The Plane is in Pakistan?

[DeltaV]

That makes even less sense.

So, if you were a terrorist planning to use a 777 as a weapon, you would advertise the fact that it did not crash, to make your job easier?
That makes negative sense.

[Skipjack]

That makes even less sense.

So, if you were a terrorist planning to use a 777 as a weapon, you would advertise the fact that it did not crash, to make your job easier?
That makes negative sense.

Why would you hijack a plane to use it in an attack later if you could just use it in an attack right then? Besides, the whole 9/11 idea wont work anymore today. It worked with three planes on 9/11 and already failed the with flight 93 when the passengers found out what was happening. This and would not work anymore today. Back then the policy was to cooperate with hijackers. Nowadays everyone on board would revolt (like they did on flight 93), as no one wants to end up being a living bomb.

[Betruger]

You mean that in principle there is no possible terrorist use that doesn't happen immediately after hijack?

Nowadays everyone on board would revolt (like they did on flight 93), as no one wants to end up being a living bomb.

And the hijackers wouldn't know this?

[Skipjack]

You mean that in principle there is no possible terrorist use that doesn't happen immediately after hijack?

Like what? I don't see the logic in such an approach.

Nowadays everyone on board would revolt (like they did on flight 93), as no one wants to end up being a living bomb.

And the hijackers wouldn't know this?

Yes, the hijackers would know this, which is why a hijacking is a lot less likely.

[DeltaV]

Why would you hijack a plane to use it in an attack later if you could just use it in an attack right then?

Well, for instance, and I hope this is not the case, if you wanted to take out a "hardened" target like the new One World Trade center, you would need time to strip out all of the seats and load it from nose to tail with whatever you thought would do the job, up to the maximum takeoff weight of 656,000 lbs (297,550 kg).

Besides, the whole 9/11 idea wont work anymore today. It worked with three planes on 9/11 and already failed the with flight 93 when the passengers found out what was happening. This and would not work anymore today. Back then the policy was to cooperate with hijackers. Nowadays everyone on board would revolt (like they did on flight 93), as no one wants to end up being a living bomb.

That's why you would want the passengers off of the plane. If still alive, they might be used as bargaining chips or propaganda pawns later on.

[Skipjack]

Why would you hijack a plane to use it in an attack later if you could just use it in an attack right then?

Well, for instance, and I hope this is not the case, if you wanted to take out a "hardened" target like the new One World Trade center, you would need time to strip out all of the seats and load it from nose to tail with whatever you thought would do the job, up to the maximum takeoff weight of 656,000 lbs (297,550 kg).

And why would you go through the struggle of abducting a passenger plane full of resisting people for that, if you could just charter a plane, which also allows you got get through airport security without a check? Or do you think that terrorist organizations are so strapped for cash that they cant afford chartering a plane? I am sure the Saudis pay them well.

Besides, the whole 9/11 idea wont work anymore today. It worked with three planes on 9/11 and already failed the with flight 93 when the passengers found out what was happening. This and would not work anymore today. Back then the policy was to cooperate with hijackers. Nowadays everyone on board would revolt (like they did on flight 93), as no one wants to end up being a living bomb.

That's why you would want the passengers off of the plane. If still alive, they might be used as bargaining chips or propaganda pawns later on.

As I said before, the people on the plane would resist. As flight number 93 showed, no group of terrorists can resist hundreds of passengers fighting back at them. It worked for 9/11 because the policy was to comply. It failed already for flight 93 because people knew what the plan was. It would fail today for the same reason.

[DeltaV]

And why would you go through the struggle of abducting a passenger plane full of resisting people for that, if you could just charter a plane, which also allows you got get through airport security without a check? Or do you think that terrorist organizations are so strapped for cash that they cant afford chartering a plane? I am sure the Saudis pay them well.

It has been speculated on other forums (not by me, though I acknowledge the possibility) that the rapid climb to 45K ft was intended to incapacitate and/or kill the passengers. I don't know if the pilots could command a pressure loss from the flight deck or not. If not, maybe an accomplice in the passenger cabin, wearing portable oxygen, cut out or shot out a window, perhaps in a way that it could be plugged later at lower altitude, with a temporary patch.
You don't think there are background checks when a half-million+ pound airplane is chartered?

As I said before, the people on the plane would resist. As flight number 93 showed, no group of terrorists can resist hundreds of passengers fighting back at them. It worked for 9/11 because the policy was to comply. It failed already for flight 93 because people knew what the plan was. It would fail today for the same reason.

Not if they don't know that the flight deck crew, behind a secure door, is behind it. If the cabin was depressurized and the circuit breakers for the drop-down masks had been pulled, any resistance would end there.

[Skipjack]

And why would you go through the struggle of abducting a passenger plane full of resisting people for that, if you could just charter a plane, which also allows you got get through airport security without a check? Or do you think that terrorist organizations are so strapped for cash that they cant afford chartering a plane? I am sure the Saudis pay them well.

It has been speculated on other forums (not by me, though I acknowledge the possibility) that the rapid climb to 45K ft was intended to incapacitate and/or kill the passengers. I don't know if the pilots could command a pressure loss from the flight deck or not. If not, maybe an accomplice in the passenger cabin, wearing portable oxygen, cut out or shot out a window, perhaps in a way that it could be plugged later at lower altitude, with a temporary patch.
You don't think there are background checks when a half-million+ pound airplane is chartered?

We handed our port security to the Saudis under Bush. I think it is easy enough for any Saudi with a hand full of cash to charter an airplane for himself and his "guests". It has been one of my pet peeves with the whole airport security nonsense that it is much easier to simply charter a private jet and pass security (like all the politicians and super rich do, or do you think they go through "normal" people? ) not deal with potentially revolting passengers.

As I said before, the people on the plane would resist. As flight number 93 showed, no group of terrorists can resist hundreds of passengers fighting back at them. It worked for 9/11 because the policy was to comply. It failed already for flight 93 because people knew what the plan was. It would fail today for the same reason.

Not if they don't know that the flight deck crew, behind a secure door, is behind it. If the cabin was depressurized and the circuit breakers for the drop-down masks had been pulled, any resistance would end there.

Is there any indication other than speculation by the media as to why the plane was not showing up on Indonesian radar that the crew was behind that or had ties with a terrorist organization?
Still seems like a lot of effort for very little gain. Once a plane does not have an official flight number anymore and it just shows up on radar unannounced, it is most likely going to get shot down before it reaches its target. Another consequence of 9/11. It would be much easier to simply charter a plane and use it as a weapon right after takeoff, when no one suspects that to happen and it just seems like a regular flight with maybe some technical problem.

[DeltaV]

Not one rivet found yet.

Eastward tailwinds near (slightly below) the optimum cruise altitude on the morning of the 9th:
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/09 ... -20.72,587
http://weatherfaqs.org.uk/book/export/html/174
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... 7_perf.pdf

[Tom Ligon]

If I were a terrorist looking to use a plane for a bomb, I'd consider buying an airliner destined for the boneyard. OSC bought their L-1011, used to launch Pegasus and Pegasus XL, for about half what a Beach A-36 Bonanza costs new. And I'd want a cargo plane.

All theories as to what happened to this aircraft, including whatever really happened, are so implausible as to not be worth considering. This does not make a lick of sense.

My best guess is one member of the cockpit crew did this. Probably killed the other one at the outset ... for two people to collude in this is too hard for my tiny brain to accept. Then to not have the passengers in total revolt, probably slowly dropped cabin pressure until they all blacked out, and finally expired.

But the explanation of WHY is still beyond comprehension of sane and reasonable people.

[Tom Ligon]

If I were a terrorist looking to use a plane for a bomb, I'd consider buying an airliner destined for the boneyard. OSC bought their L-1011, used to launch Pegasus and Pegasus XL, for about half what a Beach A-36 Bonanza costs new. And I'd want a cargo plane.

All theories as to what happened to this aircraft, including whatever really happened, are so implausible as to not be worth considering. This does not make a lick of sense.

My best guess is one member of the cockpit crew did this. Probably killed the other one at the outset ... for two people to collude in this is too hard for my tiny brain to accept. Then to not have the passengers in total revolt, probably slowly dropped cabin pressure until they all blacked out, and finally expired.

But the explanation of WHY is still beyond comprehension of sane and reasonable people.

[choff]

I'm partial to the tire fire in the nose gear theory, especially since there was a report of another Malaysian airlines flight that had to turn back over a tire malfunction.

[paperburn1]

I am thinking to the high value robbery. (James Bond Style)
The airplanes cargo, nuclear detonators, one billion dollars in diamonds, the chimera virus, whatever was in the cargo hold.
The pilot incapacitates the crew and passengers as soon as the are out of cell phone range. He and his henchman Topjob disable all the communications gear. They program the flight director to fly down to 12000 feet over Malaysia where they bail out with the precious cargo and disappear.
The plane follows the flight plan to crash over the most desolate part of the ocean out of the range of any possible pursuit by military aircraft. The high value cargo is assumed destroyed and the two evil henchmen now are living a life of luxury on their private island chuckling evilly to themselves.
Fits all the known facts
Why they will not release the total manifest
How five different communication systems failed all at the same time
Why there was no passenger communication when it was low over land
Why it followed the flight path and altitudes it did.
Why the lack of public disclosing of known information.

[Tom Ligon]

Except you need to send another plane on the wild goose chase carrying the manufacturer's engine data transponder, and drop a pinger in the drink in a target area. That draws them off your trail.

So three-four evil henchmen.

Prior to the transponder hits, I was thinking they needed to look at small islands with airstrips left over from WWII.

[mvanwink5]

The search is a great inconvenience for hiding aliens.