It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Absurdness of Conspiracy Theories (The Truth About MH17, Why Do People Not Want To See It?)

page: 10
94
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Expat888
You fell for the fairytale the americans created ... dont worry your not alone 80% of the population is susceptible to brainwashing/propaganda ..


While I agree it is wrong to blindly believe things, what makes it less likely that the Russians are creating a fairy tale? Are they somehow unable to do such a thing?

That leaves us with looking at the raw facts, rather than believing versions of facts as the as presented by others (by both the U.S./EU and by the Russians). One raw fact we do know is that a few weeks earlier, pro-Russina separatists shot down a military cargo. Knowing this, then why would you think it is unlikely that the rebel could also shoot down this airliner (possibly confusing it with another military plane?



LOL
Simple the Cargo plane was WAY WAY WAY lower than the jetliner because the cargo plane was LANDING. It could have been shot down with shoulder fired weapons, hell it could have been shot down with unguided rpgs. The jetliner however was shot down at 33/32 thousand feet. That requires a much more advanced system. The difference between aiming at something and using advanced systems is why we KNOW it is unlikely that rebels could also shoot down an airliner.
edit on 23-7-2014 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Actually I feel like I should make a short and sweet clarification for other people.

The rebels shooting down a cargo plane is NOT evidence they were capable of shooting down the jetliner. The cargo plane WAS LANDING while the jetliner was a 33,000 foot high speck in the sky.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: PrinceRupertsDog
I understand why they did not close it yet - they were warning people though.
Reason #1: they already told people to fly higher than usually.
Reason # they were perhaps hoping that the resistance would never go as far as to blindly shoot at a large commercial air jet.
The rebels may have been plainly lucky from the military sense - they hit a target that far removed. It is of course a horrible piece of "luck".
I wish they hadn't - a missile zooming by but missing its target would have been a fair warning to the whole world.
Perhaps some of them also wish they hadn't hit that target. (So far they didn't even recognize they did it.)

But if they are innocent, why are they tampering with evidence, and why are they threatening journalists and why did they delay in allowing the corpses to be inspected?



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: JRCrowley
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

"The Absurdness of Conspiracy Theories"


You mean like this?

19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort coc aine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

Like that one?

Yes, and I do refer to that theory in conversation as a wild conspiracy theory.
Bush was not exactly a sane person, he was severely imparied by alcoholism and paranoia. Nor is the political wing generally supporting that kind of person.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Ukraine rebel commander acknowledges fighters had BUK missile

.

Reuters By By Anton Zverev 32 minutes ago

By Anton Zverev


DONETSK Ukraine (Reuters) - A powerful Ukrainian rebel leader has confirmed that pro-Russian separatists had an anti-aircraft missile of the type Washington says was used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 and it could have originated in Russia.


In an interview with Reuters, Alexander Khodakovsky, commander of the Vostok Battalion, acknowledged for the first time since the airliner was brought down in eastern Ukraine on Thursday that the rebels did possess the BUK missile system and said it could have been sent back subsequently to remove proof of its presence.


Before the Malaysian plane was shot down, rebels had boasted of obtaining the BUK missiles, which can shoot down airliners at cruising height. But since the disaster the separatists' main group, the self-proclaimed People’s Republic of Donetsk, has repeatedly denied ever having possessed such weapons.


Since the airliner crashed with the loss of all 298 on board, the most contentious issue has been who fired the missile that brought the jet down in an area where government forces are fighting pro-Russian rebels.



news.yahoo.com...



I actually have respect for this guy , because he's actually Ukrainian, and not a Russian posing as Ukrainian.
Even he's point the finger at Russia for the attack.
edit on 23-7-2014 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Was just reading coverage of this elsewhere. To me, it looks more like a change in the narrative than one guy standing up.

Ukraine Rebel Commander Says Separatists Shot Down MH17 With A Buk Missile From Russia



"I knew that a BUK came from Luhansk. At the time I was told that a BUK from Luhansk was coming under the flag of the LNR," he said, referring to the Luhansk People’s Republic, the main rebel group operating in Luhansk, one of two rebel provinces along with Donetsk, the province where the crash took place.

"That BUK I know about. I heard about it. I think they sent it back. Because I found out about it at exactly the moment that I found out that this tragedy had taken place. They probably sent it back in order to remove proof of its presence," Khodakovsky told Reuters on Tuesday.

"The question is this: Ukraine received timely evidence that the volunteers have this technology, through the fault of Russia. It not only did nothing to protect security, but provoked the use of this type of weapon against a plane that was flying with peaceful civilians," he said.

"They knew that this BUK existed; that the BUK was heading for Snezhnoye," he said, referring to a village 10 km (six miles) west of the crash site. "They knew that it would be deployed there, and provoked the use of this BUK by starting an air strike on a target they didn’t need, that their planes hadn’t touched for a week."

"And that day, they were intensively flying, and exactly at the moment of the shooting, at the moment the civilian plane flew overhead, they launched air strikes. Even if there was a BUK, and even if the BUK was used, Ukraine did everything to ensure that a civilian aircraft was shot down."




So now the narrative is that the Ukrainian government new the BUK was there, and provoked the missile launch on a 33,000 foot high civilian aircraft by flying low-altitude airstrikes.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
Classic blame the victim mentality, but it seems that this particular leader doesn't appreciate outsiders stiring up trouble and making their whole movment look bad.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: punkinworks10

Was just reading coverage of this elsewhere. To me, it looks more like a change in the narrative than one guy standing up.

Ukraine Rebel Commander Says Separatists Shot Down MH17 With A Buk Missile From Russia



"I knew that a BUK came from Luhansk. At the time I was told that a BUK from Luhansk was coming under the flag of the LNR," he said, referring to the Luhansk People’s Republic, the main rebel group operating in Luhansk, one of two rebel provinces along with Donetsk, the province where the crash took place.

"That BUK I know about. I heard about it. I think they sent it back. Because I found out about it at exactly the moment that I found out that this tragedy had taken place. They probably sent it back in order to remove proof of its presence," Khodakovsky told Reuters on Tuesday.

"The question is this: Ukraine received timely evidence that the volunteers have this technology, through the fault of Russia. It not only did nothing to protect security, but provoked the use of this type of weapon against a plane that was flying with peaceful civilians," he said.

"They knew that this BUK existed; that the BUK was heading for Snezhnoye," he said, referring to a village 10 km (six miles) west of the crash site. "They knew that it would be deployed there, and provoked the use of this BUK by starting an air strike on a target they didn’t need, that their planes hadn’t touched for a week."

"And that day, they were intensively flying, and exactly at the moment of the shooting, at the moment the civilian plane flew overhead, they launched air strikes. Even if there was a BUK, and even if the BUK was used, Ukraine did everything to ensure that a civilian aircraft was shot down."




So now the narrative is that the Ukrainian government new the BUK was there, and provoked the missile launch on a 33,000 foot high civilian aircraft by flying low-altitude airstrikes.



Sorry to burst the bubble, but the same leader says that didn't say anything about BUK to Reuters, and he claimed to have audio recordings.

So please, don't spread it, even the title is misleading.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: whitepanther999

Sorry to poke a sharp stick at your bubble, but you've joined only two days ago, and your activity has been nothing but apologizing for Putin on MH17 related threads from day one.

Do you have supporting links that are not from Russian sponsored propaganda sites? I've noticed that many of your posts contain claims without proper citation, attribution, or support of any kind.



Edit to add:

We've had a good spike in site traffic since this tragedy began, which is typical of such world events in the past. However, after a cursory look at the details, about 60% of the overall spike is from Russian Internet providers… this disproportionate spike from one region is exceptionally atypical. Additionally, nearly 25% of that Russian traffic are logged-in as members; our typical ratio is only 8% of all traffic being logged-in as members. We saw a similar overall spike when Russia invaded Ukraine, but didn't see these disproportionate regional spikes, or increase in members from Russia.

This is a very strong indication that AboveTopSecret.com is the target of a concerted effort to disrupt or otherwise shape the nature of these discussions.

edit on 23-7-2014 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

That is a cheap shot at me.
"This is a very strong indication that AboveTopSecret.com is the target of a concerted effort to disrupt or otherwise shape the nature of these discussions. "

Not is not, at least not from me.

I am interested in this website, because

1. It is foreign and independent.
2. People argue and come to conclusions (hopefully), which i think one of the best ways to do it. I participate in it, actually expecting people to retaliate to change my views, if they are wrong. Maybe i don't know the 'ways' of ATS yet, but that is not an excuse to poke at me with 'i'm older'.
3. It has people of completely different background, which helps the #2.

Last but not least, being Russian, i am affected by infowar, and honestly any of you would do the same.
Trying to get to the truth, using what i have - i think the opposite side have enough western media arguments, would not be of use for me to use them.

Also, if you bother to check, i don't behave as typical apologist. I question both anti- and pro-russian arguments. But anyways, i guess who am I to argue with authority?

Where else can i go on the Net?

edit on 23-7-2014 by whitepanther999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Expat888
You fell for the fairytale the americans created ... dont worry your not alone 80% of the population is susceptible to brainwashing/propaganda ..


While I agree it is wrong to blindly believe things, what makes it less likely that the Russians are creating a fairy tale? Are they somehow unable to do such a thing?

That leaves us with looking at the raw facts, rather than believing versions of facts as the as presented by others (by both the U.S./EU and by the Russians). One raw fact we do know is that a few weeks earlier, pro-Russina separatists shot down a military cargo. Knowing this, then why would you think it is unlikely that the rebel could also shoot down this airliner (possibly confusing it with another military plane?



LOL
Simple the Cargo plane was WAY WAY WAY lower than the jetliner because the cargo plane was LANDING. It could have been shot down with shoulder fired weapons, hell it could have been shot down with unguided rpgs. The jetliner however was shot down at 33/32 thousand feet. That requires a much more advanced system. The difference between aiming at something and using advanced systems is why we KNOW it is unlikely that rebels could also shoot down an airliner.


Yeah...OK. So then maybe the separatists could have gotten their hands on a more advance system (such as a BUK system), and perhaps received some training on how to use it (although, maybe the training was not adequate/not complete, which led to this aircraft being misidentified on the BUK radar). A BUK is certainly capable of bringing down an airliner at 33,000 feet.

Again, people seem to be saying "Well, the U.S. could be making things up and spinning fairy tales". Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. However, if we can accept the possibility that the U.S. is lying, then logically we should be able to accept the possibility that Russia is lying...

...Is the U.S. the only government capable of lying? Are the Russians so much more morally superior that that idea of them lying is not possible?


edit on 7/23/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The SA-11 is a scary system. Not because it's so effective, but because it was designed to be as simple to operate as possible, and even lacks an IFF system.

aviationweek.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The SA-11 is a scary system. Not because it's so effective, but because it was designed to be as simple to operate as possible, and even lacks an IFF system.

aviationweek.com...


Does "simple to operate" only mean "simple to fire at a target", or does that simplicity also include being able to identify a target simply (e.g., civilian flight or otherwise).

If the separatists could (with minimal training) be able to positively identify this plane as being civilian, then that takes away my idea that this was an accident on the separatists due to poor training and misidentification.

I suppose another possibility is a lack of a real command-and-control structure within the rebel hierarchy. It could be that the person who (literally) had his finger on the trigger/button (or at least was the first level of command above that) could have known exactly what this plane was, but still been someone who lacks the political savvy to be in a position to make a unilateral decision to fire on this civilian aircraft.

What I mean is that the soldier rebel (if it was rebels) who decided to shoot this plane down may been politically stupid enough to have thought he was doing something good. his superiors may have known better, but a poor command-and-control structure among the rebels may have led to a lack of communication between the soldier in charge of that SA-11 BUK system and his superiors who may have known better.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: whitepanther999
Last but not least, being Russian, i am affected by infowar, and honestly any of you would do the same.
Trying to get to the truth, using what i have - i think the opposite side have enough western media arguments, would not be of use for me to use them.

So then how about corroborating your claims with supporting links/material?

This website has been around since 1999, and I've been in a senior role since 2004. We have a significant amount of experience with organized efforts to disrupt or otherwise control the flow and subject matter of discussions on a very broad range of topics. Your specific activity exhibits all the hallmarks of such efforts, if it's unwittingly done on your part, my mistake. However, you must admit that in any search for truth, organized efforts to modify narrative are never on the side of truth.


Now… about those sources?



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The whole point of the SA-11 was to have a SAM system that was easy to operate, in all aspects, with minimal training. That means easy to detect on radar, easy to target, and easy to fire. To do that, they left off the IFF, as well as an NCTR system. Either would have clearly identified the aircraft as a civilian aircraft, not a military aircraft. Without them the only option is to lock them with the electrooptical targeting system, and visually identify the aircraft. The rebels probably could have almost taught themselves how to use the system just by trial and error.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I am glad to read Skeptic Overlord's observation on the propaganda war.
Otherwise I was already becoming a bit scared about how many people here on the largest and most user friendly conspiracy board in the West were starting to gobble up whatever Putin serves from a position of bitterness.

The Russian English-language press and video Net services are great when it comes to criticizing the West (no irony implied, they are doing a very useful job), as is Al Jazeera, and I am sure it keeps Western governments and agencies as well as some media people on their toes.

Our conspiracy folks refer to these articles as they should.

After all, we are not a monkey tribe cheering for this alpha male and phooeying to his contestant. We're thinking individuals here, trying to think independently and there are hundreds of years of traditions - especially in some Western countries like America and England to do so, regardless of what the masses say, and what the head monkey tells his chimpanzees. (BTW too bad we're less like bonobos than chimps in etological terms).

However, it seems there is a curious blindness towards all affairs in Russian-English media that could be critical of the leadership or the interests of the new Russian empire.
Assad, Syria, Libya, Palestine, and Maidan and the pro-Russian rebels - and now the Malay-Dutch tragedy.

Where are the Russian-language boards where Putin is exposed? Weapons systems analyzed? Experts and political analysts vie with dreamers and fringe theorist, people with strong religious convictions etc? Show me.

So even if there are historical mistakes over here, somehow, information, skepticism and conspiracy mean an entirely different thing in the East... Or if they do not, please prove. I am open before arguments and facts etc. and I can read a little Russian too.

I generally trust the information age actually helps intelligent and independent people - the truth is out - sure, there is also much misinformation and urban legends, but seems like many bad things could no longer be concealed as shady parties used to do as a amtter of routine.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Well well well... I certainly had my suspicions. It would appear they were not unfounded. Thanks for sharing that information with us, it is very telling.
edit on 23-7-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
So now that rebels basically acknowledged "we did it - some of us", the next line is that Ukrainians deliberately made airstrikes in the area to lure rebel shooters to the Jumbo Jet.

Rebel confession

I don't know. This may be true, although unlikely. Then we have to investigate Ukrainian State (UAS) military commands.
Holland or Malaysia or the UN could demand a complete examination of detailed military orders and reports from our "ally" the Ukraine.
If they innocent, they will comply. Minute by minute, with transcripts.

At this point it is still beyond my credibility threshold that the UAS would knowingly risk the deaths of innocent Westerners, with a high proportion of children among them.
They should know that since 911 we have been especially sensitive to political tragedies tied to airliners.
So it would be an extremely risky game on their part. I'd rather think (maybe I'm naive) that the Ukrainian fighters if there ever were any near the Malay plane accompanied it because they believed it would somehow help the airliner get through the contested territory. Or trying to deflect the possible BUK shots to themselves. Or distract the rebels by bombing an area they didn't need to.

What do you think out there? In America and Moscow and Kiew and Donet'sk? Last but not least, Holland and Australia and Malaysia?



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: GogoVicMorrow

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Expat888
You fell for the fairytale the americans created ... dont worry your not alone 80% of the population is susceptible to brainwashing/propaganda ..


While I agree it is wrong to blindly believe things, what makes it less likely that the Russians are creating a fairy tale? Are they somehow unable to do such a thing?

That leaves us with looking at the raw facts, rather than believing versions of facts as the as presented by others (by both the U.S./EU and by the Russians). One raw fact we do know is that a few weeks earlier, pro-Russina separatists shot down a military cargo. Knowing this, then why would you think it is unlikely that the rebel could also shoot down this airliner (possibly confusing it with another military plane?



LOL
Simple the Cargo plane was WAY WAY WAY lower than the jetliner because the cargo plane was LANDING. It could have been shot down with shoulder fired weapons, hell it could have been shot down with unguided rpgs. The jetliner however was shot down at 33/32 thousand feet. That requires a much more advanced system. The difference between aiming at something and using advanced systems is why we KNOW it is unlikely that rebels could also shoot down an airliner.


You are wrong.

It is not only Buk but Russia/Soviets had/has other missile systems that can shoot down a plane at 33000 feet.

The assumption that rebels have only shoulder fired weapons is a spurious one.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join