This lawsuit is total kangaroo court nonsense.
And that is assuming the rebels had anything to do with the downing. But anyone who has researched this topic
knows that they had nothing to do with it.
Akula971 wrote:Might seem a bit off topic but I would like to give my personal views on the MH17, and everyone is encouraged to debate and demolish everything I have written, it only helps to get a cleared picture (by elimination, as them science people call it)
See I have been reading a lot about the MH17 getting shot down and I am just gonna try and write a summary of what happened, just to get a better picture because everyone is blaming everybody out there.
Lets start some days before the MH 17 went down, on 14th July 2014, the NAF forces were able to shoot down an UAF An 26. One month ago, in June they were able to shoot down an Il 76 and it was taken out by a heat seeking missile such as Grom (which NAF had at that time) or say a Strela, because it got hit precisely on the engine and hit the deck slowly.
Now at that time, in July 2014 the NAF had all sorts of short range ADS, from ZSU-23-2s to GROM MANPADs and well Strela 10Ms as well. But even till then, they had no Radar guided ADS. They were able to take over 1 air defence forces base, and it had a Buk M1. This Buk M1 however, had been rendered useless. It was indeed confirmed by the UA authorities who said, in the Rada, that they had been rendered useless. Before or after 14 July there has been no recorded use of Radar guided ADS by NAF.
Further, lets see how these Buk M1s work. There are a no. of vehicles and components that make up a Buk. They require a target acquisition radar, a command vehicle, a Telar and a reloading vehicle (bare basic). The Buk M1 that NAF 'allegedly' would have had would be a TELAR. The MH17 was flying OVER the max. engagement range of a lone TELAR. You are free to look up all of this, its all out there. If any target acquisition radar would have become operational, UAF would be all over it. Maybe send a SEAD Su 24 for it too.
Videos from ex UAF Buk and Su 25 operators have more or less confirmed that it was indeed a Su 25 that shot down the MH17. Just a few hours after the shooting down of MH17, Russia was able to show its Radar ATC data showing the Su 25 engaging the MH17. I mean, they couldnt have possibly fabricated that in such a short time.
Things that might have been overlooked -
1) the UA forces never released the ATC data recording, plus the fate of the Spanish ATC guy who tweeted about suspicious activity.
2) Eye witness reports of a Su 25 flying by
3) UAF shelling the shit out of the crash site afterwards.
4) MH17 was told to loose altitude
Really, the 3 point is a CLEAR cover up attempt - if they knew that it was NAF that shot up the MH17, they would NEVER , i repeat NEVER destroy ANY evidence of the aircraft or wreckage, but they did blow the wreck to kingdom come.
It leaves little space for other 'theories' if you ask me. The distinct marks of a GSh-30-2 dont look like anything a Buk warhead could do, a Buk warhead would have cut through the entire fuselage like hot discs not prominent bullet marks.
The part about the missile being a Python Gen 5 and not a R 60 is something i cannot comment on. My personal view on this, since July 17 has been - UAF Su 25 tails MH17, takes a lock on with a R60, shoots, then goes guns guns guns to be double sure and runs off home. The only reason it went to guns is because, as seen in the past, a R60 alone cannot take out a commercial airliner, apparently it wasnt the first time a big plane was shot at by a R60.
kvs wrote:How about a suit against Obama, Bush and Clinton for all the "collateral" damage their wars caused.
This lawsuit is total kangaroo court nonsense.
And that is assuming the rebels had anything to do with the downing. But anyone who has researched this topic
knows that they had nothing to do with it.
JohninMK wrote:The same guy, first in July 2014 second in July 2015, aged a bit?whir wrote:
onwiththewar wrote:Akula971 wrote:Might seem a bit off topic but I would like to give my personal views on the MH17, and everyone is encouraged to debate and demolish everything I have written, it only helps to get a cleared picture (by elimination, as them science people call it)
See I have been reading a lot about the MH17 getting shot down and I am just gonna try and write a summary of what happened, just to get a better picture because everyone is blaming everybody out there.
Lets start some days before the MH 17 went down, on 14th July 2014, the NAF forces were able to shoot down an UAF An 26. One month ago, in June they were able to shoot down an Il 76 and it was taken out by a heat seeking missile such as Grom (which NAF had at that time) or say a Strela, because it got hit precisely on the engine and hit the deck slowly.
Now at that time, in July 2014 the NAF had all sorts of short range ADS, from ZSU-23-2s to GROM MANPADs and well Strela 10Ms as well. But even till then, they had no Radar guided ADS. They were able to take over 1 air defence forces base, and it had a Buk M1. This Buk M1 however, had been rendered useless. It was indeed confirmed by the UA authorities who said, in the Rada, that they had been rendered useless. Before or after 14 July there has been no recorded use of Radar guided ADS by NAF.
Further, lets see how these Buk M1s work. There are a no. of vehicles and components that make up a Buk. They require a target acquisition radar, a command vehicle, a Telar and a reloading vehicle (bare basic). The Buk M1 that NAF 'allegedly' would have had would be a TELAR. The MH17 was flying OVER the max. engagement range of a lone TELAR. You are free to look up all of this, its all out there. If any target acquisition radar would have become operational, UAF would be all over it. Maybe send a SEAD Su 24 for it too.
Videos from ex UAF Buk and Su 25 operators have more or less confirmed that it was indeed a Su 25 that shot down the MH17. Just a few hours after the shooting down of MH17, Russia was able to show its Radar ATC data showing the Su 25 engaging the MH17. I mean, they couldnt have possibly fabricated that in such a short time.
Things that might have been overlooked -
1) the UA forces never released the ATC data recording, plus the fate of the Spanish ATC guy who tweeted about suspicious activity.
2) Eye witness reports of a Su 25 flying by
3) UAF shelling the shit out of the crash site afterwards.
4) MH17 was told to loose altitude
Really, the 3 point is a CLEAR cover up attempt - if they knew that it was NAF that shot up the MH17, they would NEVER , i repeat NEVER destroy ANY evidence of the aircraft or wreckage, but they did blow the wreck to kingdom come.
It leaves little space for other 'theories' if you ask me. The distinct marks of a GSh-30-2 dont look like anything a Buk warhead could do, a Buk warhead would have cut through the entire fuselage like hot discs not prominent bullet marks.
The part about the missile being a Python Gen 5 and not a R 60 is something i cannot comment on. My personal view on this, since July 17 has been - UAF Su 25 tails MH17, takes a lock on with a R60, shoots, then goes guns guns guns to be double sure and runs off home. The only reason it went to guns is because, as seen in the past, a R60 alone cannot take out a commercial airliner, apparently it wasnt the first time a big plane was shot at by a R60.
Well said. Based on your post, I'd like to add, and this is something I only thought of recently. Buk missiles have very identifiable fragment shapes or pellets, see attached photo (taken from a Ukrainian site). Some are square shaped, some are distinctly X shaped.
I have seen photos of the warheads, it appears a Buk contains both types of fragments in a single shell, X shaped ones on the inside and square ones on the outside. See below:
So far the debates have been on matching holes from the MH17 to these fragments. Many people are saying, "Look, square shaped hole, must be a Buk fragment." Ukrainians found a few random shaped melted metal pieces and said, "Look this Buk fragment penetrated MF17."
However, if you think about it from another angle. Apparently 1 missile contains 20,000 of them. I believe a very small percentage of them will hit the target on impact, most of them, however will travel through air without touching anything, and free fall to the ground.
So, around the crash site, or at least around point of impact, we should see plenty of these intact pellets on the ground. Right? I know they are going to scatter in a big area, but given the fact there are 20,000 of them, surely some will be found by the "international investigation team" over a year of of "investigation". But of course, we all know that none of these real evidences of a Buk are found.
Just a thought.
Akula971 wrote:But no eye witness account till yet has seen anything of that matter. or Heard. This is a new point against the Buk theory.
Again not necessarily true, with overcast weather vapour trails are not so easy to identify because of the cloud dimming, people living near refrigeration chimneys can confirm this phenomena.Akula971 wrote:ALSO I would like to quote you on this, Vann7, ''One possible reason for not using Buks-m1 , why i think they were not used.. is because they leave a big smoke trail.. that could show from where the missile came..and any Rebels or journalist with a camera could ruin the day for Ukraine..with such lethal evidence.. ''
Jeroen Akkermans via Google Translate wrote:@JeroenAkkermans 3:19 AM - 16 Jul 2015
Tanks arrived in Grabova. They should ensure safety during # MH17 memorial service
Дарина Ковальчук wrote:Right Sector in Kharkov in the grocery market 'Tale'
Viktor Kovalenko wrote:@MrKovalenko 11:28 PM - 16 Jul 2015
#Ukraine declared Russian consul in #Odessa Valeriy Shibeko as persona non grata for diversion activities. He's gone.
Россия 24 wrote:New People's why Kiev is afraid of the appearance of the Transcarpathian People's Republic?
Sharij via Google Translate wrote:Порошенко: Разведка сообщает, что будет вторжение
Poroshenko: "Intelligence reports that there will be an invasion"
16/07/2015 21:02
Poroshenko: "Intelligence reports that there will be an invasion"
During the escalation of hostilities in the Donets Basin on the night of July 15, killing several civilians. In an interview with Christiane Amanpour on CNN today, July 16, said the president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko.
"I have information from sources of intelligence that the invasion would be," - said Poroshenko.
In addition, the President noted the escalation, which occurs in the area of the ATO is now. "Yesterday I lost 8 military and 16 military were injured. Several civilians were killed yesterday under fire", - he stated. Continue reading.
RT Deutsch wrote:Yatsenyuk: We can help Greece with our apparent success story
whir wrote:
Not true, one one of the first videos with locals talking among themselves they were claiming to have heard two consecutive explosions and also a local girl (DonCity) stated over MP.net that she heard two big explosions one after another.
Thanks to your video at the bottom Whir, I just spit out all my tea and now I have to clean it all up. Thanks a lot Whir...whir wrote:Sharij via Google Translate wrote:Порошенко: Разведка сообщает, что будет вторжение
Poroshenko: "Intelligence reports that there will be an invasion"
16/07/2015 21:02
Poroshenko: "Intelligence reports that there will be an invasion"
During the escalation of hostilities in the Donets Basin on the night of July 15, killing several civilians. In an interview with Christiane Amanpour on CNN today, July 16, said the president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko.
"I have information from sources of intelligence that the invasion would be," - said Poroshenko.
In addition, the President noted the escalation, which occurs in the area of the ATO is now. "Yesterday I lost 8 military and 16 military were injured. Several civilians were killed yesterday under fire", - he stated. Continue reading.RT Deutsch wrote:Yatsenyuk: We can help Greece with our apparent success story
GarryB wrote:I think the shootdown by Su-25 is unlikely... it simply is not well equipped to intercept high flying relatively fast aircraft.
The effective envelope of BUK is for military targets... slow moving straight flying predictable targets could be hit further outside the envelope because they can be directed to a fixed intercept point... in comparison a manouvering target would have a constantly shifting intercept point which would waste energy.
No group of rebels could use BUK effectively when it has been disabled. The location means it could not have been a Russian system because of its range limitations... the only other operator of the system in the region would the the Government forces... regarding smoke trails... the launched missile does not need to be anywhere near where the aircraft impacted... the glide range of a modern airliner is enormous and even with a lethal hit the crash location might be 20km from the interception point.
The facts are that the CIA refuses to release its radar tapes from NATO radars... do you think if it proved the missile was launched from a rebel controlled area they would hold back the tapes?
Do you think if they supported their view they would keep them secret?
Ivan the Colorado wrote:Anyway, I would love to see Poroshenko's source (I do believe there is some accuracy in it). I sure hope he is right. Last time the NAF launched a major offensive involved a wind from the North that pushed the NAF all the way to the Azov Sea. Nobody took the rebels seriously then, the Ukrop leadership can't afford to make the same mistake again.
Khepesh wrote:PS. This does add the possibility that MH17 was taken down by an SU and that a BUK was fired as well, but at the SU which would have been very close to MH17. Complicated, isn't it.....
Edit: That the guys say "we" shot down the SU does not mean that it was so, for if he thought an SU had been shot down, and only ukrops had any military aircraft flying, he would presume that "we" had taken it down while the reality would be that ukrops fired the BUK. Here, if it really is the case there was an SU, and we don't know 100%, there is the possibility of not only a two stage attack on MH 17, but even an attempt by ykrops to take down their own SU. Yeah, Tom Clancy, but truth is often stranger than fiction.
Looks like the NAF are taking on the appearance of a 'normal' military where there are no 'hero brigades' in standard formations and the 'hero types' are concentrated in, as close to invisible as possible, special forces of various types.Khepesh wrote:It is strongly rebutted that Givi and many of his men are wounded. But nobody is yet rebutting that "Somali" is disbanded as Strelkov has said. I mentioned a few days back that Motorola and all of "Sparta" have evacuated their barracks and not been seen for many days.
BUK is a vectorial system, that's why in theory the missile could have come from any direction.GarryB wrote:The effective envelope of BUK is for military targets... slow moving straight flying predictable targets could be hit further outside the envelope because they can be directed to a fixed intercept point... in comparison a manouvering target would have a constantly shifting intercept point which would waste energy.
According to German media the AWACS over Romania recorded a signal belonging to S-125 in Ukraine that day.GarryB wrote:The facts are that the CIA refuses to release its radar tapes from NATO radars... do you think if it proved the missile was launched from a rebel controlled area they would hold back the tapes?
The problem is that probably they weren't but the most disturbing part is that third world countries use airliners as live targets for training that is a point that escapes most analysis.Neutrality wrote:I don't know what to think to be honest. The jet fighter version is tempting but also very easy to debunk. The BUK story is the most plausible but has several inconsistencies like the ones you mention: inexperienced people with incomplete hardware which leaves us to think that Russia, somehow, smuggled a whole BUK installation into the territory and deliberately took down the Boeing. That's just pure bullshit. How hard can it be to distinguish a civilian airliner from a military aircraft for those who are trained in this?
Supposedly the missiles have a self destruct mechanism that can be activated by ground crew after the launch but that it's overridden once the missile arms itself during terminal phase.Neutrality wrote:Also, is it possible to disable a missile after its launch? Let's say that you fire a missile, realize that you're targetting the wrong thing and decide to remotely disable the missile. Or are BUK missiles fire-and-forget?
Why not? You don't need to go on conspiracy theory territory to speculate with the possibility of someone trying to whac-a-mole by feeding wrong information on purpose, obviously you need the other side to bite on that info but is not that far fetched and is in the realm of the plausible.Neutrality wrote:I really dislike getting into conspiracy theory territory. IF by some crazy chance this was indeed the idea/plan then I'm 100% positive this wouldn't be solely SBU's idea. If you catch my drift.
JohninMK wrote:Looks like the NAF are taking on the appearance of a 'normal' military where there are no 'hero brigades' in standard formations and the 'hero types' are concentrated in, as close to invisible as possible, special forces of various types.
Much better in many ways, for example it means there is no loss of moral when a 'hero' dies.