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.

 

MH17 Ukraine disaster: Dutch report blames missile

page: 12
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
There is a cloud of traffic floating above us - chemtrailfans get 1 point.

you can look at it at the various flight radar services
that are offered online - most of them are free, some
have complete schedule service and also show the origin
of the plane, airport of liftoff and destination.
Even speed and altitude is given - but all this will for some
technical, juridical, safety issues not be in real-time.

Already some information must be past over from local
authorities to the next chain of interest = the security agents
and boards - gathering Gigabytes of data all day long..
about the past, current, future state of the conflict.
With this also a keen complete list of all militairy systems
ever build, employed, sold, held, discommissioned.

So, if this flight passed over a RED area - who didn't know?

It is strange that this event is bended as it is - for in my
personal view - there has been a fail-to-respond on all
levels of this cloud of awareness -
intelligence, governement, airtraffic control, safety boards
and third parties offering the travel services.
There was a little flight-route interrupt - what does this
signal to the ground entities - the plane had a transponder
what does this signal to the ground entities - the plane had
a non-militairy altitude - not set for avoiding radar, not set for
avoiding buk-rocket systems - although multiple mil entities
where downed (according to information available).
Also this concurrent downing over the past weeks before the
incident should have signalled a higher-alert state for all
concerning parties - why didn't this happen ?

All this is scrubbed from the public media as a base for
investigation - Investigators urge for a better information
exchange - which is strange - if i can track ongoing movements
online without access restriction, what else is there needed ?
I can even read the transponder code.. and even the squacks.

All this smells like butyric acid.. stale-mate.. it smells stale.

We should only blame ourselfs - not being vigilant enough ?
for that reason, because we cannot track all complex systems we ask other people
to do this for us - for good reasons - competence and mentalstate.

the guilty parties are in the house - the one pressing buttons was like
a factory worker turning nuts and bolts - commanded by
(media info) well known Russian Commander..

Nothing the less - the Russian have a guilt in this, too
using very heavy AA - to add more pressure on the air-sector
Never the less - if outside parties had made the choice of circumventing
this area - for the good reasons - observing the downing of many mil entities
- then this incident could have been avoided...

Furthermore a darkside of this story - the buk system will have a nice sale pitch

en.wikipedia.org...

( if this is actually the system used )




posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Unfortunately, I am on a mobile device, which makes providing links difficult. When I get home I will furnish you with a documented catalog of Russian lies that I challenge you to refute. What astonished me is that you have the chutzpah to pretend you have never heard any of this before.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Unfortunately, I am on a mobile device, which makes providing links difficult. When I get home I will furnish you with a documented catalog of Russian lies that I challenge you to refute. What astonished me is that you have the chutzpah to pretend you have never heard any of this before.



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




Let me get some things straight. That billboard image is not worth any further discussion, just an epic fail with regards to fakery. Thanks to RogueWave for the link to the other thread.


Of course it is. RogueWave hasn't a clue what he is talking about. Just more 'photoshop' die-hard rambling from someone desperately seeking to see things in video footage. It is a mindset! It is the same as people seeing missing wings in Boeing 767 footage during 9/11 and shouting hologram or flat earth people claiming that they have footage of clouds behind the sun. It is a mindset and shows how desperate die-hard conspiracy theorists will go to.




And what is this:







Showed up in a quick search, looks like satellite feed though. But you do have a point as the weather was pretty bad that day. There were even thunderstorms mentioned in the report.


It is fake and created from a video game "Flaming Cliffs 2"

Metabunk Link

The nut jobs over on Veterans Today fell hook line and sinker for it and still do. They have it as evidence of Israeli volunteers firing on MH17.

www.veteranstoday.com...



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo




It is a mindset!


And that's a very slippery slope but no excuse to embrace ignorance. We already talked abot that and your... 'source'.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thx 4 the fish and obey a nice week!
edit on 18-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

So why are you embracing ignorance by blindly following RogueWave and his claims of billboards being photo shopped?

He let his very vivid imagination run away with himself when he conducted his "analysis"

Absolutely nothing wrong with the footage apart from a die-hard conspiracy theorist applying his mindset. That mindset as you can see leads you down the slippery slope.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

Relax.

It's not about following anybody, it's about plain facts regarding fakes. What's wrong with you people, ad hominem only? How about you making sure it was indeed valid?
You know... that boring talking-point is not really our topic here, innit? You know the thread, give it a try?

Your conspiratorial paradigme is of no use right now either, can you offer some solid sources for your alleged 'Russian fake' now? Some Russian satellite data to compare the image_gag in question with, anything or vivid imagination only?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 18-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: tommyjo

Relax.

It's not about following anybody, it's about plain facts regarding fakes. What's wrong with you people, ad hominem only? How about you making sure it was indeed valid?
You know... that boring talking-point is not really our topic here, innit? You know the thread, give it a try?

Your conspiratorial paradigme is of no use right now either, can you offer some solid sources for your alleged 'Russian fake' now? Some Russian satellite data to compare the image_gag in question with, anything or vivid imagination only?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


You do realize that's from a video right? And you can't see the sky through the tree what you can see is a bright area of the tree. Go watch the video and you'll realize that you can't see the billboard through a tree. Also they would have had to photoshop other things like grass roads trees the billboard isn't the only point that matches. This is just nothing but a distraction to attempt to disprove facts.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Such long, content free posts. All you ever seem to do is talk past other members to keep newcomers to the thread confused as to what facts have been established. I'm not playing that game with you any more. Here are some Russian lies that were exposed in an earlier thread. I apologize for reposting, but I realize now there is no point in expending any energy actually trying to discuss things with someone whose entire objective is derail discussion.

Here are what the eyewitnesses say:



“The big one plane (Boeing) I did not see – it dived into the clouds. Bah!. Then an explosion was heard. A strong explosion and debris began to crumble. Here 37 people dropped. The plane, which went with him (Boeing), then went to the front. Then he went “like this” (shows the front hand) – went into the clouds, and a few seconds later there was an explosion. After that at Hrabovo, six kilometers away, a column of smoke rose up to the clouds.”



One plane, the passenger plane was not visible because it was in a cloud.



“There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].”



One plane, the sound of an explosion. Not cannon fire; a single explosion, indicating a single explosive device.



“There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …”



Not one, but two explosions in the air. This contradicts the witness above.This witness apparently saw the civilian plane, contradicting the witness who said it was in the clouds.



“… And there was another aircraft, a military one, besides it. Everybody saw it.”



One aircraft again, flying at the same altitude as the passenger jet



" It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.”



One jet flying below the passenger aircraft.

None of the witnesses agree on the most essential details of the incident. They contradict one another in terms of the number of jets, the number of explosions and even whether or not MH17 was visible! (Meteorological records show that it was overcast.) It gets better:



Before fleeing to Russia Evgeny Agapov was a mechanic at air base №A4465 (Nikolaev and Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, airfield Aviatorskoe village, about 250 km from the crash site). The witness is a citizen of Ukraine.

Agapov testified that July 17, 2014, three jets went into the air about an hour before MH17 crashed. One of the jets was equipped with two air-to-air missiles type R-60. This particular jet later returned to base without these missiles. The other two jets were shot down. Pilot of the Su-25, captain Vladislav Voloshin, was scared according to Agapov. “It was the wrong plane” (Самолет не тот), Voloshin said as he got out of his plane. Later flight director Dyakiv talked to captain Voloshin. Dyakiv asked: “What happened to the plane?” to which Voloshin replied: “The plane was in the wrong time and the wrong place.”



[Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Source for all the above quotations.

So, according to a Russian who supposedly worked at an air base, there were three planes, only one of which was armed with air to air missiles. How were the other two shot down? Was it the work of the rebels? The rebels don't have jets of their own, so who did it? Was it air support from Russia, or do the rebels have BUKs? In any event, the clear implication of this story is Voloshin shot down MH17 with his two R-60s. Somehow, this witness was able to hear the pilot muttering to himself on a noisy airstrip, and the pilot claimed it was a mis-identification; a mistake. How could he possibly have thought that a passenger plane approaching from the west was under rebel control?

So, if the rebels really did shoot down two other jets that day, and there really was an SU-25 in the same airspace as MH17, why does it seem so impossible to some people that the rebels took a shot at the fighter but hit the passenger plane instead?

I predict that you will say the Russian government had nothing to do with any of this.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

So, if the rebels really did shoot down two other jets that day, and there really was an SU-25 in the same airspace as MH17, why does it seem so impossible to some people that the rebels took a shot at the fighter but hit the passenger plane instead?


Without having delved more deeply in the entire matter, I think this is a plausible case.
MH17 was shot down by accident and nobody wants to take the blaim.
For me it doesn't matter if it was Ukraine, the rebels or Russia.
It happened and with terrible consequences for all the victims and families.
I find it much more important, why the plane was flying there in the first place, cause it already was a war zone for an extended period of time.
Airlines still haven't learned from this mistake:
nos.nl...



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tyrion79

originally posted by: DJW001

So, if the rebels really did shoot down two other jets that day, and there really was an SU-25 in the same airspace as MH17, why does it seem so impossible to some people that the rebels took a shot at the fighter but hit the passenger plane instead?


Without having delved more deeply in the entire matter, I think this is a plausible case.
MH17 was shot down by accident and nobody wants to take the blaim.
For me it doesn't matter if it was Ukraine, the rebels or Russia.
It happened and with terrible consequences for all the victims and families.
I find it much more important, why the plane was flying there in the first place, cause it already was a war zone for an extended period of time.
Airlines still haven't learned from this mistake:
nos.nl...


COnsidering the SU-25 cant make i t to altitude to shoot the passenger plane UNLESS UN ARMED and with almost NO FUEL TO SAVE WEIGHT even then the manufacturers and sukhoi test flight crew said it could not sustain it for more than 10-30 seconds before stalling out seriously degrades that pilots claims. I believe th e manufacturer over the russian government and co ersed testimony of people too scared to tell the truth.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Just a quick question: did you find anything regarding witnesses in the official report?

 


a reply to: Tyrion79

Spot on!

This focus on air traffic over a war zone tells me, that the investigators precisely know who is responsible but obviously can't do a damnd thing about it. I won't be surprised if all further investigation regarding the guilty is going to fizzle out eventually.

 


What I can't see, and what nobody was able to explain to me, is how you could lock a plane in 30K feet with a TALAR only. I would say it's a nearly impossible task with a completely covered sky, how are they supposed to make out their target then?


The SNOW DRIFT warning and acquisition radar provides target height, bearing and range data. The SNOW DRIFT has a detection range of 85 km against high-flying targets, 35 km against targets at an altitude of 100 meters, and 23 km against targets flying nap-of-the-earth (NOE). The radar's tracking range extending from 70 km for high-flying targets to 20 km for NOE targets. Tracking of helicopters hovering at 30 m can be made as far as 10 km. Once a target is identified it is turned over to an TELAR via a data link for tracking and attack. The SNOW DRIFT receives early warning from brigade-level surveillance radars such as the SPOON REST.
The H/I-band FIRE DOME monopulse guidance and tracking engagement radar has an effective guidance range of 3-32 km and an altitude envelope 15 meters to 22 km, and can engage approaching targets moving at a maximum of 3000 km/h (1860 mph). The radar guides as many as three missiles against a single target.

fas.org...

Without "Snow Drift" target data it would've been a rather blind shot, wouldn't it?
Has anybody more info on the specs of this "Fire Dome" tracking radar?
Are there any clues, that the rebels did have a complete BUK system and not a TALAR only?



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


Just a quick question: did you find anything regarding witnesses in the official report?


No. They had zero credibility.



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Ok, ty. Like Ukrainian data then, or the source you've got 'your info' from? I see...




posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

RT needs to fire there audio expert he's trying to deconstruct an mp4 they posted online. That's funny it doesn't have time stamps in an mp4 and its compressed. What you do to verify an mp4 is you listen for background noise inconsistencies. I'm guessing they found none or that would have been the first thing he mentioned. In fact you can recode mp4s on the fly I know I do it all the time. In which case being able to tell if it's edited becomes impossible except looking for breaks in tracks.

There expert just made stuff up but this isn't the first time RT had an expert lie to thier audience. I guess people that watch RT are easily fooled.

The true test was to get the actual recording they sent to the Dutch from that you can tell a lot depending on the original format. It's really bad now with RT they have just gone to blatant fabrications they don't even care anymore.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: tommyjo

Relax.

It's not about following anybody, it's about plain facts regarding fakes. What's wrong with you people, ad hominem only? How about you making sure it was indeed valid?
You know... that boring talking-point is not really our topic here, innit? You know the thread, give it a try?




Of course it is about plain facts. Why this constant need to go down the photoshop route? Not even the Russian Ministry of Defence went down that route with the Buk on the Truck video. They simply ran with a different location and got their asses handed to them when social media and internet sleuths confirmed the true filming location.

Both these type of claims either the 'photoshop' or the other location are just distractions. Remember that these attempts are a mindset either by the Russian Military or individuals needing to believe. That is why the likes of RogueWave go down that route and people like yourself blindly accept what they publish. Come on the video is NOT photo shopped. It is just ridiculous and naive to believe such non-sense, but I do get the mindset and desperate need to believe that it is.

Freelance journalists have been back to the intersection in Luhansk and filmed from the same floor of the building. The journalist even double-checked the Russian Military claim of it being filmed in Krasnoarmeisk. If you go back and read the thread you will see where RogueWave went wrong with his 'analysis'



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now it is important as that Buk on a Truk Luhansk video will likely appear or be referenced in the Dutch Criminal Investigation report? Now what do you think is going to happen if that video appears. Of course the die hards are going to immediately fall back on the claims of the Russian Military or go down the photo shop claims. Remember what the Russian Military told the world about that video?


The good example of such fact is that some mass media showed transportation of the Buk-M1 missile system from Ukrainian to Russian territory.We can clearly see that its frame-up. These pictures were made in the city of Krasnoarmeisk that is confirmed by a banner situated close to the road. This banner has an address of the car shop situated at the Dnepropetrovskaya, 34. Since May 11 the Krasnoarmeysk city is under control of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.


UK Russian Embassy Link



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


suspect timing of the reports release. suspect motives. insufficient transparency, details withheld. i call BS. part of operation 'demonize russia'. phooey.


Agreed. Operation Phooey… Investigation objective? Not, done in secret by member state of NATO.


You do realize Russian investigators were involved in the report as well. The Dutch lead the investigation team but it contained investigators from several countries. The investigators were made up from representatives from Malaysia, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Australia and the Netherlands. Even Putin on a speech said Russia was participating in the investigation.

The report doesn't place blame was not intended to only to present the cause of the crash. To find out guilt that is now the prosecutors job and what he does depends on the evidence they find as to who launched the missile. Though I will say Russias refusal to allow a UN tribunal says a lot even the Chinese agreed to head the investigation but Russia vetoed it. Odd that Russia doesn't want the victims families to receive justice. Perhaps they don't believe the Chinese have the ability to investigate or more likely afraid they do.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

The Dutch lead the investigation team but it contained investigators from several countries.

Yah, Dutch are NATO. I'd sooner trust an independent review than to let NATO have final say over an investigation into an "accident" in a country they are secretly subverting to western Hegemony.

But I get the whole let the cops investigate cops paradigm. Its been that way so long, nobody even bats an eye.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo



Of course it is about plain facts. Why this constant need to go down the photoshop route?


Plain and simple: to address double-standarts.
We either go down that road together, scrutinizing all "leaks", or we don't.

 


a reply to: dragonridr




The true test was to get the actual recording they sent to the Dutch from that you can tell a lot depending on the original format. It's really bad now with RT they have just gone to blatant fabrications they don't even care anymore.


Where is it then, lost in translation? Can you point out those rcordings in the report? I didn't even care to look anymore, sorry for that.



posted on Oct, 22 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Of course Russians were supposedly being part of the investigation...how else do you want to try and give merit to the report?

Well tell me dragonridr, why did the request of the Russians to have a real independent investigation getting denied over and over again by The West?...the Russians would not mind having the Chinese investigate it, but they are against making UN tribunal political showcase of it, because the truth will then be buried by a political show and Russia will then be made to look like the perpetrator without an actual truth finding base...so why would Russia stand behind something which will be used to cover up the truth and to indict them?...the UN tribunals do a very poor job in exposing the truth as we have seen in the past...it's a good thing the Russians refused it, but it got suggested anyway by The West, because they knew Russia would not stand behind it and by so it looks like the Russians are guilty because our Western media are sure not going to tell the real reason why the Russians thought it was unacceptable...imagine our media telling the Russians were against an UN tribunal because it only is going to obscure what has happened.

And why have there been calls for an UN tribunal with an air crash disaster while there never have been an UN tribunal before with one?




edit on 22 10 2015 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join