MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

a reply to: DJW001

With that crease across the top of the left wing, somebody got some lead into BEFORE it crashed.

a reply to: Salander

You realize that an expanding rod warhead throws shrapnel to the side too. A missile coming from the front at an angle would throw shrapnel towards the wing as well as the cockpit and fuselage.

a reply to: Salander

I'm not ignoring it, but you're ignoring a lot of factors, such as a lack of impacts on the recorders, air to air missiles would hit either engines or fuselage, not cockpit, and even a combination of the two would take a miracle shot to cause a plane that size to explode.

There was an eyewitness on the airfield that claimed to have worked there for years that distinctly said three Su-25s took off, one came back and that pilot made comments that he fired on MH17. Do you think he knows the difference?

a reply to: Salander

As I have posted several times here, the case that it MUST HAVE BEEN a 25 has not been made.

I guess you haven't seen this...

Russia and its separatist allies withheld vital facts on MH17 because a Russian plane downed the Kiev (Israeli armed according to RT) Sukhoi 25 that shot down the airliner.

www.veteranstoday.com...

That it was a stock, older model under-powered 25 has not been made. NO case has been made to the type aircraft. The Russians said it was a flight of 25s climbing, but it's entirely possible they were wrong or their radar had been spoofed.

It can be a newer one...they still won't do what you think it could...and before you say something about an SU 39 remember Ukraine has none.

How do you think all this debate about the SU 25 came about...Russia was the only ones saying the SU 25 was responsible, and even got caught changing the wiki page to help legitimize their claims.

Nobody spoofed anyone's radar, in fact they asked the US for this and was turned downed because the US doesn't fully trust some in the Ukraine military.

www.thedailybeast.com...

Because the US version is that no aircraft were involved, I say why not a 27?

Well there is an interesting thing about that...why wouldn't Russia have said there was an SU 27 that did this, and not say it was an SU 25?

I bet they know the difference.

No case on aircraft type has been made, and no case for the BUK has been made. Sadly for the US version, the cockpit was shot up by cannon fire. One must follow the facts.

Really because Russia has been pushing the SU 25 theory since the beginning, and Russia's own expert on the BUK said it was a BUK that brought the plane down...so I guess the case has been made for both by Russia...imagine that.

Edit: A question for you or anybody else: what is the nearest air base to the shoot down point from which fighter aircraft could be launched? I do not know the answer, but maybe you do.

Here is a question for you...

How did Ukraine get an SU 27 that far into separatist held territory without being shot down...remember Ukraine hasn't had a good track record when it comes to planes over separatist land.

So it really doesn't make a difference where the base is, because MH 17 was well into the rebels territory when shot down heading towards Russia...Ukraine would have never been able to get a plane that deep without being noticed.

a reply to: Salander

And the closer the better, if one were flying a 25 lightly fueled with minimal weapons load, including cannon ammo.

So how does that happen when the SU 25 would stall when using the cannons at that height...if they even came close to that height they surely wouldn't have a cannon they could use.

It could be done, depending upon resources.

No it can't...no matter what resources you use.

Anything less than making the plane lighter ( and by that I mean no weapons whatsoever ), and changing the engines will allow this plane to get that altitude.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You realize that an expanding rod warhead throws shrapnel to the side too. A missile coming from the front at an angle would throw shrapnel towards the wing as well as the cockpit and fuselage.

Here you go a nice illustration about that...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Thank you for the links to VT--I had not read that angle before.

Exactly who did it and why, with exactly which aircraft, I don't know and can only speculate. That a Russian 27 shot down a Ukrainian 25 after it had taken down the Boeing is interesting, and as far as I'm concerned completely possible.

All I feel comfortable about is that for the US it was a major propaganda push, and that the Boeing was strafed with cannon fire. I have long felt, after the amateur video I saw early on, that one engine took a heat seeker.

I would not be at all surprised if there were an Israeli link to all this.

a reply to: Salander

Except that video was from a month prior.

a reply to: Zaphod58

What video was from a month prior?

a reply to: Salander

The video claiming to show MH17 with an engine on fire. It was a Ukrainian Air Force aircraft shot down in June that got recycled as MH17. It was hit in one engine and eventually crashed.

a reply to: Salander

I would not be at all surprised if there were an Israeli link to all this.

AndI am not the least bit surprised that you feel that way.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Anything is possible of course, but the in the video I saw the aircraft did not appear to be military. Though out of focus, it was a white aircraft looking very much like a Boeing.

a reply to: Salander

And not all military planes look military. It was an AN-30 or AN-26, which from a distance can look like something else.

www.liveleak.com...

This is the one usually used as an MH17 video.

www.liveleak.com...

This is one claiming to be MH17



The only video of MH17 that came out showed just at or just after impact of the wreckage, where all you could see was a smoke cloud and fireball.

a reply to: Salander

That a Russian 27 shot down a Ukrainian 25 after it had taken down the Boeing is interesting, and as far as I'm concerned completely possible.

And yet we have no report of the SU 25 crash site, missing pilot, crash site, or missing plane...why is that?

Seems that would make news everywhere and support Russia's claims, but yet nothing...very telling indeed.

Meaning it never happened in reality, but definitely happened in the Russian media and it's parrots.

All I feel comfortable about is that for the US it was a major propaganda push, and that the Boeing was strafed with cannon fire. I have long felt, after the amateur video I saw early on, that one engine took a heat seeker.

Just out of curiosity what was the SU 25 using in regards to weapons that could bring down a 777 without the pilots radioing in they had been shot in the engine?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Just out of curiosity what was the SU 25 using in regards to weapons that could bring down a 777 without the pilots radioing in they had been shot in the engine?

Or showing up on the black box. 30mm cannon fire is not going to cause a 777 to completely break apart in under a second. An R60 is not going to blow a 777 to pieces. Yet the black box shows instantaneous and complete decompression.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Zaphod58

Anything is possible of course, but the in the video I saw the aircraft did not appear to be military. Though out of focus, it was a white aircraft looking very much like a Boeing.

Ukraine transports are white. So the color me and nothing. And you don't identify planes by there color.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Or showing up on the black box. 30mm cannon fire is not going to cause a 777 to completely break apart in under a second. An R60 is not going to blow a 777 to pieces. Yet the black box shows instantaneous and complete decompression.

Can you provide an official source that says it "completely broke apart in under a second", and that "the black box shows instanteneous and complete decompression"?


All the official investigation team says in the preliminairy report is that everything was normal "until data recording stopped abruptly"

www.onderzoeksraad.nl...

Not a word about decompression or breaking apart in one second.

So where did you get that?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Just out of curiosity what was the SU 25 using in regards to weapons that could bring down a 777 without the pilots radioing in they had been shot in the engine?

Without engines it would go down right? What if the pilots were already dead because of cannon fire?

a reply to: TheHoneyPot

At 13:19:56 the crew responded normally to air traffic controls instructions to proceed direct RND due to traffic. At 13:20:00 air traffic control passed on instructions to the waypoint and got no response. Both recorders ended at 13:20:03.

a reply to: TheHoneyPot

Not immediately. It also wouldn't break apart immediately. And again it would show up on the recorder whether the crew was dead or not. There were no alarms or indications of problems when the recorders stopped.