Threemiles:
This doesn't match other known facts, the low altitude excursion being of prime importance. There are three independent sources that indicate a low level over Malaysia; the first being the earliest Malaysian press releases, the second was the eyewitness at Kota Bharu and third, the Thai radar report which stated that their track was intermittant - this would not be the case had the flight been at cruise altitude. The flight path would have been around 100nm from the Hat Yai radar, not at a range extremity for that radar. It was clear weather and the side profile of a 777 is literally as big as a barn. Any radar that couldn't display an unambigious track of that target (at altitude) would be a broken down radar. There is no reason to think the Thai radar was on the blink that night.
Then there is the question: where did the Australians get the information they used to draw that flight path, and how much critical thought went into plotting the early parts of the flight before the Inmarsat data provided their arcs? I have to assume that they just accepted a Malaysian plot without question.
If we take the 2:22 arrival at MEKAR as bedrock then the known information doesn't support that flightpath, a 777 doesn't go that fast.
(I have some personal doubts about the 2:22 time. Remember that in the first couple of days they gave a time of 2:40 for last radar contact. Then for a time they were using a time of 2:15. But for now we have to accept it.)
Portions of the flight path released makes no sense. They have the plane looping south of Butterworth and even south of Pulau Pinang island. That would just be an attention getting excursion, or diversion, from the intended direction of the flight. The only way one could make a case for that flight path is if they accepted the onboard fire scenario, which I do not. That has been discussed thouroughly here.
I ask you to reconsider.