Cockpit of MH17 found sawed in half at crash site

a reply to: VirusGuard

Because when you have a piece of debris sitting in the middle of a field, with nothing around it but ground to hit, and it has holes in it that push IN towards the inside of the piece, and they're on top of the piece, than it had to be something that was outside of that portion of the plane, pushing inward, and it had to be moving at a high rate of speed. That narrows it down to a piece of shrapnel from a missile.

a reply to: bbracken677

Yeah... Umm .. Some plane crashes have wreckage and you know... Some don't. o0
~~

a reply to: bbracken677

Thanks for the info, that damage pattern actually makes sense now

a reply to: Compressor35

It depends how it impacts, you know



vs



or



So breaking apart mid-air and landing at 120mph ish or being flown intact to a stripmining area at several hundred mph nose first. A bit different maybe... ?

I wish some people would get past a hollywood movie level of 'education'...

There are plenty of photos of the Lockerbie disaster showing wreckage all over the place, including large chunks of fuselage.

I wonder amongst all us amateurs whether there is anyone with real experience of these matters. Thought not.

a reply to: paraphi

The problem is that people come in hooked on 9/11, etc and/or have never seen the many real photo's of numerous plane crashes and other violent incidents that circulate.
They don't know about the bodies at Lockerbie that were still sat in their chairs looking asleep, or the girl that had clawed the grass after falling all that way. Or the person that survived that later died. Nor do they know the reality of death and how these things really carry out, they only know the reassuring 'they didn't suffer' reality which is completely manufactured.
While I would have always supported this, it has now bred many people who have no clue about life and death and come up with Hollywood style perceptions to the horror around us.

ATS does not allow anything linking to reality in these cases because it has to be family friendly for the sponsors, but it is all there if one dares to look. You (those that have no clue) won't be the same after, but if you choose not too (which I advise) don't try and bestow us with irrelevant and insulting opinions of things you have no understanding of.

a reply to: AgentSmith

Yeah, well 9/11 was so overtaken with amateurs all pretending to be experts in metallurgy, ballistics, holograms, explosions, and a thousand an one fields of science, that it became a joke to everyone except the "select few who knew the truth".

An airliner was shot down, and if the investigators are able to investigate i.e. the professionals are able to do their jobs, we may get some answers. However, even then the bare-faced evidence will be ignored by a blinkered few.

Many of the posts regarding this tragedy are so insensitive that it's untrue. Moments after the tragedy was announced people started to question whether it happened. Let's hope these people never have to face bereavement and loss.

Regards

originally posted by: paraphi

I wonder amongst all us amateurs whether there is anyone with real experience of these matters. Thought not.

You didn't wait for an answer.

I worked for Raytheon Aerospace and their "successor" (not the same unit as Raytheon) for 5 years. Lots of aircraft repairs etc for varieties of reasons. Virtually all of them from contracts with the AF, Navy and CIA. I was never involved in the CIA stuff...higher security clearance than I had.

I am not an FAA investigator if that is what you mean.

originally posted by: DarknStormy
Has it occured to anyone that if the cockpit was intact that maybe there were people in the cockpit which needed to be removed? Could that be a reason why it's been sawed or not?

Ok. So if their goal was only to try to access bodies, why haul away large sections of the plane on trucks? Why leave the area with bodies still lying in the field if their motives were so noble and they just wanted to recover remains? Why LOOT the bodies if they were so concerned?

It's called evidence tampering. The Russian-backed separatists were doing whatever they could to confuse the crime scene. It was heinous the way they treated the bodies. I suspect the motivation for chopping the cockpit in half was to look for the BBs.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: DarknStormy
Has it occured to anyone that if the cockpit was intact that maybe there were people in the cockpit which needed to be removed? Could that be a reason why it's been sawed or not?

Ok. So if their goal was only to try to access bodies, why haul away large sections of the plane on trucks? Why leave the area with bodies still lying in the field if their motives were so noble and they just wanted to recover remains? Why LOOT the bodies if they were so concerned?

Have you ever seen a war zone.
War zones are almost impossible to secure.
The police is not functioning in Donetsk area.

When a debris field spans like 50 square km, it will be impossible to secure without thousands of policemen.

If you are implying that the little Donetsk Republic has that kind of force, you are kidding.

Your second question is about carting away some part of wreckage. Again I would say it is natural instinct as the only purpose of investigation is to pin blame on the rebels. I don't see how rebels will cooperate in such situation.

a reply to: GargIndia

Of course you don't. You don't see how the rebels could be blamed for anything, and you never will. Video footage could come out of the rebels firing the missile that downed MH17 and you'd claim it was CGI.

a reply to: AgentSmith

9/11 comes up in this stuff because basically the same thing happened to MH-17 as what happened to Flight 93. So this is really just more evidence for the 'truthers' that flight 93 was not actually flight 93. Sure, one was hit by a supposed missile, or at the very least exploded mid-air, while 93 apparently nose dived. Both flights had dramatic speed on impacting earth, yet the sites are completely different. Flight 93's site is so different in fact that it is totally unique to aviation accidents. Sure makes me wonder. However, we really don't know what happened to flight 93 or 17. So I guess we just wait until the investigation is over.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: GargIndia

Of course you don't. You don't see how the rebels could be blamed for anything, and you never will. Video footage could come out of the rebels firing the missile that downed MH17 and you'd claim it was CGI.

I don't think anyone should take grainy circumstantial videos or social media posts as rock hard evidence of an event like MH17. To do that would be irresponsible.

Why do you claim these videos/pictures as proof? They don't qualify as good evidence in many circles of society. So maybe, wait for the investigation to wrap up? Then see what has to be said then, and then make your decision as to if you believe that or not.

Your tone comes across as hostile. It shouldn't be, unless you have taken sides. And if you have (which I assume you have), your opinion is much like a butt-hole. Everyone has one and they all stink. I don`t know if you're a shill or not (likely not), but you are certainly coming across as one.

Facts are the only helpful thing in this debacle - and there are few so far. Opinions just cloud reality with what ought to have happened in the reality of the beholder of that opinion.

Please, join me as I TRY and continue in an unbiased approach to tragedy and disaster in war-zones.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

There is a large influx of people here who have new accounts that only post on Russian related issues that aren't interested in facts. So when you say I have taken sides, you'd be correct. I side with the truth, and the evidence, wherever that leads. I can't say the same for others in this debate, and all the data indicates the rebels are not being honest, nor are the Russians (including the recent influx of Russian posters as of late that was recently provided by SkepticOverlord in another thread):

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: whitepanther999

Sorry to poke a sharp stick at your bubble, but you've joined only two days ago, and your activity has been nothing but apologizing for Putin on MH17 related threads from day one.

Do you have supporting links that are not from Russian sponsored propaganda sites? I've noticed that many of your posts contain claims without proper citation, attribution, or support of any kind.



Edit to add:

We've had a good spike in site traffic since this tragedy began, which is typical of such world events in the past. However, after a cursory look at the details, about 60% of the overall spike is from Russian Internet providers… this disproportionate spike from one region is exceptionally atypical. Additionally, nearly 25% of that Russian traffic are logged-in as members; our typical ratio is only 8% of all traffic being logged-in as members. We saw a similar overall spike when Russia invaded Ukraine, but didn't see these disproportionate regional spikes, or increase in members from Russia.

This is a very strong indication that AboveTopSecret.com is the target of a concerted effort to disrupt or otherwise shape the nature of these discussions.

So while you claim you are unbiased, I don't feel you can make that claim honestly when you are siding with people who are dismissing evidence outright. Mountains of it. Admissions of it even. How can you be unbiased when you haven't even taken a neutral position?

While all the Russian apologists cry for "TRUE evidence", can any of them provide TRUE EVIDENCE that it was anyone other than the rebels that shot down that plane? Can you?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

How have I come across as biased? I wasn't aware I had sided with "the people who are dismissing evidence outright". I don't trust any side in this. All are likely in cahoots with each other to spin a believable story to kick-start WW3. I am, like you claim you are, biased towards evidence.

We clearly have different standards on what we consider rock hard evidence though.

Meh

a reply to: DeadSeraph

Let me tell you again clearly - it does not matter who fired the missile?

The propaganda has already made it clear that the opposing sides have dug their trenches.

USA will always say 'rebels' even if it is an Ukrainian false flag.

What kind of evidence can be presented. If you are looking for video of missile firing with enough background detail for identifying the location, I very much doubt you will get it from any source.

USA claims to have evidence of rebels shooting at MH17. So USA should present that evidence.

The question that Russia should present the evidence seems illogical to me. Why should it bother? The black boxes have been turned over and Malaysians will investigate.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: GargIndia

Of course you don't. You don't see how the rebels could be blamed for anything, and you never will. Video footage could come out of the rebels firing the missile that downed MH17 and you'd claim it was CGI.

Please show me the video, CGI or not, and then we shall talk.

You have no idea about what I know.

MH17 was a setup by USA/Ukraine. Russia did not give the order to shoot down MH17.

The Ukrainian government is evil and a tool for NWO to start next world war.