How the Malaysian "Boeing" was shot down
Colonel Cassad (in English)
Also
The Vineyard of the Saker
How MH17 was shot down – analysis by Colonel Cassad
The Saker
More in the comments there.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Colonel Cassad — How the Malaysian "Boeing" was shot down
How the Malaysian "Boeing" was shot down
Colonel Cassad (in English)
Also
The Vineyard of the Saker
How MH17 was shot down – analysis by Colonel Cassad
The Saker
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is an amazingly detailed analysis.
My only qualm with Cassad is his assumption that the SU-25 used its machine gun first, and then launched a missile to finish the job.
There are a couple of problems with this.
-- machine gun is not so accurate (tho it may have been guided by either laser or by tracers) so it would take some luck to machine gun plane without giving pilots time to call Mayday.
-- SU25 would have needed to climb to MH17's altitude and approach within a few hundred years. Possible with some SU25's or with old SU25 & oxygen mask, but a stretch.
-- I find it easier to believe the Saker's theory that the SU25 first launched a missile, the missile took out at least one engine, the plane lost speed and altitude, and then the SU25 finished it off with its machine gun.
Bear in mind that if the SU25 did initiate hostility with its machine gun at a few hundred yards distance, as Cassad claims, that's not a case of mistaken identity, that's cold blooded murder.
If I were the pilot, I would have positioned myself to fire at the cockpit while simultaneously launching a missile, figuring the missile would bring the aircraft down and the cannon fire would finish off the crew before they could report the attack. A heat-seeking missile would hit the engine but not necessarily destroy the aircraft in the air simultaneously, and if it did not, one of the pilots could radio their predicament. On the other hand, the MH17-control tower tapes have never been released.
Regarding the ceiling, an aircraft would not have been dispatched in the first place if it could not do the job. In this scenario, MH17 would have had to be positioned lower than assumed, or the plane would have had to be capable of the altitude.
What I find particularly curious is that almost immediately the Ukrainians and Atlanticists rushed to judgment that Putin did it. This was repeated with the assassination of Boris Nemtsov. Thus far, the facts regarding both are unclear.
The Ukrainians and the Atlanticists (NATO government and military leaders) have claimed large numbers of Russian troops and tanks have invaded Ukraine without presenting credible evidence. Based on reports from the front and OCSE observers their has been large scale Russian presence in the fighting, which is between the separatists and the Ukrainian Armed forces and volunteer battalions.
In addition, the Atlanticists have either ignored or denied the presence of neo-Nazi extremists in the coup and the subsequent Ukrainian government and fighting forces, as well as the use of Nazi symbols and paraphernalia.
And as with the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, the media is not asking relevant questions but rather staying on message.
If this is ever reviewed in the mainstream media, they'll also revisit what really brought the World Trade Center down on 9/11.
So it'll never be reviewed in Congress.
Post a Comment