Russia: Don't look for who did the MH17 shootdown

[Artemus]

1.What seemed to be warhead fragment damage to the left wing. Impossible if the missile came from Snizhne.

Of course, their own tests didn't even have an aircraft with wings on it.

2.Evidence of warhead fragments moving longitudinally back through the plane. Impossible if the missile came from Snizhne.

Except that their test failed to have the missle approach at nearly Mach 4.

3.Other damage to the cockpit not consistent with a missile coming from Snizhne.

Except their test used an entirely different aircraft, with entirely different equipment location/bays (perhaps stripped), entirely different construction, unpressurized, and no people inside.

So they offered to do the best test they could do, even though not perfect. they did 14 million computer simulations.

"The best test they could do" does not mean "good enough".

It is truly astounding that people on this forum are not the slightest bit skeptical, and have some fantasy that this means an impartial investigation.

I did not say that the investigation was impartial. I said that the Almaz Antey test was meaningless.

What did you want Almaz Antey to do? What more can they do?

I didn't want them to do anything. What I want them to not do is present the results of a poorly implemented test as definitively disproving a particular scenario.

 

[Jayjay]

I have seen the slides,

That is difficult to believe. Did you not understand them? How is it, if you really did see the slides that you claimed they did not do an experiment from an orientation from which they think it happened.?

Because I was referring to the experiment with the actual airplane frame. The first experiment did not have it, just metal plates set up around the missile. It is difficult to tell from there if the damage would look anything like MH17 or not. It probably wouldn't.

Here is what you said...

Why do you think Almaz-Antey didn't blow up a missile from the orientation that they think it happened? Because that would have shown that the damage would be utterly incompatible with MH17. It's easier to pick holes in the other guy's theory than try to support your own..

But then you claim you had seen the slides. <huh>??
You appear to have formed your conclusion before you even looked.

You claim you worship evidence, but the evidence is you form a conclusion and then seek to shoehorn the facts. pfft

What facts am I shoehorning in? Be specific. No doubt, I have formed an opinion of what happened, but that's due to the massive amount of evidence that I already know about. But I am glad to be shown wrong when I am. As an example, in this thread I suggested that maybe the damage in the engine cowling was due to ricochets. After Will Wiley's subsequent post I've changed my mind. Also, as another example back in July when we discussed the possible trajectories suggested by Almaz Antey, I was highly skeptical that the missile would fly in a more or less straight line. Now I stand corrected.

When new facts show up that contradict my preconceptions, I correct my views. You seem to be doing the opposite by rejecting any facts that don't support your preconceived notions.

Fact is that Almaz Antey has not blown up a real missile next to a real airplane in a position coming from the side, so we have no reason to think that it would produce the kind of damage we see on MH17. And another fact is that when simulated, this position doesn't generate the damage observed on the plane.

 

[Jayjay]

Almaz Antey is the missile manufacturer, so they are an obvious choice to ask about the accident. This strangely did not happen. However they were sanctioned, although there was no evidence they did anything wrong. So quite naturally they did their own examination of what happened.
They saw certain things.
1.What seemed to be warhead fragment damage to the left wing. Impossible if the missile came from Snizhne.

Could be secondary fragmentation. This is supported by the fact that the holes are much bigger in the left engine, and there are only five holes that are in the size of preformed fragments.

2.Evidence of warhead fragments moving longitudinally back through the plane. Impossible if the missile came from Snizhne.

What evidence is this and how do you rule out ricochets?

3.Other damage to the cockpit not consistent with a missile coming from Snizhne.

What damage exactly?

So they offered to do the best test they could do, even though not perfect. they did 14 million computer simulations.

On the other hand we have some NATO countries and Ukraine (one of the prime suspects) and Malaysia (who was not even included until they complained) saying they will do their own investigation.

Under IATA Rules, the parties responsible for the investigation would be the Malaysians, as owners of the plane and home country of the airline, and the Ukrainians over whose territory the atrocity occurred. It was the Dutch however, who took the lead role, citing two facts: the plane had departed from Amsterdam; and they had suffered the largest number of their nationals as victims. The Malaysians were initially excluded from the inquiry for reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained. They were finally invited to join the Joint Inquiry on 2 December 2014.

It is truly astounding that people on this forum are not the slightest bit skeptical, and have some fantasy that this means an impartial investigation.

What did you want Almaz Antey to do? What more can they do?

And trusting the reports from one of the major suspects would be "impartial"? Gimme me a fucking break. Almaz Antey and Russia have every reason to lie through their teeth, and they demonstrably have. Russia has hidden evidence (such as raw radar data, and pieces of the plane) and obstructed the investigation. We should not take anything that comes from Russian side at face value.

 

[tupac chopra]

Malaysian Minister Complains of Limited Access to MH17 Crash Probe

Malaysian Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Abdul Aziz Kaprawi said that the Dutch Safety Board (DSB)’s report on the plane crash was one-sided, and rebuked allegations that Kuala Lumpur was uncooperative during the initial stage of the DSB inquiry.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Malaysia was not given full access to the probe of the flight MH17 crash or any privileges it expected as the owner of the downed airliner, the country’s deputy transport minister said Wednesday.
Malaysian Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Abdul Aziz Kaprawi was cited by the national New Strait Times newspaper as saying that the Dutch Safety Board (DSB)’s report on the plane crash was one-sided, and rebuked allegations that Kuala Lumpur was uncooperative during the initial stage of the DSB inquiry.
Kaprawi complained that Malaysia’s Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) was not made a full member of the Dutch-led probe, while Malaysian representatives were barred from attending some of the DSB meetings, unlike other investigators.
"We were the owner of the aircraft. How can we be prevented full access?" Kaprawi was quoted as saying. "We could not view the aircraft and were not invited to attend certain meetings.

 

[Jayjay]

Malaysian Minister Complains of Limited Access to MH17 Crash Probe

Malaysian Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Abdul Aziz Kaprawi said that the Dutch Safety Board (DSB)’s report on the plane crash was one-sided, and rebuked allegations that Kuala Lumpur was uncooperative during the initial stage of the DSB inquiry.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Malaysia was not given full access to the probe of the flight MH17 crash or any privileges it expected as the owner of the downed airliner, the country’s deputy transport minister said Wednesday.
Malaysian Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Abdul Aziz Kaprawi was cited by the national New Strait Times newspaper as saying that the Dutch Safety Board (DSB)’s report on the plane crash was one-sided, and rebuked allegations that Kuala Lumpur was uncooperative during the initial stage of the DSB inquiry.
Kaprawi complained that Malaysia’s Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) was not made a full member of the Dutch-led probe, while Malaysian representatives were barred from attending some of the DSB meetings, unlike other investigators.
"We were the owner of the aircraft. How can we be prevented full access?" Kaprawi was quoted as saying. "We could not view the aircraft and were not invited to attend certain meetings.

The Russian propaganda outlet where you got that from forgot to mention this part of the New Strait Times article:

"In the end, we cooperated when they gave us full access after acknowledging our role. It even says so in the news report," said Abdul Aziz, referring to a recent foreign news article alleging Malaysia’s initial reluctance to cooperate.

So, the minister was talking about why Malaysia was initially not included in the probe. In December 2014 Malaysia received full access. But if you only read the Sputnik News article, you'd get the impression that Malaysia was systematically kept out. This is why it's a good idea to check every claim you read on Sputnik or RT or similar sources before linking to it.

 

[barbos]

Jayjay, have you read page 146 of the report yet?
Your avoidance of addressing the actual question is remarkable, almost dutch-worthy.

 

[Will Wiley]

You were wrong before because you hadn't watched the presentation. You didn't even know what tests were done.
You've made the same mistake here because you haven't watched the documentary, so you're just making thing up again.

Do you know why you're wrong? Watch the documentary and find out

No, I'm not goign to go watch some 2-hour piece of turd that RT made. .

So, how can you comment on it?

 

[Jayjay]

Jayjay, have you read page 146 of the report yet?
Your avoidance of addressing the actual question is remarkable, almost dutch-worthy.

You are going to have to be more specific what you are waiting for because I already addressed the false claim that the report "misrepresents" Almaz Antey in any way.

 

[Jayjay]

No, I'm not goign to go watch some 2-hour piece of turd that RT made. .

So, how can you comment on it?

I'm not. If you think it has someting of value, quote the relevant parts and (more importantly) the logical reasoning why it should be trusted, keeping in mind that RT is a Russian-owned propaganda outlet.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I love it when conspiracy theorists get to the "You need to watch this hours long YouTube video or you don't care about the truth" part of their argument.

 

[Ford]

I love it when conspiracy theorists get to the "You need to watch this hours long YouTube video or you don't care about the truth" part of their argument.

Yeah but did you read page 146 of the video? It is very important, and you're just parroting Western propaganda. Or worse, you're Dutch!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I love it when conspiracy theorists get to the "You need to watch this hours long YouTube video or you don't care about the truth" part of their argument.

Yeah but did you read page 146 of the video? It is very important, and you're just parroting Western propaganda. Or worse, you're Dutch!

Whoa. Dial back the rhetoric there, dude. There's no need to go around calling people Dutch.

 

[Jayjay]

I love it when conspiracy theorists get to the "You need to watch this hours long YouTube video or you don't care about the truth" part of their argument.

Yeah but did you read page 146 of the video? It is very important, and you're just parroting Western propaganda. Or worse, you're Dutch!

Yes, I read page 146. But you are going to have to explain what you think is so damning on that page: It clearly says that the Almaz-Antey simulation is based on NLR/TNO data.

 

[Ford]

Yeah but did you read page 146 of the video? It is very important, and you're just parroting Western propaganda. Or worse, you're Dutch!

Yes, I read page 146. But you are going to have to explain what you think is so damning on that page: It clearly says that the Almaz-Antey simulation is based on NLR/TNO data.

Well we've found the Dutch agent in our midst! Or should I say...the double-dutch?

 

[Horatio Parker]

It seems to me that the Dutch have the least interest in misrepresenting what happened to their citizens, therefore they have the most credibility. Attacking them as stooges of the US and NATO sounds like desperation.

Elsewhere on the internets, I see others saying the BUK was a Ukrainian BUK. That seems more fertile ground.

Just sayin'

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ah, but where would the Dutch Secret Service get a Ukrainian BUK?

 

[Ford]

Ah, but where would the Dutch Secret Service get a Ukrainian BUK?

From CIA of course! All is giant sinister Western plot to discredit glorious leader Putin! Is on page 147 of video!

 

[barbos]

Jayjay, have you read page 146 of the report yet?
Your avoidance of addressing the actual question is remarkable, almost dutch-worthy.

You are going to have to be more specific what you are waiting for because I already addressed the false claim that the report "misrepresents" Almaz Antey in any way.

No, you did not, You were "addressing" different from 146 pages.

 

[barbos]

It seems to me that the Dutch have the least interest in misrepresenting what happened to their citizens, therefore they have the most credibility.

But the simple and undeniable fact is that they have in fact misrepresented Almaz-Antey claims.

 

[barbos]

Not according to specs. And even if it could do such a thing it would damage both engines.

No, it wouldn't. The details are in Appendix X of the report.

Read and think before you post.