Malaysia Airlines Plane "Loses Contact"

[simoid]

SpeckledJim said:

But who pays? 2 years search in a known 'small' area for AF447 could be extrapolated easily to 20 years in the Indian Ocean, maybe 200 years?

Will whatever is learnt be worth whatever it costs? What if after x10 more cost it still isn't found?

I'm fairly sure you could find a billion people to pay $1 if they thought it would put this mystery to bed!

[Tyre Tread]

I caught the end of a piece on R4 this morning about an airline pilot who had done more work on the Inmarsat info and come up with the theory that the strange path flown by the pilot was for him to fly over his home island before ditching which the pilot doing the reserach reckoned would be just outside the area currently being concentrated on.

Some Air Minsitry bod then said the work doen by this pilot was very credible.

Sorry can't give more info as I didn't hear the whole think and can't get access at work.

Should be available here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05403lc and was on either at about 6.45 or 7.15 ish.

[Martin4x4]

Given the circumstances, the cost, the long odds of success, etc the official search will end at some point.

However I think unofficial searches will continue almost indefinitely, Naval training exercises, new equipment testing, fame and fortune hunters etc. Just consider the ancient ship wrecks continue to be hunted

[Blackpuddin]

I still believe that this plane was stolen to order.

[Martin4x4]

Blackpuddin said:

I still believe that this plane was stolen to order.

Where is your evidence?

Edited by Martin4x4 on Monday 2nd March 20:09

[AdeTuono]

Blackpuddin said:

I still believe that this plane was stolen to order.

[Blackpuddin]

Martin4x4 said:

Blackpuddin said:

I still believe that this plane was stolen to order.

Where is you evidence?

Where is your evidence against?

[AreOut]

karma mechanic said:

You would expect that there would be lots of plastic and honeycomb parts that would float for a long time. Lifejackets in packets, seat cushions and that sort of thing too. And yet after all this time there isn't a single credible report of anything being found at sea or washed up on a beach thousands of miles away. I find that nearly as odd as any of the other tinfoil-hatter explanations.

that means it's most probably sunk intact, which would imply calmer waters than roaring forties e.g. some 500-1000 miles to the north of where they are looking...

jmorgan said:

Yeah but no but...

Thing is, for me, I do not know if this is to be expected if the plane is lost in a particular place. The southern oceans are quite nasty as I understand it. So I would expect that I do not know what is the norm. That is to say I could not say "I expect debris to be found". Maybe in the channel off Dover or well used shipping lanes or places where I expect the ocean to wash up on a beach. But even the latter, how long before a beach is found and that beach has a visiter to witness the item?

And that is assuming there are parts that will do this in the place it is and the tides play ball.

if it really crashed where they are looking there would be a lot of debris on SW coast of Australia which is VERY visited, something would sure wash up in a year (and much before)

[KTF]

Blackpuddin said:

Where is your evidence against?

You first

[marshalla]

Blackpuddin said:

Martin4x4 said:

Blackpuddin said:

I still believe that this plane was stolen to order.

Where is you evidence?

Where is your evidence against?

Ah - the invisible pink unicorns told me that it didn't happen.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof

[Blackpuddin]

marshalla said:

Blackpuddin said:

Martin4x4 said:

Blackpuddin said:

I still believe that this plane was stolen to order.

Where is you evidence?

Where is your evidence against?

Ah - the invisible pink unicorns told me that it didn't happen.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof

I also believe that there is life in space, but because I can't prove it, that means it can't be true? in the absence of any hard outcome there's just as much onus on proving against as there is on proving for. My 'belief' (I did use that word, rather than 'certainty') is based on various elements, not least the simple economic value of an airliner and the potential value of what might have been on board it at the time. Until such time as any wreckage is found it's as good a theory as any. (I would respectfuly argue ).

[BlackLabel]

Blackpuddin said:

Martin4x4 said:

Blackpuddin said:

I still believe that this plane was stolen to order.

Where is you evidence?

Where is your evidence against?

'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.'. Hitchens's razor.

[AreOut]

Blackpuddin said:

I still believe that this plane was stolen to order.

it's just not possible unless it's a global conspiracy involving all major powers, in which case we'd have much bigger problem than a missing plane...

[Vaud]

Blackpuddin said:

Martin4x4 said:

Blackpuddin said:

I still believe that this plane was stolen to order.

Where is you evidence?

Where is your evidence against?

Wouldn't it be massively easier just to steal and empty airplane?

[Eric Mc]

Tyre Tread said:

Some Air Minsitry bod then said the work doen by this pilot was very credible.

The Air Ministry ceased to exist about 50 years ago.

[tleefox]

I'm not convinced it hasnt been hijacked / stolen by ISIS or some other equivalent group.

[Tyre Tread]

Eric Mc said:

Tyre Tread said:

Some Air Minsitry bod then said the work doen by this pilot was very credible.

The Air Ministry ceased to exist about 50 years ago.

Sorry Eric, I didn't recall which Dept or ministry or whatever he was from. But he was speaking on behalf of some official body

[Blackpuddin]

Vaud said:

Blackpuddin said:

Martin4x4 said:

Blackpuddin said:

I still believe that this plane was stolen to order.

Where is you evidence?

Where is your evidence against?

Wouldn't it be massively easier just to steal and empty airplane?

Not really because when they're empty they are at secure airports. Stealing a plane in flight is far easier. All you need is compliant flight staff. Plus of course if you stage your takeover early (like this one) you've got nice full tanks.

Edited by Blackpuddin on Monday 2nd March 16:50

[Blackpuddin]

tleefox said:

I'm not convinced it hasnt been hijacked / stolen by ISIS or some other equivalent group.

Ooh! You can't say that here without proving it, apparently.

[Vaud]

Blackpuddin said:

Not really because when they're empty they are at secure airports. Stealing a plane in flight is far easier. All you need is compliant staff.

Seriously? You think it is easier to get a crew conspiracy, hijack a plane, fly it somewhere, get rid of hundreds of people (at a airport big enough for this plane but not one passenger's phone is detected trying to connect to the local cell)...

... than to hijack one than is, say, being moved for maintenance, etc?