Boeing 777 shot down

Cosimo · 13 Oct 2015 at 16:18

Longbow said:
That video doesn't prove anything. Where's this evidence?

It's Russia Today so there won't be any.

Vulcan · 13 Oct 2015 at 16:23

ubersonic said:
That's part of the evidence they submitted to the dutch investigators. The basis is that the damage inflicted to MH17 isn't indicative of all Buk missiles, it can be tied down to one or two types.

The are three types of number that come into it, the warhead type which is almost never referred too, the missile type (I.E 9М38) and the launcher type (I.E 9K37M), as with computer motherboards/BIOS/CPUs not everything is intercompatible.

If you Google the missile type you will have better luck finding info.

Post the evidence then.

ubersonic · 13 Oct 2015 at 16:27

Longbow said:
Post the evidence then.

I don't have the rest of it just the video, the Dutch investigators do, if you ask nicely they may let you have a copy?

Cosimo said:
It's Russia Today so there won't be any.

British media have copies of the video too, but I figured the Youtube link was best as higher res:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...debunk-official-report-into-air-disaster.html

Minstadave · 13 Oct 2015 at 16:29

ubersonic said:
For those not following this story, it's just heated up. After the dutch investigators released their evidence that it was a Buk missile that hit MH17, the current producers of the missiles released evidence showing it was an obsolete variant of the missile used by Ukraine* that hit it not the type used by Russia, they even produced video footage of themselves blowing up multiple airliner cockpits with various Buk missiles lol.

https://youtu.be/8DmraSOdTYk

*Also the same type the rebels had captured from Ukraine, so they are still the #1 suspects in my book.

So the Russian defence company that supplies arms to Russian forces and I suspect is licensed by the Russian government to sell arms comes out with this "evidence" without access to the wreckage. I can't see any conflict of interest there, nope. Why not just let the Russian government investigate it? That'd be about as independant.

ubersonic · 13 Oct 2015 at 16:34

Minstadave said:
So the Russian defence company that supplies arms to Russian forces and I suspect is licensed by the Russian government to sell arms comes out with this "evidence" without access to the wreckage.

The dutch investigators announced that they believed it was a certain type of missile and published pictures of the damage caused, the company that designed the missile then added that from that it could pinpoint exactly which model of the missile caused the damage and so conducted tests and gave the results to the Dutch investigators to help with their investigation.

Vulcan · 13 Oct 2015 at 16:35

ubersonic said:
I don't have the rest of it just the video, the Dutch investigators do, if you ask nicely they may let you have a copy?

So the missile manufacture has stated it could be variants that Russia no longer uses, but no actual evidence has been provided to the public of this? Because your original post doesn't suggest that.

ubersonic said:
the current producers of the missiles released evidence showing it was an obsolete variant of the missile used by Ukraine* that hit it not the type used by Russia, they even produced video footage of themselves blowing up multiple airliner cockpits with various Buk missiles lol.

[Useless video that shows nothing]

Minstadave · 13 Oct 2015 at 16:37

ubersonic said:
The dutch investigators announced that they believed it was a certain type of missile and published pictures of the damage caused, the company that designed the missile then added that from that it could pinpoint exactly which model of the missile caused the damage and so conducted tests and gave the results to the Dutch investigators to help with their investigation.

So the Dutch had everything they needed to reach their conclusion? Including the evidence from a deeply unreliable source. I don't see the issue. Unless you're saying they completely ignored the Russian evidence - which would probably be sensible given the massive conflict of interest that the defence company has.

ubersonic · 13 Oct 2015 at 16:41

Longbow said:
So the missile manufacture has stated it could be variants that Russia no longer uses, but no actual evidence has been provided to the public of this? Because your original post doesn't suggest that.

They have provided evidence of it to the Dutch investigators who are currently conducting an investigation into the incident. They have also released some videos to the public showing some of the experiments. Understand now?

Minstadave said:
So the Russian defence company that supplies arms to Russian forces and I suspect is licensed by the Russian government to sell arms comes out with this "evidence" without access to the wreckage.

How come you find that odd, yet don't find it odd that claims have been made as to what model of Buk missile it was by people with no knowledge of what the different damage from each would look like, or access to missiles/planes to test it?

bloodiedathame · 13 Oct 2015 at 16:41

Possible outcomes are still:

a) Ukraine fired BUKs
b) Rebels fired BUKs stolen from Ukraine
c) Rebels fired BUKs given to them by Russia
d) Russia fired BUKs

There is some photographic evidence of BUKs moving around the area. And obviously the location is very close to the Russia border, and slap bang between Russia and Crimea. No reason not to believe that Russia were in the area.

Some quite interesting maps that try to document positions and movements, here's one:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zfSzzPoCHjJs.kn-ZmT9qKLqU&hl=en_US

ubersonic · 13 Oct 2015 at 16:45

bloodiedathame said:
Possible outcomes are still:

a) Ukraine fired BUKs
b) Rebels fired BUKs stolen from Ukraine
c) Rebels fired BUKs given to them by Russia
d) Russia fired BUKs

The worrying thing about this is, if the Buk manufacturers are correct and the investigators are mistaken then it could be A, B or C (most likely B). But if the Dutch investigators are correct in their initial assumptions, then it can only be D.

*EDIT*

My bad, just read the report and it looks like various news outlets have left bits out. If the Dutch investigators are correct it could still be A, B, C or D.

Boycey0211 · 13 Oct 2015 at 17:01

I'd be trusting a team of 7 countries worth of crash investigators over a russian missile provider TBH, as stupid as that sounds.

Along with the evidence of a missile launcher being driven at speed, with one missile missing towards the russian border the next day.

e: oh and also the fact that pretty much every technical advisor consulted said that it would be incredibly difficult to train anyone how to use it in a short space of time, it would have taken months of specialist training

bloodiedathame · 13 Oct 2015 at 17:04

Boycey0211 said:
e: oh and also the fact that pretty much every technical advisor consulted said that it would be incredibly difficult to train anyone how to use it in a short space of time, it would have taken months of specialist training

Which would probably rule out option B. e Unless the Rebels had already been trained how to use the system.

Boycey0211 · 13 Oct 2015 at 17:08

bloodiedathame said:
Which would probably rule out option B. e Unless the Rebels had already been trained how to use the system.

Indeed, and its not exactly like nicking a digger and learning how to use it, its an advanced anti air missile system.

bloodiedathame · 13 Oct 2015 at 17:14

I think A can be ruled out. The Ukranians wouldn't have had any reason to:
a) be in that position so close to the Russian border
b) be firing at a plane that is about to leave it's airspace

scorza · 13 Oct 2015 at 17:39

Don't forget that in the run up to the downing of MH-17, the pro-Russian rebels had shot down some Ukrainian military aircraft - almost as if they had been given a new toy, whereas the Ukrainian military faced no arial threat so wouldn't have needed any anti-aircraft systems in the area.

Tefal · 13 Oct 2015 at 17:45

one thing with it being "zomg Russians" surely the Russian crews of an AA system would be trained enough to avoid civil airliners.

rebels with some old equipment (either Ukrainian or old Russian stock clandestinely provided) however i doubt could tell the difference between transport plane and civil plane.

why would russian troops deliberately shoot down an airliner in an aera that would instantly cast suspicion upon them?

Tefal · 13 Oct 2015 at 17:46

scorza said:
Don't forget that in the run up to the downing of MH-17, the pro-Russian rebels had shot down some Ukrainian military aircraft - almost as if they had been given a new toy, whereas the Ukrainian military faced no arial threat so wouldn't have needed any anti-aircraft systems in the area.

but they do have bases near by, these things dot move fast so you keep them spread around the country, perfectly possible rebels captured one from storage.

[TW]Fox · 13 Oct 2015 at 17:53

ubersonic said:
The worrying thing about this is, if the Buk manufacturers are correct and the investigators are mistaken then it could be A, B or C (most likely B). But if the Dutch investigators are correct in their initial assumptions, then it can only be D.

*EDIT*

My bad, just read the report and it looks like various news outlets have left bits out. If the Dutch investigators are correct it could still be A, B, C or D.

Why would it be A? What purpose would a Ukrainian BUK have been serving given the rebels had no aircraft?

scorza · 13 Oct 2015 at 17:55

Tefal said:
one thing with it being "zomg Russians" surely the Russian crews of an AA system would be trained enough to avoid civil airliners.

rebels with some old equipment (either Ukrainian or old Russian stock clandestinely provided) however i doubt could tell the difference between transport plane and civil plane.

why would russian troops deliberately shoot down an airliner in an aera that would instantly cast suspicion upon them?

Why would anyone deliberately shoot down an airliner? We're not going down the false flag conspiracy theories here are we?

Tefal said:
but they do have bases near by, these things dot move fast so you keep them spread around the country, perfectly possible rebels captured one from storage.

True, but there's no evidence to support this happening. There is evidence of the pro-Russian rebels possessing and using some sort of fairly advanced anti-aircraft system in the area. There's evidence of pro-Russian rebels celebrating downing a Ukrainian military aircraft, which disappeared from the internet when it became apparent it was MH-17 and not a military plane. There's evidence of a Buk missile system getting the hell out of dodge after the downing.

In other words, no evidence of it being the Ukrainian military, lots of evidence it was the pro-Russian rebels. Let's see if Russia decides to co-operate with the separate criminal inquiry or not.

Tefal · 13 Oct 2015 at 18:00

scorza said:
Why would anyone deliberately shoot down an airliner? We're not going down the false flag conspiracy theories here are we?

True, but there's no evidence to support this happening. There is evidence of the pro-Russian rebels possessing and using some sort of fairly advanced anti-aircraft system in the area. There's evidence of pro-Russian rebels celebrating downing a Ukrainian military aircraft, which disappeared from the internet when it became apparent it was MH-17 and not a military plane. There's evidence of a Buk missile system getting the hell out of dodge after the downing.

In other words, no evidence of it being the Ukrainian military, lots of evidence it was the pro-Russian rebels. Let's see if Russia decides to co-operate with the separate criminal inquiry or not.

i8 didnt say it was the ukranian milotarty i belive it was the rebels its the issue of where they go it.