How We Know Russia Shot Down MH17

a reply to: intrptr

Whoops…

What exactly do you think those pics show...

WHy does this feel like this....



Seems this has all been discussed in many threads before this...oh wait it has.

SO your going to say the manufacturer and it's engineers know less about the plane they built than you do, because that is what your implying.

Tell you what contact Sukhoi and let them know you know more than they do about their plane.

Sukhoi Company (JSC)
23B, Polikarpov str.,
Moscow, 125284, Russia, p/b 604
Phone:
+7 (495) 940-26-63
+7 (495) 940-26-64
+7 (495) 940-27-62
+7 (495) 945-44-22
Fax:
+7 (495) 945-68-06
+7 (495) 941-76-45
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Let us know how that goes.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: intrptr

How about uncovering the black box? Oh, the Netherlands, a member of NATO is sitting on that egg. Are they trying to hatch the truth or cover it up?

They did you keep trying to say they didn't…I already understand what your doing as you gave it away in an earlier post.

The truth is what I want, not "transcripts", "statements", "reports" or or "weasel wording".

Defined as…

“Weasel wording” consists in using “words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged.” … “Some weasel words may also have the effect of softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement through some form of understatement.” (Gary Jason 1988)

a reply to: intrptr

So again, the people that manufacture the BUK state that the damage is consistent with a BUK-M1, but you know better than they do.

a reply to: intrptr

After saying:

. You concluded there is no evidence in the audio recordings, having never heard them.

Which has nothing to do with what I said originally.

What exactly do you think those pics show…

They show this…

a reply to: intrptr

They show this…

Did I ask that too fast for you to comprehend?

What...do...those...pics...show?

You see just posting them means nothing except that a plane was shot, it doesn't show anything that says it was done by cannon fire...but feel free to provide all evidence it was, and while your at it show the plane that could have done it?

And again let us know what Sukhoi says when you tell them you know more about their plane than they do.

a reply to: intrptr

And exactly what is the damage from an expanding rod warhead supposed to look like?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

So again, the people that manufacture the BUK state that the damage is consistent with a BUK-M1, but you know better than they do.

That argument again? RyleNators responses on page four said it better than I ever could…

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

Link to member content this thread…

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: intrptr

And yet:

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.

Amazing how that gets completely ignored.

a reply to: intrptr

That argument again? RyleNators responses on page four said it better than I ever could…

Because he couldn't refute what was said and it seems you can't either...surprising no...expected yes.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

And exactly what is the damage from an expanding rod warhead supposed to look like?

Pictures worth a thousand words…

Talk to each other, drag it off page.

a reply to: intrptr

If you're going to claim that was 30mm cannon then prove that an expanding rod warhead can't look like that. It should be simple for you.

a reply to: intrptr

Pictures worth a thousand words…

And yet you can't tell exactly what your pictures prove...guess it wasn't in the first thousand words, must be in the next thousand.

a reply to: intrptr

Obviously driven by an agenda other than your own.

I played along with that so others could see.

And your words here paint a perfect picture as to what your doing.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: intrptr

Whoops what? Those look nothing like 30mm cannon holes. This is what damage done by a 30mm cannon looks like. Note how the holes are much larger than any found on MH17.

Remember the People cutting peices of th e plane and running off with them too?Oh and the seperatist spotted shooting holes in the wreckage too cant forget that.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: intrptr
Whoops what? Those look nothing like 30mm cannon holes. This is what damage done by a 30mm cannon looks like. Note how the holes are much larger than any found on MH17.

Whoops as in the direction of fire wasn't from ahead, like you made up.

Thats armor, not thin skinned aluminum, but here you go…

the window frame (internal structure), below the cockpit on MH17…

link to image

ETA: Looks pretty much the same, huh?

a reply to: intrptr

Nice, neat, round 30 mm holes…

So this little gem...



Made those holes?

And what plane was it that did this?

a reply to: intrptr

So now you're trying to claim an SU-25 was able to fly well over its service ceiling and not only catch up to but surpass a faster aircraft? I also find it funny that you seem to be arguing 30mm cannon fire will leave larger holes in armor than a fuselage.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: intrptr

So this little gem…

Made those holes?

And what plane was it that did this?

Thats not even Russian ammo. And you cropped the original pic. Heres the original, you can even see the US A10 warthog with its canopy up in the background. That round is for training or demonstration purposes only.


Lulz, in the future if you want to manipulate conversation try not to get caught…

intrptr out

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Here just thought I would add this to your discussion about it being a 30mm cannon from an SU 25 that did it.

Cannons: impossible. The Su-25 was at minimum 10,000 feet below the 777. This means simply pointing the cannon at the 777 without stalling would have been a challenge. The ballistic trajectory of the cannon fire would have made this worse. The Gsh-30-2 cannon fires a round which travels at only 2800 feet per second, significantly lower than, say, the round fired by a 338 Lapua sniper rifle. Imagine trying to shoot down an airplane with a rifle, from 2-3 miles away using your eyeball, in a plane, at a ballistic angle. If the MH17 was somehow taken out by cannon fire, it will have obvious 30mm holes in the fuselage. None have been spotted so far.

scottlocklin.wordpress.com...