Angry families of MH17 crash victims seek U.N. investigation

a reply to: Salander

Considering a BUK would leave a very noticeable trail. . . Which people in Ukraine would have captured on their phones. Believe me, it would be online by now.

Images & video has been non-stop during the early stages of the "ato".

Of course, an air to air missile would also have left a visible trail that should have been photographed and posted all over the internet by now....

a reply to: Salander

So, your statement is not really accurate. For some "mysterious" reason, BBC pulled that report fairly quickly after it aired. Ooops!

And yet you can see it here...



I guess they didn't pull it...imagine that?

As for the two witnesses...so tell me now how does one see a military jet flying near the airliner almost 7 miles above their heads?

I also have to question how she knew where to look in the sky for those planes?

SO now the video is still out there and the witnesses are questionable at best...I would say my statement is still accurate.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Not to mention how they could identify military aircraft at that altitude, specifically national ownership.

However since it was a sam and not air to air missile im not sure what the point of this continued circular argument is.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Thank you for posting that video with its scattergun of "eyewitness" claims. If it is true that Ukrainian bombers would hide behind civilian aircraft, and a Sukhoi SU 24 bomber has a high enough operational ceiling that this might be conceivable, then surely there must be reports from commercial aircraft of these near encounters. Here's a chance for the people who believe the Official Story to get some actual evidence.

a reply to: DJW001

What I find interesting is the pro Russian rebels and Russia have consistently blamed Ukraine but have also constantly changed their story as to how Ukraine did it.

Ukraine's story has been consistent since day one.

If Russia has all the evidence saying Ukraine shot it down then why dont they release it and stick to one version of how it occurred.

This is not the cold war and Russia no longer can get away with forcing others to believe their lies. The fact Russia changes its story and doesn't think anyone will notice demonstrates just how far out of touch the Russian government has become.

That mindset reinforces the fact Putin thinks he is living in the 1980's.

The next step for Putin will be to blame the central bank, which he just did as well as sacking his government, including medev the current prime minister.

Once Putin does that I wonder who he will blame next.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ukraine's story has been consistent since day one.

Consistently fake, with all kinds of pathetic amateur evidences and lies.

Poroshenko telling on Australian television just recently how he has satellite images, backed by Nuland saying they have handed out over all US evidence including classified information which maybe in the future be made public.

...and after that we have the head investigation saying there are no such thing as satellite images with proof in the hands of the investigation team...they can`t even get their stories lined up...what a joke it has become.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Consistently fake, with all kinds of pathetic amateur evidences and lies.

Like this?

Poroshenko telling on Australian television just recently how he has satellite images, backed by Nuland saying they have handed out over all US evidence including classified information which maybe in the future be made public.

...and after that we have the head investigation saying there are no such thing as satellite images with proof in the hands of the investigation team...they can`t even get their stories lined up...what a joke it has become.

The two statements are not mutually contradictory. Classified intelligence may have been given to the Ukrainian government that has been with-held from the investigation team.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Consistently fake, with all kinds of pathetic amateur evidences and lies.

Not unlike our good friends in the Russian media...where they show nothing but the truth.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

As you probably already know, old-fashioned straight turbojets are usually heard before they are seen, from ground perspective.

I am assuming that the fighter aircraft in question were older vintage, probably with straight turbojets, not fans.

Thus peasants might have heard the fighters before they actually saw them. That point was not clarified in the BBC piece as I recall.

My view, having been watching western TV "evening news" variants that evening, is that a major propaganda effort was engaged in that evening. They were, knowingly or unknowingly (I suspect the former) telling the Official Story as the public was meant to learn it.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Out of that 4:12 clip, only a very small part was in the video I was referring to, that of the testimony of the peasant women.

The video I saw was in English, with Russian translators in the background for those women. The video I saw also included maybe 20 seconds or so of amateur footage, slightly out of focus, of the airliner as it spiraled down through about 2000 feet, with one engine engulfed in flames.

My bet is THAT was the part they didn't want seen.

a reply to: Salander

, only a very small part was in the video I was referring to, that of the testimony of the peasant women.

And the question still stands...how could she know it was a military jet flying almost 7 miles overhead?

I also have to ask how she knew where to look for not just a passenger jet which btw is hard to see at that height, but to also see a military jet that is much smaller than a passenger jet almost 7 miles above her head?

Answer those two questions and you may have something, but until that happens you have nothing.

The video I saw also included maybe 20 seconds or so of amateur footage, slightly out of focus, of the airliner as it spiraled down through about 2000 feet, with one engine engulfed in flames.

Except the plane didn't spiral as it blew apart over a large area of Ukraine, so that is the reason they probably pulled it because it wasn't what it claimed to be of.

My bet is THAT was the part they didn't want seen.

And again it was more than likely pulled because it wasn't really MH 17 in the video.

If you want to know who is responsible for a crime all you have to do is look at who is keeping things secret and refusing to provide evidence or excluding parties to an investigation. You can also look at who is blaming someone else before an investigation has been conducted. You can also look at who is providing as a source of evidence a party that has been repeatedly proven to be a liar. This applies to 9-11, MH-17, and the Sony Hack among many. The same pattern repeats over and over. I don't understand why it is so hard to figure this out for some.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Wasn't their some weather issues on the day it was shot down? If so what was the cloud coverage and what was the conditions in the area where people on the ground saw what occurred?

MH17 was apparently shot down by military aircraft, Dutch author says

"You can’t say for sure, but I think it must be a jet,” he said

Source

Another MH17 Cover-Up: Hiding a Key Autopsy

Decisive evidence as to how the July 17th shooting-down of the MH17 Malaysian airliner occurred is being hidden by the four-nation team that’s doing the official ‘investigation’ into the plane-downing incident.

Source

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Source

Russian media...haven't we been over this about the report?

In fact why not use the report as your source instead of a Russian media outlet...

www.onderzoeksraad.nl...

Source

Again why use a biased media report instead of the real thing...the actual report?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Wasn't their some weather issues on the day it was shot down?

Yes the weather was a factor that day as it was overcast.

Witness account of Ukraine MH17 takedown confirmed by lie detector – investigators

Russia’s Investigative Committee has confirmed the claims by a Ukrainian, who said he witnessed the deployment of a Ukrainian warplane armed with air-to-air missiles on the day the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down.

The interview was conducted on Tuesday, spokesman for the committee Vladimir Markin told the media on Wednesday.

This followed a report in a Russian newspaper, in which the Ukrainian citizen, who preferred to remain anonymous, voiced his allegations.

The investigators used a polygraph during the interview, which showed no evidence of the witness lying, he added.

Source

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Again why use a biased media report instead of the real thing...the actual report?

...because no one is paying me to do so.

Russia ready to share evidence regarding MH17 crash with international investigation

The Ukrainian soldier who gave evidence on the crash of the Boeing passenger plane over eastern Ukraine is entitled to the witness protection program, IC spokesman Vladimir Markin said

MOSCOW, December 24. /TASS/. Russia’s Investigative Committee (IC) is prepared to share newly-discovered evidence regarding last summer’s Malaysian Boeing disaster in Ukraine with the international panel of inquiry, IC spokesman Vladimir Markin has told TASS.

Source