|Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 126):|
This link talks about the evidence emerging that MH17 was most likely hit by Air-to-air missile and finished off by 30mm cannon fire.
Sorry, 30mm cannon fire from what aircraft? Air-to-air missile?
That article talks about what aircraft that can do it? A Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot?
Once I see that, I automatically cross that link off as invalid.
MH17 was flying at FL330, Su-25 cannot fly that high and tail the 777.
We see entry wounds at the front section of the aircraft, sorry, the Su-25 would not be able to inflict that sort of forensig evidence if it was tailing the 777.
The Su-25 has a reported Maximum Mach of 0.8, that would be Mach 0.8... oh hang on, we have a slight problem... the 777 cruises at mach 0.84.
So not only can it not have been at an altitude near the 777, it does not have the speed to tail it.
And then what about the air-to-air missile? What air-to-air missile can an Su-25 carry?
It can carry the K-13 and the R-60.
Unfortunately, these missiles are infra-red homing missiles and would not have resulted in the forensic evidence at the front of the aircraft (the fragmented warhead entry wound), because infra-red homing missiles would hit the engine.
For the Su-25 to go and cause that damage to the front section, it would have had to fly faster than the 777, then shoot it from the front.
Sorry, please let common sense prevail in you, if another aircraft did tail MH17, shot it down with an air-to-air missile and then finish it off with a 30mm cannon, it cannot
be on an Su-25 Frogfoot.
If it was, say a Mig-29, yes it has the radar-guided missile, but if it was following/tailing MH17 and shot it, again, the missile would not cause a frontal aspect damage (eg: entry wounds on the cockpit ", and we would be seeing fragments on the tail fin... we didn't. So if a Mig-29 was trailing or shadowing MH17, it would still have to attack from the front, and there's no need for a 30mm cannon hit. A frontal aspect radar guided missile hit would yield the same result as what we're seeing.
Now, these so called "conspiracy theorists" are not even using that as a possibility, and they decided to use a more ridiculous notion of this tragedy being the work of Su-25 Frogfoots... utterly stupid and ridiculous.
|Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 126):|
Here a retired German Colonel Bernd Biedermann, an anti A/C missile specialist talks about why he thinks it was unlikely to be a Buk.
Working in aviation and aviation safety, one quickly learns to work with the facts and not the so-called reputation of sources. I've seen a retired former fighter pilot and air force chief of staff write more ridiculous things, so this German Colonel being way off, isn't exactly surprising?
Would you still say it's good if I tell you they used a.netters as an expert source?
, now can someone throw me a better conspiracy theory on the execution of this tragedy?
The facts as we know it is that the aircraft came down where it came down, FDR data has been said to have been consistent with rapid and massive decompression and shrapnel damage, and we have shrapnel damage visible in the front left cockpit and top front and lower front, with entry wounds.
With these facts, we still don't know who shot the plane down, we just know it was shot down by a missile (and in a frontal aspect bias hit).