I noticed the pinger was missing too!?! Should this happen?? makes you wonder the point of the MH370 search if it might not even be attached to the FDR.

"And yeah, the murderous thugs that shot them down are evil beyond belief, but that's war for you...trouble is we've stopped calling it war now...that's an inconvenience as well."

mistakes like this happened to russian military (on several occasions), ukrainian, czech, yugoslavian and even american, some of those even during the peacetime

so we can't call them evil murderous thugs because of the shooting, however handling of the incident and not accepting responsibility is what makes them such, but we should have in mind several of aforementioned countries also didn't accept it...

Tweet from ABC's Moscow correspondent:

Arguably shouldn't happen, but has done in the past.

Summing up
 

It's hard getting an overall picture from all the conjecture, and, lets face it, propaganda written here. Here is an attempt at a summary of the facts and evidence we actually have so far of the crash itself:
1) MH17 crashed, apparently shot down by a SAM.
2) President Obama states the US has intelligence that it was shot down by a missile provided by Russia, but provides none of that evidence.
3) Reports state that the so-called "pro-Russian militias"* have acquired Ukrainian AA regiment(s), including up to 100 BUK missiles. This ties in with the fact that the Crimean and eastern Ukraine population is predominantly Russian-speakers, and pro-Russian, so that when seceding, any military installations in the region would most likely immediately fall into "rebel"* hands.
4) The Russian MoD has held a press conference showing evidence that
- the Ukrainian military had maximum radar activity and an AA installation in the area at the time of the crash,
- MH17 changed course just before crashing,
- there was another unidentified military aircraft in the vicinity of MH17 when it went down,
- social media pictures of an AA vehicle fleeing the area afterwards had the wrong type of armament, and was not in the city it was claimed.
The Russian MoD also asked the US to present its evidence, and stated clearly that Russia had not supplied arms to the so-called pro-Russian militias*.
5) The tail of the 777 broke off in air, and the main part of the fuselage fell with both engines still attached, and fuel tanks apparently intact.
6) Photos have been published showing damage apparently caused by shrapnel/fragmentation of AA weapon, to a part of a wing and the port side of the 777 cockpit.
7) There has been a leak that the US intelligence actually implicates the AA installation responsible was manned by Ukrainian troops, possibly lacking discipline, rather than "pro-Russian rebels"*.

* the political reality in Ukraine at the moment is complex and confused. Labels given to groups participating in the conflict tend to reflect the writers' opinions rather than the truth on the ground.

I think I have summed up all the hard evidence we can count on at the moment, though I would welcome being corrected.

Interesting read.

New Statesman | If you lived in Russia, this is what you?d believe about the crash of MH17

R60 is IR - would go for an engine. Also a much much smaller warhead (than a BUK), would take out an engine, might not be fatal (much smaller civilian aircraft have survived). It _might_ take out a wing, and I think there are some witness reports of the plane falling with a wing off. However, that wouldn't account for the damage shown to cockpit fuselage panels in the photos, and I am not convinced it would account for breakup of the fuselage at altitude and bodies falling away from the main wreckage. My feeling is a BUK looks a lot more likely.

Do the shrapnel/fragmentation damage to the (left) underside wing and (left) side port of the cockpit suggest that the missile was zooming up to the A/C from its left side ?

Clarification and please give links
 

My list of evidence was gleaned from reading all the info on this thread, and trying to filter out all the conjecture, opinion and conspiracy theories. The fact I have mentioned a piece of evidence should not be construed as indicating it is true; only that it is there.

The "leak" you have referred to has been assigned to an award-winning investigative journalist. If he comes out and refutes the claims of the "3-rd rate media outlets" then of course it ceases to be evidence.

When you say "The media I trust more", please give us a link, because in this thread I have seen no media which say

The missile will normally be guided to lead (rather than lag it as might happen in a pure pursuit) the target, and it was likely in the front quarter so it might be expected that the nose took the brunt of a proximity detonation. It's not easy to tell but the cockpit window skin looks sooted and very badly damaged, a bit like the 'shatter zone' mentioned in the PA103 report.

As for it falling largely intact apart from the empennage, I'm not so sure. There were some very large pieces away from the main site - a row of seats and associated cabin items landed in someone's allotment.

Whatever damage to the aircraft may be academic as if the above scenario did occur there is a good possibility the crew were incapacitated immediately.

Edit - Have those pieces from the previous page's photos been moved from where they fell? They have been burnt at the extremities, and the window frame has a pattern that I thought might be mud but it actually looks like a gas path.

Well in the US the media that has reported this, including vidoes is;

ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC and Fox.

None of which is controlled by the government. Although NBC is questionable.

For example here but you can find it really anywhere. Also listen what John Kerry said (I hope you know who he is), he mentioned what kind of intelligence US has and who this missile battery belonged too. Or what British Prime Minister Cameron said. And forget stupid journalists, specially 'award winning' (I bet some Russian journalists) who like to engage in inventing truth. If you don't smell an obvious fabrication when somebody claims there are photos with missile launcher and beer bottles - I can only feel sorry.

U.S. Points to Russian Missile Connection in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Crash - WSJ

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rder-town.html

I have heard that the missile in question has an expanding rod warhead. Would this not leave a very readable signature on the target (Linear perforation) and some easily identified pieces on the ground?

I have read that it doesn't have an expanding rod warhead, but there is one piece of wreckage that does seem to show signs of being ripped through by something. Although that being said, it could have been damaged by other debris, cabling or the likes.

HERE

I believe I read this was an older warhead, a fragmentation type instead of the expanding rod type.

I've been wondering if/how a fragmentation missile would cause a plane, as big as a T7, to come apart in the air. From what I've read the 154 pound warhead fragments and bits go everywhere at crazy speeds so it cuts through whatever it hits. I read somewhere that the proximity fuse activates at around 100 meters (or it might have been yards). The impacts in the parts look like golf ball size and smaller, are there also some larger bits of frag that could chop off whole sections of a T7?

I can easily see how it will bring down the plane, cutting hydraulics, killing the pilots, destroying components, etc. But what actually causes the entire tail to separate at altitude? Is it from aerodynamic forces when/if the plane changes orientation with respect to the 500 plus mph slipstream. Is the concussive blast sufficient to move the plane, lop off the tail, etc. ? Or is it just the fragmentation that does the damage ? I have some understanding and experience with radar and tracking systems but no experience with explosives. I'm just curious. I suppose it's morbidly curious but the engineer in me would like to know. thanks.

I hope by "components" you also mean such vital pieces of fuselage/wing construction as spars or ribs - they carry all the loads - you can only sufficiently weaken some of them in few places and aerodynamic forces plus 'zipper' effect will do the rest and the whole thing will unravel in midair.

It's easy to forget the speeds modern air transports fly at. Once structural integrity goes physics will do the rest.

The missile does not even have to 'destroy' the plane, a loss of control is enough to Overstress it.

The expanding-rod warhead (like a wristwatch band) is hardly a "new" design. As a student engineer I worked at Bendix Missile Systems and became familiar with the SAM-N-6 RIM-8 Talos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia design. Its expanding-rod warhead dated to at least the mid-50s.

PA103 broke the tail off due to aerodynamic forces following the loss of the nose.

These forces were in a pitch down mode and also acted on the engine fans as well

Somewhat academic if the DFDR doesn't show anything.