Interesting article on Ukraine shooting down MH17

a reply to: RyleeNator

I Find it funny how the people who blame Russia and the self defence forces have fallen silent on this one

Maybe it has something to do with them spending time with family and friends for the holidays? Don't worry, I've been following this story and keeping mental track of all the contradictions, improbabilities and sloppy open source research that the Russian propaganda machine has been spewing to create confusion. Here's a teaser:

How many Ukrainian fighters were involved?

How was this witness able to identify a specific plane and count the missiles it was carrying before and after the incident?

How was this witness able to overhear the pilot?

If the Donbass rebels did not have surface to air missiles, how were they able to shoot down the second (or third!) fighter jet?

Stay tuned for a more detailed exposé....

originally posted by: Dimithae
www.bbc.com...

A Siberian Airlines plane was heading to Novosibirsk, Russia from Tel Aviv, Israel when it was shot down and crashed into the Black Sea on 4 October, 2001. All 78 passengers onboard were killed. The Ukrainian military denied its involvement at first.
However, Ukrainian officials later admitted that its military could have mistakenly shot the plane down during a training exercise, and some compensation was paid to victims's relatives.

over a DECADE earlier the Ukrainian military shot down a passenger plane...so now they obviously shot down this one!

Oh it's so obvious now! That evidence is irrefutable! Clearly Ukraine murdered hundreds of innocent people to frame Russia.

a reply to: Dimithae

Actually, the truth is fairly easy to find in this case--Russia and its rebels were framed by Kiev and NATO. This was the predicate act for the sanctions that may lead to major war.

I happened to be watching the Evening News on the day that this happened, and it was blatantly obvious that the MSM was bringing a very serious propaganda effort, with "unnamed sources" at the Pentagon being "certain" that the rebels had shot it down.

Eventually the Pentagon admitted that it could not prove its allegations.

a reply to: Salander

Actually, the truth is fairly easy to find in this case--Russia and its rebels were framed by Kiev and NATO. This was the predicate act for the sanctions that may lead to major war.

Except that the sanctions were first imposed back in March, four months prior to the incident.

www.bbc.com...

a reply to: DJW001

The west has been piling sanctions on Russia for a long time, rather like one piles ham and salami and lettuce and tomato on a sandwich.

As a direct result of the MH17 incident, MORE sanctions were piled on.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: DJW001

The west has been piling sanctions on Russia for a long time, rather like one piles ham and salami and lettuce and tomato on a sandwich.

As a direct result of the MH17 incident, MORE sanctions were piled on.

Then why did they need to shoot anything down? Wouldn't a bare faced lie do?

a reply to: DJW001

I'm sure that several purposes were served. Some speculate that besides the demonization of Russia, the act was against the only country that has tried Bush, Cheney and Rummy in absentia for war crimes. Others speculate that Holland was being punished for its fairly recent divestment of certain companies doing business with Israel and Israeli banks.

a reply to: Salander

So to punish them, they shot down a Malaysian plane, and totally ignored the KLM flights that were flying over the Ukraine? KLM didn't stop flying over the region until after MH17 was shot down.

a reply to: Zaphod58

- It might got hit by two is what I said

- The explosion(s) also might have occurred very close by, closer as the other ones which you are referring to

- Sudden decompression because of the explosion(s) is also something which can do odd things differentiating this time to the examples you provided

- And I was quoting an expert who said it was without a doubt MH17 could have been brought down by the weapons of a SU-25

Coming up with just two examples about other instances in which it isn`t clear as to, at what distances the explosions occurred, doesn`t proof anything in regarding this case as if it has happened or not with Air-to-Air missiles.

If the real investigators/experts did know it`s almost impossible, they would be saying it all over the place. There are some who claim to be "expert" throwing it on the internet, but hey, for all we know they are just paid to do so.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Not one person has said that an air to air missile couldn't have done it. But there isn't a single instance of a large aircraft being hit by one, or even multiple air to air missiles, and just exploding. Not one. Every instance of a plane anywhere near the size of a 777 being hit by an air to air missile, has resulted in the plane remaining intact, and controllable for several minutes afterwards.

As for proximity, KAL 007 was hit by both missiles in the tail section, very close together, and remained intact.

Air Rhodesia 827- Vickers Viscount hit by a Strela-2. Damaged and crashed intact.
Air Rhodesia 825- Vickers Viscount 782D hit by a Strela-2. Damaged and crashed intact.
Aerolinee Itava 870- McDonnell Douglas DC-9-15. Possibly hit by an unknown missile, dove into the sea intact, exploded on impact (investigation showed evidence of a bomb in the rear lavatory, as well as an outside source of the explosion).
Korean Airlines 902- Boeing 707 hit by air to air missile. Crash landed in controlled ditching.
Korean Airlines 007- Boeing 747 hit by two missiles. Crashed during ditching attempt.
T&G Aviation- DC-7 hit by SA-7. Crashed intact, exploded on impact.
Transair Georgia- 2 Tu-134 aircraft hit by surface to air missiles over two days. Both crashed intact and exploded on impact.
Rwandan and Burundian presidential assassinations- Falcon 50 hit by two SA-16s. Exploded on impact.

I included MANPADS systems because they have similar warhead sizes to air to air missiles, but not one of those planes, and a number of them are much smaller than a 777, just exploded in midair after being hit by a missile fired at them.

Any missile fired by an Su-25 would be an IR missile, which means it would be targeting the engines or tail section, which are the hottest parts of the aircraft. There would have been some damage to the fuselage, but again, contrary to Hollywood, explosive decompression doesn't lead to the cabin blowing apart into a big hole.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Europe was reluctant to sanction Russia more after Crimea, and voilà MH17 and all were aboard to do so.

The immediate accusing of Russia without a shred of solid evidence should be another clue.

Your right about that part.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That would mean the experts/investigators would have hinted on it being nearly impossible it had happened that way, but all I have heard from them is they are looking into it seriously which suggest the contrary.


I looked into those cases a bit closer :

R-60 missile

- 3kg/3.5kg warhead and in some cases 1.6kg depleted uranium

Strela-2 or SA-7

- 1.15 kg warhead

Sa-16

- 1,27 kg warhead

Kaliningrad K-8

- 40kg warhead, but the first exploded 160 ft behind, I don`t see what the distance was of the second one was, probably about the same.


- Air Rhodesia 827 and Air Rhodesia 825 hit by about 1/3 of the explosive warhead

- Aerolinee Itava 870 can`t say much about that, because it was an unknown missile

- Korean Airlines 902 Bosov tried to convince his superiors that the plane was not a military threat, but after receiving orders to shoot it down he fired a pair of R-60 missiles. The first missile flew past the target. The second one hit the left wing, knocking off approximately four meters of its length.

So despite being similar missiles , it`s not known at what distances it was modified to explode and one did not do what it supposed to do making it possible the R-60 missile can explode off of where it should explode

- Korean Airlines 007 : The first missile was radar-controlled and proximity fuzed, and detonated 50 metres (160 ft) behind the aircraft. Sending fragments forward, it either severed or unraveled the crossover cable from the left inboard elevator to the right elevator.[42] This, with damage to one of the four hydraulic systems, caused KAL 007 to ascend from 35,000 to 38,250 feet (10,670 to 11,660 m), at which point the autopilot was disengaged.

So that`s a long way off exploding

- T&G Aviation- DC-7 hit by SA-7, Sa-7 is Strela-2, see before

- Transair Georgia- 2 Tu-134 MANPADS and thus with smaller warheads

- Falcon 50, SA-16 MANPAD has also similar warhead as to the Strela-2


I`m not seeing the list proves anything, too much unknowns regarding how close the possible Air-to-Air missile(s) have exploded and where they exploded.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

So now suddenly, in this one case, a pair of small air to air missiles just suddenly makes a large plane explode. One time out of over a dozen instances, it just conveniently makes it blow apart in mid-air, after apparently targeting somewhere on the aircraft it wasn't designed to, because a hit to an engine wouldn't blow it apart. If a missile with a warhead the size of an air to air, or MANPADS was capable of blowing apart an aircraft the size of a 777, it would have happened in one of the previous instances, especially with the smaller planes that were involved.

So now the R-60 that hit the Korean 707 was modified? They aren't modified and set to explode individually, they're built the same, so that they all react the same, no matter what they're being fired at. That means that in this case, they would have targeted and detonated at a similar distance in this case as well as that one.

Crash investigators look at every possibility, and take them all seriously, until they can be conclusively ruled out. It's the way they work, no matter what they think happened.

a reply to: Zaphod58

They aren't modified and set to explode individually, they're built the same, so that they all react the same, no matter what they're being fired at.

The witness claims they can be and are being modified.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Zaphod58

They aren't modified and set to explode individually, they're built the same, so that they all react the same, no matter what they're being fired at.

The witness claims they can be and are being modified.

Crash investigators look at every possibility, and take them all seriously, until they can be conclusively ruled out. It's the way they work, no matter what they think happened.

I wasn`t talking about them solely, but also about non investigating experts I have seen.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

That doesn't mean that they're being modified in a way that will allow them to make a 777 explode, or that they're being modified for individual targets. There are different variants of all missiles out there, that doesn't mean that they're suddenly going to be hundreds of times more effective than other variants.

The R-60A is a different version than the R-60K, or the R-60M, but the latter are only a little more effective than the earlier, by adding different seekers and fuses. There's an improvement in performance, but the warhead is the same, the size is the same, etc.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And non-investigating experts don't have access to the data that investigating experts have. They weren't on scene with the wreckage, or handling it, etc.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And non-investigating experts don't have access to the data that investigating experts have. They weren't on scene with the wreckage, or handling it, etc.

But they still have studied and had access to data which make them confirm that that possibility exists.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And, yet again, I haven't seen anyone say that there isn't a remote possibility that it was an air to air hit. But the evidence based on past incidents, and other evidence that we have access to, points to a surface to air missile.

The experts that aren't in on the investigation have access to the same information as everyone else. If they had information that wasn't publicly released, they'd be part of the investigation.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No, but according to him there are also modification which make them explode on impact. Besides it could somehow also trying to make its way towards an engine but exploding elsewhere because of the flightpath of the missile.

3/3.5kg is still a serious explosion and when it happened it at an unfortunate place for the plane, it still is a possibility.

They are now in the process of examining metal parts in the bodies of the pilot(s) which may shed light on what was used. All we can hope is that there isn`t pressure from above to come with a certain conclusion instead of the actual real conclusion.