It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
He did not explain why he had taken almost five years for him to report his version of events to authorities.
originally posted by: marceldp1
a reply to: szino9
i actually remember a mention of a boat or fisherman seeing the plane go down. it was right in the beginning of the investigation. if i remember correctly i think it was mentioned here on ats. will try and find it
originally posted by: HarryJoy
I could be wrong but in my opinion it doesn't make any sense that the airplane would have been on fire... I mean if it had a mechanical failure that caused the fire then it would not have gone very far off of the original flight path.... would it ?
And if it got hijacked it seems that it would be extremely slim odds that the plane would have a mechanical failure that would have caused a fire in addition to it... Or maybe I'm missing something
originally posted by: ignorant_ape
the biggerst question = why dint he immediatly radio " mayday - aircraft in distress " ??????????
without " magic " or some vast overarching conspiracy - irs implausible to assume that he could know anything at the time - other than :
its a malaysia iarline airbus - and its gong down .
he says - he knows evactly where it crashed - but somehow - he retreieved zero debris - despite being right on site
originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm thinking this guy did see the accident, reported it within days, and his report was blown off because they thought the plane was somewhere else. That kind of thing is common, lots of evidence is tossed out because of false beliefs of investigators. It also happens in science a lot.