The plane was stolen and landed on a blocked off road

[fried eggs]

After the most recent updates, it's looking more and more like the MH370 was stolen in a very elaborate, well planned plot that required at least 2 miles of road to be blocked off for landing.

The transponders were systematically shut off.

There is no debris at all.

Look for satellite footage of roads, not oceans.

I hope whoever did this will spare the lives of those on board.

Update: According to Forbes, for this to work,

Landing on an interstate median is a non-starter, so we’re confined to one side of the interstate (with lanes going in one direction).
Interstate highways have a minimum of two 12 foot lanes + outside shoulder of 10 ft + interior shoulder of 4 feet. That gives a runway width of 38 feet. Although I could only find interior cabin dimensions for the 747 and the C-130J, I’m pretty sure that hull thickness is not on the order of feet – so it looks like the basic minimum specs work for the cabin and – by inference – the wheel track.
That brings to the question of length. Per Boeing’s Airport Planning Guide for the 747-800 (http://www.boeing.com/commercial… – Graphs 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 on pages 41 & 42), it requires a minimum of about about 4750 feet (0.9 miles, 1448 meters) of dry runway at sea level for an with an unloaded aircraft. This goes up to about 11,500 feet (2.2 miles, 3505 meters) on a wet runway with a fully loaded aircraft.
It will need to be a very straight section of interstate. No curves.
It will need to be a very flat section of interstate. No hills or mountains.
It will need to be a comparatively unobstructed section of interstate. No overpasses or interchanges.
The 747 has a wingspan of 200 feet. There shouldn’t be anything – buildings, billboards, trees, etc. – within a bare of minimum of 125 feet of the outside of the outer shoulder.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/09/25/could-you-land-a-large-plane-on-an-interstate-highway/

[1000words]

1. Throw in "Ah-nuld," a snappy catch phrase, and some nudity ...

We have a summer blockbuster!

[chillfactor]

4. people's lives are at stack here.....

was your post really necessary?

[1000words]

11. Was yours?

Really.

It is far, and I mean far more likely that plane is at the bottom of the ocean ... somewhere. The only lives at stake being those searching for it. The only thing I am being insensitive to is your creative speculation.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

39. Where did the poster you are replying to, chillfactor, engage in CS? Please explain yourself. And,

what post by chillfactor caused you to reply "Was yours?"...

You are not making sense.

[Tx4obama]

2. IF the plane landed...

... I doubt the hijackers would have housing and food for 230+ people.

So, (I hope not), but it seems either way - a crash or hijacking - the majority of the passengers are most likely dead by now.

[okaawhatever]

9. Normally, they would keep the passengers alive and would have had provisions. Remember, the

passengers would be their collateral. If they were found out, and it were discovered the passengers were dead Malaysia or someone else would have droned their ass. The kink in that theory is that the plane was supposedly going to be used for something else. As in, probably filled with explosives and flown into something. That or just flown into something. We'll see, but I'm with you, I hope they're okay even if they are being used as hostages. At least they would have a chance.

[treestar]

41. But they've had several days to announce themselves.

And make their demands.

Or their planned landing could have gone wrong and killed everyone. They'd have to try it in a remote area.

[okaawhatever]

43. Yes, I now think if it was a hijacking for ransom it went wrong and they're dead. nt

[B2G]

42. The passengers are most likely dead

That's why they took the plane up to 45,000 feet. Decompressed the cabin. Then descended back down. They would have survived minutes at best.

[stevenleser]

44. High altitude decompression is a risky way to kill people.A mistake and the plane could disintegrate

I'm thinking that the group that could pull off the disappearing act with this plane would have that part of it planned better than this. But the truth is stranger than fiction sometimes. You could be right.

[B2G]

47. Stealing a 777 is risky

and Malaysian military radar had it at 45K feet before decending. You wouldn't need to keep it at that altitude very long to accomplish this.

[riderinthestorm]

48. Well clearly the plane DID go up to 45000 feet, and survived it.

So risky or not, the plane flew for several hours after doing that maneuver.

I too believe the passengers are all dead now.

[Shankapotomus]

50. Maybe that's what they wanted

High altitude disintegration.

[B2G]

52. No, they wanted to kill 300 people quickly

and that was the most efficient way to do it.

What would be risky would be to try to corral 300 people for 7+ hours until they reached their destination.

They're dead.

[Shankapotomus]

53. +1 nt

[chillfactor]

3. when days have gone by....

and no debris has been found in the oceans...it is looking more and more like a hijacking.....they should start searching more land masses rather than the oceans...

[Niceguy1]

29. ocean is deep and big

And there may never be debris found.... absence of debris doesn't mean it isn't at the bottom of the ocean. They search area is over 50,000 square miles

[JimDandy]

30. Just heard on NPR something about vibrations

recorded somewhere on the ocean that might indicate the plane impacted the water.

[Samantha]

33. That might have been the report out of China

which said a seismic shake was detected on the ocean floor some time after the plane was hijacked.

Sam

[JimDandy]

35. Yes in the South China Sea.

The searchers didn't give any credence to this report, though and have continued to search in the Indian Ocean instead.

[30cal]

5. Why steal something so high profile?

It doesn't make sense for a group to do this.

[Skip Intro]

6. Unless they needed a huge jumbo jet. n/t

[jeff47]

8. You wouldn't steal a 777 for that.

Too high profile, too few aircraft, too difficult to maintain without Boeing.

You'd steal an older plane like a 747.

[Samantha]

34. Just one theory

It were some sort of right-wing group, perhaps they thought they could use the plane to drop a bomb, maybe some nuclear weapon, on a targeted country. What else could the plane be used for except something like an attack by terrorists???

Sam

[jeff47]

7. Um....no.

First, you'd need a road much wider than the typical road in that part of the world. You're not going to find many 6-lane interstate-like roads there, and the ones you do find are going to have traffic. Which might notice the unscheduled road closure and the giant airplane landing on the road.

Second, 777s are heavy. A landing 777 puts tremendous pressure on the "runway". Airport runways are many times thicker than highways in order to deal with the load. A typical interstate is 8" thick concrete. A typical major airport runway is 24-48* thick concrete. You'd have pretty severe damage to the roadway from the 777 landing.

[30cal]

10. They would need their own runway cut in a jungle

It can be done by using a temporary tarmac but now we are talking James Bond super villain kind of stuff.

The money and resources it would take to do this they could buy a used Jumbo jet

[JI7]

19. yes, i get thoughts of a secret city and them wanting to do some experiments

not terrorism when i think of things the op is saying.

and of course ALIENS

[LeftyMom]

12. That is the stupidest idea on DU since Bush started the Boxing Day tsunami with his weather machine.

Your very own source tells you why it's stupid.

[30cal]

14. You just don't want to believe in Super Villains

[LeftyMom]

16. I'm sure it's really easy to fence a stolen Boeing 777. Nobody would notice at all.

Maybe get a cheap new paint job at Earl Scheib if you're feeling ambitious.

[Iggo]

18. Forty-nine ninety-nine.

Riiiiiigggghhhht!

[Lasher]

20. They could disguise it as an Airbus A330.

Then they could sell it and nobody would suspect a thing.

[LeftyMom]

21. *Does not include body repairs, sanding, primer or clear coat. Larger vehicles extra.

[Iggo]

22. Amazing the shit that sticks in your head, eh?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

15. +1

rouge pilot

[Iggo]

17. Oh, please!

[Nye Bevan]

23. If only Steven Seagal could have been on board (nt)

[kentauros]

24. And Kurt Russell!

[BainsBane]

25. Putrin liberated it

to protect its passengers against a far right-wing menace.

[geomon666]

26. Yeah, ok pal. That and The Joker is selling cruise missiles to Iran.

Fuck!

[Ghost in the Machine]

27. I had this thought 2 days ago, but didn't post it because I didn't want it locked as a Conspiracy

Theory thread....

Peace,

Ghost

[Zorra]

28. LOL! And I suppose the next thing you'll say these *superheroes* might do is

hijack jets and fly them smack dab into the World Trade Center in the middle of fucking New York City!

And then the Pentagon!


Get real!


Things like these just can't happen in real life, in the realworld.

[brooklynite]

31. With all due respect, this is idiotic...

This plane was flying in Southeast Asia. They don't HAVE interstate highways, and they don't have deserts in which the roads they do have are long enough and wide enough to land a plane on, THEN hide it, and THEN presumably prepare it for future takeoff. There's a reason plots like this are found in James Bond movies.

If you accept two reasonable points: 1) the plane had a communications failure, and 2) the plane turned around because of the failure, it's not unreasonable to assume the plane crossed Malaysia into the Straits of Malacca and/or the Indian Ocean, and thus it is (or was) in an area nobody was looking in.

[Skip Intro]

32. A day later, not so crazy... n/t

[geomon666]

36. Nope, still crazy

The landing part, not so much the hijacking part, unfortunately.

[Skip Intro]

37. So likely it was hijacked, but crazy it landed? n/t

[geomon666]

38. Yup n/t

[treestar]

40. I can entertain the notion they landed somewhere

if preplanned, that could be part of it. The problem would be radar in any country flown over not getting anything. And it would have to be remote, but even so, people on the ground could notice something.

[Warpy]

54. The whole area is so densely populated

that yes, somebody would have noticed and reported to local authorities and they'd send it up the line. Unless it's a hostile government (N. Korea? Wrong way) that did this, the word would get out quite soon.

As for landing on a blocked off roadway, there's a difference between a landing and a successful landing and I'm not optimistic that the latter could have been accomplished anywhere but an airport built for it.

[undeterred]

45. Did Christie have anything to do with it?

I hear he's good at blocking off traffic.

[hobbit709]

46. All of those conditions are few and far between in that part of the world.

[riderinthestorm]

49. I wonder if there's any abandoned military highways constructed somewhere

and after the wars were finished, the roads were abandoned....

Here's a link to abandoned and forgotten military runways in the North Pacific - certainly still serviceable I presume with some patching.

http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/2010/04/lost-american-airfields-of-the-north-pacific/

I'm wondering if there's something similar with old military access roads...



FWIW, I don't think this is a silly speculation at all.

[penultimate]

51. I suspect Southwest airlines will soon be flying a 777 of its own.

Cheap bastards.

[mainstreetonce]

55. The Pilot's Wife (book)

Truth imitating fiction .

Need to restart interest in the book club.


Oprah did it.