Claim: 'Kyiv is the mother of all Russian Cities'

swampgas

jimeryan22 wrote: »

I accept it doesn't word it as your highness would like.. But it's proof enough..

It certainly shows that the US, like many other vested interests, including the EU and Russia, are doing their level best to influence the outcome to suit their own agenda. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were successful, just that they tried.

So, is that one phone call "proof enough" ? I don't think so.

Corkfeen

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Interesting article by tin hat wearing nut someone called the guy on here before..
Dr Paul Craig Roberts.. A guy with more experience of ins and outs of governments than most... But of course he's a "nut". For those who think he's not.. Maybe this will interest you

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/19/happened-malaysian-airliner-paul-craig-roberts/

An economist who's a 911 truther so yeah he is a crackpot.Refers to Al Qaeda involvement as 'unsubstantiated'.

robindch

swampgas wrote: »

It certainly shows that the US, like many other vested interests, including the EU and Russia, are doing their level best to influence the outcome to suit their own agenda. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were successful, just that they tried.

It's been some months since I've listened to that call, but perhaps you could point out the bit which indicates that the US was bringing pressure to bear so as to influence the outcome of the democratic process?

It's a very common claim, but I don't recall anything in Nuland's call which specifically indicated that the US or the EU were doing this.

swampgas

robindch wrote: »

It's been some months since I've listened to that call, but perhaps you could point out the bit which indicates that the US was bringing pressure to bear so as to influence the outcome of the democratic process?

It's a very common claim, but I don't recall anything in Nuland's call which specifically indicated that the US or the EU were doing this.

I didn't mean to say that they were actually trying to do so - I simply meant to say that all the big players are playing their usual diplomatic games, and that it isn't a big surprise that they are.

To put it more clearly: yes the US, Europe and Russia are all trying to influence the situation in Ukraine, but that doesn't mean (necessarily) that any democratic process was actually subverted.

jimeryan22

Corkfeen wrote: »

An economist who's a 911 truther so yeah he is a crackpot.Refers to Al Qaeda involvement as 'unsubstantiated'.

Crackpot yeah.. you do realise the majority now on 911 actually believe the government is lying about... so to believe the "official" story makes you the crackpot ...


http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/

Corkfeen

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Crackpot yeah.. you do realise the majority now on 911 actually believe the government is lying about... so to believe the "official" story makes you the crackpot ...


http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/

Erm nope,no they don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories
Grand job if I'm a crackpot for agreeing with facts. Also, Presstv is a bit of a propaganda network too btw. Natural news next?

stevejazzx

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because - the dazzling clarity of hindsight aside -The airspace below FL320 was restricted; it was travelling at FL330. That's factually incorrect. The same flight flew over Donetsk the previous day.

They did?
Am I reading the above pic from bbc incorrectly- it does not appear that way?

OB wrote:

it had no compelling reason not to be.

Hmmm it is firmly well established that they did? Again I don't understand - are you saying that that area was considered 'not risky' because clearly it was. Rebels were shooting down or attempting to shoot down aircraft almost daily for the period leading up to the tragedy.


Background from wiki
On 3 March 2014, Korean Air and Asiana Airlines "stopped flying over Ukraine airspace ... because of security concerns."[53] Aeroflot, Lufthansa, Singapore Airlines and others would continue overflying eastern Ukraine until after MH17 was shot down.[54] Later, in April the International Civil Aviation Organization warned governments that there was "the possible existence of serious risks to the safety of international civil flights" over Ukraine. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration issued restrictions on flights over Crimea just south of MH17's route, and advised airlines flying over the rest of Ukraine to "exercise extreme caution due to the continuing potential for instability."[55][56]

Subsequently several Ukrainian military aircraft have been downed. On 14 June a Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 aircraft was shot down on approach to Luhansk International Airport, all 49 people on board died. After that incident, on 29 June, Russian news agencies reported that separatists had access to a Buk missile system after taking control of a Ukrainian air defence base A-1402[57][58][59] (possibly the former location of the 156th Anti-Aircraft Rocket Regiment (156 zrp), Ukrainian Air Force). On the same day, the Donetsk People's Republic claimed possession of such a system[58] in a since-deleted tweet.[60] On 14 July a Ukrainian military An-26 transport aircraft flying at 21,000 feet (6,400 m) was shot down, allegedly using a Buk missile system.[61][62] U.S. officials later said evidence suggested the aircraft had been fired on from inside Russian territory.[63] On 16 July another Ukrainian military aircraft, a Sukhoi Su-25 close air support aircraft, was shot down, and Ukrainian government officials accused the Russian military of downing the aircraft with an air-to-air missile fired by a MiG-29 jet in Russia, while a spokesman for Russia's Defence Ministry rejected those accusations as absurd.[64][65][66]

On 1 July Ukrainian officials advised pilots not to fly below 26,000 feet (7,900 m) over eastern Ukraine.[67] On 14 July Ukrainian officials increased that limit to 32,000 feet (9,800 m) over eastern Ukraine.[67]

On 15 July, following his visit to Kiev, Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Radosław Sikorski warned about the dangers posed by the continued Russian military support for pro-Russian separatists, especially ground-to-air missiles. "These are mobile rockets whose sale is governed by international rules and they are forbidden from being supplied to non-state groups, because that creates the possibility of the proliferation of these kinds of weapons, which creates a danger to civil aviation around the world," he said.[68] On 17 July Russia closed more than a dozen airways at various altitudes.[69] On the same day an unnamed Associated Press journalist saw a Buk launcher in Snizhne, a town in the Donetsk Oblast, approximately 16 kilometres (10 miles) southeast of the crash site. The reporter also saw seven separatist tanks at a filling station near the town.[70] Also, on 17 July, an unconfirmed phone call between Sergei Nikolaevich Petrovskiy (officer of Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian Federation, Deputy Chief of Igor Girkin) and a militant took place where they discussed where to unload and place a Buk missile system.[64]

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

I disagree that there's been no "real evidence" produced. I don't have time to summarize the thousands of individual items - propaganda and accurate information and everything in between - which have flooded Twitter since last Thursday, but the following brief written by the US Embassy in Ukraine goes through what, at this time, is known with a good degree of confidence:

http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/asmt-07192014.html

The summary does not include anything regarding the comments of the Russian government or their proxies in East Ukraine - both of which sets of comments have been telling.

Hi Robin,

In that same post I state clearly that it appears to be trained Russian forces / rebels (a couple of times in fact) so I'm absolutely in agreement with you on what it looks like and certainly lean towards the info coming from the Ukrainians at present.
But the issue is with real, actual evidence (which I hope is found so the process of bringing justice to these monsters, can be, at the very least, be attempted) none of which has been presented.

robindch

swampgas wrote: »

I didn't mean to say that they were actually trying to do so - I simply meant to say that all the big players are playing their usual diplomatic games, and that it isn't a big surprise that they are.

Last time I listened to it in depth, I recall thinking that the US (and the EU) had a preferred outcome - I don't think there's anything wrong in either having one, or in expressing that in what should have been a phonecall which should have been subject to diplomatic privilege and privacy.

However there's a persistent claim that the EU and the US have worked covertly to trigger and sustain the Maidan protests, then "the coup" and much else besides, and all apparently based upon that phonecall. I don't get that sense at all from the phonecall and can't immediately see why anybody might. Hence my interest in trying to find out

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

But the issue is with real, actual evidence [...] none of which has been presented.

Well, it depends on what you mean by evidence - there are social media accounts which boasted of having the missile systems suspected of bringing down the jet, as well as the hurrah's of the gunmen in between the time that they'd shot down a jet, and the time when they figured out that it was a passenger jet. And the fact of the deletion of this information very quickly indeed. There have been numerous leaked phonecalls between various gunmen and people in Russia explaining that they'd shot down a passenger jet. And there have been pictures of a Buk heading out of Ukraine that evening and seemingly arriving in Russia. There are pictures of plane parts with what appear to be multiple punctures consistent with an external explosion. These data are out in the public domain.

The US has additionally claimed that it has evidence which indicates that a missile was launched from gunmen-controlled territory at the same time that contact was lost with the jet. It hasn't released this evidence, no doubt concerned that it doesn't want Russia to know what they're looking with.

One can also, to a certain extent, infer from the actions of the Russian media (theories which are crackpot even by the standards of Russian news), government (blaming Ukraine immediately) and the Moscow-backed gunmen (a plane stuffed with corpses, disrupting the cleanup and the evidence collection, most recently with earth-moving equipment).

If these multiple lines are to be be discarded, then I'm not all that sure what could constitute "real, actual evidence" short of -- say -- multiple, continuous HD videos appearing of an identifiable pro-Russian gunman hopping into a Buk which then launches a missile which then explodes near a plane at FL330, then MH17 tumbling from the sky. I think there's enough evidence out there to point the finger, with a fair degree of certainty, in one direction only.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

The Kiev regime clearly does not represent the people of East Ukraine.

This is as bad a portrayal of the Russian attempt to break up the Ukraine and absorb the eastern half as the southern claim that the US started the civil war because they refused to quit the federal installation at Fort Sumpter after the CSA's unilatteral declaration of independence.

Like the southern state's claim it ignores the reality of who has legitimacy in the situation, and who it was committed the acts which were designed to provoke a war.

oscarBravo

stevejazzx wrote: »

They did?
Am I reading the above pic from bbc incorrectly- it does not appear that way?

That grey line goes over Donetsk and agrees with the information I posted. The "previous ten days" image painted a completely different and completely inaccurate picture.

Hmmm it is firmly well established that they did? Again I don't understand - are you saying that that area was considered 'not risky' because clearly it was.

Yes, it tends to be clear after a plane has been shot down that there was a risk of a plane being shot down.

Flying over Donetsk was considered risky, but a pragmatic risk assessment concluded that, on balance, it was a risk worth taking. Landing at Lukla airport is risky, but planes do it all the time.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Well, it depends on what you mean by evidence - there are social media accounts which boasted of having the missile systems suspected of bringing down the jet, as well as the hurrah's of the gunmen in between the time that they'd shot down a jet, and the time when they figured out that it was a passenger jet. And the fact of the deletion of this information very quickly indeed. There have been numerous leaked phonecalls between various gunmen and people in Russia explaining that they'd shot down a passenger jet. And there have been pictures of a Buk heading out of Ukraine that evening and seemingly arriving in Russia. There are pictures of plane parts with what appear to be multiple punctures consistent with an external explosion. These data are out in the public domain.

The US has additionally claimed that it has evidence which indicates that a missile was launched from gunmen-controlled territory at the same time that contact was lost with the jet. It hasn't released this evidence, no doubt concerned that it doesn't want Russia to know what they're looking with.

One can also, to a certain extent, infer from the actions of the Russian media (theories which are crackpot even by the standards of Russian news), government (blaming Ukraine immediately) and the Moscow-backed gunmen (a plane stuffed with corpses, disrupting the cleanup and the evidence collection, most recently with earth-moving equipment).

If these multiple lines are to be be discarded, then I'm not all that sure what could constitute "real, actual evidence" short of -- say -- multiple, continuous HD videos appearing of an identifiable pro-Russian gunman hopping into a Buk which then launches a missile which then explodes near a plane at FL330, then MH17 tumbling from the sky. I think there's enough evidence out there to point the finger, with a fair degree of certainty, in one direction only.

Well apparently the social media account is highly questionable see here -
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5913089/did-this-ukrainian-rebel-commander-take-credit-for-shooting-down-the/in/5677250

I haven't seen the evidence the US presented for claiming the launch came from rebel held territory; have you?
I haven't heard them explicitly say it was rebel territory either?

That leaves the leaked phone call which does seem legitimate and is the most convincing aspect of it all but with US heavily invested I can't discount the idea that it could be faked. However as stated earlier I'm leaning towards accepting it as true.
What would be nice however is verified satellite imagery of blast signatures and or black recordings that vindicate Ukrainian flight controllers / or an admission or concrete explanation from Moscow as to who did it.

oscarBravo

I've done an overlay of the flight path images. It's not terribly clear, and the scales are only as accurate as I can make them in a short timeframe, but it's clear that the "previous ten flights" image is a complete fabrication:



You didn't indicate a source for it; where did it come from?

stevejazzx

oscarBravo wrote: »

That grey line goes over Donetsk and agrees with the information I posted. The "previous ten days" image painted a completely different and completely inaccurate picture.

What? No it doesn't - what are you looking at?
Flight MH17 is the only that went that far north - pilots and analysts are trying to figure out why.
All the others essentially avoided that area of Donestk.

[URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-flight-17-took-different-route-2014-7#ixzz387zZG4Fd
http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-flight-17-took-different-route-2014-7"]Headline>Aviation Expert: Malaysia Flight Took A Significantly Different Route Than The Usual Course[/URL]

OB wrote:

Yes, it tends to be clear after a plane has been shot down that there was a risk of a plane being shot down.

OK - is this a sarcastic comment or a reference to the planes shot down before MH17? Its hard to know - with your tone it's as if you believe I'm am trying to obscure something or make some excuse for the tragedy or, as you bizarrely put it, blame the victims. The most cursory reading of my posts shows this, extremely odd outlook, as being emphatically untrue.

OM wrote:

Flying over Donetsk was considered risky, but a pragmatic risk assessment concluded that, on balance, it was a risk worth taking. Landing at Lukla airport is risky, but planes do it all the time.

Utterly ridiculous - you completely ignored the part about rebels attempting continuously to shoot down planes in that exact area.
You ignore the others planes that flew well north of that area. In comparing it to Lukla you're ignoring the part about the war also, a minor point at this stage I suppose.

stevejazzx

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've done an overlay of the flight path images. It's not terribly clear, and the scales are only as accurate as I can make them in a short timeframe, but it's clear that the "previous ten flights" image is a complete fabrication:



You didn't indicate a source for it; where did it come from?

You're joking right?
I went to pains to highlight the source to another poster just a page ago.
Jeez...pop in a debate often?

jimeryan22

Corkfeen wrote: »

Erm nope,no they don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories
Grand job if I'm a crackpot for agreeing with facts. Also, Presstv is a bit of a propaganda network too btw. Natural news next?

Get some up to date figures... Yours are from 2006
Here's the latest figures

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/09/911poll/

Haha. Crackpot yeah.? Natural news.? Never heard of them
And hahahaha. Biggest laugh of all presstv is a propaganda outlet...

oscarBravo

stevejazzx wrote: »

What? No it doesn't - what are you looking at?
Flight MH17 is the only that went that far north - pilots and analysts are trying to figure out why.
All the others essentially avoided that area of Donestk.

The twitter feed you linked has that picture (which I now realise was invented from whole cloth by the twitter user in question; I was asking for a source because I thought that he had obtained it elsewhere) along with a link to a flightaware.com page that shows the route MH17 took on the days prior to as well as after the incident. The flight paths on the image specify "2014-07-17" and "10 flights before 2014-07-17", which I understand to mean the path that MH17 took on the previous ten days.

If you're claiming that the picture shows the ten flights through that airspace prior to MH17 on the same day, you're saying something other than what the source you're quoting is saying.

The Twitter user links to a list of flight paths taken by MH17 on different days. Not surprisingly, the paths after April 17 deviate significantly to the south, avoiding Ukraine completely. The paths prior to April 17 all take the same route over Donetsk.

[URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-flight-17-took-different-route-2014-7#ixzz387zZG4Fd
http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-flight-17-took-different-route-2014-7"]Headline>Aviation Expert: Malaysia Flight Took A Significantly Different Route Than The Usual Course[/URL]

That article claims that FlightAware shows MH17 taking a more southerly course in the days prior to the shooting down. It doesn't.

Utterly ridiculous - you completely ignored the part about rebels attempting continuously to shoot down planes in that exact area.

There were a lot of planes shot down above FL320, were there?

If it was so predictable that a passenger jet was going to be shot down over Ukraine, why do you suppose the pilot flew that route?

stevejazzx wrote: »

You're joking right?
I went to pains to highlight the source to another poster just a page ago.
Jeez...pop in a debate often?

The "source" is a random Twitter user. I thought it might have come from somewhere credible, is all.

oscarBravo

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Get some up to date figures... Yours are from 2006
Here's the latest figures

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/09/911poll/

Haha. Crackpot yeah.?

Just so we're clear: are you arguing that because the majority of Americans believe something, it's automatically true?

Better yet, you're arguing that on this forum?

jimeryan22

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so we're clear: are you arguing that because the majority of Americans believe something, it's automatically true?

Better yet, you're arguing that on this forum?

No I was arguing because it was stated I was wrong. Which I was not...
I was just making the point because it's quite important the fact that more would not believe an official story than do because it's shows mistrust in government....
But, I take your point.. Not here
So we'll leave it.. Back on topic

Corkfeen

Happily have no issue accepting that people believe something. Doesn't make a 911 truther less of a crackpot...

jimeryan22

Corkfeen wrote: »

Happily have no issue accepting that people believe something. Doesn't make a 911 truther less of a crackpot...

Hahaha... A very very experienced crack pot though isn't he..?
As for 911 in general.. Your intitled to your opinion to anyone including victims and witnesses having issues with "official" story.. But we won't bring it into this thread

Corkfeen

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Hahaha... A very very experienced crack pot though isn't he..?
As for 911 in general.. Your intitled to your opinion to anyone including victims and witnesses having issues with "official" story.. But we won't bring it into this thread

He's an economist,he's not an expert on foreign policy or the separatist movement in Russia. In fact, his opening lines already shows his ignorance on the subject.

One fact is that the separatists do not have the expensive Buk anti-aircraft missile system or the trained personnel to operate it.

Another fact is that the separatists have no incentive to shoot down an airliner and neither does Russia. Anyone can tell the difference between low-flying attack aircraft and an airliner at 33,000 feet.

For the most part,nobody is assuming it was intentional because of the recordings where the separatists basically say they didn't know it was a passenger plane. It's not especially difficult to learn to operate one as the manuals are readily available and there's even simulators to train with. So no,he has no clue on the subject he is discussing.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/dont-think-russian-rebels-can-learn-how-to-fire-an-anti-air-missile-try-this-simulator-8dd9e323ed12

jimeryan22

Corkfeen wrote: »

He's an economist,he's not an expert on foreign policy or the separatist movement in Russia. In fact, his opening lines already shows his ignorance on the subject.


For the most part,nobody is assuming it was intentional because of the recordings where the separatists basically say they didn't know it was a passenger plane. It's not especially difficult to learn to operate one as the manuals are readily available and there's even simulators to train with. So no,he has no clue on the subject he is discussing.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/dont-think-russian-rebels-can-learn-how-to-fire-an-anti-air-missile-try-this-simulator-8dd9e323ed12

Never claimed he was an expert in foreign policy, but I'm sure he has more idea than myself or yourself although you seem to think you know more... Surprising..
The simulator app there's for a Sam, do the seperatists have them..?
It also says in the app link you posted ones not available for the buk...?

stevejazzx

oscarBravo wrote: »

The twitter feed you linked has that picture (which I now realise was invented from whole cloth by the twitter user in question;

You're digging a deeper whole here for yourself.
He didn't fabricate it whole cloth - the data has been used repeatedly by people all pulling it from the same source - flightaware.

http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-flight-17-took-different-route-2014-7

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10975524/Crashed-MH17-flight-was-300-miles-off-typical-course.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-plane-crash/why-was-malaysia-airlines-mh17-flying-over-ukraine-time-money-n159161

OB wrote:

I was asking for a source because I thought that he had obtained it elsewhere) along with a link to a flightaware.com page that shows the route MH17 took on the days prior to as well as after the incident. The flight paths on the image specify "2014-07-17" and "10 flights before 2014-07-17", which I understand to mean the path that MH17 took on the previous ten days.

Yes....

OB wrote:

If you're claiming that the picture shows the ten flights through that airspace prior to MH17 on the same day, you're saying something other than what the source you're quoting is saying.

Nope not saying that - you've lost me somewhat....

The Twitter user links to a list of flight paths taken by MH17 on different days. Not surprisingly, the paths after April 17 deviate significantly to the south, avoiding Ukraine completely. The paths prior to April 17 all take the same route over Donetsk. That article claims that FlightAware shows MH17 taking a more southerly course in the days prior to the shooting down. It doesn't. There were a lot of planes shot down above FL320, were there?

No the point is that it was routed differently than usual
The initial comments were that this was because of fuel consumption - this was nonsense - that flight path didn't save money.
The second assumption was weather but noone can find any data to back this up.
Here's a pilot point of view

Pilot wrote:

Robert Mark, a commercial pilot who edits Aviation International News Safety magazine, said that most Malaysia Airlines flights from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur normally travelled along a route significantly further south than the plane which crashed.

Malaysia Airlines has insisted its plane travelled on an "approved route" used by many other carriers.

But Mr Mark said: "I can only tell you as a commercial pilot myself that if we had been routed that way, with what's been going on in the Ukraine and the Russian border over the last few weeks and months, I would never have accepted that route.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-flight-17-took-different-route-2014-7#ixzz388Jn9ygg

OB wrote:

If it was so predictable that a passenger jet was going to be shot down over Ukraine, why do you suppose the pilot flew that route?

Nobody said predictable - everyone, analysts, pilots, airlines, said risky.

jimeryan22

stevejazzx wrote: »

You're digging a deeper whole here for yourself.
He didn't fabricate it whole cloth - the data has been used repeatedly by people all pulling it from the same source - flightaware.

http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-flight-17-took-different-route-2014-7

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10975524/Crashed-MH17-flight-was-300-miles-off-typical-course.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-plane-crash/why-was-malaysia-airlines-mh17-flying-over-ukraine-time-money-n159161




Yes....




Nope not saying that - you've lost me somewhat....




No the point is that it was routed differently than usual
The initial comments were that this was because of fuel consumption - this was nonsense - that flight path didn't save money.
The second assumption was weather but noone can find any data to back this up.
Here's a pilot point of view




Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-flight-17-took-different-route-2014-7#ixzz388Jn9ygg



Nobody said predictable - everyone, analysts, pilots, airlines, said risky.

So maybe the pilot just decide to change route while flying like...? Understandable for sure

Corkfeen

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Never claimed he was an expert in foreign policy, but I'm sure he has more idea than myself or yourself although you seem to think you know more... Surprising..
The simulator app there's for a Sam, do the seperatists have them..?
It also says in the app link you posted ones not available for the buk...?

Correction accepted, point being it's not insanely difficult to learn how to use one. Also there is reports of a buk system entering Russia. What exactly is wrong is wrong with the recording that they used them on this very plane? In fact,there is a fair bit of intelligence to backup that they used it. I imagine it's US propaganda recordings,is it? To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they did receive training on operating one. Russia has been backing them all along. So what's your basis for assuming he has more of an expertise on this exact subject than most? Why is it more reliable than experts on the region?

jimeryan22

Corkfeen wrote: »

Correction accepted, point being it's not insanely difficult to learn how to use one. Also there is reports of a buk system entering Russia. What exactly is wrong is wrong with the recording that they used them on this very plane? In fact,there is a fair bit of intelligence to backup that they used it. I imagine it's US propaganda recordings,is it? To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they did receive training on operating one. Russia has been backing them all along. So what's your basis for assuming he has more of an expertise on this exact subject than most? Why is it more reliable than experts on the region?

There's been a whole lot of finger pointing and reports of intelligence we're all still yet to see... They've said they have it, but haven't shown it....
The only evidence we (the public) have seen is through our media, and that is a Ukrainian intelligence recording that is "unverified"...
What other evidence have you seen..?

oscarBravo

stevejazzx wrote: »

You're digging a deeper whole here for yourself.
He didn't fabricate it whole cloth - the data has been used repeatedly by people all pulling it from the same source - flightaware.

I've looked at the flightaware data. Have you?

No the point is that it was routed differently than usual

And my point is that, despite people saying so, the source they're citing for this information - flightaware - says that the flight was on the same path it had usually taken.

If you're claiming that MH17 was on an unusual flightpath, can you (a) point to some actual data to support this claim, rather than just parroting others who are claiming it, and (b) explain what you think it proves if it is true.

Nobody said predictable - everyone, analysts, pilots, airlines, said risky.

Flying is risky. If pilots weren't prepared to take risks, they wouldn't take off.

The point is that the risk is impossible to quantify. If MH17 was flying over Donetsk, it's because the pilot deemed the level of risk acceptable - no commercial pilot flies a route that he thinks might result in being shot down.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Twitter user links to a list of flight paths taken by MH17 on different days. Not surprisingly, the paths after April 17 deviate significantly to the south, avoiding Ukraine completely. The paths prior to April 17 all take the same route over Donetsk. That article claims that FlightAware shows MH17 taking a more southerly course in the days prior to the shooting down. It doesn't. There were a lot of planes shot down above FL320, were there?

Not sure what your points are here?
The Donetsk region is far more dangerous now than it was back in April when they stopped overflying it. Why would they resume? Just because the Ukrainian air traffic control said it was safe?
What is the significance of FL320? It seems Ukrainian air traffic control instructed the pilot to descend to 33,000 feet from 35,000 feet because everything above 32,000 feet was supposed to be perfectly safe. Would you accept now in hindsight that they were wrong in setting this FL320 as a safe minimum altitude?

Every plane that was shot down recently in the area was shot down at a different altitude. All of them were well within the range of the basic BUK missile; just over 80,000 feet. The BUK missile launchers were known to be in the area, and operated by both sides. So why did Ukraine decide on the 32,000 foot figure as a safe limit? Why 32,000 feet, exactly? It is not related to the range of the SAM missiles.

How many of the passengers were aware that they would be overflying the conflict zone when they boarded the plane? Did the airline warn them in advance?

Did the plane deviate from its original flight plan after entering Ukrainian airspace, in direction as well as in altitude? Was the pilot happy with this?
Was there a Ukrainian military aircraft flying nearby at the time?

There are still a lot of unanswered questions.

stevejazzx

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've looked at the flightaware data. Have you? And my point is that, despite people saying so, the source they're citing for this information - flightaware - says that the flight was on the same path it had usually taken.

What?
Are you ignoring all the articles and opinions from everybody in the world trying to understand why it was on a different course????

http://uk.flightaware.com/news/article/Malaysia-Airlines-Flight-17-MAS17MH17-crashes-in-Ukraine/195

OB wrote:

The point is that the risk is impossible to quantify. If MH17 was flying over Donetsk, it's because the pilot deemed the level of risk acceptable - no commercial pilot flies a route that he thinks might result in being shot down.

Absolute nonsense OB
The area was under continual discussion from aviation analysts, pilots and airlines. That's why some airlines (read the links already posted) stopped flying that route prior to MH17.
How selective can your goggling be?
The risk was not contained to a height - as has been pointed out the rebels were known to be in possession of BUK's (with ranges of up to 72,000ft)

oscarBravo

stevejazzx wrote: »

Are you ignoring all the articles and opinions from everybody in the world trying to understand why it was on a different course????

I'm asking whether you actually have any data to suggest that it was, in fact, on an unusual course, given that the actual data on flightaware - which you keep referencing, and which I keep asking if you've actually looked at - suggests that it wasn't, in fact, unusual.

The area was under continual discussion from aviation analysts, pilots and airlines. That's why some airlines (read the links already posted) stopped flying that route prior to MH17.

And some airlines didn't.

If it makes you feel better, I'll agree with you that it is now obvious in hindsight that there was a danger to civilian airliners from anti-aircraft missiles. The difference between us is that I would rather the questions focus more on how to prevent idiots shooting down airplanes rather than how airplanes can defend themselves from idiots with SAMs.

stevejazzx

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm asking whether you actually have any data to suggest that it was, in fact, on an unusual course, given that the actual data on flightaware - which you keep referencing, and which I keep asking if you've actually looked at - suggests that it wasn't, in fact, unusual.

Ok, deep breath, I posted, last post, a link, showing normal path (blue segmented line) vs actual path (green line) - I couldn't embed it as the image link went only to the home page. I thought you might click the link!
I have posted countless links with experts and analysts all weighing in on why the flight was on that particular path instead of being more northwards like similar flights in the weeks previous.
I can't do anything more for you - you're just going to have to write this one off as a cart before the horse intervention - you seemed to have good motives tough; there's always that.

recedite

Corkfeen wrote: »

...idiots with SAMs.

One minute they are supposed to be Putin's special forces personnel operating in Ukraine, the next minute they are supposed to be local yokels operating weapons they don't understand.
Maybe they are just people whose homes are being bombed, maybe they didn't choose the role of anti aircraft operators. Maybe they were trained in rocketry as conscripts, maybe not. I know a guy living in Dublin who was trained on one of these missile systems, years ago as a conscript. He chose rocketry because he had an interest in computer programming, but all of his age had to serve time as conscripts one way or another.

Its all a terrible tragedy, and ordinary people there are stuck in the middle of it. Like the coalminers who volunteered to collect up the body parts and put them in refrigerated railway carriages, and are then criticised in the west for not showing enough respect to the dead.

oscarBravo

stevejazzx wrote: »

Ok, deep breath, I posted, last post, a link, showing normal path (blue segmented line) vs actual path (green line) - I couldn't embed it as the image link went only to the home page. I thought you might click the link!

I clicked on the link. It was a page with two broken image tags.

So I did what I've been asking you to do: I looked at the actual flightaware track data for MH17 over the course of several days. Now, bear in mind that what you're arguing is that there's something suspicious about the fact that MH17 flew over Donetsk; a route that, apparently, it hadn't flown previously.

So I've captured images of the flightaware tracks for MH17 on the 16th, 17th and 18th of July - the day before, the day of, and the day after the incident.

The day before:



The ill-fated flight:



The following day:



The Twitter user whose graphic you linked claimed to have drawn the ten previous flights based on this data. I've pointed out that the data themselves don't support this claim. You've retorted that other people say they do, without ever apparently having looked at the data yourself.

I have posted countless links with experts and analysts all weighing in on why the flight was on that particular path instead of being more northwards like similar flights in the weeks previous.

And I've asked you to look at the actual flight data they claim to be basing this on, which you appear to be strangely reluctant to do.

recedite

Can you get altitude from the data? Just wondering at what point exactly it reduced altitude. Flight path is a bit erratic on entering eastern Ukraine, but not overly suspicious looking.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Can you get altitude from the data? Just wondering at what point exactly it reduced altitude. Flight path is a bit erratic on entering eastern Ukraine, but not overly suspicious looking.

I think we'll only get useful data when the flight recorders are studied. Note that I'm not drawing any conclusions from the flightaware tracks other than that they don't say what some people seem to be claiming they do.

jimeryan22

Ukrainian jet plane close at time to Malaysian plane...? Hmmmm

oscarBravo

jimeryan22 wrote: »

Ukrainian jet plane close at time to Malaysian plane...? Hmmmm

Hmmmm, what?

stevejazzx

oscarBravo wrote: »

I clicked on the link. It was a page with two broken image tags.

No it wasn't??
The link that I posted is the exactly the same data you've repated here.

This is getting worrying, strange and weird.

OB wrote:

So I did what I've been asking you to do: I looked at the actual flightaware track data for MH17 over the course of several days. Now, bear in mind that what you're arguing is that there's something suspicious about the fact that MH17 flew over Donetsk; a route that, apparently, it hadn't flown previously.

I'm not arguing it - aviation experts, analysts and airlines are - as in all those links I've posted with same experts analysts debating why?
I'm simply reporting it.

It is apparent you're reading the map of eastern Ukraine incorrectly making you believe that the previous plane(s) all flew right over directly over Donestk - they didn't
If you zoom out the dotted lines looks very close to mh17 but they're in fact 300 miles across.



Please read

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/a-fateful-thunderstorm-may-have-doomed-flight-mh17-2014-7

OB wrote:

So I've captured images of the flightaware tracks for MH17 on the 16th, 17th and 18th of July - the day before, the day of, and the day after the incident.

The day before:



The ill-fated flight:



The following day:



The Twitter user whose graphic you linked claimed to have drawn the ten previous flights based on this data. I've pointed out that the data themselves don't support this claim. You've retorted that other people say they do, without ever apparently having looked at the data yourself. And I've asked you to look at the actual flight data they claim to be basing this on, which you appear to be strangely reluctant to do.

The flight aware pics above that you claim just just gathered here you've are exactly the same link as I posted above

You're not reading the posts - you're ignoring the facts - this is really silly.

You've based the whole thing off the fact that you read the map incorrectly.

The pics above (you know the ones I linked to just before you presented them as ones you'd just gathered) shows the same data that MH17 was off its usual course.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

I haven't seen the evidence the US presented for claiming the launch came from rebel held territory; have you?

Nope, as I said above, I haven't. I think it would be unlikely that John Kerry would knowingly lie about it given the crapstorm that ensued following false evidence that was presented in the run up to the illegal and crazy invasion of Iraq. I await the evidence with interest all the same.

stevejazzx wrote: »

I haven't heard them explicitly say it was rebel territory either?

John Kerry mentions it, as does the state department memo I quoted above.

stevejazzx wrote: »

The pics above (you know the ones I linked to just before you presented them as ones you'd just gathered) shows the same data that MH17 was off its usual course.

I haven't checked the flight paths, but even if one were to concede that MH17 flew a slightly different route to what it followed the previous day -- and planes do this all the time for a wide variety of reasons -- then for this to have any relevance, you're going to have to suggest who might have caused the plane to choose a different flight path, and you're going to have to connect this in some way with the subsequent shooting down.

Now, I haven't checked Russian state-controlled media since yesterday morning, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they're still quoting from the anonymous, but subsequently turned out to be fake, "Spanish air controller in Kiev" twitter account and linking the unevidinced claims from there with equally unevidinced claims from a Russian military guy that an "incompetent" Ukrainian military shot MH17 down by mistake, possibly with the help of an SU-26 or SU-25 (reports in Russia refer to both) which Kiev has denied was in the air.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

Nope, as I said above, I haven't. I think it would be unlikely that John Kerry would knowingly lie about it given the crapstorm that ensued following false evidence that was presented in the run up to the illegal and crazy invasion of Iraq. I await the evidence with interest all the same.John Kerry mentions it, as does the state department memo I quoted above.

Fair enough

robin wrote:

I haven't checked the flight paths, but even if one were to concede that MH17 flew a slightly different route to what it followed the previous day -- and planes do this all the time for a wide variety of reasons --

Well yes and no - they tend to definitively not do this when the area is at risk or a war zone.

robin wrote:

hen for this to have any relevance, you're going to have to suggest who might have caused the plane to choose a different flight path, and you're going to have to connect this in some way with the subsequent shooting down.

Why me? i started out this point based on a report. I'm not pioneering it as some kind of defense or something which is somehow, obscurely, pro-Russian, it's not. The black box recording might give us some more information. Until then it just simply remains a little odd in my book but ultimately perfectly explainable in all manner of ways. Denying it happened on the other hand is a little, em, odd.

robin wrote:

Now, I haven't checked Russian state-controlled media since yesterday morning, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they're still quoting from the anonymous, but subsequently turned out to be fake, "Spanish air controller in Kiev" twitter account and linking the unevidinced claims from there with equally unevidinced claims from a Russian military guy that an "incompetent" Ukrainian military shot MH17 down by mistake, possibly with the help of an SU-26 or SU-25 (reports in Russia refer to both) which Kiev has denied was in the air.

I had heard this report and to be honest didn't even bother with it as I knew if it was true it would resurface in a big way.
It makes no sense to devise conspiracy theories here - all the info to date suggests that the rebels were responsible - which as I've stated - I think clearly by now - is my my current leaning.

jimeryan22

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hmmmm, what?

Hmmm. Isn't it interesting the Russians have now come out and shown what they claim to be data showing a Ukrainian jet right in the vicinity of the passenger plane around the time it was shot down...
That hmmmm..
I've thought from the start there's more to this whole mess.. Will be interesting to see what comes back from black boxes..
Some would say it's quite possible this is why Putin wasn't saying anything,
We may now find put all the previous reporting bull.. We'll see

oscarBravo

stevejazzx wrote: »

You've based the whole thing off the fact that you read the map incorrectly.

Here we go again.

I've done another overlay, combining the picture that claims to show MH17's track on July 16th as a dotted line (and claiming flightaware as the source for the data) with the actual July 16th track taken directly from flightaware:



If you have flightaware data showing that MH17 followed a flight path on July 16th other than the one I've illustrated above, would you be so good as to post it?

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

It makes no sense to devise conspiracy theories here

I completely agree. The vast majority of the current data, incompletely reliable and all as it is, points largely in one direction and looking forward, I don't expect that this is going to change as more evidence arrives in from the (damaged) crash site and equipment remains, from ATC and other external sources, from the (potentially interfered-with) black boxes, the bodies of the dead and so on.

jimeryan22

oscarBravo wrote: »

Here we go again.

I've done another overlay, combining the picture that claims to show MH17's track on July 16th as a dotted line (and claiming flightaware as the source for the data) with the actual July 16th track taken directly from flightaware:



If you have flightaware data showing that MH17 followed a flight path on July 16th other than the one I've illustrated above, would you be so good as to post it?

So Oscarbravo or Steve... Are we saying that the flight plan was changed..?
Namely someone told it to fly the way it did...?
Thanks

oscarBravo

jimeryan22 wrote: »

So Oscarbravo or Steve... Are we saying that the flight plan was changed..?

What I'm saying is that, despite several people claiming that MH17 flew an unusual route on the 17th, and citing flightaware as a source, flightaware data doesn't appear to support this claim.

Corkfeen

jimeryan22 wrote: »

So Oscarbravo or Steve... Are we saying that the flight plan was changed..?
Namely someone told it to fly the way it did...?
Thanks

*awaits altogether predictable false flag claim *

jimeryan22

Corkfeen wrote: »

*awaits altogether predictable false flag claim *

You are an idiot

jimeryan22

oscarBravo wrote: »

What I'm saying is that, despite several people claiming that MH17 flew an unusual route on the 17th, and citing flightaware as a source, flightaware data doesn't appear to support this claim.

Only asking mate, despite the other penis taking the mick...
There was that much back and forth it was getting very confusing...
What are we thinking about the report of Ukrainian jet in the vicinity...?