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.

 

Angry families of MH17 crash victims seek U.N. investigation

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Shooting Down MH 17 – BUK 312 Story False Says Ukraine Crew Member



The shoot down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH 17 came into greater focus with the December 15 YouTube video featuring a former crew member of BUK self-propelled fire installation, number 312 (BUK 312). Ukraine’s government and others maintained that the BUK 312 unit shot down MH17 while manned by a resistance crew.

The Obama administration championed that narrative holding both the resistance and Russia responsible for the 298 deaths on July 17. The interview was conducted by investigative journalist Anatoly Sharij and translated by Marina Stewart (see full test in English at end of this article).

The 23-year-old former BUK 312 crewmember revealed that the missile unit was in fact manned by the Ukraine military. He outlines the missile system’s location and how it operated. The former sergeant also offered analysis and research indicating the very low probability that the 312 crew shot down MH17.

Interviewer Sharij asks: “This BUK 312 was said to be a Russian missile launcher.”

A responds: “No. This BUK is 100% Ukrainian one. … It made us all laugh, the way SBU presented this as BUK of the rebels or Russian BUK.”


Source




posted on Dec, 18 2014 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Any reason this was never released until now?

Secondly its a load of BS.

The rebels already took responsibility for shooting it down.

Finally stopfake.org addressed the buk several times now. It was no more true then than it is now.


edit on 18-12-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah sure, it makes perfect sense to exclude the country whose airplane was the crash airplane.

Perfect sense, if one wants to control the outcome of the investigation.




posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

How air crash investigations has been covered several times now.

Maybe you should go brush up so you don't make any stupid comments with no basis in reality - like claiming Malaysia is not part of the investigation, which is wrong.


MH17 Wiki

Participating in the investigation along with The Netherlands, are the 4 other members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT),[216] Belgium, Ukraine, Australia, and Malaysia.[217] Malaysia was the last to join the JIT, being accepted as a full member in late November.[216][218]





edit on 19-12-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien




Shooting Down MH 17 – BUK 312 Story False Says Ukraine Crew Member


Better late than never...which still proves nothing as the BUK in question has the middle number obscured, and I haven't seen anyone say it was BUK 312.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: BornAgainAlien




Shooting Down MH 17 – BUK 312 Story False Says Ukraine Crew Member


Better late than never...which still proves nothing as the BUK in question has the middle number obscured, and I haven't seen anyone say it was BUK 312.



I think this occurred because the prelim report confirmed it was shot down by a surface to air missile.

This has been ongoing since July and how many versions have the soviets, err Russians given thus far? The Russian media has finished its transition from propaganda over to sci fi.



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

This must be a lie! Russia has proof that it was a Ukrainian ground support aircraft! Right? Hello?



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
This a holes were hoping to mix evidence that Russians shot it down. In fact Boingn was taken down amaturely to escalate the ongoing conflict.


To those supporters of the war. Scumbags you are. Cheers.

Cheers.
edit on 19-12-2014 by darkorange because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkorange
This a holes were hoping to mix evidence that Russians shot it down. In fact Boingn was taken down amaturely to escalate the ongoing conflict.


To those supporters of the war. Scumbags you are. Cheers.

Cheers.


Do you have anything to support your position?



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

You know, there's something a little odd about that image you love to trot out on these occasions. Explain how a .50cal round leaves a .50cal hole, a 20mm round leaves a 20mm hole, yet a 30mm round leaves a 100mm hole? Is it because that's the result of a 30mm HE round hitting armor plate and detonating? What would a 30mm round hitting a flimsy piece of aluminium leave? A 30mm diameter hole maybe? And of course there's the very obvious grouping of impacts in the centre of the piece of wreckage. Do you think a SAM strike could leave such a tight grouping?


WOW, yes!! Thank you for saving others the need to debunk tsurfer's total BS.

That is a HEDP round there tsurfer200h.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny




WOW, yes!! Thank you for saving others the need to debunk tsurfer's total BS.


Care to show where he debunked anything?

As he has been shown on several occasions that the gun in question makes bigger holes than what was shown on MH 17, but please feel free to engage me and prove what I said was wrong.

So let's see you take me down and prove my post wrong with verifiable evidence, since all I have posted is BS? Take all the time you need, because trust me your going to need it.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny




That is a HEDP round there tsurfer200h.


And where did I say it wasn't?

Again you going to tell me that a shell this big...



Makes holes this big...



Oh and btw here is a 20mm hole...



Again those are bigger than what is said to be holes from a 30mm gun from a plane that has no possibility of shooting down a plane at that height, but hey as I said above feel free to prove me wrong.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

The prelim report released by the dutch states it was high velocity - a surface to air missile.

I will go with the dutch who have been able to inspect the wreckage.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




I will go with the dutch who have been able to inspect the wreckage.


How can you not, as they are the ones who lead this investigation.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Hmmm, where to start......


originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: 8675309jenny




That is a HEDP round there tsurfer200h.


And where did I say it wasn't?

Again you going to tell me that a shell this big...



Makes holes this big...





A shell that big doesn't make ANY hole since it remains in the gun.






Oh and btw here is a 20mm hole...





Actually, that is 100% NOT a 20mm hole; those holes appear to be about 125-150mm. Did you mean those are holes from a 20mm projectile? Quite possibly, but only high explosive rounds.

Of course you did know the H.E. in HEDP stands for "High Explosive" right?




Again those are bigger than what is said to be holes from a 30mm gun from a plane that has no possibility of shooting down a plane at that height, but hey as I said above feel free to prove me wrong.


In all seriousness tsurfer, no, I sure as hell don't think that hole in the fuselage came from any kind of ballistic projectile. It looks like an explosion from a proximity triggered weapon, but it's silly of the dutch or anyone to claim they can tell whether it was from air-to-air or surface-to-air.

That panel also has tons of what appears to be small arms fire, but it's most likely the damage from the AA flak fragments.

Also being sincere here; those 30mm HEDP rounds won't put a hole in a commercial fuselage any larger than the round itself (30mm) because they need a hard impact with something to trigger the explosive charge. They are designed for armor piercing (generally 1/2inch steel plate and thicker). They will go through airliner fuselage like butter and not explode until they hit something substantial like a brace, bracket or landing gear. So in most cases that round would go straight through a commercial airplane and never explode, just depressurize the plane.



posted on Dec, 20 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny

Being the explosives used differ from ground to air and air to air missiles it can be determined which weapon was used. The explosives used in surface to air missiles is larger than ones used in air to air missiles.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny




In all seriousness tsurfer, no, I sure as hell don't think that hole in the fuselage came from any kind of ballistic projectile. It looks like an explosion from a proximity triggered weapon, but it's silly of the dutch or anyone to claim they can tell whether it was from air-to-air or surface-to-air.


Well the fact that there was no plane near the airliner when it went down pretty much debunks the air to air theory.



That panel also has tons of what appears to be small arms fire, but it's most likely the damage from the AA flak fragments.


And exactly where was the plane that supposedly fired an air to air that brought the airliner down, because nothing has been shown to prove a jet was near the airliner...and the Russian radar that supposedly saw this mystery plane was a fabrication by Russia.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Just so we're all on the same page: a civilian airliner crashed into rebel-held territory in eastern Ukraine. Initially, rebel forces tweeted that they had shot down a loyalist bomber, then quickly removed that post. Most governments and news outlets assumed that it was accidentally shot down by rebels. The Russian controlled media had several different stories:

1. According to eyewitnesses, it was being pursued by two Ukrainian fighters, one of which shot it down.

2. Other witnesses averred that Ukrainian fighters were known to fly near civilian planes, shooting at the ground to fool rebel missile crews into shooting down the civilian plane by mistake.

3. An alleged radar capture was produced showing a single plane attacking the commercial liner. The Russian theory was now that the downing was a "false flag."

4. A bad photoshop photograph was aired on Russian TV and quickly spread by Russian propagandists online. The story out of Russia was that Kyiv deliberately shot down a civilian airplane with an air to air missile, then falsely accused the rebels of shooting it down with a surface to air missile.

5. As the investigation committee prepares to release its findings, Russian propaganda outlets now suddenly discover that Ukraine had a surface to air missile in the area, complete with a confession from an unnamed Ukrainian soldier....

Now: who's going with: "Whatever the last thing Moscow said is true?"



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

By chance when it happened, I happened to see the amateur footage and interviews conducted by a young blond woman working for BBC.

The several peasants interviewed by the lady and her interpreter ALL reported seeing and hearing military jets in the vicinity of the airliner.

The amateur video (slightly out of focus) clearly showed the last few moments of the stricken airliner, spiraling down with ONE of its engines engulfed.

So, your statement is not really accurate. For some "mysterious" reason, BBC pulled that report fairly quickly after it aired. Ooops!



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

By chance when it happened, I happened to see the amateur footage and interviews conducted by a young blond woman working for BBC.

The several peasants interviewed by the lady and her interpreter ALL reported seeing and hearing military jets in the vicinity of the airliner.

The amateur video (slightly out of focus) clearly showed the last few moments of the stricken airliner, spiraling down with ONE of its engines engulfed.

So, your statement is not really accurate. For some "mysterious" reason, BBC pulled that report fairly quickly after it aired. Ooops!



Thank you for verifying one of the many contradictory stories that have been pointed to by Russia. Note the use of the plural "jets." The alleged radar capture only showed one. Now Russian media are implying that it may have been a BUK surface to air missile after all, but fired by a Ukrainian crew.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join