• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Missing Malysian Airliner Continued to Fly on For Hours (Confirmed)

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
33,824
Reaction score
26,571
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
U.S. Investigators Suspect Missing Malaysia Airplane Flew On for Hours - WSJ.com

b3wig3.jpg


U.S. investigators suspect that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 stayed in the air for about four hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, according to two people familiar with the details, raising the possibility that the plane could have flown on for hundreds of additional miles under conditions that remain murky.

Aviation investigators and national security officials believe the plane flew for a total of five hours, based on data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from the Boeing Co. 777's engines as part of a routine maintenance and monitoring program.

That raises a host of new questions and possibilities about what happened aboard the widebody jet carrying 239 people, which vanished from civilian air-traffic control radar over the weekend, about one hour into a flight to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur.

Six days after the mysterious disappearance prompted a massive international air and water search that so far hasn't produced any results, the investigation appears to be broadening in scope.

U.S. counterterrorism officials are pursuing the possibility that a pilot or someone else on board the plane may have diverted it toward an undisclosed location after intentionally turning off the jetliner's transponders to avoid radar detection, according to one person tracking the probe.
More

The investigation remains fluid, and it isn't clear whether investigators have evidence indicating possible terrorism or sabotage. So far, U.S. national security officials have said that nothing specifically points toward terrorism, though they haven't ruled it out.

But the huge uncertainty about where the plane was headed, and why it apparently continued flying so long without working transponders, has raised theories among investigators that the aircraft may have been commandeered for a reason that appears unclear to U.S. authorities. Some of those theories have been laid out to national security officials and senior personnel from various U.S. agencies, according to one person familiar with the matter.

WSJ has confirmed that the pilot had the ability to manually turn off the transponder on Flight MH370. A mid-air catastrophe could have destroyed it. Why is the transponder so significant? WSJ's Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer.

At one briefing, according to this person, officials were told investigators are actively pursuing the notion that the plane was diverted "with the intention of using it later for another purpose."

As of Wednesday it remained unclear whether the plane reached an alternate destination or if it ultimately crashed, potentially hundreds of miles from where an international search effort has been focused.

In those scenarios, neither mechanical problems, pilot mistakes nor some other type of catastrophic incident caused the 250-ton plane to mysteriously vanish from radar.

The latest revelations come as local media reported that Malaysian police visited the home of at least one of the two pilots.

Wow, this is getting even more baffling. Looks like the Tom Clancy thriller conspiracies seem to be coming to fruition. My question is why did the airplane manufacturers allow access to the transponders so they can be deactivated? It should be mandatory for all civilian airliners to have a tamper proof transponder so no one will be able to deactivate it unless its on the ground.
 
It is not true. Official press conference right now, says it is a lie.
 
It seems likely that one of the pilots went nuts.
 
It is not true. Official press conference right now, says it is a lie.
Well thats what the Malaysians are saying but I dont think anyone believes them anymore.
 
Well thats what the Malaysians are saying but I dont think anyone believes them anymore.

So you would rather believe a newspaper owned by a man who tweeted hours after the disappearance that it was Al Q? The WSJ is a joke these days and can hardly be taken seriously with the amount of bull**** it publishes on a regular basis, including this story from unconfirmed sources and bla bla.

I would rather believe the official version for now, instead of the usual bs rumour and conspiracy theories coming out of the US these days.
 
So you would rather believe a newspaper owned by a man who tweeted hours after the disappearance that it was Al Q? The WSJ is a joke these days and can hardly be taken seriously with the amount of bull**** it publishes on a regular basis, including this story from unconfirmed sources and bla bla.

I would rather believe the official version for now, instead of the usual bs rumour and conspiracy theories coming out of the US these days.

Well, Rolls Royce data will clear it up. It's that simple.

Btw, Malaysia has been horrible at handling the situation. First it was the plane went down in South China/ Gulf of Thailand. Then it was maybe in the Straight of Malacca, now it could be in the Andaman Sea. Before you know it.. they'll be looking in the Indian Ocean/Bay of Bengal. ;)
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure about the credibility of the above news report. First, U.S. investigators have not made any such announcements. Second, we don't even know if the "two" persons who spoke with the newspaper are even part of the investigation.

With few meaningful leads right now, it would not be surprising if the investigation was exploring various theories to try to develop possible explanations to guide the effort. Such theories, however, do not constitute actual evidence. As the article states that the alleged sources were "familiar with the details" [but did not specify what details with which they were allegedly familiar] rather than "connected to the investigation" or similar language, it's entirely plausible that those individuals confused one of many still hypothetical theories with evidence.

To date, Malaysia has dissembled, as noted by the Washington Post yesterday. However, that doesn't make other speculation any more credible. The fact is that U.S. investigators have not formally made the claim cited in the article up to now. IMO, the article should not have run, as the information was speculative and of highly uncertain quality.
 
Well, Rolls Royce data will clear it up. It's that simple.

Yes, if it exists. Funny how so long after the fact that this data suddenly comes up no? Plus it has already been debunked.. the last signal from the engines came 30 min after the plane left. Just another lie coming out of somewhere...

Btw, Malaysia has been horrible at handling the situation. First it the plane went down in South China/ Gulf of Thailand. Then it was maybe in the Straight of Malacca, now it could be in the Andaman Sea. Before you know it.. they'll be looking in the Indian Ocean/Bay of Bengal. ;)

No they have not. You are talking about debunked media reports and rumour.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure about the credibility of the above news report. First, U.S. investigators have not made any such announcements. Second, we don't even know if the "two" persons who spoke with the newspaper are even part of the investigation.

With few meaningful leads right now, it would not be surprising if the investigation was exploring various theories to try to develop possible explanations to guide the effort. Such theories, however, do not constitute actual evidence. As the article states that the alleged sources were "familiar with the details" [but did not specify what details with which they were allegedly familiar] rather than "connected to the investigation" or similar language, it's entirely plausible that those individuals confused one of many still hypothetical theories with evidence.

To date, Malaysia has dissembled, as noted by the Washington Post yesterday. However, that doesn't make other speculation any more credible. The fact is that U.S. investigators have not formally made the claim cited in the article up to now. IMO, the article should not have run, as the information was speculative and of highly uncertain quality.

Except the article was gonna run. A scoop is a scoop. US intel agencies (spy satellites) found no evidence of a mid air explosion. That leaves only 1 viable option left since A) the transponder was turned off and there was no explosion and B) the Malaysian Government/ Military has expanded it's search zone.

Basically they've accept the fact that the plane left course and flew longer then when the transponder went off. That alone.. gives creditability to the WSJ report.
 
Yes, if it exists. Funny how so long after the fact that this data suddenly comes up no? Plus it has already been debunked.. the last signal from the engines came 30 min after the plane left. Just another lie coming out of somewhere...

Nah, it's not funny. But it takes awhile to process data or even realize you have it. The report in which you say is debunking it is came from Malaysia Airlines, problem with that is.. Malaysia Airlines assumes Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) wasn't collected by Rolls Royce because they opted out of the program offered by Boeing and Rolls Royce. You can opt out but the data is still collected for research purposes on future engine builds. But the problem is, it dove tails with accounts from of changing search grids by the Malaysian Government. Another ACARS could have been sent out and Malaysia Airlines wouldn't know.


No they have not. You are talking about debunked media reports and rumour.

No media report has debunked it. None. Rumor would be that MH370 actually hit two 5 story buildings in NYC yesterday and caused an explosions that killed 6 people and injured 61 instead of it being a gas explosion. See the difference?
 
Last edited:
So you would rather believe a newspaper owned by a man who tweeted hours after the disappearance that it was Al Q? The WSJ is a joke these days and can hardly be taken seriously with the amount of bull**** it publishes on a regular basis, including this story from unconfirmed sources and bla bla.

I would rather believe the official version for now, instead of the usual bs rumour and conspiracy theories coming out of the US these days.

But there is no official version, the Malaysians dont have a clue as to what happened plus their own military has been inconsistent with rumors that the plane flew into the straits of Malacca. The WSJ is a respected newspaper so they wouldnt publish it unless they at least fact checked a little bit.
 
It's fake. The engines stopped at 1.07. they didn't fact check even a little bit. Just the normal leel of disinformation to an uncritically accepting drone readership. Mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed a load of bull.....
 
Except the article was gonna run. A scoop is a scoop.

A scoop infers being first with a credible story. Publishing speculative material that may or may not be reliable isn't really a scoop.

I'm not surprised that the story ran. In an era where journalistic accountability isn't given the emphasis it deserves (something that reflects badly on journalism in general), there will be no consequences for the publication if the story proves false. I highly doubt that the newspaper will even publish a retraction or apology to readers for its inaccurate report. In this environment, the implicit journalistic obligation to test the information and refrain from publishing or reporting material of questionable or worse value is routinely ignored.

The American public (and my guess is that the same holds true for international audiences) has noticed the inaccurate reporting, among other negative outcomes. Two-thirds or more believe that reporting is inaccurate and also that media tries to cover up its mistakes.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/08...iticized-for-accuracy-bias-and-news-judgment/

Omission of a correction should the story in question prove inaccurate would be consistent with covering up mistakes, as the omission would be intended for the public to forget the story, something that can happen quite easily in today's glut of information.
 
But there is no official version, the Malaysians dont have a clue as to what happened plus their own military has been inconsistent with rumors that the plane flew into the straits of Malacca. The WSJ is a respected newspaper so they wouldnt publish it unless they at least fact checked a little bit.

There is an official version... they hold press conferences every day live on TV for god sake and take a boat load of questions. I watch it every day. And their military are not inconsistent, it is the freaking rumour mill that is the problem. Their military NEVER said that their military radar saw the plane turn and all that... it was a rumour not unlike this BS story from the WSJ.

And the WSJ is not respected any more ever since Newscorp bought the paper. It has become a clear mouth piece of Rupert Murdoch and his political allies. Its editorial pages look like Fox News in print without the flair and graphic pictures of the New York Post.
 
Nah, it's not funny. But it takes awhile to process data or even realize you have it. The report in which you say is debunking it is came from Malaysia Airlines, problem with that is.. Malaysia Airlines assumes Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) wasn't collected by Rolls Royce because they opted out of the program offered by Boeing and Rolls Royce. You can opt out but the data is still collected for research purposes on future engine builds. But the problem is, it dove tails with accounts from of changing search grids by the Malaysian Government. Another ACARS could have been sent out and Malaysia Airlines wouldn't know.

And you base this on what.. more rumours from secret sources in the US? Tell me this then.. why over 5 days later, has Rolls Royce, who have sent people out there, just like Boeing has.. that is standard procedure, not handed over this information to the Malaysian authorities? Why.. either they ****ing with the search.. doubt that, or the information does not exist.

No media report has debunked it. None. Rumor would be that MH370 actually hit two 5 story buildings in NYC yesterday and caused an explosions that killed 6 people and injured 61 instead of it being a gas explosion. See the difference?

LOL a daily live press conference debunks it.. watch it tomorrow live if you want. You are spreading rumour, bull**** and out right lies... just like the Chinese satellite pictures supposedly showing wreckage... also bull****, and a waste of time.
 
A scoop infers being first with a credible story. Publishing speculative material that may or may not be reliable isn't really a scoop.

I'm not surprised that the story ran. In an era where journalistic accountability isn't given the emphasis it deserves (something that reflects badly on journalism in general), there will be no consequences for the publication if the story proves false. I highly doubt that the newspaper will even publish a retraction or apology to readers for its inaccurate report. In this environment, the implicit journalistic obligation to test the information and refrain from publishing or reporting material of questionable or worse value is routinely ignored.

The American public (and my guess is that the same holds true for international audiences) has noticed the inaccurate reporting, among other negative outcomes. Two-thirds or more believe that reporting is inaccurate and also that media tries to cover up its mistakes.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/08...iticized-for-accuracy-bias-and-news-judgment/

Omission of a correction should the story in question prove inaccurate would be consistent with covering up mistakes, as the omission would be intended for the public to forget the story, something that can happen quite easily in today's glut of information.
Same with the crummy Chinese satellite pics that were release days after the fact. One or several entities are hiding something.
 
There is an official version... they hold press conferences every day live on TV for god sake and take a boat load of questions. I watch it every day. And their military are not inconsistent, it is the freaking rumour mill that is the problem. Their military NEVER said that their military radar saw the plane turn and all that... it was a rumour not unlike this BS story from the WSJ.

And the WSJ is not respected any more ever since Newscorp bought the paper. It has become a clear mouth piece of Rupert Murdoch and his political allies. Its editorial pages look like Fox News in print without the flair and graphic pictures of the New York Post.

The Malaysian air force chief's initial assertion about the plane being picked up by radar after its transponder signal went off is consistent w/the WSJ's story.

It's likely the AF chief was telling the truth and then told by his own govt. to lie about what he knew, i. e. saying it didn't happen.
 
And you base this on what.. more rumours from secret sources in the US? Tell me this then.. why over 5 days later, has Rolls Royce, who have sent people out there, just like Boeing has.. that is standard procedure, not handed over this information to the Malaysian authorities? Why.. either they ****ing with the search.. doubt that, or the information does not exist.



LOL a daily live press conference debunks it.. watch it tomorrow live if you want. You are spreading rumour, bull**** and out right lies... just like the Chinese satellite pictures supposedly showing wreckage... also bull****, and a waste of time.

Which source do you watch, Pete?
 
Which source do you watch, Pete?

Sky News (Newscorp), CNN International, BBC, Al Jazeera, France 24 and a few more.

There are a lot of theories out there, but few facts, and the facts do not include the plane flying 4 hours longer than reported.
 
U.S. Investigators Suspect Missing Malaysia Airplane Flew On for Hours - WSJ.com

b3wig3.jpg




Wow, this is getting even more baffling. Looks like the Tom Clancy thriller conspiracies seem to be coming to fruition. My question is why did the airplane manufacturers allow access to the transponders so they can be deactivated? It should be mandatory for all civilian airliners to have a tamper proof transponder so no one will be able to deactivate it unless its on the ground.

Are you really THIS unaware? Why do you immediately go for the throats of the airplane companies? Is that a libertarian thing? In the US it happens to be the FAA that controls the requirements that airplane companies build their airplanes in accordance with. And it's very likely the case that a govt agency decides in other countries as well. So why don't you put the blame where it belongs? And what does the transponder actually do? A number of things but primarily the ID or the aircraft and its altitude. They still track the aircraft on radar, and when it falls below a certain altitude you can't see it.
 
Sky News (Newscorp), CNN International, BBC, Al Jazeera, France 24 and a few more.

There are a lot of theories out there, but few facts, and the facts do not include the plane flying 4 hours longer than reported.

Thanks. Just wondering what people in Europe watch.
 
The Malaysian air force chief's initial assertion about the plane being picked up by radar after its transponder signal went off is consistent w/the WSJ's story.

It's likely the AF chief was telling the truth and then told by his own govt. to lie about what he knew, i. e. saying it didn't happen.

LOL conspiracy theories are ripe over there eh?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26527390

On Wednesday, Malaysia's air force chief Rodzali Daud denied remarks attributed to him in local media that a missing Malaysia Airlines plane was tracked by military radar to the Malacca Strait, far west of its planned route.

Gen Rodzali Daud said he "did not make any such statements", but the air force had "not ruled out the possibility of an air turn-back".
 
Back
Top Bottom