MH17 crash: Victims' families sue Putin and Russia

Nvm.

a reply to: paraphi

" and that it was so accurate it all landed together on the airframe. In real life..."
its not a spitfire. lol

originally posted by: username74
aircraft 30 cal. is a tank killer
incendiary and splinter explosive.
the different holes, entry and exit in the same area indicate entry of projectile and exit of shrapnel.

I think you are trying to make a fantasy fit a fiction Mr Armchair-forensic-weapons-expert.

a reply to: Zaphod58

its not my source , i was looking for the report referenced because no link was provided with the assertion.
"the Russian military is saying it was a BUK missile"
parshin says the 'parts presented to him' are a buk.
" So, that means the Russians are lying too since you say it was cannon fire that hit the aircraft"
how do you reach this conclusion?
the cockpit is peppered.
that was a cannon.
when an air to air hits a big plane it will take out an engine, it wont explode like a movie.
best way to finish it is to destroy the crew and flight systems also.
hell, maybe they chucked a buk at it as while their interceptors were there but i doubt it.
there was no evidence of a trail from a ground based attack
but there is the photo of a mig shooting a air to air at the liner in the link above.
the americans declined to release their imagery, oddly.

" So that means everyone involved is lying according to you, including the Russians."
this would be the perfect starting point if you wish some discernment, yes.
they do not seem to be lying in this instance.
we have the crash scene, photos of cockpit at in situ but not picture of missile fragments in situ.
this is a problem.
cockpit damage does not correlate with buk.
remember the investigative team came under fire initially

a reply to: paraphi

lol.
"I think you are trying to make a fantasy fit a fiction Mr Armchair-forensic-weapons-expert."
well of course you do. you are experiencing cognitive dissonance
i have posted plenty of links.
if the position conflicts with your preconceptions and belief system its unfortunate.
better you just throw # around rather than assess reality, eh?

a reply to: paraphi

www.anderweltonline.com...

a reply to: username74

when an air to air hits a big plane it will take out an engine,

There are your first two problems. You've decided it had to be an air missile, and you think missiles target the engines. A radar guided missile, be it air to air or surface to air isn't going to target the engines, it's going to target the radar return, which means the fuselage. The largest radar return is the center fuselage area where the wings join. It's going to target that area, but once the proximity fuse is in range, it detonates the missile, regardless of where it is in relation to the aircraft.

A surface to air missile fired at an aircraft approaching the launcher, is going to detonate near the front of the aircraft, around the cockpit area. In the case of the BUK, it goes above the aircraft, and comes back down at it at high speed.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Most use infrared guidance and are called heat-seeking missiles.
i pointed out cannon fire.
thats all.
for my position it matters only that cannon fire is proved.
presence of a hostile aircraft.
case closed.
you should know that altitude of the plane was around the buks operational ceiling.

a reply to: username74

"A surface to air missile fired at an aircraft approaching the launcher, is going to detonate near the front of the aircraft, around the cockpit area."
you can verify this can you?
is this a cockpit missile

a reply to: username74

And it was well outside the service ceiling for an Su-27, MiG-29, or any aircraft currently in the Ukrainian air force's inventory.

a reply to: username74

Most use infrared guidance and are called heat-seeking missiles.

Not true again. There are a number of IR missiles, but they certainly don't make up "most" missiles used for air to air.

The maximum altitude for a 9M38 missile, used by the BUK launcher is 46,000 feet. The 9M38M1, also used by the BUK, maximum altitude is 82,000 feet. The flight was at 33,000 feet at the time it was hit. It was nowhere near the operational ceiling of the BUK.

a reply to: username74

It's not a "cockpit missile". The missile detonates when the proximity fuse detects a target within its range. It doesn't care if it's the cockpit, the middle of the fuselage, or the tail. Coming at the front of the aircraft, if the angle is right, that means near the front of the aircraft.

originally posted by: username74
the cockpit is peppered.
that was a cannon.
when an air to air hits a big plane it will take out an engine, it wont explode like a movie.

1. The cockpit area is peppered with damage consistent with the fragments from a fragmentation warhead from a Buk missile.
2. It was not. That has been debunked.
3. Only if it is a heat seeking missile will it go to the engines, which would be the hottest thing. A radar missile (as in the Buk) would go for the biggest bit i.e. the fuselage and detonate in proximity.

a reply to: Zaphod58

dude, i was being facetious.
actually i should have said range of altitude, not ceiling, for the buk.
ceilings not applicable to a missile.

a reply to: paraphi

"It was not. That has been debunked."

waaahhh!

back your claims up instead of spouting your programming.

a reply to: username74

Why don't you explain how it was cannon fire when none of Ukraine's aircraft can reach anywhere near 33,000 feet?

a reply to: username74

Which doesn't change the fact that they were still well within the engagement envelope.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

pish.
18000 m for fighters

a reply to: Zaphod58

didnt say it did
said it was near its operational ceiling, which is incorrect because its a ground to air missile so it doest really have a sevice ceiling just range and also theres a few types of buks

a reply to: username74

Almaz-Antey identified the missile as being either a 9M38 or 9M38(M1) missile type. Even the older 9K37 missiles would easily reach where the plane was flying.