Malaysian Airways Flight 370

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Bobman

The example I made was the dozens of 100+ fatality commercial airliner crashes in the history of jet aviation. Why aren't they all conspiracies?

In fact why is it that mainly American plane crashes garner most conspiracy theories but not, say, African airlines? African airlines not worthy of being a conspiracy?

I don't really get too deep into researching every commercial airliner crash. But I'm sure there are hundreds of American planes have crashed over the years where there is no conspiracy formed around the crash.

The only conspiracy theories I have heard regarding aircraft is 9/11 and MH370. So I don't know about all these other American airlines that have conspiracy surrounding them.

Also I was unaware that Malaysian Airlines was an American company.

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by Ben73

I don't really get too deep into researching every commercial airliner crash. But I'm sure there are hundreds of American planes have crashed over the years where there is no conspiracy formed around the crash.

The only conspiracy theories I have heard regarding aircraft is 9/11 and MH370.

TWA 800, Valujet 592 just a couple main ones but then we do have conspiracy theories around South African 295, Swiss Air 111.

Strange things happen in life every day. Sometimes my toilet seat is crooked when I lift it up. Is this also a conspiracy?

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Bobman

In fact why is it that mainly American plane crashes garner most conspiracy theories but not, say, African airlines? African airlines not worthy of being a conspiracy?

Could it be that Seppoland has more conspirator nutters than any other country

[Peter B - CV8]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Good work on completely ignore the point of my post and just picking apart the unnecessary parts. I only used Siberia in my 'story' because the post I quoted made a reference to Russia, and Siberia is often made out to be that place far, far away from everything where nothing important ever happens. Sorry that it was not 100% accurate.
The idea behind the post was to point out when a small plane crashes and there is a quite obvious cause, people all over the world aren't going to be looking deep into every detail looking for 'flaws' in the story.

If you want a more realistic story, lets just say a weekend pilot takes his plane out for a fly, weather suddenly turns bad and he stuffs up the landing and crashes, people aren't going to be looking too deeply into that. It doesn't affect anyone majorly outside of that pilots family and friends.

But when a commercial airliner goes missing without a trace, or some other major disaster happens, it's going to raise a bit more interest and people will be looking at every detail in the story.

No worries mate - was just having a bit of a laugh. Sorry if you took it personally...

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Ben73

I don't like getting into conspiracy debates, but since you are the one to bring up 9/11, I'm sure you are aware that it's not just the nut jobs in tinfoil hats who think the official report is dodgy.

Some of the professionals who believe there is more to 9/11 than we are told include architects, engineers, pilots and other aviation professionals, aircraft crash investigators, US army and air force professionals, scientists and firefighters, paramedics and police (who were there on the day)

I'm not trying to convince you that any of these professionals are correct, I just wanted to point out that people who know what they are talking about can also be 'conspiracy theorists'
Personally I'd believe professionals in a subject over the government. Governments never lie or deceive do they?


As for MH370, I don't know what to make of it, it is weird with all these reports of it possibly flying in the wrong direction.

Hi Ben73. I think it's worth having a look at some of these professional (sic) organisations.
First off mate, I have a special interest in "Pilots for 911 truth" in particular. The founder Rob Balsamo has been all over CNN and other news networks espousing his brand of nonsense - such as his 100% completely wrong theory on Mach number and airspeed at various altitudes, which is why no real airline pilot will ever believe any of the bulltish that groups such as these promote. No joke, Rob actually thinks that to do 510 knots at sea level is impossible because the aircraft would break the sound barrier. What kind of so called pilot could be so fundamentally wrong? For those not acquainted with speeds, at sea level the speed of sound is 667 knots. The higher an altitude, the higher the mach number for the equivalent speed. Not the other way around as pilots for 911 truth spuriously claim. 510 knots at sea level is mach 0.77 (77% speed of sound), at 40,000 feet it is mach 0.89 (89% of the speed of sound). Sorry, but anyone who asserts otherwise and uses it as their foundation to question the official story is a disingenuous fraud.

Fact is, the flight profiles of both AA11 and UA175 have been done in simulators and neither produced flutter. Sure, P-4-911-T produce credentials of some of their members such as John Lear - son of the founder of LearJet, but if you look closer at these people like John Lear you find that he believes there are colonies of humans living on the dark side of the moon.

Then we look at "Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth". This group was founded by a fairly unremarkable architect named Richard Gage, who has never been employed on any of the skyscrapers in any US city. He sites thousands of architects and engineers agreeing with him, except for the fact that when pressed he cannot name more than 4. He also claims to have the American Institute of Architects AIA in agreement with his theories, when just recently they took out a court order demanding he cease and desist any reference to the AIA. In short, this charlatan is basically an unemployed architect who has found a new way to make money out of the suspicion and paranoia of others. Worse still, he is profiting from the deaths of thousands.

I can understand why a casual observer may or may not agree with these conspiracy theorists based on the sense of dishonesty and distrust some have with officials - especially when they hear nonsense like "thousands of professionals agree with us". But really, look deeper, and you'll see the motives as to why these people are supplying doubt in the minds of others (hint, it's called profit). Just look at that fat hypocrite Al Gore for example.

BTW, I have not been able to find any original source from any fireman, paramedic or police man who was there on the day and in the towers who doubts what happened, only re-edited nonsense from plonkers like those who made "Loose Change". And don't bother quoting Larry Silverstein about WTC7, he lost hundreds of millions on the day and has also thoroughly debunked his "pull it" comment.
Finally, in demolition of high rise buildings, the explosions always start from the base and work their way up - not the other way around.

[mik]

There where lots of theories regarding 9/11 , and because you cant find stuff years after the event doesn't mean it was not kosher, i remember the police and fierys heard major explosions in the bottom of the building with debris flying everywhere(eye witness accounts),
i also remember one particular film clip and you could clearly see one corner of the tower with molten steel spewing out like it was being cut with a big oxy, as far i know jet fueled fires wont melt steel girder (please correct me if im wrong), the only other thing i could think of doing the girder melting(other than magnesium or thermite ) is if somehow a high voltage cable was doing it, but im thinking any huge high voltage cables would be run down the elevator shaft and in reality probably would not do the job anyway ?

building 7 clearly did not just fall down.

Now if you look at the reasons any of these buildings may have been demolished and here is where lots of conspiracy's could come in , if we where to forget any sinister reason , just imagine the those in power having emergency discussions with a head fiery and structural engineers/architects ,etc and what the out come could be if either or two of those massive towers where to fall sideways, no doubt the conclusion would be the death toll could have been multiple x multiple times worse than it was.
So there is one possibility that the powers that be decided to help demolish the towers before they fell and possibly killed masses of people or not ?
and i suspect it would be done on the quiet just in case of litigation.... or not ??

Getting back to Mh370, its hard not to see it as a deliberate act of some some sort.

From memory there was an air crash investigation episode where one of the crew decided to kill the other crew with a hammer and crash the jet and get the insurance for his family , is it any wonder seeing what evil humans have done in the past that we have so many conspiracy theories.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by mik

There where lots of theories regarding 9/11 , and because you cant find stuff years after the event doesn't mean it was not kosher, i remember the police and fierys heard major explosions in the bottom of the building with debris flying everywhere(eye witness accounts),
i also remember one particular film clip and you could clearly see one corner of the tower with molten steel spewing out like it was being cut with a big oxy, as far i know jet fueled fires wont melt steel girder (please correct me if im wrong), the only other thing i could think of doing the girder melting(other than magnesium or thermite ) is if somehow a high voltage cable was doing it, but im thinking any huge high voltage cables would be run down the elevator shaft and in reality probably would not do the job anyway ?

building 7 clearly did not just fall down.

Now if you look at the reasons any of these buildings may have been demolished and here is where lots of conspiracy's could come in , if we where to forget any sinister reason , just imagine the those in power having emergency discussions with a head fiery and structural engineers/architects ,etc and what the out come could be if either or two of those massive towers where to fall sideways, no doubt the conclusion would be the death toll could have been multiple x multiple times worse than it was.
So there is one possibility that the powers that be decided to help demolish the towers before they fell and possibly killed masses of people or not ?
and i suspect it would be done on the quiet just in case of litigation.... or not ??

Getting back to Mh370, its hard not to see it as a deliberate act of some some sort.

From memory there was an air crash investigation episode where one of the crew decided to kill the other crew with a hammer and crash the jet and get the insurance for his family , is it any wonder seeing what evil humans have done in the past that we have so many conspiracy theories.

The twin towers fell from the top down, the compression of upper floors is quite clearly visible in all the footage I have seen. the impact of floors against floors brought the rest of the towers down. everything else was collateral damage to the main event.
1 crazed pilot of MH370 ending his life, for whatever reason they had, by abducting a plane full of people in an elaborate ruse is not a conspiracy theory. It is a theory but no conspiracy is evident to me.
The fedex flight 705 suffered from an individuals attack rather than a conspiracy against it.

JP

[ltd]

Originally Posted by mik

There where lots of theories regarding 9/11 , and because you cant find stuff years after the event doesn't mean it was not kosher, i remember the police and fierys heard major explosions in the bottom of the building with debris flying everywhere(eye witness accounts),
i also remember one particular film clip and you could clearly see one corner of the tower with molten steel spewing out like it was being cut with a big oxy, as far i know jet fueled fires wont melt steel girder (please correct me if im wrong), the only other thing i could think of doing the girder melting(other than magnesium or thermite ) is if somehow a high voltage cable was doing it, but im thinking any huge high voltage cables would be run down the elevator shaft and in reality probably would not do the job anyway ?

building 7 clearly did not just fall down.

Now if you look at the reasons any of these buildings may have been demolished and here is where lots of conspiracy's could come in , if we where to forget any sinister reason , just imagine the those in power having emergency discussions with a head fiery and structural engineers/architects ,etc and what the out come could be if either or two of those massive towers where to fall sideways, no doubt the conclusion would be the death toll could have been multiple x multiple times worse than it was.
So there is one possibility that the powers that be decided to help demolish the towers before they fell and possibly killed masses of people or not ?
and i suspect it would be done on the quiet just in case of litigation.... or not ??

Getting back to Mh370, its hard not to see it as a deliberate act of some some sort.

From memory there was an air crash investigation episode where one of the crew decided to kill the other crew with a hammer and crash the jet and get the insurance for his family , is it any wonder seeing what evil humans have done in the past that we have so many conspiracy theories.

Mik, if you read the NIST report you'll find the explanation you seek, and you're correct that the jet fuel did not burn down the building nor melt the steel. Most if not all of the jet fuel would have been consumed in the first 20 minutes. What the jet fuel did was set hundreds of fires all around the building, and if you look at the contents of an office building you'd find a lot of plastics and fabrics etc which all burn hotter and longer than jet fuel. The fact is, the raging fires weakened the perimeter steel columns to be malleable, and the steel trusses between the interior core columns and the exterior columns being exposed to such heat, sagging and failing is what caused the ultimate failure. That and the fact that on both buildings one whole side was compromised by the fact an airplane had past through. Had there not been a fire, then they'd be standing today.

The "oxy" sparks you refer to could be anything burning within the office, but most likely the aluminium fascia panels of which dozens were exposed to direct fire. As you know, aluminium has a low melting point and does in fact burn.
As for the explosions down below, it is a veritable fact that upon initial impact that jet fuel went down the elevator columns (inside the core of the building, steel columns adorned with 48mm thick sheet rock or gyprock), and rapidly ignited near the ground floor lobby which is why some of the doors blew off and all the glass in the lobby shattered moments after the impact. Several fire fighters noticed the abundant smell of jet fuel/kerosene after this event, and these are the only explosions I have heard any of the fire service talk of.

Building 7 had a tower fall on it, as well as one of its three main trusses demolished. It then had severe fires as the twin towers did. It lasted over 8 hours before collapsing. If you look at the unedited video, you'll see it collapsed on one side first before totally collapsing. This seven seconds nonsense is a ruse used by truthers the world over who should know better. Look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

In spite of what I have written which you could easily disagree with, I must ask a couple of questions.
First of all, it is agreed that should there have been det-cord or any other explosives placed to bring the buildings down, that the volume of such would be so large that it couldn't ever be concealed. Of the three thousand who perished in the building, why would anyone go into said buildings if they knew something sinister was going to happen?
Secondly, there were literally hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses that day, and hundreds of millions around the world who watched the second tower get hit. Were they all part of the conspiracy?
Finally, George W Bush had only been in office for 8 months, do you honestly think his administration could pull off the biggest fraud in human history in that amount of time?

[mik]

i dunno mate , i dont dispute the planes hitting the buildings(never have), ,
as for the sparks coming out the side certainly looked like molten steel to me i have worked with plenty of metals and that is what it looked like, i could be wrong, i am often ;),
i would be really surprised if it was office furniture and carpet and stuff making the sparks, and molten metal, but anything is possible.
as for people purposely going into harms way to do stuff knowing they might not come back,
fierys , police , ambo workers, bomb squad, military and others do this on a daily basis to save lives,
so i would not discount that one.
you put up some good explanations there, none of which i will argue with because i really don`t know.

[mik]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

The twin towers fell from the top down, the compression of upper floors is quite clearly visible in all the footage I have seen. the impact of floors against floors brought the rest of the towers down. everything else was collateral damage to the main event.
1 crazed pilot of MH370 ending his life, for whatever reason they had, by abducting a plane full of people in an elaborate ruse is not a conspiracy theory. It is a theory but no conspiracy is evident to me.
The fedex flight 705 suffered from an individuals attack rather than a conspiracy against it.

JP

yep i get that , still some question marks on weakening of the building in my mind.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by mik

yep i get that , still some question marks on weakening of the building in my mind.

The engineer responsible for the design also has question marks as to why they only designed the structure to survive an impact of a smaller aircraft. He also states they also didn't consider the ferocity and volume of fuel fire present in this instance and certainly they never considered both buildings being 'attacked'

The poor bastard is living with the knowledge that his building failed, but is comforted I suppose by the fact the assumptions they made in the design were sound at the time. These 'attacks' changed large important building design forever, as does any disaster change the way we think.
The molten metal may have been emergency services cutting their way through damage at ground floor to gain access elsewhere.
We will never know!

JP

[CoupeKing]

A fully laden plane travelling at those speeds no doubt would alter the structures integrity somewhat. You got initial impact, pressure wave, debris getting blasted in every direction, then the fire, supposedly mixing with other spot-fires. Footage I've seen the plane blows out the opposite side and it flew in wing-up to take out as many floors as possible. Would have been fine it it was a twin-engined Cessna.

[GasoLane]

And now....................back on topic please.

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

And now....................back on topic please.

But that was interesting Gaso!..

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by mik

i remember the police and fierys heard major explosions in the bottom of the building

Pour jet fuel down any elevator shaft and tell me you won't hear or see an explosion upon ignition? In fact nearly every fire has an explosion of some kind.

Usually the real answer is the most simplest.

We live in a mysterious world. Just because something happens for the first time doesn't mean it's not true.

As far as MH370 goes, the latest report by a B777 pilot surmises that it's intact at the bottom of the ocean which seems the most plausible scenario. AF447 was somewhat intact with large fuselage sections and passengers inside in their seats, so it's quite likely large sections of MH370 are at the bottom of the ocean which explains the lack of items washing up or being sighted. Hopefully something is found in this search.

[Mainforcepatrol]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

I wouldn't count the erebus incident as a conspiracy. Simply a single company lying to cover fatal flaws in procedure and performance.
Oh and the fact it was the MD DC10...widowmaker!

JP

The DC10 did suffer a series of accidents and a fatal one early on in its service history as a result of a faulty design of a rear cargo door which was then rectified and it was a very reliable aircraft after that.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Bobman

Pour jet fuel down any elevator shaft and tell me you won't hear or see an explosion upon ignition? In fact nearly every fire has an explosion of some kind.

Usually the real answer is the most simplest.

We live in a mysterious world. Just because something happens for the first time doesn't mean it's not true.

As far as MH370 goes, the latest report by a B777 pilot surmises that it's intact at the bottom of the ocean which seems the most plausible scenario. AF447 was somewhat intact with large fuselage sections and passengers inside in their seats, so it's quite likely large sections of MH370 are at the bottom of the ocean which explains the lack of items washing up or being sighted. Hopefully something is found in this search.

Mate, given the strength of the B777, I'm not the least bit surprised. I do believe the engines would have sheered off as they're designed to upon contact with the water, but the overall strength of the 777 fuselage is a sight to behold. Just have a look at Asiana Air's crash in SFO last year, the aircraft broke it's tail off in contact with the sea wall, then slid down the runway and cartwheeled on it's wing, slammed into the ground and still didn't break apart. I have never known any other airframe to withstand that kind of punishment and still hold together.
The 777 was the first aircraft to be designed completely by computer with no mock-ups, and was Alan Mulally's baby. Of course Alan is the CEO of Ford who is directly responsible for the saviour of Ford during the GFC.
So, in a nut shell, I do believe if any aircraft could stay intact in a water landing it would be a 777.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Mainforcepatrol

The DC10 did suffer a series of accidents and a fatal one early on in its service history as a result of a faulty design of a rear cargo door which was then rectified and it was a very reliable aircraft after that.

very reliable as a cargo plane which is where most ended up. The worst design issue was the third engine located at the base of the tail above the fuselage centreline causing instability under certain conditions and I believe was considered the cause of several 'pilot error' crashes.
Many of its problems were traced back to poor, rushed or corner cutting design. Doors, control cables, engine mounting procedures and non-redundant systems.
Probably only fed ex et al use them now as many passengers refused to fly on them.
JP

[jpblue1000]

actually that might have been the MD11 that was more prone to landing on its back...but potentially the MD11 was only a lightly disguised DC10 with different engines (same configuration)

JP

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by ltd

So, in a nut shell, I do believe if any aircraft could stay intact in a water landing it would be a 777.

When you say water landing, do you refer to a controlled landing as with the Hudson river scenario, a crazed Pilot who's flown his plane till its empty and then ditched or autopilot as a result of the crew being incapacitated.

I couldn't imagine a bloke who has decided to take hundreds of innocent people with him would care how soft their final descent was going to end.
If it was a failure due to fire etc. as you previously eluded to, would autopilot provide that careful water landing without fuel.

I read an article a few days ago by a Pilot who believes the movements of the plane are not consistent with it being simply on Autopilot as a result of the crew being incapacitated, he was quite certain that someone controlled the plane until its final descent wherever that may be.

[CoupeKing]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

I couldn't imagine a bloke who has decided to take hundreds of innocent people with him would care how soft their final descent was going to end.

That's because he wanted to hide his actions, otherwise he would have flown it full-noise into the Petronas Towers, job done. His goal was to expose the Malaysian government for various reasons, a goal that he achieved.

An experienced Pilot could land the said plane on calm seas without it disintegrating. Landing gear up(?), engines turned off, all that would break off would be the engines, wings empty of fuel. Plane slowly fills with water and it sinks. Can be intact on the bottom regardless of the depth, especially if it sank on an even keel. Be it 4km or 7km, doesn't matter, as long as its full of water before it reaches its crush depth.

[MAD]

Do planes actually leak if doors are not opened?

[CoupeKing]

Originally Posted by MAD

Do planes actually leak if doors are not opened?

Yes eventually, even if it landed perfectly intact. And I'm sure that there would be some instruments a Pilot could open/close that would speed the process up, or guide more water into a certain area than others.

[cram_it_frog]

By jaskiran kaur | October 21, 2014 3:04 PM EST
Missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has become the greatest mystery of aviation history. Traces of the Boeing 777 that went missing seven months ago have not yet been found. According to the latest update, an Australian scientist is claiming that it is possible to find the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 with the help of cloud microphysics algorithms

ok that sounds like a interesting situation but will it work

[Charliewool]

Of course.. Cloud microphysics algorithms eh???
Geeesh, Why didn't I think of that...

[cram_it_frog]

so what does Cloud microphysics algorithms do can you explain is so that a person like my self who has no idea

algorithms I know is computer code and some thing like computer search engine

but the rest well that has me stumped

[ltd]

Originally Posted by MAD

Do planes actually leak if doors are not opened?

Yes, Boeing 777's have two outflow valves forward and aft which are designed to regulate the pressure inside the aircraft. As the engines feed bleed air (from the compressor) to the air con packs the aircraft is constantly having fresh air brought in. To regulate the pressure to a constant 8000 feet, outflow valves regulate how much air is allowed out of the cabin to the atmosphere outside.
In an ocean or water landing, the outflow valves must be closed and the engine isolation valves for bleed air in each wing must be closed.

If you left them all open, they combined would easily allow enough water in for the aircraft to sink.
That, and generally every pressurised aircraft has leaks of one kind or another.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

That's because he wanted to hide his actions, otherwise he would have flown it full-noise into the Petronas Towers, job done. His goal was to expose the Malaysian government for various reasons, a goal that he achieved.

Has this theory been proven, was his intention politically driven.

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

An experienced Pilot could land the said plane on calm seas without it disintegrating. Landing gear up(?), engines turned off, all that would break off would be the engines, wings empty of fuel. Plane slowly fills with water and it sinks. Can be intact on the bottom regardless of the depth, especially if it sank on an even keel. Be it 4km or 7km, doesn't matter, as long as its full of water before it reaches its crush depth.

Southern Indian Ocean...Calm seas.

I was under the impression that this area was not somewhere described as having calm seas, in fact, quite the contrary.

[Mainforcepatrol]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

very reliable as a cargo plane which is where most ended up. The worst design issue was the third engine located at the base of the tail above the fuselage centreline causing instability under certain conditions and I believe was considered the cause of several 'pilot error' crashes.
Many of its problems were traced back to poor, rushed or corner cutting design. Doors, control cables, engine mounting procedures and non-redundant systems.
Probably only fed ex et al use them now as many passengers refused to fly on them.
JP

A number of the accidents were attributed to poor airline maintenance procedures.In reference to the engine mounting procedures it was Americans failure to follow the aircraft maintenance manual where they used a forklift to remove and install the engine as opposed to the bootstrap system which caused the fatigue crack in the pylon an have an engine come off during takeoff.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Mainforcepatrol

A number of the accidents were attributed to poor airline maintenance procedures.In reference to the engine mounting procedures it was Americans failure to follow the aircraft maintenance manual where they used a forklift to remove and install the engine as opposed to the bootstrap system which caused the fatigue crack in the pylon an have an engine come off during takeoff.

Agreed, still not a successful passenger jet!

JP