MH17 Ukraine disaster: Dutch report blames missile

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: DJW001

It's not clear when the photographs were taken or how much tampering by the rebels took place. Are you really that desperate to find something "fishy?"

Now that's some BS. Various pics have been made of this panel and it circulated the internet for the past year. Now in the reconstruction, suddenly the hole is filled, and the piece is still attached to the rest of the panel.

This has nothing to do with supposed tampering of the rebels, or you are suggesting that the rebels sneaked into Gilze-Rijen airbase with that missing piece, put it in the place of the hole and somehow fused it together......

I am not even saying it means anything in the big picture, but one can't deny that this is a bit strange and unexplainable.

Typical of aircraft reconstruction there is a wire frame behind the piece holding it in place. Not sure what you believe is happening here. To reconstruct the airplane they use a wire frame and place the pieces they have on it.

a reply to: intrptr

Actually, he's right.

Ok, then the Dutch report is wrong.

Did you see the presentation or read the part of the report dealing with the position of the missile?

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

Agree totally with you.

I find it strange that on most UK news channels the same headline is on repeat that "Russian made buk missile downed plane".

Why is it required to add the Russian made part? It's a russian company who makes them. And what? So if I take a tea cup made in England and hit you with it. I'm sure the English won't be blamed. Moreover it won't be stated that English made cup done the damage.

This missile was used by many groups. More importantly as stated by the Russian defence minister this missile has not been used by Russia for many many years.

That does not rule out that the rebels could have received the left overs from the Russian weapons stock. However Ukraine use these weapons which is fact.
Therefore why try to blame the rebels who may have used these weapons with not evidence. And not blame the Ukraine forces who 100% use these missiles.

Strange

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: intrptr

Actually, he's right.

Ok, then the Dutch report is wrong.

Did you see the presentation or read the part of the report dealing with the position of the missile?

Either way, the "test" was staged to cast doubt on the theory... and wound up reinforcing it.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: RogueWave

Actually, he's right. BUK typically attacks from above and behind to thwart evasion. That explains the holes in the cabin floor and the relative intact left lower belly of the aircraft as presented on stage.

Would also point backward along the flight path, back into Ukraine. Not forward into "separatists" territory.

No buks are radar guided missiles. They do not approach from behind the aircraft that is heat seeking missiles. Buks are designed to explode in front if the aircraft where the aircraft will be meaning it tries to explode on front of the cockpit.

a reply to: dragonridr

Typical of aircraft reconstruction there is a wire frame behind the piece holding it in place. Not sure what you believe is happening here. To reconstruct the airplane they use a wire frame and place the pieces they have on it.

Oh really? Thanks for that, I couldn't have figured that out on my own.....

Now compare the two pics again. Do you see any indication that the piece is not attached to the panel anymore, on the right side? Like an obvious tear running through it or space in between?

If this piece was blasted out of there, and found back later on the ground, then I don't expect it to fit the hole so perfect that you can't see that it was once severed from the rest of the panel.

Not sure what you believe is happening here.

I only explained it three times before......

a reply to: RogueWave

Keep going on this track and you will start theorizing that the plane was really a hologram....

a reply to: DJW001

Either way, the "test" was staged to cast doubt on the theory... and wound up reinforcing it.

I was not talking about the test there, was I.

a reply to: DJW001

Putinistas

Name-calling as last resort, of course. Does anyone else notice that faint odor of sulfur in the air?

Nist-coverup comes to mind when I hear of intransparency regarding this new official report. It's already fishy as hell, no need for more evidence to suspect a conspiracy.

Don't make it worse, DJ.

a reply to: DJW001

Why do you feel the need to summon all types of BS when I am only discussing an obvious visual issue, confirmed by others in this thread.

Almost seems like there is something to it.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Name-calling as last resort, of course.

It's only name calling if you are ashamed of supporting Putin and what he is doing. Well?

Nist-coverup comes to mind when I hear of intransparency regarding this new official report. It's already fishy as hell, no need for more evidence to suspect a conspiracy.

It is only fishy because it does not reach the conclusion you want it to.

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: DJW001

Why do you feel the need to summon all types of BS when I am only discussing an obvious visual issue, confirmed by others in this thread.

Almost seems like there is something to it.

Are you really that desperate to find something wrong with this report?

So far, a lot of this thread consists of members misrepresenting what other members supposedly think, rather than stating their own observations and opinions about the actual report.

Maybe if we focus on facts, we won't be bothered so much by fiction.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Name-calling as last resort, of course.

It's only name calling if you are ashamed of supporting Putin and what he is doing. Well?

Gimme names, I actually like that. But nobody on Ceres cares, just saying...

originally posted by: DJW001

Nist-coverup comes to mind when I hear of intransparency regarding this new official report. It's already fishy as hell, no need for more evidence to suspect a conspiracy.

It's only fishy because it does not reach the conclusion you want it to.

Never criticized their conclusion either, I would rather go along with them. But their methods and this lack of transparency are suboptimal at best, we ought to know who shot that missile by now.

This whole mess is a disgrace. Who did this?



a reply to: Majic

Lot's of evidence is not for our eyes to see. Some folks obviously didn't intent to investigate who actually did this, but rather how it was done.

Yes I do see indicators for a bigger conspiracy to protect the real culprits.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

It's an accident report. It wasn't supposed to determine who, and was supposed to determine how. The prosecutor's investigation is determining who.

a reply to: Majic

So far, a lot of this thread consists of members misrepresenting what other members supposedly think, rather than stating their own observations and opinions about the actual report.

The report followed standard investigative procedures and reached a reasonable conclusion. There is still time for the responsible party to claim it was an accident:

In the months before the crash, at least 16 military airplanes and helicopters were shot down in the eastern part of Ukraine.

RT.com, so you know it must be true.

Where were the evidence the US said they had?

No US satellite images, no nothing about that mentioned in the report. Well Guess bull #### dont cut it that well in a offisial report.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If there would be any. A rather big if, innit?

Also, in all accident reports I saw the culprits were named and everybody involved was brought to light. But when Nobody cares to ask who drove that big BUK-Telar in the first place, I wouldn't even dare to call this investigation an accident report.

Vladimir Putin Traitor to the New World Order. Pa…: youtu.be... Fight against New World Order.
The Rothschild Illuminati will enslave humanity :-(
Unless We can change things for the Betterment of Mankind?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

An accident report will list mechanics making mistakes, or pilot error. They won't determine who placed a bomb or fired a missile.

Accident reports are to determine cause of an accident, or destruction of the aircraft. If the source of destruction is an outside event, such as a bomb or missile, they do not determine who is responsible. That investigation falls under the purview of other agencies.

The prosecutor's office is already running an investigation, but needed the report for it.