Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Family members were forcibly removed from today's daily news conference. Malaysia is handling this horrifically.
I saw a part of that, some woman was very upset about her son, and those vulture reporters/photographers just hounded those people as they tried to leave. It was absolutely sickening.
Authorities did not describe the significance of deleting the data, and experts said it may not reflect anything unusual. Malaysia Police Chief Khalid Abu said they were erased Feb. 3. "Forensic experts are on to retrieve the data," Hishammuddin Hussein, Malaysia's acting transport minister, told reporters at a news briefing.
Hishammuddin said reports that the missing Boeing 777-200 aircraft had been sighted in the Maldives, nearly 2,000 miles west of its takeoff point and far from its intended course, were found not to be true.
The sightings in the Maldives, what did they see then? There are signed reports saying that they heard a plane flying really low, making a loud noise. I think some people said that actually saw the doors. But other people said they could only hear it. It just makes me wonder how so many witnesses could be wrong.
Why are you even discussing Maldives. There people go again - grasping at unconfirmed information no matter how irrelevant, unfactual, or trivial, and that will surely be replaced in 12 hours by some new report saying it was reporting over New Zealand.
Everything I have read on Maldives was discussed a week ago. Malaysia doesn't know what happened to the plane and never has. The US is the one that picked up on the pings to begin with. Of course people will introduce theory to this. But bringing up an old theory and equating it to Ocam's Razor ( or whatever theory that is) does not make it true. The time factor on an idea that's two weeks old and Ocam's Razor is a theory and certainly not fair.
It seems to be accepted fact at this point that someone modified the computerized flight plan before the "good night" call. I believe someone here said there is a procedure for doing that involves both pilots. So either both pilots were involved in this, or the chief pilot was incapacitated (since we know it was the co-pilot who did the "good night") when it was modified. How would that happen? Surely the other flight personnel would notice if there was a struggle in the cockpit.
Nothing adds up cleanly to any one theory. They all have holes in them. Some less than others, but still all are holey.
It seems to be accepted fact at this point that someone modified the computerized flight plan before the "good night" call. I believe someone here said there is a procedure for doing that involves both pilots. So either both pilots were involved in this, or the chief pilot was incapacitated (since we know it was the co-pilot who did the "good night") when it was modified. How would that happen? Surely the other flight personnel would notice if there was a struggle in the cockpit.
Nothing adds up cleanly to any one theory. They all have holes in them. Some less than others, but still all are holey.
No kidding. I honestly thought Occam's Razor was a 'gently used' Gillette.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,169,902 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
It seems to be accepted fact at this point that someone modified the computerized flight plan before the "good night" call. I believe someone here said there is a procedure for doing that involves both pilots. So either both pilots were involved in this, or the chief pilot was incapacitated (since we know it was the co-pilot who did the "good night") when it was modified. How would that happen? Surely the other flight personnel would notice if there was a struggle in the cockpit.
Nothing adds up cleanly to any one theory. They all have holes in them. Some less than others, but still all are holey.
Yes, both were probably involved, but it's especially certain that the co-pilot was. And unless he had incapacitated the pilot, they were both in on it.
Yet again: The plane started turning well before the "good night" call. There's no plausible scenario where they would already be turning (which would only happen for a serious problem) and neglect to mention it.
That's Occam's Razor. "the simplest hypothesis THAT COVERS ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE is to be preferred". In this case, a fire would not fit with all the facts, especially on a large plane with so many redundancies, and most especially with the plane actually turning (not just re-programmed) well before a calm good night call.
That's Occam's Razor. "the simplest hypothesis THAT COVERS ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE is to be preferred". In this case, a fire would not fit with all the facts, especially on a large plane with so many redundancies, and most especially with the plane actually turning (not just re-programmed) well before a calm good night call.
The fire theory could fit if someone was smoking. I don't know what kind of damage cigarette smoke could to a system on a Boeing 777 but it not like it hasn't happened before.
Yes, both were probably involved, but it's especially certain that the co-pilot was. And unless he had incapacitated the pilot, they were both in on it.
Yet again: The plane started turning well before the "good night" call. There's no plausible scenario where they would already be turning (which would only happen for a serious problem) and neglect to mention it.
That's Occam's Razor. "the simplest hypothesis THAT COVERS ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE is to be preferred". In this case, a fire would not fit with all the facts, especially on a large plane with so many redundancies, and most especially with the plane actually turning (not just re-programmed) well before a calm good night call.
*sigh* So we still have no clue as to the whereabouts, on land or sea. We don't know if the Maldives sighting was real or not. We don't know if it landed safely somewhere, or crashed. Maybe we should just take a break and see if there's any new information by next week.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,169,902 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
*sigh* So we still have no clue as to the whereabouts, on land or sea. We don't know if the Maldives sighting was real or not. We don't know if it landed safely somewhere, or crashed. Maybe we should just take a break and see if there's any new information by next week.
We really should take a break, considering that there are much more important things going on in the world, especially in the Ukraine with Putin apparently trying to reconstitute the old Soviet Union.
But I don't know why, it continues to fascinate me more than important issues.
By the way, I tend to believe the Maldives sightings. The very fact that the Malaysian govt has denied the sightings is proof positive that they are true! In fact I think the plane landed on one of those 1192 islands and was quickly concealed by Islamists (the Maldives are a conservative Islamic country). I have no idea why, and that's pure speculation. Or else the plane crashed into the ocean by mistake because of dangerous low altitude flying near the Maldives, and no terrorist group is taking credit because it failed in its mission.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In fact I think the plane landed on one of those 1192 islands and was quickly concealed by Islamists (the Maldives are a conservative Islamic country). I have no idea why, and that's pure speculation. Or else the plane crashed into the ocean by mistake because of dangerous low altitude flying near the Maldives, and no terrorist group is taking credit because it failed in its mission.
