Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crash: Boeing 777 Crashed in Ukraine Near Russian Border - page 10.

Paya

sr. member

Activity: 334

Merit: 250

Is this a joke? Shocked

World's only all-around superpower, country which is spending more than 50 billion $ per year on various intelligence agencies and God knows how much more to maintain their huge network of spy satellites, uses anonymous posts on social medias like Youtube, Facebook and Twitter as top proof to accuse pro-Russian rebels for downing MH17? I was ashamed to watch this press conference, and I am not even an American...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQRvINebeok

Hell-raiser

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 515

Quote from: Paya on July 24, 2014, 05:48:26 AM

Quote from: tee-rex on July 24, 2014, 04:50:49 AM

Quote from: Paya on July 23, 2014, 03:34:20 PM

He admits that rebels had Buk, that's where he was clear. The rest is all "might", "could" and "maybe". I think I've put it quite well in my post.

You may put whatever you want in your posts, but I quoted the text from the article. If you don't see the difference between "suggested" (i.e. mentioned as possible) and "admitted" (i.e. conceded as true), then it makes no sense talking any longer. Think as you please, I just point out the discrepancy between what you posted and the actual wording.

And now it turns out that Reuters have changed the meaning of his words too (just like you did).

He said (citation): "I knew that a BUK came from Luhansk. At the time I was told that a BUK from Luhansk was coming under the flag of the LNR." Where are "suggestions" in this part? Man is leaving no doubt that rebels had Buk and that he knew about it. Only later he is starting to speculate about possible origins, where could it have gone after the accident, was it even used for shooting down MH17, etc.

But yeah... he is now telling that the journalist who interviewed him twisted his words so we're back to square one anyway.

There have been photos of a BUK captured by the rebells prior to the Malaysian Airlines MH17 crash, and he might have actually been talking about this one.

Nemo1024

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1014

Quote from: niothor on July 24, 2014, 04:19:49 AM

So in the first part you take the side of the one giving the interview and in the second you trust what the reporters have published from the second interview.

Taking clear sides again...

No, that's you attributing such behaviour to me. You might have noticed that Paya, while being as you describe it, pro-Russian, still brought forth the news that are not favourable to the resistance. I brought forth other news that debunk the previous item. Just trying to get to the truth, whatever that truth might be, and in the absence of truth reporting the facts so far.

Be careful, niothor, lest you start behaving like the Western MSM outlets. Reporting the news should not be the same as taking sides. To remind you, in one of my earlier posts on the subject, I voiced my doubts that it could have been regular Ukrainian Army doing the shooting. Does that make me take the Ukrainian side?

Btw, thanks for the links.

Quote from: niothor on July 24, 2014, 04:19:49 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10983074/Relatives-anger-at-treatment-of-MH17-bodies.html

It was quite telling reading the first short article:

Quote

The nephew of a Briton killed in the MH17 crash has condemned the "degrading and inhumane" treatment of victims by pro-Russian rebels.

Jordan Withers, whose uncle Glenn Thomas, a World Health Organisation (WHO) spokesman and former journalist, was among those on the downed passenger jet, said the the family was getting most of its information from the media.

Hmm... So, he is angered at "pro-Russian rebels" just because the media programmed him to be so, without any hard facts.

PS:
Rebels... "Rebel alliance of Lugansk and Donesk". I like the sound of that. "Rebel alliance" bears a strong positive connotation in the Western pop culture, from Star Wars.
Oh, and Western MSM should dispose of the label "pro-Russian" and replace it with "ethnically Russian", then they'd be one step closer to the truth.

Paya

sr. member

Activity: 334

Merit: 250

Quote from: tee-rex on July 24, 2014, 04:50:49 AM

Quote from: Paya on July 23, 2014, 03:34:20 PM

He admits that rebels had Buk, that's where he was clear. The rest is all "might", "could" and "maybe". I think I've put it quite well in my post.

You may put whatever you want in your posts, but I quoted the text from the article. If you don't see the difference between "suggested" (i.e. mentioned as possible) and "admitted" (i.e. conceded as true), then it makes no sense talking any longer. Think as you please, I just point out the discrepancy between what you posted and the actual wording.

And now it turns out that Reuters have changed the meaning of his words too (just like you did).

He said (citation): "I knew that a BUK came from Luhansk. At the time I was told that a BUK from Luhansk was coming under the flag of the LNR." Where are "suggestions" in this part? Man is leaving no doubt that rebels had Buk and that he knew about it. Only later he is starting to speculate about possible origins, where could it have gone after the accident, was it even used for shooting down MH17, etc.

But yeah... he is now telling that the journalist who interviewed him twisted his words so we're back to square one anyway.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Balthazar

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 1359

I thought that Reuters are trustworthly. Well, now they're hypocrite faggots, just like a rest of corporate media.

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Quote from: Paya on July 23, 2014, 03:34:20 PM

Quote from: tee-rex on July 23, 2014, 03:18:40 PM

Quote from: Paya on July 23, 2014, 03:02:56 PM

Cracks in rebels story: one of the their commanders, Alexander Khodakovsky, admitted that his forces had Buk SAM, that it might had been supplied by Russia, involved in shooting down MH17, and then smuggled back over the border. He also said that although it is expected from him to represent the side he is fighting for, this doesn't mean that it must always reflect his own views: "This causes real discomfort to my soul."

Article: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mh17-ukraine-rebels-admit-having-moscow-supplied-buk-missile-system-1458032

And if we follow the link and read the article, we see that "Khodakovsky suggested the missile system had probably come from Russia and was smuggled back across the border after MH17 was shot down". Surely not something that you would describe as "admitted".

He admits that rebels had Buk, that's where he was clear. The rest is all "might", "could" and "maybe". I think I've put it quite well in my post.

You may put whatever you want in your posts, but I quoted the text from the article. If you don't see the difference between "suggested" (i.e. mentioned as possible) and "admitted" (i.e. conceded as true), then it makes no sense talking any longer. Think as you please, I just point out the discrepancy between what you posted and the actual wording.

And now it turns out that Reuters have changed the meaning of his words too (just like you did).

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Nemo1024

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1014

libivan

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

ABitNut

hero member

Activity: 764

Merit: 500

I'm a cynic, I'm a quaint

Nemo1024

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1014

Quote from: Paya on July 23, 2014, 03:02:56 PM

Cracks in rebels story: one of the their commanders, Alexander Khodakovsky, admitted that his forces had Buk SAM, that it might had been supplied by Russia, involved in shooting down MH17, and then smuggled back over the border. He also said that although it is expected from him to represent the side he is fighting for, this doesn't mean that it must always reflect his own views: "This causes real discomfort to my soul."

Article: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mh17-ukraine-rebels-admit-having-moscow-supplied-buk-missile-system-1458032

The interview appears to be modified/perverted:
http://zaytivk.ru/slavyansk2014

Quote

В среду агентство Рейтер распространило интервью с Александром Ходаковским, в котором он заявил, что у ополченцев якобы мог быть комплекс «Бук», применение которого было спровоцировано украинскими силовиками, предпринявшими обстрелы с воздуха по наземным целям.

Командир батальона «Восток» Александр Ходаковский отрицает, что говорил в интервью агентству Рейтер о якобы применении ополченцами на востоке Украины системы «Бук», заявил в среду РИА Новости источник в окружении командира.

«Я не говорил ничего подобного „Рейтеру“, и у меня есть запись разговора», — процитировал собеседник агентства слова Ходаковского.

Ранее в среду агентство Рейтер распространило интервью с Александром Ходаковским, в котором он заявил, что у ополченцев якобы мог быть комплекс «Бук», применение которого было спровоцировано украинскими силовиками, предпринявшими обстрелы с воздуха по наземным целям.

In short, Hodakovskij declines saying that the resistance used Buks in the East of Ukraine. In his statement he said: "I haven't been saying anything like this to Reiter , and I have a recording of our conversation".

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Quote from: ABitNut on July 24, 2014, 01:56:55 AM

I still didn't see a video that conclusively proofs that the rebels shot down MH-17. After searching to my best ability I learned that there were 2 videos posted in a statement. One of them is still available, the second one vanished (?). That statement has been deleted. It is not conclusively proven that the account that made the statement belongs to a rebel.

Satellite images show anti air installations in the area, but no image shows a launch. There is radar evidence published that shows a launch. Russia and the rebels claimed Ukrainian fighter planes were flying close to MH-17. I would expect the pilots of those to have noticed a missile launch, but as far as I know no official report was published that mentions them.

All in all the most likely explanation is still that the rebels did shoot down MH-17. But considerable doubt is being created, and it would be very nice if conclusive evidence was provided on what actually happened. Right now there's too much FUD for my liking.

Ukraine will never say that they had planes in the air near the mh-17 even if that would be true.
But again the Russians have offered no proof of it.

My view on this is that the plane had been mistaken and shot down by accident.

The buk system can launch a missile without all the four parts , all it needs is the built in radar attached to the launcher. But that one tracker closer targets and all you can see are red dots , no additional info (other than alt and speed) about the plane you are going to target.

ABitNut

hero member

Activity: 764

Merit: 500

I'm a cynic, I'm a quaint

I still didn't see a video that conclusively proofs that the rebels shot down MH-17. After searching to my best ability I learned that there were 2 videos posted in a statement. One of them is still available, the second one vanished (?). That statement has been deleted. It is not conclusively proven that the account that made the statement belongs to a rebel.

Satellite images show anti air installations in the area, but no image shows a launch. There is radar evidence published that shows a launch. Russia and the rebels claimed Ukrainian fighter planes were flying close to MH-17. I would expect the pilots of those to have noticed a missile launch, but as far as I know no official report was published that mentions them.

All in all the most likely explanation is still that the rebels did shoot down MH-17. But considerable doubt is being created, and it would be very nice if conclusive evidence was provided on what actually happened. Right now there's too much FUD for my liking.

regedit

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote

Pro-Russia separatist groups in eastern Ukraine are hastily covering up all links to the Buk missile battery suspected to have been used to shoot down the Malaysia Airlines passenger plane, according to western-based defence and intelligence specialists.

As the UN security council called for a “full, thorough independent international investigation” into the downing of the plane, concern that a cover-up was under way was fuelled by a standoff at part of the crash site between observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and rebel gunmen, which ended with a warning shot being fired.

Postings on rebel websites immediately after the crash boasted of having shot down what they claimed was an Antonov Ukrainian military transport plane, but these have since been deleted.

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Quote from: ABitNut on July 24, 2014, 01:13:03 AM

Quote from: niothor on July 24, 2014, 12:54:08 AM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on July 23, 2014, 07:31:07 AM

Quote from: needbmw on July 23, 2014, 01:54:10 AM

But why no one saw the trail from the missile?

Well.. that is the million dollar question. If it was a SA-11 Buk, then definitely there would have been a smoke plume 10 km+ long, which would remain in the atmosphere for a minimum of 3 hours. Strange that no one saw the plume. And we don't have any YouTube videos as well.

Minimum 3 hours?

From where did you pulled this out?
Even the smoke from a spaceship is gone in less then an hour.

Use your brain before posting things like this.
In the other thread you posted that this trail of smoke would be visible from 50+km.

Do you honestly believe a country would use this kind of missiles that would make them a clear target for any artillery battery or plane in the air for hours?

I've witnessed two exercises of the 1st brigade at midia which has kubs launchers and trust me there was no trail left in 10 mins. Even the older volhov rockets which weight 2 tons won't leave a longer trail.

How long the trail is visible will depend on the atmospheric conditions, but I agree that 30 minutes seems very long.

Still it is a valid question why there is no direct evidence of a launch. Is nobody watching the war in Ukraine? Where are the twitter pictures that allegedly were posted by rebels and deleted almost instantly? Where are the radar images of the launch, or are you telling me no radar could pick up a missile? Where are the satellite images of the launch? Where are the post flight briefings of the pilots supposedly flying near MH-17; and do they mention any SA missile launch? Where are the remnants of the missile that hit MH-17?

I'm sure the evidence is available. Why is it not being released!?

Ok . let me try and answer a few of those...
1) I don't know about twitter pictures (where there any?) but the claim made by the rebels is posted so many times in this thread that you can just look for it
2) A military radar could of course pick up the missile the us has already claimed they have tracked it. But of course
- the us posts pick of tanks and aa near the Ukraine border everybody says they are fake
-the Russians post a few blurry pics also everybody believes them
3) normal planes pilots would have no clue about a missile following them or flying around them probably they didn't even had time to realize what hit them
4) not too much would be left out of the warhead but this question should be asked to the rebels that denied everyone to enter the area for days (and you could also ask them why did they chopped a lot of the parts of the wreckage with a chainsaw)
edited:
also most the remains of the missile should be far away from the crash site and closer to the point of impact

ABitNut

hero member

Activity: 764

Merit: 500

I'm a cynic, I'm a quaint

Quote from: niothor on July 24, 2014, 12:54:08 AM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on July 23, 2014, 07:31:07 AM

Quote from: needbmw on July 23, 2014, 01:54:10 AM

But why no one saw the trail from the missile?

Well.. that is the million dollar question. If it was a SA-11 Buk, then definitely there would have been a smoke plume 10 km+ long, which would remain in the atmosphere for a minimum of 3 hours. Strange that no one saw the plume. And we don't have any YouTube videos as well.

Minimum 3 hours?

From where did you pulled this out?
Even the smoke from a spaceship is gone in less then an hour.

Use your brain before posting things like this.
In the other thread you posted that this trail of smoke would be visible from 50+km.

Do you honestly believe a country would use this kind of missiles that would make them a clear target for any artillery battery or plane in the air for hours?

I've witnessed two exercises of the 1st brigade at midia which has kubs launchers and trust me there was no trail left in 10 mins. Even the older volhov rockets which weight 2 tons won't leave a longer trail.

How long the trail is visible will depend on the atmospheric conditions, but I agree that 30 minutes seems very long.

Still it is a valid question why there is no direct evidence of a launch. Is nobody watching the war in Ukraine? Where are the twitter pictures that allegedly were posted by rebels and deleted almost instantly? Where are the radar images of the launch, or are you telling me no radar could pick up a missile? Where are the satellite images of the launch? Where are the post flight briefings of the pilots supposedly flying near MH-17; and do they mention any SA missile launch? Where are the remnants of the missile that hit MH-17?

I'm sure the evidence is available. Why is it not being released!?

niothor

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 501

in defi we trust

Quote from: bryant.coleman on July 23, 2014, 07:31:07 AM

Quote from: needbmw on July 23, 2014, 01:54:10 AM

But why no one saw the trail from the missile?

Well.. that is the million dollar question. If it was a SA-11 Buk, then definitely there would have been a smoke plume 10 km+ long, which would remain in the atmosphere for a minimum of 3 hours. Strange that no one saw the plume. And we don't have any YouTube videos as well.

Minimum 3 hours?

From where did you pulled this out?
Even the smoke from a spaceship is gone in less then an hour.

Use your brain before posting things like this.
In the other thread you posted that this trail of smoke would be visible from 50+km.

Do you honestly believe a country would use this kind of missiles that would make them a clear target for any artillery battery or plane in the air for hours?

I've witnessed two exercises of the 1st brigade at midia which has kubs launchers and trust me there was no trail left in 10 mins. Even the older volhov rockets which weight 2 tons won't leave a longer trail.

TheIrishman

legendary

Activity: 1049

Merit: 1006

Why was MH17, a civilian airliner, flying over a war zone?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/07/economist-explains-14

<< The news that a passenger jet had been shot down on July 17th, apparently following the bungled targeting of a surface-to-air missile, was met with horror. Along with many other questions about the tragedy, some have wondered what Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was doing flying over eastern Ukraine, which has been the setting of a low-intensity war for several months. >>

needbmw

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Quote from: TheIrishman on July 24, 2014, 12:28:11 AM

MH17: Ukraine separatist commander "admits" rebels had Buk missile system

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/23/mh17-ukraine-separatists-buk-missile-system

<< Alexander Khodakovsky reportedly told news agency rebels may have received Buk from Russia, then changes story. >>

Fake, Khodakovsky itself denies this.
http://ria.ru/world/20140723/1017273394.html

Topic: Malaysia Airlines MH17 Crash: Boeing 777 Crashed in Ukraine Near Russian Border - page 10. (Read 51934 times)