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.

 

MH370 missing (Part 2)

page: 25
39
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Imagewerx
They aren't made exclusively for the aviation industry who lay down the spec of 37.5 KHz +/- 1KHz and not the manufacturer.Other users of them will need to dial in a different transmitting frequency and repeat frequency to that used by the aviation guys.
I had no idea anybody else was using those specific pingers. Animal tracking was mentioned but I presume those are not the same pingers as used on the black boxes.


I also don't know for sure if they are or not,this was a guess on my part.They are about the size of a large aerosol can so could quite easily be used for tracking whales or anything similar.Also if they were to be used only by the aviation industry,they wouldn't make them with selectable frequency output.Sorry but can't find the original link now that gave all that information.




posted on May, 9 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   


The way to look at the heist is to look at the players, and who were the players? INMARSAT and SERCO-GROUP.

Inmarsat run's the satellites and was telling everybody where to go, SERCO-GROUP run's the first and 3rd worlds ATC center's, so the plane could be easily controlled because all COMM has to go through SERCO&INMARSAT.

Inmarsat told the world to only search AUSTAILIA. SERCO owns the politican and prisons in AUSTRAILIA.

SERCO-GROUP developed the BUAP ( boeing autopilot ) used to take over the plane, SERCO-HONEYWELL developed the tech.

SERCO-GROUP in UK has been tagging criminals in UK, and wanted to put a CHIP in everybody, and OBAMA had contracted OBAMACARE to use SERCO to CHIP all USA consumers of MEDICAL.

The only problem for SERCO-GROUP is only one company on earth made such a chip, and that was the FREESCALE KL-02.

Not unlike when BILL GATES sold the OS to IBM, that he didn't own, in this case SERCO told OBAMA "Yes we can CHIP every american", ... and then SERCO stole the chip.

FACTUAL HISTORY, GATES STOLE DOS ( microsoft operating system and sold it to IBM ).

>>

Best of all in this twisted story is that INMARSAT and SERCO-GROUP are owned by the BUSH FAMILY.



zerohedge



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: earthling42
That's quite a deep conspiracy then.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
The copy of the audio is a bit fishy. But then this whole investigations seems to be.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a comment from James.connolly on that previously-linked zerohedge page is interesting if true - about the Georesonance technology.

We don't know if the BENGAL-BAY story is true, but the tech is true I was doing 'REMOTE sensing' for BIG-OIL in the 1970's and we were doing # like that like for micro-deposits of METAL, and various stuff on the seabed. It's possible, but me think the bay-of-bengal is just another story to take people away from DG.


It is true though, as others have said, that this kind of technology has probably been developed by oil companies to use in their exploration of the sea bed. Governments may also use it too of course.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
There is another Xfile which we must add to this mystery.

Have a good look at this picture...



Now, when you have finished looking at the picture, please tell me where the aircraft made a right turn towards Butterworth when it was heading in the opposite direction and towards KL.

Because that is what Thailand said after 10 days when they were asked to share their radar data.



Montol said that at 1:28 a.m., Thai military radar "was able to detect a signal, which was not a normal signal, of a plane flying in the direction opposite from the MH370 plane," back toward Kuala Lumpur. The plane later turned right, toward Butterworth, a Malaysian city along the Strait of Malacca. The radar signal was infrequent and did not include any data such as the flight number.

He said he didn't know exactly when Thai radar last detected the plane. Malaysian officials have said Flight 370 was last detected by their own military radar at 2:14 a.m.


Doesn't this seem odd?
Thailand is further west than Malaisya, but they did not see where the aircraft was heading to..

To me this raises alarm bells, first of all it was 'already flying towards Butterworth' so there was no need for a right turn, secondly, they would have been able to see the aircraft after it disappeared from the Malaysian radar because they are much further to the west.

Big story



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: earthling42
There is another Xfile which we must add to this mystery.

Have a good look at this picture...

Now, when you have finished looking at the picture, please tell me where the aircraft made a right turn towards Butterworth when it was heading in the opposite direction and towards KL.

Because that is what Thailand said after 10 days when they were asked to share their radar data.



Montol said that at 1:28 a.m., Thai military radar "was able to detect a signal, which was not a normal signal, of a plane flying in the direction opposite from the MH370 plane," back toward Kuala Lumpur. The plane later turned right, toward Butterworth, a Malaysian city along the Strait of Malacca. The radar signal was infrequent and did not include any data such as the flight number.

He said he didn't know exactly when Thai radar last detected the plane. Malaysian officials have said Flight 370 was last detected by their own military radar at 2:14 a.m.


Doesn't this seem odd?
Thailand is further west than Malaisya, but they did not see where the aircraft was heading to..

To me this raises alarm bells, first of all it was 'already flying towards Butterworth' so there was no need for a right turn, secondly, they would have been able to see the aircraft after it disappeared from the Malaysian radar because they are much further to the west.



Hey Earthling i have said this previously and nobody paid attention.

It flew northeast off the east coast of Vietnam and turned right there and flew southwest.

Have you seen the new satellite ping chart worked out by Michael Exner?

Revised BOF chart

Exner, Steel, Farrar and Schilman discovered that retransmission of data from INMARSAT to the ground station at Perth was inverting the signal. Something which I said way back in March in the old thread page 344.

When you consider the following:

1) Concealed distress call from MH370 saying their cabin was disintegrating

2) Sighting from Oil Rig off Vietnam of aircraft on fire 10-15 seconds flying east

3) Detection of a midair explosion by seabed seismic sensors off Vietnamese coast

4) Vantage of Thai radar looking south at aircraft turning right

5) Revised (inverted) BOF chart shows MH370 flew east then turned south

Then it is plausible that MH370 suffered a cabin fire and explosive decompression off Vietnam and somewhere in that sequence turned around then flew south on autopilot with a dead crew to the Indian Ocean.

POST SCRIPT:

Also consider Malaysia had another military radar (Thales Raytheon GM400) at Kuantan which could see MH370 at BITOD but never saw MH370 fly back west.

Malaysia insists that MH370 must have flown west at 5,000ft to evade radar at Kuantan, however the mountain range it had to cross on the Malay Peninsula reaches to heights in excess of 7,000ft
edit on 10-5-2014 by sy.gunson because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: sy.gunson
Have you seen the new satellite ping chart worked out by Michael Exner?

Revised BOF chart
I gave you a star for posting that link to a fascinating story, and the people seem to have some idea what they are talking about. This part of that story:

The official cited Inmarsat’s participation in the investigation as preventing it from giving further detail, and did not reply to requests for comments on even basic technical questions about the analysis. Inmarsat has repeatedly claimed that it checked its model against other aircrafts that were flying at the time, and peer-reviewed the model with other industry experts. But Inmarsat won’t say who reviewed it, how closely, or what level of detail they were given.
is key, because if the analysis of other flights in the region showed a correlation with Inmarsat's interpretation of the data, then the proponents of the alternate theory would have to explain why their alternate theory doesn't apply to the other flights.

But, since we don't have all these other details it's hard to say. Inmarsat's representative makes it sound like they might be willing to release more data but their participation in the investigation prevents them from doing so, but I'm not sure what that's all about. I'd think they could at least say who conducted the peer review of their data they claim was done, but they won't even tell us that.

Now if they are investigating terror suspects I can understand why that investigation can't be made public during the investigation, but I see absolutely no reason for keeping this satellite analysis secret. The Malaysian PM has already said they would authorize the release of anything that doesn't interfere with the investigation, and releasing more details on the satellite analysis shouldn't interfere, should it?

As I said before, it's yet to be seen if this new method of analysis by Inmarsat will be successful, but there are a lot of opportunities for mistakes along the way as explained in that article, and maybe Inmarsat is more confident than they should be. That article didn't even seem to question something I think you've questioned before is whether the westward radar track to the Malacca Strait was actually MH370. Even Malaysia admitted they're not 100% sure it was.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Montol said that at 1:28 a.m., Thai military radar "was able to detect a signal, which was not a normal signal, of a plane flying in the direction opposite from the MH370 plane," back toward Kuala Lumpur. The plane later turned right, toward Butterworth, a Malaysian city along the Strait of Malacca.


They say it was headed south and at some later time turned right. How later? Isn't there data? If true the plane was headed south within 7 or 8 minutes of the last radio contact though. I could see that fitting either a plan or an accident.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: sy.gunson

Yes, i have seen it


What stands out for me is the supposed turn between 18:25 and 18:29, three data points in a row where we would not expect any datapoint.
They clearly indicate a turn towards either south or north, it seems quite convenient to have those three data point at that moment while we should not be seeing them unless the aircraft was transmitting (or trying to transmit) data or messages.
The doppler does not really say anything about distance or direction, it only indicates the velocity of the aircraft in relation to the satellite during the time of the handshakes.
Negative numbers indicate velocity away from the satellite, what we see seems to indicate just that.
A more telling indication would be the ping return times with which the distance from the satellite is calculated and thus create the arc's.

But this poses the next question, if the aircraft initiated a ping, would it still be usable related to the pings initiated by ground control.

Two images concerning the data points.

To Beijing


Large image

The 7 data points


Large image

This clearly indicates that the aircraft was a lot closer to the satellite at 18:29 and 19:40 which seem to contradict the doppler data.

Has the aircraft been circling? i don't know, but at 18:27 (first of three pings which indicates a possible turn) it was clearly moving away from the satellite with high velocity.

Than we have this image with the arc's.



Large image

Up close



Large image

This again is contradictory to the doppler data because it shows the aircraft moving towards the satellite and thus we should be seeing a positive number instead of negative.

We have already been busy with the speed of the aircraft, it must have been traveling with at least 475 knots to get to the first ping line, so circling is out of the question i think.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Sadly there is no radar plot, just words.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I was thinking about this
and the topic of this thread last night. The constant railing
of the transponders and pings and such. And it just hit me.




posted on May, 10 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: sy.gunson

Yes, i have seen it


What stands out for me is the supposed turn between 18:25 and 18:29, three data points in a row where we would not expect any datapoint.


Then have a look at this map interpretation of what I believe with time-points.





I believe MH370 turned back from about Con Son Island with a cabin fire. My belief is based upon the sighting from an oil rig. If the aircraft went far enough east then it maybe went beyond the boundary of coverage by INMARSAT 3 and upon flying back into coverage triggered a new bung of signal handshakes:

Larger image





They clearly indicate a turn towards either south or north, it seems quite convenient to have those three data point at that moment while we should not be seeing them unless the aircraft was transmitting (or trying to transmit) data or messages.

The doppler does not really say anything about distance or direction, it only indicates the velocity of the aircraft in relation to the satellite during the time of the handshakes.


But a velocity east or west is greater than a velocity, north or south, because north or south is not a displacement towards or away from the satellite.

The new Exner plot clashes entirely with the established claim that MH370 flew west through the Straits. In fact there is nothing in the flight path proposed by Malaysia which matches a turn northwest at Penang nor a turn south exiting the Straits as described in the Burst Offset Frequency charts. That is because the flight through the Straits is a fallacy, it never happened that way.



Negative numbers indicate velocity away from the satellite, what we see seems to indicate just that.
A more telling indication would be the ping return times with which the distance from the satellite is calculated and thus create the arc's.

But this poses the next question, if the aircraft initiated a ping, would it still be usable related to the pings initiated by ground control....





Larger Image

Michael Exner developed a new revised burst offset frequency chart which corrects (reverses) the double transmission processing error caused by INMARSAT re-transmitting the signal back to Perth.

The other issue is that the edge of INMARSAT-3 coverage straddles the Gulf Of Thailand so that it is quite plausible that satellite handshake pings between 17:07 UTC and 18:25 UTC disappeared because MH370 flew east:



Exner's revised chart resembles what I suggested in the old 400 page thread at page 344







Larger Image


edit on 10-5-2014 by sy.gunson because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: sy.gunson

The BFO is only one part of the information which was derived from the handshakes.
The other part that was derived from the handshakes is the distance between the aircraft and the satellite, so a path must be in coordination with the arc's and the offset.

While the arc (distance between the aircraft and the satellite at 18:29) is in accordance with the information we have been getting from Malaysia, the BFO is contradictory because it shows a velocity away from the satellite, i think this is the main point of Michael Exner and Duncan Steel because we know it was traveling towards the satellite.

The only thing the BFO tells us is; 'during the ping' the aircraft is flying away from the satellite, or towards the satellite, no position or direction of the aircraft.

The aircraft has never been out of coverage of the satellite IOR3F1.
For the handshake there is no spot beam, it is global beam.


Large image

The picture you posted is from another satellite, maybe EMEA.

I agree fully that the graphs are clearly contradictory to the western path, so i really hope the raw data is released soon.

The image with the data points which i posted earlier does fit with the official story, but did that image came from Inmarsat or was it derived from calculation found on the internet... that is my question at the moment.

In another post i already talked about the witnesses in Kota Bharu.
Because the aircraft was flying from east to west, we must doubt that they had seen MH370, their testimonies speak of a bearing of 350 degrees and towards Bachok.
Did Malaysia track MH370? i doubt that to, to many contradictory stories and even Thailand 10 days later comes with a statement which clearly contradicts the path shown over Malaysia.

Yes we can indeed be doubtfull that the aircraft has flown back over Malaysia to the Malacca strait.
I also have doubt about the radar plot.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: sy.gunson

The BFO is only one part of the information which was derived from the handshakes.

The other part that was derived from the handshakes is the distance between the aircraft and the satellite, so a path must be in coordination with the arc's and the offset.


No actually it is the distance east or west of a datum line and only the distance of the datum line is known.

That datum line correlates to the offset frequency at the start of the take off roll 16:41 UTC.

That is why in every map plot of mine I also pegged a constant distance (2,219nm) from the satellite with Red markers equivalent to the distance from the satellite along a radial from where the satellite was at the relevant times. You see when I plotted my course I also plotted the satellite track and therefore I also know exactly where the satellite was for the handshakes.

(Since I first calculated positions for the Red markers I have been forced to re-calibrate positions of the yellow markers but I will re-publish a new map image with the corrections later)

Essentially the offsets only give an idea of the relative speeds, but not directions. That could be interpreted either west or east and it is only able to be confirmed by other observations.

The most telling of these observations is that we know which way it was heading up to 17:27 UTC because of radar/transponder returns. That was east, not west.

Movements are measured within time cells like this:






While the arc (distance between the aircraft and the satellite at 18:29) is in accordance with the information we have been getting from Malaysia, the BFO is contradictory because it shows a velocity away from the satellite, i think this is the main point of Michael Exner and Duncan Steel because we know it was traveling towards the satellite.


No you are wrong. Michael Exner does not endorse the Malaysian BOF chart as essentially correct at all.

He says it is inverted and makes no sense and look like cartoons to him. He also says the speeds at the start are too great and the speeds at the end of the flight are too slow.




Another expert who tried to understand Inmarsat’s report . “They look like cartoons to me,” says Exner.




“Neither the northern or southern predicted routes (from British Inmarsat) make any sense,” says Exner.


4bitnews.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">4bit News story

Michael Schulman who worked with Exner wrote this:



But the graph defies these expectations. Taken at face value, the graph shows the plane moving at a significant speed before it even took off, then moving toward the satellite every time it was pinged. This interpretation is completely at odds with the official conclusion, and flatly contradicted by other evidence.


Schulman also wrote this:



The problem is, although this interpretation matches two basic expectations for the frequency graph, it still doesn’t match Inmarsat’s example flight paths.





Earthling42 wrote:

The only thing the BFO tells us is; 'during the ping' the aircraft is flying away from the satellite, or towards the satellite, no position or direction of the aircraft.


If the aircraft was observed flying east and the frequency offset for the same period was negative (ie MH370 moving away from satellite) and then the radar observations stopped at 17:27 UTC, but the negative frequency shift continued to be negative, then you have no basis to say it turned west, unless the frequency suddenly reversed.

The frequency did not reverse until much later at 18:25 UTC.

The frequency trend did not reverse at 17:21 UTC
It did not reverse at 17:27 either.

The frequency trend did not reverse for another hour and eighteen minutes... so what you are suggesting is that it turned west at 17:21 UTC and flew through the Straits of Malacca without a single satellite handshake for an hour and eighteen minutes, but you can't explain why?

I can, because it flew east beyond the signal coverage boundary.




The aircraft has never been out of coverage of the satellite IOR3F1.


Oh yes it was, you can't account for it between 17:07 and 18:25 UTC, but I can. It was never seen on radar flying west from IGARI and there was a radar system on the east coast at Kuantan identical to the system at Butterworth which never picked up a target flying west.

Indonesian military radar at Lhokseumawe in Aceh Province watches the Straits from the opposite shore to Butterworth and never saw the same target claimed by Malaysia.

First Malaysia claimed MH370 flew IGARI to VAMPI, then turned right (north) to GIVAL, then Left (west) to IGREX.

Then on 21 march they showed relatives in beijing military radar from Butterworth which showed a target flying past Penang island and turn towards VAMPI and fly west across MEKAR.

Now they have amended the track a third time to say it flew IGARI-Penang-GIVAL-IGREX

They can't make up their mind because there never was a target, just some innocent commercial airliner or private jet with no ADS-B transponder.


edit on 11-5-2014 by sy.gunson because: shortened my reply

edit on 11-5-2014 by sy.gunson because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   

posted by earthling42





For the handshake there is no spot beam, it is global beam.


No INMARSAT interrogates specific rows of cells at specific time slots with a narrow radio beam and it measures the target's speed within that time cell. That time cell is how they can be so precise about the final southern arc.

All they know for sure is the first position and the distance arc of the last position.




The picture you posted is from another satellite, maybe EMEA.


No it is not. It is a photo of INMARSAT-3 coverage featured on this publication:

Exner on Atlantic Times article

It is the coverage by INMARSAT-3 over the Indian Ocean.




I agree fully that the graphs are clearly contradictory to the western path, so i really hope the raw data is released soon.


It is not merely contradictory, Malaysia's interpretations are plain wrong.

Malaysia could clear this up in a heartbeat with transparency but they refuse to... what does that tell most logical people?



The image with the data points which i posted earlier does fit with the official story, but did that image came from Inmarsat or was it derived from calculation found on the internet... that is my question at the moment.


The official story does not sit with INMARSAT data.




In another post i already talked about the witnesses in Kota Bharu.

Because the aircraft was flying from east to west, we must doubt that they had seen MH370, their testimonies speak of a bearing of 350 degrees and towards Bachok.


They were also at sea at night with primitive navigation




Did Malaysia track MH370? i doubt that to, to many contradictory stories and even Thailand 10 days later comes with a statement which clearly contradicts the path shown over Malaysia.


The only way Thailand saw MH370 make a right turn back towards Kuala Lumpur would be from southern Vietnam.


edit on 11-5-2014 by sy.gunson because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I think this link was posted previously. Concern about the shift...


Inmarsat’s analysis is highly ambiguous about whether the satellite-to-ground transmission contributed to the measured frequency shift. But if it did, a ground station located significantly south of the satellite would have resulted in frequency shifts that could account for the measured shifts being too large at the beginning of the graph and too small at the end. And sure enough, Inmarsat’s analysis states that the ground station receiving the transmission was located in Australia.

It’s possible to check the theory more precisely. Public records of Inmarsat ground stations show just one in Australia: in Perth. Using STK, you can precisely chart the satellite’s speed relative to this station, and, using the satellite-to-ground signal frequency (about 3.6 GHz), you can then factor the satellite-to-ground shifts out of the frequency graph. Finally, you can at last calculate the true satellite-to-plane speed values.

The results seem to be nearly perfect. For the first ping, you wind up with a satellite-to-plane speed of about 1 mile per hour—just what you’d expect for a plane stationary or slowly taxiing eleven minutes before takeoff. This finding seems to provide a basic sanity check for interpreting the graph, and led Exner to declare on Twitter, “Doppler code cracked.” He produced a new graph of the frequency shifts, shown below.

(chart in link)

Link to TheAtlantic


Could be IMARSAT needs a little help



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Don't you people get it?
This plane and those girls are never coming back.


Zaph, I found this link interesting.
But I will only link to it, because Y-T memebrs don't seem to
understand how foul language, might diminish the use and
the hits for their video. I think it's interesting enough after
weights and balances considered. AGAIN two intances of
STRONG LANGUAGE.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: sy.gunson

In essence we agree that the Inmarsat data is contradictory to the flight path of MH370.


That is why i don't use this graph and want to separate the two pieces of data that were derived from the pings, namely the offset and the distance.

I'll be the last to say that i do understand it fully, but clearly the Inmarsat graph shows the aircraft traveling towards the satellite until 18:29 or away from it if it is inverted.
So i agree with you on this, but that doesn't bring us any closer to the actual truth.
It only seems clear that the imarsat data does not match with the known flight path until 17:27, the radar plots or witnesses.

So we must work together to debunk everything which has been used to conclude that it ended up in the Southern Indian Ocean and excluded the northern path.


No you are wrong. Michael Exner does not endorse the Malaysian BOF chart as essentially correct at all.


Well yes, we are clear on that part.
What i meant to say is that even the two parts of data are conflicting with each other.
I did not look at the start of the graph, but yes indeed a great speed before it takes off.



The frequency trend did not reverse for another hour and eighteen minutes... so what you are suggesting is that it turned west at 17:21 UTC and flew through the Straits of Malacca without a single satellite handshake for an hour and eighteen minutes, but you can't explain why?


First of all, i am not suggesting anything, i am merely stating what they said and tried to explain that the BFO contradicts what they said.

And yes i can explain, at the last meeting in April it was disclosed that messages were being sent to the aircraft which has led to an interference of the ping sequence.
If there is no communication for an hour, the ground station will ping the aircraft to see if there is still a connection with the aircraft.
If there is communication with the aircraft, a renewed period of 60 minutes starts.
That is why we see no ping at 18:07, one message was sent to the aircraft at 18:03.
This makes the 3 pings in a row starting at 18:25 until 18:29 all the more strange, they were initiated by the aircraft, i am sure that the Satcom terminal on board of the aircraft will not ping the satellite to see if it is still there, so there must have been an attempt to sent something by the aircraft, problems with the aircraft? who knows..
We know that MAS did not subscribe to the package to monitor the state of the aircraft to Boeing and thus send data to Boeing, and if this was an attempt to do so, one would expect that there were attempts to sent data too RR as well with a sequence of 30 minutes.
But that never happened after 17:07 so it is more likely that pilots have tried or succeeded to sent messages with ACARS between 18:25 and 18:29.
There has been more communication after that because the second ping is at 19:40, 11 minutes later than expected, but from 19:40 we see what we expect to happen, pings with an interval of one hour until 22:40.
There was again a message sent to the aircraft at 23:13 so the next ping was expected at 00:13 but again the aircraft initiated a ping at 00:11 and the last one at 00:19.

Needless to say that a lot of information is withheld from the public.

Needless to say that a lot of information is withheld from the public.



Indonesian military radar at Lhokseumawe in Aceh Province watches the Straits from the opposite shore to Butterworth and never saw the same target claimed by Malaysia.


I knew about the radar in Sabang, not of this radar at Lhokseumawe


That is good information, everyone should try to find information about radars in the area and or messages related to it to debunk the official story about the aircraft flying over the Malacca strait.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
YT is full of video of low flying Boeing 777.

www.youtube.com...

These are guy's doing it for kicks. I have no doubt a 'motivated' skyjacker, say a 27 year old hot shot co-pilot who just happens to have the Quran memorized by heart, would have no problem avoiding Pakistani radar.

The southern Indian Ocean search is a red herring intended to minimize the damage of a terrorist disruption in air travel by allowing for the theoretical possibility that, since substantive evidence may never be found, there is no proof of a terrorist attack taking place.

Reports of Uighur threats and claims of responsibility for the hijacking have been trivialized, in the same way and for the same reasons that officials claim the 12 Al Qaeda members arrested last week in Kuala Lumpur ARE NOT being questioned about the missing airliner. So as to maintain the deniability of a hijacking ever having happened.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join