Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 Crashes in Ukraine

axj

Dagobah Resident
foofighter said:
Here are supposed pictures of the wreckage showing outside shrapnel impacts:
_http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/21/world/europe/wreckage-offers-clues-on-why-flight-17-went-down.html

I'm assuming these pictures must have been faked then?
Well, it does say:

Analysis: The shrapnel came from outside the plane.

Mr. Foster said the contour of the aluminum and the blistering of the paint around many of the holes indicate that small pieces of high-velocity shrapnel entered the aircraft externally. Mr. Foster said the two most likely causes were an engine explosion or an exploding missile.



 

foofighter

Jedi Council Member
axj said:
Well, it does say:

Analysis: The shrapnel came from outside the plane.

Mr. Foster said the contour of the aluminum and the blistering of the paint around many of the holes indicate that small pieces of high-velocity shrapnel entered the aircraft externally. Mr. Foster said the two most likely causes were an engine explosion or an exploding missile.
But it also says:
The shrapnel damage is different from what would be expected after an aircraft-engine explosion, Mr. Foster said, which would have caused “longer, thinner, oblique tears across the aircraft skin, with a slight hump toward the point where the fragment entered the skin, rather than the majority of punctures present.”
I still don't understand why the outside seems to be yellow though. I can't find any yellow on MAS planes, but maybe I'm missing something.
 

axj

Dagobah Resident
It seems that this analysis pretty much focused on finding out which type of missile was used. Whether they considered a bomb (placed at one of the engines?) is unclear.

This part in the beginning is quite telling:

While it is impossible from the photographs to determine that a specific missile was used, Mr. Foster said, the damage is consistent with the effects of a fragmentary warhead carried by an SA-11, the type of missile that American officials have said was most likely behind the attack.
Plus, the analysis was done by an American defense analyst from IHS Jane's. On their website you can find this type of reporting:

MH017 mostly likely downed by Russian-backed separatists
20 July 2014

A growing body of evidence points to Russian-backed separatists as being responsible for the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines (MH) flight 017 on 17 July. The aircraft was flying in airspace over the Russia-Ukraine border near the city of Donetsk when it appears to have been shot down by a Russian-made Buk (SA-11 'Gadfly') surface-to-air-missile (SAM) battery.

United States intelligence sources confirm that the aircraft was hit by a SAM, while former Soviet and Ukrainian air defence specialists in Kiev told IHS Jane’s that this missile was either from a Buk unit controlled by the Russian-backed rebels in Ukraine’s eastern regions or possibly from a battery located on the territory of Russia itself.

The Ukrainian military “has no Buk systems in this part of the country any longer”, said one former air defence forces officer. The Buk units that were based in this region were taken over by Russian-backed separatists on 29 June when they overran a Ukrainian military installation. The separatists posted photos of their new acquisitions on Russian social media on the same day, but deleted these internet postings on 17 July as soon as it was clear that the aircraft downed was a civilian airliner and not a military target.

The same former air defence officer also pointed out that the Ukrainian military has safeguards in place to prevent this kind of an accident from ever occurring. “There is a datalink from the civilian air traffic control system that monitors all commercial airline and civil aviation flights," he explained. "This input into the air defence command provides full coverage of all non-military flights, so it is nearly impossible for a Ukrainian armed forces unit to have brought down this airliner. It is almost certainly one of these rebel bands operating in the east of Ukraine, operating with Russian assistance and simply shooting at anything that passes over their heads.”

Ironically, OAO Concern PVO Almaz-Antei, the defence industrial conglomerate that produces the Buk SAM system, was one of the several Russian firms hit with a list of new US sanctions on the day before MH17 came down and was added to the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) list.

Other analysts pointed out that on the morning MH017 was shot down, a captured Buk system was seen in the town of Snezhnoe, which is approximately 15 miles southeast of the crash site. Later in the day, the same Buk battery was filmed heading to a known rebel position south of the city, which was about 20 miles southeast of the reported crash site.

The most plausible theory, said a NATO intelligence specialist, is that the separatists believed that they were shooting at another military target like the Antonov An-26 that was brought down earlier that week. “When they saw that they had instead shot down a Malaysian airliner they panicked, which accounts for their panicked deletions of all social media postings related to this incident,” said the NATO source.

Supporting this theory are radio conversations between Ukrainian separatists and Russian military intelligence (GRU) officers operating in Ukrainian territory that were recorded by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) and released late on 17 July. In these conversations a scouting team from the separatists reports that it has visited the aircraft crash site and has some 'bad news' in that the aircraft is a civilian airliner and not a military aircraft. The officer the team is speaking with says the aircraft “was probably trying to drop spies [into Ukraine]” and “should not have been flying over a war zone”.

The NATO intelligence specialist pointed out that the recordings “show that the Russian ‘helpers’ realise that they now have an international incident on their hands – and they probably also gave the order for separatists to erase all evidence – including these internet postings". He added: "It will be interesting to see if we ever find this Buk battery again or if someone now tries to dump it into the river.”

The NATO analyst pointed out that this also explains reports that the aircraft’s flight recorders have not been left at the accident scene per international regulations and accepted practice, but instead may have been sent to Moscow “in order to doctor this evidence as well”.

Other evidence, he said, cannot be hidden, “such as the radar tracks of the battery and the talkback between the radar and the missile after it has launched. These and other electronic emissions are ‘electronic fingerprints’ that have been recorded and will not take long to analyse.

"There are also methods of reverse-trajectory computational analysis that can reproduce the flight path of the missile and will show the precise launch area," he said. "At this point there is almost nothing that is not clear or is open to interpretation.”
This is even worse propaganda than in most other places.
 

Alana

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
foofighter said:
I still don't understand why the outside seems to be yellow though. I can't find any yellow on MAS planes, but maybe I'm missing something.
Check out this "proof of missile impact" photo here:

_http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/10295889/Photo-of-MH17-wreckage-proves-missile-attack



Caption sez: 'PROOF': Shrapnel damage suggests an SA-11 proximity frag warhead may have exploded slightly below and ahead of #MH17's port wing, Royal United Services Institute analyst Justin Bronk said.

It's one of the two pictures that Justin Bronk used for his missile impact theory. From his tweet page:

_https://twitter.com/Justin_Br0nk/status/491276520464605188/photo/1 also see attachment if link doesn't work.

In the first picture, it doesn't even look like shrapnel holes. And if they bombed the plane, who knows what kind of bomb they used and what damage it can create? What does the public know about these things? Don't worry though, they will get the experts and they will use anything to prove whatever they want: like 911, the WMDs in Iraq, Israel's right to defend itself..... :phaser:
 

Attachments

Mikey

The Living Force
foofighter said:
Here are supposed pictures of the wreckage showing outside shrapnel impacts:
_http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/21/world/europe/wreckage-offers-clues-on-why-flight-17-went-down.html

I'm assuming these pictures must have been faked then?
Not necessarily. Let's assume there was a bomb on board, let's say in the cargo area. If it exploded, then parts of it could impact the engine hull or the underside of the wings, and it would look as if there was an external shrapnel. It's difficult to say what happened without knowing to which part of the airplane the photographed hull parts belong to.
 

foofighter

Jedi Council Member
Data said:
foofighter said:
Here are supposed pictures of the wreckage showing outside shrapnel impacts:
_http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/21/world/europe/wreckage-offers-clues-on-why-flight-17-went-down.html

I'm assuming these pictures must have been faked then?
Not necessarily. Let's assume there was a bomb on board, let's say in the cargo area. If it exploded, then parts of it could impact the engine hull or the underside of the wings, and it would look as if there was an external shrapnel. It's difficult to say what happened without knowing to which part of the airplane the photographed hull parts belong to.
If you look at the YouTube video I posted, at the specified frame it shows what looks like the cargo location (at the back), with a sheet of metal torn clean off. My guess would be that if there was a bomb there, then the rivets would be what gave up first, and so the whole metal just comes off in one piece, more or less. Have a look at it, and see what you think about it.

As for the part in the picture, judging from other photos it was a piece of the wing.
 

Siberia

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Avala said:
Lumiere_du_Code said:
Imagine that you have captured anti-aircraft missile system "Buk". That is:



You climb inside, and there:



What buttons to press? Which handles twist? Understand... ;)
Just press the buttons randomly! Something will happen ;D :lol:
The plane is not downed with that, but great point! :)
Indeed. And this is only the launching part of Buk. The whole complex capable of shooting down planes at high altitudes includes a set of vehicles and equipment:



From Wikipedia:

The Buk is a mobile, radar-guided surface to air missile (SAM) system with all four main components — acquisition and targeting radars, a command element, missile launchers, and a logistics element — mounted on tracked vehicles. [...] In general, the system identifies potential targets (radar), selects a particular target (command), fires a missile (launcher) at the target, and resupplies the system (logistics).
So, it requires a team of professionals to operate this complex.
 

itellsya

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
To give you an idea of what UK tabloids/news is putting out, these are yesterdays/today's front pages, see attached:

(obviously this is propaganda, but i thought you might be interested to see)

It also comes with a note, i assume by the creator: _https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=698765130206841&set=a.536508326432523.1073741825.146173642132662&type=1

Boris Malagurski

Iako nije sprovedena detaljna istraga oko obaranja malezijskog aviona, zapadna štampa je složna: Kriv je Putin. Na naslovnim stranama vrište reči "Putinove žrtve", "Putinove rakete", "Putin je ubio mog sina", "Putinovi pljačkaši pokrali britansku žrtvu", itd. Na delu vidimo najdegutantnije iskorišćavanje tragično stradalih za političke ciljeve. Kažu da Putin jedini može da zaustavi rat, a svi zaboravljaju da je rat počeo svrgavanjem demokratski izabranog predsednika u krvavom puču, uz svesrdnu podršku SAD i EU. Neka zapad prestane da se meša u unutrašnje poslove drugih država i živećemo u daleko mirnijem svetu.

Boris Malagurski

Although not carried out a detailed investigation into the shooting down of the plane of Malaysia, western press has united: Blame Putin. On the front page screaming the words "Putin's victims", "Putin's missile", "Putin killed my son," "Putin robbers stole the British victim", etc. On the part we see najdegutantnije exploitation tragically killed for political ends. They say that only Putin can stop the war, and all forget that the war started dethronement democratically elected president in a bloody coup, with the wholehearted support of the U.S. and the EU. Let the West ceases to be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and we will live in a much more peaceful world.
 

Attachments

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Data said:
foofighter said:
Here are supposed pictures of the wreckage showing outside shrapnel impacts:
_http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/21/world/europe/wreckage-offers-clues-on-why-flight-17-went-down.html

I'm assuming these pictures must have been faked then?
Not necessarily. Let's assume there was a bomb on board, let's say in the cargo area. If it exploded, then parts of it could impact the engine hull or the underside of the wings, and it would look as if there was an external shrapnel. It's difficult to say what happened without knowing to which part of the airplane the photographed hull parts belong to.
Just throwing it out there, but what if a bomb took down the plane, but a missile was also fired at it? This analysis speculated that it would take more than one BUK missile to take down a jetliner:

_http://www.sott.net/article/282218-MH17-false-flag-Emerging-evidence-points-in-that-direction
However, here we are dealing with a huge airliner. Yes, one rocket will rip the casing, cause depressurization, and will kill a lot of passengers. But it will not break up the airliner into pieces. Given certain conditions, the pilots may even be able to land it. And, in fact, there have been precedents (to be provided in future posts). For example - the very same An-28, which is alleged to have been the first victim of a BUK system; even though it was done for, but the crew was able to successfully catapult out. Which, in some way, symbolizes. An An-28, by the way, is far smaller than a Boeing.
 

axj

Dagobah Resident
Another interesting perspective:

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VEBnqLsS-0&

This guy analyzed the video of the plane explosion on the ground and asks a very good question: How likely is it that the plane was hit by a missile if the plane left no smoke trail at all before exploding on the ground?

If it was a bomb, it may have been strategically placed to just disable the navigation systems (and communication?). Maybe in the cockpit itself. That may explain the lack of a smoke trail behind the plane.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
foofighter said:
If you look at the YouTube video I posted, at the specified frame it shows what looks like the cargo location (at the back), with a sheet of metal torn clean off. My guess would be that if there was a bomb there, then the rivets would be what gave up first, and so the whole metal just comes off in one piece, more or less.
Not necessarily. The riveted areas may actually be stronger than larger expanses of just sheet metal. Though I was raised by an engineer and exposed to a lot of concepts, I think we ought to leave this sort of analysis to the materials engineers onboard.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
itellsya said:
To give you an idea of what UK tabloids/news is putting out, these are yesterdays/today's front pages, see attached:

(obviously this is propaganda, but i thought you might be interested to see)
Those headlines are absolutely disgusting.
 

Altair

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Approaching Infinity said:
Data said:
foofighter said:
Here are supposed pictures of the wreckage showing outside shrapnel impacts:
_http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/21/world/europe/wreckage-offers-clues-on-why-flight-17-went-down.html

I'm assuming these pictures must have been faked then?
Not necessarily. Let's assume there was a bomb on board, let's say in the cargo area. If it exploded, then parts of it could impact the engine hull or the underside of the wings, and it would look as if there was an external shrapnel. It's difficult to say what happened without knowing to which part of the airplane the photographed hull parts belong to.
Just throwing it out there, but what if a bomb took down the plane, but a missile was also fired at it? This analysis speculated that it would take more than one BUK missile to take down a jetliner:

_http://www.sott.net/article/282218-MH17-false-flag-Emerging-evidence-points-in-that-direction
However, here we are dealing with a huge airliner. Yes, one rocket will rip the casing, cause depressurization, and will kill a lot of passengers. But it will not break up the airliner into pieces. Given certain conditions, the pilots may even be able to land it. And, in fact, there have been precedents (to be provided in future posts). For example - the very same An-28, which is alleged to have been the first victim of a BUK system; even though it was done for, but the crew was able to successfully catapult out. Which, in some way, symbolizes. An An-28, by the way, is far smaller than a Boeing.
Why not severals bombs which have been placed at strategically important places in the plane and which were ignited simultaneously by a signal sent from US-satellite? According to this article _http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-21/russia-says-has-photos-ukraine-deploying-buk-missiles-east-rader-proof-warplanes-mh1 an US-satellite flew over MH17 at time it was shot down. A missile launch could have been easily traced by a russian radar and by a plane radar (and recorded in the plane's black boxes). So with several bombs and no missile it's easier to wipe traces.
 

Avala

Dagobah Resident
Or one, but strong. Today's landmines, for example, which has some 40cm in diameter can easily turn the modern tanks upside down. And that's usually 60 tons of steel, and the planes are just hull made of aluminium.
 
Top Bottom