MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

a reply to: Salander

And you are still mistaken. Think about it? Hundreds of thousands of aviation enthusiasts worldwide paying attention to the video footage at the time and yet you are the only person claiming that there was a new video? Think about it? Nobody has a recording of this "BBC footage" ? Seriously? All you have witnessed is one of the videos that were circulating at the time or you are just deluding yourself.

Also think about the MH17 investigation? Why are you not contacting the investigation team and informing them of this "secret taken down footage"? Footage that only you seen! All you are is a mistaken conspiracy theorist. History is littered with them!

a reply to: tommyjo

Maybe I am wrong, friend. Maybe there really was a BUK launch.

But I take consolation in the fact that NATO cannot prove the BUK story, and neither can you.

If the BUK story were true, the US would have proved it last year. They have not. It ain't true.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: tommyjo

Maybe I am wrong, friend. Maybe there really was a BUK launch.

But I take consolation in the fact that NATO cannot prove the BUK story, and neither can you.

If the BUK story were true, the US would have proved it last year. They have not. It ain't true.

Of course you are wrong. You have been wrong ever since you posted your theories about MH17. Yes there was a Buk launch. Have you been keeping up? Each side blames the other for the Buk launch. An air to air missile did not bring down MH17 and neither did the ridiculous theory of air-to-air cannon fire. The final report from the Dutch will state categorically that it was a Buk that brought MH17 down and the Russians will still be declaring that it was fired by the Ukrainians.

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: tommyjo

Maybe I am wrong, friend. Maybe there really was a BUK launch.

But I take consolation in the fact that NATO cannot prove the BUK story, and neither can you.

If the BUK story were true, the US would have proved it last year. They have not. It ain't true.

Of course you are wrong. You have been wrong ever since you posted your theories about MH17. Yes there was a Buk launch. Have you been keeping up? Each side blames the other for the Buk launch. An air to air missile did not bring down MH17 and neither did the ridiculous theory of air-to-air cannon fire. The final report from the Dutch will state categorically that it was a Buk that brought MH17 down and the Russians will still be declaring that it was fired by the Ukrainians.

I don't know about that the Dutch are going to put it squarely on the Russians according to leaks. Of that's the case the report will be detailed enough to show it wasn't the Ukrainians. I suspect Russia will just ignore the report and deny the Dutch courts any jurisdicrion.

This is why the battle to get it in front of the UN isn't over yet. When the report comes out there will be a major push to start a tribunal at the UN. Question becomes how far will they push it. The US frankly doesn't want it to go to the UN because it limits oprions. However countries like Australia, France and now id say even the UK may have other plans. Especially the UK they are already taking steps to distance themselves from Russia including expelling their ambassadors. This may get interesting you may see the US and Germany trying to prevent it. Though Im sure neither would veto but they will work behind the scenes to calm the others. But I know the Dutch and the Australians will be pushing with all the political might they can muster.

a reply to: tommyjo

Well if there was a BUK launch, why on earth can nobody prove it? Why has the US government, which started the rumor for political purposes, failed to prove it?

You might want to pretend there was no cannon fire, but there was something that looked very much like it.

a reply to: Salander

Well if there was a BUK launch, why on earth can nobody prove it? Why has the US government, which started the rumor for political purposes, failed to prove it?

It has you are just denying the fact.

The US government didn't start a Rumor...the separatists were the ones who admit to having Buks in operation in the area of MH 17 shootdown the day it happened. They also bragged on social media about bringing down a plane...all up until the point they knew it was a commercial airliner.

The Us doesn't have to prove anything to you or anyone not related to the investigation, but they did give it to the people involved in the investigation.

And let's not get into who failed to prove their theory...Remember the Russians SU 25 debacle, they are still trying to prove it, but failing miserably.

You might want to pretend there was no cannon fire, but there was something that looked very much like it.

What was that you said about failing to prove something?

a reply to: Salander

Well if there was a BUK launch, why on earth can nobody prove it? Why has the US government, which started the rumor for political purposes, failed to prove it?

What makes you think nobody can prove it? The final report hasn't been released yet. As for the United States govdrnment starting the "rumor," you prov it!

You might want to pretend there was no cannon fire, but there was something that looked very much like it.

But it looked a lot more like BUK damage.

a reply to: DJW001

I know the US government started the rumor because I watched them do it, for about an hour, on all three major TV networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, sitting in my easy chair in my house. Having been propagandized by the best of them, the US military, I know propaganda when I see it, and that was pure propaganda meant to demonize Russia.

The government subsequently went quiet on it, never showing any evidence to back up their claims. Keep in mind, in case you don't know it, the US government has very elaborate intelligence satellites. Those are so accurate that they can see the tag number on a car parked in a parking lot. It's safe to say that it could also show the tag number on the BUK missile launcher, and of course the exhaust plume of a BUK launch.

So, why don't YOU enlighten ME with some of that proof? It is ludicrous to say "oh, we heard it on Twitter", and pathetic that YOU would believe such a lame rumor.

a reply to: Salander

This is why you are out of your depth. Sats can't read tag number on cars. You'll be telling me next that they can read newspapers! The question is why are you so out of your depth? It is the same with you and the claimed cannon fire damage. It is NOT cannon fire damage but the damage caused by a high explosive fragmentation warhead. Have you not seen the presentation from the Buks manufacturers Almaz-Antey? Even they don't dispute that the damage was caused by one of their Buks exploding off the nose of the Boeing 777. They claim that the Buk was fired from a Ukrainian controlled launcher.

The intelligence from sats that the US is referring to would be from SBIRS (Space Based Infrared System). That is why the graphic of the launch location was released by the US.

spaceflightnow.com...

And NO even if a imagery satellite was over the region it wouldn't have the capability to read the plate or any other numbers on a Buk launcher. Stop living in a fantasy world!

a reply to: Salander

Having been propagandized by the best of them, the US military, I know propaganda when I see it, and that was pure propaganda meant to demonize Russia.

I guess you didn't do to well if you think the US used propaganda to demonize a country that is the big reason the plane was shot down in the first place.

Here I will explain how that works...

Putin sent his troops into a sovereign country that did nothing to provoke it...except wanting to move forward with their country and not back.

He strong armed the former president into not signing with the EU or face the consequences from Russia.

Now let's look at that shall we, as we have this from Russia.

Glazyev, speaking on the sidelines of the discussion, said the exact opposite was true: "Ukrainian authorities make a huge mistake if they think that the Russian reaction will become neutral in a few years from now. This will not happen."

Instead, he said, signing the agreement would make the default of Ukraine inevitable and Moscow would not offer any helping hand. "Russia is the main creditor of Ukraine. Only with customs union with Russia can Ukraine balance its trade," he said. Russia has already slapped import restrictions on certain Ukrainian products and Glazyev did not rule out further sanctions if the agreement was signed.

The Kremlin aide added that the political and social cost of EU integration could also be high, and allowed for the possibility of separatist movements springing up in the Russian-speaking east and south of Ukraine. He suggested that if Ukraine signed the agreement, Russia would consider the bilateral treaty that delineates the countries' borders to be void.

"We don't want to use any kind of blackmail. This is a question for the Ukrainian people," said Glazyev. "But legally, signing this agreement about association with EU, the Ukrainian government violates the treaty on strategic partnership and friendship with Russia." When this happened, he said, Russia could no longer guarantee Ukraine's status as a state and could possibly intervene if pro-Russian regions of the country appealed directly to Moscow.

www.theguardian.com...

Now we saw what was said in 2013 and here in 2015 that is exactly what we see happening in Ukraine today... so the US doesn't need to demonize Russia.

They do a good enough job of that on their own.

The government subsequently went quiet on it, never showing any evidence to back up their claims.

Unless you are part of this investigation you won't see their evidence, and you don't know they haven't backed their claims, but it is fun to bash the US gov't. isn't it?

So, why don't YOU enlighten ME with some of that proof? It is ludicrous to say "oh, we heard it on Twitter", and pathetic that YOU would believe such a lame rumor.

Tell you what prove it wasn't, as it has been said many times before that Russia's own expert agreed a BUK was responsible for bringing MH 17 down, so you can disbelieve all you want, but when the people who make the BUK say it was a BUK that did it...I'll listen to the ludicrous things they say.

A Russian defence firm says an old Buk missile it used to manufacture brought down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014

www.bbc.com...

a reply to: Salander

Even if US satellites have that capability they still have to be over that area. And even then you're assuming that the US is going to turn their evidence over to the media as well as the investigators even though this is a criminal investigation and they're not involved.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: DJW001

I know the US government started the rumor because I watched them do it, for about an hour, on all three major TV networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, sitting in my easy chair in my house. Having been propagandized by the best of them, the US military, I know propaganda when I see it, and that was pure propaganda meant to demonize Russia.

The government subsequently went quiet on it, never showing any evidence to back up their claims. Keep in mind, in case you don't know it, the US government has very elaborate intelligence satellites. Those are so accurate that they can see the tag number on a car parked in a parking lot. It's safe to say that it could also show the tag number on the BUK missile launcher, and of course the exhaust plume of a BUK launch.

So, why don't YOU enlighten ME with some of that proof? It is ludicrous to say "oh, we heard it on Twitter", and pathetic that YOU would believe such a lame rumor.

I see why your easy to fool. In order to have satellite photos the US would have had to have had one tasked for that area and at it over head at the right moment. What they can show is what's called a launch signature. That most likely was given to the Dutch. And by the way there is no reading plates from a satelite. Best they would have would be thermal showing a vehicle and the people around it. But again they would have to have known it was there in the first place.

This is why Russia hasn't released sat images well they did but it was fake. But even before that was proved I doubted it. Having a sat tasked for that area would be unlikely unless Russia had planned the launch. And that opens a whole new can of worms by making the shoot down planned. Now launch detection I'm sure showed up on the screens at Buckley air force base. The thermal signature would have been recorded but this isn't going to help you determine who launched it only where it was launched from.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Thank you sir, for explaining life to me. You're right, of course--life is so damn simple when one just believes what one is told by the government, and act accordingly.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Thank you sir, for explaining life to me. You're right, of course--life is so damn simple when one just believes what one is told by the government, and act accordingly.

Yeah it's sad when people stop thinking for themselves and trust the government. That's why we have so many quotes from RT. People not realizing that is news directly from the Kremlin. Even Western media at least try a to give you the news. This isn't RTs goal they try to confuse the facts. Was just recently in a thread where RT had tried to lie about SU25 altitude in a video. They claimed the plane was flying at 10500 meters it wasn't all it took was looking at the altimeter.

a reply to: dragonridr

If I may tell you how I knew it was a load of horse#: All 3 of the stations I switch between when watching the Evening News, and I watch about 4 nights a week just to find out how they want me to think, all 3 stations opened with "tonight we have a 1 hour special (it's always 30 minutes long) covering the Malaysian airliner shot down by Russian separatists".

Second hint was they cited as a source "unnamed Pentagon sources".

It was pretty blatant.

a reply to: Salander

Thank you sir, for explaining life to me.

When did I do that, unless your Putin that explanation had nothing to do with your life.

You're right, of course--life is so damn simple when one just believes what one is told by the government, and act accordingly.

Interestingly enough I don't get what I believe from the government, as I am not in Russia.

In this age of technology there are many more sources for information than the government, so your assumptions are a fallacy.

a reply to: Salander

If I may tell you how I knew it was a load of horse#: All 3 of the stations I switch between when watching the Evening News, and I watch about 4 nights a week just to find out how they want me to think, all 3 stations opened with "tonight we have a 1 hour special (it's always 30 minutes long) covering the Malaysian airliner shot down by Russian separatists".

If you believe the news is there to tell you what to think how weak of a mind do you really have?

Nobody forces you to believe anything, as the mind of each human is able to think for themselves...if you don't then that is your problem not the news's problem.

a reply to: Salander

I know the US government started the rumor because I watched them do it, for about an hour, on all three major TV networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, sitting in my easy chair in my house.

Odd... I don't remember any of the major networks cancelling a half hour of prime time programming. Also, the media in this country are not the same thing as the government. Both your memory and interpretation seem to be faulty.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I was joking friend.

When reading or listening to a story, I always consider the source. My bet is you do the same thing.

I'm old enough to understand that after Ellsberg brought us the Pentagon Papers, and so many other events and incidents since, the Pentagon is a source of propaganda and deception.

So, this silly story about the BUK launch is just another damn bit of deception. Maybe I'm a bit more perceptive than you, but I doubt it. Who knows, maybe I'm just better at connecting dots?

a reply to: Salander

So, this silly story about the BUK launch is just another damn bit of deception.

Where is your evidence supporting that conclusion? Also, you have not explained why you believe the story is emanating from the Pentagon. What's more, you have not bothered to respond to my point challenging your version of the news networks cancelling prime time shows. What date did you witness this on? Can you link to a video of one of these hour long broadcasts, or provide a transcript or link to an archived TV schedule?
Edit to remove personal reference.