Malaysia airlines plane may have crashed 239 people on board #16

[Nymeria]

As advanced as we think we are with science and all, we just AREN'T. Computers aren't even a century old; personal computers are only a few decades old; cell phone technology is even less.

Grounding isn't it?

:waitasec:

TartLemon, were you watching Bill Nye too?

Bill! :loveyou: ....Bill! :loveyou:: ....Bill! :loveyou:

 

[aa9511]

BBM - exactly. Would there be any other way they could justify that flight path unless Indonesia either verified they saw it or said something like, it could have gone over and we missed it. Even if the plane went over Indonesia, it had to make some strange flight path, with a severe 180 turn (and then arc tot he West, it looks). If not, it had to make a big arc over the ocean and somehow miss Indonesian shores by quite a ways (or they didn't pic it up closer to their shore).

I am still waiting for one complete map of the entire flight path. I get really agitated that they show it flying back across Malaysia (not including all the waypoints) and then half way through that, Shazam, Batman!, we have magically been transported across great distances and are flying that Southern arc.

Someone asked this question recently.... wouldn't the entire flight make a difference in whether there was enough fuel to get that far? I'd at least like to hear some scientific analysis of that now that we know what is being claimed as truth.

Shazam, Batman! indeed. I am also having the same issues and questions.

Yes, I agree totally that the plane would have had to make a very odd turn. Then it either went over Indonesia and Indonesia didn't catch it, or Indonesia caught it but took no action.

Or, like you said, it would have to toe-the-ATC-line, going around Indonesia. It could have done that, since it somehow managed to toe-the-ATC-line in Malayisa. So it could very well be that they did this AGAIN to avoid detection. However, then would it have enough fuel to make it all the way to the 8:11 satellite ping??

Yes, so many questions left.

JMO.

 

[Hatfield]

You have to remember this is a country not used to being questioned by a free and open press (and neither is china for that matter, doubt they would have been more forthcoming).

They stumbled out of the gate by denying some things at first that were leaked from sources and then after deciding it could be released turning around on that. but i see that as just a natural reaction to a country that keeps negative things out of the press as much as possible.

IMO they have opened up considerably after getting used to the fact that they need to share something with the public. Perhaps it was a matter of getting permission from on high to open up

I totally agree.

When watching their officials standing off to the side and watching how the speakers were carefully choosing their words and looking afraid of saying too much, it is obvious that free flowing communication is something new to them and perhaps not even allowed. It was sad and painful to watch.

This is the sort of thing that makes one feel very lucky to live in free and open countries of which there are many still in the world.

 

[SilkySifaka]

In the interviews, Inmarsat Executive Vice President Chris McLaughlin freely discussed some of the central unresolved issues of the investigation.

snip

In the U.S., Mr. McLaughlin's comments would have led to his and his company's immediate removal from any NTSB investigation, according to the board's procedures and rules. The U.K. and many other countries have similarly strict rules.

http://online.wsj.com/news/article_...4579460171057002290-lMyQjAxMTA0MDIwNTEyNDUyWj

Well isn't that nice to know. People who come up with the biggest and most vital piece of evidence so far would be removed from the investigation. I remember that he said that at first they were not even a party to the investigation and therefore did nothing more but once they asked for more help they came up with the solution that we have discussed After hearing what you quoted all i can say is thank god the U.S. and Britain were not the lead investigators.

 

[time]

You have to remember this is a country not used to being questioned by a free and open press (and neither is china for that matter, doubt they would have been more forthcoming).

They stumbled out of the gate by denying some things at first that were leaked from sources and then after deciding it could be released turning around on that. but i see that as just a natural reaction to a country that keeps negative things out of the press as much as possible.

IMO they have opened up considerably after getting used to the fact that they need to share something with the public. Perhaps it was a matter of getting permission from on high to open up

I agree for the most part except I don't think it has all just been denial. The press in Malaysia does question many things although I don't know if it is completely free and open. Malaysia claims to be a democracy. However, I do not think the government in place feels they have to be completely democratic. As far as a 'natural reaction', well, maybe yes because that is what they have gotten away with but they know better.

 

[Boodles]

No Links. In order for them to come out and say that the plane is in the Ocean and the people are dead because they've seen satellite images, obviously this would mean that they have some sort of technology that allows them to draw this conclusion.

So when the agent said this, I guess he is saying that either they are making a potentially false/inaccurate statement OR they have some sort of satellite technology that has allowed them to draw conclusions that normally cannot be drawn from satellite alone.

The conclusion was drawn from Inmarsat (satellite) data. It wasn't based on images of items in the ocean.

 

[Momoffourboys]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/world/asia/malaysia-flight-370.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0


“We are not searching for a needle in a haystack — we are still trying to define where the haystack is,” he told reporters at Pearce Air Force Base, near Perth.

 

[SilkySifaka]

Well isn't that nice to know. People who come up with the biggest and most vital piece of evidence so far would be removed from the investigation. I remember that he said that at first they were not even a party to the investigation and therefore did nothing more but once they asked for more help they came up with the solution that we have discussed After hearing what you quoted all i can say is thank god the U.S. and Britain were not the lead investigators.

and so much for a free and open press even in north america or britain. Something to remember for the next plane crash that might have the ntsb as lead.

 

[TartLemon]

TartLemon, were you watching Bill Nye too?

Bill! :loveyou: ....Bill! :loveyou:: ....Bill! :loveyou:

:loveyou::loveyou: Yep! I've always been a geek. Actually, I wrote the post a few minutes before I watched him. I was thinking about the Voyager spacecrafts leaving the solar system. Outside the heliosheath of our sun. No longer feeling any winds or gravitational force from out sun. To the Voyager, we are living around just another star in the Universe.

:sigh::abduction::sigh:

 

[JerseyGirl]

You have to remember this is a country not used to being questioned by a free and open press (and neither is china for that matter, doubt they would have been more forthcoming).

Supposedly, it's ok to protest against Malaysia or Japan in China, you just don't protest against China in China ... about anything.

----

Tuesday's demonstration at the embassy was unusual for China, where authorities typically clamp down firmly on spontaneous public gatherings that have no prior permission, especially those with any potential to escalate into anti-government protests.

The government's acquiescence Tuesday shows a double standard on people's right to assembly, said Beijing lawyer Zhang Qingfang, who represented a prominent activist convicted of disrupting public order after he organized small peaceful rallies demanding education equity and cleaner government.

"... as long as it's directed at the Japanese government or the Malaysian government, it is OK, but it shall not be tolerated if it's directed at the Chinese government even if the demands are reasonable," Zhang said. "We still agree the family members have every right and freedom to express themselves, but it is a shame for the government to have such double standards," he said.

<modsnip>

http://www.kgw.com/news/malaysian-airliner-crash-protests-252235051.html

 

[ToutCa]

The Malaysian government and Malaysia Airlines definitely did not present a global model for PR or crisis management in their actions after the disappearance of MH-370.

Still, many aspects of this crisis have been incorrectly attributed to Malaysia -- and are in fact entirely typical of airline disasters.

This becomes clear when you look at the similarities of this incident to the 2009 crash of Air France 447, another plane that vanished out over the ocean off radar without issuing any radio distress call.

ATC slow to react and report: AF 447 leaves Brazil ATC June 1 at 1:33am GMT, due in Senegal ATC 2:20am. Nothing. Senegal ATC doesn't react and attempt to reach AF 447 until 4am.

Airline slow to react: Air France does not confirm AF 447 missing until 10:36AM GMT, over 8 hours after it failed to arrive in Senegal ATC zone.

Government and airline announce loss of plane, no survivors BEFORE ANY debris recovered: By the evening of June 1, the day of the crash, French cabinet ministers, the French President, and Air France had each stated publicly AF 447 had crashed with no survivors. At the time, there was no radar track, no debris, and no proof of where the plane had gone.

Lengthy delay before any plane debris recovered: It took 5 days for searchers to find the first debris from AF 447 (June 6). This is a plane that (it was later learned) flew off course only for its final 4 minutes of flight. It SHOULD take longer to find MH-370, which flew off course for at least 7.5 hours, 6.5 of them off any radar.

Extremely lengthy delay to find black boxes, identify crash cause: It took 2 years to find and recover the black boxes of AF 447. Until they were reviewed, the cause of the crash was a mystery.

In the case of AF-447 (as the excellent Air Crash Investigation documentary video of the accident shows below), it turned out that, as is often the case in air disasters, a chain of multiple errors caused the disaster (a pilot's incorrect reaction to a sensor failure led to a sudden cascade of mushrooming problems). The cause of MH-370's disappearance will likewise probably be a mystery for some time.

AF-447 documentary:

Air Crash Investigation S12E13 Air France Flight 447 Crash. - YouTube

 

[Wanting2Help]

Not sure if this has been posted and discussed (I missed a few pages from yesterday until today)

When I googled Malaysai Airlines for updates I see an article that says:

Pieces of debris floating off the coast of Australia have been positively identified
as belonging to missing Malaysia Airlines flight #MH370, which ...

-but when I click on the article it does not mention it at all...?

https://www.google.com/search?q=malaysia+airlines&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

attached screenshot

 

[Momoffourboys]

In the interviews, Inmarsat Executive Vice President Chris McLaughlin freely discussed some of the central unresolved issues of the investigation.

snip

In the U.S., Mr. McLaughlin's comments would have led to his and his company's immediate removal from any NTSB investigation, according to the board's procedures and rules. The U.K. and many other countries have similarly strict rules.

http://online.wsj.com/news/article_...4579460171057002290-lMyQjAxMTA0MDIwNTEyNDUyWj

I read this three times to make sure I read it correctly. :banghead:

 

[Roselvr]

[/B]

bbm

That is a very, very good point. I have not thought about it in that way before.

If they had thought some mechanical failure occured, it would have been natural for them to immediately admit that they lost the plane and they don't know where the plane is or what happened.....here - here is the information that we have.

Instead, they admitted, what, 4 days later, IIRC, that the plane had made a left turn??? And then another few days before the zig-zag pattern was confirmed (on Military radar).

ANd then all the altitude changes, which, IIUC, STILL HAVE NEVER BEEN CONFIRMED by Maysia. There have been SO many RUMORS about the altitude - 5,000, 12,000.....they are swirling around b/c Malaysia will not confirm exactly what altitude points they have.

Then there was radar information from various countries which apparently were made known to Malaysia but the public doesn't know about. For example, DID INDONESIA CATCH THE PLANE ON ITS RADAR OR NOT???

JMO.

My biggest question is when did the left turn happen? Before "all right good night" or after? They have radar data. If before then why didn't the copilot say something?

 

[Hatfield]

The conclusion was drawn from Inmarsat (satellite) data. It wasn't based on images of items in the ocean.

JMO
The flaw in saying all the passengers are definitely dead just based on that satellite analysis is two-fold for me.

(1)- It is not tangible proof that the plane is even in that spot. It maybe a totally accurate analysis, but still is not tangible proof. People want to know for certain. IMO, the finding of debri and making the connection is only way to do that.

(2)- Deducing that all are dead just because there are no landing strips or land nearby is flawed because of the very unlikely scenerio of clinging to debris OR a life raft being deployed with fishing gear to keep people alive. Likely? Absolutely not but possible so we cannot say people are definitely dead. OR maybe a passenger in the water or 2 being picked up by a freighter that we have not heard about yet. Again not likely at all but people need absolute 100 percent proof at this point that there were no survivors and that can only be determined by finding the wreckage.

 

[JerseyGirl]

It is not fair to compare the Air France disaster to this Malaysia Airlines disaster.

The Air France plane fell off the radar. They eventually pinpointed the area, searched and found it within 4 days (if I recall). If the Malaysia Airline would have been where it dropped off radar they would have found it within 24 hours!!

We have been all over the map trying to find the plane ... Gulf of Thailand, South China Seas, Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean, Kazakhstan, Maldives, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Waddles]

Not sure if this has been posted and discussed (I missed a few pages from yesterday until today)

When I googled Malaysai Airlines for updates I see an article that says:
-but when I click on the article it does not mention it at all...?

https://www.google.com/search?q=malaysia+airlines&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

attached screenshot

was probably someone jumping the gun.

 

[ToutCa]

Unless I am missing something in your link, you are mistaken because it said the US uses Interpol data to create an even better list that it uses based on the Interpol data too.

""The U.S. uses Interpol's database more than any other nation to screen people entering the country. Its 250 million annual checks are followed by the United Kingdom's 120 million and the United Arab Emirates' 50 million.

Each year, based on its terrorist watchlist and Interpol data, the U.S. government issues thousands of "no-board recommendations" to airlines to keep suspected high-risk passengers from traveling to the United States. In fiscal year 2011 alone, it issued more than 3,600 such recommendations, according to 2012 U.S. House testimony by Kevin McAleenan of the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection

Since many nations neither maintain their own watchlists nor check any list as carefully as the U.S, "if you're flying between two foreign airports, you're at the mercy of whatever the host and receiving countries are doing,'' Greenberger said. ""

You're right. I misread the article, overlooking its prior statement about Interpol checks. I'll delete my earlier post.

 

[TartLemon]

I'm not ready to commit to a theory yet. Too much we don't know.

Do love acoming up with great conspiracy theories, though. Any of them. I'm a conspiracy hobbyist.

 

[Nymeria]

Supposedly, it's ok to protest against Malaysia or Japan in China, you just don't protest against China in China ... about anything.

----

*Respectfully Snipped*

I just watched a mini-documentary last week on BBC World News about Chinese Artist Ai Weiwei who helped design the Birds Nest Stadium/Beijing National for the 2008 Olympics. He is essentially under house arrest in China.

"As a political activist, he has been highly and openly critical of the Chinese Government's stance on democracy and human rights. He has investigated government corruption and cover-ups, in particular the Sichuan schools corruption scandal following the collapse of so-called "tofu-dreg schools" in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake.[4] In 2011, following his arrest at Beijing Capital International Airport on 3 April, he was held for 81 days without any official charges being filed; officials alluded to their allegations of "economic crimes".

Ai Weiwei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can't find the whole documentary, but if you ever see it repeated on BBC it is worth a watch. Short clip-

Ai Weiwei: In prison 'nothing protects you' - HARDtalk - BBC News - YouTube

I know this stuff happens, but to hear each individuals story just brings it home more.