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.

 

MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

page: 13
5
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesBrocknar


Su25's flying at 8700m, with missiles.


Your kidding right and how do you know this is it because the title said so? In the video the camera looks to the right and sees a mountain range it's obviously below that. Judging from the landscape id say this was Afghanistan. The tallest mountains in Afghanistan is Hindu Kush Mountains of the Wakhan Corridor, an isolated panhandle of land connecting Afghanistan with China, Mount Noshaq stands at 24,580 feet (7,492 meters) in height. And its unlikely Russians were attacking the Chinese border. Meaning that they were several thousand feet below that. And we'll with in operating parameters as given by manufacturer.
edit on 8/24/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/24/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesBrocknar


What was said by the actual Russian government, exactly?


Officially, that it would co-operate with the investigation. Meanwhile, the government controlled press spreads garbage like this:




What does the blast pattern of BUK look like and where did it explode in relation to the plane?


Obviously, as an explosive device that hurls shrapnel, it would send out an expanding cone of rods in the direction of the target. Logically, it would have detonated about fifty feet below and in front of the jet. Prove me wrong.

Expert opinions on the subject.


We have discussed the 30mm cannon evidence, we hace discussed the air to air missile evidence, now I am trying to discuss the BUK evidence but it seems you are not up for that and are trying very hard to steer the discussion away from this.


No, I have been focusing on the obvious flaws in your pet theory and you have been avoiding answering them by asking for information that cannot be obtained from open sources.


So again I ask, what does the blast pattern of BUK look like and where did it explode in relation to the plane?


And agin I reply: a cone, below and in front of the plane, hence the heavy damage to the cockpit. Now, where was your SU-25 located in relation to the plane. Remember, you have to take into account its performance capabilities, the location and grouping of the holes in the fuselage and the testimony of the witnesses.

Edit to add:

Remember this picture?



This damage patter was made by a similar, but smaller and less powerful device. Note that is is essentially circular, the expanding cone mapped onto the curved surface of the plane.


This might help him visualize it. First with sams the shrapnel creates a cone do to physics. The blast pattern is pushed forward so to missile velocity the faster the missile the tighter the cone becomes. Missiles have 2 blast actually fragmentation makes a cone and the missile itself fragment and travels forward like a shotgun blast.

Here is a presentation to help you visualize the attack.





posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesBrocknar


What was said by the actual Russian government, exactly?


Officially, that it would co-operate with the investigation. Meanwhile, the government controlled press spreads garbage like this:




What does the blast pattern of BUK look like and where did it explode in relation to the plane?


Obviously, as an explosive device that hurls shrapnel, it would send out an expanding cone of rods in the direction of the target. Logically, it would have detonated about fifty feet below and in front of the jet. Prove me wrong.

Expert opinions on the subject.


We have discussed the 30mm cannon evidence, we hace discussed the air to air missile evidence, now I am trying to discuss the BUK evidence but it seems you are not up for that and are trying very hard to steer the discussion away from this.


No, I have been focusing on the obvious flaws in your pet theory and you have been avoiding answering them by asking for information that cannot be obtained from open sources.


So again I ask, what does the blast pattern of BUK look like and where did it explode in relation to the plane?


And agin I reply: a cone, below and in front of the plane, hence the heavy damage to the cockpit. Now, where was your SU-25 located in relation to the plane. Remember, you have to take into account its performance capabilities, the location and grouping of the holes in the fuselage and the testimony of the witnesses.

Edit to add:

Remember this picture?



This damage patter was made by a similar, but smaller and less powerful device. Note that is is essentially circular, the expanding cone mapped onto the curved surface of the plane.


This might help him visualize it. First with sams the shrapnel creates a cone do to physics. The blast pattern is pushed forward so to missile velocity the faster the missile the tighter the cone becomes. Missiles have 2 blast actually fragmentation makes a cone and the missile itself fragment and travels forward like a shotgun blast.

Here is a presentation to help you visualize the attack.





posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



Do you see the altimeter?

It says 8700m.

And if I am reading it correctly the speed is well over 1000kmh.


edit on 24-8-2015 by LesBrocknar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




Don't expect others to do your research for you. Please keep us informed about all the operational capabilities of the BUK. I'm sure the Russian Army would be happy to provide you with all the specifics you require.


In the meanwhile you will just keep on assuming it was a BUK because of anecdotal evidence.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: DJW001




Don't expect others to do your research for you. Please keep us informed about all the operational capabilities of the BUK. I'm sure the Russian Army would be happy to provide you with all the specifics you require.


In the meanwhile you will just keep on assuming it was a BUK because of anecdotal evidence.


No, I keep assuming it's missile damage because that's what it looks like. I have not entirely ruled out that it was an air-to-air missile, but that would have required a Russian fighter deliberately invading Ukrainian airspace to create a false flag incident. I prefer to think that it was an honest accident by separatists acting in what they thought was self defense. Are you open to the Russian false flag theory, or do you still believe in 20 year old, poorly maintained superplanes?



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




No, I keep assuming it's missile damage because that's what it looks like. I have not entirely ruled out that it was an air-to-air missile, but that would have required a Russian fighter deliberately invading Ukrainian airspace to create a false flag incident.


A Russian fighter? What about an Ukranian fighter? Why are you omitting the most logical option? Wouldn't Ukraine have mentioned a Russian fighter?

The Russians did mention Ukranian fighters and so did eyewitnesses.






or do you still believe in 20 year old, poorly maintained superplanes?


What do you mean by that?
edit on 24-8-2015 by LesBrocknar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   


No, I keep assuming it's missile damage because that's what it looks like. I have not entirely ruled out that it was an air-to-air missile, but that would have required a Russian fighter deliberately invading Ukrainian airspace to create a false flag incident.


I don't know if anyone is reading this thread but do you hear that dragging sound?

That's the sound of goal posts being moved......



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: dragonridr



Do you see the altimeter?

It says 8700m.

And if I am reading it correctly the speed is well over 1000kmh.



Wrong plane try the one he's filming wow really!?
edit on 8/24/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Sources, so I can see for myself?



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: DJW001




Don't expect others to do your research for you. Please keep us informed about all the operational capabilities of the BUK. I'm sure the Russian Army would be happy to provide you with all the specifics you require.


In the meanwhile you will just keep on assuming it was a BUK because of anecdotal evidence.


You mean like actually finding missile parts in the pilot and copilot yeah sure anecdotal I told you to go look it up. Then there is the buk being photographed in the location eye witness reports reported a loud boom. Before the plane fell oh and of course the pictures of the actual launcher leaving afterwards. Then the reports from Russians themselves saying it was a buk like the one from the general I posted.

Now why it couldn't be a missile from an aircraft like you two are arguing over. Simple they are HEAT seekers they don't have this nice ground radar to guide the missile at the cockpit like a buk does. If a fighter attacked the missile would have exploded when it hit the engine. This would have left the cockpit untouched. Beaming our pilots wouldn't be full of buk missile fragments.
edit on 8/24/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




Wrong plane try the one he's filming wow really!?


Now you are just trying to be dishonest. Wow indeed.

This is obviously the cockpit of a Su25. Do I really need to go and make a side by side comparison with little arrows pointing out the similarities?

Or are you just going to admit that you are lying on purpose.

Come on now, these aren't honest mistakes anymore.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: LesBrocknar


I don't know if anyone is reading this thread but do you hear that dragging sound?

That's the sound of goal posts being moved......


Thank you for admitting that's what you've been doing. All sorts of evidence has been provided that it was a missile of some sort and you keep asking for more.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: LesBrocknar


I don't know if anyone is reading this thread but do you hear that dragging sound?

That's the sound of goal posts being moved......


Thank you for admitting that's what you've been doing. All sorts of evidence has been provided that it was a missile of some sort and you keep asking for more.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: dragonridr

Sources, so I can see for myself?


Look it up for your self you wanted to see the pattern here's another. This one is from an actual buk manual. Seems I have no problem finding information on it why do you?



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




You mean like actually finding missile parts in the pilot and copilot yeah sure anecdotal I told you to go look it up. Then there is the buk being photographed in the location eye witness reports reported a loud boom. Before the plane fell oh and of course the pictures of the actual launcher leaving afterwards. Then the reports from Russians themselves saying it was a buk like the one from the general I posted.


We are talking direct evidence here, an anlysis of the damage based on a BUk's properties, sofar no official source shared one. Therefore, all evidence for a BUK is circumstantial and anecdotal.




Now why it couldn't be a missile from an aircraft like you two are arguing over. Simple they are HEAT seekers they don't have this nice ground radar to guide the missile at the cockpit like a buk does. If a fighter attacked the missile would have exploded when it hit the engine. This would have left the cockpit untouched. Beaming our pilots wouldn't be full of buk missile fragments.


In the ideal case. In reality they home in on the heat source but explode in proximity of the plane. Look at the damage to fuselage of the Korean flight 902.


Bosov tried to convince his superiors that the plane was not a military threat, but after receiving orders to shoot it down[4][5] he fired a pair of R-60 missiles. The first missile flew past the target.[5] The second one hit the left wing, knocking off approximately four meters of its length. The missile also punctured the fuselage, causing rapid decompression and jamming one of the plane's four turbines



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




Thank you for admitting that's what you've been doing.


I am pretty sure I was talking about you.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: LesBrocknar


A Russian fighter? What about an Ukranian fighter?


Because Ukraine has no aircraft capable of downing a jetliner. Most of their military aircraft are ground support craft. Their few MiGs are in poor repair.


Why are you omitting the most logical option?


A surface to air missile is the most logical option, as an air to air missile would probably have hit the engine, as has been pointed out.


Wouldn't Ukraine have mentioned a Russian fighter?


Of course, yet another reason it was probably a BUK.


The Russians did mention Ukranian fighters and so did eyewitnesses.


Those "eyewitnesses" have remarkable vision! They could identify Ukrainian warpaint from over ten kilometers away!



or do you still believe in 20 year old, poorly maintained superplanes?


What do you mean by that?


You have been citing anecdotal evidence that a stripped down, well maintained SU-25 flown by an experienced pilot can operate at 10,000 meters. The Ukrainian air fleet is not well maintained and its pilots not very experienced, therefore that twenty year old SU-25 must secretly be Superplane!



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




Look it up for your self you wanted to see the pattern here's another. This one is from an actual buk manual. Seems I have no problem finding information on it why do you?


I have a problem with finding consistent information, sofar it exploded from above, below, left, right of the plane, or different combinations of that, and I have seen a variety of supposed blast patterns.

Shall I go with the latest one you posted? So it exploded from the front and below with a 360 degree round and forward blast?




top topics



 
5
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join