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.
originally posted by: AlphaHawk
Hmm, so just so I understand..
They strip out a su-25, enough for it to exceed not only it's maximum ceiling, but also its maximum speed to intercept mh-17, modify it's gun from a 30mm to some smaller caliber gun without affecting aerodynamics and this is the "convenient" and "easy" option?
Sounds like an awful lot of effort to pretend it was shot down by an anti-aircraft missile when the claimed missile is known to be used in the area, is capable of shooting down mh-17 with zero modifications and leaves similar damage to what's seen on mh-17.
originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
If it's conjecture from the MSM, then what do you call the information in this thread??
I'm just posting known facts about the su-25 and how absurd the theory is when these facts are known...no conjecture.
originally posted by: Soapusmaximus
a reply to: hellobruce
But the OSCE found no evidence of a missile strike, and the evidence all points to the Ukrainians whichever way you slice it.
originally posted by: Soapusmaximus
a reply to: Zaphod58
2. The OSCE concluded that there was no evidence of a missile strike , but they did describe small "shrapnel like" holes but an unknown cause.
2. The OSCE concluded that there was no evidence of a missile strike , but they did describe small "shrapnel like" holes but an unknown cause.
No offence , but you obviously think you are infallible - you have it all figured out and are tirelessly crusading on ATS , seemingly always with a con view.