Interesting Western news report about Mariupol in 2014

a reply to: Salander

Uhm no.

MH17 was at 33k when atc asked them to climb to 35k. MH17 told ATC that they prefer to remain 33k because of because of weather. They were instructed by ATC to keep distance from a Singapore airlines commercial flight, which was also at 33k feet.

The flight plan for MH-17, upon entering Ukraine, was to be at 33k feet. When it was close to Russian occupied Ukrainian territory, the flight plan had MH17 climbing to 35k.

Ukraine ATC did not do what you are claiming.
Russian force did shoot down MH17.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That's not what I read when this all started in 2014. More, having spent my time in the flight levels, that is not how it works. Any crew would prefer 350 on a trip like that, for many reasons. Besides fuel economy, it puts you above more weather.

A story claiming the crew requested 330 from 350 for weather is pure propaganda, likely started by Bellingcat. 2000 feet lower puts you in more weather, not less.

Propaganda fail.

a reply to: Salander

The facts show MH17 was at 33k feet. ATC asked them to climb to 35k feet. MH17 wanted to remain at 33k feet due to weather and remained at that level. A Singapore airlines flight was also, and remained, at 33k.

Those are the facts.

Russia shot down a civilian airline - FACT.

The only propaganda being pushed is by you and Russia.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: MissVocalcord
Where did you get that idea from?

Pure propaganda.

I think that is a pretty straight forward answer to my question.

It had received 350, but Ukrainian ATC gave it 330.

Again; where is your proof? (besides your faulty memory from 2014; which I hope doesn't include ATC "Carlos" again...).

Besides that; even Russia isn't so stupid to still try and push the 'other aircraft took it down' theory because it is so blatantly false and not supported by any fact.

a reply to: Salander


Were you reading russian 'media' at the time by any chance?

Cuz russian media certainly made the same kind of ridiculous evidence free claims.

a reply to: Xcathdra

What you call facts I call propaganda. Just as Wikipedia changes stories by not mentioning certain facts, so does the US State Department.

No BUK type missile was fired. If there had been, the trail would have been obvious to any and all. There was no trail.

Then again, maybe the BUK in your imagination was piloted by the Ghost of Kiev.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Xcathdra
No BUK type missile was fired. If there had been, the trail would have been obvious to any and all. There was no trail.

It was and even photo's of the trail have been published shortly after on twitter.
twitter.com...

Tracked down to that location they also found a 'scorch mark' from where the BUK was fired.

a reply to: MissVocalcord

Oh boy, somebody photoshopped a contrail. Proof positive in the Bellingcat world.

And even a scorch mark! Wow, lot's of proof there.

Reminds me of all the staged nonsense in Douma. Was that Bellingcat too?

a reply to: Salander

That is along the same lines as Russia trying to pass off a photo shopped image of a MIG launching a missile.. Then they change there lie to it was shot down by a fighter jets gun.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MissVocalcord

Oh boy, somebody photoshopped a contrail. Proof positive in the Bellingcat world.

Wrong again; You seem to have a hard time providing any evidence for any of your claims.

No witnesses of a trail?

A large number of witnesses gave statements about a missile launch in the vicinity of Snizhne, Torez and Pervomaiskyi.

Twelve of these witnesses mentioned a smoke trail in this connection. Eleven witnesses who mentioned an explosion or smoke trail also mentioned a Buk installation they had either seen earlier that day or had heard about. And in regard to the appearance of the smoke trail, a number of witnesses specifically mentioned the hill, Saur Mogila, to the south of Snizhne, as well as the towns of Pervomaiskyi and Pervomaiske. These statements do not in themselves provide evidence of the launch location, but they correspond closely to the statements given by witnesses X48 and M58.

www.prosecutionservice.nl... -day-2-21-december-2021

But try and keep selling your 'other aircraft shot MH17' story; it has become hilarious and sad by now.

a reply to: Salander

It’s so said you choose government lies over another. Killing all credibility for what you claim to stand fore

You want to call out corruption while justifying corruption.

a reply to: MissVocalcord

You and Xcathadra provide no proof of your claims. Since 2014, neither has the US government provided any proof, and they and you are silent regarding the facts shown early that were suppressed or destroyed.

At least NF shows pretty pictures with no meaning.

a reply to: Salander


For Russia claiming it was not them they sure go to great lengths to protect the responsible parties.

2015 - Russia vetoes bid to set up tribunal for downed flight MH17

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MissVocalcord

You and Xcathadra provide no proof of your claims. Since 2014, neither has the US government provided any proof, and they and you are silent regarding the facts shown early that were suppressed or destroyed.

At least NF shows pretty pictures with no meaning.

Meanwhile, russia's 'proof' has been completely and repeatedly debunked as completely fabricated lies.

While also blocking any public investigation.

a reply to: Salander


Did russia intentionally block a complete investigation of their downing of a civilian aircraft?

Nice try though.

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

LOL, using the term "debunked" these days is a sure sign of one that advances Officlal Narratives that are contradicted by facts.

a reply to: Salander

Once again, this is a picture the Kremlin actually tried to use as proof for their claims.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Sorry X, on this and a few other topics you are as credible as Joe Biden or Barack Obama.

a reply to: Salander

So state-owned television station, Channel One, did not air the photo on November 14, 2014?

a reply to: Salander


I use the term because I tend to get warnings when using more accurate and precise terms.

Best I can do.