More clues, more speculationon March 20, 2014 @ 6:07 am (Updated: 10:17 am - 3/20/14 )
It isn't just the media - there are thousands of highly technical posts on professional pilot blogs doing the exact same thing. Pilots have some skin in this game.
And the speculation has two things in common: frustration and impatience.
The unspoken message behind all the frustration and impatience is, how can it be that we don't have the technology to more accurately track a giant passenger jet?
Now, I know we're not getting all the information because this involves military radar, and what it can and can't see, and the last thing a country wants to reveal is that its radar defense is porous enough for a giant aircraft to fly on for hours undetected.
Yet whatever information they're withholding, even that, evidently, wasn't enough, because if it was, one of those search teams would have serendipitously "stumbled" onto the evidence long before now, right?
Keep in mind the Washington Post has just revealed that the NSA is now able to record every single phone conversation taking place in an entire foreign country and store them for instant playback if needed.
So wouldn't it also be possible to do that with airplane transmissions - which are far fewer? We might not want to disclose that we're doing it, but is it plausible that in fact we've chosen not to?
Because even if we're spooked by all the surveillance going on, I think we find it hard to accept that a plane the size of a 777 can veer off course and just go dark? What's more outrageous in a case like this? That we track too much, or too little?
Danny O'Neil offers his retort to a column that blames Denver's loss on overtime rules
Oso fire chief remembers deadly mudslide on 6-month anniversary
The Seahawks have the NFL's single biggest difference maker
Please login below with your Facebook, Twitter, Google+ or Disqus account. Existing MyNorthwest account holders will need to create a new Disqus account or use one of the social logins provided below. Thank you.