Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

Gatling

Red Nissan wrote: »

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



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

Don't forget russia hasn't released any evidence of these 2 su25s. but yet we know there was several other airliners in the area 2 Boeing 777 and an airbus a320 all picked up by civil and military radar but no SU25s

smurfjed

but yet we know there was several other airliners in the area 2 Boeing 777 and an airbus a320 all picked up by civil and military radar but no SU25s

Civilian TCAS or radar wouldn't have seen them!

And if you think back to that wonderful Russian Primary Radar presentation about other objects around the aircraft, now it is shown that they were the aircraft parts as the aircraft fell apart.

Red Nissan

Gatling wrote: »

Don't forget russia hasn't released any evidence of these 2 su25s.

The planes did not attack MH-17. The BUK SAM system is fabulous with a kill capability from 98ft to 79,000ft and over 140km range closing at 1,600mph with fragmented proximity detonation.

In my mind it was a missile. And as the story broke we have the rebels radio messages admitting they shot down and aircraft, and reports from the crash has lots of bodies, civilians.

Whether they really deliberately and knowingly targeted a passenger jet is unclear to me, but that fact that they did and shot at it and destroyed it, in my mind they most certainly did.

BoJack Horseman

Red Nissan wrote: »

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

Indeed.

So 10,000 ft below..... at best.

The R-60 air-to-air missile is perfect for the task, however I've read that they may not be able to climb sufficiently to impact on the fuel they have.

As you said, the far better & more likely kill vehicle was & always will be the BUK.

Gatling

Red Nissan wrote: »

The planes did not attack MH-17. The BUK SAM system is fabulous with a kill capability from 98ft to 79,000ft and over 140km range closing at 1,600mph with fragmented proximity detonation.

In my mind it was a missile. And as the story broke we have the rebels radio messages admitting they shot down and aircraft, and reports from the crash has lots of bodies, civilians.

Whether they really deliberately and knowingly targeted a passenger jet is unclear to me, but that fact that they did and shot at it and destroyed it, in my mind they most certainly did.

Ive always said it was a Russian weapon system from the end of day one

Bang_Bang

Gatling wrote: »

Ive always said it was a Russian weapon system from the end of day one

Putins warning to the west maybe? "Don't fúck with me"

Please don't direct me to conspiracy theories, I'm really not into them and I don't post there.

Look at the end of the day, it was a BUK SA-11. Kill shot was probably ahead of the aircraft and tungsten pellets peppered the aircraft from the warhead. This is the "bullet" holes that people have talked about.

Gatling

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Look at the end of the day, it was a BUK SA-11. Kill shot was probably ahead of the aircraft and tungsten pellets peppered the aircraft from the warhead. This is the "bullet" holes that people have talked about.

Im thinking it was more to side moving along the fuselage hence the strikes to the cockpit

Bang_Bang

Gatling wrote: »

Im thinking it was more to side moving along the fuselage hence the strikes to the cockpit

Probably right, heat signal from the engines.

Busted Flat.

The state of play so far, the Ukrainian defense according posters blaming Russia and a Buk missile, is the Ukrainians fighter jets could not reach the altitude required to shoot down the MH 17.


https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CE8QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnew.euro-med.dk%2F20140804-expert-and-eye-witnesses-testify-flight-mh17-was-downed-by-air-to-air-shells-not-by-surface-to-air-missiles.php&ei=gWYQVO_wFeby7AaZhIHwBw&usg=AFQjCNGIbY4GRhGzfdyG_pLPTEl4pi-V6Q

Ukrainian fighters are as follows (see SU25 above):
Su-27 ‘Flanker’ fighter – Ceiling: 64,000 ft/ 19,000 m
MiG-29 ‘Fulcrum’ jet – Ceiling: 59,000 ft/ 18,000 m
Su-24 ‘Fencer’ fighter – Ceiling: 36,000 ft/ 11,000 m, or up to 57,400 ft/ 17,500 m (depending on variations of turbo intake”.

A BBC transcript of the video text was subsequently deleted. The inhabitants of the nearby villages are certain that they saw military aircraft in the sky shortly prior to the catastrophe. According to them, it actually was the jet fighters that brought down the Boeing.

stevedublin

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Probably right, heat signal from the engines.

The engines are on the wings though....

BoJack Horseman

Busted Flat. wrote: »

The inhabitants of the nearby villages are certain that they saw military aircraft in the sky shortly prior to the catastrophe. According to them, it actually was the jet fighters that brought down the Boeing.

Were the villagers certain of the type of aircraft in the area?

(Which at 10,000 metres would be tricky with the naked eye).

Also, a Turkish site linking to a conspiracy theory website..... Its a stretch.

Busted Flat.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Were the villagers certain of the type of aircraft in the area?

(Which at 10,000 metres would be tricky with the naked eye).

Also, a Turkish site linking to a conspiracy theory website..... Its a stretch.

I am sure, the villagers are well aware of what military aircraft look like, and the sound of them.

BoJack Horseman

Busted Flat. wrote: »

I am sure, the villagers are well aware of what military aircraft look like, and the sound of them.

That's that then... Villager sees plane 10,000 metres in the sky, what more would you want.

Case closed!

smurfjed

Busted Flat.... you just have to admit it, you are WRONG! You have refused to listen to any other ideas throughout this whole discussion, now the preliminary results of the investigation are out, what more do you want to prove that this aircraft was shot down by a ground based missile?

Gatling

smurfjed wrote: »

Busted Flat.... you just have to admit it, you are WRONG! You have refused to listen to any other ideas throughout this whole discussion, now the preliminary results of the investigation are out, what more do you want to prove that this aircraft was shot down by a ground based missile?

A jet pack commando shot Mh17 didn't you hear

BoJack Horseman

smurfjed wrote: »

Busted Flat.... you just have to admit it, you are WRONG! You have refused to listen to any other ideas throughout this whole discussion, now the preliminary results of the investigation are out, what more do you want to prove that this aircraft was shot down by a ground based missile?

Hey.... C'mon.

Old Magda & Oleg could see clearly see & hear a Mi29 or SU27 or whatever 10 kms in the sky with the naked eye shooting down MH17.

Iron-clad.

End of.

Busted Flat.

smurfjed wrote: »

Busted Flat.... you just have to admit it, you are WRONG! You have refused to listen to any other ideas throughout this whole discussion, now the preliminary results of the investigation are out, what more do you want to prove that this aircraft was shot down by a ground based missile?

Where in the report did you read that the MH 17 was shot down by a missile. Have you a link or some information to back up your claim.

Busted Flat.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Hey.... C'mon.

Old Magda & Oleg could see clearly see & hear a Mi29 or SU27 or whatever 10 kms in the sky with the naked eye shooting down MH17.

Iron-clad.

End of.

Abuse does not enhance your point. Keep an open mind, it's worth a shot.

BoJack Horseman

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Where in the report did you read that the MH 17 was shot down by a missile. Have you a link or some information to back up your claim.

It said high "energy objects"

So either bullets or shrapnel.

Unless you have a 3rd suggestion?

BoJack Horseman

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Abuse does not enhance your point. Keep an open mind, it's worth a shot.

Abuse?.... I'm agreeing with you.

You said villagers know the sound & sight of differing fighter planes @ 10,000 metres.

You said you were certain.

gandalf

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Hey.... C'mon.

Old Magda & Oleg could see clearly see & hear a Mi29 or SU27 or whatever 10 kms in the sky with the naked eye shooting down MH17.

Iron-clad.

End of.

Ah but the Russians say it was a SU25, a GROUND ATTACK plane

Gatling

gandalf wrote: »

Ah but the Russians say it was a SU25, a GROUND ATTACK plane

A stealth one that only they seen

Busted Flat.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It said high "energy objects"

So either bullets or shrapnel.

Unless you have a 3rd suggestion?

Thank you for your admittance of the possibility of bullets of downing the tragic MH 17

Gatling

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Thank you for your admittance of the possibility of bullets of downing the tragic MH 17

Where are the possibility exactly

BoJack Horseman

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Thank you for your admittance of the possibility of bullets of downing the tragic MH 17

Indeed it could have.

Russia disagrees though, its long range radar only picked up SU25s.

Plus the puncturing of the planes skin seems more akin to shrapnel blast than large caliber bullets.

The villagers know different though, so..... it's a tricky one!

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Where are the possibility exactly

Have you any clue how guns and ballistics work in general

Busted Flat.

gandalf wrote: »

Ah but the Russians say it was a SU25, a GROUND ATTACK plane

you have been foremost in your posts about the Russians and the Buk missile in downing the MH 17. Have you looked at the similarities between the SU25, and the Mig 29. Ceiling height is massive. You have been adamant all along the Ukrainians had no fighter aircraft to take down a plane like the MH 17.

Gatling

Busted Flat. wrote: »

you have been foremost in your posts about the Russians and the Buk missile in downing the MH 17. Have you looked at the similarities between the SU25, and the Mig 29. Ceiling height is massive. You have been adamant all along the Ukrainians had no fighter aircraft to take down a plane like the MH 17.

No because they were getting shot down by buk anti air missile's

BoJack Horseman

Busted Flat. wrote: »

you have been foremost in your posts about the Russians and the Buk missile in downing the MH 17. Have you looked at the similarities between the SU25, and the Mig 29. Ceiling height is massive. You have been adamant all along the Ukrainians had no fighter aircraft to take down a plane like the MH 17.

Ivan said there were no MiGs in the vicinity though.

gandalf

Busted Flat. wrote: »

you have been foremost in your posts about the Russians and the Buk missile in downing the MH 17. Have you looked at the similarities between the SU25, and the Mig 29. Ceiling height is massive. You have been adamant all along the Ukrainians had no fighter aircraft to take down a plane like the MH 17.

WRONG. Stop making statements up about me that are totally false. The Ukrainians have several models of planes in their air force capable of operating at or above the height MH17 was cruising at when it was shot down.

What I have been consistant in saying is that a SU25 which the Russians claim shot down the airliner down could not operate anywhere near that height.

As for the plane being shot down by a cannon or machine gun fire smurfjed debunked that theory almost totally earlier so imho it is a complete and utter red herring.

A surface to air missile is the prime suspect in the shooting down of MH17. The "Rebels" were operating one on the day the plane was shot down in the area that the missile was fired from.