Author: abramicus

Malaysia and UK Resort to Hocus Pocus to Coverup the Whereabouts of Passengers.   [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2014-3-25 17:42:00 |Display all floors
Not a word n Malaysia that accident / malfuction / fire could be the cause.

Not a word in Malaysian press that someone in oil rig off Trengganu saw a plane on fire for 10 seconds before the fire is extinguished.









I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2014-3-25 18:38:57 |Display all floors
This post was edited by abramicus at 2014-3-25 18:47
Ratfink Post time: 2014-3-25 17:39
It's so good to see the delusional are slithering out of the woodwork.

Do you have any understand ...

FLASH - THE PIVOTAL DEBATE ON THE FATE OF THE KH370 PASSENGERS ON CHINA DAILY FORUM

Not delusional, but simply imaginative, and actually, very realistic, my friend.

First, let us debate the question of whether or not there was a need for the plane to refuel, without debating how it was done.

The plane MH370 was fueled to fly from Kuala Lampur to Beijing, leaving at 12:41 AM and arriving at 5:30 AM, for a flying time of 5 hours 50 minutes.  Satellite data confirmed by PM Razak no less, indicated the plane was still flying at 8:11 AM at the least, for a flying time of 7 hours 30 minutes.  Practically all planes regardless of their maximum fuel capacity are metered with enough fuel to reach their destination, plus an allowance for a few hundred miles more, which in flying time is not generally more than 45 minutes at the most.  The difference between the fuel on board and the fuel needed to fly up to 8:11 AM was 1 hour and 40 minutes, which means, the plane needed an extra hour's of fuel to keep flying to the time of its last ping recorded by the satellite.  Unless it was refueled in the air, it would have to refuel on the ground.  The clock does not lie.  Maps can be tweaked to allow for ocean current drift, but time, flying time is a fixed fact that demands an answer as to how the plane could have flown until 8:11 AM.  Answer this, and maybe, I would agree I was delusional after all, but if not, then could it be yourself instead?

Next, we can guess various scenarios of how the plane could have landed and refueled without the general public suspecting it did.  The first scenario is if it landed in a secret military base in Australia.  Then everything you said is impossible to do in a commercial airport becomes not only possible, but extremely easy to do.  While it might be delusional to assume that the KH370 landed in a commercial airport rather than a military airport, it is quite realistic to believe instead that it would preferentially have used an Australian military air base as it first choice.

Your turn.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2014-3-25 18:49:51 |Display all floors
FLASH - THE PIVOTAL DEBATE ON THE FATE OF THE KH370 PASSENGERS ON CHINA DAILY FORUM

Not delusional, but simply imaginative, and actually, very realistic, my friend.

First, let us debate the question of whether or not there was a need for the plane to refuel, without debating how it was done.

The plane MH370 was fueled to fly from Kuala Lampur to Beijing, leaving at 12:41 AM and arriving at 5:30 AM, for a flying time of 5 hours 50 minutes.  Satellite data confirmed by PM Razak no less, indicated the plane was still flying at 8:11 AM at the least, for a flying time of 7 hours 30 minutes.  Practically all planes regardless of their maximum fuel capacity are metered with enough fuel to reach their destination, plus an allowance for a few hundred miles more, which in flying time is not generally more than 45 minutes at the most.  The difference between the fuel on board and the fuel needed to fly up to 8:11 AM was 1 hour and 40 minutes, which means, the plane needed an extra hour's of fuel to keep flying to the time of its last ping recorded by the satellite.  Unless it was refueled in the air, it would have to have refueled on the ground.  The clock does not lie.  Maps can be tweaked to allow for ocean current drift, but time, flying time is a fixed fact that demands an answer as to how the plane could have flown until 8:11 AM.  Answer this, and maybe, I would agree I was delusional after all, but if not, then could it be yourself instead?

Next, we can guess various scenarios of how the plane could have landed and refueled without the general public suspecting it did.  The first scenario is if it landed in a secret military base in Australia.  Then everything you said is impossible to do in a commercial airport becomes not only possible, but extremely easy to do.  While it might be delusional to assume that the KH370 landed in a commercial airport rather than a military airport, it is quite realistic to believe instead that it would preferentially have used an Australian military air base as it first choice.

Your turn.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 7Rank: 7Rank: 7

Glod Medal 2015 Most Popular Member Medal of honor June's Best Writer 2012 2016 Most Popular Member

Post time 2014-3-25 19:20:50 |Display all floors
This post was edited by Ratfink at 2014-3-25 19:30
abramicus Post time: 2014-3-25 18:49
FLASH - THE PIVOTAL DEBATE ON THE FATE OF THE KH370 PASSENGERS ON CHINA DAILY FORUM

Not delusional, ...

Australia doesn't have any secret military bases, that blows that theory apart!

Even Pine Gap which is arguably the most remote facility in Australia (Military) is watched round the clock by protestors and activists.  Unlike China there is no aircraft development or need for secrecy about where runways are.

Your fuel arguements are good for someone not familiar with the actual operational requirments of international jet aircraft but they are flawed, for example:

You are quoting domestic FAA fuel rules for non turbofan (jet) engines..

Section 3-2000 part C sub-clause 1s of the FAA rules:

En Route Fuel. The flight must have enough fuel onboard, considering wind and other weather conditions expected, to fly to the destination airport and thereafter to fly for at least two hours at normal cruising fuel consumption.

The FAA rules or guidelines are pretty much the defacto standard and basis for most countries aviation standards, they in turn are derived from the IATA and other international bodies whose duty it is to oversee global complience and standards.

Calculating the total fuel load gets hideously complicated and involves various classes of airspace etc. Needless to say MAS knew how much fuel is on board so there is no mystery to the range it is capable of flying.  Without looking up the performance data I can't supply a glide aspect ratio but it will increase the range by range to crash by a further 160~180km or so due to the glide aspect ratio. This is one of the reasons why the search box extends well beyond the arc as measured by Immarsat and the pings.

If the people had been somehow removed, where are they?  No country per se would want to kidnap that many people without publicising the event, with the possible exception of the crazies in North Korea who have a well documented history of kidnapping Japanese and South Koreans.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2014-3-25 22:59:04 |Display all floors
Ratfink Post time: 2014-3-25 19:20
Australia doesn't have any secret military bases, that blows that theory apart!

Even Pine Gap whi ...

You have not answered my first question, really, have you?  How could a plane fueled to fly 5 hrs 50 minutes, stay flying for at least 7 hrs 30 minutes, without refueling?  That pilot does not have the chance of a Chinaman.

Your attempt to deceive the readers that Australia has no military air bases that are kept out of public scrutiny is a clue that China Daily has a moderator working for AUSTRALIA, and has not a shred of verity to be worth a rebuttal.

Your turn, again.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2014-3-25 23:01:00 |Display all floors
This post was edited by abramicus at 2014-3-25 23:15

THE TRUTH REMAINS . . . that Malaysia and the UK, including their point man, a moderator at this English forum of China Daily, are resorting to Hocus Pocus to hide the fact that the MH370 plane could not have been flown for 7 hours 30 minutes, as established by the last satellite ping being at 8:11 AM, without having refueled, and that Australia is the most likely place this took place, and that it most likely used a military air base to unload the passengers (bodies or live survivors) there.

The absence of bodies found in the waters near the plane debris can be predicted, but it does not mean the passengers and crew are all dead.  China has a duty to its citizens to protest the premature proclamation of the death of its citizens, when the first piece of debris had not yet been examined, and the rest of the plane had not been located.

IF CHINA AGREES TACITLY TO THE LIE THAT ALL THE PASSENGERS ARE DEAD, THEN IT HAS JUST SIGNED OFF ON THEIR DEATH SENTENCES, BECAUSE EVEN IF THEY ARE ALIVE, THEY CAN LATER BE MURDERED AND DISPOSED OF IN THE INDIAN OCEAN WITH PERFECT IMPUNITY.  

CHINA CANNOT BE A PARTY TO THE EXECUTIONERS OF THEIR OWN CITIZENS WHOM IT IS DUTY-BOUND TO PROTECT AND SAVE FROM HARM.  

THE SEARCH FOR THE PASSENGERS MUST BEGIN . . . IN AUSTRALIA!  

MAMA MIA . . . SEND THE RELATIVES TO AUSTRALIA AND BEGIN THE SEARCH AND RESCUE OF THE HOSTAGES . . .


Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2014-3-25 23:43:15 |Display all floors
seneca Post time: 2014-3-25 19:31
Right now the relatives of 239 people from all over the world but with a majority of them hailing  ...

It is closure without closure.


We all know the plane met with some sort of failure\ malfunction\ fire


The Malaysia authorities, Mas, Boeing, Rolls Royce should at least tell us one possible scenario for how the plane found itself in the deep Indian Ocean without pointing to crazy pilots and crazy passengers.




I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.