OnlyNDaUsa said:

lust said:

Not to be a pedant but you said " If it crashed there would be wreckge. No wreckage no crash"

I assumed you meant "no wreckage found means no wrekage, no crash" Perhaps I misunderstood but in essence of course if there really is no wreckage there was no crash but we can't assertain an absence of wreckage as fact at this stage.

What would have to happen for an airliner to sink to the bottom of the see intact? Or is that just silly talk?

yeah, and there is a difference between their, there, and they're, but i know what you meant.

if there was a crash there would be wreckage ... and they search the flight path and have yet to find any. even the oil slick was not from the plane.

to sink in tact would likey have to be lowered into the sea by a conroled device.

[Edited 3/10/14 18:28pm]

Thanks for the electrician lesson!

The Air France crash of June 2009....

The first bits of debris were found on the ocean surface on June 6, five days after the crash. The bulk of the wreckage was located in April 2011, nearly two years later. The “black boxes” — the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder — were found a month after that. Only then could investigators form a complete picture of what brought down the plane.

Does that change your assertion? If not, why not?

lust said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

yeah, and there is a difference between their, there, and they're, but i know what you meant.

if there was a crash there would be wreckage ... and they search the flight path and have yet to find any. even the oil slick was not from the plane.

to sink in tact would likey have to be lowered into the sea by a conroled device.

[Edited 3/10/14 18:28pm]

Thanks for the electrician lesson!

The Air France crash of June 2009....

The first bits of debris were found on the ocean surface on June 6, five days after the crash. The bulk of the wreckage was located in April 2011, nearly two years later. The “black boxes” — the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder — were found a month after that. Only then could investigators form a complete picture of what brought down the plane.

Does that change your assertion? If not, why not?

no why would it? there was wreckage was there not? that plane did not sink intact. so we will see as the time passes what happened.

I am just suggesting that it may not have crashed..at least not along the flight path. It could have been taken over and flown elsewhere and landed or crashed.

A plane that big and a loss of com that quick... could be just a straight down dive...so i guess at that angle the wings get striped off and sink and the fuselage would go straight down too. so could be noes down. I guess.

Gunsnhalen said:

My friend Katia had a friend on that flight she's pretty upset about it. Poor girl... and the rest of the passangers family and friends. This shit is a nightmare!

Four scenarios fuel speculation among experts...

1. Scenario: Bomb? Or 'dry run'?

Fact: Two stolen passports have been linked to people who held tickets for the flight.

Analysis: This points to the possibility that someone on a terrorism watch list may have boarded the plane and blown it up. However, the stolen passports don't necessarily mean the plane was an actual target. It's possible, says former U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General Mary Schiavo, that terrorists may have been performing a "dry run" for a future attack. Or, Schiavo said, "it could be just criminal business as usual," because "there are lots of stolen passports" used by travelers around the world.

Fact: So far, no debris field of plane wreckage has been linked to the 777, which would indicate a bomb blast.

Analysis: When Robert Francis, former vice chairman of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, heard about the missing plane, his immediate thought was: "For some reason the aircraft blew up and there was no signal, there was nothing." The fact that the plane disappeared from radar without warning indicated to Francis "there was something unprecedented that hasn't happened before."

What about satellite technology? Is it possible that data from orbiting satellites might show a flash or infrared heat signature from an explosion? Very unlikely, says satellite expert Brian Weeden, who spent years tracking space junk in orbit for the U.S. Air Force. Dozens of government and private satellites orbit the earth, looking down from distances from 300 kilometers to 1,500 kilometers (185 to 930 miles). It's a long shot that one of them coincidentally floated over at the exact right time and location to capture a flash from an explosion.

However, there's an "off chance," Weeden says, that a super secret U.S. government satellite orbiting 22,000 miles in space might have grabbed evidence. These satellites are in geosynchronous orbit. As a group, they can observe virtually the entire globe. "We know that their mission is to detect ballistic missile launches via heat," says Weeden, now a technical adviser for Secure World Foundation. "We don't know if they're sensitive enough to track something like a bomb blast, even if that's what happened."

Then there's another unanswerable question: Would the government hesitate to release such an image for fear of revealing the satellite system's ultraclassified capability?

2. Scenario: Hijacking?

Fact: Before it disappeared, radar data indicated the plane may have turned around to head back to Kuala Lumpur. Is that a clue that a hijacker had ordered the plane to change course?

Analysis: So far, there have been no reports that the flight crew sent any signals that a hijacking had occurred.

3. Scenario: Mechanical failure?

Fact: The absence of a debris field suggests the possibility that pilots were forced to ditch the plane and it landed on water without breaking up, finally sinking to the ocean floor.

Analysis: But if that were the case, then why no emergency signal? These planes are able to perform a "miracle on the Hudson" maneuver. They have the ability to glide more than 100 miles and belly land on the water with both engines out, says former 777 pilot Keith Wolzinger, now a civil aviation consultant with The Spectrum Group. During the time it would take for a plane to glide 100 miles, it seems likely that pilots would be able able to send an SOS.

Fact: The missing plane had suffered a clipped wing tip in the past, but Boeing repaired it, and the jet was safe to fly, said Malaysia Airlines CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya on Sunday.

Analysis: "Anytime there's been previous damage to an airplane, even though it's been repaired, and repaired within standards ... it kind of sends a warning flag," says Wolzinger. Experts agree the Boeing 777 is one of the world's most reliable aircraft. During its development it was subject to some of the most rigorous testing in commercial aviation history. "I've been talking with colleagues," Wolzinger says. "We're all baffled by this." The 777 boasts some of the most powerful and well-tested engines in the world, he says. "The reliability of airliner engines in general is impeccable these days," he says. "This is a safe plane."

4. Pilot error

Fact: So far, there are no known indications that pilot error contributed to the aircraft going missing.

Analysis: Some aviation experts have compared Flight 370 to the crash of Air France Flight 447 in 2009. All 228 passengers and crew died when the plane went down in a storm in the Atlantic en route from Brazil to Paris. After an expensive, nearly two-year search across the deep ocean floor, the twin-engine Airbus A330's wreckage was finally found and the voice and data recorders recovered. A French investigation blamed flight crew for failing to understand "they were in a stall situation and therefore never undertook any recovery maneuvers." But unlike Flight 447, weather was reported as good along Flight 370's scheduled route and didn't appear to present a threat.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/0...scenarios/

I'm more inclined to believe that the plane has gone down due to mechanical error. Sad situation either way. A plane missing for this long can never bring about a positive outcome.

ZombieKitten said:

It has been alleged 5 passengers checked in and did not fly, bringing speculation about unaccompanied luggage left on board. MAS wishes to clarify that this is untrue. 5 passengers had valid bookings but DID NOT check in. Is that weird or normal? People with tickets not turning up to catch their flight?

I've been in a situation where I checked in for my flight and I was put on 'stand by' waiting to get on a United flight that was overbooked which I had a boarding pass for anyways. Some folks did not show up so I got to board the plane. Sometimes folks make other arrangements and take another airline instead or are late and decide to take their chances catching the next flight.


My guess is that the plane blew up due to terrorists. My heart goes out to those that lost loved ones and friends RIP.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/...ector.html

I haven't read every post on here so forgive me if I'm repeating this; BUT the problem with mechanical failure as a cause is that the pilots would've alerted someone or at the very least swicthed on the distress signal (before the plane hit water).

So IMO - either it was a sudden & catastrophic event (explosion) or the cockpit could've been compromised and the plane diverted somewhere.

However, if it was some sort of hijacking...enough time has passed that the plane would be found by now.

Very tragic regardless.

ZombieKitten said:

Some seriously weird shit going on here.

PurpleJedi said:

I haven't read every post on here so forgive me if I'm repeating this; BUT the problem with mechanical failure as a cause is that the pilots would've alerted someone or at the very least swicthed on the distress signal (before the plane hit water).

So IMO - either it was a sudden & catastrophic event (explosion) or the cockpit could've been compromised and the plane diverted somewhere.

However, if it was some sort of hijacking...enough time has passed that the plane would be found by now.

Very tragic regardless.

I agree with this.

JustErin said:

Some seriously weird shit going on here.

I just read an article stating that cell phones from people who were on the flight are still ringing and some are still logged onto social networks, etc. Why can't they track the phones using GPS signals? Or can't the NSA track them?

forgot link edit...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/n...nt-3222919

[Edited 3/12/14 9:32am]

SuperSoulFighter said:

The two people with stolen passports were refugees from Iran trying to get to Europe. So far there's no sign of terrorsts involved.

Was that confirmed or was that from a political rumor mill? Plus, even if it was a hijacking (which I still doubt), why would they wanna get to Europe? I still think the plane crashed.

Timmy84 said:

noimageatall said:

noimageatall said:

JustErin said:

Some seriously weird shit going on here.

I just read an article stating that cell phones from people who were on the flight are still ringing and some are still logged onto social networks, etc. Why can't they track the phones using GPS signals? Or can't the NSA track them?

forgot link edit...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/n...nt-3222919

[Edited 3/12/14 9:32am]

CNN Debunks Malaysia Airlines Cell Phone Mystery

Technology expert Jeff Kagan joined Blitzer to explain what might be happening and in the process squashed the hopes of those people who see the ringing cell phones as a positive omen. “This is one of the sad parts about the technology,” Kagan said before explaining that just because the calls are not going straight to voicemail does not mean that those phones are still on and active somewhere.

While the person on this end may hear ringing the phone on the other end may not actually be receiving the call. “They are hearing ringing and they are assuming it’s connecting to their loved ones, but it’s not,” he said. “It’s the network sending a signal to the phone letting them know it’s looking for them.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-debunks-malaysia-airlines-cell-phone-mystery/

a) firdt of all: RIP

b) second: I just can't understand how nobody can find the wreckage (or part of it), considering that this is the 21st century, the age of satellites and globalization....

Was watching CBS evening news last night and they said that on the last plane that went missing like this they didn't even find the black box for at least 2 years. Makes me think that it will be awhile before they find the wreakage, that's a lot of water to be searching and from above it all looks alike.

wildgoldenhoney said:

Was watching CBS evening news last night and they said that on the last plane that went missing like this they didn't even find the black box for at least 2 years. Makes me think that it will be awhile before they find the wreakage, that's a lot of water to be searching and from above it all looks alike.

I think it took them 2 years to find the section of the plane with the black box but they did find other parts of the plane sooner.

JustErin said:

noimageatall said:

I just read an article stating that cell phones from people who were on the flight are still ringing and some are still logged onto social networks, etc. Why can't they track the phones using GPS signals? Or can't the NSA track them?

forgot link edit...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/n...nt-3222919

[Edited 3/12/14 9:32am]

CNN Debunks Malaysia Airlines Cell Phone Mystery

Technology expert Jeff Kagan joined Blitzer to explain what might be happening and in the process squashed the hopes of those people who see the ringing cell phones as a positive omen. “This is one of the sad parts about the technology,” Kagan said before explaining that just because the calls are not going straight to voicemail does not mean that those phones are still on and active somewhere.

While the person on this end may hear ringing the phone on the other end may not actually be receiving the call. “They are hearing ringing and they are assuming it’s connecting to their loved ones, but it’s not,” he said. “It’s the network sending a signal to the phone letting them know it’s looking for them.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-debunks-malaysia-airlines-cell-phone-mystery/

Ok so if the phones are underwater they can't get any signals? Nothing can be tracked if it's wet? Sorry if it seems like a stupid question. Don't feel like googling. And I really don't know...with all the technology it seems like they could do something.

[Edited 3/12/14 13:10pm]

lust said:

CNN has some images of what could be wreckage.

How are aircraft normally tracked?

Air traffic control combines the location-measuring properties of basic radar with the signals provided by aircraft transponders to give a detailed picture of traffic in the sky.

All commercial aircraft are equipped with cockpit transponders (an abbreviation of "transmitter responder"), which automatically transmit electronic signals back to the ground when they receive a radio signal.

The most basic types send only the aircraft's altitude and 4-digit flight code, but radar stations are able to establish the plane's speed and direction by monitoring successive transmissions.

Radar coverage usually ends around 150 miles from shore, and while flying over the sea air crew keep in touch with the ground and other aircraft using high-frequency radio.

Transponders can be switched off manually in mid-air, but in the case of Flight MH370 it is not known whether the loss of signal was caused by deliberate human action or from a catastrophic event.

The last radio message received by air traffic control - "Alright, roger that" - suggests everything was normal on board minutes before it went missing over the South China Sea.

What if a transponder fails, or is turned off?

If a transponder stops sending a signal, aircraft can still be tracked using what is essentially still the same form of radar developed in the 1930s.

Primary radar tracks anything in the sky which reflects transmitted radio signals. As such, it can only indicate the approximate position of an aircraft - it cannot identify it.

It is used today mainly as a back-up system to secondary radar.

Officials in Malaysia have suggested that primary radar tracking may yield information about the missing airliner's trajectory, but that the data requires detailed analysis by experts.

Don't planes have GPS?

Yes, but while GPS (Global Positioning System) is a staple of modern life, the world's air traffic control network is still almost entirely radar-based.

Aircraft use GPS to show pilots their position on a map, but this data is not currently shared with air traffic control.

Some of the most modern aircraft are able to 'uplink' GPS data to satellite tracking services, but handling large volumes of flight data is expensive and such systems are usually only used in remote areas with no radar coverage.

The disappearance of Flight MH370 is likely to bring renewed focus on whether mid-air tracking should be improved. I'd say that should be a priority.

http://www.bbc.com/news/w...c-26544554

And from my friend who took the time to explain what I didn't know... He has a military background and has experience looking for downed aircraft, and other things, lost at sea. At least he didn't make me feel like a dunce. I did that to myself.

GPS and cell phones operate above the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) portion of the Radio Frequency spectrum, those wavelengths do NOT, repeat do NOT, penetrate water. Period. Yes, Very Low (VLF) and Extremely Low (ELF) radio waves CAN penetrate water to a significant degree, but you'd need a cell phone the size of large refrigerator/freezer and an antenna MILES in length to use those freqs.

China's State Administration for Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense has released three pictures which may be the crash site of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

According to them, the site 105.63°E, 6.7°W (CNN gives different coordinates of 105.63 east longitude, 6.7 north latitude) showed three suspected floating objects, sized 13m x 18m, 14m x 19m and 24m x 22m. This site is a very possible location for MH370 – more verification is being done at this point in time.

The pictures were taken on March 9th, however no explanation was given as to why it took them five days (um... I think that's 3 days) to release this information, and how much verification has been done since then.

Follow Yahoo Malaysia’s live updates here.

CNN has some info too--- http://www.cnn.com/2014/0...nes-plane/

[Edited 3/12/14 17:29pm]

PurpleJedi said:

I haven't read every post on here so forgive me if I'm repeating this; BUT the problem with mechanical failure as a cause is that the pilots would've alerted someone or at the very least swicthed on the distress signal (before the plane hit water).

So IMO - either it was a sudden & catastrophic event (explosion) or the cockpit could've been compromised and the plane diverted somewhere.

However, if it was some sort of hijacking...enough time has passed that the plane would be found by now.

Very tragic regardless.

The Air France crash in '09 started with mechanical failure and then escalated to pilot error. After the mechanical failure, the auto-pilot turned off and forced the pilot(s) to manually fly the plane. While they were trying to figure out what was going on and trying to resolve the issue, the plane was steadily descending. Alarms are going off and chaos all around. In a scenario like that, survival mode probably kicks in and you're not thinking of contacting someone.

noimageatall said:

How are aircraft normally tracked?

Air traffic control combines the location-measuring properties of basic radar with the signals provided by aircraft transponders to give a detailed picture of traffic in the sky.

All commercial aircraft are equipped with cockpit transponders (an abbreviation of "transmitter responder"), which automatically transmit electronic signals back to the ground when they receive a radio signal.

The most basic types send only the aircraft's altitude and 4-digit flight code, but radar stations are able to establish the plane's speed and direction by monitoring successive transmissions.

Radar coverage usually ends around 150 miles from shore, and while flying over the sea air crew keep in touch with the ground and other aircraft using high-frequency radio.

Transponders can be switched off manually in mid-air, but in the case of Flight MH370 it is not known whether the loss of signal was caused by deliberate human action or from a catastrophic event.

The last radio message received by air traffic control - "Alright, roger that" - suggests everything was normal on board minutes before it went missing over the South China Sea.

What if a transponder fails, or is turned off?

If a transponder stops sending a signal, aircraft can still be tracked using what is essentially still the same form of radar developed in the 1930s.

Primary radar tracks anything in the sky which reflects transmitted radio signals. As such, it can only indicate the approximate position of an aircraft - it cannot identify it.

It is used today mainly as a back-up system to secondary radar.

Officials in Malaysia have suggested that primary radar tracking may yield information about the missing airliner's trajectory, but that the data requires detailed analysis by experts.

Don't planes have GPS?

Yes, but while GPS (Global Positioning System) is a staple of modern life, the world's air traffic control network is still almost entirely radar-based.

Aircraft use GPS to show pilots their position on a map, but this data is not currently shared with air traffic control.

Some of the most modern aircraft are able to 'uplink' GPS data to satellite tracking services, but handling large volumes of flight data is expensive and such systems are usually only used in remote areas with no radar coverage.

The disappearance of Flight MH370 is likely to bring renewed focus on whether mid-air tracking should be improved. I'd say that should be a priority.

http://www.bbc.com/news/w...c-26544554

Thanks. For the life of me I couldn't firgure out why they can't find this big ass, expensive aircraft. I didn't know there was that much expense involved in state of the art tracking.

It's always down to money.

babynoz said:

noimageatall said:

How are aircraft normally tracked?

Air traffic control combines the location-measuring properties of basic radar with the signals provided by aircraft transponders to give a detailed picture of traffic in the sky.

All commercial aircraft are equipped with cockpit transponders (an abbreviation of "transmitter responder"), which automatically transmit electronic signals back to the ground when they receive a radio signal.

The most basic types send only the aircraft's altitude and 4-digit flight code, but radar stations are able to establish the plane's speed and direction by monitoring successive transmissions.

Radar coverage usually ends around 150 miles from shore, and while flying over the sea air crew keep in touch with the ground and other aircraft using high-frequency radio.

Transponders can be switched off manually in mid-air, but in the case of Flight MH370 it is not known whether the loss of signal was caused by deliberate human action or from a catastrophic event.

The last radio message received by air traffic control - "Alright, roger that" - suggests everything was normal on board minutes before it went missing over the South China Sea.

What if a transponder fails, or is turned off?

If a transponder stops sending a signal, aircraft can still be tracked using what is essentially still the same form of radar developed in the 1930s.

Primary radar tracks anything in the sky which reflects transmitted radio signals. As such, it can only indicate the approximate position of an aircraft - it cannot identify it.

It is used today mainly as a back-up system to secondary radar.

Officials in Malaysia have suggested that primary radar tracking may yield information about the missing airliner's trajectory, but that the data requires detailed analysis by experts.

Don't planes have GPS?

Yes, but while GPS (Global Positioning System) is a staple of modern life, the world's air traffic control network is still almost entirely radar-based.

Aircraft use GPS to show pilots their position on a map, but this data is not currently shared with air traffic control.

Some of the most modern aircraft are able to 'uplink' GPS data to satellite tracking services, but handling large volumes of flight data is expensive and such systems are usually only used in remote areas with no radar coverage.

The disappearance of Flight MH370 is likely to bring renewed focus on whether mid-air tracking should be improved. I'd say that should be a priority.

http://www.bbc.com/news/w...c-26544554

Thanks. For the life of me I couldn't firgure out why they can't find this big ass, expensive aircraft. I didn't know there was that much expense involved in state of the art tracking.

It's always down to money.

Always...