Hot on the heels of a reported possible MH370 piece in South Australia, news reaches us that Blaine Alan Gibson has found three pieces of suspected MH370 debris in Madagascar. This article says, in part:
Three new fragments which could have come from Malaysia Airlines Flight 270 were discovered on the morning of Monday, June 6, on the Island of Nosy Boraha, in the northeast of Madagascar…
These fragments were found by Blaine Alan Gibson, an American businessman, while he was accompanied by a from the France 2 TV show “Complément d’enquête.” They were on a long, almost deserted beach near the village of Sahasifotra, where tons of waste arrive every day from the Indian Ocean.
One piece in particular, 77 cm wide by 50 cm, apparently made by composite materials, strongly resembles another fragment which Gibson found in February on the coast of Mozambique.
” These two fragments are very very similar: the same paint color, the diameter of the attachment holes is identical. and on the back the texture is the same. I believe that it is a piece from MH370,” Blaine Alan Gibson told our colleagues. Two other parts were also found, a smaller panel with the inscription “FB” as well as another plastic part which could be the frame of an economy class seat’s video screen.
UPDATE 6/9/16: Here’s a screengrab of a YouTube video showing a Malaysia Airlines 777 economy class seatback (thanks to reader @sk999). The coat hook in particular looks like a good match for the third piece.
Here’s an even better shot, via @BBCwestcott. Note the color of the fabric around the “COAT HOOK” button:
@GebRijn
Let’s look at the SU-30 MKM, which can carry an option of the following AAM:
R-73 (AA-11) short range , warhead 8 Kg rod type
R-77 (AA-12) active radar homing medium range AAM warhead 12.5kg fragmentation type
Imho those two AAM are the most used peace time weapon carried on QRA aircraft,as there is no need for long range shoot down. The first task during peace time interceptions is identification, which can only be done in close range. The missiles are handy for loading and unloading, easy to employ and come cheap on the market.
For medium to long range the following missiles are available.
R-27ER (AA-10C) semi-active radar guided, long range
R-27ET (AA-10D) Infrared homing extended range version, long range
R-27R (AA-10A) semi-active radar guided, medium range
R-27T (AA-10B) infrared homing seeker, medium range
All have a warhead with 39 Kg rod type.
For comparison the fragmentation warhead which destroyed Mh370 had a weight of 70Kg.
@Ken Goodwin
On high energy impact I want to ask you to take a look at these interior pictures after the crash landing of Aisiana 214.
This would be regarded as a ‘low speed impact’ I presume?
As you probably know almost everyone on the plane survived.
If you look at the damage done to the cabin interior and everything that came loose it’s rather a miracle:
http://www.nycaviation.com/2013/07/photos-inside-the-asiana-214-wreckage-and-cleanup/
@Jeff – Victor’s theory was well-defined, but that clue can just as easily point to a log tampering.
We have a log that was either tampered with, or a log that records values from an SDU that was tampered with.
One scenario is prevented by ISAT security, the other by airport security. Employees of both are supposed to be background-checked.
Is there anything (aside from the admittedly poor state of airport security) that categorically makes one possible and not the other? Or even makes one scenario more likely?
They would seem to be on equal footing and capable of producing the exact same data.
@Ken Goodwin
Thank you.
I understand you right when I say a fighter pilot would use a short or medium range missile in case of a passenger aircraft in peace time?
And is an infra red or an active radar guided missile exploding in the vicinity of the plane like the SAM did at MH17 or on impact? (I suppose you mixed MH370 up with MH17 in your last sentence..)
Which of the two (short or medium range) missiles you mention would be prefered at night you think? Does it make any difference?
@RetiredF4
And I mix up some names too! Sorry 😉
Add: with the short and medium range missiles I mean those R73 and R77 which one would be preverable (at night).
@Jeff: the rank and file members of search teams – both on and off the boats – are heroes in my book. In much the same way soldiers should never be blamed for a badly led war, these decent, honest and hard-working people should never be blamed for a badly led search. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.
For the record, and since you insinuated: Vladimir Putin seems to me like a classic case of power corrupting. I hope his political power is reduced by the Russian people. Forthwith. More generally, they should improve their political structures to reduce the risk of power concentrating at the top.
The public record will demonstrate to anyone who cares to check that my “orneriness” is merely an attempt to apply this same principle to our own leaders, as well. Inasmuch as knowledge is power – and power corrupts – we need to ensure our leaders are prevented from hoarding concentrated knowledge – on MH370, and elsewhere – so as to preserve the integrity and longevity of our (superior – there, I’ve said it!) governing systems.
The gaps I have documented are not between what I received and what some crazed dogma requires – good grief, Jeff. The gaps are between decisions search leaders have made, and what their own data can support. I remember how appreciative I’ve felt at those times when you’ve actually supported my findings; so I find this blanket condemnation of my efforts not only hurtful, but surprising.
I don’t know how to allay these expressed suspicions of yours. I strongly suspect a lot of your concern has to do with the nature of the internets: we all have interacted quite closely for a long time, now – and yet we live so far apart that we never get to judge each others’ character by anything other than the cold, hard words
with which we express our (oft-deeply held) views.
Next time you’re up in Winnipeg, look me up. We’ll go out for a beer, and try to find a basis for mutual trust.
@Ken Goodwin
You understood my mix up I suppose..
@Ge Rijn
I do have a comment about missiles.
Radar guided missiles will generally hit the body of the aircraft and thus have greater impact on a large airplane. A large warhead like the one that brought down MH17 that is radar guided would be very effective.
Infra red guided missiles will target a hot engine exhaust. It has been suggested and I think proven that a small warhead, shoulder fired missile, hitting the tail of an engine on an aircraft the size and configuration of the 777 may only disable one engine and damage some other parts of the airplane.
@Ge Rijn
“Add: with the short and medium range missiles I mean those R73 and R77 which one would be preverable (at night).”
Sorry for the name. My ipad has its own ideas what to write and sometimes I miss the mistakes.
When the target is in sight, the IR missile is easy to handle. Afaik the Su-30 has a helmet mounted targeting system. Just turn your head and look to the target, and the missile will lock in. Squezze the trigger and that’s it. therefore it would be my first choice with a hot target.
@Ken Goodwin
Re the BTO and BFO data:
The Australian DSTG carried out a Bayesian analysis of the ISAT data, and as part of the process, analysed ISAT data from four previous 9M MRO long haul flights (relayed through the same satellite, 3FI, as on the accident flight) The results were, to my mind, very reassuring. The Bayesian results were compared in each case with the actual flight path determined from the ACARS transmissions, and found the actual flight path was inside the 85% confidence region of the Bayesian probability density function in each case. Conclusion; the interpretation of the ISAT data for the accident flight can be relied on. It’s bullet proof, basically.
As I understand, 9M MRO was fitted with a phase array antenna plus an omni antenna, as basic. MAS purchased the economy data package, transmitting every 30 minutes. No data was received after 17:07, because ACARS was switched off sometime between then and 17:37.
Handshakes were received at regular intervals after the SDU was re-energized at 18:24 approx, even though ACARS was switched off.
Hope this answers your questions. If I’m wrong on any point, doubtless someone more knowledgeable than me will set the record straight for us.
@Ge Rijn
What would be interesting is an analysis of residues, even microscopic, around an inside the score marks and penetrations. Traces of shrapnel material could still be recovered from the debris, even after a long period at sea. What are the chances of this happening, though?
Don’t hold your breath, on that one
@Jeff
What an extraordinarily personal post you’ve directed at Brock. And @Brock, I may not be in your camp (or anyone’s really) but I applaud your equanimity.
I’ll assume you two have a back story, and are sorting it out between you off board…right?
@ Susie (darling) – should we consider banning Jeff….( for a couple of days )…….(wink wink)
@Rob said, “Conclusion; the interpretation of the ISAT data for the accident flight can be relied on. It’s bullet proof, basically.”
At the risk of repeating myself, the DSTG study is anything but bullet proof. The calibration of the inputs of the stochastic model for the manoeuvers was based on previous commercial flights. So if MH370 maneuvered like previous flights, i.e., it flew mostly straight with 0 or 1 turns, then the plane should be found in the current search zone. There is an inherent bias towards straight flights as exhibited by the a priori distribution for number of turns that produces a posterior distribution centered on a straight flight end point of around 37.5S latitude.
In the past, I have shown that automated flights that cross the 7th arc outside of the current search zone are possible if the plane was descending according to a flight path angle (FPA) of -0.1 deg. In the coming days, I will present an automated flight that crosses the 7th arc outside of the current search zone if the plane was descending at -100 fpm and following a magnetic heading of 180 deg after passing BEDAX. The end point is around 31.6S latitude.
@ Georgie,
I don’t know if that will be necessary. One of my stern looks might suffice : )
@ Susie – I think he would prefer being banned…..( enough said )
@Susie, George,
I second (or third?) that. Lol.
@Jeff,
Re Brock and Maldives, I was under the impression that Brock was referring to the “IC” debris piece. That, if ever proven to be from MH370, is very much compatible with the seventh arc, albeit the more northern portions.
Hence, I feel that Brocks quest for release of data regarding search decisions, including the dismissal of that piece, is a very rational one.
@JS
You are confusing different ways of being wrong. The ISAT data is not deterministic. Assumptions have to be made relative to flight dynamics. It is those assumptions that yield various positions ON OR NEAR the 7th arc . There is no set of assumptions relative to the ISAT data that would allow a terminus in the Maldives. The Maldives are not even close to the 7th arc.
@Dennis,
Of course. I understand, and they’ve just about demonstrated one way of being wrong.
I’m suggesting that they could be wrong in other ways, too.
And yes, there are plenty of sets of assumptions that would allow a Maldives terminus. I’d be speculating, and I don’t myself think it went there, but there are certainly assumptions that would put it there.
Someone explain to me how lunatics like this are continuously getting published, or at the very least how they’re getting away with such BS? https://truthernews.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/global-flight-mh370-attack-alert-june-15-2016-cia-likely-plotting-mass-attack-via-hijacked-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh370-on-june-15-22-2016-possibly-during-nba-finals-game-between-cavs-w/amp/
@DennisW – not exactly what you mean by “ISAT data is not deterministic”…not disputing you in the least, just not clear, but the “assumptions have to be made relative to flight dynamics” , i believe is another way of saying eliminate the ridiculous (scenarios), which there are a number of “out there”. To bring scientific based, old fashioned detective work, into solving this thing, it looks like 7th arc theories and scenarios have to be at the basis of a starting point(s)…..my vote: near the arc….within fuel range computations (plus glide range..maybe ?)….so more south and more west….in my not so humble opinion….G
@ (me)- within maximum fuel range computations
@Jeff bitch-slapped @brock so hard. This thread is nothing to do with MH370 anymore. Just a bunch of people pretending they’re not losing their shit behind their keyboards. All I’m seeing is ego trying to out do ego in a test of intelligence. Talk about the plane or go home.
@VictorI
Thank you for the critical review. I look forward to the presentation.
@jG – our tanks on running on empty re: new and exciting things to talk about….one of the more upper level thinkers out there might impress us with how smart they really are….some new angle…some new something…. come on people…..think…I mean really think….not just thinking you think…the answer is right in front of us….Jeff don’t ban me , but I will go stand in the corner….
@George Connelly, @all, I seem to have caught many of you off guard with the intensity of my response to Brock. Perhaps I got caught up in my frustration. Maybe having a book with the title “Nothing is True and Everything is Possible” sitting on my credenza has clarified my feelings about this case. The fact is, some things are true, and not everything is possible, and I was briefly overwhelmed by what evidently had been pent-up desire to get that out.
I promise to be calmer now.
@all
On waking this morning, I found a bit of a dog’s breakfast here. Sorry – couldn’t resist 🙂
@RetiredF4
“If the RMAF intercepted MH370 and engaged with weapons, the chances that a 777 airframe would survive such an engagement are pretty good.” Thanks for your interesting post. I don’t really understand how this scenario ties in with the timing and location of current debris finds, which appear to be mainly from the R wing… could you please expand. Are you suggesting that most of the plane sank intact so very few pieces floated away or that some pieces detached early on and the crash was so high impact that nothing of any size remains? Sorry to be so thick.
@all
someone said recently that it was time to go back and re-examine all the evidence and claims made in the early stages…I agree. I have been reminded of the Four Corners interview, particularly the part where HH talked about what the RMAF might have done or had not done and what the Americans would have done. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/05/19/4005244.htm
particularly from this point of the transcript:
“HISHAMMUDIN HUSSEIN: It was not hostile; it was commercial; it was from our airspace; we’re not at war with anybody. Even if we sent them up, are you going to say that we’re going to shoot it down?
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Well you said that, not me…”
IMO there’s no denying that aspects of this tragedy have been covered up, probably by several states, and that applies to all 3 of Jeff’s camps.
@all
I suggest lets stay to the ‘facts’ till now.
There is Inmarsat data.
There is new drift data.
There is new debris data.
Without questioning reliability of those data, those data all come together more or less in the SIO around the current search area imo.
Brock McEwen made a suggestion north of 33S allready in december 2015. Godfrey pushed it possibly even more north and east based on more debris.
Brock McEwen brings up a Curtin boom event to light once again. I think it’s a dead end but you never know. One of those 900.000 events each year of the magnitude at and below 2.7 Richter scale he showed might be a plane impacting the ocean surface. Highly unlikely imo statisticaly and practicaly (see article ‘making waves’ Nature).
But who knows.
Imo now there is a realistic opportunity to concentrate all this idea and knowlegde to a better defined search area if this one fails to find the plane.
Motive and possible causes are important but we can only work with the facts that are on hand and are changing with every new debris found and every official or unofficial credible information reaching us.
Losing track now and get divided would be a missed opportunity imo.
When the battle reaches high you’ve got to stick together 😉
@jeff
kindly please, dont read the hatefull crap; its all absolute nonsese; I am here 5hrs searching in my links on youtube what to post here for you; cant decide, I dont understand why you are unable to accept that Putin is not devil, you have all posted there already twice maybe during the 2yrs… initially, I was like you, though, but it took me serious time and effort to get it from the facts hidden in huge heap of crap about them; be sure there are bastards everywhere who dont want freedom and who want only to take money from people, to conquer them and last but not least half of the population in US and in Russia is still full of desperatelly stupid FEAR…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWf-eARnf6U
@jeff
you know, since Berlin wall tear down, east learned a lot from the west but also west learned lot from the east too; thanks to internet mostly, in fact arpanet… thanks to facebook, youtube… pls, dont attac @Brock about anti-US belief (many people are conspirating because of some kind of FEAR only and its stupid as hell, always)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFxEURB4vtA
@all new
this is interesting interview, some nonverbal ideas from anybody? MH17 was shoot down by some bastard inspired by media case MH370 and he did that to blame Russia to bring NATO into war because alone would be lost in 2 weeks; I think; sad but true (but we probably NEVER publish the truth to allow at least some negotiating space for them); Question is where is the MH370, sure; I think it landed somewhere north, as in war is possible anything and the more crazy it is the better; but its war of minds – the broken fearfull minds not searching real truth, listening the crazy media 7th empire only… but who started this, thats unknown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPvnJG_yGhM
@jeff
interesting document too, I hope you are not too heavily eaten by your hatefull single POV books, kindly please, lets try other views too, nothing more; but I can understand when you are angry – for me it meant full week with media and youtube and then collapse/shock when I realized something; it may be complete crap too, sure; but what to do when many facts since then are confirming the findings? one thing is that we now dont know price of freedom and peace so, maybe we are learning to enjoy it too; and the Daesh knows they are already destroyed while whole world goes after them…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nLMa8FrNfs
@George
What I mean by the ISAT data not being deterministic is a mathematicians way of saying that range (BTO) and Doppler (BFO) cannot yield a unique solution. The problem is “underdetermined” mathematically. Assumptions must be made relative to the flight path of the aircraft in order to define a terminus. The assumption made by the IG and ATSB (and DTSG for that matter) is that the aircraft flew at a relatively constant speed, altitude, and heading after the FMT. While this assumption is entirely “reasonable”, we have know way to know if it is correct.
<<<<<>>>>
I think you are right, this whole case is starting to get on everyone’s last nerve, including Jeff. Frustration is wearing on everyone, although I do not contribute much here I do read the blog daily.
@AM2 – re your Hishmuddin comments on 4 corners, he did look a little dodgy like a deer in the headlights look during that interview. His indication that they knew it was their plane flying in the total opposite direction of intent, yet they did nothing has really bothered me from moment I heard that interview. His comments about if he’d sent up fighters and shot it down he would be in a worse position probably….then he looked at someone standing off to the side and added the extra comments…but the USA would…was that just a dig or a direct hint?? It was a little odd IMO for him to say something like that, but then again all the info that has come to light about Malaysia since then shouldn’t and doesn’t surprise me.
@Brock – I do find your posts most interesting I must admit. You have totally changed my thinking now. Before I thought of the inmarsat data as holy grail, now I question it and wonder how on earth can they base a $$$$$$ search on that alone??? All this debris turning up in Reunion, Mauritis, Mozambique and Madagascar is not a coincidence to ignore IMO….I now do believe that the plane went down much further north than they are admitting.
It seems as though some people on this blog think they are right all of the time, but I’m seeing that is not even remotely close to the real thing. All these number crunchers can’t seem to agree on anything. The part that bothers me, is that it is an awful lot of assumptions that put the plane in the SIO in the first place. Nothing thus far has convinced me the data is correct. It might not be wrong, but something is just not right.
I do hope that more debris will turn up, indicating a new possible search area further north. I believe that to keep the search going is in the best interest of everyone in this world who relies on flying whether for work or pleasure. We can’t just let it die a mystery unsolved.
I think a new conversation really needs to take place about the old archaic black boxes system. It appears to me as though governments would rather spend $$$$ for outer space searches than on new equipment to track planes constantly so that the likes of mh370 never happens again. Look how long it took them to find the BB from QZ8501 and now MS804 & $$$$ spent. After AF447 recommendations were for updated systems, but it appears as though there are some who do not want this to happen.
I appreciate the contributors to this blog and for all the info I’ve gained in this process. Keep up the good work and don’t let inflated egos discourage those who really want to the find the plane, it needs to found and answers need to be known for safe flying in the future.
My few cents on the subject.
@Bugsy
you said:
@Brock – I do find your posts most interesting I must admit. You have totally changed my thinking now. Before I thought of the inmarsat data as holy grail, now I question it and wonder how on earth can they base a $$$$$$ search on that alone???”
The ISAT data is the Holy Grail. It is the interpretation that has been made without adequate qualifications that people unskilled in the art (including the ATSB, BTW) can readily understand that is the issue. A search based on the spreadsheets of a bunch of over-confident geeks was a travesty of monumental proportions, IMO.
@Bugsy
I just took it that HH knew something (maybe a lot) more than has been revealed.
Now that the Egyptair debris field has been identified [and CVR retrieved, I believe], is any light cast on probability that MH370 has been/will be missed in the identified search area.
It’s notable that even with early spotting of debris, an emergency beacon giving location of impact within ?20km or so, and acoustic location of black box[es], it was evidently NOT easy to locate the debris field.
For MH370, the huge area searched, much at similar depths, and I assume roughly similar submarine topography in many areas, would seem to make false negatives all too likely.
Just my thoughts — anyone else on this wavelength?
Me, too. Very well said, Brock !
@AM2
“Thanks for your interesting post. I don’t really understand how this scenario ties in with the timing and location of current debris finds, which appear to be mainly from the R wing… could you please expand.”
A crash, and I’m solid sure that the debris points to a crash like event with a high degree of destruction upon water contact, is a chaotic event. The drift of debris, the landfall and the discovery are in the same category. To draw any conclusions other then “it crashed” is imho premature.
“Are you suggesting that most of the plane sank intact so very few pieces floated away or that some pieces detached early on and the crash was so high impact that nothing of any size remains? Sorry to be so thick.”
Nothing of the above was my intent. I think the search activities took place at the wrong location of this planet, and I’m more interested in the “why”. Involvement in the downing of MH370 would be motivation enough to delay or hinder any search activities as long as possible. Malaysia and also China were zig zagging all over the area until the present search area was established. In hindsight I miss any logic in those early activities, and the search in the present search zones looks to end without finding the aircraft. Think about how long it took until Search and rescue actions were started. To top that, it looks like the Australians are the only really really caring about the result of the search. I do see emotions of posinle failure to find themwreckage neither with Malaysia nor with China. Did they cut a deal?
@RetiredF4
Thanks for your reply. I agree that the Aussies are genuine about the search (but then I am somewhat biased). As to a deal between M and C…how would we ever find out short of a whistle blower (as many have said).
@RetiredF4:
Your scenario with a small heat-seaking missile destroying one of the engines is quite interesting. The objective of intercepting an unidentified airplane is not primarily to destroy it, but to identify it and to force it to turn back and down to an airport.
@Gysbreght
@RetiredF4
In a word, “bullshit”
If that’s what RetiredF4 is actually suggesting? that an interceptor pilot could be selective enough with his weaponry to be able to damage an aircraft (at night) just enough to force it to land? If that’s what he is suggesting, then he is just playing “devil’s advocate” with the rest of us here, and laughing up his sleeve.
When a fighter pilot fires off a missile, whether it be heat seeking or radar guided, or whatever, then there can be only one of two possible outcomes to reasonably expect; the aircraft is brought down, or the missile misses its target. Airliners have wings full of fuel, remember. A damaged engine, let alone a missile warhead would have totally unpredictable consequences.
The Malaysians , both military and civil, were caught off guard by what happened that night. Plain and simple. But perhaps that’s just too logical and mundane a scenario, for serious consideration.
If this had happened over Russian territory, then I would have agreed that a deliberate shoot down was possible, based on their previous track record. However this is Malaysia/Thailand we’re talking about. Think again!
Jeff, sorry for the outburst, I apologise if I have infringed anyone’s sensitivities I couldn’t let this c**p pass, without a response.
@Rob
Post 911 germany was working on a law and regulation draft to handle such a situation up to the ordered shoot down as a last resort to avoid something happening like 911. The discussion saw the light of public because the association of the german military combat pilots, which I happen to be still a member, was not satisfied with the procedures, the planning, the expectations and finally the outfall of such a shoot down.
What makes you believe, that in our discussed case such an ordered interception, identification and flight following event might not end with the final outcome, the shoot down of such a rouge non cooperating aircraft as last consequence? I have sat in the pointy end and know what kind of things cross your mind when a hot order for interception is the task.
You are right, you can not selectively aim for an engine, but with an IR seeker missile there is a high that it heads for an engine.
Concerning the survivability of such a hit with a small warhead there is no garantee for survival, but at least a chance. That’s all you can do as a pilot when the order is to stop such a flight, whatever it takes.
Wether it was that way, I have no idea.
I have a small thought regarding the absence of debris for a long time, and then a sudden surge of it.
I think possibly, it might in part be explained by the complete absence of evidence supporting any one event – we just did not know whether it had landed, or crashed, on sea or on land, how it might have crashed if so, and what sort of bits, if any, we might be looking for.
The flaperon being the first item about which someone said ‘Oh sh*t, perhaps this is an aircraft part’ sort of set off the chain of people thinking, Oh, maybe there are other bits lying around – or still at sea perhaps.
And then the suggestion that some smaller pieces of debris may have come from the plane, Johny Begue’s other finds and so on, placed it into people’s minds that maybe smaller pieces could be found.
And then, after a while, they were. But I would expect that for a long time, before the flaperon turned up and even afterwards, people were regularly ignoring small parts of the aircraft along shorelines all over the place, simply because they didn’t have a real example of what they should be looking for, or indeed where they might find it.
In short I don’t think it can necessarily be judged that the several pieces of debris found recently, had recently arrived on these shores. Nor indeed can it be a certainty that other pieces had not arrived long before this year.
People tend to need examples before they can successfully identify possibly useful artefacts, and now of course most of the world has seen examples, and therefore if pieces are there waiting to be found, there’s a far greater chance that they will be.
I suppose it’s a sort of confirmation bias – if something’s happened in a location before, then people expect that it can happen there again.
@RetiredF4: Thanks for replying to ROB for me. You are obviously more informed of these matters than I am.
Converting BFOs @ 18:25-28 into implied rates of climb (relative to “baseline” of ~141Hz on N571) implies a climb up about 6000-7000′
At that time, MH370 massed ~210tons and optimal LRC altitude = ~38000′
On military radar track, ac tracked at ~32000′
So, FLCH up to optimal LRC altitude @ NILAM is consistent w/ data
@Rob @RetiredF4
Rob, think this over.
The Malaysian militairy were not ‘off garde’.
They tracked the plane all the way over their country far into the Mallaca straight.
They admitted this by stating they did not scramble jets because they considered this unidentified plane behaving out of the ordinairy and on an abnormal route not as a threat to their country. What is threat then?
Since 9/11 is in the minds of every militairy of every country this is very strange. In fact it’s unbelievable imo.
It might well be they did not tell the truth here.
It might well be they did scramble jets that followed the plane to open see for in the case they had to shoot at it there was no risk for victims on the ground in case it went down.
RetiredF4 seems to know a lot about weapons and tactics. If he states it’s possible to only damage a plane like this or take out an engine with a small warhead on a missile I’ll give weight to such a statement.
Maybe the engine caught fire temporarily.
Maybe this is what Kate Tee saw in the sky.
Decompression of the cabin after penetrating shrapnel could be well possible with all its consequences.
Thinking it over a scenario like this could explain a lot. The only ones required and with motive to cover up such an event would be the Malaysian government and its militairy.
Even the SDU reboot could find a place.
It would also leave both options open: a piloted flight or a ghost flight after FMT
What happened in the uncovered stretch of the primary radar image after Butterworth?
There is a empty still unexplained part there in the radar image. Did it temporarily descent after being hit? Was this part of the radar image removed by the militairy afterwards?
Also regarding some (imo) peculiar damage on quite a few pieces of debris.
I think it’s worth keeping a scenario like this in mind at least.
@Rob
To give you an example of a bomb exploding in a commercial aircraft that landed safely:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/daallo-airlines-flight-d3159-explosion-7292260
@Ge Rijn
There is a difference between a small device on a plane, and an air to sir missile, with all due respect.
If a plane can land safely after a bomb going off on board, well that truly has to be the exception rather than the rule! We are told by those responsible for aviation safety that 250gms of high explosive can bring down an airliner at 30,000ft.
Some people here have been talking nonsense. Don’t be taken in, Ge Rijn. Use some of the brains that God gave you, instead. Otherwise, all this is a waste of energy and time
“Some people here have been talking nonsense.”
Right.