MH17 crash: Victims' families sue Putin and Russia

a reply to: Xcalibur254

"So we can't trust the JIT report because Ukraine is involved but we should believe everything coming out of Russia even though they're the prime suspect? "

i didnt say that either!

a reply to: username74

And yet, despite the manufacturer saying conclusively that if was a BUK missile, you're throwing up articles about it possibly being an Israeli air to air missile and articles about it being anything but a BUK.

a reply to: Zaphod58

ok.
so why do you trust the manufacturer?

a reply to: username74

are you suggesting a profit driven enterprise that creates offensive weapons is above reproach and as a profit driven enterprise has unassailable integrity?

a reply to: username74

Why would a Russian company come out and say that it was one of their missiles if it wasn't? With everyone trying to pin the blame on their biggest customer that would be pretty stupid don't you think.

a reply to: Zaphod58

and important to point out, at this point you have already discounted cannon fire, but an air to air missile would not destroy a plane like this outright, cannon fire (30mm) would be needed to finish it off, usually directed at cockpit.
also to clarify missiles of this type do not explode on impact. its a proximity detonation with shrapnel. so i would ask where in the report does it provide evidence to claim there was no cannon fire or air to air missile because that is what you are claiming.

a reply to: Zaphod58

"Why would a Russian company come out and say that it was one of their missiles if it wasn't? With everyone trying to pin the blame on their biggest customer that would be pretty stupid don't you think."
its not about what i think, its about the available evidence.
your line of reasoning is demostrably asinine.

a reply to: username74

Both the JIT report and the Almaz-Antey presentation found no evidence of cannon fire, but did find shrapnel that comes from a BUK missile warhead. It was not consistent with an air to air missile, but was an exact match to the shrapnel found in a 9M38 series missile. A surface to air missile of this type would cause the aircraft to break apart almost immediately, and is consistent with the damage seen.

a reply to: Zaphod58

" an exact match to the shrapnel"
because its special shrapnel that looks different to other shrapnel?

a reply to: username74

The available evidence is what I'm talking about. Almaz-Antey proved in their presentation that the shrapnel was consistent with a 9M38 series missile. But you keep putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the fact that multiple reports found the evidence is a perfect match for a surface fo air missile.

a reply to: username74

Yes. The shrapnel from different missile warheads are not identical. Air to air missiles use smaller rods, because it's a smaller missile. A surface to air missile uses more and larger rods or in this case butterfly pieces of shrapnel to cause the most damage. You can identify the missile family by the shrapnel found.

a reply to: Zaphod58

"The Joint Investigation Team, which is meant to provide court-admissible evidence relating to the MH17 case, is to present the first results of its probe on September 28. Ukraine is part of the team, although Russia is not."
themillenniumreport.com...[ /url]

LOOK AT THE PICTURE
[url=http://]http://themillenniumreport.com/2015/07/one-year-later-all-evidence-still-suggests-mh17-shot-down-by-a-jet-fighter/

link
themillenniumreport.com...

a reply to: username74

And exactly what do you think shrapnel holes from a missile would look like?

a reply to: Zaphod58

read the previous article.
30mm cannon shells leave quite a distinctive mark. not the same as missiles.
v.very powerful kinetic force.

themillenniumreport.com...

a reply to: username74

Ok. Sure. The entire world is lying and making up physical evidence to fit a surface to air missile.

a reply to: username74

Even Russia has dropped the Su-28 narrative. They've been forced to admit that MH17 was shot down by a BUK.

While Russia is now trying to claim that the BUK was fired by the Ukrainians, they've essentially pointed the finger at themselves by admitting it was a BUK.

Why would they do that if it was anything other than a BUK?

They threw pretty much ever other possibility out there and none of them held up. If even one of these other narratives were plausible why would they not push that one in favor of the one they makes them look most culpable?

a reply to: Zaphod58

"Ok. Sure. The entire world is lying and making up physical evidence to fit a surface to air missile."
the whole world eh?
no zaphod.
there are over 30 articles referenced in the 2 souces search listings i linked.
this is a misrepresentation of what i stated.
themillenniumreport.com...
some of the world is however lying, so you are partially correct.
they would be those who initiated the coup.
the usual clowns.
maybe, they thought it was putins air force one, which was nearby at the time.
theres still the unresolved legacy of mh 370.
themillenniumreport.com... e-remote-commandeering-of-mh370-over-the-ukraine/
and to be fair the ukies have just failed yet another false flag in kerch.
so there is form, motive, physical evidence and documentation.
maybe the blackbox will resolve this...oh wait

a reply to: Xcalibur254

"They've been forced to admit that MH17 was shot down by a BUK. "
source?

is this the story?
newsok.com...
did you see the statement...?

Lt. Gen. Nikolai Parshin, chief of the Missile and Artillery Directorate at the Russian Defense Ministry
"Parshin said the Russian archives show that the missile that was made of these parts was transported to a military unit in western Ukraine in 1986, and to Russia's knowledge never left Ukraine."

"Dutch investigators displayed parts of the missile and their serial numbers"

" the missile that was made of these parts"

" never left Ukraine"

originally posted by: username74
"This cannon fire obsession has been widely debunked. Surprise you are still trying to push it."
And you have evidence to back up this assertion?
piccy

Yes, read the Dutch Safety Board report and you will see why it was not cannon-fire.

Even your "piccy" has different sized holes. Are you saying a cannon-firing aircraft was shooting a range of different sized ammunition, and that it was so accurate it all landed together on the airframe. In real life...

a reply to: paraphi

aircraft 30 cal. is a tank killer
incendiary and splinter explosive.
the different holes, entry and exit in the same area indicate entry of projectile and exit of shrapnel.
cockpits are armoured for birdstrike, usually surviving like lockerbie.
this was shredded.
not , or at least not just a midbody strike from a missile.
i would genuinely like to know the provenance of these missile fragments from the dutch team.
its not shared with us, which is a shame because that essential to give their claim integrity.
at best they have almost proved the govt ukies did it with this latest doubledown.