MH17 plane crash: Evidence 'was tampered with' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Hat-Wearing Man;45477052]the same amount as laserguided[/QUOTE] i wonder how much pestcontrol was payed

[QUOTE=Bentham;45479708]My favourite thing about this post is that you say the evidence wasn't tampered with and in the same post you basically say that it was.[/QUOTE] Mental Gymnastics and Doublethink are essential skills for the stance he has taken on these issues.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;45477901]Russian Goverment supported UN declaration and as far as i know and called for cease fire and independand investigation with ICAO's supervision, we also supported idea that Malaysia and Netherlands took leading role in process and we have nothing against their ways. There are plenty of articles on those.[/QUOTE] Will Russia stop supplying the rebels with weapons that are clearly not being responsibly used?

[QUOTE=karimatrix;45476755]Scattering parts of other aircraft??? Are you kidding me? [B]SuperSensationalist [/B]Thread Title by the way. BBC says they have "sources" even thought soo far only Malaysian experts are wokring on crashsite. Oh my god, you people actually going to believe that one, don't you.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://facepunch.com/fp/flags/ru.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45479149]Thats quite the zinger! I like what you did there, accusing him of shitposting and posting invalid arguments while comparing him to a rabid animal and all the while still not actually addressing his point! He has several times quoted sources from independent surveys and the American disclosure on the matter, while disproving the various twitter and youtube sources you see floating around. Don't worry though. You got a zinger[/QUOTE]his two major sources are either RT or RIA, both of which are state run propoganda machines with no credibility.

[QUOTE=Killer900;45480179]his two major sources are either RT or RIA, both of which are state run propoganda machines with no credibility.[/QUOTE] Eh, RT and RIA are fairly good sources on third-party news, but stuff that relate directly to either the United States or Russia, they're awful at. Just like you don't read Qatar or Muslim Brotherhood-related news on Al Jazeera. It's not universally-awful sources, but you gotta know the source's viewpoint and the case it's bound to be making.

Gonna do you all a solid [url]http://facepunch.com/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=126602[/url]

I present to you: [video=youtube;sv5MRw85rRE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv5MRw85rRE[/video]

[QUOTE=karimatrix;45477585]First of all. I do not see how article in OP is by any means is[B] truth[/B] It simply presents idea that BBC have "some sources" saying that there was tempering with evidence, not accounting for a fact that damn thing fell down in war zone, and how it was mentioned before, got plenty of citizen access before rebels seized area and attempted to prevent more people from wandering around debree, taking pics and picking up stuff. Secondly, like i said, thread's title, consists of way sensationalist figure of speech. This is no 'tampering of Evidence' This is a mere "BBC Sources - Tampering of Evidence. Also, if we'd look in article ourselfs, i'd say it's portion dedicated to mention of such "tampering" takes only five lines of text out of whole article wich basically narrowly recollects all events thus far. Seriously, here is whole except where sources or tempering is even mentioned atleast Five lines of text without any solid confirmation can be considered vital credible info? Not really. Also, i would like to mention that i am the one here who for some reason asked to stop posting, while i merely asked politely to notice article rather then start debate over myself. but i guess you saw the reaction, i mean, i hope you do.[/QUOTE] To get it out of the way you are posting in a section called [b]Sensationalist Headlines[/b], people are always going to use a title that's over the top, but in this case it was by no means false. Second, major news sources often become as large as they do due to being trusted or by having major financial backing. The BBC gains nothing by lying about the news it reports, and if they do have sources, some of them are probably in with the Russian Nationalists giving us these updates and may be under threat if caught. And yes there aren't many lines about the tampering, but it's in the article, it's there. What the tampering is about is how the black boxes were gathered up from where they were originally, not that they were cracked open and somehow fucked with, which is what I believe you are interpreting from the article itself. It's more or less about how they were removed from the scene entirely. And lastly, to clarify, do not tell other members of the forums to not involve themselves with the discussion and provide their own opinions, like you are allowed to do so at the moment. Besides, the far bigger problem is the locals stealing shit from dead people that isn't theirs, and could be used to identify bodies or at least give the family something back for solace. Wallets and purses, not to mention luggage, often contain peoples most personal small possessions that have sentimental value often not only to themselves but also their family. I'm sure you can agree with me and many others on at least that. But in short much of what you have posted is easily dismissible due to your own faulty interpretation of the grammar used in the article and you need to recognize this sooner or later and will only help you in the long run. [QUOTE=karimatrix;45477695]I would like to remind you that in reality, situation regarding buks would be cleared out only after ICAO's detailed investigation wich includes analysis of debree and black boxes. Untill then, no matter how much it hurts yout guts, this is a mere accusation based on tweeted photos and few other confirmed bogus source materials, and even US can't present info beyond that while Russian Ministry of Defence actually presented a wide briefing regarding info, passed this info to EU commission and cooperates by every means possible. How about air traffic control info that Ukrainian SBU never shared? How about NATO satelites everyone knows now were able to provide coverage of incident but still for some mythical reasons not presented? Seriously, all your hatred and "knowledge" based on simple idea that "tweets are truth" wich is silly and immature, and stop with the word "shit", some people tend to overuse it.[/QUOTE] There's proof they have the weapons, and you have nothing to disprove it. You are posting some of the most hollow sentences I've ever seen in my life to be honest, it's a bunch of jumbled crap that doesn't prove anything. The RMD presented a briefing on how they weren't involved. Awesome! That does nothing to rule out the Separatists. Ukrainian ATC doesn't have to publically release anything to be honest with you. As far as NATO satellite coverage goes, how come Russia doesn't have any? No interest? Don't have the resources? Besides, nothing in this thread is founded purely off of social media. Many of it is comprised of weeks of news coverage, reports, and new information coming in that clears up a lot of confusion and missing details. I respect your opinion but at the same time I reject it because it's not grounded in actual reality.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45478810]Hes not resorting to personal insults like other posters. Hes posting valid and rational points, questioning the quality of the evidence. Just because his points differ from yours doesn't mean he should be banned.[/QUOTE] No actually. "This isn't sourced by anything trustworthy" "where's your source for that" "I am the source for that. it's true." "Why" "because they said don't tamper with the site so obviously no one could or would tamper with it" That's the argument thus far.

These people really don't realize that they're all going to die from doing this. They didn't just shoot down the plane, but they looted the corpses of the dead. And then when people are trying to go on about how it's a cover-up and they lack the capacity, they shoot down two military jets and brag about that. What happens when the Russians finally say fuck it and yank back all their gear and walk away with their hands in the air out of frustration?

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;45481023] There's proof they have the weapons, and you have nothing to disprove it. .[/QUOTE] What good proof is there so far? Not doubting just curious.

[QUOTE=Aman;45482303]What good proof is there so far? Not doubting just curious.[/QUOTE] [url]http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_06_29/Donetsk-militia-takes-control-of-Ukrainian-anti-air-installation-1561/[/url] [url]http://itar-tass.com/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/1287030[/url] Note that these date back to several weeks before the MH17 incident. Also, [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28299334"]this[/URL] article discuss a military An-26 shot down by separatists at 21,000 ft, out of reach for the more common Russian MANPADS like the Igla and Strela. It's not conclusive (it theoretically could be the brand new Russian Verba MANPAD, but that's only now being issued to certain units in the Russian military) but it's incredibly likely that this was the work of a SA-11.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;45480640]I present to you: [video=youtube;sv5MRw85rRE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv5MRw85rRE[/video][/QUOTE] "I AM A RUSSIAN LIIIAR.. AND A MOOSE-LEM" fucking lol'd also, nice vague threats there Kari.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;45481023]As far as NATO satellite coverage goes, how come Russia doesn't have any? No interest? Don't have the resources? [/QUOTE] To be fair here, Russian side didn't say anything about having evidence from satellites. US side did, and then refused to disclose said evidence. On topic, that "parts from other aircraft" claim seems extremely interesting. Did separatists bring the stuff from other crash sites? Doubt we'd find out, but why would they do that.

[QUOTE=gudman;45483042]To be fair here, Russian side didn't say anything about having evidence from satellites. US side did, and then refused to disclose said evidence. On topic, that "parts from other aircraft" claim seems extremely interesting. Did separatists bring the stuff from other crash sites? Doubt we'd find out, but why would they do that.[/QUOTE] And if it's stuff from other crash sites, then that means there were other crash sites- Wait... Could it be... The FIRST Malaysian Airline that went missing?! :tinfoil:

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;45485295]And if it's stuff from other crash sites, then that means there were other crash sites- Wait... Could it be... The FIRST Malaysian Airline that went missing?! :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] Putin was behind the grassy knoll.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45485322]Putin was behind the grassy knoll.[/QUOTE] He was the first, second, AND fourth gunman.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;45485295]And if it's stuff from other crash sites, then that means there were other crash sites- Wait... Could it be... The FIRST Malaysian Airline that went missing?! :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] Oh, I meant crash sites where they took down Ukrainian military jets. Did they bring down jets before, or just helicopters and cargo planes (that rebels never took a hold of)?

[QUOTE=gudman;45485662]Oh, I meant crash sites where they took down Ukrainian military jets. Did they bring down jets before, or just helicopters and cargo planes (that rebels never took a hold of)?[/QUOTE] Surely it's not that difficult to tell the difference between airliner wreckage and pieces of a military helicopter/cargo jet, right?