Boeing 777 shot down

[MoRT489]

That state department video is lol-worthy, she confirmed that their "intelligence" is based on social media and public domain info and "common sense"! "We know the Russians have the SA11 system based on Youtube Videos posted by the Ukrainians"! Who is this moron and htf does she have authority to speak for the US government? Damn she's infuriating. How can they refer to this as "evidence"? The mind boggles.

Keep an eye out for the opinions in this thread being quoted as evidence soon

 

[Locky]

I'm not convinced Russia or rebels had anything to do with this...

 

[[TW]Fox]

I'm not convinced Russia or rebels had anything to do with this...

It's basically a false flag, right?! It's amazing how everyone in the real world is so blind to this and how us on the internet know the score!

 

[Locky]

It's basically a false flag, right?! It's amazing how everyone in the real world is so blind to this and how us on the internet know the score!

What you on about? I'm just saying I'm not sure if Russia and it's rebels are to blame - that's all.

The truth will probably never some to light...

 

[dowie]

That state department video is lol-worthy, she confirmed that their "intelligence" is based on social media and public domain info and "common sense"! "We know the Russians have the SA11 system based on Youtube Videos posted by the Ukrainians"! Who is this moron and htf does she have authority to speak for the US government? Damn she's infuriating. How can they refer to this as "evidence"? The mind boggles.

Keep an eye out for the opinions in this thread being quoted as evidence soon

Its not that unreasonable. Accounts from rebels that they've captured a launcher, that they've shot down a plane etc.. were fairly incriminating. Sure maybe the Ukrainians planned the whole false flag thing months ago, set up fake twitter accounts, made a bunch of tweets pretending to be Rebel commanders then dropped in one about the launcher, deleted etc.. really doesn't seem too likely.

Its not like the US/NSA can't verify where those tweets came from... I highly doubt that anyone wanted to deliberately shoot down a passenger jet.

Sure the photo of the launcher minus one missile could have been shopped and sent to someone to tweet from the rebel held area, maybe the telephone intercept is two actors/impersonators they managed to recruit within 24 hours who could mimic both the required voices.

The idea that the rebels, who'd been actively trying to shoot down planes (and had been shooting them down) did this accidentally IMO is the most plausible explanation and there was plenty of evidence, from multiple sources, in the public domain that would point to that too.... I'm really not buying the false flag, deliberate shooting down theories etc..

 

[TJM]

I'm not convinced Russia or rebels had anything to do with this...

It's the logical conclusion based on what we know:

No distress call was made and the debris is scattered over a large area, which indicates the plane suffered a catastrophic incident at high altitude. The cockpit was shredded by shrapnel.
A senior rebel boasted on social media about shooting down a plane and deleted those messages when it became clear that it was a civilian airliner.
Radio intercepts of rebel communications discussing the shoot down were released by the Ukrainian government soon after the crash. They were too detailed to have been faked in such a short period of time (unless it is believed that Ukraine planned the entire thing).
The rebels have impeded access to the crash site.
A BUK missile launcher was moved across the border into Russia shortly after the attack.

 

[dowie]

What you on about? I'm just saying I'm not sure if Russia and it's rebels are to blame - that's all.

The truth will probably never some to light...

well it happened in a Russian/rebel held area and I really don't think it was Hamas, al quaeda or ISIS... so the alternative would seem to be the false flag/Ukrainian jet option... which just doesn't seem to likely either.

 

[Danny75]

Sure the photo of the launcher minus one missile could have been shopped and sent to someone to tweet from the rebel held area, maybe the telephone intercept is two actors/impersonators they managed to recruit within 24 hours who could mimic both the required voices.

The problem with the telephone intercept is that it's actually three intercepts edited into one. And there have been plenty of shoot-downs of military planes by rebel fighters (good for them I say, since those planes have been bombing civilians and the toll is now over 400 dead). In the first intercept they are confirming a kill but there is no identification of the plane. Only in the other intercepts do you get identification. Is this proof? No. Is it still plausible that the rebels shot it down? Yes. Is it equally plausible that Kiev would edit intercepts of past and present to make it look like the rebels were taking responsibility? Yes.

The idea that the rebels, who'd been actively trying to shoot down planes (and had been shooting them down) did this accidentally IMO is the most plausible explanation and there was plenty of evidence, from multiple sources, in the public domain that would point to that too.... I'm really not buying the false flag, deliberate shooting down theories etc..

The State Department comedian was asked about the evidence the Russians had presented (1. radar tracks of a Ukrainian jet approaching MH17; 2. MH17 significantly reducing speed for several minutes prior to going off radar; 3. Ukrainian "BUK" movement into generally rebel-held territory and then movement out of that territory after the incident; probably forgetting some other things that have been presented).

Her response? "I haven't seen any of that." In a tone that indicated that she had no intention of doing so in future at all, and with a reminder that, "We have presented our assessment," as if that's all that counts.

WTF? They have been accusing Russia and the rebels for days, and now that they've responded with something that can be analysed (and possibly refuted with their own intelligence), they indicate that they don't even care to hear what the Russians have to say? What sort of attitude or approach is that? Is that really reasonable?

There are other possibilities that don't require a false-flag. Such as the equally plausible possibility that it was the Ukrainians who made the mistake themselves (as they have done in the past - 2001).

 

[Danny75]

well it happened in a Russian/rebel held area

Is Luhansk a rebel-held area? Yes.

Is Donetsk? Yes.

Does the Ukrainian army regularly venture into those territories and others, to either do battle or carry out other Ops? Yes.

 

[Boycey0211]

That state department video is lol-worthy, she confirmed that their "intelligence" is based on social media and public domain info and "common sense"! "We know the Russians have the SA11 system based on Youtube Videos posted by the Ukrainians"! Who is this moron and htf does she have authority to speak for the US government? Damn she's infuriating. How can they refer to this as "evidence"? The mind boggles.

Keep an eye out for the opinions in this thread being quoted as evidence soon

Yes but MoRT, you keep quoting RT articles as counter evidence, one had:

A) a powerpoint of some undated aerial photos of some black blobs where one of them disappeared, you cannot possibly make out what it is anyway or when and erm photoshop?

B)The same picture of an as yet unproven SU25 climbing to meet the aircraft with no evidence to actually prove it existed. It is just and image on a powerpoint being touted as fact.

C)Both of these 'facts' appeared days after the event, if they were known why not make them known immediatly upon accusations of russian/seperatist involvement

I mean come on, you know as well as anyone else realistically does that its just speculation by everybody at this point, doesn't mean Russia or anyone else is innocent, and I would describe russia's effort equally lolworthy 'propaganda'.

 

[Tefal]

C)Both of these 'facts' appeared days after the event, if they were known why not make them known immediatly upon accusations of russian/seperatist involvement

verifying your information before releasing it being standard practice in most circles?

 

[Boycey0211]

verifying your information before releasing it being standard practice in most circles?

Is there any verification whatsoever though?

I can make a powerpoint saying it was aliens

 

[MoRT489]

It's the logical conclusion based on what we know:

No distress call was made and the debris is scattered over a large area, which indicates the plane suffered a catastrophic incident at high altitude. The cockpit was shredded by shrapnel.
A senior rebel boasted on social media about shooting down a plane and deleted those messages when it became clear that it was a civilian airliner.
Radio intercepts of rebel communications discussing the shoot down were released by the Ukrainian government soon after the crash. They were too detailed to have been faked in such a short period of time (unless it is believed that Ukraine planned the entire thing).
The rebels have impeded access to the crash site.
A BUK missile launcher was moved across the border into Russia shortly after the attack.

It is only the logical conclusion based on the accusations levelled by the US and UK governments, not facts, so "what we know" in this sentence is based on a severe lack of evidence.

All of the highlighted items are disputed as being (i) edited conversations reformatted into the version that the Ukrainians released, (ii) impeding access, or playing it safe given that they are operating in a warzone under the protection of the rebels? and (iii) this missile launchers location is disputed and has not be backed up by real intelligence, just photographs from Ukraine-friendly sources.

Yes but MoRT, you keep quoting RT articles as counter evidence

I didn't quote that as evidence, only that there are two sides to the story and perhaps media shouldn't be so quick to pass judgement just to achieve sales.

I fully agree with the idea of the US and Russians sharing their alleged intelligence on what happened and refuting/corroborating it as appropriate and of course this is unlikely to be public, but given the nature of espionage neither one is going to want to give away anything that might incriminate its illegal spying activities, so that is unlikely to be of help.

 

[ubersonic]

"We" didn't destabilise his country and murder him - his own people did that (and frankly I don't blame them. "We" saw an opportunity to get rid of him and took it - payback's a *****.

Nope, his country was stable and he was alive, well and in the process of slapping down a minor rebellion. Then we got involved, turned the tide, decimated* his forces, caused people to flock to the rebels cause and finally bombed his motorcade** allowing him to be captured and executed without trial (in violation of the Geneva convention).

* This may be the first time anyone has ever used "decimate" correctly on the internet.
** Technically it was the French but I saw we as the coalition.

 

[RDM]

It is only the logical conclusion based on the accusations levelled by the US and UK governments, not facts, so "what we know" in this sentence is based on a severe lack of evidence.

All of the highlighted items are disputed as being (i) edited conversations reformatted into the version that the Ukrainians released, (ii) impeding access, or playing it safe given that they are operating in a warzone under the protection of the rebels? and (iii) this missile launchers location is disputed and has not be backed up by real intelligence, just photographs from Ukraine-friendly sources.

The only people shooting aircraft down are the rebels, Ukraine doesn't need to as the rebels have no airpower.

 

[Tefal]

Is there any verification whatsoever though?

I can make a powerpoint saying it was aliens

presumably the "PowerPoint" is backed up by printed data of radar reports etc.


your argument about it being power point is hilarious though, you could eqaully say that the Us data is meaningless as its just words spoken by a spokes person with no back up either.

but typically they'd be checking against all their own aircraft and others tracing the planes back to where they entered and exit radar etc to make sure they accuse the right people.

 

[dowie]

Is Luhansk a rebel-held area? Yes.

Is Donetsk? Yes.

Does the Ukrainian army regularly venture into those territories and others, to either do battle or carry out other Ops? Yes.

OK so they need to send a surface to air missile launcher into rebel territory to do what exactly?

That isn't the sort of the kit you put right at the front let alone send into enemy territory. And the idea that a trained operator would want to shoot an aircraft coming from behind them and flying away from Ukraine - not very plausible... You do realise that when armies (as opposed to rag tag militia) use these assets there is a command and control structure in place.

So maybe the Ukrainians sent some launcher on some rather risky mission to deliberately down a civilian plane in some CT-esq 'false flag' operation...or it was the rebels... given that they'd both claimed to have one and claimed to have shot down a transport aircraft.... then back tracked when it emerged what had happened.

These alternatives just don't stack up

 

[Boycey0211]

presumably the "PowerPoint" is backed up by printed data of radar reports etc.


your argument about it being power point is hilarious though, you could eqaully say that the Us data is meaningless as its just words spoken by a spokes person with no back up either.

but typically they'd be checking against all their own aircraft and others tracing the planes back to where they entered and exit radar etc to make sure they accuse the right people.

Its not an argument, I was making as a point that the social media 'proof' is being countered by a powerpoint with no actual evidencial proof.

I did not support either side I merely made the point that some real factual evidence should be apparent before trying to discount someones account of what happened, on either side.

As expected its now been what 5 days and no hard proven evidence has appeared, no radar traces apart from where it was shot down, no missile launcher anyone can currently find, no mystery SU25, nothing.

The point I'm trying to make is neither side is right.

Yet.

 

[MoRT489]

Genuine question, not trolling: if it was a suicide bombing would the debris/crash site be any different? No one seems to have mentioned finding missile shrapnel that I have seen, so just wondering if this can be ruled out as a possibility with the proximity to Ukrainian airspace being an untimely coincidence.

 

[Boycey0211]

Genuine question, not trolling: if it was a suicide bombing would the debris/crash site be any different? No one seems to have mentioned finding missile shrapnel that I have seen, so just wondering if this can be ruled out as a possibility with the proximity to Ukrainian airspace being an untimely coincidence.

I would think its too early to tell, the crash investigators will be able to answer this either way in due time r.e the shrapnel, and probably be able to spot if it was a bomb.