• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What happened to the Malaysian jet and why?

SBu

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,523
Reaction score
636
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well here goes. Never posted in this forum before, but this is the biggest aviation mystery of our time and I think could pose an interesting conspiracy debate.

I still think the flight experienced some catastrophic failure, but let's examine the other possibilities. Assuming that the aircraft landed someplace, it is hard to believe that a group of ragtag terrorists could have pulled off such a feat without some kind of help from a state sponsor or organized terror group that has substantial control of parts of a state. Keeping that in mind, what major groups or countries would be willing to stir up outrage in China to accomplish some yet unforeseen objective, and what could that objective be.

Iran? No. China and Iran are close partners, and radar coverage around Iran is pretty top notch. Doesn't mean Iran couldn't have been involved in some covert way, but no way it could be in or around Iran. I also don't think Iran would be willing to be involved in something like this because it is too high profile and would isolate them from their Chinese partners if found out. Then again there were apparently two Iranians on board with stolen passports. BBC listed them as potential defectors, in which case maybe Iran would have had some kind of interest in preventing them from defecting. They wouldn't risk war with China though.

Chinese separatists? Recently I heard that one of the ethic Uyghurs was on board, and one of their groups have claimed responsibility. That claim has been dismissed by governments. The passenger in question was a university professor working in Turkey and returning home for some reason. One man, with a cushy university job, not a very likely suspect to take over an entire airplane and land it someplace. That is unless he had co-conspirators on board with him as the flight was overwhelmingly Chinese by nationality. Likely, however, that if this was a hijacking by these groups, they would have continued into China to crash it, or have made demands fairly early in the disappearance. Given the new search locations identified , I think this is unlikely.

Muslim extremists generally? Possible. The most likely scenario in this case I think would have been an inside job by the pilot and/or copilot with the help of a co-conspirator or two in the back. They wouldn't have flown north or north west because of good radar coverage in India, China, the US in the 'stans', and Russia beyond. Possibly they landed someplace in Somalia controlled by Islamist rebels. Poor radar coverage there, likely that the rebel groups there control some kind of airport, and any number of state sponsors could be involved covertly in that lawless region with plausible deny-ability. It is also within range.

China itself? Hmmmm, interesting. The vast majority of passengers were Chinese, so China as a state would have relatively little to lose. China released the false positive satellite photos which is interesting because they were rebuffed within 24 hours, a bit of an embarrassment ... or an intentional act to delay or suspend searching in the true location of the flight path. Had the flight turned north into China, well then the lack of radar reports or sightings aren't so surprising because China would have been complicit in the disappearance. Why would they do this? That is where the theory falls apart because there's no good reason unless China had a national interest in someone or something on the plane.

Most probable if it was terrorism is that they took over and incompetently crashed the plane into the sea someplace not heavily traversed by ocean traffic.

What do you think?
 
I don't even know what to think anymore. At this point aliens could have beamed MH370 to a galaxy far far away and I wouldn't be surprised if Jawas on Tatooine were salvaging the parts right now and the passengers being sold into Hutt slavery.
 
It was jacked and landed on an island somewhere. Though with all the area to be covered, if it did crash, they may never find any wreckage.

I was asked, why the passengers didn't use their cell phones during a hijacking, and I replied the terrorists could've used a signal jammer. But then it occurred to me that they might have been out of range from any cell tower service?
 
I still think it might be in a very small impact crater. At first I would have bet on a crash on the original flight path, but after this long with that many assets in the area searching I have to go with the land crash. The second most likely I think would be hijacked and landed somewhere or crashed while attempting to land.
 
It was jacked and landed on an island somewhere. Though with all the area to be covered, if it did crash, they may never find any wreckage.

I was asked, why the passengers didn't use their cell phones during a hijacking, and I replied the terrorists could've used a signal jammer. But then it occurred to me that they might have been out of range from any cell tower service?

I don't think cell phones work in flight. Probable that the plane was wifi capable and passengers could have used that to connect with the outside, maybe even had satellite phones on board. Likely that those systems can be turned off in the cockpit or by flight attendants though.

When I first heard about this, I thought no brainer...jet had electrical problems that may have led to a depressurization in the cabin forcing it to descend, turn west to get to land, and then divert into a nearby airport, overflew land either due to weather or task saturation in the cockpit, and from there who knows. But the more I hear about certain systems being turned off, apparently intentionally, the more this becomes a more and more bizarre story.
 
I don't think cell phones work in flight. Probable that the plane was wifi capable and passengers could have used that to connect with the outside, maybe even had satellite phones on board. Likely that those systems can be turned off in the cockpit or by flight attendants though.

When I first heard about this, I thought no brainer...jet had electrical problems that may have led to a depressurization in the cabin forcing it to descend, turn west to get to land, and then divert into a nearby airport, overflew land either due to weather or task saturation in the cockpit, and from there who knows. But the more I hear about certain systems being turned off, apparently intentionally, the more this becomes a more and more bizarre story.

I don't think anything prevents cell use in a plane, except rules and distance.

After today's new info that the plane flew for 7 hrs and that the pilots- homes and families are being searched/questioned, it's looking like a planned takeover. God knows where it is or for what purpose.
 
I don't think anything prevents cell use in a plane, except rules and distance.

After today's new info that the plane flew for 7 hrs and that the pilots- homes and families are being searched/questioned, it's looking like a planned takeover. God knows where it is or for what purpose.

I meant cell phones to place a call. Certainly a cell phone will work, but I don't think you can get a cellular signal in flight.
 
I don't think anything prevents cell use in a plane, except rules and distance.

After today's new info that the plane flew for 7 hrs and that the pilots- homes and families are being searched/questioned, it's looking like a planned takeover. God knows where it is or for what purpose.


That's where I'm at today. If they can prove the aircraft was in the air and transmitting or logged into, or whatever, the maintenance data, then the only possible explanation is a hijacking.

Just like the Ethiopian flight that landed in Switzerland last month after the copilot decided to defect, if the crew is in on the scam, anything is possible.
 
I meant cell phones to place a call. Certainly a cell phone will work, but I don't think you can get a cellular signal in flight.

Why not? The plane uses RF signals to communicate. Because it's a low powered transmitter/receiver?
 
That's where I'm at today. If they can prove the aircraft was in the air and transmitting or logged into, or whatever, the maintenance data, then the only possible explanation is a hijacking.

"All right, good night."

Those are the last words heard from the cockpit.

Like most everything surrounding flight MH 370, that's yet unknown. But someone apparently did something.

Not long after the flight took off from Kuala Lumpur and the voice signed off, communications systems were disabled, and the plane's transponder was turned off, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said Saturday.

That last device is situated between the pilots and can be shut off with a twist of the wrist. For a pilot to turn it off would seem reckless because the information it transmits gives the plane vital protection. It helps people on the ground locate the plane.

Someone would have to know how to do it and also know the plane would lose that protection.

Malaysia Airlines: The pilots of the missing plane, flight MH 370 - CNN.com
 
Why not? The plane uses RF signals to communicate. Because it's a low powered transmitter/receiver?

Because when the plane is at altitude it is out of range of cell phone towers. Cell towers aren't polarized correctly to transmit their signals upward and commercial jets usually fly at around 35k' to 40k' which is roughly 6+ nautical miles high. You could probably get a signal up to around 5-10k', but that is just a transitional altitude for commercial jets.

I think for cell phones to be used at altitude like we do on the ground, it would require certain plane modifications and cellular infrastructure changes to happen. However, these big jets do have wifi now that you can purchase access to, and that could be used to place a call.
 
Why not? The plane uses RF signals to communicate. Because it's a low powered transmitter/receiver?

Because the cellular system was designed and built to be a terrestrial system, meant to be used by humans on the surface, not flying airplanes.
 
Because when the plane is at altitude it is out of range of cell phone towers. Cell towers aren't polarized correctly to transmit their signals upward and commercial jets usually fly at around 35k' to 40k' which is roughly 6+ nautical miles high. You could probably get a signal up to around 5-10k', but that is just a transitional altitude for commercial jets.

I think for cell phones to be used at altitude like we do on the ground, it would require certain plane modifications and cellular infrastructure changes to happen. However, these big jets do have wifi now that you can purchase access to, and that could be used to place a call.

Yeah, but the plane doesn't stay at those heights during ascent and descent. Someone should've been able to get a signal out or they wouldn't tell you to turn them off during take-off.
 
"All right, good night."

Those are the last words heard from the cockpit.



Malaysia Airlines: The pilots of the missing plane, flight MH 370 - CNN.com

Turning off a transponder is a very easy thing to do. Also turning off comms is a very easy thing to do. Coincidentally, an electrical problem can also 'disable' these electronics while concurrently producing a depressurization of the cabin. It is possible that a complex electrical problem can disable certain systems while other systems run normally through redundant systems. The suspicious thing is that news agencies seem to be alluding that someone actually had to dig into electrical systems in an area of the plane other than the cockpit to disable some of the systems. That clearly wouldn't have been part of a complex electrical problem and subsequent trouble shooting, but an unnecessary deliberate act.
 
Yeah, but the plane doesn't stay at those heights during ascent and descent. Someone should've been able to get a signal out or they wouldn't tell you to turn them off during take-off.

Ascent and descent to altitudes above cellular coverage are transitional and only take a few minutes. Assuming that a hijacking wouldn't have taken place until at cruising altitude, as the data suggests, then they wouldn't have been able to get a call out. For the record, they tell you to turn off your cell phones while below 10k' because of an antiquated notion that they could mess with navigation or flight control systems during 'critical' phases of flight. This is absolutely untrue as any pilot will tell you.
 
Turning off a transponder is a very easy thing to do. Also turning off comms is a very easy thing to do. Coincidentally, an electrical problem can also 'disable' these electronics while concurrently producing a depressurization of the cabin. It is possible that a complex electrical problem can disable certain systems while other systems run normally through redundant systems. The suspicious thing is that news agencies seem to be alluding that someone actually had to dig into electrical systems in an area of the plane other than the cockpit to disable some of the systems. That clearly wouldn't have been part of a complex electrical problem and subsequent trouble shooting, but an unnecessary deliberate act.

An electrical fire (most common system wide failure) would've brought the plane down, so it does look like tampering or catastrophic failure, at some later point, when the transponder was turned off.


Ascent and descent to altitudes above cellular coverage are transitional and only take a few minutes. Assuming that a hijacking wouldn't have taken place until at cruising altitude, as the data suggests, then they wouldn't have been able to get a call out. For the record, they tell you to turn off your cell phones while below 10k' because of an antiquated notion that they could mess with navigation or flight control systems during 'critical' phases of flight. This is absolutely untrue as any pilot will tell you.

From what I've read, the planes radio operates in the same frequency range 900-2000Mhz range as cells. And if enough of them were in use at once, it could cause a cloud of signal interference, theoretically.
 
I just heard that the transponder was turned off before the transmission of "Alright, good night." So it's the sequence of events that causes suspicion about it being done purposefully.
 
An electrical fire (most common system wide failure) would've brought the plane down, so it does look like tampering or catastrophic failure, at some later point, when the transponder was turned off.




From what I've read, the planes radio operates in the same frequency range 900-2000Mhz range as cells. And if enough of them were in use at once, it could cause a cloud of signal interference, theoretically.

Generally, ATC comms are in the VHF spectrum (30-300Mhz) during routine flight, usually in the one hundred to two hundred Mhz range for civilian aviation. They would also have HF comms (3-30Mhz) for longer distance communication but they are usually less clear. Some aircraft also communicate in UHF (300 - 3000Mhz), but I've never seen anything higher than the 300s for that in aviation. So no, it wouldn't affect aircraft comms.
 
Why didn't one passenger call a friend on their cell phone? Not one!!
 
Why didn't one passenger call a friend on their cell phone? Not one!!

- late night flight
- not many cell towers out over the ocean.

I find nothing strange about the no cell calls.

If the plane also had on board wifi. Is it not possible that was turned off?
 
Deliberate fowl play is now the accepted opinion.
 
Ocean ate it. How it happened? Methinks those passengers without legitimate passports did something. That, or there were some other kind of terrorist on board, like Chinese.

EDIT: A part of me wants extraterrestrials to be involved.
 
Landing gear fire/ attempt to head to closest airport landing/ Pilots incapacitated by smoke/ ghost flight en route/ auto pilot engaged/ splashdown when fuel exhausted.
 
Ocean ate it. How it happened? Methinks those passengers without legitimate passports did something. That, or there were some other kind of terrorist on board, like Chinese.

EDIT: A part of me wants extraterrestrials to be involved.


I've been wondering about the ET angle since the beginning....

But considering the ACARS and HUMS data, and the reports from family members regarding cell phone response, that seems unlikely.
 
Back
Top Bottom