A Chilling Scenario for MH370

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
03/17/2014 at 16:11 • Filed to: planelopnik

This is an excerpt from a blog post written by Mark Berry, an airline pilot. While most of the efforts seem focused on finding a crash site, Berry suggests we should instead be looking for an intact plane on the ground somewhere, one that could now be in the hands of terrorists who possess a potential weapon of mass destruction.

Here is where my worst fear comes into play. What do the hijackers want? Traditionally they'd want asylum, ransom, and/or their comrades freed from prison. 9/11 caught the world with our pants down and a new breed of sacrificial hijackers killed 3000+ people with four aircraft in a single morning. That was when hijacking transformed into terrorism. But MH370 wasn't flown into a building or a city center, and it certainly could have been. They could have flown it along the original flight plan and then crashed it into Beijing. They could have turned around—everyone would have assumed it had an emergency and was returning—and then crashed it into Kuala Lumpur. The hijackers had free rein of the sky, and even subtle traces of them—revealed by ACARS data bursts—took days to figure out, so they could have crashed that 777 anywhere within about a seven hour range based on that day's fuel load. But they didn't. So WHERE they went is now slightly less important than WHY.

....

Hijackers, that we should absolutely assume are terrorists, now have control of a heavy, long-range, transport vehicle. It hasn't been found in pieces in the ocean or sprawled out across a rural field, so we need to assume that it is safely hidden on the ground somewhere. Even if the terrorists only loaded it up with classical explosives, the 777's cabin and cargo bays capacity could destroy an entire city. And that's just with traditional ordinance. No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, but it would be naive to assume that none exist anywhere in the world. I am worried that the first terrorist-controlled weapon of mass destruction (maybe biological, maybe chemical, maybe nuclear) is now being married with the Boeing 777 in some remote airfield. While that aircraft is missing, we need to put our nation at high alert, or red alert, or DefCon-3, or however our government activates the highest military readiness, and alert the rest of the world to do their equivalent. And we need to ask ourselves what is our tolerance to shoot down MH370 upon discovery of it back in flight?

You can read the rest of his thoughts in his blog post !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

DISCUSSION (66)

CAR_IS_MI > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:15

Who said it was hijacked?

For Sweden > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:15

This has been discussed earlier this week (not by me in official circles, but reporters calling my office have asked about it).

If an unknown 777 without a registered flight plan pops up anywhere, you bet your sweet ass it will be shot down.

ttyymmnn > CAR_IS_MI
03/17/2014 at 16:18

Malaysian authorities, FWIW, are now acting on the suspicion that it was in fact hijacked, either by bad guys or the pilot(s). BBC News uses the term "intentionally diverted."

For Sweden > CAR_IS_MI
03/17/2014 at 16:18

Until wreckage is found, hijacking is a scenario that must be considered.

Gamecat235 > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:18

That's a scary thought, and one which I've had, but dismissed with information that was then showed to not be 100% reliable. The lack of solid, conclusive evidence in this incident is crazy. So many failsafes and checks and we still have no idea.

Let's hope he is wrong and this is just another speculative piece on a worst case scenario. Also, I would assume that some form of advanced weapon system training would be needed to optimize an airliner into a large missile with the intent to destroy more than just the target area. (Maybe? Thoughts?)

Lekker > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:19

I was conversing with someone that very same scenario. At what point do we just aim and hope its full of weapons/explosives instead of people? This is truly a scary situation.

Jagvar > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:19

If this is the case, then what happened to the 239 people on board? I find it hard to believe that terrorists could easily execute or imprison that many hostages.

ttyymmnn > Gamecat235
03/17/2014 at 16:21

Berry suggests the amount of destruction that could be caused by a fully fueled 777 packed with conventional explosives. It would make one hell of a hole in the ground. It would make a Daisy Cutter look like a cherry bomb.

DatBomb > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:22

I've mentioned this and been called lots of crazy names, then again, what are my credentials right.

Dukie - Jalopnik Emergency Management Asshole > Jagvar
03/17/2014 at 16:22

The Third Reich would like to debate you on that.

For Sweden > Gamecat235
03/17/2014 at 16:23

You definitely wouldn't need advanced weapons system training. An empty 777 is an excellent kinetic energy weapon & jet fuel bomb without any additional explosives.

Now throw a few truckloads of fertilizer in the cargo hold, and you've got a big boom.

ttyymmnn > Jagvar
03/17/2014 at 16:23

Berry discusses how easy it would be for the plane to "dump" the passenger compartment of pressurization and ascend to a high altitude until all passengers were asphyxiated. I read somewhere that the plane climbed to 45k ft. soon after the transponder was turned off.

For Sweden > Jagvar
03/17/2014 at 16:23

Why do you think killing 239 hostages would be hard?

CAR_IS_MI > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:23

But until someone lays claim or proof is produced, it is all just speculation.

Gamecat235 > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:24

I read that, but wonder about the real effect, and how much is simple speculation and how much is based on events like the concord crash an queens crash.

Audi-os, amigos > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:24

If they find that plane flying on radar anywhere near anything its lift-generating ass is getting blasted back to the stone age.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > Gamecat235
03/17/2014 at 16:24

Packing a plain with a very large amount of explosives doesn't take much training.

CAR_IS_MI > For Sweden
03/17/2014 at 16:24

Considered, Yes. But it is also speculation. Just saying the blog post is worst case scenario based off of speculation.

Jagvar > For Sweden
03/17/2014 at 16:25

You'd think that someone would make it out of there. Even Jonestown had a few survivors that escaped to tell the tale.

For Sweden > Jagvar
03/17/2014 at 16:26

If you land in the middle-of-nowhere Tibet or the Cambodian jungle, where are you going to go? Furthermore, there are only so many ways off the plane, and if there was an arrival party to collect hostages, killing them would be trivial.

ttyymmnn > CAR_IS_MI
03/17/2014 at 16:29

It is speculation. But I think it's a scenario that needs to be considered and prepared for. Did you ever see the Robert Redford movie Three Days of the Condor ? Redford played a low level CIA agent whose job was reading books to discover possible foul play scenarios that the government hadn't thought of and prepare for them. The fact is, terrorists are capable of things that we as (hopefully more) civilized people could never even comprehend. We need to be prepared for absolutely anything.

dinobot666 > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:30

So, if the plane was landed and loaded up with some kind of bomb, chemical or otherwise, would any rogue state have the ability to refuel the plane, start it again and get it airborne without the rest of the entire world, who happens to be looking for this plane noticing?

CAR_IS_MI > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:32

True, and I am not saying it shouldn't be considered, but anything is possible. For all we know the pilot ditched the plane on a remote island to escape prosecution...

ttyymmnn > dinobot666
03/17/2014 at 16:33

Avgas is avgas, as far as I know. I just hope that the West's satellites are now scouring the deserts of Asia for a big white plane sitting in the desert somewhere.

McMike > Jagvar
03/17/2014 at 16:36

I'm with you.

Intentional or not, I believe it's in the water.

Icemanmaybeirunoutofthetalents > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:37

But it makes no sense. Surely there are better ways to avoid getting ALL THE SATELLITES and AIR DEFENSE RADARS.. In THE WORLD looking for you before you've made your move? This sounds idiotic. But then, they'd be terrorists. Who said terrorists had any sense whatsoever?

dinobot666 > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:44

Doesn't the 777 have a pretty sophisticated engine start up routine that requires some kind of computer interface? Either way, this pilot has an interesting idea of what may have happened.

With-a-G is back to not having anything written after his username > Jagvar
03/17/2014 at 16:46

Wait, really ?

With-a-G is back to not having anything written after his username > CAR_IS_MI
03/17/2014 at 16:51

I'm not sure what sense of balance you are attempting to assert. It's not like there's some kind of civil liberties issue at stake here. Evidence points toward highjacking, even if by the pilot. We aren't under a moral or civil obligation to presume against this evidence in this case.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:52

It is something to be considered and prepared for. While it can't be ruled out, the thing to remember is that the world is a big place. Even when we know right where a plane has crashed or a boat sunk it can still take a long time to find the wreckage.

GTI MkVII > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:53

AVgas doesn't necessarily = Jet A

gabdere > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:55

This literally scares the shit out of me. What a sad story.

ttyymmnn > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
03/17/2014 at 16:56

The world is a very, very big place. Just ask Amelia Earhart.

CAR_IS_MI > With-a-G is back to not having anything written after his username
03/17/2014 at 16:56

I agree. I tend to play devils advocate just to play devils advocate.

Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 16:57

"Even if the terrorists only loaded it up with classical explosives, the 777's cabin and cargo bays capacity could destroy an entire city."

This seems like a bit of a stretch. How much TNT could you load into a 777 while still remaining under maximum take off weight and how big of an explosion would you get from that much TNT, coupled with whatever amount of jet fuel remains in the tank?

Obviously a rogue airliner under control of a belligerent party is still a major threat, with or without explosives.

ttyymmnn > gabdere
03/17/2014 at 16:57

They don't call it "terrorism" for nothing.

ttyymmnn > Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager
03/17/2014 at 16:58

I agree that it's a bit of hyperbole. But it would still make one hell of a hole in the ground.

davedave1111 > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 17:01

The hypothesis makes no sense. Terrorists with the infrastructure to land, refuel, and take off again could just as easily lease a plane.

On top of that, it's much, much easier to blow up a city with a couple of truckloads of explosives than with a plane. Following 9/11, flight security has been tightened up so much that we're due some big bombs (or other attacks) on the ground until the priorities are re-evaluated.

Where a 777 would be useful is as a relatively easy to obtain and undetectable ICBM-substitute - so North Korea, then - but again, NK would have no trouble leasing a plane.

If it wasn't for the passengers, I'd say it's most likely at this point that the plane was stolen, not hijacked. The thing's worth $300 million, after all. The passengers could all just have been murdered by whoever stole it, of course, but unless that was the only flight they could steal, it would make more sense to steal a plane with fewer inconvenient persons on board.

With-a-G is back to not having anything written after his username > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 17:01

Here's an alternative, less scary (maybe?) explanation:

Terrorists "win" by tearing down, weakening, disrupting the order of things. They work asymmetrically against entities nominally more powerful than they are, costing their targets time, money, and attention: sometimes in the form of death, sometimes fear, always though, there is the effect of disruption.

Maybe the plan was to ditch the plane in a sufficiently mysterious way as to drain a huge amount of resources in a vigilant yet futile search? Maybe (and this is why I said maybe less scary) they are opening up a new strategy to consume attention and resources on multiple dead ends until we grow fatigued and less vigilant, sort of a "boy who cried wolf" scenario?

gabdere > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 17:03

It's been a week... If the plane had access to fuel and flew it avoiding radars and plane corridors, it could be anywhere in the world. That's the most scary thing. I think the saddest thing is that people would be more comfortable if the plane had crashed............

Gamecat235 > For Sweden
03/17/2014 at 17:06

The kinetic energy I understand, there is a lot of it there. And several crashes have shown what a high speed impact will result in. But the systems involved and the combustibles... are they going to act as explosives? Or will they be more along the lines of fuel and contribute to those set of initial issues. I just don't know that it will trigger in the way that they would want it to.

BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 17:06

So do we have a way of knowing when this thing gets airborne again? Or is it pretty much just keep looking and hope we notice it in the sky somewhere? Because if they can just turn off the transponder, I see that as a major design flaw.

davedave1111 > For Sweden
03/17/2014 at 17:08

"Truckloads of fertilizer"

Can you think of any alternative type of vehicle with which to transport those? Perhaps trucks?

Hijacking a plane is one thing, but landing, refuelling, reloading, and taking off again is a whole different story.

ttyymmnn > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather
03/17/2014 at 17:08

The author, in the comments section of his blog, discusses why the transponder can be turned off.

Transponders can be turned off to avoid sending erroneous information when they malfunction. Also, hundreds of aircraft all parked at the same airport can cause a cluster on the controller's radar scope. Additionally, aircraft devices are designed to assist commercial aviation, and the concept of defending against unauthorized use is a new concept and not what the original manufacturers had in mind to deal with.

For Sweden > davedave1111
03/17/2014 at 17:09

I can't think of any suitable vehicles with both a comparable kinetic energy and the ability to bypass roadblocks.

ttyymmnn > With-a-G is back to not having anything written after his username
03/17/2014 at 17:10

They do tend to think in long range ways. It's entirely conceivable that they are setting up something that will take place a year or more from now. They've got nothing but time.

ttyymmnn > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather
03/17/2014 at 17:12

Without a transponder, there's no way to know if it's in the air. We've got plenty of radars scanning our borders (I hope), so a big, unresponsive airliner heading our way would definitely get the fighters in the air, armed for bear.

BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 17:15

I'm sorry, but after all the extra "security" we have to deal with on a personal level after 9/11, do they not feel like businesses (airlines in particular) should be forced to engage in the same type of "freedom defense"?

ttyymmnn > BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather
03/17/2014 at 17:17

They have a lot of inertia to work against. I had a friend who was a pilot and he always complained of having to go through security. I think we are now at the point where pilots and crew should be screened in the same manner as the passengers.

davedave1111 > For Sweden
03/17/2014 at 17:25

No, but neither are really necessary. A plane is a good bomb without refuelling and loading up with explosives, as long as you can hijack it in the first place, but it's not unbeatable.

Trucks can be stopped by roadblocks, but in general won't be. Consider whether it would be difficult to get half a dozen trucks onto Wall Street at the same time without anyone stopping them. Or a couple of dozen, for that matter. We could stop them if we had warning of a specific threat, but it's simply impossible to apply the same general restrictions on road traffic as we have for air traffic.

9/11 was so significant because of how the attack was carried out much more than because of the scale. We're all - well, those of us who fly - still suffering from the air-travel security requirements imposed as a result. Al Qaeda could also have brought down the Twin Towers with truck bombs, but since there's no realistic way to stop those, nothing as significant would have changed as a result.

user314 > Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager
03/17/2014 at 17:52

Operating empty weight (i.e. everything but fuel, passengers and cargo) for a 777-200ER is 304,500 pounds, and max take off is 656,000, figure 350,000 pounds for fuel and cargo. Now, max fuel is nearly 312,000 pounds, so that gives you 35,ooo lbs of explosives, maybe a skosh more if they rip out everything but the floors. Quick and dirty math gives you seventeen and a half tons of TNT, plus whatever fuel is left.

That represents more explosive power than three MOAB s, the largest (non-nuke) bomb in the US arsenal, though it is slightly less than the Russian FOAB .

user314 > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 17:54

I agree this is a very bad scenario, but , it’s still far easier to bring an NBC device into the country in one of the many anonymous shipping containers that arrive here every day.

Dsscats > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 18:02

My problem with any scenario? What about cell phones? If a terrorist attack, they can't censor everyone successfully. If a crash, someone would have tried to call a loved one

Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager > user314
03/17/2014 at 18:06

Wow thanks for actually crunching out the numbers. Any idea on how to calculate a rough blast radius for something like that?

ttyymmnn > user314
03/17/2014 at 18:10

Are you assuming they want to hit the US?

user314 > Nighthawkwill7, Hoon Depot Manager
03/17/2014 at 18:21

I tried, but, the online simulators I've found are for nukes, so this is too small. I'd WAG three to six city blocks, but IANAE.

user314 > ttyymmnn
03/17/2014 at 18:25

Maybe a little. I'd imagine it's still probably true for most countries though.

Simplify, then add beer > gabdere
03/17/2014 at 18:54

Literally? You read this and actually had physical shit in your pants?

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > ttyymmnn
03/18/2014 at 00:15

I have a tin foil hat wearing co-worker who is certain the Russians did it to distract people from the Ukraine.

gabdere > Simplify, then add beer
03/18/2014 at 12:46

...maybe not in my pants

Sunray09 > ttyymmnn
03/18/2014 at 16:21

Terrorist can buy lots of aircraft capable of carrying tons of equipment..ask the Cocaine pilots from South America. Nothing they could have needs a widebody jumbo. Fear mongering is baseless. They can buy or steal a Lear Jet or a G 500 or a Citation X for 20 million or so..and park it anywhere in the world they want.

ttyymmnn > Sunray09
03/18/2014 at 16:22

I don't think this is fear mongering. I think it's simply another possible scenario that should be prepared for. Ever see Three Days of the Condor ?

Sunray09 > ttyymmnn
03/18/2014 at 16:31

No I have not seen it. Just Wiki'd it. Looks interesting but not relevant unless you are suggesting involvement of an intelligence service. This is pretty noisy for an intelligence operation. Unless the loss of an aircraft is the bell that is now waiting to be rung. The justification for any attack anywhere that originates from the air.

Convoluted,arcane and twisted. I like it.

ttyymmnn > Sunray09
03/18/2014 at 16:34

Not that part of the story. Redford plays a low-level CIA agent whose job is reading books to find possible plots or scenarios that could be used to attack the US. I would imagine there is still a similar branch of the Agency, one that tries to discover crazy plots that nobody had thought of before.

ttyymmnn > Sunray09
03/18/2014 at 16:35

Also, it's a great film. Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway, Max von Sydow, Cliff Robertson. Great cast, excellent film.

Sunray09 > ttyymmnn
03/18/2014 at 16:49

Christ...you would never be out of work...''here's a pencil and a pack of gum take over the country with it'' Too easy I say..I'll write a new tax code with the pencil and the write new laws and legislation mandating an 80% tax rate. The country will go up in flames and I'll be behind the scenes chewing gum until it over...