MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

a reply to: Zaphod58

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.

This is simply not true.

They are talking about "high energy objects penetrating the plane causing the loss of structural integrity causing in flight break up"

Nothing about an explosion causing an immediate break up.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, and is that the same as what he said?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not immediately. It also wouldn't break apart immediately.

No official source says it did. You are saying that it did. Why?

a reply to: TheHoneyPot

Right because shrapnel pieces just popped out of the cockpit and through the side of it by magic. There was no explosion to propel them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Right because shrapnel pieces just popped out of the cockpit and through the side of it by magic. There was no explosion to propel them.

That's not what I, or they said. They say the break up was caused by the structural damage caused by the high energy objects. Not that it was ripped apart by an explosive blast wave or immediate decompression.

According to the preliminary report there was an instantaneous decompression/explosion.

Not true.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Right because shrapnel pieces just popped out of the cockpit and through the side of it by magic. There was no explosion to propel them.

They are refering to high energy objects. They are not saying BUK warhead shrapnell. Also, I am not saying there wasn't an explosion to propell them, somewhere. The explosion itself didn't cause the damage though.

a reply to: TheHoneyPot

So the aircraft suffered major structural damage that didn't tear it apart immediately that somehow didn't decompress it, set of a single alarm, or alert any parameter that was recorded by the FDR, or make any noise that was recorded by the CVR.

Got it.

a reply to: TheHoneyPot

Then please, explain to us how there wasn't a single noise or parameter change until it ripped apart. You're such an expert it should be easy.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No need to get angry.

I am simply pointing out that your claims, and those made by others are assumptions that are not made by the investigators. This doesn't seem to stop you from claiming that those assumptions are being made by the official investigators in the report.

a reply to: TheHoneyPot

I'm not angry. I want to see your explanation for how the aircraft suffered enough structural damage to be torn apart, didn't get torn apart immediately, but didn't record a single sound or parameter change until it came apart.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So the aircraft suffered major structural damage that didn't tear it apart immediately

Quite possible, yes. Didn t you say that was possible a few pages back?

that somehow didn't decompress it

Didn't say that. Said that there wasn't an explosive decompression that ripped it apart.

set of a single alarm, or alert any parameter that was recorded by the FDR, or make any noise that was recorded by the CVR.

Could be due to various scenarios. Maybe the high energy objects caused damage to electronics. Since it is not claimed that it broke apart immediately, anywhere, this argument is moot when used to diffrentiate between a BUK or anyhing else.

a reply to: TheHoneyPot

So it damaged the electronics in a way that blocked the sound from the cockpit microphone, and made the FDR keep recording that everything was fine. Do you know how absurd that is? It would have had to damage them before anything hit the aircraft.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You're such an expert it should be easy.

I am not. I also see no claims refering to me, saying that I am.

What I am is someone who is qouting the official preliminairy report.

Most of what you are saying here cannot be found in it.

So you are making a lot of assumptions.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So it damaged the electronics in a way that blocked the sound from the cockpit microphone, and made the FDR keep recording that everything was fine.

Where do you get this notion? Qoute it please if you can.

The report claims both CVR and FDR stopped recording at the same time.

a reply to: TheHoneyPot

It also says there were no indications of trouble with the aircraft prior to them suddenly ending.

The cockpit voice recorder, the flight data recorder and data from air traffic control all suggest that flight MH17 proceeded as normal until 13:20:03 (UTC), after which it ended abruptly. A full listening of the communications among the crew members in the cockpit recorded on the cockpit voice recorder revealed no signs of any technical faults or an emergency situation. Neither were any warning tones heard in the cockpit that might have pointed to technical problems. The flight data recorder registered no aircraft system warnings, and aircraft engine parameters were consistent with normal operation during the flight. The radio communications with Ukrainian air traffic control confirm that no emergency call was made by the cockpit crew. The final calls by Ukrainian air traffic control made between 13.20:00 and 13.22:02 (UTC) remained unanswered.

www.onderzoeksraad.nl... l-cause-of-mh17-crash

a reply to: Zaphod58

It also says there were no indications of trouble with the aircraft prior to them suddenly ending.

Yes? Did I claim that there were?

Nothing to say about the false claim(one of the many) you just made?

a reply to: TheHoneyPot

So how is it that it suffered major structural damage that took time to tear it apart, without anything being recorded anywhere on the aircraft? It would have had to decompresst o suffer that much damage, which would have shown up on the recorders, unless it came apart at the time the recorders ended and they weren't able to record anything due to immediate power loss.

And you were the one that said that maybe the electronics were damaged. So how were they damaged that kept them recording everything was fine?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Of those "liveleak" videos, which all appeared to be the same, none were the one I saw last year. The one I saw was also out of focus, but not as bad as those you showed. Also, the airliner was much closer to the camera and more recognizable, and the aircraft was very clearly in a spiral type turn.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I had never heard of the story of a Russian 27 shooting down a Ukrainian 25 until here at ATS. I never caught that in the MSM or even at Global Research or RT, which I visit frequently.

IOW, I don't know if it's true or not--just read it hear a few days ago.

a reply to: TheHoneyPot

Have I missed a link to CVR or FDR? I missed a few days, but don't see the link right off.

Is the tape available from the CVR, or even a transcript?