[Cid_Yama]

As if shooting down a plane several miles away at cruising altitude for a jetliner, would come down anywhere in the vicinity.

They don't care. They know the morons will believe what they tell them to believe.

[Withnail]

I don't know who shot it down, but I am sure all this 'social media' bullshit that has been presented as proof of who did it is worthless.

[dissident]

Oh my another piece of "evidence" bites the dust:



So the video of the Buk system used to "prove the Russians did it" from last July was actually produced in Kiev regime controlled territory even though it was in Lugansk City.

1. Location. The BUK video was first released on the Facebook page of Arsen Avakov, who was then the Minister of Interior of Ukraine. He wrote that the video was recorded in the border town Krasnodon. Untrue. Later the Russians said it was Krasnoarmeisk, also untrue. Ergo: both sides lied about the real location.
https://www.facebook.com/arsen.avakov.1 ... 7696339673

2. Time. Avakov claimed the video was shot on 18 July at 04:50 AM. That’s only 10 minutes after sunrise. Apart from the fact that the sky is too light, the shadows in the video don’t match with that time of day. You would expect to see long, stretched shadows.

3. Date. There is new, circumstantial evidence that this video was not shot on July 18, but earlier. I cannot say much about, because we will reveal it in our tv-broadcast end of June.

4. Control. Who controlled the spot where the BUK drove? The rebels or the government? Three days before the downing of MH17, on July 14, the Ukrainian army launched an attack to regain control of the Luhansk airport. They used the E40 road from the north to move to the airport in the south. A wide corridor around the E40 was created and several districts of Lugansk came back under government control. On July 18th, the government firmly controlled the airport and areas around the E40. The intersection where the BUK was filmed, is 2.5 km from the E40. It’s not clear who controlled it on July 18th. It could have been both sides. This map suggests the government controlled it, but it’s unclear how precise the LiveUAMap is.
https://twitter.com/vverweij/status/554741270669967361

5. Route. If this video is showing the BUK that was used to attack MH17, why was it escaping to Russia via the least logical route? From the alleged launch site, Lugansk is not on the shortest way to Russia. In fact it’s a detour of at least 146 km.

http://tinyurl.com/plrhaj7

The shortest route would have been only 17 km.

http://tinyurl.com/pfeskg8

6. Direction. The BUK is driving from the north-west to the south-east in the video. If the BUK was coming from the launch site in the south, you would expect it to drive the reverse way, from the south to the north.

Considering all the facts, I think it’s unlikely that this video is truely showing the BUK that was used to hit MH17, fleeing to Russia via Lugansk. I think it was a propaganda setup by the Ukrainians and that the video was either shot earlier, or was a Ukranian BUK system moving through government controlled area.
regards,

Vincent Verweij
journalist
KRO Television

[Keith_McClary]

JULY 23, 2015
Obama Should Release MH-17 Intel
by VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY

A year ago, the U.S. government issued a sketchy report on the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shoot-down citing “social media” and other flimsy data implicating eastern Ukrainian rebels and Russia, but then – as hard intelligence became available – went silent. Now, U.S. intelligence veterans are demanding release of that intel.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Releasing an Intelligence Report on Shoot-Down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
...
We are hearing indirectly from some of our former colleagues that the draft Dutch report contradicts some of the real intelligence that has been collected.

[Keith_McClary]

‘Could be.’ ‘Might be.’

‘Can’t show or prove anything, but maybe.’

Is there any wonder that with such language coming lately from the “official” but secretive investigation of the July 17, 2014 crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, there is little reason for confidence in a final report? And lots of reason for concern of what a flawed or reckless final report could spark?

On August 11, the Dutch Safety Board and the ‘Joint Investigation Team’ investigating the MH17 crash issued a speculative statement saying they have discovered pieces among the debris they collected from the fields in eastern Ukraine where the plane came down that “possibly originate” from a spent Buk missile.

They say they can’t be sure. “At present, the conclusion cannot be drawn that there is a causal connection between the discovered parts and the crash of flight MH17.” And they can’t show us anything. But they are making the statement anyway.

The statement was reported widely by Western media along with predictable spin and wild interpretation. Western media has reported all along that the thinly-equipped self-defence forces in eastern Ukraine are the “likely” culprits in bringing down the MH17, “possibly” with backing coming from ‘somewhere’ in the Russian military command.
...
Moscow-based writer John Helmer who publishes an investigative website, Dances With Bears, has been following and reporting the MH17 story closely:

“So far, as I have reported, the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) stands out for an investigation that has failed to bring to light and analyze the most obvious sources of data or explain why the Board, the Dutch police and prosecutors have failed to do this.

“For example, in public disclosure so far, there has been no analysis of U.S. satellite images, including infrared images, of the MH17 site just before, during, and just after the strike and crash, and no disclosure of whether the Dutch investigators requested this data, what they were told, or if the Dutch believe the data exist and is being withheld from the investigation.

“I’ve seen no DSB analysis of the silence on the last four seconds of the Cockpit Voice Recorder, and no explanation of how this is possible. There has been no published analysis of the Ukrainian air traffic control radar and radio tapes or confirmation of whether Kiev handed them over to the Dutch, and if they haven’t been handed over, why not. So far, too, there has been no disclosure of evidence from the autopsy and post-mortem data collected from the victims’ bodies.

“What is missing is obvious. So what to make of particles of evidence whose provenance, authenticity and authority of disclosure are far from obvious? The Dutch want to be thought of as careful, methodical, clean. Why so careless all of a sudden?”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/14/ ... rn-europe/

[dissident]

The story of the ATC tapes is the story of a coverup, sanctioned by NATO, by the prime suspect: the Kiev regime. The ludicrous NATO media coverage of this incident is further confirmation of a coverup and the actual motive for the shoot down. All evidence points to Kiev and its Washington puppet masters.

NATO and its media mouthpieces are under the delusion that if they pin this incident on Russia that they will achieve something in their favour. They will achieve major long term pain instead.

[Cog]

Hard to believe you guys are still arguing about this a year later. It is clear the plane was shot down by Russia or separatists under Russian control.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Hard to believe you guys are still arguing about this a year later. It is clear the plane was shot down by Russia or separatists under Russian control.

Just like it's "clear" to SeaGypsy that the moon landings were a hoax? It must be wonderful to be omniscient.

Funny how so many people are certain they are right in complex matters where they very likely don't have all the facts (like those from secret military investigations). And of course, 90% of people are certain they are "above average" drivers too.

(I'm not taking sides here. I'm willing to admit that there's a lot about this I can't know (just like when Colin Powell was claiming "strong evidence" for WMD's before the 2nd US Iraq invasion -- I figured he had access to a hell of a lot of "intelligence" that I had no knowledge of).)

[dissident]

From the 1984 style NATO media coverage you would think Putin personally pulled the trigger. Now suppose that Russia supplied the rebels with a functional Buk system as claimed by the Kiev regime. (BTW, the reason they made this claim is because they know that the system the rebels got their hands on initially was not functional). A fully functional Buk system can track the altitude and path of aircraft and specifically civilian ones which have internationally mandated transponders. NATO and its propaganda chorus would have the world believe that the rebels deliberately chose a civilian target, clearly identified by the Buk systems, to shoot down. So what was their motive? To prove that they are all evil untermenschen that need to be exterminated by holy, righteous NATO knights out to spread the goodness of the Lord to the world?

[Keith_McClary]

Hard to believe you guys are still arguing about this a year later. It is clear the plane was shot down by Russia or separatists under Russian control.

A TV talking head said there is a "mountain of evidence". There was also a "mountain of evidence" for Iraq WMDs. Turns out, it was a "huge steaming pile of crap".

[zoidberg]

If there was solid evidence Russia or Russian armed groups did it thered be a lot more coverage. Seems like it's being ignored hence a failed false flag operation.

Also moon landings are fake. We're under an alien blockade.

[tita]

Cool, today I'll grab some pop-corn and follow the discussions here following the news on the release of the report of the investigation. Seems like the wikipedia pages on SU-25 won't have much change now, as this story is in the trash. It's a BUK missile. Both russians and dutch agrees on that.

But of course, both present today the results of the investigation, with some divergences. The Dutch report doesn't say who fired the missile, but says what happened. The others again strongly suggest the Ukrainian responsibility.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2 ... ve-updates

Form my part, I retain the large coverage from the russians media (RT, sputnik) who supported the SU-25 story.

[sjn]

It's interesting that the manufacturer of the BUK system (Almaz-Antey) claims the shrapnel they were asked to identify belonged to a 9M38M1 BUK-M1 whilst the Dutch report says it was 9N314M. Critical point raised by Almaz-Antey in June (BBC News link) is that this would have been an older model no longer used by the Russian army but still in service in Ukraine. (edit: Almaz-Antey are apparently unhappy that their report on the shrapnel was ignored by the investigation)

Almaz-Antey today responded to the report:

Meanwhile the Russian state-sponsored television network, Russia Today, continues to release more details on the report by Russian missile manufacturers Almaz-Antey, contesting the findings of the Dutch report. This tweet shows an experiment conducted by the company with BUK missiles to prove their findings.

twitter: https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/653877872373841920

[sjn]

I must admit, I gave initial credence to the eye-witness reports of the fighter aircraft shadowing MH17, and saw no reason to automatically dismiss the Russian provided radar "evidence". It unnecessarily complicated the story, in a way that would only make the Russians look like compulsive liars as further evidence appeared. Perhaps it was a clever CIA mis-info plant into Russian intelligence? Maybe there was a Su-25? Who knows?

[AgentR11]

My hunch has always been that there were two aircraft, but the kill was made by a missile. A missile fired by separatists at what they thought was a UA target, either the SU25 or thinking the jet was a military transport/airdrop. The system was likely an incomplete, captured BUK launcher originally owned and operated by UA. The missile itself has active, terminal guidance, if fired at the optimal geometry, there's no reason to suspect it couldn't lock on to a non-manuevering, large airliner, and kill it.

In fact, UA killed a Russian airliner a while back with just this kind of system failure.

There is only one problem with my theory.

Everyone involved has no money; and the only remedy involved with regard to collateral damage is civil compensation. Which makes the case, essentially dead.

[sjn]

AgentR11, that would fit the evidence (including that not in the report). I'm still inclined to suspect the regime forces, certainly air traffic control on the day was extremely suspect having the aircraft fly low through hostile airspace is rather suspicious on the face of it. Of course they have just been hoping such an event would occur.

[AgentR11]

Well, the Dutch report does essentially call UA actions incompetent with regard to traffic control. No need to go to malice, when stupid will do. And UA has done more than enough over the last couple years to indicate that excessive amounts of "stupid" are available.

[sjn]

Well, the Dutch report does essentially call UA actions incompetent with regard to traffic control. No need to go to malice, when stupid will do. And UA has done more than enough over the last couple years to indicate that excessive amounts of "stupid" are available.

I meant to write: "could just have been hoping", obviously not what I was thinking!
They've demonstrated plenty of malice too, so I'm open to either possibility. Although I admit my bias.

[Cog]

Russian apologists seem to be the mantra here.