It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

German Bundestag says MH17 not shot down by BUK

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The "Deutsche Bundestag" german parlament released a statement, that 2 NATO AWACS picked up radar signals of a SA-3 system and another unidentified signal before they lost MH17.



Erfasst hätten die Awacs-Aufklärer zudem „Signale von einem Flugabwehrraketensystem sowie ein weiteres durch Awacs nicht zuzuordnendes Radarsignal“. Das Flugabwehrsystem sei automatisiert als „Surface to Air-Missile“ SA-3 klassifiziert worden, „ein in der gesamten Region routinemäßig erfasstes Signal“.

Press statement by the Bundestag (in german)


So, suddenly the BUK-System which was always blamed is off the table.
SA-3 is an older russian system, but it's officially not used anymore. Both Russia and Ukraine had SA-3 systems.
According to wikipedia both are not using it anymore, since they switched to a newer system.

Interesting new turn. What is your take on it?




posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: svetlana84

Using an older system would provide "plausible deniability" if it were an intentional Russian attack. Otherwise, it does nothing to eliminate either loyalists or separatists as the culprits, as they both have access to the same arms.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   

that 2 NATO AWACS picked up radar signals of a SA-3 system and another unidentified signal before they lost MH17.


…and another signal…

They would know what the signature denotes. That they claim its unidentified is the smoking gun, imo. Not ground missile radar.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I get your point, it works for both systems: BUK and SA-3 are both russian produced, both used by ukrainians and there s a possibility (also a deniable one) for the separatists to get both systems.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

i guess you are right on the money: these AWACS should be able to detect whatever there is (i mean, it's their bloody mission). an "unidentified" signal screams smoking gun.

Or aliens, since we are at ATS ;-)

Maybe an AWACS specialist can shed some light on this?



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
This subject has been very very quiet since it happened and the black boxes were recovered , if any proof of Russian involvement was found they would have been screaming it from the roof tops and plastering it 24/7 across the msm .



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: douglas5

I totally agree with you on that point. Even said it in a different way before. They're silence can ONLY mean that whatever they found points AWAY from Russia's involvement.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Dimithae

And 7 months later not a cheap about flight MH370 either in the MSM which for all of us conspiracy theorists stinks to high heaven , i would still bet they were after Putin on his way home that day




posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: douglas5

MH370 stories are out there. There hasn't been anything to report because the search has been on hold while they gear up a private company and wait for the weather to settle down.

As far as MH17 goes, I think most people realized a long time ago that Russia didn't have direct involvement in it.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
When you think about it, when the tragedy happened to both flights, the boards of ats were lit up with all kinds of threads just as they are now with the Ebola. If a website such as this one can basically let it slide onto a back burner, it doesn't take much of a leap to know most of the rest of the populace have already put it out of mind except for a possible passing thought of I wonder what ever happened....

So I guess in essence sadly, mission accomplished of those that know if they wait long enough or give us a different bone to chew on, their booboos will fade of our radars.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


As far as MH17 goes, I think most people realized a long time ago that Russia didn't have direct involvement in it.

I starred you for that just because no one else did.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Stories are all their is nothing from the engine makers who monitor these things in a big way , and no truth in Boeing's being hackable with a cell phone and a laptop as some people suggest



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: douglas5

The EHMS doesn't give much other than engine health. Some airlines tie the navigation system into it, but it's not a standard feature in the system.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


They would know what the signature denotes. That they claim its unidentified is the smoking gun, imo. Not ground missile radar.


You are misunderstanding the German. It is ground signal radar. The phrase " nicht zuzuordnendes Radarsignal" means "unattributable radar signal, ie; they do not know which side was operating the system.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod, thanks for the valuable input on the EHMS.

Engine Health Monitoring System for those (like me) who did not know.

I just checked Rolls' description on it EHMS by Rolls Royce

So the systems monitors engine data :


EHM uses a range of sensors strategically positioned throughout the engine to record key technical parameters several times each flight. The EHM sensors in aero engines monitor numerous critical engine characteristics such as temperatures, pressures, speeds, flows and vibration levels to ensure they are within known tolerances and to highlight when they are not.


And Transfers the data:




A critical aspect of the EHM system is the transfer of data from aircraft to ground. Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) digital data-link systems are used as the primary method of communication. This transmits the Aircraft Condition Monitoring System (ACMS ) reports via a VHF radio or satellite link whilst the aircraft is in-flight.


So I imagine when they have the speed and in the best case links to several sattelites it should be possible to have a pretty good idea where the plane was last. If they have a start point, the speed and a triangulation of sattelite data ?
Speaking of MH370 of course.

With MH17 we at least know, WHERE it went down.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

DJW001, i am not so sure of your interpretation:




„Signale von einem Flugabwehrraketensystem sowie ein weiteres durch Awacs nicht zuzuordnendes Radarsignal“. Das Flugabwehrsystem sei automatisiert als „Surface to Air-Missile“ SA-3 klassifiziert worden, „ein in der gesamten Region routinemäßig erfasstes Signal“.


I'd translate it to
"Signals from a Air defense missile system plus another - through Awacs not assignable Radarsignal. The air defense system was automatically classified as "surface to Air-Missile" SA-3 - "a Signal, which is routinely picked up in the region""

So in my view they have a SA-3 signal, but no info on the other one, which means it could be from the ground or air.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


i.e.; they do not know which side was operating the system.

Correct me if I am wrong but radar (AKA Radio Detection and Ranging) works both ways. Part of identifying radar is based upon which direction radar is coming from. They would know that, too.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Radar is identified by the frequency of the beam as it hits something with a receiver that can analyze it. Different systems use different frequencies. The aircraft, in this case an AWACS can detect where the beam is coming from, which tells them that it's a ground based system, because it's not moving, so that narrows it down. Then the computer analyzes the frequency of the beam, and that narrows it down further. It's not a 100% accurate way to do it, especially if two systems are similar, or use the same radar, but they can narrow it down pretty close, and in a lot of cases, they can tell you exactly what system it is.



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: svetlana84


Maybe an AWACS specialist can shed some light on this?


One post up /\



posted on Oct, 8 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yes. All they have to do is identify which militia was controlling a specific stretch of road at a specific time. That is the problem, and that is why it remains ambiguous.




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join