> Yes, that's true, but it is not so useful, because it would not add much information to what we already know. It might add plenty of information. It tells u

> Yes, that's true, but it is not so useful, because it would not add much information to what we already know. It might add plenty of information. It tells us the plane did not pass near a cell phone tower at all which at minimum rules out all the "plane landed safely at x/y/z" theories. Even if it passes over land, many of those are weaker signals and not going to pick up at all so we can rule out any argument based on whether people tried to send text messages or not. > The simplest possible hijacking theory relies on one event: Wait so in one case you count 4 things as "one event" and in the other case you count 4 things as a "complex series of effects"? I honestly don't see the difference: sure one pilot could have done everything. There are also single things that can happen to a plane that could generate all those effects. I don't claim that is more likely than a hijacking or suicidal pilot but it seems about as reasonable as either. I do think the hijacking and pilot suicide angles have serious issues with the facts that people tend to hand wave away.