Why flight MH17 in 2014 was definitely not shot down by Russian anti-aircraft gunners


July 17 will mark seven years since the death of flight MH17 in the skies over Donbass, where active hostilities were then going on between the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the militia of the proclaimed DPR and LPR. In that disaster, 298 people were killed, citizens of a dozen countries. To this day, it is not known for certain who exactly is responsible for this tragedy. A trial is currently underway in the Netherlands, and there is reason to believe that his verdict will be politically biased. But will it be fair?


So far, only the following can be said unambiguously. Malaysia Airlines' Boeing 777-200ER on flight MH17 took off in Amsterdam on July 17, 2014, but never reached its destination in Kuala Lumpur. Less than three hours after the start of its fatal flight, a passenger plane was shot down in the skies over Donbas. With all confidence, it can be argued that the main part of the blame lies with the official Kiev, which did not close its airspace over the zone of active hostilities for flights of civilian airliners, where military aircraft and helicopters were repeatedly shot down and the militia's air defense systems were operating against the Ukrainian military aviation. And then the most difficult thing begins, when you need an answer to the question of who exactly struck that blow, was it done intentionally or through negligence.

At the moment, there are many versions regarding what happened, some put the blame on Ukraine, while others - on the DPR militia and even directly on Russia. Whatever sounded from both sides. “There,” some argue that the Boeing 777 was shot down by mistake by pro-Russian militias from the Buk air defense missile system, others - that it was deliberately and deliberately shot down by the Russian military. We also have discord. There is an almost official version, which the Russian Defense Ministry hints at that the ill-fated liner was destroyed by the Ukrainian Buk, and the military department even provides data on the anti-aircraft missile that could shoot down the plane - 9M38. There was a version about a Ukrainian combat aircraft, either a MiG-29 fighter, or a Su-25 attack aircraft. The latter allegedly contained the pilot Voloshin, who could by mistake destroy the liner, which turned out to be "in the wrong place at the wrong time." But when they talk about the Ukrainian MiG-29, there is an assumption about the intentionality of his actions.

In general, it is clear that nothing is clear. There are great doubts that the Dutch court will be impartial. In the West, the former DPR Minister of Defense Igor Strelkov (Girkin) and two of his colleagues have already been appointed as the culprits. But let's try to play their lawyers in absentia. First, let us recall the basic principle of justice, the presumption of innocence, according to which the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty of the crime committed in the manner prescribed by law and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force:

The burden of proving criminal guilt lies with the prosecutor.

To prosecute, it is necessary that the prosecutor be able to prove the presence of all four signs of a crime: the object, the subject, the objective and subjective parties. If even one element is missing, then the accuser will be left with nothing.

As for the possible subject of the crime, in the case of the death of the Boeing 777, it could theoretically be servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (anti-aircraft gunners or pilots), the DPR militia (anti-aircraft gunners), as well as, hypothetically, some Russian military (anti-aircraft gunners), as Ukraine claims. However, we have to take the Russian military aside due to the absence of the objective side of the corpus delicti. The fact is that the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation officially denies the participation of its servicemen in the conflict in Donbass, and the opposing side has not provided convincing evidence of this. All these photographs, interceptions of negotiations and testimonies of private persons cannot be sewn into the case, as they say. They can be easily blinded with modern of technologies on the knee. Prove that we believe you, then we'll talk. And that is not all. As you know, the armed conflict at the time of the sinking of the liner had lasted for more than one month. Undoubtedly, the war zone in Donbass was under the most scrutiny of US spy satellites. If it is true that the Boeing 777 was inadvertently shot down by a Russian Buk air defense missile system in the hands of the militia or even a Russian crew, what is the problem? Why didn't the Pentagon provide photos in seven years? If the Americans have something to catch Putin on, why didn't they? Very strange. It's easier to believe that they simply have nothing to show. Or is it the Ukrainian Buk on the Pentagon's satellite images? Well, then it would explain a lot, otherwise why would Washington become silent, covering the Kremlin.

Having dealt with the objective side of the crime, let's move on to the subjective, which is traditionally divided into intent (direct or indirect), as well as negligence. Almost immediately after the disaster, on July 19, the head of the counterintelligence department of the SBU Vitaliy Naida said the following:

We have impeccable evidence that the terrorist act was planned and carried out with the participation of representatives of the Russian Federation. The investigation clearly knows that the crew members of the Buk missile launcher were citizens of the Russian Federation.

Look, literally immediately in Kiev, a version of a deliberate "terrorist act" appeared. But, excuse me, why the hell would the militia, that the Russian anti-aircraft gunners would need to deliberately shoot down a passenger airliner? Recall that immediately after this, all the offensive activity of the DPR and LPR ceased, which benefited only the Armed Forces of Ukraine. On August 7, 2014, the SBU gave birth to a "brilliant version" that the Russian military allegedly wanted to shoot down an Airbus A320 of the Russian airline Aeroflot in Donbas, following flight SU2074 Moscow-Larnaca, so that Moscow would get an excuse to declare war on Ukraine, but simply mixed up the planes. Delirium is rare, since Russia already had more than enough reasons to declare war. Such insinuations do not stand up to scrutiny.

Now, as for the version of negligence, allegedly militias or Russian anti-aircraft gunners shot down a Boeing 777 by mistake, confusing it with a Ukrainian military transport plane, which they boasted about on social networks to celebrate. Also does not beat. Firstly, that group was led not by Strelkov himself, but by several guys who had nothing to do with the militia, who simply straddled the hype topic and dragged into their group any information from any available sources. Everyone knew about this, so it was a trifle thing to do information stuffing if desired. Secondly, tell me, how could the DPR militias be able to shoot down a plane if they did not have a working air defense system in their hands? Yes, they were able to capture a few days before, on June 29, 2014, a military unit in Avdiivka, where there was one incomplete Buk, but this is how the press secretary of the NSDC Lysenko commented:

By the decision of the commander, all the equipment [of the division] was put out of action and does not work, the militants were left with only the territory, they also occupied the headquarters of the air defense unit. The captured air defense missile system is non-working. The rest, working, are located at other strategic sites.

It was impossible to shoot from this "Buk", and it also requires a professionally trained crew, which is not easy to recruit among the miners. Is there a version about the accidental destruction of the liner by the Russian military?

No, also nonsense. We repeat once again: the Russian Defense Ministry and the Kremlin have officially denied the participation of Russian servicemen in the conflict in eastern Ukraine for the seventh year. Sorry, but bringing a regular air defense system to the territory of a neighboring state from a Russian military unit, loading it with a rocket from the warehouse of the Ministry of Defense and then using it in the aviation of the Ukrainian Air Force is, let's say, “pale”, given that the militia does not have operational Buks. After all, this is direct evidence of Russian participation, and our military should not be considered complete idiots. Judging by the effectiveness, those MANPADS that Girkin had were quite enough for the "birdfall". Why in general could it be necessary - to drag such an air defense system across the border? Once again: if there is a photo of the Russian Buk in Donbass on satellite images, let the Americans provide them, then we'll talk. But Vladimir Tsemakh, "the main witness for the prosecution," is not at all happy. Here is what follows from his testimony, read out in a Dutch court:

As for MH17, he was not in the area that day, he also does not know what he was doing that day and where he was. During the conflict in eastern Ukraine, Tsemakh never saw a Buk air defense missile system, including in Snezhnoye.

In general, there are still more questions than answers. The version about the possible involvement of our military looks frankly far-fetched. This terrible crime was more likely to have been committed by the Ukrainian side. They also have experience of accidentally shooting down a civilian liner with an anti-aircraft missile, and as of 2014, the level of training of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was extremely low. And why did they bring their Buks to Donbass, if the militia has no aviation? Why was the passenger airliner launched over the zone of active hostilities? Where has the mysterious air traffic controller gone? Why did the pilot Voloshin commit suicide? This case is still to be investigated and investigated.
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 11 June 2021 17: 19
    +3
    But will it be fair?

    Was not and never will be. Everything is only by the decision of the Washington master ..
    1. Tatyana Offline Tatyana
      Tatyana 12 June 2021 14: 52
      +3
      The hedgehog understands that the Malaysian liner provocatively brought down the Armed Forces of Ukraine with the filing of a provocative task from the US Department of State to Kiev.
      Therefore, the United States does not provide the court with American space images of the provocation organized by them to shoot down the MH17 airliner.
      Simply put, the United States was involved in the downing of the MH17 airliner by the hands of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

      It is noteworthy that Poroshenko also announced the downing of the MH17 airliner. 10 minutes before the crash itself, i.e. even when the liner was safely and made its flight in the sky.
  2. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 11 June 2021 17: 48
    +3
    The truth doesn't interest them. Everything is as usual, secret witnesses, secret evidence that will not be shown to anyone.


  3. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 11 June 2021 18: 02
    +2
    Therefore, as other witnesses, civilian air traffic controllers of Aeroflot, objective data of the air defense of the Russian Federation, analysis and reconstruction of the event by the Almaz-Antey concern, the refusal of the United States to provide satellite observation data and others, such as the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, about the fact that the missiles of this modification have been removed from service and not in warehouses, which is easily checked, if desired, like everything else. Even the president of the injured party spoke out on this score, and he probably listened to the opinion of his military before speaking.
  4. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 11 June 2021 19: 00
    -12%
    Why didn't the Pentagon provide photos in seven years?

    So they provided these photos to the authorized representatives of the investigation commission.
    1. Bakht Offline Bakht
      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 June 2021 20: 44
      +7
      Wilbert Paulissen, head of the Netherlands National Police Investigation Department, said that The Netherlands does not have US satellite data and data from Ukrainian radars on the crash in 2014 of Boeing flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine, without explaining the reasons for their absence.

      21.06.2019

      US refuses to hand over secret photographs to Dutch investigators on the launch of a missile on a Boeing 777, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, attacked on July 17, 2014 in the Donetsk region. As a result, only the national prosecutor of the Netherlands was privately acquainted with the photo.
      The US will not give the Netherlands additional data about the launch of a missile on the Boeing 777 of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, attacked on July 17, 2014 near the city of Shakhtersk, Donetsk region, RIA Novosti quotes the presiding judge in the Hendrik Steenhais case.

      08.06.2020
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 11 June 2021 21: 05
        -7
        As a result, only the national prosecutor of the Netherlands was privately acquainted with the photo.

        The US authorities have given the opportunity to verify this information, based on classified information, the Dutch attorney for counterterrorism. The prosecutor received intelligence from a number of US officials, as well as access to several classified and unclassified documents. And these data confirmed the information provided earlier, but they will not be disclosed in court.

        https://graty.me/online/delo-ob-ubijstve-passazhirov-rejsa-mn17-malajzijskih-avialinij-na-donbasse-den-pyatyj/
        1. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 June 2021 21: 09
          +7
          Are you seriously?
          Confidentially and information will not be disclosed in court - in normal language means that these documents are not and cannot be in the indictment.
          Moreover, in the English version it is written that they provided not a photo, but in writing.
          There was no photo, and no.
          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 11 June 2021 21: 37
            -9
            Confidentially and information will not be disclosed in court - in normal language means that these documents are not and cannot be in the indictment.

            Oh, you are such a specialist in jurisprudence that you know the procedure for providing and disclosing classified information used as evidence in court?

            Well, here's a case from Russian legal practice, 2017:

            At the same time, the court, guided by paragraph 4 of Art. 5 of the Law on State Secrets, according to which state secrets include information in the field of operational-search activities, came to the conclusion that that Evgeny Gorovenko, not having access to classified information, has the right to familiarize himself only with that part of the verification materials that does not contain classified information, and also has the right to receive copies of decisions on refusal to initiate a criminal case made during the audit.

            True, then the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation ruled that all parties should have access to classified information used in court, but the fact remains.

            As far as I understand, the investigation and the court are not obliged to disclose absolutely all the evidence used in the case. The American side, acting as a witness, has the right to claim the confidentiality of the information provided.
            1. Bakht Offline Bakht
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 June 2021 21: 45
              +6
              You seem to be a great special. So did the American side provide satellite images or not?
            2. 123 Offline 123
              123 (123) 11 June 2021 23: 11
              +5
              Well, here's a case from Russian legal practice

              Evgeny Gorovenko defendant

              The law on state secrets, which was contested by the former employee of the Department of Economic Crimes, Evgeny Gorovenko. While the applicant was serving in law enforcement agencies, disciplinary proceedings were carried out against him in connection with improper performance of duties related to keeping records of the operational records in the ORD process. For admitting these violations, he was dismissed from the authorities, and then a criminal case was opened against him for knowingly false denunciation, which ended with a guilty verdict.

              https://www.advgazeta.ru/novosti/ks-rf-razyasnil-poryadok-dopuska-k-gostayne-v-sudebnom-razbiratelstve/

              In this case, the court has no access to the images. Feel the difference.

              As far as I understand, the investigation and the court are not obliged to disclose absolutely all the evidence used in the case.

              And at least they are obliged to get acquainted with them?

              The American side, acting as a witness, has the right to claim the confidentiality of the information provided.

              Perhaps, but then the court has no right to make a decision based on "confidential information"
              Where are the pictures? Who saw them? This is how they will write in the verdict - our prosecutor saw some documents and confirmed it, everything was so, honest noble word ... The court, guided by the prosecutor's impeccable reputation, takes his word for it smile
            3. Dear sofa expert. 12 June 2021 10: 27
              +3
              Oh, you are such a specialist in jurisprudence that you know the procedure for providing and disclosing classified information,

              Well, you are definitely not special in this direction.)
              You seem to be like a "rocketman"?) Well, it is better to stay in this plane, and explain to us, the ignorant, under what conditions (I warn you - there are not so many of them, and they are mandatory!), It was generally possible to shoot down a civilian (!) Board , from a single (!!) BUK launcher?

              I look forward to your "professional" analysis.)
        2. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 June 2021 21: 17
          +3
          By your own link

          Failed to receive satellite images from the United Statesbut they provided other information. It turns out that there are special military tools for detecting missile launches. The operating principles of these systems are a state secret, but the USA definitely has them.

          Chapaev is returning from a business trip to England. Dressed with a needle, in a limousine, rings with diamonds on his hands and a trunk full of money. Petka asks him in surprise:
          - Vasily Ivanovich, where did you get all this from?
          - Yes, Petka ... I won in cards.
          - Like this?!
          - I go to the club. I looked - they were being cut into the ass. I sat down at the table and took the cards. They began to play. One Englishman and says: "A point!" I told him: "Show me!" And he: "We, gentlemen, take each other's word for it."
          It was then that the map flooded me!
    2. Bakht Offline Bakht
      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 June 2021 20: 53
      +2
      The US may have crucial satellite photos of the missile used to bring down MH17 six years ago but the images are classified.
      “US authorities have indicated they cannot provide more information about the detection of the missile other than in the written statement and that it has been given confidentially to the Dutch national prosecutor. "

      JUNE 10, 2020
    3. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 11 June 2021 22: 50
      +1
      So they provided these photos to the authorized representatives of the investigation commission.

      Results of the court session 07.07.2021.

      Investigative the judge announced that she had made (extensive) requests to the United States of America authorities to provide or view satellite images, regardless of whether they are fulfilled or not under certain conditions. This concerns satellite imagery of the July 17, 2014 launch of a rocket (BUK) from a location south of Snezhnoye, satellite imagery appears to be available from the US authorities. These authorities referred to a 2016 memorandumwhich they had previously drawn up, and stated that they were unable to provide additional information due to their "duty to protect sources and methods of intelligence".

      https://www.courtmh17.com/nieuws/2021/resume-van-de-dag-maandag-7-juni-2021.html

      It looks like you and the court have different information on this issue. winked Did the Americans themselves tell you, or what? lol
      I understand that it is a hard lot of slaves, the owners must be protected by any means, but so blatantly lie ...
      Are you a vile liar? sad
    4. shadow Offline shadow
      shadow 11 June 2021 23: 17
      0
      They did not present anything, but leave your Wishlist with you. You're carrying bullshit again. Not tired?
      https://vz-ru.turbopages.org/vz.ru/s/news/2021/6/9/1103341.html
  5. Eh! amers don't need facts, they need a verdict from Russia
  6. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 11 June 2021 21: 14
    -2
    ha .. ha. Pilot Voloshin ...
    Our media have already buried 2 pilots and 2 dispatchers. Maybe more, but I met on the occasion of two or two.

    And in Russian !!! state !!! news agency of the federal level !!!!, and in others, the news continues to lie "The militias of the proclaimed DPR shot down the An-26 aircraft of the Ukrainian Air Force"
    and before that they shot down the 14th ... also An-26.

    It seems that they pounded about 15 different all kinds of ukrov, and suddenly, once, and how it cut off ...
    1. Bakht Offline Bakht
      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 June 2021 21: 19
      +4
      At what height was the AN-26 shot down?
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 13 June 2021 10: 42
        -3
        According to Ukraine, 6300.
        1. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 13 June 2021 10: 57
          +5
          There is no one percent faith in the versions of Ukraine.
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 13 June 2021 14: 56
            -3
            Yeah yeah. Except for the Russian Federation, everyone is lying. How many versions were put forward by the RF Ministry of Defense?
            If the Ukrainians are lying and An26 was shot down at a low altitude, it means that Ukraine had no reason to close the sky over Donbass.
            1. Bakht Offline Bakht
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 13 June 2021 15: 31
              +2
              The sky must be closed in any case. If fighting is going on.
              According to the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, An-26 was shot down at an altitude of 6500 meters. The purpose of the flight is to supply checkpoints with water and food. Crew of 7 people plus one accompanying person.
              There are enough military men on this site. How can cargo be dropped from a height of 6 km to the checkpoint? How were the pilots able to leave the plane at an altitude of 6 km? Not special forces, but ordinary pilots. Let the military tell you how you can drop a load from a height of 6,5 km. to the checkpoint.
              The plane was shot down at a maximum altitude of 1 km. Eyewitnesses speak about it. Shot down from MANPADS. And it was Ukraine that had a reason to lie about 6,5 km. Preparations were already underway for the destruction of Boeing. And this AN-26 created information noise.
              1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 13 June 2021 16: 56
                -2
                Quote: Bakht
                The sky must be closed in any case. If fighting is going on.

                There are international rules, if the rebels have only low-altitude air defense systems, there is no requirement to close the airspace.

                Quote: Bakht
                There are enough military men on this site. How can cargo be dropped from a height of 6 km to the checkpoint?

                Was he shot down while dropping the cargo?

                Quote: Bakht
                How were the pilots able to leave the plane at an altitude of 6 km?

                Athletes jump from 4200. Did the pilots leave the plane immediately after the hit? Reinhold Messner climbed Chomolungma without an oxygen apparatus.

                Quote: Bakht
                The plane was shot down at a maximum altitude of 1 km.

                Personally, it seems to me that the chances of leaving the plane at low altitude are less.

                Quote: Bakht
                Preparations were already underway for the destruction of Boeing. And this AN-26 created information noise.

                About May! Preparation was in progress. Even if you believe about all this nonsense about the worldwide W-Masonic conspiracy, how did this help the preparation? Gave a reason to accuse Ukraine of not covering the sky, although they have already shot down planes at a high altitude?
                1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                  Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 13 June 2021 18: 39
                  +4
                  I'm not going to discuss the Malaysian Boeing here. A million comments in 7 years. Everything is written and scheduled.
                  Boeing was deliberately targeted. This is most likely the case of the Ukrainian side. Everything else is just far-fetched. Both the investigation and the court could not provide anything convincing.
                  1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 14 June 2021 02: 05
                    -4
                    Quote: Bakht
                    I'm not going to discuss the Malaysian Boeing here.

                    Yes, I noticed that you have not been able to argue lately.

                    Quote: Bakht
                    Boeing was deliberately targeted.

                    These are all conspiracy theories, and we know that this conspiracy theories have very little to do with real life. There is no evidence for this theory.
                    Even if we omit the incredible complexity of such a conspiracy (and hence the low probability of success) to a simple question, and the hell had to be done, such theories do not answer. That is, from very complex actions (and hence costs) with a high probability of failure and exposure (the costs of such exposure are difficult even to imagine) and all for the sake of some vague, incomprehensible, momentary benefits. Aliens might just as well have done it.
                    It was a mistake, an accident. There could be no intent, not even because of moral considerations (but this too), but purely because of the lack of sane goals that could be achieved by destroying a passenger plane.
                    And the facts are:
                    1. The plane was shot down in the center of the territory controlled by the militia.
                    2. The plane was shot down by Buk.
                    3. The beech could be used in the conflict zone between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.
                    Now some logic. Ukraine could shoot down only from the Zaroshchensky area. There was no continuous front line, so it is difficult to say who directly controlled Zaroshchensky, but the city of Shakhtersk, 4 km away, was controlled by the militia. It is difficult to imagine what the APU would be dragged directly to the front line of such an expensive complex and for what purpose (we sweep aside the intention to shoot down a Boeing for the reasons stated above). The likelihood that the plane was shot down from territory controlled by the militia is much higher.
                    1. Bakht Offline Bakht
                      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 14 June 2021 07: 57
                      +3
                      I do not argue, because you are sure that you are right. And it is useless to argue with believers. Boeing was put under attack and let down by Ukrainian dispatchers. This is not a conspiracy theory but an irrefutable fact. I have already given evidence. The usual route went much further south, through Mariupol. But within three days, Boeing's route shifted north. Screenshots of the routes were published in the American press.


                      The fact that Boeing was shot down by Buk and generally shot down, and not crashed, said Poroshenko literally half an hour after the incident. How did he get the information in half an hour, this is also from the "conspiracy theory"?
                      The fact that Boeing was shot down from territory controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces is much higher. Plus, the subsequent actions of the Ukrainian side leave no doubt that it is Ukraine that is guilty.
                      Again. There is simply no point in arguing with you, because you truly believe in fake news.
                      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 14 June 2021 21: 04
                        -4
                        Quote: Bakht
                        I do not argue, because you are sure that you are right.

                        Are you not sure of yours? And it is right.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And it is useless to argue with believers.

                        And this is said to me by a man who believes that Stalin performed a miracle with his one word! You are not friends with facts.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I have already given evidence. The usual route went much further south, through Mariupol. But within three days, Boeing's route shifted north. Screenshots of the routes were published in the American press.

                        This screen you took from the blogs of couch analysts, and not from the American press. International airlines did not fly over the Crimea, the route on July 17 differed from the usual one by 6 kilometers. It is clear from the transcript of radio communications that the crew themselves requested this deviation due to weather conditions. Instructions to change the course were given by the Ukrainian dispatchers just before the crash, at the request of, unexpectedly, the Rostov dispatcher. The planes have waypoints along which the route is built. This section passed between the points PEKIT and TAMAK. And he almost always flew this route. PEKIT near Kremenchug, TAMAK near Millerovo on the border of Russia and Ukraine. The straight line between these points passes through Teresa.
                        https://wikispooks.com/w/images/9/90/Report-mh17-crash-en.pdf
                        On page 42 negotiations.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Poroshenko literally half an hour after the incident. How did he get the information in half an hour, this is also from the "conspiracy theory"?

                        Well, yes, exactly the theory. It was immediately possible to guess that he was shot down.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The fact that Boeing was shot down from territory controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces is much higher. Plus, the subsequent actions of the Ukrainian side leave no doubt that it is Ukraine that is guilty.

                        From the territory controlled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Buk did not reach the tupa. I got it from Zaroshchenskoye, but this village was not controlled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Some settlements to the south were already controlled by the militia. Theoretically, the Armed Forces of Ukraine could seep between the settlements controlled by the militia (there was no solid front line), but in reality it is difficult to imagine that the Ukrainian generals would decide on such an adventure, with ghostly chances not only to slip through unnoticed, but generally to get out of there back.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Again. There is simply no point in arguing with you, because you truly believe in fake news.

                        Judging by the screenshot you provided, where the Boeing is flying over Kerch, you believe in fakes.
                      2. Bakht Offline Bakht
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 14 June 2021 22: 02
                        +2
                        I first saw this screen on the New York Times website. Why I can't put it - it's unclear. You put fake shots of Buk.
                        There are a lot of inconsistencies in the Ukrainian version, which you believe so unconditionally.
                        Beech can work in stand-alone mode. This is spelled out in the combat manual. Read it, it's interesting. But only in azimuth +/- 10 degrees. and only in a certain sector. That is, initially it was necessary to configure it specifically for Boeing. All images contain only BUK launcher, but no Kupol target detection station. Separately, the BUK launcher cannot shoot down a Boeing. Or it can knock down with very big luck. When flight data is known in advance.
                        The BUK battalion of the Ukrainian army was deployed in this area.
                        So it's not hard to guess who exactly shot down the Boeing.
                        Second. The experts were kept in Kiev for three days and were not allowed into the disaster area. And all three days the area of ​​the Boeing crash was intensively ironed by the Ukrainian artillery.
                        Third. An independent commission of inquiry can be considered a very stubborn person. The fact is that Malaysia was admitted to the commission of the latter. Only after Malaysia signed an agreement that the investigation only accepts documents that are recognized by the Ukrainian side. Any documents that Ukraine does not accept are not considered by the commission of inquiry. So this is not an international investigation team, but a Ukrainian one.
                        Finally, who got the most profit from the destruction of Boeing? What was Russia's interest in shooting down a passenger plane? The maximum profit of a half-tip is Ukraine.
                        So, for technical reasons, the BUK in autonomous mode could not shoot down the Boeing by mistake. He was shot down purposefully. Such an opportunity was possessed by Ukraine, which deployed a BUK division in this area. The missile presented in the Netherlands by serial number belonged to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The Ukrainian Armed Forces fired at the Boeing crash site for at least two days. The official announcement of the destruction of Boeing was made on 18 July. But Poroshenko announced this immediately after the incident, because he knew perfectly well who exactly shot down the Boeing and with what system.
                        So everything is very clear. Boeing was shot down by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and Ukraine received the maximum profit from this. There was absolutely no need for Russia to shoot down this plane.
                        About the absence of dispatcher readings (and this is the first thing that is done in case of plane crashes), I am not even talking about the cleaned up data of radars and negotiations. I don't mention outsiders at the control room either. There is no point in talking about the turned off radars of the Ukrainian side either. The lack of satellite images from the United States has already been discussed.
                        You can still believe in the purity of Ukraine.
                        And yes, I believe that Stalin worked a miracle. Both economically and militarily. Are you talking about Order 227? We discussed this. This order mobilized the army and the people and played a huge role in the war. You don't have to believe me. Trust the front-line soldiers.
                      3. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 15 June 2021 13: 25
                        -3
                        Quote: Bakht
                        I first saw this screen on the New York Times website. Why I can't put it - it's unclear. You put fake shots of Buk.

                        Who forbids you, bet on your health. Only the fact that this is a fake visible to the naked eye does not bother you? It is not entirely clear what my pictures are, if the video, you will not refute it so easily.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Beech can work in stand-alone mode. This is spelled out in the combat manual. Read it, it's interesting. But only in azimuth +/- 10 degrees. and only in a certain sector. That is, initially it was necessary to configure it specifically for Boeing. All images contain only BUK launcher, but no Kupol target detection station. Separately, the BUK launcher cannot shoot down a Boeing. Or it can knock down with very big luck. When flight data is known in advance.

                        Asked
                        https://docplayer.ru/63585046-Strelba-i-boevaya-rabota-sou-9a310.html
                        The viewing angle in conjunction mode is really 10 degrees. Standalone 120.
                        On the contrary, a beech is a cube. The cube is the previous SAM system. The military noted its main drawback that in the event of the destruction of a single radar (special anti-radar missiles), the entire complex turns into a heap of scrap metal. Therefore, in the next generation of the air defense missile system, each launcher was equipped with a radar so that even if the main radar was hit, the complex did not lose the ability to detect the target and fire. I doubt that the military would be satisfied with the 10-degree sector.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The BUK battalion of the Ukrainian army was deployed in this area.
                        So it's not hard to guess who exactly shot down the Boeing.

                        But for some reason there are a bunch of pictures of a beech in the territory of the militia and there is no possible launch of the Armed Forces on the territory. A conspiracy probably.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Second. The experts were kept in Kiev for three days and were not allowed into the disaster area. And all three days the area of ​​the Boeing crash was intensively ironed by the Ukrainian artillery.

                        The Ukrainians claim that the militia was not allowed, well, God bless him. Let's pass a simple test for fakeness again. It is 30 kilometers from the crash site to the nearest territories controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. It is difficult to imagine that the Armed Forces deployed artillery directly on the front line. Accordingly, artillery must hit 35 kilometers. What Ukrainian artillery system is capable of hitting at such a distance?
                        This is again a fake.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Third. An independent commission of inquiry can be considered a very stubborn person. The fact is that Malaysia was admitted to the commission of the latter. Only after Malaysia signed an agreement that the investigation only accepts documents that are recognized by the Ukrainian side. Any documents that Ukraine does not accept are not considered by the commission of inquiry. So this is not an international investigation team, but a Ukrainian one.

                        Where do you get all this from? Recently in the news it was reported that the investigation had accepted Almaz-Antey's expertise. That they requested radar data from the Russian Federation.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Finally, who got the most profit from the destruction of Boeing? What was Russia's interest in shooting down a passenger plane? The maximum profit of a half-tip is Ukraine.

                        It is difficult to imagine that Ukraine would have done this on its own. It’s even impossible. If we assume that other countries also participated in this, then a trashy conspiracy theory begins, in which Western countries sacrifice their citizens in order to slightly spoil the image of Vladimir Vladimirovich. They resigned for much less.
                        Profit is somehow very inconsistent with the costs and risks.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        So, for technical reasons, the BUK in autonomous mode could not shoot down the Boeing by mistake. He was shot down on purpose. Such an opportunity was possessed by Ukraine, which deployed a BUK division in this area.

                        What kind of air defense system is it that cannot shoot down a slow-moving, non-maneuvering large target? This argument of yours is not valid.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The missile presented in the Netherlands by serial number belonged to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

                        Well, finally, at least one worthy argument. Let's see what the court will answer. I only have my favorite conspiracy theories that come to mind. Wait and see.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The Ukrainian Armed Forces fired at the Boeing crash site for at least two days.

                        I think they fired only in the minds of Russian propagandists.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The official announcement of the destruction of Boeing was made on 18 July. But Poroshenko announced this immediately after the incident, because he knew perfectly well who exactly shot down the Boeing and with what system.

                        Yes, they did such a complicated operation and fell asleep on matches.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        So everything is very clear. Boeing was shot down by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and Ukraine received the maximum profit from this. There was absolutely no need for Russia to shoot down this plane.

                        Dada and the whole world, in a single outburst of Russophobia, are participating in the concealment of this terrible crime of the Ukrainian junta.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        About the lack of controller readings (and this is the first thing that is done in case of plane crashes)

                        Are they missing?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I'm not talking about the cleaned up data of radars and negotiations. I don't mention outsiders at the control room either. There is no point in talking about the turned off radars of the Ukrainian side either.

                        Did you read this in the New York Times too?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        There is no point in talking about the turned off radars of the Ukrainian side either

                        I don't remember what happened to the radars, if they are Ukrainian, what's the difference?

                        Can you answer where they were shooting from?
                      4. Bakht Offline Bakht
                        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 15 June 2021 15: 05
                        +1
                        I used the opinions of the military and what is written in the combat manual. Doesn't it seem strange that

                        Target detection area: - when operating in the mode of receiving target designation from PBU 9S470 is 10 0 in azimuth, and 7 0 in elevation, the review time is 2 s; - when working in autonomous mode is 120 0 in azimuth, 7 0 in elevation, review time 4 s

                        That is, in autonomous mode, the launcher is more effective than when working with a target detection station.
                        The fact that the area of ​​the fall was under fire was written at the same time.

                        Ukrainian security forces unexpectedly attacked Shatkhersk from two sides simultaneously: from the south, from Amvrosievka near the Russian border, and from the north - from Debaltseve.

                        What was the strategic plan of the Ukrainian command, which instantly turned the quiet Torez and Shakhtersk, where it was possible to calmly investigate the plane crash, into a combat zone? Prior to that, the security forces moved along the border, trying to encircle the DPR and LPR and cut them off from Russia. This plan was understandable, albeit difficult to implement. Now the Ukrainian command unexpectedly deployed troops from the border to the north and decided to cut off Torez and the Boeing crash site from Donetsk, apparently taking control of the crash site.

                        Fierce street fighting began in Shakhtersk. For many weeks Torez was cut off from Donetsk, and neither experts nor journalists could get there. But the security forces were also unable to gain a foothold there. And the crash site of Boeing, where all its fragments still remained (only the bodies were removed), was literally "ironed out" by artillery - first by the advancing security forces, then by the militia.

                        Malaysia was not allowed to investigate. It’s strange. The country most affected by this incident is not allowed to be investigated. The Prime Minister of Malaysia then said that his country was not going to accuse anyone, but wanted an independent investigation. After that, Ukraine and Australia opposed the participation of Malaysia. The Attorney General of the Netherlands spoke about this.
                        The fact that the data presented to the commission of inquiry from the Ukrainian side was censored by the SBU was written by the Ukrainian media themselves.
                        Nobody will say where they fired from. There is a lot of mathematics and stereometry. From those photos that were shown on social networks. They have no faith. One launcher, no one knows whose and who knows where. The transportation of military equipment demonstratively and openly without tents is practiced only in the Ukrainian army. Straight Russia defiantly drove an unmasked BUK throughout the LPNR so that it could be photographed more often.
                        And the most important. Investigations focus on motive and benefit. Ukraine's profit was huge. Sanctions against Russia, possible military assistance from the West. Putin's rating did not play any role here. What was Russia's interest in shooting down a civilian side is completely unclear. Get a full package of sanctions and a possible military invasion of the West?
                        Comparing the motive and the benefit, the unequivocal answer is that it all went to the benefit of Ukraine.
                        I believe in the general conspiracy of the West against Russia. As well as provocations of the West against other countries. Lots of examples.
                        That's why I didn't want to discuss Boeing, because there are a million notes on this matter. The version of the Investigative Commission did not suit Malaysia in the first place.

                        International investigation into the disaster of MH17 is biased - it reflects the positions of those who suffered from the tragedy, said the Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad in an interview with RIA Novosti.

                        “Their views cannot be fair and neutral,” he said.

                        Mahathir Mohamad noted that it is necessary to create a new body, including specialists from different countries, which could carry out an impartial investigation of the disaster. The Prime Minister added that Malaysia has long been unable to access evidence in the plane crash.

                        https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/5d7099c69a7947d296388149
                        Another "Kremlin agent"?
  • 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 11 June 2021 21: 25
    +4
    Meeting 25.12.2020/XNUMX/XNUMX. The court responded to the defense motion and clarified something ...

    The court explained how the requests for investigation were handled. Equality of the parties here is one of the important principles. This principle appears in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In the court's view, this principle does not mean that the defense should be given the opportunity to repeat the entire investigation carried out by the prosecutor's office. EThis principle also does not give the defense the right to receive all information about the investigation.conducted by the public prosecutor's office, does not give the defense carte blanche for questioning (all) witnesses and / or experts and does not allow the defense to verify the methods and results of the investigation

    If the defense wishes to verify the reliability or accuracy of the information, it will need to indicate why such information is inaccurate or implausible.

    The defense does not need to demonstrate how MH17 was shot down. It is the responsibility of the prosecutor's office.

    Does the defense want witnesses farrowing?
    Please, but ...

    the court considers that witness testimony should be viewed with caution as many witnesses were in the war zone at the time. They may be traumatized or feel more or less involved and empathized with one side or the other, and witnesses may - inadvertently - influence each other.

    And in general, it is better for lawyers not to go where they are not asked. The court has decided on the choice of the version, it is he who is considering ...

    Court does not require additional investigation of alternative scenarios for the destruction of MH17
    The Court also considers that more important for protection is an astute assessment of the main scenario.

    Is the testimony of the witnesses important? It seems no No.

    Was the rocket launched from a farm field near Pervomaiskiy?
    The court considers the evidence obtained as a result of the investigation by the experts to be more important than the testimony of the witnesses.

    https://www.courtmh17.com/en/news/2020/summary-of-the-day-in-court-wednesday-25-november-2020.html

    Do you have some doubts? Leave it, you are told ...

    The Netherlands operates under the rule of law and has an independent and impartial judiciary.

    https://www.courtmh17.com/en/about-the-website.html
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 11 June 2021 21: 35
      +3
      Meeting 10.10.2021. A little about the main scenario chosen by the court ...

      the court considered the conflict situation in the east of Ukraine during the crash of the MH17 aircraft. There were fierce battles, and the separatists suffered increasing losses as a result of Ukrainian aerial bombardments. Against these attacks by high-flying aircraft, the separatists did not have weapons systems with a range of more than 3500 meters at their disposal. From the wiretapped telephone conversations of several people from the file, it follows that the separatists suffer greatly from the bombing of their positions in Amvrosievka, Stepanovka, Marinovka, Dmitrovka and Tarany and around them, as well as around the Saur-Mogila hills, and that there is only one hope: Russia. “I would like to be given a surface-to-air system ...” and “We have nothing to shoot with. Where is the support for us? "

      The trajectory of the BUK-TELAR movement before and after July 17, 2014.
      On the night of July 16-17, 2014, according to the JIT, there was also an actual delivery of BUK-TELAR delivered by the Russian Federation on the border with Eastern Ukraine.

      the JIT group suggests that after the crash of the MH17 aircraft, BUK-TELAR was moved to Snezhnoe, and from there - ultimately - to Russia

      It is in this direction that they are digging, alternative versions are not considered.

      https://www.courtmh17.com/nieuws/2021/resume-van-de-dag-woensdag-10-juni-2021.html

      The next performance of the circus with horses is in a week.
      https://www.courtmh17.com/
  • Petr Vladimirovich (Peter) 11 June 2021 21: 32
    0
    Yes, the NATO Caudla has a simple task: to liquidate the Russian Federation, to exterminate the population ...
  • Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 11 June 2021 22: 39
    -2
    And why did they bring their Buks to Donbass, if the militia has no aviation?

    It is not entirely clear where they brought them. Probably they feared the use of aviation by some third party.

    Why was the passenger airliner launched over the zone of active hostilities?

    It is a worldwide practice if the sides (or side) do not have high-altitude air defense. For example, 10 years ago, I flew on vacation to Thailand, and the plane flew over Kabul.

    Where has the mysterious air traffic controller gone?

    Dispatcher Carlos? Probably the same place where it came from. Into the pool of consciousness of Russian propagandists.

    Why did the pilot Voloshin commit suicide?

    I don't know why he committed suicide, but clearly not because he shot down a Boeing with a Buk missile.
    I hope I have clarified for the respected Sergei the questions tormenting him.

    Having dealt with the objective side of the crime.

    Ha figured it out.
    The objective side is that Boeing was shot down over the center of the territory controlled by separatists and if Ukraine did it, it could only have done it from Zaroshchenskoye. The question is who was in control of Zaroshchenskoye at that time (the militias were apparently in court), and why Ukraine actually put such a missile system on the front line.
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 11 June 2021 23: 29
      +1
      It is a worldwide practice if the sides (or side) do not have high-altitude air defense. For example, 10 years ago, I flew on vacation to Thailand, and the plane flew over Kabul.

      At least in the Ukrainian side there was, moreover, combat aviation was used in the area. Surely they expected opposition from the other side. You yourself say ...

      Probably they feared the use of aviation by some third party.

      So what about world practice?

      I don't know why he committed suicide, but clearly not because he shot down a Boeing with a Buk missile.
      I hope I have clarified for the respected Sergei the questions tormenting him.

      Excuse my curiosity, but on what basis was this conclusion made? Explicitly that's all?

      The objective side is that Boeing was shot down over the center of the territory controlled by separatists and if Ukraine did it, it could only have done it from Zaroshchenskoye.

      The objective side is that he fell in the "center of the territory controlled by separatists", what could or could not Ukraine, then how do you know? Did you serve there in the air defense?
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 12 June 2021 03: 30
        -2
        Quote: 123
        At least in the Ukrainian side there was, moreover, combat aviation was used in the area. Surely they expected opposition from the other side. You yourself say ...

        In Afghanistan, combat aircraft are also used and there are air defense systems. But planes have been flying over this country since the Taliban was kicked out there. In any case, it is Ukraine's fault here that the sky did not close, although not long before that, a Ukrainian military plane was shot down at a high altitude.

        Quote: 123
        Excuse my curiosity, but on what basis was this conclusion made? Explicitly that's all?

        If you deign to think a little, you will probably guess that the beech cannot be hung under the Su25 and that the late pilot Voloshin hardly worked as an operator of the Buk air defense missile system in his free time. Therefore, this pilot was definitely not involved in the downing of Boeing by Buk.

        Quote: 123
        The objective side is that he fell in the "center of the territory controlled by separatists", what could or could not Ukraine, then how do you know? Did you serve there in the air defense?

        The point of impact of the missile on the plane is known, the range of the beech is known, the characteristics of the beech are in the public domain.
        1. akarfoxhound Offline akarfoxhound
          akarfoxhound 12 June 2021 12: 38
          +1
          In Afghanistan, the spirits of the planes were brought down and with the help of the DShK with PGI and very successfully, and the video of the falling Ukrainian spotter was present, only if you, as you advise others, turned your head on, you would know that the spotter for visual work on the point would not trample on his high-altitude limit of 6500 (with super optics, determine whose tank in the confusion of battle? Well, yes)laughing And if you had at least some kind of aviation education, then you would know the gradation of heights and that your heroic crew has filled up the maximum on the border of low and medium heights, i.e. in the area of ​​1000 m. The range of heights of effective shooting of DShK or ZUshki also needs to be suggested to the "Internet / expert"? They didn't write that in the training manual, right? laughing
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 12 June 2021 13: 46
            -3
            About May! Spirits were brought down with the help of DShK from PGI passenger planes at an altitude of 10 km, where the world is heading!

            Quote: akarfoxhound
            that the spotter for visual work on the point will not trample on his altitude limit of 6500 (with super optics, determine whose tank in the confusion of battle? Well, yes) And if you had at least some aviation education, you would know the gradation of heights and that your heroic crew have filled up the maximum at the border of low and medium heights, i.e. in the area of ​​1000 m. The range of heights of effective shooting of DShK or ZUshki also needs to be suggested to the "Internet / expert"? They didn't write that in the training manual, right?

            Which spotter, which 6500, which is my crew. what nonsense. Ahhh ... I get it, you got it all mixed up. Not mine, but Ukrainian. An 30 air surveillance and aerial photography was shot down on June 6, 2014 over Slavyansk from MANPADS. The military transport An26 was shot down on July 14, 2014 near Sukhodolsk, at an altitude of 6300 m.
            What does this spotter have to do with only you.
            Update the training manual.
            1. akarfoxhound Offline akarfoxhound
              akarfoxhound 12 June 2021 22: 28
              0
              Quote: Oleg Rambover
              About May! Spirits were brought down with the help of DShK from PGI passenger planes at an altitude of 10 km, where the world is heading!

              Why did liberoids have such visions? wassat Quit smoking foul crap, otherwise you have not only military An, but also a BPM at 10000m in Afghanistan, as civilian aircraft will fly.
              The fact that the "observation and aerial photography" of the An-30 is an adjustment with reconnaissance - the information did not reach the expert couch? Straight sadness. belay
              An-30 except for Internet pictures "live", have you ever seen? Yeah, schazzz
              Have the militias who have filled up An, improvised low-altitude air defense systems (MANPADS, PGU ...) suddenly become a complex of air defense systems? Or is there something else in the subject laughing

              Quote: Oleg Rambover
              The military transport An26 was shot down on July 14, 2014 near Sukhodolsk, at an altitude of 6300 m.
              Update the training manual.

              As Professor Preobrazhensky said: "Do not read the Bolshevik newspapers before meals," and you changed them to the Censor from Show Matza wink
              According to Ukraine itself, An-26 was carrying a drop-off cargo to the besieged (from their own words: "pure food and no ammunition", straight humanists, 5 tons to devour laughing ). Even stubborn Banderzyans will not drop cargo onto the site of a surrounded checkpoint from such heights, and you, in your personal remoteness from the topic, completely set them idiotami. For such a size of the landing site and 1000 m the limit, and you and the descendants of the Sumerians already threw them for 6000! The valiant ukroVVS militia planned to do good things in parallel with ammunition with grubs with ammunition - maybe at least one box but on our own we will get, and the rest of the trophies to the militia with a yell of releasing cargo from the ramp - "Hai choke! Or was it the size of a city?
              Well, for good taste - my "manuals" more than a couple of decades ago at the Air Defense Aviation School were written at lectures, then at the academy, lectures are called, and yours are called Internet dolb..buratins. And therefore, your depth of "knowledge" in the topic is undoubtedly more significant!
              laughing laughing laughing
              1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 13 June 2021 22: 03
                -3
                Quote: akarfoxhound
                Why did liberoids have such visions? Quit smoking foul crap, otherwise you have not only military An, but also a BPM at 10000m in Afghanistan, as civilian aircraft will fly.

                It seems that the conversation was about MH17, which was shot down at an altitude of 10000 m. With what fright you dragged the DShK here with the spirits, only Alah knows.

                Quote: akarfoxhound
                The fact that the "observation and aerial photography" of the An-30 is an adjustment with reconnaissance - the information did not reach the expert couch? Straight sadness.
                An-30 except for Internet pictures "live", have you ever seen? Yeah, schazzz
                Have the militias who have filled up An, improvised low-altitude air defense systems (MANPADS, PGU ...) suddenly become a complex of air defense systems? Or is there something else in the subject

                Who are you arguing with? I argued that the An30 did not conduct reconnaissance? Did I claim he was shot down at a high altitude? I argued that the militias have an air defense system? Are you using something?

                Quote: akarfoxhound
                Even stubborn Banderzyans will not drop cargo onto the site of a surrounded checkpoint from such heights, and you, in your personal remoteness from the topic, completely set them idiotami.

                They are not, you have a question. Was the plane shot down while dropping cargo?

                Quote: akarfoxhound
                Well, for good taste - my "manuals" more than a couple of decades ago at the Air Defense Aviation School were written at lectures, then at the academy, lectures are called, and yours are called Internet dolb..buratins. And therefore, your depth of "knowledge" in the topic is undoubtedly more significant!

                Then it is doubly incomprehensible why you are talking all sorts of nonsense.
                1. akarfoxhound Offline akarfoxhound
                  akarfoxhound 15 June 2021 18: 48
                  +1
                  You initially cited the topic of the An aircraft shot down on the BV as an example, not me.
                  I just corrected you that the example is not correct, the fact that you did not join the order of your own dialogue is not my headache.
                  What the 26th was doing at that moment - it was the representatives of the respected UPF of Ukraine who indicated the task and the shooting down of the board with a specific place.
                  And yet, flight crews rarely watch modern films about aviation without shuddering. on the basis of these "masterpieces" outside people like you are confident that the old screw-laden chaise will change the high-altitude echelons above the point, like seeds, with the ease of a fighter. Your perceptions are also far from reality due to the fact that you also have no idea about the form of the side's maneuver on a combat landing course and what the crew should undertake for this. Maximum, like the boys playing airplanes.
                  And so, for the outlook - the nature of the remains of a crashed board that fell from high, medium and low altitudes is also very different. What is left on the ground from Ana is not strong and pulls on the average, I generally keep quiet about the big ones.
                  So, dear, who is talking nonsense in this topic is definitely not for you to determine.
                  Do not meddle with the incomprehensible, shove here with impudence - it looks to put it mildly ... On the topic of aviation, do not mutually chat with you for pleasure (not about this article, in any case), neither be sad, nor learn new nuances for yourself, not interesting, do you understand? You can ask here, but not argue. Already in retirement, while working in the direct management of the regional airport, I heard one of our former customs officers say: "After working for you for a whole year, I finally began to know everything about aviation." After the voice acting. Of this presumptuous "hypothesis" among a multitude of people, only people who had devoted more than one decade to it (not counting education) laughed cheerfully.
                  So if you are interested in something - ask, no one will laugh, there are no "not smart" questions, there are stupid statements. wink
                  1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 16 June 2021 12: 41
                    -2
                    Quote: akarfoxhound
                    You initially cited the topic of the An aircraft shot down on the BV as an example, not me. I just corrected you that the example is not correct, the fact that you did not join the order of your own dialogue is not my headache.

                    I brought up the topic of the An-26 shot down on July 14, according to Ukraine, at an altitude of 6300. What does the An30 downed from MANPADS have to do with it, only you know.
                    Let's write it off to your age.

                    Quote: akarfoxhound
                    What the 26th was doing at that moment - it was the representatives of the respected UPF of Ukraine who indicated the task and the shooting down of the board with a specific place.
                    And yet, flight crews rarely watch modern films about aviation without shuddering. on the basis of these "masterpieces" outside people like you are confident that the old screw-laden chaise will change the high-altitude echelons above the point, like seeds, with the ease of a fighter. Your perceptions are also far from reality due to the fact that you also have no idea about the form of the side's maneuver on a combat landing course and what the crew should undertake for this. Maximum, like the boys playing airplanes.

                    Is Russian a native language for you? Some kind of stream of consciousness.
                    Judging by the place of the fall (in the territory controlled by the militia), they did not shoot down over the "checkpoints". And where did the topic about the checkpoint come from? There, entire areas were controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

                    Quote: akarfoxhound
                    And so, for the outlook - the nature of the remains of a crashed board that fell from high, medium and low altitudes is also very different. What is left on the ground from Ana is not strong and pulls on the average, I generally keep quiet about the big ones.

                    As well as from a bunch of others, in addition to height, factors. Well, then the Boeing fell from a low altitude, there were large, not losing shape, debris.

                    Quote: akarfoxhound
                    So if you are interested in something - ask, no one will laugh, there are no "not smart" questions, there are stupid statements.

                    OK. How did it happen that the Russian Federation spread the NOT, that from 00:00 on July 17, 2014, it imposed a ban on flights below fl550 in areas bordering the ATO, but continued to accept fl330-350 aircraft from the territory of Ukraine?
        2. Dear sofa expert. 13 June 2021 11: 24
          +2
          If you deign to think a little, you will probably guess that the beech cannot be hung under the Su25 and that the late pilot Voloshin hardly worked as an operator of the Buk air defense missile system in his free time. Therefore, this pilot was definitely not involved in the downing of Boeing by Buk.

          He could easily have been involved. There is a version that the airliner was shot down by an Israeli air-to-air Python missile, the launch was carried out by an upgraded Su-25, which was acquired by Ukraine in Georgia.

          https://i-korotchenko.livejournal.com/1111278.html

          And the nature of the damage to the Malaysian Boeing confirms that the plane was shot down with a much less powerful weapon than the missile from the Buk.
          There are too few holes (about 360) from the Buk's 8000 submunitions.

          There are many other factors that speak against Buk, but you are not interested in the truth, is it?)
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 13 June 2021 15: 02
            -2
            Oh yes, the worldwide w-mosson conspiracy. In which Almaz-Antey and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation participate
            https://m.gazeta.ru/army/2016/09/26/10216121.shtml

            The specialist stressed that the Ust-Donetsk radar also did not record any other aircraft, except for two civilian aircraft, to the east of Boeing in the last moments of its flight.

            Or is the Su25 converted into stealth by Georgian craftsmen?
  • Alsur Offline Alsur
    Alsur (Alexey) 11 June 2021 23: 37
    +3
    Quote: Sergey Latyshev
    ha .. ha. Pilot Voloshin ...
    Our media have already buried 2 pilots and 2 dispatchers. Maybe more, but I met on the occasion of two or two.

    And in Russian !!! state !!! news agency of the federal level !!!!, and in others, the news continues to lie "The militias of the proclaimed DPR shot down the An-26 aircraft of the Ukrainian Air Force"
    and before that they shot down the 14th ... also An-26.

    It seems that they pounded about 15 different all kinds of ukrov, and suddenly, once, and how it cut off ...

    What does the presence of reports in the media say, in your opinion, it proves something. It is true that earlier in the media there were reports of the shooting down of the AN-26, when the Boeing was shot down, there were also reports that another AN was shot down. Do you remember when there were fires in Russia, someone called and reported on mountains of corpses. Then they even found out that in some cases they were "pranks" on blood from Ukraine. Therefore, what prevented such information from being launched is special. services of Ukraine, USA. And then she was picked up by the media. Once again, this might prove something.
  • alexey alexeyev_2 (Alexey Alekseev) 12 June 2021 07: 17
    +1
    Shyurt Poberi .. I am interested in one question. The passage corridor of such a barn usually passes at an altitude of at least 10 km. What dog was it reduced to seven km. This is the ceiling for Yak-40 aircraft. What the dispatcher who gave the order for such a decrease says. I am very worried about his health. His dispatcher from Dnipropetrovsk-Ukrainians led him. Before entering the zone of responsibility of the Rostov Department of Internal Affairs there was at least 30 minutes of flight. And with this supposedly Kursk beech is not all clear. How he materialized there. If he was transported on a trailer, surely tens of thousands of video recorders recorded him. Where is all this. On the train, this is such a crap. Considering that Russian trains still go through the territory of Ukraine. So if the judges have at least a drop of conscience left to send the case for further investigation request
    1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 12 June 2021 10: 56
      -5
      Quote: Aleksey Alekseev_2
      .. I am interested in one question. The passage corridor of such a barn usually passes at an altitude of at least 10 km. What kind of dog it was reduced to seven km.

      So the plane was flying at FL330 (10 meters).

      Quote: Aleksey Alekseev_2
      This is the ceiling for Yak-40 aircraft.

      What does the Yak-40 have to do with it?

      Quote: Aleksey Alekseev_2
      What does the dispatcher say who gave the order for such a reduction? I am very worried about his health.

      Nothing to say, since he did not give the command to descend, he offered to climb to FL350 (10 meters), but the crew refused.

      Quote: Aleksey Alekseev_2
      And with this supposedly Kursk beech, not everything is clear. How it materialized there. If it was transported on a trailer, it was probably recorded by thousands of tens of thousands of DVRs. Where is all this.

      1. alexey alexeyev_2 (Alexey Alekseev) 13 June 2021 06: 40
        +1
        V made me laugh. As one who served in the Soviet Army. I served in the GSVG. Remember this group of troops? before each annual check, we painted our BM. Mercilessly, everything related to the definition of their performance characteristics was painted over. Well, the type of centering and other crap. And to which battalion or unit they belong ... well, tse vzhemlya vaasche .. The osobist not in vain ate his bread. And the question about the change in altitude did not arise from me, but from my wife. Until her retirement, she worked as a forecaster for the AMSG at the first class airport. Starting with an ordinary weather forecaster and ending with the head of the AMSG. And I am familiar with the aviation kitchen firsthand. A pilot cannot arbitrarily change either the corridor or the altitude. All the controller's commands are carried out rigorously. In my memory, the pilots did not execute the controller's command only once. Above Lake Constance. Remember, how much I am not interested in this topic, I have never met such an abbreviation. ICAO. Have you heard this? They are silent as they typed vodka. Only Dutch investigators are heard.
        1. Bakht Offline Bakht
          Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 13 June 2021 13: 33
          +2
          As far as is known, the pilots followed the instructions of the controller over Lake Constance.
          1. alexey alexeyev_2 (Alexey Alekseev) 13 June 2021 16: 58
            +1
            As far as I know, the dispatcher suggested that they trust the automation. On machines of this class there is equipment for separating planes. It also stood on Tupolev. But the American did not intervene in the control. His automatics began to divorce and the Tupolev pilot began to experiment with altitude. general outline
            1. Bakht Offline Bakht
              Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 13 June 2021 18: 43
              +3
              A bit wrong. The disaster is described in full detail.
              Boeing began to decline on the warning system. The Russian plane also began to descend, although the system suggested starting a climb. Plus, the dispatcher confused the right and left sides. According to all ICAO rules, the pilot MUST follow the instructions of the controller, since he does not see the whole picture. The Russian pilot followed the dispatcher's commands accurately, despite the collision warning system signal.

              21:34:42 TCAS TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC.
              21:34:47 BTC 2937 controller ... descend, flight level ... 350, speed up, I have a crossover board.
              21:34:52 ВТС 2937 We are going down.
              21:34:54 DHX 611 (TCAS) DESCEND, DESCEND.
              21:34:57 BTC 2937 (TCAS) CLIMB, CLIMB!
              21:34:58 BTC 2937 Climb, he says!
              21:35:00 BTC 2937 He brings us down.
              21:35:02 Dispatcher BTC 2937, descend FL 350, accelerate descent.
              21:35:07 BTC 2937 Accelerating the descent to echelon 350, BTC 2937.
              21:35:12 Dispatcher Yes, we have on board, you have two hours, now at 360.
              21:35:13 DHX 611 (TCAS) DESCEND, DESCEND.
              21:35:19,3 DHX 611 611, TCAS-descend.
              21:35:21 BTC 2937 (swearing), where is he?
              21:35: 23,5 BTC 2937 (TCAS) INCREASE CLIMB, INCREASE CLIMB!
              21: 35: 27,3 BTS 2937 Climb, he speaks!
              21:35: 29,8 DHX 611 (swearing).
              21:35: 31,8 BTC 2937 (swearing).
              21:35:32 Sound of impact.
        2. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
          Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 13 June 2021 18: 30
          -4
          Quote: Aleksey Alekseev_2
          V made me laugh. As one who served in the Soviet Army. I served in the GSVG. Remember this group of troops? before each annual check, we painted our BM. Mercilessly, everything related to the definition of their performance characteristics was painted over. Well, the type of centering and other crap. And to which battalion or unit they belong ... well, tse vzhemlya vaasche .. The osobist did not eat his bread for nothing.



          At the exercises in laziness, a technician with tactical numbers. Think it's fake? Or is the specialist malnourished?

          Quote: Aleksey Alekseev_2
          And the question about the change in altitude did not arise from me, but from my wife. Until her retirement, she worked as a forecaster for the AMSG at the first class airport. Starting with an ordinary weather forecaster and ending with the head of the AMSG. And I am familiar with the aviation kitchen firsthand. A pilot cannot arbitrarily change either the corridor or the altitude. All the controller's commands are carried out rigorously. In my memory, the pilots did not execute the controller's command only once.

          There is a transcript of the dispatcher's conversations with MH17. Take an interest, there is also about the change in height.

          Quote: Aleksey Alekseev_2
          In my memory, the pilots did not execute the dispatcher's command only once. Above Lake Constance, remember?

          As far as I understand, the crew just obeyed the dispatcher's instructions, ignoring the instrument commands to gain altitude.

          Quote: Aleksey Alekseev_2
          That's how much I am not interested in this topic, I have never met such an abbreviation. ICAO. Have you heard this? They are silent as they put vodka in their mouth. Only Dutch investigators are heard.

          And what, ICAO should and can conduct investigations?
          https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/ICAO-Welcomes-MH17-Accident-Investigation-Final-Report.aspx
  • ken Offline ken
    ken (pecheneg) 12 June 2021 11: 25
    -1
    Half-truth is the same lie. As for the satellite images of the launch. It is clear to the child that providing the original photographs to the general public exposes the technical parameters of the satellite. Therefore, the court was given a description and only the prosecutor compared it with the original. Of course it could be a fake photo, but why not write about it directly.
  • akarfoxhound Offline akarfoxhound
    akarfoxhound 12 June 2021 12: 16
    +1
    And if the Bovarian court in February 1943 issued a decision "on the criminal actions of the Red Army" against the Wehrmacht in Stalingrad - would we also need to worry and be outraged for the political engagement of the Hitlerite European Union?
    Dogs bark, the caravan goes
  • The comment was deleted.
  • olpin51 Offline olpin51
    olpin51 (Oleg Pinegin) 12 June 2021 12: 49
    +1
    Technical expert Yuri Antipov expressed the most plausible version of the terrorist attack (explosion inside), which fully fits the published facts. This correlates very logically with the political situation that was at that time.
  • Sergey-54 Offline Sergey-54
    Sergey-54 (Sergei) 12 June 2021 23: 01
    -1
    So the Ukrainians did not shoot down.
  • Nikola Lavigne Offline Nikola Lavigne
    Nikola Lavigne (Sergey Nikolaev) 13 June 2021 11: 22
    0
    It is obvious to any sane adult person that the killer of the liner is the neo-fascist Ukrainian lads ... Glory to Russia! Death to the fascists!
  • Angry brahmana Offline Angry brahmana
    Angry brahmana (Angry brahmana) 13 June 2021 16: 15
    0
    I don’t know about you, but when I read Dutch investigators, I immediately remember, newbie, English scientists, super proof of 6 !!! cadres
  • Anna Tim Offline Anna Tim
    Anna Tim (Anna) 21 June 2021 17: 29
    0
    Ukrainian idiots, the military wanted to shoot down the Russian side with the President (he flew honoring at the same time), but they took too much vodka on their chest, they saw the wrong stars in the sky.