OT: Anyone following the Malaysian 777 missing/crashed?

Page 1 of 5  
I've been following this and it's been avery interesting mystery. A 777 with 239 people on board has been missing for a day and a half now since it took off from Kuala Lumpur headed for Bejing. As far as major planes that go missing, this one seems unusually screwed up in determining where the plane went down. You had Malaysian Airlines claiming for a day or more that the plane was under radar coverage for 2 hours after it took off. That would put it well up into the area of central Vietnam, if it was on course. You had Vietnam saying that it went missing as it was transitioning from Ca Mau airspace which is at the very southern tip of Vietnam to the Ho Chi Minh airspace. Then Vietnam later said that it disappeared 1 min before it was to be handed over to Vietnamese ATC from Malaysia, which would put it in the Gulf of Thailand, close to Vietnam.
They didn't even start a search in the area near Vietname that they believe the plane went down in for 11 hours, which seems incredible. Latest news from 12 hours ago was that Vietnam has found two oil slicks near the southern tip of Vietnam and that's where they are now searching. But.... Here's the interesting part. Within hours of the plane going missing, people were using the available online tools that track planes to take a look. The best one is flightradar24.com. It uses an adhoc base of small receivers that pick up the basic transponder info from planes so that you can see and track them online. Their data shows the last contact from the plane only about 40 mins after it took off, which places it not near Vietnam, but roughly in the middle of the Gulf of Thailand, between Malaysia and Vietnam. At that point it was at 35,000 ft, level, on course. Then it makes a slight right hand turn, which from previous days flights is normal and then the data just ends.
Now, you would certainly think that ATC, the airline, etc would know a lot better where the plane really disappeared. My first thought was that the data from the Flightradar24 website is probably spotty, not as complete, etc. But then I started looking into it more. They have a history going back many days so you can track the same flight, different days. And you can see the plane's position, altitude, heading, airspeed, squak code and which receiver station on the Flightradar24 system that is currently picking it up. If you play any day other than the missing flight, you see the plane take off, get picked up by 3 different receivers as it journeys out over the water on the way to Vietnam. I even followed it as far as Shanghai area, and it was within one of their receivers the whole time. Only on the missing flight does the data suddenly end in the middle of the Gulf of Thailand. Every other day the data continues and when it nears Vitenam, it's picked up by another Flightradar24 receiver there.
The other factor in this is that on the list of passengers are an Austrian and Italian. These two guys are actually alive and their pastports were stolen, one of them 2 years ago in Thailand. So two unknown people with stolen passports were on the plane. Which leaves several possibilities. Could they have been suicide bombers? Given that the area where the Flightradar24 data ends is not the area that the search is focusing on, could they have hijacked the plane, turned off the transponder, and the plane continued to fly on to crash later and that's why the focus of the search is not where it seems it should be? Why the airline is saying it was on radar for two hours, but if it was, that it was nowhere near where it should have been by then?
IDK, but it's sure one very confusing mess. Also, one would think that if the oil slick was in fact the crash site, that by now they would have found some debris that would confirm that. A huge plane like that there should be something floating.
Anyone interested in seeing the flight track and the disappearance you can go to Flightradar24. Just grab the map and move it over to Malaysia area, zoom in a bit. The in the upper left there is a playback button. Click on it and select Mar 7, 16:40 hours. You can change the playback speed at the bottom of the screen. The plane leaves from Kuala Lumpur, in lower left of Malaysia and heads up to the right. If you click on the planes leaving around that time you'll find MAS370, which is the 777, and it will display the flight data on the left.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/8/2014 8:28 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

<snip>
I'm not a big news buff, but I've been watching this one.
I too see something fishy here.
Planes are normally very well tracked.
Plus passengers are supposed to be screened. Two people on the same flight using passports reported stolen?
OTOH: Why should I be surprised that we are all being handed a crock of shit. Way back when planes were being hijacked to Cuba, we were told the problem was fixed because cabins were secured.
Then very shortly after 9-1-1 we were again told the same thing.
There is no way they could have retrofitted all the planes in that short a period of time...it would have taken years to do so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 10:31:53 PM UTC-5, philo   wrote:

I just looked at the developments overnight. Now there are reports that two more passengers are being looked into as being suspicous.

That's the scariest part of this whole thing to me at the moment. One passport was stolen in August, the other 2 years ago. I would think it would be virtually impossible to somehow use a stolen passport today to get on a major international airline. And certainly not in a modern, developed country like Malaysia. I saw a brief description of the security checks they use. It's supposed to include thumb print scanning to match biometric data stored on those passports that have them. Is the US doing that now? I got my last passport well after 911 and I wasn't thumb printed. Even if they don't have the biometrics in the PP, the report said Malaysia's system scans the PP and pulls up a picture. And even if they didn't do that, how could PPs stolen a long time ago not be flagged in every database out there? Each PP must have a unique identifier, ie some kind of serial #, so that if it's stolen it's easy to spot. And these PPS were from Italy and Austria, not some third world country, either.

I remember some of the early hijackings, but don't remember the cabins being secured being part of the solution. But it sounds logical. I do remember the beginning of screening before boarding.

I don't recall the specific timeframe of how long it took and who said what when. It also wasn't just a US thing, it had to be done internationally. I agree it would take some time, but I don't see why it couldn't be done in less than a year. They didn't have to make them into bank vaults, just beef them up so that they couldn't be easily kicked down when locked.
I also recall the new procedure of the flight attendents placing one of the carts sideways, blocking off the cockpit area whenever they open the cockpit door. And giving you hell if you hang around a bathroom that is near the cockpit too long.
I remember flying to Mexico in the late 80s on a DC9. I had an aisle seat in one of the first few rows. They left the cockpit door open the whole time and I had a cool direct view into the cockpit to watch the whole time. It was a Mexican airline and they handed out free booze for the flight too. Not just Tequilla, but top shelf scotch, etc too. And that was just a plain old coach ticket. Those days are gone and now you're lucky to get a bag of nuts, even on a cross country flight where you used to get dinner.
Fortunately, I've racked up a lot of miles over the years both flying and with credit cards, etc., so I've been able to fly business class in recent years, mostly for vacation. I guess that's what most flights were like in the early days of the jet age. It really makes a huge difference. The flight I'll never forget is a few years ago, flying JFK to Hong Kong on Cathay Pacific. We used miles for first class tickets on a 777. First class there were just 6 seats total, and only one other passenger. We had 3 flight attendents. I have pics of me sitting in a chair so big, that Homer Simpson's ass would have room left. Seriously, there was a good 6 inches of empty space between me and the side of the chair. And for space, where in coach you have one window worth of space, I had 3 full windows and the seat turned, so you could have a desk area looking out the 3 windows. It went fully flat to sleep in. We took off mid morning from JFK and by 2PM it was getting dark outside as we closed in on the north pole. The flight goes right over it, across Mongolia, Russia, on down to HK, 16 hours. Amazing how far aviation has come and what these planes can do. I looked up the ticket price if you paid for it and it was $25K. No wonder they had just 6 seats and sadly those days are coming to an end too. The new configurations have no more first class, just business class, which is what most other carriers are doing too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/09/2014 09:30 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:
<snip>

The whole thing is very odd. Malaysia is a very strict country as far as rules and regulations go. I have a friend from there who went back to visit. He rented a car and momentarily veered out of his lane. The police brought him into the station and gave him a very heavy interrogation, he thought he was going to be tossed in jail and never hear from again.

The announcement of secure cabins was made less than a year after 9-1-1
My memory is of course imperfect but it seemed to me it was just a few months later.

Yep, I remember those days. I'd occasionally have to fly into another city to perform a service call and I was able to bring my tool box right on the plane with me. Wire cutters and even large electrical fuses that looked like blasting caps. The did ask me about the fuses and I said they were electrical and not the type that explode and they said... "Well, ok then. There is no way in hell I'd even attempt to put that stuff in luggage today.

Because I am not tall, I have no problem fitting into the seats...but I have a friend who is 7' 7" who I think might be too tall to even fly first class.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote:

The plane was going to be hijacked by between 2 and 4 people, probably the minoroty muslim Uyghur ("weegurs") and they might have had explosives in their checked bags (with the ability to trigger them from inside the plane) or they caused a physical commotion on the plane as they attempted to comandeer it, and this resulted in the plane stalling or banking too steeply and it went into a dive.
In either case, one or both wings broke off and they sank in the ocean leaving little trace on the surface. The main fuselage fell at a slower rate because it was mostly intact and it hit the water and sank, again leaving a relatively small debris field.
When Air France Flight 447 went down in 2009 a few hundred miles off the coast of Brazil, it created a very small debris field and very little of the plane was recovered floating on the surface. Due to a faulty pitot tube, the plane's flight systems did not have accurate air-speed readings and as a result the autopilot and the pilots put the plane in a stall orientation and the plane fell from 38,000 feet for 3.5 minutes and hit the water basically like a belly flop.
Something similar obviously happened to MH-370, but it was terrorist related. The plane took off at 12:40 am local time, so everyone is very tired and the passenger compartment would have been prepared for night-flight soon after take off. The terrorists would have the benefit of being opposed by sleepy passengers and crew as they attempted to take over the plane. The plane was flying to Bejing, and would have made a dramatic political statement to crash the plane into a popular landmark, building, etc.
An alternate theory is that again, there are Uyghur terrorists on board with bombs in their checked bags, able to be triggered by short-range remote control, with the intent to blow up the plane with no warning over Bejing. At some point an hour into the flight, the "authorities" discover (through interpol) that 2 to 4 passengers were using stolen passports, and the plane was ordered to return to Kuala Lumpur. The terrorists realize the plane is returning - perhaps they are watching the plane's in-flight maps, or they have their own hand-held GPS they are holding next to a window at their seat. At that point, they either decide to storm the cockpit and force the plane to continue to beijing, or they decide to blow the plane while still possible to do so and make a political statement.
Meanwhile back at Uyghur headquarters, after realizing that the plane did not make it to Bejing and perform it's dramatic mid-air political statement, they decide to not make any claim of responsibility for the botched outcome so that they can try again at a later time.
I hope that this post makes for entertaining and informative reading by the NSA - or perhaps possibly even the NSA knows little to nothing about usenet...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/09/2014 10:09 AM, Home Guy wrote:

<snipped but read>
I bet your speculation is close to the truth...and since it does look like terrorism...probably the reason for the lack of details in the news.
A horrible thing to happen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
philo wrote:

How come, they should hijack Chinese airline, why Malaysian one if that is the case?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/09/2014 10:46 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:

I have no idea what goes on in the sick mind of terrorists.
(and neither do they)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tony Hwang wrote:

Big plane.
Most people on board are Chinese.
Plane is flying to Bejing.
Less rigorous screening and searching of people and luggage in Malaysia vs China.
If you want something bad to happen with a plane in China, it doesn't matter where the plane comes from as long as it's going to China. It's probably easier to pull off if the plane comes from outside China.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 12:10:12 PM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:

Chinese airlines have same size or bigger planes.

Would be true for a China airline too, probably more so.

I doubt that is true. Malaysia has some pretty tough security and no nonsense rules when it comes to law enforcement.

One advantage could be that the nuts could think that it creates trouble between China and Malaysia. Another interesting possibility would be that they had someone inside Kuala Lumpur airport security involved that let them through, assisted, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have not heard much yet today but I wonder if they squawked the hijack code.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 12:56:31 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

No, on that point everyone has had a consistent story. No indication whatever from the flight that anything was wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There are now multiple reports that Vietnam has spotted from the air what looks like an aircraft door in the waters in the search area. Pic of the object here from the DailyMail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576641/Terror-fears-missing-777-grow-Identities-ANOTHER-two-passengers-probed-suspicion-falls-four-booked-Chinese-airline.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk...airline.html That's a remarkably complete article. It's amazing how the web has changed how news is gathered. When I began in the biz, full color photography was outrageously expensive to publish - now you can see hundreds of full-color, hi-res photos and videos with a few clicks and the cost is negligible.
What causes a plane with highly redundant comm and tracking systems to "blink" out of existence with no contact?
What are the odds that with all the world's intel gathering "services" concentrating on that area of the world because of competing territorial claims, that "nobody seen nothing?"
The plane is alleged to have been damaged and repaired before. From what I know, one of the best predictors for catastrophic failure is previous damage. That's what caused that Japan Airlines flight to plow into Mt. Fuji - the previously damaged and improperly repaired tail fell off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123
<< The aircraft was involved in a tailstrike incident at Osaka International Airport seven years earlier as JAL115, which damaged the aircraft's rear pressure bulkhead.
The subsequent repair of the bulkhead did not conform to Boeing's approved repair methods. The Boeing technicians fixing the aircraft used two separate doubler plates, one with two rows of rivets and one with only one row when the procedure called for one continuous doubler plate with three rows of rivets to reinforce the damaged bulkhead.
The incorrect repair reduced the part's resistance to metal fatigue by 70%. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the one "doubler plate" which was specified for the job (the Federal Aviation Administration calls it a "splice plate" - essentially a patch) was cut into two pieces parallel to the stress crack it was intended to reinforce, "to make it fit".>>
"To make it fit." Clearly that repair was made in the absence of real adult supervision.
--
Bobby G.




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A bit too complete. The airplane hasn't been found yet, and nobody knows what, where, when (within an hour or so, anyway), why or how.
It's all pretty much baseless speculation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 10, 2014 9:57:35 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

There are many possibilities. A sudden catastrophic event, ie bomb or major structural failure or it could be that someone just turned off the transponder and the plane flew on for some time. They seem to suspect the latter is possible, because they say Malaysian military radar and civilian seem to show something that suggests they changed course after the initial loss. Guessing that could be some kind of weak, intermittent radar returns?

They may not have seen anything because there wasn't anything to see. The plane may have gone down where the last data and radar ended. The Malaysian military says it has something on radar that suggests the plane may have changed direction and turned back before it disappeared. I'm guessing that would be from some weak radar returns, ie what you would get with no transponder on. I've seen reports that the search area based on that has now been extended to the west coast of Malaysia and beyond.
As I said before, I think it's just unbelievable that they didn't go looking for that object that sure looks like a door until the next day. They knew exactly where it was late Sun afternoon and it was only 100 miles or so from the shore of Vietnam. From that photo they do have, it sure looks exactly like a door, right shape, what looks like a window. You would think with a bunch of good photos from that plane and some good forensic analysis, you could come to a high confidence level whether it's the door or not. That would be a huge step, but now it's lost.

Except that in the case of the 777, it was relatively minor damage that occurred to just the last few feet of one wing tip. Even if that were done incorrectly and it came off, I tend to doubt it would make the plane totally uncontrollable, or that they would not have time to make a mayday call. It also would almost certainly not lead to a sudden loss of all data. Even if it lead to a loss of control, you'd still have the flight data, radar returns, showing changing altitude, heading, etc for a couple mins. In the JAL case for example, they lost the entire vertical stabilizer and the plane still flew for half an hour.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

If a wing fell off mid-flight it might have looked like they changed course.

I am talking about spy satellite data, hydrophone nets, etc. It wasn't until decades after the Thresher went down that the USN revealed that they had exquisite audio recordings of the event made by the then very top secret hydrophone network the USN had installed in the North Atlantic to monitor Russian subs.
I am suggesting that someone's eye in the sky or ear in the sea knows exactly where that plane crashed but won't reveal that information because it might compromise some spy capability they'd rather not admit to. They would operate under the belief the plane will be found eventually, as I expect that it will. While the maps in the news articles make it seem a mangeable area, there's an enormous amount of ocean to cover.

They often have to redefine search areas as new evidence comes it. I don't know of a plane that size that ever *stayed* missing. Eventually something will wash up somewhere or they'll detect the ping of the black boxes. It's pretty safe to say that there aren't going to be any survivors.

But at least they have a search area. The oil slicks turned out to be unrelated, which is not a surprise because they were remarkably debris free. I'll agree that it looked like a door in the photos but there's an incredible amount of junk floating in the ocean at any one time. These are countries without the resources of the US so they're going to be sloppy and uncoordinated in comparison to the kind of search we would mount for a missing plane near our waters.

Don't be too quick to dismiss the kind of structural damage a "wing tip" incident could cause. It implies that something struck that wing at the very end, and the force would be transmitted like a lever to the point where the wing attaches to the fuselage. The incident could have caused fracturing that became a point of failure after years of takeoffs and landings.
The wing/fuselage connection carries the entire weight of the plane when it's airborne. That weight shifts to the landing gear once on the ground. Repeat this stress for every takeoff. Undetected cracks could cause an entire wing to shear off in high turbulence. IIRC, they first tried to blame the crew's "overuse" of the rudder for the JAL Mt. Fuji crash. <sheesh>

Are we talking losing an engine or a wing? I think if a wing comes off at 500+ mph it's pretty much instant game over. I'll bet there are some computer simulations that explore that possibility deep in the databanks at companies like Boeing and Airbus.

Vertical stabilizer, yes, they could fly for a while, and maybe even land had Mt. Fuji not been in the way. Wing loss at the fuselage? Immediately un-airworthy with catastrophic gyration. No one's calling home in that event, I suspect. I recall a crash of a hijacked plane. They nearly survived except (IIRC) one wing tip struck the ocean causing the plane to immediately break up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961
If the Malaysia flight lost a wing the debris field would be limited because the major pieces would likely fall more or less intact. The loss of a wing could well rip the passenger cabin open nearly instantaneously. What worries me is that the catastrophe could have occurred so quickly that there's not much to be revealed by retrieving the "black" boxes. Since, as you pointed out, all data telemetry seems to have ended abruptly, that could be a distinct possibility - the black boxes will reveal very little and the remains of the plane must be raised to determine the cause of the crash. That could be tricky because there's lots of very deep water in that part of the world.
--
Bobby G.





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Oren wrote:

Given the expectation of xray screening of luggage, it's probable that there were 4 terrorists, each with a bomb of relatively weak explosive potential in their checked luggage. A small amount of explosive material so as to not be detected, or potentially made out of a material or substance that would not ordinarily be detected by xray and therefore would not have a large exposive potential. But if there were 4 such pieces of luggage, all configured to be detonated simultaneously, then it could have dammaged the plane - but not caused mid-air disintigration of the plane.
A mid-air disintigration at 35,000 feet would have caused a large floating debris field that would have been spotted by now.
The plane therefore was largely intact when it hit the water.
A weak bomb, or even 4 weak bombs, packed in checked luggage, detonated simultaneously by radio by a terrorist in the cabin, could easily have caused enough dammage to the plane's flight-control system to cause it to crash largely intact.
A less likely possibility is that the 4 people travelling on stolen passports were drug runners bringing cocaine or heroin into China, and the real reason why the plane went down is pilot or co-pilot suicide. Again, in that case we would have no may-day call, and a small to no debris field.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 2:21:37 PM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:

Yes, if it was a major disintegration, you would think so. Vietnam is now reporting that they've spotted what looks like a door from the air. Pic is available at the link I provided. They have boats going out to retrieve it. Next step will be for the marine experts to figure out the tides, currents, etc and back track where the door would have been at the time of the crash.


Could also be they carried the components on and assembled a bomb on board. That is exactly the scenario that US intel was all tweaked up about like 6 months ago.

Except that they were apparently not going to China. They were only passing through, not entering. Tickets were KL to BJ to Amsterdam, then on to two different European countries as final destination.
Anything is still possible. The bogus passports could just be a coincidence and it was some structural failure of the plane. But those PPs sure are very suspicious and I think all of us thought that this was virtually impossible to do today. I've also just seen a report that there was a Chinese citizen on the manifest, but he's alive in China and has his passport. If that's true, then somehow they managed to get a fake one with his info on it.
This is very disturbing. We're spending trillions on all kinds of increased security, taking our shoes off, grouping 80 year old women, etc. and yet you can use a passports that have been reported as stolen to board a plane?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote:

I discredit the plausibility and ergonomics required for an "in-cabin" mechanical or chemical threat to a commercial passenger plane. Carry-on luggage undergoes increasingly onerous and frustrating screening and has limits in terms of quantity, size, accessibility while in flight, etc.
Someone intent on a successful suicide mission would more than likely at least test the idea that screening performed on checked bags is more imagined than real, or less effective vs carry-on/gate screening.
Again, the would-be terrorist has avenues of escape if his checked bag is flagged during check-in. Much less potential to escape if he's caught deeper in the airport, being screened at the gate.
When was the last time you read a story where an airport had detected a bomb in a checked bag *before* the plane was boarded and took off? I have yet to see that happen since 9/11 - and I find that very strange.
If this was a terrorist act, with intent to blow up the plane, then I can't see the point of blowing it up over the water. Presumably if you have control of the bomb, you want to push the button when there are people on the ground you can kill - or at least see it blow up and rain down on them.
Was this plane delayed? Was it supposed to have a departure time of 12:34 am local time? If not, then it's possible that there were bombs in checked baggage set on a timer, and the plane should have been somewhere over China when the bomb(s) went off.

I don't know where you're getting that from.
==========Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH370), also designated under a codeshare agreement as China Southern Airlines flight CZ748 is a missing international passenger flight operated by a Boeing 777-200ER aircraft with 227 passengers and 12 crew members on board.
Flight 370 departed Kuala Lumpur International Airport, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at 00:41 on 8 March 2014 (MST; UTC+8) for a scheduled six-hour flight to Beijing Capital International Airport, Beijing, China. Subang Air Traffic Control Centre lost contact with the plane at about 01:22, while over the Gulf of Thailand, and it was reported missing at 02:40.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 ============

Given the global drug trade, I would expect there to be one or two drug mules on any given flight between any two countries in the world. Could also be smuggling something else - diamonds, gold, etc.
High likelyhood of people travelling on false documents for one reason or another.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.