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.

 

Flight MH17 - Searching for the Truth

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

So please tell me how the two missile scenario I presented is not plausible, if even highly probable.



We have had a lot of "plausible" theories being presented, so we can throw that one in as well.




posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Except that the above theory isn't just plausible, but extremely likely to have actually occurred as opposed to any air to air shoot down theories.

There's even photographic evidence of an SA-11 missing two missiles being moved out of theatre.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Hold on now. You require video proof that this person has changed their story? Yet you have no problem believing the Russian government that this person even exists without any kind of proof?



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Why wouldn't the Russians train the separatists on the equipment? There have been countless reports of that happening.



With the number of Russian soldiers in Ukraine on "holiday" im sure they could find some Russians to man it for them.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Except that the above theory isn't just plausible, but extremely likely to have actually occurred as opposed to any air to air shoot down theories.

There's even photographic evidence of an SA-11 missing two missiles being moved out of theatre.



There`s video with the supposed BUK launcher missing just one missile, so the two theory doesn`t fit the bill.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

And as Zaphod has pointed out a number of times they wouldn't even need training. The BUK system is designed to be easy to use.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Hold on now. You require video proof that this person has changed their story? Yet you have no problem believing the Russian government that this person even exists without any kind of proof?


I haven`t been hanging up on to the Russian/Ukrainian eyewitness that much.

Eyewitnesses can be bought by either side, so I`m just scrutinizing the ever changing "official" story and explore other possibilities.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Of course, there's always that possibility.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Xcathdra

And as Zaphod has pointed out a number of times they wouldn't even need training. The BUK system is designed to be easy to use.


And if you have read the OP and are able to understand Dutch (or Ukrainian/Russian...?) you would see it`s not that easy looking at the vid link I posted earlier, so please read the OP again about that part.
edit on 11 1 2015 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

False. Two missiles missing.



Point taken, I was reading the article of the OP...



To recap: After the destruction of MH17, a BUK launch pad that was missing one missile drove from Snizhne towards the Russian border.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

It's not that easy if you are being trained as a military trained and certified operator. As a lock and shoot system it was designed to be easy to use. Hence the complete lack of discrimination systems. Those add a lot of complexity to the system.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

There's a difference between using the SA-11 system in a tactical military situation, dodging electronic warfare and anti radiation missile detection and when using it in the simple turkey shoot scenario of locking on to and shooting down a 777.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So the article and the Ukrainian instructor are bogus on that part...or not ?

Why would they go into that length making us believe something, is it because they want us to believe something...?

...and yet the German intelligence service was saying the Russians weren`t behind it back in October.



Clearing Russia from presumed involvement in the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17, German intelligence officials say they have "unambiguous" evidence that the crash was caused by pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine, Der Spiegel reported Sunday.

The information was presented earlier this month to members of a parliamentary control committee by the president of Germany's foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Gerhard Schindler.


Source

Beginning to see a pattern here ?



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The instructor probably meant that the SA-11 is too difficult to operate on a tactical military level, like how he is trained to do. It is not too difficult to operate on a no contest turkey shoot level.

Just because the crash was "caused" by the rebels doesn't mean the Russians weren't involved. A rebel launched the missiles, but who trained them or gave them the weapon systems?



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I've never said Russia was behind it, and neither have most people on here. Most people say that it was an accident by the rebels.

The article and instructor are looking at being trained as a military grade operator. Able to frequency hop, target differentiate, etc. To be trained to that level is extremely difficult.

However, even the Russian military has said that if you were simply locking on to a target and firing, and there were no countermeasures, etc, the system is fairly easy to use. It was designed that way because at the time it entered service all the operators were conscripts and 90% left after their time was up. It takes years to train a competent antiair operator. When you have someone running it that is only around two or three years you make it as simple as possible.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

What ever changing official story? Since day one the MSM has pushed the rebels shooting down the 777 with a BUK. On the flip side the Russian media's story keeps changing as to who and what are responsible.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: justwanttofly

BUK instructor video :

Q. Are untrained people able to operate this missile ?

A. Impossible, if anyone doesn`t know how this works, how are they able operate it? Here has to be sitting a specialist...one who`s an engineer and has knowledge of radio-location.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

So how did they shoot down other planes with it? And who said there was no one to train them on it?



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

It has been said before, and I'll say it again, that untrained operators can't operate it in a tactical military situation. However, relatively untrained operators are able to use it to lock onto an airliner minding its own business and launch missiles at it. There are two entirely different meanings of "trained" at play here.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join