It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Malaysian 777 Passenger Airline Shot Down Over Eastern Ukraine

page: 164
263
<< 161  162  163    165  166  167 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

MH17 would have broken into many Peaces do to the damge and the friction that would be caused. And there would be a solid smoke trail from where the BUK missile hit it and all the way to the ground. But there were hardly any smoke trail at all.



How many more PIECES do you want?

secure.flickr.com...

Spread over 15km? Me thinks you're not informed.




posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

You mean like that solid smoke tail the DHL Airbus left over Iraq after being hit by a missile, and having the outer peron of the wing visibily on fire?

Ok, so it was an air to air missile. Where was the massive smoke trail they leave on launch? There were allegedly eyewitnesses that saw fighters flying near the plane, fighters that don't leave smoke trails, but missed the huge tail that would point straight back to them somehow?


Well the smoke trail of the air to air missiels would have been from Close to 16400 ft and going up.

The smoke trail from the Air to Air missile would have had a heading towards where MH17 was hit. From around 16400 ft going up to where MH17 was flying 33000 ft. It would not be easy for eye vitnesses to spot a thin smoke trail heading tworads them. The angel would make the smoke trail much Shorter.

They might even have see it, but without knowing it.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: spy66

MH17 would have broken into many Peaces do to the damge and the friction that would be caused. And there would be a solid smoke trail from where the BUK missile hit it and all the way to the ground. But there were hardly any smoke trail at all.



How many more PIECES do you want?

secure.flickr.com...

Spread over 15km? Me thinks you're not informed.


Jesse's. Mh17 hit the ground at freefall speed. I am not saying it didnt brak up in the air. I am saying that it wasnt shoot Down by a BUK system.

I will add. The MH17 was shoot Down by the Ukrainian SU 25. Just keep that in mind until later.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Way too much destruction, too fast on a large plane. SAM strike.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Air Algerie plane with 116 people on board crashed in Mali near the Burkina Faso border. Crashed airline found by french jet fighters.

A Taiwanese plane crashed during a storm on 23rd July, killing 48 people

Bad week for aviation. Very sad.
edit on 24-7-2014 by lonewolf2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Way too much destruction, too fast on a large plane. SAM strike.


No need to argue with the pro russians in this thread. they totally ignore actual evidence and explosives evidence and th esmall warheads on the r-60s are not powerful enough to do what they are suggesting. they know this but they still will use the russian reversal. its comical. NO wonder OLYMPUS is wanting to leave this planet behind with such sheep.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Funny that when watching videos of other air to air missiles being fired, even videos shot from the ground there is no problem picking out the smoke trail.

But here's another question for you, and I can't wait for this answer.

We know the plane broke apart in flight. You claim that a missile with a warhead up to 13 pounds caused it to break apart. Now for the interesting part. Same amount of fuel, same damage. Why wouldn't the parts that you claim should have been on fire if hit with an SA-11, not be on fire with an R-60? If it was going to catch fire and burn, it should have done that with either missile hitting it.

And how is it that a plane similar in size, was hit with two missiles, with much larger warheads (88 pounds compared to between 6 and 13 pounds) was able to fly for several minutes after being hit, and didn't break apart until it hit the water?



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Ukraine Rebel Leader Admits Fighters Did Have BUK Missile


DONETSK, Ukraine, July 23 (Reuters) - A powerful Ukrainian rebel leader has confirmed that pro-Russian separatists had an anti-aircraft missile of the type Washington says was used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 and it could have originated in Russia.

In an interview with Reuters, Alexander Khodakovsky, commander of the Vostok Battalion, acknowledged for the first time since the airliner was brought down in eastern Ukraine on Thursday that the rebels did possess the BUK missile system and said it could have been sent back subsequently to remove proof of its presence.

Before the Malaysian plane was shot down, rebels had boasted of obtaining the BUK missiles, which can shoot down airliners at cruising height. But since the disaster the separatists' main group, the self-proclaimed People's Republic of Donetsk, has repeatedly denied ever having possessed such weapons.

Since the airliner crashed with the loss of all 298 on board, the most contentious issue has been who fired the missile that brought the jet down in an area where government forces are fighting pro-Russian rebels.

Khodakovsky accused the Kiev authorities for provoking what may have been the missile strike that destroyed the doomed airliner, saying Kiev had deliberately launched air strikes in the area, knowing the missiles were in place.

"I knew that a BUK came from Luhansk. At the time I was told that a BUK from Luhansk was coming under the flag of the LNR," he said, referring to the Luhansk People's Republic, the main rebel group operating in Luhansk, one of two rebel provinces along with Donetsk, the province where the crash took place.


click link for remainder of article.


a reply to: Zaphod58
Watching the russians / pro russian rebels trying to spin this mess is like watching an episode of mystery science theater 3k
edit on 24-7-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Way too much destruction, too fast on a large plane. SAM strike.


We don't know how the plane broke up and in what sequence, so that is purely conjecture.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: flibblebee

Actually we do. All you have to do is look at what was found where. The aircraft broke up at high altitude, and the cockpit broke off first, because it was found farthest away from the main fuselage.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: flibblebee

Actually we do. All you have to do is look at what was found where. The aircraft broke up at high altitude, and the cockpit broke off first, because it was found farthest away from the main fuselage.


You should make a presentation of that sequence for TV. Get it out there before the professionals do.

.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: flibblebee

originally posted by: roadgravel
Way too much destruction, too fast on a large plane. SAM strike.


We don't know how the plane broke up and in what sequence, so that is purely conjecture.



Yeah we do weve seen shrapnel damage and it had to be a large warhead so it had to be a sam or a huge flock of metallic exploding birds. Im waiting for russia to use that one next lol.
edit on 7/24/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I wonder if any of the recovered mobile phones or cameras had any images or video or audio of the "event".



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: flibblebee

originally posted by: roadgravel
Way too much destruction, too fast on a large plane. SAM strike.


We don't know how the plane broke up and in what sequence, so that is purely conjecture.



Yeah we do weve seen shrapnel damage and it had to be a large warhead so it had to be a same or a huge flock of metallic exploding birds. Im waiting for russia to use that one next lol.


Yeah I saw shrapnel all over lots of wreckage. Everywhere, the cockpit, the wings et al. I also saw lots of shearing tears along large bits of metal fuesalage.

Not just one isolated area.


edit on 24-7-2014 by flibblebee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: flibblebee

That would be because it's a fragmentation warhead. It creates a cloud of shrapnel that does the damage to the plane, not just in one area.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: flibblebee

That would be because it's a fragmentation warhead. It creates a cloud of shrapnel that does the damage to the plane, not just in one area.


And how large is this cloud? 777's are not the regular size of a fighter jet that they would normally be used on, 777's are MUCH larger.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: flibblebee

originally posted by: roadgravel
Way too much destruction, too fast on a large plane. SAM strike.


We don't know how the plane broke up and in what sequence, so that is purely conjecture.



Wreckage scattered over a very large area says it did not do it as it hit the ground.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: flibblebee

originally posted by: roadgravel
Way too much destruction, too fast on a large plane. SAM strike.


We don't know how the plane broke up and in what sequence, so that is purely conjecture.



Wreckage scattered over a very large area says it did not do it as it hit the ground.


Of course. But at what altitude did parts break off at, probably not all at the same height.


.


edit on 24-7-2014 by flibblebee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: flibblebee

It depends on the missile, obviously. A missile like the R-60 has a very small warhead, so it's a very small cloud of fragments. A missile like the SA-11 has a very large warhead, so it has a very large cloud of fragments.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: flibblebee

It depends on the missile, obviously. A missile like the R-60 has a very small warhead, so it's a very small cloud of fragments. A missile like the SA-11 has a very large warhead, so it has a very large cloud of fragments.


Got numbers?

Numbers would be useful, I would consider them useful facts.

.


edit on 24-7-2014 by flibblebee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
263
<< 161  162  163    165  166  167 >>

log in

join