Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:16 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
Maybe I missed it somewhere - but I thought your assertion about a deliberate shoot down of a civilian airliner was that the Russian government (i.e. Putin) was responsible. This scenario is almost a coup attempt to overthrow the Russian government.
I have said a couple of times that it could have been initiated by anyone in the chain of command from the battalion commander on up.
rfields5421 wrote:
I dislike coup theories involving large militaries because of the complexity and the inherent demonstrated difficulty of keeping the information secret. Though I don't have direct experience with the Russian military.
I have never proposed a coup theory.
rfields5421 wrote:
The examples/ people you mentioned were capable of starting complex operations, yet they were all unable to keep them secret.
I can only provide you with examples of the ones that became public; do you think that maybe some similar events took place and came off without a hitch?

rfields5421 wrote:
The information distribution technology of the world has changed so significantly in the past 30 years that I seriously doubt an Iran-Contra type operation could be started today without leaks putting the operation on the front page within a few days.
Why would a Russian nationalist zealot give any consideration to investigative journalism in the west? All they would care about is the internal effects of their efforts. And I have to say that if they did think about it, they judged correctly that the masses of people in the west would never believe that anyone would do such a thing. Their operation went off the rails when one of the "rebel" security clods took it upon himself to brag about his side shooting down a plane on the internet. But the person or people who set the plan in motion remain outside the spotlight.
rfields5421 wrote:
Loaning an extremely complex system to a para-military group which your country is supporting - I could see that happening.
I really think that you should give that some more thought.
rfields5421 wrote:
It doesn't matter how sophisticated the tracking system is about differentiating between a civilian and a military target. It is the training and experience of the operator, and the supervising officer.
You're clearly missing my point, it's not that a BUK TELAR would have a hard time "differentiating between a civilian and a military target"; it is that a pencil beam tracking radar cannot be used as a search radar. The idea is ridiculous to anybody who actually knows the difference between a radar that uses a PPI type display and one that merely displays azimuth, elevation and range gates. IFF is not an issue in this conversation, it is extremely unlikely that it would have been relied upon on July 17 in any event.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:05 pm

The Fire Dome radar is capable of tracking and illuminating a target. Sure it is not a search radar, but it is perfectly able to find targets on its own without the TAR.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:06 pm

VSMUT wrote:
So what are you saying? That they didn't do it? Or that the Bellingcat investigation, which managed to track down (rather precisely) the TELAR launcher, completely failed to find the slightest trace of a massive BUK radar vehicle in the same area? :)
Along with your clever eyerolls and smilie you telegraph a complete lack of knowledge of how a BUK site is structured. The command vehicle does not tag along behind the TELARs, as you seem to think. BUK architecture provides that the command vehicle remain separate from its TELARs. In a forward edge of battle scenario the command vehicle would always be found in the rear area, with the TELARs placed closer to the FEB; they are linked by a microwave connection. This is the way the BUK battalion in question was deployed on July 17 2014. It would be a bizarre choice for the operators of the BUK in Snizhne to not point their microwave antenna east and make use of the command vehicle's search radar.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:18 pm

seahawk wrote:
The Fire Dome radar is capable of tracking and illuminating a target. Sure it is not a search radar, but it is perfectly able to find targets on its own without the TAR.
That is a distortion of the fire dome capability. Yes of course it can illuminate and track a target, that is what it is designed to do. And in an esoteric sense it can find targets, but only by blindly searching the sky with a tiny aperture, we're back to looking at the world through a straw comparison. This method of using a tracking radar is unworkable for actual air defense target acquisition, so it's not "perfectly able to find targets on its own" that is a ridiculous assertion. Where did you find anything that led you to that conclusion?
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:24 pm

Cerecl wrote:
Er, no. You cannot say that the theory is wrong as you have no way of disproving it................
That is something that I believe I can do, see below.

Cerecl wrote:
And to be honest, your scenario makes little sense anyway. Some rogue military commander shoots down an airliner from a completely unrelated third country, and that is supposed to cause outrage in Russia to support a full-on invasion...how???
A "completely unrelated third country"? Am I seeing evidence of bias on your part here, it sure looks like it. But I'll go on anyway.

Cerecl wrote:
Frankly, it seems to me that you have your mind so set on the Russians being directly responsible for this tragedy, that you are ignoring the much more plausible theory that you dismiss as being wrong as direct evidence supporting it is lacking, while forgeting (or refusing to accept) that the same argument applies equally to your theory/opinion/viewpoint.
It is now accepted fact that a BUK TELAR from the Russian 3rd AD Brigade transited across the Russian / Ukrainian border on July 17 and brought down the Malaysian airliner, that is the given in this scenario; I hope nobody questions that anymore. What is debated here is whether this TELAR was "loaned" by the Russian military to Ukrainian separatists for the purpose of providing air defense, or whether the Russian military (or FSB) sent that TELAR over the border on a clandestine mission. It has to be one of these two scenarios, all the other strawmen have been stripped away.

It is not just that "direct evidence" is lacking in the accident scenario, evidence of any kind is lacking. But there is evidence which proves that theory illogical in the extreme, beginning with the fact that the TELAR would not have been sent across the Ukraine border on an air defense mission without a search radar. It would have been incapable of effective operation without a search radar, and on top of that, the accident theory holds that it was sent over to be used by an inexperienced or untrained crew.

Please give that some thought.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:54 pm

It is pretty simple. Untrained, unprofessional rebels were armed by Russia with wildly inappropriate equipment way beyond their capability. It was bound to create a disaster and it did.

It was also wrong to allow civil flights over this wild chaos. But perhaps Ukraine did not know the facts. And MH also didn't. IIRC other airlines also flew the airspace right?

Overall, this would make the Russian military solely responsible for the shoot-down. They were the only qualified professionals in the area who had full knowledge and good control. They could reasonably foresee this event. They caused it.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:08 pm

Well if it was a runaway commander, then we have a whole other problem and Putin has even a bigger problem at his hands. The Russian military has nukes and the world would be far worse off if the Russian military does this kind of thing on its own. I do not subscribe to this kind of view, unless there is overwhelming evidence for this.

So the most likely scenario is the Russian government sanctioned the release of such a weapon, with or without crew.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:37 pm

Agreed Dutchy most historical evidence supports the Russian military being reasonably ethical and professional. It is likely that senior officers would object strongly to giving advanced weapons to irregular conscripts. But Putin is naughty.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:18 pm

Flighty wrote:
Agreed Dutchy most historical evidence supports the Russian military being reasonably ethical and professional. It is likely that senior officers would object strongly to giving advanced weapons to irregular conscripts. But Putin is naughty.

LOL "historical evidence": there are about 22,000 corpses spinning in their graves at Katyn woods sites at that one. The Russian military has always been a brutal entity going back to the days of the Tzar and forward to Aleppo with many horror stories in between.

This is really off topic but I just had to comment on that bit of absurdity.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:44 pm

salttee wrote:
Flighty wrote:
Agreed Dutchy most historical evidence supports the Russian military being reasonably ethical and professional. It is likely that senior officers would object strongly to giving advanced weapons to irregular conscripts. But Putin is naughty.

LOL "historical evidence": there are about 22,000 corpses spinning in their graves at Katyn woods sites at that one. The Russian military has always been a brutal entity going back to the days of the Tzar and forward to Aleppo with many horror stories in between.

This is really off topic but I just had to comment on that bit of absurdity.


Well I believe that the Russian military has enough discipline to listen to the "civilian" leaders and not to act on their own. That has nothing to do with the horror stories. Governments can sanction that. Let me give you an example. The Netherlands had a colony called Dutch India, current Indonesia. Well when they fought for their independence the Dutch military was send over to squash that. It is in many respect the Dutch Vietnam of Afghanistan so you will. Many horror stories came to light and still do, 70years after the fact. Those were not explicated sanctioned by the Dutch government, but nothing was done to prevent it, so
implicitly for sure. So the same thing could be going on in the Russian military.
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:29 pm

Interesting discussion! In response to the query over the OVV report, I have studied it in depth. My opinion of the OVV is admittedly not terribly high, based on the Tunisia Airbus incident. I have a VERY high opinion however of AIVD, the Dutch internal intelligence service, and MIVD, their excellent military service and was a participant in the NISA intelligence conference in Amsterdam in 2005, where both agencies were represented. I even presented the Director of AIVD with a case of Bols two Christmases ago (they have a limit on gifts, so it came back from Den Haag (this was before the move) with regrets, but I made sure one bottle stayed in the attache's office at the Dutch Embassy in London!). Bols is rather nice, by the way - I have swigged the odd measure in the company of Dutch intelligence officers and ex-resistance fighters by the occasional canal-side cafe in Amsterdam. Not many resistance types left now, sadly. Never met one I didn't like.

To reassure Duchy, I am not anti-Dutch, but my opinion of the Dutch bureaucracy and government is low - not as low as my opinion of the UK's, but low. I was last in Amsterdam, on intelligence business, in March. Love the place - great night-life.

I reject the OVV report's conclusions,but I respect the basic forensic work they commissioned.

There is a big problem with their conclusion that Russia was responsible,picked up by VSMUT and I think Tu 204. They had no motive. Ukraine on the other hand did - to embarrass the rebels, President Putin and Russia. Peking and Kiev are close.

It is absolutely untrue that Russia is the ONLY country operating Buks with a GN314M warhead. I suspect the Ukrainians have them as well, but more to the point the Chinese Buks, the HQ-16 and 16A (I rule out a 16B) have Russian-designed fragmentation warheads. My understanding is that the HQ-16 and 16A have a similar or identical warhead to the GN314M, using the distinctive bow-tie shaped fragments. It is noteworthy that although my conclusion that MH17 was brought down by a HQ-16 or 16A has been in the public domain since 2014 OVV skirt around the issue and suppress any mention of the Chinese Buks. Why? Not least since they are air-transportable and can be airlifted in an IL-76.

The absence of bow-tied shaped fragments in the captain's body is hugely significant. Basically it rules out his having been killed by a Buk. There is no doubt the 777 was struck by a Buk- the issue is what else struck it? I now favour an AA-11 - small warhead (17.2 lbs from memory), consistent with the shrapnel damage to the port side of the cockpit and the injuries to the poor, murdered captain. The Su-25 is designed to carry the AA-11 and the Su-25M has upgraded avionics and radar. It can reach FL330 and better with the armour removed and on combat power. The AA-11 can be aimed optically via a helmet-mounted sight, ideal for a targeted shot at the cockpit to kill or disable the crew and and make sure there could be no MH370-style evasive manoeuvres.

The Ukrainians lied about the An-26. It looks like it was brought down by a MANPADS. Later analysis, accepted by OVV, ruled out the Ukrainian claim that it was flying at FL260. The claim seems to have been made to bolster the accusation against the rebels 3 days later.

Kiev ATC should NOT have directed MH17 that far north - effectively MH17 was directed into the kill-zone. Salttee is right - there is no way this was an accident. Trained military professionals would not mistake a 777 on an airway at cruise altitude in broad daylight. MH17 was the target.

I respectfully agree with the points made about pencil-beam fire-control radar. As much use as 'tits on a bull' in search mode in a high-altitude shoot-down scenario. Yes you can use the radar on a TELAR in search mode. The problems, accurately high-lighted by Salttee, are that its range is short, it takes too long to locate the target and there would be insufficient engagement time to switch modes, lock-on, fire and hit a target moving at 500 mph, particularly as tail-chasing was out for political reasons - an exhaust trail in the wrong place.

As presently advised, I am going with an initial shoot by an AA-11, fired from a Ukrainian Su-25M at FL340-F350, using helmet-mounted optical guidance, to disable the crew, with proximity fuzing and detonation close to the target, above and slightly behind the port cockpit windows, followed by a PLA HQ-16A fired from a standard truck-mounted PLA launcher, with launch control from a command vehicle, proximity fuzing, in semi-active homing mode, using reflected radar energy from the fire control radar, with warhead detonation about 50 feet below the target, between the cockpit and the centre-section.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:38 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Well I believe that the Russian military has enough discipline to listen to the "civilian" leaders and not to act on their own.

I don't believe that there is or ever was a military of any size that hasn't experienced the actions of rouge officers acting on their own.

Why are you fighting tooth and nail every possible glimmer of an opening that you think you can find in the scenario I propose? Why not take it head on and state the reasons you believe as you do? And if it's just a gut feeling then please say that; and please end the repeating a story until it's accepted as fact tactic.

I am the only one in this forum so far with direct experience on tracking (and search) radar operation, yet I am called a flat earth society nut by people that know absolutely zero about the subject. The Russian trolls I expect, but the amount and type of pushback here seems off-base.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:51 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Shooting down an aircraft in Ukraine airspace by the Russian Air Force is an act of war.
So is invading another country across its border.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:26 pm

salttee wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Well I believe that the Russian military has enough discipline to listen to the "civilian" leaders and not to act on their own.

I don't believe that there is or ever was a military of any size that hasn't experienced the actions of rouge officers acting on their own.

Why are you fighting tooth and nail every possible glimmer of an opening that you think you can find in the scenario I propose? Why not take it head on and state the reasons you believe as you do? And if it's just a gut feeling then please say that; and please end the repeating a story until it's accepted as fact tactic.

I am the only one in this forum so far with direct experience on tracking (and search) radar operation, yet I am called a flat earth society nut by people that know absolutely zero about the subject. The Russian trolls I expect, but the amount and type of pushback here seems off-base.



Are you calling me a Russian troll?! That would be quite amusing. I dislike the Russian government and it's methods. I accept the JIT rapport without reservations. What I find a big claim is that the Russian military has done this on purpose. There is no scrap of evidence and there is no reason for. And if you want to make a big claim, then you need to get even bigger evidence to support it. The bigger the claim, the bigger the evidence load.

You claim your authority on tracking radar operations, which is fine, I accept it, but this is something else and on that you don't claim any authority.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:13 pm

Dutchy wrote:
What I find a big claim is that the Russian military has done this on purpose. There is no scrap of evidence and there is no reason for.

The evidence is lying on the ground around Pelahiivka Ukraine. It was brought there somehow. If you've been reading what I've been posting above you will understand that there are only two scenarios left as to how MH-17 came to be shot down.

I find the contention that it happened by accident illogical and impossible to accept on several points; I have made those points above. You have not responded to them in any manner, instead you grope around the periphery of the subject, making the ridiculous claim that the Russian military are above such underhandedness when they have a long long history of criminal behavior (along with the British, French, American and many others to be fair.) Then you reject out of hand the premise that a loose cannon might have wanted a casus belli to really get things rolling in the Ukraine war. That is not at all a "far out" proposal, it is an absolute certainty that there are more than a few in the Russian military who would love to see such a thing happen. The question here is, was this the way MH-17 came to be shot down? I cannot say that it was with any degree of certainty, but the premise cannot be rejected out of hand as you are doing.

Dutchy wrote:
And if you want to make a big claim, then you need to get even bigger evidence to support it. The bigger the claim, the bigger the evidence load.
This is just a rhetorical device you are using instead of answering the questions I am raising. If you want to honestly debate the points I am making you need to either find a real logical fallacy in my proposal, which you have not done, or you need to defend the accidental shootdown theory by rebutting the holes I have poked in that theory. You need to explain what would motivate a Battalion, Brigade or Army commander to release a valuable and dangerous piece of very technical equipment to civilians, including an explanation of why this commander would release this piece of equipment with a critical portion of its function missing.

Dutchy wrote:
You claim your authority on tracking radar operations, which is fine, I accept it, but this is something else and on that you don't claim any authority.
I believe I have just exhibited a better understanding of the Russian military than you have presented here.
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4333
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:19 am

Some people should find better things to do than embarrassing themselves on the internet. Particularly 2 of them.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:41 am

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:
Some people should find better things to do than embarrassing themselves on the internet. Particularly 2 of them.

wow, another ad hominem without any reference to the subject of the thread, and this is your second time around with that in this thread.
Do you see any irony there?
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:14 am

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:
Some people should find better things to do than embarrassing themselves on the internet. Particularly 2 of them.


It's akin to arguing with the Flat Earther's that we've been discussing in another thread. The arguments are so lacking in science, technology, and facts that it's impossible to take them seriously. On the Flat Earth morons site simply trying to explain gravity vs. mass from a 9th grade perspective is a challenge. The morons automatically think they have a "gotcha" because of things like "water doesn't bend, therefore gravity doesn't exist". It truly is mind bending that otherwise normal people become complete mental handicapped morons when dealing with physics, facts, and science. *smh*
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:25 am

PacificBeach88 wrote:
It's akin to arguing with the Flat Earther's that we've been discussing in another thread. The arguments are so lacking in science, technology, and facts that it's impossible to take them seriously. On the Flat Earth morons site simply trying to explain gravity vs. mass from a 9th grade perspective is a challenge. The morons automatically think they have a "gotcha" because of things like "water doesn't bend, therefore gravity doesn't exist". It truly is mind bending that otherwise normal people become complete mental handicapped morons when dealing with physics, facts, and science. *smh*
If you can't follow it it doesn't mean that there is nothing there. Look kid, 298 people were murdered, that's in real life not in one of your computer games or one of your TV shows. There are people who care about such stuff. If you're not one of them why are you here trolling people who do?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Thu Oct 06, 2016 4:48 am

salttee wrote:
The question here is, was this the way MH-17 came to be shot down? I cannot say that it was with any degree of certainty, but the premise cannot be rejected out of hand as you are doing.

My premise is that no-one in their right mind would shoot down an airliner. MH17 was flying from west to east, so that might indicate an Ukrainian Air Force plane. Then you have the tweet claiming a cargo plane was shot down. So I cannot say with any degree of certainly that it was "accidentally" shot down. But my logic dictates it. Because this I have set the bar high to proof this was intentionally, for one reason of another. Occam's razor: "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." And I would say in this case the accident theory is the most likely.

salttee wrote:
You need to explain what would motivate a Battalion, Brigade or Army commander to release a valuable and dangerous piece of very technical equipment to civilians, including an explanation of why this commander would release this piece of equipment with a critical portion of its function missing.

Well, they might been ordered to do this, by the FSB. Perhaps Russian soldiers were send along, I find this most likely. I have no explanation of why they would release it without the radar, but that is something you would also need explain, perhaps even more, because you say it is deliberate.

salttee wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
You claim your authority on tracking radar operations, which is fine, I accept it, but this is something else and on that you don't claim any authority.
I believe I have just exhibited a better understanding of the Russian military than you have presented here.
[/quote]
I claim no in depth knowledge of the Russian military or any other military, I have never served or made an in depth studie of any military, so no claim to fame here.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:45 am

Dutchy wrote:
My premise is that no-one in their right mind would shoot down an airliner.
A good friend of mine was on KAL 007, so I don't share that view.

Dutchy wrote:
MH17 was flying from west to east, so that might indicate an Ukrainian Air Force plane.
The fact that it was at 500kts and 33,000 feet headed into Russia (as opposed to circling around Donetsk or Sverdlovs'k) puts that to rest. Tracking operators have a good feel for speed, and with the plane that close at FL 330 the elevation was unusually high. And you honestly can't assume that a truck driver was operating this TELAR. All this may be unfamiliar to you, but it isn't to a radar operator.
Dutchy wrote:
Then you have the tweet claiming a cargo plane was shot down. So I cannot say with any degree of certainly that it was "accidentally" shot down. But my logic dictates it.
If you say that you just have a gut feel for it I can accept that, but logic does not dictate that this TELAR was set in operation without a connection to its command vehicle, and logic does not suggest that this TELAR operator was so out of touch that he didn't know the target he was locked on to was very high and very fast. (The tweet almost certainly came from part of the security escort (there were two vehicles that traveled with the flatbed on its journey.)
Dutchy wrote:
Because this I have set the bar high to proof this was intentionally, for one reason of another.
I suggest that you set your bar for objectivity as I have.
Dutchy wrote:
Occam's razor: "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."
That eliminates the accident theory for me. The accident theory requires several counter intuitive assumptions: Russian military releasing a high value piece of equipment loaded with high explosives to civilians, Russian military sending a BUK Telar off to be used without a search radar, Russian military allowing untrained people to operate their TELAR or a trained and experienced TELAR operator trying to bag a Ukrainian warplane not noticing that the target he was tracking was two miles higher and traveling at double the speed of any military aircraft ever seen over eastern Ukraine. Also the tracking radar operator didn't notice that this target was huge and flying in a straight line towards the border with Russia. Then there is the fact that the TELAR had located itself almost directly under the intersection of airways M-70, L-980 and L-69. Then there is the fact that they locked on and got their shot off on the first try, another thing which to excludes a trainee operator and absolutely excludes any possibility that the TELAR was working without a search radar.

Dutchy wrote:
they might been ordered to do this, by the FSB.
Isn't that exactly like saying that it was a clandestine mission as opposed to an air defense mission? I actually have come to more and more buy into this scenario. But of course if the FSB had commandeered it, it would have had a Russian crew, not a rebel crew.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Thu Oct 06, 2016 6:28 am

Well, we don't know as of yet, weather it was a Russian crew or an opposition crew. So for me I would like to wait to come with a definitive conclusion if it was intentional or not. So for now I am leaning towards an unintentional targeting of a civilian aircraft. Which is still a criminal offense, mind you. And in the end Russia bares a lot of the blame, I feel it doesn't matter if it was a Russian crew or an opposition one, perhaps it is even worse if it was the opposition, because you don't give a gun to a 2y/o and see what happens. The most brutal thing would be, if it was intentional targeting and shooting down of the MH17.

The KAL007 was, as far as I understand it, not an intentional shooting down of a civilian airliner, but more a case of mistaken identity, RC-135 was in the vicinity at the time. As I understand it, the pilot says he genuinely thought it was a RC-135, from below and behind. Lots of things must go wrong for something like this to happen.
 
64947
Posts: 2277
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:35 am

From what I know, a BUK's targeting radar is more than capable of tracking a target once it has been located. It is not exactly a "pencil beam" as the topic starter claims.

If you point the radar at the target visually, you will get a lock. Meaning if you see a plane flying overhead, point the radar at it, you've got a lock.

That is how it works in "autonomous mode".

You will have no information on it's transponder code, you will see a target, it's range (actually it's slant range - the hypotenuse of this triangle, not the target's actual altitude over the surface of the earth or it's range from you) and that's about it. There is additional equipment in the TELAR that would be able to pick up an IFF code, but that is not the same thing as a Secondary Radar you find in an ATC facility. It interrogates a different piece of equipment on a different frequency.

Think of it like seeing something in the sky, shining a spotlight at it and then tracking it with the spotlight. You won't even know it's altitude unless it is directly overhead you.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:47 pm

tu204 wrote:
From what I know, a BUK's targeting radar is more than capable of tracking a target once it has been located. It is not exactly a "pencil beam" as the topic starter claims.
Agreed except that the firedome is "exactly" a pencil beam radar which is a colloquial term anyway.

tu204 wrote:
If you point the radar at the target visually, you will get a lock. Meaning if you see a plane flying overhead, point the radar at it, you've got a lock.
That is how it works in "autonomous mode".
I can find no reference to a visual acquisition or visual aided tracking ability in the buk system, such things exist to counter stealth technology but I'm pretty sure that the BUK M1 at least doesn't have that ability. However, in searching for information on this subject I've come across information about a "search mode" that the firedome radar has, and to keep my arguments honest I am compelled to raise that topic here myself. "Search mode" sets the firedome to search in a narrow azimuth band and it has two preset elevations programmed in. This could make it much more possible that the TELAR operated in "autonomous mode". I'll give this consideration.


tu204 wrote:
You will have no information on it's transponder code, you will see a target, it's range (actually it's slant range - the hypotenuse of this triangle, not the target's actual altitude over the surface of the earth or it's range from you) and that's about it. There is additional equipment in the TELAR that would be able to pick up an IFF code, but that is not the same thing as a Secondary Radar you find in an ATC facility. It interrogates a different piece of equipment on a different frequency.
IFF woud not have been used in any case, this is a moot point, we can ignore IFF altogether in the case of MH-17.
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:55 pm

I think Salttee is posting in good faith and the ad hominem attacks on him are unjustified. OVV seem to share his revised view, honestly stated, that the TELAR has a search mode, where the azimuth band is wider than in fire-control mode. Neither OVV nor Salttee's detractors on this site however deal with the limited range point. I absolutely agree with Salttee that this was no accident and that a separate search radar was used.

Target ground speed was just below 500 mph, rather than 500 knots, possibly to conserve fuel, however that does not alter the validity of Salttee's points. You also have the time factor - if one,TELAR, radar was used it has to search and acquire the target, the operator then has to change modes, lock on and commence the firing sequence, then the missile has to reach FL330, with perhaps 25 miles or so of ground to cover.

I think what Tu 204 is getting at it seeing the target, in daylight, with the Mark I eyeball, then pointing the radar in that direction for accurate range and altitude data. Doable, but not I suspect in the time-frame. Remember a chasing shot was out, for political reasons, given who might see the exhaust trail.

I disagree strongly with Salttee as to who fired the Buk, and whether it was a Russian or Chinese Buk, but I am only interested in finding out what happened to MH17. Salttee has operational radar experience I do not have and I find his reasoning persuasive, with respect, on the search radar and deliberate shoot-down points.

I have only ever operated a search radar, not a fire-control radar.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:37 am

Spyhunter wrote:
I disagree strongly with Salttee as to who fired the Buk, and whether it was a Russian or Chinese Buk, but I am only interested in finding out what happened to MH17.


You don't disagree with Saltte, you disagree with the OVV and the JIT, official investigation with thousands of man hours, with hard evidence. You haven't provided any, none.
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:02 am

I most certainly do disagree with the OVV and JIT's conclusions, indeed they are fatally flawed for the reasons I have set out, both here and in my published articles on VeteransToday and UKIPDaily.

I do not disagree with much of the research work carried out - that's where the time was spent. Official reports however are not usually cleared with the experts doing the real work. The final report is written by the bureaucrats. Very often they are slanted - the OVV report most certainly is slanted, against Russia. The final draft will not have been cleared with AIVD or MIVD.

The JIT report is junk, with respect. The JIT has no obvious aviation expertise and is heavily reliant for detailed research on the people brought in my OVV. I believe my analysis is shared by AIVD and MIVD. I am not an unknown quantity to either agency and I would like to believe there is mutual respect. The OVV report may be withdraw after the Dutch election, if that nice man Geert Wilders becomes prime minister.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:17 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
I most certainly do disagree with the OVV and JIT's conclusions....


The man who fired the damn missile could stand in front of the world's media and confess to it; you would still try to push your crazy conspiracy ideas as the "truth".
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:50 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
I most certainly do disagree with the OVV and JIT's conclusions, indeed they are fatally flawed for the reasons I have set out, both here and in my published articles on VeteransToday and UKIPDaily.

I do not disagree with much of the research work carried out - that's where the time was spent. Official reports however are not usually cleared with the experts doing the real work. The final report is written by the bureaucrats. Very often they are slanted - the OVV report most certainly is slanted, against Russia. The final draft will not have been cleared with AIVD or MIVD.

The JIT report is junk, with respect. The JIT has no obvious aviation expertise and is heavily reliant for detailed research on the people brought in my OVV. I believe my analysis is shared by AIVD and MIVD. I am not an unknown quantity to either agency and I would like to believe there is mutual respect. The OVV report may be withdraw after the Dutch election, if that nice man Geert Wilders becomes prime minister.


Well, as I have pointed out, you article in VT is flauwed, you have failed to answer to each point, so I am guessing you agree with me, otherwise here is a link: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1344405

Based on what is your analysis shared with the AIVD / MIVD? Well mr. Wilders a nice man? He might, I don't know him personally, he will never become PM, doesn't work like that in The Netherlands, so again you don't know how the politics work in The Netherlands, so keep far from it. The OVV is an in depended organization, no political influence there. So again a lot of innuendo no proof.
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Sat Oct 08, 2016 2:09 pm

The OVV is scarcely independent! Like the AAIB and NTSB it is nominally independent, but in practice is subject to political pressure, in this case to come up with a solution which embarrassed Russia.

I stand by my VT column, save for changing my opinion on the first strike from cannon to AAM, probably an AA-11. I know people who know Geert Wilders, I am told he is a nice chap. He might well be the next Dutch PM - the political landscape in Holland is in a state of flux. Both AIVD and MIVD know how to reach me - I have met officers of both agencies, and each holds my contact details.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Sat Oct 08, 2016 2:41 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
The OVV is scarcely independent! Like the AAIB and NTSB it is nominally independent, but in practice is subject to political pressure, in this case to come up with a solution which embarrassed Russia.

I stand by my VT column, save for changing my opinion on the first strike from cannon to AAM, probably an AA-11. I know people who know Geert Wilders, I am told he is a nice chap. He might well be the next Dutch PM - the political landscape in Holland is in a state of flux. Both AIVD and MIVD know how to reach me - I have met officers of both agencies, and each holds my contact details.


Sure you do, I don't believe one word you are saying and you know nothing about the political landscape in Holland.

Lots of claims, lots of theories, nothing proven, nothing we can check. Sorry Spyhunter, you are a crotcheteer, nothing more. It is entertaining though.

Just on thing, do you really believe what you write?
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:18 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Just on thing, do you really believe what you write?


Most likely yes:

His defence counsel nonetheless suspected him to be suffering from a developmental or personality disorder such as autism or narcissistic personality disorder.
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:19 pm

I always give my true opinion, and no, my leading defence counsel, William Clegg QC, did not say that! He was mis-reported, by a journalist who never spoke to him, let alone put his note of what he had said to him for confirmation. I think that quote comes from a piece of tabloid journalism in The Scotsman newspaper, who were not in court.

The CPS were trying to get me banged up in a mental hospital, a shabby but classic government tactic for shutting up people who know too much, perfected by Lavrenti Beria. In desperation they got the court to appoint a psychiatrist, who of course found no evidence of mental illness. Her starting point in interview for my IQ was 185, which I am told is about right. She suggested further tests to see if I might have autism, or an NPO. Autism is not unknown in people of very high IQ. Bill Clegg, on my instructions, went for an adjournment, but it was a weak application, as we both knew, as there was no evidence of either autism or NPO. The learned judge rightly rejected the adjourmnent request, with respect, effectively ruling that there were no grounds for supposing that I suffered from autism or had an NPO. Since a cell-mate was suspected of suffering TB, which is not unknown in British prisons, I came down with a heavy chest infection and it was thought I might have contracted TB I saw a number of doctors once transferred to a prison where medical attention was offered (it was denied me at HMP Wandsworth). No doctor who treated me in prison even queried my mental health,and rightly so. The allegation that I was mentally ill was offensive, untrue, unsupported by any medical evidence, let alone from a psychiatrist, and came from the prosecution, not the defence.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:01 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
I always give my true opinion, and no, my leading defence counsel, William Clegg QC, did not say that! He was mis-reported, by a journalist who never spoke to him, let alone put his note of what he had said to him for confirmation. I think that quote comes from a piece of tabloid journalism in The Scotsman newspaper, who were not in court.

The CPS were trying to get me banged up in a mental hospital, a shabby but classic government tactic for shutting up people who know too much, perfected by Lavrenti Beria. In desperation they got the court to appoint a psychiatrist, who of course found no evidence of mental illness. Her starting point in interview for my IQ was 185, which I am told is about right. She suggested further tests to see if I might have autism, or an NPO. Autism is not unknown in people of very high IQ. Bill Clegg, on my instructions, went for an adjournment, but it was a weak application, as we both knew, as there was no evidence of either autism or NPO. The learned judge rightly rejected the adjourmnent request, with respect, effectively ruling that there were no grounds for supposing that I suffered from autism or had an NPO. Since a cell-mate was suspected of suffering TB, which is not unknown in British prisons, I came down with a heavy chest infection and it was thought I might have contracted TB I saw a number of doctors once transferred to a prison where medical attention was offered (it was denied me at HMP Wandsworth). No doctor who treated me in prison even queried my mental health,and rightly so. The allegation that I was mentally ill was offensive, untrue, unsupported by any medical evidence, let alone from a psychiatrist, and came from the prosecution, not the defence.


Look, like I said before, for me it doesn't really matter what your psychic state is, you don't need to explain yourself. I, for one, will only "judge" (don't have a better word for it, since English isn't my first language so I can't bring you all the nuances I want ;-)) you on what you say here, I will take it at face value. You gain my respect to put this kind of story on this public forum.

But, and that is a big but, when you don't answer questions and only answer specific ones which apparently suits you, then you don't come across as someone whom seeks answers but only put forward your own thoughts and you ignore everything that doesn't suit you. Moreover you treat me and others whom have asked questions about your hypotheses, with disrespect by ignoring them. So I take offense every time you write "with respect" because you show no respect at all, so that's hypocritical from you to write that.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:03 pm

Duh, of course a person suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder isn't going to admit that he is suffering from it. Thats what a narcissistic personality disorder is all about! :lol:

Spyhunter wrote:
Autism is not unknown in people of very high IQ.


Well that makes it pretty obvious that you aren't suffering from autism :roll:
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:41 am

Oh, dear! The weakest form of argument,VSMUT! The point I was making is that there was no evidence that I was suffering from an NPD, no diagnosis to that effect was made, quite properly, since there was no evidence of it, and leading counsel did not speak the words attributed to him by an irresponsible newspaper which was not present in court.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 12, 2016 11:20 am

Dutchy wrote:
Spyhunter wrote:
I always give my true opinion, and no, my leading defence counsel, William Clegg QC, did not say that! He was mis-reported, by a journalist who never spoke to him, let alone put his note of what he had said to him for confirmation. I think that quote comes from a piece of tabloid journalism in The Scotsman newspaper, who were not in court.

The CPS were trying to get me banged up in a mental hospital, a shabby but classic government tactic for shutting up people who know too much, perfected by Lavrenti Beria. In desperation they got the court to appoint a psychiatrist, who of course found no evidence of mental illness. Her starting point in interview for my IQ was 185, which I am told is about right. She suggested further tests to see if I might have autism, or an NPO. Autism is not unknown in people of very high IQ. Bill Clegg, on my instructions, went for an adjournment, but it was a weak application, as we both knew, as there was no evidence of either autism or NPO. The learned judge rightly rejected the adjourmnent request, with respect, effectively ruling that there were no grounds for supposing that I suffered from autism or had an NPO. Since a cell-mate was suspected of suffering TB, which is not unknown in British prisons, I came down with a heavy chest infection and it was thought I might have contracted TB I saw a number of doctors once transferred to a prison where medical attention was offered (it was denied me at HMP Wandsworth). No doctor who treated me in prison even queried my mental health,and rightly so. The allegation that I was mentally ill was offensive, untrue, unsupported by any medical evidence, let alone from a psychiatrist, and came from the prosecution, not the defence.


You gain my respect to put this kind of story on this public forum.


I also respect Spyhunter for posting "this kind of story" on a public forum.

I appreciate the effort he puts in and his detailed responses.

Some people must be pissed off with that kind of information being thrown out there for the public to consume.

Dutchy wrote:
Spyhunter wrote:
...


But, and that is a big but, when you don't answer questions and only answer specific ones which apparently suits you, then you don't come across as someone whom seeks answers but only put forward your own thoughts and you ignore everything that doesn't suit you. Moreover you treat me and others whom have asked questions about your hypotheses, with disrespect by ignoring them. So I take offense every time you write "with respect" because you show no respect at all, so that's hypocritical from you to write that.


I am also waiting for Spyhunter to explain the lack of debris around the SCS regarding MH370. (Sorry to discuss MH370 in your MH17 thread Salttee, but I am just addressing the above point made my Dutchy). All Spyhunter relies on regarding SCS debris is the object he claims was a 777 window hatch. First he said it was confirmed by Boeing - that never happened. The he shifted and said that because Boeing has not denied that it is from a 777, that lack of denial carries weight in the world of intelligence. We have several confirmed items from MH370 being found around the Indian Ocean now. Spyhunter says they were all planted. Well, we could say the SCS item, that only one picture exists of and that was never found, was planted. How does that sound Spyhunter? That SCS item was planted to keep investigators away from the SIO where flight MH370 ended. So, for one last time, in an attempt to get an answer, why has not one item from MH370 or any 777 for that matter been found on any of the land surrounding your alleged SCS crash zone. That part of the SCS is surrounded by land in every direction (Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Philippines, Cambodia, Indonesia, etc.), and is much closer to the said land than the SIO crash area is to any land. Also, why was not one item found in the SCS during an extensive air and sea search lasting from day one for two weeks. Spyhunter, can you at least answer that? Again, sorry to Salttee for bringing in MH370, but it was to address the point Dutchy made above about respect.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 12, 2016 1:18 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
The point I was making is that there was no evidence that I was suffering from an NPD, no diagnosis to that effect was made, quite properly, since there was no evidence of it, and leading counsel did not speak the words attributed to him by an irresponsible newspaper which was not present in court.


You have a history of making legal threats when your reputation is "disputed":

Michael Shrimpton, on the wikipedia dispute, wrote:
I have today asked that this matter be referred to Wikipedia's General Counsel. Reputations in Britain are protected by law - Psychonaut is clearly used to jurisdictions where reputations do not matter and there is a free for all. You are putting Wikipedia at risk of a law suit for defamation.


It is pretty ironic and telling that you (a barrister) haven't done anything to protect your reputation against false information published by several newspapers in Britain. Maybe because those "offensive, untrue and unsupported" allegations of child pornography and psychological disorders aren't really false at all? :|

And you still fail to come up with any evidence in response to Dutchy's questions.
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:02 am

VSMUT, you have just bought the Scotsman newspaper a referral to the UK press regulator!

The pornography allegation is currently under review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, on grounds which a High Court judge has ruled are "legitimate". They are the proper body to make such inquiry, and whilst it is a matter for them I anticipate that the conviction will be quashed next year. Since we now know the hard drive used to convict me was an aftermarket item never supplied to the computer manufacturer, and my laptop had the original hard drive in it when unlawfully seized by police, the CPS no longer have a leg to stand on! The replacement hard drive had the wrong model number, and was issued with a warranty date post-dating my laptop warranty by some 19 months.

Responding to 777 my position on wreckage in the SCS hasn't changed,although I agree the words "exit hatch" are apt to confuse, since the starboard doors on the 777 are doors. My position remains that the wreckage was from a 777 starboard door, series not identified, that Boeing confirmed this by computer analysis, that the doors were designed using CAD and that weight should be given to Boeing's non-denial.

No other course for the SCS wreckage than MH370 has been identified.

I have no objection, of Salttee and the moderators do not, to bringing in 370 - the two shoot-downs are clearly linked.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Fri Oct 14, 2016 9:18 am

Spyhunter wrote:
I have no objection, of Salttee and the moderators do not, to bringing in 370 - the two shoot-downs are clearly linked.


How? (to add another question you probably not going to answer). To follow your logic, Ukraine shot down the MH17 - with an AAM and BUK - and China shot down the MH370 with a submarine launched sam, well what is the link? China and Ukraine, 10.000km apart. Both really dislike Malaysian? But I don't have an IQ of 180, so I think I am just to dumb to follow your brilliance. Can you explain to me if I were a 5y/o?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:46 am

The link is the German Intelligence Service DVD. More information can for example be found in a book called "LOOSE NUKES: The Kursk's Unregistered Missiles" - Highly recommended reading.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20321
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:38 pm

seahawk wrote:
The link is the German Intelligence Service DVD. More information can for example be found in a book called "LOOSE NUKES: The Kursk's Unregistered Missiles" - Highly recommended reading.


I got as far as the first line of the description on Amazon:
In support of the exoneration of Barrister Michael Shrimpton
:lol:

It's just more of the same nonsense, without a shred of evidence to support the crazy conspiracy theories. :roll:
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:44 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Spyhunter wrote:
I have no objection, of Salttee and the moderators do not, to bringing in 370 - the two shoot-downs are clearly linked.


How? (to add another question you probably not going to answer). To follow your logic, Ukraine shot down the MH17 - with an AAM and BUK - and China shot down the MH370 with a submarine launched sam, well what is the link? China and Ukraine, 10.000km apart. Both really dislike Malaysian? But I don't have an IQ of 180, so I think I am just to dumb to follow your brilliance. Can you explain to me if I were a 5y/o?


The only link is Spyhunter and the fact that both aircraft were Malaysian B777-200ERs. :roll: Other than that, the two incidents are completely seperate and have nothing to do with one another. Except in Spyhunter's world, of course.
Last edited by garpd on Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:44 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
Responding to 777 my position on wreckage in the SCS hasn't changed,although I agree the words "exit hatch" are apt to confuse, since the starboard doors on the 777 are doors. My position remains that the wreckage was from a 777 starboard door, series not identified, that Boeing confirmed this by computer analysis, that the doors were designed using CAD and that weight should be given to Boeing's non-denial.

No other course for the SCS wreckage than MH370 has been identified.

I have no objection, of Salttee and the moderators do not, to bringing in 370 - the two shoot-downs are clearly linked.


Where is the rest of the SCS wreckage? Where is any of it? It doesn't exist. It's in the SIO.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4269
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Fri Oct 14, 2016 3:04 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Spyhunter wrote:
Just on thing, do you really believe what you write?

As I said in the other thread I am convinced he is just posting these conspiracy theories to increase the sales numbers of his book.

And you know what? He didn't deny! :-) So if we apply the same logic as to the fact that Boeing didn't deny that door was from a B777.... it must be true!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Fri Oct 14, 2016 8:16 pm

garpd wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Spyhunter wrote:
I have no objection, of Salttee and the moderators do not, to bringing in 370 - the two shoot-downs are clearly linked.


How? (to add another question you probably not going to answer). To follow your logic, Ukraine shot down the MH17 - with an AAM and BUK - and China shot down the MH370 with a submarine launched sam, well what is the link? China and Ukraine, 10.000km apart. Both really dislike Malaysian? But I don't have an IQ of 180, so I think I am just to dumb to follow your brilliance. Can you explain to me if I were a 5y/o?


The only link is Spyhunter and the fact that both aircraft were Malaysian B777-200ERs. :roll: Other than that, the two incidents are completely seperate and have nothing to do with one another. Except in Spyhunter's world, of course.


Well keep an open mind and let Spyhunter convince us. I will give him the benefit of the doubt (again)
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Sat Oct 15, 2016 5:02 am

Dutchy wrote:
Well, we don't know as of yet, weather it was a Russian crew or an opposition crew. So for me I would like to wait to come with a definitive conclusion if it was intentional or not. So for now I am leaning towards an unintentional targeting of a civilian aircraft.


After watching various footage from right after the shoot down, I lean towards MH17 being mistaken as another aircraft by incompetents. I believe they were intentionally trying to shoot down what they though was a different plane, and got it wrong.

Comments in the video indicate that they were surprised that it was a "passenger plane" hence them questioning "Who gave them the corridor (right to fly through this area)?". I don't for a moment believe that MH17 was the intended target.

Don't know what to make of the comment "a pilot was seen crawling"...



'The moment Russian-backed rebels realise their momentous mistake after shooting down flight MH17'

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-up ... 668b1127b3



Another article:

''That was a blast - look at the smoke': Sick boast of the laughing rebels as they 'saw MH17 hit by missile' - hours after leader boasted: 'We warned you - do not fly in our sky'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... y-sky.html

The above article links to the following video:

'Pro-Russian rebels discuss the shooting down of the Malaysian Airlines airliner'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... nuHxAR01Jo
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Sat Oct 15, 2016 6:07 am

yes, that is the most likely scenario. The question for me is only to what extend is Russia involved, only suppling it or also manning it, both are reprehensible.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10417
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:53 am

scbriml wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The link is the German Intelligence Service DVD. More information can for example be found in a book called "LOOSE NUKES: The Kursk's Unregistered Missiles" - Highly recommended reading.


I got as far as the first line of the description on Amazon:
In support of the exoneration of Barrister Michael Shrimpton
:lol:

It's just more of the same nonsense, without a shred of evidence to support the crazy conspiracy theories. :roll:


Plenty of more links exposing the DVD and their Zionist cooperation.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio ... many17.htm

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/22 ... erman-dvd/

http://www.nexus-magazin.de/artikel/les ... gsdienstes

https://open-speech.com/showthread.php/ ... ng-geplant (confirming the planed atomic attack on the Olympic Games and also how Anders Breivik was a DVD agent)
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:08 am

One has to be careful of stories about MH17 on both social and mainstream media, many of which have been planted.

We can rule out the rebels - Salttee is right about that with respect. Their Buk lacked a radar and they didn't have the launch codes. We can also safely rule out an accidental shoot. MH17 was clearly an airliner, flying in daylight in good visibility along at established airway, at a height typical of civilian traffic,heading towards Russia on a settled course.

There are three links with MH370, IMHO:

(1) The DVD

(2) The PLA - both planes were shot down by the PLA,Navy in the case of 370, using a Fakour-90 SAM, and Army in the case of 17, probably using a HQ-16A. It might have been a 16B, but unlikely, and

(3) The first, AAM, attack on 17 seems to have been designed to prevent evasive manoevres by the crew, as performed heroically by Captain Shah.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: airtechy, luisjumper, notdownnlocked, scbriml, SoJo, Trololzilla and 15 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos