Malaysian 777 Passenger Airline Shot Down Over Eastern Ukraine

a reply to: Salander

Still going with the debunked aircraft shot it down even though the mountains of evidence say otherwise?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: CaptainBeno


And most if not all of those holes were concentrated at the cockpit area. The pilot displayed excellent marksmanship. The giveaway was the single streak on top left outboard wing, aligned perfectly with the shot group on the cockpit.

With the left engine in flames as it spiraled to the ground, my guess is 1 AAM to engine, followed eventually by cannon fire at slow airspeed.

Either that or the BUK exploded in front of the plane. Then the Donbassholes fired into the wreckage after the crash to confuse investigators.

a reply to: Xcathdra


What mountains of evidence?

The mountains of evidence shown by BBC and others was quickly removed from public view. Why? Because it all worked against the western narrative.

Not a single glimpse could be found of the imaginary BUK launch. Guys driving around in the wrong direction pulling BUKs is not a launch, it's a photo op.

originally posted by: Salander
Not a single glimpse could be found of the imaginary BUK launch. Guys driving around in the wrong direction pulling BUKs is not a launch, it's a photo op.

and yet Russia releases an image supposedly showing a military aircraft, which is not an SU-25, firing a missile at the commercial airliner. Also debunked. And then Russia concedes it was shot down and by a BUK, but said the missile used is no longer in use in Russia but is in use in Ukraine.

Finally, the 800lb Gorilla in the room. Considering the pro Russian terrorist have no air force there is no reason for Ukraine to have air defense being used in the conflict.

Never mind all of the audio that was released showing the shoot down being discussed by pro russians and their moscow leaders. It was brought down by pro russians with the direct assistance of Russian armed forces. Pictures of the Buk were found via social media and were backtracked to Russia.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Bunk is what the NATO propagandists distributed regarding this event.

Debunking that fiction was done by accident by BBC. Thus, it was quickly removed.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Xcathdra


Bunk is what the NATO propagandists distributed regarding this event.

Debunking that fiction was done by accident by BBC. Thus, it was quickly removed.

If that is what you want to believe thats your choice. I choose to believe the truth.

a reply to: Salander

So Almaz-Antay is part of the NATO propaganda? You know, the Russian company that makes the missile? Because according to them it was definitely a BUK missile that brought it down. They said an older missile design but definitely a BUK.

a reply to: Xcathdra


You and I don't share the same fantasies, simply put.


My fantasies all involve romance with younger women, while yours seem to be truthful statements by the US government and its mainstream media puppets.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Xcathdra


You and I don't share the same fantasies, simply put.


My fantasies all involve romance with younger women, while yours seem to be truthful statements by the US government and its mainstream media puppets.

Stick to deflecting. It doesn't change the reality of what happened and what russian unit was behind it.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Their point was that if it WAS a BUK, it was an older style no longer in use by Russian forces. Their test and demonstration proved only that point.

A-A was not allowed to examine the wreckage, and neither were any other Russian entities. I think even the Malaysian officials were denied access. That's how the US works.

A-A could not and did not provide any photos suggesting a BUK launch, and neither did any other party, including the accusers. Such launches are quite visible, and the weather was pretty much CAVU

a reply to: Salander

No, they said, without reservation, that it WAS a BUK, but it was an older style used by the Ukraine.

The BUK missile manufacturer revealed its own findings into the flight MH17 downing over Ukraine, effectively proving that a missile type consistent only with the Buk-M1 system was used – one that the Russian armed forces do not possess.

www.rt.com...

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...

a reply to: Zaphod58


Good, so A-A is also unable to find any photos of the BUK that didn't launch.

a reply to: Salander

And yet they confirmed that it WAS a BUK, and not cannon fire. So, either you know more than they do, they're lying, or they're part of the propaganda.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Where and when did A-A get to examine the wreckage? What statements have they made regarding the video, photo and witness materials from BBC that was so quickly withdrawn?

Your theory regarding A-A is very much incomplete.

If the peasants could get video of the descending airliner on that day, they would also have had pictures of the trail from the launching missile.

Why did the authorities pull all that video, photo and witness materials?

a reply to: Salander

Except that you're the only one that is claiming they did get video of it. Don't bother responding. You apparently know more than everyone else and are so enlightened that you can see through everything and are smarter than anyone else involved. I am not worthy to discuss this with you.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Don't beat yourself up. Like you, I am a mere mortal and far from perfect.

Like you, I know what I saw that evening. By sheer luck I did happen to watch the entire 1 hour special on the MSM channel. Usually I rotate between NBC and ABC, with a dash of CBS. As in so many other cases that evening, their coverage was virtually identical, full of statements from "anonymous sources" within State and DoD.

For the next several days non-MSM sources covered it, and remarkably BBC had the best coverage for on the site in the rural area of Ukraine, complete with interviews of peasants and an out-of-focus but useful video of the last 30 seconds or so of the airliner spiraling towards the end. Clearly, one engine was on fire.

The "smoking gun" in the analysis was that by about 1 week or 10 days later, maybe even less, BBC had taken them down. But I saw them and I know what I saw. I've seen aircraft hit by small arms and cannon fire.

All things considered, all these years later what is really certain is that TPTB are conducting a major cover-up. Kiev quickly took the ATC tapes explaining how the airliner received routing and altitude changes, and it's never been released.

I know horse-hockey when I see it and smell it. I suspect you do too.

a reply to: Salander

and yet the Russians also said a BUK brought the aircraft down.

Are the Russians lying?

a reply to: Salander

Don't beat myself up? For what? For believing the people that make the missile instead of you? For not believing someone that no one could prove existed, and made wild claims? OK, sure,

Funny how their transponder and tracked course, from takeoff mind you, don't show the course or altitude change. Oh, right, they were changing it in real time to make it look like it didn't happen.

a reply to: Salander

Im trying not to laugh at you. Ok no im not really trying that hard. Small arms fire has zero chance of hitting a plane traveling at flight altitude.instead if going off your beliefs ob a video you watched you might want to look at the report released by i investigators. Bottom line it was a Russian BUK that they quickly hid back across the border after it shot down a civilian aircraft .

They are now preparing for court cases where im sure even more information will be released.

a reply to: dragonridr


It wasn't small arms fire, it was cannon fire from an airborne platform.