I believe it was a fire that holed the fuselage and then went out due to lack of oxygen, wind, and cold. I don’t know what happened in fact, and neither does anyone else.
That’s how I see it. I’m not discounting any possibility but there needs to be a good lead to suggest someone took over the aircraft. Most aviation crashes are the result of a series of events that by themselves are not fatal but added together cause the crash.
A few weeks after the disappearance, I did finally see an article that stated that Vietnamese ATC also reported them off the screens at 1:21. Which is consistent with my understanding of dual ATC coverage when transitioning from one control area to another, not no-man’s-land like most reports.
ETA: A friend in the aviation industry also queried what Malaysian Airlines’s response was, as she understands their control centre has real-time monitoring of all their aircraft in-flight.
who?
who does the “evidence” indicate had motivation to harm the plane? what was their motivation?
what was the goal?
what exactly is the evidence?
all any of ANY of us has is speculation. if you can provide credible evidence for one or both of the pilots “snapping” and up and deciding to be mass murderers, what is it? because man you need some pretty strong evidence to build that case.
the Malaysian National Order of Clusterfuckery saying the two pilots are still “under investigation” is only as credible as any of the hundreds of other things they’ve reneged on. so i hope we don’t have to take their word for it.
what real evidence does anyone have to draw any conclusion, one way or the other?
as i see it, the only REAL, CREDIBLE evidence ANYONE has is that an airplane vanished. for some reason.
nearly every other aspect of this debacle has been swished and swashed and done and undone. I’m sorry. i just don’t see any “evidence” that “proves” anyone had malicious intent. if you can prove it, without just a big ol’ wag, then you are well ahead of literally everyone else involved in this thing, officials included.
The arithmetic says that if the plane flew straight back from the point where it turned around, the flying time that it had left should have taken it a thousand miles south of the current search area. On the other hand, the location of the search area corresponds with the limit of the plane’s range if it made all the turns.
You might want to think a little harder about opportunity cost. If there was a hot war on, such that the US Navy was at maximum capacity, searching for this missing airplane would displace other activities. But for now, it’s a training mission. I suspect that there aren’t a lot of good alternative uses or the Navy’s Bluefin 21 robotic submarine, for example. Conceivably, it might make sense to conduct the search indefinitely, or at least until the US has another one of its periodic military engagements. (No snark there, just the reality).
(And yes, I understand that there are still eg 33,000+ US troops in Afghanistan).
Rather than get into a pointless argument with someone who thinks that starting all sentences with lower case letters is a charming affectation to be admired, I prefer to wait until more evidence is gathered.
well, i never said it was charming, but if that’s all it takes to make you cow down to a debate, i guess i’ll take it. “i can’t argue your words but i can sure moan about the manner you presented them.”
After all this time, the only thing that is really known for certain is that the plane disappeared. The public seems to know precious little other important info.
I don’t understand how it has come about that so many people seem to have such strong opinions about this event.
Does anyone here know of any Psychological theories that would explain why so many people seem to have such strong opinions?
Cite the routes,w the fuel uplift and fuel burn. The routes should be verifiable by radar signatures from a variety of sources. I haven’t seen any reliable source (cough, Malaysian gov’t) giving any useful information that the public can disseminate.
I’ll get on the horn and demand radar data from the Malaysian military pronto.
Nobody can prove anything so asking for cites is pointless. We’re comparing the likelihood of various scenarios based on largely circumstantial evidence. If you think the oil rig worker’s discredited report is legitimate, that millions of dollars were spent searching west of Malaysia on a whim, that the Malaysians are completely disingenuous, and that the plane burned an unusual amount of fuel just to fit your hypothesis, that’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t remotely fit the mountain of circumstantial evidence.
Cites are not pointless. in a discussion You made a statement about the fuel burn. I asked for a cite because I haven’t seen any reliable source on the matter.
