Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MH17

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by hawker_gb View Post
    Look man,you arguing with yourself mostly.
    No I'm arguing with a poster who make a claim and then refuse to explain why he made it.

    Facts are provided by Russian MoD and they didn't say that Su25 shot liner down.
    So what ? The question is not about what Russian MoD claim, but about you posting claim that you recognize to be wrong.

    My question is what Su25 have to do 3-5 km from liner.
    Nothing more nothing less.
    And the question asked many times but for which you still refuse to answer : Is in what does this matter ? There is no way to answer your question without proper context.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Metryll View Post
      No I'm arguing with a poster who make a claim and then refuse to explain why he made it.
      Nope,you arguing with yourself mostly.



      So what ? The question is not about what Russian MoD claim, but about you posting claim that you recognize to be wrong.
      Remind me of that post.



      And the question asked many times but for which you still refuse to answer : Is in what does this matter ? There is no way to answer your question without proper context.
      So its ok if SU25 flew 3-5 km from civilian liner in war zone?
      Fortess fortuan adiuvat

      Comment


      • #48
        "E=hawker_gb;2866509]Nope,you arguing with yourself mostly.
        In other words you have made claim and still continue to refuse to support it.

        Remind me of that post.
        Your post #36 :

        "Look,i dont support hypotesis that Su-25 shoot jet down."

        So its ok if SU25 flew 3-5 km from civilian liner in war zone?
        Why a military aircraft flying over a war zone in which it operate would not be 3-5 km of a civilian aircraft ?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Metryll View Post
          In other words you have made claim and still continue to refuse to support it.
          What claim?


          Your post #36 :

          "Look,i dont support hypotesis that Su-25 shoot jet down."
          So?

          Why a military aircraft flying over a war zone in which it operate would not be 3-5 km of a civilian aircraft ?
          You tell me.
          Fortess fortuan adiuvat

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by hawker_gb View Post
            What claim?
            Your post #42 : "Well Su25 was there and you didnt debunk that."

            My #43 : "Why such a fact would be needed to debunk ? This is at least the 4th time you make such a claim, the 4th asked in what it is relevant and the 4th that your answer is simply restating the claim."

            You still have not answered this question made to you.

            So?
            Your post #45 : "Facts are provided by Russian MoD and they didn't say that Su25 shot liner down."

            My #46 : "So what ? The question is not about what Russian MoD claim, but about you posting claim that you recognize to be wrong."

            Another question on your motivation without answer.

            You tell me.
            In others word, you cannot provide any rationale explanation which link the presence of a Su 25 to MH 17 crash and all comments made by you so far on this point had no substance. Thank for the clarification.

            Comment


            • #51
              So,did we agree that plane was there?
              Fortess fortuan adiuvat

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by hawker_gb View Post
                So,did we agree that plane was there?
                So did we agree that presence of a Su 25 does not relate to MH 17 once facts about aircraft capabilities verified ?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Su25 can fly to 10000m.

                  In Afganistan war Su-25 fly to 12.5k
                  Fortess fortuan adiuvat

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Lets see how pentagon seeks truth:

                    The Pentagon has acknowledged the use of social networks in the investigation of the collapse of the MH17

                    http://ria.ru/mh17/20140807/10191013...#ixzz39ilrS5RH

                    Stronk stronk.
                    Fortess fortuan adiuvat

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Some new evidence:

                      http://www.nst.com.my/node/20961

                      that is most influential newspaper in Malaysia.

                      KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it.

                      This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.

                      In a damning report dated Aug 3, headlined “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts”, Associated Press reporter Robert Parry said “some US intelligence sources had concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame”.

                      This new revelation was posted on GlobalResearch, an independent research and media organisation.

                      In a statement released by the Ukrainian embassy on Tuesday, Kiev denied that its fighters were airborne during the time MH17 was shot down. This follows a statement released by the Russian Defence Ministry that its air traffic control had detected Ukrainian Air Force activity in the area on the same day.

                      They also denied all allegations made by the Russian government and said the country’s core interest was in ensuring an immediate, comprehensive, transparent and unbiased international investigation into the tragedy by establishing a state commission comprising experts from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Eurocontrol.

                      “We have evidence that the plane was downed by Russian-backed terrorist with a BUK-M1 SAM system (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation reporting name SA-11) which, together with the crew, had been supplied from Russia. This was all confirmed by our intelligence, intercepted telephone conversations of the terrorists and satellite pictures.

                      “At the same time, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have never used any anti-aircraft missiles since the anti-terrorist operations started in early April,” the statement read.

                      Fortess fortuan adiuvat

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by hawker_gb View Post
                        Some new evidence:
                        Same 'Russian story' just in different package. The conspiracy site known as Globalresearch.ca is run by RT puppet so it is not exactly surprising that it is parroting the Russian 'party line'. It actually would be shocking if it wouldn't be.

                        All those claims have already been proven false so there really was nothing of significance in that article.
                        It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by hawker_gb View Post
                          Some new evidence:

                          http://www.nst.com.my/node/20961

                          that is most influential newspaper in Malaysia.

                          KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it.

                          This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.

                          In a damning report dated Aug 3, headlined “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts”, Associated Press reporter Robert Parry said “some US intelligence sources had concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame”.

                          This new revelation was posted on GlobalResearch, an independent research and media organisation.

                          In a statement released by the Ukrainian embassy on Tuesday, Kiev denied that its fighters were airborne during the time MH17 was shot down. This follows a statement released by the Russian Defence Ministry that its air traffic control had detected Ukrainian Air Force activity in the area on the same day.

                          They also denied all allegations made by the Russian government and said the country’s core interest was in ensuring an immediate, comprehensive, transparent and unbiased international investigation into the tragedy by establishing a state commission comprising experts from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and Eurocontrol.

                          “We have evidence that the plane was downed by Russian-backed terrorist with a BUK-M1 SAM system (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation reporting name SA-11) which, together with the crew, had been supplied from Russia. This was all confirmed by our intelligence, intercepted telephone conversations of the terrorists and satellite pictures.

                          “At the same time, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have never used any anti-aircraft missiles since the anti-terrorist operations started in early April,” the statement read.

                          This is too funny. You're quoting an article from New Straits Times Online that quotes and article from Global Research that quotes an article from Consortium News written by Robert Parry who states:
                          some U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame, according to a source briefed on these findings.
                          who then rambles on without naming who the analysts are or linking to their reports.

                          Have you ever tried tracking down the original source and vetting it?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            After all Pentagon use social networks to make case.
                            This is not worse then that.
                            Fortess fortuan adiuvat

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by hawker_gb View Post
                              After all Pentagon use social networks to make case.
                              This is not worse then that.
                              Sorry...I can't read Russian so I wouldn't know if its true or not. Have you an English language link?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Gorque View Post
                                Sorry...I can't read Russian so I wouldn't know if its true or not. Have you an English language link?
                                No problem.
                                I will sent you as soon as I come home because I write from mobile.
                                Fortess fortuan adiuvat

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X