Tehnocraţi ! Când vă căraţi ?

24 aprilie 2016

BBC (va) spune adevărul: ucrainenii au doborât avionul MH17



Minciuna are picioare scurte. Rezultatul "anchetei" efectuate de guvernul olandez îi acuză indirect pe separatiştii ruşi că ar fi tras cu o rachetă Buk contra unui avion civil. Nicio înregistrare radar nu este prezentată ca probă, bineînţeles. Fiindcă ea ar fi arătat cu totul altceva. Ucraina refuză să desecretizeze convorbirile piloţilor cu turnul de control (ucrainean). Întârzie să apară şi o înregistrare radar rusească, drept contraprobă. Malaiezia nu are deocamdată o poziţie oficială; MH17 aparţinea unei companii malaieziene, Malaysia Airlines, dar cum majoritatea victimelor erau cetăţeni olandezi, Olanda s-a erijat drept principala parte vătămată. Rusia a efectuat un test care contrazice teza folosirii unei rachete Buk. "Şoc", poate doar pentru creduli sau neinformaţi...  whathappenedtoflightmh17.com

 
Sunday Express:

SHOCK CLAIM: Ukrainian fighter jet shot down Malaysia Airlines' MH17



A BBC documentary will air “shocking new allegations” about the downing of Malaysia Airlines plane MH17, including claims it was shot down by a fighter jet and not a ground-to-air missile.

MH-17 crashed over eastern Ukraine killing 298 people

The Boeing 777 exploded over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, killing 298 people.

The official report concluded that the jet, bound for Kuala Lumpur, was downed by a Russian-made Buk missile fired from a Ukraine area under the control of Russian-backed rebels.

However, the programme will present new evidence that a Ukrainian fighter jet may have shot down the aircraft.
Another theory is that a CIA-backed “terrorist operation” planted two bombs on the airliner.
"We heard a bang. At first we saw black smoke and two planes, little ones like silver toys"
Witness Natasha Beronina
Witnesses directly beneath the exploding aircraft report seeing at least one fighter jet.

Natasha Beronina said: “It was summer, harvest time. We heard a bang. At first we saw black smoke and two planes, little ones like silver toys. One flew straight on and the other one turned round when the bang happened and flew back from where it had come.”

German investigative journalist Billy Six interviewed 100 witnesses, seven of whom said they saw a fighter jet.

The fuselage of MH-17 was reconstructed as part of the investigation
 












 
Six said: “One of them even told me how he saw it launch a missile. It was like a small line in the sky going into the clouds. Then he heard the big boom.”

He believes two jets shot it down – one firing a canon from the back into the cockpit to destroy the crew.

Then another fired an air-to-air missile. In the intense propaganda war between Ukraine and Moscow, Russia media reported the name of a pilot they believed was responsible, Captain Vladislav Voloshin, based at a southern Ukraine airfield. In an interview, he denied the allegations made by a mechanic on the base.
 
Captain Vladislav Voloshin denies he was responsible for the crash

He said: “We did not carry out flights on July 17. The mechanic also says that three aircraft went out on a mission and I was the only one to return. But again this actually happened on the 23rd.

“He said that the aircraft was carrying air-to-air missiles. There were no air-to-air missiles. I was carrying air-to-surface weapons for ground targets.”

The most shocking allegations come from private investigator Sergey Sokolov. He deployed more than 100 of his agents to investigate the site and examine evidence.

He said they found no shrapnel from a Buk missile. Sokolov said he was “sold” a phone intercept between two CIA agents that suggests they masterminded the planting two bombs on MH-17.


Private investigator Sergey Sokolovhad over 100 agents at the crash site and examining evidence

The CIA, he claimed, was helped by the Ukrainian secret service. Sokolov said: “The driving force of the operation were CIA agents and the Dutch security service also had a part to play as the bombs were put on the plane in Holland and this couldn’t have been done anywhere else.”

He added “This terrorist act was a pretext for firstly intensifying sanctions on Russia, secondly to show the world that Russia is a barbarian country and thirdly to strengthen the presence of Nato in Europe, particularly Ukraine.”

However, the documentary tells how British investigative blogging site, Bellingcat, supports the official version that a Buk missile was fi red at the aircraft by Russian-backed rebels.

Conspiracy Files: Who Shot Down MH17?, written and produced by Mike Rudin, BBC Two, May 3, 9pm.

Un comentariu :

Riddick spunea...

"He believes two jets shot it down – one firing a canon from the back into the cockpit to destroy the crew."

Ipoteza tragerii cu tunul (de bord, 30 mm) de către un avion ucrainean este plauzibilă. Piloţii Boeingului ar fi sesizat apropierea unei rachete. Aşa, au crezut doar c-ar fi vorba despre avioane care "vin să avertizeze în urma unei neînţelegeri", şi de fapt veneau să le închidă gura, să nu apuce să dea mesaj radio ("Alarmă ! Rachetă trasă contra noastră !"). Desigur, s-au luat măsuri (dispozitiv de colectare în avion a tuburilor trase, proiectile explozive care să se dezintegreze... numai că se văd găurile circulare din cockpit).

Russia: Deputy-Head of Russia's Air Transport Agency calls the report on MH17 'inconsistent' 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In4UrP1MSWo

https://www.youtube.com/user/RuptlyTV/videos


The Conspiracy Files: Who Shot Down MH17?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2016/18/conspiracy-files


BBC docu The Conspiracy Files: Who Shot Down MH17?

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/bbc-docu-the-conspiracy-files-who-shot-down-mh17/


Did a Ukrainian fighter jet shoot down MH17? BBC documentary claims Boeing 777 may have been targeted by another plane 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3556177/Was-MH17-shot-Ukrainian-fighter-jet-BBC-documentary-claims-Boeing-777-targeted-plane.html


Citate din gândirea profundă a europeiştilor RO:

Radu Carp, 2012: "Iar pentru a pune această întrebare în contextul României de azi, dincolo de problema naţională sau cea a păstrării Tradiţiei şi a religiei, nu cumva orice structură federală ar conveni unui stat care, oricum am lua-o, se află şi se va afla la periferia geografică a Europei ? O Românie parte a unui stat federal care să aibă aceeaşi pondere cu orice alt stat membru… ar fi sau nu în interesul naţional ? Ori este cumva în interesul naţional să menţinem aceeaşi elită birocratică necompetitivă care se auto-regenerează tocmai pentru că ne aflăm la periferie şi undele de şoc ale unui model mai eficient de organizare nu mai sunt aproape deloc resimţite ? Suveranitatea pe care unii dintre noi sunt gata să o apere cu preţul vieţii nu este nimic altceva decât un concept determinat istoric, născut pentru a legitima modelul statului centralizat împotriva unor ameninţări externe şi contestări interne".

Postări populare (nu P.P.E. !):