Debris from aircraft wreckage found in Bay of Bengal

by Original Quill Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:47 pm

First topic message reminder :

Searchers for Flight 370 are beginning to refocus on the Northern Arc theory. Here is a promising find:

BD News 24 wrote:An Australian exploration company says it may have traced the debris of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 in the Bay of Bengal.

GeoResonance says its research has identified materials on the ocean floor that may be from a plane, reports 7News.

The spot the company reportedly located the ‘materials’ in the Bay is 5,000 kilometres from where the authorities have been looking for the plane.

Flight MH370 went off the radar while flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on Mar 8 with 239 people on board.

Six weeks have now passed and extensive searches in the Indian Ocean have failed to yield results.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott on Monday said the chance of finding floating debris from the jetliner was highly unlikely.

He said a new phase of the search will focus on a far larger area of the Indian Ocean floor.

Malaysia, China, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Britain and the United States are assisting Australia in conducting the most expensive search in aviation history.

The US Navy Bluefin-21 underwater drone searching the seabed has so far failed to find any sign of the plane.

“We are still baffled and disappointed that we haven’t been able to find undersea wreckage based on those detections,” Reuters quoted Abbott as telling reporters.

He said the new search area, which spans 700km by 80km (435 miles by 40 miles), could take between six and eight months to completely examine, at a cost to Australia of as much as A$60 million ($55.69 million).

But GeoResonance believes authorities have been “looking in the wrong place”.

It started its own search for the missing aircraft on Mar 10.

“The technology that we use was originally designed to find nuclear warheads, submarines… our team in the Ukraine decided we should try and help,” the Adelaide-based 7News quoted David Pope from GeoResonance as saying.

The company has surveyed over 2,000,000 square kilometres of the possible crash zone, using images obtained from satellites and aircraft.

Scientists focused their efforts north of the flight’s last known location, using over 20 technologies to analyse the data including a nuclear reactor.

Pope said they were “very excited” at finding what they believed to be the wreckage of a commercial airliner.

Pavel Kursa from GeoResonance told 7News: “We identified chemical elements and materials that make up a Boeing 777… these are aluminium, titanium, copper, steel alloys and other materials.”

The team sent an initial report to the authorities while the black box still had two weeks of battery power left.

They said they verified the findings by analysing images from the same area on Mar 5, three days before the plane’s disappearance.

“The wreckage wasn’t there prior to the disappearance of MH370,” Pope said.

The full report was submitted on Apr 15.

“We’re not trying to say that it definitely is MH370, however it is a lead we feel should be followed up,” Pope told 7News.

Source: Bd news24

http://www.bangladeshchronicle.net/index.php/2014/04/missing-plane-wreckage-found-in-bay-of-bengal/

by Lone Wolf Mon May 05, 2014 6:58 pm

JUST what, if anything IS sassy actually qualified in, if I may be so bold...

NOTE that nowhere has she yet appeared to have corrected, or even admitted to, those dozen or more deliberate lies that she has already spread across the half dozen or so threads on this topic..

SASSY has also managed to have at least one of these threads locked already, and seemingly poisoned another couple with her vitriol and nastiness to such a degree that people have stayed well clear of them for some weeks now ! Suspect

by Guest Mon May 05, 2014 7:03 pm

Have they? Only the ones I want to lol

by Guest Mon May 05, 2014 7:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:I'll wait for Irn Bru. In the meantime, don't cause the closing of this thread, sassy. We are having an interesting discussion.

Er, I think your plagiarism had a lot to do with that, don't you?

by harrymuffin Mon May 05, 2014 9:25 pm

Please do not have this thread closed.

I'm not in the mood to watch CNN 24/7.

by Original Quill Tue May 06, 2014 5:38 pm

Sassy wrote:Have they? Only the ones I want to lol

Well...I think the point is, people are asking you to stop trying to manipulate everyone. We are well aware of your shenanigans to take over control of this board. We are much more interested in discussing the topic of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 370.

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 6:39 pm

::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

There you go Harry, stupid sod hasn't even noticed I'm hardly ever here anymore, much to busy. Mr Manipulator, failed again.

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 6:45 pm

Sassy wrote:::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

There you go Harry, stupid sod hasn't even noticed I'm hardly ever here anymore, much to busy. Mr Manipulator, failed again.

Making multiple posts a day is not something I would describe as hardly being here anymore.

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 6:47 pm

Samhraí wrote:
Sassy wrote:::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

There you go Harry, stupid sod hasn't even noticed I'm hardly ever here anymore, much to busy. Mr Manipulator, failed again.

Making multiple posts a day is not how I would describe as hardly being here anymore.

What multiple posts. Came on for 10 mins this morning and here now for a bit before I do something else.

by Irn Bru Tue May 06, 2014 6:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Sassy wrote:Have they? Only the ones I want to lol

Well...I think the point is, people are asking you to stop trying to manipulate everyone. We are well aware of your shenanigans to take over control of this board. We are much more interested in discussing the topic of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 370.

Who is asking this Quill and who is it that is supposed to getting manipulated? And when you say 'we are well aware of your shenanigans to take over control of the board who do you mean when you say we?.

If you are the official spokesman for the 'we' group have you reported this attempted coup to Ben? Laughing

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 6:59 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well...I think the point is, people are asking you to stop trying to manipulate everyone. We are well aware of your shenanigans to take over control of this board. We are much more interested in discussing the topic of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 370.

Who is asking this Quill and who is it that is supposed to getting manipulated? And when you say 'we are well aware of your shenanigans to take over control of the board who do you mean when you say we?.

If you are the official spokesman for the 'we' group have you reported this attempted coup to Ben?

Apparently both me and you are part of this coup Irn Laughing

by Irn Bru Tue May 06, 2014 7:04 pm

Original Quill wrote:I'll wait for Irn Bru. In the meantime, don't cause the closing of this thread, sassy. We are having an interesting discussion.

You really didn't have to wait for me Quill because there have been several good contributors on this thread including the one where she made you aware that the Boeing ceiling for the 777 is not 35,000 feet.

by Irn Bru Tue May 06, 2014 7:05 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well...I think the point is, people are asking you to stop trying to manipulate everyone. We are well aware of your shenanigans to take over control of this board. We are much more interested in discussing the topic of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 370.

Who is asking this Quill and who is it that is supposed to getting manipulated? And when you say 'we are well aware of your shenanigans to take over control of the board who do you mean when you say we?.

If you are the official spokesman for the 'we' group have you reported this attempted coup to Ben?

Apparently both me and you are part of this coup Irn

Oh really

by Irn Bru Tue May 06, 2014 8:10 pm

Right Qull here's the response to that walk in the park and that flight of fantasy that you made earlier in this thread. It's a bg 'un but it had to be because we really don't want o miss anything out now, do we?

Original Quill wrote:With all due respect, Irn Bru, your credentials are even less than his. I have yet to hear that you fly at all, let alone a commercial aircraft.

My credentials are what they are and what you see is what you get and I have no need to big myself up. And you can be certain that my views and words are my own and if I use contributions from another source I will always tell you where they came from which is something you would do well to bear in mind in future. My credential may well be less than your anonymous pilot that you found by googling Yahoo answers but from what I’ve read on here they are better than yours.

Original Quill wrote:Now, to be sure people lie on the internet, and people lie on TV. People also lie from the desks of bureaucracy...and that specifically is what I believe has happened with the Inmarsat speculation that has led to this extensive, perhaps meaningless search of the south Indian Ocean. That is why I have repeatedly said we have only questions.

So now you have turned to claiming that Inmarsat were lying even though their calculations were reviewed by the relevant authorities both in the UK and the USA and by aircraft industry experts before the data was passed to Malaysian Airlines and then published in the media? You actually knew that from previous posts so I guess it’s those damn conspiracy theories creeping back in again lol’

Original Quill wrote:Irn Bru wrote:And you are not real if you believe that Boeing could get away with overstating the capabilities of it's aircraft and the fact that you said that just shows that you don't have a clue of what is involved in getting an aircraft certified for flight.

Haha, that's a subtle lie, if I ever heard one. I have alleged that the Boeing publication would not be less than glowing; you have turned that into "overstating the capabilities;" but what you really mean to suggest is that I said that Boeing has audaciously lied. A little creep and you get to scream: LIAR!! Honestly, Irn Bru, you are so sophomoric.

What I said was that Boeing would only give the final best test results possible given the small summary it published, and they would be static results. They would give ceiling results that came out of the best of test conditions, and not normal flying conditions.

I said that if you believed that Boeing would overstate the capabilities of their aircraft then you don’t have a clue of what is involved in getting an aircraft certified for flight and what you have added now just confirms that you definitely don’t. Go and find your Federal Aviation Authority regulations to find out what is involved and you will then know that its consistent test data results that are used to establish what the capabilities of an aircraft are and not the best ever achieved and it’s ridiculous for you to even come out with such nonsense. I didn’t accuse anyone of lying but if you believe that Boeing would publish data in the way you are saying they are then you are indeed basically accusing them of lying in a way that is dangerous and misleading to those that fly these aircraft and those who travel in them..

Original Quill wrote:A little more relevance creep, Irn Bru? You need to think more about what you intend to say, and less about how you can misinterpret me. I have repeatedly said we can only have questions, not conspiracy theories...nor least of all, final answers.

What I said was what I intended to say and I haven’t misinterpreted you. You quite clearly bought into the Diego Garcia conspiracy theory only to then say a few posts later that you never supported that view.

Original Quill wrote:Now I'll help you give your own thoughts some clarity: the question is how high can the Boeing 777 fly. The question is not, what is the range of the aircraft or the weight of the passengers(?). It is not about phantom pings from some nondescript satellite technology, or anything else

Oh go on then, this should be fun lol

Original Quill wrote:First, we have established that you are wrong to begin with. The 777 does not have a maximum ceiling of 45,000-feet. It has a published ceiling of 43,100-ft.

I never said it had a maximum ceiling of 45,000 feet but if you want to stick with that then show me where I said it. And have you forgotten that you said that the maximum ceiling was about 35,000 feet which you know now is wrong because I told you so? lol

Original Quill wrote:Second, we have established that fuel and range are trade-offs, as altitude extends range and less fuel weight means greater altitude.

Indeed it does and that’s why I told you that MH370 was carrying less than half of the fuel it could have carried – hence a higher altitude. You were saying that best estimates were that MH370 was carrying almost a full fuel load. You obviously forgot about that as well or have you just changed your mind?

Original Quill wrote: But, the only way the Boeing 777 gains in range is to take on more fuel. There is no new parabolic wing that has been invented since the first copy of the 777. So it is irrelevant "that MH370 was not required to be fully tanked up." The question isn't proportion of the fuel tank, but weight of actual fuel. It had the same required amount of fuel as it always had, or needed for that trip.

That’s true and I told you that as well when I informed you of the fuel load that MH370 was carrying would only be sufficient for the journey it embarked on. You were saying that MH370 had enough fuel to travel for around 12 – 15 hours of flight but here you are now trying to paint a different picture and re-invent your position by saying it only had enough fuel for the journey. I said that, not you.

Original Quill wrote:but keep in mind the real question is, could someone have used altitude to kill the passengers? The answer: certainly not in the early part of the flight. The aircraft was too heavy. As far as later in the flight? Well, why wait? Dump the tanks and fly to the moon--haha, highly unlikely you can land, however. The point is, range or range extension has nothing to do with it. Without fuel you can't climb at all and with too much fuel the aircraft is too heavy.
In any case, it is impossible for the 777 to climb to 45,000-ft.

Range and range extension of the aircraft is important and relevant because we can use that to establish that the aircraft’s fuel tanks were not even half full therefore not carrying the fuel you said it was estimated to have and also not capable of flying for the 12 -15 hours that you said it was.
You can be sure that I will keep everything in mind including what you have said before and I’ll keep in mind the entirely different position you are now trying to adopt here. A Boeing 777 200ER can climb from take off to a cruising altitude up to 43,100 no problem and you can look that up in any airline flight manual operating a B777 aircraft where they go through the sequence of events to show the steps they go through to get there. Let me know how you get on

And sorry to chop your post around so much bit it was important to do so because you have twisted around so many points and that needs to be examined in precise detail to show exactly what you are doing All you have done is submit a blizzard of words which is no more than a blatant attempt of smoke and mirrors to disguise what you were saying before and twist it around to try make out you were saying something else.
Try not to do that Quill because it’s just not nice, it's so sophomoric and it’s really easy to expose it for what it is.

Cheers
Irn

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 8:12 pm

Perhaps Quill is referring to all the posters that no longer post on this thread?
Sassy knew anyway she referred to them as " the people I no longer want to"

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 8:20 pm

Irn Bru wrote:Right Qull here's the response to that walk in the park and that flight of fantasy that you made earlier in this thread. It's a bg 'un but it had to be because we really don't want o miss anything out now, do we?
Original Quill wrote:With all due respect, Irn Bru, your credentials are even less than his. I have yet to hear that you fly at all, let alone a commercial aircraft.
My credentials are what they are and what you see is what you get and I have no need to big myself up. And you can be certain that my views and words are my own and if I use contributions from another source I will always tell you where they came from which is something you would do well to bear in mind in future. My credential may well be less than your anonymous pilot that you found by googling Yahoo answers but from what I’ve read on here they are better than yours.
Original Quill wrote:Now, to be sure people lie on the internet, and people lie on TV. People also lie from the desks of bureaucracy...and that specifically is what I believe has happened with the Inmarsat speculation that has led to this extensive, perhaps meaningless search of the south Indian Ocean. That is why I have repeatedly said we have only questions.
So now you have turned to claiming that Inmarsat were lying even though their calculations were reviewed by the relevant authorities both in the UK and the USA and by aircraft industry experts before the data was passed to Malaysian Airlines and then published in the media? You actually knew that from previous posts so I guess it’s those damn conspiracy theories creeping back in again lol’
Original Quill wrote:Irn Bru wrote:And you are not real if you believe that Boeing could get away with overstating the capabilities of it's aircraft and the fact that you said that just shows that you don't have a clue of what is involved in getting an aircraft certified for flight.

Haha, that's a subtle lie, if I ever heard one. I have alleged that the Boeing publication would not be less than glowing; you have turned that into "overstating the capabilities;" but what you really mean to suggest is that I said that Boeing has audaciously lied. A little creep and you get to scream: LIAR!! Honestly, Irn Bru, you are so sophomoric.

What I said was that Boeing would only give the final best test results possible given the small summary it published, and they would be static results. They would give ceiling results that came out of the best of test conditions, and not normal flying conditions.
I said that if you believed that Boeing would overstate the capabilities of their aircraft then you don’t have a clue of what is involved in getting an aircraft certified for flight and what you have added now just confirms that you definitely don’t. Go and find your Federal Aviation Authority regulations to find out what is involved and you will then know that its consistent test data results that are used to establish what the capabilities of an aircraft are and not the best ever achieved and it’s ridiculous for you to even come out with such nonsense. I didn’t accuse anyone of lying but if you believe that Boeing would publish data in the way you are saying they are then you are indeed basically accusing them of lying in a way that is dangerous and misleading to those that fly these aircraft and those who travel in them..
Original Quill wrote:A little more relevance creep, Irn Bru? You need to think more about what you intend to say, and less about how you can misinterpret me. I have repeatedly said we can only have questions, not conspiracy theories...nor least of all, final answers.
What I said was what I intended to say and I haven’t misinterpreted you. You quite clearly bought into the Diego Garcia conspiracy theory only to then say a few posts later that you never supported that view.
Original Quill wrote:Now I'll help you give your own thoughts some clarity: the question is how high can the Boeing 777 fly. The question is not, what is the range of the aircraft or the weight of the passengers(?). It is not about phantom pings from some nondescript satellite technology, or anything else
Oh go on then, this should be fun lol
Original Quill wrote:First, we have established that you are wrong to begin with. The 777 does not have a maximum ceiling of 45,000-feet. It has a published ceiling of 43,100-ft.
I never said it had a maximum ceiling of 45,000 feet but if you want to stick with that then show me where I said it. And have you forgotten that you said that the maximum ceiling was about 35,000 feet which you know now is wrong because I told you so? lol
Original Quill wrote:Second, we have established that fuel and range are trade-offs, as altitude extends range and less fuel weight means greater altitude.
Indeed it does and that’s why I told you that MH370 was carrying less than half of the fuel it could have carried – hence a higher altitude. You were saying that best estimates were that MH370 was carrying almost a full fuel load. You obviously forgot about that as well or have you just changed your mind?
Original Quill wrote: But, the only way the Boeing 777 gains in range is to take on more fuel. There is no new parabolic wing that has been invented since the first copy of the 777. So it is irrelevant "that MH370 was not required to be fully tanked up." The question isn't proportion of the fuel tank, but weight of actual fuel. It had the same required amount of fuel as it always had, or needed for that trip.
That’s true and I told you that as well when I informed you of the fuel load that MH370 was carrying would only be sufficient for the journey it embarked on. You were saying that MH370 had enough fuel to travel for around 12 – 15 hours of flight but here you are now trying to paint a different picture and re-invent your position by saying it only had enough fuel for the journey. I said that, not you.
Original Quill wrote:but keep in mind the real question is, could someone have used altitude to kill the passengers? The answer: certainly not in the early part of the flight. The aircraft was too heavy. As far as later in the flight? Well, why wait? Dump the tanks and fly to the moon--haha, highly unlikely you can land, however. The point is, range or range extension has nothing to do with it. Without fuel you can't climb at all and with too much fuel the aircraft is too heavy.
In any case, it is impossible for the 777 to climb to 45,000-ft.
Range and range extension of the aircraft is important and relevant because we can use that to establish that the aircraft’s fuel tanks were not even half full therefore not carrying the fuel you said it was estimated to have and also not capable of flying for the 12 -15 hours that you said it was.
You can be sure that I will keep everything in mind including what you have said before and I’ll keep in mind the entirely different position you are now trying to adopt here. A Boeing 777 200ER can climb from take off to a cruising altitude up to 43,100 no problem and you can look that up in any airline flight manual operating a B777 aircraft where they go through the sequence of events to show the steps they go through to get there. Let me know how you get on

And sorry to chop your post around so much bit it was important to do so because you have twisted around so many points and that needs to be examined in precise detail to show exactly what you are doing All you have done is submit a blizzard of words which is no more than a blatant attempt of smoke and mirrors to disguise what you were saying before and twist it around to try make out you were saying something else.
Try not to do that Quill because it’s just not nice, it's so sophomoric and it’s really easy to expose it for what it is.

Cheers
Irn

Well fancy that Irn, as soon as you posted this, Quill logged out. No change there then!

by Irn Bru Tue May 06, 2014 8:21 pm

Nems wrote:Perhaps Quill is referring to all the posters that no longer post on this thread?
Sassy knew anyway she referred to them as " the people I no longer want to"

Perhaps!!!

There is nothing stopping anyone posting on this thread and no reason why they shouldn't.

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 8:23 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Nems wrote:Perhaps Quill is referring to all the posters that no longer post on this thread?
Sassy knew anyway she referred to them as " the people I no longer want to"
Perhaps!!!

There is nothing stopping anyone posting on this thread and no reason why they shouldn't.

What is the daft bint on about now. Bee said that people no long post to me, so I replied, 'only the people I no longer want to'. Perhaps she felt it necessary to post in Quill's place as he ran off poor soul.

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 8:23 pm

Irn Bru wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Apparently both me and you are part of this coup Irn

Oh really

Aye Sir!..Quill and one or two acquaintances believe we are plotting something BIG!! Laughing

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 8:25 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:

Oh really

Aye Sir!..Quill and one or two acquaintances believe we are plotting something BIG!!

Wish I knew when I had time for that JD. Mind you, Quill and Co go in for conspiracy theories lol

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 8:28 pm

Sassy wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:
Perhaps!!!

There is nothing stopping anyone posting on this thread and no reason why they shouldn't.

What is the daft bint on about now. Bee said that people no long post to me, so I replied, 'only the people I no longer want to'. Perhaps she felt it necessary to post in Quill's place as he ran off poor soul.

Im on about the fact that you gleefully announced that all the people that no longer participate on this thread are the ones you no longer want to.
Shall we leave it there as you always go a bit giddy and unnecessary when Irn Bru is online.

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 8:28 pm

Sassy wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Aye Sir!..Quill and one or two acquaintances believe we are plotting something BIG!!

Wish I knew when I had time for that JD. Mind you, Quill and Co go in for conspiracy theories lol

Oh...your in it with us Sassy!, we are in YOUR posse, so really most of this big plot is coming from you, you know! Laughing

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 8:32 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Wish I knew when I had time for that JD. Mind you, Quill and Co go in for conspiracy theories lol

Oh...your in it with us Sassy!, we are in YOUR posse, so really most of this big plot is coming from you, you know!

::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

Irn is the aeronautics expect, not me. I have some idea from always being around aircraft until I left home, but that was fighters etc. However, Boeing publish all the details about their planes, Quill just gets a bit muddled about it lol

by Irn Bru Tue May 06, 2014 8:35 pm

Can we just leave it at that guys and focus on the subject in hand.

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 8:37 pm

Irn Bru wrote:Can we just leave it at that guys and focus on the subject in hand.

Abserbloodylutely!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 8:40 pm

Irn Bru wrote:Can we just leave it at that guys and focus on the subject in hand.

Of course we can. Lets hope Quill and Bee don't refer to it again lol

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 8:43 pm

Irn Bru wrote:Right Qull here's the response to that walk in the park and that flight of fantasy that you made earlier in this thread. It's a bg 'un but it had to be because we really don't want o miss anything out now, do we?
Original Quill wrote:With all due respect, Irn Bru, your credentials are even less than his. I have yet to hear that you fly at all, let alone a commercial aircraft.
My credentials are what they are and what you see is what you get and I have no need to big myself up. And you can be certain that my views and words are my own and if I use contributions from another source I will always tell you where they came from which is something you would do well to bear in mind in future. My credential may well be less than your anonymous pilot that you found by googling Yahoo answers but from what I’ve read on here they are better than yours.
Original Quill wrote:Now, to be sure people lie on the internet, and people lie on TV. People also lie from the desks of bureaucracy...and that specifically is what I believe has happened with the Inmarsat speculation that has led to this extensive, perhaps meaningless search of the south Indian Ocean. That is why I have repeatedly said we have only questions.
So now you have turned to claiming that Inmarsat were lying even though their calculations were reviewed by the relevant authorities both in the UK and the USA and by aircraft industry experts before the data was passed to Malaysian Airlines and then published in the media? You actually knew that from previous posts so I guess it’s those damn conspiracy theories creeping back in again lol’
Original Quill wrote:Irn Bru wrote:And you are not real if you believe that Boeing could get away with overstating the capabilities of it's aircraft and the fact that you said that just shows that you don't have a clue of what is involved in getting an aircraft certified for flight.

Haha, that's a subtle lie, if I ever heard one. I have alleged that the Boeing publication would not be less than glowing; you have turned that into "overstating the capabilities;" but what you really mean to suggest is that I said that Boeing has audaciously lied. A little creep and you get to scream: LIAR!! Honestly, Irn Bru, you are so sophomoric.

What I said was that Boeing would only give the final best test results possible given the small summary it published, and they would be static results. They would give ceiling results that came out of the best of test conditions, and not normal flying conditions.
I said that if you believed that Boeing would overstate the capabilities of their aircraft then you don’t have a clue of what is involved in getting an aircraft certified for flight and what you have added now just confirms that you definitely don’t. Go and find your Federal Aviation Authority regulations to find out what is involved and you will then know that its consistent test data results that are used to establish what the capabilities of an aircraft are and not the best ever achieved and it’s ridiculous for you to even come out with such nonsense. I didn’t accuse anyone of lying but if you believe that Boeing would publish data in the way you are saying they are then you are indeed basically accusing them of lying in a way that is dangerous and misleading to those that fly these aircraft and those who travel in them..
Original Quill wrote:A little more relevance creep, Irn Bru? You need to think more about what you intend to say, and less about how you can misinterpret me. I have repeatedly said we can only have questions, not conspiracy theories...nor least of all, final answers.
What I said was what I intended to say and I haven’t misinterpreted you. You quite clearly bought into the Diego Garcia conspiracy theory only to then say a few posts later that you never supported that view.
Original Quill wrote:Now I'll help you give your own thoughts some clarity: the question is how high can the Boeing 777 fly. The question is not, what is the range of the aircraft or the weight of the passengers(?). It is not about phantom pings from some nondescript satellite technology, or anything else
Oh go on then, this should be fun lol
Original Quill wrote:First, we have established that you are wrong to begin with. The 777 does not have a maximum ceiling of 45,000-feet. It has a published ceiling of 43,100-ft.
I never said it had a maximum ceiling of 45,000 feet but if you want to stick with that then show me where I said it. And have you forgotten that you said that the maximum ceiling was about 35,000 feet which you know now is wrong because I told you so? lol
Original Quill wrote:Second, we have established that fuel and range are trade-offs, as altitude extends range and less fuel weight means greater altitude.
Indeed it does and that’s why I told you that MH370 was carrying less than half of the fuel it could have carried – hence a higher altitude. You were saying that best estimates were that MH370 was carrying almost a full fuel load. You obviously forgot about that as well or have you just changed your mind?
Original Quill wrote: But, the only way the Boeing 777 gains in range is to take on more fuel. There is no new parabolic wing that has been invented since the first copy of the 777. So it is irrelevant "that MH370 was not required to be fully tanked up." The question isn't proportion of the fuel tank, but weight of actual fuel. It had the same required amount of fuel as it always had, or needed for that trip.
That’s true and I told you that as well when I informed you of the fuel load that MH370 was carrying would only be sufficient for the journey it embarked on. You were saying that MH370 had enough fuel to travel for around 12 – 15 hours of flight but here you are now trying to paint a different picture and re-invent your position by saying it only had enough fuel for the journey. I said that, not you.
Original Quill wrote:but keep in mind the real question is, could someone have used altitude to kill the passengers? The answer: certainly not in the early part of the flight. The aircraft was too heavy. As far as later in the flight? Well, why wait? Dump the tanks and fly to the moon--haha, highly unlikely you can land, however. The point is, range or range extension has nothing to do with it. Without fuel you can't climb at all and with too much fuel the aircraft is too heavy.
In any case, it is impossible for the 777 to climb to 45,000-ft.
Range and range extension of the aircraft is important and relevant because we can use that to establish that the aircraft’s fuel tanks were not even half full therefore not carrying the fuel you said it was estimated to have and also not capable of flying for the 12 -15 hours that you said it was.
You can be sure that I will keep everything in mind including what you have said before and I’ll keep in mind the entirely different position you are now trying to adopt here. A Boeing 777 200ER can climb from take off to a cruising altitude up to 43,100 no problem and you can look that up in any airline flight manual operating a B777 aircraft where they go through the sequence of events to show the steps they go through to get there. Let me know how you get on

And sorry to chop your post around so much bit it was important to do so because you have twisted around so many points and that needs to be examined in precise detail to show exactly what you are doing All you have done is submit a blizzard of words which is no more than a blatant attempt of smoke and mirrors to disguise what you were saying before and twist it around to try make out you were saying something else.
Try not to do that Quill because it’s just not nice, it's so sophomoric and it’s really easy to expose it for what it is.

Cheers
Irn

There you go, so Quill knows what to reply to ::D::

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 8:48 pm

Sassy wrote:
Irn Bru wrote:Right Qull here's the response to that walk in the park and that flight of fantasy that you made earlier in this thread. It's a bg 'un but it had to be because we really don't want o miss anything out now, do we?

My credentials are what they are and what you see is what you get and I have no need to big myself up. And you can be certain that my views and words are my own and if I use contributions from another source I will always tell you where they came from which is something you would do well to bear in mind in future. My credential may well be less than your anonymous pilot that you found by googling Yahoo answers but from what I’ve read on here they are better than yours.

So now you have turned to claiming that Inmarsat were lying even though their calculations were reviewed by the relevant authorities both in the UK and the USA and by aircraft industry experts before the data was passed to Malaysian Airlines and then published in the media? You actually knew that from previous posts so I guess it’s those damn conspiracy theories creeping back in again lol’

I said that if you believed that Boeing would overstate the capabilities of their aircraft then you don’t have a clue of what is involved in getting an aircraft certified for flight and what you have added now just confirms that you definitely don’t. Go and find your Federal Aviation Authority regulations to find out what is involved and you will then know that its consistent test data results that are used to establish what the capabilities of an aircraft are and not the best ever achieved and it’s ridiculous for you to even come out with such nonsense. I didn’t accuse anyone of lying but if you believe that Boeing would publish data in the way you are saying they are then you are indeed basically accusing them of lying in a way that is dangerous and misleading to those that fly these aircraft and those who travel in them..

What I said was what I intended to say and I haven’t misinterpreted you. You quite clearly bought into the Diego Garcia conspiracy theory only to then say a few posts later that you never supported that view.

Oh go on then, this should be fun lol

I never said it had a maximum ceiling of 45,000 feet but if you want to stick with that then show me where I said it. And have you forgotten that you said that the maximum ceiling was about 35,000 feet which you know now is wrong because I told you so? lol

Indeed it does and that’s why I told you that MH370 was carrying less than half of the fuel it could have carried – hence a higher altitude. You were saying that best estimates were that MH370 was carrying almost a full fuel load. You obviously forgot about that as well or have you just changed your mind?

That’s true and I told you that as well when I informed you of the fuel load that MH370 was carrying would only be sufficient for the journey it embarked on. You were saying that MH370 had enough fuel to travel for around 12 – 15 hours of flight but here you are now trying to paint a different picture and re-invent your position by saying it only had enough fuel for the journey. I said that, not you.

Range and range extension of the aircraft is important and relevant because we can use that to establish that the aircraft’s fuel tanks were not even half full therefore not carrying the fuel you said it was estimated to have and also not capable of flying for the 12 -15 hours that you said it was.
You can be sure that I will keep everything in mind including what you have said before and I’ll keep in mind the entirely different position you are now trying to adopt here. A Boeing 777 200ER can climb from take off to a cruising altitude up to 43,100 no problem and you can look that up in any airline flight manual operating a B777 aircraft where they go through the sequence of events to show the steps they go through to get there. Let me know how you get on

And sorry to chop your post around so much bit it was important to do so because you have twisted around so many points and that needs to be examined in precise detail to show exactly what you are doing All you have done is submit a blizzard of words which is no more than a blatant attempt of smoke and mirrors to disguise what you were saying before and twist it around to try make out you were saying something else.
Try not to do that Quill because it’s just not nice, it's so sophomoric and it’s really easy to expose it for what it is.

Cheers
Irn

There you go, so Quill knows what to reply to ::D::

Just what would Quill do without you Debris from aircraft wreckage found in Bay of Bengal - Page 2 Love_h75

x

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 8:51 pm

This is interesting

An interview with Captain Bill Palmer;

SPIEGEL: MH370 never landed on Pulau Langkawi. Instead it went up to 45,000 feet, well above its certified maximum. A little later, it plunged down to 23,000 feet. What does that tell you?

Palmer: Some experts have said that the captain might have tried a last resort attempt to extinguish the fire. That's why he climbed into thin air. This theory shouldn't be discounted. But my best guess is this: Everyone on the flight deck was incapacitated by now. The autopilot was off. The airplane was just flying on its own

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-captain-bill-palmer-on-fate-of-mh370-a-960464.html

His profile

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bill-palmer/4/a22/a6b

by Irn Bru Tue May 06, 2014 9:05 pm

Sassy wrote:This is interesting

An interview with Captain Bill Palmer;

SPIEGEL: MH370 never landed on Pulau Langkawi. Instead it went up to 45,000 feet, well above its certified maximum. A little later, it plunged down to 23,000 feet. What does that tell you?

Palmer: Some experts have said that the captain might have tried a last resort attempt to extinguish the fire. That's why he climbed into thin air. This theory shouldn't be discounted. But my best guess is this: Everyone on the flight deck was incapacitated by now. The autopilot was off. The airplane was just flying on its own

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-captain-bill-palmer-on-fate-of-mh370-a-960464.html

His profile

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/bill-palmer/4/a22/a6b

That's similar to the theory that Shady was talking about.

Impressive credentials as well

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 9:07 pm

Very. His book, Understanding Air France 447 is quite well known.

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 9:22 pm

Wow nice tag teaming guys ::D::

by eddie Tue May 06, 2014 9:44 pm

I've lost the plot now.
Are we now saying it's in the sea but not the Indian Ocean but another sea?? scratch

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 9:46 pm

eddie wrote:I've lost the plot now.
Are we now saying it's in the sea but not the Indian Ocean but another sea??

No Eddie, still saying it's in the Indian Ocean, and I'm quite sure the search going on there would have been stopped if they thought any different. No country can afford to throw away millions of pounds for nothing.

by Guest Tue May 06, 2014 10:44 pm

our country throw away millions every week to the EU so I'm sure other countries have no problem spending millions to cover up something .

by eddie Tue May 06, 2014 10:51 pm

Well I'm betting it's on a planet called xenykisndn 5 where we will all eventually end up.
It's okay there, I'm told, as JD is set to be king and Andrea Borgman his right wing commander.

by Original Quill Wed May 07, 2014 5:19 pm

Nems wrote:Wow nice tag teaming guys ::D::

Isn't it amusing, Nems? When the sassy-posse shows up, they do try to get their money's worth.

I find what is most illustrative is if you just walk away and leave them spitting and sputtering because they have no one to carry on about. It certainly shows they are far more committed to some perceived gang war than anything to do with the title of this thread. I like doing that and watching them squirm.

BTW, you were right about my comment over sassy's manipulation. I was stunned to see her openly admitting in that post how she tries to chase people off the board..."referred to them as 'the people I no longer want to.'" How candid. I also see that she is still stalking me...she checks if I am logged out, in, or whatever.

Anyway, the sassy gang have nothing to contribute meaningfully to this thread. We should open another one and let Ben shut this one down as well.

by Guest Wed May 07, 2014 5:23 pm

I said nothing of the sort you lying git, I said the people that don't post to me are the ones I don't want to speak to. Mr Twister, that's you.

by Guest Wed May 07, 2014 5:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Nems wrote:Wow nice tag teaming guys ::D::

Isn't it amusing, Nems? When the sassy-posse shows up, they do try to get their money's worth.

I find what is most illustrative is if you just walk away and leave them spitting and sputtering because they have no one to carry on about. It certainly shows they are far more committed to some perceived gang war than anything to do with the title of this thread. I like doing that and watching them squirm.

BTW, you were right about my comment over sassy's manipulation. I was stunned to see her openly admitting in that post how she tries to chase people off the board..."referred to them as 'the people I no longer want to.'" How candid. I also see that she is still stalking me...she checks if I am logged out, in, or whatever.

Anyway, the sassy gang have nothing to contribute meaningfully to this thread. We should open another one and let Ben shut this one down as well.

Yup x

by Guest Wed May 07, 2014 5:26 pm

This post was made by Nems who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Slurp, slurp.

by Guest Wed May 07, 2014 5:32 pm

Irn Bru wrote:Right Qull here's the response to that walk in the park and that flight of fantasy that you made earlier in this thread. It's a bg 'un but it had to be because we really don't want o miss anything out now, do we?
Original Quill wrote:With all due respect, Irn Bru, your credentials are even less than his. I have yet to hear that you fly at all, let alone a commercial aircraft.
My credentials are what they are and what you see is what you get and I have no need to big myself up. And you can be certain that my views and words are my own and if I use contributions from another source I will always tell you where they came from which is something you would do well to bear in mind in future. My credential may well be less than your anonymous pilot that you found by googling Yahoo answers but from what I’ve read on here they are better than yours.
Original Quill wrote:Now, to be sure people lie on the internet, and people lie on TV. People also lie from the desks of bureaucracy...and that specifically is what I believe has happened with the Inmarsat speculation that has led to this extensive, perhaps meaningless search of the south Indian Ocean. That is why I have repeatedly said we have only questions.
So now you have turned to claiming that Inmarsat were lying even though their calculations were reviewed by the relevant authorities both in the UK and the USA and by aircraft industry experts before the data was passed to Malaysian Airlines and then published in the media? You actually knew that from previous posts so I guess it’s those damn conspiracy theories creeping back in again lol’
Original Quill wrote:Irn Bru wrote:And you are not real if you believe that Boeing could get away with overstating the capabilities of it's aircraft and the fact that you said that just shows that you don't have a clue of what is involved in getting an aircraft certified for flight.

Haha, that's a subtle lie, if I ever heard one. I have alleged that the Boeing publication would not be less than glowing; you have turned that into "overstating the capabilities;" but what you really mean to suggest is that I said that Boeing has audaciously lied. A little creep and you get to scream: LIAR!! Honestly, Irn Bru, you are so sophomoric.

What I said was that Boeing would only give the final best test results possible given the small summary it published, and they would be static results. They would give ceiling results that came out of the best of test conditions, and not normal flying conditions.
I said that if you believed that Boeing would overstate the capabilities of their aircraft then you don’t have a clue of what is involved in getting an aircraft certified for flight and what you have added now just confirms that you definitely don’t. Go and find your Federal Aviation Authority regulations to find out what is involved and you will then know that its consistent test data results that are used to establish what the capabilities of an aircraft are and not the best ever achieved and it’s ridiculous for you to even come out with such nonsense. I didn’t accuse anyone of lying but if you believe that Boeing would publish data in the way you are saying they are then you are indeed basically accusing them of lying in a way that is dangerous and misleading to those that fly these aircraft and those who travel in them..
Original Quill wrote:A little more relevance creep, Irn Bru? You need to think more about what you intend to say, and less about how you can misinterpret me. I have repeatedly said we can only have questions, not conspiracy theories...nor least of all, final answers.
What I said was what I intended to say and I haven’t misinterpreted you. You quite clearly bought into the Diego Garcia conspiracy theory only to then say a few posts later that you never supported that view.
Original Quill wrote:Now I'll help you give your own thoughts some clarity: the question is how high can the Boeing 777 fly. The question is not, what is the range of the aircraft or the weight of the passengers(?). It is not about phantom pings from some nondescript satellite technology, or anything else
Oh go on then, this should be fun lol
Original Quill wrote:First, we have established that you are wrong to begin with. The 777 does not have a maximum ceiling of 45,000-feet. It has a published ceiling of 43,100-ft.
I never said it had a maximum ceiling of 45,000 feet but if you want to stick with that then show me where I said it. And have you forgotten that you said that the maximum ceiling was about 35,000 feet which you know now is wrong because I told you so? lol
Original Quill wrote:Second, we have established that fuel and range are trade-offs, as altitude extends range and less fuel weight means greater altitude.
Indeed it does and that’s why I told you that MH370 was carrying less than half of the fuel it could have carried – hence a higher altitude. You were saying that best estimates were that MH370 was carrying almost a full fuel load. You obviously forgot about that as well or have you just changed your mind?
Original Quill wrote: But, the only way the Boeing 777 gains in range is to take on more fuel. There is no new parabolic wing that has been invented since the first copy of the 777. So it is irrelevant "that MH370 was not required to be fully tanked up." The question isn't proportion of the fuel tank, but weight of actual fuel. It had the same required amount of fuel as it always had, or needed for that trip.
That’s true and I told you that as well when I informed you of the fuel load that MH370 was carrying would only be sufficient for the journey it embarked on. You were saying that MH370 had enough fuel to travel for around 12 – 15 hours of flight but here you are now trying to paint a different picture and re-invent your position by saying it only had enough fuel for the journey. I said that, not you.
Original Quill wrote:but keep in mind the real question is, could someone have used altitude to kill the passengers? The answer: certainly not in the early part of the flight. The aircraft was too heavy. As far as later in the flight? Well, why wait? Dump the tanks and fly to the moon--haha, highly unlikely you can land, however. The point is, range or range extension has nothing to do with it. Without fuel you can't climb at all and with too much fuel the aircraft is too heavy.
In any case, it is impossible for the 777 to climb to 45,000-ft.
Range and range extension of the aircraft is important and relevant because we can use that to establish that the aircraft’s fuel tanks were not even half full therefore not carrying the fuel you said it was estimated to have and also not capable of flying for the 12 -15 hours that you said it was.
You can be sure that I will keep everything in mind including what you have said before and I’ll keep in mind the entirely different position you are now trying to adopt here. A Boeing 777 200ER can climb from take off to a cruising altitude up to 43,100 no problem and you can look that up in any airline flight manual operating a B777 aircraft where they go through the sequence of events to show the steps they go through to get there. Let me know how you get on

And sorry to chop your post around so much bit it was important to do so because you have twisted around so many points and that needs to be examined in precise detail to show exactly what you are doing All you have done is submit a blizzard of words which is no more than a blatant attempt of smoke and mirrors to disguise what you were saying before and twist it around to try make out you were saying something else.
Try not to do that Quill because it’s just not nice, it's so sophomoric and it’s really easy to expose it for what it is.

Cheers
Irn

Well, you never know, you might get a reply to night. Last night he legged it and left the 'girls' to cover for him.

by gerber Wed May 07, 2014 5:35 pm

Sassy can I help ? lol!

Going out but will be with in heart and mind cheers

by Guest Wed May 07, 2014 5:36 pm

Sassy wrote:This post was made by Nems who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Slurp, slurp.

Grow up you vindictive old witch.
You couldnt bloody ignore me if your life depended upon it
attention whore

by Guest Wed May 07, 2014 5:37 pm

gerber wrote:Sassy can I help ? Going out but will be with in heart and mind

No worries Gerbs, takes more than a fraud like Quill to worry me xxxx But thanks for the offer.

by Guest Wed May 07, 2014 5:37 pm

gerber wrote:Sassy can I help ? Going out but will be with in heart and mind

Why do you think she needs help Gerber?

by Guest Wed May 07, 2014 5:38 pm

Nems wrote:
Sassy wrote:This post was made by Nems who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Slurp, slurp.

Grow up you vindictive old witch.
You couldnt bloody ignore me if your life depended upon it
attention whore

Oh my God, what a mess.

by Guest Wed May 07, 2014 5:39 pm

Sassy wrote:
gerber wrote:Sassy can I help ? Going out but will be with in heart and mind

No worries Gerbs, takes more than a fraud like Quill to worry me xxxx But thanks for the offer.

by Guest Wed May 07, 2014 5:40 pm

Joy Division wrote:
Nems wrote:

Grow up you vindictive old witch.
You couldnt bloody ignore me if your life depended upon it
attention whore

Oh my God, what a mess.

Well make sure you keep fanning the flames dear, Im sure Irn bru will bealong directly to do like wise

by Original Quill Wed May 07, 2014 5:51 pm

Nems wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Oh my God, what a mess.

Well make sure you keep fanning the flames dear, Im sure Irn bru will bealong directly to do like wise

Haha...Irn Bru has certainly become the Dr. Spock of the sassy-posse, hasn't he? None of the rest of them can answer intelligently, and Irn Bru is so consumed with his vindictiveness that it ruins even his best analytical efforts. Look at the nasty adjectives with which he sprinkles his posts.

Well, I do think we should abandon this thread. Ben has made it quite clear that he doesn't want any more of the shit stirring.

by Guest Wed May 07, 2014 5:52 pm

Keep on deflecting Quill, you know you have been shown up.

by Guest Wed May 07, 2014 5:54 pm

Bloody hell she was in like flynn there!
Get yer coat Quill, you've pulled!
Debris from aircraft wreckage found in Bay of Bengal - Page 2 9k=

by Sponsored content