Exclusive: From 'Red October' village, new evidence on downing of Malaysian plane over Ukraine

a reply to: Zaphod58

Since when is a height of 7km low altitude ?

Let`s see what we got as evidence for the theory you have been pushing since the first couple of hours after it happened :

- US not giving available satellite/radar data, while they had airplanes, ships and satellites at the spot and for sure have data

- SBU (Ukrainian Secret Service) pushing all kinds of falsified information

- Western Media and Politicians who have been pushing only one theory possible, and that is, it was Russian/Separatists, while they have done nothing else during more then one year and trying to blame them for everything which went on the Ukraine

- We have actual real experts saying months later they are not able to confirm the theory about it were either Russian or Separatists with a BUK missile with publicly available evidence

- We have experts confirming they can`t tell what has brought down MH17 for sure, the pictures of the damage on the wreckage are simply not telling enough

- We have you saying you`re an expert and are able to do something which real experts weren`t even able to do with a lot more evidence months later...and you can`t show any scans of analysis of major air accident investigations which you have done (something which an actual expert is able to do). Seeing you also make the claim debris is only capable being spread like that at heights of 10km and not at heights of 7km, a real air crash investigation expert has absolutely no problem in making such an analysis and is able to present that to us

So all in all, the "official" theory isn`t much of a case, the available evidence is actually really weak for support of that theory...yet it has been pushed as gospel from day one, while it follows a pattern of blaming Putin falsely with one thing after another.

Long story short, Western Media, Western Politicians and you have failed to make a solid case about the "official" theory !

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Seven kilometers is also over the ceiling of an Su-25 still. So how did it manage to use its gun on it if it still couldn't reach that high?

Show me where I said I was an expert. I said I have a lot of experience with aircraft, not that I was an expert. Experience tells me, and anyone else with experience that debris is going to react a certain way when certain events happen. A debris field this size means that they were at or near cruising altitude. Even 10,000 feet lower would mean a smaller debris field.

So you agree with the experts that say what you want, but the designer of the Su-25 saying it couldn't shoot down a 777 and its armament couldn't cause it to explode like it did is wrong. Got it.

And you've failed to prove that a fighter was involved.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Show me where I said I was an expert. I said I have a lot of experience with aircraft, not that I was an expert. Experience tells me, and anyone else with experience that debris is going to react a certain way when certain events happen. A debris field this size means that they were at or near cruising altitude. Even 10,000 feet lower would mean a smaller debris field.

You act like an authority on the matter to support your lack of skill to make an analysis about what has happened.

Where is your analysis on the debris field, or are admitting you don`t have the experience to come to such a conclusion, but it`s nothing more as, "I say it is so, so it is that way?"

And you've failed to prove that a fighter was involved.

You`re right about that, I haven't done anything else as exploring what other theories are being possible without pushing what I say as being the truth. I have however been basing one of the other possible theories on eye witness accounts, data delivered by the Russians, analysis of the wreckage by others, an on the spot being OCSE monitor and a journalist with good credentials claiming he has a source in the US intelligence to come up with possible involvement, somehow, of a fighter jet...and nothing more as that.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

So only experts can understand how something is going to interact during events. People that have spent their lives working on something, and studying it don't, or can only state what should happen after they write a study. Got it.

And again, you ignore the person that DESIGNED the aircraft you say was involved saying it's not possible that it did it, but you stand behind eyewitnesses claiming nothing more than speculation since they didn't see it happen, and Russian data that makes less sense than an Su-25 did it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I stand by, that there are witnesses who have seen a fighter jet close by the tragedy, which can indicate some kind of involvement in the events.

And yes, when it comes to such complex matters, an actual experts are saying they can`t tell, a semi-expert can`t tell for sure with the same amount of evidence what has happened.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

So the experts with the data can't tell that the aircraft exploded suddenly at cruising altitude, despite releasing that the FDR suddenly stopped with indications of a sudden explosion. And the CVR didn't show any signs of impact prior to its destruction, or that the pilots didn't notice anything near them.

And yes, you can say that the aircraft exploded at high altitude based on the available data even without the FDR and CVR data. As well as come up with the most likely cause.

So despite cloud cover and haze, they were able to see a tiny fighter flying at high altitude.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Zaphod58

I stand by, that there are witnesses who have seen a fighter jet close by the tragedy, which can indicate some kind of involvement in the events.

And yes, when it comes to such complex matters, an actual experts are saying they can`t tell, a semi-expert can`t tell for sure with the same amount of evidence what has happened.

You do realize that Russia never supplied the dutch with proof of this airplane. They didnt give them radar data had Ukraines it was available. Russia did release a satellite photo later shown to be from 2012. So it appears Russia put together a powerpoint with no evidence it occurred. And you fell for it without even questioning it.

a reply to: dragonridr

Russia has given its radar images to the OOV, unlike the US has.

a reply to: Zaphod58

In your opinion...how would the wreckage of MH17 look like when it was hit by a BUK missile?

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Any large Surface to Air Missile would almost certainly have immediately destroyed the aircraft as we saw here.

As for specific damage, it would be very similar to the damage done here. Almost all of them use rods in their warheads to cause more damage. That would create holes like we see in the wreckage, including the tears in the wings.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Does a BUK missile give lots of shrapnel damage on a plane ?

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

It's a rod type warhead on most of the missiles used on it, so yes.

The SA-11 uses the 9m38 missile. It operates with a 154 pound fragmentation high explosive warhead. It has a roughly 17m lethal radius at detonation.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It seems however that MH17 wreckage in general shows a lack of it, so how do explain that?

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

There's a lot of shrapnel damage. The mass of holes near the cockpit, there are rips in the top of the wing where it looks like pieces of shrapnel skipped along the skin. The shrapnel holes on the fuselage are going to be concentrated near the donation area.

a reply to: Zaphod58

There's a lot of shrapnel damage. The mass of holes near the cockpit, there are rips in the top of the wing where it looks like pieces of shrapnel skipped along the skin. The shrapnel holes on the fuselage are going to be concentrated near the donation area.

So you say it might not have been a BUK after all ?

MH17 wreckage: Where was the rocket? (1)

MH 17 wreckage: Where was the rocket? (2)

MH 17 wreckage: Where was the rocket? (3)

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Since when is a height of 7km low altitude ?

Commercial jets operate at 30 km.

Let`s see what we got as evidence for the theory you have been pushing since the first couple of hours after it happened :

- US not giving available satellite/radar data, while they had airplanes, ships and satellites at the spot and for sure have data

There is nothing to suggest that the US had aircraft, radar or satellites monitoring the area at the time.

- SBU (Ukrainian Secret Service) pushing all kinds of falsified information

FSB pushing all sorts of false and self contradictory "information."

- Western Media and Politicians who have been pushing only one theory possible, and that is, it was Russian/Separatists, while they have done nothing else during more then one year and trying to blame them for everything which went on the Ukraine

Russian media pushing a number of contradictory theories, always blaming Ukraine, not separatists.

- We have actual real experts saying months later they are not able to confirm the theory about it were either Russian or Separatists with a BUK missile with publicly available evidence

And the very same experts positive that it could not have been shot down by a ground support plane.

- We have experts confirming they can`t tell what has brought down MH17 for sure, the pictures of the damage on the wreckage are simply not telling enough

And yet Russian sources conclude definitively that it must have been an air to air missile and machine gun fire.

So all in all, the "official" theory isn`t much of a case, the available evidence is actually really weak for support of that theory...yet it has been pushed as gospel from day one, while it follows a pattern of blaming Putin falsely with one thing after another.

Actually, there is more evidence against the story that the Russian media have been pushing since day one.

Long story short, Western Media, Western Politicians and you have failed to make a solid case about the "official" theory !

And Russia has failed miserably to even invent a consistent story. But believe what you choose to believe.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I said it was a Surface to Air Missile. Being that the Buk was known to be in the area, was most likely used to shoot down a Ukrainian military aircraft prior to MH17, it's the most likely weapon used.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I said it was a Surface to Air Missile. Being that the Buk was known to be in the area, was most likely used to shoot down a Ukrainian military aircraft prior to MH17, it's the most likely weapon used.

In Dutch it`s called a "BUK rakket," and rakket = rocket, we don`t call it a missile like in English, so it`s nothing more as Google Translate.

The question is simply, where is the BUK missile ?

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I said it was a Surface to Air Missile. Being that the Buk was known to be in the area, was most likely used to shoot down a Ukrainian military aircraft prior to MH17, it's the most likely weapon used.

In Dutch it`s called a "BUK rakket," and rakket = rocket, we don`t call it a missile like in English, so it`s nothing more as Google Translate.

The question is simply, where is the BUK missile ?

Where is the air to air missile?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I said it was a Surface to Air Missile. Being that the Buk was known to be in the area, was most likely used to shoot down a Ukrainian military aircraft prior to MH17, it's the most likely weapon used.

In Dutch it`s called a "BUK rakket," and rakket = rocket, we don`t call it a missile like in English, so it`s nothing more as Google Translate.

The question is simply, where is the BUK missile ?

Where is the air to air missile?

It doesn`t talk about an AAM, the only questions which is asked, "where is the damage caused by a BUK ?"