How likely is it MH17 was shot down by a R-27 missile?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Some people believe MH17 was not shot down by a BUK surface to air missile but by an air to air missile.

Two types are mentioned: the R-27 missile made in Ukraine and the Python missile made in Israel. In this post we focus on the R-27.

Below a photo of an Ukraine Air Force SU-27 with the R-27 missiles in front of it.

If an air to air missile was used, it was the intention of the fighter jet to down MH17. He must have known it was a passenger aircraft. It came from the direction of Kiev. This alone makes the scenario less likely.

What other facts debunks the R-27 theory:

  • DSB stated there was no other aircraft near MH17 in a range of 30 km based on Rostov primary radar
  • DSB found parts of a BUK missile
  • DSB found bow-tie shaped fragments unique to the 9N314M warhead carried by a BUK missile
  • Russian media nor government mentioned the R-27. There was a report published by a Russian journalist  Albert Naryshkin who suggest the Python was used.
  • As Rostov did not have coverage from a certain altitude, the fighter jet which shot a missile must have been below something like 2 km to be not shown on radar.

However there are also doubts on the BUK. See an overview here.

One of the facts there are still doubts on the BUK scenario is the fact that Ukraine did not hand over primary radar images.

On the mas17.webtalk.ru forum some posts are placed describing a Su-27 which was circling over the area where MH17 was downed. There was a supersonic boom. The aircraft climbed vertically. Maybe someone can translate?

There are even photos of a SU-27. It is not confirmed these are genuine.

There is not a lot of information on the R-27. It is said according Wikipedia to be designed for both rods and fragmentation. The factory once shipped a batch of fragmentation warheads to India. As Wikipedia proofed to be wrong more than once, I like to have at least a second source to confirm R-27 can be fitted with fragmentation warhead.

And if so, we need information on the warhead. For example does it have ready or pre-ready fragments.

  • ready fragments. The fragments are not tied to eachother. Individual fragments are placed in the warhead and stick together with some gell or glue. The advantage is that the energy of the explosion is not wasted by detaching the elements.
  • pre-ready. The elements are attached to eachother. This results in irregular shaped fragments once the explosion occured.

Looking at the rather limited number of sizes of holes in MH17 a R-27 must have ready fragments to meet one of the criteria.

The R-27 is a long range missile and the maximum vertical distance between fighter and target is such, that a SU-27 could be flying below the Rostov radar horizon and reach MH17. I am not sure what kind of guidance is need to guide the missile to an aircraft flying at 10km like MH17 did.

Please use the comments!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

107 Comments on How likely is it MH17 was shot down by a R-27 missile?

  1. “Ukraine did not hand over primary radar images.”
    Above writing looks like RU propaganda.

    Ukraine could not hand over primary radar data because it did not have it. Unlike RU who had it but did not give it.

    We see from ATC transcript that UA indeed did not see MH17 after SSR failed, unlike Rostov.

    For R-27 to hit cockpit it needs to be launched directly from ahead of Boeing777 flight path. etc etc. (RU fired two radar guided missiles with 40kg warhead against KAL007, it continued flying ~9minutes.)
    And so far, damage on MH17 does not match R27. It match BUK or larger.

    • Please ignore sotilaspassi for a while. He is a commenter with such exceptionally low signal-to-noise ratio that it’s tiring to chase him and correct his inanities. Later, as a public service, I’ll come back and comment here. Read on.

    • Lets get the facts:
      Russia handed over a recording of primary radar. DSB believes this is not according ICAO rules. They require raw radar. However ICAO does not state ‘raw radar’ has to be saved.
      Now Ukraine: a country being in war. No primary radar of civil atc. What a coincience that one of the primary radar stations was in maintenance. What is the mean time between maintenance of such radar? And then military radar. Ukraine switched off mil radar because no flights were planned. At July 16 however were many flights flown. And many eyewitness saw military planes at July 17.
      No primary radar is totally not believeable.
      And the US does not have any radar of awacs or other intel either.

      • Russia handed over a recording of processes raw primary data. This is really not the same as raw data. Don’t you also ask for a release of raw data footage of the BUK photos and videos. So why in this case it doesn’t become important to deliver raw data?

        • I am not saying the raw data is not important in the investigation.
          I am saying that discussion is being distracted to blaming Russia for not delivering raw data. ICAO does not say ‘you should record RAW data’. DSB wants us to believe ICAO does say that. I could not get a confirmation from ICAO. That is why DSB wrote a political influenced report.

          Remember MH17 crashed over Ukriane territory.
          Ukraine should provide all the data they have. It is unacceptable Ukraine does not have primary radar.
          The same distraction is valid for not mentioning Ukraine should close the airspace. Many many indications airspace was not safe. Still Ukraine continued to approve flights.

          We need to keep the discussion fair and balanced

          • So is my assumption then right, that your main concern is not the best way to reach knowledge about what happened with MH17, but to balance the discussion and get Russia “out of the line” from accusations?

            As you write in your statement – the Russian MoD has provided false information in the past more than one time, thus lost its credibility quiet a lot.

            Of course Ukraine should hand over radar data (which they might have) but saying it is Ukraine’s task to solve the crime while Russia is not involved sounds for me strange.

            Regarding the possibility of a false flag attack by an Ukrainian fighter – the topic of this post. Why do Russian planes fly shortly after the same area again when they would need to be afraid of Ukrainian fighters or BUKs? It is a totally illogic behavior if you ask me. Maybe someone else has a better explanation for it?

          • Interesting enough is Correctiv the only one mentioning that Russian airlines flew over the area shortly after July 17.
            I am not 100% convinced this is correct. If it was correct, why did not a single media or government mentioned this?

            Correctiv is known for the many mistakes it made about their MH17 research.
            I would like to have the Flightradar24 radar data doublechecked before making conclusions.

          • > mentioning that Russian airlines flew over the area shortly after July 17
            Most airlines including some Russian stopped flying over Ukraine after the accident. Corrective is indeed true that other Russian airlines continued flying (Transaero, S7). I saw this with my own eyes on FlightRadar more than once. But it was not over the warzone.

            I guess they did not deem it dangerous. Obviously a second similar attack is infinitely less likely, unless it was a planned elimination, which it did not look to be to anyone.

          • The map wasn’t made by correct tv but by another company specialized on web mapping and data visualization based on public available data (https://opendatacity.de/). I don’t think there is anything fake about it and the story that some russian airlines “just didn’t think it might be dangerous” after the “Russian world” cried “false flag” and “Ukraine did it” is a bit unbelievable. That “stinks to high heaven” as one days in Germany.

            I’m a bit amazed, that this map wasn’t really known here.
            It’s already quite “old”. And by the way…the Correct.TV report was featured in our media.

            For me the behavior of Russian airlines days after MH17 is a very strong indicator, that Russia knew there was no danger from Ukraine SU-XX fighter-jets nor Ukraine BUKs.

          • The map was known here and reported in this blogpost dated January 27, 2015

            http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/russian-airlines-continued-to-ce-for-russian-iuse-east-ukraine-airspace-best-evidence-for-russian-involvement/
            I am also amazed nobody noticed this. Because it is a good indication Russian airlines were some how informed the sky was clear over Eastern Ukraine

          • “Obviously a second similar attack is infinitely less likely, unless it was a planned elimination, which it did not look to be to anyone.”

            That seems a strange assumption. Lets play a mind-game and say it was Ukraine, by purpose, then they have showed a degree of cold-bloodedness that everyone would take serious as they might be so cold-blooded to do it again.

            Otherwise, if Ukraine soldiers made an accident, then Russia would also be alarmed that accidents could happen again because Ukraine obviously does not properly control the situation on ground.

            Both scenarios lead to the conclusion, that Russia’s airlines reacted totally illogic and raise the question if Russian airlines flew again over the area because they exactly knew it won’t happen again as it was Russians/separatists who shot down MH17.

            It is a bit like a “husband crying about his killed wife in front of police and how much he loved here just to call his lover after the cops are gone. Makes him a prime suspect, or not?

            I also don’t get how you can state that Russian airlines did not fly over the conflict area. For me it looks pretty much as in- and outbound Moscow flights flew over exactly that area.

          • To the topic of Correct!v and the Russian airlines which allegedly continued flying over Eastern Ukraine after 17 July.
            See this news item of 18 July, 2014:
            http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28356745
            BBC reports: “European flight safety body Eurocontrol says Ukrainian authorities [UkrSATSE] have closed the airspace in the east of the country to all airline flights. It said all flight plans that use routes in the area are being rejected.”
            Thus, Correct!v animation map is a fraud. And not the only one. Correct!v included in their “report” on MH17 a photograph from the social media account of Sergeant Ivan Krasnoproshin from 53d brigade. It was the photograph of Krasnoproshin’s unit register with the notes of dismissal from the army – dismissal of Krasnoproshin and some of his comrades. Correct!v omitted the date when Krasnoproshin posted the photograph. Boldly, Correct!v told the story that Krasnoproshin and his comrades were dismissed from the army in June 2014, in order to be sent to Donbass as “volunteers” in Putin’s hybrid war. However, if you zoom the photograph, it is clearly seen that Krasnoproshin and his comrades were dismissed from the army in June 2013.

        • According to the ICAO rules a country is required to save raw surveillance data, this is not the same as raw data. Raw data is surveillance data plus noise. Noise is filtered out on the run. These systems are optimized for surveillance not research.

          • Rob: Can you show me the Annex of ICAO where clearly is stated that radar should be saved in RAW format?

          • You are right. Where I wrote “raw surveillance” I should have written just “surveillance”. I used “raw surveillance data” to make a distinction with screen recordings.

          • You are right: It is not “raw surveillance data”, it is just “surveillance data”.

      • To me it is clear the RAW data needs to be saved from investigation perspective, that is what ICAO meant. RAW data shows events beyond filtering done by ATC computer.

        >What a coincience that one of the primary radar stations was in maintenance
        That looks like conspiracy theory. Spreading of smoke screen just like Kreml wants.

        But if jets were not flying, it’s good day to do maintenance. Maintenance being also very important, to not to loose the last of the remaining PSR unexpectedly. But whatever.

        This states my view on the matter:
        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiZk6wHUkAAm4pa.jpg:large
        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiUe8_GWkAA4wvJ.jpg

        Smoke screen seems to be working.

        Ok, I go away.

      • If non of the primary radar systems was operational, Ukraine should have closed the airspace above Donbas and diverted all civic air traffic.

        • sotilaspassi // May 16, 2016 at 6:41 pm // Reply

          No. Its normal that civilian traffic is monitored by SSR only.

          • [At the end of the meeting Pieter Omtzigt came again with a game breaker:

            This was the moment of glory of our cowboy MP Pieter Omtzigt, since now he posed the brilliant question whether the Ukrainian failure – or whatever – of the primary radar was required to report to Eurocontrol.

            The answer was “yes” because they were not in control of their airspace since a war was going on with (unknown) military aircraft a midst of civil aviation, and Eurocontrol almost certainly has not been notified. Sultana will send Omtzigt all relevant data. That, we hear at the next meeting. This will be a very important legal document.]

            Not to forget Ukraine had to control their airspace also for Russian aircraft. And, guess what, in theory it still can be a Russian aircraft which downed the MH17 and that could be the reason, etc, etc…Of course I do not believe this scenario but that is not the question.

  2. Yesterday I made a statement that on this blog it seems only Ukraine is blamed for missing radar data. The answer was, I obviously don’t read this blog properly. My question is now, where does the current article mention missing russian radar data?

    What we all need would be primary radar of the MH17 event. The more data of course the better. It is very possible that Ukraine holds something back. It is very obvious that Russia does the same.

    sotilaspassi at least makes the rightful argument that Russia being able to see MH17 debris had a full coverage of the whole event. Of course they then “destroyed the raw primary radar data”.

    Another interesting fact I would say is that in the case MH17 really would be a false flag by Ukraine: Couldn’t we expect in such a case, that Russian airlines would absolutely avoid this area in the following days/weeks? So why do we see Russian airlines taking up air traffic through this region again? That foils the whole false flag theory in my eyes or a Ukrainian BUK or Ukrainian jets as Russian aviation can’t be certain to not become the next target.

    • olli:

      [sotilaspassi at least makes the rightful argument that Russia being able to see MH17 debris had a full coverage of the whole event. Of course they then “destroyed the raw primary radar data”.]

      [Another interesting fact I would say is that in the case MH17 really would be a false flag by Ukraine: Couldn’t we expect in such a case, that Russian airlines would absolutely avoid this area in the following days/weeks? So why do we see Russian airlines taking up air traffic through this region again? That foils the whole false flag theory in my eyes or a Ukrainian BUK or Ukrainian jets as Russian aviation can’t be certain to not become the next target.]

      I’ll give an unproven and very unrealistic scenario:

      In the first place Russia possibly had a much better ‘full coverage of the whole event’, because there was a civil war in their backyard in which they were also involved. They probably did not use their civilian primary radar (5 km) but their military primary radar (2 km) or whatever means and possibly have seen much more than we know. That’s why we cannot discard fighter aircraft scenarios.

      Further, they witnessed the downing of the MH17 in real time and definitely would not have thrown away their raw data and all the evidence against Ukraine which could free themselves for court.

      In case the downing was a false flag of Ukraine, the Russians would have a major blackmail weapon, which they would not show or throw away.

      Then they could fly every day over Ukraine. On the other hand Russians could have hidden their own fighter jets above Ukraine. More scenarios are possible.

      I think it is not impossible Ukraine and Russia made a deal directly after the assault. Then it might be both countries played a game in the DSB with the DSB and with the US, against us.

    • Why would the Russians destroy the raw primary data? How could they know Ukraine wouldn’t show up with primary data?

  3. This link somehow didn’t work in my previous post.
    https://apps.correctiv.org/mh17/?paused#flightlist (See date 24th!)

  4. Let your eyes be a judge. This has been posted at night so some people might have missed, but it is very important. Please express you opinion on the apparent difference in the hole densities on the wreckage of the Boeing and the plane in the Alamaz Antey test.

    Boeing777: http://tinyurl.com/zretspm
    Il-86: http://tinyurl.com/zawsx38
    Superimposed similar areas:
    http://savepic.ru/9716597.gif
    http://tinyurl.com/jhdlzml

    Leaving aside different hole sizes and the presence of bowties only on the pictures of Il-86, the wreckage of the Boeing does look to contain noticeably fewer holes. Do you agree with this observation?

    If Buk was the kill weapon the reverse should be true. We know that AA used a Buk warhead in their test. Therefore if the same warhead exploded near the cockpit of Mh-17 at a closer position, then the density of holes per unit area on the wreckage of the 777 should be noticeably greater.

    The areas in question are located on the same part of the aircraft, and both were under the most intense part of the shrapnel spray.

    • The problem with the AA experiment is that there were no independant researchers at the site to observe the conditions of the test.
      Russia made a lot of false claims in the past (see MoD pressconference) . Why would the experiment have been executed as we saw on the video? Maybe AA had two explosions to increase the density?

      If they really wanted to prove their view, why not invite the DSB, journalists, experts etc?

      • Valid remark, but you need to remember that such affairs are a lot harder to accomplish than say photoshoping a Buk into a still image or tossing a couple of fragment onto bodies. To lie is not easy. Especially in an area where lots of cross checks could be made. For example, the large cover area in the AA test, does suggest that the warhead was placed farther that on Mh17. An alternative would be for them and go drill extra holes on the outskirts by hand.

        I think I even noticed that the AA test even opened the eye of their specialists. So it’ll take some effort to persuade me that AA elaborately tweaked their experiment. So far I see no slightest indication of that. Also remember the West is also full of specialists. And if those sniff a lie from AA they can repeat the test on their own (thankfully, there are ageing Buks around the world).

      • Also, it was not AA who had to do an experiment. It was actually the DSB, if they were any thorough, who should have done a test explosion. But the DSB did not do other obvious and trivial things either, so no surprise here.

        AA tried to reopen an investigation and make it transparent. It was the DSB who were full of secrecy and enigma. Not even a Q&A session, remember?

        • DSB stated that their simulation using software was enough evidence for determination of the effect of explosion and fragment hitting the aircraft.
          Maybe DSB believed it does not make sense to simulate an explosion using static missile and aircraft. Besides it is very expensive.
          My big concern is why AA did not invite experts to observe the experiment. Another weak and suspicious move of Russia.

          • > My big concern is why AA did not invite experts to observe the experiment.
            I think they did. Anyway, do you recollect AA not having a Q&A session after their presentation, you?

            I take it, that you buy into my arguments that the hole density on the Mh17 is too low compared to the Il-86 test. And you are only concerned that the AA might have tweaked their experiment in some fashion.

            This probably means that you basically agree that the visual evidence from the experiment provided by the AA is inconsistent with the conclusions in the DSB report.

            So either AA had cheated with the experiment or the DSB had rigged the report. If so, I am happy with such odds.

            Please confirm or deny/refine.

          • MH17 is not a binary thing: either Russia did it, or Ukraine. Either DSB tweaked or AA. This story has too many sides. If it was a simple case, it would be clear what exactly happened.
            As you can see from my post, I have many doubts about the DSB report.

            There are far more hits on the IL86 than on the B777 that is for sure.

            Suppose it was not a BUK, what weapon was it? I cannot find any candidate. I just do not believe a SU-27 or whatever could launch a missile from beneath lets say 2 km to an aircraft flying almost 1000km/h at 10km. It there was a SU-xx or Mig-xx involved in shot down, Rostov radar had detected it.

          • admin, thanks, you’ve answered what I asked you to do.

            The consistency is usually a binary thing – two things are either consistent or not.

            > SU-27 or whatever could launch a missile from beneath lets say 2 km to an aircraft flying almost 1000km/h at 10km

            This is a kind of a common misconception that AAM’s missiles prefer to fly only horizontally. It’s just one of those human things. In reality they don’t care. Anti aircraft missiles have very high power/weight ratio (e.g. for a Buk it’s 20, for AAMs its less but still high) making them sense gravity only very slightly. They just don’t feel whether they fly horizontally or vertically or at an angle.

          • An example of not feeling gravity is probably warranted. Buk can go 20g horizontally. If you direct it vertically it’ll go 20-1=19 g. This a small difference. AFAIK it is never even factored in control algorithms. For AAMs high power/weight ratio is important for effective maneuvering.

          • AA did invite invite international experts, although they didn’t send invitations. They announced the experiment in the press conference from June the 2th. On that occasion they also invited any international experts interested.

          • So who took the invitation and attended the AA experiment? Anyone of the press? Anyone who is regarded as an independant expert?
            I am not aware of any such attendence! The first and only video/photos covering the experiment were released by AA.

          • > So who took the invitation and attended the AA experiment? Anyone of the press? Anyone who is regarded as an independant expert? I am not aware of any such attendence!

            I think they only sort of invited the DSB experts. But those obviously would not come, not to give any credence to Almaz Antey who were publicly criticizing the DSB. True, AA do not appear to be forthcoming even with high res pictures. They don’t seem to be interested in helping people like me who fight for their cause. I can only explain this by the behind-the-scene political play that is going on.

            Anyway, there is little critique to the experiment conducted by AA that I know. I am sure there’ll be people claiming that AA cheated, but there is nothing constructive AFAIK. And you don’t seem to be coming with any interesting details about how they could cheat either.

            Note that the inconsistency with the hole density that I brought forward has been unmentioned for long time. Thinking that the AA were predicting this would happen in the future and cheating accordingly seems to be a far fetch.

            Did AA cheat with the bowties too and the bowtie shaped holes on their pictures were not made by the fragments in the warhead but were drilled manually or photoshoped in? Surely not. The hole density, fortunately, is not the only inconsistency between the experiment and the DSB report. Another one is the presence of the bowtie shaped holes. Yet another one is too big damage cover area. Yet another one is the documented piercings of the right side.

            Sorry, Marcel, but given the above one has to chose between AA cheating and the DSB rigging. It is binary here.

            I am grateful that you try to keep an open mind, present a platform for publicity and engage in the conversation.

          • Eugene; analyzing the damage is a difficult thing for people not being expert. I have not even seen the slightest attempt by the MSM to explain in detail what happened. Let alone try to find out what could be true of both AA and DSB statements. The only thing MSM does is reporting what is stated by DSB. Some report the AA point of view. Many MSM seem to believe AA does only propaganda.

            Why did AA invite many journalists, trip and hotel paid by AA, to the press conference at October 13 and not invite journalists to observe the AA experiment? That does not make sense to me.

            As said, I believe there are many doubts on the DSB report. Hope sometime professional experts will tell their opinion.

          • > Why did AA invite many journalists, trip and hotel paid by AA, to the press conference at October 13 and not invite journalists to observe the AA experiment?

            They probably thought that it was unnecessary, being so sure of themselves, like it happens to people. Plus inviting journalists to a test explosion is quite useless. They’ve probably evacuated everyone kilometers around the place. They’ve invited everyone to the presentation and were not shy to answer questions, unlike the DSB.

          • Like admin, I do not believe in this SU-XX theories. They are crap in my opinion: Why should Ukraine use exactly the weapon for committing such a crime that separatists obviously do not have? Also shoot it down where they have no control over the debris and can’t really influence what information surfaces first about the cause. Also the high risk to be seen on russian radar is very likely and Ukraine couldn’t know Russia will not hand out primary unprocessed radar data. Also, how could Ukraine make separatists and Russian media initially report another victorious shot-down. Either Ukraine is so unbelievable stupid or has unknown super-powers. The simple and most logic assumption is they didn’t shoot it down with a SU-XX.

            Of course, if Russia would present raw unfaked data showing such, or parts of a A2A missile this would be a game changer. They/separatists had access to all the debris long before the West. It should have been easier for them to find such proofs by now. Where are the remaining parts of A2A missiles? Where is the Russian raw radar data?

            Even as armchair detectives we should concentrate on logic and causal theories and not endlessly discuss this red herring Russians still want to sell us.

          • Olli: I agree. There are too many unlikely situations to make a A2A scenario likely. Like a R27 of which only a limited number of missiles has fragmentation warheads. No radar detection, guided from 2 km to MH17, intentionally shot down MH17 etc. It just does not make sense.
            The Python does not make sense at all either. Cannot be carried by an Ukraine Air Force aircraft. So Georgia sent in an aircraft and shot down MH17.
            In both cases not a single indication is given what type of fragments is used in these missiles. Former East German fighter jets told journalist Billy Six they think it was an A2A. However nobody was able to state which type.

          • Eugene // May 16, 2016 at 6:34 pm //

            [Anyway, there is little critique to the experiment conducted by AA that I know. I am sure there’ll be people claiming that AA cheated, but there is nothing constructive AFAIK. And you don’t seem to be coming with any interesting details about how they could cheat either.]

            ‘Since, if bowties allegedly found in MH17 significantly differ from the static test on the IL-86 then the RF is almost there. Then they must be prepared to repeat the test with the aluminum plates. Then they must perform three separate tests with massive aluminum plates of respectively 4 mm, 6 mm and 8 mm thickness. This time the plates must be very stable and must not be blown away. Bowties in the wooden construction must not be counted. If bowties can pierce these plates without substantial loss of weight, then the bowtie hypothesis of MH17 is not confirmed. It might even be seen as falsified. Depending on earlier specified interactions. This test must be controlled by independent scientists.’

          • > No radar detection

            Just as for a Buk. Rh27 is even smaller than Buk so a bit harder to see on radars.

            >guided from 2 km to MH17,[…] It just does not make sense.

            I’ve explained that the missiles do not care about verticality.

            Pilots are well aware about Earth curvature shielding from radar reach, so no surprise they’d keep low (but above clouds).

            admin, I see your guts rebel against the idea, but the brain cannot come up with rational arguments against it.

          • >olli: Why should Ukraine use exactly the weapon for committing such a crime that separatists obviously do not have?

            Try to see it the from other way: Could they use their own BUK and pretend the separatists did it with some faked evidence pointing to a Separatist BUK?

            The risk is very high that the “real” BUK will be accidentally seen.

            You can’t use your own BUK and blame it on the other side!

          • > the RF is almost there

            I actually not worried about Russia. If Ukraine did it they have a full landscape of ways for proving that. I suspect that AA got an order from above to hold the horses and not press much, they’ve become quite quiet at recent time. The hard thing for Russia will be to work against the massive machine of western MSM, and this is probably where they are going to lose.

            For me it’s only a sport interest to get to the truth before the cards are opened, if this ever happens.

          • Eugene // May 16, 2016 at 8:01 pm //

            I think Eugene is right and we must not worry about how the assumed SAM or A2A were brought to the plane. Now we must collect warheads with squares and without rods. If we cannot find them we must not try to construct a logical scenario for the last BUK warhead, from which only the profile passed the test: 9N314M. Nothing from 9N314M self past the test, nothing is proven so far.

            It is to be expected SAM or A2A passing the test of conditional probability but not yet detected by the internet will be kept strictly secret. Then we must accept a dead end in our investigation without embracing the dubious warhead 9N314M to get at least one scenario. Whistleblowers will give the right answers in the future.

          • @admin: I would take Billy Six with care. He seems to be a freaky guy with a political agenda – he is an author of “Junge Freiheit” a German nationalistic right-wing magazine.

            The same also counts for “former East German fighter jet pilots”. Many of those Eastern Germans are just anti-west and wish to live back in their old good times. They still feel very emotionally connected to Russia (which is no bad thing). But you won’t hear expertise from them rather political opinions, because they are disappointed with the situation they live in today. We have dozens of such cases mainly found in obscure “alternative media”. I also have some personally known cases of those “people displaced in history” in my wider circles.
            Look for instance at Peter Haisenko and the anti-western books he sells on his website. His expertise is politically driven and not by expertise. He even named the faked SU27 image a proof. Is is really your goal admin, to waste your time with such people?

            I mean, all the people defending the highly implausible A2A scenario should please lay some facts and real hints on the table. Its not the problem that we couldn’t change our opinions. If it was an A2A, then there must be some real hints, not only opinions raised again and again by people with their own political agenda. Show us fragments of the warhead. I mean (pro-)russians control this area, have 24/7 access to it and could have long ago presented us with some real evidence found on the ground/in the debris. So far every thing I heard just adds to the unlikability of this scenario and claims from bizarre freaks from alternative or right-wing media sites don’t make it more believable.

            @H.L.: Of course Ukrainians could use a BUK, smuggle it to the separatists side and claim it were them. But, did we see any evidence of this yet? Where are the eye-witnesses? Where the possible dash-cam videos? And wouldn’t it be highly likely the Ukrainians get caught in separatist areas? Actually, the same can also be said theoretically about a Russian false flag operation. Let’s revert back to the A2A scenario discussed in this pot. Wouldn’t it be easier for Russians flying with a SU-XX (coming from Russia) and land a direct hit on the MH17 cockpit than a SU-XX coming from Ukraine? – Russia could easily blame Ukraine because everyone knew only Ukrainians fly in this are with their air force.

            But you see – we get into too much “if”, “might be”, “could in the case of”…in German we say “Hätte hätte Fahrradkette”. Your false flag scenario is like a high risen card house with a very weak foundation until now. Too many “ifs”. Why you still insist into this direction I can only assume might be a consequence of reading and frequently posting on websites like propagandaschau. An anti-west hate-speech portal dedicated to German readers.

          • @olli
            Agree with you! My opinion on Peter Haisenko here http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/peter-haisenko-talks-nonsense-about-mh17/

            Most people expressing their thoughts on MH17 have some sort of bias. They are either pro-West, pro-Russia, anti-US or anti-Russia. Their personal opinion on politics disturbs their ability to look clear and fair at the situation.

            However we do need to find I would say on a scientific way the truth. There are many questions still unanswered. DSB likely made mistakes in their investigation.
            We need to know why. Kremlin and Russian media made a lost of noise/mist to influence the public opinion. Ukraine lied about for example about the reason for missing radar images.

          • Olli,

            [I mean, all the people defending the highly implausible A2A scenario should please lay some facts and real hints on the table. Its not the problem that we couldn’t change our opinions. If it was an A2A, then there must be some real hints, not only opinions raised again and again by people with their own political agenda. Show us fragments of the warhead. I mean (pro-)russians control this area, have 24/7 access to it and could have long ago presented us with some real evidence found on the ground/in the debris. So far every thing I heard just adds to the unlikability of this scenario and claims from bizarre freaks from alternative or right-wing media sites don’t make it more believable.]

            The A2A scenario is not implausible, air fighters with bullets are implausible. And if we discard all Russian alleged radar information then A2A is not more implausible than BUK, which is really implausible and without proven facts.

            And yes, it might be separatists had a BUK in Donetsk, just like the Ukrainians. But the point is who shot down the MH17 with a BUK.

            Yes, scientists change their opinions with the state of the art converging to the state of nature. They are flexible and open minded. They are willing to think about A2A without severe conditions which they also do not impose on highly questional BUK scenarios.

            Everybody has a political agenda, nobody is strictly objective. From each other we know where we stand but on this blog we see we can convince the other with the right arguments. So, subjective bias is no problem for who is willing to let falsify his former ideas.

            And alleged fragments of BUK warhead are not confirmed as from the missile used. A foreign (rocket) part in the frame of the cockpit is confirmed, that’s all. And we just need bizarre freaks to change our mind and to fore come tunnelvision.

          • Sorry Basic Dimension, but I do not think we need more bizarre freaks who just chew on the dirty laundry Russia hang out of their windows.

            Even if the A2A might not be 100% impossible, it still is far less believable than a S2A scenario. And even the A2A scenario would be what really happened, who tells us it wasn’t a false flag of Russia to blame Ukraine which obviously was using its air-force over eastern Ukraine?
            Tell us. Which facts speak against such a theory – would be interesting to dig into that direction. Just an plausible input from my side to avoid ending in a tunnel-view 😉

            We you can spend month on proving it was Ukraine instead of Russia that flew the SU-XX. See the problem is, that bizarre internet freaks do not add to a clearer view but obfuscate us with their political smokescreens. Thank you. No need of that.

            I agree with admin that the whole situation isn’t fully clear and that political games are played behind the curtain. The West probably has good enough data on what happened in the military conflict. About weapons, about Russian soldiers about MH17 and still we see official data not presented to the public and the investigation left to media and citizen reporters who have nothing else than what is available on the internet, etc. Un unsatisfying situation which invites speculation and leaves space for all kind of propaganda.

            Yes, you can get suspicious why this is so: But instead of falling for red herrings from Moscow, I tend to believe that the West isn’t interested neither in sending troops, nor sending substantive help for Kiev to win a war no one in Europe is interested to happen. Also none of our leaders asks for “sending Putin to Den Haag” for his obvious war and the probable shot-down of MH17. Yes, they do not like Putin and criticize him, but they are not interested in this man losing his face, a collapsing Russia or provoke more blood-shed in Ukraine. Channels have to stay open and it is assumed a better alternative to deal with and contain Putin than to try sending him to jail with a public trial. I guess these are the reasons why we see such a halfhearted investigation by the West regarding MH17.

          • Dear Olli. I am curious what your relation is to usernames Toni Wunderer and RobRoy
            Can you explain?

          • @admin: No clue what you mean. How are these related to MH17?

          • These two accounts use the same IP-address as you do.

          • I’m posting from a student dormitory in a foreign country. Could that be the reason?

          • Could be. Never mind.

    • Eugene, as you’ve said, the Boeing 777 and AA’s Il86 were struck from different detonation locations. So any comparison between the damage to any part of the two aircrafts is not really comparing like with like.

      The DSB should explain the different damage in AA’s experiment but they chose to just ignore it, maybe because it would prove that their own conclusions were wrong.

      I suppose that that’s the main reason AA carried out the experiment, rather than any results that it produced – to challenge the DSB or other western authorities to prove the “BUK fom Sniznhe” scenario experimentally with their own missile. Such an experiment might produce results that would contradict the official western version.

      Even though it might be a waste of time comparing the damage at some single part of the aircraft, the overall amount of damage is more relevant in determining the size of the warhead, and therefore the type of missile. The Il86 looks to me like it was damaged more than MH17, but that should be studied more, as was done by Albert Lex.

      • Brendan, thanks for replying

        > Eugene, as you’ve said, the Boeing 777 and AA’s Il86 were struck from different detonation locations. So any comparison between the damage to any part of the two aircrafts is not really comparing like with like.

        With increased distance to the detonation point the density of fragments hitting the plane should only be sharply reducing (by the inverse square law). What struck me was that not only the density did not reduce but was noticeably higher in the AA test, with the detonation point positioned farther than in the real life.

        The wrong positioning of the detonation point by the DSB is assumed, of course. This is not going to be a topic for an argument between us, because even admin was sold to the numerous reasons for that conclusion (he did his own line intersecting, which normally converts anybody). Other people not believing that the DSB placed the detonation point too far, please reply in the Marcel’s post on the subject. I’ll happily discuss that there, but not here.

        Your comment about the damage cover area is very relevant.

        admin looks resisting to the whole not-Buk idea, but I am pretty sure he’ll be in favor of a complete reinvestigation, given the serious doubts raised. Like most of the visitors here.

        I want to point out that the visual density comparison does not rely much on interpretation and excludes the possibility of a foul play with the input data (except cheating by AA, of course): the Mh-17 wreckage pictures are genuine, and noone in their sane mind would contest that.

      • Want to stress the distance dependence so that it sinks better.

        If the DSB moved the detonation point away by a factor of two then the Mh-17 hole density needs to be FOUR times grater than on the Il-86, but instead it is noticeably smaller.

        According to AA the detonation point needs to be up-to three times closer than where the DSB put it. This should lead to up-to NINE times increase in the hole density on the Mh17, but instead it is noticeably smaller.

        I guess I’ve annoyed you enough, so there must be several people badly wanting to prove me wrong. Go ahead.

      • 1. A closer location of detonation requires a wider beam of frag spray in order to cover the same area. Hole density is therefore approximately proportional to the distance of detonation, not to its square.

        2. Analysis is complicated by the fact that a closer location also makes the frag spray more uneven in order to account for the pattern of damage to MH17. The area under the left hand cockpit window, in the photo that you link to, must have been hit with a very high fragmentation density per square metre. The area inside the cockpit, on the other hand, has a much smaller impact density (I’m assuming that most, if not all, of the fragments fired directly through the window had enough kinetic energy left to cause a hole or dent on the the floor and seats that they struck).

        3. Large parts of the skin closest to the detonation were not found, so we don’t know what the hole density there is. Those are the area below the window in front of the captain, as well as nearly all of the left hand side of the cockpit roof.

        Even after taking those points into account, to my eyes the overall damage on MH17 still looks noticeably less than that on AA’s Il86. However I’d prefer a more objective study than to rely on appearances, which sometimes can be deceptive.

        • Brendan,

          [1. A closer location of detonation requires a wider beam of frag spray in order to cover the same area. Hole density is therefore approximately proportional to the distance of detonation, not to its square.]

          Sounds logical, but how does this relate to Hopkinson-Cranz? Where damage is related to hole density?

        • Basic, I had to look up the Hopkinson-Cranz rule, but that has to do with the blast wave, not the density of fragment strikes.

          What I was talking about was more like simple geometry, although it’s not so simple when you also have to consider the non-uniform frag spray and the complex shape of a target like a 777 cockpit.

        • > Hole density is therefore approximately proportional to the distance of detonation, not to its square.

          Brendan, hole density is proportional to inverse square of the distance. I am sure it’s enough to point out your slight mistake (not the typo) and you’ll find where you are wrong in your thinking. If not, I’ll elaborate. Otherwise, a rational comment, thanks.

        • Hopkins Cranz is indeed inverse cube of the distance, not square. But to understand why one needs a good understanding of physics of the explosion, and generally good understanding where the laws come from. I don’t think many readers here would have it. Basically Hopkinz Cranz strange dependence is explained by the energy/impulse leaking from the explosion wave front and turning into a non-destructing form behind. Hopkinz Cranz stops working at a distance where the shock wave speed reduces to that of sound (in our case it’s several meters away), the transition from Hopkinz Cranz to 1/r^2 is gradual. Hopkinz Cranz also does not work in vacuum.

        • To make it more relevant to our case. For a Buk the 1/r^2 regime fully starts at around 10-15 m (this has been estimated on a video of a Buk explosion). At our distance of ~1.5-2 meters Hopkinson-Cranz is still fully on, but only applicably to the damage caused by the explosion shock wave (ripped off skin, very large holes). The damage caused by the fragments is still strictly a 1/r^2 law. So in the end we have quite a mixed distance law, but it is always at least as bad as 1/r^2.

        • I should have said ‘inversely’. For a *given* warhead, the hole density is inversely proportional to the *square* of the distance because it decreases in two dimensions.

          In the case of MH17, the width (ie. in one dimension or axis) of the damage are approximately known and fixed. So if we decrease the distance (from the DSB’s location to AA’s location) we have to adjust the warhead *model* to increase its beam angle, in order to match the width of damage. Increasing the beam angle means that hole density is increased in one axis but not the other.

          That’s different to a real, single, given warhead with a fixed beam angle that causes hole density to change with *square* of distance to target.

          Apologies to everyone who’s bored or confused by all of this.

          • Brendan, what you say is a bit confusing, I think. For a 1/r^2 to be valid it is sufficient for all fragments to fly radially (=from a same point). Then you take three neighboring fragments and observe that the area of the triangle that they form grows as r^2. Thus the 1/r^2 law for the fragment density.

            I’ve made another picture for visual density comparison, to get closer to the layman.
            http://savepic.ru/9820561.png

            Bu the way, thanks for a constructive discussion, this is exactly what I was after. Unfortunately, I’ll be very limited in time for the next couple of days.

          • Brendan // May 17, 2016 at 2:42 pm //

            Eugene, maybe we’re talking about different things. You might be accepting Almaz-Antey’s detonation (at the location estimated by the DSB) as genuine and accurate, and looking at the effect of moving the missile in towards the closer ‘correct’ location. I was thinking of a model where the frag spray could be widened to match the actual damage to MH17.

          • Yes, i got that impression too, we used different mental models. I do assume that the dsb placed the detonation point far away (assumption 1). This is a crucial assumption. I also assume that AA have not cheated and placed the warhead at the DSB computed point like they said (assumption 2). That’s all. Nothing else us important. Whether the DSB have changed the opening angle is irrelevant. We can easily think that the DSB report does not even exist.

            Using the two above assumptions and looking at the pictures is enough to show that the kill warhead was very different from what the AA has exploded.

            Does putting it like that eliminate the misunderstanding?

          • Yes, i got that impression too, we use different mental models. I do assume that the dsb placed the detonation point too far (assumption 1). This is a crucial assumption. I also assume that AA have not cheated and placed the warhead at the DSB computed point like they said (assumption 2). That’s all. Nothing else is important. Whether the DSB have changed the opening angle is irrelevant. We can easily think that the DSB report does not even exist.

            Using the two above assumptions and looking at the pictures is enough to show that the kill warhead was very different from what the AA has exploded.

            Does putting it like that eliminate the misunderstanding?

  5. sotilaspassi // May 16, 2016 at 7:35 pm // Reply

    We know the missile was green by the scratch etc. on the wing + found pieces.
    Green is not standard color used on a2a missiles.

  6. – What is the value of a BUK of 70 kg if a windshield cannot be shattered from 1.5 meters?

    http://tinyurl.com/zv6x8zz

    If would be shit!

    – And do we really believe the soap that light fragments (fillers, blue) came first and hit the left front shield from the periphery of the lancet and heavy fragments (squares and bowties, red) came later and hit the left side of the cockpit from the center? Of course not. They don’t even know themselves and have no mathematical model, nothing.

    http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq

    Better we ask the question: Are there A2A with two kinds of squares? Little squares at the back of the warhead that explode earlier and big squares on the front that explode later?

    – And would two kinds of squares be an optimal choice for A2A?

    – If you had to develop A2A or SAM with limited power, what would be the optimal composition of the fragments? Rods and squares? Well, let’s tunnel our vision into that direction hypothetically:

    – We must find A2A with two kinds of squares. Remember the square of 8x8x6 mm of albert_lex is to big for the windshields. Also possible would be little rounded bullets backwards on the warhead and exploding first. So, what must exist is an A2A with rods and squares where rods easily can be changed with bullets.

    But why not a SAM? The distance of the detonation point to the plane did not pass the requirement of conditional probability, since it is no empirical fact but just an empirical inference.

    So, we are free to accept a BUK of 70 kg at an undetermined distance. (Though we falsified 8x8x6.5 already because of albert_lex’histogram). As follows:

    We know the advanced Russian 9M317 has squares 8x8x6.5 mm. But do they also have rods?

    http://tonnel-ufo.ru/eanglish/weapon/anti-aircraft-missile-medium-range-buk-m2-9k317.php

    [antiaircraft guided missile 9M317 . 9M317 missile has extended the affected area up to 45-50km range and up to 25 km – height and setting, as well as a large range of targeted goals. In It provides for the use of inertial-corrected control system with a new semi-active radar homing Doppler 9E420 (see photo). Warhead: rod, weight – 70 kg, radius of target destruction – 17 m Cruising speed – 1230 m / s, load – up to 24 g. Missile weight – 715 kg. Wingspan – 860 mm. Engine – dual-mode solid propellant. Missile has a high level of reliability, fully assembled and curb missile does not require inspections and adjustments during the lifetime – 10 years.]

    Are we partly misinformed by Antaz-Antey?

    http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr

    [- And in a completely solitary action rebellious Russian officers may have launched a BUK SA-17 with a 9M317 missile from Russian territory near Snizhne because MH17 flew within 50 km of the Russian border. In that case, the shrapnel fragments should be rods or “parallelepipeds’ (diamond shaped craters) (unconfirmed).]

    http://tinyurl.com/hworsr2
    http://tinyurl.com/z95jtwj

  7. @ Olli + Marcel:

    You should ask yourself the following questions:

    How would politicians in Kiev and Washington react if they are absolutely convinced that the separatists shot down MH-17 with russian help, but after three days suddenly discover that some ukrainian hardliners shot down MH-17 in a false flag attack without their knowledge?

    If the CIA experts tell them that the evaluation of the satellite images expected to show a BUK launch surprisingly shows an air-to-air missile launch instead?

    If they find out that the evidence these hardliners provided to prove the guilt of the separatists only consists of social media and some photoshop fakes?

    Would they honestly confess that MH-17 was downed by some ukrainian hardliners without their knowledge and send their excuses and flowers to the separatists and Russians and to the relatives of the victims?

    Would they tell the world that some hardliners deliberately killed 298 people because they thought a false-flag would be a nice idea to heat up the conflict?

    Or would they try to cover up this disaster for which they are not responsible?

    Try to delay the investigation as long as possible?

    Try to reach a secret political agreement with the Russians?

    Ignore requests from the relatives of the victims which ask for disclosure of secret satellite images and radar?

    Publish a DSB report that concludes that a BUK was fired by unknown persons somewhere in a large area?

    Extend the JIT investigation endlessly and let it end after years without coming to a result?

    In the case I imagined above, politicians would behave exactly as they are doing now and this should make you think!

  8. Does anyone have more info on the passive radar seeker scenario. I think albert lex mentions it, Eugene mentions that Ukraine probably has R27 with passive seekers fitted and I too remember a pre 2014 blogpost saying Ukraine was fitting passive seekers to R27.

    The scenario would go like this: in July 2014 Russian fighter jets would constantly illuminate and lock on to Ukrainian Su25 with their onboard radars across the border. They would do so to distract the Ukrainian pilots. As a countermeasure Ukraine decided to send their Mig23 equipped with their special passive seeker R27. Something went wrong and the R27 homed in on the weather radar of mh17.

    Don’t know how realistic that is, but it could explain some of the open points.

    • If Ukraine shot down MH17, why Russia lied so much on many topics? Why not tell a single, consistent story? The story changes all the time: SU-25, BUK etc.
      The only reason I can think it that Russia knows they are in trouble and try to confuse the public.

      I am aware satellite pics of a BUK driving around and PM photos does not mean the BUK did launch a BUK.

      • Strange argumentation.

        1. Ukraine lied too, maybe even more often. From Buk 312 to the Moskow-Larnaca scenario and from Buks seized or not seized from airforce base to the Luhansk video.

        2. Story doesn’t change. From 21st of july the Russians issued two important leads: SU25’s in the vicinty of MH17 and Buks in ATO area.

        3. The party who hands over the most information could also be the party with most inside knowledgde.

        4. Lesson 1.0.1 crminal law: handing over false testimony is no proof of guilt. Only proof of perjury.

      • > why Russia lied so much on many topics?

        If you assume that the Russians have a free press and free media, then it is clear that different newspapers may have different opinions.

        > Why not tell a single, consistent story?

        If you look at the three RT documentaries released about MH-17 (which I see as ‘official Russian opinion’) they tell a consistent story: A fighter jet shot down MH-17.

        Surprisingly the free western media have a single, consistent story about MH-17. Maybe the free western media are not as free as expected?

        Germany also lies on many topics: Peter Haisenko has one opinion, Bernd Biedermann has another one and Horst Lührsen has a third one which may be different or not to what the German media publishes. And the opinion of the German government may be even different from the German media, because the German media is not controlled by the German government (except the public TV: ARD, ZDF, etc.).

        But you don’t ask the question “Why does Germany lie so much on many topics?” oder “Why does Germany not have a single, consistent story?”.

        Max van der Werff has a different opinion than Joost Niemöller which both may or may not agree with Hector Reban, Jeroen Akkermans or Marc Rutte. But you do not ask: “Why does Netherland not have a single, consistent story?”

        • Point taken. I have to moderate myself as this discussion is now pretty much offtopic. Back to topic: could a R-27 be the weapon that shot down MH17?

          • Let me end here with Jean-Claude Junckers famous quote: “Wenn es ernst wird, muss man lügen.”

        • H.L.:

          “Surprisingly the free western media have a single, consistent story about MH-17. Maybe the free western media are not as free as expected?”

          I am afraid this is true and it won’t be the first time. In fact, though there is room for dissent (at the fringe), its a structural disease.

          My experience in studying affairs in international politics (I have a degree in this) is what is triggering me in this particular case.

          The whole MH17 story has so many red flags and markers known from other cases in the dark history of western politics, that it would really surprise me if the Bellingcat promoted story appears to be true (disclaimer, that doesn’t mean I don’t see a fairly significant chance separatists shot down the plane).

          Especially their blatant lack of logic, their use of psychological sophisticated ways of bringing the information packages as seen in PR en advertising) and their disregard for scientific rules (i.e. always search for competitive explanations) is what is bothering me when the media is following them blindly.

          This says something about the state of critical thinking in both media and general populace alike.

        • “Surprisingly the free western media have a single, consistent story about MH-17. Maybe the free western media are not as free as expected?”
          In fact, they had this story from day one without any evidence. All of a sudden, the Western media was full of Buk experts. Of course this wasn’t the result of thorough investigative journalism, it came straight from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Spokesman Nayda even set it was a Buk m1. How could he know?

    • Ole, passive seekers for r27 were supplied by Russia not that long ago (5-10 years ago). There were articles talking about that, but i am away from desktop and cannot search. Even though Wikipedia does not mention passive seekers for r27, i would not worry about their availability for r27. I suggest everyone to read up about passive seeker purposes and advantages.

    • Ole, looked up for you. R-27 can be equipped with the passive seeker 9B-1032 (9Б-1032) made in Omsk, Russia. The web resources are a bit scarce, as is usually the case for military hardware, but there is some confirmation (some customs document) that Russia shipped 220 of those to Ukraine in 2001. This is likely to be not the only shipment. In 1992 the seeker was one of the first items of military hardware to be licensed for sale to Ukraine in then new Russia.

      A passive seeker missile is likely to hit the cockpit, and much less likely anything else. While for a semi-active Buk all the plane parts are roughly equally likely to be hit.

  9. Liane Theuer // May 17, 2016 at 3:19 pm // Reply

    I don´t agree with the conclusions, but a lot of useful links about ukrainian air-air missiles :
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-malaysian-airlines-mh17-boeing-was-shot-down-examination-of-the-wreckage/5435094?print=1

    Remember this video from April 16/2014 in Kramatorsk. A MIG-29 fighter jet with different missiles :
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ3BTloV0XU

    Look at the Independence Day Parade in Kiev on August 24/2014. You will see weapons that Ukraine denied to have :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W57Tjs9BeLw

    • Liane: you wrote ” You will see weapons that Ukraine denied to have :”

      Can you explain the weapontype Ukraine initially denied having and now being shown in the open?

      Same question for the video of a Mig29 fighter.

  10. A question I often asked myself regarding the air-to-air scenario is:

    “How can a jet pilot commit murder to hundreds of innocent civilians on a commercial airplane, including children?”

    Obviously no mentally sane person would do something terrible, even in the middle of a civil war.

    So if the military air traffic controller calls the pilot on the radio and tells him: “Captain, a malaysian airplane full of nice people and children is flying in your direction. Please shoot it down using A2A-missile for a false flag attack!” obviously the risk is quite high that the pilot would just refuse to do like he is commanded.

    BUT: Military leaders often use psychological tricks to get their soldiers to do what they normally would never do in normal circumstances.

    So the air traffic controller could have lied to the pilot and said: “Captain, a russian spy plane is flying in your direction. You have to shoot it down because this would give us the proof that Russia is involved in this conflict!”

    Or: “Captain, Putin’s plane is flying in your direction …”

    In this case the pilot of course would fire his missile without hesitating because he thinks he is shooting at an enemy plane. Maybe he even flies closer to the target and fires some rounds from the maschine cannon after the target has been hit by the missile and starts falling from the sky.

    And when he comes closer to the target he suddenly may read “MALAYSIAN” on the airplane he just shot down.

    Obviously he will be shocked and when he returns to the airport he might tell the other pilots: “It’s the wrong plane!” or “It was in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

    Because he thinks he made a terrible mistake.

    • >“How can a jet pilot commit murder to hundreds of innocent civilians on a commercial airplane, including children?”

      If that pilot was told that it was Putin’s jet, there would be very many pilots in UAF ready to press the trigger.

      • Comment by Olli deleted by Admin

        Admin here:
        I want to prevent this site becoming like the chitchat comments of Bellingcat.com full of offtopic and noise.
        Comments are on R-27. Not about opinion what to discuss.

  11. Sergey Tokarev // May 18, 2016 at 8:00 pm // Reply

    There was a very important news here some time ago that 80 Dutch cops investigate this case independently from DSB, focusing on a type of a missile. I trust them more that DSB or JIT, leaving alone Ukraine. Anything new from them? Does anybody communicate with them?

  12. Sergey Tokarev // May 18, 2016 at 8:07 pm // Reply

    Marcel! There was such a story here, on this site, maybe a month ago, posted by one of regular contributors, and it inspired me a lot. They facts that my comments make their way to the thread from 10th attempt inspires me less, but it is not important.

  13. sotilaspassi // May 25, 2016 at 2:17 pm // Reply

    So have you found R27 with more powerfull warhead than buk?
    With bouties?
    Or green R27s? Or explanation for green paint on top of boing grey paint?
    Or stealth SU27?

  14. No proof for a reason,R-27 did not down MH17,the missile is renowned as one of the least succesfull used in combat,one of the few that actually worked still enabled a stricken Mig-29 to return to base,not what was seen on MH17-an instant kill,next candidate will be an Israeli Python,also much too small with examples used against drones by the IAF leaving these rather flimsy and small targets largely intact and with small frag impact holes visible,Only one thing could have downed MH17,a SAM,all evidence no matter how hard it is for some to accept is that SAM was a BuK

    • In court we find the cause of a crime by exclusion of other possibilities. But in science the exclusion of R-27 and Israeli Python never proves a BUK. Then we simply say we don’t know.

      [next candidate will be an Israeli Python,also much too small with examples used against drones by the IAF leaving these rather flimsy and small targets largely intact and with small frag impact holes visible,Only one thing could have downed MH17,a SAM,all evidence no matter how hard it is for some to accept is that SAM was a BuK]

      We are willing to accept a BUK if there is proof and the profile of warhead 9N314M already passed the test of conditional probability. Only warhead 9N314M itself is not yet proven. That’s the problem.

      Then we remember the BUK-configuration in Donetsk around July 17, 2014:

      A Dutch military intelligence service report states they did not have any information on the presence of a Russian BUK in Eastern Ukraine at July 17. (source)

      http://www.ctivd.nl/onderzoeken/a/aivd-mivd-onderzoek-mh17/documenten/rapporten/2015/10/13/rapport-mh17

      [Following information of the MIVD the Ukrainian Air Force had BUK-systems in Eastern Ukraine.]

      MIVD: Military Information and Security Service.

      https://twitter.com/PieterOmtzigt/status/690486999669678081
      [CTIVD (toezichthouder geheime diensten) bevestigt: volgens diensten had alleen Oekraine operationele BUK systemen in Oost Oekraine 17/7] Twitter Pieter Omtzigt.]

      https://www.rt.com/politics/official-word/331834-mh17-russia-storchevoy-letter/

      [Those data confirm, among other things, that there was movement and increased activity by Ukrainian Buk surface-to-air missile systems observed within the conflict area in Eastern Ukraine one day ahead of the tragedy.]

  15. Evidence for a BuK strike exists,remove all fanciful notions frags were planted even inside human remains as part of a world spanning conspiracy and you are left with the known facts,These facts point to a BuK launched at and downing a passenger plane in error.It’s quite clear to all by now a BuK was in rebel areas prior to the downing,no one seriously doubts that,only possible valid debate is in if it was THE BuK used and what it’s origins were.All talk off AAMs is widely of the mark and zero evidence has been given.I see many claims made as fact on this site by commenters that clearly have not checked them out,seems more a sounding board for conspiracies picked up from RU sites at times.

    • sotilaspassi // May 26, 2016 at 5:38 am // Reply

      It is know strategy that Kreml push disinfo via RU trolls and truthers to hide true info under the noice. Disgusting behavior.

      +All time spent with trolls takes time away from fruitfull opensource investigation.

    • Eugene123 // May 26, 2016 at 7:06 am // Reply

      BUK strike elements are very hight speed. Metal fragments struck the aeroplane at a speed of 4,500 – 9,000 km/h (Appendix N)
      You cann’t make ragged edges as MH17 skin at so hight speed.

    • Greyfox aka AD;

      “In error”. You were there?

      The only credible scenario in which a skilled Russian Buk crew was implicated in this downing, would be it was provoked somehow by technical means to launch an unintended missile, ie. highly sphisticated weaponry, like scrambling radar inut, creating phantom planes or other things we can’t imagine at this time.

      The official story of the incompetent spotter and a Buk crew led by stupidty is highly irrational and therefore unlikely imho. And *because* some party in the conflict is peddling this scenario from the very start, it should drive everyone to ask some serious questions about it.

      But hey, those questions are probably whispered in our ears by conspiracist Russian secret servive agents.

  16. More on the passive seeker 9B-1032 from R-27.
    http://bastion-karpenko.ru/kartinki/R-27P_MAKS-2005_17.JPG
    It has a wide band radar centered around 3 cm wavelength.
    http://www.missiles.ru/_foto/VTTV-05/IMG_6001.jpg
    3 cm is actually Boeing 777 weather radar’s wavelength. To aim at the weather radar the launcher has to be in front of the plane, which is our case, while Buk could be aimed from any angle.
    Another useful feature of a passive seeker equipped missile for a false flag operation is that it is radio-silent, so no Russian nor American AWACS type planes will be able to detect it. It is the reason it was created in the first place.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*