Ukraine and Malaysia Flights Mh 17 and MH 370

[Tranquillus in Exile]

C.O. loves crap.

"...they do say that multiple foreign governments were behind 9-11. The evidence against Israel is overwhelming..."
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?85831-North-Tower-Exploding/page2

But he’s a good guy at heart.

 

[Scott]

If it were an Ukrainian fighter plane using a missile, the attack angle would have had to be near head-on. If the attack came from a rear angle, and the use of a radar homing Air-to-air missile would have to be the case as an infrared seeking missile would have targeted the engines, the missile wouldn't have detonated next to the cockpit and sprayed it the way it did.

The theory is that the aircraft was first hit with a missile on one of its engines, and -then- hit in the cockpit with machine gun fire. I found a good article written by Peter Haisenko, that gets into the evidence that this is what happened. Quoting the introduction to his article:

**
Peter Haisenko was a pilot for Lufthansa for 30 years. In the article below he explains his conclusion that the Malaysian airliner downed in Ukraine was hit first by an air-to-air missile from a Ukrainian fighter jet and then by machine gun fire. As Ukrainian air control has refused to release its communications with the airliner and Washington refuses to release its satellite photos, we have to form a judgment based on experience and available evidence. This judgment is superior to unsupported propagandistic claims. The withholding of pertinent information suggests that Washington and/or Kiev are responsible for the downed airliner.
**

Full article:
The Evidence: MH 017 | countercurrents.org

I found out about Peter Haisenko from RT's documentary on the aircraft alleged to be MH 17. That can be seen here:
MH-17: the untold story | RT

 

[Scott]

C.O. loves crap.

"...they do say that multiple foreign governments were behind 9-11. The evidence against Israel is overwhelming..."
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?85831-North-Tower-Exploding/page2

But he’s a good guy at heart.

I imagine that, like me, CO has studied 9/11 for some time. It's always easy to dismiss something if you haven't put in the time to really research it.

 

[Phantasmal]

I imagine that, like me, CO has studied 9/11 for some time. It's always easy to dismiss something if you haven't put in the time to really research it.

Doesn’t matter how much time and research you put into a conspiracy theory, it’s still a conspiracy theory.

 

[Scott]

The Su 25 doesn't carry long or medium range radar guided air-to-air missiles. It can only use short-range, infrared homing missiles. It is also not fast enough to catch a high flying airliner as it is primarily a close support aircraft. It would also still have to be approaching from Russian airspace to make a head on attack necessary to have the missile hit where it did.

From a trailing position and using IR missiles, the missile wouldn't have detonated near the cockpit but rather amidships or towards the tail of the airliner. That's how proximity fuzes work, and IR guidance means the missile would home on the engine exhaust.

With the MiG 29 and Su 27, you still need a head-on attack pattern coming from Russian airspace for an AAM to hit where it did.

Also, with one exception of a short-range mostly anti-helicopter AAM, the 9K121 Vikhr, none of the missiles these aircraft use are laser guided.

Verdict: It wasn't shot down by a jet fighter.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the theory is that the right engine was hit with a missile and machine gun fire aimed at the cockpit finished the aircraft off. An article I've seen written by an experienced pilot doesn't specify what specific missile needed to be used, but does say that Ukraine had missiles that could do the job. Quoting from it:

**
The West has control of the investigation and apparently has decided not to investigate. However, we do have two critical pieces of information. One is the report of the Canadian representative of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) that reports bullet holes in the cockpit section of the airliner. Photos are available that clearly show bullet holes in the pattern of machine gun fire on both sides of the airliner’s cockpit. The other piece of information comes from a report in the Malaysian newspaper New Straits Times that intelligence analysts have concluded that one of the airliner’s engines was hit by a heat-seeking air-to-air missile. We know that there were Ukrainian jets armed with such weapons close to the airliner at the time that it crashed. http://www.nst.com.my/node/20925&nbsp
**

Source:
The Evidence: MH 017 | countercurrents.org

Unfortunately, the link the article provides doesn't work.

 

[Scott]

Doesn’t matter how much time and research you put into a conspiracy theory, it’s still a conspiracy theory.

The important thing is that not all conspiracy theories are wrong. In this day and age, it's become abundantly clear that the mainstream media and the elites that control it simply label anything they don't want people to look into a "conspiracy theory". It tends to work rather well.

 

[Scott]

Don't bother, I did, and they're crap.

Depricating someone's sources without providing any evidence for your claims is certainly one way of trying to kill a debate.

 

[Scott]

The other problem with the AAM launched from a fighter is that NONE of the missiles that would be used by those aircraft produce the fragmentation in both quantity and type that would be consistent with the damage that can be viewed on the wreck. All of the expanding rod warheads are out.

The ones that are blast-fragmentation have a much smaller radius of damage than the S-300 Buk SAM does. The R-27 Vympel has an 86 lbs. warhead versus the S-300's 293 to 330 lbs. one. The S-300 has a warhead (depending exactly on which model) that's 3.5 to 4 times larger than the R-27's and produces uniform fragmentation by design. This, again, is consistent with the known damage MH 17 received.

Again, you're not taking into account the evidence that the fragmentation in the cockpit area is due to machine gun fire.

 

[Phantasmal]

The important thing is that not all conspiracy theories are wrong. In this day and age, it's become abundantly clear that the mainstream media and the elites that control it simply label anything they don't want people to look into a "conspiracy theory". It tends to work rather well.

Yes, this is exactly what conspiracy theorist say about their conspiracies. Their conspiracy is truth and those darn journalist and the „elite“ just ignore the facts. This is always the excuse.

 

[Scott]

The important thing is that not all conspiracy theories are wrong. In this day and age, it's become abundantly clear that the mainstream media and the elites that control it simply label anything they don't want people to look into a "conspiracy theory". It tends to work rather well.

Yes, this is exactly what conspiracy theorist say about their conspiracies. Their conspiracy is truth and those darn journalist and the „elite“ just ignore the facts. This is always the excuse.

I imagine you've never even considered that anything that some mainstream media outlet has called a "conspiracy theory" is false. And yet...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

I imagine that, like me, CO has studied 9/11 for some time. It's always easy to dismiss something if you haven't put in the time to really research it.

Are you a 9/11 truther on top of everything?

I've studied 9/11 conspiracy theories from every angle since 2005, including the Amazon Politics Forum, 2007-2017, where there were at least a dozen 9/11 threads each running to 10,000 posts. CO joined that in about 2010. I've even read 9/11 conspiracy books, which most "truthers" don't bother to do.

Take a look at the 9/11 thread I started here:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?85831-North-Tower-Exploding

and get back to me if you have anything worth saying.

 

[Scott]

Are you a 9/11 truther on top of everything?

Almost from the start, though admittedly I initially believed the official version of events.

I've studied 9/11 conspiracy theories from every angle since 2005, including the Amazon Politics Forum, 2007-2017, where there were at least a dozen 9/11 threads each running to 10,000 posts. CO joined that in about 2010. I've even read 9/11 conspiracy books, which most "truthers" don't bother to do.

I definitely read some books, starting with Jim Marrs' book The War on Freedom and also reading his book The Terror Conspiracy. Read at least one book from David Ray Griffin as well.

Take a look at the 9/11 thread I started here:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?85831-North-Tower-Exploding

and get back to me if you have anything worth saying.

It's been a while since I've posted in a forum's "Conspiracy Section". I've basically come to the conclusion that if a forum's staff believes it belongs in the conspiracy section, they're generally heavily biased against the idea and will moderate the content accordingly. I might post there at some point, but it's unlikely while there is something as large as a war with Russia and the possibility of World War III going on.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The theory is that the aircraft was first hit with a missile on one of its engines, and -then- hit in the cockpit with machine gun fire. I found a good article written by Peter Haisenko, that gets into the evidence that this is what happened. Quoting the introduction to his article:

**
Peter Haisenko was a pilot for Lufthansa for 30 years. In the article below he explains his conclusion that the Malaysian airliner downed in Ukraine was hit first by an air-to-air missile from a Ukrainian fighter jet and then by machine gun fire. As Ukrainian air control has refused to release its communications with the airliner and Washington refuses to release its satellite photos, we have to form a judgment based on experience and available evidence. This judgment is superior to unsupported propagandistic claims. The withholding of pertinent information suggests that Washington and/or Kiev are responsible for the downed airliner.
**

Full article:
The Evidence: MH 017 | countercurrents.org

I found out about Peter Haisenko from RT's documentary on the aircraft alleged to be MH 17. That can be seen here:
MH-17: the untold story | RT

Well, when it comes to damage to aircraft Peter Haisenko knows nothing. As a published military historian on military technology I do know stuff about that.

Russian TV Inadvertently Demonstrates MH17 Wasn't Shot Down by Aircraft Cannon Fire

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-...mh17-wasnt-shot-down-by-aircraft-cannon-fire/

Cannon fire--not machinegun as the planes that would have done this were armed with 30mm autocannons--causes damage in a straight line. The damage creates large holes with jagged edges facing in. There would be evidence of detonations and internal damage from secondary fragmentation if it were cannon fire. If the rounds weren't explosive, then they'd pass through the plane and create large exit holes with jagged edges facing outward. There is none of that evident on MH 17.

Both engines were recovered and there is ZERO evidence to show that one was hit by a missile. Both engines were recovered largely intact with most damage caused by impact with the ground.

The SU 25 story, where it comes from behind the airliner to shoot it down is preposterous. Even you admit it was at a lower altitude. At the time MH 17 was shot down, it was flying at 10,060 meters doing 915 k/hr., headed ESE 115 degrees.
The absolute maximum level flight speed of an SU 25 is 950 k/hr in clean, unloaded condition. With load (like missiles, fuel tanks, and other external stores) it is markedly slower. That is, an SU 25 carrying missiles and climbing to target a plane at an altitude above it will be going SLOWER than flight MH 17 was. So, there is ZERO possibility that an SU 25 could have climbed and caught up to the airliner. It is physically impossible for that aircraft to do it.

The Su-25 can climb at the rate of 58m/s. The maximum speed of the aircraft is 950km/h. The combat radius and ferry range of the aircraft are 375km and 7,500km respectively. The normal range of the Su-25 is 750km, while its service ceiling is 7,000m.
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su25/

 

[Scott]

The theory is that the aircraft was first hit with a missile on one of its engines, and -then- hit in the cockpit with machine gun fire. I found a good article written by Peter Haisenko, that gets into the evidence that this is what happened. Quoting the introduction to his article:

**
Peter Haisenko was a pilot for Lufthansa for 30 years. In the article below he explains his conclusion that the Malaysian airliner downed in Ukraine was hit first by an air-to-air missile from a Ukrainian fighter jet and then by machine gun fire. As Ukrainian air control has refused to release its communications with the airliner and Washington refuses to release its satellite photos, we have to form a judgment based on experience and available evidence. This judgment is superior to unsupported propagandistic claims. The withholding of pertinent information suggests that Washington and/or Kiev are responsible for the downed airliner.
**

Full article:
The Evidence: MH 017 | countercurrents.org

I found out about Peter Haisenko from RT's documentary on the aircraft alleged to be MH 17. That can be seen here:
MH-17: the untold story | RT

Well, when it comes to damage to aircraft Peter Haisenko knows nothing.

According to who, you?

As a published military historian on military technology I do know stuff about that.

Do you a link to your work? What I have noted so far is that you apparently didn't know Russia's apparent stance that the downed aircraft was first hit by a missile and only afterwards hit in the cockpit cannon fire (RT does get it right, it's my other source that said machine gun fire). Would have saved you some time from explaining how the cockpit couldn't have been hit by a missile.

Russian TV Inadvertently Demonstrates MH17 Wasn't Shot Down by Aircraft Cannon Fire

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-...mh17-wasnt-shot-down-by-aircraft-cannon-fire/

You may wish to be a tad cautious when taking information from Bellingcat. Mint Press News has an article on them that I believe is quite revealing:
How Bellingcat launders National Security State talking points into the press

Quoting from it:
**
Investigative site Bellingcat is the toast of the popular press. In the past month alone, it has been described as “an intelligence agency for the people” (ABC Australia), a “transparent” and “innovative” (New Yorker) “independent news collective,” “transforming investigative journalism” (Big Think), and an unequivocal “force for good” (South China Morning Post). Indeed, outside of a few alternative news sites, it is very hard to hear a negative word against Bellingcat, such is the gushing praise for the outlet founded in 2014.

This is troubling, because the evidence compiled in this investigation suggests Bellingcat is far from independent and neutral, as it is funded by Western governments, staffed with former military and state intelligence officers, repeats official narratives against enemy states, and serves as a key part in what could be called a “spook to Bellingcat to corporate media propaganda pipeline,” presenting Western government narratives as independent research.
**

Cannon fire--not machinegun as the planes that would have done this were armed with 30mm autocannons--causes damage in a straight line. The damage creates large holes with jagged edges facing in. There would be evidence of detonations and internal damage from secondary fragmentation if it were cannon fire. If the rounds weren't explosive, then they'd pass through the plane and create large exit holes with jagged edges facing outward. There is none of that evident on MH 17.

I'm not going to just take your word for it.