Back to Squawk list
  • 28

MH17, Russia shot it down, but negligence made it a target

This Tuesday’s release of the Dutch investigation into the destruction of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine in July 2014 is already setting off leaks and previews, but it should also raise the issue as to why a number of airlines were dicing with death by flying thousands of their passengers through manifestly unsafe air space. By far the most detailed and convincing nailing of a Russian surface to air missile as the the weapon that destroyed the Boeing 777-200ER and all 298 people on… ( Mehr...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

I guess there should have been a "No Fly Zone" posted by the local government or other aviation authority.
David Loh 2
Who fired the missile? Who made the missile? Was it deliberate? Was it a mistake? Was it shot down by fighter jets? Who ordered who to fire what? Was it deliberate attack or mistaken identity? On and on the accusations, counter accusations, "proof" and "evidence" keep on coming.
Does anyone thinks any of those people on the flight who died cares about any of these?
IMO There is but ONE guilty party. It is the MANAGEMENT OF AIRLINES that APPROVE flights over warring territories. Why oh why did so many have to die in an effort to save a few dollars worth of fuel?
beilstwh 2
If you read all the posts by Martha Eskridge, it is obvious that she works for the propaganda arm of the Russian government.
craig plescia 1
Shot down by Ukraine govt / it is a matter of record
Pat Barry 1
Who's record? Aside from the Russian allegation, I haven't read that.
I'm not being cynical - if there is a record of that I'd appreciate a link or posting the article.
craig plescia 1
Eric Zuesse

On July 30th, a German pilot headlined at anderweltonline, "Shocking Analysis of the 'Shooting Down' of Malaysian MH17," and he provided the first public analysis of the photos that were available immediately after the disaster, of the plane's cockpit, and of a wing. Google removed the photos soon after they were first available, but pilot Peter Haisenko had fortunately screen-saved them, and now shows them on that site, after having carefully analyzed and made sense of what they show. He says: "The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes." And they're unmistakable in the accompanying photo. "This aircraft was not hit by a missile" and it was not hit "in the central portion" of the airplane. "The destruction [that explains the way the entire wreckage was spread out] is limited to the cockpit area," as he explains it: "A typical SU 25" (which is the Ukrainian plane, or pair of planes, that accompanied the Malaysian jet into the conflict-area) "is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302," carrying "a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum)," which are "designed to penetrate the solid armor of a tank" and which ripped to shreds the cockpit-area on both sides of the plane. "The cockpit of the MH017 has evidently been fired at from both sides: the entry and exit holes are found on the same fragment" of the cockpit, so that there had to have been two SU 25s, and not merely one, which were escorting that plane into the rebel-held area.

This type of "shelling" will "cause massive explosions inside the cockpit," due to the shocking change of air-pressure, so that "the rear sections broke in mid air at the weaker points of construction most likely under extreme internal air pressure. The images of the widely scattered field of debris and the brutally damaged segment of cockpit fit like hand in glove. ... Both the high-resolution photo of the fragment of bullet-riddled cockpit as well as the segment of [bullet-] grazed wing have in the meantime disappeared from Google Images." Nonetheless, "The shelling of the cockpit of Air Malaysia MH 017, ... is definitely not ... speculative," asserts Haisenko.

Haisenko, according to the Anderwelt website, was born in 1952 in Munich, trained at the Lufthansa Flight School, and piloted for 30 years numerous different plane-types. In addition, he has been a respected published investigative journalist and historian, including the favorably reviewed 2010 book, England, the Germans, the Jews and the 20th Century. So, he has experience not just in piloting but also in investigative journalism and historical writing. Unless the photos that he captured on his computer were faked by him (and they look like they're of that wreckage-field), the United States and Ukrainian Governments have been lying about how the Malaysian airliner was destroyed. If those photos are authentic, then they are the most virginal, undoctored and unhandled evidence, relating to reconstructing what brought this airliner down. Just a taste. Remember the Trivium when addressing issues.
Don Wills 1
No, the Dutch report *does not* say that Russia shot it down. The Dutch report, and the NY Times and all the rest of the media are misreporting. It was a Russian Buk missile that shot it down, which the Ukrainian armed forces have possessed for decades. The report actually states that it is likely that the model of Buk missile used was an older model that the Ukrainians still has but that Russia has not deployed in the last 15 years - the inference is that it was the Ukranian army that mistakenly launched it at MH17 is the most likely explanation.
beilstwh 1
Actually you are wrong. The report said that it was a 9N314M warhead and that it originated in an area that was controlled by the Russian controlled separatists. They have photographs of the missile launcher with full racks coming over the border from Russia a few days before and the same launcher missing one missile going back over the border into Russia the next day. No one is saying that the separatists wanted to shoot down an airliner, but they did and they should man up and admit to it.
Don Wills 1
Regardless of whether it was an 9N314 or 9N314M, both of which were in the inventory of the Ukranian military, there is no conclusive proof of who fired the missile. And the pictures of the launcher moving in rebel controlled territory that you refer to were not part of the Dutch report and have been shown to be fakes.
fdohmann 4
Why should the Ukranian military shoot down a plane coming from the west. The seperatists had no planes they had to fear! Please wait for the criminal report to post blame still in the works.
beilstwh 2
The only sites that say the photos of the missile launcher are fakes are Russian sites. And radio traffic and radar tracking all say they came from the separatists territory.
Martha Eskridge -2
I may stand alone, but am skeptical of the Dutch decision.
Hi Martha, You may stand alone, but, if the American Administration had the guts to follow up on the West's destabilization efforts in the Uukraine, none of this would have happened. I remember Hungry in 1956 :( John L.
I followed the Ukrainian news on daily basis- from before the MH17 crash and ever after.
It is important to understand that the Ukrainian Air Force was bombing the separatists continuously for two weeks before the accident and some time later. The separatists did not seem to have adequate antiaircraft weapons till the MH17 tragedy.
Ukrainian controllers were confident that it was safe for passenger planes to transit at altitudes above 30,000 ft. They authorized the flights. And even suggested an altitude of 33,000 ft.
Ukraine worked hard to prove to NATO that Russian military were involved directly in the conflict. But data was scarce. They even seemed trying to provoke Russia with the expectation that NATO might take notice and participate in the war.
Apparently Russia was helping but loosely within the allowed international legal boundaries.
It is believable that Russia supplied the missiles to defend the separatists. It is possible that a separatist under training shot at the first airplane coming from Ukraine thinking it was a military attack, to find soon that it was a passenger plane. Who would allow a passenger airplane into well recognized war zone.
An embarrassment all the way around.
Shortly after that, Ukraine stopped flights over the war zone and also stopped attacks by their air force. They froze their air force.
Also, no one can deny the slight possibility of fuel tank explosion.
Not always accidents can be fully explained, we just accept the best theory that the facts allow us.
Pat Barry 2
Yes, you probably do stand alone on disregarding the Dutch decision.
It was thoughtful, analytical, and balanced.
The audio of the cell phone calls between the separatist military was damning for their involvement. Russia sourced the weapon. What more do you need? You must have seen the video of the truck entering Ukraine with a load of missiles and then the same truck returning to Russia two days aftefr the downing of the aircraft less one missile.

[This poster has been suspended.]

Jerry Rader 1
Arnold Fishman -1
sorry for doubting this analysis. this is older set of articles with alternative explanations to the events as described in the expert's analysis (just like the teams that investigated the TWA 800 tragedy and the powers that rule decided it was a spark in the fuel tank, ignoring the countless number of witnesses who saw a missile streak from the ground up).

there were reports immediately after the MH17 incident from ground teams discovering punctures in the skin that were both going both in and out indicating multiple paths of either ammunition of explosive projectiles. This article supports the theory that there were additional sources of projectiles other than one blast including ammunition from jet fighter.

I understand there are many reasons to doubt the SU-25/SU-27 shoot down but there is much to doubt the potential for governments to shut down information that threatens the status quo.
Pat Barry 2
I'm an aircraft and powerplane mechanic with an FAA Inspection designation, and I'm skilled in maintenance of aviation items.

Regardless of the witnesses, who could all have been right for all that I know, there is an indsputable fact, and that was that there was arcing between the 120 volt entertainment system wiring and the 12 volt wiring from the fuel selectors, and this would have caused a flash ignition in the tank. There is no question that was occurring. The explanation of why it happened at that moment was that the fuel was boiling in the center tanks and turning to gas, and the happy point between bubbling/gassing fuel and the available O2 is 16,000 feet, which is where TW800 blew.
I'm not getting into a debate about TW800, other than to say that I accept that arcing was occurring between the 120 and 12 volt wiring, all bundled togather in the same wiring harness.


Haben Sie kein Konto? Jetzt (kostenlos) registrieren für kundenspezifische Funktionen, Flugbenachrichtigungen und vieles mehr!
Diese Website verwendet Cookies. Mit der Weiternutzung der Website drücken Sie Ihr Einverständnis mit dem Einsatz von Cookies aus.
Wussten Sie schon, dass die Flugverfolgung auf FlightAware durch Werbung finanziert wird?
Sie können uns dabei helfen, FlightAware weiterhin kostenlos anzubieten, indem Sie Werbung auf zulassen. Wir engagieren uns dafür, dass unsere Werbung auch in Zukunft zweckmäßig und unaufdringlich ist und Sie beim Surfen nicht stört. Das Erstellen einer Positivliste für Anzeigen auf FlightAware geht schnell und unkompliziert. Alternativ können Sie sich auch für eines unserer Premium-Benutzerkonten entscheiden..