I don't understand all this commotion about a pair of stolen passports. There are plenty of cases of identity fraud, also in aviation. Not to mention credit card fraud. In Europe (for example) there are a lot of flights where your passport isn't even checked at all, so you can book yourself with any non existing identity you want and no one will find out. As long as all passengers are security checked, it does not matter who's passport you carry as technically you can't bring anything hazardous onto the aircraft.

Martijn

All of you are speculating about the two people with stolen passports. However, there is one thing which is making the terrorist attack less plausible. No one has so far taken over responsibility for this attack. Terrorist groups will in most cases inform the media and take over responsability and claim it was them who made the attack almost immediately.

The fact that its more than 48 hours after the crash and noone has so far done so makes me think something else is behind this.

A major technical fault or a case simmilar to the LAM flight seem to be the only plausible IMHO.

Reports coming in that one of the doors of MH370 has been spotted by Vietnamese crew.

http://rt.com/news/malaysia-plane-missing-crash-766/ Shows as Breaking News

Quoting Tobias2702 (Reply 148): "Last year passengers were able to board planes more than a billion times without having their passports screened against INTERPOL's databases."

I think what is overlooked here is that while they might have been able to board undetected in Malaysia, the chances to get off the plane at AMS with a stolen pasport from a Schengen member state that is registered with Interpol were probably close to zero. Passports at AMS get scanned and most probably checked against a databse (every other day there are reports in the media how someone with a search warrant etc. was arrested when trying to pass border controls). If you are a drug mule, the most stupid thing you can probably do is to travel with a stolen passport and trying to enter the country from which the stolen passport originates ("Schengen" in our case). So it seems more than likely that those two gentlemen never intended to get off the plane in AMS. Which leads to the question if they intended to get off at PEK because as EU nationals they could - in theory - enter China on a 72h visa. Problem: They only had a 5h55min connection according to their ticket - so how likely is it that they would have gotten a transit visa with such a ticket? This is an honest question - I simply don't know.

If the booked ticket means that it is very unlikely that they were able to obtain a transit visa, it would suggest that they did not intend to get off at PEK either, using the transit visa. Then the only plausible theory to me appears to be that they did not intend to deplane in the old-fashioned way either at PEK or AMS... - unless they were idiots who were unaware that they would get arrested on arrival at AMS because of the use of stolen passports. The only explanation I can see is that they were asylum seekers who needed an EU passport to get on the plane to the EU visa-free. However, as their biometric passports identified them as caucasians it does not seem very plausible that caucasians tried to sneak into the EU from Asia on stolen passports to ask for asylum....

[Edited 2014-03-09 10:34:21]

Quoting marosbts (Reply 151): No one has so far taken over responsibility for this attack.

It has been stated many times before, in the 1000+ posts, that a group does not always claim an attack. Look at 9/11 for an example.

Just another possibility - perhaps they are looking in the wrong place. Everyone is assuming that the plane crashed at whatever moment contact was lost, and so that's the place where they are looking - where the plane was 40m-1h30m into its flight. But what if the plane was hijacked and they switched off the radios and the transponders. The plane could have headed in any direction and flown for several more hours before crashing into the sea somewhere else completely. All we know is that contact was lost at xx time. Whether the plane crashed at this time or continued flying we don't know.

Quoting CrimsonNL (Reply 150): I don't understand all this commotion about a pair of stolen passports. There are plenty of cases of identity fraud, also in aviation. Not to mention credit card fraud. In Europe (for example) there are a lot of flights where your passport isn't even checked at all, so you can book yourself with any non existing identity you want and no one will find out.

That's true. I've entered the EU multiple times without a stamp and I am definitely not the only one.

But this is a public forum and speculation is therefore inevitable and I mean no disrespect to the victims.

Quoting YokoTsuno (Reply 156): That's true. I've entered the EU multiple times without a stamp and I am definitely not the only one.

I never get stamped when entering the EU. That does not mean that my passport does not get scanned. Or what are they doing when they place your passport under those little black boxes and wait for a couple of seconds?

Quoting CrimsonNL (Reply 150): I don't understand all this commotion about a pair of stolen passports. There are plenty of cases of identity fraud, also in aviation. Not to mention credit card fraud. In Europe (for example) there are a lot of flights where your passport isn't even checked at all, so you can book yourself with any non existing identity you want and no one will find out. As long as all passengers are security checked, it does not matter who's passport you carry as technically you can't bring anything hazardous onto the aircraft.

Exactly!!! At last someone made this point. Although traveling on stolen passports or documents is a criminal activity, it nonetheless does not supersede in importance the issue of security check at the airport for passengers and baggage. As far as passenger safety is concerned even if two or more people board an aircraft with falsified documents, they and their checked in and carry on baggage MUST be screened successfully. Meaning the security check of passengers and baggage MUST be reliable and successful. You can always deal with the aspect of document fraud following law enforcement protocol as long as the person does not have anything suspicious on person or in their luggage.

AAExPlat...

I would think "Issuing agent: 35306611" has already been visited by the authorities, or will be visited very soon. Unless this was an online reservation...

I believe it's now exactly 48 hours since it was lost. Prayers and thoughts continue for the families and all those involved with MH 370.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 56): When I visited Malaysia (Penang) in 2008, we were strongly advised by the US State Dept. (and my brother in law whom we were visiting!) to avoid the area of the land border between Malaysia and Thailand, as it was quite dangerous and lawless. Not sure how and if things have changed since then...but I do recall seeing a few Thai vehicles driving around in Malaysia.

Well, I did that border run multiple times a year in the seventies through to the nineties. Forty years ago, it was as close to a no-man's land as you can get and gradually, I have witnessed its steady development to the bustling area it has become from about two decades ago. Even back then in the so-called lawless days, it was still very safe apart for the occasional holdups. Rest assured that the noughties are even more so (yes, I still traverse that area once in a few years between the nineties and now). You have been wrongly advised by the un-informed, the ill-informed and the mis-informed.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 63): That border is very safe compared with the US-Mexico border region...

Like our friend KELPkid above, I was also strongly advised and discouraged by my San Diego acquaintances when I visited them in (coincidentally) 2008, from carrying my intention to cross the border on foot to Tijuana to spend the night there. Guess what? I did go ahead anyway. But then again, it was only one single trip and someone up there might have been looking out for me.  

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 157): I never get stamped when entering the EU. That does not mean that my passport does not get scanned.

Probably. But I remember from a A.net thread about a year ago that this EU computer system has a lot of holes in it. The poster explaining the holes in the system wasn't just anybody but an airport immigration officer.

In fact I made the same remark as you and he (or she) explained in great detail why this scanning did not work.

[Edited 2014-03-09 10:40:01]

Quoting threepoint (Reply 140): We visit this site for accurate information (and to look at pretty pictures). If we want gossip and uneducated opinion, there are plenty of sources to which we can turn. It's fine to ask questions and pose theories here - and have them scrutinized by one's peers. But when we assert speculation (framing one's guesses as fact) while an investigation is in its infancy, we rapidly lose our personal credibility and that of this website. I find it unhelpful when a longtime member dismisses a call for responsibility by another contributor, and makes an aggressive challenge, as if this site were his own. I'll repeat what 'billreid' alluded to: we don't want to read any speculation. It might also mean that this thread would still be in Part 1...

     

I already posted twice in this set of threads asking for more or less the same thing - your wording is perhaps better then mine

I think that this thread is running so fast, that few are bothering to re-enter where they last left, and too many enter at the last thread for the first time, so there is too much avoidable repetition. My major bugbear is the endless/mindless speculation at all tangents, in the absence of actual hard facts! Too many of them so far fetched even Hollywood wouldn't!

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 153): If the booked ticket means that it is very unlikely that they were able to obtain a transit visa, it would suggest that they did not intend to get off at PEK either, using the transit visa. Then the only plausible theory to me appears to be that they did not intend to deplane in the old-fashioned way either at PEK or AMS... - unless they were idiots who were unaware that they would get arrested on arrival at AMS because of the use of stolen passports.

It has been stated here before. They could be illegal immigrants or more likely refugees (a Syrian could pretend to be an Italian in Malaysia or China with no major issue).

Completely off-topic:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2...-syrian-refugees-sneak-into-europe

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 153):

am i mistaken in saying that the two stolen passport passengers were booked on separate flights to Amsterdam from PEK?

if that's the case... Is there a chance this was a botched attack? As in, the target was actually those two flights?

or have i read those tickets completely incorrectly?

this of course, going down the terrorist path, which may not actually be the case...

Quoting liquidair (Reply 165): am i mistaken in saying that the two stolen passport passengers were booked on separate flights to Amsterdam from PEK?

Both were booked on the same KLM flight to AMS. From there one was going to CPH and the other to FRA.

Pardon me, but how likely is it that a Syrian refugee travels to Thailand, buys a stolen EU passport, buys a ticket KUL-PEK-AMS, crosses the land border into Malaysia and gets on the plane in KUL to get access to the EU?

Quoting btfarrwm (Reply 159): I would think "Issuing agent: 35306611" has already been visited by the authorities, or will be visited very soon. Unless this was an online reservation...

One thread back the issuing agent was identified as a travel agency in Pattaya, Thailand. Of course the Thai authorities are probably visiting them, but the Malaysians have no jurisdiction.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 103): However in this case for all a check-in agent knows, an ethnic Chinese with an Austrian passport might have been adopted as an infant and have an Austrian name.

If an ethnic Chinese wants to get on a flight with a fake identity in order to hijack or bomb out the plane, he will probably be smart enough to acquire a fake Chinese passport, rather than steal an Austrian passport and pretend to be an adopted Chinese. Now if the goal is to get to Europe and work there, the Austrian passport will of course be more helpful than the Chinese one.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 166):

thanks for that.. I thought the departure times were different. I only mentioned this because it would, in that respect, have been similar to the London 7/7 attacks where the group travelled to Luton together. Clearly not in any case!

[Edited 2014-03-09 10:48:51]

Quoting DJM18 (Reply 149): When in Transit through KUL does your carry on luggage get screened or are you effectively in an "international" part of the terminal where you can freely board a next international flight without any security screens?

In KUL you have screening of bags at the gate, and if in transit you will have to go threw immigration and then baggage screening at the gate.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 169): Now if the goal is to get to Europe and work there, the Austrian passport will of course be more helpful than the Chinese one.

Not sure - how could an ethnic Chinese pass for an Austrian caucasian whose biometric data and picture is in the stolen passport said Chinese wants to use to get to Europe? In such a scenario, it would certainly be smarter to use a forged rather than a stolen passport that has the right picture and data - alas, in times of biometric passports, this is not exactly easy to achieve.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 157): Or what are they doing when they place your passport under those little black boxes and wait for a couple of seconds?

They don't do alway that. By no means. I travel to the US and back 6 or 7 times per year. I typically enter Schengen in either FRA or MUC. I would say that 50% of the time they just have a look at my (Spanish) passport, then at my face, and then they hand my passport back to me. That's it. The other 50% of the times they might scan the passport.

Quoting Miami (Reply 73): The plane could've sank. But I'm pretty sure the people on board were told in case of a water landing, to find the nearest exit and where to find a life jacket. Evacuation rafts would also deploy.

It's highly unlikely that the plane would have made a "safe" landing given that it was the middle of the night. To me and given that we haven't found anything debris, it's far more likely that it did land, broke appart somewhat, and sank to the bottom with all its accupants still inside.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 167): Pardon me, but how likely is it that a Syrian refugee travels to Thailand, buys a stolen EU passport, buys a ticket KUL-PEK-AMS, crosses the land border into Malaysia and gets on the plane in KUL to get access to the EU?

Very improbable. You have to remember that they are a refugee. How are they going to get to Thailand? How will they afford the airfare to the EU? Won't alarm bells ring at EU Passport Control if a stolen passport is used? There are much easier ways to sneak into the EU. Why go to Thailand anyway. Why not Lebanon or someplace else that has stolen passports?

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 172): how could an ethnic Chinese pass for an Austrian caucasian whose biometric data and picture is in the stolen passport said Chinese wants to use to get to Europe?

The same way said ethnic Chinese managed to get in the KUL-PEK plane using said passport? If it's possible in KUL, it's possible in AMS. If you claim it's not possible in AMS, then it shouldn't have been possible in KUL either.

I don't wish to make any accusations or impugn anyone's character, but as long as we are speculating about possible causes I believe the possibility of a suicide by one of the pilots has to be considered. A very tough possibility to think of, but it would make sense-one pilot exits to use the restroom, the second pilot locks the door and pushes the nose down. Would explain the lack of distress call, and if the aircraft hit the water nose-down at a high rate of speed, it could also explain the lack of debris thus far.

Of course, this is just one of many endless possibilities.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 176): If you claim it's not possible in AMS, then it shouldn't have been possible in KUL either.

Common sense suggests that it is way more likely to be detected when using a stolen Schengen passport registered as such if you pass the Schengen border (AMS) than if you pass the Malaysian border (KUL).

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1): Much as I find it rather ridiculous the Flight 714 to Sydney scenario has a certain appeal to it.

I wonder if Laszlo Carriedas was on board MH370. But thank you for reminding me of childhood even though we are on a very sombre topic.

Quoting Coal (Reply 90): OK I saw it on satellite view. It's a 77W given the raked wingtips, looks like SQ.

Winglets and flap track fairings clearly make it an A330. An A330-300 to be more precise given its length being greater than its span.

Quoting CPDC10-30 (Reply 140): I'm not aware of a jetliner ever breaking up because of clear air turbulence.

G-APFE (BOAC 911) did precisely that.

With every passing hour I'm more than convinced that 9M-MRO isnt where they are looking for it...

brgds Vimanav

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 167): Pardon me, but how likely is it that a Syrian refugee travels to Thailand, buys a stolen EU passport, buys a ticket KUL-PEK-AMS, crosses the land border into Malaysia and gets on the plane in KUL to get access to the EU?

How likely is it for a pilot to hijack a plane and gamble with their lives and try to get an asylum in the West? Not to mention the idiot could just flee from Rome and get a train to Zuerich...

Despeare people do desperate things.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 174): It's highly unlikely that the plane would have made a "safe" landing given that it was the middle of the night. To me and given that we haven't found anything debris, it's far more likely that it did land, broke appart somewhat, and sank to the bottom with all its accupants still inside.

I agree. Would be a very small debris field, likely. A mid-air breakup would leave quite a sizeable debris field, and likely have many large parts floating around. I know some here have been saying a mid-air breakup would make the debris field so spaced out that it would be harder to find, but... a space-out debris field gives you many more opportunities to find SOMETHING, ANYTHING... and after 2 days, we have a single instance of something that could be, may be, something from a plane, but no way of confirming it for another 10 hours or so, at least, assuming a boat can find its way to the piece.

Quoting KFAY (Reply 177): I don't wish to make any accusations or impugn anyone's character, but as long as we are speculating about possible causes I believe the possibility of a suicide by one of the pilots has to be considered. A very tough possibility to think of, but it would make sense-one pilot exits to use the restroom, the second pilot locks the door and pushes the nose down. Would explain the lack of distress call, and if the aircraft hit the water nose-down at a high rate of speed, it could also explain the lack of debris thus far. Of course, this is just one of many endless possibilities.

I think that is a scenario that has to be seriously considered, given the progress of the search so far. It would lead to a very localized debris field. Now, I would think that in such a situation there could be some very large pieces that would break off and float with a large, flat side facing upwards, such as pieces of the wing or vertical stabilizer. No such pieces have been seen, but maybe they're out there.

Quoting penguins (Reply 175): It's highly unlikely that the plane would have made a "safe" landing given that it was the middle of the night. To me and given that we haven't found anything debris, it's far more likely that it did land, broke appart somewhat, and sank to the bottom with all its accupants still inside.

Even so, It should be relatively easy to find the wreckage - most of the Gulf of Thailand is shallow enough (60'-150', and a few spots as deep as 200') that if you were to stick a 777 into it vertically (or sideways, the 777 is roughly 200 feet wide by 200 feet long), large bits would stick out. One lying on the bottom should get picked up by a P-3's submarine detection gear with very little difficulty. Hell, the tail on that thing is 60 feet tall. This is not a small airplane by any stretch.

[Edited 2014-03-09 11:08:41]

So apparently, according to the woman on CNN, the Air France crash was flight 446, operated by an a340.  

I, at this point, do not believe it was terrorism. I think if it was, the cabin crew would have noticed something suspicious and/or reported something to the cockpit crew. In addition, I think the ETL would have gone off if it was terrorism due to the nature of the blast. I am no expert, though, and could be very wrong on that point. I would also have to imagine that there would have been enough time to squawk 7700.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 167): Pardon me, but how likely is it that a Syrian refugee travels to Thailand, buys a stolen EU passport, buys a ticket KUL-PEK-AMS, crosses the land border into Malaysia and gets on the plane in KUL to get access to the EU?

This is getting completely off-topic and hypothetical (which I somehow regret because it is certainly not the reason for this thread), but it is not that complicated.

Malaysia is one of the very few countries in the world where a Syrian can travel to Visa-free. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Syrian_citizens . Coincidentally, Thailand next door is the probably largest counterfeit passport market in the world, as it has been stated here before.

A Syrian citizen (and there are many of them working and living in Lebanon or the Gulf, so it wouldn't blink an eye a Syrian visiting Malaysia on holiday or business) could book a return flight to KUL from AMM or BEY (via DXB, AUH, DOH...). No questions in KUL as there is a return flight home and he can enter Visa free. Once in KUL and he could get the stolen modified passport, previously smuggled from Thailand by someone else, with a Malaysian Entry Stamp (easy to counterfeit). Someone else could have booked the ticket in Thailand, send the booking reference... and he is ready to fly to Europe.

Quoting penguins (Reply 175): Won't alarm bells ring at EU Passport Control if a stolen passport is used? There are much easier ways to sneak into the EU. Why go to Thailand anyway. Why not Lebanon or someplace else that has stolen passports?

Again, continuing this off-topic... if you are refugee... you just want to get to Europe. You are not going to be deported to your country under a civil war. Thailand has a thriving passport black market, Malaysia is easy to get to visa-wise... and it is probably less suspicious to fly via PEK than directly from BEY. Some of those people spend dozens of thousands of dollars and risk their lives in a boat to reach Europe... so certainly fly via KUL and PEK is a minor issue.

End of off-topic for me...

Quoting CyberEntomology (Reply 182): Even so, It should be relatively easy to find the wreckage

Do you realize how tiny a 777 is compared to the Gulf of Thailand?

After AF-447 and now MH-370 is there any plans by the manufacturers to introduce technology to have aircrafts automatically transmit short text messages on a continous basis (let's say every minute) that contain location, altitude and speed to the Airline's base? In this modern age with so much technology available a plane should not just go missing.

Quoting cipango (Reply 6): I thought I would do a quick recap for people that haven't read through the previous posts and show the most topics of debate/speculation: - The flight has supposedly gone down 40 mins into the flight rather than 2 hours in as previously reported. 2 hours is when Malaysia was informed of the plane going missing. - Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, USA, Philippines (and maybe China) are currently helping in the search effort. - The sea is only ~60m/100 ft deep where it has supposedly crashed. - 2 passengers were travelling with stolen passports and have purchased a ticket simultaneously as their E-ticket numbers were only one digit apart. They were flying KUL-PEK-AMS-CPH. - The passengers who have had their passports stolen said they were taken in Thailand over the last two years and they were supposedly older passports with no chip - simply speculation that part. - One Russian was stopped in KUL for using a stolen passport and was not allowed to board. - An oil slick has been spotted just off Vietnam but this has yet to be confined as a link to the flight. - Agent in KUL that did not spot the stolen passport is being questioned/charged. - SAR has spotted some objects in the sea which could be "Yellow Lifejackets" but this has recently been dismissed. This of course is not everything that has been discussed but I thought I would help some catch up rather than read through the 1500+ posts. Also it might help end repeat questions.

Thanks !

Quoting CyberEntomology (Reply 182): Even so, It should be relatively easy to find the wreckage - most of the Gulf of Thailand is shallow enough (60'-150', and a few spots as deep as 200') that if you were to stick a 777 into it vertically (or sideways, the 777 is roughly 200 feet wide by 200 feet long), large bits would stick out. One lying on the bottom should get picked up by a P-3's submarine detection gear with very little difficulty.

So, couple things to consider.

I asked about the clarity of the water there yesterday and a few posters said it wasn't particularly clear water. Also, depending on the depth, a 777 resting on its belly or on its top might not be that close to the surface, especially if part of the tail breaks off. What is the diameter of the fuselage? 20 feet? Not even 10 meters. That could still be 40+ meters of water above it, and if the water isn't that clear, might not be able to see anything...

Second, I forwarded that the P-3C we were sending could be using its MAD array to locate the plane. A few posters replied that there might not be enough ferro metallic metal in the plane to get a reasonable hit on a MAD array, though it's possible. I think you have to try any option at this point. The other problem with a MAD array, though, is that even if it gets a hit, it tells you nothing about the object. You still need to send someone out there to look at it.

I posted on another forum a bit ago, though, that I wonder if you do get a hit on the MAD array whether you could drop a passive sonobouy and listen for the sonic emission from the location transmitter. Might be of some help.

I am now thinking that the P-3C will be more used for higher-altitude visual scan than low-altitude passes with the MAD array.

Quoting KFAY (Reply 177):

Indeed, due to recent events (the LAM plane & Ethiopian hijack) this came into my mind when I first read about this accident...

Though based on things I've seen so far everything would point out that this plane was flown by very experienced and well respected crew. The captain even had his own 777 home flight simulator & RC planes, it seems like he clearly loved his job and aviation in general.

I don't feel this would be another case like LAM / Egypt Air crash, but of course there's no way to know until the black boxes are found...

Probably such a high speed impact could be as well caused by a structural failure of some kind, one that disables / seriously damages pilot's ability to control the aircraft, yet doesn't break the fuselage apart.

[Edited 2014-03-09 11:22:48]

Quoting MesaFlyGuy (Reply 183): So apparently, according to the woman on CNN, the Air France crash was flight 446, operated by an a340

Honestly, it's 1 number off. These people don't live and breath the topics they report on. They are just that; reporters. They convey information to a broad audience. She was probably reading from a teleprompter, anyway, so blame the guy or gal programming the teleprompter. Six and 7 are right next to each other on a keyboard (well, not if you use the num pad). Easy mistake to make.

Same with the 330 v.s. 340.

It's more than likely both were the result of a teleprompter typo.

Quoting CyberEntomology (Reply 182): One lying on the bottom should get picked up by a P-3's submarine detection gear with very little difficulty.

I hope so - but remember, submarines hulls (with the exception of a couple Soviet models) are made of steel. I'm not sure how effective the MAD booms will be at picking up non-ferrous metals.

Quoting hivue (Reply 186): Do you realize how tiny a 777 is compared to the Gulf of Thailand?

But shouldn't the emergency locator beacon help narrrow it down? That is the most puzzling aspect. Why aren't any distress signals being picked up?

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 148): We have biometric passports since a few years (I got my non-biometric one in 2009) and not every country has caught up. If Malaysia doesn't even check the Interpol database... well...

And we have biometric passport since 1998. No joke.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 193): Why aren't any distress signals being picked up?

Probably because either (a) no one is in range to receive a signal or (b) none is being transmitted by the aircraft.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 141): So please stop the crying and whipping about the speculation. This is an aviation site, and we speculate about the causes from the moment of impact until the Official Final Report is available.

I disagree. I come here to find the latest information, as well as educated discussion by knowledgeable people. When there is so much noise, it is hard to find that signal.

Even when nobody knows all the facts of the case, even while everybody is guessing, I can still learn useful things from people like Mandala. But too much of the discussion isn't as useful as that.

1500 posts, and I'm truly amazed NOBODY has suggested, well, Airport 1977.

If anybody wants to come up with 1500 reasons why this isn't the case, go ahead.

I think most evidences so far points into the direction of an in-flight explosion of some kind (not necessarily caused by an unlawful act). I do agree with earlier posters that the lack of debris found so far points against this assumption; but the fact that the ELT hasn't sent any transmissions in addition to losing the aircraft from the radar in a very short period of time indicates to me that something happened in flight and very fast.

I don't see any reason for anyone to turn off the transponder regardless of the intention being suicide or hi-jack.

I don't see the airplane breaking up for any kind of weather condition(s).

I don't see any "common" malfunction(s) which would not give the pilots enough time to send a distress call.

Wow, woke this morning to see the complete speculation and opinion carrying on. I am a bit surprised the sight moderators have let it carry on for so long. I love reading on this forum and keeping up with all the latest news events, BUT jeez honestly enough air has been expended to float a battleship......