Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I'm sorry... I wasn't referring to anyone in this thread. I've just seen it asserted by other people on other forums over the last few months. I didn't mean to seem as though I was calling you out, and sorry if it sounded that way.
Very interesting article, though. Thanks for the link. I'd never considered the bends, but yeah, that makes sense.
No worries. I was the only one who mentioned the cold on this thread, so I thought you may have been referring to my post.
I remember watching a documentary of the Aloha Airlines incident where a flight attendant was sucked out of a hole in the fuselage. The film went into some detail about what would happen. IIRC, it was very similar to what the article I linked said would happen.
Oh, so it was a no fly zone declared by the rebels... well there you have it. Too bad commercial airliners tend to look for flight path guidance from the relevant agencies that control air space.
Yet, you already admitted the FAA had already told US Airlines to stay away from the area. So obviously there was more at play here than what you are trying to prove. i.e. The Rebels No Fly Declaration was very relevant. The fact that some airlines decided to ignore it was at their own peril.
Apparently it wasn't designed to hit a plane. It exploded next to it, causing plane to break into several large pieces. As a result people spilled out and fell for a minute and a half until they hit the ground. The investigators would not rule out that many were conscious for the entire horrifying 1.5 minute trip.
Europe says Russians did it. Some Russian sympathiser in youtyube says, it was meant to hit the Russian Air Force One and was a case of mistaken identity due to similar liveries. LOL.
Yet, you already admitted the FAA had already told US Airlines to stay away from the area. So obviously there was more at play here than what you are trying to prove. i.e. The Rebels No Fly Declaration was very relevant. The fact that some airlines decided to ignore it was at their own peril.
Flight paths simply cannot ignore every micro-battlefield teeming with oafish rebels in possession of sophisticated weaponry on this planet and even on that account MH17 flew at the suggested +30,000 feet. It's incumbent on the missile operator to properly use the radar IFF or NCTR identification system of the missile launcher to identify civilian/military aircraft instead of shooting randomly at every dot in the sky.
We don't blame innocent victims of errant bombing on the ground for living/operating in a war zone so why are airborne victims treated differently? Victim blaming is a new low in this tragedy.
Apparently the songwriter Tom Lehrer in a different context got it right. "You just sit there looking cute and when something moves you shoot." I doubt if the person that launched this missile knew much more than where the trigger button was located.
I don't understand, why is that relevant at all ?
I said this before,
The plane was over a no-fly zone enforced for coupe weeks, where like 17-21 military planes were shot down there shortly before. MH17 was routed into a war zone by Ukrainian government. Who ever routed the plane is the murderer. The plane was flying over Ukrainian sovereignty and as such, it's safety is the responsibility of Ukrainian government.
All soldiers see is their planes and enemy planes. So if it's not a plane of their side they will shoot it down. MH17 simply flew over a battle. It flew over a territory where there was war and it was shot down by soldiers fighting. Maybe it was shot down by a fighter plane, maybe it was shot by surface to air missiles.
It's pretty well established that it was shot down by the BUK missiles.
As I understand, the plane was on the usual route. Some other planes took the same route in the weeks before. The Ukrainian authorities did not try to close the airspace or re-route the planes. Some of the airlines had voluntarily changed the flight paths to avoid the war zone altogether, but not all of them. The explanation I read was that they didn't believe that the rebels had weapons on the ground capable of reaching the airliner cruising altitude. Even though I suspect that Ukrainians were well aware of the presence of BUK missiles.
What I think happened was that it was indeed shot down by the rebels, perhaps even by the Russian crew on the BUK. As I understand the crew needs to have highly specialized training, plus to arm the missiles they would need access codes, it's not like some guerilla fighter from the nearby farm would be able to use the system. And the Russians admitted that there were their enlisted men "volunteering" with the rebels, although they claim these men are on a permitted leave of absence and therefore should be considered private individuals. Anyway, I am convinced, based on the available information, that the rebels shot it believing it to be a Ukrainian army plane. I also heard the voice recording of the conversation between rebel commanders and you'd have to be a great actor to fake their intonations when they realized what exactly they shot. A mixture of shocked disbelief, defiance, then "it's their fault, what the f..k were they doing in a war zone ?!"
But I also believe that the Ukrainian side knew of BUKs in rebel's hands, and deliberately didn't issue a warning hoping that an international incident would weaken the Rebels' position.
I don't think there are angels on either side.
(Btw it's Buk (the plant) not BUK but my phone automatically capitalizes it for some reason. )
Flight paths simply cannot ignore every micro-battlefield teeming with oafish rebels in possession of sophisticated weaponry on this planet and even on that account MH17 flew at the suggested +30,000 feet. It's incumbent on the missile operator to properly use the radar IFF or NCTR identification system of the missile launcher to identify civilian/military aircraft instead of shooting randomly at every dot in the sky.
We don't blame innocent victims of errant bombing on the ground for living/operating in a war zone so why are airborne victims treated differently? Victim blaming is a new low in this tragedy.
We blame professional pilots, airline operators, and air control crews for not being aware of no-fly zones that are declared in the path of jet that is being flown for profit. 17 aircraft were shot at/down in this no-fly zone before this jet was shot down, so they had plenty of notice. This airline is in the business of safely flying passengers from point A to point B- that means knowing about weather, air traffic, and security threats and ensuring that they do not endanger the lives of those on board. Micro-battlefield? This conflict was plastered on the front page of every newspaper, news website, and news channel during this time.
Why would you expect the missile operator to identify civilian/military aircraft before firing? It was declared a NO FLY zone. Therefore, that person's job was to shoot ANYTHING THAT FLIES. If he didn't, his forces would have been vulnerable to military bombers wearing civilian transponders, or civilian-shaped bombers (if using radar, as you mention).
I'm not saying that they were right in shooting down a commercial airliner if they knew for sure that it was a commercial airliner, but you can bet that if I'm in a military organization that has issued a no-fly warning, I would command those underneath me to enforce it because I wouldn't want to get bombed.
We blame professional pilots, airline operators, and air control crews for not being aware of no-fly zones that are declared in the path of jet that is being flown for profit. 17 aircraft were shot at/down in this no-fly zone before this jet was shot down, so they had plenty of notice. This airline is in the business of safely flying passengers from point A to point B- that means knowing about weather, air traffic, and security threats and ensuring that they do not endanger the lives of those on board. Micro-battlefield? This conflict was plastered on the front page of every newspaper, news website, and news channel during this time.
Was there an actual NOTAM disseminated internationally?
Quote:
Why would you expect the missile operator to identify civilian/military aircraft before firing? It was declared a NO FLY zone. Therefore, that person's job was to shoot ANYTHING THAT FLIES. If he didn't, his forces would have been vulnerable to military bombers wearing civilian transponders, or civilian-shaped bombers (if using radar, as you mention).
I'm not saying that they were right in shooting down a commercial airliner if they knew for sure that it was a commercial airliner, but you can bet that if I'm in a military organization that has issued a no-fly warning, I would command those underneath me to enforce it because I wouldn't want to get bombed.
Iran Air Flight 655 is an Iran Air civilian passenger flight from Tehran to
Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating on this route was shot down by the
United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes under the command of
William C. Rogers III. The incident took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran's
territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight's usual flight path.
The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air
missiles fired from Vincennes. All 290 on board, including 66 children and 16
crew, died
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
