Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Russia's Rostov monitoring centre has satellite images proving that Ukrainian BUK missiles (owned by the Ukrainian Army) were in the positions from which the plane could have been shot down. Russia also know that a US satellite were watching over the area where the plane came down - why, despite Russia releasing evidence that the Ukrainian military possibly brought down the plane, would the US not release their satellite photos? There is also strong evidence that a Ukrainian fighter jet - armed with air-to-air missiles - flew about 3 - 5 km within range of MH17 not long before the tragedy. Why have people not heard about this? Russia is releasing reliable data opening up a possibility contradictory to the narrative we've been fed, so why have the US not provided anything?

    http://nsnbc.me/2014/07/21/ukrainian...affic-control/
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-ame...uation/5392573


    The very fact that the Western media immediately published one uniform narrative about who caused this tragedy, without any investigation having been carried out whatsoever, should make any reasonably intelligent person realise just how corrupt to the core our so-called 'free press' really is. There are obviously agendas at work. If our press really did care about truth and critical analysis, perhaps they would have pointed out the obliteration of Iran Air Flight 655 by a US carrier (http://www.globalresearch.ca/mh17-ve...orists/5391859). Even if the rebels were proved to have taken down the plane (which looks increasingly unlikely now), why should we punish and deem them terrorists without giving the remorseless US the same?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Yeah of course.

    Russia has nothing to do with this. I mean it isn't as if they are involved in the destabalisation of the region. And they certainly have not been arming and supporting the rebels.

    Naughty Ukraine.
    Well then so does the USA, they're just as responsible, if not more, for the destabilisation of this region
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Well, there was that time when they annexed Crimea and held a sham referendum.

    It has been well reported that Russia has been supplying weapons and manpower to the rebels.

    Russia started this and continues to add fuel to the fire.
    It as been well reported by western media based on what evidence?
    Claims by the Kiev authorities?
    I'm not saying that the Russians haven't supplied the rebels but the USA is basically funding the Kiev government due to Ukraine's economy being destroyed. Kiev wouldn't be able to continue the"Anti-terror" operation without external funding.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    Russia's Rostov monitoring centre has satellite images proving that Ukrainian BUK missiles (owned by the Ukrainian Army) were in the positions from which the plane could have been shot down. Russia also know that a US satellite were watching over the area where the plane came down - why, despite Russia releasing evidence that the Ukrainian military possibly brought down the plane, would the US not release their satellite photos? There is also strong evidence that a Ukrainian fighter jet - armed with air-to-air missiles - flew about 3 - 5 km within range of MH17 not long before the tragedy. Why have people not heard about this? Russia is releasing reliable data opening up a possibility contradictory to the narrative we've been fed, so why have the US not provided anything?

    http://nsnbc.me/2014/07/21/ukrainian...affic-control/
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-ame...uation/5392573
    Because....any evidence that the US releases is not going to change the picture. Everyone accepts that the Rebels shot the plane down. Even the Russians do not deny the allegations.

    No one is mentioning it because it is probably not true. An unarmed SU 25 has a service ceiling of 22,000 FT whereas the 777 was flying at 32,000 FT. The unarmed SU 25 has a maximum speed that can only just keep up with the speed of a 777.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Because....any evidence that the US releases is not going to change the picture. Everyone accepts that the Rebels shot the plane down. Even the Russians do not deny the allegations.

    No one is mentioning it because it is probably not true. An unarmed SU 25 has a service ceiling of 22,000 FT whereas the 777 was flying at 32,000 FT. The unarmed SU 25 has a maximum speed that can only just keep up with the speed of a 777.
    Russia is denying the allegations that they were involved, and because everyone accepts something doesn't mean its true.
    an SU 25 can temporarily reach 32,000 ft.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lumens)

    That's a real democracy.
    Haha - because Russia is an shining example of real democracy? :giggle:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous263)
    Russia is denying the allegations that they were involved, and because everyone accepts something doesn't mean its true.
    Well, as far as I know, the USA has already explicitly said that there is no direct link.

    Therefore, as I said before, since everyone "accepts" the current state of events then there is no need for the USA to release any new intelligence. Especially, if it reveals it's capabilities to the Chinese or Russians.


    (Original post by Anonymous263)
    SU 25 can temporarily reach 32,000 ft.
    Apparently, it can. Whether, anyone has actually tried to is another thing.

    I would have to believe that an Armed SU-25 managed to intercept and shoot down a 777 despite:

    1) An Unarmed SU-25 has a Service Ceiling of 22,000 FT.

    2) An Unarmed SU-25 has a Maximum Speed of Mac 0.82. A 777 has a cruising speed of circa 0.84 Mac 0.84 at 35,000 FT.

    3) SU-25 is designed for Close air support. Not for Dogfights. Not for Intercepts.


    Now, I would have to believe that the Armed SU-25 could fly 10,000 FT above it's service height then fly at least as fast as an Unarmed SU-25 for long enough to shoot down a 777 in enemy airspace.

    Or I could just believe that the rebels made a mistake.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Haha - because Russia is an shining example of real democracy? :giggle:
    Did I say that?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    People say that but there's roughly Three levels of the decision.

    The Aviation body of the airspace involved can decide, in this case I think it is Eurocontrol.

    The Government of the nation that the airspace covers can declare a no fly zone. Also their own independent aviation bodies can also do this.

    Then Finally the airline can decide.... problem is the airline will decide on information given to them by the above levels. If all of the above say it's safe to fly they will, of course they can decide against it, but they will not undergo in-depth checks on the safety of the airspace themselves. For starters who would share possibly confidential information with airlines that could be state owned by your opponents?

    Eurocontrol blame Ukraine, Pro-Russians blame the airline.

    I find it quite shocking really concerning the BBC's coverage how aviation experts said Malaysian Airlines would of relied on information given to them by these other organisations to base their decision and the BBC presenters then go "so it's Malaysian airline's fault".... only for the experts to say, they have the final call but they do not collect the information themselves and go on advise from these organisations. The presenter then went "so, yes it's the airlines responsibility?" :facepalm:

    Oh right... and we're supposed to believe this from a self appointed ' expert '.

    So a F up is F up no matter how much waffle you put on it
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Oh right... and we're supposed to believe this from a self appointed ' expert '.

    So a F up is F up no matter how much waffle you put on it
    You hardly need to be an expert to use an amazing thing called the internet

    Also like it's not been explained countless times by the media and aviation experts countless times.....
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    You hardly need to be an expert to use an amazing thing called the internet
    LOL, enough said :facepalm:


    (Original post by DanB1991)

    Also like it's not been explained countless times by the media and aviation experts countless times.....
    Where ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi guys, hope i'm not too late in joining the discussion even though the hype over this incident has died down by now.


    I personally blame Malaysia Airlines for endangering the lives of its passengers by not taking the necessary initiative to make security a priority. Although I concede and agree that Singapore Airlines and Air India were reportedly not too far away from the MH17 plane that was shot down, I believe all the airlines that flew through this particular area of Ukraine were putting lives at risk. In fact, any airline that flies through a conflict zone where planes have reportedly been shot down before is putting lives at risk.

    Which is why Malaysia Airlines is still as stupid as ever by changing its KUL-LHR flight path (MH4) but not actually making a difference. From flying over Ukraine, the flight route is now Syria where rebels were reported to have shot down a warplane.

    How hard is it for an airline to avoid flying over a country or an area where armed conflict is taking place? Although more jet fuel will be used and flight time will be longer, I do not think passengers would mind an extra hour or two spent in the air with peace of mind. Airlines should also not prioritise profit over the safety of their passengers, since they stand to lose more profit when a plane is shot down compared to a slightly longer flight route. Just ask Malaysia Airlines.

    Sources:

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/malaysia...721-zvgya.html

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-19246708
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seb_back2back)
    Hi guys, hope i'm not too late in joining the discussion even though the hype over this incident has died down by now.


    I personally blame Malaysia Airlines for endangering the lives of its passengers by not taking the necessary initiative to make security a priority. Although I concede and agree that Singapore Airlines and Air India were reportedly not too far away from the MH17 plane that was shot down, I believe all the airlines that flew through this particular area of Ukraine were putting lives at risk. In fact, any airline that flies through a conflict zone where planes have reportedly been shot down before is putting lives at risk.

    Which is why Malaysia Airlines is still as stupid as ever by changing its KUL-LHR flight path (MH4) but not actually making a difference. From flying over Ukraine, the flight route is now Syria where rebels were reported to have shot down a warplane.

    How hard is it for an airline to avoid flying over a country or an area where armed conflict is taking place? Although more jet fuel will be used and flight time will be longer, I do not think passengers would mind an extra hour or two spent in the air with peace of mind. Airlines should also not prioritise profit over the safety of their passengers, since they stand to lose more profit when a plane is shot down compared to a slightly longer flight route. Just ask Malaysia Airlines.

    Sources:

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/malaysia...721-zvgya.html

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-19246708
    Been brought up many times already. They are, ultimately, at the bottom of the chain for determining how safe or otherwise it is. Eurocontrol or something like that did their risk assessment and deemed it safe, on top of that the Ukrainian government deemed it safe enough to only extend the no fly zone to I think it was 33,000ft, something in that region. Airlines don't have access to as much information as the previously mentioned bodies, and generally don't do their own analysis. further consider: why would there be any AA risk? The "givernment" forces have nothing to shoot at and, as far as they were concerned, the rebels had nothing to shoot with. Two sides, neither capable of firing a SAM, or at least to the necessary altitude, where is the risk? Lots of planes are still flying over parts of Iraq (the ISIS parts too) rather than going slightly further west to Iran, yet I don't see you complaining about that.

    And while the passengers might not mind a slightly longer flight, they might mind if, in the longer term if things don't die down, that extra cost being passed on to them, especially since the price won't come back down when they can take the shorter route again.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air Missile

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-is-now-conclusive-two-ukrainian-government-fighter-jets-shot-down-malaysian-airlines-mh17-it-was-not-a-buk-surface-to-air-missile/5394814


    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GnomeMage)
    Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air Missile

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-is-now-conclusive-two-ukrainian-government-fighter-jets-shot-down-malaysian-airlines-mh17-it-was-not-a-buk-surface-to-air-missile/5394814

    So the main evidence that article has is the fact that it looks like the fuselage outside the cockpit has bullet holes in it and one air traffic controller claiming he saw two military jets escorting the plane.

    - They claim the bullet holes only appear near and around the cockpit yet do not show any other photos of other parts of the plane to prove their point? If no other parts of the plane show holes like the ones seen at the front then their theory is correct but, if there are holes on the other pieces of the plane their theory doesn't stack up. We'll have to wait until officials release photos of the rest of the wreckage, that's if they're able to salvage anything.
    - The photos they use in the article actually kinda back up the idea that it was a missile strike. The damage done the exterior of MH17 looks fairly similar to the damage done by a SAM missile to the A-10. The reason the MH17 wreckage looks more heavily damaged is due to commercial airplanes having fuselages made of aluminium barely more than a centimetre thick whilst military jets are much more heavily protected.. besides the fact that the MH17 wreckage fell 33,000 feet before hitting the ground so of course it'll be mangled.

    - Why would the Ukrainian air force risk sending two fighters to attack a commercial airplane when that only increases the risk of them being discovered? Also, why send two military fighters to attack a target that can't fight back? Talk about overkill. Not to mention the method of attack: shooting at both sides of the cockpit with 30mm cannon shells? 30mm cannon shells will penetrate 100mm of steel at 1000m, so it's not like you have to go back for a second pass against something that has 10mm of aluminium protecting it.
    - Why did no one else see the two military jets escorting MH17? Was the Spanish air traffic controller the only one watching the whole of the Ukrainian airspace in that region?
    - What would the Ukrainian government gain from shooting down the airplane? Besides garnering some international support nothing will come of it; no aid, no weapons and no financial support. If anything, shooting down the plane carries more risks than potential benefits.

    Not to mention one of their main sources is a Russian military general whom we can obviously 100% trust to give an unbiased opinion on the matter. I'm going to wait for an international report on the crash before conclusively making my decision but I'm inclined to believe it was the rebels not the government.

    That whole article just reeks of anti-Obama sentiment and is trying to use the MH17 tragedy as an excuse to show Obama is a weak and secretive leader. If someone would like to correct me, I'm open to it
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You can notice the bias in the Reuters article after reading just a couple of sentences.

    The term "pro-Russian rebels" is so incorrect and misleading when considering the context. Firstly, they ARE NOT rebels. The current government is not legitimate or widely supported - they are the rebels. They were the ones who overthrew the democratically elected government using violence. They are the neo-Nazi thugs (backed by Western leaders) who have been massacring its own civilians, like in Odessa. They are the ones who used snipers on peaceful protesters. They are the ones ordering the air raids on civilians in eastern Ukraine. They are the ones who is using violence to stay in power, even when a vote was held discrediting their self-proclaimed support. Overall, they are just an oppressive regime, not a figure of freedom as our leaders make them out to be.

    That term is also incorrect as they are not all pro-Russian. Some are just anti-Kiev junta, some just realise that by joining the EU things would be worse off (which is true), some actually just want a democracy which these dictators do not have to offer, some stand up for what they believe is right (which doesn't involve burning 40 protesters alive), some support Russia as they offered the better deal, some just do not want to be a pawn in the Western geopolitical chess game and some just oppose the illegitimacy of the Kiev forces. These protesters which many of you believe to be traitorous scum, are actually just a moral opposition with more balls than most of us. They are standing up to a force covertly supported by all the Western imperialists, while bringing voices and banners to airstrikes and snipers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibox)
    You can notice the bias in the Reuters article after reading just a couple of sentences.

    They are the neo-Nazi thugs
    Why does everyone call the Ukrainian protesters neo-nazis and fascists? Could you explain this to me? Because from what I can see yes, some of the protesters are openly neo-nazis but not the whole movement.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.