Also asinine: The CNN "aviation experts" panel said plane fell 40000 feet in 1 minute which was "physically impossible" therefore radar claim of said altitude chnages had to be wrong. Even I can tell that 40000 ft/1 minute was very easily physically possible. The NY Times merely says it was "unlikely" apparently because pilots would not want to do that. This is asinine. If I were a pilot, and my intent were to kill the passengers, while myself remaining alive, then I would fly to high altitude while if possible turning off the oxygen-backup systems and cabin pressurization systems. I then would do some drastic maneuvers like rolling the plane 360 about the flight-direction axis (I happen to know a 747 is capable of such a roll -- this was tried successfully by a Boeing test pilot) and doing some drastic dives and stuff to throw them around and injure them some more in case they managed to survive hypoxia. We know that (a) the passengers were all dead or severely incapacitated, or (b) that the plane crashed well before reaching land, because otherwise a passenger would have contacted somebody by cell phone. Those are the only two possibilities. Given that, and again subject to my assumption those taking the plane were not idiots, we conclude they had to be dead. It is unfortunate the media "experts panels" are not capable of logic. A crucial question for confirming that theory was HOW LONG plane was at high altitude above 40000 feet. Media has not told me this crucial info, apparently considering it unimportant and presumed wrong due to their faulty logic.