How We Know Russia Shot Down MH17

a reply to: intrptr

Altitude wasn't the issue, granting corridor through hostile airspace is.

Not at the time as the highest a plane was shot down was well under the flight height of MH 17.

You do know that more than just that one plane flew over the same area before it happened and during it happening so it wasn't a problem to those airlines.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It's an option. Personally I think it's really unlikely but it's still possible.

Why is it unlikely?

If anyone had anything to gain by the seperatists getting blamed it was them. I think that it is at least equally likely that a plan was cooked up to set them up after the seperatists were starting to shoot down Ukrainian militairy planes from those altitudes.

a reply to: YouPeople

What do these guys have to say about this revelation?

It's well known as this isn't the first thread we have had that discusses this tragedy.

We all respect the views of Zaphod as he is one of the more knowledgeable members here when it comes to anything involving planes...and if he doesn't know something he has friends that do.

a reply to: Zaphod58

They're just as much to blame as anyone else.

Says one who blames the "rebels".

Why don't you answer YouPeople's question up the page? ^^^

Have you tried to notify the OP of this thread that his premise is obviously wrong? Have you tried to discuss this with the posters that are always around to blame Russia?

What do these guys have to say about this revelation?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Not at the time as the highest a plane was shot down was well under the flight height of MH 17.

BS. Planes were shot already shot down above the reach of MANPADS, so it was already known that they had systems that were able to operate at altitudes of and up to 10 km.

a reply to: YouPeople

Why is it unlikely?

Well because the separatists don't have any planes flying so why would Ukraine activate their BUK systems they aren't used for anything else.

And had there been a plane it would have had to be Russian as they are the only one's supplying and backing the separatists.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

It's well known as this isn't the first thread we have had that discusses this tragedy. We all respect the views of Zaphod as he is one of the more knowledgeable members here when it comes to anything involving planes...and if he doesn't know something he has friends that do.

Do you feel that this was an answer to my question?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Well because the separatists don't have any planes flying so why would Ukraine activate their BUK systems they aren't used for anything else.

A bit slow I see.....

To shoot down a passenger jet and blame the seperatists and Russia. I just said that.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: YouPeople

What do these guys have to say about this revelation?

We all respect the views of Zaphod as he is one of the more knowledgeable members here when it comes to anything involving planes...and if he doesn't know something he has friends that do.

Speak for yourself. On here he is deflecting.

a reply to: intrptr

I did. Some agreed with me, some didn't.

As for the EASA, I also blame the FAA, just as I blame them for screwing around with something that eventually leads to an accident. Yes, the rebels most likely pulled the trigger, but if any organization had acted in the previous three months the plane wouldn't have been there in the first place.

It was three months after fighting had started, as well as after a Ukrainian plane was shot down at 22,000 feet, above the maximum altitude of a MANPADS, and all they did was recommend that the airspace be avoided. As usual it wasn't until after people died that they finally restricted Airlines from going through the airspace.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

WE all respect the views of Zaphod

You know I was refering to "the guys that are always around to blame Russia".

At least you are not hesitant to show who you are.

a reply to: YouPeople

BS. Planes were shot already shot down above the reach of MANPADS, so it was already known that they had systems that were able to operate at altitudes of and up to 10 km.

The missiles are about 1.5 to 1.8 m (5 to 6 ft) in length and weigh about 17 to 18 kg (37 to 40 lb), depending on the model. Shoulder-fired SAMs generally have a target detection range of about 10 km (6 mi) and an engagement range of about 6 km (4 mi), so aircraft flying at 6,100 metres (20,000 ft) or higher are relatively safe.[6]

en.wikipedia.org...

And yet anything over 20000 ft is relatively safe. So a plane flying at 33000 ft is not in any danger of a manpad.

a reply to: YouPeople

Too little gain IMO. Even if the report blames the rebels it won't come out for well over a year later, and other than training and some weapons that haven't changed anything, what have they gained? Nothing.

a reply to: YouPeople

At least you are not hesitant to show who you are.

Why should I.

If the US did it I would be saying the same thing...I don't discriminate with those who do acts like this.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Well because the separatists don't have any planes flying so why would Ukraine activate their BUK systems they aren't used for anything else.

What was that? I though Putin was flying a similar route that day?

You didn't actually want to open that can of worms, did you?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I did. Some agreed with me, some didn't.

The perceived problem is that you are using one part of the info to back up a discussion about how it could not have been done by a Su25, but you don't use the other piece of the info to point out that the whole premise of this thread might be wrong, which would seem to be the priority looking from an intellectually honest perspective.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

It was three months after fighting had started, as well as after a Ukrainian plane was shot down at 22,000 feet, above the maximum altitude of a MANPADS, and all they did was recommend that the airspace be avoided. As usual it wasn't until after people died that they finally restricted Airlines from going through the airspace.

Not only but the cargo plane was downed two days earlier, making that space very hot.

You know as well as I it's not a general rule in these occasions. The audio from the tower and plane requesting a corridor, specifically granted permission. Not the FAA, not the EASA. Keep deflecting…

a reply to: intrptr

What was that? I though Putin was flying a similar route that day?

That has been debunked as long as that claim has been made.

Reports that Putin flew similar route as MH17, presidential airport says 'hasn't overflown Ukraine for long time'

www.rt.com...

You didn't actually want to open that can of worms, did you?

Sure I do. Bring on the evidence to back your claim.

a reply to: intrptr

That depends on who you believe. An anonymous source, or the people responsible for his aircraft.

a reply to: intrptr

The flight plan was filled in Amsterdam. Since the airspace was open of course the Ukrainian controllers were going to clear the aircraft on the filed route. There was no reason not to, just as they cleared the other 18-20 aircraft that went over that area every day for the three months prior.