Malaysia Airlines Flight Goes Missing En Route to China

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to see that lately more international newspapers are sharing the conspiracy theory that the plane landed somewhere as a possibility albeit farfetched.

There has never been a plane that did not break up on impact with the water. They would have found something, I would think. I believe it has landed

[Anonymous]

Any result from the underwater sonar search??

[Anonymous]

It's amazing to me how many people don't understand how vast and uncharted the oceans are. Let alone severe weather events that occur in the oceans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any result from the underwater sonar search??

The device that scans the ocean floor, did not find anything in the initial designated search area. The pings have stopped, and the search area has been shifted/expanded.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe CNN has stopped with their: Breaking News! Debris was just trash! Breaking News! The families of those on the plane are upset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how many people don't understand how vast and uncharted the oceans are. Let alone severe weather events that occur in the oceans.

We just think of it as a big lake

[Anonymous]

The Atlantic has a new piece by Ari Schulman refuting the Inmarsat data leading them to claim the plane's location. "Why the official explanation of MH370's demise doesn't hold up." (I can't figure out how to link from phone.) Schulman will be interviewed by Wolf Blitzer at 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Atlantic has a new piece by Ari Schulman refuting the Inmarsat data leading them to claim the plane's location. "Why the official explanation of MH370's demise doesn't hold up." (I can't figure out how to link from phone.) Schulman will be interviewed by Wolf Blitzer at 1.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/why-the-official-explanation-of-mh370s-demise-doesnt-hold-up/361826/

[Anonymous]

ok I skimmed the article but don't have time to read it. I see that they think searchers might be in the wrong ocean. Are they saying that the plane might have gone north? That it's in the ocean in the north, or does this article imply that the theory that the plane could have landed in a pre-determined location is back on the table?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ok I skimmed the article but don't have time to read it. I see that they think searchers might be in the wrong ocean. Are they saying that the plane might have gone north? That it's in the ocean in the north, or does this article imply that the theory that the plane could have landed in a pre-determined location is back on the table?

I skimmed, too. And have no science background, but don't think they proposed an alternative flight path. They just indicate that the math doesn't support the flight path presented on the north/south arcs. They also question who verified these flight paths and what methods were used.

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't some of the debris have washed up on shore somewhere?

[Anonymous]

That area of the world is extremely remote.

Plus, I do not know the direction of the ocean currents in the suspected area where the plane went in. But if the currents head south, the debris could have headed to Antarctica. Not much chance it would be noticed down there. At least, not by humans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ok I skimmed the article but don't have time to read it. I see that they think searchers might be in the wrong ocean. Are they saying that the plane might have gone north? That it's in the ocean in the north, or does this article imply that the theory that the plane could have landed in a pre-determined location is back on the table?

I skimmed, too. And have no science background, but don't think they proposed an alternative flight path. They just indicate that the math doesn't support the flight path presented on the north/south arcs. They also question who verified these flight paths and what methods were used.

Exactly, they are basically saying that the analysis of the ping data is wrong/completely flawed.

So, basically, we know where the plane was when it disappeared off radar and that it kept flying for hours after that because of the pings--but, no one has any idea where it was flying for those hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't some of the debris have washed up on shore somewhere?

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't some of the debris have washed up on shore somewhere?

Nope.

It may take months or decades. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-09/ten-most-famous-message-in-a-bottle-discoveries/5376040