Flight MH17, who shot it down?

[Loren Pechtel]

So why was this presumably legitimate preliminary report by german intelligence leaked?
Also I am interested to know how they determined it was ukrainian buk captured by separatists.

It's simply a presumption that it was a Ukrainian launcher. It's known the separatists captured one. It's the only weapon in the area that could do it.

Obviously, it could have been supplied by Moscow rather than captured. Nations aren't going to assert this without evidence, though.

 

[thief of fire]

And the notion that Ukranian forces would be playing with BUKs in the area makes no sense-

Whether it makes sense to you isn't really relevant. The fact is we have satellite footage showing they were moving them, and other evidence showing they were active.

The separatists aren't hiding the fact they shot down some Ukranian planes

The separatists shot down a plane with manpad. Big difference.

 

[thief of fire]

It's simply a presumption that it was a Ukrainian launcher. It's known the separatists captured one. It's the only weapon in the area that could do it.

Obviously, it could have been supplied by Moscow rather than captured. Nations aren't going to assert this without evidence, though.

America and Australia have both asserted this without
any evidence though.

Germany's intelligence service believes Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian rebels using a missile taken from a Ukraine military base, a German newspaper has reported.
The finding contradicts previous claims – including by Prime Minister Tony Abbott and US Secretary of State John Kerry – that the missile was supplied by Russia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

America and Australia have both asserted this without
any evidence though.

Germany's intelligence service believes Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by pro-Russian rebels using a missile taken from a Ukraine military base, a German newspaper has reported.
The finding contradicts previous claims – including by Prime Minister Tony Abbott and US Secretary of State John Kerry – that the missile was supplied by Russia.

It would help if you understood what that article said.

There's nothing in there about it being a Russian missile. What they are saying is that the separatists had Russian help--something that's been quite obvious for some time now.

 

[Jayjay]

The separatists didn't impede the investigation. Kiev forces started shelling the area.
Shellfire nearby forces MH17 investigators out of search area for more bodies

Furthermore, the separatists were the only ones firing SAMs in the area--Ukraine had no reason to because the separatists had no aircraft.

There is no evidence of separatists firing SAMS anywhere.
What we do know from Russian satellite images is that Kiev forces were active with BUKs at that very time, in that area.
10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash

Oh that old bullshit again?

Russia has presented satellite images that Ukraine had BUK launchers there earlier that week (not "at that very time") on its own side of the border (not "in that area"), which might be perfectly normal for all we know (it's not like we have any information about Ukraine's military deployments to compare to). But there is photographic evidence from multiple sources, that there was a BUK launcher on that very same day in the separatist controlled territory. And there is no evidence of Ukrainian forces launching SAMS as far as I know, but we know Ukrainian aircraft have been fired and downed by separatists in multiple occasions with MANPADS*. Graduating to BUK would not be a huge step forward.

Currently preponderance of evidence points to separatists or Russians having downed the plane. They had the motivation and means to do so, and had prior history of shooting down planes. There may be some merit in the claim that Ukraine did have their own aircraft in the area because it may have used civilian aircraft as cover in the past, which would make Ukraine at least partially culpable, but it's highly unlikely that Ukrainian forces actually pulled the trigger.

(* The S in MANPADS is not plural suffix, so should this be manpadses or manpadsee?)

 

[Jayjay]

There was no military aircraft in the area at the time MH017 went down. According to the DSB report:

According to radar data three commercial aircraft were in the same Control Area as flight MH17 at the time of the occurrence. All were under control of Dnipro Radar. At 13.20 hrs the distance between the closest aircraft and MH17 was approximately 30 km.

Ukraine has no stealth aircraft. No other contact was in the air within 30km of MH017 when she was hit by "...impacts from a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft."

Thanks, that seems to put that particular theory to rest. However there is an out because the data about other traffic comes from Ukrainian air traffic control, so in theory if there were military aircraft in the air that Ukraine did not want to admit, it could have been censored from the data. On the other hand, it sounds like the data give by Russia doesn't contradict it.

There is no question that the aircraft was shot down from the ground; The question is by whom. By far the most likely (but at this stage, not the only) suspects are Russian backed Ukrainian separatists who had previously shot down Ukrainian military transport aircraft in the area. There are other, less plausible, possibilities; But any suggestion of another aircraft of any type or origin shooting down MH017 is pure conspiracist bullshit.

Given that the people on the ground, on both sides, are a for the most part bunch of parochial farm-boys with little education, and no knowledge of international commercial aviation, who were astonished to discover that aircraft not related to their petty squabble even transited Ukrainian airspace, it is very clear that nobody intended to shoot down an airliner. That doesn't resolve them of culpability; but it does make all the finger pointing and bullshit pointless.

So please stop.

I think it would be a bad precedent to let either party get away with hiding their involvement and deny closure for the victims' families. It most likely was an accident, and I wouldn't hold it against either party if they openly admitted it instead of spinning conspiracy theories and shifting blame.

 

[thief of fire]

Currently preponderance of evidence points to separatists or Russians having downed the plane.

What evidence?
America has supplied none. German intelligence has supplied none.
What is the evidence?

- - - Updated - - -

However there is an out because the data about other traffic comes from Ukrainian air traffic control, so in theory if there were military aircraft in the air that Ukraine did not want to admit, it could have been censored from the data. On the other hand, it sounds like the data give by Russia doesn't contradict it.

What data from Russia? Don't be fooled by Bilby's careful and deceptive wording. Bibly did not point to any "data from Russia", though he seems to have fooled you into thinking he did.

 

[bilby]

What evidence?
America has supplied none. German intelligence has supplied none.
What is the evidence?

- - - Updated - - -

However there is an out because the data about other traffic comes from Ukrainian air traffic control, so in theory if there were military aircraft in the air that Ukraine did not want to admit, it could have been censored from the data. On the other hand, it sounds like the data give by Russia doesn't contradict it.

What data from Russia? Don't be fooled by Bilby's careful and deceptive wording. Bibly did not point to any "data from Russia", though he seems to have fooled you into thinking he did.

From the link I shared previously:

For this investigation ATC surveillance data was obtained from both Ukraine (UkSATSE)
and the Russian Federation. The data obtained was the following:
• Primary surveillance radar recorded by the Russian surveillance aids
• Secondary surveillance radar (SSR / Mode S) 6
• Automatic Dependant Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B)7 ground based reception.
...

Shortly after 13.20 hrs, both Ukraine and Russian Federation Radar lost contact with the aircraft.

(my bold)

Russian Federation Radar data sounds a lot like 'data from Russia' to me.

Somebody here seems to be being deceptive, but it isn't me. A little more 'careful wording' from some here might be a good thing, because the current wording seems to be awfully careless with the truth.

 

[thief of fire]

Again, don't be fooled. the Dutch report says nothing about Russians confirming there were no military aircraft in the vicinity.
Here is what Russia had to say, openly to the world when they presented their evidence.

“There were three civilian planes in the area performing their regular flights at this time. There was a flight from Copenhagen to Singapore at 17:17, there was a flight from Paris to Taipei at 17:24, and then there was the flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.”

“Also, Russian monitoring systems registered that there was a Ukrainian Air Force jet, probably Su-25, climbing and approaching the Malaysian Boeing.”

“The Su-25 was 3-5 km away from the Malaysian plane. Su-25 is capable of climbing to the altitude of 10,000 meters for a short period of time. Its standard armament includes R60 air-to-air missiles, which are capable of locking and hitting targets from 12 km and which are guaranteed to hit the target from the distance of 5 km.”
“At 17:21’35, with [the Boeing’s] velocity having dropped to 200 kilometers per hour, a new mark detecting an airborne object appears at the spot of the Boeing’s destruction. This new airborne object was continuously detected for the duration of four minutes by the radar stations Ust-Donetsk and Buturinskaya. An air traffic controller requested the characteristics of the new airborne object, but was unable to get any readings on its parameters – most likely due to the fact that the new aircraft was not equipped with a secondary surveillance radar transponder, which is a distinctive feature of military aircraft,” said Makushev.

“Detecting the new aircraft became possible as it started to ascend. Further changes in the airborne object’s coordinates suggest that it was hovering above the Boeing 777’s crash site, monitoring of the situation.

“Ukrainian officials earlier claimed that there were no Ukrainian military aircraft in the area of the crash that day. As you can see, that is not true.”

So we have the Russians being open and clear, and the west hiding supposed information and being vague and unclear.

 

[thief of fire]

Russia has presented satellite images that Ukraine had BUK launchers there earlier that week (not "at that very time") on its own side of the border (not "in that area"),

they were 5 KM north of Donetsk, and were active betwen the 14th July and 17Th July. the images show that.

“Also, July 17 saw increased activity on the part of Ukraine’s Kupol-M1 9S18 radars, which are part of the Buk system. Here on this chart you see that there were seven radars operating on July 15, eight radars operating on July 16, and nine radars operating on July 17 in the area. Then, starting with July 18, the intensity of radar activities radically decreased, and now there are no more than two or three radars operating a day. The reason behind this is yet to be found.”

 

[Jayjay]

What evidence?
America has supplied none. German intelligence has supplied none.
What is the evidence?

This would be the photos and videos that show BUK moving in Eastern Ukraine, not any classified data coming from intelligence agencies. Here is a good summary:

http://www.interpretermag.com/evidence-review-who-shot-down-mh17/

However there is an out because the data about other traffic comes from Ukrainian air traffic control, so in theory if there were military aircraft in the air that Ukraine did not want to admit, it could have been censored from the data. On the other hand, it sounds like the data give by Russia doesn't contradict it.

What data from Russia? Don't be fooled by Bilby's careful and deceptive wording. Bibly did not point to any "data from Russia", though he seems to have fooled you into thinking he did.

I was referring to the Dutch Safety Board preliminary report, maybe you should have read it before mouthing off. Page 14:

2.5.1 ATC surveillance data

For this investigation ATC surveillance data was obtained from both Ukraine (UkSATSE)
and the Russian Federation. The data obtained was the following:
• Primary surveillance radar recorded by the Russian surveillance aids
• Secondary surveillance radar (SSR / Mode S)
• Automatic Dependant Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) ground based reception.

Preliminary information shows that Ukrainian and Russian ATC surveillance radar identified
flight MH17 as a B777-200 at FL330. Analyses of recorded ATC surveillance data is
ongoing.

2.5.2 ATC communication

At the time of the occurrence flight MH17 was under control of Dnipropetrovs’k air traffic
control centre (Dnipro Radar). Shortly after 13.20 hrs, both Ukraine and Russian Federation
Radar lost contact with the aircraft.

So, they received data from Russian radar, and it is confirmed that Russian radar identified and lost the flight. But there is no mention anywhere about military planes. Though one might hypothesize that if there was an SU-25 or a MiG nearby, Ukraine could have covered it up and doctored the ATC data doesn't explain why Russia would do the same. If Russia really had information about SU-25 in the vicinity of MH17 at the time as some propagandists claim, there is no reason why they could not have provided that information to the Dutch.

 

[Jayjay]

they were 5 KM north of Donetsk, and were active betwen the 14th July and 17Th July. the images show that.

There is one satellite image from July 14th near Donetsk, and the BUK was gone by July 17th. It could have been redeployed anytime between 14th and 17th, or maybe it was just camouflaged or parked inside a building.

Then the other satellite image from July 17th shows a BUK in rebel-controlled territory. If that is a BUK, what makes you think that it was the same one from the previous image, or that it was controlled by Ukrainian rather than rebel forces?

“Also, July 17 saw increased activity on the part of Ukraine’s Kupol-M1 9S18 radars, which are part of the Buk system. Here on this chart you see that there were seven radars operating on July 15, eight radars operating on July 16, and nine radars operating on July 17 in the area. Then, starting with July 18, the intensity of radar activities radically decreased, and now there are no more than two or three radars operating a day. The reason behind this is yet to be found.”

What a mystery. It's as if something happened on July 17th that may have reduced air traffic in that area.

 

[thief of fire]

This would be the photos and videos that show BUK moving in Eastern Ukraine, not any classified data coming from intelligence agencies. Here is a good summary:

In other words you have nothing that US intelligence agencies are willing to stand behind, only stuff from social media.

No credible source would dare stand behind the amateurish and ridiculous faked youtube video where the rebels conveniently confess, yet you have no shame linking to it.

If Russia really had information about SU-25 in the vicinity of MH17 at the time as some propagandists claim, there is no reason why they could not have provided that information to the Dutch.

Were they asked to provide such information?
But the thing is that we don't know what information was even provided. All we know is that there is a vague claim that in some way some Russian information was looked at.
We have to wonder what other information the Dutch were privvy to that they kept quiet about. Particularly after it emerged that an Australian passenger appeared to have put his oxygen mask on. This important fact might still be hidden had it not "accidentally" been revealed in an interview.

Malaysia Airlines MH17 passenger had oxygen mask on — Dutch Foreign Minister

We need to see all the facts, not have selective facts presented to us by investigations controlled by NATO members who have a conflict of interest.

 

[Jayjay]

In other words you have nothing that US intelligence agencies are willing to stand behind, only stuff from social media.

No credible source would dare stand behind the amateurish and ridiculous faked youtube video where the rebels conveniently confess, yet you have no shame linking to it.

As usual, you try to dodge the point- I am not a Russian speaking individual so I cannot judge the authenticity of such videos, and don't much care for them either way. Maybe they are fake, but your say-so certainly isn't going to convince me considering your track record of being wrong or ignorant on other issues. For example: It's a fact that these "amateurish" bloggers managed to prove that the BUK was seen in Luhanks, whereas "credible" Russian sources, such as the "10 questions" RT article you linked to, repeated the debunked claim that it was seen in Krasnoarmeisk.

If you want to discuss the details of the location of the BUK, I'm game, but I think you you'd lose that argument and that's why you had to try to shift the goal posts to some allegedly fake youtube video which I have never claimed as evidence for my position, and probably haven't even seen.

As for intelligence agencies, I only said that the preponderance of evidence available publicly overwhelmingly favours that it was the separatist or Russians. I am not privy as to what CIA or German intelligence might use to make the same conclusion, but if they have some classified information in addition to what's available to average yokels like me and you, that can only make their argument stronger.

If Russia really had information about SU-25 in the vicinity of MH17 at the time as some propagandists claim, there is no reason why they could not have provided that information to the Dutch.

Were they asked to provide such information?
But the thing is that we don't know what information was even provided. All we know is that there is a vague claim that in some way some Russian information was looked at.
We have to wonder what other information the Dutch were privvy to that they kept quiet about. Particularly after it emerged that an Australian passenger appeared to have put his oxygen mask on. This important fact might still be hidden had it not "accidentally" been revealed in an interview.

Malaysia Airlines MH17 passenger had oxygen mask on — Dutch Foreign Minister

We need to see all the facts, not have selective facts presented to us by investigations controlled by NATO members who have a conflict of interest.

In other words, all you have is a bunch of conspiracy theories about cover ups, no actual evidence. Until Russia actually publishes its radar data (instead of just claiming to have it in a press conferene) to be scrutinized by international experts, the claim about SU-25 being within a few kilometers from MH17 is unproven. If NATO members have a conflict of interest, then Russia certainly does too.

 

[Jayjay]

And how is it relevant that some passengers had time to put their oxygen masks on?

 

[thief of fire]

As usual, you try to dodge the point- I am not a Russian speaking individual so I cannot judge the authenticity of such videos, and don't much care for them either way. Maybe they are fake, but your say-so certainly isn't going to convince me.

Ok so you are prepared to at least accept that it's not confirmed, so it can't be presented as evidence.

For example: It's a fact that these "amateurish" bloggers managed to prove that the BUK was seen in Luhanks, whereas "credible" Russian sources, such as the "10 questions" RT article you linked to, repeated the debunked claim that it was seen in Krasnoarmeisk.

The BUK is irrelevant, unless we can show a BUK was used.

If you want to discuss the details of the location of the BUK, I'm game, but I think you you'd lose that argument and that's why you had to try to shift the goal posts to some allegedly fake youtube video which I have never claimed as evidence for my position, and probably haven't even seen.

First you need to show some evidence that a BUK was used. If there is nothing to point to a BUK being used then why does it matter if the rebels even had one?

As for intelligence agencies, I only said that the preponderance of evidence available publicly overwhelmingly favours that it was the separatist or Russians.

Really? How do you propose that either of these parties brought the plane down, and more importantly what EVIDENCE are you basing your claim on?

- - - Updated - - -

And how is it relevant that some passengers had time to put their oxygen masks on?

If the plane was hit by machine gun fire from Ukrainian jet then it gives time for a passenger to put a mask on, before the plane broke up.

The whole BUK story looks like a complete fabrication. Unless there is some evidence.

 

[Will Wiley]

Recent chest thumping by our pugilistic Prime Minister got me thinking about MH17 again, even moreso when I saw that Der Spiegel had come out and announced that German intelligence has "unambiguous" evidence that the plane had been downed by Ukrainian seperatists using a BUK missile launcher.
This together with John Kerry's assurances that America had a "mountain of evidence" proving the rebels were responsible.
America and Germany have as yet provided no evidence to back up their claims. In fact AFAIK there is no professionals who have maded an attempt to produce any report that Ukrainian seperatists were responsible using a BUK.
The only ones who have produced any report that I am aware of are some Russian engineers. Who unsurprisingly say the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian jet.
But shouldn't the difference between the damage caused by a SAM be distiguishable from the damage caused by a machine gun (despite the fact the SAM may have contained rods and have exploded some distance away from the plane)?

That seems to be the key detail that the report is based on. By looking at the pictures the authors conclude that it is from bullets, rather than a missile, and that's the only solid argument against the BUK theory. However I am skeptical whether they can make that determination just by looking at a photo.

.

Can you understand this part of the report?

A surface to air missile, with a warhead weighing between 40 and 50 kilograms does not
explode inside the target, rather it explodes in its proximity at a distance of between 50 to 100
metres. The detonation of the warhead’s charge produces a shock‐wave, which will sustain the
propulsion of shrapnel at high speed. This shrapnel is capable of penetrating the fuselage of a
plane. However, when we consider the dimensions of a Boeing 777 (Length 63. metres, with a
wide wingspan of > 60 metres), shrapnel is incapable of inflicting such damage on the plane
that would result in the break‐up of a plane of which was six to seven times smaller.

I can't follow the meaning of it. Are they saying shrapnel could not even break up a much smaller plane?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can't follow the meaning of it. Are they saying shrapnel could not even break up a much smaller plane?

Correct. That's why anti-aircraft missiles proved so ineffective against ballistic missiles in Iraq.

If the missile goes in for a hit it's quite possible for the warhead to destroy what it hits but leave the plane operational. We saw that in Afghanistan with the Stinger missiles--if they were fired against a multi-engine airplane there was a good chance the engine they went for was blown up but the plane limped on anyway.

Instead, the big missiles attempt to get nearby and spray shrapnel across the sky. This has almost no chance of actually destroying the airplane and it isn't intended to in the first place. The objective is to hit some vulnerable bits and get the plane to destroy itself. (For example, when an engine eats a piece of shrapnel it probably comes apart from the imbalance.) There is enough redundancy in the structural members that the shrapnel can't expect to actually break them. (But neither would anything other than a direct hit from the missile--something they're unlikely to get.)

(Which is why they fared so poorly against ballistic missiles. There are no control runs. There are no engines. There is no fuel. To actually kill it means either detonating it or destroying it's fuse.)

 

[Will Wiley]

I can't follow the meaning of it. Are they saying shrapnel could not even break up a much smaller plane?

Correct.

So, what caused the plane to break up in the air.

 

[Jayjay]

Furthermore, the separatists were the only ones firing SAMs in the area--Ukraine had no reason to because the separatists had no aircraft.

There is no evidence of separatists firing SAMS anywhere.
What we do know from Russian satellite images is that Kiev forces were active with BUKs at that very time, in that area.
10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash

Ok so you are prepared to at least accept that it's not confirmed, so it can't be presented as evidence.

For example: It's a fact that these "amateurish" bloggers managed to prove that the BUK was seen in Luhanks, whereas "credible" Russian sources, such as the "10 questions" RT article you linked to, repeated the debunked claim that it was seen in Krasnoarmeisk.

The BUK is irrelevant, unless we can show a BUK was used.

Then why did you bring it up?

And while we are at it, how would one prove it was BUK with forensic evidence? I would imagine that surface-to-air missile and air-to-air missiles have very siilar effect and only way to tell for sure would be to find shrapnel that could only have come from a specific missile type. That might theoretically be possible after the entire crash site is combed and all the wreckage is meticulously studied.

As for the theory that it was shot down by machine guns, that was my original point: the "Russian Engineer Union" that alleges it is only looking at a photo and saying they might see bullet holes instead of shrapnel holes. Much like someone might see a picture of weeping Jesus in a slice of toast.

As for intelligence agencies, I only said that the preponderance of evidence available publicly overwhelmingly favours that it was the separatist or Russians.

Really? How do you propose that either of these parties brought the plane down, and more importantly what EVIDENCE are you basing your claim on?

I propose it was brought down by the BUK that was in the area, and photographed in Luhansk on the same day missing one projectile. The rebels boasted about it in Russian social media immediately afterwards before finding out it was a civilian aircraft. There may be recordings that show rebels discussing the matter (which you say are fake), and the separatists are nown to have downed Ukrainian planes before. It's circumstantial, but I have not seen anything that would contradict this hypothesis, and the alternative theories being thrown around by Russia have some serious problems.

And how is it relevant that some passengers had time to put their oxygen masks on?

If the plane was hit by machine gun fire from Ukrainian jet then it gives time for a passenger to put a mask on, before the plane broke up.

It's a big plane and even a wouldn't just blow it up completely in one shot. The article you linked even has an expert say that a large part of the plane was still intact enough that the emergency systems would work, and some passengers might have been conscious for minutes. It doesn't take more than a few seconds to put on a mask.