Which has what to do with it not hitting the seabed?
'Contact lost' with Malaysia Airlines plane
- Thread starter Domo
- Start date
Which has what to do with it not hitting the seabed?
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
The Gulf of Thailand is not ocean. It isn't 100m deep.
Actually, now that the pings have been confirmed it's starting to look like the haphazardness isn't as haphazard as first appears. The radar communications appear we were told earlier this week appear totally with the currently hypothesized route of the plane towards the Andaman islanew. Either the malasians weren't discussing it all because they were starting at the obvious answer (not having the extra hours of flight confirmed in the first few days) and checking for a downed plane or because they were keeping certain areas of the investigation colse to their chests as is the case in situations like this.
Now the big question is: If the plane did continue on towards the Andaman islands deliberately and along standard flight paths (indicating pre planning) who did it and why? Was it a hijacking? was it one of the pilots being paid off to do it? If either of them then why? Did they land safely wherever they went or perhaps did they run out of fuel (hijacking) and ditch?
Personally the idea of a suicidal pilot or terror attack makes no sense as they would ditch asap, not fly somewhere random and then do it. As far as I remember there have been incidents of hijackers running out of fuel in the past, trying to get elsewhere, but it doesn't make sense in this case.
Maybe the phones ringing actually were phones ringing... Perhaps they landed on/near an island for some reason and something offloaded.
I'm still going for hijacking at the moment, makes the most sense without a large conspiracy theory. Plane runs out of fuel over the ocean and ditches. The hijacker(s) don't have to get into the cabin to do it, the pilots could be coerced by hostages. Doesn't explain the lack of communication, unless one of them knew how to disable the equipment on the plane...
The laws of physics still apply under water by the way...
An object as big as a plane sinking at 15-20mph is still going to make a noticeable noise when it hits the bottom.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
Guys, a huge plane (250 tonnes or so) at 500 knots hitting water will cause a huge pressure wave which radiates in three dimensions. The highest force will be immediately down, in the direction of the plane's trajectory. There will be attenuation as the energy travels through the water but it will still be a significant force when it hits the seabed 100m below. It would have a central peak and would diminish outwards, much like an inverted seismic event.
If this is so plausible why are none of the major news outlets carrying this story?
CNN does not count as a decent source.
EDIT: The seismic activity is bang on the plane's path to Beijing. Not consistent with the Indian Ocean theory.
2nd EDIT: they're now saying that seismic activity in that region is perfectly normal.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
It is physics, it's nothing to do with plausibility. It's what happens.
I refer you to my earlier post where the oil rig guy saw something burn and whatever that was ditched and something else flew off west. Or the seismic thing could have been a meteorite
It is physics, it's nothing to do with plausibility. It's what happens.
I refer you to my earlier post where the oil rig guy saw something burn and whatever that was ditched and something else flew off west. Or the seismic thing could have been a meteorite
See my second edit above... we're just going round in circles here.
He didnt say that's what happened, he explained why it was possible.
From the evidence, it seems most likely that the plane flew somewhere over the Indian Ocean (and may still be in the Ocean)
I think the plane landed somewhere, it's in a huge bunker, and all the people onboard are being held hostage, or being used for some sort of testing. I know it sounds farfetched, but thats my take on it.
Might be more then a few parties involved too.
Might be more then a few parties involved too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 6,243
- Location
- North of Watford Gap
I still struggle to understand how a massive plane could have potentially flown hundreds of miles over or around several countries near one of the most highly-strung areas of the world undetected or barely detected.
A multi-seater passenger plane, yes. A drone way up in the stratosphere, yes. But a large passenger plane? That must be like threading a needle even if it's possible at all.
A multi-seater passenger plane, yes. A drone way up in the stratosphere, yes. But a large passenger plane? That must be like threading a needle even if it's possible at all.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 2,180
- Location
- Edinburgh
I still think the only theory I've heard that makes sense is a hijack and intention to use it as a 9/11 style attack on Diego Garcia but it simply didn't make it that far
What's so important about the military base in Diego Garcia to make it such a target?
Yes, which is to enormously attenuate the energy of the impact over the average 1km depth of the South China Sea.
I'm not talking about a plane hitting the seabed at cruising speed.
A plane ditching into the sea, floating for 10-20 mins then sinking will still hit the bottom with considerable force. Easily detectable by a seismometer.
(this is irrelevant though, as it's likely that the plane didnt ditch into the south china sea)