Slashdot Mirror


Russian Missile Parts Found At MH17 Crash Site

An anonymous reader sends this report from the BBC: Fragments of a suspected Russian missile system have been found at the Flight MH17 crash site in Ukraine, investigators in the Netherlands say. They say the parts, possibly from a Buk surface-to-air system, are "of particular interest" and could help show who was behind the crash. But they say they have not proved their "causal connection" with the crash. ... Ukraine and many Western countries have accused pro-Russian rebels of shooting down the plane, saying they could have used a Buk missile system supplied by Russia. Russia and the rebels deny any responsibility and say the Ukrainian military was to blame.

7 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Say Russia did it for the purpose of argument.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What would the consequences be if irrefutable proof was uncovered in the wreckage?

    Lawsuits for compensation filed by the families of the victims against the Russian government.

    Similar to Pan Am 103.

  2. Re:How is it Ukraine's fault by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's no way a Russian missile could get hot enough to melt an airliner.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  3. Re:Whoever wrote the title is an idiot by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    BUK isn't a "Russian" missile system. It was developed by several USSR countries, including Ukraine.

    Buk was developed by Tikhomirov Scientific Research Institute of Instrument Design of Zhukovsky, Russia and NPO Novator of Yekaterinburg, Russia. It is produced by Novator's Kalinin Machine-Building Plant. It is a Russian missile system. Russia is not the only country to own them, but they designed, made, and still make them, including the latest updated variants not available in former satellite states.

    The paramilitaries issued a "don't fly in our skies, we'll shoot you down" warning days before the attack. Immediately after the attack, they announced shooting down the plane, before deleting the announcement hours later it after it was discovered to be civilian. The plane was shot down deep in DNR territory. The missiles have a maximum range of 20 kilometers, far away from the nearest Ukrainian troops.

    I know it's great to want to be skeptical, but at some point you need to come down to Earth.

    --
    I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
  4. Re:Rebels didn't use planes by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    Strelkov's VK and Twitter accounts had long been the official social media mouthpieces of the DNR and had never been questioned. Strelkov can be heard making the same boast in a video. Russian media embedded with the rebels also echoed their shootdown claim, adding “Ukrainian military claim that the losses were caused by actions by Russia. The militia refuted this information, correcting that they had shot down the plane from a ZRK ’9K37M1 (better known as a Buk).” Numerous Russian news sources, even ITAR-TASS, carried the story.

    After the fact that it was a civilian plane came to light, Strelkov switched to conspiracy theory mode - still not changing from "we shot down the plane", but rather to the plane wasn't actually full of civilians but rather a bunch of already-dead bodies.

    --
    I'll never forget the last thing grandma said to me before she died: "What are you doing in here with that knife?!?"
  5. Re:How is it Ukraine's fault by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Informative

    When the World Trade Center collapsed, there were those who said the burning fuel from the airliners never got hot enough to melt the steel beams of the buildings. This means, in their warped view, there was no way for the buildings to have collapsed on their own and were instead deliberately destroyed.

    The problem with that idea is twofold. While the heat from the burning fuel may not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel, it was sufficient to heat the metal and cause structural deformation.

    Further, these conspiracy folks completely ignore all the other combustible material inside the buildings which WERE hot enough to warp the beams and pull them laterally from the sides of the building (see this sheet, numbers 8 and 9 for a further explanation) which then precipitated the pancake effect we all witnessed.

    Thus, the reference to not being able to melt an airliner.

    However, these same folks ignore incidents such as this one where a tanker fire directly under a bridge was able to melt steel beams. It's the way conspiracy theories work. Ignore anything which contradicts your point of view or explain them away as not relevant to their rantings. Just like Russia and their proxies have done trying to claim their innocence at shooting down the civilian airliner.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  6. Buc missiles? Who has them? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just about every former member of the old Soviet has Buc missiles. I want to know what MODEL of Buc missile they found at the site.

    It seems that the story about two attack jets shadowing the airliner may be red herrings. So, at this point in time, the most important question is, "Which Buc missiles, precisely, were used to down the aircraft?"

    If it was a model from the '70's or '80's then we blame Porkochenko and Ukraine.

    If it is a modern, up-to-date model, the Putin bites the big green weenie. They haven't sold any new model missiles to Ukraine, or any of the other former client nations.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  7. Re:Malaysia flew over a warzone... by tompaulco · · Score: 5, Informative

    What we must not forget, is that Malaysia decided to fly over a war zone. This does not talk the attack on the airplane right, but it creates circumstances...

    Over 300 other civilian planes flew over the area the same week. There was no "no fly" zone and flying over the area at over 32,000 feet was considered negligible risk.
    It is only Monday morning quarterbacks trying to blame the victim that say they shouldn't have been flying there. If the plane hadn't been shot down, planes would still be flying over the area and nobody would say a word about it.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.