The shooting down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur appears on the surface, at least by virtue of BBC’S reporting, to be a deliberate suggestion that If brains were gasoline, the pro-Russian separatist militia wouldn’t have enough to drive an ant’s Go-cart around the inside of a bottle cap.
There were a total 298 people on board the aircraft, it was last detected flying at 33,000 feet, as instructed by Ukrainian air traffic control.
Ukrainian air traffic control have not till date released radar data and there are suggestions from unidentified sources who apparently were in the Kiev control cent re at the time that it is unlikely the data will ever be released.
These sources claim the aircraft was shot down by an air-to-air missile fired from one of these aircraft.
Relying on contact reduces the likelihood of taking down an aircraft fired from in front of it as the chance of striking the plane is very low, especially against supersonic targets.
Needless to say, given the plane does not appear to have been on fire before the ground strike, it seems likely detonation occurred near the rear of the plane.
Interestingly, a BUK missile, the type alleged by Ukraine as having brought down MH17, relies on the command post to direct it to target.
I am not an expert on how the missile is designed to close on its target, but given it is intended for use against everything from fighter jets to cruise missiles and smart bombs, I would have guessed the missile would be far more accurate than to hit the tail of a large commercial aircraft flying at subsonic speed.
Firing from in front of the aircraft, as alleged by Ukraine, and striking the aircraft many kilometres in front of the launcher, I can’t help but wonder why the rear of the plane was hit.
Likewise would a BUK launch from behind the aircraft, coming from inside Ukraine government controlled territory.