Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

Gatling

MH17 INVESTIGATION REPORT to be published on Tuesday apparently

Schadenfreudia

Gatling wrote: »

MH17 INVESTIGATION REPORT to be published on Tuesday apparently

To be immediately rubbished by those who disagree with it's toothless findings....:rolleyes:

weisses

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

To be immediately rubbished by those who disagree with it's toothless findings....:rolleyes:

Can't wait for it being torn apart by you .. Piece by piece ...

Schadenfreudia

weisses wrote: »

Can't wait for it being torn apart by you .. Piece by piece ...

Seriously?

I doubt I'll even bother reading it if I don't like the general thrust. I expect it will confirm that MH17 was shot down by a BUK which was probably fired by the rebels.

Nothing very interesting in that, is there? :rolleyes:

Gatling

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

To be immediately rubbished by those who disagree with it's toothless findings....:rolleyes:

Pretty standard stuff for trolls

Schadenfreudia

Gatling wrote: »

Pretty standard stuff for trolls

Is it?

weisses

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Seriously?

I doubt I'll even bother reading it if I don't like the general thrust. I expect it will confirm that MH17 was shot down by a BUK which was probably fired by the rebels.

Nothing very interesting in that, is there? :rolleyes:

Your reply only demonstrates how ill informed you are on the matter .... The question of who did it is not investigated for this report

Schadenfreudia

weisses wrote: »

Your reply only demonstrates how ill informed you are on the matter .... The question of who did it is not investigated for this report

You are obviously not getting the message - I regard the investigation as irrelevant, of little or no interest and of little or no use.

That being so I don't waste my time thinking about it.

smurfjed

I regard the investigation as irrelevant, of little or no interest and of little or no use.

Can you please explain why? This report will not get political, it will just detail why a perfectly serviceable B777 aircraft ended up in pieces in the Ukraine will all onboard killed. It will not state who was responsible for it ending up in this condition.

I don't really give a rats about the who, but i need to know why it happened so that i can assess my own personal risk before i get into a B777.

SNAKEDOC

More interestingly the russian company that make the BUK missile sustem have said they will be issuing a statement on tuesday also outlining setails from an experimwnt carried out to determine if the missile did actually cause the accident or was it a missilefired feom an already airborne aource ie fighter plane. If the results of said experiment and flight 17s investigation show different reaulta then the russians will ise that as evidence they were right and a ukrianian fighter fired the missile. Some also say putin himself was onboard a plane close by and it was an assassination attempt but they attacked the wrong plane.

darkpagandeath

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

More interestingly the russian company that make the BUK missile sustem have said they will be issuing a statement on tuesday also outlining setails from an experimwnt carried out to determine if the missile did actually cause the accident or was it a missilefired feom an already airborne aource ie fighter plane. If the results of said experiment and flight 17s investigation show different reaulta then the russians will ise that as evidence they were right and a ukrianian fighter fired the missile. Some also say putin himself was onboard a plane close by and it was an assassination attempt but they attacked the wrong plane.

A SAM cannot be fired from a fighter jet it would be to large.

weisses

darkpagandeath wrote: »

A SAM cannot be fired from a fighter jet it would be to large.

Makes you wander what they are investigating :rolleyes:

SNAKEDOC

Yes thats my point. If a missile took the plane down which is almost certain it leavea a cery specific marking on the airframe if an aircraft givingg clues as to its origin especially if the target is a slow moving bus with no countermeasures or electronic defence capabilities. If the missile approached from below then the spread of the shrapnel will go a certain way whereas air to air missiles will leave a totally different spread of shrapnel as they will have been fired from behind the target and perhaps above it also. The details of the straffing patterns on the airframe from mh17 will be able to say that and put to bed what happened couplled with the russian firms findings.

weisses

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Yes thats my point. If a missile took the plane down which is almost certain it leavea a cery specific marking on the airframe if an aircraft givingg clues as to its origin especially if the target is a slow moving bus with no countermeasures or electronic defence capabilities. If the missile approached from below then the spread of the shrapnel will go a certain way whereas air to air missiles will leave a totally different spread of shrapnel as they will have been fired from behind the target and perhaps above it also. The details of the straffing patterns on the airframe from mh17 will be able to say that and put to bed what happened couplled with the russian firms findings.

afaik the missile did not struck from below but homed in already having reached the same altitude as the plane ..

darkpagandeath

weisses wrote: »

Makes you wander what they are investigating :rolleyes:

Well they did say it could have been shot down by jet-pack commandos firing 7.62 Lmg's. Unfortunately them holes came from those troops on the ground trying to destroy the crime scene.

darkpagandeath

weisses wrote: »

afaik the missile did not struck from below but homed in already having reached the same altitude as the plane ..

SAM's go off like shotguns next to a target to create the most catastrophic effect possible. The BUK system has 30mm Balls in the warhead as well. Only in the movies do the warheads hit the plane.

Gatling

weisses wrote: »

Makes you wander what they are investigating :rolleyes:

But wait Russia released satellite images showing a Ukrainian mig 29 shooting down MH17 ,
But the problem is who ever the Kremlin paid to make the said image captured by a Russia satellite put the image of a figher jet but it wasn't a Ukrainian mig 29,

We know Russia will deny it till the death and so will the bots

See attachments for more

Schadenfreudia

smurfjed wrote: »

Can you please explain why? This report will not get political, it will just detail why a perfectly serviceable B777 aircraft ended up in pieces in the Ukraine will all onboard killed. It will not state who was responsible for it ending up in this condition.

I don't really give a rats about the who, but i need to know why it happened so that i can assess my own personal risk before i get into a B777.

OK. I am assuming based on everything I heard from both sides (perhaps incorrectly) that it was shot down by a BUK and don't for a moment think it crashed for any other reason.

It is possible that a Ukrainian aircraft shot it down as a "black op" or because they thought Putin was on board - but I am applying Occam's razor here because the rebels initially claimed they'd shot down a Ukrainian warplane.

Schadenfreudia

Gatling wrote: »

We know Russia will deny it till the death and so will the bots

Who are "the bots" ?

darkpagandeath

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Who are "the bots" ?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house

Schadenfreudia

darkpagandeath wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house

Oh right. I thought he was referring to some posters here. Good to see he wasn't.

Of course the Russians are not the only side using "bots" - the Americans and Israelis also do so extensively - it's just that the Russian "bots" have the truth on their side most of the time. :cool:

Gatling

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Oh right. I thought he was referring to some posters here. Good to see he wasn't.

Of course the Russians are not the only side using "bots" - the Americans and Israelis also do so extensively - it's just that the Russian "bots" have the truth on their side most of the time. :cool:

Yes I was referring to posters on boards .

No the Russians have no truth on their side

darkpagandeath

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Oh right. I thought he was referring to some posters here. Good to see he wasn't.

Of course the Russians are not the only side using "bots" - the Americans and Israelis also do so extensively - it's just that the Russian "bots" have the truth on their side most of the time. :cool:

Everyone has "bots" even the Irish government you can see it in threads dealing with poor policy decisions vehemently backed up delusionally. And on the truth part "Bots" rarely if ever have the Truth on their side.

Schadenfreudia

Gatling wrote: »

Yes I was referring to posters on boards .

You are claiming that posters on this thread are actually Russians posting on behalf of (and paid by) the Russian Government?

Which ones?

darkpagandeath

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

You are claiming that posters on this thread are actually Russians posting on behalf of (and paid by) the Russian Government?

Which ones?

Most have been band from various threads it's not hard to figure out low post count and the Subject includes Russia.

Schadenfreudia

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Everyone has "bots" even the Irish government you can see it in threads dealing with poor policy decisions vehemently backed up delusionally. And on the truth part "Bots" rarely if ever have the Truth on their side.

They are certainly not employed to tell the truth - but in the case of the Russians they obviously are right on most issues; not least their take on the nature of the Western Corporate and State media (aka the MSM).

Gatling

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Most have been band from various threads it's not hard to figure out low post count and the Subject includes Russia.

Blame the CIA and western media too

smurfjed

It is possible that a Ukrainian aircraft shot it down as a "black op" or because they thought Putin was on board -

Do you really believe that?

afaik the missile did not struck from below but homed in already having reached the same altitude as the plane ..

Do missiles actually fly like that?

darkpagandeath

smurfjed wrote: »

Do you really believe that?

Do missiles actually fly like that?

Open to correction on this, I don't think the BUK Missile it's self has active radar. As far as I know the launch vehicle is the command and control system providing all the targeting and radar information to the missile guiding it to the target. It is designed to take down fixed wing aircraft, Cruise missiles for example.

Gatling

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Open to correction on this, I don't think the BUK Missile it's self has active radar. As far as I know the launch vehicle is the command and control system providing all the targeting and radar information to the missile guiding it to the target. It is designed to take down fixed wing aircraft, Cruise missiles for example.

Have a read ,

The Buk is a mobile, radar-guided surface-to-air missile (SAM) missile system with all four main components — acquisition and targeting radars, a command element, missile launchers, and a logistics element — mounted on tracked vehicles. This allows the system to move with other military forces and relocate to make it a more difficult target to find than a fixed SAM system.

The acquisition radar component (several variants have differing capabilities) allows the system to identify, track and target selected targets.
The command component is intended to discern "friendly" military aircraft from foes (IFF), prioritize multiple targets, and pass radar targeting information to the missile launchers.
The missile launcher component can carry a variety of missiles (as listed below) and may be able to engage more than one target simultaneously.
The logistics component carries additional (reload) missiles and provides other supplies and parts for the system and the operators.
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). The missiles require a radar lock to initially steer the missile to the target until the missile's on-board radar system takes over to provide final course corrections. A proximity fuse aboard the missile determines when it will detonate, creating an expanding fragmentation pattern of missile components and warhead to intercept and destroy the target. A proximity fuse improves the "probability of kill" given the missile and target closure rates, which can be more than 3,000 km/h (1,900 mph) (or more than 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s)).

Alternatively, the command component may be able to remotely detonate the missile, or the on-board contact fuse will cause the warhead to detonate. The most capable radar, assuming it has a line of sight (no terrain between the radar and the target), can track targets (depending on size) as low as 30 m (98 ft) and as far as 140 km (87 mi). The most capable missile can hit targets as far as 50 km (31 mi) and more than 24,000 m (79,000 ft) in altitude