Malaysia airlines 370 with 239 people on board, 8 March 2014 #25

[redheadedgal]

Very interesting ... so there is a secret way to get into the cockpit. Makes sense. There would need to be a way, in case of emergency.

there are crew bunks above the forward section of the plane... that might have something to do with the method of access -- see "interior"

http://www.dutchops.com/AC_Data/Boeing/Boeing 777/Boeing_772ER.htm

 

[redheadedgal]

I told him my conspiracy theory about the plane being landed on a small island to use in an attack on the Malaysian government in the future. He said that people don't understand that it's almost impossible to hide a 777 without anyone knowing about it. Satellites make it very, very difficult. He also said that with any conspiracy theory there is always a problem with it.

thanks for the info steely.

i too have issues with the various conspiracy theories -- occam's razor and all.

does anyone know how many conspiracy theories (worldwide, since time began) have proven to be true? examples?

 

[2rose]

I do believe the oil rig worker who may have seen a "plane on fire" did see something. This man exists & the story is not spoofed. The problem is that THERE IS NO TIME GIVEN for his observations.

Yes both the time & location are problematic with the oil rig sighting.
In a quote from his later, he did not say he saw a plane crash ...

"From when I first saw the burning (plane) until the flames went out (still at high altitude) was 10-15 seconds.
http://www.news.com.au/world/oil-ri...urst-into-flames/story-fndir2ev-1226853302184

Just because the oil rigger saw "something" burning, does NOT mean he SAW the plane MH370.

He was in Vietnam & 250 miles away from where the plane was at 1:20am MYT ... travelling at 500 mph, it would have taken the plane about a half hour to reach his location (so say 1:50am).
I have seen absolutely nothing indicating MH370 ever entered Vietnam air space.
So one must appreciate that this opinion, so far, has nothing to back it up.

Furthermore if one does accept that MH370 did go more than 200 miles into Vietnam air space, then that means that the same plane would not be able to meet the time frames of the plane flying between the Vampi, Gival & Igrex waypoints, nor the final radar blip on the west coast of Malaysia.

2 unidentified planes at the same time (but hundreds of miles apart)
would definitely be a conspiracy theory

it seems that the climb to +40,000 feet has since been disclaimed.

For me this is a subjective opinion. There exists some data evidence that the plane climbed to 45,000'. Some people have criticized this evidence, noting that Malaysia Airlines did not perform high maintenance to keep the systems fine-tuned & working within certain specifications.

This MAY be true, but the fact remains that the evidence does exist ...
& those who criticize that data cannot produce ANY other data to show
exactly what parameters the MH370 systems may have been functioning within.
Therefore it is a subjective decision ... some people will accept the
available data for a climb to 45,000' while others will reject the climb.

this requires accessing breakers beneath a hatch in the forward portion of the cabin,
in the floor near the place in the galley where meals are prepared.

I don't know why you are saying that ... are you perhaps thinking of an older Boeing plane ?
Earlier in the thread, I posted a video of an actual 777 flight simulation
which showed ACARS being turned off in the cockpit ...
just by pressing a button on the right hand side of the pilot.

You can see both ACARS & the transponder being turned off beginning at
1:22 into this video ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAnTQ0xb0pA

~1:45 AM: a businessman saw a bright white light descending towards the Gulf of Thailand
(South China Sea). This witness was located on the east coast of the Malaysian Peninsula.
The witness thought it might be a descending aircraft, but had questions about the aircraft lights.

I have not heard of this, so could you please provide a link for this information ?

~1:51 AM: the First Officer's cell phone handshakes with a cell tower in Penang, Malaysia
(located about 250 miles west from where the radar transponder stopped working).

I have never seen ANY time mentioned for the phone link up.
so if you have, please do provide an url for that evidence!

But it is confusing because this says that @1:51 MH370 is 250 WEST of
it's 1:20am location ... but when you were talking about the oil rig worker
you were saying that that MH370 was 250 miles NORTH of it's 1:20am location.

At 500 mph, tt would take MH370 about half an hour to travel 250 miles north to Vietnam OR
& it would take MH370 about half an hour to travel 250 miles west to the Penang phone hookup.

Obviously the same plane can be in 2 different locations at the same time.
So some people may accept the oil rigger sighting OR some people will accept
the phone link up ... but they can't both be true.

This same problems continues with the rest of your timeline.
Either the plane was in Vietnam air space at 2am (per oil rig sighting)
OR it was being recorded flying from the east to west coast of Malayia
(per radar blips). For me, a human witness is more likely to be mistaken about
what he saw, rather than a number of different countries radar recordings.

I started keeping a running timeline very early on after the plane's disappearance.
For me, the most glaring ommission on your timeline is the complete absence of
any info after 3am ... because that later info has a bearing on what preceeded it.
Specifically, if the plane was airborne at 8am then it could NOT have crashed earlier.
You seem to be working on the presumption that the plane crashed early on.
In my analysis, I accept what events occurred later & I therefore
understand that it shapes the possible theories of what occurred prior.

2:55 AM: Chinese researchers recorded a seismic event at this time, about 116km northeast of where the transponder radar quit working. It has been proposed that a plane plunging into the sea caused this seismic event. I recognize that this seismic event may be a red herring. The only thing that makes it weakly interesting is that it plays into the oil rig worker's sighting.

So this takes up back to Vietnam again ... MH370 would have arrived at the oil rig location in Vietnam air space at about say 1:45 to 1:55am, so what was the plane doing for an hour between then & 2:55am ? ... just flying in circles ?

Are we supposed to believe that Vietnam military ALSO ignored an unidentified plane like the Thailand military did ?

What I find most ironic about this mystery is that if you proposed that MH-370 simply crashed near-to where it disappeared from transponder radar, you would be a conspiracy theorist. BUT, if you proposed that it WAS a terrorist conspiracy & MH-370 was deliberately flown into the southern Indian Ocean, you WOULD NOT be a conspiracy theorist! It can't get any better than this. You cannot make this stuff up!

You are twisting words Calling the disappearance of MH370, a terrorist act,
is an assumption. The FACT is that a satellite was communicating with THIS plane
up until 8:19am. Other than that, we don't know too much about what really
happened on that plane. As I have said before, you have to keep it clear
in your own mind ... what the FACTS are, is totally separate from what assumptions
different people make & thus what theories they entertain or believe in.

If you want to believe that the plane crashed between 2am to 4am,
then you have to disprove the satellite evidence. I think that will be hard because
satellite technology is quite accepted & becoming more pervasive in our society.
Every day customers pay many dollars to cell phone companies that utilize it.
It is hard for some people to accept that we just do not yet know what happened in
the case of MH370. It seems like all the theories have faults. We need more evidence
... it will certainly be interesting if we ever find out the reality of this situation.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

Yes both the time & location are problematic with the oil rig sighting.
In a quote from his later, he did not say he saw a plane crash ...



Just because the oil rigger saw "something" burning, does NOT mean he SAW the plane MH370.

He was in Vietnam & 250 miles away from where the plane was at 1:20am MYT ... travelling at 500 mph, it would have taken the plane about a half hour to reach his location (so say 1:50am).
I have seen absolutely nothing indicating MH370 ever entered Vietnam air space.
So one must appreciate that this opinion, so far, has nothing to back it up.

Furthermore if one does accept that MH370 did go more than 200 miles into Vietnam air space, then that means that the same plane would not be able to meet the time frames of the plane flying between the Vampi, Gival & Igrex waypoints, nor the final radar blip on the west coast of Malaysia.

2 unidentified planes at the same time (but hundreds of miles apart)
would definitely be a conspiracy theory



For me this is a subjective opinion. There exists some data evidence that the plane climbed to 45,000'. Some people have criticized this evidence, noting that Malaysia Airlines did not perform high maintenance to keep the systems fine-tuned & working within certain specifications.

This MAY be true, but the fact remains that the evidence does exist ...
& those who criticize that data cannot produce ANY other data to show
exactly what parameters the MH370 systems may have been functioning within.
Therefore it is a subjective decision ... some people will accept the
available data for a climb to 45,000' while others will reject the climb.



I don't know why you are saying that ... are you perhaps thinking of an older Boeing plane ?
Earlier in the thread, I posted a video of an actual 777 flight simulation
which showed ACARS being turned off in the cockpit ...
just by pressing a button on the right hand side of the pilot.

You can see both ACARS & the transponder being turned off beginning at
1:22 into this video ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAnTQ0xb0pA



I have not heard of this, so could you please provide a link for this information ?



I have never seen ANY time mentioned for the phone link up.
so if you have, please do provide an url for that evidence!

But it is confusing because this says that @1:51 MH370 is 250 WEST of
it's 1:20am location ... but when you were talking about the oil rig worker
you were saying that that MH370 was 250 miles NORTH of it's 1:20am location.

At 500 mph, tt would take MH370 about half an hour to travel 250 miles north to Vietnam OR
& it would take MH370 about half an hour to travel 250 miles west to the Penang phone hookup.

Obviously the same plane can be in 2 different locations at the same time.
So some people may accept the oil rigger sighting OR some people will accept
the phone link up ... but they can't both be true.

This same problems continues with the rest of your timeline.
Either the plane was in Vietnam air space at 2am (per oil rig sighting)
OR it was being recorded flying from the east to west coast of Malayia
(per radar blips). For me, a human witness is more likely to be mistaken about
what he saw, rather than a number of different countries radar recordings.

I started keeping a running timeline very early on after the plane's disappearance.
For me, the most glaring ommission on your timeline is the complete absence of
any info after 3am ... because that later info has a bearing on what preceeded it.
Specifically, if the plane was airborne at 8am then it could NOT have crashed earlier.
You seem to be working on the presumption that the plane crashed early on.
In my analysis, I accept what events occurred later & I therefore
understand that it shapes the possible theories of what occurred prior.



So this takes up back to Vietnam again ... MH370 would have arrived at the oil rig location in Vietnam air space at about say 1:45 to 1:55am, so what was the plane doing for an hour between then & 2:55am ? ... just flying in circles ?

Are we supposed to believe that Vietnam military ALSO ignored an unidentified plane like the Thailand military did ?



You are twisting words Calling the disappearance of MH370, a terrorist act,
is an assumption. The FACT is that a satellite was communicating with THIS plane
up until 8:19am. Other than that, we don't know too much about what really
happened on that plane. As I have said before, you have to keep it clear
in your own mind ... what the FACTS are, is totally separate from what assumptions
different people make & thus what theories they entertain or believe in.

If you want to believe that the plane crashed between 2am to 4am,
then you have to disprove the satellite evidence. I think that will be hard because
satellite technology is quite accepted & becoming more pervasive in our society.
Every day customers pay many dollars to cell phone companies that utilize it.
It is hard for some people to accept that we just do not yet know what happened in
the case of MH370. It seems like all the theories have faults. We need more evidence
... it will certainly be interesting if we ever find out the reality of this situation.

My opinions only, no facts here:

You say: "2 unidentified planes at the same time (but hundreds of miles apart)
would definitely be a conspiracy theory "

The number of UFO's is not directly relevant. A conspiracy simply involves an act planned by more than one person. If two people planned to hijack MH-370 it IS a conspiracy. If one person accidently fired a missile that downed the plane, it would not be a conspiracy. But if this person was convinced by another person not to report the accident, it would become a conspiracy. Yes there are two radically different witness locations for a UFO that could be MH-370. I personally do not favor the oil rig worker sighting OR the seismic event as evidence that MH-370 continued flying regionally northeast after the transponder radar shut down. But one must keep an open mind. Maybe the oil rig worker saw a missile. I wish we knew the exact time of the oil rig worker sighting. Why is a specific time not reported?
_______________________________________________________
You say: "For me this is a subjective opinion. There exists some data evidence that the plane climbed to 45,000'."

The officials investigating the MH-370 mystery concluded that it did not climb to 45,000 feet (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/06/23/malaysian-radar-was-wrong-about-mh370.html OR http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/i...d-not-do-kamikaze-dive&Itemid=2#axzz36wY9gWKy). But, I agree that nothing is cast in stone here. What are the motives of the sources and the reporters?
_______________________________________________________
Regarding the need to access a floor panel to shut off ACARS, you say: "I don't know why you are saying that ... are you perhaps thinking of an older Boeing plane ?
Earlier in the thread, I posted a video of an actual 777 flight simulation
which showed ACARS being turned off in the cockpit ...
just by pressing a button on the right hand side of the pilot."

In a simulation, yes, but what I gather from the various news stories is that most pilots believe the datalink cannot be cut by simply turning off ACARS from the cockpit, eg. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014...nes-disappearance-insig-idUSBREA2G14020140318. But even if a floor panel in the galley had to be accessed- this is a minor detail. The fact that ACARS can be fully disabled by any deliberate means gives me the creeps.
________________________________________________________
Regarding the 1:45 AM witness sighting, you say: "I have not heard of this, so could you please provide a link for this information ?"

This is fairly widely reported, for example http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/missing-ma...claims-seeing-plane-plunging-into-sea-1439582. I actually made a map months ago that showed witness locations, as well as the location of early-found debris and the oil slick. This made it seem that MH-370 simply crashed into the Gulf of Thailand regionally north-northwest of where the transponder radar shut down. I decided not to post it on Websleuths because there was no further evidence that MH-370 crashed into the Gulf of Thailand.
________________________________________________________
You say: "I have never seen ANY time mentioned for the phone link up."
so if you have, please do provide an url for that evidence!

This is fairly widely reported. For example, http://fox4kc.com/2014/04/14/u-s-official-mh370-co-pilots-cell-phone-was-on-at-time-plane-vanished/. This report says that the First Officer's phone contacted the cell tower roughly 30 minutes after the plane turned west. The plane turned west at 1:21 AM. Add 30 minutes and you get 1:51 AM.
________________________________________________________
You say: "This same problems continues with the rest of your timeline.
Either the plane was in Vietnam air space at 2am (per oil rig sighting)
OR it was being recorded flying from the east to west coast of Malayia
(per radar blips). For me, a human witness is more likely to be mistaken about
what he saw, rather than a number of different countries radar recordings."

You are overlooking the purpose of a timeline. A timeline simply records events and times. It does not prove associations or make predictions; that is up to the readers. Various witnesses do not have to be seeing the same UFO. A timeline is what it is, and nothing more.
_________________________________________________________
Lastly, the only reason my timeline ends at 2:55 AM is because it is a 'partial timeline', as stated in the first sentence of my post.

I hope there are some useful tidbits for you here.

Sleuth On!

 

[Insp.Gadget]

:websleuther: Some recent MSM news
The Examiner (Tasmanian Newspaper) published this
on the July 4, 2014: "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370: Missing plane to remain in conspiracy theory limbo"...
http://www.examiner.com/article/mal...ssing-plane-to-remain-conspiracy-theory-limbo

 

[Insp.Gadget]

Was this reported in Western MSM or only reported by Media like
Asiaone.com and Emirates247.com ?

"MH370: We didn't know he made a call, says pilot's brother...
Brother to missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 the first officer Fariq Abdul Hamid said
he did not know who Fariq could have been trying to contact when it flew over Penang the night it disappeared,
and added that none of his family members were told of it by the authorities."
http://news.asiaone.com/news/malaysia/mh370-we-didnt-know-he-made-call-says-pilots-brother
http://www.emirates247.com/news/mis...ot-s-phone-on-did-he-dial-2014-04-15-1.545328

 

[Insp.Gadget]

more on that phone call...
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/259814
"According to this source, the phone reconnected to the network
somewhere between Waypoint Igari, off the coast of Terengganu,
where air traffic controllers lost contact with the aircraft, and a location near Penang.
However, he says this does not necessarily mean that a call was made, but only that the phone was switched on.
Malaysiakini has contacted inspector-general of police Khalid Abu Bakar on the veracity of this morning’s
report and is awaiting a response."

 

[Insp.Gadget]

"Boeing and Rolls-Royce, which supplied the engines for the twin-jet, have not
made any public statements about the lost aircraft although it is understood that
they are cooperating with US air safety investigators."
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/
article/putrajaya-now-lashes-at-boeing-rolls-royce-as-mh370-search-remains-fruitles#sthash.c0sNxAfs.dpuf



"one of the few facts that does not appear to be in dispute is that the Rolls-Royce engines on the Boeing BA -0.32% 777 had an engine monitoring system."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngog...uld-help-malaysia-air-370-crash-investigtors/

 

[Insp.Gadget]

More info on Rolls-Royce engine monitoring system:
http://www.rolls-royce.com/about/technology/systems_tech/monitoring_systems.jsp

Boeing AERO — Monitoring Real-Time Environmental Performance
Through timely and streamlined identification and diagnosis of issues, Airplane Health Management (AHM):
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_03_09/article_07_1.html

 

[Rhyolite]

My opinions only, no facts here:

Before I show a crude partial timeline, remember that I do believe the oil rig worker who may have seen a "plane on fire" did see something. This man exists and the story is not spoofed. The problem is that THERE IS NO TIME GIVEN for his observations. In addition, it seems that the climb to +40,000 feet has since been disclaimed. Normally my timelines take hundreds of hours (Holly Bobo, McStay Family, Michelle Parker) to create and edit. This partial timeline represents only several hours of work and thus may contain simple errors/oversights and is only for the purposes of seeing if anything jumps out at me. I am thinking-out-loud in other words.
______________________________________

12:41 AM local time: MH-370 takes off.

1:19 AM: the First Officer signs off normally from Malaysian airspace.

Between 1:07 and 1:37 AM: engine health messaging via ACARS stopped working; if intentional, this requires accessing breakers beneath a hatch in the forward portion of the cabin, in the floor near the place in the galley where meals are prepared. Since meals are prepared about 40 minutes into flight, this hatch could have been blocked by beverage and food carts and crew traffic by 1:21 AM. If this is a terrorist event, and IF the cabin passengers and crew were not already silenced, it seems likely that the hatch was accessed prior to 1:21 AM, before meal preparations would have normally began.

~1:20 AM: Eight villagers on the east coast of the Malaysian Peninsula heard loud and unusual noises, similar to a jet engine. They could not see any object. I recognize that the time of this event is likely several minutes too early. However, the timing was just an estimate to begin with.

1:21 AM: the transponder radar quit working at cruising altitude (35,000 feet). This was 90 miles east of Malaysia, near the navigational waypoint "Igari".

?1:21 AM ? to ?2:51 AM?: regarding the oil rig worker who saw an aircraft that may have been on fire, etc., NO TIME WAS EVER GIVEN for this observation. My large range for this event covers the various estimates I have seen. All I can say with comfort is that this witness sighting was during or after MH-370 disappeared from transponder radar, and on the same morning.

Just after 1:21 AM: military primary radar indicates that MH-370 turned west, heading towards a navigational waypoint called "Vampi". From there it flew towards waypoint "Gival" south of Phuket Island. Stories that the plane climbed to 45,000 feet seem to have been discredited. The plane may have descended to an altitude of 4000 to 5000 feet, supporting the observations of some ground witnesses on the Malaysian Peninsula. Remember though, even a nominally-experienced airman would know that descending to this altitude would not even begin to hide it from many military primary radar sites.

1:28 AM: Thailand military radar detected a UFO flying opposite the official route direction of MH-370, and back towards the airport of origin. The UFO later turned west towards Butterworth, a city along the Malacca Strait. At some point, the UFO may have descended too low to be further tracked by Thailand military radar?

~1:30 AM: two fishermen located near the Malaysian-Thailand border of the Peninsula saw a jetliner flying low. I judge that this jetliner was still over the Gulf of Thailand, if barely.

~1:45 AM: a businessman saw a bright white light descending towards the Gulf of Thailand (South China Sea). This witness was located on the east coast of the Malaysian Peninsula. The witness thought it might be a descending aircraft, but had questions about the aircraft lights.

~1:51 AM: the First Officer's cell phone handshakes with a cell tower in Penang, Malaysia (located about 250 miles west from where the radar transponder stopped working). This successful handshake could support that the plane was at a lower altitude AND heading westward. The lack of other device handshakes from the plane (those passenger and cabin crew devices left on by accident or purpose) is a conundrum. I have previously questioned whether this event actually occurred.

before 2:11 AM: A plane-wide power outage occurred, cutting power to all but the engines. Note that this would not render the plane invisible to military primary radar. It would serve no sensible purpose to an educated airman. The event seems nonsensical at first-glance.

2:15 AM: a UFO that could be MH-370 was last located by Malaysian military radar 200 miles NW of Penang Island, in the Malacca Strait. At this time, the plane seemed to be pointed towards waypoint "Igrex", which would take it over the Andaman Islands. Note that even the officials are cautious about claiming that this was MH-370. Also, I have seen claimed times as late as 2:40 to 2:45 AM for this event. If the later timing is true, then it becomes important to compare this information with the Inmarsat data interpretation.

2:55 AM: Chinese researchers recorded a seismic event at this time, about 116 km northeast of where the transponder radar quit working. It has been proposed that a plane plunging into the sea caused this seismic event. I recognize that this seismic event may be a red herring. The only thing that makes it weakly interesting is that it plays into the oil rig worker's sighting.
_________________________________________

My first impression from this crude timeline is that the ground witnesses in Malaysia ARE relevant and their stories (published VERY EARLY on) are seemingly consistent with independent measurements of the paths and altitudes of MH-370. My second impression is that there was a very short time (around 9 minutes or less) between the failure of the transponder radar and the plane turning west and descending out of 35,000 feet to around 5000 feet. Now, if your goal is to silence the passengers and cabin crew via oxygen deprivation, you DO NOT DESCEND. Also, depressurization takes time AND the cabin crew can utilize their portable oxygen bottles even if the cabin becomes depressurized AND oxygen flow to passenger drop-down masks is somehow disabled. I assume that agreement is almost universal that if MH-370 was hijacked by simply locking the flimsy cockpit door, a couple hundred panicked passengers and crew would have broken into the cockpit in seven hours time. Probably within an hour or much less. Plus there would have been many attempted/successful cell phone calls/texts in the meantime. In order for the hijack scenario to make any sense, most or all of the passengers and crew in the cabin had to be silenced well before MH-370 turned west and crossed the Malaysian Peninsula. So, if this is a terrorist action, the cabin may have been set to decompress and oxygen to the masks disabled around/before the time of take-off. By the time that ACARS was disabled via the cabin floor-panel (maybe well before 1:37 AM), all people in the cabin may have already been silenced. It could be the perfect crime- gradually disable everybody in the cabin during the routine climb to 35,000 feet- and you own the plane! This is the one time period when even the cabin crew might not become aware of the oxygen situation and eventually succumb. It is not even clear to me if the oxygen masks would drop-down in this gradual situation. I hope that this scenario is impossible, because if it were possible, it could be played out again and again. I mean to say- can someone in the cockpit actually perform this action (deprive the passengers and crew of any access to normal cabin oxygen, even via the drop-down masks, during climb to cruising altitude)? If so, something is very wrong with current security arrangements.

Are there logical arguments against this terrorist scenario? Yes. First, it is not clear how oxygen availability to the cockpit during the long climb to cruising altitude would be affected by decompressing the cabin. It is not clear that supplemental oxygen available to the member(s) of the cockpit would be sufficient to pull this off. To conduct the first part of the operation (silencing everybody in the cabin during takeoff and ascent to cruising altitude), you have to be very sophisticated in your planning. Yet, we are talking about the same plane that supposedly later descended to 5000 feet or less AND shut off all power (except to the engines), even though neither of these exercises serve any sensible purpose regarding military primary radar detection (these actions seem rather unsophisticated). Lastly, the supposed handshake between the First Officer's cell phone and tower could not have occurred, as reported. If this handshake did occur between the aircraft and the ground, it presents serious logical problems to almost any scenario and the crash likely occurred before this supposed event.

Look, I myself do not prefer the terrorist angle, so I am not taking sides, but here I am telling you how a terrorist action could have been successfully pulled-off and what the constraints are. I personally would prefer to see a crash in the Gulf of Thailand or the easternmost Malacca Strait, as a result of catastrophic failure, even an accidental or defensive missile strike. But there is little or no physical evidence to support my own opinions.

What I find most ironic about this mystery is that if you proposed that MH-370 simply crashed near-to where it disappeared from transponder radar, you would be a conspiracy theorist. BUT, if you proposed that it WAS a terrorist conspiracy and MH-370 was deliberately flown into the southern Indian Ocean, you WOULD NOT be a conspiracy theorist! It can't get any better than this. You cannot make this stuff up!

Sleuth On!

Noatak

1) Excellent post an timeline. Please post it on your WS Blog page for future reference and refinements.

2) Regarding 2:55AM The Chinese seismic stations that recorded the event are only two. The event was not triangulated by three stations. This means that the event initially believed to be in the Gulf of Thailand has an ambiguity. I estimated that the event could have as likely occurred near the west coast of Sumatra at coordinates 3°42'17.45"N, 96°37'1.25"E Padang Panjang is an airstrip close by and also, across the Malacca Strait is the Langkawi International airport which has been mentioned (By pilot Chris Goodfellow) as a possible destination and the airstrip is roughly in favor of this route.

Adding more confusion:

3) There were sightings reported in Maldives along with the discovery of a fire bottle on a local beach. This object has been dismissed as a component of a SCBA rebreather, however if one looks closely there is an explosive squib on the neck of the bottle. Why these findings have been ignored/suppressed is a mystery.

4) The INMARSAT data in my belief is a red herring. There are too many assumptions and variables that can affect the calculations. One is BFO Bias. The assumption is that the BFO frequency of the SDU remained constant. My theory is that the plane experienced a fire, a decompression, or a fire followed by decompression. All of which could have affected the temperature of the fuselage and driven the SDU beyond normal operating temps, perhaps causing the 2:11 AM "power outage" which could simply have been the SDU resetting or drifting back on to frequency.

5) The 7 hours of INMARSAT pings are a mystery, if the SDU requires engine, APU or RAM air power to operate, this pushes the crash well beyond 2:55AM. Initially my though was that the SDU had a battery back up and could operate after a ditching. Maybe on APU, but not if a seismic event.

Maybe the plane flew past the Maldives, the INMARSAT pings simply indicative of the end of flight and nothing more. I agree this was not a terrorist action, It was a fire most likely.

 

[2rose]

You say: "For me this is a subjective opinion. There exists some data evidence that the plane climbed to 45,000'."

The officials investigating the MH-370 mystery concluded that it did not climb to 45,000 feet

As I preiously mentioned, those who contradicted the climb to 45,000 feet gave their OPINION.
I analyzed that opinion, applied some logic to it & found these faults with it:
- they want us to discard the evidentiary DATA & give credit to their OPINION
- they provide NO proof whatsoever for this opinion contradicting the hard data
- they provide no accurate numbers to replace the DATA on hand
- in wanting us to believe that the mechanical systems were inaccurate at the moment WHEN the plane climbed to 45,000 feet, what are they saying about the data produced by the same mechanical systems between plane take off & 1:20am ...

In their opinion, which of the following 2 scenarios is the truth ? ...

1) the plane provided accurate data after take off when the plane initially climbed to 35,000 feet & flew for an hour at that altitude ... then suddenly for some unknown, unspecified, unstated reason the plane provided false data about a climb to 45,000 feet.

OR

2) the plane was equipped with faulty mechanical systems that provided INACCURATE altitude data during the ENTIRE flight on 8 March 2014 ... therefore it was an unsafe aircraft that could have collided at any time with any other planes flying at that unknown altitude. This would also infer that the plane's most recent flights had also been hazardous & a threat to aviation safety.

For me to accept their OPINION, I would need a reasonable explanation (hopefully with some evidence) outlining the reason why they want me to believe that the initial climb to 35,000 was accurate & the following climb to 45,000 was inaccurate. Given this info was not forthcoming, I choose to rely on the evidentiary DATA on hand provided by the aircraft systems, rather than an unsubstantiated, unproven opinion of someone who was not on the plane & thus has NO first hand evidence. Theirs is an opinion that I listen to & will remember ... but I do NOT accept it blindly as proof of anything. Their second hand opinion does not cause me to totally reject the first hand data produced by the aircraft itself.

Regarding the need to access a floor panel to shut off ACARS ... what I gather from the various news stories is that most pilots believe the datalink cannot be cut by simply turning off ACARS from the cockpit

Well perhaps some people here might want to reconsider "what they gather" from various news stories ... let us examine the article you reference which you want me to accept as "proof" that the MH370 pilot had to go below to turn off ACARS. Here is a quote from that very article which conflicts with what you say ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014...nes-disappearance-insig-idUSBREA2G14020140318
said some of the six pilots contacted by Reuters, none of whom agreed to be named ... Most pilots said it would be impossible to turn off ACARS from inside the cockpit, although two people did not rule it out.

I analyze what I read & there is obviously some question here about the veracity of the floor panel statment. There appears to be varying knowledge levels among the 6 "expert" pilots that were consulted.

So as I mentioned in my previous message ...
I question the credentials of these unknown "expert" pilots ...
Do these these pilots have actual experience with the Boeing 777 commercial jetliner ?
OR were they pilots of older planes built to a different configuration ?

Furthermore, When I analyze that statement, I realize that there will only be a smaller percentage of total world pilots who have actual experience with a 777 jetliner. Most pilots will be talking about their experience with different & types of planes - both models & manufacturers.

Since your article states that 2/6 of the "expert" pilots consulted knew ACARS could be turned off in the cockpit. AND that agrees with what I witnessed in the 777 flight simulator then those 2 statements seem more credible to me than the other 4 pilots who disagree.

The whole point of a flight simulator is to SIMULATE the REAL experience.
The video I used for my reference is the ONLY 777 flight simulator in Australia.
So it doesn't sound like there are a lot of them around ...
that makes me think that a lot of pilots are probably talking about their
experiences on older Boeing models, or worse. on other manufacturer's planes
... this would be info that just doesn't help clarify the MH370 incident.

You are overlooking the purpose of a timeline ... A timeline simply records events & times.

YET in your previous message you stated ...

for the purposes of seeing if anything jumps out at me

Well that is exactly what I shared with you ... the contradictions that jumped out at me

I am sure that there are many people who believe the oil rigger who saw MH370
AND the co-pilot's phone link are both events that actually occurred.
But if these people analyzed a proper timeline, they would see that both of these events
can NOT be true for MH370, BECAUSE the timing does NOT allow for it. THIS is when a timeline becomes something more than a mere list in a news report & it turns into a useful tool for detectives analyzing a case & working towards a resolution of it. Are we not trying to sleuth out facts here ?

the only reason my timeline ends at 2:55 AM is because it is a 'partial timeline', as stated in the first sentence of my post.

As I tried to explain to you in my last message,
the later events have a direct affect on the early timeline entries.

As I previously mentioned, I have kept a running timeline of events since this incident began.
I do not merely keep a list for decorative purposes ... I use my timeline as a tool to analyze the case.
It helps me to draw logical assumptions & see where time conflicts indicate that some events
are in fact unrelated to the case at hand.

For me, It makes no sense to talk about an early crashed airplane near Vietnam or Thailand
when the WHOLE timeline shows that the plane was still flying 5 hours later.
Since I am trying to figure out what happened to MH370 ... I focus my time & efforts
on real possibilities ... instead of the impossibile scenarios.

Properly understanding the sequence of events surrounding this unprecedented plane disappearance
is KEY to grasping the motives of the possible suspects involved & thus case resolution.

This report says that the First Officer's phone contacted the cell tower roughly 30 minutes after the plane turned west. The plane turned west at 1:21 AM. Add 30 minutes and you get 1:51 AM.

Ahhh ... I already had the journalist's approximate time ...
but when you mentioned times that were not rounded off, it looked like you had an actual source for an accurate time, so that was what I was asking for. So I guess we have different standards of proof.

I accept Inmarsat's satellite data as proof that MH370 was airborne at 8am
... yet you reject it, preferring to believe the plane crashed hours earlier.

I reject a journalist's approximate time from an unspecified source
for the co-pilot's phone link ... yet you accept is as proof for your timeline.

Since we seem to be far apart on basic standards of what constitues valid proof,
I will end our conversation & wish you good luck with your investigation attempts

---

Instead of repeating 3 month old news stories, I had hoped that now, at 4 months later, we had moved forward into analysis of the available information, in order to formulate working theories regarding MH370. Perhaps I am getting tired of not moving forward here & will take a break now

 

[2rose]

I just went to check the sailor's forum & found that the thread has just been closed
... in response to a new member's slanderous post that was made yesterday.
So sadly, we have lost a direct connection to the MH370 case
We no longer have public access to her further input,
nor her posted responses from the Australian JACC.

 

[Rhyolite]

I just went to check the sailor's forum & found that the thread has just been closed
in response to a new member's slanderous post that was made yesterday.
So sadly, we have lost a direct connection to the MH370 case
We no longer have public access to her further input,
nor her posted responses from the Australian JACC.

Too bad as her observed report though delayed, adds credence to the oil rig operators observations (AND OTHERS). Too bad some folks are so stupid they have to slander someone for reporting facts simply because they disbelieve them.

 

[SouthAussie]

I wonder if she closed her thread partly due to this scam that we are being warned about .....

Readers are being warned against a survey scam that preys on people's interest behind the mystery surrounding the missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370.

The survey scam comes in a video titled: Malaysian Air Flight MH-370 Found By Sailor; with the subtitle Mystery is solved - Sailor Rewarded $5 Million on spot.

The scam is masked as 'news' article that uses an image of an aircraft submerged in water. The image used is actually a photo of the US Airways Flight 1549 that crashed in Hudson River in January 2009. The photo was evidently filched from legit news articles.

Official news and legit updates regarding the missing MH370 shall come from search authorities tasked at finding the airplane such as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/558522/20140709/mh370-found-sailor-update.htm#.U73ZCPmSweg

 

[2rose]

I wonder if she closed her thread partly due to this scam that we are being warned about .....

No, I saw the slanderous message & it had nothing to do with that scam.
And the sailor didn't close it ... it was closed by some kind of forum authority
... but it didn't sound like the regular forum moderator..

 

[Mr. Noatak]

Noatak

1) Excellent post an timeline. Please post it on your WS Blog page for future reference and refinements.

2) Regarding 2:55AM The Chinese seismic stations that recorded the event are only two. The event was not triangulated by three stations. This means that the event initially believed to be in the Gulf of Thailand has an ambiguity. I estimated that the event could have as likely occurred near the west coast of Sumatra at coordinates 3°42'17.45"N, 96°37'1.25"E Padang Panjang is an airstrip close by and also, across the Malacca Strait is the Langkawi International airport which has been mentioned (By pilot Chris Goodfellow) as a possible destination and the airstrip is roughly in favor of this route.

Adding more confusion:

3) There were sightings reported in Maldives along with the discovery of a fire bottle on a local beach. This object has been dismissed as a component of a SCBA rebreather, however if one looks closely there is an explosive squib on the neck of the bottle. Why these findings have been ignored/suppressed is a mystery.

4) The INMARSAT data in my belief is a red herring. There are too many assumptions and variables that can affect the calculations. One is BFO Bias. The assumption is that the BFO frequency of the SDU remained constant. My theory is that the plane experienced a fire, a decompression, or a fire followed by decompression. All of which could have affected the temperature of the fuselage and driven the SDU beyond normal operating temps, perhaps causing the 2:11 AM "power outage" which could simply have been the SDU resetting or drifting back on to frequency.

5) The 7 hours of INMARSAT pings are a mystery, if the SDU requires engine, APU or RAM air power to operate, this pushes the crash well beyond 2:55AM. Initially my though was that the SDU had a battery back up and could operate after a ditching. Maybe on APU, but not if a seismic event.

Maybe the plane flew past the Maldives, the INMARSAT pings simply indicative of the end of flight and nothing more. I agree this was not a terrorist action, It was a fire most likely.

My opinions only, no facts here:

Thanks for the tip about the rebreather component. I have extensively studied the Maldives Finest news photos, and modeled the "fire bottle" object in three dimensions. I need to post my latest images of the possible fire bottle. I have permission from Maldives Finest to use their photos of the mystery object for this purpose.

I have no problem with MH-370 traveling west towards the Maldives. I do not even have a problem with a stationary plane on the ground emitting the last four or five Inmarsat pings.

The Inmarsat pings are like a ball-and-chain. I want to move in many different directions on the MH-370 mystery and keep an open mind, but I have to drag that iron ball with me where ever I attempt to go. I have no problem questioning the analysis of the pings and I have posted about this subject before. It is the presence of the pings themself that bugs me. And for good reason. Either MH-370 had some type of catastrophic failure OR it was hijacked by terrorists. Typically, neither of these scenarios results in a plane flying for seven hours. OK, there is Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 in 1996 which was hijacked and flown until it ran out of fuel. But it was hijacked by a couple of drunk passengers who wanted to go to Australia and forced the pilots to keep flying. This type of situational nonsense was before reinforced cockpit doors, and before everybody on-board was aware that you must subdue irate passengers, and before everybody was wired to the WWW and had cell phones. The MH-370 situation resembles a novel with an impossible premise; that it is possible in 2014 to make a large jet and hundreds of passengers and crew disappear without a physical trace. Without a phone call or text. Without debris on ocean or land. Without a suspected terrorist on-board. Without any radio warning or distress call from the cockpit.

Accidental or defensive missile strikes, on-board explosions, or catastrophic air-frame failure silences every one and their devices at the same time. But, because of the Inmarsat pings, I cannot contemplate this. Right?

Maybe THE TRUTH is what actually disappeared, and we are left floundering in a sea of misinformation/misinterpretation (with a ball and chain attached!).

Sleuth On!

 

[2rose]

The Inmarsat pings are like a ball-and-chain ...
Maybe THE TRUTH is what actually disappeared, and we are left floundering in a sea of misinformation/misinterpretation (with a ball and chain attached!).

What you are calling your "ball & chain" is the TRUTH.
Everyone in the world that understands the technology of satellite
communication systems (whether a respected scientist or a layperson)
accepts the evidence that between the hours of 3-8am on 8 March 2014
an airborne plane identifying itself as MH370 was communicating.
Furthermore, the Australian ground station was facilitating
this very communication between the plane & Inmarsat.
It is hard to understand why you think or desire people to ignore this TRUTH.
Most people understand that ignoring the truth, is no way to reach a solution to a problem.

 

[PrairieWind]

What you are calling your "ball & chain" is the TRUTH.
Everyone in the world that understands the technology of satellite
communication systems (whether a respected scientist or a layperson)
accepts the evidence that between the hours of 3-8am on 8 March 2014
an airborne plane identifying itself as MH370 was communicating.
Furthermore, the Australian ground station was facilitating
this very communication between the plane & Inmarsat.
It is hard to understand why you think or desire people to ignore this TRUTH.
Most people understand that ignoring the truth, is no way to reach a solution to a problem.

I don't think the intent was to deny the truth. I think the intent was that you are free to come up with lots of various theories that fit various aspects of the evidence, but what ever theory you use, you have to drag "the ball and chain" of the pings with you, meaning that theory must account for those pings. Many of the theories out there do not.

 

[PrairieWind]

Yes they could have pushed those buttons and turned those knobs, but there is no proof that any communications were "switched off". There was just as likely a fire and the crew turned back and started running the checklist and succumbed to smoke inhalation.

A plane on fire is crippled,

Actually, if I remember correctly, Boeing indicated early on that it appeared that the transponder was "switched" off as opposed to be being cut off from power. But I don't remember where I saw that.

 

[2rose]

Here is news story of a man named Donald Elliott @58 who comes from a good
background, being the son of a late prominent plastic surgeon in Albany, NY.
He himself has 37 years experience in aerial photography.
He spent countless hours analyzing the Tomnod satellite photographs.
In those photos, he professes to have found MH370 sinking
at about 4 degrees latitude & 90 degrees East longitude ...
which would be up in the area before the plane went on its southern line.
He further professes to see over 100 of those passengers sitting & standing
while floating on debris. He claims to see that as late as 16 March 2014 some of those
living passengers are being attacked by sharks as they float all the way down to Australia.

Don Elliott is very adamant about his findings & so passionate about wanting to help,
that he is contacted numerous media outlets, the FBI & even the USA White House.
But Don Elliott is very frustrated because he has not met with much co-operation.

Other people look at the pictures he brings forth & all they see is white dots.
What could possibly make Don see more than that ?
Perhaps it has something to do with a traumatic event he experienced
2 years prior, in a scuba diving episode in Belize, Central America.
Being in the boat above, Don panicked when he saw
sharks circling a few feet away from his son @24 who died.

news story ...
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Capital-Region-man-believes-he-located-lost-5470059.php

2 of his videos called "MH370 Truth Based on Facts" ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02b_BkduJ58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENIlK-VK2rA

His webpage called "MH370 Truth" ...
http://www.dwestudios.com/MH370passengers/MH370Truth.htm

Here is his Tomnod photo of passengers floating around the plane ...