« prev   random   next »

5
0

Flight 370 Theories

By APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch following x   2014 Mar 12, 8:22pm 32,122 views   137 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


It was ethnic Uighur go-go dancers who snuck into the cockpit by waving their tongues at the co-pilot through the peep hole.

« First    « Previous    Comments 97 - 136 of 136    Last »

98   Vicente   ignore (0)   2014 Mar 18, 3:44pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Here's another scenario.

One of the pilots kills the other, then inputs a course track that will take the plane out to sea until it runs out of fuel. Then kills himself.

It's nighttime, passengers are asleep. They wake up and wonder why they don't see land. Pound on the door, maybe even break in. Too late, out of fuel!

Chilling.

99   curious2   ignore (0)   2014 Mar 18, 5:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reportedly, the turn was already programmed into the computer prior to takeoff, which is consistent with this accident theory.

100   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2014 Mar 18, 11:52pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Vicente says

2 radar stations in Malaysia evidently tracked this thing but did nothing. I'm curious to hear what story they told their bosses.

Were you expecting them to admit to being asleep at the helm?

102   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2014 Mar 19, 12:06am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

If it's on internet it doesn't mean it's true.

curious2 says

Reportedly, the turn was already programmed into the computer prior to takeoff, which is consistent with this accident theory.

103   HydroCabron   ignore (1)   2014 Mar 19, 2:31am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

I'm thinking they're with Amelia Earhart, which means she's fine, and they're pretty much living the life, harvesting coconuts for food; we know this to be a sustainable diet thanks to the research performed on Gilligan's Island.

104   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (41)   2014 Mar 19, 2:39am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Iosef V HydroCabron says

'm thinking they're with Amelia Earhart, which means she's fine, and they're pretty much living the life, harvesting coconuts for food; we know this to be a sustainable diet thanks to the research performed on Gilligan's Island.

Will they eat them, or press them into tanning butter for Amelia to slather all over the women passengers before she dines on their nethers?

105   corntrollio   ignore (1)   2014 Mar 19, 2:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I saw this last night, and so far this fire theory seems more plausible than a lot of the tin-foil hat stuff:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

The 45,000 feet reading still seems like a red herring. This has always seemed to me to be an amateur theory based on lay (i.e. extremely poor) understanding of flight. We haven't had that number confirmed yet (especially given the characteristics of the plane at the time), and the radar could have easily calculated wrong -- primary radar isn't always the best for altitude, especially when its as far away as it was. Even 35,000 feet or 41,000 feet are sufficient to knock the passengers unconscious in a very reasonable amount of time, so it seems like a silly rationalization. And we still don't have a good explanation for how a 777 would still be flying for several hours after a 40,000 fps dive.

The fire theory still has its problems -- i.e. it magically knocked out only non-essential systems while incapacitating the pilots, but it's closer than the Tom Clancy stuff.

106   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2014 Mar 19, 3:54am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I hate it when i'm right....

Checks are being carried out on the background of all of those aboard the plane. Mr Hussein said that checks have been received for all the foreigners except those from Ukraine and Russia - which account for three passengers - and that nothing suspicious has turned up so far.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-investigators-trying-to-restore-deleted-data-from-flight-simulator-in-pilots-home-9202234.html

SoftShell says

Russian hijacking to take heat off the crimia land grab..

107   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2014 Mar 19, 4:11am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

corntrollio says

The fire theory still has its problems -- i.e. it magically knocked out only non-essential systems while incapacitating the pilots, but it's closer than the Tom Clancy stuff.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/

This pilot says they could have shut down systems to try to isolate the cause of a fire. He says this was actually found to have been done in another fire incident. So the transponder would have been deliberately shut off, but not for nefarious purposes. The climb to 45,000 feet might have been a last-ditch attempt to starve the fire of oxygen. Also interesting is that he suggests the crew could have been incapacitated and the plane just continued flying on the same course until it ran out of fuel, which would account for why it was still tracked hours later. I have no way to judge if this is a reasonable theory, but it seems to make sense.

108   bob2356   ignore (4)   2014 Mar 19, 4:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

corntrollio says

The 45,000 feet reading still seems like a red herring. This has always seemed to me to be an amateur theory based on lay (i.e. extremely poor) understanding of flight

Something is certainly not right about the 45,000 number. No one has yet to explain how a 777 with 7 hours fuel on board and a full load of passengers could possibly get anywhere close to that altitude.

109   corntrollio   ignore (1)   2014 Mar 19, 7:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Homeboy says

This pilot says they could have shut down systems to try to isolate the cause of a fire.

Yes, that's exactly why the transponder can be disabled -- it might be the cause of the problem. Lots of non-airplane people think that there should be non-defeatable devices on-board commercial planes for tracking, but those devices could always have a wiring fault or other problem that the pilot needs to be able to diagnose. Furthermore, there are legitimate reasons to turn off the transponder -- e.g. for maintenance reasons or because ATC may request that you change your squawk code.

Note that there are still problems with the fire explanation. Typically they'd tell ATC that they are having an emergency and are heading to a diversion airport. Maybe you'd even get a Pan-Pan or Mayday. As I mentioned, the fire also has to be just bad enough to disable some stuff, but not everything, which seems odd too.

bob2356 says

Something is certainly not right about the 45,000 number. No one has yet to explain how a 777 with 7 hours fuel on board and a full load of passengers could possibly get anywhere close to that altitude.

Yeah, I agree -- that's what I mentioned above. The number could easily be incorrect or reported wrong. The funniest thing is all the people saying 45000 = passenger death. That's just incorrect.

110   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2014 Mar 19, 10:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

corntrollio says

As I mentioned, the fire also has to be just bad enough to disable some stuff, but not everything, which seems odd too.

No, I think his theory is that it wasn't the fire that disabled systems, but rather the CREW that disabled the systems in the process of trying to diagnose what went wrong. And he claims there's precedent for that:

The 1998 crash of Swissair DC-10 off Nova Scotia was another example of heroic pilots. They were 15 minutes out of Halifax but the fire overcame them and they had to ditch in the ocean. They simply ran out of time. That fire incidentally started when the aircraft was about an hour out of Kennedy. Guess what? The transponders and communications were shut off as they pulled the busses.

111   corntrollio   ignore (1)   2014 Mar 19, 11:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Homeboy says

No, I think his theory is that it wasn't the fire that disabled systems, but rather the CREW that disabled the systems in the process of trying to diagnose what went wrong.

I got that part. What I mean is that the fire disables things enough that the pilots have to diagnose it, as opposed to just shooting halon in the cargo hold or shutting down an engine. The hypothetical fire also disables the flight crew in this scenario, but doesn't disable the plane, which keeps flying for several hours. I'm not saying it's impossible, just saying that it's a potential problem in the explanation.

I'm familiar with the SR 111 incident, but that plane was disabled enough that it crashed, quite forcefully, I might add. If I remember correctly, the FDR and CVR stopped recording about 15 minutes after smoke was first detected in the cockpit, and the first officer was still alive at the controls for at least another 5 minutes because he shut down one of the engines about a minute before impact.

113   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2014 Mar 19, 5:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

corntrollio says

The hypothetical fire also disables the flight crew in this scenario, but doesn't disable the plane, which keeps flying for several hours.

Couldn't smoke incapacitate the crew without immediately destroying the plane? The guy who wrote the article seems to think it's possible.

114   corntrollio   ignore (1)   2014 Mar 20, 3:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Homeboy says

Couldn't smoke incapacitate the crew without immediately destroying the plane? The guy who wrote the article seems to think it's possible.

Usually not. Generally speaking, in most aviation incidents involving a fire, the airframe starts disintegrating before the pilots die. Can it happen another way? Possibly, but this makes it less likely.

The other thing I was thinking about is that it's not really standard procedure to go to 45,000 feet (again, strong possibility that it's bad data in the first place) to put out a fire. You have checklists for fires, and you'd follow them. Also, there's nothing stopping you from depressurizing at 35,000 feet instead of an altitude the plane isn't certified for if you actually need to depressurize. There's actually a report on how depressurization doesn't necessarily help put out fires and possibly could have other consequences:

http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/2010Conference/files/Cargo_Fire/HillDepressurizationFreighter/HillDepressurizationFreighterPres.pdf

By the way, I was re-reading the part of his article on SR 111. He gets a lot of stuff wrong factually. For example, it was an MD-11, obviously, (not a DC-10) and I'm pretty sure the comms and transponders were working until right before the CVR and FDR cut off, so there's no evidence that they pulled breakers for them on that flight. And note that the first officer was likely still alive just before the plane crashed.

I suspect there are a few other factual mistakes too -- I read somewhere that he got the facts regarding the Air Canada flight wrong too.

116   dublin hillz   ignore (0)   2014 Mar 20, 4:22am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

I would not put it past Vladimir to be behing the "accident" - he could have easily dispatched FSB homies to take care of this or hired some "assets" of foreign descent to get this done. Why would he do this? So that foreign media news coverage is focused on this 24/7 which obviously takes away from coverage of ukraine/crimea.

117   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2014 Mar 20, 5:29am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

corntrollio says

I'm pretty sure the comms and transponders were working until right before the CVR and FDR cut off, so there's no evidence that they pulled breakers for them on that flight.

Strange. He seems sure that they did, and you seem "pretty sure" that they didn't. I don't know how to account for that discrepancy. I can't imagine what motivation the guy would have to just make something like that up. There's a Wikipedia article on the Swissair crash that says "the crew shut off the power supply in the cabin". Could that be what he was referring to? Would that cause the transponder to stop functioning?

118   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2014 Mar 20, 5:44am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

And it's working.

Look at the CNN webpage for the past week. The airliner gets 72 point font at top of page, while Crimea is 2nd billing mixed in with other shit....

Only 2 russkies and one Ukrainian on that flight have not passed the background checks at this point...
Very strange....

dublin hillz says

I would not put it past Vladimir to be behing the "accident" - he could have easily dispatched FSB homies to take care of this or hired some "assets" of foreign descent to get this done. Why would he do this? So that foreign media news coverage is focused on this 24/7 which obviously takes away from coverage of ukraine/crimea.

119   corntrollio   ignore (1)   2014 Mar 20, 5:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Homeboy says

He seems sure that they did

Based on what though, his say-so?:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_RjpAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA64&ots=myHbK7p3sW&dq=sr%20111%20transponder&pg=PA64#v=onepage&q&f=false

This book about the crash doesn't mention anything about the transponder being intentionally shut off. It says that ATC thought it might have been shut off because that's what you typically do on a military plane, according to this book, but there's nothing in here that says it was shut off or that other comms were shut down.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_RjpAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA64&ots=myHbK7p3sW&dq=sr%20111%20transponder&pg=PA210#v=snippet&q=transponder&f=false

If you search through the book for "transponder," you can see that the transponder did briefly disappear when ADC-1 went offline, but the transponder came back up when they switched it to ADC-2.

I believe the power supply you're referring to might be the in-flight entertainment.

120   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2014 Mar 20, 6:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Why bother when we can go ask NoRack Maddow over at
http://www.msnbc.com/
They got it frontpage also....

sbh says

SoftShell says

Look at the CNN webpage for the past week. The airliner gets 72 point font at top of page, while Crimea is 2nd billing mixed in with other shit....

Well, yeah. Go to Faux Noise if you want to make a big deal out of Crimea

121   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2014 Mar 20, 8:38am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

In other words, msnbc frontlining Crimea makes your comment below look like something from a 2nd grader on a.d.d. meds...

sbh says

SoftShell says

Look at the CNN webpage for the past week. The airliner gets 72 point font at top of page, while Crimea is 2nd billing mixed in with other shit....

Well, yeah. Go to Faux Noise if you want to make a big deal out of Crimea.

122   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2014 Mar 20, 10:56am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

corntrollio says

This book about the crash doesn't mention anything about the transponder being intentionally shut off. It says that ATC thought it might have been shut off because that's what you typically do on a military plane, according to this book, but there's nothing in here that says it was shut off or that other comms were shut down.

But I find multiple references to the crew turning off the busses, and this pilot says that if you turn off all the busses, you will disable communications and transponders. Is that not true? Are those systems not connected to any of the busses?

Conditions in the cockpit deteriorated as the pilots were following the emergency checklist for smoke. The checklist required the pilots to turn off the cabin electrical busses, which are connected to (among other circuits) the air recirculation fans above the cabin ceiling.

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/magazine/2003/Aug2003_Swissair111.htm

Again, the theory isn't that they desired to turn off the transponder per se, but that they would do so in the process of determining which system was on fire, right?

123   corntrollio   ignore (1)   2014 Mar 20, 11:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Homeboy says

But I find multiple references to the crew turning off the busses, and this pilot says that if you turn off all the busses, you will disable communications and transponders. Is that not true? Are those systems not connected to any of the busses?

I think he is being a little too general when saying "busses." It really depends on how the wiring is set up.

The transponder has a combination of controls that affect it on a 777 -- I believe you turn a rotary knob for certain modes, and you can key in things for other modes (e.g. to change the squawk).

For the ACARS system, I believe you have to go into the front EE bay in order to disable it, but not entirely sure.

You'd have to have a checklist and/or wiring diagram to be absolutely sure, but it makes sense to not put everything on the main circuit. For example, it'd make more sense to have to intentionally disable comms or transponders, as opposed to having a master switch. For example, I doubt the *cabin* electrical affects the cargo hold, but that may be something else that's on the checklist. They may very well have done so on SR 111, but the source of the fire was fairly obvious on that flight -- wasn't coming from the transponder area.

The point I'm making is that this guy asserted that the comms and transponder on SR 111 were off because the pilots turned them off, but the pilots would have turned them back on as soon as they figured out they weren't causing the problem. If they were off at the time of the crash, it wasn't because the pilots had specifically disabled them, as is the suggestion for MH 370. If they were off at the time of the crash, it's because the fire disabled them.

124   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2014 Mar 20, 11:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I dunno...lets ask her!

sbh says

But the important thing is: what does Palin think this says about Putin?

125   BlueSardine   ignore (3)   2014 Mar 20, 11:30am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Thats true...when she was normal she had one the commies couldn't stand....
Once they laid their eggs, the old apple went byebye...

sbh says

It's clearly a criminal liberal plot to divert attention from Maddow's adam's apple.

126   Homeboy   ignore (2)   2014 Mar 20, 5:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

corntrollio says

I think he is being a little too general when saying "busses." It really depends on how the wiring is set up.

Hmmm....still trying to understand this. My question was, if you turn off all the busses, would you cut power to the transponders, rendering them inoperative? The author seems to believe that is a distinct possibility. How is that "too general"?

corntrollio says

The transponder has a combination of controls that affect it on a 777 -- I believe you turn a rotary knob for certain modes, and you can key in things for other modes (e.g. to change the squawk).

O.K., maybe I'm still not understanding this. I'm thinking turning off the busses would be somewhat similar to turning off circuit breakers in your house - it would cut all power to that circuit, right? So what the controls do would be irrelevant, wouldn't it? If I turn off the circuit breaker that supplies power to my living room, my television set would turn off. Whatever buttons there are on my T.V. would have nothing to do with it, right?

corntrollio says

They may very well have done so on SR 111, but the source of the fire was fairly obvious on that flight -- wasn't coming from the transponder area.

I think I get what you're saying here, but isn't the recommended procedure to shut off ALL the busses, then restore them one by one? And why would we assume that the crew on the Malaysia flight would know where the fire was, assuming there was a fire?

corntrollio says

The point I'm making is that this guy asserted that the comms and transponder on SR 111 were off because the pilots turned them off, but the pilots would have turned them back on as soon as they figured out they weren't causing the problem. If they were off at the time of the crash, it wasn't because the pilots had specifically disabled them, as is the suggestion for MH 370. If they were off at the time of the crash, it's because the fire disabled them.

Hmmm....did he say they were off at the time of the crash? I think all he said was, "Guess what? The transponders and communications were shut off as they pulled the busses." That's not too clear. He doesn't really indicate if they stayed off or were switched back on. But what he's saying might have happened on the Malaysia flight was that they switched off the power and never GOT the chance to switch it back on because they were incapacitated by the smoke.

I definitely see your point, though. It doesn't read as a well-researched report, but rather as a pilot just spitballing ideas about what might have happened, which I think is what he was doing. Still, it makes more sense to me than some of the convoluted theories about terrorism or pilot suicide.

127   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2014 Mar 20, 10:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Wouldn't the Lithium-ion batteries batteries have to be in use to catch fire? Neither article says how much of them were on the plane, in in cargo hold.

Wouldn't drones be well suited to search for the wreckage over open ocean?

128   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2014 Mar 21, 3:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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

Malaysian woman claims to have seen missing MH370 in the water near Andaman Islands on day it disappeared

131   Vicente   ignore (0)   2014 Mar 21, 6:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says

Wouldn't drones be well suited to search for the wreckage over open ocean?

Most drones don't have the kind of range needed. They are long-endurance and low-speed to loiter over combat zones. The infamous Predator for example:

Range: 675 nmi (675 mi or 1,100 km)

A nearby ship could do lots of detailed searching I suppose, but ship-launched is more complex. The X47-B could do it, but it's not operational yet.

132   HydroCabron   ignore (1)   2014 Mar 21, 10:02am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Why waste taxpayer cash on this?

If Malaysian Airlines continues to crash planes, people will stop buying tickets.

Let the free market take care of it.

133   Vicente   ignore (0)   2014 Mar 21, 2:39pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Boeinghazi!

134   corntrollio   ignore (1)   2014 Mar 26, 8:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Homeboy says

Hmmm....still trying to understand this. My question was, if you turn off all the busses, would you cut power to the transponders, rendering them inoperative?

Who is wantonly turning off "all the busses"? This is what I don't understand. I wouldn't take anything that guy says at face value, period. The 45,000 feet to depressurize thing remains pointless, and there have already been reports that that 45,000 feet number might be wrong.

Homeboy says

I think I get what you're saying here, but isn't the recommended procedure to shut off ALL the busses, then restore them one by one?

I'm not sure where you're getting that. If you have an idea of where the fire is, it makes much more sense to start there, and I suspect that's what the checklists say.

Homeboy says

It doesn't read as a well-researched report, but rather as a pilot just spitballing ideas about what might have happened, which I think is what he was doing. Still, it makes more sense to me than some of the convoluted theories about terrorism or pilot suicide.

Agree. He makes enough factual errors to make it seem badly researched, but it always seemed more plausible than some of the other stuff.

If you read aviation forums now, you see strange theories about how someone his now dumping trash off the coast of Australia to throw off the investigators on the real landing spot in Pakistan. It's all nonsense.

135   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (41)   2014 Jun 15, 10:52am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Clearly, no one has been able to refute the Uighur go-go dancer thesis!

BLOW ME!

136   casandra   ignore (0)   2014 Jun 15, 1:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I saw that moon picture of the plane also. That solves it for most of us I think. Could be why so much interest I'm going to the moon again by several nations. The giant moth picture is obviously photoshopped. Geez, some people are so gullible!

« First    « Previous    Comments 97 - 136 of 136    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions