Flight MH17 Downed By 'High-Energy Objects

a reply to: AntiDude

I am speculating as to what may have caused them. With that said all of the photos of the debris I have seen show more damage in the non circular arena than in it. What I am suggesting would be could the "round" holes you are referring to be caused by rebels, on the ground, shooting into the debris? I ask because its already been confirmed the rebels took chainsaws to the cockpit in addition to tampering with other debris on the ground.

The evidence to date shows that something impacted with the aircraft that immediately cut communications inside and outside the aircraft. That type of damage, to be able to essentially / immediately cut critical systems that quickly, is indicative of a surface to air missile exploding and not an aircraft being hit with bullets.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am speculating as to what may have caused them.

So you must feel that the BUK didn´t cause them, otherwise you wouldn´t be speculating.

It didn´t seem you were speculating when you said this though,

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.

The evidence to date shows that something impacted with the aircraft that immediately cut communications inside and outside the aircraft. That type of damage, to be able to essentially / immediately cut critical systems that quickly, is indicative of a surface to air missile exploding and not an aircraft being hit with bullets.

Nonsense. I don´t think it matters wether the cockpit is riddled with fragmentation holes or bullets. If a jet opened up with cannon fire and hit the cockpit they would´ve caused the same damage in mere seconds.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I ask because its already been confirmed the rebels took chainsaws to the cockpit in addition to tampering with other debris on the ground.

Makes you wonder why they didn´t get rid of the pieces that are now being used as evidence for a BUK attack. I mean if you are messing with the evidence to cover up your guilt anyway.

To put things into perspective, as I see that the armchair air crash investigators are still out in force:

Damage caused by SA16 shoulder launched SAM

Moments later, she heard a large explosion and felt a jolt in the back of the aircraft. The A-10 had been struck by a surface-to-air missile. The pilot later learned that an enemy missile punched a large hole in the right horizontal stabilizer and left hundreds of shrapnel holes in the fuselage and tail.

Cpt Kim Campbell's A10 hit by a SAM

Images from Smithsonian below, note the damage:
airandspace.si.edu...
airandspace.si.edu...
airandspace.si.edu...

Another A10 apparently hit by a SAM (I haven't been able to find the original source)

www.shoutwiki.com...

This is what damage from only 20mm rounds looks like:

www.f-16.net...
(Story of how that happened here).

a reply to: AgentSmith
Yeah, I haven't commented on this thread in a long time because the non-sense and non-purposeful back and forth bickering. One could also do a google scholar search on something such as "high-velocity oblique fragment" ballistic tests.

a reply to: AntiDude

Being there were no miliytary aircraft going after MH17, we are back to the BUK position.

If bullet holes are found in the skin of the aircraft, its caused by events on the ground after it crashed - not before.

a reply to: AgentSmith

This is what damage from only 20mm rounds looks like:

I am not sure what you are trying to say. The big holes in the car are not made by single 20 mm bullets it seems, but by 3 or 4 rounds impacting next to one and other. You can see that there are 3 or 4 holes in the second panel behind the bigger holes. I don´t think these are caused by fragments of a single 20mm round.

You can see a single 20mm round impact near the roof,

a reply to: Xcathdra

So why did the cockpit side panel show entrance and EXIT holes?

I think it was you who suggested an exploding oxygen bottle but they don't explode into pieces of shrapnell when they do. They seem to blow minivan sized holes into a fuselage and fly through the plane more or less intact.

Btw, here is a pic of damage from an exploding oxygen bottle.



www.telegraph.co.uk...

a reply to: _Del_

So we're down to missiles. Since the Su-25 isn't designed to perform aerial intercepts, and the largest of the air-to-air missiles it carries do not have warheads capable of inflicting the large scale of damage evident here causing the airframe to instantaneously break apart,

So what does this mean? Are you saying that the force of a bigger explosion ripped the airplane apart or that there was a bigger wall of shrapnell causing it to disintegrate immediately?


Also, what if multiple AAM's were fired?

a reply to: AntiDude

Being Rebels used chainsaws to cut the cockpit apart and remove it there is no telling. Secondly why are you ignoring the ability of items from outside the aircraft penetrating the aircraft and going through it entirely.

What exactly is your agenda in this? You seem hell bent on trying to prove something, although at this point its not clear.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Secondly why are you ignoring the ability of items from outside the aircraft penetrating the aircraft and going through it entirely.

Their ability is not in question. Just wondering why there are entrance and EXIT holes in the same piece of fuselage. A BUK doesn´t attack from two sides at once I think.

What exactly is your agenda in this? You seem hell bent on trying to prove something, although at this point its not clear.

Not sure yet, there are some things that don´t add up, I´m just trying to make sense of things. I don´t claim to be an expert.

My agenda? I would not call it an agenda. Just a poster on a conspiracy forum doing what comes naturally. What about you?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Being Rebels used chainsaws to cut the cockpit apart and remove it there is no telling.

Then how can you be so sure that it was shot down with a BUK?

originally posted by: AntiDude
a reply to: Xcathdra


Their ability is not in question. Just wondering why there are entrance and EXIT holes in the same piece of fuselage. A

Unless you have he actual wreckage in front of you, and you are skilled in forensic aircraft investigation, you don't know that is the case - you are assuming from photographs.

originally posted by: AntiDude
a reply to: Xcathdra

Being Rebels used chainsaws to cut the cockpit apart and remove it there is no telling.

Then how can you be so sure that it was shot down with a BUK?

Because it is still the best fit. It is in the right place, it has the capability, the damage at least initially looks appropriate to it. the various communications about that time apparently fit it being used.

and there is nothing else that comes close to meeting these criteria.

Perhaps it wasn't a BUK - but at the moment the preponderance of available evidence suggests it was.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Unless you have he actual wreckage in front of you, and you are skilled in forensic aircraft investigation, you don't know that is the case - you are assuming from photographs.

I can say that you are doing the same thing. Everything you say is equally unsure.

That said, logic tells me that outward bent holes were penetrated from the other side.

Because it is still the best fit. It is in the right place, it has the capability, the damage at least initially looks appropriate to it. the various communications about that time apparently fit it being used.

One can say you base it on preconceived notions. If it wasn´t a BUK you can be sure that every effort is made to make the public think it was a BUK. I don´t have to tell you what the implications would be.

and there is nothing else that comes close to meeting these criteria. Perhaps it wasn't a BUK - but at the moment the preponderance of available evidence suggests it was.

That´s your opinion. It could just as well been multiple AAM´s or maybe still even cannon fire, or a combination of both.

Like you and others have now admitted, the wreckage, or at least the info about it that is available to us does not prove that it has to have been caused by a BUK.

Regardless of that, some have been very adament that it was, in this thread for instance. I don´t think that´s right.

originally posted by: AntiDude
Are you saying that the force of a bigger explosion ripped the airplane apart or that there was a bigger wall of shrapnell causing it to disintegrate immediately?

The combined effects warhead damages by both the pressure resulting from the HE part of the warhead and from the fragments. Some combination of the blast and fragment damage was enough to cause catastrophic damage.

Also, what if multiple AAM's were fired?

Even if you fired ten Aphid AAM's to equal the SA-11's warhead's mass of HE, the blast damage would not be the same unless they all collided and exploded together at the same time and point. Ten separate explosions produce smaller blast effects than one large warhead. I suspect the fragments would have lower velocity despite their lower mass, as well. All that equals less total energy being transferred to the airframe. That amount is also being transferred to the aircraft over a greater amount of time (multiple explosions impossible to be simultaneous).

a reply to: AntiDude

That said, logic tells me that outward bent holes were penetrated from the other side.

The exterior is essentially aluminum alloy. Its not difficult to have an object penetrate the outside of the aircraft, fly thru the interior and then exit out the other side.

Hence the term high velocity objects.

You are ignoring speed as well as temperature of items.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And the fact that surface to air missiles are frequently fired in pairs to try to bracket the target aircraft so it can't get away.

this is got be one of he most important conspiracy topic on ATS, but yet, it has only 9flags.humm.. I wonder why, who is not interested in debating this real conXpiracy ...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: AntiDude

That said, logic tells me that outward bent holes were penetrated from the other side.

The exterior is essentially aluminum alloy. Its not difficult to have an object penetrate the outside of the aircraft, fly thru the interior and then exit out the other side.

Hence the term high velocity objects.

You are ignoring speed as well as temperature of items.

You are really trying hard not to get it.

There are entrance and exit holes in the same panel from the left side, meaning something penetrated from both the left and the right side. If it was a BUK it could've only penetrated from one side. Is it that hard to understand?