Big passenger jet may have gone down

• gut

  reclegend22;1592259 wrote:That the final satellite ping came while the plane was on the ground was a point of interest all morning on CNN.

  So it was all speculation? Because there's nothing that backs up that theory on major websites, including CNN, that I've seen.
  
  Not a lot is "changing" (aside from what Malaysia has said publicly, with some retractions). The only thing here is theories and rumors are floated (the bulk of CNN's "24-hour coverage" of the incident) and then either denied or debunked.
• reclegend22

  

  gut;1592271 wrote:So it was all speculation? Because there's nothing that backs up that theory on major websites, including CNN, that I've seen.
  
  Not a lot is "changing" (aside from what Malaysia has said publicly, with some retractions). The only thing here is theories and rumors are floated (the bulk of CNN's "24-hour coverage" of the incident) and then either denied or debunked.

  The plane being at the bottom of the ocean is also speculation.
• gut

  CNN also had an experienced 777 pilot on the other day. Put this in the wild, but not implausible category:
  
  Said that the alleged deviations in altitude (up to 45k, then down to 23k feet) don't support the theory of a pilot in control, even taking into account the less than precise accuracy of those altitude estimates. He rejected the theory of the climb to kill the passengers because oxygen masks would drop in a depressurization event.
  
  What he did say was the plane would fly itself, even with autopilot off. Said it would automatically adjust its altitude to maintain a programmed speed, and that turbulence could also cause minor course corrections. It's plausible a fight for control of the plane, or a hypoxia event, could have incapacitated the crew. In such a scenario, the plane would continue to fly itself until it ran out of fuel.
• gut

  reclegend22;1592275 wrote:The plane being at the bottom of the ocean is also speculation.

  Speculation, but the most likely scenario supported by known facts. Unless a country is lying about what it has on radar, it is very unlikely that plane went north - it's a low probability of flying in a manner to evade radar, and an even lower probability of doing that with a 777. The US obviously feels that is a highly monitored zone, so it borders on implausible the plane evaded radar to the north. That leaves us to conclude a country is lying, or the plane went south.
• bases_loaded

  

  CNN is also experience ratings higher than ever. The worst thing that can happen for them is this thing is found. Until then they're gonna pimp out page clicks
• majorspark

  

  The worst thing for any media outlet right now and for that matter the Russians, is for this plane to be found.
• sportchampps

  Well I understand maybe auto pilot flew the plane but why would it make that huge turn and not just have stayed on course
• reclegend22

  

  gut;1592278 wrote:Speculation, but the most likely scenario supported by known facts. Unless a country is lying about what it has on radar, it is very unlikely that plane went north - it's a low probability of flying in a manner to evade radar, and an even lower probability of doing that with a 777.

  reclegend22 wrote:Aviation experts have stated that, while it would've taken expert piloting and precision planning, it certainly wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility [for the plane to have flown north without being detected by radar] given the less advanced radar and airspace surveillance capabilities in certain areas

  
  
  CNN) -- Could a massive passenger jet slip past radar, cross international borders and land undetected?
  
  That's a key question investigators are weighing as they continue the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which vanished March 8 on a flight between Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and Beijing.
  
  Radar does have some blind spots, and it's possible to fly at lower altitudes to avoid being spotted, analysts told CNN.
  But experts are divided over whether that could be what happened to the missing Boeing 777.
  
  Jeffrey Beatty, a security consultant and former FBI special agent, says someone could have planned a route that avoided radar detection.
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/
  
  
  Is it unlikely that the plane evaded radar? Maybe. But stating that it would've taken a country lying about a radar coverup in order for the plane to have done so is just not accurate, based on the analysis of some aviation experts.
• reclegend22

  

  I have no idea what really happened (obviously) and don't claim to be right, I just can't fully get behind "pilot suicide" based on the extensive steps the pilot(s) took to evade radar for more than eight hours. It makes little sense. That the plane continued on in the air until 8 a.m. seems, to me at least, to suggest that the plane was en route to a planned destination of some sort. And if that is the case, I find it hard to believe that pilots of that experience would've flown it straight into the center of the world's most desolate body of water.
• gut

  reclegend22;1592295 wrote: Is it unlikely that the plane evaded radar? Maybe. But stating that it would've taken a country lying about a radar coverup in order for the plane to have done so is just not accurate, based on the analysis of some aviation experts.

  There's only two (at least) flaws with such an assumption:
  1) you have to know where the radar stations are to plot such a course, if it truly is possible (as opposed to merely theoretical)
  2) the 777 can't sustain flight long enough at low enough levels to evade radar...and if you're talking blind spots thru a mountain range it's not even feasible to be that low
  
  Sure, someone might not have noticed or failed to respond to the plane on radar...but when they review their records, they'll see it. It's unlikely to get past one tracking station without leaving a trail, but when you talk flying past multiple installations it begins to look improbable.
  
  Again, you have to be careful with some of these experts quoted when they're main purpose is to fuel speculation and drama paying fast and loose with their facts and assumptions.
  
  Could the US plot a course and fly a fighter jet to be invisible from radar? 100% fact. But a couple of pilots with a 777 using google? lmfao
• se-alum

  

  I kinda believe it was a terrorist act by the pilot, but what is the end game? They would've been better off staying course and taking out a target close to the flight plan. If the plane is still intact, no way it ever gets close to any major cities. Ultimately you have to believe it crashed somewhere.
• se-alum

  

  gut;1592297 wrote:There's only two (at least) flaws with such an assumption:
  1) you have to know where the radar stations are to plot such a course, if it truly is possible (as opposed to merely theoretical)
  2) the 777 can't sustain flight long enough at low enough levels to evade radar...and if you're talking blind spots thru a mountain range it's not even feasible to be that low
  
  Sure, someone might not have noticed or failed to respond to the plane on radar...but when they review their records, they'll see it. It's unlikely to get past one tracking station without leaving a trail, but when you talk flying past multiple installations it begins to look improbable.
  
  Again, you have to be careful with some of these experts quoted when they're main purpose is to fuel speculation and drama paying fast and loose with their facts and assumptions.
  
  Could the US plot a course and fly a fighter jet to be invisible from radar? 100% fact. But a couple of pilots with a 777 using google? lmfao

  You think the pilots would've just gone about it themselves? There could very well be high ranking officials with the kind of knowledge one would need to pull off something like this involved. Like I said, ultimately you have to believe it has crashed somewhere, but you're acting like nothing else is feasible. It's not likely, but it is feasible.
• gut

  reclegend22;1592296 wrote:I have no idea what really happened (obviously) and don't claim to be right, I just can't fully get behind "pilot suicide" based on the extensive steps the pilot(s) took to evade radar for more than eight hours. It makes little sense. That the plane continued on in the air until 8 a.m. seems, to me at least, to suggest that the plane was en route to a planned destination of some sort. And if that is the case, I find it hard to believe that pilots of that experience would've flown it straight into the center of the world's most desolate body of water.

  I don't know if "extensive" steps to evade radar is the best choice of word - turning off the transponder is routine, the ACARS takes a bit of work. But for starters, they DIDN'T evade Malaysian radar.
  
  I don't think suicide is that difficult to buy. That plane would fly itself, with or without autopilot, until it ran out of fuel - if the hypoxia theories are correct, then everyone would have been dead shortly after making the turn and the plane would have continued mostly along its heading until running out of fuel.
  
  Not remotely unbelievable never wanting to be found could be part of the motivation in a suicide - if they wanted to be infamous, they've accomplished that. Saw a Congressman even say it could have been done for insurance purposes, since it can't be ruled a suicide without proof).
• gut

  se-alum;1592299 wrote:You think the pilots would've just gone about it themselves? There could very well be high ranking officials with the kind of knowledge one would need to pull off something like this involved. Like I said, ultimately you have to believe it has crashed somewhere, but you're acting like nothing else is feasible. It's not likely, but it is feasible.

  I didn't say "feasible", I said unrealistic bordering on implausible. The involvement of high ranking officials is venturing into wild conspiracy territory, not the least of which likely invites a future ass-kicking from China.
  
  You keep rejecting the most obvious and continue to post "developments" apparently reported on CNN (tv) but which aren't even posted on their website.
  
  I'll buy that the plane could have gone north and a govt is lying about its radar for various reasons. But the idea that plane plotted and flew a course to evade radar is so miraculous as to border on the absurd. Granted some might actually be cracker-jack operations, but the US appears quite confident that is not the case.
  
  The US isn't going to concern itself with offending these countries if it thought there was a remotely credible chance this plane went north and [therefore] poses a terrorist threat. If they thought the plane went north a crash would not be the operating assumption. How plausible would it have to be for China and the US to bring a lot of pressure if that plane went north...not very plausible at all, and the lack of significant pressure is telling.
• gut

  sportchampps;1592294 wrote:Well I understand maybe auto pilot flew the plane but why would it make that huge turn and not just have stayed on course

  Apparently a new waypoint was programmed into the autopilot at some point (no idea how they know that). So that explains the turn. What's interesting is, if you look at the two routes suspected, it implies another turn based on the last known radar contact.
  
  Not long after the turn, it supposedly ascends to 45k feet. Could have happened during a struggle, or that might have been the suicide event. After that, the plane will fly on its own until it runs out of fuel - out into one of the deepest and most remote oceans in the world.
  
  Well, let me say that's what one expert said on CNN. I'd have to reconsider if flying itself that long is really true or a "1 in 100" type chance. Because I would also assume the autopilot won't let you program a route that doesn't have fuel to reach the destination.
• reclegend22

  

  gut;1592301 wrote:I don't know if "extensive" steps to evade radar is the best choice of word - turning off the transponder is routine, the ACARS takes a bit of work. But for starters, they DIDN'T evade Malaysian radar.

  I'd call the pilot's intentional elimination of all possible plane communications systems while flying through a reported "no man's land" (a sort of gray area between Malaysian and Chinese airways) over the south China sea in order to create initial confusion as to where the plane was and then reversal of course back toward the Indian Ocean while sharply changing directions several times and executing extreme changes in altitude along the way, first taking the aircraft up to 45,000 feet in an effort to depressurize the cabin and kill all passengers on board and then later lowering it to under 5,000 feet in an apparent attempt to lay low and evade military radar, before ultimately flying six or seven additional hours more into the morning a somewhat extensive series of steps.
  

  gut wrote:Not remotely unbelievable never wanting to be found could be part of the motivation in a suicide - if they wanted to be infamous, they've accomplished that. Saw a Congressman even say it could have been done for insurance purposes, since it can't be ruled a suicide without proof).

  That would be a pretty elaborately hatched plan just to commit insurance fraud.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  it cut off communication, didn't respond to anyone, and was shot down assumming it was hijacked.
• Sonofanump

  
  
• SportsAndLady

  

  Guys don't argue with gut on these things..he's an expert at everything.
• WebFire

  Check eBay for a 777.
• WebFire

  Found it!
  
  
• gut

  reclegend22;1592305 wrote:.. as to where the plane was and then reversal of course back toward the Indian Ocean while sharply changing directions several times and executing extreme changes in altitude along the way, first taking the aircraft up to 45,000 feet in an effort to depressurize the cabin and kill all passengers on board and then later lowering it to under 5,000 feet in an apparent attempt to lay low and evade military radar, before ultimately flying six or seven additional hours more into the morning a somewhat extensive series of steps.

  Most if not all of what you posted above is not part of the factual record, especially the part about changing directions multiple times Like I said, there isn't proof that anyone was actually flying the plane the last 5-6 hours. You seem to be getting confused, a lot, by rumor and speculation.
• reclegend22

  

  gut;1592366 wrote:Most if not all of what you posted above is not part of the factual record, especially the part about changing directions multiple times Like I said, there isn't proof that anyone was actually flying the plane the last 5-6 hours. You seem to be getting confused, a lot, by rumor and speculation.

  Data received from the plane's two Rolls Royce engines indicates that the plane did in fact change directions and altitudes several times.
  
  There also isn't any proof that there wasn't anyone actually flying the plane the last 5-6 hours. You seem to be getting confused a lot as well.
• Mohican00

  

  Sonofanump;1592325 wrote:
  

  I had to look up who this guy was
  
  0/10
• shook_17

  

  This is just gettin insane. Something fishy is going on. Book it.