Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. WTF?

[ibminer]

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.  

[1715010317]

1715010317

[1715010317]

1715010317

[1715010317]

1715010317

[1715010317]

1715010317

[1715010317]

1715010317

[hilariousandco]

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.

[Bobsurplus]

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.

LOL, you're hilarious!

[ibminer]

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?

[hilariousandco]

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.

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?

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?

[Paya]

For all this time Malaysian officals have been more confused than the two lunatics after the downhill ride in a rolling barrel. They are either incredibly incompetent, or they're really trying to cover up something. I am inclining towards the former.

[bryant.coleman]

They are either incredibly incompetent, or they're really trying to cover up something. I am inclining towards the former.

I think that the latter is true. They are definitely hiding something.

[Bobsurplus]

yeah I think so too, and now they will use the cover of "its a criminal investigation" to help cover it up and blame it on the pilots.

[hilariousandco]

They are either incredibly incompetent, or they're really trying to cover up something. I am inclining towards the former.

I think that the latter is true. They are definitely hiding something.

yeah I think so too, and now they will use the cover of "its a criminal investigation" to help cover it up and blame it on the pilots.

So what would they be trying to cover up and what makes you think this?

[bryant.coleman]

So what would they be trying to cover up and what makes you think this?

My guess:

1. Suspicious (and illegal) cargo was loaded with the tacit permission from the Malaysian government. Can be gold, can be tons of $$$, or it can even be nuclear fuel or biological weapons.

2. People with fake identities were on the flight, with tacit permission from the Malays. May be FBI spies, or can even be the Malay Secret Service Personnel.

[hilariousandco]

So what would they be trying to cover up and what makes you think this?

My guess:

1. Suspicious (and illegal) cargo was loaded with the tacit permission from the Malaysian government. Can be gold, can be tons of $$$, or it can even be nuclear fuel or biological weapons.

2. People with fake identities were on the flight, with tacit permission from the Malays. May be FBI spies, or can even be the Malay Secret Service Personnel.

Haha. Keyword guess. People fly with fake identities all the time. If they were spies they'd probably have documentation that was essentially 'legit' and not stolen etc.

[Puppet]

So what would they be trying to cover up and what makes you think this?

My guess:

1. Suspicious (and illegal) cargo was loaded with the tacit permission from the Malaysian government. Can be gold, can be tons of $$$, or it can even be nuclear fuel or biological weapons.

2. People with fake identities were on the flight, with tacit permission from the Malays. May be FBI spies, or can even be the Malay Secret Service Personnel.

Some people watch too many bad movies. Go ahead, and expand on your movie script theory, and explain why the Chinese government would transport nuclear or biological weapons on a Malaysian civilian airliner. And if not the chinese government, then who? And where did it come from? For the record, Malaysia doesnt even have a nuclear power plant. And who brought it down and why?

Then explain what could possibly make US, British, Australian, Malaysian, Chinese over a dozen other countries' governments conspire, along with crash investigation teams, the plane manufacturer, satellite operators and what not, all to cover up whatever you think happened?

[hilariousandco]

So what would they be trying to cover up and what makes you think this?

My guess:

1. Suspicious (and illegal) cargo was loaded with the tacit permission from the Malaysian government. Can be gold, can be tons of $$$, or it can even be nuclear fuel or biological weapons.

2. People with fake identities were on the flight, with tacit permission from the Malays. May be FBI spies, or can even be the Malay Secret Service Personnel.

Some people watch too many bad movies. Go ahead, and expand on your movie script theory, and explain why the Chinese government would transport nuclear or biological weapons on a Malaysian civilian airliner. And if not the chinese government, then who? And where did it come from? For the record, Malaysia doesnt even have a nuclear power plant. And who brought it down and why?

Then explain what could possibly make US, British, Australian, Malaysian, Chinese over a dozen other countries' governments conspire, along with crash investigation teams, the plane manufacturer, satellite operators and what not, all to cover up whatever you think happened?

Conspiracies theorists don't usually deal with facts, but look for the most fantastical and exciting scenarios. The above examples are much more satisfying than the simple and more plausible explanation that the plane just crashed due to mechanical failure or whatever.

[counter]

Conspiracies theorists don't usually deal with facts, but look for the most fantastical and exciting scenarios. The above examples are much more satisfying than the simple and more plausible explanation that the plane just crashed due to mechanical failure or whatever.

I dissagree with that comment.  A conspiracy theorists is someone that questions what they've been told.  When you say they don't usually deal with facts I think that is a bit misleading mainly because the facts are what they use to question the story given and make their own theory of what they believe actually happened.  I'm speaking generally on the term no the topic ofcourse, carry on.   

[hilariousandco]

Conspiracies theorists don't usually deal with facts, but look for the most fantastical and exciting scenarios. The above examples are much more satisfying than the simple and more plausible explanation that the plane just crashed due to mechanical failure or whatever.

I dissagree with that comment.  A conspiracy theorists is someone that questions what they've been told. 

A rational person questions what they've been told, which is great, but a conspiracy theorist usually then invents a load of crap to satisfy themselves based on little to no evidence.

[counter]

Conspiracies theorists don't usually deal with facts, but look for the most fantastical and exciting scenarios. The above examples are much more satisfying than the simple and more plausible explanation that the plane just crashed due to mechanical failure or whatever.

I dissagree with that comment.  A conspiracy theorists is someone that questions what they've been told. 

A rational person questions what they've been told, which is great, but a conspiracy theorist usually then invents a load of crap to satisfy themselves based on little to no evidence.

 Ok I think I'm getting it your saying if someone questions what they have been told they are rational but then you also believe conspiracy theorists usually just invent things up that are crap as you say.  I just don't think it is good to put a label on a group of people and classify them as crazy maybe it is just me.

When I hear conspiracy theory I think of someone who questions and has opinion of their own to add and this person may be way of base and insane lol.  Seems to me you hear the same term and think they are generally just wrong and crazy haha.
Somehow to you a conspiracy theorist is a tinfoil hat wearing nut and I just find that intriguing.

[Puppet]

It all depends on the theory they are pushing. On one hand you have the conspiracy theorist arguing Area51 ufo's, fake moonlandings, contrails/chemtrails, etc,  OTOH you have people who dont buy the official story about the  MV Arctic Sea "hijacking". You know, some theories are more plausible than others. Its clear to me the Arctic Sea hijack was a cover up of something (though I really dont know what). Flight 370 was a tragedy, there is no shred of evidence it was anything else.

[hilariousandco]

Conspiracies theorists don't usually deal with facts, but look for the most fantastical and exciting scenarios. The above examples are much more satisfying than the simple and more plausible explanation that the plane just crashed due to mechanical failure or whatever.

I dissagree with that comment.  A conspiracy theorists is someone that questions what they've been told.  

A rational person questions what they've been told, which is great, but a conspiracy theorist usually then invents a load of crap to satisfy themselves based on little to no evidence.

 Ok I think I'm getting it your saying if someone questions what they have been told they are rational but then you also believe conspiracy theorists usually just invent things up that are crap as you say.  I just don't think it is good to put a label on a group of people and classify them as crazy maybe it is just me.

When I hear conspiracy theory I think of someone who questions and has opinion of their own to add and this person may be way of base and insane lol.  Seems to me you hear the same term and think they are generally just wrong and crazy haha.
Somehow to you a conspiracy theorist is a tinfoil hat wearing nut and I just find that intriguing.

It's fine to question the official story but you cant just make stuff up with no evidence and call them theories. It's fine to question the official story of 9/11; it's not fine to say there were no planes involved etc.

And a conspiracy theorist is only a 'tinfoil hat-wearing nutjob' when they present tinfoil hat wearing nutjob conspiracies. They're not all the same. It's fine to believe that there's likely alien life in the universe; it's not fine to claim to have been bummed by one.

[counter]

It all depends on the theory they are pushing. On one hand you have the conspiracy theorist arguing Area51 ufo's, fake moonlandings, contrails/chemtrails, etc,  OTOH you have people who dont buy the official story about the  MV Arctic Sea "hijacking". You know, some theories are more plausible than others. Its clear to me the Arctic Sea hijack was a cover up of something (though I really dont know what). Flight 370 was a tragedy, there is no shred of evidence it was anything else.

I will not say it was more then a tragedy but I want to ask you if you don't think the claims for the 20 scientists being on bored and their patents being a cause for their deaths is something worthy of looking into and discussing?  I haven't looked very far into it but if I did am I instantly a conspiracy theorists and crazy?  I also heard the the names of people on the flight were being mixed up with people who weren't on the flight, true or not do these issues not deserve being mentioned and looked into.  Is a journalists just supposed to ignore these things for fear of being called crazy for simply doing there job?  Isn't a mystery supposed to looked into from all angles.

[counter]

well thanks for clarifying your views for me folks I just get worried when I think people are ignoring potential facts because they find it "crazy".  I just have to ask questions and try to understand where others are coming from, thanks for letting me know and explaining your thought and views.