Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 'Loses Contact' - Polidicks

Don't quote me on this, but I believe in the first Gulf war (?), Tornado pilots were trained to fly extremely low to avoid being detected and having SAMs fired at them. And I might be wrong about this too, but one of the pilots was in a crash and narrowly escaped death, and wrote a book about it or something.

It is true - radar has a vertical height limitation. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon[/url]

This could be the plane, almost assuredly. The size is frighteningly accurate. You can clearly see the wings, broken fuselage, rudder, a vertical stabilizer, and can somewhat depict an engine. The scale is PERFECT. Frightening. The location is also within the primary search area, disregarding the numerous accounts of the plane turning around, flying back over the continent, etc, which have not been corroborated. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4ClZwk0.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=rbreslow;44245012]This could be the plane, almost assuredly. The size is frighteningly accurate. You can clearly see the wings, broken fuselage, rudder, a vertical stabilizer, and can somewhat depict an engine. The scale is PERFECT. Frightening. The location is also within the primary search area, disregarding the numerous accounts of the plane turning around, flying back over the continent, etc, which have not been corroborated. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4ClZwk0.gif[/img][/QUOTE] Honestly that looks just like slight graphical glitches.

Yeah I'm on a 1080p monitor and i can't 'clearly' see shit captain.

[QUOTE=rbreslow;44245012]This could be the plane, almost assuredly. The size is frighteningly accurate. You can clearly see the wings, broken fuselage, rudder, a vertical stabilizer, and can somewhat depict an engine. The scale is PERFECT. Frightening. The location is also within the primary search area, disregarding the numerous accounts of the plane turning around, flying back over the continent, etc, which have not been corroborated. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4ClZwk0.gif[/img][/QUOTE] A great find, but I think its the resolution more than anything else :(

[QUOTE=rbreslow;44245012]This could be the plane, almost assuredly. The size is frighteningly accurate. You can clearly see the wings, broken fuselage, rudder, a vertical stabilizer, and can somewhat depict an engine. The scale is PERFECT. Frightening. The location is also within the primary search area, disregarding the numerous accounts of the plane turning around, flying back over the continent, etc, which have not been corroborated. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4ClZwk0.gif[/img][/QUOTE] Pretty sure after a week of being in water, the plane would've sunk to the bottom of the ocean, too deep to see.

[QUOTE=matt000024;44245037]Honestly that looks just like slight graphical glitches.[/QUOTE] Its possible the plane landed in a shallow area and the parts sank in close proximity, these spots are still there on the most up to date imagery from tomnod (imagery newer than the one in the gif) so its very unlikely the graphical glitches would repeat.

[QUOTE=rbreslow;44245012]This could be the plane, almost assuredly. The size is frighteningly accurate. You can clearly see the wings, broken fuselage, rudder, a vertical stabilizer, and can somewhat depict an engine. The scale is PERFECT. Frightening. The location is also within the primary search area, disregarding the numerous accounts of the plane turning around, flying back over the continent, etc, which have not been corroborated. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4ClZwk0.gif[/img][/QUOTE] But it has been corroborated now, by multiple investigation bodies working independently. That just looks like a compression artifact.

You can see shallow spots from satellite. If the water is black then that means its too deep for light to reach anything on the floor, so you wouldn't see a plane. [editline]15th March 2014[/editline] I'm afraid satellites are only going to be able to find small floating debris. Youre going to need subs, sonar, and ROV's to find anything that sank past 100 feet. [editline]15th March 2014[/editline] 100 feet is probably being extremely liberal, too. Depends how tall a 777 is. You might get to see the top of the vertical stabilizer if its still standing and the waters clear. Generally though if the waters black you're not going to see anything.

[QUOTE=cra0kalo;44241626]It won't just disappear off radar though if it was hijacked somethings going on here.[/QUOTE] Over oceanic it would. If the hijackers knew what they were doing they could disable the transponder, radios, and TCAS. Now, once they get into controlled airspace it may be a different story, but what if the airspace they were flying it, lets say pakistan, allowed them to fly unnoticed and unannounced because they knew what was going on

My guess is only the pilots would know how to disable all forms of tracking on the aircraft within the timeframe given... considering there's been no ransom demand yet, I'm starting to fear the aircraft was stolen for another purpose. As a weapon? And it really feels like this is a hijacking, not a crash, given the data.

Someone told me that another theory is that the Malaysian government mistakenly shot down the plane and are now trying to cover up the blunder. Could this be a possibility?

Only if the Malaysian government wants to loose all credibility and be hated by everyone for wasting their time and money on a pointless search, and lieing to all the families of the people on the plane.

[QUOTE=zin908;44246440]Someone told me that another theory is that the Malaysian government mistakenly shot down the plane and are now trying to cover up the blunder. Could this be a possibility?[/QUOTE] If the plane was shot down I believe one of our satellites would have picked up on it

[QUOTE=Del91;44246461]Only if the Malaysian government wants to loose all credibility and be hated by everyone for wasting their time and money on a pointless search, and lieing to all the families of the people on the plane.[/QUOTE] Did the US lose all credibility [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655?Vincennes"]here?[/URL]

Another theory probably discussed by now, but just putting out extra information. [IMG]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-L5XZ5xOhEmI/UyS1GfsNKEI/AAAAAAAAAis/nN_OPgZg_Cg/w600-h508-no/flight+370.jpg[/IMG] Here, the lime green line represents the flight path after loosing contact. The red circle represents the amount of flight time the plane can reach. Dark green line represents the possible locations that hijackers could have brought the plane, inferring that the hijackers were terrorists from Pakistan, Afghan, and Iran. [IMG]https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-zyMc58g44Fs/UyS1DUEdNHI/AAAAAAAAAik/DLpJi_m3nIA/w173-h489-no/terrorist+places.jpg[/IMG] Here shows the terrorist bases that the plane could have flown to, all in reach of the flight time. Again, probably mentioned but just wanted to backup the fact.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;44245940]Over oceanic it would. If the hijackers knew what they were doing they could disable the transponder, radios, and TCAS. Now, once they get into controlled airspace it may be a different story, but what if the airspace they were flying it, lets say pakistan, allowed them to fly unnoticed and unannounced because they knew what was going on[/QUOTE] If the hijacker knew how to disable the radio, ACARs (not TCAS- TCAS is not a position reporting tool) and the transponder then they are much, much more dangerous than your average hijacker - and should be regarded and treated as such.

Yes, radar has a coverage which stops after a certain heigh as it has been posted. Argentine pilots used this to their advantage. But if flying at night, it can become very dangerous. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but, altimeter only registers sea ground level, not water, right? If they went too low maybe they collided with waves or crashed right into water [QUOTE]Here, the lime green line represents the flight path after loosing contact. The red circle represents the amount of flight time the plane can reach. Dark green line represents the possible locations that hijackers could have brought the plane, inferring that the hijackers were terrorists from Pakistan, Afghan, and Iran. [/QUOTE] No fucking way they can bee line through Indian territory while being under radar. The terrain is FUBAR, they would have crashed into something. Oh.....

Salafist operations in Iran? Yeah, no.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;44246797]Yes, radar has a coverage which stops after a certain heigh as it has been posted. Argentine pilots used this to their advantage. But if flying at night, it can become very dangerous. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but, altimeter only registers sea ground level, not water, right? If they went too low maybe they collided with waves or crashed right into water[/QUOTE] aircraft altimeters work in relation to the International Standard Atmosphere, so their ground reference is the pressure at the mean sea level sea level varies in real life, and other things like air temperature can cause the reading to drift as well basically if you wanted to fly like 15 feet off the ground using the altimeter without actually seeing what's going on underneath, that would be a terrible idea

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;44246844]aircraft altimeters work in relation to the International Standard Atmosphere, so their ground reference is the pressure at the mean sea level sea level varies in real life, and other things like air temperature can cause the reading to drift as well basically if you wanted to fly like 15 feet off the ground using the altimeter without actually seeing what's going on underneath, that would be a terrible idea[/QUOTE] Yeah that's why Im saying. At night, sea, no horizon reference....kind hard....

Modern aircraft have radar altimeter that kicks in below 500-1000ft. This doesn't use the conventional barometric pressure as stated above, but radar instead - it's much more reliable and provides much more accurate readings to the aircrew when flying low. Flying low over sea, aircraft would switch to the radar altimeter when applicable and the aircraft would call out height verbally as if it were on approach. More info: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_altimeter[/url]

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44241368]Bystander Effect. No one wants to do a fucking thing, and everything ends up going to shit because of it.[/QUOTE] what the fuck is there even to do when the dudes who can fly a plane are the hijackers and since the thing crashed how do you know their [I]wasn't[/I] a flight 93 style revolt?

Just found out that the experienced pilot was a friend of my housemate. Here in Malaysia people speculate that maybe the pilot went bonkers and decided to crash the plane while others point out to a false flag operation done by either China or USA. You guys heard of any crazy conspiracy theories?

"conspiracy theories" may be pretty far out but this is a pretty far out situation [editline]15th March 2014[/editline] with little explanation as to what actually happened [editline]15th March 2014[/editline] and its been a week with dozens of countries involved in the investigation and none of them have shit

The more and more I think about this whole situation, the more scary it feels. I really hope they find this plane. I actually hope that it crashed into the ocean or something.

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;44229596]to explain how orbital mechanics works here's pretty pictures [img]https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Z3CxSOOaxEs/UyJhL_GWgtI/AAAAAAAAHPs/NnP8ZbU69hY/s0/MapOfEarth2.png[/img] the angle between blue line (0degrees) and the red line is the orbital inclination. depending on that inclination you'll get more or less coverage of the world assuming that these lines are more or less parallel (which they aren't), this would be one coverage of the planet the reason they have to wait time before taking a picture is because they aren't in the right place yet [img]https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-CHIhcDpiRy4/UyJhuYS4G-I/AAAAAAAAHP0/bKNxnD1pZtI/s0/MapOfEarth3.png[/img] a crypto guide in orbital paths[/QUOTE] this isn't what they do either, they have a high apo at a high inclination so the sat has a v long linger time over the piece of land it's focused on

[QUOTE=Eltro102;44248611]this isn't what they do either, they have a high apo at a high inclination so the sat has a v long linger time over the piece of land it's focused on[/QUOTE] You're right in that Crypto is not entirely correct as to how they move, but most imaging satellites are not in high eccentricity orbits. They don't need a particularly long time to photograph a piece of land, and the resolution is much better in lower orbits. Orbits like the ones you are talking about are more common for communications satellites that require the satellite to be at a high latitude (geostationary satellites can only be placed around the equator, so with satellites that spend more time above one place on Earth it is possible to reduce the amount of satellites required to get continuous coverage at very high latitudes).

Look what I found! [url]http://vietnam.craigslist.org/for/4372477162.html[/url] :v: