reply to post by chunder
A law enforcement official, who has been briefed, said the path change was programmed by the pilot at least 12 minutes before the copilot signed off,
telling ATC, "All right, good night".
Seems that answers both of our questions. Granted, the OP sounds like a great theory, but the timeline is now nonsensical. It just doesn't come
together with a fire, the loss of comms, and the turn, and "all right, good night". It's not sensible.
The article goes on to state that experts are arguing that it could be part of a pre-programmed flight plan programmed in, in case of emergencies, or
something more nefarious.
I guess that is where it leaves us, as well. In attempting to fit all these pieces together, we must, as other have done, look at all angles.
This is why they are examining the psychology, friends, religion, family and social history of the pilot and copilot. The things that have come to
light can really lead one to think in any direction, unfortunately.
If one chooses to stay with only the actions in the plane that day, and not include the other actions in their lives, their actions exclusively lead
one to be suspicious, if only for the fact of that last sign of not signalling a problem.
However, if you look at it, as I tried to ascribe earlier, that it was a hidden signal, then he was sending a clue.
Would the copilot usually be the one to sign off?
Why no comments about the change in the flightplan? This is not merely an oversight.
He gave no verbal signals he was under duress, yet, the mere fact that he did not, in itself, should be suspicious.
Why no comms from passengers? One can only imagine their comms must have been seized upon, or shortly after, takeoff. Things happened too rapidly,
that someone should have been able to reach ground with a message.
This also makes sense why no passengers attempted to overtake. They felt outnumbered. The amount of people to seize comms without even one sneaking
out a call or text, even dialing a number and leaving the phone on speaker, had to be several. This was a large group involved. Far beyond the pilot
Now, considering what we are given to now be facts, one can coclude only one of two things.
1. The copilot was under duress and hoped his good night call would be deemed suspicious, be seen as a call for help
2. He was a part of something nefarious, and was signing off to simply end any further contact.
Basing it off of those two conclusiins, one has no choice then, but to begin to consider the above mentioned things of their personal lives, which is
why they investigation has gone the way it has.
Both into their personal lives, to attempt to determine personal responsibility, as in, did the pilots do it?
Or, research on the passengers and any links to terrorism or nefarious acts on their behalf that could have led the pilots to act under duress.
And so, here we are today, attempting to decode the nearly impossible.
Throw into the mix the fact we all know the Malaysians are cheap and don't wish to pay out a red cent more than they absolutely must in insurance,
they have every motive to lie and deceive, and with hold information, and misdirect, which is exactly what they have done the entire time. Each thing
they say must be scrutinized, and backed up by other sources to be believed.
edit on 19-3-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)