MH 17 from another perspective

I am going to be Switzerland on this one i.e neutral because I really don't know the truth about what happened and I am not sure the culprit will ever own up.

It is interesting to see the German ex Lufthsansa's input suggesting the cockpit was fired upon by perhaps another plane....

Nevertheless, here is an interesting RT documentary with some information I've not seen before.

Make up your own minds and comment below

MH 17 The Utold Story by RT

**EDIT

I have just found a second doco from RT. I'll link it below am about to watch myself then will comment.

MH17 A Year Without The Truth

Wow

The wreckage has not been collected yet in its entirety - the second doco shows the reporter walking round and finding bits and passenger belongings in June 2015.

ATS, have any of you evidence of the supposed BUK rocket launch?

The eye witness accounts seem to suggest a completely different story to the rebel missile theory we are being told to believe.

Any WHY did the Ukranian govt shell the wreckage site?

I smell a very big conspiracy here!

There is a report due on the 13th October from Dutch investigators that will shed light on the MH17 shoot down and mass murder. There's also a criminal investigation which Russia are not cooperating with (I wonder why).

RT.com is a Russian government owned propaganda machine that has pumped out several "theories", all of which don't really stand the test of scrutiny. Many have been endlessly discussed on ATS.

The plausible explanation is MH 17 was shot down by a missile fired from and an area controlled by Russian supported separatists. The fact that Russian state controlled media have been instructed to come up with any other theory and "news" to fog the issues suggests to me that Russia are in some way complicit.

These RT.com articles are a proof in point. They are propaganda to achieve an end result.

originally posted by: paraphi
There is a report due on the 13th October from Dutch investigators that will shed light on the MH17 shoot down and mass murder. There's also a criminal investigation which Russia are not cooperating with (I wonder why).

RT.com is a Russian government owned propaganda machine that has pumped out several "theories", all of which don't really stand the test of scrutiny. Many have been endlessly discussed on ATS.

These RT.com articles are a proof in point. They are propaganda to achieve an end result.

But are they? Watch their non political docos and they are really excellent. Just because information is coming from a different (and opposing in this case) source, it does not mean that it should be immediately discounted without a closer look at the facts being presented.I am interested in the truth, not who is telling it.

Yes part 2 is quite politicised. However, even the former Malaysian PM is unsure if Russia really is to blame. And some of the facts ie the wreckage is still out there just laying around over a year later are astounding, not to mention unreported by western msm.

I found this interesting website on the alleged BUK launch

7mei.nl...

a reply to: markosity1973

1. The fact is that RT,.com is an official mouthpiece of Russia.
2. The fact that anyone can stick anything on the internet, but that does not make it true.
3. The fact is there are two Dutch investigations going on. Let's wait to see what the first one says.

Edit to add that no one is blaming Russia directly

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: markosity1973

1. The fact is that RT,.com is an official mouthpiece of Russia.
2. The fact that anyone can stick anything on the internet, but that does not make it true.
3. The fact is there are two Dutch investigations going on. Let's wait to see what the first one says.

Edit to add that no one is blaming Russia directly

Discounting RT just because of what it is does not mean that there is no fact within what is being presented. The same could be said of anything posted on the internet.

As we used to say in church, 'even the devil tells the truth sometimes' Not that I am equating Russia or RT as the devil mind you.

a reply to: markosity1973

You don't need the entire wreckage to investigate. If a plane crashes because the tail breaks off do you really need the cockpit and engines? What are they going to tell you?

The critical pieces of wreckage were removed and returned for the investigators.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, from what i have understood so far, there is great interest in the cockpit as it was compromised.

The bit that interests me is the german pilot (ex air force) who noted that some of the holes in the cockpit piece of wreckage looked ing thave been caused by 33 calibre weapons fire.

It is also interesting to note how the alleged plane that would have shot it down recently had its altitude capability data recently downgraded to below the altitude that mh17 was flying.

I don't know who or what caused it to crash, but what RT presents is intersting.

originally posted by: markosity1973The bit that interests me is the german pilot (ex air force) who noted that some of the holes in the cockpit piece of wreckage looked ing thave been caused by 33 calibre weapons fire.

This has been endlessly discussed and covered on ATS. There are too many armchair forensic "experts" who can tell a whole story from looking at a selection of holes. These people are lapped up where their opinion is reported as fact.

The photos I have seen show holes of many sizes and shapes consistent with objects of every size.

RT.com are pushing this angle to distract from other plausible theories. The Dutch report will hopefully give some real facts because real experts will have been used.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: markosity1973The bit that interests me is the german pilot (ex air force) who noted that some of the holes in the cockpit piece of wreckage looked ing thave been caused by 33 calibre weapons fire.

This has been endlessly discussed and covered on ATS. There are too many armchair forensic "experts" who can tell a whole story from looking at a selection of holes. These people are lapped up where their opinion is reported as fact.

The photos I have seen show holes of many sizes and shapes consistent with objects of every size.

RT.com are pushing this angle to distract from other plausible theories. The Dutch report will hopefully give some real facts because real experts will have been used.

All you are showing me is biased opinion. I have not once stated that the RT doco is hard fact, but you choose to attack the source rather than discuss it's content

a reply to: paraphi

Yes, thank you. we all know the main stream propaganda about what happened to the plane. After all, that story (Putin did it) came out before the wreckage had stopped smoldering.

Forensics by Mass Media.

Investigations don't take this long to get at the truth, they take this long to cover it up.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You don't need the entire wreckage to investigate. If a plane crashes because the tail breaks off do you really need the cockpit and engines? What are they going to tell you?

The critical pieces of wreckage were removed and returned for the investigators.

How do you determine which pieces are critical without looking at all of them? Maybe in accidents they don't need to see everything, but when planes are intentionally brought down thorough investigation becomes more important.

Yah, beginning from the corridor clearance through known hostile airspace by Ukrainian traffic control.

a reply to: intrptr

Thru did look at all of it. They determined what was critical and removed it.

The airspace over Donetsk where they were flying was open. They filed to fly over there, it was approved by everyone that had to approve it. They were far from the only ones using it.

a reply to: markosity1973

It wasn't downgraded. Sukhoi has had out posted all along as being below that of MH17s altitude. There was an IP traced on Wikipedia to Russia tasty upgraded the service ceiling of it.

Even if the cockpit had been hit by gunfire, it wouldn't have caused the aircraft to explode the way it did. According to the preliminary report there were no indications of any problems with the aircraft prior to the data recorders suddenly shutting off. If gunfire had hit the cockpit, there would have been sounds of it recorded and depressurization warnings recorded.

a reply to: markosity1973

ATS, have any of you evidence of the supposed BUK rocket launch?

Not one witness came forward with reports of missile trail climbing from the ground to altitude. They did in the documentary find a few witnesses that talked about a second plane.

A BUK launch is incredibly loud and leaves a distinct vapor trial.

Any WHY did the Ukranian govt shell the wreckage site?

To drive others off so they could get to the wreckage first and begin their cover up. You don't shell a crash site to protect the evidence…

Where is Kennedy's brain, anyway?

a reply to: intrptr

You mean get there first after the rebels were there? The rebels were on the scene shortly after the crash and were documented removing parts of the wreckage. Wait, they were trying to protect it, right?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thru did look at all of it. They determined what was critical and removed it.

"They" shelled the site to drive people off, how 'critical' was that?

They were cleared over Donetsk by Eurocontrol, who approved their and every other flight plan that day.

That was preflight. Ukraine orders to adjust were made during fight.

On the matter of MH17’s flight path, Malaysian Airlines confirms that the pilot was instructed to fly at a lower altitude by the Kiev air traffic control tower upon its entry into Ukraine airspace.

---

While the audio records of the MH17 flight have been confiscated by the Kiev government, the order to change the flight path did not come from Eurocontrol.


Global Research

Warning advisories were in effect for the region.

The prima facie evidence says that it was not safe, so somebody made a mistake. ICAO issued advisories weeks ago that airlines should avoid this area.


Pilots blog

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: markosity1973

It wasn't downgraded. Sukhoi has had out posted all along as being below that of MH17s altitude. There was an IP traced on Wikipedia to Russia tasty upgraded the service ceiling of it.

Even if the cockpit had been hit by gunfire, it wouldn't have caused the aircraft to explode the way it did. According to the preliminary report there were no indications of any problems with the aircraft prior to the data recorders suddenly shutting off. If gunfire had hit the cockpit, there would have been sounds of it recorded and depressurization warnings recorded.

Those are the kind of facts I am looking for

So..... if it is true that there was a second plane (Ukranian) there, and there was a BUK missile launcher parked in a field, do you think that it is possible that MH17 was an accidental casualty? ie they were aiming for the Ukrainian plane and missed, but got MH17 instead?

Is so, blame would lay with the Ukranian govt for keeping the airspace open in a conflict zone as much as the rebels or whoever pressed the fire button.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: markosity1973

ATS, have any of you evidence of the supposed BUK rocket launch?

Not one witness came forward with reports of missile trail climbing from the ground to altitude. They did in the documentary find a few witnesses that talked about a second plane.

A BUK launch is incredibly loud and leaves a distinct vapor trial.

Any WHY did the Ukranian govt shell the wreckage site?

To drive others off so they could get to the wreckage first and begin their cover up. You don't shell a crash site to protect the evidence…

Where is Kennedy's brain, anyway?

Those are my unanswered questions too. Something is not right about the BUK story. I'm not saying that the alternative story in the doco is the answer either, but the govt knew where the wreckage was and shelled it anyway.

On the most basic of levels, that is a violation of basic humanitarian rights of the victims.

Somebody is trying to hide something here.

originally posted by: markosity1973All you are showing me is biased opinion. I have not once stated that the RT doco is hard fact, but you choose to attack the source rather than discuss it's content

If the source is a propagator of poor content and the content has been repeatedly debunked, then I think I have commented. If you cannot take a contrary view, then you should not post.

My opinion is that I think the plausible theory has more weight that what RT.com are repeatedly pushing and that the Dutch investigation will uncover more facts than a non-expert pretending to be an expert and having this reported as news.