Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

BoJack Horseman

PlamenDon wrote: »

can you show it was faked?

The words I typed demonstrate this.

Neither the aircraft claimed or the only A2A missile it carried had the range to reach MH17 & the other reasons are just above.... you can read them again.

You can try to disprove me & work your way around impact point, direction, range & of course the most important reality that the investigators recovered the remains of the goddamn SAM used!!

You have your proof.... lots of it.

SO, as I said.... you can try to refute it but readers will know that a small A2A missile doesn't turn into the much larger BUK SAM by magic.
That part was obviously a step too far for the Kremlin to lie about!

You can try.... the big bosses couldn't.

PlamenDon

Gatling wrote: »

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

A link to help me understand how it was faked, everybody saying it's faked but can't seem to show it outside their imagination.

BoJack Horseman

Gatling wrote: »

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

Noooo.

To my mind it looks like a SU-27.... but it is hard to tell.

Any putinista can see that it is definetely not the more straight winged SU-25.

Understandable why this angle is now dropped.

PlamenDon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The words I typed demonstrate this.

Neither the aircraft claimed or the only A2A missile it carried had the range to reach MH17 & the other reasons are just above.... you can read them again.

You can try to disprove me & work your way around impact point, direction, range & of course the most important reality that the investigators recovered the remains of the goddamn SAM used!!

You have your proof.... lots of it.

SO, as I said.... you can try to refute it but readers will know that a small A2A missile doesn't turn into the much larger BUK SAM by magic.
That part was obviously a step too far for the Kremlin to lie about!

You can try.... the big bosses couldn't.

Weren't the separatists the only people in the area of the wreckage, didn't they send the corpses back on a train, why didn't they cover their tracks and remove the evidence, I don't buy it, you still havent shown anything apart from your personal suspicions.

PlamenDon

Also how did they determine the exact location the missile was fired from?, the whole case is full of contradictions.

BoJack Horseman

PlamenDon wrote: »

I don't buy it

Of course you don't.
You never would anyway... which is the plan.

It's that all too played out tactic:

- Show me proof
- Proof shown
- I don't believe that.... show me proofs!

...... aaaand so on
We are very familiar with this

And even when even the Kremlin ditch the lie, the initiated still cling to it as gospel.

But.... other readers will see for themselves, that's the main thing.

PlamenDon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Of course you don't.
You never would anyway... which is the plan.

It's that all too played out tactic:

- Show me proof
- Proof shown
- I don't believe that.... show me proofs!

...... aaaand so on
We are very familiar with this

And even when even the Kremlin ditch the lie, the initiated still cling to it as gospel.

But.... other readers will see for themselves, that's the main thing.

But you haven't shown any proof, and ignore my questions about why Ukraine refused to hand over radar data, and how did the investigation determine exactly where the Buk missile was fired from if Russia were the only people with primary radar covering that area.

It's a joke, I'm asking legitimate questions that everybody ignores.

BoJack Horseman

PlamenDon wrote: »

But you haven't shown any proof

See what I mean? :pac:

Gatling

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Of course you don't.
You never would anyway... which is the plan.

It's that all too played out tactic:

- Show me proof
- Proof shown
- I don't believe that.... show me proofs!

...... aaaand so on
We are very familiar with this

And even when even the Kremlin ditch the lie, the initiated still cling to it as gospel.

But.... other readers will see for themselves, that's the main thing.

2 years on and suddenly it's the same questions all over again with the same oddly similar wording

Discodog

Given the past & now what's happening in Syria, I find it astonishing that anyone would defend Putin. I remember an interview with an ex FSB guy who said that Putin encouraged people to go on social media in the West. I dismissed it but reading this thread, I am starting to believe him.

PlamenDon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

See what I mean? :pac:

Gatling wrote: »

2 years on and suddenly it's the same questions all over again with the same oddly similar wording

Answer my questions I've asked repeatedly in my last 5-6 post's, we aren't ostriches and putting our heads under the sand doesn't make it go away, also nobody has proved a single thing, your opinion is not proof.

PlamenDon

Discodog wrote: »

Given the past & now what's happening in Syria, I find it astonishing that anyone would defend Putin. I remember an interview with an ex FSB guy who said that Putin encouraged people to go on social media in the West. I dismissed it but reading this thread, I am starting to believe him.

Where do I sign up?, I could do with a few Rubles.

Also your believing a twisted narrative of whats happening in the world, try look at different independent news sources and you'll see things a little more clearly.

Gatling

PlamenDon wrote: »

nobody has proved a single thing, your opinion is not proof.

In this case my opinion was found to be quite factual

prinzeugen

PlamenDon wrote: »

But you haven't shown any proof, and ignore my questions about why Ukraine refused to hand over radar data, and how did the investigation determine exactly where the Buk missile was fired from if Russia were the only people with primary radar covering that area.

It's a joke, I'm asking legitimate questions that everybody ignores.

Do they not teach you how to open links in St Petersburg?

If you click on the links it is all there...

BoJack Horseman

PlamenDon wrote: »

Answer my questions.

Relax comrade.... short memories?
I already did respond to you!
So, seeing as neither of us know anything about that conjecture... what more is there to say?

PlamenDon

Gatling wrote: »

In this case my opinion was found to be quite factual

By who you?

You've proved nothing in any thread I've had the pleasure of debating with you, your full of your own opinion, nothing else.

PlamenDon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Relax comrade.... short memories?
I already did respond to you!
So, seeing as neither of us know anything about that conjecture... what more is there to say?

No they refused to hand it over, then when pushed said their primary radar was turned off that day, which begs the question how the investigation were able to pinpoint where the Buk was supposedly fired from when it seems only Russian primary radar was covering that area, Russia handed over the data but it wasn't used.

See all contradictions, so I'll remain skeptical of this investigation until somebody can answer some simple questions that go ignored by everybody saying "Russia did it"

Gatling

PlamenDon wrote: »

By who you.

By the international investigation team.

I said what they said and they said what I said,

MH17 was shotdown by a Russian Buk missle that was sent into Ukraine by Russia

PlamenDon

Gatling wrote: »

By the international investigation team.

I give up, you believe the farce when I'm showing the contradictions, and ignore them, laughable if it wasn't so serious.

PlamenDon

Also the BUK manufacturer have stated that the BUK missile evidence is not the type used by Russia.

The JIT also ignored evidence given by the BUK manufacturer.

gandalf

Tbh why would Russian radar data be considered as reliable when they used official channels to present the SU25 story as fact.

Classic Maskirovka in operation as practiced at 55 Savushkina Street

BoJack Horseman

PlamenDon wrote: »

No they refused to hand it over

Case closed!

how the investigation were able to pinpoint where the Buk was supposedly fired from

I'm not a ballistics engineer, if you post up the report we can read it together!
My guess would be that the location of impact is certainly an aspect of it.
The missile struck the front of the aircraft, the aircraft was facing east-south-east.
Government territory was & is behind the aircraft to the west.
You can study closely and see if you can see something else?

But again.... read the report and they will probably tell you!

And besides..... it was an A2A missile wasn't it?

PlamenDon

gandalf wrote: »

Tbh why would Russian radar data be considered as reliable when they used official channels to present the SU25 story as fact.

Classic Maskirovka in operation as practiced at 55 Savushkina Street

Well it's the ONLY radar data, as Ukraine strangely decided to turn off their primary radar that day.

gandalf

PlamenDon wrote: »

Also the BUK manufacturer have stated that the BUK missile evidence is not the type used by Russia.

The JIT also ignored evidence given by the BUK manufacturer.

A manufacturer who relies solely on Russian government business especially when the Russian State is in the cross hairs for the blame for this atrocity.

gandalf

PlamenDon wrote: »

Well it's the ONLY radar data, as Ukraine strangely decided to turn off their primary radar that day.

But it's tainted so in effect it's useless unlike the Buk they supplied to the so called rebels* which unfortunately worked.

* Imho the "rebels" who fired the missile were members of the Russian military.

PlamenDon

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Case closed!


I'm not a ballistics engineer, if you post up the report we can read it together!
My guess would be that the location of impact is certainly an aspect of it.
The missile struck the front of the aircraft, the aircraft was facing east-south-east.
Government territory was & is behind the aircraft to the west.
You can study closely and see if you can see something else?

But again.... read the report and they will probably tell you!

And besides..... it was an A2A missile wasn't it?

Buk missile producer Almaz-Antey has said that its experiments showed flight MH17 was downed from Kiev-controlled territory. The body adds that international investigators lack technical proof for their theory presented on Wednesday.
According to Mikhail Malyshevsky, an adviser to the chief designer of Almaz-Antey, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was brought down from the village of Zaroshenskoye, which was controlled by the Ukrainian Army at the time of the crash.

“To date, we conducted three experiments that confirm the version that the Malaysian Boeing was shot down by a missile from the direction of the village of Zaroshenskoye,” Malyshevsky said at a press conference on Wednesday.

Earlier on Wednesday, the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) issued its report claiming that MH17 was downed by a 9M38-series Buk missile launched from the rebel-held area near the village of Pervomaiskoye in eastern Ukraine. The probe also claimed that the Buk system in question was brought into Ukraine from Russia, and after the launch was subsequently returned to Russian territory.

The adviser said that the real damage to the MH17 fuselage did not match the results presented by the JIT in its report. He also said that the JIT presentation and the report “almost have not considered issues regarding the technical investigation.”


Malyshevsky claimed that the Dutch-led investigators ignored the damage to three parts of the wreckage, in order to fit their theory. He added that the “whole model [by the JIT] was built to suit the only version that the missile moved towards the plane head-on.”

However, this version is contradicted by the damage which can be seen on the MH17 wreckage, he said.

“If the missile exploded on the head-on course, the plane would have been hit through [by the projectiles]. But there are no flow-through hits.”

Malyshevsky said that they provided the Dutch investigators with technical details on the Buk missile model and the warhead which Almaz-Antey considered to be those used to hit MH17, but that data “was not convenient” for them.

PlamenDon

gandalf wrote: »

But it's tainted so in effect it's useless unlike the Buk they supplied to the so called rebels which unfortunately worked.

So again, how did the investigators pinpoint the launch site?

Elmer Blooker

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

The missile struck the front of the aircraft, the aircraft was facing east-south-east.

How do you know this? Kiev ATC have released nothing and the flight recorders seem to have disappeared without trace!

PlamenDon

Everybody assumes only Russia have Buk missiles.

http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/tehnika-pvo/75-zenitniy-raketniy-kompleks-buk

BoJack Horseman

PlamenDon wrote: »

Buk missile producer Almaz-Antey has said that its experiments showed flight MH17 was downed from Kiev-controlled territory.

Which story is it now?

21 July 2014: Four days after the tragedy, Russia's defence ministry presented satellite photos and other images suggesting it was downed by a Ukrainian surface-to-air Buk missile or a Ukrainian military jet

June 2015: Russia's Investigations Committee named a "key witness" - a Ukrainian "aircraft ordnance technician" - who claimed that the Boeing was downed by a Ukrainian Su-25 fighter.

October 2015: Buk missile producer Almaz-Antey said that the plane was indeed downed by a Buk, but an old one - which Russia no longer had in its arsenal.

September 2016: Russia's defence ministry released what it said were radar data suggesting MH17 was shot down by a missile, but not one fired by Russian-backed rebels

Comrades... pick a story and stick to it.

Anyway... what you are saying is: The government owned weapons company says it couldn't have been them or the government that owns them

Thanks for that slice of impartiality.

Again though.... don't you think it was an air-to-air missile? :P