[Jabberwalker]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

I can't see them picking up the crash on the seafloor with seismic equipment. Energy from the plane crashing into the water would dissipate quickly and it would then drop gently on the seafloor. In myth busters they found rifle bullets lost all their speed about 3 feet into the water, there's just too much resistance.

China seems to be full of shit anyway. Their satellite images were very poor quality. Why? Instead of contacting the Malaysian govt about the images, China just published them on a website. Why?

I can see them picking up the crash into the sea with a SOSUS system. I expect the Chinese have a pretty decent SOSUS system given that Clinton licensed the technology for export about twenty years ago.

They can probably hear a fish farting in the Potomac.

[andyt]

In that case they should be receiving so many signals as to make the system worthless.

[Jabberwalker]

andyt andyt:

In that case they should be receiving so many signals as to make the system worthless.

Computers can sort out the propeller washes from the whales humping sufficiently to identify individual propellers from the other side of the ocean. This is a highly developed technology that has been in operation since the early 1960's ... one that rendered a fair bit of the RCN's highly touted antisubmarine capability obsolete.

[Regina]

andyt andyt:

I can't see them picking up the crash on the seafloor with seismic equipment. Energy from the plane crashing into the water would dissipate quickly and it would then drop gently on the seafloor. In myth busters they found rifle bullets lost all their speed about 3 feet into the water, there's just too much resistance.

China seems to be full of shit anyway. Their satellite images were very poor quality. Why? Instead of contacting the Malaysian govt about the images, China just published them on a website. Why?

That is exactly how they found the Air France jet in 12,500 to 13,100 ft of water. How can you compare a solid mass like a bullet hitting water to an aircraft, which is a number of air chambers stuck together?

[BartSimpson]

Regina Regina:

...an aircraft, which is a number of air chambers stuck together?

You're thinking about submarines, my friend.

[Regina]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Regina Regina:

...an aircraft, which is a number of air chambers stuck together?

You're thinking about submarines, my friend.

They're ll submarines when beneath the surface. Difference is one can return to the surface. .032 Aluminum makes for poor pressure hulls as well.

[Jabberwalker]

As I read this, I have a digital caliper and various pieces of 6063 alloy lying beside my computer. It does not bear thinking just how little material there is between you and the near vacuum of the stratosphere when you're flying along in an airliner.

[BRAH]

With more information coming out it seems this possibly was a hijacking gone wrong.

[Jabberwalker]

BRAH BRAH:

With more information coming out it seems this possibly was a hijacking gone wrong.

I keep thinking about those two huge Petronas Towers down there and wonder ...

Perhaps, this was a foiled attack, like the flight that went down in Pennsylvania.

[BartSimpson]

Interesting thought except I have to wonder if the Chinese onboard the plane would stand up to authority that way?

Would the Malaysians or Indonesians?

[Jabberwalker]

... or would any Chinese be suicidal enough to hijack an airliner? (the way that they drive around here, I doubt it!!)

They should take another look at those two Iranian passengers with the phoney passports. They surely wouldn't be competent enough to fly a plane, disable transponders but they are really the ideal demographic for supplying muscle to an airliner take-over bid. How many hijackers on each plane during 9-11 ... 4-5 per plane?

[BartSimpson]

Iranians pilot aircraft all the time. Give them credit, they still pilot F-14 fighters that haven't had a decent overhaul since 1979! Driving a 777 would be a whole lot easier than driving an F-14 that's held together with spit and bailing wire and using parts that have been scavenged or fabricated by guys using 8th century blacksmith technology.

[Jabberwalker]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Iranians pilot aircraft all the time. Give them credit, they still pilot F-14 fighters that haven't had a decent overhaul since 1979! Driving a 777 would be a whole lot easier than driving an F-14 that's held together with spit and bailing wire and using parts that have been scavenged or fabricated by guys using 8th century blacksmith technology.

These guys are teenagers. They're not likely to be advanced pilots. I do know about those orphaned Tomcats. They're like Studebakers in Cuba.

[BRAH]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

BRAH BRAH:

With more information coming out it seems this possibly was a hijacking gone wrong.

I keep thinking about those two huge Petronas Towers down there and wonder ...

Perhaps, this was a foiled attack, like the flight that went down in Pennsylvania.

That's a possible scenario and no matter how much technology and Military assets are used in the search it may never be found.

[andyt]

Regina Regina:

andyt andyt:

I can't see them picking up the crash on the seafloor with seismic equipment. Energy from the plane crashing into the water would dissipate quickly and it would then drop gently on the seafloor. In myth busters they found rifle bullets lost all their speed about 3 feet into the water, there's just too much resistance.

China seems to be full of shit anyway. Their satellite images were very poor quality. Why? Instead of contacting the Malaysian govt about the images, China just published them on a website. Why?

That is exactly how they found the Air France jet in 12,500 to 13,100 ft of water. How can you compare a solid mass like a bullet hitting water to an aircraft, which is a number of air chambers stuck together?

My point was that even a bullet lost all its velocity = impact energy after 1m and just dropped to the bottom of the pool without much of a thump. Are you saying a plane would behave differently? Whether in pieces or otherwise.