Malaysia Flight Theory

[Solar]

Sorry, but ransoms are old hat in the aviation world. There'd be no reason to hide it, and there never has been.

Oh, and not to mention, satellite signals. Occurs razor is used investigations as well, and before you dip into crazy, you need to disprove the more plausible scenario.

Went right over your head I see. You have a lot of growing up to do, if you're willing to swallow every story our govt feeds us.

[Alaska Slim]

Went right over your head I see. You have a lot of growing up to do, if you're willing to swallow every story our govt feeds us.

But we weren't talking about our government, or indeed, any government.

The people who put out the satellite data, were a private company in Britain.

Thus, this is a conclusion you cannot avoid: for their evidence to be false, they need to be in on this conspiracy of yours.

So, where's your proof? You're saying they're guilty, so the burden of proof passes to you.

[Solar]

But we weren't talking about our government, or indeed, any government.

The people who put out the satellite data, were a private company in Britain.

Thus, this is a conclusion you cannot avoid: for their evidence to be false, they need to be in on this conspiracy of yours.

So, where's your proof? You're saying they're guilty, so the burden of proof passes to you.

Yeah, and google doesn't share info with the NSA.

Who licenses that private company?  Again, grow up, there's an entire nasty world out there and a govt that thinks you're too stupid to handle the truth.
Hell, maybe they're right.

[walkstall]

Yeah, and google doesn't share info with the NSA.

Who licenses that private company?  Again, grow up, there's an entire nasty world out there and a govt that thinks you're too stupid to handle the truth.
Hell, maybe they're right.

[Alaska Slim]

Yeah, and google doesn't share info with the NSA.

Who licenses that private company?  Again, grow up, there's an entire nasty world out there and a govt that thinks you're too stupid to handle the truth.

Good, provide evidence or you're just speculating.

And no, I'm not going to take the word of an outsider to the aerospace Industry, onto the actions of the industry. You need to provide evidence, now. *I* do not have to disprove a negative, anymore than I have to show truthers that the Gov't didn't hire secret agent to fly the planes. That the agents even exist, is something they have to prove, and the same applies to you.

At the very least, you need to offer evidence that the satellite data is suspect. Evidence pointing to intent for the company would also be welcome.

Don't get lazy on me now.

[Solar]

Good, provide evidence or you're just speculating.

And no, I'm not going to take the word of an outsider to the aerospace Industry, onto the actions of the industry. You need to provide evidence, now. *I* do not have to disprove a negative, anymore than I have to show truthers that the Gov't didn't hire secret agent to fly the planes. That the agents even exist, is something they have to prove, and the same applies to you.

At the very least, you need to offer evidence that the satellite data is suspect. Evidence pointing to intent for the company would also be welcome.

Don't get lazy on me now.

I see as usual, my post went right over your trusting little head, "bless his ignorant little heart", Southern compliment.

Do a search for the latest on the data, you'll find they simply don't agree on a lot of the early evidence, and you think that's competence?
And second, I don't have to prove shit, you're the one claiming it crashed, yet have no evidence to prove it, so get busy son.
EDIT~~~
LOL! Appears I'm not alone in my theory.
Note the fact that they don't really no where to look.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/14/malaysian-airlines-flight-mh370-could-it-have-been-stolen/

[Alaska Slim]

I see as usual, my post went right over your trusting little head, "bless his ignorant little heart", Southern compliment.

Do a search for the latest on the data, you'll find they simply don't agree on a lot of the early evidence,

Post it here. I'am not doing your work for you. I gave you my links, you give me yours.

And second, I don't have to prove shit,

Uh, yes you do. The Satellite pings, which your article doesn't even address, are a solid basis for pin-pointing the planes location. We know both the Satellite's positions, and from which direction it was being ping'd, and from that, we know the area where the plane was at.

Further, it is said the plane crashed, because FUEL, which you've conveniently ignored.

In reality, we can calculate how low the plane would have been on fuel at a certain point, so let's get into it:

A boeing website states that the plane will use 3.1 liters/100 passengers per km under nominal conditions. 240 passengers is 7.44 liters per km, while Jet fuel weighs 0.81kg/liter.

MH370 was confirmed to have been carrying 49,100 kg of jet fuel, or 60,617 liters. We need to subtract at least 20% for takeoff, which is ~12,123 liters. 60,617- 12,123 = 48,494 liters. Divided by 7.44 liters/km, you get ~6,518 km.

This chart shows MH370's speed at different intervals, averaging ~460 knots.

At that speed, it would cover 6,518 km in a few minutes short of 8 hrs.

The last contact MH370 had with the satellite was only a partial ping, and is believed to be the time the plane experienced a flame-out. This ping occurred at 08:19 Malaysian time, 7 hours and 38 minutes into the flight.

It adds up, allowing 9 minutes more of flight time, the plane still would have crashed before the next check-in, at which point it was confirmed contact had been lost.

[Solar]

Post it here. I'am not doing your work for you. I gave you my links, you give me yours.
Uh, yes you do. The Satellite pings, which your article doesn't even address, are a solid basis for pin-pointing the planes location. We know both the Satellite's positions, and from which direction it was being ping'd, and from that, we know the area where the plane was at.

Further, it is said the plane crashed, because FUEL, which you've conveniently ignored.

In reality, we can calculate how low the plane would have been on fuel at a certain point, so let's get into it:

A boeing website states that the plane will use 3.1 liters/100 passengers per km under nominal conditions. 240 passengers is 7.44 liters per km, while Jet fuel weighs 0.81kg/liter.

MH370 was confirmed to have been carrying 49,100 kg of jet fuel, or 60,617 liters. We need to subtract at least 20% for takeoff, which is ~12,123 liters. 60,617- 12,123 = 48,494 liters. Divided by 7.44 liters/km, you get ~6,518 km.

This chart shows MH370's speed at different intervals, averaging ~460 knots.

At that speed, it would cover 6,518 km in a few minutes short of 8 hrs.

The last contact MH370 had with the satellite was only a partial ping, and is believed to be the time the plane experienced a flame-out. This ping occurred at 08:19 Malaysian time, 7 hours and 38 minutes into the flight.

It adds up, allowing 9 minutes more of flight time, the plane still would have crashed before the next check-in.

So you're saying they found the missing jet, my gullible little friend?
And just for your information, WIKI is considered a joke on this board.

[walkstall]

So you're saying they found the missing jet, my gullible little friend?
And just for your information, WIKI is considered a joke on this board.

What I like about WIKI.  If you don't like what you see, just go in and change it. 

[Alaska Slim]

So you're saying they found the missing jet, my gullible little friend?

Don't be a twit. The satellite was receiving pings from the airplane, and you haven't done one thing to explain how that fits into your theory.

Why you are so unwilling to present any evidence to prove the signals are faulty, I have no idea, but my guess would be that you don't have any, and you're just dancing around the issue.

[Alaska Slim]

What I like about WIKI.  [/img]

What I like, is that this wiki article lists its sources.

Read 'em and weep.

You also ignored the 3 others that weren't from the wiki, how convenient.

[Solar]

Don't be a twit. The satellite was receiving pings from the airplane, and you haven't done one thing to explain how that fits into your theory.

Why you are so unwilling to present any evidence to prove the signals are faulty, I have no idea, but my guess would be that you don't have any, and you're just dancing around the issue.

So you've been told.
Now, show me evidence of wreckage, or shut up!

[Alaska Slim]

So you've been told.
Now, show me evidence of wreckage, or shut up!

No, you need to post this so-called evidence you claim you found that shows the Satellite signals are wrong.

Stop being lazy. Or should I take it you were lying?

[Solar]

No, you need to post this so-called evidence you claim you found that shows the Satellite signals are wrong.

Stop being lazy. Or should I take it you were lying?

I suggest you not put words in my mouth.
Now get on it son, my patience is wearing thin.

[Alaska Slim]

I suggest you not put words in my mouth.

Do a search for the latest on the data, you'll find they simply don't agree on a lot of the early evidence

You said it, now stand & deliver.