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.

 

So.. where are the BUK missile trails in the MH17 video?

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I have been doing a lot of thinking about the claims of this plane being "shot" down. There is video of immediately after the plane hit the ground, and from what I can tell, there is no sign a missile was in the vicinity of the plane. I will post two videos, one of the explosion of the plane just after it hit the ground, and the other just an old you tube video of a BUK launcher in action. In the latter, you can clearly see lots of smoke and trials behind the missile. I believe that the plane may have been blown up by a bomb, or perhaps flown into the ground. What do you think ATS?





posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Also, I found it quite odd how Joe Biden came out today and sounded so emphatic that the plane WAS indeed shot down. Just the way he sounded was so fake to me. Also, why was HE speaking? I cant recall the Vice President coming out and discussing such a sensitive matter so quickly after it happened, and being so sure as to what brought down the plane.
edit on 17-7-2014 by thesmokingman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: thesmokingman
Did you men Biden and not Cheney?



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I haven't seen any pictures of the sky above to see if there are trails up there. It was pretty high up there when it was supposedly shot down.. The picture you posted was the explosion as it hit the ground I think.

I'm not saying that you aren't right, I am just saying that the pictures don't show straight up to where it was shot if it was shot.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: proob4

Thank you! lol I will edit now



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Great point! I would think you would be able to at least see some kind of trail though because it would have been fired from the ground and have to make its way up to the altitude where the impact would have occurred.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: thesmokingman

don't you mean Biden, Cheney was Bush's vp.
as for no trails, i believe it is possible for a aircraft to go many miles in a free fall after being hit.
there was all kinds of pictures of large pieces of the aircraft that were not brunt. the explosion came from where the fuel was when that part hit the ground

there was one report that the experts suggest that it was hit in the tail and broke apart as it fell.


edit on 17-7-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: thesmokingman

The discussion in the video is a little difficult to listen to, however, I believe the point trying to be made is that either a direct hit by a missile or even a proximity explosion would have started a fire in the aircraft which would have, subsequently, been visible on it's terminal descent.

Having no missile trail ? Considering that the aircraft was allegedly brought down from 10,000m, the missile may very well have been launched at some considerable distance from the camera angle shown and not be visible.

Rickymouses' post points out the critical information that is missing.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell
edit on 17-7-2014 by myselfaswell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Could be a "conspiracy"!

When 9/11 happened, there was and is conspiracy of Flight 93 being shot down (the plane that crashed in field in Shanksville, PA. I live 15 miles away from Shanksville. I was in my 2nd period English class in Stoystown, 5mi from where Flight 93 went down. As usual I was staring out the window, bored as usual with English class, being I was already able to speak fluid english. And as I watched out the window I saw a plane (Flt 93) flying low over the trees a few miles away, followed by a shaking in the floor, and then a BOOM! I've read and heard of people saying about a couple fighter jets trailing the plane and shooting it down. BUT, at no point did I see any other aircraft near the jet, or any smoke.

Did this cause me to stray off topic? My bad!



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ThisIsMyRifle

No, thank you, I believe that is valuable information pertinent to this conversation! That is pretty crazy that others said they saw stuff you did not. I wonder what DID bring 93 down then?



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
im no balistics not atronomical expert but i would think abouve 200 feet winds would be alot higher and disapate smoke very fast and below that would be less knoticable

not to say any posibility couldent of hapon

and to further ? how the expliced did the black box survive that

no black box in 911 but being hit bye a AA or a bomb or even just failure fall miles down and survive wtf

and in a burning plane idk just my thoughts

please resume ur logical discushion the thoughts of a drunken mad man are done


oh and im not refering to the whole 911 conspiracy bs just this one a black box after all that sounds like bs to me
if it cant survive a plane crash how the .....

edit on 17-7-2014 by markovian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: thesmokingman

I believe there is some conspiracy to 9/11, you know to further others agendas. There was so much with the towers that lead to that conclusion, my favorite being the most possible presence (recorded live via news cameras) of what looks most likely like thermite burning and pouring from the entry holes in the towers before they collapsed. Down to President Bush being in a meeting with one of bin Ladens *sons?* right before it all happened? In regards to Flight 93, I think it's possible that passengers did rush the cockpit and bring the plane down in an empty field. For what reason if there wasn't terrorists, I don't know. It could be that the plane was deviated from its original course to be grounded in at a nearer by accommodating airport after reports of the towers attack. And possibly a few passengers on the plane were in contact with relatives on the ground and found out about the attack on the towers. When the plane changed course, people thought the worst and stormed the cabin. It's just one theory I have. Government wanting to make those people look like heroes, and bring a warm feeling to people outraged and extremely upset after watching two towers struck by planes, could have hid a small simple truth like that theory to raise some pro-american will spirits.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: markovian

Have you ever seen contrails from an airplane? Even in the 2nd video I posted there were sure trails coming off those missiles. Im sure there was wind that day as well.



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ThisIsMyRifle

aside from some simple comparium im guilty of lol defneding myself

but as a whole lets keep 9/11 out of this its not directaly conected

physics of aircraft blackboc survival burn time even missel trails all fine but this is not full on 9/11 topic and will only derail the topic at hand



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: thesmokingman

as i saied it really wasent a assumption just a idea i really dont know just a thought not stating hard facts just thinking

and your point is very valid didnt think og contrails high up not moving

so to counter tho do they move the same as smoke i know they should

but on a windy day even a smoke bomb goes away fast again tho just a thought no proof behind it



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: markovian

Have you seen video of rockets exploding miles above the earths surface? Look for a video on YouTube of the space shuttle Challengers catastrophic explosion, and tell me how quickly the smoke from that dissipates.

No intent of being rude!



posted on Jul, 17 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
no rudeness taken i see ur point there should be some smoke it dosent look like gale force winds

that is only if that actual rocket if there is one hapon in fram

i have no doubt ether way mind u anything could of hapen im just looking at the evidance

... lol and tbh i didnt watch the vids i made a ass of myself there assuming some bs vid like iv seen 100x before but that was verry relivant tho still

where the plane hit the gound could be very far from where it was struck and a simple camera angle would hide everything



i could hide a lot if i was facing the right way u know

at this point we know 2 things 1 something went down and 2 a plan hit the ground hard killing alot of people

we may never know the truth but im about 80% shure that it was intentional and was ment to cause more war



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: thesmokingman

Oh lmao... Its just how it is here isnt it..

Plane crashes into the sea "It must have been a missile, why wont they admit it!!! Im a internet investigator I know betterer!!"

Plane shot down "It cant be, why would they say it, when will they admit it!!!! Im still a internet investigator!!"

far out.. I had expected ATS to be all a twitter with this, but you just seem to take whatever the media says and say the opposite... and that is just as bad as being ignorant.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: thesmokingman

The cruising height of the aeroplane has been estimated at 32,000 feet when it was allegedly hit, and from that video, I find it ludicrous that you can just say "I think it was a bomb" considering: The smoke trail from the missile going up would be long gone as the plane was coming down (after impact), not sure on physics there but I think it would take a good few minutes to fall from the sky. Additionaly, the missile could have been fired from anywhere outwith the video coverage, which is a VERY large area.

As I said, it's ludicrous that you can deduce anything from the videos you posted.

You'll find a lot of "strange" stuff regarding this story, but not from American politicians. The most interesting elements so far are the claims and counter-claims coming out of Kiev and E. Ukraine.

First is the claim from Kiev that the "rebels" or "Pro-Russian Separatists" (whatever you want to call them) managed to get a BUK Missile launcher and claimed to have shot down a military transport plane, but then deleted that claim.

Second, that Kiev moved forces into that area within the last 7 days, which they did, but more interestingly, the units they moved into the area were equipped with said missile system.

The biggest niggle for me though, is why was Malaysian Airlines still allowing flights over Ukraine when other airline carriers had rerouted their aircraft weeks ago.
edit on 18-7-2014 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ThisIsMyRifle

But what about the news story that flight 93 had already landed safely after having a few 'technical difficulties" that day? I have seen the newspaper clip that showed that.




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join