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.

 

MH 17 from another perspective

page: 9
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

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. They proved it can fly safely at much higher altitudes.

As for the noise thing, even passenger jets, that have no, none, zero afterburners are freaking noisy. I know because they fly over my house all the time.

The noise argument is a red herring.




posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

That is an alternative perspective.

I said I am neutral. 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.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

No its not. The supposed eyewitness said he heard a double bang as the alleged Su-25 lit its afterburners. They don't make that sound when they're lit first. Second, and more important, the Su-25 doesn't have afterburners. It goes to the credibility of the witness.

As for the altitude, Sukhoi, the designers, have stated that the service ceiling of an unmodified Su-25 is just over 16,000 feet. That has nothing to do with a pressurized cockpit. That's the point the thrust to weight ratio is at the point where the engines can't produce enough thrust to maintain more than a 100 foot per minute climb. The absolute ceiling is higher, but it can't reach the absolute ceiling with a weapons load. There are modified aircraft that can go higher with a weapons load, but the Ukraine doesn't fly them.



edit on 9/27/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/27/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I never heard him say it made a bang after it hit it's after burners. Where does he say that?

I heard him say he saw the plane take off, almost straight up, then he heard two bangs then people started falling from the sky.

My assumption is that the bangs he heard were either the plane being shot at, or it breaking up.

He also says he hears a noise like reverse thrusters, not afterburners. That could be the plane malfunctioning after it was hit perhaps - the jets would have been still running until if / when they were starved of fuel.
edit on 27-9-2015 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


That "level with the cockpit" angle of trajectory also reveals that the attack came from behind, slightly abeam, at the same altitude.


Too bad that's not what the witnesses reported seeing.


Not from a ground launched missile. The only thing that would sneak up from that angle would be another aircraft intending to specifically target the cockpit, without the pilot being aware


Remember, the missile's warhead throws out two cones of shrapnel. Some of the shrapnel hit the cockpit, some of it may have hit other parts of the plane. Now why would a fighter target the cockpit with a cannon? Wouldn't one of their heat seeking missiles taking out an engine make for a better false flag? It would give them plausible deniability.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

The theory put forward about that is that they shot out an engine (there is holes in a flap from a wing to possibly support this) and the plane didn't come down, so the jet targeted the cockpit to 'finish it off'

Not my idea, but it does provide one possible explanation for your question.
edit on 27-9-2015 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

There are several holes in his description. I found the transcript now, instead of relying on someone else saying different. It had been awhile since I watched it so forgot exactly what he said.

He described the cloud cover a 4 out of 10, but the pictures and video show more than that.

He claims two Su-25s were shot down, but there are no reports anywhere of anything being shot down tat day besides MH17.

He said he had perfect visibility, and could easily see both aircraft, but didn't see a missile being fired at MH17.

There are multiple reports of people in the area going online saying they heard the sound of a BUK being fired, and they saw one moving around in the area prior to the shootdown.

www.bellingcat.com...



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

The preliminary report shows that there were no problems with the aircraft prior to the ending of recording. And hitting an engine would leave the crew fine to radio a mayday.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Agreed, unless they were fired and hit roughly at the same time ie the pilot let a cannon / missile go as he was firing the 30mm gun.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973


The noise argument is a red herring.

Called forum sliding, disrupts continuity of conversation. Focusing on useless bits of information in order to drag content off page and out of the public realm. When multiplier users do that together on the same talking point (jet noise, for instance) it becomes more evident.

In the Video,

did you pick up on the part where they left the bodies to rot in the sun for three days before finally allowing them to be collected and refrigerated for shipment?

Who does that in a murder investigation? People trying to cover things up. Collecting the bodies and chilling them as soon as possible is best to preserve forensics.

In the Video,

they made a point the bodies weren't hard to get to, but that they were denied written (read that, written) permission to collect them for three days. Why, do you suppose?

If anyone wanted to run metal detectors over them to remove any shrapnel from whatever downed the plane, that would be enough time to facilitate that. Even switching out or planting false clues, if someone so desired.

Just one more suspicious detail in the "investigation".


edit on 27-9-2015 by intrptr because: spelling and change



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


Now why would a fighter target the cockpit with a cannon? Wouldn't one of their heat seeking missiles taking out an engine make for a better false flag? It would give them plausible deniability.

Because the missile wasn't bringing the plane down? One engine is sufficient to continue flying. if they got worried the plane might survive and leave the area, even…

(if an air to air heat seeker was used, initially)

Guns leave more traces…. round entry holes, for instance. Notr desirable to find that in the wreckage, or the shrapnel.

The record will reflect that by the time the investigation actually got under way, there had been multiple parties clambering over the wreckage, potentially disrupting the chain of evidence for any number of nefarious reasons. And that is one of the biggest stinks about this.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


He claims two Su-25s were shot down, but there are no reports anywhere of anything being shot down tat day besides MH17.

The radio chatter in the beginning of the first or second video between ground units that initially arrived on scene were talking about keeping people away from another site, speculation being that more than one plane was downed, but probably just different chunks of the airliner that were spread about the country side.

Also interesting to note is the voice in the background asking aloud, "Who gave them a corridor"?

Further in the third video, that same farmer that identified the SU 25 "climbing" also wondered aloud why the airliner was not in the "usual" corridor, pointing to where he regularly saw them.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And yet there were 13 other aircraft in the same area, including at least one that went directly over MH17 prior to the shootdown. Just because you don't see an aircraft going overhead doesn't mean they aren't there.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h


He has binocs which he uses and "could have read the tail number".

And yet he didn't use them…imagine that.

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.

Thats why he said, "--could have read the tail number".
edit on 27-9-2015 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


And yet there were 13 other aircraft in the same area…


In the Video,

eye witnesses interviewed only reported two planes, the farmer included.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And flight following websites, using transponder data from the aircraft themselves show many more. Which proves my point. In the week prior to that day, airlines regularly flew over the area. Aeroflot flew over 86 times, Singapore 75 times, and several others 40-50 times.
edit on 9/27/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Your'e right, this incident was different than "usual". So all around different…

by the way, I don't believe anything the west says about it. Charted data, preliminary reports, statements, just like I don't believe anything the government tells us through the media about Ukraine in general.

Putin did it is the old perspective, this "different perspective" is a fresh breeze of alternative sourced, eyewitness testimony, picture and video evidence, mixed with expert pilot and investigative, journalistic interviews. It raises questions instead of burying them

Sorry man, tired of the same old Mh17 droll. Plenty in the OP videos for digesting something new (and reading between both lines).

edit on 27-9-2015 by intrptr because: additionla



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The social media thing is interesting. There is a lot of excitement because everyone thinks that the rebels just shot down a Ukrainian plane. Then reality hits and all the speculation and excitement stops.

The claims of the buk suddenly dry up. So I think there is way too much politicking going on to really draw a solid conclusion. It is definitely in the maybe pile for the buk did it evidence though.
edit on 27-9-2015 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, the videos provide a lot of food for thought. The propaganda angle gets louder with each installment, but if one filters that out, there is a fascinating alternative theory in there.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

edit on 9/27/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join