In case some of the readers here wonder what this "D2" etc, blabla is..., and what the 4 sections of what I see as facts, untruths, controversial items, and personal opiions are... Let me post a copy of the 4 sections I posted:
How I see it...
A. Fact based outline
A1. MH17 got shot down, no distress calls.
A2. MH17 was cruising at FL330 and Mach 0.84 or so (normal cruising speed for 777-200ER (RR)).
Aircraft debris strewn across large distances, indicates high altitude disintegration.
. Aircraft must have suffered a rapid deterioration of its structure and pressure vessel in and sufficient enough to severely affect the integrity of the aircraft and its systems rapidly in order to provide "no distress calls"
A5. Front left cockpit panel: Various sizes of debris entry wound, with increased wound density towards the front, and a large hole caused by particle entry or exit at about waist level on the rearmost left cockpit window. Evidence of "lateral peeling" of the skin may be visible. This skin area has also soot/charred deposits.
A6. Front upper cabin skin with one hole of estimated 20cm diameter, no soot/charring. Evidence of separation through peeling.
A7. Front cargo hold spars and inner skin, no charring visible, I saw only 1 hole, but the position of this section needs another look.
A8. Large segment of the left skin of the vertical stabilizer with no debris entry/exit wounds.
A9. Aircraft skin area around door R2
, showing no debris damage.
A10. Based on what we see from wreckage photos available at the moment, damage is consistent with fragmentation detonation near the aircraft (fragmentation entry wound with no exit wounds concentrated in one area, charring on 1 localized area only) on the front left.
B. What I consider as dismissed (fact based)
B1. Ukrainian Su-25 shooting down the aircraft, it can only carry IR
guided AAMs which would have hit the engine, which would not cause the damage described in A5-A9 above, and a distress call is likely to have been made.
. Cannon fire will not match the damage described in A5-A9 if fired from behind the aircraft or from the front of the aircraft. For from top rear, there's inadequate evidence to support this other than the hole described in A6 which also lack the number of holes consistent with a cannon-burst (no single-shot capability either on the GSh-30-2 of the Su-25 or the GSh-30-1 of the MiG-29 and Su-27).
. An Su-25 cannot be able to tail the 777, and then fire the missile, and then fire the cannon from the front... it's just not fast enough to do such a thing.
. If no one saw it or heard it, it can't be a SAM. Sorry, no need for sonic booms, and the sound of the rocket would die out within 5kms into something less quiet than standard artillery fire.
. The missile plume can be hard to see, this is alleged to be the one that shot down the aircraft... and you can see that it's not too easy to see if you don't know what to look for while not expecting an airplane to fall out of the sky:
C. Controversial items (Opinion - You have been warned)
C1. Rebels conversation intercepted: As much as I like to believe it, it shows that the guys firing it are just too bloody stupid. More on this later (see parts D)
. Through independent verification (thanks to the journalists who went there to see it), it is likely that the launch site is SE
of Torez (South of Snizhne) at N47°58'27" E38°45'37", based on the photograph given in B5
. However, this doesn't rule out missile being launched from another location. Previously, it was thought that the likely site was N47°58'52" E38°45'24"
. On ground level, this spot is acoustically shielded towards downtown Torez and downtown Snizhne due to the topography.
C4. The problem with this launch site is that the missile would be having a pure front and possibly front-right attack aspect, this is weakened by A10. But, this could be explained by lead-computing of the guidance system would make the missile aim to the front of MH17 instead of directly at it, and that a slight delay in the proximity fuse would have resulted in the detonation to the front left of the aircraft.
C5. The crash site and debris field being located to the left of the flight path also put more emphasis on A10, in that damage to the left side would have resulted in aircraft being dragged to the left as it disintegrated.
D1. It appears that the at the moment is that aircraft is hit from the front left by something that exploded very near the aircraft's front left. The supposed launch site at C2
makes the missile launchsite to be on the front right of the aircraft instead of front left, however, we are talking about a closure speed of over 3500km/h between the aircraft and the missile; lead computing of the missile would put it to the right of the direct path to the aircraft, making it slightly to the left of the aircraft when the proximity fuze detonated the fragmentation warhead.
D2. It is likely that Ukraine was inciting a shootdown as it is Ukraine's interest to bring more parties into the conflict either through direct involvement or through indirect action. This is sufficient motive, and whoever did it have resulted in Russia restraining itself from it's threats of outright invasion "in the protection of pro-Russian people", and enabling the Ukrainians to win some ground since the shootdown of MH17.
. I think the "intercepted call claiming they shot down an aircraft" may be false even though I find it extremely likely that it was the pro-Russian separatist fired the missile.
D4. The Russians may not be lying when they said there could be a military aircraft tailing MH17, this is an age old trick in warfare, in this case, a MiG-29 or Su-27 are likely candidates. Do this with an ESM
pod and you'd get the EW
situation of the theatre.
D5. Misidentification of the aircraft to be a military aircraft instead of a civilian airliner can be done to confuse inexperienced operator at the BUK's radar command module. MH17 would be transmitting IFF/Transponder squawk at mode 3/A. Most eastern bloc combat aircraft (except for the later built ones) operate in Mode2, which cannot be changed by the crew in flight and only has On and Off for the IFF code. They could have sent something to tail MH17, knew they were being tracked by a BUK system's radar, switch their military IFF on, once they got an acquisition and fire control radar warning on their ESM
, they'd switch off their IFF and bug out... and all this could be done without MH17 knowing anything about it. I find it extremely hard that the pro-Russian separatists would just shoot down anything they see because I'm sure the Russians would have told them "the Ukrainians are still sending civilians over your airspace"... unless these BuK guys that fired it were total and utter baffoons, in which case, the "intercepted call" was valid.
|Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 217):|
Absolutely not. Those in possession of the evidence (Dutch Safety Board) will be the "deciders". I'm an interested (and sad) observer. 8 of my wife's close relatives were on the flight.
We also have another A.net member who signed off that flight, and was on the verge of suffering depression.
I also have several relatives of a friend on that flight, and also the crew are good friends of another very close friend (crew at MH
) whose wife is now so totally scared whenever her husband flies on duty because the belief of "lightning doesn't strike twice" is shattered with this accident.