Flight MH17 Downed By 'High-Energy Objects

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: tanka418

You gave an equation. You have shown absolutely nothing that supported the idea your equation somehow makes your spurious claims true.

No more than saying that F=Gme/r^2 means that the earth orbits the moon or vice versa.

If you can provide any hint using the equation that the Su-25 can maintain flight (lift) at 69,000', as you said "probably easily", please provide it.


The ability to calculate air density is not a dark art, nor is it "unsubstantiated BS". It is math. If you have a problem with any of my numbers or believe them to be "BS", present your own work. I'm more than happy to admit that I made an error if one is found, and it is a pretty simple matter to see errors in math.

I have already proven that the SU-25 can fly at 8900m that = 29199ft. There is a video of it from 1995 where a Group of SU-25s fly at 29199ft With ease, and the SU-25 does it With some armament.

Neither you or Zaphod58 bothered to give a comment on that. Why? Because it dosent fit into Your own theory?

Sorry for asking, did I miss the the video or the link to it? Has it been posted?

a reply to: Denoli

This is amazing, and insane. It seems that it was shot down.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

And what magic weapon was that? A SAM is the only thing that would blow a plane like that apart almost instantaneously.

Listen to what this guy have to say about the fuselage at 6:06.

Yes, he says (transcript mine):

"There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pot marked, it almost looks like machine gun fire, very very strong machine gun fire that has left these unique marks that we haven’t seen anywhere else. We've also been asked ?for example? have we've seen any examples of missile, um no we haven't that's the answer, and even if it was there, we don't have the trained eyes to pick, pick that up, but now there are experts here who would be able to.

I understand your point in posting this but if OSCE does not have the trained eyes to legitimately say whether or not physical evidence of damage resultant from a missile is present, I cannot in full faith say OSCE has the trained eyes to legitimately say physical evidence of damage resultant form machine gun fire is present. Indeed, even the gentleman seemed careful in his wording "almost looks like machine gun fire" to denote that this statement is his personal assumption as it is yours.

We cannot be so hard pressed in stating exactly the cause was as none of us, even the investigators themselves, have enough evidence and information to do so. Anything up to now is only speculation, assumption, and assessment.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Since the Dutch are in charge of the investigation I think it Prudent to defer to their analysis.

Secondly if the holes appear to be from machine guns where did it occur at? We have reports of rebels tampering with the scene. Would it not be possible the "machine gun" damage occurred on the ground and not in the air?

Finally can anyone tell for certain where a person must shoot in order to bring down a commercial airliner without any damage / danger / alarm coming from the cockpit?

Finally, with the size of a commercial jet, can machine guns do the amount of damage we see?

Based on my experience and training im gonna say no.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

They actually do have evidence at this stage. But MH17 is not only about evidence, it is also political at a very high Level.

The US have already blamed Russia, and the US have stated that MH17 was brought Down by BUK missile from the pro-russian separatists. In this case the evidence are very political. The US never lie you know. In other Words at this stage the US can not be cought in lie. Imagine what how that would look With US sanctions and the pressure they have put on Russia and other NATO members.

The US would look like fools.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, good points and agree on deferment to the investigators, I think several of us have been saying this ... and it should be noted again, it is an international team which includes Russians.

I still cant get over the other flight that totally vanished just before this happened... the entire thing reeks of lies and deception...

although i would imagine that machine gun fire at altitude could rip a plane apart pretty well but a logistical nightmare to get done...unless you happen to have an airforce!

originally posted by: Ph03n1x
I still cant get over the other flight that totally vanished just before this happened... the entire thing reeks of lies and deception...

although i would imagine that machine gun fire at altitude could rip a plane apart pretty well but a logistical nightmare to get done...unless you happen to have an airforce!

Other flight?

There were 3 other commercial aircraft near MH17 in the same control zone when MH17 was hit.

what exactly are you referring to?

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: tanka418

You gave an equation. You have shown absolutely nothing that supported the idea your equation somehow makes your spurious claims true.

No more than saying that F=Gme/r^2 means that the earth orbits the moon or vice versa.

If you can provide any hint using the equation that the Su-25 can maintain flight (lift) at 69,000', as you said "probably easily", please provide it.


The ability to calculate air density is not a dark art, nor is it "unsubstantiated BS". It is math. If you have a problem with any of my numbers or believe them to be "BS", present your own work. I'm more than happy to admit that I made an error if one is found, and it is a pretty simple matter to see errors in math.

I have already proven that the SU-25 can fly at 8900m that = 29199ft. There is a video of it from 1995 where a Group of SU-25s fly at 29199ft With ease, and the SU-25 does it With some armament.

Neither you or Zaphod58 bothered to give a comment on that. Why? Because it dosent fit into Your own theory?

Sorry for asking, did I miss the the video or the link to it? Has it been posted?

Its in a different thread, where this topic came up before. I can see if i can find it and poste it here for you.

a reply to: Xcathdra

i was referring to the plane that vanished around china(MH370) the week before, it's not really relevant but strange if you ask me. i should have been more clear.

i tend not to believe anything i hear from the Media anymore.

originally posted by: spy66
The US never lie you know.

Please don't condescend me, I have not done so with you and I am fully aware of how much the U.S. lies, I have stated these very things on several of these threads, even stating the U.S. cannot really talk of Russia sending in troops covertly or overtly as we do the same.

They actually do have evidence at this stage. But MH17 is not only about evidence, it is also political at a very high Level.

The US have already blamed Russia, and the US have stated that MH17 was brought Down by BUK missile from the pro-russian separatists. In this case the evidence are very political. The US never lie you know. In other Words at this stage the US can not be cought in lie. Imagine what how that would look With US sanctions and the pressure they have put on Russia and other NATO members.

The US would look like fools.

Of course it is political, we would and should expect it to be, as you allude, it is foolish to thin otherwise. What evidence and who are they, do you mean the international investigation team?

ETA: Will you address the video I asked about please?

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Here is the video of the SU-25. You can see it at: 5:53



The only reason you and moste others think its a BUK is because that is what the US have given as the official statment. They even said they had evidence but have given non.

If the US had said it was a SU-25 you would have said it was a SU 25 and not a BUK. Because that is what sheep do.

originally posted by: watchitburn
The report actually said "high velocity shrapnel"
Which just goes to show the half assed nature of the report. "Shrapnel" only comes from a specific artillery round called the Shrapnel Round, which hasn't been in use since WWII.

It should have just said fragmentation or better yet unknown impactors.

I think you are trying to refer to "flak rounds"

originally posted by: spy66
The only reason you and moste others think its a BUK is because that is what the US have given as the official statment. They even said they had evidence but have given non.

If the US had said it was a SU-25 you would have said it was a SU 25 and not a BUK. Because that is what sheep do.

I think you should go into my profile and look at all my posts regarding Russia/Ukraine because your statement is incredibly off the mark. Did you see me make any such statement(s)?

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: spy66
The only reason you and moste others think its a BUK is because that is what the US have given as the official statment. They even said they had evidence but have given non.

If the US had said it was a SU-25 you would have said it was a SU 25 and not a BUK. Because that is what sheep do.

I think you should go into my profile and look at all my posts regarding Russia/Ukraine because your statement is incredibly off the mark. Did you see me make any such statement(s)?

Not directly no. I am sorry if i have offended you.

a reply to: spy66

Objectivity is a vital function of investigation, a function I try to maintain. I have my opinions and biases like anyone else, and I will state them now and then, but I advise you go look at my posts. I have questioned, debated for/against, argued for/against, defended, supported, and criticized each side on these issues - even while stating my own opinion, giving the opposite side its credence.

You have not offended me, you have offended my username.

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: spy66

Objectivity is a vital function of investigation, a function I try to maintain. I have my opinions and biases like anyone else, and I will state them now and then, but I advise you go look at my posts. I have questioned, debated for/against, argued for/against, defended, supported, and criticized each side on these issues - even while stating my own opinion, giving the opposite side its credence.

You have not offended me, you have offended my username.

The Sources i have contact With have said that the conclusion of what brought Down the Mh17 is set/known to the investigators.

It has already been publicly stated that the investigator now know it was not a techical problem that brought Down MH17. The problem is that the US have made a claim and a accusation With said; solid evidence towards Russia and the pro-russian separatists. And set in work sanctions towards Russia based on their invovlment. The problem is that the US have been lying about their initial accusation.

What we see now is draining of time so that we can put pressure on Russia.

originally posted by: Ph03n1x
i was referring to the plane that vanished around china(MH370) the week before

It wasn't a week before, it was over FOUR MONTHS before.

MH370 disappeared 8th March 2014
MH17 was shot down 17th July 2014

originally posted by: spy66
The Sources i have contact With have said that the conclusion of what brought Down the Mh17 is set/known to the investigators.

What are these sources and why hasn't Russia said or leaked anything if that is the case?

It has already been publicly stated that the investigator now know it was not a techical problem that brought Down MH17. The problem is that the US have made a claim and a accusation With said; solid evidence towards Russia and the pro-russian separatists. And set in work sanctions towards Russia based on their invovlment. The problem is that the US have been lying about their initial accusation.

We have all read the report and know this, as well as have kept up with the propaganda on both sides.

a reply to: spy66
I don't see where the video shows an altitude of 29199ft, sorry, can you clarify what I am looking for at that timestamp?

ETA: nevermind, got it.