What happened to MH370? All evidence points to a downing at approximately 1:21am on the morning of March 8, 2014, in the South China Sea – the only place in a 7 million square mile area authorities aren’t searching! The evidence below suggests they are deliberately avoiding the most likely location of the wreckage of MH370. But why? All the conspiracy theories the mainstream media has been offering up have been smoke and mirrors; all the evidence points to a simple cover-up of either a major crime or a major blunder.
Laying it out from the top…this is what happened in the initial moments of the crisis of Malaysia flight 370:
At 1:07am on March 8, a periodic scheduled ACARS-with-data transmission was sent by flight 370. Another ACARS-with-data was not expected until 1:37.
At 1:19am, one of the pilots radio communicated “Alright, good night.”
At 1:21am, flight 370 disappeared from radar after briefly registering a drop in altitude from 35,000 to 0 feet.
In the video below (start watching at 3:05), check out the data in the box on the left. Altitude is shown at 35,000 then drops to 0 feet shortly before the plane drops off radar. (There might be an explanation for the altitude to drop to zero in a crisis, but note, the data doesn’t simply zero out across the board – speed for example still registers.)
Viet Nam said there was debris seen including what looked like a plane door as well as two oil slicks consistent with two jet fuel tanks off its southern coast but it was too dark to land a plane nearby so the search was delayed. China released satellite images of debris nearby as well. The debris was reportedly never found and Malaysia dismissed the oil slick as coming from a sea vessel, but an oil rig worker gave detailed information on witnessing the plane going down at that location, as shown in his email below. In addition, seven villagers near Pulau Kapas off the east coast of Malaysia heard a loud noise at 1:20am that they reported to police and believed was related to flight 370. It’s a pretty widely accepted rule of thumb that when looking for something ALWAYS start with the last known location. For this reason, we would expect a thorough search to be conducted at the one location all this information points to: the South China Sea. Granted, the likelihood of finding the wreckage was low from the beginning, as reported immediately after the crash by The Wall Street Journal:
Two experts said that if the aircraft suffered damage at a high altitude, it may have disintegrated, and small parts of the plane could have been dispersed over a large area. “If it was a catastrophic event at cruise altitude, the debris field would be hard to detect. In theory, there would be no large sections of the airplane left intact.”
Regardless of the likelihood of finding the wreckage, surely it is standard procedure to search ground zero first. Yet with two weeks of 24/7 television “news” of an event with no new information, there has been no coverage of such a search. So why are authorities looking in a 7 million square mile area that does NOT include this relatively shallow, well-defined area in the South China Sea? The video below shows the bizarre map of the 7 million square mile search area which excludes the area the scant evidence points to.
Two bits of data have supposedly justified diverting the search from this location. They are: an unidentified object on Malaysia’s military radar which, if it was flight 370 (which is an assumption) would mean that flight 370 made a hard left. The other data are the satellite “pings” that the MSM is calling the “handshake” of the plane – this is an ACARS signal sent every hour from an antenna on the exterior of the plane that does not transmit comprehensive data like the normal ACARS transmission sent every 30 minutes, though it does identify the plane.
Here’s the thing about those pings though… A ping does not show a precise location, it just interpolates the angle from which the ping hit the satellite. Straight down is 0 degrees, off the poles of the satellite is 90 degrees. The ping we are shown in the graphic below indicates an angle of 40 degrees which describes a circle around the satellite of possible locations from which the ping originated. We are told there were pings received until 8:11 am, which, if they came from a moving plane, should describe a different circle around the satellite for each ping received. Any movement of the plane would change the angle of transmission to the satellite except an arced course within a narrow band along the circle described by the 40 degree ping.
[original pictures were lost when my site was purged from wordpress…i tried to piece them back together but i can’t find the originals…it might help to think of these “circles” as actually being a cone described by lines emanating downward from the satellite at a 40 degree angle. If the plane was sending pings until 8:11 am, there should be 8 cones described by lines emanating down from the satellite at different angles.]
Furthermore, the notion that the arcs represent a flight path is a misconception. The arcs are merely segments of the circle described by the “last ping.” When the arcs are connected, you can also see that the circle described by the last ping goes right through the location of the last communication of the jet and the location of the debris spotted by China on satellite in the South China Sea. Notice that the graphic above highlights the military radar’s presumed sighting of the flight rather than the last confirmed sighting of the flight which is right along the ping circle. The two photos below are of last contact with the plane (top) and the location of the debris spotted by Chinese satellite (bottom). Compare them with the ping-circle – they are spot on it.
Here’s another view of the ping circle – it goes right over where the debris was spotted… The very serious question all of this raises is: Why has only one ping circle been released? Surely if there had been pings from other locations that data would have been released and greatly narrowed the search area as it would have indicated a more limited number of possible flight paths. That is, in the first graphic above, rather than numerous grey circles indicating potential ping paths and one red one indicating a known ping path, there should be 7 or 8 red circles indicating each hourly ping until 8:11am, which would carve out a narrower set of possible locations of the plane and greatly increase the likelihood of success of search efforts. (A bogus and debunked ping-map has been making the rounds, but even the source doesn’t stand by it.) Also note, the circle is always erased over the place was last seen both by numerous eyewitnesses and by radar communication with flight control.
The obvious answer seems to be that this single “last ping” was received at 1:11am just before the plane went down, not at 8:11am as we are being told. Given that it took almost a week for this ping to be reported, and that the US government received and analyzed the data before the Malaysian government, I think it’s likely that the data got “spun” first. According to The Journal,
It wasn’t clear how U.S. officials obtained the initial Inmarsat data, which they analyzed and helped translate into maps. Regardless, people briefed on the probe agree it took longer than expected for the information to spread from engineers and technical experts who cranked out the first version of the data to policy makers and then back down to officials directing specific elements of the searches.
In fact, they are not using any other pings in the analysis, despite the fact that they claim they are crunching data in new and different ways. All they did was take the last ping – the one that overlaps the point of last contact over the South China Sea – and estimated the minimum and maximum distances the plane could have flown in 6 hours from the point the Malaysian military spotted an unidentified object on radar. If you really see the simplistic method used to create the 7 million square mile search area, you might begin to wonder if the goal was to create the broadest possible search area rather than the narrowest one. (check out this video to really see what I mean.) Furthermore, the original story in The Wall Street Journal claiming the flight kept going depended on Boeing data which that company quickly disavowed. According to a subsequent Journal article:
Malaysia Airlines said it hadn’t received any such data. According to Boeing, the plane’s manufacturer, the airline didn’t purchase a package through Boeing to monitor its airplanes’ data through the satellite system.
This led the Malaysian transport minister to make the following statement:
I would like to refer to news reports suggesting that the aircraft may have continued flying for some time after the last contact,” Hishammuddin told a news briefing. “As Malaysia Airlines will confirm shortly, those reports are inaccurate.
Shortly after the Boeing data was discredited, the Inmarsat data conveniently popped up to shore up the claim that the plane kept flying after contact was lost. And just to clear up some confusion about the communications going down at different times thereby indicating foul play–that doesn’t hold water either. The three methods of communication, ACARS-with-data, radio contact and secondary radar, we are told went down respectively at 1:07, 1:19 and 1:21. That is, ACARS-with-data went down at 1:07, the last radio call was the good night at 1:19 and secondary radar contact was lost at 1:21. If the plane blew up at 1:21, 1:07 would have been the last transmission of ACARS-with-data as it was scheduled to go off every 30 minutes – it missed its 1:37 transmission as it would have if the plane was destroyed at 1:21. According to The Wall Street Journal,
Mr. Hishammuddin, who is also Malaysia’s acting transport minister, on Monday said the last report from Acars came at 1:07 a.m. local time on March 8, not long after Flight 370 took off. It failed to transmit its next update, scheduled for 30 minutes later at 1:37 a.m.
Finally, the last radio communication would have been anytime before 1:21, which it was – 1:19. No foul play (beyond a single catastrophic event at 1:21am) is necessary to explain all this. So here’s the question: Why are they looking everywhere BUT the most likely location of the plane? The conspiracy theories the MSM are peddling are NOT the story here, the cover-up is the story. The sad part is that the families of the victims can’t start grieving while they still have hope, though by all reports, they suspect a cover-up too.
Here is the podcast of my show on the subject https://monicaperezshow.com/podcasts-2/
could insurance liability have been an issue depending on cause of crash? https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/malaysia-airlines-sued-over-mh370–what-it-means-for-insurers-27743.aspx (read the comment to that article as well – the commenter claims there was unlimited liability unless the airline could prove a single crew member was at fault!)
Currently, tenants of the international Montreal Convention limit liability payments from airlines at $175,000 per passenger regardless of whether the airline is at fault. While many families have accepted settlements from the airlines, others have held off, reasoning that if Malaysia Airlines is proven to have been negligent the payment will be higher.
The airline’s insurers – Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty and Lloyd’s of London unit Atrium – have already paid more than $300 million for claims related to the crash. Both companies have issued statements saying the discovery of part of the wreckage has not changed the situation, nor their willingness to pay valid claims.
also this…”legal experts said settling claims could be difficult unless wreckage is found and investigators can establish a cause of the disaster.” https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/mh370-allianz-lead-insurer-and-willis-broker-mas
mumbo jumbo: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5243942/ae-2014-054_mh370_-_definition_of_underwater_search_areas_18aug2014.pdf
Flight 370 was carrying 10,806 kg (23,823 lb) of cargo, of which four ULDs of mangosteens (total 4,566 kg (10,066 lb)) and 221 kg (487 lb) of lithium-ion batteries are of interest, according to Malaysian investigators.:103, 108–109 The four ULDs of mangosteens were loaded into the aft cargo bay of the aircraft. The lithium-ion batteries were divided among two pallets in the forward cargo bay and one pallet placed in the rear of the aft cargo bay.:106
The lithium-ion batteries were contained in a 2,453 kg (5,408 lb) consignment being transported between Motorola Solutions facilities in Bayan Lepas, Malaysia, and Tianjin, China; the rest of the consignment consisted of walkie-talkie chargers and accessories.:103 The batteries were assembled on 7 March and transported to the Penang Cargo Complex to be transported by MASkargo—Malaysia Airlines’ cargo subsidiary—to be loaded onto a lorry to transport it to Kuala Lumpur International Airport and onwards by air to Beijing.:104 At the Penang Cargo Complex, the consignment was inspected by MASkargo employees and Malaysian customs officials, but did not go through a security screening before the truck was sealed for transfer to the airport. The consignment did not go through any additional inspections at Kuala Lumpur International Airport before it was loaded onto Flight 370.:104 Because the batteries were packaged in accordance with IATA guidelines,[n] they were not regulated as dangerous goods.:106 Lithium-ion batteries can cause intense fires if they overheat and ignite, which has led to strict regulations on their transport aboard aircraft. A fire fuelled by lithium-ion batteries caused the crash of UPS Airlines Flight 6, and lithium-ion batteries are suspected to have caused a fire which resulted in the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 991; both were cargo aircraft. Some airlines have stopped carrying bulk shipments of lithium-ion batteries on passenger aircraft, citing safety concerns.
turning off ACARS would require going into the avionics bay https://www.aerosociety.com/news/what-happened-to-flight-mh370/
“Newly emerged details concerning Malaysia Airlines flight 370’s electrical system indicate that whoever took over the plane was technically sophisticated, possessing greater knowledge of Boeing 777 avionics than most commercial line pilots. They also suggest that the plane’s captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, was not responsible for taking the plane.”