Malaysia Airlines plane Flight MH370 missing: New hostage theory

What bothers me is that if we can "loose" a plane and not keep it on radar, what does this say about world-wide defenses?

I know during the Cold War the Russians would fly bombers right up to the edge of US airspace in Alaska. We'd scramble jets to scare them back into Russia. We knew they were coming from hundreds and hundreds of miles away.

So, your telling me that not ONE military in the entire world had eyes on that area? In today's world, with today's technology you're telling me that the US government doesn't know where any plane is at any given time (if it's not stealthy).

I guess we all know the best route to invade Malaysia is *eye roll*.

I mean, what the heck is the point of stealth if all you have to do is turn off your transponder and not answer radio calls? The NSA can know what the French president had for breakfast, but we can't find a huge metal plane with over 200 people on board?

We can tell what kind of screw (phillips of flathead) on the wing of a moving Boeing 747 from orbit, but we can't locate an even larger target? This is ridiculous, the governments absolutely know what happened to this plane.

My question is this: why aren't they telling us what they know?

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Unless you spend millions on a huge OTH-B radar (which has about a 500 mile MINIMUM range) you can only see about 250 miles with any radar. Farther than that and the curve of the earth blocks the signal.

The flight was roughly 220 miles from the antenna when the transponder went off. Other radars would see it, but without transponder data they can't tell what it is.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Do they record/keep past radar data for a while (like CCTV security cameras)?

If so, they could go back and find an "unidentified" return signal and follow it. The more I think about it, we collect all the data needed to know exactly what happened to this plane. That, in my mind tells me there is NO excuse for us to not know it's present/final location.

The NSA knows what Merkel had for breakfast but we can't find a huge commercial airliner.

Everyone seems to be a conspiracy theorist on this one, eh?

Yeah, on the surface, the more time that passes, it might appear to be the most likely scenario. On the other hand, just how long are they going to wait to make any demands too.

Just weird but the one I'm actually hoping for if it means some if not all the people didn't die.

Its very strange they couldn't track that plane and even stranger they can't find it yet. There is certainly something they don't want us to know about that flight.

ThePeaceMaker
Good theory, the one thing I can't understand is despite turning off the transponder and everything else, a ground radar would surely still pick up the aircraft would it not ? Legitimate question there

It is possible to literally fly 'under the radar', especially while over large expanses of water. Radars send out radio waves to detect objects in the air, but it can't see things that are too low to the ground as it has to have clear line of sight to the object its tracking. This means that over land, a radar on one side of a large hill for example, wouldnt be able to see an object on the other side as the radio waves cant travel through the hil. Radar is effective for tracking aircraft as they are up in the air with no obstacles between them and the radar. When it comes to tracking over water, radar installations are often positioned on coastlines to make them most effective, but they still have blind spots at low altitute.
At sea level, even if there are no other obstacles in the way (islands etc), radars can only see so far, as the curvature of the earth means that after so many miles the horizon drops away. Radars are also not used to look that low down anyway due to all the maritime traffic etc.

This makes it possible to make an aircraft 'disappear' from radar, although they would have to fly very low (maybe below 1000 feet, possibly lower even that 500 ft). In order to get a 777 down that low and fly it effectively for an extended period of time, you would need a very experienced captian and probably co pilot. I would also say they would need military flying experience to pull something like that off. So, if this is what happened, I would absolutely expect the crew to be in on it.

Even if someone burst into the cockpit and put a gun to your head, one flick of a switch can turn the transponder to an emergency hijack code, so without the hijacker noticing, you can start squalking an emergency code. The only way I can see this not happening is if the pilots intentionally turned the transponder off.

The theory about depressurisation is a valid one (it happened before with an aircraft flying over Greece if I remember correctly), but as you say it would likely have strayed into airspace where they were at least visible to radar. And unconsious pilots cant deactivate transponders.

The thing that really puzzles me is, if this was a hijacking, how would they keep all the passengers under control, as chances are they would eventually realise what was happening and try to do something about it...

Another theory... That new cloaking science was put to use... And they're hidden by it. Heh. It would be insane if this was true too. X.x

reply to post by lightedhype

Unless it was landed on a military controlled runway. Everything else since then has been misdirection as part of the cover up. That's what all the conflicting stories are designed to do: create confusion and disinterest.

reply to post by MystikMushroom

Oh, rest assured, some of the governments know, they just don't want the other children to know what toys they have, so they act dumb and pretend like they haven't a clue.

The US Navy knows 100% what happened (most likely China does too), but they will never ever let that cat out of the bag. Their technology is top secret, classified, need to know information, and it would be illegal to reveal information that reveals those technologies.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Stealthbomber

 

Read the EAD. All 777 operators were warned of cracks that could cause a leak near the SATCOM antenna. Which also happens to be near the GPS, and ADS-b. Comms didn't have to go out at all. They were nearing 35,000 when they disappeared. The crew would already be going slightly hypoxic at least, depending on when the leak started.

Zaphod

We both know hypoxia affects different people at different levels, surely if the first few fell unconscious then other would be alerted and deploy O2 etc etc...?

Secondly if the aircraft was flying for a few hours with everyone unconscious then wouldn't it have been picked up by numerous radar as a strange unknown blip...?

Unless Hollywood has a hijack script going on here in which case the aircraft has been "commandeered" and is somewhere.......

My bet is that is sitting in a Chinese military base somewhere....

PDUK

markymint
Yeah hypoxia crash is an unfortunate likeliness when it comes to crash scenarios, unless someone knows of ways you could disable 100 mobile phones in one quick go? However I would've thought flight crews were better trained about this since the Helios 522 incident some years ago.

The problem is, that in itself wouldn't turn the transponders off. Unless the cracking around this apparent "weak spot" was so intense the whole thing snapped off, and at around the same moment or just minutes before, the hypoxia had kicked in.

But I read that although it was an FAA instruction that their could be a problem, Malaysia Airlines did not have that antenna that had this fault fitted to their 777's. The same as they possibly didn't have the real-time data (for engines etc) setup, because that too is an "optional extra". Someone might want to try and confirm those facts for themselves, I'm not sure I can find the articles again in all the churning news...

I don't want to stoke the fire really...but this is ATS, so I will

I also found Malaysia's involvement (SAR) interesting. Sounded impressive on paper, looked appaulling on camera.

edit on 13-3-2014 by markymint because: (no reason given)

It was obviously "Bob" chasing the sun

reply to post by Elion


That would be nuts.

But hey who knows what was in that checked luggage.

reply to post by daaskapital


I've been saying all along it's in China, but someone argued the fuel was an issue. Guess we can lay that to rest.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cryptonomicon
reply to post by lightedhype

 

Unless it was landed on a military controlled runway. Everything else since then has been misdirection as part of the cover up. That's what all the conflicting stories are designed to do: create confusion and disinterest.

edit on 3/13/2014 by Cryptonomicon because: (no reason given)

If anyone still believes that the US, Malaysia and pretty much every other world government doesn't know where that plane is, they're not paying attention. It took six hours for the Malaysians to report it missing. If anyone believes if this were a real missing plane event, it certainly would not have taken that long to admit it was not going to make it to Beijing. Now if it were still heading toward China during those six hours, but the transponder and normal communications weren't working, then maybe, just maybe they believed there was some kind of electrical problem and that once in Beijing, they would sort it all out. But then that never happened. The plane landed in a different destination in China and at that point they had no choice but to come clean that the plane was "missing" as there were families to deal with and eventually news agencies.

The whole thing is a wild goose chase. Here's the initial report of this incident.

Malaysia Airlines verifying report that missing plane lands in Nanming March 8, 2014 10:51 am Malaysia Airlines are working to verify the authenticity that its flight MH370 that had lost contact with traffic control has reportedly landed in Nanming, Group CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya said Saturday. In his statement, he confirmed that the flight had lost contact with Subang Air Traffic Control at 2.40am, today. It It departed Kuala Lumpur at 12.41 am earlier this morning bound for Beijing. The aircraft was scheduled to land at Beijing International Airport at 6.30am local Beijing time. "We are deeply saddened this morning with the news on MH370. There has been speculation that the aircraft has landed at Nanming. We are working to verify the authenticity of the report and others," he said. He apparently referred to Nanming in China. The flight was carrying a total number of 239 passengers and crew - comprising 227 passengers (including 2 infants), 12 crew members. The passengers were of 14 different nationalities from; China - 152 plus 1 infant, Malaysia - 38, Indonesia - 12, Australia - 7, France - 3, United States of America - 3 pax plus 1 infant, New Zealand - 2, Ukraine - 2, Canada - 2, and one each from Russia, Italy, Taiwan, Netherlands and Austria. The flight was piloted by Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, 53, a Malaysian. He has a total flying hours of 18,365 hours and joined Malaysia Airlines in 1981. First officer, Fariq Ab.Hamid, a Malaysian, 27 and has a total flying hours of 2,763 hours. He joined Malaysia Airlines in 2007. Our focus now is to work with the emergency responders and authorities and mobilize its full support. Our thoughts and prayers are with all affected passengers and crew and their family members, Ahmad said. Latest stories in this category Study of Bahasa Melayu gains popularity in South ahead of AEC Study of Bahasa Melayu gains popularity in South ahead of.. Bahasa Melayu has emerged as a popular choice for.. Thai language fever stirs in Vietnam Study sheds light on school-related gender.. We Recommend Malaysia Airlines verifying report that missing plane lands in Nanming Malaysia Airlines verifying report that missing plane lands.. Malaysia Airlines are working to verify the.. Chinese family makes contact with missing.. Bid to sign up 100,000 democracy guards Comments conditions Users are solely responsible for their comments.We reserve the right to remove any comment and revoke posting rights for any reason withou prior notice.

How could that be made up? Where did Nanming, Guiyang, Guizhou, China come from? I mean there are plenty of places in China, closer to the shore and where an emergency landing could have been claimed to have taken place. This location is inland. Why would someone pick that out of a hat to make up a story?

reply to post by MystikMushroom


How exactly do you track where there is no radar coverage?

reply to post by PurpleDog UK


You mean like with Payne Stewarts LearJet? Or Helios 522?

Helios 522 had multiple pressurization warnings, and all the crew did was call Maintenance and talk to them until they passed out.

How do you know radar DIDN'T pick them up somewhere? Without a transponder code there is no way to know if it was them or not.

reply to post by markymint


Exactly. For all we know the SATCOM antenna weight just made it happen faster. Without some kind of fatigue testing there is no way to know.

reply to post by Bilk22


So now it landed because of a maintenance problem, and what, China decided to grab the tech guys and kill everyone else? And in a few days, what, they'll scatter debris to "find" to make it look like an accident?

Zaphod58
reply to post by Bilk22

 

So now it landed because of a maintenance problem, and what, China decided to grab the tech guys and kill everyone else? And in a few days, what, they'll scatter debris to "find" to make it look like an accident?

Who said it was a maintenance problem? I'm sticking with what I claimed in the other thread. We don't know about any killing so why go there right now? Let's find what happened to the plane first. But the fuel, according to the article, was ample to get them pretty much anywhere in that hemisphere.

reply to post by Bilk22


No, fuel would not have been an issue, they could have gone 2,000 miles, they had plenty to get to Beijing and then some