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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Dutch Investigators Give Results of MH17 Probe to Families

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Velatropa24

Actually they don't look the same. This picture shows the difference between a variety of SAMs employed by Russia.


Almaz-Antey claims that any missile that would take part in a modern parade would be the 9M317. As is pretty easily recognizable the 9M317 has shorter fins than the 9M38M1 that they claim was used. Here is a picture of Putin visiting a military base in 2013. The profile of those missiles in the background clearly match the 9M38M1.



Here is a video of the 2015 Victory Day parade. Those also look more like 9M38M1s to me as well.



There are other examples of you want them as well.




posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Velatropa24

and in threads dealing with Russian government claims of innocence its hard to accept their position when they have been caught lying so many times on this topic. Something thats been pointed out time and again and, ironically, your own bias prevents you from comprehending those facts.

In this case the truth is pretty readily available. It seems to be you have issues with the facts because of your own bias.

again.. ironic.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Velatropa24

Yes yes America does stuff people, including myself, dont agree with. Whats sad though is your willingness to excuse the very behavior by Russia that you take America to task for.

Again, bias much? or have we moved into the realm of extreme hypocrisy on your part that you dont see because of that bias?

Are you at any point going to come back to the topic or are you going to continue to derail the thread with personal attacks and comments unrelated to the dutch investigation and Russia trying to shift blame?



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Actually - my line in this topic is that the "official investigation" is flawed in many different ways and can not be used as "proof beyond reasonable doubt". I did not once claim anyone's guilt or innosence. Get your facts right if you are going to make accusations. Or better yet, quit while you are ahead, because you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper underground. I don't even need to try, it is enough to comprehend what comes out of your side...



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Velatropa24

Then by all means tell us whats flawed and feel free to cite your sources refuting the info that you find "flawed". Or are you going to continue deflecting with personal attacks because you cant refute the facts?
edit on 28-9-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Velatropa24

Then by all means tell us whats flawed and feel free to cite your sources refuting the info that you find "flawed". Or are you going to continue deflecting with personal attacks because you cant refute the facts?


I have already told what is flawed more then once in this topic. By all means, find and read.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Velatropa24

So deflection it is.

check



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

In any case, why - of the allegations are true - would the Russians use their latest state of the art BUK?

We dont know who provided it or where it came from (though there is evidence that it came from Russia). Had Russian destroyed all its older BUKs? Or maybe some warlords still held older models and provided them to Donbass as unofficial aid?



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Velatropa24

Actually they don't look the same. This picture shows the difference between a variety of SAMs employed by Russia.


Almaz-Antey claims that any missile that would take part in a modern parade would be the 9M317. As is pretty easily recognizable the 9M317 has shorter fins than the 9M38M1 that they claim was used. Here is a picture of Putin visiting a military base in 2013. The profile of those missiles in the background clearly match the 9M38M1.



Here is a video of the 2015 Victory Day parade. Those also look more like 9M38M1s to me as well.



There are other examples of you want them as well.


I am talking about the shrapnel element contents, not shape of the fins...



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Velatropa24

Then by all means tell us whats flawed and feel free to cite your sources refuting the info that you find "flawed". Or are you going to continue deflecting with personal attacks because you cant refute the facts?


Unfortunately, my impression (from other places not just here) is that the official investigation is flawed because it was not carried out by the Russians, who were the only people capable of carrying out a fair and unbiased investigation.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
Unfortunately, my impression (from other places not just here) is that the official investigation is flawed because it was not carried out by the Russians, who were the only people capable of carrying out a fair and unbiased investigation.


uhm yeah.. Having Russia involved / investigating would be like having the SS investigate Auschwitz.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
Unfortunately, my impression (from other places not just here) is that the official investigation is flawed because it was not carried out by the Russians, who were the only people capable of carrying out a fair and unbiased investigation.


uhm yeah.. Having Russia involved / investigating would be like having the SS investigate Auschwitz.


Please explain why you draw that conclusion? How is Russia a side in the incident? Where was the proof at the beginning when the incident happened that Russia was invilved, that prevented Russia from investigating? One bit of evidence? America coming out and saying so a minute before the incident happened? Where is the proof now after the "official investigation"? Loud claim ftom you but zero substance as usual.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Velatropa24

I'm just going by what Almaz-Antey said. They said the damage pattern was consistent with the 9M38M1. They also said that Russia no longer possessed the 9M38M1. This claim has been proven false with photographic evidence time and again. If they meant a specific aspect of the model was no longer used why did they specify the model as a whole? If they meant a specific aspect of the model why did they say that only the 9M317 is used in parades when we have photographic proof of them using the 9M38M1?

Much like the current radar data snafu, Almaz-Antey got themselves dragged into a ridiculous lie that was easily disproved. Personally I hope sanctions are placed specifically against them and they are forced out of business for their deliberate role in trying to impede justice.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Velatropa24

Because evidence to date says the missile launcher came from Russian territory into rebel controlled territory in occupied Ukraine.

You don't allow a person to run / be a part of an investigation that they are a murder suspect in.

Use some common sense and look at the evidence. The US did not make the case that Russia was behind this - The Dutch report says where the BUK came from, where it went when it crossed into occupied Ukrainian territory, and its route back to Russia.

Ignoring evidence because it doesn't support the narrative you want does not invalidate the evidence... just your opinion. Maybe we should review the other lies the Russian government put out about the shootdown. Maybe one of those earlier debunked lies will better fit your narrative.

Those lies would also be why Russia should not be involved in the investigation process. In western jurisprudence its called false exculpatory statements and they are used to demonstrate criminal culpability / intent to commit a crime...

Like being involved in shooting down a civilian airliner, either directly by a Russian crew or by proxy using Russian soldiers who went on "vacation" to Ukraine.

Remind us again what military aircraft were the rebels using during this Russian invasion?
edit on 28-9-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Velatropa24

I'm just going by what Almaz-Antey said. They said the damage pattern was consistent with the 9M38M1. They also said that Russia no longer possessed the 9M38M1. This claim has been proven false with photographic evidence time and again. If they meant a specific aspect of the model was no longer used why did they specify the model as a whole? If they meant a specific aspect of the model why did they say that only the 9M317 is used in parades when we have photographic proof of them using the 9M38M1?

Much like the current radar data snafu, Almaz-Antey got themselves dragged into a ridiculous lie that was easily disproved. Personally I hope sanctions are placed specifically against them and they are forced out of business for their deliberate role in trying to impede justice.


How about using a sound clip of unknown origin found on social media as a crucial bit of evidence to base the whole investigation on - does that ammount to impeding justice/falcifying evidence? Worthy of sanctions? I think so.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Velatropa24

Please explain why you draw that conclusion? How is Russia a side in the incident? Where was the proof at the beginning when the incident happened that Russia was invilved,


Precisely. There was no reason for Russia to be involved any more than the US, UK or Bolivia. None of whom were.

So whats the problem?

Edit: actually, the UK had a reason to be involved since some of the victims were British. But there were no Russians involved at all ..... were there?
edit on 28-9-2016 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Velatropa24

Because evidence to date says the missile launcher came from Russian territory into rebel controlled territory in occupied Ukraine.

You don't allow a person to run / be a part of an investigation that they are a murder suspect in.

Use some common sense and look at the evidence. The US did not make the case that Russia was behind this - The Dutch report says where the BUK came from, where it went when it crossed into occupied Ukrainian territory, and its route back to Russia.

Ignoring evidence because it doesn't support the narrative you want does not invalidate the evidence... just your opinion. Maybe we should review the other lies the Russian government put out about the shootdown. Maybe one of those earlier debunked lies will better fit your narrative.

Those lies would also be why Russia should not be involved in the investigation process. In western jurisprudence its called false exculpatory statements and they are used to demonstrate criminal culpability / intent to commit a crime...

Like being involved in shooting down a civilian airliner, either directly by a Russian crew or by proxy using Russian soldiers who went on "vacation" to Ukraine.


They are basing the whole idea that it came from and returned to russia on a sound clip which is inconclusive in its nature and seems to describe events at Donetsk airport. The origin is unknown (could have been made/falcified by anyone) and found on social media.

Specific question - how does it ammount to evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the system came from and returned to Russia?



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Velatropa24

Actually they arent and the fact you keep repeating that while ignoring all the other evidence tells me you have failed to read up on the report just released.


after interviewing more than 200 witnesses, listening to 150,000 intercepted phone calls, examining half a million photos and video recordings, consulting radar and satellite images, and sifting through dozens of containers filled with wreckage from the jet.


Intentionally omitting information in order to support a false claim is typical of Russia. I assumed you were better than that.

Pay attention -
Dutch Investigators Give Results of MH17 Probe to Families




posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Velatropa24

That seems like a complete non-sequitur. I wonder why that could be. Maybe because you have no actual response to the fact that Almaz-Antey have been caught in obvious lies twice. Maybe it's also because that you don't want to address that these lies told by Almaz-Antey are pretty much the entire basis for Russia's case. Now why would Russia need to push such obvious lies if them and their allies were innocent?



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Velatropa24

Actually they arent and the fact you keep repeating that while ignoring all the other evidence tells me you have failed to read up on the report just released.


after interviewing more than 200 witnesses, listening to 150,000 intercepted phone calls, examining half a million photos and video recordings, consulting radar and satellite images, and sifting through dozens of containers filled with wreckage from the jet.


Intentionally omitting information in order to support a false claim is typical of Russia. I assumed you were better than that.

Pay attention -
Dutch Investigators Give Results of MH17 Probe to Families



I can go in front of a camera and claim that i have interviewed 922 people, looked through satellite imagery which is classified and can not be shown, listened to 8760001 phone conversations and viewed 562871 photos. Until I show you the evidence are you going to believe me? Show the actual evidence!

I am saying this investigation is ordered political process. Prove me wrong!




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join