Was MH17 really MH370?

[ian hacktorp]

From today:

Experts believe that MH17 flight was shot down by an air-to-air missile fired from the fighter that later finished it off with a burst of 30mm cannon fire, the newspaper has reported.

http://en.ria.ru/mil...f-by-30-mm.html

“Some showed blast patterns consistent with shrapnel from a proximity-fused weapon while some showed the more precise grouping consistent with that of cannon fire. We’re analyzing this,” said one of the sources, adding that a detailed analysis of the pieces of the jetliner is needed to corroborate this emerging theory.

Under this new version, the heat-seeker would have aimed at the hottest part of the aircraft's engines. These claims rule out the previous version that the aircraft had been downed by the BUK missile system (NATO SA-11 'Gadfly').

And finally:

The air-to-ground transmission tapes between MH17 and Ukrainian air traffic controllers were seized by the Ukrainian Security Service on the day of the shootdown and have not been made available to investigators.

Edited August 6, 2014 by hacktorp

[skyeagle409]

From today:

http://en.ria.ru/mil...f-by-30-mm.html

And finally:

Just to let you know that what you have just posted is disinformation.

[ian hacktorp]

Just to let you know that what you have just posted is disinformation.

Skyeagle, I would never trespass on your territory like that.

[skyeagle409]

Skyeagle, I would never trespass on your territory like that.

The air-to-air missile carried by the Su-25 is a lightweight, infrared missile that homes on the engine. A B-777 can lose an engine and keep right on flying and is ETOPs certified. In addition, the Su-25 is not an interceptor..

[skyeagle409]

That's impressive. Too bad we don't have some ability to release actual corroborating evidence like cockpit voice recordings, onboard flight data, satellite data, etc...because those things sure as hell do exist.

The reason? Likely because the Russians have the same information. So western mouthpieces offer mealy-mouthed half-explanations claiming "we know it was a BUK...because we can pinpoint stuff". Utter crap.

On the contrary, to pinpoint a launch site is old technology and such technology was used during the first Gulf War.

It is looking more likely the flight was shot down by jets which had been tailing it.

Not in this case, and once again, the Su-25 is a ground attack aircraft, not an interceptor.

BTW, mh17 mh370 are NOT simply amazing coincidences. Does anyone really think that?

MH-370 was a deliberate act and the downing of MH-17 was an accident.

Edited August 6, 2014 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Photos show what some say is evidence of both entry and exit holes, made by flak, on the same side of the airplane. This suggests the plane was hit from both sides.

That is incorrect. The evidence shows that the fragments went thought the fuselage of MH-17 as indicated by the exit holes.

[skyeagle409]

Click on the debris pic:

http://www.anderwelt...malaysian-mh17/

From your link.

Tank destroying mix of amunititon Bullet holes in the outer skin

So what could have happened? Russia recently published radar recordings, that confirm at least one Ukrainian SU 25 in close proximity to MH 017. This corresponds with the statement of the now missing Spanish controller ‘Carlos’ that has seen two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the immediate vicinity of MH 017. If we now consider the armament of a typical SU 25 we learn this: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, equipped with: a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum), arranged in alternating order. The cockpit of the MH 017 has evidently been fired at from both sides: the entry and exit holes are found on the same fragment of it’s cockpit segment!

Now, explain to us why that photo debunks the claim those holes were caused by the gun from an Su-25.

[skyeagle409]

What the CVR certainly WOULD have, are any conversations the pilots had about military jets tailing them and forcing them off-course into a combat zone and at low altitude.

To let you know that 33,000 feet is a typical cruising altitude for an airliner and not considered low altitude.

[ian hacktorp]

The air-to-air missile carried by the Su-25 is a lightweight, infrared missile that homes on the engine. A B-777 can lose an engine and keep right on flying and is ETOPs certified. In addition, the Su-25 is not an interceptor..

So you now contend the missiles carried by the Su-25 are designed to surgically remove an aircraft engine while leaving the rest of the aircraft intact?

I do enjoy watching you soil yourself.

Edited August 6, 2014 by hacktorp

[skyeagle409]

So you now contend the missiles carried by the Su-25 are designed to surgically remove an aircraft engine while leaving the rest of the aircraft intact?

That is what a typical infrared anti-aircraft missile is designed to do. It is effective against single-engine aircraft and less so against multi-engine jets. After all, one of our C-5 transports took at direct hit in #4 engine in Iraq and returned to land safely. After a short time in the repair facility, the aircraft was returned to service.

That C-5,which was struck by that anti-aircraft missile was based at Travis AFB. Travis AFB, is where I have spent much of my Air Force career and where I was employed as supervisor/inspector/technician for the structural component section for the TF-39C jet engine after my Air Force retirement.

I was employed by a major defense contractor on the TF-39C jet engine contract and the TF-39C is the engine that was used on that particular aircraft.

Here is the link to the story.

C-5 transport struck by anti-aircraft missile

http://www.af.mil/Ne...y-for-duty.aspx

I do enjoy watching you soil yourself.

Anytime you wish to challenge me one-on-one, I am more than happy to oblige. BTW, I want to add images of an A-10 and an F/A-18 that were struck by anti-aircraft missiles of similar size to the infra-red anti-aircraft missile used by the Su-25.

.

Edited August 6, 2014 by skyeagle409

[flyingswan]

So you now contend the missiles carried by the Su-25 are designed to surgically remove an aircraft engine while leaving the rest of the aircraft intact?

Are you aware that the Su-25 is essentially a ground-attack aircraft? It doesn't have either the speed or the altitude capability to intercept an airliner.

[skyeagle409]

Are you aware that the Su-25 is essentially a ground-attack aircraft? It doesn't have either the speed or the altitude capability to intercept an airliner.

That is correct!

There was no way the Su-25 could have trailed the B-777 and the service ceiling of a Su-25 is 10,000 feet lower than the cruising altitude of MH-17, which once again, proves that MH-17 claims of conspiracy theorist are simply ignorant-based.

[+Hammerclaw]

Nothing before or after MH-17 has been shot down over Ukraine except Ukrainian helicopters and fast movers. here's a partial list:April 22, July 1, and July 2: Ukrainian planes are hit by fire but manage to land safely.

-June 6: An An-30 surveillance plane was shot down near Slovyansk. Three people are reported dead.

June 14: An Il-76 military transport plane was shot down in Luhansk by a shoulder-fired missile. All 49 people on board are reported dead.

July 14: An-26 military transport plane was shot down. Exact casualties are unknown.

July 16: An Su-25 was shot down. No casualties were reported. Rebels claim to have shot down two Su-25s, but the Ukrainian government says that while a second plane was hit, it landed safely.

July 17: Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 is shot down, most likely by an SA-11 missile. All 298 people on board died.

July 23: Two Ukrainian Su-25 shot down by rebels. The status of the pilots is unknown.

Russia has continued to deny that it supplies rebels in Ukraine with the weapons needed to shoot down planes. Yesterday, a senior US intelligence official told reporters that Russia was responsible for “creating the conditions” that led to MH17's downing, but that there was no evidence directly linking the involvement of the Russian government.

Rebel leader Alexander Khodakovsky of the Vostok Battalion, confirmed to Reuters today that rebels did have possession of the BUK missile system most likely used to shoot down MH17. Mr. Khodakovsky, however, still blamed Ukraine over the incident, saying, "Even if there was a BUK, and even if the BUK was used, Ukraine did everything to ensure that a civilian aircraft was shot down."

It's seems highly unlikely the Unkrainians would target an aircraft at that altitude moving through their airspace from northwest to southeast. Guns and cannon are line-of-sight weapons and it's highly improbable a trained pilot would fire on a colorfully painted, easily recognizable civilian aircraft.

Edited August 6, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[Babe Ruth]

If Ukraine/NATO has such a tight story, why must they withhold evidence?

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?

Occam applies....

[+Hammerclaw]

What evidence? Airliners don't have the military hardware to warn the pilots of interception or missle lock. Until impact, the pilots were just as oblivious of danger as the passengers. The data recorder will only record the result of the missle strike, nothing else. From the evidence of shrapnel on the sections of cockpit recovered, the pilots died instantly. From the preponderance of evidence of shootdowns over Ukraine, Occam's Razor would automatically eliminate the Ukrainians as suspect.

Edited August 6, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[skyeagle409]

If Ukraine/NATO has such a tight story, why must they withhold evidence?

Looking at the rest of the story that you somehow had missed accidently on purpose.

Pro-Russian Separatists Hamper MH17 Crash Investigation

http://mashable.com/2014/07/19/separatists-mh17-investigation/

[toast]

Not in this case, and once again, the Su-25 is a ground attack aircraft, not an interceptor.

That does not exclude that a SU25 cannot attack air targets:

SU25 weapons:

The wings have ten pylons for carrying a range of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapon systems selected for the mission.

Air-to-ground missiles include Kh-23 (Nato codename AS-7 Kerry), Kh-25ML (AS-10 Karen) and Kh-29l (AS-14 Kedge).

The air-to-air missiles carried on the smaller outboard pylons are the R-3S (AA-2D Atoll) and the R-60 (AA-8 Aphid).

(...)

The aircraft's twin-barrel gun, the 30mm AO-17A, is installed in the underside of the fuselage on the port side

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su25/

[toast]

Are you aware that the Su-25 is essentially a ground-attack aircraft? It doesn't have either the speed or the altitude

capability to intercept an airliner.

This is incorrect.

B777 = 895km/h

SU25 = 950km/h

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su25/

[Abaddonire]

So you now contend the missiles carried by the Su-25 are designed to surgically remove an aircraft engine while leaving the rest of the aircraft intact?

I do enjoy watching you soil yourself.

And you are stuck with the hollywood version of reality which is not true.

The altitude of MH17 was beyond an Su25.

When using cannons, the maneuver to shoot as alleged would have disintegrated both pilot and aircraft.

Aerial combat is not performed in this way, despite what you see on TV. That's called "dramatisation".

[Abaddonire]

If Ukraine/NATO has such a tight story, why must they withhold evidence?

If they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?

Occam applies....

If I were them, I would. I certainly would not reveal to Putin the extent of my surveillance capability.

[skyeagle409]

That does not exclude that a SU25 cannot attack air targets:

Where did I say that the Su-25 cannot attack air targets? However, with a service ceiling of only 23,000 feet, it could not have reached MH-17, which was cruising at 33,000 feet.

R-3S (AA-2D Atoll) and the R-60 (AA-8 Aphid).

The fragment damage on the wreckage of MH-17, is not indicative of a missile strike by an AA-2D nor even by an AA-8.

[Abaddonire]

This is incorrect.

B777 = 895km/h

SU25 = 950km/h

http://www.airforce-.../projects/su25/

You neglect the alltitude at which max speed occurs or is even possible.

Now we know MH17 was at FL33, and we know an Su25 would stall there, so what would you have us believe?

A magic Su25, or some other aircraft? Perhaps an f1-11 as the russian graphic showed?

[skyeagle409]

This is incorrect.

B777 = 895km/h

SU25 = 950km/h

http://www.airforce-.../projects/su25/

Correction on your part.

B-777 = 950 km/h, 512 knots) at a cruise altitude of 35,000 ft (11,000 m)

Add to the fact that the Su-25 cannot reach a B-777 at 33,000 feet. What that means is that you were taken to the cleaners by someone who added a piece of disinformation as bait and I can safely say that I wasn't the person who took that bait.

.

Edited August 6, 2014 by skyeagle409

[ian hacktorp]

Here's a good read. The Su-25 certainly CAN fly high and fast enough to intercept a B777 if the pilot has oxygen.

http://www.opednews.com/populum/pagem.php?f=Evidence-2-Ukrainian-Gove-by-Eric-Zuesse-Activism-Anti-War_Impeachment_Obama-Administration_President-Barack-Obama-POTUS-140803-579.html

"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."

Edited August 6, 2014 by hacktorp

[+Hammerclaw]

Why the obsession with the lowly SU 25 Grach? It's only capable of .80 the speed of sound and kept down on the deck hitting ground targets. Why not the far more capable SU 27 or Mig 29? If you want to blame it on Ukraine, at least choose a proper weapons platform.