Flight MH17 Downed By 'High-Energy Objects

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AntiDude

Many times. That doesn't change the fact that high explosive fragmentation warheads have pieces impregnated in the explosive. You can find multiple reputable sources, including Russian commanders that describe the warhead as "buckshot for a missile".

Maybe you can explain how high explosive rounds the length of your finger leave tiny holes. Or how the even bigger 30mm rounds do. Or how canon rounds through the cockpit cause an airplane to explode without any kind of radio call.

This will probably be in the report that is comming out in spring 2015.

There is no point in arguing this until the report comes out.

a reply to: spy66

I didn't say they were ball bearings, I said they were essentially ball bearings, because that's an easy way to describe the fragmentation portion of the warhead for people that are unfamiliar with military weapons. When the warhead explodes, you get a bunch of small pieces that are about the size of ball bearings flying out from it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Many times.

So why did you say "ball bearings" to explain the round holes if you know they are not round? I mean if you have seen that pic many times.

That doesn't change the fact that high explosive fragmentation warheads have pieces impregnated in the explosive.

No it doesn't. Was this fact the subject of discussion?

You can find multiple reputable sources, including Russian commanders that describe the warhead as "buckshot for a missile".

Yes the concept of buckshot. It is not an indication of round pieces.

Maybe you can explain how high explosive rounds the length of your finger leave tiny holes.

The diameter is relevant here, not so much the length. Again, I say these round holes are 20 to 30mm in diameter.

Or how canon rounds through the cockpit cause an airplane to explode without any kind of radio call.

What would be the major difference with shrapnel from a BUK?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I didn't say they were ball bearings, I said they were essentially ball bearings,

I knew it! I knew it would come down to the word "essentially"

Yes they are essentially ball bearings the only difference being they are not spherical or round like a ball or ball bearings, and they are not bearings.

When the warhead explodes, you get a bunch of small pieces that are about the size of ball bearings flying out from it.

But the point of the discussion was the round shape of the holes. Seems very convenient to use an example of an object that has a round shape, when you clearly know the BUK warhead's shrapnel doesn't have that shape.

a reply to: AntiDude

Canon rounds don't spread over a large area like missile shrapnel does. The rounds would hit a fairly small area where missile shrapnel hits a larger area, with more force, causing massive structural damage.lol

As for their size, a canon round leaves a pretty big hole on impact. Especially rounds that size.

a reply to: AntiDude

Yeah, it was stupid of me to try to find a way to describe them in a way that people that don't know a SAM from an air to air missile could easily understand. I'm a horrible person for doing that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, it was stupid of me to try to find a way to describe them in a way that people that don't know a SAM from an air to air missile could easily understand.

Ok, but the debate was not SAM vs AAM. Maybe I could repeat the exact question some people have a hard time with.

What caused the round holes?

I'm a horrible person for doing that.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spy66

I didn't say they were ball bearings, I said they were essentially ball bearings, because that's an easy way to describe the fragmentation portion of the warhead for people that are unfamiliar with military weapons. When the warhead explodes, you get a bunch of small pieces that are about the size of ball bearings flying out from it.

Ok. My bad

a reply to: AntiDude

What caused the round holes?

Good question, because The BUK Frags did not.

a reply to: AntiDude

I didn't say it was, did I. You're good at putting words in a persons mouth aren't you.

The missile fragments did. There was a video released years ago of square bits of metal at high velocity leaving round holes in what they hit.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I didn't say it was, did I. You're good at putting words in a persons mouth aren't you.

No you didn´t but apparently it was worth mentioning even though it was completely irrelevant to the discusssion.

The missile fragments did. There was a video released years ago of square bits of metal at high velocity leaving round holes in what they hit.

Ok.......

a reply to: AntiDude

What about the round entry holes?

Asteroids come in all sizes and shapes, yet all the craters on the Moon are round. Why is that? (Yes, I know the answer, do you?)

a reply to: DJW001

Lol, yes great comparison, totally the same because the moon's surface is the same as a thin strip of aluminium.

So why don´t all holes in the fuselage have a round shape?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: AntiDude

What about the round entry holes?

Asteroids come in all sizes and shapes, yet all the craters on the Moon are round. Why is that? (Yes, I know the answer, do you?)

Why are not all the fragmentation holes round then?

Would it be because some parts of the body of MH17 is not made of sand and dust?

originally posted by: AntiDude
a reply to: DJW001

Lol, yes great comparison, totally the same because the moon's surface is the same as a thin strip of aluminium.

So why don´t all holes in the fuselage have a round shape?

Because an explosion is not even. You have parts ahead of others, creating delayed impacts throughout the fuselage. You have areas already damaged being peppered with following items. You then have the airframe itself being disintegrated, by both the impact as well as the airspeed itself. Small holes create drag, allowing wind velocity to rip apart the areas impacted.

Even in the Kennedy assassination they found the bullet, once exiting the body, began to tumble, creating oblong entrance wounds during testing.


Not that any of this really matters. Russian Clown Churkin notified the security council they don't like the results of the Danish investigation and are calling for the UN to appoint an independent one through the UN. A move that would allow Russia the ability to influence the report and tho challenge any information they don't like.

Luckily, like Crimea, the world told Russia where to go on that one.
As well as telling them where to go on the EU - Ukraine agreements.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Uhm yeah. My comment was made in the context of the moon post. Your response doesn´t apply and has taken my comment completely out of context.

I am sure this wasn´t your intention.

If you want to join in in a usefull manner I suggest you explain what created the round holes in the fuselage.

originally posted by: AntiDude
Uhm yeah. My comment was made in the context of the moon post. Your response doesn´t apply and has taken my comment completely out of context.

Uhm no I did not.

originally posted by: AntiDude
I am sure this wasn´t your intention.

my intent was to respond to your question, that you apparently forgot you asked, even though you mention it below.

originally posted by: AntiDude
If you want to join in a usefull manner I suggest you explain what created the round holes in the fuselage.

I just did - read my post in its entirety.

To add to it you seem to ignore the fact rebel on the ground tampered with the debris. Could the "round" holes be caused by rebel machine gun fire on the ground?

Maybe you should pay attention to the entire thread, where your round hole questions have been asked and answered, before lecturing someone for pointing out the obvious.

Unless your intent is to keep this thread going in circles with people asking questions, those questions being answered, only for someone new to come along who didnt bother reading the thread, and asking the same question again..... and again..... and again...

a reply to: Xcathdra

Uhm no I did not.

Uhm yes you obviously did. I only asked the question to show the flaw in the post I responded too. I didn´t ask you a question did I, it was obviously aimed at the post it was aimed at.

To add to it you seem to ignore the fact rebel on the ground tampered with the debris. Could the "round" holes be caused by rebel machine gun fire on the ground?

I am not ignoring anything. If this is the answer, you, or the other guy could´ve just mentioned it.

Maybe you should pay attention to the entire thread, where you round hole questions have been asked and answered, before lecturing someone for pointing out the obvious.

Like I said you could´ve just pointed it out. If it was already answered then I dont know why Zaphod is talking about square pieces of shrapnell making round holes.

My "lecture" was justified. You took my comment out of context.

a reply to: AntiDude

You mean this post of his -

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: AntiDude

I didn't say it was, did I. You're good at putting words in a persons mouth aren't you.

The missile fragments did. There was a video released years ago of square bits of metal at high velocity leaving round holes in what they hit.

What part confused you?

You should also rethink your "taking the post out of context" remark.