| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to maintain some kind of respectable thread quality and to show some respect for those who lost friends in this tragedy, we're forced to enact a hard line policy for this thread. Any posts holding an opinion on who is responsible or making an accusation that is not held by neutral media will be banned. Policy is in effect from page 27 onwards. Specifically, citing a Ukrainian or Russian source for your claims is going to get you banned. Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states) will be permitted. This policy extends to all forms of media; if a youtube video or picture has not come through a neutral media source then don't post it or you'll be banned. If you wish to discuss this policy please use this website feedback thread. Updated policy on aggressive posting and insults. | ||
micronesia
United States24784 Posts
On July 22 2014 10:03 m4ini wrote: Not to mention, if there was a fighterjet following, the flight recorders will tell (i think they record radar contacts, yes?). No... any radar on an airliner basically faces forward. The flight records would not record jets following a plane due to 'radar contacts.' | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On July 22 2014 10:03 m4ini wrote: Didn't know they claimed that the jet followed the airliner for ages on the same altitude before shooting it down. I have to correct myself though, the frogfoot does not reach 33k feet. Nyxisto has it kinda right, but not quite. 23k feet is the service ceiling of the SU-25 clean. Means, no weapons, only partial fuelload. Since it's a ground-attack plane, to have AA missiles loaded it's safe to assume it was fully kitted weaponwise (doesn't make sense to send your ground-attackplane with only AA missiles into the air). Fully kitted the service ceiling of the frogfoot is 16000 feet. It doesn't have afterburners (i assume the ukraine wouldn't have the most recent SU25TMs), so it won't go much higher. Not to mention (afaik) that even IF it'd reach 33000 feet huffing and puffing, it would be too slow to follow MH17. But doesn't change the fact that it'll be pretty easy to distinguish between a small missile and a BUK hit. Not to mention, if there was a fighterjet following, the flight recorders will tell (i think they record radar contacts, yes?). IMO, if a civilian jetliner was being followed by a fighter jet there's a good chance (nah, who am I kidding, it's pretty much 100%) they would notice (you know, radar and whatnot). At a minimum you'd think they'd mention it over the radio. I doubt that the Russians and whatever party could track this SU-25 that MH17 didn't notice, or at least never mentioned. EDIT: @micronesia is that so? Huh, that's odd. No rearview mirrors on a jet? I feel like the presence of a fighter jet trialing a commercial flight should have been identifiable by some source other than the Russians. You know, if it actually existed and all. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 22 2014 10:18 micronesia wrote: No... any radar on an airliner basically faces forward. The flight records would not record jets following a plane due to 'radar contacts.' Well that's.. hm. So basically they wouldn't know if they were followed, right? Since if you don't know that there's a jet behind you, you wouldn't radio him. Do flightcontrols/towers record their showings? As in, some flight coordinator had to have MH17 on his screen when it disappeared - does that get recorded? Dumb question maybe, i have no idea though. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24784 Posts
On July 22 2014 10:18 ticklishmusic wrote: IMO, if a civilian jetliner was being followed by a fighter jet there's a good chance (nah, who am I kidding, it's pretty much 100%) they would notice (you know, radar and whatnot). Most likely, the only way an airliner would discover they are being followed is if air traffic control on the ground tells them. On July 22 2014 10:21 m4ini wrote: Well that's.. hm. So basically they wouldn't know if they were followed, right? Since if you don't know that there's a jet behind you, you wouldn't radio him. Do flightcontrols/towers record their showings? As in, some flight coordinator had to have MH17 on his screen when it disappeared - does that get recorded? Dumb question maybe, i have no idea though. It is all recorded. Unless you are out in the open ocean, over the Himalayas, etc. edit: For those who don't know, one of the two black boxes is basically a microphone of cockpit conversation; the second black box records flight data, e.g., altitude, speed, heading, wing/engine settings. | ||
|
Noldo
Russian Federation39 Posts
Evidences? Investigations? Haha, noone needs it, your diplomats already knows who and with what weapon shooted the plane. Good luck in finding truth with that biases. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On July 22 2014 10:23 Noldo wrote: I just love how most western countries know who to blame. Evidences? Investigations? Haha, noone needs it, your diplomats already knows who and with what weapon shooted the plane. Good luck in finding truth with that biases. So we know the truth but we are biased so we don't know the truth. That's not a circular argument, that's like a Moebius Strip argument. | ||
|
Noldo
Russian Federation39 Posts
On July 22 2014 10:27 ticklishmusic wrote: So we know the truth but we are biased so we don't know the truth. That's not a circular argument, that's like a Moebius Strip argument. Simple fact is: nobody know truth about that flight now (Except those, who shooted it). But we can see, what your diplomats think about that. User was warned for this and other posts. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
It is all recorded. Unless you are out in the open ocean, over the Himalayas, etc. edit: For those who don't know, one of the two black boxes is basically a microphone of cockpit conversation; the second black box records flight data, e.g., altitude, speed, heading, wing/engine settings. Should be easy to tell then if there actually was another plane following MH17. Since the ukraine-thread, i refuse to believe anything coming from russian media, so i don't know if they based their "version" on the recordings of the traffic controller. I just love how most western countries know who to blame. Evidences? Investigations? Haha, noone needs it, your diplomats already knows who and with what weapon shooted the plane. Good luck in finding truth with that biases. So does your government. And the freedom fighters from your country. I assume you read the bullshit of dead bodies before the plane started and all the other fairy tales. Nobody denies some bias, but at least most people here use common sense. What your government/medias report is just pure idiocy. I take everything i read with a grain of salt, but i stopped reading russian sources alltogether, because they don't report anything of value. Simple fact is: nobody know truth about that flight now (Except those, who shooted it). But we can see, what your diplomats think about that. Also fact: all evidence so far points to the rebels. Starting from their (now deleted) tweets, their resigning chief, all the pictures and videos taken of BUKs in the vincinity of the crash, etc. People here actually filter their content, for example there are videos out there from "questionable sources" (dailymail, etc) showing a BUK on a trailer being transported through russia away from the ukrainian border, stuff like that. All you read here is pretty much solid, and by far not everything the western media in general reports. edit: don't know if it was posted already, but this is the crashsite pictured by a satellite ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtGPhqDIYAAWYll.jpg:large) | ||
|
Noldo
Russian Federation39 Posts
On July 22 2014 10:34 m4ini wrote: So does your government. And the freedom fighters from your country. I assume you read the bullshit of dead bodies before the plane started and all the other fairy tales. Nobody denies some bias, but at least most people here use common sense. What your government/medias report is just pure idiocy. I take everything i read with a grain of salt, but i stopped reading russian sources alltogether, because they don't report anything of value. Our government is shit. And freedom fighters too, just like anyone who base his actions on massmedia information and emotions. Also I almost doesnt read our media, because we have no good media now x_x But i can understand, why ru and ua media and goverments acting like that. Its informational war, between them. And western countries just completely on one side with ua, but tries to represent themselves as fair and neutral. And that is funny. Ah, also i tried to read your media several times, but all that attempts was unsuccessfull - just like in ru or ua sites i saw no articles without bias. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 22 2014 10:51 Noldo wrote: Our government is shit. And freedom fighters too, just like anyone who base his actions on massmedia information and emotions. Also I almost doesnt read our media, because we have no good media now x_x But i can understand, why ru and ua media and goverments acting like that. Its informational war, between them. And western countries just completely on one side with ua, but tries to represent themselves as fair and neutral. And that is funny. Ah, also i tried to read your media several times, but all that attempts was unsuccessfull - just like in ru or ua sites i saw no articles without bias. Try reuters, they're fairly good. Al jazeera isn't that bad either. Avoid "big newschannels" like CNN or BBC. If you can cope with google-trans, try spiegel.de. In other news, it appears as if the plane was hit from the front. I'm not entirely sure why i didn't see that picture in the bigger news-outlets. ![[image loading]](http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/b324fdf5-fb31-447b-9cd5-1500d2ecca8b.img) financial times Edit: doesn't really add anything new though, just proof that MH17 was hit by something that turns into shrapnell. For lazy persons who don't wanna read: small holes pointing inwards and big hole pointing outward means (according to article, i'm no expert) a rocket/missile exploded outside of the plane, penetrated it with shrapnells, as a result explosive decompression ripped that bigger hole outwards. Apparently this was part of the cockpit. Again, no expert, just citing the article. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On July 22 2014 11:04 m4ini wrote: + Show Spoiler + On July 22 2014 10:51 Noldo wrote: Our government is shit. And freedom fighters too, just like anyone who base his actions on massmedia information and emotions. Also I almost doesnt read our media, because we have no good media now x_x But i can understand, why ru and ua media and goverments acting like that. Its informational war, between them. And western countries just completely on one side with ua, but tries to represent themselves as fair and neutral. And that is funny. Ah, also i tried to read your media several times, but all that attempts was unsuccessfull - just like in ru or ua sites i saw no articles without bias. Try reuters, they're fairly good. Al jazeera isn't that bad either. Avoid "big newschannels" like CNN or BBC. If you can cope with google-trans, try spiegel.de. In other news, it appears as if the plane was hit from the front. I'm not entirely sure why i didn't see that picture in the bigger news-outlets. financial times Edit: doesn't really add anything new though, just proof that MH17 was hit by something that turns into shrapnell. For lazy persons who don't wanna read: small holes pointing inwards and big hole pointing outward means (according to article, i'm no expert) a rocket/missile exploded outside of the plane, penetrated it with shrapnells, as a result explosive decompression ripped that bigger hole outwards. Apparently this was part of the cockpit. Again, no expert, just citing the article. EDIT: dumb comment, i should read the article | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On July 22 2014 11:17 ticklishmusic wrote: EDIT: dumb comment, i should read the article How could they tell which part of the plane specifically? I think the answer is the rivets you see. Those are around the cockpit windows but not around the passenger compartment windows. . | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24156 Posts
On July 22 2014 10:34 m4ini wrote: Should be easy to tell then if there actually was another plane following MH17. Since the ukraine-thread, i refuse to believe anything coming from russian media, so i don't know if they based their "version" on the recordings of the traffic controller. So does your government. And the freedom fighters from your country. I assume you read the bullshit of dead bodies before the plane started and all the other fairy tales. Nobody denies some bias, but at least most people here use common sense. What your government/medias report is just pure idiocy. I take everything i read with a grain of salt, but i stopped reading russian sources alltogether, because they don't report anything of value. Also fact: all evidence so far points to the rebels. Starting from their (now deleted) tweets, their resigning chief, all the pictures and videos taken of BUKs in the vincinity of the crash, etc. People here actually filter their content, for example there are videos out there from "questionable sources" (dailymail, etc) showing a BUK on a trailer being transported through russia away from the ukrainian border, stuff like that. All you read here is pretty much solid, and by far not everything the western media in general reports. edit: don't know if it was posted already, but this is the crashsite pictured by a satellite Wow that was freakishly close to hitting peoples homes with the bulk of the debris. Makes me wonder if they had any control over the plane as it went down. Maybe it was just dumb luck that more people didn't die, but seems like that is a small silver lining to the incident itself (although I'm sure it does little to nothing for those who experienced losses from this tragedy). | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 22 2014 11:23 GreenHorizons wrote: Wow that was freakishly close to hitting peoples homes with the bulk of the debris. Makes me wonder if they had any control over the plane as it went down. Maybe it was just dumb luck that more people didn't die, but seems like that is a small silver lining to the incident itself (although I'm sure it does little to nothing for those who experienced losses from this tragedy). If the cockpit was hit (not claiming it was, it's just how it appears to me after reading the last article), doubtful. Also, if they had control, the crashsite would look like an arrow tip, wouldn't it? As in, impact and from there getting wider in a certain direction. To me it looks like it went straight down. Edit: what confuses me, shouldn't there be a crater of some sort, where the turbines hit the ground? I saw pictures of different plane-catastrophes, almost all of them had some kind of craterish thing where the engines hit the ground. Flight 93 is a very good example for that (9/11, the plane that didn't reach its target, was half the weight as well). | ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
On July 22 2014 11:23 GreenHorizons wrote: Wow that was freakishly close to hitting peoples homes with the bulk of the debris. Makes me wonder if they had any control over the plane as it went down. Maybe it was just dumb luck that more people didn't die, but seems like that is a small silver lining to the incident itself (although I'm sure it does little to nothing for those who experienced losses from this tragedy). If they suffered from explosive decompression, they probably lost control immediately. Especially so close to the cockpit. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
EDIT: I found some info saying that the "time of useful consciousness" after experiencing explosive decompression is about 5 seconds (half of consciousness from non-explosive decompression). Who knows. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
| ||
|
Mithhaike
Singapore2759 Posts
Guys, you can check out a series of various satellite photos taken. That photo on top is of the main debris field, there's a lot of other debris scattered all over the area, the tail section for example is in a separate field. The plane broke up into two major sections in midair if the photos and the captions are right, the tail section and the main crash site are pretty far away. There's also another debris field 2mile away from the primary & secondary crash site. The plane pretty much broke up in midair as there's no skid mark linking the main body from the tail section across the roads etc. | ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On July 22 2014 11:28 m4ini wrote: If the cockpit was hit (not claiming it was, it's just how it appears to me after reading the last article), doubtful. Also, if they had control, the crashsite would look like an arrow tip, wouldn't it? As in, impact and from there getting wider in a certain direction. To me it looks like it went straight down. Edit: what confuses me, shouldn't there be a crater of some sort, where the turbines hit the ground? I saw pictures of different plane-catastrophes, almost all of them had some kind of craterish thing where the engines hit the ground. Flight 93 is a very good example for that (9/11, the plane that didn't reach its target, was half the weight as well). Flight 93 was aimed nose-down into the ground. That'll produce the biggest crater it can. This plane was blown up in mid-air, so it broke apart. | ||
| ||
|
|
Online Event
WardiTV Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
INu's Battles
Cure vs herO
ByuN vs Rogue
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Patches Events
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
