MH17 down near Donetsk
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Malaysia's status with respect to the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) is unclear. If Malaysia is not on the team then it isn't clear whether the reason is that they haven't been invited or that they haven't accepted the invitation.
Malaysia had an independent streak that predates both MH370 and MH17. For example, when the International Criminal Court did not investigate allegations of war crimes at Iraq the Malaysians formed their own tribunal. They tried in absentia George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others. They concluded that the invasion of Iraq was unlawful and that war crimes were committed at Abu Ghraib prison. A year later they found Israel guilty of genocide of the Palestinian people. It is no wonder if the Malaysians find it difficult to get cooperation from countries like The Netherlands, Belgium, Ukraine and Australia who are friends with the US, UK and Israel.
When MH17 was shot down Malaysian officials negotiated with representatives of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) when the other countries wouldn't, resulting in the hand-over of the black boxes to the Malaysians. Surely the black boxes would serve as tickets admitting Malaysia into the JIT, but Malaysia merely handed them over to Dutch officials. I still wonder if that came as an unpleasant surprise to the DPR.
A six member Malaysian team accompanied the train and aircraft that transported human remains to Amsterdam. The bodies were examined by the Dutch DVI team, and the Malaysian DVI team had no opportunity to do likewise. The Malaysians didn't complain.
In August Malaysia's defense minister said he was confident that MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile and dismissed other scenarios. At about the same time (it may have been as early as late July) the JIT nations entered into an agreement to keep investigation details secret if any country objected to a release.
In early September Malaysia said they were seeking support from relevant countries and other parties for Malaysian investigation and security teams to return to the crash site. However, a few days later a DPR representative said the crash site was safe enough, that all Malaysia needed to do was ask, but Malaysia had not done so.
Russia's defense minister said that the Russians were ready to assist and support the Malaysian investigators. To date there has been no sign that Malaysian investigators have in fact received support from Russia's defense ministry.
On Nov. 05 the Malaysian prime minister said that Malaysia expected to play a major role in the investigation and that they were welcome by the Dutch to do so. He also said, "We have preliminary knowledge (of what took place), but it has to be backed by evidence". Malaysia apparently is not interested in evidence that does not fit their "preliminary knowledge".
On Nov. 19 Malaysia's inspector-general of police said that Malaysia must be made a full member of the Joint Investigation Team and not merely a participant in the investigation. Malaysia's ambassador to The Netherlands also expressed displeasure that they aren't members of the JIT.
If Malaysia has been treated badly all this time, then they've waited a very long to complain about it. MH17 did not suffer mechanical failure. The pilots cooperated with ATC and didn't stray into restricted air space. Malaysia has no reason to agree not to disclose any information that would be contrary to the interests of The Netherlands, Belgium, Ukraine or Australia. If they're not already a member of the JIT, then it is hard to imagine their getting in before their government signs the agreement.
The Malaysians have given many mixed signals. Maybe that's just due to their culture, and maybe it is the result of behind the scene political maneuvering.
Malaysia had an independent streak that predates both MH370 and MH17. For example, when the International Criminal Court did not investigate allegations of war crimes at Iraq the Malaysians formed their own tribunal. They tried in absentia George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others. They concluded that the invasion of Iraq was unlawful and that war crimes were committed at Abu Ghraib prison. A year later they found Israel guilty of genocide of the Palestinian people. It is no wonder if the Malaysians find it difficult to get cooperation from countries like The Netherlands, Belgium, Ukraine and Australia who are friends with the US, UK and Israel.
When MH17 was shot down Malaysian officials negotiated with representatives of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) when the other countries wouldn't, resulting in the hand-over of the black boxes to the Malaysians. Surely the black boxes would serve as tickets admitting Malaysia into the JIT, but Malaysia merely handed them over to Dutch officials. I still wonder if that came as an unpleasant surprise to the DPR.
A six member Malaysian team accompanied the train and aircraft that transported human remains to Amsterdam. The bodies were examined by the Dutch DVI team, and the Malaysian DVI team had no opportunity to do likewise. The Malaysians didn't complain.
In August Malaysia's defense minister said he was confident that MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile and dismissed other scenarios. At about the same time (it may have been as early as late July) the JIT nations entered into an agreement to keep investigation details secret if any country objected to a release.
In early September Malaysia said they were seeking support from relevant countries and other parties for Malaysian investigation and security teams to return to the crash site. However, a few days later a DPR representative said the crash site was safe enough, that all Malaysia needed to do was ask, but Malaysia had not done so.
Russia's defense minister said that the Russians were ready to assist and support the Malaysian investigators. To date there has been no sign that Malaysian investigators have in fact received support from Russia's defense ministry.
On Nov. 05 the Malaysian prime minister said that Malaysia expected to play a major role in the investigation and that they were welcome by the Dutch to do so. He also said, "We have preliminary knowledge (of what took place), but it has to be backed by evidence". Malaysia apparently is not interested in evidence that does not fit their "preliminary knowledge".
On Nov. 19 Malaysia's inspector-general of police said that Malaysia must be made a full member of the Joint Investigation Team and not merely a participant in the investigation. Malaysia's ambassador to The Netherlands also expressed displeasure that they aren't members of the JIT.
If Malaysia has been treated badly all this time, then they've waited a very long to complain about it. MH17 did not suffer mechanical failure. The pilots cooperated with ATC and didn't stray into restricted air space. Malaysia has no reason to agree not to disclose any information that would be contrary to the interests of The Netherlands, Belgium, Ukraine or Australia. If they're not already a member of the JIT, then it is hard to imagine their getting in before their government signs the agreement.
The Malaysians have given many mixed signals. Maybe that's just due to their culture, and maybe it is the result of behind the scene political maneuvering.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Malaysian sources Malaysia is now a full member of the Joint Investigation Team that includes officials from Australia, Belgium, Ukraine and the Netherlands. Malaysia does not have a friendly relationship with the other JIT members, and they are not particularly friendly with Russia and the DPR. Malaysia's independence won't necessarily be interpreted as neutrality. They could be regarded by all others as untrustworthy.
It isn't known whether the price of admission to the JIT included Malaysia being gagged by the same agreement that prevents all other members of the JIT from disclosing any information publicly that is contrary to the interests of any member of the JIT. It remains to be seen whether Malaysia's joining the JIT as a full member is a significant event.
Malaysia a full member of joint probe team | New Straits Times
The wreckage that was removed from the debris field under Dutch supervision is headed to Gilze Rijen Air Base in the Netherlands. This is where the partial reconstruction work will be done by the Dutch Safety Board.
Dutch Safety Board | Investigations & Publication | Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014
It isn't known whether the price of admission to the JIT included Malaysia being gagged by the same agreement that prevents all other members of the JIT from disclosing any information publicly that is contrary to the interests of any member of the JIT. It remains to be seen whether Malaysia's joining the JIT as a full member is a significant event.
Malaysia a full member of joint probe team | New Straits Times
The wreckage that was removed from the debris field under Dutch supervision is headed to Gilze Rijen Air Base in the Netherlands. This is where the partial reconstruction work will be done by the Dutch Safety Board.
Dutch Safety Board | Investigations & Publication | Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014
Ukraine Ignored Warning To Close Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 Airspace Before Tragedy
UKRAINE was urged to close the east of the country to civil aviation days before the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July but ignored the warning.
Sources at Eurocontrol, the organisation that manages Europe’s air traffic, said its experts spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts about the potential threat after more than 20 Ukrainian military aircraft were destroyed by Russian-backed rebels.
The Ukrainians continued to let planes fly over the affected area, however. The sources said Eurocontrol did not have the power to interfere with countries’ decisions.
The revelation looks certain to fuel the anger of the families of the 298 passengers and crew — 38 of them Australians — who died when the plane was shot down on July 17.
Some families are taking legal action against the Ukrainian government for refusing to shut the airspace above the conflict zone. They say there was abundant evidence rebel forces were using missiles that could have endangered civilian aircraft.
In the week before the downing of MH17, separatist militias shot down at least four Ukrainian Sukhoi-25 airforce jet fighters and one Antonov-26 transporter, which was flying at 6500m.
Following the destruction of the Antonov on July 14, Ukrainian authorities raised the minimum height at which civilian aircraft were required to fly over the region from 8000m to 9700m but refused to close the airspace. MH17 was flying at 10,000m when it was hit.
According to a source at Eurocontrol, experts from the organisation identified at least three reasons for serious concern: first that pro-Russian separatists had already downed a number of Ukrainian military aeroplanes using anti-aircraft weapons; second, separatist forces were jamming communication frequencies; and third, there had been a breakdown in communications between Russian and Ukrainian air-traffic control.
Several airlines re-routed their flights weeks before the attack on the Malaysian plane, which is believed to have been targeted by mistake. Several others, including Malaysia Airlines, did not.
Elmar Giemulla, a lawyer acting for the families of four German victims, has filed a lawsuit against the Ukrainian government at the European Court of Human Rights for its failure to close the airspace. He said the lives of passengers had been endangered for financial and political reasons.
“Presumably the Ukrainian authorities wanted to avoid losing the revenue from transit fees — up to $US1 billion ($1.19bn) per year — and also for political reasons, as shutting your airspace means admitting a loss of control and a loss of sovereignty,” he said.
Siemon Wezeman, a weapons expert at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, also criticised the Ukrainians’ failure to act. “Considering the Antonov was shot down with heavy anti-aircraft systems, and how widely they were used in the area, one must wonder why the airspace wasn’t shut down completely,” he said.
There was further controversy last week when it emerged that Dutch authorities had removed from their report into the crash a clause in an earlier version that said Ukraine had raised the altitude level for civilian airlines.
Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for “drastic moves” such as shutting airspace.
“I blame the Ukrainian authorities for not closing the airspace and Malaysia Airlines for not taking a decision to avoid it,” said Robby Oehlers, who lost a cousin in the tragedy.
UKRAINE was urged to close the east of the country to civil aviation days before the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July but ignored the warning.
Sources at Eurocontrol, the organisation that manages Europe’s air traffic, said its experts spoke privately to their Ukrainian counterparts about the potential threat after more than 20 Ukrainian military aircraft were destroyed by Russian-backed rebels.
The Ukrainians continued to let planes fly over the affected area, however. The sources said Eurocontrol did not have the power to interfere with countries’ decisions.
The revelation looks certain to fuel the anger of the families of the 298 passengers and crew — 38 of them Australians — who died when the plane was shot down on July 17.
Some families are taking legal action against the Ukrainian government for refusing to shut the airspace above the conflict zone. They say there was abundant evidence rebel forces were using missiles that could have endangered civilian aircraft.
In the week before the downing of MH17, separatist militias shot down at least four Ukrainian Sukhoi-25 airforce jet fighters and one Antonov-26 transporter, which was flying at 6500m.
Following the destruction of the Antonov on July 14, Ukrainian authorities raised the minimum height at which civilian aircraft were required to fly over the region from 8000m to 9700m but refused to close the airspace. MH17 was flying at 10,000m when it was hit.
According to a source at Eurocontrol, experts from the organisation identified at least three reasons for serious concern: first that pro-Russian separatists had already downed a number of Ukrainian military aeroplanes using anti-aircraft weapons; second, separatist forces were jamming communication frequencies; and third, there had been a breakdown in communications between Russian and Ukrainian air-traffic control.
Several airlines re-routed their flights weeks before the attack on the Malaysian plane, which is believed to have been targeted by mistake. Several others, including Malaysia Airlines, did not.
Elmar Giemulla, a lawyer acting for the families of four German victims, has filed a lawsuit against the Ukrainian government at the European Court of Human Rights for its failure to close the airspace. He said the lives of passengers had been endangered for financial and political reasons.
“Presumably the Ukrainian authorities wanted to avoid losing the revenue from transit fees — up to $US1 billion ($1.19bn) per year — and also for political reasons, as shutting your airspace means admitting a loss of control and a loss of sovereignty,” he said.
Siemon Wezeman, a weapons expert at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, also criticised the Ukrainians’ failure to act. “Considering the Antonov was shot down with heavy anti-aircraft systems, and how widely they were used in the area, one must wonder why the airspace wasn’t shut down completely,” he said.
There was further controversy last week when it emerged that Dutch authorities had removed from their report into the crash a clause in an earlier version that said Ukraine had raised the altitude level for civilian airlines.
Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for “drastic moves” such as shutting airspace.
“I blame the Ukrainian authorities for not closing the airspace and Malaysia Airlines for not taking a decision to avoid it,” said Robby Oehlers, who lost a cousin in the tragedy.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine
blame the Ukrainian authorities for not closing the airspace and Malaysia Airlines for not taking a decision to avoid it
blame the Ukrainian authorities for not closing the airspace and Malaysia Airlines for not taking a decision to avoid it
it's less important who shot the plane
imagine Belgium and Netherlands having joint SAM practice shooting drones from a very high altitude, the authority which lets the civilian plane in that zone would be guilty if that plane is accidentally shot down and it's of less importance if the mistake was from Belgium or Netherlands military
"Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for “drastic moves” such as shutting airspace."
and this is utter BS, because ukraine intelligence sure knew at what altitude their planes got shot down, the only question is if they let the plane cross the dangerous zone with intention of accusing russian rebels of downing or it was just a classic soviet negligence, they are the first responsible in both cases
imagine Belgium and Netherlands having joint SAM practice shooting drones from a very high altitude, the authority which lets the civilian plane in that zone would be guilty if that plane is accidentally shot down and it's of less importance if the mistake was from Belgium or Netherlands military
"Ukraine intelligence sources said they had been made aware that several anti-aircraft systems had crossed from Russia into Ukraine at least a week before the MH17 incident. But they claimed the intelligence was not “100 per cent reliable” and could not have been used as grounds for “drastic moves” such as shutting airspace."
and this is utter BS, because ukraine intelligence sure knew at what altitude their planes got shot down, the only question is if they let the plane cross the dangerous zone with intention of accusing russian rebels of downing or it was just a classic soviet negligence, they are the first responsible in both cases
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pearse's Domain
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They couldn't have achieved the masterful stroke of checkmate if they had closed their airspace!
Sadly, one of the captain's body is still missing! And I don't like this game!
Sadly, one of the captain's body is still missing! And I don't like this game!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that's a separate issue which has to do with politics and this is not a forum about politics
The fact is you are the authority. You have the information about planes being shot from high altitude, being it russian SAMs, russians war planes, aliens, whatever. You don't close that airspace. Civilian airliner is shot few days later. You are 100% guilty, no excuse.
The fact is you are the authority. You have the information about planes being shot from high altitude, being it russian SAMs, russians war planes, aliens, whatever. You don't close that airspace. Civilian airliner is shot few days later. You are 100% guilty, no excuse.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Melbourne
Age: 43
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAM Missiles
Can't imagine how anyone thinks Ukraine are responsible for this. They closed their airspace at altitudes threatened by MANPADS weapons which was how previous aircraft were downed in E. Ukraine. They had ATC control of the airspace over East Ukraine (they didn't over Crimea which was closed). They are not privvy to movements of Russian military equipment inside the rebel controlled area.
Blaming Ukraine for the shoot down of MH 17 is like blaming the police for a murder by not arresting the perpetrator prior to it happening. Absurd.
Blaming Ukraine for the shoot down of MH 17 is like blaming the police for a murder by not arresting the perpetrator prior to it happening. Absurd.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ukraine closing airspace?
To come back on the lawsuit in Germany, it is all about money. Germany was chosen because its legislation is most likely to help the victims in this case. Further, their mention that Ukraine earns a billion US$ on the routes seems way off for me. Remember that Poetin threatened to close down the siberian air routes for western airlines, and newspapers estimated at that time that this would cost Russia about 200 M Euro/yr.
On the other hand, wonder what would be needed to close down an airspace if it is lucrative foreign income for a country? Especially in a country like Ukraine that is technically bankrupt. What solid evidence did they have before MH17? If you take a look at the Antonov crash 3 days before, there is no indication that this is hit by high altitude system. people ejected safely, pilots were captured by rebels (no after action report), movies show an intact plane going down with an engine on fire. All together proves nothing, could have been an engine failure. It would have been different if it had splattered apart in the sky.
Further take into account that a high altitude SAM system in hands of a bunch of rebels is unheard of. Before july 17th, portable sam missiles were the threat to deal with concerning rebels.
I can imagine the Ukraine government wanted more evidence before closing down the airspace. They got it, but not in the way expected.
And before condemning Ukraine, we flew for years over troubles in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, the Gulf, and other regions with rebels below. So Ukraine is no exception.
For me it is clear that the system fault is in countries deciding over the safety of their own airspace. It is the butcher that checks his own meat. There is always danger in this, and aviation history has several comparable examples. Solutions are not easy. Multinational organisations could work, but in general the troubled spots are not connected to these organisations. And where would they get their info.
Even if the rebels shot down MH17 (which is the most likely scenario), Ukraine will be helt responsible for monetary damages, because the rebels do not represent a country but are in fact Ukraine citizens. Only when regular Russian soldiers on Ukraine soil under Russian command have carried this horrible act, Russia can be helt responsible. That is no politics but law.
Certainly, many countries will re-evaluate their policies in keeping airspace open or not, or advising their airlines to avoid certain areas. No doubt MH17 will have impact here.
2nd January 2015 addition: I checked the facts around the downing of the An-26 on July 14th and I have to reconsider part of above:
The An-26 wreckage footage was available on 14th July. The tail clearly shows it has been hit by fragmentation warhead. One of the crew members was able to contact Ukraine authorities to confirm that they were hit by a missile.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine...ssia-1.2706039
So clearly no accident.
However: at that moment it was considered that this was either a Russian Pantsir or even an air to air missile. The Ukraine@war used to claim that it was a BUK missile from Russian territory. But missile trail is to small to fit a BUK. So it is still debated who or what shot it down.
http://ukraineatwar.********.nl/2014...-buk-that.html
http://ukraineatwar.********.nl/2014...-confirms.html
On the other hand, wonder what would be needed to close down an airspace if it is lucrative foreign income for a country? Especially in a country like Ukraine that is technically bankrupt. What solid evidence did they have before MH17? If you take a look at the Antonov crash 3 days before, there is no indication that this is hit by high altitude system. people ejected safely, pilots were captured by rebels (no after action report), movies show an intact plane going down with an engine on fire. All together proves nothing, could have been an engine failure. It would have been different if it had splattered apart in the sky.
Further take into account that a high altitude SAM system in hands of a bunch of rebels is unheard of. Before july 17th, portable sam missiles were the threat to deal with concerning rebels.
I can imagine the Ukraine government wanted more evidence before closing down the airspace. They got it, but not in the way expected.
And before condemning Ukraine, we flew for years over troubles in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, the Gulf, and other regions with rebels below. So Ukraine is no exception.
For me it is clear that the system fault is in countries deciding over the safety of their own airspace. It is the butcher that checks his own meat. There is always danger in this, and aviation history has several comparable examples. Solutions are not easy. Multinational organisations could work, but in general the troubled spots are not connected to these organisations. And where would they get their info.
Even if the rebels shot down MH17 (which is the most likely scenario), Ukraine will be helt responsible for monetary damages, because the rebels do not represent a country but are in fact Ukraine citizens. Only when regular Russian soldiers on Ukraine soil under Russian command have carried this horrible act, Russia can be helt responsible. That is no politics but law.
Certainly, many countries will re-evaluate their policies in keeping airspace open or not, or advising their airlines to avoid certain areas. No doubt MH17 will have impact here.
2nd January 2015 addition: I checked the facts around the downing of the An-26 on July 14th and I have to reconsider part of above:
The An-26 wreckage footage was available on 14th July. The tail clearly shows it has been hit by fragmentation warhead. One of the crew members was able to contact Ukraine authorities to confirm that they were hit by a missile.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine...ssia-1.2706039
So clearly no accident.
However: at that moment it was considered that this was either a Russian Pantsir or even an air to air missile. The Ukraine@war used to claim that it was a BUK missile from Russian territory. But missile trail is to small to fit a BUK. So it is still debated who or what shot it down.
http://ukraineatwar.********.nl/2014...-buk-that.html
http://ukraineatwar.********.nl/2014...-confirms.html
Last edited by blackbird69; 2nd Jan 2015 at 14:06. Reason: 'new' facts require some part of the post to be reconsidered.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 69
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Qantas A380
Blaming Ukraine for the shoot down of MH 17 is like blaming the police for a murder by not arresting the perpetrator prior to it happening. Absurd.
It has been suggested that the Ukrainians carried out an airstrike timed to be right underneath MH17, hoping that the rest would take care of itself.
It's equally absurd to suggest that the Russians or their friends in eastern Ukraine would have the slightest interest in committing such an act.
But somebody did.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Melbourne
Age: 43
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Strike
The concept of a Ukranian air strike on rebel positions from under MH 17 is completely unfounded.
Firstly, a SU-25 can barely keep up with a B777 unloaded and loaded down with armaments can't climb above 16000 feet.
Secondly, if you read the transcripts of the Russian ATC operator at the time he/she clearly states that they see nothing on radar apart from MH17 itself breaking apart and the two other flights in the general vicinity. The Russian presentation about the radar data is a blatant propaganda sell with the "other" target just being the predicted track of MH 17 and the "actual" target being the aircraft itself breaking apart. So there is absolutely no doubt that any of the SU-25 theories are false and all have originated from Russian/rebel sources in any case.
As for the rebels not gaining anything out of the shoot down I agree. It is pertinently clear that they were not intending to down a commercial aircraft and did it by mistake, albeit recklessly.
I don't envy the dutch criminal investigation team trying to track down the perpetrators. There's every chance that whoever launched the missile was trigger happy and did it without exercising due diligence. If so there's a fairly good chance that the BUK crew have probably ended up buried in a ditch somewhere and will never be heard from again. In that scenario Russia needs to be held responsible in my opinion for supplying the rebels with SAM weapons (if they were indeed provided by Russia).
Firstly, a SU-25 can barely keep up with a B777 unloaded and loaded down with armaments can't climb above 16000 feet.
Secondly, if you read the transcripts of the Russian ATC operator at the time he/she clearly states that they see nothing on radar apart from MH17 itself breaking apart and the two other flights in the general vicinity. The Russian presentation about the radar data is a blatant propaganda sell with the "other" target just being the predicted track of MH 17 and the "actual" target being the aircraft itself breaking apart. So there is absolutely no doubt that any of the SU-25 theories are false and all have originated from Russian/rebel sources in any case.
As for the rebels not gaining anything out of the shoot down I agree. It is pertinently clear that they were not intending to down a commercial aircraft and did it by mistake, albeit recklessly.
I don't envy the dutch criminal investigation team trying to track down the perpetrators. There's every chance that whoever launched the missile was trigger happy and did it without exercising due diligence. If so there's a fairly good chance that the BUK crew have probably ended up buried in a ditch somewhere and will never be heard from again. In that scenario Russia needs to be held responsible in my opinion for supplying the rebels with SAM weapons (if they were indeed provided by Russia).
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me for showing this silly propaganda video, but I have been wondering why Dutch investigators left behind so much plane debris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-43NmR9ppBo
Especially, I saw the the right side rear door being collected from the bush, but still it was left behind. Why?
(and yes, indeed, there is no bullet hole shown in the video even when the propaganda reporter so says and those eyewitness reports are silly vs reality)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-43NmR9ppBo
Especially, I saw the the right side rear door being collected from the bush, but still it was left behind. Why?
(and yes, indeed, there is no bullet hole shown in the video even when the propaganda reporter so says and those eyewitness reports are silly vs reality)
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to see so many plane parts left on the fields @Ukraine.
I wonder if it would be possible to fund one truckload extra to be gathered and taken to investigators. Via crowd (& press) funding, perhaps?
I wonder if it would be possible to fund one truckload extra to be gathered and taken to investigators. Via crowd (& press) funding, perhaps?
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, and the witnesses are probably staged. Their faces made inrecognisable otherwise it would be clear that these are not locals.
Further, dutch DSB employees were at the scene during recovery, there is interview footage proving that.
The dutch made clear they will only reconstruct the nose section and the wings, so only these parts are collected. It might be shocking, but in general the debris of a crash is processed in a recycling plant. Sometimes debris is stocked for ten years of so after which it is shredded. PA 103 is unique, and here also only the nose section is reconstructred. I guess they also didn't reconstruct the tail of TWA 800.
Even if your crowdfunding would succeed I guess the extra truck or trainload will not be enough to recover what is left behind and also it would end up sitting on a pile in Gilze Rijen.
Further, dutch DSB employees were at the scene during recovery, there is interview footage proving that.
The dutch made clear they will only reconstruct the nose section and the wings, so only these parts are collected. It might be shocking, but in general the debris of a crash is processed in a recycling plant. Sometimes debris is stocked for ten years of so after which it is shredded. PA 103 is unique, and here also only the nose section is reconstructred. I guess they also didn't reconstruct the tail of TWA 800.
Even if your crowdfunding would succeed I guess the extra truck or trainload will not be enough to recover what is left behind and also it would end up sitting on a pile in Gilze Rijen.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@AreOut
>at what altitude their planes got shot down
btw. is there any info of other than one AN26 being shot from higher than ~5km (manpad range).
The AN26 14.Jul was shot from 6...6,5km and missile came from Russian territory.
So far I'm not aware any BUK caliber missile launch from Ukraine soil before 17th of Jul. I strongly believe that all UA info and rebel info about multiple BUK launchers on separatist hands are fake (there was only one, the one that was photographed very many times, the Bellincat one).
>at what altitude their planes got shot down
btw. is there any info of other than one AN26 being shot from higher than ~5km (manpad range).
The AN26 14.Jul was shot from 6...6,5km and missile came from Russian territory.
So far I'm not aware any BUK caliber missile launch from Ukraine soil before 17th of Jul. I strongly believe that all UA info and rebel info about multiple BUK launchers on separatist hands are fake (there was only one, the one that was photographed very many times, the Bellincat one).
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14th july shotdown
According to the erratum, in the original dutch report it was mentioned that it was an An-24 flying at FL210 (6.4 km)
See
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads...nl-erratum.pdf
I don't understand why it was removed of the dutch translation instead of added to the English document....
See
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads...nl-erratum.pdf
I don't understand why it was removed of the dutch translation instead of added to the English document....
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of curiosity:
What happens with Boeing777 engines when the cockpit is destroyed?
Do the engines retain their thrust as long as they get fuel?
Do fuel pumps continue working if cockpit is lost?
Do engines go idle when control from cockpit is lost?
Do engines shut down when control from cockpit is lost?
What happens with Boeing777 engines when the cockpit is destroyed?
Do the engines retain their thrust as long as they get fuel?
Do fuel pumps continue working if cockpit is lost?
Do engines go idle when control from cockpit is lost?
Do engines shut down when control from cockpit is lost?