SWAG semi wild ass guess....missing plane

[Will Robinson]

I'm betting, after some negotiations, we see the plane, loaded with the hostages, being flown to a western location for a supposed release.
However, instead of releasing them the plane (loaded with explosives..or worse) alters course and is shot down or it hits a populated target... either way the terrorists win a big round.

[callmeslick]

so far, they've speculated every path short of near-Earth orbit for that plane. Very odd.

[woodchip]

I predict the CIA does up a cartoon showing the plane auto-piloted into the sea. When it does fly into a building they will say all the witness's are mistaken.

[callmeslick]

it must suck to live in such day-to-day paranoia.

[woodchip]

Must suk to be a Ostrich.

[Tunnelcat]

I'm betting, after some negotiations, we see the plane, loaded with the hostages, being flown to a western location for a supposed release.
However, instead of releasing them the plane (loaded with explosives..or worse) alters course and is shot down or it hits a populated target... either way the terrorists win a big round.

Ya know, I thought of that same scenario. But if the final objective of these guys was to hit another building somewhere, why didn't they just go and fly to Kuala Lumpur and crash the plane into the Petronas Towers or something? They were already close to Malaysia and the Malaysian military pretty much ignored those mysterious radar returns they were getting after the plane went silent and recrossed the Malaysian Peninsula on it's way southwest.

[Will Robinson]

I'm betting, after some negotiations, we see the plane, loaded with the hostages, being flown to a western location for a supposed release.
However, instead of releasing them the plane (loaded with explosives..or worse) alters course and is shot down or it hits a populated target... either way the terrorists win a big round.

Ya know, I thought of that same scenario. But if the final objective of these guys was to hit another building somewhere, why didn't they just go and fly to Kuala Lumpur and crash the plane into the Petronas Towers or something? They were already close to Malaysia and the Malaysian military pretty much ignored those mysterious radar returns they were getting after the plane went silent and recrossed the Malaysian Peninsula on it's way southwest.

Because they can do better than a lesser scale of the 9/11 attack!
Hostages.
You announce you have them and you make a demand of some leader of what ever nation/s you want to terrorize...a relatively benign demand that will be at least initially agreed to.

For example you demand to meet a representative of the U.S. in person and you stipulate that they will have to agree to accept your written manifesto of grievances and publish it.
For that you will turn over the plane load of hostages. You go into lots of detail about landing and how you demand lots of media there to witness it....discussions of when you will open the plane up to them after you get your 15 minutes in front of the camera etc.
Make it all quite believable.

So, they agree to do that much and a location is chosen...say Paris....now you load the plane with dirty radioactive material or a real nuke and the hostages...


You either deviate from your approach to Charles De Gaulle Airport at the last minute and blow yourself up in the center of Paris if you have the dirty material on board, or some French politician has to grow the stones in a hurry to shoot you down...over Paris anyway most likely by the time he gives the order.... or, if you have the nuke do the press conference on the tarmac and then close it by shouting into the TV camera "Allahu Akbar!" and push the button on the nuke.



Much bigger than what you were thinking of.
Terrorist 1....Western Forces 0
Paris closed indefinitely for remodeling....

[woodchip]

Look at it this way Will. A lot of snobby French waiters won't be serving dinner any more.

[snoopy]

My (somewhat unrelated) theory:

The NSA/CIA either know exactly where the plane is or at least have a darn good idea, and just can't tell us because they'd have to reveal their super-ultra spy tech that allows them to know everything about everything.

Someone in the national security world has to have thought of writing a program that uses satellite data to go back and trace the path of a target given identification of the target at some starting point.

[callmeslick]

to the panic-stricken above: I wasn't here on the board back in 2001/2002, but I'll state what I did then, elsewhere:

If you're going to jump to dire conclusions at every puzzling event in the skies, or the seas or even over dry land, the terrorists have essentially won. When it gets to where you are simply waiting for the next terrible event to occur, the terrorists have won. When you govern your nation from the standpoint of security before all else, the terrorists have won.

[Will Robinson]

I'm not seeing any sign of panic stricken people in the posts above slick. Can you elaborate on why you posted what you did? You seem to be a bit prematurely over anxious about our discussion.

[woodchip]

to the panic-stricken above: I wasn't here on the board back in 2001/2002, but I'll state what I did then, elsewhere:

If you're going to jump to dire conclusions at every puzzling event in the skies, or the seas or even over dry land, the terrorists have essentially won. When it gets to where you are simply waiting for the next terrible event to occur, the terrorists have won. When you govern your nation from the standpoint of security before all else, the terrorists have won.

Dire conclusions? We are merely postulating what might of happened. Terrorist have won nothing here. It is human nature to discuss events. Only by sharing information will we get a better understanding of what happened. Take your fear mongering elsewhere.

[Tunnelcat]

Because they can do better than a lesser scale of the 9/11 attack!
Hostages.
You announce you have them and you make a demand of some leader of what ever nation/s you want to terrorize...a relatively benign demand that will be at least initially agreed to.

For example you demand to meet a representative of the U.S. in person and you stipulate that they will have to agree to accept your written manifesto of grievances and publish it.
For that you will turn over the plane load of hostages. You go into lots of detail about landing and how you demand lots of media there to witness it....discussions of when you will open the plane up to them after you get your 15 minutes in front of the camera etc.
Make it all quite believable.

So, they agree to do that much and a location is chosen...say Paris....now you load the plane with dirty radioactive material or a real nuke and the hostages...


You either deviate from your approach to Charles De Gaulle Airport at the last minute and blow yourself up in the center of Paris if you have the dirty material on board, or some French politician has to grow the stones in a hurry to shoot you down...over Paris anyway most likely by the time he gives the order.... or, if you have the nuke do the press conference on the tarmac and then close it by shouting into the TV camera "Allahu Akbar!" and push the button on the nuke.



Much bigger than what you were thinking of.
Terrorist 1....Western Forces 0
Paris closed indefinitely for remodeling....

Well, these guys must have slept through the part of their instructions where any plan made should be effing KISS simple. They got control of the plane, check. The military was asleep at the switch and ignored their radar, check. There was one of the tallest buildings in the world sitting right in front of their noses, check. A no brainer and simple to follow. I guess we should be thankful these idiot jihadists tend to come up with idiotic plans that are so complicated and convoluted, they tend to screw up and fail epically, thankfully. Unfortunately, these guys did something right enough that they got away with hiding or destroying an entire airliner and a load of innocent people.

[woodchip]

Anyone think that the Muslim knife attack in China a week earlier might be part of this?

[snoopy]

Alternate theory: They all decided to join the Dharma initiative.

[callmeslick]

I'm betting, after some negotiations, we see the plane, loaded with the hostages, being flown to a western location for a supposed release.
However, instead of releasing them the plane (loaded with explosives..or worse) alters course and is shot down or it hits a populated target... either way the terrorists win a big round.

This, Will, is the 'panic-stricken' approach I was referring to. Highlighted are the words that move this from 'just speculating'(which, of course, you are) to near certainty in your mind. Now, mind you, I'm just judging the words, not your intent, but that is how I read it.

[Will Robinson]

I'm betting, after some negotiations, we see the plane, loaded with the hostages, being flown to a western location for a supposed release.
However, instead of releasing them the plane (loaded with explosives..or worse) alters course and is shot down or it hits a populated target... either way the terrorists win a big round.

This, Will, is the 'panic-stricken' approach I was referring to. Highlighted are the words that move this from 'just speculating'(which, of course, you are) to near certainty in your mind. Now, mind you, I'm just judging the words, not your intent, but that is how I read it.

You are completely projecting emotion on to me that absolutely isn't there. You cant take the words by themselves and then assign a characterization that requires emotion and intent and then insulate yourself from your charges with a claim you aren't judging the person or the intent! "Words" don't have intent or an approach. People do.

It was a simple thought exercise. When I heard the radical pilot/s had done this I simply speculated on what I thought the worst thing they could do with any reasonable chance of success. Please note the topic title: SWAG....within the context of a semi wild ass guess I made a bet on what will happen. You tried to turn it into something else.

_Not_ thinking about possibilities like that, or stifling them, would be much more of an emotional failure than recognizing them is. Like someone in denial, or frozen with fear.

I gave no indication that I thought it was a certain outcome as you claim. "I'm betting" clearly indicates I'm not certain...by definition I imply it could go another way. That and the "panic stricken" component is completely your fabrication...a characterization that is a product of nothing but your own bias at work. You have nothing to base that assessment on except your own emotional reaction to my speculation.

[Top Gun]

There's absolutely no evidence thus far that what happened here was terrorism-related, but with the story getting crazier as every day goes by it almost wouldn't surprise me. From what we do know, I have to believe that the intent was to land elsewhere, and for all we know it actually did. Who knows, maybe the passengers figured out they were being hijacked and decided to pull a Flight 93.

[Spidey]

Who knows, maybe the passengers figured out they were being hijacked and decided to pull a Flight 93.

There is absolutely no evidence of that…

[Top Gun]

Of course not, but I'm still counting it as more likely than a rip-off of the plot of Air Force One.

[woodchip]

I'm betting, after some negotiations, we see the plane, loaded with the hostages, being flown to a western location for a supposed release.
However, instead of releasing them the plane (loaded with explosives..or worse) alters course and is shot down or it hits a populated target... either way the terrorists win a big round.

This, Will, is the 'panic-stricken' approach I was referring to. Highlighted are the words that move this from 'just speculating'(which, of course, you are) to near certainty in your mind. Now, mind you, I'm just judging the words, not your intent, but that is how I read it.

Slick, postulating and panic are two different words

[Tunnelcat]

There's absolutely no evidence thus far that what happened here was terrorism-related, but with the story getting crazier as every day goes by it almost wouldn't surprise me. From what we do know, I have to believe that the intent was to land elsewhere, and for all we know it actually did. Who knows, maybe the passengers figured out they were being hijacked and decided to pull a Flight 93.

It's sure starting to like a deliberate act by at least one of the original pilots. That left hand turn was done my entering a command into the flight computer, which then proceeded to fly towards a new waypoint, something that could have only been accomplished by someone who knew how to operate the flight computer. It also appears that the plane came down to a low altitude in an attempt to avoid radar. Several people reported hearing and seeing the lights of a large aircraft flying very low that night.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sible.html

As for dealing with the passengers and preventing a Flight 93 response, the cockpit door was hardened against terrorists. All the pilots had to do was lock it.

[callmeslick]

the level of speculation/postulation/panic/sheer guesswork about this incident is hilarious to read, were it not so deadly serious. Not just for the folks on the plane, and those awaiting them in China. One has to be taken aback that after a decade of worldwide focus on 'security', we, collectively, cannot locate(or even determine the path of) a large commercial airliner. And, it's been nearly two weeks of cluelessness.

[Tunnelcat]

Ya know what should come out of all this? Airliner manufacturers will need to install a permanent GPS tracking system that cannot be shut off by anyone in the aircraft, period. It will have to be fully active and broadcasting it's position every the time the aircraft is in the air, engines running or not. It'll cost the airlines money, but this whole situation has shown us that we need to keep track of an airliner once it's in the air. We can no longer fully trust seasoned pilots to do their job, keep their passengers safe and not go all jihadist at a moments notice. The world has gotten too crazy.

[Z..]

Gotta agree with you there TC. Why do they still allow transponders to be turned off in the cabin? At what point, in a commercial airliner, would it ever be necessary to turn off the locating device?

I heard Obama hired some of his Muslim brethren to hijack the plane so that we would all be forced to buy supplemental injury-via-airplane-hijacking insurance from the federal government. Don't know about you guys, but I feel that it should be a state by state decision to offer that type of insurance.

[woodchip]

One has to be taken aback that after a decade of worldwide focus on 'security', we, collectively, cannot locate(or even determine the path of) a large commercial airliner. And, it's been nearly two weeks of cluelessness.

This part is where the panic enters the conversation. If the intent is to use the plane at some future date then it has to be at a airport with a mile long runway. As such a sovereign country would have to know where it is at.

[snoopy]

Ya know what should come out of all this? Airliner manufacturers will need to install a permanent GPS tracking system that cannot be shut off by anyone in the aircraft, period. It will have to be fully active and broadcasting it's position every the time the aircraft is in the air, engines running or not. It'll cost the airlines money, but this whole situation has shown us that we need to keep track of an airliner once it's in the air.

I have a hard time believing that it would be possible to make something that would really be all that hard to circumvent. You might force someone to land the plane to disable it... or modify things before taking off to give themselves the ability to switch it off, but you won't succeed in making a transponder that simply can't be disabled when active communication with the outside world is required.

[vision]

I heard Obama hired some of his Muslim brethren to hijack the plane so that we would all be forced to buy supplemental injury-via-airplane-hijacking insurance from the federal government. Don't know about you guys, but I feel that it should be a state by state decision to offer that type of insurance.

This is gold. I award you 5 Internetz.

[callmeslick]

maybe someone took the plane for a planned voyage by all the known climate scientists who DON'T accept the notion of human effects upon global climate change. There would be empty seats on that flight!

seriously, this one is a puzzle, and speaks to a really dubious job of tracking by ALL of the states in the region.

[Tunnelcat]

Ya know what should come out of all this? Airliner manufacturers will need to install a permanent GPS tracking system that cannot be shut off by anyone in the aircraft, period. It will have to be fully active and broadcasting it's position every the time the aircraft is in the air, engines running or not. It'll cost the airlines money, but this whole situation has shown us that we need to keep track of an airliner once it's in the air.

I have a hard time believing that it would be possible to make something that would really be all that hard to circumvent. You might force someone to land the plane to disable it... or modify things before taking off to give themselves the ability to switch it off, but you won't succeed in making a transponder that simply can't be disabled when active communication with the outside world is required.

There already is a system. That's the "ping" those satellites were picking up. Malaysian Airlines just happens to NOT be subscribing to the service, so the plane's system was only pinging those satellites instead of sending out actual data. You'll notice that the pilots probably knew nothing about it either, because even though they went through all the trouble of evading radar, we still have a 2 direction estimation, instead of nothing, as to which direction they probably went.

[Will Robinson]

Snoopy mentioned the likely hood that some entities have a better idea than they are willing to let on since telling what they are able detect would give away some of their capability. My inner voice-optimist says I should put some blind faith in that.

[snoopy]

There already is a system. That's the "ping" those satellites were picking up. Malaysian Airlines just happens to NOT be subscribing to the service, so the plane's system was only pinging those satellites instead of sending out actual data. You'll notice that the pilots probably knew nothing about it either, because even though they went through all the trouble of evading radar, we still have a 2 direction estimation, instead of nothing, as to which direction they probably went.

Yeah... my point is that communicating via radio is a relatively hard thing to do, so it's also not that hard to mess it up. If you make a big deal about some mandatory system you also alert the terrorists to the need to worry about disabling it.

When you get into active radar (like the military radar) it gets a lot harder to hide because the target generates a return whether it likes it or not.