• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 ended in the Southern Indian Ocean

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HoosTrax

Member
Sectorseven said:
Not a problem at all.
poguespan.jpg
Click to expand...
omg...haha...Mythbusters tested this as I recall, although it was with a propeller plane. But I imagine a jet should have no trouble taking off either right?

I love the "thought experiment" Mythbuster episodes, including the one where they tested whether a truck full of pigeons weighs the same regardless of if the birds are in flight inside, or roosting.
 
D

DeadlyParasite

Member
I wonder what the end-game here is for terrorists. If the target is the United States they're going to up against interceptors and the most advanced military in the world.

If they think hostages are a deterrent for military action they are sadly mistaken. Didn't they shoot down one of the hijacked planes over Pennsyl during 9/11?
 
H

HoosTrax

Member
DeadlyParasite said:
I wonder what the end-game here is for terrorists. If the target is the United States they're going to up against interceptors and the most advanced military in the world.

If they think hostages are a deterrent for military action they are sadly mistaken. Didn't they shoot down one of the hijacked planes over Pennsyl during 9/11?
Click to expand...
United 93 was not shot down. The passengers breached the cockpit and the hijackers had no alternative but to fly it into the ground once it became clear they would not reach their intended target.
 
C

cdkee

Banned
HoosTrax said:
United 93 was not shot down. The passengers breached the cockpit and the hijackers had no alternative but to fly it into the ground once it became clear they would not reach their intended target.
Click to expand...

I honestly have no idea what happened. Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if it was shot down.
 
R

robertsan21

Member
HoosTrax said:
United 93 was not shot down. The passengers breached the cockpit and the hijackers had no alternative but to fly it into the ground once it became clear they would not reach their intended target.
Click to expand...

you have to remember, if it was shot down, we would never know about it. there is no way the US would ever admit they shot a passenger plane down.
 
H

HoosTrax

Member
cdkee said:
I honestly have no idea what happened. Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if it was shot down.
Click to expand...
Um are you indulging in 9-11 conspiracy theories? Or are you really unaware of the contents of the United 93 cockpit voice recording and the cell phone conversations between the pax and their families?

Edit: oh wow at the two posts above lol
 
M

maquiladora

Member
DeadlyParasite said:
I wonder what the end-game here is for terrorists. If the target is the United States they're going to up against interceptors and the most advanced military in the world.

If they think hostages are a deterrent for military action they are sadly mistaken. Didn't they shoot down one of the hijacked planes over Pennsyl during 9/11?
Click to expand...

Hostages would make no sense. There are a million easier ways to grab hostages than this.

The US would seem a very risky target in the post 9/11 world to try and approach with any kind of unknown aircraft. But if you really want to go down the Tom Clancy route then maybe you could imagine the plane's transponder being spoofed to look like a legit flight.
 
B

btkadams

Member
robertsan21 said:
you have to remember, if it was shot down, we would never know about it. there is no way the US would ever admit they shot a passenger plane down.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't they? Isn't that why the fighter jets are up in the air during hijackings?

This is getting off topic though.
 
M

Mully

Member
maquiladora said:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...6580350.html?mod=WSJEurope_hpp_LEFTTopStories

This shit is crazy. If that is true...perhaps this is the reason why it happened to a 777-200ER (14,300 km range)....
Click to expand...

This might be pushing it, but that Ethiopian crash near the coast was due to low fuel because hijackers took over the plane and tried to turn a two hour flight into a journey across the Indian Ocean to Australia. Maybe that's what happened here?

I hate to put the hijacking theory out there, but given this information, it seems plausible as the, "small crack in the fuselage incapacitated both the people inside and comms, and flew across the Indian Ocean theory."

Again, I'd like to stress that I was and still am against the hijacker theory, but some evidence, passengers seeking asylum, transponders turned off, etc seem similar enough to an attempt to try the Ethiopian hijacking again with knowledge to turn off the transponder in a post 9/11 world.
 
C

cdkee

Banned
HoosTrax said:
Um are you indulging in 9-11 conspiracy theories? Or are you really unaware of the contents of the United 93 cockpit voice recording and the cell phone conversations between the pax and their families?

Edit: oh wow at the two posts above lol
Click to expand...

Even if the conversations stated "we're going to stop these guys!", that doesn't mean they succeeded.
 
C

Coins

Banned
KHarvey16 said:
TWA 800 had a fuel tank explode. That conclusion is completely airtight.
Click to expand...

Watch the documentary on netflix. How many people have to say they saw a missile streak towards the plane? Or how about how the investigators were told what they saw? Or how the FBI was caught on surveillance cameras altering evidence? Or how they have radar showing a missile hit?

Sorry man, a US sub shot it by accident.
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
Coins said:
Watch the documentary on netflix. How many people have to say they saw a missile streak towards the plane? Or how about how the investigators were told what they saw? Or how the FBI was caught on surveillance cameras altering evidence? Or how they have radar showing a missile hit?

Sorry man, a US sub shot it by accident.
Click to expand...

The documentary is nonsense. Of the 700 something witnesses (who were all interviewed by the FBI under the assumption this was a terrorist attack, mind you), 200 something claimed to see a streak of light. Most of these matched up perfectly with the flight path of the plane itself, meaning all they saw was the trail of the jet. Additionally they ran tests to see what a missile would actually look like and no one's description even came close to what an actual missile firing looks like. No objects were detected on any radar and nothing in, on or around the plane suggested a warhead exploded either inside or outside the plane. It's very easy to tell the different between a high explosive warhead and a fuel explosion from inside the aircraft.
 
E

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
The theory on TWA800 was that Ramzi Youssef was behind blowing it up so that he could file for mistrial the next day, so the US blew up the plane to prevent him from doing so.

Yes Dailymail but the article is interesting.
http://www.*****************/news/a...crets-TWA-800-crash-mafia-capo-jail-cell.html

From what I read, he was in court the day following the explosion, and filed for mistrial (which was rejected by the judge).

edit: Personally I think people probably saw the contrail of the plane, like that one that happened recently and people thought it was a missile. What looks like something that is going up can look like something going forward.
 
C

Coins

Banned
KHarvey16 said:
The documentary is nonsense. Of the 700 something witnesses (who were all interviewed by the FBI under the assumption this was a terrorist attack, mind you), 200 something claimed to see a streak of light. Most of these matched up perfectly with the flight path of the plane itself, meaning all they saw was the trail of the jet. Additionally they ran tests to see what a missile would actually look like and no one's description even came close to what an actual missile firing looks like. No objects were detected on any radar and nothing in, on or around the plane suggested a warhead exploded either inside or outside the plane. It's very easy to tell the different between a high explosive warhead and a fuel explosion from inside the aircraft.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you didn't watch the documentary. I was watching CNN that day and saw live witnesses on TV, who weren't being interviewed under the assumption that a terrorist attack happened, and they all described a fast streaking light. The documentary was done by a professional journalist who has won numerous awards and worked on 60 minutes and a professional physicist. The documentary pretty much refutes every facet of your reply. You should check it out.
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
Coins said:
I'm going to assume you didn't watch the documentary. I was watching CNN that day and saw live witnesses on TV, who weren't being interviewed under the assumption that a terrorist attack happened, and they all described a fast streaking light. The documentary was done by a professional journalist who has won numerous awards and worked on 60 minutes and a professional physicist. The documentary pretty much refutes every facet of your reply. You should check it out.
Click to expand...

I know all of the claims and all of them are ridiculous. It's complete nonsense. There was absolutely no missile, there were no craft in the area capable of firing a missile and nothing on the airplane suggest a missile. Again, they test fired a missile during the investigation and no one who claimed to see a missile on that night described anything even close to what it actually looks like. This has been debunked for years and years now.
 
C

Coins

Banned
KHarvey16 said:
I know all of the claims and all of them are ridiculous. It's complete nonsense. There was absolutely no missile, there were no craft in the area capable of firing a missile and nothing on the airplane suggest a missile. Again, they test fired a missile during the investigation and no one who claimed to see a missile on that night described anything even close to what it actually looks like. This has been debunked for years and years now.
Click to expand...

So you haven't watched it because the subject is bunk, in your opinion? I'm also surprised that you know there weren't any subs in the area capable if firing a missile. You must have a pretty high security clearance.
 
D

Dryk

Member
HoosTrax said:
This one I can easily wrap my head around. It's the Myth busters one where a truck carrying birds does not weigh less when the birds are hovering that I still don't understand.
Click to expand...
The birds generate thrust by flapping their wings. The resulting pressure waves interact with the floor of the truck applying the same amount of force to it.
 
M

Mully

Member
Coins said:
So you haven't watched it because the subject is bunk, in your opinion? I'm also surprised that you know there weren't any subs in the area capable if firing a missile. You must have a pretty high security clearance.
Click to expand...

People don't need to watch a shitty documentary about irrelevant facts and eyewitnesses who feel like their testimony should be more important, when there are numerous studies and experiments done to show how ignorant TWA 800 conspiracy theorists are.
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
Coins said:
So you haven't watched it because the subject is bunk, in your opinion? I'm also surprised that you know there weren't any subs in the area capable if firing a missile. You must have a pretty high security clearance.
Click to expand...

I don't have to watch it to look at what the claims are. It's the same stuff it's been for years, and it's just as wrong now as it was back in the 90's. There were no subs there and no craft detected on any radar. Any claims of subs being there would need to provide evidence they were, and circular reasoning in the form of "we know a sub was there because a missile was fired, and we know a missile was fired because a sub was there" doesn't count.
 
MidgarBlowedUp

MidgarBlowedUp

Member
I'm all for conspiracy theorists ideas, especially if they make some sense or ask good questions. But I really think, with very high certainty, that the TWA flight 800 crash/explosion was from a fuel tank. They even went so far as to collect as many pieces as they could and actually reconstructed a large portion of the plane. And even reconstructed the flight path with computer calculations.

Anyway, um.. back on topic.
 
F

Falk

that puzzling face
Yesterday: Aliens and chairs-turning-into-capsules-before-being-ejaculated

Today: _______


edit: ejected*
 
L

Ludovico

Member
Dryk said:
The birds generate thrust by flapping their wings. The resulting pressure waves interact with the floor of the truck applying the same amount of force to it.
Click to expand...

Just about to get in bed, and I just have to say this explanation is bananas. That and the treadmill picture might keep me up tonight.


On topic, this whole situation is crazy. You'd think Occam's Razor and all, but how long until we're able to spot SOMETHING signifying it was a crash?
 
C

Chezzymann

Member
Can someone explain to me like I'm 5 how the plane in the treadmill picture would take off, I read a bunch of Internet arguments and I'm confused. How could the plane be be pushing against the air on the treadmill if the air is stationary?
 
F

Falk

that puzzling face
Ludovico said:
Just about to get in bed, and I just have to say this explanation is bananas.
Click to expand...

How so? Although the alternative experiment (helicopter in a box, rather than birds in a box) is probably slightly easier to grasp conceptually as that's a single, neat object.

It's like sitting on a stick, holding it and lifting and expecting to float. Just because you're sitting on it and lifting doesn't mean you're going to suddenly defy the laws of physics.
 
D

Dryk

Member
Chezzymann said:
Can someone explain to me like I'm 5 how the plane in the treadmill picture would take off, I read a bunch of Internet arguments and I'm confused. How could the plane be be pushing against the air on the treadmill if the air is stationary?
Click to expand...
You may be confusing a regular jet engine with a ramjet. Could you explain how the problem does or doesn't work in your head?
 
B

BunnyBear

Member
Well, I hope we get some news soon because this off-topic stuff is a little painful...

The media here are starting to lose interest with such a lack of news on the story.
 
C

cdkee

Banned
Chezzymann said:
Can someone explain to me like I'm 5 how the plane in the treadmill picture would take off, I read a bunch of Internet arguments and I'm confused. How could the plane be be pushing against the air on the treadmill if the air is stationary?
Click to expand...

The plane needs to have air passing under its wings to fly. If it's stationary, yes the jets are on but the jets propel it forward only.
 
S

sonikokaruto

Banned
cdkee said:
The plane needs to have air passing under its wings to fly. If it's stationary, yes the jets are on but the jets propel it forward only.
Click to expand...

actually, the plane needs the air over it's wings, so the pressure under it increases and the pressure over it decreases, thus, creating lift
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
More data to add to the confusion: "Chinese scientists observe 'seismic event' on sea floor, as US points towards Indian Ocean in MH370 mystery"

A team of seismologists at one of China's top universities said they had detected a slight seismic event on the sea floor between Vietnam and Malaysia on March 8, which might be consistent with an airplane crashing into the sea, and possibly related to the missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370.

The discovery, posted on the website of the University of Science and Technology of China on Friday, is the latest of many possible leads in the massive international search operation for the Malaysian Airlines flight after it lost contact with air traffic control and dropped off radar screens in the early hours of March 8, with 239 people on board.

The Chinese scientists, with the university's Laboratory of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior, said in their online statement that the signal they had picked up from two seismic monitor stations in Malaysia seemed to indicate that a slight tremor occurred on the sea floor at about 2.55am on March 8, some 150 kilometres off the southern tip of Vietnam.

"It was a non-seismic zone, therefore judging from the time and location of the event, it might be related to the missing MH370 flight," said the statement.

The seismic event happened about 85 minutes after MH370 lost contact with air control, and about 116 km northeast of the spot where it was reportedly last heard from.

“If it was indeed an airplane crashing into the sea, the seismic wave strength indicated that the crash process was catastrophic," the statement said.
Click to expand...

I still don't fully understand the significance of the western blue circle on this image (from the above article), but dear Lord, those little spikes in the seismogram in the lower-right corner are eerie, given what they may represent.

COdMuyW.jpg


A South China Sea map showing the possible location of the tremor on the sea floor (red star) and the two Malaysian seismic monitor stations (blue triangles).
Click to expand...

Here's how a Google-translated caption from the original University press release describes the image:

Black five-pointed star is March 8, 2014 Malaysia MH370 flight to Beijing lost contact position; red five-pointed star is detected seabed event location; blue triangle seismic stations (due to weak signal, only two distance events The nearest station clearly identifiable seismic phases). Black waveform is observed seismograms, shear waves and compression waves marked with S and P, respectively. Pink circles under the shear waves and compression waves stations may take the position determined by the difference of the event, and the purple curve under compression waves may go directly to the position of the two stations to determine the difference events; purple and pink circles location at the junction of the curve to determine the submarine incident (blue circle is the place of the error range).
Click to expand...
 
F

Falk

that puzzling face
Press conference should be in 70 minutes, for what it's worth. We'll see.

edit

I still don't fully understand the significance of the western blue circle on this image (from the above article),
Click to expand...

I -believe- it may be a plot triangulating the two possibilities based on the difference in time that the two stations picked up the event. The map is probably just showing both possibilities regardless of the fact that the Eastern one is the logically deducible source of the seismic event.
 
Fjolle

Fjolle

Member
Metaphoreus said:
More data to add to the confusion: "Chinese scientists observe 'seismic event' on sea floor, as US points towards Indian Ocean in MH370 mystery"



I still don't fully understand the significance of the western blue circle on this image (from the above article), but dear Lord, those little spikes in the seismogram in the lower-right corner are eerie, given what they may represent.
Click to expand...

The western blue circle is the other possibility. As there are only two measurement points the "event" might have occurred on two different points.
 
T

Totakeke

Member
That Chinese seismic data sounds hopeful, though that also makes me wonder why are they expending so much effort on the Malacca straits to the Indian Ocean while not expanding much of their search areas in the South China Sea? Are they assuming other countries have that covered?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MH370: When does the time come to say "enough is enough"?
2
99
16K
Chiggs replied
  • Locked
After 3 years, search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 officially ends
34
5K
crackhead_bob replied
  • Locked
Mask Efficacy |OT| Wuhan!! Got You All In Check
763 764 765 766 767
38K
2M
EviLore replied
The shit refuses to end for Malaysia Airlines
0
2K
Machina replied
  • Locked
Part found on Reunion Island is from missing flight MH370
38
4K
dluu13 replied
Top Bottom