MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

a reply to: Salander

Only the air traffic control transcripts.

a reply to: Salander

Those are only the ones that are commonly used as MH17. There were other aircraft shot down and other videos. None have been shown that were MH17.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

Those are only the ones that are commonly used as MH17. There were other aircraft shot down and other videos. None have been shown that were MH17.

I'm beginning to see why people question this. They see something on RT or Russian media assume its real. Like the report RT ran on the supposed air traffic controller that turned out never existed. The fake interviews they were caught doing. The documentary they did on the su 25 showing that the plane could reach altitude and it was faked. Then there was the whole fiasco with Russia and the press conference where they made that poor general lie and you could tell he knew. He had to present fake radar returns nowing that other countries would have real ones to compare to.

And let's not forget the fake sattelite image they put out. That was just sad in so many ways. I've come to the conclusion these theories they put out are strictly for domestic use. They know tithe west has access to all the information and Russians dont. Putin doesn't need to fool the west he needs to make sure he's fooled the Russians. And even they suspect but the reality they fear the loss of Putin. He is the only form of govt they have. No successor available either dead or jailed. Without Putin there world is immediate kaos. So these reports are pit out so at least they can pretend to believe.

a reply to: dragonridr

I've come to the conclusion these theories they put out are strictly for domestic use.

I disagree. I believe they are deliberately targeting the conspiracy theory demographic. If they put out enough conflicting information, the die hard CTs will always be able to find something that PROVES the Official Story wrong.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

Those are only the ones that are commonly used as MH17. There were other aircraft shot down and other videos. None have been shown that were MH17.

So you say.

a reply to: Salander

Every one of them was posted anywhere from a week to a month prior to MH17 being shot down. So unless they had a time machine they couldn't be MH17.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I say again sir, you have not yet posted the video that I saw just days after the event. You seem to be trying to tell me what I saw--you cannot.

a reply to: Salander

So you say.

So your saying there is a video of this shoot down...try to find one, because the only way you would get any video of it was if you knew exactly where and when to look into the sky.

Try this go outside and look up and tell me if you can see a plane flying at 33000 ft above you...if you can't see a commercial jet flying that high how can one see a military jet that is smaller than the airliner...they can't.

a reply to: Salander

Then post it. Not excuses about how it's gone, there's a copy somewhere. Find it and prove it was MH17 and it was hit by a missile in the engine.

a reply to: Salander

I say again sir, you have not yet posted the video that I saw just days after the event.

How about you post it and we can all see it?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Zaphod58

I say again sir, you have not yet posted the video that I saw just days after the event. You seem to be trying to tell me what I saw--you cannot.

Because there is only one video shown to be of mh17.trust me if you knew of another that person would be rich. Every news agency in the world would pay big money. Unfortunately there is only the one after it broke apart and hitting the ground. So we can say what you didn't see. Unless you have a video you took in which case let's make some money.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

No sir, I have never claimed there was a video of the shootdown.

However there was an amateur video, taken by somebody on the ground, view unobstructed by trees or anything else, of the final approximately 30 seconds of what appeared to be a Boeing, mostly white in color, in a turning spiral similar to a spin, one engine flaming.

The video was of the final seconds of the airplane. As I recall it was associated with the BBC coverage that was fairly quickly taken down by BBC.

Because it was "taken down", I only viewed it once or twice, early in the controversy. Anything "taken down" is done so for a reason, usually related to secrecy.

a reply to: Salander

And can be found again. There is a thread on ATS about technologies involved in stealth, every paper was purged from the net, yet there are copies of them in thread from long after they were purged. So you should be able to find it and post it for us to see.

a reply to: Zaphod58

We are both mature adults. I know what I saw, and if you can stumble upon the video I saw that would be great. I do love this conversation, but I am not the most computer-savvy individual posting here. Further, I have another life and work to do, and do not care to go through dozens of videos trying to find the needle in the haystack, ESPECIALLY when the video has been removed from public view for reasons I can only speculate about.

You believe the BUK story and be happy. I'll pass. I know government propaganda when I see it, and this is surely a case of government propaganda.

Nvm.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Depends upon who presents the evidence. I treat events on a case by case basis. A year in, this one reeks of false flag by NATO or one of its members, though by way of the "investigation" they appear to be acting in concert.

If I were to believe, for example, the several videos of OBL "confessing" to 911, I would be a fool. "Signed confessions" must be considered "in context". All things like this must be considered in context. That is part of analytical thinking.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Zaphod58

Depends upon who presents the evidence. I treat events on a case by case basis. A year in, this one reeks of false flag by NATO or one of its members, though by way of the "investigation" they appear to be acting in concert.

If I were to believe, for example, the several videos of OBL "confessing" to 911, I would be a fool. "Signed confessions" must be considered "in context". All things like this must be considered in context. That is part of analytical thinking.

So, in the context of a civil war where one side boasts of the number of planes it shot down, this can only be a false flag to you.

a reply to: Salander

You probably have seen one of these videos.





But that is not MH17.

a reply to: earthling42

Thank you for trying, but neither of those are MH17 as you say. And, neither of those are the one I was talking about. Neither of those were in a spiral, and the one I saw was clearly in a spiral.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: earthling42

Thank you for trying, but neither of those are MH17 as you say. And, neither of those are the one I was talking about. Neither of those were in a spiral, and the one I saw was clearly in a spiral.

Guess it doesnt really matter does it? Since we know the MH17 didnt come down with its engine attached to the fuselage. We can easily tell that by where it landed in relation to everything else. And of course the cockpit was already torn off the plane. Maybe you saw a video showing the engines coming down im pretty sure they would spin without a plane attached.A lot of time is being wasted on a video that you may or may not have seen . If you did it wasnt MH17 the crash site tells us that. If you didnt then well youve just managed to waist every ones time. So to save time i strongly suggest look to see where plane parts landed and see if it makes any sense to you a video showing the plane coming down with the engine on fire. But those two videos do show us something ther were done with a manpad. Basically a ground fired air to air missile. Notice it didnt destroy the plane and even when it hits the engines are within meters of the fuselage. These missiles are smaller and dont have the explosive force of say a BUK. This is why experts the first day were listening to reports of the large debris field and knew it was a sam. This plane was torn apart at 30000 ft there isnt a lot that can do that to a 777. It couldnt be decompression only two option a catastrophic failure of the airframe itself (meaning a wing just fell off ) or you guessed it a sam.