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: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

What evidence ?

Very dubious pictures, a possible hacked account of a nutcase, a sloppy fabricated tape, suggestions by Western politicians and suggestions about how it has happened because of other cases which might or not might have had similarities ?

I haven`t seen clear evidence supporting either side of the story yet, only assumptions. It simply doesn`t matter if a hundred 777 didn`t go down by R60 missiles, there`s always the possibility this time it was, so that`s not something which can be regarded as proof of it not being the case.

What is clear however is that they still haven`t got conclusive evidence yet because they would have already made a preliminary report.




posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
it does not take a year for investigators to know what shoot down a plane and it only took minuites in WWII to have a good idear as to what brought a plane down so you know they are hiding something with all these national security hide behinds they are trying to use when people ask questions.

Today the USA and its military bases all over the world is like a cancer killing the world and it must be stopped.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard

I think it`s dubious with about 100 people working on it would take so much time...

...and with all the fuzz they made about it being a BUK they can`t even come to another conclusion without blowing the faces off the whole Western World...that doesn`t make me hopeful we get an independent outcome...they should have shut their mouths about it!
edit on 25 12 2014 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

You know what its like and anything the USA state department says becomes gosbal truth even if they won't present any evidance to suport the aligations like is the case with the Sony hack that now looks like an inside job.

"National Security" is being used all to often to allow the USA to get away with murder and no better example exsists than the lies told over the events of 9/11



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Which is simply different fusing, as I mentioned. That doesn't make it suddenly more effective explosive that's in the warhead.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The shrapnel indicates that it was NOT a contact explosion, but a proximity warhead. A contact fuse wouldn't have left a lot of small holes like we see in the wreckage. The holes are in the nose, which means that the missile, or missiles were fired from the front, consistent with the location of a SAM system that was reported. The fact that the aircraft exploded on impact indicates that it was a large missile, probably larger than any air to air missile in anyone's inventory.

You've never followed an investigation have you. I've seen investigations when the cause of the crash was evident as soon as it was reported that have taken a year for the preliminary report to be released. The Alaska Airlines MD-80 crash off the coast of California is a good example. The pilots radioed that they heard a bang, and had limited pitch control of the aircraft, and were going to troubleshoot it. Another pilot radioed seeing them out of control, upside down, with the nose pointed at the water just before they crashed. That says immediately they had a problem with the elevators. Within a few days it was reported that they had not performed the maintenance on the elevator jack screw on several MD-80 aircraft, including the accident aircraft. It was two years before the final report came out, and 8 months to a year for the preliminary report to come out.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard

When just about everything was shot down, and both sides were firing at everything that moved? Yeah, that's a pretty easy one right there.

It takes time to analyze chemical residue, if any, to determine the type of explosive. The shrapnel sizes, the shrapnel type, and all the other information they have. This isn't Hollywood, where they can run an explosive trace down in five minutes.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard

There was debris spread across miles. It took weeks before the debris was shipped out of Ukraine. That's after some of the debris was shipped to Russia. After some the debris was left exposed to the elements for weeks. After the debris was subjected to gunfire from the rebels. Reconstructing a crash all by itself can take many months. Add in all the other factors that complicate matters and you're surprised that the preliminary report is going to take a year? This is like a million+ piece puzzle where pieces are missing, water warped, and bullet riddled. How long do you think it would take you to finish?



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58



The shrapnel indicates that it was NOT a contact explosion, but a proximity warhead.


Of course I`m aware of that, but are you from delays in that system which can be altered ?



The holes are in the nose, which means that the missile, or missiles were fired from the front, consistent with the location of a SAM system that was reported.


However as I have shown you before, there were also bending inwards at the roof of the cockpit which isn`t consistent with a SAM.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   
So Ukraine is also using the R-73 with 7.4kg warheads which can be mounted on the SU-25.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

So do you really believe that a SU-25 ground attack aircraft, climbed beyond its ceiling and to within 4000m of a faster jet, before achieving a heat lock on his missiles which flew past the source of the heat and exploded into the cockpit?

The deny ignorance is lost when members accept ignorance?

For a Frogfoot to get to say 36000ft if possible, it would need to be on a preplanned climb in advance of MH17 so it gets to it's launch position behind the engines. This would mean a long time in an altitude where there is no oxygen and it is cold. It would be have to be guided from someone with a radar.

It doesn't have enough power to 'dash' in a climb, both through such altitude. Wrong engines, wrong aircraft design, wrong avionics and life support, wrong missiles, wrong training, wrong wrong wrong.

Deny ignorance.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Which still wouldn't be enough to cause it to explode instantaneously, as evidenced by other shootdowns. Nor would it home on the cockpit.
edit on 12/25/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The shrapnel is consistent with the proximity detonation of a missile. The homing, and the amount of shrapnel is consistent with a large missile.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TheCrowMan

It doesn`t need to go to 10km, it can stay at 7km with Air-to-Air missiles.



The deny ignorance is lost when members accept ignorance?


...maybe first read the topic before responding ?



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And it needs radar to see where the flight is before it can lock on. And missiles that will home in on the cockpit, and detonate beside and above the cockpit.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58



The shrapnel is consistent with the proximity detonation of a missile. The homing, and the amount of shrapnel is consistent with a large missile.


So one or two Air-to-Air missiles exploding close by wouldn`t be able to the same as an SAM ?



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That`s not consistent with the other damage which is on the side.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Well the BUK uses the 9M38 which has a 70kg warhead. The largest missile the Su-25 uses is the K-13 which has a 7.4kg warhead. Last I checked 70 was greater than 14.8. Granted one can't make a direct comparison between the two but it should at least illustrate how much more devastating a SAM is compared to an AAM.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

No, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. A SAM has one large warhead, so the shrapnel and shockwave hit consistently and together. Two missiles hitting near each other won't detonate at the same time, will have different shrapnel patterns, different shockwaves, and different damage patterns.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Zaphod58



The shrapnel is consistent with the proximity detonation of a missile. The homing, and the amount of shrapnel is consistent with a large missile.


So one or two Air-to-Air missiles exploding close by wouldn`t be able to the same as an SAM ?


Can you even Ripple 2x IR seekers? Don't you usually select missile fire, switch, re-lock fire? All with a jet getting further away?

No, 2x7kg missile do not equal the kinetic and destructive power of 1x14kg missile, you spread the damage making it less effective.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join