Boeing 777 Disappears Near Vietnam

[TimG]

Of course it makes no sense. If you kill all the pax you have no more bargaining chips. If suicide is all you want, why fly around for 7 hours?

It is rather ridiculous to make any assumptions about the motivations of the people that took over the plane given the complete lack of information. The point I was making was that the lack of cell phone calls means nothing since there is a high likelihood that the plane was out of cell range for the majority of the ghost flight. I speculated that the passengers could have been killed (I did not say how but it would have to be something that causes mass deaths from asphyxiation to injuries from a steep decent). Edited March 18, 2014 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Of course it makes no sense. If you kill all the pax you have no more bargaining chips. If suicide is all you want, why fly around for 7 hours?

WTF is this pax? Do you mean passengers? Why not type passengers?

[On Guard for Thee]

WTF is this pax? Do you mean passengers? Why not type passengers?

Yep, it means passengers. Pax is standard aviation jargon.

[On Guard for Thee]

It is rather ridiculous to make any assumptions about the motivations of the people that took over the plane given the complete lack of information. The point I was making was that the lack of cell phone calls means nothing since there is a high likelihood that the plane was out of cell range for the majority of the ghost flight. I speculated that the passengers could have been killed (I did not say how but it would have to be something that causes mass deaths from asphyxiation to injuries from a steep decent).

Didn't you just make some of those assumptions you call ridiculous?

[On Guard for Thee]

Didn't you just make some of those assumptions you call ridiculous?

I suggest a quick scan of your Funk and Wagnells or whatever you use with an eye to the difference between assumption and speculation.

[TimG]

I suggest a quick scan of your Funk and Wagnells or whatever you use with an eye to the difference between assumption and speculation.

You *assumed* that the hijackers would have never killed the passengers because they needed them. I "speculated* that the hijacker could have killed them which would explain the lack of cell phone calls. Your statement implies a level of certainty which mine does not have. Hence mine is a speculation - yours is an assumption. Edited March 18, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

You *assumed* that the hijackers would have never killed the passengers because they needed them. I "speculated* that the hijacker could have killed them which would explain the lack of cell phone calls. Your statement claims certainty which mine does not have. Hence mine is a speculation - yours is an assumption.

I assumed nothing. I suggested a reason why a hijacker, if here were/are any, might not do something.

[bush_cheney2004]

The endless yammering, accented by new facts that are then retracted. It's annoying to me. I don't know why.

OK...but check this out: Flight MH370 has already been Wiki "processed" for its potential place in history as another missing aircraft, amongst many:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aerial_disappearances

[On Guard for Thee]

On Guard... yah I was wondering with a hijacking how is it not one cell phone. Now you say at 45,000 feet cell phones do not work. But eventually would they not once the plane had to climb down? That is why I am having a hard time believing it's a hijacking. The notion not one cell phone leaked out is incomprehensible unless the passengers had all their cell phones taken away (which is improbable) or the plane was blown up high altitude over a part of the ocean known to be very deep. Even if the plane was coming down in a suicide dive a cell phone would have picked up the screaming and sent it one would think...comment? Yah I am hearing all kinds of theories about it went off track, the pilot said good night camly it went up to high altitude, etc., but the cell phone angle still remains unanswered.

To the one poster who said do not planes go low to the ground to avoid radar, yah sometimes-but if they go very high as well, no planes fly up high and so they would not show up on radar either. Flying very low would trigger passenger suspicion and reaction.

How about this theory to add to the rest-maybe they gassed everyone in plane and put them to sleep.

I am stretching.

I didn't say cell phones don't work at 45k feet. Cell phones are "line of sight" so the higher you are the better chance you have of hitting a connection. Now in mid ocean it's quite likely at any altitude you would have no connection by dent of the distance form the nearest cell tower. From what they tell us about the known route, I expect they were well within range at the time the plane turned, however, it was dark so noone could look out the window and see they had drastically changed course. Planes climb and turn throughout a flight and we just perhaps have another glass of wine, or open our book, or slip into sleep. The 45k climb would do more than put you to sleep. It would kill you. No air to breath. Perhaps no PA was made that the plane was now hijacked. Possibly noone knew anything was wrong until the sun came up and someone looked out the window and wondered why they were now over Kazakhstan! Everyday the damn story seems to change. It's frustrating as hell and I am stretching as well. I'm confident the story will break eventually. Again I sympathise with the families left behind.

[bush_cheney2004]

... From what they tell us about the known route, I expect they were well within range at the time the plane turned, however, it was dark so noone could look out the window and see they had drastically changed course. Planes climb and turn throughout a flight and we just perhaps have another glass of wine, or open our book, or slip into sleep.

I disagree....at altitude, and even lower there are still visual cues of aircraft course changes depending on cloud cover (moon, brighter celestial objects). Also, many smartphones or tablets have compass and direction applications that can easily determine course (and speed) based on GPS. I used such an app to measure course and speed over ground on a recent "red eye" (overnight) trip from Las Vegas.

Edited March 18, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

I disagree....at altitude, and even lower there are still visual cues of aircraft course changes depending on cloud cover (moon, brighter celestial objects). Also, many smartphones or tablets have compass and direction applications that can easily determine course (and speed) based on GPS. I used such an app to measure course and speed over ground on a recent "red eye" (overnight) trip from Las Vegas.

I don't know what you are disagreeing with. Good for you you figured out your GPS app. Do you think a lot of people look out the window to do celestial navigation on an overnight flight? Assuming cloud cover would allow them to.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know what you are disagreeing with. Good for you you figured out your GPS app. Do you think a lot of people look out the window to do celestial navigation on an overnight flight? Assuming cloud cover would allow them to.

Yes...people who are awake for the flight and who travel frequently can easily notice such cues. Significant altitude changes are obvious. Banking is obvious. Engine power changes can also be discerned. It is even more obvious during twilight or daytime travel. I don't buy it that ALL passengers and cabin attendants would be clueless about such a drastic change in course/speed/altitude.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes...people who are awake for the flight and who travel frequently can easily notice such cues. Significant altitude changes are obvious. Banking is obvious. Engine power changes can also be discerned. It is even more obvious during twilight or daytime travel. I don't buy it that ALL passengers and cabin attendants would be clueless about such a drastic change in course/speed/altitude.

I travel frequently. Altitude changes happen throughout. I usually sleep on night flights if I can. One thing that does have some signifigance though is that on a 777 you have a screen available at each seat that can show the progress of flight as well as your choice of movies. I would have thought someone might have caught that unles the entertainment center was switched off. Which would itself cause some concern. Although I suppose it could have been swept away as a malfunction.

[bush_cheney2004]

I travel frequently. Altitude changes happen throughout. I usually sleep on night flights if I can. One thing that does have some signifigance though is that on a 777 you have a screen available at each seat that can show the progress of flight as well as your choice of movies. I would have thought someone might have caught that unles the entertainment center was switched off. Which would itself cause some concern. Although I suppose it could have been swept away as a malfunction.

Many people probably did go to sleep, but a few others and especially the working cabin attendants would have noticed something out of the ordinary. I have been flying since the 1960's and I find great comfort in the ordinary, expected events from gate departure to arrival. In the old days, hearing the expected thumps and bumps, even hydraulic jackscrews working the flaps or stabilizers was a welcomed reassurance that all was normal and the flight deck had things under control.

Perhaps the pilots or hijackers pacified the cabin with some story about safety/medical or engineering problem that required landing at another airport.

Edited March 18, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

Many people probably did go to sleep, but a few others and especially the working cabin attendants would have noticed something out of the ordinary. I have been flying since the 1960's and I find great comfort in the ordinary, expected events from gate departure to arrival. In the old days, hearing the expected thumps and bumps, even hydraulic jackscrews working the flaps or stabilizers was a welcomed reassurance that all was normal and the flight deck had things under control.

Perhaps the pilots or hijackers pacified the cabin with some story about safety/medical or engineering problem that required landing at another airport.

There are so many question marks with this thing. And they seem to change daily. I don't mean any rudeness to the Malay gov. but I think they need to enlist some folks who have more experience, and I think they already have. Number one priority is the people on that plane. Number 2 is the families of those people.And then of course is there something we need to know about the 777 that could be waiting to happen again. I have used the word cucnundrum before, but never with more emphasis as refers to this case

[Rue]

Tim G I was reading yet another security analyst speculating and he said what you were mentioning if the plane went up real high and/or made a fast descent either way people go unconscious and/or can't breath. One would thin. Certainly a fast descent everyone goes unconscious. Which might explain why no phone calls. Maybe maybe. Then again the same analyst was saying the plane might have been flying real low to escape radar as mentioned by others on this thread and flying just off the water to avoid radar and was crashed into the water at high spee but then no phone calls? So were they gassed if they were down low? That's too much of a stretch for me and I mentioned the gas and I admit that is crazy. Also to turn off the tracking the pilot would have to walk to the back of the plane in full view of the flght crew and crawl into this narrow little space and get to the switch to turn it off. I suppose that is possible.

Lol ah this yammering, Well if Michael H does not watch it I will share my theory on the UFO that abducted this aircraft. Dracos I tell you. The shape shifters who are taking over the world did it. They are already the Royal family in Britain, the Bushes, Obama, on and on.

Putin for sure is a Draco.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Rue

[guyser]

That is so not true. You're lucky to get cell reception 2-3 km off shore, let alone 80 km.

That may be true for some cell towers, many are designed to be low range, other factors can hinder.

But the Q asked was answered correctly. They can go very far without any interference or obstruction. Some as much as 80K

[GostHacked]

Yep, it means passengers. Pax is standard aviation jargon.

Then just write passengers, we are not pilots.

[GostHacked]

I didn't say cell phones don't work at 45k feet. Cell phones are "line of sight" so the higher you are the better chance you have of hitting a connection.

No chance of a connection. At altitude my phone always shows 'no connection'. And that is 30,000F over Ontario and not the ocean.

[Wilber]

No chance of a connection. At altitude my phone always shows 'no connection'. And that is 30,000F over Ontario and not the ocean.

It's hit and miss. You are sitting inside a metal tube which isn't good for reception. If you have a window seat that happens to be facing a cell tower, the chances are better.

[Michael Hardner]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_during_the_September_11_attacks

According to the telco rep, cell phones can work in flight - see 'victims' section.

[TimG]

According to the telco rep, cell phones can work in flight - see 'victims' section.

They did not use cell phones:

So what about the United Flight 93 passengers? Most of their calls were made using GTE AirFones, a technology no longer in use that relied on radio waves to communicate with the ground.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/17/malaysia_airlines_flight_370_why_didn_t_the_passengers_phone_for_help.html

[Michael Hardner]

I think that some were cell phones- some were seat phones.

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Cellphone_calls_faked

Deep-ish review of the claims - it appears that the FBI claims 2cell calls.

[TimG]

Deep-ish review of the claims - it appears that the FBI claims 2cell calls.

A 9/11 conspiracy site??? Kind of rich given all the lectures you dish out about reputable sources.

Wikipedia claims that 911 was dialed from a cell phone right before it crashed. The altitude was around 10000 feet at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

See black box data:

https://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11/Flight_Path_Study_UA93.pdf

Edited March 19, 2014 by TimG