Working Flight MH370 theories
5 2014-03-10 by Dark_Spectre
So we have the American IBM Technical Storage Executive for Malaysia Phillip Wood, a man working in mass storage aggregation for the company implicated by the Snowden papers for providing their services to assist the National Security Agency in surveilling the Chinese.. And now these 20 Freescale Engineers whom work for a global leader in embedded processing solutions (embedded smart phone tech and defense contracting) with equal NSA ties (Project PROMIS), all together on a plane..And now disappeared..
Coincidence??
These 21 people might not even be dead. My two running theories.
- Perhaps a little fast and furious dive under the radar
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=22922961
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/world/asia/malaysia-military-radar.html?hp&_r=1
to a flat water landing or remote island strip within fuel range after disabling the transponders to rendezvous with a Chinese ship or sub for transport to a black-site for advanced interrogation, scuttling the plane along with the remaining passengers.(any oceanic trenches in fuel capacity distance?)
Honestly, what would 200 lives be to the Chinese intelligence community for the opportunity to find out "exactly" the depth and scope of our intrusion.
Or perhaps US intelligence got late wind that their flying brain-trust of 21 were going to be arrested/detained/interrogated upon landing in China and the US intelligence community deemed the risk too great to their Asian based espionage programs and took appropriate action to "sanitize" the plane midflight.
2 US Aircraft carriers, a ballistic missile ship and an undetermined number of submarine all steaming at combat speed to the region to "assist in the rescue effort"..
Something's amiss..
Show me precedent where we have taken an equal MILITARY response in any other foreign civilian airline crash and I'll gladly retract my postulation.
With SOSUS declassified for some time now and used for scientific research by the national oceanographic association, and knowing that military technology stands a solid 20+ years ahead of available civilian technology, one can only assume that an order of magnitude increase in resolution and sensitivity has been achieved and implemented in their current global sonar network. This deduction implies that if a 770,000 lb (unoccupied and unfueled) 777 impacted the water at terminal velocity from 33,000ft, then ours or someone else's Navy triangulated the impact position within moments. (Even the engines alone assuming a fully catastrophic airframe failure weight approximately 18,260 lb (8,283 kg) or more apiece.. Those had to make one hell of a "ping"!
79 comments
35 totes_meta_bot 2014-03-10
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.
I am a bot. Comments? Complaints? Send them to my inbox!
1 Kreindeker 2014-03-10
I love you too. Keep giving us them sweet, sweet shills.
9 Jeffy29 2014-03-10
We are sending black helicopters after you as you speak!
-5 valek879 2014-03-10
I love you /u/totes_meta_bot
31 [deleted] 2014-03-10
[deleted]
2 Faceshovel 2014-03-10
What "worldview" would that be? Also, this "make up everything to fit some worldview "script is getting old. I suggest you ask your supervisor for a new one.
-35 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
I said "theories", not believe. There's quite a distinction. Ever try to postulate a potential scenario before? It's the cornerstone of problem solving. You should try it.
19 frothewin 2014-03-10
That's a hypothesis, not a theory.
Maybe you should educate yourself on the scientific method before you look for "evidence" that fits your hypothesis.
-28 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
You feel better now muthafucka? Let the intellectual superiority surge through you.
6 IAmWinter1988 2014-03-10
Theory= Heavily tested, researched, tested again, compared to conflicting evidence to change if need be, tested again, reach a conclusion.
Hypothesis= a statement made from little evidence (basically an assumption) made to invite the possibility or more research in the future
21 thc1967 2014-03-10
Would it be better if the two carrier groups in the area ignored the incident? Or took their sweet ass time getting there?
Come on. THINK!
4 Slicker1138 2014-03-10
I highly doubt the theory of them sending both of our carriers in the region to search for this plane. The GW is still in Japan so that hasn't been sent out and the search area is a few days steaming away for the other two in the region. And then we'd be leaving the entire Middle East region empty. I don't care who's on this plane there is NOTHING that important.
-31 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
Seem a little overkill for search and rescue?
Show me precedent where we have taken an equal MILITARY response in any other foreign civilian airline crash and ill retract my postulation.
26 thc1967 2014-03-10
The sea is a really, really, really, really big place and that plane could be anywhere.
If you were a good person and you wanted to try to save lives floating in the ocean, if there were any there, and you had TWO carrier groups in the area at your command, what would you do?
Send one and leave the other doing whatever it was doing?
Come on.
4 Faceshovel 2014-03-10
You have nothing to base your claims on besides speculation, the same thing you are using to judge OP's theory. Stop being a hypocrite.
-36 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
We have been shifting our military focus more and more towards China as each year passes in response to their military buildup. Ask any military analyst worth his security clearance. And now the Chinese have the moral high ground post PRISM/MUSCULAR/BLUEBERRY/TURBINE ETC revelations.
It's a great excuse if nothing else.
19 [deleted] 2014-03-10
[deleted]
-22 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
That is the best fucking theory yet! Lol I needed that laugh. You rock! +1 karma 4 U
15 [deleted] 2014-03-10
[deleted]
2 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=22922961
Still waiting for my apology you judgmental, unimaginative mob of fucktards.
0 [deleted] 2014-03-10
[deleted]
1 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
Says the he/she/it hiding from behind their throwaway account.. AnonymousUser125 indeed. Only trolls of the highest order go that route. Grow up and develop a sense of self and accept tractability and accountability for your words. What are you 12?
0 [deleted] 2014-03-10
[deleted]
1 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
Says the he/she/it hiding from behind their throwaway account.. Only trolls of the highest order go that route. Grow up and develop a sense of self and accept tractability and accountability for your words and actions. What are you 4?
0 [deleted] 2014-03-10
[deleted]
1 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
Love you 2 sweetie xoxoxo
1 Epic_Dude92 2014-03-10
Forgive me if I'm wrong but don't 777 wings break away under extreme force such as water?
8 Ocolus_the_bot 2014-03-10
Aaaaand it begins...
by: /u/jmkni
Upvotes: 13 | Downvotes: 8 | Timestamp of this thread.
Upvotes: 2 | Downvotes: 0 | Timestamp of cross-posting thread.
If this was an error, send me a message
2 Parapraxia 2014-03-10
I love the fact this bot exists.
14 mgrier123 2014-03-10
Because it has never shown evidence of brigading or....?
7 RaptorOnyx 2014-03-10
It must be that. I like conspiratard, as well as conspiracy. I browse conspiratard to see the batshit theories some people on facebook come up with, for example.
1 Glitchface 2014-03-10
This is proof... by the way. thank you
-1 mgrier123 2014-03-10
Except I didn't come from that link. I browse /r/conspiracy every once in awhile, saw this thread, and commented. Is that a crime?
-2 Glitchface 2014-03-10
Are you blind?
-2 Faceshovel 2014-03-10
Because it always shows evidence of brigading. They didn't use np link.
-1 mgrier123 2014-03-10
It has never shown evidence of brigading. The number of downvotes and upvotes posts have when this bot does its work is the normal ratio and amount a post should have i.e. an increased number of upvotes and downvotes, but a higher number of whichever type of vote that the post started with.
How is that "evidence" of brigading?
3 Faceshovel 2014-03-10
63 upvotes 69 downvotes
Why so many downvotes for someone voicing their thoughts on the matter? Can't people do that without being cynical? We all know who likes to silence free speech around here.
2 jvnk 2014-03-10
Maybe it's because /r/conspiracy frequenters as a whole actually have some rational skepticism skills(lol - hard to say that with a straight face). The premise itself is on weak legs to begin with and the case he presents doesn't help.
2 mgrier123 2014-03-10
This is exactly what's happening, yet people like the one above, think it's /r/conspiratard brigading when they don't brigade and it's /r/conspiracy that actually brigades. The projection is killing me.
2 jvnk 2014-03-10
Yeah, in fact, there was a thread that showed the Ocolus bot proved that vote brigading did not occur(or something like that) even though it was touted to show that. Can't find it right now tho.
1 mgrier123 2014-03-10
Exactly. I can't find it either as I forget the title but it did prove that there was never any vote brigading
0 Faceshovel 2014-03-10
So countless linking and an unhealthy obsession with this sub is normal to you? When has this sub ever shown this kind of behavior on a daily basis like they do?
1 mgrier123 2014-03-10
Here's the thread where they proved brigading didn't happen
Here's one example of an /r/conspiracy user trying to brigade /r/conspiratard
Here's another example of that same thing but for /r/videos
Then there's the time this sub brigaded ELI5
I know I can keep finding more examples of this sub brigading many others but /r/conspiratard highly, highly discourages brigading and a majority of things are now image posts and redditlogs archives instead of direct links, or at the very least np links.
And just linking to threads doesn't constitute brigading. I mean look at /r/bestof, /r/depthhub, /r/subredditdrama, /r/worstof, etc.
1 Faceshovel 2014-03-10
http://www.reddit.com/user/Ocolus_the_bot
The projection is killing me. Why is that sub so obsessed with this one?
0 Faceshovel 2014-03-10
Are you mocking this sub?
1 jvnk 2014-03-10
Quite the contrary, it's a complement.
1 Faceshovel 2014-03-10
What did you mean by this?
1 mgrier123 2014-03-10
... The /r/conspiracy mods? Wait wait, did you mean /r/conspiratard? Because they don't do anything but laugh at the shenanigans over here and the stupid stuff people say online. How is that silencing free speech?
3 MakingTrax 2014-03-10
Couple of things here. A Boeing 777-200 is not going to fly "under the radar" for 3100 miles getting hijacked to North Korea. Think about it.
This under the radar thing really gets me. The world we live on is basically a sphere. (I know that some in this reddit might take issue with that but lets just accept it as a fact.) So to use terrain blocking radar denial techniques would mean that you have to fly with some part of the terrain betwixt you and the radar transmitter. Now some of you get it. The only terrain in the ocean is waves and they are hard to fly a passenger jet behind. Now you can fly behind the curve of the planet but keep in mind that is a passenger jet you are trying to hide. Not a stealth fighter. It has the radar cross section of a 100 foot long billboard.
And you aren't trying to hide from A radar but from ALL radars. In practical terms it can not be done. Especially when you consider that as soon as they stopped transmitting the air traffic controllers started to look for them and pass the word to others to look for them. So sneaking off to North Korea isn't a viable scenario.
And I know that guy has more crazy in his head than his dear old dad did but do you really think he would hijack a passenger airliner? Because I think he would rather hang out with washed up NBA players and pretend he has a nuclear weapons program.
Edit 1: Some new information has become available. The Malaysian AF "tracked" the flight off to the west until it left their scopes at about 225 miles. The flight was at approximately 30,000 feet which correlates to a ground radar tracking station line of sight to the aircraft. This accounts for about 1000 miles of flight, only leaving 6000 possible flight miles left. Although it is improbable that the flight continued on that course the range still available to the aircraft could put it as far as the east coast of Africa. That leaves just the entire Indian Ocean to search.
3 lulzbanana 2014-03-10
Do note that the US has Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean
2 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
Ooh, had to google that one! Theres a genuine concrete runway with more than enough length for a plane of her size to land, and she belongs to one of our closest Allies and is leased to the US Navy... Very Interesting indeed. Nice, I love learning something new everyday! Had no clue an island of that size and national background even existed in the middle of that sea. Must be a relic of British expansionism. Thanks for the factoid! :-D
2 ArmyOfBruce 2014-03-10
Alien abduction?
2 rjc1956 2014-03-10
The search team seems to be keeping something important from the public. This was a cryptic comment from Malaysian civil aviation chief Azharuddin Abdul Rahman on why the search includes northern parts of the Malacca Strait, on the opposite side of the Malayasian peninsula and far west of the plane’s last known location. Azharuddin would not explain why crews were searching there, saying, "There are some things that I can tell you and some things that I can't."
2 [deleted] 2014-03-10
This thread was referenced on the latest podcast On the Media
1 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
Thank you for the link!
1 just_gets_worse 2014-03-10
I would watch this movie for sure. Imagine...Liam Neeson is ex-navy pilot now flying commercially. He is hijacked by North Korean terrorists and forced to fly to Tokyo and crash the plane into financial district. He has mere hours to bring down the highjackers or put the plane down in the ocean possibly killing everyone or the H.J. silence him and carry out their fateful plan.
1 AlanDorman 2014-03-10
Congrats man.
1 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
They ignored the most important part I y post regarding SOSUS's replacement but hey, what can ya do. :-P Yay!
1 ideatremor 2014-03-10
Sounds very plausible. If you're insane.
1 ILLNYE 2014-03-10
http://therebel.org/nodisinfo/752815-updated-mossad-clique-busted-in-malaysian-airlines-hoax
-5 sirron811 2014-03-10
My 2 cents:
The pilot was paid to "deliver" the plane, and the folks with stolen passports were there to ensure the plan went right.
The pilot was very experienced, and even "spent his off days tinkering with a flight simulator of the plane" - offer him enough money to pull it off and you have a plane that got hijacked by the pilot with a quick turn and nose-dive off of radar, and passengers kept in-check by the terrorist minders who boarded with stolen passports.
The plane was flown low and/or outside of radar and landed somewhere and delivered. OP's theory on the Chinese is interesting, but this could even be pirates or terrorists who may wish to ransom passengers or plane, or use the plane in a future attack. There were some very smart tech people on that plane, and ransoms could fetch ALOT.
EDIT: Still want to downvote this? Unfortunately this is one of the major points of investigation right now, as of March 13 at 6pm CDT.
-9 nickryane 2014-03-10
I'm still going for North Korean hi-jacking and diversion:
http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2007dm/what_if_flight_mh370_was_hijacked_and_diverted_to/
-4 NameTaken410 2014-03-10
I concur
-14 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
And I just noticed CNN has completely removed reference to the IBM storage Executive onboard under their "what we know" story. Coincidence?
"What we know: There were 239 people on board: 227 passengers and 12 crew members. Five of the passengers were younger than 5 years old. Those on board included respected painters and calligraphers, as well as employees of an American semiconductor company."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/10/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-knowns-unknowns/index.html?c=mobile-homepage-t&page=2
-17 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
No water landings eh?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549
Short memory you have...
And yes. Sanitize..
10 kashisaki 2014-03-10
An Airbus 320 is not a Boeing 777, and that story is remarkable for its rarity.
-13 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
A Boeing 777 is designed to be capable of ditching safely on the water and stay afloat. That is why there are 8 slide rafts in the aircraft capable of accommodating more than 300 passengers in the event of a safe ditching on the sea.
7 kashisaki 2014-03-10
It has the ability to deploy those measures in the EXTREMELY small chances a safe landing on water occurs. It's designed to fly, not to ditch.
-15 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
Now your just ignoring engineering fact and replacing it with your own set of imaginary physics. Try googling 777 water landing.
And looking for deep sea trenches within fuel capacity distance. ;-) Gotta make sure that scuttled plane isn't easily or quickly recovered.
7 kashisaki 2014-03-10
Amazing. Googling it finds a YouTube video of flight simulator. I hope all the sources on this sub are so good. Did you mean Cpt Lim's page then? Which you quoted verbatim with no reference? Where he calls the likelihood of that happening remote? Yes, it's possible with perfect conditions he says. Possible and probable are so different though, aren't they. Think back to all those plane crashes were we saw the dramatic footage of rescuers pulling people off of life rafts.
-13 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
Looks pretty plausible to me if you have no control surface issues (like in a hijacking)
This 777 attempted this maneuver unsuccessfully because it dipped its wing.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kWE1j_8Iy7I
3 kashisaki 2014-03-10
Day time, flat sea, this are pretty good conditions. Why did this plane crash?
-10 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
No info and I can't make out any markings. I'd assume fuel or hydraulics issues. But proves its been done, and even when done poorly, surviveably.(sp?)
4 kashisaki 2014-03-10
It shows a "Boeing" crashing and disintegrating.
0 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
But the comments state they survived. And those were unideal conditions with the aircraft itself. ;-)
2 kashisaki 2014-03-10
You should demand a higher standard of evidence.
1 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
Conceded! A YouTube comment is nothing. The actual flights number would give us the true story and survival numbers (if any as you assert)
3 [deleted] 2014-03-10
[deleted]
1 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
Copy that. Good research!
Maybe J.J Abrahams is rebooting Lost :-P
7 MathW 2014-03-10
There is no way you could guarantee a water ditching without a significant chance for losing some, or all, lives on board. Water ditchings with jumbo jets take an extreme combination of circumstance, pilot skill and luck. You hit a wave the wrong way and suddenly your aircraft is broken apart and passengers spilled into the sea or strapped into a rapidly sinking aircraft.
-8 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
They could have ditched! i wonder if there are any parachutes on a commercial airliner?(pilots for sure) And if so how many? Kill the pilots, lock the door and let gravity and inertia do the rest. But indeed a water landing does appear not to be an "ideal" exit strategy if you want living interogees. But time may have been short on planning this.
I just saw an unconfirmed reddit article stating a pilot may have found a large debris field near ho chi minh city.
Looks to be false though,
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/201ofa/an_airliner_enroute_to_hong_kong_has_reported_a/
5 MathW 2014-03-10
I don't believe commercial airliners typically carry any parachutes nor are they really designed to have people jump out of them. (In almost any situation where an evacuation by parachute would be feasible, passengers, most of whom have no skydiving experience, would have a higher probability of survival staying on the plane). But I've really given your insane ramblings of a troubled mind more thought and time than they are worth.
-9 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
Agreed, you should rest now.
0 Shadow_Dog 2014-03-10
That flight didn't reach full altitude and was only in air <1 hr IIRC.
0 Dark_Spectre 2014-03-10
But the comments state they survived. And those were unideal conditions with the aircraft itself. ;-)
2 kashisaki 2014-03-10
You should demand a higher standard of evidence.
9 Jeffy29 2014-03-10
We are sending black helicopters after you as you speak!