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

a reply to: masqua

Purely an attempt to 'create' evidence, imho.

Couldn't agree more.

a reply to: masqua

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

And what is this supposed to mean? Are you really trying to suggest here that I am being disrespectful to the dead or something, by not swallowing the official story?

I think I have a more direct relation to the victims, than you have.

a reply to: Witness2008

That information is wrong.

Every flight from July 8th to July 17th passed over Donetsk, using data from Flightradar24.com. The data from flightaware was off, because they don't have any receivers in the Ukraine, so it appeared that they had avoided the Donetsk region, when in reality they had been flying over it every day on that route. So had many other airlines and flights. Flightaware estimates position in areas they don't have receivers, and basically draws a straight line from one waypoint to another to predict courses.

Malaysia's transport minister, Liow Tiong Lai, said on Friday that MH17 was following "the right route on the right path", as he fielded a barrage of questions from local and foreign reporters as to why the Malaysia Airlines flight passed over a warzone.

The jet was flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on Thursday when it was blown apart and fell in a shower of fiery wreckage over the village of Grabovo near the Ukraine-Russia border.

"European airlines also use the same route and traverse the same airspace. In the hours before the incident, a number of other passenger aircraft from different carriers used the same route," Liow told a press conference. He said there had been "no last-minute instructions" given to the pilots to change the route.

Malaysia Airlines said the flight plan had been approved by Eurocontrol, which designates routes in European airspace. "The route over Ukrainian airspace where the incident occurred is commonly used for Europe to Asia flights. A flight from a different carrier was on the same route at the time of the MH17 incident, as were a number of other flights from other carriers in the days and weeks before."

www.theguardian.com...

They were at 33,000 feet, and had planned to go to 35,000 feet. The captain requested 33,000 feet at the time, probably because they hadn't burned off as much fuel as they thought they would, and were still heavy. The flight behind them was allowed to climb to 35,000 feet for separation as much as improved efficiency.

In the transcript, when MH17 checks in with Dnipro control, who was the last they were in contact with, they were at 33,000 feet. The transcripts don't show any requests for altitude change.

www.independent.co.uk...

originally posted by: GregDecker
I think I have a more direct relation to the victims, than you have.

I was born and have extended family in Holland.

That enough of a direct relation for you?

I'm done with this thread, so don't bother replying.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

If you were to actually investigate any of the eye witness testimony you would know that the su 25 was seen at a much lower altitude right before the shoot down of MH 17. It was also seen at a higher altitude right after.

a reply to: Witness2008

And according to Sukhoi, it can't go higher, except in a clean configuration, and light fuel load. It can't even get up to the altitude that MH17 was flying at with weapons on board.

a reply to: masqua

Well, what I said still holds true.

Een goede dag verder...

a reply to: Witness2008

Lies, MH17 was not instructed to fly lower, the flight route was as planned.

originally posted by: Witness2008
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

If you were to actually investigate any of the eye witness testimony you would know that the su 25 was seen at a much lower altitude right before the shoot down of MH 17. It was also seen at a higher altitude right after.

Except th e problem of picking out a aircraft at altitude with just your eyes alone. And of course su-25s fly low but just because if they were in the area dont mean they attacked th e triple 7. Seeing as how you ignore the evidence they cant flythat high with armaments or have the firepower to knock out a airliner with that small warhead.

Believe the Altimiter was debunked earlier by another poster as saying 5500 not 10500. The Photo of th e SU-25 was debunked as well too.

a reply to: Witness2008

So an Su-25 was flying in rebel held territory at an altitude low enough to not only be seen but identified? There's a reason planes were instructed to fly over 30,000 feet over Ukraine. The rebels had a history of shooting down planes using MANPADs. So you have a relatively slow jet in the middle of rebel held territory and they decide not to do anything this time?

And let's not forget the story Russia tried to push where they claimed there were actually the Su-25s but only one made it back. I wonder why the rebels never claimed to shoot down two So-25s that day.

originally posted by: GregDecker
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: earthling42

Do you know if Kiev have released the recordings?

Can't seem to find anything to substantiate your claim.

a reply to: Witness2008

Ukrainian Secret Service seized all data from Ukraine flight Control.

a reply to: Witness2008

That's because you don't want to, it is the normal flight path, the flight on 17 Juli was no different from previous flights, as planned on corridor L980.

a reply to: Witness2008

The investigators have released the transcripts, as I linked above.

Malaysian officials confirmed it was on the planned route, as approved. As I said, Flightaware doesn't have coverage of Ukrainian airspace, so they estimate where the plane is.

a reply to: GregDecker

Yes they did. One of the other odd things that I have noticed is the reduction in the ceiling capabilities of the su 25 beginning just before the downing of MH 17. The ceiling capabilities are all over the map. But when such simple information gets so bloody convoluted my spidey senses go into high gear.

All this Ukrainian chaos has been nothing but an IMF economic hit. They can't enslave them, so they'll destroy them.

See you around.....

a reply to: GregDecker

What did you expect? This is a criminal investigation. The crime was committed in Ukraine. Those tapes are evidence. We're you expecting the FSB would be the ones to collect them? Even if the Ukrainians were withholding the tapes (which they're not) MH17 was about to be handed over to a tower in Russia. That tower would also be listening in to the channel. So if there were anything incriminating on those tapes Russia would have it.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I simply answered a question.

A concept that seems foreign to you.

a reply to: Witness2008

So now Sukhoi, another Russian company, is also in on the conspiracy? You can easily go to their website and see the capabilities of the Su-25. Funny how you seem to think they're lying but the Wikipedia user with a Russian IP address that claims the Su-25 can easily overtake a 777 is telling the truth. Are you dude your research was impartial? Or are you just another person that treats RT as gospel because they're anti-US?

a reply to: Witness2008

One of the other odd things that I have noticed is the reduction in the ceiling capabilities of the su 25 beginning just before the downing of MH 17. The ceiling capabilities are all over the map. But when such simple information gets so bloody convoluted my spidey senses go into high gear.

No they have been the same, as only those who need to back a claim say that...but these are the people who are the real experts on the plane...

www.sukhoi.org...