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.

 

THIS JUST IN : New radar data indicates other jets on MH17 course before crash

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien





I think it`s telling there are Dutch 6 experts who all say we can`t rule out the possibility it was a fighter who brought it down.


Have a source for that?

And yes we can rule out a fighter brought it down as there were no fighters in the area that were capable of bringing down a jet at 33000 ft., especially when it is said the plane was an SU 25.




posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: maghun




...and it was a MiG-29.?


And to quote your own post...



Source?



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

Indeed, it possibly supports the conjecture that the rebels fired at a Ukrainian aircraft, but accidently hit the airliner instead. Explaining why Strelkov initially announced that a Ukrainian aircraft has been shot down and (allegedly) sent men to round up any possible survivors.

I have never thought that they deliberately shot down an aircraft that they knew to be a civil airliner.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58



Ukrainian officials say. They say the An-26 plane was hit at an altitude of 6,500m (21,325ft).


Trust the ukrainians? Maybe it was only 6000 m?


Shoulder-fired SAMs generally have a target detection range of about 10 km (6 mi) and an engagement range of about 6 km (4 mi), so aircraft flying at 6,100 metres (20,000 ft) or higher are relatively safe.


Source of satellite image is Russian TV 1



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: maghun

It doesn't matter if it was 6,000 or not, because while that's the ultimate ceiling for a MANPADS, at that height the odds of hitting are drastically reduced. The missile is running out of fuel, and can't maneuver anymore, so if the plane makes any kind of maneuver, the odds of a miss go way up at the end of the range like that.

You engage with a MANPADS at lower altitudes, not higher. Any kind of technical deviation can result in the missile not even getting close to the target. If there was a slight fuel imbalance, your engagement altitude drops, a motor imbalance, anything like that.
edit on 11/14/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: maghun




Source of satellite image is Russian TV 1


Well that should be the first thing that says this pic isn't credible.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: maghun
a reply to: AvoidBadCompany


Could the U.S have anything to do with the downing of MH17 ??


Do not even think about it!


The 10-day NATO exercise code named «BREEZE 2014» has ended in Black Sea. The exercise, which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided with the shootdown of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the Russian border. NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic surveillance.

The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved «commercial traffic monitoring». Because of the sophistication of the electronic warfare and intelligence used during SEA BREEZE, it can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track of MH-17
.

WOW amazing. Why haven't the media mentioned this or maybe they have----
This thread seems to have a few experts posting but I get the feeling it's really just a case of deliberate misinformation but I could be wrong. A bit like BS headquarters.
Thanks for posting that information on operation breeze. I'll look into it today and see what can be found.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AvoidBadCompany




I'll look into it today


Read this article for example:

MH-17: Beware of the «Chameleon»



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: maghun

Too bad there are a lot of assumptions made in that article that don't have much to do with reality. It would require several AWACS operating in a group to cover that entire area, and no ships could see that far inland from the Black Sea.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




Too bad there are a lot of assumptions made in that article that don't have much to do with reality.


I find it interesting that the comments are disabled for that article, wonder why that is?

Seems someone doesn't want the assumptions questioned.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I fail to see why people think that the Donetsk side would have issues operating a BUK.

They have many former Soviet military personnel among their ranks.

The BUK system was/is highly prolific among Soviet/Russian forces.

The likelihood of the Donetsk People's Republic having at least one person not just capable, but fully trained in the operation of the BUK is very high.

That one person could train many in rudimentary operations.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

And the Buk was designed to be easy to operate, with fairly minimal training.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

I have to ask, why are you guys so dead set sure the rebels fired the BUK (if it was a BUK) when the Ukraine military apparently had 3 BUKs also in range of MH17? Seems to me it could've just as likely been them.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

Personally?

I believe that it came from the Donetsk side because if it had come from any other, we would have heard about it loud and clear.

If the Ukrainian side had done it, the Russians would have plastered that across the globe.

If the Russians had done it, the EU/NATO/Ukrainians would have plastered it across the globe.

That leaves the Donetsk Peoples Republic.

I also (personally) believe that the people that know (and could prove it) kept it quiet in the hopes of diffusing tensions at the time, but won't release it know, because they will be in crap for not doing so earlier.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: peck420

I have to ask, why are you guys so dead set sure the rebels fired the BUK (if it was a BUK) when the Ukraine military apparently had 3 BUKs also in range of MH17? Seems to me it could've just as likely been them.


Because the rebels claimed - initially - that they done it


And there is evidence to support their claims and no evidence has been presented to prove they were lying.

This does not, of course, mean they did what they claimed to have done.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyMayhew




Because the rebels claimed - initially - that they done it


But that was Twitter. I wouldn't put my faith in Tweets as any sort of conclusive evidence. Another member posted a link to an analysis (one page back I think) that makes for some pretty interesting reading.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatcoat

It is not proof, but Itar Tass news agency reported it at the time and there is other evidence in the form of alleged accounts from rebels sent to the crash site to round up any survivors.

The thing is, neither the rebels nor the Russians presented any evidence at the time that the reports were false.

I personally think that they fired at what they thought was a Ukrainian aircraft and it was a tragic accident.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Have you read the expert analysis PDF and watched the picture I provided by the Onderzoeksraad Voor Veiligheid (that`s the official authority for investigation after big Dutch disasters, the ones who are doing the MH17 investigation)?

The PDF shows that if it was a BUK coming from the Separatists the damage has to be on the front (photo`s and videos shows where the Separatists BUK location had to be (also according to the US version it was at Snizhne).

Damage is not at the front of the plane where it should be with a BUK approaching head on, but more importantly, according to the analysis it was out of range of the Separatists BUK system. However it was not out of range of the Ukrainian BUK systems and those were also at right place consisted with the damage seen.

And as you can see on the pic (seen in the vid), the damage is also not consistent with what to expect when a BUK missile explodes.

So I get it you still hold to it being the Separatists who did it, but what I don`t get you`re still so sure about it not being them with the new evidence presented.

I don`t say it wasn`t a mistake of them, but with all what has been going and what we know I wont put my money on them being it for sure.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Nvm.
edit on 11/15/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: tommyjo

Have you taken the time to read the PDF ?


Yes I've read it when it was first published and it is flawed. It has been discussed on many forums since and holes picked in it. He tries desperately to make the claimed firing point south of Snizhne impossible and fails miserably.

The Russians have agreed and signed off on the MH17 interim report. The Flight Data Recorder recorded the last position as N48.123 E38.522. The Russians reviewed the report before publication so where are their claims that the data is inaccurate?


The draft preliminary report has been sent to the Accredited Representatives of the States that participate in the investigation, Malaysia, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the Unites States of America and Austrailia for review. All Accredited Representatives have sent a reaction. The Dutch Safety Board assessed the provided suggestion and
amended the report where appropriate.


www.onderzoeksraad.nl...

Even with a cursory glance at a map you will see that MH17s last FDR position puts it within range of a Buk Snizhne firing point. Enter the FDR point in a map and see the distance to the nearest part of the Russian border as a benchmark - yes under 40 kms. Can you not see how flawed the 'analysis' link that you posted is?

Link to image from the MH17 preliminary report showing the last FDR position and the debris field.

www.onderzoeksraad.nl...

www.onderzoeksraad.nl...

From the report. The forward parts of the aircraft were found closest to the last recorded FDR point, indicating that these parts broke off from the aircraft first.

FDR data stopped abruptly at 13:20:03 hrs

The last radio transmission made by the crew began at 13:19:56 hrs and ended at 13:19:59 hrs.

Can you not see how flawed his analysis is? The Buk would have been in range not only for radar detection but also for missile range/interception. All he has done is conjured up a flight path and made up a theory of the intercept point and range being outside the range for a Buk south of Snizhne. The question is why?

See input from others that have denounced the out-of-range theory.

Link

Even other conspiracy theorists on that link you posted challenge the out of range part.


The main issue I challenge in the report is the out-of-range part. The intercept point is set way too far out, and presumes 20-30 km due east flight afterwards. Rather, considering the winds (NNW it seems) it came apart right in the middle of the debris field, and was hit I think shortly before.


If you study the correct flight path a Buk launched from south of Snizhne is perfectly within parameters.

Link
edit on 15/11/2014 by tommyjo because: malformed link corrected



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join