MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

a reply to: Wasta

As has been pointed out that is a video of an An-26 that was shot down weeks before. No footage of MH17's final moments has been released to the public. However, like I said before, considering the debris field stretches over 5 miles we know that it broke up at or near cruising altitude.

originally posted by: SerialDrilla

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?

Think you should start by reading this it explained how investigators discovered it was a buk. This is why Russia couldn't deny it.
www.dailymail.co.uk...< br />
Then next came the claim well yes it's a buk but not one used by Russia anymore. Here's something to dispute that.
www.bellingcat.com...

Then finally Russia had to admit ok well maybe we do but it was fired from the Ukrainian army.Russia's ministry of defence published pictures purporting to show Buk missile launchers near Zaroshchenske. Well bad news they faked the satellite data.. You would think Russia would learn they tried this a couple of times and have been caught.

www.bbc.com...

Now finally who launched it can be answered with this report.

www.bellingcat.com...

So we know a buk was used we know the separatists had a launcher in the flight path. This is important as a missile fired from Ukrainian military would have had to approach the plane from behind, That just wouldn't happen. Meaning it had to be fired deep within separatists held territory.

Here is an eye witness report that puts the launcher in Snezhnoye. And off loaded by the separatists a mere 10 miles from the crash site and directly in the planes flight path.
www.bbc.com...

So as they say we have covered everything we k ow the who the what the where. So do you still want to try to claim Russia had nothing to do with it?

a reply to: Zaphod58

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.

But you do feel it is proof when Almaz-Antay says it was a BUK, but you choose to ignore the rest of what they are saying. It is not proof, but it sure is evidence.

I guess only the BUK part flies.....

You should tell Almaz-Antey that then.

Right.

Are you going to tell them that their conclusion is wrong? But I thought they were the manufacturer?

a reply to: SerialDrilla

Funny, everyone saying the Ukraine did it had much lower standards for evidence and that was fine.

You think that a company that makes most of its money from a government is going to come out and say that the people that government are supporting did it?

a reply to: dragonridr

Sorry but I think I'll go with what the manufacturer of the BUK system says instead of Smellycat, Daily Fail, the State Propaganda Organ and whatever other ever present professional propaganda amateurs.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You think that a company that makes most of its money from a government is going to come out and say that the people that government are supporting did it?

You were the one using their quote to prove a point.....

And no I don't. I also don't think they would lie for them. They could've easily said nothing at all.

What is funny is that you obviously don't consider or even acknowledge the possible scenario that the Ukraine did it.

Why do you ignore the possibility that Almaz-Antay is not lying? Is it not possible that they are sharing their honest conclusions?

You just suggested that your stance is basically objective. This is obviously not true.

Nvm.

a reply to: dragonridr

No, I don't have any misconceptions. I am certainly a victim of US propaganda, but I've finally reached the age at which I am able to perceive the propaganda and its message.

The US refuses to prove and demonstrate the BUK story because it cannot, and anybody paying attention understands that. It's like they have video cameras on the roof of the house, and tell us Santa Claus and his sleigh are on the roof, but they won't show any video to confirm.

Trust us, they say. You are happy to trust them, I am not.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Wasta

As has been pointed out that is a video of an An-26 that was shot down weeks before. No footage of MH17's final moments has been released to the public. However, like I said before, considering the debris field stretches over 5 miles we know that it broke up at or near cruising altitude.

Some footage of 17's final moments WERE released, and I saw them. I think that was part of the BBC piece that was quickly retracted by the company.

It was poor quality home video, but it was easy to see it was a white airliner type, slightly out of focus, spiraling to the ground.

I'm not arguing about the size of the debris field--it is what it is--but it is an inaccurate statement to say there was no video record. It was there, and I was not the only person to see it, I'm certain.

BBC pulled it down for a reason.

a reply to: Salander

BBC pulled it down for a reason.

Yes: it was file footage of an earlier crash. The video in question did not show a fighter jet, did it?

a reply to: Salander

The US refuses to prove and demonstrate the BUK story because it cannot, and anybody paying attention understands that.

Officially, the United States government is not claiming it was a Russian BUK any more than Russia is claiming it was a Ukrainian jet. The United States has only said that it is "holding Russia responsible." In other words, whatever the immediate cause of the crash, Russia created the circumstances that put it at risk.

a reply to: SerialDrilla

But you do feel it is proof when Almaz-Antay says it was a BUK, but you choose to ignore the rest of what they are saying. It is not proof, but it sure is evidence.

Almaz-Antey’s presentation incidentally shows that the engineers’ report previously published by the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, which I discussed previously (see Russian Report Points to Ukrainian BUK Missile as Responsible for MH17 Tragedy, Russia Insider, 8th May 2015) was prepared for or by Almaz-Antey.

The Almaz-Antey presentation confirms MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile, burying once and for all the SU 25 theory, about which regular readers of Russia Insider will know I have always been skeptical.

russia-insider.com...

SO we now see the confirmation from the manufacturer that it was a BUK missile that brought down MH 17.

Are you going to tell them that their conclusion is wrong? But I thought they were the manufacturer?

How is it wrong...the manufacturer has confirmed it was a BUK.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I know what a foxbat (mig 25) is, and a (Su-25 ) frogfoot, but placed the minor detail (fault) in self defense.
Our secret service kept on their ski-masks, even when it was raining cats and dogs.
Not even 3 weeks ago I was trapped I was trapped at a bus-station, by three persons with huge, very huge sunglasses, while it was raining cats and dogs.
I received a warning, so even after one year I still have to play ""stupid""...

I joined the air-force in 1985 and was with the first pilots at Goose Bay, to train for low flight practice at the nineth of June in 1987.
When we left from Goose Bay in a Airbus 310, we toke the airbus to their very limits, like it was a fighter-plane.

In the Netherlands all people are closely watched. In numbers more people then in the whole of the USA

When you see someone skinned alive and see they make the poor human watch his own skin-face, he has not the eyelids anymore so he can not even close his eyes, because his eyelids are on his own skin in-front of him, those things make me cautious.

I am new here and because this site is not a onion site and pgp or gpg are not used here, I like to be on the safe side.

When I change foxbat into frogfoot correctly, I have to got to slip in an other ""mistake"" or minor detail fault.
In order to be not that smart, or even to save my live

The police had kidnapped already too, and the thing that saved my live is my uncle, the brother of my father who worked at the supreme court.

According to the police I never was at the police-station. The police was smart enough to leave no paper trail of my detention. I just went missing and when people told the police that I was missing, they made not even a note of that. Because I was just only missing for just 5 days and would probably show up sooner or later.

As you know the Netherlands is a small country. In the '80's when crime was twice as high, the police shot never more then 50 people each year, so not even one person every week.
The last several years, the police shoots more then 400 people each year. That is more then 1 person every day.

And when The police finally set me free, they warned me, that nobody would believe me.
Something like"" We don't live under Fidela in Argentine , or under Pinochet in Peru, where people got missing due to actions from the police, so you better shut your big mouth shut ! "".

So I know the difference between a foxbat and a frogfoot, but I have to play ""stupid"" every now and then.
Just for safety reasons.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

How is it wrong...the manufacturer has confirmed it was a BUK.

I was not contesting anything they said. Maybe you should take some time checking what the right context is before you respond.

Zaphod was contesting claims made by them, the manufacturers. I even pointed this out in another post directed at you in this thread.

This,

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...

From the manufacturers mouth.....

a reply to: Wasta

In the Netherlands all people are closely watched. In numbers more people then in the whole of the USA When you see someone skinned alive and see they make the poor human watch his own skin-face, he has not the eyelids anymore so he can not even close his eyes, because his eyelids are on his own skin in-front of him, those things make me cautious.

You saw someone get skinned alive in the Netherlands by some Dutch agency member?

a reply to: Wasta

Well if your going to make stuff up don't bother to post we get enough of that around here. As for the long explination of why you lied sounds to me if that's the case you shouldn't be posting anything. But since you are you obviously decided risk is minimal.

originally posted by: SerialDrilla
a reply to: Zaphod58

You think that a company that makes most of its money from a government is going to come out and say that the people that government are supporting did it?

You were the one using their quote to prove a point.....

And no I don't. I also don't think they would lie for them. They could've easily said nothing at all.

What is funny is that you obviously don't consider or even acknowledge the possible scenario that the Ukraine did it.

Why do you ignore the possibility that Almaz-Antay is not lying? Is it not possible that they are sharing their honest conclusions?

You just suggested that your stance is basically objective. This is obviously not true.

You don't think a weapons manufacturer would lie to sell weapons. No wonder you bought into all the fake videos of the crash and the fake sattelite photos Russia released. Your incredibly naive had it not occured to you the manufacturer was put into a tough position. They want sanctions removed it's killing them to defend themselves they couldn't deny it was a Bum but there government is claiming it wasnt. To make matters worse missile experts have already reviewed the data showing impact and direction. There solution lie well Russia doesn't use that missile anymore. Then explained that do to some top secret aspects of the missile they were changing the firing location contrary to every other missile expert. Somehow this missile flew behind the aircraft turned around and struck it in the cockpit. That's one special too secret aspect of the missile it defies the laws physics I'm impressed. The only way to get sanctions removed is to at least imply it wasn't Russia they never actually said who it was on purpose. That way they don't lose credibility as a weapons manufacturer. Notice in this article they avoided saying who launched it at their preaentation.


www.theguardian.com...

Oh one more thing it has been shown that missile is indeed used by Russian military so there excuses don't seem to stand up to scrutiny.

a reply to: dragonridr

www.youtube.com...

At 10 minutes and 30 seconds, we see clearly 30 mm bulletsholes, of various types, consistent with the 3 kinds of 30 mm bullets as they are used by the su-25.
No buk makes this kind of damage, it's 30 mm bullet-damage.
You are free to see buk2 damage.

When you watch this youtube, you will see that a 30 mm bullets scratched the wing, meaning the su-25 and mh-17 were on the same hight.

If a buk2 was stolen by rebels from Ukrainian armed forces is distraction.
It is a highly complex weaponsystem, that can not be used by rebels who are not trained in using this highly complex weaponsystem.

The whole Buk-thing is distraction and does not explain the 30 mm bulletholes in the cockpit.
The only thing that can explain the scratch of a 30 mm bullet on the wing and the 30 mm bulletholes is an other plane capable of shooting 30 mm bullets.

On this youtube www.youtube.com... , you can see that a su-25 can operate at a hight of 14.600 meters. Look at 13 minuets exactly, and tell me what service altitude do you see? I see 14,600 meters.

Meaning the bulletholes of the 30 mm bullets (of the 3 types used in the su-25) in the cockpit-section, where the captain used to sit, came from a su-25.
Do rebels have su-25 fighterjets?
Does the Russian airforce fly above the Ukraine?

I want an explanation of the 30 mm bulletholes, shot at the captain of mh-17.

That parts have fallen over a 5 mile distance sais nothing about the 30 mm bullet-holes.

I know that the 30 mm bullets are the same kind-a-like of the 30 mm that a a-10 shoots or a Apache, so grenades is more suitable, but let me stick with the 30 mm bullets.

I don't want proof about any buk2.

I just want a satisfying explanation how the cockpit at the place where the captain sits was punctured with 30 mm bullets.

No Russian su-25 could have shot those rounds, they wouldn't because of the buk from The Ukrainian forces.
Any Russian su-25 was shot out of the sky, if they tried.
Besides the lack of motive from the Russian side.
Rebels do not have su-25's flying.

So it is save to say that no Russian su-25 made those 30mm bullet-holes in the cockpit of mh-17.
Likewise it is save to say that the su-25 that made those 30mm bulletholes in the cockpit, was not a su-25 from the rebels.

Any other theory about any buk, stolen or not, from the rebels or Russia or even the Ukraine itself, does not explain the 30mm bulletholes.

And again, the service ceiling of a su-25 is 14 kilometer and 600 meters, as we can see at 13 minutes exactly on this youtube; www.youtube.com...

So please do not come with wikipedia altered service ceilingheights where a su-25 can operate.
At 13 minutes exact we see a height of 14.6 kilometer ; www.youtube.com...
No buk-theory or even air to air missiles.
Please nothing about the altered course, because flightcontrol said"" we have three of them"" meaning Putiin his plane was spoofing to be mh-17.
It only distracts and has nothing to do with the 30 mm bulletholes in the cockpit, directly at the captain's seat.

When anyone can give (me) a satisfying explanation how a su-25 could have shot his 30 mm bullets above the Ukraine into the cockpit at the captain's seat, after that satisfying explanation is given, we can start to talk about other things like a buk.

First those 30mm bullet-holes must be explained, before any other distraction is talked about and discussed.

To who belonged the su-25 that made the 30mm holes in the MH-17?

So from who was the su-25 that shot the 30mm bullets into the cockpit where the captain was sitting of MH-17 ???

a reply to: Wasta

So Almaz-Antey is lying about it being a BUK. I assume you have an explanation for that too, right? I mean if those were 30mm holes instead of shrapnel holes they'd be screaming that from the rooftops, to get sanctions lifted. It would be a dream for Russia because it would be proof that the Ukraine was involved. But not one of their engineers even raised that possibility, and are saying conclusively it had to be a BUK.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I said, a buk, any buk can discussed later.

After one year of research and investigation , the highest authority, our safety board (somewhat similar as NIST is the usa) came to one finally conclusion to be seen at 19 minutes and 57 seconds;

www.youtube.com...

No buk is mentioned in the final conclusion of our NIST, called safety-board,

The conclusion of our highest authority is subtitled, watch from 19 minutes and 57 seconds.

I want a explanation of the 30mm bulletholes, directly shot at the captain's seat.

I guess you have missed that part....

Buk can be discussed later, so can be other discussions debated, for now is everything else just distraction.