Topic: MH17 report: Russian-made BUK missile hit plane over Ukraine - Dutch experts (Read 495 times)
October 14, 2015, 01:06:28 PM
It seems to me that the MH17 was shot down with Russian-made BUK SAMs, operated by the Kiev Nazis. The BUK was first assembled in 1986, and most of the ex-USSR nations possess them. And in this particular case, the BUK version seems to be the one which is no longer in use in Russia (and continues to be operated by the Ukrops).
October 14, 2015, 12:33:19 PM
Air traffic control is liable for the deaths of all those on board MH17, They were the supreme authority and deliberately diverted the flight into a WAR zone.
If you send your neighbours child to play in the street knowing that a gang fight is taking place, and the child is killed in the crossfire, who is responsible? you are.
The PRIMARY FUNCTION of the Air Traffic Control is SAFETY!!!! Its function is implied in its name
They DELIBERATELY violated their mandate.
They are fully liable.
Who shot it down is incidental unless it can be proven they knew it was civilians.
To hold the Separatists accountable requires evidence to show two things.
1) They did shoot the plane MH17
2) The shot it knowing it was a civilian aircraft and not a mistaken identity for a ukrainian military aircraft
The first point has not been determined so the second point is irrelevant.
But the Air Traffic Control is fully culpable
If you send your neighbours child to play in the street knowing that a gang fight is taking place, and the child is killed in the crossfire, who is responsible? you are.
The PRIMARY FUNCTION of the Air Traffic Control is SAFETY!!!! Its function is implied in its name
They DELIBERATELY violated their mandate.
They are fully liable.
Who shot it down is incidental unless it can be proven they knew it was civilians.
To hold the Separatists accountable requires evidence to show two things.
1) They did shoot the plane MH17
2) The shot it knowing it was a civilian aircraft and not a mistaken identity for a ukrainian military aircraft
The first point has not been determined so the second point is irrelevant.
But the Air Traffic Control is fully culpable
October 14, 2015, 11:41:32 AM
By now, I think it's pretty obvious that the Russian backed rebel were the shooters. My question is, why was a civilian airliner flying over an active warzone
It is far from obvious.
What you posted is 100% presumption.
On 9/11, there were many presumptions, and then one narrative became the "official story". That story was false.
So, please bring forward the research to back up your claim because it is far from "obvious".
The conclusions didn't set out to lay blame on any particular group – that is out of the investigators remit and will be dealt with in a separate case.
Can be .. but ... Ukrainian never shot any missile ... because rebelle in east had no planes / helicopter and never used anyone... so why using them ? And civil plane was flying at 10.000 meters ... and none of usual weapons was able to hit it ... beside the use of Buk missile ...
And why DNR deleted so many tweet about buk just after the crash of MH17 .. either the video ... why they are so ... amazed to see a civil plane ...
First Russian claim ? -> Plane has been shut down by Ukrainian war plane ... RT video available ...
Second Russia claim ? -> plane has been shit down by ... haa yes ... Israelian missile ... RT video available ...
So wich one now russian will show us ? Hoo perhaps little green men , yes ... because i doubt any simple citizen can use an mobile missile launcher ... with just a 10 pages paper manual ... Buk is multi target missile launcher ...
They showed us proof of satelitte ... picture ... and full load of shit about ... so why ... really why posting such shit if you know the truth ?
If russian was aware really , Ukrainian was behind with the use of the Buk ... why creating such fake proof
That's the question ...Because no one can deny that Buk was and has been used by rebelle ... how they shut down 2 war plane 1 week before ?
October 14, 2015, 01:53:19 AM
By now, I think it's pretty obvious that the Russian backed rebel were the shooters. My question is, why was a civilian airliner flying over an active warzone
It is far from obvious.
What you posted is 100% presumption.
On 9/11, there were many presumptions, and then one narrative became the "official story". That story was false.
So, please bring forward the research to back up your claim because it is far from "obvious".
The conclusions didn't set out to lay blame on any particular group – that is out of the investigators remit and will be dealt with in a separate case.
October 14, 2015, 01:27:26 AM
By now, I think it's pretty obvious that the Russian backed rebel were the shooters. My question is, why was a civilian airliner flying over an active warzone
October 13, 2015, 11:23:07 AM
Everybody on board died instantly? Hard to believe..
October 13, 2015, 11:07:50 AM
I thought this was already known?
October 13, 2015, 09:11:41 AM
MH17 report: Russian-made BUK missile hit plane over Ukraine - Dutch experts
The Dutch Safety Board present extensive evidence after 15-month long investigation
Brought down by a Russian-made BUK missile - that was the result of a Dutch-led inquiry into the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 disaster over eastern Ukraine. Investigators presented their final report on Tuesday afternoon.
This footage is from the conference in the Netherlands. The report went into extensive detail about how the passenger plane was hit. It said that the warhead was detonated on the left side of the cockpit, outside of the aircraft.
In the explosion, thousands of small metal objects hit MH17 with incredible force, causing extensive structural damage to the forward part of the plane.
Experts also concluded that those aboard would have died instantly and that the impact was not from an air-to-air missile strike, a common theory presented by Russian-backed media.
It was also found that prior to the downing of MH17, some 160 flights by 61 operators from 32 different countries flew over the eastern Ukraine conflict zone between 14-17 July 2014 before the airspace was closed.
The reason for this was the fact nobody, neither the Ukrainian government nor international air operators, took into account the risk of choosing that particular flight route.
The Dutch Safety Board called on all countries in conflict to do more to ensure civilian airliners. The conclusions took 15 months to complete and from the start, didn't set out to lay blame on any particular group – that is out of the investigators remit and will be dealt with in a separate case.
Source: REUTERS
The Dutch Safety Board present extensive evidence after 15-month long investigation
Brought down by a Russian-made BUK missile - that was the result of a Dutch-led inquiry into the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 disaster over eastern Ukraine. Investigators presented their final report on Tuesday afternoon.
This footage is from the conference in the Netherlands. The report went into extensive detail about how the passenger plane was hit. It said that the warhead was detonated on the left side of the cockpit, outside of the aircraft.
In the explosion, thousands of small metal objects hit MH17 with incredible force, causing extensive structural damage to the forward part of the plane.
Experts also concluded that those aboard would have died instantly and that the impact was not from an air-to-air missile strike, a common theory presented by Russian-backed media.
It was also found that prior to the downing of MH17, some 160 flights by 61 operators from 32 different countries flew over the eastern Ukraine conflict zone between 14-17 July 2014 before the airspace was closed.
The reason for this was the fact nobody, neither the Ukrainian government nor international air operators, took into account the risk of choosing that particular flight route.
The Dutch Safety Board called on all countries in conflict to do more to ensure civilian airliners. The conclusions took 15 months to complete and from the start, didn't set out to lay blame on any particular group – that is out of the investigators remit and will be dealt with in a separate case.
Source: REUTERS
Jump to: