Ukraine: As it happens.

sportloto86 · 08-09-2014 07:56PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

If I blew up an aircraft and there was evidence like a big piece of shrapnel in someone's arm with the inscription "property of Red Nissan" on it, I'd possibly remove the body and destroy it, or take the offending part away and destroy just that part.

I'd also collect all the shell fragments that I could as they'd all have the inscription "property of Red Nissan" on them like.

I have not actually shot down any aircraft and I have no intention of doing so anytime soon or ever, but if I did like and the rest of the world was upset, well.

Well, if it was shot by BUK, it would have been riddled with shrapnel. That would be a lot of pieces to cut out/off. How would that help? Let's assume that separatists did so (cut them out). Would they think that whole world now will believe it were aliens? What if shrapnel was left and "made in Russia" marks are there? Would that prove Russia shot it down? Separatists? If someone was attacked and attacker left a bloodied hammer with mark "made in China" would everyone blame Chinese?

BoJack Horseman · 08-09-2014 08:00PM

I had no idea Putin still weeped at the sound of his own national anthem.

Also, its no wonder the Ukrainian army took a huge beating.
All that armour is irresistible..... They stood little chance.

Aidric · 08-09-2014 08:12PM

Panorama is nothing but a puff piece these days. Nothing of merit out of that documentary.

It was being sold as a brave doorstep of Putin by the BBC journalist but he was squatted away with ease. In fact the interview got less than a minute of the whole programme.

BoJack Horseman · 08-09-2014 08:26PM

Aidric wrote: »

It was being sold as a brave doorstep of Putin by the BBC journalist but he was squatted away with ease. In fact the interview got less than a minute of the whole programme.

Of course Putin swatted him away, doorstepping is knowingly futile.

It doesn't get away from the meat of the matter.

Denial of the presence of Russian forces in Ukraine looks so fantastically implausible, its barely worth uttering anymore.

Aside from that, it was far too brief, interesting nonetheless but a bit lightweight.

Egginacup · 10-09-2014 09:26AM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed, BBC1 is worth a watch.

The incessant cries of "there is no evidence" .... is taking a battering.

But there IS no evidence, at least any conclusive evidence. All I'm hearing from people on here is "it was most likely the rebels", "it must have been Putin", "all fingers point to so and so".

Those are bullsh1t conclusions.
Evidence showing who is responsible is being suppressed. Eyewitness testimony is not even being considered in the investigation and then those who are doing the suppressing and ignoring eyewitness testimony are simply asserting that it was definitely Russian backed rebels and people on here are happy to go along with that not because they're interested in facts or proof or the truth but because it backs up the position they've taken whether erroneously or otherwise.

It like a pampered, deluded kid being told by his mother that he's the smartest boy in the school. Even when presented with test results showing that her darling is below average she tells him that those results aren't important and that he really IS the smartest. The dopey kid doesn't care about the evidence, he's just happy and smug that his bragging about being the cleverest is the right position.

Egginacup · 10-09-2014 10:12AM

gandalf wrote: »

But you have to concede that the more likely explanation, the more logical one is that the "Rebels" or what ever they label themselves today are the most likely to have pressed the button.

Illegal annexation of Crimea, destablising a neighbouring nation indirectly at first and now directly by sending in troops would be a good starting point.

I have to say gandalf that you wouldn't make a very good detective or investigator. When presented with a dead body you would ignore eyewitness testimony, speak not a word about other suppressed evidence like maybe cctv footage of the scene of the crime, you would just rule suspects out willy-nilly and then call the police to arrest a random guy because someone said they had a hunch it was him despite no evidence even pointing in his direction. And even evidence exonnerating him being witheld by people who don't like him. Furthermore if it was suggested to you that the person who pointed the finger at the accused stood to gain by framing him you would dismiss this suggestion as the rantings of a "tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist"

Were you to present such shabby work to Sherlock Holmes as part of a crime investigation he would recommend you be busted back down to beat cop if not removed from the force completely.

Gatling · 10-09-2014 10:13AM

Egginacup wrote: »

But there IS no evidence, at least any conclusive evidence. All I'm hearing from people on here is "it was most likely the rebels", "it must have been Putin", "all fingers point to so and so".

Those are bullsh1t conclusions.
Evidence showing who is responsible is being suppressed. Eyewitness testimony is not even being considered in the investigation and then those who are doing the suppressing and ignoring eyewitness testimony are simply asserting that it was definitely Russian backed rebels and people on here are happy to go along with that not because they're interested in facts or proof or the truth but because it backs up the position they've taken whether erroneously or otherwise.

It like a pampered, deluded kid being told by his mother that he's the smartest boy in the school. Even when presented with test results showing that her darling is below average she tells him that those results aren't important and that he really IS the smartest. The dopey kid doesn't care about the evidence, he's just happy and smug that his bragging about being the cleverest is the right position.

That explains several posters around then doesn't it

None too clever

Red Nissan · 10-09-2014 10:48AM

sportloto86 wrote: »

If someone was attacked and attacker left a bloodied hammer with mark "made in China" would everyone blame Chinese?

They certainly could, if the hammer was unique. But a hammer, like an AK47 is manufactured in the billions and sold in every country, so a lot of people could actually own a hammer.

But a BUK SAM system is a tank chassis not available at your local Ford's or Nissan dealerships and on that chassis is an armoured shell housing radar and tracking and targetting devices, again not available at B&Q or Maplins and on top of this tanks is a firing mechanism, custom built and housing up to six rockets with fragmentation proximity detonation warheads, you can't go down to your local gun store and order one of these.

AND finally, one does not need any special trainning to use a hammer, but a BUK SAM system has to have a crew of three specialists, currently such training is not on YouTube, though it might be available through TOR, I've not looked there.

This vehicle came from Russia or was left behind as the USSR collapsed, but the vehicle still needs a specialist crew, a maintenance crew, maintenance and missile supply.

Far too many factors to support the attacker casually picking up a discarded hammer and using it as weapon to murder a passerby.

Egginacup · 10-09-2014 10:55AM

Red Nissan wrote: »

They certainly could, if the hammer was unique. But a hammer, like an AK47 is manufactured in the billions and sold in every country, so a lot of people could actually own a hammer.

But a BUK SAM system is a tank chassis not available at your local Ford's or Nissan dealerships and on that chassis is an armoured shell housing radar and tracking and targetting devices, again not available at B&Q or Maplins and on top of this tanks is a firing mechanism, custom built and housing up to six rockets with fragmentation proximity detonation warheads, you can't go down to your local gun store and order one of these.

AND finally, one does not need any special trainning to use a hammer, but a BUK SAM system has to have a crew of three specialists, currently such training is not on YouTube, though it might be available through TOR, I've not looked there.

This vehicle came from Russia or was left behind as the USSR collapsed, but the vehicle still needs a specialist crew, a maintenance crew, maintenance and missile supply.

Far too many factors to support the attacker casually picking up a discarded hammer and using it as weapon to murder a passerby.

Then I think it's safe to say that whoever possess BUK systems would need to have special training and support to operate them. So who then are in possession of these systems and also have the training to use them?

Incidentally I'm curious as to why it was immediately asserted that a BUK missile system brought this plane down. Why is it definitely a BUK system? Were parts of the missile's fuselage found?

Gatling · 10-09-2014 11:03AM

Red Nissan wrote: »

They certainly could, if the hammer was unique. But a hammer, like an AK47 is manufactured in the billions and sold in every country, so a lot of people could actually own a hammer.

But a BUK SAM system is a tank chassis not available at your local Ford's or Nissan dealerships and on that chassis is an armoured shell housing radar and tracking and targetting devices, again not available at B&Q or Maplins and on top of this tanks is a firing mechanism, custom built and housing up to six rockets with fragmentation proximity detonation warheads, you can't go down to your local gun store and order one of these.

Would you believe I actually found something very similar for sale through Facebook yesterday.
Anti air vehicle fully restored minus the firing apertures and misses .

I think what happened was the Russians gave a little training but none to clever separatists locked on to something and pressed a button thinking they were going to be legendary Soviet hero's who shot down a Ukrainian jet .

As we now know now , what we already knew they shot down MH17

Elmer Blooker · 10-09-2014 12:12PM

The UK government mouthpiece, the impartial BBC is spreading lies and misinformation again. nowhere in the preliminary report was the word "missile" mentioned but they managed to slip this lie into their report.

Correspondents say this matches claims that MH17 was hit by missile shrapnel.

Ah yes "correspondents" who shall remain nameless

Where did those black boxes end up?

BoJack Horseman · 10-09-2014 12:14PM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The UK government mouthpiece, the impartial BBC is spreading lies and misinformation again. nowhere in the preliminary report was the word "missile" mentioned but they managed to slip this lie into their report.

Ah yes "correspondents" who shall remain nameless
Where did those black boxes end up?

So, what do you think hit it Elmer?

The DSB report says it was either bullets or missile shrapnel.

So, if not a missile, what then?
We await your hypothesis.

(All the emoticons in the world aren't helping you)

Elmer Blooker · 10-09-2014 07:39PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So, what do you think hit it Elmer?

The DSB report says it was either bullets or missile shrapnel.

So, if not a missile, what then?
We await your hypothesis.

(All the emoticons in the world aren't helping you)

Where does the report mention "missile"? It doesn't except on Planet BBC. It mentions "high energy objects"
My hypothesis? Before MH17, EU reluctant to impose sanctions, after MH17....... use your head. A classic false flag operation like the Gulf of Tonkin "incident". This is nothing new.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/09/world/mh17-crash-report-richard-quest-analysis/index.html

Gatling · 10-09-2014 08:07PM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Where does the report mention "missile"? It doesn't except on Planet BBC. It mentions "high energy objects"
My hypothesis?l[/URL]

Now how exactly do you think these high energy objects got to MH17 exactly you must have some theories

sportloto86 · 10-09-2014 09:58PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

They certainly could, if the hammer was unique. But a hammer, like an AK47 is manufactured in the billions and sold in every country, so a lot of people could actually own a hammer.

But a BUK SAM system is a tank chassis not available at your local Ford's or Nissan dealerships and on that chassis is an armoured shell housing radar and tracking and targetting devices, again not available at B&Q or Maplins and on top of this tanks is a firing mechanism, custom built and housing up to six rockets with fragmentation proximity detonation warheads, you can't go down to your local gun store and order one of these.

AND finally, one does not need any special trainning to use a hammer, but a BUK SAM system has to have a crew of three specialists, currently such training is not on YouTube, though it might be available through TOR, I've not looked there.

This vehicle came from Russia or was left behind as the USSR collapsed, but the vehicle still needs a specialist crew, a maintenance crew, maintenance and missile supply.

Far too many factors to support the attacker casually picking up a discarded hammer and using it as weapon to murder a passerby.

Thanks for explaining this to me. I was blind and now I see!
You talking about local Ford and B&Q and then ad TOR in the same mix. Seriously? I think you might be contradicting yourself there.
There were loads of things for sale when Soviet Union collapsed. People in army, who had a bit of power were selling everything left and right to line their pockets with dollar. But that's beside the point. Any other countries on the map who have same BUK's in service?
Why would Russia shoot herself in the foot?

darkpagandeath · 10-09-2014 10:03PM

sportloto86 wrote: »

Thanks for explaining this to me. I was blind and now I see!
You talking about local Ford and B&Q and then ad TOR in the same mix. Seriously? I think you might be contradicting yourself there.
There were loads of things for sale when Soviet Union collapsed. People in army, who had a bit of power were selling everything left and right to line their pockets with dollar. But that's beside the point. Any other countries on the map who have same BUK's in service?
Why would Russia shoot herself in the foot?

You still need highly specialised training to operated that system, Hitting something at high altitude using radar is not as easy as a computer game.

Egginacup · 11-09-2014 09:04AM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So, what do you think hit it Elmer?

The DSB report says it was either bullets or missile shrapnel.

So, if not a missile, what then?
We await your hypothesis.

(All the emoticons in the world aren't helping you)

Personally I don't know what hit it. I'm an engineer but I'm not a metallurgist, but looking at some of the pieces of metal it can be safely said that there are puncture holes of varying characteristics. It doesn't take a materials science expert to see that. There are uniform holes that some experts state are consistent with machine-gun fire and there are random, jagged holes consistent with shrapnel. Some people have stated that the uniform holes could have been caused by ballbearings in a missile warhead. Do missiles have ball bearings as shrapnel? If anyone can post information about the make-up of a BUK warhead then this would be helpful.
Another thing that seems to not be receiving much attention is the assertion that parts of the plane (cockpit sections) that were hit showed entry AND exit holes, i.e. the metal is stressed both inwards and outwards. In this case there is no doubt that more than one source of fire struck the plane. A piece of shrapnel cannot blast through a sheet of metal and then turn around and blast through it again in the opposite direction.

So was it hit by two missiles?

Egginacup · 11-09-2014 09:06AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You still need highly specialised training to operated that system, Hitting something at high altitude using radar is not as easy as a computer game.

So who has this training?

Gatling · 11-09-2014 09:11AM

Egginacup wrote: »

Personally I don't know what hit it. I'm an engineer but I'm not a metallurgist, but looking at some of the pieces of metal it can be safely said that there are puncture holes of varying characteristics. It doesn't take a materials science expert to see that. There are uniform holes that some experts state are consistent with machine-gun fire and there are random, jagged holes consistent with shrapnel. Some people have stated that the uniform holes could have been caused by ballbearings in a missile warhead. Do missiles have ball bearings as shrapnel? If anyone can post information about the make-up of a BUK warhead then this would be helpful.
Another this that seems to not be receiving much attention is the assertion that parts of the plane (cockpit sections) that were hit showed entry AND exit holes, i.e. the metal is stressed both inwards and outwards. In this case there is no doubt that more than one source of fire struck the plane. A piece of shrapnel cannot blast through a sheet of metal and then turn around and blast through it again in the opposite direction.

So was it hit by two missiles?

If some things entered the fuselage then there was an explosion then surely that same shrapnel can then forced out by an explosion,

For over 100 years artillery and anti air has used smooth ball shrapnel due to the ease of packaging into a narrow tube ,
And the effect an explosive charge gives the payload

Egginacup · 11-09-2014 09:53AM

Gatling wrote: »

If some things entered the fuselage then there was an explosion then surely that same shrapnel can then forced out by an explosion,

For over 100 years artillery and anti air has used smooth ball shrapnel due to the ease of packaging into a narrow tube ,
And the effect an explosive charge gives the payload

I promised I wouldn't respond to your posts anymore since most of what you post is drivel or since you refuse to read rebuttal evidence refuting what you say. But if you're now making up the fantasyland scenario that shrapnel could enter the cockpit through the side panels, then sit there, then an explosion goes off in the cockpit and blows it back out I can see that I've made the right decision in completely ignoring you....this post excluded.

Jagdtiger · 11-09-2014 09:57AM

Egginacup wrote: »

So who has this training?

I'd imagine that there are lots of Ukrainian ex soviet service men that would have had training to us similar systems. (Provided that it wasn't an ultra modern system that has just been released with a completely new interface).
Just my two cents, I don't see why it has to be the Russians teaching rebels left right and centre.

Red Nissan · 11-09-2014 11:45AM

Egginacup wrote: »

So was it hit by two missiles?

Think of the state of the bodies as reported initially.

Think explosive decompression and instant exposure to near space.

Red Nissan · 11-09-2014 12:02PM

An interesting consideration for you gentlemen.

Analysts concluded that Georgian Buk missile systems were responsible for downing four Russian aircraft—three Sukhoi Su-25 close air support aircraft and a Tupolev Tu-22M strategic bomber—in the 2008 South Ossetia war.[80] U.S. officials have said Georgia's SA-11 Buk-1M was certainly the cause of the Tu-22M's loss and contributed to the losses of the three Su-25s.[81] According to some analysts, the loss of four aircraft is surprising and a heavy toll for Russia given the small size of Georgia's military.[82][83] Some have also pointed out, that Russian electronic counter-measures systems were apparently unable to jam and suppress enemy SAMs in the conflict[84] and that Russia was, surprisingly, unable to come up with effective countermeasures against missile systems it had designed.[80]
Georgia bought these missile systems from Ukraine which had an inquiry to determine if the purchase was illegal.

From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system#Basic_missile_system_specifications

Count Dooku · 11-09-2014 08:45PM

Egginacup wrote: »

Personally I don't know what hit it. I'm an engineer but I'm not a metallurgist, but looking at some of the pieces of metal it can be safely said that there are puncture holes of varying characteristics. It doesn't take a materials science expert to see that. There are uniform holes that some experts state are consistent with machine-gun fire and there are random, jagged holes consistent with shrapnel. Some people have stated that the uniform holes could have been caused by ballbearings in a missile warhead. Do missiles have ball bearings as shrapnel?

This is how shrapnel looks in 9M38 missile for Buk
https://i.imgur.com/EwKyK92.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/wDXYVth.jpg
Direction of holes on winglet shows that MH17 have been hit from back and only Ukrainians could do that to frame rebels

Gatling · 11-09-2014 08:53PM

Count Dooku wrote: »

This is how shrapnel looks in 9M38 missile for Buk
https://i.imgur.com/EwKyK92.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/wDXYVth.jpg
Direction of holes on winglet shows that MH17 have been hit from back and only Ukrainians could do that to frame rebels

Get with the programme the official conspiracy theory in this thread states two stealth su25s were witnessed by several Russians on the ground exactly at 10,000 ft through very heavy cloud cover shooting MH17 head on and from both sides of the cockpit at the same time and yes they claim they can prove it

Count Dooku · 11-09-2014 08:58PM

Gatling wrote: »

Get with the programme the official conspiracy theory in this thread states two stealth su25s were witnessed by several Russians on the ground exactly at 10,000 ft through very heavy cloud cover shooting MH17 head on and from both sides of the cockpit at the same time and yes they claim they can prove it

Su-25 was suggested by Canadian expert first, Russians only claimed that Su-25 was using the same corridor as MH-17, but never claimed that it came too close to Boeing for using cannons
I presume that it was done deliberatly to move attention away from fact that MH-17 was within firing range for at least two Ukrainian Buls
Germans now claims that it was no Buk at all around MH-17, just SA-3
http://www.jungewelt.de/downloads/mh17.pdf
Probably for the same reason

Egginacup · 11-09-2014 09:16PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

Think of the state of the bodies as reported initially.

Think explosive decompression and instant exposure to near space.

I don't follow. Could you elaborate?

Egginacup · 11-09-2014 09:33PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

An interesting consideration for you gentlemen.

From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system#Basic_missile_system_specifications

"some have said", "apparently", ....and not a name mentioned. Is this what passes for credible evidence?

Egginacup · 11-09-2014 09:50PM

Jagdtiger wrote: »

I'd imagine that there are lots of Ukrainian ex soviet service men that would have had training to us similar systems. (Provided that it wasn't an ultra modern system that has just been released with a completely new interface).
Just my two cents, I don't see why it has to be the Russians teaching rebels left right and centre.

Ex-Soviet?
As in 24 years ago.?

Elmer Blooker · 12-09-2014 08:21AM

Gatling wrote: »

If some things entered the fuselage then there was an explosion then surely that same shrapnel can then forced out by an explosion,

You couldn't make up this kind of stuff! I really don't think you know what you're talking about.

I'm off to write the movie script

You said this a few days ago. You really should, you would be brilliant at it,
Your "Putin did it cos he's the bad guy" posts are pure Hollywood.

Ukraine: As it happens.

Comments