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

a reply to: MasterSplinter

Dr Neal Krawetz, maker of the tool Bellingcat used,


Yeah... chalk this up as a "how to not do image analysis".


twitter.com...

But the article being discussed didn't have that quote, so in that your right he did.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

From your own link,

The founder Neal Krawetz has to dissociate from the Twitter Bellingcat conclusions. He says it is a good example, "how not to make an analysis."

Maybe you should actually read before you go around making accusations and replying to people.

Service ceiling: 10,000 m (22,200 ft)

Actually, 10km is 32,808 feet

originally posted by: MasterSplinter

Service ceiling: 10,000 m (22,200 ft)

Actually, 10km is 32,808 feet

Well that might be true. Acording to their official page though its not able to go 10 km height though.
SUKHOI says SU-25 cant go higher than 7 km.

How many ft is 7 km? 7 km = 22965.8792651 ft

THEREFORE a SU-25 DID NOT SHOOT THEM DOWM.
That is the proof black and white. I believ the PEOPLE WHO BUILD IT AND FLY IT over "russian military personnell" who can be killed for not saying what is told to be said. My facts are verfiable bu ti highly suspect th etruth is not actually being sought here.

a reply to: MasterSplinter

Maybe you should actually read before you go around making accusations and replying to people.

Relax everyone misses something at one time, or another.

I wasn't making accusations...I said you were right, maybe you should read it a bit better.

a reply to: yuppa

THEREFORE a SU-25 DID NOT SHOOT THEM DOWM. That is the proof black and white.

That doesn`t proof anything, unless you have proof Air-to-Air missiles can`t reach such a height.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Except we're back to an R-60 not being able to destroy a 777 the way this one was destroyed.

The exercise that involved the Georgian Su-25s didn't start until early September as pointed out. Exercise Breeze 2014 ended four days before the shootdown and didn't involve Georgia.

So that brings us back to a missile incapable of tearing apart an aircraft the size of a 777 the way this one was.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I wasn't making accusations..

Oh really?

I see why you hid the link...

Gotta love the Kremlin propaganda pushing.

Either you made these accusations because you weren't paying attention or you were spreading lies on purpose.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So that brings us back to a missile incapable of tearing apart an aircraft the size of a 777 the way this one was.

That doesn't mean it wasn't hit by one.

I see that noone has tried to explain what made all those holes posted by the OP.

a reply to: yuppa

Well that might be true.

It might be true? This is not a debate. It is a fact. I only corrected the mistake.

How many ft is 7 km? 7 km = 22965.8792651 ft

Impressive.....

Acording to their official page though its not able to go 10 km height though.

According to their lead designer it can reach 10km.

The height on their site is based on the lack of an oxygen mask. An su25 can easily fly above 10 km. And it could have fired a missile from below 7 km.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Except we're back to an R-60 not being able to destroy a 777 the way this one was destroyed.

The exercise that involved the Georgian Su-25s didn't start until early September as pointed out. Exercise Breeze 2014 ended four days before the shootdown and didn't involve Georgia.

So that brings us back to a missile incapable of tearing apart an aircraft the size of a 777 the way this one was.

Why do I get the feeling the OP is back with a new e mail address? OR one of the ones that dissapeared is back and still pushing this same BS story. And Splinter does the lead desighner have any data sheets and proof of what he is saying? The aircraft itself will stall out before if it is ARMED with ANYTHING and with a load of full fuel. fuel also has weight remember. Ill go with Official stats vs a Ex lead designer anyday. Call sukhoi and ask weve done i t before.

a reply to: MasterSplinter

And if it was hit by one but not instantly destroyed it would have shown up in the flight recorder. MH17 was hit and immediately broke apart.

a reply to: MasterSplinter

Oh really?

Yep.

Either you made these accusations because you weren't paying attention or you were spreading lies on purpose.

Sputnik news being the propaganda mouthpiece for the Kremlin is not a lie, so you are wrong.

a reply to: MasterSplinter

According to their lead designer it can reach 10km.

No he didn't.

Kiev-born Soviet and Russian aircraft designer Vladimir Babak said on Monday that the SU-25 jet – which was spotted tracking the MH17 Boeing at the moment it crashed down – did not have the capability to shoot down a passenger plane. He said the fighter jet could have successfully attacked the Boeing at an altitude of 3,000-4,000 meters, but not at the plane’s altitude of 10,500 meters. He added that air-to-air missiles would have only damaged the Boeing – not completely destroyed it while still in the air.

www.rt.com...

The height on their site is based on the lack of an oxygen mask. An su25 can easily fly above 10 km. And it could have fired a missile from below 7 km.

No it is based on the engineering of the plane, and engines...not the lack of oxygen masks, gotta love the Russian propaganda.

a reply to: yuppa

And Splinter does the lead desighner have any data sheets and proof of what he is saying?

He does and it doesn't back the claim being made.

Which is why we won't see the proof you ask for.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Hence is why this thread should prolly close or go to the HOAX bin.

a reply to: yuppa

Hence is why this thread should prolly close or go to the HOAX bin.

Close yes, but not sure it is hoax bin material...as it could have been a rod from an R-60 it just isn't one from an R-60 that was supposedly shot at MH 17.

As we know one wasn't shot at MH 17.