MH370 confirmed crashed

March 25th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

The devastated relatives of passengers on board missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 must assume the plane is “lost” and the flight crashed in the Indian Ocean, the Malaysian PM says.

The families were called to meetings this morning to be told the fate of flight 370, which vanished on March 8 with 239 people, including two New Zealanders, aboard while en route from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing.

Those who could not attend received a text message or phone call from the airline confirming the terrible news.

New satellite analysis showed MH370 flew along the southern corridor and its last position was in the middle of the Indian Ocean west of Perth, representatives of the UK Air Investigation Branch had told Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

“This is a remote location, far from any possible landing sights,” Najib said today.

“It is, therefore, with deep sadness and regret that I must inform you that according to this new data flight MH370 ended in the southern Indian Ocean.”

I think this almost rules out terrorism.

Either it was a freak accident that overwhelmed the pilots, or it was one of the pilots.

I’m unconvinced that something like a fire on board would kill the pilots, yet allow the plane to keep flying for seven hours.

Also there is the mystery of the fact that the deviations from  the flight path appear to have been programmed into the computer in advance.

At least the families of those on dead have some certainty now, but questions will remain until at least the black box is found. Even then it may say little as it only has the last two hours of cockpit conversation, in the bizarre interests of pilot privacy protection. Anything short of a clear motive for or confession from a pilot will mean it remains a mystery.

Tags:

89 Responses to “MH370 confirmed crashed”

  1. dirty harry (525 comments) says:

    I reckon it was a hijacking gone bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. ChardonnayGuy (1,231 comments) says:

    My condolences to all those who lost family, partners and loved ones on MH370. No-one wanted it to end this way and my heart goes out to you. One hopes that the former rescue effort can now retrieve as many bodies as possible to provide them with some closure at this time of tragedy. As for MH370’s passengers, rest in peace.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. J Bloggs (251 comments) says:

    well, the cockpit voice recorder may only cover the last 2 hrs, but the flight data recorder should cover the entire flight, so may give some ideas.

    as for how it got there, it would be interesting to plot the projected path for the original flight plan onto a reciprocal heading (i.e. if the plane did a 180 turn to return home, then resumed flying the programmed course changes). Under that condition, would the original programmed flight plan end up putting the plane into the current search area?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. iMP (2,455 comments) says:

    TERRIBLE. The orgy of speculation in international media shows with all the technological capability in the world, it was little more than a conduit for meaningless opinion. Be good when the experts get to some data. facts and we get concise reports of actuals.

    This has also exposed the incompetence of the Malaysian government.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,760 comments) says:

    Kind of weird it all happening today. China spots something, then Australia spots something followed by a press conference based on the maths of Inmarsat.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    I am still going with my original thoughts from the beginning of this saga
    loon or loons gained flight deck
    intimidated air crew into hardware fiddling
    plane has flown “dead man” on auto pilot until running out of fuel…splash

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Tinshed (170 comments) says:

    My two cents worth: I agree wholeheartedly with iMP that this exposes the incompetence and systemic weakness of the Malaysian state and its agencies, including its airline. There is a whiff here of the endemic racism of Malaysia: the vast majority of passengers were Chinese and therefore we don’t really care what happened to them. They have handled this appalling and with a callous disregard for the families.

    And yes, my sincere condolences to the families of the passengers. The past weeks must have been a nightmare and I am not sure it is entirely over for them yet either.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    as for how it got there, it would be interesting to plot the projected path for the original flight plan onto a reciprocal heading (i.e. if the plane did a 180 turn to return home, then resumed flying the programmed course changes).

    Autopilots are programmed according to waypoints, thus this scenario is extremely implausible.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    This has also exposed the incompetence of the Malaysian government.

    Some Chinese have been very understanding about the competence of the Malaysian government. A comment on Weibo went something like “Look! The Malaysian bureaucrats are just like our own!” and was censored shortly afterwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    I agree wholeheartedly with iMP that this exposes the incompetence and systemic weakness of the Malaysian state and its agencies, including its airline.

    If the airline was as incompetence as you suggest, it would be reflected in its safety record and there would be a lot more crashes and near misses. The one thing the airline should have done was to raise the alarm once the plane went dark and not when the plane fails to turn up in Beijing.

    As for the military, they really don’t own a duty of care to the civilians. If the alarm had been raised, then they would have felt the need to do something about the mysterious body they saw on their radar.

    As for the Malaysian Search and Rescue effort, the circumstances of the crash are so sufficiently bizarre that it would tax even the most competent aviation authorities. It’s been a vertical learning curve so to speak.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Ed Snack (1,939 comments) says:

    Well, I’ve followed this pretty closely and I do think that you’re a little harsh on the Malaysians. This has been an unprecedented case; assuming that this is in fact correct (and it is the conclusion I came to about a week ago) then I don’t think we’ve seen another case quite like this. Whether it is a pilot suicide, bungled Hijack or even (although I think it extremely unlikely), a “ghost flight”, having an aircraft fly off into the most remote area available is just strange.

    This very strangeness has led to a lot of people postulating all sorts of theories. The now most obvious one, a pilot suicide with the decision (presumably) to try to make sure the aircraft is never found, is hard to accept. The various specialist blogs and comments boards are full of people who find that too hard to accept so come up with Lithium Battery fires (supposedly there were some in the hold), or some other scenario that led to decompression, and a ghost flight.

    In the light of this difficult to understand scenario, I can understand how the Malaysians took some time to be convinced.

    That said, I don’t think they acted particularly well, the radar data should have been clarified and released earlier. Regional tensions no doubt make cooperation locally slightly trick, but confirmation from radar from all neighbouring states should certainly have been sought (and the Thai data was withheld for a week or so because “they weren’t asked for it”).

    We’re still waiting on final confirmation from debris, perhaps today they’ll finally get a ship to the site of one of the aerial sightings.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. J Bloggs (251 comments) says:

    Metcalph: fair enough, I don’t claim to be an expert by any means on these matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. beautox (409 comments) says:

    Hardly “confirmed crashed” – sounds like “the latest theory” to me. Until they find some wreckage I don’t believe “confirmed” is the correct word to use.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. stephieboy (3,519 comments) says:

    I actually believe the Malaysian Aviation authorities did their best given the highly perplexing and still unexplained drastic deviation from the original flight path.
    Who would of thought this time last week that 370 had ended up in the drink so far from it’s flight path in the Southern Indian Ocean..?I note a number of so called aviation experts ,both here and elsewhere., propounding their theories in suitable technobabble but just as clueless and baffled as anyone else.
    Hopefully the FDR can be retrieved, but even then, it regrettably won’t stop stop the speculation of especially nutty Conspiracy theorists.!
    How would we handle it if e.g an Air NZ flight bound for Los Angeles suddenly lost contact two hours into the flight finally ending up somewhere in the far s eastern Antarctic ocean area south of Easter Island.?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    must assume

    Why must they assume? For the same reason that the Malaysians kept the facts from the public when Daud retracted his statement that flight 370 had flown west to the Strait of Malacca. Their delay in acknowledging the ACARS ping information also suggests that they were committed to finding an explanation that did not involve foreign interference.

    The most significant fact that is being kept from the public is the existence of Boeing’s uninterruptible autopilot, which reportedly is fitted to all Boeing aircraft. What is the point of having a secret mechanism which can take control of an airliner and land it, if not to take effect in situations like this?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. coge (189 comments) says:

    I think a series of events resulting from a single overpowering catastrophic event. The Malaysian timelines are still contradictory, in my view. Maybe a sudden depressurization, or toxic fumes. A digital aircraft can fly on as long as it’s airworthy & has fuel, doesn’t mean the passengers & crew were alive at the time. This is why it’s critical that the black boxes are recovered, to understand how it can be prevented in future.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Chinarugby (97 comments) says:

    Heard on ZB radio full interview with Peter Clarke (local aviation commentator) followed by USA ABC TV’s Chief aviation commentator and aviation author on what they felt was the most likely scenarios.

    Clarke went first and talked through a number of points such as the climbing of the aircraft to plus 44000 ft (potentially depressurise the cabin to cause paxs to draw on oxygen masks until unconcious), the heading change (a deliberate set of actions that couldn’t go unnoticed by second pilot – which means both pilots agreed to do it – neither requested the trip together – or one had been locked out of the flight deck ………..Clarke raised about 7 other key points.

    Then the ABC guy came on and was asked what he thought of Clarke’s summation – he agreed entirely.

    Both men concluded pilot suicide as being most likely given what is known to date.

    Those who think the aircraft may have been hijacked – there will have been ample time for the flight deck to issue a comm to the ATC and this did not happen. The quickest hijack into a flight deck would have taken 60 seconds to 2 minutes (physical door security processes) – again ample time for hijack codes to be issued to ATC.

    Furthermore a hijack would have had the cabin (passengers) in an uproar – there is no evidence of any passenger or crew attempting to use mobile devices to contact anyone on the ground.

    We will eventually have the full picture and yes its all educated deducing to this point.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    The Malaysian timelines are still contradictory, in my view. Maybe a sudden depressurization, or toxic fumes. A digital aircraft can fly on as long as it’s airworthy & has fuel, doesn’t mean the passengers & crew were alive at the time.

    If it flew in a straight line perhaps. But to make several independent turns over a period of a few hours to end up in an Oceanic Siberia bespeaks human action and not a cockpit fire, sudden depressurization etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    Who would of thought this time last week that 370 had ended up in the drink so far from it’s flight path in the Southern Indian Ocean..?

    If it wasn’t for the satellite data and if the wreckage were discovered washed up on Australia, I daresay we would have had people speculating about wormholes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    a deliberate set of actions that couldn’t go unnoticed by second pilot – which means both pilots agreed to do it

    Bollocks. All the pilot had to do was to ask the copilot to leave the cockpit on some pretext and the lock the cockpit door.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Chinarugby (97 comments) says:

    Ugly truth – do you take time to understand comments before you fire off responses?

    If you are going to quote someone please run the full quote to get CONTEXT, I said

    ….. or one had been locked out of the flight deck …

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Sorry Chinarugby, I’m very skeptical of anything coming from the MSM.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Manolo (14,166 comments) says:

    Could it be the work of one of those peaceful followers of the paedophile Mohammad? Oh no, UT is here!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Did you spend time as choirboy, Manolo? That might explain your fascination with paedophiles.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Nigel Kearney (1,096 comments) says:

    It’s possible a hijacker mis-programmed the navigation system and didn’t realize until too late that the auto-pilot had taken them to the middle of nowhere. I still don’t quite understand the motivation if it was the pilot: they were happy to kill all on board but carefully sent the plane far into the ocean to avoid killing anyone on the ground?

    The chaotic nature of the response by the authorities is understandable. My main criticism of the Malaysian authorities was the sad and predictable way they immediately started pushing the idea that the pilot was a dangerous lunatic after he turned out to be a supporter of the opposition.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Ed Snack (1,939 comments) says:

    UT, also there is a protocol for gaining access to the flight deck, but unless the two pilots were in agreement, one surely must have been incapacitated somehow.

    I think it is important to emphasize that the currently accepted official timeline includes the deliberate maneuvering of the aircraft after the transponder was either disabled or switched off. Those deliberate actions do most definitely not match what one would expect had there been some sort of on-board emergency like a fire. Thus if we accept this scenario, the aircraft was deliberately flown to the out of the way corner of the Indian Ocean for reasons as yet not clear but most probably pilot suicide.

    If you want to propose an alternative like some sort of fire or decompression event, you must either find a reasonable way to explain the aircraft’s track and heading changes, or disavow the official narrative. I also think that one probably also needs to explain why the official narrative should be so misleading, the wild conspiracy scenarios thus tend to emphasize the improbability of the alternative explanation.

    Sadly, even if the FL450 suggestion is an artifact of the military radar data, it seems most likely that the passengers and non-complicit crew were first rendered unconscious by the removal of cabin pressurization and the disabling of the passenger oxygen system (I believe that is possible from the cockpit), and then most died from the same over the course of the rest of the flight before it crashed. Because there are portable oxygen supplies for crew, it is at least likely the the aircraft was taken to FL400 or above for a brief period because that would ensure that those portable systems were more or less useless; one needs positive pressure oxygen at those sorts of levels.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. EAD (1,450 comments) says:

    I don’t know much about aeronautical engineering or how radar systems work (beyond the basic principle) but I’ve been more interested to watch how the media covers this and what I’ve experienced is that the people I talk to all want to talk about MOTIVE right off the bat. Even though we know fuck-all for sure, they want to start with motive (preferably involving religious fanatics, because that is easy on the palate).

    So I say, “Well, the USAF has the technological capability to hijack the plane and make it disappear from civilian ATC.”

    And then the response is, “But why would America do that?”

    By keeping critical information out of the news, the MSM has been leading the public on a wild goose chase.while bombarding people with speculation, they have basically engineered the desired response from the public. “Its a mystery! Trust the experts!”

    Even DPF above leads with a headline screaming MH370 CONFIRMED crashed then in the small print it goes on to say that people must “assume” the plane is lost.

    This story has holes all over it and using Occams Razor, whilst I don’t think the US is involved, the most logical explanation is that it was shot down by an East Asian military plane (don’t know from which country) and this can’t be made public due to the international furore it would cause and if you’ve worked in East Asia, you will understand their culture of “saving face” and that governments will do all they can to bury this story and obfuscate on the truth. Does anyone really believe in this day and age you can just disappear a 300 tonne plane?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. mara (769 comments) says:

    Show me the wreckage.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    “But why would America do that?”

    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/13

    Former US President George W Bush, his Vice-President Dick Cheney and six other members of his administration have been found guilty of war crimes by a tribunal in Malaysia.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Twinkletoes (54 comments) says:

    To the authorities the ‘dangerous lunatic theory’ was probably not just an fairytale idea. Govts. which prosecute political leaders for ‘sodomy’ don’t exactly seem rational to the rest of the world. Fanatical unbalanced minds are not unknown in this ideology as many infidels know to their cost.

    Last month the Malaysia decreed that legally “Sunni’ Islam would be the only recognised muslim sect – bodes ill for those who do not toe the line.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. EAD (1,450 comments) says:

    Has anyone seen this video doing the rounds on social media?

    It borders on tin foil hat theory but the music video is creepy, and shows people being watched and followed, as if some kind of intelligence operation is going on. The lyrics that has everyone up in arms are
    “No Ali, no Frasier, but for now it’s off to Malaysia/ Two passports, three cities, two countries, one day/Now that’s worldwide, if you think it’s a game, let’s play”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. edhunter (554 comments) says:

    Assuming we know that the plane did not kill everyone on board then divert itself to crash in the middle of the Indian Ocean & that it took over 2yrs to recover the black box from flight 447 (in much more hospitable conditions) only for the information to basically corroborate what was already known. How much effort & time should be put into the recovery of the black box & who pays? The bill for this search is already running into the 10’s if not 100’s of millions & is only going to cost millions more. I don’t think we’re going to learn anything that is going to revolutionise the aviation industry.
    Now the families are going to be in line for compensation, I don’t know how much & I know money wont bring their loved ones back but instead of wasting millions on a fruitless search why not give the families the some of the cash.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Fentex (1,134 comments) says:

    I reckon it was a hijacking gone bad.

    It seems like whoever controlled the flight intended to make the aircraft disappear without evidence, that could have been a pilot or hijacker.

    The only thing that occurs to me for a reason to hide the aircraft is to try and keep the flight recorders from being recovered so that the cause of the flights deviation and destruction could not be ascertained. Which leads me to suspect that either or both of intense shame and or an insurance claim are the motives.

    Perhaps a pilot/hijacker ashamed of some secret coming to the fore or a hijacker/pilot seeking an insurance payout seem most likely to me. The cockpit fire theory while elegantly simple seems to beg too many difficult questions more easily answered by a pilots agency.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Tautaioleua (324 comments) says:

    A text message to inform families that their loved ones are probably dead, and their bodies may never be recovered? seems a tad insensitive. Malaysia Airlines has an office in Beijing and it wouldn’t cost much to send a representative to the homes in person? maybe even with flowers?

    If anything, we can expect a drop in profit from the airline moving forward. Their handling of the crisis and their treatment of the families has been atrocious. I travel frequently, but never with this airline. I see no reason to change that anytime soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Ed Snack (1,939 comments) says:

    EAD, sure, shot down, by who ? If not the Malaysians themselves, do you think they might have objected by now ? The Chinese sure seem upset by the loss of their citizens, and they have access to what data there is including military radar tracks from Malaysia plus the Immarsat satellite data.

    The shot-down scenario is extremely unlikely unless you think that the UK and USA would actively collude with Malaysia to conceal such. Real tin-foil hat stuff this.

    I tend to prefer the pilot theory because it seems less likely that any hijacker would choose to “disappear” the aircraft. There are ways to make a hijack scenario work, but on the balance of probabilities, I think it most likely to be one or both of the pilots (or FO of course). Do note it is a “balance of probabilities” thing, we really can do little but speculate based on scanty data. Even the FR or CVR may well not clear things up. Also, if we go with a pilot suicide theory, it may well be that it was a “ghost flight” for the last hours. Once it turned South towards the empty ocean, the pilot or whoever could well have set the autopilot to track to 90S and then deactivate the pressurization in the aircraft (at FL350 say). He’d pass out fairly quickly along with everyone else, and probably die, and the aircraft would fly on until fuel starvation when it would probably glide into the ocean at cruising speed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “and the aircraft would fly on until fuel starvation when it would probably glide into the ocean at cruising speed.”

    Payne Stewart’s Lear jet nosedived into the ground after running out of fuel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    If you want to propose an alternative like some sort of fire or decompression event, you must either find a reasonable way to explain the aircraft’s track and heading changes, or disavow the official narrative.

    Ed, rejection (at least in part) of the “official” narrative can by argued from the the following: initially the ACARS pings were said to have indicated that the plane flew for 4 hours after it went missing. Later the pings were reported to have continued until 8:11, 7 & 1/2 hours after takeoff. Flight 370’s transponder stopped at 1:21, less than one hour after takeoff. There was no room for ambiguity in the ping data since, according to Inmarsat, each transmission from the aircraft contains data which identifies the aircraft. What seems to have happened is that Inmarsat has changed it’s story to make its flight time agree with the reported fuel time of 7 1/2 hours given by the Malaysians.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. J Bloggs (251 comments) says:

    As did Helios 522 (a 737) in Greece

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Michael (913 comments) says:

    I think suicide is unlikely – if the pilot or co-pilot got locked out of the cockpit and couldn’t re-enter they would enlist the passengers to break back in immediately. Flying for several hours afterward makes no sense, nor would it make any sense for a terrorist act as you’d want to ensure the world knew what happened.

    I read a theory that there was a fire in the cockpit, the first step for the crew is to shut down all the electrics then to divert to safety, then make radio communications. If the fire took out the systems for pressurising the plane and knocked out the crew before they could descend to safety the plane would have continued on course until it ran out of fuel. Like the Payne Stewart crash or the Helios crash in Greece. Seems to be the most plausible explanation given the evidence so far.

    However, it’s a sad case, and the confusion of the differing and conflicting reports and the delay in confirming the inevitable must have been total anguish for the families and friends of those on board.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Surely if the Pilot takes the plane to a place it was never meant to go, without permission of the airline, the owners, the passengers or air control, then it is, in essence, still a hijacking?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    I read a theory that there was a fire in the cockpit, the first step for the crew is to shut down all the electrics then to divert to safety, then make radio communications. If the fire took out the systems for pressurising the plane and knocked out the crew before they could descend to safety the plane would have continued on course until it ran out of fuel. Like the Payne Stewart crash or the Helios crash in Greece. Seems to be the most plausible explanation given the evidence so far.

    It would be plausible if it were not for the fact that the plane was turning for a few hours _after_ the plane went dark. A plausible theory must fit all the facts, not ignore three quarters of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    if the pilot or co-pilot got locked out of the cockpit and couldn’t re-enter they would enlist the passengers to break back in immediately.

    It wouldn’t work. The doors are reinforced, and unless you’ve got a battering ram on board only two people would be able to attack the door at once.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    initially the ACARS pings were said to have indicated that the plane flew for 4 hours after it went missing.

    False. What the Wall Street Journal reported was that aircraft health reports had been sent to Rolls Royce every 30 minutes for five hours. The WSJ did not state that the ACARS pings continued. Moreover the WSJ allegations were refuted – the last engine health report – was sent before the plane went dark and WSJ itself amended the report.

    Later the pings were reported to have continued until 8:11, 7 & 1/2 hours after takeoff. Flight 370′s transponder stopped at 1:21, less than one hour after takeoff. There was no room for ambiguity in the ping data since, according to Inmarsat, each transmission from the aircraft contains data which identifies the aircraft.

    If Inmarsat were to have said that the flight only remained aloft for 4 to 5 hours then you might have some grounds for suspicion. But Inmarsat was not the source of the original report and has not contradicted itself.

    What seems to have happened is that Inmarsat has changed it’s story to make its flight time agree with the reported fuel time of 7 1/2 hours given by the Malaysians

    Inmarsat has not changed its story. Inmarsat has no reason to change its story. Why Inmarsat should increase the number of pings in order to accord with the amount of fuel the plane had is something that goes unexplained by you but then again rational thinking is hardly a hallmark of conspiracy theorists.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    …the aircraft would fly on until fuel starvation when it would probably glide into the ocean at cruising speed.

    If it’s on autopilot would it not, after running out of fuel, attempt to maintain altitude through increasing angle of attack until it stalled?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Why Inmarsat should increase the number of pings in order to accord with the amount of fuel the plane had is something that goes unexplained by you but then again rational thinking is hardly a hallmark of conspiracy theorists.

    I’d have though that would be obvious: to support the idea that the plane had crashed because it had flown until its fuel had run out, rather then having landed somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Still thinking it’s been landed somewhere, Ugly?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    “initially the ACARS pings were said to have indicated that the plane flew for 4 hours after it went missing.”

    False. What the Wall Street Journal reported was that aircraft health reports had been sent to Rolls Royce every 30 minutes for five hours.

    Do you have a link for that? In this article the WSJ says:

    “The investigators believe the plane flew for a total of up to five hours, according to these people, based on analysis of signals sent by the Boeing 777’s satellite-communication link designed to automatically transmit the status of certain onboard systems to the ground.”

    Nothing there about health reports every 30 minutes….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Still thinking it’s been landed somewhere, Ugly?

    When the evidence that it has crashed looks like it has been fudged, then it makes sense to look at the next most probable alternative.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. stephieboy (3,519 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (2,436 comments) says:
    March 25th, 2014 at 11:08 am

    GWB, Cheney etc found guilty of War Crimes by a Tribunal in Malaysia.??
    Presumably the accused were afforded or allowed legal representation.?
    What conspiracy will you be hatching for 370 I wonder.?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    I don’t suppose you will give up on that hope until actual wreckage has been pulled out of the ocean. Although even then I wouldn’t put it past you to claim such a find as a hoax.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    Amongst the biggest of puzzles regardless of causes is why it turned hard left to fly west, then later turned hard right to fly south – or has that been explained?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Q Why then ugly do you consistently look at the most convulsed and improbable explanations for even simple details.

    The government flew two planes into the world trade center to cover the controlled detonation of the buildings.

    Terrorists hijacked two planes and flew them into buildings.

    Examine the needed co conspirators and potential for exposure for these two scenarios.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Examine the needed co conspirators and potential for exposure for these two scenarios.

    Or you could look at your two scenarios in terms of who benefits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. stephieboy (3,519 comments) says:

    U T , then who benefits from e.g the US Govt attacking its own nation 9/11.?
    Jews, Illuminati, NWO etc . ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    “We have benefited from the attacks on the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, as well as from the American war in Iraq. Those events tilted American public opinion in our favour, ” ~ Benyamin Netanyahu

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    stephieboy
    See, it was the Jews. I thought it might have been more shape-shifting reptilian aliens, but Ugly has put us on the right track.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. stephieboy (3,519 comments) says:

    The plot thickens 370 shoot down from the deluded one man band Veteran’s Today,

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/03/23/mh-370-shoot-down-the-plot-thickens/

    This’ll get UT , Reid etc worked up.!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Manolo (14,166 comments) says:

    One cannot but agree with stephieboy.
    UT, is the most weird defender of aliens, strange theories, and above all, peaceful Muslims. What a laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Ed Snack (1,939 comments) says:

    The reason I state that the T7 would have glided down (unlike the Helios flight or the Payne Stewart Learjet) is because that is how the T7 is setup to operate. Yes, it is different, but, it is a newer aircraft with different systems.

    As it has been explained to me, one engine would flame out first and the autopilot would attempt to maintain height and speed on the remaining engine. When that quit as well the autopilot would disengage from its settings and effectively maintain cruising speed, note that the speed is a mach % not an absolute speed, so a good deal slower at lower altitudes. The stable way to maintain speed is to glide down; it should avoid a stall. However we don’t know what was setup in the cockpit, that’s the default as I understand, but it isn’t certain that it would be followed.

    The aircraft will be at that point operating on emergency power, the APU should cut in when the engines quit but won’t have enough fuel to run for any period (it is run off the main tanks but will possibly have a little in the fuel feed system). An emergency ram-air system should deploy (basically a little wind-turbine pops up on the outside) and provide some limited power, but that doesn’t include the full autopilot features. It will power ailerons, rudder, etc.

    Both the Helios 737 and the Stewart Learjet went asymmetric when one engine went out and neither had a designed glide out feature, so both eventually became unstable and probably stalled or just went into a spiral dive until they litho-braked.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. stephieboy (3,519 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (2,439 comments) says:
    March 25th, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    First the source of the quote and more importantly the context Netenyhau made that alleged remark.
    You forgot about the Illuminati.
    Pray and enlighten us.?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    Nothing there about health reports every 30 minutes….

    Nothing there about Inmarsat either. So when are you going to retract your bullshit allegations?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Nothing there about Inmarsat either.

    Who else but Inmarsat could supply that information?

    So when are you going to retract your bullshit allegations?

    I haven’t made any bullshit allegations, asshole.

    http://dhahthidhonty.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/mystery-of-mh370-this-is-not-story-i.html

    The Wall Street Journal, citing sources in the US government, asserted that Rolls-Royce had received an aircraft health report every thirty minutes for five hours, implying that the aircraft had remained aloft for four hours after its transponder went offline.[26][27]
    The following day, the acting Transport Minister of Malaysia refuted the details of The Wall Street Journal report stating that the final engine transmission was received at 01:07, prior to the flight’s disappearance from secondary radar.[27] Follow-up reporting by Reuters suggested that the evidence may have taken the form of “pings” sent by the aircraft’s communication systems, and possibly not data (telemetry reports).[28]
    The Wall Street Journal later amended its report and stated simply that the belief of continued flight was “based on analysis of signals sent by the Boeing 777’s satellite-communication link… the link operated in a kind of standby mode and sought to establish contact with a satellite or satellites. These transmissions did not include data…”[9][10] Inmarsat said that “routine, automated signals were registered” on its network,[29] although a company executive did add that “keep-alive message[s]” continued to be sent after air traffic control first lost contact and that these “ping signals” could be analysed to help estimate the aircraft’s location.[30]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Ed Snack, in these days of hijackers, suicidal pilots and pilotless drones why can transponders still be turned off and airliners not be controlled from the ground when things are obviously going tits up? An unreasonable deviation from the flight plan should be enough to make the pilot just another passenger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    Who else but Inmarsat could supply that information?

    The original claim was about Rolls-Royce, not Inmarsat, your contemptible lies notwithstanding. And the WSJ credited US government sources, not Inmarsat. So Inmarsat made no claim.

    I haven’t made any bullshit allegations, asshole

    Whoops. There goes another bullshit allegation.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    The original claim was about Rolls-Royce, not Inmarsat

    Fuck off, metcalph. The first mention of Rolls-Royce in this page is in my post of 4:00pm, and that was after I asked the question of: “Who else but Inmarsat could supply that information?”, to which you just responded.

    your contemptible lies notwithstanding

    What lies, asshole? Put up or STFU.

    And the WSJ credited US government sources, not Inmarsat. So Inmarsat made no claim.

    Have you got shit for brains, metcalf? I never said that Inmarsat made any claim. What I said was: “What seems to have happened is that Inmarsat has changed it’s story to make its flight time agree with the reported fuel time of 7 1/2 hours given by the Malaysians.”

    There goes another bullshit allegation.

    I called you an asshole because of your false accusation, metcalph. My statement that Inmarsat seemed to be involved in fudging the data is not an allegation of fact, it is a statement about perception or appearances.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    Ed Snack (1,484 comments) says:
    March 25th, 2014 at 3:04 pm

    The reason I state that the T7 would have glided down (unlike the Helios flight or the Payne Stewart Learjet) is because that is how the T7 is setup to operate. Yes, it is different, but, it is a newer aircraft with different systems.

    As it has been explained to me, one engine would flame out first and the autopilot would attempt to maintain height and speed on the remaining engine. When that quit as well the autopilot would disengage from its settings and effectively maintain cruising speed, note that the speed is a mach % not an absolute speed, so a good deal slower at lower altitudes. The stable way to maintain speed is to glide down; it should avoid a stall. However we don’t know what was setup in the cockpit, that’s the default as I understand, but it isn’t certain that it would be followed.

    Interesting, looks like you are right. Just ran a simulation using PMDG’s 737-900 (don’t have their 777 but this next gen 737 is new as well) and ran the engines till they quit at FL300 and mach 0.77. PMDG aircraft models are reportedly very accurate so thought this would be a good test.

    As engines stop the speed starts reducing and the autopilot at first maintains altitude by raising the nose. Through 170 kts IAS the autopilot disengages and the aircraft then made a glide at approx 165-170 kts all the way down. As you said, the RAT deploys providing some limited electrical power. Ran the simulation in calm conditions so perhaps worth trying to see what might happen if the conditions aren’t as smooth since I assume no control inputs were made at this point in the flight.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. metcalph (1,367 comments) says:

    I never said that Inmarsat made any claim.

    There goes another lie. At 13:31 pm you wrote:

    What seems to have happened is that Inmarsat has changed it’s story to make its flight time agree with the reported fuel time of 7 1/2 hours given by the Malaysians

    For them to have changed their story implies that the original claim came from them. Also your statement “Who else but Inmarsat could supply that information?” implies they made the original statement. You can’t have it both ways, liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    There goes another lie.

    Just like your other fictions, right?
    Again, put up or STFU.

    For them to have changed their story implies that the original claim came from them

    What original claim, exactly? You said: “The original claim was about Rolls-Royce, not Inmarsat…”, but the first mention of Rolls-Royce was my quote: “The Wall Street Journal, citing sources in the US government, asserted that Rolls-Royce had received an aircraft health report every thirty minutes for five hours, implying that the aircraft had remained aloft for four hours after its transponder went offline.[26][27]”

    If your “original claim” is that Rolls-Royce had received health reports for five hours, then that claim implies that the Malaysians have been lying about when those health reports actually stopped. If we assume that the Malaysians are not lying and that the WSJ was correcting a mistake when it removed the reference to the health reports, then there remains evidence of conspiracy involving US sources operating in colour of government.

    Also, the claim does not mention Inmarsat as a source. One possible answer to my question of “who else but Inmarsat could supply that information?”, is that the information was supplied by US sources that the Wall Street Journal believed were from the government.

    Also your statement “Who else but Inmarsat could supply that information?” implies they made the original statement.

    Hey idiot, it wasn’t a rhetorical question. The context was my statement that: “what seems to have happened is that Inmarsat has changed it’s story…”. Not everything is as it seems to be.

    You can’t have it both ways, liar.

    GOLF CLAP.
    Again, where is the evidence that supports your allegation?
    It’s you that is stuck on the horns of the dilemma, not me.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    I’ll believe it’s in the Indian Ocean when they pull up some positively, identifiable wreckage.

    Till then I prefer to believe that it’s parked up in Somalia with some Al Qaeda chaps getting it ready for it’s next mission.

    If it was pilot suicide the nearest terrain would have done. Why go to such lengths to hide the flightpath?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Anyway Inmarsat is a bloody pommie outfit.

    Their technology is probably about as good as the design of the Austin Maxi was! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Don the Kiwi (1,808 comments) says:

    Piss off Johnboy.

    The Austin Maxi was a great car – I had one – well, it was a company car, so it was free, and that was great. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Johnboy (17,015 comments) says:

    Obviously your company never valued you much Don! They would have bought you an Austin Princess if they had! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Morris 2200

    Ha ha ha

    Brilliant car

    let down yet again by poor r&d lack of investment into devalopement and marxist unioms.

    Yes princess was soooo ugly

    It was conceived as a hatch

    Built as a sedan

    So it would not compete for the market of the already outdated and unreliable maxi.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Don the Kiwi (1,808 comments) says:

    Actually Johnboy, i only had it for about 4 months – the thing was a hand me down while I was waiting for my proper car – then they gave me Mk III Cortina 2 ltr. O’head cam baby – that little sucker could smoke.

    Remember its the mid ’70’s I’m talking about. I was branch manager for Fisher Windows in Rotorua at the time.
    Them were the days – free car, free booze on the expense account :-) – sales conference at some exotic location each year. They were a very good company to work for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    The Doppler Effect:
    The information obtained by Inmarsat through measurement of the Doppler effect is limited to the radial velocity of the airliner relative to the satellite. The MSM narrative implies that the pings didn’t give Inmarsat any information about airspeed or altitude, only about how fast the plane was moving toward their satellite which is in geosynchronous orbit about 22,000 miles above the equator. Since the satellite only measures radial velocity via the Doppler effect, the only information about position that Inmarsat can derive from those measurements is radial position.

    If all you’ve got is radial position then you have no way of knowing if the plane went north or south. Likewise there is no way of knowing where in the corridor the plane is. One wonders what reason there could be for picking a spot in the most remote and inhospitable place possible….

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    http://www.adn.com/2014/03/24/3392065/china-demands-malaysia-turn-over.html

    KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — China demanded that Malaysia turn over the satellite data used to conclude that a Malaysia Airlines jetliner had crashed in the southern Indian Ocean, killing everyone on board, as gale-force winds and heavy rain on Tuesday halted the search for remains of the plane.

    “We’re not searching for a needle in a haystack — we’re still trying to define where the haystack is,” Australia’s deputy defense chief, Air Marshal Mark Binskin, told reporters at a military base in Perth as idled planes stood behind him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Dave Mann (1,240 comments) says:

    My experience of Malaysian Airlines was quite different They only cocked up an overnight stopover in KL on my way to Europe and left me stranded in a taxi driving around without food or sleep for 6 hours. I was really hacked off…. but compared to these poor people I had a dream holiday.

    The captain probably had a religious vision which convinced him that the prophet (God piss on him) wanted him to spirit the infidels away for some reason. Who knows what madness grips the Muslim mind? Obviously the Malaysian government will be shitting themselves trying to hide the truth by any means possible and I wouldn’t trust anything that they say on the subject, frankly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. V (763 comments) says:

    It’s pretty clear to me Robin Bain was somehow involved, Joe said so.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Chuck Bird (4,892 comments) says:

    “Who knows what madness grips the Muslim mind?”

    The have been at least two probably pilot suicides in commercial aircraft. One was SILK Air and the other was in Africa from memory. I wonder if those pilots were Muslim as well.

    According to this morning’s Herald it looks like a cover up but a fellow pilot thinks differently.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11226334

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Dave Mann (1,240 comments) says:

    @chuck. This wasn’t ‘pilot suicide’. If you want to commit suicide you don’t fly along for hours first; you just crash the bloody thing. This was something else….. and frankly I doubt the story that the airplane crashed anywhere in the Indian Ocean. It’ll be somewhere in a Muslim controlled country and the poor, poor passengers will have been garrotted according to some filthy religious custom. 154 (passengers) is probably a holy number in their psychotic religion of peace. Look for a reference in the Koran to approximately this number of their prophet’s followers being killed, or something. Or maybe this Allah character demanded the heads of 150 infidels for some reason.

    I feel so sorry for the innocent people who have been killed in this affair. It must have been terrifying to realise that they weren’t going home.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Chuck Bird (4,892 comments) says:

    @Dave. Do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

    “If you want to commit suicide you don’t fly along for hours first”

    Did you read the Herald article? He could have deliberately depressurized killing everyone including himself and let the plane fly on autopilot where he thought if was unlikely to be found. He may have succeeded or we may find out shortly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    From the Herald article:

    “… It’s a takeover of the aircraft, it can only be the pilot.”

    Here’s an interview with Field McConnell about the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/new-autopilot-will-make-another-911-impossible-7239651.html

    Published: 03 March 2007
    A hijack-proof piloting system for airliners is being developed to prevent terrorists repeating the 9/11 outrages.

    The mechanism is designed to make it impossible to crash the aircraft into air or land targets – and enable the plane to be flown by remote control from the ground in the event of an emergency.

    ….

    The so-called ‘uninterruptible autopilot system’ – patented secretly by Boeing in the US last week – will connect ground controllers and security services with the aircraft using radio waves and global satellite positioning systems.

    After it has been activated, the aircraft will be capable of remote digital control from the ground, enabling operators to fly it like a sophisticated model plane, manoeuvring it vertically and laterally.

    A threatened airliner could be flown to a secure military base or a commercial airport, where it would touch down using existing landing aids known as ‘autoland function’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Chuck Bird (4,892 comments) says:

    UT, can you not see a problem with such a system?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    I guess the obvious problem is that if the system was hacked then you could fly the plane into your target of choice, no need for suicidal terrorist pilots or anything.

    http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2002359561_boeingqrs06.html

    The State Department has prepared civil charges against Boeing alleging 94 violations of the Arms Control Act because the company sold commercial airliners without obtaining an export license for a tiny gyrochip that has defense applications.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Technical Briefing

    The position of the satellite is known, and the time that it takes the signal to be sent and received, via the satellite, to the ground station can be used to establish the range of the aircraft from the satellite. This information was used to generate arcs of possible positions from which the Northern and Southern corridors were established.

    The signal transit time can be used to measure the distance between the aircraft and the satellite (also called the range). For any given distance there will be an arc of possible locations on the surface of the earth from which the aircraft could have sent that signal. If a range of possible altitudes is considered then the arc gets thicker.

    Refined analysis from Inmarsat
    In recent days Inmarsat developed a second innovative technique which considers the velocity of the aircraft relative to the satellite. Depending on this relative movement, the frequency received and transmitted will differ from its normal value, in much the same way that the sound of a passing car changes as it approaches and passes by. This is called the Doppler effect. The Inmarsat technique analyses the difference between the frequency that the ground station expects to receive and that actually measured. This difference is the result of the Doppler effect and is known as the Burst Frequency Offset.

    The velocity of the aircraft relative to the satellite is measured as the Burst Frequency Offset (BFO). All that is being measured here is the rate of change of the distance which was measured from the signal transit time. No new information about the position of the aircraft on the arc is available, only information about how the arc is moving towards or away from the point on the equator that is directly under the satellite.

    The Burst Frequency Offset changes depending on the location of the aircraft on an arc of possible positions, its direction of travel, and its speed.

    Technically this is true, but the statement only serves to obscure the known (Doppler) relationship between BFO and the radial velocity of the aircraft relative the the satellite.

    In order to establish confidence in its theory, Inmarsat checked its predictions using information obtained from six other B777 aircraft flying on the same day in various directions. There was good agreement.

    No theory has been described consistent with any “innovative technique”, the relationship between radial velocity and Doppler shift of electromagnetic signals is pretty standard stuff. Without a working theory the reported agreement with predictions means nothing.

    While on the ground at Kuala Lumpur airport, and during the early stage of the flight, MH370 transmitted several messages. At this stage the location of the aircraft and the satellite were known, so it was possible to calculate system characteristics for the aircraft, satellite, and ground station.

    This means nothing in terms of verification unless the nature of the system is described.

    During the flight the ground station logged the transmitted and received pulse frequencies at each handshake. Knowing the system characteristics and position of the satellite it was possible, considering aircraft performance, to determine where on each arc the calculated burst frequency offset fit best.

    Since no theoretical basis for the calculations has been described this is simply an unsupported assertion.

    The analysis showed poor correlation with the Northern corridor, but good correlation with the Southern corridor, and depending on the ground speed of the aircraft it was then possible to estimate positions at 0011 UTC, at which the last complete handshake took place. I must emphasise that this is not the final position of the aircraft.

    No verifiable reason has been given to favour the southern corridor.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Still hoping the aircraft will be found at some secret CIA airbase in central Asia, eh Ugly?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. UglyTruth (4,554 comments) says:

    Seems that a 777 from Miami got escorted out of Dutch airspace. Is this really a coincidence with the nuclear summit being held at the Hague?

    http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/binnenland/twee-f-16s-onderscheppen-vrachttoestel

    Translated via Google:

    Two F-16s intercepted freighter

    From the Brabant Volkel airbase, two F-16s took off to intercept. A freighter
    It turned out this was a cargo plane, a Boeing 777F LAN Cargo, which was en route to the airport. The unit flew from Miami in Dutch airspace and they could not connect to the device.

    A spokesman for the Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security unit had previously requested permission for the flight. That is because of the nuclear security summit in The Hague is mandatory.

    The jets have the cargo plane accompanied this had left. Dutch airspace The unit flew independently to the airport in Frankfurt, Germany.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. stephieboy (3,519 comments) says:

    U T, this will get you going into conspiracy overdrive ,

    A tiny Microchip was the likely cause for Pentagon attack on Flight MH370,

    http://www.rense.com/general96/tinymicro.html

    You don’t believe this clap trap by chance.?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote