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.

 

Wreckage in this pic Cannot Be From Flight MH-17

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The wreckage in this pic cannot be from flight MH17.

This piece of wreckage is supposed to be from the right side of MH17.




Here is a pic of flight MH17(9m-mrd) at the gate at Schiphol, taken by a passenger before boarding, and put on his FB before the flight.

(I am using this pic since this is the last pic taken, showing the right side of the plane. There are others off course.)




Look at the blue A of MALAYSIA, where it is placed, and the shape of the outlining.

Now look at the wreckage again.




And the plane.




There is an angled blue line in the wreckage pic but it is supposed to be a straight blue line, where is the angle in that A, on the plane?

Also look how crooked that "window" is.

And if anyone wants to claim it is the left side of the plane, it doesn't work with the "M" of Malaysia either.

Maybe this will make it clearer.

Red line is mine.






Also, this piece of fuselage is the only piece they keep showing, from various angles, as far as I have seen.

Either that wreckage is not MH17, or this pic, which was by the way, released by Reuters, has been photoshopped.

Now why would a big news agency like Reuters do that? And why paint in a "window" when they are not supposed to be there on the 9m-mrd?

On the other hand I think I also saw somewhere that the cover plates were being removed at the crash site.


What do you guys think?



+++++++++++++++++++


There was also some talk on the internet about the wreckage being from MH370(9m-mro) or even another plane, based on anamolies with the placing of the flag and and placement of windows/cover plates.

This was all wrong because people were looking at pics of the planes from different years and with different paint jobs and configurations.
I have spent quite some time checking if these claims were correct and as far as I can tell they are not.

Those who are very perceptive might have also noticed in the pic of MH17 at the gate, that the nosewheel cover seems to read "RC" instead of "RD".

It actually does read "RD" but the D is damaged in the middle. It had that since months before and close up you can see it is a D.

Funny how this added to the confusion though.





edit on 29-7-2014 by SirElrondofRivendell because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I was also questioning how the pics got out so quickly... now we are seeing other photos which just came out which are different from the originals.... thanks for posting this! also check out..

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   

edit on 7/29/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
How do you know it is not the other side of the plane?

Maybe the sides were different?



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SirElrondofRivendell

The blue line on the top corner really solidifies this as interesting to me. It could obviously not be the front of middle windows because of window spacing and surly cannot be the back because of the blue paint. What should the other side of the plane have looked liked paint wise? Because I figure they'd be identical which still brings to question the validity of the plane being MH17.


oh fail me.
edit on 29-7-2014 by Antipathy17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The pic from the passenger that posted on facebook is of a different flight. That is not MH17. It was proven once the manifest came out and his name was not on it. That passenger took a flight from the same airport with the same route the day before and that is where that pic came from.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Senators
How do you know it is not the other side of the plane?

Maybe the sides were different?


Because there is a flag on the right side of that piece, you can see it in other pics.

Even if it is the left side, which it isn't, the blue line would still not correspond to the M of Malaysia.
edit on 29-7-2014 by SirElrondofRivendell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
The pic from the passenger that posted on facebook is of a different flight. That is not MH17. It was proven once the manifest came out and his name was not on it. That passenger took a flight from the same airport with the same route the day before and that is where that pic came from.


Compare to any other current pic of MH17 then.

Also read the RD on the noseplate, even though it looks like an RC.

You have no argument, it's all triple checked.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Note also that mh17 only had an occupancy of 265. Not the 292 that was stated and what mh370 had occupancy for.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Link Here

The above link shows the correct section



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Here is the article that discusses that this was not the same jet.

Source



UPDATE July 19: CNN reports that Cor Schilder is the name of the man who identified himself on his Facebook profile as Cor Pan, the Dutch national who posted a photo of a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 on Facebook prior to boarding Flight 17 with a caption in Dutch that reads, “Should it vanish, this is what it looks like," a reference to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 that vanished an hour after takeoff from Kuala Lumpur International Airport on March 7. Contrary to media reports, the plane in Schilder's Facebook photo is not the one that was shot down over Ukraine on Thursday.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: SirElrondofRivendell

You have no argument, it's all triple checked.


On ATS "triple checked" means it's still speculation. You have provided no proof at all that these two planes are the same plane or that they are even of the same area.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: SirElrondofRivendell

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
The pic from the passenger that posted on facebook is of a different flight. That is not MH17. It was proven once the manifest came out and his name was not on it. That passenger took a flight from the same airport with the same route the day before and that is where that pic came from.


Compare to any other current pic of MH17 then.

Also read the RD on the noseplate, even though it looks like an RC.

You have no argument, it's all triple checked.


Triple checked apparently by someone that can't check the news? I linked the article....I can link more if you would like. It is not the same plane....triple checked.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Like I explained twice alreay, it's a moot point. Feel free to compare to known and current 9m-mrd pics and debunk the blue line thing.

I'm waiting.

edit on 29-7-2014 by SirElrondofRivendell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SirElrondofRivendell

I originally thought that blue was in the background, SirElrondofRivendell convinced me to do more research and it is definitely printed on the paneling.

The real answer is that it is simply perspective. Here are two other pictures that clearly show the same paneling with a more believable angle on the lettering.



Full Size


Full Size


Here is the "a" from the other side of the plane:

Aljazeera

edit on 29-7-2014 by lemmin because: (no reason given)



Edit: Just noticed the window.

As for the window being blocked out in these pictures, one has to assume that it was removed at some point. There are pictures of people walking on (and tugging at) this piece of wreckage. Maybe someone fell through it.

Take a look at the scuff marks in both pictures. There is no way these are two different pieces of the (a) plane.
edit on 29-7-2014 by lemmin because: Addressing the blocked out window



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Not only that but the door size looks all sorts of wrong as well. I notice that more so than anything else.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: SirElrondofRivendell

You have no argument, it's all triple checked.


On ATS "triple checked" means it's still speculation. You have provided no proof at all that these two planes are the same plane or that they are even of the same area.


This pic was released by Reuters and you can check any 9m-mrd pic to compare. The point I am making is sound and its variables have been triple checked.

Debunk the blue line anamoly please if you don't agree with my op.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: lemmin

It is obviously on the foreground.




Furthermore, here is the part of the wreckage containing the "a" you are referencing:


Still doesn't explain the anamolous blue line, to the contrary even.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: SirElrondofRivendell
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Like I explained twice alreay, it's a moot point. Feel free to compare to known and current 9m-mrd pics and debunk the blue line thing.

I'm waiting.


How is it a moot point. You posted a pic of a flight that is NOT mh17. This is your thread...maybe post these known images of the correct plane? I know that sounds crazy, but if you want anyone to actually listen you're going to need the actual pics of the right plane to prove your point.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Is this the same piece? This one has the letter "a" but a blanked out window



LARGER VIEW HERE

edit on 29-7-2014 by FlyingSorcerer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join