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.

 

MH17 Turnabout: Ukraine’s Guilt Now Proven

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
We saw images of the BUK launcher minus one missile in the vicinity.


Evidence but not proof. Many Ukraine air force aircraft were shot down. How do you know it wasn't shot at a Ukraine air force aircraft but at MH17?




posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I hope someday the person who pulled the trigger has enough conscience to admit he did it before dying on his deathbed.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: chuchas

The launcher was only in Ukraine for one day. The only aircraft downed on that day was MH-17.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: chuchas

The launcher was only in Ukraine for one day. The only aircraft downed on that day was MH-17.


Is there proof it was in Ukraine for one day? If that is really the case Russia could have shot S-300PM2 or S-400 from Russia territory which has range covering all of eastern Ukraine anyway so I don't see the point moving a Buk short range launcher into Ukraine then back again after a few hours, and doing so in broad daylight when people can photograph it. That don't make sense unless Russians are stupid people.

Also, just because there were 3 missiles on a launcher that holds 4 missiles does not prove the launcher was fully loaded to begin with.

And who knows, maybe the photo was photoshopped.
edit on 6-1-2019 by chuchas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: chuchas
Here's list of Ukraine air force losses over Donbas between May and July 2014.

en.wikipedia.org...

Personally, I hold Malaysia airlines responsible. No other airline fly over a hot war zone, especially knowing both sides are very poorly soldiers. Why did they do that? Glad to see Malaysia airlines going down because of their behavior.


Malaysia wasn't the only airline to fly over that region. Hundreds of airliners crossed over in the week prior to MH17 being shot down.


37 airlines continued overflying eastern Ukraine and about 900 flights crossed the Donetsk region in the seven days before the Boeing 777 was shot down


Wiki MH17 Link

See the MH17 Preliminary report to see other airliners in the vicinity of MH17.

MH17 Preliminary Report Link



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: chuchas
Here's list of Ukraine air force losses over Donbas between May and July 2014.

en.wikipedia.org...

Personally, I hold Malaysia airlines responsible. No other airline fly over a hot war zone, especially knowing both sides are very poorly soldiers. Why did they do that? Glad to see Malaysia airlines going down because of their behavior.


Malaysia wasn't the only airline to fly over that region. Hundreds of airliners crossed over in the week prior to MH17 being shot down.


37 airlines continued overflying eastern Ukraine and about 900 flights crossed the Donetsk region in the seven days before the Boeing 777 was shot down


Wiki MH17 Link

See the MH17 Preliminary report to see other airliners in the vicinity of MH17.

MH17 Preliminary Report Link


They flew over non battle areas of eastern Ukraine. Only Malaysia airlines flew over war zone. So they paid the price.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Wasn't Putin's plane in the vicinity around that time?

I remember reading theories on this being an attempted hit on him but the missile hit MH17 instead.

Anybody else remember that by chance?



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Carcharadon
Wasn't Putin's plane in the vicinity around that time?

I remember reading theories on this being an attempted hit on him but the missile hit MH17 instead.

Anybody else remember that by chance?



If they actually killed Putin then prime minster becomes president according to Russia constitution and Kiev gets nuke. So I don't see the point in trying to kill Putin. Nothing to gain. Everything to lose.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: chuka

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: chuchas
Here's list of Ukraine air force losses over Donbas between May and July 2014.

en.wikipedia.org...

Personally, I hold Malaysia airlines responsible. No other airline fly over a hot war zone, especially knowing both sides are very poorly soldiers. Why did they do that? Glad to see Malaysia airlines going down because of their behavior.


Malaysia wasn't the only airline to fly over that region. Hundreds of airliners crossed over in the week prior to MH17 being shot down.


37 airlines continued overflying eastern Ukraine and about 900 flights crossed the Donetsk region in the seven days before the Boeing 777 was shot down


Wiki MH17 Link

See the MH17 Preliminary report to see other airliners in the vicinity of MH17.

MH17 Preliminary Report Link


They flew over non battle areas of eastern Ukraine. Only Malaysia airlines flew over war zone. So they paid the price.


Incorrect. Airlines continued to fly over the region and used the exact same upper air routes and various way points flown by MH17. The restrictions placed on them was altitude only. As long as the airlines filed flight plans that kept them above 32,000 feet then they were free to transit the region. That included flights transiting from Russian airspace to Ukrainian and vice versa.


2.4.3 Airspace restrictions. At the time of the occurrence, flight MH17 was flying through the Dnipropertrovs'k (UDDV) FIR in the eastern part of the Ukraine. UkSATSE had issued NOTAMs that restricted access to the airspace below FL320 in the southern part of the FIR due to hostilities between armed groups and Ukrainian armed forces.


From

MH17 Preliminary Report Link

As long as the airlines filed flight plans that didn't take them below 32,000 feet all airlines were permitted to fly over any part of the Flight Information Region. Hundreds of airliners crossed over that region with the only limitation being altitude. None of the upper air routes or way points were off limits.


edit on 6/1/2019 by tommyjo because: Additional info added



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: chuka

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: chuchas
Here's list of Ukraine air force losses over Donbas between May and July 2014.

en.wikipedia.org...

Personally, I hold Malaysia airlines responsible. No other airline fly over a hot war zone, especially knowing both sides are very poorly soldiers. Why did they do that? Glad to see Malaysia airlines going down because of their behavior.


Malaysia wasn't the only airline to fly over that region. Hundreds of airliners crossed over in the week prior to MH17 being shot down.


37 airlines continued overflying eastern Ukraine and about 900 flights crossed the Donetsk region in the seven days before the Boeing 777 was shot down


Wiki MH17 Link

See the MH17 Preliminary report to see other airliners in the vicinity of MH17.

MH17 Preliminary Report Link


They flew over non battle areas of eastern Ukraine. Only Malaysia airlines flew over war zone. So they paid the price.


Incorrect. Airlines continued to fly over the region and used the exact same upper air routes and various way points flown by MH17. The restrictions placed on them was altitude only. As long as the airlines filed flight plans that kept them above 32,000 feet then they were free to transit the region. That included flights transiting from Russian airspace to Ukrainian and vice versa.


2.4.3 Airspace restrictions. At the time of the occurrence, flight MH17 was flying through the Dnipropertrovs'k (UDDV) FIR in the eastern part of the Ukraine. UkSATSE had issued NOTAMs that restricted access to the airspace below FL320 in the southern part of the FIR due to hostilities between armed groups and Ukrainian armed forces.


From

MH17 Preliminary Report Link

As long as the airlines filed flight plans that didn't take them below 32,000 feet all airlines were permitted to fly over any part of the Flight Information Region. Hundreds of airliners crossed over that region with the only limitation being altitude. None of the upper air routes or way points were off limits.



That was irresponsible behavior. Missiles don't have IFF. They go after anything they can. Even friendly fighter jets.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: chuka

That was irresponsible behavior. Missiles don't have IFF. They go after anything they can. Even friendly fighter jets.


The Buk TELAR unit itself carries an IFF interrogator as part of the Fire Dome radar. Of course the operator can choose to disable it.


The 9S35 Fire Dome provides a limited search and acquisition capability, a tracking capability and CW illumination for terminal guidance of the semi-active homing SAM seekers. It incorporates an IFF interrogator, optical tracker, datalink, and is powered by the TELAR's gas turbine generator.


Link



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: chuka

That was irresponsible behavior. Missiles don't have IFF. They go after anything they can. Even friendly fighter jets.


The Buk TELAR unit itself carries an IFF interrogator as part of the Fire Dome radar. Of course the operator can choose to disable it.


The 9S35 Fire Dome provides a limited search and acquisition capability, a tracking capability and CW illumination for terminal guidance of the semi-active homing SAM seekers. It incorporates an IFF interrogator, optical tracker, datalink, and is powered by the TELAR's gas turbine generator.


Link


Commercial airliners don't have IFF. Even if MH17 was not targeted by the TELAR, the missile could have targeted MH17 by itself as long as MH17 was illuminated by ground radar. This is the point of semi active radar homing. Missiles go after anything that is illuminated. That's why F-22 and F-35 have internal gun to have the pilot pick out targets by eyes in case AMRAAM goes after friendly planes illuminated by radar. Missiles don't have IFF. They target friendly planes too. Russia's Il-20M was shot down by Syria's S-200. Because missiles don't have IFF. This is true for every country's missiles.

Also, fighter planes typically fly close to airliners so if a SAM targets them the SAM goes after the bigger RCS target which is the airliner. That's why SAM is not safe to airliners in a war zone even if SAM crew do not deliberately target airliners because once SAM is fired at fighter plane SAM goes after airliner because SAM don't have IFF and SAM only goes after the bigger RCS target. A few days ago Israel F-16 flew close to airliners in Lebanon so if SAM goes after them SAM will go after airliners instead.
edit on 6-1-2019 by chukas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: chukas

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: chuka

That was irresponsible behavior. Missiles don't have IFF. They go after anything they can. Even friendly fighter jets.


The Buk TELAR unit itself carries an IFF interrogator as part of the Fire Dome radar. Of course the operator can choose to disable it.


The 9S35 Fire Dome provides a limited search and acquisition capability, a tracking capability and CW illumination for terminal guidance of the semi-active homing SAM seekers. It incorporates an IFF interrogator, optical tracker, datalink, and is powered by the TELAR's gas turbine generator.


Link


Commercial airliners don't have IFF. Even if MH17 was not targeted by the TELAR, the missile could have targeted it by itself as long as MH17 was illuminated by ground radar. This is the point of semi active radar homing. Missiles go after anything that is illuminated. That's why F-22 and F-35 have internal gun to dogfight in case AMRAAM goes after friendly planes illuminated by radar. Missiles don't have IFF. They target friendly planes too.


Actually they DO have a IFF in all military aircraft the US flys. The radar ID's the targets. the IFF signal then declares it a Friendly or enemy. AMRAAM is not totally fire and forget. it requires ACTIVE radar. The shoodown of the Blackhawks in Iraq was from improper IFF usage and failure to ID correctly. ANd SOrry a fighter isnt shooting down a missile with a machine gun. This isnt ace combat.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: chukas

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: chuka

That was irresponsible behavior. Missiles don't have IFF. They go after anything they can. Even friendly fighter jets.


The Buk TELAR unit itself carries an IFF interrogator as part of the Fire Dome radar. Of course the operator can choose to disable it.


The 9S35 Fire Dome provides a limited search and acquisition capability, a tracking capability and CW illumination for terminal guidance of the semi-active homing SAM seekers. It incorporates an IFF interrogator, optical tracker, datalink, and is powered by the TELAR's gas turbine generator.


Link


Commercial airliners don't have IFF. Even if MH17 was not targeted by the TELAR, the missile could have targeted it by itself as long as MH17 was illuminated by ground radar. This is the point of semi active radar homing. Missiles go after anything that is illuminated. That's why F-22 and F-35 have internal gun to dogfight in case AMRAAM goes after friendly planes illuminated by radar. Missiles don't have IFF. They target friendly planes too.


Actually they DO have a IFF in all military aircraft the US flys. The radar ID's the targets. the IFF signal then declares it a Friendly or enemy. AMRAAM is not totally fire and forget. it requires ACTIVE radar. The shoodown of the Blackhawks in Iraq was from improper IFF usage and failure to ID correctly. ANd SOrry a fighter isnt shooting down a missile with a machine gun. This isnt ace combat.


AMRAAM's active radar goes after the nearest target which could be a friendly plane. AMRAAM don't have IFF. That's why F-22 and F-35 have internal gun so pilot can go after hostile plane in dogfight.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Also, fighter planes typically fly close to airliners so if a SAM targets them the SAM goes after the bigger RCS target which is the airliner. That's why SAM is not safe to airliners in a war zone even if SAM crew do not deliberately target airliners because once SAM is fired at fighter plane SAM goes after airliner because SAM don't have IFF and SAM only goes after the bigger RCS target. A few days ago Israel F-16 flew close to airliners in Lebanon so if SAM goes after them SAM will go after airliners instead.

In Syria S-200 was fired at F-16 and ended up going after Il-20M instead because F-16 flew close to Il-20M and Il-20M has larger RCS and SAM don't have IFF and SAM goes after the bigger RCS target.

Buk hit MH17. True. But it is unlikely the target of the Buk crew was MH17. It is likely a Su-24 was flying close to MH17 and Su-24 was the target of the Buk crew. The Buk was fired at the Su-24 and ended up going after MH17 instead because SAM don't have IFF and SAM only goes after the bigger RCS target.

I'm sure Malaysia airlines knew their plane would be shot down flying over war zone. But I guess they don't care.
edit on 6-1-2019 by chukas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: chukas
Buk hit MH17. True. But it is unlikely the target of the Buk crew was MH17.


There're several posts erroneously explaining how SAMs work, specially the BUK system that shot down MH17. The way the BUK system is deployed is described in the Dutch Safety Board's report that was published in October 2015. Essentially, MH17 was selected as the target by the launchers Target Acquisition Radar, which was then tracked. Once in range a missile was launched at MH17. The airliner was not an accidental target as it was deliberately targeted.

MH17 Report - see page 133



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: chukas
Buk hit MH17. True. But it is unlikely the target of the Buk crew was MH17.


There're several posts erroneously explaining how SAMs work, specially the BUK system that shot down MH17. The way the BUK system is deployed is described in the Dutch Safety Board's report that was published in October 2015. Essentially, MH17 was selected as the target by the launchers Target Acquisition Radar, which was then tracked. Once in range a missile was launched at MH17. The airliner was not an accidental target as it was deliberately targeted.

MH17 Report - see page 133



Once a missile is fired, you have no control which plane it will go after. It could go after the targeted plane. It could go after a nearby friendly plane. It could go after a plane that was not targeted. You cannot prove MH17 was targeted by the Buk ground crew. You cannot prove that. Unless they admit targeting MH17 deliberately.

The reason F-22 and F-35 use internal guns for air to air combat is precisely because once a missile is fired, it cannot be controlled. The missile will pick and choose its own target, which may nor may not be the target picked by the crew.

If you think Russia deliberately shot down MH17 you might as well say Syria deliberately shot down Il-20M. The Dutch report doesn't prove anything. It needs a confession from Russia to prove it.
edit on 6-1-2019 by chukas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: chukas
Once a missile is fired, you have no control which plane it will go after.


That's not true at all with the Buk missile system.


If you think Russia deliberately shot down MH17 you might as well say Syria deliberately shot down Il-20M. The Dutch report doesn't prove anything. It needs a confession from Russia to prove it.


The evidence shows that a Russian launcher was used. Who pulled the trigger is not known. Whether MH17 was deliberately or mistakenly targeted is unknown as Russia has not allowed suspects to be interviewed. However, the aircraft that turned out to be an airliner was targeted.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: chukas
Once a missile is fired, you have no control which plane it will go after.


That's not true at all with the Buk missile system.


If you think Russia deliberately shot down MH17 you might as well say Syria deliberately shot down Il-20M. The Dutch report doesn't prove anything. It needs a confession from Russia to prove it.


The evidence shows that a Russian launcher was used. Who pulled the trigger is not known. Whether MH17 was deliberately or mistakenly targeted is unknown as Russia has not allowed suspects to be interviewed. However, the aircraft that turned out to be an airliner was targeted.



So what if Russia deliberately targeted MH17?



posted on Jan, 7 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

It isn't like the same "state" staged the killing of a journalist or anything, that one seems to be quite the lump under the rug...
edit on 7-1-2019 by Mover3 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join