MH 17 from another perspective

a reply to: tommyjo

No doubt they will change the type to the Su-27 and trot out the fake satellite image! They story will change to a coordinated attack by "booming" Su-27 and Su-25.

Well they would have been more believable with their stories.

Especially when they trotted this out...



But it is fun watching them try and make this story stick.

a reply to: markosity1973

Can you prove that they are?

Probably before you can prove they aren't.

Both lines of investigation (BUK vs SU25) provide compelling evidence if you look at everything with an open mind.

An open mind doesn't mean one has to believe utter nonsense.

By that I mean there is nobody except Russia saying this was done by an SU 25, and the fact the designer of the SU 25 has stated that plane would not reach that height and still be able to use the weapons it couldn't carry just to be able to reach anywhere close to that height and stay there long enough to shoot a commercial jet down.

a reply to: intrptr

I hear them, then look up.

No you can't.

Better yet next time you hear one at 33000 ft get video and prove it...that is if you can?

Once spotted, the type of jet is readily apparent if its a multi engine or a fast mover, once sound and appearance (including contrail) are taken into consideration. Im a trained observer, obviously you aren't.

So exactly how did that happen when the the clouds were 70 to 80% coverage with the base of them at 8200 ft, so unless they have a special ability to see through cloud cover they didn't see either.

And thanks to Russia for providing that info for us...as shown in prior post above.

You didn't watch the video, either.

SO what is it you think it proves?

You can review it to find the guy who hears afterburner booms and looks up to se a "SU25 standing on its tail climbing. He has binocs which he uses and "could have read the tail number".

Except one minor little detail...the SU 25 doesn't have afterburners, and neither do the variants. So by that I would have to say...No he didn't.

He has binocs which he uses and "could have read the tail number".

And yet he didn't use them...imagine that.

a reply to: markosity1973

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.

And yet you only show the Russian view of events...not exactly neutral there now is it?

And your title should have really said...

" MH 17 from the Russian perspective. "

As that is all you are doing.

originally posted by: intrptr
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…

Thank you for showing that crease across the top of the left wing that aligns perfectly with the cockpit area. I had not seen that picture since last year and was afraid it had been removed from the internet.

Often a picture can be worth a thousand words, and that is a perfect example of it. Out of the many rounds fired, one happened to crease right along the top of the wing.

a reply to: intrptr

US congress passes bill to arm Ukraine

And yet it still needs Obama's signature before anything can happen, and he is already said he will veto it...

Administration of the President of the United States has announced its intention to veto this bill when it is sent to the head of state for signature.

joinfo.com...

SO unless the president signs the bill it means nothing that they passed it.

I just pointed out one inconsistency with your omission of "facts".

No you didn't as it isn't an actual bill until the president signs it, and it means absolutely nothing until he does.

Learn the facts.

the subject is the video, the OP has asked us in the thread to discuss it, not make stuff up.

If you don't want to discuss made up things then you need to quit using RT as some sort of truth.

And what exactly is it I made up?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Do you really believe Obama? I don't--he is one of those "known liars" that run the US government.

a reply to: intrptr

Who said anything about afterburners? Oh, you made that up, too.

Your so called eyewitness.

SO then he must have made it up also.

a reply to: Salander

Often a picture can be worth a thousand words, and that is a perfect example of it. Out of the many rounds fired, one happened to crease right along the top of the wing.

Or. out of all the shrapnel radiating away from the warhead detonating near the cabin, one piece happened to crease the wing.

Edit To Add: Why were you afraid it would be removed from the internet? Do you really believe that other countries censor things the way they do over in Russia?

a reply to: Salander

Do you really believe Obama? I don't--he is one of those "known liars" that run the US government.

More than I do Putin.

As far as lying what politician doesn't.

And what my feelings are toward Obama are irrelevant as this isn't about him now is it?

a reply to: Salander

Often a picture can be worth a thousand words, and that is a perfect example of it.

And none of them have to do with 30 mm cannon fire.

a reply to: DJW001

Having used Claymore mines and other schrapnel producing weapons, had that wing damage actually been schrapnel, it would be most likely that OTHER pieces of schrapnel would have been also visible.

That wasn't a schrapnel mark, it was from one round out of the total fired that by sheer random event, creased across the top of the wing.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Salander

Do you really believe Obama? I don't--he is one of those "known liars" that run the US government.

More than I do Putin.

As far as lying what politician doesn't.

And what my feelings are toward Obama are irrelevant as this isn't about him now is it?

It was you that brought up Obama, not I. You place great stock in his claim that he will veto the bill, but then you place great stock in what the Pentagon and the MSM were saying July 2014 too, so yes, I get it.

a reply to: intrptr

Right now its the old military jet engines aren't loud ploy…

Do you mind meld yourself like this regular or is this something new?

No he said the afterburners wouldn't have made a loud bang that this so called eye witness said he heard.

In fact here is what an afterburner would sound like...



I don't seem to hear a loud boom when the afterburner kicks in...wonder why that is, oh that's right it doesn't.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but it seems like you are saying that there is no change in the noise signature when jet engines go into AB?

Gotta go, but I'll get your answer in a few days.

a reply to: Salander

It was you that brought up Obama, not I.

In the context of how a bill is passed that is all, so where does it even remotely come close to actually discussing Obama?

Jumped on the old derail train early I see.

You place great stock in his claim that he will veto the bill, but then you place great stock in what the Pentagon and the MSM were saying July 2014 too, so yes, I get it.

WHere exactly did I say anything about how I feel about his veto...I was posting what he said not how I feel about it.

Having a hard time comprehending what you read?

See that is what the funny part is here...you think I only believe what MSM and the pentagon says, my to be so wrong.

Believe it or not there are other places to get the facts other than MSM.

a reply to: Salander

No. The supposed eyewitness claimed to hear a double boom when the supposed Su-25 ignited afterburners. Obviously there's a change in signature, but they don't go boom as claimed.

a reply to: Salander

Having used Claymore mines and other schrapnel producing weapons, had that wing damage actually been schrapnel, it would be most likely that OTHER pieces of schrapnel would have been also visible.

That wasn't a schrapnel mark, it was from one round out of the total fired that by sheer random event, creased across the top of the wing.

Given that a 30mm cannon fires over 200 rounds per minute, shouldn't the wing be even more chewed up? You cannot rule out the shrapnel theory without also ruling out the cannon theory. In fact, since the cannon fire would have been more "focused," there should have been many more such creases. Of course, we know that the rebels had ample opportunity to tamper with the wreckage, so it doesn't really prove anything, does it?

a reply to: Salander

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but it seems like you are saying that there is no change in the noise signature when jet engines go into AB?

Okay let's try this again...





Now in any of the posted videos was there a loud bang heard when they went full afterburner as it is stated by the so called eyewitness.

SO that shows the eyewitness didn't hear what he says he heard with the loud bang from the afterburners.

And let's just forget the fact that SU 25's do not have afterburners...that the eyewitness says he saw.

a reply to: Salander

Out of the many rounds fired, one happened to crease right along the top of the wing.

That "level with the cockpit" angle of trajectory also reveals that the attack came from behind, slightly abeam, at the same altitude.

Not from a ground launched missile. The only thing that would sneak up from that angle would be another aircraft intending to specifically target the cockpit, without the pilot being aware. Even if he looked back to his @Eight O' Clock, the wing of the airliner would obscure the attacking aircraft until it was too late.

The direction of the bullet tearing through the wing is towards the cockpit not away, like another poster misdirected.