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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




Don't need it...other people do.


Yes, the ones who had already determined the culprit.




No the first question is what fired it, then who fired it. And the answer is...nobody.


Then you should argue that the rod is not from an air to air missile, and that those holes are consistent with a BUK.




Do you not think the investigators would have done their job and investigated that possibility, but when it doesn't pan out they don't have anything to say about a piece of metal they found at a plane crash site...only conspiracy theorists do that.


Completely moot point. Sofar they have only mentioned high energy objects penetrating the plane.




posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: GregDecker




Yes, the ones who had already determined the culprit.


Those investigating this haven't determined the culprit, but now if Russia is innocent why do they try so hard to keep the truth from being told?



Then you should argue that the rod is not from an air to air missile, and that those holes are consistent with a BUK.


What makes you think I haven't?



Completely moot point. Sofar they have only mentioned high energy objects penetrating the plane.


Moot point...why because you say it is?

Wouldn't the R-60 be considered to have high energy objects with their fragment warhead?

And btw the R-60 missile only has a 3 kg warhead...not enough to that kind of damage, as it has been pointed out that an R-60 can hit a plane but not destroy it the way MH 17 was.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




Those investigating this haven't determined the culprit,


Those that control the flow of information are the ones that are the accusers.




What makes you think I haven't?


Awesome observational powers.




Moot point...why because you say it is? Wouldn't the R-60 be considered to have high energy objects with their fragment warhead?


That's my point. They haven't excluded anything yet so that argument you were using is moot.





And btw the R-60 missile only has a 3 kg warhead...not enough to that kind of damage,


What damage are you refering to? I am talking about the damage in the pics I posted in this thread.




as it has been pointed out that an R-60 can hit a plane but not destroy it the way MH 17 was.


Again, for the fourth time, I didn't say an R-60 brought it down alone.


All you are doing is making excuses as to why an R-60 couldn't be involved, while ignoring, and not explaining the rod, and the rodsized holes.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h



So then what fired the R-60 that took this plane out?

According to witnesses on the ground it was a military aircraft with a light colored or gray belly. Any idea on what the witnesses could have seen?

I think that the question of what was shot at MH17 remains unanswered.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Witness2008

And those witnesses were who, exactly?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua

Rebel instructed yokels probably......



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua

Let's just say that I am interested in what may have been seen in the sky along with MH 17.

I am fairly new to this particular incident, so I will be full of questions. I am in hopes that the fine folks here might be able to help.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Witness2008

Let's say a fighter was up there at around 20,000' tailing the airliner. How easy would it be to identify from the ground?

For myself, I'm more interested in the evidence retrieved from the war zone rather than what was interpreted by a few villagers and rebels as to what must have seemed a speck high in the sky to them.

My position on the topic of this thread I already stated at the bottom of page 2.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Witness2008




According to witnesses on the ground it was a military aircraft with a light colored or gray belly. Any idea on what the witnesses could have seen?


So they saw a plane at 33000 ft and could tell it was a military jet...I have to ask you, have you ever gone outside and looked up and saw a plane that is flying above you at 33000 ft?

Or was the witness told what to say from a separatist leader?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: masqua

I read your post on page two. As I stated earlier I am just now putting the time into sorting through the twisted media coverage of this. I tend to pay attention to regular people that have not the motives nor inclination to lie about what they see or experience, alas, my interest in what was seen from the ground.



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I'm just inquiring as to what type of military jet may have been seen. The jet was witnessed at a much lower altitude just before the break up of the Boeing.

Seems to me that you are coming on a bit strong for such a simple question.

If you can't answer the question, then why respond?



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: GregDecker
a reply to: tsurfer2000h




Those investigating this haven't determined the culprit,


Those that control the flow of information are the ones that are the accusers.




What makes you think I haven't?


Awesome observational powers.




Moot point...why because you say it is? Wouldn't the R-60 be considered to have high energy objects with their fragment warhead?


That's my point. They haven't excluded anything yet so that argument you were using is moot.





And btw the R-60 missile only has a 3 kg warhead...not enough to that kind of damage,


What damage are you refering to? I am talking about the damage in the pics I posted in this thread.




as it has been pointed out that an R-60 can hit a plane but not destroy it the way MH 17 was.


Again, for the fourth time, I didn't say an R-60 brought it down alone.


All you are doing is making excuses as to why an R-60 couldn't be involved, while ignoring, and not explaining the rod, and the rodsized holes.



Earlier in th ethread i already said what it was. SOME BUKS use RODS as well as other shrapnel. And not all shrapnel is square either but a square spinning extremly fast will tear a round hole if its spinning the right direction. Also alot of holes came from Guns on the ground trying to muddle th e damage.
Most soviet weapons are not all to spec either these days.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa




Earlier in th ethread i already said what it was. SOME BUKS use RODS as well as other shrapnel.


Yes you were making stuff earlier just like you are now. The BUK that was supposed to have been used has no rods. The type that has rods has different (continuous) rods.

Back up your fantasy claims if you are so sure.




And not all shrapnel is square either but a square spinning extremly fast will tear a round hole if its spinning the right direction.


You have to explain the long rectangular holes.

That post wasn't talking about round holes.

Anyway it is BS. A square object could produce a round hole if it was spinning real fast but travelling real slow so it would erode the material.(like a drill)

For this to happen with a high velocity object is impossible(let alone multiple), even if it was spinning around it's axis perfectly, which it would have no reason for, and even if it did hit the surface with a perfect 90 degrees, it would still be going way to fast to cut out a round shape.

But hey...







Also alot of holes came from Guns on the ground trying to muddle th e damage. Most soviet weapons are not all to spec either these days.


Any more unfounded excuses you can pass of as fact?







edit on 2-9-2015 by GregDecker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: masqua

If you look at the bottom right of the rod you can see it clearly is wedged into a depression. And how do you explain the rectangular holes.

Also, it is not that conspicuous in the zoomed out pic.
edit on 2-9-2015 by GregDecker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: GregDecker
a reply to: masqua

If you look at the bottom right of the rod you can see it clearly is wedged into a depression.


What picture are you looking at? The rod in the first post is simply resting on the insulation, like it was placed there!



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

That's what I see.

Rather incomprehensible after falling tens of thousands of feet, isn't it?



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: hellobruce

That's what I see.

Rather incomprehensible after falling tens of thousands of feet, isn't it?


True. looking closer at it that seems to be the case of them just dropping it there. PLanting evidence is as old as lawbreaking.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   


If you look at the green line it clearly follows the shape of the material and at the red arrow you can see it is sunk in there, you can see a ridge protruding.

I think that if it was planted we would be looking at multiple pics of rods now. Why plant only one?


Anyways, I still don't see anyone explaining the holes that would match such a rod. The evidence presented consists of both possible object and corresponding damage.



posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   







posted on Sep, 2 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: GregDecker


If you look at the green line it clearly follows the shape of the material and at the red arrow you can see it is sunk in there, you can see a ridge protruding.


Yes, sunk in to soft fluffy material like a lead weight into whipped cream. Sorry, but still not convinced. As the piece of wreckage fell from 33,000 feet, I'm pretty sure both the rod and insulation would have parted ways.


I think that if it was planted we would be looking at multiple pics of rods now. Why plant only one?


Because one is enough to sow doubt, which is the entire purpose of this exercise in futility.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join