Where the fuck is that plane?

[The Starmaker]

¿

[trotsky]

On 3/19/14 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> ż
>

Benghazi!

[R Kym Horsell]

In sci.physics trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> On 3/19/14 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

>> ?
> Benghazi!

They cut the wings off and are sailing it to Australia.

--
While Death Valley has a well-earned reputation as the country's
hottest place, that's true only for extreme heat. On a year-round
basis, Death Valley doesn't even make it into the top ten for hot weather.
Out of 7,438 weather stations across the United States, just 17 report
an average year-round temperature of over 77 ?F (25 ?C). Most of these
spots sit on southern islands, either Hawaii or the Florida Keys.
Death Valley [has] the same yearly average temperature as Miami.
-- research news & science facts, Oct 2013

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> ż


maybe some...scientist can figure it out.


You know..
take a piece of paper
write some numbers on it
and there is dee plane!


Isn't it how it's done?


Surely someone must have a piece of paper and pencil out there?


I don't seem to have a pencil anywhere...


I'll have to look for it.

[Capricorne]

trotsky wrote :

> On 3/19/14 2:30 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

>> ¿
>>
>
> Benghazi!

A UFO took it. 8-o

[The Starmaker]

What do they mean when they say they found deleted files on the pilots home computer?

They checked the recycle bin?? And 'who doesn't' have delete files on their computer???

[Brad Guth]

On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:30:09 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
>

Since the Malaysia Airlines Flight-370 was most likely diverted to Diego Garcia, and the official search plus news media had been totally and intentionally snookered into looking in the opposite direction for the past week, whereas by now it has likely been modified, refueled and moved to practically any location on Earth.

A ghost 777 could be made into the biggest and most bad-ass WMD, easily cloaked as simply another conventional passenger aircraft, except capable of packing multiple(3+) 50 MT nukes, or 150 tonnes worth of toxic VX as well as something biological if not simply a load of nuclear spent-fuel Pu238 (of which there's no shortage of). If modified for in-flight refueling, there's no telling of how much range it'll have.

There's simply no possible way our highly secretive MIC/DoD outpost with its 3200+ as highly trained and skilled personnel with loads of the most advanced and specialized technology at the isolated island outpost of Diego Garcia, is as such without full radial radar and multiple surveillance via satellites that couldn't possibly miss detecting a very hot 777 that's clearly reported as being off-grid and most likely way the hell off course, and recently disclosed as having been flown evasively.

Once again (as in the 9-11 fiasco), those red flags are all over the place, and the best authority has been tap-dancing like crazy. Namely our NSA and GCHQ seem to be unusually silent on this one. Oddly they know exactly where those of us are at any moment, and they seem to know most everything about us, as well as with whomever we've been speaking or otherwise communicating with, and yet along with everything Pentagon, DoD, NSA, GCHQ and Mossad are totally dumbfounded on this one.

Perhaps this one is more like a River Dance performance by all those in charge of protecting us. Now there seems to be a rogue B777 out there, as fully capable of its being modified for taking out a hundred million of us. Gee whiz, what could possibly go wrong?

[The Starmaker]

TThe only people I know who can tell you where the missing plane is are movie stars, tv celebrities..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/18/courtney-love-malaysia-airlines-flight_n_4985969.html


The Starmaker


Stars know everything.



But what do scientist know?


How many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
None. They use them as controls in double blind trials.


How many physicists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one, but 600 applied for the job.


How many nuclear engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
Seven. One to install the new bulb and six to figure out what to do with the old one for the next 10,000 years.

How many NASA technicians does it take to change a light bulb?
Seventy, and they plan it for two weeks and when they finally get around to it the weather's bad so
they postpone it till next week. Then Congress cuts the funding.

[R Kym Horsell]

In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> ?


Of all places the AUS Parliament has been told objects located in
the Indian Ocean are "credible evidence" related to the fate of the
Malaysian airliner.

About 1 hr ago aircraft were dispatched from AUS to survey the area,
with several other aircraft tasked to do followups in another couple hrs.

There will be probably no confirmation for several more hrs. Those old Orions
are not the fastest birds in the sky.

--
'Carbon bubble' poses serious threat to UK economy, MPs warn
Committee says government and Bank of England must not be complacent
about the risks of overvaluing fossil fuel companies
Guardian, 6 Mar 2014
Stock markets are inflating a "carbon bubble" by overvaluing companies
that produce fossil fuels and greenhouse gases, and this poses a
serious threat to the economy, an influential committee of UK MPs has warned.

[R Kym Horsell]

In sci.physics R Kym Horsell <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
> In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> ?

...

The AUS maritime authorities have just commenced a press conference
on the missing aircraft and the objects spotted.

Early indications are one object is about 25 m in length with
the other significantly smaller. They are both semi-submerged.

They were located about 2500 km SW of Perth, AUS, in the Indian Ocean,
significantly further S than hitherto searched.

While the officials say a series of aircraft and ships have been
dispatched to the area from AUS and NZ, a US Poseidon is scheduled
to be on station about now.

So further feedback may be imminent.

--
[From the "get used to it" file:]
-- <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/
130524-australia-extreme-weather-climate-change-heat-wave-science-world/>
The rough-hewn sandstone buildings perched atop Observatory Hill have been
keeping an eye on Sydney Harbor since 1858. They've pretty much seen it
all-from the installation of the city's first gaslights to the construction of
the now iconic Sydney Opera House and Harbor Bridge.
But at 2:55 p.m. on January 18, 2013, meteorological equipment in the
observatory registered something new: a read-out marking the hottest day in
the city's history: 45.8?C (114.4?F).

[R Kym Horsell]

In sci.physics R Kym Horsell <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote:

> In sci.physics The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> ?

...

We live in an interesting age.

I was able to take images from the just-finished press briefing,
enhance them, and do my own analysis.

The wing span of a 777 is around 65m. One object looks to be
a long narrow quadrilaterial with length c25m. The object
is tapered but has an average width of around 4m. One end is around
3m; the other end is around 6m.

But, as the authorities say, there is no confirmation it is anything yet.

--
Sydney enjoys record spell of warm weather
SMH, 19 Mar 2014 06:00Z
With Wednesday's peak of 27.8 degrees, Sydney has now clocked daily maximums
of at least 25 degrees for the past 17 days, eclipsing the previous record
of 16 such days set in 1977, said Brett Dutschke, senior meteorologist
with Weatherzone.

[R Kym Horsell]

In sci.physics R Kym Horsell <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote:

...

The first RAAF Orion has reached the area where the objects were seen.
But it reports visibility is very poor and has not reported it's
spotted anything unusual on the surface yet.

The US Navy P-8 has been on station for some time already. You
would imagine a sub-hunter costing $38 bn each might have radar
on board. I'm expecting any report of further details to come out
of the Whitehouse, rather than the AUS parliament or safety board.


--
Global Warming May Double Japan Heat-Related Deaths
Bloomberg, 17 Mar 2014 7:45Z
About 3,000 deaths each year in Japan are linked to heatstroke, a number
that may double if no adaptation measures are taken, according to the report
on the impact of climate change prepared for the Ministry of the Environment.

[R Kym Horsell]

In sci.physics R Kym Horsell <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
> In sci.physics R Kym Horsell <k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote:
> ...
>

First reports from the USN P-8 Posedion sub hunter in the area say they
are receiving radar returns from a significant submerged object.

But, again, there is no evidence yet as to what these objects are.

Since the area is close to maritime routes a merchant vessel has been diverted to
the area and will arrive within the next 2 hrs.

--
The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore
corresponds to an increase of 0.6?C in the world temperature - an
amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries.
-- John Stanley Sawyer, Nature, 1972

[Shadow]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 23:30:14 -0800, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Pilot blackmailed for having affairs with passengers on
flights, videos captured with the help of cell phone backdoors.
Pilot told to fly over China, with special equipment in
fuselage, or videos will be handed over, and he will be fired.
Flight last seen heading for China, to fly over military
facilities, just like the Korean one did, years ago.
Dunno, it was either forced to land in China or it was shot
down. If I was the Chinese, I'd shoot it down, same way the American
would if a spy plane flew over the US of A.
IMHO
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

[cloud dreamer]

Ummm...no. It would have been picked up on radar long before it got to
China.

It's at the bottom at the extreme range of its fuel capacity in the
south Indian ocean. Pilot suicide is the one explanation that now fits
all the evidence.

..

[Brad Guth]

Except that's not consistent with how it works.

Would you go down along with 238 others, without so much as a word?

William Mook actually provided a really good motive for the oligarchs and Bilderbergs terminating that flight. Would you like to hear about it?

[A Friend]

In article <5a-dnXF_qs3vjrbO...@supernews.com>, cloud

It doesn't fit very much of the evidence, actually. An incapacitating
electrical fire does. (I posted a link to an explanation of that
yesterday.) A fire may not be the explanation either, but it fits
better with the evidence we already have and are still getting.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <200320141425258733%no...@noway.com>,

The 'pilot suicide' idiots are making it up out of whole cloth.
Hopefully they're projecting their own impending doom on the situation.

--
Wait - are you saying that ClodReamer was wrong, or lying?

[cloud dreamer]

A fire doesn't fit with the evidence. I saw the Wired article and it
contradicts itself on several points especially when referring to
Swissair and the Nigerian plane.

The simple fact of the matter is any fire bad enough to cause them to
turn around would have consumed the plane LONG before it would have made
it to the Indian Ocean. Swissair lasted less than an hour. The Nigerian
plane was consumed in TEN MINUTES. Not only that, the Malaysian plane
made at least three course changes and made no erratic course changes
that would indicate a serious problem on board.

The Swissair lost its comms LONG after the fire was discovered and only
minutes before the crash.

Any fire would also require the fuel be dumped if they were looking to
land. You can't land a fully fueled aircraft safely. That's what took
out Swissair. It had turned away from the approach into Hfx airport
because it had to dump fuel. It crashed while performing this as the
fire intensified in the cockpit. The Malaysian plane flew for 5 hours+
so it still had it's full complement of fuel.

There were airports closer than the island runway the author of that
piece was pointing to and KL was also closer. The other two runways were
on the coast and the plane had plenty of opportunity to avail of them
but made no attempt to descend.

The timing of the sign-off and first course change is also an indication
of no fire. The pilot on the link obviously reported no problems, cut
the transponder and turned the aircraft. Sorry, but discovering a fire
and determining the threat and making the decision to find a particular
airport would take much longer. Any fire bad enough to pop the circuits
for the transponder and ACARS would have taken out many more systems as
well yet the plane flew for no problem for hours, including course
changes. That indicates knowledgeable pilot and working aircraft.

Pilot suicide fits all the parameters. The transponder was turned off at
precisely the time when it would not arise suspicion immediately - after
leaving Malaysian control and before being picked up by Vietnamese
controllers. Any experienced pilot can pop the breaker for the ACARS
from the cockpit and just switch off the transponder. He could have
easily incapacitated the other pilot. All he has to do is get up to go
to the bathroom, grab the fire extinguisher and wham. You're all alone
in the cockpit and have several ways you could incapacitate the
passengers if necessary (the climb to 45,000 feet indicates this was
likely the reason for that).

Given that suicide is taboo in that region of the world and given that
previous pilot suicides were discovered because the wreckage was
available, the pilot chose a spot where it would be near impossible to
find the wreck given the absence of radar and satellite control over the
area. He likely didn't realize the engine diagnostic service would shake
hands with the comm satellite despite the fact that Malaysia Air didn't
subscribe to the service. That fact alone is what is enabling them to
narrow down the area to search.

Flying that long also means the CVR would no longer contain any
information about the first couple of hours of the flight as most only
record the last 30-120 minutes before a crash.

The evidence available now clearly only supports this as the reason
behind the disappearance of the aircraft. The possible wreckage found
off Australia indicates the aircraft would have been flown as far south
as it was capable where the Roaring 40s would have quickly taken care of
wreckage (as without the satellite ping, no one would have been looking
there as they are now).

..

[Obveeus]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> The 'pilot suicide' idiots are making it up out of whole cloth.
> Hopefully they're projecting their own impending doom on the situation.

I was just disappointed to find out they didn't have enough gas to reach
Antarctica. That would have made a great TV movie later...landing on a
glacier with nothing to eat for miles and miles...except each other.

[A Friend]

In article <lgfhea$ad5$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

A plane crashes in Antarctica? And there are survivors?

Wow! What a series that would make!

We could call it ... FROST.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <200320141610361618%no...@noway.com>,

I like it!

They could fight a penguin. It needn't be a little penguin. It can be
the biggest penguin you've ever seen. An invisible electric robot
penguin, twenty feet high, with long green tentacles that sting people,
and you can stab it in the wings and the blood can go spurting
psssssshhhh in slow motion.

[Shadow]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:23:01 -0230, cloud dreamer
<reduce...@recycle.org> wrote:

>Pilot suicide fits all the parameters.

That's what I said. He was blackmailed into flying over
Chinese military bases. Suicide.

[Rod Speed]

"cloud dreamer" <reduce...@recycle.org> wrote in message
news:5a-dnXJ_qs2H2rbO...@supernews.com...

Not necessarily if it went out but killed everyone in the cockpit
before it went out.

Trouble with all these aircraft failure claims is that it doesn’t
explain why the plane didn’t show up on the primary radar
as it passed back over Malaysia and Indonesia as it headed
to the Indian Ocean.

Pilot suicide would explain that if he chose to fly under
the primary radar until he got past Indonesia and then
went up to normal cruising height again so he had the
range to fly on for hours more as we know the plane
did from the satellite pings that lasted that long.

Much harder to explain why he bothered with such a
complicated way to suicide tho when he could have
just flown it into the water in the Gulf of Tonkin instead.

Its possible that the senior pilot was pissed off enough
about the Malaysian govt having just jailed the leader
of the opposition in Malaysia on his sodomy conviction
again, and wanted to make the Malaysian govt look
completely incompetent. And being a malay, didn’t
care about the plane full of mostly chinese passengers.

It wouldn’t be hard to wait till the junior pilot left the
cockpit for a piss or a shit and then just not let him
back into the cockpit again and shut down the obvious
stuff that allowed anyone to see where the plane was.

> Swissair lasted less than an hour. The Nigerian plane was consumed in TEN
> MINUTES.

Sure, but a better design aircraft wouldn’t necessarily have
had a fire that was as bad as that and it actually went out
once the fuel had gone, but killed the pilots anyway.

Bit implausible tho given the oxygen they have.

Guess its possible that just one of the pilots was in the cockpit,
was so involved in handling the fire that he wasn’t able to let
the other pilot who had left the cockpit to see what was
happening in the rest of the plane fire wise, back into the
cockpit and managed to be overcome by the fumes before
he could use the oxygen to save his life and it all went
downhill from there with only one dead pilot in the cockpit.

> Not only that, the Malaysian plane made at least three course changes and
> made no erratic course changes that would indicate a serious problem on
> board.

What the Thai military primary radar
shows conflicts with that last claim.

> The Swissair lost its comms LONG after the fire was discovered and only
> minutes before the crash.

Sure, but not all fires happen the same way.

> Any fire would also require the fuel be dumped if they were looking to
> land. You can't land a fully fueled aircraft safely.

It wouldn’t be fully fuelled by the time it got back to Malaysia.

> That's what took out Swissair. It had turned away from the approach into
> Hfx airport because it had to dump fuel. It crashed while performing this
> as the fire intensified in the cockpit. The Malaysian plane flew for 5
> hours+ so it still had it's full complement of fuel.

But wouldn’t have had by the time it was back in Malaysia.

> There were airports closer than the island runway the author of that piece
> was pointing to and KL was also closer. The other two runways were on the
> coast and the plane had plenty of opportunity to avail of them but made no
> attempt to descend.

But was not seen in the primary radar passing
over Malaysia or Indonesia, so it must have done.

> The timing of the sign-off and first course change is also an indication
> of no fire. The pilot on the link obviously reported no problems, cut the
> transponder

You don’t know that he did cut the transponder, just that it stopped
working.

> and turned the aircraft. Sorry, but discovering a fire and determining the
> threat and making the decision to find a particular airport would take
> much longer.

Deciding to turn back to Malaysia doesn’t.

He could have done that and left the decision on
where to go in Malaysia till later and then ended
up dead before he got to decide that, due to the
fire, and then the fire went out and the plane
carried on regardless on autopilot.

> Any fire bad enough to pop the circuits for the transponder and ACARS
> would have taken out many more systems as well

You don’t know that. It clearly didn’t take out the satellite comms
that continued to respond to pings from the satellite for hours.

> yet the plane flew for no problem for hours, including course changes.

But never showed up on the primary radar
as it passed over Malaysia and Indonesia.

> That indicates knowledgeable pilot and working aircraft.

Not necessarily.

> Pilot suicide fits all the parameters.

But doesn’t explain why he bothered to head to the southern Indian Ocean.

> The transponder was turned off at precisely the time when it would not
> arise suspicion immediately - after leaving Malaysian control and before
> being picked up by Vietnamese controllers.

Sure. But if you are going to suicide, why bother ?

Just to make it hard to find the plane so the family can
claim on your insurance because no one can prove suicide ?

> Any experienced pilot can pop the breaker for the ACARS from the cockpit
> and just switch off the transponder. He could have easily incapacitated
> the other pilot. All he has to do is get up to go to the bathroom, grab
> the fire extinguisher and wham.

Or just wait till he leaves the cockpit for a piss or
a shit and not let him back into the cockpit again.

> You're all alone in the cockpit and have several ways you could
> incapacitate the passengers if necessary (the climb to 45,000 feet
> indicates this was likely the reason for that).

Or the aircraft systems had failed and that why that happened.

You can just turn the pressurisation off and they will all die,
no need to go to 45K feet and possibly attract attention to
yourself doing that.

> Given that suicide is taboo in that region of the world

That is just plain wrong, most obviously with suicide bombing.

> and given that previous pilot suicides were discovered because the
> wreckage was available, the pilot chose a spot where it would be near
> impossible to find the wreck given the absence of radar and satellite
> control over the area.

He went a hell of a lot further south in the
Indian Ocean than he needed to do for that.

That would however explain why he didn’t show up
on the primary radar over Malaysia or Indonesia.

> He likely didn't realize the engine diagnostic service would shake hands
> with the comm satellite despite the fact that Malaysia Air didn't
> subscribe to the service. That fact alone is what is enabling them to
> narrow down the area to search.

Sure.

> Flying that long also means the CVR would no longer contain any
> information about the first couple of hours of the flight as most only
> record the last 30-120 minutes before a crash.

> The evidence available now clearly only supports this as the reason behind
> the disappearance of the aircraft.

You're overstating that with a fire that didn’t last long.

But that doesn’t explain why it wasn’t seen on the primary
radar over Malaysia and Indonesia and suicide does.

> The possible wreckage found off Australia indicates the aircraft would
> have been flown as far south as it was capable where the Roaring 40s would
> have quickly taken care of wreckage

The wreckage isnt in the Roaring 40s and the area
is in fact a considerable rubbish dump of debris.

> (as without the satellite ping, no one would have been looking there as
> they are now).

True. That is the main evidence of suicide, that
the plane didn’t show up on the primary radar
over Malaysia and Indonesia as it headed into
the Indian Ocean. Bit hard to explain why he
bothered to head so far south, into the area
where there is more chance of overflying a
ship moving between Africa and Australia.

[Rod Speed]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:anim8rfsk-A5F62...@news.easynews.com...

Nope, it’s the best explanation for why it never
showed up on the radar passing back over Malaysia
and Indonesia, it was deliberately flown under the radar.

And he ditched it in the southern Indian Ocean so it would
never be found so that his family would still get paid for him
dying on the job because no one could prove it was suicide.

[suzeeq]

ROFL!!!

[Michael Black]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014, A Friend wrote:


>> It's at the bottom at the extreme range of its fuel capacity in the
>> south Indian ocean. Pilot suicide is the one explanation that now fits
>> all the evidence.
>
>
> It doesn't fit very much of the evidence, actually. An incapacitating
> electrical fire does. (I posted a link to an explanation of that
> yesterday.) A fire may not be the explanation either, but it fits
> better with the evidence we already have and are still getting.
>

That's the reality. There can be sinister reasons for it to disappear,
but there is always the possibility of the mundane, something relatively
small that is fatal.

What happened with that Concorde that crashed, was it on take off? Just a
few years ago. There was nothing sinister about it.

The only difference is that the current plane is missing, so there's no
chance at getting answers.

Michael

[Michael Black]

Alistair McLean (of Ice Station Zebra fame) had a book where a passenger
plane is forced to land in Greenland, away from everyone. There just
happens to be a weather station or something there, so there is some
safety. But the fear of cold is there before the the food, though food
helps with the cold.

Michael

[Michael Black]

Wait a minute. That giant penguin with tentacles sounds exactly like
something someone suggested would appear in "Lost".

Michael

[Cryptoengineer]

suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote in news:lgfu3h$dge$1...@dont-email.me:

I know where this is coming from, but I just want to mention that
it almost describes a scene in the BBC radio Kipling pastiche series,
'Bleak Expectations'.

pt

[Bubba]

Can't disagree with your assessment, but I'm pretty sure that anim8r
was being sarcastic.

Suicide by cop, or hijackers? Could be, but most likely suicide by
pilot. Everyone on board that craft agreed to board the plane. The
pilot himself reprogrammed the flight plan and stole the aircraft,
ditching it into the deepest part of the remotest ocean for which it
was fueled to reach undetected, at least not immediately. The pilot
was not inexperienced and definitely knew how to fly a 777 jumbo jet
as well or better than anyone else in the world.

Why might he have done it? Who knows, maybe simply because he could.
Not everything is a conspiracy. I'm thinking this guy carefully
planned ahead and acted as a lone wolf. It didn't seem spontaneous.
Why shoot for remote three-mile deep ocean waters where he must've
known that it would take investigators years to discover and assess
the remaining evidence? This case reeks of suicide and mass murder,
a very well planned execution. Insurance pays his family off on the
life insurance because there's no way to prove the contrary. Also,
the accidental insurance policies on the other 238 souls on board
would pay their families. That guy must've really done his research
and thought it through meticulously.

--
Bub

[Greg Goss]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The 'pilot suicide' idiots are making it up out of whole cloth.
>
>Nope, it’s the best explanation for why it never
>showed up on the radar passing back over Malaysia
>and Indonesia, it was deliberately flown under the radar.

The problem is that the southern Indian Ocean (near the Perth search
of the last few days) is incompatible with flying low. To get the
seven hours range reported in some versions of the engine-ping
reports, he could not be flying in thick air.

>And he ditched it in the southern Indian Ocean so it would
>never be found so that his family would still get paid for him
>dying on the job because no one could prove it was suicide.

Reasonable.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Apollo]

In Spain, in Spain!

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-03-21, Apollo <now...@def.com> wrote:
> In Spain, in Spain!

I've fixed your Subject: header for you.

In other news, curiously on-topic for most of these groups, how are people
reacting to Monday's announcement that a) gravitational waves have been
finally found b) in the microwave background [b)i) from an ongoing experiment
near the South Pole, tying into other bits of this thread] c) indicating that
the inflationary theories for just-after-the-Big-Bang now have experimental
support as well AND d) the latter points almost directly to us being part of
an actual multiverse?

Dave, this one's big. REALLY big. No, bigger than that.
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Rod Speed]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> The 'pilot suicide' idiots are making it up out of whole cloth.

>> Nope, it's the best explanation for why it never
>> showed up on the radar passing back over Malaysia
>> and Indonesia, it was deliberately flown under the radar.

> The problem is that the southern Indian Ocean (near the Perth
> search of the last few days) is incompatible with flying low.

Not if you only fly under the radar while passing over Malaysia
and Indonesia and return to normal cruise height once you are
out of primary radar range.

> To get the seven hours range reported in some versions of
> the engine-ping reports, he could not be flying in thick air.

See above.

>> And he ditched it in the southern Indian Ocean so it would
>> never be found so that his family would still get paid for him
>> dying on the job because no one could prove it was suicide.

> Reasonable.

Hard to think of any other reason for going there instead of just
ditching in the Gulf of Tonkin instead. And for deliberately
flying under the primary radar with the transponder
and ACARS turned off over Malaysia and Indonesia.

[Rod Speed]

"Bubba" <Bub@ba> wrote in message
news:859ae3df979bca71...@dizum.com...

That's not sarcasm.

> Suicide by cop,

No cops involved.

> or hijackers?

Hard to buy that post 9/11.

> Could be, but most likely suicide by pilot.

The only other reasonably plausible possibility is that
the plane did have a severe electrical problem that
killed everyone but that doesn’t explain why it flew
under the radar as it passed over Malaysia and
Indonesia and then returned to normal cruise
altitude to get the range to end up in the
southern Indian Ocean below Perth.

> Everyone on board that craft agreed to board the plane.

But didn’t agree to end up dead.

> The pilot himself reprogrammed the flight plan and stole the aircraft,
> ditching it into the deepest part of the remotest ocean for which it
> was fueled to reach undetected, at least not immediately. The pilot
> was not inexperienced and definitely knew how to fly a 777 jumbo jet

Corse he did or he wouldn’t have been allowed to.

> as well or better than anyone else in the world.

No evidence for that.

> Why might he have done it?

Like I said, the most plausible explanation for that is that
not being able to prove he suicided would ensure that
his family continued to get paid by Malaysian Airlines
and there was no shame of suicide over what he did.

> Who knows, maybe simply because he could.

Unlikely that he wouldn’t have just flown into
the Gulf of Tonkin if that is all he wanted to do
while the other pilot was out of the cockpit.

> Not everything is a conspiracy. I'm thinking this guy carefully
> planned ahead and acted as a lone wolf. It didn't seem spontaneous.
> Why shoot for remote three-mile deep ocean waters where he must've
> known that it would take investigators years to discover and assess
> the remaining evidence?

Like I said, to make it impossible to prove he suicided so his
family would not have to wear the consequences of that.

> This case reeks of suicide

Yes.

> and mass murder,

Yes, but they were mostly chinese and many malays have
a pretty jaundiced view about the lives of the chinese.

> a very well planned execution. Insurance pays his family off on
> the life insurance because there's no way to prove the contrary.

Yes, tho moslems arent supposed to insure their lives.

> Also, the accidental insurance policies on the other
> 238 souls on board would pay their families.

And the compensation from Malaysian Airlines.

> That guy must've really done his research
> and thought it through meticulously.

Yep, and there is plenty of evidence that the senior
pilot particularly was quite capable of doing that.

[cloud dreamer]

On 20/03/2014 6:28 PM, Shadow wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:23:01 -0230, cloud dreamer
> <reduce...@recycle.org> wrote:
>
>> Pilot suicide fits all the parameters.
>
> That's what I said. He was blackmailed into flying over
> Chinese military bases. Suicide.

But the plane didn't go north. Far too many nations to cross. It
wouldn't have gone undetected.

..

[cloud dreamer]

Then the plane would not have made THREE course changes....none of which
made ANY attempt to direct the aircraft to an airport. All the course
changes lead to one thing...avoiding radar to get to the Indian Ocean.

>
> Trouble with all these aircraft failure claims is that it doesn’t
> explain why the plane didn’t show up on the primary radar
> as it passed back over Malaysia and Indonesia as it headed
> to the Indian Ocean.

It did show up on radar. Thailand also picked it up heading to that last
point in which it was seen (in which it either turned north or south
according to the satellite).

>
> Pilot suicide would explain that if he chose to fly under
> the primary radar until he got past Indonesia and then
> went up to normal cruising height again so he had the
> range to fly on for hours more as we know the plane
> did from the satellite pings that lasted that long.
>
> Much harder to explain why he bothered with such a
> complicated way to suicide tho when he could have
> just flown it into the water in the Gulf of Tonkin instead.

Suicide is taboo in that culture. Previous planes that crashed due to
pilot suicide were investigated because they had wreckage and could
determine the cause. Both Egyptair and Silkair pilot suicides led to an
uproar from both countries and a lot of denial let alone what the
families had to go through. He did it to avoid that.

That IS a very strong motivation and not unusual.

>
>> Swissair lasted less than an hour. The Nigerian plane was consumed in
>> TEN MINUTES.
>
> Sure, but a better design aircraft wouldn’t necessarily have
> had a fire that was as bad as that and it actually went out
> once the fuel had gone, but killed the pilots anyway.

Then you're back to the course changes. But any fire bad enough to pop
those circuits is bad enough to take down a plane. Doesn't matter how a
plane is designed. Fire is fire.

>
> Bit implausible tho given the oxygen they have.
>
> Guess its possible that just one of the pilots was in the cockpit,
> was so involved in handling the fire that he wasn’t able to let
> the other pilot who had left the cockpit to see what was
> happening in the rest of the plane fire wise, back into the
> cockpit and managed to be overcome by the fumes before
> he could use the oxygen to save his life and it all went
> downhill from there with only one dead pilot in the cockpit.

Like I said, suicide is far more plausible. This is grasping at straws.
Given the evidence, fire does not fit.

>
>> Not only that, the Malaysian plane made at least three course changes
>> and made no erratic course changes that would indicate a serious
>> problem on board.
>
> What the Thai military primary radar
> shows conflicts with that last claim.

No. Thai radar tracked the plane turning around and crossing the Malay
Peninsula and entering the Strait just over Butterworth, Malaysia. That
jives with the Malaysian radar found.

The more important point here is that Thailand was willing to share its
radar data, so had the plane gone anywhere near Thailand, we would know.

>
>> The Swissair lost its comms LONG after the fire was discovered and
>> only minutes before the crash.
>
> Sure, but not all fires happen the same way.

The article had insinuated that it happened earlier.

>
>> Any fire would also require the fuel be dumped if they were looking to
>> land. You can't land a fully fueled aircraft safely.
>
> It wouldn’t be fully fuelled by the time it got back to Malaysia.

It had expended "some" fuel but not nearly enough to safely get it back
on the ground. In a fire scenario, dumping the fuel is essential.

>
>> That's what took out Swissair. It had turned away from the approach
>> into Hfx airport because it had to dump fuel. It crashed while
>> performing this as the fire intensified in the cockpit. The Malaysian
>> plane flew for 5 hours+ so it still had it's full complement of fuel.
>
> But wouldn’t have had by the time it was back in Malaysia.

Yes, it would have. It had only just gotten to cruising altitude when
the transponder had gone out. But as I said, if fire is suspected, they
don't want to land a heavy plane full of fuel.

>
>> There were airports closer than the island runway the author of that
>> piece was pointing to and KL was also closer. The other two runways
>> were on the coast and the plane had plenty of opportunity to avail of
>> them but made no attempt to descend.
>
> But was not seen in the primary radar passing
> over Malaysia or Indonesia, so it must have done.

Again. It was seen crossing over Malaysia. It wasn't seen by Indonesia
as it flew to PURPOSELY avoid Indonesia. Crossing Indonesia would have
resulted in a military response.

>
>> The timing of the sign-off and first course change is also an
>> indication of no fire. The pilot on the link obviously reported no
>> problems, cut the transponder
>
> You don’t know that he did cut the transponder, just that it stopped
> working.

And you don't know that he didn't. The knob is at his fingertips. No
problem to switch it off....again, consistent with pilot suicide.

Not consistent with a fire as any fire bad enough to take out comms,
ACARS and transponder would have taken out the plane easily.

Oh...but wait...those particular three systems failing would be exactly
what would happen in the case of....wait for it...pilot suicide.

>
>> and turned the aircraft. Sorry, but discovering a fire and determining
>> the threat and making the decision to find a particular airport would
>> take much longer.
>
> Deciding to turn back to Malaysia doesn’t.
>
> He could have done that and left the decision on
> where to go in Malaysia till later and then ended
> up dead before he got to decide that, due to the
> fire, and then the fire went out and the plane
> carried on regardless on autopilot.

Not only did it happen far too quickly, the turn was PROGRAMMED into
ACARS before.....okay, reading closely? The was programmed into the
system BEFORE the last transmission.

Sorry, no fire. That was done by a pilot.

>
>> Any fire bad enough to pop the circuits for the transponder and ACARS
>> would have taken out many more systems as well
>
> You don’t know that. It clearly didn’t take out the satellite comms
> that continued to respond to pings from the satellite for hours.
>
>> yet the plane flew for no problem for hours, including course changes.
>
> But never showed up on the primary radar
> as it passed over Malaysia and Indonesia.

Again. Yes, it did. (Don't know your fixation with "primary" radar. It
showed up on radar just as a plane without a transponder would show on a
radar - as a blip. The Malaysians AND the Thai picked it up.

>
>> That indicates knowledgeable pilot and working aircraft.
>
> Not necessarily.

Yes. It does.

>
>> Pilot suicide fits all the parameters.
>
> But doesn’t explain why he bothered to head to the southern Indian Ocean.

Do I need to repeat myself??

>
>> The transponder was turned off at precisely the time when it would not
>> arise suspicion immediately - after leaving Malaysian control and
>> before being picked up by Vietnamese controllers.
>
> Sure. But if you are going to suicide, why bother ?

Do I need to repeat myself???

>
> Just to make it hard to find the plane so the family can
> claim on your insurance because no one can prove suicide ?

Yes! In the mind of a suicidal man anything is possible. This proves a
lot of planning. Maybe the airline did something to him? Maybe it was a
political protest (now covered up by the Malaysian government)?? Maybe
it was to direct a lot of world attention on Malaysia after what
happened to his friend???? Maybe he wanted to make sure his family would
not have to suffer the shame of his murder/suicide AND get a few
dollars??????

>
>> Any experienced pilot can pop the breaker for the ACARS from the
>> cockpit and just switch off the transponder. He could have easily
>> incapacitated the other pilot. All he has to do is get up to go to the
>> bathroom, grab the fire extinguisher and wham.
>
> Or just wait till he leaves the cockpit for a piss or
> a shit and not let him back into the cockpit again.

Irrelevant either way. The point is it's not a problem to take over the
cockpit.

>
>> You're all alone in the cockpit and have several ways you could
>> incapacitate the passengers if necessary (the climb to 45,000 feet
>> indicates this was likely the reason for that).
>
> Or the aircraft systems had failed and that why that happened.

Then it would not have been capable of three precise turns....the first
of which was PROGRAMMED into the aircraft PRIOR to the last communication.

>
> You can just turn the pressurisation off and they will all die,
> no need to go to 45K feet and possibly attract attention to
> yourself doing that.

Not with yourself in the aircraft. At least, not when there are more
comfortable alternatives. The cockpit shares the same cabin pressure. He
had other ways to bleed the oxygen out and the oxygen in the cabin for
passengers only lasts 12 minutes on average.

>
>> Given that suicide is taboo in that region of the world
>
> That is just plain wrong, most obviously with suicide bombing.

Yes. Suicide bombings are also taboo to MAINSTREAM society there.
Extremism doesn't apply here.

>
>> and given that previous pilot suicides were discovered because the
>> wreckage was available, the pilot chose a spot where it would be near
>> impossible to find the wreck given the absence of radar and satellite
>> control over the area.
>
> He went a hell of a lot further south in the
> Indian Ocean than he needed to do for that.

He went to the extent of the aircraft's range so that no fuel would be
spotted in the ocean by accident.

>
> That would however explain why he didn’t show up
> on the primary radar over Malaysia or Indonesia.
>
>> He likely didn't realize the engine diagnostic service would shake
>> hands with the comm satellite despite the fact that Malaysia Air
>> didn't subscribe to the service. That fact alone is what is enabling
>> them to narrow down the area to search.
>
> Sure.
>
>> Flying that long also means the CVR would no longer contain any
>> information about the first couple of hours of the flight as most only
>> record the last 30-120 minutes before a crash.
>
>> The evidence available now clearly only supports this as the reason
>> behind the disappearance of the aircraft.
>
> You're overstating that with a fire that didn’t last long.
>
> But that doesn’t explain why it wasn’t seen on the primary
> radar over Malaysia and Indonesia and suicide does.

Again, it was seen on radar.

>
>> The possible wreckage found off Australia indicates the aircraft would
>> have been flown as far south as it was capable where the Roaring 40s
>> would have quickly taken care of wreckage
>
> The wreckage isnt in the Roaring 40s and the area
> is in fact a considerable rubbish dump of debris.

Call it what you want...the area has a very strong west to east current.

>
>> (as without the satellite ping, no one would have been looking there
>> as they are now).
>
> True. That is the main evidence of suicide, that
> the plane didn’t show up on the primary radar
> over Malaysia and Indonesia as it headed into
> the Indian Ocean. Bit hard to explain why he
> bothered to head so far south, into the area
> where there is more chance of overflying a
> ship moving between Africa and Australia.

A ship wouldn't notice a plane several thousand metres above it. Have
you ever been on a ship? They're noisy. Even if they noticed it, it's a
plane. So what?

..

[Greg Goss]

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

>What happened with that Concorde that crashed, was it on take off? Just a
>few years ago. There was nothing sinister about it.

A tire came apart and punched a hole through the wing fuel tank. The
leaking fuel caught fire. Previous similar fuel tank punctures were
survived when the fuel didn't ignite. The Concorde wasn't as lucky
that time.

The much higher take-off and landing speeds that the Concorde required
were very hard on their tires.

I was convinced (but I now forget what the evidence was) that it was a
scrap of metal from a TWA plane that wrecked the Concorde tire.

[cloud dreamer]

It's animalfukr....it's sarcasm.

He's a guy who can't even understand friction, let alone the concept of
a flat spin in aircraft. Talking ACARS and transponder is just a bit too
complicated for him.

..

[Greg Goss]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote

>> The problem is that the southern Indian Ocean (near the Perth
>> search of the last few days) is incompatible with flying low.

>> To get the seven hours range reported in some versions of
>> the engine-ping reports, he could not be flying in thick air.
>
>
>Not if you only fly under the radar while passing over Malaysia
>and Indonesia and return to normal cruise height once you are
>out of primary radar range.
>

Yeah, I didn't read THAT post of yours until after posting my comment.

Once they get out over Malacca, are there no military radars watching?
(Other than the Thai "Nobody asked us"?)

[cloud dreamer]

A similar thing happened to the Nigeria Airways DC-8. An under-inflated
tire had burst and caught fire on takeoff and was then retracted into
the wing. It took only 10 minutes for it to consume the plane.

..

[cloud dreamer]

He seems fixated on the idea that it wasn't detected, but it was. Enough
to know it programmed a change prior to the last transmission, the plane
was detected crossing the peninsula, then detected in the Strait until
it got to the Indian ocean.

This graphic shows the last position as tracked by military radar to the
west of Malaysia:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5326e4ee6da8114b3fd9dace/everything-we-know-about-malaysia-airlines-flight-370-in-one-graphic.jpg

..

[Greg Goss]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> The 'pilot suicide' idiots are making it up out of whole cloth.
>
>Nope, it’s the best explanation for why it never
>showed up on the radar passing back over Malaysia
>and Indonesia, it was deliberately flown under the radar.
>
>And he ditched it in the southern Indian Ocean so it would
>never be found so that his family would still get paid for him
>dying on the job because no one could prove it was suicide.

I'm working on a seasonal job with far too much overtime, so I've
missed a lot of info on this incident.

Lots of people discuss an excursion to 45K feet (a very high altitude
for this plane), but I haven't seen this supported in any reputable
source. What is the evidence for this part of the trip?

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> ...

>Lots of people discuss an excursion to 45K feet (a very high altitude
>for this plane), but I haven't seen this supported in any reputable
>source. What is the evidence for this part of the trip?

> ...

There is none. Nor for the flying at low altitudes. And there is no
evidence for *specific* route changes. If you track them back you'll
find anonymous and unnamed sources, or suppositions by the Malaysian
authorities for which no evidence is given. However once one of these
factoids hits the media echo chamber it gets transformed into ultimate
truth.

When I see a crackpot theory with the word "terrorist" in it, I
mentally substitute "cutthroat Indonesian competitor to Malaysian
Airlines" and the theory makes a whole lot more sense.

<http://www.businessinsider.com/why-indonesian-pilots-use-crystal-meth-2013-4>

--bks

A graphic on CNN converted [about 24 meters] to [about 78' 8.9"]. Yow!

[Rod Speed]

"cloud dreamer" <reduce...@recycle.org> wrote in message

news:i_Gdnd4Js_wgqLHO...@supernews.com...

What I said elsewhere. I was just commenting on that error
of yours about fire there.

>> Trouble with all these aircraft failure claims is that it doesn’t
>> explain why the plane didn’t show up on the primary radar
>> as it passed back over Malaysia and Indonesia as it headed
>> to the Indian Ocean.
>
> It did show up on radar.

Not when passing over Malaysia and Indonesia.

> Thailand also picked it up heading to that last point in which it was seen
> (in which it either turned north or south according to the satellite).

That was at the time the transponder went off.

>> Pilot suicide would explain that if he chose to fly under
>> the primary radar until he got past Indonesia and then
>> went up to normal cruising height again so he had the
>> range to fly on for hours more as we know the plane
>> did from the satellite pings that lasted that long.
>>
>> Much harder to explain why he bothered with such a
>> complicated way to suicide tho when he could have
>> just flown it into the water in the Gulf of Tonkin instead.

> Suicide is taboo in that culture.

Wrong, most obviously with suicide bombers.

> Previous planes that crashed due to pilot suicide were investigated
> because they had wreckage and could determine the cause.

What I said elsewhere. It pays to read the
entire post before replying to bits of it.

> Both Egyptair and Silkair pilot suicides led to an uproar from both
> countries and a lot of denial let alone what the families had to go
> through. He did it to avoid that.

As I said, I bet he did it so his family would continue
to be paid by Malaysian Airlines when it could not be
proven that he suicided and they would not have the
shame of that to have to wear.

> That IS a very strong motivation and not unusual.

The other is much stronger and even more common,
particularly with those who deliberately take out
insurance with no way of proving it was suicide
so the insurance has to pay out.

>>> Swissair lasted less than an hour. The Nigerian plane was consumed in
>>> TEN MINUTES.

>> Sure, but a better design aircraft wouldn’t necessarily have
>> had a fire that was as bad as that and it actually went out
>> once the fuel had gone, but killed the pilots anyway.

> Then you're back to the course changes.

Yes, that was just a comment on your fire claims.

> But any fire bad enough to pop those circuits is bad enough to take down a
> plane.

Wrong if it goes out once the fuel is consumed.

> Doesn't matter how a plane is designed. Fire is fire.

It matters a hell of a lot on the question of whether
the fire keeps burning until the plane goes down.

>> Bit implausible tho given the oxygen they have.

>> Guess its possible that just one of the pilots was in the cockpit,
>> was so involved in handling the fire that he wasn’t able to let
>> the other pilot who had left the cockpit to see what was
>> happening in the rest of the plane fire wise, back into the
>> cockpit and managed to be overcome by the fumes before
>> he could use the oxygen to save his life and it all went
>> downhill from there with only one dead pilot in the cockpit.

> Like I said, suicide is far more plausible.

What I said myself.

> This is grasping at straws.

Nope, just pointing out that your claim that fire is
guaranteed to bring down the plane is just plain wrong.

> Given the evidence, fire does not fit.

What I said.

>>> Not only that, the Malaysian plane made at least three course changes
>>> and made no erratic course changes that would indicate a serious problem
>>> on board.

>> What the Thai military primary radar
>> shows conflicts with that last claim.

> No.

Yep.

> Thai radar tracked the plane turning around and crossing the Malay
> Peninsula and entering the Strait just over Butterworth, Malaysia.

That shows that there was NOT a serious problem on board.

> That jives with the Malaysian radar found.

Malaysian primary radar did not track it passing over Malaysia.

> The more important point here is that Thailand was willing to share its
> radar data, so had the plane gone anywhere near Thailand, we would know.

I was just commenting on your claim that the primary radar
showed a serious problem on board. It did nothing of the sort.

>>> The Swissair lost its comms LONG after the fire was discovered and only
>>> minutes before the crash.

>> Sure, but not all fires happen the same way.

> The article had insinuated that it happened earlier.

So clearly not all fires happen the same way so what happened
with Swissair is irrelevant to what happened with this plane.

>>> Any fire would also require the fuel be dumped if they were looking to
>>> land. You can't land a fully fueled aircraft safely.

>> It wouldn’t be fully fuelled by the time it got back to Malaysia.

> It had expended "some" fuel but not nearly enough to safely get it back on
> the ground.

Bullshit.

> In a fire scenario, dumping the fuel is essential.

Not if the fire was out at the time of landing because
what the fire was burning had been consumed because
the plane was better designed and didn’t have anything
like as much available to burn as Swissair.

>>> That's what took out Swissair. It had turned away from the approach
>>> into Hfx airport because it had to dump fuel. It crashed while
>>> performing this as the fire intensified in the cockpit. The Malaysian
>>> plane flew for 5 hours+ so it still had it's full complement of fuel.

>> But wouldn’t have had by the time it was back in Malaysia.

> Yes, it would have.

Wrong.

> It had only just gotten to cruising altitude when the transponder had gone
> out.

But still had to get back to Malaysia.

> But as I said, if fire is suspected,

You know if there is a fire or not.

> they don't want to land a heavy plane full of fuel.

You don’t want to fly around for hours consuming fuel if the
fire is still burning and may end up bringing down the plane.

>>> There were airports closer than the island runway the author of that
>>> piece was pointing to and KL was also closer. The other two runways
>>> were on the coast and the plane had plenty of opportunity to avail of
>>> them but made no attempt to descend.
>>
>> But was not seen in the primary radar passing
>> over Malaysia or Indonesia, so it must have done.

> Again. It was seen crossing over Malaysia.

Wrong.

> It wasn't seen by Indonesia as it flew to PURPOSELY avoid Indonesia.
> Crossing Indonesia would have resulted in a military response.

Bullshit.

>>> The timing of the sign-off and first course change is also an
>>> indication of no fire. The pilot on the link obviously reported no
>>> problems, cut the transponder

>> You don’t know that he did cut the transponder, just that it stopped
>> working.

> And you don't know that he didn't.

You made that claim.

You get to show that that is the only possibility.

That’s how it works.

> The knob is at his fingertips. No problem to switch it off....again,
> consistent with pilot suicide.

But can have been due to a fire.

> Not consistent with a fire as any fire bad enough to take out comms, ACARS
> and transponder would have taken out the plane easily.

Bullshit.

> Oh...but wait...those particular three systems failing would be exactly
> what would happen in the case of....wait for it...pilot suicide.

Can have happened with an electrical fire too.

>>> and turned the aircraft. Sorry, but discovering a fire and determining
>>> the threat and making the decision to find a particular airport would
>>> take much longer.

>> Deciding to turn back to Malaysia doesn’t.

>> He could have done that and left the decision on
>> where to go in Malaysia till later and then ended
>> up dead before he got to decide that, due to the
>> fire, and then the fire went out and the plane
>> carried on regardless on autopilot.

> Not only did it happen far too quickly, the turn was PROGRAMMED into ACARS
> before.....

You don’t program ACARS.

> okay, reading closely? The was programmed into the system BEFORE the last
> transmission.

Wrong.

> Sorry, no fire.

You don’t know that.

> That was done by a pilot.

You don’t know that.

>>> Any fire bad enough to pop the circuits for the transponder and ACARS
>>> would have taken out many more systems as well

>> You don’t know that. It clearly didn’t take out the satellite comms
>> that continued to respond to pings from the satellite for hours.

>>> yet the plane flew for no problem for hours, including course changes.

>> But never showed up on the primary radar
>> as it passed over Malaysia and Indonesia.

> Again. Yes, it did.

No it did not.

> (Don't know your fixation with "primary" radar.

Because secondary radar didn’t show it because the transponder was off.

> It showed up on radar just as a plane without a transponder would show on
> a radar - as a blip.

That's what primary radar means.

> The Malaysians AND the Thai picked it up.

No the Malaysians did not.

>>> That indicates knowledgeable pilot and working aircraft.

>> Not necessarily.

> Yes. It does.

No it does not.

>>> Pilot suicide fits all the parameters.

>> But doesn’t explain why he bothered to head to the southern Indian Ocean.

> Do I need to repeat myself??

You do anyway.

>>> The transponder was turned off at precisely the time when it would not
>>> arise suspicion immediately - after leaving Malaysian control and
>>> before being picked up by Vietnamese controllers.

>> Sure. But if you are going to suicide, why bother ?

> Do I need to repeat myself???

You do anyway.

>> Just to make it hard to find the plane so the family can
>> claim on your insurance because no one can prove suicide ?

> Yes! In the mind of a suicidal man anything is possible.

Even sillier.

> This proves a lot of planning.

Nope, very little planning require to turn off what keeps
track of the plane and to head to the southern Indian Ocean
where will be very difficult to find any wreckage, particularly
if you can still fly the plane to minimise the chance of it
breaking up as it enters the water and scatters all sorts
of debris for someone passing thru that area to find.

> Maybe the airline did something to him?

Unlikely that no one has pointed that out now.

> Maybe it was a political protest

Unlikely that he wouldn’t make it clear that that is what
he was doing. Its pointless if that isnt done because no
one will be sure that it hadn't vanished due to aircraft failure.

He clearly didn’t expect that the satellite pings would make
it clear that he had headed to the southern Indian Ocean.

> (now covered up by the Malaysian government)??

Not possible to cover something like that up.

> Maybe it was to direct a lot of world attention on Malaysia after what
> happened to his friend????

There is no public attention directed if
no one is sure that its deliberate suicide.

> Maybe he wanted to make sure his family would not have to suffer the shame
> of his murder/suicide AND get a few dollars??????

What I said.

>>> Any experienced pilot can pop the breaker for the ACARS from the
>>> cockpit and just switch off the transponder. He could have easily
>>> incapacitated the other pilot. All he has to do is get up to go to the
>>> bathroom, grab the fire extinguisher and wham.
>>
>> Or just wait till he leaves the cockpit for a piss or
>> a shit and not let him back into the cockpit again.

> Irrelevant either way.

Nope, it shows how that could be done.

> The point is it's not a problem to take over the cockpit.

It is if the other pilot never leaves it.

>>> You're all alone in the cockpit and have several ways you could
>>> incapacitate the passengers if necessary (the climb to 45,000 feet
>>> indicates this was likely the reason for that).

>> Or the aircraft systems had failed and that why that happened.

> Then it would not have been capable of three precise turns....the first of
> which was PROGRAMMED into the aircraft PRIOR to the last communication.

You don’t know that last.

>> You can just turn the pressurisation off and they will all die,
>> no need to go to 45K feet and possibly attract attention to
>> yourself doing that.

> Not with yourself in the aircraft.

Wrong.

> At least, not when there are more comfortable alternatives.

Wrong.

> The cockpit shares the same cabin pressure.

Duh.

> He had other ways to bleed the oxygen out and the oxygen in the cabin for
> passengers only lasts 12 minutes on average.

So no need to go to 45K feet and possibly attract attention
to yourself doing that.

>>> Given that suicide is taboo in that region of the world

>> That is just plain wrong, most obviously with suicide bombing.

> Yes. Suicide bombings are also taboo to MAINSTREAM society there.
> Extremism doesn't apply here.

By definition suicide by a pilot with a plane full of passengers is
just a tad extreme. We only know of a couple of other examples.

>>> and given that previous pilot suicides were discovered because the
>>> wreckage was available, the pilot chose a spot where it would be near
>>> impossible to find the wreck given the absence of radar and satellite
>>> control over the area.

>> He went a hell of a lot further south in the
>> Indian Ocean than he needed to do for that.

> He went to the extent of the aircraft's range so that no fuel would be
> spotted in the ocean by accident.

Even sillier.

>> That would however explain why he didn’t show up
>> on the primary radar over Malaysia or Indonesia.

>>> He likely didn't realize the engine diagnostic service would shake
>>> hands with the comm satellite despite the fact that Malaysia Air
>>> didn't subscribe to the service. That fact alone is what is enabling
>>> them to narrow down the area to search.

>> Sure.

>>> Flying that long also means the CVR would no longer contain any
>>> information about the first couple of hours of the flight as most only
>>> record the last 30-120 minutes before a crash.

>>> The evidence available now clearly only supports this as the reason
>>> behind the disappearance of the aircraft.

>> You're overstating that with a fire that didn’t last long.

>> But that doesn’t explain why it wasn’t seen on the primary
>> radar over Malaysia and Indonesia and suicide does.

> Again, it was seen on radar.

Again, it wasn’t.

>>> The possible wreckage found off Australia indicates the aircraft would
>>> have been flown as far south as it was capable where the Roaring 40s
>>> would have quickly taken care of wreckage

>> The wreckage isnt in the Roaring 40s and the area
>> is in fact a considerable rubbish dump of debris.

> Call it what you want...the area has a very strong west to east current.

The Roaring 40s aint about current, its about the wind.

Currents don’t roar in the body of the ocean.

>>> (as without the satellite ping, no one would have been looking there as
>>> they are now).

>> True. That is the main evidence of suicide, that
>> the plane didn’t show up on the primary radar
>> over Malaysia and Indonesia as it headed into
>> the Indian Ocean. Bit hard to explain why he
>> bothered to head so far south, into the area
>> where there is more chance of overflying a
>> ship moving between Africa and Australia.

> A ship wouldn't notice a plane several thousand metres above it.

Bullshit.

> Have you ever been on a ship?

Yep.

> They're noisy.

Bullshit when you are on deck.

> Even if they noticed it, it's a plane. So what?

So someone who routinely sails there and who
has never seen any con trails going NS there before
is likely to remember something that unusual if he
sees that. And they don’t hear the plane, they see
the contrails. I see them all the time when out
of the house, because we are under one of the
main routes.

[Rod Speed]

"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
news:bp2r82...@mid.individual.net...

It was found on the runway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590#Conclusions

[Rod Speed]

"cloud dreamer" <reduce...@recycle.org> wrote in message

news:i_GdndkJs_y6qrHO...@supernews.com...

Bullshit.

[Rod Speed]

"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message

news:bp2rgu...@mid.individual.net...

> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote
>
>>> The problem is that the southern Indian Ocean (near the Perth
>>> search of the last few days) is incompatible with flying low.
>>> To get the seven hours range reported in some versions of
>>> the engine-ping reports, he could not be flying in thick air.
>>
>>
>>Not if you only fly under the radar while passing over Malaysia
>>and Indonesia and return to normal cruise height once you are
>>out of primary radar range.
>>
> Yeah, I didn't read THAT post of yours until after posting my comment.
>
> Once they get out over Malacca, are there no military radars watching?

Not if you deliberately fly low enough.

> (Other than the Thai "Nobody asked us"?)

That was at cruising altitude.

[Osher]

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 2:30:09 AM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> ¿

[cloud dreamer]

On 21/03/2014 12:33 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>


It's evident that you're working off erroneous data or a lack of
understanding of how the aircraft functions. And absolutely no
comprehension of how a fire can affect an aircraft. The very FACT that
the first course change was programmed into the ACARS proves intent on
the part of the pilots.

Read some more especially about fires on aircraft (SA295, SA111, NA2120,
SA306, PIA740, Saudi163, VJ592). These crashes have one thing in common
- cabin fires can take down a commercial airliner in a matter of
minutes. The longest was just over an hour. Aircraft do not have onboard
sprinkler systems. Any fire bad enough to pop those breakers would have
destroyed the aircraft.

The very notion of an onboard fire is nonsense in this case given the
programming, the timing of the shutoff of the equipment, the obvious
non-failure of many other systems, the course changes and flight for
several more hours.

Quite frankly, the very idea that a fire caused this is ludicrous to the
point of being laughable.

But Malaysia will want to pump it up because just as Egypt and Indonesia
contested the findings of pilot suicide, Malaysia will want to contest
it....by confusing reports and misdirecting the investigation. This is
precisely what is happening.

And yes, for the last time, it was tracked going over the Malaysian
peninsula, turning west and again turning once it reached the Indian Ocean.

Look at the graphic. It shows you the last known position as tracked by
radar.

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5326df7d69beddae21274298-800-/bi6xjvyigaawu3w.jpg

And no, I'm not saying this is the only possibility...but it is the only
one, right now, that fits ALL the evidence.

..

[cloud dreamer]

Doesn't matter. The plane was picked up by both Thai and Malaysian
radar. Between the two countries, they saw it turn around, cross the
peninsula, move between waypoints in the Strait and then fall off radar
out in the Indian ocean (where there is no coverage).

http://media.themalaysianinsider.com/assets/uploads/resizer/MH370-military_radar-tracking-peninsula-170314-eng-graphcs-tmi-kamarul_540_343_100.jpg

From there, it's the satellite that confirmed it had ended it's hours
long flight either to the north or south. If it had gone north, the
sophisticated radars of those nations would have picked it up.

Given that none saw anything, it went south and Australia is looking at
the point according to the satellite where it would have went down had
it flown until its fuel was exhausted. (Which indicates Australia
believes as I do that this was a deliberate act by the pilot).

..

[Michael Black]

Thanks. After I posted, I thought about how landing and takeoffs probably
are a more serious time. But my point was that something small can be
fatal, and it could happen at any point.

Michael

[The Starmaker]

It-but it-it ... doesn't make any sense.
He drove past the book depository and the
police said conclusively that it was an
exit wound. So-how is it possible for
Oswald to have fired from two angles at
once? It doesn't make sense.






Why do I believe her?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586013/Malaysian-woman-claims-seen-missing-MH370-water-near-Andaman-Islands-day-disappeared.html

[David Johnston]

How does flying in a straight line until it runs out of fuel indicate
that this was a deliberate act by the pilot?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <lghvqi$142$1...@dont-email.me>,

Planes can't fly in a straight line naturally; that requires artificial
electricity.

--
Wait - are you saying that ClodReamer was wrong, or lying?

[David Johnston]

That's actually correct. Flying in a straight line until you run out of
fuel is kind of thing an autopilot does when there's no longer anyone
telling it what to do.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:

>
> Why do I believe her?
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586013/Malaysian-woman-claims-seen-missing-MH370-water-near-Andaman-Islands-day-disappeared.html

I mean, she saw the plane!


She don't look like a con artist likes so many of yous do...
She don't look like she was abducted on a flying saucer likes so many of yous do...
She don't look like William Shatner...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFbWJJj9uFU


I believe her! I believe her!!




Sometimes your science and technology doesn't cut the mustard...


and don't tell me you guys invented...observation.


Observers existed way before the universe existed...

[cloud dreamer]

It didn't fly in a straight line. It changed course at least three
times. The initial change of course back over Malaysia, a second turn in
the Strait to the west, another two possible course changes that
followed established way points through the Strait and then the final
turn to the south once it was in the Indian Ocean. From there, it had no
reason to make course changes, it was a straight line over open ocean
not covered by radar or satellite tracking.

This could not have happened without deliberate acts by the pilot. The
course meant they could avoid the heavy radar coverage around Indonesia
where an unidentified blip on radar over their territory would have
generated a military response.

Instead, it found the easiest way to the Indian Ocean and then flew
until it crashed - in an area that is very deep with a very strong
current and high wave action. All this would disperse wreckage very very
quickly.

Had it not been for the satellite ping, the plane would have, quite
literally, vanished as there would have been nothing to push Australia
to search that region. The pilot was likely not aware that the
diagnostic service still pinged satellites even though the airline was
not subscribed to the service. That one item is what points to his
intentions - to crash the plane somewhere where it's near impossible to
find and as a result, near impossible to make a determination of suicide
and therefore saving his family a lot of problems (and getting them a
lot of money).

Just watch as well how Malaysia won't even entertain this idea and is
pointing to things that are, quite frankly, completely ridiculous. A
fire didn't bring the plane down. Regulations concerning the transport
of batteries were strengthened in the last few years reducing the chance
of a fire. And if they had caught fire, the plane was doomed in a matter
of minutes. It would not have flown for 5+ hours, making course changes
along the way.

..

[cloud dreamer]

See...he thinks he's being sarcastic. He still doesn't know the
difference between natural and artificially generated electricity...nor
does he understand how a jet full of a fuel can explode on impact if
there was no electricity on board.

And don't get me started on flat spins. That's completely out of the
realm of his understanding.

..

[David Johnston]

The plane couldn't have taken off without deliberate acts by the pilot.
That doesn't mean he didn't make any mistakes.

>
> Just watch as well how Malaysia won't even entertain this idea

Malaysia has already suggested one of the pilots being a political
opponent of the government means that the plane's loss was deliberate.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
> >
> > Why do I believe her?
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586013/Malaysian-woman-claims-seen-missing-MH370-water-near-Andaman-Islands-day-disappeared.html
>
> I mean, she saw the plane!
>
> She don't look like a con artist likes so many of yous do...
> She don't look like she was abducted on a flying saucer likes so many of yous do...
> She don't look like William Shatner...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFbWJJj9uFU
>
> I believe her! I believe her!!

What is it, she don't look Irish?


A crime has been commited and
you got a witness here..
she saw the plane!

On the water!!


I understand there are a lot of prejudice people out there..
she don't look like a character on your TV sets...
but she still is a human being..
she gots eyes, she can see.

Put your prejudice aside, and look there.


There's the fuckin plane.

[trotsky]

I'm not even sure the flying part requires electricity, since the
mechanicals would be controlled by hydraulics.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote in
news:WdWdnTzZQLCoLrHO...@mchsi.com:

The 777 is fly-by-wire. There is no direct control of the control
surfaces. If power to those systems is lost, the plane would be
uncontrolled.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Rod Speed]

trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote
> cloud dreamer wrote
>> David Johnston wrote

>>> anim8rFSK wrote

>>>> Planes can't fly in a straight line naturally;
>>>> that requires artificial electricity.

>>> That's actually correct. Flying in a straight line until
>>> you run out of fuel is kind of thing an autopilot does
>>> when there's no longer anyone telling it what to do.

>> See...he thinks he's being sarcastic.

Bullshit.

>> He still doesn't know the difference between
>> natural and artificially generated electricity...

Even sillier.

>> nor does he understand how a jet full of a fuel can
>> explode on impact if there was no electricity on board.

But usually doesn't. And it wasn't full of fuel either.

>> And don't get me started on flat spins. That's
>> completely out of the realm of his understanding.

> I'm not even sure the flying part requires electricity,
> since the mechanicals would be controlled by hydraulics.

Not with the 777, its fly by wire.

[Rod Speed]

"cloud dreamer" <reduce...@recycle.org> wrote in message

news:i_GdndYJs_wjDrHO...@supernews.com...

Bullshit.

> He still doesn't know the difference between natural and artificially
> generated electricity...

He wasn't even commenting on that.

> nor does he understand how a jet full of a fuel can explode on impact if
> there was no electricity on board.

But usually don't.

> And don't get me started on flat spins. That's completely out of the realm
> of his understanding.

We'll see...

[Rod Speed]

"cloud dreamer" <reduce...@recycle.org> wrote in message

news:i_GdndcJs_ytDrHO...@supernews.com...

You have no way of knowing that last.

> This could not have happened without deliberate acts by the pilot.

Yes.

> The course meant they could avoid the heavy radar coverage around
> Indonesia where an unidentified blip on radar over their territory would
> have generated a military response.

Bullshit.

> Instead, it found the easiest way to the Indian Ocean and then flew until
> it crashed - in an area that is very deep with a very strong current and
> high wave action. All this would disperse wreckage very very quickly.

Bullshit.

> Had it not been for the satellite ping, the plane would have, quite
> literally, vanished as there would have been nothing to push Australia to
> search that region.

That's overstated when the primary radar records are
searched to see where a plane of that size with no
transponder on had moved at the relevant time in that area.

> The pilot was likely not aware that the diagnostic service still pinged
> satellites even though the airline was not subscribed to the service.

True, but you don't know with absolute certainly
that it was the pilot rather than a successful hijack.

The main problem with the hijack possibility is that
it's a bit unlikely no one has claimed responsibility
by now, but even that has happened in the past.

> That one item is what points to his intentions - to crash the plane
> somewhere where it's near impossible to find

It wasn't impossible to find Air France 477, just very difficult.

And you still don't know that it wasn't a hijack that
got into the Indian Ocean and then saw the hijacker
dead and the plane just carried on until it ran out
of fuel but was not intended to do that.

> and as a result, near impossible to make a determination of suicide and
> therefore saving his family a lot of problems (and getting them a lot of
> money).

Yes, its by far the most likely explanation, but
not the absolute certainty you are claiming.

> Just watch as well how Malaysia won't even entertain this idea

They already have.

> and is pointing to things that are, quite frankly, completely ridiculous.

They have in fact done very little of that once it has
become clear that it did end up in the Indian Ocean.

> A fire didn't bring the plane down. Regulations concerning the transport
> of batteries were strengthened in the last few years reducing the chance
> of a fire.

But fires will still occur.

> And if they had caught fire, the plane was doomed in a matter of minutes.

Bullshit with a modern design which has
little fuel for an electrical fire to consume.

> It would not have flown for 5+ hours,

Wrong if the fire had gone out
with everyone in the cockpit dead.

> making course changes along the way.

It still isnt absolutely certain that the course
changes weren't made while at least one of
the crew was still alive and then he died and
the plane kept flying on the last course, until
it ran out of fuel.

[Rod Speed]

cloud dreamer <reduce...@recycle.org> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote

>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote

>>>>> The problem is that the southern Indian Ocean (near the Perth
>>>>> search of the last few days) is incompatible with flying low.
>>>>> To get the seven hours range reported in some versions of
>>>>> the engine-ping reports, he could not be flying in thick air.

>>>> Not if you only fly under the radar while passing over Malaysia
>>>> and Indonesia and return to normal cruise height once you are
>>>> out of primary radar range.

>>> Yeah, I didn't read THAT post of yours until after posting my comment.

>>> Once they get out over Malacca, are there no military radars watching?

>> Not if you deliberately fly low enough.

> Doesn't matter.

We'll see...

> The plane was picked up by both Thai and Malaysian radar.

You don't know that with the Malaysian primary radar.

> Between the two countries, they saw it turn around, cross the peninsula,
> move between waypoints in the Strait and then fall off radar out in the
> Indian ocean (where there is no coverage).

> http://media.themalaysianinsider.com/assets/uploads/resizer/MH370-military_radar-tracking-peninsula-170314-eng-graphcs-tmi-kamarul_540_343_100.jpg

Just because some journalist claims something, doesn't make it gospel.

> From there, it's the satellite that confirmed it had ended it's hours long
> flight either to the north or south. If it had gone north, the
> sophisticated radars of those nations would have picked it up.

> Given that none saw anything, it went south and Australia is looking at
> the point according to the satellite where it would have went down had it
> flown until its fuel was exhausted.

A hell of a lot more than just Australia is looking there,
including the americans.

> (Which indicates Australia believes as I do that this was a deliberate act
> by the pilot).

No it does not. ALL it indicates is that they all
believe that the plane very likely did end up
there and that they need to see if its possible
to find the wreck there before the transmitters
on the flight data recorder runs out of power
by trying to find any wreckage and then the
transmitter.

[Rod Speed]

cloud dreamer <reduce...@recycle.org> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

> It's evident that you're working off erroneous data or a lack of
> understanding of how the aircraft functions.

We'll see...

> And absolutely no comprehension of how a fire can affect an aircraft.

Even sillier. Even someone as stupid as you should be able
to grasp that its perfectly possible for an electrical fire in
an aircraft who consume what can burn in that area and
go out, because that has in fact happened a hell of a lot
and is even less likely to happen in a modern design like
the 777 where its deliberately designed to not have
anything flammable where an electrical fire can happen
when that is feasible.

> The very FACT that the first course change was programmed into the ACARS
> proves intent on the part of the pilots.

Course changes are not programmed into the ACARS.

And programmed course changes do not eliminate the
possibility that the plane was hijacked and the pilot was
forced to do that or was done by a hijacker after the pilots
were killed. Not as likely as suicide, but certainly possible.

> Read some more especially about fires on aircraft (SA295, SA111, NA2120,
> SA306, PIA740, Saudi163, VJ592).

Did that before you ever did thanks.

Pity about the other fires that did not wipe out the
plane, particularly with the ELECTRICAL fires the 777
is known to have had. Which didn’t kill those 777s.

> These crashes have one thing in common - cabin fires can take down a
> commercial airliner in a matter of minutes.

Pity about the electrical fires which didn’t with 777s alone.

> The longest was just over an hour.

Pity about the electrical fires which didn’t with 777s alone.

> Aircraft do not have onboard sprinkler systems. Any fire bad enough to pop
> those breakers would have destroyed the aircraft.

How odd that it didn’t with previous 777 electrical fires.

> The very notion of an onboard fire is nonsense in this case given the
> programming, the timing of the shutoff of the equipment, the obvious
> non-failure of many other systems, the course changes and flight for
> several more hours.

Even sillier. Its perfectly possible for an ELECTRICAL fire to
have caused the transponder and ACARS system to drop
out, then go out with the plane still flyable, with the pilots
unable to communicate with anyone due to the effects of
the ELECTRICAL fire, but still able to change course and
head back to the nearest suitable airport.

While its not very likely that the fire would then kill
the pilots after the course change, its silly to proclaim
that that is impossible.

> Quite frankly, the very idea that a fire caused this is ludicrous to the
> point of being laughable.

Easy to claim, particularly when the 777 is known to
have ELECTRICAL fires that did not crash the plane.

> But Malaysia will want to pump it up

They have in fact done nothing of the sort.

> because just as Egypt and Indonesia contested the findings of pilot
> suicide, Malaysia will want to contest it....by confusing reports and
> misdirecting the investigation.

How odd that they have in fact called of the
search in the Gulf of Tonkin etc and are now
concentrating on looking for the wreckage
in the extreme southern indian ocean where
there is the best possibility of finding the
definitive proof of that happened, the
flight data recorder.

> This is precisely what is happening.

> And yes, for the last time, it was tracked going over the Malaysian
> peninsula, turning west and again turning once it reached the Indian
> Ocean.

You can keep chanting that pathetic little mantra till
you are blue in the face if you like, changes nothing.

> Look at the graphic.

Produced by some journo. No thanks.

> It shows you the last known position as tracked by radar.

And we will see if that turns out to be
the case when its properly investigated
or whether its just what some journo claims.

> http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5326df7d69beddae21274298-800-/bi6xjvyigaawu3w.jpg

Straight from some journo's arse. We can tell from the smell.

> And no, I'm not saying this is the only possibility...

You have in fact done just that.

> but it is the only one, right now, that fits ALL the evidence.

Wrong with a successful hijack gone wrong, with an
electrical fire that went out when it ran out of fuel in
a well designed aircraft that has already had electrical
fires that have gone out and have not crashed the aircraft.

Yes, suicide by one of the pilots is by far the most
likely explanation, but its silly to claim as you have
just done, that there is no other explanation that
fits ALL the evidence.

[Rod Speed]

"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message

news:bp30va...@mid.individual.net...

> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The 'pilot suicide' idiots are making it up out of whole cloth.
>>
>>Nope, it's the best explanation for why it never
>>showed up on the radar passing back over Malaysia
>>and Indonesia, it was deliberately flown under the radar.
>>
>>And he ditched it in the southern Indian Ocean so it would
>>never be found so that his family would still get paid for him
>>dying on the job because no one could prove it was suicide.
>

> I'm working on a seasonal job with far too much overtime, so I've
> missed a lot of info on this incident.

>
> Lots of people discuss an excursion to 45K feet (a very high altitude
> for this plane), but I haven't seen this supported in any reputable
> source.

Neither have I. That is one of the very real problems
with what the Malaysians have trickled out to the
media, there is no source at all cited with any of it.

We have however seen some others like the Thai
airforce particularly say what they have seen.

> What is the evidence for this part of the trip?

That's what Malaysia say they saw on their primary radar.

They haven't however provided the radar records to substantiate that.

[Rod Speed]

"David Johnston" <Da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:lghvqi$142$1...@dont-email.me...

That isnt what happened in the time from when the transponder went off.

> indicate that this was a deliberate act by the pilot?

The course changes that are known to have happened indicate that.

[Rod Speed]

Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote

>>Lots of people discuss an excursion to 45K feet (a very high altitude
>>for this plane), but I haven't seen this supported in any reputable

>>source. What is the evidence for this part of the trip?

> There is none.

Wrong.

> Nor for the flying at low altitudes.

Wrong.

> And there is no evidence for *specific* route changes.

Wrong.

> If you track them back you'll find anonymous and unnamed sources, or
> suppositions by the Malaysian authorities for which no evidence is given.

Wrong, particularly what the Thai military say they saw
on their primary radar and chose to ignore because it
was no threat to Thailand because of where it headed
after it turned back.

> However once one of these factoids hits the media
> echo chamber it gets transformed into ultimate truth.

Wrong.

> When I see a crackpot theory with the word "terrorist" in it, I
> mentally substitute "cutthroat Indonesian competitor to Malaysian
> Airlines" and the theory makes a whole lot more sense.

More fool you.

> <http://www.businessinsider.com/why-indonesian-pilots-use-crystal-meth-2013-4>

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote
>
>>>Lots of people discuss an excursion to 45K feet (a very high altitude
>>>for this plane), but I haven't seen this supported in any reputable
>>>source. What is the evidence for this part of the trip?
>
>> There is none.
>
>Wrong.

> ...

Is that your idea of a conclusive citation?

--bks

[Rod Speed]

Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote
>>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote

>>>>Lots of people discuss an excursion to 45K feet (a very high altitude
>>>>for this plane), but I haven't seen this supported in any reputable
>>>>source. What is the evidence for this part of the trip?

>>> There is none.

>>Wrong.

> Is that your idea of a conclusive citation?

Says he carefully deleting from the quoting the citing of the
evidence that proves that his assertion is just plain wrong.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

There is no firm evidence of an excursion to 45K feet.
None, nada, zilch. It's just a factoid that has been
turned into ultimate truth in the media echo chamber.

--bks

[Cryptoengineer]

b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in news:lgiv2n$3n7$1
@reader1.panix.com:

It is claimed to be sourced to Malaysian military radar, for
example here in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/world/asia/malaysia-military-
radar.html
on March 14. The article notes that other observations in that report
are questionable, such as it descending 22k feet in one minute.

I can imagine various trains of events which led to a depressurized
plane carrying a dead crew and passenger complement, which then flew
on a straight course under autopilot until it ran out of fuel.

pt

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in news:lgiv2n$3n7$1

>> ...

>> There is no firm evidence of an excursion to 45K feet.
>> None, nada, zilch. It's just a factoid that has been
>> turned into ultimate truth in the media echo chamber.

> ...

>It is claimed to be sourced to Malaysian military radar, for
>example here in the NYT:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/world/asia/malaysia-military-
>radar.html
>on March 14. The article notes that other observations in that report
>are questionable, such as it descending 22k feet in one minute.

> ...

|
| Radar signals recorded by the Malaysian military *appeared
| to show* that the missing airliner climbed to 45,000 feet,
| above the approved altitude limit for a Boeing 777-200,
| soon after it disappeared from civilian radar and turned
| sharply to the west, according to a preliminary assessment
| by *a person familiar with the data*.
|
<Ibid., emphasis mine>

"Appeared to show" and sourced to an unnamed person! I repeat,
there is *no* firm evidence. Just a lot of supposition that
gets endlessly repeated. That story, btw, has gone the way of
the dodo, along with the whackjob story about "shadowing" a
Singapore Airlines flight.

--bks

[Rod Speed]

Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote
>>>>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote

>>>>>>Lots of people discuss an excursion to 45K feet (a very high altitude
>>>>>>for this plane), but I haven't seen this supported in any reputable
>>>>>>source. What is the evidence for this part of the trip?

>>>>> There is none.

>>>> Wrong.

>>> Is that your idea of a conclusive citation?

>> Says he carefully deleting from the quoting the citing of the
>> evidence that proves that his assertion is just plain wrong.

> There is no firm evidence of an excursion to 45K feet.
> None, nada, zilch.

Pity you stupidly claimed that there is no firm evidence
for anything that has shown up in the media and had your
nose rubbed in some of the obvious evidence that proves
you lied about that.

> It's just a factoid that has been turned into
> ultimate truth in the media echo chamber.

Easy to claim...

[Rod Speed]

"Cryptoengineer" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA2F7EF8079...@216.196.97.131...

But we know that it did not in fact fly a straight

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...

>But we know that it did not in fact fly a straight
>course under autopilot until it ran out of fuel.

We don't know that. It seems that they turned west
at some point, but the details are unclear. The
status of the autopilot is unknown.

--bks

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Pity you stupidly claimed that there is no firm evidence
>for anything that has shown up in the media and had your
>nose rubbed in some of the obvious evidence that proves
>you lied about that.
>

Utter nonsense. There is no firm evidence for the
plane climbing to 45,000 feet. None, nada, zilch.

A claim sourced to *an unnamed person* is not firm evidence.

Turn off cable news. It's rotting your brain.

--bks

[Rod Speed]

Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> Pity you stupidly claimed that there is no firm evidence
>> for anything that has shown up in the media and had your
>> nose rubbed in some of the obvious evidence that proves
>> you lied about that.

> Utter nonsense.

We'll see...

> There is no firm evidence for the plane
> climbing to 45,000 feet. None, nada, zilch.

That is what Malaysia has said that their military primary radar showed.

> A claim sourced to *an unnamed person*

You're lying now.

> is not firm evidence.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

And a hell of a lot more than just that claim about
45K feet has show up in the media and plenty of it
has had a named source.

> Turn off cable news.

Don’t have cable news.

> It's rotting your brain.

Not a shred of evidence that you have anything to rot.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> Pity you stupidly claimed that there is no firm evidence
>>> for anything that has shown up in the media and had your
>>> nose rubbed in some of the obvious evidence that proves
>>> you lied about that.
>
>> Utter nonsense.
>
>We'll see...
>
>> There is no firm evidence for the plane
>> climbing to 45,000 feet. None, nada, zilch.
>
>That is what Malaysia has said that their military primary radar showed.

> ...

Countries can't talk and no officials from Malaysia have
said anything of the kind.

Stop watching cable news, it's rotting your brain.

--bks

[Rod Speed]

Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> Pity you stupidly claimed that there is no firm evidence
>>>> for anything that has shown up in the media and had your
>>>> nose rubbed in some of the obvious evidence that proves
>>>> you lied about that.

>>> Utter nonsense.

>> We'll see...

>>> There is no firm evidence for the plane
>>> climbing to 45,000 feet. None, nada, zilch.

>>That is what Malaysia has said that their military primary radar showed.

> Countries can't talk

Their govt employees and political leaders certainly
can and do, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

> and no officials from Malaysia have said anything of the kind.

Wrong, as always.

> Stop watching cable news,

Bit hard to watch cable news when I'm not actually
stupid enough to have a cable service, child.

> it's rotting your brain.

Something you are in no danger of what so ever.

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote

> ...

>> and no officials from Malaysia have said anything of the kind.
>
>Wrong, as always.

> ...

You keep saying that but you never produce the citation.
There is no firm evidence that MH370 ascended to 45,000
feet. None, nada, zilch.

--bks

[Rod Speed]

Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>Bradley K. Sherman <b...@panix.com> wrote

>>> and no officials from Malaysia have said anything of the kind.

>>Wrong, as always.

> You keep saying that but you never produce the citation.

We all swooned at the citations you waved around.

> There is no firm evidence that MH370
> ascended to 45,000 feet. None, nada, zilch.

Easy to claim...

And that ain't the only thing that has been specified
on the detail of what happened to that particularly
plane that came from other than unspecified sources,
you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.

[J. Clarke]

In article <lgja0e$njk$1...@reader1.panix.com>, b...@panix.com says...

Brad, when dealing with Rod Speed remember this adage--"Never wrestle
with a pig in the mud--it gets you filthy and amuses the pig."

[cloud dreamer]

Excuse me? A plane falling out of the sky, full of fuel usually doesn't
explode on impact? What planet are you from???

>
>> And don't get me started on flat spins. That's completely out of the
>> realm of his understanding.
>
> We'll see...

You really have a hard time with sarcasm, don't you?

Animalfkr is a troll. The comments are referring to things he has
alluded to in the past.

..

[cloud dreamer]

I am NOT claiming it with absolute certainty. I've said that it's the
only explanation that fits the current evidence.

A fire DOES NOT.

>
>> Just watch as well how Malaysia won't even entertain this idea
>
> They already have.
>

Not openly. Most of the comments are directed to the batteries and
terrorism.

>> and is pointing to things that are, quite frankly, completely ridiculous.
>
> They have in fact done very little of that once it has
> become clear that it did end up in the Indian Ocean.

Sure they have. They keep pointing to the batteries.

>
>> A fire didn't bring the plane down. Regulations concerning the
>> transport of batteries were strengthened in the last few years
>> reducing the chance of a fire.
>
> But fires will still occur.

In this case, the very idea is ludicrous.

>
>> And if they had caught fire, the plane was doomed in a matter of minutes.
>
> Bullshit with a modern design which has
> little fuel for an electrical fire to consume.

Okay. Now you're proving your complete ignorance of how a fire can
destroy a modern aircraft. Most of those examples I gave you are modern
aircraft, all destroyed in under an hour.

>
>> It would not have flown for 5+ hours,
>
> Wrong if the fire had gone out
> with everyone in the cockpit dead.

THEN IT WOULDN'T HAVE MADE COURSE CHANGES. PRECISE, CALCULATED COURSE
CHANGES!!!

>
>> making course changes along the way.
>
> It still isnt absolutely certain that the course
> changes weren't made while at least one of
> the crew was still alive and then he died and
> the plane kept flying on the last course, until
> it ran out of fuel.

OMG. You don't have a clue about aircraft, so how about you stop trying
to pretend you do.

..

[cloud dreamer]

On 21/03/2014 9:39 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> cloud dreamer <reduce...@recycle.org> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote
>
>>>>>> The problem is that the southern Indian Ocean (near the Perth
>>>>>> search of the last few days) is incompatible with flying low.
>>>>>> To get the seven hours range reported in some versions of
>>>>>> the engine-ping reports, he could not be flying in thick air.
>
>>>>> Not if you only fly under the radar while passing over Malaysia
>>>>> and Indonesia and return to normal cruise height once you are
>>>>> out of primary radar range.
>
>>>> Yeah, I didn't read THAT post of yours until after posting my comment.
>
>>>> Once they get out over Malacca, are there no military radars watching?
>
>>> Not if you deliberately fly low enough.
>
>> Doesn't matter.
>
> We'll see...

Huh???? It doesn't matter because the plane was picked up on radar.

>
>> The plane was picked up by both Thai and Malaysian radar.
>
> You don't know that with the Malaysian primary radar.

What is this obsession with "primary" radar. Radar is radar. Without the
transponder, all the radar would see is a blip. That is what both
country's radars saw. A blip that correlated with the initial course
change and then followed into the Strait and into the Indian Ocean.

>
>> Between the two countries, they saw it turn around, cross the
>> peninsula, move between waypoints in the Strait and then fall off
>> radar out in the Indian ocean (where there is no coverage).
>
>> http://media.themalaysianinsider.com/assets/uploads/resizer/MH370-military_radar-tracking-peninsula-170314-eng-graphcs-tmi-kamarul_540_343_100.jpg
>>
>
> Just because some journalist claims something, doesn't make it gospel.

It's not "some jouranlist." Holy cow, you must be trolling to be this
stunned. The graphic is one of many used to illustrate the EVIDENCE
provided.

>
>> From there, it's the satellite that confirmed it had ended it's hours
>> long flight either to the north or south. If it had gone north, the
>> sophisticated radars of those nations would have picked it up.
>
>> Given that none saw anything, it went south and Australia is looking
>> at the point according to the satellite where it would have went down
>> had it flown until its fuel was exhausted.
>
> A hell of a lot more than just Australia is looking there,
> including the americans.

Read my point again. It obviously went over your head.

>
>> (Which indicates Australia believes as I do that this was a deliberate
>> act by the pilot).
>
> No it does not. ALL it indicates is that they all
> believe that the plane very likely did end up
> there and that they need to see if its possible
> to find the wreck there before the transmitters
> on the flight data recorder runs out of power
> by trying to find any wreckage and then the
> transmitter.

Look up. Yeah, that's my point flying way over your head.

..

[Thomas Koenig]

Bielefeld.

[cloud dreamer]

On 21/03/2014 10:03 PM, Rod Speed wrote:

> Pity about the electrical fires which didn’t with 777s alone.

Now I know you're trolling. You live in some delusion that the 777 is
fireproof.

That makes you a fool. And pretty stupid.

A cockpit fire in an Egyptair 777 THAT WAS ON THE GROUND didn't consume
the aircraft because....well....it was ON THE GROUND and had access to
immediate help. Take a look at what the pilot says at the bottom of the
report:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10711590/Malaysia-Airlines-MH370-Cairo-777-cockpit-fire-could-yield-clues-to-missing-plane.html

BTW...pilots are now coming out to say the fire scenario is
BULLSHIT...for exactly the reasons I pointed out:

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/pilot-pours-cold-water-on-mh370-fire-hypothesis

This isn't "some journalist." It's pilots and the US NTSB.

Enough time wasted with you.

<plonk>

..

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Roger that.

--bks

[Jim G.]

Greg Goss sent the following on 3/21/2014 7:56 AM:
> I was convinced (but I now forget what the evidence was) that it was a
> scrap of metal from a TWA plane that wrecked the Concorde tire.

Continental, actually.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"You know who wears sunglasses inside? Blind people. And douchebags." --
Dean Winchester, SUPERNATURAL

[The Starmaker]

This pig doesn't looks sooo amused, but the girls seem to be having fun.
http://blogs.nppa.org/visualstudent/files/2010/10/100726_Wrestling01_NB1-600x400.jpg

[The Starmaker]

cloud dreamer wrote:
>
> On 21/03/2014 10:03 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
> > Pity about the electrical fires which didn’t with 777s alone.
>
> Now I know you're trolling. You live in some delusion that the 777 is
> fireproof.
>
> That makes you a fool. And pretty stupid.

Being stupid and a fool does not equate with being a troll.



A lot of yous act very foolish and stupid when you're with your
friends...


Being stupid is very comfortable.


Why do you think you guys like girls? Only your girl or wife is stupid
and foolish enough to be with you.

[The Starmaker]

and most of you guys are always wrestling with a pig with lipstick..


is the plane downunder?

[The Starmaker]

>
> is the plane downunder?


There are fishes in the ocean that can tell you exactly where the plane is at...
has anybody bothered to ask them?

Fishes live in the ocean..
they know what goes on there...

Doesn't anyone speak Fish?

[Rod Speed]

"cloud dreamer" <reduce...@recycle.org> wrote in message

news:-pSdnQu8RLML4LDO...@supernews.com...

No way, you are completely inexcusable.

> A plane falling out of the sky,

That hardly ever happens.

> full of fuel usually doesn't explode on impact?

Nope, usually just ends up with lots of scattered debris.

> What planet are you from???

Same one you are, unfortunately.

>>> And don't get me started on flat spins. That's completely out of the
>>> realm of his understanding.

>> We'll see...

> You really have a hard time with sarcasm, don't you?

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

> Animalfkr is a troll.

And you aren't ?

> The comments are referring to things he has alluded to in the past.

Duh.

[Rod Speed]

"cloud dreamer" <reduce...@recycle.org> wrote in message

news:-pSdnQq8RLO14rDO...@supernews.com...

You clearly did with your ALL the evidence claim.

> I've said that it's the only explanation that fits the current evidence.

And you're wrong on that with both fire and hijacking.

> A fire DOES NOT.

Wrong if its an ELECTRICAL fault that doesn't burn for
long, so the plane does not crash and the crew can still
attempt to return to an airport but later die of the fumes
in the cockpit and so the plane flys on on its last course
until it runs out of fuel.

>>> Just watch as well how Malaysia won't even entertain this idea

>> They already have.

> Not openly.

Bullshit. There is a reason the houses of both pilots were searched.

> Most of the comments are directed to the batteries and terrorism.

Bullshit with the Malaysian authoritys.

>>> and is pointing to things that are, quite frankly, completely
>>> ridiculous.

>> They have in fact done very little of that once it has
>> become clear that it did end up in the Indian Ocean.

> Sure they have. They keep pointing to the batteries.

Bullshit with the Malaysian authoritys.

They wouldn't have searched the pilot's houses
if they were trying to blame the batterys.

>>> A fire didn't bring the plane down. Regulations concerning the
>>> transport of batteries were strengthened in the last few years
>>> reducing the chance of a fire.

>> But fires will still occur.

> In this case, the very idea is ludicrous.

Nope, not when we know that the 777 has had
ELECTRICAL fires that have not crashed the plane.

>>> And if they had caught fire, the plane was doomed in a matter of
>>> minutes.

>> Bullshit with a modern design which has
>> little fuel for an electrical fire to consume.

> Okay. Now you're proving your complete ignorance of how a fire can destroy
> a modern aircraft.

Pity about the ELECTRICAL fires that haven't.

> Most of those examples I gave you are modern aircraft, all destroyed in
> under an hour.

Pity about the ELECTRICAL fires that haven't.

>>> It would not have flown for 5+ hours,

>> Wrong if the fire had gone out
>> with everyone in the cockpit dead.

> THEN IT WOULDN'T HAVE MADE COURSE CHANGES.

WRONG IF THEY DID THAT BEFORE IT KILLED THEM.

> PRECISE, CALCULATED COURSE CHANGES!!!

YOU DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER.

All you know is that they were done using the autopilot.

>>> making course changes along the way.

>> It still isnt absolutely certain that the course
>> changes weren't made while at least one of
>> the crew was still alive and then he died and
>> the plane kept flying on the last course, until
>> it ran out of fuel.

> OMG. You don't have a clue about aircraft,

Says he that stupidly claims that all fires in aircraft
always see the loss of the aircraft in less than an hour.

> so how about you stop trying to pretend you do.

How about you retake Bullshitting 101.