Meanwhile in Ukraine

[lombardsoup]

Can somebody from experts show me what influence was that?

People are under the impression that Russia is still the big bad from the 1980's, so therefore anything supporting Russia even slightly is immediately null and void in their minds.

[Kuujis]

People are under the impression that Russia is still the big bad from the 1980's, so therefore anything supporting Russia even slightly is immediately null and void in their minds.

Oh... so we should simply ignor russia annexing Crimea, russia arming/supporting/training rebels, or  "rebels" and in the latest counter-offensive - the numerous proofs of actuall russian army doing fighting in Ukraine, because...russia is not the baddie fo 1980's, but rather a ... what? A new bully, that noone should resist and simply "bend over harder" for them?

Whats your "impression" on the russia, mind you? That they are behaving the way you would like your neighbors to behave? I see LITTLE wonder, that ALL the countries, which russia deemed "not friends" for now are eagerly jumping at chances of alternative alliances to increase their security.

For example the Kazachstan, which is "not even a country", is still russian friend, if russia-friendly dictator is ruling it.

*Edited for clarity.

[lombardsoup]

Oh... so we should simply ignor russia annexing Crimea, russia arming/supporting/training rebels, or  "rebels" and in the latest counter-offensive - the numerous proofs of actuall russian army doing fighting in Ukraine, because...russia is not the baddie fo 1980's, but rather a ... what? A new bully, that noone should resist and simply "bend over harder" for them?

Whats your "impression" on the russia, mind you? That they are behaving the way you would like your neighbors to behave? I see LITTLE wonder, that ALL the countries, which russia deemed "not friends" for now are eagerly jumping at chances of alternative alliances to increase their security. Like for example the Kazachstan, which is "not even a country", if russian friendly dictator is not ruling it.

If you want petty dictators, try looking at US/EU.

[Kalam]

Oh... so we should simply ignor russia annexing Crimea, russia arming/supporting/training rebels, or  "rebels" and in the latest counter-offensive - the numerous proofs of actuall russian army doing fighting in Ukraine, because...russia is not the baddie fo 1980's, but rather a ... what? A new bully, that noone should resist and simply "bend over harder" for them?

Whats your "impression" on the russia, mind you? That they are behaving the way you would like your neighbors to behave? I see LITTLE wonder, that ALL the countries, which russia deemed "not friends" for now are eagerly jumping at chances of alternative alliances to increase their security.

For example the Kazachstan, which is "not even a country", is still russian friend, if russia-friendly dictator is ruling it.

*Edited for clarity.

I think we should ask why, and the answer seems to be because there was American involvement in Crimean government. I mean, if China was as involved in affecting an overthrow of Canadian government, you best believe that the United States would probably invade Canada to 'liberate' it.

[Murmillus_Prime]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d5b_1410631687

Poroshenko's lies compiled into a video, including Poroshenko himself stating volunteers will receive 1000 hryvnia a month and 1,000,000 hryvnia life insurance. And people here are stating that these "volunteers" aren't mercenaries..

Of course, more evidence of my statements, even irrefutable evidence will not be absorbed by the likes of Xant and company.

[Anuran]

I will translate an article about the downing of MH17 later.

(click to show/hide)

August 1 2014

MH-17 Cockpit riddled: Shot by two jet fighters?

So, where is it, the missile launch pad? Who has it and who doesn't? The separatists? The Russians? The Ukrainian forces? Or all together? A nice biased trial. According to the flight captain Peter Haisenko and his convincing hints it's a wrong track: MH-17 was not downed by a missile but by two fighter jets...

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


A plausible version of the downing of MH-17 is starting to come up. According to manufacturing data on debris it really was flight MH-17 (9M-MRD) in Ukraine and not flight MH-370 (9M-MRO, disappeared on March 8 2014). It was also not the 9M-MRC machine.

Recently a real expert of aviation examined the photos of the debris: the former flight captain Peter Haisenko. He concludes: flight MH-17 was downed by two fighter jets.
 

What everyone believes is not always true...


But doesn't the whole world say the plane got shot by a missile? Yes it does - but what the whole world is saying must not always be true.

Quite the contrary. This missile thing just has the advantage to keep the separatists involved. There is at least the theoretical possibility that flight MH-17 could have been downed by the separatists. This is inherently wrong (for example because of lacking training and radar vehicles) but well...

This suitable possibility would of course be instantly invalid if MH-17 was shot by a fighter jet. All this beautiful logic would be void since the "rebels" don't have fighter jets. And that Russia's forces entered Ukrainian territory 60km wouldn't even come to a Spiegel journalist's mind. ["Der Spiegel" = German, massively anti-Russian newspaper]

But let's come to Peter Haisenko. In his biography it's said that he has 30 years flight experience with plane types B727, DC 8, B747, B737, DC 10 and A 340. [...]


Cockpit riddled


In the case of MH-17 he firstly wondered about how few photos of the debris are findable via Google. Every photo is in low resolution apart from one: A fragment of the cockpit beneath the windows of the captain. But this picture is really shocking.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login



The cockpit shot to pieces


By looking closely at the enlargement you can conclude that it was really riddled. "I'm not talking about speculation, I'm talking about clear facts.", Haisenko writes: "The cockpit shows marks of shelling." He is basically differentiating the holes into two [three] groups:

• small holes, round and clean, ~30mm caliber, edges bent inwards
• bigger, frayed holes, edges bent outwards
• small cuts, all bent outwards

These holes are obviously bullet holes. Bullets went in at the small holes and came out at the bigger ones. According to Haisenko, these cuts are caused by slivers which flew through the cockpit and exited it. These different kinds of bullet holes indicate that this single fragment was shot from two sides.
While the cockpit is riddled this way, there are no bullet holes like these visible on the rest of the plane - apart from one big scratch caused by a graze shot. The rest of the plane was not shot like this but fell apart into many puzzle pieces - i.e.: it bursted asunder at its weakest points. "All the debris of the parts behind the cockpit are broadly undamaged if you keep in mind that these fragments were once one big thing. Only the cockpit is massively destroyed. Conclusion: This plane was not hit by a missile in the middle, the destruction is only limiting to the cockpit."


What might have happened?


"So what might have happened", Haisenko asked. According to Russian radar recordings there was at least one Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet with MH-17. This corresponds with the statement of a disappeared spanish controller who claimed to have seen "two Ukrainian warplanes directly near MH-17". The SU-25 was equipped with a double-barreled 30mm gun, type GSh-30-2. The ammunition consists of tank-incendiary projectiles[?] and splinter-explosive projectiles[?] "which were placed in a clearly defined order."

"If this kind of order consisting of tank-incendiary projectiles and splinter-explosive projectiles - which are even able to destroy a tank - hits the cockpit", the tank-incendiary projectiles would "partly even go through the cockpit and exit it at the other side slightly deformed since their penetrating power is designed for solid armor."

The splinter-explosive projectiles instead would "explode inside the cockpit by themselves" - like in other vehicles. "Due to the high fire rate of the GSh-30-2 gun, there were many explosions inside the cockpit."


Bursted like a balloon?


Because the interior of an airliner is "sealed air-tight", the pressure inside rapidly rose and the plane "bursted like a balloon". With this explanation Haisenko can conclude: The cockpit was shot by two fighter jets while the sections in the back fell apart at its weakest points: "The picture of the wide field of fallen debris and the brutally damaged cockpit fit to this." Not to forget the wing with the graze shot "which goes to the cockpit - if visually lengthened."

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Graze shot on one wing

And why all this? Haisenko is bringing in statements from Washington about a possible mistake. Haisenko reminds of Putin's airplane which was on its way only a few hundred km away. And his airplane is painted quite similar to MH-17. So did someone want to shoot Putin here? Not really.

Because firstly pilots should be able to set Putin's plane IL-96 apart from a Boeing 777. Putin's Ilyushin has a short and thickset fuselage, the Boeing 777 a long and slim fuselage. And of course the liveries: "Malaysian" and "Rossiya" (in kyrillic). So are there already blind pilots working in the Ukrainian airforce? The evidence mentioned above shows that the Boeing 777 was surrounded by two jets [or only one]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login



Confusion improbable: Ilyushin-96 and Boeing 777


Furthermore shooting the Russian president Putin would contradict the logic of warfare and it would psychologically be a really wrong point to wage war against Russia. This would lead to global indignation and to an enormous psychological build-up in all the pro-Russian states. Even on the psychological homefront of the West there would be chaos.

So the aggressor always has to start a war as the defender. The downing of the passenger plane by pro-Russian forces fits best in the concept. So in my opinion it is something like the Operation Northwoods: MH-17 was "given" to the pro-Russian forces to blame them and their big Russian friend - a classical start of a war...

(click to show/hide)

http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/europa/gerhard-wisnewski/mh-17-cockpit-durchsiebt-abschuss-durch-zwei-jets-.html

(click to show/hide)

By Peter Haisenko - Former Lufthansa Pilot
One thing must be stated outright: This report[1] does not lie. It just can’t lie since there is nothing new in it. I myself have never seen such a meaningless plane crash report. What comes as a surprise, however, is the report’s diplomatic, sophisticated word choice, which loses itself in ambiguous terms. It was probably planned this way, so each party can continue to defend their version with zeal.

Let's take a closer look at this report. At the beginning we find, as usual, detailed statements about the plane, who it belonged to, that it was in perfect condition and details about the crew. Technical issues or weather conditions are excluded as causes for the crash. Then, it confirms that the flight recorders were virtually undamaged and that they have not been tampered with. The report continues with the description of the debris scattered over a vast area and from this observation is drawn the amazing conclusion that this aircraft has blown up in the air. I apologize for the slight sarcasm, but I will have no choice but to continue to make some sarcastic remarks about this “report”.

14 minutes of silence in the cockpit is absolutely impossible

It is reported that the cockpit section was probably completely broken off from the aircraft because it fell almost vertically from the point of shelling to the ground and has been found at some distance from the rest of the debris. The report indicates that the damages done by external forces were recorded almost exclusively in the front of the plane, so the cockpit, and led to the breakup of the aircraft. So far so good, not much new. Then there is a transcript[2] of the radio communication between MH 017 and air traffic control taken from the voice recorder. At this point the expert starts to ask himself questions.

The transcript of the radio communication starts at 13:08:00 and ends at 13:22:02, a 14 minute time frame. From my experience as an aircraft captain I cannot imagine that during 14 minutes no other dialogues or sounds have been picked up in the cockpit by the voice recorder. When the cockpit receives radio transmissions from other aircraft, those are also recorded by the device. As I said, there are no lies, but in all likelihood, not everything is being said. The published conclusion points out that: “Crew communication gave no indication that there was anything abnormal with the flight.” Everything was normal, but the possible (and very probable) conversation in the cockpit is concealed, as well as radio transmissions from other aircrafts.

High Energy Objects - and other hazy formulations

The conclusion of this report is a prime example of a situation in which one knows something indeed, but presents this knowledge in such a way that none of it is revealed. “The damage observed in the forward section of the aircraft appears to indicate that the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft. It is likely that this damage resulted in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft, leading to an in-flight break up.” Aha! says the astonished reader. We knew that already. We must take a closer look at this conclusion. In fact, it is not a conclusion.

The report speaks of possibilities and probabilities: "appears to indicate”, “it is likely". But this is the less enigmatic part. The wordings "penetrated" and especially "high-energy objects" are interesting. It remains unclear how far these "objects" entered, or even if they went through the entire cockpit and came out on the other side of it, thus completely “penetrated” the cockpit. The background picture of the cockpit section shown in this report is of lower quality and in smaller scale than the one I provided myself and published in my analysis. Again it must be noted: The report does not lie, but the Commission shows less information than it has at its disposal.
The term "high-energy objects" is totally "original". What is this? I myself know this term from astrophysics or quantum physics. Otherwise, I have not commonly seen it in the context of aviation or plane accidents. So how should this concept be understood? I asked English speakers about this. They spontaneously replied bullets, projectiles from a cannon or fast moving freight trains. They also noted that this term is unusual in "normal", colloquial terms, except in astrophysics or quantum physics. This strange wording leaves everything open.

License to interpretations – The explanation appears different

Those who want to follow the Western description can conclude that a surface-to-air missile discharges "high-energy-objects". This is precisely the interpretation that I observed in the German media today. Our newspapers are reciting like a creed the American version of the cause of the disaster, issued immediately after the MH 017 crash, by claiming that the present report confirms that the Boeing 777 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. That is not exactly what the report states, but it allows this interpretation - and that's probably the point of this very flexible choice of words. Everybody can interpret what they want to believe according to their own taste. Especially if they are not native English speakers who spontaneously think of bullets.

This "report" is not worth the paper it is written on. This is not surprising, because the Kiev Maidan government had to give their OK to what could be published. The report leaves open everything which could actually contribute to the explanation. The MH 017 could have been hit by a missile, whether surface-to-air or air-to-air. It could have been shot down by a fighter jet or, sarcastically, according to the astrophysics or quantum physics terms, by a large number of "high-energy objects" that rained down on the cockpit from the far reaches of the universe.

Cross-References:

[1] Untersuchungsbericht, Boeing 777-200, Flug MH17
http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/b3923acad0ceprem-rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf

[2] MH17: official Air Traffic Control Transcript
http://homment.com/mh17atc1

(click to show/hide)

https://www.facebook.com/Anonymous.Kollektiv/posts/769192666460529:0

[Murmillus_Prime]

OK.. I think its clear now after 100s of pages:

The majority who supports RF are either:
A. Nationalistic Russians. (Nationalistic anything=Pretty narrow minded and retarded)
B. Conspiracy freaks.

What they share is skepticism about the world hegemony of the west, which is a fair point!

Yes the US is bad,

yes Europe is bad,
I wholeheartedly agree.

There are however many things much worse than US and EU. One of them are the Russian Federation represented by Putin and his oligarchs.

If you doubt me:
*People are leaving the country en masse:  http://thediplomat.com/2014/07/russian-emigration-spikes-in-2013-2014/
*Massive corruption on all levels of society and money is above the Law:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Russia
*Widespread racism against everyone not-Russian. (Asians, People from Caucasus, westerners, blacks, jews, gays) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPUoHw25H2M
*Russia has the world's highest rate of income inequality, barring a few Caribbean islands:  http://themoscownews.com/oped/20131011/191978277/Russias-income-inequality-the-root-of-most-evil.html
*People that protest this, and alternative media are shut down, killed or silenced.

.....

Maidan wanted to be free from RF influence, and turn the other way. Those who already chose EU have way better living than them already (Rest of Eastern europe), and it kind of proves the point:

West > Russia

Even if we are devils in other parts of the world, in this case, RF is the greater devil.

Thomek, the logic in your argument which states living conditions, apparent corruption, apparent lack of freedoms in the Russian Federation and that the West being better than the RF is not an argument that can be used to justify and therefore is flawed.War and potentially the breakout of WW3 is far worse than anything that exists in any society that is currently not at war. I doubt any of us have lived in a war zone, tell me of the living conditions and levels of racism and violence in these circumstances instead, and you should agree that anything is better.

Now my summary of the pro-Ukrainian fascist government posters here.

Most of these posters have been brought up in nations which were less than half a century ago occupied by the Soviet Union. These peoples opinions and perspective on events are emotionally charged, and encouraged by anti-Russian propaganda and pro-Western propaganda, horror stories from the past that form a type of anti-Russian paranoia that pervades amongst these societies. This all leads to paranoid, indoctrinated, propagandised individuals with emotionally charged points of view trying to make a case supporting Western hypocrisy and the rise of Naz ism in Ukraine today.

[Leshma]

I doubt any of us have lived in a war zone, tell me of the living conditions and levels of racism and violence in these circumstances instead, and you should agree that anything is better.

I did, survived two wars so far as a kid (both included large scale bombing). Thomek has a point, he perfectly explained Yugoslavia from the 90s. I'm fairly certain RF is quite similar. When next war strikes, I'll know what to do and how to keep my family safe and survive the whole thing. Never killed a person before or even seriously harmed, but if WW3 happens, won't hesitate for a second.

[Tovi]

(click to show/hide)

August 1 2014

MH-17 Cockpit riddled: Shot by two jet fighters?

So, where is it, the missile launch pad? Who has it and who doesn't? The separatists? The Russians? The Ukrainian forces? Or all together? A nice biased trial. According to the flight captain Peter Haisenko and his convincing hints it's a wrong track: MH-17 was not downed by a missile but by two fighter jets...

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


A plausible version of the downing of MH-17 is starting to come up. According to manufacturing data on debris it really was flight MH-17 (9M-MRD) in Ukraine and not flight MH-370 (9M-MRO, disappeared on March 8 2014). It was also not the 9M-MRC machine.

Recently a real expert of aviation examined the photos of the debris: the former flight captain Peter Haisenko. He concludes: flight MH-17 was downed by two fighter jets.
 

What everyone believes is not always true...


But doesn't the whole world say the plane got shot by a missile? Yes it does - but what the whole world is saying must not always be true.

Quite the contrary. This missile thing just has the advantage to keep the separatists involved. There is at least the theoretical possibility that flight MH-17 could have been downed by the separatists. This is inherently wrong (for example because of lacking training and radar vehicles) but well...

This suitable possibility would of course be instantly invalid if MH-17 was shot by a fighter jet. All this beautiful logic would be void since the "rebels" don't have fighter jets. And that Russia's forces entered Ukrainian territory 60km wouldn't even come to a Spiegel journalist's mind. ["Der Spiegel" = German, massively anti-Russian newspaper]

But let's come to Peter Haisenko. In his biography it's said that he has 30 years flight experience with plane types B727, DC 8, B747, B737, DC 10 and A 340. [...]


Cockpit riddled


In the case of MH-17 he firstly wondered about how few photos of the debris are findable via Google. Every photo is in low resolution apart from one: A fragment of the cockpit beneath the windows of the captain. But this picture is really shocking.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login



The cockpit shot to pieces


By looking closely at the enlargement you can conclude that it was really riddled. "I'm not talking about speculation, I'm talking about clear facts.", Haisenko writes: "The cockpit shows marks of shelling." He is basically differentiating the holes into two [three] groups:

• small holes, round and clean, ~30mm caliber, edges bent inwards
• bigger, frayed holes, edges bent outwards
• small cuts, all bent outwards

These holes are obviously bullet holes. Bullets went in at the small holes and came out at the bigger ones. According to Haisenko, these cuts are caused by slivers which flew through the cockpit and exited it. These different kinds of bullet holes indicate that this single fragment was shot from two sides.
While the cockpit is riddled this way, there are no bullet holes like these visible on the rest of the plane - apart from one big scratch caused by a graze shot. The rest of the plane was not shot like this but fell apart into many puzzle pieces - i.e.: it bursted asunder at its weakest points. "All the debris of the parts behind the cockpit are broadly undamaged if you keep in mind that these fragments were once one big thing. Only the cockpit is massively destroyed. Conclusion: This plane was not hit by a missile in the middle, the destruction is only limiting to the cockpit."


What might have happened?


"So what might have happened", Haisenko asked. According to Russian radar recordings there was at least one Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet with MH-17. This corresponds with the statement of a disappeared spanish controller who claimed to have seen "two Ukrainian warplanes directly near MH-17". The SU-25 was equipped with a double-barreled 30mm gun, type GSh-30-2. The ammunition consists of tank-incendiary projectiles[?] and splinter-explosive projectiles[?] "which were placed in a clearly defined order."

"If this kind of order consisting of tank-incendiary projectiles and splinter-explosive projectiles - which are even able to destroy a tank - hits the cockpit", the tank-incendiary projectiles would "partly even go through the cockpit and exit it at the other side slightly deformed since their penetrating power is designed for solid armor."

The splinter-explosive projectiles instead would "explode inside the cockpit by themselves" - like in other vehicles. "Due to the high fire rate of the GSh-30-2 gun, there were many explosions inside the cockpit."


Bursted like a balloon?


Because the interior of an airliner is "sealed air-tight", the pressure inside rapidly rose and the plane "bursted like a balloon". With this explanation Haisenko can conclude: The cockpit was shot by two fighter jets while the sections in the back fell apart at its weakest points: "The picture of the wide field of fallen debris and the brutally damaged cockpit fit to this." Not to forget the wing with the graze shot "which goes to the cockpit - if visually lengthened."

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Graze shot on one wing

And why all this? Haisenko is bringing in statements from Washington about a possible mistake. Haisenko reminds of Putin's airplane which was on its way only a few hundred km away. And his airplane is painted quite similar to MH-17. So did someone want to shoot Putin here? Not really.

Because firstly pilots should be able to set Putin's plane IL-96 apart from a Boeing 777. Putin's Ilyushin has a short and thickset fuselage, the Boeing 777 a long and slim fuselage. And of course the liveries: "Malaysian" and "Rossiya" (in kyrillic). So are there already blind pilots working in the Ukrainian airforce? The evidence mentioned above shows that the Boeing 777 was surrounded by two jets [or only one]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login



Confusion improbable: Ilyushin-96 and Boeing 777


Furthermore shooting the Russian president Putin would contradict the logic of warfare and it would psychologically be a really wrong point to wage war against Russia. This would lead to global indignation and to an enormous psychological build-up in all the pro-Russian states. Even on the psychological homefront of the West there would be chaos.

So the aggressor always has to start a war as the defender. The downing of the passenger plane by pro-Russian forces fits best in the concept. So in my opinion it is something like the Operation Northwoods: MH-17 was "given" to the pro-Russian forces to blame them and their big Russian friend - a classical start of a war...

(click to show/hide)

http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/europa/gerhard-wisnewski/mh-17-cockpit-durchsiebt-abschuss-durch-zwei-jets-.html

(click to show/hide)

By Peter Haisenko - Former Lufthansa Pilot
One thing must be stated outright: This report[1] does not lie. It just can’t lie since there is nothing new in it. I myself have never seen such a meaningless plane crash report. What comes as a surprise, however, is the report’s diplomatic, sophisticated word choice, which loses itself in ambiguous terms. It was probably planned this way, so each party can continue to defend their version with zeal.

Let's take a closer look at this report. At the beginning we find, as usual, detailed statements about the plane, who it belonged to, that it was in perfect condition and details about the crew. Technical issues or weather conditions are excluded as causes for the crash. Then, it confirms that the flight recorders were virtually undamaged and that they have not been tampered with. The report continues with the description of the debris scattered over a vast area and from this observation is drawn the amazing conclusion that this aircraft has blown up in the air. I apologize for the slight sarcasm, but I will have no choice but to continue to make some sarcastic remarks about this “report”.

14 minutes of silence in the cockpit is absolutely impossible

It is reported that the cockpit section was probably completely broken off from the aircraft because it fell almost vertically from the point of shelling to the ground and has been found at some distance from the rest of the debris. The report indicates that the damages done by external forces were recorded almost exclusively in the front of the plane, so the cockpit, and led to the breakup of the aircraft. So far so good, not much new. Then there is a transcript[2] of the radio communication between MH 017 and air traffic control taken from the voice recorder. At this point the expert starts to ask himself questions.

The transcript of the radio communication starts at 13:08:00 and ends at 13:22:02, a 14 minute time frame. From my experience as an aircraft captain I cannot imagine that during 14 minutes no other dialogues or sounds have been picked up in the cockpit by the voice recorder. When the cockpit receives radio transmissions from other aircraft, those are also recorded by the device. As I said, there are no lies, but in all likelihood, not everything is being said. The published conclusion points out that: “Crew communication gave no indication that there was anything abnormal with the flight.” Everything was normal, but the possible (and very probable) conversation in the cockpit is concealed, as well as radio transmissions from other aircrafts.

High Energy Objects - and other hazy formulations

The conclusion of this report is a prime example of a situation in which one knows something indeed, but presents this knowledge in such a way that none of it is revealed. “The damage observed in the forward section of the aircraft appears to indicate that the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft. It is likely that this damage resulted in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft, leading to an in-flight break up.” Aha! says the astonished reader. We knew that already. We must take a closer look at this conclusion. In fact, it is not a conclusion.

The report speaks of possibilities and probabilities: "appears to indicate”, “it is likely". But this is the less enigmatic part. The wordings "penetrated" and especially "high-energy objects" are interesting. It remains unclear how far these "objects" entered, or even if they went through the entire cockpit and came out on the other side of it, thus completely “penetrated” the cockpit. The background picture of the cockpit section shown in this report is of lower quality and in smaller scale than the one I provided myself and published in my analysis. Again it must be noted: The report does not lie, but the Commission shows less information than it has at its disposal.
The term "high-energy objects" is totally "original". What is this? I myself know this term from astrophysics or quantum physics. Otherwise, I have not commonly seen it in the context of aviation or plane accidents. So how should this concept be understood? I asked English speakers about this. They spontaneously replied bullets, projectiles from a cannon or fast moving freight trains. They also noted that this term is unusual in "normal", colloquial terms, except in astrophysics or quantum physics. This strange wording leaves everything open.

License to interpretations – The explanation appears different

Those who want to follow the Western description can conclude that a surface-to-air missile discharges "high-energy-objects". This is precisely the interpretation that I observed in the German media today. Our newspapers are reciting like a creed the American version of the cause of the disaster, issued immediately after the MH 017 crash, by claiming that the present report confirms that the Boeing 777 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. That is not exactly what the report states, but it allows this interpretation - and that's probably the point of this very flexible choice of words. Everybody can interpret what they want to believe according to their own taste. Especially if they are not native English speakers who spontaneously think of bullets.

This "report" is not worth the paper it is written on. This is not surprising, because the Kiev Maidan government had to give their OK to what could be published. The report leaves open everything which could actually contribute to the explanation. The MH 017 could have been hit by a missile, whether surface-to-air or air-to-air. It could have been shot down by a fighter jet or, sarcastically, according to the astrophysics or quantum physics terms, by a large number of "high-energy objects" that rained down on the cockpit from the far reaches of the universe.

Cross-References:

[1] Untersuchungsbericht, Boeing 777-200, Flug MH17
http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/b3923acad0ceprem-rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf

[2] MH17: official Air Traffic Control Transcript
http://homment.com/mh17atc1

(click to show/hide)

https://www.facebook.com/Anonymous.Kollektiv/posts/769192666460529:0

Too complicated. Here is the explanation :

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Murmillus_Prime]

I did, survived two wars so far as a kid (both included large scale bombing). Thomek has a point, he perfectly explained Yugoslavia from the 90s. I'm fairly certain RF is quite similar. When next war strikes, I'll know what to do and how to keep my family safe and survive the whole thing. Never killed a person before or even seriously harmed, but if WW3 happens, won't hesitate for a second.

He has a point, but it's also a point that blatantly whitewashes the West. Corruption and oligarchy is not unique to the RF, it's a plague that exists in most societies, sometimes it's more obvious at times in one society than another, but it exists everywhere. Sure maybe there are large parts of the West which do enjoy higher living standards, but let's say a major war does break out, who will be better off, who would stand the greater chance of survival, if it is at all possible? Will it be those who've enjoyed high living standards all their lives or those who're used to living in sometimes rugged and harsh conditions. Sometimes what we perceive to be higher living standards in the West is not a loss on other societies. Look at tribal cultures, they hunt to feed themselves, they build their own homes, they don't have central heating and running water but they exist and in many cases rather contently, financially we'd call them impoverished, materially we'd judge them to be lacking in possessions, but money and material objects are not the sole purpose of our existence.

Just out of curiosity what wars did you live through? I couldn't imagine it, being privileged enough to have lived in a nation that's enjoyed relative peace my whole life, (almost 27 years), but a nation that has too sent its armies around the world and has played its part in the deaths of hundreds of thousands this century alone. The U.S as a nation is in an even more comfortable position, not having experienced  war on its mainland since the American civil war, and this comfort encourages a type of mind-set in which we can either bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything is ok or a mind set that desensitises us from the suffering of peoples around the world. A mind set which sees us remain passive when our politicians lie to our faces and send young men to their deaths while destroying the infrastructure of nations which took decades to build not to mention the sovereign armies of those states, whom are dying to defend their own nations from our aggression in conflicts in which tens, hundreds of thousands of civilians die.

[lombardsoup]

US really needs to look in the fucking mirror before making accusations of LOL RUSSIA EVIL.

[Leshma]

There is corruption everywhere but is different in the west. It's not so blatant, not so obvious, it's not something people consider as normal. People look at you as a fool if you try to explain them what they are doing wrong and why it is wrong. Violent part of society that runs the whole things (criminals) will try to kill you if they don't like the way you're looking at them, if they sense you're not like them. And after they kill you, no one will give a single fuck.

Communist countries were corrupt as fuck, but it all amplified to a degree that is hard to swallow for any westerners, after the Fall of Berlin Wall, when those countries collapsed. Just like with Ukraine, west didn't choose instruments to deal with the red threat. Criminals were chosen to ruin countries, steal everything that can be stolen and ruin society (middle class does not exist in post communist countries). There are Russian documentaries which explain fall of communist and rise of oligarchs. They were petty criminals, regular thugs who were given the chance to steal from people and gather incredible wealth. And as per some rule, there were two forces. Children of dissidents who were placed by foreign intelligence agencies and domestic criminals and killers who worked for secret service of country in question. They clashed often and changed places on the top, that process is known as transition of post communist countries. Both groups can break the law and get with it, because corruption level is through the roof. If you don't belong to any of those groups, consider yourself as fucked and do everything you can to flee the country and start your life somewhere else.

When the whole thing started, I had no clue what was going on. Was drawing teenage mutant ninja turtles, namely Leonardo, when my mother called for me and when we left the house. War in question is Balkan Civil War in Bosnia (was in gym hall as 5 year old for 20 days with 2000 people while Serbs and Croats were bombing the place), then going through multiple barricades with my closest family where you had to fake salute of each nationality to get through, then picked up by convicted slavic pedo high priest who actually helped us (didn't know he was pedo back then, bet he liked me and my brother a bit too much to let us die). Then came to Serbia where everyone labeled me as Muslim because I had different accent and where old people asked kids for their name and after that asked which side they belong to, lived as a refugee for a short time, sleeping under open sky couple of times... 8 years after that Serbia tried to deal with Kosovo muslims (Albanians) by killing them in great numbers and burring them in hidden mass graveyards), west found out and decided to punish Serbia by bombing tactical targets. Which is mainly how it went, sadly I didn't know there was secret military installation under hill 200 meters from my house... also it was dangerous to go outside because NATO used cassette (cluster) bombs and other kinds of forbidden stuff, so I spent couple of months in atomic shelter... after that country sent fresh recruits to Kosovo to serve... while it was still war vs Kosovo Liberation Army. Luckily I didn't have to shoot from the gun and never was in serious danger but know kids my age who died in battles... there are people who had it far worse than me, my uncle was tortured by Serbs for few months (he labeled as Croatian). Some people lived in refugee camps for a decade (pretty much same shit as concentration camp, except you won't be killed at the end, but life condition are the same). Some people tried to be heroes and stop the madness and former neighbors spilling blood of each other, but they were labeled as traitors by both side and executed. Happened often on the border. It was a time when it was dangerous to act as a normal person, to speak the truth, to do things that make sense. Anyone who tried that was being pushed away, laughed at, labeled as lunatic, traitor, enemy, tortured, killed. If you don't think, talk and act as majority of lunatics your existence will be nullified in every way imaginable.

That is the kind of shit that happens in Ukraine right now. Many things happen in Iraq and Syria as well. Those people who are crucified, they refused to "fight for the muslim cause" and aren't labeled as muslims anymore. And those who torture them, those are children of those who fled same countries and asked for asylum in European countries. Pretty fucked up, isn't it?

West is undeniably better option but I hate when they act like they are flawless flower that only spread love and care for every life, because I know very well that isn't the case.

Worst thing of this kind USA government ever did was undeniably Granada. That was school book example of commie scare, based on bullshit. Soviets didn't have anything with it, it was just bunch of people thinking they are Che, fighting centuries old class war. And they had support of majority and it wasn't staged, it was real majority. Yet USA roflstomped them. I can find many excuses for Ukraine, for Lybia, for Egypt, for Yugoslavia, for many similar scenarios. But when it comes to Grenada, there is just no excuse.

[lombardsoup]

Worst thing of this kind USA government ever did was undeniably Granada. That was school book example of commie scare, based on bullshit. Soviets didn't have anything with it, it was just bunch of people thinking they are Che, fighting centuries old class war. And they had support of majority and it wasn't staged, it was real majority. Yet USA roflstomped them. I can find many excuses for Ukraine, for Lybia, for Egypt, for Yugoslavia, for many similar scenarios. But when it comes to Grenada, there is just no excuse.

Wasn't around for Granada but I do remember Slick Dick Willy fucking up Yugoslavia in a similar matter to what you described.

Having the US putting its head into the sand would be a blessing at this point.  We (US) seem to have a knack for making the wrong decisions, constantly.

[Butan]

Yes the US is bad,
yes Europe is bad,
I wholeheartedly agree.

[...]

West > Russia

Even if we are devils in other parts of the world, in this case, RF is the greater devil.

I had so much hope at first then end of your post made me cry 



My opinion:

West > Russia : on certain domestic/foreign matters
Russia > West : on other domestic/foreign matters
West = Russia : on some more

And on the peculiar thread-related matter of manipulative warmongering its hard to disagree about West being way more experienced and capable than Russia. To try to sidetrack to other unrelated issues (like national corruption and social issues) to show Russia as a bad country, is to me, pure smoke screen.
Sure Russia is not the perfect paradise, nowhere is, but its hard to take you guys serious, when speaking of the current Ukrainian situation. Where and when ANY western states are even slightly concerned by the Ukrainian crisis, coming here and trying to make Russia appear as the greater devil, is historical objective nonsense.


At the end of the day, still doesnt mean Russia is doing good things back there, we all have to weight our words here; but everytime we summon worldwide geopolitical issues, the people defending the" free world" in this topic should become way more humble, or not speak of it anymore.

[Murmillus_Prime]

There is corruption everywhere but is different in the west. It's not so blatant, not so obvious, it's not something people consider as normal. People look at you as a fool if you try to explain them what they are doing wrong and why it is wrong. Violent part of society that runs the whole things (criminals) will try to kill you if they don't like the way you're looking at them, if they sense you're not like them. And after they kill you, no one will give a single fuck.

Communist countries were corrupt as fuck, but it all amplified to a degree that is hard to swallow for any westerners, after the Fall of Berlin Wall, when those countries collapsed. Just like with Ukraine, west didn't choose instruments to deal with the red threat. Criminals were chosen to ruin countries, steal everything that can be stolen and ruin society (middle class does not exist in post communist countries). There are Russian documentaries which explain fall of communist and rise of oligarchs. They were petty criminals, regular thugs who were given the chance to steal from people and gather incredible wealth. And as per some rule, there were two forces. Children of dissidents who were placed by foreign intelligence agencies and domestic criminals and killers who worked for secret service of country in question. They clashed often and changed places on the top, that process is known as transition of post communist countries. Both groups can break the law and get with it, because corruption level is through the roof. If you don't belong to any of those groups, consider yourself as fucked and do everything you can to flee the country and start your life somewhere else.

When the whole thing started, I had no clue what was going on. Was drawing teenage mutant ninja turtles, namely Leonardo, when my mother called for me and when we left the house. War in question is Balkan Civil War in Bosnia (was in gym hall as 5 year old for 20 days with 2000 people while Serbs and Croats were bombing the place), then going through multiple barricades with my closest family where you had to fake salute of each nationality to get through, then picked up by convicted slavic pedo high priest who actually helped us (didn't know he was pedo back then, bet he liked me and my brother a bit too much to let us die). Then came to Serbia where everyone labeled me as Muslim because I had different accent and where old people asked kids for their name and after that asked which side they belong to, lived as a refugee for a short time, sleeping under open sky couple of times... 8 years after that Serbia tried to deal with Kosovo muslims (Albanians) by killing them in great numbers and burring them in hidden mass graveyards), west found out and decided to punish Serbia by bombing tactical targets. Which is mainly how it went, sadly I didn't know there was secret military installation under hill 200 meters from my house... also it was dangerous to go outside because NATO used cassette (cluster) bombs and other kinds of forbidden stuff, so I spent couple of months in atomic shelter... after that country sent fresh recruits to Kosovo to serve... while it was still war vs Kosovo Liberation Army. Luckily I didn't have to shoot from the gun and never was in serious danger but know kids my age who died in battles... there are people who had it far worse than me, my uncle was tortured by Serbs for few months (he labeled as Croatian). Some people lived in refugee camps for a decade (pretty much same shit as concentration camp, except you won't be killed at the end, but life condition are the same). Some people tried to be heroes and stop the madness and former neighbors spilling blood of each other, but they were labeled as traitors by both side and executed. Happened often on the border. It was a time when it was dangerous to act as a normal person, to speak the truth, to do things that make sense. Anyone who tried that was being pushed away, laughed at, labeled as lunatic, traitor, enemy, tortured, killed. If you don't think, talk and act as majority of lunatics your existence will be nullified in every way imaginable.

That is the kind of shit that happens in Ukraine right now. Many things happen in Iraq and Syria as well. Those people who are crucified, they refused to "fight for the muslim cause" and aren't labeled as muslims anymore. And those who torture them, those are children of those who fled same countries and asked for asylum in European countries. Pretty fucked up, isn't it?

West is undeniably better option but I hate when they act like they are flawless flower that only spread love and care for every life, because I know very well that isn't the case.

Worst thing of this kind USA government ever did was undeniably Granada. That was school book example of commie scare, based on bullshit. Soviets didn't have anything with it, it was just bunch of people thinking they are Che, fighting centuries old class war. And they had support of majority and it wasn't staged, it was real majority. Yet USA roflstomped them. I can find many excuses for Ukraine, for Lybia, for Egypt, for Yugoslavia, for many similar scenarios. But when it comes to Grenada, there is just no excuse.

Thank you for sharing your story.

I fear that we have all been too easily deceived, the West has its oligarchs, haven't you heard of George Soros, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Bushes... And there are many more. The West does operate different to the East and that's the depth in which most people are able to see the world, in the East corruption may be more blatant and overt and people engaging in it may be less ashamed, in the West it is done covertly, behind closed doors, and in an arguably more intelligent, cunning way. The reality of the situation is, in the West our prosperity for decades now is largely constructed upon national debt, and it won't last forever, the bubble will burst, that is unless action is taken to stop it bursting, how does one preserve a bubble? By shaving away the spikes, that which may pop it, or in this case the opposing geopolitical financial institutions and geopolitical groups behind them. Iraq tried to sell its oil in Euros, bye bye Saddam, Libya tried to sell its oil for gold, bye bye Gaddafi. I once said what "our" western system needs to maintain itself is another world war, and as times goes on month on month it seems to be more of a possibility. In the original cold war it took decades before we had the Cuban Missile crisis and the world was on the brink of nuclear war. I fear as technology and ideologies and the agendas driven by them advance the pace of such events will only quicken and potentially push us all toward another brink.

It's a shame really.