Interesting Western news report about Mariupol in 2014

a reply to: Xcalibur254

It doesn't matter what Channel One or Channel Two or Channel Three aired.

The facts are the facts. Bellingcat is not known for its honest, it's known for its support of Official Narratives.

Air to air and cannon fire took down the Boeing.

Early on Russia provided its radar tracking showing 2 fast movers climbing towards the Boeing. Barack said that couldn't be.

a reply to: Salander

The radar data that Russia claimed showed an Su-25 was never released. Russia debunked their own claim later on when they submitted radar data to the JIT that they claimed showed proof the separatists didn't fire the BUK. While their radar data didn't show the separatists firing a BUK, it also didn't show any other aircraft in the vicinity of MH-17.

To quote the JIT:

According to the experts of the Dutch Ministry of Defence and EUROCONTROL, the Dutch Safety Board, the Russian Ministry of Defence and Almaz Antey - a military aircraft is far easier to detect than a Buk-missile. All experts agree that such detection was absent on the radar. And according to all sources, the absence of Russian radar data recording a military aircraft proofs that there was no military aircraft in the vicinity of MH17 at the time of the downing.

So even the Russians admit there was no Su-25.

a reply to: Salander

Fact check: FALSE

Post removed by staff.

Who to believe? The known liars in Washington, London and Brussels, or the since quickly removed facts?

It's an easy decision for me. Liars in the Pentagon and State Department rule, as they always have.

originally posted by: Salander
Who to believe? The known liars in Washington, London and Brussels, or the since quickly removed facts?

It's an easy decision for me. Liars in the Pentagon and State Department rule, as they always have.

Even easier.

Ask russia to stop blocking an actual investigation of the incident.



Or continue spreading russian propaganda with zero evidence, your choice.

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

I say again sir, Russia has been forthcoming since it started. They made their radar data available within about a week or two. Eventually their company that manufactures the BUK system did a test and determined that the frag damage was more consistent with an older BUK still used by Ukraine, than with the newer systems used by Russia.

The US, with all its advanced satellite surveillance data provided absolutely NOTHING to support its claims. Only the words of known liars at State and Pentagon.

I've always been skeptical of the BUK narrative, as there is no evidence of a BUK. I was persuaded by the testimony of the Ukrainian peasants that unbeknownst to them corroborated the Russian claim of climbing fighter jets. When their testimony and the accompanying amateur video of the Boeing's last 30 seconds or so were quickly removed by BBC, the pattern was set.

The photos of the left side cockpit and upper surface outboard of the left wing, combined with the flaming engine on one side strongly suggested AAM and cannon fire. The OSCE investigator basically agreed.

Adios

a reply to: Salander


'Forthcoming'?

Come on man, you can't be serious?

originally posted by: Salander
Who to believe? The known liars in Washington, London and Brussels, or the since quickly removed facts?

It's an easy decision for me. Liars in the Pentagon and State Department rule, as they always have.

I asked my husband, who is a retired Marine Colonel fighter pilot, to look at this thread and the evidence. He says that although cannon fire hitting the wing could easily take it down because there's fuel in the wings, the hard evidence is that it was a surface to air missile that hit about a meter from the cockpit. That's what the wreckage shows. I don't think you can make it up because the wreckage speaks for itself.


youtu.be...

a reply to: Phantom423

The cannon fire did not cause the airplane to crash alone, but it did kill the left seat pilot, probably both.

Sheer coincidence, one round from the cannon neatly traced across the top outboard surface of the left wing, a perfectly straight line ending at the left side cockpit.

One would think that if the evidence were so clear, the US would supply some. One would think that if all the facts supported the official narrative, there would have been no need to censor as the BBC and others did. Censorship and suppression of facts is prima facie evidence that the facts contradict the official narrative.

The whole thing was just another attempt to vilify Russia. The west has been doing that for 70 years.

Also, just from a scientific point of view, spectroscopic evidence from the metallic parts of the missile would show the composition. That could easily be traced to the manufacturer.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Phantom423

The cannon fire did not cause the airplane to crash alone, but it did kill the left seat pilot, probably both.

Sheer coincidence, one round from the cannon neatly traced across the top outboard surface of the left wing, a perfectly straight line ending at the left side cockpit.

One would think that if the evidence were so clear, the US would supply some. One would think that if all the facts supported the official narrative, there would have been no need to censor as the BBC and others did. Censorship and suppression of facts is prima facie evidence that the facts contradict the official narrative.

The whole thing was just another attempt to vilify Russia. The west has been doing that for 70 years.

I don't think that's correct. If cannon fire hit the wing, that wing would have exploded immediately. There's fuel in that wing. Ignition would have caused burn marks on the wing if it was found in the wreckage. If the wing was found in tact as you say with the bullet marks, then something is very, very wrong. The cannon bullet marks themselves would have probably been destroyed. The wing would not have survived the explosion. This is easily proven in a lab experiment.

a reply to: Salander

One more point that I just thought of: If the wing was hit by cannon fire, the bullets would have exited the other side of the wing. Was there any evidence of that? It would also determine the angle at which the bullet entered the wing which would provide information as to where the fighter jet was relative to the plane.

The bullet marks would also provide evidence as to what type of bullet was used. If it was a Ukrainian fighter, the bullet's signature would have pointed probably to American or German made bullets.

a reply to: Phantom423

I know you don't think that's correct. What you don't understand is that 1 round out of a dozen or more just so happened to have passed so close to the wing that it marked the paint. Yes, we are talking about millimeters tolerance here, in a dynamic situation with 2 aircraft in different motions. 1 round out of a dozen or more just touched the top of the wing. Random chance. All the other rounds missed the wing in that instant, but all hit the cockpit.

The picture of that wing and the upper surface were quickly removed from public view. That means something.

The testimony of the women working in the field that contradicted the official story was also quickly removed from public view, after about 1 week. That also means something.

Some of us have curious and suspicious minds, while others do not.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Phantom423

I know you don't think that's correct. What you don't understand is that 1 round out of a dozen or more just so happened to have passed so close to the wing that it marked the paint. Yes, we are talking about millimeters tolerance here, in a dynamic situation with 2 aircraft in different motions. 1 round out of a dozen or more just touched the top of the wing. Random chance. All the other rounds missed the wing in that instant, but all hit the cockpit.

The picture of that wing and the upper surface were quickly removed from public view. That means something.

The testimony of the women working in the field that contradicted the official story was also quickly removed from public view, after about 1 week. That also means something.

Some of us have curious and suspicious minds, while others do not.

Even if that's true, the bullet's signature would tell the tale.

If the bullets hit the pilot and did not ignite the wing, the plane would not have exploded. The pilot might have been killed but the plane would decompress immediately. Any evidence for that?

And it really doesn't matter that these pictures were removed from the internet, if that's even true. The entire scenario could be recreated on a CAD system or in a lab. The forensic evidence would tell the story.

a reply to: Salander

Here's a screenshot of the cockpit wreckage. The missile has a proximity fuse warhead - i.e. it blows up at "x" distance from the target. Those pucker marks are from schrapnel. The picture clearly shows shrapnel marks from the OUTSIDE going IN. The three pilots were dead from schrapnel.

I think your hypothesis has been blown out of the H2O. Hard evidence counts, as it does in all science.

a reply to: Salander

Even if you don't believe the West, Russia's own MOD has stated that the radar data they supplied to the JIT does not show any Ukrainian jets.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Salander

Here's a screenshot of the cockpit wreckage. The missile has a proximity fuse warhead - i.e. it blows up at "x" distance from the target. Those pucker marks are from schrapnel. The picture clearly shows shrapnel marks from the OUTSIDE going IN. The three pilots were dead from schrapnel.

I think your hypothesis has been blown out of the H2O. Hard evidence counts, as it does in all science.

Yup, I can 100% guarantee that's a missile strike.

I'll try to match that pic to BDA examples tonight, with all the experienced folks active in the Update thread we might even be able to determine the model used if any of the BDA pics are close enough.

There isn't a cannon on any modern(ish) plane anywhere on the planet that does that.

a reply to: PatriotGames4u


I think the spectroscopic evidence (that's my field) would determine where the missile was manufactured. Weapons labs around the world have an encyclopedia of weapons parts and their spectroscopic signature. Easy to identify with enough samples.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: PatriotGames4u


I think the spectroscopic evidence (that's my field) would determine where the missile was manufactured. Weapons labs around the world have an encyclopedia of weapons parts and their spectroscopic signature. Easy to identify with enough samples.

Agreed.

You guys can usually get it down to model, factory, and sometimes even the year it was manufactured (within a couple years anyway).


There are folks that do that where I work, but I don't have access to any of it. I only have access to entry level BDA training materials, and they only have pics.

Were samples from this incident ever made available?







ETA: Do you have an electron microscope capable of metals where you work?