I've seen all sorts of theories and stuff thrown out by people on the internet but the most crazy and interesting up to now I've seen is the one about 'atmospheric beasts'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_beast

Never even heard of that theory before :hugesmile:

it is a bit more plausible than some of the other stories flying around!

I'm starting to believe that one or both of the pilots + some or all of the crew were paid off by someone to steal the plane and there are only a few places in the world where you can go with a stolen plane and not be detected... and I'm looking at North Korea as prime suspect number one.

Possibly, I perish to think what has happened to the passengers if that's the case

I was theorising about it with my dad yesterday, if that's indeed what happened and where the plane went, I really don't know what they would have done with all the passengers. On the one hand I don't think North Korea is as draconian as people make it out to be, I don't think they'd mass murder 200+ passengers but at the same time, it can't even feed its own population, why would they willingly house so many different people even if they wanted to keep them hostage? Scary...

I dunno, a discreet act of state sponsored terrorism doesn't really seem like North Korea's style, they're normally keen to be really belligerent and show off their prowess and military might. Plus they do have a really strong army and a nuclear arsenal, what would they want with a commercial aircraft?

I think the prime suspect here is none other then Bootle and in a few years time you'll see it being sold in the Antique shop in the Strand for a few quid, funny how david has took a keen interest in the case all of a sudden

What baffles me is if the plane was diverted somewhere, is that not one of the passengers was able to get a message to someone on their phone during the alleged hijack.

Not allowed to have your phones on during flights you see

The passengers were all killed when the plane ascended to 45,000 feet.

Some of the phones are ringing as well... so I'd assume people tried to turn them on to contact a loved one when they realised something bad was about to happen (hijacking, crash) but either the phones were confiscated or the plane crashed before they could get reception (as obviously when you turn your phone on it takes a second and I'd imagine up at that height phone signal isn't exactly forthcoming

yes I guess the hijackers would also be observing the no walking in the aisles during take off and landing as well during a hijack :laugh:

[MH370: 26 countries searching area
larger than Australia, officials say
Malaysia urges countries on plane's
potential path to re analyse
military radar data in hope
of narrowing down search area]


http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...rger-australia


Yes it may be at the bottom of the sea.
Pilot becomes Evil.

A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet

There has been a lot of speculation about Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Terrorism, hijacking, meteors. I cannot believe the analysis on CNN; it’s almost disturbing. I tend to look for a simpler explanation, and I find it with the 13,000-foot runway at Pulau Langkawi.

We know the story of MH370: A loaded Boeing 777 departs at midnight from Kuala Lampur, headed to Beijing. A hot night. A heavy aircraft. About an hour out, across the gulf toward Vietnam, the plane goes dark, meaning the transponder and secondary radar tracking go off. Two days later we hear reports that Malaysian military radar (which is a primary radar, meaning the plane is tracked by reflection rather than by transponder interrogation response) has tracked the plane on a southwesterly course back across the Malay Peninsula into the Strait of Malacca.

When I heard this I immediately brought up Google Earth and searched for airports in proximity to the track toward the southwest.

The left turn is the key here. Zaharie Ahmad Shah1 was a very experienced senior captain with 18,000 hours of flight time. We old pilots were drilled to know what is the closest airport of safe harbor while in cruise. Airports behind us, airports abeam us, and airports ahead of us. They’re always in our head. Always. If something happens, you don’t want to be thinking about what are you going to do–you already know what you are going to do. When I saw that left turn with a direct heading, I instinctively knew he was heading for an airport. He was taking a direct route to Palau Langkawi, a 13,000-foot airstrip with an approach over water and no obstacles. The captain did not turn back to Kuala Lampur because he knew he had 8,000-foot ridges to cross. He knew the terrain was friendlier toward Langkawi, which also was closer.

Take a look at this airport on Google Earth. The pilot did all the right things. He was confronted by some major event onboard that made him make an immediate turn to the closest, safest airport.

For me, the loss of transponders and communications makes perfect sense in a fire. And there most likely was an electrical fire. In the case of a fire, the first response is to pull the main busses and restore circuits one by one until you have isolated the bad one. If they pulled the busses, the plane would go silent. It probably was a serious event and the flight crew was occupied with controlling the plane and trying to fight the fire. Aviate, navigate, and lastly, communicate is the mantra in such situations.

There are two types of fires. An electrical fire might not be as fast and furious, and there may or may not be incapacitating smoke. However there is the possibility, given the timeline, that there was an overheat on one of the front landing gear tires, it blew on takeoff and started slowly burning. Yes, this happens with underinflated tires. Remember: Heavy plane, hot night, sea level, long-run takeoff. There was a well known accident in Nigeria of a DC8 that had a landing gear fire on takeoff. Once going, a tire fire would produce horrific, incapacitating smoke. Yes, pilots have access to oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire. Most have access to a smoke hood with a filter, but this will last only a few minutes depending on the smoke level. (I used to carry one in my flight bag, and I still carry one in my briefcase when I fly.)

What I think happened is the flight crew was overcome by smoke and the plane continued on the heading, probably on George (autopilot), until it ran out of fuel or the fire destroyed the control surfaces and it crashed. You will find it along that route–looking elsewhere is pointless.

Ongoing speculation of a hijacking and/or murder-suicide and that there was a flight engineer on board does not sway me in favor of foul play until I am presented with evidence of foul play.

We know there was a last voice transmission that, from a pilot’s point of view, was entirely normal. “Good night” is customary on a hand-off to a new air traffic control. The “good night” also strongly indicates to me that all was OK on the flight deck. Remember, there are many ways a pilot can communicate distress. A hijack code or even transponder code off by one digit would alert ATC that something was wrong. Every good pilot knows keying an SOS over the mike always is an option. Even three short clicks would raise an alert. So I conclude that at the point of voice transmission all was perceived as well on the flight deck by the pilots.

But things could have been in the process of going wrong, unknown to the pilots.

Evidently the ACARS went inoperative some time before. Disabling the ACARS is not easy, as pointed out. This leads me to believe more in an electrical problem or an electrical fire than a manual shutdown. I suggest the pilots probably were not aware ACARS was not transmitting.

As for the reports of altitude fluctuations, given that this was not transponder-generated data but primary radar at maybe 200 miles, the azimuth readings can be affected by a lot of atmospherics and I would not have high confidence in this being totally reliable. But let’s accept for a minute that the pilot may have ascended to 45,000 feet in a last-ditch effort to quell a fire by seeking the lowest level of oxygen. That is an acceptable scenario. At 45,000 feet, it would be tough to keep this aircraft stable, as the flight envelope is very narrow and loss of control in a stall is entirely possible. The aircraft is at the top of its operational ceiling. The reported rapid rates of descent could have been generated by a stall, followed by a recovery at 25,000 feet. The pilot may even have been diving to extinguish flames.

But going to 45,000 feet in a hijack scenario doesn’t make any good sense to me.

Regarding the additional flying time: On departing Kuala Lampur, Flight 370 would have had fuel for Beijing and an alternate destination, probably Shanghai, plus 45 minutes–say, 8 hours. Maybe more. He burned 20-25 percent in the first hour with takeoff and the climb to cruise. So when the turn was made toward Langkawi, he would have had six hours or more hours worth of fuel. This correlates nicely with the Inmarsat data pings being received until fuel exhaustion.

The now known continued flight until time to fuel exhaustion only confirms to me that the crew was incapacitated and the flight continued on deep into the south Indian ocean.

There is no point speculating further until more evidence surfaces, but in the meantime it serves no purpose to malign pilots who well may have been in a struggle to save this aircraft from a fire or other serious mechanical issue. Capt. Zaharie Ahmad Shah was a hero struggling with an impossible situation trying to get that plane to Langkawi. There is no doubt in my mind. That’s the reason for the turn and direct route. A hijacking would not have made that deliberate left turn with a direct heading for Langkawi. It probably would have weaved around a bit until the hijackers decided where they were taking it.

Surprisingly, none of the reporters, officials, or other pilots interviewed have looked at this from the pilot’s viewpoint: If something went wrong, where would he go? Thanks to Google Earth I spotted Langkawi in about 30 seconds, zoomed in and saw how long the runway was and I just instinctively knew this pilot knew this airport. He had probably flown there many times.

Fire in an aircraft demands one thing: Get the machine on the ground as soon as possible. There are two well-remembered experiences in my memory. The AirCanada DC9 which landed, I believe, in Columbus, Ohio in the 1980s. That pilot delayed descent and bypassed several airports. He didn’t instinctively know the closest airports. He got it on the ground eventually, but lost 30-odd souls. The 1998 crash of Swissair DC-10 off Nova Scotia was another example of heroic pilots. They were 15 minutes out of Halifax but the fire overcame them and they had to ditch in the ocean. They simply ran out of time. That fire incidentally started when the aircraft was about an hour out of Kennedy. Guess what? The transponders and communications were shut off as they pulled the busses.

Get on Google Earth and type in Pulau Langkawi and then look at it in relation to the radar track heading. Two plus two equals four. For me, that is the simple explanation why it turned and headed in that direction. Smart pilot. He just didn’t have the time.

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

Clip from Letterman
from last night O'Reilly show


Very Logical Valid points

This is a very well researched and constructed theory as to how this plane made it's last fateful journey, obviously your flying experience has allowed you to offer this seemingly well thought out sequence of events on that fateful night.

what I cannot understand is if you apply Occam's razor which states the simplest explanation is the most probable, how come we have not heard this explanation from all the dozens of experts from all the Countries involved in the search for this plane.

why are we getting complex and complicated theories of Hijackings and terrorists when this explanation fits into the main evidence of what we know for sure.

Perhaps there is still more to this story than a simple fire.........

Great Post btw..........:thumbs::thumbs:

The only issue I have here with this theory is the amount of time the plane was flying whilst a full scale fire raged through the plane (assuming all the Passengers and crew were dead from smoke inhalation). Wouldn't a fire burning that long (5 or 6 hours) have destroyed the intergrity of the plane, the fuel pumps, none of the avionics could still be working ie Autopilot, surely the plane would have crashed long before it could fly on for 5 or 6 hours ??

This Theory is now starting to tie in with the sightings of this plane just past the tip of the southern Maldives.

If you look at the location of Pulau Langkaw, you will notice the plane diverted directly on that path. You will also notice that the Maldives are also directly on this path, albeit Maldives are several hundred miles to the west of it.

Here is the picture being painted.

1) Take off from Kuala Lumpr, front landing gear tire catches fire on take off, but stows as per normal in the belly of the aircraft.

2) Flight continues as normal. Messages ATC with Goodnight message (all seems well)

3) Pilot notices smoke in the cockpit. Immediately starts emergency landing procedure, punching in coords to the Pulau Langkaw airport. Planes takes sharp left turn.

4) Pilot and co-pilot start to fight fire and pull buses, smoke consumes them and they pass out.

5) Plane continues flying on those coords until fuel runs out, just passed the Maldives.

We now have two coords, the coords at the left turn, and the coords of the airport, as well as a distance, the Maldives. I would suspect if you follow that ray, you will find our planes final resting place beyond the Maldives.

I really doubt it. That guy is a pilot, so obviously he knows more than I do, but a fire on a jet plane wouldn't last 5 hours, because the chances are it would interfere with the hydraulics somewhere along the line, and make the plane completely unstable. If I've learned anything from ACI, it's that once the hydraulics go, then you can pretty much forget it.

Exactly my point...........nice simple explanation BUT a fire in plane burning for 5 to 6 hours and the plane still flying on with the Autopilot engaged....I seriously doubt it.

someone intentionally shut off the trackers on the plane. it's clearly a hijacking. they hijacked the plane , probably intended to get a ransom, but the chinese passengers pulled a flight 93, over powered the hijackers, and it crashed into the ocean. no survivors.

There's 200 dead people and a fuselage in the indian ocean right now. I'd put money on it.

Yes but the pilots
could have done it alone
So Suicide


like O'Reilly said
long before you

well o'reiley is getting paid for it, so i'd hope he'd have said it before me.

it doesn't take a rocket scientist.

and why are you watching FOX news?

That would require a suicide pact from 2 pilots, and the more people you throw into it, the more unlikely it becomes. This isn't like other suspected pilot suicides where one of them pushes the nose down and away you go.

I watch loads of News
not just FoxNewsHD.