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: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: TheCrowMan
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!!


I agree with you on the likelihood of the A/C breaking up and releasing floating evidence but I don't understand how you can believe that the plane would produce flotsam, yet in light of not a single piece being found in six months you discount the evidence being collected in the days following the crash?

Aren't those two views in conflict?

If the plane is in the ocean, the pieces would either be discovered or collected and hidden. What other possibility is there?




posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I think the reason that the airplane has not been found is the airplane contained a large amount of expensive drugs, such as heroin or coc aine. I think some organization was using the Malaysian Airlines and specifically that plane to transport drugs. I think the Malaysia and perhaps other governments decided it would be best if the ocean destroyed the evidence of the drug transporting by Malaysian Airlines. Also, it looks to me as several or more governments are "playing opossum" in regards to the airplanes disappearance and final location
Perhaps the Chinese knew the airplane had drugs and was going to seize and search the airplane when it landed, but also I think that if the Chinese did know and planned on a seizure and search it would have been reported by the Chinese to the media.
In summary, I state that the international illegal drug business is both the hidden cause of the planes disappearance and
the hidden reason it has not been located and seems not locatable.


edit on 12-10-2014 by harkna because: (no reason given)
to correct mis-spelled words.
edit on 12-10-2014 by harkna because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: harkna

The drug trade already has its established trade routes and methods, going to all the effort of making a plane disappear for a few bags of blow is a bit over the top. I am not aware of any highly insured items like a few kilos of diamonds or some Rembrandt paintings that was suppose to be on the plane as some insurance scam motive.

Another angle that might be possible with the freescale staff motive, instead of being abducted and forced to work by the technological hijackers they are actually in on the operation and want out of all of their current legal obligations. Since Freescale is an American company, America holds all the rights to all the work they perform. Even if the staff decided to just get up and leave, there may still be legal or contractual claims on any future work they perform - basically they are part of the US Military Industrial Complex for life.

Now because of these events, they all get a new name and a new job in China (as an example) and now free and committed to mastering the next generation of their trade away from American hands. I am not sure of all the technical legalities associated with their job, but just a theory and idea as to motive.


edit on 12-10-2014 by kwakakev because: replaced 'why' with 'motive'



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: bigx001

i don't agree with you. in open sea/ocean there are multiple swells (therefor waves) in very different directions... not to mention waves produced by winds... so land in a direction parallel to waves it doesn't happen.

nevertheless that theory don't holds up (landing in the sea) because:

- if the pilot wanted to commit suicide he won't had the trouble to "try" to land on water without crashing the plane;
- if the pilot didn't want to commit suicide (and actually try to save himself and plane) he would contact traffic control about this situation

So in conclusion the plane didn't land or crashed in the sea.. So it leaves two possibilities it crashed on land without an explosion or debris or it was hijacked for a secret location (this is the most plausible theory, for me)
edit on 12/10/2014 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Good theory, could be plausible
a reply to: kwakakev



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I think the plane may have flown over a combat zone got shot down and there was a coverup. Less than a year later another Malaysian plane flew over Syria and got shot down showing a systematic safety flaw in the airline's protocols.

It may not even have been a combat zone but a military mix up.
edit on 13amMon, 13 Oct 2014 05:34:00 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost


TIM Clark is no MH370 conspiracy theory crackpot.

As the recently knighted Emirates president and CEO told Aviation Week in July: “Something is not right here and we need to get to the bottom of it.”

Now, seven months after the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 vanished en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, Sir Tim has cast doubt on the official version of events.

In an extraordinary interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, he challenges the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s conclusion this week that MH370 flew south over the Indian Ocean on autopilot for five hours until it ran out of fuel and fell out of the sky, forcing 239 passengers into a watery grave.

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

I think having Clark come out saying these things is good for the concept of questioning the Official Story (OS) of any major historical event. While I am not really certain of the what, who or why of what happened in the MH370 situation, I do agree with him that there are many things that don't add.

What do you think?


Let's get this thread back on topic.

This story is about how the man in charge of the world's biggest fleet of B777s rejects the premise of MH370 having crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean, due to the complete lack of debris.

He also rejects the explanation of the transponder 'handshakes'.

Basically, he's telling us he doesn't believe anything Tony Abbott has claimed.

Imagine that, an important aviation expert willing to go on record saying we are being lied to by the Australian Transportation Safety Board.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigx001
a reply to: voyger2

you land parallel to the waves not perpendicular and it is possible to do so with the plane not breaking apart. the stall speed is somewhere around 120 kts with full flaps and nothing else extended and remember it didn't have any fuel so that weight is out of the equation.

otherwise where is the debris

a water landing is not out of the question, especially if you practice in a simulator


That's an interesting scenario. I just wonder though what motivation a suicidal pilot would have to go to such great lengths to hide the wreckage and keep the plane from being tracked. A guy who wants to off himself by jumping off a bridge doesn't concern himself with hiding his car so that no one can find it. The suicidal pilot idea just doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how anyone can come to that conclusion based on the efforts the pilot would have to take to pull this off. If he wanted to kill himself by crashing into the ocean why would he care where he ditched the plane?

Maybe I've just seen too many Mission Impossible movies.
edit on 10/13/2014 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/13/2014 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: Heartisblack

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


I wish I had no doubts about any of the theories, but each and every theory has a hole in it, as far as I've seen.

What makes you have no doubt? If you don't mind me asking...



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic



Basically, he's telling us he doesn't believe anything Tony Abbott has claimed.


Sounds like a smart man. As for the Transport Safety Board, Russia has had the technology to mask and fake radar signals since around the 1950's or so. By now there is the potential for a lot of tricks with the radar data if some covert military operation was used. In trying to get to the facts I put more weight with the bits and pieces of satellite data around.

Until there is some absolute certainty with what happened with the flight, I do find the new CEO as being prudent with his views on this matter.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18524561]kwakakev
- basically they are part of the US Military Industrial Complex for life.

Now because of these events, they all get a new name and a new job in China (as an example) and now free and committed to mastering the next generation of their trade away from American hands. I am not sure of all the technical legalities associated with their job, but just a theory and idea as to motive.

That is true but regardless even if they get a new identity, the MIC can track them down



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic--->He also rejects the explanation of the transponder 'handshakes'.


There was never any transponder 'handshakes'.

The 'handshakes' came from the satcom antenna (which is a stand alone unit with it's own power supply and CB's).



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen
a reply to: douglas5

No civilian airliner have ever been remote controllable, period.

When and if that happens you're gonna read about it in every newspaper all over, not just on conspiracy websites.

And btw:




and enable air traffic controllers to take over a distressed aircraft and land it by remote control.


ATC don't fly airplanes, pilots do.




en.wikipedia.org...

www.sysplan.com...




skip to 3.36 in video for info of remote control planes
edit on 13/10/2014 by douglas5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: douglas5

It has existed. That doesn't mean it's installed on every plane flying or in use.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei


I do
That is true but regardless even if they get a new identity, the MIC can track them down


If it is China trying to gain the edge in this technology and with the lengths that things have gone to there will be a very small profile of these semiconductor engineers. Being restricted to some top secret facility for the next few years is likely, long term who knows.

The MIC may have is suspects, but getting its hands on the evidence to enforce patent law or access to the latest blueprints is where the arms race is at. You maybe right and the MIC already knows where they are, but considering the larger diplomatic and foreign situation it cannot do a thing about it.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


No civilian airliner have ever been remote controllable, period.

you see me problem Zaph one guy said it never happened and the above company can control 8 planes at one time / then we have a identical plane [ the switch ] which one did the passengers get on that day we may never know



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: douglas5

No civilian airliners HAVE been flown under remote control in normal use. They have been for the purpose of crashing them, but never with passengers on board, and not without extensive modification.

They don't get built that way, and we're a LONG way from it happening.

Prove there was a switch.
edit on 10/13/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: Nochzwei


I do
That is true but regardless even if they get a new identity, the MIC can track them down


If it is China trying to gain the edge in this technology and with the lengths that things have gone to there will be a very small profile of these semiconductor engineers. Being restricted to some top secret facility for the next few years is likely, long term who knows.

The MIC may have is suspects, but getting its hands on the evidence to enforce patent law or access to the latest blueprints is where the arms race is at. You maybe right and the MIC already knows where they are, but considering the larger diplomatic and foreign situation it cannot do a thing about it.
May well be true but the MIC undoubtedly may have imposed an export control on this patent. And to the best of my experience all countries do respect the export control agreements



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

If you are going to go to all the effort to make a plane disappear and kill off 100+ innocent passengers are you going to be respect full of patent law? I expect the applications that these semiconductor scientists are working on are for military applications. Maybe in the future some of their work might eventually filter down in public applications as with most military research and development. By then I expect their patent lawyers have filled in all the paperwork to present a clean corporate image.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: douglas5

No civilian airliners HAVE been flown under remote control in normal use. They have been for the purpose of crashing them, but never with passengers on board, and not without extensive modification.

They don't get built that way, and we're a LONG way from it happening.

Prove there was a switch.



the controversial on board device known as the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot that has supposedly been equipped in all Boeing planes since 1995, according to Field McConnell, a retired 35 year Delta pilot,

“This information was apparently not released until March of 2007, following a subsequent lawsuit by McConnell. The modification was reported to the FAA, NTSB and ALPA ( airline pilots association). According to McConnell’s documents, Boeing is said to have stated that by end of 2009 all Boeing planes would be fitted with the BUAP - making them impossible to manually hijack within the plane but susceptible to remote control by the military, according the flight veteran.”


“Rolls Royce and Malaysian Airlines are said to have a partnership that requires the engine to transmit live data to its global engine health monitoring center in Derby, UK every 30 minutes. Investigators are said to have used the ACARS information uploaded to the engine maker.”

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 was said to have disappeared from the sky in the early hours of Saturday, March 8th, 2014, subsequently over at 35,000 feet heading in a flight bound for Beijing. The flight was carrying some 227 passengers and 12 crew members and had its flight path redirected,

www.globalresearch.ca...




top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join