Discussion in 'Serious' started by Strudul, 12 Mar 2014.
Now I want to re-watch The Abyss (1989)
That's a lot of water.
I was taken aback at how much scrolling had to happen on my little laptop screen before I got to the bottom of that picture. Mind boggling stuff.
The amazing part, to me anyway, is that you could walk that on level ground in less than an hour. The differences in scale between vertical and horizontal are slightly mind-blowing
Yeah I find it's the trillions of tonnes of water that hurt my head whenever I walk vertically down to the seabed.
Neverind the trillions of tonnes of water, I find the seabed a bit chilly so that's why I always walk around the park instead.
Bit of a coincidence that all those things share the same column of water. Do you think the hijacker was a Titanic fan?
If it's the plane and if it's indeed at 15k feet, can they really tug it to the surface ?
Why would they try to get the whole plan to surface? It's only about the orange colored black boxes.
Possibly to work out exactly what happened if the blakc bix data is inconclusive. And/or recovery of the bodies.
To be honest it's a pretty amazing effort if they do find it given the distances, depths and everything else.
Would make no sense, and probably close to impossible. Black box is probably the maximum they will actually recover, if at all.
Hamid Reza Emadi interviews Captain Alireza Mortezazadeh, Head of Operations, Aseman Airlines.
or liveleak one part,
just found out a coworker has been spending all of his free time since it went missing "helping" the search on google earth
edit: yes, pixel by pixel expecting to see it.
Mind you, I remember showing google earth to a colleague once and she asked me to zoom in on her house to see if her husband had remembered to let the dogs out in the garden.
They're sending down
a yellow submarine,
a yellow submarine,
a yellow submarine.
Hmmm... this is classic conspiracy ideation type stuff. You have a guy saying this cannot be. I am an expert. (Head of Operations...)
He is saying that satellites are informed on crash... that is the most preposterous thing I've heard. I worked over 3 years in the satellite industry and I can tell you one indelible fact:
1. In order to communicate with the satellite you need a sufficiently unobstructed view of the satellite (line of sight) to make a communication.
From this information you can take this: a satellite terminal designed to transmit data to a satellite must be pointed at the satellite.
Now, when plane hits the water do we think that:
a) The plain glides perfectly in a straight line as though landing like a swan from the air.
b) All hell breaks loose and you don't know which way is up or down?
Based on the above can you definitively tell me whether the satellite terminal will fulfil the following criteria in order to transmit to the satellite:
1. Correctly point at the satellite.
2. Be sufficiently stable enough to maintain connection with the satellite for the duration required to transmit (by the way, mobile satellite connections are slow)
3. Even be functional during the crash.
Next point: they are using the Inmarsat network. One of the principals of the Inmarsat network is they use 3 stages of beams. A global beam for initial registration; think of this as a cell phone mast that is capable for instance of sending a frequency out over 1/3rd of the earth's surface.
Once you have successfully registered on the global beam you move onto one of the 19 available regional spot beams. Here you can make calls I believe (I might be wrong,) but not data transmissions (I'm right about the last part though.) So technically you are now sitting in 1/3 of one of 57 geographical spots of the Earth (doesn't sound very precise does it?)
If you need to make calls, specifically date transmission etc you move onto the one of the narrow beams seen in this image. They are the small circles that overlap each other. I can't remember how many there are, but the crucial point is you need to be making a transmission to sit in one. This is in order to main network capacity on the network aka bandwidth, Quality of Service, as the satellite will only have finite resources on the transmission to the landing station (think of this as a massive wifi Access Point on the Earth it must join.) So it boots idle terminals off this beam in order to preserve power for other areas.
Remember what Inmarsat said? The satellite terminal was on, but not transmitting. Therefore it was idle, and on on of the 57 beams. It takes a little while to register on a spot beam, not that long, to make a transmission.
So, given the above information, do you think on impact with the water, the satellite terminal had enough time to:
a) Wake up
b) Initiate registration with the narrow beam whilst moving at speed (Yes, planes are fast, so transmitting actually takes a lot of engineering precision to achieve)
c) Receive and transmit information from a networked computer onboard
d) Whilst maintaining a connection to the satellite, transmit this message in its entirety
Any sensible person will conclude that a very specific and fortunate series of events would allow this transmission to occur.
The network connection to the computer sending the message must be up as well as all of the above.
For bonus points, answer the below question:
All of the above is assuming that the on-board computer will be sending GPS location data upon a given set of variables that will be programmed to indicate a possible crash. Please can you tell me; assumptions are the mother of all
EDIT: I wrote spot where I should have written narrow in bullet b) above.
^^^ This is why I love Bit-Tech. GEEKS, bitches!
ha ha.. for sure.
I was in marketing, so I'm not even vaguely as correct as say, a whole team of Inmarsat network engineers who are probably astrophysicists who where working on the issue.
Do we think that Inmarsat would waste their time dancing around the issue of a missing plane if it wasn't missing?
That is the bit that doesn't add up...
I worked in Inmarsat as a consultant a few years back building their new data room, what I learnt about their office in Old Street is that each and every person in there is of such high quality that they could each open their own company. Managers / Key workers there are highly impressive.
One of the truths today is that we know the Earth is totally under surveillance.
Do you honestly think that in todays age 2014, the military is not having means to do just about any thing they want.
If you are in charge of "total military spectrum dominance", one of the first things you would do, they have done, is to have real time accurate EMF and visual full spectrum awareness, globally.
There are different tiers of satellites and no doubt weapons platforms. This is one of the most sensitive subjects on Earth. A couple of years ago NASA was just given a up to that point Hubble type telescope.
24 hours a days, any interesting events like rocket launches, explosions, Earth quakes, air craft SOS or Hijackings.
In seconds if not instantly that region or grid position is highlighted for some human operator on some work station.
An Aircraft is a liability, they are missiles.
To believe that an Aircraft can disappear today, epically after it continues on after some time with its tracking technology switched is off means you have no idea, I am not saying that to the OP I am saying that as a statement.
In the area of military pursuits, space defence, as much money as required has been spent for decades, for several reasons, some of them due to outsiders fcking around with our equipment.
What ever happened to that plane, is not usual, it did not just crash into the sea, some thing nefarious and untoward has happened.
If Flight 77 can disappear, I guess Flight 370 can disappear all things considered.
Flight 77 did not disappear. It flew into the Pentagon.
I'm sure that various military powers would like us to think that they have eyes on everything in the world, and that a big slow (relatively speaking) passenger plane disappearing in their airspace without a trace is a source of great embarrassment to them. If that can happen, what else can get past their radar? So my suspicion is that the vagueness, hesitation and mixed messages we have been getting from that front is to hide their ignorance and blinds spots, not to hide their surveillance capabilities.
Separate names with a comma.