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: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: LesBrocknar

At what range were those rounds fired? Were they fired from below at a 45 degree angle, or on a level pitch at close range?




posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I don't know the range it was fired at, but in the vid they say the range of the gun is 300-2000m.

Probably not from the same angle if this happened to mh17. Wether it came from above or below, it clearly shows a striking resemblance, only the exit holes angles would be different, this does not really change how such a pattern looks.
edit on 22-8-2015 by LesBrocknar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: LesBrocknar




That 300mm cannon damage sure does resemble the damage on the MH17 piece.



Show me an SU 25 that is capable of flying at 33000 ft. and is still able to line up and fire without stalling...then you might be onto something.



And if anyone can tell me, at what position did the BUK explode in relation to the plane? Above, below, to the left or right or dead on?


Well according to the preliminary report it was hit on the left side around the cockpit area.

www.onderzoeksraad.nl...



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




Show me an SU 25 that is capable of flying at 33000 ft. and is still able to line up and fire without stalling...then you might be onto something.


This notion doesn't change the fact that those pics show damage from 30mm fire.

Su25's have reached heights of up to 14,500m. Throw in an oygen tank and mask and it can easily get into a comfortable firing position somewhere below 10km, and there wouldn't have been a need to carry its full armament.

Hell, maybe it was somthing else. MH17 was shot with a large caliber cannon though it looks like.




Well according to the preliminary report it was hit on the left side around the cockpit area.


Well that is kinda problematic isn't it?

Since the famous side panel from the left side of the cockpit is riddled with exit holes.

edit on 22-8-2015 by LesBrocknar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Btw, can anyone show me any pic with BUK shrapnel damage that resembles the MH17 damage even more than the 30mm cannon damage of which I just posted pics?



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: LesBrocknar




Probably not from the same angle if this happened to mh17. Wether it came from above or below, it clearly shows a striking resemblance, only the exit holes angles would be different, this does not really change how such a pattern looks.


Except if the SU 25 were to be the plane that did this the bullet holes would be in the bottom of the plane...If it would even reach the plane at all...as the SU 25 has to be lined up on the target to hit it as it's cannon is mounted in the bottom of the fuselage.

www.globalsecurity.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">www.globalsecurity.org...

The pilot would more or less be trying to hit a target 6 miles above him by using only his visual confirmation... in fact try pointing out a plane six miles above you on a clear day that doesn't have contrails that make it easier to know it's there...not a very easy thing to do...even for a trained pilot.

So that alone means this SU 25 would have to pull off the impossible for MH 17 to be brought down by cannon fire.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Like I said Su25 can easily reach 10km, and could hit MH17 from the side flying somewhat lower than that, at an angle. And even if it couldn't, there is still the undeniable 30mm cannon damage.

Something shot at MH17 with a cannon, wether it was a Su25 or not.
edit on 22-8-2015 by LesBrocknar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: LesBrocknar

Actually, it would affect the spread of the projectiles. The holes are so close together that, if they are from a gun, it must have fired at point blank range,.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LesBrocknar




This notion doesn't change the fact that those pics show damage from 30mm fire.


No they don't, and what expert has said they are?

And how exactly did a plane incapable of flying high enough to do this pulled off a feat that the manufacturers say is impossible?



Su25's have reached heights of up to 14,500m. Throw in an oygen tank and mask and it can easily get into a comfortable firing position somewhere below 10km, and there wouldn't have been a need to carry its full armament.


No it hasn't. from the manufacturers own website...



Aircraft performance
Takeoff weight:
- normal (with 2xFAB-500 + 2xR-73E), kg 14,440
- maximum, kg 19,300
Landing weight:
- normal (without external ordnance and stores), kg 11,020
- maximum, kg 13,200
Maximum ordnance load, kg 4,000
Service ceiling (without external ordnance and stores), km 7
Maximum flight speed at sea level (without external ordnance and stores), km/h 950
Max Mach (without external ordnance and stores) 0.82
G-limit (operational) +6.5/-2.0
Practical flight range without external ordnance and stores, km:
- at sea level, km 500
- at height, km 1,000
- with 4 x PTB-800 (to be dropped), km 1,850
Take-off run:
- with normal takeoff weight, m 500
- with maximum takeoff weight, m 1,050
Landing run:
- with normal landing weight, m 550
- with maximum landing weight, m 750
Aircraft dimensions:
- length, m 15.05
- wingspan, m 14.5
- height, m 2
Crew 1
Powerplant
Number and type of engines 2 x R-195
Thrust in full power, kgf 4,500
Avionics
1. Attack and navigation system
1.1 Visualisation-of-information and control system composed of:
1.1.1. On-board digital device
1.1.2. Collimating aviation indicator
1.1.3. Multi-purpose colour LCD indicator
1.1.4. Output information generation block
1.1.5. Information input system block
1.1.6. Voltage control
1.1.7 Mapping information generation block
1.2. GPS system
1.3. Attitude and heading reference system
1.4. Short-range radiotechnical navigation system
1.5. Doppler navigator
1.6. Radio altimeter
1.7. Air data system
1.8. Laser target illuminator and rangefinder
1.9. Control signal generation equipment
2. Radio equipment:
2.1. Radio communications transceiver
2.2. Ground troops communications link set
2.3. Voice information equipment
2.4. IFF transponder
2.5. Automatic direction finder
2.6. Marker radio receiver
2.7. Aircraft responder
3. Electronic countermeasure equipment
3.1. Radar illumination warning station
3.2. Automatic device for passive jamming emission
3.3. Small-size active jamming transmitter (in pod)
4. Registration, monitoring and alarm instrumentation
4.1. Onboard system of video surveillance and information recording
4.1.1. Video recording system
4.1.2. Onboard system for recording of tactical employment results
4.2. Emergency warning system
4.3. On-board device for flight configuration recording
4.3.1. Onboard solid-state FLASH memory storage unit
4.4. Multi-function flight recorder
5. Weapons control system


www.sukhoi.org...

Seems the manufacturers disagree with your info...or are they not knowledgeable about their own planes?



Throw in an oygen tank and mask and it can easily get into a comfortable firing position somewhere below 10km, and there wouldn't have been a need to carry its full armament.


Sure just throw is an oxygen tank and mask problem solved...not at all. Just a quick reminder it wouldn't be able to reach that height unless it was fully stripped of everything...even it's cannon, so that could never happen.



Hell, maybe it was somthing else. MH17 was shot with a large caliber cannon though it looks like.


Or a BUK with a 70 kg HE fragmentation warhead.




Well that is kinda problematic isn't it?


Well maybe for those who don't know...unlike the experts who do know and none of them say it was cannon fire that made those holes.



Since the famous side panel from the left side of the cockpit is riddled with exit holes.


No it isn't as these show holes of fragments entering the plane.



It shows what appears to be the outer skin pulling away from the inner skin and not bullet holes. You can clearly see the holes that penetrated the planes skin are in fact pushing in.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
There are various sources claiming a 10.000m ceiling.

This Ukrainian one for instance.


"Ukroboronservis" - state company, whose main activity is the realization of national interests of Ukraine in the field of exports and imports of goods and services for military-technical and special purposes.


translate.google.com... cy-25&edit-text=




Ceiling, m 7000-10000

Max. altitude combat use 5000


Max. altitude combat use refers to the role it is designed for specifically. It can obviously go to 10.000m and it wouldn't be carrying bombs.


edit on 22-8-2015 by LesBrocknar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LesBrocknar




Like I said Su25 can easily reach 10km, and could hit MH17 from the side flying somewhat lower than that, at an angle. And even if it couldn't, there is still the undeniable 30mm cannon damage.


Okay lets try this...

How does an Su 25 fire cannons from below the Commercial jet and still hit the left hand side near the cockpit?

The fact that it would have to be above the plane as the cannon in the SU 25 is mounted in the bottom of the fuselage doesn't show you the impossibility of that?

And how exactly are you determining that those are undeniably holes from a 30 mm cannon?



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: LesBrocknar




There are various sources claiming a 10.000m ceiling.


So they know more about the SU 25 than those who engineered and built this plane...do you even see how absurd that sounds?



Max. altitude combat use refers to the role it is designed for specifically. It can obviously go to 10.000m and it wouldn't be carrying bombs.


It could only fly that high as a stripped down air frame without ordinance...meaning no bombs, and no cannon, or ammo to fire at that height.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




Or a BUK with a 70 kg HE fragmentation warhead.


Can you show a pic of BUK damage that shows the same resemblance?




Well maybe for those who don't know...unlike the experts who do know and none of them say it was cannon fire that made those holes.


If you ignore the ones that are claiming that.....




No it isn't as these show holes of fragments entering the plane.


Please, the holes that are all bent outwards are clearly exit holes.




It shows what appears to be the outer skin pulling away from the inner skin and not bullet holes.


It is bent outwards because they are exit holes.

It looks exactly like the 30 mm cannon exit holes. Again if you can, show me pics of BUK damage that resemble it even more.



edit on 22-8-2015 by LesBrocknar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




So they know more about the SU 25 than those who engineered and built this plane...do you even see how absurd that sounds?


I am not saying they know more, only that Sukhoi entered a max height of 7km without external ordinance and stores. So with the gun and ammo. This may have been older information. The entered 7km max height could've been due to lack of oxygen system and not because of the plane's capability.


I don't really care. Something shot at MH17 with a large caliber cannon.




It could only fly that high as a stripped down air frame without ordinance...meaning no bombs, and no cannon, or ammo to fire at that height.


Some sources say it went a high as 14,500m in test flights.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: LesBrocknar




Can you show a pic of BUK damage that shows the same resemblance?


Can you explain how your so certain they are from a 30 mm cannon?

And a 30 mm round makes a bit bigger hole than what your saying they are...





If you ignore the ones that are claiming otherwise.....


Please provide any expert that says those are from a 30 mm cannon...and how is it the manufacturers of the BUK say it was a BUK that did this?


On the strength of a technical study of the aircraft damage Almaz-Antey claims MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile of a type not made in Russia since 1999.


russia-insider.com...



Please, the holes that are all bent outwards are clearly exit holes.


I'll take the experts word on this...and they say it was from a BUK with fragmented warhead...none of them say it was a 30 mm cannon that did this.



It is bent outwards because they are exit holes.


No matter how many times you say that, it won't make it true.



It looks exactly like the 30 mm cannon exit holes. Again if you can, show me pics of BUK damage that resemble it even more.


Except the BUK manufacturer has said it was a BUK that did this...show me an expert that says it was 30 mm cannon fire from an SU 25?

I don't need to show other pics of BUK damage on a plane...the manufacturer trumps any photo. And they say what did this.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LesBrocknar




Some sources say it went a high as 14,500m in test flights.


In test flights meaning empty of anything offensive or defensive in the way of weapons, now if you can show where one did it with any ordinance on it you might have something.

The only real source that matters here would be the ones who actually built and engineered this plane...all others are speculation.

The plane wasn't built to do that so no other source is going to be able to say it can and be telling the truth.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




In test flights meaning empty of anything offensive or defensive in the way of weapons, now if you can show where one did it with any ordinance on it you might have something.


I didn't say it reached that altitude with all of it's weapons. If Sukhoi says it can reach 7km with it's gun, and it can reach up 14,500m stripped, it can quite probably make it to 10km with its gun and enough rounds to take out a plane cockpit.




The only real source that matters here would be the ones who actually built and engineered this plane...all others are speculation.



Other parties are flying them too right? Sukhoi just entered a specific height based on some specific parameters. It is not the be all end all.

Again, I don't even care. Fact is there are cannon fire holes in the wreckage.






edit on 22-8-2015 by LesBrocknar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   


Can you explain how your so certain they are from a 30 mm cannon? And a 30 mm round makes a bit bigger hole than what your saying they are...


Well they look exactly like the 30mm cannon holes in an airplane in these pics. Can you explain how you are so certain they are from a BUK? Do you have some visual evidence you are holding out on?



originally posted by: LesBrocknar
Su25 30mm cannon test.







*What are the smaller holes?





www.youtube.com...


That 30mm cannon damage sure does resemble the damage on the MH17 piece.


And if anyone can tell me, at what position did the BUK explode in relation to the plane? Above, below, to the left or right or dead on?



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

From the report: "The damage observed in the forward section of the aircraft appears to indicate that the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft," the report said. "It is likely that this damage resulted in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft, leading to an in-flight break up."


This is the only conclusion published by the investgators, as far as I know.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LesBrocknar




I didn't say it reached that altitude with all of it's weapons. If Sukhoi says it can reach 7km with it's gun, and it can reach up 14,500m stripped, it can quite probably make it to 10km with its gun and enough rounds to take out a plane cockpit.


No you seem to be a bit misunderstanding as to what the manufacturer says...



Service ceiling (without external ordnance and stores), km 7


The ceiling for the SU 25 with armament is only 16000 ft...what your trying to say is impossible with any armament whatsoever.

And it won't even reach 10000 m long enough to set up on a plane and shoot it's cannon without stalling, as the plane is not designed for that type of action. So now tell me how this plane with it's cannon mounted squarely under the plane is able to shoot another plane down from below it without being high enough for the cannon to be above the intended target?



They aren't shooting magical 30 mm rounds.



Third parties are flying them to right? Sukhoi just entered a specific height based on some specific parameters. It is not the be all end all.



And that still doesn't change the fact they aren't designed to fly at that height...you can't just change things without doing some serious engineering to get a plane to fly over it's intended specs.

And yes it is the end all...a plane manufacturer doesn't just make up numbers it takes years of research to build a plane for a specific role.



Again, I don't even care. Fact is there are cannon fire holes in the wreckage.


Fact is nobody has been able to prove that a 30 mm cannon made those holes...and many more before you have tried and failed miserably...just as you have done.




top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join