Comments by "peabase" (@peabase) on "MH17: The view from Moscow" video.

  1. ARCSTREAMS You're funny. A BUK missile reaches Mach 3. Is a Boeing 777 supersonic in your book?
    1
  2. ARCSTREAMS The BUK missile has a total burn time of 15 s. In order to reach the cruising height of MH17, it has to go all out. Moreover, its engine uses solid propellant -- it can't be throttled down. You're making it up as you go along, aren't you? Fail!
    1
  3. ARCSTREAMS Provide me with a better source then, one that vindicates your claim. If the 15 s maximum burn time is correct, simple physics says the missile must've travelled at a vertical speed that averaged at least 2,400 km/h in order to reach 33,000 ft, the altitude at which MH17 was cruising. But unless the BUK launch was perfectly timed, there must've been a horizontal speed component, too. Initial acceleration must be factored in as well, so Mach 3 seems all the more plausible. That's far, far faster than the Mach 0.84 at which a Boeing 777 cruises. Your claims are bogus.
    1
  4. ARCSTREAMS Even if the burn time somewhat exceeds 15 seconds (for which you provide no credible sources -- videos won't do), the missile still has to travel at very high velocity to reach its advertised range and height limits. Be that as it may, that's in clear contradiction with your claims that the BUK missile flies at a speed close to that of a Boeing 777. The Russian state-owned manufacturer of the BUK now also confirms that it was their system that took out MH17, so I think we can put the Ukrainian fighter theory to sleep. Enough with the disinformation already.
    1
  5. ARCSTREAMS Again, please provide sources for your extended burn times. The burden of proof resides with you, since you claimed that the BUK missile engages its target at a leisurely Mach 0.84+, only slightly faster than a cruising Boeing 777. You already found my source, Wikipedia, which mentions a total burn time of 15 s for the 9М38 variant. Wikipedia puts its range at 3,5 to 25 km and altitude at 25 to 18,000 m. If those figures are overly optimistic, go complain to the manufacturer. Anyhoo, weapons experts have estimated that it took the missile, once launched, 8 to 12 s to reach the jetliner. In plainspeak, the missile went for MH17 like greased lightning. And why not, more kinetic energy means more destructive power. I'm not falling for your efforts to obfuscate the issue further. I pointed out a clear mistake in your fanciful BUK narrative. Let's leave it at that.
    1
  6. ARCSTREAMS Ah, the anonymous friend who knows people who know stuff, but they won't tell anyone but your loose-lipped friend. That combined with your apparent amnesia makes you a very poor witness. Your words: "BUK is a territory defending system. The rocket speed is not too much higher than the boeing's speed. To capture the boeing for sure, there is a need to place several BUKs on the plane's route and direct it to these BUKs"
    1
  7. ARCSTREAMS So you're backtracking on your claim. You yourself just quoted the 15 s total burn time from Wikipedia, so how's that my nonsense? You can't come up with a more accurate figure, only a vague reference to a friend-of-a-friend how's "in the know" or a fanciful interpretation of "dual mode". Like I keep saying, go complain to the manufacturer if they overstated the BUK's capabilities.
    1
  8. ARCSTREAMS And out comes the abuse. Always a sign of defeat.
    1
  9. ziad welder And what are you, his sock puppet? You're repeating Arcstreams' weak arguments practically verbatim. As they say, abuse is the last refuge of the witless.
    1
  10. moonspellsdumb Right, bumbling idiots, who can't tell a fighter plane apart from a jetliner. Then they brag online about a shootdown, before even bothering to look at what it was that came down. Any sane government would've immediately distantiated themselves from the rebels, but not Russia. That and the hastily-concocted cover-up stories point at more than moral involvement.
    1