Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Malaysian Aircraft shot down over Ukraine


seeder

Recommended Posts

I would say that the FAA was more strikt than other countries Aviation Administrations by giving an order. Other

agencies might have published just a recommendation to avoid the Uraine airspace but a recommendation is

just what it is, a recommendation. And that gives the airlines an open space for decisions that are at least for

50% related to economic aspects and not just only to the aspects of security.

Wow! thats one hell of a risk to take. But I understand where you are coming from.

But now I am not sure what is more scary:

A: taking a flight with a company prepared to risk flying over a restricted area because they are not part of the FAA

B: flying with an airline who`s economic priorities (baring in mind the last catastrophe) out weigh passenger security.

C: or both combined.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Malaysia Air Lines Boeing 777-200. The aircraft was at a cruising altitude of 33,000 feet in a commonly used air route over eastern Ukraine when it was struck on Thursday.

The European Cockpit Association says the path the Malaysian flight was taking is “the most common route for flights from Europe to South East Asia,” meaning many airlines still flew through the area despite months of violent conflict.

MY question is now, if this is the case, then why this Malaysian plane if other planes had been flying over that area? This seems to disprove the theory that it was a mistake as military planes HAVE been targeted but NOT civilian planes up until now...so why NOW.?

It seems clear that if civilian planes were flying over that area as it was a common route and had not been targeted before, that the terrorist group knew they were not military....so again, why this plane/

But the warnings were there, not only to the FAA, but apparently on the facebook (equivalent) page by one of the separatist leaders to all flights,it has now been removed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The European Cockpit Association says the path the Malaysian flight was taking is “the most common route for flights from Europe to South East Asia,” meaning many airlines still flew through the area despite months of violent conflict.

MY question is now, if this is the case, then why this Malaysian plane if other planes had been flying over that area? This seems to disprove the theory that it was a mistake as military planes HAVE been targeted but NOT civilian planes up until now...so why NOW.?

It seems clear that if civilian planes were flying over that area as it was a common route and had not been targeted before, that the terrorist group knew they were not military....so again, why this plane/

But the warnings were there, not only to the FAA, but apparently on the facebook (equivalent) page by one of the separatist leaders to all flights,it has now been removed.

The Rebels have actually captured a anti-aircraft battery, but they don't have the radar capabilities to identify targets so my guess is that this was an accident, that also is indicated by Valery Bolotov's boast that they shot down some kind of Antonov on a social media site (claim that has been removed since).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rebels have actually captured a anti-aircraft battery, but they don't have the radar capabilities to identify targets so my guess is that this was an accident, that also is indicated by Valery Bolotov's boast that they shot down some kind of Antonov on a social media site (claim that has been removed since).

Maybe when the anti-aircraft battery was captured this should have been a warning to ALL aircraft not to fly over? UNLESS it was supplied to them, in this case it would not have been missing / classed as stolen.

As for the accident bit again....they have already shot down planes, but NO civilian planes, (in ref to capabilities of what they actually shot down before this) so because of this it is very possible that it was not an accident to shoot down any plane with this anti aircraft battery as it did not stop them before attacking the military aircraft.

They knew that FAA planes would not be flying over, but knew that civilian planes would be as it was a common route.....again, they knew the military planes because they had already shot some down.

It is possible that it might have been a mistake or it is possible that someone went far too overboard with their cause = this would not have been the first time.

And within the past month, the separatists have brought down a number of Ukrainian military aircraft.

Edited by freetoroam
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that the families of those lost in this tragic incident may have a case against Malaysian Airlines if they wish to pursue it. The first priority of any carrier is safety, not economy, and so Malaysian Airlines may well be negligent.

This is not to excuse whatever party fired a missile and destroyed the aircraft, if that is what is confirmed to have happened.

I heard on our local news the the airline was going to pay $5,000.00 to the next of kin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard on our local news the the airline was going to pay $5,000.00 to the next of kin.

That doesn't even cover a memorial or burial plus refund of tickets. I doubt that will be acceptable to any next of kin, pain and suffering isn't even touched here.

The fact that they would make an offer this early in the piece just reeks of a cynical attempt to minimise the cost of compensation while loved ones are in no position to think clearly about whether it is an acceptable gesture on the airline's part.

Edited by libstaK
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't even cover a memorial or burial plus refund of tickets. I doubt that will be acceptable to any next of kin, pain and suffering isn't even touched here.

The fact that they would make an offer this early in the piece just reeks of a cynical attempt to minimise the cost of compensation while loved ones are in no position to think clearly about whether it is an acceptable gesture on the airline's part.

Then you should read the fine print on the tickets before flying again....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With tragedies, like this horrible incident, it can be somewhat abstract with the news reports, and it can be hard to relate or take it all in, But with reports like this, oh boy, it puts you smack right in to it.

- First came the loud explosion that made buildings rattle: then it started raining bodies.

One of the corpses fell through the rickety roof of Irina Tipunova's house in this sleepy village, just after Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 exploded high over eastern Ukraine. "And then I heard a roar and she landed in the kitchen, the roof was broken," she said, showing the gaping hole made by the body when it came through the ceiling of the kitchen in an extension to the house.

Another local resident in her 20s who refused to give her name said she ran outside after hearing the plane explode.

"I opened the door and I saw people falling out of the sky. One fell in my vegetable patch," she said.

http://www.reuters.c...N0FN1JJ20140718

It sounds like a line straight out of a horror movie, and one can only imagine what an insane feeling of panic and death anxiety these victims must have felt, if they were still conscious. Just try to imagine it happening to yourself.

.

Edited by EllJay
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With tragedies, like this horrible incident, it can be somewhat abstract with the news reports, and it can be hard to relate or take it all in, But with reports like this, oh boy, it puts you smack right in to it.

http://www.reuters.c...N0FN1JJ20140718

It sounds like a line straight out of a horror movie, and one can only imagine what an insane feeling of panic and death anxiety these victims must have felt, if they were still conscious. Just try to imagine it happening to yourself.

.

im not trying to be disrespectful, but the video of the plane crash doesn't match up with these quotes. Theres no sign of an explosion or any smoke in the sky, just a large explosion on the ground. Has it been proven that this was a missle strike? Because I'd expect the wreckage to be spread over several square miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im not trying to be disrespectful, but the video of the plane crash doesn't match up with these quotes. Theres no sign of an explosion or any smoke in the sky, just a large explosion on the ground. Has it been proven that this was a missle strike? Because I'd expect the wreckage to be spread over several square miles.

Thats hardly surprising is it? Nobody knew, except the guys with the BUK, that it was being shot down, people could only film it after the event. And if you read any of the many links offered, youd know wreckage and bodies were spread far and wide

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

im not trying to be disrespectful, but the video of the plane crash doesn't match up with these quotes. Theres no sign of an explosion or any smoke in the sky, just a large explosion on the ground. Has it been proven that this was a missle strike? Because I'd expect the wreckage to be spread over several square miles.

Haven't been following this story much but wasn't the plane hit at something like 30,000 ft? i've only seen footage of a explosion at ground level (impact)...how would you see an explosion at 30,000ft from a camera pointing at ground level?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't been following this story much but wasn't the plane hit at something like 30,000 ft? i've only seen footage of a explosion at ground level (impact)...how would you see an explosion at 30,000ft from a camera pointing at ground level?

generally things on fire leave smoke trails. Generally things that have exploded at 33,000 feet leave a massive trail of debris. Do you disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

generally things on fire leave smoke trails. Generally things that have exploded at 33,000 feet leave a massive trail of debris. Do you disagree?

What would you like instead? Graphic video of a missile blowing up a plane and bodies raining down on fire? What happened...happened

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

generally things on fire leave smoke trails. Generally things that have exploded at 33,000 feet leave a massive trail of debris. Do you disagree?

I'll repeat, you think we should have seen that in the footage shown after impact at ground level then?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you like instead? Graphic video of a missile blowing up a plane and bodies raining down on fire? What happened...happened

Does the truth matter?

I don't want to see graphic images. I just noted that the clips purporting to show MH17 exploding and the crash site, do not match the eyewitness accounts or even a high altitude missile attack.

F it. Im out

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is still very early after the fact, something isn't adding up for me. The claims are the plane was attacked while at an altitude of 30+ thousand feet, but that doesn't match the visual evidence. The videos of the

, its
does not begin at 30+ K feet, but instead at a couple, perhaps few thousand feet, at most. This suggests the plane was very low when hit which lowers the odds of a miss-identification by the shooter.

Assembling the visual facts to match the story requires the plane to have been shot at [at] cruising altitude but only disabled to the point it could not maintain altitude, no explosions, no fire, yet...

After a long slow gradual decent, the stresses finally become too much causing the damaged plane, unable to hold itself together any longer, to begin breaking up at a few K feet which is when the fireball occurs. The now burning debris then continues off to the primary crash site dropping pieces as it goes down.

The problem with that is it opens a window of opportunity for the plane to have made reports of a problem, unable to keep flying, but that didn't happen. So therein is the mystery. Thoughts?

Like I said, I know it is still early on in the investigation, but I wanted to gather my thoughts on the subject here while they are fresh and if for nothing else, comparison later after the 'official' report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

generally things on fire leave smoke trails. Generally things that have exploded at 33,000 feet leave a massive trail of debris.

Do you disagree?

Generally you are correct but AA projectiles are designed in a way that also a detonation of the warhead near to the target

will produce heavy damages on the target so it must not be penetrated to get downed. A near by detonation will damage

the aircrafts structuture to bring it down also without an explosion of the A/C itself and the smoke plumes of AA warhead

detonations are small and vanish quickly. So, the absence of a visible plume trail and/or detonation smoke in the vid in discussion does not exclude the possibility that MH17 was hit by an AA projectile.

Edited by toast
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They knew that FAA planes would not be flying over, but knew that civilian planes would be as it was a common route.....again, they knew the military planes because they had already shot some down.

It is possible that it might have been a mistake or it is possible that someone went far too overboard with their cause = this would not have been the first time.

This has got to be the most Inane and ignorant post that I have seen in my 7 years on this site!! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN FAA PLANE!!. Unless you care to disabuse me of this belief ( I am an FAA and EASA consultant) then I suggest that you concentrate on making valid observations.

ALSO: their is no such thing as an "accidental" shooting down of an aircraft that has been targeted by a ground to air missile. THE ACT WAS DELIBERATE.

The BUK GtoA missile system is primed to explode c100 metres from the target. The projectile itself has a forward momentum in excess of 3X the speed of sound, the explosion WILL penetrate the skin of the aircraft causing rapid (if not catastrophic) decompression within the cabin, and irrecoverable engine damage. At this point the outcome is certain. Control systems (this was a fly - by - wire aircraft) will be totally overwhelmed, the wing roots may or may not be compromised, but all of the control surface WILL be compromised.

I saw footage of an intact wing on the ground so the fuel did not ignite in that wing, therefore there would not be a fireball at 30,000feet.

For those that are interested in the "boring" Air Traffic Control data ... the aircraft was most certainly at 33000 feet - why would a civilian aircraft, en - route to Australia - be any any lower???

The idiotic, uninformed, unknowledgeable conspiracy theorists will diminish the clear truth of this act of terrorism, and try to make something else out of this simple act. :td:

Edited by keithisco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm back, and a day has passed, so now it's time to assert conspiracies.

It bothers me, knowing war is a corporatized industrial venture, that it's been a full one hundred years since the dawn of the great war.

I do not believe any nation is behind this. To me, this seems like someone is trying to rattle the flames of war.

And it's working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, catching up on the thread I see I am not the first to detect a discrepancy between the official statements and the video evidence.

Likes all around for the sensible folks who agree that fireball is NOT at 30+K feet.

I hope this, imo, discrepancy between statements and videos may be/probably are just misstatements on the part of those responsible for quickly getting news to anxiously waiting ears asap, and that it will be cleared up in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has got to be the most Inane and ignorant post that I have seen in my 7 years on this site!! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN FAA PLANE!!. Unless you care to disabuse me of this belief ( I am an FAA and EASA consultant) then I suggest that you concentrate on making valid observations.

ALSO: their is no such thing as an "accidental" shooting down of an aircraft that has been targeted by a ground to air missile. THE ACT WAS DELIBERATE.

The BUK GtoA missile system is primed to explode c100 metres from the target. The projectile itself has a forward momentum in excess of 3X the speed of sound, the explosion WILL penetrate the skin of the aircraft causing rapid (if not catastrophic) decompression within the cabin, and irrecoverable engine damage. At this point the outcome is certain. Control systems (this was a fly - by - wire aircraft) will be totally overwhelmed, the wing roots may or may not be compromised, but all of the control surface WILL be compromised.

I was replying and referring back to this:

But at this point one question can be answered: Did aviation authorities know that this was a dangerous area?

Yes, they most certainly did. Nearly three months ago, on the "Special Rules" section of its site, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration put out an order prohibiting American pilots, airlines, charter carriers, and everyone else over whom the FAA has direct jurisdiction, from flying over southern parts of Ukraine.

http://www.theatlant...ukraine/374622/

Maybe you can read my previous post and see that I was more incline to belief it was deliberate.

But I thank you for your arrogant response.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, catching up on the thread I see I am not the first to detect a discrepancy between the official statements and the video evidence.

Likes all around for the sensible folks who agree that fireball is NOT at 30+K feet.

I hope this, imo, discrepancy between statements and videos may be/probably are just misstatements on the part of those responsible for quickly getting news to anxiously waiting ears asap, and that it will be cleared up in time.

Look at the reports from Air Traffic Control... the aircraft was at Cruise height, i.e. 33,000 feet when it was struck. It doesn't matter a rats A*** at which point ignitable substances actually combusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was replying and referring back to this:

But at this point one question can be answered: Did aviation authorities know that this was a dangerous area?

Yes, they most certainly did. Nearly three months ago, on the "Special Rules" section of its site, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration put out an order prohibiting American pilots, airlines, charter carriers, and everyone else over whom the FAA has direct jurisdiction, from flying over southern parts of Ukraine.

http://www.theatlant...ukraine/374622/

Maybe you can read my previous post and see that I was more incline to belief it was deliberate.

But I thank you for your arrogant response.

Arrogant??? The FAA has NO Jurisdiction WHATSOEVER in European airspace, it CANNOT put prohibition orders in place except over USA controlled territories. I do not care what "sources" you produce because being in the industry, at the pointy end, I know that whatever you are relying on to make a point is totally fallacious. Also we are not talking about Southern Ukraine, but Eastern Ukraine. Also note, that Malaysian Airlines is not a US Airline, and some 800 flights had already flown through the same corridor without incident in the same week.

Just to underline the point: the FAA can make recommendations for US airlines and Charter flights, it does not and cannot enforce these recommendations in European airspace

Edited by keithisco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the reports from Air Traffic Control... the aircraft was at Cruise height, i.e. 33,000 feet when it was struck. It doesn't matter a rats A*** at which point ignitable substances actually combusted.

See the second part of my first post on this thread...

Assembling the visual facts to match the story requires the plane to have been shot at [at] cruising altitude but only disabled to the point it could not maintain altitude, no explosions, no fire, yet...

After a long slow gradual decent, the stresses finally become too much causing the damaged plane, unable to hold itself together any longer, to begin breaking up at a few K feet which is when the fireball occurs. The now burning debris then continues off to the primary crash site dropping pieces as it goes down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.