MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

originally posted by: Wasta
a reply to: Zaphod58

I said, a buk, any buk can discussed later.

After one year of research and investigation , the highest authority, our safety board (somewhat similar as NIST is the usa) came to one finally conclusion to be seen at 19 minutes and 57 seconds;

www.youtube.com...

No buk is mentioned in the final conclusion of our NIST, called safety-board,

The conclusion of our highest authority is subtitled, watch from 19 minutes and 57 seconds.

I want a explanation of the 30mm bulletholes, directly shot at the captain's seat.

I guess you have missed that part....

Buk can be discussed later, so can be other discussions debated, for now is everything else just distraction.

That wasn't a report they did do a preliminary report later confirming it was a missile strike. And the final report will be soon. As for the explanation of bullet holes simple there wasn't any read the report. Apparently RT didn't cover that they seem to forget to mention things in there reports.

a reply to: Wasta

That was a bunch of opinions. The final report with cause won't come out until October.

An expanding rod warhead will leave holes that look like bullet holes. The missile was fired as the aircraft approached the missile battery, so it was going to donate near the cockpit.

One thing that's overlooked is that the gun on an Su-25 is optimized for ground attack. It doesn't work well at all in air to air.

As for the ceiling, not Wikipedia, Sukhoi. You know, the ones that make them?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Until Oktober? What kind of source came with that story?

The cause of the disaster will stay a secret.
If they could point to Russia or rebels, they would point their finger.
But we are the guilty one , so we made sure not to have to point out our finger for who is to blame and guilty.

www.google.nl... 1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..1.9.690.0.GWLTIVCJGuU

Still no answer about the 30mm holes, but as I said earlier , you are free to believe to see damage that a buk-missile has made.

But no report will be disclosed, the real cause of this disaster has to stay a secret.
The reason why, is obvious.
We, the west are guilty, we are to blame, we, our people we installed shot MH-17 down.

I am Dutch, not a traitor, but against false allegations against Russia and for the truth.
But the truth will never come out, never be revealed.

If Russia or rebels were to blame, we would gladly say so.
But that is not the case.
We are guilty, that;s why we have to keep the truth from the public.

www.google.nl... 1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..1.9.690.0.GWLTIVCJGuU

But are you serious when you say, those are not 30 mm bullets, but the damage of a buk?

And your statement that those guns are not suited for air to air combat, but made for groud targets, goes for every gun on every plane.
For a A-10 thunderbold is that the case, but likewise for a vulcan gun in a f-16.
A f-16 uses it's gun for ground objects too, not in dogfights.

But you are free to see the damage a buk has made, even the scratch on the wing comes from a buk in your eyes.
I see 30mm bulletholes.

I worked at a shooting-facillety for fighter-planes at the ""Vliehors"" on the ile of Vlieland in the north of the Netherlands.
I had my training over there to call in close air-support from f-16's stationed at airbase ""Leeuwarden"".

But let me be stupid here, before my lips become to lose.

I don't know you. You could be a spy or at least try to let me say something I would regret later.

In my line of work, we are watched for decades after we leave the military.

You may see the damage from a buk, that is your freedom of choice.
But I am free to disagree and see 30mm bullets.

I can even see that those 30 mm bullets came from a QRA plane, because they are loaded with 3 types of 30mm bullets, because they do not know what they will encounter.

We clearly disagree and I suggest we leave it with that.

I do not even want to know why you think the outcome has to stay a secret and do not expect from you to have a answer for that.

You may think about this;
www.google.nl... 1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..1.9.690.0.GWLTIVCJGuU

But I am not interested in the reason why you think the outcome of the research has to stay a secret.

We disagree and that's fine, but let's leave it with that.

Regards...

a reply to: Wasta

If your such an expert you would know the su25 doesn't have rather ring radar and the guns are set up for ground attack. This means to even get a shot would have to be within 2 kilometers and eve then take an extrodinary pilot to pull that off. But then comes the big problem su 25 armed couldn't hope to get near the plane. Even if by chance he did there is no way he could destroy the aircraft with a 30mm cannon without the pilot having time to report it and take evasive maneuvers. In an su 25 even a mediocre pilot could have avoided it quickly.

In short the whole idea is silly oh and the report that Russia out out showing the aircraft was proved wrong by the black box. Russia claimed there was a course correction to avoid the craft I assume. Because like I said pilot would have time to react. Only problem radar data and the black box confirmed Russia lied.

a reply to: Wasta

You have no idea what you're talking about with the guns. The gun of the A-10 and Su-25 were designed for ground attack. The gun on a fighter was designed to shoot at other aircraft, with a ground attack capability. The computer can target ground or air targets in those cases but it was designed to shoot other aircraft.

news.xinhuanet.com...

sputniknews.com...

m.rbth.com...

So once again everyone is lying, including the manufacturer of the missile system. But you know what's right.

a reply to: Wasta

The simple answer is that those aren't holes from a 30mm cannon. They're easy too small. This is what 30mm cannon damage looks like.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Wasta

The simple answer is that those aren't holes from a 30mm cannon. They're easy too small. This is what 30mm cannon damage looks like.

That's what damage to heavy armor looks like. 30mm shells would shred aircraft aluminum like paper.

a reply to: Wasta

Good post. For those of us who are independent thinkers, it is already certain that the story told about the BUK is false. For those of us independent thinkers who have been following this from the beginning and saw all the pictures at first, it's clear the airliner took a bunch of cannon fire, right in the cockpit area, with one round creasing the top surface of the outboard section of the left wing. Plain as day.

Whether it was a 25 or a 27 really doesn't matter much. It's possible the Russian radar was spoofed in a way they thought it was a 25 when it was actually a 27. Spoofing radar is very easy. Updated and modified 25 can do the mission, and several pilots are on record saying they have flown the aircraft well above Wikipedia numbers for altitude.

This was a false flag intended to blame the Russians, and all the secrecy during the last year proves that.

If the west could prove the BUK theory, they would have done it quickly. They have not because they cannot.

a reply to: Salander

And Almaz-Antey is too stupid to see it, or Russia is in on it. You have yet to explain how they were so completely fooled that they didn't recognize and identify your 30mm cannon holes.

Oh wait, they're not independent thinkers, right?


Radar isn't spoofed to tell a different type of plane. If there had been a plane there all they would have seen was a dot on a screen. Russia claimed that a plane showed up on a radar that was in stand by, which means not transmitting, only appeared after MH17 was destroyed, and stayed on the screen the exact same amount of time the wreckage took to fall to the ground.

Yep, that sounds like they picked up something to me.

Maybe while you're at it you can explain how ab expanding rod warhead is not going to leave holes that look like cannon holes, and only a 30mm gun could have left them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You must be reading different stories and seeing different pictures than I was seeing last year. But I must admit I do read Chossudovsky's website. Heck, I'm almost finished with a book of his. What does that make me?

Radar can be spoofed in any number of ways, but the Russians reported, and turned over the tapes, that 2 targets which they perceived as 25 were climbing towards the airliner. Peasants on the ground reported military aircraft in the area.

The secrecy shown by the NATO side means something. If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding so much?

Pardon the pun, but it's not rocket science. Humans hide things for a number of reasons, and finding the truth is not one of them.

a reply to: Salander

The radar they claimed they were using was in standby. It couldn't have seen MH17 if it flew right over the antenna, let alone anything else.

Radar of that type doesn't identify types without a transponder. Russia claimed it was an Su-25 and has never deviated from that.

Witnesses also claimed they could see a fighter sized object, at 30,000 feet flying within feet of MH17. It would have been hard enough to see a 777 sized object at that height let alone a fighter.

You still have to explain how Almaz-Antey was so completely fooled they looked at the same pictures and completely missed that those were 30mm holes that would prove Russia wasn't involved, and hasn't said anything, and in fact said it was one of their missiles.

Are they stupid, or what?

The silence is because the investigation hasn't been completed. Do you announce every detail of a murder investigation as it is happening? Apparently in your world they do.

a reply to: Salander

So then why has Russia's story kept changing? Why do they keep putting forward false information and hoaxes to support these ever-changing theories? Do those sound like the actions of an innocent party?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I sure do know.
The gun of a A-10 as well of The su-25 are made for ground-objects, because they can penetrate any tank with ease.
A frogfoot and a A-10 Fairchild Thunderbold are both tank-busters.

The 6 barrel, 20mm vulcan machine-gun in a f-16 is fixed.
It's NOT like in a Apache, look at the target and the gun will point automatically to the target too. A f-16 pilot has to line up his whole plane, to get the enemy in it's cross-hairs.

Air to air missiles can be launched from great distance, before the enemy comes visually in sight.

When we practiced a dogfight with the machine-gun from a f-16 we used photographs.
So the pilots only knew who shot who first, after the photographs were developed.

I am talking about the '80's.

So the fixed machinegun of the f-16 is better suited for air to air combat.
The f-16 is not a tankbuster is it has the vulcan 20mm gatling gun.
Some upgraded f-16's have a 30mm gun, and those 30mm bullets can be used against battle-tanks.

Any pilot will use it's sparrow rockets first.
When they are in a dogfight, the will use their sidewinders, because they can lock on the target even when the plane is not aligned to the target. In other words they can be used the sidewinder can be launched even if the f-16 is not in a strait line behind the plane of the enemy.
The 20 mm vulcan 6 barrel gatling gun, can only be used if the fixed position of the gun is in a strait line with the plane of the enemy.

The 20 mm canon is a last resort.
A sparrow or sidewinder is far more effective and can be used from greater distance.
To use the gun, you have to be close and if possible right behind the plane of the enemy.

But it is clear that nobody will sit still, asking to be shot like a sitting duck,
Any pilot with a enemy on it's tail, will make agile moves, preventing the plane behind him will line up in a strait line, so he can uses his fixed 20 mm vulcan gatling-gun.

Besides that a f-16 is a bad plane for dogfights.
It has shortcomings, but those are classified.

When we played wargames we used the Panavia Tornado to play the Russians, and used our f-16 to defend our country. It became painfully clear that the Tornado sliced , more often then not, right through our defenses of the f-16

The operational hight of a su-25 frogfoot is 14 kilometers and 600 meters as stated in the pilots lexicon.
That the operational hight of 14600 meters is changed in a maximum of 14600 meters and even added that those heights were accomplished in a test, is only info in the advantage of the su-25/ the Russians.
The Russians ain't going to say""Oh no, our SU-25 can fly continuously at 14.600 meters as a operational height.
When the west thinks that 14600 meters is only achieved in a test, that will only be is the advantage of the Russians.

I already gave my sources, the German flight-lexicon, where the altitude of 14600 meters is mentioned as ""Dienstgibthöhe""

And about the seize of the bullet-holes, if they were 30mm or 20mm is just a minor detail.
The point is that the damage is made by aircraft fire, not made by a buk.

Accordingly we can say that no Russian plane would come in Ukraine airspace , so the Russians could not have shot MH-17 down, and the rebels do not have fighter-jets, so they are not responsible either.

Leaving just one option over, the Ukraine air-force itself.

If any buk system was stolen, by rebels from the Ukraine , does not mean a thing.
It takes Highly skilled personal to be able to launch a buk missile.

a reply to: Wasta

You know, it's not even worth refuting your post. It's getting way off topic and has so much wrong it's not funny. .

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Wasta

You know, it's not even worth refuting your post. It's getting way off topic and has so much wrong it's not funny. .

Could you imagine the angle of attack an su 25 pilot would have had to make to hit a jet 11000 ft above it. He would have stalled the aircraft. Then there is the Gsh-30-2 cannon fires a round which travels at only 2800 feet per second,making it impossible to line up the aircraft and hit it do to how quickly the bullets will arc. what I find funny is all the aircraft Ukraine had available to them Russia claims it was an su 25. Not something designed to do the job like a mig 24.The aircraft had no chance of intercept from behind a 777 way to slow. Can't get near the altitude even with are expert friend here thinking it's a secret on what are the capabilities of a frogfoot. Even in Afghanistan there ceiling became a huge problem severely hurting there combat abilty. They couldn't even fly over certain mountain ranges loaded couldn't get the altitude. Or provide ground support in many areas.


Now even the Russian demonstration showed it wasn't cannon fire. Two things first being entry a nice round hole. Next look at the exit another nice round hole. We see on the mh17 even if we happen to get a round hole out the back was a huge gash on the other. None of the holes are a standard size like the Russian video all look the same. Bullets don't scrape across the air frame like we see on mh17 they punch through it. For being this expert he's showing little understanding of physics and aircraft.

There is no way a 777 would be taken down by cannon fire from an su25 unless they killed the engine just not enough rounds to take out a plane that big. Because the 777 pilot was at cruising and could easily have fled leaving the so pilot holding his stick.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

A su-25 loads 3 kinds of ammo, type 1 , type 2, type 3, 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3.
Just like a tank.
A tank has not only HE shells (high explosive) but other ammo depending what target has to destroyed,
A ordinary soldier has even his lighttrail, coppercoated lead and fmj, so three kinds of ammo too

That's why there different kind of holes of different sizes to be found in MH-17

I am sorry for you if your eyes can't see bulletholes, to me these holes look round to me;

www.shoutwiki.com... _bullet_holes.png

If other people declare me crazy and see damage made by a buk, I can only say that they are free to see what they want to see. They can even say that these holes are rectangular , but to me these holes seem round.
They can be rectangular and not round and in that case, I am the one who needs glasses. But I am satisfied with my eyes and told many times now, you are free to see what ever you want to see.
If you refuse to see bulletholes, that's your freedom.
To me the holes look like bulletholes.

www.shoutwiki.com... _bullet_holes.png

Watching closely I see 2 different sizes of bullet-holes, but if yoy don't see round bulletholes and stay with buk-damage, this discussion is going nowhere.

I see round holes and you see damage made by a bukmissile.
So we disagree, no big deal.
We are all in title of our own opinion.

I can not change your mind and convince you that these holes are made by bullets and you can not convince me that this is clearly damage made by a buk-missile.

We disagree and going in circles now.

We disagree and let's leave it with that, continuing this nonsense is a waste of time.

Or to satisfy you, indeed, they are not round holes and could not be made by bullets, I do not see two different sizes of bullet-holes, but clearly damage made by a buk.
Satisfied now?

www.shoutwiki.com... _bullet_holes.png

Don't answer...

a reply to: Wasta

A su-25 loads 3 kinds of ammo, type 1 , type 2, type 3, 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3.
Just like a tank.

And just like a tank it is impossible for it to reach the height with any type of armament that would bring that plane down.

So it can carry whatever ammo it want's...it still won't bring a commercial plane down at 33000 ft.

Ukrainian attack plane could not down the Malaysian flight MH-17: Chief designer of Su-25 denies Russian propaganda

General Designer of Su-25 Vladimir Babak denies Russian propaganda theory of the flight MH-17 crash. He says that the Su-25 could not bring down a Boeing 777, which was flying at an altitude of 10,500 meters.

This is reported by Censor.NET citing Deutsche Welle.

President of research and production concern "Sukhoi Attack Aircraft", chief designer of the Su-25 Vladimir Babak denies that the Malaysian Boeing could have been hit by this attack aircraft. He stated this in an interview with German NDR, WDR, and Süddeutsche Zeitung, published on Tuesday, March 10.

The designer admitted that the aircraft can briefly rise to high altitudes, but in order to destroy the Boeing, which at the time of the disaster broke apart in the air, the Su-25 would have to be armed with heavy missiles. Babak noted that air-to-air missiles could only damage the Malaysian aircraft, but could not lead to what had happened.

en.censor.net.ua...
You should probably do yourself a favor and do some research other than Russian media.

a reply to: Wasta

If any buk system was stolen, by rebels from the Ukraine , does not mean a thing.
It takes Highly skilled personal to be able to launch a buk missile.

WHy does it not mean a thing when they admitted to having one operating in the area when MH 17 was shot down?

www.reuters.com...

And it doesn't take a highly skilled person to fire a BUK missile when they only use part of the battery.

The Buk-M1 (SA-11 Gadfly to NATO) can be used by minimally trained operators to deliver a lethal attack, without the safeguards built into other comparable GBADS, an Aviation Week analysis shows. It is also one of the two GBADS — both of Soviet origin — that are most widely distributed in conflict zones with the potential for large-scale, cross-border or civil violence.

This feature may have been a crucial factor in the destruction of MH17. The Fire Dome radar’s main job was to permit simultaneous engagement of more targets – one per Telar – under control of the battery’s 9S18M Snow Drift. But the Soviet military and the designers installed a set of backup modes that would permit the Telars to detect and attack targets autonomously, in the event the Snow Drift was shut down or destroyed by NATO’s rapidly improving anti-radar missiles.

aviationweek.com...

Maybe a bit of research would have helped you out, as you would have seen your wrong on pretty much all accounts.

The BUK can be fired with minimal training, and the SU 25 would have to pull off the impossible to shoot this plane down.

Google is your friend...try it sometime.

Su25 30mm cannon test.







*What are the smaller holes?





www.youtube.com...


That 30mm cannon damage sure does resemble the damage on the MH17 piece.


And if anyone can tell me, at what position did the BUK explode in relation to the plane? Above, below, to the left or right or dead on?