MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

a reply to: dragonridr

I'll give you a couple of more hints too look at the wings and the air intakes.

Here is a hint right back at ya.

A four-fold reduction in thermal signature has been achieved through cooling intakes on the upper surface of aircraft, and a new center body which masks hot turbine blades. Only a few dozen of these aircraft have been built.

www.globalsecurity.org...

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Because the flight recorder doesn't show several seconds of decompression. It shows sudden and complete decompression.

a reply to: dragonridr

Do you really think cannon fire is going to cause a 777 to come apart? Do you have any clue just how big they are? Cannon fire short of causing engine damage isn't going to cause it to crash.

Yes, Zaphod and I happen to agree on that part.

Explosive decompression is and air resistance is what causes it to break up.

Do you think that in the case of a BUK, the plane is blown into pieces because of the explosion of its warhead?

The pilot would have several minutes at that altitude.

The pilots would be dead instantly.

But I'm still waiting on how the pilot and co pilot died I said several times now look at their photos and explain how cannon fire did that.

Explain how BUK shrapnell did that. The family of the pilot was not allowed to open his casket. Pics can be faked.

Next question I guess you believe those cannon rounds stopped inside their body?

Fragmentation round shrapnell is also possible.

Since missile shrapnel was found on the body. That was the statement from the Russian general I have to you. He read the report also.

Investigators suggest that metal fragments found in the bodies of the Boeing crash victims could be pieces of a missile that presumably struck the plane. The Ukrainian Security Service announces that the inquiry into the crash will be carried out in the course of the next year. Read more: sputniknews.com...

All it says is that metal fragments have been found. Could be anything. Could be an air to air missile.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Please, as soon as the cockpit is ripped open by cannon fire there is explosive decompression, their really is no significant time difference with a BUK.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: spy66

By policy, Russia saw to it that its former Soviet Republics and client states were always provided inferior equipment. Since Russia designed the avionics, they know exactly how to interfere with them. If NATO were taking the situation seriously, they would start a lend-lease program to provide them with modern aircraft.

DOnt think so. Even NATOS modern techology would have difficulties against the Russian Electric warefare. THis question was raised in Norway just last week when it comes to the F-35 we are set to buy. It looks like the Russian can deam the F-35 usless when it comes to its full capasity. This is what NATO service menn actually figured out just a few weeks ago.

The US are rotating in its F-22 to Europe now. People have raised questions if the F-22 will be as capable as we think it will be against Russian Electronic warefare. These are not my Words but Words from US service men operating inside Ukraine.

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Please, as soon as the cockpit is ripped open by cannon fire there is explosive decompression, their really is no significant time difference with a BUK.

Really then why do oxygen masks drop from the ceiling I mean why bother according to you the planes dead. You do realize aircraft have landed with huge wholes or even missing parts of the fuselage. There is enough time when that happens to drop altitude in fact it's on there flight manuals. The plane. Doesn't get torn apart by decompresion unless of course it had already sustained massive damage. You know like a buk missile flaming into it and causing the cockpit to fall off the plane like mh17.That explains it location on the ground as the cockpit was the first part to land in the 15 mile debri field. Which also wouldn't happen with cannon fire.

a reply to: dragonridr

Really then why do oxygen masks drop from the ceiling I mean why bother according to you the planes .

This is a stupid argument. We are talking about explosive decompression, I say because of cannon fire, you say because of a BUK. That argument either debunks us both, or neither of us.

The plane. Doesn't get torn apart by decompresion unless of course it had already sustained massive damage. You know like a buk missile flaming

Or cannon fire. Both are a hail of metal fragments causing massive damage. The explosion of the BUK itself doesn't do the damage, the shrapnell does.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Because that few seconds will be recorded. There will be the sound of bullets hitting, and decompression noise. According to the preliminary report there was an instantaneous decompression/explosion.

a reply to: Wasta

Except for the really minor fact that only Russia has Su-39s, and only a few of them.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

And ripping open the cockpit doesn't instantaneously stop the recorders.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

There's enough of a time difference that it world show up on the recorders.

a reply to: spy66

And you have quotes to back this up right?

a reply to: Zaphod58

At 50 rounds a sec. there is really no difference. I think 1 sec of cannon fire hurls more metal into a target then a Buk warhead in what is effectively the same time frame.

a reply to: LesBrocknar

And does less damage. Unless you hit an almost empty fuel tank with a tracer and cause an explosion aircraft hit with gun fire tend to catch fire first, and take time to come apart. Even if you kill the pilots at that point the plane is on autopilot so it would keep flying into aerodynamic stress tore it apart.

And in my previous quote I said a few seconds AT BEST. It could have flown on for several minutes before coming apart.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And ripping open the cockpit doesn't instantaneously stop the recorders.

Why did they stop in the case of a BUk?

a reply to: Zaphod58

And does less damage.

Why is that?



So what did the BUK do differently to cause it to desintegrate all of a sudden?

a reply to: LesBrocknar

Uh, because a gun shoots in a straight line at the same area it's pointed at. I would think that would be obvious.

Seriously? A gun that hits all in the same area as opposed to a missile that detonates and hits a large area? That's like saying stabbing someone with a paring knife is the same as hitting them with an axe.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The cannon has enough spread to distribute more metal across the entire cockpit in one second then a BUK blast, which due to its design can only put a portion of its shrapnell into the target. The rest blows into the other directions.

It's not like the cocckpit was cut from the plane, it was just full of holes.

Can you perhaps show a wreckage pic that shows damage that could not have been caused by a cannon salvo?

originally posted by: LesBrocknar
a reply to: Zaphod58

At 50 rounds a sec. there is really no difference. I think 1 sec of cannon fire hurls more metal into a target then a Buk warhead in what is effectively the same time frame.

Again your lack of physics is astounding. In any blast it's not the metal flying doing the damage it's the blast wave. The metal fragments from the buk did far less damage then the blast wave that bit the outside of the plane. You know the one that left the Scotch marks on the exterior of the plane. And those same marks from the blast wave that couldn't be reproduced by cannon fire.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: LesBrocknar

And does less damage. Unless you hit an almost empty fuel tank with a tracer and cause an explosion aircraft hit with gun fire tend to catch fire first, and take time to come apart. Even if you kill the pilots at that point the plane is on autopilot so it would keep flying into aerodynamic stress tore it apart.

And in my previous quote I said a few seconds AT BEST. It could have flown on for several minutes before coming apart.

A plane like a 777 it's to big to take down with a cannon odds are very good the pilot would have been able to land barring a very lucky shot in a fuel tank or shooting it's engines. Any combat pilot knows shooting the cockpit is useless. They would have taken out the engines. But then comes the problem this makes their attack obvious and the pilot would have known he was under attack. In any scenario involving cannons there is no instant destruction of the craft it's impossible.

And in any cannon fire scenario how could you explain the wreckage it's been ignores so far but it tells us alot. 15 miles of wreckage tells us it happened at altitude. The cockpit and the pilots landing first with the fuselage landing several miles away. This tells us the the cockpit was sheared off while momentum carried the rest of the craft forward. In other words something with a lot more force then bullets literally tore the cockpit off the plane. The argument individuals here are making for cannon fire is absurd and dilusional.