MH370: Malaysian Airlines Flight to Beijing carrying 239 people is lost over sea.

[prisonermonkeys]

The only thing that I don't understand about the "China did it!" argument is that they apparently did it in the most complex way imaginable. Remotely hijacking a plane in mid-flight, deliberately seeding multiple false leads, co-ordinating a find on the other side of the world and unlawfully imprisoning and/or killing foreign nationals aboard the flight for the sake of getting access to a handful of semiconductor specialists is ridiculously convoluted. If they had successfully made the plane disappear, why then allow evidence to be found? And why allow it to be found in such a place and a way that the authenticity of the evidence is immediately called into question?

 

[Famine]

Given that the aircraft's final time-check was on the black arc in the following picture I'd say it was academic.

Last I heard, the 5th hour ping was still definitely on either the northern or southern track in this picture:

​

And any further calculation was at varying degrees of confidence.

I wouldn't have been surprised to see the aircraft heading to China given that it was flying to Beijing.

See the original red line from KL to the northeast? That's where Beijing is (eventually). Going southwest and then northwest is not where Beijing is. It is, curiously, where a radar deadzone is and, with another turn to the north, roughly where the radar deadzone up through Myanmar and Bhutan is, and where the northern Inmarsat track is about 5hr after take off and where Xianjiang is, about an hour after that.

Neither turn, nor the subsequent undetected and posited one either north or south, has any explanation. Nor do the climb and descent. Nor do the systematic switching off of methods of communication with the plane besides the Inmarsat squawk that Malaysia Air didn't know they had... It does not seem probable that this flight into an area no-one would detect the plane, and the switching off of all the communications the plane had and that were known about, are acts taken by something other than a human being with intent.

If we make that assumption, that asks the question of what that intent was... Well Germanwings showed us that pilots with suicidal intent exist, but a 6 hour flight into the southern ocean seems a little unnecessary when there's plenty of land to smack into much closer to hand. So if not suicide, what?

The only thing that I don't understand about the "China did it!" argument is that they apparently did it in the most complex way imaginable.

What isn't complex about hijacking a plane to kidnap foreign nationals in a way that will never be discovered?

Remotely hijacking a plane in mid-flight

Remotely? Why remotely? The plane was rammed with Chinese nationals...

deliberately seeding multiple false leads, co-ordinating a find on the other side of the world

Participation in the search is a no-brainer - it's a flight to China with Chinese nationals on board...

and unlawfully imprisoning and/or killing foreign nationals aboard the flight

That... doesn't seem a problem.

for the sake of getting access to a handful of semiconductor specialists

That's only one posited reason.

is ridiculously convoluted.

So is training 12 people to fly four planes into US landmarks at the same time for... I don't know, revenge? That was managed by goat herders, not a massively powerful economy and nuclear nation with a track record in paranoia, espionage (and industrial espionage) and e-warfare.

If they had successfully made the plane disappear, why then allow evidence to be found?

To stop anyone from looking for it? I know the Indian Ocean is big and all, but actually making an entire airliner vanish into it is a neat trick.

And why allow it to be found in such a place and a way that the authenticity of the evidence is immediately called into question?

It'd be considerably more questionable if it's never found. I bet James Cameron is saving up to dive the ocean as we speak.

That said, I've not actually seen anyone question it yet. I mean, I suggested that plane parts can float if they're lightweight materials and big, but also that it's a bit fishy that this thing apparently survived afloat through two tropical storm seasons and several severe storms in that period to wash up at Reunion 18 months down the line. Other than that, nada.

 

[Dotini]

So if not suicide, what?​

As I recall, the poor pilot had extremely serious personal issues. His wife had just left him the day before, and his political guru and possibly the real center of his life had just that day been sentenced to prison for child molestation, or some sex crime. That said, I agree that an airplane part lacking a serial number is insufficient proof of the fate of MH370.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It'd be considerably more questionable if it's never found.​

Let's assume for the moment that a) it was hijacked and b) it went south because the intention was to make it disappear. Where better to put it down than an area of the Indian Ocean that we know practically nothing about? There is no oceanographic data on the sea floor there because no surveys have been carried out. And in some places, the silt on the sea floor is hundreds of metres deep. If you wanted to make the plane disappear, erasing all evidence of your involvement, then this is the perfect place to do it. Sure, it's suspicious if it's never found, but the local conditions of where it is suspected to have vanished create reasonable doubt - it's plausible that you went right over it several times and just missed it.

 

[Famine]

Let's assume for the moment that a) it was hijacked and b) it went south because the intention was to make it disappear.

Well, now you're assuming it was stolen and piloted with great skill for no better reason than to ditch it into the ocean 4,000 miles away. And if you're doing that, the Indian Ocean is not quite as good an option as the Pacific Ocean, with the deepest marine trenches on the planet.

Unless they could accomplish another purpose while in flight for 6 hours and retrieve whatever output ensues (along with the operatives) before splashdown, which seems an even more complicated plan than flying it up a radar-free corridor and landing it in your own territory.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well, now you're assuming it was stolen and piloted with great skill for no better reason than to ditch it into the ocean 4,000 miles away. And if you're doing that, the Indian Ocean is not quite as good an option as the Pacific Ocean, with the deepest marine trenches on the planet.

If an interloper has learned to work the 777 bus well enough to deactivate every single data transmission while leaving the aircraft powered-up and flying then they can operate the autopilot panel, that's the easiest part of the plane.

 

[Famine]

If an interloper has learned to work the 777 bus well enough to deactivate every single data transmission while leaving the aircraft powered-up and flying then they can operate the autopilot panel, that's the easiest part of the plane.

The skill being to put it into a radar deadzone in disputed waters...

So to repeat, the assumption that it was stolen for no other reason than to stick it into the deep blue sea for none to find does not fit with the manouevres between the time the plane went off course and the time contact was lost with the plane - and the destination chosen to do it is less 'final' than another one the same flight time away to the east.


Still the Germanwings pilot chose to bellyflop his plane at walking pace rather than nose-diving it into an alp at 600mph, which doesn't fit with his intention to "obliterate" it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And if you're doing that, the Indian Ocean is not quite as good an option as the Pacific Ocean, with the deepest marine trenches on the planet.

But it's also the obvious choice. How do we know those trenches are there? Because we looked for them. But we know nothing about the southern Indian Ocean.

 

[Famine]

But it's also the obvious choice. How do we know those trenches are there? Because we looked for them. But we know nothing about the southern Indian Ocean.

What?

Okay, first up that's flat out wrong. We've been doing seabed surveys of the Indian Ocean just as long as we've been doing seabed surveys of every other bit of ocean floor. And just as long as we've had satellites. We're getting a better picture now that the world's ocean survey fleets are looking for a plane there, but it is utterly ludicrous to say we know nothing about it.

Secondly, even if it's true, it generates a logical problem. If your intent is to make a plane disappear in the sea, why put it in a bit of sea that you apparently "know nothing about"? It could be far shallower than you think, or you might land it on a submarine mountain. Over to the east though you've got an ocean that averages 14,000ft deep and has trenches so deep that the surface of the sea is nearer to a plane flying normally over it than the bottom. Losing a plane there is not only easier, but even if discovered, doing anything about that it is significantly harder. Titanic sank at 12,415ft in a busy shipping lane and it took 70 years to find it despite other ships picking up survivors on the scene...


Even so, hijacking a plane with enough skill to pop it into a radar deadzone and turn off all the tracking devices that anyone knows about just to crash it into the sea to lose it seems... at odds with human behaviour. Unless the hijacker really wanted to make the world's hardest (but apparently not too hard) game of hide-and-seek.

 

[Swagger897]

Titanic sank at 12,415ft in a busy shipping lane and it took 70 years to find it despite other ships picking up survivors on the scene...

Now, that's already been used in this thread before, but we knew where it was when it sank, we weren't able to go down there until 70 years later.

 

[Famine]

Now, that's already been used in this thread before, but we knew where it was when it sank, we weren't able to go down there until 70 years later.

Losing a plane there is not only easier, but even if discovered, doing anything about that it is significantly harder. Titanic sank at 12,415ft in a busy shipping lane and it took 70 years to find it despite other ships picking up survivors on the scene...

 

[Swagger897]

Still, it shouldn't be relevant to MH370 because it was known where in the first place. We've yet to even get to that point.

 

[Famine]

Still, it shouldn't be relevant to MH370 because it was known where in the first place. We've yet to even get to that point.

It's only relevant to the supposition that if one wishes a plane want it to stay lost, deliberately splashing it down in a bit of sea known to be extremely deep is better than deliberately splashing it down in a bit of sea about which, it was claimed, nothing is known.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

How, then, do you explain the way the search was moved to commercial oceanographic services on the grounds that it would offer the opportunity to carry out detailed mapping of the ocean floor, bringing the data available in line with the data on other oceans?

Sorry, Famine, but you lost me the minute you put the tinfoil hat on and started shouting "China!".

 

[Famine]

How, then, do you explain the way the search was moved to commercial oceanographic services on the grounds that it would offer the opportunity to carry out detailed mapping of the ocean floor, bringing the data available in line with the data on other oceans?

Okay, first up that's flat out wrong. We've been doing seabed surveys of the Indian Ocean just as long as we've been doing seabed surveys of every other bit of ocean floor. And just as long as we've had satellites. We're getting a better picture now that the world's ocean survey fleets are looking for a plane there, but it is utterly ludicrous to say we know nothing about it.

Getting better detail and "bringing the data available into line with the data on other oceans" is not only not the same ballpark as "know nothing about", it's barely the same sport.

Sorry, Famine, but you lost me the minute you put the tinfoil hat on and started shouting "China!".

Good job I did neither of those things then.

 

[Swagger897]

This article claims that a window has also washed ashore....

When did that happen?

 

[Grayfox]

Debris found at the maldives that may be from the jet, but it has been there for 3months
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ls-saw-low-flying-jet-day-plane-vanished.html

 

[Swagger897]

Hard to say exactly what the piece is. The T7 does incorporate the use of hexcells/honeycomb structures for various things. This looks more like an exterior piece than the interior panels, which use honeycomb structures. The first thing that came to my mind when seeing this was how similar it looks like space shuttle heat shield honeycomb after it has re-entered the atmosphere and burned up. Which then leads back to the T7 sighted going down aflame. Also, the color is another thing. It is the light/medium grey, similar to the grey on the GTP background you see on the left or right (maybe a hair darker), which means it could be very near the engines if they went aflame.

It also looked like the empennage at first, but does not match anything from this picture:

And my last guess would have to be some part of the trailing edge flaps. The piece is not in full contact, and it's too hard to judge really anything about it. If there is another T7 out there in the Malaysia fleet that has the letters (T)IC, then we've got something here. Otherwise, it's too hard of a guess with too little info.

Once I heard the report of the plane going down aflame near the Maldives, I thought maybe that could be it, but to see no interest into following it up was pretty awful, now seeing this. Who knows if it's legit.

Now the question is, what is the (T)IC from?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Hard to say exactly what the piece is. The T7 does incorporate the use of hexcells/honeycomb structures for various things. This looks more like an exterior piece than the interior panels, which use honeycomb structures. The first thing that came to my mind when seeing this was how similar it looks like space shuttle heat shield honeycomb after it has re-entered the atmosphere and burned up. Which then leads back to the T7 sighted going down aflame. Also, the color is another thing. It is the light/medium grey, similar to the grey on the GTP background you see on the left or right (maybe a hair darker), which means it could be very near the engines if they went aflame.

It also looked like the empennage at first, but does not match anything from this picture:


And my last guess would have to be some part of the trailing edge flaps. The piece is not in full contact, and it's too hard to judge really anything about it. If there is another T7 out there in the Malaysia fleet that has the letters (T)IC, then we've got something here. Otherwise, it's too hard of a guess with too little info.

Once I heard the report of the plane going down aflame near the Maldives, I thought maybe that could be it, but to see no interest into following it up was pretty awful, now seeing this. Who knows if it's legit.

Now the question is, what is the (T)IC from?

With the complete lack of rivet lines it looks to me more like a sailing keel, but I guess we'll wait and see.

The one thing that does say "aircraft" to me is the word, we can only see "TIC" but that could be the end of "STATIC" marked somewhere near a pitot piece. I'll go look up the pitot apertures and see if one might match.

Also, you know a T7 is a different plane from a 777?

EDIT: All the pitot exits are in the main fuselage. Guessing the scale from the size of the writing I'd say that the only external part this could be is the VHF aerial... but it doesn't look symmetrical enough. I'm not convinced by this, I think boat part

 

[Swagger897]

With the complete lack of rivet lines it looks to me more like a sailing keel, but I guess we'll wait and see.

Yes, could be... but how many keels are made from honeycomb materials?

The one thing that does say "aircraft" to me is the word, we can only see "TIC" but that could be the end of "STATIC" marked somewhere near a pitot piece. I'll go look up the pitot apertures and see if one might match.

I thought STATIC as well, but not sure where that would be.

Also, you know a T7 is a different plane from a 777?

Yeah but it's 1 character less.

EDIT: All the pitot exits are in the main fuselage. Guessing the scale from the size of the writing I'd say that the only external part this could be is the VHF aerial... but it doesn't look symmetrical enough. I'm not convinced by this, I think boat part

I think it's way to long to be one of those fins, but there is nothing to size it up in comparison, which is the bad thing.

I don't know about a boat part though... One side is raised like a wing is to increase the pressure, and a keel to rip like that would have had to run ashore, or have had a massive squid rip it off...

 

[TenEightyOne]

One side is raised like a wing is to increase the pressure, and a keel to rip like that would have had to run ashore, or have had a massive squid rip it off...

Not all keel parts are symmetrical, and it was found on an island... which is really just something hard that sticks out of the sea, right?

It's definitely not the end of a tailplane, they're not meant to create their own lift (rather they deflect airflow) and so don't have the same section as a wing. I'm not sure what other piece it could be, it looks too unprotected and non-riveted to be a piece of wing.

You'll notice in the picture you included of MH17's tail fin that none of the vertical section was honeycombed and that there were visible joins in the construction despite having composite materials.

Boeing 777 tailplane with symmetrical section



Differing fin keel types

 

[Swagger897]

Not all keel parts are symmetrical, and it was found on an island... which is really just something hard that sticks out of the sea, right?

It's definitely not the end of a tailplane, they're not meant to create their own lift (rather they deflect airflow) and so don't have the same section as a wing. I'm not sure what other piece it could be, it looks too unprotected and non-riveted to be a piece of wing.

You'll notice in the picture you included of MH17's tail fin that none of the vertical section was honeycombed and that there were visible joins in the construction despite having composite materials.

Boeing 777 tailplane with symmetrical section

View attachment 428042

Differing fin keel types

View attachment 428049

yeah, and none of the paint matches either....

but why would a keel of anything have (T)IC on it?

 

[Touring Mars]

Sorry, Famine, but you lost me the minute you put the tinfoil hat on and started shouting "China!".

I agree that the 'It-was-China-what-done-it' narrative, while possible, is extremely unlikely - if someone wanted to make a few people they didn't like disappear, surely they could have done it without attracting such global publicity and scrutiny... remotely abducting a passenger jet full of people (mostly Chinese citizens) seems like a very bizarre and very public way to do something supposedly top secret and doesn't make very much sense.

 

[Famine]

I agree that the 'It-was-China-what-done-it' narrative, while possible

Oh, don't say that - you'll be accused of reflective headgear.

is extremely unlikely - if someone wanted to make a few people they didn't like disappear, surely they could have done it without attracting such global publicity and scrutiny...

Except that there doesn't seem to be any publicity or scrutiny of China. The world is focussed on the Southern Ocean - the possibility that something else may have happened is not only ignored completely but actually shouted down...

Also we're not talking about making people they don't like disappear. If you buy into the Freescale line, we're talking about abducting 20+ people with specific and valuable knowledge, presumably for that knowledge. Sure, everyone else on the plane can disappear, for all they care, but the purpose in the Freescale narrative is to take these people alive for what they know.

remotely abducting a passenger jet full of people (mostly Chinese citizens)

Again with the "remotely". The plane was mostly Chinese citizens. Chinese espionage operatives are also Chinese citizens. The possibility that 3+ people on the plane were working for the Chinese government is not a far-fetched one.

seems like a very bizarre and very public way to do something supposedly top secret and doesn't make very much sense.

The plane's second hour of flight, when it made a number of odd manouevres, also doesn't make very much sense unless you assume that there was someone flying the plane towards that radar deadzone below Myanmar and turning off all the ways to track the plane that they knew about.

For the goal of this person to be "fly the plane into the Indian Ocean and lose it without a trace, with all hands" also doesn't make much sense - especially as there are quicker ways to kill everyone on a plane (see: Germanwings) and better ways to stick one into the sea and lose it (like the Pacific rim trenches, which were nearer and required only a gentle eastwards curve on the original flightpath). Germanwings did prove that these things don't always have to make sense though.


All we know of this flight is that it was on a normal flightpath for about an hour, then behaved extremely erratically while turning off all known tracking devices in a disputed area that has poor radar coverage, then flew somewhere else for the next 5-6hr to a region either in the Indian Ocean or the southwest of China (the former currently judged to be more likely than the latter) and then disappeared.

Some bits which may be it (Malaysia says it is, investigators haven't said yet last I heard) have turned up in the Indian Ocean 18 months later.


All I'm suggesting is that the explanation for the erratic behaviour is more reasonable if there was someone at the helm performing these actions on purpose, and that results in the explanation that the only reason they did it was to stick it in the sea 5hr later is a less reasonable one as a result - it would appear to me that if you're going to take control of a plane, you'll have a reason. But, thanks to Germanwings, it's not at all unreasonable to suggest that someone controlled the plane just to splash it into a random patch of planet.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Good job I did neither of those things then.

Oh, but you did. Maybe not literally, but certainly figuratively. You introduced just enough evidence to make it seem plausible, but it's The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, where Sherlock Holmes deduces that because the neighbour's dog did not bark, the neighbour's killer must be someone that the dog knew. In other words, "there is no evidence, so that is evidence in itself". The same applies here: you have no evidence except a circumstantial case to which you have added increasing layers of complexity, like fooling the Inmarsat tracking system to make everyone look south.

Most tellingly is the suggestion that the Chinese authorities held on to parts of the plane, subjected them to salt water for a year, and then released them on Reunion Island to be found. You rejected the potential authenticity of the evidence on the grounds that the area had been hit by two tropical cyclones in the past year, but nowhere did you consider that a) the ocean currents could be such that the debris was nowhere near Reunion when those cyclones hit, or that b) the cyclones could have moved the debris back out to sea, delaying its discovery. Instead, you went straight to the idea of China hijacking the flight, laying false trails, then staging the discovery of the debris on the other side of the world.

 

[Famine]

Oh, but you did. Maybe not literally, but certainly figuratively.

Ah! Figuratively! Well why didn't you just say you were making something up and attributing it to me figuratively rather than literally? Gosh, it's like that strawman never happened.

So when you made up the fact that we "know nothing about" the Indian Ocean, was that figurative or literal?

You introduced just enough evidence to make it seem plausible, but it's The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, where Sherlock Holmes deduces that because the neighbour's dog did not bark, the neighbour's killer must be someone that the dog knew. In other words, "there is no evidence, so that is evidence in itself". The same applies here: you have no evidence except a circumstantial case to which you have added increasing layers of complexity, like fooling the Inmarsat tracking system to make everyone look south.

Most tellingly is the suggestion that the Chinese authorities held on to parts of the plane, subjected them to salt water for a year, and then released them on Reunion Island to be found. You rejected the potential authenticity of the evidence on the grounds that the area had been hit by two tropical cyclones in the past year, but nowhere did you consider that a) the ocean currents could be such that the debris was nowhere near Reunion when those cyclones hit, or that b) the cyclones could have moved the debris back out to sea, delaying its discovery. Instead, you went straight to the idea of China hijacking the flight, laying false trails, then staging the discovery of the debris on the other side of the world.

Course I did (don't recall mentioning saltwater either - is that figurative saltwater?). Incidentally, I was suggesting that the cyclones (and there's more than 2 - those were just the really strong ones; I didn't say that they hit Reunion either - this was the entire South-West Indian Ocean Cyclone Season for 2013-4 and 2014-5) would have sunk the debris. Some of these bits can float, but they're not especially buoyant. Naturally, the slides are an exception.


As explained above, we don't have any evidence of anything really. Just that the plane flew normally for an hour, then made some odd manouevres that put it in a radar deadzone while all the tracking was turned off and then pinged a satellite every hour until its sixth hour in flight when it didn't - and that was either from southwest China or the Indian Ocean. As far as I'm aware, the data from Inmarsat hasn't been conclusively refined, but the latter is currently considered far more likely than the former.

That's it.

As also explained above, the odd manouevres don't make much sense unless there was a hand at the helm - and as a result of that the concept that the individual(s) concerned only took the plane to splash it down in the wrong ocean to properly lose it make less sense. If that makes less sense, what makes more sense?

Well, there's loads of things. Crash it buildings? Take to a nation to seek asylum? Sure, they make sense, but you know what the Indian Ocean doesn't have a lot of? Buildings and nations - loads in that northern corridor though. But if it's flown north, where the hell is it? It clearly hasn't landed and sought asylum, it clearly hasn't crashed into any buildings and no-one has reported seeing it crash on any land. So those reasons may make sense but they don't fit the evidence we have of "no planes".

What would fit the evidence of "no planes" is if it was landed somewhere and hidden - but that's quite tricky to do and needs a lot of planning. You'd need a 4,000ft runway (assuming you don't want to take it off again) and a very large hangar. You'd also need some way of shutting up 230 people so that everyone thinks they're dead - that's a lot of people with guns to subdue them. Hey - do you know who has lots of runways, hangars and people with guns in southwest China? China does!

So how do plane parts turn up in the ocean if China has the plane? It's not a terrific logistical nightmare for them to breaking bits off it that can fit in the back of a van and sailing them into the sea as part of the search and rescue mission, since they're part of it. Of course they're part of it - the plane that went missing was flying to Beijing and had 200ish Chinese people on board. It'd be odd if they weren't.


At no point have I said that China did it, literally or figuratively - though I have blamed the Langoliers for it. I've merely pointed out that the nation had lots of people on board (some of whom could be operatives), has a strong track record in doing whatever the hell it feels like, has the military capability to do this, has the facilities to land and store a 777 out of anyone else's reach, has the facilities to store hundreds of people out of anyone's reach (if we're really lucky) and though I'm not wholly behind the Freescale narrative it does at least generate a plausible reason for the action. I'm sure others may be available, but China does take its espionage and e-warfare very seriously indeed. Seriously enough to kidnap a Boeing 777? I wouldn't like to say.

Along with the explanation that sees the search effort focussed on the Indian Ocean since April, it is an explanation that is possible, plausible, feasible, fits what scarce evidence we have and is not out of character.


I get that you seem to not to want to be even slightly open to this as a possibility, though I don't know why. But there is absolutely zero reason for you to behave towards me as you have been doing and I'd appreciate it if you stopped.

 

[Mike Rotch]

I probably don't buy into the Chinese angle too much, purely on the basis that if they wanted 20 people to vanish, there are more discreet ways of doing it.

The plane was destined for BJ - so it would have been entirely less public to let it land and either let the 20 people disappear at customs or let them through customs and make them disappear on route from the hotel. Making an entire plane disappear, with media scrutiny and the risk they botched it seems implausible.

 

[Famine]

I probably don't buy into the Chinese angle too much, purely on the basis that if they wanted 20 people to vanish, there are more discreet ways of doing it.

The plane was destined for BJ - so it would have been entirely less public to let it land and either let the 20 people disappear at customs or let them through customs and make them disappear on route from the hotel. Making an entire plane disappear, with media scrutiny and the risk they botched it seems implausible.

That doesn't seem less discreet. Staging a kidnapping of 20+ people in the middle of a busy airport or city full of potential witnesses is... not simple to contain. Just one target or onlooker Tweets and the jig is up.

An aircraft is by design contained. And everyone's mobile phones will be off or in flight safe mode. Not that I'm totally sure how much signal you get at 30,000ft and 600mph over the Bay of Bengal, Myanmar, Bhutan (which didn't even get TV until 1999), the Himalayas and the Taklamakan Desert. I'm sure it's also easier to carry a phone jammer with the 240 people in such close proximity.

Plus you don't have to then transport the intended targets to your facilities - they already flew right to it. And 220ish new workers for your potash mines into the bargain!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So it's easier to pull off a multi-stage hijacking and cover-up than it is to filter a handful of passengers through "customs" because you're afraid of the Twittersphere?

Sure, you might get two hundred and twenty extra forced potash miners, but some of them are going to be foreign nationals, which will be tricky to explain if it ever came to light.

 

[Mike Rotch]

That doesn't seem less discreet. Staging a kidnapping of 20+ people in the middle of a busy airport or city full of potential witnesses is... not simple to contain. Just one target or onlooker Tweets and the jig is up.]

I didn't say kidnapping, rather rather made to disappear. As in at customs having a 'random' "please come with us sir for a bag search" occurrence and then poof, gone.

Maybe I missed it above, but if the Chinese hijack theory plays out, how exactly do the hijackers gain cockpit entry to disable every single tracking Beacon without alerting the pilots who would then alert someone on the ground?