Malaysian 777 Passenger Airline Shot Down Over Eastern Ukraine

Just found this article saying shrapnel has been found, & it includes pictures. I will leave it for those more knowledgable about planes & bombs: www.nytimes.com... 721&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=4

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dragonridr

Two better questions for the Ukrainian fighter crowd are:

1. How does an air to air missile bypass both the hottest points of the aircraft (if it's IR), and the biggest radar return portion of the aircraft (for a radar guided missile [which I'm pretty sure the Su-25 can't carry]) to detonate next to the cockpit?

2. How does an R-60, the most commonly carried missile by the Su-25, do that much damage to a 777 with its 13 pound warhead?

"The Ukrainian Fighter Crowd"

Are you responding to claims Russians supposedly have made?

Who was talking about an air to air missile?

a reply to: ScrutonEyez

Who was talking about an air to air missile?

See here

a reply to: ScrutonEyez

Go back through the thread. Quite a few people have made a point of saying that Ukrainian fighters were following the aircraft, and some have said that it was responsible for the shoot down, not a SAM. I'm referring to those claims. I want to see proof that a 13 pound warhead could have caused that hole in the cockpit, and damage all the way down the fuselage.

www.zerohedge.com...

US State Department "Confident" MH17 "Mistakenly" Downed By Separatists

With a somewhat shocking lack of evidence, AP reports that US officials (on condition of anonymity) have stated that intelligence suggests Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was mistakenly shot down by separatists and can find no link to Russia.

However, the unnamed non-proof-providing officials believed Russia "created the conditions" for the downing of MH17. For now there is not even a YouTube clip to confirm this... as officials do not make the new technical evidence public...

originally posted by: j.r.c.b.
Just found this article saying shrapnel has been found, & it includes pictures. I will leave it for those more knowledgable about planes & bombs: www.nytimes.com... 721&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=4

These pictures appear to have been taken in a different season. The grass around the plane pieces is dead, with a few sprouts here and there. The MH17 crash site is lush and green, with wildflowers all over the place.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ScrutonEyez

Go back through the thread. Quite a few people have made a point of saying that Ukrainian fighters were following the aircraft, and some have said that it was responsible for the shoot down, not a SAM. I'm referring to those claims. I want to see proof that a 13 pound warhead could have caused that hole in the cockpit, and damage all the way down the fuselage.

Although I find it highly unlikely that MH17 was shot down by an Su-25, you are assuming that an Su-25 UM1 is incapable of carrying an R-27. That is an assumption I wouldn't make.

That would give a potential warhead size of 39 kg...and, it comes in fragmentation.

Personally, I find the air-to-air scenario highly unlikely based on the Su-25 part. UM1 or not, it would have made far more sense, assuming Ukraine wanted to shoot down MH17, to use one of their Su-27's or MiG-29's. And, that is the stickler for me. Sending up an Su-25 for this would just be silly when you have far more capable platforms sitting there, ready and waiting.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Can you look at my post here

Where are they getting the information that it was an SU-25 in the first place if the only data they have is from a primary radar return. I didn't think that would give the information of what type of plane.

a reply to: peck420

It's still a pretty small warhead for the damage we're seeing. Whatever did that was a big warhead. A lot bigger than you're going to see on an air to air missile.

I'm assuming it's an Su-25 because everyone that claims that there were fighters in the area has claimed Su-25. Nothing else. But regardless, even an R-77 warhead isn't going to make a hole that big in the cockpit, and then spread damage all the way down the fuselage, like what we saw here.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

Exactly. That's something that has confused the hell out of me too. But everyone insists it was an Su-25. Regardless, we're seeing a LOT of damage for an air to air missile, regardless of the type of platform. And it's completely inconsistent with reports of the plane being behind the Malaysian plane, which most of the reports claim.

a reply to: Zaphod58

What about from decompression? Rupture/fire/explosion of some fuel?

This is your area of expertise, not mine -- but could any of those reasons partially explain the damage?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Most of the holes I've seen have been going INTO the fuselage, which means whatever caused them was outside the aircraft. But all those factors eventually came into play, as the stress of the damage caused by the missile hit affected the aircraft.

a reply to: AliWV

That's not dead grass. That's wheat. There are a number of pictures that show large pieces of the wreckage in a wheat field.

nvm.. while catching up on the thread the question was already asked.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ScrutonEyez

Go back through the thread. Quite a few people have made a point of saying that Ukrainian fighters were following the aircraft, and some have said that it was responsible for the shoot down, not a SAM. I'm referring to those claims. I want to see proof that a 13 pound warhead could have caused that hole in the cockpit, and damage all the way down the fuselage.

But who do you want to see proof from exactly? Nobody talking about air to air missiles in the last 5 pages and this is the post you responded to with your post about ATA missiles,

Why would they saw it in half no explination????

I don't see why you responded to this, with that.

Anyway, there is no need to talk of such crowds when they don't exist.

Just let it be clear that the Russians didn't talk about any air to air missile fired.

Btw, I'm not saying your factual information has a problem with it.

a reply to: ScrutonEyez

I never said the Russians did, now did I. And I wasn't aware that I had to post to your standards. The claim has been made repeatedly that the Ukrainians did this, either with a SAM, or an air to air missile. I chose to ask those questions. If you don't like it, you don't have to reply to me, that's your right. Just as I have every right to ask those questions, regardless of whether the claim was made in the last five pages or not.

If what Russian says is true then I think that all Russian is ending up doing is showing that a missile may have been intended to target a military plane but missed.

The US gov says it has data on the heat sig of a missile launch, post strike and crash site. We will see it as proof, who knows. Maybe some day. I get the feeling to many people in the US, for instance, will just believe what is said instead of wanting to see some data the back up the statements. I forget that the people seem to mean little now. Politicians make decisions regardless of what those they represent want.

originally posted by: AliWV

originally posted by: j.r.c.b.
Just found this article saying shrapnel has been found, & it includes pictures. I will leave it for those more knowledgable about planes & bombs: www.nytimes.com... 721&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=4

These pictures appear to have been taken in a different season. The grass around the plane pieces is dead, with a few sprouts here and there. The MH17 crash site is lush and green, with wildflowers all over the place.

The wreckage was spread over 10 miles or so, & it shows the area where this particular wreckage was found on the small map. Looks like some kind of small brown field next to the green field.....

a reply to: Zaphod58

I never said the Russians did, now did I.

Not exactly no, just like I didn't really say you did.

I have every right to ask those questions, regardless of whether the claim was made in the last five pages or not.

I agree, but I think it's a bit over the top to call it a crowd when 3 odd people might have discussed it. Why invoke the negative undertone?

You should say "Ukrainian fighter shooting down MH17 with ATA- crowd".

When you say "Ukranian fighter crowd" you seem to be talking about people that believe there was an Ukrainian fighter

Get my point?