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.

 

Flight MH17 - Searching for the Truth

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I look at the evidence we have and a lot of other factors. I don't completely rule out air to air, but it ranks below mechanical failure IMO.




posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

What evidence, your own speculation makes you come to that conclusion ?

There`s hardly any evidence public, even the experts say a lot of in depth analysis needs to be done at parts of the wreckage to determine what has caused the damage which brought down the MH17...and yet you seem to be able to do something which experts say they can`t do by looking at the pictures of the wreckage alone?

That`s also funny, the investigators didn`t had any part of the wreckage and experts say the pictures don`t tell them enough, they needed close inspection of the wreckage to tell more about what has hit it, and yet without the wreckage they were able to tell in the preliminary report what hit it...oh wait, they were only able to tell ‘High energy objects’ had hit the plane...but that no surprise if you have listened to the experts.

Yes, another big inconsistency in the whole story which is being fed to us, experts weren`t able to tell what has hit MH17 and yet a lot seem to be able to tell what probably has happened.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien




Yes, another big inconsistency in the whole story which is being fed to us, experts weren`t able to tell what has hit MH17 and yet a lot seem to be able to tell what probably has happened.


That would be because they haven't been to the site to investigate it themselves, but they know what a BUK missile wiil do and have seen the damage they produce.

I seem to remember you wholeheartedly backing a so called German expert that said it was definitely a 30 mm from an SU 25 that made the damage...and all he did was look at one picture, so what you consider an expert is really questionable at best.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And once again you totally fail to understand how reports are done. Preliminary reports don't assign a cause, even if they already have it solved.

Funny that people you agree with can look at pictures and the tiny bit of evidence and tell you what happened, but anyone else is full of crap for doing the same thing.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Your hypocrisy really knows no bounds. You readily support anything spouted out by the Russian propaganda machine and yet you claim lack of evidence whenever anyone supports some other narrative.

Mods feel free to delete this post. Someone needs to call him out though.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

What hypocrisy ?

I never have claimed to know what has happened. The only thing I have done is looking at the BUK theory and saw the evidence supporting that theory is really flimsy....and because of that I have been exploring other theories.

I have listened to the not allied to the investigation experts and they seem to agree they can`t tell by just looking at the pictures what exactly caused the fragmentation on MH17.

Even when the final report is presented, we already know what the conclusion will...either the Russians or the Separatists have done it with a BUK missile, it doesn`t matter if it happened that way or not, because the whole Western World (that includes the Western media and Politicians) will lose all credibility if the outcome will be any different.

I haven`t been taking on one Russian theory as if that has happened, I only explored some of them. Same goes the other way around, the presented Western theories are also not backed with enough solid evidence to past the test of being true. And if someone claims to know what has happened based on just his own speculation, it will not convince me either if there are real independent experts contradicting that being possible.

So if it is hypocrite to not swallow something without solid evidence, than I`m hypocrite.

Those anonymous witnesses were, when the Russians came with them, not reliable, but when the West comes with them they are all of a sudden reliable...and now that`s actual something which can be called really hypocritical...not buying an accusation with rather flimsy evidence is something different.

Be my quest and swallow everything the Western media is feeding you without ever doubting it, but it beats me why that`s not the only thing you read and you waste your time on a forum like this.
edit on 12 1 2015 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Wow. A SAM is flimsy, but a relatively tiny missile fired from an Su-25, and tracking and impacting an area of airframe it's not designed to ISNT?
edit on 1/12/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The good independent experts were not able to confirm with 100% surety looking at the pictures what has caused the shrapnel damage to the MH17, was it a BUK or a was it an AAM ?

...so yes, only words of Politicians, Secret Services with an agenda and non independent Western media is really flimsy.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The experts aren't investigating now are they. They're giving their opinion based on a picture. You can't say with 100% certainty without forensic tests.

There is zero chance of an IR missile tracking on the cockpit and detonating above it. They track on HEAT. The cockpit doesn't give off enough heat for an IR missile to even SEE let alone track on.
edit on 1/12/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien




e evidence supporting that theory is really flimsy.


And a plane that supposedly flew higher than it was designed for, faster than it was designed for, and firing a missile that they don't have with that particular jet...isn't a flimsy theory?

I am pretty sure Stevie Wonder can see the problems with the theory about the SU 25 shooting down the passenger airliner.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




The cockpit doesn't give off enough heat for an IR missile to even SEE let alone track on.


Maybe they had the fireplace going in the cockpit?


Or maybe one of the pilots were using their hibachi and that's what it picked up on.

edit on 12-1-2015 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

...and yet the real experts say it is possible an AAM brought MH17 down, even the Ukrainian SBU are now admitting it.

You`re simply contradicting actual experts and think you know it better as them, we can just keep running around in the same circle, but I will take the words of them of yours any day.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
you have a link to the sbu comment?

I do know dutch investigators don't buy into the air to air missile issue however they stated they would look at it. The investigation is suppose o conclude around august of this year.

Personally speaking with the number of theories and changing narratives regarding the air to air missile theory should be enough to dismiss it all together. Especially when the sources change their positions every few days and when Russia gets caught lying about it.
edit on 12-1-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And when they're wrong you'll be the first to scream coverup because you can't believe they could be wrong.

Of course the SBU says, AAM. They get military aid that way.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
So it seems newer Air-to-Air missiles don`t even target engines especially when it comes from the front/side.



More modern infra-red guided missiles can detect the heat of an aircraft's skin, warmed by the friction of airflow, in addition to the fainter heat signature of the engine when the aircraft is seen from the side or head-on. This, combined with greater maneuverability, gives them an "all-aspect" capability, and an attacking aircraft no longer had to be behind its target to fire. Although launching from behind the target increases the probability of a hit, the launching aircraft usually has to be closer to the target in a tail-chase engagement.


Source

Combine that with the newer ones don`t even go in a chase mode but on an intercept course, and AAM to detonate close to cockpit is a good possibility because they don`t have to hit on impact.

Kolomoysky: Sorry about the MH17 – but it is a trifle – ENG SUBS



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

You overlooked something important at the end of your source =


Note: The figures and numbers above are guess-estimates based on the averaging of data from many sources including Danshistory website, Janes Defense Information Group and the Russian Aviation Page. This may account for small variations of the numbers compared to other sources.

Note: Part of the 'Air-to-Air (A2A) Missiles' introduction text is from Wikipedia.


Home

1996-2007 Fighter Planes and Military Aircraft



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien




So it seems newer Air-to-Air missiles don`t even target engines especially when it comes from the front/side.


And do the newer Air to Air missiles fit an SU 25, because that is the plane that supposedly shot down MH 17 and unless they do why are you discussing newer Air to Air missiles?

Or are you suggesting a different plane was at fault?



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Russian missiles were already very good in the 80s, and both the R-73 (1982) and R-27 (1983) were made by Vympel so they have the ability to target an aircraft's skin, especially when being shot from the side/front there`s a good change they don`t even go for the engines.



While ASRAAM was being developed, reunification of Germany gave the German Air Force their first look at the Russian Vympel R-73 missile, known in the west as the AA-11 Archer. This proved to be a far more dangerous short-range attack weapon than had been known previously. It was clearly able to outperform all operational Western short-range IR tracking missiles - particularly in the ability to guide in high off-axis attacks, but also in terms of field of view, acquisition range, maneuverability, ease of target designation, and target lock-on.


Source

Standard Russian tactic is to fire 2 AAMs at the same time, normally with different seekers though, but still 2 paired together.

Source



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

So mh17 was engaged from the front on?



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

They have been outfitted on them and are outfitted on modified older jets.



Furthermore this missile is carried by improved versions of the MiG-21, MiG-23 and MiG-25.


Source

And with the Ukrainians doing modifications to Su-25, Su-27 and Mig-29 themselves, they are sure capable of making that modification to outfit the Su-25 with R-27 missiles.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join