MH17 Malaysian 777 Carrying 295 People Shot Down Over Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, I understand your point and no I don't think this was some sort of false flag. But still the question remains who benefits from this trajedy, regardless of who fired the rocket.

I imagine it will be something as mundane as a combination of:

1. Sophisticated weapons in the hands of people with limited training
2. Poor or no rules of engagement
3. Poor or no target verification
4. Poor or no command approval required for engagement
5. Education, alcohol, bravado, and hubris...
 
Based on Ukranian intelligence, they intercepted "alleged" discussions between Russian Intelligence and the Separatist. In the conversation (which was translated) it seems like the Russian Separatist were absolutely certain it was supposed to be a cargo plain. Could they have intercepted intelligence on their end that made them believe this flight was supposed to be a cargo plane, and possibly in conjunction with it flying more northernly as pointed out by Joe, could've resulted in today's accident.
 
Reading American media sources, most headlines have the words "missile" and "shot down". However, reading RT, headline just says "plane crashes", and watching an RT video of the event, they like to stress that the Ukrainian govt had many BUKs in the area at the time and RT are really reminding everyone of the airliner that was shot down by Ukraine 13 years ago.
 
I imagine it will be something as mundane as a combination of:

1. Sophisticated weapons in the hands of people with limited training
2. Poor or no rules of engagement
3. Poor or no target verification
4. Poor or no command approval required for engagement
5. Education, alcohol, bravado, and hubris...

Hence why I think the most likely suspects are rebels who happened to get a hold of SAMs. I heard earlier that the rebels commandeered a BUK or BUKs from the Ukraine military not long ago. I'll have to find the link again though.
 
Based on Ukranian intelligence, they intercepted "alleged" discussions between Russian Intelligence and the Separatist. In the conversation (which was translated) it seems like the Russian Separatist were absolutely certain it was supposed to be a cargo plain. Could they have intercepted intelligence on their end that made them believe this flight was supposed to be a cargo plane, and possibly in conjunction with it flying more northernly as pointed out by Joe, could've resulted in today's accident.

Have ya got the link for that Jason? Id like to take a look if ya do.
 
upload_2014-7-18_7-57-57.pngupload_2014-7-18_7-57-9.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2014-7-18_7-57-38.png
    upload_2014-7-18_7-57-38.png
    709.1 KB · Views: 375
(Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a phone call with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, called for a "thorough and unbiased" investigation into a Malaysian airliner crash in eastern Ukraine, the Kremlin said on Friday.
Content from External Source
reuters.com
 
“Greek”: Is there anything left of the weapon?

“Major”: Absolutely nothing. Civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper.
Content from External Source
I have seen this translated also as "Are there any weapons", which makes equal/more sense if they were expecting it to be a troop transport. The translation above obviously serves a different purpose.



 
“Major”: Absolutely nothing. Civilian items, medicinal stuff, towels, toilet paper.
In this video, when they zoom in, you can see what appears to be toilet paper streaming down.
 
Yes, that occurred to me too.

Lots of people confused about a lack of "flaming debris" or asking why the video doesn't show the launch etc. Hollywood has a lot to answer for.

The plane would impact the ground up to 5nm from where it was hit, more if it continued to maintain lift. They build 777s strong, as Asiana 214 proved.

The KAL007 CVR shows that loss may not have been immediate.
 
Some of the missiles are designed to explode in proximity to the plane and not actually hit it. A shredded tail section can leave a plane able to fly level for a bit but as the tail falls apart that control is gone and the plane rolls or dives and that is when the wind starts to rip the plane apart.
 
20/20 hindsight here but if intelligence agencies were aware of a sophisticated SAM system being in the wrong hands, then Ukraine should have been a flight planning no-go zone.

intelligence agencies? that info was publically available on Internet...

I only wonder if it's intentionally let to fly that corridor because they knew there was a big chance that inexperienced rebels will not recognize if it was a civil plane(scoring the government a huge media win as it happened)or it's just traditional eastern european inteptitude...
 
Some of the missiles are designed to explode in proximity to the plane and not actually hit it. A shredded tail section can leave a plane able to fly level for a bit but as the tail falls apart that control is gone and the plane rolls or dives and that is when the wind starts to rip the plane apart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous-rod_warhead

I can't find evidence of what type the GRIZZLY carries, but this is probably it as it's the most effective AFAIK. Pretty much all missiles are designed to detonate near the target, not when they 'hit' (because it's easier to expand a blast zone than it is to engineer minute final-stage course corrections, plus you might get lucky and get a twofer).
 
Some of the missiles are designed to explode in proximity to the plane and not actually hit it. A shredded tail section can leave a plane able to fly level for a bit but as the tail falls apart that control is gone and the plane rolls or dives and that is when the wind starts to rip the plane apart.
There's this, but also the fact that most military weapons are high explosive and you just never see high explosives in movies. Hollywood uses a mix of low explosives and non-explosive incendiaries (all of those big exciting fireballs in a Michael Bay movie are gasoline) to make bright, visually impressive explosions that actors can stand near without fear of having their torso perforated or eardrums blown out.

High explosive blasts are just not that impressive. Hit up Youtube for C4, and you'll learn two things: First, there's an entire genre of video involving the destruction of video game consoles with military grade weaponry, and second, that while there is a fireball involved, it's smaller, cooler, and shorter lived than you see in movies. High explosives don't always start fires, they just tear things apart.

This is why you can use them on a coal seam and very rarely have to worry about igniting an underground fire that might burn for centuries.
 
Last edited:
There's this, but also the fact that most military weapons are high explosive and you just never see high explosives in movies. Hollywood uses a mix of low explosives and non-explosive incendiaries (all of those big exciting fireballs in a Michael Bay movie are gasoline) to make bright, visually impressive explosions that actors can stand near without fear of having their torso perforated or eardrums blown out.

High explosive blasts are just not that impressive. Hit up Youtube for C4, and you'll learn two things: First, there's an entire genre of video involving the destruction of video game consoles with military grade weaponry, and second, that while there is a fireball involved, it's smaller, cooler, and shorter lived than you see in movies. High explosives usually always start fires, they just tear things apart.

This is why you can use them on a coal seam and very rarely have to worry about igniting an underground fire that might burn for centuries.
An airliner does have a lot of fuel, which does makes for Hollywood style explosions. There is probably less likely of a chance to ignite that fuel if only shrapnel hits the plane and not an explosion on direct impact, with say an engine, on a wing filled with fuel.
 
An airliner does have a lot of fuel, which does makes for Hollywood style explosions. There is probably less likely of a chance to ignite that fuel if only shrapnel hits the plane and not an explosion on direct impact, with say an engine, on a wing filled with fuel.

You need an approximate 14:1 ratio air-fuel for it to combust - TWA800 being the poster child for this. So where there's this mix, and an ignition source, you may get combustion but a lot of effort goes into making this difficult anywhere near an aircraft, no matter what state it is in.
 
You need an approximate 14:1 ratio air-fuel for it to combust - TWA800 being the poster child for this. So where there's this mix, and an ignition source, you may get combustion but a lot of effort goes into making this difficult anywhere near an aircraft, no matter what state it is in.
If the wing breaks up then the fuel to air mix becomes possible. Intact, not so much.
 
s that the intercepted sound file's time stamp is before the actual crash ergo there is some funny business going on. I dont know if its legit or not

There's very little chance that the sequence of events, including communications, weren't hoovered up in their entirety by at least one nation. Releasing a fake transcript would be counterproductive and they would know this.

http://news.usni.org/2014/06/04/pentagon-russian-flanker-near-miss-u-s-air-force-jet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_ANT_catalog
 
other people seem to be doing that.
youtube
the claim is that the intercepted sound file's time stamp is before the actual crash ergo there is some funny business going on. I dont know if its legit or not
I'm having trouble with flash player at the moment, but how far before the crash are we talking? In a recent Sandy Hook thread I checked a bunch of my devices that were synced to various online services against the Naval Observatory's talking clock phone number and got almost a 10 minute spread, and those are all fairly reliable first world services located on my continent, two of which are in my time zone. I can't imagine timestamps being any more reliable in an area with nontrivial infrastructure disruption from months of fighting.

To be fair, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the call is fabricated yet, but unless we're talking about 15+ minute discrepancies I don't think the timestamps alone are compelling.
 
other people seem to be doing that.

youtube


the claim is that the intercepted sound file's time stamp is before the actual crash ergo there is some funny business going on. I dont know if its legit or not
It is possible that there is a delay in the actual crash time and the reporting of the crash. Was the plane being tracked by any radar or is the timeline using pings from the plane? If so, what are the intervals of those pings?

It is very clear that who ever made this conversation, is talking about MH17. Confirming the identities is all that needs to be done to confirm guilt. imo
 
You need an approximate 14:1 ratio air-fuel for it to combust - TWA800 being the poster child for this. So where there's this mix, and an ignition source, you may get combustion but a lot of effort goes into making this difficult anywhere near an aircraft, no matter what state it is in.

I think you're quoting "ideal" ratios (stoichometric). As long as a molecule of oxygen pairs/binds (not sure correct term) with a molecule of fuel AND the flashpoint temperature is reached (not necessarily a naked flame), fuel will combust.

Firefighting tip I picked up, easy to remember. A fire requires three components, remove just one component and fire will be extinguished; Fuel, Air, Heat.
 
It is possible that there is a delay in the actual crash time and the reporting of the crash. Was the plane being tracked by any radar or is the timeline using pings from the plane?

The plane, the missile, maybe even the launcher will all feature in very many radar systems. I doubt you could toss a peanut in the air in Ukraine right now without adding to someone's data. The Souther Ocean this ain't.

Also see my post re Rivet Joint above - the US will have very detailed data on the missile seeker from when it was active, probably enough to confine ID to Ukrainian vs Russian stocks.

Also re the BUK photo, would the Russians (of any stripe) really risk... god knows what... for the sake of a tarpaulin?
 
The plane, the missile, maybe even the launcher will all feature in very many radar systems. I doubt you could toss a peanut in the air in Ukraine right now without adding to someone's data. The Souther Ocean this ain't.

Also see my post re Rivet Joint above - the US will have very detailed data on the missile seeker from when it was active, probably enough to confine ID to Ukrainian vs Russian stocks.

Also re the BUK photo, would the Russians (of any stripe) really risk... god knows what... for the sake of a tarpaulin?

Do you think the US already knows where the rocket came from, or does that take more time?
 
The plane, the missile, maybe even the launcher will all feature in very many radar systems. I doubt you could toss a peanut in the air in Ukraine right now without adding to someone's data. The Souther Ocean this ain't.

Also see my post re Rivet Joint above - the US will have very detailed data on the missile seeker from when it was active, probably enough to confine ID to Ukrainian vs Russian stocks.
US Intelligence officials and the Pentagon already commented on this yesterday evening. Radar stations in the area (don't know if it's US or foreign) were able to detect the Buk's tracking and lock on parameters. Saying they were able to see that something tracked the air craft and then locked on to it. Officials also stated they were able to see the heat signature from the moment of impact, which could hopefully give them a trajectory and tell us where the missile originated from. My guess is they already know this and it most likely happened within the Ukraine border, not on the Russian side. They are trying to confirm the weaponry because I've seen similar reports of SA-11's or SA-20's being used, and to determine with complete certainty who fired the missile.
 
Do you think the US already knows where the rocket came from, or does that take more time?

I would be amazed if they didn't.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-crisis-nato-watching-russians-closely-with-awacs-1.2629411

I'm not sure what the current situation is with AEGIS ships or BMD systems (designed to spot + intercept ICBMs during boost phase) but either of those would also be very likely to have caught this, I think. Plus throw in whatever is up in orbit...

There's a big difference between what they know and what capabilities they'll tell us about though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top