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.

 

Rod from R-60 Air to Air Missile Warhead In MH17 Wreckage?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Does the fact that it is visible have any bearing on its authenticity?




posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




The problem with an R-60 is that it wouldn't have done a lot of damage, and would have hit the wing/engine area


MH17's left engine was hit actually.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker

Yes. The fact that it's the ONLY thing in that section, besides the insulation, and it's perfectly framed on the insulation to make it as visible as possible raises a lot of questions about its authenticity.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker

No, it was damaged by shrapnel. There's a huge difference between the damage seen to the intake, and what even an R-60 would have done to the engine. If an air to air missile had targeted the engine, there would have been obvious damage to the exhaust area of the engine, as it most like would have been fired from behind, where the crew wouldn't see it. That means it would have hit the back of the engine.

A SAM detonating near the cockpit however, throws shrapnel out to either side, which would have hit the wing, and the intake area of the engine.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

SO the airplane was shoot down? In air with another airplane?

You guys know what, when you are done with the thread ill come back and read =)
edit on 31-8-2015 by yulka because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: yulka

No, all the evidence points to a missile fired from the ground, not an air to air missile from another fighter.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




But wait, I thought we weren't supposed to be discussing if an R-60 was used, only the rod in the debris.


The logical and intellectually honest thing to do would be establishing wether that rod came from an air to air missile or not, as opposed to making excuses as to why an air to air missile couldn't be involved.

You admit to ignoring evidence just because it might seem contraditory. Btw, there is no way to verify if what is said about the FDR, is actually true.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker

And if an air to air missile can't do what happened to this aircraft, that significantly reduces the probability that one was involved. Pointing out that an R-60 could barely bring down a much smaller aircraft goes a long way to proving that there was no way that it caused this aircraft to explode, and significantly reducing the probability that one was involved.

So we should just ignore the report since we can't verify the FDR?



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Again, noone says an R-60 alone brought it down.




So we should just ignore the report since we can't verify the FDR?


I'll take anything I can't verify myself with a grain of salt, especially since the accusers are in control of the investigation.

Btw, did you hear about the left turn and attempt to get back on course again before it dissapeared?



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: GregDecker
a reply to: Zaphod58

Again, noone says an R-60 alone brought it down.




So we should just ignore the report since we can't verify the FDR?


I'll take anything I can't verify myself with a grain of salt, especially since the accusers are in control of the investigation.

Btw, did you hear about the left turn and attempt to get back on course again before it dissapeared?


I compared a BUKs shrapnel with a R-60. a r-60s fragmentation rod patter is too small. Thats a peice of the BUKS rods there if anything. it suppossedly hit just behind the cockpit and also shredded the fuselage and damaged the wing section on the left side of the airliner. the r-60 didnt have enough power.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I'm sorry but that grey piece in the first picture looks more like a bent up piece of arm rest or something. It doesn't look anything like the pictures of the actual missile parts .



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker

And even a missile combined with something else would be extremely hard pressed to cause an aircraft this size to explode.

Yes, I've heard just about everything that has been said. According to the Rostov radar data, they were 300 degrees from waypoint TAMAK. They stay at that, until 17:20:47 local, at which point they were hit, and crashing, after which it only shows a 4 degree turn before the data is lost.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




And even a missile combined with something else would be extremely hard pressed to cause an aircraft this size to explode.


Well yes, but then ....

All it takes is a fragment of a missile to put a hole in one of the fuel tanks followed by a spark.

Just because one aircraft does not fall out of the sky does not mean this one didn't when hit by the same missile. Causing secondary damage is what some missiles are all about. This flight may just have drawn the short straw.

I do agree with you that that photo is just so convenient and it does look as if it may have been placed there just to be so photogenic. It is a pristine piece of something and with all of the finger pointing in this tragedy it could well be just another piece of Government obfuscation.

I am not sure that we will ever know the truth with the huge amount of false trails and accusations flying left, right and centre, all with their own pieces of convenient evidence..

P



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

It would take a one in a million shot. Yes, it's possible, but it would take incredible luck.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I see speculation in those pics, and a loose grab at it as well. Then if unwilling to listen to the Z man when it comes to aviation...It appears you have your mind already made up and are looking for things to back your theory up.

You know that could be a part from something else and it just appears to be part of an A2A missile.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   
I am trying to get a sense of scale with this rod-shaped silver thing, that may or may not have been part of a missile, or may be a hundred and one other things. If it is loose, I am trying to understand why it is not with other debris, otherwise it looks like it's been place. - or even photo-shopped.

On thing's for sure, the Russian's have been working overtime to create and support a theory that is considered implausible by most commentators. It's all being done in a very sophisticated way. ATS should be proud of this Russian conspiracy to subvert the truth and distract attention from the fact that they are likely complicit in the murder of c. 300 innocents.

I am awaiting (1) the Dutch Safety Board report that will be published in mid October and (2) whether Russia will support an independent criminal tribunal, something which they have previously said "nyet". I wonder why?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: JHumm
I'm sorry but that grey piece in the first picture looks more like a bent up piece of arm rest or something. It doesn't look anything like the pictures of the actual missile parts .


That's the first thing I thought. It looked like grey foam.

I am not familiar with the tungsten rods in question as far as how they are made and their metallurgical properties, but tungsten rods I have broken had zero plasticity (mechanical engineer). They snap cleanly before any deformation occurs.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell
There are some missiles that are programmed to fly alongside the aircraft and release an expanding chain of rods right behind the cockpit. The idea was to destroy all control of the aircraft. If this hit a passenger plane, it would depressurize the aircraft at the least. If it hit the avionics bay, that would cause all sorts of mayhem.


That increases the chances of what a whistleblower told Kerry Casidy of Project Camelot that the MA370 was shot down by the Russians because it had a bio bomb on board and headed for a 911 type landing in a Russian city, being correct.

A slight difference here in that acording to the whistle blower it was shot down via the cockpit only as they could not shoot it down through the fueslage due to the nature of the bio bomb.

A lttle odd though that the report is in Russian.
edit on 1-9-2015 by Azureblue because: z



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: yulka

No, all the evidence points to a missile fired from the ground, not an air to air missile from another fighter.


If it was indeed a ground to air missile fired by either the rebels or the Ukraine army itself, surely there must have been a contrail that was clearly visible ?

Have any media photos or videos from this attack shown evidence of a ground to air missile being used?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: GregDecker


The black rod embedded in that piece of wreckage looks suspiciously like the tungsten rods inside the warheads of at least some R-60(mod62) air to air missiles.



Embedded?

It doesn't look embedded to me... it looks like it's just sitting on top of the insulation, which, when you consider both the wreckage and the rod fell thousands of feet, tumbling through the air, a tad incongruous.

No... It looks like it was placed there afterwards, for show.
edit on 1/9/15 by masqua because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join