JockPieandBeans Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Bullets from the ground at 33,000 feet? Assume then. You think that the plans being shot down by aircraft? There does appear to be " Bullet " as well as blast fragmentation holes in the provided picture. If the plane was flying at the stated 33000ft, then those " Bullet " holes did not come from the ground. Max range would be around 18000ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wprime Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 they are called BULLETS Disappointed in your response, please read the report. Not bullets. Disappointed in your response, please read the report. Bullets were not ruled out. Bullets from the ground at 33,000 feet? Assume then. You think that the plans being shot down by aircraft? I haven't come to a conclusion, and nor have the Dutch experts. The Americans say they have evidence that a ground to air missile shot it down, the Russians say they have evidence that a Ukrainian plane shot it down. Both nations have a vested interest in discrediting the other so neither has any credibility unless they release their evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwest5829 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 they are called BULLETS Disappointed in your response, please read the report. Not bullets. Disappointed in your response, please read the report. Bullets were not ruled out. Bullets from the ground at 33,000 feet? Assume then. You think that the plans being shot down by aircraft? I haven't come to a conclusion, and nor have the Dutch experts. The Americans say they have evidence that a ground to air missile shot it down, the Russians say they have evidence that a Ukrainian plane shot it down. Both nations have a vested interest in discrediting the other so neither has any credibility unless they release their evidence. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawker9000 Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 they are called BULLETS Disappointed in your response, please read the report. Not bullets. Disappointed in your response, please read the report. Bullets were not ruled out. Neither were chocolate-covered raisins, but some things make sense and some things don't. The guns in fighter aircraft (often actually "cannon" BTW - the F35 actually has 25mm cannon) aren't bb guns... They're relatively large caliber weapons and tend to produce linear patterns of large-diameter hits (where they don't produce disintegration of the target aircraft component completely...). NOT really at all consistent with the damage photos, which are MUCH more consistent with missile warhead fragmentation effects. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BATHIK Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Russians have evidence of a mark on their radar that could have been a military plane. It appears a minute and a half after the hit anyway. Alternative explanation is that it was a part of a roof stripped away after the explosion, it's big enough and it landed several kilometers away from the main site. There are, of course, numerous conspiracy theories entertained by some Russians and they occasionally make it to the RT but it's not their official position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now