MH17: 'Russian missile parts' at Ukraine crash site

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I was joking friend.

When reading or listening to a story, I always consider the source. My bet is you do the same thing.

I'm old enough to understand that after Ellsberg brought us the Pentagon Papers, and so many other events and incidents since, the Pentagon is a source of propaganda and deception.

So, this silly story about the BUK launch is just another damn bit of deception. Maybe I'm a bit more perceptive than you, but I doubt it. Who knows, maybe I'm just better at connecting dots?

unlikely your showing a distinct bias that obviously clouds your judgrment.

a reply to: dragonridr

I guess I'm guilty as charged--I don't believe much at all that our pentagon says. They've lied and covered up all sorts of material regarding 911, and they've done the same thing with MH17. They put out a story early, then refused to prove it, even with all their satellites and video record. That they had to rely upon "social media" makes it funny. LOL

And speaking of social media, were you paying sufficient attention in the beginning to remember the Spaniard who worked for ATC in Ukraine? He went on Twitter early (I don't do Twitter, but I know what it is) describing the fighter jets in the vicinity of the flight, and the confiscation by Kiev authorities of ATC records regarding course and altitude changes for the flight.

I think his name was Carlos, but within hours or one day, that Twitter account was closed and Carlos was never heard from again.

So, maybe Carlos was making it all up, or maybe Carlos was telling the truth. How will we ever know?

a reply to: Salander

You mean the Carlos that under Ukrainian law couldn't have worked in air traffic control in the Ukraine?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Maybe so. I just posted everything I know about it. Heck, maybe it was Carlos the Jackal!

a reply to: Salander

So, maybe Carlos was making it all up, or maybe Carlos was telling the truth. How will we ever know?

Well we know it was made up, and it wasn't Carlos who did it...look to the source of the Carlos interview and the answer is there.

Carlos was a propaganda story from the Kremlin and reported by their mouth piece RT.

www.stopfake.org...

Matthew Bennett, editor of The Spain Report, has debunked one of yesterday's many disinformation campaigns. Yesterday, a man who identified himself as "Carlos,"supposedly a Spanish air traffic controller working in Kiev, made many fantastical claims on Twitter about yesterday's events.

Bennett has received confirmation from the Spanish embassy that "Carlos," a man who made similar claims during the Maidan protests, does not exist. Bennett tells us that, "he was posting yesterday that he was a Spanish controller in a tower that was taken over by soldiers as events unfolded. As far as I know, he was the source of the 'MH 17 tailed by two Ukrainian fighters' story. He's been quoted quite a bit on RT [the Russian state-operated propaganda network] since yesterday, and gained several thousand new Twitter followers in just a few hours."

pressimus.com...

a reply to: Salander

I guess I'm guilty as charged--I don't believe much at all that our pentagon says.

You guys have a Pentagon too? Cool!

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Or, the Carlos story actually happened, he was tweeting a truthful statement, for that transgression both he and his account were terminated.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Or, the Carlos story actually happened, he was tweeting a truthful statement, for that transgression both he and his account were terminated.

Thus contradicting all the other eyewitnesses who did not report three planes!

a reply to: DJW001

What eye witnesses do you refer to?

All I can remember is that Carlos supposedly worked in an ATC function, and early on he tweeted that something was going on, that military fighters were in the vicinity of MH17, and that ATC records had been taken by the Kiev government.

a reply to: Salander

Or, the Carlos story actually happened, he was tweeting a truthful statement, for that transgression both he and his account were terminated.

Funny thing is for him to be working as a controller they are required to have a work permit that would give him the right to work there.

Recent legislation in Ukraine makes it clear that in order to legally receive wages in Ukraine a foreigner must obtain a work permit.

And to obtain one this is what you need to provide...

Aside from filling out a standard visa application, you'll need to provide the following:

original work permit certificate plus copy (unnotarized is fine)
3 x 4 cm photo
passport original plus copy of main page (unnotarized is fine)
letter from employer on official letterhead stating that you've been accepted for work.
The IM-1 visa is single-entry. To leave Ukraine freely after receiving it you will need to receive a temporary residency certificate through the city OVIR authorizing you to come and go as you wish.

www.tryukraine.com...

So Carlos would have been easily verified had he been a real person.

Sorry he was not real and did not work in Ukrainian ATC as Russia would have you believe.

a reply to: Salander

All I can remember is that Carlos supposedly worked in an ATC function, and early on he tweeted that something was going on, that military fighters were in the vicinity of MH17, and that ATC records had been taken by the Kiev government.

Carlos could not have worked there as he would have been easily verified by his work permits.

As far as Ukrainian military jets in the vicinity...how did they not get shot down like other Ukraine military jets that flew over the same area just days before this happened?

The separatist made it clear that if Ukraine flew military aircraft's over their territory it would be shot down...how did these two make it without that happening?

a reply to: Salander

What eye witnesses do you refer to?

Here we go again:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Oh, somebody has investigated Ukrainian work permits?

Clearly it doesn't matter at this point. Either he was real, or not.

The important thing is that the damage observed appears to have been cannon fire among other things, even as the Canadian fellow said.

The other important thing is that the US and NATO have been unable to prove their initial allegations, even with all their sophisticated assets. And that failure to prove makes it all look like a classic false flag operation.

And if the Russian pictures of 27 firing missile is true and accurate, well....my theory is becoming pretty solid.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Oh, somebody has investigated Ukrainian work permits?

Clearly it doesn't matter at this point. Either he was real, or not.

The important thing is that the damage observed appears to have been cannon fire among other things, even as the Canadian fellow said.

The other important thing is that the US and NATO have been unable to prove their initial allegations, even with all their sophisticated assets. And that failure to prove makes it all look like a classic false flag operation.

And if the Russian pictures of 27 firing missile is true and accurate, well....my theory is becoming pretty solid.

I'm guessing you meant the fake sattelite photo that Russia released as evidence? You know the one that turned out to be from Georgia. That picture wasn't even a sat photo like Russia claimed. And I don't know why you keep insisting the US and NATO are trying to prove anything? The investigation is being done by the dutch. There is nothing for the US or NATO to do but wait for the results of the investigation.

Your need to tie the US and NATO into your conspiracy theory says a lot.

a reply to: dragonridr

The point sir, is that the US made all these allegations last year, and in the following 12 or 15 months now have chosen NOT to prove their allegations.

Maybe it's just my perspective because I was subjected to a "One Hour Special" by all 3 of the US networks on the day it happened. Slight exaggeration here, but it almost received more coverage than 911.

And those "One Hour Specials" all followed essentially the same scenario--they quoted "Unnamed sources" within the Defense Department. No names, but absolute certainty as to exactly what happened. Yes, the picture was crystal clear, so much so that they even heard the bad guys on Twitter and Facebook.

Yeah, it was pure propaganda and very easy for an old cynical bastard like myself to recognize.

And in the year since, not one scintilla of proof besides Facebook and Twitter. Excuse me, please, as I roll on the floor laughing.

a reply to: Salander

You mean the picture of the Su-27 firing at the Boeing test 767? Yeah somehow I don't think that's real.

a reply to: Salander

The point sir, is that the US made all these allegations last year, and in the following 12 or 15 months now have chosen NOT to prove their allegations.

You speak as though the US were a coherent political body that speaks with one voice. The United States government has made no claims as to what it officially believes happened that day. It has only said that it will "hold Russia responsible." This does not mean that they believe Russian personnel were directly involved, it only means that Russian support for the rebels created the conditions that allowed the incident to happen. There have been allegations by blogs, news commentators, etc, but these individuals do not necessarily have access to evidence. In the the United States and EU, we are allowed to express our opinions without necessarily being required to back them up with hard evidence. Apparently this is not the case where you live.

Maybe it's just my perspective because I was subjected to a "One Hour Special" by all 3 of the US networks on the day it happened. Slight exaggeration here, but it almost received more coverage than 911.

We all know this is not an exaggeration, it is a bare faced lie. Unless you can dig up something to substantiate your claim, it stands as evidence that you are completely ignorant of even everyday details of American life. "Nearly as much coverage as 911?" How much coverage did 911 get that day? 90 minutes? Three hours? How much of the network profit streams were flushed down the toilet to cover MH17?

And those "One Hour Specials" all followed essentially the same scenario--they quoted "Unnamed sources" within the Defense Department. No names, but absolute certainty as to exactly what happened. Yes, the picture was crystal clear, so much so that they even heard the bad guys on Twitter and Facebook.

Surely you must have a video recording to back this statement up. As for twitter and facebook:



Russian propaganda sources continue to use the photographs from this rebel post, but not the claim that they downed a Ukrainian fighter that day. In fact, the post has disappeared. Why do you suppose that is? Because a Russian trained missile crew would never make a mistake?

Yeah, it was pure propaganda and very easy for an old cynical bastard like myself to recognize.

And what does a cynical SOB like you make of the reports emanating from Moscow? Super-powered ground support aircraft? Incredibly accurate cannons? Infra-red guided missiles hitting the cockpit instead of the engines? Witnesses who don't agree on how many planes there were, how many explosions there were, and so forth? Mysterious Spanish flight controllers with no history in the real world. Ukrainian mechanics who can overhear a spoken conversation from meters away on a jet airfield? Are you getting the ring of truth from that side?

And in the year since, not one scintilla of proof besides Facebook and Twitter. Excuse me, please, as I roll on the floor laughing.

You have a perverted sense of humor. Innocent people died, and you are pissing on their memory just as surely as the ghouls who claim that 911 never happened.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

You mean the picture of the Su-27 firing at the Boeing test 767? Yeah somehow I don't think that's real.

I don't think people realize just how big a whole 30 mm cannon makes. It amazes me how anyone can look at mh17 photos and think that's cannon damage.

a reply to: DJW001

Well I beg to differ with you sir, and I did not notice you sitting in my living room watching the Evening News with me.

Call me a liar if you must, but I saw what I saw, on the Big 3 networks. It was 3 "one hour specials", one for each network. It's fascinating but understandable how they all 3 march in lock step, though I understand you may not be aware of it.

I don't speak or read Russian, and I don't do Twitter or other social media.

All 3 networks "had been informed" by "ANONYMOUS government sources". The case was certain--it was a BUK launch that took down the airliner.

Except that when the pictures came out the cannon fire damage was obvious to anyone paying attention.

So whatever point you're trying to make about the government having many spokesmen is way lost on me. It sounds to me like you're rather desperate, and gravely disappointed, that the government has been most uncooperative in proving that it was BUK, and that you yourself are unable to prove anything. Yes, yes, you can repeat the official story, I get that, but you cannot prove it was BUK.

Call me cynical, but there is very little coming from the Pentagon, OR any other branch of government, that I believe without some sort of proof. Sorry dude. We just agree to disagree.

On the humorous and interesting side, by accident I happened to catch Bill Clinton's Prime Time Announcement on TV of the TWA800 incident, and it was also by accident that I happened to be watching the Evening News with the MH17 incident. What a coincidence that they both happened on the same day in July, 18 years apart.

a reply to: Salander

Call me a liar if you must, but I saw what I saw, on the Big 3 networks. It was 3 "one hour specials", one for each network. It's fascinating but understandable how they all 3 march in lock step, though I understand you may not be aware of it.

Unless you can document this claim, I call BS. In case you haven't noticed, I'm a news junkie who has been following this story. Not even PBS gave it a full hour. The United States government does not need to prove it was a BUK missile, as it has never claimed it was.