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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

What I posted proves that the process takes a long time, no matter how easy an investigation is. Length of investigation is only proof of a cover up according to you.
edit on 9/25/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

Then you should be able to prove they told them to lower altitude. The ADS-B data is available. Show us where they descended.

I already did, back on page one in a reply to you…

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Are you going to address the paper punch thirty mm holes in the nose of the aircraft? I've asked you about that n a number of threads… crickets…



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

That didn't prove anything. The actual data from the aircraft is available. Use it and prove everyone wrong about the fact that they didn't descend at any point once they reached cruising altitude. Not quotes from people or blogs. Use the actual data from the ADS-B sent out.

As soon as you prove they descended using the actual data from the plane. It would help if you actually understood what they were saying. They filed the flight plan for 35,000 feet and were instructed to remain at 33,000 because of aircraft weight, until they burned fuel off and got lighter.
edit on 9/25/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


What I posted proves that the process takes a long time, no matter how easy an investigation is. Length of investigation is only proof of a cover up according to you

No, I said that potential for manipulation of evidence increases the longer they take to release actual forensic data.

Besides, how neutral is charging the Dutch (a member of NATO) with the investigation?

They took all of two hours to blame Putin, they aren't withholding anything, right? Thats old "data".



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And yet Russia is involved in the investigation and hasn't had a problem with the information released. Why is that?



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


That didn't prove anything.

Thats why I can;t have a conversation with you about this. Malaysian artiness confirmed the radio directive to change altitude themselves. I linked that with snippet on page one in a reply to you.

You also wont address the round holes in the images taken of the cockpit and other nose structure…

the round holes unlike the square fragments from BUK warheads…



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

And yet Russia is involved in the investigation and hasn't had a problem with the information released. Why is that?


The whole world is waiting to hear the NATO report, not just "Russia". Aways Russia. Russia this and Russia that.The report in the OP is already pretty damning of any thing NATO might add to the "Official Story".

It debunks all the oft vetted talking points about the howzit and whozit. We already know why. To make the Eastern Ukrainians look like evil baby killers for downing a plane filled with innocent people. Or Putin, anybody but the thugs in Kiev.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

They didn't confirm any such thing. They confirmed they were told to remain at lower altitude than they filed for. They were at 33,000 before ever entering Dnipro control. The crew told air traffic control they couldn't climb to 35,000.



By 12.53pm the flight was in voice contact with controllers at Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, known as Dnipro Control. In compliance with the flight plan, the 777 was at 33,000 feet. The controllers were concerned about “separation conflict” with another 777 at the same altitude, also flying east and approaching from behind.

The controllers asked Flight 17 to climb to 35,000 to increase the safety margin. The Malaysian crew said they could not comply—the report gives no reason for what was very likely a fateful decision. (The distance from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur is more than 6,000 miles. The range of the 777 is 7,200 miles, and so when Flight 17 left Amsterdam its gas tanks would have been fully loaded and the weight would have restricted its ability to climb into the increasingly thinner air of higher altitudes. Nonetheless, after flying for well over two hours enough of this fuel should have been burned off to climb another 2,000 feet.)

The Ukrainian controllers assented to this and, instead, instructed the other 777, a Signapore Airlines flight from Copenhagen to Singapore, to go to 35,000 feet, which it did.

www.thedailybeast.com...

The Ukrainian controllers didn't order them to fly lower. They planned 33,000 until Dnipro, and were at 33,000.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And you really think that the Russian government would sign off on a report blaming them in any way? They're just going to go along with it?



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   
30 mm Round holes in the cockpit, Zaphod?

Otherwise, done here…



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Prove they were 30mm. They're round holes.



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well at least you admit they're round. Fragmentation warhead of missiles is comprised of squares, not "rounds". The BUK warhead is square pegs, they don't make round holes. They also don't produce "spatter" like explosive cannon rounds do.

As far as the size being thirty mm, they are comparable to the rivets nearby in most all the pics online.

Global Research



posted on Sep, 25 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

That's an opinion piece, not proof. The largest rivet used on an aircraft is much smaller than 30mm. So how does the rivet size give you 30mm?

It's also amusing that he claims the cockpit area is more reinforced than the rest of the aircraft. The only portion that's reinforced is the bulkhead itself. The sides and radome area are no more reinforced than anywhere else.
edit on 9/25/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: tommyjo

Okay. Good quality information there.

But did you read the part where they said


an Novikov said the 9M38M1 missile used by the Buk-M1 air defence system had been withdrawn from production in 1999, after which the whole missile inventory had been transferred to foreign customers.

Novikov said he knew Ukraine had received 991 of the missiles because Almaz-Antey, which was only established in 2002, helped perform maintenance on them in 2005. He said the missiles were not currently in use with the Russian armed forces.



Soo....

Maybe it was a BUK after all. But why are we blaming Russia when they got rid of them to Ukraine among others in 1999?

The information presented suggest that it is only possible for the rebels to have fired it if they had seized the unit from the UKRANIAN government.

Or

The Ukrainians themselves fired it.



Yes I'm fully aware of that and it is incorrect. Russian forces still used and operated the 9M38M1 at the time of the shoot down and after. It is yet another one of those red herrings dangled and immediately picked up as 100% fact thus trying to put the blame on other users of the 9M38M1 - ie the Ukrainians.

The statement by Almaz-Antey was quickly proven to be incorrect. Even Putin was filmed watching 9M38M1s being launched during exercises.


May 8 (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin oversaw test launches of Russian military rockets on Thursday during training exercises held across Russia the day before celebrations of the anniversary of its World War Two victory.

"We are carrying out tests of the readiness of the Russian armed forces. It was announced in November last year," he told journalists at the Defence Ministry, alongside Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu.

"The exercises will involve all branches of the armed forces across the country," he said.

The training exercises, which are due to include ground troops and artillery as well as the air force, were held during a summit of heads of state of a security bloc made up of former Soviet states.


uk.reuters.com...

9M38M1 being used by Russian forces during 2014. You'll see a mixture of training rounds and live. Yes they are actually firing them at Telemba! You can see the dates on the screens at 2:13 (19th March 2014). Remember the quote from Almaz-Antei ?

"The missile 9M38 (M1) complex "Buk-M1" was discontinued in 1999. Then all of the remaining available missiles of this type have been transferred to foreign customers."

www.rg.ru...



Also available on Russian TV.

clipiki.ru...

9M38M1 in 2015



Russian forces TV

tvzvezda.ru...

9M38M1 being transported during 2014 Belgorod, Russia.



www.bellingcat.com...< br />
So you can see that Russian Forces still had full access to the M1 variant. Due to missile shelf life the early variants such as the M1s tend to be up for missile tests and training. Perhaps the statement by Almaz-Antey was designed purely for the Russian media and a Russian audience. It certainly got picked up very quickly and became "fact". Of course it was non-sense as you can see from the videos.
edit on 26/9/2015 by tommyjo because: Video link corrected



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

Buk Transport Erector Launcer carrying the 9M38M1 missiles. The TEL caught fire in Chita during the Victory Parade in 2015.



Putin watching Buk M1 missile launches during exercises in 2014. Note the "Buk M1" title on the screen in order to inform the viewers of exactly what system is being launched.



9M38M1 displayed during 2014 in St Petersburgh


edit on 26/9/2015 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

More to my point, BUK warhead frag is square, not round. And everyone in multiple searches I've done agrees the holes are @ 30 MM, based on references for comparison in the pics. Disprove that.

Nobody saw a missile launch or intersect, witnesses (plural) did report a plane, the other point in the link. Don't invent mysteries.

Then theres them holes and frag spatter at, in and around the cockpit and the left wing. I don't hear you denying their authenticity, much. I fired enough rounds at various materials in my time to instantly recognize what I saw in those pics.

I also know what that attack looked like as it developed. It came from behind, wings level, slightly abeam, just where the pilot of the SU 25 would have to approach to sneak up on a straight and level, slow mover who's pilot didn't even have time to know what hit him, let alone evade.

Ground launched BUK, BAH. The tire burners in KIEV ordered that shoot down and facilitated it by ordering the flight to lower its altitude so the SU 25 could reach it.



I don't care what "data" you say was "pre" released, theres these conclusive photos showing the plane received damage from a cannon with thirty mm rounds that stuck the cockpit, killing the pilots and smashing the instruments so the plane lost control and crashed. People on the ground saw the plane that did it in close proximity to the jet.

How long do you think they can keep that secret?

Answers self, (a year, so far).





edit on 26-9-2015 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


More to my point, BUK warhead frag is square, not round. And everyone in multiple searches I've done agrees the holes are @ 30 MM, based on references for comparison in the pics. Disprove that.


You need to find a photograph of a hole with a measuring stick laid across it to support your claim, otherwise I can say they look more like 25mm holes to me.


Nobody saw a missile launch or intersect, witnesses (plural) did report a plane, the other point in the link. Don't invent mysteries.


There is actually a photograph of the launch, remember?



Source.

Plus the fact that the rebels boasted about shooting the plane down:



And the witnesses all contradict each other as pointed out here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Then theres them holes and frag spatter at, in and around the cockpit and the left wing. I don't hear you denying their authenticity, much. I fired enough rounds at various materials in my time to instantly recognize what I saw in those pics.


You have a 30mm cannon you shoot at things in your back yard? Cool.


I also know what that attack looked like as it developed. It came from behind, wings level, slightly abeam, just where the pilot of the SU 25 would have to approach to sneak up on a straight and level, slow mover who's pilot didn't even have time to know what hit him, let alone evade.


So a ground support plane working above its ceiling suddenly sped up, climbed to 40,000 feet and did a supersonic loop-the-loop to fire at the passenger jet from in front, which it would have to do to damage the cabin.


Ground launched BUK, BAH. The tire burners in KIEV ordered that shoot down and facilitated it by ordering the flight to lower its altitude so the SU 25 could reach it.


Except it was the airplane crew that requested the course changes due to weather. Say, come to think of it, why do none of the witnesses mention the thunderstorm on the horizon?



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




Doesn't really matter, not a single witness said they saw or heard a ground missile launch.


Except there are...

www.bellingcat.com...



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




I don't care what "data" you say was "pre" released, theres these conclusive photos showing the plane received damage from a cannon with thirty mm rounds that stuck the cockpit, killing the pilots and smashing the instruments so the plane lost control and crashed.


Except it blew up at altitude, so explain that one?

It was lost on radar at 33000 ft....well higher than any SU 25 Ukraine has in there military can fly.

And that's been proven in many different threads...and you know this, so why keep that propaganda flowing?



People on the ground saw the plane that did it in close proximity to the jet.


AT almost 7 miles above their heads they would have to have known exactly where to look, and when to look to see this plane that wouldn't be visible in the first place, yet they saw a smaller military jet that could be identified from the ground although it is smaller than MH 17 that they couldn't have seen in the first place.

Yep they sound like iron clad eyewitnesses to me.




How long do you think they can keep that secret?


How long are you going to keep pushing the SU 25 fairy tale?



posted on Sep, 26 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




More to my point, BUK warhead frag is square, not round. And everyone in multiple searches I've done agrees the holes are @ 30 MM, based on references for comparison in the pics. Disprove that.


Actually it is you who needs to prove it was as you say shot by a 30mm cannon, and not a BUK...although military experts all agree it was a BUK, and that also means Russia's own expert, but somehow you know more than they do...amazing.




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join