Manhattan Buckeye;1596037 wrote:What the British newspapers/media are reporting (for what that is worth) is that the plane's trajectory was heading towards some odd locations in the Indian Ocean, with one being a U.S. base. If that is the case the military signals would more than likely be able to track the trajectory. And of course if one is more cynical there are several countries that have this capability via satellite and can track air traffic at a whim. They are also bringing up the mental stability of the pilot.
That's a nice theory, but military radar only extends [maybe] 250 miles offshore. The US (and probably China, USSR) have satellites that could track it, but that would only be if you had it tasked in the area at the relevant time (and I doubt the middle of the Indian Ocean is of much interest to military intelligence). On the other hand, US military satellites probably ARE looking at China and other countries in that region...which is probably why the US has been saying it went down in the ocean all along.
It's an odd heading only if something would suggest a better theory than mechanical/fire or pilot suicide.
The whole stealing the plane theory just stretches credulity on multiple fronts. Even if we accept what would be a relatively shocking failure of the global intelligence community to find any credible links at all, you still have the more than a small challenge of landing/taking off and hiding a 777. Forget the larger commercial airports, most (if not all) of the smaller airports aren't going to have hangars capable of enclosing a 777. The back-end of that James Bond-style plot would seem prohibitively expensive when even getting the plane there would seem to have a low chance of success. Not like you're going to hide that thing with tree branches and camouflage netting.
