MH17 : "A lot of indications that the BND theory stinks"

a reply to: RyleeNator

Any chance you can remain on topic, which my post dealt with the non disclosure agreement and how it does not affect the investigation or criminal prosecution but prohibits nations from releasing investigative material they are briefed on that could jeopardize the investigation / criminal prosecution.


You are all over the place..

a reply to: Xcathdra

Too bad I can read Dutch.

The Dutch Minister Opstelten (Security and Justice) hasn`t been given clarity to what the agreement actual means, and The Dutch parliament has asked for it earlier and got a very marginal answer from him in October.

Sources round The Dutch government, when asked, are confirming "the veto right does exist."

So we have The Dutch government saying there is not such a thing, but they won`t release what is actual in it while have being asked by the Dutch parliament several times about it, and on the other hand sources which say there is.

All you do is quote the excuse of the government...like our politicians can be trusted...however when RTL News has sources in The Hague they have been proven over and over again to be trustworthy.

Time to grill Dutch Minister Opstelten at the parliament about it.

originally posted by: RyleeNator
Fabricated or not it is still more than the USA has brought to the table and Ukraine brought an image off a computer game for God's sake I'll probable get barred from the sit but your thoughts on the situation are moronic and I can only guess that your an idiot or a shillreply to: Xcathdra

So what you are saying is you prefer palpable fraud to honest silence. Incidentally, it was Russia that provided the unconvincing "radar" imagery.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien
I used your source this go around.

The ability to stop the release of information is to prevent the involved parties from releasing investigative material that can affect the investigation and prosecution.

It does NOT allow a nation to veto the conclusion of the investigation.
It does NOT allow a nation to veto the criminal prosecution.

Stop being hard headed and stop trying to spin this into something its not.

Take the incident in Ferguson MO. The Grand jury, made up of 12 people, got to see all the evidence collected and interview people involved over the last 3 months. Those 12 people are prohibited from discussing that information publicly because it can jeopardize the investigation and criminal prosecution.

They are not hiding anything.

Finally you need to stop posting information and sources only to try and discredit the source you used because you failed to read and understand what was being said.

People really don't think things through do they? What point would there be to an agreement where a country could veto the results of the investigation if they didn't like what they said? If they vetoed the results it would be an admission of guilt through omission. Everyone would still know what the investigation found and Ukraine and the other parties would be put in an even worse light. Just an agreement just doesn't make sense at all.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You see the same thing in every forum on this site. Investigators are always very tight lipped about what they are finding, whether it is an airplane crash, a school shooting, a power plant melt-down or a sex scandal. Why? To prevent prejudicing juries, encouraging false rumors, frightening off potential witnesses, alerting wrong doers, and so forth. Conspiracy theorists always see this as evidence of a cover up, rather than as sound operating procedure.

a reply to: Xcathdra

There is such a thing as veto power, it`s only not clear as to when and as to what it applies.

All you do is repeating the twist from the government there isn`t such a thing.

The Dutch government have signed the agreement with non-disclosure, but the parliament and press wants to know what can be vetoed exactly and at what stage by the parties who have signed the agreement. They want to know what the consequences can be for the outcome of the investigation.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

The veto has nothing to do with the conclusion of the investigation.
The veto has nothing to do with criminal prosecution.

You are trying to create an issue by lying about the information. The veto / agreement has nothing to do with hiding information. It has everything to do to prevent involved nations from releasing investigative material that will jeopardize the investigation and the criminal prosecution.

Your source states this.
Other sources state this.

You are not going to be able to spin this into the bs story you want it to be.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You seem to know what is in the agreement, care to share it with us?

Or you`re just dumb enough to believe our ruling politicians at face value...

...so unless you know what is exactly in the agreement, the only thing you do is repeating The Dutch government and they sure can be trusted.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Its from the source you posted.

Did you not bother to read it before you used and misrepresented it?

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Xcathdra

You seem to know what is in the agreement, care to share it with us?

Or you`re just dumb enough to believe our ruling politicians at face value...

...so unless you know what is exactly in the agreement, the only thing you do is repeating The Dutch government and they sure can be trusted.

And all you seem to be able to do is tear down everyone and everything except Putin's propaganda machine.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I read it alright and gave a very clear explanation about what was going on, but how about you?

Feeling bad because another stick to hit with about what kind of a bad man Putin is being ripped away?

If it wasn`t for the countless deaths, including my fellow countrymen, I would actual starting to feel sorry for you.

a reply to: RyleeNator

Fabricated or not it is still more than the USA has brought to the table and Ukraine brought an image off a computer game for God's sake I'll probable get barred from the sit but your thoughts on the situation are moronic and I can only guess that your an idiot or a shill

The thing you don't seem to get, but the US doesn't have to show their evidence to the public and especially when it comes to a sensitive issue that may lead to criminal prosecution.

As far as the shill remark...seriously?

If you would actually look at what he is showing you may actually learn something instead of resorting to the name calling.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

I read it alright

But did you understand it?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Any chance you can remain on topic

I did not know you started the topic or was a mod but it seems to me that you can wonder off as you like, so can your friends but anyone else keeps get told to stay on topic by you.

The ability to stop the release of information is to prevent the involved parties from releasing investigative material that can affect the investigation and prosecution.

So a witness to a crime or anyone that knows anything about it needs to keep quite ! That's how they got away with 9-11 so far but saying it was my job won't be an excuse when it all gets to court.

I guess 30mm bullet holes in MH17 is also a trade secret even if the pictures are out already

a reply to: VirusGuard

You have completely and totally failed to understand what the source stated as well as what I'm telling you.

originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Xcathdra

I read it alright

No you did not.

a reply to: VirusGuard

I guess 30mm bullet holes in MH17 is also a trade secret even if the pictures are out already

And those 30mm rounds came from the same plane that cannot reach that height and isn't able to bring down a plane 10000 ft higher than it's service ceiling.

But again remind how a shell this size...



makes a hole this size...



So mister wizard how does a large caliber shell make a hole smaller than the round itself?

Quick clue...it doesn't.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No you did not.

It was read, but it just wasn't understood.

a reply to: DJW001

I've seen that western Media liked to mention that "new info about MH17" was broadcasted in Russian state owned TV channel. As if "state owned" is a crime by itself, it may be another concept, unfamiliar to Americans, but widely recognized as more trustworthy in Russia.
And yet I haven't seen disclosure who is " George Bilt". I would expect more investigative journalism from the "Free Press"