Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

weisses

Gringo180 wrote: »

Im bringing it up because its another case of our media bashing Russia and turning a blind eye to our disastrous foreign policy. The BBC and Sky are getting as bad RT and Fox News.

It has nothing to do with Russia bashing .. Its where the evidence brought them

Gringo180

PlamenDon wrote: »

I don't have too much faith in this investigation being impartial, Russia handed over radar data that was ignored and the investigators never got round to actually investigating it, Ukraine refused to hand over it's own radar data.

The investigators also ignored the Buk makers offering of their findings, the Dutch ignored and refused any help from them.

It wasn't an independent inquiry, the JIT was put together by NATO.

Excellent post. Although to be fair western intelligence is very rarely wrong, after all Sadam did have WMD's

weisses

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

A guy sitting at home in Coventry who calls himself a citizen journalist is not credible evidence and should NOT have been used as evidence!!

That is not how this evidence was gathered and you know it

Its a whole team that uses this method

Did any credible source come out stating they faked it ?

donvito99

There was about 15 minutes there where there were no replies in the wake of this comprehensive, beautifully illustrated and extraordinarily damning report (in the context of the uncoordinated shoite purporting to be evidence that was thrown by numerous Kremlin proxies in the aftermath of the accident), but I see that normal service is being resumed in the form of interference, general rambling and noise, and false equivalancy. And on that note, if the US is to be continually dragged into this (most recently I see in the form of arms sales - Russia don't engage in that at all, all those AKs I've seen involved in genocides for 20 years must have fallen from the sky) then I'll add this; in 1988 an Iran Air A300 was shot down over the Gulf by the USS Vincennes. They fessed up. There was no pathetic attempt to reattribute blame.

ScumLord

donvito99 wrote: »

if the US is to be continually dragged into this (most recently I see in the form of arms sales - Russia don't engage in that at all, all those AKs I've seen involved in genocides for 20 years must have fallen from the sky)

To be fair I remember reports during the Iraq war of people making their own AK47s. It's a common as muck gun that's made by all sorts of people that have nothing to do with Russia. There are loads of them floating around since the breakup of the soviet union, they're being made on license across the world, it's also one of the world's most pirated guns. When some show up on a battlefield it may have nothing to do with the Russians.

HensVassal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They were known to be targeting Ukrainian military transports, which looks similar to a passenger jet and can travel at that same altitude

One was brought down several weeks before while coming in to land
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Air_Force_Ilyushin_Il-76_shoot-down

They brought down a few Ukrainian aircraft with small arms fire. Nothing that could threaten anything at 30,000 feet.

This report is the farce it was expected to be.

Bellingcat....give me a break.

ohnonotgmail

HensVassal wrote: »

They brought down a few Ukrainian aircraft with small arms fire. Nothing that could threaten anything at 30,000 feet.

This report is the farce it was expected to be.

Bellingcat....give me a break.

if only they had something like a BUK available to them. where would they get one of those i wonder.

Gatling

PlamenDon wrote: »

I don't have too much faith in this investigation being impartial, Russia handed over radar data that was ignored and the investigators never got round to actually investigating it,

The investigators also ignored the Buk makers offering of their findings, the Dutch ignored and refused any help from them..

Bull****,

Investigators went to Russia and guess what Russia had nothing absolutely nothing to give as evidence,,

Gatling

HensVassal wrote: »

They brought down a few Ukrainian aircraft with small arms fire.

Actually your Wrong they actually used Russian ManPads (man potable air-defenence systems) to shoot down Ukrainian government aircraft .

PlamenDon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well yeah.... of course it was ignored.
After all, it was faked.
Something the Kremlin quietly acknowledged on Monday.

Why did Ukraine refuse to hand over primary radar data?, the type of data that also shows planes with transponders turned off.

BoJack Horseman

PlamenDon wrote: »

Why did Ukraine refuse to hand over primary radar data?

Did they not?
I thought the Ukrainian authorities did submit all evidence they had?

Otherwise, I've no idea..... best ask them!

What do you think of the Ru-MOD's change of heart regarding that fictional SU-25 shootdown?

PlamenDon

Gatling wrote: »

Bull****,

Investigators went to Russia and guess what Russia had nothing absolutely nothing to give as evidence,,

Whats bullsh1t?, Russia had nothing to give as evidence?, they gave more than Ukraine, have you got a link to back up what you say?, I've come to notice you regularly put your assumptions as fact.

BoJack Horseman

HensVassal wrote: »

They brought down a few Ukrainian aircraft with small arms fire

Proof?

Here is a list of aircraft losses suffered by the Ukr-AF.

Which ones were small arms fire?
(which would be something else, cos Soviet aircraft are quite large relative to western designs).

And kudos on those rebels bringing down that 50m wingspanned, 4-engined, 200 tonne IL-76 with just a rifle!
Some shot that would have been!

PlamenDon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Did they not?
I thought the Ukrainian authorities did submit all evidence they had?

Otherwise, I've no idea..... best ask them!

What do you think of the Ru-MOD's change of heart regarding that fictional SU-25 shootdown?

I've no idea about any SU-25 shootdown, does it have anything to do with MH-17?

And no Ukraine refused to hand over primary radar data, what are they hiding?

Gatling

PlamenDon wrote: »

Whats bullsh1t?, Russia had nothing to give as evidence?,

They gave nothing ,they have nothing


Lie after lie after lie

BoJack Horseman

PlamenDon wrote: »

I've no idea about any SU-25 shootdown, does it have anything to do with MH-17?

Did you not read the last few pages.

The boys in Moscow pushed this fake rather hard 2 years ago only now to give up on that.

I suppose investigators finding BUK case fragments kind of put paid to that.

Shame they couldn't stick to their story isn't it?

PlamenDon

Gatling wrote: »

They gave nothing ,they have nothing


Lie after lie after lie

That was a question to you, care to answer it because Russia did give evidence that was ignored, what about Ukraine refusing to hand over their primary radar, are you just ignoring that?

Gatling

PlamenDon wrote: »

That was a question to you, care to answer it because Russia did give evidence that was ignored, what about Ukraine refusing to hand over their primary radar, are you just ignoring that?

They gave nothing to international investigators they didn't have evidence of anything .

Denial will get you no where

PlamenDon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Did you not read the last few pages.

The boys in Moscow pushed this fake rather hard 2 years ago only now to give up on that.

I suppose investigators finding BUK case fragments kind of put paid to that.

Shame they couldn't stick to their story isn't it?

No I haven't been reading the whole thread, just from where I posted first.

Do you have a link that it was faked?

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Did you not read the last few pages.

The boys in Moscow pushed this fake rather hard 2 years ago only now to give up on that.

Remind me Bojack what does an su25 aircraft look like

BoJack Horseman

PlamenDon wrote: »

Do you have a link that it was faked?

The link was the Ru-MODs press conference on Monday just gone (which you can google) where they no longer try to claim that the plaine was shot down by an A2A missile.

Sadly for the Kremlin, the plane they decided to use in their forgery was a poor one.
A ground attack aircraft, the SU-25 has a very limited flight ceiling, it would have been many kms below MH17 at the time of their faked image'

They forgot that the only A2A missile that Ukraine had for this aircraft was a short range IR-seeker AA-8.
Given the vertical & horizontal distance that Russia purports this fictional plane to be form MH17, the AA-8 wouldn't have been able to reach it.

The next f*ck up was direction.
The Kremlin forgery shows the SU-25 approaching from the south west when it releases its weapon.
However MH-17 was hit by the BUK on the left side of its cockpit, ie: the north east side.
So, the missile which remember didn't have the range to reach MH17 would have had to flown past the airliner, turn around and then fly back!
This also ignores that the AA-8's IR seeker would have aimed for the engines what with them giving off the greatest IR signature and not impact the cockpit as was the case by the radar guided BUK.

Poor old Kremlin.
They pushed this lie as hard as they could for as long as they could..... and have now given up on it.

I'm sure you would agree that it is a shame that they chose the wrong fighter type to lie about

PlamenDon

Gatling wrote: »

They gave nothing to international investigators they didn't have evidence of anything .

Denial will get you no where

Actually your wrong, Russia was the only country to have radar data for MH-17, Ukraine said they turned off their primary radar that day for some strange reason.

Heres a letter from the Russian aviation official Oleg Storchevoy, your still ignoring the fact that Ukraine refused to supply it's primary radar data, why?

Ladies and Gentlemen,


First of all, I would like to express to you once more my sincere condolences over the terrible tragedy that claimed the lives of your loved ones.

As you know, Russia’s Federal Air Transport Agency represented the Russian Federation in its contribution to the technical investigation into the crash of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine. In light of this, we would like to use this opportunity to respond to your recent request urging President Putin to clarify whether Russia has provided primary radar data for the inquiry.

To begin with, I would like to emphasize that Russia is strongly committed to establishing the actual cause of the crash, and has consistently done everything in its power to help find out the truth, both throughout the course of the technical investigation and following its official completion.

As for primary radar data, we hereby officially maintain that Russia provided the Dutch Safety Board with all available primary radar data tracing Flight MH17 as early as August 2014, which was right after the tragedy. We did not impose any conditions or restrictions regarding further use and disclosure of radar data, records of phone conversations and other data we submitted to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) at its request. Moreover, Russia has stored all that data to this day, and is willing to provide it once again to the relevant authorities.

For the sake of clarity, I must specify that Russia submitted primary radar data to the DSB in the form of a video recording capturing a Russian air traffic controller’s display. It should be explained that primary radar data can be stored in the form of videos, which is consistent with ICAO standards. It should be explained that Russian air traffic authorities store primary radar data exclusively in the form of videos, which is consistent with ICAO standards. That said, the Dutch Safety Board’s final report does not suggest that this fact might have somehow affected the findings of the technical inquiry into the circumstances and the cause of the crash.

We would also like to point out that the tragedy took place outside Russian airspace, where the airliner was not being directed by Russian air traffic controllers. Russia’s radar data became a point of interest due to the fact that Russian radar control facilities located near Rostov-on-Don were able to track MH17’s flight path. Furthermore, it was later established that the Russian primary radar data were, in fact, the only ones available, since Ukrainian air traffic control services, for some unclear reasons, had not been running primary radar surveillance, despite the fact that there were no other means available for ensuring air safety over the war zone in Eastern Ukraine.

As far as satellite imagery is concerned, I would like to stress that Russia disclosed all of its available satellite data in the days immediately following the crash. Those data confirm, among other things, that there was movement and increased activity by Ukrainian Buk surface-to-air missile systems observed within the conflict area in Eastern Ukraine one day ahead of the tragedy. Russia shared that information with the Dutch Safety Board, but once its final report was released, it turned out the DSB had chosen not to consider Russian satellite data or even include them in the report.

Russia is as determined as you are to ensure that this horrible tragedy is investigated as promptly, diligently and impartially as possible. We fully support your recent queries to the governments of the United States and Ukraine, demanding that they provide the investigators with all relevant data. The United States must disclose the satellite images that Secretary Kerry claims it has kept since the moment of the crash, which are supposedly capable of shedding light on the circumstances of the tragedy.

Meanwhile, Russia has consistently contributed its best efforts and committed all kinds of resources to finding out the truth about the crash. In order to provide efficient and reliable expert counsel for the investigation, we decided to engage Almaz-Antey, the Russian defense company that designed the Buk missile systems. The company administered a series of highly sophisticated and accurate studies, and conducted two full-scale experiments. In an unprecedented move, Almaz-Antey also disclosed the technical characteristics for the missiles carried by the Buk and the Buk-M1 missile systems. All of the estimates and other data obtained in the course of the studies and the experiments were submitted to the Dutch Safety Board. Russia repeatedly invited Dutch investigators to take part in those efforts, but the DSB, just as the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), have shown no interest in such collaboration. We believe the data in question to be much more useful for investigating the crash than radar data and satellite imagery. Yet the authorities in charge of the technical investigation have chosen to discard that data, too.

As far as the quality of the technical inquiry is concerned, I must point out that, in a totally inexplicable fashion, its final report leaves the most important question unanswered: How far is Ukraine responsible for failing to close its airspace? The report is extremely vague regarding the responsibility of the government in Kiev.

In view of the recurrent critique of Russia in relation to the tragedy of Flight MH17, we are forced to remind the world that, unlike the DSB and the JIT, Russia has never protracted the investigations it administered, or those in which it participated in as a full-fledged member. Russia performed all its work in a transparent manner, regularly publishing the results of our examinations and all the other steps we took. This was the case with the investigations into the crash of the Russian Airbus A321 over Egypt, where numerous provocative claims were made about the cause of the crash, but Russia did not endorse any of the theories until evidence was obtained with traces of foreign explosives found on the debris, confirming that this was a terrorist attack. And when this evidence was found, we immediately informed the international community and our partners in the investigation. This was also the case with the investigation into the crash of the Russian military Sukhoi Su-24 aircraft over Syria. Russia investigated the accident with unprecedented transparency, inviting a number of international experts and journalists to witness the opening of the flight recorders. Many foreign specialists (British, for example) expressed their admiration for both the high quality of the investigation and its transparency.

All this demonstrates that Russia has always been consistent with its conclusions and never makes accusations before the investigation is over and final accurate results are obtained.

At the same time, Russia has repeatedly pointed out that the Dutch technical investigation was performed in an extremely nontransparent and biased manner. We support you in your efforts to get answers to the numerous questions that remain unanswered. The Dutch Safety Board should explain to you and to the whole world why the technical investigation took such a long time and why it resulted in some very abstract and vague statements. The Dutch authorities should explain why they distorted facts and concealed data, and why they ignored important data provided by Russia. The DSB should explain why its final report distorted data about missile fragments and places where they were found, why it failed to thoroughly examine penetration holes on the aircraft, why it misrepresented the probable location from which the missile was launched, and many other discrepancies in the final report.

Unfortunately, we observe now a very similar situation with the Joint Investigation Team in charge of the criminal investigation. Once again, the process is taking too long, and the Dutch authorities are very biased in choosing partners for the criminal investigation. All this invites many unpleasant questions and gives us reasons to worry that the criminal investigation may repeat the fate of the technical one and fail to establish the truth.

This is why Russia encourages the families and friends of the victims to demand answers to all these questions, as well as maximum transparency, objectivity, thoroughness and promptness, from the Dutch authorities and their partners in the investigation.

In conclusion, I reaffirm that Russia is more than willing to assist in any way we can with a thorough and swift investigation into this terrible tragedy.

Once again, I would like to express my deepest condolences.

Sincerely,

Oleg Storchevoy
Deputy Head
Federal Air Transport Agency

Gatling

Nonsense ,

#Russiadiditfact

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

Remind me Bojack what does an su25 aircraft look like

Like this

Small (as Russian planes went).... slow & heavily loaded with air to ground weapons.
A terrific ground pounder.

Little know fact is that the SU-25 is a copy of the US's YA-9 prototype. This design lost out to the iconic A-10 warthog in a competition for a ground attack plane.

Was she ever a air-to-air fighter?
Not in a million years.

Understandable that Russia dropped it's lie that one if these shot down MH17.... poor choice of forgery from the start.

PlamenDon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The link was the Ru-MODs press conference on Monday just gone (which you can google) where they no longer try to claim that the plaine was shot down by an A2A missile.

Sadly for the Kremlin, the plane they decided to use in their forgery was a poor one.
A ground attack aircraft, the SU-25 has a very limited flight ceiling, it would have been many kms below MH17 at the time of their faked image'

They forgot that the only A2A missile that Ukraine had for this aircraft was a short range IR-seeker AA-8.
Given the vertical & horizontal distance that Russia purports this fictional plane to be form MH17, the AA-8 wouldn't have been able to reach it.

The next f*ck up was direction.
The Kremlin forgery shows the SU-25 approaching from the south west when it releases its weapon.
However MH-17 was hit by the BUK on the left side of its cockpit.
So, the missile which remember didn't have the range to reach MH17 would have had to flown past the airliner, turn around and then fly back!
This also ignores that the AA-8's IR seeker would have aimed for the engines what with them giving off the greatest IR signature and not impact the cockpit as was the case by the radar guided BUK.

Poor old Kremlin.
They pushed this lie as hard as they could for as long as they could..... and have now given up on it.

I'm sure you would agree that it is a shame that they chose the wrong fighter type to lie about

All as you can say is they no longer claim, can you show it was faked?

PlamenDon

Gatling wrote: »

Nonsense ,

#Russiadiditfact

You've no facts, only speculation, you've shown nothing only repeating this biased so called investigation that ignores Ukraine not supplying evidence, it's flawed no matter how you paint it.

ohnonotgmail

PlamenDon wrote: »

All as you can say is they no longer claim, can you show it was faked?

you think that they dropped the claim because it was true? Or is it more likely that it was a (poor) attempt to blame the ukranians that they got caught out on?

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Like this

Small (as Russian planes went).... slow & heavily loaded with air to ground weapons.
A terrific ground pounder.

Little know fact is that the SU-25 is a copy of the US's YA-9 prototype. This design lost out to the iconic A-10 warthog in a competition for a ground attack plane.

Was she ever a air-to-air fighter?
Not in a million years.

Understandable that Russia dropped it's lie that one if these shot down MH17.... poor choice of forgery from the start.

But clearly that's not a Su-25 that Russia claims is in there Faked photo .
You think they might have tried a little actually alot harder

PlamenDon

One side (Russia) gave primary radar data that was ignored, the other side (Ukraine) gave nothing, actually refused to give anything, then said they turned off their primary radar that day.

And that doesn't seem strange?

PlamenDon

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you think that they dropped the claim because it was true? Or is it more likely that it was a (poor) attempt to blame the ukranians that they got caught out on?

I'm just asking for a link to help me understand how it was shown to be faked, I've seen absolutely nothing.