Latest Breaking News

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

40. Not from the front.

Tue Sep 9, 2014, 10:01 AM

Sep 2014

If a military jet was intercepting and then shooting the plane down, it wouldn't be done from the front.

First, the closing speed between the planes would be extremely fast, making the window between "plane enters cannon range" and "plane passes fighter" very short. As a result, you'd expect an air-to-air intercept to be done from the rear, or possibly the side.

Second, cannon range isn't all that long. The fighter would be visible to the pilots long before it could open fire. And it would be really weird for the pilots to not say "Hey, there's a plane out there". It would be really, really, really weird for the pilots to not say "Hey, there's a plane out there that's flying right at us".

Third, lots of small energy projectiles is consistent with a proximity warhead. It isn't consistent with cannon fire. Especially cannon fire during the very small window that a frontal approach provides - it would be hard to get a lot of hits during that window.

The report backs up the "Hit by a SAM" story.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

92 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

MH17 crash: Dutch experts say numerous objects hit plane [View all] reorg Sep 2014 OP

Sounds like they got all the air traffic controller data. joshcryer Sep 2014 #1

not sure about that reorg Sep 2014 #5

The black box recorder will have it all. joshcryer Sep 2014 #7

Apparently you did not read my post reorg Sep 2014 #8

Much has changed. joshcryer Sep 2014 #10

You sound confused reorg Sep 2014 #17

Only mentions damage to the Cockpit area from above floor level rootProbiscus Sep 2014 #2

Buk radar locks. joshcryer Sep 2014 #4

Some peoples' idea of an investigation is to . . . another_liberal Sep 2014 #9

The plane full of civilians was fucking shot down. joshcryer Sep 2014 #11

Who is denying that a plane was shot down? another_liberal Sep 2014 #13

The first eyewitnesses interviewed by the BBC reorg Sep 2014 #19

This report was not supposed to assign blame. I think that starts now. karynnj Sep 2014 #26

Missiles fly a ballistic flight path hack89 Sep 2014 #28

NO... missile could take any path programmed in to it quadrature Sep 2014 #49

No. hack89 Sep 2014 #50

Incomplete data The Traveler Sep 2014 #3

Cannon fire from a military jet? Anarcho-Socialist Sep 2014 #6

There were Ukrainian fighter jets active in the area . . . another_liberal Sep 2014 #12

No more and no less than you already know the Ukrainian Air Force did it... LanternWaste Sep 2014 #84

Fragments from a missile warhead. nt hack89 Sep 2014 #27

Could be. The evidence of whether it was cannon fire or an exploding missile warhead may be resting pampango Sep 2014 #29

No clearly shrapnel from a proximity fuse shell happyslug Sep 2014 #31

Not from the front. jeff47 Sep 2014 #40

Photos of the cockpit section Bartlet Sep 2014 #63

Consistent with a Buk missile strike. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #14

Cannon fire from a Ukrainian fighter jet . . . another_liberal Sep 2014 #16

No, air to air missiles use proximity warheads to explode near the target to destroy it. happyslug Sep 2014 #35

Why argue now about something that esoteric and open to interrpretation . . . another_liberal Sep 2014 #53

Open to interpretation???? happyslug Sep 2014 #59

Like I said . . . another_liberal Sep 2014 #60

That sounds familiar. Igel Sep 2014 #61

You mean like Bartlet Sep 2014 #65

No. jeff47 Sep 2014 #43

I take it you are an expert in fighter tactics . . . another_liberal Sep 2014 #55

It needs to be in cannon range when you explicitly ask about firing a cannon. jeff47 Sep 2014 #67

NO... parkia00 Sep 2014 #47

Who told you that . . . another_liberal Sep 2014 #56

Here for one. parkia00 Sep 2014 #80

There is no evience of any aircraft cannon Bartlet Sep 2014 #64

Do we have to wait 'til Christmas for the black boxes to be 'opened' elias49 Sep 2014 #15

Did you read the story? geek tragedy Sep 2014 #18

Last I heard . . . another_liberal Sep 2014 #21

You may have read the story, but not the report reorg Sep 2014 #22

Cockpit recorder is not black boxes, which last I read were in England. elias49 Sep 2014 #23

Incorrect. nt geek tragedy Sep 2014 #24

If you say so. elias49 Sep 2014 #32

Derp. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #33

Yup. There are two kinds... elias49 Sep 2014 #34

Again I ask, did you read the story? geek tragedy Sep 2014 #36

I read several stories, including the one you refer to... elias49 Sep 2014 #38

Investigations have phases. geek tragedy Sep 2014 #39

Cockpit recorder is a black box. IronGate Sep 2014 #37

But it's necessary to ramp up the public's emotions against Russia NOW! another_liberal Sep 2014 #20

Guardian: MH17: Five things learned from Dutch Safety Board report pampango Sep 2014 #25

One more thing: 1.b The pilots were told they could not fly higher reorg Sep 2014 #70

What a charmingly political way to say that the US State Dept. propaganda was Demeter Sep 2014 #30

Exactly. Thank God it's the Dutch ballyhoo Sep 2014 #42

Yes, this utterly demolishes the "hit by a SAM" story jeff47 Sep 2014 #44

It supports the general theory that a ground-to-air missile hit it muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #45

It supports the idea that it as shot down by a missile hack89 Sep 2014 #48

I hope the investigation dotymed Sep 2014 #41

Is one year excessive? Is it to allow the situation to fade in time? olegramps Sep 2014 #46

One year gives both sides time to negotiate. JDPriestly Sep 2014 #51

if it was a Buk, it was not done by the rebels meMeMEEEE Sep 2014 #54

No Bartlet Sep 2014 #66

to clarify meMeMEEEE Sep 2014 #72

Or if one side were somehow supplied a Buk system from one of those countries. Tommy_Carcetti Sep 2014 #75

So the rebels were lying when they claimed to shoot down Ukrainian fighters? (nt) jeff47 Sep 2014 #68

negative meMeMEEEE Sep 2014 #71

Except they claimed they used a Buk to do it. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2014 #76

Quote please, they never did n/t reorg Sep 2014 #78

Turns out the pic I was thinking of was the one released when they thought jeff47 Sep 2014 #82

Do you mean the specific Jul 17th claim or the ones prior? meMeMEEEE Sep 2014 #79

won't fade meMeMEEEE Sep 2014 #52

Air France flt 447 report was issued 3 years after the crash. EX500rider Sep 2014 #57

Sadly, I don't see any proof Blue_Tires Sep 2014 #58

Doesn't matter. Igel Sep 2014 #62

That just shows how good the cover-up is!!! :sarcasm: (nt) jeff47 Sep 2014 #69

If by "US cover-up" you mean: reorg Sep 2014 #73

I already debunked that propagandistic bullshit... Blue_Tires Sep 2014 #74

I must have missed it reorg Sep 2014 #77

.... guess that rules out seagulls or geese ... Myrina Sep 2014 #81

addendum: How the NYT interpreted the report reorg Sep 2014 #83

That is OPEDNEWS editorializing karynnj Sep 2014 #85

David Lindorff points out the editorializing by the NYT reorg Sep 2014 #86

It is NOT editorializing to report what the report says AND to add that it is consistent with karynnj Sep 2014 #87

Look, this is getting ridiculous reorg Sep 2014 #88

It is ridiculous - and the reason is that you are being very simplistic and are holding onto RT lies karynnj Sep 2014 #89

I think the first question about the report would be reorg Sep 2014 #90

It is not consistent with - a Ukrainian military plane shot an air-to-air missile / plus gun fire karynnj Sep 2014 #91

Well, RT didn't lie us into an aggressive war reorg Sep 2014 #92