Re 1 Check my previous post

The facts don’t tie up with it.

Re 2 Check yourself http://www.flightradar24.com/ or even better ask that tweeting “Spanish air traffic controller” Carlos;)
Re 3 Who are they ?Read about civil aviation and air traffic control before posting such rubbish.

Sorry but routing airliners over a war zone where planes have been shot down is asking for trouble.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2014/07/19/the-downing-of-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-5-things-you-need-to-know/?utm_source=followingweekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20140721

1) The evidence currently points overwhelmingly at the rebels

As of yet there is no hard evidence that conclusively establishes a particular party’s guilt. That level of proof will only be reached after experts have had a chance to examine the wreckage, if it is ever reached at all. With that being said, the pro-Russian rebels are certainly acting as if they have something to hide. The rebels are currently conducting an active purge of the social media sites on which they had earlier bragged of downing a Ukrainian transport plane and their spokespeople are furiously denying that they had the means to shoot down a plane at such a high altitude. It’s not a particularly sophisticated campaign (simply deleting a tweet doesn’t make it disappear if it’s already been shared hundreds of time) and it has a certain desperation to it. So while it is technically still possible that the Ukrainian armed forces were responsible, after all they do have a spotty track record when it comes to civilian airliners, the odds that it was the rebels are huge and growing.

2) You should still be suspicious of the Ukrainian government, particularly its security services

Almost immediately after MH 17 went down, the Security Service of Ukraine (which is usually referred to by its Ukrainian abbreviation of SBU) released several YouTube clips of conversations between separatists in which they discuss the downing of a civilian airliner. These recordings quickly made the rounds on the internet and were approvingly shared by well-regarded journalists like Anne Applebaum. The simple fact, though, is that the SBU is a former part of the KGB and its claims should therefore be treated with extreme skepticism. Throughout the crisis the SBU has repeatedly made claims, for example it had captured “dozens” of Russian intelligence and military officers, that have proven to be untrue. Basically, given its history as an organization and its recent track record, you should extend to the SBU the same level of trust that you extent to the Russian FSB.

3) The investigation has gotten off to the worst start imaginable

While the Russians, the Ukrainians, and even the rebels initially promised to cooperate with a “full and fair” investigation, the reality has been a lot uglier. The rebels running security at the crash site have not only been highly unprofessional (e.g. reeking of alcohol) they’ve been actively hindering the investigation. One rebel even shot over the heads of an OSCE delegation after they momentarily wandered out of the area they were “supposed” to be in. There’s so much international attention focused on the story that it’s possible these problems will eventually be resolved, but some of the most important investigative work takes place in the immediate aftermath of an aviation disaster and that work is simply not taking place. One can hope for the best, but it’s entirely possible that the initial delays in allowing trained specialists access to the site will permanently compromise the investigation.

4) The missile that was used was not a “sophisticated piece of technology” but an aging Soviet-era dinosaur

Lots of people, including some very senior officials in the Obama administration like Samantha Power, have repeatedly emphasized the “sophistication” of the SA-11 missile system, commonly referred to as the “Buk.” This is very strange. The SA-11 is hardly a cutting-edge piece of technology, as it was developed by the Soviet Union in the 1970′s. You read that correctly, the Buk was designed and first built while Leonid Brezhnev was premier of the Soviet Union. The average smart phone has more processing power than an SA-11 battery, and even the Ukrainian army has more advanced anti-aircraft weapons in its arsenal. The fact that a missile is old doesn’t make it any less deadly, but the simple fact is that the Buk is old and outdated. This technology has been around for a very long time and has been used by armies, like the Soviet Union’s, with generally low level of troop training. It just does not take a world-class military to operate such a system.

5) This is turning into a PR catastrophe for the Russian government

If, as currently seems overwhelmingly likely, MH17 was brought down by rebels fighting against the Ukrainian government Russia is going to have a spotlight shined on some of its most unsavory behavior. Over the past several months Russia have been covertly and not-so-covertly supporting the rebels in Eastern Ukraine in their struggle against Kiev. Outside of Washington DC, Russia has so far managed to largely avoid any negative repercussions for this behavior. The downing of MH17 will change that. What had previously been of concern only to the, relatively small, number of think tankers and analysts studying the region will now become front page news across the entire planet. If it turns out that the pro-Russia rebels have the blood of hundreds of innocent civilians on their hands, Russia’s position on Ukraine will become increasingly untenable. I’ve written before that Russia’s “isolation” is largely a myth, but if Russia starts to become associated with “shooting civilian airliners out of the sky” that could change very quickly.

Fly between trees. AFAIK, the Harrier wasn’t equipped with anti-tank missiles. Nor was the Harrier in Luftwaffe service (they did consider it along developing their own V/STOL design), though deployed RAF did fly the Harrier in Germany.

It could fly between trees if you really wanted to (to some extent anyway). GR9 was equipped with AGM-65 I think. I was kind of being silly though. I think the real answer is that there were more important things to spend the defence budget on.

Did everyone but the Americans and Soviets believe they couldn’t achieve air superiority?

Nope. I thing the intention was to use Pershing IAs as en-masse anti-tank weapons.

There are two forces involved here, pressure and velocity, as one goes up the other goes down,
and if the nozzle dont follow this simple principle,
-why don’t you tell me why it is adjustable then ?

You need a divergent nozzle to accelerate gas above Mach 1. Hence supersonic fighters use con-di nozzles.

Those fighter escorts are simply an assumption.

At the time there is at least 4 other airliner flying near to the mh17, including an air india dreamliner and a singaporean airlines flight.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]230378[/ATTACH]

They all appear to be flying below the conflict zone, which is where MH17 was scheduled to fly.