Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Netflix has a history of making these documentaries with missing information. What time did the call come in from the daughter of the passenger? What did the cell phone data show? 200+ people on that plane where was the last place the phones towers pinged (someone had to have their phone on during the flight). The plane is in the ocean where the last phones pinged.

6+ countries don't have this plane on radar? 2 AWACS planes in the same area at the same time didn't capture any information about this plane? We have satellite that can read the time on your wrist watch yet no ONE, NO ONE has any data on the flight of this plane? Think logically. Something stinks here.

The US waits 2+ years to say the pilot had a similar route on his flight simulation software at home?

The fact that the pilot has to go underneath the plane to turn off visibility makes me think the suicide thing didn't happen. If he were trying to kill everyone he can wouldn't he crash into a population building or place on land not in the ocean?

China, Russia and the US know a lot more than they are saying.

I felt like this wasn't head-on addressed in the Netflix documentary. They seemed to kind of allude to it, talk about the electronics center in the belly of the plane, and then move on. So...could you turn off the signals from the cockpit or not?

Yes you can. They were just trying to show it didn't HAVE to be the pilot.

It was the pilot.

No you misunderstood, they covered this in the show you can only turn it off underneath not from the cockpit.

That's not the way I heard it. We need an expert in the 777 to enlighten us!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Netflix has a history of making these documentaries with missing information. What time did the call come in from the daughter of the passenger? What did the cell phone data show? 200+ people on that plane where was the last place the phones towers pinged (someone had to have their phone on during the flight). The plane is in the ocean where the last phones pinged.

6+ countries don't have this plane on radar? 2 AWACS planes in the same area at the same time didn't capture any information about this plane? We have satellite that can read the time on your wrist watch yet no ONE, NO ONE has any data on the flight of this plane? Think logically. Something stinks here.

The US waits 2+ years to say the pilot had a similar route on his flight simulation software at home?

The fact that the pilot has to go underneath the plane to turn off visibility makes me think the suicide thing didn't happen. If he were trying to kill everyone he can wouldn't he crash into a population building or place on land not in the ocean?

China, Russia and the US know a lot more than they are saying.

I felt like this wasn't head-on addressed in the Netflix documentary. They seemed to kind of allude to it, talk about the electronics center in the belly of the plane, and then move on. So...could you turn off the signals from the cockpit or not?

Yes you can. They were just trying to show it didn't HAVE to be the pilot.

It was the pilot.

No you misunderstood, they covered this in the show you can only turn it off underneath not from the cockpit.

I recall that we knew fairly early into this that the pilot had run the same route on his simulator that MH470 ended up taking.

Under that theory, no cell reception because over the ocean, so no passengers could call during the 15 min of oxygen. Pilot has more, so he goes, what, 30 min and then passes out, then dies. So there is not 6 hours of him piloting the plane until it runs out of fuel.

It seems like a straightforward theory.

The other straightforward theory is that there was some batteries or something in the cargo that blew up, so the pilot had no time to communicate with anyone. If so, that would be en route, in that body of water by Vietnam.


Do we know for sure that they've found a signal in the Indian Ocean? That would distinguish between these two theories.

PP-Which theory do you think is the truth?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Netflix has a history of making these documentaries with missing information. What time did the call come in from the daughter of the passenger? What did the cell phone data show? 200+ people on that plane where was the last place the phones towers pinged (someone had to have their phone on during the flight). The plane is in the ocean where the last phones pinged.

6+ countries don't have this plane on radar? 2 AWACS planes in the same area at the same time didn't capture any information about this plane? We have satellite that can read the time on your wrist watch yet no ONE, NO ONE has any data on the flight of this plane? Think logically. Something stinks here.

The US waits 2+ years to say the pilot had a similar route on his flight simulation software at home?

The fact that the pilot has to go underneath the plane to turn off visibility makes me think the suicide thing didn't happen. If he were trying to kill everyone he can wouldn't he crash into a population building or place on land not in the ocean?

China, Russia and the US know a lot more than they are saying.

I felt like this wasn't head-on addressed in the Netflix documentary. They seemed to kind of allude to it, talk about the electronics center in the belly of the plane, and then move on. So...could you turn off the signals from the cockpit or not?

Yes you can. They were just trying to show it didn't HAVE to be the pilot.

It was the pilot.

Anonymous wrote:PP back to add, that i forgot to say how rich it is for him to say: "If Malaysia were a country where, in official circles, the truth was welcome..."

GMAFB. No government is prone to absolute truth. None.

Sorry -- I clearly am pushing "post" before I'm finished. The data is from the US and came two years later. If they welcomed truth, wouldn't they have released it sooner? Who even knows if it's true. They could make anything up to serve their narrative. That is all, for now.

PP back to add, that i forgot to say how rich it is for him to say: "If Malaysia were a country where, in official circles, the truth was welcome..."

GMAFB. No government is prone to absolute truth. None.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finished it.

The biggest data point debunking Russian involvement is that the guy who made that claim is still alive. The second biggest is that the Russian nationals that he speculates could have been involved are not publicly identified. The identity of the Skripal poisoners was publicly released after Bellingcat dug into it. There's no way that something similar would not have happened here.

Everyone talks about the pilot being a great guy and how he couldn't do this, but I'd expect his loved ones, colleagues, and in this case, employer, to say that. And there's an element of mental self-preservation there as well.

I felt like there were a lot of things presented in this as established facts, but then I kept wondering where I missed how it was established. The AWACS planes being the main one. Seems like the source for that is the mysterious guy the French survivor met? Even if the US wouldn't officially confirm it I'd think that's another fact that could probably be proven via open source. They have to take off and land from somewhere - and we only have 31 of them?

I first posted that I think the pilot did it, and I still think that. Lots of reasons, but one of the main ones is that no one has come forward in 10 years with any knowledge that has panned out. You can shut a few people up here and there, but not the amount of people you would need to keep quiet if Russians landed the plane in Kazakhstan or it was shot down. Neither of those things happens in a vacuum and someone or many someones would have come forward.

The Atlantic article really disputes this. Pilot had some issues. The Malaysian government actually had the biggest incentive to cover things up - I believe it's a gov't owned airline and they did not want people thinking their citizens/pilots are nuts.

What issues did they pilot have?

From the article:


It is the captain, Zaharie, who raises concerns. The first warning is his portrayal in the official reports as someone beyond reproach—a good pilot and placid family man who liked to play with a flight simulator. This is the image promoted by Zaharie’s family, but it is contradicted by multiple indications of trouble that too obviously have been brushed over.

The Malaysian police report held back on divulging what was known about the captain, Zaharie. No one was surprised.
The police discovered aspects of Zaharie’s life that should have caused them to dig more deeply. The formal conclusions they drew were inadequate. The official account, referring to Zaharie as the PIC, or pilot in command, had this to say:

The PIC’s ability to handle stress at work was reported to be good. There was no known history of apathy, anxiety, or irritability. There were no significant changes in his lifestyle, interpersonal conflict, or family stresses … There were no behavioral signs of social isolation, change of habits or interest … On studying the PIC’s behavioral pattern on the CCTV [at the airport] on the day of the flight and prior 3 flights, there were no significant behavioral changes observed. On all the CCTV recordings the appearance was similar, i.e. well-groomed and attired. The gait, posture, facial expressions and mannerisms were his normal characteristics.
This was either irrelevant or at odds with what was knowable about Zaharie. The truth, as I discovered after speaking in Kuala Lumpur with people who knew him or knew about him, is that Zaharie was often lonely and sad. His wife had moved out, and was living in the family’s second house. By his own admission to friends, he spent a lot of time pacing empty rooms waiting for the days between flights to go by. He was also a romantic. He is known to have established a wistful relationship with a married woman and her three children, one of whom was disabled, and to have obsessed over two young internet models, whom he encountered on social media, and for whom he left Facebook comments that apparently did not elicit responses. Some were shyly sexual. He mentioned in one comment, for example, that one of the girls, who was wearing a robe in a posted photo, looked like she had just emerged from a shower. Zaharie seems to have become somewhat disconnected from his earlier, well-established life. He was in touch with his children, but they were grown and gone. The detachment and solitude that can accompany the use of social media—and Zaharie used social media a lot—probably did not help. There is a strong suspicion among investigators in the aviation and intelligence communities that he was clinically depressed.


If Malaysia were a country where, in official circles, the truth was welcome, then the police portrait of Zaharie as a healthy and happy man would carry some weight. But Malaysia is not such a country, and the official omission of evidence to the contrary only adds to all the other evidence that Zaharie was a troubled man.

Forensic examinations of Zaharie’s simulator by the FBI revealed that he experimented with a flight profile roughly matching that of MH370—a flight north around Indonesia followed by a long run to the south, ending in fuel exhaustion over the Indian Ocean. Malaysian investigators dismissed this flight profile as merely one of several hundred that the simulator had recorded. That is true, as far as it goes, which is not far enough. Victor Iannello, an engineer and entrepreneur in Roanoke, Virginia, who has become another prominent member of the Independent Group and has done extensive analysis of the simulated flight, underscores what the Malaysian investigators ignored. Of all the profiles extracted from the simulator, the one that matched MH370’s path was the only one that Zaharie did not run as a continuous flight—in other words, taking off on the simulator and letting the flight play out, hour after hour, until it reached the destination airport. Instead he advanced the flight manually in multiple stages, repeatedly jumping the flight forward and subtracting the fuel as necessary until it was gone. Iannello believes that Zaharie was responsible for the diversion. Given that there was nothing technical that Zaharie could have learned by rehearsing the act on a gamelike Microsoft consumer product, Iannello suspects that the purpose of the simulator flight may have been to leave a bread-crumb trail to say goodbye. Referring to the flight profile that MH370 would follow, Iannello said of Zaharie, “It’s as if he was simulating a simulation.” Without a note of explanation, Zaharie’s reasoning is impossible to know. But the simulator flight cannot easily be dismissed as a random coincidence.

Investigators in the aviation and intelligence communities are NOT trained in clinical diagnosis of depression. Anyone can see what they see what they want in hindsight. Besides, we all contain multitudes. Jeffrey Dahmer's neighbor said he was a great and helpful guy.

I don't know why there is so much credibility placed on the Independent group. They seem to be most closely following the US's stance. On the Netflix show it said that because route had been plotted manually, rather than flown, that it was less relevant. This article says the opposite. Also, as I posted above, if he did not show the extreme climb in elevation in this it seems worthless, since the entire plan hinges on this point being successful, otherwise he has a 238 angry people ready to take him down in a minute.

This kind of suicide would be such an outlier compared with other pilot suicides. It makes no sense. I think it's the least likely theory. He may have been involved, but if so, it was not a suicide mission.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the plane went missing, went off course and diverted from the intended flight path why wasn't fighter jets sent out?

None of this makes any sense. I think we are the only ones who don't know what happened to this plane, the US, Russia, Malaysia and China all know.

Nothing else makes any sense.

Vietnam didn't notice or didn't care that the airplane didn't enter their airspace. That's who should have first noticed.

That is odd and a good point. Their controllers would have been expecting this plane, so it's strange they didn't report it.

Totally and utterly untrue. You have zero clue how atc works.

Enlighten me

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just finished it.

The biggest data point debunking Russian involvement is that the guy who made that claim is still alive. The second biggest is that the Russian nationals that he speculates could have been involved are not publicly identified. The identity of the Skripal poisoners was publicly released after Bellingcat dug into it. There's no way that something similar would not have happened here.

Everyone talks about the pilot being a great guy and how he couldn't do this, but I'd expect his loved ones, colleagues, and in this case, employer, to say that. And there's an element of mental self-preservation there as well.

I felt like there were a lot of things presented in this as established facts, but then I kept wondering where I missed how it was established. The AWACS planes being the main one. Seems like the source for that is the mysterious guy the French survivor met? Even if the US wouldn't officially confirm it I'd think that's another fact that could probably be proven via open source. They have to take off and land from somewhere - and we only have 31 of them?

I first posted that I think the pilot did it, and I still think that. Lots of reasons, but one of the main ones is that no one has come forward in 10 years with any knowledge that has panned out. You can shut a few people up here and there, but not the amount of people you would need to keep quiet if Russians landed the plane in Kazakhstan or it was shot down. Neither of those things happens in a vacuum and someone or many someones would have come forward.

The Atlantic article really disputes this. Pilot had some issues. The Malaysian government actually had the biggest incentive to cover things up - I believe it's a gov't owned airline and they did not want people thinking their citizens/pilots are nuts.

What issues did they pilot have?

From the article:


It is the captain, Zaharie, who raises concerns. The first warning is his portrayal in the official reports as someone beyond reproach—a good pilot and placid family man who liked to play with a flight simulator. This is the image promoted by Zaharie’s family, but it is contradicted by multiple indications of trouble that too obviously have been brushed over.

The Malaysian police report held back on divulging what was known about the captain, Zaharie. No one was surprised.
The police discovered aspects of Zaharie’s life that should have caused them to dig more deeply. The formal conclusions they drew were inadequate. The official account, referring to Zaharie as the PIC, or pilot in command, had this to say:

The PIC’s ability to handle stress at work was reported to be good. There was no known history of apathy, anxiety, or irritability. There were no significant changes in his lifestyle, interpersonal conflict, or family stresses … There were no behavioral signs of social isolation, change of habits or interest … On studying the PIC’s behavioral pattern on the CCTV [at the airport] on the day of the flight and prior 3 flights, there were no significant behavioral changes observed. On all the CCTV recordings the appearance was similar, i.e. well-groomed and attired. The gait, posture, facial expressions and mannerisms were his normal characteristics.
This was either irrelevant or at odds with what was knowable about Zaharie. The truth, as I discovered after speaking in Kuala Lumpur with people who knew him or knew about him, is that Zaharie was often lonely and sad. His wife had moved out, and was living in the family’s second house. By his own admission to friends, he spent a lot of time pacing empty rooms waiting for the days between flights to go by. He was also a romantic. He is known to have established a wistful relationship with a married woman and her three children, one of whom was disabled, and to have obsessed over two young internet models, whom he encountered on social media, and for whom he left Facebook comments that apparently did not elicit responses. Some were shyly sexual. He mentioned in one comment, for example, that one of the girls, who was wearing a robe in a posted photo, looked like she had just emerged from a shower. Zaharie seems to have become somewhat disconnected from his earlier, well-established life. He was in touch with his children, but they were grown and gone. The detachment and solitude that can accompany the use of social media—and Zaharie used social media a lot—probably did not help. There is a strong suspicion among investigators in the aviation and intelligence communities that he was clinically depressed.


If Malaysia were a country where, in official circles, the truth was welcome, then the police portrait of Zaharie as a healthy and happy man would carry some weight. But Malaysia is not such a country, and the official omission of evidence to the contrary only adds to all the other evidence that Zaharie was a troubled man.

Forensic examinations of Zaharie’s simulator by the FBI revealed that he experimented with a flight profile roughly matching that of MH370—a flight north around Indonesia followed by a long run to the south, ending in fuel exhaustion over the Indian Ocean. Malaysian investigators dismissed this flight profile as merely one of several hundred that the simulator had recorded. That is true, as far as it goes, which is not far enough. Victor Iannello, an engineer and entrepreneur in Roanoke, Virginia, who has become another prominent member of the Independent Group and has done extensive analysis of the simulated flight, underscores what the Malaysian investigators ignored. Of all the profiles extracted from the simulator, the one that matched MH370’s path was the only one that Zaharie did not run as a continuous flight—in other words, taking off on the simulator and letting the flight play out, hour after hour, until it reached the destination airport. Instead he advanced the flight manually in multiple stages, repeatedly jumping the flight forward and subtracting the fuel as necessary until it was gone. Iannello believes that Zaharie was responsible for the diversion. Given that there was nothing technical that Zaharie could have learned by rehearsing the act on a gamelike Microsoft consumer product, Iannello suspects that the purpose of the simulator flight may have been to leave a bread-crumb trail to say goodbye. Referring to the flight profile that MH370 would follow, Iannello said of Zaharie, “It’s as if he was simulating a simulation.” Without a note of explanation, Zaharie’s reasoning is impossible to know. But the simulator flight cannot easily be dismissed as a random coincidence.

Anonymous wrote:Netflix has a history of making these documentaries with missing information. What time did the call come in from the daughter of the passenger? What did the cell phone data show? 200+ people on that plane where was the last place the phones towers pinged (someone had to have their phone on during the flight). The plane is in the ocean where the last phones pinged.

6+ countries don't have this plane on radar? 2 AWACS planes in the same area at the same time didn't capture any information about this plane? We have satellite that can read the time on your wrist watch yet no ONE, NO ONE has any data on the flight of this plane? Think logically. Something stinks here.

The US waits 2+ years to say the pilot had a similar route on his flight simulation software at home?

The fact that the pilot has to go underneath the plane to turn off visibility makes me think the suicide thing didn't happen. If he were trying to kill everyone he can wouldn't he crash into a population building or place on land not in the ocean?

China, Russia and the US know a lot more than they are saying.

I felt like this wasn't head-on addressed in the Netflix documentary. They seemed to kind of allude to it, talk about the electronics center in the belly of the plane, and then move on. So...could you turn off the signals from the cockpit or not?

Anonymous wrote:If you are piloting a plane and going to suicide and you want to take people with you, why wouldn't you fly it into a city or building?

I just can't imagine the pilot flying for 6 hours to down the plane in a suicide. Why wait that long?

I don't know, but he did "practice" the route on his at-home flight simulator. Perhaps it seemed poetic to him. Just fly until the fuel runs out, crash in an extremely remote area, never to be found. Mysterious and dramatic.

Anonymous wrote:According to Netflix, the pilot was doing home flight simulations of this exact scenario, flying off course, and running out of fuel over the SCS. They didn't spend a lot of time on it, but seems like there's the story right there.

+1

We’ve known this for a long time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the plane went missing, went off course and diverted from the intended flight path why wasn't fighter jets sent out?

None of this makes any sense. I think we are the only ones who don't know what happened to this plane, the US, Russia, Malaysia and China all know.

Nothing else makes any sense.

Vietnam didn't notice or didn't care that the airplane didn't enter their airspace. That's who should have first noticed.

That is odd and a good point. Their controllers would have been expecting this plane, so it's strange they didn't report it.

Totally and utterly untrue. You have zero clue how atc works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the plane went missing, went off course and diverted from the intended flight path why wasn't fighter jets sent out?

None of this makes any sense. I think we are the only ones who don't know what happened to this plane, the US, Russia, Malaysia and China all know.

Nothing else makes any sense.

Vietnam didn't notice or didn't care that the airplane didn't enter their airspace. That's who should have first noticed.

That is odd and a good point. Their controllers would have been expecting this plane, so it's strange they didn't report it.