The More I Investigate, The More I'm Convinced....Diego Garcia!

reply to post by Zaphod58


Could everything outside of the the extra cargo be dumbed? Can the luggage be dropped out mid fight?

reply to post by Sremmos80


Nothing in the cargo hold can be dumped. The only way to get it out is through the cargo doors, and if you open one of those then something like this will be the end result. Which would be much worse on a 777.

It just seems suspect that the plane seemed to be heading in the direction of Cocos island airport assuming it crashed in the sea where the authorities seem to think. I cant see much else they could have been heading for on that path unless it was in the north west of Australia

reply to post by brianporter


A quickly programmed destination so they could work a problem that they never came back from working is the only thing that really makes sense TBH.

999zxcv
found the 50 seats reference malwaretips.com...

Nothing there about seats being removed....

reply to post by Zaphod58


Is it quick and easy to punch in due south?

I find it extremely hard to believe this was any kind of mechanical / technical problem and the plane flew on in zombie mode that just doesn’t seem logical the plane had already turned at least twice

Shhh, your braver than me. This is how you end up with ass cancer or locked up. I keep hearing the same from folks though. My first though when I heard a plane was hijacked was US or Saudi. Lets just hope this is not to be used as some delivery system for a nuke to blame Iran et al.

reply to post by f4andHALFtoads


Yes. But there's nothing for them heading that way. The way they went there were airfields that they could land on.

If this was any kind of mechanical / technical problem it would surely be a catastrophic failure of multiple different systems at once including the communications, transponder, navigation and possibly others not likely in my humble opinion,

reply to post by brianporter


There are a couple of ways that it could affect multiple systems at once, with a single failure. It's very rare, but it does happen occasionally.

brianporter
It just seems suspect that the plane seemed to be heading in the direction of Cocos island airport assuming it crashed in the sea where the authorities seem to think. I cant see much else they could have been heading for on that path unless it was in the north west of Australia

The problem with the theory that the plane followed an FMS route and then ran out of fuel, is that in the B777 they would have got an "Insufficient fuel" message, and the box would refuse to let them execute it.

The route with all the waypoints would be there, but not active, so the autopilot wouldn't follow it.

Of course they could handfly the track, or follow it in heading mode, but that would require alive and conscious persons at the Controls.
Had the plane been following heading mode (magnetic) until fuel starvation the track would have been different.

reply to post by Zaphod58


True but the distance covered under apparent control about 800 miles doesn’t logically imply that was the case. Surely if you had flight control as it seems they did they would have perhaps attempted emergency landing or even just circled

reply to post by brianporter


If they were awake and at the controls.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Seems someone was since they turned back into Malaysia and then again turned south

reply to post by brianporter


At that point there may well have been. That doesn't mean there was all the way to where they slammed into the ocean.

reply to post by Wildthing


What is the US motivation for doing this, according to this conspiracy theory?

reply to post by lynxpilot


Why should that stop them. Look at what they did in a place of 9 million people in NYC on 9/11 2001.

reply to post by Zaphod58


True but why not attempt to land in Malaysia or ditch off the coast of Malaysia why turn back then fly for an hour and then turn south surely if things were bad and they still had control they would have done a Hudson river type landing at least

reply to post by brianporter


Because going back to Kuala Lumpur includes an 8000 foot ridge, with turbulence coming off it. If you have unknown structural damage, you don't want to fly through turbulence like that.

I really hate the Hudson River crash sometimes. That was an amazing bit of flying. Most ditching, even in broad daylight, doesn't come out that well. One at night, is about ten times harder to pull off.