The pilot making the first turn doesn't invalidate anything, its the additional turn(s) after that initial turn that make no sense to me.
Whats your source for these turns? AFAIK, nothing is known with any degree of certainty about the flight path after the transponder was shut down. Now Ive not followed this all that closely, so perhaps I missed it, but afaik, there have been a few unidentified radar contacts at the extreme end of radar range which may or may not have been flight 370, but what Ive seen so far is sketchy at best. If there is or will surface more convincing evidence that the plane made several turns hours after disappearing from radar, Ill gladly drop the fire/smoke theory, and revert to my original one: pilot suicide. In fact Ill entertain any other theories as well, as long as they are at least plausible, and some "men behind the curtains" covert plot to kill a few run of the mill ARM SoC engineers to obtain patent rights on some utterly trivial 'invention' those engineers did not even posses, is not among them.
Let's think about this for a second. Military radar blips happened after that initial turn, if you plot those points, I come to the conclusion that turns had to be made, not slightly erratic. Not to mention the sharp turn into the Indian Ocean that the people investigating are acting like happened. It sounds like your just acting like we need to ignore those because of the whole unrealiability factor of military radar? which I think is a little odd, but I will comply because I am not familiar with military radar.
To be clear, I was dismissing the altitude readings from radar returns, as they are notoriously unreliable, particularly at long range, so the story that the plane climbed above 45000 or whatever foot is anything but certain. Positioning is of course quite accurate although all kinds of things can give false unidentified returns, from flocks of birds to thermals to whatever other plane. Ive not seen anything that looks like a radar track, showing a plane flying at normal cruising speed (which kinda rules out birds or thermals) but as mentioned above, if that does exist and is reasonably certain to be from flight 370, I agree, then the plane must have been under control by a pilot. The flight departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport on 8 March 2014 at 00:41 local time (16:41 UTC, 7 March) and was scheduled to land at Beijing Capital International Airport at 06:30 local time (22:30 UTC, 7 March). It climbed to its assigned cruise altitude of 35,000 feet (11,000 m) and was travelling at 471 knots (872 km/h; 542 mph)[25] true airspeed when it ceased all communications and the transponder signal was lost. The aircraft's last known position on 8 March at 01:21 local time (17:21 UTC, 7 March) was at the navigational waypoint IGARI in the Gulf of Thailand, at which the aircraft turned westwards, heading towards a waypoint called VAMPI in the Strait of Malacca,[26] primary radar tracking suggests that the aircraft descended as low as 12,000 feet (3,700 m). From there, the aircraft flew towards a waypoint called GIVAL, arriving at 2:15 local time (18:15 UTC, 7 March), thereafter to the Southern Thailand Islands (Andaman Coast) of Phuket, and was last plotted heading northwest towards another waypoint called IGREX.[27][28][29]
At this point, suicide may be your fallback… and I can't argue it except to say its a really strange way to commit suicide, disabling communications and having to directly kill your friend copilot or somehow get him out of the cockpit so you can go on a joyride into the Indian ocean? All of the research they seem to have done on the pilots doesn't seem to indicate either had a reason to commit suicide. Dual suicide pact? hard to believe. The box - Where are you thinking?  ,____________ | Puppet | | | | ib|miner |___________| randomloveI'm a little worried about randomlove  |
|
|
|
Yeah, they need wings and a tail too. And thats about it. As for turning, apparently its beyond doubt the pilot initiated the turn. How does that invalidate a fire theory? Apart from trying to fight the fire, turning back to an airport is the second most urgent thing to do. Many will say its the first thing to do.
The pilot making the first turn doesn't invalidate anything, its the additional turn(s) after that initial turn that make no sense to me. My theory is that flight 370 never lost control at all. The crew was incapacitated, but the plane itself may have been fine after they stopped the electrical fire. I dont know what path it followed exactly after the transponder was shut down. Does anyone? I think not. But if it did indeed fly a slightly erratic path, it would only serve as another argument in favor of incapacitated crew. A plane doesnt just fall from the sky when you release the controls, it will for the most part simply continue flying even without autpilot. Almost all pilot induced crashes are because the crew actively did something wrong, like slowing it down too much, steering in to the ground, or in to a mountain, or because they pulled too hard and stalled the plane, .. not because they didnt do anything at all. If only the pilots of Air France Flight 447 had done nothing, or simply released the controls at any point during their stall, instead of pulling the sticks non stop, it would have been fine. Let's think about this for a second. Military radar blips happened after that initial turn, if you plot those points, I come to the conclusion that turns had to be made, not slightly erratic. Not to mention the sharp turn into the Indian Ocean that the people investigating are acting like happened. It sounds like your just acting like we need to ignore those because of the whole unrealiability factor of military radar? which I think is a little odd, but I will comply because I am not familiar with military radar. Even IF you decide to throw out all of the military radar blips and only accept that the last known position was shortly after that first turn, I still cannot see evidence for a ghost flight to the crash area... a turn had to of happened somewhere and planes with an incapacitated crew shouldn't turn. It should be straight path with an incapacitated crew and the plane just gliding along, a straight path with a possible arch/curve, but no direct turns. When looking at a map, find where the plane made its initial u-turn and then look at the potential crash site... do you believe a plane could have made it from that initial turn over to the indian ocean without a turn? Or are you implying a ghost flight can make turns and head in a different direction? A plane cruising at altitude will just fly on without any input. If it starts to pitch down it will gain speed, gain lift and therefore automatically pitch up again. ANd due to the wing incidence if it starts rolling in one direction it will automagically slowly level itself again. Planes that lost all hydraulic power, leaving the pilot with no input (besides throttle), have flown on for hours many times, and the opposite, the plane crashing shorty after losing hydraulics in a cruise flight, has to my knowledge, never happened. In fact, at least one plane landed safely without any hydraulics, with the pilots only using differential throttle. A DHL flight over Iraq. That shows you dont need stick input to keep flying, aerodynamics take care of that. You only need stick input/autopilot to steer. Alternatively if the plane flew straight and level all the way to the crash site, that doesnt invalidate the theory either, as its just as plausible the autopilot was not disabled by the fire or fuse pulling. The fire could have been found being caused by other circuitry like communications, or the fire may have disabled those but pilots restored power to the other circuitry. We have no way of knowing.
Do you believe it was possible for this plane to be heading north-west (or even just west) and being able to 'fly straight and level all the way to the crash site'? If you fly straight and level from the last point of contact, doesn't that put you approaching the Maldives before running out of gas? |
|
|
|
The list you provided doesn't really show flights the same as MH370... sure, they are similar, but I guess I take a more defined approach with this thinking because I want to compare an 'apple' to an 'apple', and not an 'apple' that is somewhat similar to another apple. To save my own time and sanity, I stuck with the accidents in the last 20-30 years that I am guessing you would see as similar to MH370 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522) Rapid decompression plenty of communication happened between the pilot and ground. Plenty of alarms, plenty of time for distress calls. They did contact the ground crew (but IIRC, they did not contact air traffic control, never sent out a panpan or mayday), but the problem was not fire as might be the case in flight 370, so there was no reason to cut power to the radio/transponder/etc (even though the last words of the captian were asking where certain fuses where, go figure). In case of an (electrical) fire, isolating the fire by turning off all electrical equipment is a lot more urgent than sending out a distress signal. I was just explaining why this was not similar to the 370 incident because they had time to contact the ground crew and there was plenty of communication and was intending to make the point that there was time for communication. I do realize not all incidents are the same. The perception that 'this happens all the time' with an incident like mh370 seems unjustified. If you go with the theory of an electrical fire + a decompression incident, I don't see how the plane goes on for 6+ hours and on the flight path they are stating. Why not? Engines need absolutely none of the electrical equipment in the fuselage. As I pointed out earlier, in the case of the Quantas Airbus A380 which had an engine explode, the crew did not manage to turn OFF another engine for several hours after landing, despite everything they tried, even hosing the engine with water from fire trucks. Once they run, engines only need fuel and they will keep running almost no matter what. Thats what they are designed to do. Engines just need fuel is not a good argument, planes need more than just an engine to fly and make turns into the indian ocean. Engines may only need fuel, but you also need aerodynamics and a pilot in order for a damaged plane to continue flying and make a turn into the indian ocean. In the Quantas incident, pilots were able to regain control of their damaged plane, there is no evidence of anything like this happening on mh370. I may be able to accept a ghost flight without the fire, but without a fire then you can't explain the communications manually being turned off, which would imply a severe electrical fire or a hijacking.
I dont understand why you think this is weird or impossible? An electrical fire doesnt necessarily have to rage out of control, especially not if all fuses were pulled, no longer feeding of the fire. All you need to incapacitate the crew is smoke, and having shut down, or the fire disabling most of the electrical stuff, you'd have no airconditioning, no ventilation and perhaps even no continuing pressurization. Guess what happens next? IF it was NOT raging out of control: I would anticipate, in this theory, the crew potentially getting the fire under control by killing electronics, programmed a new heading for the airport that people claim it was heading towards, and ultimately must have died at some point thereafter due to smoke. When they died, why would the plane have continued to fly? Would autopilot have been shut off at this point with all of the other electronics? If autopilot was still active, why the erratic flight path? Why would the plane have suddenly turned into the indian ocean and not just followed a straight path, as other ghost flights do? Generally speaking, I find it hard to believe that a vicious fire could have taken out the crew without being able to send a distress signal, and then continue to fly on for 6+ hours until running out of gas. Who said the fire was viscous? Just how much plastic do you think needs to burn or smolder to intoxicate 200 people crammed together in a small room with no ventilation and low oxygen levels? If you show me an incident, in the past, which had some type of electrical fire and a decompression issue that incapacitated the crew quickly enough for them to not be able to send a distress signal AND force them to quickly disable electronics to stop a fire before sending a distress signal AND THEN having that plane somehow continue to fly for 6+ hours while making turns You know, there is a reason very few accidents happen more than once in an identical way. Its because we are maniacal about flight safety and from every crash we learn and make sure it doesnt happen again. Id be more shocked to find a strikingly similar accident had happened before. With this particular theory, I'm not looking for an identical event. I am looking for evidence that a plane can either: a) Suffer from a vicious fire that kills off the crew but manages to keep the aerodynamics of the plane intact and continue flying for 6+ hours with no pilots, while changing directions. b) Suffer from a small fire, contain it by pulling fuses, die by smoke and somehow the plane continues on 6+ hours, while changing directions. I'm just not buying that this was a typical incident that has happened plenty of times in the past. |
|
|
|
Uncontrolled Decompression Incidents Posted again for those that missed it buried in the garbage. Far from unique there are plenty every year. Decompression incidents are not uncommon on military and civilian aircraft, with approximately 40–50 rapid decompression events occurring worldwide annually. "Rapid Decompression In Air Transport Aircraft" (PDF). Aviation Medical Society of Australia and New Zealand. 2000-11-13. Retrieved 2008-09-01.[26] --snip-- It helps put it in PERSPECTIVE. A car can go missing right off a known travelled road and not discovered for 43 years. A plane can do the same. Let us not let the tinfoil hats win. A horrible accident happened. We need to know what happened to protect others from the potential maintenance or engineering flaw. It was NOT aliens, NOR conspiracies or any other BS story your imagination can come up with. I did my part by previously posting the list cabin depressurization accidents and it is not a short list by far and most probably fits this scenario although there maybe others. When you got a theory that relates to what is at least remotely plausible then let us talk about it. The theory I put forward has been put forward by commercial pilots as a plausible explanation. You have to start with the theory that makes some sense and is based on the facts as they are given. A plane travels hours and crashes well off course in the Indian Ocean? What does that sound like when you compare it to past events like this? If I was going to believe anything then it would be fire and decompression and pilots become incapacitated for a plane to fly along then run out of fuel and crash that far off course. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10711590/Malaysia-Airlines-MH370-Cairo-777-cockpit-fire-could-yield-clues-to-missing-plane.htmlhttp://www.wired.com/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/I suggest when it is found they will find something like this as the cause. You don't need the god of the GAPS argument to make an educated guess. People are making educated guesses. LISTEN to them. There is no point speculating further until more evidence surfaces, but in the meantime it serves no purpose to malign pilots who well may have been in a struggle to save this aircraft from a fire or other serious mechanical issue. Capt. Zaharie Ahmad Shah was a hero struggling with an impossible situation trying to get that plane to Langkawi. There is no doubt in my mind. That’s the reason for the turn and direct route. A hijacking would not have made that deliberate left turn with a direct heading for Langkawi. It probably would have weaved around a bit until the hijackers decided where they were taking it. http://www.wired.com/2014/03/malaysia-air/ All you have to do is educate yourself. Read widely be skeptical. Just don't ignore the obvious. It took investigators two years to recover the black box data recorder from Air France Flight 447, which went down over the Atlantic on June 1, 2009. There is a lot here to respond to, so forgive me for the length  The list you provided doesn't really show flights the same as MH370... sure, they are similar, but I guess I take a more defined approach with this thinking because I want to compare an 'apple' to an 'apple', and not an 'apple' that is somewhat similar to another apple. To save my own time and sanity, I stuck with the accidents in the last 20-30 years that I am guessing you would see as similar to MH370. If you go with the theory of decompression, I don't understand how the flight continues to move along the path they are acting like it took. Other incidents of a decompression incidents don't seem to show this behavior and typically result in emergency landings, not to mention the issue with the communications being disabled/etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522) Rapid decompression plenty of communication happened between the pilot and ground. Plenty of alarms, plenty of time for distress calls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_100Rapid decompression Safely landed... 1 killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_30' Rapid decompression. Again, plenty of communication & time to deal with the situation, and a safe landing nobody hurt. (even with numerous oxygen masks not deploying) If you go with the theory of an electrical fire + a decompression incident, I don't see how the plane goes on for 6+ hours and on the flight path they are stating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_611 Explosive decompression - crashed quick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800Explosive decompression - crashed quick. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTA_Flight_772Explosive decompression - crashed quick. (I am seeing a pattern) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_811Explosive decompression - well here goes my pattern. But, these guys made it safely and landed after a pretty extreme situation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103Explosive decompression - I like this one, it does have *some* similarities... no signs of a distress signal, but again, plane crashed quick and hard 8 seconds after an explosion. I may be able to accept a ghost flight without the fire, but without a fire then you can't explain the communications manually being turned off, which would imply a severe electrical fire or a hijacking. Generally speaking, I find it hard to believe that a vicious fire could have taken out the crew without being able to send a distress signal, and then continue to fly on for 6+ hours until running out of gas. If you show me an incident, in the past, which had some type of electrical fire and a decompression issue that incapacitated the crew quickly enough for them to not be able to send a distress signal AND force them to quickly disable electronics to stop a fire before sending a distress signal AND THEN having that plane somehow continue to fly for 6+ hours while making turns ... then I might be able to stop looking at this damn thread and maybe I can get some sleep tonight Until then, IMO, your theory is just as flawed as the tinfoil hatters. At this point, I haven't *accepted* any theory. Even though I do have my opinions. But anyone who has accepted 100% that this was an accident as you seem to have done, in my mind, isn't fully following through with their thought process. I do hope some type of conclusive evidence will be shown to provide comfort for those families and the millions of people around the world scratching their head, but I really don't believe it will.  And one last thingThe link about the Egypt 777 flight, which was also a Boeing 777, and had an issue which is believed to be a short-circuit in the oxgyen line for the crew: Wouldn't a fire of this caliber have killed the crew and took down the plane somewhat quickly. Major damage was caused to the Egypt 777 Boeing, which happened on the ground, and it took crews 90 minutes to get the fire under control. Not so sure a fire like this is going to allow a plane to continue flying for 6+ hours. BTW - imagination is a good thing to have if you use it correctly  |
|
|
|
It doesn't help your case much comparing an incident that happened to a local town 43 years ago involving 3 people with an incident involving multiple countries, 239 people, and modern day technology. A car crash of that nature, today, would have been found. In any case, your drawing conclusions without evidence the same way tinfoil hatters do. Where are these past similar events? This seems like a pretty unique situation. |
|
|
|
Truth is, There's a huge change going on now and i dont know about you but ive felt it for a few years.
That's the exactly the same kind of stories which have been circulating since... like, forever. Wherever you look into the past, you realize that the humanity from every era had that feeling that their time was something special and that something extraordinary is happening, or should happen sometime. While in fact it's always the same old business, more or less. With rather small variations, historical patterns and cycles of life are repeating over and over again. I am not sure what you mean by huge change but I am pretty confident to tell you - forget about it. In the upcoming decades there will be usual dose of turmoils, revolutions, wars, class conflicts, economical breakdowns, natural disasters... perhaps we might get lucky to witness some *really* groundbreaking technological or scientific breakthrough too, but that's all - generally speaking, there won't be anything radically new which humans havent' had already experienced in one way or another. What timescale are you basing your 'eras' on? Are you referring to the normal patterns that have existed since we have started recording human history? Even so, are you claiming that every generation in history has thought something extraordinary is happening during their time? Every time I hear something related to history where people are claiming to be involved in something extraordinary, in hindsight, they usually ARE part of something extraordinary. I can only imagine what people will think when they look back at our time in history. Also, you do realize that planetary cycles & patterns were created well before humans existed and that there could be larger planetary cycles that we are not aware of because we HAVEN'T experienced them yet and haven't written them down in our history books? |
|
|
|
Who said the Mayans were cave men? I think the Mayans were very intelligent and I do believe there is a change happening. However, I am not so sure about the article you posted. http://jlnavarro.blogspot.com/2010/05/dr-berrenda-fox-is-fraud.htmlEDIT: And lets try to stay on topic….. the Plane VS Vagina link was heading in the right direction. |
|
|
|
Patent on what exactly? Point me to the patent, and show me evidence JR now owns it. The chip you mentioned is a bog standard ARM core thats being used in hundreds of millions of chips, the design is property of ARM holdings and Freescale licensed it (along with about 2 dozen other companies). No one holds a patent on it, you dont patent chip designs, they fall under copyright, but whatever patents are applicable to the design will belong to ARM not freescale, and much less freescale engineers (*). Dont you realize that engineers working for a company do not own the inventions that they patent, they belong to the company that employs them? The death of a few engineers changes absolutely nothing relating to any patent ownership.
http://truthnewsinternational.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/us008671381.pdfhttp://www.google.com/patents/US8671381In the end, Freescale is already the assignee... so I think that means they already own the patent? The others, whether on the flight or not, were the inventors. Regardless, this Jacob guy isn't mentioned anywhere. Is it odd that the patent was approved on 3/11/14, 3 days after the disappearance, after being filed back in 12/21/12? (you know, the day the Mayans predicted a global change in the world ). Not really. When looking at other patents, this seems like a somewhat normal time frame. I dislike coincidences, but this seems to be one that is justified. With all of this being said, engineers themselves are valuable. These are smart guys. I'd be leaning towards modern day slavery before I would be looking at this patent. Wouldn't be too hard to kidnap someone and force them to work for you, it's been done plenty in the past  |
|
|
|
|
Re: So, how lowhigh will it go?
------------------
FTFY
|
|
|
|
You sheeple! You fall for there tricks everytime. The plane landed on an island in the middle.of the Indian ocean on a UK/us military base. Phillip wood posted a picture who was on the plane 10 days later. He worked for IBM and knew his tech.
Your whole concept of how this world works is a joke! And you still let a few make fools out of you! Your so funny to watch but its a shame so much depends on Joe public yet they can't see the woods for the trees!
The emporier as no clothes! Wake up sheepy sheepy!
While I do believe something is being covered up, The Phillip Wood thing is nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
Nope, there are no sock puppets in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Josh Zerlan A.K.A BFL Josh / Inaba / etc 1naCaxpaMJCdaszSKS7ayTjkfCnfc3m2b |
|
|
|
What your dog would predict is called the "P Wave", which arrives faster than the "S Wave" that does all the damage. We can detect these P Waves as well, but we don't have much time between the warning and the shaking.
Man evolved to be the smartest creatures on this planet. Bison are idiots (i.e. dank) in comparison.
Bison may be idiots in comparison to Man, but I think your giving Man too much credit here. Clearly, Sasquatch is the smarter creature.  BTW - You gotta stop harping on dank, don't let him get into your head |
|
|
|
Interesting. Seems like a difference in behavior between the 2011, 2012, and 2014 bisons. The problem appears to be that the bison are running towards the park & caldera... but maybe they are just done with bison life and are committing bison suicide |
|
|
|
Looks like someone has stumbled across the next alt coin (BTP) BitPimps |
|
|
|
Everyone seems to expect some long storyline already written out about this event. I don't have this, nor does anyone else. Every theory can have holes punched through it right now due to lack of *physical* evidence. Even with a electrical fire theory, I am not sure how the plane made a 2nd turn during this mechanical fire to start heading into the ocean... maybe programmed?... but I am also not sure why the plane didn't burn up and crash much sooner then 6+ hours of flight. Looking at past incidents with commercial aircraft, almost everyone I looked at that involved a fire ended up crashing shortly after takeoff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraftSure, it's a simple solution and easy to accept if your a sheep, but it doesn't make any sense to me that a plane with this type of fire could have flown for that long into the ocean without burning up or crashing sooner. This fire would have been so vicious that it would have had to engulf the other 12 staff members (to stop them from notifying the pilot to any signs of a fire, smoke, etc.) AND would have had to take out multiple communication systems. ALL of this before the pilots even realized it was going on and didn't have time to send a distress call before the communication systems failed, and just turned the plane out of a reaction. A matter of minutes? Sounds like a pretty extreme fire... again, I wouldn't rule this out, because there is still a chance that somehow this fire did all of this, and the pilot was climbing to 45,000 feet to try and extinguish the fire (remove oxygen), but ultimately died and the plane managed to keep flying for that long. But I don't see this as any more plausible then some of the other theories out there. Some are definitely *out there*, but most of the stories typically point out pieces of evidence or facts that have inconsistencies, don't make sense, or make you question it. It confuses me when I see a report from the Maldive islands on 3/18 stating things like "several" eyewitness (wish I knew how many) visually spotted a white aircraft with red stripes across it flying very low. "I've never seen a jet flying so low over our island before. We've seen seaplanes, but I'm sure that this was not one of those. I could even make out the doors on the plane clearly,"
"It's not just me either, several other residents have reported seeing the exact same thing. Some people got out of their houses to see what was causing the tremendous noise too.
http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/54062Malaysian officials response: “Regarding reports that a plane was sighted in the Maldives, I can confirm Malaysia’s chief of the defense force has contacted his counterparts in the Maldives who has confirmed that these reports are not true,”
Then I see the 'explanation' as to why this was a 'false alarm' as being "nothing was present on military radar" as being the 'evidence'. Oh really? Well if it wasn't on radar, those residents must be coo coo for cocoa puffs. Must be the seclusion of island life?... they just want to talk to someone? Why would these residents lie?? They didn't even include Maldives as a country in the search, even after eyewitness reports... all dismissed based on "it wasn't seen on radar"? As a theory, Diego Garcia could be a destination. It could also provide them the easy capability of dismantling parts of the craft and dropping it off their waters, and allowing the current to just pull debris over to the current search area to naturally find 'parts of the craft'. Still won't be easy finding it. Maybe a destination for an attack? maybe the plane was ultimately shot down in that area. Oddly enough, the Maldives seem to be the only country capable of providing potential aircraft debris from their shores which appears to be a fire suppression bottle from an aircraft and looks similar to the one used in a boeing 777 (at least, it looks similar to me... but I do not build airplanes... going off of what I am seeing on google images), although, found on the north side of their island... whereas I might expect it on the south side... if debris was "planted". http://www.maldivesfinest.com/mh370-evidence... can't wait to see where this goes. You know, some actual evidence. It's very rare that governments get away with cover ups, especially on this scale, but people just like to assume everything is one. What exactly do the Malaysian government (or whoever you think is behind this) have to gain or lose from covering it up?
I really don't KNOW why anyone would take this plane... I could draw up numerous theories about every country and could pull all kinds of stories out of my ass about why a particular country or group would want to steal a plane, but I don't like doing that. I, too, need more evidence. I am just seeing a lot of inconsistencies in the story everywhere, which raises red flags with me and a possible cover-up. There just isn't enough questioning by people and a lot of people are just accepting what they are told, as they always do. Damn Humans! EDIT: Holy long posts Batman! |
|
|
|
Yes, but you see, all you need is a hint. I look at both the above final words and see nothing. You see a possible suicide. That's the difference between a rational person and a conspiracy theorist. Sure, the plane might be a suicide/hijacking/cover-up, but I'll wait for more evidence than just speculating and propagating conspiracies based on essentially nothing or a hunch. They really don't help in actually uncovering what really happened, just add more confusion.
To assume an outcome is not plausible simply because it involves a conspiracy seems short sighted and irrational. I think it's conspiracies that are short sighted and irrational. I'm not discrediting it because it's a conspiracy, but because they're conspiracies based off nothing but hunches and imagination. It's always more exciting to go with a wild and extravagant theory than to just think accidents happen. Maybe there is a conspiracy or cover-up, but there's no evidence for that yet. If evidence emerges of one I'll probably be shouting "Conspiracy!" louder than you. Yes but the problem is that the whole point of a cover-up is to hide the evidence. A decent conspiracy and cover up will provide no immediate evidence of a cover-up or will provide/manifest evidence pointing to any other 'rational' conclusion, but this usually comes with inconsistencies which breed conspiracy theorists. Inconsistencies exist in non-conspiracy related events as well, for me its just about the number of inconsistencies in a particular situation to make me question something further... like this plane. Maybe it just depends on how many of those inconsistencies you can logically accept before believing its a conspiracy? Just out of curiosity, given the situation with MH370, what type of evidence could be presented that would satisfy a conspiracy or cover-up in your mind? |
|
|
|
Yes, but you see, all you need is a hint. I look at both the above final words and see nothing. You see a possible suicide. That's the difference between a rational person and a conspiracy theorist. Sure, the plane might be a suicide/hijacking/cover-up, but I'll wait for more evidence than just speculating and propagating conspiracies based on essentially nothing or a hunch. They really don't help in actually uncovering what really happened, just add more confusion.
We will agree to disagree. I look at the change in final words combined with the numerous inconsistencies/fact changes/misinformation coming from the people supposedly running the investigation and I see reason to believe a potential cover up of something. IMO, I am not sure why it is not reasonable to consider the possibility of a hijacking or a conspiracy. To assume an outcome is not plausible simply because it involves a conspiracy seems short sighted and irrational. My speculation of a possible hijacking/cover-up/conspiracy comes from the unsettling occurring in that area of the world, the fact that planes are a target for hijacking (and easy to blame terrorists on), the lack of a distress signal, the communications systems being manually turned off to attempt and 'hide' the plane, and just a general feeling that something isn't right, Yes, a hunch .... but on top of everything else. Malaysia airlines has been through a plane crash investigation before. From day 1 they seem to be stumbling around playing stupid. And, if there facts are accurate, they failed to get accurate communication information from the plane on day 1. Again, makes no sense, it seems that this would be the first thing they would look at, to see what was communicated from the plane last. How do you get this wrong?... and to only get around to figuring this out now? You are welcome to sit and wait for those same people to present you the evidence you require. I am happy the Australians have gotten involved and attempted to take the lead, because I do not believe they would have anything to do with this type of a hijacking/conspiracy but the Malaysians are just constantly confusing the situation for all countries involved. Sure, the Malaysians could be getting 'setup' to take the fall, but now you're delving into conspiracies that I believe are more far-fetched and harder to pull off. In the end, I do not really believe this was a suicide and was not intending to imply that the pilot committed suicide based on either set of last words. As mentioned once before, conspiracies and corruption will continue to evolve. Not only the way they are planned and executed but also how they are camouflaged. Because for some out there, the ends will always justify whatever means they need to get to whatever their end goal is. Everything else is just collateral damage. NOTE: I realize I have trust issues, but I don't believe they are unjustified. EDIT: I'll try to summarize my posts more..... this is why I can't use twitter. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
