Skip to main content

Here comes another twist in the bizarre MH 370 story. From the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. investigators suspect that Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 stayed in the air for about four hours past the time it reached its last confirmed location, according to two people familiar with the details, raising the possibility that the plane could have flown on for hundreds of additional miles under conditions that remain murky.

Aviation investigators and national security officials believe the plane flew for a total of five hours based on data automatically downloaded and sent to the ground from the Boeing Co. BA 777's engines as part of a routine maintenance and monitoring program...

U.S. counterterrorism officials are pursuing the possibility that a pilot or someone else on board the plane may have diverted it toward an undisclosed location after intentionally turning off the jetliner's transponders to avoid radar detection, according to one person tracking the probe.

But the huge uncertainty about where the plane was headed, and why it apparently continued flying so long without working transponders, has raised theories among investigators that the aircraft may have been commandeered for a reason that appears unclear to U.S. authorities. Some of those theories have been laid out to national security officials and senior personnel from various U.S. agencies, according to one person familiar with the matter.

No way the Chinese satellite photographs can be Flight 370 debris as the plane was most likely over 1,000 miles from the point of ATC loss of contact based upon the engine data that was automatically sent to Boeing. Further, I heard an interview with the commander of one of the US ships and he stated that they were moving west, not east towards the China satellite photo debris location.

The situation is completely fluid at this point in time. Still.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I think we need to start asking... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cfk, greenbird, DRo, concernedamerican, agent

    if there was anything worth stealing in the plane's cargo.

    If it was a terrorist act and they wanted to make a statement, well the Petronas Towers were less than an hours flying time away. Also, there have been no serious statements from the usual suspects claiming responsibility.

    Finally, I read something in an aviators forum that was puzzling: there were 5 people on standby at the gate that were permitted to board, even though there appeared to be many seats open. If the capacity of the typical 777 is well over 300, and the flight has 227 confirmed passengers - why did anyone need to be put on standby. Speculation on the aviators forum speculated on there being a heavy cargo load. Wild speculation, but interesting nevertheless.

  •  I'm really disappointed in the resolution (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, JohnnyAppleseed, OLinda, bear83

    of the Chinese satellite images.

    The capability of such an 'eye in the sky' device wouldn't be able to discern a tank from a VW bug. What use is it?

    What possible use could such a blurred image provide to the user? They must have better images than offered.

    They can't tell if this is a tail section of the aircraft or an outhouse door fer gad's sake!

    This stinks.

    If the Lord can see His way clear to bless the Republican Party the way it's been carrying on, then the rest of us ought to get it without even asking. -Will Rogers

    by Gordon20024 on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:14:05 AM PDT

  •  What Chinese photo claims? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Nobody actually claimed the photo was the wreckage.  It was just a possibility.

    You can tell Monopoly is an old game because there's a luxury tax and rich people can go to jail.

    by Simian on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 12:44:29 AM PDT

  •  Except the WSJ report is wrong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Both Boeing and Rolls-Royce have stated the WSJ report is mistaken and based on assumption, not facts.

    And Chinese did not claim it was wreckage, but that it might be wreckage and was located near the point originally assumed to be the crash zone; however, no debris was found.

    So maybe you should refresh your information, read more carefully and make fewer assumptions about the credibility of the WSJ and the Chinese government.

    I kind of suggest that if experience investigators at the scene are so far unable to get a handle on this, the WSJ and Daily Kos bloggers are probably not going to make breakthroughs based on second hand information and speculation.

    No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

    by koNko on Thu Mar 13, 2014 at 07:11:19 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site