1. MH370 speculation has become excessive recently. Metabunk is not a forum for creating theories by speculation. It's a forum for examining claims, and seeing if they hold up. Please respect this and keep threads on-topic. There are many other forums where speculation is welcome.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. derwoodii

    derwoodii Senior Member

    Its a long ramble and hard to follow skip to the end the plane ended up auto landing in Kazakhstan because them Russians wanted it yet without any plausible motive.


    The unsettling oddness was there from the first moment, on March 8, when Malaysia Airlines announced that a plane from Kuala Lumpur bound for Beijing, Flight 370, had disappeared over the South China Sea in the middle of the night. There had been no bad weather, no distress call, no wreckage, no eyewitness accounts of a fireball in the sky—just a plane that said good-bye to one air-traffic controller and, two minutes later, failed to say hello to the next. And the crash, if it was a crash, got stranger from there.

    summed up here

  2. Auldy

    Auldy Senior Member

    If I could just focus on this one thought:

    There have been plenty of more sanctions levelled at Putin's Russia since then, many more severe than the asset freeze originally set. So if MH370 was meant to be Russia's deterrent/retribution, there should have been dozens of more shows of plane stealing power.

    PS. I don't remember ever seeing anything about the metal orbs found in the Maldives during the original search, was that a thing? Its mentioned in the articles fig 5, but I don't see it actually mentioned in the article itself.
  3. derwoodii

    derwoodii Senior Member

    sorry dont know not seen that orb thing either I just came across the article but found it to hard to debunk as it kind does its self that honor or bother research for facts as i'm a bit time poor atm more of fyi post for other to ponder
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Am I wrong but is that whole rambling article just sayng 'The Russians did it, the Ukrainians helped and the plane is in Kazakhstan, but we don't why, where or how?' with nothing to back up the claims. If not can someone show me what I missed and if it is can I have the half hour I spent reading it back?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. I got really shocked today when I found out this "person" is actually connected to CNN and is everywhere quoted as an aviation expert! What credentials he has for such claim? To me he just sounds as a typical CTer without ounce of real knowledge.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. derwoodii

    derwoodii Senior Member

    yes that's why i tagged his name a quick look over his articles had me wondering motivation
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  8. "In his spare time flies small airplanes and gliders."

    and that apparently makes him an aviation expert? I'm baffled.
  9. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Maybe he's writing an article 'here's how you can take an event and invent a narrative around it and rationalise your investigation', but isn't actually saying to take his theory seriously?
    I don't understand how that plane is supposed to have gotten into that non-existent building, there's no road leading straight into it or anything.
  10. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. a 3yo kid could come up with a more plausible theory
  12. Jimmy Kumana

    Jimmy Kumana New Member

    The key flaw in Jeff's hypothesis is the lack of a plausible motive. Clearly, all the evidence points to a hijack by very sophisticated means - which rules out pretty much all but State actors - viz. the USA, Russia, Israel, and possibly China. I think we can all agree on that. Now to the question of possible motives: I read a theory long ago that the Afghan Taliban, rogue Pakistani ISI agents, or possibly Iraqi insurgents had captured highly secret and sensitive US military weaponry that was beyond their capacity to use. They put it up for sale on the black market. China bought it, and was secretly transporting it back to Beijing. Now the theory diverges:
    (a) The US stole it back from them, with or without Israeli connivance, landed the plane at Diego Garcia to unload the cargo, killed the passengers, dismantled the plane, and disposed of all evidence by scattering it in a wide swathe under the Indian ocean.
    (b) The Russians stole the plane and cargo to get their hands on the high-technology weaponry, landed it in Kazakhstan as Jeff proposes, and disposed of the evidence.
    • Funny Funny x 2
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This is hardly clear at all. Clear to who? Certainly not clear to me.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This makes no sense at all. You'd have four times as much radar on the borders. You'd have ATC on both sides, and then military radar on both sides specifically looking for border incursions.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    No evidence suggests that it was hijacked: No-one has made any demands, no-one knows where it is.


    Such as?

    Diego Garcia has a few thousand people living there, and it is a British piece of property. Why Israel? How exactly do you land a plane without any of the data that it emits tracking it, and how do you remove a couple of hundred people, kill them and dispose of a plane without anyone noticing? Are you suggesting that several hundred people are now sworn to secrecy?

    Again, how do you get around the tracking problem? Who is doing all this killing and disposing of bodies and planes?
  16. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    I was wondering about the lack of any hardtop track that could support an aircraft that size as well.
  17. what's the probability that it would randomly skim thailandese border and go right around indonesian FIR if we are to believe official radar data and Inmarsat pings? Close to 0 I'd say, just no viable way for that to happen. All theories not involving human factor are full of holes.
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    How does that imply "a hijack by very sophisticated means"?
  19. ah OK sorry, overlooked that
  20. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    chance is irrelevant in the real world - things happen for reasons, not chance.

    Often we cannot know the reasons and we use chance as a surrogate, but to ask "what are the chances...?" is to set up a strawman.
  21. OK then, unless supernatural I can't see any valid reason why would that happen without human intervention.
  22. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Clearly, all the evidence points to a hijack by very sophisticated supernatural means -
    which rules out pretty much all but State actors...I think we can all agree on that. :p

    Screen Shot 2015-02-24 at 4.12.12 PM.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
  23. I'd still hold to a human cause theory, humans can sometimes react in a very unpredictable manner.
  24. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Changed my mind
  25. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    I think that ended up being the working theory, unexplained suicide run by pilot. As puzzling and unsatisfying as that is as an answer, it's less complicated and more likely than hijacking by secret agencies for unknown purposes.

    There's an AMA with Jeff on Gawker.
  26. I doubt it was the suicide run, actually I'm 99% sure it wasn't original plan(but that decision could be brought during the flight). He could just go to the Pacific without overflying any land and sink it there in much calmer waters if it was his intention.
  27. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Especially as the building was demolished before MH370 disappeared. If you're trying to hide a large airliner, I'd say a freshly bulldozed smooth rectangle of dirt is a pretty useless place to do it.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  28. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Why would calmer waters make a difference if the pilot was going to top himself?

    Besides MH370 didn't have enough fuel to reach the Pacific from point of last contact, South China Sea was the most it could have gone in that direction, and that would involve flying through and across major air corridors and shipping lanes and near lots of land masses.


    If you wanted to commit suicide and loose the plane without trace (maybe so any life insurance is still valid and dependents are not left wanting) far better to fly it to the middle of the Indian Ocean away from transport routes and the sea is far deeper.

    But as has often been said, until hard evidence in the form of wreckage etc turns up it is all speculation.
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2015
  29. hmm I'm not that good with geography but if I look at the oceans map it could reach it (or East China Sea at the very least), the thing is if you sink it there will be (almost) no debris, if you crash it (and if it's where they are looking for it is crashed no doubt, roaring forties etc.) there will be a lot of debris and something will eventually wash out on shores and the fact nothing yet has washed out makes me believe it sunk in northern part of IO closer to the Indonesia

    but you are right there is a lot less traffic in IO
  30. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    I like my purely speculative, fictional theory best.
    It was a hijack ala 9/11. Communications were cut off but at least one pilot was left alive. The target was Perth but navigating over open ocean required the real pilot to be kept at the controls until the plane was over land again. He would then be killed and replaced with a suicide pilot.
    However, the airline pilot understood the plan and deliberatly and courageously headed into the southern ocean knowing that if he got far enough there would be no way to be able to reach Australia by turning around thus saving lives on the ground by sacrificing his passengers and himself.
  31. you need a team of few well trained terrorists to execute something like that and nothing points out that they were present on board, biographies of all passengers have been thoroughly checked out
  32. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    and once again we are into mindless speculation....
    • Like Like x 3
  33. Well the officials are too, got a better idea?
  34. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Wait until additional evidence is produced.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  35. it's been a year...tough chance you'll get any more evidence
  36. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Yep, and my mindless speculation is at least the equal of the various other mindless speculations,, and a dang sight better than the brainless forms of speculation such as the above, Russians did it, and DA Joos did it, fictions.
  37. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    I have already stated my most likely scenario. There was a documentary screened here last month that concurred.

    Being the most likely scenario doesn't mean it actually happened that way.

    Further speculation without extra evidence is pretty pointless. I wasted 10 minutes of my life 3 days ago where alien abduction was being seriously considered on breakfast television.
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2015
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  38. maybe I'm just too much optimist but I'll always put more probability on a scenario which had an airfield as its planned destination, I mean if it already fits the available data

    blindly sticking to "it had to be constant speed and/or direction and/or altitude" assumption before reviewing logic behind is what I can't fathom, not at all
  39. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I realize (or 'realise') that I might be a bit late into this discussion, on the segment/aspect that I singled out, from the OP...but:

    No....although YES a Boeing 777 (among other airplanes) is capable of 'Auto-Land', it is a procedure that not only involves the airplane's Auto-Pilot(s), ...three, usually... (only TWO on a B-737)...but specific Human interaction IN the cockpit (what we now refer to as the 'Flight Deck'...for gender neutrality** purposes :cool: ).

    (**)Off-color and OLD misogynistic joke....the 'realm' of pilots was usually (and historically) male-dominated (there were exceptions, of course...but I'm referring to AIRLINE pilots here), but then women began to prove their worthiness as capable pilots too. Some scoffed, and suggested the term "box-office" to replace the term "cockpit". I know, I know.....pilots can be cruel wits.

    Getting BACK to my point, in this post: 'Auto-Land' is bandied about by those unfamiliar with the actual procedures that an "Auto-Land" actually entails.

    My Two Cents....

    Editing on the topic of a suggested 'Auto-land' of MH 370? I will present this video. It depicts an actual B-777, here Air France, conducting a CAT III ('Category III') instrument approach and AutoLand. Please note that the F/O flies....in the beginning. The Captain has the FINAL authority and decision to continue, or to reject (a "Go-Around", or rejected landing). The Captain 'follows' on the controls, and ultimately takes-over after 50 feet. Point I wish to make is....tossing "auto-land" doesn't do justice to the actual skill and procedure and training involved:

    They are doing an 'Auto-Land' practice in clear weather....which is often encouraged, as a training thing. At about 2:47 you will hear a male voice in English say "1,000"....this is the GPWS, or "Ground Proximity Warning System" computer. At about 3:35 you hear the GPWS calling out height above terrain. EVERY airline has a different protocol, this happens to be Air Frances' choice...so be it....

    This is REAL life....not Hollywood, nor CT-World stuff. BTW? IF you speak French, then you will understand some of the communications. OF COURSE the "rule" in aviation in Air Traffic Control communication is that English is the "primary" language....(try telling that to the French!! LOL). (In German airspace? They all speak English...in Latin America? Mostly Spanish....eh, this is why we have to pay attention, every time!!!).
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  40. sharpnfuzzy

    sharpnfuzzy Member

    Yeah speaking of "autoland", this excerpt from the article caught my attention because I don't know whether it is intentionally misleading or just a symptom of the "TL ; DR journalism" style exhibited here.

    It literally takes a few minutes to find out that yes the airstrip was used for automated landings (or landing as there was only one in 1988) of the Soviet Union's short lived Buran space shuttle. But it is and was an airstrip for general purpose and logistical use for launching space craft. It's like saying that the author's brain was specifically built for storing about 2.25 lbs. of water. Also it's fairly easy to find out that almost every major airport in the world has the capability that allows for the "autolanding" of airplanes and 777's (and all modern airliners) "autoland" themselves all over the world all the time.