Where the heck is that Malaysian 777?

JThw8 wrote:

Holy crap, that narrows it down. I could do the math, but it's astounding when you lay that radius on a map.

tuna55 wrote: Holy crap, that narrows it down. I could do the math, but it's astounding when you lay that radius on a map.

Yeah, if there's any accuracy to the 4 hour run time estimate then this goes way beyond needle in a haystack.

Maybe they did get to Bejing and no one realized it. Someone should check and see if there's an extra plane out there somewhere.
On the radio this morning they were talking about it being stolen and saved for later. I don't know how well that would work. I have to think a plane appearing out of nowhere would be even more suspicious then one disappearing and be a target long before it could reach anything.

Wally wrote: Maybe they did get to Bejing and no one realized it. Someone should check and see if there's an extra plane out there somewhere. On the radio this morning they were talking about it being stolen and saved for later. I don't know how well that would work. I have to think a plane appearing out of nowhere would be even more suspicious then one disappearing and be a target long before it could reach anything.

But if they've truly stolen it for later use then they've already proven that by disabling the transponder and flying below radar range they can get a long way without being detected. I don't know that I'd rule out the possibility, or at least that someone would try it.

So they steal the plane, land it somewhere, and kill 200-and-some-odd passengers?

I have wondered if they might find it sitting in the middle of the Australian outback... empty...

In reply to 1988RedT2:

They built an exact copy of Chinese Customs. The 200 people get off the plane and wait in line while you abandon them.

JThw8 wrote:

Wally wrote: Maybe they did get to Bejing and no one realized it. Someone should check and see if there's an extra plane out there somewhere. On the radio this morning they were talking about it being stolen and saved for later. I don't know how well that would work. I have to think a plane appearing out of nowhere would be even more suspicious then one disappearing and be a target long before it could reach anything.

But if they've truly stolen it for later use then they've already proven that by disabling the transponder and flying below radar range they can get a long way without being detected. I don't know that I'd rule out the possibility, or at least that someone would try it.

Major T. J. "King" Kong said: Well, boys, we got three engines out, we got more holes in us than a horse trader's mule, the radio is gone and we're leaking fuel and if we was flying any lower why we'd need sleigh bells on this thing... but we got one little budge on them Rooskies. At this height why they might harpoon us but they dang sure ain't gonna spot us on no radar screen!

That radius chart seems very flawed. It looks like they are working off of the range to it's destination. However, there is always going to a be a good amount of fuel reserve carried. It appears to be a bit variable for commercial flights (also, not sure how much foreign carries adhere to the exact numbers). But, it seems, at LEAST 10% reserves seemed to be likely, but it is probably more.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/app-g.htm

Carrying extra fuel is expensive... running out of fuel because of an unplanned event is VERY expensive.

1988RedT2 wrote: So they steal the plane, land it somewhere, and kill 200-and-some-odd passengers?

Assuming you believe their intent is to load it up with explosives and fly it somewhere to go boom then why would you think the lives of the passengers were of any consequence? All theoretical of course, I still kind of think its at the bottom of the ocean somewhere.

aircooled wrote: That radius chart seems very flawed. It looks like they are working off of the range to it's destination. However, there is always going to a be a good amount of fuel reserve carried. It appears to be a bit variable for commercial flights (also, not sure how much foreign carries adhere to the exact numbers). But, it seems, at LEAST 10% reserves seemed to be likely, but it is probably more. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/app-g.htm

The were working on the range which could have been covered in the time before the engines stopped sending data (approx 4 hours) at maximum airspeed. I don't think fuel capacity was a factor so I would assume it had enough fuel to cover 4 hours at max airspeed at a minimum.

JThw8 wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: So they steal the plane, land it somewhere, and kill 200-and-some-odd passengers?

Assuming you believe their intent is to load it up with explosives and fly it somewhere to go boom then why would you think the lives of the passengers were of any consequence? All theoretical of course, I still kind of think its at the bottom of the ocean somewhere.

Surely, I don't doubt that anyone who would steal the plane for the purpose of a terrorist attack would have any ethical difficulty killing 200 people. But I was curious about the logistics of such an act within the confines of a jetliner, and assuming some difficulty getting weapons on board.

Maybe the pilots just backed the throttles off to idle because they thought the auto throttle was on?

JThw8 wrote: All theoretical of course, I still kind of think its at the bottom of the ocean somewhere.

I'm still thinking along these lines although I don't think the flight veered west, I think it veered slightly east and went down.

1988RedT2 wrote:

JThw8 wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: So they steal the plane, land it somewhere, and kill 200-and-some-odd passengers?

Assuming you believe their intent is to load it up with explosives and fly it somewhere to go boom then why would you think the lives of the passengers were of any consequence? All theoretical of course, I still kind of think its at the bottom of the ocean somewhere.

Surely, I don't doubt that anyone who would steal the plane for the purpose of a terrorist attack would have any ethical difficulty killing 200 people. But I was curious about the logistics of such an act within the confines of a jetliner, and assuming some difficulty getting weapons on board.

Also... if you are a terrorist enterprise it does you no good if no one knows you did it. So, if it was an intentional thing - where are the credit-takers?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote:

JThw8 wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: So they steal the plane, land it somewhere, and kill 200-and-some-odd passengers?

Assuming you believe their intent is to load it up with explosives and fly it somewhere to go boom then why would you think the lives of the passengers were of any consequence? All theoretical of course, I still kind of think its at the bottom of the ocean somewhere.

Surely, I don't doubt that anyone who would steal the plane for the purpose of a terrorist attack would have any ethical difficulty killing 200 people. But I was curious about the logistics of such an act within the confines of a jetliner, and assuming some difficulty getting weapons on board.

Also... if you are a terrorist enterprise it does you no good if no one knows you did it. So, if it was an intentional thing - where are the credit-takers?

Waiting until they use the aircraft as a weapon to take credit.

i know there is a big radius of where it could of ended up but if the plan is to use it again where would you be able to land, store, and take off in that big of a plane without anybody noticing?

edizzle89 wrote: i know there is a big radius of where it could of ended up but if the plan is to use it again where would you be able to land, store, and take off in that big of a plane without anybody noticing?

That's kind of the point, its really not that big in relation to the search area. There's a whole lot of China that is wilderness, assuming a base of operations was set up in advance with a primitive landing strip it could theoretically be done. It's surprisingly less difficult to hide "large" items than one may think.

edit I'm in no way implying China is complicit in anything, just used it as an example, its a large land mass with areas that are not populated and could easily hide large objects.

My rational brain insists it's on the bottom of the ocean, but I'm not convinced. When planes normally go down there is a lot of wreckage on the surface, cushions, clothing, life vests etc. Breaking up just gives those items more chance to escape from the plane. The conspiracy theorist part of my brain says it's holed up in some out of the way temporary and camouflaged hanger getting filled up with lots of bog bad BOOM material and will next be seen in a large population center. I really hope my rational brain has this one nailed.

edizzle89 wrote: i know there is a big radius of where it could of ended up but if the plan is to use it again where would you be able to land, store, and take off in that big of a plane without anybody noticing?

A bigass 8~9 digit airbase that you hope nobody notices on satellite maps. But the US government ran one just like that in the UAE desert for a number of years.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: My rational brain insists it's on the bottom of the ocean, but I'm not convinced. When planes normally go down there is a lot of wreckage on the surface, cushions, clothing, life vests etc. Breaking up just gives those items more chance to escape from the plane. The conspiracy theorist part of my brain says it's holed up in some out of the way temporary and camouflaged hanger getting filled up with lots of bog bad BOOM material and will next be seen in a large population center. I really hope my rational brain has this one nailed.

Exactly how I feel about it.

I understand that in Central Asia, like Mongolia, the "airports" are really just flat spots in the desert. No pavement. They just land 747's on the dirt there, at least in the summer.

This is getting interesting, in a bad way.

Seriously though, it's not holed up in a hangar. No government would do that and no terrorist organization in real life is as well-funded as COBRA.

JThw8 wrote: The were working on the range which could have been covered in the time before the engines stopped sending data (approx 4 hours) at maximum airspeed. I don't think fuel capacity was a factor so I would assume it had enough fuel to cover 4 hours at max airspeed at a minimum.

OK, I see. Buuutt, that brings up something else: They are saying the engines ran for pretty much the exact amount of time it would have taken for it to get to it's destination. That seems suspiciously precise. As in, maybe there was some sort of assumption (or mistake of course) that has taken affect somewhere in the system of recording and reporting that (human or otherwise).

The last coverage I heard this morning was that the data that the engines kept running for 4 hours was false, has something changed?