MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
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

Oh I'm sorry for confusing you but you asked a dumb question. See that would be classified by the Russian military see they do missile tests which I'm sorry to tell you the west doesn't have access to. So instead I figured I would just try to point you in the right direction. All the west can do is speculate based off their missile designs and even that's not a good comparison because the US doesn't use steel bars like russians.

By the way were you aware that a missile launch was detected by an awacs and it identified it as an s3 do to its radar. They have a very distinct radar signature that's how us planes know when they have been locked on to. That information was sent to the Dutch safety board expect that on the final report. Oh and if you don't think it's a missile strike take a look at the pilot and co pilots bodies. I won't post them here but that wasn't cannon fire.

a reply to: dragonridr

Oh I'm sorry for confusing you but you asked a dumb question. See that would be classified by the Russian military

I see, so I asked a dumb question that you don't know the answer to......

So none of you guys actually know how a BUK is supposed to operate.

a reply to: dragonridr

By the way were you aware that a missile launch was detected by an awacs and it identified it as an s3 do to its radar.

Where was this American AWACS flying?

Oh and if you don't think it's a missile strike take a look at the pilot and co pilots bodies. I won't post them here but that wasn't cannon fire.

But you are able to determine it was due to a BUK? Can you provide a link?

a reply to: dragonridr

Oh I'm sorry for confusing you but you asked a dumb question. See that would be classified by the Russian military see they do missile tests which I'm sorry to tell you the west doesn't have access to. So instead I figured I would just try to point you in the right direction. All the west can do is speculate based off their missile designs and even that's not a good comparison because the US doesn't use steel bars like russians.

So only the Russians know, and no other countries have access to them?

Right....

Current operators Algeria – Buk-M2 versions [111] Azerbaijan[112] Belarus[113] Cyprus[citation needed] Egypt – Buk-M1 and Buk-M2 versions[114] Finland – In 1996 Finland started operating the missile systems that they received from Russia as debt payment.[115] Due to concerns about susceptibility to electronic warfare, Finland has accelerated the plans to replace the missile system with NASAMS 2.[116][117][118] Georgia[119] India[120] North Korea[121] People's Republic of China[122] – Improved variant as the HQ-16, a navalized VLS system. Joint People's Republic of China/Russian project to upgrade the naval 9K37M1-2 system 'Shtil' (SA-N-12). Russia – more than 350 9К37 and 9К317 as of 2012,[123] primary builder and constructor. Replacement of complexes 9К37 on the new options 9К317 [124] is planned, by 2020 will be replaced complexes by 70% or more.[125][126] Syria[127] 8 complexes 9К317E Buk-M2E delivered from Russian Federation in 2011 (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute – Arms Transfers Database) Land Forces + 10/8[128] Buk-M2E Air Defence.[129] + 20 Buk-M1-2 [130] Ukraine [131] Ukrainian 9K37 Buk SAMS during the Independence Day parade in Kiev Venezuela – Buk-M2EK Received[132] (20 ordered).[133]

So does the damage to MH17 and the pilot's bodies correspond to the steel bars in the warhead?

a reply to: LesBrocknar

So none of you guys actually know how a BUK is supposed to operate.

I know I do. Here, let me help you:



Note the resemblance of the trail to the one photographed at the scene of the shoot-down:



Source

Solid fuel propellants leave a distinctive trail; they are smoke rather than vapor. (This was one reason experts knew instantly that the purported "mystery missile" over California was a contrail.)

This video features a quick glimpse of wreckage from a warhead similar to that in a BUK:



You really need to start doing your own homework. You have yet to provide any evidence in support of your own claims, beyond a video of a carefully staged demonstration of a cannon. Obviously, the Russian propaganda mill would set it up to make the damage look as much like the damage to MH17 as possible, ignoring the effects of speed, motion and range.

a reply to: DJW001

Those vids are of no use. What does the blast pattern of the used BUK look like and where did it explode in relation to the plane?

Surely you must be able to give me a conclusive answer since you have established that it was a BUK that caused that damage.

That pic with the "trail" was btw published by the Ukranian Secret Service and the only source for that.

Here is a BBC Russia vid. They removed it later for some reason.

Deleted BBC Report. “Ukrainian Fighter Jet Shot Down MHI7″, Donetsk Eyewitnesses The Catastrophe of #MH17: #BBC in the Search of the

Eyewitnesses claiming they saw jet fighters. Noone talking about a BUK exhaust trail.

Also explained in that vid, fighting was going on all around the area in that direction. Smoke could've been anything.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Surely you must be able to give me a conclusive answer since you have established that it was a BUK that caused that damage.

Where do I say that? It is you who believes that it was 30mm cannon, even though the Russians themselves do not believe that theory. Here are what the eyewitnesses say:

“The big one plane (Boeing) I did not see – it dived into the clouds. Bah!. Then an explosion was heard. A strong explosion and debris began to crumble. Here 37 people dropped. The plane, which went with him (Boeing), then went to the front. Then he went “like this” (shows the front hand) – went into the clouds, and a few seconds later there was an explosion. After that at Hrabovo, six kilometers away, a column of smoke rose up to the clouds.”

One plane, the passenger plane was not visible because it was in a cloud.

“There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].”

One plane, the sound of an explosion. Not cannon fire; a single explosion, indicating a single explosive device.

“There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …”

Not one, but two explosions in the air. This contradicts the witness above.This witness apparently saw the civilian plane, contradicting the witness who said it was in the clouds.

“… And there was another aircraft, a military one, besides it. Everybody saw it.”

One aircraft again, flying at the same altitude as the passenger jet

" It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.”

One jet flying below the passenger aircraft.

None of the witnesses agree on the most essential details of the incident. They contradict one another in terms of the number of jets, the number of explosions and even whether or not MH17 was visible! It gets better:

Before fleeing to Russia Evgeny Agapov was a mechanic at air base №A4465 (Nikolaev and Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, airfield Aviatorskoe village, about 250 km from the crash site). The witness is a citizen of Ukraine.

Agapov testified that July 17, 2014, three jets went into the air about an hour before MH17 crashed. One of the jets was equipped with two air-to-air missiles type R-60. This particular jet later returned to base without these missiles. The other two jets were shot down. Pilot of the Su-25, captain Vladislav Voloshin, was scared according to Agapov. “It was the wrong plane” (Самолет не тот), Voloshin said as he got out of his plane. Later flight director Dyakiv talked to captain Voloshin. Dyakiv asked: “What happened to the plane?” to which Voloshin replied: “The plane was in the wrong time and the wrong place.”

[Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Source for all the above quotations.

So, according to a Russian who supposedly worked at an air base, there were three planes, only one of which was armed with air to air missiles. How were the other two shot down? Was it the work of the rebels? The rebels don't have jets of their own, so who did it? Was it air support from Russia, or do the rebels have BUKs? In any event, the clear implication of this story is Voloshin shot down MH17 with his two R-60s. Somehow, this witness was able to hear the pilot muttering to himself on a noisy airstrip, and the pilot claimed it was a mis-identification; a mistake. How could he possibly have thought that a passenger plane approaching from the west was under rebel control?

So, if the rebels really did shoot down two other jets that day, and there really was an SU-25 in the same airspace as MH17, why does it seem so impossible to some people that the rebels took a shot at the fighter but hit the passenger plane instead?

a reply to: DJW001

Where do I say that? It is you who believes that it was 30mm cannon, even though the Russians themselves do not believe that theory. Here are what the eyewitnesses say:

What was said by the actual Russian government, exactly?

What does the blast pattern of BUK look like and where did it explode in relation to the plane?

We have discussed the 30mm cannon evidence, we hace discussed the air to air missile evidence, now I am trying to discuss the BUK evidence but it seems you are not up for that and are trying very hard to steer the discussion away from this.

So again I ask, what does the blast pattern of BUK look like and where did it explode in relation to the plane?

a reply to: DJW001

None of the witnesses agree on the most essential details of the incident. They contradict one another in terms of the number of jets, the number of explosions and even whether or not MH17 was visible! It gets better:

Yet they are talking about jets and not about obvious SAM missile launches and obvious BUK exhaust trails......

Eyewitness accounts often vary, the thing these got in common is that they are all talking about militairy jets in the vicinity of Mh17.

a reply to: DJW001

Before fleeing to Russia Evgeny Agapov was a mechanic at air base №A4465 (Nikolaev and Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, airfield Aviatorskoe village, about 250 km from the crash site). The witness is a citizen of Ukraine. Agapov testified that July 17, 2014, three jets went into the air about an hour before MH17 crashed. One of the jets was equipped with two air-to-air missiles type R-60. This particular jet later returned to base without these missiles. The other two jets were shot down. Pilot of the Su-25, captain Vladislav Voloshin, was scared according to Agapov. “It was the wrong plane” (Самолет не тот), Voloshin said as he got out of his plane. Later flight director Dyakiv talked to captain Voloshin. Dyakiv asked: “What happened to the plane?” to which Voloshin replied: “The plane was in the wrong time and the wrong place.”

So according to your source, 3 Ukranian militairy jets were in fact in the vicinity of MH17, one had 2 air to air missiles and returned without them, and two of them were shot down, and MH17 was shot down.......?

So any SAM exhaust trail could have been from those shoot downs. So what were the R-60's fired at?

a reply to: LesBrocknar

What was said by the actual Russian government, exactly?

Officially, that it would co-operate with the investigation. Meanwhile, the government controlled press spreads garbage like this:

What does the blast pattern of BUK look like and where did it explode in relation to the plane?

Obviously, as an explosive device that hurls shrapnel, it would send out an expanding cone of rods in the direction of the target. Logically, it would have detonated about fifty feet below and in front of the jet. Prove me wrong.

Expert opinions on the subject.

We have discussed the 30mm cannon evidence, we hace discussed the air to air missile evidence, now I am trying to discuss the BUK evidence but it seems you are not up for that and are trying very hard to steer the discussion away from this.

No, I have been focusing on the obvious flaws in your pet theory and you have been avoiding answering them by asking for information that cannot be obtained from open sources.

So again I ask, what does the blast pattern of BUK look like and where did it explode in relation to the plane?

And agin I reply: a cone, below and in front of the plane, hence the heavy damage to the cockpit. Now, where was your SU-25 located in relation to the plane. Remember, you have to take into account its performance capabilities, the location and grouping of the holes in the fuselage and the testimony of the witnesses.

Edit to add:

Remember this picture?



This damage patter was made by a similar, but smaller and less powerful device. Note that is is essentially circular, the expanding cone mapped onto the curved surface of the plane.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

So any SAM exhaust trail could have been from those shoot downs. So what were the R-60's fired at?

The other two SU-25s, perhaps. I'm pretty sure the story, like all the other "eyewitness accounts" is a fabrication, that's why they don't agree very well. The whole point was to generate doubt so the ultimate findings of the investigation can be rejected, whatever those findings are.

a reply to: DJW001

Officially, that it would co-operate with the investigation. Meanwhile, the government controlled press spreads garbage like this:

I thought you were suggesting that the Russian government didn't agree with me and that they think it was a BUK.

Anyway was this pic from an official government presentation?

Obviously, as an explosive device that hurls shrapnel, it would send out an expanding cone of rods in the direction of the target. Logically, it would have detonated about fifty feet below and in front of the jet. Prove me wrong.

Patience....

So in the case of MH17, the damage was due to an expanding ROD warhead, and not a fragmentation warhead with the square pieces of shrapnell?

So in the case of MH17, this BUK exploded fifty feet below and in front of the jet. Ok.

Which direction does the cone spread to? Does it radiate out from the centre of the missile at a 90 degree angle from its body in all directions?

And agin I reply: a cone, below and in front of the plane,

Lol....the first time you answered this was in the same post. So that doesn't work......

a reply to: DJW001

The other two SU-25s, perhaps. I'm pretty sure the story, like all the other "eyewitness accounts" is a fabrication,

The one Ukranian SU25, shot the other two Urananian SU25's.....?

If it is a fabrication why did you post it?

Did the BBC fabricate that interview with those eyewitnesses?

Is that why they removed it?

a reply to: LesBrocknar

The one Ukranian SU25, shot the other two Urananian SU25's.....?

Sure, why not? It makes just as much sense as performing impossible aerobatics to go out of the way to shoot down a passenger liner.

If it is a fabrication why did you post it?

To submit it to scrutiny. That's what critical reasoning does. Does this story hold up in your opinion? Why or why not?

Did the BBC fabricate that interview with those eyewitnesses?

No, but the eyewitnesses were briefed by the rebels on what to say.

Is that why they removed it?

Yes. Why do you think they removed it?

Su25's flying at 8700m, with missiles.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Why do you keep posting questions you know cannot be answered? I have no idea what sort of warhead the missile would have had or, indeed what make and model of missile it was. We have reports of there being BUK launch systems in the area. That is all I can tell you. Whether these were standard rockets or not is anyone's guess.

Now please explain why you refuse to consider the possibility that it was a ground launched missile and, why, assuming it was shot down by a plane, you believe it was a Ukrainian plane and not a Russian one?

a reply to: DJW001

Yes. Why do you think they removed it?

Why did they produce and broadcast it in the first place? Did they decide later that "the rebels instructed the eyewitnesses"(a baseless claim), or did they later realize it didn't fit the official narrative once that was completely established.

a reply to: DJW001

Now please explain why you refuse to consider the possibility that it was a ground launched missile and, why, assuming it was shot down by a plane, you believe it was a Ukrainian plane and not a Russian one?

What do you mean refuse to consider. I am attempting to collect evidence that shows itwas a BUK. In order to make an analysis I need to know these things about the BUK missile. This is the only way of establishing it.

Since you obviously don't know, you can't establish that it was a BUK.

Why an Ukranian plane? Because it happened in Ukranian airspace? Were Russian planes flying there? If they were then they are suspect too. Hell, maybe it was an American jet.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Don't expect others to do your research for you. Please keep us informed about all the operational capabilities of the BUK. I'm sure the Russian Army would be happy to provide you with all the specifics you require.