MH 17 from another perspective

a reply to: tommyjo

Explain why the Russians have not questioned the official flight plan published in the MH17 preliminary report?

Correct me if I'm wrong, the "preliminary report" isn't the report, its just more main stream "sources say" and "experts agree" main stream propaganda. All of which will be more lies considering the supposed "independent investigation" is carried by a member of NATO.

I don't believe any of what my government, NATO, the media or any of the pundits here say, so you know. I know they all lie to a fault.

So swing away… I've had my say.

a reply to: intrptr

I'm comparing it to every crash.

American 587, crashed into a neighborhood in New York, November 2001. Vertical fin was found in Jamaica Bay, well away from impact, the aircraft was seen in a flat spin on a video camera. Final report released October 2004.

United 525. Crashed in Colorado Springs on final approach in 1991. The final report was revised 10 years later.

United 811. Cargo door opened in flight, February 1989. The aircraft landed safely and investigators were able to examine it in detail while it was being repaired. The final report was adopted in March of 1992.

All accident reports take time. Of those three, American was fairly straightforward with plenty of physical evidence to the cause. The Colorado Springs crash was extremely complex, and United 811 couldn't have been easier to investigate as they had the aircraft on hand.

a reply to: intrptr

No it's not. It's a report released by investigators based on early examination of the wreckage.

a reply to: intrptr

It targets the nose if the aircraft is flying towards it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No it's not. It's a report released by investigators based on early examination of the wreckage.

Zaphod, I can see with my own eyes the round holes in the wreckage at the nose of the plane are not from BUK shrapnel. They are spin stabilized projectiles from a rifled barrel, you know that and refuse to address it, interestingly enough.

a reply to: intrptr

And you can tell that conclusively without ever taking a look at the wreckage itself in anything but pictures on the Internet. I'm impressed.

a reply to: intrptr

Really? So where do you think a Buk would "target"? Are you now informing us that Almaz-Antey doesn't recognise its own missile warhead damage?

a reply to: intrptr

I get it you are far down the rabbit hole. The preliminary report highlights the agreed facts and establishes them. Explain why there is no dispute from any of the parties on the official flight path and plan? This is all coordinated and agreed on with the Russians. Do you not think that the Russians would be the first to report any inaccuracies? Explain why the Russians agree with the OFFICIAL MH17 Flight Plan as it appears in the preliminary report?

originally posted by: intrptr
doesn't target the nose of aircraft,

Will you be informing Almaz Antey that their Buks don't target the nose? Did you even see their presentation and examination of the damage to the cockpit and nose? Explain why they haven't highlighted your claim that the Buk warhead didn't make the holes?

www.janes.com...

a reply to: tommyjo

Okay. Good quality information there.

But did you read the part where they said

an Novikov said the 9M38M1 missile used by the Buk-M1 air defence system had been withdrawn from production in 1999, after which the whole missile inventory had been transferred to foreign customers.

Novikov said he knew Ukraine had received 991 of the missiles because Almaz-Antey, which was only established in 2002, helped perform maintenance on them in 2005. He said the missiles were not currently in use with the Russian armed forces.

Soo....

Maybe it was a BUK after all. But why are we blaming Russia when they got rid of them to Ukraine among others in 1999?

The information presented suggest that it is only possible for the rebels to have fired it if they had seized the unit from the UKRANIAN government.

Or

The Ukrainians themselves fired it.

originally posted by: intrptr Correct me if I'm wrong, the "preliminary report" isn't the report, its just more main stream "sources say" and "experts agree" main stream propaganda. All of which will be more lies considering the supposed "independent investigation" is carried by a member of NATO.

Yes, let me correct you, or rather help you. I think your understanding of English is being challenged by the word "preliminary".

A preliminary report is a report, but it is not the final report. It's all in the word "preliminary". It has nothing to do with propaganda. If you bothered to read the preliminary report, you will see it's quite high level, but does dispel some of the myths by presenting evidence - like some of the ones in this thread e.g. the altitude of MH17.

If you have already made up you mind that the final report is compromised because the Dutch (as members of NATO) just cannot be honest, then that's really unfortunate for you. However, before you make that judgement you need to read the final report in October. Start with the preliminary report though.

a reply to: intrptr

BUK didn't make the round holes in the nose and cock pit, doesn't target the nose of aircraft, nor was a launch and vapor trail witnessed by anyone on the ground.

Oh and this isn't a missile either…

Well I believe the one's who actually manufactured the BUK know a bit more about what they are seeing than you...so I will go with the expert not someone who just wants to be anti whatever the discussion is.

Oh and this isn't a missile either…

And it isn't from a 30mm cannon from an aircraft that can't reach the height needed to do whatever you think it did.

And I imagine that if the final report says it was a BUK, your going to say the report was manipulated and that it isn't the truth...

SO unless you can provide anything that backs the claim it was shot down with cannon fire, I'll stick with the BUK theory/fact that has been confirmed by Russia's experts.

a reply to: intrptr

BUK didn't make the round holes in the nose and cock pit, doesn't target the nose of aircraft, nor was a launch and vapor trail witnessed by anyone on the ground.

They are solid fuel rockets, so they leave a smoke trail, not a vapor trail. Since the day was overcast, a smaoke trail might not have been readily visible. In any event, the official Russian news agency is saying it was a BUK. They're just trying to claim it was a Ukrainian one now:

sputniknews.com...

Now you have no choice but to believe it. Sputnik never lies.

a reply to: DJW001

Um. Question is this...

What evidence do the Russians have to pin the damage down to a specific missile and what evidence do they have, considering they are not cooperating with the Dutch who have (er) the physical evidence. Are they going t publish a report? No, of course not.

"During the first stage of our investigation, the type of system was established. It was a Buk-M1 system [NATO reporting name SA-11], a 9М38-М1 rocket and a 9М314 warhead," head engineer Mikhail Malyshev said.

Spiknik - a Russian government owned media thing

So, as it becomes clear the evidence points to a Buk missile, the Russian media will start to concentrate on the fact it was a Ukrainian one!

The story changes.

a reply to: markosity1973

Because they didn't. They put some in storage, and there is video of Russian units launching them in 2014 during an exercise.

Removed from service doesn't mean destroyed. There are a number of B-52s that were removed from service to the Boneyard that are about top be refurbished and returned to service.

Ever feel like you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole?


Image

Warhead construction

The frag from these types of warheads are square so they will penetrate deeper than ball bearings, thats why they are little squares instead of round balls. And a lot smaller than thirty mm, which doesn't account for the neat paper punch holing on the fuselage and inner structure near the cockpit.

Doesn't really matter, not a single witness said they saw or heard a ground missile launch. Thats in the OP's video as well as the service ceiling of the SU25 was capable of flying that high, barely. In fact the tower in Kiev told the plane to lower its altitude, (go figure). They also fired the cannon agains soft skin targets showing the round holing of projectiles.

a reply to: intrptr

Then you should be able to prove they told them to lower altitude. The ADS-B data is available. Show us where they descended.

a reply to: paraphi

A preliminary report is a report, but it is not the final report. It's all in the word "preliminary". It has nothing to do with propaganda.

Lol, these are not the droids you are looking for.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Already demonstrated, the Dutch investigators didn't "respond" to more pieces of wreckage from the cockpit found with round holes in them. Watch the video in OP.

Like Whaaat?

a reply to: tommyjo

I get it you are far down the rabbit hole. The preliminary report highlights the agreed facts and establishes them.

Since that doesn't differ with the official story since day one, that is highly suspect as well. Every Official / Preliminary / investigation / rumor / report / whathave you citing " sources" and "experts who all agree" is especially suspect in the main stream.

I know right away that is propaganda when they begin sentences that way…