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.

 

MH17 Black Box Data Shows Evidence Of Missile Strike

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




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


A North Korean one...







posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Once again it took two missiles with warheads more than ten times the size of an R-60 to down KAL007 and even then the 777 didn't break apart in midair and in fact managed to stay in the air for another ten minutes. So why do you think an A2A caused the damage we see with MH17?



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason




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.


You didn't know the US sent some secret technology that makes an SU 25 fly higher than the plane is capable of...and if I remember correctly this SU 25 hangs around or hovers over the scene before leaving and not having been engaged by the separatists.

And of course this technology has a way of only showing up on Russian radar.

But that's just my guess.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Ok...let's go through it.

The SU-25 has quite a number of variants, as i'm sure you're aware.

The Ukrainians are documented have to upgraded a number of theirs quite recently (four were upgraded to SU-25M1 and one to SU-25UBM1)

Ukraine has since lost several of these aircraft, as reported by Kiev and the BBC in July.

The Weapons payload of the bog standard SU-25 consists of among others, 'dumb' missiles, which is to say unguided missiles.

The warheads are quite small at 2kg and 3kg, but the missiles aboard an SU-25 can travel very rapidly between MACH 2.5 and MACH 4.5 and have a range WELL over the altitude difference of the max cruising ceiling of a standard SU-25 fighter, around 22,000 - 25,000ft and the altitude MH17 was recorded at, 33,000ft.

The missiles are designed to be blast and fragmentation type, meaning they explode and release copious fragmentation projectiles designed to rip through airframes and cause decompression and ultimately the break up of the aircraft aimed at.

Assuming the SU-25 was at its max altitude, a missile fired at MH17 would strike or detonate near to the jet within 2 - 3 seconds, having traversed the 8,000 - 10,000 feet separating the two aircraft.

The missile launched from this distance could certainly reach MH17 and disperse fragments of shrapnel nearby which would indeed pepper the commercial jet.

So the all the talk of the SU-25 having a lower altitude ceiling than MH17 was flying at, is irrelevant as the AAM on board could have covered that distance in virtually no time at all.

I know about the A-10 'tank buster' as i have previously been within 100 meters of several firing like hell at ground targets (if you have been up close and personal, you too will remember the peculiar sound its cannons make when firing), and is primarily a ground attack aircraft, slow speed, very heavy armour, while the SU-25 is classed as a close air support jet with a greater range, manoeuvrability and altitude, you have to remember the thing was going up against a commercial passenger jet...not a Euro fighter or F22...

Besides, Ukraine's air force is in disarray, and has been even before they had just lost several SU-25's (costing $11 million each) that they could ill afford to lose this month alone. I expect if they were indeed planning to shoot down MH17 and blame the patriots or the Russians, they really didn't want to risk losing any of their better classed serviceable fighters when a SU-25 would do the job.

As for your and others going on about MH17 pilots not discussing a missile exploding and causing fragmentation damage and decompression...don't you find it in the least bit curious that they didn't mention anything about a ground based missile either?

According to some on here, MH17 continued to remain aloft for almost 10 minutes after 'something' struck it...would the pilots not speak about being hit during those 10 minutes then? If we don't have access to the voice data from the black box recordings, how the hell do we know what was and what wasn't said by the pilots? And as you say, the so-called investigators, you know, the ones who seem awfully reluctant to actually investigate, are not releasing any data..at least i suspect not until it can be tampered with to erase any data pertaining to the SU-25 and pilots discussing what the hell that fighter is doing so close by...

IF MH17 remained aloft for 10 minutes after being shot by a missile, AAM or SAM for the sake of argument...that would indicate that it was indeed shot by a fighter launching a dumb missile with a relatively small warhead....a BUK missile with it's comparatively very large warhead of around 70kg, or up to 35 times as large as an unguided missile carried among the payload of a SU-25 would have destroyed MH17 almost instantly. It would not be impossible for a 777 to get away with staying airborne, but a direct hit with a BUK (90% - 95% certainty of hitting its target) it would not remain in the air for that length of time.

It could potentially manage to stay aloft for that time if it was hit with shrapnel from a smaller AAM though...

Hopefully, we will have answers from the voice data and the telemetry data to show one way or the other what happened, but when the world is pointing angry fingers at each other and their is HUGE amounts of behind the scenes politicking going on over the entire Ukraine situation...that voice data better be released sooner rather than later methinks.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Aberrations and sheer luck will always happen in life...it doesn't mean that every airliner shot at with an AAM will escape...i would seriously say that your example is going to be the exception rather than the rule...it was very lucky.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

They weren't talking about MH17 staying airborne for 10 minutes, they were talking about KAL007. It was hit by two missiles, several orders of magnitude heavier than the R-60, and flew for at least 10 minutes, eventually, apparently losing control and only breaking apart when they impacted the water and exploded. The R-60 has a warhead between 6 and 13 pounds, and hit an aircraft similar in size as KAL007, and caused it to instantly explode, when the Korean flight was hit with two missiles with an 88 pound warhead on them, and kept right on flying, after an initial climb due to damage to the tail section. After they recovered from that, they got back to altitude, leveled off, and resumed the same speed they were at prior to the missile hit, and had no idea they had been hit by missiles.

Even commercial aircraft are able to withstand a small missile hit. The DHL Airbus over Iraq is a good example. Hit by a MANPADS, warhead pretty close in size to an R-60, blew the back of the wing apart, and set it on fire, and it circled around and landed safely, and was eventually returned to service.
edit on 7/27/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for that, i misunderstood a comment someone made about the times.

For all the examples of commercial jets staying aloft after being hit by missiles, even relatively large ones, there are going to be more that were not able to continue flying and were brought down.

TWA800 is a good example of this...and that was only supposed to be a shoulder mounted missile if i recall...



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

TWA800 if it was hit by a missile, was hit in an almost empty fuel tank that was full of fuel vapor. The others were all hit in the wings or fuselage, and MH17 was hit near the cockpit, nowhere near any fuel tanks.

An air to air missile can and has brought commercial planes down in the past, but with very very few exceptions (the Golden BB), they have usually stayed in the air at least a short time, and unlike Hollywood movies, almost never suddenly explode from such a relatively small missile hit (again, unless they get insanely lucky and hit an almost empty fuel tank full of vapor).

A Surface to Air Missile on the other hand, has a massive warhead that causes a lot more damage to the aircraft, and can and has caused even armored aircraft to blow apart into pieces with a single missile hit. By comparison, the SA-11 has a warhead that's over 150 lbs of explosives. If one of those hits a commercial plane, regardless of where it hits, it's going to tear it apart, unless it's at the extreme edge of its warhead fusing range.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Sure aberration will happen. At the same time though we're not talking about a 3kg R-60 being used in KAL007's case. We's talking about two 40kg K-8's hitting the tail and left wing. It seems the like the conspiracy crowd likes to talk about odds when it comes to their claims that MH17 was a false flag. So what are the odds that two direct hits from K-8's can barely take down a 747 but a single R-60 can not only take down a 777 but cause a midair breakup?



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX




The Ukrainians are documented have to upgraded a number of theirs quite recently (four were upgraded to SU-25M1 and one to SU-25UBM1)


Here is where you can see what is upgraded for the SU 25.

www.redstar.gr...



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




TWA800 if it was hit by a missile, was hit in an almost empty fuel tank that was full of fuel vapor.


Why would TWA800 have an almost empty fuel tank just 12 minutes after take off?



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Because they generally didn't use the center wing fuel tank for East bound flights across the Atlantic. They were going with the jetstream, so they had a tail wind, so they frequently left it empty and filled the wing tanks up and just used them. Coming back to the West, they would usually fill that tank, because they were going into the jetstream.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

The wing tanks were full if I recall correctly.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Wikipedia but...


Because of technical problems with the thrust reverser sensors during the landing of TWA 881 at JFK, prior to Flight 800's departure the ground-maintenance crew locked out the thrust reverser for engine #3 (treated as a minimum equipment list item). In addition, severed cables for the engine #3 thrust reverser were replaced.[17] During refueling of the aircraft, the volumetric shutoff (VSO) control was believed to have been triggered before the tanks were full. To continue the pressure fueling, a TWA mechanic overrode the automatic VSO by pulling the volumetric fuse and an overflow circuit breaker. Maintenance records indicate that the airplane had numerous VSO-related maintenance writeups in the weeks before the accident.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Who knows what the odds are...but if i were a passenger in what amounts to a large, pressurised, aluminium coke can, full of volatile fuel which is highly flammable and explosive and subjected to even a handgun going off inside the cabin and piercing the flimsy fuselage, i wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to work the odds out.

Being peppered by shrapnel from even a low yield AAM, unless the aircraft and its occupants are very lucky, isn't going to usually be a good day for those on board.

As has been pointed out, sure some planes will amazingly get away with it and nobody will die, but by the same token, if the peppering of shrapnel hits the right spots, at a high altitude, they probably won't get away with it.

Sometimes, amazingly, people survive multiple car wrecks where the entire vehicle is unrecognisable as once being a vehicle...but most do not. In any given situation, there are always exceptions to what is expected to happen, for the most part i put this down to fatalism and or sheer blind luck.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hijinx
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.


Unless a satellite was tasked to a geostationary orbit above the region.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

I agree those on board wouldn't have a good day. However there's a difference between decompression where the air masks drop down and explosive decompression where the cockpit separates from the rest of the plane in midair. We know where the detonation was focused. It wasn't anywhere near the fuel lines. There is no reason for an R-60 to have caused a midair breakup.
edit on 7/27/2014 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank you.

I realise vapour is more volatile than liquid fuel, being mixed with such a high O2 content, but what is you knowledge regarding what would happen to a 777 say, if the partially empty fuel tanks were hit with red hot shrapnel from either an AAM or indeed a larger missile...would the result not be the same in both cases, provided the remaining fuel / vapour contained within ignited and then exploded?

MH17's fuel tanks were not full after travelling the distance they had, so i would assume the remaining fuel would have been accompanied by large quantities of fuel vapour...which could also react to a smaller warhead in much the same way as TWA800 supposedly did..no?



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

The bulk of the detonation being near the cockpit ( and as far as i know, like every other aspect of this tragedy, this hasn't been proven conclusively) doesn't in any way preclude shrapnel from the same missile also simultaneously puncturing the fuel tanks.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Except that going by the shrapnel pattern we've seen, the primary impact wouldn't have been anywhere near the fuel tanks, it was up around the cockpit. At least some 777s have an inerting system in the fuel tanks as well. I'm not sure if it has been fitted to all of them, but I know a lot of airlines are going to these systems in all their planes, after TWA800, and at least some agencies like the FAA, have mandated that they be installed.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join