What/Who downed MH17 ?

[TO_FR]

Hello folks.

Since the official report was issued i've been thinking a lot about it.

I don't think i have ever trusted the official story as nobody could have possibly had the full big picture the day just after the crash, despite what lots of people claimed.

The official report makes me think the plane was not downed by a Buk - or a SAM at all - but by another plane, most likely by cannon fire...just a theory...

I'd like to know what serious people think about it.

 

[swerve]

I think you are mistaken. The preliminary, incomplete official report looks to me to be entirely compatible with it being downed by a Buk.

We'll know better when the shrapnel analysis is complete, other investigations done, & the full report issued, but in the meantime, I'd like to point out that AFAIK there's no evidence of an aircraft which could have shot it down being in a position to do so. The claim that such an aircraft was tracked on radar has fatal flaws.
1. The route shown for MH17 does not match recorded ATC tracks.
2. Neither does the apparent other aircraft.
3. The type alleged to have shot it down is -
i. Slower than the airliner's cruising speed even in level flight, but was claimed to have caught it up while climbing.
ii. More importantly, a ground-attack aircraft optimised for low altitudes, & which cannot reach the altitude the airliner was flying at, according to all published data including that from the manufacturer. It's over 2500 metres short.

If someone wished to shoot down an aircraft at that height they wouldn't use that type unless they had no choice. All the players who have combat aircraft in the area DO have a choice: they have aircraft much better at interception at altitude,

 

[Blackshoe]

Hello folks.

Since the official report was issued i've been thinking a lot about it.

I don't think i have ever trusted the official story as nobody could have possibly had the full big picture the day just after the crash, despite what lots of people claimed.

The official report makes me think the plane was not downed by a Buk - or a SAM at all - but by another plane, most likely by cannon fire...just a theory...

I'd like to know what serious people think about it.

Serious people think the cannon fire theory is completely idiotic, to be honest.

The cannon fire would have had to have come from above, based on the preliminary report. That's not going to be a Su-25, and why would you bother using a ground-attack aircraft to shoot down a COMAIR with cannon fire anyway? If you wanted to shoot down a COMAIR (not that I know why you would), it's much easier to just launch a salvo from the ground. The only reason you'd get aircraft involved is if you wanted to VID it first-but then you wouldn't use a Su-25 anyway.

Also, cannnon fire wouldn't lead to catastrophic damage that instantly cuts off the CVR and FDR and causes the forward portion of the aircraft to separate, but a medium-range surface-air missile absolutely would. It also would create the penetration patterns that were seen, which cannon fire wouldn't.

So yeah, someone chucking a missile from a BUK makes absolutely perfect sense for the facts given, whereas anything involving another aircraft is pretty ludicrous.

 

[TO_FR]

/!\

I have never said i thought that "the other theory" involving a Su-25 (i know very well it's a ground attack plane...........) was the truth.

I meant : another plane (i.e MiG or Sukhoï 27) destoyed the tagret.

The report says "Around 1.7 km north of the position where the cockpit window structure was found, was
a section of the cockpit roof also showing holes indicating penetration from outside
(figure 9)"

Which means the roof of the cockpit's roof is believed to have been hit from outside ; that would imply the plane was hit by something coming from above and therefore question the credibility of the Buk theory. Unless those missiles are able to keep climbing past the target and then turn around in order to hit the top of that target...

"Puncture holes identified in images of the cockpit floor suggested that small objects
entered from above the level of the cockpit floor (figure 10)"
How does a SAM hit its target above the cockpit floor ?

I also thought the damage was too minor. The missile we're talking about has a 70kg HMX warhead = 120kg TNT. I guess the front of the plane would have taken some heavier damage, even though it's proximity fused. Now i can't know that for sure.

And since the media has broadcast some bs before, i tend not to trust all their "evidence". ATC records could very well have been forged. No one but the CIA can tell whether they're genuine or not.

 

[swerve]

Are you saying that Russian ATC records given to the investigators were forged? That's an extraordinary thing to say.

Why would damage from above be incompatible with a missile warhead exploding nearby? Do you think that a missile would always fly straight up towards its target & explode beneath it? Why do missiles have proximity fuses? What trajectories do medium & long-range SAMs fly?

Why is nobody expert coming out & saying "it can't have been a Buk, based on the preliminary report"? Think about that.

 

[StobieWan]

The aircraft could have been in turn, the missile could have been fired in a ballistic path and dropped from above (which isn't uncommon in air to air missiles for instance) - or the missile could have been one of a salvo arriving more or less at the same time.

Adding in an intercepting aircraft to the story seems to ask more questions than it answers.

 

[TO_FR]

The aircraft could have been in turn, the missile could have been fired in a ballistic path and dropped from above (which isn't uncommon in air to air missiles for instance) - or the missile could have been one of a salvo arriving more or less at the same time.

Adding in an intercepting aircraft to the story seems to ask more questions than it answers.

Of course an R-77 would have taken altitude before it goes ballistic. But the Buk has a range of ~40km. Now you don't want to fire a missile at its max range, so i guess the missile would have flown ~30km. It is not a S400. I don't think it looks down at any time during its flight.

Also, if the missile had aimed for "the top" of the cockpit it would have had a very little margin for error.
I'm not convinced cannon fire brought it down, an a-a missile would have done the job too.

Now, all this stuff proves nothing i know, it just makes me doubtful.

Also i've been suprised by the media's reaction. The very day after the crash it created a huge flow of hatred against the veeery nasty putin. Not even against the separatists themselves but against russia. The west had "solid evidence" that 1.The missile used was a Buk-M1 and 2.putin and russia had given the rebels the Buk system that shot down the plane. Such accurate info can only be found at the end of a long investigation that is not even finished today...this is too easy.
All this + an interesting report makes me doubt the official story & i'm not the only one. I just want to listen to what those who still believe it have to say to try and make sense of it all.

 

[Blackshoe]

The report says "Around 1.7 km north of the position where the cockpit window structure was found, was
a section of the cockpit roof also showing holes indicating penetration from outside
(figure 9)"

Which means the roof of the cockpit's roof is believed to have been hit from outside ; that would imply the plane was hit by something coming from above and therefore question the credibility of the Buk theory. Unless those missiles are able to keep climbing past the target and then turn around in order to hit the top of that target...

"Puncture holes identified in images of the cockpit floor suggested that small objects
entered from above the level of the cockpit floor (figure 10)"
How does a SAM hit its target above the cockpit floor ?

Because it used a lofted approach, like lots of SAMs do?

I haven't fired many SAMs, but I bet I've fired more than you have, and to me, a shot from a BUK makes perfect sense. We knew the rebels had them (as evidenced by numerous UKR aircraft shot down in the weeks leading up, the rebels claiming they had them on Twitter, and people-including independent journalists seeing the things in rebel held territory), and there's absolutely no reason for the Ukrainians to be shooting down anything.

Someone sending aircraft do to do it makes no sense, since it would be too easy to track/monitor. If there was the slightest evidence of either side sending aircraft up to engage it, they would have released that evidence by now.

I find it fascinating that you asked what the serious people thought about it, the serious people said the idea doesn't work in reality, and you continue to pursue it. You're following a pattern that is, shall we say, "interesting", to say the least.

 

[swerve]

...
Also, if the missile had aimed for "the top" of the cockpit it would have had a very little margin for error. ...ll.

What are you on about? You seem to think that the missile was aimed at a precise part of the aircraft. Oh no!

And against a target at 30 km & less than 10000 metres, why would it not be lofted? How do you think it reaches maximum range? Flying in a straight line? It can go a lot higher than 10000m. Why not use that ability?

 

[Magoo]

How has this thread been allowed to get this far??? :dunce

 

[gf0012-aust]

How has this thread been allowed to get this far??? :dunce

Sorry, troll alert was in hibernation

problem solved

 

[Feanor]

I think you are mistaken. The preliminary, incomplete official report looks to me to be entirely compatible with it being downed by a Buk.

We'll know better when the shrapnel analysis is complete, other investigations done, & the full report issued, but in the meantime, I'd like to point out that AFAIK there's no evidence of an aircraft which could have shot it down being in a position to do so. The claim that such an aircraft was tracked on radar has fatal flaws.
1. The route shown for MH17 does not match recorded ATC tracks.
2. Neither does the apparent other aircraft.
3. The type alleged to have shot it down is -
i. Slower than the airliner's cruising speed even in level flight, but was claimed to have caught it up while climbing.
ii. More importantly, a ground-attack aircraft optimised for low altitudes, & which cannot reach the altitude the airliner was flying at, according to all published data including that from the manufacturer. It's over 2500 metres short.

If someone wished to shoot down an aircraft at that height they wouldn't use that type unless they had no choice. All the players who have combat aircraft in the area DO have a choice: they have aircraft much better at interception at altitude,

There were Ukrainian Su-25s in the area at the time. While it's fairly obvious they didn't shoot down the airliner, the rebel SAM operators may have thought they were firing on the Su-25s.

I haven't fired many SAMs, but I bet I've fired more than you have, and to me, a shot from a BUK makes perfect sense. We knew the rebels had them (as evidenced by numerous UKR aircraft shot down in the weeks leading up, the rebels claiming they had them on Twitter, and people-including independent journalists seeing the things in rebel held territory), and there's absolutely no reason for the Ukrainians to be shooting down anything.

A few details. Russian MoD claimed a spike in Ukrainian air defense radars directly prior to the shoot down. I don't know if any explanation was ever produced, or if the claim was even verified. Also rebel Buks are a little bit sketchy. The rebels captured maybe 2 or 3 TELARs. But the TELARs for the Buk are incomplete on their own. It's also not clear any of the TELARs they captured were in working order. The only other shoot down of a Ukrainian air force plane by a Buk took place near the Lugansk airport. All these things heavily suggest that the rebel Buk sighted in Snezhnoe, the one that probably brought down the airliner, came from Russia.

I ran into a version of events on a Russian livejournal, that claimed that the rebels had engaged a Ukrainian Su-25 with the Buk missile, but the Su-25 climbed sharply, and the missile lost it, and instead re-acquired the airliner. I've never fired any SAMs, and the story was not backed by any worthwhile sources, so I can't comment on it, but I figured I'd mention it.