LOL! DSB uses screenshot of Russia Today documentary to show SU-25 could not have shot down MH17

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

A bit of a joke in the DSB report. In the appendix titled “investigation of the impact damage due to high-energy objects on the wreckage of flight MH17‘ on page 37 there is a still of a YouTube video.

The photo at page 37 is used as an illustration that the damage done by a Su-25 cannon is not observed on MH17.

DSB-report

Russia Today had a totally different goal with this video. They used a SU-25 and shot at an derelict aircraft. This way they wanted to prove that the holes in MH17 were caused by the cannon of a SU-25. You can see the same shot at 14:54 into the video.

Capture

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

3 Comments on LOL! DSB uses screenshot of Russia Today documentary to show SU-25 could not have shot down MH17

  1. Hector Reban // October 15, 2015 at 6:37 am // Reply

    If this is a “joke” or a hidden message, its also a provocation and therefore a sign of the mindset the report has been drafted with. Imho this doesn’t make the report more trustworthy.

  2. To me it shows DSB has gone through also the Russian material.
    Making it more trustworthy.

    (they have gone trough also pro-RU material of finnish web sites)

  3. @Rector: Funny argumentation. As you can clearly see in the Russian test: A board canon of a fighter would produce only sparsely damage, which is a logic result for a latency of shooting and the high relative speed of both flight objects towrads each other. Why is it so hard for some here to understand basic physical principles? MH17 does not look like it has been punched by a board canon, so it was very properly not hit by any fighter board gun. Or wait, of course additionally a fighter jet could have shot at exactly at the parts that were previously hit by a warhead, but then, where are the rest of impact holes in the fuselage and doesn’t this sound a bit too much like super fantastic but completely unlikely coincidence? I find this whole argumentation (which you seem to still like to protect) doesn’t make you a trustworthy comrade either. You look more like you want to defend a true Russian *LOL* story for – I’m guessing here – ideological political reasons.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*