Ok, here's my latest theory.

Either there was a fire on the plane that knocked out the radio and ATC
beacon, or the pilots turned off the ATC beacon because of some ulterior
motive.

Someone behind the trigger of a ground-to-air missle defense battery (in
Malaysia, Cambodia, or Vietnam? Or Thailand?) deems that the plane is a
threat, fires missle at plane.

Missle damages plane (in one case leading to more fire damage, in the
other case causing the fire damage). Controlled flying to high altitude
(if indeed this really happened, if various radar reports are accurate)
is likely if a trained pilot is controlling the plane.

If the plane was not under the control of malicious pilots at the time
of some in-flight mishap that happened along it's normal flight path
midway between Malaysia and Vietnam, then I dare anyone to explain why
it wouldn't have attempted to land at either Phenom Penh or Ho Chi Minh
(assuming either had a mile-long runway) or Singapore.

I could understand why they might not attempt a return to Kuala Lumpur
if it meant having to cross a mountain range and a 180-degree turn.

Yet another theory - we have another shoe or underware bomber, who
successfully detonates their bomb, causing fire in the cabin, that
somehow interferes with radio communication. What happens next is
anyone's guess - but must answer how plane apparently stays flying for a
further 7 hours (if we believe radio data from engine telemetry).

But the bottom line is - can we rule out a ground-based missle strike
based on what the various militaries in the area have (or haven't)
disclosed?

As to whether this plane could reach, let alone maintain controlled
flight at 45k feet, I give you this:

===========
Excessive weight reduces the flight performance of an airplane in almost
every resp
deficiencies of the overloaded airplane a

•Higher takeoff speed.
•Longer takeoff run.
•Reduced rate and angle of climb.
•Lower maximum altitude.
•Shorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel
required).
•Reduced cruising speed.
•Reduced maneuverability.
•Higher stalling speed.
•Higher landing speed.
•Longer landing roll.
•Excessive weight on the nosewheel.

http://www.aerotraining.com/referenc...r_4_Canada.pdf
=============

It should be obvious to anyone that a heavy plane can't fly as high as
an empty plane of the exact same type.

It's also the case that Boeing's maximum service altitude of 43k feet
might not be a for a fully loaded and fueled plane. The comments that
Boeing gives a spec of 43k feet and builds in a comfortable safety
factor is ludicrous. Because unlike other specs that are really hard to
get an absolute handle on (that would involve, say, destructive testing
on fully-built and operational samples) it's dead easy to fly a test
planes at various altitudes and measure this parameter safely. And
because air qualities (pressure, temperature, humidity, etc) are
probably constant at 40 - 50k feet all over the world, this max-altitude
number would also hold true regardless where in the world the plane is
operating.

It is usually very beneficial to fly at high altitudes, as there is less
turbulance, less air resistance, and the possibility to fly faster and
thus be more fuel efficient. But there must be enough air density to
allow for lift at a given speed and wing shape, and extending the flaps
to provide enough lift at high altitudes works against your desire to be
fuel efficient. Hence why most planes fly long-distance routes at
cruise altitudes of 33k to 37k feet.

On 03/19/2014 08:46 AM, H0m3^Gy wrote:
Ok, here's my latest theory.




snip


It's absurd to concoct complicated theories without facts.


All we know is that the plane disappeared and that it had gone off course.



There is a good chance of course that it was a failed attempt to pull
off another 911 type of attack.

philo wrote:
On 03/19/2014 08:46 AM, H0m3^Gy wrote:
Ok, here's my latest theory.




snip


It's absurd to concoct complicated theories without facts.


All we know is that the plane disappeared and that it had gone off
course.

It's just HomeGuy with a serious case of OT Diarrhea of the mouth. Everything
inside gets spewed in front of the whole world without control.

On 3/19/2014 8:46 AM, H0m3^Gy wrote:
Ok, here's my latest theory.

Okay, here's mine:

They were en route to China when Amelia Earheart flagged them down to
ask for directions.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:13:17 -0500, philo* wrote:


It's absurd to concoct complicated theories without facts.


All we know is that the plane disappeared and that it had gone off course.



There is a good chance of course that it was a failed attempt to pull
off another 911 type of attack.

Doesn't Kuala Lumpur have one of the tallest buildings in the world?

Or it has the most Kuala bears. I forget which.

On 3/19/2014 10:13 AM, philo wrote:
On 03/19/2014 08:46 AM, H0m3^Gy wrote:
Ok, here's my latest theory.


snip

It's absurd to concoct complicated theories without facts. All we
know is that the plane disappeared and that it had gone off course.
There is a good chance of course that it was a failed attempt to pull
off another 911 type of attack.

Outer Space Aliens from Canada intercepted the airliner and took it
aboard their giant UFO mother ship in order to do anal probes of all the
passengers and crew of the plane. I know this because all outer space
aliens on TV sound like Canadians when speaking English. ^_^

TDD

On 3/19/2014 8:46 AM, H0m3^Gy wrote:
Ok, here's my latest theory.

Either there was a fire on the plane that knocked out the radio and ATC
beacon, or the pilots turned off the ATC beacon because of some ulterior
motive.


Dude, you don't have a clue so why don't you quite posting about the
situation?

Don

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:13:17 AM UTC-5, philo* wrote:
On 03/19/2014 08:46 AM, H0m3^Gy wrote:

Ok, here's my latest theory.









snip





It's absurd to concoct complicated theories without facts.





All we know is that the plane disappeared and that it had gone off course..







There is a good chance of course that it was a failed attempt to pull

off another 911 type of attack.

No proof of that either.

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 12:51:17 AM UTC-4, IGot2P wrote:
On 3/19/2014 8:46 AM, H0m3^Gy wrote:

Ok, here's my latest theory.



Either there was a fire on the plane that knocked out the radio and ATC

beacon, or the pilots turned off the ATC beacon because of some ulterior

motive.





Dude, you don't have a clue so why don't you quite posting about the

situation?



Don

Agree. You could make up a lot of other bizarre theories that don't
conform with the evidence. A misssle just happens to hit the plane
right where it transfers from Malaysian ATC to Vietnam ATC. And it just
happens to disable the VHF radios, ACARS, transponders, etc that no
distress mesg is sent and it disappears from ATC radar. Yet the same
missle leaves the plane not only controllable for another hour as it
makes turns that conform to waypoints. Waypoints that are not to the
nearest airport to land, but out over the Straits, headed on the flight
paths to India? Good grief.

On 3/20/2014 8:12 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Dude, you don't have a clue so why don't you quite posting about the

situation?



Don

Agree. You could make up a lot of other bizarre theories that don't
conform with the evidence. A misssle just happens to hit the plane
right where it transfers from Malaysian ATC to Vietnam ATC. And it just
happens to disable the VHF radios, ACARS, transponders, etc that no
distress mesg is sent and it disappears from ATC radar.

Enough with the bizarre theories. It is sitting in North Korea waiting
to pick up Dennis Rodman and take him to his next gig.