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.

 

Interesting article on Ukraine shooting down MH17

page: 13
9
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

The plane in that video also wasn't a 777. But I guess you'll continue to ignore that fact since it doesn't suit the fantasy you've created.




posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander




The footage pulled down by BBC was only a video. No words, no commentary. But it showed the flight spiraling with one engine on fire. That did not fit the BUK narrative, so it was pulled.


Was this the video you are talking about, because if so that wasn't MH17?



Also you do know the plane blew apart at cruising altitude and never spiraled at any time.


And just to add to the debunking of your missing BBC truth video...The uploader admits that he changed the tittle of the vid when he found out it wasn't MH17...


I changed the name of this video after I saw and be sure that isn't malaysian plane Thanks to everyone who said his opinion with respect


www.youtube.com...

So again that is why BBC pulled the video after finding out it wasn't MH17...but you can keep on believing whatever you want just know it isn't what you think it is.

edit on 2-1-2015 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

I posted several sources earlier proving that was an AN-30 shot down in June, long before MH17.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Watched the whole 1:19. No sir, that was not the video I saw on Day 2 or 3. The one I saw had no leaves in the foreground, and the aircraft was definitely spiraling down.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I say again: the video I saw on BBC was amateur and slightly out of focus. Probably less than a minute. It showed the airliner in its last maybe 2000 feet of altitude. One engine was on fire, and the aircraft was in a spiral. It was impossible to tell much about the fuselage, it was slightly out of focus and much too short for that.

The telltale damage to the fuselage could be seen by pictures taken of the wreckage, such as one perfectly straight line across the top of the left wing outboard section, perfectly aligned with the cockpit, which had multiple holes from what appeared to be cannon fire.

Come to think of it, that picture of the upper outboard wing surface was not shown by western media, at least that I saw.

Oops




posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

There were multiple videos posted alleging to be MH17, none were. There was an AN-30 shot down in the area, as well as an AN-26 shot down prior to MH17, that had videos of them going down claiming to be MH17.

AN-30:


Another version minus leaves at parts:


The only actual video of MH17 going down was the video that showed just around impact of the smoke cloud rising.

So according to you, if it was intact for the last 2,000 feet, either the explosion was so powerful it could throw large pieces 8 miles,or someone moved the pieces and perfectly recreated an impact scene.

There is no way, not any possible way, that the plane was intact at 2,000 feet. The debris field tells a totally different story. The only way that debris field is scattered the way it was is if the plane came apart at very high altitude.

As for the holes, you mean these?







All of that damage is more consistent with shrapnel coming in at an angle than it is with canon fire.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank you for making the effort in showing those photos. I have seen those before, but there was another with the very straight line, no fragmentation, across the upper surface of the left wing, outer third of the wind more or less. The line could not have been straighter if drawn with a chalk line. Amazing coincidence, but it was clearly a cannon round.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

A 30mm canon round would have blown the outer portion of the wing completely off, not just left a line of neat holes. So would a 20mm canon.
edit on 1/8/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Huh. Apparently the Su-25 narrative has come apart. Now the "secret witness" claims it was an Su-17.

New article



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

A 30mm canon round would have blown the outer portion of the wing completely off, not just left a line of neat holes. So would a 20mm canon.


Not necessarily. In a dynamic situation such as that it is quite possible that only one round out of many would by random chance pass along the surface of the wing without entering or tearing it.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And yet, according to you there was "a line of holes". For a round to skip along the wing it would have to be almost level with the wing.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander




Not necessarily.


Well then please enlighten us as to what you know about the 30 mm cannon and how it just skips off a airliners wing.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

And yet, according to you there was "a line of holes". For a round to skip along the wing it would have to be almost level with the wing.


No sir, I did not say it was "a line of holes". You said that.

I said that the cockpit area had a pretty tight shot group of holes, and on the upper outboard surface of the wing was ONE, just ONE, straight line made by ONE, just ONE of the rounds that formed the tight shot group on the cockpit.

Does that help?



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

So a 30mm canon shell is going to hit the wing, where if you step in the wrong place, and instead of penetrating it, is going to ricochet off it, leaving a nice line? The only way that happens is if something hits either from above, or almost at the same level as the wing, and slides along it.

So how is an Su-25 going to catch up, and get to that angle to do that?



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Who says it MUST BE a Su 25? My guess is that it was a faster airplane, but the latest modified Su might do it, if it were really light on fuel with bigger engines?

I don't know or care what type airplane it was. Whatever it was, it had a cannon.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And yet no one but Russia noticed it on radar, and that on a system that was in standby. Not even the AWACS that were flying in the area.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join