Flight MH17 Downed By 'High-Energy Objects

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Probably should have looked for a youtube video or something to explain the "real science" for me...

originally posted by: bbracken677
IF people are saying that fighters brought the airliner down with cannon fire...that''s nonsensical ridiculousness.

Why? What would be the point? Just fire a missile from 40 miles away and be done with it.

Bringing down an airliner with cannon fire would be no different than the Ukrainians raising their hands and saying to the world "I did it! I did it on purpose!"

Stupidity.

Not to mention the Ukraine and Russia radar intercepts showed no military craft in the area at the time of the incident. Only the Russian military has tried to push to fighter jet bs.

So which one is lying?

The Russian civil aviation authorities or the Russian military?

a reply to: F4guy

Thank you for your service.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: tanka418

Actually; yes, I was in the Air Force...

so you don't even have that excuse.....

You should check out the aircraft...did you know, for instance; the SU-25 had greater wing area...although it is seriously crippled in the power plant dept.

A greater wing area than what?

I'm sorry...an F-16.

originally posted by: tanka418
I'm sorry...an F-16.

And you think this means it can fly higher than a F-16?

This is the warhead of a BUK missile. Would this warhead create round holes or Square holes in a soft aluminium plate?

Is this a shaped charge or is this war head shaped more like a granade?




The BUK missile have a praximity fuse that sets of the warhead 10 to 40m of its target depending on angle of approuch to target.

Think about it. Did a BUK missle really Down MH17?

a reply to: spy66

yes

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: spy66

yes

You dont Count. You would say yes that it was a BUK even if it is proven not to be. You are not objective to the truth, you form Your poinion based on Your hatred towards Russia.

a reply to: Denoli

I think they are referring to bullets. Last night I saw this on the news and they showed a local bloke walking around the crash site with a bullet in his hand that was about 5 inches long and well over an inch thick.

a reply to: spy66

And you would be wrong...

i dont hate Russia... I cant stand Putin or his government.. There is a major difference between the 2 and its sad you are unable to see that.

As for counting - that's funny. Simply because you accuse me of exactly what you do in reverse.

As for truth I do my best to post my sources and explain how I come to my conclusions. Just because you or others dont care for those conclusions does not mean im lying nor bending / obfuscating the truth.

What I do see are pro Russians who are so determined to justify Putin's actions that they will ignore facts, including those released by the Russian government, in order to push their agenda.

So dont lecture me on something you are guilty of doing yourself. You only undermine your position and look like a dilettante in the process.

originally posted by: tanka418


I'm sorry...an F-16.

Yes - and a 777 as a greater wing area than both combined....so should it be able to fly higher than both of them added together and so miles out of range of any interceptor??

What is your reasoning here??

originally posted by: spy66
This is the warhead of a BUK missile. Would this warhead create round holes or Square holes in a soft aluminium plate?

Irregular holes like these?




Also note the holes/tears from the missile casing and components both larger and smaller than the fragments.

a reply to: spy66

Yes

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: spy66
This is the warhead of a BUK missile. Would this warhead create round holes or Square holes in a soft aluminium plate?

Irregular holes like these?




Also note the holes/tears from the missile casing and components both larger and smaller than the fragments.

You just have to wait. It is going to come that it was not dowened by a BUK. They are preping you in the media for that right now. This was just the first article, there will be more just like it straying even futher away from the initial theory.

In the article they used this time no one were directly accused of dowing MH17 With a BUK missile. Because there are no evidence of it. There are evidence that something else was used.

a reply to: spy66

And what magic weapon was that? A SAM is the only thing that would blow a plane like that apart almost instantaneously.

originally posted by: spy66
You just have to wait. It is going to come that it was not dowened by a BUK.

I'll wait. What's your pet theory, since you're in the know?

originally posted by: AllSourceIntel

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: georgezip
a reply to: _Del_That is precisely what bothers me most about this debate. Many are forgetting that the Pro-Russian rebels denied access to certain parts of the plane for a long time while explosives were going off in the vicinity. The explosions were reported as mortar attacks and who knows for sure? I would be surprised if the plane wasn't tampered with.

The BBC has video of the rebels moving and scrapping the evidence, with a rebel fighter saying they have been moving all the debris and plan to scrap it, this is before any investigation of the site by an international team. This proves that their assertion that it was Ukraine is false. Why, if they are so sure it was Ukraine, are they destroying the evidence?

Destruction of evidence shows guilt.

While normally destruction of evidence implies guilt, you have to take into account it is possible in this case that it does not. I'm looking for that video, if you have it on hand please post.

We must consider that the rebels/separatists are citizens, and some likely poor ones who may have taken advantage of an opportunity to score some extra bread. I am not stating this to be the case, rather that it is a very possible explanation.

So, your side is being accused of murdering hundreds of people in a war crime, and you KNOW that your enemy did it and you have proof of that scattered all around you, and you seriously think they're going to sell off the scrap metal?

They are under fire from the world, they keep saying Kiev did it, and they supposedly have all that evidence all around them. Destroying that evidence IS NOT in their favor. Using that evidence to PROVE to the world they were not responsible and Kiev was would take priority over making some cash, and we all know it.

Destruction of evidence proves guilt in this case, and every one here knows that to be true. Funny how all the pro-Russians are completely ignoring this blatant reality and pretending this isn't happening!

The link to the BBC interview with the rebel on site explaining how they are moving everything and plan to send it for scrapping can be found here - BBC - REBELS FILMED ADMITTING DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE

originally posted by: spy66
In the article they used this time no one were directly accused of dowing MH17 With a BUK missile. Because there are no evidence of it. There are evidence that something else was used.

Wile many in here will continue to argue that it was indeed a Buk missile, that is as you say, not proven. What is rather well established though is that MH-17 was shot down by a missile of some type.

From a cursory examination of the available evidence, it would appear that mh-17 was shot down by a "shotgun". This effect is only created by a missile.

Logically there are very few missile "types" this can be...SAM, surface to air, or an air-to-air missile not unlike an Amram or Sparrow (radar guided)...the evidence actually limits the weapon used.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: tanka418


I'm sorry...an F-16.

Yes - and a 777 as a greater wing area than both combined....so should it be able to fly higher than both of them added together and so miles out of range of any interceptor??

What is your reasoning here??

My reasoning: an su-25 is fully capable of nudging a 777 slightly off course. Despite the presumed fact that the SU-25 can't reach the desired altitude.

Along with a further assertion that an SU-25 can in fact reach 35,000 feet. Despite the dramatic lack of power of its engines.

originally posted by: tanka418
Along with a further assertion that an SU-25 can in fact reach 35,000 feet. Despite the dramatic lack of power of its engines.

Again, can you show me the RoC formula you worked for that? Or is that just, that you feel it can reach 70,000'?