mafya Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 And yet they tried their damnedest to destroy the Lockerbie plane over ocean and cover up their evil deeds. That was a govt job so they had to cover it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 And yet they tried their damnedest to destroy the Lockerbie plane over ocean and cover up their evil deeds. They got the wrong man for that, lets hope they get to the bottom of this one without the need for a scape goat. ---------- Post added 17-03-2014 at 21:51 ---------- That was a govt job so they had to cover it up. The Iranian Government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 The drip of information continues to suggest that the aircraft has been stolen. I'm guessing it's on the Cocos or Christmas Islands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 That was a govt job so they had to cover it up. So not only Islamic terrorism, there is also Islamic state sponsored Islamic terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeMac Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 So not only Islamic terrorism, there is also Islamic state sponsored Islamic terrorism. Where would you place this state sponsored activity? I'd say that it was terrorism. How about you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 The drip of information continues to suggest that the aircraft has been stolen. I'm guessing it's on the Cocos or Christmas Islands. What would the motive be? How feasible would it be to refuel an airliner there? (not very, I suspect) What about the people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozilla Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) from a pilots point of view.... Could the pilot have been trying to navigate to Langkawi after a fire on board knocked out the transponder and secondary radar tracking? Could this theory, put forward by a chap called Chris Goodfellow on Google Plus, be a rational explanation for Flight MH370? The left turn is the key here. This was a very experienced senior Captain with 18,000 hours. Maybe some of the younger pilots interviewed on CNN didn't pick up on this left turn. We old pilots were always drilled to always know the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us and airports ahead of us. Always in our head. Always. Because if something happens you don't want to be thinking what are you going to do - you already know what you are going to do. Instinctively when I saw that left turn with a direct heading I knew he was heading for an airport. Actually he was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi a 13,000 foot strip with an approach over water at night with no obstacles. He did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000 foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier towards Langkawi and also a shorter distance. Telegraph Lastly this: the supposed email from an oil rig worker who claims to have seen a plane on fire. The lat/lon he gives for his location is in the general area http://imgur.com/E70WWyi Edited March 18, 2014 by Mozilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 What would the motive be? How feasible would it be to refuel an airliner there? (not very, I suspect) What about the people? Motive? I have no idea. It would need to be a pretty powerful one. But as to feasibility - 100%. Cocos Islands has a 9,500 ft airstrip. But on reflection, it looks like the airliner could well have reached Diego Garcia, which has a 13,500 ft runway. The Christmas Islands' runway is probably a bit too short. The big difference between Diego Garcia and the Territory of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands: One is a US Navy facility with a staff of 4000, the other is a scuba diving paradise with a population of less than a thousand. Anyway - that's my personal crackpot theory. The truth will out eventually I imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 from a pilots point of view.... Could the pilot have been trying to navigate to Langkawi after a fire on board knocked out the transponder and secondary radar tracking? Could this theory, put forward by a chap called Chris Goodfellow on Google Plus, be a rational explanation for Flight MH370? The left turn is the key here. This was a very experienced senior Captain with 18,000 hours. Maybe some of the younger pilots interviewed on CNN didn't pick up on this left turn. We old pilots were always drilled to always know the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us and airports ahead of us. Always in our head. Always. Because if something happens you don't want to be thinking what are you going to do - you already know what you are going to do. Instinctively when I saw that left turn with a direct heading I knew he was heading for an airport. Actually he was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi a 13,000 foot strip with an approach over water at night with no obstacles. He did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000 foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier towards Langkawi and also a shorter distance. Telegraph Lastly this: the supposed email from an oil rig worker who claims to have seen a plane on fire. The lat/lon he gives for his location is in the general area http://imgur.com/E70WWyi Reading the comments it seems there were airports even closer. So why not head for one of them ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 from a pilots point of view.... The left turn is the key here.… Actually he was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi a 13,000 foot strip with an approach over water at night with no obstacles. He did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000 foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier towards Langkawi and also a shorter distance. Telegraph That's a more obviously rational and sane explanation, but does it account for the fact that certain system transponders were, although disabled from sending data, still sending pings to Derbyshire (which is, as I understand it, the case)? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/MH370_last_ping_corridors.jpg ---------- Post added 18-03-2014 at 00:49 ---------- Reading the comments it seems there were airports even closer. So why not head for one of them ? Runways are all too short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now