Dutch Investigators Give Results of MH17 Probe to Families

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Velatropa24

No its a sign that Russia is doing whatever it can to "muddy the waters" and shift blame for their actions.

So you cant defend the Russian stories they have put out?

In your view - maybe.

Defending them - it is not my intention. I will say that I don't know where in there is the truth, where are lies, what is twisted by the media reported, what came from "official Russia", what came from elsewhere and was attributed to them, etc. I don't know to have an opinion - simple as that.

That is in contrast to a lot of people here (not going to start naming) that don't know and do have an opinion, which constitutes the highest form of ignorance - something this site prides itself in denying.

What I do know is that the official jit investigation is flawed on many levels and in many ways, raises questions and reeks of a political order. That is what I am maintaining and the point I am making. All else is an attempt to derail.

a reply to: Velatropa24

What I do know is that the official jit investigation is flawed on many levels and in many ways, raises questions and reeks of a political order. That is what I am maintaining and the point I am making. All else is an attempt to derail.

In other words, you firmly believe the Kremlin's official position while admitting you actually know nothing about the situation.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Velatropa24

What I do know is that the official jit investigation is flawed on many levels and in many ways, raises questions and reeks of a political order. That is what I am maintaining and the point I am making. All else is an attempt to derail.

In other words, you firmly believe the Kremlin's official position while admitting you actually know nothing about the situation.

No. I am stating what I am stating. Don't put words in my mouth. And if the kremlin is of a similar opinion then I agree with them. I have not seen proof yet. And with the volume of words in this thread - all ammounts to nothing. No proof = no case. Provide proof then we will talk. Until then, you are just another confused number.

a reply to: Velatropa24

Might I suggest that if you want absolute proof, you give up on politics and take up mathematics. That's what most of your intelligent countrymen did during the Soviet era. One can never have "solid facts" in the real world; even if you see it with your own eyes, you may be mistaken. The best we can do is evaluate the claims and the sources that make those claims. Frankly, Russian media has a track record of flagrant lies. We may not know the truth, but we can be certain the Russian media is unlikely to have it.

a reply to: Velatropa24

What I do know is that the official jit investigation is flawed on many levels and in many ways, raises questions and reeks of a political order.

Why don't you start a thread with a point-by-point critique of the report instead of making accusations against your fellow members on this one?

a reply to: Velatropa24

Provide proof then we will talk

WHy if it doesn't agree with Russia's take on events then what good would it do?

And yet we have proof as the separatists have admitted to having one operational in the same area that MH17 was shot down in, so how much more proof does one need, and just to make it even more conclusive...they say they got some from Ukraine from one of the bases they took over but none of them were operational, so exactly where did the one they had and acknowledged having come from?

Let's go at it another way also...why would Ukraine be operating a BUK system in that area when the only aircraft flying during this conflict were Ukrainian military, what were they going to shoot their own aircraft down...you also need to remember that those in Ukraine would be used in the full battery meaning it would have had the targeting radar that would have showed MH17 as being a civilian aircraft and they wouldn't have fired on it.

Now let's look at who had the motivation for using the BUK system at that time...here we have the separatists getting pounded by air and have no way to hit anything over 16000 ft with the MANPADS they had, so they give their benefactor a call and he gives them something that can reach an aircraft over that height because of course the Ukrainian military understand that and stay out of range of the MANPADS. Now we have untrained separatists with a new toy that didn't have the whole battery so they didn't know it was a civilian airliner because they the radar on the BUK launcher doesn't have that capability.

Okay they use this new toy because they were getting hit hard prior to the shoot down and thought look we have something on radar and without thinking before they shot and lit the firecracker that brought it down.

Now knowing this who has more use for a BUK than those getting pounded by aircraft higher than any weapon you have can go...and that wasn't the Ukrainian military that is for sure.

originally posted by: Velatropa24

Actually, it's the other way around. The holes found correspond with the bow tie fragments, which Almaz Antei claimed from the very start, where Jit are claiming a version of the rocket that uses cubical and irregular.

Incorrect. Why don't you even know the basics? I understand that it is difficult to keep up with all the various versions put forward by the Russians.

Did you even watch the original Almaz Antey press conference on 13th October 2015?

The statements of AA are: MH17 was shot down by an old BUK missile of type 9M38. This missile is from around 1986. There are no butterfly shaped (Doube T shaped) holes to be seen in MH17 debris. This butterfly is typical for 9M38M1 missile which has three shapes of fragments. Russian Armed forces do not use this missile. It is not certified to use anymore because it can exploded all of a sudden. It is past its lifetime

From. Videos of the AA conference at following link.

Link

If you had read the DSB report then you would have seen the forensic summary.

43 of the 72 fragments were found to be made of unalloyed steel and four of these fragments, although heavily deformed and damaged, had distinctive shapes; cubic and in the form of a bow-tie.

Simply do a Ctl-f search on "bow-tie"

DSB Report link

For their version of the story the Russians need to make the bow-tie warhead fragments go away.

And yet we have proof as the separatists have admitted to having one operational in the same area that MH17 was shot down in, so how much more proof does one need, and just to make it even more conclusive...they say they got some from Ukraine from one of the bases they took over but none of them were operational, so exactly where did the one they had and acknowledged having come from?

This is what I am talking about. "We have proof". WHERE IS IT? Saying so does not making so. Show it!.

And prove it's legitimacy. Prove it is not manufactured by SBU - who have the means and 1000 good reasons.

"We have proof" is not proof.

Let's go at it another way also...why would Ukraine be operating a BUK system in that area when the only aircraft flying during this conflict were Ukrainian military, what were they going to shoot their own aircraft down...you also need to remember that those in Ukraine would be used in the full battery meaning it would have had the targeting radar that would have showed MH17 as being a civilian aircraft and they wouldn't have fired on it.

You seem to believe this whole thing was an accident. I do not.

Now let's look at who had the motivation for using the BUK system at that time...here we have the separatists getting pounded by air and have no way to hit anything over 16000 ft with the MANPADS they had, so they give their benefactor a call and he gives them something that can reach an aircraft over that height because of course the Ukrainian military understand that and stay out of range of the MANPADS. Now we have untrained separatists with a new toy that didn't have the whole battery so they didn't know it was a civilian airliner because they the radar on the BUK launcher doesn't have that capability.

Motivation is a very good point and I am glad you mentioned it. Lets look who benefited most from it. Who has a clear goal to demonize Russia, to bring in economic sanctions, etc...

Now knowing this who has more use for a BUK than those getting pounded by aircraft higher than any weapon you have can go...and that wasn't the Ukrainian military that is for sure.

Not knowing - thinking/believing. There is a big difference. One does not place accusations based on suspicions.

a reply to: Velatropa24

Ukraine Rebel Leader Admits Fighters Did Have BUK Missile

By Anton Zverev

DONETSK, Ukraine, July 23 (Reuters) - A powerful Ukrainian rebel leader has confirmed that pro-Russian separatists had an anti-aircraft missile of the type Washington says was used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 and it could have originated in Russia.

In an interview with Reuters, Alexander Khodakovsky, commander of the Vostok Battalion, acknowledged for the first time since the airliner was brought down in eastern Ukraine on Thursday that the rebels did possess the BUK missile system and said it could have been sent back subsequently to remove proof of its presence.

Before the Malaysian plane was shot down, rebels had boasted of obtaining the BUK missiles, which can shoot down airliners at cruising height. But since the disaster the separatists’ main group, the self-proclaimed People’s Republic of Donetsk, has repeatedly denied ever having possessed such weapons.

Since the airliner crashed with the loss of all 298 on board, the most contentious issue has been who fired the missile that brought the jet down in an area where government forces are fighting pro-Russian rebels.

Khodakovsky accused the Kiev authorities for provoking what may have been the missile strike that destroyed the doomed airliner, saying Kiev had deliberately launched air strikes in the area, knowing the missiles were in place.

“I knew that a BUK came from Luhansk. At the time I was told that a BUK from Luhansk was coming under the flag of the LNR,” he said, referring to the Luhansk People’s Republic, the main rebel group operating in Luhansk, one of two rebel provinces along with Donetsk, the province where the crash took place.

“That BUK I know about. I heard about it. I think they sent it back. Because I found out about it at exactly the moment that I found out that this tragedy had taken place. They probably sent it back in order to remove proof of its presence,” Khodakovsky told Reuters on Tuesday.

“The question is this: Ukraine received timely evidence that the volunteers have this technology, through the fault of Russia. It not only did nothing to protect security, but provoked the use of this type of weapon against a plane that was flying with peaceful civilians,” he said.

“They knew that this BUK existed; that the BUK was heading for Snezhnoye,” he said, referring to a village 10 km (six miles) west of the crash site. “They knew that it would be deployed there, and provoked the use of this BUK by starting an air strike on a target they didn’t need, that their planes hadn’t touched for a week.”

“And that day, they were intensively flying, and exactly at the moment of the shooting, at the moment the civilian plane flew overhead, they launched air strikes. Even if there was a BUK, and even if the BUK was used, Ukraine did everything to ensure that a civilian aircraft was shot down.”

click link for entire article.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Velatropa24

Ukraine Rebel Leader Admits Fighters Did Have BUK Missile

By Anton Zverev

DONETSK, Ukraine, July 23 (Reuters) - A powerful Ukrainian rebel leader has confirmed that pro-Russian separatists had an anti-aircraft missile of the type Washington says was used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 and it could have originated in Russia.

In an interview with Reuters, Alexander Khodakovsky, commander of the Vostok Battalion, acknowledged for the first time since the airliner was brought down in eastern Ukraine on Thursday that the rebels did possess the BUK missile system and said it could have been sent back subsequently to remove proof of its presence.

Before the Malaysian plane was shot down, rebels had boasted of obtaining the BUK missiles, which can shoot down airliners at cruising height. But since the disaster the separatists’ main group, the self-proclaimed People’s Republic of Donetsk, has repeatedly denied ever having possessed such weapons.

Since the airliner crashed with the loss of all 298 on board, the most contentious issue has been who fired the missile that brought the jet down in an area where government forces are fighting pro-Russian rebels.

Khodakovsky accused the Kiev authorities for provoking what may have been the missile strike that destroyed the doomed airliner, saying Kiev had deliberately launched air strikes in the area, knowing the missiles were in place.

“I knew that a BUK came from Luhansk. At the time I was told that a BUK from Luhansk was coming under the flag of the LNR,” he said, referring to the Luhansk People’s Republic, the main rebel group operating in Luhansk, one of two rebel provinces along with Donetsk, the province where the crash took place.

“That BUK I know about. I heard about it. I think they sent it back. Because I found out about it at exactly the moment that I found out that this tragedy had taken place. They probably sent it back in order to remove proof of its presence,” Khodakovsky told Reuters on Tuesday.

“The question is this: Ukraine received timely evidence that the volunteers have this technology, through the fault of Russia. It not only did nothing to protect security, but provoked the use of this type of weapon against a plane that was flying with peaceful civilians,” he said.

“They knew that this BUK existed; that the BUK was heading for Snezhnoye,” he said, referring to a village 10 km (six miles) west of the crash site. “They knew that it would be deployed there, and provoked the use of this BUK by starting an air strike on a target they didn’t need, that their planes hadn’t touched for a week.”

“And that day, they were intensively flying, and exactly at the moment of the shooting, at the moment the civilian plane flew overhead, they launched air strikes. Even if there was a BUK, and even if the BUK was used, Ukraine did everything to ensure that a civilian aircraft was shot down.”

click link for entire article.

Ok. Like I said - how do we know it is legitimate and not a creation of SBU? You know how these structures work, especially in Ukraine.... threaten any prisoner with the wellbeing of their loved ones, and they will do anything you say. When a person has something to lose, he is capable of anything.

This is what I am saying about legitimacy.

When the stakes are high, you don't think they are capable of pulling something like that off?

Don't be so naive...

a reply to: Velatropa24

Because its coming from a rebel commander and he was never a prisoner.

You do realize you cant keep dismissing facts that dont support your position right? It makes you out to bee the one who looks naive / grasping at straws.

If you have such an issue with what the rebel said take it up with him. It wont change the facts though.

Here you go.. More evidence from Russia regarding Russian lies on MH17.

Russia Says Has Photos Of Ukraine Deploying BUK Missiles In East, Radar Proof Of Warplanes In MH17 Vicinity

tell you what.. You pick whichever Russian explanation, and there are many, you like the most and defend it.

An article from Vosti and RT talked about the pro russian rebels with BUK system. The article from Vosti is "Skies of Donetsk will be defended by surface-to-air missile system Buk".

Rt also carried the story and showed the rebels posing with the BUK.


Not surprising both articles are now gone even though they have been referenced on numerous sites. The article was posted in late 2014.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
An article from Vosti and RT talked about the pro russian rebels with BUK system. The article from Vosti is "Skies of Donetsk will be defended by surface-to-air missile system Buk".

Rt also carried the story and showed the rebels posing with the BUK.


Not surprising both articles are now gone even though they have been referenced on numerous sites. The article was posted in late 2014.

Ok. I'm sick of arguing with brick walls and going in circles here. I have stated my case and what I am after time and time again.

1) almaz antei has come out with detailed information reguarding trajectory, radar data and other important facts scientifically provong the impossibility of the launch site, missile trajectory claimed by jit. Yet jit has based their investigation on ukrainian medical forensics - people who can't in principle know all the ins and outs.

2) jit or any of you have provided claims and accusations with no legitimate evidence whoch proves beyond reasonable doubt their accusations. I am still waiting for it. I am not denying facts like you say, i am arguing the point that they are not actually "facts" but mere theories, because the word "fact" presumes absolute unquestionable truth, something that does not correspond with theories or propaganda you post over and over. I have stated - no legitimate evidence = no case. I repeat it yet again for those who forget so quickly.

3) about rebel commander - prove that it happened, that it is not a fake story, that the "commander" in question had no personal agenda, that he was not put in a position where he has no other choice but to lie, etc. Do not pick on my words or examples, but rather see the idea behind them. You are not a robot, that's what brains are for. Note: according to you everything that comes out of Russia or Donbass is a lie, why you believe him now? Because it fits your bias? How about some consistency.

a reply to: Velatropa24

and the Dutch report says otherwise and since almaz antei is a Russian defense contractor and has been involved in other Russian distortions / lies regarding MH17 their credibility is lacking.

As for bias I think your the last person who should be lecturing others considering you are doing the very thing you accuse me of.

Maybe had Russia not lied so many times about MH17 we wouldn't question everything they release about it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Velatropa24

and the Dutch report says otherwise and since almaz antei is a Russian defense contractor and has been involved in other Russian distortions / lies regarding MH17 their credibility is lacking.

As for bias I think your the last person who should be lecturing others considering you are doing the very thing you accuse me of.

Maybe had Russia not lied so many times about MH17 we wouldn't question everything they release about it.

And the carousel keeps going around.

Legitimate evidence - lets go.

a reply to: Velatropa24

Already provided.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Velatropa24

Already provided.

Where?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Velatropa24

Provide proof then we will talk

WHy if it doesn't agree with Russia's take on events then what good would it do?

And yet we have proof as the separatists have admitted to having one operational in the same area that MH17 was shot down in, so how much more proof does one need, and just to make it even more conclusive...they say they got some from Ukraine from one of the bases they took over but none of them were operational, so exactly where did the one they had and acknowledged having come from?

More to the point, they admitted at the time (as reported by the Russian state news agency TASS) that they had shot down a large aircraft with a missile.

Why would they have lied? Before they discovered that it wasnt a Ukrainian military aircraft after all .....

This remains the elephant in the room for those who claim that the rebels were not responsible.

originally posted by: Velatropa24

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Velatropa24

Already provided.

Where?

Over the past two years:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Stop asking for what has been handed to you on a silver platter. Feel free to join any of the threads that dissect the issues, or bring the issues already on the table there, here. Better yet, start your own thread critiquing the JIT report. If you don't do it today, I will do it tomorrow and you probably won't like it because I am as likely to expose Russian lies and bias as I am those of the Western media.