It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


What really happened to MH17

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 06:04 AM
What we do know about MH17.

1. It applies a route, that is over a military zone that has been declared a "no fly zone", which is accepted by Hollands flight control.
2. It is direct to a northern route, by Ukranian flight control ... but is suddenly diverted into the war zone, at an acute angle.
3. Russian radar control, shows there is a military aircraft in the vicinity of the flight on a similar route.
4. An observer on ground, sees a military aircraft at the flight location.

Now, if I take this together I can make a pretty good guess at what happens. Ukrainian flight control, knows very well the territory is a no-fly-zone and diverts the plane on a northern route to avert the area. At some point, the flight gets orders to change it's path onto it's original flight route. Since, at this point, the plane is still in Ukrainian territory, it is most likely the Ukrainian flight control that does this. An observer on the ground, sees a military aircraft and calls this in. The militia, hearing the observers observation, but only knows of the commercial aircraft on radar, as they don't see the "low flying" military aircraft. Fire a missile, with the consequences of the missile which is for high-altitude aircraft, seeks out the commercial aircraft.

So, the aircraft is shot down by accident ... but, there is still an "intend" that is evident by the fact that the plane is diverted into the no-fly zone area, at an acute angle. Such an acute angle, would be seen as threatening by any military traffic control, especially if ground observer report a military aircraft.

So, all in all ... it's an accident, but certain questions must be asked for the reason of diverting the plane into a known no-fly zone, where there have been several military aircraft, having been shot down.

If there is intent, there is a crime ... so, from that crime we must assess who gains from it.

1. Holland has already invested billions of dollars, in rights to get gas in the rebels zone. They've made this contract, not with the people in the area, where the gas is to be drilled. Nor with the "rightful" government, but with the militarized government that took over (however, this part is not fully known ... somebody should investigate as to with whom Shell made the deal, and when). This is also in line with the fact, that it is a flight control in Holland that accepts the flight path over a known no-fly zone, where it is known even inside EU, that planes have been shot down by rebels (this part is important).

This makes Holland a suspect of intent, in accepting the flight plan.

2. We know the flight was on a northern route, from Russian air traffic controls. And was diverted into the no-fly zone. Since the gas is in rebel territory, there is an obvious gain for Ukraine. They need to be able to take control of the area, but cannot while Russia is backing them up.

This makes Ukraine a suspect of intent, as they will gain by a public outrage of the event.

Suspicion of Ukraine is further strengthened, by the fact that after the Russians agree to back off, and allow an international inspection in the UN Security Council. This is followed by a blitzkrieg attack, by Ukraine ... for the obvious purpose, of quickly and decisively getting control of the territory. Since access to the territory for inspectors, was not really in question ... the fact remains, that Ukraine took this as an opportunity to attack, while Russia was in a position to not support the rebels. Their intention were to gain control of the territory, not to further investigations into the accident.

This makes Ukraine highly suspicious, as they have troops in the ready to take advantage of the situation. Even in wartime, you need "preparations" for a move like that. And such a blitzkrieg movement, by Ukraine ... suggest they've done their preperations in advance.

This makes evidence for Ukraine having had the intent of directing the plane into Rebel territory for the purpose of having the rebels shoot it down, by accident. This also makes Holland, and therefore NATO, a suspect in willfully allowing the plane to enter this zone, hoping for an accident. For the territorial and economic gain.

What about Russia? What do we know about Russia?

1. The press conference, was done by two ranking officers. In a very unprepared, and unprofessional manner. The interpreter, was extremely bad ... which suggests, that this had been "allowed" by Putin. Merely because he was being pressured, but downplayed as much as they could.

2. An interview with another ranking Russian military commander, shows that he was making it all up. Not about his role, or the Russian role in it. But that he was basically talking about something, that he had no idea about. So, Putin allowed someone to talk for the press ... who wasn't even good at lying. Knowing that any personell, that was "watching" it, would immediately see the man was lying. But, not only lying ... he had no clue of what he was talking about. He was making a categorical denial, from a pre written document. Without the denial, being believable. Putin must have known, which means he did that on purpose ...

What this suggests, that Putin and his cabinet already had agreed to back down. Probably an agreement, between Washington and Kremlin, that we aren't aware off. So, there is something in it for the Russian government as well.

My analysis is this ... the current insurgency in Ukraine by Russia, is unofficial and not through the official channels of Russia. It's military commanders, that are disobeying Kremlin. Which means, this is a very "hot" issue inside Russia, and Putin is acting outside of the interest of Russia.

So, this doesn't exclude there is a gain for Putin ... only time will tell what. That gain is in one of two ways, either he is backing down for the purpose of getting support for an invasion. Or, he has been payed by US/EU to have Russia back down. One way or the other, there is something Russia isn't telling here.

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 03:34 PM
a reply to: bjarneorn

Interesting read.

There was not a no fly in place. What was in place was a restricted flight elevation. All commercial aircraft were required to fly 33k feet or higher. Below that was restricted because of the manpads limited ceiling. MH17 was flying above the restricted flight level, as did all other commercial aircraft flying the same routes.

The flight was not suddenly diverted.

An accidental shoot down is the top possibility. However we have the issues of the social media claims asmwell as the recorded conversations.

Has any info been released on the investigation?

edit on 30-8-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 03:44 PM
a reply to: bjarneorn

I thought ATS agreed Russia did it? How dare you coming here telling us differently?

Nice read.

I do not believe that Putin is being payed by the west, I think he only wanted Crimea, seems to me like he was not expecting this big of a mess to happen meanwhile. This is how we could explain the lack of action from Kremlin.

But as you said, only the future will tell.

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 08:04 PM
Normally when a plane crashes, they gather all the wreckage and try and reconstruct the plane as much as possible. Then they show pictures of where the damage occurred along with a time-line of what systems failed first and how the breakup occurred.

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 08:12 PM
a reply to: stormcell

That's only when they can't determine what happened. In the event of the cause being something obvious, there is no need to rebuild the airframe to determine the cause.

new topics

top topics

log in