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
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just came into my mind:

Remember the MH370 transponder shutdown.

If a BuK AA unit is calibrated to: no transponder signal = enemy, and MH17 also had a transponder problem

like MH370, MH17 might have been targeted as enemy and attacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has or does the possibility exist that the reason they shot a commercial airline down was they thought the plane contained someone they wanted killed? was there any high ranking government/officials flying that route on the same day? It just doesn't make sense why they'd target a passenger plane, which would have been identified as such. electronically and visually, so with a degree of certainty whoever fired the missile would have looked at the plane and seen markings identifying the plane. yet still decided to shoot it down. why that plane on that day. the plane was codesharing with KLM, - KL4103. so wouldn't that mean the plane showed up as KL4103, where they waiting for a KLM flight? not really into conspiracy theories. but why that plane when so many other commercial planes had safely flew over the very same area? The simple answer is probably they just shot it down because on the ground they're all running around like loose cannons, no discipline, drunk, drugged, and access to weapons they haven't got a clue about.

http://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/KLM4103

KL4103

KL4103

KL4103

KL4103

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has or does the possibility exist that the reason they shot a commercial airline down was they thought the plane contained someone they wanted killed? was there any high ranking government/officials flying that route on the same day? It just doesn't make sense why they'd target a passenger plane, which would have been identified as such. electronically and visually, so with a degree of certainty whoever fired the missile would have looked at the plane and seen markings identifying the plane.

We have no statements by any party who admits responsibility for the firing of the missile, therefore we cannot state the aircraft was identified as being a civilian airliner. We do not know if visual confirmation was made, or that the missile battery operators could interpret the data the system provided.

Short of them being able to fire the missile at an acquired target, it seems they took no steps to make any confirmation of what the target represented.

As for the ludicrous suggestion - not made by you, but implied by various press reports - the missile was fired by a Ukrainian military unit and the assumed target was a plane carrying Russian President Putin, why would they be so foolish as to attempt to assassinate him - or any Russian govt official? It would only lead to Russia being able to justify an invasion of the Ukraine. As I said, such a theory is ludicrous in the extreme.

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

Has or does the possibility exist that the reason they shot a commercial airline down was they thought the plane contained someone they wanted killed? was there any high ranking government/officials flying that route on the same day? It just doesn't make sense why they'd target a passenger plane, which would have been identified as such. electronically and visually, so with a degree of certainty whoever fired the missile would have looked at the plane and seen markings identifying the plane. yet still decided to shoot it down. why that plane on that day. the plane was codesharing with KLM, - KL4103. so wouldn't that mean the plane showed up as KL4103, where they waiting for a KLM flight? not really into conspiracy theories. but why that plane when so many other commercial planes had safely flew over the very same area? The simple answer is probably they just shot it down because on the ground they're all running around like loose cannons, no discipline, drunk, drugged, and access to weapons they haven't got a clue about.

http://uk.flightawar.../flight/KLM4103

KL4103

KL4103

KL4103

KL4103

I agree, its a possiblity, although very much doubt we will ever get to know. But did mention something similar here:

http://www.unexplain...pic=269444&st=0

BUT the only reason I think there could be a slight possibility IF we go with the conspiracy theory, is: out of the countries who have planes flying, Malaysia would be one of the last to attack, no matter who made the planes, so the threat to someone of importance would seem minimal. But on that theory, surely the possibility of a threat should have been heightened after the last Malaysian catastrophe IF that is the case.

But its IS a conspiracy theory and so is the payback for sanctions theory.

Edited by freetoroam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just came into my mind:

Remember the MH370 transponder shutdown.

If a BuK AA unit is calibrated to: no transponder signal = enemy, and MH17 also had a transponder problem

like MH370, MH17 might have been targeted as enemy and attacked.

The Transponder started providing "unreliable" data at 13:18 on the day of the crash, it stopped transmitting completely at 13:20. This ties in precisely with the Radar Target Acquisition system from the BUK interfering with the transponder signal. The total loss of transmission ties in exactly with the missile launch and detonation.

I am quite sure that there are a lot of "rebels" now busy at the task of "sanitising" the wreckage in an attempt to remove all of the explosive residue that would definitively tell you what the missile was. The "rebels" are not sophisticated enough on their own to do this so I would expect to see a large contingent of Russian "observers" to turn up some time very soon. :td:

Edited by keithisco
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Transponder started providing "unreliable" data at 13:18 on the day of the crash, it stopped transmitting completely at 13:20. This ties in precisely with the Radar Target Acquisition system from the BUK interfering with the transponder signal. The total loss of transmission ties in exactly with the missile launch and detonation.

I am quite sure that there are a lot of "rebels" now busy at the task of "sanitising" the wreckage in an attempt to remove all of the explosive residue that would definitively tell you what the missile was. The "rebels" are not sophisticated enough on their own to do this so I would expect to see a large contingent of Russian "observers" to turn up some time very soon. :td:

I think we can be sure as can be the rebels were definitely getting help, That Buk system from what i seen on the NEWS is exactly what it states a SYSTEM, which operates not as a single launch vehicle but a system of three to four others to form a missile battery. if that's true then i think we can rule out the rebels acting alone. Russia as scored a own goal.

edit to add, does the Buk system actually need to be part of a system, just watched it on Youtube and it seems able to operate alone.

Edited by stevewinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can be sure as can be the rebels were definitely getting help, That Buk system from what i seen on the NEWS is

exactly what it states a SYSTEM, which operates not as a single launch vehicle but a system of three to four others to form

a missile battery. if that's true then i think we can rule out the rebels acting alone. Russia as scored a own goal.

edit to add, does the Buk system actually need to be part of a system, just watched it on Youtube and it seems able to operate

alone.

The full system involves 6 vehicles (4 launcher vehicles, 1 commando unit, 1 search radar unit) but the launchers have own

fire-control radar systems so a launcher can operate autonomous but with limited space monitoring capabilities to 32km in

radius and up to 22km in altitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, launchers can operate autonomously. Its not wise to have system where, for example, command (or radar) unit gets knocked out, and the rest vehicles becoming useless.

Edited by bmk1245
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found a news article that is a Pro Russian rebel supporter, posted on the 29th of June

http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1085256/, you'll need to translate it but it defiantly confirms that the rebels do indeed have one. What's more it appears to be a 2nd launcher on the left behind the main one.

This is in the Donetsk rebel held area, so by looking at this it pretty much confirms everything

zrk.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found a news article that is a Pro Russian rebel supporter, posted on the 29th of June

http://www.ntv.ru/no...6/, you'll need to translate it but it defiantly confirms that the rebels do indeed have one. What's more it appears to be a 2nd launcher on the left behind the main one.

This is in the Donetsk rebel held area, so by looking at this it pretty much confirms everything

zrk.jpg

Well, no, it just confirms that they have one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, no, it just confirms that they have one.

true and also raises the suspicion of do they have any more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In related news:

Three Buk missile systems made their way from eastern Ukraine across the border into Russia on Friday, according to Ukrainian officials, including one lacking the missile they believe brought down a Malaysia Airlines jet the day before.

Source (LA Times): http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-ukraine-buk-systems-russia-20140719-story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw that yesterday on a German news channel and could not suppress the thought that it was happening quite conveniently....

...or that as it occurred yesterday that it was actually happening and reported?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found a news article that is a Pro Russian rebel supporter, posted on the 29th of June

http://www.ntv.ru/no...6/, you'll need to translate it but it defiantly confirms that the rebels do indeed have one. What's more it appears to be a 2nd launcher on the left behind the main one.

This is in the Donetsk rebel held area, so by looking at this it pretty much confirms everything

zrk.jpg

The picture confirms just that the picture has been taken in 2005 and shows BuK units at the Ukrainian Air Force Museum in Vinnitsa.

No idea if these units have been reactivated but anyway, its all propaganda and false informations are all over the media.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ZRK_BUK_M1_2005_G1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Its both combined and there is also a D (the worst of all) that must be added and here is why:

The Crimea conflict is a conflict in between two parties who have high advanced military equipment and both parties

do use this equipment within the conflict. So the battle isn`t performed with just low level equipment like AK70s and

for the air defence just some lousy MPADS (Man-portable air-defense systems), capable to attack air targets up to

5km, so not at an altitude thats used by commercial airliners that are on cruise. The equipment in use in the Crimea

region is capable to intercept aircrafts flying up to altitudes at >11km and at supersonic speed. As these AA systems

are defence systems, they are always active. Means, also all commercial A/C that are passing the screened airspace

are getting detected by the system. As commercial A/C do not have IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) systems, they

must be identified as non-foe by the AA device crew on duty. It is generally inadmissible that commercial A/C do come

in such a situation. And such scenario don`t happend just a few times. It was a daily routine for month, involving at

least 10 commercial A/C per day.

A lot of airlines, like BA/AirFrance/AirBerlin/LOT/SingaporeAirlines/Asiana, declared the Crimea airspace avoid from

the beginning on. But a lot of airlines did not, for example MH. All airlines have departments, with highly payed ppl,

responsible for security issues, including dangerous airspaces. The situation about the Crimea conflict and the

quality of the air defence military equipment was known by all airlines without exception. The responsible managers

were aware about the fact that the aircrafts get detected and identified. But they accepted this fact due to economical

reasons.

If MH17 was grounded by an AA missile, the person on the trigger is responsible and guilty. But for me, the management

of MH is responsible and guilty on the very same level because they made it possible by keeping the flight routes and

ignoring the general threat of this routes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its both combined and there is also a D (the worst of all) that must be added and here is why:

The Crimea conflict is a conflict in between two parties who have high advanced military equipment and both parties

do use this equipment within the conflict. So the battle isn`t performed with just low level equipment like AK70s and

for the air defence just some lousy MPADS (Man-portable air-defense systems), capable to attack air targets up to

5km, so not at an altitude thats used by commercial airliners that are on cruise. The equipment in use in the Crimea

region is capable to intercept aircrafts flying up to altitudes at >11km and at supersonic speed. As these AA systems

are defence systems, they are always active. Means, also all commercial A/C that are passing the screened airspace

are getting detected by the system. As commercial A/C do not have IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) systems, they

must be identified as non-foe by the AA device crew on duty. It is generally inadmissible that commercial A/C do come

in such a situation. And such scenario don`t happend just a few times. It was a daily routine for month, involving at

least 10 commercial A/C per day.

A lot of airlines, like BA/AirFrance/AirBerlin/LOT/SingaporeAirlines/Asiana, declared the Crimea airspace avoid from

the beginning on. But a lot of airlines did not, for example MH. All airlines have departments, with highly payed ppl,

responsible for security issues, including dangerous airspaces. The situation about the Crimea conflict and the

quality of the air defence military equipment was known by all airlines without exception. The responsible managers

were aware about the fact that the aircrafts get detected and identified. But they accepted this fact due to economical

reasons.

If MH17 was grounded by an AA missile, the person on the trigger is responsible and guilty. But for me, the management

of MH is responsible and guilty on the very same level because they made it possible by keeping the flight routes and

ignoring the general threat of this routes.

It gets very tiring repeating myself but here goes:

1. The ONLY NOTAM issued up to that point was for flight paths BELOW 32000 feet. There were no NOTAMS in place for aircraft flying above that altitude (such as MH17).

2. NOTAMS are ADVISORIES.

3. Every single developed nation has AA batteries that regularly check ALL flights into and out of their airspace. UK, France, Germany, Spain, USA, Russia, Canada... the list goes on. Identifications are made at every juncture. Thousands of aircraft are checked every single day - so this is a non - issue. The "management" accepted this for the reasons just mentioned.

4. How the heck can the management of Malaysian Airways be in any sense culpable for flying the same Air Corridor as 800 other flights in the same week? That is spurious and a strange attempt to relocate some blame onto a company that abided by EVERY SINGLE Flight Safety requirement.

5. There was no "general threat" flying this air corridor - except in hindsight, which of course is blessed with 20/20 vision....

6. What the heck has this to do with Crimean airspace??

***facepalms***

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are talking rubbish. Air Accident Investigators from around the world share everything, and before you start saying "Americans are arrogant" you should only speak within your small circle of acquaintances if they think the same as you. The vast majority of US Americans that I know are nothing of the sort.

Reports are coming in of looting at the site now, destruction of parts the crash site, and still no access for the competent authorities.

You're mistaken. US crash scene investigators and manufacturers are consistently called in when a Boeing or Mcdonnell Douglas crash anywhere in the world. If you're really a consultant I would think you would be aware of that fact. My friends father a Boeing aerospace engineer was called on to travel to crash sites around the world with NTSB officials more than once when I was younger that I can remember. And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that American sarcasm doesn't translate to Spanish well for people who are from the spanish rural areas instead of just stating you're a bit of an ass. Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It gets very tiring repeating myself but here goes:

So what.

1. The ONLY NOTAM issued up to that point was for flight paths BELOW 32000 feet. There were no NOTAMS in place for aircraft

flying above that altitude (such as MH17).

Even if my post wasn`t related in any kind to NOTAMs, respectively a criticism on responsible agencies, it is fact that hundreds of

civil aircrafts where within the operational range of activated AA devices.

2. NOTAMS are ADVISORIES.

See above.

3. Every single developed nation has AA batteries that regularly check ALL flights into and out of their airspace. UK, France,

Germany, Spain, USA, Russia, Canada... the list goes on.

This is a factual incorrect statement. As for Germany, the military airspace controll is performed by the federal authorities by

using data provided by the civil radar controll agencies and not by activated AA devices. The same scenario is likely also for

UK, France, Spain, USA, Russia and Canada as it is illogical that AA divices are used for routinely military air space control based

on the limited space that these units can monitor. I visited all european countries and the US as well and I never saw AA

devises placed every 80km.

Identifications are made at every juncture. Thousands of aircraft are checked every single day. - so this is a non - issue.

See above.

4. How the heck can the management of Malaysian Airways be in any sense culpable for flying the same Air Corridor as 800

other flights in the same week? That is spurious and a strange attempt to relocate some blame onto a company that abided

by EVERY SINGLE Flight Safety requirement.

Its called root cause analysis. Various airlines decieded better than MH.

5. There was no "general threat" flying this air corridor -

It was as civil aircrafts where within the operational range of activated AA devices.

6. What the heck has this to do with Crimean airspace??

Typo

Edited by toast
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today the WSJ is reporting that some of the bodies have been gathered but the rebels still hold firm control of the site. They agree with FOX news' report that they have about 180 remains. Hope they start sending them out soon.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/rebels-confiscate-evidence-at-malaysia-airlines-crash-ukraine-says-1405766927

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pretty good summary of today's events from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/19/world/europe/ukraine-malaysia-airlines-crash/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

It will just really upset me if the families don't receive the remains for proper burial in their home countries. I wonder if Putin will do anything to assist.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not disputed territory as the rebel authority is not internationally recognised as a government.

Does the Ukraine have control over eastern Ukraine? No?

So, international law does apply. As to whether it can be successfully applied is another matter entirely.

Laws don't take into account disputed territory. As the Ukraine cannot exercise control over the area, it makes disputed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the Ukraine have control over eastern Ukraine? No?

you just confirmed what he said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pretty good summary of today's events from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t1

It will just really upset me if the families don't receive the remains for proper burial in their home countries. I wonder if Putin will do anything to assist.

I agree....words can't express how disgusted I feel that their remains have been treated with such utter disrespect...not to mention the looting of their luggage, and the tampering of evidence from the wreckage by these despicable thugs.

Their families must be going through a living hell.....my heart truly aches for them.

Australia will be hosting the G-20 here in a few months....Putin is no longer welcome.

  • Like 4
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.