The Hague is preparing a trial under MH17: on the current situation

On the morning of March 9, 2020, the trial conducted by the Hague court in the case of the crash of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 airliner flying MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur should begin in the Schiphol criminal complex. The liner was shot down in the Donetsk region on July 17, 2014. This court has real chances to turn into a “process of the century”, but only on one condition - if, unlike the “investigation” that lasted several years, it will be objective and pass without political engagement. Otherwise, we are just waiting for another section of the show, the directors and directors of which are well known.

Perhaps those who are to sit in The Hague will nevertheless succeed in revealing not only the mechanism of the monstrous provocation of six years ago, but also the scheme of actions of certain countries and structures aimed at putting the blame for the tragedy that killed almost 300 people on the state, he was not at all involved. However, for this they will have to, first of all, break out of the framework imposed from outside and “instructions” aimed at leading the accusation in a strictly predetermined direction.

The fact that the members of the Joint Investigative Group (CCG), which includes representatives of Malaysia, the Netherlands, Ukraine, Australia and Belgium, has so far failed to do so, is completely obvious. Last June, they already announced the names of the suspects in the case: the Russians Igor Girkin (Strelkov), Sergey Dubinsky, Oleg Pulatov and the Ukrainian Leonid Kharchenko, not bothering to back up such grave accusations with irrefutable evidence. Of the same quality were the statements made earlier by them about the “Russian missiles,” supposedly firing their air defense systems and the like.

Representatives of the court in The Hague said they “called on” the suspects to participate in the hearing, but if they refused, they would do well without them. Not the best sign ...

However, as it became known, one person from the above list still agreed to participate in the process. Monique Bunk, the Hague District Court Public Relations Coordinator who made the relevant statement, did not clarify the name or even confirm his direct presence in The Hague. According to her, a certain “private law firm” contacted the court, ready to represent the interests of the defendant. Nothing is known more on this subject.

But a real sensation may be a statement during the hearing of a private detective from Germany, Joseph Resch, who spent several years conducting an independent investigation of the circumstances and causes of the disaster. This person has repeatedly stated that he has some important information about the incident, stubbornly ignored by the international community, up to the specific names of the perpetrators of the death of MN-17. Resh is convinced that without his testimony, the whole process in The Hague would be an absurdity that cannot be taken seriously. At the same time, he also does not intend to personally participate in the conference room, intending to transfer this duty to his trusted assistant.

Numerous interviews with this detective, who published a book about his investigation, suggest that the data that he is ready to publish will not please anyone who has been fanning anti-Russian hysteria around the tragedy all these years.

What can be called before the start of the process points that work completely in favor of Ukraine is, first of all, distrust, which last year expressed to the version put forward by its representatives about the involvement in the Russian catastrophe, Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad. It is also more than strange that the Kiev transfer of the DPR in the course of the exchange of held persons at the end of 2019 by Vladimir Tsemakh, which Kiev at one time tried to present as “the most important witness of Russia's guilt” in this case, if not at all, was accused. It turns out that no "evidence" exists, as well as guilt itself? No less intriguing is the fact that at the end of last year both representatives of Ukraine were suddenly removed from the international investigation group on MH17, and it’s not even clear at whose initiative either the leadership of the SSG or Kiev.

Well, it is entirely possible that justice in the Hague will indeed triumph - contrary to all efforts made to ensure that this does not happen.

Comments

[Pessimist22]

Th something fast, 6 years of investigations of everything and already know everything.

[YOUR]

He wrote about this more than once. Any lieutenant artilleryman or zrvshnik will determine where it came from, build graphics on the holes and determine the launch site of the missile. But for some reason, a respected commission, the wreckage of the plane wasn’t taken away and the bodies of the dead were rushed to relatives and buried without a thorough inspection.

[Mar.Tirah]

Quote: YOUR

He wrote about this more than once.

Why did you write? There are officially published conclusions of the Russian commission. What kind of rocket, where they shot, where they hit, even the approximate number of the rocket was published. But only to no avail. Over the hill, this news was blotted out. Https: //novayagazeta.ru/articles/2015/ 05/05/64063-eto-byl-171-buk-m1-187

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

The data from Almaz-Antey and the RF Ministry of Defense have a serious flaw: Almaz-Antey claims that Boeing was shot down by a missile with a warhead WITHOUT I-beams (that is, not 9N314M), but the RF Ministry of Defense claims that on the rocket from which the part with the number was found, the warhead was 9N314M (with I-beams).

[Mar.Tirah]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

The data from Almaz-Antey and the RF Ministry of Defense have a serious flaw:

We read ATTENTIVELY the conclusions of the engineers!

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

I would be much more grateful if your objection were to the point.

[BARKAS]

In fact, this is a clear cant of the investigation to use the wreckage of another rocket as a material evidence.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

The investigation (at the moment, at least) did not "use it as evidence". It turned to people who could help with the examination of this wreck. But domestic commentators have already used it as material evidence in the form of "look, this provesthat Boeing was shot down by the Ukrainian Armed Forces "(although Almaz-Antey's data says this is impossible).

[Mar.Tirah]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

But domestic commentators have already used it as material evidence in the form "look, this proves that Boeing was shot down by the Armed Forces of Ukraine" (although Almaz-Antey's data say that this is impossible).

Since when has a troll working on the side of the enemy, even though writing in Russian, has become a "domestic commentator" for me? You are my friend, my enemy and you have no fatherland. I am writing to you again, read carefully the conclusions from the link given by me. 1.4. Conclusions on the identification of the missile type
The nature of the damage and the appearance of the striking elements removed from the aircraft structure allow us to identify the most probable type of warhead (9N314M) and the striking elements - the “heavy” fraction in the form of “double tee”, “light-1” and “light-2” fractions in parallelepiped shape.

The presence of these signs makes it possible to determine the type of SAM - 9M38M1, which is the main missile of the Buk-M1 SAM.

It should be noted that for the complete identification of the means of destruction, it is necessary to analyze the chemical composition of the material plots along the edges of the holes in comparison with the chemical composition of the striking elements extracted from various parts of the aircraft. Modeling the process of pointing the 9M38M1 missile to the Boeing MH17 to the point where it was amazed, showed that the intersection of the trajectories of the rocket and the aircraft with the conditions specified in paragraphs 2.3-2.5., is realized only from a limited area - south of the village Zaroschenskoe.

The size of the district is approximately 2,5 km from north to south and up to 3,5 km from west to east. The limitation of the launch area from west to east is due to the meeting conditions - the angle of intersection of the aircraft in the horizontal plane (75-78 degrees) and the maximum pointing errors (up to 2-3 degrees). The limitation of the launch area from north to south is due to the meeting conditions - the angle of intersection of the aircraft in the vertical plane (20-22 degrees), the magnitude of the slant range and the maximum pointing errors (up to 2-3 degrees).

A subsequent assessment of the aircraft covering the fragmentation field in the vertical and horizontal planes confirms that the intersection of the trajectories of the rocket and the aircraft with the conditions ensuring that all affected areas are covered by fragments is realized only from this limited area. Especially critical is the vertical angle of the meeting.

It should be noted that it is in the area of ​​n.p. Zaroshchenskoye according to space intelligence data of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on July 17.07.2014, 4 (No. 5, XNUMX cm below) were self-propelled firing systems of the Buk air defense system of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Almaz-Antey performed twice. First, he made an analysis of the photographs and determined where the rocket came from. then he conducted his well-known "full-scale experiment", there was a part "clarification of the type of rocket", and it indicated that there could not be I-beams in the missile that shot down Boeing (which means there could not be a warhead 9N314M). Here is a page from their report (published on the TASS website):

https://cdn3.tass.ru/width/746_f4e82b2e/tass/m2/uploads/i/20151014/4108341.png

[aver2000]

Great for you. But this, therefore, is not from the same Almaz-Antey report?

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

No, this is a page from an earlier report issued to conducting a "natural experiment". Accordingly, this is a result that was later refined.

[aver2000]

Vyacheslav, are you kidding me? How could a field experiment refine holes in a Boeing’s hull? He specified only the position of the rocket relative to the body of the aircraft, and that’s all.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

I quote you the contents of the report written, published and presented at the official press conference by Almaz-Antey. And the page that I cited above, I did not draw.

[aver2000]

And I brought you a home-made picture, not from a report? And there it is written in red and green that Almaz Antey believes that the rocket was with warhead 9N314 (M), but you persistently prove that Almaz did not say that))))

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Your picture is from an earlier report. After him, Almaz-Antey issued the following report, where he considered possible и appropriate specify the type of rocket. Almaz-Antey counted, not me. I brought a picture from this report.

[aver2000]

And throw a link to a new report, read.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

https://tass.ru/eksperiment-almaz-anteya

[Mountain shooter]

In my opinion, you are mistaken in the forum, dear! We would go to the "Censor", they will understand you there.

[SPARKS]

Uncle, please post specific data unconditionally confirming Russia's guilt.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

I already know that you will answer - that everything is forged. So I don’t see the point.

[IrisFloDataSet]

Well, you betrayed your fatherland in August 91.

[Mar.Tirah]

Quote: IrisFloDataSet

Well, you betrayed your fatherland in August 91.

Although not on the topic, I’ll answer. Don’t poke me, we’re not sitting at the same table. I took the oath once, and I didn’t have another and was for the State Emergency Committee. But unlike you, I live in the same place where I lived, and I do everything possible so that my country, my Russian people does not disappear from the face of the earth. Politicians come and go, people stay. with our way of life with our own prospects for life, we will survive these. Even the repressed people did not think to betray and sell their country, unlike you, "people of the world" without a flag and homeland.

[IrisFloDataSet]

And put his little head in the fight for the Emergency Committee? Well, yes ... There was no direct order! @ And then you would all .. Bullshit! You are the same traitor as Herr Vlasov. You are preaching some people. .. Speak for yourself! Changed the oath of sausage and jeans.

[Mar.Tirah]

Quote: IrisFloDataSet

Brekhna

But who offended you so much, it won’t be sad, but there is no one to regret it. But otherwise it can’t be. You deserve a reward. March further under Nazi marches, people without a flag and homeland, praise the UPA.

[BARKAS]

The data of Diamond Antey say that the chip is left and cannot be considered a thingdock, and nothing more!

[Strashila]

An attempt to falsify is the norm, remember in the 2000s Saakashvili also shook rocket debris, such as the Russians fired on. so they laughed at him, the wreckage of a rocket that had not been for a decade.
And the setup, it’s easy, I remember there were criminal cases when the missile weapons to be disposed of were exported abroad.
But Iranian events have shown that this case must be considered in a different plane, the bases with a transponder.
So in a hurry.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: BARKAS

The data of Diamond Antey say that the chip is left and cannot be considered a thingdock, and nothing more!

This also means that it cannot be considered proof of involvement of the Armed Forces, and many consider it to be such, referring to documents on the serial number of the rocket from the Russian Ministry of Defense.

[BARKAS]

This means that the chip according to the number from the Ukrainian missile and provided by the Ukrainian side with the aim of falsifying evidence, but the error came out with a warhead.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

What exactly can be falsified with a fragment of a rocket with a number indicating its belonging to Ukrainian military unit?

[Andrey Komkov]

Have you forgotten anything? One smallest thing? Namely - that this fragment was involved in the death of MH17, the Dutch themselves declared in the person of their JIT at one of the briefings and asked to find information about this missile. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation provided it with reference to factory magazines, after which the Dutch instantly replayed everything back, realizing that they themselves had substituted themselves in this way.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

I remember that - except for the part that the Dutch replayed something, I don’t remember that.

[Andrey Komkov]

In the latest JIT report, this fragment is not among the material evidence. This suggests that they did not include him in the list of evidence for MH-17, thus playing back.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

In the latest JIT report, this fragment is not among the material evidence.

JIT did not issue any reports. They are preparing materials for the court.

[opus]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

JIT did not issue any reports.

issued the Netherlands Security Council based on JIT reports

go here:

 Show / Hide text

https://www.government.nl/topics/mh17-incident/achieving-justice/the-criminal-investigation

get to here:

 Show / Hide text

https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/page/3546/mh17-crash-17-juli-2014

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: opus

issued the Netherlands Security Council based on JIT reports

The Dutch Safety Board (DSB) conducted its own investigation. This is a technical investigation under the auspices of ICAO, which is being done for any plane crash. JIT is conducting a criminal investigation, this is another investigation, although it does include a DSB investigation as one of the evidence.

[opus]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

which is done for any plane crash

OVV investigates all disasters, not just air

JIT is in the competence of the Netherlands prosecutor, I agree
but OVV uses JIT materials / reports

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

JIT is conducting a criminal investigation, this is another investigation

Based on an investigation by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) -> The Netherlands Public Prosecutor's Office is prosecuting, etc. --->
International court warrants are issued ..

[mister-red]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

I remember that - except for the part that the Dutch replayed something, I don’t remember that.

Well, yes, they just stopped mentioning it. And they should have seized on this and asked Ukraine for similar documents. In fact, it can be called "outplayed"

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: mister-red

Well, yes, they just stopped mentioning it. And they should have seized on this and asked Ukraine for similar documents. In fact, it can be called "outplayed"

This is not a fact, but your subjective opinion about how often JIT should publicly mention a particular circumstance, but does not. And you are trying to pass off your subjective opinion as a fact.

[mister-red]

Wow subjectivity Au, what are you talking about ?! Then the question is an edge to you, as an expert - and what kind of devil did they then show the rocket serial? What was the need for this?

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

I’m not interested in guessing on the coffee grounds, trying to attach my head to the shoulders of others, and arrange a battle of opinion with the opinion whose thick coffee. This is a meaningless conversation that leads to nothing. I am interested in the facts, and the fact in this case is that the JIT never refuted anything they said about the demonstrated rocket fragment.

[mister-red]

Iron logic. But actually why should they refute themselves? Do you have information about such acts in other investigations?
Once again: why did they name the rocket number? Probably then to find the ends. Why are they curious that the rocket was delivered in Dolgoprudny (and if, for example, in Dnepropetrovsk, what would that be said?) And are not interested in the fate of this rocket in Ukraine?
And actually, why on the JIT page the main part of the materials is occupied by analysts, how much does Russia help in different areas of the DNI / LC?
Read, interesting. But all this from empty to empty and is irrelevant
Without any doubt, the process will take a long time and will not end with anything. As the well-known Bernstein said, "Movement is everything, the goal is nothing"

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: mister-red

But actually why should they refute themselves? Do you have information about such acts in other investigations?

This is a logical error, which is called https://ru.rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignorance_argument

Once again: why did they name the rocket number? Probably then to find the ends.

They said plainly why: to find witnesses - people who are familiar with the designation system in the workplace. I do not know how many times it is necessary to make such announcements, but I see no reason why they can not be done once.

[Andrey Komkov]

What difference does it make which of the combat units? Both the 9M38 warhead and the 9M38M1 warhead - both form a "scalpel" during explosion with a vector perpendicular to the missile's motion vector and with a similar fragmentation field gradient. And therefore, both the horizontal and vertical angles of the missile's approach to the target will be identical for both 9M38 and 9M38M1, they will differ only in characteristic holes in the skin. Therefore, the type of rocket does not play a special role here, it is the angles of approach of the rocket that play. And they, calculated from the characteristic damage to the power set of the MH-17 airframe, indicate only one possible launch area - somewhere near the village of Zaroshchenskoye. Where at that time there were Ukrainian troops (about which there is a bunch of evidence and evidence).

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

And what's the difference, which of the combat units?

The difference is that Almaz-Antey, in one scenario, was able to correctly determine the type of warhead, and in another, it could not, and this means the reliability of its expert analysis. And expert analysis is what Almaz-Antey relies on in his conclusions.

[Andrey Komkov]

Again, it is possible to speak about whether it is true or not only in one case - having on hand parts of the MH-17 airframe and conducting a chemical analysis of the fragments. And so, from the photographs - I beg you, do not be like mad cats in their "expert opinion" to identify the BUK in Donetsk by the spots in the photo as belonging to the Kursk Air Defense Brigade. As for Almaz-Antey - in one case, in another case, the nature of the formation of a fragmentation field of the "scalpel" type and the nature of damage to the glider is the same. Differences will be only in the depth of penetration of ready-made striking elements (GGE) into the airframe structure and in the form of inlet and through holes from the GGE.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

And so here in the photographs - I beg you, do not be like mad cats

Why are you writing this to me? It's not me who determined the point of defeat from photographs, collected an official press conference, published one report first, then conducted a field experiment, compared its results with photos, collected another official press conference, published a second report?

[Andrey Komkov]

You took from the report completely different from what Almaz-Antey put there. He tried to prove one thing - that the angle of approach of the rocket was completely different than the one pointed out by the Dutch. Where did the Dutch get it from - it is clear (from the description of a similar air defense missile), but they did not take into account the peculiarities inherent in the 9M38 and 9M38M1 missiles - the presence of a "scalpel". Anteyevites simply proved their theoretical calculations about the angle of approach of the rocket and the characteristic damage to the surface of the airframe and its power set with a full-scale experiment. And which of the missiles - with or without an I-beam - is no longer important here, the nature of the fragmentation field of both warheads is the same.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

You did not take out from the report what Almaz-Antey invested there.

If he didn’t want to invest there, perhaps it wasn’t worth investing there?

Expertise, where the reader is asked to independently guess "what the author wanted to say here?" is not the kind of expertise that professional experts do, and it raises even greater doubts about the qualifications of Almaz-Antey specialists than individual mistakes.

[Andrey Komkov]

For an unambiguous and complete identification of the warhead type, not a photo is needed, but specific pieces of a specific MN-17 airframe with specific damage are needed. They were not provided to Almaz-Antei, so he could only judge by good photographs. Unable to take the physical dimensions of the holes, according to the nature of the hole in the photo, Almaz-Antey experts suggested that it was 9M38 without I-beams. This was the only controversial assumption in the rest of the report. As I wrote above, if there is really an I-beam, not a parallelepiped, all the other calculations from this do not change, because everything else is both the nature of the fragmentation field formation, the direction of movement of the fragments and even their speed (because the weights of the heavy GPEs of these Warheads are almost the same) - do not change. And therefore, the main conclusion of the Almaz-Antey report is not changing - the angle of the missile's approach to the target.
Well, you are stubbornly trying to turn the whole discussion to one thing - the Almaz-Antey report is incorrect in principle only because they incorrectly called the warhead. Give the diamond crew part of the glider - and after a while you will get the type of warhead and even when it was made (for similar missiles of the same series that were still in stock). But no one will do this, because then the whole investigation, built on lies and fraud, will simply crumble like a house of cards.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Here, in principle, there is nothing to argue about, this opinion is against opinion. I believe that factual errors undermine the credibility of the expertise (because the expertise that I can’t double-check based on my knowledge, I assess only by the degree of trust in the expert who made it), and you think that mistakes only decorate it. OK, your right, I have nothing to object to.

[Mar.Tirah]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

You did not take out from the report what Almaz-Antey invested there

Do not mess with someone who does not see anything except the oak gate.

[aver2000]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

He tried to prove one thing - that the angle of approach of the rocket was completely different than the one pointed out by the Dutch.

Andrei, and here there is one interesting point, for which for some reason no one pays attention. Rotate the rocket 180 degrees and get exactly the same scalpel entry into the plane, but the rocket launch point is on the other side.

[Evil Booth]

vabscheto hurt the engine wing and tail

[Evil Booth]

what is shown everywhere and many times .. glory to the minuses.

[Aleksandr1981]

Logical thinking, though the rocket will need to be launched from space !!!

[Andrey Komkov]

Will not work. Do you know why? YOU forgot about one thing - about the radio fuse. there are 4 points around the circumference of the body with radio emission lobes, practically perpendicular to the rocket axis. The range of the radio fuse, if my memory serves me right, is up to 8-10 meters. Those. The sequence is as follows - first, the rocket head passes the target, one of the petals of the radio fuse catches the target and gives the command to detonate, and the warhead forms a "scalpel". Those. in the case of a rocket approach not to the left, but to the right, from Petrovsky, it would hit not on the left side, but on the right side of the liner. Then there was no damage to the left engine, even theoretically, it was shaded by the body of the liner (as it actually happened with the right engine). But in fact, we have major damage to the left engine and even a GGE pulled out of the left engine from the “heavy” breed by our expert, which he handed over to the Dutch side and which it quickly “lost”. Why I lost it is just clear. For with the variant of the approach of the rocket from Pervomaysky, the GGE could not get into the engine in any way, no matter how hard they tried. "Scalpel" worked strictly perpendicular to the flight axis of the rocket, which in this case was aimed at the engine. GGE there simply had nowhere to come from. So he was "lost" so as not to spoil the picture.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

By the way.

Quote: Andrey Komkov

You did not take out from the report what Almaz-Antey invested there.

What Almaz-Antey wanted to invest there, you can ask Almaz-Antey himself. Here is the page where the questions are indicated for the answers to which a "natural experiment" was conducted:

It turns out that if the type of warhead is determined incorrectly, then at least 50% of the tasks for which everything was basically started were failed.

[Andrey Komkov]

In this case, Almaz-Antey had to choose from two missiles - 9M38 and 9M38M1. These two missiles are completely identical, except for one - in the warhead of one there are I-beams, in the warhead of the other - parallelepipeds. And so the guidance system, radio fuse and everything else are completely identical. Up to the gradient of the fragmentation field and the trajectories of the GGE "heavy" fractions during the formation of the "scalpel". Those. one could just as well write something like 9M38 (M1). The Dutch have done more cunning in their report. They wrote "missile of the 9M38 family". So Almaz-Antey did everything right, his report says there - 9M38 (M1).

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

The Dutch in their report did trickier.

The Dutch made like real high-class professionals - they indicated not only their data, but also the boundaries of their data, did not make statements for which they had no reason. At the same time, they determined the type of warhead as 9N314M - according to their data, such a warhead could be installed on both 9M38M1 and 9M38.

Quote: Andrey Komkov

So Almaz-Antey did everything right, he says in his report there - 9M38 (M1).

Nobody, as they say, pulled their tongue to conduct a subsequent "full-scale experiment" with the explicitly stated goal of "clarifying the type of rocket."

[Andrey Komkov]

JIT high class professionals ?? In what? Falsified investigations? Or in the impudent seizure of Resh's materials, for the sake of which they received a court decision to open his private safe deposit box (!!!), the materials from which were then quickly lost by these "professionals" (which Resh directly stated)? To take as a basis the "investigation" of mad cats about spots on the BUK and, on the basis of this, draw profound conclusions about the belonging of this BUK to the Kursk brigade - this is simply the height of the "professionalism" of the JIT. Or professionalism means pulling out an unbroken and undamaged piece of a missile and loudly declaring - this missile shot down MH17? And then it was quickly bashful to remove it, when it turned out in documents that the missile was Ukrainian - you call THAT professionalism ?? I'm just wondering - and the stuffing of mad cats - what article do you interpret? What are the grounds for the Dutch claims? Or do you consider rabid cat "investigations" to be the pinnacle of professional investigation?

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

Take as a basis the "investigation" of mad cats about the spots on the BUK

This is a logical error called https://ru.rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title= Associative_Crimination

If mad cats (and indeed anyone. For example, Hitler) say that 2 + 2 = 4, this will not be mean:

1. That 2 + 2 is not equal to 4
2. That anyone who says that 2 + 2 = 4 takes as a basis the words of mad cats / Hitler / and so on.

[Andrey Komkov]

Listen, in your desire to protect the JIT with their delusional accusation, you even forgot to mention that the Dutch themselves publicly THANKS the rabid cats for their "investigation" and that part of the materials of this "investigation", in particular, "BUK's way back to Russia" was like once JIT was used in the report (remind you of the JIT presentation with pictures? And then again you will say that nothing like that happened). And it does not matter that the BUK could not physically go to Russia in this way, because along the way there are a lot of bridges, overpasses and dams with a carrying capacity of 25-30 tons, which is less than the weight of the SDU of 37 tons (the mass of the installation is 35 tons, and together with 3 missiles on 690 kg each - 37 tons), and even more so less than the total weight of the entire installation of 48 tons (37 tons of SDU + 12 tons of tractor). But something I do not see there along the way of collapsed bridges and destroyed dams, apparently the BUK just flew over these bridges and dams through the air? This is not to mention the bridges, the overall height of which is lower than the height of the missile launcher. I guess you flew too?
So you can shove your "associative accusation" you know where, any objective court will expel all this JIT along with their "evidence" from the courtroom. One problem is that the Dutch court and objectivity are completely incompatible things.
For the money has already been paid by the customer of this performance, the accused has already been named, the "evidence" has been sewn to the case, the necessary evidence has been thrown out so as not to spoil the blissful picture of the destruction of a peaceful liner by the evil LDNR terrorists supported by Russia (
- type of evidence of the inhabitants of Zaroschensky about the presence of their BUK systems near the village,
- servicemen who saw the launch of the BUK from a real point, and then mysteriously killed by "enemy snipers" even at a distance of 15 km from the front line,
- residents of Grabovo, who saw TWO military aircraft in the sky, and then heard 2 explosions,
- primary data of radars for monitoring the air traffic of the Russian Federation in the Rostov Region, which did not record any missiles in the direction of MH17 heading from Snezhnoye,
- - information from the RF radio surveillance systems on the location and activity of the work of the self-propelled guns of the Armed Forces at the time
- data from the manufacturer of BUK Almaz-Antey missiles on the real mass of explosive of 9M38 missiles, real fragmentation field, etc., which contradicted the DSB model
) - in general, everything is ready for the indicative flogging of the Russian Federation and the declaration of its country as an accomplice of terrorism.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

And it doesn’t give a damn that BUK couldn’t physically leave for Russia, because there are a lot of bridges, overpasses and dams with a carrying capacity of 25-30 tons

This is a constant load, and the bridges are also counting on skipping a one-time load, much heavier.

Quote: Andrey Komkov

This is not to mention bridges whose overall height is lower than the height of self-propelled guns with missiles. Probably flown too?

Traveled around.

Quote: Andrey Komkov

- residents of Grabovo, who saw TWO military aircraft in the sky, and then heard 2 explosions,

... and which the Rostov radar did not see.

[aver2000]

Andrey Komkov, but about the bridges on the path of the BUKA, this is interesting. I managed to draw a complete route along which the beech was transported. Tell me, which bridge could not withstand it, I will look on my map if it passed through it.

[mister-red]

Can you recall at least some kind of expert assessment from the investigation, and not the repetition of incomprehensible information from the Internet?

[Andrey Komkov]

In the sense? If you are about the investigation, then everything is in the Dutch report. Or are you talking about?

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

I can. The Netherlands Security Council laid out the wreckage of MH17 at the Air Force base in Gilza Ryan and, based on its results, gave an opinion on the location and direction of the attack.

[mister-red]

Sorry dear, I saw this very calculation. Just compare with what was caught from the sea when the Ukrainians shot down a Russian plane. Somehow, it’s probably harder to pull everything out of the sea. A pile of debris is still in the fields.

[Andrey Komkov]

At the same time, they simply did not bring half of the wreckage from the crash site. What kind of calculation in this situation can we talk about? And second, they used to calculate the direction of the blow an explosion of a warhead with a unidirectional detonation of the warhead of a similar air defense missile, when the generated field of fragments has a cone-like character forward in the direction of the target's movement. Whereas the warhead of missiles of the 9M38 family (as the missile is called in the JIT report) is bi-directionally detonated from both sides to form a "scalpel" of the heaviest GGE (for this, the barrel-shaped form of the warhead itself is also used). Those. From the very beginning, the Dutch incorrectly took into account the missile's fragmentation field and from here incorrectly calculated both the direction and place of the strike (there is even a mention of this in the Almaz-Antey report). Plus, on the 9M38 (9M38M1) rocket, the petal of the radio fuse diagram is directed so that the rocket explodes after it starts passing the target (so the efficiency of hitting with a scalpel is higher), and not before passing, as is the case for missiles with a conical field of destruction.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

I answered a specific question whether I know the expertise from the investigation not from information from the Internet. I don’t know if they were carried out correctly or not, enough debris was collected or not enough, I am not an expert in laying out aircraft debris. The DSB report says that the Diamond-Antey method does not take into account the change in the angle of flight of fragments after breaking through structures. Let the court deal with this, such examinations are done for him.

[Andrey Komkov]

The fact of the matter is that all the Almaz workers took into account. Because DSB wrote this for light components of a fragmentation field. But heavy components just do not change the direction of movement (this is exactly what the "scalpel" is designed for). Our expert found one of the heavy GGE in the MN-17 engine, breaking through 3 engine structures in a row - the body, the shell, and one of the pipelines, it got stuck in 4 elements. The most interesting thing is that at the same time he did not change anything, but continued to move in a straight line. The expert himself spoke about this in an interview. But then he did not find this GGE itself, nor any mention of not in the JIT report.

[Liam]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

Our expert found one of the heavy GPEs in the MN-17 engine

What is your expert? Who is he, when did he get access to the aircraft, who allowed, within the framework of what kind of examination and where can you get acquainted with his conclusions.

[Andrey Komkov]

This is not my expert, it was the representative from Russia in the international group Oleg Storchevoy (deputy head of the Federal Air Transport Agency). At first, our representatives worked there, but then, when they saw how the Dutch were openly cheating with evidence and everything else, ours refused to work there. There was an interview with him, where he told all these moments. And as he told the Dutch that a rocket could not explode at a distance of 2 meters from the plane, as they originally put it, because then the high-explosive action of the explosive itself would take out ALL glass from the Boeing, and not just those on the left. And about the GGE, which he himself found in the wreckage of the engine, tracing its path through the holes in the engine structure and handed it over to the Dutch, but they "did not include it in the final report." And about the fact that when they were shown how, in the opinion of the Dutch, a rocket was going, he immediately told them that neither the radio detonator of the rocket would work, nor would there be a fragmentation field of a different shape. And many other things. Look, the internet has it all. AS is Storchevoy's open letter to the chairman of the Netherlands Security Council, where he briefly pointed out to the Dutch what they were doing with this investigation.

[Liam]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

This is not my expert, it was the representative from Russia in the international group Oleg Storcheva

I’m embarrassed to ask. When and by whom were the representatives of the Russian Federation included in the investigation team? This is just a sensation. Share the link

Quote: Andrey Komkov

Look, in the internet it's all there.

There are a lot of things on the Internet. Often, even that cannot be. Why should I look for evidence of YOUR sensations. It’s easy for you to share a link to the sources of such sensational details

[Andrey Komkov]

Well, even a simple surface search gave the first link - https://www.mk.ru/incident/2016/01/14/rosaviaciya-privela-shest-faktov-oprovergayushhikh-gollandskuyu-versiyu-gibeli-mn17.html. Too lazy to search?

[Liam]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

Well, even a simple surface search gave the first link - https://www.mk.ru/incident/2016/01/14/rosaviaciya-privela-shest-faktov-oprovergayushhikh-gollandskuyu-versiyu-gibeli-mn17.html. Too lazy to search?

Serious people do not spend their time reading internet garbage cans. In this internet garbage can you can read such masterpieces:
The investigation stubbornly ignored numerous evidence supporting the defeat of the aircraft by an air-to-air missile. Investigators did not pay attention to the fact that many eyewitnesses indicated the presence at the time of the disaster in the sky next to the Boeing of Ukrainian military fighters. The recording of the conversation with the Ukrainian aircraft technician Agapov, which spoke about the equipment on the day of the crash of Ukrainian Su-25 missiles with air-to-air missiles and the return of one of these attack aircraft, already without ammunition, was not taken into account.
And in the same place below:
According to Storchevoy, their participation in the investigation looked like this: “The Security Council of the Netherlands arranged several meetings with all authorized representatives of the investigating states. At the meetings, the opportunity was presented to inspect the wreckage of the aircraft, to receive partial information about their research ... however, Russian organizations and specialists were not involved in these studiesdespite repeated offers from our side to assist in parts of providing both competent specialists and the necessary equipment for conducting complex examinations ”.
Have you even read this garbage yourself before citing it as "evidence"? Don't fool people with these fakes

[Andrey Komkov]

If you carefully read my link, then there we are talking about an open letter from the Federal Air Transport Agency to the Dutch, indicating what and how they violated. And about the facts that I said, Storchevoy told in an interview. Look, it is all there. Or do you consider JIT investigation based on "investigation" of mad cats to be the height of professionalism? Then who among us is fooling people, it's you.

[Andrey Komkov]

Well, for example, didn’t you come across such a picture? https://cdn.aviaforum.ru/data/attachment-files/2017/09/876122_f7d809830565757a2240478860840fac.png Something I do not remember him in the final report of the Dutch in October 2016. And you?

[Pete mitchell]

Gentlemen, an interesting discussion, only a little technical orientation. Take a wider view of the situation: the Danes simply fulfill the order, the music is ordered .... As old Clinton said there: the plane was shot down by a Russian rocket, that's the whole story, the bourgeois are happy. Almaz-Antey defends a multi-billion dollar business, they openly do not care about politics, they cut for grandmas and for their reputation, it’s a sin to blame them for something.
I spoke with the bourgeoisie in general and the Dutch in particular - their opinion is based on the bourgeois mass media: no one has heard about the MO briefing and the arguments of the Russian Federation, the directions of the GDP to provide maximum assistance, in general, no one has heard about the opinion of the Russian Federation. This is a huge gap in the work of those responsible.
The result of the trial in The Hague, in principle, is understandable, then what? Someone interested in the victims? Do not make me laugh. All technical arguments recede under the pressure of political conditions. One funny question: where is the dispatcher? For some reason, 404 countries applaud the arguments, but they do not stand up to criticism, and the opinion of the Russian Federation is ignored - this does not happen.
RF, it’s time to show teeth in this case, otherwise they will hang all the dogs

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

At first, our representatives worked there, but then, when they saw the Dutch openly swindle with evidence and everything else, ours refused to work there.

They worked in the DSB commission, and then, when the DSB work was completed, the final report was released, and the turn of the JIT came, then they stopped working, since no one included them in the JIT initially.

With regard to comments, all the comments that were submitted to the DSB are answered by the DSB, and they are attached to the DSB report in the "consultation" section. If any comments were thrown in a roundabout way through the press, it means that they were ashamed to submit them directly.

[Andrey Komkov]

That's right, why include the party that was initially declared guilty. But the other side, which even carried out a special operation to hide evidence (documents surfaced, oh, what a shame, not everyone managed to shut their mouths), it was directly included in the JIT. It’s right that the criminal could clearly cover up the tracks, if all of a sudden any data comes up against him. European logic in all its glory.
DSB issued a report in which EVERYTHING that our specialists submitted was thrown out. And the primary data of the Utes radar, which monitors the air situation (proving with objective impartiality that no missiles from Snezhnoye flew in the direction of MH17), and our observation data (Orlan did a good job, meandering along the border under the watchful eye of the Utes), and data on missiles from the manufacturer, and data on Ukrainian BUK systems, their location, etc. - everything was thrown out of the final DSB report. Of course, ours were ashamed to submit all this, we had to go through the press. By the way, something I did not see in the final DSB report not a word about Resh's materials, which were insolently stolen from his cell and quickly "lost". Also in the "Consultations" section? Can you even indicate a page?

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

"Detective Josef Resch" is a ridiculous clown who tries, as they say now, to "hyip". If this was not clear to you, when he was offered to transfer evidence through the German police according to the standard procedure, and he began to demand that everything be arranged in the form of some kind of ceremony, and it did not become clear later, when he issued an ultimatum, and after the expiration of the term he quietly merged, then you are a very naive person.

Quote: Andrey Komkov

EVERYTHING that our experts submitted was thrown out. And the primary data of the cliff radar

The primary data was magically "found" after the release of the final report.

Quote: Andrey Komkov

in which EVERYTHING that our experts submitted

Of course, our embarrassed to submit all this

You contradict yourself a bit here.

[Andrey Komkov]

Mdaaaa, only a person who does not understand the work of the Dutch judicial system can only call a ridiculous clown a person whose materials were seized from a private safe deposit box (!!!) by a court decision (!!!). And if he is a "clown", then why have these materials not been returned to him? And there is not even the slightest mention of them in the report. They just went and got lost. And Resh conceived this whole epic with the transfer of data only for one thing - so that the transferred materials were clearly and publicly recorded and again not "lost", as was the case with their predecessors from the bank cell. Of course, JIT could not go for it for obvious reasons, so we had to refuse. But they cannot refuse Reshu to speak at the trial, because this is no longer their domain. You can only slander him, pour out tubs of slop, call him an absurd clown, etc., in order to sow doubts about his words and the documents presented to him in advance.
As for the inconsistency - well, tell me what of the filed by our experts fell into the DSB report. Simulation results AA, which are called contradictory to the DSB model (despite the fact that the DSB itself screwed up both with a fragment field and with the mass of explosives and with the weight of fragments and a bunch of parameters.)? But then their model is correct, white, democratic, and the AA model from the evil RF, which coincides in fragmentation marks with damage to the cabin and hull, is not suitable. Or about the AA experiment, which showed the coincidence of the main fragmentation field, taking into account the dynamic correction with the main damage of MH17, but which was rejected due to the fact that our Boeing turns out to be a flying battleship from the armored steel, where the fragments do not penetrate 2 mm of aluminum profile, and ricochet inside from the sheets of armor, so this cannot be recognized. Despite the fact that the Dutch very beautifully stretched strings through these holes in the casing and in the floor.
And the primary data was transferred a long time ago, right after the presentation, only the Dutch began to muddle that they did not have decoders of this format, and why not in the international standard (apparently not realizing that this is the primary raw data generated in the radar itself, therefore, free from edits and everything else - thus the accusations of falsifying the result can be immediately removed automatically), give us this data in an international format. Ours gave them the decoder program before the report, but they didn’t see a trace of this data in the report. At an air forum about this, spears were broken for a very long time.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

The final DSB report was released in October 2015.
Almaz-Antey on the transfer of "newly found" radar data in September 2016.

[Andrey Komkov]

Well, then we are waiting for the surfacing of this data in court. But I’m more than sure that the prosecution will not even remember them in court, and when the defense raises this, they will say that there was nothing of the kind or it didn’t suit them for one reason or another.
By the way, about the passages and bridges, what are you trying to prove here. There is one very good film by an American correspondent, who, unlike all the defenders of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, climbed everything there himself, felt everything with his pens and walked around with his legs. I'm talking about Patrick Lancaster. So the comrade was not too lazy and, together with the civil engineer, traveled the path by which the BUK was allegedly taken to Russia according to the JIT presentation (which will then appear in court, as the JIT stated). This movie - https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=aGjbL4YS9cY. And at 07:04 of this film, you can see the reality answer to your theorist's assertion that bridges are made under constant load and can withstand heavy loads. In front of the bridge in the video there was a limit of 30 tons. And a tank weighing 40 tons tried to drive across the bridge, that is, approximately the weight of a pure SDU with missiles without a tractor. The result is clearly visible on the video, the bridge under the tank collapsed, although the excess was 40%. And after that, you here will assure us, foaming at the mouth, that the BUK allegedly drove through the dam near Zugrez, although there is a limit of 25 tons in front of it (this is when the weight of the installation on a tractor is 48 tons, i.e. almost a two-fold excess)? ?
On the same video, this dam is also shown (starting from 04:05). And she couldn’t go round her SOU when she was taken out by the militias, because this is the only way from Donetsk to Zugrez, and she lit up in Zugrez on the well-known video attached by JIT to the case.
And how can one explain such a discrepancy between theory and reality? And everything is simple. In reality, the installation of a BUK military unit from Donetsk via Zugres was taken to the west, from the side of Dnepropetrovsk (most likely the installation was somewhere near Snezhny or Torez), and this was at the beginning of JUNE 2014, more precisely, on June 3, 2014. And the APU did it, not the militia (the author of this video, who was shooting the column from his balcony, provided the data on the current shooting time. There was a whole army convoy with armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and trucks, and in the end, a little beech went behind). Most likely in late May, early June, the Armed Forces of Ukraine moved their units from Snezhniy Shakhtersk, etc. to the west so that they do not fall into the hands of the militias. This is how the BUK of military unit A-1402 near Zugres (on its eastern outskirts, heading north-west) lit up. But someone decided to hype and edited the video, leaving only a piece with BEECH and saying that the video was shot just July 17, 2014 on the day of the downing of MH17, and the Dutch took this trimmed video and used it as evidence. But I think, at the trial, this complete record of the army convoy with the BUK at the end will come up along with the legally correct testimonies of the author of the video, after which some in JIT will have a pale appearance and cold legs.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

This is what 4-year students of specialty 270206 "Construction and operation of roads and airfields" teach:

Particularly heavy loads — trailers, tractors, tractors and other machines — have to be passed over bridges and other man-made structures. Therefore, in addition to calculating on columns of automobiles, it is necessary to check the designs for the passage of single heavy wheel or caterpillar loads.
http://zadocs.ru/sport/59996/index.html?page=6

If you want to argue, argue with the author of the textbook.

Quote: Andrey Komkov

But I think, at the trial, this complete record of the army convoy with the BUK at the end will come up along with the legally correct testimonies of the author of the video, after which some in JIT will have a pale appearance and cold legs.

And if it doesn’t come up, will you reconsider your opinion?

[Okolotochny]

I don’t know if they were carried out correctly or not, enough debris was collected or not enough, I am not an expert in laying out aircraft debris.

First find out, and then prove with foam at the mouth. Go back to Israel.

[Octopus]

Your opponents are partly right.

The investigation did not really isolate the scene of the incident from the accused; moreover, it did not have free access to it, unlike the accused. From the point of view of criminal law, this is a very strange situation.

By the way, it is unpleasantly reminiscent of the constant itching of the IC of the Russian Federation to investigate something in / in Ukraine.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

If the Boeing fell in the center of The Hague, I would probably agree with you, and this is a very strange claim. Investigators had to deal with what they had to, and the court, of course, will have this in mind.

[Octopus]

And what does the court care about the problems of the investigators? If investigators cannot provide information to establish a complete picture of the incident, then they cannot, there is nothing to judge.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

The "complete picture" is never known, to anyone and about anything, this is a senseless demand. The information should not be complete, but sufficient with an acceptable degree of reliability.

[Octopus]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

sufficient with an acceptable degree of certainty.

And when a Dutch court judges any other killers, would he also consider such an investigation sufficient?

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

The question is not for me, I am not a Dutch court. I can say for sure that if the murderer did not let investigators to the crime scene, the court would not consider it a reason to recognize him not guilty.

[Octopus]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

I can say for sure that if the murderer did not let investigators to the crime scene, the court would not consider it a reason to recognize him not guilty.

What are these labels, "killer"? No one is guilty until proven guilty in an equal adversarial court.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: Octopus

No one is guilty until his guilt is proved in an equal adversarial court.

Wrong. No one has been legally convicted and there are no legal consequences for him until his guilt is proved in court.

[Octopus]

)))
Someone seems to be starting to play with words.

You see. I believe that those killed in this incident were normal neutrals - victims of hostilities.

For example, as a result of the bombing of Schaffhausen in April 44, 40 Swiss were killed, 270 were wounded. And so the Swiss government is organizing a criminal investigation in order to find out who exactly killed these people, that is, who exactly pressed the bomb release button. At the same time, the investigation, of course, is carried out without any participation of the "defendants" and is generally not supported by the American side. Would such an investigation be "justice"? Or are the Dutch not "investigating" just that?

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: Octopus

Would such an investigation be "justice"?

Justice happens in court, not in an investigation. If the opportunity to participate in the trial was provided to the other party, then I see no reason to consider the process unjust (even if the party refused to attend the trial).

Quote: Octopus

You see. I believe that those killed in this incident were normal neutrals - victims of hostilities.

There is this type of war crimes - "indiscriminate attacks." The Geneva Conventions draw a line between "collateral damage" when attacking a legitimate target and "an indiscriminate attack" by outlawing the latter.

[Octopus]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

If the opportunity to participate in the court to the other party was provided,

You see. "Granted" is not a solution. Or, the court establishes the truth on the basis of evidence provided by the prosecution and defense in an adversarial process. Or the prosecution and defense agree without a trial, as part of a deal with the investigation, and the court approves this deal (which, frankly, is not good at all, but is widely practiced). Or the court is sitting in absentia, only with the prosecutor and a rather peculiar investigation. Yes, this is quite possible, in Russia and the USSR there is a lot of experience on this topic, but I do not see anything good in this for liberalism.

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

There is this kind of war crime

)))
You see, we come back to the original thought. War crimes are committed by losers. Goering, Dönitz, Ribbentrop were war criminals, but Harris, Lockwood, Molotov were not. Before clarifying the moment of victory, the topic of war crimes should be raised prematurely. And the Dutch court, as far as I know, is investigating not war crimes, but criminal ones.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

International relations are generally an extremely peculiar area of ​​relations, due to the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms such as those that the state has in relation to a citizen. We have to live with it and carefully draw parallels between domestic law and international.

[Octopus]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

the lack of effective coercive mechanisms of the kind that the state has in relation to a citizen.

You are absolutely right. Therefore, similar events had previously been carried out either in the format of a transaction with the investigation, when the Glavgad surrendered the sixes (Libya), or by establishing the occupation administration in a soft (Yugoslavia) or hard (Germany) form. In this case, nothing has been done.

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

it is more careful to draw parallels between domestic law and international.

Are you criticizing the Dutch-Belgian-Ukrainian-Australian idea to make a similar case in a regular Dutch court?))))

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Personally, I am not interested in legal hooking at all, and, to tell the truth, I would have gladly turned off this conversation, which is not very interesting for me. I am interested in objective reality, and here it is more important what data are received and by what methods than the status of the subject who studies it.

[Octopus]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

turned this conversation not very interesting for me

OK.

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

I am interested in objective reality

My question "who knocked down" does not cause any doubts (and my answer to this question does not coincide with your other opponents). So I'm only interested in chicanery. Yes, they did. And what will happen to them now?

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: Octopus

Yes, shot down. And what will they do now?

The legitimacy of the court and the sentence will be determined individually by the subjects of international relations. What will be recognized by each participant will be legitimate for him (this is the same as with the recognition of states). There is no doubt, in general, that the entire Western world recognizes the legitimacy of the Dutch court. Naturally, he does not recognize the legitimacy of the verdict, but he will have to make a choice - either play according to the proposed rules, or lose the beneficial types of cooperation with the Western world due to sanctions.

[Octopus]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

to lose beneficial forms of cooperation with the Western world due to sanctions.

That is, the task boils down to the classic one, to buy out the sixes. And was it worth it to fence the garden for 6 years? Are you really ready to believe that the verdict will become reason regular sanctions, not occasion to the next sanctions?

Perhaps for you this is crocheting, and my mother is legist, I am not fond of it when the court verdict becomes a letter of deed and a bill.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

I vehemently share your dissatisfaction with the current system of international relations, but I have no other system for you. And even if someone has it, it will not be implemented at least until the next world war.

Quote: Octopus

Are you really ready to believe that a court verdict will be the cause of the next sanctions, and not the reason for the next sanctions?

Yes. There are a lot of reasons, and so, the desire of Western countries to impose sanctions is noticeably less than the reasons at their disposal for this.

[Octopus]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

I vehemently share your dissatisfaction with the current system of international relations

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

the desire of Western countries to impose sanctions is noticeably less than the reasons at their disposal for this.

I find your position controversial. As much as there was desire, there will be so much, but only there were sanctions timed to A, there will be the same sanctions timed to B. At the same time, the court from the instance that makes the decision becomes the instance that urges other actors (politicians) to show goodwill. I find it a minus, not a plus.

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

even if someone has it, it will not be implemented at least until the next world war.

Euro-identities say this, figs with him with the plane, the main thing is that there should not be a third world war. But if you leave out the extradition to the Hague personally for the Sovereign, then all issues with specific performers could be resolved immediately and with any degree of bloodthirstiness. Jews practice this, and some Iranian general has recently learned something about international relations. By the way, and it also had 6 years of investigation and the trial, don’t you know?

[Liam]

How do you imagine the responsibility of Russian citizens who committed crimes abroad and managed to return to the Russian Federation, which, as you know, does not give out their citizens. Here, for example, a Russian tourist killed someone in Thailand and returned, the Thai people did not have time to figure out before leaving.
Will this person go unpunished? He will not be judged anywhere? He will not sit?
Or there are legal rules governing such cases

[Octopus]

Quote: Liam

Will this person go unpunished? He will not be judged anywhere? He will not sit?
Or there are legal rules governing such cases

Naturally, this case will be considered by a Russian court under Russian laws (and practice). Depends on the circumstances.
If, for example, he stabbed someone, it would be quite possible to sit. If he killed people with heavy army-level weapons, it certainly won’t be unless the Thais find convincing arguments enough to buy his head. Some strange question, by golly.

[Liam]

Quote: Octopus

Naturally, this case will be considered by a Russian court under Russian laws (and practice

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Article 12. The effect of the criminal law in relation to persons who committed a crime outside the borders of the Russian Federation

1. Citizens of the Russian Federation and stateless persons permanently residing in the Russian Federation who have committed a crime against the interests protected by this Code outside the borders of the Russian Federation are subject to criminal liability in accordance with this Code, if there is no decision of a court of a foreign state with respect to these persons for this crime

Quote: Octopus

Depends on the circumstances

The circumstances are simple. Russia, in the framework of interstate treaties, has undertaken to recognize the decisions of foreign courts and ensure their enforcement in relation to its own citizens on its territory.

Quote: Octopus

If

There will come the consequences that Russia will cost, including a pretty penny.

[Octopus]

Quote: Liam

are subject to criminal liability in accordance with this Code, if in relation to these persons for this crime there is no decision of a foreign court

Yes. And since such a decision is admissible, it will be, Mr. Girkin is not subject to criminal liability in Russia and is also not subject to extradition.
This rule excludes double responsibility, you interpret it the other way around.

Quote: Liam

The circumstances are simple. Russia in the framework of interstate treaties took

Do not make up. The jurisdiction of the Dutch court was confirmed by specific countries in relation to their citizens. Not Russia.

Quote: Liam

which Russia will cost, including a pretty penny.

1. On the redemption of sixes answered above.
2. For these consequences, what, do you need a court?

[Liam]

Quote: Octopus

such a solution is admissible

It is clear that you are not a lawyer. In this case there will be only one Dutch court. Two times for the same they will not be judged. This is the jurisdiction of the Dutch court and Russia cannot hold its own alternative court. It can execute or not the decision of the Dutch court on its territory. . With consequences in case of failure.

Quote: Octopus

The jurisdiction of the Dutch court was confirmed by specific countries in relation to their citizens. Not Russia.

Once again. Russia recognizes the jurisdiction of the Dutch court. And even cooperates. The data from the radars was sent at the request of the Dutch prosecutors. For the same fragments of a rocket, etc., etc., the Dutch do not need any additional confessions in this case. For:


The list of international treaties of the Russian Federation on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family, criminal and other matters



Kingdom of the Netherlands
1. Convention on Civil Procedure 01.03.1954/XNUMX/XNUMX
2. The Convention repealing the requirement of legalization of foreign official documents 05.10.1961/XNUMX/XNUMX
3. Conventions on the delivery of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters abroad on 15.11.1965/XNUMX/XNUMX
4. European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters on 20.04.1959/XNUMX/XNUMX
5. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards on 10.06.1958

Quote: Octopus

For these consequences, do you need a court?

The user above answered you - for the onset of legal consequences, you need a court decision. This is the legally correct wording. You translate everything into verbal geopolitical battles.
There are people who are responsible for the death of 300 people. They should be called a court by an official sentence.

[Octopus]

Quote: Liam

It’s clear that you are not a lawyer

Yes.

My let's say belonged to the fact that Strelkov-Girkin would not necessarily be found guilty. I have reasonable doubts that the Buk’s crew followed exactly Strelkov’s orders.

Quote: Liam

Once again, Russia recognizes the jurisdiction of the Dutch court.

Why do you think so?

Quote: Liam

even cooperates.

Cooperation in the investigation (for example, this was not an attempt to confuse the investigation) does not mean recognition of justice.

Quote: Liam

European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 20.04.1959/XNUMX/XNUMX

Read it.

Quote: Liam

The user above answered you - for legal consequences, a court decision is needed.

It?

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

or lose beneficial forms of cooperation with the Western world due to sanctions.

You and the user above do not share political sanctions and a court decision. Is it in the verdict of the Dutch court that you will write "Germany to introduce a duty on Russian gas in the amount of 100% before Russia gives out people or bodies according to the attached list"?

[Liam]

Quote: Octopus

I have reasonable doubts that the Buk’s crew followed exactly Strelkov’s orders

The court is for this purpose needed to establish whose orders the crew carried out and who was in the crew, too.

Quote: Octopus

Why do you think so?

And where did you get that he doesn’t recognize? Is there a proof with an official statement from the officers of the bodies of the Russian Federation-Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, State Security, and the Investigative Committee?

Quote: Octopus

Cooperation in the investigation (for example, this was not an attempt to confuse the investigation) does not mean recognition of justice

This is exactly what it means. Court orders, the jurisdiction of which you do not recognize, do not fulfill. And the Russian Federation - fulfills.

Quote: Octopus

Read it.

More than carefully. Including this
statements:

1) The Russian Federation proceeds from the understanding that the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention must be applied in such a way as to ensure the inevitability of responsibility for committing crimes falling within the scope of the Convention;

2) The Russian Federation proceeds from the understanding that the legislation of the Russian Federation does not contain the concept of "political crimes". In all cases, when deciding on the provision of legal assistance, the Russian Federation will not consider as "political crimes" or "crimes related to political crimes", in particular, the following acts:



b) the crimes provided for in Article 50 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (1949), Article 51 of the Geneva Convention on the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea (1949) Article 130 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (1949); Article 147 of the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949); Article 85 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 on the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (1977), and Articles 1 and 4 of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, concerning the protection of victims of armed conflicts of a non-international character (1977);

Quote: Octopus

You and the user above do not share political sanctions and a court decision. Is it in the verdict of the Dutch court that you will write "Germany to introduce a duty on Russian gas in the amount of 100% before Russia gives out people or bodies according to the attached list"?

Do not attribute your thoughts to me. The court decision will write Sentence of Mr. Pupkin to imprisonment for a term of. And all. Execution of the sentence is not the task of the court but of other state bodies. First of all, in this case, the penitentiary system of the Russian Federation according
Code of Criminal Procedure Article 472. Procedure for a court to resolve issues related to the execution of a sentence of a court of a foreign state
And the failure of the Russian Federation to fulfill its obligations under international treaties is a political issue and not a legal one. And these issues will be resolved politically.
The case of the court is to establish the procedural truth in the case, and the execution of its decisions is another area

[Octopus]

Quote: Liam

Code of Criminal Procedure Article 472

You decided to patrol me? Or are you rewriting from some blochik without looking?

In relation to citizens of the Russian Federation, article 459 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies, and not 472 at all.

Quote: Liam

More than carefully.

You do not even seem to read the headline. Otherwise, they might have realized that assistance in carrying out the investigation was not nearly equal to the automatic recognition of the sentence against a citizen of the Russian Federation.

Quote: Liam

And where did you get that he doesn’t recognize? Proof is with an official statement

https://www.government.nl/topics/mh17-incident/news/2017/07/07/minister-of-security-and-justice-signs-mh17-treaty-with-ukraine

[Liam]

With regret, I have to admit that you do not know the topic and do not distinguish between the initiation and investigation of a criminal case at the request of a foreign state and the execution of a sentence passed by a foreign court against a citizen of the Russian Federation. Also, you absolutely do not understand the concept of Jurisdiction and the difference between Ukraine and the Russian Federation in this case. the jurisdiction of this case belongs to Ukraine as a state on whose territory the crime was committed. Your link is an agreement between Ukraine and the Netherlands on the transfer of the first of its "powers" to the latter in terms of preliminary investigation and court. Russia has no rights to jurisdiction in this case because the crime has not been committed on its territory, the victims are not citizens of the Russian Federation, the plane did not belong to the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation cannot not transmit and / or recognize anything. Also, the Netherlands did not apply to the Russian Federation with requests to initiate a criminal case in this case, therefore, Article 459 is in no way here.
There are only instructions from the Dutch in accordance with legal aid treaties and there will be a requirement regarding the execution of a Dutch court sentence in accordance with Article 472.

[Octopus]

Quote: Liam

initiation and investigation of a criminal case at the request of a foreign state and execution of a sentence imposed by a foreign court against a citizen of the Russian Federation

Probably.

Quote: Liam

Under the conventions, the jurisdiction of this case belongs to Ukraine as a state in whose territory the crime was committed

Yes.

Quote: Liam

Your link is an agreement between Ukraine and the Netherlands on the transfer of the first of its "powers" to the latter in terms of preliminary investigation and trial.

Yes.

Quote: Liam

Russia in this case has no rights to jurisdiction because the crime was not committed on its territory, the victims are not citizens of the Russian Federation, the plane did not belong to the Russian Federation

Yeah. From a formal point of view, this is nothing more than a Ukrainian trial of Russian citizens.

Quote: Liam

Also, the Netherlands did not turn to the Russian Federation with requests to institute criminal proceedings in this case, therefore, article 459 is not there.

Yes.

Quote: Liam

and there will be a requirement regarding the enforcement of a Dutch court sentence in accordance with Article 472.

Chapter 55. FACE TRANSFERCONDEMNED FOR DETERMINATION
FREEDOM, FOR SERVING PUNISHMENT IN THE STATE,
WHICH CITIZEN IT IS

If the Dutch court succeeds in catching Mr. Strelkov and the soldiers and officers of the 53rd brigade, they can be transferred to serve their sentences in the Russian Federation. Then Article 472 will apply to them.

With perseverance worthy of a better application, you prove to me that the sentence of a Ukrainian court in the Netherlands has a direct effect on Russian citizens in Russia.

[Liam]

Not direct. But through the decision of a Russian court that "analyzes" the sentence of a foreign court and accepts or refuses to execute it. The reasons for possible refusals are listed in the conventions, mostly persecution for political reasons. By the way, this is the main reason why foreign courts refuse to execute sentences Russian courts against "oppositionists" -Khodorkovsky and so on.
In this case, this motive by the Russian court cannot be used. For the Russian Federation, when signing the Convention, immediately indicated that there were no "political motives" for it in the investigation of cases against victims of armed conflicts. I overthrew above.
And the passengers of the plane are the victims of the armed conflict. So this "legal" excuse will not work. You will have to refuse in the "basman" style. What will entail consequences for violation of conventions

[Octopus]

Quote: Liam

What will entail consequences for violation of conventions

Again. You are referring to a convention on investigations, not on the courts. Russia helped to investigate the crimes of the pilot Voloshin, or who was guilty there at that time, and not this whole Russophobia.

In the case of criminal prosecution of a Russian citizen in Russia, Russian, not Dutch, law applies. In this case, 459 Code of Criminal Procedure and 12 Criminal Code. At the same time, the Dutch drug addiction to conduct a trial in absentia creates an additional conflict: a convicted citizen of the Russian Federation is not subject to repeated prosecution in the Russian Federation. So the reason for the refusal of the GP to initiate criminal proceedings against conditional Strelkov may be (and should be, with a literal reading of the legal norms) the very fact of the verdict in the Netherlands. Twice for one they do not judge. May the world collapse, but the Law triumphs.

[Liam]

Quote: Octopus

You refer

These conventions are a cloud. Not only the one that I have indicated. There is also the Minsk Convention which regulates the execution of sentences and another 100500 others that the Russian Federation has signed. By the way. I’m sorry that relatives will be paid without waiting for the court. Non-judicial agreement. Negotiations are already underway.

[Andrey Komkov]

You know, I'm just interested in something else. This court will be held right now, Strelkova will be convicted, etc. people will be pecked at Russia as a country-accomplice of terrorism (otherwise why start this whole farce?), they will demand material payments from it, etc. And then after about 10 years, documents suddenly pop in or people speak out or the CIA archives open and it turns out that everything was completely wrong, that in fact MH17 was shot down by the APU, shot down by order of Poroshenko and the CIA operation is behind all this. I wonder how the Dutch will behave in this situation? Just from the point of view of lawyers, I’m interested in further behavior.

[sevryuk]

Did they commit? From the same Satanists ...

[Andrey Komkov]

Interestingly, the facts of the deliberate shelling of the crash site with heavy artillery by the Armed Forces of Ukraine as interpreted by the court? But they were, and because of this, experts for a long time could not start an investigation. Moreover, whether the APU was shot not near, but precisely at the place of the fall. Shells were even recorded on some of the wreckage of the liner. For me, it was a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

Interestingly, the facts of the deliberate shelling of the crash site with heavy artillery by the Armed Forces of Ukraine as interpreted by the court? But they were, and because of this, experts for a long time could not start an investigation.

The court will read the reports of the OSCE special observation mission. And there it is not written about "targeted bombardment of the crash site with heavy artillery from the APU", but it says that the observers could not get to the crash site because of "aggressive representatives of the DPR in a state of visible intoxication" - https://www.osce.org / ukraine-smm / 121431

[Andrey Komkov]

That's right, then these are the messages like https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2014/11/18/7044603/ I just dreamed about. And not just me. It happens.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

There is nothing about "the targeted bombardment of the crash site with heavy artillery from the Ukrainian Armed Forces."

[Liam]

You have a very peculiar idea of ​​the Criminal Procedure Code in particular and of forensic science in general.

[Octopus]

Quote: Liam

very peculiar idea of ​​the Criminal Procedure Code in particular and of forensic science in general.

)))
And what is their originality?

Do you really think that if the accused provide military control over the area of ​​the incident and over all the main witnesses, the court can work under the CPC?

[Liam]

Can you throw a link to the rule of the Criminal Procedure Code, something "forbidding" in this sense?

[Andrey Komkov]

And how, from the point of view of criminal law, should one interpret the fact that the country that is carrying out a special operation by the SBU to clean up the tails and conceal evidence on the downed MH17, which throws up "records of the militants' negotiations" with obvious rough traces of editing - this country is being included in the investigation team? That's right, the criminal should be in the thick of the investigation to instantly remove or add the necessary materials if something goes wrong. By the way, how to understand, again from the point of view of criminal law, that representatives of Ukraine have now been removed from the JIT?

[opus]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

What kind of calculation in this situation can we talk about? AND

well, the calculation is good enough

blunting strings is problematic

[Andrey Komkov]

There can be only one problem on the strings - with this calculation in the photo and this place of blasting, it can be seen that the Dutch made a CREW that does not coincide with the real situation. Suggest or guess yourself? Hint - the right wing and fuselage, as well as the left engine.

[opus]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

Suggest or guess yourself? On the

tell me. I am a sucker in these matters, although according to the outline 5 it was difficult for me to consider 3D on 2 D

Quote: Andrey Komkov

Hint - the right wing and fuselage, as well as the left engine.

the right wing and the left engine are not in the photo that I showed.
Hope we understand friend-friend? Right - this is on the right hand of the "driver"

Shl. they have an engine there, a gorgeous piece. don't remember "left" / "right" look?

[Andrey Komkov]

Ok, I’ll try it easier. The Dutch, forming their calculation of the strings, forgot to indicate that there is not a point impact from a single point, but a whole fragmented field of complex conical shape (the shape of the fragmented field is presented in the report of Almaz-Antey, the developer of these missiles). at this angle of approach of the rocket, as the Dutch say (10 degrees from Snezhny), the scalpel will hit not only the fuselage, but will also pass OVER the fuselage and strike the right wing, which will also be basically a fragmentation field (which is exactly what you see) . And the right engine will get it. However, neither on the right wing, nor in the right engine, the Dutch did not find a single hole from the GGE.

To make it clear what this is about - here's the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=Se1N_lq7IA0&feature=emb_logo. The models were not built by me, the guys from the aviation forum were building, taking into account the real dimensions of the liner and the conical fragmentation field of the 9M38 rocket. THERE it is clearly seen that when considering the Dutch model: 1) the right wing and the right engine fall into the main fragmentation field (the relative speed of the liner of 300 m / s versus the speed of 1700-2000 m / s of the expanding GGE can be neglected with a sufficient degree of approximation) - in reality, neither on the right wing nor in the right engine there is a single hole from the GGE, the Dutch were looking carefully; 2) The left engine is practically not in the fragmentation field of both the GGE and secondary fragments of 1, 3 and 4 rocket compartments - in reality there are holes from the GGE and a bunch of holes from the secondary fragments of the rocket 3) The keel of the aircraft does not fall into any fragmentation field at all - neither from the GGE, nor secondary fragments of the rocket - in reality, the keel is damaged by secondary fragments of the rocket and pieces of the cockpit.
That is why the fact that this calculation is crap is complete, Oleg Storcheva first said in a letter to the Netherlands Security Council. And I am inclined to agree with him, because there is no arguing against physics.

[opus]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

that there is not a point impact from one point, but a whole fragmentation field of complex

muhablyaha .....
there are TWO holes in TWO planes, spaced apart from each other, relative to the axial line of the plane, we draw a straight line (string)
and so N-times.
if all the strings converge at one point in space .. MEAN sho?
Conclusion, I will probably leave Vlodka2u (he has 5ku in mathematics)
Zy. Whatever the "scalpel", at such a distance the initiator of the expansion can be taken as a point.

Quote: Andrey Komkov

the form of the fragmentation field is presented in the report of Almaz-Antey, the developer of these missiles

mmmm. disagree. there is a lot of "such-such", damn if the report was BEFORE the "boys crucified", the Su-24, etc. Kiselevsky, yes

Quote: Andrey Komkov

and at such an angle of approach of the rocket, as the Dutch say (10 degrees from Snezhny)

I did pass here. I will not say anything. this is so with the "kandachka not solvable" epic, as someone "above" said "this is a problem for the summer air defense of a troyeshnik" is nonsense

Quote: Andrey Komkov

TA can clearly see that when considering the Dutch model: 1) in the main

Yes???? You just show me screenshots (photo), no words needed

Quote: Andrey Komkov

That is why the fact that this calculation is crap is complete, Oleg Storcheva first said.

Oleg Georgievich?
he’s like a VIP driver.
Its competence in air defense / SAM / striking elements tends to zero.
You brought him in vain.
Let's get "head jack" into argumentators, the best

[opus]

impressive

one- Mitya65, well, that’s understandable, he- vicious, then the number 3 comma14Further dor

/ I will throw a complaint /, I’m waiting for Mitya No. 65. I’m waiting .. next week I need to work (for me).
the second is Ezekiel (or rather, he is the first), mutantbut I’m not familiar with him.
A THIRD minus XTO?

[Mityay65]

Not my Antosha "-" was 4, and then I accidentally noticed that you mentioned me in vain ... and decided to put it.
If it seems to you. that I’m minus you, then this is an obsession, you need to get rid of it.
Do you think that you are being persecuted? This is not always true ... Although yes, the paranoid have enemies ... but I’m not honest, I’m not minus you, because I never read, because I consider your writings info garbage.

[opus]

Quote: Mityai65

Not my Antosha "-" was 4, and then I accidentally noticed

it’s not worth whispering, and after presenting evidence, look left out.
Come on like this:
write to the moderator: "how many cons did you put me", a request so to speak.
copy to "me", screenshot to "here"
(otherwise you are 65 years old, what if you know how to use a photo?
and we'll see "by chance" or "just like that" the cards you played ...
Threat. Chuvchёёёk- I know that.
Yeah.
Bet, if your libido "rises" from this -I'm pinned up- and you pierced.
Opera so l000kh bred.
Do you check? are you monitoring

Quote: Mityai65

If it seems to you. that I’m minus you, then this is an obsession, you need to get rid of it.

damn mutant- I know for sure!
Do you want to crap one’s pants completely? - I’ll give you statistics!

Quote: Mityai65

Do you think that you are being pursued?

diarrhea haunts you

Quote: Mityai65

but I’m not honest, I’m not minus you,

Prove a liar?

[Mityay65]

Quote: opus

so I will give statistics

Antosh. You see, I ignore you and carefully avoid because of your constant lies.
See what’s the matter? It is in this.
You were caught too many times on data manipulation, lies, fake news and other crap ... well, you know ... including I caught ... you are of little interest.
I personally will be satisfied if such an empty person like you just lags behind me and does not begin to mention me in vain. Here it needs to be done - is that clear?
P / S / Yes publish cheny, why not? If there are ideas. Having fun ... It only seems to me that again chatter and emptiness ... as always ...
You will not be offended if I do not continue to communicate with you? Nothing personal.

[opus]

Quote: Mityai65

Antosh. you see i ignore you and diligently

oh you don’t need to make a mess - you’ll be fucked up: a request to administrators — how many minuses have you set — write an article that I’m acquiring

Quote: Mityai65

You've been caught too many times on data manipulation, lies, fake news and

do not crack the tongue liar-give facts. Your broomstick is always sweeping sweet / smooth, the language is working

Quote: Mityai65

P / S / Yes publish cheny, why not?

hottsa to hear / read you
whether it’s the 65th region, in which I am confused, but rather 65 years of production: no brains, no merit, one malice

Quote: Mityai65

You will not be offended if I do not continue to communicate with you? Nothing personal.

you put your pants on and run the minuses, you stick out of this. Is that right, mutt?
And verbal diarrhea, what are you talking about is for you a darling, a kamasutramozha.
UO-it helps, I have seen you in my 53 many

[opus]

Quote: Mityai65

Antosha, you’re still a weird type. Or is he drunk again?

hot topic.
And you are in trouble, sorry to control, my every word, therefore I am right:

and I don’t really want this, but I’ll turn to the admins, let you lying boar muzzle poked in the truth, at that "very"
But you "like water off a duck's back"? right?
The product of the vital activity of organisms - it does not sink?

Quote: Mityai65

Let's cross and talk like men

To be honest, I’m not even going to sit with you, in ONE field. BUT! if you want

 Show / Hide text

https://youtu.be/CU3IvXfGCTc

You know how and where to write, write, cross, what really there.
and isho
Waiting for an article

Quote: Mityai65

You were caught too many times on data manipulation, lies, fake news and other crap ... well, you know ... including I caught ... you are of little interest.

you have to go, yoksel moxel.
You aren’t enough for the curious, you’re not from Sakhalin, but just an old fellow, write about me, or so many years / winters and without an article?

such(and I) potency potential disappears ...

[Andrey Komkov]

"muhablyakha .....
there are TWO openings in TWO planes, spaced apart from each other, RELATIVE to the center line of the aircraft - draw a straight line (string) "
What are you talking about. Excellent. Almaz-Antey (AA) also takes THREE holes in the structures of the aircraft (skin and two consecutive punched frames), conducts a string and ... it gets a completely different explosion point. Moreover, he has more such strings, and for some reason all of them point to a completely different point. After that, the Dutch say - heavy GGE cannot move like that, because they CHANGED their direction of movement (ricocheted) after passing through the thin skin of the liner (aha, degrees by 60 degrees or more, and all in bulk), so we cannot accept the AA model ( such as Boeing's material is denser than the Il-86, so a full-scale experiment is not suitable). But on our, Dutch, GGE model, we DIDN'T CHANGE any direction, so we pass the string through two holes - the casing + 1 hole in the cabin floor. And two consecutive holes in the frames - this is all you dreamed about, there is no such thing. And someone here after that will talk about the "professionalism" of DSB together with JIT ??

[opus]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

What are you saying? Fine. Almaz-Antey (AA) likewise takes THREE holes in aircraft structures (casing and two successively punched frames), holds a string and ....

1.А-А: I didn’t "take" the string, you AA report, at least read it, but better report 2a

Quote: Andrey Komkov

two consecutive holes in the frames - this is all in your imagination, there is no such thing. And someone here after that will talk about the "professionalism" of DSB together with JIT ??

2. I didn’t even understand what you are broadcasting, are there soaps, calculations? Show address - where to send

Quote: Andrey Komkov

Quote here from https://www.5-tv.ru/

I will dodge. 5tv quote is cool

Quote: Andrey Komkov

Well, yes, of course, the developer and manufacturer of the anti-aircraft missile knows less about the fragmentation field of its missile than the opus blogger named Anton.

1. I'm not a "blogger" - I'm a blogger at all
Do I have the right thought to slip out? Yes, you need to bring the Constitution of the Russian Federation?
2.My VUS is the operator of K3V, ZRS S-200 *, incl. I'm not really "AndreyKompkov"
3.From the wing "left" there is almost nothing left
4. Like it not, but initializing the warhead missiles at such a distance is taken as a point, and the strings are a characteristic indicator / pointer
===============
I don’t blame anyone, just the facts, and to hear Solovyov / Kiselyov / Olya Skabeeva and Zhenya Popov, and to believe that this is nonsense.

[Andrey Komkov]

"Oleg Georgievich?
he’s like a VIP driver.
Its competence in air defense / missile defense / striking elements tends to zero. "

By itself, but your relationship in the Federal Air Transport Agency and in the competence of other people just rolls over.
A quote from here https://www.5-tv.ru/glavnoe/broadcasts/508859/227/ "Our team consisted of experts in various fields of civil aviation, including military. These are experts in airspace, in investigation aviation accidents and accidents, metal research, aircraft wreckage research, as well as military representatives of the Almaz-Antey NGO and the Ministry of Defense of the Research Institute. That is, our commission was one of the most voluminous, and we proposed participation of our experts in conducting all studies.At the very first meeting, which took place in February, we drew the attention of the Dutch side to the fact that we are ready to take part in the studies, so that our experts, together with international experts, would conduct these studies, so that the investigations would acquire We also presented to the commission an additional expert from the Almaz-Antey NGO, since the first version was that the aircraft was shot down by a missile Buk, but to our question: "Do you have any idea about the characteristics of this missile?", We received a negative answer. "

"mmmm. I do not agree. There is a lot of" such-such ", damn if the report was BEFORE the" boys crucified ", the Su-24, etc. Kiselevsky, yes"

Well, yes, of course, the developer and manufacturer of the anti-aircraft missile knows much less about the fragmentation field of his missile than the opus blogger named Anton. At the same time, the Dutch then use this field from the AA report to build their model without any twinge of conscience. At the same time, bashfully not indicating the GGE with strings, which should fly over the fuselage and hit the right wing with the right engine with such an arrangement and such an angle of approach of the rocket to the target. "So there are no them, they just did not reach the wing, since there are no holes. Therefore, they did not fly there." (it's all sarcasm). And to admit for a second that they simply made a mistake with the angle of approach and with the point of impact - no, it is impossible, the rocket could fly only this way, and not otherwise. Because otherwise the owl on the globe is not tight .... I mean, you can't drag the militias to shoot down, you will have to return the money to the customers for the "investigation", so much trouble.

[Andrey Komkov]

You can play with the fragmentation field yourself and see what parts of the aircraft will be in this field. Here - https://www.geogebra.org/m/FP58nKZJ

[Evil Booth]

the question is, why aren't you in the trenches? after all, a solid fighter

[svd-xnumx]

Here is the analysis of the "material evidence"

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

A wonderful video made me put on three foil caps.

[SPARKS]

Do not forget about lead cowards, pan Svidomo. From you and carries dung and sour borsch.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Mar. Tira

But only to no avail. Over the hill, this news was washed away

There is no doubt in Western justice, at least remember how the most humane condemned Milosovic.

[Andrey VOV]

Not the approximate, but the exact number of the rocket, the date of manufacture, storage location and so on

[Evil Booth]

it was on TV and on the newspaper on wikipedia not.

[Finches]

The independence of the court is determined by the measure of its interest ...

[vvvjak]

Quote: Finches

The independence of the court is determined by the measure of its interest ...

Who are the judges? - For antiquity
To a free life their enmity is irreconcilable,
Judges draw from forgotten newspapers
The time of Ochakovsky and the subjugation of the Crimea (C) A.S. Griboedov

[Vladimir_2U]

Let’s see, the Hague court has more honor than the German court in 1933 in Leipzig, in the case of the burning of the Reichstag, or less. And how the representatives and the government of Russia will behave, in comparison with

(At that time, the so-called “journalistic conflict” unfolded in Soviet-German relations, including the arrest and search of Soviet journalists (including representatives of TASS) on September 22 while trying to get to the Leipzig process [9]. September 23 Soviet the government decided to recall Soviet journalists from Germany and expel German journalists from the USSR within three days, which was an unprecedented measure in diplomatic practice. Germany backtracked and on November 4, 1933, Soviet journalists attended the court for the first time in Leipzig.)

Hoping for the best.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Let’s see, the Hague court has more honor than the German court in 1933 in Leipzig, in the case of the burning of the Reichstag, or less.

Yes there is no difference between Leipzig and The Hague, whoever is appointed is the one guilty. The only difference is that the distance between Leipzig and The Hague is 560 km.

[Vladimir_2U]

Well, I don’t know, those appointed guilty in Leipzig were acquitted, this is a fact. A Nazi court acquitted the Communists, for reference.

[Siberia 75]

You can even try to consider this court as a court only if the United States transmits its satellite data at the time of the crash (and they are there, the stripes themselves do not refute this). And also full data Ukrainian. dispatching service.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: Siberia 75

This trial can even be tried as a court, only if the United States transfers its satellite data

Do you think that in this case they will not be declared a fake exactly at the same second?

[1959ain]

First they will destroy Russia, and then they will acquit. In the midst of the summer leisurely news life, the British pundit made a sensational statement in the Opinion column of the Russian media company RT. He wrote that the former leader of Yugoslavia, under whose leadership the country unleashed the conflicts of the 90s in the Balkans, was acquitted by a special UN tribunal in The Hague dealing with wartime crimes. Slobodan Milosevic, who died in the cell of this very tribunal a decade ago, was accused of being the mastermind behind these wars, which led to massive war crimes and crimes against humanity.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: 1959ain

He wrote that the former leader of Yugoslavia, under whose leadership the country unleashed the conflicts of the 90s in the Balkans, was acquitted by a special UN tribunal in The Hague,

Posthumously acquitted. First hanged and then acquitted.

[A.Lex]

.............. that's just Yugoslavia itself is not there and a lot of victims during the destruction of the country .....................

[tihonmarine]

Quote: A.Lex

that's just Yugoslavia itself is not there and a lot of victims in the destruction of the country

Yes, not only Yugoslavia, a lot of what is not, and what else will be.

[sevryuk]

Yugoslavia will be!

[tihonmarine]

I want to hope !!!

[sevryuk]

Soviet Union! )))

[Evil Booth]

Yes, everything is clear like God's day

[Van 16]

What can you expect from a completely biased court? It seems to me no objectivity there and does not smell close ..

[Evil543]

The practice of these international courts shows that perpetrators are always appointed and, accordingly, convicted.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Van 16

It seems to me no objectivity there and does not smell close ..

Not for this, they have been humiliating for 6 years to find the culprit.

[WILL]

Let's hope that the truth is revealed and the perpetrators will be held accountable.
Well, if the Court begins to turn into a Judicial Court over Russia, then why the hell do we need such a court, PACE and other Euro-organizations? Let's see how they say!
The work is hard, I hope the team of Lawyers will not let you down!

[Uncle lee]

justice in the Hague will truly triumph

A certain eccentric is still fighting for Truth, -
True, in his speeches - the truth on a broken penny:
-Pure Truth will triumph over time,
If it does the same as a manifest Falsehood.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: ANIMAL

Let's hope that the truth is revealed and the perpetrators will be held accountable.

I do not believe that the West will find the guilty, he will simply appoint them. Now the main thing is the upcoming elections in America.

[carstorm 11]

yeah. of course. justice in the Hague will truly triumph. SHCHAZZZ! someone else believes in such a thing?))) the perpetrators have been appointed for a long time. the court is just a petty legal necessity for the end of this circus.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: carstorm 11

justice in the Hague will truly triumph. SHCHAZZZ! Does anyone else believe in this?

You can't believe. An example is old and sucked for a long time, this is the end of the First World War, how "justly" the whole world was shredded with axes. And so far no one has condemned, or even just said. What justice is there.

[knn54]

Was it not theirs "guys" collected evidence near Tehran?

[rocket757]

The Hague is preparing a trial under MH17: on the current situation

Court? The trial ... roles assigned, money paid!

[Ravil_Asnafovich]

The Nuremberg trials almost ruined due to such judges.

[parusnik]

It seems that the perpetrators have already been appointed ... And the verdict has been drawn up, it remains to read out ..

[Adam Khomich]

Personally, I would not trust the state where drugs and prostitution are officially allowed!

[Guards turn]

Ex-SBU employee Vasily Prozorov said the authorities of Ukraine are responsible for the death of a passenger airliner.

Recall that the Boeing 777 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed in the Donbass in July 2014. Killed 298 people. The West considers Russia to be the culprit. According to a 2015 report from the Netherlands Security Council Commission, the plane was shot down by a ground-to-air missile from the Buk anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) belonging to the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade deployed in Kursk.

Kiev is ready to repeat the scenario of the crash of MH17 - experts on the “Russian trace” have already been laden with Iran

In the film "MN-17. In Search of Truth, ”Prozorov calls not only Ukraine guilty of the Boeing’s downfall, but also addresses issues of involvement in concealing the crime of other parties. Confirming his words, Prozorov showed the public official documents of the SBU. The film also has exclusive eyewitness interviews.

The author’s conclusion that the evidence gathered during his journalistic investigation allows us to conclude that there was a pre-planned provocation, which was systematically implemented by special services of several states.


For several years, the West has been trying to unprovenly blame Russia for the crash of a Malaysian airliner. They do not perceive other arguments there. In particular, the so-called International Investigation Team did not even take into account the facts published by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, indicating that the missile launched on the plane belonged to Ukraine. At the same time, the former SBU lieutenant colonel, who went over to the side of Russia, in the sensational documentary revealed new, previously unknown details of the plane crash, referring to documents of Ukrainian special services.

Source: News-Front

[GenNick]

Guards turn, read your comment twice, but did not understand when the air defense missile system was launched - before the Boeing was shot down by an air / air missile or after?
As you write, ... according to the statement of the RF Ministry of Defense ... '' The MO stated that they had landed the Boeing of the Ukrainian Air Force and that there were eyewitnesses, we read witnesses ...

[Guards turn]

GenNick, I read your comment 1 (one) time, in order to understand, I recommend watching the film of Ex-SBU officer Vasily Prozorov “MN-17. In Search of Truth ”, so everything is sorted out according to facts.

[GenNick]

I’m not going to argue, much less to expose. But first there was the WORD !!! You need to answer for the words, in any case, they taught me as a child on ... the street.
A little lower, Michman is looking at the root and I completely agree with him.

[Octopus]

Quote: Guards turn

Ex-SBU employee Vasily Prozorov

And where is Mr. Prozorov? Not in Moscow, an hour?

[Serzh]

Quote: Octopus

And where is Mr. Prozorov? Not in Moscow, an hour?

and where should he be in the circumstances? in Kiev?
who would have let him open his mouth, and if he had found a way to say, he would not be anywhere now. in heaven. there they kill a pancake for much less "sins" before the regime.

[midshipman]

It is necessary to bring to court a dispatcher (girl) from Dnepropetrovsk, who drove this plane on a tablet. But the owner of the airport Kolomoisky immediately sent her on vacation, and then hid it.
In general, according to ICAO rules, civilian flights over the territory where military operations are conducted are prohibited. Ukraine is responsible in this disaster. Prior to this, the Ukrainian Armed Forces had been shot down twice by civilian aircraft and the world community was silent. But it was necessary to judge.

[Andrey VOV]

There is no that dispatcher alive ... and for a long time ... from the word completely

[Ros 56]

There is no court in The Hague, there is a political theater where political clowns frolic.

[tihonmarine]

This court has real chances to turn into a “process of the century”, but only on one condition - if, unlike the “investigation” that lasted several years, it will be objective and pass without political engagement.

After 1917, there can be no objectivity from the West. We already know who the guilty will be "appointed". The Western court is now similar to amateur performances in our village "hut reading room".

[rocket757]

Quote: tihonmarine

After 1917, there can be no objectivity from the west.

And before that, "foreign" were honest and fair in relation to Russia ???
Let's remember who called for example Ivan the Terrible a bloody tyrant? Are they not those "accusers" whose hands were not up to the elbows in blood, but up to the very top ... there are still many examples of "truthful" ones!
We do not need to be complex and need to make excuses, but stick those "truth-lovers, guardians" in their guano more often!

[tihonmarine]

Quote: rocket757

And before that, "foreign" were honest and fair in relation to Russia ???

They were never honest, but after 1917 their "justice" went off scale.

[rocket757]

Quote: tihonmarine

They were never honest, but after 1917 their "justice" went off scale.

This is understandable. Because since that time came the fear that they might have something like that !!! And this is more terrible than "palace" coups and everything else like that.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: rocket757

Because since then the fear has come that they might happen, something like that!

But fear does not pass, but is constantly increasing.

[cniza]

Well, it is entirely possible that justice in the Hague will indeed triumph - contrary to all efforts made to ensure that this does not happen.

Very weak hope ...

[rocket757]

The options are not many.
Either ignore, or fight back ... anyway, have to attend. Perhaps personally even better. But who should I send there, is that a question?

[cniza]

If they accuse Russia, of course, it is necessary to be present and something tells me that we have a trump card up our sleeve ...

[rocket757]

Trumps up their sleeves, this is good, it is NECESSARY ... it is important who can set their brains with these "trump cards", so specifically what would it be!

[cniza]

Quote: rocket757

Trumps up their sleeves, this is good, it is NECESSARY ... it is important who can set their brains with these "trump cards", so specifically what would it be!

I really hope that it is intended for the brain.

[businessv]

Well, it is entirely possible that justice in the Hague will indeed triumph - contrary to all efforts made to ensure that this does not happen.

I would very much like, but hardly! A lot of effort and money was spent on this event by our overseas "partners". No one will look, and they will not find either the Dnepropetrovsk dispatcher who set the course for the aircraft, nor the technician of the military airfield that equipped the fighter. I think they were hidden so securely that you can't dig them up.
.

[IvanT]

The truth will not be there, it will not be! Not for this all this concert started.

[Nick]

Quote: IvanT

The truth will not be there, it will not be! Not for this all this concert started.

Russia does not matter. What is there in The Hague to decide is not our business. Russia is not in the jurisdiction of the Hague court. In addition, Russia was not allowed to participate in the investigation.

[IvanT]

I partially agree. But when they begin to arrest our assets behind the hill, referring to the decision of the Hague, what shall we do ?!

[Nick]

Quote: IvanT

I partially agree. But when they begin to arrest our assets behind the hill, referring to the decision of the Hague, what shall we do ?!

Arrest everything and everyone who is at least involved in the region. In a word, grab everything and everyone where Moscow’s hand can reach.

[bycharashkO]

"Well, it is quite possible that justice will indeed prevail in The Hague - despite all the efforts made to prevent this from happening." - I DO NOT BELIEVE!

[Andrey VOV]

Court in The Hague and justice are two completely incompatible things!

[xomaNN]

When in politics it is necessary to "throw logs on the fire", it is not a pity to ditch a passenger Boeing. Malaysian in 2014, South Korean in 1983. The goal has been achieved - once again to present the USSR (or the Russian Federation) as an "evil empire". Guilty in advance

[Octopus]

I have to note that most commentators are right (and the author is not).

If suddenly an honest judge appears in the Netherlands, then this shed will be closed instantly, for procedural reasons. The investigation, in principle, cannot be carried out satisfactorily: fixing the crime scene, interviewing witnesses and suspects, etc.

In the best case for abstract justice, an investigation will be launched into obstruction of justice and possibly treason against the leadership of the Netherlands: this is, first of all, Prime Minister Mark Rutte, and then and now. But I do not believe in such courage of the Dutch judges.

Most likely, you should expect a meaningless political booth, in the style of the notorious Hague. But the justice of the victors is good after victory in the war, as with Yugoslavia, and not before victory, and even more so not instead victory.

[Rumata]

Duck. Europe in the person of Psheks, Labuses and Ukrainians, believe that Russia has already been defeated and require contributions and reparations. True, victory in court does not mean victory on the battlefield. Only they do not understand it. But essentially: bring down the target at an altitude of 9-10 km. one SOU SAM Buk, without SOC, as claimed in The Hague, is unlikely. But the fully deployed air defense systems of the Armed Forces of Ukraine could easily do this.

[Alexander Seklitsky]

It’s quite possible to bring down a civilian airliner heading on course. The self-propelled gun has its own radar. But why should Russia bring down a civilian aircraft ???? But to repel attacks by attack aircraft, one self-propelled gun has the same efficiency as a reed-gun. There is no all-round visibility, there is no possibility of reloading, and it cannot attack on the fly. For such purposes, the tunguska lib shell is suitable. Or TOP

[Liam]

Quote: Alexander Seklitsky

But to repel the attacks of attack aircraft, one self-propelled gun has the same efficiency as a reed gun.

But will he be able to bring down a military transporter?

[Alexander Seklitsky]

him and Pzrk knock. At the worst, the wasp. It has a radar all-round visibility and is more light and mobile. To knock down a transporter is not the level of a BUK. The BUK complex is imprisoned for other purposes and certainly not for operating autonomously with one machine. It covers the area where armies or large objects are concentrated. A bulky thing I can tell you. I served in the military division of the 1st division 140 divisions. Just the same in beech m 1

[Liam]

Quote: Alexander Seklitsky

him and pzrk knock

On the echelon?

[Alexander Seklitsky]

Have you ever seen the AN-26 ship for 10 thousand? By the way, on the eve of the Dnieper, the ukrov transport carrier was filled up with shilka. They usually do not gain more than three thousand in height

[Liam]

Quote: Alexander Seklitsky

Have you ever seen the AN-26 ship for 10 thousand

No he is parking by 7000. In this connection, I wanted to find out from an experienced air defense worker how

him and pzrk knock

I also want to ask an experienced air defense worker. How does a BUK see a planes flying at 7.000 at a speed of 500 and a plane at 10.000 at a speed of 900. What are the differences between them for the

[Alexander Seklitsky]

Quote: Liam

how
him and pzrk knock

On takeoff, on landing, at low altitudes. In the same way that they were shot down in Afghanistan.

Quote: Liam

I also want to ask an experienced air defense worker. How does a BUK see a planes flying at 7.000 at a speed of 500 and a plane at 10.000 at a speed of 900. What are the differences between them for the

sees poorly. In a narrow sector of 130 degrees. I will not disclose the details because the position is not the operator of the SOW, but the head of the pes 100 and the driver who dragged this pes. I did not sit at the console, but provided combat work. For it means a platoon of material support. But I can say one thing that using only one sow to intercept is nonsense. She is helpless without security.

[Liam]

Quote: Alexander Seklitsky

On takeoff, on landing, at low altitudes

That is, on the echelon, the MANPADS will not hit in any way. An air defense system with a certain interception range is needed. Like a beech, for example

Quote: Alexander Seklitsky

sees poorly

Exactly, the angular speed of an airplane at 10K meters at a speed of 900 and an airplane at 7000 at a speed of about 500 is approximately the same. It’s not so difficult for the operator to make a mistake in this case.

Quote: Alexander Seklitsky

She is helpless without security.

And the likelihood of an error increases in multiples. Is that right?

[Zaurbek]

Or Thor .....

[Liam]

TOR has too small radius for such a thing

[Alexander Seklitsky]

Quote: Liam

Exactly, the angular speed of an airplane at 10K meters at a speed of 900 and an airplane at 7000 at a speed of about 500 is approximately the same. It’s not so difficult for the operator to make a mistake in this case.

That is why no one in their right mind will send the sow alone. I am silent about the fact that the rockets in the sow are loaded after deployment. Therefore, they still need to be transported next.

[Liam]

Quote: Alexander Seklitsky

That is precisely why no one in their right mind will send a sou alone.

How many vehicles are there in the whole caravan with the "correct" deployment? How to ensure the secrecy of the movement of a convoy of dozens of trucks with very unique silhouettes? How to ensure the "invisibility" of the operation of military radars with their specific operating ranges? How to explain where the tractor drivers and miners got an air defense division with all the belongings? Have you bought it at the military store?

[Andrey Komkov]

Wrong. An answering machine works at the civilian side, which issues a special code that the given board is civilian to irradiate the interrogator with the SDA. After that, a special mark is assigned on the SOU screen as a civilian board. A military transporter responds with a different code that clearly identifies it as a military board. This was introduced in the BUK-M1-2 and in the self-propelled guns 9A310M1. So, at the expense of 9A38, I’m not sure that they already had such a system, but did not receive data on affiliation from KP 9S470

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

poorly

narrow

nonsense

helpless

These are all subjective assessments. Subjective evaluations may be different depending on the evaluator, including those that may be different from the one who made the decision to use the JMA. Objectively, one thing can be said: self-propelled guns can detect and bring down a Boeing offline is capable of. TTX allow it to her.

[Alexander Seklitsky]

Why would she shoot down a Boeing? For what purpose?

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

By mistake. The milling machine operator does not have the goal of chopping off his fingers with a machine, but they are chopping off.

[Alexander Seklitsky]

That is, in your opinion, someone in the command of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation decided to help the militias and sent one car from the complex with missiles LOADED to it with obviously losing characteristics? Do you know that elementary missiles are loaded onto it already in a combat position? Beech missiles are located on open rails and are therefore subject to physical stress. Therefore, rockets are brought to a combat position by the battalion’s battalion battalion in closed wardrobe trunks, after the rocket is brought into a combat position and loaded onto the SOU via ROM.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

No need to take your thoughts and try to attribute them to another person, it doesn’t work like that. The decision maker might have ideas about effectiveness and appropriateness that are different from those that you have - because of a bunch of reasons that you may or may not know.

[Andrey Komkov]

Moreover, according to the Dutch version from the Russian Federation, send a self-propelled guns with 9M38 (M1) missiles, which are generally forbidden for use in firing (except for firing ranges) back in 2011 due to the expiration of the warranty period for the operation of powder engines. Apparently, they were specially assembled at the training grounds, and the SOU crew commander is such that he deliberately put expired missiles on his own self-propelled guns, neglecting the fact that a missile can simply explode when leaving the pylon. Do you believe that? I faintly imagine such a commander of the SOU. I would have believed that they would drag their standard 9M317 missiles and shoot them. Yes, the trouble is, this rocket does not smell there.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

I faintly imagine such a commander of the SOU.

Once again I repeat the simplest, most elementary thought - do not put your head on other people and try to think for them. The decision maker might have ideas about effectiveness and appropriateness that are different from those that you have - because of a bunch of reasons that you may or may not know.

[Octopus]

Quote: Rumata

True, victory in court does not mean victory on the battlefield.

You are absolutely right. But my position as a former liberal is somewhat different. I feel sad that the court is used in political games. Not the main sadness in my life, but nonetheless.

[Zaurbek]

The liberals have a whole coven about this. Bonfires burn and dance.
Most likely the court will not be in our favor .... the question is who and how will apply the court decision.
In general, I get the impression that all the courts between us and Europe (commercial and criminal) need to be moved somewhere to Asia. Hong Kong, for example.

[Octopus]

Quote: Zaurbek

The liberals have a whole coven about this. Bonfires burn and dance

There are all kinds of liberals, but I, for one, do not.

Quote: Zaurbek

need to be transported somewhere to Asia. Hong Kong, for example

What's the point? Russia will begin to comply with the decisions of the Hong Kong court?

[Zaurbek]

Not the Russian Federation ... but, for example, Gazprom

[BOB044]

Somehow I don’t believe in the honesty of this court. It seems the guilty parties have already been appointed.

[Naval]

International law and justice in the West has long been replaced by geopolitical expediency, so you should not expect truth from this court. As necessary, they will decide.

[kriten]

Is there justice in the Hague? In The Hague there is a terrible propaganda of homosexuality, pedophilia, a drug paradise and a realm of licentiousness ... There simply is no room for justice left, except perhaps somewhere in the drug squad.

[Octopus]

Quote: kriten

The Hague has an eerie propaganda of homosexuality, pedophilia, a drug paradise and a realm of licentiousness

Well, children have been gone there for a long time, but otherwise you are right, a very pleasant place.

[Octopus]

Quote: kriten

The Hague has an eerie propaganda of homosexuality, pedophilia, a drug paradise and a realm of licentiousness

Well, children have been gone there for a long time, but otherwise you are right, a very pleasant place.

[123456789]

Quote: Guards turn

Recall that the Boeing 777 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed in the Donbass in July 2014. Killed 298 people. The West considers Russia to be the culprit. According to a 2015 report from the Netherlands Security Council Commission, the plane was shot down by a ground-to-air missile from the Buk anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) belonging to the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade deployed in Kursk.

Ha-aroshie we have anti-aircraft missiles! Where is Kursk and where is Donbass Just look at the map to understand that the whole version is far-fetched!

[BAI]

but only on one condition - if, unlike the “investigation” that lasted several years, it will be objective and pass without political engagement.

And this condition is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE! The "trial" was originally intended to accuse Russia. Another outcome is impossible in principle. WADA has already clearly demonstrated this.
I don’t understand what the author hopes for.

[trahterist]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

I would be much more grateful if your objection were to the point.

And I would be grateful if novoregs like you, for example, did not carry frank nonsense.

[Put__NIK]

Most likely it will be as always. It is unlikely that something will change the detective, if at all make it to court. Those who started this "play" will not allow unnecessary actors to participate. Everything is written in it initially.

[Chingachguk]

Mdaaaa, Hollywood with its flight of Americans to the moon, nervously smokes on the sidelines. Oscars will now be played by the creaking, downed Boeing, and the Presidents clowns from Poland and Ukraine .....

[Larisa Byvsheva_3]

Everyone knows who "landed" the "bird", this is never a good secret.
It’s even funny, but also sad: like the habony of thousands of people in the Donbass laid, routed cities and towns, leveled airports, but the Boeing didn’t touch, you go!

[swzero]

Well, it is entirely possible that justice in the Hague will indeed triumph - contrary to all efforts made to ensure that this does not happen.

blessed is he who believes

[koralvit]

Question: Why were MN-17 shot down? At that moment there was a need to prove that LDNR is terrorists. So, Russia supports the terrorists. Who benefits from this? First of all, the USA, but also to the West. It’s not for nothing that Merkel and K deceived Yanukovych. It was necessary to create a problem for Russia in the underbelly. Most likely this is the development of special services of the USA and Great Britain, they are masters of such things. But the performer rudely worked, not exactly according to plan. I had to remove both the dispatchers and the pilot and erase many facts. Therefore, under very great doubt that the court in the Hague will make a fair decision.

[ALEXANDERPADOUN_2]

You can analyze and prove the obvious as much as you like, but !!!! - NATO shot down its Boeing with the hands of its APU, but it oversees its investigation and it will judge all this with its own court. Who do you think will be innocent? And why does this court need all the analyzes and evidence, if they know very well what and how, and why they (NATO) have done it all? Well, it didn’t work out, well screwed up. Now they need only one thing - time, time and time, so that the memory of the disaster and the desire for justice are gone. Therefore, prosecutors will change, there will be further investigations, there will be empty and endlessly inconclusive courts .... Until the power in Russia passes to the North Atlantes, then they will declare Putin completely gone by that time without a court or a court, and the question will be closed.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: Pessimist22

Th something fast, 6 years of investigations of everything and already know everything.

Do you want 25 or something? You don’t have to collect more evidence anyway.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: 123456789

Quote: Guards turn

Recall that the Boeing 777 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed in the Donbass in July 2014. Killed 298 people. The West considers Russia to be the culprit. According to a 2015 report from the Netherlands Security Council Commission, the plane was shot down by a ground-to-air missile from the Buk anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) belonging to the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade deployed in Kursk.

Ha-aroshie we have anti-aircraft missiles! Where is Kursk and where is Donbass Just look at the map to understand that the whole version is far-fetched!

It is enough to know that the air defense system is mobile and, during an exacerbation, is transferred to the border. And if the air defense system is actually illuminated in the Donbas ..

[Andrey Komkov]

Yeah, Kurskiy, mad cats have definitely proved this through photos in social networks. The BUK was driving right in broad daylight and on board it was written "I am an evil Kursk BUK, I am going to shoot down a civilian board." This is so that no one confuses anything, especially with the Ukrainian BUK, which at that time loomed nearby, shyly standing aside.

[Pilat2009]

[/ Quote]
What's the point? Russia will begin to comply with the decisions of the Hong Kong court? [/ Quote]
If the country does not comply with the court decision, then sanctions are imposed and I arrest the assets. How much did Gaddafi tremble after Lockerbie?

[123456789]

Quote: 123456789

Quote: Guards turn

Recall that the Boeing 777 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed in the Donbass in July 2014. Killed 298 people. The West considers Russia to be the culprit. According to a 2015 report from the Netherlands Security Council Commission, the plane was shot down by a ground-to-air missile from the Buk anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) belonging to the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade deployed in Kursk.

Ha-aroshie we have anti-aircraft missiles! Where is Kursk and where is Donbass Just look at the map to understand that the whole version is far-fetched!

"Do not produce essence beyond what is necessary." That is, do not use, for example, complex explanations, if you can explain simply. Why drag a Buk from Kursk, if there was already a Buk of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. So he shot down!

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: 123456789

That is, do not use, for example, complex explanations, if you can explain simply.

And how does your version explain the military convoy taken in the photo and video on the way from the Kursk region to the border with Ukraine? It doesn’t explain in any way, and here the very need arises to introduce a new entity.

[Andrey Komkov]

She did not go to the border with Ukraine, she went to cover the southern regions of Russia. And then Ukrainian attack aircraft got in here to fly into our territory (https://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1190897/), and Ukrainian gunners fired at peaceful Russian cities (like here http://www.moscow-post.su / in_world / ukrainskij_snarjad_vzorvalsja_v_rostovskoj_oblasti15096 /). And then there are the voices of some inadequate Maidanites that Kuban belong to Ukraine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INd-FaY7pjE). How can I not cover it? So our air defense also had enough tasks on the territory of the Russian Federation, they had nothing to do in the Donbass. Moreover, the militias had their own air defense systems such as the Wasp (about which for some reason everyone forgets https://www.uaportal.com/news/osa-chto-eto-za-raketnyij-kompleks-kotoryij-zametili- u-boevikov-na-donbasse-foto-video.htm). But Osa calmly shot aircraft to a height of 7000 meters, like that An-26, which was allegedly shot down by BUK the day before the death of MN-17.

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

You have some kind of wrong training manual. The correct one says that all the videos with this column are drawn in Photoshop.

However, the conversation was originally about the non-multiplication of entities. If you agree - the facts indicate that Russian Buki was thrown from Kursk to the border with Ukraine - then for you the presence of a Kursk Buka near the area of ​​the Boeing's fall is not an introduction of a new entity unnecessarily (of course, this in itself is not proof that A Boeing shot down a Kursk Buk. More facts are needed for such a statement.)

[123456789]

So, an ex-intelligence officer noted that through the DPR militia, which many Ukrainian anti-aircraft gunners went to the side of, found out that the Second Division 156 of the Ukrainian Air Defense Missile Regiment a few days before the crash was transferred from Mariupol to the area where the plane soon crashed.
After that, on the page of one of the fighters of this division were published pictures of the “Buk” after launch, with scorched grass. However, after a while the frames were deleted, and the page itself was blocked.

[NF68]

All these 6 years the "investigators" have been trying to pull the owl onto the globe. How well they did it, time will tell.

[123456789]

Quote: koralvit

Question: Why were MN-17 shot down?

For the same reason, and in Tehran, hunted overboard number 1. I do not believe in such coincidences!

[Serzh]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

I believe that factual errors undermine the credibility of the examination (because the expertise that I cannot double-check based on my knowledge, I assess only by the degree of trust in the expert who made it)

Gee)))
you will forgive me, but call off as more competent experts? probably. these are bloggers)))
were not what Almaz Antey does?
I am a good specialist and often "diagnose" by phone. I always make a reservation that for an accurate diagnosis, I need to be present to personally examine and touch. my diagnoses in 90% of the onion are correct - this is an experience It happens in more difficult cases - from the photo. but this is a photo, not the original, from which you can check the resistance and other technical parameters.
so your attempt to underestimate the level of expertise Almaz Antey go forest.
they in the photo gave a more accurate analysis based on experience. Well, certainly more precisely a certain group of bloggers, which at one time was promoted not childishly. Bloggers !!!! And what level of expert opinion are you talking about here, I don’t understand

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: SerEzh

they in the photo gave a more accurate analysis based on experience. well, more precisely, a certain group of bloggers

And you may ask, what do you take as a measure of the accuracy of the results from both? From what standard do you measure the miss size?

As for the bloggers, they have never positioned themselves as experts in the sense that they never said "here you trust us, because we know better than you, we have knowledge that you do not have, we have experience, which you don't have, we have access to things that you don't have. " They always position their investigations as something that anyone with Google maps can double-check and repeat from scratch. The explosion model of an anti-aircraft missile warhead cannot be rechecked by anyone, except for an extremely narrow number of people.

[Serzh]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

They always position their investigations as something that every person with Google maps can double-check and repeat from scratch. Nobody can double-check the model of an anti-aircraft missile warhead except an extremely narrow number of people.

still az - "gee")))
You yourself write that an extremely narrow number can double-check))) And trying to prove that Almaz Antey is not included in them? Come on! But what does Almaz Antey specialize in - do not remind me?
Bloggers positioned themselves as EXPERTS! And not just bloggers. And they called their conclusions - EXPERTS ....)))
You are either stupid, or not at all in the subject. The benchmark case in examinations is considered a standard. A slip is a juggling of facts that break out of the picture. Diamond Antey conducted field tests. Who else did this - do not tell me? Diamond Antey practical expertise proved what angle the rocket was to inflict such damage. PRACTICAL EXAMINATION! In this case, the fact that the investigation refused to cooperate with them looks very incomprehensible (well, just in case you try to turn it off, others don’t have the opportunity to conduct such an examination, which is true, but this again indicates the level of expert opinion - the main commission does not even have such capabilities!)
I gave you an example from my life. I solve the problems of people over the phone, and often even after the repairman came there and couldn’t do anything? How? - this is experience, I once traveled a huge number of objects and there for myself, as for a specialist, identifying the signs of a particular breakdown. This is an experience! He is the same level of expertise!

[Vyacheslav Viktorovich]

Quote: SerEzh

Bloggers positioned themselves as EXPERTS! And not just bloggers. And they called their conclusions - EXPERTS ....)))

Can you confirm this?

Quote: SerEzh

The benchmark case in examinations is considered a standard.

Well, at the moment there is no generally accepted picture of what happened. Dutch investigators believe that Russia shot down, Russia denies everything.

[123456789]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

Quote: 123456789

That is, do not use, for example, complex explanations, if you can explain simply.

And how does your version explain the military convoy taken in the photo and video on the way from the Kursk region to the border with Ukraine? It doesn’t explain in any way, and here the very need arises to introduce a new entity.

The only version that explains the FSE

Quote: 123456789

Quote: koralvit

Question: Why were MN-17 shot down?

For the same reason, and in Tehran, hunted overboard number 1. I do not believe in such coincidences!

But there are so many "Presidents" on board number 1 that getting into it is not even easy

[Arkon]

justice in the hague

The very phrase is absurd. Let's have no illusions. And then all these enthusiastic young men, who think that "Europe simply does not understand," have already tired. Europe understands everything. And very much wants to destroy us. By any means. As always.

[Serzh]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

Well, at the moment there is no generally accepted picture of what happened.

Perhaps I’ll ask one question to put an end to it.
Why did the investigation refuse to cooperate with Almaz Antey, who have more opportunities than the investigator?
rubs on this question will be a comment on your quote, which is copied here.
To deprive you of the opportunity to juggle words on this topic - cooperation with Almaz Antey would give the very picture that, according to your statement, is not. Dot. Nothing sensible can be opposed to this.

[Andrey Komkov]

The funny thing is different. They took from the Almaz-Antey report a moment when, using the model of the missile’s flight (but not its strike), under the initial conditions of the Dutch strike model, he calculated the launch region, which almost completely coincided with the Dutch area. And based on this, the Dutch in the report concluded that Almaz-Antey supports their version of the strike. At the same time, forgetting to say that Almaz-Antey immediately said that the model of the shock of the Dutch rocket (fragmentation model) does not at all coincide with what he has and which (Almaz-Antey model) they proved by their experiment with IL-86. So other approach angles and other pitch angles when attacking the liner. But according to his model of the fragmentation field and its angles of attack, a completely different area emerges. But the Dutch indicated this only on one line in the plate, where they directly wrote - that the AA model does not match the openings in the cockpit and on the cockpit floor, and the experiment is not suitable, because it turns out that Boeing is releasing flying battleships and fragments that theoretically pierce 2 obstacles at a distance of up to 17 meters, can not penetrate 2 cm of Boeing aluminum and at the same time do not give a rebound. And all at once. But the Dutch model, it takes these bounces into account (although it’s not clear how and where it is not clear), therefore this model is the most correct. Well, the double penetration of two spars in a row, showing that the GGE moved parallel to the axis of the aircraft, and not one GGE, but 10 or more, which fundamentally contradicts the Dutch model, was tactfully omitted in the report, forgetting to mention this.

[ruivit1988]

Malov is likely that what kind of justice will triumph there. The fact is that any justice in the understanding of the bourgeoisie has a price (it does not matter whether money or political dividends), because they have long been found guilty. Well, this court in Gaga is like this, just a theatrical performance in which there will be actors and spectators. The court decision will be as follows, the leaders of the Donbass responsible for the downing of the aircraft will be held responsible as they personally gave orders, and the performers took slingshots (well, or stones, for a fair trial it does not matter what kind of weapon the Donbass people chose and whether they have it) generally knocked the plane down. Well, there will be a bunch of evidence attached documents all kinds of print pictures interesting draw. Well, then, of course, they’ll take off the shot, well, what would be where the official one and yes, all the events should somehow be paid back preferably with money. That is such a fair trial.

[Andrey Komkov]

Damn, just now I saw that for some reason my answer was not imprinted. I am writing again.

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

This is a constant load, and the bridges are also counting on skipping a one-time load, much heavier.

But the engineers for the operation of buildings and structures clearly do not agree with you. And also disagree with the American journalist Patrick Lancaster, who took a civil engineer and walked with his legs and traveled the route that JIT drew at his presentation. The results of his trip are visible here - . And at the moment 07:05 it is clearly seen when the reality (the bridge, designed for 30 tons, could not stand the tank weighing 40 tons, which I tried to pass through it) meets with the theoretician (your phrase). And that practice shows that none of the bridges, overpasses, or even more dams (moment 04:03 - the dam in Zegres, through which the BUK could go from Donetsk to Snezhnoye only and will be lit in Zugres on the famous JIT photo. The dam is designed for 25 tons. It stands intact, which means that no BUK installations weighing 37 tons passed on it).
In your attempt to justify the SBU fake, you forget about one small detail - the bridges can and were designed to allow a one-time heavier load to pass. But when they were NEW. And all the bridges and overpasses in the Donbass have been standing for more than 30 years without major repairs, etc. Therefore, not a single overpass in Donbass can miss a load higher than indicated before the entrance as the LIMIT load for the bridge. The results of this misunderstanding I showed above - with the bridge at the moment 07:05.

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

Traveled around.

Well, let's say that I traveled around. Although judging by the overpass itself (05:45 video of the journalist Patrick Lancaster’s video), it’s hard to go round, to put it mildly. Let us suppose. And did he travel around the overpass between the Red Beam and the Red Kut at the moment 06:10 with a load capacity of 15 tons (!!!)? THROUGH a railway with a contact network and a suspension height of 5 meters and a voltage of 3 kV with 3 missiles? But he also appeared there on the video of rabid cats, so he could not pass this overpass, if everything was as JIT tells.

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

and which did not see the Rostov radar.

For the first time I see a man who will claim that he never heard that the Rostov radar of the air traffic surveillance system, the data of which was provided by Russia in JIT, has a height limit and does not see below 5000 meters. If you haven’t heard, then this will be news for you. So if both military aircraft were below the level of 5000 meters (and even more so at that time there was low cloud cover, which all the more indicates a low altitude of the aircraft), the radar might not have noticed them. But to climb briefly to the train behind the Boeing, to look at the results of the strike by BUK and then dive below them did not stop anything.
By the way, about this height. For some reason, I am sure that since the Kursk brigade was deployed south to Rostov, the air defense surveillance radars surveyed the sky. And there are records of these reviews. If the surveillance radars of the BUK 9S18 "Kupol" complex stood near Alexandrovka on the border, then to the crash site of the liner (they operate at 180 km, and from the border to the place of the missile strike it was 65 km) they calmly finished off and they could see the missile perfectly well. So I think our military has records of where the missile actually flew from. But so far they are not showing this trump card. But when it’s already pinned down, when they begin to accuse Russia of being an accomplice of terrorism - then the radar records will show. And then, I'm afraid, both the JIT and the entire government of the Netherlands will fly headlong.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: Andrey Komkov

Damn, just now I saw that for some reason my answer was not imprinted. I am writing again.

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

This is a constant load, and the bridges are also counting on skipping a one-time load, much heavier.

But the engineers for the operation of buildings and structures clearly do not agree with you. And also disagree with the American journalist Patrick Lancaster, who took a civil engineer and walked with his legs and traveled the route that JIT drew at his presentation. The results of his trip are visible here - . And at the moment 07:05 it is clearly seen when the reality (the bridge, designed for 30 tons, could not stand the tank weighing 40 tons, which I tried to pass through it) meets with the theoretician (your phrase). And that practice shows that none of the bridges, overpasses, or even more dams (moment 04:03 - the dam in Zegres, through which the BUK could go from Donetsk to Snezhnoye only and will be lit in Zugres on the famous JIT photo. The dam is designed for 25 tons. It stands intact, which means that no BUK installations weighing 37 tons passed on it).
In your attempt to justify the SBU fake, you forget about one small detail - the bridges can and were designed to allow a one-time heavier load to pass. But when they were NEW. And all the bridges and overpasses in the Donbass have been standing for more than 30 years without major repairs, etc. Therefore, not a single overpass in Donbass can miss a load higher than indicated before the entrance as the LIMIT load for the bridge. The results of this misunderstanding I showed above - with the bridge at the moment 07:05.

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

Traveled around.

Well, let's say that I traveled around. Although judging by the overpass itself (05:45 video of the journalist Patrick Lancaster’s video), it’s hard to go round, to put it mildly. Let us suppose. And did he travel around the overpass between the Red Beam and the Red Kut at the moment 06:10 with a load capacity of 15 tons (!!!)? THROUGH a railway with a contact network and a suspension height of 5 meters and a voltage of 3 kV with 3 missiles? But he also appeared there on the video of rabid cats, so he could not pass this overpass, if everything was as JIT tells.

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

and which did not see the Rostov radar.

For the first time I see a man who will claim that he never heard that the Rostov radar of the air traffic surveillance system, the data of which was provided by Russia in JIT, has a height limit and does not see below 5000 meters. If you haven’t heard, then this will be news for you. So if both military aircraft were below the level of 5000 meters (and even more so at that time there was low cloud cover, which all the more indicates a low altitude of the aircraft), the radar might not have noticed them. But to climb briefly to the train behind the Boeing, to look at the results of the strike by BUK and then dive below them did not stop anything.
By the way, about this height. For some reason, I am sure that since the Kursk brigade was deployed south to Rostov, the air defense surveillance radars surveyed the sky. And there are records of these reviews. If the surveillance radars of the BUK 9S18 "Kupol" complex stood near Alexandrovka on the border, then to the crash site of the liner (they operate at 180 km, and from the border to the place of the missile strike it was 65 km) they calmly finished off and they could see the missile perfectly well. So I think our military has records of where the missile actually flew from. But so far they are not showing this trump card. But when it’s already pinned down, when they begin to accuse Russia of being an accomplice of terrorism - then the radar records will show. And then, I'm afraid, both the JIT and the entire government of the Netherlands will fly headlong.

I’m afraid that evidence that is not part of the case is illegitimate. Otherwise, it’s a cover-up with all the consequences

[Andrey Komkov]

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

This is what 4-year students of specialty 270206 "Construction and operation of roads and airfields" teach: Particularly heavy loads — trailers, tractors, tractors and other machines — have to be passed over bridges and other man-made structures. Therefore, in addition to calculating on columns of automobiles, it is necessary to check the designs for the passage of single heavy wheel or caterpillar loads. If you want to argue, argue with the author of the textbook.

And you carefully read what you just posted. Where is it written about what load is installed in front of the bridge and what load was the calculation of this bridge? I read - that in the calculation it is necessary to rely not only on convoys of vehicles, but also on one-off, especially heavy loads. AND? The maximum permissible load for this bridge is indicated in front of the bridge. Let's say 25 tons. Those. or a column of machines with a TOTAL WEIGHT of 25 tons, or a one-time load of NO MORE THAN 25 tons. But not 30, 35 or more tons. When calculating the logistics of the route, they are guided by this very maximum load on the bridge (indicated in front of the bridge), and not by some of your calculations there - but what if it misses 30 tons. The specified maximum load can be reduced if, as a result of inspections of the bridge, it turns out that its wear is greater than a certain value and it can no longer withstand its passport 30 tons.

Quote: Vyacheslav Viktorovich

And if it doesn’t come up, will you reconsider your opinion?

Why should I reconsider it if this video was filmed at the beginning of JUNE, the AUTHOR of this video spoke about it. NOT some incomprehensible comrades who posted it on the network and shouted that it was filmed on July 17, 2014. And the person who filmed it on June 3, 2014 and posted it on the network around that time. Then his account was blocked, and he found his video on some left-handed comrade who wrote under it "Filmed on July 17, 2014, terrorists are taking the BUK that shot down a Malaysian Boeing to Russia." And after that, how should this author react to all this? When they make an idiot out of him who proves the false version of the SBU.

In general, as I see it, almost all the "proofs" of the JIT (at least those that were posted) are based on the materials of the SBU, which has been caught more than once in lies, editing and rigging. And I suppose these guys from the SBU even organized the necessary "witnesses" for the JIT, who will confirm under oath that they saw and even felt this BUK on the way to Russia. The most stupid SBU officer has enough brains for this. Who there from the JIT will check whether this "witness" said the truth or lied. It was the SBU officers at the beginning, immediately after the disaster, firing up, laying out still raw materials with gross errors and traces of installation - they were in a hurry to fulfill Poroshenko's order to organize a provocation. Then they already cleaned everything up and prepared everything as it should for JIT, thinking that everyone else has brains like a snail that does not remember what she had yesterday. And those who remembered were quickly eliminated (in particular, those military who posted materials that contradicted the SBU version). I'm telling you, that same Resh had the originals of documents on the organization of the SBU cover operation for the downed Boeing (in addition to other materials and on the very planes that witnesses saw, etc.). Their copies leaked into the network, and the originals of some of the documents JIT quickly seized from the safe deposit box and then "lost", and they began to declare Resh himself crazy and a clown (thinking that he had seized all the materials). But then it fell silent when Resh wanted to pass on some of the materials he had left in public.