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: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: VirusGuard
Nice switcheroo... we're not talking distance, we're talking altitude. Adding a fuel tank adds weight, which will decrease the operational ceiling.


Not if you drop the tank after take off and strip the fighter of other items like cannons that won't been needed to fire a missile.

Are you realy trying to say that a missile cannot be fired upwards from a fighter jet or that the eye witness was seeing things after taking too many drugs.

a PUK missile would leave a stream of smoke and yet not one picture of this stream was ever taken and thats with US spy satalites filming the war zone so i think i will run with what Russia is saying.




posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard




Do you know what a safty margin is when it comes to designs of fighter jets and did you know that by adding fule tanks to a fighter that it can break manufacturer distance records.


Distance not height...learn the difference.

Adding more weight doesn't make something fly higher in fact it is just the opposite...you really need to stop as your not helping the argument in fact you are making it worse.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

What sort of missiles did that sharp eyed witness on Kommsomolya Pravda say they were equipped with?


So you don`t even read what people post, you`re only just blindly responding to posts ?


Where in your post did you quote the eyewitness? Oh, wait, you didn't! You just blindly replied to my post!



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard

Wow! Talk about moving the goalposts! I'm pretty sure if the eyewitness saw an airplane rigged for setting altitude records with drop tanks, etc, he would have mentioned it in the interview.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard




Jets are being upgraded all the time with modifications that allow records to be broken and they can be stripped down to reduce the weight or are you saying that the dam buster raids never took place.


And unless you upgrade the airframe and the engines you won't be flying higher than the planes airframe and engines will allow, but feel free to show me how that happens?

Did the dam buster planes fly higher than they were designed to do, because your talking about flying further distance wise not flying higher than the planes capabilities, but hey it is your world and you can be right in it...too bad this is the real world and your not even close.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien




So to me it seems that a Su-25 with its nose up could target something at 10km from a hight of 7km.


So do you still stand by your assertion the plane can fly higher than it's service ceiling, because that is the just of your argument which has seemingly changed once confronted with the truth.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard


a PUK missile would leave a stream of smoke and yet not one picture of this stream was ever taken and thats with US spy satalites filming the war zone so i think i will run with what Russia is saying.


Spy satellites do not hover over a location, they sweep by every ninety minutes or so... plenty of time to miss the action.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard




Are you realy trying to say that a missile cannot be fired upwards from a fighter jet or that the eye witness was seeing things after taking too many drugs.


Here you go...

So your out duck hunting and a duck flies over your head close to 2 miles above and is flying away from you...now you can't see the duck but you shoot at it hoping to hit it, that is what would happen if an SU 25 tried to shoot down MH 17.

The SU 25 doesn't have the radar that would be used in intercepting other planes as their radar is used for navigation, but hey when you find the evidence that contradicts this please post it.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

What sort of missiles did that sharp eyed witness on Kommsomolya Pravda say they were equipped with?


So you don`t even read what people post, you`re only just blindly responding to posts ?


Where in your post did you quote the eyewitness? Oh, wait, you didn't! You just blindly replied to my post!


The link to the transcript was posted at page 1 of this thread, but why read things if you just can respond without it.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Okay, let's step back for a moment here.... we know for a fact that Ukraine has BUK missiles, and crews trained to use them. If Kyiv wanted to create a false flag to incriminate the Donbass rebels, why would they strip modify a ground attack aircraft (even though they have more suitable fighter jets) when they could simply use a BUK and blame it on the rebels more convincingly? Isn't it painfully obvious that Russia has been changing its story over and over because it can never make the story make sense?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

What sort of missiles did that sharp eyed witness on Kommsomolya Pravda say they were equipped with?


So you don`t even read what people post, you`re only just blindly responding to posts ?


Where in your post did you quote the eyewitness? Oh, wait, you didn't! You just blindly replied to my post!


The link to the transcript was posted at page 1 of this thread, but why read things if you just can respond without it.


The answer I was looking for was "R-60, not R-73." Either the witness is reliable, or he is not. If you have to alter his testimony to make it more plausible, it says volumes.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Because it was a mistake of and Ukrainian pilot immediately covered up by pointing towards Russia/Separatist ordered by the direct lines which the Ukraine had with the US military...?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: DJW001

Because it was a mistake of and Ukrainian pilot immediately covered up by pointing towards Russia/Separatist ordered by the direct lines which the Ukraine had with the US military...?


What did he think he was shooting at, do you suppose?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

So the Ukrainian military scrambled an Su-25 that's been modified to be a fighter jet even though the rebels have no air force. Then the pilot mistakes a commercial jetliner for one of those nonexistent planes that the rebels have. Is that what you're suggesting?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard

The missile has to over take the target when fired from behind. The target is moving significantly faster than the launch platform already, now the missile has to gain altitude as well as catch up. And its a short range missile to boot.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien




It seems newer models of the R-27 have also the same seeker as the R-73.



And exactly what version of the R-27 was used on the SU 25, because it isn't one of the launch platforms the missile was designed for?


Launch
platform
Su-27, Su-30, Su-33, Su-34, Su-35, MiG-29, Mig-23, Yak-141, PAK FA


en.wikipedia.org...

If your going to make the claim at least get the plane right that uses them.



Source


This source doesn't help your argument at all since your source says the R-27 is designed for the SU 27 which isn't an Su 25 and the fact the SU 25 wasn't designed to use this weapon also doesn't help as you can't just throw any old missile on any plane and expect it to work.



Maybe you should actually read the whole page before posting it as evidence to back your silly claim.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254




Is that what you're suggesting?



Yep.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien




Because it was a mistake of and Ukrainian pilot immediately covered up by pointing towards Russia/Separatist ordered by the direct lines which the Ukraine had with the US military...?


So now the US military is responsible...how much more asinine are you going to try and make this, because your at the limits now?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

See that would be true, if the Ukraine flew that version. The Su-25SM has been upgraded to carry the R-73. But they don't fly SMs.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




See that would be true, if the Ukraine flew that version. The Su-25SM has been upgraded to carry the R-73. But they don't fly SMs.


They don't fly the SU 39 but he still tried to say they upgraded theirs to one, and that is what shot down MH17 but when faced with the truth the variants change and the goalposts get moved.

They are about to run out of Su 25's and it's variants to blame which is why he is now saying the pilot was directed by the US military.

Heck this is getting better than a Tom Clancey novel with all the plane changes.




top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join