How We Know Russia Shot Down MH17

a reply to: YouPeople

Proving that it was a BUK to begin with is the first step. You don't usually see people arrested for murders by arresting them before you even know what weapon was used.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Why should I.

So you admit to being part of the group that is always around to blame Russia. Good.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

And yet anything over 20000 ft is relatively safe. So a plane flying at 33000 ft is not in any danger of a manpad.

What I said is that planes had already been shot from altitudes above the reach of manpads, indicating that they had systems of the category that can reach out to above 33.000 ft. and thus potentially threatening airliners flying over that area. Authorities knew this. What part was confusing.

a reply to: YouPeople

So you admit to being part of the group that is always around to blame Russia. Good.

Is that a problem with you...because I call them as I see them.

And as Zaphod has said it was more than likely an error in what they thought was a Ukrainian military jet...and you can see that in the various threads we have about this topic.

I blame Russia because they either had the soldiers running it, or they trained the separatists on how to use it...so either way Russia has blame they need to answer for.

And understand I don't blame the Russian people for this, I blame Putin and his government...just setting that record straight before you try and say I hate RUssian people.

Plus I have never been shy about who I think is responsible for this.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Too little gain IMO

Too little gain he says....

Dude, the whole thing has been milked dry the past year demonising Russia and the rebels and drumming up support for the Ukraine.

How can you say such a thing?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Bring on the evidence to back your claim.

Not my claim, its the truth. From your own link…

President Putin was on his way from Brazil, where he attended the BRICS summit, to Moscow.

a reply to: YouPeople

Because despite Russia being demonized the rebels still control the territory they held and have even expanded some. The Ukrainian government is in a slightly worse position now than they were before MH17. What help has demonising Russia given the Ukraine?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I blame Russia because they either had the soldiers running it, or they trained the separatists on how to use it...so either way Russia has blame they need to answer for.

Who says it wasn't shot by the Ukrainians themselves?

a reply to: YouPeople

What part was confusing.

He's sowing the confusion, not you. I see you are new here. One becomes familiar with members posting habits, over time.

I appreciate your comments, they make a lot of sense.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Because despite Russia being demonized the rebels still control the territory they held and have even expanded some. The Ukrainian government is in a slightly worse position now than they were before MH17. What help has demonising Russia given the Ukraine?

Just because it didn't work out as they hoped doesn't mean that it wasn't obviously put to use. Bad argument from your side.

a reply to: YouPeople

What I said is that planes had already been shot from altitudes above the reach of manpads, indicating that they had systems of the category that can reach out to above 33.000 ft

Until MH 17 the separatists didn't have anything bigger than the MANPADS to shoot down planes which is why they were allowing planes to fly over Ukraine at the lowest of 30000 ft, because they weren't considered to be in danger of being hit.

And what about all the commercial jets that flew the same route before and during this happening...if they were in danger do you think they would have been flying that route at that height?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

its more than likely an error in what they thought

That pretty much sums nothing up…

…and you can see that in the various threads we have about this topic.

You mean like here where you crop photos and lie to cover it up?

a reply to: Zaphod58

hey Zaph, judging by all the explosion talk, can I assume what was talked about in your segment on "Out of The Box" regarding this issue is null and void?

a reply to: YouPeople

While governments will use every crisis they can for their own gains, there is a risk/reward factor. If it turns out that the Ukrainian military did it, they risk all the assistance they've been getting, as well as sanctions against them making getting needed supplies harder, plus monetary compensation later.

Yes, they COULD have done it, but in my opinion there was more risk and less reward if they did. If they had done it there would have been better evidence it wasn't them set up first I would think.

a reply to: Barkowsky

I don't remember what I said.

a reply to: intrptr

Thanks, and trust me, I know exactly who's who around here. I have been around reading for years and years.

a reply to: YouPeople

Who says it wasn't shot by the Ukrainians themselves?

Well because the BUK systems that UKraine used would have been manned by soldiers that would be using the whole battery which would show them it was a commercial airliner, and the separatists didn't have that experience or the whole battery to use.

You can use the BUK without the rest of the battery, but your not able to identify the plane your shooting at.

And you seem to overlook one big thing...the separatists have no planes so why would Ukraine be using the system in the first place, but of course Ukraine does have planes which is what they thought they shot down at first until seeing the big screw up that happened.

One last thing...how did Ukraine get a BUK deep into separatist held land without being captured or destroyed, and how did they get out after shooting this plane down again without being noticed?

a reply to: Zaphod58

While governments will use every crisis they can for their own gains, there is a risk/reward factor. If it turns out that the Ukrainian military did it, they risk all the assistance they've been getting, as well as sanctions against them making getting needed supplies harder, plus monetary compensation later.

Found out by who? The ones that were supporting the whole plot? The ones that up to now have refused to produce the damning evidence that they must have?

a reply to: intrptr

That pretty much sums nothing up…

As do most of your replies.

You mean like here where you crop photos and lie to cover it up?

What lie?

I see you want to make accusations but can't back them...again show me anywhere I said that was a Russian round, since you think I am lying and covering it up it should be easy to show, correct?

So have at it...show the lie.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Well because the BUK systems that UKraine used would have been manned by soldiers that would be using the whole battery which would show them it was a commercial airliner, and the separatists didn't have that experience or the whole battery to use. You can use the BUK without the rest of the battery, but your not able to identify the plane your shooting at.

Playing dumb again are we. Favorite tactic when desperate. See it happening a lot lately.

I am saying they did it on purpose. That whole argument is ridiculous.

And you seem to overlook one big thing...the separatists have no planes so why would Ukraine be using the system in the first place,

This is only the fourth time in a row, but.....because they intended to shoot down a passenger plane with a BUK to blame it on the seperatists who had been shooting down Ukranian militairy planes with BUK's in the weeks prior.

Again, what part was confusing.

One last thing...how did Ukraine get a BUK deep into separatist held land without being captured or destroyed, and how did they get out after shooting this plane down again without being noticed?

Ah, so you do get what I am saying.

I think setting up along the edges of the territory would be sufficient to have a plane crash within the territory.