Flight MH17 Downed By 'High-Energy Objects

originally posted by: bjarneorn
Everyone here, or close ... knows the above is either a product of your utter ignorance, or that you are just lying with your eyes open.

Stick to the facts ...

You really do have issues with reading and ignoring facts dont you?

Prelim Findings of Dutch investigation - PDF

From Page 11 -

On 17 July 2014, a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-2H6ER operating as flight MH17, departed
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol in the Netherlands at 10.31 hrs on a scheduled passenger
flight to Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Malaysia. Malaysia Airlines had determined
and filed the flight plan for flight MH17, which was approved by all involved air traffic
control centres for their concerned regions. According to the flight plan, flight MH17
would initially fly at Flight Level 330 (FL330)above Ukraine until the waypoint PEKIT,
which is on the Flight Information Region (FIR) boundary between Kiev FIR (UKBV) and
Dnipropetrovs’k FIR (UKDV). From waypoint PEKIT the flight plan indicates FL350 for the
remaining part over Ukraine.


According to ATC data, at 12.53 hrs the aircraft was flying within the Dnipropetrovs’k FIR,
Control Sector 2, at FL330, controlled by Dnipro Control. At that time, Dnipro Control
asked whether MH17 was able to climb to FL350 in accordance with the flight plan of
MH17 and also to clear a potential separation conflict with other traffic in the area,
another Boeing 777 flying at FL330 and approaching from behind.


The crew replied they were unable to comply and requested to maintain at FL330. This
was agreed by Dnipro Control. As an alternative to solve the separation conflict, the
other traffic climbed to FL350. According to ATC data, at 13.00 hrs the crew of flight
MH17 requested to divert the track 20 NM to the left, due to weather. This also was
agreed by Dnipro Control, after which the crew requested whether FL340 was available.
Dnipro control informed MH17 that FL340 was not available at that moment and
instructed the flight to maintain FL330 for a while. At 13.07 hrs the flight was transferred
to Dnipropetrovs’k CTA 4, also with call sign Dnipro Control.


At 13.19:53 hrs, radar data showed that the aircraft was 3.6 NM north of centreline of
airway L980 having deviated left of track, when Dnipro Control directed the crew to alter
their route directly to waypoint RND due to other traffic. The crew acknowledged at
13.19:56 hrs. At 13.20:00 hrs, Dnipro Control transmitted an onward ATC clearance to
proceed direct to TIKNA after RND, no acknowledgement was received.

From page 14 -

Air Traffic Control
2.5.1
ATC surveillance data
For this investigation ATC surveillance data was obtained from both Ukraine (UkSATSE)
and the Russian Federation. The data obtained was the following:
•
Primary surveillance radar recorded by the Russian surveillance aids
•
Secondary surveillance radar (SSR / Mode S)
6
•
Automatic Dependant Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B)
7
ground based reception.
Preliminary information shows that Ukrainian and Russian ATC surveillance radar identified
flight MH17 as a B777-200 at FL330. Analyses of recorded ATC surveillance data is
ongoing.


2.5.2
ATC communication
At the time of the occurrence flight MH17 was under control of Dnipropetrovs’k air traffic
control centre (Dnipro Radar). Shortly after 13.20 hrs, both Ukraine and Russian Federation
Radar lost contact with the aircraft. The last radio transmission made by the crew began
at 13.19:56 hrs and ended at 13.19:59 hrs. Dnipropetrovs’k air traffic control centre made
a radio transmission to flight MH17 which began at 13.20:00 hrs and ended at 13.20:05 hrs.
The crew did not respond to this transmission or subsequent transmissions. No distress
message was received from the aircraft at any point in time by ATC.


2.5.3
Other traffic
According to information received from the NBAAI, recorded ATC surveillance information
revealed that three other commercial airliners overflew the same restricted airspace as
flight MH17 around the time of the occurrence. Two of those aircraft were cruising
eastbound and one was cruising westbound. All were under control of Dnipro Radar. At
13.20 hrs the distance between MH17 and the closest of the three aircraft was
approximately 30 kilometres. Analyses is ongoing.
2.5.4


ATC transcript
UkSATSE provided the recording and a transcript of the radio (RAD) and telephone
communications regarding flight MH17. At 13.08 hrs flight MH17 reported to Dnipro
Radar (DNP), sector 4, flying at FL330. After checking over the telephone (TEL, translated
from Russian) with Rostov Control (RST, Russia), at 13.19:49 hrs flight MH17 was cleared to
proceed via waypoint RND, this was confirmed by the crew. At 13.20:00 hrs Dnipro
cleared flight MH17 to fly direct to waypoint TIKNA after passing RND, this clearance was
not read back. From that time until 13.35:50 hrs, DNP called MH17 several times, but no
answer was received. The crew of another aircraft that was flying in the neighborhood,
was asked if they had MH17 in sight or if the aircraft was visible on the aircraft instruments.
The crew of this aircraft answered that they did not see the aircraft and that the aircraft
instruments did not show flight MH17.

There were other commercial aircraft in the same area of MH17, 2 of which were apparently flying above them. There was no deviation from their established flight corridor. We know this because of the other commercial aircraft near MH17 at the time of the incident.

a reply to: bjarneorn

Again, no. The BUK has neither an IFF or any other target discrimination system installed. Neither does an air to air missile. The launching platform has an IFF, bit the missile itself doesn't.

a reply to: bjarneorn

You are just making this up as you go aren't you. Tru reading actual books at the number of times individual aircraft were shot down by surface to air missiles, that were individual aircraft, or a missile only hit one aircraft in a group of them. Speaking of sticking to facts....

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
I fail to see the significance of this report or any such report coming in the future.

I don't know if it was Russians, the rebels, or the Ukranians, but taking into account that the entire western world is now focused on the red threat (again)...

If Russains did it - i don't get the motive. Surely they had much to lose with this and nothing to gain.
If the rebels did it - than I don't see it being done as some sort of plan, but perhaps a missidentification of aircraft.
If the Ukranians did it - no western composed report will ever show that. It would put a monkey wrench in the ongoing agenda.

Let me speculate a bit...if it wasn't the Russians or the Rebels....than the report will remain generic in nature, simply explaining the dynamic of an attack, without confirming the origin, or even further explaining...what weapon was used except "high-energy object"...which is sufficiently vague to prevent determining the source, and the story will slowly fade into the background...as it already has.

That's what I was thinking, too.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
I fail to see the significance of this report or any such report coming in the future.

Do you not think that the murder of hundreds of people deserves an investigation? The point of this report was to establish the cause of the crash and analyze the information available to determine the sequence of events resulting in the plane being brought down and the deaths of 298 innocent people.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
I don't know if it was Russians, the rebels, or the Ukranians, but taking into account that the entire western world is now focused on the red threat (again)...

The world is not focused on the "red threat", it is focused on the real and present threat posed by the Russian government.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
If Russains did it - i don't get the motive. Surely they had much to lose with this and nothing to gain.

Russia also had much to lose and nothing to gain by annexing Crimea. They already had a military base there under a long standing agreement with the Ukrainian government, and by invading and annexing that peninsula they destroyed all chance of business and trade agreements with other former Soviet states around them, something the Kremlin had been working on for several years.

They also forced the hand of NATO, something Russia always claims is a threat encroaching on it's security, but then directly acts to encourage.

NATO would not now be increasing presence and assets in member states around Russia were it not for Putin invading Ukraine.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
If the rebels did it - than I don't see it being done as some sort of plan, but perhaps a missidentification of aircraft.

If the Rebels did it, it could have been eliberate, an accident, or misuse of something they are not trained to use. There is not much that can be said about this, because it's like giving a machine gun to a monkey and expecting it to know how to use it.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
If the Ukranians did it - no western composed report will ever show that. It would put a monkey wrench in the ongoing agenda.

This is your assertion, for which there is still absolutely no evidence. You assert that there is an "agenda", so you'll automatically have biased opinions. There is no evidence at all, offered by any of the countries participating in this investigation, which suggests that Ukraine was responsible. All the evidence suggests that it was BUK fired from rebel held territory.

Like it or not, we can only go on the evidence offered, and the evidence shows no suggestion of Ukraine being responsible, but a wealth of evidence suggesting Russia was responsible. You can stick your head in the sand and deny it all you like, but the evidence says what it says.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
Let me speculate a bit...if it wasn't the Russians or the Rebels....than the report will remain generic in nature, simply explaining the dynamic of an attack, without confirming the origin, or even further explaining...what weapon was used except "high-energy object"...which is sufficiently vague to prevent determining the source, and the story will slowly fade into the background...as it already has.

This report is NOT INTENDED to assert blame or criminal responsibility. This report is intended to simply investigate and explain the damage, the recorders, the technical details of the flight and the cause of the crash.

Blame will come later, from an entirely different investigating international group, in an entirely different report, compiled using this evidence and the witness statements, the satellite imagery, video and photographic evidence...

originally posted by: watchitburn
I guess I wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

Seeing as I only spent 8 yrs as a Marine Corps Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician. I wouldn't be a subject matter expert or anything.

Apparently not, the Corp disagrees with you!

Sergeant Dakota Meyer Date of Issue: 09/15/2011 Organization: U.S. Marine Corps. Citation: Corporal Meyer ........their way out of the ambush. Despite a shrapnel wound to his arm,

Sergeant Ryan M. Pitts Date of Issue: 07/21/2014 Organization: U.S. Army, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173d Airborne Brigade Citation: Sergeant Ryan M. Pitts distinguished himself......Sergeant Pitts had been knocked to the ground and was bleeding heavily from shrapnel wounds to his arm and legs

Staff Sergeant Leroy A. Petry Date of Issue: 07/12/2011 Organization: U.S. Army, Company D, 2d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty: Staff Sergeant Leroy A. Petry....The enemy quickly responded by maneuvering closer and throwing grenades. The first grenade explosion knocked his two fellow Rangers to the ground and wounded both with shrapnel

Staff Sergeant Clinton L. Romesha Date of Issue: 02/11/2013 Organization: U.S. Army, 3d Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while.... the generator he was using for cover was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade, inflicting him with shrapnel wounds.

Sergeant Kyle J. White Date of Issue: 05/13/2014 Organization: U.S. Army, Company C, 2d Battalion (Airborne), 503d Infantry, 173d Airborne Brigade Entered Service At: Seattle, Washington Citation: Specialist Kyle J. White distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.... When he regained consciousness, another round impacted near him, embedding small pieces of shrapnelin his face.

www.history.army.mil...

originally posted by: bjarneorn
The BUK missile system has an approximity fuse, which consists of the explosive and the missile components fragments. The fragmentation is "big", for the purpose to cause large damage. This is a surface to air missile ... and this system also has an IFF, to distinguish military aircraft. It also has a very distinguishable tracking system, which means it isn't a single-shot system, it leaves traces at the command post.

An air to air missile, always is approximity detonated and has a specific fragmentation warhead. These systems are for visual confirmation of target, and therefore unlikely to include an automatic IFF system.

The only part about this that is factually accurate is that the Gadfly missile has a "proximity" fuse... It does not have an IFF nor do other missiles. Combined effects warheads typically use fragments that are "approximately" the same. It does not follow that a larger warhead creates larger fragmentation. In fact, as a rule, multiple smaller fragments are preferred to "big" fragments.

a reply to: bjarneorn

Everyone here, or close ... knows the above is either a product of your utter ignorance, or that you are just lying with your eyes open.

Interesting because even the Malaysian gov't has said it did not deviate from it's flight plan so either you aren't as smart as you think you are, or the Malaysian gov't is in on it.

And I am pretty sure of which one it is.

But just in case you aren't sure...here.

"The flight path taken by MH17 was approved by the International Civil Aviation Organization and by the countries whose airspace the route passed through,” said Liow Tiong Lai at a news conference in Kuala Lumpur on Friday. “Fifteen out of 16 airlines in the Assn. of Asia Pacific Airlines fly this route over Ukraine.”

Malaysia Airlines joined Liow in defending its use of the route over Ukraine, saying in a statement Friday that the flight plan had been approved by Eurocontrol, the air navigation service provider responsible for determining flight paths over Europe.

The airlines said that the course taken by the plane was a common one and that another flight from a different airliner was on the same route at the time of the MH17 crash in the region of Donetsk near the Russian border.

www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-malaysia-defends-flight-path-20140718-story.html

You may want to learn the facts before you start calling people ignorant.

originally posted by: bjarneorn
Even half a retard should understand, than a surface to air missile.
It is not a fragmentation warhead per say.


An air-to-air missile is a weapon that is fired one-on-one ... It follows the aircraft by a laser guiding system ...

These facts, should be obvious to anyone.

I'm going to ignore the bulk of the wrongness you have provided, and concentrate on these few things.

SAM's have combined effects warheads. That means it is using the large warhead size (High Explosive) and the deliberate fragmentation of the casing. The casing around the HE warhead is designed to break into many small fragments.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

That picture (as I'm sure an expert like yourself will recognize) is a cutaway of a Gainful warhead. I'm sure, too, that you know that the Gainful is also known as the SA-6 (or "Kub" to you natives). This is a surface-to-air missile (SAM) warhead. I could show you many other examples of SAM warheads employing the same style warhead. You might ask yourself then why I chose the Gainful, and that is because the Gadfly is a direct descendant, and the warhead is much the same (I'm sure you know that -- or could at least learn that much with a quick google search).

While we're clearing up those "facts clear to anyone", could you let me know which air-to-air missile uses laser guidance? Just a single example would be enough for me. One. Oдин. Single. Example?

Well, so if the plane was hit by those 'objects' isn't it likely that some of them are in the debris. Their size could tell if the plane was shot down by surface-to-air or air-to-air missile since their (fragments) size is different (based on stuff I read).

originally posted by: baburak
Well, so if the plane was hit by those 'objects' isn't it likely that some of them are in the debris.

Possibly. And if they are ever allowed to collect debris and perform a real forensic analysis, we might find out...

a reply to: Xcathdra

At this time, I agree with you about the lack of evidence regarding the "supposed" deviation of flight path, due to the fact of the known transcriptions between ATC and MH17, only report to half an hour before the "incident".

pag29. of the report (CVR - Cockpit Voice Recorder) CVR capacity is 30minutes.


Transcriptions between ATC and MH17, ~11 (ELEVEN) minutes before the incident:


Now, about this matter, the question is: The flight toke off at 10:31, where is the rest of the transcriptions?


In my opinion the above may become none relevant, but, nevertheless is missing evidence that we have to wait for, and of course, validate.

a reply to: bjarneorn

Even half a retard should understand, than a surface to air missile.

And yet you don't understand...Amazing!

Is a weapons system, that is intended to target even a cluster of aircraft. Not a single aircraft ... it has a larger impact radius, with larger objects ... followed by smaller object from the ordinance itself.

And if it can target a cluster of aircraft, it has the ability to target just one, but of course you know more than well all those who have studied this weapon. In fact you may want to watch this and then tell me it can't fire on a single target all by itself. And make sure you watch close at the 6:14 mark because this is what you will see.





But of course you know more than the folks who developed and built it, right?

a reply to: _Del_

Possibly. And if they are ever allowed to collect debris and perform a real forensic analysis, we might find out...

That will never happen, as the separatists decided to remove debris well before any observers were able to get near the crash site.





And allowing the locals to do this really didn't help either...



So it is doubtful that any evidence that would tell the truth is still there.

a reply to: Rocker2013

All three sides to this conflict have access to the BUK missile system. Ukraine has them, the Pro-Russia Rebels have them, and Russia has them. There is evidence that the fired shot came from Rebel held territory, and there are now images, video and witness statements showing that a BUK missile system was brought into the area, used by Russians (one with a Muscovite accent) and then departed with one missile CLEARLY missing from it.

Of course, blame is to come later, but all evidence being gathered seems to suggest - at least to me - that Russia brought in a BUK missile launcher, deliberately took aim at a passenger plane, and shot it down before leaving.

You write this and still believe it was the Russians? Seriously?!?!!

When the event occurred there were Greek reports of Ukrainian SU-25's in the area. Further, that these fighter aircraft may have forced MH-17 off course...

The reality is MH-17 was in fact off course, not by much, but enough to take it over the combat area. Logically, the aircraft being off course should have been a random event; making it impossible for the Russians (or indeed anyone) to have "ambushed" the aircraft by "bringing in" a missile system. Unless of course it was known in advance that the (or "an") aircraft would be in the area, and available for some "black-op". This being a wee bit more logical suggests that it was more probably the Ukrainian government (or West) that arranged to MH-17 to be shot down.

And every bit of the aftermath was never more than an attempt to "frame" Russia, and perhaps start a war.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Ya know something just dawned on me.

If the Ukraine government shot it down as rebels state, then why did the rebels mess with the crime scene? Tampering with it makes outcomes very difficult to achieve.

If the rebels did not do it then we should have seen the crime scene secured, civilians kept out of the area, preventing people from moving debris etc etc followed up by throngs of journalists etc.

I would think the rebels would want media attention from all over to prove Ukraine shot it down.

a reply to: tanka418

I haven't seen anyone here in thus thread blame the Russians. In fact several times it's been said we don't know who fired the missile. But it definitely was not a missile from an Su-25, nor was it damage from the gun of one.

a reply to: voyger2

The recoding time is not time of continuous recording. The recording time captures all vocal instances repeatedly, meaning that over the course of six hours there might be only 20 minutes of continuous voice communications to record, and it's recorded with a time stamp in successive order.

There isn't some tape deck with a record button they hit when the flight starts, to run out half an hour later. This system only record the actual data, not silence.

originally posted by: tanka418
And every bit of the aftermath was never more than an attempt to "frame" Russia, and perhaps start a war.

And yet you still cannot provide any evidence to support your suggestions, it's yet more "they said this" and "I think that!"

EVIDENCE, please.

a reply to: tanka418

When the event occurred there were Greek reports of Ukrainian SU-25's in the area. Further, that these fighter aircraft may have forced MH-17 off course...

And just exactly how does a fighter that only has a ceiling of 23000 ft fly 33000 ft to force a plane off course?

The reality is MH-17 was in fact off course, not by much, but enough to take it over the combat area.

Wrong, as it was on the original flight plan that it was supposed to be on, but of course you checked into that right?

Logically, the aircraft being off course should have been a random event; making it impossible for the Russians (or indeed anyone) to have "ambushed" the aircraft by "bringing in" a missile system. Unless of course it was known in advance that the (or "an") aircraft would be in the area, and available for some "black-op".

You do understand how radar works correct?

How do combat aircraft get shot down in war zones? Does the enemy know exactly where every aircraft are going to be flying...No.

This being a wee bit more logical suggests that it was more probably the Ukrainian government (or West) that arranged to MH-17 to be shot down.

Nothing you just said is even close to being logical.

And every bit of the aftermath was never more than an attempt to "frame" Russia, and perhaps start a war.

Russia had already started this war when they invaded Crimea...Sorry.