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: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Zaphod58

You have made up your mind a long time ago it seems without actual evidence to proof it, your only proof was it has happened before, like it never happened that an airliner has been brought down by anything else...let`s say a bomb, mechanical failure or by a jet fighter.


In psychological terms, this is called "projection."




posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Not being convinced about something from the get go without solid evidence is "projection"...well, you`re never to old to learn.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I made up my mind based on facts as they were known. The aircraft exploded at high altitude. There were shrapnel marks on the outside skin, meaning something detonated outside the aircraft. That immediately rules out bomb or mechanical failure. The only two left are air to air missile, or SAM. Air to air missiles have small warheads on them, which means they damage rather than cause a larger target to explode, unless they detonate near an almost empty fuel tank, which from the shrapnel damage this did not. A SAM has a huge warhead and is designed to do much more damage than an AAM. A SAM impacting a large aircraft, no matter where, doesn't require a miracle shot to cause the aircraft to come apart.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Denying that the most likely cause is what happened, because you don't like who's saying it is a different matter.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I was interested in how long it took you to come to that conclusion, because you made it look like you based it on shrapnel damage to the MH17...but within just 15 min you were already pointing your finger the 17th, so without pictures of damage what so ever, and when it even wasn`t sure what really had happened just a couple of hours later that day.
edit on 14 1 2015 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

To be fair though even the earliest evidence pointed to a BUK fired by the separatists. Even if we ignore the intercepted phone call we have a Twitter account associated with the separatists claiming to have downed a transport at the same time the 777 was downed. This tweet was then promptly deleted. On top of that somebody with ties to Russia knew pretty quickly that MH17 had been downed considering Putin is the one who informed Obama about the event.

Since then, as more evidence has come forward, this narrative has strengthened. We know it wasn't mechanical failure because of a.) fragmentation damage and b.) the black box shows no kind of system failure. We know it wasn't a bomb because the damage came from the outside. In order to make the AAM narrative work one has to go through some crazy mental gymnastics.

Based on the evidence so far the most likely series of events are the ones that were originally laid out. A group of separatists mistakenly shot down a 777 thinking it was a Ukrainian military transport.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

So an account which could have been hacked to cover up something and not much else as conclusive evidence, and we all of a sudden know it all...sure.

And even the Separatists being behind is disputed big time in the OP, by other experts and the German BND...

...what`s next, it`s proved Santa Claus is real...?



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Really? You should go double check those timestamps. I started the thread at 11:28. An hour later I was talking about planes shot down with MANPADS as opposed to SAM launchers. I still hadn't said anything about this flight being shot down for sure. It wasn't until other evidence came out that I started saying it was shot down, and the physical evidence that came out later just confirmed it.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

As opposed to stories about radar that's not transmitting picking up targets, ground attack planes flying higher than they can fly, air to air missiles with small warheads doing more damage than they can do, and a witness that claims that two planes were shot down, with no one reporting any wreckage of them?



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Based on the evidence so far the most likely series of events are the ones that were originally laid out. A group of separatists mistakenly shot down a 777 thinking it was a Ukrainian military transport.


My information on the BUK anti-aircraft system says that it takes years of training to operate and it well beyond impossible to pick up in a few months. Even if separatists started training on BUK missile system on the first day the separatists started fighting they would not be proficient enough to operate the system.

www.vox.com...

These guys say it's easy...just to show the other side:
www.wired.co.uk...
Personally I think they are crazy and have never seen the inside of anything more complex than the BMW in their driveway.

If it was a BUK, as the evidence suggests, then it was Russian Military personnel who pulled the trigger. I don't believe Russia would allow it's soldiers to be commanded by Separatists, so the order to shoot must have been given by a Russian officer.
edit on 14-1-2015 by noeltrotsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It was 25 min before you already said...



Not that I'm saying it was shot down, but under the Soviet government at least two civilian airliners were shot down. So why couldn't it happen now?

Or it could have been a mistake by the operator. They're human, and make mistakes.

But it's way too early to say that it was shot down.


Followed up by more not much later on...I said suggestion.

You didn`t even know at that time it wasn`t a bomb or the Ukrainians with their BUK systems, so yes, way too soon in combination with your follow up posts.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Did you bother to read the first words?

Not that I'm saying it was shot down. I wasn't stating that it was shot down, I was stating that the possibility was there, and that it had happened in the past.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The thing is the rebels never claimed their Twitter accounts were hacked. They just deleted the tweets immediately after they found out what was shot down was a 777.

I think one also needs to look at Putin's initial reaction. Sure he blamed Ukraine but not for actually downing the plane. He said it was their fault because they caused events to escalate in eastern Ukraine. He basically said the rebels did it but they wouldn't have made that mistake if Ukraine wasn't trying to keep their country in one piece.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

It takes years of training to operate it as a military operator, but according to multiple sources it was designed to be simple to operate compared to other systems. It doesn't even have target differentiation systems installed.


The Buk-M1 (SA-11 Gadfly to NATO) can be used by minimally trained operators to deliver a lethal attack, without the safeguards built into other comparable GBADS, an Aviation Week analysis shows. It is also one of the two GBADS — both of Soviet origin — that are most widely distributed in conflict zones with the potential for large-scale, cross-border or civil violence.

aviationweek.com...

What makes it so hard to operate, and requires the most training is being able to differentiate between friend and foe. If you don't have friendly aircraft then identifying between the two is less difficult, and the system becomes easier to operate.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

As opposed to stories about radar that's not transmitting picking up targets, ground attack planes flying higher than they can fly, air to air missiles with small warheads doing more damage than they can do, and a witness that claims that two planes were shot down, with no one reporting any wreckage of them?


The Ukrainians themselves have told two planes were shot down, just as Poroshenko writing in official letter about the AN-26 being brought down by AAM and also the Ukrainians again themselves saying the blew up 3 Separatist (or Russian...?) tanks the 17th of July.

We have also now the Ukrainians indirectly admitting about them having lied about what brought down the AN-26, but also that they have lied big time about there being satellite images which proved the Separatist had fired a BUK.

That all doesn`t sound very trustworthy now doesn`t it ?...but yet that`s the crap we have been fed to believe the whole time.
edit on 14 1 2015 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

I couldn't say how easy or hard it is to use a BUK. From what I've read it seems like as you add on more components the more complicated it becomes to operate. If you just have the basic launch platform it seems to be more or less a point and kill interface. Of course you'll have no idea what exactly you're aiming at.

That said... We know Ukraine has BUKs. We also know there are former Ukrainian military within the rebels ranks. It's highly possible some of them know how to operate a BUK.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

If there were Russian Mig-29s helping the Separatists out, they also would provide the cover story for the Russians by saying it was them, and they could have jumped the gun this time.
edit on 14 1 2015 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

So a politician wouldn't lie to get an advantage? I said it before, if Russia does it, it's proof they invaded, and they get military aid. If the separatists shot it down, they don't. So yes, he's going to lie to use it to his advantage. They also said that the SAM that shot down the AN-26 had to have come from inside Russia.

But yet, you trust Russia which has said that a radar in standby picked up an Su-25 flying higher that its ceiling, which jumped all over the fake satellite photo that showed an Su-27 shooting a missile at a 767, and has told several other lies as it went on. They're trustworthy to you.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

yet in the end the evidence shows it was brought down by a sam and not aam.



posted on Jan, 14 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: noeltrotsky

I couldn't say how easy or hard it is to use a BUK.


Try it yourself! There is a similator built for the BUK precurssor the KRUG

Here is a guy trying to hit a practice target...
youtu.be...

Here is the simulator if you wanna give it a go...
sites.google.com...

You probably don't want to know why these guys in Hungary have all the manuals and built a simulator....haha!




top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join