Flight MH17 Downed By 'High-Energy Objects

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: watchitburn

Um no, shrapnel comes from anything that explodes and sends out pieces of debris. In this case, almost certainly a surface to air missile.

Really ...

The BUK missile system has an approximity fuse, which consists of the explosive and the missile components fragments. The fragmentation is "big", for the purpose to cause large damage. This is a surface to air missile ... and this system also has an IFF, to distinguish military aircraft. It also has a very distinguishable tracking system, which means it isn't a single-shot system, it leaves traces at the command post.

An air to air missile, always is approximity detonated and has a specific fragmentation warhead. These systems are for visual confirmation of target, and therefore unlikely to include an automatic IFF system.

The first one, the BUK missile ... is unlikely to have been used. The latter, is more likely ... one, does not exclude the other however.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to =18391310]AllSourceIntel[/post]

Well I'm going to defer to you on what the report actually states. I was going off what the "news" said this morning. They quoted the report saying "high velocity shrapnel"

That's what I get for watching cnn.

But my position on the use of the word shrapnel is still correct

Incorrect, the report actually states the following:

Damage observed on the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft appears to indicate that there were impacts from a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft.

And here is the full report:

www.onderzoeksraad.nl...

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Puncture holes identified in images of the cockpit floor suggested that small objects entered from above the level of the cockpit floor

Above eh? surface to air cant do that

Not that I am aware of, no. Mind you, this does not rule out the possibility that there could have been a SAM (or something else) that caused the initial damage followed by another as the plane nose dived ... at least its a possibility.

Still, way to early to make assumptions.

Your a bit of the mark there . Shrapnel is from any exploding device deigned to cause damage from its outer casing . Ie surface to air missile, air to air missile a reply to: watchitburn

originally posted by: da pickles
Your a bit of the mark there . Shrapnel is from any exploding device deigned to cause damage from its outer casing . Ie surface to air missile, air to air missile a reply to: watchitburn

The report doesn't say shrapnel, it says "objects" and the report also states "it came from above the cockpit floor level".

originally posted by: watchitburn
The report actually said "high velocity shrapnel"
Which just goes to show the half assed nature of the report. "Shrapnel" only comes from a specific artillery round called the Shrapnel Round, which hasn't been in use since WWII.

Have you actually read the findings of the report?
I have just read it, and I searched it for uses of the words "shrapnel", there is not one mention of it. They report that it was hit by "high-energy objects" from outside the plane.

So, if you want to get your facts right, rather than simply make things up to suit your argument, it might be a good idea to actually read the report and the findings.

Again, I have searched the report and there is NOT ONE MENTION of shrapnel on any of the 34 pages.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Zaphod58

I guess I wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

Seeing as I only spent 8 yrs as a Marine Corps Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician. I wouldn't be a subject matter expert or anything.

For someone who spent 8 years in the Marin Corps you don't seem able to read, the report doesn't use the word shrapnel once, it states high-energy objects, not shrapnel.

I do hope you were never part of any investigating team while in your position, because you seem to be willfully wanting to change the facts to suit your argument.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Are you replying to posts as you see them or are you reading the whole thread before you post?

There seems to be a hell of a lot of nonsense about this here, but then I suppose that is to be expected on ATS, and from people following lackluster US news talking heads who wouldn't know what "accurate reporting" is if it smacked them on the ass and called them Shirley.

These are the facts, the findings of the report...

There is no mention of "shrapnel" in the report at all, not once. The damage is consistent with "high-velocity objects" penetrating the plane.

The report is not intended to assert blame.

The report is intended to explain the CAUSE of the crash and establish the state of the aircraft prior to the event.

The report states that the findings show no emergency on board. There were no indications from either recorder of any problems prior to the sudden impact and cause of damage to the plane. The damage was instant and devastating.

Here are some other facts and observations that I am willing to make based on the evidence of this report. These are my own opinions formulated based on the evidence available...

The damage is NOT CONSISTENT with the plane being fired upon from another aircraft. The damage described is NOT CONSISTENT with any weapon other than a surface-to-air missile, and specifically the BUK, which is DESIGNED to explode outside of the target and shatter it with "high-velocity objects" for increased damage - like a shotgun at close range.

There is no mention of any plane being seen in the area by the crew. If a passenger plane saw a fighter jet it would have been mentioned, because this is a direct threat to passenger aircraft and the safety of the flight regardless of the nationality of those operating that jet. Fighter jets do not normally operate at anywhere near the altitude of a passenger plane (I believe). If this had been the case, the pilots would have seen this and would certainly have reported its presence.

There would have been signs of panic on board, with audio recordings showing that the pilots were aware of what was happening. A fighter jet would NOT be able to simply blow a plane out of the sky without there being some form of audio to explain it. These planes are not armed with missiles able to create such damage, it would not have been instantaneous and the voice recorders/technical data recorders would have show this.

The plane broke up in mid-air before parts of it fell to the ground. Again, this is not consistent with another plane firing upon it. This is consistent with a surface-to-air missile, which is designed to do exactly that.

All three sides to this conflict have access to the BUK missile system. Ukraine has them, the Pro-Russia Rebels have them, and Russia has them. There is evidence that the fired shot came from Rebel held territory, and there are now images, video and witness statements showing that a BUK missile system was brought into the area, used by Russians (one with a Muscovite accent) and then departed with one missile CLEARLY missing from it.

Of course, blame is to come later, but all evidence being gathered seems to suggest - at least to me - that Russia brought in a BUK missile launcher, deliberately took aim at a passenger plane, and shot it down before leaving.

This is what the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE is telling me, regardless of personal political opinion. I have not seen any evidence offered by Russia that Ukraine shot it down, I have not seen any evidence to suggest it was pro-Russian rebels either. Before this week I was willing to believe it could have been any of the three sides, but the evidence now being gathered seems to show only one explanation - that Russia deliberately shot down a passenger plane with a BUK missile brought in from Russia before fleeing with it across the border.

If you have EVIDENCE to the contrary, please post it (YouTube videos, bloggers and opinions are not evidence), because I genuinely want to see it. I don't want to believe that the Russian government would deliberately shoot down a passenger plane, that is a truly horrific thought. I have not seen any evidence for any other explanation, so if you have it share it.

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
a reply to: Rocker2013

Are you replying to posts as you see them or are you reading the whole thread before you post?

Force of habit I suppose.

The opinion still stands. People one again are making assertions about the report, the factual information, without actually knowing what the report says. I'm glad others have highlighted this obvious problem and it's been discussed, but I generally don't read through every post to see that, because so many threads end up being 50 pages long.

A very interesting read..

The prelim report rules out a lot of the debates we had in the past when this thing occurred.

The flight was at an appropriate altitude.
There were 3 other commercial jets present in addition to MH17.
MH17 did not deviate from its flight path.
There were thunderstorms in the area.

Russia and Ukraine radar systems identified the aircraft correctly.
The flight / data recorders were recovered and were determined to original and not tampered with.

The ATC communications also involved Russia so I am a bit confused on why Russian Amb. Churkin would demand to the Ukraine delegation to release the ATC communications. The ATC traffic not only shows Russia was involved (radar / communications tracking and assistance to try and locate the plane when it went off radar).


The one area is the other flights in the vicinity. There is no mention of military aircraft being present.

The weird part is the discussions between Russia and Ukraine ATC info. Russia claimed military flights were in the area however Russian radar nor Ukraine radar shows that.

I am curious what the end report will reveal.

At least we had the bulk of our debates resolved, undermining the Pro Russian / Russian claims.


We need to keep in mind this report is preliminary so its entirely possible info can change as the investigation continues.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

The damage is NOT CONSISTENT with the plane being fired upon from another aircraft. The damage described is NOT CONSISTENT with any weapon other than a surface-to-air missile, and specifically the BUK, which is DESIGNED to explode outside of the target and shatter it with "high-velocity objects" for increased damage - like a shotgun at close range.

What a load of hot air and idiotic nonsense ...

First of all, what do the SAM's do ... open up a door, stick out a flag with the words "BOOM" on it.

In short, a surface to air missile would be a missile that has larger objects thrown at the target, with greater damage per impact, and larger impact radius caused from the explotion and the weight of each object.

An air-to-air missile would have a smaller impact radius, with smaller objects but more of these objects ... causing lethal damage, from the "amount" of objects impacting the target.

These are the "points" in the arguments ... when the Russians said it's like an air-to-air missile, they were referring to the amount of holes, and size of the holes. Whereas a surface to air missile, would throw larger heavy objects, intended to be lethal even at a distance. Question is therefore, are the holes all small ... or lot's of small, with some large holes ...

Another thing, is the IFF that is in a BUK missile. Unless there was some major problem with MH17, it shouldn't hit it ... unless there was someone who hit the detonation button (or the like). Alternatively, if the target was actually a military aircraft in the vicinity ... I don't know how an IFF would act, in such a case.

Now, the question is how do the "facts" fit within what know ...

a BUK missile explodes near the aircraft and sends 100's of small shrapnel pieces flying into the aircraft tearing it apart like a hand full of rocks would into bubbles.

it doesn't help that there are reports of rebels shooting holes into the pieces that hit the ground (if that is true)

but the report is consistent with a BUK missiles bringing down the aircraft.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

MH17 did not deviate from its flight path.

Everyone here, or close ... knows the above is either a product of your utter ignorance, or that you are just lying with your eyes open.

Stick to the facts ...

I am not an expert by any means but many Russian built surface-to-air missiles fly above the target and come down from above before detonating. I am not sure if this variation acted that way though. a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The one area is the other flights in the vicinity. There is no mention of military aircraft being present.

The weird part is the discussions between Russia and Ukraine ATC info. Russia claimed military flights were in the area however Russian radar nor Ukraine radar shows that.

Some pro-Russian members have claimed that the downing of the plane could have been by Ukrainian fighter jets, but again there is no evidence for this at all - just Russian assertion that Ukrainian jets were present.

The pilot of MH17 would have seen indications of another plane, and certainly a fighter jet, in the vicinity, at their altitude, and would have AT THE VERY LEAST commented on the risk to the plane. Yet, there is no discussion about any of this prior to the catastrophic explosion.

I think it's about time we ruled out the use of a fighter jet here. There is no evidence for it, no recording of it, no proof that any fighter jet from any country was at that altitude at that time, nor would any fighter jet be armed with the kind of heavy weaponry needed to create that kind of damage.

originally posted by: bjarneorn

originally posted by: Xcathdra

MH17 did not deviate from its flight path.

Everyone here, or close ... knows the above is either a product of your utter ignorance, or that you are just lying with your eyes open.

Stick to the facts ...

Evidence to the contrary?
The reports and all the date I have seen say it was on its planned course and that it did not deviate.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a BUK missile explodes near the aircraft and sends 100's of small shrapnel pieces flying into the aircraft tearing it apart like a hand full of rocks would into bubbles.

What you are describing is an air-to-air missile.

I have no idea, what your guys are about here ... but lot of you are intensionally lying.

Even half a retard should understand, than a surface to air missile. Is a weapons system, that is intended to target even a cluster of aircraft. Not a single aircraft ... it has a larger impact radius, with larger objects ... followed by smaller object from the ordinance itself. It uses the outer casing as fragmented heavy objects thrown into all directions ... and the ordinance. It is not a fragmentation warhead per say. It's intended to cause lethal damage, to more than just a single aircraft and even at a distance. These systems are fired from the ground, and target "aircraft" and not necessarily a single aircraft ...

An air-to-air missile is a weapon that is fired one-on-one ... one aircraft, at another aircraft. It follows the aircraft by a laser guiding system, or by a heat guiding system ... with a proximity explotion and has a fragmentation warhead.

These facts, should be obvious to anyone.

I fail to see the significance of this report or any such report coming in the future.

I don't know if it was Russians, the rebels, or the Ukranians, but taking into account that the entire western world is now focused on the red threat (again)...

If Russains did it - i don't get the motive. Surely they had much to lose with this and nothing to gain.
If the rebels did it - than I don't see it being done as some sort of plan, but perhaps a missidentification of aircraft.
If the Ukranians did it - no western composed report will ever show that. It would put a monkey wrench in the ongoing agenda.

Let me speculate a bit...if it wasn't the Russians or the Rebels....than the report will remain generic in nature, simply explaining the dynamic of an attack, without confirming the origin, or even further explaining...what weapon was used except "high-energy object"...which is sufficiently vague to prevent determining the source, and the story will slowly fade into the background...as it already has.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

They weren't round, but yes, a missile well create holes like that. The explosive of a fragmentation warhead is embedded with what look like BBs to cause more damage.

A missile from the front will explode near the cockpit if the proximity seeker is close enough.

Explain how a 30mm shell, which is the standard Russian built fighter gun, leaves little tiny holes. Or even how a 20mm gun, the standard NATO gun, leaves little tiny holes.