Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

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

MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:07 am

Now that the Dutch have brought forth the facts that the some of the missile and/or warhead parts embedded in MH-17 came from a type of missile that is only found in the Russian inventory we can move on knowing that Bellingcat's observations that the TELAR that shot down MH-17 came from Russia's 53rd AD Brigade are validated.

There has been a near unanimous belief expressed at this site that the downing of MH-17 was an accident caused by "rebels" somehow getting their hands on a BUK launcher and accidentally shooting down an airliner while trying to shoot down a Ukrainian warplane. This belief has never had any basis in fact and has nothing whatsoever to support it. It apparently was thought up by one of the early posters and accepted as holy grail by most everyone simply because any alternative theory to it was so unpleasant to consider. Yet this "accident" theory is wrong and has nothing to support it.

Unfortunately, this theory has worked to absolve the perpetrators of the crime of murder x 298 from any consideration of guilt or responsibility. I would like this thread to address the reasons why so many people here believe this was an accident, and I will offer evidence and argument to show that it was an intentional act.

I would like to begin the thread by asking: do we have anyone here willing to state why they think this was an accident, and bring forth any evidence they have relied on to support that premise?
 
blueflyer
Posts: 4352
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:52 am

I do not understand the inference from the source of the missile to the intentional downing of Malaysian's aircraft. I think the burden is on you to explain your reasoning.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:32 am

That the aircraft was downed by a Russian missile from a Russian launcher is pretty much certain. However there is no evidence to support a claim that it was a fully intentional act. I am still convinced it was an accidental shoot down by a trigger happy operator. The rebels seemed to genuinely think they took down a government cargo plane.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13758
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:07 am

Why open another thread there's already one several pages long in the civil aviation section?

garpd wrote:
That the aircraft was downed by a Russian missile from a Russian launcher is pretty much certain. However there is no evidence to support a claim that it was a fully intentional act. I am still convinced it was an accidental shoot down by a trigger happy operator. The rebels seemed to genuinely think they took down a government cargo plane.


1000% agree. It also doesn't make it murder, they didn't intentionally plan to shoot down a passanger aircraft, it was a warzone anything flying over it is fair game. I also believe the Ukranians and MH have to take partial responsibility for this accident, questions have to be asked, why wasn't the airspace closed and why was MH flying over a warzone even if the airspace wasn't closed, especially since the Russian backed rebels had already shot down aircraft in the same area a few days prior.
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4333
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:07 am

Seriously.. what? They had any clue what they were shooting down? Please. Now that does not make it any better at all in my opinion, particularly on Russia, but this is a lamebrain theory.

You really find the idea that they were profoundly ignorant and misinformed of the target to have "no support whatsoever" and "thought up by an early poster". Uhh. its pretty obvious common sense. You're giving them too much credit. It was like giving matches to a 5 year old. They likely had no clue it could reach something at that altitude.
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2431
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:17 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Why open another thread there's already one several pages long in the civil aviation section?


It was locked because it strayed away from Civil Av.

Kiwirob wrote:
Why was MH flying over a warzone even if the airspace wasn't closed, especially since the Russian backed rebels had already shot down aircraft in the same area a few days prior.


Because Ukraine never issued any NOTAMS closing the airspace beyond the range of the MANPADS that shot down the An-26, and intel of BUKs being used aren't shared among the airlines.

Plus, the route via Ukraine often the route of choice for airlines to the South/South East Asia region, as witnessed by the fact that Singapore Airlines had the most number of flights through that area in the days leading up to the shootdown, in addition to Lufthansa, Thai Airways & Air India among others. Like I said many times before, if MH17 had been delayed by just a few minutes we'd be talking about the SQ351 disaster instead.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12841
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:19 am

Kiwirob wrote:
1000% agree. It also doesn't make it murder, they didn't intentionally plan to shoot down a passanger aircraft, it was a warzone anything flying over it is fair game. I also believe the Ukranians and MH have to take partial responsibility for this accident, questions have to be asked, why wasn't the airspace closed and why was MH flying over a warzone even if the airspace wasn't closed, especially since the Russian backed rebels had already shot down aircraft in the same area a few days prior.


Really Rob, it doesn't make it murder, it is extreem carelessness, so manslaughter might be a good term. They took the risk of shooting down a passengerairliner. Anything flying is fair game? Really, that is the same as saying at any object in a warzone is fair game, hospitals, cities, children centers, markets full of people, all fair game. No it isn't, there are rules to minimize civilian casualties.

The question why MH17 overflew the warzone and why it wasn't closed have been answered in the accident investigation report.

So this is putting fog all over the discussion. This is a criminal investigation and yes there are mitigating circumstances, but that comes into play, after the guilty party has been convicted of the crime.
 
User avatar
pvjin
Posts: 3586
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:35 am

After MH17 was shot down I followed the story develop rather closely (which you clearly didn't), and remember finding this evidence:

http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/4773146/ ... AAtv47.jpg

Just after MH17 was shot down a rebel commander or whatever made a tweet where he said that the rebels had shot down an Ukrainian cargo plane. After they found out what had actually happened the tweet was quickly deleted. This very strongly suggests that they indeed thought they shot down an Ukrainian cargo plane.

Second evidence is just plain logic. If you want to get international support and sympathy for your cause, the LAST thing you would want to do would be shooting down a random passenger aircraft. It simply makes no sense from any viewpoint. Also all those made up claims by Russians that tried to put the blame on Ukraine (such as faked satellite pics) were so poorly done, that they were certainly not well prepared and planned beforehand.

So yes, the rebels had no idea they were shooting down a passenger aircraft.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:01 am

Kiwirob wrote:
..... it was a warzone anything flying over it is fair game....... I also believe the Ukranians and MH have to take partial responsibility for this accident, questions have to be asked, why wasn't the airspace closed and why was MH flying over a warzone even if the airspace wasn't closed, especially since the Russian backed rebels had already shot down aircraft in the same area a few days prior.


Eh, I'm not sure it was designated a war zone officially and CIV AV were informed that flyovers above 25000 feet were safe. Many airlines continued to route over the Ukraine up to and on the day of the shoot down. There were two or 3 airlines on the same track at the time of the shoot down.
The aircraft shot down the days before were all flying below 25000 feet with a shoulder mounted devices that a maximum target height of 25000 feet. It was considered safe to overfly the Ukraine above 30K. MH17 was at 36K IIRC.

Now, whether or not the powers that be knew the rebels had access to BUK launchers is up for debate. If they did, then they surely must be considered partly responsible for this tragedy?
 
User avatar
Spyhunter
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:57 am

The moderators with respect were correct to move the discussion from CivAv, as the discussion is bound to involve intelligence and geo-political matters. It was also getting abusive - you will not, I hope, be seeing any abuse from me!

Garpd is not quite right with respect re altitudes: MH17 had been offered FL350 but declined, it would seem for reasons of fuel efficiency, and maintained FL330. The aircraft was in level flight at FL330 when hit for the first time. A NOTAM was issued shortly before the shoot-down, raising the minimum altitude over eastern Ukraine to FL320. Odd numbers are used eastbound across the Ukraine.

Operators assumed that high altitudes, above MANPADS range, were safe, as nothing had been done to alert them to the high-altitude threat. Spyhunter had been published in April, but had extremely limited circulation in the aviation community, as aviation journals would not review it. It was the only publication, anywhere in the world, warning of the high-altitude missile threat to airliners.

Salttee is 100% correct with respect re this not being an accidental shoot-down. The rebels were clearly not involved - they had a Buk launcher, but it was not a TELAR, i.e. did not possess a radar. Moreover the Buk requires launch codes, which the rebels did not have. Put shortly they had a launcher which could not launch and no means of target acquisition.

However with respect he is wrong about Russia being the only country to operate Buks with a GN314M warhead. Aside from the Ukraine, China (PRC) operates three versions of the Buk, designated HQ-16, 16A and 16B. The 16B is fairly new and can probably be ruled out for operational use in 2014 - in my published analysis on MH17 I have concentrated on the HQ-16A. My understanding is that it uses a similar, Chinese-made, warhead to the GN314M, using the distinctive bow-tie shaped fragments.

The absence of these fragments in the captain's body points strongly away from his having been killed by a Buk. My analysis is that the first strike was by an AA-11 Archer missile fired from the Ukrainian Su-25 observed on Russian radar. This is the first of the two radar contacts seen in proximity to the 777.

Analysis of the debris showed dishing to the lower fuselage, consistent with a Buk warhead detonating beneath the aircraft. I respectfully reject the OVV analysis that the damage to the upper half of the port side of the cockpit was created by a 154 lb Buk warhead detonating a few feet away. I would expect far more damage.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12841
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:13 pm

With all do respect, your analyses is wrong and portrays an impossible scenario and moreover not in the interest of Ukraine to shoot down a Malaysian passenger aircraft.

Spyhunter wrote:
I respectfully reject the OVV analysis that the damage to the upper half of the port side of the cockpit was created by a 154 lb Buk warhead detonating a few feet away. I would expect far more damage.

no you have no respect for the OVV investigation what so ever, so don't say you do.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:53 pm

Spyhunter wrote:
The absence of these fragments in the captain's body points strongly away from his having been killed by a Buk. My analysis is that the first strike was by an AA-11 Archer missile fired from the Ukrainian Su-25 observed on Russian radar. This is the first of the two radar contacts seen in proximity to the 777.


So, one body doesn't contain BUK shrapnel that is enough for you to dismiss all other evidence that corroborates the investigations findings? The co-pilot had shrapnel in his body and the plane had hundreds of shrapnel holes in it that match the shrapnel in a BUK missile.

Did you even read the Dutch investigation report? Even if you just skipped to the conclusions?

The evidence is conclusive and is written in flesh, blood and metal. All you are relying on is "evidence" coming from a state that has been exposed for presenting false evidence and excuses.
Last edited by garpd on Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
lugie
Posts: 936
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:11 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:51 pm

pvjin wrote:

Second evidence is just plain logic. If you want to get international support and sympathy for your cause, the LAST thing you would want to do would be shooting down a random passenger aircraft. It simply makes no sense from any viewpoint. Also all those made up claims by Russians that tried to put the blame on Ukraine (such as faked satellite pics) were so poorly done, that they were certainly not well prepared and planned beforehand.


You are raising a rather good point here
However I'm not entirely sure that shooting down an airliner would have been of no interest whatsoever to the Russians/rebels:

Just imagine what would've happened if the airliner hit was not an MH jet, but, say an Aeroflot, Rossiya, Pobeda, S7, UTAir (whatever you name it) Russian passenger airliner.
By laying the responsibility onto the Ukrainians, the Russians would've had the ultimate reason to openly support the Rebels into pushing further west.

And in that case they could've easily relayed upon vague assumptions about the Ukrainians' motives, just like Putin didn't need concrete evidence for discrimination against Russian-descended citizens to "intervene" on Crimea.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14949
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:01 pm

I you handle a deadly weapon, say an assault rifle, and shoot and kill a couple people, would we be talking about murder, or about manslaughter, if you claimed you were aiming at someone else ?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12841
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:05 pm

Aesma wrote:
I you handle a deadly weapon, say an assault rifle, and shoot and kill a couple people, would we be talking about murder, or about manslaughter, if you claimed you were aiming at someone else ?


does that really matter. Probably whom ever shot the MH17, never intended to shoot down an airliner.
 
64947
Posts: 2277
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:36 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:32 pm

salttee wrote:
Now that the Dutch have brought forth the facts that the some of the missile and/or warhead parts embedded in MH-17 came from a type of missile that is only found in the Russian inventory we can move on knowing that Bellingcat's observations that the TELAR that shot down MH-17 came from Russia's 53rd AD Brigade are validated.

There has been a near unanimous belief expressed at this site that the downing of MH-17 was an accident caused by "rebels" somehow getting their hands on a BUK launcher and accidentally shooting down an airliner while trying to shoot down a Ukrainian warplane. This belief has never had any basis in fact and has nothing whatsoever to support it. It apparently was thought up by one of the early posters and accepted as holy grail by most everyone simply because any alternative theory to it was so unpleasant to consider. Yet this "accident" theory is wrong and has nothing to support it.

Unfortunately, this theory has worked to absolve the perpetrators of the crime of murder x 298 from any consideration of guilt or responsibility. I would like this thread to address the reasons why so many people here believe this was an accident, and I will offer evidence and argument to show that it was an intentional act.

I would like to begin the thread by asking: do we have anyone here willing to state why they think this was an accident, and bring forth any evidence they have relied on to support that premise?


I can't manage to find any logical link from your presented facts (the JIT report's conclusions) and your conclusion based on those facts that whoever shot MH17 down intended to shoot down MH17 or any other foreign passenger airliner. :roll:
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6202
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 3:48 pm

Resolving the intention behind a crime act is a very difficult subject. There are a few examples which may help thinking about the MH17 issue.

1a. A hunter is hunting in the forest, sees a deer, and shoots. But the bullet hits and kills another hunter, who, through the underbrush, just looked like a deer.

The hunter clearly wanted to kill - but his intention never involved the human, but a deer. Despite clear intention to kill he will not be prosecuted for murder, but for involuntary manslaughter.

1b. A similar case, again involving a mistake in "What am I shooting at?". Person A fires a rifle at a mannequin in a shop window, but hits a human being instead. Person B fires a rifle at a person in a shop window, but hits a mannequin instead. Who will get the more severe punishment? B.

2. If you hand somebody a glass of water, you may end up in prison. Yes. Why? In the case you believed the glass of water to be a deadly poison. It does not matter if the liquid was actually a poison.


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

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:07 pm

Well there have been 15 responses so far and the only one that even attempted to address the request for evidence to support the accidental shootdown premise was pvjin who posed the issue of the immediate post shootdown tweets as evidence that the "rebels" were the ones who shot down (what they thought was a Ukrainian plane). This is no proof of anything, the TELAR would have needed security in its venture across the border and it is to be expected that the security would be provided by the "rebels", but IMO that's all they were there for: security. They knew there was a missile launch because they were there, and the TELAR crew probably would have communicated success, but this doesn't mean that the "rebels" were the shooters. So, this is not "proof" that the "rebels" were the ones operating the TELAR. pvjin's second attempt at providing evidence is "plain logic" because he assumes that this was done with thought of getting international support and sympathy for the Russian cause. No plausible motive that I've encountered includes the premise of enhancing international support for Russia's cause in Ukraine; they lean toward more Machiavellian motivation.

So far, the basic premise of the OP is upheld: there are no evidence in existence to support the premise that this was an accidental shootdown.

Proving that this was an intentional act on the part of a Russian commander two flows in two directions: one is the premise that the Russian military lent a TELAR out to rebels, the other is that the TELAR which brought down MH-17 operated in "autonomous mode", that is without a link to its command vehicle with the search radar. If it can be shown that the battalion command vehicle was in operation and linked to the TELAR, this would be proof of direct Russian involvement. The the other separate contention would be to show that it wasn't "rebels" who were operating a TELAR from the 53rd AD Brigade's inventory. These are separate issues and it would be helpful to not enmesh them in discussions. There certainly may be other points that come up, but these two appear as the salient points to me. I have addressed both of these points in the previous Civil Aviation thread, anyone can refer back there to see my reasoning, maybe I'll copy those posts here in a bit, but I think most people here have already followed that thread.

So, for now it appears to me that we are close to establishing as fact that there has been no basis for the belief that this was an accidental event other than the alternative is such an unpleasant idea.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:04 pm

tu204 wrote:
I can't manage to find any logical link from your presented facts (the JIT report's conclusions) and your conclusion based on those facts that whoever shot MH17 down intended to shoot down MH17 or any other foreign passenger airliner. :roll:

My conclusion isn't based on the JIT report but the report's findings that the missile came from Russia support my conclusion. Up until now any, attempt at making this case devolves into arguments that the missile was one that the "rebels" possessed on their own, or that it was the Ukrainians who shot the airliner down.

But now that these peripheral arguments are removed, the actual issues involved in finding out who fired the missile can be seen clearly.
And this all begins with acceptance of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support the premise that the "rebels" fired that missile, yet there is evidence to support the premise that the TELAR was manned by members of the Russian Army and that the target was selected by the TELAR's command module.
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4333
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:33 pm

What kind of "proof" would you reasonably expect to find or suffice for you? What a silly mission.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:03 pm

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:
What kind of "proof" would you reasonably expect to find or suffice for you? What a silly mission.
Anything at all. So far as I can see there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the TELAR that shot down MH-17 was manned by "rebels", other than the fact that it has been repeated so many times.

How can I make this more clear for you??????????????????????
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:04 pm

The logic here is amazing. An airliner is shot down, causing worldwide criticism and lots of economic sanctions, while fueling anti-russian opinion throughout the world. Yeah right, Russia planned and executed a cold-blooded shootdown of a random Malaysian Airlines 777 completely on purpose :roll:

Nor can anybody claim that there wasn't any historical precedence that wouldn't have warned the Russians about the fallout from such an action:

Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 114, shot down by Israeli F-4s = Widespread criticism, a vote for censure of Israel in the UN, heavy criticism even from the US.

Korean Airlines 007, shot down by Soviet Su-15s = Worldwide outrage, labelled as an evil empire by the US, raised tensions in the cold war which would ultimately cause the collapse of the USSR.

Iran Air 655, shot down by a US cruiser = Worldwide outrage, ruined US-Iranian relations, increased public support for Iran.


What on earth makes you think Russia would think it could gain anything from shooting down an airliner?!? As much as many members of this forum hate Putin, he has so far managed to stay in power for 16 years. You don't hold power for 16+ years (democratically or not) unless you are a pretty smart person, and a smart person wouldn't have ordered such a counter-beneficial act.

And for the record, I believe it was the rebels or Russians who did it, so don't blame me for being a propaganda bot.


salttee wrote:
So far, the basic premise of the OP is upheld:


Why are you referring to yourself as a third person? :|
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:45 pm

VSMUT wrote:
If you have no evidence to support the idea that "the rebels did it" you don't need to post a response. I am already assuming that there is no evidence to support that premise and argument by repetition isn't necessary, because the premise has already been repeated hundreds of times without a source and completely without supporting evidence.
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4333
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:52 pm

salttee wrote:
jpetekyxmd80 wrote:
What kind of "proof" would you reasonably expect to find or suffice for you? What a silly mission.
Anything at all. So far as I can see there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the TELAR that shot down MH-17 was manned by "rebels", other than the fact that it has been repeated so many times.

How can I make this more clear for you??????????????????????


Actually everything would be. Eyewitness accounts. Social media afterwords. Location. Similar attempts shooting at other planes in the days prior. The transfer of such armaments from Russia to the rebels. And as for intent, you are looking for the concrete evidence of obliviousness. Good luck with that.

So let me get this straight... you believe MH17 was specifically targeted? Do you have even the slightest theory, let alone any evidence, that this would make even the smallest bit of sense?

Maybe you need to use more question marks next time.
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:34 pm

What kind of evidence......
jpetekyxmd80 wrote:
Actually everything would be. Eyewitness accounts. Social media afterwords. Location. Similar attempts shooting at other planes in the days prior. The transfer of such armaments from Russia to the rebels. And as for intent, you are looking for the concrete evidence of obliviousness. Good luck with that.

That part of your post is word salad, you are not presenting anything as evidence. But I'll try to address your issues.

"eyewitness accounts" There are no eyewitness accounts indicating who was operating that TELAR.
"social media" The social media has been brought up already so unless you want to address that discussion you are just continuing with argument by repetition.
Location? What do you mean by that? Do you think that because the TELAR launched from Ukrainian territory the people in the TELAR had to be Ukrainians?
"intent" I have only obliquely dealt with intent so far; right now I'm just establishing that there is absolutely no supporting evidence for the premise that the "rebels" shot down MH-17. If nobody here can come up with anything in the next couple of days I'll then accept this as unchallenged fact and move on from there.

"Similar attempts shooting at other planes in the days prior" Are you saying that the AN-26 was brought down by a BUK manned by Ukranian rebels? If so (try to) make that case. You won't be able to do that though.
"similar transfer of arms" What transfer of such arms to the rebels are you talking about?

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:
So let me get this straight... you believe MH17 was specifically targeted?
An airliner was targeted, it is very possible that the target was intended to have been a Russian airliner which was nearby at the time. But it is also possible that a Malaysian airliner was chosen because Malaysia is such a weak international player.
jpetekyxmd80 wrote:
Do you have even the slightest theory, let alone any evidence, that this would make even the smallest bit of sense?
I can show evidence that would lead any unbiased intelligent person to see that:
1. No military org would loan out a sophisticated piece of hardware like this to civilians They might "loan" such an item to the KGB, but even then it would come with its normal operations personnel.

2. Anybody who understands the limitations of using a tracking radar as a search radar would know that the owners of a BUK TELAR would not send a M1 model TELAR out on an air defense mission without a search radar providing targeting information.

BTW
If this subject brings up too much emotion for you, you might be better off to let someone else make your arguments for you.
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4333
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:41 pm

Go join the flat earthers and chemtrailers at their table, you are about their speed, and then you can be relevant somewhere.
 
User avatar
PacificBeach88
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:42 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:45 pm

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:
Go join the flat earthers and chemtrailers at their table, you are about their speed, and then you can be relevant somewhere.


Thank you! That sums up my feelings perfectly!!!!
 
salttee
Topic Author
Posts: 3149
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:37 pm

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

PacificBeach88 wrote:


Two people with apparently strong opinions but lacking knowledge or argument so they attack the person when they get confused.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:54 am

garpd wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
..... it was a warzone anything flying over it is fair game....... I also believe the Ukranians and MH have to take partial responsibility for this accident, questions have to be asked, why wasn't the airspace closed and why was MH flying over a warzone even if the airspace wasn't closed, especially since the Russian backed rebels had already shot down aircraft in the same area a few days prior.


Eh, I'm not sure it was designated a war zone officially and CIV AV were informed that flyovers above 25000 feet were safe. Many airlines continued to route over the Ukraine up to and on the day of the shoot down. There were two or 3 airlines on the same track at the time of the shoot down.
The aircraft shot down the days before were all flying below 25000 feet with a shoulder mounted devices that a maximum target height of 25000 feet. It was considered safe to overfly the Ukraine above 30K. MH17 was at 36K IIRC.

Now, whether or not the powers that be knew the rebels had access to BUK launchers is up for debate. If they did, then they surely must be considered partly responsible for this tragedy?


This is an action of civilian aviation that I find completely incomprehensible.

There is no such thing as a safe air corridor over a zone of conflict. If planes were shot down in that area below 25,000 - only a fool would think that higher altitudes will ALWAYS be safe.

The airline, the Ukrainian government, the people who accepted the flight plan, the ATC system all FAILED MISERABLY in their duty to ensure safety of flight.

Yes, I know airlines are concerned about fuel usage and schedule impact when they have to take a longer route. I know the Ukraine government wanted to collect ATC fees to help with what had to be an expensive war.

Both are playing fast and loose with the safety of the aircraft and all aboard.

I'm sure there is a cost accountant somewhere who has it figured out that the cost of flying over such areas makes it cheaper, even if an aircraft is shot down every year or two.

Frankly, I don't want to be on such an airline.

The entire system failed the people on MH-17. Sure it shouldn't have happened, it probably would have been a safe flight. But one thing we know beyond a doubt is that the completely unexpected does happen. Civilian aircraft flying near SAM missiles is a totally bad idea. There is never a 100% chance that newer missiles with higher target capabilities won't be introduced into the area of conflict.

---------------------

I'm sorry but I see nothing that says it was a deliberate act to shoot down the airliner.

Part of my thoughts is what is the motive to shoot down a commercial aircraft. There is no benefit from such an action. There is no way in today's high surveillance world to fake the opposition (Ukraine) being responsible. Having been in a combat environment a few times in my life, I can understand how such a horrible mistake could be made. How people under stress can see things through their own filters about the situation - and not see the real situation.

I can't see it as anything but another tragic accident in long list of civilian aircraft accidentally or purposely flying into areas of conflict.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:16 am

salttee wrote:
So far, the basic premise of the OP is upheld: there are no evidence in existence to support the premise that this was an accidental shootdown.


You are the OP. Congratulations on confirming for yourself that your own premise is upheld lol.

salttee wrote:
If nobody here can come up with anything in the next couple of days I'll then accept this as unchallenged fact and move on from there.


LOL. And you called somebody "snotty" just yesterday in a different thread?

Where are you going to move on to from there?

Is there really a point in all of this?

Whoever gave the orders or launched the SAM will NEVER be held accountable if they are ever identified. NEVER. Especially if they are Russian.

At least we know what happened to this plane. We will probably never know why.

To think anything more than political games or politicians making threats will come of this investigation is just a pipe dream.

Government can waste all the tax payer money they want on investigation after investigation, and people can hope for whatever they want, but they will never get justice or all of the answers they want / need / deserve in the case of MH17. History has proven that will be the case time and time again, but humans being humans will continue to ignore lessons from the past and continue wasting their energy flogging dead horses.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:21 am

rfields5421 wrote:
garpd wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
..... it was a warzone anything flying over it is fair game....... I also believe the Ukranians and MH have to take partial responsibility for this accident, questions have to be asked, why wasn't the airspace closed and why was MH flying over a warzone even if the airspace wasn't closed, especially since the Russian backed rebels had already shot down aircraft in the same area a few days prior.


Eh, I'm not sure it was designated a war zone officially and CIV AV were informed that flyovers above 25000 feet were safe. Many airlines continued to route over the Ukraine up to and on the day of the shoot down. There were two or 3 airlines on the same track at the time of the shoot down.
The aircraft shot down the days before were all flying below 25000 feet with a shoulder mounted devices that a maximum target height of 25000 feet. It was considered safe to overfly the Ukraine above 30K. MH17 was at 36K IIRC.

Now, whether or not the powers that be knew the rebels had access to BUK launchers is up for debate. If they did, then they surely must be considered partly responsible for this tragedy?


This is an action of civilian aviation that I find completely incomprehensible.

There is no such thing as a safe air corridor over a zone of conflict. If planes were shot down in that area below 25,000 - only a fool would think that higher altitudes will ALWAYS be safe.

The airline, the Ukrainian government, the people who accepted the flight plan, the ATC system all FAILED MISERABLY in their duty to ensure safety of flight.

Yes, I know airlines are concerned about fuel usage and schedule impact when they have to take a longer route. I know the Ukraine government wanted to collect ATC fees to help with what had to be an expensive war.

Both are playing fast and loose with the safety of the aircraft and all aboard.

I'm sure there is a cost accountant somewhere who has it figured out that the cost of flying over such areas makes it cheaper, even if an aircraft is shot down every year or two.


Agreed 100%.

That is exactly what I have said in other MH17 threads before getting flamed by the narrow minded professional blame-shifters.

Whoever shot down the plane is the guilty one, but I still do strongly believe the Ukraine and the Airline involved have questions to answer for negligence.
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2431
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:47 am

777Jet wrote:
rfields5421 wrote:
garpd wrote:

Eh, I'm not sure it was designated a war zone officially and CIV AV were informed that flyovers above 25000 feet were safe. Many airlines continued to route over the Ukraine up to and on the day of the shoot down. There were two or 3 airlines on the same track at the time of the shoot down.
The aircraft shot down the days before were all flying below 25000 feet with a shoulder mounted devices that a maximum target height of 25000 feet. It was considered safe to overfly the Ukraine above 30K. MH17 was at 36K IIRC.

Now, whether or not the powers that be knew the rebels had access to BUK launchers is up for debate. If they did, then they surely must be considered partly responsible for this tragedy?


This is an action of civilian aviation that I find completely incomprehensible.

There is no such thing as a safe air corridor over a zone of conflict. If planes were shot down in that area below 25,000 - only a fool would think that higher altitudes will ALWAYS be safe.

The airline, the Ukrainian government, the people who accepted the flight plan, the ATC system all FAILED MISERABLY in their duty to ensure safety of flight.

Yes, I know airlines are concerned about fuel usage and schedule impact when they have to take a longer route. I know the Ukraine government wanted to collect ATC fees to help with what had to be an expensive war.

Both are playing fast and loose with the safety of the aircraft and all aboard.

I'm sure there is a cost accountant somewhere who has it figured out that the cost of flying over such areas makes it cheaper, even if an aircraft is shot down every year or two.


Agreed 100%.

That is exactly what I have said in other MH17 threads before getting flamed by the narrow minded professional blame-shifters.

Whoever shot down the plane is the guilty one, but I still do strongly believe the Ukraine and the Airline involved have questions to answer for negligence.


And I've stated previously that the onus of the blame should lie more on the nation which airspace the airline flew upon.

Might I suggest reading this thread to understand why it's not at all easy for an airline to divert from a filed route, especially when the airline in question doesn't have enough information to warrant a drastic change - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1344093
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:53 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
777Jet wrote:
rfields5421 wrote:

This is an action of civilian aviation that I find completely incomprehensible.

There is no such thing as a safe air corridor over a zone of conflict. If planes were shot down in that area below 25,000 - only a fool would think that higher altitudes will ALWAYS be safe.

The airline, the Ukrainian government, the people who accepted the flight plan, the ATC system all FAILED MISERABLY in their duty to ensure safety of flight.

Yes, I know airlines are concerned about fuel usage and schedule impact when they have to take a longer route. I know the Ukraine government wanted to collect ATC fees to help with what had to be an expensive war.

Both are playing fast and loose with the safety of the aircraft and all aboard.

I'm sure there is a cost accountant somewhere who has it figured out that the cost of flying over such areas makes it cheaper, even if an aircraft is shot down every year or two.


Agreed 100%.

That is exactly what I have said in other MH17 threads before getting flamed by the narrow minded professional blame-shifters.

Whoever shot down the plane is the guilty one, but I still do strongly believe the Ukraine and the Airline involved have questions to answer for negligence.


And I've stated previously that the onus of the blame should lie more on the nation which airspace the airline flew upon.


Now your making some progress at least!

The airline still needs to accept some responsibility for their decisions.

Remember, as salttee said in the last thread, "the whole world knew about" the AN-26 downing days earlier.
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2431
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:57 am

777Jet wrote:
TheFlyingDisk wrote:
777Jet wrote:

Agreed 100%.

That is exactly what I have said in other MH17 threads before getting flamed by the narrow minded professional blame-shifters.

Whoever shot down the plane is the guilty one, but I still do strongly believe the Ukraine and the Airline involved have questions to answer for negligence.


And I've stated previously that the onus of the blame should lie more on the nation which airspace the airline flew upon.


Now your making some progress at least!


I've always believed that Ukraine should shoulder the blame for keeping the airspace open & I still believe Russia should shoulder most of the blame for putting sophisticated arms in the hands of simpletons.

What I don't agree is for MH to shoulder any responsibility for the shootdown given the dearth of information that's available to the airline regarding the situation.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:05 am

An airline has an inherent responsibility to understand where they are sending the aircraft, and what are the conditions.

Yes, there was a limited amount of information about specifics. But there was ample information that SAM missiles were in use in that area. MH doesn't get off completely in my opinion.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15925
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:16 am

Why not if your a rebel to shoot down foreign airliner, especially one reeling from a then still recent loss that may never be determined. Russia supplied this missile to and trained pro-Russian Ukrainians in its use. They have blood on their hands. I just hope if they want the Ukraine they take full responsibility for Chernobyl and prevent it from further deterioration.
 
stlgph
Posts: 11530
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:23 am

Anyone here know how to spell "you're?"
Because...wow.
That's all.
 
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 3:22 am

rfields5421 wrote:
Part of my thoughts is what is the motive to shoot down a commercial aircraft. There is no benefit from such an action. There is no way in today's high surveillance world to fake the opposition (Ukraine) being responsible.

I can give you one plausible scenario, there undoubtedly are people in Russia's military who think that Putin is too soft and are not in agreement his low level war in Ukraine. It is not any great flight of the imagination to think that the shooting down of an airliner would create a casus belli incident that would trigger enough outrage in Russia to make a full on invasion happen. A group of military officers who would agree to a short term peace agreement to end civilian suffering and then turn around and drop cluster bombs on a UN convoy bringing food and medicine to those civilians as a Russian commander did in Aleppo are capable of extremely cynical actions and are unconcerned about what the world outside of Russia thinks.

Also to consider, there could have been a meeting of the minds between the FSB and a military commander or commanders, surely there are people in the FSB with a level of initiative equal to some of our own zealots ( Alan Dulles, Doug MacArthur, Ollie North and Dick Cheney come to mind, and there have been others on our side.) Such actions are not at all without precedent.

Here's some historic cynical military activities to browse through; I'm sure you know about this stuff already, but a refresher might be in order here.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/ ... tacks.html

I don't find it hard at all to imagine someone with that level of tunnel vision and aggressiveness can be found in the Russian chain of command. And horror of horrors, Putin was a KGB agent; I'm sure he has an interesting circle of friends.

I concern myself less with the impossible to know at this point motivations, it's enough for me to know that a false flag operation like this is not beyond reason to consider.

I do know that no military would loan something like a BUK TELAR out to civilians.
And I do know that no air defense officer would send a missile launcher out alone with only a pencil beam tracking radar to find targets with.
 
User avatar
TheFlyingDisk
Posts: 2431
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:26 am

rfields5421 wrote:
An airline has an inherent responsibility to understand where they are sending the aircraft, and what are the conditions.

Yes, there was a limited amount of information about specifics. But there was ample information that SAM missiles were in use in that area. MH doesn't get off completely in my opinion.


The information about use of SAM missiles in the area is flawed in that only MANPADS are known to be in use, and the prevailing notion was that MANPADS don't reach the cruising height of a 777 overflying that area.

Blaming MH is simply Monday morning quarterbacking.
Last edited by TheFlyingDisk on Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
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 3:27 am

stlgph wrote:
Anyone here know how to spell "you're?"
Because...wow.
That's all.

Some people here are not native English speakers. How do your Ukrainian language skills compare to his English skills?
I think I know.
 
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 3:41 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
rfields5421 wrote:
An airline has an inherent responsibility to understand where they are sending the aircraft, and what are the conditions.

Yes, there was a limited amount of information about specifics. But there was ample information that SAM missiles were in use in that area. MH doesn't get off completely in my opinion.


The information about use of SAM missiles in the area is flawed in that only MANPADS are known to be in use, and the prevailing notion was that MANPADS don't reach the cruising height of a 777 overflying that area.

Blaming MH is simply Monday morning quarterbacking with the benefit of hindsight.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you on this, but it isn't quite that simple.
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com ... t-july-14/

Yet it is more relevant to know what MAS thought at the time, they didn't have all the information available to them that exists at that site.
There still are reasons to believe that that AN-26 wasn't as high as Ukraine said.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:02 am

stlgph wrote:
Anyone here know how to spell "you're?"
Because...wow.
That's all.


Try quote formatting and typing out a long reply on a small device with a tiny keypad, such as a smart phone, and then deal with auto correct (auto incorrect) screwing around with your corrections again and again and there will come a time when you don't give a toss about minor typos / errors.

May I ask, how does it feel to be perfect? LOL
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:22 am

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
The information about use of SAM missiles in the area is flawed in that only MANPADS are known to be in use, and the prevailing notion was that MANPADS don't reach the cruising height of a 777 overflying that area.


The big problem with that assumption is that a manpad just can't reach a plane at 26.000 ft - even the newest, longest ranged manpads won't even make it close 15.000 ft.
Further, there exists no such missile in the former Soviet, Russian or Ukrainian arsenals, as one that can reach a target at 26.000 ft, but not one at 37.000 ft ;)

And frankly, our friend mr. Attlee's sudden claim that there were reasons to think that the An-26 wasn't as high as initially reported (which honestly sounds like something he just made up to strengthen his argument) doesn't hold water either. The reports at the time stated that it happened at 26.000 ft. Even if some reports stated that it happened at a lower altitude, the worst-case scenario is the one that should carry the most weight in the considerations by the airline and aviation authorities.

Just the prior day, a Ukrainian Su-25 was shot down by a Russian MiG-29 with a BVR missile. That alone should have been a major indicator that the airspace was hotly contested.

salttee wrote:
I do know that no military would loan something like a BUK TELAR out to civilians.


And how do you know that for a certain? The Ukrainian army had been defecting in droves (Ukraine has admitted at least 8.000 defectors, while independent sources say it is closer to 15.000). It really isn't hard to imagine that quite a few of your civilians might in fact have been disgruntled former BUK or SAM operators with the Ukrainian army :roll:

salttee wrote:
And I do know that no air defense officer would send a missile launcher out alone with only a pencil beam tracking radar to find targets with.


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?

:)
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:45 am

When all is said and done, I still see no concrete evidence that MH17 was deliberately targeted. This still looks like a case of itchy trigger finger.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12841
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 8:57 am

VSMUT wrote:
Just the prior day, a Ukrainian Su-25 was shot down by a Russian MiG-29 with a BVR missile. That alone should have been a major indicator that the airspace was hotly contested.


Has that been confirmed by an independent source? Shooting down an aircraft in Ukraine airspace by the Russian Air Force is an act of war.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12841
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:03 am

garpd wrote:
When all is said and done, I still see no concrete evidence that MH17 was deliberately targeted. This still looks like a case of itchy trigger finger.


Yup, that is what I believe until concrete proof is released by the JIT that is was deliberate. I believe in the good of people and no one in their right mind would willingly shoot down an airliner full of innocent people. Not the Russians, not the Ukrainian opposition, not the Ukraine. Nothing to gain there.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:12 am

Dutchy wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Just the prior day, a Ukrainian Su-25 was shot down by a Russian MiG-29 with a BVR missile. That alone should have been a major indicator that the airspace was hotly contested.


Has that been confirmed by an independent source? Shooting down an aircraft in Ukraine airspace by the Russian Air Force is an act of war.


I don't know, but it was Ukraine who made the claim back in the day. Either way, the airspace should have been closed until the rumours had been either confirmed or refuted.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:54 am

Dutchy wrote:
Yup, that is what I believe until concrete proof is released by the JIT that is was deliberate. I believe in the good of people and no one in their right mind would willingly shoot down an airliner full of innocent people. Not the Russians, not the Ukrainian opposition, not the Ukraine. Nothing to gain there.


Hishammuddin would disagree with you ;)

Spyhunter might disagree with you too :D

I guess we will never know with this. Even if someday somebody defects and tells their version of events, there will always be questions around the motive behind their decision to $peak and doubt if what they are $aying is true...
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 11:30 am

salttee wrote:
I can give you one plausible scenario, there undoubtedly are people in Russia's military who think that Putin is too soft and are not in agreement his low level war in Ukraine. It is not any great flight of the imagination to think that the shooting down of an airliner would create a casus belli incident .


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 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.

The examples/ people you mentioned were capable of starting complex operations, yet they were all unable to keep them secret. 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.

salttee wrote:
I do know that no military would loan something like a BUK TELAR out to civilians.
And I do know that no air defense officer would send a missile launcher out alone with only a pencil beam tracking radar to find targets with.


My experience is that the military is not that much different than the society it serves. There are extremely professional, competent people, and there are some who really should never have risen that high in the organization. Loaning an extremely complex system to a para-military group which your country is supporting - I could see that happening. Not a difficult leap of faith. 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. And the mind-set of the commander/ person with the authority to fire. Even the best trained military operators can get tunnel vision and ignore what in hindsight are obvious clues, discrepancies. Put poorly trained operators in that situation - and a tragic mistake is almost certain to occur.
------------------------------
Re: your vs you're

Ever tried to use the spell check on this site, or auto-correct on a cell phone?
 
Cerecl
Posts: 638
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

Re: MH-17 was not shot down by accident

Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:03 pm

[quote="salttee" Yet this "accident" theory is wrong and has nothing to support it.[/quote]
Er, no. You cannot say that the theory is wrong as you have no way of disproving it. Similarly, you can offer no concrete evidence to support your theory. The scenario you described is just that, a scenario. It does not validate your viewpoint. Until a video (or some other means) that shows the identity of the people who launched the missile that can be directly shown to have downed MH17 surfaces and is verified as authentic, we are not going to have a firm answer either way. The rebel theory is more likely than Russian theory, as many people have pointed out.

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??? 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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alex0easy, Charles79, L0VE2FLY, Newark727 and 17 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