MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

a reply to: dragonridr

Korean 902, but by an R60 fired from an Su-15 after getting lost and penetrating Soviet airspace. It eventually crash landed on a frozen lake.

a reply to: dragonridr

Even cannon fire wouldn't bring down a 777 without the pilot having considerable time to react.

If cannon fire peppered the cockpit right where the pilot's at he would have no time to react because it would be instant death.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Nvm.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

No. That's a 707. It was Korean 902 which was shot down in 1978. Korean 007 was a 747.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, I mixed them up.

a reply to: dragonridr

Correct! Have a star! The point is that certain members who seem to be able to positively identify different sorts of weapons damage refused to commit to anything. The nice, neat holes look exactly like the holes some are claiming are from a cannon. This damage shows what a small fragmentation charge can accomplish. The BUK has a much more powerful charge, capable of ripping a civilian aircraft to shreds.

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: dragonridr

Even cannon fire wouldn't bring down a 777 without the pilot having considerable time to react.

If cannon fire peppered the cockpit right where the pilot's at he would have no time to react because it would be instant death.

Yeah never happen like 1 in a billion chance so no an so 25 would have no chance of maintaining it's cannons on the cockpit might get of one or two rounds before the gun was shooting at nothing. To take down a plane like a 777 with cannon fire need to be behind the craft and hope the bullets that do hit pass through the aircraft and do enough damage. Shooting at the cockpit with a cannon from the side is stupid any pilot would tell you aim for the engine.

You can keep living in a fantasy world if you like but again a 777 cannot be taken down using cannon fire at the cockpit without the pilot responding. He's going to know he's being shot at. Immediately he would go full power to engines and head into a dive to gain more speed. In the case of an so 25 he's have no way to catch him. The aircraft is just to slow even maxed out.

Thought id add we know no course corrections occured meaning the plane was torn apart instantly. You know something that would happen with say a very large warhead like oh I don't know a BUK.

a reply to: DJW001

Show a pic of BUK damage then.

Sofar the 30 mm cannon fire looks exactly like it, and the air to air missile looks somewhat like it. Now show some BUK damage to complete the comparison. Sofar we have seen two results of aircraft based weapons.

Also, could you tell me what the blast pattern of a BUK looks like, and were it exploded in relation to the plane?

a reply to: dragonridr

You can keep living in a fantasy world if you like but again a 777 cannot be taken down using cannon fire at the cockpit without the pilot responding. He's going to know he's being shot at. Immediately he would go full power to engines and head into a dive to gain more speed. In the case of an so 25 he's have no way to catch him. The aircraft is just to slow even maxed out.

What? Let's forget about the Su25 fro one minute if you will. A jet cannot creep up from outside the pilots line of sight and blast away at the cockpit without killing the pilots instantly?

Off course it can, do you know how many rounds are shot in one second?

a reply to: LesBrocknar

A jet cannot creep up from outside the pilots line of sight and blast away at the cockpit without killing the pilots instantly?

Not the way the eyewitnesses described it.

a reply to: DJW001

Eyewitness testimonies I wasn't refering to at all in this hypothetical scenario?

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: DJW001

Show a pic of BUK damage then.

Sofar the 30 mm cannon fire looks exactly like it, and the air to air missile looks somewhat like it. Now show some BUK damage to complete the comparison. Sofar we have seen two results of aircraft based weapons.

Also, could you tell me what the blast pattern of a BUK looks like, and were it exploded in relation to the plane?

Here's some
www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Show a pic of BUK damage then

Well?

a reply to: DJW001

Well, what? Does this pic apply to our comparison of holes in airplane fuselages?

Do you have a source for this? More pics I can look at maybe? Where was this?

a reply to: dragonridr

Here's some

Sigh, those are pieces of MH17 wreckage. I am obviously asking for pics of other cases, so we can compare to MH17.

Do you get this concept?

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: dragonridr

Here's some

Sigh, those are pieces of MH17 wreckage. I am obviously asking for pics of other cases, so we can compare to MH17.

Do you get this concept?

No, it's not! Obviously!

a reply to: DJW001

Photographs of a piece of wreckage found by two reporters for The New York Times and analyzed by Reed Foster, a defense analyst with IHS Jane’s, offer some clues about what could have caused Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 to crash. While it is impossible from the photographs to determine that a specific missile was used, Mr. Foster said, the damage is consistent with the effects of a fragmentary warhead carried by an SA-11, the type of missile that American officials have said was most likely behind the attack.

The pieces were not of MH17?

Now can any of the Bukaneers here finally tell me where this BUK exploded and what kind of blast pattern and radius it has?

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
Now can any of the Bukaneers here finally tell me where this BUK exploded and what kind of blast pattern and radius it has?

How about a Russian air force general would you believe him since apparently you like Russian sources?
toinformistoinfluence.com...

a reply to: dragonridr

Why do you think that your comment was a valid response to my questions?

You didn't answer my questions and neither did the article. If you are going to respond at least try to be accurate so that I don't have to keep correcting you. I