MH17 Hypotheses

[Pete Tar]

A two-stage missile?

 

[Danver]

A two-stage missile?

I was wondering if by mere bad luck a missile booster and main body could also hit the target. That amount of metal at mach 3 should be also a huge bomb in itself.

 

[KAT]

Why were they convinced it was a cargo plane?

Wishful thinking. Or not enough thinking. All the previous shots were with MANPADS against lower flying craft. So they're not have seen a commercial plane at all, to consider their existence. The local people who lived under the flight corridor knew about them. But the soldiers were not necessarily from that area. So, if they are not considering commercials, they're left with small plane = scout/fighter large plane = transport.

There is nothing to indicate any specialist groups were going after planes. The shootdowns were all over the place. I'd say EVERY group that had planes overheard was having a go at them, considering only to get them crash over open ground, not onto a town.

 

[Mick West]

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.

Why on Earth do you consider this "probable". It seems incredibly unlikely to me.

 

[Danver]

Why on Earth do you consider this "probable". It seems incredibly unlikely to me.

Yeap ,but then ,would shrapnel be enough to cause and explossion that pulled out the front section of the plane?

 

[Jason]

Wishful thinking. Or not enough thinking. All the previous shots were with MANPADS against lower flying craft. So they're not have seen a commercial plane at all, to consider their existence. The local people who lived under the flight corridor knew about them. But the soldiers were not necessarily from that area. So, if they are not considering commercials, they're left with small plane = scout/fighter large plane = transport.

So if they only used Manpads, why did they target a plane at 33,000 ft using a Buk SAM? How do we know for sure only manpads have been used?

 

[Mick West]

Yeap ,but then ,would shrapnel be enough to cause and explosion that pulled out the front section of the plane?

If the missile exploded inside the plane, you'd see vastly more swiss cheese type areas.

 

[Jason]

All the previous shots were with MANPADS against lower flying craft.

Here's a list of Ukranian aircraft shot down over Ukraine;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...during_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine (credit @MikeC )

• 2014 Ukraine. On 14 July 2014, a Ukrainian military An-26 transport aircraft flying at 21,000 feet (6,400 m) was shot down.[17](confirmed to be shot using Buk missile system).[18] U.S. officials would later say evidence suggested the aircraft had been fired on from inside Russian territory [19]

 

[Soulfly]

Yeap ,but then ,would shrapnel be enough to cause and explossion that pulled out the front section of the plane?

You would need to prove that missiles explode twice.

 

[Danver]

If the missile exploded inside the plane, you'd see vastly more swiss cheese type areas.

There is a damaged - broken area in the floor of the plane that so far hasnt had explanations on what made it. I will try to find a picture of it ,and also a picture/diagram of that part in normal conditions. Probably that cilinder and booster of that type of missile is a lot more compact and didnt fragment into small pieces.

 

[KAT]

Probably that cilinder and booster of that type of missile is a lot more compact

Booster??
these are not 3-stage rockets to the Moon. It is in one piece. It is launched, flies up, chases/tracks the target by radar, then EXPLODES. Kaboom. ONCE. ALL OF IT.

Yes shrapnel would be enough to destroy the plane. The decompression peeled back a lot of the skin, partly along lines perforated by the shrapnel. Then wind about 500 mph could get inside and start shaking/blowing part the rest of it. Thew fact that it would be probably in a spin dive would create enough other forces to tear it up, too.

We don't need second explosion. We need to know who launched the single missile.

 

[MikeC]

So if they only used Manpads, why did they target a plane at 33,000 ft using a Buk SAM? How do we know for sure only manpads have been used?

We don't - and now we know they weren't - however at the time (up until a couple of days before MH-17) that was what was thought.

 

[David Coulter]

Yeap ,but then ,would shrapnel be enough to cause and explossion that pulled out the front section of the plane?

Fragments shred and open the skin, damage and weaken the ribs, destroy all flight controls. 500+ knot air and g forces tear the plane apart. This is air moving more than twice the speed of an F5 tornado being introduced into the shredded front of an aircraft. That probably broke the forward section off. The resulting balance change would cause an immediate porpoise tumble and the huge g forces probably tore the aft section off.

 

[Hevach]

The weapon is designed to destroy a plane with armor, countermeasures, and much better speed, maneuvering, and acceleration, not to mention designed to take a shot and still fly. An airliner has none of these traits, so it's going to take far more damage from the same weapon.

 

[MikeC]

Actually the sort of fighters and bombers the Buk is designed to attack usually have very little armour, and are often packed solid with electronics, engines, fuel - by comparison an airliner is mostly "empty space" filled with pax and freight.

but it is also not built as strong - ie it is not expected to make high-g manouvres - so structural damage is likely to result in breakup as others have mentioned.

 

[Danver]

Fragments shred and open the skin, damage and weaken the ribs, destroy all flight controls. 500+ knot air and g forces tear the plane apart. This is air moving more than twice the speed of an F5 tornado being introduced into the shredded front of an aircraft. That probably broke the forward section off. The resulting balance change would cause an immediate porpoise tumble and the huge g forces probably tore the aft section off.

Excellent ,then with these explanations we can go then to the next step. And this important coment from day one is regarded as solved:

Debris from the Boeing 777 was spread over 10 square miles.
"I have seen a photograph of the floor structure of the airplane, torn apart at the metal structural ties, capable of withstanding many tens of thousands of pounds of force, resting in a field in rural Ukraine," Robert Goyer, editor-in-chief of Flying Magazine, wrote in Time magazine. "The section in question weighs around 10,000 pounds. It's not the kind of component that breaks off and flutters away. …
"The only explanations that make any sense given the widely scattered wreckage and the degree to which the airplane came apart are that it was hit by a missile -- the working theory among authorities now -- or that a bomb went off inside the airplane."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/22/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-debris-supports-missile-theory/

 

[qed]

fyi...

The official MH17 narrative still prevails: the "pro-Russian rebels" shot down Malaysian airlines MH17 with a Buk missile system provided by Russia.

In a new and rather unusual twist, however, according to the Kiev regime, the Donetsk militia did not intend to shoot down Malaysian airlines MH17. What the "pro-Russian rebels" were aiming at was a Russian Aeroflot passenger plane.

The MH17 was shot down "by mistake" according to an official statement by the head of Ukraine's Secret Service, Valentyn Nalyvaichenko (Ukraine News Service, August 7, 2014)

According to SBU Chief Nalyvaichenko:

"Ukraine's law enforcement and intelligence agencies have established during the investigation into a terrorist attack on the Boeing… that on that day, July 17, and at that time military mercenaries and terrorists from the Russian Federation planned to carry out a terrorist attack against a passenger aircraft of Aeroflot en route from Moscow to Larnaca… as a pretext for the further invasion by Russia,"

"This cynical terrorist attack was planned for the day when the [Malaysia Airlines] plane happened to fly by, planned by war criminals as a pretext for the further military invasion by the Russian Federation, that is, there would be a casus belli," he added.

Thus, according Nalyvaichenko, the terrorists downed the Malaysian airliner by mistake." (Ukraine Interfax News, August 8, 2014)

Nalyvaichenko said that the Kiev government reached this conclusion "in the course of its own investigation into the downing of MH17″.

According to Britain's foremost news tabloid, The Mail on Sunday, quoting the head of Ukraine intelligence, the insidious design of the pro-Russian rebels (supported by Moscow) was to shoot down a Russian commercial airline plane, with a view to blaming the Ukrainian government. The objective of this alleged "false flag" covert op was to create a justifiable and credible pretext for Vladimir Putin to declare war on Ukraine.

In an utterly twisted logic, according to Ukraine's head of intelligence:

"the [Donesk] rebels were meant to down [the] Aeroflot plane… to justify the invasion [of Ukraine by Russia]",

Valentyn Nalyvaichenko (right), head of Ukraine intelligence confirms that the pro-Russian rebels were "aiming at a Russian passenger plane "so Putin had reason to invade".

"the crime was planned as a ground for bringing of Russian troops into Ukraine, that is – CASUS BELLI for the Russian military invasion." (Official statement of Ukraine Security Service, in annex below)

In a bitter irony, the alleged "false flag" covert op got muddled. The Donesk rebels got it all wrong and hit the MH17 plane by mistake.

That's the "official line" now emanating from Kiev's "intelligent" Secret Service (SBU), yet to be corroborated by their Western intelligence counterparts including the CIA and Britain's MI6 which are actively collaborating with Ukraine's SBU.

The head of Ukraine's secret service has claimed rebels intended to down a Russian airliner to give Vladimir Putin a pretext for invasion – but blasted Flight MH17 out of the sky by mistake. (ibid)

In its authoritative report, the British news tabloid fails to beg the important question: why on earth would pro-Russian rebels who are at war with the Kiev regime shoot down a Russian passenger plane AFL-2074 allegedly with a view to harnessing Russia's support?

What's more, according to SBU Chief Valentyn Nalyvaichenko's statement, Moscow was helping the pro-Russian rebels in their alleged false flag op to shoot down Russia's Aeroflot plane by providing them with a Buk missile system, which had been discretely smuggled across the border to the Donesk region of Eastern Ukraine. The Aeroflot plane was slated to be "shot down over territory controlled by Ukrainian government troops":

www.globalresearch.ca

 

[KAT]

There are other twists to this, too. According to this, Ukraine decided to shoot an Aeroflot plane on the suggestion of USA, which is looking for an excuse to fight Russia, as the "war on terror" was running out of steam. Complete with alleged intercepted emails from a US diplomat suggesting this.

I don't know why we are so hard here on CTers, when whole governments are at it all the time.

USA - a "nationalist" website http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/24/372544/us-stinger-possibly-destroyed-mh17/

"Now the real story is that will not make major headlines in the US media because the United States government on behalf of its puppets in Kiev wants to advance this narrative of a new Cold War where Russia is the new bogyman because this terrorism bogyman is wearing thin," Martin added.

"So they want to create new narrative where Putin is the new Stalin and the new Soviet Union, and they have to create this new east-west polarization so they can continue this nonsensical polarization and creation of spheres," he continued.

"We had the United Sates versus the Soviet Union but there was no Soviet Union, so they had to create another bogyman -- so it was the United States versus terrorism, which was essentially undefined. And now that's worn thin, so they had to recreate the evil Russia, the evil Soviet. So they're repackaging East versus West again, and this is part of the packaging

Ron Paul former presidential hopeful http://rt.com/usa/179284-ron-paul-mh17-ukraine/

Paul has slammed the Obama administration, despite its arsenal of surveillance technologies at its disposal, for its failure to provide a single grain of evidence to solve the mystery of the Malaysian airliner.

"It's hard to believe that the US, with all of its spy satellites available for monitoring everything in Ukraine, that precise proof of who did what and when is not available," the two-time presidential candidate said.

"Too bad we can't count on our government to just tell us the truth and show us the evidence," Paul added.

Russia - supposed hacked emails - http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-c...lag-in-ukraine-connected-to-mh17-2454676.html

Ukrainian General Staff Igor Protsyk
I think it's time to implement the plan we discussed lately. Your job is to cause some problems to the transport hubs in the south-east in order to frame-up the neighbor.
It will create favorable conditions for Pentagon and the Company to act.
Do not waste time, my friend.
Respectfully,
JP


Jason P. Gresh
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Assistant Army Attaché
U.S. Embassy, Kyiv
Tankova 4, Kyiv, Ukraine 04112
(380-44) 521 – 5444 | Fax (380-44) 521 – 5636

A Ukrainian pilot admitted to the shootdown- http://wahrheitfuerdeutschland.de/?p=3622 July 25 (my Google translation) and repeated http://german.ruvr.ru/news/2014_07_...auptet-die-Boeing-abgeschossen-zu-haben-5917/

VOICE OF RUSSIA A Ukrainian pilot, the pilot of a fighter jet Su-25, has taken in an interview with the German newspaper Truth for Germany the responsibility for the destruction of the passenger aircraft from Malaysia Airlines 17 July in eastern Ukraine.

The pilot said that he had shot the Boeing 777 from the double-barreled 30-mm cannon of the aircraft Su-25 and that his machine had been mapped to the satellite images, which has provided the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation (in their press conference).

But in a day or two the story changes - http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2014/08/01/i-shot-down-mh17-claims-su-26-pilot/

On 25 July, the pilot of the Ukrainian Su-25, as shown in a presentation by the Russian General Staff, admitted to have shot at the MH17 plane cannon. The plane was, however, flown during that particular mission by a Polish pilot with a US citizenship. "Peter Hiller" [Heller?], age 41. The US contractor/mercenary was supposed to have left Ukraine on July 20 for Poland and then with a new passport (and a name?) for another country.

So, Ukraine and USA are blaming Russia via the separatists. Russia is blaming USA via Ukraine. USA has backpedalled a lot on the separatists, actually starting from the day the CVR contents were given to the Dutch by Britain. Further sanctions were based on "massing at the border" not on having helped the separatists with the shootdown. So of course Ron Paul is right, they know plenty they're not saying. But they don't have to, not to us and not to Ron Paul. But nor have they produced evidence they originally said they had re missile locations etc.

 

[KAT]

I think there is fair circumstantial evidence ("walking like a duck" ) that it was the separatists, and that MH17 was mistaken for an Antonov. They had the means, opportunity and knowledge to do it on their own - a BUK stolen on June 26, all ex-conscripts who could easily include trained BUK operators. They shot down one Antonov a few days earlier with a BUK. They also sounded shocked and horrified when they found out (but so did people not suspected of shooting it).

There are also fair claims for other aerial activity. Doesn't matter the "Spanish ATCO" himself was a fake, what he said may not have been (fairly "normal" to use a fake source if you don't want to give away your real sources). Separatists were claiming "hiding behind commercial planes" 4 weeks earlier. Witnesses at the first wreckage site described seeing another plane go up into the clouds, just before hearing 2 explosions and MH17 starting to fall down on them.

The damage is very obviously missile, not cannon. SU-25s can carry missiles, and so can MIG-29s which they also have. Missiles can be fired upwards, no need for the SU-25 itself to be able to get to FL330. The missile DID hit from below -- no damage on roof, holes in cockpit floor.

Ukraine has not mentioned MIGs at all (but did have one shot down last week). Russia has also not mentioned them, either because they don't know, or because their own have been more active than they'd like to draw attention to.

So I am not dismissing air to air, but I'd still say it was accidental, not a triple reverse deliberate false flag by anybody.

 

[Hannibal]

A Ukrainian pilot admitted to the shootdown- http://wahrheitfuerdeutschland.de/?p=3622 July 25 (my Google translation) and repeated http://german.ruvr.ru/news/2014_07_...auptet-die-Boeing-abgeschossen-zu-haben-5917/

This story is allready proven a hoax. Or rather a satirical article published by a German online newspaper named "Allgemeine Morgenpost Rundschau" which is known to publish satire only:
http://amr.amronline.de/2014/07/25/ukrainische-pilot-gibt-abschuss-von-mh17-zu-meinungsfreiheit/

This story was later republished by other newspapers and on their facebook page the "Allgemeine Morgenpost Rundschau" seems to enjoy the publicity:

Meanwhile the knowledge that it's a fake went public:
http://german.ruvr.ru/2014_07_30/MH...ischem-Kampfpilot-erweist-sich-als-Ente-8385/

 

[KAT]

This story is allready proven a hoax. Or rather a satirical article published by a German online newspaper named "Allgemeine Morgenpost Rundschau" which is known to publish satire only:
http://amr.amronline.de/2014/07/25/ukrainische-pilot-gibt-abschuss-von-mh17-zu-meinungsfreiheit/

This story was later republished by other newspapers and on their facebook page the "Allgemeine Morgenpost Rundschau" seems to enjoy the publicity:
View attachment 8422

Meanwhile the knowledge that it's a fake went public:
http://german.ruvr.ru/2014_07_30/MH...ischem-Kampfpilot-erweist-sich-als-Ente-8385/

Yes but others then added the CIA agent. Contractor, sorry. This is what I mean, the "official" people are inventing conspiracies, too, and grabbing whatever is floating around to add to them, like all good little CTers do. That BUK being given the scenic tour of the countryside got used by 3 governments to prove 3 different stories.

None of the sites I quoted above are what you could call reliable. I just put them in to complete the litany of CT stories that QED had started.

 

[Qualiall]

Ron Paul former presidential hopeful http://rt.com/usa/179284-ron-paul-mh17-ukraine/

Paul has slammed the Obama administration, despite its arsenal of surveillance technologies at its disposal, for its failure to provide a single grain of evidence to solve the mystery of the Malaysian airliner.

"It's hard to believe that the US, with all of its spy satellites available for monitoring everything in Ukraine, that precise proof of who did what and when is not available," the two-time presidential candidate said.

"Too bad we can't count on our government to just tell us the truth and show us the evidence," Paul added.

I don't know much on spy satellites--but it seems through various reports that there was significant cloud cover on that day--could a spy satellite have seen through it? (I see there are some types that could image beyond cloud cover, but it just seems to work with stationary objects? See: Synthetic aperture radar for example) Would it have had to have been positioned over that particular area at that particular time? I dunno if Russian Separatists were high priority for spy satellites anyway...

 

[KAT]

http://stat.multimedia.mil.ru/multimedia/video/clips/more.htm?id=5086@morfVideoAudioFile
Russian version of FlightRadar. (warning, it is very slow).

According to PPRuNe guys who've looked at it closeup, MH17 bearing is 118, when it really should be 106, explained by it having gone "off track" for a while. This would mean being a bit further north and tracking more due east than it should be. The kind of situation that might not get fighters scrambled to have a look, but if any happen to be up already.....

I wish they'd hurry up and tell us what was on the CVR.

 

[KAT]

I dunno if Russian Separatists were high priority for spy satellites anyway...

Oh yes they were!!! right on the border with Russia where they were building up huge convoys or armaments??? So much so, I'd be surprised if they hadn't temporarily parked one there full time. They also still have spy planes, including newer versions of the infamous U2, and the much larger RC-135 built by Boeing.

There was patchy cloud on July 17, next day got too heavy for ordinary satellites. So they sent spy planes.

They are very active in the area. he day after MH17 went down, a US spy plane an RC135) acquired a radar lock from Russian territory, then fled across Swedish air space (without prior permission) when a number of Russian planes started approaching, fast. The stories don't say if they were over Russia or Ukraine at the time, or in international air space (as if they'd tell us true,anyway).
http://www.weartv.com/news/features...an-military-crosses-sweden-escape-47750.shtml

 

[Mick West]

According to PPRuNe guys who've looked at it closeup, MH17 bearing is 118, when it really should be 106, explained by it having gone "off track" for a while. This would mean being a bit further north and tracking more due east than it should be. The kind of situation that might not get fighters scrambled to have a look, but if any happen to be up already.....

That doesn't make much sense. There's really no place it "should be". Planes were flying all over that area at that time, and beforehand.

 

[KAT]

There's really no place it "should be".

They're pilots. They're referring to a numbered air lane that would be the most direct route between two waypoints. One apparently is the last one it was seen at by FlightRadar, the other being Tamak which is the next point, inside Russia (which Russia put a NOTAM on next day advising avoidance for safety reasons).

It's "should" like you can go in any of the 3 lanes on the highway, but professionals would usually take a specific one if they plan to turn off at Exit B.

(Talk of ATC giving MH17 permission to "go direct" refers to not having to follow nearby waypoints, just keep going).

 

[KAT]

Planes were flying all over that area

That is the trouble. Peacetime civilian planes fly on set routes at set heights, and ATC keeps separation for them. All this turn-on-a-dime triple backflip wingtip turn aerobatics flying all over stuff is for fighters, who can bail out if necessary. It does not mix well with heavies plodding along in straight lines with no peripheral vision.

(Airbus came up with an idea to put the pilots under the tail, and instead of windows give them huge screens showing images from cameras mounted at the nose and sides. Airlines said we won't buy any).

 

[David Coulter]

I don't know much on spy satellites--but it seems through various reports that there was significant cloud cover on that day--could a spy satellite have seen through it? (I see there are some types that could image beyond cloud cover, but it just seems to work with stationary objects? See: Synthetic aperture radar for example) Would it have had to have been positioned over that particular area at that particular time? I dunno if Russian Separatists were high priority for spy satellites anyway...

I have no knowledge about the classified resources of the NRO but some information about satellite and airborne military reconnaissance is not classified.

The military relies heavily on commercial observation satellites (e.g., a variety of systems from Digital Globe). These, however, collect static imagery and are used to monitor changes over time associated with troop build ups, construction, etc over days or weeks. The systems are in low(ish) altitude polar orbits and can not be pointed at one location for more than 10's of seconds during an overpass. The likelihood that a system happened to be imaging the location of the MH17 incident as it occurred is close to zero. (The overcast conditions would not matter for imagery of the impact as it would be above the clouds.) Since the purpose of the imagery is to track activity on the ground it is also highly unlikely that any data collections of the area would have been tasked as predicted cloud cover is part of the tasking algorithm (with limited collection ability per orbit you try not to acquire imagery of areas covered by clouds). Ron Paul may not have been briefed on that when he was in office or forgot the details. Imagery to track movement of launchers on the ground after the fact would have been limited due to cloud cover. The social media evidence is probably as good as it gets for launcher movements.

Radar imagery could have "seen" through the cloud cover but I think the US primarily uses radar imagery for monitoring the oceans (ship wakes show up nicely).

The only systems that could have seen the incident in real time would be drone based. Given the geopolitical sensitivity in that area, I think it is unlikely the US had drones in the sky.

 

[KAT]

can not be pointed at one location for more than 10's of seconds during an overpass. The likelihood that a system happened to be imaging the location of the MH17 incident as it occurred is close to zero. (The overcast conditions would not matter for imagery of the impact as it would be above the clouds.) Since the purpose of the imagery is to track activity on the ground it is also highly unlikely that any data collections of the area would have been tasked

Yep. Google kmz overlay files show up as a ladder of overlapped squares in strips; you can click the ones you want. Each of these is one "snap" for the satellite. GoogleEarth has images from 3 different birds for July 17, to cover a larger area. They had none for July 18 because none were made, because of cloud (but they do keep working at night).

Anyway, so they sent in an RC-135, and no way I'll believe it wasn't in the area already. They do claim seeing missile trails on July 17 though.

Given the geopolitical sensitivity in that area, I think it is unlikely the US had drones in the sky.

David, would drones be obvious? they are very small. Though true they fly relatively low, so would be invading sovereign air space, messy if they get caught.

 

[Chew]

Oh yes they were!!! right on the border with Russia where they were building up huge convoys or armaments??? So much so, I'd be surprised if they hadn't temporarily parked one there full time.

It is impossible to "park" a satellite over one area except in a geosynchronous orbit over the equator. Satellites must constantly orbit or they'd fall to Earth.

 

[Jason]

It is impossible to "park" a satellite over one area except in a geosynchronous orbit over the equator. Satellites must constantly orbit or they'd fall to Earth.

I was just about to say this until I realized you already mentioned it. People often have this missconception about satellites, like the US government can just park a satellite over a "targetted area" and take pictures all day. Thats not how it works. As @Chew mentioned satellites have to continuously orbit the earth otherwise they would begin to re-enter the earth's atmosphere and fall to the ground.

Satellites have many capabilities and can detect what's happening on the ground even on a cloudy day. Check out this article; http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...aysia-airlines-plane-report-article-1.1871779

Fleets of the spying satellites, called measurement and signature intelligence, or MASINT, orbit the Earth to track electronic signals. That means they picked up the heat of the missile launch when it shot 33,000 feet up and struck the Boeing 777.

"They would have known exactly where it was launched, where it was headed, and the rate at which it was traveling," Riki Ellison, founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, told the Los Angeles Times.

The U.S. also operates the Space Based Infrared (SBIR) satellite system, which picks up on missiles plumes with ultra-sophisticated sensors. The technology is so sensitive it can pick up on small arms fire, NBC News explained.

Honestly the technology is quite amazing when you take the time to read through it all; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_and_signature_intelligence.

For example, the first time a new rocket fuel exhaust is measured, it would be a deviation from a norm. When the properties of that exhaust are measured, such as its thermal energy, spectral analysis of its light (i.e., spectrometry), etc., those properties become a new signature in the MASINT database.

MASINT has been described as a "non-literal" discipline. It feeds on a target's unintended emissive byproducts, or "trails"—the spectral, chemical or RF emissions an object leaves behind. These trails form distinctive signatures, which can be exploited as reliable discriminators to characterize specific events or disclose hidden targets."[5]

 

[David Coulter]

They do claim seeing missile trails on July 17 though.

This is one thing the US government claims but has not elaborated on, and may be the main evidence of the location of the launcher. Not sure if it was from ground based or satellite based observations but it was a heat trail as I recall. I believe there was a geostationary thermal IR system as far back as the cold war that could detect an ICBM launch. Even with warmer relationships I assume some type of orbital monitoring exists and has been upgraded.

 

[David Coulter]

The U.S. also operates the Space Based Infrared (SBIR) satellite system, which picks up on missiles plumes with ultra-sophisticated sensors. The technology is so sensitive it can pick up on small arms fire, NBC News explained.

Interesting. If you dig through the Wiki links it sounds like the asset that saw the launch might have been STSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Tracking_and_Surveillance_System). This might be the "experimental" satellite Russia mentioned (and demanded that the data be disclosed). It is a very new system so I am sure the data will never be seen outside the intel community.

I am not sure about picking up "small arms fire". I have worked with enough thermal IR data to know that the instantaneous pinprick heat signature would be impossible to differentiate from background heat. Perhaps they mean a continuous burst of tracers from a largish machine gun and the instrument was pointed directly at the target as a test.

Looks like it is low earth orbit so not geostationary. Needs a constellation to provide continuous coverage, ala GPS. Since it would be outrageously expensive to have enough satellites to cover all of the Earth at high resolution constantly, I assume it must be a point-able system. Just a guess here, but I assume it has a low res, wide looking "context" thermal camera and fast dexterity to point a high res "bore sight" camera at the possible target.

 

[Jason]

The U.S. also operates the Space Based Infrared (SBIR) satellite system, which picks up on missiles plumes with ultra-sophisticated sensors. The technology is so sensitive it can pick up on small arms fire, NBC News explained.

Interesting. If you dig through the Wiki links it sounds like the asset that saw the launch might have been STSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Tracking_and_Surveillance_System). This might be the "experimental" satellite Russia mentioned (and demanded that the data be disclosed). It is a very new system so I am sure the data will never be seen outside the intel community.

I am not sure about picking up "small arms fire". I have worked with enough thermal IR data to know that the instantaneous pinprick heat signature would be impossible to differentiate from background heat. Perhaps they mean a continuous burst of tracers from a largish machine gun and the instrument was pointed directly at the target as a test.

Looks like it is low earth orbit so not geostationary. Needs a constellation to provide continuous coverage, ala GPS. Since it would be outrageously expensive to have enough satellites to cover all of the Earth at high resolution constantly, I assume it must be a point-able system. Just a guess here, but I assume it has a low res, wide looking "context" thermal camera and fast dexterity to point a high res "bore sight" camera at the possible target.

David could you please elaborate

Needs a constellation to provide continuous coverage, ala GPS.

How many satellites in the "constellation" would have the SBIR capability.

 

[Mick West]

David could you please elaborate

Needs a constellation to provide continuous coverage, ala GPS.

How many satellites in the "constellation" would have the SBIR capability.

Satellites close enough to the Earth to take high resolution images need to keep moving, so you need lots of satellites moving if you want to keep eyes on a particular spot. Moving from satellite to satellite as they go out of visual range:

 

[David Coulter]

The perceived advantage of STSS is that its satellites, by operating at a lower altitude and by using long- and short-wave infrared sensors, will be able to acquire and track missiles in midcourse and during the boost phase.

and

July 2011
STSS test on short-range, air-launched target (SRALT) – 08.07.2011
This test proved the STSS's ability to track dim objects that have extremely short flight timelines

(my emphasis)

Since the system is designed for low Earth orbit it will move in relation to the ground. It would be expensive to cover everything at high res all the time with hundreds (thousands) of satellites, so it behaves like a human eye. Our vision system is very good at detecting motion and your eyes turn toward motion in an instant without even thinking about it. A launch detecting satellite could be designed to do the same thing but sense heat rather than motion (maybe both). Anything in the wide looking camera that hit a detection threshold would cause the system to "look" at the target with the high res camera. Commercial "high agility" Earth observation satellites already are in orbit, see: http://smsc.cnes.fr/PLEIADES/GP_systeme.htm#agilite

EDIT: I am speculating on this based on some knowledge of commercial high agility systems.

 

[Jason]

The perceived advantage of STSS is that its satellites, by operating at a lower altitude and by using long- and short-wave infrared sensors, will be able to acquire and track missiles in midcourse and during the boost phase.

and

July 2011
STSS test on short-range, air-launched target (SRALT) – 08.07.2011
This test proved the STSS's ability to track dim objects that have extremely short flight timelines

(my emphasis)

Since the system is designed for low Earth orbit it will move in relation to the ground. It would be expensive to cover everything at high res all the time with hundreds (thousands) of satellites, so it behaves like a human eye. Our vision system is very good at detecting motion and your eyes turn toward motion in an instant without even thinking about it. A launch detecting satellite could be designed to do the same thing but sense heat rather than motion (maybe both). Anything in the wide looking camera that hit a detection threshold would cause the system to "look" at the target with the high res camera. Commercial "high agility" Earth observation satellites already are in orbit, see: http://smsc.cnes.fr/PLEIADES/GP_systeme.htm#agilite

EDIT: I am speculating on this based on some knowledge of commercial high agility systems.

Are these satellites "eyes on" or are computers making the decisions of where to look more precisely

 

[ConspiracyAtheist]

Have the pilots/passengers all been ruled out as far as potential terrorist ties are concerned?

 

[Hevach]

Are these satellites "eyes on" or are computers making the decisions of where to look more precisely

Nearly all these systems are computer controlled - any possible event recorded is then logged, and controllers will review the data and see what it is. There's just going to be too much data to keep eyes on - every satellite in the constellation will require round-the-clock monitoring, and any detected event is going to be very brief, meaning one person sipping their coffee or going for a pee is going to miss it unless the system is recording possible events, and as soon as it's doing that you don't need eyes on it when nothing is happening.

It's worth mentioning that the more accurate a sensor is, the more noise you get. If these things could really detect small arms fire, even if that means heavy tracer/incendiary fire and not individual gunshots, the number of other things that could create that much heat is immense. The more ways you try to filter for false alerts like this, the more likely it becomes to miss a real event, so with accuracy as a primary goal I imagine they end up having people filter through a lot of false positives.

Have the pilots/passengers all been ruled out as far as potential terrorist ties are concerned?

As far as I know, they were not, but when physical evidence from the wreck was more consistent with an anti-aircraft missile than an internal explosion, it's likely that line of investigation was dropped or at least fell out of public view.

 

[ConspiracyAtheist]

Nearly all these systems are computer controlled - any possible event recorded is then logged, and controllers will review the data and see what it is. There's just going to be too much data to keep eyes on - every satellite in the constellation will require round-the-clock monitoring, and any detected event is going to be very brief, meaning one person sipping their coffee or going for a pee is going to miss it unless the system is recording possible events, and as soon as it's doing that you don't need eyes on it when nothing is happening.

It's worth mentioning that the more accurate a sensor is, the more noise you get. If these things could really detect small arms fire, even if that means heavy tracer/incendiary fire and not individual gunshots, the number of other things that could create that much heat is immense. The more ways you try to filter for false alerts like this, the more likely it becomes to miss a real event, so with accuracy as a primary goal I imagine they end up having people filter through a lot of false positives.



As far as I know, they were not, but when physical evidence from the wreck was more consistent with an anti-aircraft missile than an internal explosion, it's likely that line of investigation was dropped or at least fell out of public view.

Actually, from everything I've been reading, an internal bomb, although for the most part written off as a cause, is said to be indeed very characteristic of the wreck. That, or a SAM.