Any evidence that someone did this to frame Russia?
If that is the case they are hardly going to admit to it. That's like if I were to ask you to show me a picture of the two men applying the nerve agent to the door handle (unfair). There is circumstantial evidence for either. Still, one might say "but what about the traces of nerve agent found in their hotel room?"
Well, how did it get there? Where/on what exactly was it found? Did someone step on some of it at Salisbury (remember that not all the Skripals movements that day were known, so even if perfect precautions were taken at known sites, someone may still have stepped on some of it) and carry it there? The details are unknown. But we know the OPCW was not invited to independently verify the presence of the nerve agent there, and the hotel was not even closed down. Traces allegedly found there after two months. Story only told and names and photos of the hotel occupants released four months after allegedly finding it. One could argue that if they really did want the public's help, they would release that information sooner, while the memories of those men would have been fresher in people's minds. And that if traces had actually been found and they genuinely believed the suspects to be responsible, they would have closed the hotel as a precaution. Such things constitute part of the legitimate reasons for suspecting someone is framing Russia, in spite of no "smoking gun" evidence.
It seems the flights came from Russia and used Russian passports + they have the faces of the GRU personnel who did it.... I suspect that if they were from some third party country then Russia would be the first to scream that actually they only just entered Moscow via [insert some other country] on XYZ flight... would be easy enough to confirm too. But that hasn't happened, have they been living in Moscow for years or do you purport that they are Russians but have chosen to work for a third country in order to frame Russia and yet still decided to return to Russia?
I'm not purporting anything in particular. Only pointing out that those two men may have been there for other reasons. I would personally like to know more about them. And the ball is in Russia's court now. Instead of saying "the names and photos mean nothing to us", they need to confirm whether or not the men are Russian, whether they work for the GRU, and if so, explain why the men were there that weekend. We don't even know if they are alive right now, or actually in Russia. However, they have apparently asked the UK for the mens' fingerprints, which seems a fair request, and apparently this has been denied for some reason.
You really are clutching at straws with your attempts to come up with alternative narratives, this is the problem with conspiracy theorists, your own narratives are so full of holes yet you seem to be happy to exercise selective skepticism whereby you only attempt to pick holes in the "official" narrative, regardless of how dubious your attempt to do so is.
Cuts both ways. The official narrative is a conspiracy theory and includes a conspiracy charge. In questioning it, other conspiracy theories are considered. I don't have a problem with considering plausible theories. I do think people ought to be careful with becoming invested in a particular one and wanting it to be true, as you then have an interest in ignoring evidence to the contrary. Explaining why some evidence is not conclusive, is not ignoring it.
