|Quoting redadeco (Reply 24):|
Why terrorism as a 1st reason? I personally dismiss this theory. All the speculations on terrorism are centred on Uyghur muslims living in XinJiang province who currently have issues with the central Chinese government; however, why the h**k would they target the flag carrier of a Muslim country with presumably passengers sharing the same faith as them.
I would've considered terrorism as a possible route to explore if this was an Air China flight, for instance.
Terrorism on this flight because 2/3 of the passengers were Chinese. As for the Muslims who happened to have perished along with the Chinese if this were a terrorist act, well, unfortunately Muslims have killed more Muslims than non-Muslims in their fight against infidels and their government sponsors.
|Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 43):|
An aircraft can just not disappear, even if it is blown into pieces on 35000 ft altitude. There are too many items which floats in an aircraft. Once they will be able to find the crashsite, the picture will be clearer.
This is true, and would be even more plausible if the aircraft exploded in mid-air. My bet is that the airplane was taken in a nose dive into the ocean and impacted the water relatively intact. This would mitigate the amount of the debris field that would float in the water at the point where the flight ended.
|Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 82):|
1. Hijacking, so a voluntary shutoff of the transponder and then flying the aircraft (outside of PSR coverage) to an unknown (impact) location over the ocean.
I think a terrorist hijacking or pilot suicide are probably the most plausible explanations based on what is out there so far (and, yes, it's pure speculation on my part). But I don't think anyone would have made much effort to "fly" the plane once they took control of the cockpit.
|Quoting s5daw (Reply 97):|
Just remembered the USAF F-16 which crashed over Adriatic sea. The debris was found the next day IIRC and it took 3 days to find the pilot's body (he died during ejection). Adriatic sea is much smaller than gulf of thailand.
Not to mention that military flights are followed far more closely by their own military than civilian flights are. I'm sure the F-16's point of impact was known pretty quickly, and it was just a matter of time before any remnants of it were picked up. Also, an F-16's footprint, intact or after a crash, would be far smaller than a 777.
|Quoting cbrboy (Reply 122):|
If correct, this information seems to end the terrorism theory involving the two people on stolen EU passports. They were earlier booked to the same destinations on QR and EY by the 'Iranian man' but the reservations lapsed when they weren't paid for.
Why does it end the terrorism theory? All it does is imply that the Iranian middleman might be completely innocent. It doesn't mean the two people who purchased the tickets from him didn't have nefarious motivations. They may simply have not procured the cash necessary for the purchase the first time around.
|Quoting SEPilot (Reply 136):|
I am thinking that the stolen passports are red herrings. Why would a terrorist need a stolen passport?
Because if they travel using their own true identities it might raise a red flag? Especially if their names are on some government's watch list.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.