Malaysian Airlines 777 down on Ukraine / Russia Border?

[AreOut]

Scuffers said:

that one was shot down close to the ground not using a long-range BUK missile

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27845313

it was not thought at the time they had access to high-altitude missile systems, they had not considered that Russia would supply them.

I'm talking about another transport plane, Antonov AN-26

http://www.jacdec.de/2014/07/14/2014-07-14-ukraine...

to let any civilian plane fly after this through that area was criminally negligent and their is simply no justification for authorities

[Foppo]

Puggit said:

Russia doesn't particularly care what the rest of the world thinks - but it's important to convince their own people that they are innocent of this crime, and are seen to be standing up for

I don't believe for one minute that Putin gave the order to shoot down a passenger airplane.Whatever he is stupid is he not.Unless Iam naïve.

But where did the Russian missiles come from on this mobile unit?

Also what has been said before,why this airplane flew so low over a war zone is beyond comprehension.

[Puggit]

Foppo said:

Also what has been said before,why this airplane flew so low over a war zone is beyond comprehension.

It was at a normal cruise altitude, above 30,000 feet

[KTF]

Foppo said:

Also what has been said before,why this airplane flew so low over a war zone is beyond comprehension.

It didnt. As per the report it was flying above the 'no-fly' altitude that has since been increased.

[Scuffers]

AreOut said:

Scuffers said:

that one was shot down close to the ground not using a long-range BUK missile

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27845313

it was not thought at the time they had access to high-altitude missile systems, they had not considered that Russia would supply them.

I'm talking about another transport plane, Antonov AN-26

http://www.jacdec.de/2014/07/14/2014-07-14-ukraine...

to let any civilian plane fly after this through that area was criminally negligent and their is simply no justification for authorities

sorry, got the wrong one, that one was at 20,000 feet, but was not brought down by a high altitude rocket (BUK)

it was after this one they raised the min height from 26,000ft to 32,000ft

As said before, nobody expected/knew they had access to the BUK missiles required to get over 30,000 ft

[skyrover]

Foppo said:

Also what has been said before,why this airplane flew so low over a war zone is beyond comprehension.

The BUK is a monster of a system, capable of shooting down aircraft up to 80,000 feet and certainly not something that is easy to come by.

Of course if it is revealed that the weapons system came from Russia, that sort of contradicts the official line that it is not arming and supplying the separatists.

[EskimoArapaho]

skyrover said:

Of course if it is revealed that the weapons system came from Russia, that sort of contradicts the official line that it is not arming and supplying the separatists.

This just in from special correspondent Sherzkeks: "I have seen documents that prove the BUK was in Crimea on vacation."

[AreOut]

Scuffers said:

sorry, got the wrong one, that one was at 20,000 feet, but was not brought down by a high altitude rocket (BUK)

it was after this one they raised the min height from 26,000ft to 32,000ft

As said before, nobody expected/knew they had access to the BUK missiles required to get over 30,000 ft

any active russian SAM that reaches 20000 feet will easily reach 30+, and they certainly knew it

so yes Antonov has been most likely brought down by BUK, possibly the same one as MH17

[scherzkeks]

loose cannon said:

To be fair it should of never flown over the area to start with

One of two key points, IMO. The other being, of course, that only one side had anything to gain from shooting down a passenger jet. Had the report actually assigned blame to anyone, provided US satellite imagry (good luck on getting hold of that), radio comms, etc., it would be more interesting. Unsurprisingly it's not stopped the corporate media from using it for more half-baked propaganda.

[AngryPartsBloke]

Foppo said:

Puggit said:

Russia doesn't particularly care what the rest of the world thinks - but it's important to convince their own people that they are innocent of this crime, and are seen to be standing up for

I don't believe for one minute that Putin gave the order to shoot down a passenger airplane.Whatever he is stupid is he not.Unless Iam naïve.

But where did the Russian missiles come from on this mobile unit?

Also what has been said before,why this airplane flew so low over a war zone is beyond comprehension.

I don't think anyone does, but Putin is going to do everything he can to distance themselves from it. We all know where those missles and the launcher came from, the same place the 'Rebels' managed to get their hands on some very horffic rocket artillery that made parts of Grozny look like something out of a post apocalyptic film.

[Scuffers]

AreOut said:

any active russian SAM that reaches 20000 feet will easily reach 30+, and they certainly knew it

so yes Antonov has been most likely brought down by BUK, possibly the same one as MH17

Really?

name then?

[AngryPartsBloke]

scherzkeks said:

loose cannon said:

To be fair it should of never flown over the area to start with

One of two key points, IMO. The other being, of course, that only one side had anything to gain from shooting down a passenger jet. Had the report actually assigned blame to anyone, provided US satellite imagry (good luck on getting hold of that), radio comms, etc., it would be more interesting. Unsurprisingly it's not stopped the corporate media from using it for more half-baked propaganda.

They are not allowed to assign blame to anyone. Of course had they give it to the very obvious party to blame i'm sure you'd have soemthing to say about that too...

[Scuffers]

Foppo said:

Also what has been said before, why this airplane flew so low over a war zone is beyond comprehension.

just how high do you think it should have been flying at?

consider it's service ceiling is only 43,000 ft and the only way it's getting that high is towards the end of a long flight with low fuel load.

either way, it's irrelevant as the BUK can reach 80,000ft+

the failure here was the lack of knowledge that the rebels had access to BUK's - they are major bits of air defence hardware, not like some stinger like MANPADS.

(the thinking was the longest range MANPADS can just about make 20,000Ft)

[AreOut]

name what?

Scuffers said:

just how high do you think it should have been flying at?

consider it's service ceiling is only 43,000 ft and the only way it's getting that high is towards the end of a long flight with low fuel load.

either way, it's irrelevant as the BUK can reach 80,000ft+

the failure here was the lack of knowledge that the rebels had access to BUK's - they are major bits of air defence hardware, not like some stinger like MANPADS.

(the thinking was the longest range MANPADS can just about make 20,000Ft)

there was no lack of knowledge, Ukraine certainly knew about BUK, rebels had publicly bragged about it on twitter etc. days before MH17 got shot down

[Scuffers]

AreOut said:

there was no lack of knowledge, Ukraine certainly knew about BUK, rebels had publicly bragged about it on twitter etc. days before MH17 got shot down

'Ukraine' as you put it, is a country, just because one bit knew, does not automatically mean their equivalent of the CAA knew.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing...

[Willy Nilly]

Foppo said:

Also what has been said before,why this airplane flew so low over a war zone is beyond comprehension.

There was a section of the official report being broadcast on 5Live the other day and they said something along the lines of there were about 170 passenger jets flying over Ukraine that day and 3 in the vicinity and it was up to Ukrainian air traffic control to close the airspace and as they didn't it was assumed to be safe. So the altitude the plane was flying at wouldn't have been dictated by people wanting to fire missiles at it.

[AreOut]

Scuffers said:

'Ukraine' as you put it, is a country, just because one bit knew, does not automatically mean their equivalent of the CAA knew.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing...

don't be naive, (almost) all Ukrainians closely follow the conflict and shooting down of Antonov was all over the news

it's also job of their CAA to follow the situation and assess the safety risks

[vonuber]

scherzkeks said:

One of two key points, IMO. The other being, of course, that only one side had anything to gain from shooting down a passenger jet. Had the report actually assigned blame to anyone, provided US satellite imagry (good luck on getting hold of that), radio comms, etc., it would be more interesting. Unsurprisingly it's not stopped the corporate media from using it for more half-baked propaganda.

[skyrover]

Looks like the Russkies can't make up their minds... the story from the Kremlin changes again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34538142

[Cobnapint]

They're struggling to co-ordinate their lies at the moment. They are that confused that someone will eventually blurt out the truth, believing it to be another lie.

Then we'll ALL be confused.