buctootim

Her policies are good but more than anything I like the way she gives it to people straight. When there was all that media gnashing about the selfie with Cameron and Obama at Mandela's memorial party her response was "so what? everybody was up dancing in the stands and we were having a laugh"

He's a princess, not a politician

Well it is on a football forum on a slow Thursday. Apart from Jimmy Savile and not beating Sunderland in the FA Cup.

Most leaders of big countries go through the same kind of back scratching deal making, climbing party hierachy trees in order to get elected - which makes them too self serving and dishonest for my taste. Smaller countries tend not to have that problem so much. Helle Thorning-Schmidt of Denmark for me.

http://ngis.dodlodging.net/propertys/Diego-Garcia-NSF---Diego-Garcia-

No but if its friends and families transport presumably they would just shuttle them to the nearest international airport - like Male.

They are. Just a suggestion. The plane could even have been part of the Janet fleet used to ferry workers and their failies around. http://www.dreamlandresort.com/info/janet_fleet.html

Planes like these

Sorry Goat'boy' - due to your age and special interests you've been relegated to the GILF thread. Meet up with Tokyo whilst you're there.

Shuttit Bear. You're not on the 'squeeze my schoolgirl boobies for a £1' thread now - though clearly we would both like to be.

I work for an environmental organisation that does a lot of seabed mapping and exploration and tracking pingers. Its bizarre that the gps locators we put onto a shark for £100 or so is more sophisticated than the pingers in commercial airliners. Finding an item on the seabed is not particularly high technology, its been around for years. You use something called a side scan sonar to identify 'features of interest' and then send down an ROV - which is a submersible robot equipped with cameras, lights and a grab to make a positive identification. What does vary a great deal is the amount of ground a piece of equipment can cover in a day and the depths it can operate to. The scanner the Aussie ship has on loan from the US is a sophisticated bit of kit in that you can programme it to make pararells runs up and down across an area for hours and then surface with all the data logged. That said HMS Echo will probably cover more ground faster and in real time given their experienced operatives.

Surely its a question of basic police work interviewing islanders, logic (it happened nearly 16 hours after the Malaysian plane would have run out of fuel) and matched with radar at Male airport.

Pap surely if you want people to apply more critical or forensic thinking to what they are told then you should focus on the real world issues. Nearly all of the conspiracy stuff is so full of holes and lack of humanity it just alienates people. Some people in the Maldives heard a low flying plane, possibly a jumbo jet a full day after the Malaysian plane disappeared. There was no radar track. Maldives police investigated and found no evidence. The misleading quote you give refers to the fact that the Inmarsat satellite is in orbit near the Maldives so the ping was "received near the Maldives" but the plane wasnt. Indeed Inmarsat produced a possible track. Within those tracks pings have been heard and soon enough the wreckage will emerge. What will you look for then - after the Boston bombing crisis actors, the dummy 7/11 planes and the "where's the blood" Rigby killing? There is more to being a 'free thinker' than blithely lapping up every conspiracy story.

Our owners understand that ignore is a complete solution to the board being dominated by relentless mega-spastics ©.

We should've got Daniel Levy - peanuts at £650,000pa and made them a £33.5m profit.

Is looking increasingly likely, now that the Aussies have re-acquired the ping, that the plane is indeed at the bottom of southern Indian Ocean in a location inline with the Inmarsat calculation . How long before the actual wreckage is found and bought to the surface is moot, but it will be. Whether we learn what actually happened is a different matter.

I dont know, I haven't spoken to my BA engineer buddy for a week or so so its just a hypothesis. Doesn't seem improbable that the cockpit would also control the crew cabin oxygen supply as well as the passenger one.

As far as I understand it the flightcrew control supply of oxygen to the cabin. It feasible he sent the co-pilot on some made up errand, locked the door, depressurised the cabin and gained altitude.

I dont think he tried to survive. I think he did it to sink the plane intact without debris or possibly just for the thrill. I know its a bizarre suggestion, but slightly less bizarre than having him skillfully evade radar for 7 hours in order to simply smash the plane into the sea creating loads of wreckage. Its the theory that best fits the facts atm imo. I would imagine all the cabin crew, co pilot and passengers were dead by this point - presumably asphyxiated earlier in the flight. .

I know, but I'm not sure about the tractor beams or everyone chilling out in Diego Garcia.

Why indeed? Why evade radar and continue to fly it for seven hours? Why not just crash it an hour after take off? Why has no wreckage yet been discovered despite apparently finding the location? None of it makes any sense. Surely if you don't want the plane found you would ditch it gently - not smash it into 10,000 pieces by hitting the water at 400 knots. For what its worth I think the whole flight might have been one last big technical challenge and expression of freedom for a suicidal aviation nut pilot - fly without flight plans, guidance, being spotted or tracked and executing a once in a lifetime landing on water.

I put forward a theory for how the plane could have disappeared apparently leaving no wreckage - ie ditching intact and then sinking and have cited numerous examples of comparable planes over 50 years doing exactly that. Your contribution has been bluster, denial and vacuous statements without putting forward any alternative explanation. Go you.

Actually its just another tax dodge. "The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) have attributed the rise in revenue to people intentionally taking longer to declare their income, and thus the value on the receipts have been higher this year. This they argue, is because a number of the country’s top earners intentionally held back their bonuses and salaries for a year after hearing Chancellor George Osborne’s budget in 2012, so that they could benefit from lower tax payments incurred from the implementation of the 45% tax in 2013. - See more at: http://www.moneyexpert.com/news/hmrc-statistics-indicate-that-top-tax-rate-cut-has-sent-income-revenue-soaring/800582761#sthash.CTi7eJUN.dpuf

Stupid response. Terminal velocity of a human is around 120mph so obviously crashing into almost anything at that speed will be fatal. A 777 has round a 17:1 glide ratio, so for a plane trying to ditch at sea its downward force on the water would be less than 20mph - hence why so many pilots who cannot land at an airport choose to ditch at sea rather than say, fields. btw this is a plane that ditched safely in 1970 in St Croix, so when you were at Ditch group in the 1970s - you were wrong then too. There are 19 other documented instances of large commercial planes ditching on this website. http://www.barnstormers.com/eFLYER/2009/053-eFLYER-FA01-Fla****er.html

Course it is. Look at the Hudson river plane all battered up by that hard as rock water. My advice to you would be to go to the highest diving board and bellyflop once into water and once into concrete and see which one does more damage. And before you say "but it was doing 200mph" just think how fast the fall through the air is is as opposed to the lateral speed - its about 20mph not 200mph fyi.