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: 9
88
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by nightmare_david
 


"I posted that in an attempt to keep McFly there from hijacking the thread with his theory."

Excuse me sir but it seem the tittle of this thread is: "Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68 (another 777)?" and if reality has not shifted it is what I'm talking about.

For the Freescale guys, no offense was intended, but I see no point of implicating ordinary fab staff in a grand doctrine style plot, sure anyone is free to present it's theory but as said before, thread hijacking seem not welcome...

For being pushy, of coarse, this is potentially a prelude to devastating asymetric warfare event, don't you think a little effort is appropriated. Have you given thought to the fact that a small latency deviation of 6 or 7 ms put Inmarsat northern track spot on the flight path of SIA68? A hell of a coincidence don't you think?

But of coarse if you think I'm crying wolfe, feel free to say so but at least give some consideration to my "speculation" about Inmarsat data.




posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


No reference data other than lights? Sounds like you were in the cockpit! I imagine something like this was planned beforehand which could include planting something on the other plane that they could track and lock onto, perhaps a short range device not detectable by ground systems. It could've all been done by computer. A kind of Autopilot. Program it to fly at a certain distance away from, and a certain altitude lower than, the tracker signal device planted on the other plane and mimic its heading. Or something... i dunno perhaps it's not possible?

What do you think happened to the plane? I haven't read every reply yet so I apologize if you've already stated your position.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by 3n19m470
 


Even better...don't make a move until all comm and tracking is turned off.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DigitalSea
 


Why though? Why hijack a plane with all those people on it, hide behind another plane, just to disappear ...there's no rhyme or reason for it. Can't be for pirating, no one is going to buy the plane or anything on it, and no one has offered to sell. This sounds plausible that 2 birds can be one on radar...but there is no reason why one would do this.
edit on 18-3-2014 by Illuminawty because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Zaphod58
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.


This is going to depend on frequency more than range. Long-range radars tend to be a lower frequency -- it's likely a skin paint would be extremely low resolution. Conceivably, you could have one or a handful of planes within a dozen miles still appear as a single skin paint.
There were early reports that the 370 followed known nav points over the Indian Ocean -- that could be consistent with an attempt to trail find or trail other air traffic. It's also consistent with simply wanting to know where one is going which is much more likely.
I still think we know a lot more about this than we're sharing publicly, which means something even more unusual than a normal hijacking. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Illuminawty
reply to post by DigitalSea
 


Why though? Why hijack a plane with all those people on it, hide behind another plane, just to disappear ...there's no rhyme or reason for it. Can't be for pirating, no one is going to buy the plane or anything on it, and no one has offered to sell. This sounds plausible that 2 birds can be one on radar...but there is no reason why one would do this.
edit on 18-3-2014 by Illuminawty because: (no reason given)



Why hide behind another plane? you ask, so you get past ground radar and not shot out the sky for hi jacking a plane that will most likely be used for a elaborate terror plot killing thousands.

think about it has nothing to do with selling the aircraft or pirating the 7 skies lmao..

edit on 18/3/2014 by amraks because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by PeterMcFly
 


So how did it go from the Indian Ocean to Pakistan in under an hour?


It didn't. its the MSM, they are lying again. Don't you all see what's happening? it started with that lesbian news caster (forget her name) that always argued with Alex Jones...until he won against Pierce Morgan, and then all of the sudden she started doing conspiracy theories of her own. It seems the MSM has joined the ranks of "giving the public what they want" to get their ratings back. We want conspiracies and UFO's...they are going to start giving them to us in droves now. You watch. Before it was deception and we didn't fall for it, at least not for long, as we had those who were out there pointing the way for us. Now, they are going to inundate us with conspiracies and ufo's and all kinds of mystery to keep our minds unfocused on what the government is doing. I suspect this plane is just the beginning of great mysteries that the public will start hearing....when they are really telling us lies, making up fantastic stories, some of which are not even true and never happened, if they did happen (possibly like this story)....they may just be telling us all of this..when the plane actually crashed or the government intercepted it just to popularize this conspiracy. Let's face it, Where are the people that were on the planes that crashed in Pennsylvania, when the fire men and everyone on the scene working said that nothing crashed there, and it was nothing more than an empty trash pit? That was a plane that disappeared with people on it..and no one has ever heard from them again. They are playing with our minds again.
edit on 18-3-2014 by Illuminawty because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   

shappy
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)


That's totally twisted logic... nobody designs air corridors to hide aircraft.

Unless you dot radars all over the ocean every 200nm there is no way to have coverage.

Air corridors organise aircraft to fly predetermined routes at assigned altitudes to minimise the risk of collision outside of radar coverage... that's all... nothing sinister, no conspiracy. Some people make such dumb statements.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by 3n19m470
 


You need something to tell you range while miles out. There is no radar on the plane to do that.

I don't think they were hijacked at all. I think it suffered a crack in the fuselage near the transponder that allowed a slow decompression the crew failed to notice and they went hypoxic. It fits everything down to the mumbled radio call with the other flight.

The Malaysian government is trying to cover their ass so is pushing the hijacking hard. The radar data everyone is hanging their hat on is impossible, and every bit of data, but the satellite pings came from them, and they tried to cover that up.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


why is the Malaysian government trying to cover their butts?
wouldn't it be the other way around, like the Airlines wanting to cover their butts?


seriously your logic don't make sense.
edit on 18/3/2014 by amraks because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by amraks
 


Because no one has paid attention. The government owns almost half of the airline. They ended up with either 40 or 48% ownership due to financial issues the airline has had.

Right now the government has paid $5,000 a family. If they paid that for every one of the 227 passengers it would be $1.1M. They will probably get more than 100 times that in insurance. UNLESS it turns out to be a maintenance issue. Then they are open to hundreds of millions in lawsuits. If it was hijacked the lawsuits become much easier to defend.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Interesting theory! Not sure what to make of it, but after an hour of watching the data and doing some calculations, I'm now a certified investigator. No, joking, but what I did find is that it's very plausible MH370 lined itself up behind SIA68. Not saying it DID, but had it maintained speed etc then yes, it could have ended up behind. A couple of points of note, firstly, is that visible on the radar are other planes flying in very close proximity to each other, with only altitude seperating them. Circled here are two planes flying above and below each other for many minutes. This doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything.



What I find more interesting though is this aircraft, BBC68. Going with the apparent turn, could this plane be the reason MH370 ascended to 45,000ft? BBC68 is flying 38,000ft and MH370 was about 36,000ft. Going by the turn and supposed second track, I get the impression BBC68 could have seen something. There's a possibility MH370 would've gone behind it, but the times and paths/plots given out by the Malaysians put these on a damn close intercept.



Would there be a reason to fly over BBC68 rather than underneath it?

Again this doesn't disprove or prove anything, but it does make me wonder if BBC68 had something to do with MH370's climb. Had MH370 ascended a little and thus BBC68 rang through onto its TCAS? That would explain the ascent to 45,000 pretty easily and would (hopefully) rule out that the ascent move was anything other than aircraft avoidance.

You can watch the radar replay here: www.flightradar24.com/2014-03-07/17:00/12x/5.51,99.88/7
edit on 18-3-2014 by markymint because: added link



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by markymint
 


There is no possible way that the plane climbed to 45,000 feet.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


What d'you mean, why not?

MH370 reached 36,000ft in about 20-30 minutes. I doubt another 9000 feet would've been much trouble? This 777 (below) doesn't seem to have any trouble getting close to those numbers....?



I don't know either way, I'm going by what we've been "told". If it didn't, yet did maintain the supposed Westerly path, and it stuck around its altitude, it probably would've scraped the paint on BBC68.
edit on 18-3-2014 by markymint because: spelling + maths



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Yahoo Spain are quoting sources from the New York Times that are stating that the plane may have had it's route changed by COMPUTER and not by the pilot...

We go further down the rabbit hole..

PS. They are now blaming him for reprogramming the aircrafts system...
edit on AM2Tue20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by markymint
 


There is no possible way that the plane climbed to 45,000 feet.


is it possible the transponder data was spoofed, creating a illusion the plane had gone to that height, as theoretical evidence suggest a plane can not stand a descend in 1 minute, down to the height it was reported descending.
could that be evidence of a spoofed transponder sending fake data to take everyone on a wild goose chase into searching for 777 wreckage.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Could be something.
edit on 18-3-2014 by Eagleyedobserver because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   
A long shot though I just had off what a colleague just said.

"People won't be happy till they find the black boxes"

So ok, lets say the plane has gone down this path of landing somewhere lets say Pakistan for the sake of offloading the precious cargo that was onboard. Question, if that was the full plan, why the 20 Freescale Employees?, what's the point? Perhaps they are there to be currently rigging the plane to fly autonomously..

Autonomous flight following its original plan of pigging backing behind another 777 all the way back down to Malaysia and plough it into the sea (with original passengers still onboard perhaps, dead obviously).

Where a day later a fisherman stumbles across it and then the public are 'happy' as there is an end to the story and the media will just tell us it crashed there originally and no one found it.

Also, I'm yet to have my morning coffee..



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 04:40 AM
link   

ChocolateStarfish
why the 20 Freescale Employees?, what's the point? Perhaps they are there to be currently rigging the plane to fly autonomously..

20 freescale employees last time I heard it was 4 of them apparently.


ChocolateStarfish
Autonomous flight following its original plan of pigging backing behind another 777 all the way back down to Malaysia and plough it into the sea (with original passengers still onboard perhaps, dead obviously).

That plausible but the Singapore plane wasn't heading that way.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 04:56 AM
link   

amraks
20 freescale employees last time I heard it was 4 of them apparently.


20 Freescale employees onboard the flight. 4 of them were part of the patent that had been passed as per earlier posts.
edit on 18-3-2014 by ChocolateStarfish because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join