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.

 

MH17-Ukrainian BUK ?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
MH17-Ukrainian BUK ?

Russian weapon experts have made a thoroughly analysis of damage patterns on MH17 by looking at the online available pictures.

And while I have seen such analyses before, they were up until then pretty amateurish and by so not very trustworthy, but this one looks to be done much better.

The full document is published by the highly critical Russian opposition newspaper "Novaya Gazeta."

Conclusions of the Russian engineers MIC (including that of NGOs, which designs and manufactures missiles such as "Buck") are the following :

- It was a BUK missile

- The missile exploded very close by (something which was already known) and it exploded slightly above MH17 (which explains also the damage coming from outside to inside on the roof of the cockpit)

- The nature of the damage reveals also the missile couldn`t have come head on as what has been told along, which makes an Ukrainian culprit all over it much more likely


Despite what we have been shown in our Western media the whole time right after the MH17 tragedy, all what has been marked as being Separatists territory was not all of them. In fact, large pockets of the Ukrainian army were in the process of being trapped right at the border with Russia (those were the troops, we have heard later on in the media, surrendering/walking over the Russian border see here.

The entrapment of the Ukrainian forces were just happening right at that time. The situation was still very fluent at that time which the military report of the 16th of July also shows. As an example, the military report shows an attack on checkpoint Severnoye (at 0:53 min and pic 1) which is right above Shizne (the so called Separatist/Russian launch side pushed by The West).

Pic 1



Also the reports shows a penetrating attack to the South town Marinovka on the 16th of July in order to cut off the Southern Ukrainians troops at the Russian border (at 0:13 min and pic 2) . The penetrating attack was being done through Ukrainian hold territory to the right of where the BUK has been launched according to the Russian engineers (pic 3).

Pic 2



Pic 3



And at last, you can see in the video at 1:01 min that and attack now will come towards Komsomolskoye (pic 4) to cut of the Ukrainian army at Amvrosievka (pic 5, the area right under the supposed Russian engineers BUK launch site), something which hasn`t taken place yet !

Pic 4



Pic 5



Military report of the 16th of July, published the 17th of July

Full document translated by Google :

This was the "Buk-M1"




posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I'm just trying to keep the Russian story straight. So now they're saying that it was not a Ukrainian S 25 missile or strafing that took it down? After all it is hard to keep all of their "proof" straight.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I'm just trying to keep the Russian story straight. So now they're saying that it was not a Ukrainian S 25 missile or strafing that took it down? After all it is hard to keep all of their "proof" straight.


Russia ''don't have a story'' as they didn't directly blame anyone, unlike the U.S. who as we all know, attacked Russia immediately with propaganda, despite the fact that no facts had even been unearthed


Very good report, did you read it all mate? You must be a quick reader


EDIT: There is a lot of good information in that report, however due to the nature of the conflict, it still doesn't answer who the actual culprits were.
edit on -180002015-05-05T19:14:15-05:000000001531201515052015Tue, 05 May 2015 19:14:15 -0500 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
MH17-Ukrainian BUK ?

Russian weapon experts have made a thoroughly analysis of damage patterns on MH17 by looking at the online available pictures.


Online pictures? How about the actual metal fragments sent to London and analyzed by Jane's? Better than pictures me thinks.


AMSTERDAM, March 19 (Reuters) - A metal fragment from the crash site of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 matches a surface-to-air BUK rocket, a Dutch broadcaster said on Thursday, supporting a theory that the plane was downed by pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

The fragment was recovered by a Dutch journalist from the village of Hrabove several months ago near to where the plane was brought down last July, killing all 298 passengers and crew.

Dutch broadcaster RTL said it had had the shrapnel tested by international forensic experts, including defense analysts IHS Jane's in London, who said it matched the explosive charge of a BUK, a Russian-made anti-aircraft missile system.

Huffpost




And while I have seen such analyses before, they were up until then pretty amateurish and by so not very trustworthy, but this one looks to be done much better.


Jane's is a go to open source intelligence database of all available public evidence but I'm sure your's was "done much better" because it supports your bias.

Meh..MH-17 still has Russia's fingerprints all over it.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

Your whole point is meaningless and if YOU had bothered to read the article then it basically just confirms what the report you were referring to does.



Meh..MH-17 still has Russia's fingerprints all over it.


Indeed, the BUK, Russian made and used by both Ukrananian forces and the Pro-Russian, Ukranian Separatists.
edit on -180002015-05-05T19:27:12-05:00u1231201512052015Tue, 05 May 2015 19:27:12 -0500 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I'm just trying to keep the Russian story straight. So now they're saying that it was not a Ukrainian S 25 missile or strafing that took it down? After all it is hard to keep all of their "proof" straight.


I have never said it was an Ukrainian Su- 25 for sure and Russia never said officially it was a Su-25. Some Russian media have brought the Su-25 up as a possible theory, and because there are some who think Russian media is written by The Kremlin, they assume everything coming from Russian media is written by The Kremlin.

Officially, The Kremlin asked only about what they thought was a Su- 25 was doing so close by MH17, and seeing how the "official," Separatists/Russians theory was composed out of nothing more as so called evidence which could have been made up pretty easily, the US not wanting to share their evidence, Ukrainians frustrating the investigation right away and the Dutch government not seeming to be too keen to finding out what has happened, I have been looking also into other theories.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

Read again my posts here about it (last two pages)...

Link



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Like I said it's hard to keep up with the theories Russia has put out.


The Russian Union of Engineers has issued a report on what happened to flight MH17. The report has now been translated. It doesn’t leave open the option that MH17 was downed by a ground-to-air missile, something all other sources have so far labeled the most likely explanation for what happened on July 17. The Russian Union of Engineers instead claims the plane was attacked by a fighter jet, and that, since the east Ukraine rebels have no such jets, and multiple sides have confirmed there were no Russian jets in the vicinity, this jet had to have been Ukrainian air force.


source

The first claims from the Russian media were that a Ukrainian buk shot it down. Then came the claims that a Ukrainian fighter shot it down. Now they're going back to a buk scenario?

They also keep clamoring about where the report is where is the evidence. When they know damn good and well by looking at wiki the report is due in October 2015.

As far as I've seen the narrative from the west hasn't changed. Nope they claim separatetist rebels shot it down by accident with a buk.

I will wait until the official report comes out then compared it against all of the Russian versions.
edit on 5-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien


I have never said it was an Ukrainian Su- 25 for sure and Russia never said officially


I never claimed you did. I said it's hard keeping up with the Russian version. I find it rather humorous that you would assume the Russian media and Krelim spokes people are reflected by your opinion. Was that some kind Of freduin slip ?



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: howmuch4another

Your whole point is meaningless and if YOU had bothered to read the article then it basically just confirms what the report you were referring to does.



Meh..MH-17 still has Russia's fingerprints all over it.


Indeed, the BUK, Russian made and used by both Ukrananian forces and the Pro-Russian, Ukranian Separatists.


I did read it and agree with Greenhouse that it proves nothing when it comes to who fired what. The evidence early on of Separatists admitting on radio they f'ed up have never been debunked except by Russians saying it was propaganda. Never convinced me. Usually the first thing guilty parties cry is that they are being framed. Russia still is searching for someone to blame.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

As far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Kremlin hasn't actually put any theories out and besides, theories are just that.

Just to add though, I felt the behaviour of the U.S. & Kiev in response to MH-17 was just embarrassing, that's not just the media or other independent sources, but the actual people in charge, those in office, they tried to push the war with no evidence against Russia and that is the most scariest part.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Seems that Zaphod used the same incident and a better article. Looks like you're still calling everything propaganda that washes your point. Also did you claim Reuters is biased against Russia? lol



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Correct me if I'm wrong. I never said the Kremlin did I ?


Edit; Is there a offical Kremlin version? If not why are all the Russian newspapers screaming for the full Danish report?
edit on 5-5-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

I would not hold too much faith into them coming up with an all explaining investigative report...

"Trial perpetrators difficult"

...they are already covering their asses.

They don`t have a case against Russia/Separatists, some by the Ukrainian Secret Service supplied pictures and what looks to be a fabricated audio tape...which no one knows from what date they were, aren`t a case.
edit on 5 5 2015 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Correct me if I'm wrong. I never said the Kremlin did I ?


With your stance, you didn't have to



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

That's annoying. Lol

It seems that your suspicions were based on what most conspiracies are based on pure speculation.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

Jane`s revoked the article (probably because they lied in it)...the chief investigator has admitted they don`t have a case.


edit on 5 5 2015 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

That's annoying. Lol

It seems that your suspicions were based on what most conspiracies are based on pure speculation.


That's why they're just suspicions and not accusations



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Greathouse

I would not hold too much faith into them coming up with an all explaining investigative report...

"Trial perpetrators difficult"

...they are already covering their asses.

They don`t have a case against Russia/Separatists, some by the Ukrainian Secret Service supplied pictures and what looks to be a fabricated audio tape...which no one knows from what date they were, aren`t a case.


In any event. I will still wait for the official version, then compare it to the Russian version and see which one I think is more plausible.

But I absolutely refuse to make my mind up on secondhand knowledge, guesses and speculation as delivered by either media.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse



But I absolutely refuse to make my mind up on secondhand knowledge, guesses and speculation as delivered by either media.


And you have read the article and looked at the pictures given with it closely ?
edit on 5 5 2015 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join