I've been thinking about this for sometime now, and I have a theory.
What was the one thing we all agreed upon after 911, if another plane were highjacked?
Yep, shoot it down! Ans I believe that's exactly what happened, they knew the plane was to be used as a missile wherever it was headed and decided the only option was to destroy it while they still had a chance.
Hell, they tracked it for 7 hours after the last communication, so they know what it's target was.
Quote from: Solar on April 04, 2014, 01:05:32 PM
I've been thinking about this for sometime now, and I have a theory.
What was the one thing we all agreed upon after 911, if another plane were highjacked?
Yep, shoot it down! Ans I believe that's exactly what happened, they knew the plane was to be used as a missile wherever it was headed and decided the only option was to destroy it while they still had a chance.
Hell, they tracked it for 7 hours after the last communication, so they know what it's target was.
Which country would have done this?
Quote from: supsalemgr on April 04, 2014, 01:18:46 PM
Which country would have done this?
I believe either us or China, but which ever country did, they did it with the help of others, because we all have the capability to track a missel launch, or a fighter jet in the area, aside the fact that if it were us, we'd need the hosts permission to enter their airspace.
I'm leaning toward China taking it down, and if they did, good for them, they may have saved thousands of lives and stole the thunder from the Muscum..
Quote from: Solar on April 04, 2014, 01:25:21 PM
I believe either us or China, but which ever country did, they did it with the help of others, because we all have the capability to track a missel launch, or a fighter jet in the area, aside the fact that if it were us, we'd need the hosts permission to enter their airspace.
I'm leaning toward China taking it down, and if they did, good for them, they may have saved thousands of lives and stole the thunder from the Muscum..
I wouldn't call this conspiracy theory. I've thought all along the plane landed in the country of one of our enemies, or it got shot down like you're saying. The concept that they don't know what happened to this plane is beyond ridiculous.
Quote from: taxed on April 04, 2014, 06:43:00 PM
I wouldn't call this conspiracy theory. I've thought all along the plane landed in the country of one of our enemies, or it got shot down like you're saying. The concept that they don't know what happened to this plane is beyond ridiculous.
I think they knew exactly where it was headed and knew all the passengers would never be seen again anyway, so they took it out.
Quote from: Solar on April 04, 2014, 08:08:19 PM
I think they knew exactly where it was headed and knew all the passengers would never be seen again anyway, so they took it out.
I think that is the most plausible scenario.
Quote from: taxed on April 04, 2014, 10:43:41 PM
I think that is the most plausible scenario.
Or Aliens, I kid you not, this shows just how stupid people are, and yes Kemosabe, they vote liberal. :glare: :lol:
Americans Aren't Sure If Flight 370 Vanished Thanks to Aliens, Terrorists, or Hide-and-Seek
Fully one-quarter of Americans think that Malaysia Air Flight 370 was either destroyed by terrorists, landed somewhere and is being kept hidden, or got stolen by aliens. I'm just going to repeat that sentence: Fully one-quarter of Americans think that Malaysia Air Flight 370 was either destroyed by terrorists, landed somewhere and is being kept hidden, or got stolen by aliens.
http://news.yahoo.com/americans-arent-sure-flight-370-vanished-thanks-aliens-163801357.html (http://news.yahoo.com/americans-arent-sure-flight-370-vanished-thanks-aliens-163801357.html)
Quote from: Solar on April 05, 2014, 07:05:39 AM
Or Aliens, I kid you not, this shows just how stupid people are, and yes Kemosabe, they vote liberal. :glare: :lol:
Americans Aren't Sure If Flight 370 Vanished Thanks to Aliens, Terrorists, or Hide-and-Seek
Fully one-quarter of Americans think that Malaysia Air Flight 370 was either destroyed by terrorists, landed somewhere and is being kept hidden, or got stolen by aliens. I'm just going to repeat that sentence: Fully one-quarter of Americans think that Malaysia Air Flight 370 was either destroyed by terrorists, landed somewhere and is being kept hidden, or got stolen by aliens.
http://news.yahoo.com/americans-arent-sure-flight-370-vanished-thanks-aliens-163801357.html (http://news.yahoo.com/americans-arent-sure-flight-370-vanished-thanks-aliens-163801357.html)
I was wondering how man-made global warming got so popular...
Quote from: taxed on April 05, 2014, 10:36:22 PM
I was wondering how man-made global warming got so popular...
What is it with libs and aliens, Do they actually think they're just illegals from Mexico? :lol:
Heres the latest on the black box.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597630/Chinese-ship-looking-missing-Malaysia-Airlines-plane-detects-black-box-pulse-signal-southern-Indian-Ocean.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597630/Chinese-ship-looking-missing-Malaysia-Airlines-plane-detects-black-box-pulse-signal-southern-Indian-Ocean.html)
Quote from: Solar on April 06, 2014, 06:54:46 AM
What is it with libs and aliens, Do they actually think they're just illegals from Mexico? :lol:
Heres the latest on the black box.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597630/Chinese-ship-looking-missing-Malaysia-Airlines-plane-detects-black-box-pulse-signal-southern-Indian-Ocean.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597630/Chinese-ship-looking-missing-Malaysia-Airlines-plane-detects-black-box-pulse-signal-southern-Indian-Ocean.html)
I missed this before...
There is zero chance we would just "lose" an airliner. This story is not done. The direction change also happened around that one area/base/location (I can't remember the name...)....
Enough top-level people have come out and have all said they know where every molecule of matter is in the atmosphere at any point in time. NO WAY they don't know what happened/where this plane is.
There was a show on last week, 'ghost plane,' or 'lost plane' that listed a bunch of the conspiracies. I will admit, after learning what they believe the plane did, all theories have some holes in it.
Quote from: taxed on April 04, 2014, 10:43:41 PM
I think that is the most plausible scenario.
I think you both have largely overestimated the efficacy of Air Traffic Control, especially as it exists in and around 3rd world countries.
We ourselves couldn't effectively track the planes on 9/11. We thought Flight 91 was still in the air and headed south after it had crashed into one of the Tower. We thought Flight 77 had headed out to sea.
If the transponder is turned off or fails, detection, especially within areas of given G-class airspace becomes spotty. This is especially the case in the low-trained, less equipped area the Malaysia airliner was flying in.
We didn't find the Air France flight that crashed in the middle of the ocean for nearly a month, and even then, it was because there were automated signals still being broadcasted from the remains of the plane.
Malaysia got confused as to where the plane went down, had everyone for weeks looking in the wrong place, at which time the debris of the plane would have been sinking. There was a window to be able to find it, and that window closed shut before they got their act together.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 04:47:15 AM
I think you both have largely overestimated the efficacy of Air Traffic Control, especially as it exists in and around 3rd world countries.
We ourselves couldn't effectively track the planes on 9/11. We thought Flight 91 was still in the air and headed south after it had crashed into one of the Tower. We thought Flight 77 had headed out to sea.
If the transponder is turned off or fails, detection, especially within areas of given G-class airspace becomes spotty. This is especially the case in the low-trained, less equipped area the Malaysia airliner was flying in.
We didn't find the Air France flight that crashed in the middle of the ocean for nearly a month, and even then, it was because there were automated signals still being broadcasted from the remains of the plane.
Malaysia got confused as to where the plane went down, had everyone for weeks looking in the wrong place, at which time the debris of the plane would have been sinking. There was a window to be able to find it, and that window closed shut before they got their act together.
What gives you the idea the plane even went down?
Quote from: Solar on April 04, 2014, 01:25:21 PM
I believe either us or China, but which ever country did, they did it with the help of others, because we all have the capability to track a missel launch, or a fighter jet in the area, aside the fact that if it were us, we'd need the hosts permission to enter their airspace.
I'm leaning toward China taking it down, and if they did, good for them, they may have saved thousands of lives and stole the thunder from the Muscum..
Wasn't there a Chinese ship nearby the area they thought it went down?
Quote from: JustKari on August 24, 2014, 07:56:05 AM
Wasn't there a Chinese ship nearby the area they thought it went down?
I believe the evidence supports the plane was stolen and the passengers died when the plane ascended high enough to deplete oxygen.
I think we'll find out the hard way, when it's used as a weapon in the future.
Quote from: Solar on August 24, 2014, 07:33:56 AM
What gives you the idea the plane even went down?
They were receiving telemetry data via satellite of the Plane's positions. It's last transmission was far over the Indian Ocean. It had been flying for 8-9 hours by the point, and would have been too low on fuel to reach land.
Whatever happened to the plane, it
did crash, it's not equipped for mid-air refueling.
Because they had lost contact, it disappeared off radar screens only an hour after takeoff. Some eyewitness reports claimed to have seen it land, but by the time authorities had arrived, no plane could be found.
A well planned theft will always leave more questions than answers.
But ask yourself, why continue to fly if you planned on crashing in the first place?
Quote from: Solar on August 24, 2014, 05:32:04 PM
Because they had lost contact, it disappeared off radar screens only an hour after takeoff. Some eyewitness reports claimed to have seen it land, but by the time authorities had arrived, no plane could be found.
A well planned theft will always leave more questions than answers.
But ask yourself, why continue to fly if you planned on crashing in the first place?
Back in the earliest days of aircraft carrier operations, there was no way to capture an incoming plane on flight decks, so the pilots landed in the water and the aircraft was then hauled aboard. Granted, in this case it would mean a huge ship to house that aircraft...or several to house its pieces...but it's still just barely possible.
Quote from: quiller on August 24, 2014, 05:44:06 PM
Back in the earliest days of aircraft carrier operations, there was no way to capture an incoming plane on flight decks, so the pilots landed in the water and the aircraft was then hauled aboard. Granted, in this case it would mean a huge ship to house that aircraft...or several to house its pieces...but it's still just barely possible.
That's the thing, they can't even agree on the radar being correct this many months out.
Hell, how do they even know for certain the pings were accurate?
Now they're claiming the radar was wrong.
So is Malaysia covering up, or is it the US, or both?
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysian-military-radar-data-on-mh370-wrong-says-report (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysian-military-radar-data-on-mh370-wrong-says-report)
Quote from: Solar on August 24, 2014, 05:32:04 PM
Because they had lost contact, it disappeared off radar screens only an hour after takeoff.
Losing radar contact isn't unusual, again, Class G airspace, middle of the ocean.
QuoteSome eyewitness reports claimed to have seen it land,
Eye-witnesses can be loopy, there were plenty from 9/11 claiming the planes went in certain directions it didn't, called them cargo planes when they weren't, cited one of the aircraft landing in Ohio when that was another plane altogether. Delta 1989.
You have to be familiar with airline crashes to know what to expect, and what to control for. To know if what seems strange, truly is.
People thought it was unusual that IDs survived from the planes that crashed into the Towers, they were wrong.
They thought it was unusual for the hole the plane left in side of the pentagon was smaller than the plane itself, they were wrong.
They thought it impossible that these planes could have exceeded Va and Vo speed without breaking up, they were wrong.
QuoteA well planned theft will always leave more questions than answers.
So will a crash of a 3rd world airliner, from a country with a poorly developed search & rescue capability, and a scant air traffic apparatus.
Corruption and ineptitude are widespread in the Malaysian Government, it surprises me little that this crash caught them with their pants down.
QuoteBut ask yourself, why continue to fly if you planned on crashing in the first place?
The plane was on autopilot, the pilots likely having lost consciousnesses from Hypoxia. This has happened before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522).
If you're at 30,000 ft and you spring a leak in your pressurization, you have about 7 seconds of useful consciousness before you lose virtually all of your higher-thinking faculties. It's downhill from there.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 06:04:31 PM
Losing radar contact isn't unusual, again, Class G airspace, middle of the ocean.
Eye-witnesses can be loopy, there were plenty from 9/11 claiming the planes went in certain directions it didn't, called them cargo planes when they weren't, cited one of the aircraft landing in Ohio when that was another plane altogether. Delta 1989.
You have to be familiar with airline crashes to know what to expect, and what to control for. To know if what seems strange, truly is.
People thought it was unusual that IDs survived from the planes that crashed into the Towers, they were wrong.
They thought it was unusual for the hole the plane left in side of the pentagon was smaller than the plane itself, they were wrong.
They thought it impossible that these planes could have exceeded Va and Vo speed without breaking up, they were wrong.
So will a crash of a 3rd world airliner, from a country with a poorly developed search & rescue capability, and a scant air traffic apparatus.
Corruption and ineptitude are widespread in the Malaysian Government, it surprises me little that this crash caught them with their pants down.
The plane was on autopilot, the pilots likely having lost consciousnesses from Hypoxia. This has happened before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522).
If you're at 30,000 ft and you spring a leak in your pressurization, you have about 7 seconds of useful consciousness before you lose virtually all of your higher-thinking faculties. It's downhill from there.
Still, with no answers or evidence to prove the theory, you believe the story you've been given by the govt.
Why is that, why is it you're so willing to trust a govt that's proven on more than one occasion it's willingness towards deception?
Quote from: Solar on August 25, 2014, 05:43:26 AM
Still, with no answers or evidence to prove the theory, you believe the story you've been given by the govt.
No, the Australian NTSB equivalent has the evidence, the
satellite signals. Not to mention the satellite images of it heading south several hours into the flight.
QuoteWhy is that, why is it you're so willing to trust a govt that's proven on more than one occasion it's willingness towards deception?
Because again, Australians.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 28, 2014, 09:18:06 PM
No, the Australian NTSB equivalent has the evidence, the satellite signals. Not to mention the satellite images of it heading south several hours into the flight.
Because again, Australians.
Yet again, you prove to be a gullible fool willing to trust Govt.
You do know what that makes you, right?
QuoteThe latest revelation comes after News Corp Australia last week revealed that underwater scientists have labelled the search for MH370 a "debacle" and say Prime Minister Tony Abbott was playing politics when he prematurely announced the black box pingers had been found.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/families-outraged-as-search-ends-in-ping-zone-after-us-navy-says-signals-were-not-from-mh370/story-fnizu68q-1226935425606 (http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/families-outraged-as-search-ends-in-ping-zone-after-us-navy-says-signals-were-not-from-mh370/story-fnizu68q-1226935425606)
You hang onto that faith in Govt sunshine, that and a buck will get you a cup O Joe.
Quote from: Solar on August 29, 2014, 06:07:46 AM
Yet again, you prove to be a gullible fool willing to trust Govt.
Then I guess it's a good thing the satellite data comes from a British company (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10719304/How-British-satellite-company-Inmarsat-tracked-down-MH370.html).
If you have evidence to accuse this, then fine, but list it and quit with the charade.
BTW, your "conspiracy" to hide the "truth" now includes at least 4 nations, their Air Transportation Agencies, the airline, and this company. At some point, you're assumptions will crack under their weight.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 07:14:14 AM
Then I guess it's a good thing the satellite data comes from a British company (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10719304/How-British-satellite-company-Inmarsat-tracked-down-MH370.html).
If you have evidence to accuse this, then fine, but list it and quit with the charade.
And you consider that a rebuttal, then link to a membership page, yet claim I'm the one playing games?
QuoteSubscribe today to continue reading
You have reached your limit of 10 free articles a month.
Subscribe today for unlimited access to our award-winning journalism
QuoteBTW, your "conspiracy" to hide the "truth" now includes at least 4 nations, their Air Transportation Agencies, the airline, and this company. At some point, you're assumptions will crack under their weight.
Son, your willingness to believe everything you read that supports your views, is nothing short of delusional and simply frightening, to think the next generation is as freakin fleeceable as you.
Quote from: Solar on August 29, 2014, 07:27:06 AM
And you consider that a rebuttal, then link to a membership page,
Curious, I'm not getting that:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi217.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc160%2FAlaskaSlim%2FCapture_zps9ff8fa2d.png&hash=d0a2e8a52f48e8a49f7c673d596563bf8425f5f5)
And I don't pay a red cent to the Telegraph.
Try this one then. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/27/us-malaysia-airplane-data-idUSKBN0E70C720140527)
QuoteSon, your willingness to believe everything you read
Prove that they're lying then.
You have presented nothing to show why either the Brits here, or the Aussies would be, and considering they would have nothing to gain in all of this, and everything to lose if they were caught, I have serious doubts to say the least.
Indeed, this is pitfall for why most 9/11 conspiracies fall apart: they don't consider that their premise
demands treason by the ATC, the Northeastern branch of NORAD, and the pilots in the air. 100s of people, all duplicit in the act. You're charging the same thing.
Adjust png size.
walks
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 08:06:10 AM
Curious, I'm not getting that:
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi217.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc160%2FAlaskaSlim%2FCapture_zps9ff8fa2d.png&hash=d0a2e8a52f48e8a49f7c673d596563bf8425f5f5)
And I don't pay a red cent to the Telegraph.
Try this one then. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/27/us-malaysia-airplane-data-idUSKBN0E70C720140527)
Prove that they're lying then.
You have presented nothing to show why either the Brits here, or the Aussies would be, and considering they would have nothing to gain in all of this, and everything to lose if they were caught, I have serious doubts to say the least.
Indeed, this is pitfall for why most 9/11 conspiracies fall apart: they don't consider that their premise demands treason by the ATC, the Northeastern branch of NORAD, and the pilots in the air. 100s of people, all duplicit in the act. You're charging the same thing.
This has nothing to do with conspiracy, rather your need to run block for government failures.
Did they find it? Nope, which leaves open the possibility that it never actually crashed.
Prove it did crash and I'll accept the fact I'm wrong, or simply prove me wrong, which you can't, but quit covering for inept govt, it's sooo liberal of you.
Adjusted png size.
walks
Quote from: Solar on August 29, 2014, 08:49:25 AM
This has nothing to do with conspiracy, rather your need to run block for government failures.
Did they find it? Nope, which leaves open the possibility that it never actually crashed.
Sure, if you can locate an island in the area large enough for them to land on, in the vicinity of where the last satellite signals places it.
At near empty weight plus passengers and baggage, a 777-200ER would need about +4,000 feet runway space at sea level on a dry surface. If not dry, add about another 1,000 feet.
Good luck.
QuoteProve it did crash and I'll accept the fact I'm wrong, or simply prove me wrong, which you can't, but quit covering for inept govt, it's sooo liberal of you.
I never said I trusted the Malaysians, I said I trusted industry professionals.
The difference here btw, is separating ineptitude, which is the cause of most cover ups, from intent. You have tried strongly to conflate the two, implying they're both dumb and duplicit in the crash. Unfortunately, years of sifting through 9/11 truthers claiming same makes the tells all too easy to see.
9/11 happened because our government at the time was shitfaced, not in the know. It's the same here.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 09:11:42 PM
Sure, if you can locate an island in the area large enough for them to land on, in the vicinity of where the last satellite signals places it.
At near empty weight plus passengers and baggage, a 777-200ER would need about +4,000 feet runway space at sea level on a dry surface. If not dry, add about another 1,000 feet.
Good luck.
I never said I trusted the Malaysians, I said I trusted industry professionals.
The difference here btw, is separating ineptitude, which is the cause of most cover ups, from intent. You have tried strongly to conflate the two, implying they're both dumb and duplicit in the crash. Unfortunately, years of sifting through 9/11 truthers claiming same makes the tells all too easy to see.
9/11 happened because our government at the time was shitfaced, not in the know. It's the same here.
This has nothing to do with 911, quit moving the goal posts.
So if we were to go with your hypothesis that it crashed, then I'm certain you can provide evidence of wreckage, right?
That should be easy enough, I mean after all, you seem t have "faith" in these supposed professionals, people that wouldn't lie under any circumstances, right?
Otherwise, the only other possibility is theft when one looks at motive,, a lack of claim for it's disappearance, no radical group claimed to have brought it down, so motive is removed from the equation.
But gee, you have soo much faith that it crashed, so simply provide proof.
Let me give you something to chew on. You're one of these supposed professionals, and this happens on your watch, a special agent comes in and explains the situation as a theft, all passengers are dead, and we need too track the plane so we can catch everyone involved.
You realize what they are telling you is true, because you saw the flight climb to a level that would kill all the passengers if the cabin pressure were interrupted and no oxygen was in the masks as they deployed.
So whats more patriotic, telling the world that a plane was stolen and that we're all in serious danger, or keep your mouth shut and let the experts do their job in surveillance and catch all the perpetrators?
I think the answer is obvious, you follow the narrative you've been given and do what you believe to be the right thing for all.
This really isn't conspiracy stuff, this happens in law enforcement on a daily basis around the world.
Quote from: Solar on August 30, 2014, 05:06:12 AM
This has nothing to do with 911, quit moving the goal posts.
So if we were to go with your hypothesis that it crashed, Quote
Based on the time and locations of the satellite signals, and the amount of fuel that would have been remaining by that time.
The links I gave you both lists the data, and the methodology, review them if you want.
QuoteThis really isn't conspiracy stuff, this happens in law enforcement on a daily basis around the world.
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.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 30, 2014, 11:52:19 AM
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.
Quote from: Solar on August 30, 2014, 01:19:38 PM
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.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 30, 2014, 04:06:45 PM
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. :rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: Solar on August 30, 2014, 05:06:19 PM
Yeah, and google doesn't share info with the NSA. :rolleyes:
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.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%5Burl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fimages.sodahead.com%2Fpolls%2F001526361%2F542295464_polls_slap_xlarge_xlarge.jpeg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fimages.sodahead.com%2Fpolls%2F001526361%2F542295464_polls_slap_xlarge_xlarge.jpeg%255B%2Furl%255D&hash=08612945f6a3e06c23583efacc0f3d54de5aba9f)
Quote from: Solar on August 30, 2014, 05:06:19 PM
Yeah, and google doesn't share info with the NSA. :rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 30, 2014, 06:45:12 PM
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/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/14/malaysian-airlines-flight-mh370-could-it-have-been-stolen/)
Quote from: Solar on August 30, 2014, 07:24:52 PM
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.
QuoteAnd 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 (http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/environ/index.page) 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 (http://blog.seattlepi.com/flyinglessons/2014/06/02/data-shows-mh-370-may-have-flown-for-nine-minutes-after-fuel-end/), 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 (http://imgur.com/IAgA3j6) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Timeline_of_disappearance), 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.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 30, 2014, 09:02:52 PM
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 (http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/environ/index.page) 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 (http://blog.seattlepi.com/flyinglessons/2014/06/02/data-shows-mh-370-may-have-flown-for-nine-minutes-after-fuel-end/), 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 (http://imgur.com/IAgA3j6) 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Timeline_of_disappearance), 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.
Quote from: Solar on August 30, 2014, 09:05:30 PM
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. (https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.libertynewsforum.com%2Fyabbfile%2FSmilies%2F2vrolijk_08.gif&hash=0a6a599971ce035812b0609b6cf1c9aed02b1d19)
Quote from: Solar on August 30, 2014, 09:05:30 PM
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.
Quote from: walkstall on August 30, 2014, 09:14:31 PM
What I like about WIKI. [/img]
What I like, is that this wiki article lists its sources.
Read 'em and weep. (http://www.dca.gov.my/mainpage/MH370%20Data%20Communication%20Logs.pdf)
You also ignored the 3 others that weren't from the wiki, how convenient.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 30, 2014, 09:30:14 PM
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!
Quote from: Solar on August 31, 2014, 06:58:57 AM
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?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 31, 2014, 12:13:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Solar on August 31, 2014, 02:09:48 PM
I suggest you not put words in my mouth.
QuoteDo 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.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 31, 2014, 02:36:43 PM
You said it, now stand & deliver.
Already posted it, just go back and reread the thread.
Now, show me evidence of this crash you claim happened, I really am growing weary of your BS.
Quote from: Solar on August 31, 2014, 04:54:08 PM
Already posted it, just go back and reread the thread.
You have posted three links, these two:
http://news.yahoo.com/americans-arent-sure-flight-370-vanished-thanks-aliens-163801357.html (http://news.yahoo.com/americans-arent-sure-flight-370-vanished-thanks-aliens-163801357.html)
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/14/malaysian-airlines-flight-mh370-could-it-have-been-stolen/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/14/malaysian-airlines-flight-mh370-could-it-have-been-stolen/)
Make no mention of the Inmarstat data.
This one however:
Malaysian military radar data on MH370 wrong, says report (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysian-military-radar-data-on-mh370-wrong-says-report#sthash.PJ2E2JU7.dpuf)
Says the
radar data was wrong, and why?
QuoteIt said they concluded this after a re-examination of the military radar data and the pings the aircraft exchanged with an Inmarsat satellite over the Equator showed that the radar's altitude readings appeared to be incorrect.
An international review found Malaysia's radar equipment had not been calibrated with enough precision for the readings to be accurate, the NYT said.
In short, the Satellite data proved
the radar data was wrong.
You are saying
the Satellite data is wrong, so again I ask,
where is your proof?
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 24, 2014, 04:47:15 AM
I think you both have largely overestimated the efficacy of Air Traffic Control, especially as it exists in and around 3rd world countries.
We ourselves couldn't effectively track the planes on 9/11. We thought Flight 91 was still in the air and headed south after it had crashed into one of the Tower. We thought Flight 77 had headed out to sea.
If the transponder is turned off or fails, detection, especially within areas of given G-class airspace becomes spotty. This is especially the case in the low-trained, less equipped area the Malaysia airliner was flying in.
We didn't find the Air France flight that crashed in the middle of the ocean for nearly a month, and even then, it was because there were automated signals still being broadcasted from the remains of the plane.
Malaysia got confused as to where the plane went down, had everyone for weeks looking in the wrong place, at which time the debris of the plane would have been sinking. There was a window to be able to find it, and that window closed shut before they got their act together.
Wrong. We (military) know where every single object in the sky is at all times, transponder or no transponder. This has nothing to do with air traffic controllers. It's odd to me that you don't know that, but whatever.
Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 29, 2014, 09:11:42 PM
Sure, if you can locate an island in the area large enough for them to land on, in the vicinity of where the last satellite signals places it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia)
Quote from: taxed on September 02, 2014, 11:30:41 AM
Wrong. We (military) know where every single object in the sky is at all times, transponder or no transponder. This has nothing to do with air traffic controllers. It's odd to me that you don't know that, but whatever.
I find it fascinating that libs put so much trust in govt, they're willing to believe everything they told to believe.
Quote from: Solar on September 02, 2014, 12:29:54 PM
I find it fascinating that libs put so much trust in govt, they're willing to believe everything they told to believe.
It is amazing.