MH17 Ukraine disaster: Dutch report blames missile

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Typical, not focusing on the lies of the Western media and Politicians regarding MH17, but trying to draw attention away from it by and at the same time keep saying over and over Russian are lying.

Every statement I made is a fact. Prove otherwise.

a reply to: DJW001

The focus should be on what the Western media says and the Dutch safety board report.

I already showed here the report designates a possible launch location which was partly under control by the Ukrainian army. And it has been also in the Dutch media they could not be more specific about it, so the US has been lying about they knew the exact location, but Tjibbe Joustra is now also lying...

On the firing location of the missile Joustra is certain: it was absolutely from pro-Russian rebel territory. According Joustra it is also in the report. "If you look good at the maps, I thought it was clear." He called his discovery 'factual' and no slip.

Source

Well, that doesn't come across as reliable if the by the Western media, Dutch safety board and Western Politicians provided evidence gets knocked down by Dutch bloggers and just people on a forum...

...so DWJ001, how about starting to discuss the lies coming from "trusted" sources ?

According to you and your buddies, bloggers and Russians are all lying anyway...but since you seem so desperately wanting to talk about lies, time to talk about the Western lies instead of trying to shift the focus away from them.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The focus should be on what the Western media says and the Dutch safety board report.

They both agree that it was a BUK missile fired from rebel territory. Why are you having such a hard time accepting that?

I already showed here the report designates a possible launch location which was partly under control by the Ukrainian army.

No you didn't, you just posted some more rubbish Russian propaganda.

And it has been also in the Dutch media they could not be more specific about it, so the US has been lying about they knew the exact location, but Tjibbe Joustra is now also lying...

No they haven't. Russia has yet to catch out a single lie in the US or EU media.

On the firing location of the missile Joustra is certain: it was absolutely from pro-Russian rebel territory. According Joustra it is also in the report. "If you look good at the maps, I thought it was clear." He called his discovery 'factual' and no slip.

Why do you think he's lying? Here's why:

"Every time the Russians come with other stories and other speakers. I got the impression that they get the report try back and it does not matter what argument ', says Joustra.

Your own source.

Well, that doesn't come across as reliable if the by the Western media, Dutch safety board and Western Politicians provided evidence gets knocked down by Dutch bloggers and just people on a forum...

Because Dutch bloggers are more skilled than trained air crash investigators and intelligence analysts?

...so DWJ001, how about starting to discuss the lies coming from "trusted" sources ?

That's what you should be doing. Why can't you find anything that isn't stamped "Made in Russia?"

According to you and your buddies, bloggers and Russians are all lying anyway...but since you seem so desperately wanting to talk about lies, time to talk about the Western lies instead of trying to shift the focus away from them.

Your desperation in trying to change the subject is proof that you cannot refute any of the points I made in my post. Why do you even bother any more?

a reply to: DJW001

No you didn't, you just posted some more rubbish Russian propaganda.

No I wasn't posting some Russian propaganda, I only showed an Eastern Ukrainian battlefield report about the Southern boilers...

Ukrainian soldiers cross border into Russia

...oh wait, The Western media reported also about them when they crossed the Russian border.

a reply to: tommyjo

Of course the Russian lied.

Ehm... so your scientific evidence for that would be a... billboard without address? Awesome. That's a lot of text to obfuscate the fact, that you have indeed nothing at all.




a reply to: DJW001

You post an image without a source and wanna discuss what exactly again?

Just so everyone reading this thread knows, I have presented this obvious fake to PublicOpinion numerous times and he has refused to comment on it. His tactic of making claims for which he provides no evidence and then pretending that I have misrepresented him is an attempt to confuse casual readers. There is now no reason for him to continue evading:

And now you present yourself as Guardian of your Galaxy?

Provide evidence for the simple fact, that the Russians did indeed fake that picture and move the frag on, maybe?
Stay objective and you might be able to convince me with unbiased data.

So, again: where is your source for that pic? Russias TV1? Go ahead and find a link maybe? You provided me with some more of your baseless claims by now.

Why exactly should it be a fake? You thought about that, didn't you? Care to elaborate?

a reply to: DJW001

On the firing location of the missile Joustra is certain: it was absolutely from pro-Russian rebel territory. According Joustra it is also in the report. "If you look good at the maps, I thought it was clear." He called his discovery 'factual' and no slip. Text

He is lying. This is what the report concluded.

11. Missile flight paths The area from which the possible flight paths of a 9N314M warhead carried on a 9M38-series missile as installed on the Buk surface-to-air missile system could have commenced measures about 320 square kilometres in the east of Ukraine. Further forensic research is required to determine the launch location. Such work falls outside the mandate of the Dutch Safety Board, both in terms of Annex 13 and the Kingdom Act ‘Dutch Safety Board’Text

Nowhere does it say it was fired from rebel held territory, it doesn't even claim to be sure it originated from that 320 square km area, let alone where exactly, and even adds that such a conclusion falls outside their mandate.

So there.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Take a look at this new piece from R. Parry:

...
The dog still not barking is the absence of evidence from U.S. spy satellites and other intelligence sources that Secretary of State John Kerry insisted just three days after the shoot-down pinpointed where the missile was fired, an obviously important point in determining who fired it.

On July 20, 2014, Kerry declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.”
...
A Dutch criminal investigation is still underway with the goal of determining who was responsible but without any sign of an imminent conclusion.
...
Last year, another source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me they had concluded that a rogue element of the Ukrainian government – tied to one of the oligarchs – was responsible for the shoot-down, while absolving senior Ukrainian leaders including President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. But I wasn’t able to determine if this U.S. analysis was a consensus or a dissident opinion.
...
“Based on the modification and type of the used missile, as well as its location, this Buk belongs to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. By the way, Ukraine had three military districts — the Carpathian, Odessa and Kiev, and these three districts had more than five Buk anti-aircraft missile brigades of various modifications – Buk, Buk-M, Buk-M1, which means that there were more than 100 missile vehicles there.”
...
Prior to the MH-17 crash, ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine were reported to have captured a Buk system after overrunning a government air base, but Ukrainian authorities said the system was not operational, as recounted in the Dutch report. The rebels also denied possessing a functioning Buk system.
...
As for the missile’s firing location, the Dutch report said the launch spot could have been anywhere within a 320-square-kilometer area in eastern Ukraine, making it hard to determine whether the firing location was controlled by the rebels or government forces. Given the fluidity of the frontlines in July 2014 – and the fact that heavy fighting was occurring to the north – it might even have been possible for a mobile missile launcher to slip from one side to the other along the southern front.
...
The Dutch-led investigation was perhaps compromised by a central role given to the Ukrainian government which apparently had the power to veto what was included in the report.
...
The second source told me that the reason for withholding the U.S. intelligence information was that it contradicted the initial declarations by Kerry and other U.S. officials pointing the finger of blame at the ethnic Russian rebels and indirectly at Russian President Vladimir Putin, who stood accused of giving a ragtag bunch of rebels a powerful weapon capable of shooting down commercial airliners.
...
But the release of the Dutch report – without any of that data – indicates that the U.S. government continues to hide what evidence it has. That missing evidence remains the dog not barking
...

MH-17: The Dog Still Not Barking


Decent article, you guys 'n gals should read all of it.
Another funny (in a sad way) observation:

...
In other words, through its hypocritical approach to this atrocity, the Times has been aiding and abetting a cover-up of crucial evidence, all the better to score some propaganda points against the Russ-kies, the antithesis of what an honest news organization would do...

NYT Plays Games with MH-17 Tragedy

All this talk regarding the Russians is merely a distraction. That should be abundantly clear by now.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

So, again: where is your source for that pic? Russias TV1? Go ahead and find a link maybe?

The gang's all here:

tass.ru...

www.presstv.com...

www.globalresearch.ca...

Why exactly should it be a fake? You thought about that, didn't you? Care to elaborate?

Without getting technical, what are the odds that a spy satellite was passing directly overhead in the split second the missile was fired?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When the evidence is published you will claim it is fake anyway.

a reply to: DJW001

Without getting technical, what are the odds that a spy satellite was passing directly overhead in the split second the missile was fired?

So there was no US spy sat in place to get a few shots, that's why they took "brand new" Digital Globe data?

You didn't add prove to your claim, that the Russian gov faked a thing. You talk about press-releases as if they were official statements. Get a grip! This pic could be an original, maybe leaked or something. But as long as we have no concrete image analysis from pro's or a solid source for it's origin, we can only speculate about that.

Funny thing is, that you have absolutely no problem with made up Digital Globe data on DOD's behalf. How is that supposed not to be another case of double-standarts? Care to explain this problem?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

So there was no US spy sat in place to get a few shots, that's why they took "brand new" Digital Globe data?

We don't know whether there was or not. Probably not, as there were no US troops engaged in the theater.

You didn't add prove to your claim, that the Russian gov faked a thing. You talk about press-releases as if they were official statements. Get a grip! This pic could be an original, maybe leaked or something. But as long as we have no concrete image analysis from pro's or a solid source for it's origin, we can only speculate about that.

Tass is the official press agency of the Russian Government. Anything it says is an official statement. That's why they are not contradicting the official report. If you read the articles, you would see they came from "an unidentified source." The Russian media were punked. They ran with an obvious fake because it furthered Russia's strategy of creating confusion and doubt where there was none. Speaking of official statements, how about this one?



The radar returns submitted to the investigation committee do not show any other planes in the area, and the flight recorder does not support any of the rest of the MoD's claims. It is okay to lie to the public on RT.com, but Russia did not want to face charges of perjury in the upcoming criminal trial

Funny thing is, that you have absolutely no problem with made up Digital Globe data on DOD's behalf. How is that supposed not to be another case of double-standarts? Care to explain this problem?

That is because it does not purport to be an actual image, nor even the actual data set. It is a graphic, and clearly labelled as such. Stop trying to misrepresent the situation. Now, are you going to admit Russia has been caught lying or not?

a reply to: DJW001

Tass is the official press agency of the Russian Government

Ehm, I beg to differ. Tass is highly censored but not a 'spokesperson' for Vlad the Impaler. We might agree upon the fact, that the origin of said picture is a known unknown, besides from it's appearance on various censored/ propaganda news-outlets. Nobody with one working braincell would seriously consider Tass, PressTV or globalresearch as unbiased source. Whats the point?
I agree with you and would rather guess it's main purpose is propaganda, but we speculate.

Speaking of official statements, how about this one?

Saw that conference a while ago and said image wasn't mentioned, was it? Context is your friend. No, the Russian gov didn't lie than. In fact the opposite seems to be true, sorry to break that for you:

...
some of the most important advances made by the Dutch Safety Board’s report on the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 came because the Russian government declassified sensitive details about its anti-aircraft weaponry.

consortiumnews.com...

They cooperate, where is the base for your claim now?

You're obviously not interested to discuss our topic, the Dutch report. Agreed to disagree then, enough straw-man-berries regarding alleged Russian lies.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Saw that conference a while ago and said image wasn't mentioned, was it?

Did I say it was? So you accept the Kremlin's "radar"graphic but have a problem with the Pentagon's?

Context is your friend. No, the Russian gov didn't lie than. In fact the opposite seems to be true, sorry to break that for you:

Then what happened to that SU-25 they claim to have detected approaching MH17? It seems to have disappeared before the data was handed over to the committee.

a reply to: DJW001

So you accept the Kremlin's "radar"graphic but have a problem with the Pentagon's?

Did I say I do? You have issues to comprehend my posts correctly? Is there a Russian press conference with the image you keep brabbling about? How can you compare both events/ pictures then?

It seems to have disappeared before the data was handed over to the committee.

Kinda surprising it is, that the Ukraine wouldn't hand over such data even if it existed?
Nope, it's not. Stop kidding yourself!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

You just don't get it PO, why talk about the official presented pictures when we can talk about the unofficial presented crap...LMAO !

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Kinda surprising it is, that the Ukraine wouldn't hand over such data even if it existed?

Tell me that you didn't see the graphic at the beginning of the official MoD press conference I posted. They claimed they had radar data that showed an SU-25 climbing near MH17, right? That's the data that didn't make it to the committee. Why not? It has nothing to do with Ukraine, does it? It's Russian radar data. That's what I'm talking about and your strawmen are threatening to burn your house down.

a reply to: DJW001

BornAgainAlien catched my drift, you are obviously still struggling with it's implication: who on Ceres cares about 'your' alleged Russian lie when you can offer media-gossip only? I can literally hear myself asking: "was it just a joke then?" Well... didn't laugh about it until now, giggle away!

The real Russian data was of no interest for the Dutch report and has nothing to do with your image, that's the only part we could possibly agree upon. Not saying that it was an intelligent move to exclude everybody from this investigation called cover-up, but that's the decision made.

It was a Malaysian airline after all, wasn't it? Why didn't they get a chance to see the data and why didn't Malaysia perform the investigation but the Dutch? It's already kinda confusing without all that obfuscation. But keep it coming if ya like! We're going to have a lot of fun whilst doing so, promised.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

It was a Malaysian airline after all, wasn't it? Why didn't they get a chance to see the data and why didn't Malaysia perform the investigation but the Dutch?

By international convention, air crashes are investigated by the country where they occur. Ukraine delegated that responsibility to the Dutch; it can't be hard to think of several reasons why. They didn't get to see the data the Kremlin said they had proving there was an SU-25 near the civilian plane because that data doesn't exist, That is because the MoD spokesman lied.

a reply to: DJW001


And where exactly did the Russians claim to have clear evidence for said Su-25? They raised a lot of questions with their presentation but were admittedly not quite sure, didn't they?
Let's avoid the real meat of our subject then: just because the Ukraine didn't provide the investigators (haha) with clear evidence for the Russian theory, it doesn't automatically imply that we would never find any if we could take a closer look.
We have yet US data to see and we don't know to which degree those criminal oligarchs in Kiew lied this time. I don't trust them at all, why should I?

Did Poroshenko hallucinate Russian tank invasions today? Ukraine decided who investigated their crime, provided the data and hey - why shouldn't they bring the guilty to justice as well? Prosecutor, witness and judge in one hand: Porosuperjustice!
I can work with that for fun's sake, but please don't ask me to treat such a cover-up seriously. It's a friggin joke, in a rather sad way.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

Ehm... so your scientific evidence for that would be a... billboard without address? Awesome. That's a lot of text to obfuscate the fact, that you have indeed nothing at all.[/QUOTE]

Yet you fail to understand that the Russians Ministry of Defence couldn't identify the billboard where they state it was? Do you not find that puzzling? Explain why even Russian Today quickly dropped the story? Do you not think with all the Russian Intelligence resources they could identify the billboard and intersection in Krasnoarmeisk? Why after all this time have the Russians not identified the intersection and billboard in Krasnoarmeisk. Explain why no pro-Russian in Krasnoarmeisk has identified and photographed the billboard or interstection from the Buk on a Truck video. Surely it can't be that hard. Remember this is Russian Military Intelligence that we are talking about here. So why after all this time have the Russians not geo-located the position in Krasnoarmeisk as they informed the world of? Why did it take internet sleuths only a matter of weeks of identify the actual location in Luhansk? Explain why the Russian Military Intelligence have not been able to disprove these internet sleuths and researchers? Surely it can't be that hard to match up the location in Krasnoarmeisk with all the resources that the Russians have at their disposal. Explain why they and no pro-Russian can't to this basic of tasks?

edit on 16/10/2015 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)

edit on 16/10/2015 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)