atomic and biological materials throughout the world.
Upon GRU “assests” confirming that this “highly suspicious” cargo was aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 on 8 March, this report notes, Moscow notified China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) of their concerns and received “assurances” that “all measures” would be taken as to ascertain what was being kept so hidden when this aircraft entered into their airspace.

However, this report says, and as yet for still unknown reasons, the MSS was preparing to divert Flight 370 from its scheduled destination of Beijing to Haikou Meilan International Airport (HAK) located in Hainan Province (aka Hainan Island).

Prior to entering the People Liberation Army (PLA) protected zones of the South China Sea known as the Spratly Islands, this report continues, Flight 370 “significantly deviated” from its flight course and was tracked by VKO satellites and radar flying into the Indian Ocean region and completing its nearly 3,447 kilometer (2,142 miles) flight to Diego Garcia.

Critical to note about Flight 370’s flight deviation, GRU experts in this report say, was that it occurred during the same time period that all of the Spratly Island mobile phone communications operated by China Mobile were being jammed.

China Mobile, it should be noted, extended phone coverage in the Spratly Islands in 2011 so that PLA soldiers stationed on the islands, fishermen, and merchant vessels within the area would be able to use mobile services, and can also provide assistance during storms and sea rescues.

As to how the US Navy was able to divert Flight 370 to its Diego Garcia base, this report says, appears to have been accomplished remotely as this Boeing 777-200ER aircraft is equipped with a fly-by-wire (FBW) system that replaces the conventional manual flight controls of an aircraft with an electronic interface allowing it to be controlled like any drone-type aircraft.

However, this report notes, though this aircraft can be controlled remotely, the same cannot be said of its communication systems which can only be shut down manually; and in the case of Flight 370, its data reporting system was shut down at 1:07 a.m., followed by its transponder (which transmits location and altitude) which was shut down at 1:21 a.m.

What remains “perplexing” about this incident, GRU analysts in this report say, are why the American mainstream media outlets have yet to demand from the Obama regime the radar plots and satellite images of the Indian Ocean and South China Sea regions as the US military covers this entire area from Diego Garcia like no other seas in the world due to its vital shipping and air lanes.

Most sadly, this report concludes, the US is actually able to conceal the reason(s) for the “disappearance” of Flight 370 as they have already done so after the events of 11 September 2011 when the then Bush regime “disappeared” American Airlines Flight 77 and its 64 passengers and crew after falsely claiming it hit the Pentagon, but which was confirmed by the CNN News Service [see video HERE] not to have happened.




www.eutimes.net...

Report on navy seals

Zapoid, your thoughts on this.

If a 777 is shadowing another (the theory here) and with the transponder off the TCAS system would not see it. (correct?)

It has been suggested that 370 may have been 500FT off the normal flight level. So if it was 500FT up or down, or even on the same level, how far back would it have to be to not be affected the turbulence from the lead plane? Could it stay close enough to not be a distinct different target on radar?


edit:
font fix only worked in preview

why would you wanna mask/shadow the plane if you can just simply turn off the signals manually and fly low altitude and not get detected? this make no sense... enlighten me if you will.

Jerow
why would you wanna mask/shadow the plane if you can just simply turn off the signals manually and fly low altitude and not get detected? this make no sense... enlighten me if you will.

It is just some theory someone posted. But that does use much more fuel and makes it easier to hit the ground. Guess it depends on how high in the air 'low' is.

reply to post by GoML15


EU Times is Sorcha Faal, which means less than zero credibility.

reply to post by roadgravel


I'd say at least a quarter mile to keep the bow wave from affecting the other plane. If you're far enough from the antenna it should be one target.

reply to post by Jerow


The closer you are to the antenna the lower you have to go is the first reason.

The second is because commercial planes don't do low. Fuel consumption jumps, engines overheat, and the rough air can damage the airframe.

Zaphod58
The closer you are to the antenna the lower you have to go is the first reason.

The second is because commercial planes don't do low. Fuel consumption jumps, engines overheat, and the rough air can damage the airframe.

I was also under the impression that military radar can discern objects down to 200' which means a B777 would have to be pratically underneath the other aircraft to avoid full detection. I cannot imagine that type of manuever being pulled off for any length of time without a collision or the formation having to be broken off due to aerodynamic influences.

GMan420
Maybe if I answer my own questions with what I believe to be the correct answers, you might not agree with my post:

Do transponders being turned off make a plane invisible to radar? NO

Do transponders being turned off make a plane invisible to other planes? YES

Does flying in another plane's radar shadow make a plane essentially invisible to radar? YES

Okay. So that's how that works if you maintain it. If you don't maintain it, you're immediately in a situation that you're setting off alarm bells as a collision risk for the plane you're trying to tailgate. Your reward for taking this high risk is to not be in control of the navigation of a plane you hijacked.... something which defeats the purpose of hijacking a plane.

An alternative option is to not do that elaborate and risky thing, the goal of which is unclear.
Simply turn off your transponder and then go whereever you want. In the first scenario you're trying to avoid being an unidentified radar blip of little interest at the risk of being an unidentified blip the airforce is asked to come intercept.

In the second scenario you're an unidentified radar blip which nobody is tracing the origin of in real-time, so really no downside unless you're planning on playing Jimmy Hoffa forever.... with a jumbo jet.

If you'd like to help me with something I'm not understanding, this is it. Why are you risking mid-air collision and drawing attention from the air force for option 1?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


The farther you are from the antenna the bigger the gap can be, because of the resolution of the radar. As you get closer you have to tighten up. If they crossed India they would probably have to be close enough the other aircraft would notice.

Zaphod58
The farther you are from the antenna the bigger the gap can be, because of the resolution of the radar. As you get closer you have to tighten up. If they crossed India they would probably have to be close enough the other aircraft would notice.

Thank you, that was what I was thinking. Would that even be a pratical maneuver with a B777 and another wide body equivalent?

shappy
Maybe he performed this manouver.

Do you remember the opening caption for that film? 'Indian Ocean. Present Day'.

Zaphod58
reply to post by roadgravel

 

I'd say at least a quarter mile to keep the bow wave from affecting the other plane. If you're far enough from the antenna it should be one target.

Unless your directly above it.....being below the aircraft means the passengers on the other aircraft may have seen mh370. But think about how many passengers look UP while they are travelling. Everyone is looking down at the pretty landscape and houses.

Maybe the aircraft was directly above it, matching speed and track. This would avoid wake turbulence as the vortices fall away from the aircraft, just a thought anyhow.

reply to post by sled735


Well, that's that, then. Shows over folks. You can all go back to your normal routines.

Move it along, there's nothing else to see here.

reply to post by IamAbeliever


Ha,Ha!! I thought that was funny. Just trying to share some smiles with you guys.

I think this thread is great; gives a different perspective to consider.

ETA: Well, obviously, not everyone liked my post.

Sorry for trying to bring a smile to your face, to the member who reported my post.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


It depends on how they're flying. There are ways it could be done, but you have to be careful. Turbulence or the other aircraft maneuvering could cause problems.

reply to post by haveblue


Any type of formation presents difficulty, but that would be the best way to do it. You couldn't be directly above though. You have to stay where you can see the other plane.