Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

Busted Flat.

o1s1n wrote: »

Maybe the BUK exploded ahead of the aircraft allowing shrapnel to only penetrate the front section?

Look at the photos, entry and exit holes. Google "Bullet holes in MH17".

o1s1n

You do know that warhead shrapnel can be spherical and for all intents and purposes pretty much a 'bullet'?

gordongekko

Gatling wrote: »

So what exactly was the context in telling the EU president Manuel barrosso he can take Kiev in two weeks .

did he mean he could take a 2 week break in Kiev with his fellow holiday makers.

He was saying it as a defense . It was along the lines of barroso telling him he had invaded Ukraine and Putin saying he hadn't as if he had sure he'd be in Kiev in 2 weeks.

gandalf

Busted Flat. wrote: »

The plane was only hit in the cockpit area. Why is there no shrapnel damage in other parts of the plane.

Says who?

Post your proof and stop telling people to go to google. Show us what has made you believe that AA fire took the plane down please.

Gatling

gordongekko wrote: »

He was saying it as a defense . It was along the lines of barroso telling him he had invaded Ukraine and Putin saying he hadn't as if he had sure he'd be in Kiev in 2 weeks.

No

Gatling

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Look at the photos, entry and exit holes. Google "Bullet holes in MH17".

You do realise 30 mm machine gun rounds don't make perfectly smooth entry holes .

o1s1n

gandalf wrote: »

Says who?

Post your proof and stop telling people to go to google. Show us what has made you believe that AA fire took the plane down please.

Apparently a google photo of a plane fuselage peppered with holes is indicative of 'bullet holes'.

So either he thinks that AA fires 'bullets'

Or he thinks that a fighter jet shot it down with machine gun fire.

Or a commando with a jetpack and an m60 maybe?

Bang_Bang

o1s1n wrote: »

Apparently a google photo of a plane fuselage peppered with holes is indicative of 'bullet holes'.

So either he thinks that AA fires 'bullets'

Or he thinks that a fighter jet shot it down with machine gun fire.

Or a commando with a jetpack and an m60 maybe?

Or shrapnel from a BUK SA-11 missile maybe?

Gatling

o1s1n wrote: »

Apparently
Or a commando with a jetpack and an m60 maybe?

O1s1n genuis you finally solved it ,

I'm off to write the movie script

gandalf

Ok quick search on Google using the term "images for damage from anti aircraft missiles" and it brought up this as one of the first hits.

It shows the damage to an A10 Warthog from a shoulder launched missile. Note the "little holes" in the planes tailfins.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K38_Igla

o1s1n

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Or shrapnel from a BUK SA-11 missile maybe?

gandalf wrote: »

Ok quick search on Google using the term "images for damage from anti aircraft missiles" and it brought up this as one of the first hits.

It shows the damage to an A10 Warthog from a shoulder launched missile. Note the "little holes" in the planes tailfins.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K38_Igla

Clearly also caused by this phantom M60 wielding jetpack commando.

We're through the looking glass people.

Gatling

I found him

Elmer Blooker

This what the British Brainwashing Corporation comes up with the day before the result of the preliminary inquiry. I mean do they have to make it so obvious? :rolleyes: .... sometimes trying too hard is a dead giveaway. Attack the best form of defence.
The Panorama programme told the British public last night that pro Russians meant to shoot down an Aeroflot jet to give Putin an excuse to invade..... I'm dead serious - I'm not trying to be funny.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398

* no replies about BUK missile "shrapnel" from armchair experts, MY mind was made up long ago. Thanks.

buried

Is there any actual mention or use of the word 'missile' in the report?

Gatling

buried wrote: »

Is there any actual mention or use of the word 'missile' in the report?

No just high energy / hi Speed large amount of objects from an external source

seamus

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

* no replies about BUK missile "shrapnel" from armchair experts, MY mind was made up long ago. Thanks.

The ultimate reasoning of an unreasonable mind: "No amount of evidence will convince me I'm wrong".

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

* no replies about BUK missile "shrapnel" from armchair experts, MY mind was made up long ago. Thanks.

To what is your question exactly

Bang_Bang

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

This what the British Brainwashing Corporation comes up with the day before the result of the preliminary inquiry. I mean do they have to make it so obvious? :rolleyes: .... sometimes trying too hard is a dead giveaway. Attack the best form of defence.
The Panorama programme told the British public last night that pro Russians meant to shoot down an Aeroflot jet to give Putin an excuse to invade..... I'm dead serious - I'm not trying to be funny.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29109398

* no replies about BUK missile "shrapnel" from armchair experts, MY mind was made up long ago. Thanks.

Jeez.. if they wanted to shoot down an aeroflot jet all they would have had to do is download the flighradar 24 app for free, with callsigns, aircraft type and origin no??, but they were still able to post to twitter etc... Man that's some fcuk up alright.

BoJack Horseman

The BBC did indeed speak to a Ukrainian official who suggested that Russia was targeting one of their own to use as a pretext.
It wasn't presented as a fact though.

It was just after the reporter showed one of the imported "rebel" leaders a picture of a BUK in a rebel town, only to be responded with a shrug.

Neither point added anything to the broadcast, I thought they were unnecessary.

Gatling

Does anyone remember the line about Vladimir putin s personal aircraft was supposedly near the area or getting ready to take off close by

comongethappy

Gatling wrote: »

Does anyone remember the line about Vladimir putin s personal aircraft was supposedly near the area or getting ready to take off close by

Yep.

On the day of the crash the Kremlins 'Ministry of Truth' (RT) said it was "probably" an attack on Putin's nearby jet.

Are the Kremlin batting 100% for lies?

Elmer Blooker

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The BBC did indeed speak to a Ukrainian official who suggested that Russia was targeting one of their own to use as a pretext.
It wasn't presented as a fact though.

It was presented as fact by the Ukrainian intelligence service.
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/nalyvaychenko-said-that-separatists-intended-to-shoot-down-russian-passenger-plane-359765.html

BoJack Horseman

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

It was presented as fact by the Ukrainian intelligence service.

Which is not to say the BBC were presenting it as fact.
They weren't.

In the same fashion that they didn't consider the self appointed Russian thug in charge of the rebels utterance that the launcher was a bin lorry or something as fact.

Both Kiev & the Kremlin have lied.
Its just the Kremlin have been more fantastical in their campaign of falsehoods.

gandalf

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

* no replies about BUK missile "shrapnel" from armchair experts, MY mind was made up long ago. Thanks.

The online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Lalalalalaalala"

Elmer Blooker

News reports are saying that the Malaysian PM is saying that the plane was "probably" shot down by a missile, where is he getting his information?
Where in the report is there anything about a missile?
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/09/world/mh17-crash-report-richard-quest-analysis/index.html

And it never says the word missile.

gandalf wrote: »

The online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Lalalalalaalala"

why do you bother? I'm well used to idiotic one liners at this stage! keep 'em comin'

gandalf

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

why do you bother? I'm well used to idiotic one liners at this stage! keep 'em comin'

Sure we can't be serious all of the time can we

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

News reports are saying that the Malaysian PM is saying that the plane was "probably" shot down by a missile, where is he getting his information?
Where in the report is there anything about a missile?
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/09/world/mh17-crash-report-richard-quest-analysis/index.html
'

Anti aircraft missiles don't strike aircraft directly they detonate in close proximity to an aircraft shredding the aircraft using shrapnel consisting of steel/tungsten/ other .

While they didn't mention a missile but the key phrases were pilot error ruled out , mechanical failure / technical fault ruled out .
aircraft was brought down by an External Force key word External Force

BoJack Horseman

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

News reports are saying that the Malaysian PM is saying that the plane was "probably" shot down by a missile, where is he getting his information?

Think it through.

We know for a fact it wasn't mechanical error, pilot error, turbulence/weather.

We know the plane was brought down by impact with "high energy objects."

That can only be bullets or missile shrapnel.

The Kremlin (who never lie) said that the only military planes in the vicinity were Ukrainian SU-25's..... They or their weapons can't reach the altitude required to threaten MH17.

that leaves only land based missile.

smurfjed

In accordance with paragraph 3.1 of ICAO Annex 13, the sole objective of this investigation
is the prevention of similar accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to
apportion blame or liability in respect of any party.

Just as i told you about a month ago !

The draft preliminary report has been sent to the Accredited Representatives of the
States that participate in the investigation, Malaysia, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the
United Kingdom, the United States of America and Australia for review. All Accredited
Representatives have sent a reaction. The Dutch Safety Board assessed the provided
suggestions and amended the report where appropriate.

Well that should remove the idea that the UK authorities were biased as the Russian Federation had the opportunity to request corrections.

Photographs from the some wreckage showed that a number of pieces contained
multiple holes and indentations. An example of a piece of wreckage containing such
damage was a piece of skin from below the left cockpit window (figure 8) found in the
town of Petropavlivka.

It doesnt say that it was only hit around the cockpit.

Noting that the investigation team has not yet had the opportunity to recover these
components for forensic examination

The damage observed in the forward section of the aircraft appears to indicate that
the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside
the aircraft. It is likely that this damage resulted in a loss of structural integrity of the
aircraft, leading to an in-flight break up.

Thanks for all the conspiracy theories, but as we told you, they were all garbage!

Red Nissan

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The Kremlin (who never lie) said that the only military planes in the vicinity were Ukrainian SU-25's..... They or their weapons can't reach the altitude required to threaten MH17.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25

Maximum speed: Mach 0.8 (975 km/h, 526 knots, 606 mph) at sea level
Combat range: 750 km (405 nmi, 466 mi) at sea level, 4,400 kg (9,700 lb) weapons and two external tanks
Service ceiling: 7,000 m[100] (22,965 ft) clean, 5,000 m (16,000 ft) with max weapons
Rate of climb: 58 m/s (11,400 ft/min)

Service ceiling can get to about 10,000ft of MH-17 unarmed.