MH17 Crash In Ukraine. Known info in OP.

[GTsail]

***
This better hypothesis starts with an air-to-air heat-seeking missile taking out one engine, causing loss of cabin pressure, deployment of masks, and the plane to begin a turning descent during which it was strafed.

Wouldn't the plane be able to fly for a while if only one engine was damaged?

From what I've read in the initial report, all data recordings stopped at a single point in time and there wasn't any time when the plane was flying with only one engine intact.

Wouldn't the flight data recorder show that the plane was flying with one engine for a few seconds at least?

I'm having a hard time making this hypothesis fit with what we know so far.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Dotini]

Wouldn't the plane be able to fly for a while if only one engine was damaged?

Yes. The engine may be in flames and the plane yawing. The cabin air, pumped from the engine, would be disrupted, likely smoky. The pilot would try to descend and so forth, try to land safely. But he was strafed.

From what I've read in the initial report, all data recordings stopped at a single point in time and there wasn't any time when the plane was flying with only one engine intact.

I never saw that data. Communications with the air traffic control I think is still secret, as well.

Wouldn't the flight data recorder show that the plane was flying with one engine for a few seconds at least?

Sure, but who has seen the data? Not me. The Russians have been screaming for it to be made public.

I'm having a hard time making this hypothesis fit with what we know so far.

Respectfully,
GTsail

My hypothesis has its problems, to be sure. At its heart it involves wrongdoing and deceit on the part of the "good guys", never an easy job.

Note: I apologize for my clumsy way of multi-quoting. I don't like to do it, I don't want to do it anymore, and I don't want it done to me, please and thank you.

 

[Venom800tt]

Cabin air for most all commercial airliners comes from ram-air inlets on the belly or near the wing roots of the aircraft. Engine bleed air is only used to drive the air cycle machine, which pressurizes and conditions the outside air before it enters the cabin and cockpit.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Cabin air for most all commercial airliners comes from ram-air inlets on the belly or near the wing roots of the aircraft. Engine bleed air is only used to drive the air cycle machine, which pressurizes and conditions the outside air before it enters the cabin and cockpit.

The air in the emergency masks comes from a number of closed, bottled-or-generated systems. In the event a rapid disintegration of the cabin the source of the normal "cruise" air is as irrelevant as the title of the in-flight movie. Even if it has Ernest Bourgignon in.

 

[Venom800tt]

The air in the emergency masks comes from a number of closed, bottled-or-generated systems. In the event a rapid disintegration of the cabin the source of the normal "cruise" air is as irrelevant as the title of the in-flight movie. Even if it has Ernest Bourgignon in.

Yes. Pilots use bottled air while passengers and flight attendants use chemical oxygen generators. Flight attendants also have access to bottled oxygen if they need to move around in the cabin to help passengers. There are also smoke hoods for flight attendants to use if the cabin is smoky. Pilots use goggles (though they have access to the same smoke hoods) if the cockpit is filled with smoke.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes. Pilots use bottled air while passengers and flight attendants use chemical oxygen generators. Flight attendants also have access to bottled oxygen if they need to move around in the cabin to help passengers. There are also smoke hoods for flight attendants to use if the cabin is smoky. Pilots use goggles (though they have access to the same smoke hoods) if the cockpit is filled with smoke.

Right... and so you're saying... ?

 

[Venom800tt]

Right... and so you're saying... ?

My original post should have been a quote lol. In reference to Dotini stating cabin air comes from the engines, when in fact it doesn't.
I was just saying where exactly typical air sources are when an emergency happens, and what the flight crew can do about smoke in the cabin. I figure most people don't know exactly what the flight crew has at their disposal in the event of fire or sudden pressurization loss.

 

[Scaff]

As for the angle of entry being from above, it must be so, since the flight deck is located high, well up in the top of the 41 section, and the entry holes were inflicted primarily just below the pilot's left window (as well as even higher a few frames aft) where the window and riddled body panel are in the upper left quadrant of the body section. Plus, I recall reading of similar entry holes in the flight deck itself, further confirming the firing angle must have been from above. It is even possible that some entry holes were discovered on the opposite side of the fuselage, or exit holes on the same side, ruling out a single missile explosion or strafing attack. I will allow that a Buk missile could have performed anomalous to specification, and exploded above the aircraft rather than below it.

A missile exploding slightly above the aircraft does not mean it must have come from above the aircraft at all, its perfectly possible for a missile to have been launched from the ground and explode slightly above the front of the aircraft.

Yes. The engine may be in flames and the plane yawing. The cabin air, pumped from the engine, would be disrupted, likely smoky. The pilot would try to descend and so forth, try to land safely. But he was strafed.

Not supported by a single piece of evidence from the interim report at all, rather the evidence from the interim report shows this to be incorrect.

I never saw that data. Communications with the air traffic control I think is still secret, as well.

It was made public as part of the interim report weeks ago.

Sure, but who has seen the data? Not me. The Russians have been screaming for it to be made public.

Then the Russians fail at the internet as its was publicly release weeks ago as part of the interim report. A report that has Russian as part of the investigation team. Given that I find the claim they have been 'screaming' for it to either be an utter fantasy or deeply misleading on the part of the Russians.

My hypothesis has its problems, to be sure. At its heart it involves wrongdoing and deceit on the part of the "good guys", never an easy job.

No at its heart it has the problem that not only is it unsupported by the evidence, but the evidence totally contradicts it and to be blunt regardless of what happened it involves 'wrong-doing'.

Note: I apologize for my clumsy way of multi-quoting. I don't like to do it, I don't want to do it anymore, and I don't want it done to me, please and thank you.

Your multi-quoting is fine and to be honest, given that you are making multiple points per post its the only way to keep the conversation coherent.

 

[Dotini]

Cabin air for most all commercial airliners comes from ram-air inlets on the belly or near the wing roots of the aircraft. Engine bleed air is only used to drive the air cycle machine, which pressurizes and conditions the outside air before it enters the cabin and cockpit.

I said cabin air was pumped by the engines, if you read closely enough.. When an engine is destructed, debris, oil and smoke then gets mixed in with the pumped cabin air.

 

[Venom800tt]

I said cabin air was pumped by the engines, if you read closely enough.. When an engine is destructed, debris, oil and smoke then gets mixed in with the pumped cabin air.

Engine bleed air is only used to drive turbines in the air-cycle machine, it is never actually pumped into the cabin for numerous reasons. Main one being that bleed air is roughly 200°C. Another big reason is if the engine were to fail, that source of air would be shut off. Hence why that engine air is only used to drive the ACM, which uses outside air for the cabin. An engine failure will not cause smoke to enter the cabin or cockpit on pretty much any turbofan powered aircraft.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29548942

Investigators said puncture holes showed small objects had entered the plane from above the cockpit floor.

^^^This drawing needs some work.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You realise that a missile which comes from below a target doesn't necessarily explode below the target? And I pointed out earlier that the drawing needs work, the missile is hugely up-scaled.

It still looks (to me) as if the missile exploded to-the-right-and-above of the cockpit, that would be "above the cockpit floor", right?

 

[terminator363]

You realise that a missile which comes from below a target doesn't necessarily explode below the target? And I pointed out earlier that the drawing needs work, the missile is hugely up-scaled.

With that logic I would say that the plane was flying a little low in this pic:

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Dotini is saying that the plane was struck by an air-to-air missile from above; the fact that the explosion occurred above the cabin floor is the only fact that he has other than his quite-horrible info-graphic showing a SAM with the scale of some ICBMs.

A missile launched from below does not necessarily explode below because the missile is not aimed at the target. You also remember that you're flying through fluid. A physical alteration in altitude in the order of 10s of meters is not unusual at cruise altitudes, if you're flying a missile on an ascending intercept course then it too is subject to the behaviour of the containing fluid.

Bringing two flying objects together on anything other than a parallel course is a very inexact science. That's why missiles try to ensure the greatest chance of success by tracking onto the nose of the target and trying to explode close by. That final detonation can easily be above the centreline of the target by some meters, just as it can be below.

Beech can do all the things claimed on your infographic with the exception of the picture; it doesn't bore into the target (they do explain in the text that it's a proximity trigger).

 

[VolkswagenX]

MH17 crash: Ukraine security chief says missile only Kiev has may be found at crash site
Published time: October 10, 2014 15:47

Emergencies Ministry members walk at the site of a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 plane crash, MH17, near the settlement of Grabovo in the Donetsk region, July 17, 2014. (Reuters/Maxim Zmeyev)

Ukraine’s Security Council chief may have inadvertently spilled the beans, saying fragments of a Buk-M missile may be found with MH17 crash debris. However, the exact missile he mentioned is only possessed by Ukraine, Russian army officials say.

Investigation of the MH17 Boeing-777-200 crash in July will be completed when the remains of the Buk-M air defense missile are found, Valentin Nalivaichenko, head of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), told Ukrainian TV.

Ukraine will fulfill its obligations and identify the perpetrators, who will bear responsibility and compensate for the damage for taking down the MH17 flight with 298 passengers and crew on board, Nalivaichenko said.

“It will be Russian servicemen who used the Buk-M missile” to take down the passenger jet, he said.

A source in Russia’s Joint Staff has commented on the issue to RIA Novosti news agency, saying that Nalivaichenko’s involuntary leak has revealed that Ukraine possesses a modernized version of the Soviet-made air defense complex.

krainian Security Service Chairman Valentin Nalivaichenko. (RIA Novosti/Alexandr Maksimenko)



In the early 1980s, the Soviet Union’s defense industry began production of the Buk-M1, an extremely effective, medium-range missile defense system.

Many of the Buk-M1s were stationed on the country’s western borders, on the territory of three regions in the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, all those systems remained in Ukraine and today Kiev possesses no less than 70 such systems, RIA Novosti’s source said.

According to open sources, the Russian army operates over 350 Buk-M1-2 and Buk-M2 missile systems, with only the latest modified versions developed after Ukraine became independent in 1991 with the fall of the USSR. Russia’s modified versions came into operation in the late 1990s, and now have completely replaced the older, Soviet missile systems.

The Russian military expert stressed that Russia has no “modernized” Buk air defense systems.

Russia operates over 350 Buk missile systems, all of them of the latest versions of the Buk M1-2 and Buk M2, he said.

“When Mr Nalivaichenko mentions a ‘modernized Buk’ system, he probably means an air defense system that was upgraded by the Ukrainian defense industry. We know that Ukraine has been working in this direction,” the source said, adding that the information about the modernization of Ukrainian Buk systems was confirmed in late June on the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s website, which reported renovated missile systems becoming operational.

This happened just a few weeks before the Malaysian Airlines Boeing-777-200 was shot down in Ukrainian airspace on July 17.

According to the source in Russia’s Joint Staff, any unauthorized modification of the electronics of complicated military hardware would do no good, as it would degrade the accuracy of the weapon.

Originally, all Buk air defense systems operated in Ukraine were produced at the high-security Research Institute of Instrumentation plant in the Moscow Region.

“The confusion and inconsistency of Nalivaichenko’s responses leaves no doubt that he mentioned a plan that definitely had not been developed by the SBU, but rather brought in the other day from their overseas mentors,” the Joint Staff source said. “This is Nalivaichenko and his big mouth blunder.”

On the day that the MH17 was shot down, Ukraine’s 156th SAM regiment carried out an unauthorized missile launch, an emergency situation that is being investigated by the SBU and obviously being hushed up by Kiev authorities, the official said.

“You don’t need to be a genius to put together the elements of this puzzle and understand what kind of a picture Mr Nalivaichnko is attempting to sell us,” the source at Russia’s Joint Staff said.

http://rt.com/news/194848-mh17-ukrainian-missile-buk/

 

[TenEightyOne]

http://rt.com/news/194848-mh17-ukrainian-missile-buk/

Source is Russian Defence Staff and RT. Not the most unbiased single source of official Russian policy.

 

[VolkswagenX]

Source is Russian Defence Staff and RT. Not the most unbiased single source of official Russian policy.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Source is Russian Defence Staff and RT. Not the most unbiased single source of official Russian policy.

What are you saying in that succinct yet erudite answer?

That you think it's a good source? That you trust a story worked up on the basis of a politician getting one character wrong in the name of a missile?

I don't quite understand the quote they give either; from the Wiki specs I'm not clear if they're talking about the Beech (BUK) system itself or the missiles... he seems to name the system rather than the ordnance. @Rage Racer might be able to clear that up using his alarming knowledge of native Russian armour.

 

[VolkswagenX]

What are you saying in that succinct yet erudite answer?

That you think it's a good source? That you trust a story worked up on the basis of a politician getting one character wrong in the name of a missile?

You're suprised that >>>Russia<<< today is biased? Many major news sources are biased but, so what? RT gives a Russian perspective on current events and I would expect an 'unbiased' person such as yourself to be happy with multiple sources from different perspectives? A biased view point is not the same as lying/distorting the truth altough I do believe that most major news sources can be suspect in doing that (including RT) .

All I did was provide a news article and it's source and all you did was attack the source while you could have explained what was wrong with the article and why you don't agree it. What kind of response did you expect when you just cried about the source being biased and expected to be done with it? The roll eyes emoticon is an appropreate response imo.

Have you ever watched RT? Sadly it's been replaced by CCTV in the Netherlands but, you can get a 24 hour live stream on www.rt.com and most of their shows get uploaded to youtube on the official RT channel or the programs official channel (breaking The Set, In The Now, Redacted Tonight, etc. ). Breaking The Set is a show that is based on mainstream media bias and the funny part is, host Abby Martin has condamned the Russian 'invasion' of Crimea and was never made to appologize . Not only that, but she has told the viewers in a later show that she stands by what she has said and that RT (evil Russian propaganda network ) gave her full journalistic freedom. She still works for RT.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Did you read the article? You introduced it with just a link and without comment. On reading the article it doesn't have anything in it other than one sentence supposedly uttered by a Ukrainian MP which has then be turned into a full RT blog story.

That's not an opinion; that's what's actually in the article.

 

[VolkswagenX]

Did you read the article? You introduced it with just a link and without comment. On reading the article it doesn't have anything in it other than one sentence supposedly uttered by a Ukrainian MP which has then be turned into a full RT blog story.

That's not an opinion; that's what's actually in the article.

My reply got modded although I believe the 'offensive' parts could have been modded out. Point is that you missed the point and your replies have nothing to do with what I have said. You did not have to point out that RT is a biased source and I have already said that all corparate media news outlets have a bias (RT doesn't even hide theirs) . Many 'indepent' journalist have come on RT (the latest I've seen being Ben Swann) saying just that while even accusing RT of being biased live on RT.

What kind of a reply did you expect when you posted this?

Source is Russian Defence Staff and RT. Not the most unbiased single source of official Russian policy.

You only attacked the source but did not respond to the content. I understand you don't agree with the article but, if you are going to reply, atleast reply to what is in the article or just ignore my post.

 

[Scaff]

It's not the staffs job to edit your posts for you. It's up to you to follow theAUP.

 

[VolkswagenX]

It's not the staffs job to edit your posts for you. It's up to you to follow theAUP.

My bad, just me misunderstanding this part;

This post may have been edited or removed from public view

I understand that it's not the staffs job to edit everyone's posts when they cross the line and I apologize for the inconvenience.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You only attacked the source but did not respond to the content. I understand you don't agree with the article but, if you are going to reply, atleast reply to what is in the article or just ignore my post.

As I've already said; there isn't any content aside from one single attributed sentence. You didn't answer my question; what content do you think there is apart from that?

 

[Crash]

Wouldn't the plane be able to fly for a while if only one engine was damaged?

Yes, the plane will still be able to fly with one engine disabled, and should even be able to land. If an engine was hit, it should disattach from the wing; a safety feature to prevent a large external force on the engine from damaging the wing too much.

 

[Keef]

If an engine was hit, it should disattach from the wing; a safety feature to prevent a large external force on the engine from damaging the wing too much.

Hit by what?

Engines can be sheared off a wing by an impact, obvoiusly, but they're not designed with some sort of detaching mechanism. The force required to break the engine mount if effectively that of running into the ground or water at high speed, i.e. a crash. Note that the engines remained attached to the Hudson river Airbus despite the fact that they impacted the water at its clean stall speed which is around 140 knots or 160 mph.

It's merely a factor of the lightweight engine mount design that it can shear off without damaging the wing. Small bolts, leverage, etc.

 

[Omnis]

Disattach. Is that an engineering word for detach?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Is Tony Abbott going to "shirtfront" Putin?

"You bet I am!", he tells us. I had this momentarily confused with shirt-lifting which seemed to be disastrous diplomacy, even by Abbott's standards.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It's quite possibly the dumbest thing he has ever said. And this is a man who makes Prince Phillip look reasonable.

Does Abbott know Putin has a black belt in judo? If yes, he's very brave. If no, he's very stupid. Shirt-fronting would get you hauled before the AFL judiciary, even if it's unintentional. It doesn't seem to be the wisest approach to diplomacy.

 

[DK]

I'd say Tone Abet had a few pints of Foster's at the time of stating that.