Malaysian Airliner crashes in Ukraine

[Oaledonia]

There is no damage consistent with a missile hit to the engines, which is what a heat seeking missile/IR missile would have targeted. Pictures do show what appears to be shrapnel damage (which wouldn't look like crash damage) near/around the cockpit, left side of the fuselage and left wing. But hey, I'm not an expert and I wish some experts could get to the crash to give us answers.

Which would indicate that the explosion occurred near the left engine? Which would be expected by any heat seeking missile? These results could be replicated if you shot it from behind aswell. >.<

> Tells everyone else they aren't an expert
> Parades around with his "expert" opinion

[Costa Fierro]

There is no damage consistent with a missile hit to the engines, which is what a heat seeking missile/IR missile would have targeted. Pictures do show what appears to be shrapnel damage (which wouldn't look like crash damage) near/around the cockpit, left side of the fuselage and left wing. But hey, I'm not an expert and I wish some experts could get to the crash to give us answers.

Which would indicate that the explosion occurred near the left engine? Which would be expected by any heat seeking missile? These results could be replicated if you shot it from behind aswell. >.<

No. The damage is consistent with a missile exploding close to the front of the aircraft, as pieces of the cockpit have been recovered with puncture marks. That is what some missiles are programmed to do.

[Spirit of Hope]

There is no damage consistent with a missile hit to the engines, which is what a heat seeking missile/IR missile would have targeted. Pictures do show what appears to be shrapnel damage (which wouldn't look like crash damage) near/around the cockpit, left side of the fuselage and left wing. But hey, I'm not an expert and I wish some experts could get to the crash to give us answers.

Which would indicate that the explosion occurred near the left engine? Which would be expected by any heat seeking missile? These results could be replicated if you shot it from behind aswell. >.<

A completely destroyed engine, spread out over a large area would indicate a hit to the engine. Images instead show largely intact engines, still with the wing.

Images instead show shrapnel damage (likely from a radar proximity fuse) concentrated near the cockpit, spreading out along the left side of the craft.

These results would be different if shot from behind for multiple reasons, notably a strike to the rear would likely have resulted in the destruction of the tail, and the remainder of the plane contenting on, possibly still under control and able to fly. Instead he have damage consistent with a strike near the front of the plane likely killing pilots, damaging engines and wings, and destroying controls.

[Kamchastkia]

Which would indicate that the explosion occurred near the left engine? Which would be expected by any heat seeking missile? These results could be replicated if you shot it from behind aswell. >.<

No. The damage is consistent with a missile exploding close to the front of the aircraft, as pieces of the cockpit have been recovered with puncture marks. That is what some missiles are programmed to do.

Because that is the only case that this would make sense. Totally.

[Spirit of Hope]

No. The damage is consistent with a missile exploding close to the front of the aircraft, as pieces of the cockpit have been recovered with puncture marks. That is what some missiles are programmed to do.

Because that is the only case that this would make sense. Totally.

I am unsure what you are trying to argue here. Evidence points to a missile strike to the front of the plane. We are not saying with certainty that this given situation happened. You however are presenting no other alternative, simply running around saying "but that didn't necessarily happen!"

Most likely, given the evidence, is a civilian plane flying over a war zone was accidentally shot down by one of the combatants. In this case the most likely shooter was the rebelling forces because the evidence indicates a ground launcher, which only the rebelling forces were known to have in the area.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Because that is the only case that this would make sense. Totally.

I am unsure what you are trying to argue here. Evidence points to a missile strike to the front of the plane. We are not saying with certainty that this given situation happened. You however are presenting no other alternative, simply running around saying "but that didn't necessarily happen!"

Most likely, given the evidence, is a civilian plane flying over a war zone was accidentally shot down by one of the combatants. In this case the most likely shooter was the rebelling forces because the evidence indicates a ground launcher, which only the rebelling forces were known to have in the area.

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/741173

[Costa Fierro]

No. The damage is consistent with a missile exploding close to the front of the aircraft, as pieces of the cockpit have been recovered with puncture marks. That is what some missiles are programmed to do.

Because that is the only case that this would make sense. Totally.

I had this discussion with someone a few pages back. I asked if it was possible and the person (who knows more than I do and certainly a lot more than you do) said that some missiles are programmed to lead an aircraft to make better use of its fragmentation.

So please explain how a heat seeking or infra-red missile causes cockpit damage in your expert opinion?

[Spirit of Hope]

I am unsure what you are trying to argue here. Evidence points to a missile strike to the front of the plane. We are not saying with certainty that this given situation happened. You however are presenting no other alternative, simply running around saying "but that didn't necessarily happen!"

Most likely, given the evidence, is a civilian plane flying over a war zone was accidentally shot down by one of the combatants. In this case the most likely shooter was the rebelling forces because the evidence indicates a ground launcher, which only the rebelling forces were known to have in the area.

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/741173

Yes, the Ukrainian gov't may have had missiles in that region, but the apparent launch point was within rebel control. So unless there is a mistake in the launch point or the government snuck missile launchers into enemy controlled land, launched a missile, and then drove the missile launcher back it was most likely the rebel forces.

[Limborg]

If the US has confirmed it, somebody's lying.

I'm not going to engage in any baseless speculation, but since it's been confirmed by the US and Russia that Poroshenko was lying, what possible motive could he have had unless there was something to hide? I'm rather confused by this.

Also, why is Ukraine refusing to release its ATC and radar records? There's something off about this whole situation.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy guy, but this theorie leads all the way to Ukraine shooting it down to blame the DPR, the LPR and probably Russia aswell.
Its either that, or a mistake made by a militia who thought to fire on the Ukrainian jet, but it fired on the wrong plane...

People can debate all they want, but untill we get answers on some vital questions we cannot say much.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/741173

Yes, the Ukrainian gov't may have had missiles in that region, but the apparent launch point was within rebel control. So unless there is a mistake in the launch point or the government snuck missile launchers into enemy controlled land, launched a missile, and then drove the missile launcher back it was most likely the rebel forces.

Both scenarios have a 50/50 chance of being plausible. Moreover after all, whilst the NAF does not have any real military nor political motivations to shoot down the MH17, Poroshenko does. Which raises the stakes regarding his régime having done it to 70/30.

Furthermore, the NAF does not really have the reconnaissance capabilities needed that cover all their areas to enable them to spot a few Kiev commanded Buk units coming in.

[Neoconstantius]

I'm not going to engage in any baseless speculation, but since it's been confirmed by the US and Russia that Poroshenko was lying, what possible motive could he have had unless there was something to hide? I'm rather confused by this.

Also, why is Ukraine refusing to release its ATC and radar records? There's something off about this whole situation.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy guy, but this theorie leads all the way to Ukraine shooting it down to blame the DPR, the LPR and probably Russia aswell.
Its either that, or a mistake made by a militia who thought to fire on the Ukrainian jet, but it fired on the wrong plane...

People can debate all they want, but untill we get answers on some vital questions we cannot say much.

The problem is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I just don't know if there will ever be enough to definitely confirm or refute this narrative.

[Oaledonia]

Both scenarios have a 50/50 chance of being plausible.

Don't pull statistics out of your ass, please.

[Master Shake]

Yes, the Ukrainian gov't may have had missiles in that region, but the apparent launch point was within rebel control. So unless there is a mistake in the launch point or the government snuck missile launchers into enemy controlled land, launched a missile, and then drove the missile launcher back it was most likely the rebel forces.

Both scenarios have a 50/50 chance of being plausible. Moreover after all, whilst the NAF does not have any real military nor political motivations to shoot down the MH17, Poroshenko does. Which raises the stakes regarding his régime having done it to 70/30.

Furthermore, the NAF does not really have the reconnaissance capabilities needed that cover all their areas to enable them to spot a few Kiev commanded Buk units coming in.

The Ukrainian military can't even drive the rebels out of that territory. How are they supposed to drive a missile launcher/Anti aircraft battery into rebel held land and defend it for hours and then magically know where the plane will be to shoot it down?

It was probably the Russians since the rebels are pro russian...

[Costa Fierro]

Yes, the Ukrainian gov't may have had missiles in that region, but the apparent launch point was within rebel control. So unless there is a mistake in the launch point or the government snuck missile launchers into enemy controlled land, launched a missile, and then drove the missile launcher back it was most likely the rebel forces.

Both scenarios have a 50/50 chance of being plausible. Moreover after all, whilst the NAF does not have any real military nor political motivations to shoot down the MH17, Poroshenko does. Which raises the stakes regarding his régime having done it to 70/30.

Furthermore, the NAF does not really have the reconnaissance capabilities needed that cover all their areas to enable them to spot a few Kiev commanded Buk units coming in.

Poroshenko doesn't have any reasons to shoot down a civilian airliner. And it hasn't occurred to you that the missile systems were already present in the region before the conflict began and the rebels overran the facilities where they were stored? The rebels overran other Ukrainian military bases and storage depots so it wouldn't surprise me if they came across systems such as these and either figured out how to use it themselves or used their sympathetic neighbors in Russia to have people come across and give them the basics.

After all, if Russian volunteers come across on regular occasion to fight alongside the rebels, it wouldn't be difficult to source someone with missile system experience.

[Master Shake]

Both scenarios have a 50/50 chance of being plausible. Moreover after all, whilst the NAF does not have any real military nor political motivations to shoot down the MH17, Poroshenko does. Which raises the stakes regarding his régime having done it to 70/30.

Furthermore, the NAF does not really have the reconnaissance capabilities needed that cover all their areas to enable them to spot a few Kiev commanded Buk units coming in.

Poroshenko doesn't have any reasons to shoot down a civilian airliner. And it hasn't occurred to you that the missile systems were already present in the region before the conflict began and the rebels overran the facilities where they were stored? The rebels overran other Ukrainian military bases and storage depots so it wouldn't surprise me if they came across systems such as these and either figured out how to use it themselves or used their sympathetic neighbors in Russia to have people come across and give them the basics.

After all, if Russian volunteers come across on regular occasion to fight alongside the rebels, it wouldn't be difficult to source someone with missile system experience.

This man makes a damn good point....

[Washington Resistance Army]

Both scenarios have a 50/50 chance of being plausible. Moreover after all, whilst the NAF does not have any real military nor political motivations to shoot down the MH17, Poroshenko does. Which raises the stakes regarding his régime having done it to 70/30.

Furthermore, the NAF does not really have the reconnaissance capabilities needed that cover all their areas to enable them to spot a few Kiev commanded Buk units coming in.

Poroshenko doesn't have any reasons to shoot down a civilian airliner. And it hasn't occurred to you that the missile systems were already present in the region before the conflict began and the rebels overran the facilities where they were stored? The rebels overran other Ukrainian military bases and storage depots so it wouldn't surprise me if they came across systems such as these and either figured out how to use it themselves or used their sympathetic neighbors in Russia to have people come across and give them the basics.

After all, if Russian volunteers come across on regular occasion to fight alongside the rebels, it wouldn't be difficult to source someone with missile system experience.

Costa gets it, it's not that complicated.

[Limborg]

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy guy, but this theorie leads all the way to Ukraine shooting it down to blame the DPR, the LPR and probably Russia aswell.
Its either that, or a mistake made by a militia who thought to fire on the Ukrainian jet, but it fired on the wrong plane...

People can debate all they want, but untill we get answers on some vital questions we cannot say much.

The problem is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I just don't know if there will ever be enough to definitely confirm or refute this narrative.

I've got the same feeling. It will never get fully solved. For now we can only hope that at least some of these questions get solved, even if its only to pain a better picture of what happend there.

[Wasyt]

Because that is the only case that this would make sense. Totally.

I am unsure what you are trying to argue here. Evidence points to a missile strike to the front of the plane. We are not saying with certainty that this given situation happened. You however are presenting no other alternative, simply running around saying "but that didn't necessarily happen!"

Most likely, given the evidence, is a civilian plane flying over a war zone was accidentally shot down by one of the combatants. In this case the most likely shooter was the rebelling forces because the evidence indicates a ground launcher, which only the rebelling forces were known to have in the area.

Oh yeah ? Well first of all they only had access to one module out of three, and its unknown which module they had in their possession, additionally it is extremely unlikely for someone that doesn't have prior knowledge or training to just get in the anti-air system and launch a missile on a plane flying at 33,000 feets. This is not Battlefield 4, you don't just point the thing at the plane and shoot and it automatically flies towards it and blows the plane up. >.>

[Oaledonia]

This is not Battlefield 4

Stop treating people as kids, kid. We've already proven you wrong.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Yes, the Ukrainian gov't may have had missiles in that region, but the apparent launch point was within rebel control. So unless there is a mistake in the launch point or the government snuck missile launchers into enemy controlled land, launched a missile, and then drove the missile launcher back it was most likely the rebel forces.

Both scenarios have a 50/50 chance of being plausible.

Stop! Corroborate or listen
That's bullshit of a classic rendition
Relyin', on a logical fallacy
William of Ockham bitch-slapped in the fourteenth century,
Yo - we don't know,
and we need to know more.
But such a conspiratorial proceeding is implausible.
Especially with the evidence we have available.

Moreover after all, whilst the NAF does not have any real military nor political motivations to shoot down the MH17, Poroshenko does. Which raises the stakes regarding his régime having done it to 70/30.

Wow, what an amazing ass-pull.

[Gravlen]

US intelligence has just acknowledged that there was a Ukrainian Su-25 in the vicinity of MH17.

In your haste you seem to have forgotten to link to your source.

[Gravlen]

Both scenarios have a 50/50 chance of being plausible.

This is a fantastic sentence. The use of words here... It's like a Salvador Dali painting.

[Neoconstantius]

US intelligence has just acknowledged that there was a Ukrainian Su-25 in the vicinity of MH17.

In your haste you seem to have forgotten to link to your source.

One official said the fighter [Su-25] is a ground-attack aircraft not equipped with air-to-air missiles and was flying too far away from the plane at the time.

This directly contradicts Poroshenko's claim that all Ukrainian planes were on the ground at the time the plane was shot down.

Russia claims it has satellite imagery evidence of the plane's presence and has urged the US to release its satellite monitoring data of the region to corroborate their claim.

[Gravlen]

In your haste you seem to have forgotten to link to your source.

One official said the fighter [Su-25] is a ground-attack aircraft not equipped with air-to-air missiles and was flying too far away from the plane at the time.

This directly contradicts Poroshenko's claim that all Ukrainian planes were on the ground at the time the plane was shot down.

Russia claims it has satellite imagery evidence of the plane's presence and has urged the US to release its satellite monitoring data of the region to corroborate their claim.

Thanks, but neither one does US intelligence explicitly acknowledge that there was a Ukrainian Su-25 in the vicinity of MH17. In the first link no such acknowledgement is made. The official speaking on the record seems only to be talking about how a SU-25 could not have been responsible for downing the aircraft. I see how you can interpret his words to be an acknowledgement, but I think that is stretching his words too far.

In fact, in an article dated July 22nd, U.S. intelligence officials "categorically denied" that a Ukrainian Su-25 fighter jet was flying no more than three miles from the Boeing 777 before it was shot down.

Russian Army Lt.-Gen. Andrei Kartopolov and Air Force Lt.-Gen. Igor Makushev address journalists on Monday in front of a map they said showed the air-traffic situation in Ukraine's Donetsk area around the time the Malaysia Airlines jet crashed last week. Russia said its flight records show a Ukrainian fighter jet was flying close to the Beoing 777. U.S. intelligence officials dismissed that claim.

You don't happen to have a more explicit source, do you?

[Neoconstantius]

One official said the fighter [Su-25] is a ground-attack aircraft not equipped with air-to-air missiles and was flying too far away from the plane at the time.

This directly contradicts Poroshenko's claim that all Ukrainian planes were on the ground at the time the plane was shot down.

Russia claims it has satellite imagery evidence of the plane's presence and has urged the US to release its satellite monitoring data of the region to corroborate their claim.

Thanks, but neither one does US intelligence explicitly acknowledge that there was a Ukrainian Su-25 in the vicinity of MH17. In the first link no such acknowledgement is made. The official speaking on the record seems only to be talking about how a SU-25 could not have been responsible for downing the aircraft. I see how you can interpret his words to be an acknowledgement, but I think that is stretching his words too far.

In fact, in an article dated July 22nd, U.S. intelligence officials "categorically denied" that a Ukrainian Su-25 fighter jet was flying no more than three miles from the Boeing 777 before it was shot down.

Russian Army Lt.-Gen. Andrei Kartopolov and Air Force Lt.-Gen. Igor Makushev address journalists on Monday in front of a map they said showed the air-traffic situation in Ukraine's Donetsk area around the time the Malaysia Airlines jet crashed last week. Russia said its flight records show a Ukrainian fighter jet was flying close to the Beoing 777. U.S. intelligence officials dismissed that claim.

You don't happen to have a more explicit source, do you?

No, I don't, unfortunately. I agree that the acknowledgement is rather allusive. But this official's reference seems to indicate there was in fact a Ukrainian aircraft in the air; the question is if this was just a delivery error or if it was actually a subtle confirmation.

It would be a huge help if the Russian and American governments would release their satellite images and if Ukraine would release its ATC/radar data. I'd really like to see some evidence not based on circumstance or social media posts.