MH 777 missing - MH370 media statement

Status
Not open for further replies.
Admittedly, that report was simply quoting a relative who made that comment. A sad story but given the area, will another search find anything more? At some point, it needs to be realised that spending huge amounts of money in a forlorn hope cannot continue indefinitely. It is a sad but true fact of life that some people will perish with no trace of their remains.
 
Article doesn't give much detail but I'd think a few problems with it
- doesnt appear to intersect with 7th arc
- plane would have to be flying much slower than normal cruise
- flying that close to Indonesia and Australia you would surely hit some Indonesian radar or Australias long range radar.
 
Uh huh. The plane flew low and slow so the pilots could parachute out of the coughpit. Then the autopilot took the plane back up to 30,000 feet, killing all the passengers, and then flew toll it crashed.

At the very least the problem seems to be a motive.
 
The interpretation of the pings will always be subject to reevaluation. But I think that same thing is what disproves this new theory - I just don't think that a plotter would have predicted this tracking means.

I have insisted from day one this event was "simple". The pilot wanted to die. He used his skills to devise a way of trying to disappear from radar. He "disabled" the rest of the crew and everyone else using depressurising. Then he merrily set off due south into the never never.
 
Article doesn't give much detail but I'd think a few problems with it
- doesnt appear to intersect with 7th arc
- plane would have to be flying much slower than normal cruise
- flying that close to Indonesia and Australia you would surely hit some Indonesian radar or Australias long range radar.

Like with EVERY other major disaster in recent history, things are never quite what they appear. My bet is that the truth is so unbelievable that 99.99% of the population wouldn't be able to accept it as fact.
 
Uh huh. The plane flew low and slow so the pilots could parachute out of the coughpit. Then the autopilot took the plane back up to 30,000 feet, killing all the passengers, and then flew toll it crashed.

At the very least the problem seems to be a motive.

The pilots parachute out whilst the passengers were still alive? How? coughpit windows? That would work...in no way whatsoever! And I guess the parachute were their hand luggage!

The autopilot won't climb the aircraft automatically.

You don't need silly conspiracy theories. Have a think about this: EgyptAir Flight 667 - Wikipedia
 
Sponsored Post

Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?

Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.

Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

Like with EVERY other major disaster in recent history, things are never quite what they appear. My bet is that the truth is so unbelievable that 99.99% of the population wouldn't be able to accept it as fact.

Please name one recent major disaster that did not turn out to be believable and what it appeared after review of known facts.
 

Geoffrey Thomas has an Airline Ratings website article debunking the Dane's views.

All very technical, but Mr Thomas quotes an 'unnamed expert.' It would be far better if the person concerned put his or her name to the comments. It may be unfair, but whenever I read media articles quoting 'sources' (especially prevalent in political stories), my first thought is often 'are these the reporter's views cleverly disguised?'
 
Geoffrey Thomas has an Airline Ratings website article debunking the Dane's views.

All very technical, but Mr Thomas quotes an 'unnamed expert.' It would be far better if the person concerned put his or her name to the comments. It may be unfair, but whenever I read media articles quoting 'sources' (especially prevalent in political stories), my first thought is often 'are these the reporter's views cleverly disguised?'

No no. Far from that. ‘Sources’ will usually mean someone who wants to stay off the record. Journalistic integrity would prevent any good journalist from attempting to disguise their own views under such a banner.

When you see ‘sources’ quoted it usually means there is an actual source.
 
Geoffrey Thomas has an Airline Ratings website article debunking the Dane's views.

All very technical, but Mr Thomas quotes an 'unnamed expert.' It would be far better if the person concerned put his or her name to the comments. It may be unfair, but whenever I read media articles quoting 'sources' (especially prevalent in political stories), my first thought is often 'are these the reporter's views cleverly disguised?'
Given the history of the stories author, I wouldn't be surprised to find the "unnamed expert" was Geoffrey Thomas.
 
Sadly, like every other ‘theory’ we’ve heard about this, there’s precious little in the way of actual facts.
 
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top