Malaysian Airlines flight carrying 295 people has been shot down in Ukraine

[Puupi]

20km radius is pretty good, that's 40km diameter. Remember pi*r^2 for the area of a circle? that's 1.2 million square kilometers unless my maths is really fucking bad. Noone is gona be standing on the edge of that circle firing in, you'd have to miss really fucking badly. These artillery weapons only shoot 40k at best anyway.

Your maths are really fucking bad.

[MerinPally]

Your maths are really fucking bad.

I found an extra thousand. I meant 1.2 million square meters. Jesus christ that's pathetic, I can do quantum calculations but not this,

Edit - don't think I even mean that, I give up. Look, it's a lot.

20*20*3.14 = 1256 squared km

[Puupi]

I found an extra thousand. I meant 1.2 million square meters. Jesus christ that's pathetic, I can do quantum calculations but not this,

I hope you don't do calculations on anything toxic.

[MerinPally]

I hope you don't do calculations on anything toxic.

I get my lab partner to do those.

[NYC17]

Real reasons to not continuing investigation - cannot investigate while there is fighting around. Investigation is good but not at expense of endangering experts. It's their own decision not forced upon them by neither rebels nor Kiev.

It's not directly forced on them, but the continued non-cooperation doesn't leave much of a choice to begin with.

[Kellhound]

Ok, concerning the "Su-25" shoot down idea:

I saw the radar track video Russia first released, the "Su-25" was only visible for a short period of time, so it could not have been cruising at altitude. The Su-25s top speed is not far above the cruise speed of the 777. If a Su-25 is climbing, its ground speed is going to drop, a lot. The damage to the 777 (from what images I have seen) is far greater than what I would expect from the small warhead of an AA-8. Why use a Su-25 when Ukraine has Su-27s and MiG-29s, aircraft actually intended to perform non-radar controlled anti-air missions? Too many issues that don't add up well with the information provided.

[Shalcker]

There never were any official claims of Su-25 attacking Boeing; at most it was flying in vicinity, and that is collaborated by witnesses on the ground.

[Puupi]

There never were any official claims of Su-25 attacking Boeing; at most it was flying in vicinity, and that is collaborated by witnesses on the ground.

Well why did the guy specifically mention the R60 missiles SU-25 might be carrying?

[Kellhound]

There never were any official claims of Su-25 attacking Boeing; at most it was flying in vicinity, and that is collaborated by witnesses on the ground.

If it is not showing on ATC radar, it has to be flying below the radar horizon, so not very high. This is back-up by the idea planes were flying low enough for visual identification. If it isn't flying high, it will have a VERY difficult time attacking a cruising 777.

[Shalcker]

If it is not showing on ATC radar, it has to be flying below the radar horizon, so not very high. This is back-up by the idea planes were flying low enough for visual identification. If it isn't flying high, it will have a VERY difficult time attacking a cruising 777.

Obviously; and his speed is also lower then Boeing, so it's hard to get good shot from behind. AA rockets carried by Su-25 would also have hard time creating "massive explosive decompression" as they are IR-guided and would be likely to hit one of engines.

Still makes it theoretically possible; i think that briefing was more of stalling tactics aimed to say "Here, isn't this interesting? Maybe we know more, maybe US knows more..." ...while they check what else they can find in their records.

Perhaps there was Su-25 but it didn't actually appear on civilian radars; but everyone involved knows it was there, and if it is mentioned they know there was other data...

[MerinPally]

Didn't see this as posted already, so here's a dirty, decadent, capitalist, corrupt, western source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28532525

Whilst it was a Ukrainian official that has said it, there was a Ukrainian guy working on the retrieval of the data so the information has come from him. The dutch are releasing a report later this week so we'll get the confirmation then. I don't know much about the weapons systems suggested as being used but as I understood it, the weapons shot from the ground would be shrapnel based but I'm not sure about air to air ones? If so that'd rule out the Ukrainian plane shooting it down.

[Deleted]

Didn't see this as posted already, so here's a dirty, decadent, capitalist, corrupt, western source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28532525

Whilst it was a Ukrainian official that has said it, there was a Ukrainian guy working on the retrieval of the data so the information has come from him. The dutch are releasing a report later this week so we'll get the confirmation then. I don't know much about the weapons systems suggested as being used but as I understood it, the weapons shot from the ground would be shrapnel based but I'm not sure about air to air ones? If so that'd rule out the Ukrainian plane shooting it down.

HRW? That reminds me of something...

"You don't say what we want? Fuck you and your reports!"

[Kellhound]

Obviously; and his speed is also lower then Boeing, so it's hard to get good shot from behind. AA rockets carried by Su-25 would also have hard time creating "massive explosive decompression" as they are IR-guided and would be likely to hit one of engines.

Still makes it theoretically possible; i think that briefing was more of stalling tactics aimed to say "Here, isn't this interesting? Maybe we know more, maybe US knows more..." ...while they check what else they can find in their records.

Perhaps there was Su-25 but it didn't actually appear on civilian radars; but everyone involved knows it was there, and if it is mentioned they know there was other data...

The Su-25 is a flying truck, and has the RCS of one. The only way ATC would not see one is if it is below the radar horizon.

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't see this as posted already, so here's a dirty, decadent, capitalist, corrupt, western source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28532525

Whilst it was a Ukrainian official that has said it, there was a Ukrainian guy working on the retrieval of the data so the information has come from him. The dutch are releasing a report later this week so we'll get the confirmation then. I don't know much about the weapons systems suggested as being used but as I understood it, the weapons shot from the ground would be shrapnel based but I'm not sure about air to air ones? If so that'd rule out the Ukrainian plane shooting it down.

The AA-8's warhead is small and is primarily an expanding-rod warhead with some blast/frag effect. The damage i have seen are not consistent with such a warhead. Do note, various Air to Air missiles have either expanding rod or blast/frag warheads, so it isn't black and white that it wasn't an Air-to-Air missile, just very very unlikely.

[Deleted]

I'm sorry, do you not know basic things about this subject? I'm not interested in helping you catch up on 11 days of events and information regarding MH17. The information regarding access is easily accessible.

Are you asking if shooting down the plane was very unfortunate, or were you just busy at failing with sarcasm?

There is an abundance of information regarding who is most likely responsible for shooting the plane down. Declaring was the definitive perpetrator at this time, given the fact that an investigation is being hindered would be premature. If you're interested there are plenty of resources available for you to educate yourself.


I'm just kidding though. I know your post was rhetorical bullshit mixed with a failed attempt at sarcasm. It was so well done.

Edit:
It seems you edited the rhetorical plane comment from a question to a period, so you were indeed failing at sarcasm. Noted.

Check your post I was quoting. The way you sing it to me I play it to you brother.

whats that about question marks?

[NYC17]

Check your post I was quoting. The way you sing it to me I play it to you brother.

whats that about question marks?

Right, but the thing is you're fucking up the lyrics. I can play this stupid game too. How about instead we just pretend you have the capability of having an actual discussion. Originally your post had all question marks. You edited it. That's fair. I edited mine in kind to reflect it.

Keep up, you're out of rhythm. (that was too good to pass up)

[Deleted]

Right, but the thing is you're fucking up the lyrics. I can play this stupid game too. How about instead we just pretend you have the capability of having an actual discussion. Originally your post had all question marks. You edited it. That's fair. I edited mine in kind to reflect it.

Keep up, you're out of rhythm. (that was too good to pass up)

The lyrics are your job man.
There's nothing fucked up in saying "its unfortunate the Ukrainian army decided to shell the area just before the team of investigators showed up".
It is unfortunate. It's a shame actually. Not sure what's to defend about that.

[NYC17]

The lyrics are your job man.
There's nothing fucked up in saying "its unfortunate the Ukrainian army decided to shell the area just before the team of investigators showed up".
It is unfortunate. It's a shame actually. Not sure what's to defend about that.

It seems you need to familiarize yourself with the discussion taking place, taking into account your edits, and ignore the discussion taking place in your head.

You asked 3 questions. Start from there. good luck on your journey.

[Deleted]

It seems you need to familiarize yourself with the discussion taking place, taking into account your edits, and ignore the discussion taking place in your head.

You asked 3 questions. Start from there. good luck on your journey.

2 questions. The one on the middle was never meant to be a question, obviously.
And you can run around it as long as you want, but i still don't get why you had to reply like an ass to "its unfortunate the Ukrainian army decided to shell the area". Are you aware that the days following the crash Ukraine decided to attack en masse? Don't you find this behaviour disrespectful of the 300 civilians?

[NYC17]

2 questions. The one on the middle was never meant to be a question, obviously.
And you can run around it as long as you want, but i still don't get why you had to reply like an ass to "its unfortunate the Ukrainian army decided to shell the area". Are you aware that the days following the crash Ukraine decided to attack en masse? Don't you find this behaviour disrespectful of the 300 civilians?

Oh, that's simple; it's because your first question was so asinine the following 2, which you edited to one, didn't merit serious consideration. I thought I made it clear in my first response but you seem to have trouble with understanding things the first time around.


I'm out for awhile. Enjoy your continued journey towards basic understanding.

[Deleted]

Oh, that's simple; it's because your first question was so asinine the following 2, which you edited to one, didn't merit serious consideration. I thought I made it clear in my first response but you seem to have trouble with understanding things the first time around.


I'm out for awhile. Enjoy your continued journey towards basic understanding.

????
What.... what are you talking about?

Do you not find inappropriate how the Ukrainian army decided to push instead of allowing the investigation on this (as maybe declared by un) war crime?