[Fori362]

Ventus said:

"What is the key ?"

Perhaps the 'key' is simply that: there is a cover-up being (both past & present tense) put into place?

It would fit with the 'coincidences', the delays, hiding radar data, ATC transcripts and CCTV recordings; the lack of corroborating (or other) data from any other satellites or sources, ignoring data that's inconvenient (flaperon, biofouling, retrieving debris from other countries, eye witness accounts) the less-than-open transparency of all involved (especially the USA and MYG's insistence on classifying data) and the general overall 'vagueness' and unwillingness to quickly do what would be obviously necessary and helpful on each occasion. They would want interest in the story to wither and die; for it to become a mystery that nobody can solve because of the costs of searching deep ocean for an uncertain crash site.

The MYG, on the other hand, while being on the front line with the world's media may not have access to the 'boardroom discussions': they may not have been told where the actual crash site is, or what the state of the recorders are (ie. they may have been told very little; or given a different cover story). Hence their draconian insistence on being the first recipient of (and no doubt making sure they contractually have control and veto of) each and every find and its disclosure. They wouldn't want to be put into more hot water by a (doctored?) FDR being suddenly discovered that might cast doubt on the story they've been forced to create and recount so far.

Fori - “They really do not seem to want it found”.

P7_TOM said: "Gee whizz Fori – no kidding."

That was intentional understatement, a typically English device often unrecognised as such. I agree with your comment:

Possibles... it would need to be something that several countries would agree had to be kept quiet.

1. Intentional diversion by others (not crew) - for something/someone on the aircraft. After which the airframe could be dispatched from 25k (using HALO) on a slow -100ft/min ROD into the long grass of the ocean on 180M using AP.

- Implies planning: knowing the intended target would be on that flight, ability to guarantee seats for operatives, organising a landing place with ground operatives.

- Implies no other (much easier) way of obtaining that end on the ground.

- Has many risks of things going wrong and the resulting (damning) media exposure due to the civilians onboard if they were found to be treated simply as 'collateral'.

2. Shoot down - to prevent the aircraft being diverted and being used as a 'bomb' to hit something, or during exercises by an aircraft or ship.

- Petronas towers or similar ground target in populated area: possible, but no need to hide that: perfectly reasonable to shoot it down to prevent much greater death on the ground - newspaper editorial reaction: 'Regrettable loss of life, but what decision would you have taken in the circumstances if you were the MYG?'

- Diego: perfectly possible someone might try, although the chances of successfully reaching there across open ocean must surely have been known to be slim. It's the control/download centre for the US INTEL satellite above that area - it would be the first to know of unwelcome and unscheduled incomings (including a 777 heading for the SIO way to the east of it, no doubt).

- Accidental shoot down at IGARI/BITOD, mistaken for another target / accidental lock-on during exercises?

- Wreckage would be in the SCS. Difficult to conceal and retrieve given busy waterway (fishing boats especially). And since search started there, people on surrounding shores would be more aware of any missed debris.

- Possible target: leader of NK (or one of his close family) on another aircraft that crossed paths? (Echoes here of the Air Italia incident referred to in posts above). Given that MH17 seems like it may have been targeted due to one particular person being on board, MH17 would match as retribution.

- Kate and William's holiday at a villa at the Cheval Blanc Randheli Hotel on Noonu Atoll, Maldives (started Thursday 6th March for a week) ... now that's maybe a more viable possibility. The Commonwealth (and the US, due to the special relationship) would surely stick together and keep 'Mum' on preventing something like an attempted suicide attack on the recently married Royals becoming known.

And on the 'embarrassing' side, they might have found it difficult to justify why two rich Royals having a very privileged holiday (apparently, 45 villas on the island were closed for the duration of their holiday for 'security' reasons) were seen as more important than 200+ 'ordinary' people in the aircraft. You'd especially expect China not to be amused by such an equation.

In a remote location like that, apart from special forces stationed on the island, there would likely be Navy ships with helicopters and a Royal Marines squadron located discreetly offshore giving local radar coverage and ground-to-air fire power, and/or armed fighter jets on standby just in case - the nearest base being Diego (800 miles away) or India? The Five Powers base at Butterworth might have been one of the peripheral land (radar) bases on Royal alert during their stay, if so there would have been plenty of advance warning it was on its way there. And a darned good reason for waking up Hishy and Najib rather than letting MAS deal with it. The remaining decision then might have been at which point to shoot it down if warnings/communications failed - deep water, of course.

And you'd expect the Royal pair to be flown out to the nearest protected UK/US base for safety asap afterwards in case a follow-up attack had been planned - could that be that low-level mystery jet that crossed Kudahuvadhoo (heading to Diego?) seen by islanders early that morning?

Or maybe not? Just some musings.

The learning might be ... if you look at all that we've been told happened at the time, and what we know has happened since from the viewpoint of it being a cover up, does it all make more sense?