Flight MH17 - Searching for the Truth

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

There's a hell of a lot more proof to my statements than there is to Carlos, or anything you've said. I have yet to see anything from you that is backed up with anything resembling real evidence, but since it's been said by Russia or Russian supporters it's proof for you.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Apparently Carlos was not in Spain, and the weather he describes fits with the Ukraine the 17th

- Temperature

- Storm he talks about

- The pic of the cloudiness matches

- Him saying years before (`10) he was working as Air Traffic Controller in Kiev

- Apparently, despite the cover up by Spain and Ukraine, you actual can have dual citizen in the Ukraine

- Him using a pic of the Kiev Air Traffic Control Tower 4 months ahead of it all

- Him using a pic of a radar screen made by himself on the 17th

- The needed to cover him up badly with disinformation and having him disappeared, and closed his Facebook/Twitter accounts very quickly...that`s also not normal, well, yes it is actual, if you want to cover up something

And that ads up to a lot of circumstantial evidence, especially when media in the West has been gone into great length to make it look like he was fake, but he`s not.

I would say, that makes an actual rather strong case, much stronger as what we have been fed to believe up until now.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Bull. Anyone can say any of those things, and it doesn't make it true. Where the proof that it's true, besides what he posted on Twitter? Or is it yet again a case of "He's going against the Western story so it must be true"? I can put the same information online that I worked somewhere else, with minimal research, but that doesn't make it true.

You talk about us speculating, but I haven't seen anything from you that is more than wild uninformed speculation, yet you take it as gospel because it goes against the narrative that you disagree with.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Sorry I haven't been around much lately. Am I correct in concluding that you have stopped believing the earlier three self-contradictory stories in favor of a new one? What makes this one better than the first three, given that they can't all be true. (For example, where are the other two planes the last "eyewitness" saw in this new radar image?)

Hey guys! I just got out of a meeting with Putin and he says that the rebels did down MH17. Here's proof that I actually had a meeting with Putin.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Apparently Carlos was not in Spain, and the weather he describes fits with the Ukraine the 17th

Have you ever heard of a weather channel, or maybe one online because it isn't hard to find if you just look.

- Him saying years before (`10) he was working as Air Traffic Controller in Kiev

And yet this is what they say about that...

The airport where he supposedly worked for several years told us at the time that all of their air traffic controllers are Ukranian, and that in any case they have never employed any Spaniard for that or any other task.

pressimus.com...

- Apparently, despite the cover up by Spain and Ukraine, you actual can have dual citizen in the Ukraine

Wrong...

“As you know, dual citizenship is prohibited in Ukraine. It is just not clear why the authorities and immigration service, as well as courts, prosecutors, and Interior Ministry are not fighting this phenomenon since it is obvious that it undermines the foundations of the Ukrainian statehood.

www.day.kiev.ua...

I would say, that makes an actual rather strong case, much stronger as what we have been fed to believe up until now.

Except the fact that he was never an ATC in Ukraine, and he can't have dual citizenship in Ukraine, and the best for last...he was made up as he never existed, except in the minds of the Russian propaganda machine RT.

If this is what you call a strong case you need to rethink what your case is.

RT documentary about MH17 with a Su-25 flying over 10km.

Reflections on MH17

Link

I also found the agreement of the investigation talked about by Joost Niemöller (writer of the book "MH17 de Doofpotdeal," translated, "MH17 the Coverupdeal") seen in the RT video at 24:08 min.

He`s right about the investigation isn`t solely done by The Dutch, but it`s a corporation between The Ukraine and The Netherlands.

That`s just great, a possible perpetrator is doing its own investigation. No wonder they are so quite about announcing it officially.

Investigation Agreement

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And using information from Russia about this isn't a perpetrator doing an investigation?



Why are you so desperate to exonerate Russia / Pro Russian Rebels?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Russia isn`t doing the official investigation.

The difference between you and me, I write possible...and just as what I said, Joost Niemöller in the RT documentary confirms at 23:30 min that anything is just speculation before we have an objective analysis of the radar images and from the materials in the bodies.

And are we going to get that with a possible perpetrator being part of the investigation ?

NO !

It`s rather funny to see that you guys from the get go use speculation as proof and at the same time try to make it look like others do that while you are the ones who are actual doing it.

You`re doing nothing more as the usual touting which comes the West, and that means no interest in what really happened but only interested in blaming it on the Separatists/Russian side for political purposes.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

and the Ukraine is not doing the official investigation - The Dutch are.

Surprise or not ?

RT cleared over coverage of MH17 crash reporting after complaints to Ofcom

The UK’s media regulator has assessed whether RT’s coverage of the MH17 plane crash was biased following several viewer complaints, and hasn’t found any problems that merited investigation, nor any breach of standards.

The original grievances concerned RT’s July 17-22, 2014 coverage of the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crash in eastern Ukraine, and the subsequent speculation about possible culprits in the downing of the plane. After careful review of 30 hours of off-air recordings, Ofcom concluded the complaints “didn’t raise issues warranting investigation.” RT has been cleared of all charges of insufficient impartiality and factuality in these reports.

Source

There`s at least one Western regulator doing his job as they should do.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Im not surprised RT spun the information to their favor. Up to and including the claims about biased reporting which is something Ofcom never mentioned.

This is what was reviewed for RT by Ofcom.

The complaint against RT, which was investigated and found by the watchdog to not breach broadcasting rules, centred on the use of graphic imagery of bodies at the crash site, also on 17 July.

An Ofcom spokesman said: “Having reviewed the evidence, Ofcom found the BBC took steps to limit any offence caused; including apologising and ensuring the image was not shown again in later reports. As a result we consider the matter resolved.”

The regulator found RT had taken “sufficient steps to limit the potential for offence”, according to the Ofcom spokesman. “This included pixelating graphic imagery and only broadcasting it after the watershed,” Ofcom said.

Graphic images RT showed on air of bodies. That was the complaint and as we can see RT changed its reporting style to exclude graphic images. Ofcom confirmed RT made the change and because of that dismissed the complaints made about it.

BBC News and RT cleared over coverage of shooting down of flight MH17

The BBC was cleared as well so yes, I agree that the regulator did his job.

I don't agree with the insinuation that it somehow legitimizes RT news coverage as factual or unbiased.

Here is Ofcoms response -
Ofcom - complaints about bias on RT (Russia Today)

It was an FOIA request asking Ofcom if they had received any complaints about RT and reporting bias.

Here is the response - Ofc om rsponse to FOIA request question - PDF link

Freedom of Information: Right to know request

Thank you for your request for information, which we received on 19 March 2014 and have considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’). You asked whether Ofcom had received “any complaints about bias on RT (Russia Today) in regards to Crimea since 1 March 2014”.


Ofcom’s Broadcast Bulletin, published every fortnight on our website, includes the latest decisions about the complaints we have received, including those complaints Ofcom has assessed and decided not to pursue because they did not raise issues warranting
investigation, and those complaints which Ofcom has escalated for investigation. Issues of the Broadcast Bulletin are available via the following link to our website:

stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk...

Page 85 of Issue 250 of the Bulletin, published on 17 March 2014, reported that Ofcom had launched an investigation into various news programmes on various dates on Russia Today. With regard to further detail of those cases, or information on any complaints not already
published in the Bulletin, we are not able to disclose this as this is exempt under section 44 of the Act.

Section 44 of the Act prevents organisations releasing information if another act has said that it shouldn’t, in this case the Communications Act 2003. So that Ofcom can operate effectively it needs to be able to handle and share confidential correspondence with the businesses it regulates. If Ofcom was to make all this correspondence public it would undermine the confidence that regulated industries have that they can be frank and candid without the fear that these views will be published.

Section 393 of the Communications Act anticipated this and prevents Ofcom releasing information if the information is about a particular business, unless it helps Ofcom to carry out its duties.

For further information on section 44 of the Act, please see:

www.legislation.gov.uk...

It is likely that other exemptions would apply. Our most recent Broadcast Bulletins, since your request on 19 March were published on 31
March and 14 April 2014. Once Ofcom has concluded its investigation, the outcome will be published in the Broadcast
Bulletin.

I hope this information is of assistance.

If you have any queries then please contact [email protected].

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Yours sincerely

** Bold emphasis added by me **

Please point out where it states RT was cleared by Ofcom for biased reporting.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

RT documentary about MH17 with a Su-25 flying over 10km.

Wow your truly trying your hardest to say an SU 25 did this aren't you?

What's funny is they know full well that the plane built in their country for them will not fly that high...but again what do the manufacturers know right, as the Russian government knows more than the engineers at Sukhoi.

Also do you really think RT is going to go against the people who pay there bills...I don't think so.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Please point out where it states RT was cleared by Ofcom for biased reporting.

He can't because it doesn't.

a reply to: Xcathdra

[snip]

Paul Wolfowitz, the neoconservative who was Deputy Secretary of Defense under the Bush regime, declared:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

Is Wolfowitz, when referring to “hostile power” referring to any power independent of Washington’s control?

Ref: Paul craig roberts

With the Dutch Secrete Services being on a leash and the Dutch government trying to cover up yet again, people are getting pretty angry right now in The Netherlands.

Just look at the comment section from the article this morning (Google Translate)

"Confidentiality MH17 is nonsense '

While this isn`t about MH17 directly, it shows they are not independent at all and the Dutch citizens are putting two and two together.

Snowden: NSA put pressure on Netherlands

Dutch intelligence services AIVD and MIVD walk on a leash of the US NSA. They are "extremely docile" and are seen as 'subordinates'. That tells Edward Snowden, who worked for the US National Security Agency and the CIA, in an interview with the newspaper. Snowden: "The Dutch work for the Americans. They do what we tell them what to do. They are not appreciated for their abilities, but because of the free passage they offer. Before they used the NSA. "

Google Translate

Details of diplomat meeting in Ukraine revealed

On July 14th last year, three days before the disaster with flight MH17, there was a meeting in Kiev. During this meeting, diplomats were briefed on the security situation in the Ukraine. For weeks the Second Chamber has been trying to get more information regarding this meeting from the First Chamber, but to no avail.

Source

Dutch prime minister won’t release MH17 diplomatic report

Prime minister Mark Rutte on Friday said he would not agree to a request by opposition parties to publish a report of a diplomatic meeting in Ukraine, just days prior to the downing of Malaysian Airways flight MH17.

A senior Dutch diplomat was at the meeting and there have been claims that Ukraine officials warned about the dangers of using eastern Ukrainian airspace. During the meeting diplomats were told that a Ukrainian transport plane was shot down by a Russian missile.

Source

There`s now a lot of pressure on the Dutch Government to reveal what was reported to them about it, but as before, they try to hide yet again by such things can`t be made public while in the past they have done so in other cases.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Man you really will stop at nothing to push a false narrative by omitting information.

The investigation into MH17, just like any other criminal investigation in nations with a western style jurisprudence, is not a public investigation. Evidence collected - whether its forensic, eye witnesses, electronic, etc are not a matter of public record. The reason for this is it can adversely affect any criminal prosecution against people involved. It can result in a tainted prosecution where a suspect could walk free based on legal technicalities.

Evidence collected that will be used against an individual is presented to the defense once charges are filed against a person. Releasing evidence / information to the public can violate the defendants rights.


If information is released in the manner you want, and it turns out Ukrainians were behind it, and no prosecution occurs you will throw a fricken fit. If the information implicates pro Russian / Russians you are going to scream cover-up, even louder than you are now.

You really need to stop pushing the bs propaganda and maybe pick up a book and read / learn about the topics you post on.

a reply to: Xcathdra

This isn`t about the non disclosure agreement which I already have found and linked to, it`s about what was reported to the Dutch Government 3 days prior to it. It`s about the safety hazard in the skies above the Ukraine.

Maybe read a bit more and post a bit less to actual know what you respond to, getting tired of having to respond to everything and don`t have enough time to read anymore?

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The non disclosure agreement is valid, regardless of how you guys try to spin it.

There was other civilian air traffic in the same area at the same time at close flight levels. The air space was restricted and civilian air traffic were not in violation of it.

As for the last part that's pretty rich coming from a person who tries to post the same debunked information in multiple threads while using misleading titles in other.

If you are "right" and all your evidence is "right" then there would be absolutely no need for people to misrepresent the information they post and in other occasions outright lie about it.