Interesting article on Ukraine shooting down MH17

a reply to: RyleeNator

It has already been blacked out by US media.

Only alternative media even talk about the story anymore. MSM swept it under the rug after the Pentagon admitted it could not prove its early allegations of BUK

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Not one person has said that an air to air missile couldn't have done it. But there isn't a single instance of a large aircraft being hit by one, or even multiple air to air missiles, and just exploding. Not one. Every instance of a plane anywhere near the size of a 777 being hit by an air to air missile, has resulted in the plane remaining intact, and controllable for several minutes afterwards.

As for proximity, KAL 007 was hit by both missiles in the tail section, very close together, and remained intact.

Air Rhodesia 827- Vickers Viscount hit by a Strela-2. Damaged and crashed intact.
Air Rhodesia 825- Vickers Viscount 782D hit by a Strela-2. Damaged and crashed intact.
Aerolinee Itava 870- McDonnell Douglas DC-9-15. Possibly hit by an unknown missile, dove into the sea intact, exploded on impact (investigation showed evidence of a bomb in the rear lavatory, as well as an outside source of the explosion).
Korean Airlines 902- Boeing 707 hit by air to air missile. Crash landed in controlled ditching.
Korean Airlines 007- Boeing 747 hit by two missiles. Crashed during ditching attempt.
T&G Aviation- DC-7 hit by SA-7. Crashed intact, exploded on impact.
Transair Georgia- 2 Tu-134 aircraft hit by surface to air missiles over two days. Both crashed intact and exploded on impact.
Rwandan and Burundian presidential assassinations- Falcon 50 hit by two SA-16s. Exploded on impact.

I included MANPADS systems because they have similar warhead sizes to air to air missiles, but not one of those planes, and a number of them are much smaller than a 777, just exploded in midair after being hit by a missile fired at them.

Any missile fired by an Su-25 would be an IR missile, which means it would be targeting the engines or tail section, which are the hottest parts of the aircraft. There would have been some damage to the fuselage, but again, contrary to Hollywood, explosive decompression doesn't lead to the cabin blowing apart into a big hole.

I know you don't believe me, but I saw the amateur footage, slightly out of focus, of the last minute or less of MH17. It was mostly intact with one engine burning, spiraling down. And though I am not skilled in computer research, that footage has been removed by the outfit that published it, BBC.

The airplane was not blown into pieces, though it may have shed a few pieces on the way down. AAM and cannon fire took it down.

a reply to: Salander

Except it crashing intact is not consistent with the debris field. We see large sections of the plane separated by miles. Not to mention that the investigators have stated that the black box findings support massive explosive decompression.

a reply to: Salander

Or maybe they're not reporting on it because there's nothing to report. The only things the alternative new sites are reporting in regards to it is that week's conspiracy theory de jure. When the preliminary findings come out you can bet the MSM will be reporting on it.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: RyleeNator

And the Su-25 was made in Russia by Sukhoi. They're the ones who posted the specs that show it would be impossible for an Su-25 to down a 777. I think I'll go with what they say over the Russian government who have a clear agenda.

Are you familiar with any of the mods done to the SU25 by Elbit Industries? New engines, new instruments, new weapons systems make it a brand new airplane it seems.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Salander

Except it crashing intact is not consistent with the debris field. We see large sections of the plane separated by miles. Not to mention that the investigators have stated that the black box findings support massive explosive decompression.

I can live with that. Yes, the airplane was shedding parts on descent, but in the last 2000 feet or so, shown on the amateur video subsequently removed from the internet, it had enough aerodynamic integrity that it was clearly spiraling and at least one engine was still attached and in flames.

originally posted by: Salander
Only alternative media even talk about the story anymore. MSM swept it under the rug after the Pentagon admitted it could not prove its early allegations of BUK

As there is nothing to report, the media has gone quiet. Only the state owned Russian media is feeding the voyeurs with drivel like the OP. It's not news, it's speculation.

It'll be news when the official investigations reports in mid 2015, or thereabouts. In between times, the media will report snippets as they are released or discovered. There are two investigations - one of which is a criminal investigation.

Regards

a reply to: paraphi

Having been watching TV that Thursday evening in the US, I was barraged by the US MSM version of what happened. Talk about feeding the voyeurs, feeding the gullible and incurious.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Thanks for proving I`m right by trying to bury it with senseless postings

Well then I am only following your lead.

Here you go another senseless post...

Su-25M1 and Su-25UBM1 modernization is done by Ukrainian MoD’s Aircraft Repair Plants and test flights were
performed on the UAF State tasting Center’s training area “Chauda”. In result of upgrading of Su-25 the aiming-navigation
system was greatly improved

en.defpol.org.ua...

Well I don't see anything about upgrades with the airframe or the engines...so by that the conclusion is the SU 25, SU 25M1 ground attack aircraft still aren't able to fly to that height.

a reply to: Salander

You mean the footage of the AN-30 that was passed off as MH17? It's already been proven that wasn't MH17.

The debris field tells a completely different story, unless you're going to claim that impact with the ground can throw large pieces of aircraft over 5 miles or more.

a reply to: Salander

There's no way the tail lands five miles from other wreckage separating at 2,000 feet.

Well that's a down right lie BBC have reported the same article as somebody earlier in the thread pointed out you just keep sticking your head in the sand pal me thinks Britain is trying to tip toe away and distance it's self from the USA and this article on the BBC is the first step reply to: paraphi

a reply to: Salander

Here's the alleged video showing what was claimed to be MH17 crashing intact, posted over a month before MH17 was shot down.

theaviationist.com...


rt.com...

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

If it really was the modified Sukoi, my bet is the Elbit of Israel did the mods.

Ukraine do the modification themselves.

Su-25 M1 Frogfoot

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

It doesn`t need to be at 10km to shoots the missile, the missile flies the other part.

Time to change the broken record dude.

It needs to be at 4 km to get the sensor to lock on the heat of the target, you can't just point an IR missile towards an aircraft 10km away, hope it goes in a straight enough line to find the aircraft heat source, if it's anything like the Aim-9 the UK use on the Hawk, you can't even get it off the rail without a lock AFAIK!

a reply to: TheCrowMan

It needs to be at 4 km to get the sensor to lock on the heat of the target, you can't just point an IR missile towards an aircraft 10km away, hope it goes in a straight enough line to find the aircraft heat source,

Well when it's on a plane that has no chance in hell of shooting down a commercial airliner it does, or at least that is what some keep trying to make true.

They take the old saying to heart...If you say it enough times it will eventually be true, although in this case it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it just won't come true.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Ukraine do the modification themselves.

Su-25 M1 Frogfoot

Again how many times do you need to be told...unless you upgrade the airframe and engines the plane will not fly higher by upgrading the cockpit and electronics of the plane.

Also you do know that your source isn't even from Ukraine, but that is nothing because you may want to read and learn...



Here is the source for the information...

books.google.com...=onepage& q=site%20for%20ukraine%20company%20upgrading%20SU%2025&f=false


It may help you to read and understand that with that upgrade there were no alterations to the fuselage or the power plant which in turn means it is just the same SU 25 that cannot go to the height you keep trying to say it will, and as I said before upgrading the electronics will not allow it to fly higher than it is designed.

Sorry but you are wrong again...dude.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Again how many times do you need to be told...unless you upgrade the airframe and engines the plane will not fly higher by upgrading the cockpit and electronics of the plane.

There you go again, limiting your reality to scientific facts. Don't you know that with Lysenkoism, Comrade Stalin proved that Nature itself must bend to the will of a Leader when the Historical Dialectic is on his side? Putin must triumph over decadent Western materialism, therefore aircraft can perform however he says they do,

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And which part of the new targeting, navigation, and EW system increased the ceiling?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Missiles can only be shot flying at the same hight ?