| Author | Message | ||
     Rocket_in_uk |
You seem to suggest that the military is taking over the control tower just before the plane is shot down. I suggested nothing! I haven't voiced an opinion, except to say Russia is being blamed without any hard evidence to prove so. This when the U.S. has stated clearly they have pictures taken from a satellite showing the missiles launch, coming from separatist held territory. Why hasn't the U.S. shown these pictures? More so when Putin has asked them to do so in full view of the international community. Interesting the Russian's have shown data of a military (Ukrainian?) jet within 2 miles or so of MH17 before it was downed. This when Ukraine said no military aircraft were anywhere near MH17 around the time. Someone's lying. Perhaps the fictitious Spanish ATC, if he exists of course  might have been tweeting some facts after all, given he claimed MH17 had Ukrainian jets near to it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mal aysia-airlines-mh17-crash-ukrainian-military-jet-w as-flying-close-to-passenger-plane-before-it-was-s hot-down-says-russian-officer-9619143.html Rocket in England | ||
| Reindog |
Rocket is getting closer to admitting the truth. At least he will not change the subject and will stand tall. It is just a matter of time before the truth can not be escaped.  | ||
| Fredfast |
Isn't it strange how the truth is so illusive. We either believe what we hear from our news sources or we don't but the fact of the matter is that the truth is never revealed. Although it may seem obvious that the Malaysian plane was shot down by Ukrainian separatists, it is being reported to us by our news sources. These are the same news sources that many here believe are lying when reporting on domestic political activity. I guess it just shows that you believe what you want to believe. (Message edited by fredfast on July 22, 2014) (Message edited by fredfast on July 22, 2014) (Message edited by fredfast on July 22, 2014) | ||
| Court |
>>>>how the truth becomes so illusive. Hahahaha . . . I'm not sure if that was intentional . . perhaps you meant elusive . . . but it was hilarious. Thank you for, so resoundingly, making the case for the failures of the current crop of clowns in office. | ||
| Sifo |
I suggested nothing! I haven't voiced an opinion, except to say Russia is being blamed without any hard evidence to prove so. No evidence you are willing to accept. The simple fact that two jets were shot down in two days and that there is video of the Russian missile launcher, minus two missiles, being moved back to Russia seems to be meaningless to you. The fact that the separatist fighter laid claim on twitter to having shot down a Ukraine military jet right after the downing of MH17 seems to mean nothing to you. Sure he deleted the tweets as soon as news of a passenger jet being downed went out, but that seems like a real tweet. That's real evidence. You OTOH point to an ATC at the airport who would have had no way of knowing what was happening in real time beyond the fact that the jet had gone down. How did he know who shot it down? You have to be able to answer that question to ever even begin to put any stock in what he had to say. You seem to be pushing his story as if it carries weight though. Here's the problem though. If he actually had any inside knowledge of who shot it down, that seems to imply complicity in the act. Complicity in the act would likely mean that he is a source of counter-intelligence. Of course he could simply be an separatist (useful) idiot that will jump on anything and blame Ukraine for it. Bottom line though, you need to be asking how he would have know anything about who shot the jet down. | ||
| Fredfast |
"perhaps you meant elusive" No professor, I just used it incorrectly. | ||
| Reindog |
These are the same news sources that many here believe are lying Fixed it for you, Fled. Now flee, flea. | ||
| Fredfast |
Even you can't ignore me Mad Dog. Give it up. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
The simple fact that two jets were shot down in two days and that there is video of the Russian missile launcher, minus two missiles, being moved back to Russia seems to be meaningless to you. Of course it's meaningless. We are not being told where the missile was launched from BUT THE U.S. WILL KNOW FOR A FACT but they're not saying. We don't know which vehicle fired it from where. There are conflicting stories being reported about the video shown of the launcher. It's claimed as it passes the billboard, this location is in a town 100km away from where others are reporting the launcher to have been spotted. And I'm pretty sure there's more than one missile launcher roaming around Ukraine. So yes, dodgy video evidence and two other planes shot down and a missile launcher sans two missiles is a pretty f**king big assumption to make when there's no doubt many more launchers exist and 300 people are dead and won't be waking up anytime soon. Facts matter. Not stupid conclusions. The fact that the separatist fighter laid claim on twitter to having shot down a Ukraine military jet right after the downing of MH17 seems to mean nothing to you. Sure he deleted the tweets as soon as news of a passenger jet being downed went out, but that seems like a real tweet. That's real evidence. No one has shown the recording to be real. There are however some reports stating it's been put together. Until it's proven to be factual, it's anything but, and not evidence at all. You OTOH point to an ATC at the airport who would have had no way of knowing what was happening in real time beyond the fact that the jet had gone down. You don't know that. There are likely several ways. Not least of all a phone call or transmission sent to an alleged Ukrainian military person said to be in the tower. Who knows what he saw or heard. Or overheard? How did he know who shot it down? You have to be able to answer that question to ever even begin to put any stock in what he had to say. Ditto as above. How the feck do I know. Just because he doesn't say how he knows doesn't mean there's no stock in what he says. He's just not told us. But funny enough, within 4 hours Obama told the world the missile came from a separatist held area of east Ukraine, as witnessed by their spy satellite. Is there any stock in Obama's claim if we don't see these pics? No, but you're willing to believe his version as it's the same as yours. You seem to be pushing his story as if it carries weight though. Nope, just highlighted it here as no one else seemed to be paying any attention to it. That and it's not so far fetched as one would be lead to believe given Russia too detected a Ukrainian SU25 fighter jet within 2 - 5km of MH17 around the time of it crashing. Something the Ukrainian government denied, stating there were no military flights anywhere near MH17 for hours Here's the problem though. If he actually had any inside knowledge of who shot it down, that seems to imply complicity in the act. Complicity in the act would likely mean that he is a source of counter-intelligence. Of course he could simply be an separatist (useful) idiot that will jump on anything and blame Ukraine for it. Bottom line though, you need to be asking how he would have know anything about who shot the jet down.  Watch out for the little green men in your yard won't you. But here's a thing. U.S. now stating Russia had nothing to do with shooting down MH17 Rocket in England | ||
| Kenm123t |
Fredrica Fled hasn't figured out he is a Kickapoo! The Badweb version of the Village Idiot  | ||
| Aesquire |
Rocket....since you don't believe the US that means you now believe it WAS Russia. .........right? | ||
| Reindog |
But here's a thing. U.S. now stating Russia had nothing to do with shooting down MH17 I guess I missed that one. Rocket is adept at posting propaganda pieces from RT but stumbles with the facts. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Rocket is adept at posting propaganda pieces from RT but stumbles with the facts. Give it a rest poking the finger at me will ya. I'm much less biased than you'll ever be and that's a fact. Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
But here's a thing. U.S. now stating Russia had nothing to do with shooting down MH17 I guess I missed that one. Perhaps I should have worded my comment better. U.S. says no evidence found to support direct link to Russian involvement in MH17 downing. The Guardian..... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/22/mh17- eu-foreign-ministers-mh17-sanctions-russia-live-up dates The Telegraph..... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northame rica/usa/10984739/MH17-no-link-to-Kremlin-in-plane -downing-US-intelligence.html Whatever the findings thus far, it was wrong of any nations leader to point the finger of blame in the aftermath of events whilst no investigation had taken place. Rocket in England | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
So here's a conundrum. Russia has shown its data in relation to MH17. The U.S. has only told us, but not released anything. I'll tell you a fact. It's perhaps a little known fact. Maybe not to some Americans. But it's a fact never the less. Not 50 miles from where I live there is one of only three Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) radars in the world, the other 2 sites being in Alaska and Greenland. These three radars form what is Americas early warning system, or whatever bollocks you want to title it and the other shit they do there. Essentially these three radar systems form an umbrella around the globe. They spend every second monitoring anything that looks like a missile launch. Given this place is not that far in the great scheme of things from Ukraine, and that America is watching everything in Ukraine like a hawk, it is impossible for America not to know exactly where the surface to air missile, if it was such, was launched from and no doubt use real time satellite imagery to see who fired it. Welcome to RAF Fylindales where the SSPAR can keep track of many hundreds of space objects per minute out to a range of 3000 nautical miles. The radar software is designed to ignore targets that do not behave like a rocket being launched or a satellite in orbit. Tell me what the U.S. admin really know, or why they're not telling Rocket in England | ||
| Hootowl |
Who can tell me the difference between an intercontinental ballistic missile and a surface to air missile? | ||
| Reepicheep |
A passenger jet, which was close to the maximum range of that missle, is flying 1/10th of the height that a ballistic missle will fly. And because a ballistic missle must carry the fuel it must later burn, it takes much much more than 10 times as much energy to go 10 times as high. | ||
| Hootowl |
So the radar that looks for ICBMs and BMs is looking WAY higher than that SAM would have been. Interesting. So much for Rocket's "fact". | ||
| Chauly |
A ballistic missile is a SAM that missed. | ||
| Aesquire |
Magic radar and chemtrails The ABM radar doesn't work like that. Kiev is far around the planet. Satellites that can see Kiev are low flying and thus move. Limited coverage for a limited time. Drones can look at a tiny area at a time. Expecting god mode vision isn't realistic. OTOH Russian radar of that area should be like UK radar of Calais. You can hit a plane in France from Dover with the handful of missiles in inventory. Patriot will do it. When the UK decided to stop making airplanes because missiles were the future......in 1957, the "white paper" came out....... they didn't actually build the missiles. The Skyflash got cancelled and the US sold England Polaris subs. The 2 are related. The missile net to defend against the Soviet threat never got built. I think they spent the money on British Leyland. The last of the Nike family was retired before most here were born. Hawk and Patriot... aka older than Vietnam war and designed long before Iron Maggie was in power could do it. The Hawk would have to be on the cliff over the beach and the Patriot a few km. Inland. I don't think a Destroyer off Crimean New Russia could see anything that far inland | ||
| Kenm123t |
I think all political sides are lying All are trying to use this for their own agendas. When you deal with pols remember their native language is lying. The media isn't telling the truth either their political masters are writing the copy the news weasels read | ||
| Xdigitalx |
this cnn link shows some of the spin... http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/22/world/europe/malaysi a-plane-crash-propaganda-war/index.html?iid=articl e_sidebar | ||
| Aesquire |
"They say that people who don't read history are condemned to repeat it. Unfortunately, people who DO read history are condemned to watch it replayed by those who don't..." unk At this time I think we have here determined that this is Very Probably a ploy for Russia to take territory, the EU to give up the territory without looking like the cliche of the French surrender insult, and Obama to use as a distraction from his High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Win Win everybody wins except, of course the peasants who are less than the dust beneath the chariot wheels of the New Normal Aristocracy. If So..... Rocket is wrong, Russia is not even close to innocent. ( even if the above theory is not true, I think this statement is true ) Rocket is right, it's the evil scum of the EU that are behind this. Rocket is wrong, Obama is not the aggressor in this. Rocket is right, Obama looks like the incompetent bombastic cliche of the Ugly American. However, this all assumes that you can accept that The O is both incompetent to do any productive job, ( I know of zero evidence on Earth to suggest he is capable of such ) AND that he's super-competent at vast international conspiracies on a Peak predator level. ( which does use a different skill set than working for a living ) Barely possible..... if you throw in the time he spent in Pakistan, ( thus possibly Soviet training. What he did in, and how he got to Pakistan is not in his mythos ( biographies ) ) and his mentors including terrorist leaders, and crank the conspiracy theory bs detector down a lot, just maybe you can buy that Obama is the evil Jack Ryan, or Soviet sleeper cell agent Supreme. ( actually that last explains everything about him, but is just too easy to be true ) Now Putin HAS been the Alpha dog in international power for quite some time, and the EU 'crats are Alphas in their narrow incestuous world of corrupt politics, so it's easy to believe they are working to screw their fellow man. In fact, I bet you $50 that's their prime activity in life. None of this, unfortunately will save one life that has been lost in this, from the ones shot by snipers while protesting in Kiev to the people shot today, or the passengers & crew of that airliner. Checking Wiki... Hawk range aprox. 50 km, Patriot, 70 km. So from Dover you could shoot down planes over Calais, but not Paris. That's about the best the west can offer. The latest Russian gear might be able to shoot down a SR-71, ( outstanding performance ) and depending on model, is longer ranged and very well developed, thanks to it's use by the bad guys since Vietnam against NATO equipment. Western SAM's in contrast have seldom been used except in Gulf War ( Liberation of Kuwait ) and Israel's anti IRBM systems. Our gear works good, but we haven't needed to control the airspace over our troops with anti-air weapons, using Air Superiority Planes instead. Unfortunately..... "They say that people who don't read history are condemned to repeat it. Unfortunately, people who DO read history are condemned to watch it replayed by those who don't..." unk "The Generals always plan to fight the last war" There is no reason to believe we would have Air Superiority in the next conflict, say, for example, the Ukraine. This makes the West's decision to not spend as much on AA, and more on other things a possible case of Penny wise and Pound Foolish. So if anyone told you it couldn't have been the Russians, that's stupid, and that it couldn't have been Russian gear operated by someone not in Russian uniform, that's stupid. Consider that source ignorant, ( thus useless ) or liars. Don't believe them anymore. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
So the radar that looks for ICBMs and BMs is looking WAY higher than that SAM would have been. Interesting. So much for Rocket's "fact". From RAF Fylingdales link bird brain. Fylingdales is the only 3-faced BMEWS radar in the world, providing a full 360º of cover. The SSPAR can keep track of many hundreds of space objects per minute out to a range of 3000 nautical miles. The radar software is designed to ignore targets that do not behave like a rocket being launched or a satellite in orbit. It is little surprise, therefore, that RAF Fylingdales has never knowingly detected a UFO! Tell me Fylingdales radar didn't see a rocket go up in Ukraine some 1350 miles away and I'll tell you you're talking shit, unless no SAM did actually go up! Magic radar and chemtrails Instead of being a smart arse, read the link. RAF Fylingdales is in all but name a U.S. base. Thus the U.S. admin will have seen anything that moved that looked like a missile. You know, seeing as they're watching EVERYTHING. But here's a thought. How come the U.S. didn't see the suspected BUK launcher until after the downing of MH17. One would imagine it's in the interest of the U.S. to show that they knew the BUK was in the hands of separatist forces before and after the downing. Fact is, it's all bullshit. Including most of the dumb point the finger at Russia comments on this particular subject. Rocket in England | ||
| Aesquire |
Yep you are full of it here. 3000 km? Is line of sight. Not around the curve of the Earth. If the airliner had been in orbit.... it could see it. Physics..... yes it's "over the horizon"...... not omniscient. Plane very very high over Paris. Not Moscow. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Tell me Fylingdales radar didn't see a rocket go up in Ukraine some 1350 miles away and I'll tell you you're talking shit" Psychologists call that projection. You admit that you know the radar ignores things that aren't ballistic missiles in your post, and yet you fail to see its relevance. And even it did have line of site the radar system IGNORES it because based on its trajectory and speed, it is NOT an ICBM. The radar would never display to an operator or continue to process/track such an object because it is not an ICBM. Radar systems routinely drop data that isn't relevant, ground clutter, etc. It's how they present relevant information to the operator. | ||
| Hootowl |
Oh, FYI...surface to air missiles are NOT rockets. | ||
| Aesquire |
Sure they are. Solid fueled. Why quibble about that? A missile can be a rocket, or a slingshot rock. mis·sile ˈmisəl/Submit noun an object that is forcibly propelled at a target, either by hand or from a mechanical weapon. a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote control, carrying a conventional or nuclear explosive. There are many kinds of missile. ICBM is different than IRBM or AT. UK Radar simply can't see Kiev in High Resolution, it's way over around the curve of the planet. It's designed to see incoming objects from near Earth and sub orbital. Earth, spheroid. Horizons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/FPS-126 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_rada r The above article tells me that maybe they could have seen the airliner as a blob the size of a county. Which I find impressive. If you want to tell where a telephone pole sized missile came from, one side or another of the Russian border, not so much. the RAF Fylingdales Moor site I am told does a great job of keeping track of the orbital debris left behind by all those failed satellites, deliberate explosions and failed launches. Best bet at getting a phone call to the PM to duck as the ICBM's come at London too. | ||
| Hootowl |
Missiles are guided. Rockets are not. | ||
| Hootowl |
So much for the poor innocent Russians theory. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/2 4/russian-artillery-fired-eastern-ukraine/13108615 / |
