MH17 down near Donetsk
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Samara, Russia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left side - actual path of MAS017.
Right side - path of MAS017 according to russian ministry of defence.
Why did they lie about it? As truth could be find out from black boxes and
ukrainian radar recordings.
Right side - path of MAS017 according to russian ministry of defence.
Why did they lie about it? As truth could be find out from black boxes and
ukrainian radar recordings.
According to ATC data, at 13.00 hrs the crew of flight
MH17 requested to divert the track 20 NM to the left, due to weather. This also was agreed by Dnipro Control
It is in accordance with the russian report. While the accompanying picture is... laughable.
You should learn to discern a lie from inaccuracy (e.g. audibly they reported about a soviet-made SU-25 (with the word 'veroyatno' likely, possibly) while in the picture there is an american-made EF-111 :-D )
Last edited by GSOB; 10th Sep 2014 at 11:37. Reason: the style fixed
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 55
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KatSLF
When quoting some outside analysts please put the link so we can take deeper look.
a) damage on the cockpit areas is soot and blistering from a nearby high heat source eg detonating missile, NOT FROM FIRE.
b) there is NO fire or even heat damage on any other parts of the plane, apart from the centre section containing the fuel, which caught fire only on impact.
c) the video purporting to be MH17 falling and spinning on fire was proven to be of an Antonov transport downed 2 days earlier. This has been known since about July 20.
When quoting some outside analysts please put the link so we can take deeper look.
a) damage on the cockpit areas is soot and blistering from a nearby high heat source eg detonating missile, NOT FROM FIRE.
b) there is NO fire or even heat damage on any other parts of the plane, apart from the centre section containing the fuel, which caught fire only on impact.
c) the video purporting to be MH17 falling and spinning on fire was proven to be of an Antonov transport downed 2 days earlier. This has been known since about July 20.
a. An explosion is not a fire? What I said was. Quote: "This would be consistent with charring and staining from the intense heat of the warhead as it exploded nearby."
I think that explanation is both clear and accurate. There was indeed an intense fire from the explosion. Did that fire cause secondary aircraft burning? Most likely. The warhead appears to have exploded to the upper rear of the cockpit, and if fragmentation balls reached the cockpit at a 45 degree angle (against the forward motion of the aircraft) they are highly likely to have reached the wing and fuel tanks too. Fuel tanks and high velocity shrapnel are likely to cause a fire. And since the flight recorder stopped at this time, one can also surmise a large rupture of the fuselage and or electrical system at the same time.
b. How do we know the center section only "caught fire on impact"? It is entirely possible that the center section was on fire in the descent. Do you have contrary evidence? What would make the center section burst into flames only on impact with the soft ground?
c. Which calls into question the sanity of overflying a region where a reasonably high-flying Antonov was shot down by a missile the previous month. And as an aside, are the Russians claiming that the Ukrainians also shot down their own Antonov? The Russian version of events is like a colander, which again calls into question their political and military motivations.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, all operators in the area use identical equipment, so finding pieces of shrapn
At least it could lead to identifying the source of the high speed fragments. That would limit the number of source type probably to a BUk missile. Despite having the same name, being in production for such a long time, different variants, batches etcetera exist, and if lucky, this will further differentiate the source.
Further intelligence would lead to the launch location. The US already has this data, so that would be easier to zoom in on the who.
The US track record on launches is good, they were the first to say that SIberian Airlines 1812 was shot down by a missile, and also the launch of the iskander missile that killed Stan Storiman was detected by the US according to Jeroen akkermans. So I do have trust in this
The identification of the fragments is a first step in nailing the responisible people for this tragedy.
Further intelligence would lead to the launch location. The US already has this data, so that would be easier to zoom in on the who.
The US track record on launches is good, they were the first to say that SIberian Airlines 1812 was shot down by a missile, and also the launch of the iskander missile that killed Stan Storiman was detected by the US according to Jeroen akkermans. So I do have trust in this
The identification of the fragments is a first step in nailing the responisible people for this tragedy.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 60
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://avva.livejournal.com/2788606.html
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ukraine
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
loot at map: left side shows UKCC (DON), and find it to the right were "Донецк" (Doneck/UKCCin russian is written). now compare a/c position.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Mos Espa
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When people think plane must burn after missile hit they think wrong, because it ONE of possible action, but NOT NECESSARY. Often video and photos when target blow up of start buring make with next limits, which wrong for MH17:
1. target is military a/c (mostly jet fighters) - that mean it very compact target full of fuel and ammo and hydraulic/freeze liquids which very flammable
2. old video with Vietnam contain old missiles like SA-2 which have radio-command line and RADIO COMMAND fuse!
3. It mean massive warhead detonating on big distance from target (depend from error of guide radar) and spread alot of strike elements (up to a few dozen thouthands) in all directions or almost all. So when strike elements from big distance meet target they hit almost all target surface (except cause when missile chasing target or fly directly into target - then elements hit mostly aft area with engines so they burn).
In cause of MH17 if missile was 9M38M1 from SA-11 then only nose part of plane (cabin) was penetrated by strike elements because 9N314 generate round field of elements in sector area. Only a few (non-system) elements and parts of missile (nose part with radar/fuse and aft part with engine, also debris from corspe of missile in warhead area and close to it) can shot other parts of plane. Many photo contain very specific area of damage so possible it SA-11.
Strike elements of SA-11 have cube, cuboid and I-beam cuboids.
It very easy to see on my imgur picture
When i seen CNN video i found one specific hole - it definitely cuboid sign of SA-11.
1. target is military a/c (mostly jet fighters) - that mean it very compact target full of fuel and ammo and hydraulic/freeze liquids which very flammable
2. old video with Vietnam contain old missiles like SA-2 which have radio-command line and RADIO COMMAND fuse!
3. It mean massive warhead detonating on big distance from target (depend from error of guide radar) and spread alot of strike elements (up to a few dozen thouthands) in all directions or almost all. So when strike elements from big distance meet target they hit almost all target surface (except cause when missile chasing target or fly directly into target - then elements hit mostly aft area with engines so they burn).
In cause of MH17 if missile was 9M38M1 from SA-11 then only nose part of plane (cabin) was penetrated by strike elements because 9N314 generate round field of elements in sector area. Only a few (non-system) elements and parts of missile (nose part with radar/fuse and aft part with engine, also debris from corspe of missile in warhead area and close to it) can shot other parts of plane. Many photo contain very specific area of damage so possible it SA-11.
Strike elements of SA-11 have cube, cuboid and I-beam cuboids.
It very easy to see on my imgur picture
When i seen CNN video i found one specific hole - it definitely cuboid sign of SA-11.
Last edited by anonymousdefender; 10th Sep 2014 at 12:30.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ silverstrata
a. Heat damage in the cockpit area is only on the outside. The co-pilots chair shows no burn mark, the carpet on the floor shows no burn marks, the business class seats we have seen show now burn-marks. The overhead bins we have seen show no burn marks. So no evidence for secondary fires inside the aircraft, not even in the cockpit
b. The tail section of the aircraft broke up at lower altitude, proof for this is distribution close to main impact point. Tail section parts show no burn marks at all. The tail section, up to door 3 right shows no external or internal burn marks. The crew rest bunks, close to the center fuel tanks show no burn marks. Do I need to continue? Engine fire is not unlikely, but this can also be caused by sharpnel alone.
Further, there is no flame or smoke visible in the sky on the only video that started before the impact. Black clouds only started after explosion when the plane hit the ground.
There was only a fireball from the explosion of the missile, and that's it. No resulting fire afterwards, not traces of fire on the outside. Shrapnel could have penetrated the wings and the engines, but not resulting into fire.
b. The tail section of the aircraft broke up at lower altitude, proof for this is distribution close to main impact point. Tail section parts show no burn marks at all. The tail section, up to door 3 right shows no external or internal burn marks. The crew rest bunks, close to the center fuel tanks show no burn marks. Do I need to continue? Engine fire is not unlikely, but this can also be caused by sharpnel alone.
Further, there is no flame or smoke visible in the sky on the only video that started before the impact. Black clouds only started after explosion when the plane hit the ground.
There was only a fireball from the explosion of the missile, and that's it. No resulting fire afterwards, not traces of fire on the outside. Shrapnel could have penetrated the wings and the engines, but not resulting into fire.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LSZG
Age: 51
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is quite some relevant information. The SU-25 at 10.000 meters with a speed of 400 km/h against the MH17 at 10.000 meters with 900 km/h.
Whoever likes to believe that, , i don't.
Whoever likes to believe that, , i don't.
At least the radar echo, if not faked, is showing another aircraft. Can be a MIG-29 or can even be anything else.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"At least the radar echo, if not faked, is showing another aircraft. Can be a MIG-29 or can even be anything else."
Radar echo is just what it is, an echo. Echo's could come from clutter, reflections, even birds. Being an echo is no proof of being an aircraft. In this case the most likely explanation is that the echo's are parts of MH-17 when it fell apart.
If you have doubts, please read below.
Russian ATC lesson 101 ? the phantom SU25 | who is strelkov - the many mysteries of the Russian Involvement in Ukraine
Radar echo is just what it is, an echo. Echo's could come from clutter, reflections, even birds. Being an echo is no proof of being an aircraft. In this case the most likely explanation is that the echo's are parts of MH-17 when it fell apart.
If you have doubts, please read below.
Russian ATC lesson 101 ? the phantom SU25 | who is strelkov - the many mysteries of the Russian Involvement in Ukraine
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Mos Espa
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What frequency of echo, alt, speed, modulation?
Even SA-11 can separate targets by onboard soviet computer by type - aerodynamic target, aeroballistic and hover/low speed.
It possible by analising of modulation of signal from target by parts of plane, number of engines and rotating parts in it. Qualified personnel can hear difference between targets and even what maneurs target can do.
And i dont talk about acquisition of target on radar... Farina&Studer for who wanna understand how radar plot track on screen.
Su-25 can climb on 10k meters, but airspeed will be much lesser then MH17 speed.
Holes in roof of cabin mean plane with gun had alt more then 10k m. Then this atacker must be shown on Dnipro and Rostov radars (since Rostov radar seen Su-25 on alt=5000m). Also Su-25 altimetr dont have ability for show alt more then 10k m.
About Buk missile which can fly dozen miles after detonating:
At end of video falling aft part of missile, how you can see it cannot fly, but can fall.
Even SA-11 can separate targets by onboard soviet computer by type - aerodynamic target, aeroballistic and hover/low speed.
It possible by analising of modulation of signal from target by parts of plane, number of engines and rotating parts in it. Qualified personnel can hear difference between targets and even what maneurs target can do.
And i dont talk about acquisition of target on radar... Farina&Studer for who wanna understand how radar plot track on screen.
Su-25 can climb on 10k meters, but airspeed will be much lesser then MH17 speed.
Holes in roof of cabin mean plane with gun had alt more then 10k m. Then this atacker must be shown on Dnipro and Rostov radars (since Rostov radar seen Su-25 on alt=5000m). Also Su-25 altimetr dont have ability for show alt more then 10k m.
About Buk missile which can fly dozen miles after detonating:
Last edited by anonymousdefender; 13th Sep 2014 at 14:29.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@silverstrata
Just been pondering over the map illustration on page 21 of the prelim report. The position of the wreckage from the last FDR point is relatively concentrated and of only a short trail parallel to the aircraft's track. Of note and referring to photos of the wreckage distribution there appears to be no main impact crater.
Just been pondering over the map illustration on page 21 of the prelim report. The position of the wreckage from the last FDR point is relatively concentrated and of only a short trail parallel to the aircraft's track. Of note and referring to photos of the wreckage distribution there appears to be no main impact crater.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: cheese
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would be a reason for MH17 to decline the request to go to FL35? Not that it really matters either way, but conspiracy theorist will likely grasp on to this "refusal" as being somehow meaningful.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed indicated on primary radar is radial speed. When sharply climbing, IAS can be much higher. Its is quite normal (by my experience - in times of military service I worked on primary radar). From blip on the screen, type of a/c can not be determine (Su-25/MiG-29 etc). But if it is military plane, it is equipped with special coding transponder, so Russian air defence can distinguish Ukraine military plane.
It is quite interesting, that investigators omit this official information. I don't know if this unknown plane is involved in accident. But it is the only primary radar information available. If investigators consider it not credible enough they should say so.
For me, radar plot is much more credible then pictures from "v_kontakte". I saw too much fakes there... Too much... We heard fake audiofile of rebels "radio communication" (with different timestamps inside pakets), fake wideofile of Buk without one rocket (took in town that was taken by Ukraine army from April) etc. I can easy fabricate any similar "evidence" by one hour. I can hardly believe that the SAR vas launched an there was no witnesses of terrible noise of its rocket engine...
Dnipro and Rostov radars are probably only secondary radars and military planes can not be seen there.
The accident is very politicised and it is impossible to distinguish little pieces of true in mountains of lies.
It is quite interesting, that investigators omit this official information. I don't know if this unknown plane is involved in accident. But it is the only primary radar information available. If investigators consider it not credible enough they should say so.
For me, radar plot is much more credible then pictures from "v_kontakte". I saw too much fakes there... Too much... We heard fake audiofile of rebels "radio communication" (with different timestamps inside pakets), fake wideofile of Buk without one rocket (took in town that was taken by Ukraine army from April) etc. I can easy fabricate any similar "evidence" by one hour. I can hardly believe that the SAR vas launched an there was no witnesses of terrible noise of its rocket engine...
Dnipro and Rostov radars are probably only secondary radars and military planes can not be seen there.
The accident is very politicised and it is impossible to distinguish little pieces of true in mountains of lies.
Last edited by Karel_x; 10th Sep 2014 at 20:11.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
loot at map: left side shows UKCC (DON), and find it to the right were "Донецк" (Doneck/UKCCin russian is written). now compare a/c position.
There was a maneuver to avoid weather, taking the plane 20nm to the left, it's kinda reflected on the Russian map which starts tracking MH17 around Donetsk, so what's the problem?
Dutch were obviously not going to include that slide from Russian MOD presentation and Russians probably didn't send them any maps, just the data, so Dutch put the Ukrainian one in the report, what's wrong with this?
This map does not claim to show plane's course plotted from either primary or secondary radars so we shouldn't read too much into it.
Karel_x wrote
You seem behind the curve. You do realize that the Russian analysis of that video was wrong.
From the Russian brief. English translation from Russian Embassy in UK.
Special Briefing by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 in the Ukrainian air space, July 21, 2014
Not Krasnoarmeisk but Lugansk. The question arises as to why the Russians got the geo-location so wrong and lied about the car advert having a Krasnoarmeisk address?
The junction in Lugansk where the video was taken.
https://goo.gl/maps/Ltvqx
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cla...-3#post-117606
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cla...-3#post-117620
fake wideofile of Buk without one rocket (took in town that was taken by Ukraine army from April)
From the Russian brief. English translation from Russian Embassy in UK.
The good example of such fact is that some mass media showed transportation of the Buk-M1 missile system from Ukrainian to Russian territory.We can clearly see that its frame-up. These pictures were made in the city of Krasnoarmeisk that is confirmed by a banner situated close to the road. This banner has an address of the car shop situated at the Dnepropetrovskaya, 34. Since May 11 the Krasnoarmeysk city is under control of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Not Krasnoarmeisk but Lugansk. The question arises as to why the Russians got the geo-location so wrong and lied about the car advert having a Krasnoarmeisk address?
The junction in Lugansk where the video was taken.
https://goo.gl/maps/Ltvqx
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cla...-3#post-117606
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cla...-3#post-117620
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ukraine
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
primary radar data
secondary radar data
MOSE-S data.
problem is that they faked route before abeam of Donetsk.
look at their presenation again:
??????? ?????????? ?? ?? ?????????? Boeing 777_ 21 07 2014 - YouTube
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 60
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Explanation of the separation
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: 40 North 75 West
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TEEEJ
The billboard did have a Krasnoarmyesk address. They actually naively (at best) or purposely misleading (at worst) believed that the billboard with the address visible of a car dealership in Krasnoarmeysk had to be located in Krasnoarmeysk. It obviously makes more sense to advertise in nearby towns rather than in the town you're located in - which was the case verified by other photographs.
And yes the ID of the video at the intersection in Lughansk is accurate.
Not Krasnoarmeisk but Lugansk. The question arises as to why the Russians got the geo-location so wrong and lied about the car advert having a Krasnoarmeisk address?
The junction in Lugansk where the video was taken.
The junction in Lugansk where the video was taken.
And yes the ID of the video at the intersection in Lughansk is accurate.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 60
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it didn't. Explanation in Q17 at FAQ and addendum to it (containing picture of the ad): the billboard was an ad for JAC J5 car assembled by Bogdan car factory in Ukraine. The ad contained words in Ukrainian "national autodealer Bogdan". Apparently, Russian Ministry of Defence searched for those words and found a car seller Bogdan in Krasnoarmejsk, unrelated to the car factory Bogdan.
Bogdan is an Ukrainian first name (literal translation "given by god").
Bogdan is an Ukrainian first name (literal translation "given by god").
