Who shot down MH17

[tupac chopra]

There seem to be two theories about who shot down MH17 at the moment.
1. Rebels shot it down witha BUK missile launcher. No other details seem apparent.
2. Vladislav Voloshin a Ukrainian airforce pilot, flew out from Aviatorskoye airport in an SU25 armed with air to air missiles, and for one reason or another shot down the Malaysian Airlines plane.

Yes. Knowing this pilot a little bit... (quite possibly, when the other two airplanes were shot down in front of him), he just had a frightened reaction, inadequate. Could out of fright or in revenge launch the missiles into a Boeing. Maybe he took it for some other combat aircraft.

The first option is difficult to falsify without positive evidence of the contrary. It's the kind of vague elastic explanation we are accustomed to getting from liars. There is no evidence in the slightest that that is what happened. In a scientific sense or legal one, it's difficult to "falsify" without direct unambiguous evidence to the contrary.Yet it has been repeated adnauseum in the press. It's become "what happened."
The second option is unafraid to step into the light and be examined.

I do ask in this thread that people post about specifics and not vague scenarios. Thanks

 

[Davka]

Another possibility: Russian soldiers posing as Ukrainian separatists - aka "little green men" - shot it down from inside Ukraine.

This fits with multiple eyewitness accounts, and also fits with the damage to the plane. And it's not afraid of the light, but Russia is terrified that it might stand in the spotlight on center stage and take a bow.

 

[Jayjay]

YEs, there are two scenarios.

1. One that is supported by evidence:

There are multiple independent witnesses who saw and took photos of the BUK in question before and after the incident. These photos show that the BUK was in rebe-held territory, and lost one of its missiles along the way. The same BUK has also been spotted in Russian military convoys (courtesy of dashcam footage) prior and after the date of the incident. Furthermore, witnesses say they saw a smoke trail coming from the ground when the plane was shot down, and someone took a picture. At the location where this picture was taken international journalists found treadmarks and possible signs of a missile having been launched.

The damage to the plane is consistent with missiles used in BUK. They are not consstent with smaller heat seeking missiles used by Su-25.

Also, rebel sources at the time certainly thought they had shot down a plane, and bragged about it in social media. While it is possible they simply didn't know, it is unfathomable that the top separatist leaders would not know that nobody was shooting planes down at that time. Also rebels have been shooting down planes in the past, and they had a motive to do so again.

2. One that is horseshit made up by an anonymous Russian source.

Note that the source does not say anything at all that was not public knowledge already. THe alleged shooter, captain Vladimir Voloshin, has received a medal of honor, has his own website, pictures in social media, and he's been interviewed on Ukrainian television. In other words, it's possible that the anonymoys source just picked the only name that he knew to belong to a real Ukrainian pilot.

You're right, the interview does have details that could be corraborated. For example, it should be possible to check if Voloshin was on flight duty that day. Alsohe said Ukraine uses cluster munitions and "space-detonating" (probably a translation error) bombs. Traces of such could be found in rebel held areas that have been bombed. But so far, nothing in his story has been backed up by other evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There seem to be two theories about who shot down MH17 at the moment.
1. Rebels shot it down witha BUK missile launcher. No other details seem apparent.
2. Vladislav Voloshin a Ukrainian airforce pilot, flew out from Aviatorskoye airport in an SU25 armed with air to air missiles, and for one reason or another shot down the Malaysian Airlines plane.

Yes. Knowing this pilot a little bit... (quite possibly, when the other two airplanes were shot down in front of him), he just had a frightened reaction, inadequate. Could out of fright or in revenge launch the missiles into a Boeing. Maybe he took it for some other combat aircraft.

The first option is difficult to falsify without positive evidence of the contrary. It's the kind of vague elastic explanation we are accustomed to getting from liars. There is no evidence in the slightest that that is what happened. In a scientific sense or legal one, it's difficult to "falsify" without direct unambiguous evidence to the contrary.Yet it has been repeated adnauseum in the press. It's become "what happened."
The second option is unafraid to step into the light and be examined.

I do ask in this thread that people post about specifics and not vague scenarios. Thanks

The second option has already been examined and found conclusively false.

Lets say that somehow he got up there and fired that missile at the airplane. What happens?

The missile self-destructs because it has no target.

The problem is the Su-25 doesn't have a guidance radar for the missile.

Almost all radar-guided anti-aircraft missiles rely on a radar on the launcher (aircraft or SAM site) to provide target illumination, without this they are totally blind and their self-destruct goes off for safety reasons. There are a few of the most advanced missiles out there with their own target illuminators, although these are always short range. Such missiles require either target illumination at launch or an upload from their launcher saying to fly to point <x> and start looking. The Su-25 doesn't have the illuminator, it doesn't have a radar that can figure out where the plane is, let alone pass that information along to the missile.

The only missiles you can put on a Su-25 are heat seekers and those are for self defense only--the Su-25 is a dedicated ground attack aircraft, it's not built to hunt airplanes at all.

 

[tupac chopra]

YEs, there are two scenarios.

1. One that is supported by evidence:

There are multiple independent witnesses who saw and took photos of the BUK in question before and after the incident. These photos show that the BUK was in rebe-held territory, and lost one of its missiles along the way. The same BUK has also been spotted in Russian military convoys (courtesy of dashcam footage) prior and after the date of the incident.

How did you verify these dates?

Furthermore, witnesses say they saw a smoke trail coming from the ground when the plane was shot down, and someone took a picture.

How did you verify these things?

At the location where this picture was taken international journalists found treadmarks and possible signs of a missile having been launched.

Where is that location, and where is the signs?

The damage to the plane is consistent with missiles used in BUK. They are not consstent with smaller heat seeking missiles used by Su-25.

How did you verify that?

 

[tupac chopra]

Interestingly we now again have two contradictory stories. On the one hand we have the claim that witnesses saw a trail of smoke at that time from a BUK missile launcher and that this is evidence that the rebels shot down mh17.

Contrary to this we had a Russian TV program which has claimed that mh17 could not have been shot down because there are no witnesses who saw the tell-tale sign.

It appears that no one saw any such smoke trail. Certainly no evidence has been provided.
But if there was no smoke trail then it is Impossible that the plane could have been shot down by the rebels with a BUK missile launcher.

 

[Davka]

Interestingly we now again have two contradictory stories. On the one hand we have the claim that witnesses saw a trail of smoke at that time from a BUK missile launcher and that this is evidence that the rebels shot down mh17.

Contrary to this we had a Russian TV program ...

Interestingly, we now have two contradictory stories. On the one hand, we have eyewitnesses who say they heard noises in the henhouse, and saw a pair of foxes running off with hens in their mouths, leaving a trail of feathers.

On the other hand, we have FOX news claiming that no such witnesses exist, and that the hens kidnapped themselves.

 

[Deadend]

Investigators from Germany's Correct!v claim MH17 was shot down by a unit of the 53rd Russian Air Defense Brigade.

In my opinion they make a pretty solid case.

 

[Davka]

Investigators from Germany's Correct!v claim MH17 was shot down by a unit of the 53rd Russian Air Defense Brigade.

In my opinion they make a pretty solid case.

That's not Russian media, therefore it is a propaganda tool of the corrupt West.

 

[Ford]

Contrary to this we had a Russian TV program which has claimed that mh17 could not have been shot down because there are no witnesses who saw the tell-tale sign.

There you have it, folks. The answer we've all been looking for, straight from Russian television. Who shot down MH17?

Nobody. It wasn't shot down at all!

All that wreckage, all those bodies, all the grieving family members...all of it an elaborate ruse by the decadent West to sully the reputation of Mother Russia!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The damage to the plane is consistent with missiles used in BUK. They are not consstent with smaller heat seeking missiles used by Su-25.

How did you verify that?

Heat seekers go for engines or other hot spots if they can't find an engine (say, in a frontal attack profile), they don't explode above the target.

- - - Updated - - -

Interestingly we now again have two contradictory stories. On the one hand we have the claim that witnesses saw a trail of smoke at that time from a BUK missile launcher and that this is evidence that the rebels shot down mh17.

Contrary to this we had a Russian TV program which has claimed that mh17 could not have been shot down because there are no witnesses who saw the tell-tale sign.

It appears that no one saw any such smoke trail. Certainly no evidence has been provided.
But if there was no smoke trail then it is Impossible that the plane could have been shot down by the rebels with a BUK missile launcher.

We have one story and one known lie.

 

[Jayjay]

YEs, there are two scenarios.

1. One that is supported by evidence:

There are multiple independent witnesses who saw and took photos of the BUK in question before and after the incident. These photos show that the BUK was in rebe-held territory, and lost one of its missiles along the way. The same BUK has also been spotted in Russian military convoys (courtesy of dashcam footage) prior and after the date of the incident.

How did you verify these dates?

The photos surfaced on the internet on July 17th, immediately after the shooting. So they cannot have been taken later than that. And if they had been taken earlier, apparently nobody posted them online before that. Also, photos are corroborated by witness statements that they saw BUK on that date.

A good summary of alll the evidence is here: http://www.interpretermag.com/evidence-review-who-shot-down-mh17/

The analysis that puts the same BUK in Russia earlier in June: https://www.bellingcat.com/resource...29/geolocating-the-mh17-buk-convoy-in-russia/

Furthermore, witnesses say they saw a smoke trail coming from the ground when the plane was shot down, and someone took a picture.

How did you verify these things?

The photographer is known and he has talked to and handed over his camera to the investigators.

At the location where this picture was taken international journalists found treadmarks and possible signs of a missile having been launched.

Where is that location, and where is the signs?

Burned grass.

The damage to the plane is consistent with missiles used in BUK. They are not consstent with smaller heat seeking missiles used by Su-25.

How did you verify that?

The heat-seeking missiles from Su-25 would target the engines, but in this case the cockpit was hit. The final expert analysis will of course come from the investigators evnetually, but even a layman can see some things from the wreckage.

 

[Jayjay]

Interestingly we now again have two contradictory stories. On the one hand we have the claim that witnesses saw a trail of smoke at that time from a BUK missile launcher and that this is evidence that the rebels shot down mh17.

Contrary to this we had a Russian TV program which has claimed that mh17 could not have been shot down because there are no witnesses who saw the tell-tale sign.

It appears that no one saw any such smoke trail. Certainly no evidence has been provided.
But if there was no smoke trail then it is Impossible that the plane could have been shot down by the rebels with a BUK missile launcher.

You should get your information from other than Russian TV programs and the conspiracy theorist nutters that regurgitate their nonsense. Here is the photo:

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The heat-seeking missiles from Su-25 would target the engines, but in this case the cockpit was hit. The final expert analysis will of course come from the investigators evnetually, but even a layman can see some things from the wreckage.

No. The plane was not hit at all. The missile exploded in front of the plane, not in contact with it. The only reason a heat seeker would ever do that is if it had missed, saw it didn't have a target and self-destructed. A missile that had missed would be heading away from the plane--it's shrapnel would be directed in the wrong direction. While it may still hit the plane (detonating upon losing the target is done with the hope that the plane that just beat the missile is still close enough to be hit anyway) it's not going to pepper it as thoroughly as this missile did.

 

[Jayjay]

The heat-seeking missiles from Su-25 would target the engines, but in this case the cockpit was hit. The final expert analysis will of course come from the investigators evnetually, but even a layman can see some things from the wreckage.

No. The plane was not hit at all. The missile exploded in front of the plane, not in contact with it. The only reason a heat seeker would ever do that is if it had missed, saw it didn't have a target and self-destructed. A missile that had missed would be heading away from the plane--it's shrapnel would be directed in the wrong direction. While it may still hit the plane (detonating upon losing the target is done with the hope that the plane that just beat the missile is still close enough to be hit anyway) it's not going to pepper it as thoroughly as this missile did.

Thanks for the clarification. That was exactly what I meant, that the shrapnel hit the cockpit from the front.

 

[tupac chopra]

Thanks Jan Jay. There are quite a few problems I can see on some of the links but I don't have time to go onto it all now. But I will make some comments on one or two points.
The photo of smoke in the air I'd very doubtful to be from a BUK at that time.
1.the BBC interviewed quite a few people at that time and none of them saw a trail of smoke. The smoke from a BUK is just too obvious to be left out.
2. The smoke doesn't look too much like that from a BUK though it's possible to a very late photo of a BUK trail. Very late.
3.im not sure what we see of the weather conditions correlate correctly, though I'd have to check again.

The other point relates to the her seeking missile. The only lightly theory I've seen (and this goes back to at least august4),is that the missile hit the engine not the cockpit. So unsurprisingly Loren's ideas are off the mark.

 

[Jayjay]

Thanks Jan Jay. There are quite a few problems I can see on some of the links but I don't have time to go onto it all now. But I will make some comments on one or two points.
The photo of smoke in the air I'd very doubtful to be from a BUK at that time.
1.the BBC interviewed quite a few people at that time and none of them saw a trail of smoke. The smoke from a BUK is just too obvious to be left out.
2. The smoke doesn't look too much like that from a BUK though it's possible to a very late photo of a BUK trail. Very late.

How do you know what smoke from BUK should look like? All launches I've seen on youtube are either closeups of the launcher, or follow the projectile, or are too short to tell. The photographer says there was about 30 seconds to a minute between hearing an explosion and taking the picture so it would have had some time to dissipate already.

The other point relates to the her seeking missile. The only lightly theory I've seen (and this goes back to at least august4),is that the missile hit the engine not the cockpit. So unsurprisingly Loren's ideas are off the mark.

Source?

EDITED TO ADD: There were other witnesses at the time who saw the missile being fired from the ground also.

Ukrainian miner Andrey Tarasenko said he and friend were walking home from work when he saw a missile launched from the ground strike an aircraft where MH17 went down.

He is quoted by NBC News as saying he saw a white trail shoot into the sky from the ground, then heard an explosion and 20 seconds later saw smoke rising in the distance.

“You know how you see a trail from a plane? It was the same, but it was a missile launched from the ground,” Tarasenko said.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thanks Jan Jay. There are quite a few problems I can see on some of the links but I don't have time to go onto it all now. But I will make some comments on one or two points.
The photo of smoke in the air I'd very doubtful to be from a BUK at that time.
1.the BBC interviewed quite a few people at that time and none of them saw a trail of smoke. The smoke from a BUK is just too obvious to be left out.

Proves nothing--people in such cultures know better than to talk.

The other point relates to the her seeking missile. The only lightly theory I've seen (and this goes back to at least august4),is that the missile hit the engine not the cockpit. So unsurprisingly Loren's ideas are off the mark.

A woman-seeking missile? I thought that was a dick!


Anyway, every report of the damage I've seen says the missile was in front. A missile that goes for an engine will only damage parts of the plane that are facing the engine--which pretty much excludes the cockpit and completely excludes the other side of the plane. That's not what we saw.

 

[tupac chopra]

Interestingly a story has finally emerged out of Germany in the last week that gives a story with some details that can be checked. This story, reposted on truthdig today implicates the Russians. The story has very specific details rather than the vague stories we have seen up till now.
Can someone like no to the truthdig article? I'm travelling and on my phone and having a little trouble. thanks.

Also jayjay the theory from august 4 we on the vineyard of the saker blog.
As for the named eyewitness. It's curious that nothing about him seems to appear on the Web after July 19. From what I can see yet he seems to be the most important witness

 

[ZiprHead]

The other point relates to the her seeking missile. The only lightly theory I've seen (and this goes back to at least august4),is that the missile hit the engine not the cockpit. So unsurprisingly Loren's ideas are off the mark.

A woman-seeking missile? I thought that was a dick!

Loren, you :devil-smiley-029: