MH17 down near Donetsk
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Gdansk, Poland
Age: 47
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If flight MH17 was downed by a SA-11 (...)"
And what could be any other cause ??
The evidence (as seen on pictures of plane parts) shows that a passenger plane flying at high altitude on eastern course was destroyed by detonation of big fragmentation warhead very close to the cockpit area ( distance was few meters at most - the small area of scorched and burned surface and pattern of the shrapnel holes says that).
This could be only SAM or AAM (with fragmentation warhead) and it could not came from the west (the proximity fuse would trigger much earlier then, hitting the rear or center part of the plane).
The fact that missile detonaded passing very close to the cockpit area suggests a nearly head-on intercept course (missle aiming at the target's radar "center-of-mass" - we don't know where it was at this angle aspect, probably somwhere near central part of the plane, but possible radar reflectors are also wing leading edges, whole engines and cockpit with it's windows and front radome). The rest of the plane surface is much less radar-reflective. Missile steers with some possible final miss distance, too. On it's way the missile passes near cockpit and proximity fuse works on.
If we exclude possibility of heavy AAM (with fragmentation warhead) fired by a fighter plane from the eastearn direction, the only other possibility is a SAM with big fragmentation warhead fired from the east too. The Buk system was reported to be in place and shooting other aircrafts, it is said that sattelite data confirms a SAM intercept, not AAM by plane.
Any other weapon (guns) or inside explosion (bomb) doesn't fit to known damage of cockpit area.
And what could be any other cause ??
The evidence (as seen on pictures of plane parts) shows that a passenger plane flying at high altitude on eastern course was destroyed by detonation of big fragmentation warhead very close to the cockpit area ( distance was few meters at most - the small area of scorched and burned surface and pattern of the shrapnel holes says that).
This could be only SAM or AAM (with fragmentation warhead) and it could not came from the west (the proximity fuse would trigger much earlier then, hitting the rear or center part of the plane).
The fact that missile detonaded passing very close to the cockpit area suggests a nearly head-on intercept course (missle aiming at the target's radar "center-of-mass" - we don't know where it was at this angle aspect, probably somwhere near central part of the plane, but possible radar reflectors are also wing leading edges, whole engines and cockpit with it's windows and front radome). The rest of the plane surface is much less radar-reflective. Missile steers with some possible final miss distance, too. On it's way the missile passes near cockpit and proximity fuse works on.
If we exclude possibility of heavy AAM (with fragmentation warhead) fired by a fighter plane from the eastearn direction, the only other possibility is a SAM with big fragmentation warhead fired from the east too. The Buk system was reported to be in place and shooting other aircrafts, it is said that sattelite data confirms a SAM intercept, not AAM by plane.
Any other weapon (guns) or inside explosion (bomb) doesn't fit to known damage of cockpit area.
Last edited by amizaur; 1st Aug 2014 at 18:21.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A screenshot (taken not by me) of a witness' confession:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bs5C9rVCcAALAz8.png
Translation: at a Snezhnoe town local web-community, on July 17:
- Yesterday that Buk was towed through the center of our town. (invective), we forgot ourselves in playing war games. I hate myself.
- I'm not sure that it was that same Buk.
- I saw the rocket launch myself, then I rejoiced at knocking out the Ukrainians. I repent before God.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bs5C9rVCcAALAz8.png
Translation: at a Snezhnoe town local web-community, on July 17:
- Yesterday that Buk was towed through the center of our town. (invective), we forgot ourselves in playing war games. I hate myself.
- I'm not sure that it was that same Buk.
- I saw the rocket launch myself, then I rejoiced at knocking out the Ukrainians. I repent before God.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Antipodes Islands
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lightning in region
This archive shows lightning present in Central Ukraine, and in Eastern Ukraine shortly before MH17 passed over.
http://www.lightningmaps.org/blitzortung/europe/index.php?bo_page=archive&bo_hour_range=24&bo_oldmap=0&bo_ol dani=0&bo_map=0&bo_year=2014&bo_month=7&bo_day=17&bo_hour_fr om=13&bo_animation=1&lang=en#bo_arch_strikes_maps_form
http://www.lightningmaps.org/blitzortung/europe/index.php?bo_page=archive&bo_hour_range=24&bo_oldmap=0&bo_ol dani=0&bo_map=0&bo_year=2014&bo_month=7&bo_day=17&bo_hour_fr om=13&bo_animation=1&lang=en#bo_arch_strikes_maps_form
Last edited by Mahatma Kote; 1st Aug 2014 at 01:48. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Washstate
Age: 79
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PUUHHHLEESE
There are many previous posts in this thread re the missile vs fighter theories
Most all re fighter have been debunked.
There have also been posts re the typical buk missile flight profile which seem to summarize as follows
a) very high speed M= 3 plus
b) very high altitude capability 70 to 80 K feet
c) flight profile via radar and proximity mention the missile typically leads the aircraft, dives on it from a higher altitude and explodes via proximity and/or contact
d) left side Cockpit damage AND shrapnel " skid' marks on left wing UPPER surface indicate that missile was at at wing level or slightly above when detonated
e) not so obvious is that almost any kind of ' corner' angle of aluminum makes a good reflector- consider the wing to body junction for instance
f) U.S tracking claims it was a missile
ALL of which support a missile from a general head on position.
g) what remains to be proven is WHO and WHY fired.
Most all re fighter have been debunked.
There have also been posts re the typical buk missile flight profile which seem to summarize as follows
a) very high speed M= 3 plus
b) very high altitude capability 70 to 80 K feet
c) flight profile via radar and proximity mention the missile typically leads the aircraft, dives on it from a higher altitude and explodes via proximity and/or contact
d) left side Cockpit damage AND shrapnel " skid' marks on left wing UPPER surface indicate that missile was at at wing level or slightly above when detonated
e) not so obvious is that almost any kind of ' corner' angle of aluminum makes a good reflector- consider the wing to body junction for instance
f) U.S tracking claims it was a missile
ALL of which support a missile from a general head on position.
g) what remains to be proven is WHO and WHY fired.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at photos of the debris I'm puzzled by evidence of such a profusion of pitting around the cockpit area and relatively little elsewhere. Is that an expected outcome from such a blast?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of AN-26 shot down a day or two before MH17. It was widely reported that it was flying at 6000 m or higher, above the range of most portables SAMs, so a BUK may have had something to do with it. In the videos of the BUK on the trailer being moved around, we see only one missile missing. Did the rebels have more than one BUK? Where is the wreckage of the AN-26? Who controls that area? Is there an investigation of what downed the AN-26 by the Ukraine authorities?
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 Speedstra
Yes, that's the key point, agree. But until the fragments are found physically and thoroughly analysed, we can't say for sure. Pictures with traces are not enough to serve as a 100% evidence...
Yes, that's the key point, agree. But until the fragments are found physically and thoroughly analysed, we can't say for sure. Pictures with traces are not enough to serve as a 100% evidence...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes they are!
If the debris shows a certain distribution pattern of shrapnel. That is bona fide, hard, physical evidence. And if that pattern points to something other than the typical pattern of an R-27, then that rules out the R-27 with enough certainty to move on to the next likely suspect. Yup, the SA-11.
Far more convincing than your suppositions.
Seriously, you're grasping at straws. Your conspiracy has been debunked. Suck it up and go find a new method of blaming someone else.
If the debris shows a certain distribution pattern of shrapnel. That is bona fide, hard, physical evidence. And if that pattern points to something other than the typical pattern of an R-27, then that rules out the R-27 with enough certainty to move on to the next likely suspect. Yup, the SA-11.
Far more convincing than your suppositions.
Originally Posted by A_Van
But until the fragments are found physically and thoroughly analysed, we can't say for sure
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-m...l/IMG_0688.jpg
and here:
http://s18.postimg.org/4r8wbeybt/shrap.jpg
Can anybody identify if this part is from ahead or aft of the entry door?
There are images from EOSDIS which show cloud cover at around 11:35 UTC but this is obviously not ideal. There may be other sources with a better time match.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worl...5742,53.334961
This image was captured at approx 11:35 to the left of the central line and approx 9:55 UTC to the right.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worl...5742,53.334961
This image was captured at approx 11:35 to the left of the central line and approx 9:55 UTC to the right.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consider the ramifications if the Ukraine had indeed shot down Pres. Putin? This would have triggered a full on immediate invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces. I just don't see that as a valid strategy of the Ukrainian gov. Also even though the two jets looked remarkably similar in finish details any pilot can identify a 777 from miles away without seeing the detailed paint colors,
There may well have been fighter/bombers in the area considering the campaign
and the blast patterns are puzzling for sure, but I don't believe the fighter jet shoot down theory has much credence.
There may well have been fighter/bombers in the area considering the campaign
and the blast patterns are puzzling for sure, but I don't believe the fighter jet shoot down theory has much credence.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 Olasek
You may not believe that but "Moscow TV" (even some chauvinistic channels which I hate) never elaborated on this idiotic conspiracy addressing the "attempt to shoot down the Putin's plane".
Regarding the "Russian invasion": The time for that option has gone long ago. Putin had already announced some 2 months ago he would not give such an order. Also the Russian parliament withdrew its formal permission to the president to use the military force abroad (read, in Ukraine). If they really needed that, it would be done in spring and took a couple of days.
I am not a fan of the current policy being carried out in Russia, but there is understanding here that "the stakes we are gambling are frighteningly high".
IMHO, now those rebels are a problem for Putin and actually he never liked them much. Recall that when they announced a referendum to separate from Ukraine (in March) Putin said "do not do that". They ignored his advice and arranged some chaotic voting. I am sure he was angry. Especially as the Ukrainian pres. candidate promised at that time he would not ban the Russian language in that part of the country (the point that actually started the fire) and that seemed enough for Kremlin. Then the rebels were asking for a military invasion in south-east and the answer was again "no". After that some voices were heard from there that the "rebels condemned Kremlin " who "let them down" and obviously it was not appreciated.
You may not believe that but "Moscow TV" (even some chauvinistic channels which I hate) never elaborated on this idiotic conspiracy addressing the "attempt to shoot down the Putin's plane".
Regarding the "Russian invasion": The time for that option has gone long ago. Putin had already announced some 2 months ago he would not give such an order. Also the Russian parliament withdrew its formal permission to the president to use the military force abroad (read, in Ukraine). If they really needed that, it would be done in spring and took a couple of days.
I am not a fan of the current policy being carried out in Russia, but there is understanding here that "the stakes we are gambling are frighteningly high".
IMHO, now those rebels are a problem for Putin and actually he never liked them much. Recall that when they announced a referendum to separate from Ukraine (in March) Putin said "do not do that". They ignored his advice and arranged some chaotic voting. I am sure he was angry. Especially as the Ukrainian pres. candidate promised at that time he would not ban the Russian language in that part of the country (the point that actually started the fire) and that seemed enough for Kremlin. Then the rebels were asking for a military invasion in south-east and the answer was again "no". After that some voices were heard from there that the "rebels condemned Kremlin " who "let them down" and obviously it was not appreciated.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vector of the missile ?
These two Akkermanns Images how the same item from different angles.
I think I identified the front skin above the starboard windshield. It has shrapnel and soot from the inside.
I added an image of the forward bulkhead with soot from here:
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/drugo...7_original.jpg
Click on image for larger version:
The cockpit assembly image is from here:
http://www.patrasevents.gr/imgsrv/f/full/889451.jpg
I think I identified the front skin above the starboard windshield. It has shrapnel and soot from the inside.
I added an image of the forward bulkhead with soot from here:
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/drugo...7_original.jpg
Click on image for larger version:
The cockpit assembly image is from here:
http://www.patrasevents.gr/imgsrv/f/full/889451.jpg
Last edited by OleOle; 2nd Aug 2014 at 02:03.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, I think you have got it right. It looks like a large amount of structure was deformed or opened up by the pressure wave (the crown skin in other pictures is pressed in between frames), and the impact with the ground has caused it to splay out.
From the account of the B-52 flier here and some other pictures around of SAM damage it does appear that the missile was extraordinarily close when it fused.
The front of the cockpit looks like such a strong structure, too.
From the account of the B-52 flier here and some other pictures around of SAM damage it does appear that the missile was extraordinarily close when it fused.
The front of the cockpit looks like such a strong structure, too.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Midpoint between equator and North Pole
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may not believe that but "Moscow TV" (even some chauvinistic channels which I hate) never elaborated on this idiotic conspiracy addressing the "attempt to shoot down the Putin's plane".
You are not truthful.
Russian media launched this theory with the reference to a source in the Russian state authority, RosAviation.
TV included. E.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2lgMGzn498
You can see that this theory actually was elaborated by the Russian state TV.
Please, stop spreading propaganda, it's a professional forum here.
You are not truthful.
Russian media launched this theory with the reference to a source in the Russian state authority, RosAviation.
TV included. E.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2lgMGzn498
You can see that this theory actually was elaborated by the Russian state TV.
Please, stop spreading propaganda, it's a professional forum here.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Midpoint between equator and North Pole
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of AN-26 shot down a day or two before MH17. It was widely reported that it was flying at 6000 m or higher, above the range of most portables SAMs, so a BUK may have had something to do with it. In the videos of the BUK on the trailer being moved around, we see only one missile missing. Did the rebels have more than one BUK? Where is the wreckage of the AN-26? Who controls that area? Is there an investigation of what downed the AN-26 by the Ukraine authorities?
1. The official Ukrainian version from the very beginning (at least from July 15) was that the An-26 was shot down from Russian territory, not by the separatists. Buk was not mentioned in the official statement. Strong suspicion was on a Russian fighter jet.
2. Rebels did not and do not have a Buk launcher. The one that shot down the MH17 was brought to Ukraine and returned back to Russia within one day, July 17. The only missile spent was on the MH17.
Rebels are in possession of two or three disabled (scrapped) Buk launchers. No missiles though.
3. The An-26 wreckage is in a field near Lugansk.
4. Rebels control the area.
5. There was no any information about such an investigation. Definitely, some military investigation has to be conducted, I mean an operational aspect.
1. The official Ukrainian version from the very beginning (at least from July 15) was that the An-26 was shot down from Russian territory, not by the separatists. Buk was not mentioned in the official statement. Strong suspicion was on a Russian fighter jet.
2. Rebels did not and do not have a Buk launcher. The one that shot down the MH17 was brought to Ukraine and returned back to Russia within one day, July 17. The only missile spent was on the MH17.
Rebels are in possession of two or three disabled (scrapped) Buk launchers. No missiles though.
3. The An-26 wreckage is in a field near Lugansk.
4. Rebels control the area.
5. There was no any information about such an investigation. Definitely, some military investigation has to be conducted, I mean an operational aspect.
Last edited by ASIP; 2nd Aug 2014 at 12:05.