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: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013
So, your side is being accused of murdering hundreds of people in a war crime,


So you get rid of the evidence that shows you did it, like happened here.


Destroying that evidence IS NOT in their favor. Using that evidence to PROVE to the world they were not responsible


It is in their favour, as if they had allowed the authorities to look at it their guilt would be proven.

They talk about a "high energy object" to show they do not mean something like a birdstrike.




posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: georgezip
a reply to: _Del_That is precisely what bothers me most about this debate. Many are forgetting that the Pro-Russian rebels denied access to certain parts of the plane for a long time while explosives were going off in the vicinity. The explosions were reported as mortar attacks and who knows for sure? I would be surprised if the plane wasn't tampered with.



The BBC has video of the rebels moving and scrapping the evidence, with a rebel fighter saying they have been moving all the debris and plan to scrap it, this is before any investigation of the site by an international team. This proves that their assertion that it was Ukraine is false. Why, if they are so sure it was Ukraine, are they destroying the evidence?

Destruction of evidence shows guilt.


While normally destruction of evidence implies guilt, you have to take into account it is possible in this case that it does not. I'm looking for that video, if you have it on hand please post.

We must consider that the rebels/separatists are citizens, and some likely poor ones who may have taken advantage of an opportunity to score some extra bread. I am not stating this to be the case, rather that it is a very possible explanation.


So, your side is being accused of murdering hundreds of people in a war crime, and you KNOW that your enemy did it and you have proof of that scattered all around you, and you seriously think they're going to sell off the scrap metal?

They are under fire from the world, they keep saying Kiev did it, and they supposedly have all that evidence all around them. Destroying that evidence IS NOT in their favor. Using that evidence to PROVE to the world they were not responsible and Kiev was would take priority over making some cash, and we all know it.

Destruction of evidence proves guilt in this case, and every one here knows that to be true. Funny how all the pro-Russians are completely ignoring this blatant reality and pretending this isn't happening!

The link to the BBC interview with the rebel on site explaining how they are moving everything and plan to send it for scrapping can be found here - BBC - REBELS FILMED ADMITTING DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE


Yes, that is what I am saying. What I am not saying is that it is definitely the best, wisest, or logical choice to be made, quite the opposite. Then again best, wise, and logical choices are not always made in these situations by civilian fighters, let alone professional soldiers.

I can tell you if they have to make a choice between feeding, clothing, and sheltering their family in a dire situation in a war zone versus handing over pieces of that plane, guess which they will choose? At some point, self preservation will over rule agenda and shared goal precisely because they are not all professional fighters.

Again though, not the best or most logical, let alone wise choice, but still a possibility that quite obviously exists.

ETA: Thank you for the video link

ETA: I hope you are not suggesting I am pro-Russian as I am actually pretty neutral, a look through my posts on these type of threads ought to show that along with questioning, defending, and supporting certain actions on both sides given circumstance and information available.


edit on 9/10/2014 by AllSourceIntel because: spelling & grammar

edit on 9/10/2014 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/10/2014 by AllSourceIntel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: tanka418
Along with a further assertion that an SU-25 can in fact reach 35,000 feet. Despite the dramatic lack of power of its engines.


Again, can you show me the RoC formula you worked for that? Or is that just, that you feel it can reach 70,000'?


L = 1/2(pv^2) A Cl

L is lift force,
ρ is air density,
v is true airspeed,
A is planform area, and
Cl is the lift coefficient

Does that work for ya?!!??

What does 70,000 feet have to do with anything? The only requirement here is that a SU-25 reach 35,000 feet, and surprise, surprise, it can!
Your differences in atmospheric density actually becomes almost negligible (according to previous posts...on the order of 0.005). Velocity will be a much more important factor, however, even with its small power it will still reach velocities that will take it to the required altitude.

edit on 10-9-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: tanka418
Along with a further assertion that an SU-25 can in fact reach 35,000 feet. Despite the dramatic lack of power of its engines.


Again, can you show me the RoC formula you worked for that? Or is that just, that you feel it can reach 70,000'?


L = 1/2(pv^2) A Cl

L is lift force,
ρ is air density,
v is true airspeed,
A is planform area, and
Cl is the lift coefficient

Does that work for ya?!!??



Well, no, not really b/c that is the lift equation and not the RoC equation...



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: tanka418
Along with a further assertion that an SU-25 can in fact reach 35,000 feet. Despite the dramatic lack of power of its engines.


Again, can you show me the RoC formula you worked for that? Or is that just, that you feel it can reach 70,000'?


L = 1/2(pv^2) A Cl

L is lift force,
ρ is air density,
v is true airspeed,
A is planform area, and
Cl is the lift coefficient

Does that work for ya?!!??



Well, no, not really b/c that is the lift equation and not the RoC equation...



Oh, I see!

Care to be as specific as you required me to be?

Define "RoC"
Show your somehow different equation for aerodynamic lift.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

If you don't know what the term RoC means, is it entirely possible that you don't know that the Sukhoi-25 is able to reach 60,000'?



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: tanka418

If you don't know what the term RoC means, is it entirely possible that you don't know that the Sukhoi-25 is able to reach 60,000'?


Sorry an; that is not the proper definition...try again. this time stop with the game and just give us the definition...so that I can show you "why" it is not the correct way of looking at the issue.

I never said anything about 60,000 feet either...I'm only concerned with 35,000.

Why are you evading this?



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

So, despite having a poor thrust to weight ratio, and a wing designed for low level operations, and Sukhoi themselves saying it can't do it, you say it has amazing engines that can go beyond their design and push it higher.

That's amazing.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
I never said anything about 60,000 feet either...I'm only concerned with 35,000.



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.


I assume you used the proper equations and have the proper values for the variables to have made such a statement. I simply asked to see them. That or you're just making it all up as you go along.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Forgive me if I missed this in all the back and forth, but, has it been addressed that the SU-25 is not pressurized nor an air attack platform, rather a ground attack, close-support platform?



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Not in this thread, but in the numerous others, yes. But that's what just about everyone claims shot the Malaysian flight down, inability to do it be damned.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: Zaphod58

Forgive me if I missed this in all the back and forth, but, has it been addressed that the SU-25 is not pressurized nor an air attack platform, rather a ground attack, close-support platform?


No. Nor have we solved the difficulty of maneuvering at or above the service ceiling, nor the difficulty of executing an intercept of an aircraft that is faster and higher and more nimble than you... Mostly, it's just been "Sure, it can. No big deal. No difference".



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58. But that's what just about everyone claims shot the Malaysian flight down, inability to do it be damned.


It's ridiculous. I kept waiting for them to change their story to Su-27, but they doubled down on the -25. Should have kept with the SAM story and just claimed the Ukraine did it.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: Zaphod58

Forgive me if I missed this in all the back and forth, but, has it been addressed that the SU-25 is not pressurized nor an air attack platform, rather a ground attack, close-support platform?



Thank you...the ONLY reason the craft won't get to 35,000 feet! The machine itself will...

Now then Zaphod...the aircraft still has the ability to shoot down the airliner...missiles!

Contrary to what you stated earlier an air-to-air missile WILL do that kind of damage, depending on the missile type...AND, can do it from 10's of miles away...the 777 would not even have to "see" it.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: Zaphod58

Forgive me if I missed this in all the back and forth, but, has it been addressed that the SU-25 is not pressurized nor an air attack platform, rather a ground attack, close-support platform?


No. Nor have we solved the difficulty of maneuvering at or above the service ceiling, nor the difficulty of executing an intercept of an aircraft that is faster and higher and more nimble than you... Mostly, it's just been "Sure, it can. No big deal. No difference".


Yeah, it's hard to keep up on all the back and forth on different threads, I skip over some of it. I'll assume then it also has been addressed that the service ceiling drops 8k ft to 16,000 wings dirty?



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Correct..

When that info came out there was a change in the story, talking about advanced air to air missiles being used instead. That was also resolved.
edit on 10-9-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

So explain how a missile with a 13 pound warhead blows a 777 to pieces, when aircraft smaller than it, or similar in size have taken hits from missiles up to 88 pounds and kept flying after.

KAL007 was hit by two missiles with 88 pound warheads, and flew for over ten minutes after being hit before crashing. It was completely under control that entire time. A DHL A300 was hit with a MANPADS, which has a bigger warhead, flew back around and landed. But somehow, a 13 pound warhead, or even a pair of them blows a 777 instantly into pieces.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:21 AM
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.


originally posted by: tanka418
Yes...Physics and engineering...you might want to check it out...real science is wonderful.
By the way; the difference in the "thickness" of the atmosphere frm 23,000 feet to 35,000 feet s rather little...


Just for kicks, I ran some numbers at 65,000'. Air density there measures .006 lb/ft^3. That means the wing at 65,000' is producing 18% of the lift it would be at 23,000' altitude.
At sea level we get .077 lb/ft^3, which is a big difference, obviously. So I ran some more numbers (feel free to check my work), and at 65,000' we see that a wing provides just under 8% of the lift it does at sea level. So all we really have to ask ourselves is, "Would a SU-25 be able to fly at sea level with a wing 8% its designed size?" Anyone? Back of the class is quiet. Don't make me point and call out a name.
That is "real science". If you have another method of "that very science" to show me I'm wrong, produce it. If you can show me your work or an error in mine, I'll happily admit a mistake just as I did when I didn't do my temperature conversion correctly (the error actually slightly helped your air density).




edit on 10-9-2014 by _Del_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
Yeah, it's hard to keep up on all the back and forth on different threads, I skip over some of it. I'll assume then it also has been addressed that the service ceiling drops 8k ft to 16,000 wings dirty?


Let's not use facts to muddy the "science"... All this shows is someone heard that "service ceiling ≠ absolute ceiling" (which is true), and then people ran with it to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions.



posted on Sep, 10 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
Yeah, it's hard to keep up on all the back and forth on different threads, I skip over some of it. I'll assume then it also has been addressed that the service ceiling drops 8k ft to 16,000 wings dirty?


Let's not use facts to muddy the "science"... All this shows is someone heard that "service ceiling ≠ absolute ceiling" (which is true), and then people ran with it to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions.


That wouldn't have been my comment would it?

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
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.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join