Spyhunter wrote:
Because good accident investigation is critical to uncovering sabotage, historically we find that accident investigation units have been targeted by the Abwehr until 1944 then the DVD. The DVD's penetration of RAE's Comet inquiry by John Argyris is classic example - he was paid 1,500,000 DM, a tidy sum in 1955, and fitted out with a nice new laboratory in Germany

Probably not correct as John Argyris was at the Imperial College in London between 1949 and 1975. He accepted an offer from Stuttgart University 1959 but worked until 1980 as a visiting professor Imperial College. John Argyris was British citizen and received the CBE some years before he passed away.

Spyhunter, I'm critical to the facts in your posts, but read them as I maybe get an other viewpoint

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

So, what testing and what data analysis?

Pure speculation on my part, but from the more complete article in The Australian it sounds like further analysis of the pings has increased the accuracy of their locations and the certainty that the final one followed engine flame-out (either that or "new analysis" means new to the journalist, not "recently conducted"). The journalist has obviously been presented with quite a comprehensive set of data and simulations of what they think is the likely scenario. Again, that might only be new to him and not the team itself.

I get a feeling the investigators did this to put an end to these threads... "The Australian has a reality check over MH370 analysis" (LOL)

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalkin ... -analysis/

"Today’s story in The Australian lucidly sums up what other media has been reporting for months as to the rationale of the ATSB in focusing its sea floor search efforts along a so called seventh arc of possible locations some of which lie at depths of up to 6000 metres."

Thanks for your Feedback

Spyhunter wrote:

It is more likely that he saw the missile exhaust, followed by detonation. I do not believe the missile actually struck the aircraft - as with AF447 we probably have a nearby detonation triggered by the proximity fuze we know the Fakour-2 is fitted with.

I am confused, you know, I am not a native speaker... did this member just suggest that AF447 was shot down by a rocket?

N14AZ wrote:

I am confused, you know, I am not a native speaker... did this member just suggest that AF447 was shot down by a rocket?

Why yes, yes he did...

No further comment necessary.

I don't for a second buy the conspiracy theory that the Inmarsat data was spoofed or planted, for two reasons:

1) From a technical standpoint, the post-processing of the satellite data is sufficiently subtle, obscure and sophisticated that it strains belief that it could have been devised ahead of time by a large team of covert Ph.D.s and then planted in all the right places for a team of normal Ph.D.s to make the desired scientific discovery after the fact. Intelligence agencies surely are smart, but they're not that smart.

2) From a programmatic standpoint, had some nefarious actor wanted to mislead the investigation, the effort required to do so would without doubt have been far easier (fewer covert Ph.D.s) using other methods. If they were that smart they would have found easier ways to mislead the investigation.

So, if the nefarious actor wasn't smart enough, they couldn't have pulled off this spoofing approach. If the nefarious actor was smart enough, they wouldn't have used this spoofing approach in the first place. Ergo, spoofing of the satellite data did not occur.

(I can already anticipate the pat response: "Aha, that's exactly what they would want to you to think, and you fell for it!")

Spyhunter wrote:

In answer to 777Jet, wreckage WAS found in the SCS. My information is that it was identified from the photographs by Boeing as a 777 passenger escape hatch, using computer enhancement and digital mapping, comparing it with the original CAD data (the 777 design team used CAD, not-old fashioned blueprints). Boeing could NOT say it was from a -200, let alone MH370. They couldn't, as there are no significant design differences between the passenger hatches in the 777 family.

They did not need to however. Floating wreckage from a 777 underneath the fight-path of a lost 777 with no other recent 777 losses in the vicinity means only one thing - it came from the lost 777, absent any innocent explanation. It was too early to have been dumped, unlike the SIO wreckage, and in any event there are no reports of freighters overhead at the material time, unlike the SIO, where we have a Chinese IL-96 staging out of an airbase in Indonesia, operating over the SIO before the more northerly set of wreckage was discovered, wreckage which did not show up on SATINT before the -96 appeared.

The oil-rig worker, in my judgment, was an honest eye-witness, i.e. in my opinion he really did see a flash in the sky. There is no reason to discount his testimony, nor has any been suggested. The eye-witness testimony (there were three eye-witnesses to the shoot-down) has not been discredited, it has been ignored, presumably because it did not fit the official, SIO, narrative.

This does NOT mean that the Kiwi witness saw MH-370 crash in flames. He is not an aviation specialist and would not have been thinking in terms of a SAM strike. It is more likely that he saw the missile exhaust, followed by detonation. I do not believe the missile actually struck the aircraft - as with AF447 we probably have a nearby detonation triggered by the proximity fuze we know the Fakour-2 is fitted with.

By the way it was me who exposed the Fakour-2, albeit not by name, privately inside in the Intelligence Community, then publicly in my weekly intelligence column on http://www.VeteransToday.com. After I had exposed it the Iranians came clean and paraded the missile in Teheran in November 2013, which is when we in the West learnt its name. It is a developed version of the powerful, long-range Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix supplied to Iran in the 1970s, along with the F-14A Tomcat. My analysis that the AIM-54 could be modified for surface launch and used as a SAM, which was queried by some, was supported by the revelation that, unbeknown to me, Hughes Aircraft had proposed a multiple launcher to the USN as a Sea-Sparrow replacement in the early 70s.

I suspect it was an earlier version of the Fakour, logically designated Fakour-1, which brought down TWA-800. We know that was a missile strike, that the NTSB conclusions were deeply flawed and reached under pressure from the White House, that NTSB investigators have since come forward to say they were placed under pressure from higher up the payroll, that TWA800 was too high for a MANPADS, that the US Navy were NOT involved, as (1) the US Navy does not generally shoot down airliners and that in the only proven incident it was in a war-zone, with powerful mitigating factors and (2) the nearest US warship, the USS Normandie, was out of range, and that there was an intermittent surface radar contact consistent with a hull-down SSK.

A few points:

1) The "passenger escape hatch" - I assume you are referring to the item in this article:

http://time.com/17248/malaysia-mh370-de ... d-vietnam/

That is not from a 777, let alone a MH 777. Every MH 777 door has as least some red paint on the bottom edge, with the forward three doors also having blue on the very bottom under the red. The window is also not in the center of the door frame. That item was already dismissed as being from a 777 years ago. There is no way it was from MH370.

Quote - ""My information is that it was identified from the photographs by Boeing as a 777 passenger escape hatch, using computer enhancement and digital mapping, comparing it with the original CAD data (the 777 design team used CAD, not-old fashioned blueprints)."" -

Unless you can provide evidence of the above (evidence that can be authenticated to your high standards), it stands that nothing from MH370 was ever found in the SCS, unlike the half a dozen plus items that have been found in various different places around the Western side of the Indian Ocean; Were they ALL planted in addition to the spoofed data? Were all the barnacles on the flaperon grown in a lab before being planted on the flaperon?

The SIO is where MH370 went down; not the SCS.

2) I also believe the NZ oil rig worker was being genuine in that he saw something. But, who knows what he really saw. More importantly, who knows what condition he was in when he saw something interesting in the night sky.

3) Quote - ""Fakour-1, which brought down TWA-800. We know that was a missile strike,"" -

I don't care if others flame me for the following, but I also believe TWA800 was brought down by a missile. However, I believe it was an accident and the US Military, most likely the US Navy, was responsible. It might not have been launched from the USS Normandy, but I believe it was related to a missile test.

4) Regarding AF447, I accept the official report on that incident. However, just because your version interests me, where do you propose the missile that brought down AF447 was fired from?

5) 7BOEING7 is / was also a Boeing test pilot and has piloted the 777 during some of its record breaking flights. If 7BOEING7 says a successful ditching is *possible* in the 777, even at sea, I will believe that 100%.

Spyhunter wrote:

quote

Just out of curiosity, and to see how long you have 'posted' on MH370, I just googled "Michael Shrimpton MH370" -

Quite a few results, but I'll quote the site you regularly contribute to:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/03/15 ... ght-mh370/

""At 0130 hours local time last Saturday, March 8th (this is being written on the 15th) a Chinese SSK, believed to be a 636 Kilo class, shot down a Malaysian airliner, Boeing 777-2H6ER, 9M-MRO, Captain Zaharie Shah in command, off the coast of South Vietnam. The Chinese murdered a total of 239 people, all the souls on board.

The Kilo surfaced but stayed hull-down, i.e. presented a low radar signature. She fired a Chinese-made copy of the excellent Hughes Aircraft AIM-54A Phoenix missile, supplied to Iran in the 1970s. The Chinese version appears to be multi-mode, with infra-red, terminal radar and semi-active homing guidance. It appears as though semi-active mode was selected. The Kilo was to the starboard of the 777’s track, possibly having sortied from the Hainan Submarine Base. Interception range appears to have been fairly short, perhaps 25 miles, well within the capabilities of the Phoenix, which famously could engage targets over 100 nautical miles from their F-14 mother-ships.

Captain Shah appears to have seen the incoming. Its exhaust trail would have been clearly visible at night. If the missile was in semi-active homing mode and he did not deactivate his radar then it would have locked on, following him as he turned back toward the Malaysian coast. The Chinese sub jammed his HF and VHF frequencies, as did the Iranian Kilo in the Air France AF447 shootdown in 2009, preventing a Mayday call.""


- My question; Why didn't you engage in the discussions on this site sooner, you seemed to have the answers not too long after the incident given the date of the article?

Spyhunter,

Your posts on this thread are pure fiction.

Claims made :

1 - Aircraftr did not have the fuel load to fly that far south, already provided the range of the aircraft on an earlier post.

2 - Claim that that " no target matching MH-370 was tracked in the Indian Ocean by the RAAF's very long range Jindalee HF radar at Laverton". The Australian JORN system is controlled from an RAAF Base Edinburgh base near Adelaide. Laverton is just one of the receivers, along with over 20 other ionosondes located around Australia the data is processed in RAAF Base Edinburgh. Both the Australian and Chinese over the horizon radars did have MH370, but neither government will make a public statement as to their exact capabilities. There was a number of reasons why Australia appointed the former Chief of the Defence Force Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston to head up the search, one being the nature of the intelligence that was available.

3 - There was no missile fired in the South China Sea

4 - The South China Sea has lots of bright flames in the sky at night, these are the oil platforms burning gas.

5 - The South China sea has literally thousands of fishing boats on it every night, it looks like the milky way at night with all of the prawn lights.

This forum needs a "Best Of" sub forum. The writings of Spyhunter, while quite entertaining, are either the product of very creative writing or borderline psychosis. I am convinced that the true mystery will be resolved with time. Eventually it will be science and engineering that will prevail to solve this loss. These conspiracy theories are not even close to possible given the magnitude and scale of such an event.

WingedMigrator wrote:

I don't for a second buy the conspiracy theory that the Inmarsat data was spoofed or planted

[...]

So, if the nefarious actor wasn't smart enough, they couldn't have pulled off this spoofing approach. If the nefarious actor was smart enough, they wouldn't have used this spoofing approach in the first place. Ergo, spoofing of the satellite data did not occur.

Exactly. How on Earth would a conspirator know that the pings - which had never been used in this way, don't forget - would 1) be broadcast, 2) be recorded, 3) be discovered, 4) be found to deliver positional information? And if they somehow planted the seeds for all this accidental "revelation", why not just plant more conventional evidence instead?

In my opinion it's much the same thing for "planned disappearance" - the route that was taken is far too complicated if they actually wanted to disappear, and in fact flying over Malaysia and down the edge of Indonesia is a pretty stupid way of doing it - more chance of discovery by various radar installations etc. and a route which will only invite questions. Far more convincing if they just turned south or east before Vietnam and kept on going for a while since that could look more like the result of hypoxia or whatever. Then they could cross the least dense bits of Indonesia or the Philippines. They could make an "escape" turn once far enough that they were sure not to be tracked any more.

Air crash investigation gets political when airliners are shot down. It's an act of war, apart from anything else. Malaysia is barely a functioning democracy and the idea that Malaysian air accident investigators would stand up to the government only has to be stated for its absurdity to be apparent. Both AAIB and NTSB have shown themselves to be vulnerable to political interference.

Intelligence agents, let alone directors, ARE clever - entry level IQ for players would be 150 and for major players 175. Most PhDs couldn't cut it in intelligence work, frankly. They also have penetration access to systems - faking the INMARSAT data would have been child's play for the DVD, which works hand in glove with ChiCom intelligence. The shoot-down was planned days before - the sub e.g. had to sortie from Hainan. There seems to have been at least 48-72 hours notice, time enough to put a deception operation in place.

I repeat - the raw data has not been authenticated,only the conclusions drawn from it. The statements by the worthy bodies referred to therefore take the case no further. Inside the Intelligence Community the SIO theory is regarded as a joke - the plane was not picked by Laverton, or satellites over the SIO, but the shoot-down was caught by the USS Pinckney.

John Argyris lived largely in Germany after 1955, although he was indeed a visiting professor at Imperial College. The CBE doesn't mean anything - honours in the UK are controlled by the Cabinet Office, which has been heavily penetrated by German Intelligence since it was set up, indeed it was set up at their suggestion, as it centralised power in Whitehall, making German influence on policy-making easier. Argyris was trained in Nazi Germany, at the Munich Technical University, with the approval of the Nazi Government. When he fell out with the Nazis his paymaster Admiral Canaris arranged for him to be released and go to Switzerland, from where the Abwehr infiltrated him into RAE, with support from the Air Minister, who reported to Canaris. Canaris of course faked his death in 1945 and was DVD Director during the Comet sabotage programme, which was led by SS-Standartanfuhrer Otto Skorzeny, head of the DVD's Sabotage Section.

In response to N14AZ I am indeed suggesting that MH-370 was shot down, but not by a rocket. I confine that term to unguided missiles, such as those fitted in the war to the 'Tiffy' (Typhoon), or the V-2, or to launch vehicles like the Saturn 5. MH-370 was brought down by a SAM, i.e. a guided missile.

The launch platform for the missile which exploded just below TWA800 was the Iranian Kilo-class SSK, detected by the USN P-3 in the vicinity, albeit that since she was hull-down the contact was intermittent. The radar operator did not know what it was until I explained it to him, some years later (he was in one of my intelligence classes). USS Normandy (CG-60) was clearly NOT involved in the TWA800 shoot-down. She was out of range for one thing, but the US Navy would NOT be able or willing to cover up such a tragedy, indeed in the USS Vincennes incident the US Navy was far too hard on both itself and Captain Rogers, an able career officer who made the wrong call in very difficult circumstances, having been provided with wholly inadequate intelligence.

Sir Angus Houston is a friend of a friend, also an Aussie air officer. He's a good man, but he knows better than to disobey orders, with respect. Don't blame him, blame Canberra. He was placed in an impossible position.

Correct re RAAF Edinburgh, data assessment is done there. I drove past it in 2011, enjoying the sight of the RAAF's P-3s.

I have never claimed that the wreckage in the SCS was a door - it was an over-wing escape hatch, where the paint point carries little or no weight. It was clearly not a door. If not from MH-370, where did this wreckage come from? You can't just discount airliner wreckage floating in the sea! Wreckage normally comes from wrecks.

I think we are approaching consensus on the 777's ditching capabilities. It is an aircraft with poor ditching characteristics,which could only safely be ditched on the open ocean by a highly-skilled pilot current in ditching procedures, with power to control rate of descent, flap available, and on a calm sea. Anything else and you're heading for an Ethiopian Airlines scenario.

My analysis on MH-370 has been in the public domain from within a week of the shoot-down. My warnings of the dangers to airliners from SAMs and of the risk of high-altitude interception were ignored, and we got MH-17.

I was invited onto this forum by an existing member, who thought that I could contribute my intelligence expertise and knowledge of this specific incident.

Spyhunter wrote:

In response to N14AZ I am indeed suggesting that MH-370 was shot down, but not by a rocket. I confine that term to unguided missiles, such as those fitted in the war to the 'Tiffy' (Typhoon), or the V-2, or to launch vehicles like the Saturn 5. MH-370 was brought down by a SAM, i.e. a guided missile.

I have no problem with speculating about MH370 because right now everything is kind of speculation BUT that was not my question. You wrote:

Spyhunter wrote:

I do not believe the missile actually struck the aircraft - as with AF447 we probably have a nearby detonation triggered by the proximity fuze we know the Fakour-2 is fitted with.

that's why I asked, to be really sure:

N14AZ wrote:

I am confused, you know, I am not a native speaker... did this member just suggest that AF447 was shot down by a rocket?

So do you believe AF447 was shot down as well?

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

In my opinion it's much the same thing for "planned disappearance" - the route that was taken is far too complicated if they actually wanted to disappear, and in fact flying over Malaysia and down the edge of Indonesia is a pretty stupid way of doing it - more chance of discovery by various radar installations etc. and a route which will only invite questions.

Actually, the route flown along FIR boundaries was more likely flown to avoid attracting the attention of the humans who were supposed to be looking at the radar screens.

This has been discussed over and over in the MH370 threads.

Aircraft trying to avoid being questioned or investigated can fly along FIR boundaries because in some instances the operator in the one FIR region will just assume that the operator in the other FIR region is looking after the aircraft. If both radar operators assume the aircraft is under the control of the other FIR region neither may bother with the aircraft and the aircraft has a hassle free route to get to where ever. Here is John Cox being quoted:



'Pilot ‘hijacked and crashed’ MH370: expert'

The Australian, January 12, 2016, Ean Higgins

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 9aedec1321

""“There is more evidence to support the intentional act by the captain but whether there was hypoxia is undetermined. The most likely theory, in my opinion, is the MH370 (disappearance) was an intentional act by the captain.”

The Boeing 777 disappeared on March 8, 2014, on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, with radio contact lost early on and the radar transponder apparently turned off or disabled.

Malaysian military radar shows the aircraft turned back to Malaysia and flew along the border with Thailand, and over Captain Zaharie’s home island of Penang, before turning south.

Captain Cox, who has served on six major US National Transportation Safety Board investigations, said the pattern showed during the early phases of the flight the aircraft was being flown to avoid attention.

He said MH370 flew right along the boundary of flight information regions, the borders between countries’ airspace.

“MH370 flew precisely over three waypoints that are on the FIR boundary,” Captain Cox said.

“This is significant because it means that each country assumes the airplane is under the other country’s control.

“The fact that the transponder was switched off, the FMS was reprogrammed and the flight path was precisely along the FIR boundary all indicate to me an ­intentional act.”""

Spyhunter wrote:

The shoot-down was planned days before - the sub e.g. had to sortie from Hainan. There seems to have been at least 48-72 hours notice, time enough to put a deception operation in place.

the shoot-down was caught by the USS Pinckney.

MH-370 was brought down by a SAM, i.e. a guided missile.

The launch platform for the missile which exploded just below TWA800 was the Iranian Kilo-class SSK, detected by the USN P-3 in the vicinity, albeit that since she was hull-down the contact was intermittent.

indeed in the USS Vincennes incident the US Navy was far too hard on both itself and Captain Rogers, an able career officer who made the wrong call in very difficult circumstances, having been provided with wholly inadequate intelligence.

I have never claimed that the wreckage in the SCS was a door - it was an over-wing escape hatch, where the paint point carries little or no weight. It was clearly not a door. If not from MH-370, where did this wreckage come from? You can't just discount airliner wreckage floating in the sea! Wreckage normally comes from wrecks.

I think we are approaching consensus on the 777's ditching capabilities. It is an aircraft with poor ditching characteristics,which could only safely be ditched on the open ocean by a highly-skilled pilot current in ditching procedures, with power to control rate of descent, flap available, and on a calm sea. Anything else and you're heading for an Ethiopian Airlines scenario.

I was invited onto this forum by an existing member, who thought that I could contribute my intelligence expertise and knowledge of this specific incident.

SpyHunter, I have selectively quoted 8 different comments / points you made so I can reply to them one by one. I hope you don't mind but I haven't figured out how to do multiple quotes in this new format yet and I wanted some reference to what I was replying to:

1- If the shoot down of MH370 was planned in advance, do you think whoever selected Zaharie to be called up the operate the flight just hours before was in on it and wanted somebody like Zaharie (who could attract blame) specifically there? Do you think the shoot down may have had something to do with Freescale Semiconductor / the 20 tech employees / Rothschild's ability to inherit the patent, being motive?

2- Where is proof / evidence that the USS Pinckney caught the shoot down?

3- If a missile brought down MH370 in the SCS, again I ask, where are the debris? Dozens of ships were searching in that area for at least a week until the search started to be moved. We know how long some aircraft wreckage can float on the sea surface (TWA800 debris, South African 747...) and all you say is evidence is that one "escape hatch"? I don't buy it. The searchers were right there. If it went down in the SCS, a lot more would have been found. Add to that nothing washing up on any of the surrounding land in close proximity over two years later and it means one thing... MH370 did not come down in the SCS.

4- TWA800 left a lot of floating debris. MH370 left none in the SCS and the searchers were right there for over a week - nothing found...

5- I agree that Captain Rogers copped it hard. If he did nothing and got attacked, that would have been on him too. His was placed in a difficult situation and did not have all the info he needed. It was potentially a lose / lose situation no matter what decision he made. I can't blame him for going with the decision that would have resulted in the protection of his crew and ship.

6- What is this "over-wing escape hatch" on a MH 777-200ER that you refer to? Where is it? Can you link a pic? There is no door / escape hatch over the wing of a 777-200. Just a full sized door before and after the wing. So I don't know what you are referring to. The MH 777-200ER has four full sized doors on each side with at least red paint on all four. I have no idea what escape hatch you are talking about. Either way, that item was already dismissed as coming from a 777. I agree that wreckage comes from wrecks, in fact, wreckage only comes from wrecks. But that could have come from many things. A ship. A ship wreck. Fallen over a ship. Dumped item. Floated from land. Trash. Whatever it was, it was not from a 777. So, I am not discounting airliner wreckage floating in the sea as no airliner wreckage was confirmed to be seen in the SCS. You can't just say something was confirmed as being X without any evidence to back up your claim just because it fits or is convenient for your story. Nobody buys it. On the other hand, there were interesting "items" floating in the SIO as captured by satellite images, and indeed, MH777 parts have been found washed up on land in East Africa - land that is much farther away from the SIO crash site than your claimed SCS area crash site from land, so if it went down in the SCS debris would have been washing up in Vietnam, The Philippines, Malaysia, etc, long, long ago...

7- Nothing wrong with the Ethiopian 767 ditching scenario / outcome in regards to the lack of MH370 debris. That 767 stayed in a lot of large chunks despite the many smaller pieces that broke off. If that happened in the SIO, and searchers didn't get on site for over two weeks, then that would explain the lack of debris. Over the two weeks searchers took to arrive on site would have given a lot of time for the large chunks to sink and the smaller pieces to float away or eventually sink.

8- Thank you for joining. I do enjoy reading your posts.

Have a good weekend!

Seems like the people in the ATSB are finally starting to open their minds, just a bit...


'ATSB secretly retracts its consensus claim on MH370 ‘death dive’'

12 August, 2016

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 1e5f36e1fc

""An Australian government agency has secretly retracted its claim that international scientists and air crash investigators had reached consensus that ­Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 went down quickly in a “death dive” rather than being flown to the end by a “rogue pilot”.

The backdown indicates that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau no longer commands unanimous support among its global advisory group for a public relations narrative it is running in conjunction with the Malaysian government and Malaysian Airline System Berhad.

ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood went on the offensive this week in an interview with The Australian to try to discredit the theory that Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his own aircraft and glided it outside the current search area.

Mr Hood insisted analysis of Inmarsat satellite tracking data by Defence scientists had ­concluded that MH370 rapidly descended in an unpiloted crash.

The ATSB has previously claimed it had “consensus” for that view within the Search Strategy Working Group, made up of experts from Inmarsat, Boeing, the US Nat­ional Transportation Safety Board, aerospace group Thales, the British Air Accidents Investigation Branch, the Malaysian Department of Civil Aviation and the Australian Defence Science and Technology Organisation.

It has abandoned that claim, without acknowledging it has done so or explaining why.

Aerospace engineer Richard Godfrey, a member of the independent group of MH370 expert observers, spotted the deletion of the “consensus” claim through a computer change tracker, and revealed it to The Australian.

On July 27, in its regular weekly bulletin, the Joint Agency Co-ordination Centre, established by the ­federal government to direct the search for MH370, promoted the ATSB’s theory that the aircraft went down ­suddenly.

It downplayed FBI findings that Zaharie had run a simulated flight to the Indian Ocean on his home computer that closely matched the zigzag route the Boeing 777 took. MH370 went missing on March 8, 2014, on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

Mr Godfrey said the most likely explanation for the “consensus’’ removal is that one of the experts on the strategy group complained that they did not support such a conclusion.

“Another possibility is that it was assumed there was a ­consensus, but then some party complained and the published report had to be changed.”

JACC director Annette Clark, ATSB spokesman Daniel O’Malley and Transport Minister Darren Chester’s office ­refused to answer questions about MH370, while the ATSB spokesman who issued the July 27 bulletin, Tim Dawson, hung up when asked to explain the ­deletion. Mr Hood did not respond to a request for interview.""

Here is a long interview with Canadian flight accident investigator Larry Vance, who appeared recently on the new Australian 60 Minutes story on MH370. I will just provide the link. Mr Vance discusses how he believes MH370 was ditched.


' Expert on MH370 Disappearance: 'There Is Absolutely No Mystery To What Happened'

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 07149.html

The Spiegel interview of Larry Vance is interesting, but I think he's stepped past the usual cautions of an investigator and straight into speculation.

He is convinced that the control surfaces that were recovered were necessarily attached to the aircraft when it hit the water, indicating a ditching. I think it hasn't been properly explained whether or not the trailing edge surfaces could have departed the wing in a supersonic dive, following fuel exhaustion. Note that pilots are the last people you would ask about this; engineers with specialized knowledge of aeroelastic effects might know.

That said, I'm not opposed to the possibility of a ditching. Those (including Larry Vance) who draw a straight line between a ditching and the pilot's murder-suicide are a tiny bit too hasty in my opinion. You have to ask what else could have happened that would lead to deliberately flying until fuel exhaustion. This leads down a series of questions, invariably involving severe damage to numerous aircraft systems, a possibility that is usually waved aside as being implausible.

While modern airliners are designed to have no single point of failure, there are failure modes that are so remote as to be ignored and not mitigated by design--they effectively "never" happen where "never" is a very carefully quantified statistical limit. One of these "never" events is the sudden and catastrophic failure of a crew oxygen bottle, located down in the brain center of the aircraft, the EE bay, a rather confined space that is stuffed full of avionics racks and wiring harnesses. This is the one place where an implausible failure of multiple systems could occur.

These two composite-overwrapped pressure vessels are topped off every few weeks, as they are depleted by routine oxygen checks. 9M-MRO had them topped off at KUL just before the fateful MH370 flight. That still bothers me a little.

Don't get me wrong: I consider murder-suicide possible. It is a strong possibility, but still not in my opinion the sole possibility.

Spyhunter,

You should go back to practicing law of something, you are way out of your depth here on the technical side of things that you dont even know how far wrong you are.

Let me address your claims.

"They also have penetration access to systems - faking the INMARSAT data would have been child's play for the DVD, which works hand in glove with ChiCom intelligence."

Sorry this is pure fantasy. The "INMARSAT data" is not easlisy faked becuase of the way that is was extracted. The "INMARSAT data" post-processing is not possible to do in real time, it relied on post processing the data received on the day, and then they had to use the transmitter characteristics of previous flights using advanced mathematical techniques called Bayesian analysis to form the statistical model. The "INMARSAT data" did not produce "pings", it provided a number of areas of statistical certainty where the aircraft was, and those areas are then joined together like breadcrumbs to form a probably flight path. No one has suggested it was the actual flight path, it is a statistical area of certainty.It is a statistical area as a number of atmospheric characteristics had to be assumed to generate the model.

" the plane was not picked by Laverton, or satellites over the SIO, but the shoot-down was caught by the USS Pinckney. "

The aircraft was picked up by a number a military radars, including land based line of sight radars operated by Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Singapore. The aircraft was also seen by a number of surface ships involved with the Cobra Gold-Cope Tiger exercise being conducted in Thailand at the time. The aircraft was seen by the Chinese over the horizon radar with some good resolution via their Nanjing and Kunming receivers. Australia also picked the aircraft up on their system. Over the horizon radar use radar interfermotmetry techniques with a simultaneous baseline. What this means in lay mans terms is where the over the horizon radar has overlapping coverage they can use the data received from two or more receivers on the baseline to improve the system. To the west of Australia there is no overlapping coverage, so the OTH radar does not give the same confidence in data as when is available to the north. China with their system also use their NOSS satellite constellation as part of their OTH radar network. None of these system were very concerned with the track of the aircraft, it was way outside the normal area of interest (and thus at low resolution), is was a slow speed aircraft flying a constant track acting like a normal airliner.

"I am indeed suggesting that MH-370 was shot down, but not by a rocket. I confine that term to unguided missiles, such as those fitted in the war to the 'Tiffy' (Typhoon), or the V-2, or to launch vehicles like the Saturn 5. MH-370 was brought down by a SAM, i.e. a guided missile."

Utter baseless hogwash

" it was an over-wing escape hatch"

No such thing on a 777, more hogwash.

Zeke - you're a patient soul.

Let's stop feeding the troll.

In response to art, correct, I do not accept that the non-authenticated CVR recordings are real. With access to the OE manufacturer, fabricating both the CVR and FDR would be comparatively straightforward.

Zeke - you might want to use more polite language, with respect! There was admittedly poor use of language on my part. On the 777-200 there are four service doors on the starboard side, which double as emergency exits, two (R2 and R3 I think they are called) being near the wings. You are right to correct me re the over-wing point. I believe the wreckage was identified as one of these.

Bayesian Inference is an accepted tool in statistical analysis, but if the raw data is worthless the conclusions will be as well. The DVD's sabotage section would have have been aware of these emissions beforehand, and could easily have faked them. With respect, it is you who is out of your depth, when it comes to aircraft sabotage. Don't forget that the DVD and Chinese had already targeted the 777, with a view to damaging Boeing and helping Airbus. Flight BA038 was brought down 7 years earlier with sabotage of the FADEC software, using self-deleting lines of code, although in that particular case the intent was to stop Prime Minister Brown travelling to Peking. There were also a series of incidents involving batteries, after self-deleting lines of code were inserted into the climate control software, leading to the batteries overheating. The DVD ran rings around the NTSB with that one.

The published radar data to which you refer comes from governments committed to covering up the shoot-down - it's worthless. The Jindalee OTH system is more than able to pick up a 777 sized target on any of the suggested SIO tracks. The Aussies sensibly scaled down their search after checking the data out of RAAF Edinburgh. I know, because I was back-channelling to the Australian Government, headed at that time by a friend of a friend, Tony Abbott.

Responding to 777:

(1) I do not believe Captain Shah was specially selected for the flight. My analysis is that the MH-370 was targeted due to the presence of a person of interest aboard, who was a Chinese national. Nothing to do with the Rothschilds or the researchers who were aboard. The background to the MH-370 shoot-down was a bitter internal power struggle in China.

(2) USS Pinckney's presence in the SCS at the material time is a matter of record. She returned to Singapore after attacking the Chinese PLA Navy Kilo class SSK which launched the missile,incidentally the first known combat operation between the USN and the PLA Navy, with the Americans winning. DDG-91 is a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer, fitted with the hugely capable AN/SPY1-D 3D 6MW S-band radar system. This has a published range of 175 nautical miles, The entire shoot-down sequence was within range of the Pinckney.

(3) Debris fields will vary enormously,depending upon speed and angle of entry, and altitude of break-up. With 800 we had a break-up sequence commencing at altitude, hence a fairly widespread debris field, even wider when the DVD brought down Pan-Am 103 (and PanAm with it, sadly). With high-altitude SAM attacks on transport aircraft typically we do not see the aircraft breaking up, due to the use of proximity fuzes. I believe MH-370 was intact when she dived in. With a dive-in (i.e. steep angle of descent) we might not see any debris at all. It is rare in peacetime to have witnesses to a large aircraft diving into the sea. One such incident took place shortly before World War II, on 29th August 1939, when Vickers Wellington Mk 1 L4257 of 149 Squadron, Fight Sergeant Pitt i/c, was seen to dive into the North Sea 5 mi SE of the Happisburgh Light Vessel. No trace of the aircraft or crew was found, although the tragedy was witnessed by the crew of a fishing trawler who went immediately to the aircaft's assistance. There all too many such incidents in WWII.

Might I suggest a little more humility on the part of the SIO brigade? Given the abuse some of them are using anyone would think that their theory had been confirmed. I respectfully remind everyone that despite a huge search effort, using high-resolution side-scan sonar, covering tens of thousands of square miles of the Indian Ocean, not a trace of the aircraft or any of her passengers and crew has been found? As I predicted in March 2014 the SIO search has been a waste of time and money, and has perpetrated a cruel hoax upon the loved ones of those lost.

I have it on good terms from my buddy (who is high up in the DVD), that Spypunter not only believes in the Bielefeld Conspiracy, he actually drafted it.

For those who are not familiar with it, consider this.

http://youtu.be/XvHcZciihJw

Anything that suggests MH-370 is in the SIO is quite easily faked, it's child's play.

You are right barney captain, but I just couldn't help myself.

Good Day,

SLCPylot

Spyhunter,

You have no idea what you are talking about, no need to be polite, your posts would not even get processed by a water treatment process in your local council. Time and time again factual claims you have made are baseless (eg not enough fuel). Sorry you are on the wrong forum if you want to spruke some buzz words and think people will follow your lead. This is a factual forum to discuss factual information. It is not forum for an out of work barrister to sell his novels.

There are much simpler explanations for what happened, e.g.

http://www.civilaviation.gov.eg/acciden ... -2012a.pdf

klm617 wrote:

hongkongflyer wrote:

Heck back in the 1950's when a Pan Am Stratocruser ditched in the middle of the Pacific they were met by rescue planes ready to pick them up. What makes this so different a 777 landing at low speed in the water is certainly do able.

There is a bit of difference. The Stratocruiser pilot knew he would not be able to make it to an airport because of the dual engine failure and radioed for help; he was told where a Coast Guard weather ship would be, he found it, orbited it until daylight and then ditched. That is a far cry from the situation here; granted, with GPS it is theoretically possible for the pilot and the person meeting him to arrange a precise spot in the middle of the ocean, but they still need to actually meet up and then not get caught returning to land. He also has to fend off the passengers and other crew members to make his escape. Possible, but not easy.

SEPilot wrote:

klm617 wrote:

hongkongflyer wrote:

Heck back in the 1950's when a Pan Am Stratocruser ditched in the middle of the Pacific they were met by rescue planes ready to pick them up. What makes this so different a 777 landing at low speed in the water is certainly do able.

There is a bit of difference. The Stratocruiser pilot knew he would not be able to make it to an airport because of the dual engine failure and radioed for help; he was told where a Coast Guard weather ship would be, he found it, orbited it until daylight and then ditched. That is a far cry from the situation here; granted, with GPS it is theoretically possible for the pilot and the person meeting him to arrange a precise spot in the middle of the ocean, but they still need to actually meet up and then not get caught returning to land. He also has to fend off the passengers and other crew members to make his escape. Possible, but not easy.

Meeting up with someone stretches realism a bit in this case if we're talking about the Captain, as he wasn't initially scheduled for that flight and it takes a pickup boat sometime to get to that part of the planet. Successfully ditching and exiting the plane would be the hardest part -- meeting up (thanks to GPS) and getting back to land would be fairly easy -- as for the rest of he souls onboard, they were probably long dead after the "pilot" in control depressurized the airplane.

7BOEING7 wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

klm617 wrote:

There is a bit of difference. The Stratocruiser pilot knew he would not be able to make it to an airport because of the dual engine failure and radioed for help; he was told where a Coast Guard weather ship would be, he found it, orbited it until daylight and then ditched. That is a far cry from the situation here; granted, with GPS it is theoretically possible for the pilot and the person meeting him to arrange a precise spot in the middle of the ocean, but they still need to actually meet up and then not get caught returning to land. He also has to fend off the passengers and other crew members to make his escape. Possible, but not easy.

Meeting up with someone stretches realism a bit in this case if we're talking about the Captain, as he wasn't initially scheduled for that flight and it takes a pickup boat sometime to get to that part of the planet. Successfully ditching and exiting the plane would be the hardest part -- meeting up (thanks to GPS) and getting back to land would be fairly easy -- as for the rest of he souls onboard, they were probably long dead after the "pilot" in control depressurized the airplane.

I have not followed this thread in detail-I did not realize that the pilot was assigned this flight at the last minute. That pretty well eliminates the theory of a "meet up", because, as you point out, it would have taken far too long to get a boat to the meeting point. Also, to make the plot in the first place without leaving some kind of electronic trail would have been extremely difficult.

Spyhunter wrote:

I respectfully remind everyone that despite a huge search effort, using high-resolution side-scan sonar, covering tens of thousands of square miles of the Indian Ocean, not a trace of the aircraft or any of her passengers and crew has been found?

You make it sound like they are looking for a large object in a relatively small area and they know pretty much where it is supposed to be! That is hardly the case here. This search is like looking for a needle in haystack but worse, much worse. They might know which city the farm is in, but they don't know which farm the haystack is in, and they don't know which haystack to search. Also, the entire search thus far has been based on calculations that most of the flight, and the ending specifically, was a ghost flight and went in somewhere close to the area the final ping occurred after fuel exhaustion and an uncontrolled dive. Without much area from the current search area left to search, the ghost flight ending scenario is looking a bit shaky. If somebody was in control, that plane could have easily glided more than 150 or so miles in ANY direction from that final ping location depending on the altitude / winds / etc. From the vague point of the final ping, from an altitude of anywhere up to 43,000 feet, that plane could have kept heading South, it could have turned West or East, or it could have done a 180 and turned back North to really throw searchers off. Then the currents might have shifted the fuselage a bit farther during the long plunge down to the trenches on the sea floor. The plane, if ever found, will be somewhere within 180 miles or so in any direction from the point of the final ping. Are you really surprised that it hasn't been found? Really?

Responding to Art first, you're assuming that the French WANTED the wreckage of 447 found, aren't you? Paris knew what had happened to the plane, and moreover knew they had a Bad Guy sub on the prowl in the South Atlantic, hence the sortieing of the SSN Emeraude. She wasn't there to locate the black boxes, the last thing the BEA wanted. She was there to hit back at the Iranian Kilo, which I believe she eventually did, off the Comoros Islands. You don't need 4 533 mil torpedo tubes and Exocet SSMs to locate a black box, unless that is someone else is searching and you need to torpedo it first.

The speed of the search was dictated by the length of time needed to manufacture the new black boxes, with the original serial numbers (allow 7 days) plus inserting new data (allow 28 days) then arrange for their miraculous 'recovery', since it might have given the game away had they been 'found' in Toulouse.

You are quite correct re authenticating the CVR 'tape' - easily done. The problem is that it hasn't been done. There is a way of getting round Voiceprint software by the way - you just use genuine recordings, but rearrange the words digitally. For a pilot this is most easily done by having an archive of genuine CVR recordings or simulator sessions. You can also play around with an actor's modulation and tidy it up some. Not sure how the French did it, the point is they did. They probably used actors, tidied up the voiceprint and banked on noone subjecting the CVR tapes to scrutiny.

The BEA take orders from higher up the payroll and will trot out any old nonsense they are told to, like they did with Concorde. Remember that titanium strip, supposed to be off a DC-10-30? Continental's lawyers had some fun with that, before word reached Houston that it wasn't in the script, no doubt accompanied by a query as to whether they had been watching Perry Mason reruns.

Dramatic courtroom denouements are not allowed in France, ironically given that denouement is a French word. I don't image that any French TV station bought Perry Mason - their executives wouldn't have understood it, as the verdicts followed the evidence. That 'missing' strip by the way was still on the plane when it arrived in Houston. Continental were a fine airline (their Business First product was very good, and they had a MUCH better selection of brandies and liqueurs than BA, even on Concorde). They did actually check their airplanes after international flights, and tended to notice things like engines missing, or bits missing off engines.

Their domestic product wasn't as good, admittedly. I well recall settling myself comfortably into a First Class seat on a Continental DC-9 out of Anchorage and when asked by the charming flight attendant whether I would like anything to drink pre take-off, asking for a glass of champagne. I was met with a pitying look and the witty response "You haven't flown with us before, have you Sir?" Actually I had, but only across the Atlantic. Their old international First Class was also excellent, by the standards of the day.

It may have helped that I smelt a rat and back-channelled a warning to Gordon Bethune, via an old CIA buddy, to check his DC-10 engine cowlings.

150 mile glide on a 777, 777Jet? I've heard of stretching the glide - this may be stretching the point. Doable, from FL430, maybe, with a following wind, but if I were seated in a 777 going into Boston from London (if such a thing were possible - last time I did that leg was with AA and they were using a 757-200, post-ETOPS, and a pretty beat-up old 75 at that), we were 150 miles out, and the captain announced that they'd filled the tanks in metric, got the conversion factors wrong and we were now tanks-dry, and would be a little late getting into Logan as we were going to have glide in, I'd be checking where the nearest emergency exit was, and re-reading the life-jacket instructions, just in case I needed that whistle.

Zeke, you've been reading Occam's Razor again, haven't you? Occam was a pretty good friar, but he knew diddly-squat about intelligence work. In the intelligence world, once the Bad Guys are involved, Occam's Razor not only has no application, it's almost reversed - it's a bit like the physics of airflow in an engine at supersonic speeds. What happens at low speed does not necessarily happen at high speed, hence those variable intakes on Concorde. The more complex explanation tends to be correct.

My fuel point has NOT been answered. All we've had is the range figure from KL to Perth, pretty much. I know where Perth is - I've driven there, right across the Nullarbor (it's a great drive by the way - the road occasionally widens to serve as a Flying Doctor landing strip, the only time I've ever driven on a public road and had it turn into a runway). I know where KL is too, indeed I've flown into and out of it, on Malaysian, as it happens, and enjoyed the showers in the GoldenWings lounge.

I am not disputing that the fuel load for KL-Peking would be about the same as KL to the southernmost predicted point in the SIO. My point is that MH370 flew to near the coast of Vietnam on its scheduled track, climbing to its allotted altitude. The plane then performs radical manoeuvres, consistent with a civilian pilot evading an incoming SAM, unaware that it's not a rogue and has locked onto his plane's radar emissions. The plane is then supposed to have flown WEST, or south-west at least, across the Malay Peninsula, then out into the Bay of Bengal, BEFORE turning south. Fuel load is now critical for the SIO, and I respectfully maintain my opinion that Captain Shah would have had insufficient fuel to reach the furthest 'ping' point, thereby undermining the already shaky INMARSAT data.

I had to go to the beginning for this, but:

Spyhunter wrote:

There is believed to have been a person of interest to Chinese intelligence on the plane. The shoot-down is almost certainly linked to the bitter power-struggle inside China.

Can you actually provide authenticated proof that this is the case?

Since you have emphasized the importance of accepting authenticated proof in your argument regarding AF447 it would be remiss for anyone here not to apply the same standards to you.

Spy hunter

The last acars message received from the aircraft had a fuel load onboard at that time of over 43 tonnes.

KUL-PEK is only 2300 nm, the fuel load they had on in the last acars message would give them the range of 3000-3500 nm.

They had more than enough fuel to go to the search area.

More baseless claims.

art wrote:

777Jet wrote:

My view is that a search for the aircraft will probably be abandoned and that the remains of the 777 will be discovered by chance somewhere in the next century or two due to seabed mapping activity or some other activity.

I agree, I guess that's what is going to happen...

@ Spyhunter: it's obvious what are you doing here. With every post you include one more crash / accident in your list of conspiracy-driven crashes / accident: first TW990, then AF447 followed by BA038 and now the Concorde. Maybe we can save time and you tell us which crash / accident was NOT the result of conspiracy.

I have stop here because the dog is pushing me to go for a walk. The result of a biological process? Nnnaaaaaaaah, most probably my wife put something into his food so that she can meet her lover in the meantime.... hey, I am learning quickly

zeke wrote:

The last acars message received from the aircraft had a fuel load onboard at that time of over 43 tonnes.

Haven't you learned anything from Spyhunter, Zeke? Obviously that acars message was fabricated after the fact.

Spyhunter wrote:

150 mile glide on a 777, 777Jet? I've heard of stretching the glide - this may be stretching the point. Doable, from FL430, maybe, with a following wind, but if I were seated in a 777 going into Boston from London (if such a thing were possible - last time I did that leg was with AA and they were using a 757-200, post-ETOPS, and a pretty beat-up old 75 at that), we were 150 miles out, and the captain announced that they'd filled the tanks in metric, got the conversion factors wrong and we were now tanks-dry, and would be a little late getting into Logan as we were going to have glide in, I'd be checking where the nearest emergency exit was, and re-reading the life-jacket instructions, just in case I needed that whistle.

There would, of course, have been an official investigation and report into this. Please provide a link to it.

Uncle Spyhunter, please tell the lovely people what happened to Yemenia 626. That story is my favourite...

I think you missed the 'if', Auchmithie! The 777 gliding into Boston was a hypothetical scenario, not so the Air Canada 767 going into Winnipeg, of course, the famous 'Gimli Glider'.

Yemenia 626 was also shot down, also by a Fakour-2, almost certainly from the same Iranian Kilo which brought down AF447. The Iranians have a covert sub base in the northern Comoros Islands, where the Kilo was patched up after its encounter with the Atlantique. So far as I know she was tracked to the Comoros by the Emeraude. The French requested a fly-by from the Yemenis, possibly overlooking the possibility that the Kilo could reload its SAM silo, which on those boats is faired into the aft conning tower, for surface launch. The A310 had a belly camera package. She was brought down near the Iranian base and was off-track, explaining the delays in finding her. The Official Version of Events - that she crashed adjacent to Moroni - is nonsense of course. Had she gone into the sea where she was supposed to have gone in, there would have been little delay in finding her. 300,000 lbs or so of Airbus makes a pretty big splash, and splashes can be seen at night as well as heard.

It is not a coincidence that two Airbuses were lost within weeks of each other.

Not buying the ACARS data from 370. We know the ACARS system was disabled (this was done to prevent its use in sending out a Mayday message, something I had advocated after the 447 shoot-down - Zeke may not take me seriously, but the Bad Guys certainly do, and know that my stuff is widely read inside the Intelligence Community). We are therefore looking at data from a sabotaged system - always suspect.

Another cause of suspicion was the reluctance of Malaysian to release the load sheets. Why the secrecy, when supposedly there was a search for the aircraft? Establishing its maximum range was an essential step in defining the search parameters, which instead were defined by reference to analysis of software-generated 'pings'.

Correct re distance from KUL to PEK, with respect. When I did my original fuel load calculations I was working on 2,700 statute miles, just over 2,300 nm. Given that Malaysia is a Chinese client state, PEK is a major international airport with ample supplies of JET-1 and Malaysian have never encountered any difficulties obtaining fuel there, why, after taxi, take-off, climb to cruising altitude and cruise to beyond the Malaysian coastline would a Malaysian 777 have nearly 95,000 lbs of fuel aboard on a medium-range hop to Peking? What do you say was her fuel requirement, allowing for diversion reserves and a contingency reserve, from that point? MH-370 only needed fuel, with reserves, for 2,900 nm. Anything above that affected her seat-mile costs, at a time when Malaysian were struggling financially, largely thanks to the Global Financial Crisis, from which economies were only just emerging.

First and business class travel in particular, where international airlines tend to make their bucks, was still affected by the downturn. What you are suggesting, with respect, makes no economic sense, and we all know how airline operations are affected by bean-counters.

If we assume fuel for 2,900 nm at push-back, fuel load is critical for the southernmost SIO 'ping' point, after allowing for the radical, fuel-consuming manoeuvres observed over the SCS, and the west/south-west leg before turning south. Remember she has to go some way into the Bay of Bengal to evade Malaysian primary civil radar and military radar. For a target at high altitude even X-band military or civil primary radar could acquire a 777-sized target up to say 150 nm. It is unlikely that a pilot seeking to escape detection would make his turn to the south less than 150 nm from the coast. If he descended to avoid radar detection then of course his fuel consumption would increase, dramatically if he was cruising below FL100.

No comment on A14AZ's love life!

Each case turns on its own facts. I do not endorse conspiracy theories about aircraft losses. In my intelligence text Spyhunter I expressly reject the theory that the UN Air Command DC-6B was shot down by Katangan Magisters, party again on range calculations. That was down to pilot error and UN incompetence. I also reject the conspiracy theories swirling around the Sikorski crash.





,

777Jet wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

In my opinion it's much the same thing for "planned disappearance" - the route that was taken is far too complicated if they actually wanted to disappear, and in fact flying over Malaysia and down the edge of Indonesia is a pretty stupid way of doing it - more chance of discovery by various radar installations etc. and a route which will only invite questions.

Actually, the route flown along FIR boundaries was more likely flown to avoid attracting the attention of the humans who were supposed to be looking at the radar screens.

This has been discussed over and over in the MH370 threads.

Should resist, but can't let this go...

"More likely flown to avoid..." is only your opinion and not a fact. I absolutely disagree with that opinion for the reasons I gave.

"This has been discussed over and over" = "people keep steamrollering their opinion over and over". A very small number of members making the exact same statements again and again in response to anyone disagreeing with them is not a discussion. Nor is it a consensus, and it certainly isn't a conclusion.

Why, in this day and age, are conspiracy theories more popular than ooga-booga twilight-zone stuff like the Bermuda Triangle? In some regards, space aliens would be more plausible that any "teh government did it" theory.

Wait, maybe it was some nefarious government *in league with* space aliens...

Spy hunter,

Please stop purporting you are a member of the intelligence community, you are doing a massive disservice to the people who actually are.

Facts that are known about the fuel include the flight plans for that go back 6 years, the flight plan of the day, the fuel uplift, and the various acars maintenance messages sent by the aircraft.

Everything regarding the fuel load is known and normal, the last automatic cruise maintenance acars was sent about 15 minutes prior to their last voice transmission. The acars message is not one that is controlled by the crew, it's the onboard maintenance computer sending the normal cruise report. The same computer also sent the startup and takeoff reports.

What you don't know about is the mandatory paper trail which follows every flight.

FYI when I fly to PEK it's a 2.5 he flight but to will normally load 5.5 hrs of fuel.

Spy hunter,

I’m not a spy and certainly have no direct experience planning or executing operations like the ones you have been describing. I’ve worked on a few classified software projects for the intelligence community but that’s it — so I won’t challenge any of your knowledge in this area.

And I won’t challenge your aviation assertions either. There are plenty of people on this board better suited to that.

I do have a couple of questions though:

- On this very public board you’ve revealed quite a bit of information about yourself including the school you taught at, and years you were there. You’ve listed projects you’ve been involved in and name-dropped all sorts of well connected friends. Even if that photo of you is not real, just using the information you’ve given, it can’t be that hard for interested people in ‘intelligence’ to figure out who you are.

- And, I have to think some intelligence people must be pretty interested right? I mean, if everything you’re saying is true then they’ve invested millions — maybe billions — of dollars to say nothing of the time, energy, and human lives to carry out these brilliantly conceived and meticulously executed operations and cover ups.

And now, you’re ruining all of it.

1. Isn’t revealing all that identifying information pretty sloppy on your part? Aren’t you setting yourself up to be killed? The one characteristic that is common to everyone I have ever met working on classified software projects is discretion. You have none. You didn’t makes some oblique conspiratorial references — you gave minute details, names, places, dates, equipment, mechanisms… So if if any of this is true there are now all sorts of people who can’t be too happy about this. And based on what you’ve told us these same people have no compunction about shooting down passenger airliners left and right — so they won’t think twice about coming after you.

2. Why would you dump all this information on Airliners.net? This is pulitzer-prize winning stuff here. Bigger than the Pentagon Papers… bigger than almost any story I can think of. There has got to be a better, more credible outlet.

I once had the privilege of attending a lecture on US espionage by non-fiction author and journalist David Wise, maybe you should contact him. But I’m sure you’re already best friends right?

And the plot thickens... everything is of course circumstancial only...

http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2798

Spyhunter wrote:

I think you missed the 'if', Auchmithie! The 777 gliding into Boston was a hypothetical scenario, not so the Air Canada 767 going into Winnipeg, of course, the famous 'Gimli Glider'.

An even more impressive glide was the Azores Glider, Air Transat Flight 236.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

777Jet wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

In my opinion it's much the same thing for "planned disappearance" - the route that was taken is far too complicated if they actually wanted to disappear, and in fact flying over Malaysia and down the edge of Indonesia is a pretty stupid way of doing it - more chance of discovery by various radar installations etc. and a route which will only invite questions.

Actually, the route flown along FIR boundaries was more likely flown to avoid attracting the attention of the humans who were supposed to be looking at the radar screens.

This has been discussed over and over in the MH370 threads.

Should resist, but can't let this go...

"More likely flown to avoid..." is only your opinion and not a fact. I absolutely disagree with that opinion for the reasons I gave.

"This has been discussed over and over" = "people keep steamrollering their opinion over and over". A very small number of members making the exact same statements again and again in response to anyone disagreeing with them is not a discussion. Nor is it a consensus, and it certainly isn't a conclusion.

Just like the opposite, the flown route is a... --""pretty stupid way of doing it - more chance of discovery by various radar installations etc. and a route which will only invite questions""-- is just your opinion, as you stated, and is definitely neither a consensus nor a conclusion.

Having said that, I quoted a well known and highly respected aviation expert, among others, who share that same opinion on the benefits of flying along FIR boundaries to avoid questions. I am yet to read anything from an expert sharing your opinion.

If you think it would have been better to fly right through the middle of an FIR to avoid questions then good for you. If you think a radar operator is more likely to question an aircraft flying right along their FIR boundary than an aircraft flying right through the middle of their FIR region then good for you. That just says something about your logic.

Moreover, if all you can do is troll and nitpick by stating "is only your opinion and not a fact" each time a poster fails to write IMHO before a post then you are of little benefit to this discussion.

Spyhunter wrote:

Correct re distance from KUL to PEK, with respect. When I did my original fuel load calculations I was working on 2,700 statute miles, just over 2,300 nm. Given that Malaysia is a Chinese client state, PEK is a major international airport with ample supplies of JET-1 and Malaysian have never encountered any difficulties obtaining fuel there, why, after taxi, take-off, climb to cruising altitude and cruise to beyond the Malaysian coastline would a Malaysian 777 have nearly 95,000 lbs of fuel aboard on a medium-range hop to Peking? What do you say was her fuel requirement, allowing for diversion reserves and a contingency reserve, from that point? MH-370 only needed fuel, with reserves, for 2,900 nm. Anything above that affected her seat-mile costs, at a time when Malaysian were struggling financially, largely thanks to the Global Financial Crisis, from which economies were only just emerging.

IIRC 9M-MRO was carrying 2 hours of extra fuel that night to allow for any holds or diversions.

The time of the final ping was consistent with when fuel would have been expected to run dry.

neutrino wrote:

[ why not read up on an alternative take on his case. He might have been wrongly convicted after all. If the author of that article is correct, Michael Shrimpton is worthy of our understanding and sympathy.
http://journal-neo.org/2015/02/23/the-s ... shrimpton/

Well, if you do a quick cross-reference on journal-NEO, you will notice it's just another crackpot website (unsurprisingly towing a pro-Kremlin line) full of twisted conspiracy theories... just like veteranstoday.com, this wannabe "inteligence" expert brags so much about. Although nominally they are published by the Russian Academy of Sciences.
In fact nutjobs who publish on VT spread their wisdom also on NEO and vice versa. Go Figure.

Didn't see this asked so I am curious if there is still an active search for the aircraft going on?

Firstly, responding to SSteve, the Bermuda Triangle nonsense was originally got up to disguise the DVD's sabotage programme against the Avro Tudor, an under-rated aircraft, designed by Roy Chadwick, who was assassinated in one. The explanation for the famous Flight 19 Avengers is straightforward - it was a navigational error, with the other pilots playing 'follow my leader'. Nothing to do with aliens. There is no evidence by the way that any aliens have ever visited Earth. The UFO scare was generated to cover up both DVD and CIA test flights in the 50s.

Zeke, as a nice CIA officer once told me, referring to the Intelligence Community (INTELCOM), "Michael, once you're in, you're in". I am not and have never claimed to be an intelligence officer. I was an intelligence lawyer, defending intelligence officers, an intelligence academic,teaching intelligence officers, an independent intelligence analyist and now I'm an intelligence author and commentator. I've been there and got the T-shirt.

What do you say was the fuel uplift for MH-370? 5.5 hours fuel for a 2.5 hr flight may be Cathay Pacific practice, but it isn't ordinary airline practice. Sounds like its more to do with fuel pricing or availability than safety. Carrying unnecessary weight does not always aid safety. I am not unfamiliar with commercial aviation and am aware of the post-flight paperwork. I am also aware, with respect, that ACARS is an automated system. Some ACARS systems however can be programmed in flight.

In response to EGGGs I am not hiding behind anonymity on this site, nor do I have any reason to disguise my identity. My analysis of MH-370 has been published online, on VeteransToday.com, and in print by British Mensa, in their aviation newsletter Flypaper. I'm a White Hat - I'm not exposing White Hat black ops here, I am exposing Black Hat black ops! If the Good Guys don't like what I'm doing they have ways of making their displeasure known.

Last time that happened was July 19th 2005, when an irate and exercised 'Met' Special Branch officer turned up at my home at midnight, banging on the door, demanding to know why I had rung Chicago PD to warn them of a possible Al Qaeda attack on their mass transit system on 21/7. Since I was working a terrorist emergency I answered the door fully dressed. I invited him in, offered him a cup of coffee and showed him into my lounge. He found a table covered in maps, papers and notes. My home library then had over 1,000 volumes on defence and intelligence topics, with hundreds of issues of specialist intelligence journals, to a couple of which I had contributed. He seemed to do a double-take when he looked at an aviation print on the wall signed by a Marshal of the Royal Air Force, and calmed down when I explained that Chicago PD had rung me, not the other way round, having been advised to do so by a Special Forces 2-star of my acquaintance. I warned him that INTELCOM had intercepted a 2-letter fragment of a 3-letter Al Qaeda target code, indicating an attack on a mass transit system for Thursday, 21st July, and that the intercept corresponded to 2 Western cities with mass transit systems, London and Chicago. His superiors ignored him and a terrorist cell was duly allowed to attack the London Underground system unimpeded. Fortunately, they correctly suspected that they had been double-crossed and withdrew the detonators from their explosive packs, so there were no casualties. The police did not learn their lesson from that and came after me in 2012, in a ludicrous operation which is now starting to blow up in their faces, with help from INTELCOM.

The British police should have followed the example of Chicago PD. They were courteous, respectful and professional, sharing information about suspected Al Qaeda activity on the ground. I gave my opinion - that the suspected activity was probably an Al Qaeda recon cell. They responded appropriately and unlike London, Chicago was not attacked. The DVD not only might come after me, they already have. I survived an assassination attempt 17 years ago, not long after I discovered them, and have kept a weather eye open since. I'm more vulnerable to character assassination, including bogus complaints and malicious prosecutions (been there, done that), but he who laughs last laughs loudest.

I am of course familiar with the Air Transat Flight 236 incident and the outstanding work by the crew, once you discount their lack of airmanship with respect, not helped by bad advice from their maintenance centre, in operating the cross-feed from a port wing tank to a nearly empty starboard tank. Once they realised their mistake their work was excellent and all the souls aboard were saved. 236 was an Airbus 330-243, but its gliding characteristics are broadly comparable with those of the 777-200. They were slightly heavier than MH-370, but again the loads are comparable. Their rate of descent, without flap, however, was 2,000 fpm, which is roughly what I would expect, glide duration from flame-out of No 2 to touchdown was 19 minutes and glide distance from FL330 was 65 nm. Hydraulic power becomes a critical issue on most wide-bodies once they are tanks-dry, given the limited output of RATs, limited battery capacity on civilian airliners and the lack of a self-sealed, emergency rear fuselage tank for APUs. We cannot therefore assume that Captain Shah would have had flap available at the top of descent. I was querying a glide distance figure of 150 miles. Still not buying, although I would buy 85-90 statute miles for a tanks-dry 777-200 from FL430 with no hydraulic power to operate flaps.

I am remiss in not having responded to the 'needle in a haystack' point. This with respect underestimates the performance of modern side-scan sonar systems. A state of the art commercial side-scan system like the outstanding Sonardyne Solstice with multi-path suppression will give you high-resolution sea-bed imagery with a swathe port and starboard of up to one cable. Just ten sweeps therefore gives you high-resolution coverage of 1 square nm, and that's a commercial system. Military systems, such as the integrated passive/active Thales 2076 suite fitted to the British Astute class SSN will give you better performance still.

What's more, for your initial quick and dirty search, given the size of the target, you don't need high resolution. Why do you think naval assets with high-performance sonar suites were withdrawn from the search fairly quickly? Because they were able to cover thousands of square miles very quickly and didn't get a sniff, that's why. There is no sonar target matching a 777 in the search box centred on the final ping, and those pings are almost the entire basis of the SIO theory, given the absence of radar reporting, satellite imagery, verified wreckage, visual sightings and a radio fix.

I was invited onto this site by an existing member. My purpose was to warn the aviation community of the high-altitude SAM threat in particular. Had I been listened to earlier we would not have had MH-370 or MH-17. The aviation community, with respect, needs to wake up and smell the coffee, and not dismiss claims of sabotage or shoot-down out of hand. There are some serious pilots on this site, and they're listening, so don't knock it!

dfwjim1 wrote:

Didn't see this asked so I am curious if there is still an active search for the aircraft going on?

Yes there is, but unless there is new data and/or budget it will come to an end in the next few weeks. I expect that's why there's a new batch of MH370 stories popping up in the Australian media at the moment (such as the one starting this thread).

Spyhunter wrote:

What do you say was the fuel uplift for MH-370? 5.5 hours fuel for a 2.5 hr flight may be Cathay Pacific practice, but it isn't ordinary airline practice.



I was invited onto this site by an existing member. My purpose was to warn the aviation community of the high-altitude SAM threat in particular. Had I been listened to earlier we would not have had MH-370 or MH-17.

1) KUL-PEK is close to 6 hours in flight duration. The standard 6 hours in fuel + roughly extra 2 hours worth of extra fuel for hold / diversions would take the fuel load of MH370 to somewhere around 8 hours in flying time. Everything fits.

2) While you are here, what is your version of MH17? I mean, who do you think shot it down? Who gave the orders? Who pressed the button? Russia? Ukraine?

777Jet wrote:

.
2) While you are here, what is your version of MH17? I mean, who do you think shot it down? Who gave the orders? Who pressed the button? Russia? Ukraine?

He was way ahead of you there.

Spyhunter wrote:

MH17 was shot down by the Chinese version of the Buk, a Chinese crew having flown into a Ukrainian air base in the 7 days prior to the crash, I believe in an IL-96. They had been practising high-altitude interceptions for weeks before that. In order to make sure the plane made the kill zone, which was tightly confined due to the need to blame the Russian rebels and by implication President Putin, the aircraft was attacked by a Ukrainian Su-25 fitted with an upgraded radar and fire-control system, with its titanium armour tub removed, giving it an adequate performance at altitude. The Frogfoot attacked from the port side, aiming at the cockpit, with a view to killing or disabling the pilots. The radios were jammed again. An armed Ukrainian intelligence officer was in Kiev ATC, making sure the plane was funnelled into the war zone. It shouldn't have been anywhere near where it shot down. Listening to some commentators you would think the Russian rebels had set up their own ATC and were controlling their airspace.

Exit holes from the cannon (23 mil from memory) are visible in the wreckage. The Russian rebels were trapped into acquiring a Buk, but they had a launcher only without radar, making it useless for a high-altitude interception. They also lacked the arming codes, without which a Buk cannot be fired, in short they are blameless.

Some intellectually dishonest commentators alighted on the service ceiling of the Su-25, ignoring both the argument that it had been lightened (it did not need armour to engage an unarmed civilian airliner) and official statements of the Russian Ministry of Defence, confirming that a -25 could reach MH17's altitude on combat power, and could maintain that FL for about 10 minutes. That makes sense - one always has to be wary of published performance figures for military kites. Are the figures for combat power, or are they sustainable?

The target was clearly the Russian government, and President Putin, a nice man I gather, in particular. My assessment of the shoot-down is I believe shared by the GRU. My published commentary on http://www.VeteransToday.com was monitored in Russia, indeed I copied my articles on MH17 to a nice, retired GRU colonel as a courtesy, who happens to know the president.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

777Jet wrote:

.
2) While you are here, what is your version of MH17? I mean, who do you think shot it down? Who gave the orders? Who pressed the button? Russia? Ukraine?

He was way ahead of you there.

Spyhunter wrote:

MH17 was shot down by the Chinese version of the Buk, a Chinese crew having flown into a Ukrainian air base in the 7 days prior to the crash, I believe in an IL-96. They had been practising high-altitude interceptions for weeks before that. In order to make sure the plane made the kill zone, which was tightly confined due to the need to blame the Russian rebels and by implication President Putin, the aircraft was attacked by a Ukrainian Su-25 fitted with an upgraded radar and fire-control system, with its titanium armour tub removed, giving it an adequate performance at altitude. The Frogfoot attacked from the port side, aiming at the cockpit, with a view to killing or disabling the pilots. The radios were jammed again. An armed Ukrainian intelligence officer was in Kiev ATC, making sure the plane was funnelled into the war zone. It shouldn't have been anywhere near where it shot down. Listening to some commentators you would think the Russian rebels had set up their own ATC and were controlling their airspace.

Exit holes from the cannon (23 mil from memory) are visible in the wreckage. The Russian rebels were trapped into acquiring a Buk, but they had a launcher only without radar, making it useless for a high-altitude interception. They also lacked the arming codes, without which a Buk cannot be fired, in short they are blameless.

Some intellectually dishonest commentators alighted on the service ceiling of the Su-25, ignoring both the argument that it had been lightened (it did not need armour to engage an unarmed civilian airliner) and official statements of the Russian Ministry of Defence, confirming that a -25 could reach MH17's altitude on combat power, and could maintain that FL for about 10 minutes. That makes sense - one always has to be wary of published performance figures for military kites. Are the figures for combat power, or are they sustainable?

The target was clearly the Russian government, and President Putin, a nice man I gather, in particular. My assessment of the shoot-down is I believe shared by the GRU. My published commentary on http://www.VeteransToday.com was monitored in Russia, indeed I copied my articles on MH17 to a nice, retired GRU colonel as a courtesy, who happens to know the president.

Thanks for that.

I remember reading that now; have no idea why I forgot