MH17 Black Box Data Shows Evidence Of Missile Strike

Yeah give me a break already.a reply to: GuerillaSkill

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Then it would be Russian satellites and you don't think they would release that data do you. .
You know that the US is not at war with Russia right?a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This did not take place over Russia so what exactly is your point?

As to who would need satellites to monitor the war? In answer to the post I responded too. a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Just exactly who would need to gather intelligence on the enemy? Who's war is it again? reply to: OccamsRazor04

a reply to: MysterX

If the plane were brought down by an air to air missile the damage we see would be a lot different. You would have impact instead of shrapnel damage. The damage from the missile would have been isolated to the area of impact / proximity of exploding.

The other factor to consider, as others have brought up in other threads on the same topic, is the difference in warhead types and the amount of explosives. An air to air missile is significantly less in explosive force than a surface to air missile.

Chances are an air to air missile strike would not have brought down that large of an aircraft.

The comparison is based on the Russian MoD press conference where they showed the radar footage that was suspiciously accurate as to be able to determine what type of fighter Ukraine used to "shoot down" the civilian aircraft. All of their distortions and discrepancies aside, the missile they cited had an extremely limited warhead when compared to the damage done and explosive decompression on the black box.

With that said the next bit of info is going to be, as others pointed out, the need to determine where the point of impact occurred.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Black Box Data Shows Evidence Of Missile Strike

No it doesn't.

It shows evidence of Explosive Decompression.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The comparison is based on the Russian MoD press conference where they showed the radar footage that was suspiciously accurate as to be able to determine what type of fighter Ukraine used to "shoot down" the civilian aircraft. All of their distortions and discrepancies aside, the missile they cited had an extremely limited warhead when compared to the damage done and explosive decompression on the black box.

If I remember correctly there was no talk about ATA missiles, AT ALL, in their press conference.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Russia is at war with Ukraine. That occurred when Russian invaded Ukraine.

The incident occurred near the border - Russia and Ukraine both have radar tracks. Ukraine's info went to the Dutch which is why its not being released. The Dutch are doing a criminal investigation for possible prosecution, which will make the info restricted until the court stuff occurs.

originally posted by: GuerillaSkill
a reply to: Xcathdra

Black Box Data Shows Evidence Of Missile Strike

No it doesn't.

It shows evidence of Explosive Decompression.

Explosive decompression caused by a missile strike.

No there was no damage that indicated any explosion from inside the plane. There's no conspiracy here just some idiot who made an error in identifying an airplane. Do you think Malaysia is going to call out Russia or the Ukraine over this incident? I doubt it. We find out who did it. That country offers an apology to the people of Malaysia and that's the end of the international incident.


g reply to: MysterX

a reply to: GuerillaSkill

The Russians accused Ukraine of shooting down the civilian liner with an air to air missile from an SU-25. The issue with their theory is the SU-25 could not reach the altitude in question while armed. Since Russia screwed that up, they have tried to shift the focus....again.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
No there was no damage that indicated any explosion from inside the plane. There's no conspiracy here just some idiot who made an error in identifying an airplane. Do you think Malaysia is going to call out Russia or the Ukraine over this incident? I doubt it. We find out who did it. That country offered an apology to the people of Malaysia and that's the end of the international incident.


g reply to: MysterX

An explosion from outside the plane, resulting in compromising the hull of the aircraft, causes explosive decompression.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Explosive decompression caused by a missile strike.

Nonsense. The black box showed there was explosive decompression. How could the black box show the decompression was caused by a missile? It can't.

If it can, I am sure you are going to explain how, in your next post.

a reply to: GuerillaSkill

Which is why we are using the experts analysis and not your or my opinion on the matter. Explosive decompression occurred from an exterior source. That is a fact based on the voice recorder, the flight data and what was seen on the ground (debris with shrapnel) and the pieces that showed the shrapnel damage. Which is not consistent with an air to air missile that the Russians stated was used.

Of course at the rate the rebels are destroying the crime scene...

** I really wish the mods would pay attention to green accounts and their join date and forums they participate in. **

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
Just exactly who would need to gather intelligence on the enemy? Who's war is it again? reply to: OccamsRazor04

The US is gathering intelligence on the Rebels. Not on Russia. This occurred over Eastern, rebel held, Ukraine, not over Russia.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GuerillaSkill

The Russians accused Ukraine of shooting down the civilian liner with an air to air missile from an SU-25. The issue with their theory is the SU-25 could not reach the altitude in question while armed. Since Russia screwed that up, they have tried to shift the focus....again.

Again, nonsense. Please provide the part where they say a Su-25 shot MH17. All they said was that a Su-25 came close to MH17. No talk about it shooting MH17 whatsoever, and you know it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GuerillaSkill

Which is why we are using the experts analysis and not your or my opinion on the matter. Explosive decompression occurred from an exterior source. That is a fact based on the voice recorder, the flight data and what was seen on the ground (debris with shrapnel) and the pieces that showed the shrapnel damage. Which is not consistent with an air to air missile that the Russians stated was used.

Of course at the rate the rebels are destroying the crime scene...

** I really wish the mods would pay attention to green accounts and their join date and forums they participate in. **

Russia is even more slippery. They never stated an A2A missile was used... they said a lot of maybe, could have, possibly, no substance to their claims because they know they will not pan out in the end and they just wanted a temporary diversion.

a reply to: GuerillaSkill

Its been provided in the umpteen other threads on this topic. Educate yourself there before dragging this thread off topic would you please.

a reply to: Hijinx

I wouldn't discount the possibility that both US and Russia have satellites in synchronized orbit with multiple camera's trained on the area. US has let it known they have 1.8 gigapixel 15sq mile camera's they use from planes, so its a sure bet that's antiquated compared to those used in spy satellites.

originally posted by: GuerillaSkill

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GuerillaSkill

The Russians accused Ukraine of shooting down the civilian liner with an air to air missile from an SU-25. The issue with their theory is the SU-25 could not reach the altitude in question while armed. Since Russia screwed that up, they have tried to shift the focus....again.

Again, nonsense. Please provide the part where they say a Su-25 shot MH17. All they said was that a Su-25 came close to MH17. No talk about it shooting MH17 whatsoever, and you know it.

No, the implication was maybe it did. They know there is 0% chance it happened, they lied to create a diversion.