Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Eagle

Mh17 Likely Downed By Air-To-Air Missile According To Russia’S Investigative Committee

Recommended Posts

[...]Evgeny Agapov, an aviation armaments mechanic in the Ukrainian Air Force, who is under Russian state protection as key witness to the MH17 crash.

Specifically, Agapov testified that on July 17, 2014 a Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-25 jet aircraft piloted by a Captain Voloshin who set out for a military task and returned without ammunition.

Moreover, following the crash in July 2014 Russias Defense Ministry released military monitoring data, which showed a Kiev SU-25 jet gaining height towards the Boeing shortly before it was downed.

http://rt.com/news/273943-mh17-crash-missile-ukraine/

Yes, I know, these are the findings of the Russias Investigative Committee, but then I certainly wouldn't trust the Dutch investigators any more than the Russian ones.

What makes these conclusions interesting though is that Russias Investigative Committee gives a lot of details including the name of the pilot that seems to have carried out the deed, while at the same time the Dutch have not released any of their findings.

So the ball is with the Dutch now, will they release a different version of the events or will they continue to stay silent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know, these are the findings of the Russias Investigative Committee, but then I certainly wouldn't trust the Dutch investigators any more than the Russian ones.

We went through this in detail at the time, a SU-25 can't fly above approx 20,000 ft, MH-17 was flying at over 30,000 ft, it is effectively impossible for an SU-25 to shoot down any aircraft flying at that altitude.

Just one of many articles debunking this piece of Kremlin propaganda: http://aviationweek.com/blog/how-su-25-can-shoot-down-faster-higher-flying-aircraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We went through this in detail at the time, a SU-25 can't fly above approx 20,000 ft, MH-17 was flying at over 30,000 ft, it is effectively impossible for an SU-25 to shoot down any aircraft flying at that altitude.

The SU-25 does not have to be that close to MH17 to lauch the missile, surely it can launch an air-to-air missile from 20,000 ft to 30,000 ft?

I don't think the Russians would make such obvious mistakes in their findings, even if they were fabricated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SU-25 does not have to be that close to MH17 to lauch the missile, surely it can launch an air-to-air missile from 20,000 ft to 30,000 ft?

I don't think the Russians would make such obvious mistakes in their findings, even if they were fabricated.

The R60 (what it would be armed with) is a short range missile, I seriously doubt it's capable of climbing 10,000+ ft, even if it was then the SU-25 would need to be virtually underneath the 777, which is tricky given that the 777 is faster.

Even if the SU-25 were able to hit the 777 with a missile the R60 has a tiny 3kg warhead, which is unlikely to be terribly effective against an aircraft the size of a 777 and is totally inconsistent with the known facts.

Finally there's a basic logic fail. There's no way a SU-25 could shoot down a 777 by mistake, so if we believe your propaganda it was a deliberate action by the Ukranian gov't. But if the Ukranians wanted to shoot down a 777 why use a SU-25 when they have dozens of SU-27 or Mig-29 aircraft that could do the job far more effectively? More to the point, if they're trying to frame the Russians then why not plant a BUK launcher just outside of rebel territory and use that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snip But if the Ukranians wanted to shoot down a 777 why use a SU-25 when they have dozens of SU-27 or Mig-29 aircraft that could do the job far more effectively? More to the point, if they're trying to frame the Russians then why not plant a BUK launcher just outside of rebel territory and use that?

Plausable deniability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth is the first casualty ...

I'd take both narratives with a big pinch of salt. I don't imagine the authorities on either side did it deliberately, but all bets may be off with a sufficiently rogue individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://rt.com/news/273943-mh17-crash-missile-ukraine/

Yes, I know, these are the findings of the Russias Investigative Committee, but then I certainly wouldn't trust the Dutch investigators any more than the Russian ones.

What makes these conclusions interesting though is that Russias Investigative Committee gives a lot of details including the name of the pilot that seems to have carried out the deed, while at the same time the Dutch have not released any of their findings.

So the ball is with the Dutch now, will they release a different version of the events or will they continue to stay silent?

I really, sincerely hope that you're on the Kremlin's payroll, because that's the only way to explain such mind-boggling gullibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll never know so we can only follow the probabilities. Each assumption involving plans with plausible deniability etc. start to drop in probability quickly for me. I guess we wait for the Dutch report and compare. On the limited information I have right now, Ukrainians trying to frame the Russian[-associated] by shooting down an airliner is not easy for me to believe. If this was the plan, how effective has it been in screwing the Russians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plausable deniability.

Very plausible since it's effectively impossible.

Even if it were possible you'd be running one hell of a risk, there's every likelyhood that the required manouvers would be picked up on radar or satelite coverage, at which point it's obvious that the action was intentional with the aim of implicating the Russians. If you want plausible deniability why not just shoot a SAM from somewhere close to rebel territory.

And to repeat, the damage suffered by the aircraft is inconsistent with any weapon system the SU-25 could possibly carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'd want to see what the Russians actually wrote in their report before dismissing it out of hand.. I don't know what evidence they have to support the claim.

My instinct is certainly that it was much more likely the East Ukrainians who shot it down by accident mistaking it for a hostile aircraft. An unfortunate casualty of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very plausible since it's effectively impossible.

Even if it were possible you'd be running one hell of a risk, there's every likelyhood that the required manouvers would be picked up on radar or satelite coverage, at which point it's obvious that the action was intentional with the aim of implicating the Russians. If you want plausible deniability why not just shoot a SAM from somewhere close to rebel territory.

And to repeat, the damage suffered by the aircraft is inconsistent with any weapon system the SU-25 could possibly carry.

I wouldnt be so sure about what any particular aircraft could be modified to carry.

At the end of the day, PC will dictate the plane shot itself down so as not to offend either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt be so sure about what any particular aircraft could be modified to carry.

The R27T might be plausible although even with its 39kg warhead you've still got an inconsistency with the known damage, i.e. a heat seeking missile will seek out a heat source and blow the wing off rather than detonate ahead of the cockpit.

But for your theory to work it would have to be a deliberate act on the part of the Ukranian forces, to modify a plane to carry a new type of weapon with the intention of shooting down a civilian aircraft and pinning the blame on the Russians.

That's drifting off into fantasy land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The R27T might be plausible although even with its 39kg warhead you've still got an inconsistency with the known damage, i.e. a heat seeking missile will seek out a heat source and blow the wing off rather than detonate ahead of the cockpit.

The Russians think it was a Python missile.. Most of their evidence is based on the weight and shape of the strike elements in the charge, the type of seeking technology and the size of the explosive charge.

They rule out BUK on the basis the charge was too small and the strike elements were the wrong size/shape.

http://www.rt.com/news/310039-mh17-israeli-missile-version/

Edit to add: the article claims that some missiles are smart enough to identify the type of aircraft on approach and strike in the weakest spot.. On a passenger airline, the nose. Interesting if true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The R27T might be plausible although even with its 39kg warhead you've still got an inconsistency with the known damage, i.e. a heat seeking missile will seek out a heat source and blow the wing off rather than detonate ahead of the cockpit.

But for your theory to work it would have to be a deliberate act on the part of the Ukranian forces, to modify a plane to carry a new type of weapon with the intention of shooting down a civilian aircraft and pinning the blame on the Russians.

That's drifting off into fantasy land.

It has a name....its false flag. hardly a new phenomenon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has a name....its false flag. hardly a new phenomenon

A false flag operation involving the shooting down of an airliner is in fantasy land.

And to repeat, if they wanted to do this why not just use one of their own SAM systems rather than something that had every likelyhood of being discovered and may well be technically impossible anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A false flag operation involving the shooting down of an airliner is in fantasy land.

And to repeat, if they wanted to do this why not just use one of their own SAM systems rather than something that had every likelyhood of being discovered and may well be technically impossible anyway.

Not entirely without precedent.. It has been part of official U.S. Strategy in the past.

Operation Northwood

The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as fabricating the hijacking or shooting down of passenger and military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S. aircraft and shipping and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs.[19] These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro's communist government. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. The surprise discovery of the documents relating to Operation Northwoods was a result of the comprehensive search for records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy by the Assassination Records Review Board in the mid-1990s.[20] Information about Operation Northwoods was later publicized by James Bamford.[21]

Hard to imagine Obama signing off on it though, unless carried out with the CIA in only an advisory role and being actioned by West Ukraine to draw global attention and dissolve any sympathies for the East.

I agree this is also pretty unlikely. It will be interesting to see if anyone can disprove the technical argument presented by the Russians about the missile type.

Do the Ukrainians have access to (or routinely use) Python missiles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the Ukrainians have access to (or routinely use) Python missiles?

They're not listed as a user, it's possible they acquired some secretly from another user although the thought of them doing this for a secret false flag operation seems fanciful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News Corp Australia has released a transcript from a 17-minute video taken by rebels who reached the site of the crash shortly after it happened in which over a phone call they speak of a fighter jet that crashed at the same time nearby.

(Video Starts)

This is another plane, I think.

It’s the fighter.

Commander: There, part of engine.

Other: Yes, I think.

Cmdr: Yes, it’s the Sukhoi.

[...]

(Phone ringing)

Cmdr: Hello, yes. They saw a pilot crawling at Rassipnaya. A pilot was seen crawling.

Cmdr: Get out there with your men …. Right now. And where’s the parachute jumper?

[...]

Cmdr: The other plane that fell down, they are after them, the pilots.

Background: The second one?

Cmdr: Yes, there’s 2 planes taken down. We need the second.

Background: The second one is a civilian too?

Background: The fighter jet brought down this one, and our people brought down the fighter.

Background: They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down the plane.

http://www.news.com.au/national/full-transcript-russian-backed-rebels-ransack-the-wreckage-of-mh17-in-shocking-17-minute-video/story-e6frfkp9-1227444629703

Even the Dutch seem to be taking this scenario seriously:

Wim de Bruin, a spokesman for the Dutch chief prosecutor's office and the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) comprised of investigators from the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, Ukraine and Malaysia

[...]

“We are investigating several scenarios. First of all it’s the well-known scenario where the flight MH17 was shot down a Buk missile launched somewhere from eastern Ukraine. And the second scenario we are investigating is where a jet fighter with an air-to-air missile shot down MH17 flight,” he said adding “it’s too early to draw conclusions.

http://www.rt.com/news/310082-mh17-video-another-aircraft/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems clear that it was not a BUK which shot down MH 17.

If as reported Russia was sending huge amounts of arms and personel over to Ukraine why only BUK missile battery? Why not 2 or 3 or 10?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not entirely without precedent.. It has been part of official U.S. Strategy in the past.Hard to imagine Obama signing off on it though, unless carried out with the CIA in only an advisory role and being actioned by West Ukraine to draw global attention and dissolve any sympathies for the East.I agree this is also pretty unlikely. It will be interesting to see if anyone can disprove the technical argument presented by the Russians about the missile type.Do the Ukrainians have access to (or routinely use) Python missiles?

If it's a false flag, it doesn't have to be the US. Putin backing the Assad regime upsets some countries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

transcript

Wow, that's incredibly prescient of them, already anticipating they will be blamed for the shooting down of the civilian aircraft, just "shortly after" the incident itself.

It's surprising though, that this information wasn't mentioned earlier, as it seems to contradict the previous half dozen "absolutely definite proven" theories that the russians have put aout so far.

I'm guessing the fact that the rebels did fire a BUK is inescapable, so they are thinking upa ne w story. RT even was interviewing a peasant from the village, who somehow knew it was definitely the ukrainians who shot down the airliner and the good ol' rebels did the decent thing. It is just kind of funny that no one mentioned it earlier though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's surprising though, that this information wasn't mentioned earlier, as it seems to contradict the previous half dozen "absolutely definite proven" theories that the russians have put aout so far.

As far as my (admittedly poor) memory serves, the Russians had been saying a Ukrainian fighter was involved since practically day one (you probably remember all of the initial slap-downs from commentators at the time about how it was completely unfeasible).

To that end I think the Russians have been fairly consistent in what they purport/evidence to be the events of that day. Unless you are aware of any other version floating around (that aren't just media speculation).

I can see a motive for the Russians to protect the East Ukrainians, I think the idea of Putin defending himself agains war crimes charges is a bit far fetched. I don't think anyone really believes the rebels would deliberately shoot it down, less so that Putin would specifically order it.

If they wanted to prosecute this, they would have to prosecute Bush and Obama for the civilian deaths in the Middle East (which number far greater).. Like the incidents shown in the videos released by Bradley Manning and the wedding receptions they kept shooting up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   47 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.