Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
You got down to those two sentences at the bottom of the article. Good. One sentence refers to the maps just presented. The other paragraph appears to refer to the gist of the whole article. Up there:

  • The Malaysian airlines are referenced as confirming the change of the route and the altitude by Ukraine air traffic control.
  • The audio records of MH17 were taken (confiscated) by Ukraine authorities. I saw BBC mentioning this as well.
  • The British media explained the route change by Azov thunderstorms, but that was denied by MAS operations director.

So you are very sensitive to my offerings, but not to a fabricated explanation, and otherwise total silence on this matter by Western media and authorities.

And then you are that fast to state all there is to offer. That is exactly what I was wondering about yours head-deffensive frames.

by das monde on Wed Aug 6th, 2014 at 03:12:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's because I actually cross-check available evidence, as opposed to regurgitating tin-foil claims unquestionably. You were asked, specifically: "pick the most interesting question and substantiate why you think this question is interesting and should be considered."

After prodding, you picked:

No 2 is of key interest

And no 2 is: 2. The flight path was changed.

For which there is 1) presently no evidence the flight path changed actually happened, although it remains possible but more importantly there is 2) zero evidence the flight was ordered to change route, and all claims that this is true are mere speculation.

Yet instead you want people to look at more hand waving and hands wringing tin foil.

The Malaysian airlines are referenced as confirming the change of the route and the altitude by Ukraine air traffic control.

They are indeed referenced, but MA did not confirm change of route, only change in altitude.

1.    Flight plan

MH17's flight plan was approved by Eurocontrol, who are solely responsible for determining civil aircraft flight paths over European airspace. Eurocontrol is the air navigation service provider for Europe and is governed under ICAO rules.

The route over Ukrainian airspace where the incident occurred is commonly used for Europe to Asia flights. A flight from a different carrier was on the same route at the time of the MH17 incident, as were a number of other flights from other carriers in the days and weeks before. Eurocontrol maintains records of all flights across European airspace, including those across Ukraine.

In April, the International Civil Aviation Organization identified an area over the Crimean peninsula as risky. At no point did MH17 fly into, or request to fly into, this area. At all times, MH17 was in airspace approved by the ICAO.

2.    Altitude

MH17 filed a flight plan requesting to fly at 35,000ft throughout Ukrainian airspace. This is close to the `optimum' altitude.

However, an aircraft's altitude in flight is determined by air traffic control on the ground. Upon entering Ukrainian airspace, MH17 was instructed by Ukrainian air traffic control to fly at 33,000ft.

The audio records of MH17 were taken (confiscated) by Ukraine authorities. I saw BBC mentioning this as well.

Completely unfounded. The audio records weren't and the BBC didn't. If you saw this, provide an actual website reference or a screenshot, or this is simply unfounded.

The British media explained the route change by Azov thunderstorms, but that was denied by MAS operations director.

More of that trustworthy he said, she said, not backed up by any actual website reference or a screenshot of this so-called British media report. Thus: more unfounded claims.

Sick of them.

by Bjinse on Wed Aug 6th, 2014 at 04:42:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am curious about the route diversion from Day One. How much is in asking authoratative sources to investigate (or just say what they can say) how the route deviation happened? All that lack of evidence (regarding the route deviation, the weather conditions) is evidence for something fishy in itself.

On your BBC link, check the 15:29 entry for the Ukrainian SBU action.

It is not clear from the Flight Plan report above whether the "approved" route was the one for that day, or the Azov route frequently used in the previous months. GR assumes the latter, and repeats that Eurocontrol was not involved in directing to the Donetsk route.

So indeed we do not know whether the route was changed in flight - but why we would not know? And was there any comment why the altitude was changed to the minimal allowed?

by das monde on Wed Aug 6th, 2014 at 08:52:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is where you need to state a clear hypothesis.

If your conspiracy theory is that the Kiev government shot the plane down then the flight altitude doesn't do jack shit for your case, since the relevant equipment can easily intercept even above 35 thousand feet.

While if you are merely arguing that the Kiev government monkeyed around to make the flight look suspicious and make the separatists' mistake more probable... well, then you have a much more reasonable story. It would still be light on evidence, but at least it would not be in "obviously paranoid delusion" territory.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Aug 6th, 2014 at 09:14:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So just a curious position, without jumping to single scenarios without much evidence, and accepting uncertainties, multiple possibilities is intellectually unacceptable? Living on this planet is hard enough :-)
by das monde on Wed Aug 6th, 2014 at 09:46:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Entertaining multiple possible explanations is not a license to entertain fairie tales as though they were legitimate possibilities.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Aug 6th, 2014 at 10:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am actually avoiding overly specific fairy tales - even if you ask stubornly.
by das monde on Wed Aug 6th, 2014 at 11:44:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Entertaining multiple possible options is also not a license to JAQ off in public.

Just like an open mind is allowed to have a door policy.

And, to round out the standard clichés for the occasion, the fact that the wise suffers fools lightly is not a license for any fool to demand suffering.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 05:27:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not count that many question marks in my posts, so your JAQ cries are, well, too funny. But anyway - my suffering is my stuff.
by das monde on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 10:00:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So you're making statements of fact, then?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 04:43:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do mix evidence and broader perspective suggestions - perhaps not in proportions or ways likeable to you. But I fancy to go through that for a while, within my interest and time limits.
by das monde on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 05:22:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In other words, you are making insinuations that you know are bullshit, and therefore keep purposefully vague in order to multiply the effort required to debunk them in detail.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 11:59:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am curious about the route diversion from Day One.

And I see no curiosity from you that there hasn't been evidence from Day One for 'route diversion'.

check the 15:29 entry for the Ukrainian SBU action.

I saw. That is far from hard proof to take it as gospel on a subject that is riddled with propaganda stratagems. And even if this has happened, this makes the information stored on the MH17 black boxes far more relevant.

I'm not interested in speculative debate on motivations why information on flight plans or other has not been publicly released. It hasn't. It is not known either what questions the investigative teams are asking and whom they are interviewing.

All the rest veers into conspiracy thinking, which is fun only for as long as people don't take it too seriously.

by Bjinse on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 05:58:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If BBC has a recording, then this is not "no evidence" but "no hard proof".  Bah indeed!

The MH17 route was markedly different from its other latest routes, from the point of entering Ukraine. The dispatcher records would have answered a lot right away. The lack of official evidence and commentary on the route deviation is an insult to the public intelligence, and says volumes about attitudes of those decider & technical elites. Yeah, we can trust seriously only the modern governments on environment protection, finance regulation, expert investigations, right... They are basically asking to build up conspiracy theories.

by das monde on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 09:54:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
with conspiracy argumentation, is that it is so hard to keep speculations straight. Nowhere it was claimed the BBC has 'a recording'.

The relevant snippet:
BBC News - As it happened: Reaction to MH17 Malaysia Airlines plane crash in Ukraine

Ukraine's SBU security service has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner, a source in Kiev has told Interfax news agency.

Emphasis mine. So yes, there is a claim the audio records from the Ukrainian air traffic control were confiscated (and not the audio records on the black boxes, which I at first mistakenly thought was meant).

This snippet is, at minimum, third hand information, and even if we take for granted that BBC and Interfax did their job properly, the original source remains anonymous and unverifiable. Perhaps Interfax has a recording of said source, that's certainly possible. Even then, there is a huge gap between what is claimed to have been said, and what can be actually verified.

So it is a claim like so many - with no hard evidence at present to back it up.

Feel free to join the evidence based community any time.

by Bjinse on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 12:50:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bjinse:
even if we take for granted that BBC and Interfax did their job properly

It should be noted that the BBC included that item in a timeline, on the fly like live-blogging. It has no claim to being BBC fact-checked (however that expression might bring a smile to our faces). A report came through from the Interfax agency and was cited on the timeline. Linking to that later on, as Zero Hedge does, with an insinuation that this a BBC-verified fact, is just spreading bullshit (nothing new, coming from ZH).

So what this is is an Interfax wire. A search for the terms "SBU" or "Ukrainian air traffic controllers" on the Interfax site produces no results. Maybe it was a wire in Russian, which increases the uncertainty due to translation. And finally, if the BBC is to be seen as a propaganda outlet, then Interfax certainly should be too.

In other words there is nothing sure and verifiable in this at all. But I bet we will go on hearing that "the BBC has a recording".

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 01:17:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Originally I saw that statement definitely inside a BBC article - but the link now points to the timeline. This article confirms that there was a BBC article, nor just the timeline.
by das monde on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 11:53:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
FFS. Find the article or drop the subject.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 01:29:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We are now talking about evidence of BBC removing the article. It is not like it never removes anything.
by das monde on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 03:45:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No we are not.

You are attempting to revive controversy once again on flimsy pretexts.

The SU-25 couldn't have shot down the MH17? No problem, your ever-curious mind suggests it may (no evidence offered) have been just one extra-special type of SU-25 that the Ukrainians had somehow procured.

The supposed BBC recording is nothing of the kind? No problem, your inquiring spirit proposes the shadow of a supposed BBC article that might have been deliberately suppressed.

Your insistence is now beyond the limits of reasonable discussion and well into trolling territory.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 03:59:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have a better record of ranting (for any flimsy reason) than addressing a discussion matter.

The lone BBC 15:29 record is already too hot for you to handle.

by das monde on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 04:12:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
[ET Moderation Technology™]

That's enough. Other ET users have gone to great lengths to debate with you and find evidence to ascertain the facts, in spite of a clear prohibition of CT on this blog. Yet you persist, even when it is clear you haven't got a leg to stand on, and you are now resorting to insults.

Stop it immediately or you will really be considered a troll.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 04:16:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have gone to great lengths as well to address tangents that were not exactly of my intended direction. Almost as much in volume as most of you combined.
by das monde on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 05:15:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The lone BBC 15:29 record is already too hot for you to handle.
You mean this?
15:29: Ukraine's SBU security service has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner, a source in Kiev has told Interfax news agency.
Presumably you can find the Interfax agency wire BBC lifted this from?

Also, it's a story from a single anonymous source. Not fit to print in most contexts.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 04:37:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So THAT reply is censored. Classy for the evidnece based.
by das monde on Sat Aug 9th, 2014 at 09:02:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here, let me spell it out for you.
a source in Kiev has told Interfax
is a "single" "anonymous" source. It's okay on an "as it happened" timeline or a twitter feed, but without independent corroboration it's "not fit to print". It shouldn't take a master's in journalism to know this, but in your case apparently common sense is not enough.

People zero-rating your answertirade so it doesn't show is not censorship, it's housekeeping. See ratings in the site FAQ:

The "Down" ratings

2 is rarely used. It may be used as a warning for comments that are unnecessarily aggressive, personal or disruptive in their tone.

1 is used to rate a comment "trollish", i.e. appears calculated to provoke angry reactions, is grossly aggressive or insulting, or really inappropriate. Even more rarely used than 2.

You've received a mega-troll rating. Congratulations.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 9th, 2014 at 09:23:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Since when Interfax is an anonymous source? I'm dunno. Single or not, it was good enough for BBC to print.

THAT particular answer was definitely not a tirade - but a transparent answer to your evidence requests. There was nothing personal in it, it was all about EVIDENCE in every paragraph. The ratings tell more about the fascinating group dynamics here than about me.

Anyway, I got the message - I am not welcome here, with or without "evidence". With this editing, I have no reason to stay here. Just asking to keep my diaries for a few weeks available.

by das monde on Sat Aug 9th, 2014 at 09:38:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
<sigh>

The anonymous source is the "source in Kiev" who is unnamed.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Aug 9th, 2014 at 10:04:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
das monde:
I am not welcome here

That is not the case.

What is not welcome is endless argument around conspiracy theories.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Aug 9th, 2014 at 10:05:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It takes more than one for an endless tango.
by das monde on Sat Aug 9th, 2014 at 11:11:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why don't we all stop here and wait fpr the black box results?
by IM on Sat Aug 9th, 2014 at 11:23:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you have the Interfax agency wire?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Aug 9th, 2014 at 10:30:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What does that matter within this context? 17:38 here looks like that.

Can't believe THAT post was deleted. No use to bring the same points surely. But if that is the only info about dispatcher recordings, where they are supposed to be? What scenarios are supported by this remarkable absence?

by das monde on Sat Aug 9th, 2014 at 11:09:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
17:38 here looks like that.
Except it doesn't
17:38 Ukrainian Security Service withdraws records of exchange between traffic controllers, Malaysia Boeing crew
At least on that page Interfax says nothing about "a source in kiev" so they make themselves to be the primary source. Now, you would still want to find an independent source.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Aug 10th, 2014 at 02:12:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hard to censor myself from this topic like this.

The BBC item is 51 minutes later (taking into account the time difference in Moscow), so this must be that Interfax wire. I guess BBC inquired Interfax for more info, clarification. Both Interfax and BBC took responsibility for this report. The source could have been an Ukrainian Snowden.

Given the nature of the info, you cannot expect an official Ukrainian source. They just started to deny it 3 weeks later. It is unlikely that Interfax made this up so quickly - denials would be immediate. BBC posted it quickly as well - and that likely reveals a momentary lack of partisan censorship (as with the initial film with eyewitnesses).

It is very rare that dispatcher records of an aircrash are never revealed, nor even talked until weeks later. By the way, it is reported that Air India pilots overheard an interesting bit of the dispatcher communication.

by das monde on Sun Aug 10th, 2014 at 08:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fair enough.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 11th, 2014 at 06:02:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your post shows complete misunderstanding how the involved press is organised. Interfax is a press agency, similar to Reuters and AFP, while BBC a news media broadcaster.

I guess BBC inquired Interfax for more info, clarification.

That's not how it works. A news organisation buys to receive a news stream from a press agency, it doesn't call for further verification. That there are 51 minutes between the reports only strengthens that the BBC copied the message from Interfax. To add: the webpage you found most likely shows only the title, not the whole contents of the Interfax news report. If you want to see that, you'll need to pay for the subscription.

Both Interfax and BBC took responsibility for this report.

No, Interfax is responsible for the contents. BBC considers the message worthy for publication, crediting Interfax. That's far from the same.

The source could have been an Ukrainian Snowden.

That's possible. It's also possible the source wasn't. There's no way to verify, which makes all of this debate spent on a this detail pretty fruitless. And most of all because it's not clear whether the investigative teams have been denied access to the recordings, which is far more relevant.
by Bjinse on Mon Aug 11th, 2014 at 06:26:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Further, it's important to note what kind of journalism the BBC was presenting. In the heat of events, it was live-blogging. That means that the journalists in charge were receiving a feed from all kinds of sources: news agency wires, Tweets, media reports, BBC people on the ground, public declarations and press releases... And were simply noting them on a timeline without futher investigation or checking. We have all seen these live-blog timelines. A good deal of what is reported or claimed turns out, with time, to have been mistaken.

In this case, just because a BBC journalist noted the Interfax wire in a timeline does not provide the news contained with the same guarantee as if the BBC was publishing a cross-checked report from its own journalists. Indeed, the BBC says clearly (foot of page) that it is not responsible for reports from external sources. The way in which "the BBC has reported" has gone round certain sites in order to claim that this constitutes "real evidence" (like Global Research) is simply abusive.

Since we can't see the full wire, we don't know how much evidence it offers. The BBC journalist (reading the wire) noted "a source in Kiev". That is an extremely low level of reliability, close to simple hearsay.

This is not to say that the news in question is false. Just that it does not measure up to standards for "real evidence".

The Ukrainian ambassador, reported in the New Straits Times, seemed very evasive on the issue. Either Ukraine produces the recordings, or it doesn't, and then there will be real evidence one way or the other.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Aug 11th, 2014 at 07:35:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it would be useful if someone put together a diary which accumulated all the "evidence" and "intelligence" and hearsay/anecdotes pointing towards a false flag conclusion in one place. I don't feel qualified to do so, but I do feel there are an awful lot of relevant questions to which we don't have clear answers at the moment, and it is looking increasingly odd that we don't have clear answers to at least some of them by now.

I am more interested in the political implications: would western intelligence agencies allow such an accident conclusion to be reached, could they prevent it, how would such a finding effect the legitimacy and lifespan of the Kiev regime, how would it effect Russian actions in Eastern Ukraine and the ultimate settlement which might be reached?

Personally I think it would make a Russian/EU rapprochement all the more likely, with Putin negotiating from a position of much greater strength, but also with Merkel finding it much easier to conduct a new Ostpolitik. The neocons would also have a lot to answer for...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Aug 11th, 2014 at 08:34:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
At this time I cannot be endlessly busy with this. And I have to suppose that mine (or anyone's) summary would not be of big service to everyone here.
by das monde on Mon Aug 11th, 2014 at 09:31:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If it was done in good faith, it would be welcomed by all. If it were done in a partial and partisan manner, it would get hammered.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Mon Aug 11th, 2014 at 02:04:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We are now talking about evidence of BBC removing the article.

This is the sort of claim that you need to back up with at the very least a Wayback Machine search.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 12:03:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Evidence Based" = No dispatcher recordings ever announced. (Usually the simplest thing in the world.)

"Evidence Based" = No expalnation of roue deviation ever offered. (Apart from a Guardian speculation

"Evidence Based" = Barf, Bah, FFS (with a lot of words wasted as soon"corrected" arguments).

P.S. With "BBC has a recording" I refer to 15:29. There was never any retraction, debunking of that item - no further comment whatsoever. So that looks like a blurp of truth among all those quick "there are recordings of rebel conversations" fabricated announcemnts.

by das monde on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 06:03:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
to find the Guardian article.

Yet claims need evidence, they are not evidence themselves. And for extraordinary claims, you have to provide extraordinary evidence. So far no one has. This goes equally for suggestions on the involvement of a SU-25, a Ukrainian false flag operation or on Russian involvement of handling the BUK missile system.

You're purporting to show that an absence of explanations or evidence are indicative of an extraordinary claim. That doesn't hold. And I'm not going to follow the path of speculation on how things 'look like' - which is where madness lies.

by Bjinse on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 04:14:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The issue is absence of evidence that is normally expected in these situations. E.g., Sherlock Holmes did make a big conclusion about a dog that did not bark.
by das monde on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 05:12:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're aware that Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character, right? I feel the need to check ... 
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 05:53:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Does it matter, fictional or not? It is a standard of logical deduction.
by das monde on Sat Aug 9th, 2014 at 09:04:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let me know when you can show with concrete examples that the investigative teams don't possess that information either, that would actually represent something somewhat interesting. A big hang-up about what is normally expected certainly ain't.
by Bjinse on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 06:02:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pertains to traffic tower recordings confiscated [preserved?] by SBU.

Ukraine's Security Service Has Confiscated Air Traffic Control Recordings With Malaysian Jet  by Tyler Durden on 07/19/2014 20:45 -0400

The simple answer would have come if Ukraine had merely released the Air Traffic Control recording from the tower and flight MH 17, something Malaysia did in the aftermath of the disappearance of flight MH 370, which at last check has still not been uncovered.

It now appears that answer will not be forthcoming because as the BBC reports "15:29: Ukraine's SBU security service has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner, a source in Kiev has told Interfax news agency."

The SBU was directly involved providing accusations the rebels did it with falsified recording of phone intercepts.

Aviation Herald [unfortunately has not escaped becoming politicized]  

But what's the point now, Dutch PM Rutte has abruptly stopped the MH-17 Recovery and investigation of crash-site. The Dutch Safety Board OvV - report of flight recorders delayed by weeks, does not meet official deadline.

July 17 Updates on Malaysia Airlines Plane Crash in Ukraine - NY Times

'Sapere aude'

by Oui (Oui) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 01:57:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So Dreary Turd on Zero Hedge, who keeps up a constant flow of sensationalist "news", quotes the BBC timeline quoting Russian outlet Interfax citing "a source in Kiev".

At a rough guess, I'd say that is just one more minor puff of smoke in the the thick propaganda fog. It certainly can't be taken as evidence of anything at all.

Oui:

Aviation Herald [unfortunately has not escaped becoming politicized]

Is the following entry evidence (according to you) of "politicisation"?

Crash: Malaysia B772 near Donetsk on Jul 17th 2014, aircraft was shot down

On Jul 21st 2014 Russia's Ministry of Defense claimed they have compelling evidence (contradicting Ukrainian government reports of Jul 17th 2014) that an Ukrainian Air Force SU-25 fighter aircraft was within 5km around flight MH-17 at the very same altitude at FL330 and shot down MH-17. The Ministry claimed, challenged with the service ceiling of the aircraft, that the SU-25 would be able to briefly reach 10,000 meters of altitude. SU-25 fighter jet aircraft have a service ceiling of 7000 meters (FL230) clean and 5000 meters (FL160) with maximum weapons. While Sukhoi's website continues to state, that the service ceiling (the altitude that can be reached with a climb rate of 100 feet per minute, above that altitude the maximum possible climb rates fall below 100 feet per minute) of the clean SU-25 is 7000 meters, Wikipedia have experienced several dozen edits modifying the surface ceiling up to 10,000 meters and back. From an aerodynamics point of view it is impossible to reach 10,000 meters of altitude with a service ceiling at 7,000 meters unless energy of substantial excess speed is being converted into altitude. To have the SU-25 climb 3000 meters above its service ceiling would require supersonic speeds, that the SU-25 is not capable of however.

To back that up, here is the SU-25 specifications page on the manufacturor Sukhoi's site. The SU-25 without external ordnance and stores has a ceiling of 7 km, and a maximum speed of Mach 0.82.

Now that is evidence. No Ukrainian SU-25 shot down the MH17, full stop.

How much time has been wasted here in arguing the pros and cons of that kite flown by the supposedly admirable Russian military?

Advice to ideologically-blinkered conspirationists: read the ET Editorial Guidelines and stop clogging this place up with

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 03:06:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Please check the supplement section here.

(still not handy with copy&paste on ipad, sorrry)

by das monde on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 10:19:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
AnderweltOnline: Shocking Analysis of the `Shooting Down' of Malaysian MH17
If you go to the trouble of broadening your knowledge by questioning a specialist book, you'll get completely different information: the maximum flight altitude of the SU 25 is 14,600 meters.

This guy sends us to broaden our knowledge by not looking at the manufacturer's specs?

I suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia discussion of repeated edits (scroll down) to make the SU-25 fit with Russian claims. No, I don't think people on Wikipedia are part of the great Western media fixing. I think they are just looking at the clear evidence that the SU-25 is a ground attack craft that reaches its ceiling at 7,000 metres.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 10:46:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And even if it were capable of flying at 14,600 meters as the article claims, MH17 was flying at 33,000. A bit of a gap there.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 11:05:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
metres/feet...
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 11:07:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
feet?? wtf are feet??
Mea culpa.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 11:13:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The German manual he references gives 14,600 m as having been reached in a test flight (no date or further reference as to particular conditions for that flight). But the operational ceiling is there given as 7,500 m.

The author claims also that Wikipedia said the ceiling was 10,000m previous to the MH17 crash. I took a look at the Wayback Machine for a date this year previous to July:

Before the MH17 incident, Wikipedia said 7,000m clean. It was pro-Russians that tried to alter the record.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 11:18:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There goes eurogreen crashing into Mars...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 11:43:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I see in Haisenko's German link the numbers 7500m and then
"... (flight test) 14600m"

So I will admit at operating at the MH17 cruise height is unlikely.

Do manifacturer specs change for modernised versions?

by das monde on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 11:16:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Before the rest of us spend time digging out an answer for that last question, would you mind finding out whether (and preferably approximately when) Ukraine actually did modernize their fleet of SU 25s?

Because refurbishing fighter planes is expensive, and Ukraine has been flat broke for pretty much its entire existence. And half the time on unfriendly terms with Russia, which is where you would go to get the refurb done in practice, making it quite unlikely that they got a freebie for old times' sake.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 03:04:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ukraine is not broke for determined, professional "anti-terrorist" actions in Odessa and East Ukraine. Or for cash rewards for turning in weapons. Or for the ballistic missiles it is firing. One unconventionally upgraded Su25 would be really a surprise.
by das monde on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 06:11:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, yes it would.

It is one thing to over your motor pool and stockpile of old assault rifles to your favorite goons ("professional" my ass - if that's professional, I'd hate to see what amateur night looks like), or hand out some chump change to a few defectors. It is something else entirely to more than double the performance envelope of a Soviet-era turbojet aircraft.

Even if the latter is possible (and that it is possible is actually something you need to provide a plausible story about, because prima facie it sounds insane), Ukraine does not have the sort of industrial plant they would need to do it.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 07:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A plausible story would be US/NATO support.
by das monde on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 03:46:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is not a plausible story about how it is possible to double the performance envelope on a Soviet-era turbojet.

Until and unless you establish that this is even remotely feasible, you do not get to speculate on who performed the modifications that you have not yet established are even possible.

But for the sake of the argument, let's pretend you didn't skip over the most important part of your burden of proof. You're still completely off your medication if you think NATO would go to the trouble of refurbishing a single obsolete turbojet as a favor to a pet client state, instead of just giving them a couple of F16s or Mirages slated for the scrapyard.

The only possible reason to do something so obviously nonsensical would be if they had been planning ahead of time to stage a false flag operation. Which they weren't, because this plan would involve way too many people to keep it secret for six hours, let alone six months.

And on what timeline is this mythical modification exercise supposed to take place, by the way? Kiev was run by the ancien regime until six months ago, which is, eh, not enough lead time to smuggle a fighter to the other side of the planet, dismantle it, reverse engineer it, double its performance envelope, and then put it back together again so seamlessly nobody notices, and smuggle it back again.

Or are we supposed to believe that Langley has a stash of dispatchable replica Soviet military hardware with physically implausible performance specifications, just for the purpose of staging false flag operations?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 12:15:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
[ET Moderation Technology™]

das monde has been asked to stop posting CT. I suggest the (fruitless) debate has gone far enough.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 12:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed, and sorry about that. Didn't catch up with the relevant subthreads until after hitting 'post.'

Lazy mistake, my bad.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 12:33:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One interesting thing then: if the rebels shot MH17 by mistake, what were they aiming for at that height?! Was there anything else than Su25 mentioned?

Here are some numbers of Ukraine cambat aircrafts.

by das monde on Thu Aug 7th, 2014 at 10:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They didn't have to know the height of the plane to shoot at it with a radar-guided missile.

An airliner can easily be mistaken for a bomber, or an AWACS.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 04:32:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Photographic evidence suggests a rather cloudy sky, with small windows for visual observation. They had to rely on radar (in any case) - with height information then available. So they would had been aware of the (limited) possibilities, one should presume.
by das monde on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 05:30:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Cloudy sky? Even better for target misidentification.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 10:37:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought this discussion is ended?
by IM on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 10:47:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks. I got carried away.



A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2014 at 03:03:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not giving straight answers only makes the matter murkier ...

Malaysia wants the 'missing' Ukrainian ATC tapes

KUALA LUMPUR (New Straits Times) Aug. 8, 2014 - Ukraine has denied that its State Security Service (SBU) had seized the air-to-ground transmission tapes between its air traffic controllers and Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 on the day the jetliner was shot down.

Its ambassador to Malaysia Ihor Humennyi, in an exclusive interview with the New Straits Times, said that reports alleging that the SBU had seized the recordings had not been independently verified or confirmed by Kiev.

"There is no proof or any evidence that the tapes were confiscated by the SBU. I only read this in the newspapers."

Interview Ukrainian Ambassador Ihor Humennyi on MH17: Status of Ukrainian tapes still in question.

Almost immediately after the shootdown, several news agencies, including the British Broadcasting Corporation, carried reports saying that Ukraine's SBU security service had confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner.

If indeed the SBU had not seized the tapes, then where are the air-to-ground communications tapes between MH17 and the ATC? When asked this, Humennyi said he did not have the answers.

Asked if the tapes had been handed over to the investigators, Humennyi said: "We don't have any information that it had not been given to the investigation team or that it was not received by the (team of international) investigators."

Humennyi said that if a formal request was made by Malaysia or the international investigation team, Ukraine would extend its cooperation. At one point, Humennyi seemed to question the significance of the ATC tapes, saying that "it is just the same as the flight data and cockpit voice recorders".

Address of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Tragic Death of People as a Result of a Terrorist Act over the Territory of Ukraine - July 22, 2014

Cross-posted from my recent diary - Dutch PM Rutte Abruptly Calls-off MH-17 Recovery Mission.

'Sapere aude'

by Oui (Oui) on Sun Aug 10th, 2014 at 04:40:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series