Rod from R-60 Air to Air Missile Warhead In MH17 Wreckage?

The black rod embedded in that piece of wreckage looks suspiciously like the tungsten rods inside the warheads of at least some R-60(mod62) air to air missiles.



It sure looks like a match.

edit, I am not sure that this pic is of the exact same missile, I am trying to verify this. (It is in Russian)


Full picture of the piece of wreckage.





A couple of holes that look like they are made by such a rod.




If an air to air missile was involved then that would change things.

a reply to: GregDecker

Could you provide a source link?

Thanks

a reply to: GregDecker

The problem with an R-60 is that it wouldn't have done a lot of damage, and would have hit the wing/engine area. When Korean 902 was shot down with an R-60, it lost four feet of wing, and suffered minor fuselage damage. It was able to fly on for 40 minutes, before making a successful landing on a frozen lake. That was a 707, a much smaller aircraft.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: GregDecker

Could you provide a source link?Thanks

evanesce-girl.livejournal.com...


translate.google.com.au... t=

There are some missiles that are programmed to fly alongside the aircraft and release an expanding chain of rods right behind the cockpit. The idea was to destroy all control of the aircraft. If this hit a passenger plane, it would depressurize the aircraft at the least. If it hit the avionics bay, that would cause all sorts of mayhem.

a reply to: stormcell

They use a proximity sensor to detonate. An Air to Air missile is going to track on either engines or center of the fuselage, where the biggest return is for the radar sensor. A Surface to Air Missile may detonate near the cockpit if fired from the front, or near the center of the fuselage if fired from another angle.

a reply to: Witness2008

Here's a link to the pic, made by Jeroen Akkermans.

www.flickr.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

The problem with an R-60

The problem that you need to discuss is the rod that is stuck in the wreckage.

Noone said that a R-60 alone brought down the plane. The topic is the rod.

a reply to: GregDecker

And it's amazingly convenient that the rod just happens to be laying in the open, with nothing else around it, on something white, that makes it stand out, after falling as far as it did before hitting the ground.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You can clearly see it is bent and embedded in there.

a reply to: GregDecker

I've looked at it, and at the link above, and it doesn't look embedded to me. It looks like it MIGHT have snagged on the insulation, but even if it was embedded, that piece had to have hit hard when it landed. Certainly hard enough to have dislodged a piece of metal. But it was almost perfectly framed for pictures.

a reply to: Zaphod58

But it was almost perfectly framed for pictures.

Because you are looking at a close up. Oh, you were looking at the link. Off course you are going to say that, because it shows up in a pic....

And it is jammed in there at the bottom.

a reply to: GregDecker

I was looking at the original too. It still doesn't look embedded in anything but the insulation it's laying on. It just jumps right out in the original, where it's not zoomed in, because it just happens to be laying perfectly on a piece of white insulation, that just makes it pop.

originally posted by: GregDecker
The problem that you need to discuss is the rod that is stuck in the wreckage.

The pictures in this thread just shows a rod on some insulation, where is the picture of a rod stuck in the fuselage?

a reply to: hellobruce

What about the pics of the holes that look like they were made with such a rod?

Also, I said embedded in wreckage.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: GregDecker

And it's amazingly convenient that the rod just happens to be laying in the open, with nothing else around it, on something white, that makes it stand out, after falling as far as it did before hitting the ground.

It is also very convenient for you to say that.

Sooo, to someone who hasnt got a clue, wht the hell are you guys talking about?

a reply to: yulka

The metal rod in the first pic of my op might have come from an air to air missile, which are fired by a jet fighter. If a jet fighter fired them at MH17, then that would mean that we are being lied too.

Not that we ever aren't.

Anything to add Zaphod?

a reply to: GregDecker

So saying what it looks like is convenient for me. Got it.

a reply to: GregDecker

Yeah, there is no air to air missile that would have torn this plane apart as fast as it was. If it wasn't torn apart almost immediately the recorders would have detected it, and according to the preliminary report, they didn't detect anything. No other aircraft in the vicinity reported any other aircraft in the area, no traffic calls were made about unknown aircraft to any of the other aircraft in the area, etc.

But wait, I thought we weren't supposed to be discussing if an R-60 was used, only the rod in the debris.