Flight MH17 Downed By 'High-Energy Objects

originally posted by: tanka418

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

If the machine could, the pilot could as well assuming he had oxygen. And the sort of mixture that would help him avoid the bends.
You're supposed to use oxygen over 12,000', but in practice, you can go somewhat higher without oxygen.

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

Now that you've abandoned the flying to 35,000' nonsense, how did the small air-to-air missile(s) completely break up the plane in flight without giving the flight crew enough time to issue a "mayday"?

AND, can do it from 10's of miles away...the 777 would not even have to "see" it.

Su-25's don't carry the sort of missiles that fire from tens of miles away...

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Not specifically , just any generic someone on the internet who then had their words twisted by people who don't know better, or do know better but have an agenda.

Why yes people 'high energy objects' float in the air all by themselves.

Sure it wasn't a missile!

Noooo Russia would 'never' do that!

originally posted by: neo96
Why yes people 'high energy objects' float in the air all by themselves.

Sure it wasn't a missile!

Noooo Russia would 'never' do that!

If by "in the air" you mean "in outer space" then yes sir, you are correct!

a reply to: _Del_
tell ya what; you stick with your fantasy, I'll stick with Physics and engineering.
I won't ask you to accept reality, you don't ask me to accept fantasy.


Oh and the way a "little" missile like that destroys a big aircraft like that is Chaos...its a branch of mathematics...kind of fun sometimes...in this case its description of probability might be interesting...

a reply to: tanka418

You should go tell every aircraft manufacturer that they're full of crap then, and ceiling doesn't really mean anything.

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: _Del_
tell ya what; you stick with your fantasy, I'll stick with Physics and engineering.
I won't ask you to accept reality, you don't ask me to accept fantasy.

Can you show me the physics you used to determine it? Maybe citations. That's what I've been asking for in several posts, and you haven't provided any. I on the other hand provided the data I used to determine the air density and the corresponding linear effect on lift. To the best of my years of experience those things represent "reality". Is there an error in any of my work? Can I see your work? Can I see the variables you plugged into the appropriate equations that show the Su-25 capable of surpassing 60,000'? Please feel to correct me so that I can resume living in "reality" and dismiss my "fantasy".

a reply to: 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.

How can that plane reach that height with the lack of power from it's engines?

And you were in the Air Force?

So now you know more than the manufacturers of the SU 25?

a reply to: tanka418

tell ya what; you stick with your fantasy, I'll stick with Physics and engineering.
I won't ask you to accept reality, you don't ask me to accept fantasy.

And exactly what world is it that you are in, and you may want to find better sources for your Physics and Engineering because they obviously don't know what they are saying just as you don't.

So what your saying is that the manufacturer has no clue as to what they are talking about, because you can easily contact them and let them know you know more than they do.

Sukhoi Company (JSC)
23B, Polikarpov str.,
Moscow, 125284, Russia, p/b 604
Phone:
+7 (495) 940-26-63
+7 (495) 940-26-64
+7 (495) 940-27-62
+7 (495) 945-44-22
Fax:
+7 (495) 945-68-06
+7 (495) 941-76-45
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

www.sukhoi.org/eng/contacts/ahc_sukhoi/

Please let us know what they say when you tell them you know their plane can do the impossible by flying at 35000 ft., and they don't know what they are saying.

Let's ignore the capabilities of the Su-25 for a minute. There's a very easy way to prove MH-17 wasn't taken out by cannon fire. The black box and ATC recordings show that the midair breakup was near instantaneous. The cockpit didn't even get a chance to report they were under attack. I'm not sure a 30mm cannon could even cause a 777 to break up in midair let alone before the cockpit could radio someone.

a reply to: _Del_

Can you show me the physics you used to determine it?

It's the type of Physics that you can't learn in a classroom...only online.

That's what I've been asking for in several posts, and you haven't provided any.

And he won't because it doesn't exist in the real world, because it's only in his world that you can find it.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I'm not sure a 30mm cannon could even cause a 777 to break up in midair let alone before the cockpit could radio someone.

It has to be true, because it is on the internet and we all know the internet never lies.

a reply to: Xcalibur254
It could, but it would take concentrated fire. In other words, more than one strafing run, IMO.
More than one strafing run and I guarantee you the pilots would have been telling the world what was happening.

Again, this was not done by 30 mm cannon fire. No way, No how. 3 stooges logic says it was shot down by cannon fire lol

originally posted by: _Del_
Can you show me the physics you used to determine it? Maybe citations. That's what I've been asking for in several posts, and you haven't provided any. I on the other hand provided the data I used to determine the air density and the corresponding linear effect on lift. To the best of my years of experience those things represent "reality". Is there an error in any of my work? Can I see your work? Can I see the variables you plugged into the appropriate equations that show the Su-25 capable of surpassing 60,000'? Please feel to correct me so that I can resume living in "reality" and dismiss my "fantasy".

Dude...I gave you the equation for lift...no other science has been offered, and, you have provided absolutely nothing other than unsubstantiated BS.

Where is the definition of "RoC"...I'm thinking it doesn't mean either Russian Orthodox Church, nor RAID on Chip...But then again you are the one who brought it up...

In any case you have failed to understand anything I wrote, you actually see to have invented a meaning that was never intended or even vaguely stated.

If any of y'all wish to view the science I used, go find ANY standard text book...

a reply to: tanka418

I believe RoC is rate of climb, but I could be mistaken. What do I know, compared to the experts here.

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?!!??

Indeed - looks good to me.

now can you tell me the values you used to determine that an Su-25 can easily reach 35,000 feet?

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.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: tanka418

I believe RoC is rate of climb, but I could be mistaken. What do I know, compared to the experts here.

It is, in fact, Rate of Climb. Have a cookie. Now he will google the RoC equation and present it to us without explanation or including any actual data or variables and tell us that it proves the Sukhoi has the necessary endurance and lift enabling it to fly at 69,000'.

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.

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?