MH17

[tarbe]

Anyone else skeptical of the claim that this plane was shot down by a missile?

My simple brain looks at the photos of the debris and it sure looks more like a more-or-less intact airplane that hit the ground...not one that was hit by a missile at 33 - 36,000 feet. Un-burned bodies in proximity of the wreckage seems very strange as well.

Just seems like the debris would be scattered over miles as the plane burned and broke up during the many miles it would have traveled in a damaged state, prior to finally hitting the ground.

Not trying to start anything...but I just cannot get my brain to accept the missile story since seeing pictures of the wreckage.

 

[enysse]

Well it's damn hard for me to believe the last plane is missing, no one could find it????

 

[Royal27]

I don't believe anything that the gov//news says these days, but I also don't think that a heat seeking missile hitting the engine and just blowing off a wing is a stretch either.

I can see how much could happen without everything getting burned up.

Personally, I think this was a really bad accident. I think the jet was shot down by some idiots who thought it was a military jet, not commercial. Things like that happen in war zones....

Not taking away from the tragedy at all. Prayers to the families.

 

[Red Leg]

"Anyone else skeptical of the claim that this plane was shot down by a missile?
My simple brain looks at the photos of the debris and it sure looks more like a more-or-less intact airplane that hit the ground...not one that was hit by a missile at 33 - 36,000 feet. Un-burned bodies in proximity of the wreckage seems very strange as well"

Where does this nonsense come from? It looks exactly like a missile shoot down - or any other event that would catastrophically bring an airliner down from 6 miles in the sky. The SA-11 uses a 170lb warhead - that aircraft suffered exactly the sort of catastrophic decompression and significant structural damage commensurate with that sort of explosive force. Bodies and debris are scattered over 6-7 square miles exactly what one would expect. Based on your experience reviewing military air defense engagements, what part of this doesn't look like it was caused by a Russian air defense weapon?!? I assure you we and NATO had every available sensor focused on that corner of the planet (unlike the remote reaches of the Indian Ocean where we have exactly zero assets deployed) We will have the trajectory, the launch point, the exact launch time, and I am confident we have extensive intercepted communications. Judging by the press, the basics are being leaked (deliberately) pretty accurately. Just wish our president was as direct in his condemnation as was his UN Ambassador and his Secretary of State.

 

[Red Leg]

Probably grumpier than I needed to ne on that post Tarbe - sorry. Been that kind of day. Visited my local gunsmith a few hours ago (works out of his house) who is one of those who believes the Twin Towers were taken down alternately by the Mossad, the CIA, Democrats - anyone but the Al Queda bastards who did it. He started up with some sort of internet inspired nonsense about some conspiracy concerning Malaysian Airlines. Got home, read this and my head about exploded. But yes, this is what one would expect from such an ADA missile strike. The Russian missile uses a large warhead - almost 200lbs. Our equivalent system is the Patriot. These weapons are designed to kill missiles as well as aircraft. Missiles are much harder to hit and the systems compensate with a bigger blast and a designed shrapnel cone to increase hit likelihood of such a fast moving target. Against a huge, highly pressurized target like an airliner which has no counter measures, one would expect wreckage and a debris field just like this. Also, had this been fully under Russian control it would have been fully tied into their long range air-space defense management system. These guys were almost certainly working off an independent search radar that had trouble differentiating targets. They would know that we would be able to intercept the communications between an air defense ops center and the launcher had it been tied in fully. They would want to maintain a veneer of Russian non-involvement. Hand-off to the weapon's engagement radar is the tricky part, and in this case, the missile clearly locked onto an airliner. We'll likely never know, but I suspect there was a Ukrainian transport somewhere in the area. And yes, I have no doubt there were Russians manning the actual weapon and the search radar - and they hosed it up royally. We just need not to let Putin off the hook. Reversing Obama's decision not to deploy air defense missile systems to Poland and the Czech Republic would be a good place to start.

 

[tarbe]

Where does this nonsense come from?

It comes from ignorance...an ignorance of the subject matter that I freely admit to (the simple brain reference in my OP).

Shedding light on ignorance is a great way to banish it. All that is needed is a subject matter expert like yourself to come in to set the record straight.

What is the rule of thumb (if there is any) for a debris field size for a plane shot down from this altitude? Or are there too many variables for a rule of thumb (I suspect there might be)?

 

[tarbe]

We were typing at the same time..

 

[Red Leg]

Sorry again Buddy. Yeah, the engines and landing gear are the only really large pieces of a modern aircraft which have any mass. The rest would have come apart pretty explosively at that altitude. Had this been a WWII era B-17 taken down by an 88mm ADA gun, it would have fallen in more or less one spot (assuming the bomb load didn't go off). But they were not pressurized and were built like tanks compared to a modern jet. Looks like to me the triple 7's two engines and the forward center of the plane hit more or less in one area. According to most news reports, the rest is scattered over several square miles. Sounds about right. A sad thought is that those passengers not killed by the explosion, the debris or the shrapnel would have had a very long fall indeed to the ground. This will likely play out like the Korean airliner during the Soviet era. The Russians will do anything but admit the truth.

 

[ActionBob]

Anyone remember Obama getting caught with his microphone still on when he thought it was off and discussing with Putin how he could give him what he wanted,, after the election????

I cannot live thinking all the worst and being paranoid all the time, and I am certain that some level of sanity will eventually return to the leadership of the USA... But actions speak loader than words.. And Obama's words never line up with his actions.

Is this guy really out to systematically degrade the USA? A lot of his actions seem to be directed at destroying every thing this country was founded on.

I was reading a lion hunting story written first hand by Teddy Roosevelt. It got me to thinking which of our modern day presidents might have gone lion hunting on horseback and then jumped out of the saddle to shoot the beast as it charged towards him, realizing that if he rode off the lion would have got one of the trackers or a companion.

I met Clinton in a brief moment once. Shook his soft little hand, granted that guy has some balls... When it came to female interns! And I'm sure it took nerves of steel to stand up to Hilary in the aftermath... But as a lion hunter I would put him as dead last. Present guy next to last. I would rank the Elder Bush at the top, probably Reagan and the younger Bush next. I was pretty young when Carter was pres, but being he was a farmer maybe a chance he could step up? In fact I think he was a terrible president, but one of our best ex-presidents.

Who of our recent Presidents would you nominate as best potential lion hunter?

 

[enysse]

Reagan would be #1 to me, when he was younger I think he could have kicked most of these so called Presidents butts.

 

[tarbe]

Sorry again Buddy.

No worries. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and for having patience.

 

[tarbe]

Who of our recent Presidents would you nominate as best potential lion hunter?

Based on what he did as a very young man, GHWB would be difficult to vote against.

 

[Royal27]

Either of the Bushes, and don't forget that Ford was a heck of an athete. Doesn't mean he would have been a good lion hunyer, but he was also not the klutz that he was portrayed to be.