4 ms·

Thank you for posting that. It seems that the rebuttal consists of claiming that the evidence we public thus far have been presented is wrong, people involved

Thank you for posting that. It seems that the rebuttal consists of claiming that the evidence we public thus far have been presented is wrong, people involved are not providing the entire truth, etc. That's possible. But why not work with the information as presented instead of willing it away? Also: The change in direction was made at least 12 minutes before co-pilot Fariq Abdul Hamid said "All right, good night," to controllers on the ground, the sources said. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/missing-jets-u-turn-programmed-signoff-sources-say-n56151 http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/missing-jets-u-...

einhverfr 13y ago
I think that one has to be clear about the possibilities here: 1. The plane was hijacked (this seems the most likely for now but let's see what develops) 2. The engine data and satellite ping data was erroneous, perhaps confused with another source. 3. You have a slow issue like slow decompression combined with an avionics failure which caused the plane to follow a long and complex course. Under normal circumstances none of these three are reasonable explanations. For it to be a hijacking, someone has to have been interested not merely in takin the plane somewhere else but in stealing the plane and concealing it. And the other are remarkably complex. At this point, though, those are the three scenarios we are discussing. The author of the theory suggests that investigators are using bad data. I wouldn't say it is impossible, and we are already talking about the margins of what is possible in all of our possible scenarios.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  The hijacking and crazy pilot theories are most plausible. Hijackera were simply irrational and forced them to go to Australia or something like that. Has happened before. Or the pilot wanted to commit suicide in a bizarre manner. Or he had a psychotic episode. All of these are more plausible than Rube Goldberg mechanical failures or James Bond terrorist plots.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    My problem though is that getting the plane onto the ground without anyone noticing (which is the only explanation I can think of that ties in the lack of the transponder to this as well as no followup sightings at, say, major airports). That's a big question, and it suggests a level of clandestine resources I have trouble imagining being the case in Australia.
    - effdee 13y ago
      Australia is out of question. The plane would have been detected by the JORN [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JORN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JORN

einhverfr 13y ago

I think that one has to be clear about the possibilities here: 1. The plane was hijacked (this seems the most likely for now but let's see what develops) 2. The engine data and satellite ping data was erroneous, perhaps confused with another source. 3. You have a slow issue like slow decompression combined with an avionics failure which caused the plane to follow a long and complex course. Under normal circumstances none of these three are reasonable explanations. For it to be a hijacking, someone has to have been interested not merely in takin the plane somewhere else but in stealing the plane and concealing it. And the other are remarkably complex. At this point, though, those are the three scenarios we are discussing. The author of the theory suggests that investigators are using bad data. I wouldn't say it is impossible, and we are already talking about the margins of what is possible in all of our possible scenarios.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
The hijacking and crazy pilot theories are most plausible. Hijackera were simply irrational and forced them to go to Australia or something like that. Has happened before. Or the pilot wanted to commit suicide in a bizarre manner. Or he had a psychotic episode. All of these are more plausible than Rube Goldberg mechanical failures or James Bond terrorist plots.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  My problem though is that getting the plane onto the ground without anyone noticing (which is the only explanation I can think of that ties in the lack of the transponder to this as well as no followup sightings at, say, major airports). That's a big question, and it suggests a level of clandestine resources I have trouble imagining being the case in Australia.
  - effdee 13y ago
    Australia is out of question. The plane would have been detected by the JORN [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JORN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JORN