THIS JUST IN : New radar data indicates other jets on MH17 course before crash

Not sure what is going on here ? , ALLOT! of games being played that's for certain .

Just came across this On RT .com

Not sure how ATS stance is on RT these days ,but i am going to post anyway .

New radar data indicating that military aircraft were in the air near Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 when it crashed in eastern Ukraine on July 17 has been released by a Russian air safety consultancy.

The consultancy provided a snapshot representing the readings taken by a radar station located in Russia’s Rostov, near the Ukrainian border, shortly before and about 20 minutes after the MH17 crash.

According to Sergey Melnichenko, CEO of Aviation Safety consultancy, there were one or two warplanes in the air close to the Malaysian airliner. The data casts doubt on the version of the tragedy favored by Western nations, which claims the plane was shot down from the ground by rebel forces with a sophisticated surface-to-air missile. the purple line indicates the path of this "supposed military craft "

did the plot thicken ? or are we watching propaganda games unfold ?

who's telling the truth ?


maybe someone whit more knowledge can chime in and provide us with a better picture ?

READ THE WHOLE STORY HERE

Check out pics of the downed wreckage, there are clear signs of strafing bullet holes and one much larger hole near the captains window. a reply to: Walsh

a reply to: Maxpower0001

I don't doubt this. I have seen the pics. But how do we know they weren't caused after it crashed? Just being a devils advocate here.

Isn't that the radar data the Russians provided days after the incident?

a reply to: jaws1975

It looks like it. I'm having a hard time getting past the point that there was no Mayday, and no ATC radar picked them up, if there were fighters in the area. The excuse given by the Russians as to why they didn't pick it up until after smelled too.

a reply to: jaws1975

"YES, SURE IS".

Well, we know there were SAM assets in the theatre. Just because there were "jets" in the area doesn't mean they were the ones who pulled the trigger. To the contrary, it gives the perfect rationale for the separatists to fire upon the "wrong" target. I don't think anyone who's rational believes the incident was more than a wreckless act of war.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Well, we know there were SAM assets in the theatre. Just because there were "jets" in the area doesn't mean they were the ones who pulled the trigger. To the contrary, it gives the perfect rationale for the separatists to fire upon the "wrong" target. I don't think anyone who's rational believes the incident was more than a wreckless act of war.

You just called the chief investigator not a rational person, because he says they are still open to it.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Investigators are not trained to rule out anything, except for obviously false theories, such as in this case, a bomb on board.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Investigators are not trained to rule out anything, except for obviously false theories, such as in this case, a bomb on board.

Exactly, so it`s a possibility or else they would have discarded it already.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

It was always a possibility, just like an alien spaceship is a possibility. That doesn't mean that it's likely.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You just make it sound as if the changes of the shooting being done by a fighter plane are nearly impossible, that`s not fair.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

It's not about being "fair". The simple fact is that the evidence doesn't support it. The only radar that claims to have picked up another aircraft was a long range Russian radar, that was in standby at the time. The radar data doesn't show anything else near the aircraft until the time that it was shot down, and the time of the radar return times nicely to falling debris from the aircraft. The shooter aircraft in question has a service ceiling far below the altitude that the aircraft was flying at. The heaviest missile it carries is the R-73, and that only if it's been modified to carry it. The R-73 carries a 16 lb warhead, which is FAR below what would be required to cause a sudden disintegration of an aircraft the size of a 777. KAL 007, a 747, which is similar in size to a 777 took two hits from K-8 missiles, which carry a warhead of 88 pounds, and flew for at least 10 minutes, returning to control, returning to altitude, and airspeed after being hit.

There are other flaws in the theory as well, but those are the big ones.

But sam missiles can be seen from miles and miles, thes smoke trail from it will hang minutes in the air.
I have seen this MH17 crashing down in flames made by a civilian made video on the news but no smoke from the missile to be seen anywhere.
So what is the evidence that it was caused by a SAM missile?

Western media sure where fast pointing it as a sam missile (fired by pro-Russian separatists) without much doubt but without much hard evidence either.
Just like for example the Iraq war, they had all the evidence but in reality they didn't.

Why didn't all the information of the black box got out for the public, why the secrecy?

a reply to: Plugin

Data recorders are frequently held until at least the preliminary report is released. Although in this case, it's not going to tell you anything except there was a sudden event. There was no radio call from the crew, no warning to them about other planes flying anywhere near them, except other scheduled commercial flights, and contrary to Hollywood, an air to air gun kill doesn't suddenly cause an airplane to explode with no warning.

I don't know about you, but if I lived in an active warzone, I wouldn't be hanging around outside watching things going on. I'd be keeping my head down and staying out of the line of fire as much as possible. Especially with civilians being caught as much as they have been in this fight.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It didn't really explode, it went down in flames.
1 engine on fire with the nose pointing to the ground.
Of course a small burst in the cockpit (death pilot and well you can guess what happens in a cockpit full with bullets), it's like instant death and no time for the crew to get radio messages out either.



Not the best sam rocket if only 1 engine gets on fire..

a reply to: Plugin

No, that aircraft disintegrated in flight. Just look at the debris field and you can see that. A plane going down intact, with one engine on fire does NOT cover an area of miles the way this aircraft did. There were pieces of engine and other large debris found five miles away from where other large pieces of aircraft were found.

Look at the distances that debris was found on this debris map. There is no even remotely possible way that airplane even got NEAR the ground intact, to cover an area that big, with such large pieces of debris.

That's not MH17, that is an AN-30 that was shot down with a MANPADS on June 6th.

Here's the real video with description:

a reply to: Plugin

This is not the MH17 in the video.

Lugansk on the Russian border Downed Ukrainian military transport aircraft AN-26 14/07/2014

The best theory of the first attack yet:

a reply to: maghun

There's quite a bit of debate over which incident that was, but the one thing that is agreed on is that it's definitely NOT MH17. I've seen at least two different types and dates given.

a reply to: Zaphod58

But what evidence is there which speaks something other has happened...non reliable what so ever.

All we have been hearing is BND or the American Secrete Service has evidence, but nothing has been shown.

Only thing we have got is really questionable evidence form the Ukraine and Belingcat.

And because of it being an option too, with missing good evidence of it being the contrary, it still is a viable option.