The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Was the MH370 plane hijacked?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2014 Category: News
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,246 times Debate No: 49670
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Round 1: Acceptance ONLY
Round 2: Arguments NO REBUTTALS
Round 3: Arguments REBUTTALS ALLOWED
Round 4: Conclusion

Post and tell me you understand!


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 Was Hijacked: Here's The Proof

First of all I will like to welcome con and the audience!

There are three pieces of evidence that aviation safety experts say make it clear the missing Malaysia Airlines jet was taken over by someone who was knowledgeable about how the plane worked.


One clue is that the plane's transponder - a signal system that identifies the plane to radar - was shut off about an hour into the flight.

In order to do that, someone in the cockpit would have to turn a knob with multiple selections to the off position while pressing down at the same time, said John Goglia, a former member of the National Transportation Safety Board. That's something a pilot would know how to do, but it could also be learned by someone who researched the plane on the Internet, he said.


Another clue is that part of the Boeing 777's Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) was shut off.

The system, which has two parts, is used to send short messages via a satellite or VHF radio to the airline's home base. The information part of the system was shut down, but not the transmission part. In most planes, the information part of the system can be shut down by hitting cockpit switches in sequence in order to get to a computer screen where an option must be selected using a keypad, said Goglia, an expert on aircraft maintenance.

That's also something a pilot would know how to do, but that could also be discovered through research, he said.

But to turn off the other part of the ACARS, it would be necessary to go to an electronics bay beneath the cockpit. That's something a pilot wouldn't normally know how to do, Goglia said, and it wasn't done in the case of the Malaysia plane. Thus, the ACARS transmitter continued to send out blips that were recorded by the Inmarsat satellite once an hour for four to five hours after the transponder was turned off. The blips don't contain any messages or data, but the satellite can tell in a very broad way what region the blips are coming from and adjusts the angle of its antenna to be ready to receive message in case the ACARS sends them. Investigators are now trying to use data from the satellite to identify the region where the plane was when its last blip was sent.


The third indication is that that after the transponder was turned off and civilian radar lost track of the plane, Malaysian military radar was able to continue to track the plane as it turned west.

The plane was then tracked along a known flight route across the peninsula until it was several hundred miles offshore and beyond the range of military radar. Airliners normally fly from waypoint to waypoint where they can be seen by air traffic controllers who space them out so they don't collide. These lanes in the sky aren't straight lines. In order to follow that course, someone had to be guiding the plane, Goglia said.

Goglia said he is very sceptical define
of reports the plane was flying erratically while it was being tracked by military radar, including steep ascents to very high altitudes and then sudden, rapid descents. Without a transponder signal, the ability to track planes isn't reliable at very high altitudes or with sudden shifts in altitude, he said.

These are my reasons why the plane was hijacked


I do not believe that MH370 was hijacked. I will start this debate by showing the pro's and con's of the top 3 most likely scenarios.



1. While the cockpit is highly secure when locked, it has been shown that these pilots occasionally failed to lock the cockpit door. Thereby making a hijackers entrance to the cockpit possible.


1. From a terrorist viewpoint; a plane is not a target, its a projectile. After making its U turn the plane flew right over Malaysia and into open ocean. Hardly a target rich environment.

2. Pilots have methods of signaling a hijacking. This did NOT occur.

3. The plane was diverted at the exact moment the plane was supposed to turn over to air traffic controllers in Vietnam. While a significant moment, this is not something a terrorist on the plane would be able to time or plan. Only the pilot/co-pilot would be able to divert the plane at that precise moment.



1. Plane was transporting lithium ion batteries, posing a potential fire hazard.


1. Malaysia airlines meets the highest safety standards in the industry *1. "Malaysia Airlines hasn't had a fatal accident in nearly two decades. In September 1995, a Fokker 50 aircraft flown by the carrier crashed in Tawau, Sabah in Malaysia, killing 34."

2. "Over the past 10 years, the industry hull loss rate, or cases where aircraft have been destroyed, for large Western-built commercial jets has continuously improved, from one loss in a million flights to one loss in more than three million flights." *1



1. Ruling out terrorism leaves only intentional pilot actions as a possibility for the plane having its transponders turned off and for the flight path taken.

2. According to the FAA, "24 American pilots have killed themselves while flying their planes in the last two decades. Twenty-three of those pilots intentionally crashed their craft, and one student pilot jumped out of his plane mid-flight." *2. (There have been many more incidents internationally but I feel this data from the FAA grants enough plausibility to negate my need to research and cite every single incident.)


1. As of yet, there is no evidence to rule out this possibility. Thus making it more probable than the aforementioned and all of the other grandiose theories.

I wish to add that this debate will be largely based on speculation as we are debating on a "mystery." In the absence of factual evidence, it will be more beneficial to disprove a theory than to try to prove one without all the evidence.

Debate Round No. 2


First of all I will like to start with some Rebuttals.

this is a message from con's script:


----1. While the cockpit is highly secure when locked, it has been shown that these pilots occasionally failed to lock the cockpit door. Thereby making a hijackers entrance to the cockpit possible.-----

Con clearly states that the plane WAS hijacked by TERRORIST

------2. Pilots have methods of signalling a hijacking. This did NOT occur.

Another argument that supports me. Why did it not occur? because they are terrorist, they can watch the pilot, and usally when a plane is hijacked it is usually drive BY the terrorist


1. The plane could have been hijacked by the pilots. The most obvious solution is that one or both of the pilots acted with malice and/or was paid to hijack the plane. Evidence of this is stated when the Co-Pilot said: "All Right, Good night,"
Creepy message? Obviously. Could the plane really landed in a secret location?
2. Speaking of creepy theories, There is a theory called False Flag. It states that the flag on the plane was a fake and technically it just boarded the passengers and went away. It could've changed it's flag in mid flight and shut down it's communications.
3. There were two men on the plane carrying FAKE PASSPORTS. Suspicions have arisen of terrorist attack since the Malaysian authorities discovered.



I do not wish for this to seem like a personal attack but your arguments are very weak. In your first attempt at a rebuttal you very plainly "put words in my mouth." I stated that entrance to the cockpit was "possible." You interpreted that as "the plane WAS hijacked by TERRORIST."

For future reference...

a : being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization
b : being what may be conceived, be done, or occur according to nature, custom, or manners
a : being something that may or may not occur
b : being something that may or may not be true or actual
: having an indicated potential

The second argument that you claimed supported you does no such thing. There is obviously one of two possibilities in a hijacking.

1. Pilot is coerced into flying where the hijacker demands.
2. The hijacker flys the plane.

Below is a picture of the cockpit of a Boeing 777 *1. In possibility one, the hypothetical terrorist would have no clue what the pilot was doing when sending a distress signal. In possibility two, you are making the assumption that A.) the door was unlocked, B.) the hypothetical hijacker was able to enter the cockpit and incapacitate two men faster than they can hit a button, and C.) the hijackers had absolutely no target in mind as they flew halfway to the south pole. Which makes no sense. If their intent was to kill the passengers onboard the plane with no other external targets then they could have simply flown it straight down instead of changing course for 8 hours.

Your arguments:

1. Creepy? How would you say good bye to someone in the middle of the night? Perhaps... good night?

The answer is no. It could not have landed in a secret location. First of all; even with its transponders turned off it would be incapable of flying near any countries coast without military radar systems picking it up. Which did not occur. Second, this is a huge plane. It requires a runway that is at LEAST 5,000 feet long. IF the plane were to land on a runway of that size, we would have satellite imagery of it already.

2. I don't know if you are aware of this but planes do not fly flags on them. Ever. The "false flag" is in reference to the debris in the ocean. As for that "theory," do some reading on it. The predictions made on the websites that are proponents of that theory are utterly ridiculous, fear mongering and impossible.

3. True. However; the two men, Pouria Nour Mohammad, 19, and Seyed Mohammed Rezar Delawar, 29 were attempting to fly to Europe to seek asylum and have no connections whatsoever to terrorism. Interpol had this to say about it: "The more information we get, the more we are inclined to conclude it was not a terrorist incident." *2

My arguments have shown that:
A.) It is HIGHLY unlikely this was a terrorist attack
B.) An attempt at stealing the plane without anyone knowing would be impossible.

So why then was the plane flying in the opposite direction it was supposed to? What possible reason for the change of course remains? The answer is intentional pilot suicide. While this may seem a heinous and unthinkable act, I have already shown that it does occasionally occur. A pilot crashing his plane is no different from a deranged individual opening fire in a public place until he is shot by police.

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
-Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle)


Debate Round No. 3


anish forfeited this round.


Sharing this article in its entirety.

A New Zealand criminologist has come out in support of a theory that the captain of the missing Malaysia Airlines aircraft was on a suicide mission.

University of Canterbury Professor Greg Newbold, who lectures on terrorism, said the only person who could have changed MH370's computerised flight plan and switched off its electronics was someone who was highly experienced.

That person, he acknowledged, could only have been the pilot, Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah - a man with 30 years' flying experience.

His co-pilot on the March 8 flight, 27-year-old Fariq Abdul Hamid, was fairly inexperienced; having only been on his sixth flight in the cockpit and the first time as an unaided pilot.

"We know that after changing course, the aircraft flew briefly above its maximum ceiling. If the pilot had then depressurised the aircraft, all passengers and the crew - including the pilot - would have lost consciousness within a few minutes," Professor Newbold said.

"From here, the re-computerised flight plan would have allowed the plane to fly itself at a predetermined altitude and course until it eventually ran out of fuel and crashed.

"If this is correct, it would explain why no one on board apparently attempted to raise the alarm using a cellphone."

Professor Newbold's comments come after a"Herald"story, yesterday, of an"exclusive interview"with one of Captain Zaharie's closest friends, who is a pilot himself.

The man, who did not want to be named for fear of repercussions, said the captain was in no state of mind to be flying a Boeing 777.

It is understood Captain Zaharie had personal issues; having recently separated from his wife - whom he had children with. It is thought his relationship with another woman was also on the rocks.

The man said his old friend's world was crumbling and felt the captain had taken MH370 on a "last joyride".
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Uh-Ha 6 years ago
This is a great debate , Gentlemen, and a good result, although i think con might have been a little ripped off. If MH370 were a hijack, flying it over the vast expanse of the Indian Ocean until it run out of fuel would be figuratively shooting yourself in the foot as a hijacker. There is nothing in the Indian Ocean to hit, and nowhere to land and make a media spectacle while the press publicises your cause. Another argument greatly against the highjack theory is that no group came forward to claim responsibility for it.

It is also highly unlikely that pilot suicide or behaviour is the cause. The skipper was one of Malaysian's best, and his 2ic was up and coming fom a well to do family....not exactly the type of people to want to end it all...

This mystery will endure. The Indian Ocean is a vast area of very deep water. It will take years and many millions of dollors to find the wreck, if we ever do.
Posted by giftedplc123 6 years ago
apparently two people who were on the plane worked for the government and were good at making things "disappear" if that isn't enough of a suspicion then I don't know what is
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.