MH17 Crash In Ukraine. Known info in OP.

[TenEightyOne]

Not even close to "overwhelming".

In between the two, and about half-way I'd say.

The probability based on the genuine evidence (and there's a lot of chaff, no joke intended) is that the plane was hit by a missile or destroyed by a bomb. The greater probability is a missile, especially given the elevated terror alerts at airports in Europe (and elsewhere of course).

My own guess from the wreckage photos and what I can make out of the crash-sites geography is that a missile exploded slightly above and to the right, equidistantly between the wing and tailplane. This shattered the rear cabin from the rear bulkhead to about two struts aft of the wing root, then left the forward section to fall semi-ballistically (the engines and centre-gear trays all seem to be together).

I think the disruption to the forward sections looks more aerodynamic, possibly an effect of RAT deployment exposing the "opened" lower fuselage to a powerful airwave that was, obviously, way outside design parameters.

So where is the missile from? What's your guess? That's not a "smart-***" question, I know you know your stuff on this.

EDIT: I really really scrutinised this vidcap for any signs of victims, I couldn't see any. This clip shows the wreckage being thrown into a truck, appalling appalling stuff from every point of view.

 

[Rage Racer]

You're Russian, so i can't blame you as your media is under Putin's control, but here's a little chronologic summary:

BUK missile launcher, first shown on twitter as captured later deleted by Russian seperatists:

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Russian seperatist leader boasted on twitter of downing Antonov just as MH17 was shot down (tweet later deleted):

http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/4286/20140717/malaysia-airlines-separatist-leader-boasted.htm

Phonecall between seperatists and Russian colonel when they realized they ****ed up:

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukr...pped-conversation-full-transcript-356545.html

Looks pretty overwhelming to me.

Oh, dictator Putin prevents us from turning our brains on.
Well, I am aware that Russian propaganda is 50% lie, but Ukrainian media consists of lie on 80-90% for sure.

None of this is "overwhelming" to me.

1. Deleting has an easy explanation: the DPR commanding could have suspected some of its own fighters. Just like me. They didn't really know who could do it. Again - communication issues. But it doesn't accuse DPR automatically.
Besides, the seized Buk launchers were reported by various sources (including Ukrainian) to be inoperable (reportedly - damaged by UAF troops before leaving the base) before the crash.

2. There really could be an Antonov shot in the vicinity of Torez. And it is likely to be downed by a MANPAD (e.g. Strela-10, which can't hit a target on >5 km altitude), not Buk.

3. This phonecall video smells like fake-ass, honestly. IMO, it's strange how quickly after the crash it was made and published. And, if SBU can intercept militia's communications so easily, I think UAF woudn't be suffering sudden strikes from PMD (People's Militia of Donbass) so often.
And the "Russian colonel" thing: Igor Bezler (considering it really was Bezler) is a retired sub-colonel of Russian Armed Forces, who became a militant commander on Donbass side, but he refused to accept loyalty to DPR. The DPR prime minister, Alexander Borodai, has told that Bezler's squad is not subordinated to anyone...

Besides, it mentions a Malasian student of Thompson University. Who could have known this info? Is it possible to check if there really was such student?..

In between the two, and about half-way I'd say.

The probability based on the genuine evidence (and there's a lot of chaff, no joke intended) is that the plane was hit by a missile or destroyed by a bomb. The greater probability is a missile, especially given the elevated terror alerts at airports in Europe (and elsewhere of course).

My own guess from the wreckage photos and what I can make out of the crash-sites geography is that a missile exploded slightly above and to the right, equidistantly between the wing and tailplane. This shattered the rear cabin from the rear bulkhead to about two struts aft of the wing root, then left the forward section to fall semi-ballistically (the engines and centre-gear trays all seem to be together).

I think the disruption to the forward sections looks more aerodynamic, possibly an effect of RAT deployment exposing the "opened" lower fuselage to a powerful airwave that was, obviously, way outside design parameters.

So where is the missile from? What's your guess? That's not a "smart-***" question, I know you know your stuff on this.

EDIT: I really really scrutinised this vidcap for any signs of victims, I couldn't see any. This clip shows the wreckage being thrown into a truck, appalling appalling stuff from every point of view.

View attachment 188979

Could you please PM me the link to the video?

Well, I have no exact guess yet, but... in the VK community that I read regularly ("Typical Military"), there's a post with a table of arguments against each side (militias and Ukrainian forces). http://vk.com/wall-39695140_834855
I'm gonna translate it and post here.

 

[Dotini]

There was no motive for Russia or the separatists to down a commercial aircraft. It's possible the separatists even lacked the means if the Buk they stole was inoperable.

On the other hand, the Kiev government has a great interest in pinning the blame either on the Russians or the separatists, as they (Kiev) stands to garner more US and European support. And the government had the means, with dozens of operable batteries.

As the neocons, militarists and warhawks in the US are clamoring for more warlike US action, it behooves all cooler heads to resist yet another rush to judgment and a stampede to ever greater conflict.

 

[mister dog]

There was no motive for Russia or the separatists to down a commercial aircraft.

Of course not, they mistake it for an Ukrainian gov. plane and shot down MH17 by accident. Testing the new toy they captured you see...

 

[Dotini]

Of course not, they mistake it for an Ukrainian gov. plane and shot down MH17 by accident. Testing the new toy they captured you see...

In the US, if you leave an attractive toy out where a child can play with it and injure himself or others, you are held liable. Similarly, the Ukraine government left these toys out where the eastern knuckle-draggers could find them. So Kiev bears a portion of the blame. As does the pilot who steered the plane into the teeth of the war. The point is, to resist each and every new incident as a cassus belli for a wider war.

 

[SniperRed3]

For a lie to be convincing it has to include the truth. Meanwhile i'm going to check the wayback machine for the tweet

 

[TenEightyOne]

In the US, if you leave an attractive toy out where a child can play with it and injure himself or others, you are held liable. Similarly, the Ukraine government left these toys out where the eastern knuckle-draggers could find them. So Kiev bears a portion of the blame. As does the pilot who steered the plane into the teeth of the war. The point is, to resist each and every new incident as a cassus belli for a wider war.

In Britain if you leave a sophisticated SAM system out on the street the kids will take that.

 

[Rage Racer]

As the neocons, militarists and warhawks in the US are clamoring for more warlike US action, it behooves all cooler heads to resist yet another rush to judgment and a stampede to ever greater conflict.

^Me reading this

For a lie to be convincing it has to include the truth.

Well, there are some true details that are convincing.
Rebels have seized the Buks - yes, this is true. But it's questionable if they were able to hit a target 10 km high. Not everyone thinks about it.
DPR's official blogs delete posts - true, but I already told why they could be doing that.
Arguments are served to you as the server wants them to be served. But one should never forget to check carefully if you are tried to be fooled...

 

[mister dog]

In the US, if you leave an attractive toy out where a child can play with it and injure himself or others, you are held liable.

Children don't normally go and play in military bases.

Similarly, the Ukraine government left these toys out where the eastern knuckle-draggers could find them. So Kiev bears a portion of the blame.

Well seeing the region was overrun by seperatists i don't think they could do much to prevent that anymore.

As does the pilot who steered the plane into the teeth of the war.

I agree but it is Malaysia airlines that chose to fly over that warzone in order to save fuel costs, the pilot didn't have much say in the matter.

The point is, to resist each and every new incident as a cassus belli for a wider war.

True, sadly both parties (and their sponsors), will use it to gaine an advantage.

 

[Dotini]

...the pilot didn't have much say in the matter.

Respectfully, but this is false. The pilot, the captain always has a say in where he flies. Ask TenEightyOne.

 

[IforceV8]

CNN reported 2 days ago the flight diverted North to avoid a thunderstorm.

 

[mister dog]

Respectfully, but this is false. The pilot, the captain always has a say in where he flies. Ask TenEightyOne.

Don't think he would happily get into fights with his own airline even though technically he has the last say.

About what i raised before, what happened to these people as their plane broke apart at 33.000 feet; death was almost instant due to the conditions and luckily they didn't have to experience the fall:

There are a number of critical physiological problems that would be life-ending, likely within seconds," said Peter Wagner, a physician and physiologist at the University of California, San Diego. "Forget about the fact that you don't have a parachute. You would be instantly exposed to very, very low oxygen levels. Within three or four seconds, my guess is that you would be breathing like hell."

Loss of consciousness and death would soon follow purely from oxygen deprivation to the brain, Wagner continued. At the same time, temperatures of -70 degrees Fahrenheit (-57 degrees Celsius) -- made even colder by the chill of 500 mile-per-hour (805 kilometer-per-hour) winds -- would lead to rapid freezing, beginning with the skin, eyes and other surface tissues.

In response to such extreme stress, your nervous system would go haywire, leading to potentially fatal spikes in blood pressure and heart rate. And the sudden change in air pressure would lead to a nasty case of the bends, as if you were scuba diving and came up too fast.

 

[zzz_pt]

EDIT: I really really scrutinised this vidcap for any signs of victims, I couldn't see any. This clip shows the wreckage being thrown into a truck, appalling appalling stuff from every point of view.

View attachment 188979

So stupid.

 

[Rage Racer]

 

[Sanji Himura]

First, I told already, they could not shoot such a high target without a Kupol radar station. Did they have it?

Without going to insults, I can tell you that they don't need the radar station. I know that quoting Wikipedia is generally a poor resource, but with certain people comparing the Ukrainian government to infowars, I figure it was fair game.

A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle. The battery requires no more than 5 minutes to set up before it is ready for engagement and can be ready for transit again in 5 minutes. The reaction time of the battery from target tracking to missile launch is around 22 seconds.

While the separatists may not have seized a full battalion, they have certainly seized a battery! As was said by @TenEightyOne, a battery without the TAR vehicle makes the BUK a "dumb" weapon. There was certainly no way for the separatists to know that it was a civilian aircraft without the TAR vehicle.

 

[Rage Racer]

Without going to insults, I can tell you that they don't need the radar station. I know that quoting Wikipedia is generally a poor resource, but with certain people comparing the Ukrainian government to infowars, I figure it was fair game.



While the separatists may not have seized a full battalion, they have certainly seized a battery! As was said by @TenEightyOne, a battery without the TAR vehicle makes the BUK a "dumb" weapon. There was certainly no way for the separatists to know that it was a civilian aircraft without the TAR vehicle.

AGAIN:

The Buk could not hit a plane on that altitude without a 9S18 Kupol - universal radar station included in a Buk system squad.
The 9S35 RCS equipped on a Buk launcher vehicle provides missile guidance in 10 km range and 4~5 km altitude. Which means, it could not shoot the Boeing without a Kupol. However, the modern version of the system - Buk-M2 has a radar with phased antenna grid on the launcher, which raises the autonomous range to 18 km. But Ukraine does not have this mod, they possess Soviet-made Buk-M1 only.

 

[Exorcet]

Without going to insults, I can tell you that they don't need the radar station. I know that quoting Wikipedia is generally a poor resource, but with certain people comparing the Ukrainian government to infowars, I figure it was fair game.

The Buk launcher has autonomous capability. But it cannot compare to a unit linked with the search radar. I personally don't know what the limits on the track radar are, but Rage Racer's numbers would make it difficult for a lone launcher to intercept the airliner.

 

[mister dog]

For you @Rage Racer , how the BUK launcher got there, what happened and how the Russians are now busy probably covering the whole thing up (destroying the BUK and probably making the ones that fired it disappear):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lls-claim-PROVES-Russia-shot-Flight-MH17.html

 

[TenEightyOne]

Respectfully, but this is false. The pilot, the captain always has a say in where he flies. Ask TenEightyOne.

Absolutely right, every time.

In this case though it's fair to think that the pilot (or any other pilot in that airspace) would have felt entirely safe in making that perfectly-regular diversion.

Had there been "NOTAMS" (notices to airmen) in force for the area that warned of that kind of risk level then they would have been well aware and the pilot would not have taken an instruction to fly there.

A NOTAM was in place for the area but it only warned against the potential for conflicting instructions from Ukrainian/Russian Air Traffic Control.

@Exorcet, @Rage Racer, @Sanji Himura, what I was trying to say in my befuddled way was this;

The max capability of the system comes when all vehicles are together in optimum numbers (the specs of which I don't fully know). However, I understand that launcher units in groups of that type are capable of being operated on their own... but with obviously extremely reduced radar/targetting/identification capabilities.

It makes logical sense that as a "last defence" a surviving launcher unit would be able to launch missiles in the most basic mode... guess, point, arm, shoot.

How easy that might be for a completely new operator to do I don't know. Maybe the person who fired the missile knew how to use that equipment or similar.

Maybe they got lucky, maybe this was their fifth attempt but we never knew.

EDIT: Article about MH17 and NOTAMs.

 

[andrea]

 

[Sanji Himura]

Please take it down, @andrea for the respect of the families.

 

[Rage Racer]

For you @Rage Racer , how the BUK launcher got there, what happened and how the Russians are now busy probably covering the whole thing up (destroying the BUK and probably making the ones that fired it disappear):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lls-claim-PROVES-Russia-shot-Flight-MH17.html

It's not how it was. It is how they assume it was, and how they tell. They cannot know how it was.

I've told about the "Buk returning video" - there's some info that it could be taken in Krasnoarmiysk, which is under control of Ukrainian forces. I'm not sure if it's true, but there's something to do with the car showroom commercial on the billboard. (It's not TV where I heard of it)
I doubt that the separatists would be carrying the weapon everybody's looking for through Krasnodon (as it's stated), because it borders with Russian Donetsk (a small border town in Russia, not Ukrainian Donetsk), which was attacked by Ukrainian artillery recently, and there are international observers (e.g. from OSCE).
And, why didn't the rebels cover the launcher with a tent? I don't think they are such idiots to leave it exposed and the lack of rockets (1 or 2 - not sure) clearly visible.
BTW, Kiev officials do not comment this vid yet.

About the photo of a Buk on the "launch site in Torez" - well, something interesting, but it must be checked if the place is correct. Seems fishy to me. Lauched from Torez and the plane fell near Torez from 10 km altitude? Hmm... And where's the Kupol RCS?

"Destroying the Buk" - where?

And about the "intercepted conversation":

 

[Sanji Himura]

First off, @Rage Racer, they didn't destroy the BUK that was used in the attack. All that was seen in the videos shown to the public so far that the BUK that was missing two missiles was simply moved back to Russia, nothing more.

 

[ildd]

Here's a google map page with all the Dutch victims and their names and who they were and why they were on the flight. It's still being updated.
(Link)

Uh... Why would you post this?

 

[Xilor]

There are 2 things about this situation that really bother me:

1. When the news that MH17 went down first started to circulate, Ukraine and USA were the first and only ones to claim that it was shot down. Everyone else, including the Malaysian govt. and Malaysian Airlines, were simply saying that they lost contact with the plane, and entertained the idea that it crashed due to mechanical failure up to the point where the first pictures of the wreckage started circulating on the Internet. Was it simply wild speculation on Ukraine/USA's part? Did they have people on the site despite it being deep in DNR territory? Or something else?

2. Why was that airspace open to civilian planes? There are two things to consider, first of all, the DNR militants had taken down numerous military planes and helicopters over the past weeks, so everyone knew they were willing to fire at aircraft circulating in their airspace.

Secondly, the Ukrainian govt. reported themselves in June that the rebels had seized a BUK missile launcher. So its a logical conclusion that the Ukrainian govt. knew the rebels had the ability, and willingness to take down aircraft circulating in that airspace. So why was it open? Obviously the probability of a civilian plane being shot down was extremely low, but when you're talking about the lives of hundreds of innocent people, there's no way that plane, or any commercial flight should have been allowed in that airspace. Regardless of who shot the plane down the Ukrainian govt. can be blamed for a huge amount of neglect over this issue.

 

[Sanji Himura]

There are 2 things about this situation that really bother me:

1. When the news that MH17 went down first started to circulate, Ukraine and USA were the first and only ones to claim that it was shot down. Everyone else, including the Malaysian govt. and Malaysian Airlines, were simply saying that they lost contact with the plane, and entertained the idea that it crashed due to mechanical failure up to the point where the first pictures of the wreckage started circulating on the Internet. Was it simply wild speculation on Ukraine/USA's part? Did they have people on the site despite it being deep in DNR territory? Or something else?

2. Why was that airspace open to civilian planes? There are two things to consider, first of all, the DNR militants had taken down numerous military planes and helicopters over the past weeks, so everyone knew they were willing to fire at aircraft circulating in their airspace.

Secondly, the Ukrainian govt. reported themselves in June that the rebels had seized a BUK missile launcher. So its a logical conclusion that the Ukrainian govt. knew the rebels had the ability, and willingness to take down aircraft circulating in that airspace. So why was it open? Obviously the probability of a civilian plane being shot down was extremely low, but when you're talking about the lives of hundreds of innocent people, there's no way that plane, or any commercial flight should have been allowed in that airspace. Regardless of who shot the plane down the Ukrainian govt. can be blamed for a huge amount of neglect over this issue.

Second question first. The agency that monitors airspace here in America is only responsible for US based airlines. Their warning was required to be heeded by airlines such as American, Delta and so on, but regardless the European based airlines followed the warning because they were trying to prevent this very disaster. Malaysian airlines is a direct agency of the Malaysian government. It was them that decided not to divert around Ukraine to save costs. If any negligence is to be had (besides to the rebels who shot down the plane) it should rest on the airline for flying into an active warzone.

To the first question, the reason why the US claim that it was shot down is because of satellite data that was available to US European Command that was available at the time. Putin just simply beat Eurocom to the punch to inform Obama.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to give you more clarification on exactly how many was on board:

- 185 Dutch with 8 Dual citizens (1 each from Belgium, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, and United States. There are also three dual Dutch-Vietnamese.) All boarded with Dutch passports making the number of Dutch 193.
- 42 Malaysian with one dual citizen (Australia). The Dual citizen boarded with a Malaysian passport making the number of Malaysians 43.
- 26 Australians with two dual citizens (Ireland and the Malaysian mentioned earlier.) The Irishman boarded with an Australian passport, thus making the official number of Australians 27.
- 12 Indonesians.
- 8 British with two dual citizens (New Zealand and South Africa.) Both boarded with British passports making the number of British 10.
- 4 Belgium
- 4 Germans
- 3 Philippines
- 1 Canadian who has dual citizenship with Romania.
- 1 New Zealander

Total = 298

 

[prisonermonkeys]

An Australian journalist on the scene says he can see no evidence that any bodies are being removed by the separatists, and that most of the recovery efforts are being carried out by people who he believes to be Ukrainian officials, though he cannot confirm it. He says the separatists do have an armed presence, and his access was limited, but from what he says, there seems to be an unspoken understanding between all parties - which is probably for the best; the last thing anyone wants to do is make things worse than they already are.

Mind you, he has said that he only arrived there this morning, so it's possible that bodies and wreckage were removed before he got there.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to give you more clarification on exactly how many was on board:

- 185 Dutch with 8 Dual citizens (1 each from Belgium, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, and United States. There are also three dual Dutch-Vietnamese.) All boarded with Dutch passports making the number of Dutch 193.
- 42 Malaysian with one dual citizen (Australia). The Dual citizen boarded with a Malaysian passport making the number of Malaysians 43.
- 26 Australians with two dual citizens (Ireland and the Malaysian mentioned earlier.) The Irishman boarded with an Australian passport, thus making the official number of Australians 27.
- 12 Indonesians.
- 8 British with two dual citizens (New Zealand and South Africa.) Both boarded with British passports making the number of British 10.
- 4 Belgium
- 4 Germans
- 3 Philippines
- 1 Canadian who has dual citizenship with Romania.
- 1 New Zealander

Total = 298

Thanks for this, this once again is quite sad.

 

[TenEightyOne]

1. When the news that MH17 went down first started to circulate, Ukraine and USA were the first and only ones to claim that it was shot down. Everyone else, including the Malaysian govt. and Malaysian Airlines, were simply saying that they lost contact with the plane, and entertained the idea that it crashed due to mechanical failure up to the point where the first pictures of the wreckage started circulating on the Internet. Was it simply wild speculation on Ukraine/USA's part? Did they have people on the site despite it being deep in DNR territory? Or something else?

I'm not sure what you're saying. The aircraft went missing from the public FlightRadar-type feeds at the same time as it went missing from ATC. The ATC records are available to the authorities, nothing about the timing of the accident suggests any delay between it being missing (and in this case that means failing to handover to Russian ATC afaik) and the inevitable (and timestampable) flood of pictures onto social media from the ground-dwelling smartphone owners.

2. Why was that airspace open to civilian planes? There are two things to consider, first of all, the DNR militants had taken down numerous military planes and helicopters over the past weeks, so everyone knew they were willing to fire at aircraft circulating in their airspace.

No, they'd occurred in the lower airspace.

The only advice to any planes was the NOTAM that I referenced a few posts ago warning of inconsistencies in Ukraini/Russian ATC handovers. There was no reason to suspect that planes using the waypoints at/above FL320 were at any kind of risk.

We know that Putin immediately rang Obama. Why? I believe it was for a genuine reason; the Russians would have been aware of this incident for a number of reasons outside the ATC coverage. They would also have been quickly aware of what had happened and the grave potential. I'm not here to defend Putin but he didn't get where he was by being stupid or by being unable to act genuinely at times.

I don't believe that there's anything nefarious in the incident timings. I infer from your second question that a NOTAM should have been very seriously considered and I quite agree, I'm sure that will be a focal point of discussions in the coming weeks and months. I don't know what discussions were had.