Missing MH370 plane 'was thrown around like a fighter jet and flown under the radar to avoid detecti - Polidicks

also the first sentence of the OP article is worded in a way that implies the plane literally dodged radio waves left and right like mad

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;44537069]The military should have radar pointed below this altitude. That's sort of a gapingly idiotic security hole to leave wide open.[/QUOTE] This guy didn't explain it properly: [QUOTE=Erector Beast;44537032]hello, person who doesn't have understanding of how radar works they didn't just "fly the plane in such a way that radar magically couldn't detect it", they flew it under 5,000 feet, which is [I]below[/I] radar's range. radars are pointed up - they're meant to be looking for fucking planes, after all. if you fly your plane low, radar won't see it.[/QUOTE] The reason 'flying below the radar' works is because of something known as 'radar horizon'. Simply put, radar waves travel in a straight line. The Earth is round. Therefore, after a certain distance (depending on the altitude of the radar), anything below a certain altitude will not be detectable by radar. [IMG]http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/NEETS-Modules/images/181img21B.gif[/IMG]

if they were using passive radars (like Czech Tamara) they would knew exactly what was going on in air in any altitude, hell even on the sea surface ;) as long there was any EM device on board the plane

[QUOTE=dai;44536904]we should rename the US education system 'flight 370' so CNN might actually pay attention to it[/QUOTE] It'd be a fitting name as well given the context y'know, something starts out okay but then just seems to spiral out of control and nobody knows what the hell happened or where it went but people are probably dead because of it Sound familiar? :v:

[QUOTE=Dwarden;44537260]if they were using passive radars (like Czech Tamara) they would knew exactly what was going on in air in any altitude, hell even on the sea surface ;) as long there was any EM device on board the plane[/QUOTE] If you're referring to the same passive radar detailed at [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar[/url] this type of radar isn't appropriate for general aviation use. They rely on some form of transmission or high powered radio signal to locate and track the source and the source only. Simply having an electronic device onboard the aircraft wouldn't be adequate - it would need to meet a certain set of criteria to be traceable by passive radar.

so whoever it was knew a lot about planes, radar and advanced flight techniques? Shit they might have actually landed that SOB

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;44536525]This screams attempted high-jacking.[/QUOTE] Agreed. Sounds a lot like what happened on United Flight 93. [video=youtube;vQKoIMCHq70]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQKoIMCHq70[/video]

[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;44537315]so whoever it was knew a lot about planes, radar and advanced flight techniques? Shit they might have actually landed that SOB[/QUOTE] Terrorists might have still deliberately landed it in the ocean. Think about it, if you pointed it nose down to the ocean at high speed, it would completely break apart, but because many components are deliberately designed to be buoyant, there would be obvious wreckage on the surface to alert search teams to the rough whereabouts. Maybe if the plane touched down gently on the ocean surface at low speed (Hudson river event etc) it would have been kept whole but would sink anyways. But then again, why would someone kill everyone on a commercial airliner but didn't want anyone else to learn about the fate of it. [editline]14th April 2014[/editline] Although a problem with that theory is that extreme pressure under the ocean would have torn the plane apart anyways.

I thought from the start it seemed like a hijacking but realized a long time ago that it really looks like a [I]failed[/I] hijacking rather than a successful heist. I'm considering the possibility that the hijackers were overpowered or close to being overpowered and either the passengers did not know what to do with the plane after retaking it or the hijackers destroyed it intentionally to stop it from being regained.

[quote]amid fears that the jet's black box may have run out of battery.[/quote] What a shitty device, I thought those were supposed to last? Whole lot of help it's been.

Accurate representation of MH370 [video=youtube;K3l60momVtc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3l60momVtc[/video]

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44540610]Terrorists might have still deliberately landed it in the ocean. Think about it, if you pointed it nose down to the ocean at high speed, it would completely break apart, but because many components are deliberately designed to be buoyant, there would be obvious wreckage on the surface to alert search teams to the rough whereabouts. Maybe if the plane touched down gently on the ocean surface at low speed (Hudson river event etc) it would have been kept whole but would sink anyways. But then again, why would someone kill everyone on a commercial airliner but didn't want anyone else to learn about the fate of it. [editline]14th April 2014[/editline] Although a problem with that theory is that extreme pressure under the ocean would have torn the plane apart anyways.[/QUOTE] It would only pop the cabin most of the plane would still be intact, Assuming splash down wasn't too violent That is only a theory anyway, until we find parts of the plane or the black boxes anything is possible, The fact that it was being flown like a fighter jet to avoid radar seems to point at a hijacking or maybe vital instruments on board were damaged and they were forced to fly blind for hours before crashing...

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;44540674]What a shitty device, I thought those were supposed to last? Whole lot of help it's been.[/QUOTE] They're only required to last 30 days.

[QUOTE=Apache249;44540924]They're only required to last 30 days.[/QUOTE] Well, that's a lot less useful than I thought they were.

[QUOTE=Apache249;44540924]They're only required to last 30 days.[/QUOTE] This ought to be changed. Use a betavoltaic or something so they don't run down.

I hope something else goes missing so this news gets scrapped. Let's fly or sail something into Bermuda Triangle -- something important.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;44542649]Well, that's a lot less useful than I thought they were.[/QUOTE] Well they're usually recovered in less than 30 days. This case is the exception, not the rule.

My uncle seems to think that the airplane landed and the blackboxes have been dumped in the ocean after the likely route of the plane was calculated by investigators..

[QUOTE=Antdawg;44540610]Terrorists might have still deliberately landed it in the ocean. Think about it, if you pointed it nose down to the ocean at high speed, it would completely break apart, but because many components are deliberately designed to be buoyant, there would be obvious wreckage on the surface to alert search teams to the rough whereabouts. Maybe if the plane touched down gently on the ocean surface at low speed (Hudson river event etc) it would have been kept whole but would sink anyways. But then again, why would someone kill everyone on a commercial airliner but didn't want anyone else to learn about the fate of it. [editline]14th April 2014[/editline] Although a problem with that theory is that extreme pressure under the ocean would have torn the plane apart anyways.[/QUOTE] It's called Miracle on the Hudson because of how well the ditching went. It's not usually the norm. [video=youtube;zA5FMFVbVZ0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA5FMFVbVZ0[/video]

I imagine black boxes run out so quickly is because they have very powerful transmitters - you can have a long battery life or a good locator signal but not both.

[QUOTE=darunner;44543557]It's called Miracle on the Hudson because of how well the ditching went. It's not usually the norm. [video=youtube;zA5FMFVbVZ0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA5FMFVbVZ0[/video][/QUOTE] Yeah, and Sully Sullenberger had tens of thousands of flight hours, over decades of experience, and even extensively flew gliders back in the day. If any pilot could land a jetliner in a body of water, it was he. Somehow i find a lack of faith in the idea that the average Terrorist has equal experience.

For anyone saying it's impossible for an airliner to be flown in such a manner. Take a look at the A380, the largest airliner in the world, to be flown like a jet. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJxnwF-MPi0[/media]

The comments on the article make me want to kill myself.

[QUOTE=Pr0fane;44546675]For anyone saying it's impossible for an airliner to be flown in such a manner. Take a look at the A380, the largest airliner in the world, to be flown like a jet. -video-[/QUOTE] Yeah... uh... that's a dry plane, not a wet one with cargo and passengers on board. I would like to see that tried when the plane is weighed down with passengers on board. The same deal happens with military jets as well- the more weight you put on, the less maneuverable and powerful they become. I'm not saying it's not possible... but it's highly unlikely that the plane would be flown like that on purpose unless it was being hijacked.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44536526]I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of hearing about this plane all over the news.[/QUOTE] Yeah, god for fucking bid an investigation goes down and the results are released to the public.

[QUOTE=runtime;44537310]If you're referring to the same passive radar detailed at [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar[/URL] this type of radar isn't appropriate for general aviation use. They rely on some form of transmission or high powered radio signal to locate and track the source and the source only. Simply having an electronic device onboard the aircraft wouldn't be adequate - it would need to meet a certain set of criteria to be traceable by passive radar.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://era.aero/products/vera-by-era/[/URL] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_passive_sensor[/URL] VERA and VERA-NG are successors to TAMARA passive system (Chinese YLC-20 is sort of reverse engineered Tamara) Ukraine has long range variant [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolchuga_passive_sensor[/url] there is rumor it's based of Ramona (predecessor to Tamara) which was exported in significant number to USSR

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44536953]I really wouldn't be surprised if this thing landed somewhere covertly on some abandonned airbase in Australia or Malaysia or elsewhere and by now got dug up or got taken apart or god knows what, god knows by who, god knows why. I just find it hard to believe it avoided all detection apparently on purpose, flew for several hours after losing contact, and then crashed into ocean without a single distinguishable trace.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/mh370-has-not-landed-in-diego-garcia-us-rubbishes-allegations_924757.html"]Diego Garcia[/URL] if you listen to the Internet people.

[QUOTE=Four20;44553105][URL="http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/mh370-has-not-landed-in-diego-garcia-us-rubbishes-allegations_924757.html"]Diego Garcia[/URL] if you listen to the Internet people.[/QUOTE] If only there was somebody there who could alert the world to the presence of a hijacked airliner, such as the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia#After_1971]3-5,000 US soldiers stationed there[/url]

[QUOTE=Lv100Garchomp;44547901]Yeah... uh... that's a dry plane, not a wet one with cargo and passengers on board. I would like to see that tried when the plane is weighed down with passengers on board. The same deal happens with military jets as well- the more weight you put on, the less maneuverable and powerful they become. I'm not saying it's not possible... but it's highly unlikely that the plane would be flown like that on purpose unless it was being hijacked.[/QUOTE] Its been done with a FedEx DC-10 with it fully loaded with fuel and cargo. Did aileron rolls and dives as as the speedometer maxed out and likely breaking the sound barrier and it survived and kept flying later needing only minor repairs. Though those things were made out of a shit ton of titanium and they don't really build them like that anymore. If the airplane was maneuvered in such a way as the article describes its not far off that the reason it crashed was because it damaged its control surfaces from said maneuvers. Airbus also used to do those shows with people on them, until one of the demonstrators crashed.

[QUOTE=Saxon;44553431]Its been done with a FedEx DC-10 with it fully loaded with fuel and cargo. Did aileron rolls and dives as as the speedometer maxed out and likely breaking the sound barrier and it survived and kept flying later needing only minor repairs. Though those things were made out of a shit ton of titanium and they don't really build them like that anymore. If the airplane was maneuvered in such a way as the article describes its not far off that the reason it crashed was because it damaged its control surfaces from said maneuvers. Airbus also used to do those shows with people on them, until one of the demonstrators crashed.[/QUOTE] The point is that the aircraft are not made to do that, especially not when weighed down, which as you said, damaged the aircraft.