Skip to comments.MH17 Likely shot down with guns, not missiles
Posted on 07/29/2014 9:13:26 PM PDT by aardwolf46
This has been on various news sites today, but I don't see it on FR or Drudge. Any sort of a Google search on "MH17 bullet holes" will turn up multiple versions. German investigators are claiming that the forward part of MH17 is riddled with bullet holes, apparently 30mm, which is the main armament of the Ukrainian jets which were tailing the airliner. There is zero possibility of anybody shooting down an airliner with a 30mm gun from the ground.
Typical version of the story
Looks like fragments from a warhead explosion.
Could the panels have been shot up on the ground, after the fact, to confuse the investigation?
It sounds like a pretty contaminated scene.
Wow, what denial, Putin apologists have. Ever heard of a warhead full of shrapnel?
Ask yourself this -
IF it was downed by Ukraine jets, why did Russia bar investigators, if it had nothing to hide? Why did Russia remove that SAM battery, if it had nothing to hide?
As usual, the real criminals betray themselves by their actions, just like OJ running and suicidal.
Next time, try common sense.
Investigators from multiple countries have yet to access the crime scene, yet, FR has a poster that can conduct a forensic analysis from a single jpeg image and resolve all unanswered questions.
The "spanish air traffic controller" he is referring to is known as "Carlos," and, according to the Spanish, does not actually exist. The Russians made him up out of thin air.
The Russian "radar reports" claim that the SU-25 was flying "on the same level" as the airliner, which is physically impossible, since the SU-35 cannot climb up to that height. The closest an SU-35 could get to the airliner is 3KM, and that would be directly below the airliner.
Next, the cockpick they are referring to was sawn in half and most of it pilfered by the Russkies themselves. What evidence is this guy referring to? Most of it is already gone.
Lastly, the "expert" appears to not be anyone actually there, but someone looking at a random photo, and this, while vomiting up Russian propaganda that was old several days ago. The British have already stated that the evidence from the blackbox suggests it was hit by a SAM due to explosive decompression. Bullets would not destroy an airliner like this and spread its parts for miles. Only a missile would.
It's probably best not to fall for any random BS put out by blogs.
Why was no mayday given? If a jet was taking on machinegun fire, there would be ample time to radio ATC that they were under attack and going down.
We need more commas
I also do not think a pilot would attack a jet from the side, as your window of attack is greatly diminished. You would be on the jet’s 6 and fire a burst at the engines.
Russia is not in a position to bar investigators, it’s not on their soil.
A 777 has a cruising altitude that is 10,000 ft above the SU25 maximum operating ceiling and that is with no weapons onboard.
2) What should be a typical pattern of holes if a target is hit with a missile? What is the diameter of each steel ball in the missile's payload?
However if it appears that the airplane was hit only in the cockpit area, and from two sides, it certainly creates some questions for the missile theory. Probability of one missile hitting only one small area of the airplane is already small. Probability of two missiles hitting the same area from two sides is nearly zero. Missiles do not choose cockpit (and they can't anyway.) Missiles are designed to bring something down. Cockpit may well be armored; but wings, and engines, and fuel tanks are not - they are the primary target of a missile.
How can this be tested? First, with black boxes. They have registered the pattern of failures; this tells the investigators what mechanisms were damaged, and when. Then the voice recorder may have registered presence of another aircraft, or two, in close proximity. I am not sure how TCAS looks behind the airplane, but I presume it does - and it wouldn't miss an airplane within a few hundred yards. There should have been also the sounds of the actual hit. A missile would generate a single explosion and a single, instantaneous wave of projectiles - one loud thud. An airplane's gun would be likely to create a prolonged sound, as bullets are fired one by one. Especially if two airplanes were shooting in turns.
If the airliner was intentionally shot down, targeting the cockpit would be chosen to instantly disable any radio calls and comments that the pilots could have made while falling to Earth. But even if so, the whole scenario did not unfold as intended, as the airplane fell into an area that allowed recovery of black boxes.
Agreed. Looks like shrapnel.
Strike that, 20,000 feet.
Of course they could.