MH17: Evidence a Missile was Used. Shrapnel, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haa, now I understand what you are trying to tell me.

There are some odds of fitting a MG. It can't be never rule out 100%.
 
Has the CT community (or RT for that matter) claimed that Ukraine has downgraded one of its jets to fire machine gun rounds, in order to make it appear to be a missile strike, which of course, it won't?

Nothing the CT community would say would surprise me though...
 
BombDr said:
Has the CT community (or RT for that matter) claimed that Ukraine has downgraded one of its jets to fire machine gun rounds, in order to make it appear to be a missile strike, which of course, it won't?

Nothing the CT community would say would surprise me though...
Click to expand...
No, but if it is claimed that the damage looks like machine gun damage, then the evidence to support or refute that claim should be what machine gun damage looks like and not just saying it's a cannon or they can't fly that high. That doesn't prove or disprove that it is or isn't damage from a machine gun. It only makes it way less likely that an SU-25 did it.

Again, it's a silly theory but that never stopped anyone from claiming whatever suits them.
 
In the Movie Behind Enemy Lines you can see a missile that does exactly the kind of damage seen on the Mh 17.. not sure waht model of Missile it is or if the Movie Directors simply invented it. But take a closer look at part of the Movie on this segment (7.50 min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spl3nlGex40


151bdf97a16af3589c6bfe40dbee29c7.jpg


20140804-160740-b0aei.jpg

20140804-160800-gnbxe.jpg
 
Here is supposedly "conclusive proof " that MH-17 was not shot down by a missile...and instead was shot down by Ukraine.

They use images taken from this thread:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...laysian-airliner-buk-missile-ground-shot.html

External Quote:
... it's based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid out in detail, for the first time.
EDIT: Apparently, MetaBunk is a "propaganda site for the US regime" :D
 
Last edited:
SR1419 said:
Here is supposedly "conclusive proof " that MH-17 was not shot down by a missile...and instead was shot down by Ukraine.

They use images taken from this thread:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...laysian-airliner-buk-missile-ground-shot.html

External Quote:
... it's based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid out in detail, for the first time.
Click to expand...
The picture they use of the A-10 with damage is on wiki and it says it was flak damage, not a SAM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#Durability
External Quote:
The A-10's durability was shown on 7 April 2003 when Captain Kim Campbell, while flying overBaghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, suffered extensive flak damage. Iraqi fire damaged an engine and crippled the hydraulic system, requiring the aircraft's stabilizer and flight controls to be operated via the 'manual reversion mode'. Despite this damage, Campbell flew the aircraft for nearly an hour and landed safely.[56][57]
 
Here is the account of the incident and it says it was an AA missile. (or sam)
http://web.archive.org/web/20090903200943/http://www.stripes.com/07/jun07/heroesweb/campbell.htm
External Quote:

As she rolled in on her target, and adjusted her position using the joystick in her right hand, Campbell's thumb slipped over the "pickle button" at the top of the stick. A split-second before the Warthog hit the target her thumb pushed the button, and the rocket spat from the plane with a bright flash of flight.

With the throttle still full out, Campbell began to make her move up and away from the target. She was just beginning to move to her left, with the familiar, solid sensation of G-forces underneath her seat, "when I felt and heard a large explosion in the back of the aircraft."

"There was no doubt in my mind," she said. "I knew exactly what it was. I knew I'd been hit."

It was an anti-aircraft missile, and the impact had sheared both hydraulic lines to her jet.
 
SR1419 said:
Here is supposedly "conclusive proof " that MH-17 was not shot down by a missile...and instead was shot down by Ukraine.

They use images taken from this thread:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...laysian-airliner-buk-missile-ground-shot.html

External Quote:
... it's based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid out in detail, for the first time.
EDIT: Apparently, MetaBunk is a "propaganda site for the US regime" :D
Click to expand...
External Quote:
Evidence Is Now Conclusive: 2 Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Did Shoot Down that Malaysian Airliner. No 'Buk' Missile Ground-Shot.
When did the second SU-25 enter the picture. I always thought this argument entailed one SU-25, NOT 2 of them.
 
Is the portion of the A-10 that has damage the portion that has the titanium armor? I know the cockpit is enclosed in it.
 
I mentioned this before,but I think a lot of the "exit" holes on MH17 are actually the aluminum skin being blown back from the underlying steel due to fragmentation and possible liquidification of aluminum.
 
SR1419 said:
Here is supposedly "conclusive proof " that MH-17 was not shot down by a missile...and instead was shot down by Ukraine.

They use images taken from this thread:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...laysian-airliner-buk-missile-ground-shot.html

External Quote:
... it's based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid out in detail, for the first time.
EDIT: Apparently, MetaBunk is a "propaganda site for the US regime" :D
Click to expand...
And correct me if I'm wrong, the Russians claim the SU-25 approached from the south west of MH17 and opened fire, how does the majority of damage appear to be in the "front" of the aircraft and the pilot side of the air craft.
 
Jason said:
External Quote:
Evidence Is Now Conclusive: 2 Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Did Shoot Down that Malaysian Airliner. No 'Buk' Missile Ground-Shot.
When did the second SU-25 enter the picture. I always thought this argument entailed one SU-25, NOT 2 of them.
Click to expand...


There were two, all the way back on Day One. Remember Carlos the Spanish ATCO? So the possibility of both of them having a go was always there. Peter Haisenko just decided both must have been actively firing, to account for what, to him, looks like inside>outside shots on one panel of wreckage. He does not seem to have sought entry holes on the starboard side.
 
I found this picture of an F-4 Phantom that has what appear to be bullet holes in it. Now those holes could have not been from combat but just someone shooting at it. But they don't appear to be from cannon fire and would probably be more like what machine gun fire from a .30 or .50 cal would look like.
It's just some random person Flickr and says it was taken in someones yard in Florida.
https://flic.kr/p/5eAqPr
 
SR1419 said:
Here is supposedly "conclusive proof " that MH-17 was not shot down by a missile...and instead was shot down by Ukraine.

They use images taken from this thread:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014...laysian-airliner-buk-missile-ground-shot.html
Click to expand...

Washington blog is a laugh isn't it - I mean look at this:
External Quote:
Although the fighter jets that were said to have been escorting the Malaysian plane into the war-zone were alleged to be SU-25 planes, a different type might have been used. SU-25s are designed to be flown up to 23,000 feet without an oxygen-mask, but can go much higher if the pilot does wear that mask, which was probably the case here.
Clearly whoever is writing has no idea what they are talking about.
 
KAT said:
Remember Carlos the Spanish ATCO?
Click to expand...
External Quote:
Full reply from Spanish embassy to The Spain Report via e-mail on the existence of "Carlos, @spainbuca, the Spanish air traffic controller" in Ukraine:

"This is not the first time we have been asked about him. This "Carlos" was also active during the Maidán revolution in Ukraine.

We have no knowledge of "Carlos" having been in Ukraine. There is no record of his passing through the Consulate, and no one from the (relatively small) Spanish colony knows him.

The airport where he supposedly worked for several years told us at the time that all of their air traffic controllers are Ukranian, and that in any case they have never employed any Spaniard for that or any other task.

Furthermore, the last information he was posting before the airline tragedy was of the same sort. He was saying, for example, that he lived in Kiev and had been threatened by radical extreme-right elements. No Spaniard or national of another country - to my knowledge - has ever been threatened in this country."http://www.sott.net/article/282281-Who-is-Carlos-the-Spanish-air-traffic-controller-in-Kiev
External Quote:
Yet, the Ukrainian State Air Traffic Services Enterprise has informed StopFake that they do not have a flight operations officer with such name among their workers. Aleksei Pesternikov, deputy CEO of the Ukrainian State Air Traffic Services Enterprise has confirmed that all flight operations officers in the company are citizens of Ukraine.

Also, according to the Methodological recommendations on organisation and appointment of candidates for flight operations officers training, , only citizens of Ukraine can be trained (paragraph 2.3, subtitled «Citizenship»). In other words, a citizen of another country cannot be allowed to participate in the training, they would not be able to receive the license, without which it is impossible to work as a flight operations officer in Ukraine.
http://www.stopfake.org/en/lies-spa...-ukrainian-planes-involved-in-boeing-tragedy/
 
Last edited:
Soulfly said:
I found this picture of an F-4 Phantom that has what appear to be bullet holes in it. Now those holes could have not been from combat but just someone shooting at it. But they don't appear to be from cannon fire and would probably be more like what machine gun fire from a .30 or .50 cal would look like.
It's just some random person Flickr and says it was taken in someones yard in Florida.
https://flic.kr/p/5eAqPr
Click to expand...
I would agree that it was used as target practice (rather undignified for such a beautiful aircraft) and I would say that they are at least .50 Cal, using my super-efficient combat engineer's eye....
 
BombDr said:
I would agree that it was used as target practice (rather undignified for such a beautiful aircraft) and I would say that they are at least .50 Cal, using my super-efficient combat engineer's eye....
Click to expand...
Does distance also play a role in the size of the hole left after the bullet or what have you passes through it? So a .50 cal's hole within a 1000 meters "should" look differently than a .50 cal's hole from 3000 meters away.
 
Jason said:
Does distance also play a role in the size of the hole left after the bullet or what have you passes through it? So a .50 cal's hole within a 1000 meters "should" look differently than a .50 cal's hole from 3000 meters away.
Click to expand...

I doubt it would over that distance. Eventually the bullet is going to slow down and start to tumble. And the trajectory would angle slightly downwards.
 
Jason said:
Does distance also play a role in the size of the hole left after the bullet or what have you passes through it? So a .50 cal's hole within a 1000 meters "should" look differently than a .50 cal's hole from 3000 meters away.
Click to expand...
Range could play a role in the penetrative power of the round, but as the target area is not constant its very hard to measure....
 
Jason said:
And correct me if I'm wrong, the Russians claim the SU-25 approached from the south west of MH17 and opened fire, how does the majority of damage appear to be in the "front" of the aircraft and the pilot side of the air craft.
Click to expand...

A pair of Su- 25s flying faster than a 777 ,intercepting it..,going a couple of miles ahead and then returning to shot the 777 Pilot who was the guy they hated..

Uhmmmm what part of this story tellls me that somebody is avoiding basic phisics laws and respect for less priviledged minds? :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Danver said:
A pair of Su- 25s flying faster than a 777 ,intercepting it..,going a couple of miles ahead and then returning...
Click to expand...

And to repeat (one) of the reasons for the "Su-25" story being bunk...airplane performance specifications:

External Quote:

  • Service ceiling: 7,000 m (22,965 ft) clean, 5,000 m (16,000 ft) with max weapons
Simply, absolutely impossible for those types of airplanes to intercept a B-777 that is cruising at 33,000 feet.
 
The Ukraine does have a few SU-25M1 and some sources claim that this version can climb to 10 km:
http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Aircraft/Su_25M1.html
External Quote:
Service ceiling, m 5.000-10.000
But I have a different issue: speed.

According to the Sukhoi website the SU-25K has a maximum speed of 0,82 Mach at sea level.
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/

Since the SU-25 was designed as Close Air Support I assume the speed is reduced in higher altitudes.

According to the Boeing website the Boeing 777 has a cruising speed of 0,84 Mach at 35.000 feet.
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.page

So how should it be possible that the SU-25 climbs up to the Boeing 777 and performs multiple attacks if it should be way slower?
 
Hannibal said:
The Ukraine does have a few SU-25M1 and some sources claim that this version can climb to 10 km:
Click to expand...

That would only be true if it was nearly out of fuel, and with hardly any armaments added as weight.

NOTE the other specs:

WEIGHT
Empty aircraft, kg
9.500
Normal take-off, kg
14.600
Maximum take-off, kg
17.600
Internal fuel, kg
5.000

Note the empty weight...then add the max fuel capacity. You arrive at the 14,500 kg "normal" figure. Even if the jet had (say) only 1,000 kg fuel, then its range and duration of flight would be severely limited.
 
Hannibal said:
The Ukraine does have a few SU-25M1 and some sources claim that this version can climb to 10 km:
http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Aircraft/Su_25M1.html
External Quote:
Service ceiling, m 5.000-10.000
Click to expand...

It is difficult to see how the M1 would have a different ceiling than the standard version - it has the same engines and same wing, so a 50% increase in service ceiling seems improbable - and a figure "5000m-10,000m" is kind of vague! :)
 
MikeC said:
It is difficult to see how the M1 would have a different ceiling than the standard version - it has the same engines and same wing, so a 50% increase in service ceiling seems improbable - and a figure "5000m-10,000m" is kind of vague!
Click to expand...
I believe the service ceiling increase comes from the pressurized cabin which allows the pilot keep his conseusness in higher altitudes. I think those upgrades were made after the Afganistan war. Anyway heres a youtube video showing at 5:33 SU-25 flying in ~8700 meters. Note that Russia among few other countries uses meters in aviation not feet like most of the world.


Here is the link to importers specifications of SU-25M1 so we don't need to rely the old SU-25K specifications which are for the oldest model of Su-25 export version http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25 It states there that Practical ceiling is 7000-10000 meters. It succest to me that indeed Ukraines army used SU-25M1 really can fly at 10km

EDIT: added link to producer/importers specifiacations of SU-25M1
 
Last edited:
WeedWhacker said:
That would only be true if it was nearly out of fuel, and with hardly any armaments added as weight.

NOTE the other specs:

WEIGHT
Empty aircraft, kg
9.500
Normal take-off, kg
14.600
Maximum take-off, kg
17.600
Internal fuel, kg
5.000

Note the empty weight...then add the max fuel capacity. You arrive at the 14,500 kg "normal" figure. Even if the jet had (say) only 1,000 kg fuel, then its range and duration of flight would be severely limited.
Click to expand...

Like a lot of conspiracy theories, they choose the most complex and implausible explanation.

UAF has Su27 and MiG 29, which would be better options if one decided, for no logical reason, to dogfight an airliner... and even then, why use the gun when you have perfectly functional missiles....?
 
BombDr said:
Like a lot of conspiracy theories, they choose the most complex and implausible explanation.

UAF has Su27 and MiG 29, which would be better options if one decided, for no logical reason, to dogfight an airliner... and even then, why use the gun when you have perfectly functional missiles....?
Click to expand...
To that I read the explanation, that a) the plane was allready in the air/the only possible plane to reach the Boeing in time and b) since it's a plane designed for close air support it was not outfitted with AA missiles at that time.

But I totally agree: the theory with the 1 (or 2) SU-25 is so full of 'whens' and 'ifs' that you wonder who should believe that.
 
External Quote:
"The oxygen system was used to supply an air-oxygen mixture to the
pilot's oxygen mask at altitudes in excess of 6,600ft (2,000m), while above
23,000ft (7,000m) only pure oxygen was provided."
"During pre-planned strike missions, the Su-25 pilots were ordered to enter into steep
diving attack runs for bomb drops from 23,100 to 26,400ft (7,000 to 8,000m)
and even 29,700ft (9,000m), while minimum altitude to commence climb-out
after releasing the ordnance was required to be no lower than 14,850ft (4,500m).
There were some other issues caused by the transition to high-altitude
operations, such as the frequent health problems reported by the Frogfoot
pilots due to the aircraft's non-pressurized cockpit; they suffered from the
rapid changes in the atmospheric pressure and the frequent use of pure oxygen
for breathing."
I noticed this has started popping up in comment sections on various sites to back the claim of SU-25 variants being able to reach 10,000m, attributed to this book - Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot By Alexander Mladenov

Previews of the quoted sections can be seen via Google books here and here. I haven't been able to access other pages, they may describe what modifications were required for the plane to reach 9000m, and context as to why it was necessary to fly that high. The section on dive bombing suggests it may be due to losses when making attack runs from lower altitudes.

It certainly seems to demonstrate that SU-25's have been able to reach up to 9,000m, and with at least some form of armament equipped as bombing runs are mentioned.

The full text from which the second quote is pulled says that the combat effectiveness of the plane was impacted, as well as the health of the pilots, suggesting that high altitude flying was undertaken only in exceptional circumstances, rather than normal operation.

Obviously, none of this is proof of an armed Su-25 being able to reach 10,000m as the Russians implied, nor does it address the Su-25's other weaknesses (max speed, weapon range etc) though other sections of the book might have further info.

Ray Von
 
Hannibal said:
To that I read the explanation, that a) the plane was allready in the air/the only possible plane to reach the Boeing in time and b) since it's a plane designed for close air support it was not outfitted with AA missiles at that time.
But I totally agree: the theory with the 1 (or 2) SU-25 is so full of 'whens' and 'ifs' that you wonder who should believe that.
Click to expand...
Which brings up the question: Why were planes built for close air support in the air alone, rather than... I don't know, flying close air support? There were just the SU-25s, no bombers and if they were supporting other fighters those would have been the logical choice to take the plane down with a missile than to sends the support planes in to do it the hard way.

If you had a plane in the air alone in the airspace over a hostile force, wouldn't they not be a support unit? Or is my admittedly video game informed understanding of tactics incorrect?
 
Last edited:
Hevach said:
Which brings up the question: Why were planes built for close air support in the air alone, rather than... I don't know, flying close air support? There were just the SU-25s, no bombers and if they were supporting other fighters those would have been the logical choice to take the plane down with a missile than to sends the support planes in to do it the hard way.

If you had a plane in the air alone in the airspace over a hostile force, wouldn't they not be a support unit? Or is my admittedly video game informed understanding of tactics incorrect?
Click to expand...
What's your understanding of "close air support"? AFAIK (and my knowledge is from videogames and movies too :) ) it means supporting ground troops, not escorting bombers or fighters.

Ray Von
 
Hannibal said:
The Ukraine does have a few SU-25M1 and some sources claim that this version can climb to 10 km:
http://www.redstar.gr/Foto_red/Eng/Aircraft/Su_25M1.html
External Quote:
Service ceiling, m 5.000-10.000
But I have a different issue: speed.

According to the Sukhoi website the SU-25K has a maximum speed of 0,82 Mach at sea level.
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/

Since the SU-25 was designed as Close Air Support I assume the speed is reduced in higher altitudes.

According to the Boeing website the Boeing 777 has a cruising speed of 0,84 Mach at 35.000 feet.
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.page

So how should it be possible that the SU-25 climbs up to the Boeing 777 and performs multiple attacks if it should be way slower?
Click to expand...
And if we read that red star-link with thoughts, we see, that no mod's to engine. And "The project included the reinforcement of structural components, the installment of advanced electronic navigational equipment and a new cockpit with multiple function monitors." That mess adding weight. I'm sure that adding weight without adding power, doesn't make SU-25 go higher. (Bolding mine)
:)

And then mathematics: Service ceiling means, that after that, plane's ability to climb drops below 100ft/min. Climbing from 21000ft(7km) to 33000ft(10km) would take 120mins. And that's jus calculated with steady progress and is optimistic.
 
Last edited:
Hevach said:
Which brings up the question: Why were planes built for close air support in the air alone, rather than... I don't know, flying close air support? There were just the SU-25s, no bombers and if they were supporting other fighters those would have been the logical choice to take the plane down with a missile than to sends the support planes in to do it the hard way.

If you had a plane in the air alone in the airspace over a hostile force, wouldn't they not be a support unit? Or is my admittedly video game informed understanding of tactics incorrect?
Click to expand...
Not too mention, I don't get the whole argument of "the SU-25's mistakenly mistook the plane for Putin's plane" and thats why they shot it down. How many other Malaysian flights have flown across that country during this conflict, I would imagine a great deal. It makes absolutely ZERO sense. Firstly Ukranian ATC tracked the "commercial" airliner across it's entire country and ATC even gave it route changes. They knew it was a commercial airliner because of ACARS as well. Secondly, what good would've come out of shooting down a President and his staff out of the sky. It would've immediately entangled both countries into war, a war that the Ukranian government could never win in a million years. It would've been suicide for the Ukranian government. Russia would've unleashed everything they had on the Ukranian government, and there isn't a country in the world that would've stopped them. Mistake or no mistake, could you imagine if the US President's AirForce 1 was shot out of the sky.
 
TEEJ said:
Noted in the comments section of the link that Pete Tar posted is a link to a clear image.

http://www.sott.net/article/282281-Who-is-Carlos-the-Spanish-air-traffic-controller-in-Kiev

The person claiming to be "Carlos".

View attachment 8324

http://img.vietnamplus.vn/t660/Uploaded/tngztn/2014_07_18/spainbuca.jpg

http://www.vietnamplus.vn/chuyen-vien-khong-luu-tiet-lo-quan-doi-ukraine-da-ban-mh17/271658.vnp
Click to expand...
Is it me, and I don't mean to judge, but this guy claiming to be "Carlos" looks Russian to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bruce Lansberg
  • Locked
Claim: Jeroen Akkermans: Framents prove MH17 was shot down by a Russian made BUK
Replies
34
Views
22K
Mick West
Mick West
M
Solved: MH17: is this part of a missile? [Concrete Grinding Pads]
Replies
13
Views
9K
mvdb22
M

Latest posts

Back
Top