Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MH17 Report

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 146 posts

Re: MH17 Report

#61

Post by alkonaut »

sschueller wrote: post #29
curiousjorge wrote: post #22

The entire world except Russia knew Russia is responsible but when you are the second guy with the most nukes, you get away with impunity. Just the idea of having one or others thinking you have more than one nuke is enough to allow others to look the other way and let you do whatever gay shit that you do

The report did not go into finding out who did it. Both sides own BUKs. It is very difficult to find the truth because all sides are pumping out propaganda. Even the United States is manipulating what we hear for their own political and economic gains. Here an subtle but strong example : http://www.sott.net/article/302911-Sott-Exclusive-Full-unedi...

> Both sides own BUKs.

Only the Russian side has these BUKs. One of the key findings is which specific warhead version was used. The report doesn't spell out who did it, it does however conclude that a BUK missile from the Russian military shot down the plane. That BUK may have been stolen or on holiday in eastern Ukraine.

Re: MH17 Report

#62

Post by freehunter »

tomlongson wrote: post #51
Shivetya wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the take away is, do not fly over areas of conflict. why the international community allowed it, let alone individual airlines did not take their own action, is beyond me. On second thought, I wonder if an airline can elect to not fly on certain corridors because they declare a risk?

Why not put responsibility with the group that fired the missile? This is victim blaming.

Just because you put some blame on the victim does not mean you are victim blaming. Victims are not always 100% responsibility free.

Bank tellers are often instructed to comply with the demands of a robber. If the teller instead sets off the alarm, locks the doors, and tries to fight the robber and the teller gets shot, sure, the teller is the victim and the robber should not have shot the teller. But the teller was also taking an unnecessary risk by trying to fight the robbery. If the teller had handed over the money, chances are the robber would have taken it and left without anyone getting hurt.

That is not victim blaming, that is stating the facts. People can take steps to minimize their risk of becoming a victim. If they do not take those steps and as a result are injured in some way, it's prudent to explain how they could have avoided the negative outcome.

Don't shoot down passenger planes flying over your war. But also, don't fly passenger planes over an active warzone.

Re: MH17 Report

#63

Post by tremon »

Caprinicus wrote: post #57
ptaipale wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you really get that info before hand? That question is not new and is rather simple to google, see for instance http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-find-the-route-your-plane... I dislike the message here, which shifts the blame on the victims (the captain who chooses the flight path, and who was killed). The blame belongs with the operators of that BUK system. (Incidentally, this victim-blaming has been one them…

Nobody is blaming them for someone shooting a missile at them, but from here on I am going to check if I am going to be flying over an active warzone beforehand.

While I can understand your reasoning, what will you do if your plane's flight path does take you over a warzone? Will you stay home? Try to persuade the captain to alter the flight path? Try to persuade other passengers not to board the plane?

I think there's 0% chance of your ticket being refunded if you don't show up at the gate, and serious chance of finding yourself on a no-fly list if you do show up and refuse to board. Probably near 100% if you are vocal about why.

Keep in mind that most passengers of MH17 were not business travelers. This was at the start of the summer holidays, so many families were travelling together on a holiday. Even if you would have known the flight path, would you have canceled your family holiday (and lose the money) for the perceived risk? Keep in mind that even that day, 159 out of 160 civil flights crossed Ukraine succesfully.

Re: MH17 Report

#64

Post by SuddsMcDuff »

I find it really fascinating that they've gone to such lengths to literally recreate a large portion of the plane from the wreckage in order to better understand what happened.

I can't help but think though, why weren't similar measures taken with Flight 93 (Pennsylvania, 2001-09-11) or Flight 77 (Pentagon, 2001-09-11)? I don't wish to allude to any of the many conspiracy theories, but I do find it interesting to see how a "real" crash investigation is done, as opposed to what we've been told about 9-11.

Re: MH17 Report

#65

Post by panarky »

SuddsMcDuff wrote: post #64

I find it really fascinating that they've gone to such lengths to literally recreate a large portion of the plane from the wreckage in order to better understand what happened. I can't help but think though, why weren't similar measures taken with Flight 93 (Pennsylvania, 2001-09-11) or Flight 77 (Pentagon, 2001-09-11)? I don't wish to allude to any of the many conspiracy theories, but I do find it interesting to see…

Some airplane wreckage was discovered lodged between two buildings in New York.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-22344949

Re: MH17 Report

#66

Post by panarky »

nns wrote: post #4

Video Reconstruction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDiLEyT9spI At the 10.30 mark you can see the missile impact on the plane.

News article reconstruction: https://archive.is/pmMY2

Large portions of the NYT article were rewritten after first publication this morning.

Re: MH17 Report

#67

Post by SuddsMcDuff »

SuddsMcDuff wrote: post #64

I find it really fascinating that they've gone to such lengths to literally recreate a large portion of the plane from the wreckage in order to better understand what happened. I can't help but think though, why weren't similar measures taken with Flight 93 (Pennsylvania, 2001-09-11) or Flight 77 (Pentagon, 2001-09-11)? I don't wish to allude to any of the many conspiracy theories, but I do find it interesting to see…

I see I'm being downvoted for this. I didn't mean to be controversial, just making an observation about the stark difference between the amount and quality of information that is being disseminated to the public.

Re: MH17 Report

#68

Post by stvswn »

SuddsMcDuff wrote: post #64

I find it really fascinating that they've gone to such lengths to literally recreate a large portion of the plane from the wreckage in order to better understand what happened. I can't help but think though, why weren't similar measures taken with Flight 93 (Pennsylvania, 2001-09-11) or Flight 77 (Pentagon, 2001-09-11)? I don't wish to allude to any of the many conspiracy theories, but I do find it interesting to see…

I see you're interested in the history of the 9/11 attacks!

Here's a 600 page report with over 100 pages of footnotes. The first chapter deals with the hijackings. You can start your research there! http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

In later chapters, there's a lot of discussion about the terrorist group that planned the hijackings, and not much discussion on missile ballistics. That's because the former happened as a matter of fact, the latter is pure fantasy.

Re: MH17 Report

#69

Post by jakobdabo »

alkonaut wrote: post #61
sschueller wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The report did not go into finding out who did it. Both sides own BUKs. It is very difficult to find the truth because all sides are pumping out propaganda. Even the United States is manipulating what we hear for their own political and economic gains. Here an subtle but strong example : http://www.sott.net/article/302911-Sott-Exclusive-Full-unedi...

> Both sides own BUKs. Only the Russian side has these BUKs. One of the key findings is which specific warhead version was used. The report doesn't spell out who did it, it does however conclude that a BUK missile from the Russian military shot down the plane. That BUK may have been stolen or on holiday in eastern Ukraine.

According to Russian media it's quite the opposite. They say Russia doesn't use the 9M38 missiles any more, Ukraine does.

Re: MH17 Report

#70

Post by stvswn »

SuddsMcDuff wrote: post #67
SuddsMcDuff wrote: post #64

I find it really fascinating that they've gone to such lengths to literally recreate a large portion of the plane from the wreckage in order to better understand what happened. I can't help but think though, why weren't similar measures taken with Flight 93 (Pennsylvania, 2001-09-11) or Flight 77 (Pentagon, 2001-09-11)? I don't wish to allude to any of the many conspiracy theories, but I do find it interesting to see…

I see I'm being downvoted for this. I didn't mean to be controversial, just making an observation about the stark difference between the amount and quality of information that is being disseminated to the public.

You're not being controversial, because there isn't a controversy. There was lots and lots of information disseminated to the public. What do you think was withheld?
Post reply on HN