How We Know Russia Shot Down MH17

a reply to: intrptr

Thats not even Russian ammo. And you cropped the original pic.

That doesn't change the fact it is a 30mm round. The country may be different a 30 mm round is still a 30 mm round.

And I never said it was RUssian ammo now did I?

Good try.

But I forgot I am talking to a plane and ammo expert that thinks a fully loaded SU 25 can miraculously fly higher than it is built to go and shoot a plane out of the sky 10000 ft higher than it can go.

I assume your contacting Sukhoi with this info so they can change the specs of it on their page for the SU 25, because you know more than them.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
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.

You know what I find far "funnier"?

Repeated lying, covering up and manipulating the truth isn't going to hide the truth forever, you know.

a reply to: yuppa

Like this...

a reply to: intrptr

You know what I find far "funnier"?

Your sad attempts to say you know more than the manufacturer of the SU 25?

Or the fact your just trolling and have admitted to it in an earlier post?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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Damaging elements come from outdated BUK-M1 missile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.

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. The missiles in question are widely deployed by a number of post-Soviet states, including Ukraine, but have been replaced by a newer make in Russia.

It also sure looks like they are saying that Russia wasn't the one responsible.

a reply to: YouPeople

Which I've said from the beginning. I've been saying from the start that I'm willing to bet it was a tragic accident by rebels targeting what they thought was a Ukrainian transport. At worst Russia provided some training to operate the system, but I don't think they had any more than that to do with it, if even that much.

A lot of Ukrainian military equipment was captured or stolen by the rebels when entire units went over to them, including SAM launchers.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok cool.

Have you tried to notify the OP of this thread that his premise is obviously wrong? Have you tried to discuss this with the posters that are always around to blame Russia?

What do these guys have to say about this revelation?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

That doesn't change the fact it is a 30mm round. The country may be different a 30 mm round is still a 30 mm round.

And I never said it was RUssian ammo now did I?

You cropped the photo showing US training rounds, trying to mislead everyone as usual.

Should stick to what you know. Obviously some knowledge of ballistics and ammunition are required on a thread titled "How we know Russia downed MH17".

a reply to: Zaphod58

I've been saying from the start that I'm willing to bet it was a tragic accident by rebels targeting what they thought was a Ukrainian transport.

When the (Kievians) cleared the flight over hostile territory, they had every intent of causing a "mishap".

a reply to: YouPeople

My views have been pretty clear in most of these threads. I haven't been able to convince either side to change their views which is why I haven't been overly active in these threads lately. This is the first in awhile I've been this active in.

a reply to: intrptr

All flights were cleared over that airspace, with the agreement of the IATA and ICAO, as well as the EASA. Flights were only restricted below 30,000 feet. There were at least 18-20 flights a day or more that flew over that exact area with no problems.

a reply to: intrptr

You cropped the photo showing US training rounds, trying to mislead everyone as usual.

Care to show me where I said that round was from Russia...I never did, it was a visual aid to show the size of a 30 mm round.

Should stick to what you know. Obviously some knowledge of ballistics and ammunition are required on a thread titled "How we know Russia downed MH17".

Well that must leave you out.

a reply to: Zaphod58

A lot of Ukrainian military equipment was captured or stolen by the rebels when entire units went over to them, including SAM launchers.

Off course, it could just aswell have been the Ukranians themselves, with their BukM1's, let's not forget that option.

a reply to: intrptr

When the (Kievians) cleared the flight over hostile territory, they had every intent of causing a "mishap".

And how do you explain the fact that there was a Singapore Airlines flight 15 miles away when they were shot down, or the fact that other planes flew the same route before and after it happened?

Guess you forgot about them.

Why weren't any other planes that flew that route shot down? Seems when you don't identify the plane your shooting at this is what happens.

And you can fire the BUK without having the radar battery to identify commercial planes, but you knew that since your the expert here right?

a reply to: Zaphod58

All flights were cleared over that airspace…

By whom?

Don't address the actual point I just made (who gave clearance), change it to a different question.
And answer that. "All flights were cleared".

Obviously it was hostile airspace. Planes were being shot down there like you and others keep saying…

The (Kievians) began clearing civilian flights for one reason and one resin only.

a reply to: YouPeople

It's an option. Personally I think it's really unlikely but it's still possible.

a reply to: intrptr

By the EASA who has the power to restrict airspace in Europe, and who placed the original 30,000 foot restriction in place.

I didn't change the question. The airspace was open, aircraft were flying over the area for months prior with no problem. Of course the flight was cleared to fly over it, the only restriction was too remain above 30,000 feet.

a reply to: YouPeople

Off course, it could just aswell have been the Ukranians themselves, with their BukM1's, let's not forget that option.

Except they had no reason to activate them as the separatists have no planes to fly, but the separatists had been shooting down planes before this happened, so it seems the separatist have a bigger use for the BUK than Ukraine did.

Let's not forget that.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

By the EASA who has the power to restrict airspace in Europe, and who placed the original 30,000 foot restriction in place.

Altitude wasn't the issue, granting corridor through hostile airspace is.

a reply to: intrptr

And the EASA has the ability to close that airspace and any other airspace in Europe. They only recommended that it be avoided, and required they stay above 30,000 feet. The gave permission to fly through that airspace, and Airlines had been for months prior to MH17 being attacked. They're just as much to blame as anyone else.