Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?

[H o m e G u y]

Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?

07/17/2014

While there are various questions that have already emerged from what
was supposed to be Ukraine's "slam dunk" proof confirming Russian rebel
involvement in today's MH-17 tragedy, perhaps one just as gaping
question emerges when one looks at what is clearly an outlier flight
path in today's final, and tragic, departure of the Malaysian Airlines
Boeing 777.

Perhaps the best visualization of what the issue is, comes from Vagelis
Karmiros who has collated all the recent MH-17 flight paths as tracked
by Flightaware and shows that while all ten most recent paths pass
safely well south of the Donetsk region, and cross the zone above the
Sea of Azov, it was only today's tragic flight that passed straight
overhead Donetsk.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/07/MH%2017%20flight%20paths_0.png

Why is the diversion from the traditional flight path and passage over
the highlighted zone a concern? Because as the following map from the
WSJ shows this is precisely where the restricted airspace is.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/07/restricted%20air%20space.png

So perhaps before coming to "certain" conclusion about the involvement
of this rebel or that, the key questions one should ask before casting
blame, is why did the pilot divert from his usual flight plan, why did
he fly above restricted airspace, and just what, if any instructions,
did Kiev air control give the pilot in the minutes before the tragic
explosion?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-17/was-flight-mh-17-diverted-over-restricted-airspace

[trader_4]

On Friday, July 18, 2014 9:14:17 AM UTC-4, H o m e G u y wrote:
> Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?
>
>
>
> 07/17/2014
>
>
>
> While there are various questions that have already emerged from what
>
> was supposed to be Ukraine's "slam dunk" proof confirming Russian rebel
>
> involvement in today's MH-17 tragedy, perhaps one just as gaping
>
> question emerges when one looks at what is clearly an outlier flight
>
> path in today's final, and tragic, departure of the Malaysian Airlines
>
> Boeing 777.
>
>
>
> Perhaps the best visualization of what the issue is, comes from Vagelis
>
> Karmiros who has collated all the recent MH-17 flight paths as tracked
>
> by Flightaware and shows that while all ten most recent paths pass
>
> safely well south of the Donetsk region, and cross the zone above the
>
> Sea of Azov, it was only today's tragic flight that passed straight
>
> overhead Donetsk.
>
>

The fallacy here is that the south is the "safe" area. Actually, AFAIK,
all of the Ukraine airspace was open to air traffic above 32,000 ft. And
in fact it was the southern portion of the airspace,
that the USA and UK civil aviation authorities had issued NOTAMs to
avoid at any flight level. That concern apparently was over who controlled
that airspace, which includes Crimea, rather than concern about missles.
Russia was claiming that it now controlled that space. And those NOTAMs
only applied to USA, UK airlines or any other countries that might choose
to follow them.

If those flight paths are indeed true, I agree it should be determined
why the flight path was more northerly. But all you have there are 10
previous flight paths, not hundreds covering months. Not a whole lot
to base anything on, at this point.

>
> http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/07/MH%2017%20flight%20paths_0.png
>
>
>
> Why is the diversion from the traditional flight path and passage over
>
> the highlighted zone a concern? Because as the following map from the
>
> WSJ shows this is precisely where the restricted airspace is.
>
>
>
> http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/07/restricted%20air%20space.png
>
>

That map is totally lame. They just put the word restricted on it without
any deliniation whatever. My understanding is the restriction from European
authorities was over *all* the eastern Ukraine airspace *below* 32,000ft.
And above 32,000ft it was not restricted.

>
> So perhaps before coming to "certain" conclusion about the involvement
>
> of this rebel or that, the key questions one should ask before casting
>
> blame, is why did the pilot divert from his usual flight plan, why did
>
> he fly above restricted airspace, and just what, if any instructions,
>
> did Kiev air control give the pilot in the minutes before the tragic
>
> explosion?
>

Yes, all that should and will be investigated. One of the most basic
questions is why airspace was open at all in a conflict region where
planes have been shot down with SAMs and where there is reason to believe
forces involved have missles of unknown max capibility.



Meanwhile, where is your concern about some of the obvious things:

The Russian rebels have shot down several planes in recent weeks,
boldy taking public credit for it. They also proclaimed "Don't fly
in our skies". Just a week or so ago, before that started happening,
they proclaimed that they had acquired the Buk missle system from
a Ukranian military base they captured. And they have gleefully
claimed that they have the black boxes and they are on their way to
Moscow. At the same time, they are denying access to the crash site.
That is just what they themselves have freely admitted, there is even
more intelligence data that shows what they were up to.

Instead of starting to come up with possible conspiracy angles that
involve air traffic control intentionally sending the plane to it's doom,
how about focusing on the 12 ft elephant in the room?

[Doug Miller]

trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in news:592d14e1-001e-4d63-882a-3b6366d41d34
@googlegroups.com:

[much nonsense from HomeGuy, and much good sense from trader snipped]

> Instead of starting to come up with possible conspiracy angles that
> involve air traffic control intentionally sending the plane to it's doom,
> how about focusing on the 12 ft elephant in the room?

Please don't feed the troll.

[ChairMan]

In news:592d14e1-001e-4d63...@googlegroups.com,
trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> belched:

> On Friday, July 18, 2014 9:14:17 AM UTC-4, H o m e G u y wrote:
>> Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?
>>
>>

PLEASE DON"T feed the troll

TIA

[trader_4]

On Friday, July 18, 2014 10:43:06 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:00:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

>
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >If those flight paths are indeed true, I agree it should be determined
>
> >why the flight path was more northerly
>
>
>

> The story that the news was reporting yesterday is they requested the
>
> northerly path to avoid weather.
>
> The NOTAM issued by the US may have been because we knew the
>
> insurgents were getting the BUK systems but it was not common
>
> knowledge everywhere.
>
>

From what I have seen the NOTAM had nothing to do with missles
period. It was because both Ukraine and Russia were claiming control
over the airspace around Crimea. If you don't know which authority
controls the airspace, it would make sense to stay out of it. And
the NOTAM area is fairly small, around Crimea.


>
> I don't see much mystery here. It just looks like the fog of war and a
>
> bad decision by MAL to fly too close to a war zone. It is apparent now
>
> that with the systems available, there is no safe altitude above a war
>
> zone

Who exactly made the decision that it was safe to fly above 32,000 but
not below it, and how, is an interesting one. It just seems incredible
that some aviation authorities would determine that it was safe. On
what basis? The rebels had openly taken credit for shooting down several
planes and I think the highest one was over 20,000 ft. So, how does
anyone decide that 32,000 is safe? How could they know what exact
missles the rebels do or don't have?

But I agree there is no need to go to vast conspiracy theories when just
dumb, bad decisions have been found as the root cause almost all of the
time. I was watching a show on NAt Geographic about past aviation disasters.
They had a crash at the airport in Taiwan where a 747 tried to take off
at night in heavy rain, wind close to the max permitted, during a monsoon.
They were so caught up in worrying about all that, they managed to turn
off too soon onto a closed runway and struck eqpt near their rotation point.
The thing there that was incredibly dumb was that the runway had been closed
for repairs for months. Yet there was no barracade, nothing at the entry
point to indicate that it was closed. And they also had it lit with the
normal runway lights..... That would seem to be about as dumb and totally
irresponsible as you can get, but they did it.

A good question in the current case is whoever fired the missle, what
exactly did they think they were shooting at? If they targeted that
plane, IDK why they would think it was a Ukranian military plane. It
was at 33,000, heading into Russia, just 50KM from crossing the border
on it's way out.

[Frank]

homoguy hates the us
wish he'd quit munging so i could avoid him

[nestork]

The bottom line here is that the guy with his finger on the Launch
button violated the First Law of gun ownership, which is:

If you're not 100% certain of what you're aiming at, DON'T SHOOT!!!

Put this one in the same bag as "I thought he was a deer."




--
nestork

[trader_4]

How do you know for sure whoever did it didn't know what they
were aiming at? The plane was at 33,000, heading out of the Ukraine,
straight course, only 50KM from the Russian border when it was shot down.
Hard to figure how anyone could think that was a Ukrainian military aircraft.

[Oren]

"Who gets the deer, me or the dog? (NSFW)

_911 Call : I need a Bambalance _

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56B5A8CGN98>

[rbowman]

Shit happens:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

The US paid some blood money but never apologized for the 'I thought it was
a tomcat' moment. Of course, the crew of the Vincennes were fine, upstanding
sailors who made a tragic mistake, and the Ukrainian separatists are
terrorists.

[Pico Rico]

"rbowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:c2tva8...@mid.individual.net...

point taken, but the Uks could not possibly have felt threatened by that
aircraft, unlike the Vincennes.

[nestork]

trader_4;3261202 Wrote:
>
> How do you know for sure whoever did it didn't know what they
> were aiming at? The plane was at 33,000, heading out of the Ukraine,
> straight course, only 50KM from the Russian border when it was shot
> down.
> Hard to figure how anyone could think that was a Ukrainian military
> aircraft.

My understanding is that in order to allow for commercial aviation over
war zones, the warring countries will allow civilian flights above a
certain altitude and military flights below that altitude. In this
case, that cut off altitude was 30,000 feet. Any military aircraft that
fly above that altitude would have been fair game for fighter aircraft,
but the military aircraft would have had to identify the target as being
military, either visually or by some other means, before firing on it.

And, my understanding is that even though the soviet built BUK missle
launcher that's suspected of having brought down MH17 is 1970's
technology, it still has radar equipment on it that can determine the
speed and altitude of the target. MH17 was cleared to fly at the
altitude it was at, and requested a more northerly route over Ukraine in
order to avoid bad weather to the south. The air traffic controllers
and the pilots knew they were flying over what was effectively a war
zone, but they understood that there were protocols in place to allow
for that. It's the monkeys on the ground that didn't know what they
were doing.

I was listening to a former Canadian general talking about this tragedy
on the radio today, and he says that all NATO forces train for exactly
these kinds of situations so that the soldiers on the ground can get the
information they need on a target before firing on it, and even then
they get confirmation of what they're shooting at and confirmation to
shoot before they ever fire live ammunition at a target. He said that
this shooting down of a civilian aircraft suggested to him that whomever
was responsible had no training whatsoever in operating that BUK missle
system, and that's crazy. Giving a weapon to someone who doesn't know
how to properly use it is asking for trouble.




--
nestork

[Seymore4Head]

Giving someone a weapon? You mean giving someone the keys to a
weapon. A BUK is one BFG.

https://www.google.com/search?q=buk&client=firefox-a&hs=SaM&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Pd7JU_bwCImM8gGOzYGYAg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1263&bih=603

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 03:34:07 +0200, nestork
<nestork...@diybanter.com> wrote:

>

And sadly these pieces of military hardware are falling into the
hands of untrained and unprincipalled "soldiers" in conflict zones
around the world. The stuff is readilly available to the highest
bidder.

[rbowman]

Pico Rico wrote:

> point taken, but the Uks could not possibly have felt threatened by that
> aircraft, unlike the Vincennes.

I think the reality is something like if Jeeter and Cletus stole a Patriot
system and started pushing buttons without RTFM. Zapping a Malaysian
commercial liner full of Dutchmen isn't a win in anybody's book withoit
spinning out some very convoluted false flag operation.

[trader_4]

On Friday, July 18, 2014 9:34:07 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
> trader_4;3261202 Wrote:
>
> >
>
> > How do you know for sure whoever did it didn't know what they
>
> > were aiming at? The plane was at 33,000, heading out of the Ukraine,
>
> > straight course, only 50KM from the Russian border when it was shot
>
> > down.
>
> > Hard to figure how anyone could think that was a Ukrainian military
>
> > aircraft.
>
>
>
> My understanding is that in order to allow for commercial aviation over
>
> war zones, the warring countries will allow civilian flights above a
>
> certain altitude and military flights below that altitude. In this
>
> case, that cut off altitude was 30,000 feet.

What is your basis for that? You don't have two warring countries here
that have declared war on each other. You have one country, Ukraine,
fighting rebels. Those rebels are supported, financed, and supplied by
Russia. There are also Russian intelligence, special forces, etc in with
the rebels, but Putin denies that. So, there is no coordination between
warring countries and I seriously doubt that Ukraine is going to agree
to anything like that with rebels. AFAIK, the determination that above
32,000 was just made by European civilian aviation officials. Exactly
who made it, and how, I have not seen anything more on. If you have that,
or anything to support this claim of some agreement, I'd be happy to see it.

Any military aircraft that
>
> fly above that altitude would have been fair game for fighter aircraft,
>

Says who exactly? If Michigan decided to secede from the union, a bunch of
rebels, with the support of Canada, took over the state, is it fair game
for them to shoot down any aircraft at all?

> but the military aircraft would have had to identify the target as being
>
> military, either visually or by some other means, before firing on it.
>
>
>
> And, my understanding is that even though the soviet built BUK missle
>
> launcher that's suspected of having brought down MH17 is 1970's
>
> technology, it still has radar equipment on it that can determine the
>
> speed and altitude of the target. MH17 was cleared to fly at the
>
> altitude it was at, and requested a more northerly route over Ukraine in
>
> order to avoid bad weather to the south. The air traffic controllers
>
> and the pilots knew they were flying over what was effectively a war
>
> zone, but they understood that there were protocols in place to allow
>
> for that. It's the monkeys on the ground that didn't know what they
>
> were doing.
>

Again, when you have evidence that there was indeed some agreed "protocol"
in place, I'd like to see it. I haven't heard anything close to that.
All I've heard is that European civilian aviation authorities believed
above 32000 was safe and that they had set that limit for all of Eastern Ukraine. The USA and UK went further, issuing NOTAMS to completely avoid
the very southern part of Ukraine, near Crimea, because who controlled that
airspace was in dispute, since Russia illegally annexed Crimea.

>
> I was listening to a former Canadian general talking about this tragedy
>
> on the radio today, and he says that all NATO forces train for exactly
>
> these kinds of situations so that the soldiers on the ground can get the
>
> information they need on a target before firing on it, and even then
>
> they get confirmation of what they're shooting at and confirmation to
>
> shoot before they ever fire live ammunition at a target. He said that
>
> this shooting down of a civilian aircraft suggested to him that whomever
>
> was responsible had no training whatsoever in operating that BUK missle
>
> system, and that's crazy. Giving a weapon to someone who doesn't know
>
> how to properly use it is asking for trouble.

There are a few easy questions to be answered. We know the rebels had
acquired the missile system a couple weeks ago, taking it from a Ukranian
base they captured. They themselves bragged about it. The question is
which troops had the training to
operate it and did any of those troops defect to the rebels? If the
answer is that there were none, then the obvious explanation is that
Russia supplied the operators or quickly trained some. And it sure looks
to me like they didn't care whether it was civilian or military. It's
just too bad they didn't shoot down a Russian commercial plane instead.

[trader_4]

I'd say until we know who exactly was operating the missile system, who gave
the order, what the intentions were, it's a bit early to draw comparisons.

One obvious difference already is that the USA quickly admitted that it was
the Vincennes that shot it down. We didn't try to claim that the Iranians
shot the plane down. And if those intelligence intercepts of communications
between the rebels and Russian military are accurate, you also have them realizing they shot down a civilian plane, looking at bodies, and dismissing it, saying "F... them, they were sending us spies...." At this point, we
don't know that the intention wasn't to just shoot down *any* plane, without regard to what it actually was.

[Tony Hwang]

Hmm,
Like a little kid playing with grown up's toy? Another bottom line,
air lines always try to save fuel, take shortest course. Even there
was a rumor, pilots get bonus if (s)he saves fuel. If my plane is
flying, I'd avoid danger zone at all cost.

[trader_4]

IDK that it's even the pilots decision on the route. As I understand
it, the routes are set months in advance by the airlines taking into
account a variety of factors. They then send those requested routes
to the ATCs that govern the airspaces. A pilot can request a change,
but I would think they need to have a reason. If Malaysian Airlines
was OK with the route over Ukraine, I think a pilot would run into
trouble if he said, I'm not flying over Ukraine, I want to go 500 miles
out of the way to avoid the area.

[Oren]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 06:18:41 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

> The question is
>which troops had the training to
>operate it and did any of those troops defect to the rebels? If the
>answer is that there were none, then the obvious explanation is that
>Russia supplied the operators or quickly trained some.

Training is very extensive. Some say as long as two years. Not some
procedure you can google...

"How difficult would it have been for pro-Russian separatists in the
Ukraine to learn how to operate a BUK missile?"

Greta:

<http://video.foxnews.com/v/3683442169001/expert-training-on-missile-that-shot-down-mh17/?playlist_id=930909814001#sp=show-clips>

<https://tinyurl.com/n4wdndu>

BUK - Mach 3, 164 lb. HE warhead, proximity fuse (missile doesn't have
to hit the plane), range 27 miles. My take, from the interview is the
MUK has to be calibrated when moved to another location.

[rbowman]

cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

> And sadly these pieces of military hardware are falling into the
> hands of untrained and unprincipalled "soldiers" in conflict zones
> around the world. The stuff is readilly available to the highest
> bidder.

How's you eBay account?

http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/06/tu-95-bear-on-ebay/

You probably can pick up a low mileage Tu-95 cheap. The neighbors might be
upset since those counter-rotating props make it one on the noisiest planes
ever built but it's a real workhorse.

I wouldn't fly it over easern Ukraine though.

[Stormin Mormon]

Or maybe the guy hit what he wanted?


--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Oren]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 14:49:12 -0400, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Put this one in the same bag as "I thought he was a deer."
>
>Or maybe the guy hit what he wanted?

[Tony Hwang]

Hi,
Also NOTAM.

[Robert Green]

"rbowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message

> Zapping a Malaysian
> commercial liner full of Dutchmen isn't a win in anybody's book withoit
> spinning out some very convoluted false flag operation.

Well put. It's also a good reminder about who we're dealing with. Some are
terrorists willing to die (and make others die) to promote their cause.
Then, we're also dealing with the double-dealing Sovs, who have a history of
subterfuge which they're continuing by using soldiers without insignia and
shadowy operations as far as the eye can see. I'd consider people on all
sides (it's hardly just two sides ever anymore) are rash thinkers. So many
people could be behind this. It will probably never be adequately sorted
out.

I treat this the way I treat computer evidence. Unless you actually see
someone typing specific keys or pressing the launch button on a video, it's
very, VERY hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who really did what. I
see computer evidence entered into court that's completely untrustworthy yet
it passes muster because no one knows any better. We could get lucky and
the idiots who did this videoed themselves pushing the buttons and watching
the missile strike but short of that, that crime scene is mobile, multiple
and extremely contaminated.

I suspect that there are two or three guys on a major shi+ list that will
find themselves accused and convicted of the offense as Gfretwell suggested.
Law enforcement over there is a little lax and a lot bribed.

This is also the kind of stupid act one side would just love to "pin" on the
other to discredit them. It could be so many different things that it's
sadly inevitable that convoluted explanations will be growing like mushrooms
on a wet log.

I'll bet that part of the world is literally crawling with people who are
not who the say they are. Every intelligence agency in Europe and the CIA
probably has clandestine assets on the ground, there are Russians pretending
to be Ukranians and I am sure vice-versa. On top of that, we have
journalists interpreting almost everything we know.

This is actually a wake up call that this conflict has gotten out of hand
and needs to be resolved. Rope off Putin and Russia and the Ukraine from
the rest of the world for a while and let their oligarchs whine about how
bad business and travel has become for them. That will do it. Putin rules
because they support him despite what he makes it look like.

Fortunately modern air travel has lessened the number of casualties from
such incidents so it's hard to turn a downed aircraft into a cause for war
the way the Lusitania was. Now, no passenger planes should be allowed to
fly into either country until the legitimate governments of both countries
reach (and enforce) an agreement.

Of course, I could be easily persuaded that it was a Sov missile launcher
and so it was the Sovs who are ultimately responsible. I wonder what it
takes to ensure these systems can NEVER be used to target a civilian air
liner? Probably a bad idea, anyway in case you have to shoot down a
kamikaze attacker like 9/11.

KAL007, the Iranian Airbus and many other airliners have gone down as
mis-perceived threats or "deliberate" accidents. I think another might be
joining that list.

--
Bobby G.

[trader_4]

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 10:29:42 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
> "rbowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Zapping a Malaysian
>
> > commercial liner full of Dutchmen isn't a win in anybody's book withoit
>
> > spinning out some very convoluted false flag operation.
>
>
>
> Well put. It's also a good reminder about who we're dealing with. Some are
>
> terrorists willing to die (and make others die) to promote their cause.

And a lot of those do believe it's a winning play in their book to commit
terrorist acts like bringing down a civilian airliner.

>
> Then, we're also dealing with the double-dealing Sovs, who have a history of
>
> subterfuge which they're continuing by using soldiers without insignia and
>
> shadowy operations as far as the eye can see. I'd consider people on all
>
> sides (it's hardly just two sides ever anymore) are rash thinkers. So many
>
> people could be behind this. It will probably never be adequately sorted
>
> out.
>

I don't know that it's all that hard. We know the rebels publicly claimed that they had the Buk missile system. We know their leader issued a warning to stay out of "our skies". We know they had shot down, taken credit for, at least 3 other planes immediately before this one. That's from just what the rebels have admitted to.

Then you have intercepted communications that the Ukranian govt has provided, which sure look real, that show communication among the rebels and between the rebels and Russian military intelligence back in Russia. Those intercepts show that the rebels did it. And they have intercepts from days preceeding that show that the Russians were discussing that they had sent the Buk missles to the rebels. You have videos of multiple Buks being driven around, probably more than can be accounted for having been captured by the rebels, meaning they came from Russia.

And then you have the rebels denying access to the international community, to investigators, to the bodies. Another fine example of what pussies the Europeans are. The solution is simple. The Dutch should have had some balls,
and demanded on day 1 that the international community have full access to the crash site, or else they would get NATO to send troops to secure the area. And if in 24 hours the rebels have not complied, NATO acts. THAT is something Putin would understand, but given Europe and Obama, it won't happen, so Putin wins, again.

>
> I treat this the way I treat computer evidence. Unless you actually see
>
> someone typing specific keys or pressing the launch button on a video, it's
>
> very, VERY hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who really did what.

Oh please. There is a huge pile of evidence, the best of which is that these
rebels had the Buk and had shot down 3 other planes, taking credit for it.

I
>
> see computer evidence entered into court that's completely untrustworthy yet
>
> it passes muster because no one knows any better. We could get lucky and
>
> the idiots who did this videoed themselves pushing the buttons and watching
>
> the missile strike but short of that, that crime scene is mobile, multiple
>
> and extremely contaminated.
>
>
>
> I suspect that there are two or three guys on a major shi+ list that will
>
> find themselves accused and convicted of the offense as Gfretwell suggested.
>
> Law enforcement over there is a little lax and a lot bribed.
>
>

There is no law enforcement.

>
> This is also the kind of stupid act one side would just love to "pin" on the
>
> other to discredit them. It could be so many different things that it's
>
> sadly inevitable that convoluted explanations will be growing like mushrooms
>
> on a wet log.
>
>

Except of course that we know the missile came from an area totally controlled
by the rebels. And that the rebels had shot down 3 other planes and openly
bragged about it, taken credit for it, issued warnings to shoot down more, etc.

>
> I'll bet that part of the world is literally crawling with people who are
>
> not who the say they are. Every intelligence agency in Europe and the CIA
>
> probably has clandestine assets on the ground, there are Russians pretending
>
> to be Ukranians and I am sure vice-versa. On top of that, we have
>
> journalists interpreting almost everything we know.
>
>
>
> This is actually a wake up call that this conflict has gotten out of hand
>
> and needs to be resolved. Rope off Putin and Russia and the Ukraine from
>
> the rest of the world for a while and let their oligarchs whine about how
>
> bad business and travel has become for them. That will do it. Putin rules
>
> because they support him despite what he makes it look like.
>
>

IDK what the roping off Ukraine part is about. It's Russia and Putin that are the problem. Sounds like you agree they should be hit hard to screw their economy. I agree, but you won't get it with Obama. IT's hard enough to get
Europe to do what needs to be done with a strong president. With Obama, it
won't happen.

And besides hitting Russia economically, Obama needs to stop treating him
like an equal. Actually, he treats Putin more like a superior. He needs to
tell the world that Putin and his buddies are mafia thugs that have looted
Russia to line their own pockets. Create problems at home for Putin. Screw
his business buddies enough, and they will do something to get rid of Putin.
His buddies don't care about putting the USSR back together. They just want
to keep their billions and make more. And reinstate that missile defense
system for Poland, start sending military aid to the former eastern European
countries, send military aid to Ukraine.

But that won't happen, because Obama is Obama.

>
> Fortunately modern air travel has lessened the number of casualties from
>
> such incidents so it's hard to turn a downed aircraft into a cause for war
>
> the way the Lusitania was.

What? Even then the Lusitania was a rare event.

Now, no passenger planes should be allowed to
>
> fly into either country until the legitimate governments of both countries
>
> reach (and enforce) an agreement.
>
>

Sure, screw the peaceful half of Ukraine, that is pro West. That makes a lot
of sense. Even Obama isn't that nuts.

>
> Of course, I could be easily persuaded that it was a Sov missile launcher
>
> and so it was the Sovs who are ultimately responsible.

Good grief. Almost everyone agrees that all the evidence points to a
Russian missile system.

I wonder what it
>
> takes to ensure these systems can NEVER be used to target a civilian air
>
> liner? Probably a bad idea, anyway in case you have to shoot down a
>
> kamikaze attacker like 9/11.
>
>
>
> KAL007, the Iranian Airbus and many other airliners have gone down as
>
> mis-perceived threats or "deliberate" accidents. I think another might be
>
> joining that list.
>

KAL007 wasn't mis-perceived at all. The Russians tracked it for 2 hours as
it intermittently crossed into and out of Russian airspace. They had a fighter
following it, the pilot saw it was a commercial 747 and Russia shot it down
anyway, as it was leaving Russian airspace. That was the USSR and it's also
the new Russia under Putin. It's just that some, like Obama, don't realize it.
Obama to the Russian PM Medvedev: "I'll have more flexibility on arms control after the election" PM: "I'll tell Vladymir". Nice, real nice. He sure is
looking out for America.

[nam sak]

MAS has been effectively bankrupt for many years and for good reasons
(it is absolutely ****, I flew it once and vowed never to set foot on
it ever again).

When an airline is in that situation anything can happen.

The pilots and other staff it can attract and maintain are severely
limited leading to a brain drain. The maintenance budget is going to
get cut to the bone. They are going to consider carrying cargo that
other airlines would not touch with a barge pole. Crew are going to
consider routes and other means to save the company money etc.

It is tragic but you have to ask yourself why did these people choose
to fly with this airline? Some of them already had experience of
relations and friends disappearing on MH370 with all of the lies and
subterfuge surrounding that.

At some point people really have to take responsibility for their own
actions.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:14:17 -0400, H o m e G u y
<"H o m e"@G u y . c o m> wrote:

>Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?
>

>07/17/2014
>
>While there are various questions that have already emerged from what
>was supposed to be Ukraine's "slam dunk" proof confirming Russian rebel
>involvement in today's MH-17 tragedy, perhaps one just as gaping
>question emerges when one looks at what is clearly an outlier flight
>path in today's final, and tragic, departure of the Malaysian Airlines
>Boeing 777.
>
>Perhaps the best visualization of what the issue is, comes from Vagelis
>Karmiros who has collated all the recent MH-17 flight paths as tracked
>by Flightaware and shows that while all ten most recent paths pass
>safely well south of the Donetsk region, and cross the zone above the
>Sea of Azov, it was only today's tragic flight that passed straight
>overhead Donetsk.
>
>http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/07/MH%2017%20flight%20paths_0.png
>
>Why is the diversion from the traditional flight path and passage over
>the highlighted zone a concern? Because as the following map from the
>WSJ shows this is precisely where the restricted airspace is.
>
>http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/07/restricted%20air%20space.png
>
>So perhaps before coming to "certain" conclusion about the involvement
>of this rebel or that, the key questions one should ask before casting
>blame, is why did the pilot divert from his usual flight plan, why did
>he fly above restricted airspace, and just what, if any instructions,
>did Kiev air control give the pilot in the minutes before the tragic
>explosion?
>
>http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-17/was-flight-mh-17-diverted-over-restricted-airspace

[rbowman]

nam sak wrote:

> It is tragic but you have to ask yourself why did these people choose
> to fly with this airline? Some of them already had experience of
> relations and friends disappearing on MH370 with all of the lies and
> subterfuge surrounding that.

I doubt there are a lot of buses going to Kuala Lumpur.

[trader_4]

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 11:39:55 AM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
> MAS has been effectively bankrupt for many years and for good reasons
>
> (it is absolutely ****, I flew it once and vowed never to set foot on
>
> it ever again).
>
>
>
> When an airline is in that situation anything can happen.
>
>
>
> The pilots and other staff it can attract and maintain are severely
>
> limited leading to a brain drain. The maintenance budget is going to
>
> get cut to the bone. They are going to consider carrying cargo that
>
> other airlines would not touch with a barge pole. Crew are going to
>
> consider routes and other means to save the company money etc.
>
>
>
> It is tragic but you have to ask yourself why did these people choose
>
> to fly with this airline? Some of them already had experience of
>
> relations and friends disappearing on MH370 with all of the lies and
>
> subterfuge surrounding that.
>

While you're trying to finger Malaysian Airlines, from what I have
seen, what they did was no different than most other airlines operating
in that part of the world. It was European air traffic control that
declared the space above 32000 safe, and AFAIK other airlines flew
similar routes over that airspace. In fact, I haven't seen a single
airline that has said they flew around it, instead of going over it.
If you have some examples, I'd be happy to see them.

>
> At some point people really have to take responsibility for their own
>
> actions.
>

Do you check the air route that flights you're going to go on take,
to vet that they are safe? No evidence I see that MA did anything
differently than other airlines flying similar routes. Should they
have? Yes, but so should all the other airlines and more importantly
European air traffic control, which had the space open.

[Robert Green]

"trader_4" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:a791fded-

> There are also Russian intelligence, special forces, etc in with
> the rebels, but Putin denies that.

Yeah, it's just a bunch of guys that got together with the latest Russian
military hardware (that the rank and file Russian soldiers don't even have)
and who somehow ALL forgot to put their nation's insignia on their uniform.
That's if you believe Putin and I don't even think Putin believes Putin
anymore.

--
Bobby G.

[nam sak]

Normally no I don't check the route, unless there are volcanic
eruptions or something like that since some airlines are willing to
take more risks than others. In general I think it would be pretty
impractical to even try since the pilot could change the route anyway.

I check the background of the airline. If during that process I
discovered that following a major incident the airline:-

-waited hours before declaring the aircraft missing

-said they had no primary radar data of the aircraft only to
turn around and say they did when leaks started coming out of other
countries

-squandered international resources and precious time
scouring the South China Sea/Gulf of Thailand when they already knew
it wasn't there

-initially rubbished reports that satellite data suggested
the aircraft had flown for hours only to backtrack when leaks started
coming out of Inmarsat

-claimed the last communication was the co-pilot saying all
right good night only to later admit they had lied without a word of
explanation

-claimed the cargo was mangosteens and nothing that could be
hazardous only to later admit it was carrying Lithium Ion Batteries
when another leak emerged. And still today have not released full
details of the cargo

-said they didn't know where it was but knew it was not in
the Maldives

etc


Then you know I am not going to be in a rush to get on one of their
aircraft and anyone that does is an idiot.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:55:11 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:


>While you're trying to finger Malaysian Airlines, from what I have
>seen, what they did was no different than most other airlines operating
>in that part of the world. It was European air traffic control that
>declared the space above 32000 safe, and AFAIK other airlines flew
>similar routes over that airspace. In fact, I haven't seen a single
>airline that has said they flew around it, instead of going over it.
>If you have some examples, I'd be happy to see them.
>

[trader_4]

I don't disagree with the fact that MA probably isn't the best or safest
airline to fly. But so far, I've seen absolutely
nothing that suggests they handled their routing of flights any differently
than most other airlines. Do you have any evidence that any other
airline specifically avoided that portion of European airspace where
the shoot down occured, that was open to all traffic?

If you want to argue that had a passenger chosen not to fly on MA
because of what happened with MA370, the airline losing money, etc,
then that would have kept them off the flight purely by chance. AFAIK,
they could just as easily have booked another airline that flew over
Ukraine too. If you look at a map, it's the logical direct route
to that area of the world. And if you want to say that passengers need
to be more vigilent, then they do need to check the flight route, because
that's what brought the plane down, not the airline or it's decisions,
that again, AFAIK, were not any different than any other airline.

If MA was doing things differently than other airlines, you would
think that story would be all over the news by now. Instead we have
stories like this, which sure seem to indicate that most other airlines
were doing similar routing:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/21/ukraine-flights


"When MH17 was shot down, it was right next to two other passenger planes operated by Air India and Singapore Airlines.

Now that it's clear flying at cruising altitude over eastern Ukraine isn't safe after all, everyone's avoiding the area. According to media reports, Alitalia, Lufthansa, Air France, British Airways, Aeroflot, Turkish Airlines, and Transaero have all announced they will divert flights away from eastern Ukraine for the foreseeable future. The Ukrainian civil aviation authority has closed all airspace in the area to flights, and the FAA says US carriers have voluntarily agreed not to fly in the airspace near the Ukraine-Russia border until further notice."

Finally, almost everything on that list that you blame MA for, was actually
the Malayasian govt and would have happened to any other airline departing
from Malaysia. The Malaysian govt had the military radar track, the
civian radar track. They are the ones that set the search area. They also
had the communications between ATC and the aircraft. About the only thing
on that list that might be the blamed on the airline is the cargo manifest.
And I'm about 80% sure that was under the control of the Malaysian govt
too. Following a crash the govt of the country having jurisdiction has
control of the investigation and all other parties are limited in what they
can say and release.

[nam sak]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

When you fly MAS you are not flying on a normal airline. You are
flying on a bankrupt vessel of the Malaysian Government. A Government
that makes the Third Reich look like a teddy bear's picnic.

I disagree though about your comment about 'would have happened to any
other airline departing from Malaysia'. Don't understand that bit.

[trader_4]

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 1:55:01 PM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
> You pretty much hit the nail on the head there.
>
>
>
> When you fly MAS you are not flying on a normal airline. You are
>
> flying on a bankrupt vessel of the Malaysian Government. A Government
>
> that makes the Third Reich look like a teddy bear's picnic.
>
>

Are you really sure you want to make that comparison? And from what I
understand it's a publicly traded company, the govt owns about half of it.
In international aviation, I don't think that's unusual at all.

>
> I disagree though about your comment about 'would have happened to any
>
> other airline departing from Malaysia'. Don't understand that bit.
>

I went a little off track there. My point was that most of the bungling
of important matters with MA370 was coming from the Malaysian govt officials
in charge of the investigation, not the airline. They had control of the response and the crash investigation, not the airline. So, for example, the initial confusion
that followed for several days, where the Malaysian govt pointed the search
in the South China Sea, could have and likely would have happened without
regard to what carrier it was. If it was a Korean Air, Singapore Airline
or Lufthansa, that took off from KL, the response in the hours that followed,
would likely have been pretty much the same. They would have had to rely
on what Malaysia was saying their civilian and military radar showed. And
initially, Malaysia said that the civilian radar ended exactly when
everything else went dark, so it seems very reasonable that the search
would have started at the same place, which turned out to be totally wrong.

Where I went off track was that had it been a foreign airline, then that
country would have been in charge of the subsequent investigation. That
probably could have saved much of the public missteps, backtracking, etc.
Not sure how much time it would have cut off the search though. They still
would have been at the mercy of the Malaysians, who for example were
reluctant to allow anyone to see their military radar tracks of the flight.
They may have taken exactly the same position if it was Lufthansa that
was running the investigation, ie they may have refused for days to allow
them to see it too.

Back to the main issue of what airspace is cleared, deemed safe and by
who, I had CNN on today. Their reporter said that the organization that
represents most of the international carriers, (think it was IATA), issued
a statement a few days ago that said the position of it's member airlines
is that they don't determine which airspace is safe, that it's entirely up
to civilian govt aviation authorities.

And I'm sure you'll love this. On the news last night they showed the
flight path taken yesterday by Malaysian Airlines from KL to London.
It went right over Iraq and Syria. And again, I think if you look, you'll
see that most, maybe all airlines that fly routes where that is the shortest
path, do the same. It's deemed safe by whatever govt authorities have
control over it and permitted.

[nam sak]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:17:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 1:55:01 PM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
>> When you fly MAS you are not flying on a normal airline. You are
>> flying on a bankrupt vessel of the Malaysian Government. A Government
>> that makes the Third Reich look like a teddy bear's picnic.
>>
>Are you really sure you want to make that comparison? And from what I
>understand it's a publicly traded company, the govt owns about half of it.
>In international aviation, I don't think that's unusual at all.

Yes very very sure. Racial discrimination is not only considered
normal in Malaysia it is actively encouraged by government policy.
Denialists either disappear or when they are too well known are put in
jail on a variety of dubious charges. I think the only major
difference I can see between the Malaysian Government and the Third
Reich is that the Third Reich only lasted just over 10 years whereas
the Malaysian Reich has lasted nearly 60. In part because it has been
propped up by 'the west' in the mistaken belief that it is 'friendly'.
Reminds me of a certain Mr. Chamberlain.

I would be interested to know which half of MAS the government owns. I
know about the 52 % that Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad (Malaysian
Government) owns and the 17% Khazanah Nasional (Malaysian Government)
owns and the 11% the Employees Provident Fund (Malaysian Government)
owns and the 6% Amanah Raya Nominees (Malaysian Government) owns and
the 3% State Financial Secretary Sarawak (Malaysian Government) owns
and the 2.5% Warisan Harta Sabah (Malaysian Government) owns........

Actually when I think about it the major gap in my knowledge is
exactly which shares the Malaysian Government does not own. They claim
that 5% belongs to what they refer to as 'foreign shareholders'. If
you can find out who they are then I would be very interested. In the
absence of information to the contrary I am tempted to assume that the
'foreign shareholdes' are part of the Malaysian Fuhrer's untaxed
offshore 'pension fund'. If I am right then we can at least take
comfort from the fact that at the end of the day he will be lucky to
get a few magic beans for them.

Personally I do not think that is usual for an airline. Particularly
one that tries to sell itself as living in the real world.

>>
>> I disagree though about your comment about 'would have happened to any
>> other airline departing from Malaysia'. Don't understand that bit.
>>
>
>I went a little off track there. My point was that most of the bungling
>of important matters with MA370 was coming from the Malaysian govt officials
>in charge of the investigation, not the airline. They had control of the response and the crash investigation, not the airline. So, for example, the initial confusion
>that followed for several days, where the Malaysian govt pointed the search
>in the South China Sea, could have and likely would have happened without
>regard to what carrier it was. If it was a Korean Air, Singapore Airline
>or Lufthansa, that took off from KL, the response in the hours that followed,
>would likely have been pretty much the same. They would have had to rely
>on what Malaysia was saying their civilian and military radar showed. And
>initially, Malaysia said that the civilian radar ended exactly when
>everything else went dark, so it seems very reasonable that the search
>would have started at the same place, which turned out to be totally wrong.
>

I admit that the Malaysian Government would have tried to hamper any
airline's attempts but I think to generalize like this is may be going
a bit too far. I like to think that after a short while any reputable
airline would have told Hishammuddin where to stick his phony press
conferences and just gone public. Considering their insurance and
other responsibilities it is difficult to imagine how the CEO of a
normal public company could have avoided doing so without risking a
jail sentence.

The primary radar data is a good example. It was not Malaysian primary
radar data that initiated a series of questions that forced the
Malaysians to begin telling more of the story. It was THAI primary
radar data. The Thais released it to the airline (MAS). The airline
released it to their bosses (the Malaysian Government) and then kept
schtum. Their bosses (the Malaysian Government) then encouraged
several other countries to waste time and effort and put their own
lives at risk looking for an airliner where they knew themselves it
was not. What kind of airline/government does that for goodness sake?
and why?

I have performed several operational audits of (civilian) Thai Air
Traffic control and I have been told that the only reason the
Malaysians went public about their own primary radar data was because
the Thai Military gave them an ultimatum. Release your data in 24
hours or we will release ours.

If this information had been released to a 'normal' airline and the
Malaysian Government chose to keep quiet about it in their press
conferences do you honestly think a normal airline would just let it
go? Alarm bells would have been ringing right left and Centre and they
would have read the Malaysian Government the riot act. If the
Malaysians had continued to obfuscate then some whistle blower at the
airline would have released the details (after having been secretly
ordered to do so by the CEO).

But MAS? What choice does it have?

It IS the Government.

>
>Where I went off track was that had it been a foreign airline, then that
>country would have been in charge of the subsequent investigation. That
>probably could have saved much of the public missteps, backtracking, etc.
>Not sure how much time it would have cut off the search though. They still
>would have been at the mercy of the Malaysians, who for example were
>reluctant to allow anyone to see their military radar tracks of the flight.
>They may have taken exactly the same position if it was Lufthansa that
>was running the investigation, ie they may have refused for days to allow
>them to see it too.

As said above the Malaysian radar data was not significant. It was
only released after they were threatened with exposure. By the time
the Malaysians (sort of*) released their own radar data everyone
already knew what had happened. The key fact was that MAS being owned
by the Malaysian Government was not willing to say anything that went
against Government Policy and so kept quiet about critical information
that had nothing to with national security only national trying to
save egg on face.

*I say sort of because the Malaysian Government has still not actually
released it, along with most other things concerned with MH370
(Particular the cargo - they have released dribs and drabs but not the
full details. National security? ROTFLMAO).

>
>Back to the main issue of what airspace is cleared, deemed safe and by
>who, I had CNN on today. Their reporter said that the organization that
>represents most of the international carriers, (think it was IATA), issued
>a statement a few days ago that said the position of it's member airlines
>is that they don't determine which airspace is safe, that it's entirely up
>to civilian govt aviation authorities.
>
>And I'm sure you'll love this. On the news last night they showed the
>flight path taken yesterday by Malaysian Airlines from KL to London.
>It went right over Iraq and Syria. And again, I think if you look, you'll
>see that most, maybe all airlines that fly routes where that is the shortest
>path, do the same. It's deemed safe by whatever govt authorities have
>control over it and permitted.

I think I said previously that I am not too much bothered about routes
unless some volcano is blowing it's top. There is always going to be a
risk. When I choose an airline (in general) the route is not going to
feature much in my selection process. I focus on is it non stop and
the airline not the route. And IMO anyone that would fly MAS needs to
seriously reconsider their selection criteria.

I don't know if it's relevant but if I am totally totally honest the
reason I told my employer that I would never fly MAS ever again (at
the risk of losing my job) was just a feeling. Malaysians and
Singaporeans can be very similar in my opinion. They are arrogant,
rude, loud and obnoxious. But SQ seem to have it right when they hire
staff. I would fly with them any time. But MAS? Sorry, no way. If you
want to fly Malaysian Government Airways then good luck. You'll need
it.

There are only 2 airlines that I can think of that are worse than MAS.

- British Airways
- Qantas

If I was given the choice between flying MAS, BA or QF I honestly
think my head would explode.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <pcdus9lkop8v1hq3h...@4ax.com>,
nam sak <nam...@nirvana.com> wrote:
...
(I was with you in your funny and interesting critique of MAS, right up
until you flitted this:)

>There are only 2 airlines that I can think of that are worse than MAS.
>
>- British Airways
>- Qantas

Funny. I've never heard anything particularly bad about BA. I flew them
once long ago and it seemed OK.

But I've always head that Qantas was among the best. I've never flown
them, but they were for a long time, the only airline never to have had a
fatal crash (unfortunately, their luck ran out sometime within the last
year or two, or so I've heard...)

So, I'm curious why you chose these two to slag on. Can you clarify?

--
People who say they'll vote for someone else because Obama couldn't solve
all of Bush's messes are like people complaining that he couldn't cure cancer,
so they'll go and vote for cancer.

[Bill]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:17:14 +0000 (UTC), gaz...@shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:

>In article <pcdus9lkop8v1hq3h...@4ax.com>,
>nam sak <nam...@nirvana.com> wrote:
>...
>(I was with you in your funny and interesting critique of MAS, right up
>until you flitted this:)
>>There are only 2 airlines that I can think of that are worse than MAS.
>>
>>- British Airways
>>- Qantas
>
>Funny. I've never heard anything particularly bad about BA. I flew them
>once long ago and it seemed OK.

BA have improved beyond recognition in the past five or six years.

Probably due to them flushing out most of their old cabin staff who
were always notoriously rude and 'work averse'.

The current lot are much younger and seem to enjoy their work...

[trader_4]

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:00:29 AM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:17:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
>
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 1:55:01 PM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
>
> >> When you fly MAS you are not flying on a normal airline. You are
>
> >> flying on a bankrupt vessel of the Malaysian Government. A Government
>
> >> that makes the Third Reich look like a teddy bear's picnic.
>
> >>
>
> >Are you really sure you want to make that comparison? And from what I
>
> >understand it's a publicly traded company, the govt owns about half of it.
>
> >In international aviation, I don't think that's unusual at all.
>
>
>
> Yes very very sure. Racial discrimination is not only considered
>
> normal in Malaysia it is actively encouraged by government policy.
>
> Denialists either disappear or when they are too well known are put in
>
> jail on a variety of dubious charges. I think the only major
>
> difference I can see between the Malaysian Government and the Third
>
> Reich is that the Third Reich only lasted just over 10 years whereas
>
> the Malaysian Reich has lasted nearly 60. In part because it has been
>
> propped up by 'the west' in the mistaken belief that it is 'friendly'.
>
> Reminds me of a certain Mr. Chamberlain.
>
>

If that is the only difference you see, you need a history lesson.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here that finds the comparison offensive.

>
> I would be interested to know which half of MAS the government owns. I
>
> know about the 52 % that Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad (Malaysian
>
> Government) owns and the 17% Khazanah Nasional (Malaysian Government)
>
> owns and the 11% the Employees Provident Fund (Malaysian Government)
>
> owns and the 6% Amanah Raya Nominees (Malaysian Government) owns and
>
> the 3% State Financial Secretary Sarawak (Malaysian Government) owns
>
> and the 2.5% Warisan Harta Sabah (Malaysian Government) owns........
>
>

I was unaware that the other companies were also Malaysian govt agencies.
So, you're right that the airline is owned almost entirely by the
Malaysian govt, through one agency or another. Not that it's unusual
or really matters.
Even if MA was a private company based in Malaysia, the same Malaysian
officials would have been in charge of the crash investigation.

> >
>
> I admit that the Malaysian Government would have tried to hamper any
>
> airline's attempts but I think to generalize like this is may be going
>
> a bit too far. I like to think that after a short while any reputable
>
> airline would have told Hishammuddin where to stick his phony press
>
> conferences and just gone public.

And see their business booted out of the country? And gone public with
what exactly? The Malaysian govt had almost all the pertinent data:
civilian and military radar tracks that were critical, communication with
ATC, communication with other countries, ie Thailand, Vietnam, Chinaa

Considering their insurance and
>
> other responsibilities it is difficult to imagine how the CEO of a
>
> normal public company could have avoided doing so without risking a
>
> jail sentence.
>
>

Jail sentence? There is nothing criminal in following the law that says
the Malaysian govt officials run the investigation. On the one hand you
claim that the Malaysian govt is like the third reich, then you expect
airline execs to overrule them, interfere in the investigation? Sounds
like that is far more likely to get you a jail sentence.

>
> The primary radar data is a good example. It was not Malaysian primary
>
> radar data that initiated a series of questions that forced the
>
> Malaysians to begin telling more of the story. It was THAI primary
>
> radar data. The Thais released it to the airline (MAS).

AFAIK that is incorrect. In fact, why aren't you blaming Thailand for
incompetence and/or lying too? For 10 days they said they had no radar
contact with
the missing plane. By the time they changed their story, the search had
already moved to the Straits of Malacca anyway and all they did was confirm
that they had a radar track of an unknown plane going that route.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/03/18/mh370_thailand_s_military_finally_shares_radar_data_that_would_have_been.html

http://www.france24.com/en/20140319-thai-radar-unknown-aircraft-mh370-malaysia/

"Thailand Shares MH370 Radar Data That Could Have Been Really Helpful a Week Ago"

The airline
>
> released it to their bosses (the Malaysian Government) and then kept
>
> schtum.

I've never heard this version and it makes no sense. Why would Thailand
be talking to the airline, instead of Malaysian govt investigators leading
the investigation?

Their bosses (the Malaysian Government) then encouraged
>
> several other countries to waste time and effort and put their own
>
> lives at risk looking for an airliner where they knew themselves it
>
> was not. What kind of airline/government does that for goodness sake?
>
> and why?
>

If you have credible evidence that Thailand actually told Malaysians
early in the investigation that they had radar contact I'd be happy to
see it. AFAIK Thailand vigorously denied having anything, until about
10 days after the plane went missing, by which time the search had already
moved to the Straits. And why no blame for Thailand? Either they didn't
know they had a radar track or they didn't tell Malaysia for 10 days,
(the correct version AFAIK), or else they told them much earlier and sat back
and watched the world search in the wrong place for 10 days (your version).

>
> I have performed several operational audits of (civilian) Thai Air
>
> Traffic control and I have been told that the only reason the
>
> Malaysians went public about their own primary radar data was because
>
> the Thai Military gave them an ultimatum. Release your data in 24
>
> hours or we will release ours.
>

Which still says nothing about the timeline. Was that at day 1, 2, 10?

>
> If this information had been released to a 'normal' airline and the
>
> Malaysian Government chose to keep quiet about it in their press
>
> conferences do you honestly think a normal airline would just let it
>
> go?

I don't believe that data is normally released to the airline period.
It would be by Thai aviation/govt authorities to Malaysian investigators
conducting the investigation.

Alarm bells would have been ringing right left and Centre and they
>
> would have read the Malaysian Government the riot act. If the
>
> Malaysians had continued to obfuscate then some whistle blower at the
>
> airline would have released the details (after having been secretly
>
> ordered to do so by the CEO).
>
>
>
> But MAS? What choice does it have?
>
>

I'd like to see an example of another crash or missing plane investigation
where the airline took on the govt of the country that it's operating in,
regardless of who actually owns the airline. Maybe it's happened, somewhere,
but I've never seen it and there are obvious reasons why any airline would
be very reluctant to do so.

>
> It IS the Government.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >Where I went off track was that had it been a foreign airline, then that
>
> >country would have been in charge of the subsequent investigation. That
>
> >probably could have saved much of the public missteps, backtracking, etc.
>
> >Not sure how much time it would have cut off the search though. They still
>
> >would have been at the mercy of the Malaysians, who for example were
>
> >reluctant to allow anyone to see their military radar tracks of the flight.
>
> >They may have taken exactly the same position if it was Lufthansa that
>
> >was running the investigation, ie they may have refused for days to allow
>
> >them to see it too.
>
>
>
> As said above the Malaysian radar data was not significant.

OF course it was significant. Good grief. It's what showed the plane
had turned back and flown across the Straits.

It was
>
> only released after they were threatened with exposure. By the time
>
> the Malaysians (sort of*) released their own radar data everyone
>
> already knew what had happened.

Not from the stories I followed at the time. The sequence of events was:

The search area started in the South China Sea, because that is where
all normal contact with the plane was suddenly lost. After several
days of searching there, Malaysian officials announced that their military
radar showed an unknown target that could be MA370 heading across to
the Straits. The search moved there on day 4. Thailand continued to say
it had no radar contact data. Only 10 days later did Thailand finally say
they did have data and by then the search had been going on in the Straits
and Indian Ocean for almost a week.

And assuming Malaysians did have the Thai radar data early on, as
you claim, what exactly is the rational motive for searching in the
wrong place?

The key fact was that MAS being owned
>
> by the Malaysian Government was not willing to say anything that went
>
> against Government Policy and so kept quiet about critical information
>
> that had nothing to with national security only national trying to
>
> save egg on face.
>
>

You're assuming that Malaysian airline officials had some Thai radar
data that the govt did not. Already discussed why that scenario makes
no sense to me. But if you have some credible evidence that shows that,
I'd be happy to see it.

>
> *I say sort of because the Malaysian Government has still not actually
>
> released it, along with most other things concerned with MH370
>
> (Particular the cargo - they have released dribs and drabs but not the
>
> full details. National security? ROTFLMAO).
>

Which again they could do with any crash investigation that they control
regardless of the carrier.

> >
>
> >Back to the main issue of what airspace is cleared, deemed safe and by
>
> >who, I had CNN on today. Their reporter said that the organization that
>
> >represents most of the international carriers, (think it was IATA), issued
>
> >a statement a few days ago that said the position of it's member airlines
>
> >is that they don't determine which airspace is safe, that it's entirely up
>
> >to civilian govt aviation authorities.
>
> >
>
> >And I'm sure you'll love this. On the news last night they showed the
>
> >flight path taken yesterday by Malaysian Airlines from KL to London.
>
> >It went right over Iraq and Syria. And again, I think if you look, you'll
>
> >see that most, maybe all airlines that fly routes where that is the shortest
>
> >path, do the same. It's deemed safe by whatever govt authorities have
>
> >control over it and permitted.
>
>
>
> I think I said previously that I am not too much bothered about routes
>
> unless some volcano is blowing it's top. There is always going to be a
>
> risk. When I choose an airline (in general) the route is not going to
>
> feature much in my selection process.

Well then your logic makes no sense. You said the passengers of the MH17
should take some of the responsibility for the crash because they chose to
fly on Malaysian Airlines. The fact that it was MA was purely by chance.
It was the fact that it was flying over the Ukraine, in airspace that was
open by European authorities, that lead to the crash, not actions by
MA that were any different than those of any other airline. At least AFAIK
and you've come up with nothing here to refute that. To be responsible
and avoid the crash, passengers would have to vette the safety of the
flight path of the flights they are going to take.

I focus on is it non stop and
>
> the airline not the route. And IMO anyone that would fly MAS needs to
>
> seriously reconsider their selection criteria.
>
>

Then you would have avoided the doomed flight by *chance* not by
some act of being responsible.

>
>
> There are only 2 airlines that I can think of that are worse than MAS.
>
>
>
> - British Airways
>
> - Qantas
>
>

None of which has anything to do with the plane being shot down.
Similary, if a BA plane went down, shot out of the sky, would you be
saying the passengers on it deserve the blame, they should have been
responsible, because you don't like BA? Good grief.

[nam sak]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 05:39:57 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:00:29 AM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:17:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
>>
>> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 1:55:01 PM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
>>
>> >> When you fly MAS you are not flying on a normal airline. You are
>> >> flying on a bankrupt vessel of the Malaysian Government. A Government
>> >> that makes the Third Reich look like a teddy bear's picnic.
>>
>> >Are you really sure you want to make that comparison? And from what I
>> >understand it's a publicly traded company, the govt owns about half of it.
>> >In international aviation, I don't think that's unusual at all.
>>
>> Yes very very sure. Racial discrimination is not only considered
>> normal in Malaysia it is actively encouraged by government policy.
>> Denialists either disappear or when they are too well known are put in
>> jail on a variety of dubious charges. I think the only major
>> difference I can see between the Malaysian Government and the Third
>> Reich is that the Third Reich only lasted just over 10 years whereas
>> the Malaysian Reich has lasted nearly 60. In part because it has been
>> propped up by 'the west' in the mistaken belief that it is 'friendly'.
>> Reminds me of a certain Mr. Chamberlain.
>
>If that is the only difference you see, you need a history lesson.
>I'm sure I'm not the only one here that finds the comparison offensive.

Not the only difference, but really how much do you want me to write
about the disgusting Malaysian dictatorship?

One 'party' that wins every 'free' 'election' in 60 years? Please. If
they are that good then why don't we just get them to run the world?
Most countries don't seem to be happy with what they have. Why not
just have the Malaysian system instead?

You may not be the only one here who finds the comparison offensive
(although I am failing to see anyone rushing to your defence) but (and
I am trying to break this gently) you know sometimes crazy despots do
take offense to things they don't like being told.

I know many many people who would NOT take offense to what I said.
They are mostly* Malaysian.

*For the record every (and I mean EVERY) Indonesian I know would agree
with me. I just wish they had the guts to do something about it, and
soon.

Let's invade Afghanistan, let's invade Syria, Let's invade Libya, Lets
invade Iran, Let's invade Iraq (again) let's invade ...... in order to
give them democracy. But let's just conveniently forget about
Malaysia.

>> I would be interested to know which half of MAS the government owns. I
>> know about the 52 % that Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad (Malaysian
>> Government) owns and the 17% Khazanah Nasional (Malaysian Government)
>> owns and the 11% the Employees Provident Fund (Malaysian Government)
>> owns and the 6% Amanah Raya Nominees (Malaysian Government) owns and
>> the 3% State Financial Secretary Sarawak (Malaysian Government) owns
>> and the 2.5% Warisan Harta Sabah (Malaysian Government) owns........
>
>I was unaware that the other companies were also Malaysian govt agencies.
>So, you're right that the airline is owned almost entirely by the
>Malaysian govt, through one agency or another. Not that it's unusual
>or really matters.

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
It is not unusual and does not matter
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
WTFFFFF??????????????????????

I am sorry if I am losing my rag here but (remember to breathe,
remember to breathe) after an airline disaster there is something
called an air crash investigation. National Geographic have done a
pretty good series on it which is available on You Tube if you are
interested.

As with all investigations the CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL (did I
emphasize critical enough?) thing is INDEPENDENCE. If there is any
potential conflict of interest then any investigation results are
frankly worthless.

So a Malaysian airliner belonging to the Malaysian Government goes
missing and the Malaysian Air craft Investigation (department of
Malaysian Government) are charged with investigating.

AND YOU DO NOT THINK THAT MATTERS???????????????????

What ******* planet are you on?

>Even if MA was a private company based in Malaysia, the same Malaysian
>officials would have been in charge of the crash investigation.
>

Agreed but you forgot to say incompetent, corrupt Malaysian officials.
And I know FOR A FACT there is no Malaysian on this earth who is not
in the Malaysian Government that would disagree with me on that. In
fact most (if not all) of the Malaysian Government would agree with me
also but they would probably not want to go public with it. That is
why it is better to avoid MAS. With other airlines there is a much
better chance that following an incident more information will leak
out, despite the Malaysian Government's attempts at stopping it; and
hopefully that would lead to more effective corrective action being
taken and less likelihood of recurrences.

If you fly MAS then you are trusting your life to an organisation that
literally does not care whether you live or die. Particularly if you
are of Chinese descent.

>> I admit that the Malaysian Government would have tried to hamper any
>> airline's attempts but I think to generalize like this is may be going
>> a bit too far. I like to think that after a short while any reputable
>> airline would have told Hishammuddin where to stick his phony press
>> conferences and just gone public.
>
>And see their business booted out of the country? And gone public with
>what exactly? The Malaysian govt had almost all the pertinent data:
>civilian and military radar tracks that were critical, communication with
>ATC, communication with other countries, ie Thailand, Vietnam, Chinaa
>
>

That is why I said reputable. There are airlines that are bigger than
tin pot dictatorships like Malaysia. They would no doubt try to reason
with the Malaysian ****holes for a while but eventually they would
pull the plug if their internal processes were being seriously
compromised.

> Considering their insurance and
>> other responsibilities it is difficult to imagine how the CEO of a
>> normal public company could have avoided doing so without risking a
>> jail sentence.
>
>Jail sentence? There is nothing criminal in following the law that says
>the Malaysian govt officials run the investigation. On the one hand you
>claim that the Malaysian govt is like the third reich, then you expect
>airline execs to overrule them, interfere in the investigation? Sounds
>like that is far more likely to get you a jail sentence.
>

The jail sentence I was referring to was for telling lies to an
insurance company. All airlines that fly internationally have to have
insurance. It is a basic requirement. A requirement of insurance
validity is that you tell the truth. If you do not then it is possible
(to put it mildly) that your insurance cover goes whoopsy down the
toilet.

If any CEO (even in Malaysia) started to tell porkies like the
Malaysians then they would run the risk that their insurance would not
pay out. One of the potential consequences would be bankruptcy of the
airline and prosecution of the staff for false representation.

I am perfectly willing to admit that this is possibly one aspect of
the MAS tragedies that actually works in the passengers' favour. Since
I assume the insurance was with a Malaysian Government agency and even
if the insurance company refuse to pay out the Malaysian Government
probably will to save face.

So maybe more likely to die but at least your kids will get an
education. Maybe they could use that in their next advertising
campaign. I hope I get some royalties. I'm thinking 'we've only just
begun' for the music.

>>
>> The primary radar data is a good example. It was not Malaysian primary
>> radar data that initiated a series of questions that forced the
>> Malaysians to begin telling more of the story. It was THAI primary
>> radar data. The Thais released it to the airline (MAS).
>
>AFAIK that is incorrect. In fact, why aren't you blaming Thailand for
>incompetence and/or lying too? For 10 days they said they had no radar
>contact with the missing plane. By the time they changed their story, the search had
>already moved to the Straits of Malacca anyway and all they did was confirm
>that they had a radar track of an unknown plane going that route.
>http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/03/18/mh370_thailand_s_military_finally_shares_radar_data_that_would_have_been.html
>http://www.france24.com/en/20140319-thai-radar-unknown-aircraft-mh370-malaysia/
>"Thailand Shares MH370 Radar Data That Could Have Been Really Helpful a Week Ago"

OK so I am privy to a little bit more information than you.

I don't think I would be in a rush to accuse Thailand of lying or
incompetence. In fact I would congratulate them for kicking Malaysia
up the ****. They negotiated with Malaysia for a long time. OK Maybe
they left it too long. But at least at the end of the day they did the
right thing and it resulted in Malaysia finally coming a little bit
cleaner.

> The airline
>> released it to their bosses (the Malaysian Government) and then kept
>> schtum.
>
>I've never heard this version and it makes no sense. Why would Thailand
>be talking to the airline, instead of Malaysian govt investigators leading
>the investigation?
>

What Malaysian Investigators? Are you referring to Hishammuddin (i.e.
the guy that lied his ass off since the beginning?). I have to admit
that I do not know the international protocol that is supposed to be
followed in such situations. All I have been told is that the Thai
Military got sick and tired of trying to deal with the Malaysian
Government and told the airline directly.

>Their bosses (the Malaysian Government) then encouraged
>> several other countries to waste time and effort and put their own
>> lives at risk looking for an airliner where they knew themselves it
>> was not. What kind of airline/government does that for goodness sake?
>> and why?
>
>If you have credible evidence that Thailand actually told Malaysians
>early in the investigation that they had radar contact I'd be happy to
>see it. AFAIK Thailand vigorously denied having anything, until about
>10 days after the plane went missing, by which time the search had already
>moved to the Straits.

I have no objective evidence what so ever. Just word of mouth from
people at Thai ATC that I have known for a very long time and have
learned to trust.

>And why no blame for Thailand? Either they didn't
>know they had a radar track or they didn't tell Malaysia for 10 days,
>(the correct version AFAIK), or else they told them much earlier and sat back
>and watched the world search in the wrong place for 10 days (your version).
>

They DID tell them. Immediately as far as I can make out. What exactly
went on behind the scenes meanwhile I am afraid I do not know.

I am not sure what you mean by no blame for Thailand(?). It was a
Malaysian aircraft departing from Malaysia and not going to Thailand.
(Did it even enter Thai airspace at any point?) Why not blame Myanmar
and Vietnam? They probably had some radar data too but were too afraid
to stand up and be counted. At least Thailand did something albeit
belatedly.

I thought we were discussing why not to fly MAS. Not why to not fly
MAS if it's flying anywhere near Thailand. Should we include
Madagascar possibly? Mexico? Portugal?

>> I have performed several operational audits of (civilian) Thai Air
>> Traffic control and I have been told that the only reason the
>> Malaysians went public about their own primary radar data was because
>> the Thai Military gave them an ultimatum. Release your data in 24
>> hours or we will release ours.
>>
>Which still says nothing about the timeline. Was that at day 1, 2, 10?
>

I have to admit I do not know. From the impression I got it was given
to MAS on the day the aircraft went missing.

>>
>> If this information had been released to a 'normal' airline and the
>> Malaysian Government chose to keep quiet about it in their press
>> conferences do you honestly think a normal airline would just let it
>> go?
>
>I don't believe that data is normally released to the airline period.
>It would be by Thai aviation/govt authorities to Malaysian investigators
>conducting the investigation.
>

I refer to my comments above.

>
>Alarm bells would have been ringing right left and Centre and they
>> would have read the Malaysian Government the riot act. If the
>> Malaysians had continued to obfuscate then some whistle blower at the
>> airline would have released the details (after having been secretly
>> ordered to do so by the CEO).

>> But MAS? What choice does it have?

>
>I'd like to see an example of another crash or missing plane investigation
>where the airline took on the govt of the country that it's operating in,
>regardless of who actually owns the airline. Maybe it's happened, somewhere,
>but I've never seen it and there are obvious reasons why any airline would
>be very reluctant to do so.
>

It is not normally the function of the airline to take on a
government. The airline normally stands back and tells the truth while
an independent investigation team try to work out what happened.

Air crash investigators occasionally take on governments (Silk Air 185
comes to mind) but not normally airlines. The airline is just expected
to provide all information and tell the truth.

However I think the point you are missing is that when it comes to MAS
and Malaysia that is where the whole process breaks down. It is NOT
NORMAL. It is a freak airline in a freak jurisdiction and the truth is
the last thing that is likely to happen.

>>
>> It IS the Government.

>> >Where I went off track was that had it been a foreign airline, then that
>> >country would have been in charge of the subsequent investigation. That
>> >probably could have saved much of the public missteps, backtracking, etc.
>> >Not sure how much time it would have cut off the search though. They still
>> >would have been at the mercy of the Malaysians, who for example were
>> >reluctant to allow anyone to see their military radar tracks of the flight.
>> >They may have taken exactly the same position if it was Lufthansa that
>> >was running the investigation, ie they may have refused for days to allow
>> >them to see it too.
>>
>> As said above the Malaysian radar data was not significant.
>
>OF course it was significant. Good grief. It's what showed the plane
>had turned back and flown across the Straits.
>

No the Thai data did that. The Malaysian data simply confirmed it once
they had been forced to reveal it. I expect you also believe it was
only carrying Mangosteens.

>
>It was
>> only released after they were threatened with exposure. By the time
>> the Malaysians (sort of*) released their own radar data everyone
>> already knew what had happened.
>
>Not from the stories I followed at the time. The sequence of events was:
>
>The search area started in the South China Sea, because that is where
>all normal contact with the plane was suddenly lost. After several
>days of searching there, Malaysian officials announced that their military
>radar showed an unknown target that could be MA370 heading across to
>the Straits. The search moved there on day 4. Thailand continued to say
>it had no radar contact data. Only 10 days later did Thailand finally say
>they did have data and by then the search had been going on in the Straits
>and Indian Ocean for almost a week.
>

And these 'stories that you followed at the time' were coming from
where exactly? Did they smell of Mangosteens at all?

>And assuming Malaysians did have the Thai radar data early on, as
>you claim, what exactly is the rational motive for searching in the
>wrong place?
>

I wish I knew. I assume it was a delay tactic to let them try to work
out what the official story was going to be.

>
> The key fact was that MAS being owned
>> by the Malaysian Government was not willing to say anything that went
>> against Government Policy and so kept quiet about critical information
>> that had nothing to with national security only national trying to
>> save egg on face.
>>
>
>You're assuming that Malaysian airline officials had some Thai radar
>data that the govt did not. Already discussed why that scenario makes
>no sense to me. But if you have some credible evidence that shows that,
>I'd be happy to see it.
>

No no no no no. Sorry to be a bit aggressive but that is simply false
and frankly an attempted manipulation.

I assume a lot.

I assume MAS knew what the cargo was before lying about it.

I assume MAS did not keep quiet for hours after it's disappearance
because they were afraid to wake up any babies on board

I assume MAS were furnished with Malaysian Government primary radar
data

I assume MAS knew about the Inmarsat data long before the Wall Street
Journal confronted them

I assume they knew that the last communication was not the co pilot
saying 'all right good night'

All I remember saying was that MAS kept quiet about critical
information that was nothing to do with National Security. It was you
that assumed everything else and you know what they say about assume -
it makes a complete ******* *** out of MAS and the Malaysian
Government.

PS regarding the radar data I am not really assuming it. I might not
have documented objective evidence but I trust the people that have
told me and while that may not hold much sway with you there is no
question in my mind that it is factual and I do not consider myself a
complete idiot when it comes to talking to people I have been an
auditor for more than 30 years and it would take a very fly auditee to
get one past me. Not impossible but pretty unlikely IMO.

>>
>> *I say sort of because the Malaysian Government has still not actually
>> released it, along with most other things concerned with MH370
>> (Particular the cargo - they have released dribs and drabs but not the
>> full details. National security? ROTFLMAO).
>
>Which again they could do with any crash investigation that they control
>regardless of the carrier.
>

That is just an argument for not going anywhere near Malaysia let
alone MAS. I have no disagreement with that.

Glad we agree on something at last.

You could very well be correct regarding MH17. But how will we ever
reliably know? The data recorders will probably tell us ***BOOM***.
When what we really need to know is the exact details of what they did
and why they did it. Maybe it was all perfectly innocent and normal
and just a tragic event that MAS are in no way responsible for. But as
I hope I have explained that would rely on concise, factual,
objective, truthful explanations from MAS and the Malaysian
Government. But I am afraid if this comes as a shock to you but it
really does rain in Indianapolis in the summer time.

>I focus on is it non stop and
>> the airline not the route. And IMO anyone that would fly MAS needs to
>> seriously reconsider their selection criteria.
>>
>Then you would have avoided the doomed flight by *chance* not by
>some act of being responsible.
>

So you already have the results of the MH17 air crash investigation?
Sorry to bother you but would it be possible for you to post a PDF
copy to this site or some file sharing sire. Thanks.

>> There are only 2 airlines that I can think of that are worse than MAS.
>>
>> - British Airways
>> - Qantas
>
>None of which has anything to do with the plane being shot down.
>Similary, if a BA plane went down, shot out of the sky, would you be
>saying the passengers on it deserve the blame, they should have been
>responsible, because you don't like BA? Good grief.
>
>

I know. I did say I don't know if it's relevant. OK so I knew it was
not relevant but I always like to give BA and Qantas a dig whenever
possible. The reason being that although they are (relatively) safe,
they are complete, total and utter ****. I will save my explanation
for another thread since I see someone else has asked why I hate them
so much.

[Robert Green]

"nam sak" <nam...@nirvana.com> wrote in message

<stuff snipped>

> I assume MAS knew what the cargo was before lying about it.
>
> I assume MAS did not keep quiet for hours after it's disappearance
> because they were afraid to wake up any babies on board
>
> I assume MAS were furnished with Malaysian Government primary radar
> data
>
> I assume MAS knew about the Inmarsat data long before the Wall Street
> Journal confronted them
>
> I assume they knew that the last communication was not the co pilot
> saying 'all right good night'

While I agree with Trader that the Ukrainian shoot down was just very bad
luck for Malaysian Airlines, your recap of what happened re: flight MH370
should remind anyone with a brain not to fly MA. If there was any chance
those people were still alive, MA squandered it - and maybe several chances.
That's not what you want if something bad happens in flight.

The misleading and downright false information they released in the days
following the crash lead me to believe they're hiding something. The errors
and retractions seem to have gone far beyond the confusion the follows such
tragedies. At several points they appear to have been forced to retract a
previous "story" when data (i.e. Thai radar tracks) appeared and
contradicted MA's previous statements.

I lean towards believing the pilot wanted his opposition leader friend
released and was trying to negotiate with the Malaysian government.

There are also some interesting questions you raised about who's going to
pay out the claims for the airplane and the passengers. If the government's
going to pay, they really shouldn't be leading the investigation. That's a
serious conflict of interest.

--
Bobby G.

[trader_4]

Sorry, but none of that rises to the level of equating them to the
Nazis.

>
> You may not be the only one here who finds the comparison offensive
>
> (although I am failing to see anyone rushing to your defence) but (and
>
> I am trying to break this gently) you know sometimes crazy despots do
>
> take offense to things they don't like being told.
>
>
>
> I know many many people who would NOT take offense to what I said.
>
> They are mostly* Malaysian.
>
>

Talk to the Jews who had 6 million parents, children, relatives starved,
gassed and put in ovens. Or the families of the rest of the 60 million
that died in WWII. When the
Malaysian govt comes anywhere near that, you can talk. Otherwise, to
compare discrimination by a corrupt Malaysian govt to what the Nazis did
is both stupid and offensive. And it just leads people to conclude you
don't know WTF you're talking about. Ever hear of Godwins Law?

>
> *For the record every (and I mean EVERY) Indonesian I know would agree
>
> with me. I just wish they had the guts to do something about it, and
>
> soon.
>
>

Yeah, sure, I believe that. You speak for everyone in an entire
country.

>
> Let's invade Afghanistan, let's invade Syria, Let's invade Libya, Lets
>
> invade Iran, Let's invade Iraq (again) let's invade ...... in order to
>
> give them democracy. But let's just conveniently forget about
>
> Malaysia.
>
>

We didn't invade Afghanistan to give them democracy, we invaded them
because we were attacked on 911 and Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden
and AL Qaeda training camps. We didn't invade Libya, Syria or Iran at
all. We invaded Iraq because they had been violating UN resolutions for
a decade that called for them to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
with regard to WMDs. So, sorry, but none of that has anything to do
with Malaysia.

>
> >So, you're right that the airline is owned almost entirely by the
>
> >Malaysian govt, through one agency or another. Not that it's unusual
>
> >or really matters.
>
>
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
>
> It is not unusual and does not matter
>
> ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
> WTFFFFF??????????????????????
>
>

It doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with how or why MH17
was shot down.

>
>
>
> As with all investigations the CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL (did I
>
> emphasize critical enough?) thing is INDEPENDENCE. If there is any
>
> potential conflict of interest then any investigation results are
>
> frankly worthless.
>
>

Then you'd have to chuck any and all crash investigations, because there
is always going to be potential conflicts of interest. In the USA for
example, ATC is run by and part of the govt. The FAA sets rules,
inspects planes and airline operations, issues airworthiness directives
to correct mechanical problems, etc. Yet the govt runs the investigation
if it's a plane crash here. Is the potential for conflict of interest
higher with a state owned airline that crashes in that state? Sure.
But there are a lot of state owned airlines in the world, Malaysia is
not unique.

>
> So a Malaysian airliner belonging to the Malaysian Government goes
>
> missing and the Malaysian Air craft Investigation (department of
>
> Malaysian Government) are charged with investigating.
>
>
>
> AND YOU DO NOT THINK THAT MATTERS???????????????????
>
>

I tend to think the whole fiasco in Malaysia is likely incompetence and
unrelated to come deliberate conspiracy. You think the Malaysian govt
knew about it, was involved with it, planned losing the plane? That would
pretty much have to be the scenario for them to deliberately go looking
for the plane in the wrong place only 4 hours into it, when almost nothing
was known.

>
> >Even if MA was a private company based in Malaysia, the same Malaysian
>
> >officials would have been in charge of the crash investigation.
>
> >
>
> Agreed but you forgot to say incompetent, corrupt Malaysian officials.

So what? That's precisely my point. It's the Malaysian govt officials,
not the airline, that conducted the search, had the civilian radar tracks,
the military radar tracks, the ATC communication. The govt always leads
those efforts, not the airline. If it was in the USA, you think American
Airlines would tell the Coast Guard and NAvy where to go look? I've
never seen it work that way.

>
>
> If you fly MAS then you are trusting your life to an organisation that
>
> literally does not care whether you live or die. Particularly if you
>
> are of Chinese descent.
>
>

I doubt that's true, but even if it is, it has nothing to do with how and
why MH17 was shot down.

>
> >
>
> That is why I said reputable. There are airlines that are bigger than
>
> tin pot dictatorships like Malaysia. They would no doubt try to reason
>
> with the Malaysian ****holes for a while but eventually they would
>
> pull the plug if their internal processes were being seriously
>
> compromised.
>
>

So then you should be able to provide the example of where that has
happened before, which I asked for. Give us some examples of an airline
telling a govt in the weeks after a crash that the govt investigation
is incompetent, corrupt, a conspiracy, etc.

>
> >
>
> The jail sentence I was referring to was for telling lies to an
>
> insurance company. All airlines that fly internationally have to have
>
> insurance. It is a basic requirement. A requirement of insurance
>
> validity is that you tell the truth. If you do not then it is possible
>
> (to put it mildly) that your insurance cover goes whoopsy down the
>
> toilet.
>
>

And what specifically did the officials of Malaysian Airlines lie about
to the insurance company that constitutes this alleged criminal offense?

>
> If any CEO (even in Malaysia) started to tell porkies like the
>
> Malaysians then they would run the risk that their insurance would not
>
> pay out. One of the potential consequences would be bankruptcy of the
>
> airline and prosecution of the staff for false representation.
>
>
>
> I am perfectly willing to admit that this is possibly one aspect of
>
> the MAS tragedies that actually works in the passengers' favour. Since
>
> I assume the insurance was with a Malaysian Government agency and even
>
> if the insurance company refuse to pay out the Malaysian Government
>
> probably will to save face.
>
>

Good grief. Of course the insurance company is going to pay.
Strawman!

> >>
>
> >> The primary radar data is a good example. It was not Malaysian primary
>
> >> radar data that initiated a series of questions that forced the
>
> >> Malaysians to begin telling more of the story. It was THAI primary
>
> >> radar data. The Thais released it to the airline (MAS).
>
> >
>
> >AFAIK that is incorrect. In fact, why aren't you blaming Thailand for
>
> >incompetence and/or lying too? For 10 days they said they had no radar
>
> >contact with the missing plane. By the time they changed their story, the search had
>
> >already moved to the Straits of Malacca anyway and all they did was confirm
>
> >that they had a radar track of an unknown plane going that route.
>
> >http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/03/18/mh370_thailand_s_military_finally_shares_radar_data_that_would_have_been.html
>
> >http://www.france24.com/en/20140319-thai-radar-unknown-aircraft-mh370-malaysia/
>
> >"Thailand Shares MH370 Radar Data That Could Have Been Really Helpful a Week Ago"
>
>
>
> OK so I am privy to a little bit more information than you.
>

Yes, how convenient. I'm privy to the fact that aliens were responsible.
I heard it from someone who heard it from someone who....
How about that?

>
> I don't think I would be in a rush to accuse Thailand of lying or
>
> incompetence.

What? They issued statements for 10 days that they had *no radar
tracks of the plane*. Either they are lying or your claim that they
turned over such data in the very beginnning of the investigation is
false. One or the other.

In fact I would congratulate them for kicking Malaysia
>
> up the ****. They negotiated with Malaysia for a long time. OK Maybe
>
> they left it too long.

Too long? So, which is it now? You claimed that they had the radar
data and provided it to Malaysia early on, but Malaysia, for reasons
unknown, chose to search in the wrong area. Now you say they negotiated?
This scenario makes sense to you:

Thailand had radar tracks from day one, told Malaysia about it, but
Malaysia chose to search in the wrong place for 3 days. Malaysia then
moved the search to the Straits, based on analysis of Malaysian military
radar, but Thailand continued to deny publically for another week that
they also had radar tracks that showed it in the Straits?

But at least at the end of the day they did the
>
> right thing and it resulted in Malaysia finally coming a little bit
>
> cleaner.
>

It didn't result in anything of the sort. You're confused again.
Malaysain officials had already moved the search to the Straits based
on their own military radar. They searched in the South China Sea
for about 3 days, then moved the search to the Straits. A week later,
Thailand finally says they have radar data that also shows the plane
in the Straits. It was good in the sense it confirmed the Malaysians
now had it right, but it did nothing in terms of making the Malaysians
*come clean* or moving the search area.

>
> >
>
> What Malaysian Investigators? Are you referring to Hishammuddin (i.e.
>
> the guy that lied his ass off since the beginning?). I have to admit
>
> that I do not know the international protocol that is supposed to be
>
> followed in such situations.

Then you should learn it, because otherwise how can you be criticizing
those involved when you don't understand who's in charge and what
the rules are. In this case, the Malaysian govt was in charge of the investigation and what other parties can say is limited.

All I have been told is that the Thai
>
> Military got sick and tired of trying to deal with the Malaysian
>
> Government and told the airline directly.
>
>
>
> >Their bosses (the Malaysian Government) then encouraged
>
> >> several other countries to waste time and effort and put their own
>
> >> lives at risk looking for an airliner where they knew themselves it
>
> >> was not. What kind of airline/government does that for goodness sake?
>
> >> and why?
>
> >
>
> >If you have credible evidence that Thailand actually told Malaysians
>
> >early in the investigation that they had radar contact I'd be happy to
>
> >see it. AFAIK Thailand vigorously denied having anything, until about
>
> >10 days after the plane went missing, by which time the search had already
>
> >moved to the Straits.
>
>
>
> I have no objective evidence what so ever. Just word of mouth from
>
> people at Thai ATC that I have known for a very long time and have
>
> learned to trust.
>
>

And you know how reliable word of mouth is, as a story is passed from
person to person, ultimately through a chain of God knows how many
people.

>
> >And why no blame for Thailand? Either they didn't
>
> >know they had a radar track or they didn't tell Malaysia for 10 days,
>
> >(the correct version AFAIK), or else they told them much earlier and sat back
>
> >and watched the world search in the wrong place for 10 days (your version).
>
> >
>
> They DID tell them. Immediately as far as I can make out. What exactly
>
> went on behind the scenes meanwhile I am afraid I do not know.
>
>

Well if that's true, then Thailand must be really, really dumb.
Because according to your version, Thailand knew they had radar tracks
on MH370 and even told the Malaysians about it very early in the
investigation. Then they continued to lie to the world, denying they
had it for 10 days. Then finally they reversed themselves, making
them look like idiots. That sounds logical to you?

>
> I am not sure what you mean by no blame for Thailand(?).

See the above.

It was a
>
> Malaysian aircraft departing from Malaysia and not going to Thailand.
>
> (Did it even enter Thai airspace at any point?) Why not blame Myanmar
>
> and Vietnam? They probably had some radar data too but were too afraid
>
> to stand up and be counted. At least Thailand did something albeit
>
> belatedly.
>
>

It's the belatedly part, which isn't just being late, it's that if your
version is correct, they lied about it for 10 days. Malaysia gets
something wrong, eg starting the
search in the wrong place, and it's that they are incompetent, corrupt Nazis and
it sounds like you think they actually did it on purpose. Thailand tells
the world for 10 days that they have no radar track of the flight, and
they get a pass.

>
> I thought we were discussing why not to fly MAS.

I thought we were discussing why none of this has anything to do with
MH17 being shot down by rebels in the Ukraine.

>
> >Which still says nothing about the timeline. Was that at day 1, 2, 10?
>
> >
>
> I have to admit I do not know. From the impression I got it was given
>
> to MAS on the day the aircraft went missing.
>

I thought you were privy to "sources". Sounds like the source is just
a rumor mill with no details. When exactly Thailand told Malaysian govt
officials and/or the airline for the first time is the essence of your
whole beef.

>
> >I'd like to see an example of another crash or missing plane investigation
>
> >where the airline took on the govt of the country that it's operating in,
>
> >regardless of who actually owns the airline. Maybe it's happened, somewhere,
>
> >but I've never seen it and there are obvious reasons why any airline would
>
> >be very reluctant to do so.
>
> >
>
> It is not normally the function of the airline to take on a
>
> government. The airline normally stands back and tells the truth while
>
> an independent investigation team try to work out what happened.
>

Except that the investigation team is almost never totally independent.
And also the investigation team almost always includes representatives
govt and private, from various countries. In the case of MH370 you have
NTSB, FAA, Boeing, FBI.

>
> Air crash investigators occasionally take on governments (Silk Air 185
>
> comes to mind) but not normally airlines. The airline is just expected
>
> to provide all information and tell the truth.
>

What? You previously said Malaysian Airlines should have taken on
the govt, but didn't because they are owned by the govt. So far, I
haven't seen the airline lying. They haven't handled the crash well,
right from the start. But not handling it and lying, deliberately
covering up something, is different.

>
> However I think the point you are missing is that when it comes to MAS
>
> and Malaysia that is where the whole process breaks down. It is NOT
>
> NORMAL. It is a freak airline in a freak jurisdiction and the truth is
>
> the last thing that is likely to happen.
>

It's no more a freak that any other govt owned airline, of which there
are many.

>
> No the Thai data did that. The Malaysian data simply confirmed it once
>
> they had been forced to reveal it. I expect you also believe it was
>
> only carrying Mangosteens.
>
> >
>
> >It was
>
> >> only released after they were threatened with exposure. By the time
>
> >> the Malaysians (sort of*) released their own radar data everyone
>
> >> already knew what had happened.
>
> >
>
> >Not from the stories I followed at the time. The sequence of events was:
>
> >
>
> >The search area started in the South China Sea, because that is where
>
> >all normal contact with the plane was suddenly lost. After several
>
> >days of searching there, Malaysian officials announced that their military
>
> >radar showed an unknown target that could be MA370 heading across to
>
> >the Straits. The search moved there on day 4. Thailand continued to say
>
> >it had no radar contact data. Only 10 days later did Thailand finally say
>
> >they did have data and by then the search had been going on in the Straits
>
> >and Indian Ocean for almost a week.
>
> >
>
> And these 'stories that you followed at the time' were coming from
>
> where exactly? Did they smell of Mangosteens at all?
>

From news reports from most of the major media in the world. Are you
now claiming that the above scenario isn't what happened? Good grief.

>
> >And assuming Malaysians did have the Thai radar data early on, as
>
> >you claim, what exactly is the rational motive for searching in the
>
> >wrong place?
>
> >
>
> I wish I knew. I assume it was a delay tactic to let them try to work
>
> out what the official story was going to be.
>
>

Or it could just be incompetence. They had all the data from the plane,
the radar track, ending at about the same time, over the South China Sea.
It doesn't seem far fetched to think that is where the search would begin.
It seems a lot more plausible than your scenario of let's go looking
in the wrong place for days deliberately while we think about how to
cover somethingup, when in the first hours after the crash, they wouldn't
even know what there was that needed to be covered up, unless they were part of
a pre-planned conspiracy.

>
> >
>
> > The key fact was that MAS being owned
>
> >> by the Malaysian Government was not willing to say anything that went
>
> >> against Government Policy and so kept quiet about critical information
>
> >> that had nothing to with national security only national trying to
>
> >> save egg on face.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >You're assuming that Malaysian airline officials had some Thai radar
>
> >data that the govt did not. Already discussed why that scenario makes
>
> >no sense to me. But if you have some credible evidence that shows that,
>
> >I'd be happy to see it.
>
> >
>
> No no no no no. Sorry to be a bit aggressive but that is simply false
>
> and frankly an attempted manipulation.
>
>

Manipulation? You initially said that Thailand turned the data over
to Malaysian Airline officials. Now you're saying that Thailand had
turned it over to Malaysian govt officials first, then later to airline
officials. I just went with your first statement.

>
> I assume a lot.
>
>
>
> I assume MAS knew what the cargo was before lying about it.
>

I don't know that I've seen what constitutes lying. The biggest
issue I recall is the Malaysian GOVT refusing to fully disclose the
cargo manifest. The reason they gave was that it was an ongoing
criminal investigation. Is it a conspiracy to cover up? Or is it
a turf war between the police and other official? IDK.

>
> I assume MAS did not keep quiet for hours after it's disappearance
>
> because they were afraid to wake up any babies on board
>
>

So, the airline's response in the middle of the night could have
been better. The main thing they should have done that they didn't
do, IMO, would have been to quickly get the friends and families
waiting in Bejing to a private room. Other than that, what exactly
could they do that they didn't do? What would any other airline
have done that would have made a material difference in those 6 hours?

>
> I assume MAS were furnished with Malaysian Government primary radar
>
> data
>

That's a big assumption, especially given your mistrust of the MA
govt and how they've handled other aspects of it.

>
> I assume MAS knew about the Inmarsat data long before the Wall Street
>
> Journal confronted them
>

So what if they did? If you follow any of these investigations,
investigators, airlines, don't run out with every new potential factoid
or avenue of possible investigation. Not until it's vetted, they know
if it's valid, has relevance. And even then they may not say anything,
depending on what it is.

>
> I assume they knew that the last communication was not the co pilot
>
> saying 'all right good night'
>
>

Another big assumption, because the ATC tape was in the possession
of the govt investigators. And which is more likely? That they just
screwed up, mixed up a few words that were of no obvious significance,
or that it's some grand, evil conspiracy? What exactly would the
purpose be to get the words wrong?

>
> All I remember saying was that MAS kept quiet about critical
>
> information that was nothing to do with National Security.

And if you check out the agreed on international rules that govern
these investigations, you will see that what parties other than the
official govt investigators can say, is very limited. For example,
RollsRoyce refused to comment to media requests on whether they had
engine monitoring data, for exactly that reason.

It was you
>
> that assumed everything else and you know what they say about assume -
>
> it makes a complete ******* *** out of MAS and the Malaysian
>
> Government.
>

Very odd comment coming from the guy who just said he assumed
several major things without a shred of evidence.

>
> PS regarding the radar data I am not really assuming it. I might not
>
> have documented objective evidence but I trust the people that have
>
> told me and while that may not hold much sway with you there is no
>
> question in my mind that it is factual and I do not consider myself a
>
> complete idiot when it comes to talking to people I have been an
>
> auditor for more than 30 years and it would take a very fly auditee to
>
> get one past me. Not impossible but pretty unlikely IMO.
>

So, as an auditor, you just accept hearsay from someone far removed
from the actual event? Go figure.

>
> You could very well be correct regarding MH17. But how will we ever
>
> reliably know? The data recorders will probably tell us ***BOOM***.

There is a lot of potential evidence there that would be difficult
to hide. For example, even small sections of the fuselage would likely
show evidence of being hit by components of the missle. They can
likely test for residue of whatever explosive a Buk missle uses.
There may be radar tracks of the missle too, eyewitnesses. And we have
intercepted communication between the rebels and Russian intelligence
that shows them discussing that the rebels had shot down a plane,
then figuring out it was a civilian plane. Plus they had shot down
3 planes in the days before, openly taken credit for it, etc. It's
very likely the case and evidence will be solid.

>
> When what we really need to know is the exact details of what they did
>
> and why they did it. Maybe it was all perfectly innocent and normal
>
> and just a tragic event that MAS are in no way responsible for.

It's a tragedy if it's an accident. This was by all indications a
barbarous act of mass murder. And there is evidence that Russia both
supplied the missle and that the missle systems rolled back into Russia
afterwards.

But as
>
> I hope I have explained that would rely on concise, factual,
>
> objective, truthful explanations from MAS and the Malaysian
>
> Government.

You're the only one out there that thinks Malaysian Airlines is the
one that holds the key to what happened over the Ukraine.

But I am afraid if this comes as a shock to you but it
>
> really does rain in Indianapolis in the summer time.
>
>
>
> >I focus on is it non stop and
>
> >> the airline not the route. And IMO anyone that would fly MAS needs to
>
> >> seriously reconsider their selection criteria.
>
> >>
>
> >Then you would have avoided the doomed flight by *chance* not by
>
> >some act of being responsible.
>
> >
>
> So you already have the results of the MH17 air crash investigation?
>
> Sorry to bother you but would it be possible for you to post a PDF
>
> copy to this site or some file sharing sire. Thanks.
>
>

No, I just follow the news. Obviously you don't or you wouldn't have
the focus on Malaysian Airlines as opposed to what we know was going on
in Urkraine.

[trader_4]

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 7:56:03 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
> "nam sak" <nam...@nirvana.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> <stuff snipped>
>
>
>
> > I assume MAS knew what the cargo was before lying about it.
>
> >
>
> > I assume MAS did not keep quiet for hours after it's disappearance
>
> > because they were afraid to wake up any babies on board
>
> >
>
> > I assume MAS were furnished with Malaysian Government primary radar
>
> > data
>
> >
>
> > I assume MAS knew about the Inmarsat data long before the Wall Street
>
> > Journal confronted them
>
> >
>
> > I assume they knew that the last communication was not the co pilot
>
> > saying 'all right good night'
>
>
>
> While I agree with Trader that the Ukrainian shoot down was just very bad
>
> luck for Malaysian Airlines, your recap of what happened re: flight MH370
>
> should remind anyone with a brain not to fly MA. If there was any chance
>
> those people were still alive, MA squandered it - and maybe several chances.
>
> That's not what you want if something bad happens in flight.
>
>

You're just as confused as Nam. Malaysian Airlines didn't control the
search and rescue effort. It was the Malaysian Govt. And the govt had
the radar tracks, the ATC communication, etc. It could have
been a Lufthansa flight and the initial response would have been the same.

>
> The misleading and downright false information they released in the days
>
> following the crash lead me to believe they're hiding something. The errors
>
> and retractions seem to have gone far beyond the confusion the follows such
>
> tragedies. At several points they appear to have been forced to retract a
>
> previous "story" when data (i.e. Thai radar tracks) appeared and
>
> contradicted MA's previous statements.
>

So then you should be able to show us where the Thai radar tracks
forced this change in statements. AFAIK, it was Thailand that finally
fessed up 10 days into it, that they did in fact have radar tracks.
Prior to that, Thailand had publically denied having any such data.
And by the time Thailand changed their story, the search had already
moved to the Straits a week earlier, based on Malaysian military radar
tracks. The Thai data just confirmed the new search area. That is the
version as I know it. And if you want to paint wild conspiracy theories,
then Thailand must have been in on it too.

>
> I lean towards believing the pilot wanted his opposition leader friend
>
> released and was trying to negotiate with the Malaysian government.
>

And this negotiating took place how exactly? The ATC frequencies
are open and can be monitored by other aircraft, ATC of various
countries would have recordings, even amatures on the ground listen
in. And how did they stay in contact with Malaysians while the plane
was traveling thousands of miles, on to Australia? good grief.

>
> There are also some interesting questions you raised about who's going to
>
> pay out the claims for the airplane and the passengers. If the government's
>
> going to pay, they really shouldn't be leading the investigation. That's a
>
> serious conflict of interest.
>

You get with them and discuss that.

[nam sak]

Sorry, it's a long story sorry and I think needs to be told us such
since my attitude to various airlines has evolved over a period of
more than 30 years. Sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously
(and occasionally unconsciously it has to be admitted). I don't think
I could explain my attitude towards airlines in just a few lines so
apologies for that.

When I graduated I immediately starting working overseas and was
flying roughly 4 times a month, sometimes a little bit more. In the
beginning I was put on BA. I probably thought it was quite good but
then I had nothing much to compare it with. I mean the cabin crew were
a lot older than I had expected and I had no idea there were so many
ugly old gay men with attitude problems in the UK who had taken up
careers as BA cabin staff. But hey I was young. What did I know?

After a while I noticed that most of the other guys I worked with were
not flying BA. I was expecting to hear things like bad service,
unreliable, lost my bags etc. But no. When I asked why I got a one
word answer - "Heathrow". Looking quizzical I was told "if you fly BA
then you have to go to Heathrow". (BA had a virtual monopoly of
Heathrow back then and were keen to keep it that way). So? I wondered.
I mean you have to go somewhere.

"Yes but if you fly another airline you will go somewhere else e.g. if
you go KLM you will go to Schiphol and Schiphol is a breeze compared
to Heathrow. And from Schiphol you can get a flight to virtually
anywhere in the UK. Heathrow is a shambles. Better to avoid it if you
can".

I think nowadays the word 'Omnishambles' would have been used but the
word had not been invented at the time. I don't think 'Omnishambles'
was specifically invented to describe Heathrow but it might as well
have been.

OK I thought so I'll give KLM a go next time. It was like Manna from
Heaven. The BA cabin crew were old and tired and grumpy and about as
much use as a chocolate tea pot. The KLM crew were young and good
looking (not a mandatory requirement but hey it helps), intelligent,
spoke multiple languages with ease and were laughing their heads off
all way to Schiphol. Particularly when the female crew demonstrated
pulling the red toggles on the life vests and simulating blow jobs on
the top up mouth pieces. They played it to the hilt with wide eyes and
puckered lips. I have never heard an aircraft full of so many wolf
whistles and good natured laughter. The KLM crew just took it in their
stride. They just smiled at each other as if to say 'Here we go again.
Batten down the hatches, looks like we are in for another bumpy ride'.
My glass was never empty. Every time I turned there was a cabin crew
filling it saying 'a Bacardi, a coke, and smile Mr. Childs'. They even
remembered my name!!!!! I felt like a million dollars. On BA if you
asked for more than 2 drinks you got a very stern look from an ugly
old battle axe.

And Schiphol, Wow! I mean Wow! At the time it did not seem like a real
airport to me. I was so used to Heathrow and thought it was normal. At
Schiphol it was really weird. Everything was clean, quiet, orderly,
modern and worked. Things actually worked! Even the people!!! (In the
UK at that time this was virtually unheard of). And it was so easy to
get from your incoming flight to your connection. All in 1 building.
Even the loos smelled nice - like a Spa - with little pictures of
flies to aim at to help you prevent peeing on the floor. And you could
even buy hard core pornography right there in the airport. Although
you had to be careful to hide it from the thought police when you got
back to UK. I mean Schiphol was like the real world. For a little boy
from small town Scotland this was quite an eye opener.

I was afraid to go to the loos at Heathrow. Apart from the Nigerians
doing drug deals the smell would have knocked you out. I would rather
have gone outside and peed against a wall. I suspect a lot of people
had the same idea - which might have explained the smell - although to
be honest I think most of the smell was coming from the underground
railway system. What exactly they have down there does not even bear
thinking about. At Schiphol I thought maybe I had a few too many
Bacardis on the plane and I was still asleep. This Schiphol thing
cannot be a real airport. It's my dreaming mind's vision of a Utopian
airport in paradise.

All good things come to an end and I got moved. It was company policy
to use British Caledonian for my new destination. Remember them?
(tartan mini skirted air hostesses going round a luggage carousel
singing ....wish they all could be Caledonian....wish they all could
be Caledonian girls....). Probably would get arrested for adverts like
that nowadays. Sigh.

But what do you know? BCal used Gatwick. Maybe not quite in the same
league as Schiphol but still, better than Heathrow and there were many
connecting flights to other cities in the UK. And BCal turned out to
be pretty good too. Not quite KLM but in general better than BA. But
then what do you know? After a while BA took over BCal. They still
operated out of Gatwick for the former BCal destinations but it was
never the same. The old BA Battle axes and geriatric gays with zimmer
frames started appearing on BCal flights. Some of the guys started to
quit our company - going to the competition who did not have a strict
flight policy. Eventually the company I worked for had to drop it's
policy and we were free to choose airlines again. I went back to KLM
like a shot. No more BA for me thank you, even it's from Gatwick.

I stuck with KLM for a very long time after that (well over 10 years).
I remained happy with the service in general and got countless
upgrades. At home I have a shelf full of those little Blue Delft Dutch
canal houses full of Bols that they give you in KLM Business Class.
Although most of the Bols is gone. (Hic). But I have never actually
paid for KLM Business Class. Once I brought a friend from Thailand to
UK on KLM. On the way back I was upgraded (as usual, yawn) but I said
I could not really accept as I was traveling with someone else. The
lady went away to speak to someone. When she came back she said in
typical to die for Dutch accent, "No problem Shir. We will upgrade you
both shir. Have a nishe flight shir".

I am not sure if BA understand the word upgrade. In all the years I
flew with them I certainly never got one. They aborted take offs, lost
my luggage, and cancelled my flights. They were good at that sort of
thing. But upgrade? I think they save those for BA family and friends.
However there was a fly in the ointment. To get from Schiphol to my
ultimate destination you had to use something called Air UK. For about
10 years there was no problem. Then something happened at Air UK. One
day they cancelled my flight for 'technical reasons'. They put us on a
flight to elsewhere and then on a bus. The flight was virtually empty.
It was patently obvious they had cancelled a flight in order to
combine 2 in 1 to save money. I was pretty close to ditching KLM
because of Air UK but then KLM took over Air UK and renamed it KLM UK.
(I guess Air UK had been close to bankruptcy and KLM needed it as a
feeder to UK). I never had a flight cancellation again after that so
stayed with them to see how it would go.

Then KLM UK started playing silly buggers on hand baggage. Since I had
been a fresh faced graduate wet behind the ears I had rarely ever
checked in a bag. On one of the few occasions I did BA lost it so I
was not in any hurry to go through a repeat performance. I usually
only had a trolley bag and a lap top bag. One day at Glasgow KLM UK
refused to let me take my trolley bag on board. I argued that other
passengers had carry on bags bigger than mine. I even demonstrated it
would fit in one of those measuring cradle thingys and was within
allowable weight.

I discovered that YOU DO NOT ARGUE WITH KLM UK staff. They seem to
think they are on one of those reality TV shows.

"That measuring cradle is for Emirates". She snapped. "It has nothing
to do with us".

I have a suspicion KLM UK got most of their staff from BA. I had heard
that BA had started trying to get rid of their old battle axes and
geriatric gays. If so then I have a suspicion I know where they went.

I had to check my bag in for the first time in the best part of 20
years. I was fuming to put it mildly.

What the hell am I going to do now I wondered. I am NOT going back to
Heathrow and by then there was no suitable Gatwick alternative for
where I was posted. Oh shit oh shit oh shit oh shit. Then I thought
wait a minute. She said that luggage cradle thingy belonged to
Emirates. Emirates? Really? Emirates fly to Glasgow? You cannot be
serious. I thought Emirates was like a big proper airline with big
wide bodied aircraft. Not a poxy little joke like KLM UK. Emirates fly
to Glasgow? Heh, I think I have been caught napping here. Some
checking is required.

As soon as I arrived at my destination I started checking. Sure enough
Emirates did fly to Glasgow. (Who knew?) Wide bodied aircraft all the
way. The only catch was that the connection was in Dubai which meant
stopping half way (I was in the far east at the time). I would have
preferred sleeping most of the way and waking up to breakfast
somewhere over Europe and then getting a connection. But anyway I
thought let's give it a go and it turned out the cost was actually
better than KLM at the time.

I got to the boarding gate. No problems so far. They didn't even so
much as look at my hand baggage. They were scanning boarding cards at
the gate. They all went 'ding' and there was a green light. But when
it got to mine it made a sort of raspberry noise and there was a red
light. Oh bugger oh shit oh bugger oh shit. There's a problem. I might
have known it. Trust me for experimenting with airlines.

Sir?
Yes?
It looks like this is the first time you have flown with Emirates.
Yes? (I thought is that a problem????).
Without so much as a bye your leave he ripped my boarding card up and
threw it in a bin.

I felt like Wole Soyinka in that Telephone Conversation poem. Button
A, Button B, Stench of rancid breath...... I was fully expecting to be
arrested by now. Beads of sweat were beginning to form. Just try to
look cool I told myself. Just try to look like you have done nothing
wrong.

But I HAVE done nothing wrong I argued with myself. Maybe someone put
some drugs in my bag or something. Oh God Oh God Oh God (and I am an
atheist).

Here is your new boarding card sir. You have been upgraded to Business
Class, I hope you don't mind sir.

Not at all, thank you I said as I waltzed past a line of passengers
all looking at me muttering under their breath.

WTF???? I mean really WTF???? I flew BA for far more years than I care
to remember and not once, NOT ******* ONCE, was I ever upgraded. Here
I am getting on Emirates for the first time and I have been upgraded.

In no time I was Silver on Emirates and was getting priority check in,
priority boarding and use of the lounge in Dubai (just on Silver which
is basically not much more than entry level). I was getting countless
upgrades, particularly on the A380 when they started using that. To
this day I have never set foot on an Emirates A380 and not been
upgraded. I still do not know what economy looks like on an Emirates
A380. Not that I particularly want to find out.

Emirates was then my choice for trips to UK and the odd trip to
Africa. But it left the issue of flights within Asia Pacific. I was
based most of the time in Bangkok so Thai was an obvious option - most
routes, best times and reasonably reliable. But over the years I had a
lot of run ins with Thai. There was a period where I complained
virtually every flight. After a while I realised that the reason I was
complaining was because I was not being treated like Royalty. I had
gotten used to such good service from them that on the odd occasion
when it fell slightly below my expectations I crucified them.

It had the benefit though that they started to recognize me. Even
before I had Gold membership with them I would be waived to the
Business Class check in. On one occasion when there was a problem at
the Business Class check in I was put on a golf buggy and taken to the
First Class check in and then through the Fast Track lane to the First
Class lounge with staff prostrating themselves on the floor in front
of me pandering to my every need.

I was just on an economy ticket and only had basic membership of their
frequent flyer program (which gets you nothing).

My favorite seat is always Centre aisle front row ( mainly so I can
get off quick and beat the queue at immigration and also because I
hate having someone sitting in front of me). TG normally always block
row 31 (first economy row) so usually you cannot select it on line. So
when I get to the check in I always say I want to change my seat and I
want front row Centre aisle. In the beginning they always told me it
was not available and yet once on board it clearly was available and
it was a white knuckle ride to get to it before someone else once the
doors were closed. I hated the tension.

After countless complaints I guess they must have put some kind of
note in their computer system. Now if I am booked economy (which is
thankfully not that often these days) when I get to check in they put
me front row Centre aisle without a whimper because they know there
will be ****** hell to pay if they don't. You try doing that with
British Airways or Qantas.

Swings and roundabouts. Nowadays I usually refuse to go economy unless
it's a fairly short (1 or 2 hour) flight. That pretty much rules out
Emirates. Emirates economy might be competitive but their Business
Class is silly money. That pretty much leaves Thai for where I want to
go when I want to go. (Coz I aint going BA). The only problem with
that is guess where Thai fly to in the UK. You got it, Heathrow. And
how do you get to Heathrow? You got it BA (pretty much). So I recently
found myself on a BA flight to Heathrow with bad feelings from the
start.

I was correct. Nothing had changed. Heathrow was if anything worse. BA
was just the same. Hideous old battle axes treating you like scum, and
there he was, that same geriatric gay cabin attendant. Past a zimmer
frame now. They had him in one of those Stephen Hawking Dalek
machines. "Welcome on board" he drooled into his bib, looking me up
and down like I was on a butcher's slab. I might be 54 but I guess I
looked like fresh meat to him.

For completeness I guess I have to mention Qantas. My experience with
Qantas does not stretch as far as BA etc. For about 5 years I ended up
having to go to Australia twice a year and I don't mean Sydney. I mean
all over Australia and NZ. After my initial few days in Sydney on my
first trip I had to get a red eye to Perth. Just before Perth they
started serving breakfast. Serving breakfast to everyone but me that
is. When they got to me a hideous old battle axe snapped at me in
typical Aussie style. Sorry luv, tuckers finished. Ah doo apologize
for that. (i.e. they had ran out and I could go whistle as far as they
were concerned). I swear I have seen that old battle axe before on a
BA flight to Lagos. For the next few years it never improved. The only
good thing I could think of to say about Qantas was that Virgin
Australia were not much better. I guess when there is no effective
competition you only need to be slightly better than ****.

To wrap up if you have made it this far. Choosing an airline is not a
particularly simple process. You have to take into account where you
are going (duh), is it non stop (you would be amazed how many people
don't even know), what airport do they use (ditto), what is the price,
what do I know about them, what is my previous experience with them,
what have I heard about them etc.

Once you whittle it down then you have to start thinking about what is
their safety record. What is their management structure, how
financially stable are they etc. What if there is a problem?

There are loads of airlines with reasonably good safety records (BA
and Qantas would certainly fall into that category). There are not so
many airlines with reliably good service levels (BA and Qantas DO NOT
fall into that category).

I tend to choose the best service level I can get on an airline that
is not dropping out of the sky every month.

And....if you ever hear an airline say 'your safety is our main
concern' stay well clear of them. They are lying and all they are
trying to do is cover up for bad service. (not mentioning any BA's, I
might have mentioned them once or twice but I think I got away with
it).

But at the end of the day a useful rule of thumb is fool me once shame
on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

Might not help you much in the event that you are told to fasten your
seat belt securely, bend over, put your head between your legs, (your
OWN legs Father) and kiss your ass goodbye but at least you will not
have to have put up with crap from BA and Qantas in the meantime.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:17:14 +0000 (UTC), gaz...@shell.xmission.com
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:

[nam sak]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:12:11 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, July 24, 2014 7:56:03 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
>> "nam sak" <nam...@nirvana.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>> <stuff snipped>

and more stuff snipped. (this thread is getting a it too long to avoid
it)

>You're just as confused as Nam. Malaysian Airlines didn't control the
>search and rescue effort. It was the Malaysian Govt. And the govt had
>the radar tracks, the ATC communication, etc. It could have
>been a Lufthansa flight and the initial response would have been the same.

Always nice when someone tells you that you are confused when you
clearly are not. Did you even watch the Hishammuddin press
conferences? You remember? Hishammuddin. He is the Defence Minister.
He was also the Transport Minister, the Minister of Home Affairs and
Minister of Education (there has to be an oxymoron on a global scale
there somewhere). He also just happens to be the cousin of the Prime
Minister, the son of another prime minister and the nephew of another
prime minister of the UMNO. The UMNO - you know, the 'party' that has
been in power for the last 60 years.

Well if you did watch those press conferences you might have seen a
little guy standing next to him nodding his head and tugging his
forelock under his Al Haji hat every time Hishammuddin opened his
mouth. In case you are wondering who he was he is the head of MAS.
MAS - you know the airline that is owned by....who was it again? Oh
knickers I have forgotten. I am sure it was somebody's brother or
nephew or something. Or was their wife? Or maybe their brother in law.
Oh dear it all gets so confusing. So maybe you are correct in a
roundabout way.

>So then you should be able to show us where the Thai radar tracks
>forced this change in statements. AFAIK, it was Thailand that finally
>fessed up 10 days into it, that they did in fact have radar tracks.
>Prior to that, Thailand had publically denied having any such data.
>And by the time Thailand changed their story, the search had already
>moved to the Straits a week earlier, based on Malaysian military radar
>tracks. The Thai data just confirmed the new search area. That is the
>version as I know it. And if you want to paint wild conspiracy theories,
>then Thailand must have been in on it too.

Publicly denied sort of. As I remember it the Thais just did not say
anything publicly. But I am informed they told MAS on day 1 and were
banging their heads against the Malaysian Junta's brick wall for days
afterwards before threatening them with exposure.

>> I lean towards believing the pilot wanted his opposition leader friend
>> released and was trying to negotiate with the Malaysian government.
>
>And this negotiating took place how exactly? The ATC frequencies
>are open and can be monitored by other aircraft, ATC of various
>countries would have recordings, even amatures on the ground listen
>in. And how did they stay in contact with Malaysians while the plane
>was traveling thousands of miles, on to Australia? good grief.

There is a rumour that the airliner flew near Indonesian air space for
an extended period of time following the incident. The theory was that
the pilot was trying to negotiate with the government. I agree you
think someone else would have heard it and leaked it by now but would
they have a recording to back it up? I am not so sure. All those
involved did less than the basic minimum you would expect in terms of
procedure so it is not that far fetched to speculate that at that time
of night most of them were watching a Hindi movie and eating noodles
while pretending to do their job. The major thing that makes me think
it is not true is why then fly off into nowhere? Why not just head
straight for KLCC.

>> There are also some interesting questions you raised about who's going to
>> pay out the claims for the airplane and the passengers. If the government's
>> going to pay, they really shouldn't be leading the investigation. That's a
>> serious conflict of interest.
>>
>
>You get with them and discuss that.

I didn't understand that. Sounded like you were running out of steam.

[BillyBobT]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ee7vs9hc0huotlrqr...@4ax.com:

OK

[trader_4]

You are confused, because none of that has anything to do with the
fact that the Malaysian govt was in charge of the search and rescue,
not the airline. Hishammuddin was the govt official, appointed by the
govt to lead the whole thing. Good grief.

The govt was subsequently in charge of the investigation, because it's an
airline operating out of Malaysia and that's how it works, per international
treaty. The same thing would have happened if
it was a private airline operating out of Malaysia, ie not govt owned.
Or if JAL or Lufthansa had crashed in Malaysia. Why is that so hard to grasp?

And again, I'd like to see one example of what you think happens, ie
the airline publically disagreeing with the govt officials leading the
search/rescue or the investigation itself in the days immediately following
a crash. Show us just one. IDK of any, ever, regardless of whether the airline
was privately owned or govt owned.

And IDK what you expected the airline to disagree with in the first
couple of weeks. Again, for the first few days, Malaysia govt officials
focused on what info they had and all that pointed to a sudden, catastrophic
event over the South China Sea at the last coordinates. Malaysia military
said they had no tracks. What exactly was MA or any airline supposed to do
at that point? Several days later, Malaysian military said they actually
did have what could be radar tracks of the plane. Then the confusion started
over if it was real or not, was it the plane, etc. All that was squarely on
the Malaysian military and the Malaysian investigators. And I don't see it
being much different if Lufthansa was the airline.

>
> >So then you should be able to show us where the Thai radar tracks
>
> >forced this change in statements. AFAIK, it was Thailand that finally
>
> >fessed up 10 days into it, that they did in fact have radar tracks.
>
> >Prior to that, Thailand had publically denied having any such data.
>
> >And by the time Thailand changed their story, the search had already
>
> >moved to the Straits a week earlier, based on Malaysian military radar
>
> >tracks. The Thai data just confirmed the new search area. That is the
>
> >version as I know it. And if you want to paint wild conspiracy theories,
>
> >then Thailand must have been in on it too.
>
>
>
> Publicly denied sort of. As I remember it the Thais just did not say
>
> anything publicly. But I am informed they told MAS on day 1 and were
>
> banging their heads against the Malaysian Junta's brick wall for days
>
> afterwards before threatening them with exposure.
>
>

Wrong again:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303546204579436843318184308

From the WSJ, six days into the search:

"While the aircraft was never picked up by Thailand's civilian radar, Royal Thai Air Force spokesman Monthon Satchukorn said that military radar had briefly detected the plane as it traveled along its planned flight path."

(that detection was as it departed KL, not the portion of interest, ie
after it went missing over the South China Sea.)


9 days into the search:

http://thainews.prd.go.th/centerweb/newsen/NewsDetail?NT01_NewsID=WNFOR5703170010001#sthash.xARwVTp9.dpuf

"BANGKOK, 17 Mar 2014 -- The Royal Thai Air Force has denied that its radar detected the missing Malaysia Airline Flight MH 370 before it went missing, as claimed by Malaysia.
Air Force spokesperson Air Marshal Monton Sachikorn, made the announcement, reiterating that the 777-200ER Boeing jet showed up only once in the Air Force radar system when it left the airport in Kuala Lumpur on March 8th. The information has since been passed to the Malaysian officials, said the spokesperson.


12 days into the search:

http://bangkok.coconuts.co/2014/03/20/mh370-thai-air-force-denies-it-withheld-radar-data-related-missing-plane

"Facing criticism worldwide for a delayed release of radar information which might have showed a missing airplane, Air Force officials defended their actions yesterday.

Radar data possibly related to the missing Malaysian Airlines flight 370 wasn't withheld; instead the data was never checked until a request was made on March 11, three days after the plane's disappearance, said Air Marshal Monthon Satchakon, Air Force spokesman. The radar information was eventually given to Malaysian officials seven days later."


So, for your version to be true, Thailand deliberately lied to the world for
10 days and continues to lie. And obviously contrary to your recollection,
Thailand was doing it publically.

>
> >> I lean towards believing the pilot wanted his opposition leader friend
>
> >> released and was trying to negotiate with the Malaysian government.
>
> >
>
> >And this negotiating took place how exactly? The ATC frequencies
>
> >are open and can be monitored by other aircraft, ATC of various
>
> >countries would have recordings, even amatures on the ground listen
>
> >in. And how did they stay in contact with Malaysians while the plane
>
> >was traveling thousands of miles, on to Australia? good grief.
>
>
>
> There is a rumour that the airliner flew near Indonesian air space for
>
> an extended period of time following the incident. The theory was that
>
> the pilot was trying to negotiate with the government.

There is a rumor that Elvis is alive too. And just like Elvis;s death
certificate and autopsy, we have the Inmarsat data in this case that
shows otherwise.

I agree you
>
> think someone else would have heard it and leaked it by now but would
>
> they have a recording to back it up? I am not so sure.

They wouldn't need a recording any more than those that claim Elvis
is alive or that they talked to aliens need a picture.

All those
>
> involved did less than the basic minimum you would expect in terms of
>
> procedure so it is not that far fetched to speculate that at that time
>
> of night most of them were watching a Hindi movie and eating noodles
>
> while pretending to do their job. The major thing that makes me think
>
> it is not true is why then fly off into nowhere? Why not just head
>
> straight for KLCC.
>

That I agree with. If it was someone holding hostages for ransom then
it seems more likely they would have done something far more dramatic.
The other huge hole in all that is that it obviously could not work.
The chance of achieving the objective, getting away with it, is close
to zero.

[nam sak]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:01:26 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

..lots of snippings for obvious reasons...thread getting a bit long

>Sorry, but none of that rises to the level of equating them to the

>Nazis.....

Then I apologise profusely. I am truly sorry if I have offended you
and all of your Palestinian ancestors. Maybe I could just make a
suggestion. Instead of 'Malaysia, truly Asia' as their slogan maybe
they could make it 'Malaysia, we're not quite as bad as the Nazis'.

Ouch did I say Palestinian there? Of course I meant Jewish. Sorry.
Jewish, Jewish, Jewish. Damn it. I think I might have messed up again.

>Yeah, sure, I believe that. You speak for everyone in an entire
>country.

No. But I have never met an Indonesian that would disagree and I have
been to every major island in Indonesia and a lot of the smaller ones.
Including some teensy weensy ones. Indonesians in my experience are in
general modern, cosmopolitan, reasonable people. But they get all the
bad press. Malaysians however are generally basket cases but somehow
get all the good press. I wonder who could be behind that? Mmmmm.
(Strokes chin in thoughtful mood).

>We didn't invade Afghanistan to give them democracy, we invaded them
>because we were attacked on 911 and Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden

>and AL Qaeda training camps. We invaded Iraq because they had been violating UN resolutions for

>a decade that called for them to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
>with regard to WMDs. So, sorry, but none of that has anything to do
>with Malaysia.

Ah those old US weapons inspectors. I mean UN weapons inspectors off
course. Silly me. Did they ever find those WMDs? I think there is a
British guy called Tony who was looking for them as well. I'm sure he
would be thrilled to find them.

A sovereign country refuses to allow the US, sorry I mean the UN, to
meddle in their internal affairs so the UN, sorry I mean he US, thinks
it's OK to invade them. I hope Putin is reading this and has the US on
Google Maps.

> We didn't invade Libya, Syria or Iran at all.

Shouldn't that be not yet? That might be where those pesky old WMDs
are.

>It doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with how or why MH17
>was shot down.

The history and structure and operating methods of MAS matters to me
because those are some of the reasons I would never even consider
flying MAS. With or without an MH17 or MH370. They are also **** which
does not help it has to be said.

>Then you'd have to chuck any and all crash investigations, because there
>is always going to be potential conflicts of interest. In the USA for
>example, ATC is run by and part of the govt. The FAA sets rules,
>inspects planes and airline operations, issues airworthiness directives
>to correct mechanical problems, etc. Yet the govt runs the investigation
>if it's a plane crash here. Is the potential for conflict of interest
>higher with a state owned airline that crashes in that state? Sure.
>But there are a lot of state owned airlines in the world, Malaysia is
>not unique.

Yes there is always a potential for conflict of interest. But if
things are set up in a reasonably transparent way and there are some
sort of checks and balances and a reasonably effective legal system
then (fingers crossed) more often than not some semblance of the truth
will be arrived at. Again I think Silk Air 185 is a good example of
that. The American NTSB concluded it was pilot suicide. The
Singapoerans disagreed. The Indonesians said they simply were not sure
(sorry to blow their trumpet again but notice that the Indonesians
were the only ones that really ended up telling the truth).

The American Courts effectively threw out the NTSB decision and
decided it was a mechanical failure of a part manufactured by Parker
Hannifin. Basically agreeing with the Singaporeans.

What was actually correct I do not know but at least there was some
process of questioning authority and decisions. If you think that will
happen with an MAS flight then I honestly do not know what to say to
you.

Malaysia is certainly not unique. I mean there is Pakistan, there is
Saudi Arabia, there is ....actually I am struggling now.... but I am
sure there are others.... maybe Israel - but then that is really just
the US so not so sure if it counts.

If YOU want to fly their airlines then go ahead. I would prefer to
take a rain cheque. I can get you the telephone numbers for Saudia and
PIA etc if you want. I guess you already have the number for MAS but I
can get it for you too if need be.

>I tend to think the whole fiasco in Malaysia is likely incompetence and
>unrelated to come deliberate conspiracy.

Maybe, but that is an awful lot of incompetence. As I said I can get
you their phone number for your next flight.

I also have to say you are absolutely determined to try to get lies
mixed up with 'deliberate conspiracy'. I sincerely hope anyone that
ever happens to read this thread can see through your frankly
transparent modus operandi.

To me 'deliberate conspiracy' hints at some pre-determined plan. At no
point have I ever even contemplated that is what MAS/Malaysian Govt
were up to let alone suggested it. I simply suspect and suggested that
they ran around like headless chickens lying their asses off once the
excrement had hit the air circulatory device.

>You think the Malaysian govt knew about it, was involved with it, planned losing the plane? That would
>pretty much have to be the scenario for them to deliberately go looking
>for the plane in the wrong place only 4 hours into it, when almost nothing
>was known.

When did I say they planned losing the plane? Sorry I don't understand
that bit.

But actually I really do think they knew it was not where they
directed search efforts. Maybe that is why the Thais were getting so
furious with them behind the scenes. The Thais had a pretty good idea
it was not there, and they didn't even have the Inmarsat data at the
time.

>> >Even if MA was a private company based in Malaysia, the same Malaysian
>> >officials would have been in charge of the crash investigation.
>> Agreed but you forgot to say incompetent, corrupt Malaysian officials.
>
>So what? That's precisely my point. It's the Malaysian govt officials,

>not the airline , that conducted the search, had the civilian radar tracks,

>the military radar tracks, the ATC communication.

>The govt always leads those efforts, not the airline.

The Government that owns which Airline? Would that be the airline that
was standing next to their owner during every press nodding like one
of those toy dogs on a car dashboard?

>If it was in the USA, you think American
>Airlines would tell the Coast Guard and NAvy where to go look? I've
>never seen it work that way.

Then you have never looked. If American Airlines did not tell the
response teams where they honestly thought the aircraft was then they
would be prosecuted and hopefully receive very harsh punishment.

Apart from the single occasion I know of where the US military has
shot down a US passenger aircraft over the USA (TWA 800) and the NTSB
and Boeing went along with the BS, I personally do not know of any
other such obvious, deliberate malfeasance regarding an air accident
in the US. But feel free to educate me. I guess they can be glad Lee
Campbell was not on board at the time.

>> If you fly MAS then you are trusting your life to an organisation that
>> literally does not care whether you live or die. Particularly if you
>> are of Chinese descent.
>
>I doubt that's true, but even if it is, it has nothing to do with how and
>why MH17 was shot down.

As I say I can give you MAS's number for your next vacation. Horrible
to contemplate but it might the one thing that might bring this
conversation to an end.

>> That is why I said reputable. There are airlines that are bigger than
>> tin pot dictatorships like Malaysia. They would no doubt try to reason
>> with the Malaysian ****holes for a while but eventually they would
>> pull the plug if their internal processes were being seriously
>> compromised.
>>
>So then you should be able to provide the example of where that has
>happened before, which I asked for. Give us some examples of an airline
>telling a govt in the weeks after a crash that the govt investigation
>is incompetent, corrupt, a conspiracy, etc.

I cannot think of it happening before. I never said it had. I was
speaking of preventive action when choosing airlines. Why choose an
airline that has far bigger likelihood of incompetence and cover ups.
It is simply not necessary. Why risk what is most precious to you and
your loved ones.

It's not even a cost issue. MAS is actually quite expensive because
they know they can rely on virtually all public sector travel in and
to/from Malaysia. That is to a large extent why they have been able to
skirt bankruptcy for so long. I mean it's like I give it to you, you
give it to me, I give it to you, you give it to me. How long can that
go on before someone realises there are actual bills to paid to non
Government suppliers. Every time they do the Malaysian Government
jumps in and saves them.

But really for how long? Even the Malaysian Government cannot be
totally immune from reality forever. The dogs have been nipping at
their heels for a while and they know it. They just don't know what to
do about MAS. It's like a bottomless pit that they have dug themselves
into with no exit strategy that would be politically acceptable.

>> The jail sentence I was referring to was for telling lies to an
>> insurance company. All airlines that fly internationally have to have
>> insurance. It is a basic requirement. A requirement of insurance
>> validity is that you tell the truth. If you do not then it is possible
>> (to put it mildly) that your insurance cover goes whoopsy down the
>> toilet.
>>
>And what specifically did the officials of Malaysian Airlines lie about
>to the insurance company that constitutes this alleged criminal offense?
>

To answer that you would need all the facts. At the moment the only
fact I am 100% sure of is that we do not have all the facts. A
potential smoking gun regarding insurance is the MH370 cargo. Why have
they not released all of the details? What earthly reason could there
be for that?

>> If any CEO (even in Malaysia) started to tell porkies like the
>> Malaysians then they would run the risk that their insurance would not
>> pay out. One of the potential consequences would be bankruptcy of the
>> airline and prosecution of the staff for false representation.
>> I am perfectly willing to admit that this is possibly one aspect of
>> the MAS tragedies that actually works in the passengers' favour. Since
>> I assume the insurance was with a Malaysian Government agency and even
>> if the insurance company refuse to pay out the Malaysian Government
>> probably will to save face.
>>
>>
>Good grief. Of course the insurance company is going to pay.
>Strawman!

Strawman Insurance? I don't think I have ever heard of them. Are they
based in KL?

You speak with such profound clarity and confidence. But in reality I
bet you do not even know who the insurance company is or it's
structure or it's financial stability or it's relationship to MAS or
the Malaysian Government. Is that the frantic tapping of keys on
Google I hear?.....

>> >> The primary radar data is a good example. It was not Malaysian primary
>> >> radar data that initiated a series of questions that forced the
>> >> Malaysians to begin telling more of the story. It was THAI primary
>> >> radar data. The Thais released it to the airline (MAS).

>> >AFAIK that is incorrect. In fact, why aren't you blaming Thailand for
>> >incompetence and/or lying too? For 10 days they said they had no radar
>> >contact with the missing plane. By the time they changed their story, the search had
>> >already moved to the Straits of Malacca anyway and all they did was confirm
>> >that they had a radar track of an unknown plane going that route.
>> >http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/03/18/mh370_thailand_s_military_finally_shares_radar_data_that_would_have_been.html
>> >http://www.france24.com/en/20140319-thai-radar-unknown-aircraft-mh370-malaysia/
>> >"Thailand Shares MH370 Radar Data That Could Have Been Really Helpful a Week Ago"
>>
>> OK so I am privy to a little bit more information than you.

>Yes, how convenient. I'm privy to the fact that aliens were responsible.
>I heard it from someone who heard it from someone who....
>How about that?

Yes I had heard that too. Frankly I do not believe it. OK so call me a
denialist but the nearest planet that could conceivably have any life
at all (let alone intelligent life) is about 500 light years away. So
even if they could travel at the speed of light it would take them 500
years to get here. (Hope they have BUPA). Assuming they could travel
at speeds we know are possible (about 100,000km/day) it would take
them.......oh well you work it out. Just remember that planet earth
only has about 5 billion years left before being consumed by our sun.
Exactly how much of that 5 billion years will be able to sustain human
life I don't know (nobody does for sure). Let's say for sake of
argument maybe another 1 billion years. If the nearest potentially
viable life sustaining planets turn out to be sterile then you would
need to start looking at Andromeda or somewhere like that. Only
problem is it would take you longer to get there than the earth has
left. I seriously doubt if even BUPA is going to cover you for that.

And think of the fuel bills.

So, sorry those little green men must be out there somewhere but if
you are planning a flight on MAS to go meet them then I would suggest
you get someone to look after your cat. Sorry to burst you bubble on
that one.

>> I don't think I would be in a rush to accuse Thailand of lying or
>> incompetence.
>
>What? They issued statements for 10 days that they had *no radar
>tracks of the plane*. Either they are lying or your claim that they
>turned over such data in the very beginnning of the investigation is
>false. One or the other.

Did they? If they did then you are correct they lied. I just remember
them saying nothing (in public) for a long time. Economical with the
truth (in public) perhaps.

>In fact I would congratulate them for kicking Malaysia
>> up the ****. They negotiated with Malaysia for a long time. OK Maybe
>> they left it too long.
>
>Too long? So, which is it now? You claimed that they had the radar
>data and provided it to Malaysia early on, but Malaysia, for reasons
>unknown, chose to search in the wrong area. Now you say they negotiated?
>This scenario makes sense to you:

I will try to make it easy for you. The Thais gave the data to MAS
(which is the Malaysian Government) on day 1. The Malaysians said
there was none (not the Thais) and MAS said nothing (well virtually
nothing - Yahya squeaked occasionally when prodded by Hishamuddin but
other than that pretty much nothing). Meanwhile they lead the region
on a wild goose chase. The Thais told them to come clean. They did
not. After a while the Thais told them fess up or we will make our
data public. The Malaysians did. The Thai data eventually became
public knowledge by which time it made no difference (whether that was
a planned release or forced by some leak/error I do not know).

>Thailand had radar tracks from day one, told Malaysia about it, but
>Malaysia chose to search in the wrong place for 3 days. Malaysia then
>moved the search to the Straits, based on analysis of Malaysian military
>radar, but Thailand continued to deny publically for another week that
>they also had radar tracks that showed it in the Straits?

As I said above I do not remember the Thais denying anything. I do
remember them keeping quiet publicly for a long time after they had
given their data to the Malaysians.

>But at least at the end of the day they did the
>> right thing and it resulted in Malaysia finally coming a little bit
>> cleaner.
>>
>It didn't result in anything of the sort. You're confused again.
>Malaysain officials had already moved the search to the Straits based
>on their own military radar. They searched in the South China Sea
>for about 3 days, then moved the search to the Straits. A week later,
>Thailand finally says they have radar data that also shows the plane
>in the Straits. It was good in the sense it confirmed the Malaysians
>now had it right, but it did nothing in terms of making the Malaysians
>*come clean* or moving the search area.
>

Oh dear. There I go getting confused again. On day 1 the Thais told
MAS and the Malaysian Government about the radar data. The Malaysians
refused to publicly admit to it and wasted time. Even though they
already had their own radar data. You can see how I get confused so
easily.

>> What Malaysian Investigators? Are you referring to Hishammuddin (i.e.
>> the guy that lied his ass off since the beginning?). I have to admit
>> that I do not know the international protocol that is supposed to be
>> followed in such situations.
>
>Then you should learn it, because otherwise how can you be criticizing
>those involved when you don't understand who's in charge and what
>the rules are. In this case, the Malaysian govt was in charge of the investigation and what other parties can say is limited.
>

I don't understand your logic (again). Maybe it's because I seem to
get confused so easily. Let me get this right. I have to learn
international aviation protocol in order to the criticise the
Malaysian Government for LYING ITS ****** WOEFULLY CORRUPT
TOTALITARIAN INSIDIOUS RACISIT NEPOTISTIC ASS OFF after a major air
incident.

Really? I was not aware that was international law. I was under the
impression I was perfectly entitled to call a spade a spade without
learning how to make one.

> All I have been told is that the Thai
>> Military got sick and tired of trying to deal with the Malaysian
>> Government and told the airline directly.
>> >Their bosses (the Malaysian Government) then encouraged
>> >> several other countries to waste time and effort and put their own
>> >> lives at risk looking for an airliner where they knew themselves it
>> >> was not. What kind of airline/government does that for goodness sake?
>> >> and why?
>>
>> >If you have credible evidence that Thailand actually told Malaysians
>> >early in the investigation that they had radar contact I'd be happy to
>> >see it. AFAIK Thailand vigorously denied having anything, until about
>> >10 days after the plane went missing, by which time the search had already
>> >moved to the Straits.
>>
>> I have no objective evidence what so ever. Just word of mouth from
>> people at Thai ATC that I have known for a very long time and have
>> learned to trust.
>>
>And you know how reliable word of mouth is, as a story is passed from
>person to person, ultimately through a chain of God knows how many
>people.

It did not exactly go through a chain. I heard it directly from (more
than one) people at Thai ATC who have virtually daily contact with the
Thai Military.

>> >And why no blame for Thailand? Either they didn't
>> >know they had a radar track or they didn't tell Malaysia for 10 days,
>> >(the correct version AFAIK), or else they told them much earlier and sat back
>> >and watched the world search in the wrong place for 10 days (your version).
>>
>> They DID tell them. Immediately as far as I can make out. What exactly
>> went on behind the scenes meanwhile I am afraid I do not know.
>>
>Well if that's true, then Thailand must be really, really dumb.
>Because according to your version, Thailand knew they had radar tracks
>on MH370 and even told the Malaysians about it very early in the
>investigation. Then they continued to lie to the world, denying they
>had it for 10 days. Then finally they reversed themselves, making
>them look like idiots. That sounds logical to you?
>

I refer to my comments above. I don't remember them denying it. If
they did then yes they lied (publicly). All I remember them saying
publicly was nothing. But they did not lie to the Malaysians at any
point as far as I know. Far from it as it turns out.

>
>> I am not sure what you mean by no blame for Thailand(?).
>See the above.
>It was a
>> Malaysian aircraft departing from Malaysia and not going to Thailand.
>> (Did it even enter Thai airspace at any point?) Why not blame Myanmar
>> and Vietnam? They probably had some radar data too but were too afraid
>> to stand up and be counted. At least Thailand did something albeit
>> belatedly.
>>
>It's the belatedly part, which isn't just being late, it's that if your
>version is correct, they lied about it for 10 days. Malaysia gets
>something wrong, eg starting the
>search in the wrong place, and it's that they are incompetent, corrupt Nazis and
>it sounds like you think they actually did it on purpose. Thailand tells
>the world for 10 days that they have no radar track of the flight, and
>they get a pass.

You are repeating yourself. I have already answered this a few times.
You choose to not believe it. Would you like me to check whether Thai
ATC have seen any of those aliens you are so fond of? And if they did
would that make it any more believable to you?

>> I thought we were discussing why not to fly MAS.

>I thought we were discussing why none of this has anything to do with
>MH17 being shot down by rebels in the Ukraine.

It's been a while now admittedly but I seem to remember that this all
started because following MH17 I said something like people should
take responsibility for their actions in choosing an airline since I
had already chosen to give MAS a wide berth long before MH370 and MH17
based on common sense. But then apparently I get easily confused and
you appear prone to fantasy.

>> >Which still says nothing about the timeline. Was that at day 1, 2, 10?
>> I have to admit I do not know. From the impression I got it was given
>> to MAS on the day the aircraft went missing.
>>
>I thought you were privy to "sources". Sounds like the source is just
>a rumor mill with no details. When exactly Thailand told Malaysian govt
>officials and/or the airline for the first time is the essence of your
>whole beef.
>

Already discussed.

>>
>> >I'd like to see an example of another crash or missing plane investigation
>> >where the airline took on the govt of the country that it's operating in,
>> >regardless of who actually owns the airline. Maybe it's happened, somewhere,
>> >but I've never seen it and there are obvious reasons why any airline would
>> >be very reluctant to do so.
>>
>> It is not normally the function of the airline to take on a
>> government. The airline normally stands back and tells the truth while
>> an independent investigation team try to work out what happened.
>>
>Except that the investigation team is almost never totally independent.
>And also the investigation team almost always includes representatives
>govt and private, from various countries. In the case of MH370 you have
>NTSB, FAA, Boeing, FBI.
>

We have already discussed something very similar to this.

>
>> Air crash investigators occasionally take on governments (Silk Air 185
>> comes to mind) but not normally airlines. The airline is just expected
>> to provide all information and tell the truth.
>>
>What? You previously said Malaysian Airlines should have taken on
>the govt, but didn't because they are owned by the govt.

When did I say that? I suggested a reputable airline would have. I
have a suspicion you are getting MAS mixed up with a reputable
airline.

>So far, I haven't seen the airline lying. They haven't handled the crash well,
>right from the start. But not handling it and lying, deliberately
>covering up something, is different.

Then you have simply chosen to not read what I have written previously
and I do not see the point in laboring it any further. Someone else
who commented on this thread appeared to have remembered and
understood what I said. Although perhaps he is as confused as I am
apparently. Must be nice for you to be the only one that is not
confused.

>> However I think the point you are missing is that when it comes to MAS
>> and Malaysia that is where the whole process breaks down. It is NOT
>> NORMAL. It is a freak airline in a freak jurisdiction and the truth is
>> the last thing that is likely to happen.
>>
>It's no more a freak that any other govt owned airline, of which there
>are many.

If you know of an airline that is owned by it's brother's mother's
uncle's step son's nephew's Golden Labrador's wife's maid that has
been in power for 60 years then I would love to hear about it. I can
add it to my list of those to avoid.

>> No the Thai data did that. The Malaysian data simply confirmed it once
>> they had been forced to reveal it. I expect you also believe it was
>> only carrying Mangosteens.
>>
>> >It was
>> >> only released after they were threatened with exposure. By the time
>> >> the Malaysians (sort of*) released their own radar data everyone
>> >> already knew what had happened.
>>
>> >Not from the stories I followed at the time. The sequence of events was:
>> >The search area started in the South China Sea, because that is where
>> >all normal contact with the plane was suddenly lost. After several
>> >days of searching there, Malaysian officials announced that their military
>> >radar showed an unknown target that could be MA370 heading across to
>> >the Straits. The search moved there on day 4. Thailand continued to say
>> >it had no radar contact data. Only 10 days later did Thailand finally say
>> >they did have data and by then the search had been going on in the Straits
>> >and Indian Ocean for almost a week.
>>
>> And these 'stories that you followed at the time' were coming from
>> where exactly? Did they smell of Mangosteens at all?
>
>From news reports from most of the major media in the world. Are you
>now claiming that the above scenario isn't what happened? Good grief.
>

i.e News reports of what was said by the MAS/Malaysian Government.

You are correct with the 'Good grief'. I would go as far as to say
that 'Good grief' would be putting it mildly in this situation.

>> >And assuming Malaysians did have the Thai radar data early on, as
>> >you claim, what exactly is the rational motive for searching in the
>> >wrong place?
>>
>> I wish I knew. I assume it was a delay tactic to let them try to work
>> out what the official story was going to be.
>>
>
>Or it could just be incompetence. They had all the data from the plane,
>the radar track, ending at about the same time, over the South China Sea.
>It doesn't seem far fetched to think that is where the search would begin.
>It seems a lot more plausible than your scenario of let's go looking
>in the wrong place for days deliberately while we think about how to
>cover somethingup, when in the first hours after the crash, they wouldn't
>even know what there was that needed to be covered up, unless they were part of
>a pre-planned conspiracy.

I agree there is probably going to be quite a lot of incompetence
involved (one reason I refuse to fly MAS). But when you see deliberate
lying and obfuscation thrown into the mix you have to ask yourself
what else is going on.

>> > The key fact was that MAS being owned
>> >> by the Malaysian Government was not willing to say anything that went
>> >> against Government Policy and so kept quiet about critical information
>> >> that had nothing to with national security only national trying to
>> >> save egg on face.
>>
>> >You're assuming that Malaysian airline officials had some Thai radar
>> >data that the govt did not. Already discussed why that scenario makes
>> >no sense to me. But if you have some credible evidence that shows that,
>> >I'd be happy to see it.
>>
>> No no no no no. Sorry to be a bit aggressive but that is simply false
>> and frankly an attempted manipulation.
>>
>Manipulation? You initially said that Thailand turned the data over
>to Malaysian Airline officials. Now you're saying that Thailand had
>turned it over to Malaysian govt officials first, then later to airline
>officials. I just went with your first statement.
>> I assume a lot.
>> I assume MAS knew what the cargo was before lying about it.
>
>I don't know that I've seen what constitutes lying. The biggest
>issue I recall is the Malaysian GOVT refusing to fully disclose the
>cargo manifest. The reason they gave was that it was an ongoing
>criminal investigation. Is it a conspiracy to cover up? Or is it
>a turf war between the police and other official? IDK.

No it's called telling lies. If I was fully fluent in Bahasa Malaysia
I maybe could come up with an argument for them being economical with
the truth at best. But from my (albeit) limited understanding of the
language this just sounded like a blatant lie to me. It's not shown on
this clip but immediately prior to this he was asked if it was
carrying any DG. He said no. Then he went into this piece of nonsense
about Mangosteens. Not only is it a blatant lie it has clearly been
rehearsed. Hishamuddin knew the question was coming and immediately
smirkingly turned the question over to Yahya knowing full well what he
was going to say. Otherwise he hardly ever let Yahya even speak and
Yahya did his master's bidding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZfR_7Nakew

>> I assume MAS did not keep quiet for hours after it's disappearance
>> because they were afraid to wake up any babies on board
>>
>So, the airline's response in the middle of the night could have
>been better.

Do you have an evening job as a stand up comedian? "Could have been
better". Yes, that is certainly one way of putting it. I used a word
on another thread recently - Omnishambles. If you are not familiar
with it then I suggest looking it up. It occasionally comes in handy.

>The main thing they should have done that they didn't
>do, IMO, would have been to quickly get the friends and families
>waiting in Bejing to a private room. Other than that, what exactly
>could they do that they didn't do? What would any other airline
>have done that would have made a material difference in those 6 hours?

Raised the alarm maybe? And for the record I did not think it was it 6
hours they wasted. I thought it was 4. But hey, maybe I am confused
again.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/01/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane-report/
I would admit Malaysian/Vietnamese ATC need to shoulder much of the
blame for that but (OK I might be dreaming here) I would like to think
any airline I fly on would have better systems than this. If my ass is
on an aircraft that (apparently) goes quiet for 4 hours then I really
hope someone, somewhere is going to be aware and doing something. Why
rely on virtually 3rd world ATC staff.

>> I assume MAS were furnished with Malaysian Government primary radar
>> data
>
>That's a big assumption, especially given your mistrust of the MA
>govt and how they've handled other aspects of it.

MAS is part of the Malaysian Government. I am not sure why you find
that so difficult to understand. If the Malaysian Government were
given it then MAS were given it. The only way MAS would not have been
given it would be if the Malaysian Military had not given it to the
Malaysian Government. Did I mention Hishamuddin is Minster of Defence?
Remember him? He is the brother of the sister of the wife of the
auntie of the nephew of........

>> I assume MAS knew about the Inmarsat data long before the Wall Street
>> Journal confronted them
>>
>So what if they did? If you follow any of these investigations,
>investigators, airlines, don't run out with every new potential factoid
>or avenue of possible investigation. Not until it's vetted, they know
>if it's valid, has relevance. And even then they may not say anything,
>depending on what it is.
>

Agreed. Armed with such information they might not immediately make it
public knowledge. But would they pretend to look elsewhere? And say
things like we don't have a clue where it is but we know it's not in
the Maldives. I think those little green men you like would have been
in fits if they had heard BS like that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLYNoejZcv0

>> I assume they knew that the last communication was not the co pilot
>> saying 'all right good night'
>
>Another big assumption, because the ATC tape was in the possession
>of the govt investigators. And which is more likely? That they just
>screwed up, mixed up a few words that were of no obvious significance,
>or that it's some grand, evil conspiracy? What exactly would the
>purpose be to get the words wrong?

Who are these govt investigators? If THEY had it then everybody in the
govt had it including MAS. I don't know why they either lied or got it
wrong. I wish I did know and more to the point the family and friends
of people that were on MH370 wish they knew.

Maybe it's just that COMPLETE TOTAL AND UTTER ******* INCOMPETENCE you
keep hinting at but saying it's not a problem.

Personally speaking it's that COMPLETE TOTAL AND UTTER *******
INCOMPETENCE that would make me walk rather than go MAS.

But it is too late for the family and friends of MH370. It takes
someone very special, clever and with very good resources to prove
these people to be fakes. Try watching
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=unlocking+disaster
but who on earth has the intelligence, resilience, determination,
resources and just plain bloody mindedness of the likes of Kevin and
Susan Campbell to bring these liars to book?

The only thing we can hope for is that there is some kind of system,
however poor, that helps prevent these sort of things from happening.
Even if that system and it's cronies have to be dragged kicking and
screaming into the real world when necessary.

I have a suspicion if the Campbells had tried to do what they did in
Malaysia they would still be in prison to this day.

>> All I remember saying was that MAS kept quiet about critical
>> information that was nothing to do with National Security.
>
>And if you check out the agreed on international rules that govern
>these investigations, you will see that what parties other than the
>official govt investigators can say, is very limited. For example,
>RollsRoyce refused to comment to media requests on whether they had
>engine monitoring data, for exactly that reason.

Keeping quiet is one thing. If Malaysia had only kept quiet it would
be bad enough. People - particularly family and friends - need
information following such an incident. But giving them false
information in my opinion is totally unforgivable. I know it's
probably considered normal in the US but for me, no thanks. I am not
willing to put up with it.

>It was you
>> that assumed everything else and you know what they say about assume -
>> it makes a complete ******* *** out of MAS and the Malaysian
>> Government.
>
>Very odd comment coming from the guy who just said he assumed
>several major things without a shred of evidence.

Again just a childish attempted manipulation. I said Malaysia withheld
critical information and gave a list of examples. You said I assumed
Thailand had radar data. I don't think you are confused, just
frustrated and close to throwing your toys out of the pram. Can I
suggest that in addition to your evening job as a stand up comedian
you might want to consider a job as an MAS spokesperson.

If you want to make logical coherent arguments then go ahead. But I
would prefer if you do not try the above sort of nonsense with me. You
might get away with it with others but you aint going to get away with
it with me.

>> PS regarding the radar data I am not really assuming it. I might not
>> have documented objective evidence but I trust the people that have
>> told me and while that may not hold much sway with you there is no
>> question in my mind that it is factual and I do not consider myself a
>> complete idiot when it comes to talking to people I have been an
>> auditor for more than 30 years and it would take a very fly auditee to
>> get one past me. Not impossible but pretty unlikely IMO.
>
>So, as an auditor, you just accept hearsay from someone far removed
>from the actual event? Go figure.

I have already commented on that. It was several people at Thai ATC
who are in regularly contact with the Thai Military. The only thing
that is far removed is you from what I can make out.

>> You could very well be correct regarding MH17. But how will we ever
>> reliably know? The data recorders will probably tell us ***BOOM***.
>
>There is a lot of potential evidence there that would be difficult
>to hide. For example, even small sections of the fuselage would likely
>show evidence of being hit by components of the missle. They can
>likely test for residue of whatever explosive a Buk missle uses.
>There may be radar tracks of the missle too, eyewitnesses. And we have
>intercepted communication between the rebels and Russian intelligence
>that shows them discussing that the rebels had shot down a plane,
>then figuring out it was a civilian plane. Plus they had shot down
>3 planes in the days before, openly taken credit for it, etc. It's
>very likely the case and evidence will be solid.

I'll wait for that investigation report you were going to send me.

The only thing I will say at this point is that Pan Am 103 was deemed
to have been blown up largely on the basis that traces of chemicals
that could be used to make explosives were detected.

If that were a basis for a conclusion then most of what is in the
cupboard under my kitchen sink should be isolated as a crime scene.

>> When what we really need to know is the exact details of what they did
>> and why they did it. Maybe it was all perfectly innocent and normal
>> and just a tragic event that MAS are in no way responsible for.
>
>It's a tragedy if it's an accident. This was by all indications a
>barbarous act of mass murder. And there is evidence that Russia both
>supplied the missle and that the missle systems rolled back into Russia
>afterwards.

Barbarous act of murder? Oh you mean like Iran 655 ? Funny, I don't
remember the Russians being involved in that one. More to the point I
also do not remember any real apology or corrective action. The words
pot, kettle and black come to mind.

>But as
>> I hope I have explained that would rely on concise, factual,
>> objective, truthful explanations from MAS and the Malaysian
>> Government.
>
>You're the only one out there that thinks Malaysian Airlines is the
>one that holds the key to what happened over the Ukraine.
>

Again another childish attempted manipulation. I have said a lot about
MAS and the Malaysian Government and why anyone that flies MAS is
being silly in my opinion, but I never said anything like that.

>
>But I am afraid if this comes as a shock to you but it
>> really does rain in Indianapolis in the summer time.
>> >I focus on is it non stop and
>> >> the airline not the route. And IMO anyone that would fly MAS needs to
>> >> seriously reconsider their selection criteria.
>>
>> >Then you would have avoided the doomed flight by *chance* not by
>> >some act of being responsible.
>>
>> So you already have the results of the MH17 air crash investigation?
>> Sorry to bother you but would it be possible for you to post a PDF
>> copy to this site or some file sharing sire. Thanks.
>
>No, I just follow the news. Obviously you don't or you wouldn't have
>the focus on Malaysian Airlines as opposed to what we know was going on
>in Urkraine.

MH17 may well have been unforseeable. But I do not really understand
what that has to do with flying on an airline that is fundamentally
flawed. As I say I can give you their number. I am afraid I do not
have any frequent flyer miles on them or I would be happy to give you
those as well if it would help.

[trader_4]

On Saturday, July 26, 2014 5:33:34 PM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:01:26 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
>
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> ..lots of snippings for obvious reasons...thread getting a bit long
>
>
>
> >Sorry, but none of that rises to the level of equating them to the
>
> >Nazis.....
>
>
>
> Then I apologise profusely. I am truly sorry if I have offended you
>
> and all of your Palestinian ancestors. Maybe I could just make a
>
> suggestion. Instead of 'Malaysia, truly Asia' as their slogan maybe
>
> they could make it 'Malaysia, we're not quite as bad as the Nazis'.
>
>
>
> Ouch did I say Palestinian there? Of course I meant Jewish. Sorry.
>
> Jewish, Jewish, Jewish. Damn it. I think I might have messed up again.
>
>

Thanks for removing any doubt that you are indeed an anti-semite and
when you compared the nazis to the current govt of Malaysia, it
wasn't an accident. Now we know you for who you really are.

>
>
>
> >We didn't invade Afghanistan to give them democracy, we invaded them
>
> >because we were attacked on 911 and Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden
>
> >and AL Qaeda training camps. We invaded Iraq because they had been violating UN resolutions for
>
> >a decade that called for them to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
>
> >with regard to WMDs. So, sorry, but none of that has anything to do
>
> >with Malaysia.
>
>
>
> Ah those old US weapons inspectors. I mean UN weapons inspectors off
>
> course. Silly me.

That's right, because the UN team was international, lead by Hans Blix,
from Sweden.

Did they ever find those WMDs? I think there is a
>
> British guy called Tony who was looking for them as well. I'm sure he
>
> would be thrilled to find them.
>

Yes they did find and destroy large amounts of WMDs and they uncovered
and dismantled many biological and chemical WMD programs. We know Iraq
had WMDs because they had been used in the war with Iran and on Iraqi
civilian populations. Those are facts.

>
> A sovereign country refuses to allow the US, sorry I mean the UN, to
>
> meddle in their internal affairs so the UN, sorry I mean he US, thinks
>
> it's OK to invade them. I hope Putin is reading this and has the US on
>
> Google Maps.
>

Idiot. The sequence of invents was Iraq invaded and raped Kuwait. That
was condemned by the world and the UN told Iraq to get out or else. They
refused and an international coalition drove Iraq out and handed them
a huge defeat in just a few days. To end that, Iraq signed an agreement
that specifically called for them to account for and destroy *all* their
WMDs and WMD programs. For a decade following, they played cat and mouse
games with the UN inspectors trying to complete that mission. Again, there
were multiple UN resolutions telling Iraq to comply, or else. And again,
with 400,000 international troops on the border, ready to invade, Iraq
still refused to comply with the UN resolutions. Hans Blix, a Swedish
citizen, said so in his final report to the UN.

There is no comparison to Putin and Ukraine. Does Putin have a single
UN resolution? Did Putin ask the UN for one? Any international support,
other troops involved in his invasion of Ukraine? His annexation of Crimea?

Good grief.

>
> > We didn't invade Libya, Syria or Iran at all.
>
>
>
> Shouldn't that be not yet? That might be where those pesky old WMDs
>
> are.
>

You claimed we did idiot.

>
> >It doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with how or why MH17
>
> >was shot down.
>
>
>
> The history and structure and operating methods of MAS matters to me
>
> because those are some of the reasons I would never even consider
>
> flying MAS. With or without an MH17 or MH370. They are also **** which
>
> does not help it has to be said.
>
>

Which yet again has nothing to do with MH17 being shot down.

>
> Yes there is always a potential for conflict of interest. But if
>
> things are set up in a reasonably transparent way and there are some
>
> sort of checks and balances and a reasonably effective legal system
>
> then (fingers crossed) more often than not some semblance of the truth
>
> will be arrived at. Again I think Silk Air 185 is a good example of
>
> that. The American NTSB concluded it was pilot suicide. The
>
> Singapoerans disagreed. The Indonesians said they simply were not sure
>
> (sorry to blow their trumpet again but notice that the Indonesians
>
> were the only ones that really ended up telling the truth).
>
>

And you may have that yet, in the current MA370 investigation. They haven't
even found the wreckage yet, let alone reached any conclusions.

>
> The American Courts effectively threw out the NTSB decision and
>
> decided it was a mechanical failure of a part manufactured by Parker
>
> Hannifin. Basically agreeing with the Singaporeans.
>
>
>
> What was actually correct I do not know but at least there was some
>
> process of questioning authority and decisions. If you think that will
>
> happen with an MAS flight then I honestly do not know what to say to
>
> you.
>

Similar to SilkAir, the NTSB is involved in the MA370 investigation.
So are Boeing and the FBI.
As you point out, they reached a different conclusion in SilkAir.
No reason to that the same thing can't happen with MA370. So far I
only see you jumping to conclusions when the investigation has only
begun.

>
> I also have to say you are absolutely determined to try to get lies
>
> mixed up with 'deliberate conspiracy'. I sincerely hope anyone that
>
> ever happens to read this thread can see through your frankly
>
> transparent modus operandi.
>
>

The only one here lying is you. And you don't even know the sequence
of events or what went on. For example, you tried to tell us that Thailand
refused to comment publically on whether they had radar data on MH370 in
the days following the crash. Of course that's false and unlike you, I
provided links that prove it.

>
> To me 'deliberate conspiracy' hints at some pre-determined plan. At no
>
> point have I ever even contemplated that is what MAS/Malaysian Govt
>
> were up to let alone suggested it. I simply suspect and suggested that
>
> they ran around like headless chickens lying their asses off once the
>
> excrement had hit the air circulatory device.
>

Typical nonsense. They were lying then for what? Just for the sake of
lying? You told us they were deliberately searching in the wrong area,
withholding Thai radar data, etc. That would be a conspiracy.

>
> >You think the Malaysian govt knew about it, was involved with it, planned losing the plane? That would
>
> >pretty much have to be the scenario for them to deliberately go looking
>
> >for the plane in the wrong place only 4 hours into it, when almost nothing
>
> >was known.
>
>
>
> When did I say they planned losing the plane? Sorry I don't understand
>
> that bit.
>

The point is for them to deliberately going looking in the wrong place
just hours into the plane going missing, they would have had to know
this was coming. If they just did it based on the available data, with
no malice, and it later turned out they were looking in the wrong place,
that doesn't require a pre-planned conspiracy.

>
> But actually I really do think they knew it was not where they
>
> directed search efforts.

See, there you have it. You make no sense. You just argued that you
didn't say it was a deliberate conspiracy and now you're back to just
hours into the search, they went searching in an area when they knew
the plane was somewhere else. THAT *is* a conspiracy.

Maybe that is why the Thais were getting so
>
> furious with them behind the scenes. The Thais had a pretty good idea
>
> it was not there, and they didn't even have the Inmarsat data at the
>
> time.
>

More speculative nonsense, totally unsuppored by all the information.

>
>
> The Government that owns which Airline? Would that be the airline that
>
> was standing next to their owner during every press nodding like one
>
> of those toy dogs on a car dashboard?
>
>

It doesnt matter. If it was American Airlines, they would
very likely have been there too at the public press conference.
I've asked 3 times now for you to give
us one example, where in the days following a crash, some other airline pubically
disagreed with or challenged the govt investigators. Obviously it isn't
coming.....

>
> >If it was in the USA, you think American
>
> >Airlines would tell the Coast Guard and NAvy where to go look? I've
>
> >never seen it work that way.
>
>
>
> Then you have never looked. If American Airlines did not tell the
>
> response teams where they honestly thought the aircraft was then they
>
> would be prosecuted and hopefully receive very harsh punishment.
>

The airline is not the primary source of where the plane was. Clearly
it wasn't in this case. The airline did not have the ATC radar, the
Malaysian ATC did. The airline did not directly have the ADSB radio
based tracking data, that's part of a worldwide cooperative system
that is open to anyone. I could see the flight track of that, right
here on my PC the day of the crash. It showed the flight disappearing
over the South China Sea, where they began the search. The airline
did have the ACARS
data, which they provided. There is not one scintilla of evidence that
the airline had anything that disagreed with the info that Malaysian
search and rescue people were basing their initial search on. If you
have it, I'd sure like you to list it.

>
> Apart from the single occasion I know of where the US military has
>
> shot down a US passenger aircraft over the USA (TWA 800) and the NTSB
>
> and Boeing went along with the BS, I personally do not know of any
>
> other such obvious, deliberate malfeasance regarding an air accident
>
> in the US.

Another lie. I suppose the US military blew up the WTC on 911 too.
You really are a piece of work.

>
> >So then you should be able to provide the example of where that has
>
> >happened before, which I asked for. Give us some examples of an airline
>
> >telling a govt in the weeks after a crash that the govt investigation
>
> >is incompetent, corrupt, a conspiracy, etc.
>
>
>
> I cannot think of it happening before. I never said it had.

Finally some truth. So, you have not a single example of an airline
publically taking on search and rescue or investigators in the days
following a crash. But you expect that it didn't happen in MA370
because the airline was owned by the govt? Then why did the same
thing happen in all the other crashes where the govt didn't own the
airline? Hint: Because just like in MH370, the airline didn't have
something that showed the search was in the wrong place and what data
they did have was consistent with what the search/rescue was doing.

I was
>
> speaking of preventive action when choosing airlines. Why choose an
>
> airline that has far bigger likelihood of incompetence and cover ups.
>
> It is simply not necessary. Why risk what is most precious to you and
>
> your loved ones.
>
>

What you did was say that passengers on MH17 share in the responsibility
for the plane being shot down. That's outrageous.

A
>
> potential smoking gun regarding insurance is the MH370 cargo. Why have
>
> they not released all of the details? What earthly reason could there
>
> be for that?
>

Apparently they have released the full list:

http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=275241:new-mystery-with-msian-officials-again-the-prime-suspect-revealed-by-mh370s-cargo-list#axzz38gtg5an7

It's just that people want even more detail about what exactly was
in consolidated shipments that was listed as "radio accessories and
chargers". And MA says that they can't give more detailed information.
Some deep, dark conspiray? maybe. Or it could be that MA doesn't know
exactly for sure what the stuff was beyond that and can't give out
info it doesn't have. Or maybe they think they know what was in there,
but aren't 100% certain. You did want them to stop confusing people,
right? So, I don't think it's totally unreasonable for them to just
leave the rest up to the investigators who can go the actual shippers,
trace it all back. Presumably that has been done, but it's part of
a potential criminal investigation, part of an aircraft investigation,
so is it so highly unusual for it to not be make public? I don't
think so.

> >> I don't think I would be in a rush to accuse Thailand of lying or
>
> >> incompetence.
>
> >
>
> >What? They issued statements for 10 days that they had *no radar
>
> >tracks of the plane*. Either they are lying or your claim that they
>
> >turned over such data in the very beginnning of the investigation is
>
> >false. One or the other.
>
>
>
> Did they? If they did then you are correct they lied. I just remember
>
> them saying nothing (in public) for a long time. Economical with the
>
> truth (in public) perhaps.
>
>

I provided you with the link, but apparently you don't want to learn.
Kind of like the holocaust, I suspect.

>
> I will try to make it easy for you. The Thais gave the data to MAS
>
> (which is the Malaysian Government) on day 1.

BS. You have not one shred of evidence and there is no reason on
earth to think that Thailand would give their military radar tracking
data to the airline, instead of to the Malaysian govt investigators.

The Malaysians said
>
> there was none (not the Thais) and MAS said nothing (well virtually
>
> nothing - Yahya squeaked occasionally when prodded by Hishamuddin but
>
> other than that pretty much nothing). Meanwhile they lead the region
>
> on a wild goose chase.

Totally unsupported by anything except your personal bizarre claims.

The Thais told them to come clean. They did
>
> not. After a while the Thais told them fess up or we will make our
>
> data public. The Malaysians did. The Thai data eventually became
>
> public knowledge by which time it made no difference (whether that was
>
> a planned release or forced by some leak/error I do not know).
>
>

Totally unsupported by anything except your personal bizarre claims.

>
> >Thailand had radar tracks from day one, told Malaysia about it, but
>
> >Malaysia chose to search in the wrong place for 3 days. Malaysia then
>
> >moved the search to the Straits, based on analysis of Malaysian military
>
> >radar, but Thailand continued to deny publically for another week that
>
> >they also had radar tracks that showed it in the Straits?
>
>
>
> As I said above I do not remember the Thais denying anything.

Idiot. I provided you with the link to what they said, in my last
post, but you just drone on.

I do
>
> remember them keeping quiet publicly for a long time after they had
>
> given their data to the Malaysians.
>
>

Idiot. I provided you with the link to what they said, in my last
post, but you just drone on. And the above is your pure speculation
based on rumor. I see a pattern here. Refuse to look at real, credible
information and instead rely on BS rumors.

>
> Oh dear. There I go getting confused again. On day 1 the Thais told
>
> MAS and the Malaysian Government about the radar data.

Again, not from anything that has been reported. This is purely from
a rumor you heard. I heard Elvis is alive too. See how that works?

The Malaysians
>
> refused to publicly admit to it and wasted time. Even though they
>
> already had their own radar data. You can see how I get confused so
>
> easily.
>

Yes I do.

> >
>
> I don't understand your logic (again). Maybe it's because I seem to
>
> get confused so easily. Let me get this right. I have to learn
>
> international aviation protocol in order to the criticise the
>
> Malaysian Government for LYING ITS ****** WOEFULLY CORRUPT
>
> TOTALITARIAN INSIDIOUS RACISIT NEPOTISTIC ASS OFF after a major air
>
> incident.
>
>

No idiot. You need to learn the international rules set by treaty
that govern who is in charge of aircraft crash investigations. Hint: It's
never the airline. If Lufthansa crashed in Malaysia, the Malaysian
govt would be in charge

>
> It did not exactly go through a chain. I heard it directly from (more
>
> than one) people at Thai ATC who have virtually daily contact with the
>
> Thai Military.
>
>

Wow, how authoritative. Are they the ones that also told you the
US military shot down TWA800?

If
>
> they did then yes they lied (publicly). All I remember them saying
>
> publicly was nothing.

Obviously too lazy to look at the link I provided or use google.
Better to just make up stuff.

> It's been a while now admittedly but I seem to remember that this all
>
> started because following MH17 I said something like people should
>
> take responsibility for their actions in choosing an airline since I
>
> had already chosen to give MAS a wide berth long before MH370 and MH17
>
> based on common sense. But then apparently I get easily confused and
>
> you appear prone to fantasy.
>
>

Which of course tries to point the finger at the passengers for being
responsible for their own deaths. It could just as well have been any
other airline, because many carriers were flying and IDK of a single
one that was avoiding the area where the plane was shot down. Do you?

>
> Then you have simply chosen to not read what I have written previously
>
> and I do not see the point in laboring it any further. Someone else
>
> who commented on this thread appeared to have remembered and
>
> understood what I said. Although perhaps he is as confused as I am
>
> apparently. Must be nice for you to be the only one that is not
>
> confused.
>

Then cite the specifics of what exactly MA lied about. Right here,
right now, prove that it was a lie, not just confusion. OF course you
have nothing.

>
>
> i.e News reports of what was said by the MAS/Malaysian Government.
>
>
>
> You are correct with the 'Good grief'. I would go as far as to say
>
> that 'Good grief' would be putting it mildly in this situation.
>

You have two choices. Either use the best info that we have that is
publically available. Or just decide that you hate MA, the Malaysian
govt and make crap up that makes no sense and doesn't even fit the facts.
You've obviously chosen the latter.

>
>
> I agree there is probably going to be quite a lot of incompetence
>
> involved (one reason I refuse to fly MAS). But when you see deliberate
>
> lying and obfuscation thrown into the mix you have to ask yourself
>
> what else is going on.
>

Show us all the deliberate lying. You yourself admit you don't even
know the timeline and what Thailand actually said. Remarkably curious
for a guy who claims to have inside info.

If I was fully fluent in Bahasa Malaysia
>
> I maybe could come up with an argument for them being economical with
>
> the truth at best. But from my (albeit) limited understanding of the
>
> language this just sounded like a blatant lie to me.

Sounded like <> is.

>
> >The main thing they should have done that they didn't
>
> >do, IMO, would have been to quickly get the friends and families
>
> >waiting in Bejing to a private room. Other than that, what exactly
>
> >could they do that they didn't do? What would any other airline
>
> >have done that would have made a material difference in those 6 hours?
>
>
>
> Raised the alarm maybe?

Raised what alarm, specifically? All the data in those first hours pointed
to the plane going down at the point where all contact was lost.

And for the record I did not think it was it 6
>
> hours they wasted. I thought it was 4. But hey, maybe I am confused
>
> again.

You really want to quibble about 4, vs 6?

>
> http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/01/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane-report/
>
> I would admit Malaysian/Vietnamese ATC need to shoulder much of the
>
> blame for that but (OK I might be dreaming here) I would like to think
>
> any airline I fly on would have better systems than this. If my ass is
>
> on an aircraft that (apparently) goes quiet for 4 hours then I really
>
> hope someone, somewhere is going to be aware and doing something.

They did do something, it's just that you don't like what they did.
And you, unlike those that had to really deal with it just 4 hours in,
have the benefit of hindsight.

>
> MAS is part of the Malaysian Government. I am not sure why you find
>
> that so difficult to understand. If the Malaysian Government were
>
> given it then MAS were given it.

Funny how an accountant has no grasp of the span of entities. If
I give something to say FAA here in the USA, does that mean that
the Navy and IRS have it too?

The only way MAS would not have been
>
> given it would be if the Malaysian Military had not given it to the
>
> Malaysian Government.

Now you're trying to completely reverse the whole thing. You claimed
exactly the opposite. You claimed that Thailand gave radar tracking
data not to the Malaysian govt investigators, but to the airline.

> >
>
> Agreed. Armed with such information they might not immediately make it
>
> public knowledge. But would they pretend to look elsewhere?

Absolutely zero evidence that they pretended to look elsewhere. And
again, back to your denying that you ever said it was a deliberate
conspiracy, that's exactly what it would be. So there, you just claimed
CONSPIRACY again.

>
> Who are these govt investigators? If THEY had it then everybody in the
>
> govt had it including MAS.

I don't know why they either lied or got it
>
> wrong.

Well duh. You really are confused. Fisrt it's lies, conspiracy, but
the later it could just be they got it wrong.

I wish I did know and more to the point the family and friends
>
> of people that were on MH370 wish they knew.
>
>
>
> Maybe it's just that COMPLETE TOTAL AND UTTER ******* INCOMPETENCE you
>
> keep hinting at but saying it's not a problem.
>
>

So which is it? You claim lies, you claim conspiracy, now you're back
to maybe it's just incompetence. Good grief, now you're arguing with
yourself.

>
> Personally speaking it's that COMPLETE TOTAL AND UTTER *******
>
> INCOMPETENCE that would make me walk rather than go MAS.
>
>
>
> But it is too late for the family and friends of MH370. It takes
>
> someone very special, clever and with very good resources to prove
>
> these people to be fakes. Try watching
>
> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=unlocking+disaster
>
> but who on earth has the intelligence, resilience, determination,
>
> resources and just plain bloody mindedness of the likes of Kevin and
>
> Susan Campbell to bring these liars to book?
>
>

So now it's back to liars again. And we haven't even found the
wreckage, let along completed the investiation. And link doesn't work.

>
> >Very odd comment coming from the guy who just said he assumed
>
> >several major things without a shred of evidence.
>
>
>
> Again just a childish attempted manipulation.

WTF? You made 3 assumptions in a row and even said so. Then you
say I'm making assumptions?

You said I assumed
>
> Thailand had radar data. I don't think you are confused, just
>
> frustrated and close to throwing your toys out of the pram. Can I
>
> suggest that in addition to your evening job as a stand up comedian
>
> you might want to consider a job as an MAS spokesperson.
>
>

You're job is obviously mind reader, because that's what all your crap
is based on. That and rumor. And at the same time, you don't even
know basic facts, like the timeline of what Thailand actually said.

>
>
>
> The only thing I will say at this point is that Pan Am 103 was deemed
>
> to have been blown up largely on the basis that traces of chemicals
>
> that could be used to make explosives were detected.
>
>
>
> If that were a basis for a conclusion then most of what is in the
>
> cupboard under my kitchen sink should be isolated as a crime scene.
>

Sure, now you know more about bomb trace evidence than the FBI.
Go figure.

>
>
>
> Barbarous act of murder? Oh you mean like Iran 655 ? Funny, I don't
>
> remember the Russians being involved in that one. More to the point I
>
> also do not remember any real apology or corrective action. The words
>
> pot, kettle and black come to mind.
>
>

Wrong again. The US did express regret for accidentally shooting down
the Iranian airliner. And we did immediately admit the missle was fired
from the Vincennes. And we did pay the families for their loss.

Has Iran apologized or expressed regret for kidnapping and holding the
50 US embassy staff hostage for a year? Pay any reparations? Has Putin
admitted who shot down MH17 or has he instead tried to blame Ukrane?

[nam sak]

MAS
00 60 3-7843 3000
http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/us/en/contact.html

PIA
0800 587 1023
http://www.piac.com.pk/pia_policynterms/pia-contactus.asp

Saudia
1-800-472-8342
http://stageenv.saudiairlines.com/saudia/Alfursan/Contact+Us

El Al
1-800-223-6700
http://www.elal.co.il/ELAL/English/States/UK?gclid=CPLj_Pfu6r8CFQeWtAodIgkARw

Shit for Brains Airlines
1-800-666-6666
http://www.shitforbrainsairlines.com/youkeeptalkingcrapandexpecteveryonetobelieveit/remindsmeofamaidenauntiusedtohave/shesdeadnowthankgod

I wish I could say good luck on your trips on the above airlines but I
am by nature a very honest person and saying good luck would not be
correctly reflecting my feelings.





On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:17:30 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

[nam sak]

MAS
00 60 3-7843 3000
http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/us/en/contact.html

PIA
0800 587 1023
http://www.piac.com.pk/pia_policynterms/pia-contactus.asp

Saudia
1-800-472-8342
http://stageenv.saudiairlines.com/saudia/Alfursan/Contact+Us

El Al
1-800-223-6700
http://www.elal.co.il/ELAL/English/States/UK?gclid=CPLj_Pfu6r8CFQeWtAodIgkARw

Shit for Brains Airlines
1-800-666-6666
http://www.shitforbrainsairlines.com/youkeeptalkingcrapandexpecteveryonetobelieveit/remindsmeofamaidenauntiusedtohave/shesdeadnowthankgod

I wish I could say good luck on your trips on the above airlines but I
am by nature a very honest person and saying good luck would not be
correctly reflecting my feelings.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:45:43 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

[trader_4]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 12:00:38 PM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
> MAS
>
> 00 60 3-7843 3000
>
> http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/us/en/contact.html
>
>
>
> PIA
>
> 0800 587 1023
>
> http://www.piac.com.pk/pia_policynterms/pia-contactus.asp
>
>
>
> Saudia
>
> 1-800-472-8342
>
> http://stageenv.saudiairlines.com/saudia/Alfursan/Contact+Us
>
>
>
> El Al
>
> 1-800-223-6700
>
> http://www.elal.co.il/ELAL/English/States/UK?gclid=CPLj_Pfu6r8CFQeWtAodIgkARw
>
>
>
> Shit for Brains Airlines
>
> 1-800-666-6666
>
> http://www.shitforbrainsairlines.com/youkeeptalkingcrapandexpecteveryonetobelieveit/remindsmeofamaidenauntiusedtohave/shesdeadnowthankgod
>
>
>
> I wish I could say good luck on your trips on the above airlines but I
>
> am by nature a very honest person and saying good luck would not be
>
> correctly reflecting my feelings.
>
>
>

Of course rating international airlines was never the topic of
discussion. Neither was anti-Semitism, but somehow you managed to
drag that in too. The issue was whether the passengers on MH17
deserved some of the blame for their own deaths, as you claimed.
Idiot.

[nam sak]

I swore blind to myself I would not be goaded into saying anything
further to you but I find myself finding it impossible to avoid.

Your use of the term 'anti Semite in a previous post really irked me.

I have 2 questions

1. I am truly disgusted with the behaviour of Israel since it's
creation. Does it make me an anti Semite?

2. What is the equivalent term for an anti Palestinian? Or anti
anything else come to that. Why is it we only have a term for anti
Jews?

[trader_4]

On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 4:33:10 PM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
> I swore blind to myself I would not be goaded into saying anything
>
> further to you but I find myself finding it impossible to avoid.
>
>
>
> Your use of the term 'anti Semite in a previous post really irked me.
>
>
>
> I have 2 questions
>
>
>
> 1. I am truly disgusted with the behaviour of Israel since it's
>
> creation. Does it make me an anti Semite?
>

No, but what you posted before does:


Nam: "I think the only major

>> difference I can see between the Malaysian Government and the Third
>> Reich is that the Third Reich only lasted just over 10 years whereas
>> the Malaysian Reich has lasted nearly 60. "

Trader4: "Sorry, but none of that rises to the level of equating them to the
Nazis.....

Nam: "Then I apologise profusely. I am truly sorry if I have offended you

and all of your Palestinian ancestors. Maybe I could just make a
suggestion. Instead of 'Malaysia, truly Asia' as their slogan maybe
they could make it 'Malaysia, we're not quite as bad as the Nazis'.

Ouch did I say Palestinian there? Of course I meant Jewish. Sorry.
Jewish, Jewish, Jewish. Damn it. I think I might have messed up again."

I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and offered you a chance to
reconsider. But you foubled down and continued to compare the current Malaysian govt tothe Nazis who killed 6 million Jews in concentration
camps and started a war that killed 60 million. To compare that to the
current govt of Malaysia, you're either an idiot, or maybe an anti-Semite. Your subsequent reply above reply sealed the deal in favor of anti-Semite.
Actually both probably best fits.

>
> 2. What is the equivalent term for an anti Palestinian? Or anti
>
> anything else come to that. Why is it we only have a term for anti
>
> Jews?
>

IDK. Why don't you look into that and get back to us?

[nam sak]

Are you going to answer the questions or just continue to bullshit?

[nam sak]

Your silence is about the most intelligent thing I have heard out of
you.

Must be difficult for you to answer questions like that.
It's not difficult for me.

Regarding question 1.
If I object to theft of land and atrocities carried out by Israel and
it's ally (note I said ally not allies) then clearly no it does not
make me anti Semitic.

It makes me anti barbarity, anti theft, anti vile ugly thug, anti a
lot of things but not anti Semitic.

I appreciate that speaking from a land that was stolen from it's
original inhabitants who were then slaughtered in mass
by you and the remainder put into concentration camps, oops sorry I
mean reservations, might make that a bit tricky for you to deal with,
and might go some ways to explaining why the US identifies so closely
with and blindly supports Israel.

Regarding question 2.
There is no such word.
I also do not know why.
Therefore I have decided to solve the problem.
I have invented a word - Citimes (Semitic backwards for the
intellectually challenged, not naming any names)

You sir (I use the word 'sir' for comic effect) are an anti citimes.
I am afraid I have to inform you that I have not ever and will not
ever deal with your odious kind. You and your anti Citimetic friends
are abhorrent to me. I don't understand how you can bear to look at
yourself in a mirror. Your putrid, cancerous, racist, hate driven
views and agenda make me want to vomit.

Personally I do not think legislation regarding anti Citimeticism goes
far enough.

I do not particulalry believe in the death penalty but hideous anti
Citimetics like yourself need to be removed from civilized society
and learn that all humans have a right to live their lives in their
own place free from the threat of unthinkable acts of vandalism, theft
and murder by gangrenous anti Citimetics like you and your friends.



On Thu, 31 Jul 2014 00:20:03 +0100, nam sak <nam...@nirvana.com>
wrote:

[trader_4]

On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:20:03 PM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
> Are you going to answer the questions or just continue to bullshit?
>
>
>

I did answer the questions, idiot. You just don't like the answers.

[trader_4]

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:28:05 PM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
> Your silence is about the most intelligent thing I have heard out of
>
> you.
>
>

No silence, I answered both questions you asked, yesterday, idiot. Here
it is:



Nam: I have 2 questions

>
>
>
> 1. I am truly disgusted with the behaviour of Israel since it's
>
> creation. Does it make me an anti Semite?
>

Trader4: No, but what you posted before does:

Nam: "I think the only major

>> difference I can see between the Malaysian Government and the Third
>> Reich is that the Third Reich only lasted just over 10 years whereas
>> the Malaysian Reich has lasted nearly 60. "



Trader4: "Sorry, but none of that rises to the level of equating them to the
Nazis.....

Nam: "Then I apologise profusely. I am truly sorry if I have offended you

and all of your Palestinian ancestors. Maybe I could just make a
suggestion. Instead of 'Malaysia, truly Asia' as their slogan maybe
they could make it 'Malaysia, we're not quite as bad as the Nazis'.

Ouch did I say Palestinian there? Of course I meant Jewish. Sorry.
Jewish, Jewish, Jewish. Damn it. I think I might have messed up again."

I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and offered you a chance to
reconsider. But you foubled down and continued to compare the current Malaysian govt tothe Nazis who killed 6 million Jews in concentration
camps and started a war that killed 60 million. To compare that to the
current govt of Malaysia, you're either an idiot, or maybe an anti-Semite. Your subsequent reply above reply sealed the deal in favor of anti-Semite.
Actually both probably best fits.

Nam: > 2. What is the equivalent term for an anti Palestinian? Or anti

>
> anything else come to that. Why is it we only have a term for anti
>
> Jews?
>


IDK. Why don't you look into that and get back to us?



>

> Must be difficult for you to answer questions like that.
>

Not at all, as clearly shown above, I answered the 2 questions yesterday.
Obviously you're as confused about that as you are about just
about everything else, idiot.

[sms]

On 7/30/2014 1:33 PM, nam sak wrote:
> I swore blind to myself I would not be goaded into saying anything
> further to you but I find myself finding it impossible to avoid.
>
> Your use of the term 'anti Semite in a previous post really irked me.
>
> I have 2 questions
>
> 1. I am truly disgusted with the behaviour of Israel since it's
> creation. Does it make me an anti Semite?

No. It means that you're clueless.

[nam sak]

Thank you for so effectively summarising the problem.

A nation of mindless retards presided over by a mindless retard
supporting THE most blood thirsty cabal of filth the earth has ever
seen.

You know I was in Vietnam a couple of weeks ago. They do not hate you.
They feel sorry for you.

I do not.

I have seen the destruction and the (still) unexploded bombs you
dropped on Laos because you were not allowed to land back at Korat
with bombs on board after an 'unsuccessful mission.

You truly make me sick.




On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 14:14:58 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote: