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.

 

MH 17 from another perspective

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
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.


Wow, you should go to work for the NTSB, eh?




posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, some investigation. It reminds me of the way the 911 Commission did its investigation--start with a conclusion and work backwards. A travesty, but so it goes in the propaganda business.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

So you're saying that if you find the tail of the aircraft 10 miles from the rest of it, you need to rebuild the entire aircraft to figure out what happened? I'm glad you DON'T work for the NTSB.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I'm not sure the aircraft needs to be re-assembled, but that is exactly what the FBI/NTSB did with TWA800. It would be treated on a case-by-case basis as to whether reassembly is required. That was not really the point I was trying to make.

The point is that in all transportation accidents, including aviation, proper procedures require that all facts and evidence be examined. And except in cases where politics is involved, that is how the NTSB works. I have been interviewed by the NTSB in 2 cases I can remember. Proper investigations try to follow the scientific method as best they can. It is standard.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander


Yes, some investigation. It reminds me of the way the 911 Commission


Ding ding ding! Gratuitous 911 reference! Don't forget to mention the Bay of Tonkin next time.
edit on 25-9-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

And that's exactly what they do. In this case there were obvious critical pieces that had the evidence they needed, and they took them. They didn't remove the entire wreckage because not all of it had evidence that they needed.

The investigators went into the area and examined the wreckage, found what they considered the key pieces, recovered the recorders, and took those parts away for more detailed examination. Exactly what they would have done for any other crash where removing all the wreckage wasn't feasible for whatever reason.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Salander


Yes, some investigation. It reminds me of the way the 911 Commission


Ding ding ding! Gratuitous 911 reference! Don't forget to mention the Bay of Tonkin next time.


Well...it's about this point in a thread when you throw in a comparison to Hitler and the Third Reich....



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Why are you using the inaccurate data in that link? It is as bad as people using the "previous 10 flightpath" non-sense which is also featured in that link that you posted.

The flight plan was for 33,000 feet until the way point PEKIT then climb to 35,000 feet. It was the crew of MH17 themselves that requested to maintain flight level 33,000 feet.

You do realize that Russia have signed off of the preliminary MH17 report? The Russians reviewed the report before publication so where are their claims that the data is innacurate?

The draft preliminary report has been sent to the Accredited Representatives of the States that participate in the investigation, Malaysia, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the Unites States of America and Austrailia for review. All Accredited Representatives have sent a reaction. The Dutch Safety Board assessed the provided suggestion and amended the report where appropriate.

www.onderzoeksraad.nl...


According to the preliminary report by the Dutch Safety Board, the filed flight plan called for MH17 to fly at flight level 330 (FL330) above Ukraine until the waypoint PEKIT, then climb to flight level 350.

At 12.53 hrs MH17 was asked if it could climb to flight level 350 in accordance with the filed flight plan, but they replied that they were unable to comply and requested to maintain at flight level 330. This change of plan was agreed, and other aircraft in the area were told to climb to flight level 350 to avoid a potential separation conflict with MH17.

The crew of MH17 asked to divert the flight path by 20 nautical miles due to bad weather they could see on their route. MH17 then asked if flight level 340 was available. They were told that it was not available due to the other civilian aircraft being assigned heights in order to deconflict with MH17. That is why MH17 continued on its altitude of 33,000 feet.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

Don't let your well sourced facts get in the way of a good bit of fantasy. The Preliminary Report is a good point of reference and removes at least 60 conspiracy theories, as far as I can tell.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: tommyjo

Don't let your well sourced facts get in the way of a good bit of fantasy. The Preliminary Report is a good point of reference and removes at least 60 conspiracy theories, as far as I can tell.


Yes the pre-report "News report". You mean rumors central control, designed to pre condition everyones mind in a certain direction, regardless of the facts. Then (partially) release a hundreds of pages of double speak "report" that will bury the truth even deeper, only address certain favorable forensics and witness reports, while ignoring the most important ones. Like I said, the truths already our there, their report will be more lies. Thats why they waited this long, to build the lies and cover all the bases.

Lessons learned from Ferguson not lost on the disinformation press. Which pundits here already laud, then and now.

[SNIPPED]

edit on 9.25.2015 by Kandinsky because: snipped ill-mannered comment



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Because crash reports are normally put out two or three months after a crash, right? I mean it's not normal to see them take two years or more to put one out unless they're covering something up.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, some investigation. It reminds me of the way the 911 Commission did its investigation--start with a conclusion and work backwards. A travesty, but so it goes in the propaganda business.

Hah ha, yah, same with JFK. Oswald did it, day two. Or Ferguson, wait months to tell everyone, no further investigation required. We can always tell when they are BSing us, they release information piece meal, without actual forensics or independent verification.

No matter how many times they do that, its obvious as hell.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973




MH17 A Year Without The Truth


Says the one who seems to want to keep it that way.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

regardless of the facts. .


So explain why you were still relying on inaccurate facts by posting that link on the flight path?

The flight path and flight plan has been determined and agreed on by the Russians. There is no dispute and all the parties agree. So again why did you take it upon yourself to post old and inaccurate facts?



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Because crash reports are normally put out two or three months after a crash, right? I mean it's not normal to see them take two years or more to put one out unless they're covering something up.


The longer an investigation, yes the more chance it can be manipulated. Especially if suspicious circumstance, i.e., not accidental.

Especially if a NATO country gets to do the "investigating".

Don't compare TWA800, that wreckage was at the bottom of the Sea. It took that long to figure out the forensics and come up with the cause, a design flaw. The only reason they can be delaying here is that the damn thing was shot down and they are trying to cover it up.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: intrptr

regardless of the facts. .


So explain why you were still relying on inaccurate facts by posting that link on the flight path?

The flight path and flight plan has been determined and agreed on by the Russians. There is no dispute and all the parties agree. So again why did you take it upon yourself to post old and inaccurate facts?



In your own words, without the "official report", your claims are invalid. Controversy surrounds all the evidence precisely because they have waited this long to show the proof. That way everyone can spin their side of the story until its completely blurry. You say the article I linked has it wrong, the article clearly states those saying the plane wasn't redirected are lying.

Imagine that.

Just one aspect of failing to come to a quick and speedy, open trial. Not hush hushs secret investigations with contrived evidence.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973




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


Well it seems Russia's expert say's it was a BUK that shot down MH 17.


Almaz-Antey said it had analysed shrapnel damage and identified the missile as "9M38M1 of the Buk M1 system".


www.bbc.com...

Does that count?



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


Exactly what eye witness account are you talking about?



Any WHY did the Ukranian govt shell the wreckage site?


When did that happen?

And the only thing they shelled in that area was Donetsk...40 miles away.


Artillery fire sent plumes of smoke skyward near the Donetsk railway station, about 40 miles from the crash site, in what the separatists said was an attempt by government forces to enter the city, which they seized in April.


america.aljazeera.com...



I smell a very big conspiracy here!


And I smell Russian propaganda...it has a smell all to familiar.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


The longer an investigation, yes the more chance it can be manipulated.


On the one hand, you want them to completely reassemble the aircraft or it is not a proper investigation. On the other hand, you want the results published within hours of the crash. See the problem here? You complained when authorities "jumped to conclusions," now you're claiming that it took too long because they were manipulating evidence. Why not just come right out and say that you refuse to believe any scenario that does not, in some way, incriminate America or its allies?



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You talk in riddles. I get it though it is a mindset. What part of the Russians don't dispute the official MH17 flight plan don't you get? Why are you relying on an article written a few day after the incident? That article also has the now infamous and completely wrong info on the previous 10 flights. Did you also believe that along with the claim of 35,000 feet all the way?

Explain why the Russians have not questioned the official flight plan published in the MH17 preliminary report? That is because the flight plan in the report IS accurate and nobody, not even the Russians dispute it. I realise that is hard for you to accept.

So yet again explain to me why you are still relying on an article with inaccurate data that was published days after the incident?



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h


Well it seems Russia's expert say's it was a BUK that shot down MH 17.


Almaz-Antey said it had analysed shrapnel damage and identified the missile as "9M38M1 of the Buk M1 system".


www.bbc.com...

Does that count?


BUK didn't make the round holes in the nose and cock pit, doesn't target the nose of aircraft, nor was a launch and vapor trail witnessed by anyone on the ground.

Oh and this isn't a missile either…




new topics

top topics


active topics

 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join