xflowgolf wrote:Basil Exposition wrote: The Bermuda Triangle is only one of several areas on the globe that swallows aircraft without a trace. These areas are on the exact opposite of the earth from each other. So, obviously, yes, it is aliens.How can "several areas" be "exactly opposite" of the Bermuda Triangle?
From each other, not the Bermuda Triangle, although there is one exactly opposite the Bermuda Triangle. If the NSA is going to read my posts, it needs to do so carefully.
Hijacking still alive and well in 2014...
although I really think they just haven't found the wreckage yet.
Only one I ever heard of who ever found a disappeared airliner was Banacek....
I'm leaning toward a suicidal pilot like the Egyptian plane a few years ago. I think if it was hijackers someone would have taken responsibility by now. Or they flew over a missile training site and were shot down by mistake but that would never happen.
The transponder is simply a device that adds a number to the radar return. Kind of like a licence plate. There is not a lot of reason to turn one off, but having it off is little different from setting it to VFR setting (1200), which all non-controlled aircraft will have it set to. I don't "think" it adds anything to the radar return, but it might have a slight effect on the strength.
The latest information I heard is that they don't think the plane turned around now, and are denying they said that. The Chinese are essentially calling the Malaysians idiots (they may not be too far off), and the Malaysians seems to be very bad at coordinating things.
A POSSIBLE bit of information came out from someone working on an oil rig off of Vung Tau (southern Vietnam). Not confirmed, but he said he saw a burning plane go down about the right time. He saw it to the south west, either heading towards or away from him (no relative motion). This would be right on the track to Beijing.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
Not really, once on radar you're unidentified and deemed suspicious.
oldtin wrote: Hijacking still alive and well in 2014...
Yes, but that was hijacked by the copilot...and he had a very clear agenda that did not involve dying.
Possibly found the wreckage via sat image to the east of the position the transponder stopped. POSSIBLY.
GameboyRMH wrote:jimbbski wrote: The thing I can't understand is why is it possible for a pilot to turn off the transponder. Isn't this something that should not be allowed or even possible? Like it should always be on as long as the planes in the air. They turned off the transponder on 9/11 with the plane that crashed in PA. You would have thought that the airlines and FAA and foreign versions would have fixed it so that it can't be turned off.The transponder isn't that important safety-wise...but then I can't think of a good reason to ever turn it off. For flying near hostile territory maybe? Planes going around certain borders might not want to advertise themselves and cause a fuss.
Were talking commercial passenger planes here not military. No way should a pass. plane need to turn off the transponder during a flight.
It's starting to look like they did not turn of the transponder. It stopped transmitting when the plane exploded. Which, all things considered, seems more likely.
I'm going with langoliers, has anyone seen Kirk Cameron lately?
Pardon my insensitivity, but:
They bought the tickets, they knew what they were getting into.
yamaha wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: Unidentified planes get even more scruitiny in those cases. Hell, the Russians shot down a 747 years ago because an instrument error sent them over Russian territory.....allegedly claimed it was a US electronic surveilence plane running a fake transponder signal. They guessed wrong.
Well that was 1983 and still during the cold war.
aircooled wrote: The transponder is simply a device that adds a number to the radar return. Kind of like a licence plate. There is not a lot of reason to turn one off, but having it off is little different from setting it to VFR setting (1200), which all non-controlled aircraft will have it set to. I don't "think" it adds anything to the radar return, but it might have a slight effect on the strength.
From what I understand it's an active transmitter beacon.
Reports now are saying the engines kept transmitting data (apparently something that they do) for 4 hours after radar contact was lost.
Make of it what you will, I'm just sitting back and watching the circus.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282.html
another report with conflicting views about the engine data.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane/index.html
nepa03focus wrote: I'm going with langoliers, has anyone seen Kirk Cameron lately?
Wrong movie, he was in Left Behind.
Two guys with stolen passports on the plane? Sounds like a clue. I say it done blowed up.
1988RedT2 wrote: Two guys with stolen passports on the plane? Sounds like a clue. I say it done blowed up.
I'd be fine with blowed up. The bigger fear, if there's any truth to the 4 hours of flight data from the engines and if we are to believe either the 2 passengers or possibly the flight crew had nefarious intent, is that the plane could have been stolen for use at a later date. Fill something that large with explosives and fuel and pick a target for obliteration.
JThw8 wrote:1988RedT2 wrote: Two guys with stolen passports on the plane? Sounds like a clue. I say it done blowed up.I'd be fine with blowed up. The bigger fear, if there's any truth to the 4 hours of flight data from the engines and if we are to believe either the 2 passengers or possibly the flight crew had nefarious intent, is that the plane could have been stolen for use at a later date. Fill something that large with explosives and fuel and pick a target for obliteration.
Without looking and digging, were they four hours from any landing location?
tuna55 wrote:JThw8 wrote:Without looking and digging, were they four hours from any landing location?1988RedT2 wrote: Two guys with stolen passports on the plane? Sounds like a clue. I say it done blowed up.I'd be fine with blowed up. The bigger fear, if there's any truth to the 4 hours of flight data from the engines and if we are to believe either the 2 passengers or possibly the flight crew had nefarious intent, is that the plane could have been stolen for use at a later date. Fill something that large with explosives and fuel and pick a target for obliteration.
According to the one article, the plane could have covered 2200 nautical miles.
tuna55 wrote:JThw8 wrote:Without looking and digging, were they four hours from any landing location?1988RedT2 wrote: Two guys with stolen passports on the plane? Sounds like a clue. I say it done blowed up.I'd be fine with blowed up. The bigger fear, if there's any truth to the 4 hours of flight data from the engines and if we are to believe either the 2 passengers or possibly the flight crew had nefarious intent, is that the plane could have been stolen for use at a later date. Fill something that large with explosives and fuel and pick a target for obliteration.
If I recall the article said 4 hours was 2200 nautical miles so yes, there could have been plenty of locations to land within that range. Unfortunately the engine data is just that, engine data, so there's no directional information to narrow it down. a 2200 mile radius is a large area.
Hell, there were tons of places within four hours.
You'll need to log in to post.
