Topic: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. WTF? - page 15. (Read 49322 times)

Ocean Big.
Plane Small.

2 or 3 years minimum searching before they find it probably with Air France they found wreckage a few days on the surface and that gave them the general search area. This is really worse than looking for a needle in a haystack.

http://americablog.com/2014/03/took-2-years-find-air-frances-black-box-time-different.html

Said it since day 1, where do you think UN launched the attacks on.... The world from? Yup, Diego Garcia! That place as a lot of dark history since the British took it over. People don't realise the tech we use is way behind what they have.

That's another funny thing to read, people trying explain. It with the tech we know about. Ha ha. Cognitive disadence bryant, they all suffer from this and can't think for themselves, only repeat the official line like good sheep and actually create more mid/disinformation while their at it. Its funny how when small sections of the mainstream suggest it people start raking it more serious yet before people were crazy conspiracy theorist when that term alone is coined by the same people who made this plane disappear!

Hippocits, cognitive disadence and insanity, yup, that's the western 'developed' world alright!

Isn't gage the one that josh paid off to keep his mouth shut? Sorry dude but that alone proves what a joke you are! People change yes but once a shill always a shill cause it shows what a selfish mother fucker you are. I said soon as you returned from your holiday with josh you were paid off. Ding ding ding! Bullseye again!

God I'm just too good at spotting scum! Then again, easy when your awake to what's going on in the world. I have a good laugh at everything no matter how dark cause I understand the flow of energy which in turn shows the truth to you, you don't even have to 'search' for nothing!

Peace

Finally someone is listening to my theory. 

Amazing how there wasn't one military ship from any country, including the US, sailing the Indian Ocean report having an anomalous blimp on their radar.

You people are funny talking as if what the msm reports is true and getting so involved! They can't keep getting away with what they do any more because too many people k ow the truth now. They need to start ww3 before too many of us see it for what it is!

http://inquiringminds.cc/new-chilling-mh370-diego-garcia-links-beforeitsnews-via-uprootedpalestinians

The fact that no plane of this size and never as a plane with so many passengers completly gone missing since the 1990's should make a lot of you snap out of the bullshit trail.

Since 9/11 every plane as had the ability to be remotely controlled. You didn't even need the pilots to know what the plan is. And when the us/UK get together with the Rothschild's you know something big is going down!

Stop being sheep and use your brain and stop listening to the crowd mentality. The crowd mentality is insane, repeating things over and over expecting change. Working, paying tax, using banks etc etc and funding all this bullshit. The joke is if you only wake up and SEE they can't get away with this bullshit!

The rest of the world as had enough of it, wake up so called western 'developed' world to your masters and stop using their systems! Otherwise things will get much much worse very quickly.

Meh, probably too late already. Cognitive disadence as destroyed you all

Yes you are stupid and yes I have got better things to do than urgently find the time to make my case to you, but I'll do it at my own leisure and choosing. Where do you think arguing with a close-minded religious moron (troll?) who is blatantly allergic to facts or reason is is on my 'To do list'? It's not a priority, but again, what does the duration I take to bother to reply to your crap have to do with the argument at hand? Absolutely nothing. “Without providing proves.” Lol. I have continually 'provided proves' whereas you have yet to provide anything other than your unsourced opinion. Unlike you I actually bother taking the time to get some sources whereas you just keep making one false claim after the other and derail the argument with pettiness and irrelevance to avoid answering the original questions or providing any kind of source for them (almost certainly because you have no argument whatsoever other than just incorrectly saying things are facts when they’re not). So, please take your time and provide me with the evidence I have continually asked for here. Take as long as you want to respond.


All of what you've said is your unbacked opinions. They haven't been 'scientific' at all, but have just been your opinions based on assumptions, fallacies and usually nothing at all. Here's some things you've yet to answer and you haven’t backed up with any sources but just made up to suit your argument:


Prove to me where their stance on religion is clear? It's clear that you don't know what you're talking about and that they're either agnostic or non-believers in god or religion and you haven't provided anything to the contrary. I provided you with some quotes (and more to follow) on how they're not religious at all but you still deny them for some reason.


Can you provide me sources on where he stated his work has 'always had a 'religious inspiration' and what has his Cosmological Constant got to do with anything here?


Who is this biggest figure of all time? Also, where is your proof that half of the worlds prominent scientists are religious? You've seemingly just made that figure up. You provided a list of some, but that doesn't mean 50% are. Give me the evidence and source of the 50%. And if 50% are religious then 50% are also not. Whatever your point is here it's irrelevant anyway.


I haven't changed my reply. My original argument was always there's people in the list that aren't religious:


So no, the whole argument here wasn't 'religion makes people stupid'. Where did I say that? My argument is that you've incorrectly put three non-religious people onto a list of religious people. Einstein, Hawking & Sagan are not religious and never believed in god. It's fud when you include them and continue to keep them on a list of religious people or believers when they're not. You haven't provided me with any facts that proves they are religious or why they should be on the list. Nothing at all. You've actually since admitted that Hawking isn't religious and Sagan is agnostic, but yet you're still arguing about them being included on a list of prominent people who believe in god. Agnostics are not believers in god. No sources, just your own opinion and incorrect assumption.


What facts have you stated? You haven't stated any facts whatsoever. It's become quite clear you don't know the difference between them and opinion. Facts are something shared by all and are without doubt. You need sources to back facts up. You can't just say things and that makes them true. Where are your facts that being Jewish is just a religion and nothing else? You are still fundamentally not understanding the difference between the Jewish religion and the Jewish people. They are not the same but different. Yes, of course you can join the Jewish faith regardless of ethnicity, but that is not the same as being an ethnic Jew. I could convert to Judaism but it doesn’t mean I'm descended from the Jewish people or Hebrews. I could convert to Islam but that wouldn't make me an Arab. Your explanation is just coming from your own misinformed and ignorant opinion and is 100% factually incorrect.

Here are some facts with sources on the difference and two meanings:

 
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Jew

Jew:
1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.
3. A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

“The Jews also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites (Hebrews) of the Ancient Near East. According to Jewish tradition, Jewish ancestry is traced back to the Biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who lived in Canaan around the 18th century BCE.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_American

“American Jews, also known as Jewish Americans, are American citizens of the Jewish faith or Jewish ethnicity”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism

“Jewish atheism refers to atheism as practiced by people who are ethnically, and to some extent culturally, Jewish”.

“One recent study found that half of all American Jews have doubts about the existence of God, compared to 10–15% of other American religious groups.”

How can Jews be atheists if being Jewish is just a religion to you? How can Einstein and Sagan be religious Jews when they've both stated they're agnostic and not religious? They either are or they aren't according to you and they've both said they're not, so it's you that's wrong.

Adolf Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jewish race, not the religion. He viewed Jews as racially impure and inferior and wanted to [/b]ethnically[/b] cleanse them. He didn’t want to kill random people who had just converted to Judaism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

“Anti-Semitism is prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial group”

Here's a quote from Einstein on both his beliefs and the Jewish religion and people:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

“In the letter, he [Einstein] states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

If you continue to argue against this after the above then you're an infinite moron or a pathetic troll. What this has to do with my original argument just goes to show how much you derail the topic with redundancies and irrelevancies in order to escape disproving my actual points.


I find this absolutely astonishing. It's very often not clear what you mean but it is also very clear that you have a hard time comprehending anything I say or are just unwilling to process and accept facts that don't support your arguments, but it's you that has put words in their mouth and taken what they said out of context to  'transform the whole perspective and meaning of the quote' to suit your case. You might be making sense in your own dense head but I guarantee you're not to anybody else. I already provided you with a quote from Sagan himself giving you his explanation of what Einstein meant by Spinoza's god. Has he got it wrong too? Please provide me with a source where Sagan said he is a theist. Theism is the belief that at least one god exists. Well Sagan didn't believe that. Prove to me with sources where he did. This is your opinion yet again. How does him saying atheism is stupid make him a believer or religious? I've explained the meaning of the full quote which you have taken out of context. Why do you ignore the first part of it and just latch on to the last atheism is stupid bit. And saying atheism is stupid proves what exactly? Nothing. The full quote proves his agnosticism. Not denying god does not make you a believer. Agnosticism is admitting you don't know which Sagan was happy to admit, so how can you include him on a list of so called prominent religious people?

Listen to this 7 minute video which is a perfect example of Einstein on God and Spinoza with explanations of the correct context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEK6WtHxNfw (not that you'll be able to comprehend or understand it).


You seem to keep making an argument for something I never questioned or was arguing about. I  don't understand why you keep going back to the rest of the list when it's irrelevant and not the point here; the three I mentioned are the point of discussion, but I guess you haven't got anything else, right? My argument isn’t and never was about the rest of the list or that there aren't intelligent people who are believers in a religion. I never said that. You can still be intelligent and make contributions to science but also have stupid beliefs. Newton believed in alchemy for example. You keep saying it's a fact that more than 50% of scientists are religious, but where's the source for this? I've never heard that. It's not a fact until you can back it up, but again if 50% are then 50% aren’t. I must say though, I find it ironic your list is full of ancient philosophers and old dead scientists and pretty much the only modern day ones on there are the three I've proved shouldn’t be there at all. Most people believed in Christianity back in the old days as well (usually under the punishment of death if they didn't) especially when modern science was still developing and people were first formulating their theories and we didn’t know then what we do now, but you'd be hard pressed to find many modern day pioneers of science who are big believers, especially not 50% of prominent scientists. Most religious people tend to be idiots like yourself, but yeah, you occasionally get some intelligent ones.

Please, if you want to continue this discussion start a thread in the politics section quoting these post and we'll take if from there, but there's no point if you're just going to keep touting your incorrect opinions as facts without a single shred of evidence to back them up.

Tl;dr Einstein, Sagan and Hawkin are not religious. End of.

Better things to do? rest assured I've had a look on your comment history at the time before I advanced such a thing, I'm not stupid, I verified because you might have been absent, or busy, but it wasn't the case either way, your comment history for the last 2 days speaks for it self this is a FACT. Factual argumentation I don't need to derail or advance something which is not a fact and believe in it like you are doing here (you believe you've proved something without providing proves.

1- Again which opinion you are talking about? I don't recall my self giving my opinion on something, I reported scientific, and quotes from the person them selves I didn't advance anything from there, unlike you, I've pointed out each time you advanced something on your own. Shall I quote each time you've done this and list it below just to prove this once and for all?

Also it's funny how now you've changed your reply from your list is fud (and I can quote you denying it) to there are people in that list that aren't religious? wasn't the whole argument here, that religion makes people stupid? and only stupid people follow religion? so the existence of such list that you cannot denies and one which you focus on one or two person to try discredited is a proof on it self that not only you are wrong, but your whole argumentation is unwholesome.

2- antisemite? what are you talking about here, I stated fact and to prove how your argumentation is malsain again you are derailing and not answering the facts I provided, Judaism is not a RACE or ETHNICITY it is a RELIGION, people who follow Judaism are Jewish as there are Muslims or Christians, this is fact, ANYONE can become Jewish or Muslim, or Christian being regardless of their ETHENICITY, there are Arab Jewish, Asian Jewish, Black Jewish, White Jewish, Berber Jewish... this is a FACT, I want to see arguing against this. As for the rest of you argument, there are people that claim to be things they aren't to benefit them selves, I saw people claiming to be Muslims to get feed during Ramadan for free or to get help from Muslim organization, I saw some other doing the same thing, to get free housing from Catholic organizations and help, I saw some claiming to be Jew, to get financial help for their business, this is a fact as well, I'm talking about people who believes and call them selfs Jew for a reason, and during the Einstein era, being a Jew in Austria and Germany was not an advantage in fact it was the total opposite sadly yet he always presented him self as a Jew (I'm not going to talk about the cruel things that Jews, gays and ethnicities (It wasn't only Jews for reference) suffered during the Nazi era and how those atrocities are horrible and makes sad that's a whole other debate).

3- there is nothing to rephrase there are some mistakes but as a whole the comment is clear, you Quote Sagan and Einstein and then you try and explain what they are saying putting words on their mouth and transforming the whole perspective and meaning of the quote. Not only but the quotes you used only proves my argument as explained, Sagan him self said he is an Egnostic and this is I'm sure something I said my self, and I said he is an Egnostic Theist, because he never denied GOD, and consider Atheism to be stupid. (see no opinions here only facts).

4- Only argument I have ? just a little reminder and to put things into perspective shall we :
Original claim was : "people that follow religion are stupid, only stupid people follow religion, religion is the source of many problems"
My original answer was : It's the religion fault but peoples stupidity that makes do stupid things, around half of the world most proficient scientist are religions, and I listed presenting a dozen of scientist that changed our world.

Yet you've claimed that what I said is FUD because there is one or two scientist that are not religious how is this even an argumentation, not only you cannot prove the list is fake/wrong/false which you are avoiding here, but you are trying to discredit by focusing on one or two scientist, that didn't say clearly, I'm Christian for example end of story (like the others did, they had a clear stance)  like I told you whole argumentation is malsain
The existence of only one proficient scientist proves my point (that there exist religious people that are as intelligent is not more intelligent than their atheist counterpart but I presented a list of people that changed our world and our understanding of science as a whole I also stated another fact is more than half of the most proficient scientist right now are religious. So not only you are nitpicking you are avoiding at all cost to talk about the rest of the list.

Indeed it is not, and never said it is, what I'm saying despite all the available means of collaboration, they are not using them and still posting contradicting and misleading informations.

I've got better and more pressing things to do than argue with a blind-sighted fool in continual denial who is impervious to facts or reason and can't construct an intelligible point or argument, so I'll refute your (non-)arguments when I've got time, but the duration it takes me to respond to your nonsense is a petty and puerile matter. Why don't you take a couple of days to comprehend what I'm saying and do some research or, you know, actually make a valid point or argument? You've yet again provided nothing satisfactory or refuted any of my points with any facts at all; just incorrect opinion. Seriously, you're either really no good at comprehending or processing the information and facts I've given you or you're stupidly in denial and doing your best to avoid answering my questions.

1) You haven't clearly done anything and it's opinionated because you haven't provided any evidence of your argument other than your own opinion which has been based on your misunderstanding of quotes that you've not understood the meaning or context of. You said Einstein's work was religious in nature but where is your proof? And listen to what I've got to say now: My argument is not and was never to disprove the entire list of scientists and philosophers you gave, my point was you included three ones that weren’t in any way religious. Do you understand that? You need to drop thinking that you're somehow onto a winning argument here. You're asking me to prove a square is a circle. I never said they were. If you cannot comprehend this then there's no point continuing. Your only argument here seems to be a point I never made. And I proved that not one or two but all three of the people I initially pointed out are not religious, but it's becoming clear nothing will convince you otherwise.

2) Ah, so you're an anti-semite? Again, this is your misinformed opinion. Saying Jews aren’t an ethnicity is absolutely moronic and there's a difference between the people and religion whether you think it or not. Again, your opinion is wrong. Anybody can join the Jewish faith, but it doesn't give you Jewish heritage or ancestry. How can Sagan be Jewish? How can Woody Allen or Sasha Baron Cohen be Jewish and also Atheists? Or are they not to you? Maybe all their work is inspired by god too? Do some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions. Jews are Hebrews and originated from Israel and surrounding areas, but have since spread throughout the world like most ethnicities.

3) Little of that makes any sense so if you care to rephrase it I'll have a go at deciphering your point, but your opinion of Sagan is wrong, just like everything else. He wasn't a theist. Where have I quoted that? Please read and process the information of what I've said in my previous message.

4) Seriously, is that the only argument you've got here? You are trying to win an argument based on a point I'm not making. I've proved without doubt the three are not religious with quotes from all of them but you disregard these. You have not read any of their works at all. Read them then get back to me. Your insistence on still trying to say that Hawking’s religiosity is debatable or 'disputable' is laughable, but it's clear your denial is not going to let you drop this. If you can't disprove the points I've made above in my previous message and just want me to try prove to you that squares are circles then there's really no point continuing this, but I will continue to answer you points in my own time if you so wish to do so, but answering the same unsourced and unfounded crap is a little boring.


Yes, but technology is not foolproof and all-knowing and omnipresent; accidents happen and people make mistakes. Human error is a factor in most accidents.

Didnt crash

Took you 2-3 days to comes with a reply hmm. sure

1-How my post is opinioned when I've clearly posted, what the scientist said and did, the scientists I listed are not religious? but I don't see you challenging that, the only ones you are talking about of the dozen I mentioned is one or two, how come? this on it own is a prove and an admitting from your side that those relevant scientist that changed the world are indeed religious.

2- there is no such thing as a ethnic Jew, and the prove, is that Jews are from everywhere in the world and that anyone can become a jew like with any other religion, Jewish is a religion, and some Zionists wants to make it or make it look as an ethnicity as it serves their interest. so no you are totally wrong again

3- Both your quote do not contradict in any mean what I said, I clearly said that Sagan is an Agnostic THEIST and you've quoted that, as for Spinoza I've read that before I commented on the matter, it is GOD, I do not believe god is a Person or a Being, as God creats persons and beings You can find this notion clearly said in Islam, Judaism, the only religion that partially assimilated God to human is Christianity and even whiting Christianity and it branches it is a very discussed point.
Also stop giving your own explication on other people quote, especially when they are clear, that's opinioning the words (see what I'm talking about here)

4- You didn't prove that 3 of them were not, One of them was disputable, and I removed him, the other two are not, not rather than trying to avoid the matter and derail, how about proving the others were not religious go ahead I want to see you trying.



In this day and age such thing should be inadmissible, means of communication are available, technological resources as well all they need to do is work together and set milestones, also I don't understand why china was disregarded in this matter, instead of waving their epeens on geopolitical matters, people should work together to solve this problem especially in the beginning where there was a chance of survivors, it is really outraging that in this day and age we still such attitudes

You're actually wrong on every single point you've tried to make.

1) I find this very ironic. Your post is both highly opinionated, incorrect and is fud because you claimed those scientists to be religious when in fact they're nothing of the sort and the ones I pointed out are either atheist or agnostic, hence FUD which you continue to try spread. You didn't get any clear quotes and aren’t dealing in any facts at all but just misinformed opinion and assumption.

2) Clearly you don't know the difference between an ethnic Jew and the religion. Sagan was a Jew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism

3) No. You're getting confused just because it has the word god there. Clearly you're not familiar with Spinoza's 'God'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism God is not literally meant as a god just like in the phrase 'God doesn't play dice with the world'. God in this sense means nature / physical laws, not a person or being. You clearly have trouble dealing with literal and figurative meanings (as do most religious people) and you still haven’t provided me with anything that alludes to Sagan being a theist (which he wasn't).  He was actually a non-theist, but maybe you got confused there. I also still don't understand how you just saying Einstein's work on light & general relativity is religious in nature, especially with nothing to back it up but your opinion, so no, it's not clear. Please elaborate.

A quote from Sagan on Einstein and Spinoza's god:

 "Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."

A quote from Einstein:

“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”

4) Again, you are taking the 'atheism is stupid' quote out of context and misunderstanding its true meaning / intent. The full quote:

"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."

He says atheism is stupid because according to him one cannot possibly know whether there is or isn’t a god. Charles Darwin also disliked the term atheist and didn't claim to be one. Are you going to try claim him as a prominent religious scientist now?

If you read Sagan's works (clearly you haven't), whilst he never came out publicly and said he was an atheist, he was not a believer in religion or god, but to me he seems to be more of an atheistic agnostic, but if you watch this video from his lifelong friend James Randi he gives you an answer why Sagan never came out and said he was a full blown atheist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hqkxo9gXzA

5) You provided a list of allegedly religious people and I knew instantly three of them were not. I've already proved that they were not religious and essentially non-religious, yet you still seem to think they are based on nothing but your own desires and misinformed understanding. My argument wasn't everybody on that list but the three, so the rest are irrelevant to this. You really seem to go on the defensive attack and project your denial on to other people here. I really don't understand what I'm meant to be in denial about as I've backed up my points and you've either failed to provide any proof or continually taken yours out of context or misunderstood them completely, not to mention just making stuff up just to suit your argument.

Back on topic:


I think they probably reached a deal to stop any bickering or further confusion if/when it was found. There seems to be a lot of confusion because I don't think anybody has established the true facts of what happened and there seems to be three or more parties involved in the search right now all operating on different knowledge.

not only that, but contradicting news are coming from each side and from the chinese as well, it's hard to follow and understand what's going on anymore

Jurisdiction rules so that one nation or the other will work on the recovery / investigation.

Typical in a number of investigations like this.

Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_Air_Flight_1285 (Canadian Soil)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111


Expensive it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

This is really funny. Australia and Malaysia has reached a deal on who should have the custody of the black box, once it is recovered. Why a deal even before recovering the black box?

Apples and oranges, everyone loves comparing apples and oranges!

http://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Boeing-777/database


http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20070226-0

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20080117-0


http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20110729-0

The pilot did say 'Good night' before end of communication.

There are a number of documented cases that could be viable that the pilot was 'off their meds' or "a tad squirrely" and was contemplating suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Express_Flight_705

http://www.tailstrike.com/070494.htm


I would still lean to some sort of mechanical failure / decompression / fire scenario first given that has happened more often than the suicide pilot incidents. Just the numbers make it more likely it was mechanical.

http://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/12/22/list-of-aircraft-accidents-caused-by-pilot-suicide/

and

http://news.aviation-safety.net/category/accident-criminalization/

So far, the sources for that appear to be hearsay by anonymous sources, but if confirmed, I'll drop my fire theory.


Dual suicide seems far fetched indeed, but its not very hard to come up with theories explaining a single suicide; while the captain or copilot is out of the cockpit (they go to the bathroom too you know), close the reinforced cabin door and depressurize the plane. ~15 minutes later you have a silent plane. As for why it would be a strange way, I disagree. In fact, its probably how I would do it if I was to take my own life and had no quarrels taking 200 innocents with me. Vanish and turn your cowardly act in to a possibly unsolvable mystery. I would find that more appealing that the thought that my children and family would view me as a murderer and coward.

As for the reason, one can of course only guess, but IIRC the captain's wife was divorcing him and she was moving out of the house that very day. He also had problems in his extramarital affair and apparently received a phone call from some woman minutes before the flight. His own daughter claimed the captain acted strangely and distant (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-pilot-3303379) in the month leading up to the crash. There is this dogma on talking about pilot's suicide, but its happened before and it seems unthinkable no pilot will ever do it again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/11/just-how-common-are-pilot-suicides/?tid=pm_national_pop


Randomlove doesnt think in or out the box. His brain is fried by too many drugs to think. Just click his ignore button.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Disappearance

At this point, suicide may be your fallback… and I can't argue it except to say its a really strange way to commit suicide, disabling communications and having to directly kill your friend copilot or somehow get him out of the cockpit so you can go on a joyride into the Indian ocean?    All of the research they seem to have done on the pilots doesn't seem to indicate either had a reason to commit suicide.

Dual suicide pact?  hard to believe.


The box - Where are you thinking?  
,____________
|        Puppet |
|                  |
|                ib|miner
|___________|                                                                          randomlove

I'm a little worried about randomlove