Lion of the Blogosphere

Is Flight 370 in Indonesia?

According to the NY Daily News, “the final satellite transmission from the missing airliner has been traced to the Indian Ocean off Australia, far from where searchers have focused their probe.”

There’s nothing further in that direction, and I doubt the plane landed in Australia, a country that has its act together and wouldn’t allow pirates or terrorists to operate.

Thus the only logical place to find the missing plane is in Indonesia, a poor Islamic country with a weak central government where there are lawless islands controlled by Islamic militants. The plane must have circled back and landed there after the hijackers disabled the satellite communications.

No wonder why the United States has been so hush-hush about this data. How embarrassing for Obama, who grew up a Muslim in Indonesia.

The U.S. Navy ships being moved to the Indian Ocean for the stated purpose of searching for wreckage are probably really there for a military strike against the Islamic militant group who stole the plane.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 15, 2014 at 10:00 am

Posted in News

43 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Do you make these low-probability predictions in hopes of your blog going viral if you happen to be the only person who was right?

    ATC

    March 15, 2014 at 11:12 am

    • I hate how all his posts have a question mark at the end. That way he can take credit when he’s right but have plausible deniability if he’s wrong, and when he really makes an @ss out of himself, he falls back on the “folks don’t get my brilliantly dry sense of humor” excuse.

      Bottledwater

      March 15, 2014 at 6:58 pm

    • Low risk, high return.

      colmainen

      March 15, 2014 at 11:31 pm

  2. I say it landed in India to pick up a batch of new H-1B visas and bring them to America.

    peterike

    March 15, 2014 at 11:14 am

  3. There is a ton of interesting speculation in the comments over at Belmont Club. That blog is full of ex-military, ex-spook types who know an awful lot about such things. Worth a read if you’re genuinely interested in this topic.

    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/03/14/ua-93-or-oceanic-815/

    peterike

    March 15, 2014 at 11:21 am

    • “…ex-military, ex-spook types who know an awful lot about such things…”

      that is, nothing. just a bunch of old moustachioed chi-mos with really bad hemorrhoids.

      jorge videla

      March 16, 2014 at 2:32 am

  4. The plane must have circled back and landed there after the hijackers disabled the satellite communications.

    The odds are low some yokel Musselmen could execute the most challenging part of this scheme; safely bring down a 777 on an inadequate landing strip without damaging it. While simultaneously keeping the passengers from rebelling.

    If that’s what their plan was they likely crashed in the jungle before they could pack it with explosives.

    I doubt even American special ops commandos would make it to “Step 2″.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    March 15, 2014 at 12:51 pm

    • Hundreds of thousands of planes land every day. Especially if one of the pilots (both Muslims) was the hijacker, there’s no reason to think they plane didn’t land.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 15, 2014 at 1:05 pm

      • that the plane was apparently hijacked and that it took off from a muslim country may not be coincidences.

        jorge videla

        March 16, 2014 at 2:30 am

    • Hundreds of thousands of planes land every day.

      At airports. How can an 800,000 lb passenger plan land in one piece on an uninhabited island? Even if the terrorists are, for once, geniuses.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      March 15, 2014 at 3:08 pm

      • You are probably overestimating how difficult it is to land a plane. The plane was intentionally designed to be as easy to land as possible for its size, and the pilot, if the pilot was the hijacker, had decades of experience landing planes.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        March 15, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    • this is the maximalist position. A plane which lands damaged but repairable is an ok-ish outcome.

      oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang

      March 15, 2014 at 3:29 pm

  5. As far as landing, there is the runway issue. It takes a mile-long slab of concrete to land one of those things. Not too many places to hide a slab of concrete that big. If they used a commercial slab there would be huge numbers of people watching so the slab would have to be remote to remain secret.

    I suppose there is some chance they got it down and got it covered up quickly so retargeted satellites could not see it, but it is unlikely. I suspect they were trying for a landing and crashed in the water.

    One thing is certain. When they find the remains, the last few minutes will be some chump mumbling “Allahu Akbar” over and over again. It seems to be the international call sign of terrorism.

    Which suggests a solution. Seed the world with C-4 filled cellphones. The trigger is a hidden app that is in continuous communication with Siri. Whenever the translation comes back “Allahu Akbar” the phone blows a tiny shaped charge straight into the guy’s ear.

    Conan

    March 15, 2014 at 1:18 pm

    • A plane landing at an airport doesn’t necessarily attract any attention because it’s such a routine event.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 15, 2014 at 3:29 pm

    • There are abandoned (or private) mile+ long runways all over this planet. Finding a runway is the least of the problems here; they’re more likely to have a taxi accident after landing than they are coming up with a place to land. There are ways to return to areas with RADAR coverage without arousing suspicion too, and continue to some new destination as though nothing happened. With some pre-planning, this would be a lot easier than we’re making out to be.

      J1

      March 15, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    • Which suggests a solution. Seed the world with C-4 filled cellphones.[etc]

      Nice to see commenters sharing in Lion’s dry-asp sense of humour.

      Samson J.

      March 16, 2014 at 8:24 am

  6. Do you believe that Obama is a crypto-Muslim? I’ve never believed that, myself. I always assumed he was an agnostic or atheist underneath transparently feigned Christianity. He probably never bought into any religion.

    Stealth

    March 15, 2014 at 1:30 pm

    • Obama sees God every time he looks in the mirror.

      peterike

      March 15, 2014 at 10:00 pm

    • Agreed. In this country, one has to still put on a façade of believing in an Abrahamic religion if you want to run for state-wide or national office.

      uatu

      March 15, 2014 at 10:17 pm

      • which proves one must be a sociopath. moromonism isn’t abrahamic.

        jorge videla

        March 16, 2014 at 2:25 am

    • This is a good thing. I would never trust a religious person to run anything of consequence. (They think gods tell them what to do, etc.)

      Anthony

      March 16, 2014 at 12:00 am

  7. Didn’t the 9/11 hijackers turn of the transponders? Fly planes?

    Whatever is going here we can only be halfway through it, or there’d be a proud announcement by some terrorist group by now, they are desperate for publicity. IF hijacked, it was for a purpose as yet unfulfilled. In which case I don’t fancy the passengers chances of survival.

    There’s a rumour going around that some of he passenger’s phones were ringing long after the disappearance time. But no emergency texts or calls? Already dead, as many of the 9/11 passengers got off calls.

    I’m puttting my money on a large scale bomb (dirty?) ploughing into a US city. A warhead could be smuggled in (easier than stealing a plane) unless you are hoping for an EMP attack with it. How high can a 777 get?

    Indonesia seems likely simply due to proximity.

    mathilda37

    March 15, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    • there is pretty credible evidence from most reports that the plane mysteriously gained tons of altitude. If a plane flying very high depressurised all the passengers freeze/asphyxiate

      oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang

      March 15, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    • an explosives filled 777 might topple the twin towers replacement. from what i’ve heard it had enough duel to land in somalia.

      jorge videla

      March 16, 2014 at 2:24 am

  8. Actually, thinking about 9/11 and how the passengers managed to stymie one of their crash plans, I think getting rid of the passengers (if accquisition the plane was the object) would be the first thing on the ‘to do’ list if you wanted to hijack a plane for 9/11 type use . Cutting off their oxygen would be the easiest way, and that could be why it had that sharp altitude rise at the beginning of the incident.

    mathilda37

    March 15, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    • With the complicity or rapid incapacitation of one or more of the pilots, the passengers may not have been aware anything was amiss until after they landed.

      J1

      March 15, 2014 at 8:34 pm

      • except that there was water below for too long.

        jorge videla

        March 16, 2014 at 2:21 am

      • 1. Passengers generally can’t tell what’s below them at night. If there’s cloud cover, they cant even tell during the day. Even if they can, you assume they think they shouldn’t be over water.
        2. The flight may have been over land most of the time.

        J1

        March 16, 2014 at 11:33 am

  9. uatu

    March 15, 2014 at 3:15 pm

    • Interesting how Japan is more religious than Western Europe.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      March 15, 2014 at 3:33 pm

      • europe and its diaspora is better described as post-christian than as irreligious. there are a great many ways europeans think and behave differently from the rest, and part of the reason is that christendom has been congruent with europe and its diaspora for most of christianity’s history.

        e.g., “the customer is always right” is lost on all non-europeans.

        jorge videla

        March 16, 2014 at 2:20 am

      • It is. I wonder if it has something to do with when the poll was conducted in Japan – in the couple of months immediately following the 2011 earthquake.

        It could also be a translation thing. “To believe in God” in English and in translation in Western European languages likely puts people in mind specifically of the Abrahamic deity. This may not be the case in Japanese. A current article makes the case that the word for God used in the Chinese survey, 上帝, “is applicable in modern China almost only to Protestant Christianity”; I don’t know whether that is so, but Wiktionary suggests that if that word, or a synonym like , were also used in the Japanese survey, respondents could have been thinking about belief in gods or spirits, not just the Christian or Abrahamic God.

        Genserico

        March 25, 2014 at 8:17 am

  10. the point of terror is terror. It is self-defining. If the plane simply vanishes, it is a tremendous success. Sure, maybe it’s stolen to be used as a poor-man’s cruise missle or what have you, but it needn’t. Scaring people away from domestic aviation already is a victory

    oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang

    March 15, 2014 at 3:33 pm

  11. This afternoons speculation is that it landed in Central Asia near Xinjiang, and that the hijacking is connected to the Uighur rebellion.

    bob sykes

    March 15, 2014 at 4:09 pm

    • Uighur, please!

      driveallnight

      March 15, 2014 at 6:12 pm

  12. Obviously they landed on a pontoon airstrip set up for that purpose. The plane was then rolled inside special cargo doors of a mysterious ocean ship which has never called at any port. Duh.

    Anyway, I will repeat my earlier prediction that this will turn out to have been a failed hijacking.

    The first part of my prediction — that this was a hijacking — seems to be correct.

    Did they land on some remote island as if were the plot of a James Bond movie? I highly doubt it. As I said before, terrorists want attention and making a plane disappear doesn’t get the same attention as blowing it up or crashing it into some important target.

    sabril

    March 15, 2014 at 4:18 pm

  13. “there are lawless islands controlled by Islamic militants. The plane must have circled back and landed there after the hijackers disabled the satellite communications.”

    there are plenty of places to land in the s indian ocean. there is a military base on diego garcia for one. there’s kerguelen for another.

    if it were terrorism why has no one taken credit?

    jorge videla

    March 15, 2014 at 7:17 pm

    • Because the lone terrorist (the captain) died in the crash.

      CamelCaseRob

      March 15, 2014 at 8:49 pm

      • why would he fly the plane for 7h before crashing it? terrorism requires political motivation and that people know it wasn’t an accident. it terrorizes, no one is safe, and it publicizes.

        jorge videla

        March 16, 2014 at 2:15 am

      • Because the co-pilot finally became aware of what he had done (while the co-pilot was away from the cockpit) and a struggle ensued.

        CamelCaseRob

        March 16, 2014 at 12:16 pm

  14. Somehow I’m thinking of Ian Fleming’s ‘Thunderball.’

    I doubt the US Navy is being sent anywhere unless there’s evidence.

    rob

    March 15, 2014 at 10:27 pm

  15. My two cents is they will ‘find’ a piece of the ‘wreckage’ from the ‘bottom’ of the Indian ocean and end this matter, rather than make asses of themselves again.

    A terrorist worth his salt would find a better way to find used jets.

    colmainen

    March 15, 2014 at 11:38 pm

  16. Did they try to crash the plane into the naval base at Diego Garcia? Did the US or UK shoot it down? Would they ever admit such a thing since the base is completely locked down and inaccessible ?

    Paul Rise

    March 16, 2014 at 10:25 am


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 225 other followers

%d bloggers like this: