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: 166
263
<< 163  164  165    167  168  169 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel



The R-60s hit the Mh17 somewhere Close to the two engins on the left side.


Isn't the 777 a 2 twin engine aircraft?


Not any more.

.




posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: flibblebee

No, it wouldn't. Again, it depends on the missile. An infrared missile will track for the hottest part of the plane. That's engines or APU on a commercial plane. A radar guided missile is going to track on the largest radar return, which would be the center of the fuselage where the wingbox and fuselage join. You would never try to track on the nose, because there's too good a chance you could miss.


So why the large amounds of shrapnel near the front?



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel


The R-60s hit the Mh17 somewhere Close to the two engins on the left side.


Isn't the 777 a twin engine aircraft?


Yes it it my bad.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel


The R-60s hit the Mh17 somewhere Close to the two engins on the left side.


Isn't the 777 a twin engine aircraft?


yes



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: flibblebee
So why the large amounds of shrapnel near the front?



It was caused by pro russian chainsaws.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

No, it wouldn't be burning necessarily. Again, other planes were hit by missiles, and didn't leave smoke trails. Most of the fuel was carried in the wings. When the aircraft broke apart, it would have dispersed the fuel, which would have been most of what burned and would leave a smoke trail down to the ground. It was too dispersed to burn.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: flibblebee

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: flibblebee

No, it wouldn't. Again, it depends on the missile. An infrared missile will track for the hottest part of the plane. That's engines or APU on a commercial plane. A radar guided missile is going to track on the largest radar return, which would be the center of the fuselage where the wingbox and fuselage join. You would never try to track on the nose, because there's too good a chance you could miss.


So why the large amounds of shrapnel near the front?



Because of the proximity fuze. The engins are not that far from the front.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: flibblebee
So why the large amounds of shrapnel near the front?



It was caused by pro russian chainsaws.


That's really a stretch.

.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: flibblebee

Because it was a SAM coming from the front, tracking towards the middle of the plane, when it detonated. I didn't say that a missile couldn't hit near the nose, I said that you don't deliberately make it track near the nose.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

No, it wouldn't be burning necessarily. Again, other planes were hit by missiles, and didn't leave smoke trails. Most of the fuel was carried in the wings. When the aircraft broke apart, it would have dispersed the fuel, which would have been most of what burned and would leave a smoke trail down to the ground. It was too dispersed to burn.


When the Aircraft broke apart? When did it breake apart? After the missile hit it right?

The Aircraft didnt break apart before the missile hit. First it sets of its charge and you have a blast, that created a lot of heated fragments.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: flibblebee

Because it was a SAM coming from the front, tracking towards the middle of the plane, when it detonated. I didn't say that a missile couldn't hit near the nose, I said that you don't deliberately make it track near the nose.



And since BUK's have been in use for some time, we would see the bias on tracking for this system. Can you show this?



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

They're a lot farther than you think they are from the front. Certainly not close enough that they would have had that damage pattern under the cockpit if it detonated near the engines.

A 777 is 209ft 1in long from tip of the nose to tip of the tail. That means that the engines, which are roughly halfway down the fuselage, would be 100 feet from the cockpit. That's not that close.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I bet the saw guys were carving up the front of the plane looking for the black boxes.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

And as the fuel disperses, as it will when the wings break apart, it won't burn. It has to be concentrated for it to burn, and once the wings open up, the fuel isn't concentrated anymore.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

They're a lot farther than you think they are from the front. Certainly not close enough that they would have had that damage pattern under the cockpit if it detonated near the engines.

A 777 is 209ft 1in long from tip of the nose to tip of the tail. That means that the engines, which are roughly halfway down the fuselage, would be 100 feet from the cockpit. That's not that close.


Well, the crash happened in Europe, can you give that in Metric please?

.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

there is no front and back in outspace Jim,,,Spock to Kirk,, episode 345


missle could detonate ,, front ,back, side, top, bottom,,depending on vector,,and wind speed,,unless u have a computer,,

just speculating in 4 dementional space,

u know outside the box.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

worked for the world trade centre,,,hmmm



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

And as the fuel disperses, as it will when the wings break apart, it won't burn. It has to be concentrated for it to burn, and once the wings open up, the fuel isn't concentrated anymore.



This is how jetfuel burns.




posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: flibblebee

Some of here are trying to get real information, why are you so hellbent on trolling ATS?



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: flibblebee

63.7 meters total length and roughly 30.5 meters.



new topics

top topics



 
263
<< 163  164  165    167  168  169 >>

log in

join