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

111–120 of 146 posts

Re: MH17 Report

#111

Post by kushti »

kafkaesq wrote: post #110
kushti wrote: post #102

Interestingly, it seems everyone has forgotten CNN top news from mid-July: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/mh17-pro-russian-... . CNN did spread an outrageous lie, but nobody cares.

CNN did spread an outrageous lie, Which was?

"Dutch accident investigators say that evidence points to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible for shooting down MH-17, according to a source who has seen the report.

According to the source, the report says it was a Buk missile -- a Russian surface-to-air missile -- that was used, launched from a village in Russian rebel controlled territory. "

Re: MH17 Report

#112

Post by tptacek »

kushti wrote: post #111
kafkaesq wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CNN did spread an outrageous lie, Which was?

"Dutch accident investigators say that evidence points to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible for shooting down MH-17, according to a source who has seen the report. According to the source, the report says it was a Buk missile -- a Russian surface-to-air missile -- that was used, launched from a village in Russian rebel controlled territory. "

I'm not following. Everything in that CNN story seems to line up with the Dutch report, down to the type of missile system used.

Re: MH17 Report

#113

Post by tptacek »

powertower wrote: post #98
tptacek wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Those pictures are of Putin on a military base in Armenia that runs joint operations. Both Armenia and Ukraine use 9M38M1, Russia stopped production in 1999 and begin phasing it out. I'm sure there are a few of these still around here and there, but no one is lying about the production stop that happened 16 years ago (that can be verified many ways). Those pictures are sourced from - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/presi…

I guess I'm having trouble following the logic that says recent pictures of the Russian military displaying these missiles is evidence that the Russian military no longer has them.

Re: MH17 Report

#114

Post by kafkaesq »

kushti wrote: post #111
kafkaesq wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CNN did spread an outrageous lie, Which was?

"Dutch accident investigators say that evidence points to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible for shooting down MH-17, according to a source who has seen the report. According to the source, the report says it was a Buk missile -- a Russian surface-to-air missile -- that was used, launched from a village in Russian rebel controlled territory. "

The report says it was a Buk missile -- a Russian surface-to-air missile -- that was used, launched from a village in Russian rebel controlled territory.

From which "evidence points to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible" is hardly an unreasonable extrapolation. It's a very reasonable extrapolation, in fact.

So I still don't see where the "outrageous lie" was.

Re: MH17 Report

#115

Post by trhway »

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.

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

the rebels were constantly attacked from the air. They were shooting back using what was available to them - MANPADs and once they captured it in June - BUKs. It is obvious from their celebratory tweets first half-an-hour after shooting down the MH-17 that they were thinking it was one more military transport plane of Ukraine.

Ukraine was using air forces for ground attacks. Obviously they should have closed the airspace, especially after their BUK systems were captured by rebels. That Ukraine was using air forces and that their planes were being shot down by SAMs more powerful than MANPADS was well known as well as it was reported in international news sources too (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28299334). So airlines shouldn't have been flying there even without Ukraine failing to close the airspace.

Re: MH17 Report

#116

Post by tremon »

trhway wrote: post #106
tremon wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thanks for those links, although I can't read the Russian ones. Have any of those hits been confirmed? I believe I read somewhere that the first Antonovs were downed using ATA missiles (read: fighter planes), and only the latest AN26 (the 14th of July) using STA missiles.

>the first Antonovs were downed using ATA missiles (read: fighter planes), no, rebels had never had such capability, i.e. planes and Russia didn't ventured the planes in. >although I can't read them There are also some tweets in English down on the twitter page i linked. Also you can Google translate it. The capture of the BUK systems was well communicated on both sides - in Russian and Ukrainian news at the time, be…

If you don't mind me picking your brain about this, here is what I've been able to find from the DSB report (page 183):

"On 6 June 2014, [..] an Antonov An-30B had been downed using a MANPADS at an altitude of less than 4,500 metres near Slavyansk. On 14 June 2014, [..] a Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin 76MD had been downed during landing at Luhansk [using a MANPADS]. During the weeks that followed, other incidents occurred in which a helicopter (Mil Mi-8TV, 24 June 2014) and fighter aeroplanes were shot down. On 1 July an attempt was made to down a Su-25 UB and on 2 July 2014 a Su-24 was shot at. Both were allegedly targeted by a MANPADS."

Would you say this information is a fairly complete summary, or have there been more (unconfirmed) shootings?

"On 14 July, three days prior to the crash of flight MH17, a Ukrainian Air Force transport aeroplane, an Antonov An-26, was downed in the Luhansk region, [..] was flying at an altitude of 6,500 metres when it was hit [..] according to the Ukrainian authorities the aircraft must have been hit by a ‘more powerful weapon’ than a MANPADS. The Ukrainian government assumed two possibilities: a modern anti-aircraft system ‘Pantsir’ or an ‘X-24 Air-to-air missile’. The authorities assumed that it was a weapon fired from the Russian Federation, because the armed groups would not have such weapons."

I'm curious about the Ukrainian response here. Did they not consider the possibility that the rebel forces would be able to operate their BUK, or was it willfully ignored?

Re: MH17 Report

#117

Post by pbhjpbhj »

escapologybb wrote: post #12

Can anyone break down how they knew that the missile exploded within a one square metre volume of air, just above and to the front of the plane please? Do they do it just from the pattern of debris, or do they use other methods as well. I think I got that they can use the microphones in the cockpit to work out the direction the missile fragments came from, but not quite sure on the details. Thanks in advance!

I'm interested that the missile effectively missed. Is this the intended method of action, nearby explosion with shrapnel impacts or should the missile have entered the body of the plane in a, militarily speaking, perfect deployment. With such weapons do they choose the point of impact, ie is the cockpit the target, or are the weapons not that "refined".

Re: MH17 Report

#118

Post by kushti »

kafkaesq wrote: post #114
kushti wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Dutch accident investigators say that evidence points to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible for shooting down MH-17, according to a source who has seen the report. According to the source, the report says it was a Buk missile -- a Russian surface-to-air missile -- that was used, launched from a village in Russian rebel controlled territory. "

The report says it was a Buk missile -- a Russian surface-to-air missile -- that was used, launched from a village in Russian rebel controlled territory. From which "evidence points to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible" is hardly an unreasonable extrapolation. It's a very reasonable extrapolation, in fact. So I still don't see where the "outrageous lie" was.

Well, in the first place, this is a Soviet missile. And the main thing, report doesn't say about a party launched it. Provocative language and factual distortions are good friends for mass hysteria but not for objective investigation definitely.

Re: MH17 Report

#119

Post by kushti »

tptacek wrote: post #112
kushti wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Dutch accident investigators say that evidence points to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible for shooting down MH-17, according to a source who has seen the report. According to the source, the report says it was a Buk missile -- a Russian surface-to-air missile -- that was used, launched from a village in Russian rebel controlled territory. "

I'm not following. Everything in that CNN story seems to line up with the Dutch report, down to the type of missile system used.

Please point to the village name in the report then.

Re: MH17 Report

#120

Post by powertower »

tptacek wrote: post #113
powertower wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those pictures are of Putin on a military base in Armenia that runs joint operations. Both Armenia and Ukraine use 9M38M1, Russia stopped production in 1999 and begin phasing it out. I'm sure there are a few of these still around here and there, but no one is lying about the production stop that happened 16 years ago (that can be verified many ways). Those pictures are sourced from - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/presi…

I guess I'm having trouble following the logic that says recent pictures of the Russian military displaying these missiles is evidence that the Russian military no longer has them.

The logic is that 3 pictures, with 1 likely being a prop (for use in parades or as a display unit) and 1 likely held by a foreign joint military in Armenia - are not proof of the Russian-side lying.

For every 1 of these decommissioned missiles that Russia still posses, Ukraine probably has 100 (considering it's always been a weapons depot for this type of older Russian and Soviet-era gear).

Post reply on HN