How the MH370 Flaperon Floated

[Cato]

I have spent a significant amount of time at periscope depth, so the quoted bit about the difficulty of building something that 'floats' while fully submerged just below the surface is absurd. 

So, given that we have scientists saying that it's physically impossible to build something that is buoyant but remains submerged near the surface (and remains in this state while drifting for thousands of kilometers), are you going to explain the physics of it? I won't hold my breath.

This link is very inconvenient for you. Typical conspiracy nut cherry picking quotes to bolster bullshit. Not unlike Jesus freaks.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/201...lysis.aspx

[brewer]

Just another person that can't admit when they may have been wrong. I'm out.

[mralstoner]

This link is very inconvenient for you. Typical conspiracy nut cherry picking quotes to bolster bullshit. Not unlike Jesus freaks.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/201...lysis.aspx

That link only talks about the drift models, which I have no dispute with. The dispute is that the coverage of barnacles suggest the flaperon was not floating (at least not in accord with the laws of physics). So, the drift models become irrelevant because the flaperon didn't float for thousands of miles, but instead was submerged for 4 months, and seemingly incapable of traveling that distance while underwater.

It's "very inconvenient for you" to actually follow the discussion rather than just throw links, and appeal to authority, and say "aha!". So who's more like the Jesus freaks?