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

71–80 of 146 posts

Re: MH17 Report

#71

Post by falsestprophet »

rogeryu wrote: post #5

It's incredible that 61 airlines flew over that area during those days. That day alone, 160 airplanes flew over East Ukraine before MH17 was hit. Even if it's safe to fly at 10k height, what happens if you have problems with your plane, like a failing engine? Next time I fly I'm going to check over which countries we fly.

Three other commercial aircraft were flying in the area at the time MH17 was shot down. Presumably, any one of they could have been downed rather than MH17.

  EVA Air Flight 88 (Paris to Taipei)
  Singapore Airlines Flight 351 (Copenhagen to Singapore)
  Air India Flight 113 (New Delhi to Birmingham)

Re: MH17 Report

#72

Post by tptacek »

istvan__ wrote: post #58
cstross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BUK-M isn't something where "someone was drunk and decided to give a lesson" -- it's the Russian equivalent of a Patriot missile battery, with a platoon-sized crew and several support vehicles (radar and command trucks) needed to fire the thing. Other variants have anti-ballistic missile capability and/or nuclear warheads! It's quite likely the operators mistook the Boeing 777 for a large Ukrainian military trans…

This still does not prove anything, it could have been the Ukraine military as well, they have (just like any other ex-Soviet country) plenty of BUK missiles.

First, no, they do not have "plenty" of BUK missile launchers, second, the launchers they do have are not parked in the middle of separatist strongholds, and third, it's not the SBU spinning wild stories of fighter jets flying alongside MH17 and sudden course changes by MH17 --- it's the separatists and the Russian Ministry of Defense saying those things, which have been conclusively debunked now by the Dutch report.

Re: MH17 Report

#73

Post by tptacek »

jakobdabo wrote: post #69
alkonaut wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They are full of it. There are pictures of Putin at Russian military bases standing in front of 9M38M1 missiles!

Re: MH17 Report

#74

Post by tptacek »

thedevil wrote: post #42
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...

We'll never know 100% but Ukraine controlled the air so only the rebels had motive to shoot down planes, and had bragged about it on social media. It's possible that Ukrainian forces or someone else had a conspiracy to frame the rebels (if you have a good conspiracy theory, Russian propaganda would love to hear it). But this is very unlikely as it's a high-risk, low pay-off strategy and even Russian leaders are usual…

They'd need more than the will to frame the separatists; they'd also have to get a big lumbering BUK launcher right into the middle of a separatist stronghold, sandwiched between Donetsk and Russia, crew it, set it up, launch the missile, and then get the thing out undetected.

Re: MH17 Report

#75

Post by norea-armozel »

cstross wrote: post #56
ptaipale wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on your destination, you will find out that you'll fly over Pakistani tribal regions, Iraq or other unstable areas. Or the Gobi desert or the Arctic ocean. Places where you would not wish to land. There was nothing particularly strange about flying over Ukrainian airspace, because you don't really expect civilian planes to be shot down, even by rogue militias that are in power in some areas. The very fact t…

The BUK-M isn't something where "someone was drunk and decided to give a lesson" -- it's the Russian equivalent of a Patriot missile battery, with a platoon-sized crew and several support vehicles (radar and command trucks) needed to fire the thing. Other variants have anti-ballistic missile capability and/or nuclear warheads! It's quite likely the operators mistook the Boeing 777 for a large Ukrainian military trans…

The question I have is how would the militias acquire such equipment. I'm assuming the answer is either the Russian government gave it willingly or someone within the government wanted to make some money on the side. Either way, it seems like trouble to me.

Re: MH17 Report

#76

Post by marme »

aikah wrote: post #37
rogeryu wrote: post #5

It's incredible that 61 airlines flew over that area during those days. That day alone, 160 airplanes flew over East Ukraine before MH17 was hit. Even if it's safe to fly at 10k height, what happens if you have problems with your plane, like a failing engine? Next time I fly I'm going to check over which countries we fly.

> Next time I fly I'm going to check over which countries we fly Can you really get that info before hand(well I guess one can access previous flight plans) ? If the passengers knew that, would have they cancelled their trip ? I certainly would have. Never the less, the risk assessment was bad and too many people died that day. Should a war be blamed for being a war? Or should companies be blamed for being too greedy…

yes there are many sites that show flight plans. Here is flight plan for MH19 this the flight number that now replaces MH17 http://info.flightmapper.net/flight/Malaysia_Airlines_MH_19

Re: MH17 Report

#77

Post by aeris »

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...

> It is very difficult to find the truth Well, not for me. I was monitoring the war at that time and I saw a report by Lifenews (pro-Kremlin media) that the rebels shot down Ukrainian AN-26. It wasn't actually that shocking since it wasn't the first time it happened. But then the word about the Boeing came down and, oh my, I've never seen people erase their tweets and videos so fast. But it's the internet, not goverment controlled media, can't really erase everything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsmVZmSBaEg

Re: MH17 Report

#78

Post by ptaipale »

tremon wrote: post #63
Caprinicus wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And: it's not really so easy to define "active warzone". As said, hundreds if not thousands of commercial planes fly over conflict zones every day, successfully.

Just to pick a random example: Flight TK7900 IST-SIN is up in the air right now (19:32 GMT on Oct 13, 2015). For a picture of the route, see this.

http://tinyurl.com/obzlxxv

Over the past few hours, it crossed from Turkmenistan/Iran to Afghanistan a bit north of Herat, crossed the country, passed south of Kabul, then went on to the Pakistani tribal area south of Peshawar, and continued across the hostile Pakistani-Indian border just south of contested Jammu and Kashmir, and then continued over India. There's plenty of conflict in these areas.

Then it was on the Indian Ocean, far away from anyone who could rescue it should something happen to it. Right now it is passing Andaman Islands. If it were forced to land due to multiple engine failure, the passengers perhaps would meet the Sentinelese people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people

And I think Turkish Airlines is perfectly OK to do all this. Should someone shoot down the plane, I know some people would blame the airline. But I would only blame those who shoot it down. It's not okay to shoot down airplanes. Commercial airplanes are not valid targets.

Re: MH17 Report

#79

Post by d0mine »

tptacek wrote: post #55
zilean wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were plenty of state controlled land east/south of Donetsk. You can check map here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27308526

The maps you're linking to further implicate the rebels (see again the video reconstruction, which illustrates the trajectory the missile took from its launch site, which is not the same as the crash site, placing the missile launch even further from areas of Ukrainian control and even closer to Russia.) Further, to even entertain this question, you have to believe that Ukraine positioned BUK launchers in the most he…

If it is so obvious why do you think the report does not say that?

Re: MH17 Report

#80

Post by yongjik »

joshvm wrote: post #26
ptaipale wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on your destination, you will find out that you'll fly over Pakistani tribal regions, Iraq or other unstable areas. Or the Gobi desert or the Arctic ocean. Places where you would not wish to land. There was nothing particularly strange about flying over Ukrainian airspace, because you don't really expect civilian planes to be shot down, even by rogue militias that are in power in some areas. The very fact t…

Going to Japan was a bit unnerving. The flight from the UK overflies Russia. That's not a problem politically, but you fly for hours and hours over Siberia. You can look out of the window and see nothing but icy tundra stretching into the distance. There is absolutely nothing there (3 people per square km), maybe the odd hamlet. If the plane goes down, you'd better hope it catches fire so you don't freeze to death. I…

It seems some airlines do use the NK airspace. Despite being a horrible place in every regard, it's not exactly a war zone, and Pyongyang has no incentive to shoot down passing passenger aircrafts.

But I think the whole heavily guarded SK-NK border is a no-fly zone: it limits the usefulness of NK airspace greatly, because any plane flying toward Incheon (or some other South Korean airport) from North will have to take a detour anyway.

Post reply on HN