MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

a reply to: Salander

I have not been able to listen to, or read transcripts of, the radio transmissions of MH17. Have you?

Here you go simple google search will bring you the last moments of MH 17.

www.independent.co.uk... ml

Guess your not looking hard enough.

So, I don't know what the crew said in the moments before, but it's safe to say the crew DID NOT EXPECT to be shot from the sky. Like other long distance cockpit crews, they were looking down or straight ahead, not behind looking to see if military aircraft were maneuvering for a shot.

And I guess you missed the fact that there were several other commercial airliners in the area as this happened...including one 15 miles away and none of them reported any military planes near them at the time.

They were shot from the front so there wouldn't be a plane following them that could pull that trick shot off. And exactly what plane would that be that was supposedly doing this?

The first link doesn't seem to work but here from RT...



and you can read it here...

www.onderzoeksraad.nl...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Ah that's right RT is your evidence...the Kremlin mouthpiece. How about you show an expert that isn't paid by the Russian government that backs your claim, because Russia is the last country that wants the truth out there.

I was wondering how long it would take for you to resort to attacking the source. Sorry but that is not going to work. The evidence is in the pics of the 30mm cannon damage. It is totally irrelevant who conducted the test or published the images.

The pics are the evidence. Or are you suggesting they faked the damage to look like MH17's damage? If you aren't, then you really have no argument there. and if you are, then that would be laughable.

Here is the funny thing...Russias own maker of the BUK has said it was a BUK but seemingly you know more than them I see, you do understand that your evidence comes from early on in this investigation and the fact that Russia has changed their tune several times shows they are grasping at straws just as you are.

This doesn't change the fact it clearly resembles 30mm cannon fire damage. What evidence comes from early in what investigation?

Here you go some pics that may help you understand the difference between a 30 mm cannon holes, and what SAM damage looks like.

The 30mm cannon holes on that page are not in aircraft fuselages, but in an armored vehicle.

I already posted what 30mm cannon damage looks like on a plane. It looks like the damage on MH17.

SO what exactly made these 30 mm holes you keep insisting they are without actually providing evidence they are in fact what you say they are?

What evidence did you provide that it was a BUK.

We already know it isn't the SU 25...so where did they come from?

From a large caliber cannon.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Where is a BUK supposed to detonate in relation to the plane? Where did it detonate in relation to the plane? What does the blast pattern of the BUK that was used look like?

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Can you identify what caused this damage? Was this done by a 30mm cannon or a high explosive fragmentation warhead?

a reply to: DJW001

It wasn't done by a BUK, I can tell you that.

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: DJW001

It wasn't done by a BUK, I can tell you that.

Then you must have seen BUK damage somewhere to conclude that. Why not link to it and prove us wrong. Personally, I think those nice round holes look like 30mm machine gun holes.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

I was wondering how long it would take for you to resort to attacking the source. Sorry but that is not going to work. The evidence is in the pics of the 30mm cannon damage. It is totally irrelevant who conducted the test or published the images.

Better than attacking the member.

Your source has been proven to lie on many occasions when it comes to Ukraine, and that info is nothing new so why you think this is something that shows proof is beyond me.

And it is relevant who did the tests and who reported it, as it is Russia that is trying to keep the truth from coming out. I take it you forget who is backing the separatists in Ukraine and has denied the fact they are doing so...so it is very relevant to this conflict.

And by you saying it isn't is very telling indeed.

The pics are the evidence. Or are you suggesting they faked the damage to look like MH17's damage? If you aren't, then you really have no argument there. and if you are, then that would be laughable.

Evidence of what?

And where did I say it was faked...now your trying to put words into someones mouth.

So now you have made the accusations where is your evidence the plane was shot down by another plane...something you can't do, why?

And using that video as the evidence to back your claim is very laughable. As it was when it was first used as some type of evidence.

What evidence did you provide that it was a BUK.

What part of Russia's own experts on the BUK do you not really understand?

The manufacturer of the BUK has said it was a BUK...are you now more of an expert than them or say any other expert that has said it wasn't cannon fire?

Seems your pointing in that direction.

From a large caliber cannon.

From what plane...you seem to keep leaving that out, why?

a reply to: DJW001

Then you must have seen BUK damage somewhere to conclude that.

No that is not the reason.

But since you are claiming that a BUK took down MH17, you must have seen BUK damage somewhere else. Link and prove please.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

It wasn't done by a BUK, I can tell you that.

Prove it...since you know more than the experts.

Time to back your claims...although I don't expect you to actually do it...I am waiting to see your proof.

And that RT video isn't going to do it...Sorry real proof is needed.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

No that is not the reason.

Well then what is it?

You made the statement...time to back it up.

But since you are claiming that a BUK took down MH17, you must have seen BUK damage somewhere else. Link and prove please.

That burden falls on you there chief as you are the one saying it doesn't resemble what a BUK can do...whereas we have the manufacturer saying it is...so now it's your burden to prove the experts wrong.

Something you keep refusing to do..why if your so sure?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Your source has been proven to lie on many occasions when it comes to Ukraine, and that info is nothing new so why you think this is something that shows proof is beyond me. And it is relevant who did the tests and who reported it, as it is Russia that is trying to keep the truth from coming out. I take it you forget who is backing the separatists in Ukraine and has denied the fact they are doing so...so it is very relevant to this conflict.

So you are in fact suggsting they faked the damage of that test?

And where did I say it was faked...now your trying to put words into someones mouth.

I asked you a question. If you are not going to acknowledge those pics as evidence of what 30mm cannon damage on anairplane looks like, then you must consider them fake.

What part of Russia's own experts on the BUK do you not really understand? The manufacturer of the BUK has said it was a BUK...

They also have said other things that don't support your views, and then they are dismissed as liars......

Maybe Russia wants to play along with the BUK story for now for some reason not yet clear.

From what plane...you seem to keep leaving that out, why?

Because I have no way of knowing.

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: DJW001

Then you must have seen BUK damage somewhere to conclude that.

No that is not the reason.

But since you are claiming that a BUK took down MH17, you must have seen BUK damage somewhere else. Link and prove please.

Again, what makes you think it is not BUK damage? I know exactly what it is and will link to the source once you explain why you think it's not BUK damage, and why you don't agree with me that it looks like 30mm cannon damage since it is virtually identical to the damage on MH17?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Well then what is it? You made the statement...time to back it up.

I was refering to the damage on the plane in that old black and white pic, with that comment.

That burden falls on you there chief as you are the one saying it doesn't resemble what a BUK can do...whereas we have the manufacturer saying it is...so now it's your burden to prove the experts wrong.

They did not explain how they came to their conclusion. I thought they weren't reliable anyway?

a reply to: LesBrocknar

I was refering to the damage on the plane in that old black and white pic, with that comment.

Exactly. Why do you think it is not BUK damage? In what way does it differ from what you believe to be 30mm cannon damage?

a reply to: DJW001

Again, what makes you think it is not BUK damage?

Refering to the black and white pic? The pic obviously predates the BUK system.

and why you don't agree with me that it looks like 30mm cannon damage since it is virtually identical to the damage on MH17?

Who says I dont agree with that?

It sure wasn't BUK damage though.

Can you help me and tell me what the BUK blast pattern looks like, where it is supposed to detonate in relation to a plane and where it actually did?

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Refering to the black and white pic? The pic obviously predates the BUK system.

Care to provide the pic?

You see just because something looks similar it doesn't mean that is what they are.

I can show you many pics that predates the BUK...but that isn't proof a BUK didn't do it.

It sure wasn't BUK damage though.

So the ones who say it is, such as the manufacturers of the BUK don't know what they are talking about...is that what your saying?

And again if this is from a plane shooting it down...what plane was it, as 30 mm rounds don't fly without being shot?

Seems your trying to stay away from that question...why is that?

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Refering to the black and white pic? The pic obviously predates the BUK system.

Just because it's in black & white? Wow.

a reply to: DJW001

Just because it's in black & white? Wow.

I didn't say that. The plane looks pre 80's to me. Was it shot down by a BUK or any other comparible SAM, or not?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Care to provide the pic?

Care to pay attention?

The pic is posted on this page by DJW001. You are qouting comments that are refering to that pic.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesBrocknar

Can you identify what caused this damage? Was this done by a 30mm cannon or a high explosive fragmentation warhead?

Judging from the damage id say air to air missile. You see shrapnel damage from a projected ear head. It would be probably Russian because Russia likes to use steel rods. Also notice the limited damage with air to air they are designed to take out engines. Not blow apart an aircraft like a buk. In fact the only way to blow part and aircraft if a very large blast from ground to air missile. Even cannon fire wouldn't bring down a 777 without the pilot having considerable time to react.


So puting it all together I'd say Russian r 60 or similar. As far as su25 firing on a 777 that's just silly that attack would have been all over the news as the pilot frantically screamed Iover the radio he was being attacked. Not to mention something else Russian propaganda doesn't tell you about the su25 cannon has a recoil force like any gun has. This is the force (or kick ) when a shot is fired. Remember when you shot a weapon you feel the force in your shoulder. When the cannon is used the nose of the aircraft will drop. Meaning it is impossible for an su25 to hit that aircraft from a lower altitude 1st shot he'd be off target and unable to correct because he'd stall the aircraft. Any fool that believes mh 17 was attacked by a cannon just doesn't know aircraft or physics for that matter.

Ps was I right?