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.

 

Emirates chief Tim Clark reveals suspicions over true fate of missing flight MH370

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigx001
a water landing would allow the plane to sink intact to the bottom of the ocean without a trace.


This is the most logical explanation. Even if many things still don't add up I DO think this happened.




posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: bigx001
a water landing would allow the plane to sink intact to the bottom of the ocean without a trace.


This is the most logical explanation. Even if many things still don't add up I DO think this happened.


A water landing at night in the middle of a pitch black ocean?

I'm wondering what the odds are the plane remained in tact.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigx001--->a water landing is not out of the question, especially if you practice in a simulator


The problem is there's no simulators alble to correctly simulate a water landing.

So in cases where pilots are trained in the sim for ditching, the procedures from Fl 250 down to 100 ft RA are simulated, not the splashdown.

On the B777 landing on water is to be done with flaps full, gear up, 11 degrees nose up attitude and on VREF.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: bigx001
a water landing would allow the plane to sink intact to the bottom of the ocean without a trace.


This is the most logical explanation. Even if many things still don't add up I DO think this happened.


A water landing at night in the middle of a pitch black ocean?

I'm wondering what the odds are the plane remained in tact.


Bad odds.
Even in daylight it is very difficult to land on water. To land in the dark with no visual reference point a survivable landing would be pure luck.
Keep in mind that the water out at open sea is not a flat surface.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
There is no cover-up of a crash.
The idea that "they" secretly cleaned up a 777 crash site is absurd. It's simply NOT possible to keep this a secret.


Ever heard of the 'Glomar Explorer'?

nsa34.casimages.com...



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: bigx001
a water landing would allow the plane to sink intact to the bottom of the ocean without a trace.


This is the most logical explanation. Even if many things still don't add up I DO think this happened.


A water landing at night in the middle of a pitch black ocean?

I'm wondering what the odds are the plane remained intact.


Zero.

That's why Sir Timothy Clark isn't buying the Southern Indian Ocean cover story.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: PsynicEver heard of the 'Glomar Explorer'?

nsa34.casimages.com...


It must have been awfully difficult to reconvert her from the drilling ship that she's been configured as for the past seven years...



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen


a reply to: Psynic

Exactly why I posed the question.

So it's actually more illogical to conclude that the reason for no debris is due to nice water landing.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen


a reply to: Psynic

Exactly why I posed the question.

So it's actually more illogical to conclude that the reason for no debris is due to nice water landing.


I witnessed a four engine jet hit the water from a few hundred yards away.

The fuselage broke into multiple sections as it nosed in.

And that was in flat calm, conditions unheard of in the Southern Oceans.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I am certain that there is a cover up of some kind. But what, or by whom, or for what purpose I am not so sure. Given the pilot was practicing on his simulator maneuvers that foreshadowed maneuvers (altitude changes, specifically) made by the missing jet, I do believe this was planned in advance, but why? And were others involved?



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: bludragin
I am certain that there is a cover up of some kind. But what, or by whom, or for what purpose I am not so sure. Given the pilot was practicing on his simulator maneuvers that foreshadowed maneuvers (altitude changes, specifically) made by the missing jet, I do believe this was planned in advance, but why? And were others involved?


The supposedly "suspicious maneuvers" the pilot was practising on his simulator were emergency landings on small islands, something ANY prudent pilot flying in the region would do.

There is zero evidence of premeditated homicide or suicide on the pilot's flight simulator.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: Heartisblack

The plane didn't crash. I have no doubt about that.


I think it crashed.. I think it was deliberate and that either the pilot or "someone else" was in control and did it, I also have my doubts it crashed right away, and that it was somehow landed, offloaded of the whatever they won't tell us was onboard (I have never thought any of the people were a target, the division of Freescale was not one that would be government secret savvy) and that they know exactly where and how it went down..

this however is my own speculation and i have ZERO facts to go on other than it makes no sense in my brain..



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: gort51
In defence of the Australian authorities...they are simply going by the satellite evidence provided by the "Experts", the USA and China, who said they have found debris floating in the Indian Ocean with their super spy tech . Nothing More.

They are still searching that area to "Save Face" and try to help the families, Chinese and American ships are searching too.

I have no idea what happened...but my mind still wanders to the oil rig worker, and the woman on a yacht who had an argument with her husband.....who both saw a fire ball in the sky and/or heard an explosion over the sea in the area at the time.

I have read, but not bothered to confirm, that there were Naval exercises in the area...by local Asian navys.

I would not be surprised the plane was accidently fired upon by a naval vessel, possibly because of transponder malfunction or misidentification as a hostile bogie......and of course a subsequent coverup. Possibly because of fear of retribution, due to being a small Asian country in fear of the big ones, and one cant get any bigger than China.

Still an intriguing mystery.





The last part of your scenario sounds a lot like Flight 800; but we know our Navy would never shoot down a civilian airliner - RIGHT??? Accept in the case of Iran Flight 655 (July 3, 1988)...



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: bigx001
a water landing would allow the plane to sink intact to the bottom of the ocean without a trace.


This is the most logical explanation. Even if many things still don't add up I DO think this happened.


A water landing at night in the middle of a pitch black ocean?

I'm wondering what the odds are the plane remained in tact.


except on march 8th the southern hemisphere was in its summer months and after it had flown for several more hours would be in broad daylight



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
everyone seems to leave out one glaring fact that would be consistent with a crash at sea.......... floating debris.

if it crashed on land then the nsa/cia/military satellites that monitor the earth would have detected the flash and heat signature, and they didn't

if it crashed at sea where is the floating debris, besides the seats that float and a lot of the luggage that would be floating, quite a bit of the airplane itself will float when a plane crashes in the sea and on top of that where is the oil sheen. even tanks that have run out, will have several gallons of unused fuel in them which would leave a very large sheen that would persist for several days afterward.

since neither of the two have any evidence whatsoever then the only choices that are left is it has landed at a remote airfield or it made a water landing and sank intact. those are the only two choices that the facts to date will support, unless there is new evidence that disproves these two choices.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: jude11

originally posted by: Heartisblack
Personally, I believe it was a suicidal pilot who drove his plane into the water. I really doubt it was terrorism, I just think he was a bit off and decided to take a group of people with him, regardless if they wanted to go or not.
Flag for you, OP.


Something of this magnitude as a suicide?

Perhaps.

But I know if it were me I would have left a note or in this case a message to ground control somewhere. Most suicides leave a goodbye of some sort.

Peace


The suicide question then leads back to why did he wait so long to do it? He could have easily taken off and then nosedived the aircraft into the ground.


As for the claim that was made about nothing like this ever happening. It occurred one time before where a commercial jetliner disappeared from an African country. Search and Rescue were never able to find wreckage and radar had no image on their screen.

Going for the conspiracy side maybe the plane was abducted by the same aliens who took the Australian pilot and his plane back in the 1970's.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

They once said that about the blackbird Zaph better to keep this sort of thing from the general market as long as possible as it would change the dynamics of the game forever



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: douglas5

You realize that the Blackbird was public before it ever flew right?

Read the patent. There is an additional power supply added for the new autopilot. That means it would need people to install it, maintain it, etc. That means that people are going to know about it, and they all apparently think that having the ability to take over a plane at any time, and fly it anywhere they want to, is a good idea.



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic




There is zero evidence of premeditated homicide or suicide on the pilot's flight simulator.


Got any evidence of your "facts" that you care to share?



posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Also, even in the most unlikely event of the plane landing and sinking, it would break up on the way down and all sorts of floaty things would be sucked out and floating.

Perhaps the Ocean is that big that it can swallow a whole aircraft. I don't go in for all this clean up/cover up, not possible that bits would be missed or one of the hundreds of seamen involved would not have a conscience and talked.

Similarly I can't accept the James Bond like stealing an aircraft or hijacked and no publicity, not when you have 200 odd innocent people on board, or if you went to those lengths to get your political message out would you rely on the hijackers to get the message out, you would have someone elsewhere to broadcast it.

It's what makes this dissapearance so mind boggling!!



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join