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: 40
39
<< 37  38  39    41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: auroraaus
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed



- there's still the mystery as to why it did in the first place (all sorts of possibilities there)


Wrong.

No possibility whatsoever.

If it crashed there WOULD be debris.

The 'intact, gentle landing by autopilot in the Southern Indian Ocean' is an impossibility.

The man responsible for the biggest fleet of B777s in the world, Sir Timothy Clark, says it's not there.




posted on Dec, 10 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic

Wrong.

No possibility whatsoever.

If it crashed there WOULD be debris.

The 'intact, gentle landing by autopilot in the Southern Indian Ocean' is an impossibility.

The man responsible for the biggest fleet of B777s in the world, Sir Timothy Clark, says it's not there.



I was referring to a previous poster's claims that it crashed, and that there's no mystery. My response was meant as - if it did crash - then there's still the mystery as to why and of course, there are many explanations that could be given.

And you are totally right buddy, if it crashed there would be debris! Even if it was an odd floating mangosteen or bunch of floating seat cushions. It may take time to be found washed ashore - true. Heck, it could have crashed in the south china sea, with the debris hoovered up by whatever nation states have an interest in keeping things quiet.

Or it didn't crash. It was flown somewhere - or was blown out of the sky -

THAT my friend, is the mystery - we don't know. We just do not know for certain what happened to the flight. All sorts of talking heads put one idea forward, dismiss others, and the relevant stakeholders have not been as transparent as we would like, or are at odds with each other.

It is all very well to say something is impossible (Nothing is impossible unless there is numerous cold hard evidence) and dismiss everything as bunk and hang on to the words of one solitary man. I am not saying he is wrong at all, I am saying he should be listened to. Just as much as other people and explanations should be listened to. Because at the end of the day, we just bloomin' don't know. That plane is missing. The people on board are missing. The family and friends of those on board do not have closure and are suffering each day not knowing.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic
If it crashed there WOULD be debris.

The 'intact, gentle landing by autopilot in the Southern Indian Ocean' is an impossibility.
Of course there would be debris and some of it would float for a time. The question is, how long? My understanding is that seat cushions will float for a limited time, but eventually may become waterlogged and sink. I'm not sure how long it takes for them to sink but if it took a week, I wouldn't be too surprised by that. People can't live much more than 3 days without water anyway so I don't think airplane makers would worry too much about seat cushions sinking after a week. Sometimes seat cushions are only a backup flotation device and there are inflatable life vests as the primary flotation device, especially for international flights over water. But if everyone is unconscious then nobody would have inflated those, and they would sink.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You may find this article interesting

Mystery of rubber blocks washing onto beaches



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: auroraaus

Yes I found it fascinating that items which sank 75 years ago can circle the Earth once every 25 years and some might have circled the Earth 3 times by now!

But given their tree gum composition and the fact that industry mostly died decades ago, there's not much today made of tree gum, that could have been on MH370. Also the MH370 manifest didn't seem to indicate any items like that, made of tree gum or anything similar, so I'm not sure if that article has any relevance to MH370, but it was a great read, thanks.



posted on Dec, 12 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Is it still missing then? @@



posted on Dec, 15 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Naw, I know that of course. It was more the point that that which has been lost, can indeed be found again - even if it takes nearly a century. The question you posed about how long can debris float for - well, indeed a long time. If I recall correctly, some debris floats just under the surface of the water.



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Interesting analysis by an experienced 777 captain.

www.flightglobal.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Interesting analysis by an experienced 777 captain.

www.flightglobal.com...


So far every calculation points to that direction within a range 500 km.
It is the area where they are searching curently, or just outside the search area, Duncan Steel and his group also pointed to this area based on their findings.

But it is based on the satellite data which we must deem as a reliable source of information.
Stil it is an unanswered question why the connection was lost between 17:07 and 18:25, and of course the gap between 22:41 and 00:10.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: auroraaus

Auroaaus, the lack of floating debris in the Indian ocean actually indicates that if MH370 flew south then it flew further south than JACC are willing to accept.

For example to use a drift model if MH370 impacted at 32 South you would find debris along the Australian coast and also the coast of east Africa:



However if you consider the debris field of 300 floating objects sighted by satellite from 16-25 March 2014 (circa 44S.90E) and follow those objects you get this drift pattern:



China reverse calculated the drift of those 300 objects back to a point of impact and announced it on 24 March 2014:



Immediately that China suggested an impact near 45S,85E Malaysia objected and demanded that Australia ground Chinese search planes attempting to locate those debris. The Australian government lied to the Chinese that their search planes had to be grounded due to a fictitious storm over the search area. this is an image of the weather in the search area on 25 March 2014 when planes were grounded revealing nothing but a modest breeze;





edit on 15-3-2015 by sy.gunson because: deleting extra unwanted URL brakets



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:16 AM
link   
The official report published 8 March 2015 produces a timeline and commentary which defies laws of physics.



In that timeline it is claimed MH370 dropped to low altitude, inferring the possibility of a cell tower connection as previously claimed in Malaysian Press reports. For there to be any prospect of cell phone connection with an aircraft the aircraft has to fly below 5,000ft AGL and no faster than 150 knots.

At an altitude of 5,000ft the fastest a Boeing 777 can fly is 350kt TAS (330 KIAS).



So assuming this official timeline suggests MH370 was at 5,000ft 6nm south of Penang at 17:52 UTC, that leaves just 10 Minutes to reach Pelau Perak at 18:02 UTC. That required an average steady airspeed of 510kt.



Since a Boeing 777 can't fly that fast at 5,000ft it had to climb to an altitude where it could (33,000ft), however the climb would have been so slow that it could not have reached Pelau Perak by 18:02 UTC without flying at supersonic speed.

for example just to climb to 20,000 feet where it could achieve a True Airspeed of 430-440kt would have taken 6 minutes and covered just 35nm leaving MH370 to fly a further 50nm at 440kt... It does not compute. It is not possible within the official timeline.

In other words the official report contains a work of fiction

edit on 15-3-2015 by sy.gunson because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

Tim Clark did not even understand what ACARS was until a journalist explained it to him, so he is neither the brightest bulb in the chandelier nor is he an expert on aviation.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: sy.gunson

Of course not!

You are Sy.

You and Zap.

Just because he's run a couple airlines doesn't mean a thing.

(sigh)



edit on -05:0021153412015-03-15T10:41:21-05:00 by Psynic because: typo



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

You can run an airline without understating every single detail of how a plane works. Things like fuel burn, cost per mile per seat, and profitable routes are far more important than how ACARS works, or what electrical bus controls what systems.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

You can run an airline without understating every single detail of how a plane works. Things like fuel burn, cost per mile per seat, and profitable routes are far more important than how ACARS works, or what electrical bus controls what systems.


And you can know a lot of technical data and not have a clue that MH370 was hijacked.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

And you can not know much and come up with wild speculation based on no real evidence.



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Nothing wild about the Proliferation Security Initiative.

Hijacked planes wil be interdicted.

Simple.




posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

And the evidence that fighters were launched, used any weapons, and shot the plane down? How about proof that there was something on board that fell under the treaty?

Didn't think so.
edit on 3/15/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/15/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/15/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Psynic

And the evidence that fighters were launched, used any weapons, and shot the plane down?

Didn't think so.



That the initiative specifically authorizes such force isn't important if they just deny launching the fighters,huh?

They track a plane that goes unresponsive and changes course drastically but they ignore it.

What, do you think Malaysian ATC figured the passengers voted to go to the Andaman Islands instead of Beijing?

Of course they launched fighters to investigate. They are obligated to investigate and identify the A/C.




posted on Mar, 15 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

And where is the evidence that it was carrying WMD components?

If the aircraft was almost out of their airspace, at cruising speed, they wouldn't launch fighters because they'd never catch up without using afterburner, and would be in danger of running out of fuel before they could get back anywhere near a tanker. They'd warn whoever it was heading towards and they'd launch fighters to intercept it.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 37  38  39    41  42 >>

log in

join