- If the debris was planted the implication is that there is no real debris. Since virtually every crash into the ocean, and we have several recent examples to draw from, generates substantial debris, the logical conclusion from the planting hypothesis is that the plane did not terminate in the ocean. I don't see how you can have it any other way.
- If the plane did not crash in the ocean, then the Inmarsat data must be incorrect or spoofed. The physics is very clear on this point. If the Inmarsat data is correct, the plane had to have been tracking in a Southerly direction at 19:40 at a minimum ground speed of 400 knots. The only landing place that could accommodate a 777 in that direction is located in the Cocos, and there is no evidence to suggest the plane landed in the Cocos.
- If the debris were planted, there has to be some strong motive for doing so. No one associated with the official search has indicated they believe that 9M-MRO terminated anywhere but in the SIO - not the Aussies, not the Malays, not the Chinese, and not any of their subcontractors or advisors. Planting debris is not needed to reinforce the notion of an SIO terminus, and doing so entails unnecessary and substantial risk of discovery. The only possible reason for advocating that the debris has been planted is to enable scenarios in which 9M-MRO did not terminate in the ocean.
- The recovered debris passes the "sniff" test. Experts who have had the opportunity to examine the debris have not publicly expressed any concern about its origin or authenticity. If the debris parts were removed from 9M-MRO or some other aircraft, subjected to damage, and placed in the ocean, detailed examination would raise a lot of flags. Crash forensics are highly refined, and it is unlikely that planted parts would go unnoticed.
Taken in aggregate the points above are difficult for a reasonable person to dismiss, particularly in the absence of any evidence to support the hypothesis that debris has been planted.
