Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17

SBU wiretap video

 * Щодо збитого літака (оновлено) – Ukrainian SBU
 * Ukraine Releases YouTube Clip "Proving" Rebels Shot Down Malaysian Flight MH-17
 * Sees strange July 16 timestamps on video, but as we know, YouTube stamps all videos 24 hours too early. One must use metadata interface to access upload time. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We did it!

 * Mashable, July 17: Pro-Russian Rebel Commander: 'We Did Warn You — Do Not Fly in Our Sky' by Christopher Miller of Kyiv Post
 * Through his VK.com account, Russia’s version of Facebook, the self-proclaimed defense minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Igor Girkin — who goes by the nom de guerre Igor Strelkov — boasted about shooting down a plane.
 * "We did warn you — do not fly in our sky," he wrote.
 * Thinking it was a Ukrainian transport plane, Strelkov added that “a plane has just been downed somewhere around Torez, it lays there behind the 'Progress' mine,” referring to the mining town of some 80,000 people.
 * “And here is the video proving another 'bird' falling down,” he continued. “The bird went down behind a slagheap, not in a residential district. So no peaceful people were injured,” Strelkov wrote, adding that there is also information about a Ukrainian military plane shot down.
 * However, Strelkov deleted the post when he found out it was actually a commercial jetliner carrying 295 innocent people — not a military aircraft.


 * Mixed early questions: Did he really post that and delete it, or was it just made up? Did they really shoot it down and if so, why? Malaysia has extra bad luck with paggenger jets, doesn't it? --Caustic Logic (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He didn't. See here. If they shot it down it was an accident - that plane shouldn't have been there in the first place. More information needed. Terrible event. --CE (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone posted it. Strelkov is out in the fields. He has his a 9K35 Strela-10 but I do not think he has Facebook or even time to waste on social media. The way social media sites representing Strelkov or who ever operate, is they collect information from open sources and make their own synthesis. Some of Strelkov's comments come from video interviews or short video messages posted on Facebook. I do not think he writes anything. As for the relevance of the statement; someone saw a plane fall and thought it was a good thing. The announcement means nothing. We would have to hear it from the BUK operator. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. Both saying the same thing - a "fan page" posted it, in a format they use for regular stuff, NOT stuff Strelkov says, and Miller reads that as Strellkov says, must know, deleted it himself, etc. Bogus. I left my thoughts at the forum too. Here's the main part though:
 * Possibly it could be some false-flaggers with their own appropriate missile launcher who snuck in, but presumably not, until there's some evidence presented. Most likely the separatists thought it was a legit (in their eyes) target and shot it down. 
 * The question for me will be in whether they were given some kind of extra reason to make that bad call, or if it was just their own dangerous ineptitude as it's being made out. Visually, if CE's graphic is correct, the new flight path sticks out as a possible clue - it just had to fly over that launcher that day, didn't it? I'd suggest keeping an eye on that and see if anything else starts to fall into place with it. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Bloodless bodies – fake Facebook profiles?
From Voicesevas:
 * ''When reporters showed passports in turn, there were clearly visible to passenger data. Members of foreign forums are not lazy and had their own mini-investigation, during which it was found that people whose passports were shown to reporters, "really exist" - have their profiles in "Facebook". But - attention! - Profiles of these, quite seemingly independent people were registered at one time: 21-April-2013. These profiles are alike in that anything other than images downloaded daily check these pages do not.

Strelkov claims that most of the bodies seemed like they had been dead already before the crash: no blood or bleeding.

Putting all theories together à la Occam I get this: The plane suffered a pressure leak somewhere near Amsterdam, just like MH370. All the passengers and crew were killed from lack of oxigen. The plane flew east on autopilot and just by accident happened to fly over the BUK battery in Snezhnoye. This does not explain the fake FB profiles though. Maybe the plane that crashed in Snezhnoye was in fact MH370 that had been rehearsing for the false-flag mission all this time. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hm... I'd have to see that explained out before I could get this guy's back on this claim. Already I was thinking of an episode of the "V" re-make TV show where the visitors tricked the resistance into shooting down a shuttle full of innocents. But they were already dead, eaten, just skeletons with scrape marks on their bones. So, it sounds like a far-fetched TV show plot, if more realistic in that the bodies still have flesh, but ... who killed a planeload of people, or flew the plane? I guess remote control... they say Dr. Joep Lange of HIV research fame was one of the victims. Did someone snuff him out at the airport, or what?

The photo posted on Facebook by the alleged passenger Cor Pan at the gate is a hoax. The plane shown is 9M-MRC but the plane that left Amsterdam was 9M-MRD.

It seems however that the plane that crashed in Donetsk was 9M-MRO of MH370 fame! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:10, 23 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)

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)

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)

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)