How We Know Russia Shot Down MH17

a reply to: intrptr

The transcript of MH-17's final moments was released last year in the preliminary report. Contact just stops. No mayday calls. No claims of being fired upon by another aircraft. Just silence. Consistent with sudden and complete decompression. Consistent with a SAM.

Big difference tween audio and transcript.

Just silence.

Where can I hear that "silence" in the audio?

Oh, audio isn't released yet.

a reply to: intrptr

Why don't you post the ENTIRE quote, instead of twisting what I said into what you WANTED it to say?

You know, where it says "as to who fired the missile".

a reply to: intrptr

Ah. When you said "Russia had vetoed UN Resolutions on Syria", I failed to take into account that's not you really meant. What you meant to say is that Russia have supported all UN Resolutions, but have separately made it clear that they would veto UN military intervention. So, you admit your original statement was wrong. You should just say so instead of fannying about. Russia has not vetoed any UN Resolutions on Syria - fact.

originally posted by: intrptr
The BUK is loud when it goes, the sound is audible over a wide area, the launch signature of sound and smoke trail are distinct and pronounced.

Anyway, back to topic. I would trust the forensic examiners who are stating that it was likely a BUK missile downed the airliner, rather than a Youtube video that shows that a BUK launch is noisy, therefore everyone would have heard it. We don't know who heard what, as the pro Russians who control the area have made sure that independent investigators have been unable to question potential witnesses.

Why won't Russia support a UN International Tribunal to uncover the truth? Could this be because they know their favourite story that it was a Ukrainian fighter bomber that dun it is a joke, and the revelation of this fact would leave egg on the faces of too many storytellers?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

Why don't you post the ENTIRE quote, instead of twisting what I said into what you WANTED it to say?

You know, where it says "as to who fired the missile".

You're the one providing the spin. You concluded there is no evidence in the audio recordings, having never heard them.

As to "who fired the missile" it isn't conclusively proved yet that there even was a missile. Without all the evidence in plain sight (just transcripts) you can't (conclude)who fired anything. And if you are then well… you're just blocking any true investigation into the matter.

You should be calling for release of the black box data instead of saying theres nothing to see there.

a reply to: paraphi

What you meant to say is that Russia have supported all UN Resolutions, but have separately made it clear that they would veto UN military intervention.

They did veto several times.

Off topic anyway.

a reply to: intrptr

Good thing those transcripts don't exist in a vacuum. The data recorder shows that the flight underwent sudden decompression. The spread of the debris shows that the flight broke up at or near cruising altitude. Please tell us how 30mm cannon fire caused the aircraft to just break apart so quickly that no distress call was given. Hell, even an AAM wouldn't cause that. Just look at KAL007. It was hit by two missiles much larger than that carried by the SU-25 and it continued to fly for a number of minutes.

a reply to: intrptr

And go back YET AGAIN and read my quote. Yet again, I said it provided no evidence AS TO WHO FIRED THE MISSILE that shot the plane down. Apparently you stop reading at the word "evidence" so you can jump all over my post with your spin.

Some of the witnesses who claim there was a second plane also state they saw it fire a rocket at the aircraft from trail. They saw the vapor trail.

A heat seeker would have impacted an engine and like you say, probably not been enough to down it. So the cockpit was targeted with cannon to finish the job.

That explains the eyewitness reports and the volumes of public realm images of "round holes" quite well.

Add to that,

Netherlands is holding the black box recordings secret. Netherlands is a member of NATO, part of an anti Russian alliance. They are not an independent investigating body. If the truth be out turn over the secret evidence to the UN and let them vet it all.

But what we got is, ohh we're investigating (for a year ,lol) and, its too complex, we aren't done yet.

And on the internet we have the same coalition for maintaining secrets of state crowd supporting that and stymying investigation. They keep saying, move along (start your own thread) theres nothing to see here (just read the transcripts).

Those that hide the evidence and distort the investigation are the guilty party.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The data recorder shows that the flight underwent sudden decompression.

Don't need transcripts to see that. The fuselage was riddled with thru and thru "high velocity objects".

Like swiss cheese.

The spread of the debris shows that the flight broke up at or near cruising altitude

Without a pilot and controls, plane went out of control, eventually resulting in break up.

The performance envelope doesn't compensate for being shot down.

a reply to: paraphi

We don't know who heard what, as the pro Russians who control the area have made sure that independent investigators have been unable to question potential witnesses.

Well it seems social media was alive right after the launch and it seems some may have heard it.

www.bellingcat.com...

Why won't Russia support a UN International Tribunal to uncover the truth?

Because it will do just that...uncover the truth.

One would think if they have nothing to hide they would be all for it, but doing what they are doing makes their innocence questionable.

Could this be because they know their favourite story that it was a Ukrainian fighter bomber that dun it is a joke,

It's one that makes me laugh every time i hear it. The Russians have changed their story more times than the homeless man on the corner has his underwear.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yet again, I said it provided no evidence AS TO WHO FIRED THE MISSILE

To which i replied:

As to "who fired the missile" it isn't conclusively proved yet that there even was a missile. Without all the evidence in plain sight (just transcripts) you can't (conclude)who fired anything. And if you are then well… you're just blocking any true investigation into the matter.

a reply to: intrptr

So the plane is hit by an AAM in the engine, even though there is no evidence of such an impact occurring. Then the pilot doesn't immediately issue a distress call or mayday. He then continues to say nothing as a jet flies straight towards him firing their cannons. The plane begins to plummet to the ground and despite the cannon fire or AAM not causing significant structural damage it breaks up shortly upon beginning to plummet. Then there's the fact that even though this damage would not cause the sudden decompression seen in the flight recorder the flight recorder reports that such an occurrence happened anyway. Then there's the one final fact that the SU-25 is slower and has a lower ceiling than the 777. So that means the SU-25 would have had to be coming straight on to pull this maneuver off. Considering the 777 was flying from West to East that means the SU-25 would have had to been deployed from the East. This means that for such an interception to occur the SU-25 would have had to have been deployed by Russia.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Because it will do just that…uncover the truth.

How about uncovering the black box? Oh, the Netherlands, a member of NATO is sitting on that egg.

Are they trying to hatch the truth or cover it up?

a reply to: intrptr

Some of the witnesses who claim there was a second plane also state they saw it fire a rocket at the aircraft from trail. They saw the vapor trail.

You keep saying this yet can't provide the witness statements that back the claim.

One question...how did they see a military jet the size of the SU 25 if it was flying that high?

Go outside and look up and see if you see a plane, a commercial one at that at 35000 ft above your head...and your going to tell me that an eyewitness on the ground saw this much smaller plane 7 miles above their head and even identified it as a Ukrainian jet...and they identified a plane that can't even reach that height as the culprit...really?

Those that hide the evidence and distort the investigation are the guilty party.

Russia really should quit doing that...as it is Russia that is keeping the truth from coming out.

WHy do you think they don't want the tribunal?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

He then continues to say nothing as a jet flies straight towards him firing their cannons.

Whoops…

a reply to: intrptr

How about uncovering the black box? Oh, the Netherlands, a member of NATO is sitting on that egg.

They did you keep trying to say they didn't...I already understand what your doing as you gave it away in an earlier post.

No need to get all worked up about it...

The CIA led Ukrainians have to present a report sometime, but the Russians have the real evidence, and instead of the fabricated crap which we have seen up until now and which has been presented by Bellingcat and the MSM, they are going to present it after that.

The Russians are not so stupid and let the situation becoming politicized, so they won't go along with the UN tribunal mockery.

Who shot down MH-17 ?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

ground saw this much smaller plane 7 miles above their head and even identified it as a Ukrainian jet…and they identified a plane that can't even reach that height as the culprit...really?

You just made all that up to counter the eye witness. But haven't got one to prove BUK vapor trail, either.

Its okay , we weren't there. How can we debunk a witness if we weren't there?

Can't debunk bullet and frag hole holes, though.

Lots of those…

a reply to: intrptr

Whoops what? Those look nothing like 30mm cannon holes. This is what damage done by a 30mm cannon looks like. Note how the holes are much larger than any found on MH17.