6 ms·

Isn't the general hypothesis that whoever did it mistook the plane to be military. If so, this does not seem like a conspiracy, as much as a mistake (or incompe

Isn't the general hypothesis that whoever did it mistook the plane to be military. If so, this does not seem like a conspiracy, as much as a mistake (or incompetence) followed by a cover up.

jqm 12y ago
Exactly. Most likely a military mistake similar to Iran Air Flight 655. These things can happen. When political leaders seize on these types of events to promote their agendas however, some people understandably become more suspicious that a conspiracy is afoot.
- acqq 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 "shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes on 3 July 1988," "All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died" "The Fogarty report stated, "The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down.""
acqq 12y ago
"whoever did it mistook the plane to be military." It doesn't have much sense in the context, the civilian planes flew there all the time: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/19/mh17-changing-course-storms-pilot http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/19/mh17-changing-c... "the route (...) is one of the "aerial motorways" between northern Europe and south Asia. Malaysia Airlines was one of more than a dozen that flew the route on Thursday. Its flight MH17 was only a few miles from an Air India Boeing 787 and a Singapore Airlines 777 when it was shot down."
- mpyne 12y ago
  It's true that there were a ton of civilian planes there, but it's not necessarily true that it means the SA-11 set was continuously turned on and tracking civilian flights (as that's a great way to get a HARM missile up your ass), which means that its operators might not have known about the traffic pattern. Furthermore, double-checking civilian traffic corridors is something you'd expect a professional military to do, but the rebels/separatists are not necessarily professional military. This is admittedly a harder sell, since the SA-11 definitely needs a trained operator and Russia's GRU is known to be leading much of the action on the rebels' side in Donetsk. But it's at least possible to train a rebel operator to do nothing else but operate an SA-11 without also training them extensively in the doctrine of when and why you'd actually use one. This leaves the question of why they decided to turn on the SAM set at the time they did and shoot down the plane they did... but that can be explained by the rebels thinking that there would be a military resupply flight coming in over the area at a certain time, they turn on the set and "oh look at that, an airplane just where we expected it to be". This "proof" would be horrific to any professional anti-air unit, but again you can see how the theory that a bunch of barely-trained "rebels" that happened to acquire an advanced Russian SAM can't be completely disproven either. I'm certainly no Russia apologist, and even if the "rebels legitimately screwed up and didn't mean to shoot down a civilian airliner" theory is true, that doesn't really reduce the blame for Russia. After all, if we're assuming the rebels in Donetsk are really rebels and not simply disguised Russian military or GRU units with token Ukrainian participants, then Russia providing these "rebels" a SA-11 set could only have led to something like this happening eventually, the only surprise is that it happened so quickly after Russia provided the SA-11 set. But I find it hard to believe that even Russia would deliberately target a civilian airliner, or knowingly allow whoever these separatists are to do the same. An inadvertent shoot down of a perceived military flight seems the most likely scenario, it just doesn't turn off the blame for Russia like people might think.
  - acqq 12y ago
    The construct "military resupply targeted" still doesn't add up, the plane was flying on 33000 ft(1) (which is the cruising altitude, obviously not even intending to land) and no plane cruising at the high altitude is delivering anything to the region the rebels would be interested to protect. And it's one of the many civilian planes also cruising at that time and using that common route (2). Compare that with the Afghanistan war where the Russian delivery planes were shot while taking off or landing, which is many orders of magnitude simpler to do and only cheap and simple hand-held rockets are enough. (3) And another construct "rebels intentionally shooting the cruising civilian plane" is also unreasonable as it can clearly only harm the rebels. The only ones having a clear motive to shoot that plane that way are actually Ukrainians. ------------------- 1) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/19/mh17-changing-course-storms-pilot http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/19/mh17-changing-c... "MH17 had initially filed a flight plan requesting to fly at 35,000ft above Ukrainian territory. On entering Ukrainian airspace, however, the plane's pilots were instructed to fly at 33,000ft by the local air traffic control" 2) same link "MH17's flight path was a busy major airway, like a highway in the sky." 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger#Soviet_War_in_Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger#Soviet_War_in_Af... (There are pictures too)
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
If the video of "oh shit we accidentally shot down a malaysian passenger jet" was verifiably recorded before the plane crash, it would be de-facto proof of an action by some party to crash the plane and blame it on Russian separatists.

Isn't the general hypothesis that whoever did it mistook the plane to be military. If so, this does not seem like a conspiracy, as much as a mistake (or incompetence) followed by a cover up.

jqm 12y ago

Exactly. Most likely a military mistake similar to Iran Air Flight 655. These things can happen. When political leaders seize on these types of events to promote their agendas however, some people understandably become more suspicious that a conspiracy is afoot.

acqq 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 "shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes on 3 July 1988," "All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died" "The Fogarty report stated, "The data from USS Vincennes tapes, information from USS Sides and reliable intelligence information, corroborate the fact that [Iran Air Flight 655] was on a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway, squawking Mode III 6760, on a continuous ascent in altitude from take-off at Bandar Abbas to shoot-down.""

acqq 12y ago

"whoever did it mistook the plane to be military." It doesn't have much sense in the context, the civilian planes flew there all the time: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/19/mh17-changing-course-storms-pilot http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/19/mh17-changing-c... "the route (...) is one of the "aerial motorways" between northern Europe and south Asia. Malaysia Airlines was one of more than a dozen that flew the route on Thursday. Its flight MH17 was only a few miles from an Air India Boeing 787 and a Singapore Airlines 777 when it was shot down."

mpyne 12y ago
It's true that there were a ton of civilian planes there, but it's not necessarily true that it means the SA-11 set was continuously turned on and tracking civilian flights (as that's a great way to get a HARM missile up your ass), which means that its operators might not have known about the traffic pattern. Furthermore, double-checking civilian traffic corridors is something you'd expect a professional military to do, but the rebels/separatists are not necessarily professional military. This is admittedly a harder sell, since the SA-11 definitely needs a trained operator and Russia's GRU is known to be leading much of the action on the rebels' side in Donetsk. But it's at least possible to train a rebel operator to do nothing else but operate an SA-11 without also training them extensively in the doctrine of when and why you'd actually use one. This leaves the question of why they decided to turn on the SAM set at the time they did and shoot down the plane they did... but that can be explained by the rebels thinking that there would be a military resupply flight coming in over the area at a certain time, they turn on the set and "oh look at that, an airplane just where we expected it to be". This "proof" would be horrific to any professional anti-air unit, but again you can see how the theory that a bunch of barely-trained "rebels" that happened to acquire an advanced Russian SAM can't be completely disproven either. I'm certainly no Russia apologist, and even if the "rebels legitimately screwed up and didn't mean to shoot down a civilian airliner" theory is true, that doesn't really reduce the blame for Russia. After all, if we're assuming the rebels in Donetsk are really rebels and not simply disguised Russian military or GRU units with token Ukrainian participants, then Russia providing these "rebels" a SA-11 set could only have led to something like this happening eventually, the only surprise is that it happened so quickly after Russia provided the SA-11 set. But I find it hard to believe that even Russia would deliberately target a civilian airliner, or knowingly allow whoever these separatists are to do the same. An inadvertent shoot down of a perceived military flight seems the most likely scenario, it just doesn't turn off the blame for Russia like people might think.
- acqq 12y ago
  The construct "military resupply targeted" still doesn't add up, the plane was flying on 33000 ft(1) (which is the cruising altitude, obviously not even intending to land) and no plane cruising at the high altitude is delivering anything to the region the rebels would be interested to protect. And it's one of the many civilian planes also cruising at that time and using that common route (2). Compare that with the Afghanistan war where the Russian delivery planes were shot while taking off or landing, which is many orders of magnitude simpler to do and only cheap and simple hand-held rockets are enough. (3) And another construct "rebels intentionally shooting the cruising civilian plane" is also unreasonable as it can clearly only harm the rebels. The only ones having a clear motive to shoot that plane that way are actually Ukrainians. ------------------- 1) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/19/mh17-changing-course-storms-pilot http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/19/mh17-changing-c... "MH17 had initially filed a flight plan requesting to fly at 35,000ft above Ukrainian territory. On entering Ukrainian airspace, however, the plane's pilots were instructed to fly at 33,000ft by the local air traffic control" 2) same link "MH17's flight path was a busy major airway, like a highway in the sky." 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger#Soviet_War_in_Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger#Soviet_War_in_Af... (There are pictures too)

A_COMPUTER 12y ago

If the video of "oh shit we accidentally shot down a malaysian passenger jet" was verifiably recorded before the plane crash, it would be de-facto proof of an action by some party to crash the plane and blame it on Russian separatists.