the flight crew can kill anyone on board in a variety of ways, first and foremost nosing over into the ocean.

A bus drive can kill quite a few too, does that bother you too?

Keep in mind there are many systems in place to avoid inadvertantly failing to pressurize the cabin, so what you are talking about is a deliberate act to incapacitate the passengers.

Certainly does not bother me, that is the nature of the beast. The pilots need to have control of those systems.

I would think that if a rapid depressurization of the cabin without the oxygen masks were to occur at high altitude it would be over rather quickly. Do these modern cockpits actually have the mechanism to decompress a cabin and stop oxygen masks from coming down?

If the aircraft were taken to a remote airfield for the purposes of it being used again (Nuke delivery according to one theorist), they would get rid of the passengers and other crew anyways.

You can turn the O2 system off and that will prevent a mask drop yes.

This is intentional and selective i.e. the flight crew does not sufficate.

From Business Insider - I cannot vouch for the publication or the theory but it's interesting:

Shortly after takeoff, as Malaysia 370 was flying out over the ocean, just after the co-pilot gave his final "Good night" sign-off to Malaysia air traffic control, smoke began filling the cockpit, perhaps from a tire on the front landing gear that had ignited on takeoff.
The captain immediately did exactly what he had been trained to do: turn the plane toward the closest airport so he could land.
The closest appropriate airport was called Pulau Langkawi. It had a massive 13,000-foot runway. The captain programmed the destination into the flight computer. The autopilot turned the plane west and put it on a course right for the runway (the same heading the plane turned to).
The captain and co-pilot tried to find the source of the smoke and fire. They switched off electrical "busses" to try to isolate it, in the process turning off systems like the transponder and ACARs automated update system (but not, presumably, the autopilot, which was flying the plane). They did not issue a distress call, because in a midair emergency your priorities are "aviate, navigate, communicate" — in that order. But smoke soon filled the cockpit and overwhelmed them (a tire fire could do this). The pilots passed out or died.
Smoke filled the cabin and overwhelmed and distracted the passengers and cabin crew ... or the cockpit door was locked and/or the cockpit was filled with smoke, so no one could enter the cockpit to try to figure out where the plane was, how the pilots were, or how the plane might be successfully landed. (This would be a complicated task, even if one knew the pilots were unconscious and had access to the cockpit, especially if most of the plane's electrical systems were switched off or damaged).
With no one awake to instruct the autopilot to land, the plane kept flying on its last programmed course ... right over Pulau Langkawi and out over the Indian Ocean. The engine-update system kept "pinging" the satellite. Eventually, six or seven hours after the incident, the plane ran out of fuel and crashed.


Read more: Malaysia Plane Fire - Business Insider

^^This^^
It puts the plane on a straight course to the southern tip of India where, it is reported, observers saw a low flying, very loud, white painted airliner fly over. This was just off the southwestern tip of India. It was so low, one observer said he could count the doors on the plane. No one has confirmed this sighting, but it would fit the simplest, most logical scenario and account for most data known except the "pings" from the satellite.

I'm waiting...

Ummm, tires don't just burst into flames. In extreme circumstances, such as "high energy" braking (fast and heavy emergency braking) they can overheat until the fuse plugs blow from high heat and automatically deflate the tires. The blown tires at times will then ignite, because the airplane is essentially skidding on a deflated tire. This would obviously be a landing accident, not one on takeoff. Anything that could ignite the front tire on takeoff would be major enough (locked front brake) that the crew would have known.

Cause of the fire can be in question. The result, is what is crucial. The above theory accounts for the fact the plane is "missing"--everyone is looking in the wrong place. If the plane made a straight run in the final direction, it could have reached the position where the reported plane was spotted by the time fuel ran out. Further, the arcs proposed by current theories, eliminated the area in question because they assumed the plane couldn't have reached that far based on interpretations of incomplete and unverifiable data. This could be the end game...

This fire was started by a tire on takeoff.

Nigeria Airways Flight 2120 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the 777 has seen some electrical fires in previous non-fatal accidents too.

the simplest solution is the most likely. i believe my first post in this thread is electrical fire with botched response.

Doesn't the T7 use LiPo batteries and where would they be if they caught fire?

So low could count the doors on the plane? That thing must have right on the deck! Just the sound itself would have those on the ground or on a boat freaked.

The other day I was thinking about those speculative observations. How many people are up at 1:30 - 2:00 am and catching a plane sighting in the distance?

If that report of a fire is true and in particular the cause of this scenerio, Boeing is up Schitz creek.

A fire could be caused by many things, not all of which would be Boeings issue. If the aircraft was in conformity to its type certificate and a failure caused a fire and hull loss then Boeing will have a lot to answer for. However, poor maintenance, illegal/unapproved modifications or even a modificatin approved by the governing air authority could have malfunctioned and caused a fire, non of which liability wise could be laid at Boeings doorstep.

as i said in the PARF thread a long time ago:

and here as well:

The 787 use Lithium-Cobalt batteries. The 777 probably uses aircraft grade Nickel-Cadmium wet cells.

So what do you put the odds at that this never get's solved?

It is amusing that CNN has basically been 55/5 on this every hour since it happened. 55 minutes per hour on the flight, what happened, and more recently, what crazy theory popped up...and 5 minutes on whatever else is happening in the world.

Here are a couple of good articles:

A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet | Autopia | Wired.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/opinion/out-of-control.html?_r=0

Occham's Razor - it was something like the above (mechanical issue) or the Capt had an emotional breakdown over whatever was going on at home while the FO was sleeping or incapacitated.

The plane likely will be found on the bottom of the Indian Ocean eventually.

Yes this is a good article, however the alleged radar of that evening (which I posted earlier) showed a right hand not left hand turn right before the transmitter went dead.

I like the simple rational theory expressed though, and it explains why the search area was expanded so quickly with US Navy ships in that area.


Aren't there sensors for burning tires (front landing gear) as theorized in the alternate source of fire theory?

I found this from 2008


http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3829113/
radar
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/XnfXwyh-8KY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>