Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by 82_28 » Sat Jul 19, 2014 5:02 am
by Occult Means Hidden » Sat Jul 19, 2014 5:11 am
8bitagent » Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:27 am wrote:This plane used for MH17 had its first flight 17 years ago on July 17, 1997, and now is apparently shot down on July 17, 2014.
http://copycateffect.blogspot.com/2014/07/MH17.html
http://www.planespotters.net/Production ... rlines.php
MH17
Construction Number (MSN) 28411
Line Number 84
Aircraft Type Boeing 777-2H6(ER)
First Flight 17. Jul 1997
Age 17 Years
Airframe Status Written Off[/b]
Again I dont mean to get into numerology/syncs...but man....there's that theory that when shit starts to get weird, syncs and numerology manifest in increasing frequency
by 8bitagent » Sat Jul 19, 2014 6:26 am
by seemslikeadream » Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:12 am
Banks Rockets and London
July 16, 2014G
The Event Monitor suggests that between today and the 28th of July we should expect the Ukraine to be in the news.
Conflict list
Ukraine-Crimea/Russia
Israel – Palestinians/Gaza
Syria – ISIS
Iraq – ISIS
A few Iranian troops in Iraq to fight ISIS
Turkey took Iraqi oilfields
Rocket attack on a Libyan airport
Watch Yemen
The General overview of the tone of the language has become ‘darker’ over that past months.
Yet another prediction is proven to be true.
July 17, 2014G
Nostracodeus – Proudly holding down the 11,090,699th popularity position on the web. Yes, we’ve been bad mouthed into the basement where we continue to reveal the near future to those who have hung in with us. We thank you for your loyalty. Many people have declared that we cannot look into the future, but somehow . . . . yesterday we told you that between (July 16th) and the 28th of July we should expect the Ukraine to be in the news. Today the Russians have shot down a Ukrainian fighter jet. This is a serious event that may escalate. There will be more violence there soon. Golly Batman, there might be more than the rumoured ‘only frequency analysis’ going on with Nostacodeus. Winking smile
An hour ago (8:00 am MDT), we told you there would be more about Ukraine: A Boeing 777 travelling from Amsterdam to Malaysia has crashed in Ukraine. (9:18am MDT) Speculation is that Russian rebels shot it down .
Expect more over the next few days
by JackRiddler » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:21 am
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5912699/7- ... ian-planes
Perhaps the strangest precedent for the Malaysian Airlines crash in Ukraine is a shoot-down in 2001 caused by military forces in … Ukraine. On October 4, 2001, 64 Siberia Airlines passengers and 12 crew members onboard a Soviet-made Tupolev Tu-154 en route from Novosibirsk to Tel Aviv were killed when the plane was shot down over the Black Sea by a Ukrainian missile.
It took a while for Ukraine to admit that was what had happened, but after pressure from Russian investigators, Ukraine's then-president, Leonid Kuchma, accepted that the Ukrainian military was at fault. The day of the shoot-down, the Ukrainian military was conducting a massive military exercise which involved shooting 23 missiles at drones. "Experts say that the radar-guided S-200, among the farthest-flying and most capable antiaircraft missile in the arsenal of former Soviet nations, simply locked onto the Russian airliner after it raced past the destroyed drone some 20 miles off the Crimean coast," the New York Times' Michael Wines reported.
Kuchma accepted the resignation of his Minister of Defense, Oleksandr Kuzmuk, following the admission that the military was at fault. From 2003 to 2005, Ukraine paid $15.6 million to families of victims following a deal with the government of Israel.
So, in summary, we have this list of candidates:
1) A deliberate or mistaken Russian attack: superlatively unlikely
2) A mistaken Ukrainian attack: most unlikely
3) A deliberate Ukrainian attack: most likely
4) A mistaken Novorussian attack: possible
5) A deliberate Novorussian attack: most unlikely
I don't know about you, but to me #3 is the one blinking red.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/806703- ... in-moscow/
Denis Pushilin, Ukraine Rebel Leader, Resigns; Now in Moscow
By Jack Phillips, Epoch Times | July 18, 2014
Denis Pushilin, a rebel leader in the restive Donetsk region in Ukraine, resigned from his post on Friday night.
“Dennis is now in Moscow. He sent a letter addressed to me with a request for resignation from his post at his own request. In the council session, the question was put to the vote. MPs supported Pushilin’s resign,” vice-speaker Vladimir Makovich told Interfax Russia.
Pushilin was described as “chairman” of the Donetsk “Supreme Council.” He’s also been described as the leader of the insurgent, self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic.
The reasons for his departure are unclear.
The departure comes just after he said that his group is willing to let the international community in to look at the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, which crashed in the area on Thursday.
“We are ready to let the international commission into our territory to look into the tragedy more thoroughly and properly,” he said, according to the Washington Post.”This is in our interests, as we do not feel guilty.”
Russia slams US for implicating rebels in jet crash
MOSCOW, July 19:
Russia on Saturday launched a blistering attack against Washington after United States President Barack Obama said that a missile fired from territory controlled by Moscow-backed rebels downed the Malaysian Airlines flight over Ukraine.
In his most extensive comments on the tragedy that killed 298 people aboard MH17 flight en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, Obama said on Friday that “evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile that was launched from an area that is controlled by Russian-backed separatists inside of Ukraine”.
On Saturday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the US administration sought to pin the blame on separatists and Russia without waiting for the results of an investigation.
“The statements of representatives of the US administration are evidence of a deep political aberration of Washington’s perception of what is going on in Ukraine,” he told Russian news agencies.
“At least, that is how the relevant statements can be interpreted,” the foreign ministry quoted him as saying.
“Despite an obvious and indisputable nature of the arguments provided by rebels and Moscow, the US administration is pushing its own agenda,” he said.
Ryabkov reiterated accusations that Washington had triggered tensions in the ex-Soviet country by meddling in its domestic affairs and provoking an uprising that ousted Moscow-backed president Viktor Yanukovych in February.
“In the geopolitical frenzy and attempts to apply methods of social and political engineering everywhere, the United States acts like a bad surgeon: to cut deeper at first, and then stitch up sloppily so that it would hurt for a long time.”
Deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin added: “The White House clearly established who’s guilty even before the investigation of the Boeing catastrophe,” he said on Twitter.
Russian mass-circulation daily Moskovsky Komsomolets on Saturday quoted military analyst Viktor Murakhovsky as saying that the pro-Moscow rebels were unlikely to have the experience and technical capabilities to operate the sophisticated Buk missile system that is thought to have been used to shoot down the Malaysia flight.
And the Kommersant broadsheet said that the damage sustained by MH17 was similar to that suffered by a Russian Tu-154 passenger plane that was shot down by Ukrainian armed forces during military exercises in 2001, killing 78 people on board
Read more: http://www.therakyatpost.com/world/2014 ... jet-crash/
by elfismiles » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:59 am
JackRiddler » 19 Jul 2014 14:21 wrote:Interesting. I'd forgotten the following case from Oct. 2001, in which a passenger plane was shot down accidentally by the Ukrainian military during military exercises. This means the militaries of Russia, Ukraine and the U.S. have all at times shot down passenger planes by accident.
A current article on "7 times militaries have shot down civilian planes" includes the 2001 incident. If you follow the link, you can also read about how the militaries of Israel, Bulgaria, and China have all hit planes. Presumably NATO did so in Italy in 1980.
.
JackRiddler » 17 Jul 2014 20:29 wrote:.
There is also no particular reason so far to believe in a Western, U.S., globalist or Demon Capstone "Them" behind this incident, as some people here are conditioned to think predictably. That this can be an "Archduke Ferdinand" moment is obvious, and it's only a couple of weeks after the 100th anniversary.
Yesterday the BRICS announced their initiative to create an alternative to World Bank and IMF. The U.S. news was instead full of an inexplicable escalation in the sanctions against the Russian government for its supposed material support of the Donetsk Republic. This obviously makes for interesting timing.
<snip>
PS - Come on, you really think there is a Them who do this just to bother conspiracy theorists? Like there's a special need to do that?
.
In Russian history, let us recall these moments:
On July 17, 1762, Catherine II becomes the Tsar of Russia upon the murder of Peter III of Russia.
On July 17, 1918, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and his immediate family and retainers are murdered by Bolshevik Chekists at the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg, Russia.
http://copycateffect.blogspot.com/2014/07/MH17.html
by seemslikeadream » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:11 am
by MayDay » Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:44 am
by 8bitagent » Sun Jul 20, 2014 3:59 am
MayDay » Sun Jul 20, 2014 1:44 am wrote:Recently, in the Greenwald thread, I mentioned that I wouldn't be surprised if war followed a mid-july announcement by the brics nations of a new global banking system outside of the control of the US. I personally feel that the US/ Western financial elite are behind this. I also predict that the shit hasn't even begun to hit the fan. Good luck everyone. I hope this doesn't turn out as bad as it looks.
The Christine Lagarde magic 7 video is creepy as hell. Wish I'd known of it before I posted my own comments about the seven connection.
by 82_28 » Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:07 am
by coffin_dodger » Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:58 am
by seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 20, 2014 9:14 am
Clintons Reinstigated the Cold War with Russia
by John V. Walsh / July 18th, 2014
Ever more antiwar voices are clamoring for a Stop Hillary Clinton movement in the Democratic primaries – and with very good reason. There are many alarming, indeed frightening, indictments of her tenures as one-half president in the 90s and then as Senator and Secretary of State. Her estranged relationship with truth, her callousness toward human life and her love for every imperial military adventure and regime change scheme are beyond worrisome. They are downright scary.
But the most damning indictment yet of the Clintons on the world stage comes in the book Superpower Illusions by former Ambassador to the USSR, Jack Matlock. The book came out way back in 2009, but it is worth examining again as we confront the possibility of a return to Clintonism. And Matlock is a man who knows whereof he speaks. Wikipedia gives a summary of his career thus:
Jack Foust Matlock, Jr. (born October 1, 1929) is a former American ambassador, career Foreign Service Officer, a teacher, a historian, and a linguist. He was a specialist in Soviet affairs during some of the most tumultuous years of the Cold War, and served as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991.
After (graduate) studies at Columbia University…, (Matlock) entered the Foreign Service in 1956. His 35 year career encompassed much of the Cold War … His first assignment to Moscow was in 1961, and it was from the embassy there that he experienced the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, helping to translate diplomatic messages between the leaders.
At the beginning of détente, he was Director of Soviet Affairs in the State Department, ..(attended) all but one of the U.S. – Soviet summits held in the 20 year period 1972-91. Matlock was back in Moscow in 1974, serving in the number two position in the embassy for four years (including time under President Jimmy Carter, jw). Matlock was assigned to Moscow again in 1981 as acting ambassador during the first part of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Reagan appointed him as ambassador to Czechoslovakia and later asked him to return to Washington in 1983 to work at the National Security Council, with the assignment to develop a negotiating strategy to end the arms race. When Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union in 1985, arms negotiations and summit meetings resumed. Matlock was appointed ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1987 and saw the last years of the Soviet Union before he retired from the Foreign Service in 1991.
There is no doubt that Matlock knew what was going on during this period, and he saw considerable promise for a peaceful, secure future at the end of the Bush I presidency. So when he forcefully condemns the Clintons for a disastrous turn in U.S. policy, he is a voice that must be heeded. The original sin of the era stains the Clintons, and they spawned their own inevitable Cain in the form of W.
Being a diplomat, Mattlock speaks diplomatically of the colossal, damaging shift in U.S. -Russia relations under the Clintons who reversed the approach of Reagan and Bush I. He gets to the point right away in the preface to Superpower Illusions: “The Clinton administration’s decision to expand NATO to the East rather than draw Russia into a cooperative arrangement to ensure European security undermined the prospects of democracy in Russia, made it more difficult to keep peace in the Balkans and slowed the process of nuclear disarmament started by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev.”
That is a severely damaging condemnation of the Clintons, one of historic dimensions, as we see now as events unfold in Ukraine, with one of Hillary’s protégés, her State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, very much in charge of the U.S. intervention there. Matlock was so appalled by the Clintons that he changed his political affiliation: “After I retired from the Foreign Service, I left the Democratic Party early in the Clinton presidency. I felt that President Clinton… lacked both the vision and the competence to take advantage of the opportunity the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union provided. That opportunity was nothing less than a chance to create a world in which security tasks could be shared, weapons of mass destruction reduced rapidly and barriers to nuclear proliferation raised.”
Matlock is appalled that President Clinton lacked both the vision and the competence to proceed on a peaceful task. What else is there? Of course he should have said Presidents Clinton since, as Bill always reminded us, he and Hillary shared the task – “two for one,” as he put it, or Billary or Hillbillary as the alternative media labels the duo.
Matlock does not let Bush II off the hook. He is no apologist for the GOP hawks. He sees “W” as continuing and deepening the folly of the Clintons, writing: “In its sixteen years under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, America went from being the most admired country on the planet in many opinion polls to the most feared….The majority of the people in many countries considered the United States the most dangerous country in the world. Nobody likes a bully…”
If anyone comes across as a hectoring bully in her public statements, it is surely Hillary. There are plenty of pundits, mostly of the Democrat or “progressive” persuasion, out there who are all too willing to blame Bush II for all this – even unto FOX’s Megyn Kelly. But in fact the latest bad turn in American imperialist policies began with the Clintons.
Matlock also reminds us that it was the Clintons who began NATO’s war on the Balkans, the precedent for other “humanitarian” interventions, including Libya and Syria. This too was a sharp break with Reagan-Bush I as Matlock notes: “Bush and Baker also injected caution in extending American involvement in disputes that were not directly relevant to American security. As tensions rose among Yugoslavia’s constituent republics, they tried to keep the United States aloof and leave the primary responsibility to America’s European allies. Regarding the growing conflict in Yugoslavia, Baker was quoted as saying, ‘We don’t have a dog in that fight.’”
But there is no fight for which Hillary lacks a dog, and almost always it is a dog of war. The war in the Balkans so engaged her that she declared that she came under fire while visiting there to cheer on the effort. The claim of bullets whizzing by her head turned out to be little more than another in the fabric of mistruths woven by this “congenital liar,” as the late William Safire, a master and connoisseur of the trade of deception himself, labeled her.
On locations 3236 to 6276 of the Kindle edition of Superpower Illusions, Matlock makes his case against the Clintons. Here are some of his words:
For all of its initial talk about a ‘partnership for reform,’ the Clinton administration dealt with Russia as if it no longer counted, even in European politics. Two decisions in particular turned Russian public opinion during the years of the Clinton administration from strongly pro-American to vigorous opposition to American policies abroad. The first was the decision to extend the NATO military structure into countries that had previously been members of the Warsaw Pact – something Gorbachev had understood would not happen if he allowed a united Germany to remain in NATO. The second was the decision to bomb Serbia without authorization from the United Nations Security Council. (A similar contempt for the UN showed up when Obama and Hillary won approval for a no fly zone over Gaddafi’s Libya to the UN Security Council in 2011 by getting China and Russia not to veto it – and then turned it into a bombing campaign, in violation of promises to Russia and China, something Putin labeled as the last straw in terms of trusting the U.S. — jw)
There was no need to expand NATO to ensure the security of the newly independent countries of Eastern Europe. There were other ways those countries could have been reassured and protected without seeming to re-divide Europe to Russia’s disadvantage. As for the bombing of Serbia (another favorite project of Hillary’s — jw), if NATO had not been enlarged in the manner that occurred, Russia’s government would been much more willing to put pressure on Slobodan Milosevic to come to terms with the Kosovars and – if unsuccessful in this effort – more willing to vote in the United Nations to authorize military intervention…. Clinton’s actions severely damaged the credibility of democratic leaders in Russia who appealed for a more considerate attitude toward Russian national interests.
Combined with claiming “victory” in the Cold War (something the Clintons did but Reagan had not done! — jw) expanding NATO suggested to the Russian public that throwing off communism and breaking up the Soviet Union had probably been a bad idea. Instead of getting credit for voluntarily joining the West, they were being treated as if they had been defeated and were not worthy to be allies.
The Clinton administration was deaf to these appeals as well as those of George Kennan the author of the successful containment policy, who warned that enlarging NATO in the proposed manner would be the ‘most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.’ He then explained why: ‘Such a decision may be expected to … restore the atmosphere of the cold war in East-West relations and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking. And last but not least it may make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to secure the Russian Duma’s ratification of the START II agreement and to achieve further reductions of nuclear weapons.
Thus, the Clintons turned the United States in a very confrontational direction, something that is a hallmark of Hillary’s views to this day. Again Matlock:
The Clinton administration, without any provocation, in effect repeated a fundamental mistake made at Versailles in 1919. … The Clinton administration practically ensured that … Russia would lose its incentive to reduce nuclear weapons…. My point is that the United States should have made every effort to bring the European states, West and East, and including Russia into a new security arrangement…
Matlock concludes this section: “The Clinton administration’s action in bombing Serbia without U.N. approval not only enraged Russia and made close cooperation on nuclear issues more difficult, but it also sent a message to other countries with policies or practices that met American disapproval: Better get nuclear weapons as fast as you can! Otherwise, you can become a target for the U.S. Air Force.”
I would disagree with one point Matlock makes. He feels that the Clintons made the mistakes they did out of domestic political concerns, specifically to get the votes of Poles and others of Eastern European extraction who harbored considerable resentment against the Soviet Union and hence Russia. But the Clintons pursued these policies deep into his second administration right up to the 2000 election of GWB.
Moreover, Hillary espoused these policies consistently in her 2008 primary battle with Obama who defeated her, largely by presenting himself in contrast to her as the candidate of Peace. And she continued to espouse these hawkish policies right up to last week where she told the Wall Street Journal that she will be a more warlike president than Obama, saying that she would have sent more arms to the “moderate” Syrian rebels long ago – in contrast to Obama. (Of course the “moderate” Syrian rebels have the same base in reality as the Seven Dwarfs. They are a fairy tale.)
From watching the Clintons in the White House for eight years and from Hillary’s hawkish record as Senator and Secretary of State, there can be little doubt that her views are heartfelt. She remains a lethal admixture of neocon and humanitarian imperialist views, an American Exceptionalist, giddy with American military power, arrogantly confident that “our values” are universal and determined that no other power, however peaceful, will achieve the military or economic might to stand up to the U.S. As China rises, peacefully so far, consistent with its history and culture, and as Russia and Iran gain strength, her views could plunge us into a World War. She is far too shallow, arrogant and bellicose to be President at a time when new thinking and considerable wisdom is needed. The Clintons have already done quite enough damage to humanity. Let us not permit them to do more.
by JackRiddler » Sun Jul 20, 2014 12:54 pm
United States Assessment of the Downing of Flight MH17 and its Aftermath
Source: U.S. Embassy in Kyiv
We assess that Flight MH17 was likely downed by a SA-11 surface-to-air missile from separatist-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine. We base this judgment on several factors.
Over the past month, we have detected an increasing amount of heavy weaponry to separatist fighters crossing the border from Russia into Ukraine. Last weekend, Russia sent a convoy of military equipment with up to 150 vehicles including tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, and multiple rocket launchers to the separatist. We also have information indicating that Russia is providing training to separatist fighters at a facility in southwest Russia, and this effort included training on air defense systems.
Pro-Russian separatist fighters have demonstrated proficiency with surface-to-air missile systems and have downed more than a dozen aircraft over the past few months, including two large transport aircraft.
At the time that flight MH17 dropped out of contact, we detected a surface-to-air missile (SAM) launch from a separatist-controlled area in southeastern Ukraine. We believe this missile was an SA-11.
Intercepts of separatist communications posted on YouTube by the Ukrainian government indicate the separatists were in possession of a SA-11 system as early as Monday July 14th. In the intercepts, the separatists made repeated references to having and repositioning Buk (SA-11) systems.
Social media postings on Thursday show an SA-11 system traveling through the separatist-controlled towns of Torez and Snizhne, near the crash site and assessed location of the SAM launch. From this location, the SA-11 has the range and altitude capability to have shot down flight MH17.
Ukraine also operates SA-11 systems, but we are confident no Ukrainian air defense systems were within range of the crash. Ukrainian forces have also not fired a single surface-to-air missile during the conflict, despite often complaining about violations of their airspace by Russian military aircraft.
Shortly after the crash, separatists – including the self-proclaimed “Defense Minister” of the Donetsk People’s Republic Igor Strelkov – claimed responsibility for shooting down a military transport plane on social media.
In an intercepted conversation that has been widely posted on the internet, a known-separatist leader tells another person that a separatist faction downed the aircraft. After it became evident that the plane was a civilian airliner, separatists deleted social media posts boasting about shooting down a plane and possessing a Buk (SA-11) SAM system.
Audio data provided to the press by the Ukrainian security service was evaluated by Intelligence Community analysts who confirmed these were authentic conversations between known separatist leaders, based on comparing the Ukraine-released internet audio to recordings of known separatists.
Video posted on social media yesterday show an SA-11 on a transporter traveling through the Krasnodon are back to Russia. The video indicated the system was missing at least one missile, suggesting it had conducted a launch.
Events on the ground at the crash site clearly demonstrate that separatists are in full control of the area.
Read more: http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements ... 92014.html
http://rt.com/news/173976-mh17-crash-questions-ukraine/
Malaysia MH17 crash: 10 questions Russia wants Ukraine to answer
Published time: July 18, 2014 20:59
Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov (A still image from RT video)
Some Western states and Kiev rushed to find Russian involvement in the MH17 crash having no evidence to back their claims, Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister told RT. He invited Ukraine to answer 10 questions to prove their commitment to an impartial probe.
Speaking to RT, Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov has criticized Western countries for jumping to conclusions just “24 hours after the crash” while there is no evidence.
“They try to show to the whole world that we are responsible for the crash. It is very strange that without any evidence my colleagues from western media would like to find somebody who is responsible for the crash,” Antonov said. “It seems to me that this is part of information warfare which has been started against the Russian Federation and armed forces.”
READ MORE: Unverified tape released by Kiev presented as ‘proof’ E. Ukraine militia downed MH17
Instead of using the incident as the pretext for groundlessly blaming one of the sides, the catastrophe over Ukrainian sky should be used as a possibility to restart cooperation to “prevent such tragedies in the future.”
“As for me, I don’t want to use this opportunity to blame anybody. I would just like to raise few questions for my colleagues from the armed forces of Ukraine,” Antonov said. “I hope they try to answer the questions, it will be a good opportunity for us to realize where we are, whether there is a possibility for us to restart cooperation and to find who is really responsible for the tragedy.”
“Answers for these questions could help us find an opportunity to prevent such tragedies in the future,” the Deputy Defense Minister said.
TEN QUESTIONS FOR THE UKRAINIAN AUTHORITIES
1. Immediately after the tragedy, the Ukrainian authorities, naturally, blamed it on the self-defense forces. What are these accusations based on?
2. Can Kiev explain in detail how it uses Buk missile launchers in the conflict zone? And why were these systems deployed there in the first place, seeing as the self-defense forces don’t have any planes?
3. Why are the Ukrainian authorities not doing anything to set up an international commission? When will such a commission begin its work?
4. Would the Ukrainian Armed Forces be willing to let international investigators see the inventory of their air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, including those used in SAM launchers?
5. Will the international commission have access to tracking data from reliable sources regarding the movements of Ukrainian warplanes on the day of the tragedy?
6. Why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers allow the plane to deviate from the regular route to the north, towards “the anti-terrorist operation zone”?
7. Why was airspace over the warzone not closed for civilian flights, especially since the area was not entirely covered by radar navigation systems?
8. How can official Kiev comment on reports in the social media, allegedly by a Spanish air traffic controller who works in Ukraine, that there were two Ukrainian military planes flying alongside the Boeing 777 over Ukrainian territory?
9. Why did Ukraine’s Security Service start working with the recordings of communications between Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the Boeing crew and with the data storage systems from Ukrainian radars without waiting for international investigators?
10. What lessons has Ukraine learned from a similar incident in 2001, when a Russian Tu-154 crashed into the Black Sea? Back then, the Ukrainian authorities denied any involvement on the part of Ukraine’s Armed Forces until irrefutable evidence proved official Kiev to be guilty.
by ShinShinKid » Sun Jul 20, 2014 1:37 pm
by MayDay » Sun Jul 20, 2014 1:54 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 154 guests