How We Know Russia Shot Down MH17

a reply to: Zaphod58

On the contrary I've seen planes that have landed safely after being struck by a buk

a reply to: RyleeNator

I'm going by what combat pilot's that have flown them but hay I'm sure the guy who designed it on a drawing board would know more but you official story guys change your tune pretty quick now it's can fly that high but only without weapons and not for long you should inform the the proper people who published these ceiling height s

Show me a pilot that isn't in the Russian military that says this plane is capable of doing this, and the manufacturers know the capabilities of what their plane they built can, and can't do...or are you calling the Russian makers of this plane liars?

a reply to: RyleeNator

Um where did I say anything about a plane not being able to survive a missile hit? Under the right conditions they can survive any missile hit. But a SAM is going to do a lot more damage than any air to air missile will ever do with a direct hit.

a reply to: RyleeNator

On the contrary I've seen planes that have landed safely after being struck by a buk

So because you say you have seen one that means all planes are capable of surviving a BUK missile after being hit?

And those planes were commercial airliners hit in the same area as MH17?

a reply to: Zaphod58

A buk missile chases and stokes above the aircraft it can not target the cockpit/pilot as what happened to mh17 a blind man can feel the holes under the pilot's window

a reply to: RyleeNator

So if you fire a BUK at an aircraft that is coming at you, it's going to fly past it, turn around, and chase the target down?

As soon as the proximity fuse detects something in range it's going to donate. If it's fired at a target that's closing it's still going to track on the target. If the fuse detects the target and detonates near the nose, guess where all that shrapnel is going.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes that's precisely how a buk missile works it chases down its target and strikes from above now here's why pay attention pilot's are bright intelligent people specially military pilot's which these missiles where design to outsmart (it's obvious you are not a military pilot) if so said pilot seen a missile coming for him he would take advasive actions deploy a flare and try not get hit well anyway something to that effect that is why buk missiles chases and strike from behind that's the best I can explain to you without using a toy plane and a match stick and diagrams maybe a friend might do that for you

a reply to: RyleeNator

There's no point in debating this so I'll just say this:

Funny that the people that make the missile said it was a BUK, but you know better than them too.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: imod02

Yes and no. Service Ceiling is the highest an aircraft can fly with a combat load and maintain a 100 foot per minute climb rate. So while Absolute Ceiling is higher, it's set by a clean aircraft with no combat load.

Top speed is set clean, with a limited amount of fuel, under ideal conditions. You'll never hit top speed with anything hanging off the aircraft because it creates drag.

Thats what I said, but as I said before you have a great need to the the wizz kid of all things that fly and its becoming more and more visible to people by the way you respond when any one challenges you .

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm not going to debate with you no more either sir cause you end your debate with a down right LIE the maker buk missiles has not come out and said mh 17 was shot down by one it's products debating with you is the same as arguing with a fool and that's just like playing chess with a pigeon because no matter how good you are at chess the pigeon will just defecate all over the board and prance around like he one. Stick to the facts pal less of the lies and propaganda

a reply to: RyleeNator

Really?

Russian arms manufacturer Almaz Antey claims that an older version of the Buk surface-to-air missile found in Ukrainian but not Russian military arsenals downed flight MH17 over east Ukraine.

Mikhail Malyshevsky, adviser to the director general of the state-owned arms consortium, said that the conclusion had been formed by company experts after studying photographs of debris from the crash site.

www.ibtimes.co.uk...

Damaging elements come from outdated BUK-M1 missile
After analyzing the nature of damage dealt to the aircraft, manufacturer Almaz-Antey came to the conclusion it could only have been caused by one of the missiles from BUK’s older line of defense systems, namely the BUK-M1.

www.rt.com...

Hmm, that sure looks like they're saying it was a BUK to me.

To even begin to try to understand what happened to MH17 it must be looked at with an understanding of the cultures involved, the political propaganda as well as the tek side. Some more interesting reading www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com...

a reply to: imod02

Wow, and to think I was mostly agreeing with what you said, and expanding on it, hence the "yes and no".

If people want a pissing war just remember a lot of constructive information gets lost. As for me I have no interest in such childish games

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: yuppa

Considering the SU-25 coudnt get up to that altitude and stay there long enough to even fire its cannon to put holes in the aircraft id say its SHRAPNEL/rods from the SAM/buks/ Fragmentation warhead. Tungsten rod penetrators most likely.

The SU25 is capable of reaching that altitude…

The BUK chases its target, impacting from behind, center mass, not the side/front of the nose of the aircraft.

The shrapnel of a BUK is not 30 mm 'paper punch' holes either. The holes in the nose of Mh17 are perfectly round 30 mm , and associatedtwith in and out perforations in the fuselage, resulting from explosive cannon shells, standard armor piercing, incendiary ammunition for the Su-25.

The shells punched through the light skin exploded within so explains the in and out frag with round holes the size of cannon shells.

BUK tungsten 'rods' would be a mix of round, oblong and slotted perforations, no explosive deformation or in and out holing from secondary explosions.

Remember a tweet that was sent out by the men in donbass saying they shot down a transport that was then deleted once they figured out it was nto a transport? smoking gun to me.

Well the new vid has them talking second plane, chutes seen and pilot "crawling" while they're standing next to the burning wreckage of MH 17.

Now tell me how unreal that vid is but some 'deleted tweet' is more valid.

I see you are nto challenging Zaphod. Teh manufacturers Say it cannot reach that altitude long enough to fire on it with its full load of gun ammo and its defensive missiles. This was argued to you months ago and now since you think we forgot and its hidden away in olderr post you can get away with this lying.

ALso ISnt it convenient they shot down a second plane right after mh 17?

OH lookie i found the TWeet.
Russian seperatist tweet about shoot down.

I'll lalso copy paste incase you say you read it but dont. The PICTURE is in the link above though.

"We know that very shortly (after the crash), separatists were bragging in the social media about having shot down a transport plane," Kerry said on Fox News Sunday. "We know that the so-called defense minister of the People's Republic of Donetsk, Mr. Igor Strelkov, actually posted a bragging social media posting of having shot down a military transport. And then when it became apparent it was civilian, they pulled it down from social media."

While much of Kerry’s evidence relies on intelligence that the public can’t access, we can fact-check his claim that a rebel leader posted on social media about shooting down a plane.


The post has since been deleted. But the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine -- which periodically saves versions of websites -- shows the post did appear on Strelkov’s page at one point, so we know it was it was a real post. But does it indicate that the rebels are behind the attack like Kerry said. First, some background.

As for the shrapnel not all shrapnel is varying in size. Yunsten rods will not deform and travel straight through. And they arent explosive. ALso a SAm will seek ANYWHERE ITS POINTED AT not just from behind. Vietnam pilots will tell you this.

a reply to: Zaphod58

a reply to: RyleeNator

The recorders aren't going to show any evidence as to who fired the missile and a transcript of the last few minutes has been released. As has the transcript of the air traffic control conversations.

You heard the audio from the cockpit recorders, did you? You would be the only one. How would you know, audio has yet to be released. After a year, they're still secret.

My guess is the staccato sounds of cannon rounds impacting the cockpit area are juuust a bit different than a single thud from the detonation of a missile warhead.

Innocuous language though, multiple hi velocity "objects" could be misconstrued as either one…

…besides, the pics of paper punch round holes of 30 mm diameter in the forward cockpit doesn't hold up well for a BUK frag pattern ether.

Tapping fingers, waiting for cockpit audio in vain.

a reply to: RyleeNator

as what happened to mh17 a blind man can feel the holes under the pilot's window

Well curse my lying eyes, we have another member not blinded by official propaganda.

Hard to see around them round holes from 30 mm cannon rounds, in itt?

a reply to: intrptr

Except a SAM can detonate in front of a AIRCRAFT LIKE THEY DID IN VIETNAM DEALING SIMILIAR DAMAGE. Lol!

a reply to: Zaphod58

But a SAM is going to do a lot more damage than any air to air missile will ever do with a direct hit.

Except that no one reported seeing a surface to air missile track. Kind of hard to miss that long white vapor trail all the way from the ground to altitude.

Plenty of witnesses report seeing another plane, though.