I will repeat, again, my position:

There is no factual information or intelligence-wise "leads" based information, or any indications, that this was terrorist related.

Because a bunch of rocket scientist self-appointed internet crash experts on APC have decided "it must be terrorism" and same group has reviewed past accidents and since "this has never happened" before, have concluded it is terrorism, does not make it so.

Again, as of now (03-26) we have no, none, zero, indications of terrorism (or suicide or similar mal-intent by people occupying the cockpit).

You are correct, there is no evidence of terrorism.


There is also no evidence of aircraft malfunction.

Nobody has come to a conclusion, they have offered their best guess to explain the several possible ways an aircraft like the 777 may go off the tracks and vanish.

If there are actual intel leads, you are not going to hear them on the news or from a paid general on cnn.

If there was an oxygen-fed fire in the cockpit that was caused by a short with the metal spring in the oxygen hose chafing with a wire bundle I can see how the transponder head and radio control heads could become disabled. It was not a case of the pilots turning off the transponder and not making radio calls, it was an instance of the wiring to those components being melted and burned. The pilots may well have put in an emergency transponder code and tried to make an emergency radio call to no avail.

So you use a few examples where structural failure DID NOT cause the loss of the aircraft and then want "conclusive proof" that it would happen?
So if you were to find some examples where structural failure DID cause the loss of the aircraft would you accept that as conclusive? :rolleyes:
You seem to like research.
I'll start you off with China Airlines 611 and JAL 123.
EasternATC nails it with respect to your ideas of psychology 101.
Always and never seldom work out. Try and remember that when you write your story.

If you did have a fire in the cockpit you would not necessarily have a structural failure. You would expect the pilots to depressurize the aircraft, descend, and head for the nearest suitable airport. The aircraft did descend, and did a 120 degree left turn in the general direction of an airport with a 12,500 foot runway.

An otherwise perfectly normal jumbo jet in the ocean is "evidence of an aircraft malfunction", at least for me. And the terrorist/suicide theory has gained a lot of fans on this thread, and in the media.

Absent information of that, the focus should be on mechanical problems/crew physiological impairment issues/etc

On what basis did you decide to focus on only one set of possible and plausible explanations?

Is it not possible to focus on all plausible explanations until they are proven to be incorrect?

It appears you are doing exactly what you are complaining about.:D

What about FedEx 705? In that incident there was a pilot who had a grudge against the company who tried to hijack the aircraft and crash it. His plan was to make it appear to be an accident so his family could collect his life insurance. He left no note or message of any kind behind.

I'm not saying this is definitely what happened to the Malaysian aircraft, but at this point we don't know enough to discount any theory.

I suspect I have a pretty good idea of how it all went down, but there's no way to know how it got started (accidental fire or deliberate action).

99% of the time there is time for at least one mayday mayday call out flying over the ocean that would be the first thing I would do. Very few malfunctions would take out all three radios, but going silent is the one of the things that can happen during a hijack or crew involvement.