Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

Dohnjoe

asherbassad wrote: »

Just because the majority of the deaths were Dutch does in no way entitle the Dutch to conduct the investigation.

Ukraine handed the investigation over to the Dutch. They were the country that suffered the most fatalities by far.

There's a pretty strong belief in Netherlands that Russia or Russian backed rebels were behind the attack, after the strike polls showed up to 80% of Dutch people supporting sanctions against Russia

gandalf

LOL asherbassad you continue on saying that this investigation who published the report yesterday are hiding evidence. They aren't, they met their remit and published the report that they were charged with publishing. You are confusing it with the ongoing criminal investigation.

I've pointed this out to you three times myself and numerous others have also stated this. Either you are no able to grasp this or you are deliberately ignoring it because it doesn't suit your agenda of muddying the water.

Elmer Blooker

Gatling wrote: »

Some people will post any old tin foil bs.

From the NY Times

Heres an opinion from Canadian international criminal lawyer Christopher Black that the NYT would never publish due to censorship.

"The investigation cannot be considered valid or objective without taking into account all the evidence and it is clear that they are not taking into account the evidence supplied by Russia and others about the facts and refused to allow Russia to be part of the investigative process and the drafting of the report."

Not a single eyewitness account of a 10km long contrail left by a BUK missile? It would be impossible NOT to see it!
(I said eyewitness account and not Bellingcat "evidence")

"However, this conclusion ignores completely the evidence that Kiev Sukhoi [jets] were in the area and that damage to the aircraft is also consistent with the plane being hit by an air to air missile which would cause similar damage."

A bit of reading goes a long way- Bellingcat reading?

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151014/1028486268/Dutch-MH17-Probe.html

I don't think this investigation was open and transparent. The conclusion is that the missile (which no one saw) was fired from separatist controlled territory without offering a shred of evidence.

weisses

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Heres an opinion from Canadian international criminal lawyer Christopher Black that the NYT would never publish due to censorship.

Not a single eyewitness account of a 10km long contrail left by a BUK missile? It would be impossible NOT to see it!
(I said eyewitness account and not Bellingcat "evidence")

A bit of reading goes a long way- Bellingcat reading?

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151014/1028486268/Dutch-MH17-Probe.html

I don't think this investigation was open and transparent. The conclusion is that the missile (which no one saw) was fired from separatist controlled territory without offering a shred of evidence.

Soo you say it was not a BUK missile ?

gandalf

weisses wrote: »

Soo you say it was not a BUK missile ?

It's called muddying the water. All the Putin apologists have been doing it since day one of this disgrace.

weisses

gandalf wrote: »

It's called muddying the water. All the Putin apologists have been doing it since day one of this disgrace.

Ohh I know

I happen to love mud wrestling

Elmer Blooker

weisses wrote: »

Soo you say it was not a BUK missile ?

I've no idea what kind of missile it was. I thought that "test" carried out by Russia with a BUK made them look ridiculous- just because they were excluded from the investigation didn't mean they had to try and come up with their own "evidence" - not a clever move.

weisses

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I've no idea what kind of missile it was. I thought that "test" carried out by Russia with a BUK made them look ridiculous- just because they were excluded from the investigation didn't mean they had to try and come up with their own "evidence" - not a clever move.

So you have no idea ?

Russians show it was a BUK

"Dutch" investigation say it was a BUK

Are they conspiring together ?

seamus

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Heres an opinion from Canadian international criminal lawyer Christopher Black that the NYT would never publish due to censorship.

Not a single eyewitness account of a 10km long contrail left by a BUK missile? It would be impossible NOT to see it!
(I said eyewitness account and not Bellingcat "evidence")

A bit of reading goes a long way- Bellingcat reading?

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151014/1028486268/Dutch-MH17-Probe.html

I don't think this investigation was open and transparent. The conclusion is that the missile (which no one saw) was fired from separatist controlled territory without offering a shred of evidence.

Even if they did "ignore" it as you claim, none of the above is relevant to the air accident investigation. The forensic results are pretty conclusive and open-and-shut about the damage done to the plane. It was a BUK missile, and identified as a specific type of BUK missile.

Therefore the presence or otherwise of military aircraft in the area is somewhat irrelevant since we know they couldn't have fired that missile and we know from radar and other data that they didn't otherwise interfere with MH17.

Eyewitness data about contrails is iffy at best. To the human eye they're effectively a 2D object, like a rainbow. So unless someone is standing at the end of the contrail, asking them about where it came from, how high it was and what direction it went in, will yield very little information.

And besides, you can very easily reconstruct a missile's flight path because they have massively limited manouverability. Nailing it down to a 20 sq.km. area is about the best you're going to get, eyewitness information about contrails won't help. And for the purposes of the air accident investigation, 20 sq.km. is enough. This identifies that the missile originated out the conflict zone, identifying the precise origin is out of the scope of the accident investigation.

The only people who were close enough to the contrail to provide any meaningful data are the ones who fired it.

weisses

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

just because they were excluded from the investigation didn't mean they had to try and come up with their own "evidence" - not a clever move.

The Russians where not Excluded from the investigation ...

Elmer Blooker

weisses wrote: »

So you have no idea ?

Russians show it was a BUK

"Dutch" investigation say it was a BUK

Are they conspiring together ?

How do the Russians know it was a BUK when they are excluded from the investigation and have no access to the wreckage? That's why I said their "test" was ridiculous and utterly pointless.
And yes, I've no idea, yesterday's report was too vague in my opinion.
It basically said " .....MH17 was shot down by a Russian (guilty!) missile, we don't know who fired it but it was fired from separatist held territory....."
I notice the Guardian is reporting that the pilot's body was "interfered" with and shrapnel was removed? If anyone can find where the report said this please post a link. Thanks.

.....we know from radar and other data that they didn't otherwise interfere with MH17

That's news to me seamus that "we know" from radar etc.. I didn't hear anything about information from flight recorders being released?
If you're interested find a launch of a BUK on YouTube and see the contrail.

The Russians where not Excluded from the investigation ...

They claim that evidence they offered was ignored.

weisses

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

And yes, I've no idea, yesterday's report was too vague in my opinion.
It basically said " .....MH17 was shot down by a Russian (guilty!) missile, we don't know who fired it but it was fired from separatist held territory....."

No it states clearly what caused it at page 9

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I notice the Guardian is reporting that the pilot's body was "interfered" with and shrapnel was removed? If anyone can find where the report said this please post a link. Thanks.

Page 84

weisses

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

They claim that evidence they offered was ignored.

Not Ignored but taken into account and compared with other evidence

ohnonotgmail

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Not a single eyewitness account of a 10km long contrail left by a BUK missile? It would be impossible NOT to see it!
(I said eyewitness account and not Bellingcat "evidence")

So if nobody seen it it didnt happen? right.

asherbassad

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Ukraine handed the investigation over to the Dutch. They were the country that suffered the most fatalities by far.

There's a pretty strong belief in Netherlands that Russia or Russian backed rebels were behind the attack, after the strike polls showed up to 80% of Dutch people supporting sanctions against Russia

Ukraine have no business in having any involvement in the investigation OR handing it over to the Dutch. Ukraine are suspects just like the Russians are. You can shout that down all you want but it doesn't make a bit of difference. Not only are they suspects but they have veto power to suppress any evidence and gag anyone they feel.

Now why would you give someone the power to quash evidence and gag people in an investigation? Can you explain that or give a good reason why someone would have the power to withhold or suppress evidence?

And please don't insult people's intelligence with the wishy-washy "sensitive national security" crap that is the excuse du jour for not explaining yourself.

Gatling

asherbassad wrote: »

Ukraine have no business in having any involvement in the investigation OR handing it over to the Dutch. Ukraine are suspects just like the Russians are. You can shout that down all you want but it doesn't make a bit of difference. Not only are they suspects but they have veto power to suppress any evidence and gag anyone they feel.

Now why would you give someone the power to quash evidence and gag people in an investigation? Can you explain that or give a good reason why someone would have the power to withhold or suppress evidence?

And please don't insult people's intelligence with the wishy-washy "sensitive national security" crap that is the excuse du jour for not explaining yourself.

Why don't you post all this evidence of suppressed/withheld /destroyed evidence your claiming .

Dohnjoe

asherbassad wrote: »

Ukraine have no business in having any involvement in the investigation OR handing it over to the Dutch.

According to the convention on international civil aviation - the country over/in which the incident has occurred must hold the investigation or they can delegate it to another country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Convention_on_International_Civil_Aviation

Russia supported the Dutch-led investigation into the incident
http://time.com/3028278/russia-dutch-malaysia-airlines-mh17-probe/

Russia's own (later) investigation by the state-owned arms company that makes Buk armaments was the contentious/unofficial investigation into the matter

gandalf

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

How do the Russians know it was a BUK when they are excluded from the investigation and have no access to the wreckage?

There is a very obvious answer to that question. Maybe because they are aware it is one of their BUK platforms that fired the fatal missile

Elmer Blooker

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to the convention on international civil aviation - the country over/in which the incident has occurred must hold the investigation or they can delegate it to another country

Russia supported the Dutch-led investigation into the incident

Russia's own (later) investigation by the state-owned arms company that makes Buk armaments was the contentious/unofficial investigation into the matter

Does the Convention on Civil Aviation say anything about secrecy pacts signed by countries involved in investigating an air crash?
Before the usual suspects make the predictable tin foil accusations note that the Netherland's government did not deny that such a pact exists.

On Wednesday, however, Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte’s government issued a statement rejecting all Freedom of Information Act (WOB) requests by Elsevier into 17 documents relating to the JIT pact. It said that the benefits of disclosing information about the MH17 investigation were outweighed by the risk of damage to the Dutch state’s relations to other states and world bodies.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/11/22/mh17-n22.html

Schadenfreudia

Gatling wrote: »

Some people will post any old tin foil bs.

From the NY Times

Someone who regards the NYT as Gospel accusing others of wearing tin-foil hats! :rolleyes:

SamHarris

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

How do the Russians know it was a BUK when they are excluded from the investigation and have no access to the wreckage? That's why I said their "test" was ridiculous and utterly pointless.
And yes, I've no idea, yesterday's report was too vague in my opinion.
It basically said " .....MH17 was shot down by a Russian (guilty!) missile, we don't know who fired it but it was fired from separatist held territory....."
I notice the Guardian is reporting that the pilot's body was "interfered" with and shrapnel was removed? If anyone can find where the report said this please post a link. Thanks.

That's news to me seamus that "we know" from radar etc.. I didn't hear anything about information from flight recorders being released?
If you're interested find a launch of a BUK on YouTube and see the contrail.

They claim that evidence they offered was ignored.

You must have missed the memo from the Kremlin, they now agree it was shot down by a BUK just not theirs.

I know, I know its very hard to claim they speak the truth when they constantly contradict themselves, but logic and constancy aside you usually do a great job.

"Guilty!" Very clearly you did not even glance at the "too vague" report as it was not even in their remit to apportion guilt. They explicitly state that.

We all know it would not matter at all what was said in the report, how comprehensive it was or how much evidence was shown. The Putinites would do what they always do - scream "conspiracy theory" and dismiss it all out of hand. Pretend all you want it has something to do with the report, anyone familiar with the posters on this site who defend Russia to the hilt in all things realized long ago it has nothing to do with facts or events, its politics. And as long as Russia is "their side" in those poltiics they can do no wrong.

Regardless

Its sad that they have to rely on the people that believe them constantly to have the memory of goldfish. Sad in that there seems to be more than a few even in countries that have free access to non-government media still embarrass themselves by agreeing with their ever-changing position.

The Russians block an international investigation, then complain they are not being listened to. Even though its clear as day to anyone with half a brain why this was done it is just forgotten by those that done want to remember. Its always the same.

They claim it was a fighter jet, and even provide photographic evidence! thankfully only the most idiotic of their "useful idiots" actually thought that held any water. https://www.google.ie/search?q=mh17+fighter+jet&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&tbm=isch&imgil=XNpV07XwI9WeLM%253A%253BWTIg8-2C-jlveM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.mirror.co.uk%25252Fnews%25252Fworld-news%25252Frussia-claims-satellite-image-shows-4631625&source=iu&pf=m&fir=XNpV07XwI9WeLM%253A%252CWTIg8-2C-jlveM%252C_&dpr=1&usg=__CzJL7gMZixURapu5XU6QBFLhrDo%3D&ved=0CCgQyjdqFQoTCLmH2JKEw8gCFYZWFAodbmQEeg&ei=B9oeVvnnAoatUe7IkdAH#imgrc=XNpV07XwI9WeLM%3A&usg=__CzJL7gMZixURapu5XU6QBFLhrDo%3D


Then we had the "recording" of two CIA agents implicating the US in the tragedy http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/12/propaganda-watch-listen-to-two-russians-badly-impersonate-cia-spies-to-pin-mh17-on-u-s/

It would be laughably bad if so many people had not been killed.

The Kremlins antics are so transparent, so childish and cheap you would think the people who support everything they say would, leaving aside the morality of it, be too embarrassed to publicly say that stuff like the above works on them.

I mean do you not feel like your intellect is being insulted when they believe (maybe even know) that THAT is the quality of "evidence" they have to present to convince you of their position?

SamHarris

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

That's news to me seamus that "we know" from radar etc.. I didn't hear anything about information from flight recorders being released?
If you're interested find a launch of a BUK on YouTube and see the contrail.

The investigators had the black boxes, though it took awhile as the rebels wanted to hold them for whatever reason :rolleyes:

they dont release the audio of a blackbox, I couldnt imagine anything much more disrespectful to the families of those on board.

It wouldnt matter if they did, anyway. Anyone who is convinced by Russia's line on this would dismiss it one way or another regardless.

Right now the position is that the investigators are lying about what was on them. If they were released and showed conclusively it was a missile then it would just be a fabrication. I

SamHarris

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Someone who regards the NYT as Gospel accusing others of wearing tin-foil hats! :rolleyes:

Not gospel but a publication who's reputation and business depends almost entirely on accurately reporting and commenting on events. Hardly right all the time but it is right enough of the time for the onus to be on whoever is calling bull**** on a story from them to show why,exactly, they are wrong in a particular case.

Out of curiosity, what scources do you believe are not to be dismissed out of hand as "propaganda" or whatever else conspiracy theorists call media reports that dont take their position on any given event?

Schadenfreudia

SamHarris wrote: »

Not gospel but a publication who's reputation and business depends almost entirely on accurately reporting and commenting on events. Hardly right all the time but it is right enough of the time for the onus to be on whoever is calling bull**** on a story from them to show why,exactly, they are wrong in a particular case.

Reality check: the NYT is owned and controlled by the Western Corporate Oligarchy; it is no more objective or independent than RT. :cool:

asherbassad

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Does the Convention on Civil Aviation say anything about secrecy pacts signed by countries involved in investigating an air crash?
Before the usual suspects make the predictable tin foil accusations note that the Netherland's government did not deny that such a pact exists.


https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/11/22/mh17-n22.html

Dohnjoe, will you be replying to this or not?

This is a simple question just for you. Will you be responding or will you be ignoring?

asherbassad

On July 20th, 2014 John Kerry went on NBC's "Meet The Press" and stated

"We picked up images of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from radar"

This was glaringly absent from the Dutch report. In fact the entire report is conspicuous for what is absent rather than what is revealed.

There are myriad contradictions and failings in this report but what stands out most blatantly is the absence of US intelligence evidence and the silence surrounding it.

To some, namely the uneducatable, this will make no difference. Any question and you are the enemy. An investigation that is peppered with acts of secrecy is pointless and anyone who tries to ram its hypothesis down the throat of those who can't be sold is merely wasting their time.

weisses

asherbassad wrote: »

There are myriad contradictions and failings in this report but what stands out most blatantly is the absence of US intelligence evidence and the silence surrounding it.

Could you point out the myriad of contradictions and failings with proper counter points ? ( preferably backed up with some evidence?)

Dohnjoe

As mentioned it was not a criminal investigation, it was a separate investigation to determine what caused the downing of flight MH17

It has ruled out meteor strike, air-to-air missile and other possibilities, and it's conclusions are that the plane was brought down by a SAM, specifically via the BUK system

As for the Dutch PM apparently witholding certain information (can't find a normal source on this) I am sure they wouldn't necessarily release everything into the public domain, eg. highly sensitive or medical information (X-RAYs, scans, autopsies, etc) for obvious reasons

The criminal investigation is underway to determine those responsible, we'll just have to wait until next year for that

Gatling

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Someone who regards the NYT as Gospel accusing others of wearing tin-foil hats! :rolleyes:

Tut tut tut ,

gandalf

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Reality check: the NYT is owned and controlled by the Western Corporate Oligarchy; it is no more objective or independent than RT. :cool:

So all the western worlds privately owned media are ganging up together to present a unified narrative on this whole situation. Where do they formulate their "evil" agenda. Is there like a secret mountain base? Is their leader a safari suited bald guy who likes to pet Persian cats

The only thing the vast majority of these organisations agree on is making money and if there is a story that gives them a jump over all the others they will run with it. If you honestly believe that they will shelve a massive story like this or mold it under instructions then you have serious reality issues.