Malaysian airlines: the rise of Al Queada?

Big fucking surprise... JDIdiot's gotta feel like a total asshole.

I never, and I heard no one else say it on this site, said anything about a small deserted island. There are many landing strips in the Pacific left over from World War II. We built them everywhere and never took them out. They won't be in the best shape but they could be cleared for an operation like this and concealed again with potted trees and cargo netting.

I will answer your question for the third time. If this is an ongoing operation then you don't tip your hand by taking credit.

If this is a real crash then some terrorist organization COULD take credit for something they didn't do.

If this is some kind of quasi government op out of say...Pakistan, then Obama becomes very dangerous. Not because he is but because he really needs to change the subject from Russia, Benghazi, Syria. and the ACA. He just orders some guys to attack a compound, try to get back some hostages and he becomes a hero. I am sure that the Chinese would throw in with him as well. We supply the tech (ships, drones, missiles, infor) and China supplies the troops.

Considering how well Iran has hidden some of the sites, you can hide a 777 in the world today. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

If the island isn't deserted, then there are witnesses. Or hasn't that occurred to you?

The people living on the island will know the plane is there. Especially the ones working at the airport. Don't you think Fiji Islanders will say something if, you know, a lost 777 is sitting on their runway?

Cargo netting? Potted plants? LOL. What a fucking idiot. Are you serious? Who do you think that is going to fool? People living on the island would kind of notice a big blob of cargo netting at the end of a runway, don't you think?

And, no, actually, we didn't build airstrips "everywhere" in the Pacific.

We invaded or occupied a finite number of islands.

We built airstrips on an even smaller number of them.

Most of the ones we did build were much shorter than the 8,000 feet needed to land a Boeing 777 and were much thinner because they only needed to handle the weight of a B-29 - at most.

And, finally, those airfields haven't been maintained for SEVENTY years. So they are crumbling.

So, NO, you are wrong again.

You need a DESERTED island with an 8000 foot runway with THICK concrete in good condition.

Go find one, jackass.

That story didn't come from nowhere.

PM me for the real story. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

"The Event"

maybe the plane had a pressurization failure....pro golfer payne stewart and a few others died when their jet....a small personal plane when the cabin had a pressurization failure....all on board died well before the eventual crash....
or pilot suicide....
air piracy and other events have not been ruled out....actually nothing can be ruled out at this point....

IGo find one, jackass. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Gee, I wonder why JD's last name is Idiot! DUH!

Looks like someone eats shit AGAIN!!!

NOBODY SAW THAT COMING!

None of the theories makes sense. This is a very fucked up situation.

But the worst sounding theory is that the plane was flown to some small deserted island in the Indian Ocean. Really?

A 777 needs a runway about 8,000 feet long for maximum landing weight:

http://planes.findthebest.com/q/291/...ed-to-take-off

Even if it was NOT at maximum landing weight, it would probably still need about 6,500-7,000 feet. And it has to be reinforced concrete, not a dirt landing strip.

How many remote islands in the Indian Ocean have a runway like that? None?

If if landed at a populated island, there would be witnesses, of course.

And our satellites would have found it on land by now. You just can't hide a 777 and the 239 people on it. Here is more:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/14/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

I think the best of all the bad theories is that one or both of the pilots took the plane on a suicide mission. They shut down all of the tracking equipment and flew out into the middle of the ocean and ditched.

But, if that is true, why hasn't some jihadist organization taken credit for it? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Has the famous pilot from Asiana Airlines, Captain Sum Ting Wong, been accounted for yet?

It appears as if that plane was hijacked.

If the island isn't deserted, then there are witnesses. Or hasn't that occurred to you?

The people living on the island will know the plane is there. Especially the ones working at the airport. Don't you think Fiji Islanders will say something if, you know, a lost 777 is sitting on their runway?

Cargo netting? Potted plants? LOL. What a fucking idiot. Are you serious? Who do you think that is going to fool? People living on the island would kind of notice a big blob of cargo netting at the end of a runway, don't you think? What makes you think that the people on the island are not in on it?

And, no, actually, we didn't build airstrips "everywhere" in the Pacific. Figure of speech but we did build hundreds of them.

We invaded or occupied a finite number of islands. Duh!
We built airstrips on an even smaller number of them. All you need is one.

Most of the ones we did build were much shorter than the 8,000 feet needed to land a Boeing 777 and were much thinner because they only needed to handle the weight of a B-29 - at most.

And, finally, those airfields haven't been maintained for SEVENTY years. So they are crumbling.

So, NO, you are wrong again.

You need a DESERTED island with an 8000 foot runway with THICK concrete in good condition.

Go find one, jackass. Originally Posted by ExNYer

So you think it is absolutely impossible for find a runway?


You have that same problem too I see. You take something that no one but your idiot friends said and then you act someone with some sense said it. That deserted island shit...didn't come from here.

maybe the plane had a pressurization failure....pro golfer payne stewart and a few others died when their jet....a small personal plane when the cabin had a pressurization failure....all on board died well before the eventual crash....
or pilot suicide....
air piracy and other events have not been ruled out....actually nothing can be ruled out at this point.... Originally Posted by stevepar

Now you're starting to think. We now have the information (though we don't know the reliabllity of it) that the plane climbed to 40,000 feet before dropping. If the cabin was depressurized then everyone on board would die pretty quick except for someone on oxygen. That would take care of the passengers.

It appears as if that plane was hijacked. Originally Posted by ridgecrest

Well that's certainly possible, but I think by now everyone should agree the disappearance of this plane is not the result of an air disaster.


Jim

Now you're starting to think. We now have the information (though we don't know the reliabllity of it) that the plane climbed to 40,000 feet before dropping. If the cabin was depressurized then everyone on board would die pretty quick except for someone on oxygen. That would take care of the passengers. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Reported it went to around 45,000 ... the 777 has a 42,000 operating ceiling.

It is reported it dipped then to around 23,000 and was headed back up when radar lost it .... and it is said at that point the plane being tracked was out of range of the military radar tracking it at the time.

it is also being reported (admitted) that there is more information available than is being released to the public ... it's seeping out, but not reported. The Chinese "fake" images are "interesting" in the since they refocused attention away from the more recent revelations of A plane's direction as reported by military radar installations ... AND .. by their obvious poor quality.

Most of these countries involved, including the U.S., do NOT want to reveal the true capacity of their resources to identify and track potential threats.

If we can read a license plate from space, we can identify a piece of an airplane! .. So can the Chinese.

News agency's take statements from a source who isn't authorized to speak and run with it.

News agency's take statements from a source who isn't authorized to speak and run with it. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Yes. We learned that in the ramp up to the passage of the ACA.

But when a serving naval commander speaks out on the available assets, then it is not a "news agency" ... "running with it" ...

......... it's live and videotaped with sound!

And when a retired, decorated Naval officer discusses asset deployment and the motivation for it ... there is more than "news agency" blather ... it goes something like ... we are not going to dispatch warships to an area for searching on a "hunch" ... we have data we just don't want to publicize and the assets to obtain the data and verify it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klKEzV1ibg8

Philip Holloway on the hijacking (lets call it what it was) of 370. He agrees that the plane could be retasked for use in a terrorist attack, that there are places to land, and the lowering the pressure in the cabin above 40,000 would cause quick deaths to the passengers as they are unnecessary to the plan. Sometimes you hate being right but you heard it here first.