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.

 

Flight MH17 Downed By 'High-Energy Objects

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ressiv

And what kind of gun did it use? Russian fighters use a 30mm, which has a huge shell. Those holes were smaller than .50 cal holes I've seen.




posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ressiv

And what kind of gun did it use? Russian fighters use a 30mm, which has a huge shell. Those holes were smaller than .50 cal holes I've seen.


We equipped a modified SU-25 with a Zat'nik'tel for the explicit purpose or reaching beyond its ceiling.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: tanka418


And just exactly how does a fighter that only has a ceiling of 23000 ft fly 33000 ft to force a plane off course?



Ya know, I saw those published specs too...had a good laugh!

Although, IF you can tell us all "WHY" that aircraft can't go beyond 23,000 feet, maybe you will have a argument. But, unfortunately there are very few reasons that it might be prevented...the reality is that the mechanics and physics of flight don't prevent that, thus it becomes very probable that the machine was flown at those higher altitude frequently...




Wrong, as it was on the original flight plan that it was supposed to be on, but of course you checked into that right?



Yes, MH-17 was on course...that must be "WHY" it was over a known war zone. It has been mentioned that aircraft fly around weather all the time, and I'm very sure the airline would have instructed their pilots to avoid flying over a war.

Yet, we find MH-17 shot down by the Ukraine and in an area they should have known to avoid. Now, please understand that none of this "positioning" of the aircraft takes it significantly "off-course", and where ever it might find itself, in the clear, or in danger, is still "technically" the correct "flight path". Even though any seaman, left to his own devices, would probably avoid the area, especially IF he was flying a large airliner.




You do understand how radar works correct?




Yes...far better than you!




How do combat aircraft get shot down in war zones? Does the enemy know exactly where every aircraft are going to be flying...No.



And that, my good man, is my point! There is no way of knowing under normal circumstance. However, IF a target is gently "pushed" into range...

"This being a wee bit more logical suggests that it was more probably the Ukrainian government (or West) that arranged to MH-17 to be shot down. "


'm afraid I will have to reassert my statement, despite your objection...



Russia had already started this war when they invaded Crimea...Sorry.


The war was started when the west decided to mount a coup and take the Ukraine from it's legal government. Crimea had wanted to be part of Russia for at least the past 80 - 100 years, and was more than ready for the change.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

The missile reputed to have taken it down work by exploding just before reaching the target and result in a large number of shrapnel... which could and would be considered a large number of high energy objects.

The shrapnel produced by the missile in question is about the size of a quarter, if I remember correctly.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
IF people are saying that fighters brought the airliner down with cannon fire...that''s nonsensical ridiculousness.

Why? What would be the point? Just fire a missile from 40 miles away and be done with it.

Bringing down an airliner with cannon fire would be no different than the Ukrainians raising their hands and saying to the world "I did it! I did it on purpose!"

Stupidity.
edit on 9-9-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

Although, IF you can tell us all "WHY" that aircraft can't go beyond 23,000 feet, maybe you will have a argument. But, unfortunately there are very few reasons that it might be prevented...the reality is that the mechanics and physics of flight don't prevent that, thus it becomes very probable that the machine was flown at those higher altitude frequently...

Just the mechanics and physics of lift and altitude density, I guess... If you put in stock into that voodoo




Yes, MH-17 was on course...that must be "WHY" it was over a known war zone.

Same reason other civilian flights were flying over the area. You're six miles above the warzone, and it seems so peaceful up there. Hard to think about guys with rifles and artillery shooting at eachother. And don't you know those gas bills are just a *****. Bean counters are looking to save a penny everywhich way and every mile out of your way is two miles of extra fuel you're burning. And ATC is letting it happen because, they don't think anyone is going to shoot down an airliner. Even on accident. General negligence all the way around.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: tanka418

Although, IF you can tell us all "WHY" that aircraft can't go beyond 23,000 feet, maybe you will have a argument. But, unfortunately there are very few reasons that it might be prevented...the reality is that the mechanics and physics of flight don't prevent that, thus it becomes very probable that the machine was flown at those higher altitude frequently...

Just the mechanics and physics of lift and altitude density, I guess... If you put in stock into that voodoo




The mechanics and physics of flight...lift, ect. are not demanding that the craft remain below 23000 feet. In fact this very science will allow that aircraft to fly at 3X that altitude...probably easily.

But that is not the point here, and I don't think I will argue against a comedy of errors very strenuously. This whole set of event around the Ukraine is kind of "out of left field", so to speak. Getting any kind of reasonable handle on it is not an easy task...too many questions, not enough reliable data.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Everyone also needs to consider service ceiling is not the same as absolute ceiling. While technically a SU-25 can climb above its service ceiling, it is drastically more difficult to do so (climb) than it is to able to below this ceiling. But, we also didn't see one on the radar intercepts in the report.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
The mechanics and physics of flight...lift, ect. are not demanding that the craft remain below 23000 feet. In fact this very science will allow that aircraft to fly at 3X that altitude...probably easily.


The mechanics and physics of flight (lift, etc) demand that for a given weight, wing area, thrust, area and altitude density the Vx will be a nonarbitrary number.

Please show me the equation and values you used to show you that the absolute ceiling of the Su-25 is 3x that of the listed service ceiling.
I'll do a quick run up of my own and we can compare numbers.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418




Although, IF you can tell us all "WHY" that aircraft can't go beyond 23,000 feet, maybe you will have a argument.


Because it wasn't built for that purpose.

But here you go ask the ones who built it.

www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/



But, unfortunately there are very few reasons that it might be prevented...the reality is that the mechanics and physics of flight don't prevent that, thus it becomes very probable that the machine was flown at those higher altitude frequently...


Really, because again the manufacturers didn't build the plane to do that, but of course you know more than the one's who built it.



Yes, MH-17 was on course...that must be "WHY" it was over a known war zone. It has been mentioned that aircraft fly around weather all the time, and I'm very sure the airline would have instructed their pilots to avoid flying over a war.



Wrong because they were allowed to fly over Ukraine, but it couldn't be under 32000 ft., but again you would know this had you actually done some research.

And just so you know Malaysian Airlines had no problems with that flight plan...


Malaysia Airlines joined Liow in defending its use of the route over Ukraine, saying in a statement Friday that the flight plan had been approved by Eurocontrol, the air navigation service provider responsible for determining flight paths over Europe.


www.latimes.com...



Yet, we find MH-17 shot down by the Ukraine and in an area they should have known to avoid.


Any evidence Ukraine shot that plane down?

At the time of this flight there were no thoughts of a passenger airliner being shot down, as there other planes that not only flew that route but were in fact in the same area as MH 17 at the time.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bjarneorn

Again, no. The BUK has neither an IFF or any other target discrimination system installed. Neither does an air to air missile. The launching platform has an IFF, bit the missile itself doesn't.


and for BUK the IFF/target discrimination system is in eth command vehicle - not in the launch vehicle - not even eth launch vehicle that does have radar.

The launch vehicle radar is tracking only - the command system can pass a target to the launch vehicle which will then control it's own missile.

But if het launch vehicle is being used to find a target then it has no discrimination systems on board.

See SA-17 and SA-11



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

The mechanics and physics of flight...lift, ect. are not demanding that the craft remain below 23000 feet. In fact this very science will allow that aircraft to fly at 3X that altitude...probably easily.



Really? I'm sure Su-25 pilots would be delighted to know they could have "easily" intercept SR71's at 75,000 feet.....

I work in an organisation that employs about 80 pilots - ex military (from various countries - US, UK, Australia, India) and civil, some of whom are private (mostly instructors) and some ex airline.

Your "idea" about aircraft performance are so stupid that it is difficult to conclude that they are anything but deliberate trolling.
edit on 9-9-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I am wondering what the "Why won't they release the ATC tapes?" whining will morph into now?




posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
This is a preliminary report which does not answer who, but how this plane was brought down.
An independent report in which every involved country had to agree before it was published. (Page 8)

So the words are chosen carefully, that is why you will not find the word shrapnel.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

You might want to try reading up on aerodynamics, and thrust to weight radios before talking about things you don't understand. The Su-25 was designed for low altitude work, which means the wing was designed to operate best in the ticket air found there. The engines are not able to push it to high altitude because they done generate enough thrust for the weight of the aircraft.

You do understand what "ceiling" means, right?



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: earthling42
This is a preliminary report which does not answer who, but how this plane was brought down.
An independent report in which every involved country had to agree before it was published. (Page 8)

So the words are chosen carefully, that is why you will not find the word shrapnel.



Which, I would like to add to your good point, includes Russia so claims that the report is/can/will be doctored if evidence points to Ukraine would be hard pressed.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677




IF people are saying that fighters brought the airliner down with cannon fire...that''s nonsensical ridiculousness.


IF people are saying that an BUK system brought down the airliner down with bullets that could have shot the airliner cockpit from above they need to have there heads examined.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




in an area they should have known to avoid.


Right...... In an Area which the Ukrankian forces should have known to avoid yet continue to send fascist right sector fighters into the area.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
IF people are saying that an BUK system brought down the airliner down with bullets that could have shot the airliner cockpit from above they need to have there heads examined.


There aren't any guns on a Gadfly missile, so I doubt it was brought down with bullets...



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Missile, designed for use with the buk system. Explodes close to the target, does not actually strike it. Ejects shrapnel the size of quarters.

Where is the indication or even evidence of bullets being used? Bullets translated as 30mm cannon fire.

Strafing an airliner with 30mm cannon fire would be not just highly unlikely, but stupid as well. And I am assuming there would be a reason to take the airliner down. If I was in a fighter cockpit and was ordered to take down an airliner I would only use cannon fire if I had no other choice.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join