Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

Busted Flat.

gandalf wrote: »

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.

Panic sorts of sets in when you can't accept the alternative.
As I said I a will wait for the outcome maybe in a year when things settle down, that sort of wait does not help the families in closure. What happens at the end of the day, the Australians, Dutch, and Malaysians find out their countries lied to them for some short term political gain. I suppose it will all be forgotten by then, The only ones that will remember will be the relatives, anyone remember the relatives of the last missing Malaysian plane.

gandalf

???

Busted Flat.

gandalf wrote: »

???

????.Your defense is blown out of the water, you now realise the Ukrainian air force has planes that can take down a plane down at that altitude and fly higher, the Mig 29 can hit extraordinary heights armed. Bullets Bullets Bullets, that is what brought down MH 17.

darkpagandeath

Busted Flat. wrote: »

????.Your defense is blown out of the water, you now realise the Ukrainian air force has planes that can take down a plane down at that altitude and fly higher, the Mig 29 can hit extraordinary heights armed. Bullets Bullets Bullets, that is what brought down MH 17.

I see so they have stealth migs ? And please explain why a highly trained fighter pilot would attack a target from the front.

gandalf

Busted Flat. wrote: »

????.Your defense is blown out of the water, you now realise the Ukrainian air force has planes that can take down a plane down at that altitude and fly higher, the Mig 29 can hit extraordinary heights armed. Bullets Bullets Bullets, that is what brought down MH 17.

ROFLOL nope again READ what I said. The Russians claimed a SU25 took down MH17, all my comments have been about SU25's.

I have always known that the Ukrainians had planes capable of reaching the cruising height of a 777 and above but the Russians did not identify those, THEY IDENTIFIED A SU25!

Show me where the Russians claimed a MIG29 or SU27 shot down MH17.

The only desperation I see on display here is from you. Again smurfjed I believe it was comprehensively debunked the shot down by cannons or machine gun theory earlier in this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdhQWkTl1PQ

Gatling

Has anyone come across the term Attention Whore before

smurfjed

Bullets Bullets Bullets, that is what brought down MH 17.

OK that your opinion, but from the official report page 23, we have this...

Figure 8: Forward fuselage skin from below the left cockpit window containing numerous small holes
and indentations (above); enlarged image of the right upper corner of this skin (below) showing
puncture holes (orange arrow) and pitting (red arrow). (Source: DCA and AFP)

Please tell me what type of 30mm cannon shell disintegrates prior to hitting its target? So in your opinion, where did these numerous small holes come from?

Then you have come up with this gem.....

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.

well once again this is rebutted thanks to the OFFICIAL report...

Area with Cu/CB
Cloud cover 3/8 to 6/8
Cloud base
3,000-5,000 feet
Tops around FL100,
10,000 feet

Area with As/Ci
Fully coveredcloud
cover 8/8
Cloud base
10,000-24,000 feet
Thin layered clouds

I'm assuming that you do understand 3/8, 6/8 and 8/8 of cloud coverage, and the human eyes ability to see through cloud ?

We are well aware that MANY fighter aircraft have the capabilities to shoot down an airliner, and I'm sure that there are MANY extremely capable pilots who could perform the task, but I will guarantee you that none of them are stupid enough to attempt the task from the front with cannons!

But once again, it was a Russian report that the SU25 were in the area, AND none of the aircraft available to the fighting forces in the area have stealth technology.

Mod

Play nice boys and girls.

Elmer Blooker

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.

Can we see your evidence please? On that Marie Harf YouTube video she says at 6.30: "we detected a surface to air missile fired from rebel held territory"
If there was evidence it would have been produced over and over and none was ever produced.

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.

There was a BBC report about these eye witness accounts but it was "removed" very very quickly, it has even disappeared from BBC archives.

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

Those holes on the left side of the cockpit looked very neat to me and Michael Bociurkiw, OCSE monitor described them as looking like "very very strong machine gun fire". Surely shrapnel would tear the fuselage to shreds and leave irregular shaped holes? (I'm talking about the cockpit area and not the general fuselage)

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Can we see your evidence please? On that Marie Harf YouTube video she says at 6.30: "we detected a surface to air missile fired from rebel held territory"
If there was evidence it would have been produced over and over and none was ever produced.



There was a BBC report about these eye witness accounts but it was "removed" very very quickly, it has even disappeared from BBC archives.



Those holes on the left side of the cockpit looked very neat to me and Michael Bociurkiw, OCSE monitor described them as looking like "very very strong machine gun fire". Surely shrapnel would tear the fuselage to shreds and leave irregular shaped holes? (I'm talking about the cockpit area and not the general fuselage)

No because the shrapnel is smooth ball bearings hence the neat holes but you have been told that repeatedly

Beano

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Those holes on the left side of the cockpit looked very neat to me and Michael Bociurkiw, OCSE monitor described them as looking like "very very strong machine gun fire". Surely shrapnel would tear the fuselage to shreds and leave irregular shaped holes? (I'm talking about the cockpit area and not the general fuselage)

No it wouldnt. when fragmentation warheads explode they fire regularly shaped pieces of metal. Essentially ball bearings. irregularly shaped pieces of metal dont fly very well.

If it had been a cannon from a plane that took it down the holes would be much bigger.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-22/warhead-that-downed-flight-mh17-will-have-left-widespread-traces.html

Elmer Blooker

Beano wrote: »

If it had been a cannon from a plane that took it down the holes would be much bigger.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-22/warhead-that-downed-flight-mh17-will-have-left-widespread-traces.html

Would the holes have been bigger?
That link is dated July 23rd when the lies, misinformation, the Russia hate and propaganda campaign was in full swing. Around this time we were being told by "social media" that rebels were stealing bodies and cutting up fuselage and carting it back to Russia. A lot has happened since then including the preliminary report on Tuesday which doesn't mention "missile" once.

Beano

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Would the holes have been bigger?

Much bigger.

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

That link is dated July 23rd when the lies, misinformation, the Russia hate and propaganda campaign was in full swing. Around this time we were being told by "social media" that rebels were stealing bodies and cutting up fuselage and carting it back to Russia. A lot has happened since then including the preliminary report on Tuesday which doesn't mention "missile" once.

Does the report mention cannon fire? No, of course it doesnt. They just mention an external force. The report just concentrates on known facts. It doesnt make inferences.

Beano

This picture gives you an idea of what the size of a 30mm shell (note shell, not bullet) is.

http://i.imgur.com/ojl0rSj.jpg

Busted Flat.

30mm holes on the pilot's side entry and exit holes together, shooting from both sides.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXMsqrgfT0zZNQbMZ9u1aRaGy3hnqDBmlTzcMI4g77rY_jV1AdYA

Beano

Busted Flat. wrote: »

30mm holes on the pilot's side entry and exit holes together, shooting from both sides.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXMsqrgfT0zZNQbMZ9u1aRaGy3hnqDBmlTzcMI4g77rY_jV1AdYA

and just how have you decided from that pic that they are holes from a 30mm shell?

Busted Flat.

Beano wrote: »

and just how have you decided from that pic that they are holes from a 30mm shell?

They are not 10mm, 15mm 20mm or 40mm, an opinion like yours.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh17-michael-bociurkiw-talks-about-being-first-at-the-crash-site-1.2721007?cmp=rss&partner=skygrid

Gatling

Busted Flat. wrote: »

They are not 10mm, 15mm 20mm or 40mm, an opinion like yours.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh17-michael-bociurkiw-talks-about-being-first-at-the-crash-site-1.2721007?cmp=rss&partner=skygrid

30mm shell( image 1)

30mm shell impact damage (image 2)

o1s1n

Busted Flat. wrote: »

30mm holes on the pilot's side entry and exit holes together, shooting from both sides.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXMsqrgfT0zZNQbMZ9u1aRaGy3hnqDBmlTzcMI4g77rY_jV1AdYA

See the extreme inconsistency in size?

That would indicate shrapnel holes. Laughable to think they're 30mm holes. (explain all the smaller peppered holes?)

Busted Flat.

Gatling wrote: »

30mm shell( image 1)

30mm shell impact damage (image 2)

Image of 30mm damage.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAZbV6A4TCEK-vicAxB8TH5u3ahouAXdJ4DDxu-rtN2dUtNObl

Wossack

no point posting pics of armored tanks/apcs with 30mm canon damage.. it actually damages your position imo

Beano

Busted Flat. wrote: »

They are not 10mm, 15mm 20mm or 40mm, an opinion like yours.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh17-michael-bociurkiw-talks-about-being-first-at-the-crash-site-1.2721007?cmp=rss&partner=skygrid

The size of the holes is not a matter of opinion

Red Nissan

Gatling wrote: »

No because the shrapnel is smooth ball bearings hence the neat holes but you have been told that repeatedly

Missile heads are made of many substances from paper to titanium and contain many ingredients from HE to Nuclear Detonations.

The BUK missile is a HE Fragmentation missile.

A fragmentation grenade as example has groves around the sides and looks like a chocolate bar and it is designed to fragment into at least nine pieces, in reality it can fail to fragment, just blow on piece out of the otherwise intact casing or split in two, which was quite common.

These fragments are called shrapnel. The BUK HE Fragmentation missile's warhead is designed to break into many pieces, in common with all weapons we don't know precisely what any one will in fact do, each detonation is unique.

The use of ball bearings is a common ingredient used primarily in Air To Air combat and primarily by the US.

I do not know [yet] if the BUK missile fired that night had a Ball Bearing supplementary payload.

Gatling

Red Nissan we can at least rule out 30mm cannon fire .
Unless some more conspiracy theories are posted to show other wise

smurfjed

30mm holes on the pilot's side entry and exit holes together, shooting from both sides.

Wow, you really are clutching at straws. Two aircraft at the same time in exactly the same place but on opposite sides of the aircraft!

smurfjed

This was just released today about the UK AAIB....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckaGko4d8WM#t=58

Busted Flat.

Interesting move, the can of worms may give an insight into what happened.

The families of German citizens killed in the Malaysian plane crash in eastern Ukraine are planning to sue the Ukrainian authorities in the European Court of Human Rights, accusing them of manslaughter by negligence.

Ukraine should have closed its airspace if it couldn’t provide for the safety of flights over its territory, Elmar Giemulla, a professor of aviation law representing the three families of German victims, told Bild am Sonntag, a German Sunday newspaper.

"Each state is responsible for the security of its air space," Giemulla said. "If it is not able to do so temporarily, it must close its air space. As that did not happen, Ukraine is liable for the damage."

smurfjed

This will be one of many lawsuits.

Busted Flat.

smurfjed wrote: »

This will be one of many lawsuits.

The Air Traffic controllers will have some explaining to do for diverting the plane off its course, into a war zone, weather or no weather.

BoJack Horseman

Busted Flat. wrote: »

The Air Traffic controllers will have some explaining to do for diverting the plane off its course, into a war zone, weather or no weather.

According to the original flight plan MH17 was to fly over Ukraine at flight level 330 (33,000 feet or 10,060 metres) and then change to FL 350 around Dnipropetrovsk.

When it reached the area as planned, at 12:53 UTC Dnipropetrovsk air control (Dnipro Control) asked MH17 if they could climb to FL 350 as planned, and also to avoid a potential separation conflict with another flight at FL 330. The crew asked to remain at FL 330 and the air control approved this request, moving the other flight to FL 350.

At 13:00 UTC the crew asked for diversion of 20 NM to the left (north) due to weather conditions. This request was also approved by Dnipro Control.
The crew then asked if they could climb to FL 340, which was rejected as this flight level was not available at this moment, and MH17 remained at FL 330.

At 13:19 UTC Dnipro Control noticed that the flight was 3.6 NM north from the centerline of approved track and instructed MH17 to return to the track.

At 13:19 UTC Dnipro Control contacted Russian air control in Rostov-on-Don (RND) over telephone and requested clearance for transferring the flight to Russian air control. After obtaining the permission, Dnipro Control attempted to contact MH17 and pass them the details of Rostov-on-Don track at

13:20 UTC. After MH17 did not respond to several calls, Dnipro Control contacted RND again to check if they can see the Boeing on their radar. RND confirmed that the plane has disappeared.

So the crew requested the deviation & the ATC complied.

Seeing that as proof of anything other than a rebel shoot down requires quite a stretch .....
But you boys keep trying nonetheless.