Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash - Moscow

a reply to: elysiumfire

From what I can see there is really no evidence it happened. In fact RT removed the images "proving it" because it proved it's a lie.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

So unless MH17 was only 13-15km high that is 100% impossible. We know for a fact it was not that low. The RT article is so moronic they themselves debunk the whole idea of what they are selling.

Then we have ..

“The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification,” he added. “It’s equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure.”

So now MH17 MUST BE 22km or lower in order to be hit, which we know for a fact it was not. The whole idea is outlandish and only anti-Western zombies could be so gullible as to lap it up.

You've confused yourself converting between feet and kilometers. MH17 was flying at ~10km altitude or 33,000 feet.

originally posted by: zvezdar

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04



So unless MH17 was only 13-15km high that is 100% impossible. We know for a fact it was not that low. The RT article is so moronic they themselves debunk the whole idea of what they are selling.



Then we have ..

“The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification,” he added. “It’s equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure.”

So now MH17 MUST BE 22km or lower in order to be hit, which we know for a fact it was not. The whole idea is outlandish and only anti-Western zombies could be so gullible as to lap it up.

You've confused yourself converting between feet and kilometers. MH17 was flying at ~10km altitude or 33,000 feet.

Yes you are quite correct.

So they did not debunk themselves. Well what we are left with is this ... they would have released this information sooner in my opinion, if it was factual. The story on the website now is back to focusing on ground based missile launchers with all the radar images removed. What they are doing is trying to create smokescreens as they know the findings will show it was a ground based attack, as they know it is.

Why did they remove wreckage from the plane? Why did they take the black boxes for Moscow if they are innocent?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Why did they take the black boxes for Moscow if they are innocent?

They recently gave them to Malaysian Airlines. They were not sent to Russia it seems.

CNN Source
RT Source

Everybody seems to be missing one key fact in this thread... SU-25 isnt a fighter... it is ground attack aircraft...filling same role as A-10 in western world...

originally posted by: stanislas
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Why did they take the black boxes for Moscow if they are innocent?

They recently gave them to Malaysian Airlines. They were not sent to Russia it seems.



CNN Source

RT Source

Yes, after they showed what was heppening to them. Bodies, black boxes, and wreckage should not have been taken.

originally posted by: zoomer72
Everybody seems to be missing one key fact in this thread... SU-25 isnt a fighter... it is ground attack aircraft...filling same role as A-10 in western world...

It's been said multiple times. People want it to be true, so they don't care.

a reply to: zoomer72
Its too early for me to speculate about the fighter plane right now. I just hope there will be a full scale international investigation and hopefully we find out what exactly happened.
.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: zoomer72
Everybody seems to be missing one key fact in this thread... SU-25 isnt a fighter... it is ground attack aircraft...filling same role as A-10 in western world...

It's been said multiple times. People want it to be true, so they don't care.

I think you are missing a key fact. The only claim that was made is that it was within 3-5 km of MH17. This plane has the ability to have come at such a range.

No claims were made about it firing a rocket or whatever. And even though it is a ground attack aircraft, it could obviously still bring down an aircraft with the arsenal at its disposal.

But nobody claimed it did so your point is moot.

originally posted by: ScrutonEyez

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: zoomer72
Everybody seems to be missing one key fact in this thread... SU-25 isnt a fighter... it is ground attack aircraft...filling same role as A-10 in western world...

It's been said multiple times. People want it to be true, so they don't care.

I think you are missing a key fact. The only claim that was made is that it was within 3-5 km of MH17. This plane has the ability to have come at such a range.

No claims were made about it firing a rocket or whatever. And even though it is a ground attack aircraft, it could obviously still bring down an aircraft with the arsenal at its disposal.

But nobody claimed it did so your point is moot.

Actually they have been saying a air to air missile was used. the one on the su-25 has a 5 mile range,BUT its not a big warhead 6lbs or so.notbig enough to do the damage that happenned. and the shot that downed the craft was from the front not a trailing shot. the missile has a 5 mile range BUT effective range of 2 miles. So a shot from 16,000 ft(the SU-25s ceiling armed BTW) at a airliner 15,000ft diffrence is almost impossible to make for that ground attacker.

a reply to: yuppa

Actually they have been saying a air to air missile was used.

Who said that and where. Source?

a reply to: ScrutonEyez


All news I heard mentioned ground-to-air missile, not sure what news you listen to.

This question about SU-25 fighter most likely just points that this was their ORIGINAL target, but they messed up and Russia is now trying to cover up and cut the ties because they have only capability to shoot that plane. Just in past weeks they shoot another SU-25, and Ukraine is believing that plane was shoot by Mig fighter that belongs to Russia, and Russia is of course denying any involvement...

www.rferl.org...

a reply to: SuperFrog

All news I heard mentioned ground-to-air missile, not sure what news you listen to.

Read back and ask yourself why I asked that question.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: ScrutonEyez


All news I heard mentioned ground-to-air missile, not sure what news you listen to.

This question about SU-25 fighter most likely just points that this was their ORIGINAL target, but they messed up and Russia is now trying to cover up and cut the ties because they have only capability to shoot that plane. Just in past weeks they shoot another SU-25, and Ukraine is believing that plane was shoot by Mig fighter that belongs to Russia, and Russia is of course denying any involvement...

www.rferl.org...

I think this News is linked to time after the Mh17 was shot Down. The pro-russians fired a BUk missile just minutes after the Mh17 crashed. That missile could have been meant for the SU flying where the Mh17 whent of the grid.

I think this was actually mentioned by the russians in thier debrief video.

That radar interpretation seems show MH17 falling. He says it changes, losing speed, and I think altitude. It has changed so now it is a fighter plane. More like the return of the plane falling. Notice the spot he is calling the new plane doesn't move laterally as compared to the other planes. Also why doesn't the plane appear approaching the flight, only after.

Some seems amiss...

originally posted by: roadgravel
That radar interpretation seems show MH17 falling. He says it changes, losing speed, and I think altitude. It has changed so now it is a fighter plane. More like the return of the plane falling. Notice the spot he is calling the new plane doesn't move laterally as compared to the other planes. Also why doesn't the plane appear approaching the flight, only after.

Some seems amiss...

The Su whent under the 16400ft limit of the radar after it had passed Mh17. That is why it is not showing any movment. But it is still there but at a much lower altitude.

The Su whent under the 16400ft limit of the radar after it had passed Mh17. That is why it is not showing any movment

Wait, it's under the level of detection by radar but is detected?

originally posted by: roadgravel

The Su whent under the 16400ft limit of the radar after it had passed Mh17. That is why it is not showing any movment

Wait, it's under the level of detection by radar but is detected?

Because the radar is in stand by mode, the radar only tracks flight abowe 16400ft. The SU broke that sealing and was picked up by the radar.

If you look at the video. You can see the Mh17 freefalling to the ground at 200km/h at that point the Su shows up on radar very Close to the signature of Mh17. The signature is just bellow the signature of Mh17 on the video. I think its at 18 min, 45 sec into the video that this takes Place.

This means that the SU was above 16400 ft and picked up by radar. Than it probably whent bellow 16400ft where it is not detected by radar.

a reply to: spy66

OK, i see your interpretation. Sounds reasonable. I imagine others with knowledge of systems will look at it and determine if that is a valid possibility.

Thanks...

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: spy66

I imagine others with knowledge of systems will look at it and determine if that is a valid possibility.

Thanks...

I hope so to The objective truth is moste important.