Flight MH17 Downed By 'High-Energy Objects

a reply to: Xcathdra

I would think the rebels would want media attention from all over to prove Ukraine shot it down.

That would have been my first thought also, but it seems they don't think like most people in the world.

Conclusion : no conclusion !

It already became clear yesterday they have no evidence so they started to propagandize Dutch news again about it with so called evidence.

- BBC found some anonymous witnesses (see first link 2:34 min)

- The so called previously praised exposer (Bellingcat) of "Assad his chemical attacks" has again found "evidence" (see third link)

- And they try to make it look like Putin didn`t answer the BBC reporter his questions, look at the montage from 3:06 min (first link) and onwards, and look at what really happened (second link) :

First

Second

Thir d

We still have no idea who actual did it !

Anyone using it in discussions and accusing either side from now on is merely just propagandizing, because there still is no actual conclusive evidence!

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Some confusion because the initial reports say the pilot was instructed to go higher but never mentioned that he said no he could not. They did change course.
www.thedailybeast.com...

Interesting because even the Malaysian gov't has said it did not deviate from it's flight plan so either you aren't as smart as you think you are, or the Malaysian gov't is in on it.

he Malaysian pilot requested to make a course change, 20 miles to the left, to avoid weather. There was an outbreak of thunderstorms in the area, and some of the thunderheads topped out at 34,000 feet. Again, the Ukrainian controllers assented.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: voyger2
The recoding time is not time of continuous recording. The recording time captures all vocal instances repeatedly, meaning that over the course of six hours there might be only 20 minutes of continuous voice communications to record, and it's recorded with a time stamp in successive order.

If what your saying is true, still lacks a lot of transcriptions from voice communications recorder - VCR (not to mention ATC), because from 10:31 hours until 13:19 hours, more communications were established between MH17 and ATC's, with 100% of certainty

originally posted by: _Del_
The only part about this that is factually accurate is that the Gadfly missile has a "proximity" fuse... It does not have an IFF nor do other missiles. Combined effects warheads typically use fragments that are "approximately" the same. It does not follow that a larger warhead creates larger fragmentation. In fact, as a rule, multiple smaller fragments are preferred to "big" fragments.

That always depends on "what" you want as a result ... a surface to air missile is radar guided, which is a very inaccurate guiding system. It's less accurate than a GPS, and these you have to "trim" or else you'll find yourself driving into the docks. The best such systems having about 20m accuracy, where some say military grade has as little as 2m accuracy.

And saying that "smaller" fragments are preferred is absolutely not true. The impact of any physics, is based on the objects mass. Which is why US military uses depleted uranium as ordinance, as it's mass is much greater than of any other ... and thus it's impact will be much more powerful.

And anyone coming here and claiming "soldiers" this or "soldiers" that, is just nonsense. Soldiers are generally dumb idiots, who couldn't invent a toilet to sit on. These systems all operate on a specific theory of operation, and the theory of operation is the same between SAM or BUK.

A surface to air missile, is like aiming at something while you are shaking ... you won't even hit it. Not even in a million years. And the radar equipment that guides it, is going to ensure that once the missile is up there .. the target isn't there. And as two object approach each other, the faster they travel there greater the possibility is that they will miss each other.

A direct hit, is in the movies ... in your fantasy. It's always approximation that is used. Anything else, would be a waste of ordinance, a waste of intellect and waste of money.l If I recall correctly, the US did tried some systems that tried "impact" detonation, with something like 1% success.

What is most interesting, how many people on here are actually lying through their teeth. We can easily see the difference between the theory of operation, between a surface to air, and air-to-air. The two will use similar methods, fragmenting an ordinance ... but a surface to air has to have a lot larger kill radius. An air-to-air would almost exclusively put the blame on Ukraine. Which suggests that most of the people here are politically motivated, and not concerned about what the truth is. Because the presence of small holes, does not exclude a BUK in any way. But what is interesting, is that people are trying to exhonorate the Ukranians, and blame the Russians ... both of which, or counter productive. As you don't work to eliminate a suspect, unless you yourself are involved.

We have three suspects here ... the Rebels, who are the most likely culprits. But even if they did it, it would fall under the category of an accident. And thus, Russians aren't to blame for anything. So there is no reason to bring in the subject of Russians into this subject, unless the entire scenario of MH17, is a false flag only intended to excuse the existence of NATO, by demonizing the Russians.

And this element, makes UKRAINE, with Holland, the primary suspects. Not the Rebels, nor the Russians. AS this is an event, that is politically motivated, where people like those that are here, have no other objective than to use it as a weapon to demonize the Riussians. Such people, are more than likely to commit such a crime as I am pointing out here. Just look at ISIS ...

Without these politically motivated CIA goons, as I call them. This entire scenario would be nothing more than a tragic accident committed by the Rebels, and almost criminal neglegence by the Holland and Ukranian air traffic control.

It is the fact, that there are people like you, here, that are either intentionally or inadvertenly lying about ordinences ... because they are defending Ukraine. And the fact, that NATO is using it as an excuse to demonize Russians, along with endless Ukrainian and on here, idiots claiming a couple of boys that are stray in Ukraine is a Russian invasion. That makes this entire case, sound like a false flag.

a reply to: watchitburn

Wait...was this a serious post?

Let me get my dictionary for you:

shrap·nel
ˈSHrapnəl/
noun
noun: shrapnel

fragments of a bomb, shell, or other object thrown out by an explosion.

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.

Clearly both are correct it was a specific Shrapnel artillery shell
en.wikipedia.org...

But the word clearly evolved to general use of any flying :" small metal pieces that scatter outwards from an exploding bomb, shell, or mine"
www.merriam-webster.com...

originally posted by: bjarneorn

That always depends on "what" you want as a result ... a surface to air missile is radar guided, which is a very inaccurate guiding system. It's less accurate than a GPS, and these you have to "trim" or else you'll find yourself driving into the docks.

What does GPS have to do with SAM's or AAM's?

And saying that "smaller" fragments are preferred is absolutely not true.

Many smaller fragments are preferred over fewer larger ones. The more fragments, the better chance of hitting something inside the blast radius.

The impact of any physics, is based on the objects mass.

Uh-oh, physics problem. Fortunately, I seem to know some. The actual equation one might use is KE=.5mv^2. So while it is correct that it is based on the objects mass, the far greater modifier is the velocity (as it is squared). Guess which object (smaller or greater mass) is accelerated to a higher velocity by a given amount of HE (such as might be found in a HE SAM warhead). Go on, guess. Wait, I don't trust your math anymore than I trust your knowledge of military subsystems, so I'll help. Acceleration= force (same)/Mass (variable).

A direct hit, is in the movies ... in your fantasy. It's always approximation that is used.

You keep saying "approximation", when I think you mean "proximity". The former is nearness to concept or amount, the latter is nearness of location. This is somewhat understandable, as I suspect english isn't your first language, tovarisch. Glad to help.

What is most interesting, how many people on here are actually lying through their teeth.

Yes. Yes, it is...

between a surface to air, and air-to-air. The two will use similar methods, fragmenting an ordinance

You just told us in an earlier post that a SAM doesn't use a fragmentation warhead. Which is it, comrade? Have you acknowledged reality and admitted that they both use fragmentation warheads?

but a surface to air has to have a lot larger kill radius.

Not in dispute.

Because the presence of small holes, does not exclude a BUK in any way. But what is interesting, is that people are trying to exhonorate the Ukranians, and blame the Russians ...

I am only interested in "exonerating" physics and weapons systems from your abusive interpretation of facts... I believe a reading of the facts as they are available are free to your own interpretation if you wish to blame someone. I know what I believe, but this thread is about the cause of the crash, and not about the culprit(s).

It is the fact, that there are people like you, here, that are either intentionally or inadvertenly lying about ordinences ...

hahahaha ahem, excuse me... hahahaha sorry, I couldn't help it.

I'm still waiting for you to educate me on the laser-guided AAM's you mentioned, tovarisch. Any?

a reply to: _Del_

While we're clearing up those "facts clear to anyone", could you let me know which air-to-air missile uses laser guidance? Just a single example would be enough for me.

Swedish RBS-80 and English Starstreak use laser illumination - lasers are basically jam-proof assuming a clear line-of-sight - but these are low-altitude missiles, and I can't say I've heard of any air-to-air variants - clouds at altitude make such a system kind of useless.

Not disagreeing with anything else you said - everything in the report points to a detonation of a fairly significant warhead with blast and fragmentation effects - the fact that the cockpit was separated from the rest of the fuselage and the instantaneous cut-off of the recording devices suggests a large amount of damage, more damage than most AAM's could do (there are some LRAAM's with large warheads, like the Phoenix, R-37, etc.) I'd like to think the SU-25/R-60 absurdity has been put to bed by this report, but I won't hold my breath.

I do wish there were more wreckage recovered and examined, and I note the report is silent on shrapnel that might have been recovered - metallurgical analysis might be able to form an opinion on its source ...

originally posted by: squittles
I can't say I've heard of any air-to-air variants

Because there aren't any, but I'm waiting to be educated by the expert...

I'd like to think the SU-25/R-60 absurdity has been put to bed by this report, but I won't hold my breath.

That story was dead in the water the moment it was delivered. Not sure how it ever got traction. I imagine that if they are ever allowed to do an actual investigation and a reconstruction, we'll be able to see the scale of the damage, and it will be even more absurd to think an Aphid caused the shootdown. But I bet it won't stop the same old names from repeating the story over and again, either.

I do wish there were more wreckage recovered and examined, and I note the report is silent on shrapnel that might have been recovered - metallurgical analysis might be able to form an opinion on its source ...

Being able to do a full forensic examination, investigation and reconstruction would be able to answer a lot of the questions. Which is probably why we're coming up on two months and still no actual investigation has been performed...

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
It already became clear yesterday they have no evidence so they started to propagandize Dutch news again about it with so called evidence.

The report is not intended to establish blame or responsibility. What part of this simple statement are people not getting?
Do you know what a report of established facts is supposed to actually be?

The report issued is only intended to explain what brought that plane down and the circumstances surrounding the physical downing of that aircraft, there was not SUPPOSED to be any assertion of blame in this report.

Would people PLEASE get this into their dense skulls?

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
- BBC found some anonymous witnesses (see first link 2:34 min)

And those witnesses all independently stated on record the same timeline of events, seeing the BUK launcher, hearing it starting up, seeing the smoke, recording it being transported, recording it leaving with one missile missing...

They will all likely be called to give evidence when an international court is called to hold whoever is responsible accountable for murdering hundreds of innocent people.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
- The so called previously praised exposer (Bellingcat) of "Assad his chemical attacks" has again found "evidence" (see third link)

So you ignore the same evidence provided by the BBC? Actual video evidence alongside witness statements showing the BUK launcher arriving from Russia, being positioned, being fired, then leaving East Ukraine back across the border to Russia with one missile absent. How convenient that you ignore the other sources for this evidence and choose one that you would like to be able to ridicule as being untrustworthy.

Let me guess, you think the BBC somehow managed to get hold of a BUK launcher and "fake" the video footage of it arriving and departing, with one missile missing? You think those witnesses are paid off to lie? You think it's all a "western plot" even though all of these people would be held to account for lying if this were the case?

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
- And they try to make it look like Putin didn`t answer the BBC reporter his questions, look at the montage from 3:06 min (first link) and onwards, and look at what really happened (second link) :

First

Second

Thir d

He didn't answer the question!
You can try to manipulate reality all you like, we can all see it and hear it for ourselves. Putin refused to be honest and refused to answer the question. He dodged it, like a typical lying despot.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

Anyone using it in discussions and accusing either side from now on is merely just propagandizing, because there still is no actual conclusive evidence!

There is a vast amount of evidence that we can all access showing that Russia is responsible. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for any alternative explanation.

Here's the deal (I'll explain this clearly because it seems a lot of people are confused about what evidence is and how people formulate a narrative of what has happened),

Logical people take in all available evidence and make their assessment based on that evidence. There is absolutely no evidence to show that Ukraine shot that plane down. There is, however, plenty of evidence that...
Russia has invaded Crimea,
invaded Ukraine,
been burying dead Russian soldiers in secret graves,
been arming the rebels in the East,
that many of them are actually Russians from across the border,
that Russia drove a BUK system from Russia into Ukraine,
that Russia set it up and Russian military operated it,
that a BUK missile was launched,
hit that plane,
killed everyone on board,
that rebels have been tampering with the evidence,
blocking the investigation,
that Putin has lied repeatedly,
that the damage to plane shows high-velocity objects destroyed it...

I could obviously go on.

Now, logical people weighing up all of this evidence, in contrast to the complete lack of evidence to the contrary, would HAVE NO CHOICE but to believe that Russia is directly responsible for the murders of hundreds of people in what will be remembered in history as a war crime.

If this is all some kind of "manufactured western propaganda" attempting to "blame Russia" then Russia and Putin are doing one hell of a job complying and allowing that to happen! Tell me, how the hell does the USA and NATO somehow convince Putin into doing all of this, while failing so miserably to hide it?

originally posted by: _Del_
Being able to do a full forensic examination, investigation and reconstruction would be able to answer a lot of the questions. Which is probably why we're coming up on two months and still no actual investigation has been performed...

And why the rebels are now moving the evidence, sending it as scrap metal, covering up and destroying all potentially incriminating evidence at the scene, as stated by rebels now controlling the area.

BBC - Rebels filmed admitting a cover up in progress

Now, tell me all you pro-Russian BS artists, why exactly would the rebels be doing this if they believe that Kiev and the Ukrainian military was responsible?

Please, explain this to me. If this was Ukraine, why are they destroying all the evidence on the site instead of allowing investigators to actually see it and assert their so-called "truth"?

a reply to: Rocker2013

Good job in confirming my last sentence !

Time to watch football.

a reply to: Char-Lee

Some confusion because the initial reports say the pilot was instructed to go higher but never mentioned that he said no he could not. They did change course.

On their own request not one done by ATC which some on here would want you to believe.

And changing course to fly around storms is nothing new for pilots, so everything reported is pretty normal. Also one reason they didn't climb to the higher altitude could be because of the storms, which could be why the 777 behind them was able to climb to 35000 ft, but that is just speculation on my part.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Good job in confirming my last sentence !

What he confirmed is that you are just throwing out nonsense without a real clue as to what your talking about.

May I be so bold as to say, this report doesn't actually say anything outwith what people had originally thought about the incident. All views being thrown at each other are exactly the same as what you had before the report was actually released.

I would say the experts who were at the scene know who done it but won't go on record as saying it.

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.

It should have just said fragmentation or better yet unknown impactors.

The article doesn't actually say shrapnel, but you are otherwise correct.

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.

Shrapnel is basically layman terminology - a generalized term, so technically watchitburn is correct. It is not the correct term, only a popular accepted one.

Maj-Gen Shrapnel developed an antipersonnel artillery shell in the late 1700s to succeed cannon-based canister shot/case-shot, which is similar in use to the more well-known grapeshot. These both contained some quantity of smaller projectiles grouped together in a larger bore, kind of like a shotgun shell without the powder charge. When fired, the casing (or bag) would disintegrate and the shot would disperse immediately from the bore.

Shrapnel's shell used an internal secondary charge to explosively disperse the shot after a timed fuse so that it could be more effectively aimed at personnel. Further developments of this type of shell in the 1800s led the shell to be named for him as the shrapnel shell. The shot inside the shrapnel shell are called shrapnel bullets. Hence, the similarity in what the term actually means with what the word is commonly used for.

The technical term is not shrapnel, but fragmentation. Fragmentation grenades, for example, is an example of proper terminology.

a reply to: Greven

And in missiles it's a high explosive fragmentation warhead, which explodes into what even military experts will call shrapnel. It may have started as a layman term but it's accepted use by pretty much everyone now.

a reply to: scubagravy

High-Energy & "Platyupus Venom" ended this for me......LOL...I hope I spelled that right

the tail was blown away and the cockpit was also piersed with holes...plane fly's 850 km /houre...
my guess :
front attack of fighterjet with boardcanon an firing an air to air missile at the tail... for sure kill