MH 17 from another perspective

a reply to: Zaphod58

Exactly, that is what caught my attention.

So you agree, there is something fishy going on with the official western BUK story you then ?

a reply to: markosity1973

No. What part of my last past wasn't clear? A BUK doesn't attack the tail. It goes for the greatest radar return, which is normally the center fuselage where the wings attach. If fired from the front, it will detonate where the proximity fuse says it's close enough to the aircraft.

The only thing that would attack the tail, again, is an IR missile fired from an aircraft behind them. The lack of damage to the tail isn't suspicious.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I said the source looked dodgy.

When presenting info about the su 25 did it theory, the material is all Russian, because it's their theory. When presenting BUK info I am using western sources wherever possible.

I am neutral because I am interested in both theories, but started the thread with the Russian idea to spark conversation.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, so why did the blackboxes not record a peep?

That my question, not about where the plane was hit.

It does not seem right that they just shut off without a single error being logged.

I've seen lots of theories as to where the missile hit and my one question is why did the plane not end up a fireball in the sky. Hot shrapnel plus jet fuel equals big fire. But according to eye witnesses it only really caught fire around the mid (engine) section when it hit the ground.

a reply to: markosity1973

Because it came apart instantly. All the sensor input cut off immediately. When an aircraft explodes the recorders don't record alarms, because all data cuts off too fast to record an alarm.

It didn't become a fireball because the fuel dispersed too fast and to thin to burn well. The entire aircraft came apart into pieces immediately.

a reply to: markosity1973

Yes, so why did the blackboxes not record a peep?

That my question, not about where the plane was hit.

It does not seem right that they just shut off without a single error being logged.

Maybe you'll find your answers here:

cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl...

a reply to: DJW001

One question for anyone who knows about weaponry;

Does the BUK missile normally detonate outside its target? The report says the cockpit was compromised by a detonation outside of it.

The Dutch report is believable, but I have a couple if questions, the above and why does the manufacturer dispute the model of missile and criticise their methods?

a reply to: markosity1973

Almost all SAMs do. The ones that actually are impact fused are very few in number. Detonating in proximity to the target causes the most possible damage, while giving the least chance of avoiding it.

The biggest customer that Almaz-Antey has is the Russian government. They also have the ability to stop all sales of Almaz-Antey equipment. So they're going to take whatever position is good for them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't really get the implications over different models than perhaps being able to say 'oh look, that's what the Ukrainian army uses'

It was reported in MSM here in OZ that US intelligence has evidence of a BUK launcher being sneaked back across the Russian border shortly after the crash.

It still makes no sense why the Ukrainians kept bombing the site afterwards though. It is yet to be determined who pressed the launch button, but the Ukrainian government has a fair amount of guilt through neglect in allowing that flight corridor to be open and for causing so many hold ups in the clean up.

a reply to: markosity1973

It was reported in MSM here in OZ that US intelligence has evidence of a BUK launcher being sneaked back across the Russian border shortly after the crash.

That evidence will be presented at the appropriate time and will be furiously denied by the Russian Troll Army.

a reply to: markosity1973

The Ukrainian government, EASA, and Eurocontrol all share blame for that. The airlines to an extent too. Any one of those could have said, "Hey this is a really bad idea" and none did.

a reply to: DJW001

Well, the truth is the truth and while they never published said Intel for us to see, I hope they will now.

a reply to: markosity1973

Early on, as I recall on BBC, I saw an amateur video of the aircraft in its final descent, as it spiraled towards the ground, in and out of focus. But it was spiraling, and it seems that one engine was burning, I say left side on fire, but otherwise spiraling.

It was soon taken down from the BBC website.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: markosity1973

Early on, as I recall on BBC, I saw an amateur video of the aircraft in its final descent, as it spiraled towards the ground, in and out of focus. But it was spiraling, and it seems that one engine was burning, I say left side on fire, but otherwise spiraling.

It was soon taken down from the BBC website.

That video was of a different incident; that is why the BBC took it down.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: DJW001

Well, the truth is the truth and while they never published said Intel for us to see, I hope they will now.

When they do, will you accept it? Or will you try to argue it away?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: markosity1973

Early on, as I recall on BBC, I saw an amateur video of the aircraft in its final descent, as it spiraled towards the ground, in and out of focus. But it was spiraling, and it seems that one engine was burning, I say left side on fire, but otherwise spiraling.

It was soon taken down from the BBC website.

Good grief! Not this again! When will it sink in with you? That footage wasn't of MH17. It happens with media all over the world. It is called unconfirmed footage and they run with it and then withdraw it. No conspiracy. Think about it? Think about how many people saw that footage and yet nobody managed to get a recording? Think about all the aviation enthusiasts and aviation professionals that would have watched that footage and wondered why it wasn't passed on to the official investigation?

All you will have witnessed is footage that was initially passed off as MH17 and then withdrawn.

For example - in and out of focus. This was one of a few videos doing the rounds at the time claiming to have been MH17. It was old Ukrainian footage showing an Antonov being shot down.



There was NO footage shown of MH17 coming down with an engine on fire as you describe.

originally posted by: DJW001

That video was of a different incident; that is why the BBC took it down.

He won't have it! It is all part of a giant conspiracy. He will always believe that he saw footage of MH17 that will never see light of day again! He will be informing me next that it wasn't the video that I posted! It is a mindset!!!

a reply to: markosity1973




Take a look at this new piece from R. Parry:

...
The dog still not barking is the absence of evidence from U.S. spy satellites and other intelligence sources that Secretary of State John Kerry insisted just three days after the shoot-down pinpointed where the missile was fired, an obviously important point in determining who fired it.

On July 20, 2014, Kerry declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.”
...
A Dutch criminal investigation is still underway with the goal of determining who was responsible but without any sign of an imminent conclusion.
...
Last year, another source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me they had concluded that a rogue element of the Ukrainian government – tied to one of the oligarchs – was responsible for the shoot-down, while absolving senior Ukrainian leaders including President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. But I wasn’t able to determine if this U.S. analysis was a consensus or a dissident opinion.
...
“Based on the modification and type of the used missile, as well as its location, this Buk belongs to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. By the way, Ukraine had three military districts — the Carpathian, Odessa and Kiev, and these three districts had more than five Buk anti-aircraft missile brigades of various modifications – Buk, Buk-M, Buk-M1, which means that there were more than 100 missile vehicles there.”
...
Prior to the MH-17 crash, ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine were reported to have captured a Buk system after overrunning a government air base, but Ukrainian authorities said the system was not operational, as recounted in the Dutch report. The rebels also denied possessing a functioning Buk system.
...
As for the missile’s firing location, the Dutch report said the launch spot could have been anywhere within a 320-square-kilometer area in eastern Ukraine, making it hard to determine whether the firing location was controlled by the rebels or government forces. Given the fluidity of the frontlines in July 2014 – and the fact that heavy fighting was occurring to the north – it might even have been possible for a mobile missile launcher to slip from one side to the other along the southern front.
...
The Dutch-led investigation was perhaps compromised by a central role given to the Ukrainian government which apparently had the power to veto what was included in the report.
...
The second source told me that the reason for withholding the U.S. intelligence information was that it contradicted the initial declarations by Kerry and other U.S. officials pointing the finger of blame at the ethnic Russian rebels and indirectly at Russian President Vladimir Putin, who stood accused of giving a ragtag bunch of rebels a powerful weapon capable of shooting down commercial airliners.
...
But the release of the Dutch report – without any of that data – indicates that the U.S. government continues to hide what evidence it has. That missing evidence remains the dog not barking
...

MH-17: The Dog Still Not Barking


Decent article, you guys 'n gals should read all of it.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

It isn't a decent article. Epic fail as the Dutch Safety Board report is NOT the criminal investigation. Why on earth would any US intelligence data appear in the Dutch Safety Board report?

The US data will be from SBIRS (Space Based Infra Red System) that would have recorded the Buk launch event.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: PublicOpinion

The US has been bluffing for a year about MH17. Their bluff has been called, and they cannot prove their claims.