How We Know Russia Shot Down MH17

a reply to: paraphi

Still cannot see why Russia is objecting to a Tribunal unless they fear the outcome. They should be welcoming one as it is their opportunity to present their evidence.

Let's dissect the whole situation...

Is the tribunal proposal meant to bring out the truth or for a political reason ?

- They want to propose something which they know the Russians are not going to agree with

- But they don't propose something with which the Russians would agree with, namely an UN lead international investigation in which they are also included

Now an international investigation which includes the Russians will have the best change in brining the truth into the light, but yet they choose to go for proposing a tribunal which will have a very much worse change in brining out the truth.

So is the tribunal proposal meant for brining out the truth or for a political reason ?

a reply to: Rosinitiate
and
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

You are getting a UN Commission and a UN Tribunal in a muddle. A Tribunal is a different thing from a Commission.

> Commissions collect evidence and present to the Security Council sponsors for them to act on. That's political.

> Tribunals are independent and prosecute. That's judicial.

I think Russia are worried that a judicial process will be bad news because there's not the politics and horse-trading that would lead to a cover-up.

originally posted by: Soapusmaximus
a reply to: Xcathdra

Jog on mate, we all know the SU-25 can reach over 10,000 ft - even if it means the pilot wears an oxygen mask.

I made sure I checked that fact for myself- you can trust what the military industrial complex feeds you - I will not.

And I wonder why Russia doesn't trust the UN? When the NATO countries attacking her hold more combined sway with the UN?

And no the info to date is murky because one side is lying out of their arse - and I think we know who has set the precedent for that the last 13 and a half years.

You my friend really are naive.

Obviously the majority of ATS agrees that the Russian didn't do it - that would explain the 10+ pages of debate but only 11 flags even though this has been on the front page for how long?

Ok. max altitude for a SU-25 with weapons onboard is16 000 max. the triple 7 was at 33,000 ft and at cruising speed. Also the missiles the su25 has for defense are not strong enough to instantly down a triple 7 with no maydays or anything. Its not like top gun or iron eagle where one missile destroys a huge aircraft. your dislike of the yanks is showing through btw.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

And yet all the anti-West proponents demand that the West publicly release all their evidence now instead of waiting for the final report. Why is it OK if Russia waits but suspicious if the West waits?

originally posted by: RyleeNator
a reply to: Zaphod58

A buk missile chases and stokes above the aircraft it can not target the cockpit/pilot as what happened to mh17 a blind man can feel the holes under the pilot's window

This thread has a VERY detailed analysis of BUK warhead dispersion patterns, possible directions of flight and analysis of such damage as can be seen in available photos of wreckage.

It is a log thread, with a very large number of details posts and vector analysis.

Even exploding above the aircraft eth warhead has no trouble at all causing massive damage to the cockpit.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The Russians already know what is in the concept report because it has been send to them so they could comment on it.

They are not satisfied with how the investigation has been done and now have come up with their own resolution in which they ask for the UN to take a bigger role.

Link

Russia already has made a comment about why their radar images weren't showing a BUK missile launch just like the concept report probably states.

Now let's see if The West is willing to hand over the investigation so it can actually be done independent...Russia has from the get go called for a real independent investigation, something which The CIA, Kiev and The Dutch have been refusing the whole time.

Russia is not going to show their cards...they are not that stupid...so you really think they would show their cards during a play of poker, you're funny !

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Xcalibur254


Now let's see if The West is willing to hand over the investigation so it can actually be done independent...Russia has from the get go called for a real independent investigation, something which The CIA, Kiev and The Dutch have been refusing the whole time.

A civil aviation accident investigation is as independent as it gets - the information requirements are transparent and available for anyone to see in ICAO documents - which means the general public gets to se the info at the appropriate time when the investigation is complete - not before.

The idea that an investigation that het Russians would accept would be "independent" is laughable - putin controls his media much more closely than "the west" supposedly does - nothing coming out from any official Russian approval can possibly be anything except a Russian whitewash.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Xcalibur254


Now let's see if The West is willing to hand over the investigation so it can actually be done independent...Russia has from the get go called for a real independent investigation, something which The CIA, Kiev and The Dutch have been refusing the whole time.

A civil aviation accident investigation is as independent as it gets - the information requirements are transparent and available for anyone to see in ICAO documents - which means the general public gets to se the info at the appropriate time when the investigation is complete - not before.

There's an agreement with which the investigative parties can veto evidence they don't want to be used in the report.

The general public will only see what the CIA wants to show...as transparent as can be, you must be kidding...and to think I have given you guys so much time to do your homework and you're still completely clueless about the whole situation.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

what agreement is that you speak of? nothing I know of, nor do my professional full time accident investigation colleagues sitting 6 meters from me.

Her's the section of ICAO Annex 13covering release of information:

RESPONSIBILITY OF ANY STATE
Release of information — Consent
6.2 States shall not circulate, publish or give access to a draft report or any part thereof, or any documents obtained during an investigation of an accident or incident, without the express consent of the State which conducted the investigation, unless such reports or documents have already been published or released by that latter State.

The US's rights are limited to:

PARTICIPATION OF STATES HAVING SUFFERED
FATALITIES OR SERIOUS INJURIES
TO ITS CITIZENS
Rights and entitlement
5.27 A State which has a special interest in an accident by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens shall, upon
making a request to do so, be permitted by the State conducting the investigation to appoint an expert who shall be entitled to:
a) visit the scene of the accident;
b) have access to the relevant factual information;
c) participate in the identification of the victims;
d) assist in questioning surviving passengers who are citizens of the expert’s State; and
e) receive a copy of the Final Report.

As the State of Design the US is also entitled to have accredited representatives as part of the investigation, to receive a copy of the draft final report and make comment on it, and is obliged to pass on any information requested by the State conducting the registration.

Any comments on the draft final report can be incorporated by the State of investigation or added as an addenda to the report.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Here you go...

Agreement between The Ukraine and The Netherlands

...Kiev is nothing more as a bunch of US puppets nowadays and the investigation is being done by both the Dutch and the Ukrainians (so by the US).

The investigative team interested in Russian evidence, they are not even interested in witnesses who have come forward...

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

No there is not and this has been debunked time and time again. Its an agreement that prevents nations who get reports on the investigation from turning around and releasing said info to the media. It goes back to that whole western jurisprudence you and others don't seem to understand.

It has nothing to do with preventing evidence from being heard / admitted into the investigation.

The fact you guys constantly push this lie is pathetic and sad.

Bellingcat getting ripped apart...

'Bellingcat Report Doesn't Prove Anything': Expert Criticizes Allegations of Russian MH17 Manipulation

About Bellingcat’s claim: “Russian sat pics fake”

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The fact you guys constantly push this lie is pathetic and sad.

HAHAHAHA, coming from you !

Your job gets more difficult by the day with each new evidence resurfacing and new experts speaking out.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Putin controls his media much more closely than "the west" supposedly does - nothing coming out from any official Russian approval can possibly be anything except a Russian whitewash.

I'd say they are on par actually.
The US would never, ever allow its media to put something on the TV that implicates the West in any crimes.

EVER!

Just like Russia.

Pretending one is worse than the other is pretty naive.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Yet you completely missed what I was referring to - not surprising.

I have no "job" in this and your experts aren't experts. The fact Russia doesn't want a UN tribunal is telling.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Here you go...

Agreement between The Ukraine and The Netherlands

there is nothing in there about anyone being able to censor anything that I can see.

It is an agreement that the Ukraine authorities (being the state of occurrence) delegate authority to investigate the incident to the Dutch civil aviation authorities, as is specifically allowed in Annex 13 section 5.1. Both sides remain bound by the requirements of Annex 13.

all the rest of it is giving effect to that delegation - it is all perfectly reasonable and straightforward as often happens when an aircraft accident occurs in the territory of a state that doesn't have very good investigative capabilities.

which part of it do you think gives any one a veto on anything?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Yet you completely missed what I was referring to - not surprising.

I wasn't missing it, I just didn't care to go walk around in your circles again.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not really, the UN is completely corrupt and biased and controlled by the west more so than anyone else.

Look at what happened with Iraq? the UN was meaningless.

Russia knows if the UN tribunal happens, its results wont be reliable and simply giving airtime to anything pro western is damaging.

Again, I am not saying Russia are innocent, but having the UN run the investigation is like having the CIA investigate the faulty/criminal evidence for the Iraqi invasion.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Putin controls his media much more closely than "the west" supposedly does - nothing coming out from any official Russian approval can possibly be anything except a Russian whitewash.

I'd say they are on par actually.
The US would never, ever allow its media to put something on the TV that implicates the West in any crimes.

EVER!

Just like Russia.

Pretending one is worse than the other is pretty naive.

Except of course the USA does "allow" such things - eg Abu Ghrab, Gitmo, many reports of civilians being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.......all eth way back My Lai at least within my own memory.

So not "just like Russia" at all.