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

a reply to: masqua

This particular "exercise in futility" got me reading and catching up on this whole matter. I did not pay much attention to it over the many months since it happened. I take breaks from all the ugliness in the world, kinda like rebooting my brain and heart on occasion so I can see more clearly.

With that said....I see not one iota of evidence that a surface to air missile took out the flight, but have found a great deal of circumstantial, and hard evidence that the weapon that was used on MH 17 could only have come from an su25. The plane obviously took cannon fire at the cock pit. Many witnesses described the jet and one knew what he was looking at was an su25.

MH 17 was diverted over a war zone by Kiev, and Kiev has been in charge of the investigation. Bit of a conflict there. The only international eyes that have been on this matter had to examine the evidence on a computer screen. The MH 17 crash site is the least visited of any crash site in recent history. Hell, most of the plane is still laying as it fell.

How in the world can any member here swallow this OS, na, it's more like a steaming pile of horse S#%$. My goodness.

a reply to: Witness2008

First off, the flight wasn't diverted anywhere. It was planned from the start to fly over Donetsk, and had flown that exact route for the previous 10 or 12 flights safely.

Second, no air to air missile would cause an aircraft that size to explode, not even with a cannon being involved. A surface to air missile on the other hand, would.

Third, Almaz-Antey, who makes the BUK system had this to say:

Russia's air defense systems manufacturer Almaz-Antey presented its report on the 2014 flight MH17 disaster at a press conference on Tuesday.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was downed by a Buk 9М38-М1 guided missile fired from Ukrainian military-controlled territory, engineers from the Russian Almaz-Antey corporation said in a press conference presenting their report on Tuesday.

sputniknews.com...

Fourth, there was quite a bit of relevant debris that was removed by the Dutch investigators. They don't need every piece of it to investigate. They analyzed it in place and found the relevant pieces that they needed to look at in more detail, and removed them as well as the remains of the passengers.

a reply to: Witness2008

Ive stated previously where th e shrapnel hit on th e triple 7. it detonated near enough to the engine on th eleft side and fusealage that some of it even struck the cocpit leaving the holes near th e pilots window. Seeing as how it caught the fuel on fire as well its no wonder why the airplane blew up.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Oh ya, Almaz Antey, read about them yesterday. I'm not so sure that I will put too much into their report given the fact that they are now and have been appealing the EU sanctions placed them. That is just a little too murky at the moment.

Your link also provides other stories that question the wisdom of laying blame so easily.

a reply to: yuppa

How in the world would you know all of that very particular detail? Conjecture? Speculation? Wild guessing.

Not getting on the Gerbil wheels that I can see being lined up for me.

a reply to: Witness2008

Regardless of whether you believe them or not, an air to air attack on MH17 doesn't fit. No other aircraft in the area saw any other aircraft nearby, no other aircraft were reported on radar nearby, until right when the aircraft was destroyed and multiple radar returns appeared from the various debris pieces. Without even getting into whether a ground attack aircraft could even pull this off to begin with.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: yuppa

How in the world would you know all of that very particular detail? Conjecture? Speculation? Wild guessing.

Not getting on the Gerbil wheels that I can see being lined up for me.

Expert opinion i read abut it maybe?

a reply to: GregDecker

The BUK is a launch platform. It launches, among other possible missiles, the 9M38. The 9M38 can be fitted with one of two warheads. A fragmentation one and a continuous rod one. Now add far as I can tell there is no difference between a continuous rod warhead and an expanding rod warhead. Either way they both employ rods and lay time I checked the weren't too many variants in ways to make rods.

That said I did read that the 9M38 used a steel rod as opposed to a tungsten rod. As others who have worked with tungsten before have pointed out, tungsten will break before it bends. Steel not so much. So if that is a rod from a warhead in the picture it is more likely made from steel this spring the BUK theory.

a reply to: Zaphod58

www.rt.com...
www.sott.net...

And then there are the eyewitnesses.

a reply to: masqua

Because one is enough to sow doubt, which is the entire purpose of this exercise in futility.

What is that supposed to mean?

Oh Dear....forgot about the web site bans.

a reply to: GregDecker

It means that, in my opinion, the tungsten rod lying on some insulation does not indicate (to me) an air to air missile was used to shoot down MH17. My take is that it was placed there within the fragment after the pieces of MH17 were on the ground (if it is even a piece of the plane).

That is my personal opinion on this exercise in sowing doubt on how the flight was shot down.

Flight path information. Looks like there may have been a bit of a diversion.
www.zerohedge.com...

Interesting take on the whole matter.
fortruss.blogspot.com...

What additionally makes everything very murky is that the flight path was changed in two exceptional ways. First of all, Malaysian Airlines confirms that the pilot was instructed to fly at a lower altitude by the Kiev air traffic control tower. Second, the evidence confirms that the flight path on July 17th was NOT the usual approved flight path. It had been changed. The change was not ordered by Eurocontrol. So, who was behind this changed flight path which spearheaded the aircraft into the war zone, resulting in 298 deaths? Until the tapes of Kiev flight control is released, we will not know this, if they will be ever released, says Iiskola.

a reply to: masqua

What are you refering to with "this excercise"?

a reply to: GregDecker

I'm referring to this entire thread and the purported evidence that MH17 was shot down by an air to air missile.

Purely an attempt to 'create' evidence, imho.

Edited to add: Is it OK for me to express a personal opinion?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Since you refuse to post any evidence, let me.

Your BUK either has these pieces of shrapnell,





The middle piece of sharpnell




Or it has a setup like this, with rods that are attached to one and other and cut the plane in half, concentrated in one line.




Now did rods do this?




Or did one of the three types of shrapnell from the other model do that?

a reply to: masqua

Yes. Is it ok for me to try and establish if I am being accused of insincerety and malevolent intent?

a reply to: GregDecker

I'm expressing my personal opinion on your opinion.

Is that fair enough for you?

Please continue with your thoughts on the demise of MH17 and its hundreds of people killed for nothing.

a reply to: GregDecker

I have been able to come to at least one conclusion as a result of this thread. Thanks

I know very little about the missile shrapnel in question, so my opinion matters little. But at this point I can say that you are barking up the right tree.

a reply to: Witness2008

Seems to me that you are coming on a bit strong for such a simple question.

Not strong...just trying to prove that there is no way they could have seen a military jet flying that high and been able to identify the paint scheme on it, or even see it shoot down a civilian airliner at that height.

If you can't answer the question, then why respond?

And I seriously doubt they saw another military jet from Ukraine and it not get shot down that far into separatist held territory, especially if they are low enough to see the detail they said they saw.

There's your answer...