MH 17 from another perspective

a reply to: intrptr

He lives in a war zone, is by now familiar with identification and didn't know at the time what that jet was up to until he later saw airline raining from the sky.

So living in a warzone that makes one an expert in sounds of military equipment?

He has said he saw an SU 25 go afterburner after hearing two booms...the SU 25 has no afterburner so he obviously doesn't know the sound of a plane going full afterburner and he isn't familiar with identifying sounds in a warzone.

His story has more holes than swiss cheese.

a reply to: markosity1973

The only reason the su25 is not listed as being capable of flying above 7000m is because it doesn't have a pressurised cockpit. So it's a safety for the pilot thing that means it is listed as Max 7000m.

No it;s that way because it was designed that way...it isn't just because it doesn't have a pressurized cockpit, it's one reason but not the only reason.

You really need to do some research on this plane, because it seems you are absolutely clueless when it comes to knowing much about it.

a reply to: markosity1973

That is an alternative perspective.

No it's the same perspective the Russians have had since this happened.

So it is the Russian perspective that is all.

I said I am neutral.

No your not...your pushing a one sided look at these events.

How about instead of attacking RT you trot out the BUK evidence that provides the once and for all proof that it was that and not the jet that shot it down then.

SO your defending the Russian narrative...thought you were neutral, guess your not.

Here even Russia's own experts has said it was a BUK, but here you go enjoy this from Russia.

Presentation provided by Almaz-Antey debunks SU 25 theory and points to MH17 having been shot down by a Ukrainian controlled BUK missile launched from Zaroschshenskoe.

russia-insider.com...

sputniknews.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was downed by a Buk 9М38-М1 guided missile fired from Ukrainian military-controlled territory, engineers from the Russian Almaz-Antey corporation said in a press conference presenting their report on Tuesday.

Read more: sputniknews.com...

SO do yourself a favor and do some research before thinking you have the answers.

The only one's who think an SU 25 did this is RT which means the Kremlin made this theory and has been trying to push it since the beginning even though their own experts say it was a BUK that did it.

And you should be glad I am attacking the source and not the member...something that is expected when these stories come out.

You have been shown numerous times that the SU 25 is incapable of doing this, but you insist on denying any actual evidence so that you can push this narrative of Russia's...again your not being neutral when you show only one side and argue for that one side.

I always wonder how someone can spot a fighter plane in 30.000-33.000 feet height when normally you can't see commercial airplanes at that height. And it seemed to be overcast so that man is a hell of a spotter...

a reply to: Talliostro

I always wonder how someone can spot a fighter plane in 30.000-33.000 feet height when normally you can't see commercial airplanes at that height. And it seemed to be overcast so that man is a hell of a spotter...

Seems that little bit of logic is lost when it comes to the MH 17 tragedy.

It's funny when Russia themselves admit the cloud cover in that area at the time was 70 to 80% with the base of the clouds at around 8200 ft...well below the height of this tragedy, yet this eye witness saw right through the clouds and saw this whole attack happen.

And your right he must be one hell of a spotter.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

He has said he saw an SU 25 go afterburner after hearing two booms…

No he didn't. Stop making stuff up.

So living in a war zone that makes one an expert in sounds of military equipment?

If you value your life.

I always wonder how someone can spot a fighter plane in 30.000-33.000 feet height when normally you can't see commercial airplanes at that height. And it seemed to be overcast so that man is a hell of a spotter…

Someone comes forward as a witness, but you know better what he saw or not because you were there standing next to him and 'didn't see anything'.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Salander

Having used Claymore mines and other schrapnel producing weapons, had that wing damage actually been schrapnel, it would be most likely that OTHER pieces of schrapnel would have been also visible.

That wasn't a schrapnel mark, it was from one round out of the total fired that by sheer random event, creased across the top of the wing.

Given that a 30mm cannon fires over 200 rounds per minute, shouldn't the wing be even more chewed up? You cannot rule out the shrapnel theory without also ruling out the cannon theory. In fact, since the cannon fire would have been more "focused," there should have been many more such creases. Of course, we know that the rebels had ample opportunity to tamper with the wreckage, so it doesn't really prove anything, does it?

Random events, random chaos, were factors in the damage we see on the ground. By random chance it is entirely possible, even likely, that only one round struck the wing as it did, with other rounds completely missing the wing but striking the cockpit, as shown in the picture. Likely there was some sort of movement, rolling or pitching, by the stricken airliner, affecting the situation.

a reply to: Salander

Random events, random chaos, were factors in the damage we see on the ground. By random chance it is entirely possible, even likely, that only one round struck the wing as it did, with other rounds completely missing the wing but striking the cockpit, as shown in the picture. Likely there was some sort of movement, rolling or pitching, by the stricken airliner, affecting the situation.

By the same logic, the shrapnel from a warhead could randomly....

originally posted by: intrptr

Who said anything about afterburners? Oh, you made that up, too.

You did! You wrote

You can review it to find the guy who hears afterburner booms and looks up to se a "SU25 standing on its tail climbing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: intrptr

Who said anything about afterburners? Oh, you made that up, too.

You did! You wrote

You can review it to find the guy who hears afterburner booms and looks up to se a "SU25 standing on its tail climbing.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you, I stand corrected. Somebody has since pointed out to me that SU25s have no after burners…

Meaning what, exactly, jet engines under full military power in a climb aren't "booming"? Argue his descriptive and the translation all you want.

a reply to: intrptr

No, they're not. If an engine is booming, then it's about to fail, or is in the process of failing. A normal engine is a steady roar, even at full power.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Salander

Random events, random chaos, were factors in the damage we see on the ground. By random chance it is entirely possible, even likely, that only one round struck the wing as it did, with other rounds completely missing the wing but striking the cockpit, as shown in the picture. Likely there was some sort of movement, rolling or pitching, by the stricken airliner, affecting the situation.

By the same logic, the shrapnel from a warhead could randomly….

Each thirty mm cannon round is a mini warhead. The round that passed through the wing, was part of the splatter of shrapnel on the cockpit. Other jagged exit holes are from rounds exploding inside the cockpit and nose after penetration. Some speculate this means the plane was attacked from both sides, but armor piercing incendiary ammo is designed to explode after penetration.

That why the cockpit has neat, round entry holes and a lot of jagged exit holes in the same area.

Rounds are designed to penetrate and then explode.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No, they're not. If an engine is booming, then it's about to fail, or is in the process of failing.

Thats your expert descriptive, he's a farmer…

a reply to: intrptr

And even a farmer would know the difference between a roar and a boom. Anyone should be able to tell the difference.

a reply to: Zaphod58

………..

a reply to: intrptr

Are you saying that an ordinary person can't tell the difference between a boom and a steady roar? Or don't know how to describe the two?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: markosity1973

The only reason the su25 is not listed as being capable of flying above 7000m is because it doesn't have a pressurised cockpit. So it's a safety for the pilot thing that means it is listed as Max 7000m.

No it;s that way because it was designed that way...it isn't just because it doesn't have a pressurized cockpit, it's one reason but not the only reason.

You really need to do some research on this plane, because it seems you are absolutely clueless when it comes to knowing much about it.

You say all of that, but there is a thread right here on ATS that presented the RT doco I posted several actual screenshots of the plane flying at 10,800 metres. Beyond flying in the plane yourself, I dont know what more proof you want.

Furthermore, RT is not as biased as you perhaps would have everyone believe.

In the doco below (about Media control and a background story on Ukraine) the reporter clearly says, MH17 was most likely shot down by a missile. Yes, he presented the most popular view.



So we have one reporter going to the extreme to prove her view is at least possible and another falling in line with what you would consider acceptable.

So; BUK misssle - possible, plausible but a couple of minor problems

www.nytimes.com...

And then there is little minor detail

The effect of fragments hitting the target
There are no documented incidents of a Russian made BUK missile hitting a large civilian aircraft. An Iran Air aircraft was hit by a SAM missile launched from a US Navy ship. In 2001 a Siberian Airlines Tupolev Tu154 was hit by an Ukraine S-200 missile. This missile uses only steel small balls as fragments so the damage cannot be compared to the damage seen on MH17.
A former East Germany Army official stated the BUK missile has 30.000 fragments. He stated MH17 is very unlikely to have been downed by a BUK missile. He claims the fragments would have damage the fuel lines or fuel tanks. MH17 almost certain would be on fire while still in the air.

A very detailed amalysis on how the BUK missile works

And SU 25 A few problems regarding speed capabilities mainly, but if it approached from opposite direction instead of chasing it, possible.

Whatever hit MH17, it caused it to break up into large pieces at high altitude given the spread of the debris. I don't think either theory is flawless myself. And I certainly think it is rich of Obama to point the finger directly at Putin when it was probably the rebels that launched the BUK if it were that that downed the craft, given the USA's outstanding record on non intervention in foreign countries.

a reply to: markosity1973

Because, just like everything else, there are different versions of the Su-25. The Su-39 is the most advanced version, and is able to reach those altitudes. But there are less than 20 of them currently flying, all in Russia. There are a few other versions that also have upgraded engines, but again, they're not flying in the Ukraine Air Force. They've been flying in the Ukraine in exercises, but they don't belong to the Ukrainian government.

Nothing that the Su-25 carries is capable of destroying a 777 as fast as MH17 was destroyed. Its primary air to air missile, for all but the advanced versions is the R-60 missile. It has a warhead of less than 10 pounds. When used against a 707, it only managed to cause it to crash land, and that only because it destroyed 4 feet of wingtip, and the outboard engine on that wing. Even if it was hit by an R-60, and the gun, which would have been extremely difficult, due to it being optimized to ground attack, it wouldn't have suddenly exploded the way the report says the FDR shows.

a reply to: markosity1973

You say all of that, but there is a thread right here on ATS that presented the RT doco I posted several actual screenshots of the plane flying at 10,800 metres. Beyond flying in the plane yourself, I dont know what more proof you want.

I want to see the man who designed the plane say it will...not the Russian government run mouthpiece say it.

And so you know the UKraine military does not have any upgraded SU 25's that will fly that high...but feel free to show me one they have, can you do that?

Furthermore, RT is not as biased as you perhaps would have everyone believe.

So the media outlet ran by the Kremlin is not biased...really?

You may want to read this...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So; BUK misssle - possible, plausible but missing the actual rocket casing (unless the rebels collected and hid it)

Disregard the evidence of finding parts of a BUK at the crash site, and the fact the manufacturer of the BUK has said it was what brought down MH 17.

And SU 25 A few problems regarding speed capabilities mainly, but if it approached from opposite direction instead of chasing it, possible.

And the one big problem of it cannot fly that high, so it couldn't have done what you think it can magically do.

Whatever hit MH17, it caused it to break up into large pieces at high altitude given the spread of the debris.

Something an ATA missile, or 30 mm cannon fire cannot do.