MH 17 from another perspective

a reply to: intrptr

It's been proven repeatedly that they did not order them lower. You can put your fingers in your ears all you want, but the CREW told ATC they couldn't climb to 35,000 as they planned to. ATC told them to climb not descend. You still have to get around that little fact.

To be honest, even with all the evidence to the contrary, I still believe the world is flat.

originally posted by: intrptr
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).

Que page sliders…

a reply to: intrptr

More to my point, BUK warhead frag is square, not round.

Not necessarily. This Russian source describes the shrapnel as rods. Rods can have a circular cross section:

antiaircraft guided missile 9M317 . 9M317 missile has extended the affected area up to 45-50km range and up to 25 km - height and setting, as well as a large range of targeted goals. In It provides for the use of inertial-corrected control system with a new semi-active radar homing Doppler 9E420 (see photo). Warhead: rod, weight - 70 kg, radius of target destruction - 17 m Cruising speed - 1230 m / s, load - up to 24 g. Missile weight - 715 kg. Wingspan - 860 mm. Engine - dual-mode solid propellant. Missile has a high level of reliability, fully assembled and curb missile does not require inspections and adjustments during the lifetime - 10 years.

tonnel-ufo.ru...

Also, you are ignoring all the holes with a rectangular shape.

a reply to: DJW001

People on the ground that day saw another plane not a ground missile launch. Thats the "different perspective" of the RT report in the OP on page one.

That must really piss people off.

a reply to: intrptr

Yes, the eye witness accounts are what peaked my interest too.

There is a third doco from RT too. I'll link it tonight. It's a lot more politicised, but it presents more eye witness stories.

a reply to: markosity1973

checking back tomorrow…

a reply to: paraphi

To be honest, even with all the evidence to the contrary, I still believe the world is flat.

There, see?

He doesn't believe that , either.

a reply to: markosity1973

There is a third doco from RT too. I'll link it tonight. It's a lot more politicised, but it presents more eye witness stories.

Ah yes because RT is where the truth can be found...or where Russia can push it's propaganda.

How exactly did those eyewitnesses know where to look when they supposedly saw this plane around 7 miles above their heads?

You see unless you know exactly where MH 17 was at the time there is no way they saw it, and no way they saw a much smaller plane flying near it. In fact on a clear day go outside and look up and tell me how many planes you see fly over...I bet you won't see one unless it has contrails behind it.

In fact here is a good example that you wouldn't see the plane at that height without zooming in with a camera or seeing contrails to find it.



There were no eyewitness that saw an SU 25 flying near MH 17.

And even seeing contrails doesn't mean your going to see the plane making them at that height...especially with the naked eye.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Ah yes because RT is where the truth can be found…or where Russia can push it's propaganda.

As if the west doesn't promote its own propaganda to discredit all others… oh wait, you just did that. God forbid there should be any alternative to western main stream propaganda. All nations lie.

How do you read between lines if you read only one line?

The worst propaganda is that which slanders all the rest.

a reply to: intrptr

As if the west doesn't promote its own propaganda to discredit all others… oh wait, you just did that. God forbid there should be any alternative to western main stream propaganda. All nations lie.

Never said they didn't.

But this isn't about other nations is it?

How do you read between lines if you read only one line?

And how does one understand the difference when only trying to find what's between the lines when there isn't something there...in other words making it up to back what they want to be there.

The worst propaganda is that which slanders all the rest.

And Russian media is the top when it comes to doing that. And it seems you fell for it just as the OP has.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

How exactly did those eyewitnesses know where to look when they supposedly saw this plane around 7 miles above their heads?

Air battles are raging there daily. Anytime people hear something they come running out to see what may have caused it. Like you wouldn't.

In the OP video, witnesses describe seeing two planes, an airliner and a smaller military jet together in the same sky.

Unlike claims of a BUK which wasn't reported except in the "Putin did it" western main scream.

Haven't you figured out what a cover up in the news looks like? Its the breaking news that purports to explain what happened and who's responsible before the fires are put out.

Like in Fergi, 911, and MH17, for instance. Only proponents of propaganda and disinformation carry that BS ad infinitum seemingly without regard to conflicting evidence.

Here is the third RT doco



For those slandering off at RT, yet again, look at the content and then comment on it, not RT please. If it's not true, then debunk it with fact and sources, not sarcasm and lowbrow jibes.

This one contains more 'eye witness' accounrs of what happened. Did RT pay them to say these things, or did they really see what they say they did?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Actually, I live in Adelaide, on the direct approach path to the airport. I see planes with and without contrails all the time at all sorts of altitudes.

That vid proves nothing, The vid I posted also mentions seeing a metal coloured plane shooting straight up into the air, followed by 2 loud booms then the bodies started raining from the sky. I do not recall them claiming they could see the MH plane until it started falling.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Never said they didn't.

Yes you do, you just don't actually say it when it comes to the US, and always allude to Russia being the culprit.

But this isn't about other nations is it?

Which part, the blaming of Russia for everything that happens in Ukraine while omitting US complicity for supporting a coup in Kiev? NATO Arming, advising and funding the worst elements in that nation to subvert, burn and murder innocent people in the Capital, Eastern parts of that country, the BBQ in Odessa and the intentional downing of MH17?

Oh yah, Putin did it.

a reply to: markosity1973

Thanks for the third doc. Right off, the investigative reporter interviews the editor of that newspaper and he claims, "We don't know anything five months on". She opens his paper to a full page "ad" that says, PUTIN should say he's sorry.

Trololol dude raises his voice, holds up the page and like the puppet he is goes from one moment before saying, "we don't know anything" to, "Putin should apologize".

Like a light switch. Caught by his own words. Really good exposure right there of how propaganda is disseminated in the west.

They know they are printing the lie…

EDIT: At the 2:20 mark

a reply to: intrptr

Air battles are raging there daily. Anytime people hear something they come running out to see what may have caused it. Like you wouldn't.

Again go outside on a clear day and tell me how many planes you see flying above you...unless there is something that shows it flew by, a contrail or you knowing exactly where to look you won't see them, but feel free to show how they saw these planes at that height, and identified the smaller SU 25 that supposedly did this?

And people don't run outside to look at the planes when their being bombed...they hide in their basements which is what many in that area were doing when things became crazy.

In the OP video, witnesses describe seeing two planes, an airliner and a smaller military jet together in the same sky.

Ah yes the one from RT...not helping your case.

And again they would have been at 33000 ft...they would have barely if at all been able to see MH 17 they wouldn't have been able to see the much smaller SU 25 that was supposedly up there. Not that the SU 25 is even capable of that feat anyhow.

Haven't you figured out what a cover up in the news looks like? Its the breaking news that purports to explain what happened and who's responsible before the fires are put out.

I sure do and this thread is a perfect example of what your talking about.

And your falling for it...just as the supposed neutral OP...hook, line, and sinker.

Like in Fergi, 911, and MH17, for instance. Only proponents of propaganda and disinformation carry that BS ad infinitum seemingly without regard to conflicting evidence.

WHat conflicting evidence...oh you mean the conflicting evidence that only Russian media seems to think is out there...gotcha, only Russian media tells the truth especially concerning a fight that they supposedly aren't in when evidence shows they are lying.

SO if they lie about their involvement there what makes you think they aren't lying about this?

a reply to: markosity1973

Actually, I live in Adelaide, on the direct approach path to the airport. I see planes with and without contrails all the time at all sorts of altitudes.

For some reason I just don't believe that you see all planes that fly over you at 33000 ft without having something to show they were there.

That vid proves nothing, The vid I posted also mentions seeing a metal coloured plane shooting straight up into the air, followed by 2 loud booms then the bodies started raining from the sky. I do not recall them claiming they could see the MH plane until it started falling.

But you are claiming they saw two planes, but now say they didn't see it until it started falling...so either they are lying, or the report is lying about seeing the other plane at the same time...contradiction at it's best.

And the vid proves you wouldn't have seen a second plane at the same height as MH 17 and be able to identify it as an SU 25, nor would they be able to say who's it was.