Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17

TO DO!

 * List of MH17 airframe parts
 * MH17 timeline
 * locator map

I recommend this time we (eventually) clean-up the random sections below, working everything into an organized system. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But this is the talk page, isn't it? Still a good idea but whatever. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a to-do ... there are so many aspects to this, even identifying a line of inquiry to follow is of some value. If you think of a section that should exist, feel free to start, with or without anything really to start it. You probably have a decent though, so that could work as a starter. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest a quicker and more accurate approach is not so much to open new lines of enquiries, but to eliminate wrong ones until what remains is considered sound, and if still lacking can be a basis for new investigations.


 * An obvious set of enquiries are what was the disruptive event that caused the crash. I.e. missile, bomb, strafeing, if missile, what type of missile etc? A resolution here will eliminate many of the secondary theories that cloud the investigation


 * So questions: Was it a bomb? Was it a SAM? Was it A2A? Was it cannon fire? Was it an an unrelated mishap? Are easy to set as sections and can, with luck, all be eliminated bar one.


 * FYI I find that PPRUNE has plenty of objective and often professional comment together with a ruthless moderation policy to weed out idle speculation.

--Charles Wood (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "eliminate wrong ones"I say we do that too. But that's more a second thing you do after first bringing up and considering the options to find out which ones go or stay (and of course to show the process). --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Witness Accounts

 * BBC Russian video since pulled? Did they really even produce this? The locals all say there was a fughter jet that turned and left a different way. I put it here until I transcribe the subtitles. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …


 * Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.


 * Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.


 * Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].

(that was easy - Gleb already did it) At that page is the video of the lady fighter in Slovyansk (so sad) a month before - June 18 - relating how the air force there recently had a jet hiding behind a civilian plane as it bombed the city. She thought it was to provoke a shootdown of the airliner and get the separatists branded as terrorists. This both offers a precedent for a real July 17 possibility, and a precedent for some folks to think that's what they saw or should say they saw. It will come down to what lines up. Most of this is vague, but witness 3 seems fairly astute and describes a turn I believe Russian radar also described. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Reuters: “From my balcony I saw a plane begin to descend from a great height and then heard two explosion," said one separatist from nearby Krasnyi Luch who gave his name only as Sergei. He denied the rebels had shot the plane down. "This could happen only if it was a fighter jet or a surface-to-air missile (that shot it down)," he said, noting that the rebels did not have weapons capable of shooting down a plane at such a height."
 * Note, on seeing the video, this seems to be post-shoot-down. He probably saw it nose-diving as it "descended." Something booms as it falls (was it twice? or an echo?) - I suspect it's one of the wing fuel tanks., since one of the wings is fully on fire. This accounts adds nothing but a description of what we can see for ourselves already, and his assessment is opinion - a bomb on board could have done it for all he knows. --Caustic Logic (talk)


 * Daily Mail witness accounts emerge but they only share one, at the bottom of a huge pile of large photos and fat fingers pointing lazily.
 * A local farmer said: ‘I was herding my cows and heard a buzzing noise. ‘I lay on the ground and thinking only that it would not hit me and my cows. Then I looked and saw that something turns sharply and two big wings were flying. Bang. And something explodes. It came from eastern side, from the side of Sokholikha mountain.’ 

Warhead damage
Financial Times clames their photo shows BUK type shrapnel damage. I do not quite agree. The 70 kg warhead should produce larger damage. All warheads – even rod warheads – produce some shrapnel. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * MH17 crash: FT photo shows signs of damage from missile strike – July 21, 2014


 * FYI - the aircraft panel in the link image is the left-hand cockpit wall and the start of the lefthand windscreen at the top. That's where the Captain sits. I doubt he survived the initial engagement.


 * Also interesting is the latest 'leaked' US intelligence map showing the missile launched from right of track and curling around to attack the left. A bit of a stretch to fit a theory?
 * --Charles Wood (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This image shows cockpit seat rails and rear centre consul. Note at bottom what appears to be RH / first officers windscreen frame with shrapnel egress.


 * https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jer...7595/lightbox/
 * https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroen...ream/lightbox/


 * same windscreen from different angle amongst plant. *note what appears to be shrapnel damage to pilots seat back just below top inertia reel.


 * https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jer...7595/lightbox/


 * Combined with ingress damage on PIC side, the shrapnel will have taken out both aircrew instantly
 * --Charles Wood (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your photo links are broken. Are they from the same photoset? I do not see any cockpit parts in the same set with the tail section photos. There is another set here and even more damage photos here. Still don't know what photos you are referring to. Evidently this cockpit explosion did not disintegrate the whole front section of the fuselage, as the BUK warhead would have done, if it exploded near the cockpit. Photos I have seen show the intrument panel without any shrapnel damage, with glass broken by the impact on the ground.
 * If the missiles were fired from the Su-25, then most likely multiple missiles would have been launched. If only one missile was used, as would be the case with the BUK then the "rod" damage to the upper side of the left wing would have to come from the same explosion. If you follow the lines in the drawing here then the explosion would have to be very near the fuselage. This makes me believe a small air-to-air warhead was used.
 * Can you identify where the other body panel with blast damage is from?
 * P.S. – Strelkov noted that there was blood in the cockpit but the passengers were "lifeless" and bloodless. This would be explained, if the pilots were killed by shrapnel and the passengers by loss of cabin pressure at 33,000 feet. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The links worked when I posted them. Odd. They were jeroenakkermans images of the cockpit area. A big heap of wreckage with keyboards etc visible. I can only affirm they showed some cockpit skin and pilot seat amongst many other items and it was clear there was damage in from left and out through right when looking at identifiable parts. Will search the image archive later.

--Charles Wood (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: broken here too. Might be around in a diff. posting, etc. I'm looking a little at the images that are here but not enough to say anything yet - I'm convinced it's well worth doing and things can be figured out - will catch up in time. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This one shows Right-hand cockpit window at bottom of screen. All photos in this group are cockpit remnants--Charles Wood (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

These photographs show clear rod warhead damage to left wing. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Scenes of MH17 20-7-2014 – Jeroen Akkermans RTL News Berlin


 * Wreckage Offers Clues on Why Flight 17 Went Down – New York Times, July 21, 2014
 * ''Photographs of a piece of wreckage found by two reporters for The New York Times and analyzed by Reed Foster, a defense analyst with IHS Jane’s, offer some clues about what could have caused Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 to crash. While it is impossible from the photographs to determine that a specific missile was used, Mr. Foster said, the damage is consistent with the effects of a fragmentary warhead carried by an SA-11, the type of missile that American officials have said was most likely behind the attack.


 * Weasel words to note: impossible to tell what missile (correct, makes you seem balanced) It's consistent with many types of missile, therefore. But they only say "consistent with ... the type of missile that American officials have said" is part of the tragedy "made in Moscow" as they say. In between, the most loaded and likely relevant specifics right in elipses there, to make that one consistent missile type sound like the most technically likely, boosting the gov. call, in turn boosting the "confirmation," etc. Bad weasels.--Caustic Logic (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Does MH17 wreckage prove that it was shot out the sky by a warhead? – Daily Mail, 22 July 2014
 * The photos show the critical piece with blast damage and "shrapnel" holes. I think it proves exactly the opposite to what the Daily Mail is claiming. The 70 kg BUK warhead would have done much serious damage. This piece seem to be torn off by a rod warhead of a air-to-air missile. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What Can Forensics Prove?

 * ''Investigation moved to /Forensics

We're now getting organized, with List of MH17 airframe parts - a picture of how the plane was impacted will emerge. The BUK alleged (Wikipedia) has radar guided missiles that can track, turn, change altitude, etc. So I conclude the damage won't tell us if the missile was air-to-air or from the surface, or what direction it was fired from. It's still worth knowing, of course, but ... could use some discussion maybe on what we can/can't/should be aiming for here. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The damage will tell us it was an air-to-air missile with rod warhead fired from the front, that exploded when its proximity fuse passed the cockpit window. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Radar Evidence

 * NSNBC July 22:
 * Tony Cartalucci (LD) : MH17 Show & Tell: It’s the West’s Turn. Russia has now shown its satellite pictures and radar information from the Donetsk, Ukraine region during the July 17, 2014 Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crash.

...(citing Wall Street Journal)...
 * In an elaborate presentation displaying radar and satellite imagery, (air force chief Igor Makushev) said it was likely that the second airplane was a Ukrainian fighter jet. He also showed satellite photos allegedly portraying several Buk ground-to-air missile systems in the area close to where the plane crashed. The systems, he said, could only belong to the Ukrainian military. Ukraine has accused Russia of giving the rebels a Buk system, with which they then shot down the passenger jet.


 * Mr. Makushev said the airplane deviated from its course by 14 kilometers, but then attempted to return to its course, before crashing shortly after.


 * He said Russia is prepared to hand all of the information it has to European authorities, which included satellite imagery and data from its own radars

An image from that, showing the deviation at Donetsk that Russia finds odd.
 * RT on the press conference.


 * CNN on the "propaganda war"
 * In the tangled aftermath of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 disaster, two narratives have emerged -- one that most of the world subscribes to, and another that Russia and the rebels are pushing.
 * Note: one side just presented its own detailed radar information. The other side relies on private company Flighttracker 24, it seems. Not field radar, this follows transponders only, I think. It would not see any fighter jet shadowing the plane. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

U-Turn?
here's an image from the Before its News analysis shows MH17 making a 180-degree U-turn that looks pretty unilkely. It's based on the final plots not lining up with the crash site, and reasonable attamps to connect them with two possible arcs. When I've seen that kind of mismatch before, it's meant nothing but something being off somewhere in recording, translating, and mapping the numbers. Described as "Reconstructed trajectory of the plane after last known “good” data transmission.," almost as if this is something they're really arguing for. Is it valid or a clue? I don't think so. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Fighter Jet?
This point is disputed, and thus not proven to everyone's satisfaction. But it's clearly a big question: was there, or was there not, a fighter jet trailing MH-17 before its shooting down? Russia says yes and has produced radar data they say supports that. Kiev says no, and may have supplied radar evidence (did they?) Some locals report seeing it, but no one believes "subhuman" "terrorists..."

Whether or not the jet brought down the airliner is another story, but obviously related.

(Russia's details for - forthcoming)

Counter-arguments: Interpreter Mag offers what it claims are serious questions about Russia's fighter jet claims. They don't start out dismissing that there was a radar return the Russians followed, but question - reasonably - if it was really a jet. They latch onto the translation "hover" describing what the "jet" did for four minutes after, and note "to “hover” requires a helicopter," and "the fastest helicopter in the Ukrainian arsenal" is too slow to trail MH17, so ... in case he meant circle (obviously) the article suggests that it's all but impossible for a fighter to circle and loiter in that small area, so probably that also is a clumsy lie, which by the end they're forced to call "Moscow's Magical Mystery Jets." --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and James Miller added "A MAJOR problem with Russia's latest claim, that a Ukrainian Su-25 was tailing MH17. According to the plane's own manufacturer, who has incentive to inflate the SU-25's performance numbers, that aircraft can't even fly high enough to be 3 kilometers away as Russia claims﻿." My response to that is ... sorry what? --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Air-to-air missile?

 * Вот и первые признаки БЧ. Сбивал не Бук-М1 (Here are the first signs of warheads. Not hit by Buk-M1)

This is disproved. It's confirmed a Grad Missile was used. GRAD Missile downed aircraft :-) --Charles Wood (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Pilot confesses? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ukrainischer Pilot gibt Abschuss von MH17 zu
 * I started out skeptical, checked, and didn't see where they explain just what he said, to whom, etc. Our readers will need more alleged details. I'm still skeptical, obviously. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's satire. Says so trilangually in bold red right there at the top. Original is here on a quite funny satire site. It's full of valid information but the premise of the piece is to show how propaganda would react and integrate such a confession into their narrative. --CE (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Slightly informed comment on air defences
See vineyardsaker. Certainly biased, but internally reasonably consistent --Charles Wood (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll just add various rumours / propaganda I've heard so far.

- US Satellites tracked the missile

- Russia did it (at least morally)

- Ukraine did it (for continuing the battle)

- The plane was deliberately diverted to the location it was shot down

- There was a storm over Crimea causing the diversion

- add your rumour here

What I haven't heard yet is the terrorist bomb theory. If the plan had crashed in say Poland that would have been the only game in town. --Charles Wood (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Tin Foil (Hat) theory of Military Chaff falling in crash video
Video shows man explaing that long streamers in crash video are actually military chaff from a Ukranian fighter shadowing MH17

Military Chaff Theory

Simple debunk. The stuff must have been a metre or more wide and hundreds of metres long to be visible at that range. No such military chaff system has that sizing, least of all one that can be carried by a fighter jet.

The only foil in this video is on the guy's head.

--Charles Wood (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't even know what "military chaff" is, but I saw someone mention the streamers, connected to the plane having a cargo including textiles. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, It seems to me the chaff is falling in the foreground while the smoke cloud is kilometers away. A lucky shot just got them both in the same picture. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A Rebel-Held Area
The presumption behind blaming separatists at all is that the blamed surface-to-air missile was fired from an area under control of separatist forces. But most people seem to just presume the entire eastern area (past what line, who knows?) is all rebel turf, with no Ukrainian military inroads anywhere. That's part of why it's taken as so obvious, even though no one's sure just where the firing was from. The Russian military presentation took BUK itself as meaning Ukrainian military. They claim satellite images of them in Kien-run army bases as close as 5 km from Donetsk, moved on the 17th to a site closer to the shoot-down area, then moved away again. It seems the "just where" question is far more important than most presume (that is, if there was a ground launch that even mattered, as I suspect) Does anyone have a good analysis of the general control-accessibility situation on that day? Some nerd might have made a map that's reliable? --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For the NATO narrative on the Novorossiyan Buk you can look at the Ukraine@war. He will you the exact location in Snizhne (the town that was bombed two days before, with 13 civilians killed inside their apartment block). I am no longer interested. All that interest me is the technical aspects of the of the crash investigation. What hit the MH17 where and when.
 * P.S. – There is supposedly a video somewhere of a Buk fired. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WSJ has a crappy map: How MH17 Came Apart Over Ukraine – Fails to show any of what the title claims. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Andriy Parubiy again?
Pepe Escobar names Andriy Parubiy as a possible suspect.
 * It was Putin’s missile! – RT, July 19, 2014
 * ''Carlos’s assessment: the missile was fired by the Ukraine military under orders of the Ministry of Interior - NOT the Ministry of Defense. Security matters at the Ministry of the Interior happen to be under Andrey Paruby, who was closely working alongside US neo-cons and Banderastan neo-Nazis on Maidan.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I've read on the guy, he's likely enough to be behind this that, really, all Ukraine's airspace should be closed until he's no longer on the loose. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Debunked topics

 * ''Moved to /Debunked topics

Type of Warhead
The main page links offsite to an article about 'rod' damage to the aircraft.

The damage pattern is not 'rod' i.e. expanding rod - which is a linear set of damage in a single plane, often contiguous. Instead it's a typical shrapnel pattern, possibly slightly directional. This sets the type of warhead used and possibly even the missile type - assuming it was a BUK launcher. --Charles Wood (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)