MH17 Black Box Data Shows Evidence Of Missile Strike

Will they be able to determine if the missle came from a Ukrainian fighter jet or fired from the ground by Ukrainians?

a reply to: Xcathdra

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

If one were to 'believe' some folks.

ED happens all the time by 'itself'

a reply to: GuerillaSkill

Other point still stands too, black boxes can't prove it was a missile.

Sure it can since the 'black box' includes cockpit comm

a reply to: NiZZiM

UAV and satellites are two entirely different things. A satellite can not come back down to refuel and is awful expensive, to bring into orbit. It would have to expel an enormous amount of energy to stay stationary above the Ukraine. They "orbit," meaning they have service windows. That satellite is traveling many thousands of miles an hour around the planet, it doesn't float in one spot. There are dead times once the satellite has passed it's target.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Again, a satellite only gets a brief window to spy on the Ukraine, so it would be of areas of interest as it passes by. Chances are depending on the area they want to spy on, a plane may not be in focus, if your focal point is the ground. Again, what area is the satellite looking at as it whips by at many thousands of miles an hr from space. It ORBITS the planet, it doesn't stay stationary.

a reply to: MysterX

What a load of BS - there was no SU-25 - this argument has been debunked to a tee for several reasons, not least the fact the Su-25 cannot fly at the altitude given for the 777 and nor is it equipped (or even designed) to engage A2A, aside from a couple of short-range sidwewinder type missiles - which is a short range, IR missile which would have gone for an engine and wouldn't have brought down a 777.

It is like claiming an airliner was shot down by an A-10!

The Russian radar track, which they claimed showed this mysterious ground attack aircraft flying 15,000 above it's max ceiling and engaging in a mission it wasn't designed for doesn't even show an additional aircraft.

Why is this SU-25 "myth" still being perpetuated?

a reply to: stumason

I'd go back and re-read my posts if you're planning on having a pop mate.

ALL of what you've just posted IS well covered within them.

Calm down, have a beer or a cup of tea and relax and...read, then we'll talk again if you're up for it.

K?

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
Xcathdra, now I'm asking you personally: Do you have any idea why Kiev did not released ATC records? Isn't it bit odd? Ok, separatists destroyed its part of crime scene. Kiev "deleted" its part of crime scene completely. If ATC data could at any manner support Kiev's/West's point of view wouldn't it be logical to release it?

#

No one has deleted anything - the Investigators are in possession of it. Since when do investigators, looking into any crime, much less the shooting down of an airliner, release what evidence they have prior to the conclusion of said investigation?

Never, is the answer.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: MysterX

Because I do not trust Putin.

Specifically all the lies / omissions Putin made up up for justification for invading Ukraine. I do not trust Russian media as it is all state controlled.

There you go again!

Bloody hell Xcathdra, you have copious tenacity, i'll concede that much.

Russia did NOT invade Ukraine, they were stationed there as per treaty agreement (which Russia paid for handsomely) and were allowed, as per the paid for agreement with Ukraine, to station up to 25,000 Russian troops there.

Russia did mass troops on her borders, at the start of this pile of stinking intelligence agency led BS of a coup..as a precaution and a warning to the Ukrainian thugs staging the violent rebellion not to cross into Russian territory, and calling it a training exercise...which i think just about anyone would know wasn't just about training, but more about drawing a line in the sand.

In any case, Russia did NOT invade Ukraine...Crimea held a referendum to vote for independence from the now usurped and rebel controlled Ukrainian government in Kiev...which was an overwhelming landslide in favour of independence from Ukraine or what was left of it, and closer ties with the Russian Federation, Crimea going so far as to officially request annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, which of course, was agreed to.

VERY different from 'invading' as you relentlessly keep on posting, even when the facts are very much apparent to anyone who was following this going on..I mean, come on mate, this isn't ancient history we're talking about here, it only happened months ago, not decades.

a reply to: MysterX

I've read what you have to say, as well as the threads on this supposed SU-25 and it is clear this is just bollocks coming from the Russian side.

The A2A missile equipped on an Su-25 is for defence only, as it is the Russian equivalent of the US A-10 - a ground attack aircraft. It is also a short range, heat seeking missile with a tiny warhead. It would have gone for the engines, of which a 777 has 2 and would not have caused the explosive decompression of the cabin.

It may have caused the severing of flight controls, the loss of the engine or even the wing - bringing down the airliner, but this would have been evidenced by the cockpit voice recorder having the pilots discussing it, as well as physical evidence and the manner in which the aircraft went down.

The evidence doesn't fit an A2A missile, but certainly does fit an G2A missile with it's much larger warhead and radar guided (so would go for the central mass of the aircraft)

Again, it is also well outside the operational limits of the SU-25 anyway, even the upgraded one and also not even it's mission profile. If the Ukrainians wanted to down an airliner, surely they would use one of their SU-27's or Mig-29's? As I said before, it's like sending an A-10 up, when F-16's or 22's would be far more suitable.

a reply to: Hijinx

Again, what area is the satellite looking at as it whips by at many thousands of miles an hr from space. It ORBITS the planet, it doesn't stay stationary.

It doesn't need to be since it is a satellite in geosynchronous orbit.

And this would be the satellite that is watching that area of the Earth...

arstechnica.com...

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
Xcathdra, now I'm asking you personally: Do you have any idea why Kiev did not released ATC records? Isn't it bit odd? Ok, separatists destroyed its part of crime scene. Kiev "deleted" its part of crime scene completely. If ATC data could at any manner support Kiev's/West's point of view wouldn't it be logical to release it?

#

No one has deleted anything - the Investigators are in possession of it. Since when do investigators, looking into any crime, much less the shooting down of an airliner, release what evidence they have prior to the conclusion of said investigation?

Never, is the answer.

Well perhaps, when sanctions that negatively affect and besmirch an entire nation, when talk of a new cold war and all that entails is in the offing, and when a real possibility of armed conflict between superpowers (or what is left of them) is being insinuated by commentators and bloggers all around the world, and this situation is at the top of everyone's need to know list who uses a computer or a TV...perhaps it's time they did release it.

That is of course if they've actually developed the balls to actually leave their Kiev hotel rooms and actually go out and do some bloody investigating, while they moan about safety issues, despite hoards of international MSM reporters and camera crews crawling all over the bloody crash site..completely unharmed i might add.

Seems to me the investigators are doing a very good job of coming up with excuses for delaying their investigation..wonder why that would be?

a reply to: MysterX

Seems to me the investigators are doing a very good job of coming up with excuses for delaying their investigation..wonder why that would be?

You would have to ask the pro Russian fighters preventing those trying to investigate why that is, because they are the ones doing this.

a reply to: stumason

No one has deleted anything - the Investigators are in possession of it. Since when do investigators, looking into any crime, much less the shooting down of an airliner, release what evidence they have prior to the conclusion of said investigation?

Never, is the answer.

Sorry, I have to chime in on this one. What you say above is true, but apparently that's exactly what the SBU did with their supposed "smoking gun" intercepted calls between separatists, and within hours of the incident.

a reply to: Flatcoat

Quite - but then I can understand why as they knew the Russians would be all over it in this war being fought as much in social media as on the ground, so perhaps they felt the need to head them off with evidence of their own.

a reply to: Xcathdra
An Missile blast only means that it was an Air to air missile.

a reply to: Xcathdra

What evidence has Obama, West presented to prove that it were the Russians? dont bother posting the Youtube, social media accounts as they arent facts.

Your own posted link only shows that its an air to air missile. Even if it were an BUk missile being fired, there would have being more videos and confirmations.

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

What, Surface to Air Missiles don't explode and cause a blast?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Didn't you know? Russian ground to air missiles, under the direction of Putin, now wrestle their targets to the ground using brute force, much like Vlad himself would do when tackling bears in the wilderness....

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Your own posted link only shows that its an air to air missile. Even if it were an BUk missile being fired, there would have being more videos and confirmations.

Most people probably didn't know what was happening, and I am willing to bet if they did then they knew when this event was happening.

Also the thing that got everyone to look was the noise after MH 17 was either falling, or had fallen and was burning, but I could be wrong.