It's looking more and more like it was the Russian Separatist, I was skeptical at first but the evidence is pilling up. 

 

surely they understand how easy it would be to fake a video like that

 

"oh, see we have the voices of the Russian separatists admitting to it"

 

no, you have random voices admitting to it

---

Their reporting on the News now that the BUK system is indeed extremely complex and who ever launched it had to have training to even launch the missile much less hit something. Talked to a military buddy today he was telling me the altitude it was flying at alone is enough to know it's a civilian plane. He said anything over 2500 feet (maybe he said meters not sure) is civilian military planes fly at a lower altitude to avoid the confusion for that reason.

---

Their reporting on the News now that the BUK system is indeed extremely complex and who ever launched it had to have training to even launch the missile much less hit something. Talked to a military buddy today he was telling me the altitude it was flying at alone is enough to know it's a civilian plane. He said anything over 2500 feet (maybe he said meters not sure) is civilian military planes fly at a lower altitude to avoid the confusion for that reason.

 

These rebels are being trained by Russian special forces, who are fighting alongside them currently.  I'm pretty sure military transports fly at higher altitudes than 2500 feet. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

These rebels are being trained by Russian special forces, who are fighting alongside them currently.  I'm pretty sure military transports fly at higher altitudes than 2500 feet. 

 yea I think he was saying 2500 metters that would be 7,500 feet ? I don't know the numbers are off but he was saying the altitude that plane was at anyone trained to fire that system knows military planes do not fly that high or anything near it.

---

These rebels are being trained by Russian special forces, who are fighting alongside them currently.  I'm pretty sure military transports fly at higher altitudes than 2500 feet. 

The American C-17 cruises at 8,500 meters while the C-5 has a service ceiling of 10,400 meters. So both would usually fly well below the 10,000 meters. I would suspect Russian made transport planes have similar performance figures. 

---

 yea I think he was saying 2500 metters that would be 7,500 feet ? I don't know the numbers are off but he was saying the altitude that plane was at anyone trained to fire that system knows military planes do not fly that high or anything near it.

 

As DF has already pointed out above, transports can fly at significantly higher altitudes than even 7500 feet.  Heck, Cessnas have a higher cruising altitude.  A 172 can cruise at 10,000 feet. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

As DF has already pointed out above, transports can fly at significantly higher altitudes than even 7500 feet.  Heck, Cessnas have a higher cruising altitude.  A 172 can cruise at 10,000 feet. 

 

He also pointed out what I was trying to get across they fly at a higher altitude than military planes. Like I said the number I'm off on but the point is anyone firing that weapon knows civilian planes fly at a different altitude then military planes pretty much eliminating the possibility it was shot down by accident.

---

He also pointed out what I was trying to get across they fly at a higher altitude than military planes. Like I said the number I'm off on but the point is anyone firing that weapon knows civilian planes fly at a different altitude then military planes pretty much eliminating the possibility it was shot down by accident.

You do understand that 10,000 meters is pretty much the altitude this flight was cruising at when it was shot down, right?  That's about 33,000 feet.

 

I'm not sure what your fixation here is with the altitude.  We know for a fact now that it was shot down by a BUK missile, and it's all but confirmed it was shot down by Russian backed rebels.  These pro Russian separatists have shot down several planes over the past few months in the same area.  They also have audio confirming that they were claiming they shot down a transport plane.  That was retracted as soon as they got to the crash site and realized it was a commercial airliner. 

 

It is plausible that they mistook this airliner for a cargo jet at the altitude it was flying, and if they weren't adequately trained on anything other than targeting and launching the missiles, there's an equal possibility that they didn't know what kind of jet it was.  We're not talking about air traffic controllers and weapons system experts here. 

 

From an ABC report:  "According to the General Staff of Ukrainian Armed Forces, the airplane was shot down by the Russian Buk missile system as the liner was flying at an altitude of 10,000 meters [33,000 feet]," the statement added. "Ukraine has no long-range air defense missile systems in this area. The plane was shot down, because the Russian air defense systems was affording protection to Russian mercenaries and terrorists in this area. Ukraine will present the evidence of Russian military involvement into the Boeing crash."

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

You do understand that 10,000 meters is pretty much the altitude this flight was cruising at when it was shot down, right?  That's about 33,000 feet.

 

I'm not sure what your fixation here is with the altitude.  We know for a fact now that it was shot down by a BUK missile, and it's all but confirmed it was shot down by Russian backed rebels.  These pro Russian separatists have shot down several planes over the past few months in the same area.  They also have audio confirming that they were claiming they shot down a transport plane.  That was retracted as soon as they got to the crash site and realized it was a commercial airliner. 

 

It is plausible that they mistook this airliner for a cargo jet at the altitude it was flying, and if they weren't adequately trained on anything other than targeting and launching the missiles, there's an equal possibility that they didn't know what kind of jet it was.  We're not talking about air traffic controllers and weapons system experts here. 

 

From an ABC report:  "According to the General Staff of Ukrainian Armed Forces, the airplane was shot down by the Russian Buk missile system as the liner was flying at an altitude of 10,000 meters [33,000 feet]," the statement added. "Ukraine has no long-range air defense missile systems in this area. The plane was shot down, because the Russian air defense systems was affording protection to Russian mercenaries and terrorists in this area. Ukraine will present the evidence of Russian military involvement into the Boeing crash."

 

Yes, the Boeing that was shot down was flying at 10,000 meters which is the normal flying altitude for commercial planes. Military planes fly below that altitude according to what I've been told. My point is anyone that can operate the BUK system which is not an easy system to operate, you keep making it sound like it's a little harder then an RPG, would know that a plane at 10,000 meters is NOT a military target.

 

there is next to zero chance the plane was shot down by accident or by someone that didn't know it wasn't a military target.

 

As for the audio that's hardly conclusive, it's two people speaking Russian that's it. That could literally be anyone on that audio recording.

---

Yes, the Boeing that was shot down was flying at 10,000 meters which is the normal flying altitude for commercial planes. Military planes fly below that altitude according to what I've been told. My point is anyone that can operate the BUK system which is not an easy system to operate, you keep making it sound like it's a little harder then an RPG, would know that a plane at 10,000 meters is NOT a military target.

 

there is next to zero chance the plane was shot down by accident or by someone that didn't know it wasn't a military target.

 

As for the audio that's hardly conclusive, it's two people speaking Russian that's it. That could literally be anyone on that audio recording.

 

Military aircraft certainly fly at all altitudes, and often do.  Commercial aircraft can fly up to 40,000 feet depending on their route.  The altitude an aircraft flies at does not designate whether it is military or civilian.     

---

Military aircraft certainly fly at all altitudes, and often do.  Commercial aircraft can fly up to 40,000 feet depending on their route.  The altitude an aircraft flies at does not designate whether it is military or civilian.     

 

I'm no military expert, I'm just going off what i was told by a career military guy. according to him and a few others I talked to Military and Civilian aircraft fly at different altitudes. He refereed to it as a civilian air space and military air space highway being independent of each other. It was his opinon which I tend to agree with at this point that anyone knowledgeable enough to operate that BUK system would be able to know a military plane vs commercial plane based upon the altitude that plane was flying at.

 

I'm not discounting the rebels probably shot the thing down if not Russians themselves, I just have a hard time believing whoever did it, did it by accident or didn't know it was a commercial flight.

 

there's also the possibility that Ukraine shot it down in hopes the world would then side with them in a war they stand no chance of winning on their own.

---

Yes, the Boeing that was shot down was flying at 10,000 meters which is the normal flying altitude for commercial planes. Military planes fly below that altitude according to what I've been told. My point is anyone that can operate the BUK system which is not an easy system to operate, you keep making it sound like it's a little harder then an RPG, would know that a plane at 10,000 meters is NOT a military target.

 

there is next to zero chance the plane was shot down by accident or by someone that didn't know it wasn't a military target.

 

As for the audio that's hardly conclusive, it's two people speaking Russian that's it. That could literally be anyone on that audio recording.

I inquired about this with a friend of mine who is a former naval aviator, flying F14s for the Navy, and commanding a squadron on the east coast up until he retired a few years ago.  The guy who told you there is some sort of protocol for planes flying at different altitudes is incorrect.  The limitations for altitude for military transports or any other military aircraft is based on their specific tolerances. 

 

In 1983, the Russians used the same "hardly conclusive" line when the US played audio of the pilot shooting down the KAL flight.  You don't know any better than anyone else that it's hardly conclusive, just like you don't know for certain that there's zero chance the plane was shot down by accident. 

 

This isn't a uniformed military we're talking about here.  It's rebels. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I inquired about this with a friend of mine who is a former naval aviator, flying F14s for the Navy, and commanding a squadron on the east coast up until he retired a few years ago.  The guy who told you there is some sort of protocol for planes flying at different altitudes is incorrect.  The limitations for altitude for military transports or any other military aircraft is based on their specific tolerances and missions. 

 

In 1983, the Russians used the same "hardly conclusive" line when the US played audio of the pilot shooting down the KAL flight.  You don't know any better than anyone else that it's hardly conclusive, just like you don't know for certain that there's zero chance the plane was shot down by accident. 

 

This isn't a uniformed military we're talking about here.  It's rebels. 

 

Added.

---

I inquired about this with a friend of mine who is a former naval aviator, flying F14s for the Navy, and commanding a squadron on the east coast up until he retired a few years ago.  The guy who told you there is some sort of protocol for planes flying at different altitudes is incorrect.  The limitations for altitude for military transports or any other military aircraft is based on their specific tolerances. 

 

In 1983, the Russians used the same "hardly conclusive" line when the US played audio of the pilot shooting down the KAL flight.  You don't know any better than anyone else that it's hardly conclusive, just like you don't know for certain that there's zero chance the plane was shot down by accident. 

 

This isn't a uniformed military we're talking about here.  It's rebels. 

 

fair enough, if your friend is an aviator I'd hold his answer in higher regard then anyone else, he'd be in the know. I still don't buy for one second this plane was shot down by accident. With a GPS/Laser Guided advanced system I'm just not buying it.

---

Sorry Eric but military planes being restricted to flying that low doesn't make a lot of sense even to an extreme laymen like myself. How would you explain a plane like the SR-71 that flew at 85,000 feet?

---

Did you guys hear about the family that got transferred to another flight because MH17 was overbooked? Father, mother and a kid had checked in and were waiting to board when a Malaysian Airlines employee informed him the flight was overbooked and they would have to fly through Dubai instead of taking the direct flight. They weren't too pleased at the time. Dutch news interviewed the father's brother and asked him what his brother said about this whole mess, the answer; "He doesn't know yet, he's still in the air at the moment." Imagine having that conversation with a family member.

---

fair enough, if your friend is an aviator I'd hold his answer in higher regard then anyone else, he'd be in the know. I still don't buy for one second this plane was shot down by accident. With a GPS/Laser Guided advanced system I'm just not buying it.

I'm not really sure what this being a GPS/Laser Guided advanced system has to do with anything when it comes to mistaken identity.  The system isn't telling them anything about the target beyond where it's located. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Did you guys hear about the family that got transferred to another flight because MH17 was overbooked? Father, mother and a kid had checked in and were waiting to board when a Malaysian Airlines employee informed him the flight was overbooked and they would have to fly through Dubai instead of taking the direct flight. They weren't too pleased at the time. Dutch news interviewed the father's brother and asked him what his brother said about this whole mess, the answer; "He doesn't know yet, he's still in the air at the moment." Imagine having that conversation with a family member.

i hadn't heard that, but that's a family that has a guardian angel looking over them for sure. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Added.

Yeah, he didn't get into the mission aspect, but you're right.  That's part of it as well. 

 

The aviator I know is actually a former Top Gun instructor.  His family lived around the corner from us.  They had 5 kids, and we had 4.  We all grew up together, went to church and school together.  He graduated from Bishop Kenny, went to Georgia Tech, all with an eye on fulfilling his dream of becoming a front seat pilot in the Navy.  He only had one problem.  He was darn near legally blind.  He ended up becoming a Rio in an F14, flying all sorts of missions including being part of the Libya attack during the Reagan presidency where they basically blew up an oil platform and a bunch of Khadaffi's tents.  He ended up at Mirimar as a student, then came back as an instructor, and actually was credited in "Top Gun".  Any time you see a Russian pilot, that's him in the dark visor.  He was tasked with looking left and right, and with teaching Tom Cruise what it was like to be a naval aviator.  Interesting guy.  He wrote a book last year about his experiences, and it's a fun read.  The book is called "Top Gun Days".  I highly recommend it for anyone who is a fan of such things. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Sorry Eric but military planes being restricted to flying that low doesn't make a lot of sense even to an extreme laymen like myself. How would you explain a plane like the SR-71 that flew at 85,000 feet?

 

yea now that you guys have pointed it out it would make more sense they fly above commercial flights, but apparently the guy that told me that was full of garbage cause FBT knows someone that fly's the planes and he said its garbage. 

---