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.
Why hasn't anything else washed up on that beach? Either they're not watching for other things washing up, or that Towelette did not wash up on the beach. I'm open to correction though.
Due to the way the ocean currents work, it's possible the debris got flushed into the currents circling Antarctica. It could be washing up on the small islands between Antarctica and New Zealand, or circling the Antarctic continent.
Or not. Maybe it did land somewhere. Without any evidence, various possibilities are still open.
Still, I wonder how often miscellaneous plane debris wash up on shore in Australia? How would a towelette get into the ocean in the first place? You can't throw them out the window after you use them; they're disposed of on land. The only way it could end up as trash in the ocean (other than via a crash) would be if a passenger saved a couple, then threw one away on the beach, or from a fishing boat, or something. Not likely, though not impossible. But the chances of it being from a Malaysian Air flight, turning up at more or less the right time, would be even slimmer. So it would be a very unusual "coincidence".
It could have floated over from Malaysia itself. I mean it could have been tossed in the waters near Malaysi and somehow made its way over. It could have been put where it was found to confuse investigators. Those are two other possibilities.
One of the media's "experts", a former pilot, has resurrected the theory that the plane is on the ground in Kazakhstan. He said some of the ping-er data never added up, the ocean search, etc., and that the plane must have gone along the northern arc and landed.
I read in a story- I think it was a British article- that no one on the plane sent out a text/call before the plane took off.
I don't believe that no one had any communication with any of the passengers once they got on the plane. This would be huge news, in my opinion. And, it would be easy enough to prove/disprove. The families are still searching for answers. All someone has to do is ask some of them about this. This might be worth looking into. That would seem to indicate sabotage immediately. If no one could get a message out--or a message in, I think panic would have ensued from those on the ground.
I also remember there was talk about how some of the cell phones were still on, and why couldn't they track them.
I don't believe that no one had any communication with any of the passengers once they got on the plane. This would be huge news, in my opinion. And, it would be easy enough to prove/disprove. The families are still searching for answers. All someone has to do is ask some of them about this. This might be worth looking into. That would seem to indicate sabotage immediately. If no one could get a message out--or a message in, I think panic would have ensued from those on the ground.
I also remember there was talk about how some of the cell phones were still on, and why couldn't they track them.
It's true that a girlfriend of one of the passengers recently said that, when he traveled, he always texted her from the plane to say something like: "We're getting ready to take off, now. See you in a few hours." And that didn't happen this time.
It's true that a girlfriend of one of the passengers recently said that, when he traveled, he always texted her from the plane to say something like: "We're getting ready to take off, now. See you in a few hours." And that didn't happen this time.
But have you ever heard this before? You followed the original thread, just like I did, and I never saw this. Like I said, it would be easy to check. Why not do it, and find out for sure. Ask 10 people, ask 20. If none of them heard anything, keep going with it. It is unlikely that no one would communicate, unless they couldn't. The way that investigation has been bungled since the very beginning, it's hard telling what has been overlooked.
Oh, I also seem to remember reading that there were Rolls Royce engines on the plane, not Boeing, but I can't remember for sure.
But have you ever heard this before? You followed the original thread, just like I did, and I never saw this. Like I said, it would be easy to check. Why not do it, and find out for sure. Ask 10 people, ask 20. If none of them heard anything, keep going with it. It is unlikely that no one would communicate, unless they couldn't. The way that investigation has been bungled since the very beginning, it's hard telling what has been overlooked.
Oh, I also seem to remember reading that there were Rolls Royce engines on the plane, not Boeing, but I can't remember for sure.
Where did all the talk about Boeing tracking the engines come from, then?
That's so weird! Things are never what they seem with this case, always morphing into something else.
I guess experts were saying Boeing was tracking the plane because of the Rolls Royce engines...? It must be in the earlier pages of this thread. The engines had a special tracking device on them. I don't remember the details.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 03-15-2015 at 12:36 PM..
Here's something that hasn't come up on this thread before. The plane's black box wasn't even functional when the plane took off. There were no pings to find from the black box because its signaling device was defunkt long before that flight originated.
Where did all the talk about Boeing tracking the engines come from, then?
That's so weird! Things are never what they seem with this case, always morphing into something else.
I guess experts were saying Boeing was tracking the plane because of the Rolls Royce engines...? It must be in the earlier pages of this thread. The engines had a special tracking device on them. I don't remember the details.
IIRC the satellite pings from the engines were for transmitting maintenance/performance data to the engine manufacturers (Rolls Royce), and were separate from any other tracking devices on board. That's why they were still functioning and not turned off. I don't think Boeing had anything to do with that set up, other than having access to that data if they wanted it. I believe that satellite company receiving the data was a European company, but I could be mistaken.
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.
