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.

 

Exclusive: From 'Red October' village, new evidence on downing of Malaysian plane over Ukraine

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: dragonridr

Russia has given its radar images to the OOV, unlike the US has.


No the raw radar data was never released only a power point presentation. Where Russia claimed the first one that they got a transponder code from an su25. Later this changes by the way later at again a second power point release where they day it was a military jet because it didn't have one. The second time they released a satellite photo of an SU 25 shooting down the airliner. This was shown to be a fake and the radar data was never released to the Dutch safety board. Meaning they made it up until some evidence comes out to prove otherwise. Here might want to read about the satellite photo.
www.buzzfeed.com...
edit on 3/17/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Apparently he thinks there should be shrapnel damage all over the aircraft. It's only going to be near where the missile detonated, and any bits that stick out, like the wings.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Not that fake image again, I thought we actually taking about real satellite images.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

At least much more as what is visible when it`s a BUK missile.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Near where the missile detonated. Which was by the cockpit. All those holes near the cockpit are shrapnel holes.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: dragonridr

Not that fake image again, I thought we actually taking about real satellite images.


So did everyone else when Russia released it only later to admit it was from the internet. Got to love it a country getting there satelite images from the net. Wow really that's sad.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

No. The warhead doesn't donate so all the shrapnel goes towards the plane. It goes in all directions. So only the shrapnel on the side of the explosion closest to the plane is going to hit. Some is going to go parallel to the fuselage, and hit the wing, like we saw here, and most isn't going to touch the plane at all.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, but it should give a lot of shrapnel damage to the plane nonetheless, but there`s a distinct lack of it so it seems.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

No it shouldn't. If 3/4ths of the shrapnel misses the aircraft how do you figure there should be more damage? The only place that would have any concentration is the cockpit area, which does have a lot of damage to it. More than an air to air missile, if it could even cause it to explode the way it did. A gun wouldn't cause it to explode at all.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So it should not give a lot of shrapnel damage after all ?



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

It depends on the angle at impact but a lot of the shrapnel is going to miss. It's exploding in what's essentially a dome around the warhead. Only the portions of it that are facing the aircraft are going to hit it. The rest is going to miss.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien


It doesn`t talk about an AAM, the only questions which is asked, "where is the damage caused by a BUK ?"


Correct. Why does the author concern himself with the remains of the BUK missile instead of the remains of the air to air missile the Russians claim was used?



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, but it should give a lot of shrapnel damage to the plane nonetheless, but there`s a distinct lack of it so it seems.


The lack of it could be related to the rebels taking a chainsaw to the cockpit and cutting it up. This also adds to the theory that they weren't trying to get to bodies inside.

I find it interesting though that a comment is made of lack of shrapnel holes yet when discussing the impossible SU-25 bringing the plane down with is machine gun people like to say the holes are everywhere.

So who is lying? The western media or the OSCE?
edit on 17-3-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Why does everyone keeps ignoring that a plane half the size of MH17 has been brought down by R-60 missiles, but yet they keep mentioning that a plane 1/4 the size could make an emergency landing ?

- Apparently it was able to knock off one the engines and the second missile targeted that one falling off. But that`s still a serious blow if you can knock off an engine



Length: 15.39 m (50 ft 6 in)

Wingspan: 14.33 m (47 ft 0 in)

BAe-125


- This one was brought down by R-60 missiles



Length: 31.62 m (103 ft 9 in)

Wingspan: 37.42 m (122 ft 9¼ in)

Breguet Atlantique


- MH17



Length: 63.7 m (209 ft 1 in)

Wingspan: 60.9 m (199 ft 11 in)

777-200ER



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, but it should give a lot of shrapnel damage to the plane nonetheless, but there`s a distinct lack of it so it seems.


The lack of it could be related to the rebels taking a chainsaw to the cockpit and cutting it up. This also adds to the theory that they weren't trying to get to bodies inside.

I find it interesting though that a comment is made of lack of shrapnel holes yet when discussing the impossible SU-25 bringing the plane down with is machine gun people like to say the holes are everywhere.

So who is lying? The western media or the OSCE?


I think they were trying to cut out shrapnel from the missile itself think they found a large portion of the missile lodged into the cockpit. And had to cut it out to remove it.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The OSCE Mission



It is worth noting that the initial statements by OSCE observers (July 31) broadly confirm the findings of Peter Haisenko:

Monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe reported that shrapnel-like holes were found in two separate pieces of the fuselage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines aircraft that was believed to have been downed by a missile in eastern Ukraine.

Michael Bociurkiw of the OSCE group of monitors at his daily briefing described part of the plane’s fuselage dotted with “shrapnel-like, almost machine gun-like holes.” He said the damage was inspected by Malaysian aviation-security officials .(Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2014) The monitoring OSCE team has not found evidence of a missile fired from the ground as conveyed by official White House statements. As we recall, the US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power stated –pointing a finger at Russia– that the Malaysian MH17 plane was “likely downed by a surface-to-air missile operated from a separatist-held location”:

The team of international investigators with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) are uncertain if the missile used was fired from the ground as US military experts have previously suggested, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported. (Malay Mail online)

The initial OSCE findings tend to dispel the claim that a BUK missile system brought down the plane.

Source


And can you tell me why the damage holes don`t match with that of a BUK missile ?

As Seen Here



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien




You act like an authority on the matter to support your lack of skill to make an analysis about what has happened.


I would take the word of Zaphod long before I would any of the so called experts you use for sources.



Where is your analysis on the debris field, or are admitting you don`t have the experience to come to such a conclusion, but it`s nothing more as, "I say it is so, so it is that way?"


You do understand one doesn't have to actually be at the crash site to give an educated opinion on it.

Just think back to your so called expert that swears the holes in MH 17 wreckage were done from a 30 mm cannon, and yet he never went to the site to analyze it just pics from the net...and you quoted him as gospel when he did the same thing you have a problem with what another member has done.

The hypocrisy never stops with you does it?



analysis of the wreckage by others, an on the spot being OCSE monitor.


You do understand that the OSCE said they looked like bullet holes, but they didn't have the training or expertise to say it was, but of course that seems to get missed by you.

You seem to like to misquote people, and leave out details that don't agree with what you think is the truth.

So have you contacted Sukhoi and explained to them that they are dumb and don't know what the plane they built and designed for a specific purpose can defy all engineering and technical specs of their plane, because that is what your trying to do...unsuccessfully I might add.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Why do you quote the intentionally misleading post from globalresearch.com instead of the official OSCE report?


The SMM, together with Dutch and Australian experts, successfully visited the crash site of Malaysia Airlines flight MH 17 in Hrabove (79 km east of Donetsk), in accordance with a route and plan agreed in both Kyiv with the Ukrainian Government, and in Donetsk with the so-called ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ (DPR). This was a reconnaissance rather than a full investigative group.


www.osce.org... [Emphasis mine. --DJW001

Because they didn't have time to do a proper examination, making their evaluation completely superficial and worthless as any sort of "evidence."



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien




As Seen Here


Well then you may want to read this...

www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com...

I also have to ask why your source didn't use the whole photo instead of the zoomed in one?

Could it be because had he used the whole shot it would have shown that rod came from somewhere other than an R 60 missile.

Now I have something very interesting here...


Russian chief developer of the Su-25
"MH17 not shot down by fighter jet"



The Russian Defense Ministry had said shortly after the crash of MH17 that had been seen Ukrainian Su-25 near the Malaysian Boeing. This version contradicts the Russian chief designer of this aircraft type in an interview with WDR, NDR and SZ.

"We have worked with our colleagues played all versions and as a Su-25 can not understand that Boeing could shoot," says Vladimir Babak, who for 35 years with his favorite child, the Su-25, is engaged. The Commission acknowledges that the aircraft briefly rise to more than 10,000 meters, but there could not shoot without crashing. For the Su-25 is a low-flying aircraft, only for it had been constructed.



The designer also considers it impossible that other warplanes shot down the machine. For air-to-air missiles would have had other effects that they had such a powerful machine like the Boeing only damaged, do not let break up in the air. MH17 is however already broken into the air.


www.tagesschau.de...

Well looks like this article put's the SU 25 theory to bed.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

And this puts it back on the table...

Was MH17 shot down by a Su-25? Former pilots are responding



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join