Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 vanishes without trace

Love those Guardian arrows pointing direct to Reunion. And just in case, we'll have some pointing direct to Mozambique too. There. That's solved that. Even though Reunion is a speck in the ocean and two parts of roughly 3,464,534 parts turning up direct on Mozambique (to be found by the same person?) is roughly
10 trillion to 1.
 
Love those Guardian arrows pointing direct to Reunion. And just in case, we'll have some pointing direct to Mozambique too. There. That's solved that. Even though Reunion is a speck in the ocean and two parts of roughly 3,464,534 parts turning up direct on Mozambique (to be found by the same person?) is roughly
10 trillion to 1.

Could you provide your working out for those calculations? Thanks.
 
At what point will the powers that be decide to cut their losses?
The underwater search will end in June this year if no targets of interest are identified on the seabed by then.
what is the expected lifespan of those things in deep water anyway?
The minimum operational performance specification for CVR/FDRs is 30 days at 20,000 feet depth. Data has been recovered from recorders after a couple of years in such environments (AF447's black boxes spent almost 2 years in the ocean at 13,000 feet before they were recovered and read). It's not impossible that data could still be recovered in this case but it will very much depend on the state of the unit immediately after sea surface impact, which will obviously affect the speed of progression of corrosion.

(For comparison, photos were recovered from a consumer grade memory card that had been in the Atlantic for about 18 months, though nowhere near as deep, when the camera it was in was hauled up in fishing nets in 2010. The original owners were even identified, their having lost it overboard on a cruise on the QM2).
 
Last edited:
Yeah, as i've read the transcripts from the cockpit of that Air France flight. The Captain waking up to realise the plane is a minute into it's 3 minute fall to earth. You shared the link possibly.
 
Could you provide your working out for those calculations? Thanks.

Hyperbole. No problem.

As opposed of course to hyperbola. A smooth curve lying in a plane? In the Mozambique channel. Where, despite plane parts popping up like ninepins allegedly, the powers that be still refuse to do a sweep of. Preferring instead to look for needles in haystacks buried deep in the sea thousands of miles away. Come June these powers have some explaining to do. Should be interesting.

E2A - The flaperon, identified by France as coming from 370, was covered in barnacles. Following this single discovery after two years, we now have a 'rush' of three possible other parts, none showing any covering of sea life or such evidence of being in the sea for two years. That's pretty, um, interesting.
 
Last edited:
Hyperbole. No problem.

As opposed of course to hyperbola. A smooth curve lying in a plane? In the Mozambique channel. Where, despite plane parts popping up like ninepins allegedly, the powers that be still refuse to do a sweep of. Preferring instead to look for needles in haystacks buried deep in the sea thousands of miles away. Come June these powers have some explaining to do. Should be interesting.

E2A - The flaperon, identified by France as coming from 370, was covered in barnacles. Following this single discovery after two years, we now have a 'rush' of three possible other parts, none showing any covering of sea life or such evidence of being in the sea for two years. That's pretty, um, interesting.

Go on then, enlighten us as to your brand of conspiracy theory for this then.
 
You haven't pointed out any inconsistencies or questions that need answering though, just alluded to something going on that you don't think is as it seems.

And assuming since you're suggesting there's something going on that has required a number of people to engage in some sort of 'cover-up' or misleading people, then I think it's reasonably fair to call it a conspiracy theory.

So, go on, what do you think has happened here? What are your inconsistencies and questions that need answering, and what do you think has happened that's not being addressed currently?
 
Hyperbole. No problem.
Good, good. You've self-identified the value of your contribution.
E2A - The flaperon, identified by France as coming from 370, was covered in barnacles. Following this single discovery after two years, we now have a 'rush' of three possible other parts, none showing any covering of sea life or such evidence of being in the sea for two years. That's pretty, um, interesting.
Sorry, I hadn't realised that you were intimately familiar with both the nature of discovery of each part, the level of cleaning each piece underwent before it was brought to public attention, the typical depth of immersion of each part, its path across the Indian Ocean, the circumstances of its separation from the aircraft (and thus whether or not it was doused in any number of bio-antagonistic fluids or lubricants) and the innate relative toxicities of each piece of material in respect of biofouling.

If you bothered to look at photos of the flaperon you'd see it wasn't 'covered' in barnacles. There are moderate numbers at edge locations. Modern aviation livery paints possibly have antifouling properties (by accident of chemistry if not by design). The linger time in the littoral zone is not known and that may also have contributed to varying degrees of hydraulically driven abrasion.

Furthermore, the goose barnacles seen on the flaperon do not like to colonise items at the immediate ocean sub-surface since this is a fairly hostile environment for them (high UV, wide changes in salinity and temperature, constant mechanical action of waves, direct exposure to air - all of which interfere with feeding and make life uncomfortable for them). The larger flaperon (being hollow in parts and thus liable to taking on some water) most likely found neutral buoyancy some tens of centimetres below the surface where the barnacles would find more agreeable conditions than the circumstances of the other, much lighter, predominately honeycomb material which would have remained at the (comparatively inhospitable) surface.

Most likely there are quite a lot of pieces scattered along the SE African coast (the lighter the material, the further it will have tended to be distributed, to some degree; particularly as closer to the surface wind adds to ocean currents to drive items). People have probably walked past debris or re-purposed such without realising the significance of the material. It may be that it dawns on some of them what it might be and they may get in touch with the appropriate authorities. I'd be surprised if more material does not gradually turn up.
 
Hyperbole. No problem.

As opposed of course to hyperbola. A smooth curve lying in a plane? In the Mozambique channel. Where, despite plane parts popping up like ninepins allegedly, the powers that be still refuse to do a sweep of. Preferring instead to look for needles in haystacks buried deep in the sea thousands of miles away. Come June these powers have some explaining to do. Should be interesting.

E2A - The flaperon, identified by France as coming from 370, was covered in barnacles. Following this single discovery after two years, we now have a 'rush' of three possible other parts, none showing any covering of sea life or such evidence of being in the sea for two years. That's pretty, um, interesting.
the powers that be :rolleyes:
 
Good, good. You've self-identified the value of your contribution.

Sorry, I hadn't realised that you were intimately familiar with both the nature of discovery of each part, the level of cleaning each piece underwent before it was brought to public attention, the typical depth of immersion of each part, its path across the Indian Ocean, the circumstances of its separation from the aircraft (and thus whether or not it was doused in any number of bio-antagonistic fluids or lubricants) and the innate relative toxicities of each piece of material in respect of biofouling.

If you bothered to look at photos of the flaperon you'd see it wasn't 'covered' in barnacles. There are moderate numbers at edge locations. Modern aviation livery paints possibly have antifouling properties (by accident of chemistry if not by design). The linger time in the littoral zone is not known and that may also have contributed to varying degrees of hydraulically driven abrasion.

Furthermore, the goose barnacles seen on the flaperon do not like to colonise items at the immediate ocean sub-surface since this is a fairly hostile environment for them (high UV, wide changes in salinity and temperature, constant mechanical action of waves, direct exposure to air - all of which interfere with feeding and make life uncomfortable for them). The larger flaperon (being hollow in parts and thus liable to taking on some water) most likely found neutral buoyancy some tens of centimetres below the surface where the barnacles would find more agreeable conditions than the circumstances of the other, much lighter, predominately honeycomb material which would have remained at the (comparatively inhospitable) surface.

Most likely there are quite a lot of pieces scattered along the SE African coast (the lighter the material, the further it will have tended to be distributed, to some degree; particularly as closer to the surface wind adds to ocean currents to drive items). People have probably walked past debris or re-purposed such without realising the significance of the material. It may be that it dawns on some of them what it might be and they may get in touch with the appropriate authorities. I'd be surprised if more material does not gradually turn up.

Sorry I hadn't realised you were infinitely familiar with sarcasm.

The flaperon is indeed encrusted with barnacles. Goose barnacles suggesting, as you say, some sort of buoyancy just below the surface. And I don't think you are any the more aware of the variables you suggest than I am, which may well be explaining factors, but that doesn't stop you from putting forward your own theories regarding scattered material across SE Africa does it? Difference is you won't be seeing any sarcastic retorts from me with belittling guesses at your own expertise or knowledge of aviation physics or oceanology.

I think the circumstances of these parts now showing up are interesting and deserve further explanation, which we may or may not get. But it's easier for Urban to characterise me as suggesting I'm someone saying "the lizards did it". Pardon me for asking questions when the Guardian starts producing nice diagrams with Chris Morris type arrows showing the 'definite' ocean drifts leading to the inevitability of finding stuff on Reunion when for two years they did nothing of the sort.

As for Pickmans and his little Facebook 'likes' obsession (60,000! I must be doing something right!)....sad wankers will always be sad wankers. Still no real friends eh?
 
Sorry I hadn't realised you were infinitely familiar with sarcasm.
Then clearly you've not done your research properly.
And I don't think you are any the more aware of the variables you suggest than I am
Despite my listing them and your not?
which may well be explaining factors
But you graciously go on to acknowledge them as potential factors…
but that doesn't stop you from putting forward your own theories regarding scattered material across SE Africa does it?
Not my theory. Simply the agreement of separate, independent oceanographic circulation modelling and also contemporaneous measurements. It's all back there in this thread.
Difference is you won't be seeing any sarcastic retorts from me with belittling guesses at your own expertise or knowledge of aviation physics or oceanology.
No need to if I don't resort to hyperbole and pulling random figures from out of the nearest available orifice. Feel free to take anything I say apart; just make sure you provide the numbers and calculations or references to the relevant published research work.
I think the circumstances of these parts now showing up are interesting and deserve further explanation, which we may or may not get.
I'd suggest methodical investigation rather than popular conspiraloon pet theories. The circumstances of the discovery of all parts thus far is not inconsistent with loss of aircraft in the eastern Indian Ocean and then redistribution of debris by the known circulations.

Loss of aircraft in the western Indian Ocean is not consistent with Inmarsat BFO data and the timing of appearance of debris.
the 'definite' ocean drifts leading to the inevitability of finding stuff on Reunion when for two years they did nothing of the sort.
Once again - see the oceanographic modelling and relevant circulation observations referred to earlier in the thread.
 
Then clearly you've not done your research properly.

Despite my listing them and your not?

But you graciously go on to acknowledge them as potential factors…

Not my theory. Simply the agreement of separate, independent oceanographic circulation modelling and also contemporaneous measurements. It's all back there in this thread.

No need to if I don't resort to hyperbole and pulling random figures from out of the nearest available orifice. Feel free to take anything I say apart; just make sure you provide the numbers and calculations or references to the relevant published research work.

I'd suggest methodical investigation rather than popular conspiraloon pet theories. The circumstances of the discovery of all parts thus far is not inconsistent with loss of aircraft in the eastern Indian Ocean and then redistribution of debris by the known circulations.

Loss of aircraft in the western Indian Ocean is not consistent with Inmarsat BFO data and the timing of appearance of debris.

Once again - see the oceanographic modelling and relevant circulation observations referred to earlier in the thread.

Listing the variables and, in your own words, knowing whether or not, eg, individual plane parts were doused in bio - antagonistic fluids is not the same thing is it? Pardon me if you have such knowledge, I doubt you do. Also pardon me for not looking back through 62 pages of thread, I'll be truly grateful of you do it for me, but my point was not the Guardian nor anyone else to my knowledge was providing diagrams with Chris Morris arrows any time in advance suggesting plane parts were certain to start turning up on Mozambique and Reunion. If you have such Guardian diagrams and articles from 24 months ago, happy for you to show me. All I've seen, and what you've linked to here, are justifications 'after he event' (ie after things started showing up) for finding the flaperon on Reunion. I'm not saying those oceanographic models are wrong or made up by lizards, just pointing out that as far as I know they were only enacted to justify things once a part was found.

You need to look up what hyperbole is. It's not pulling random figures out of an orifice for the sake of it. It's a literary device to make a point. But you knew that right? You just like belittling because, having science on your side and all that, you obviously need sarcasm too right?

I have never once suggested the aircraft was lost just off SE Africa. Nor that the lizards put the parts there. But, later today or tomorrow, I will offer you, as I seem to be being pushed into it, an alternative explanation of sorts.
 
Last edited:
Listing the variables and, in your own words, knowing whether or not, eg, individual plane parts were doused in bio - antagonistic fluids is not the same thing is it? Pardon me if you have such knowledge, I doubt you do. Also pardon me for not looking back through 62 pages of thread, I'll be truly grateful of you do it for me, but my point was not the Guardian nor anyone else to my knowledge was providing diagrams with Chris Morris arrows any time in advance suggesting plane parts were certain to start turning up on Mozambique and Reunion. If you have such Guardian diagrams and articles from 24 months ago, happy for you to show me. All I've seen, and what you've linked to here, are justifications 'after he event' (ie after things started showing up) for finding the flaperon on Reunion. I'm not saying those oceanographic models are wrong or made up by lizards, just pointing out that as far as I know they were only enacted to justify things once a part was found.

You need to look up what hyperbole is. It's not pulling random figures out of an orifice for the sake of it. It's a literary device to make a point. But you knew that right? You just like belittling because, having science on your side and all that, you obviously need sarcasm too right?

I have never once suggested the aircraft was lost just off SE Africa. Nor that the lizards put the parts there. But, later today or tomorrow, I will offer you, as I seem to be being pushed into it, an alternative explanation of sorts.
go on then.
 
Also pardon me for not looking back through 62 pages of thread, I'll be truly grateful of you do it for me
I did - it's right there under your nose. Once again...
Not my theory. Simply the agreement of separate, independent oceanographic circulation modelling and also contemporaneous measurements. It's all back there in this thread.
I've done all the work and spoon fed it to you but your intellectual indolence extends to not even digesting those morsels.
my point was not the Guardian nor anyone else to my knowledge was providing diagrams with Chris Morris arrows any time in advance suggesting plane parts were certain to start turning up on Mozambique and Reunion
You ought to try improving your research skills: oceanographers pointed out in the weeks following the disappearance of MH370 (some 15 months before material started turning up) that the debris would end up in the Indian Ocean gyre, circulating anti-clockwise from the eastern Indian ocean, north then westwards to Africa, and then south down the African coast before heading back eastwards. A cycle that can take around up to six years, though some material will end up in the slack of the Indian Ocean Garbage Patch. From that NatGeo article (published less than 4 weeks after the plane disappeared): "If the Malaysian Boeing 777 crashed into the zone off the west coast of Australia where searchers are now looking, and if some of that debris remains undiscovered, it is already on its journey west toward Madagascar to join the rest of the junk in the Indian Ocean garbage patch, arriving in about a year".
If you have such Guardian diagrams and articles from 18 months ago, happy for you to show me.
Sadly only substantive articles from 23 months ago and diagrams a decade or more ago in the scientific literature on oceanography. Will those suffice?

The ocean gyres (all the major bodies of water have them) have been known about for many decades and are an inevitable consequence of the Coriolis effect arising in fluids on a rotating body. The circulation and accumulation of debris in them has been known about and characterised over at least the last 2 decades.
Oceanic_gyres.png

Source: NOAA (2008).

Though, especially for you, just to sate your appetite for Chris Morris arrows, here's a diagram that CNN published less than two weeks after the disappearance of MH370:
0253975a-a4fa-497e-953f-ec2972f38e0f_500.jpg

Source: CNN (20 March 2014).
 
Last edited:
But, later today or tomorrow, I will offer you, as I seem to be being pushed into it, an alternative explanation of sorts.

I'm really looking forward to your knowledgeable, well researched, and comprehensively referenced piece on this that will refute the general consensus as to what happened.
 
Listing the variables and, in your own words, knowing whether or not, eg, individual plane parts were doused in bio - antagonistic fluids is not the same thing is it? Pardon me if you have such knowledge, I doubt you do. Also pardon me for not looking back through 62 pages of thread, I'll be truly grateful of you do it for me, but my point was not the Guardian nor anyone else to my knowledge was providing diagrams with Chris Morris arrows any time in advance suggesting plane parts were certain to start turning up on Mozambique and Reunion. If you have such Guardian diagrams and articles from 24 months ago, happy for you to show me. All I've seen, and what you've linked to here, are justifications 'after he event' (ie after things started showing up) for finding the flaperon on Reunion. I'm not saying those oceanographic models are wrong or made up by lizards, just pointing out that as far as I know they were only enacted to justify things once a part was found.

You need to look up what hyperbole is. It's not pulling random figures out of an orifice for the sake of it. It's a literary device to make a point. But you knew that right? You just like belittling because, having science on your side and all that, you obviously need sarcasm too right?

I have never once suggested the aircraft was lost just off SE Africa. Nor that the lizards put the parts there. But, later today or tomorrow, I will offer you, as I seem to be being pushed into it, an alternative explanation of sorts.
It's not up to other posters to do your reading and research for you. You've been spoon-fed a lot more than most have on here by someone extremely knowledgeable on this topic, and you don't even have the decency to read it.
 
I'm really looking forward to your knowledgeable, well researched, and comprehensively referenced piece on this that will refute the general consensus as to what happened.

Cool. I'm really looking forward to the day when someone from Urban provides a knowledgeable response without belittling sarcasm serving to reinforce their own ego about being RIGHT! RIGHT! YES I AM SO RIGHT! AND YOU ARE WRONG AND THEREFORE INFERIOR AND NEED TO BOW TO MY MUNICIFENCE!

2 Hats you came close. Well, you didn't, but at least you score on the intelligence bit. However, like the rest of Urban, you still speak down in condescension out of some misplaced entitlement to a message board rather than a genuine act to educate or even discuss.

So in the meantime I'll fuck off, away from YOUR section (yours all yours) but with a final...
 
Cool. I'm really looking forward to the day when someone from Urban provides a knowledgeable response without belittling sarcasm serving to reinforce their own ego about being RIGHT! RIGHT! YES I AM SO RIGHT! AND YOU ARE WRONG AND THEREFORE INFERIOR AND NEED TO BOW TO MY MUNICIFENCE!

If you want this to happen you should try actually providing some meaningful content to respond to.
 
Back
Top Bottom