Interesting article on Ukraine shooting down MH17

The press conference I seen said one maybe two planes tailing mh-17 on radar and the radar is available for inspection but nobody has debunked it inspected it asked.to look at the radar reports to prove or improve if they are legit so by my logic I reckon it's best to ignore the radar reports if your trying to hide something and that's exactly what the investigators are doing how hard could it be to take a look and prove the radar report fake ?????;; reply to: DJW001

originally posted by: RyleeNator
The press conference I seen said one maybe two planes tailing mh-17 on radar and the radar is available for inspection but nobody has debunked it inspected it asked.to look at the radar reports to prove or improve if they are legit so by my logic I reckon it's best to ignore the radar reports if your trying to hide something and that's exactly what the investigators are doing how hard could it be to take a look and prove the radar report fake ?????;; reply to: DJW001

Only two planes? Where is the third?

a reply to: RyleeNator

Zaphod's debunked the radar returns in pretty much every MH17 thread. On top of that why do you think Russia has never mentioned those returns after that press conference? Instead they said that if the rebels shot it down it was still Ukraine's fault.

a reply to: RyleeNator

They also said the radar was in standby, so only picked up targets over 16,000+ feet. Except that radar on standby isn't transmitting at all, so can't pick up anything.

Ukraine itself now crawling back...?

In SBU admitted that the Malaysian "Boeing" could be shot down another aircraft

Source

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
Ukraine itself now crawling back...?

In SBU admitted that the Malaysian "Boeing" could be shot down another aircraft

Source

Why are you quoting a Greek website? Why not go to the source they link to?

www.regnum.ru...

Oh, it's Russian... and it doesn't say what the Greek article says it does, does it?

a reply to: DJW001

If Google translate is right, it does say exactly that...nice try though, still being delusional about me being able to read Russian?

HAHAHA !

Source

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And they're quoting the investigators, who haven't ruled out anything yet.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: DJW001

If Google translate is right, it does say exactly that...nice try though, still being delusional about me being able to read Russian?

HAHAHA !

Source

Where does it say "admits?" The word "admits" implies some sort of confession. The SBU officer simply said that nothing has been ruled out yet. The "admits" was introduced by your Greek source to make it appear that the Kyiv government has been lying.

Edit to add: You're right, google translate uses the word "admits." The Russian source is trying to make it look like Kyiv has been lying. Surprise.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ukraine has been saying from day one the only thing that had happened were Separatists who shot it down and it was confirmed, and now they say it might be possible not be confirmed...meaning they don`t have the knowledge about what has happened.

So yes, they crawl back and admit they had squat, and have made baseless accusations the whole time.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Zaphod58

Ukraine has been saying from day one the only thing that had happened were Separatists who shot it down and it was confirmed, and now they say it might be possible not be confirmed...meaning they don`t have the knowledge about what has happened.

So yes, they crawl back and admit they had squat, and have made baseless accusations the whole time.

And from day one, the Russians have claimed it is anyone and everyone but the separatists. All of their supposed evidence is contradictory... but some people will never admit that.

a reply to: DJW001

Only two planes? Where is the third?

Flying to low for radar to work maybe !

Where are pictures of the PUK missile trail that anyone with a phone could had pictured if a PUK missile was used to shoot MH17 down or could it just be that one was never used and a fighter took the flight down and this is why we have an eye witness to the jet returning without its air to air missiles and Russia has the two jets following MH17.

I know in your world buildings just fall down because CNN says so but you realy do need to start to think more for yourself.

a reply to: Zaphod58

if i shot you with a shot gun then it would not take a year to rule out that i didn't shoot you with a 9 cal S&W and the same is also true about what hit flight MH17 so why the delay or do they have something to hide ?

The WMD lie has been used twice now so why beleive a word that comes out of the US state department

a reply to: VirusGuard

Where are the wreckages of the two aircraft the witness claimed were shot down? Oops.

a reply to: VirusGuard

You know nothing of aircraft investigations. If you shoot me with a gun, then it's obvious you shot me. With a plane they have ten thousand things to check. Accidents where the pilot said what happened still took years for a report to come out.

a reply to: VirusGuard

The WMD lie has been used twice now so why beleive a word that comes out of the US state department

But yet you will believe anything the Kremlin says...imagine that.

a reply to: DJW001

Why did BBC pull the footage that contradicts the official narrative? Oops!

a reply to: Salander

Why did BBC pull the footage that contradicts the official narrative? Oops!

That would be because after actually looking into the original story they found out it was wrong...hence they removed the untrue story.

No Oops about it.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You know, in most cases a picture is worth a thousand words.

The footage pulled down by BBC was only a video. No words, no commentary. But it showed the flight spiraling with one engine on fire. That did not fit the BUK narrative, so it was pulled.

Oops!

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You know, in most cases a picture is worth a thousand words.

The footage pulled down by BBC was only a video. No words, no commentary. But it showed the flight spiraling with one engine on fire. That did not fit the BUK narrative, so it was pulled.

Oops!

It would be spiraling down if it took a hit to one engine. Is that your story now? It was hit in an engine, not the fuselage?