MH 17 from another perspective

a reply to: Zaphod58

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.

With the pilot dead and the instrumentation smashed, the plane lost control and broke up after plummeting some distance to the ground. Who says it "exploded"?

I expect there to be no warnings, the cockpit was blasted by numerous anti tank cannon rounds, designed to pierce armor and explode. Thats why they targeted that part of the plane, to_bring_it_down.

The "preliminary" reports are more propaganda. Thats the problem with keeping it all secret, people can say whatever they want. Who's to differ?

originally posted by: paraphi

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.

Yes the official report will be intersting. But the fact that it has been delayed indicates things are more complicated that it would appear.

The Malaysian govt never did get to see the blackbox recordings for instance.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Zaphod58

Even if the cockpit had been hit by gunfire, it wouldn't have caused the aircraft to explode the way it did.
I expect there to be no warnings, the cockpit was blasted by numerous anti tank cannon rounds, designed to pierce armor and explode. Thats why they targeted that part of the plane, to_bring_it_down.

The "preliminary" reports are more propaganda. Thats the problem with keeping it all secret, people can say whatever they want. Who's to differ?

The interesting thing for me is the test the Russians did with the same plane firing on the dummy planes.

They were able to reproduce the same results as some of the smaller holes.

The big hole below the window though - they kind of glossed over that. Wonder what caused that to happen?

originally posted by: markosity1973

Yes the official report will be intersting. But the fact that it has been delayed indicates things are more complicated that it would appear.

The Malaysian govt never did get to see the blackbox recordings for instance.

Delay? Complex investigation. Lack of co-operation from some.

I am sure Malaysian officials are involved, unless you can find something official to say otherwise.

The biggest question I have is why Russia won't agree to an international independent criminal tribunal which would have legal powers. I would have thought Russia would be keen to get to the bottom of a mass murder, don't you?

originally posted by: paraphi


The biggest question I have is why Russia won't agree to an international independent criminal tribunal which would have legal powers. I would have thought Russia would be keen to get to the bottom of a mass murder, don't you?

That is not admission to guilt though.

Does America listen to the UN say no when it starts its bomibng campaigns? Would Obama agree to the same thing? I think not!

Putin is being obstinate yes, but he is not alone in that field.

a reply to: markosity1973

The big hole below the window though - they kind of glossed over that. Wonder what caused that to happen?

Typical load for the cannon aboard the (EDIT: SU25) are anti armor shells. These are designed to penetrate armor and explode inside the vehicle.

An airliner isn't armored like a tank but the cockpit and nose are more reinforced than other parts of the structure. Some of the cannon shells penetrated and exploded inside the aircraft, making nice round entry holes and jagged exit holes on the same area. That big hole could be an explosive round detonating just under the skin.

Other pieces of the cock pit also had round holes. Some of the pieces the reporter discovered in the hands of locals also had holing, did you catch at the end how they tried to tell the Dutch about it and they didn't receive any response?

Some investigation…

a reply to: markosity1973

The people covering up this whole incident would love to start another investigation into MH 17, then they could delay those results for years in the UN, too.

The UN would also not be Independent. You make a good point about their duplicity. They look the other way when Israel bombs hapless Gaza, and the US bombs the rest of the world.

As far as the Dutch, they are a member of NATO, how subjective is that result going to be?

a reply to: intrptr

Yes, some investigation indeed. What about the guy with the piece in his house that nobody responded to?

The plane did not 'explode' at altitude either - it came down in several large pieces. From my understanding that is what happens when the fuselage is put to stresses beyond it's capability in manoeuvring ie a wing falls off and she spins then rips apart in big chunks then drops out of the sky.

a reply to: markosity1973

Yes, some investigation indeed. What about the guy with the piece in his house that nobody responded to?

Uh huh.

Thats a pretty critical piece. Found away from the main wreckage area, it was also from the nose area of the plane and also had nice big round holes in it. That would be critical because it would help piece together events based on where the plane was hit, when, and by what.

Also agree on break up as opposed to exploded. What exploded was munitions fired at the planes cockpit, designed to kill everyone on board over "separatists " territory so they could be blamed for it. Thats why the Tower gave clearance, a second plane was spotted and why the fuselage is full of cannon holes.

The reason they don't release critical evidence like the black box and "findings" on wreckage is because that will be what people will discover. It was a horribly botched blame game operation to make the East Ukrainians to look the bad guys.

We already know that fabrication in the main stream the day of the shoot down.

a reply to: intrptr

Yep. That doco raised a lot of questions alright.

I maintain it may not be the full truth either, but it presents info that was not shared in western msm.

I'd love to see the US Intel that lead our departed PM Tony Abbott to bail Putin up and demand an apology for it though. Bet you it's some shady satellite pics with the date altered

a reply to: markosity1973

I maintain it may not be the full truth either, but it presents info that was not shared in western msm.

Yah, sadly we are speculating, too. But heres the thing. Thy are planning to release a report first half of October, hundreds of pages long, the MSM is soaking the airwaves about the preliminary findings (they use the word preliminary meaning the no evidence, evidence).

Heres one from CNN, that cites unnamed "sources"…

CNN

They are still saying the same thing they said day one, Russians did it with a missile. Between now and the actual release of the "report", they will wash, rinse and repeat that mind meld a thousand times.

Nm.

originally posted by: markosity1973That is not admission to guilt though
.

Indeed, it is not an admission of guilt. However, when we are talking about mass murder such as this, it is Russia' interest to ensure the truth is found and to participate. A lack of cooperation and collaboration is unhelpful at best and obstructive at worse.

Keep it to topic. This is not about the US dropping bombs elsewhere. Two wrongs do not make a right.

a reply to: markosity1973

Funny... the title of this thread is "MH17 from another perspective," yet the only perspective presented is the Official Story from Russia. Why not just title it "More Russian Propaganda?"

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: markosity1973

Thy are planning to release a report first half of October, hundreds of pages long, the MSM is soaking the airwaves about the preliminary findings (they use the word preliminary meaning the no evidence, evidence).

Dear me, so much to learn about the world.

Preliminary findings are just that - preliminary. It is what they have found to date and is a release prior to the main report. Nothing to do with no evidence, except that the preliminary findings will be based on the known evidence at the time.

Soaking the airwaves. Not really. I think most informed media is waiting on the official report.

Here you go, something to chew over.

MH17 preliminary report

a reply to: markosity1973

Yep. That doco raised a lot of questions alright.

That is the whole intent of Russia's disinformation campaign: present random, unverified statements, raise random, sometimes irrelevant questions, and leave people sufficiently confused that if the leader of the rebels held a press conference and apologized, conspiracy theorists would say: "Oh yeah? What about the three fighter jets the mechanic saw?" or "What about the cannon holes?"

a reply to: paraphi

Thank you for that link. There were other commercial aircraft in the area but non of them reported a fighter jet. Interesting. (A fighter jet would be visible for a longer time than a missile.)

ETA: Also, the Rostov Civil radar did not show any other aircraft in the area.