Claim BUK launcher trucked out of Ukraine

[MikeC]

A Sydney Morning Herald story reproduced on a NZ website repeats claims from the Govt of Ukraine that a BUK missile system was moved out of Ukraine shortly after the shoot-down - the top image here is supposedly that happening:

Moreover it points out that the BUK system captured by he rebels in a Ukrainian arsenal was inoperative and had no missiles - and that several missiles were subsequently shipped in from Russia, and are presumed to have been accompanied by Russian operators:

At 2am (local time) on Friday July 18, about 8 hours after the plane came down, in a region of Ukraine near the Russian border, two big trucks each carrying a BUK system - one with a missing missile, were seen heading for Russia.

At 4am on Saturday morning three more such trucks moved over the border into Russia. One had a BUK-M1, one was empty, and the third carried a tracking module that runs the system.

"Russia is trying to hide its terrorist activity," Nayda said.

"(Ukrainian) rebels cannot operate the very sophisticated and high-technique missile launcher BUK-M1. To operate BUK-M1 you need to have education, military education, and to be well-trained.

"We know for sure the team was Russian, they were Russian citizens operating BUK-M1 and they came from the territory of the Russian Federation together with the missile launcher.

If true this would be a serious escalation!

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

Whoever used that specific weapon system will definitely be trying to hide it/destroy it.

 

[Jason]

A Sydney Morning Herald story reproduced on a NZ website repeats claims from the Govt of Ukraine that a BUK missile system was moved out of Ukraine shortly after the shoot-down - the top image here is supposedly that happening:

Moreover it points out that the BUK system captured by he rebels in a Ukrainian arsenal was inoperative and had no missiles - and that several missiles were subsequently shipped in from Russia, and are presumed to have been accompanied by Russian operators:

At 2am (local time) on Friday July 18, about 8 hours after the plane came down, in a region of Ukraine near the Russian border, two big trucks each carrying a BUK system - one with a missing missile, were seen heading for Russia.

At 4am on Saturday morning three more such trucks moved over the border into Russia. One had a BUK-M1, one was empty, and the third carried a tracking module that runs the system.

"Russia is trying to hide its terrorist activity," Nayda said.

"(Ukrainian) rebels cannot operate the very sophisticated and high-technique missile launcher BUK-M1. To operate BUK-M1 you need to have education, military education, and to be well-trained.

"We know for sure the team was Russian, they were Russian citizens operating BUK-M1 and they came from the territory of the Russian Federation together with the missile launcher.

If true this would be a serious escalation!

I found additional photos of the supposed Buk used in the attack here; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tists-shot-missile-McCain-warns-Hell-pay.html

They also portray the location of the launch site on this map

 

[WeedWhacker]

So, if I am following the logic here...there are some residents of Ukraine who wish to remain part of Russia, and others are fighting for independence.

This is the basis....a civil war:

The 'theory' then boils down to ....what? Moscow intervening by supplying those loyalists, and targeting as much of Ukraine's arsenal as possible?

Thus, the tragic misidentification of a civilian airliner for a Ukrainian war-effort supply airplane?

Probably even more complicated than that, though......

 

[jonnyH]

the BUK system captured by he rebels in a Ukrainian arsenal was inoperative

I wonder what sort of access control systems a BUK has?

As an absolute minimum I would expect some kind of PIN or password would be required before you can operate the weapon. The last thing you want when your military hardware falls into enemy hands is for it to be used against you.

Pretty much every doomsday device in the movies has a "self destruct" button

 

[Jason]

I wonder what sort of access control systems a BUK has?

As an absolute minimum I would expect some kind of PIN or password would be required before you can operate the weapon. The last thing you want when your military hardware falls into enemy hands is for it to be used against you.

Pretty much every doomsday device in the movies has a "self destruct" button

The buk missile system seems to be pretty complicated for a layman such as myself with a lot of moving components involved. Here take a look;
http://defensetech.org/2014/07/17/4...tems-that-could-shoot-down-the-malaysian-jet/

Buk Missile System (NATO designation: SA-11/SA-17)

Reports in Ukraine indicate that pro-Russian separatists have a Buk missile system in eastern Ukraine. NATO refers to the system as the SA-11 GADFLY and the advanced model as the SA-17 GRIZZLY. The systems was developed by the Soviet Union to succeed the SA-6 GAINFUL.

The Buk is a mobile missile system that includes a target acquisition radar vehicle, command vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar vehicles and three transporter erector launcher vehicles. The Buk missile batter includes two TELAR and one TEL vehicles.

A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.

The medium range SAM system has received iterative upgrades over the years since it was first introduced in 1979. The range and capability of the system depends on the missile in use. The SA-11 was introduced in 1979 using the 9M38 missile that features a range of 3–19 miles and an altitude of 100–46,000 feet. In 1984, the SA-11 received the upgraded 9M38M1 missile which expanded the range to 22 miles and the altitude up to 72,000 feet.

The system was upgraded to the NATO designation SA-17 in 1998 when the 9M317 missile was introduced. The missile features an engagement envelope of 100–82,000 feet and 2–31 miles. The GRIZZLY also receive the third version of the target acquisition radar, which can engage 24 simultaneous targets.

Added; I think the next question is can you use the Buk missile system with only the errector launcher vehicle, or do you need the other components as well for a successful launch.

There is another outdated but still functional unit which I could see the Russians giving to the rebels but its purely speculation at this point.

2K12Kub (NATO designation: SA-6 GAINFUL)

This is Russia's medium range surface-to-air mssile system predecessor to the SA-11 and SA-17. It was an original part of the Buk missile system but it has since been phased out in favor of its successors. However, there are a few 2K12 Kub's still in existence in Russia, according to reports. It was designed in 1959 by the Soviet Union and was produced from 1964 to 1985.

It's frankly a simpler version of the SA-11 and SA-17. The mobile SAM system has a range of 2–15 miles and can hit targets traveling up to 36,000 feet.

 

[Jason]

The last thing you want when your military hardware falls into enemy hands is for it to be used against you.

Try telling that to the US with regards to Libya, and precisely why we didn't arm Syrian Rebels.

 

[Libertarian]

Try telling that to the US with regards to Libya, and precisely why we didn't arm Syrian Rebels.

Ummm.....on what planet was it that you heard the US didn't arm the Syrian rebels? The heavy weapons and Manpads we gave them in Syria are all over Iraq right now. The MSM is busy telling everyone that the US military just "left them in Iraq", as if the US Military makes a point of just leaving heavy machine guns and shoulder fired surface to air missiles lying about. I suppose the MSM thinks we are fools.

Sorry if this sounds ignorant, but do we have any proof that BUK missiles were even used? I've seen it thrown around a lot, but I have seen NO PROOF AT ALL that a BUK was used.

Please do not link to the POTUS saying that one was used as proof. Because this is just as sufficient as proof as providing something that Putin says. Both leaders issue propaganda.

 

[Pete Tar]

There's no proof yet, what there is lots of evidence pointing to it being the most likely. Obama's intel such as satellite footage of the missile signature is not generally available to us.
The facts are it's the piece of military hardware capable of hitting the plane, the rebels were bragging about having possession of one several days previously, of having shot down a transport using one, a convoy with one in tow was seen entering then leaving the country.
To ignore all that would be stupid.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Sigh.......

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world...eparatists-by-russia-us/article1-1242506.aspx

US officials are saying Russia recently supplied Ukraine separatists sophisticated missile systems that were used to shoot down Malaysian Airlines plane MH 17. - See more at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world...us/article1-1242506.aspx#sthash.kY9hTQsc.dpuf

US intelligence learnt of the movement of Russian SA-11 antiaircraft missile systems into rebel-controlled eastern Ukraine along with other military hardware including tanks "a little more than a week ago", said The Washington Post, quoting an unidentified official. - See more at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world...us/article1-1242506.aspx#sthash.kY9hTQsc.dpuf

US intelligence suggests Moscow provided MH 17 missile

You are aware (I would hope) that the United States possess quite a few very sophisticated satellites, capable of monitoring in ways that usually are kept classified, right?

(Did you see the film "Zero Dark Thirty"?)

 

[Libertarian]

Zero Dark Thirty was a horrible film. I don't like seeing fiction dressed up as facts.

If the US has had a very sophisticated look at the Ukraine and said nothing about it that raises suspicion that the Ukraine had something to do with it.

I was searching for AA deployments in Ukraine and Russia and trying to figure out whether something other than a BUK could have downed the plane and it seems the answer is "yes".

Evidently there are multiple batteries of S-200 rockets in Ukraine. This is born out by Ukraine admitting to having accidentally shot down an airliner in 2001 with an S-200. How was the S-200 ruled out and why is everyone focused exclusively on the BUK?

According to Wikipedia, there are 1,950 launchers at 130 sites through the former Soviet Union. How many are in the Ukraine I wonder?

EDIT: I found the answer to my question in some Russion "Propaganda" here:

http://www.ibtimes.com/mh17-flight-...sile-systems-russian-defense-ministry-1632422:
The ministry's press service reportedly said that the Boeing 777-200 passenger airliner, which was flying at an altitude of about 33,000 feet, on its way from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was within the operational area of two Ukrainian batteries of S-200 long-range air-defense missile systems and three batteries of Buk-M1 medium-range air-defense missile systems.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Wiki:

• 

  Russia - mostly phased out (S-200 Vega, S-200 Angara), weapons and equipment were disposed.[11] One battery of S-200D remains on alert near Gvardeysk and one near Norilsk.
  [*]

  

  Ukraine - Last division was retired on October 30 2013

Hang on.....that page was "last modified" 19 July (UTC).

 

[Pete Tar]

If the US has had a very sophisticated look at the Ukraine and said nothing about it that raises suspicion that the Ukraine had something to do with it.

What are you talking about, they HAVE said something about it.

Or do you think as soon as they were aware of the equipment movements they should have informed you (the world) of that?
How does the US knowing about it raise suspicion that Ukraine had something to do with it?

 

[Pete Tar]

How was the S-200 ruled out and why is everyone focused exclusively on the BUK?

Because of the established pattern - rebel territory, previous attacks on planes, boasts of acquiring and using the system, system seen entering and leaving region.
The s-200 has not necessarily been ruled out, the investigation will determine what was used in due time.

 

[Libertarian]

What are you talking about, they HAVE said something about it.
Or do you think as soon as they were aware of the equipment movements they should have informed you (the world) of that?

If they know what happened they should come out with it. But since they haven't done that, it lends suspicion to the notion that their ally did it, and they are issuing propaganda to cover it up.

 

[Pete Tar]

it lends suspicion to the notion that their ally did it, and they are issuing propaganda to cover it up.

To your thinking process perhaps.
Because they have some intel about the incident, but don't have outright proof of exactly who did it, they must be covering up?
That is in no way a rational conclusion.

 

[Libertarian]

Because they have some intel about the incident, but don't have outright proof of exactly who did it, they must be covering up?

We don't know if they have outright proof of exactly who did it.

The reason I suspect them of covering up is because NATO and the Military Industrial Complex stand to gain if the outcome currently being floated by them is agreed to be the case.

That and Russia had nothing to gain by blowing up a passenger jet.

Oh, and as a last note, the US published a plan to declare war by framing Cuba of shooting down one of their own passenger airliners in Operation Northwoods. So doing something like this is certainly not beyond their contemplation.

 

[Pete Tar]

But 'who gains' has nothing to do with 'who actually did it'.
SOMETIMES the party who gains will have done it, but to say that the party who gains must be responsible is weak CT logic. Sometimes who gains is the legitimate victim and deserves it.
And the definition of 'gain' is highly subjective here and could be anything. Maybe someone gets a huge insurance payout from this, does that mean they must be behind it? Russia also 'gains' in this because it increases hostility against America, therefore they must have done it? The Dutch 'gain' because they get sympathy for their loss, therefore they did it? AIDS research 'gains' in this because it brings the researchers work into the spotlight, therefore they did it? Israel 'gains' because it takes attention off Gaza, therefore they did it?
It's useless to go that route.

That and Russia had nothing to gain by blowing up a passenger jet.

Russia didn't deliberately blow up a passenger jet, the working theory (and it really does look hard to deny at this point) is that the rebels ACCIDENTLY shot down an airliner using equipment supplied by Russia who were trying to help them overthrow the Ukranian government, and now they are both doing everything to deny it and throw suspicion and doubt on the evidence, something you seem only to happy to help them with because 'obama' or something.

The thing that really should be asked is, was this system being transported out of the Ukraine, by who, and where is it now? Aren't you interested in those questions?

 

[David Coulter]

There seems to be 4 lines of evidence released so far:
1. A Tweat from someone bragging about hitting the plane that was deleted when it was recognized as a civilian aircraft
2. A (apparent) phone cam video that appears to have been taken by the shooters (also deleted)
3. Intercepted communication wherein one of the rebels says that the plane was shot down by "Cossacks" at a checkpoint near "the mine"
4. Limited radar tracking by the US (probably much more but classified)

Without Putin's cooperation it will likely never be known with any certainty whether the shooters were Russian military or rebels. The photos and descriptions of the BUK by Janes (http://www.janes.com/article/40907/missile-profile-9k37-buk) show a separate radar for the stand alone launcher. So you don't just park it and push a button to start shooting - the system has to be set up. Seems unlikely you could do this by reading a manual.

The bigger question is how did they mistake a civilian airliner for a transport? The BUK system should have been able to read the squawk code. (If you saw the Aircrash Investigation covering the Iran Air incident, the Navy had that capability but the cursor on the IFF system was was not moved to double check the transponder until seconds before shooting. The system had picked up an F14 that was taking off at the same time.) It doesn't seem likely that someone at the rank of the system operator (probably the equivalent of a Sargent) would purposefully start an international incident. It is more likely they were just trigger happy and didn't follow procedures.

 

[MikeC]

There seems to be 4 lines of evidence released so far:
1. A Tweat from someone bragging about hitting the plane that was deleted when it was recognized as a civilian aircraft
2. A (apparent) phone cam video that appears to have been taken by the shooters (also deleted)
3. Intercepted communication wherein one of the rebels says that the plane was shot down by "Cossacks" at a checkpoint near "the mine"
4. Limited radar tracking by the US (probably much more but classified)

A 5th would be the presence of a Buk system in the area recently arrived from Russian territory, as per the Ukrainian information in the OP

The bigger question is how did they mistake a civilian airliner for a transport? The BUK system should have been able to read the squawk code.

Perhaps it can - but there has to be a question of whether or not were they looking for IFF/squawk.

 

[David Coulter]

Perhaps it can - but there has to be a question of whether or not were they looking for IFF/squawk.

They would be crazy not to have and follow IFF procedures. Even in a self proclaimed war zone you run the risk of shooting down a friendly.

 

[David Coulter]

The thing that really should be asked is, was this system being transported out of the Ukraine, by who, and where is it now? Aren't you interested in those questions?

I am about 100% sure that NRO assets have been watching the area, that was the motivation for the latest sanctions - evidence of heavy military equipment being deployed by Russia. There is also the reality that not everyone in the area is pro-Russian. Loyal Ukrainians have probably shot a lot more photos than have appeared on social media (pretty crazy to do that without "cleaning" the photos so your identity can not be found by Russian intel) and have been reporting activities to Kiev. I suspect of of the field intel is making its way to Langley.

The strange thing is the Dr Strangelove aspect. If they wanted to protect their airspace to 70,000ft with new capabilities, why didn't they announce it? A simple communication to all aviation authorities that any aircraft overflying the region will be considered hostile and be subject to attack is part of the rules of warfare. The fact that they didn't puts them in the war criminal class.

 

[Pete Tar]

They would be crazy not to have and follow IFF procedures. Even in a self proclaimed war zone you run the risk of shooting down a friendly.

I think not being a regulated military force with concerns of protocols and so on but being 'rebels' (I imagine it's more a 'run and gun' and hit where and when you can mentality), following procedures and such is not really a concern. Evidence for that is the way they've handled the crash scene and threatened official investigators. That's got to be against some basic rules of conflict.

If they wanted to protect their airspace to 70,000ft with new capabilities, why didn't they announce it?

There's the reported deleted 'we warned you not to fly in our airspace', but I don't know if anyone's found the initial warning that refers to.

 

[Gridlock]

The 'photo' from the daily mail (no capitalisation because even that is too much for me..) is a grab from this video:



Note that the source is listed as "The Ukrainian interior ministry". I'm not sure why it fades to black where it does.

There are also things like this popping up on YouTube:



Nice datestamp, eh? "Seems legit..."

 

[Pete Tar]

The advice on airspace was revised, probably over concerns of the rebels changing offensive capabilities.

1 July 2014: Ukrainian officials advised pilots to not fly below 26,000 feet (7,900 m) over eastern Ukraine.[56]
14 July 2014: Ukrainian officials advised pilots to not fly below 32,000 feet (9,800 m) over eastern Ukraine.[56]

(Actually the wiki timeline is very interesting...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Timeline

 

[Sgt.Tinfoil]

So, if I am following the logic here...there are some residents of Ukraine who wish to remain part of Russia, and others are fighting for independence.

This is the basis....a civil war

Eventhought in Ukraine there might be people who want to join to the Russia the fighting is going on between Ukraine against Donetsk Republic and Luhansk Republic who have been declared independency after voting for it. They are not fighting for joining Russia. Ukraine is looking to get IMF austerity progam which demands that Ukraine needs to control those now independent declared areas. Thats the base for the civil war

 

[David Coulter]

Nice datestamp, eh? "Seems legit..."

Lighting looks about right for 8:45pm this time of year.

 

[Bill]

Zero Dark Thirty was a horrible film. I don't like seeing fiction dressed up as facts.

If the US has had a very sophisticated look at the Ukraine and said nothing about it that raises suspicion that the Ukraine had something to do with it.

I was searching for AA deployments in Ukraine and Russia and trying to figure out whether something other than a BUK could have downed the plane and it seems the answer is "yes".

Evidently there are multiple batteries of S-200 rockets in Ukraine. This is born out by Ukraine admitting to having accidentally shot down an airliner in 2001 with an S-200. How was the S-200 ruled out and why is everyone focused exclusively on the BUK?

According to Wikipedia, there are 1,950 launchers at 130 sites through the former Soviet Union. How many are in the Ukraine I wonder?

EDIT: I found the answer to my question in some Russion "Propaganda" here:

http://www.ibtimes.com/mh17-flight-...sile-systems-russian-defense-ministry-1632422:
The ministry's press service reportedly said that the Boeing 777-200 passenger airliner, which was flying at an altitude of about 33,000 feet, on its way from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was within the operational area of two Ukrainian batteries of S-200 long-range air-defense missile systems and three batteries of Buk-M1 medium-range air-defense missile systems.

The Ukraine also admitted their mistake and did not interfere with the recovery efforts. Citing an accident from 2001 looks like a desperate attempt to cover up the truth by distracting peoples attention from what is known about the current incident with irrelevant information. This morning I watched Al Jazeera condemning the separatist for removing evidence before it can be examined and saying everything points to the separatist. The overwhelming opinion in the world seems to be that the evidence points to a missile launch from separatist held territory. The claims that the Ukrainian government is behind it seem to be coming from the separatist, the Russian government and people who seem to believe that if the US or the west make the claim it must automatically be a lie.

 

[Gridlock]

Lighting looks about right for 8:45pm this time of year.

The video was filmed near Belgorod, Russia, according to various signs along the route Probably the 'M2' road. I'm unable to locate historic cloud cover imagery for this region but I'm sure someone can.

Worth noting this is near the Ukrainian border, but this would be under Ukrainian government control (Kharkiv area). I doubt they'd be amenable to a border crossing... If it came from Donetsk then it's a very weird route to take.

And ultimately of course, it could be a milk float for all we know. Military vehicles moving near the Ukrainian border - totally expected.

 

[Pete Tar]

Another transcript...

Concerning the delivered Buk system from Russia, the SBU says it crossed into Ukraine at 1 a.m. on July 17 close to the town of Sukhodolsk. Later that morning at 9 a.m., it arrived in Donetsk, but was later moved to Pervomaisk. After the Malaysian passenger jet was shot down, the Interior Ministry's intelligence unit recorded a crawler tractor carrying a missile system moving towards the border of Russia. The video clearly shows missiles, with the middle one of three missing.
...


Talks between terrorists, July 14, 2014

"Oleh" – Oleh Bugrov Valeriovych, army chief of staff of self-proclaimed Luhansk People's Republic, deputy minister of defense of "LNR".

"Oreon" – a citizen of the Russian Federation, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate (to be identified).

Oleh: – Worked out a plane near Stanitsa. Missed.

Oreon: – Great. This way they are taking revenge on planes, but only several days remain. Now we have (radar-guided surface-to-air) BUK (missile system), will shall bring them (planes) down.

Talks between terrorists, July 17, 2014

Khmuryi: Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy, year of birth 1964, officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Ihor Girkin on Intelligence, at the time of the interception he was in Donetsk.

"Buryat" – militant of terrorist organization "DNR" (to be indentified).

Buryat: – Where should we load this beauty, Nikolaievich?

Khmuryi: Which one? This one?

B: Yes, the one I've brought. I'm already in Donetsk.

K: Is it the one I'm thinking about? "B...,"M" one?

B: Yes, yes, yes. "BUK","BUK".

K: Is it on a tractor?

B: Yes, it's on it. We need to unload it somewhere, in order to hide.

K: Is it with a crew?

B: Yes, with the crew.

K: Don't hide it anywhere. She'll go there now.

more...
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukr...irlines-flight-video-transcript-2-356778.html

Possible smoke trail...

http://www.bild.de/news/ausland/flu...de-die-rakete-abgeschossen-36901896.bild.html

 

[Elfenlied]

Sigh.......

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world...eparatists-by-russia-us/article1-1242506.aspx

US officials are saying Russia recently supplied Ukraine separatists sophisticated missile systems that were used to shoot down Malaysian Airlines plane MH 17. - See more at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world...us/article1-1242506.aspx#sthash.kY9hTQsc.dpuf

US intelligence learnt of the movement of Russian SA-11 antiaircraft missile systems into rebel-controlled eastern Ukraine along with other military hardware including tanks "a little more than a week ago", said The Washington Post, quoting an unidentified official. - See more at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world...us/article1-1242506.aspx#sthash.kY9hTQsc.dpuf

US intelligence suggests Moscow provided MH 17 missile

You are aware (I would hope) that the United States possess quite a few very sophisticated satellites, capable of monitoring in ways that usually are kept classified, right?

(Did you see the film "Zero Dark Thirty"?)

The Pentagon statement is somewhat different:

The U.S. has detected heavy Russian weaponry, including tanks and armored personnel carriers, being shipped across the border into Ukraine for use by the separatists. But the Pentagon's top spokesman said he had no indications to suggest that an SA-11 system had been brought into Ukraine from Russia though "we're not ruling anything out at this point."

Kirby cautioned that "we don't have perfect visibility into every capability that the separatists have," but he noted that the U.S. believed the Russian separatists aspired to have access to an air defense capability — both portable and vehicle-borne.

http://www.kmbz.com/Pentagon-It-Strains-Credulity-That-Separatists-Did/19448840

They did say that rebels received training to operate the system, training given inside Russia:

Kirby said today "there's no question" that kind of training had occurred inside Russia, though it remained unclear who was doing the training.

The BUK has one serious design flaw, according to Business Insider: when used in stand-alone mode the system cannot discriminate between military and civilian targets.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-flaw-in-the-buk-missile-system-2014-7

The same (type of) system was likely responsible for the downing of the AN-26 on monday, that aircraft was flying at 21,000 feet. Which for the Wall Street Journal raises the question why Ukraine failed to close its airspace.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/ukra...defense-capabilities-say-officials-1405781508

 

[VNe]

Does there need to be any conspiracy concerning this??
Have the separatists shot down any aircraft prior to MH17 being shot down?
Yes several.
Now because they shot an airliner down to the detriment of their cause, does it seem more plausible it really was this simple?
if it had of been an IL76 or an AN24 at the same height at the same time at the same location with the same result, it would have featured on local news and probably not have even made an article in western news papers.

 

[jonnyH]

The transporter caught on the dashcam in the video in post 24 (see attached screen grab) has a Russian Military registration plate like this:

Which is distinct from the Ukranian Military registration plate that looks like this:

The registration on the transporter is XP 4682 50. The format is consistent with that used on trailers and the XP 50 elements should indicate the branch of the armed forces to which it belongs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_registration_plates_of_Russia
The Armed Forces have white characters on a black background and the format is NNNN LL for vehicles and LL NNNN for trailers. In this case the two digits on the right are not a regional code but a code for the Armed forces branch or service and go with a certain letter combination. For example, #### CA|14 rus is a vehicle belonging to the Railroad Troops; #### BC|27 rus denotes the Air Defence Force, #### TO|18 rus denotes the Ministry of Emergency Situations etc

 

[Pete Tar]

The same (type of) system was likely responsible for the downing of the AN-26 on monday, that aircraft was flying at 21,000 feet. Which for the Wall Street Journal raises the question why Ukraine failed to close its airspace.

Well that's the day they revised the recommended flight height, up from 26000 feet.
14 July 2014: Ukrainian officials advised pilots to not fly below 32,000 feet (9,800 m) over eastern Ukraine.[56]

They obviously tried, just not good enough.

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

The very fact that the rebels are hiding things and hindering the investigation just looks simply bad. If others had done this, I would think the rebels would be jumping through hoops to prove their innocence, not throwing up roadblocks (literally too) for investigators.

 

[jonnyH]

It would appear the "50" on the registration denotes Moscow Military District.

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.testauto.ru/page129.html&prev=/search?q=%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE+%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1280&bih=721

This includes:

53rd Air-defence Missile Brigade, in Kursk equipped with the Buk missile system

 

[Mick West]

Please keep on topic. The topic is the evidence of a Buk launcher being used to bring down the plane, and then removed from the area.

 

[Stevan Gvozdenovic]

pictures look legit to me and it would be a logical step

 

[Libertarian]

The bigger question is how did they mistake a civilian airliner for a transport? The BUK system should have been able to read the squawk code.
Perhaps it can - but there has to be a question of whether or not were they looking for IFF/squawk.

Can the IFF/squawk be spoofed or changed? IE could someone have sent the aircraft to its' doom?

Currently the evidence does look better and better for a BUK attack by separatists. If so they should be admitting it. Very embarrasing... but it's better to eat crow while it is hot.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Can the IFF/squawk be spoofed

No.