It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: GregDecker
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. When Korean 902 was shot down with an R-60, it lost four feet of wing, and suffered minor fuselage damage. It was able to fly on for 40 minutes, before making a successful landing on a frozen lake. That was a 707, a much smaller aircraft.
originally posted by: StratosFear
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.
Excellent. Nothing like amateur forensic ballistic experts.
How many rods of tungsten do you think the R60 missile carries? Is every "long" hole now a perfect fit for a rod?
The main photos show a spray of shrapnel, of all sizes.
Again, I didn't say it took out the plane.
I don't know what plane shot it, I do know that a Su25 could have shot the missile, if you insist on talking about a Su25.
Nice tactic btw. You enter the thread with a "funny" pic to ridicule something that nobody was talking about, then try to steer the topic towards the pre emptively ridiculed subject.
Can you troll elsewhere?
And yet we don't hear anything on the black box
so we don't have that and we have a plane destroyed at 33000 ft, and now they say they found a piece of an R-60 in the wreckage...so if an R-60 didn't destroy the plane what did?
I don't insist...Russia is the one who insists on talking about an SU 25.
WHere exactly do you think I am trying to steer your topic to?
Don't like be questioned on your evidence you provided do you?
Oh and welcome back.
Do you have access to the actual data.
The first important question is who fired an air to air missile?
Away from the air to air missile, towards a discussion about capabilities of certain planes, which would only serve as a distraction from the problem this scenario (of an air to air missile being involved) would cause.
I don't like to have my thread derailed. You didn't even touch the evidence I posted.
What, can't handle it alone?