MH370 flaperon damage theories
July 31, 2015 at 10:19 pm
(This post was last modified: July 31, 2015 at 10:47 pm by mralstoner.)
I've heard of three theories, so far.
The facts: the flaperon has no damage to the front, but the rear/lower is torn.
The theories:
1. The flap was damaged by hitting the water during a flat, gliding, soft crash landing
2. The flap was damaged by wind stress and torn off during rapid descent
3. This is spoof wreckage planted by sophisticated hijackers
FACTS - What is a flaperon?
https://twitter.com/CNNTonight/status/62...8676256768
THEORY 1
https://twitter.com/IBTimes/status/627138653072928769
"Sources close to the Boeing 777 program told the Daily Beast on Thursday that the find bolsters a theory that the plane sped until it ran out of fuel. “It looks like the jet went into the water in a gliding/ditching attitude, because otherwise this wing component would have likely been completely destroyed,” the source said.
The Daily Beast reported that this theory was consistent with the "zombie flight" scenario that Boeing engineers recreated digitally. Computer-generated analysis shows the plane would have flown at its cruise height and speed for six hours until eventually running out of fuel. Flight 370 most likely did not nose-dive but "began a spiraling descent without power to the water and splashed down," the Daily Beast report said."
THEORY 2
https://twitter.com/mywabot/status/626985449387634688
"One group of independent observers said Thursday that the damage to the component -- a right wing flaperon -- should give authorities a good indication that the piece came off while the plane was still in the air.
The group, led by American Mobile Satellite Corp. co-founder Mike Exner, points to the small amount of damage to the front of the flaperon and the ragged horizontal tear across the back.
The rear damage could have been caused if the airliner had its flaperon down as it went into the ocean, some members of Exner's group wrote in a preliminary assessment after looking at photos and videos of the component.
But the lack of damage to the front makes it more likely the plane was in a high-speed, steep, spiral descent and the part fluttered until it broke off, the group said."
THEORY 3
Another wild theory is that China/Russia (or whoever hijacked the plane) conveniently planted this piece of evidence to further throw us off. Why? Maybe China wants the South China Sea mapped for their submarines?
The facts: the flaperon has no damage to the front, but the rear/lower is torn.
The theories:
1. The flap was damaged by hitting the water during a flat, gliding, soft crash landing
2. The flap was damaged by wind stress and torn off during rapid descent
3. This is spoof wreckage planted by sophisticated hijackers
FACTS - What is a flaperon?
https://twitter.com/CNNTonight/status/62...8676256768
THEORY 1
https://twitter.com/IBTimes/status/627138653072928769
"Sources close to the Boeing 777 program told the Daily Beast on Thursday that the find bolsters a theory that the plane sped until it ran out of fuel. “It looks like the jet went into the water in a gliding/ditching attitude, because otherwise this wing component would have likely been completely destroyed,” the source said.
The Daily Beast reported that this theory was consistent with the "zombie flight" scenario that Boeing engineers recreated digitally. Computer-generated analysis shows the plane would have flown at its cruise height and speed for six hours until eventually running out of fuel. Flight 370 most likely did not nose-dive but "began a spiraling descent without power to the water and splashed down," the Daily Beast report said."
THEORY 2
https://twitter.com/mywabot/status/626985449387634688
"One group of independent observers said Thursday that the damage to the component -- a right wing flaperon -- should give authorities a good indication that the piece came off while the plane was still in the air.
The group, led by American Mobile Satellite Corp. co-founder Mike Exner, points to the small amount of damage to the front of the flaperon and the ragged horizontal tear across the back.
The rear damage could have been caused if the airliner had its flaperon down as it went into the ocean, some members of Exner's group wrote in a preliminary assessment after looking at photos and videos of the component.
But the lack of damage to the front makes it more likely the plane was in a high-speed, steep, spiral descent and the part fluttered until it broke off, the group said."
THEORY 3
Another wild theory is that China/Russia (or whoever hijacked the plane) conveniently planted this piece of evidence to further throw us off. Why? Maybe China wants the South China Sea mapped for their submarines?
