MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

a reply to: Salander

What also interests me is the apparent cover up by western authorities, especially those stories published by BBC, then retracted and removed from the internet just days afterwards.

SO then the West isn't trying to coverup anything, unlike what Russia is doing,

Now if you really want to see how bad the propaganda gets check this out...

www.stopfake.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">www.stopfake.org...

www.stopfake.org...

www.stopfake.org...

www.stopfake.org...

And the story your talking about is this one...



So it seems that report wasn't deleted and can be found with a few keystrokes.

I see the pattern of behavior as consistent with a typical US false flag operation. You know, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Call it a visual take on Occam's Razor.

So what exactly is a typical US false flag operation?

And when it looks like a BUK and takes planes down like a BUK...guess what, it's a BUK.

What does NATO have to do with it? All things considered, is that a child's question or what?

Well what do they have to do with it? Simple question.

Only if a child is going to be answering it...because when a question is asked of an adult , the equally adult answer should follow...so it's up to as to how you want the questions.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I think Holland is a NATO member, isn't it?

NATO's provocative moves in the Russian sphere of influence may backfire on them.

Simply put sir, if there was a single shred of truth to the US position, the US would have provided evidence to support its claims. It has not, and it's been more than a year.

The Germanwings crash was investigated quickly and thoroughly. MH17 shows incredible foot dragging by those making the allegations. There is a reason for that, though you might not be able to appreciate it. The reason is POLITICS.

a reply to: Salander

And you've seen the final report on Germanwings? Not the preliminary one, or the information released, the actual final report? They already know what happened to that flight, and they aren't planning to release the final report until at least May of 2016. That's a simple, straightforward crash, and it's going to take a year to release the report.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No I have NOT seen the report on Germanwings, other than what was published in the MSM.

The point is that the differences in the way the 2 events were handled are huge. GW was handled quickly and about as efficiently as could be. The FDR and CVR were presented quickly. All jurisdictions cooperated in the investigation, and it was resolved quickly.

MH17, on the other hand, is still dragging along. At first Malaysia was not invited to the investigation. Very little of FDR and CVR have been made public, and what is known suggests mystery and intrigue for an event that, according to MSM sources, was an open & shut, "we know exactly what happened" case.

Again, if the US case is so certain, so compelling, where is the damn beef?

It was a false flag operation meant to make Russia to be the guilty party when it wasn't.

a reply to: Salander

The problem with making a statement like "it was a false flag operation to implicate Russia" is that you are making pure speculation, until you can prove with evidence that is what happened.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Salander

The problem with making a statement like "it was a false flag operation to implicate Russia" is that you are making pure speculation, until you can prove with evidence that is what happened.

No doubt at all sir, I agree with what you said. But keep in mind you offer a double-edged sword--you cannot prove the BUK theory either. That makes us even, eh?

And in the meantime, one year in plus, the US has not made its case, and seems to have abandoned it really, by NOT offering any proof it has for its theory. Ditto Kiev and the ATC tapes.

It looks like a FF to blame Russia, but maybe it's actually ____________________________. Fill in the blank my friend, with proof.

a reply to: Salander

Oh don't get me wrong - I agree that neither side has offered proof. Your speculation is FF, whereas I currently couldn't tell you who did it because I don't know. Sadly, I don't really envision a smoking gun that will tell us one way or another who really shot the plane down...

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Salander

The problem with making a statement like "it was a false flag operation to implicate Russia" is that you are making pure speculation, until you can prove with evidence that is what happened.

No doubt at all sir, I agree with what you said. But keep in mind you offer a double-edged sword--you cannot prove the BUK theory either. That makes us even, eh?

And in the meantime, one year in plus, the US has not made its case, and seems to have abandoned it really, by NOT offering any proof it has for its theory. Ditto Kiev and the ATC tapes.

It looks like a FF to blame Russia, but maybe it's actually ____________________________. Fill in the blank my friend, with proof.

You have a lot of misconceptions don't you? First the US has nothing to do with the investigation so I'm unclear why you think they need to prove anything. The Dutch are running the investigation surprised you were not told.

As far as evidence it was a buk I suggest you look at the report from Almaz-Antey you know the manufacturers that makes them. They said it was a buk missile. So you arguing it's not I guess you know more then the people that made the missile.

And now the last part the investigation is indeed wrapping up crash investigations are always a slow process. But a huge clue is the Dutch wanting to have a trial in the UN this tells us they aren't going after a person but a country. And of course Russia vetoed this attempt this tells us even Russia knows its culpable. Because if they were truly not involved they would want the UN to handle it. That's far better then having the case tried in Dutch courts.

And one last thing there is even eye witness testimony does that surprise you?

a reply to: Salander

Germanwings was published fast, because of the fact that the prosecutor leaked information. If he hadn't leaked the investigators would have taken longer to report on it. I've watched crash investigations for decades, and see very little difference between MH17 and just about any other investigation. If there's a compelling reason to, they release the data recorders early, but most of the time they don't until the report is released. With MH17, just as with almost every other crash, we have a transcript of the CVR that's been released, and a description of the FDR data. When the report comes out, we'll see more detailed information.

You don't release your best evidence in a murder trial before you're sure what happened. Just as with a plane crash, you don't release all your evidence before the report is completed. The report takes a year or more to complete.

a reply to: StickyBuddha

Let me tell you why...
On youtbe is the doninh of MH-17 bij bystanders on their smartphone captured.
Every bystander that was close to the incident claimed all to have seen a second plane.

Even the Ukraïn flightcontrol, caimes that a second plane was near.
A Spanish fightcontroller said no accident, the plane was downed, no accident, no excident, the second plane shot mh-17 down. He fled the workplace, just in time, before the military took flight-control over. Making sure all stayed a secret, but they were to late to stop the Spanish employee, who feared for his life and did flee. A refugee.

We can see MH-17 en hear after a few seconds a air to air missile, with the explosion.
This is all on the bystanders phone.
Then we see after the loud explosion, how MH-17 was filmed for another 3 minutes and 50 seconds. It kept on flying in a strait line, until the mh-17 was out of reach and cold not be seen anymore.

This means that MH-17 was shot down far, far, very far from rebel held territory.
Still 3 engines working, the descend was slow, so mh-17 kept on flying for at least 4 mutes from over 3000 feet, more then 10 kilometre's high, to the ground.
Not gliding, but with 3 of the 4 engines still working.
Tens of miles were passed, before mf-17 was finally above rebel held space.

I don't believe a thing about a dirty bomb and Russian involvement, my conclusion comes later.

Second;

We see clearly the 30 mm bullet-holes, right where the pilot was, in the cockpit.
There are three types of 30mm impact, excactly how a mig-25 loads it's ammunition.
We see the wing is scratched with those 30 mm projectiles, meaning the mig-25 was on the same height.

Already we have the incident far away from rebel territory, well above Ukrainian airspace.
No Russian mig 25 will enter Ukraine airspace, because the Ukraine has radar too and would scramble a lot of air-power if a Russian plane flew over the Ukraine.
So that rules out any Russian mig-25.

Rebels don't have warplanes, no fighters, no bombers, nothing, zero, nada.

We see a Ukrainien mig-25 scramble with heatseeking missiles, and come back landing without those rockets.
Let's say what we have and call a sidewinder.
The pilot, of the frogfoot, said""it was the wrong plane, it should not have been there"".
The captain-pilot was clearly in a nervous breakdown, when it sunk in what he had done.

My answer is that Putin flew in the neighborhood, coming down from Poland.
But advanced spoofing was used, like Israel used on their Unmaned toyplanes, that spoofed to be real fighterjets.
Now the radar of the Syrian army was activated, to lock in on the uav's.
Behind the fake fighterplanes came the wildweasel jets, and knocked out the radar.
Syria had lost it's umbrella of the sam's and Israel could take the Golan hights.
A hight of impotartance in warfare.

Putin's plane spoofs too, most likely taking on the features of an other close airplane, in this case the MH-17.
The west who kicked out the legit, elected president and installed their puppet Poroschenko is reasponsable for it generals.
Those generals have been taken for a ride and jumped right in the trap.
Thinking that MH-17 was not MH-17 but the plane of Putin, was enough to bring the plane down and thus kill Putin.

But MH-17 was not Putins plane, spoofing to be MH-17, bet MH-17 indeed.

Then the lies begins and Russia is punished for something only the west can have done.
Mo matter there was no trail seen, what every Buk leaves in it's trail.

So deep in Ukrainian held space could it have only been a buk sam from the Ukrain themselves, but the lack of the smoke trail leaves even the possibility out, that the buk was from the Ukrain.

So no buk at all. A buk would destroy the whole wing, making it impossible to fly for more then 3 minutes on radar and 4 minutes on film by bystanders who had filmed the whole event from beginning to end.

It's all about cunning deception and the power.

So Russia demonstrated Khibiny and made clear they can shoot any u/s/ navyship, while the us navy can not do anything back, there Khibiny disables all hi-tec hardware. No rader, no tracking, no rocket launch.

As soon the Donald Cook was crippled it tried to reach a Romanian harbor, where 27 Sailors asked for their release from the navy immediately. A Huge blow for moral.
The Donald Cook as about 100 cruise-missiles and even more when there are times of tensions.
Besides the Cruise-missiles (tomahawk) the Donald cook had over 50 anti aircraft missiles of various kinds.
If I am not mistaken I believe 56 anti aircraft-missiles.
But what good will they do if your guiding systems do not work, your radar is put on black.
Not being able to reboot.

Meaning every us warship is just a sitting duck.
As we all hunters know, we do never shoot on a sitting duck, only those ducks that are flying over.

The Ukrain shoot shells when inspection come close.
The black box has to stay a secret, and the Netherlands made sure everyone signed a nondisclosure contract.
In order to protect the national security, they have to hide the truth.

Every single piece of evidence points to the puppet of the west.
No trace of any buk was found, but we are masters in placing false evidence.
At least some generals do think they are.

So planting false evidence is another proof of the sloppy false evidence.

Much more worse the the weapons of mass destruction of Saddam in Irak.
At least the west had then as proof a known sick liar and one crazy military, who would lie for the right amount of money.
Two drawings and two liars were used as an excuse to go to war with Irak.

Killing civilians with 30 mm bullets made for tanks, with their choppers , ch, crazy horse.
Indeed crazy.

Shooting at civilians who are not a threat and give themselves up, by holding their hands up.
Apache's keep on shooting their 30 mm canons, again and again at defenseless civilians.

Back to MH-17, the spoofing of the plane of Putin, saved his live and tricked the Ukrain to shoot the wrong plane.

Name of the captain pilot of the Ukrainian mig -25 is known all over the internet, including his words that it was the wrong plane, and the missing ""sidewinders"" when he returned.

It's clear the west is responsible, but the west tries every trick in the book, to make the Russians seems guilty, or at least the rebels.

The west shot down MH-17. hoping to kill Putin.

Those who know, know, and those who don't know will learn soon the truth.

Soon is within a few years and then those who are really reasonable should kill themselves, before they get in the hands of those who will kill them slowly and painfully.

But hey, they got paid well for those lies and and a nice party.

a reply to: Wasta

Somebody has bought into all of Russia's propaganda. Your whole rant can be disproved with one simple fact. MH17's debris was spread over a five mile area. This means it would have had to broken up at cruising altitude. Even KAL007 was hit by two AAMs and was still able to fly for a while. Therefore it's safe to assume MH17 was hit by a SAM. This is further solidified by the fact that the manufacturer of the BUK claims MH17 was downed by a BUK. That and the fact that there was no kind of distress call and the black box shows sudden and complete decompression.

a reply to: Wasta

On youtbe is the doninh of MH-17 bij bystanders on their smartphone captured.
Every bystander that was close to the incident claimed all to have seen a second plane.

No they didn't.

www.bellingcat.com...

Even the Ukraïn flightcontrol, caimes that a second plane was near.
A Spanish fightcontroller said no accident, the plane was downed, no accident, no excident, the second plane shot mh-17 down. He fled the workplace, just in time, before the military took flight-control over. Making sure all stayed a secret, but they were to late to stop the Spanish employee, who feared for his life and did flee. A refugee.

You do know none of that happened in the real world...but it did in the Russian propaganda world.

Carlos doesn't exist...here from the Spanish Embassy in Ukraine.

This is not the first time we have been asked about him. This “Carlos” was also active during the Maidán revolution in Ukraine.

We have no knowledge of “Carlos” having been in Ukraine. There is no record of his passing through the Consulate, and no one from the (relatively small) Spanish colony knows him.

The airport where he supposedly worked for several years told us at the time that all of their air traffic controllers are Ukranian, and that in any case they have never employed any Spaniard for that or any other task.

Furthermore, the last information he was posting before the airline tragedy was of the same sort. He was saying, for example, that he lived in Kiev and had been threatened by radical extreme-right elements. No Spaniard or national of another country—to my knowledge—has ever been threatened in this country

www.bellingcat.com...

We can see MH-17 en hear after a few seconds a air to air missile, with the explosion.
This is all on the bystanders phone.
Then we see after the loud explosion, how MH-17 was filmed for another 3 minutes and 50 seconds. It kept on flying in a strait line, until the mh-17 was out of reach and cold not be seen anymore.

No it didn't and that has been proven.

Malaysia Airlines flight 17 was destroyed in an instant when the cockpit and other parts of the fuselage were peppered by "a large number of high-energy objects," causing the plane to break apart over eastern Ukraine before anyone could raise an alarm, according to a preliminary report on the disaster which was released on Tuesday.

www.theguardian.com...

This means that MH-17 was shot down far, far, very far from rebel held territory.

No it doesn't...as we know where it was shot down, when it was shot down, we can even say we know what it was that shot it down, so we know it wasn't shot down anywhere other than where it was.

We see a Ukrainien mig-25 scramble with heatseeking missiles, and come back landing without those rockets.
Let's say what we have and call a sidewinder.
The pilot, of the frogfoot, said""it was the wrong plane, it should not have been there"".
The captain-pilot was clearly in a nervous breakdown, when it sunk in what he had done.

Except the SU 25 is not capable of shooting weapons at the height of MH 17, and not only that if it could get that high it wouldn't be able to shoot anything down because that is an impossibility of ever happening.

You do understand the manufacturer of the SU 25 says it is an impossibility...right?

Then the lies begins and Russia is punished for something only the west can have done.
Mo matter there was no trail seen, what every Buk leaves in it's trail.

So deep in Ukrainian held space could it have only been a buk sam from the Ukrain themselves, but the lack of the smoke trail leaves even the possibility out, that the buk was from the Ukrain.

So no buk at all. A buk would destroy the whole wing, making it impossible to fly for more then 3 minutes on radar and 4 minutes on film by bystanders who had filmed the whole event from beginning to end.

All I can say is WOW, what an imagination.

SO no BUK you say...The separatists admit to having a BUK operating in the area when MH 17 was brought down.

And the BUK destroyed the whole plane in an instant as it was shown in the Dutch preliminary report. And you do understand the makers of the BUK said it was a BUK that brought down the plane, so there was a BUK.

I was going to try and get more of your post to refute, but really this is all I can say about the rest of your post...



Russian propaganda has you hook line and sinker.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Not the best vid, but clearly proof that mh-17 did not blew up immidiatly.
There are better video's where the impact and explosion are clearly heared.

But the smoke-trail of a buk, any buk is clearly missing.
This is not a buk2, but a sidewinder...

www.youtube.com...

Here you can see the impact and clearly hear the explosion...

www.youtube.com...

Again no smoke-trail of any Buk sam. Did you see it and heard te explosion of the impact or not?

After the mh-17 went out of sight, that's the time it started to break up.

I don't use western news media or Russian news media, because they all lie.
Propaganda is used by both sides.
I trust ordinary citizens more, then paid newsmakers slash propaganda makers.

Again, where do you see a buk smoketrail or the falling apart from mh-17 ?

So mh-17 has to have fallen apart after this video of 3 minuets and 50 seconds.

I don't see mh-17 fallen apart, nor do I see a smoketrail of a buk2

So this commend""And the BUK destroyed the whole plane in an instant "" is garbage.
NATO propaganda !
www.youtube.com...

Any pilot knows that a mig 25 can operate at a altitude of 14 kilometers, wel over 40.000 feet.
Only after the downing of mh 17 the wiki's and other sources added that 14 kilometers were accomplished in a test.
Bullocks, but Russia is not going to tell otherwise, hoping that NATO feels safe at over 40.000 feet.
This is in the advantage of Russia so they can shoot down any plane that thinks it is safe above 40.000 feet.

In the lexicon for aircraft, we see that a mig-25 has a operational altitude of 14 kilometer and 600 meters, as to be seen at 12 minutes and 54 seconds;
www.youtube.com...

Before mh-17 was shot down, the operating altitude of a mig-25 was 14 kilometer, well above 40.000 feet.
Secret services worked overtime to lower the operating altitude of a frogfoot to a max of 10 kilometer, just because mh-17 was flying at 11 kilometer.

originally posted by: Wasta
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Not the best vid, but clearly proof that mh-17 did not blew up immidiatly.
There are better video's where the impact and explosion are clearly heared.

But the smoke-trail of a buk, any buk is clearly missing.
This is not a buk2, but a sidewinder...

www.youtube.com...

Here you can see the impact and clearly hear the explosion...

www.youtube.com...

Again no smoke-trail of any Buk sam. Did you see it and heard te explosion of the impact or not?

After the mh-17 went out of sight, that's the time it started to break up.

I don't use western news media or Russian news media, because they all lie.
Propaganda is used by both sides.
I trust ordinary citizens more, then paid newsmakers slash propaganda makers.

Again, where do you see a buk smoketrail or the falling apart from mh-17 ?

So mh-17 has to have fallen apart after this video of 3 minuets and 50 seconds.

I don't see mh-17 fallen apart, nor do I see a smoketrail of a buk2

So this commend""And the BUK destroyed the whole plane in an instant "" is garbage.
NATO propaganda !
www.youtube.com...

Any pilot knows that a mig 25 can operate at a altitude of 14 kilometers, wel over 40.000 feet.
Only after the downing of mh 17 the wiki's and other sources added that 14 kilometers were accomplished in a test.
Bullocks, but Russia is not going to tell otherwise, hoping that NATO feels safe at over 40.000 feet.
This is in the advantage of Russia so they can shoot down any plane that thinks it is safe above 40.000 feet.

Before mh-17 was shot down, the operating altitude of a mig-25 was 14 kilometer, well above 40.000 feet.
Secret services worked overtime to lower the operating altitude of a frogfoot to a max of 10 kilometer, just because mh-17 was flying at 11 kilometer.

Your posting fake you tube videos as proof bahhahhahahahaha. First thing I noticed is the wing is on top of the fuselage. A Boeing 777 the wings are under the fusalage. Wrong plane again you fell for Russian propaganda. By the way I picked this up halfway through the video. So it's not difficult to tell it's fake. Another clue is the engine location. The one on fire is way out on the wing. True configuration for a 777 is next to the fusalage. And the tail section would have been white this isn't. In fact looking at it I suspect it's a military cargo plane do the wings.

Are you going to play the fake satellite photo Russia put out next?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

You should tell Almaz-Antey that then.

Russia's air defense systems manufacturer Almaz-Antey presented its report on the 2014 flight MH17 disaster at a press conference on Tuesday.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was downed by a Buk 9М38-М1 guided missile fired from Ukrainian military-controlled territory, engineers from the Russian Almaz-Antey corporation said in a press conference presenting their report on Tuesday.

sputniknews.com...

Yes, they say it was a BUK. They also say it was fired from Ukranian controlled territory.

The report showed that the missile was fired from Ukrainian military-controlled territory. According to Almaz-Antey, the damage analysis shows that if the missile was fired from Snezhnoye, as Ukraine alleged, "the entire front end of the cabin would have been blown off." Read more: sputniknews.com...

"The shrapnel moved from the nose of the plane to its tale inside its fuselage. The left engine, left wing and partially the tail unit were damaged. Specialists concluded that the missile was moving with a considerable intersection of the plane's flight path. That is, not from the front but from the side," Malyshev said. Read more: sputniknews.com...

Do you also acknowledge these parts of your source?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

“They knew that this BUK existed; that the BUK was heading for Snezhnoye,” he said, referring to a village 10km west of the crash site. “They knew that it would be deployed there, and provoked the use of this BUK by starting an air strike on a target they didn’t need, that their planes hadn’t touched for a week.”

According to the BUK's manufacturer, it could not have been fired from Snezhnoye.

a reply to: Wasta

You keep interchanging MiG-25 and Frogfoot. They're two completely different aircraft.

As for your video that was proven a long time ago to be an An-26 shot down over a month prior to MH-17.

a reply to: SerialDrilla

I always have. Although it is what I would expect them to say considering they were trying to have sanctions against them lifted.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You always have? So you agree it wasn't fired by the seperatists?

Although it is what I would expect them to say considering they were trying to have sanctions against them lifted.

Right, so you don't agree then? What is it?

Or do you only agree with them saying it was a BUK, but not with the rest? You know the part that shows it couldn't have been the rebels?

a reply to: SerialDrilla

Considering that they haven't shown any evidence as to who fired it or from where either, it doesn't prove who did it either way.