What happened to MH370? All evidence points to a downing at approximately 1:21am on the morning of March 8, 2014, in the South China Sea – the only place in a 7 million square mile area authorities aren’t searching! The evidence below suggests they are deliberately avoiding the most likely location of the wreckage of MH370. But why? All the conspiracy theories the mainstream media has been offering up have been smoke and mirrors; all the evidence points to a simple cover-up of either a major crime or a major blunder.
Laying it out from the top…this is what happened in the initial moments of the crisis of Malaysia flight 370:
At 1:07am on March 8, a periodic scheduled ACARS-with-data transmission was sent by flight 370. Another ACARS-with-data was not expected until 1:37.
At 1:19am, one of the pilots radio communicated “Alright, good night.”
At 1:21am, flight 370 disappeared from radar after briefly registering a drop in altitude from 35,000 to 0 feet.
In the video below (start watching at 3:05), check out the data in the box on the left. Altitude is shown at 35,000 then drops to 0 feet shortly before the plane drops off radar. (There might be an explanation for the altitude to drop to zero in a crisis, but note, the data doesn’t simply zero out across the board – speed for example still registers.)
Viet Nam said there was debris seen including what looked like a plane door as well as two oil slicks consistent with two jet fuel tanks off its southern coast but it was too dark to land a plane nearby so the search was delayed. China released satellite images of debris nearby as well. The debris was reportedly never found and Malaysia dismissed the oil slick as coming from a sea vessel, but an oil rig worker gave detailed information on witnessing the plane going down at that location, as shown in his email below. In addition, seven villagers near Pulau Kapas off the east coast of Malaysia heard a loud noise at 1:20am that they reported to police and believed was related to flight 370. It’s a pretty widely accepted rule of thumb that when looking for something ALWAYS start with the last known location. For this reason, we would expect a thorough search to be conducted at the one location all this information points to: the South China Sea. Granted, the likelihood of finding the wreckage was low from the beginning, as reported immediately after the crash by The Wall Street Journal:
Two experts said that if the aircraft suffered damage at a high altitude, it may have disintegrated, and small parts of the plane could have been dispersed over a large area. “If it was a catastrophic event at cruise altitude, the debris field would be hard to detect. In theory, there would be no large sections of the airplane left intact.”
Regardless of the likelihood of finding the wreckage, surely it is standard procedure to search ground zero first. Yet with two weeks of 24/7 television “news” of an event with no new information, there has been no coverage of such a search. So why are authorities looking in a 7 million square mile area that does NOT include this relatively shallow, well-defined area in the South China Sea? The video below shows the bizarre map of the 7 million square mile search area which excludes the area the scant evidence points to.
Two bits of data have supposedly justified diverting the search from this location. They are: an unidentified object on Malaysia’s military radar which, if it was flight 370 (which is an assumption) would mean that flight 370 made a hard left. The other data are the satellite “pings” that the MSM is calling the “handshake” of the plane – this is an ACARS signal sent every hour from an antenna on the exterior of the plane that does not transmit comprehensive data like the normal ACARS transmission sent every 30 minutes, though it does identify the plane.
Here’s the thing about those pings though… A ping does not show a precise location, it just interpolates the angle from which the ping hit the satellite. Straight down is 0 degrees, off the poles of the satellite is 90 degrees. The ping we are shown in the graphic below indicates an angle of 40 degrees which describes a circle around the satellite of possible locations from which the ping originated. We are told there were pings received until 8:11 am, which, if they came from a moving plane, should describe a different circle around the satellite for each ping received. Any movement of the plane would change the angle of transmission to the satellite except an arced course within a narrow band along the circle described by the 40 degree ping.
[original pictures were lost when my site was purged from wordpress…i tried to piece them back together but i can’t find the originals…it might help to think of these “circles” as actually being a cone described by lines emanating downward from the satellite at a 40 degree angle. If the plane was sending pings until 8:11 am, there should be 8 cones described by lines emanating down from the satellite at different angles.]
Furthermore, the notion that the arcs represent a flight path is a misconception. The arcs are merely segments of the circle described by the “last ping.” When the arcs are connected, you can also see that the circle described by the last ping goes right through the location of the last communication of the jet and the location of the debris spotted by China on satellite in the South China Sea. Notice that the graphic above highlights the military radar’s presumed sighting of the flight rather than the last confirmed sighting of the flight which is right along the ping circle. The two photos below are of last contact with the plane (top) and the location of the debris spotted by Chinese satellite (bottom). Compare them with the ping-circle – they are spot on it.
Here’s another view of the ping circle – it goes right over where the debris was spotted… The very serious question all of this raises is: Why has only one ping circle been released? Surely if there had been pings from other locations that data would have been released and greatly narrowed the search area as it would have indicated a more limited number of possible flight paths. That is, in the first graphic above, rather than numerous grey circles indicating potential ping paths and one red one indicating a known ping path, there should be 7 or 8 red circles indicating each hourly ping until 8:11am, which would carve out a narrower set of possible locations of the plane and greatly increase the likelihood of success of search efforts. (A bogus and debunked ping-map has been making the rounds, but even the source doesn’t stand by it.) Also note, the circle is always erased over the place was last seen both by numerous eyewitnesses and by radar communication with flight control.
The obvious answer seems to be that this single “last ping” was received at 1:11am just before the plane went down, not at 8:11am as we are being told. Given that it took almost a week for this ping to be reported, and that the US government received and analyzed the data before the Malaysian government, I think it’s likely that the data got “spun” first. According to The Journal,
It wasn’t clear how U.S. officials obtained the initial Inmarsat data, which they analyzed and helped translate into maps. Regardless, people briefed on the probe agree it took longer than expected for the information to spread from engineers and technical experts who cranked out the first version of the data to policy makers and then back down to officials directing specific elements of the searches.
In fact, they are not using any other pings in the analysis, despite the fact that they claim they are crunching data in new and different ways. All they did was take the last ping – the one that overlaps the point of last contact over the South China Sea – and estimated the minimum and maximum distances the plane could have flown in 6 hours from the point the Malaysian military spotted an unidentified object on radar. If you really see the simplistic method used to create the 7 million square mile search area, you might begin to wonder if the goal was to create the broadest possible search area rather than the narrowest one. (check out this video to really see what I mean.) Furthermore, the original story in The Wall Street Journal claiming the flight kept going depended on Boeing data which that company quickly disavowed. According to a subsequent Journal article:
Malaysia Airlines said it hadn’t received any such data. According to Boeing, the plane’s manufacturer, the airline didn’t purchase a package through Boeing to monitor its airplanes’ data through the satellite system.
This led the Malaysian transport minister to make the following statement:
I would like to refer to news reports suggesting that the aircraft may have continued flying for some time after the last contact,” Hishammuddin told a news briefing. “As Malaysia Airlines will confirm shortly, those reports are inaccurate.
Shortly after the Boeing data was discredited, the Inmarsat data conveniently popped up to shore up the claim that the plane kept flying after contact was lost. And just to clear up some confusion about the communications going down at different times thereby indicating foul play–that doesn’t hold water either. The three methods of communication, ACARS-with-data, radio contact and secondary radar, we are told went down respectively at 1:07, 1:19 and 1:21. That is, ACARS-with-data went down at 1:07, the last radio call was the good night at 1:19 and secondary radar contact was lost at 1:21. If the plane blew up at 1:21, 1:07 would have been the last transmission of ACARS-with-data as it was scheduled to go off every 30 minutes – it missed its 1:37 transmission as it would have if the plane was destroyed at 1:21. According to The Wall Street Journal,
Mr. Hishammuddin, who is also Malaysia’s acting transport minister, on Monday said the last report from Acars came at 1:07 a.m. local time on March 8, not long after Flight 370 took off. It failed to transmit its next update, scheduled for 30 minutes later at 1:37 a.m.
Finally, the last radio communication would have been anytime before 1:21, which it was – 1:19. No foul play (beyond a single catastrophic event at 1:21am) is necessary to explain all this. So here’s the question: Why are they looking everywhere BUT the most likely location of the plane? The conspiracy theories the MSM are peddling are NOT the story here, the cover-up is the story. The sad part is that the families of the victims can’t start grieving while they still have hope, though by all reports, they suspect a cover-up too.
Here is the podcast of my show on the subject https://monicaperezshow.com/podcasts-2/
UPDATE:
1 year since MH370 went down & “Airlines stop accepting rechargeable battery shipments”
could insurance liability have been an issue depending on cause of crash? https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/malaysia-airlines-sued-over-mh370–what-it-means-for-insurers-27743.aspx (read the comment to that article as well – the commenter claims there was unlimited liability unless the airline could prove a single crew member was at fault!)
Currently, tenants of the international Montreal Convention limit liability payments from airlines at $175,000 per passenger regardless of whether the airline is at fault. While many families have accepted settlements from the airlines, others have held off, reasoning that if Malaysia Airlines is proven to have been negligent the payment will be higher.
The airline’s insurers – Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty and Lloyd’s of London unit Atrium – have already paid more than $300 million for claims related to the crash. Both companies have issued statements saying the discovery of part of the wreckage has not changed the situation, nor their willingness to pay valid claims.
also this…”legal experts said settling claims could be difficult unless wreckage is found and investigators can establish a cause of the disaster.” https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/mh370-allianz-lead-insurer-and-willis-broker-mas
ICAO and the Need for Global Tracking in Aviation
Beware of derived intermediate ping data on maps/diagrams
byu/IHuntElk inMH370
mumbo jumbo: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5243942/ae-2014-054_mh370_-_definition_of_underwater_search_areas_18aug2014.pdf
Flight 370 was carrying 10,806 kg (23,823 lb) of cargo, of which four ULDs of mangosteens (total 4,566 kg (10,066 lb)) and 221 kg (487 lb) of lithium-ion batteries are of interest, according to Malaysian investigators.[17]:103, 108–109 The four ULDs of mangosteens were loaded into the aft cargo bay of the aircraft. The lithium-ion batteries were divided among two pallets in the forward cargo bay and one pallet placed in the rear of the aft cargo bay.[17]:106
The lithium-ion batteries were contained in a 2,453 kg (5,408 lb) consignment being transported between Motorola Solutions facilities in Bayan Lepas, Malaysia, and Tianjin, China; the rest of the consignment consisted of walkie-talkie chargers and accessories.[17]:103 The batteries were assembled on 7 March and transported to the Penang Cargo Complex to be transported by MASkargo—Malaysia Airlines’ cargo subsidiary—to be loaded onto a lorry to transport it to Kuala Lumpur International Airport and onwards by air to Beijing.[17]:104 At the Penang Cargo Complex, the consignment was inspected by MASkargo employees and Malaysian customs officials, but did not go through a security screening before the truck was sealed for transfer to the airport. The consignment did not go through any additional inspections at Kuala Lumpur International Airport before it was loaded onto Flight 370.[17]:104 Because the batteries were packaged in accordance with IATA guidelines,[n] they were not regulated as dangerous goods.[17]:106 Lithium-ion batteries can cause intense fires if they overheat and ignite, which has led to strict regulations on their transport aboard aircraft.[262][263] A fire fuelled by lithium-ion batteries caused the crash of UPS Airlines Flight 6, and lithium-ion batteries are suspected to have caused a fire which resulted in the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 991; both were cargo aircraft.[263][264][265] Some airlines have stopped carrying bulk shipments of lithium-ion batteries on passenger aircraft, citing safety concerns.[263][264]
turning off ACARS would require going into the avionics bay https://www.aerosociety.com/news/what-happened-to-flight-mh370/
“Newly emerged details concerning Malaysia Airlines flight 370’s electrical system indicate that whoever took over the plane was technically sophisticated, possessing greater knowledge of Boeing 777 avionics than most commercial line pilots. They also suggest that the plane’s captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, was not responsible for taking the plane.”
http://jeffwise.net/2014/11/07/mh370-evidence-points-to-sophisticated-hijackers/
omg will have to write the equivalent of 10 pages to cover all this.
I hope you do!
Thanks so much! You distilled it down wonderfully. I’m sharing it immediately.
So you are suggesting that the ACARS ping function still functioned up to 7 hours after the plane supposedly crashed in the ocean? I find that difficult to imagine how that would be possible… Also why is it so unlikely that a set course on the Autopilot or a manual control by a skilled pilot could fly a plane in a straight line and thereby following the 40 degree ping angle?
It wouldn’t be a straight line it would be a circle a fixed distance from the satellite- just not believable.
I’m saying the one ping they show – the one Inmarsat says was the last ping – WAS the last ping, it just happened at 1:11.
But if there was just one ping, then why do we have the information about the plane continuing to send ping data for 7 hours after last contact? I am confused now…
They are just saying that – it’s not true. Inmarsat released the final ping – the cover up is simply in the fact that some unidentified person said that the ping came at 8:11…I’m saying that’s a lie! In the early days of this saga, Malaysia said there was no evidence of continuing flight – it was the US that came up with this new data and “analyzed” it concluding the plane was still in the air. Malaysia started saying that after but no one ever came up with the rest of the pings. Perhaps because they don’t want to find the plane and even if they made up ping locations it would narrow the search area and end the saga before the 30 days run out on the black box signal. At some point they’d have to start over again at ground zero. I’ll post today’s podcast – I think listening to the show will clarify my conclusion.
It isn’t unlikely, at the distance the satellite was from the aircraft a single degree in azimuth would be 642 miles wide.
Monica,
Fantastic show, as usual! And the interesting twist, for a change, the much maligned “conspiracy theories” are being offered up by the main stream media this time.
I wanted to emphasize a couple of points you made. Indeed it is so important to somehow preserve the immediately reported information surrounding any noteworthy event. Certainly, confusion and fog is part of it, and some inaccuracies are reported, but also real truth. The establishment quickly relegates inconvenient items down the memory hole when they don’t fit a desired narrative. Only the “acceptable” (read ‘fitting’) points are carried forward, and the establishment media all “sing off the same page”. This really is a critical point!
Another point you mentioned is the CNN coverage of this vast search that is supposedly going on . Yes, they tell us that, but is it really happening? Certainly that could be pinned down by a competent investigation.
Monica, you mentioned you looked at the Wall Street Journal for some of your research into this subject. It is important to note this publication is now part of the Neo-Con Rupert Murdoch’s empire. Earlier on in my professional career I had a personal copy, complimentary of my employer, of this publication. And I loved their editorial page. That page no longer exists, as it once did, especially if you recall Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (former Assistant Secretary of the Treasure under Ronald Reagan) was on that editorial staff! Dr. Roberts is considered an outcast by today’s establishment.
You had a caller or two that might have been “disinformation” types, I don’t know. But that is always the potential. What saddened me was the obvious honest folks that called in who presented opinions based on a lack current information or inaccurate information. Ignorance (and that is not implying a lack of intelligence) is so dangerous to our future!
Monica, thanks for presenting such important insights to this subject!
I’m not sure the WSJ was every really right. I remember growing up and not being permitted to read the NYT – even the Tuesday Science Times in school – I had to be excused from class when they read it the way the non-Catholics were excused from religion! But I also remember my father saying the WSJ was no good either. As I came of age, I really was baffled by that because they seemed to advocate for sound economics at least. I know now what he was talking about, and perhaps it got worse when Murdoch took it over, but it was never great ideologically. I do read it to keep abreast of the official narrative and also for “facts” that are in the public domain. I double check the facts, refute any false narratives (as in this case) and never ever accept their analysis or ideology at face value. However, the MSM cannot be ignored. Not only must it be dealt with, but often on its own terms.
‘“Malaysian Airlines, the Malaysian government, and the Malaysian military, instead of giving us real facts, kept delaying the facts at all cost, concealing and hiding the truth, attempting to deceive and cheat the family of the passengers, and attempting to cheat the people of the entire world,” said another family member who refused to identify himself.’ http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/24/malaysia-pm-says-data-indicates-missing-jetliner-went-down-in-indian-ocean/
I thought the Gulf Of Thailand, South China Sea area was already swept by an international group including China that would not participate in such a scheme. You would think Russia could expose this if it was that obvious. You’ve got a debris problem that can’t be swept away so easily.
I haven’t seen convincing evidence of a thorough search of that area – as stated above, with 24/7 news coverage surely there would be SOME footage of that search which really should have been conducted scrupulously and not just swept, yet there’s no coverage to suggest a robust search.
I am not sure China / Russia are really going along with it. There may be things going on behind the scenes that aren’t given their proper weight by our media. The families definitely smell a rat and want answers.
As for the debris, there is a chance it would have been minimal. As per WSJ: “Two experts said that if the aircraft suffered damage at a high altitude, it may have disintegrated, and small parts of the plane could have been dispersed over a large area. ‘If it was a catastrophic event at cruise altitude, the debris field would be hard to detect. In theory, there would be no large sections of the airplane left intact.’”
That’s not to say that was the case, but now that the world has been diverted for a couple of weeks, we can be darn sure no debris will be easily spotted in the South China Sea.
From what I know about airline crash debris it would be hard for it all to disappear when Flight 370 is now such a hot controversy. I think it would be hard to hide the pingers that are designed to withstand that kind of break-up in flight. I’m not sure your faked search theory holds water. Those pingers can be located with simple equipment. The US criminally covered-up a missile shootdown of Flight 800, but the debris from that crash is a good example of how hard it is to hide large jet debris.
Also Pan Am 103 was exploded at cruising altitude and had large visible debris impact Lockerbie. The Wall Street Journal is a CIA-corrupted right-wing publication. It’s hard to disintegrate a large Boeing and not very likely as Pan Am 103 showed.
I hope you’re right about the crash because a cover-up just adds grave insult to graver injury. I don’t take the WSJ as gospel – did you happen to notice the comment I just a short while ago posted above? I assume you did. I doubt they made up the quote by experts, though, mainly cause I guess you could get “experts” to say anything! But I did have several callers on my show Saturday claiming to have knowledge about such things say it’s true – debris field could be gone. If it’s over land (like the challenger) or in plain sight at the moment of impact (like the challenger and twa800) you can get the debris right away. in this case, viet nam said they tried to search immediately but because of the darkness had to wait til the morning and by then the debris was gone. The next day, the chinese satellite picked up debris at just the place it would have drifted from where viet nam saw it, but they couldn’t retrieve it in time and it too is gone forever. I do hope you’re right, it just seems like a bunch of BS to me. So much of their mumbo jumbo concerning the satellite data has been proven made up, I just don’t buy it.
Sorry, but I’m a little more researched and versed in this. Just one look at the video of Flight 800’s wreckage and you would see right away that it would be impossible for that debris to “go away”. I don’t know who your sources are but they have no idea what they are talking about. Study the wreckage of Flight 800 and you’ll understand what I’m talking about. Also, the pingers don’t just disappear.
Τhanks fοr finallÑ talking about >Cracking the Codе on Malaysia 370:
The Ping is the Thing . | <Loved it!