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.

 

Der Speigel says Russia was not at fault for MH17

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Didn't know if anyone saw this so I thought I'd post it. An article came out stating that after investagating the MH17 crash that they believe that Russia not only did not shoot it down,they also did not give the missiles that shot it down. They are still up in the air about it being shot down by a Jet fighter. But they think it could either have been the rebels or the Ukraine government that did it.

consortiumnews.com...


But now the narrative has shifted. The German intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst or BND, asserted that while it believes rebels were responsible for shooting down the plane, they supposedly did so with an anti-aircraft battery captured from a Ukrainian military base, according to Der Spiegel.

The BND also concluded that photos supplied by the Ukrainian government about the MH-17 tragedy “have been manipulated,” Der Spiegel reported. And, the BND disputed Russian government claims that a Ukrainian fighter jet had been flying close to MH-17 just before it crashed, the magazine said.




posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Ive said from the get go that they had nothing to do with it. It was US/NATO/Ukraine. All part of an agenda.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I've read about this, but I am not sure if it was here or elsewhere.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 11:11 PM
link   
This is why Russia sent rebels scrambling to collect evidence. They weren't trying to cover it up. They were trying to make sure it wasn't covered up.



posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
I've read about this, but I am not sure if it was here or elsewhere.


Me too, it must have been on here because I dont get many people sharing DieSpeigel articles on failbook...



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
This is why Russia sent rebels scrambling to collect evidence. They weren't trying to cover it up. They were trying to make sure it wasn't covered up.

Agreed. Here is a look at some of that evidence.



Not only was the plane targeted but they hit the cockpit. Pretty hard to do from the ground.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I'm tempted to post a link to this thread in the anti Russian propaganda threads. Is that kind of thing frowned upon on ATS? I'm rather new but I'm kind of saddened by the fact that this is getting so little attention. Isn't this site supposed to be about conspiracies? This is as modern and clear a conspiracy as I've ever seen.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: tavi45

I think it depends on whether it is off the topic for the other post. You can link to here if it is on post I believe.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: tavi45
This is why Russia sent rebels scrambling to collect evidence. They weren't trying to cover it up. They were trying to make sure it wasn't covered up.

Agreed. Here is a look at some of that evidence.



Not only was the plane targeted but they hit the cockpit. Pretty hard to do from the ground.


Exactly. Good pic!



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

if you are shooting at a moving target , you would aim in front of it, so the target would fly into the spray of rounds

so the cockpit being hit is not so unusual .



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: tom.farnhill

Shooting with what?



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: tom.farnhill

It is unusual it seems because everyone says it got hit by a missile/sam battery (which you don't aim at a cockpit) and doesn't hit a plane horizontally but from below.
But of course even when they have enough proof for this they would never admit it (western powers), Russia must have the blame no matter what.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: HappyThoughts
any thing that fires a projectile , be it a rocket , rifle or whatever .

i know you understood my post so i will not be getting silly arguments as to what devise was used .



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: tom.farnhill

No I did not understand wether you were talking about BUK missile or a jet cannon. These are the two options in this scenario. So which one were you refering to?

If you are talking about a BUK, and it exploded in front of the plane with an outward fanning blast radius, why are there concentrated holes in a relatively small area on the SIDE of the plane?

Is this the "silly" kind of argument you were trying to avoid?






edit on 7-11-2014 by HappyThoughts because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

The plane was attacked two times. First attack with the Su-25 cannon was not enough, the plane turned back and managed to fly, so they (ukrainian democratic junta) had to order the second attack.



The debris was falling to wrong location that is why the western investigators could not falsify the evidence.



posted on Nov, 7 2014 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: maghun
a reply to: intrptr

The plane was attacked two times. First attack with the Su-25 cannon was not enough, the plane turned back and managed to fly, so they (ukrainian democratic junta) had to order the second attack.



The debris was falling to wrong location that is why the western investigators could not falsify the evidence.


Once again the MANUFACTURER SUKHOI has stated that their SU-25 that was in use that day in Ukraine could not fly that high long enough to atack with guns let alone missiles. the hieght with it loaded with weapons is 19,000 ft. without weapons its around 27,000. the Airliner was at 33,000 and flying faster than the Su-25 and they were not at full throttle either. But hey dont let the facts from the manufacturer get in the way right?

Russia was caught editing the Wiki page on it. it was compared to the manufacturers specs and they dont match up.

Also a missile shot from a trailing heat seeking warhead would not hit the cockpit. Same with a laser guided one from 7000 ft away and from behind.

Also the rebels even claimed it as theirs at first.but as soon as they knew it wasnt a uke airforce craft they retracted the tweet. The rebels took a captured system and shot the aircraft down most likely by mistake.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa




the Airliner was at 33,000 and flying faster than the Su-25 and they were not at full throttle either.


What do you mean with this exactly?



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa


Can the Su-25 fly 10000m at around 800km/h - 900km/h ?

Most likely, but it's not recommended for combat for the aircraft to fly above 7000m (with weapons).


Have you heard about the difference between "absolute ceiling" and "service ceiling"?

Who should I believe? Western propaganda without any hard evidence or Russian radar images and ukrainian eyewitnesses from (deleted) BBC report?



Western governments, and their ‘news’ media, are treating their citizens, their own publics, not really as citizens, but as suckers. They are treating them as subjects, instead of as citizens. This is not authentic democracy. It is neo-feudal; it is, in fact, a sophisticated form of fascism.

The entire “Buk” ‘explanation’ of the downing of the Malaysian airliner is for suckers only; and everyone in official circles, and in the press, who peddles it, is just as fake as the ridiculous story-line that he or she is peddling. To fall for it, after being provided all of the authentic evidence, which has been linked to here, is to be a willing slave to psychopaths.


Western Media Suppression of MH17 Evidence Reveals Political Agenda



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
An Ukrainian site,

uos.ua...

7,000-10,000m

In this scenario it only needed the cannon, so it wouldn't have been loaded with relatively heavy bombs.



posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: HappyThoughts
An Ukrainian site,

uos.ua...

7,000-10,000m

In this scenario it only needed the cannon, so it wouldn't have been loaded with relatively heavy bombs.


IS that the official website? Sukhoi made a statement themselves that the aircraft was nto able to hit that height for more than a few second without staling. ZAPHOD a aircraft expert even said as much. I take his word over other posters here who have a anti west bias.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join