Debris v Technology
Unless I've missed something key (which is highly likely given we're now on page 540 and I struggle to remember if/when I've ever read so many pages), the primary search area is defined purely on the advice of 'techies' (Inmarsat?) and some unsubstantiated acoustic 'noise' including some allegedly heard over the side of Chinese inflatable with a hand held mic?
Still, not one single piece of debris fished from the ocean has been directly linked to MH370?
I guess I have two questions, which those with infinitely more wisdom than I, will no doubt answer/tear to shreds:
1. Is it even remotely conceivable that an airliner could ditch/crash in the ocean and subsequently sink to the seabed without any debris whatsoever surfacing? Surely if the initial impact didn't dislodge some debris, the forces, currents and contact with the seabed could/would cause enough damage to the airframe to allow something, anything, to escape to the surface and at some point present itself as evidence of a crash site (albeit 100's of Kms away)
2. At what point in future do people start questioning the techies analysis over logic and the absence, after such a number of weeks, of any physical evidence? Are there any similar aviation incidents in the past where not one single fragment of debris was identified so long after the disappearance?
I know it's a huge ocean (which is deep and moves), the techies are probably the best/only chance the search authorities have at locating the haystack, etc.
Essentially I guess I'm simply asking, how long do the search teams keep searching without any evidence presenting itself?