US tracked missile that brought down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17

[Zorro]

Source: Yahoo News

The United States detected the launch of the “specific missile” that brought down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 last week, a senior administration official told reporters on Tuesday.

U.S. intelligence followed “this specific missile” as it was fired from “a geographic area” controlled by Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, said the official, who requested anonymity. It followed the near-vertical flight path characteristic of an SA-11 launch.

“We did pick up a launch. We were able to have the ability to track this specific launch,” the official said. It was not clear whether the official was referring to real-time monitoring by U.S. intelligence, or whether they went back through surveillance data after learning of the attack.

The official spoke as the United States ramped up efforts to convince skeptics that Moscow-backed rebels armed and trained by Russia shot down the passenger jet, killing all 298 people aboard. Russia has disputed the largely circumstantial American case and rejected responsibility.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/us-tracked-missile-that-brought-down-malaysian-airlines-flight-17-222751385.html

[joshcryer]

1. That's as close as you'll get to hearing the capability.

Surprised they actually admitted we "tracked this specific launch."

[DRoseDARs]

5. Well, it's a small theater and we'd be watching more closely...

...but SA-11s aren't exactly small missiles, either. I'm just surprised there hasn't been insurgent video of the bastard launching. Russia has a lot to answer for for giving this weapon system to a bunch of drunks and teaching them how to shoot it.

[amandabeech]

49. It is possible that the separatists were too drunk and untrainable to operate the thing.

This piece does not rule out a Russian "expert" actually doing the deed.

[dipsydoodle]

14. Russians appear to have done similar and you dismissed that last Saturday

Sky News reported earlier that the Russian Ministry has traced the radar signature of the missile and the origin was a unit supplied to Ukraine itself and which remains in its possession. Doubtless when called upon to do so the claim will be authenticated - or not so. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=849547

See your own reply.

[joshcryer]

15. They also claimed the plane was being tailed by an Su-25.

And then edited the wikipedia page to say that its specifications could do so credibly.

[dipsydoodle]

16. I didn't claim that.

Presumably you have a link to the Russian Ministry claiming that to be so.

Only reference I noticed elsewhere in news to other planes was that of a Spanish flight controller with mention of two fighter jets in the immediate vicinity of the airliner.

If by chance there were other planes in the area they'll show on the black box info anyway - eventually.

[joshcryer]

18. You didn't see their Powell-esque insane speculative crap?

http://www.businessinsider.com/russias-story-about-mh17-2014-7

From that an Su-25 was tailing it to the "coincidence" that a US spy satellite was flying over just as it happened (let's be real, there are dozens of US spy satellites and they likely have coverage of the entire landmass of the planet, especially over EU and Russia and Asia)?

Seriously dipsy, you and I don't really get into spats (ad homs), and I respect you a lot for that, one of the few DUers here who won't resort to them, but either you missed their report or you're playing dumb here. It was embarrassing. I'm trying to find a good (better) link but I got a massive migraine for being on the computer for 14 hours straight.

[dipsydoodle]

21. Must've missed that report completely.

Honestly - but not that I would necessarily have attached any particular importance to it. Enough fairy stories in circulation on this subject as it is.

Whilst the black boxes will not determine "who" they be will able to fix with precision "where and when". Body damage should define the exact missile type and there's no way anyone could've done a clean sweep of a 12 mile strip in less than a week to remove all evidence of that.

[joshcryer]

22. This is true, and again social media is figuring it out:

http://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/2bdoni/a_likely_place_where_the_missile_hit_the_plane/

Head on hit it appears. One can only hope and pray that no one woke up as their bodies were falling to the surface.

(This of course doesn't resolve theories that there was an An-26 in the vicinity, or that Kiev didn't send them to that specific area; though the flight data voice recorder should put to rest the latter theory. But we're putting to rest each CT one at a time.)

[dipsydoodle]

23. That's one section only

and from what I've read such missiles don't function quite like that - they spray the length of the fuselage with shrapnel from the side causing instant loss of pressurisation.

[joshcryer]

24. Check out that Reddit thread.

I think they have pretty informed opinions (even if, again, they're mere social media users who know how to use Google). I think you're correct that it explodes and sprays and I think my use of "hit" was incorrect, just the term I chose at the time of writing.

I think ultimately the observations that a civilian airliner is going to be ripped to shreds whereever the Buk goes off are accurate, they're not built to withstand it.

[Paolo123]

2. Let's see the evidence

This is probably true but sorry if I don't automatically believe what the US says.

[murielm99]

3. They probably don't want to divulge

too much about our surveillance capabilities by showing everything.

[Paolo123]

4. Well then

It is too bad the US has squandered all of it's goodwill, because without evidence, I really don't believe anything the US says. (this is not to say that Russia is any better - of course not). However we know now that the US will lie about, well, anything at all.

So why believe the US on this?

[geek tragedy]

6. because it fits the facts that have been confirmed

we know there was a Buk missile system in rebel-controlled territory--the Russians admitted as much yesterday.

we know that Ukraine doesn't have any use for anti-aircraft missiles since the rebels don't have any airplanes

we know that the airplane came from the direction of the territory controlled by the government, meaning no one would have mistook it for a plane coming from Russia

And, maybe most of all, there is absolutely no evidence that supports an alternative hypothesis

[quakerboy]

9. I agree with you overall

But one counterpoint: The argument that Ukraine doesn't have use for anti-air missiles seems questionable. If I was on the border of Russia and knew that they were not friendly to me, I would definitely have a use for Anti-air missiles, if for nothing other than deterrent purposes.

[Bartlet]

11. That might be a legitimate argument

If the Ukrainian government were in control of the area where the missile was launched from, they are not.

The Ukrainian Government has not fired a single anti- aircraft missile during this entire conflict, the Rebels have shot down several Ukrainian aircraft. There is no evidence that the Ukrainian government shot this aircraft down and there is no logical reason that they would have. There is however ample logical reasoning to assume the Rebels shot it down since they have been shooting down military aircraft in that area for several weeks.

[quakerboy]

50. I think you are reading more into what I wrote than what I said

I tend to believe that it was a Russian SAM in the possession of the Rebels that shot down the plane. It makes the most sense.


All I am saying is that one single point of the argument set I responded to didn't make sense to me. The poster asserted that the Ukraine would have no reason to have SAM's. If I were the Ukraine, I would want to have SAM's. I wouldnt use them against my own planes, but I would want to have them.

[geek tragedy]

28. Except shooting down a Russian plane

would have meant Russia rolling armored divisions into Ukraine.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. If they had radar, and they had to in order to track a target...

They could tell that the flight was heading toward Russia, not from it. In fact it was about to exit Ukraine air space and enter Russian air space when it was shot down.

[billhicks76]

12. Whatever

Ukraine has mussels too. Why are they saying they only tracked the launch? You know they have surveillance of it being moved around and yes they would've showed us already if it proved Russian involvement. They selectively leak classified data all the time when it supports their narrative. I originally thought this was a mistake by the rebels. Now I wouldn't be surprised if these Neo-Nazi Ukranians made a mistake.

[longship]

27. I had mussels last night at dinner.

BTW, I agree with you that the Russian supported folks in eastern Ukraine did this. All evidence supports that hypothesis.

[billhicks76]

30. No Point To Spellcheck Edit Now

But even though it looks like Pro-Russian rebels did this one cannot be sure. Evidence is all that matters these days. Our government lies just as much as it tells the truth. Governments do what's in their own interests always even if it means lying. Proof is all that matters. The anti-conspiracy theorists or coincidence theorists should know this. Evidence only or sit down. I'm waiting still.

[longship]

35. Well, who do you trust?

Putin is not credible, not at all.

The narrative that Ukraine shot down MH17 does not fly, so to speak. Then, who else?

What seems most plausible is the narrative that the US (as well as the rest of the nations concerned) have concluded, is that the Russia supported secessionists shot down the plane. All the evidence seems to point to that conclusion. There is little evidence to support any other conclusion. They had the means and the location of the crash itself speaks loudly that the hypothesis is correct.

If one has a different narrative, one had better be able to explain how it fits the data better. And William of Okham's maxims damned well better figure prominently into it.

[geek tragedy]

31. "Neo-Nazi Ukrainians" is straight-up Kremlin

propaganda (Neo-Nazis are a small fringe in Ukraine--Russia has more fascists in its government) so I am not surprised to see you accepting their utterly implausible cover story. A lot easier for them to notice a launch than to notice it sitting somewhere on the ground. If you need a physics lesson on why things that move and emit heat and transmit/receive electronic signals are easier to notice I am sure someone will be willing to help with that.

[billhicks76]

32. Wow So Sarcastic

You should calm down. I'll bet I know more about physics than you. Surveillance in that area shows much more than just heat signatures. The entire area is monitored by cameras and something as big as a missile system stands out in the day. And I've read from many Western sources for YEARS how prevalent the Neo-Nazi factions are imprinted in Ukraine. Anti-Sematism is rampant there. Your perspective is off much like those who don't think racism is heavily active in the South anymore here at home. I don't know why I'm dignifying your condescending comments with a response but some of us aren't pro-war all the time and feel the need to point things out. There are fascists in Eastern Ukraine and saying so doesn't make one pro-Russian.

[geek tragedy]

34. In order to buy your theory that the Ukrainians

shot at the key by mistake, you'd have to claim they were trying to shoot down their own plane since the jet was flying west to east.

Also, you know that radar only picks up things that fly, right?

[billhicks76]

37. You're Hilarious

I wasn't talking about just radar. You do know we've come a long way since radar right? I believe we have clear video footage from spy satellites in most of the areas where there are hostilities. And when I said mistake I meant they confused a fighter jet for an airliner not who the airliner belonged to or where it came from.

[geek tragedy]

39. We have satellites, but they aren't so powerful that they monitor

every square inch of territory at all times.

I'd bet there is footage of the launcher, after the launch.

A plane coming from Ukrainian territory would be perceived as being a Ukrainian plane, if it were mistaken as a military plane at all. Remember that the Ukrainians have contact with civilian radar and would know exactly what the plane was with a single phone call.

Also remember that the Ukrainians haven't shot down a single plane.

By the way, do you believe the Russians have no surveillance data on the missile--that it completely evaded their detection systems in the area? They haven't disclosed any.

[billhicks76]

36. And By The Way

I always thought it was the pro-Russian rebels but evidence is needed because that's the way it works. Basing everything on someone did it before isn't a good enough explanation when war can escalate over such an incident. And governments lie all the time to cover their asses. Either way it was a mistake whoever did it. The media is focusing on it to manipulate us. That's what corporations do. Remember when we blew up the Chinese embassy during the Bosnian war? That "accident" was out of the news coverage in one day.

[The Magistrate]

47. That Was No Accident, Sir

They had brought the wreckage of the downed F-117, and an attempt was made to interfere with their exploitation of the purchase.

[murielm99]

7. Preponderance of evidence.

I don't believe that any of the behavior of the separatists or their Russian masters has given me any reason to believe them. Their actions have been beastly. Go ahead and side with potty-poot if you like. It's your choice.

[Paolo123]

25. I'm not siding with anyone.

I'm seeing "let's see the evidence". The US claims to have the evidence. Let's see it.

Let's also hear the Air Traffic Control conversations. Why haven't those been released?

[Bartlet]

10. Because the Rebels

Have already shot down several aircraft and the Ukrainians haven't fired a single anti-air missile during the entire conflict.

You can choose to pretend that there is a question who shot the Aircraft down out of some infantile dislike of the US government, it doesn't change the fact that it was shot down by Rebels with a missile system supplied by Russia.

[Paolo123]

26. What is wrong to asking to see the evidence that the US has?

What about the air traffic control conversations? Why haven't they been released?

[Igel]

40. Sometimes you don't let your evidence out for examination.

Sounds good and transparent, but often you wipe out that info source or seriously compromise it when you do so.

Take the deciphering of Enigma during WWII. If Britain had seriously used the information it got to save lives, it would have tipped off the Germans that it was deciphered. You get to use that kind of "secret source" once, maybe twice, before countermeasures are taken.

Sometimes you even let your own side leak information by accident. The day after the allegedly recorded phone conversations about the MH17 shoot down was released, Ukr commanders along the border told their men to turn off their cell phones. They'd been calling home and friends and discussing where they were and where they were heading. Suddenly the commanders realized that they were 200-300 hundred yards from Russian units that might well be listening. That the nearest cell tower might well be in Russian territory and tapped.

Then there's the problem that their evidence may also indicate that they've been spying on allies, or easily could. Also a bad thing, esp. in the light of the Snowden leaks.

[Paolo123]

45. Fine

But if you are not going to show your evidence then all I have to judge such evidence is your reputation. In the case of the US it's reputation on being honest about foreign intelligence is precisely zero.

So, I still think the rebels probably shot it down, but the US's opinion on the matter means nothing to me unless the evidence is displayed.

[tabasco]

51. "In the case of the US it's reputation on being honest about foreign intelligence is precisely zero"

That statement proves your unmitigated bias (and poor grammar). You don't give a shit about evidence.

[GeorgeGist]

48. Ah the old National Security ploy ...

always good for avoiding the question.

[defacto7]

8. I don't automatically believe

what any political or religious entity says. It is reasonable to be skeptical. Trust lost doesn't return, it's rebuilt. And I don't see anyone building trust.

Cynicism and skepticism is the way of the world now and it's for the best.

[Niceguy1]

13. any agency, news source

Or individual should be confirmed through alternet sources before accepting their statements as facts.

[dipsydoodle]

17. Yes but if for example

you were to use "the Kuwait incubators" that was such a carefully crafted lie that everyone believed it. It was just that at the time nobody, including the US Congress , bothered to check who was making the claim - it was the Kuwaiti ambassadors own daughter.

[joshcryer]

20. IMO, that was before the internet.

Or at least, before the internet was mainstream. These days we can check and double check everything. Reverse image search has been absolutely invaluable when it comes to faked stuff. It even works for video now... it's kind of scary how good the tools are.

[joshcryer]

19. It's telling that the US government is using social media to prove their case.

I think it's because either 1) social media is infiltrated by analysts or 2) they're just good at what they do.

This guy's geolocation reconstructions are so extraordinary I think he may be getting computer assistance or he is a savant or something: http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.nl/2014/07/russian-transport-of-buk-into-ukraine.html

I've done my own sort of testing of his geolocation theories and they all hold up. It's crazy.

[GliderGuider]

38. That blog is a remarkable piece of detective work.

Convincing, too. Thanks for the link!

[joshcryer]

41. I verified his last dozen or so "geolocations."

Dudes either a savant or an analyst peppering social media with convincing data. What makes me ponder are all the on ground shots / photographs of the various locations he's locating. Who's taking the pics? It's plausible a blogger or three are driving around, serendipitously, taking them. But the other side of the coin (CIA) is not beyond speculation.

I'm not inclined one way or the other. Dude is good at what he's been doing though. Almost too good.

[GliderGuider]

46. I noted the level of contact he has with on-scene photographers too.

More there than meets the eye for sure, but the info looks good.

I hadn't seen the still of the launch trail before, and the video of the BUK scurrying away was fortuitous. Cell-phone cameras have been a global game-changer.

[Igel]

42. Some people are scary smart.

And on the Internet.

The reconstruction of the attack on the Lugansk municipal building was a work of art. Several video images, ID the location of each videographer or photographer, prominent landmarks, figure out where the lines of sight intersect and what the plane's start location for each video and what its course had to be.

Look at images of the explosions on the ground and where the shell(s) had to hit the building and superimpose that on the map.

Then point out the simple fact: The plane wasn't on the same side of the building that was attacked. The missiles would have had to have been fired, gone over the building, and then some would have had to impact the ground while others turned back, one 45, one 90, one 130 degrees.


Same for the Grad attack on the Ivaryne border post from Russian territory a few days ago. Three videos. Each labeled for location. Easy enough to track down imaging for the area to nail down exactly where the videographers were using trees, water, etc. Then you can look at angle of launch and direction of launch. Correlate it with time stamps. And match it up with reports by Ukr forces of fire from the "wrong" side of the border that occurred before the videos were posted.

[joshcryer]

44. I really like to think this guy is just that good.

It makes me feel warm in my heart, that someone with that kind of pattern recognition ability exists out there. He called so many things in the period of the conflict that it is amazing. Whatever one believes, though, he calls it and it's hard to dispute his reconstructions, you can do them all yourself either on Google Earth or Google Maps.

[dembotoz]

33. i should f****ing hope so

would like to think over a hot spot like ukraine, we would have enough spy satellite resources up there to be able do instant replay coverage from any soccer game in the region.

[Igel]

43. Don't need to.

While the war coverage is a big part of the local news, even bigger for most of Ukraine is soccer.

Which players are being traded? Where are they heading?

What's happening with local teams? For a long time the Crimean teams were a hot topic--can they join the Russian league and get to the championship?

Where are local teams going to train? Are any being sold? What about the teams from the Donbas, what's up with them?

And play-by-play accounts.

They're concerned about their soldiers, they're worried sick about their soccer teams. It's not by accident that most of the bad "riots" and conflicts between crowds are soccer based. The business on 5/9? Two soccer teams fans marching to a game; to support one team also meant you supported Russian-speakers, to support the other meant you supported Ukrainian unity.