MH17 Hypotheses

Status
Not open for further replies.

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
they (rebels) tried to hit AFL2074.
Very interesting, if true. Though, the recordings made of rebel leaders where they seemed "surprised" that they actually hit a civilian airliner would tend to dispute this hypothesis, maybe?
 

Juha

Member
Very interesting, if true. Though, the recordings made of rebel leaders where they seemed "surprised" that they actually hit a civilian airliner would tend to dispute this hypothesis, maybe?
Yes, I'm still ingesting that article. I thought the same thing, what You said.

That's why I was very careful not to type any my opinions. :)
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Ukraine SSU accuses that MH17 was wrong plane, they (rebels) tried to hit AFL2074.
http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129860&cat_id=35317
Seems unlikely - the TELAR radar system does not include functions of identifying civilian flight numbers - so unless someone can also show that there was a command and radar units controlling the launch it is not possible for anyone to target a specific flight number.

Edit to add: Although they might have used FR24 to identify a flight.....not sure if that Aeroflot flight was identified??
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member
I wouldn't take any story or claim from Ukranian sources too seriously without hard data. I think they've given all the useful data they have already and are now just making up stories.
 

KAT

Active Member
I wouldn't take any story or claim from Ukranian sources too seriously without hard data. I think they've given all the useful data they have already and are now just making up stories.
They all are. The separatists boasted about "their" BUK when they first got it. Then they said they never had one. Of course there are several groups of them, and one hand probably doesn't know what the other hand is doing. The Ukrainians then said yeah, they captured one but it was broken and didn't have missiles on it anyway (not wanting to be blamed for letting a valuable asset go to the enemy). The Russians are saying the separatists never had one, so they'd not be accused of fixing the broken one for them. The Americans then fell for the video and claimed it was a Russian one being taken home and they have satellite photos......

Possible locations in the vicinity the plane had to be shot from include Russia, separatist territory and government territory. They all use the same missile. So we'll never know unless someone confesses. Which is unlikely to happen while the whole world is braying for their blood.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Possible locations in the vicinity the plane had to be shot from include Russia, separatist territory and government territory. They all use the same missile. So we'll never know unless someone confesses. Which is unlikely to happen while the whole world is braying for their blood.
Very interesting. The aspect of the missile launchers being in Russian territory, and not in Ukraine.

I suppose the answers will (eventually) come from the professional examination and forensics of the (what's left) debris OF the airplane.

This investigation will NOT end soon.
 

Sgt.Tinfoil

Member
The Ukrainians then said yeah, they captured one but it was broken
Nope. Ukrainians newer said before the crash that separatists had captured a BUK. They changed the story to DPR having captured an funtional BUK but story came after the acident. They I believe still claim that LPR does not have a BUK. The story of not functional BUK comes from DPR who first claimed not having a BUK to having a captured non-functional BUK. LPR have been claiming before the accident to have a functional BUK in their arsenal and captured it from from Ukrainian army garrison.
 
Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
Ukraine SSU accuses that MH17 was wrong plane, they (rebels) tried to hit AFL2074.
http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129860&cat_id=35317
I don't mean to speculate, but is their a possibility that the Ukranian government was shadowing commercial airliners in hopes that the rebels wouldn't fire at it. Considering they lost so many planes in the 3 months prior to MH17 accident, is it feasable that they were flying below or above commercial airliners, and were mimicking these commercial planes to disguise themselves or hoping that the Russians wouldn't take a chance firing at them.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I don't mean to speculate, but is their [sic] a possibility that the Ukranian government was shadowing commercial airliners in hopes that the rebels wouldn't fire at it.
This is very wild "speculation"...sorry....but you are thinking "outside the box". I'd say, it's still FAR too early for this...only adds to the confusion, in the mix of OTHER speculations that have already arisen.
 

Jason

Senior Member
This is very wild "speculation"...sorry....but you are thinking "outside the box". I'd say, it's still FAR too early for this...only adds to the confusion, in the mix of OTHER speculations that have already arisen.
I agree, but the rebels obviously had some intel about a cargo plane flying in the same route. I base that on their initial reaction via twitter and intercepted phone calls. Then we have Ukranian ATC quickly dispatched by gov officials after the incident. It is wild speculation, but just something else to consider..
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I agree, but the rebels obviously had some intel about a cargo plane flying in the same route. I base that on their initial reaction via twitter and intercepted phone calls.
Yes, on this I agree....they quite simply shot down the "WRONG" airplane. It is evident in the intercepted recordings of their communications, after the incident.

The "aim" was (to them) a "military" target. They got it wrong. Chaos ensues.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member
Yes, on this I agree....they quite simply shot down the "WRONG" airplane. It is evident in the intercepted recordings of their communications, after the incident.

The "aim" was (to them) a "military" target. They got it wrong. Chaos ensues.
An excellent invocation of Occam's Razor.
 

KAT

Active Member
I agree, but the rebels obviously had some intel about a cargo plane flying in the same route. I base that on their initial reaction via twitter and intercepted phone calls. Then we have Ukranian ATC quickly dispatched by gov officials after the incident. It is wild speculation, but just something else to consider..

This is very wild "speculation"...sorry....but you are thinking "outside the box". I'd say, it's still FAR too early for this...only adds to the confusion, in the mix of OTHER speculations that have already arisen.
Some weeks before MH17 went down, Kiev started a campaign (read shelling etc) to retake Luhansk. After MH17, a video, about 4 weeks old,started to get more visibility,in which a woman in camo gear explains she joined the separatists as a fighter because of how her city was being bombarded, power and water supplies disrupted etc. In this she said Kiev forces often used commercial jets as cover when flying to their area.
Whether this is true or not, I can't say. But the idea was floating around at least since mid-June. The separatists may thought it up a a way to discredit the Government forces. Or those were truly doing this, which in a way would make sense -- hide in a known air traffic lane to be less obvious. They had to cross a fair bit of separatist-held territory to get to Luhansk. This is not to say they were deliberately using civilians as shields, as the separatists didn't acquire the BUK until June 26 or 27. Until then they could safely use lower level weapons ie Manpads, in the direction of civilian jets knowing there's no way they'd hit them. So the shadowing would not be so much to prevent them daring to shoot, but to just be not obvious, being in a lane that was normal for air traffic. Unless it was shielding from possble Russian shootdown?

The next mention was on July 17/18 by the debunked fake Spanish ATCO, Carlos, who is a Russian propaganda shill (also managed to be in Maidan to make some incriminating observation). OK, his story was faked, but that's not to say the facts he claimed ( Ukrainian military planes shadowing the jet) were untrue. Sounds better coming from an alleged ATCO on duty at the time, than from Russian "intelligence" sources. The being stood down etc added to the impression the Ukrainians felt guilty about something.

On July 18 or 19, some separatists made a statement that fighters were seen attacking MH17 and they'd shot down one SU-25(?) in an attempt to save the airliner,and were out now looking for where the fighter crashed. This story was never heard or mentioned again.

Russia again picked up the fighters story with their intel briefing that showed the weird radar traces (which we've determined were most likely were the death throes of MH17).


Occam says: after the event, separatists needed a story to deflect attention from them, Russia needed some way to put blame on Ukraine. But story predates these needs and, if invented, would have served only to embarrass Kiev for a then impossible endangerment of civilians. Occam says it is likelier than not that some jets were sometimes shadowed, with nothing knowable about the crash flight.

We DO need to see what air to air missiles are available in this theatre.
 
Last edited:

KAT

Active Member
Nope. Ukrainians newer said before the crash that separatists had captured a BUK. They changed the story to DPR having captured an funtional BUK but story came after the acident. They I believe still claim that LPR does not have a BUK. The story of not functional BUK comes from DPR who first claimed not having a BUK to having a captured non-functional BUK. LPR have been claiming before the accident to have a functional BUK in their arsenal and captured it from from Ukrainian army garrison.
Yeah I just combined the statements in a shorthand way, to indicate they're all to be disregarded.
 

KAT

Active Member
Yes, on this I agree....they quite simply shot down the "WRONG" airplane. It is evident in the intercepted recordings of their communications, after the incident.

The "aim" was (to them) a "military" target. They got it wrong. Chaos ensues.

The separatists had shot down several planes already in recent times. Since retaking some of Luhansk, Kiev had to supply some encircled troops by air, so transports coming in would have been fairly regular. Commonsense says they'd have someone(s) to alert them of aircraft approaching their positions. They are not a well resourced professional force; claims about Russian help notwithstanding, they seem to have been getting some of their armour, BUKs, transport lowloaders etc by capture from the Government or "borrowing" from the population. So it would make sense for the alert to come by recordable public phone line. It does NOT make sense for the spies to not find the "bird coming your way" recording for nearly 2 weeks. Occam says discount this recording.

The FIRST intercepted recording I accept as genuine, purely on how very very true it rings. Every word of it. It went like this (colloquialised). YAY!! we got another Antonov!!!....near the coalmine..... Oh shit.....you sure?....oh... oh... It was the Cossacks in the village had the rocket, it was them that done it.... [passing the BUK;)] .....maybe it had spies on it? ....[boss not buying that]...uhmm....[lightbulb moment] .... some fighters were harrassing the jetliner we tried to shoot them to save the big one, we're out looking for the downed fighter. .........

Subsequent calls from that phone, which they must have KNOWN after this to be intercepted ... well some may be real (they have little choice) and some faked. The blabbering about the old corpses with the blood drained, and the CT type explanations, were genuine. The speaker had not been there, he was going on reports from men in the field, none of whom would know what sort of corpses to expect from the type of deaths involved -- high pressure shock wave, high temperature + immediate freezing gives you swollen bluish bodies that don't bleed. Even the nakedness may have looked unnatural, ie they'd have expected live people in a plane to be wearing clothes. Only the pilots had blood on them, they said. That is what I would expect, knowing what we know of how events unfolded. The wild guesses as to why there'd be old corpses? same as all our other CTs, an attempt to make some sense of a situation they had no scientific education, experience or explanation for.

That first call does give a walks like a duck impression, considering earlier recent shootdowns. BUT. BUT. They're a mixture of patriots, agent provocateurs, mercenaries and "radicalised" ie ones who signed up after they started getting bombarded. Loosely united semi-autonomous groups. One group may not know where another group is or what they're armed with. The guy bignoting himself with the boss would not have issued a command for the shootdown (these were getting to be routine by now). Nor even had it reported to him. Or reported by someone who saw the fireball, not by someone who shot it. He just knew a plane was down, and thought "walks like a duck.... must have been US getting one of THEM. Like, I mean, really, who else could it be, amiright?" .... oh shit.....

Occam says: considering local and human factors, that recorded call, although genuine, cannot be taken as an admission of causation. The Twitter post ditto. It's not just Western media that likes to be first with the (wrong) news. Equally likely just taking credit, on the same duck basis everyone else used to pile on blame.

It might still have been them, by accident -- the village where he said the "Cossacks have the rocket" happens to be about 9 or 10 miles west nor' west of where MH17 was hit, a BUK location nobody's thought to mention.

:cool:
 
Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
Yes, on this I agree....they quite simply shot down the "WRONG" airplane. It is evident in the intercepted recordings of their communications, after the incident.

The "aim" was (to them) a "military" target. They got it wrong. Chaos ensues.
We're in agreeance here WW. But when you say the "wrong" plane do you mean they actually thought MH17 was the cargo plane, or there was also a cargo plane (Antonov) in the area and the buk missile missed it's target. If the rebels had "intel" about a cargo plane coming there way, where did they get the intel from. I say this because governments have been known to give missinformation or misdirection (knowing their enemy is listening), so they can sneak in or around their enemy lines. Since the Ukranian military is intertwined with Ukranian ATC, "what if" their intelligence leaks purposefully gave similar coordinates for a commercial airliner (MH17) in hopes to get one of their cargo planes into enemy territories to make a resupply drop. It's extremely risky, and if the rebels accidentally shot down a commercial airliner the Ukranians would have all the proof they did, because they set it up. One of the issues I've had with this accident was how the Ukranian government had all the necessary intel to accuse the rebels so readily available within hours of it happening. From video taped BUK movements, to intercepted phone calls, and twitter accounts. It was as if they were waiting for this to happen or knew it would happen. When the information about the rebels being guilty was being leaked to the media, we often heard how convenient it was that the Ukranians had this intel at their fingertips.
 

Jason

Senior Member
298 dead bodies falling out of the sky?
I wasn't referring to that Soul, we were discussing intel that the rebels had prior to shooting down MH17. Based on the twitter feeds and intercepted phone calls, the rebels were convinced that they shot down a cargo plane. What intel did they have which lead them to firing at this plane is what I was trying to get at..
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I have no idea what intel the rebels did or did not have - however the Russian radar shows no aircraft in the area other than the 3 airliners all squawking their ID's - there are no unidentified contacts.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member
The story is far fetched. The SSU seems to be almost as good as Russia at cranking out propaganda. That hurts their credibility in the West but is likely a gut reaction to engage in tit-for-tat by the Ukrainian government and match ridiculous Russian theories with ridiculous SSU theories.

A far simpler theory is that the separatists got a new toy and some limited training from Russia and shot down the first big plane that looked like a transport they saw on radar.
 

KAT

Active Member
That first call does give a walks like a duck impression, considering earlier recent shootdowns. BUT. BUT. They're a mixture of patriots, agent provocateurs, mercenaries and "radicalised" ie ones who signed up after they started getting bombarded. Loosely united semi-autonomous groups. One group may not know where another group is or what they're armed with. The guy bignoting himself with the boss would not have issued a command for the shootdown (these were getting to be routine by now). Nor even had it reported to him. Or reported by someone who saw the fireball, not by someone who shot it. He just knew a plane was down, and thought "walks like a duck.... must have been US getting one of THEM. Like, I mean, really, who else could it be, amiright?" .... oh shit.....

Occam says: considering local and human factors, that recorded call, although genuine, cannot be taken as an admission of causation. The Twitter post ditto. It's not just Western media that likes to be first with the (wrong) news. Equally likely just taking credit, on the same duck basis everyone else used to pile on blame.
I am repeating this, because many times numerous organisations take credit for something (explosion, hijacking etc) which they did not do. The Twitter and phone boasting does not prove they did the actual shooting. It just shows they tried to take "credit" for it.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I am repeating this, because many times numerous organisations take credit for something (explosion, hijacking etc) which they did not do. The Twitter and phone boasting does not prove they did the actual shooting. It just shows they tried to take "credit" for it.
I have read this post several times and still cannot understand "your" point, here.

Could you please clarify?

Thanks.

(EDIT)...what is "phone boasting"?? This term is unfamiliar to me. Thanks....again.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
I am repeating this, because many times numerous organisations take credit for something (explosion, hijacking etc) which they did not do. The Twitter and phone boasting does not prove they did the actual shooting. It just shows they tried to take "credit" for it.
Well yeah it's a *possibility* it was a premature "see I told you not to mess with us, oh whoops it was actually the other guy", but there's nothing of any real substance indicating anything else. It would have to be the perfectly executed set-up to be anything else. Possible, but more complicated. I reckon Occam says -
A far simpler theory is that the separatists got a new toy and some limited training from Russia and shot down the first big plane that looked like a transport they saw on radar.
 

Sgt.Tinfoil

Member
A far simpler theory is that the separatists got a new toy
How come they had to had system from Russia? It is more likely that BUK system was captured from Ukrainian army bases. I think that is what LPR announced in the beginning of the conflict.

some limited training from Russia
You do realize that Ukraine has conscript army and there are people in civil populace who are trained to use BUK-system way before the war. There is no need for Russian "special training" for different gun systems.
 

KAT

Active Member
I have read this post several times and still cannot understand "your" point, here.

Could you please clarify?

Thanks.

(EDIT)...what is "phone boasting"?? This term is unfamiliar to me. Thanks....again.
Boasting on the phone. As opposed to personal boasting.

Surely you are familiar with both of these "evidences" that it was the separatists who "dunnit" ???

1) There was a boast on Russian equivalent of Twitter boast -- the one that announces the shoot down and says "we told you to keep out of our sky" - that was quickly removed when it turned out to be a civilian plane.
2) There was an intercepted phone call between a supposed separatist commander and a Russian boss, in which it goes from boasting of downing an Antonov, to realising it was a jetliner, to blaming the "cossacks" etc...

My point is, many people combined these with the earlier shootdowns of many Ukrainian planes, to come up with
walks like a duck, quacks like a duck -- it was the separatists who shot down MH17.

I am saying the author of the "Twitter" post and the guy in the phone call are 99.9% unlikely to be the one who gave the order for the missile (if indeed an order was given by anyone higher than the operator's mate). He may have seen or heard the crash, OR been told of it by someone other than the triggerman.

HE then thinks walks like a duck, quacks like a duck -- all shootdowns in the area are ALWAYS by people on his side, right? considering his side has nothing aerial to be shot at. So he jumps onto Twitter and the phone to claim credit based on that assumption, no direct knowledge of who shot the missile or ordered it to be used.

So, while I regard both the Twitter story and the intercepted call to be genuine (in the sense of not faked), I am unable to accept them as admissions of guilt, or as evidence that separatists launched the missile.

EDIT TO ADD: on balance of probabilities I do think the "boys with new toys" theory is the likeliest. I'm just discounting the above items as admissions of evidential value.
 

Jason

Senior Member
HE then thinks walks like a duck, quacks like a duck -- all shootdowns in the area are ALWAYS by people on his side, right? considering his side has nothing aerial to be shot at. So he jumps onto Twitter and the phone to claim credit based on that assumption, no direct knowledge of who shot the missile or ordered it to be used.

So, while I regard both the Twitter story and the intercepted call to be genuine (in the sense of not faked), I am unable to accept them as admissions of guilt, or as evidence that separatists launched the missile.
So you're suggesting the person on the phone claimed they shot down an Ukranian Antov, then discussed how there were bodies falling from the sky and that there wasn't any military hardware on the ground from the plane , and that it wasn't an antov as being a blind admission. I don't buy that for a second.
 

Danver

Member
How come they had to had system from Russia? It is more likely that BUK system was captured from Ukrainian army bases. I think that is what LPR announced in the beginning of the conflict.


You do realize that Ukraine has conscript army and there are people in civil populace who are trained to use BUK-system way before the war. There is no need for Russian "special training" for different gun systems.
For some reason I think it needs to be added here that Ukraine is not an undeveloped-poor-banana-boat country without technology. All that population and even more that population close to that russian border have been in the military industry and not only developed missiles and ICMs but they also worked hard on nuclear weapons .

I mention this for the record ,because those missiles that have been pulling down those military airplanes and certainly the Civilian mh 17 dont look like simple manpads-rapier etc or the regular sa-11 but more like backyard experiment test tube stuff..
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
I mention this for the record ,because those missiles that have been pulling down those military airplanes and certainly the Civilian mh 17 dont look like simple manpads-rapier etc or the regular sa-11 but more like backyard experiment test tube stuff..
Got any examples of what you mean?
 

KAT

Active Member
So you're suggesting the person on the phone claimed they shot down an Ukranian Antov, then discussed how there were bodies falling from the sky and that there wasn't any military hardware on the ground from the plane , and that it wasn't an antov as being a blind admission. I don't buy that for a second.
What call are you talking about? the first intercepted call had nothing abut bodies falling etc. That's the call where the boaster was informed that it seemed to be a civilian plane.

There was in interview with a soldier at Torez, who said they were told "we" shot down a plane and there seemed to be people parachuting out of it, and they were taken there to capture these escaping enemy/aircrew. Then they found nothing but civilians. Whoever called in that report must have seen bodies falling (to assume parachutes) but not close enough to see what they were. This does not imply the reporter was anywhere near the missile launch location.

EVERYONE in the area (and even the rest of the world) would automatically assume ANY downed plane had been downed by separatists. That was getting to be an almost daily event.

And that is why the phone guy and Twitter guy could have said what they did without having any direct knowledge of who shot it, just assuming it was their side on the fact that a plane was down.
 

Jason

Senior Member
What call are you talking about? the first intercepted call had nothing abut bodies falling etc. That's the call where the boaster was informed that it seemed to be a civilian plane.

There was in interview with a soldier at Torez, who said they were told "we" shot down a plane and there seemed to be people parachuting out of it, and they were taken there to capture these escaping enemy/aircrew. Then they found nothing but civilians. Whoever called in that report must have seen bodies falling (to assume parachutes) but not close enough to see what they were. This does not imply the reporter was anywhere near the missile launch location.

EVERYONE in the area (and even the rest of the world) would automatically assume ANY downed plane had been downed by separatists. That was getting to be an almost daily event.

And that is why the phone guy and Twitter guy could have said what they did without having any direct knowledge of who shot it, just assuming it was their side on the fact that a plane was down.
I disagree KAT. The rebels obviously had intel about a cargo plane (AN) coming there way, or thought MH17 was a cargo plane. There were several intercepted phone calls that were given to the media following the accident. One intercepted phone call involved a Rebel and commander or something similar in Russia. The rebel was explaining how they hit a cargo plane, how he found lots of bodies on the ground, some lab stuff (probably Red Cross emergency kits from the plane), and even shared dissappointment over the fact that there was no military hardware. We heard him saying this was a mistake and its must have been a commercial plane. The video is on the MH17 topic somewhere, don't have the energy to find it.
Why would a Rebel claim they shot a plane down, just because a plane went down as you say. Doesn't make any sense. First of all how did they know the plane went down to begin with. They had to have witnessed the plane being shot to make such a bold statement because it could've been any number of reasons why a plane could've had an accident. This means they must've witnessed the missile hitting it, which makes sense because they described it getting hit over the coal mine (if I remember correctly).
The rebels did it, plane and simple. Obviously, looking back it seems like they just made a costly mistake. A mistake they should have to pay dearly for. Russia won't admit a damn thing or wont even admit to arming the rebels because they know they will be blamed for this. They already are being blamed, but this would put the nail in the coffin so to speak.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The rebels obviously had intel about a cargo plane (AN) coming there way
CAN we "firstly" find a source for this claim? It would be a great basis as a starting point, for the "hypothesis".

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Danver

Member
Got any examples of what you mean?
Well I do make my point and add them to the record (publicly as it seems to be this forum).. before the enemy.. ,"our enemy" makes the next move in this rat to rats race. But it cretainly doesnt look like a SA-11 ,I believe we are talking about a larger war head here.
 

KAT

Active Member
I disagree KAT. The rebels obviously had intel about a cargo plane (AN) coming there way, or thought MH17 was a cargo plane. There were several intercepted phone calls that were given to the media following the accident.
Let us just remember the source for all these intercepts is the Ukrainian secret service. Which means they
1) may be genuine calls
2) may be faked for propaganda reasons
3) may be genuine calls being quoted out of context (eg they referred to another crash originally)
or to get deeper into the spiral
4) may be fake sites trying to look like Ukrainian intelligence.

To the extent to which the calls are real and they are being published by the secret services, there is nothing odd about them having the "right" things recorded. Like NSA, they are recording as much as they can, THEN digging back through it to find relevant items once they know what is relevant.


This means they must've witnessed the missile hitting it, which makes sense because they described it getting hit over the coal mine (if I remember correctly).
Or someone close to that area rang up and TOLD THEM. "Hey big plane just crashed near the coal mine". They do have phones, remember?

The recorded calls about bodies, lab equipment, long-dead corpses etc were from later times/dates. You must have seen the composite video the spies put together precisely to give you the impression that they knew all along it was a civilian plane.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member
Might be a good time to do a Sherlock Holmes and review the data...

1. A 777 broke up in mid-air. Evidence is the 4 corners rule of distributed debris.
2. Initiating event was external to the aircraft. Evidence is photographs showing inward directed ballistic damage in the cockpit area (eliminating the possibility of damage from an on board bomb or uncontained engine failure fragmentation, neither of which could cause inward damage at the front of the aircraft).
3. Ballistic damage was from the port side. Evidence is field photography.
4. The front and rear of the aircraft landed without fire damage. Evidence is field photography.
5. The center section of the aircraft burned only on impact. Evidence is video of this section crashing showing no smoke or fire tail and reports that unburned bodies from this section were ejected on impact prior to the initiation of a fire.

Start with the data and generate hypotheses.
 

Jason

Senior Member
CAN we "firstly" find a source for this claim? It would be a great basis as a starting point, for the "hypothesis".

[...]
"Intel" might be the wrong word, more like an inclination that it was a Cargo Plane. As we both previously agreed above that the rebels were convinced they hit a Cargo Plane (AN). My "thinking" is the buk system is radar guided, and in order to fire the SAM, they had to acquire the target (altitude, speed, and heading). So did they know this plane was flying at 33,000 ft, above the 32,000ft "safe" threshold, and what made them so "certain" based on intercepted phone calls and twitter that this was in fact a Ukranian Military Cargo Plane. Did they acquire intel that convinced them a military cargo plane was making a resupply drop? Did they just pull the trigger and shoot, which IMHO seems very unlikely because they had to be aware of the fact that commercial airliners were still operating over that region of the Ukraine. They had success shooting down other Ukranian Military Jets and planes over the prior 3 months leading up to the accident. So it's not like they didn't know what they were doing. Which leads me to believe they truly thought the plane they hit was in deed a cargo plane. Why were they convinced it was a cargo plane?
 

Danver

Member
Might be a good time to do a Sherlock Holmes and review the data...

1. A 777 broke up in mid-air. Evidence is the 4 corners rule of distributed debris.
2. Initiating event was external to the aircraft. Evidence is photographs showing inward directed ballistic damage in the cockpit area (eliminating the possibility of damage from an on board bomb or uncontained engine failure fragmentation, neither of which could cause inward damage at the front of the aircraft).
3. Ballistic damage was from the port side. Evidence is field photography.
4. The front and rear of the aircraft landed without fire damage. Evidence is field photography.
5. The center section of the aircraft burned only on impact. Evidence is video of this section crashing showing no smoke or fire tail and reports that unburned bodies from this section were ejected on impact prior to the initiation of a fire.

Start with the data and generate hypotheses.

Cool.

pROBABLY that missile went even further into the cabin and exploded at the end of the front part of the airplane ripping off its front section up to the main wings ,probably a sa 11 cant do that so a larger missile did it.



The stories about two S25s intercepting the 777 ,and firing cannons at the plane ,plus the story about an internal bomb causing the nose to sepparate from the rest of the airplane seem all too elaborated for something a lot simpler.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
S Claim: Russian radar would have picked up MH17 missile Flight MH17 15
tadaaa MH17 Documentary from the BBC Flight MH17 81
U MH17 Missile/Plane Intersection Simulation Flight MH17 23
Mick West Almaz-Antey's Live BUK explosion tests Flight MH17 141
Bruce Lansberg Dutch Safety Board publish reports on MH17 crash, Tuesday Oct 13 Flight MH17 14
MikeC Dutch release draft report to involved parties Flight MH17 0
Herman Aven Confirmed Claim: disputed satelite imagery showing "changes in vegetation" Flight MH17 14
william wiley Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location? Flight MH17 662
M Claim: Robert Parry: Australian 60 Minutes fudged evidence to pin blame on Russia Flight MH17 21
Bruce Lansberg Claim: Jeroen Akkermans: Framents prove MH17 was shot down by a Russian made BUK Flight MH17 34
Bruce Lansberg Dutch Government discloses 245 official documents Flight MH17 0
M Debunked: this photo shows a Ukraine Mig-29 shot down MH17 Flight MH17 66
M Possible Shrapnel in MH17 Wreckage? Flight MH17 26
Bruce Lansberg Main prosecuter Westerbeke says metal particles have been found in the victims bodies and luggage Flight MH17 10
M Claim: Malaysian experts were shot at by Ukraine SU-25 and by GRAD Flight MH17 10
M Claim: MH17 was shot down by separatists using BUK stolen from Ukraine army Flight MH17 32
M What part of forward fuselage is this ? Flight MH17 1
R MH 370 Leroy Alexander? Flight MH17 1
M Solved: MH17: is this part of a missile? [Concrete Grinding Pads] Flight MH17 13
Ezswo Debunked: MH17 - 10 Previous Flightpaths Different From 17-7 Flight MH17 27
KAT MH17 - developments after a month - Aug 17 Flight MH17 4
Franckly Debunked: MH17 Air to air missile Assumption ? [Unrelated 35° angle] Flight MH17 25
WeeBee MH17: Pinpointing the precise location of the missile impact point Flight MH17 53
Jason Debunked: MH17: Supposed satellite video of missile launch [Fake] Flight MH17 14
Mick West Debunked: "Official Photoshopping" of MH17 photo [Window cover physically removed] Flight MH17 7
Brian Griffin Explained: MH17: Why Are There Expired "Pristine" Passports in the Wreckage? [Visa in Old Passport] Flight MH17 12
Mick West MH17: Video of flight activity before and after the crash Flight MH17 32
Josh Heuer MH17: Russia Claims Ukranian military plane flying nearby before incident Flight MH17 121
Mick West Debunked: MH17 Video Timestamped before the crash, and other timeline issues Flight MH17 8
TEEJ MH17: Evidence a Missile was Used. Shrapnel, etc. Flight MH17 448
Libertarian MH17 Evidence Video Time Stamped Before Crash Flight MH17 12
Mick West Flight MH17 News Flight MH17 79
Gridlock Why was MH17 Flying Over The Conflict Region? Flight MH17 102
Leifer MH17.....claiming responsibility ? Flight MH17 19
C MH17 Malaysian 777 Carrying 295 People Shot Down Over Ukraine Flight MH17 410
Related Articles



































Related Articles

Top