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.

 

Nova: Why Planes Vanish

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

They're switching to ADS-B because there's less reliance on ATC, which is almost useless on international flights.

The aircraft reporting systems have been in use for years, its nothing new.

As for it going off, and back on, IMO it went off trying to resolve an electrical problem. After they thought they had it resolved, they tried to switch systems back on to isolate the problem circuit.




posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


As for it going off, and back on, IMO it went off trying to resolve an electrical problem. After they thought they had it resolved, they tried to switch systems back on to isolate the problem circuit.


Thats a good opinion and reflects on the procedure during an electrical problem inflight. As an alternative I was thinking that whomever hijacked the plane turned it off on purpose to hide the change in flight path (which is acknowledged) and then only turned it back on at the end so the people that wanted whatever was in the hold of that particular plane would know exactly where it went down.

Banks regularly transfer large amounts of hard assets amongst each other by airliner like gold and or jewels. If it was valuable enough, someone might have been inside and callous enough to sacrifice everyone onboard to get it.

Which scenario answers more questions, yours or mine?



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: boomer135
The whole Diego Garcia theory is garbage in my opinio . Too many people would notice it there and there's not a hanger on the island that would hold the jet.


Maybe that is why the pilot loaded more fuel ?



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: douglas5

Pilots frequently load more fuel based on weather enroute to the destination, and fuel costs/quality at the destination.
edit on 10/10/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Is there a reward for the finder of the plane..?



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
Oh you mean like Jindalee?

Which just so happens to be able to see exactly the areas in question. My belief is that either Australia or the US may have seen it although possibly not until after the fact by checking recorded tracks. But saying so immediately would give away the systems capability, so logically as this is not a rescue operation and never was they will wait for a while and then announce that they have narrowed down the location and "suggest" where to look for the wreckage. Its not a conspiracy to hide something nefarious but a rather prudent measure to protect the capability of a highly specialized and effective intel asset of national/allied importance. I suspect that something similar may have happened with the AF-447 search.

LEE.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian
JORN looks like a very good candidate for tracking a plane in that area if the conditions were right at the time. Surely, IF a plane was travelling with no transponder in that corridor they suspect it went, you would think there would be a record of it. I must admit I have lost track lately of MH370 threads, so does anyone know for certain the plane went south ?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: [post=18542676]nelloh62

Sorry, I forgot to put this link in with my last post
www.dsto.defence.gov.au...



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: thebozeian

Well, I was under the impression JORN was on all the time and monitored 24/7 by the military, but maybe not.

A few days after the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 early on the morning of March 8, Aviation Week asked whether Jindalee had tracked it. The chance was never high, because reflections from the ionosphere are weak at night, discouraging over-the-horizon radar operation then, and because the Boeing 777 would have had to have flown through a tile that a Jindalee radar had for some reason been cued to observe. The aircraft also would have needed to follow a course that created a detectable Doppler shift. Typifying its reluctance to discuss Jindalee, the department replied by saying it was passing any information it had to Malaysia; it did not refer to the over-the-horizon radars.

aviationweek.com...




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join