Thursday, 13 March 2014

Inconsistencies in the NineMSN video Current Affairs programme

I have deconstructed the NineMSN video and have found many inconsistencies in it, so people shouldn't believe all that they see or hear on the Internet, from sensationalist gutter media and whatever sensational rubbish people forward to them.

Let's start with original video about that alleged visit by two ladies into an MAS plane cockpit enroute from Phuket to KLIA.

http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8812646/woman-raises-questions-about-cockpit-behaviour

And also on You Tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY9u9XK-EP

At 1.27 minutes into the NineMSN video you see the pilot, first-officer and the two girls standing in a row of four, supposedly in the cockpit. Who was the fifth person who took the picture of them?

(Note: The screen captures here are made from the same video downloaded from You Tube.)

At 1.51 minutes, the scene is of the man in the MAS flight crew uniform posing with a woman in the MOUTH OF THE AEROBRIDGE with the plane's door in the background and NOT in the cockpit.

Does the scene behind the girl from 2.50 to 3.01 minutes look like Phuket airport, with the three Malaysia Airlines planes parked and the one taxiing of the tarmac?

At most, there would most likely be two MAS planes at Phuket airport at any one time, with plenty more Thai plans and planes of other airlines.

I did a Google search on "Phuket International Airport pictures". Click on the links to view the picture referred to.

From the pictures, you can see that the brick & mortar Phuket airport does not use the kind of metal frame windows in the same scene from 2.50 to 3.01 minutes.

http://firstworldfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Phuket-International-Airport.jpg
Also the air side (boarding side) of Phuket International Airport faces the sea and is pretty close to it, whilst the runway runs inland by the side of the terminal building.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1014322_10151526234943358_957224350_n.jpg

So where is the sea and trees in the scene from 2.50 to 3.01 minutes?

No, this looks more like at an airport in Malaysia, most possibly KLIA.

Now note the words, "an air steward came to fetch.." from around 3.33 minutes and from 3.43 to 3.48 minutes (..the air steward helped us fold out the jump seat so SHE knew that we would be sitting in there..".

Due to gender equality in Australia, they may refer to both a steward (male) and a stewardess (female) as a "steward" but note once again "the jump seat" and "she knew we would be sitting in there".

From 4.09 minutes onward -- "We were sitting on a pretty uncomfortable seat.."

Two women sitting in one jump seat?

There are supposed to be two women in the cockpit, so they would require two "jump seats" not one "jump seat", unless one woman sat on the other woman's lap during take off and landing.

Also,, if these women were so "upset" over the behaviour of the pilots, why then do they look so happy and enjoying themselves in the photos?

Here is a screen capture of Fariq Hamid's Facebook page shown in the video but his handle is unclear, so so far I've been unable to find it.


All I got is this and the person in no way looks like a Malay.

https://www.facebook.com/public/Fariq-Abd-Hamid

Who was the pilot with Fariq Abdul Hamid at the time?

Why not contact him for clarification on this alleged incident?

Anyway, judging from the over 168 comments to this video, many viewers have condemned it for its insensitivity and lack of respect for the passengers and the feelings of their loved ones, and some have even accused these women for seeking publicity by this sensational "revelation."

Meanwhile, Malaysia's Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) says it found no sign of the aircraft where the Chinese satellite spotted possible aircraft debris.

http://www.mole.my/content/no-signs-missing-aircraft-chinese-satellite-images-said-dca

The Wall Street Journal reports that U.S. investigators believe that the aircraft could have flown for four hours after it lost contact, based upon data "sent to the ground" by its Rolls Royce engines.

http://www.mole.my/content/wsj-us-suspects-mh370-flew-hours

Rolls Royce Operations Centre in Derby, U.K. monitors telemetry data from Rolls Royce engines on all planes flying worldwide which are powered by their engines 24 x 7.

Whilst this is a long video about the making of Rolls Royce jet engines, you can see activities in the Rolls Royce Operations Centre from around 43.20 minutes into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfomloUg2Gw

Have Rolls Royce been asked what data they have coming from their engines on MH370?


Dr. Kevin Barrett cites people who believe that that MH370 could either have been hijacked and landed at a disused airfield to be cut up and its parts sold in the aftermarket, whilst another speculates that given the amount of computerisation used on modern aircraft such as the Boeing 777 and Airbus, MH370's computerised systems could have been remotely hacked.

His article cites similarities between MH370 and the aircraft hijacked and used in the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37919.htm

Another possibility cited by a friend of mine over tea is a hijacking with intent to hold the passengers for ransom.

My opinions

When I first read of the sudden disappearance of MH370 from the radar screen and no communication from the pilot, I suspected that there was a powerful explosion on board or sudden rupture of its fuselage due to decompression, either of which would have caused the plane to drop out of the sky with no time for the pilot to radio its situation to ground.

If it was an explosion, it could either have been due to a explosives such as a bomb, a missile strike or fuel explosion, such as that which brought down Trans World Airways Flight TWA 800 into the sea off New York in 1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

Iran Air Flight 655 mistakenly shot down by a missile in July 1988
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655?Vincennes

Catastrophic airframe failure brought down two British Comet jet airliners in 1954, due to the rupture of their fuselage skin due to metal fatigue caused by repeated compression and decompression of their fuselage skin.

The Comet was the world's first jet aircraft, which due to the height at which it flies, requires its fuselage to be pressurised in flight or its passengers would die due to lack of oxygen due to low atmospheric pressure that height.

Such pressurisation stresses the fuselage skin and it expands a bit like a balloon, then inside and outside pressure equalises when the plane returns to ground, so no need for pressurisation. This repeated pressurisation with its stress on the fuselage's skin eventually caused the skin to rupture in flight at high altitude with catastrophic results with plane crash and loss of all passengers and crew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet

These Comet crashes occurred when the aircraft had recently entered service and the problem was subsequently rectified but the Boeing 777 has been in service since 1995, so is an already very mature design, which has not had any history of such catastrophic airframe failure, so I believe this an unlikely cause of MH370's sudden disappearance, unless its only happened now, when the plane is old.

At the bottom of the sea?

Later, when there were reports by a resident of Kota Baru of seeing something like an aircraft descending fast towards the sea and by someone fishing from a boat off the Kelantan coast saying he saw a plane flying below the clouds at aroundthe same time,coupled by reports that RMAF radar detected a plane flying westwards over the Straits of Malacca, I wondered whether the plane's communications and beacons had somehow been disabled by hijackers or electrical system failure and the plane had either dived into the sea or may have landed on the sea and sank with the fuselage intact and then sank to the bottom, along with its occupants inside.

The fact that no aircraft or baggage debris has been found so far, nor any bodies floating on the surface of the sea, suggests this as a possible scenario. This being the case, search & rescue efforts should focus more on  searching the seabed from ships and boats, rather than the sea surface from planes.

It's dusk now on the 6th day after this tragedy and still no sign of the missing aircraft and its passengers.

Hopefully, it will be found with its passengers safe, though deep down, I'm rather pessimistic.

Still, once it's found, investigations can proceed to identify the cause of its disappearance, recify any faults which may have caused it, identify those responsible for its loss if any and plug any security loopholes which may have allowed such people, if any, to do their dastardly act.

Let's continue to hope and pray for the passengers' safety.

UPDATE: I was wrong to say that the Boeing 777 never encountered decompression problems, which could have incapacitated the passengers and crew.

Syed Akbar Ali just posted a blog about the possibility that MH370 suffered decompression and actual non-fatal decompression cases in its early days.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19950205&id=NXBhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nRMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4297,1087952

http://syedsoutsidethebox.blogspot.com/2014/03/do-read-this-what-could-have-happened.html

Considering that the aircraft is old, it could have suffered either a gradual or even a suddebn decompression due to fuselage rupture.

Blogger Annie also made a brilliant suggestion.

"I also wish for the authorities to check on the flight simulator reportedly built at home by the pilot of MH370. Who knows that it may lead to something which can help in the investigation."

http://lifeofaannie.blogspot.com/2014/03/my-hope-scenario-for-mh370.html

IT.Scheiss


No comments:

Post a Comment