Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This was an interesting read :

> http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823

> /did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-

> sq68



Very interesting theory, since there aren't any others offered up, sounds feasible...

does anyone know why there is no forthcoming information from what must be literally 100s of mobile phones onboard? I thought we could be tracked pretty much anywhere by our mobiles? Please note this is a genuine request for suggestions/discussion I don't have any theories just questions!

Don't know, but possible reasons ?:

- mobile phones were all switched off as requested at commencement of flights.

- all mobile phones stopped working for some reason (ie. plane crash or explosion).

- no mobile signal in area where plane diverted through.

- mobile phones were taken by hijackers.

that keith ledgerwood theory was lifted straight out of the pages of the Neal Stephenson novel Reamde, which is how an al qaeda cell sneaks into N America.


It was a great read but an utterly absurd tale.


Truth, is as they say.....


I'm not an amateur expert so have bobbins of an idea about what happened, but it's gruesomly fascinating isnt it.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm clearly no expert but when I did a nervous

> flyer course a few years back they said that for

> safety purposes they're always required to carry

> more fuel than they need.



Should nervous flyers be spending time thinking about missing aeroplanes and posting on missing aeroplane blogs?

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Silly question but do mobiles even work that high up ?


Depends how high, but generally not as mobile phone antennas are directional, so not much signal goes up. Also, the aircraft tends to act as a bit of a Faraday cage so weak signals become even weaker.


The one things that I'm surprised hasn't been followed up is that I remember that, on the day the plane first went missing, some of the relatives dialled some of the missing people's mobile phone claimed they got a ringing tone. That may indicate that the phone in question had 'logged on' to a cell and location could be narrowed straight away to a few tens of kilometres. Of course, it could also mean the phone company in question gave a ring tone even if the phone wasn't findable.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electrical-fire/


Apologies if this has been posted already, but this one seems like quite a sensible explanation?


I don't know what's happened, it's both terrifying and fascinating. So horrible for friends and family of those involved though, the not knowing must be truly awful.

Help-ma-Boab posted that yesterday, Pickle.


At first glance it seems a reasonable argument, but it actually has quite a few holes, not least the 8 hours more flying time, the satellite ping arc area doesn't seem to fit and the second turn north picked up on radar. Not to mention two more airports capable of handling a 777 being closer.

Surely that is already one line of investigation being followed up.


I like the theory that the Chinese accidentally shot it down believing it to be hostile, and then covered up the evidence. Total nonsense of course, but would make a good movie opening sequence.

Holes all over it Pickle on further reading from aviation experts, of which I am not. Make a mean White Russian though...



Pickle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/03/mh370-electri

> cal-fire/

>

> Apologies if this has been posted already, but

> this one seems like quite a sensible explanation?

>

> I don't know what's happened, it's both terrifying

> and fascinating. So horrible for friends and

> family of those involved though, the not knowing

> must be truly awful.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm clearly no expert but when I did a nervous

> > flyer course a few years back they said that

> for

> > safety purposes they're always required to

> carry

> > more fuel than they need.

>

>

> Should nervous flyers be spending time thinking

> about missing aeroplanes and posting on missing

> aeroplane blogs?


Luckily the course worked. Mainly because a day among basket cases tends to put things in perspective.

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We need to get our top crime casebook operative on

> this ASAP

>

>

> Sue?


xxxxxxx


LOL, as it happens I have had more than a passing interest in this case.


There's quite an interesting discussion on the Professional Pilots Rumour Forum:


http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost.html


But I really don't want to get too engrossed in the detail of yet another mystery - life's too short :))


ETA: There's 316 pages on the pprune thread so far. Beats the Cherry Tree thread by a mile.


But in seriousness, I feel very sorry for the relatives and friends who have no idea what happened to the people on board and are just left in a limbo where they can't even grieve properly.

How did you know?!

Headline is :


Missing jet WAS carrying highly flammable lithium batteries: CEO of Malaysian Airlines finally admits to dangerous cargo four days after DENYING it


PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lithium ion batteries - cheaply acquired ones

> usually made in China - should not be allowed on

> planes as one exploded inside a camera in an

> overhead apartment setting off a small fire.

> Just threw that in for info.

>

> MEANWHILE on this new thread. How did they know

> the comms were turned off before the last

> communication? How did they know it was the last

> communication if the communications were turned

> off?

>

> As sad and tragic as this case is, it still gives

> me a tiny bit of - well, not happiness - but I am

> glad there are still some curiosities out there

> when USA and others would have you believe there

> is no escape and everything can be seen.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Another great job from Leon - sorted a consumer unit and EICR for me last minute. Highly recommend 
    • Admin, please move this if it's in the wrong section. Can anybody recommend a reasonably local dietician (or possibly nutritionist? Not sure what the difference is). My GP has suggested I see a dietician, but there isn't one attached to the practice. I have googled, but it's very hard to tell what people may be like from an online description, and I want somebody who is properly qualified. Alternatively, please PM me if you know of people I should avoid! Thanks x
    • A vet might be able to trace its owners if it's chipped. Also I believe twb who posts on here has a mobile scanner. Poor cat.
    • If you look at the application linked to in the OP, you'll see it's a Licensing Act 2003 one, in this case for the purposes of sale by retail of alcohol and for the provision of late night refreshment: "TAKEAWAY COFFEE/ HOT SNACKS 2300-0100". IF the shop counts as a Hot Food Takeaway, then section P48 of the Southwark Plan https://www.southwark.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-09/Southwark Plan 2022 reduced 1.pdf , which appears to be the latest one linked to on Southwark's site, will I presume be applied in any  planning application (Is there one?). It says: "New hot food takeaways will only be permitted where: ..... 3. The proposed location is further than 400 metres from any existing or proposed primary or secondary school’s boundary; ....." It incorporates  policy laid down in the National Planning Policy Framework, and thence the London Plan.  Over the years KFC, and others, have taken a  number of appeals against local planning authority decisions on Takeaways to the Planning Inspectorate.  Some have been allowed.  KFCs 'commentary on evidence contained in London Plan Topic Paper: Hot Food Takeaways', https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/nlp_ad_91.pdf may be of interest to some. I'm guessing it's referring to https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/london_plan_topic_paper_on_hot_food_takeaways.pdf of 2018, but haven't yet checked.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...