3

I have read in another forum, that it's impossible that BUK system destroyed that airplane in Ukraine. The reason he says is - the airplane looks like shot by 30×165mm bullets - its not like blown by rocket from BUK.

I cannot argue with him about this because I have no idea how plane should look if it is destroyed by BUK.

So hopefully some technical people can explain.

closed as off-topic by Philipp Dec 26 '16 at 20:05

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question does not appear to be about governments, policies and political processes within the scope defined in the help center." – Philipp
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    This should be on Skeptics.SE if you can find and post exact link from that other forum – user4012 Aug 22 '14 at 13:17
  • 1
    @DVK a random forum doesn't pass the notability requirements for skeptics. – Ryathal Aug 22 '14 at 13:22
  • another forum where I discuss is in lithuanian language, so not much use in here – Darius.V Aug 22 '14 at 14:36
  • 1
    @SPeed_FANat1c the putin plane theory has been debunked many times over, that's why you never heard it. See no.2 on theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/… – Evil Washing Machine Aug 26 '14 at 10:52
  • 2
    @lowtech I think you fail to understand how SAM missiles work. There is alot of fragmentation involved, much like how a Flak cannon's goal is not to destroy the plane with a direct hit, but to damage its light skin with shrapnel. – Evil Washing Machine Aug 26 '14 at 10:53
5

Its highly unlikely that something other than a BUK was used to shoot down the plane. There is evidence the the "rebel" forces had access to these missiles and they also claimed responsibility for shooting down several Ukrainian aircraft with them in the same area. There also was the tweet that was quickly deleted claiming responsibility for shooting down a cargo plane in the same time frame that the commercial flight was shot down. The BUK missile is also a proximity detonated weapon that fills the target with shrapnel, that could plausibly be mistaken for bullet holes by non-experts. Finding out what exactly happened is unlikely since the crash site could have been tampered with by the "rebel" forces. This article is a pretty good description of everything.

  • 1
    what "rebel" forces claimed can be falsification also, could it not ? – Darius.V Aug 22 '14 at 14:49
  • 2
    Investigative reporter Robert Parry claims that BUK was fired by Ukraine military. Robert Parry was reporter unwinding Iran-Contras affair in 80's. He is referring to unnamed source from US gov. The source said that US has satellite photos of the launch. Still OBSE observer claimed that they have seen holes like from machine gun fire. Peter Haisenko reconstruction also points to use of machine guns. – lowtech Aug 22 '14 at 20:43
  • @lowtech what exactly is 'OBSE'? – Evil Washing Machine Aug 26 '14 at 10:54
  • OBSE is a direct transliteration from Russian of ОБСЕ, that is, OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe). – CopperKettle Aug 27 '14 at 13:09
  • 1
    Lets start with the fact that Ukrainian forces shelled the crash site repeatedly. Any shrapnel found in the wreck could have as easily been from artillery shells, as from a BUK system. – MishaP Mar 21 '18 at 13:59
4

This is a VICE news clip of a Ukrainian military AN-26 transport shot down a few days before MH-17. The AN-26 was flying at about 6,500m, or roughly 3,000m below MH-17. Reports say that it was not a shoulder-fired missile which shot it down, but a heavier surface-to-air weapon type. You can see the wreckage clearly in the video, but bear in mind that the AN-26 is a lot smaller than the MH-17 which is a Boeing 777-300, so there are less intact components.

Unsurprisingly, there were no consipracy theories regarding this crash, no 'US satellite photos' of the launch and no 'it was a Jet which machine-gunned it down'. Unless the Ukrainian military is incompetent enough to shoot down its own transport plane (even though the rebels have no airplanes, so why would they try to shoot anything down), then the only reasonable conclusion you can make is that the rebels possess some capability to shoot down aircraft at a great height.

The myth that an SU-25 shot down MH-17 has also been largely debunked - the service ceiling of the aircraft, detailed on the Sukhoi website itself, is 7,000m. It is not technically possible for any plane to somehow use its thrust momentum to reach up another 3,000m to the height MH-17 was flying at, something which the Pro-Russian crowd likes to deny. In fact, the SU-25's Wikipedia page has been vandalised several times by users from Russian IP addresses to magically add another 3,000m to the service ceiling of the SU-25.

EDIT: I asked this question on aviation.stackexchange just for you: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8344/can-an-aircraft-go-higher-than-its-service-ceiling/8347

  • Also, you're forgetting the Separatist claims to have shot down another Ukrainian plane right when MH-17 went down – user4012 Aug 26 '14 at 12:11
  • 1
    @DVK I'm aware of that but that wasn't the question. The fact I mentioned the SU-25 at all is because the author mentioned 30x165mm bullets – Evil Washing Machine Aug 26 '14 at 12:25
  • Why was there a downvote? – Evil Washing Machine Aug 27 '14 at 9:53
  • 2
    @EvilWashingMachine - I suppose because the Web is infested with Kremlin-paid propagandists. – CopperKettle Aug 27 '14 at 13:12
  • A Su-25 can also carry air-to-air missiles, that it can shoot up above its service ceiling. There was also a clip of a BUK system, minus one missile, driving on Ukrainian-held territory that day. Unless the "rebels" managed to sneak it past the Ukrainian army, (which would point to their utter incompetence, improving the chance that it was Ukraine that shot the plane down by accident),I don't see how this could be possible. Putin's plane was also supposed to have been in the area at the time, Ukrainian hot heads may have thought they were shooting down the president of RU. – MishaP Mar 21 '18 at 14:08
-3

Yes it is technically possible that a BUK system shot down the plane.

@Ryathal- In contrast to your article, I'd like to post THIS article. My point is that there are many working theories as to who shot the plane down, and what type of weapon(s) was/were used.

I found this gentleman's clip does a good job of putting western media coverage of Ukraine into perspective with rather solid facts to back everything up. That's not to say Russia does not spin propaganda, but it makes you wonder about how trustworthy western claims and coverage is.

Until a thorough INTERNATIONAL report, provides proper analysis proving guilt, I suggest presuming all parties INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

There was also a clip of a BUK system, minus one missile, driving on Ukrainian-held territory that day. Unless the "rebels" managed to sneak it past the Ukrainian army, (which would point to their utter incompetence, improving the chance that it was Ukraine that shot the plane down by accident),I don't see how this could be possible. Putin's plane was also supposed to have been in the area at the time, Ukrainian hot heads may have thought they were shooting down the president of RU.

  • 1
    Note that you cite globalresearch.ca as a reference. This site is a well-known crank website which peddles all sorts of conspiracy theories. Citing it does not improve your answer (quite the opposite in fact). See e.g. Wikipedia and RationalWiki. – user11249 Jun 21 '17 at 15:55
  • @MishaP there already is an international investigation by the Dutch which pretty much lays the blame on the rebels. The fact that you are adding and editing your statements 2 weeks ago on an already closed case implies to me that your handlers at the Internet Research Center in St. Petersburg are telling you to launch another fake news offensive in the wake of the Sergiy Kripal poisoning. – Evil Washing Machine Apr 3 '18 at 9:01
  • @EvilWashingMachine The Dutch ignored all surveillance and exprimental evidence (including a test where a Russian firm detonated a BUK missile in front of a boeing cockpit) that did not sit well with their conclusion. If I had handlers in St. Pete, I probably wouldn't be sitting in stack exchange. As for Kripal - No investigation has yet found any evidence (even circumstantial) that points to Russia. Saying that Russia is to blame because the chem wep was developed in the USSR, but not the Russian republic. Saying Russia is to blame is like saying US is to blame for anyone killed by an m16. – MishaP Apr 4 '18 at 9:26
  • 1
    Always amusing how Russians manage to explain away everything bad they did. It's always the west's fault, Russians never act aggressively – Evil Washing Machine Apr 10 '18 at 10:53

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.