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)

Russia's 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)

On August 5, it was reported, Russia's collected radar data and an anlytical report were handed to and received by members of the Dutch inquiry. As Flightglobal reported:
 * The data has been sourced from the area control centre at Rostov, which oversees the Rostov-on-Don flight information region to which MH17 would have been handed after exiting Dnipropetrovsk airspace.
 * Russian federal aviation regulator Rosaviatsia says its representative group, led by its deputy chief, has transferred requested information – including the Rostov air traffic data – to the Dutch inquiry. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian Humour
A remark on the Russian claim that the satellite data presented by Ukraine had to be from the US as the Ukrainian satellites Sich-1 and Sich-2 have not been in the area at the time of the satellite data: This was A JOKE by the Defense Ministry sticking it to the Ukrainians in a rather cruel way. Sich-1 has been the first satellite a post-Soviet country sent to space, in 1995. It had a lifespan of one year or so. Sich-2 was the effort to continue the glory of Ukrainian Space Exploration in the new millenium and had a long history of delays and failures before it was finally sent into Orbit in 2011 - and "stopped communicating with ground control on Dec. 12, 2012, as a result of a faulty power supply battery". In other words, Ukraine doesn't have any earth observation satellites over the scene at any given time. ;o) --CE (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nearby Flights
(partly radar in nature, maybe more eyewitness related) This seemed interesting - not sure what to make of it except the Indians not wanting to get drawn into a he-saw-they-said dispute over this particular crime/accident/tragedy.
 * August 5 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Singapore-govt-stand-suggests-AI-aircraft-was-flying-close-to-MH17/articleshow/39659173.cms
 * Singapore's transport minister Lui Tuck Yew told the parliament that Flight SQ351, headed to Singapore from Copenhagen, was just 90km (56 miles) from the Malaysian plane at that time. TOI had carried a report on July 20 saying AI's Delhi-Birmingham flight was flying barely 25km, or 90 seconds away, from the Malaysian aircraft when the latter was hit. All 298 people on board flight MH17 had died.


 * Within hours of the tragedy, the media had picked up data from flightradar24, a live flight-tracker website, showing the AI and Singapore Airlines aircraft in the vicinity. The two aircraft were at different altitudes though. The Malaysian one was flying east, while the AI and Singapore aircraft were flying west. The AI pilots were even asked by the Dnipropetrovsk (local Ukrainian) ATC to contact the Malaysian aircraft after it went off the radar.


 * The Indian civil aviation ministry continues to deny the AI aircraft was near flight MH17.

How plausible is their denial, and if not the truth, what else might be causing it? --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:22, 5 August 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)


 * The Russian maps is wrong as it assumes the plane approached the crash site from the east. In fact it came from the west. Either the plane flew a 100 km full circle or the GPS data it broadcast is false. I believe the data recorded by FlightRadar24 is extremely reliable and I understand the Russian ATC tape to show that ATC received similar coordinates in the transponder beeps. The only explanation is that MH17 was guided off course by an escort fighter feeding it false GPS satellite signals. I explained the whole thing in my blog post, but don't think I even want to link to it here as someone might think we are conspiracy nuts. What I did not mention is that the Indian pilot overheard MH17 being given "direct routing" i.e. to screw beacons and fly by satellite. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:39, 5 August 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)
 * On that point, I understand the SU-25 is a ground attack craft, that normally operates under 25,000 feet, while MH17 was at 33,000. Still, it might be able to go higher, and could still be 305 km away plus or including 8,000 feet or whatever. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:15, 7 August 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)

"Carlos"
Okay, what the heck? This has been called a hoax (as noted even at the first link) but I'm not so sure. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 10:21 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Autoridades de kiev, intentan hacer que pueda parecer un ataque de los pro-rusos “Kiev Authorities, trying to make it look like an attack by pro-Russians”
 * http://www.globalresearch.ca/spanish-air-controller-kiev-borispol-airport-ukraine-military-shot-down-boeing-mh17/5391888

10:24 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Ojo! Que puede ser un derribo B777 Malaysia Airlines en ukraine, 280 pasajeros “warning! It can be a downing, Malaysia Airlines B777 in ukraine, 280 passengers”

10:25 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Cuidado! Kiev tiene lo que buscaba “Warning! Kiev have what they wanted”

10:25 – 17 de jul. de 2014 Vuelven a tomar la torre de control en Kiev “[Miitary] has taken control of ATC in Kiev”

10:27 – 17 de jul. de 2014 El avión B777 de Malaysia Airlines desapareció del radar, no hubo comunicación de ninguna anomalia, confirmado “The Malaysia Airlines B777 plane disappeared from the radar, there was no communication of any anomaly, confirmed”


 * What really happened to MH17? Russia's media have the answer says the Christian Science Monitor,laughingly, on July 22. On "Carlos," they say:
 * 2. The mysterious Spanish airport controller source. A mysterious Twitter account, @spainbuca, purporting to be a Spanish air traffic controller at Kiev's international airport named Carlos tweeted out that two Ukrainian fighter jets had shadowed the Malaysian airliner and that Kiev was behind its downing. In May, the Spanish-language channel of Kremlin mouthpiece RT interviewed Carlos and blurred out his face because he claimed he was in danger for criticizing the Ukrainian government.
 * However, the Spanish Embassy in Kiev has no record of Carlos, reports Fox News Latino. “We have no knowledge of ‘Carlos’ having been in Ukraine. There is no record of his passing through the Consulate, and no one from the (relatively small) Spanish colony knows him,” it said. Carlos’s Twitter account no longer exists.

Questions:
 * 1) What was he saying in May that was newsworthy? May 8, Espanol - says he's in Madrid at the time Does he seem shady like a possible disinfo agent?
 * 2) Was he back in Ukraine still (allegedly) working ATC on July 17, or is his knowledge supposed to be from the community?
 * 3) Does he claim direct knowledge the fighters brought down the plane, or just speculate based on their presence?
 * 4) Does his account deletion similarity to the Graham W. Phillips case mean anything? Or is this just a fakester who called it quits as soon as questions arose?
 * 5) How does the embassy know if they do or don't have a record unless they know just who he is? Isn't he supposed to have been anonymous up 'til now? (deduced from Spanish + ATC? = zero? That could work)
 * 6) Has anyone anywhere heard from him since? --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Escorts?

 * http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/21/su-27s-escorted-mh17/
 * Iranian defense expert Babak Taghvaee believes the mistake was caused by the fact the Malaysian Boeing 777 was escorted over eastern Ukraine. Taghvaee is always very well informed and an extremely reliable source. Therefore, after he provided some details about this activity of the Ukrainian Air Force on ACIG forum thread about the war in Ukraine, we contacted him for some more insight. Here’s what he wrote to us.
 * “When the Crimea crisis began, the Ukrainian Air Force air command center quickly forward deployed six Su-27s to the Kulbakino AB. Since beginning of the crisis and the Russia intervention, the 831st TAB has the important task to provide air defense as well as security of whole country. Six fully armed Flankers have always been in the sky especially when the other Ukrainian Air Force airplanes such as transporters and attackers like Fulcrums and Rooks were in the East of Ukraine,” explains Taghvaee.
 * “But when the Su-25M1 was shot down by the Russia Air Force 6969th AB’s MiG-29 on Jul. 16, the situation and condition became more critical than previous days and more Su-27 sorties were conducted to confront Russian MiG-29s. I believe those two Su-27s were not in sky just for standard practice in that day [Jul. 17], I believe they were involved in HAVCAP (High  Asset Value Combat Air Patrol) mission sortie in that day.”

Hm - an escort patrol starting just that day? Did Russians even shoot down the jet forcing that decision right then? High value asset it was, once it was shot down and blamed on Russia. This could use some further searching, but one Q is why Carlos (or his sources) would be so alarmed at the fighter jets if they were known "escorts." And also, why would Kiev decide on this and then deny it? That looks bad. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Did the Jet(s) Down MH17?
I don't think so, but it's possible. I hear now the evidence is conclusive, it's proven and all debate should cease. An OSCE expert said x was "like" y. OMG x is same thing as y proved!

Petri, I see in comments here your working theory:
 * MH17 was brought down by a frontal attack by a fighter jet. The jet fired a "machine gun" or autocannon through the left side windshield right at the captain. The direction of fire was from slightly to the left and slightly above. The bullets left perfectly round holes of about 20 mm diameter in the upper frame of the windshield. Further down the left side the holes became elongated and irregular, some with the appearance of exit holes. The smaller irregular holes on the side are most likely the result of fragmentation rounds mixed in with armor piercing bullets. Some of these may have bounced off the side and exploaded outside.

Not to be too harsh, but I just want to lay out all my questions, in the sort of aggressive way they just tend to run at such times. 1) 20 mm rounds - others have specified a SU-25 with 30 mm cannon as most likely. What are you proposing? A different craft, I guess? Fair enough - SU-25 doesn't seem to be proven, just a good guess. 2) Is there any radar support for a frontal attack from the E-SE (frontal)? The mentioned jet was trailing 3 or more km behind (W-NW) 3) altitude - that was a problem for SU-25, made to work below 25,000 feet while MH17 was at 33, and was hit slightly from above. But you're thinking something else - might well answer that automatically 4) why can't warhead shrapnel of about 20 mm explain this? Or do we know the SA-11 can only have a different size? Because round machine-gun-like holes seems to be just what they normally do. 5) What is up with the Buk launcher moved in that direction, parked right on the flightpath, and apparently having fired a missile towards the jet that would impact it just about head-on like this theorized jet attack? Did they set that up to create the appearance, while using a fighter instead to mimic it? I'd ask where did the missile go, but I guess you could argue the field was fake burnt, the tracks just made, and the contrail photo is from another day or something, 6) Is the jet attack theory really the best explanation for what we see or just the one that's overly tempting because it could smoking-gun pin it on Kiev? --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:15, 7 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)

The Defector Theory

 * U.S. Prepares to Blame MH17 Shoot Down on Ukrainian Army “Defector” Paul Joseph Watson, July 23
 * In an attempt to explain away the existence of evidence which shows Ukrainian troops firing the missile that brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Washington may be preparing to fix the intelligence by pinning the blame on a “defector” in order to absolve Kiev.
 * As we reported on Monday, award winning former AP and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry was told by an intelligence source that the U.S. is in possession of images which show men dressed in Ukrainian Army uniforms operating the Buk missile system which shot down MH17. If proven accurate, such information would completely eviscerate Washington and Kiev’s already shaky narrative that Russian-backed separatist rebels were responsible for the attack.
 * The U.S. State Department now appears to be shifting the emphasis of its narrative to discount the possibility that Kiev itself was responsible for shooting down MH17. As the L.A. Times reported yesterday, “U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.” Blaming the incident on a “defector” would allow the U.S. to explain why the culprit was wearing a Ukrainian Army uniform when he shot down the airliner.

Sounds intriguing, and Robert Parry is usually pretty reliable.Seems worth a section here to see how it pans out. Skipping the prior Infowars article, This from July 20 seems to be the original explanation by Parry at Consortium News. I'm not encouraged by the details - the images aren't video or photo, but satellite. Parry mentions the limits of what satellites can see, but rightly points out they could see any Buk system component. Russia's satellites saw the ones run by Kiev's pro-America junta, first at their normal base, then somewhere else on July 17. What you can't as likely see is smaller details like the exact pattern on a person's shirt, or what the label on a bottle says, if even its shape. But he says:
 * What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.
 * The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said.

Ooh, bad move when, as John Kerry, knows, it's the separatists that are the drunken ones in the area. As for where the image was taken, the evidence suggests it was a separatist-policed one. It probably was non-defected Kiev soldiers running it, but false claims to that effect make that possible truth harder to see, in the end. I think Parry's source stopped being credible prior to this latest. Anyone else more inclined to accept this evidence? --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:16, 5 August 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)

Robert Parry introduces Parubiiy in his July 20 article, and mentions:
 * It was this same Parubiy whom the Post writers turned to seeking more information condemning the eastern Ukrainian rebels and the Russians regarding the Malaysia Airlines catastrophe. Parubiy accused the rebels in the vicinity of the crash site of destroying evidence and conducting a cover-up, another theme that resonated through the MSM.
 * Without bothering to inform readers of Parubiy’s unsavory neo-Nazi background, the Post quoted him as a reliable witness declaring: “It will be hard to conduct a full investigation with some of the objects being taken away, but we will do our best.” --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:16, 5 August 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)

Cockpit Voice Recorder
Thanks for a start, Charles, will review. I was watching for that, gathering a bit of background on the CVR angle. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * July 23: good condition http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-cockpit-voice-recorder-in-good-condition-1.2715671
 * The cockpit voice recorder of the Malaysian airliner downed over Ukraine is in good condition, the UN civil aviation body said on Wednesday,
 * "The cockpit voice recorder is in good condition ... the digital flight data recorder is still under review," ICAO said in a statement.


 * July 23, downloaded: http://www.eturbonews.com/48306/mh-17-cockpit-voice-recorder-data-downloaded
 * On Tuesday 22 July 2014 at 22:00 inKiev, Ukraine, the flight data and cockpit voice recorders (the 'black boxes') from the Malaysian Airlines flight 17 were taken into custody by the Dutch ambassador and a team of investigators led by the Dutch Safety Board. The Dutch Safety Board requested that the Air Accident Investigation Branch of theUnited Kingdom (AAIB) perform the data download from both the recorders. The recorders were transported to the AAIB's laboratory at Farnborough, arriving 23rd July in the early morning.

AAIB Analysis
Analysis of the CVR from here on should be by the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch. We shall see what they are. For the record, they came out far less shady in the Lockerbie investigation 25 years ago than the now-fazed out RARDE and its hacks Hayes and Feraday, or the FBI's stumblebum "tom" Thurman (see The Political Scientists of Lockerbie. I might have been overly fair - Dr, Morag Kerr could tell you in more detail some of the problems with even the AAIB's work there setting the explosion center. But this was 25 years ago, They're only looking at the flight data this time, not the wreckage. We're on the verge of world war, with this the latest information front. They're in London. They'll tell us the truth only if it fits okay with their narrative.  --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

New Straits Times - CVR
THE preliminary analysis of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17’s cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed “nothing out of the ordinary”.

A source close to the international investigation told the New Sunday Times that the CVR downloaded by the United Kingdom’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch had picked up the communications between the Malaysia Airlines’ pilot and an unspecified personnel with an air traffic controller (ATC).

“So far, from what the team has heard, there was nothing unusual. The last voice heard was not the pilot’s. No, there was no indication that the pilots saw or sensed anything off,” the source said without elaborating further to protect the investigations.

This may mean that whatever happened was very sudden.

The CVR records all communications on the flight deck, including transmissions with air traffic controllers, discussions between the flight crew, cabin announcements and conversations with any other crew entering the cabin.

In this case, it could provide investigators with some insight into the flight crew’s mindset and emotional state if they had to deal with an emergency in the final moments.

However, it remains unclear if the Dutch-led investigation team had secured the recordings from the Ukrainian air traffic controllers to match the conversations between the ATC staff and the MH17 flight crew.

Asked about the Ukrainian government’s revelation on Monday that the aircraft was brought down by “a massive explosive decompression”, the source said the statement was “unconfirmed”.

The source told the NST that the “initial factual findings” of the probes into the shootdown of MH17 were expected to be released next week.

It is learnt that investigations also centred heavily on the findings provided by the group of three Malaysian investigators, who were among the first to reach the crash site and conduct probes.

The NST was told that instead of the 200 reported earlier, the experts dissecting the flight data recorder (FDR) were looking at 1,500 parameters of the black box.

The FDR records essential flight data parametres at least 10 times per second and defines the aircraft’s flight path and motion.

The data also include primary information, such as position, altitude, airspeed and heading. This allows investigators to reconstruct the aircraft’s flight path.

Also recorded in the FDR are the aircraft’s aerodynamics and engine parameters, including information from the air data computer and sensors.

The Dutch Safety Board (DSB), which is leading the international investigation into the downing of the aircraft, had said the findings would likely provide a picture of how the investigation would proceed.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said the aircraft’s flight data recorder and the CVR were among the “hard evidence” the investigation team needed to find out what happened.

DSB spokesman Sara Vernooij was quoted as saying the board would likely say “what it can rule out” and “what it is going to focus on”.

It is understood that the team of investigators at the crash site in eastern Ukraine would carry out verification of information that had been gathered from other sources.

This is to allow them to search for possible new information and collect material for the investigation, such as pieces of the wreckage.

The Dutch police had earlier this week received 150 photos and video clips on their server set up to piece together the mystery.

The photos were uploaded by eyewitnesses from what has been described as “the world’s biggest crime scene”.

New Straits Times CVR report --Charles Wood (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)