Can the weapon system used be determined from the available evidence?

Rob

Member
In this press conference, Almaz-Antey makes it very clear that

http://rt.com/news/264421-buk-missile-manufacturer-investigation/

Which is something like

That is not really a good start if you want to come across as an authority in determining the murder weapon, let alone the location where the missile was launched from.
 
Last edited:

Hannibal

Member
In this press conference, Almaz-Antey makes it very clear that

Which is something like

That is not really a good start if you want to come across as an authority in determining the murder weapon, let alone the location where the missile was launched from.
I am no supporter of this theory but you really should not quote just half of their statement:
http://rt.com/news/264421-buk-missile-manufacturer-investigation/
So they claim to have conducted a rather diligent analysis before jumping to their conclusion. Of course they reduce their whole report to absurdity with this passage:
So on the one hand they suggest to be able to differentiate between 2 types of rather similar SAM but on the other hand they can't rule out a totaly different weapon system? Curious...
 
Last edited:

Herman Aven

Member
So on the one hand they suggest to be able to differentiate between 2 types of rather similar SAM but on the other hand they can't rule out a totaly different weapon system? Curious...
What they mean I suppose is that there might be air-to-air missiles using similar shrapnel ("heavy fraction sub munitions") or that the shrapnel found was not handled properly or just stemming from other sources. It's always good to leave open “theoretically” some other option. Something most arm-chair experts with little to lose almost never do as they haven't yet done enough work in some research field to know how different sometimes things turns out to be despite initial overwhelming indicators! Researchers and experts tend to get more cautious with age and experience.
 

Hannibal

Member
What they mean I suppose is that there might be air-to-air missiles using similar shrapnel ("heavy fraction sub munitions") or that the shrapnel found was not handled properly or just stemming from other sources.
Highly unlikely. The Russian MoD asked questons about an Ukranian SU-25 downing MH17 with a R-60 missile. The problem: the R-60 uses an expanding rod warhead which can't be mistaken with an shrapnel warhead. Same applies to other A-to-A missiles used by the Ukrainian Airforce:

R-77: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-77
R-73: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/aa-11.htm
R-27: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/aa-10.htm
There is no way to mistake the damage done by an expanding rod warhead with and shrapnel warhead. Especialy not if you are the one who produced one of them.
 
In this press conference, Almaz-Antey makes it very clear that
http://rt.com/news/264421-buk-missile-manufacturer-investigation/
Which is something like
That is not really a good start if you want to come across as an authority in determining the murder weapon, let alone the location where the missile was launched from.
If that is all he said I would agree. Did you have any argument against the reasons he said this. Was there some evidence that called this into question? Was his evidence not sufficient?
 
Last edited:

Herman Aven

Member
The problem: the R-60 uses an expanding rod warhead which can't be mistaken with an shrapnel warhead.
You appear to be dead wrong if the following source is correct: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-60_(missile)

The R-60 uses a small, 3 kg (6.6 lb) tungsten expanding-rod surrounding a high explosive fragmentation warhead.
And I'm pretty sure that the GSh-30-2 gun also can fire shells with fragmentation in its arsenal, considering where it's designed for not that unreasonable as option. Not that I believe it's relevant for this discussion but I could find back the description of the available types if interested.
 

Hannibal

Member
You appear to be dead wrong if the following source is correct: from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-60_(missile)
Funny how you forgot to underline the part saying tungsten expanding-rod :)
Also the R-60 is infrared homing thus would hardly explode next to the cockpit but near the engines. Besides that a 9М38M1 warhead weighs 70 kg while a R-60 warhead weighs 3 kg. Again there is no way to accidently mistake the damage done by these weapons.

And I'm pretty sure that the GSh-30-2 gun also can fire shells with fragmentation in its arsenal, considering where it's designed for not that unreasonable as option. Not that I believe it's relevant for this discussion but I could find back the description of the available types if interested.
Seriously? The projectile of an GSh-30-2 weighs 390 g...
 

Herman Aven

Member
Funny how you forgot to underline the part saying tungsten expanding-rod
That's because you appeared to claim the R-60 didn't contain a shrapnel warhead when in fact it does.

You are changing the discussion now into "next to cockpit" detonation which wasn't what I was addressing. One fact at the time :)

Besides that a 9М38M1 warhead weighs 70 kg while a R-60 warhead weighs 3 kg. Again there is no way to accidently mistake the damage done by these weapons.
That might be so but I was only addressing the fact that the R-60 has a shrapnel warhead and as such will cause some visible shrapnel damage, very possibly from the inside to outwards but again, I was not addressing that line of evidence at all. But you weren't either in my view.

Seriously? The projectile of an GSh-30-2 weighs 390 g...
Not that it matters but the claimed rate of fire is 2600 rounds per minute max. Easily the same weight could be pumped. But again, I'm not discussing the Gsh-30-2 as potential MH-17 killer but it's just depending on the total analysis of all entry and exit holes when some certainty can be reached on what went in and what went out exactly. It's not like I'm disagreeing with it being "extremely unlikely". Just trying to address one claim at the time.
 

Hannibal

Member
At this point any further discussion with you is pointless. You seem to believe that shrapnell = shrapnell ignoring fundamental physics like mass, shape or material. And the idea that the damage of 180 30mm projectiles (= roughly 70 kg) could in any way or form be similar to the damage of a 9М38M1 warhead is simply ludicrous.

Besides that william is right and we should return to the topic.
 

Herman Aven

Member
You seem to believe that shrapnell = shrapnell ignoring fundamental physics like mass, shape or material.
It's a matter of the fundamentals of making various individual claims and discussing those properly.

Your claim "the R-60 uses an expanding rod warhead which can't be mistaken with an shrapnel warhead" is debunked by the simple fact that the R-60 contains a shrapnel warhead even while it's surrounded by a tungsten expanding-rod. While you do not supply any decisive evidence on how the shrapnel damage of one or multiple impacts would look different with all the various impact scenarios. And you can't.

But I agree, it's not the topic and basically I think we can agree on the unlikelihood, with me just being less absolute about it.
 

Hannibal

Member
Your claim "the R-60 uses an expanding rod warhead which can't be mistaken with an shrapnel warhead" is debunked by the simple fact that the R-60 contains a shrapnel warhead even while it's surrounded by a tungsten expanding-rod.
It can not be mistaken because there is no way you would see shrapnel damage from an R-60 without major damage from the rod (at least not with a target as big as a Boeing 777). And again this whole discussion is rather futile since the R-60 is infrared homing and would go for the engine and not the cockpit.

While you do not supply any decisive evidence on how the shrapnel damage of one or multiple impacts would look different with all the various impact scenarios. And you can't.
Are you still talking about the GSh-30-2?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Let's not get hung up on semantics - both expanding rod and fragmentation warheads are "shrapnel" in the wider sense that they cause damage by flinging things outwards at a great rate.

It is well known that expanding rod warheads cause different damage patterns to fragments, and it is also at least not unreasonable that the shape of recovered fragments would at least rule out some warheads that simply do not have those fragment shapes!

I do trust the manufacturer to be able to say "these fragments/missile pieces probably came from this type of missile that we make" - they have the greatest expertise in that matter.

Whether they know who fired it is another question entirely.
 

Hannibal

Member
I do trust the manufacturer to be able to say "these fragments/missile pieces probably came from this type of missile that we make" - they have the greatest expertise in that matter.
I would agree with you if that's what Almaz-Antey said.
http://rt.com/news/264421-buk-missile-manufacturer-investigation/

So obviously the company who produced these missiles tells us, it could only have been 9M38M1. And conveniently these missiles are (according to the same company) in use in the Ukraine but not any more in Russia.

We even have a quote here:

So they tell us that they 'anaylzed the nature of the damage' and thus can say without any doubt that the damage could only be done by a 9M38M1. But here they say 'if it was an SAM'. Pardon? They claim to be able to name the exact type of SAM but at the same time are not even sure if it indeed was a SAM at all? How on earth is that possible?

To stay with the gun analogy: They claim the weapon could only have been a M16A1 and not a M16A2. But theoretically it could also have been a Colt M1911...
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I don't accept the company's assurance as to the make up of the Soviet missile forces without a little more information - how would the company know if all the Russian Federation missiles have been removed from service?

The hedging of bets is simply because they are not the organisation responsible for establishing how the aircraft was destroyed - they do NOT have all hte information required to establish that, nor do they have the legal standing to do so - so they cannot say what happened.
 

vitorino

Member
So on the one hand they suggest to be able to differentiate between 2 types of rather similar SAM but on the other hand they can't rule out a totaly different weapon system? Curious...
To stay with the gun analogy: They claim the weapon could only have been a M16A1 and not a M16A2. But theoretically it could also have been a Colt M1911...

Are the 2 different SAM made by this same company? If so, could it be that they can take conclusions about what their weapons can and can't do, and just don't about weapon systems they don't produce?
 

Herman Aven

Member
It can not be mistaken because there is no way you would see shrapnel damage from an R-60 without major damage from the rod (at least not with a target as big as a Boeing 777).
You're making a lot of assumptions here. Reasonable ones but you'd need first access to all of the wreckage. A 777 is not armored, the rod would pierce through it without much effort. It's just not clear how you'd exclude all the theoretical possibilities with your reasoning.

And again this whole discussion is rather futile since the R-60 is infrared homing and would go for the engine and not the cockpit.
From R-60 Wikipedia entry:

Two different types of proximity fuze can be fitted: the standard Strizh (Swift) optical fuse, which can be replaced with a Kolibri active radar fuse. Missiles equipped with the latter fuse were designated R-60K.[2]

This to make sure the warhead actually explodes when you want it and not just on heavy impact (that would be primitive and dangerous as fuse, also not always as effective). The rod is for armor piercing, when the main heat source would be behind armor. There are some scenarios imaginable where one or several R-60's would explode outside the fuselage.

Actually one of the known cases of R-60 damage was to an airliner was indeed the wing, Korean Air Lines Flight 902:

he fired a pair of R-60 missiles. The first missile flew past the target.[5] The second one hit the left wing, knocking off approximately four meters of its length. The missile also punctured the fuselage, causing rapid decompression and jamming one of the plane's four turbines
 

Hannibal

Member
Are the 2 different SAM made by this same company? If so, could it be that they can take conclusions about what their weapons can and can't do, and just don't about weapon systems they don't produce?
Yes, they do. But it's not just the question 'what can a weapon do'. Here is a video from the press conference:


If you jump to 2:00 you see their main argument: Almaz Antey claims to have found distinctive shrapnel which can only be found in a 9M38M1.

And maybe I did not make myself clear but I do believe them if they say it was a 9M38M1. I just don't agree with their conclusions (Ukraine is to blame; AtoA is still a possiblity). :)
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
@MikeC I agree with your skepticism. As I understand it, the Russian forces that were seen crossing the border w/ Ukraine were equipped largely with older equipment no longer in use by Russia (assumedly they were mothballed; the Boneyard at Davis-Monthanson AFB still has F-4s, for instance) but still in use by Ukranian forces. I don't doubt if the Russians did send a BUK they'd do something similar. There's not really any reason to destroy obsolete but functional missiles, and modernization programs take time even when they are cost effective.

@vitorino As far as I can tell DNPP was responsible for design of the original missile and is the manufacturer of the current M2 version. So, yes, they made both versions.​
 

Hannibal

Member
You're making a lot of assumptions here. Reasonable ones but you'd need first access to all of the wreckage. A 777 is not armored, the rod would pierce through it without much effort. It's just not clear how you'd exclude all the theoretical possibilities with your reasoning.
True, I had no access to the wreckage but Russia and the separatists did. If there was any sign that MH17 was downed by a missile with a continuous-rod warhead you can be sure the news would be all over it. If you claim that MH17 was destroyed by a missile with continuous-rod warhead you'd have to prove the existance of such a rod or corresponding damage. You can't ask somebody to prove that something doesn't exist ;)

From R-60 Wikipedia entry:

Two different types of proximity fuze can be fitted: the standard Strizh (Swift) optical fuse, which can be replaced with a Kolibri active radar fuse. Missiles equipped with the latter fuse were designated R-60K.[2]

This to make sure the warhead actually explodes when you want it and not just on heavy impact (that would be primitive and dangerous as fuse, also not always as effective). The rod is for armor piercing, when the main heat source would be behind armor. There are some scenarios imaginable where one or several R-60's would explode outside the fuselage.
Sorry but this is just not true. You are mixing up the guidance system with the proximity fuze. The proximity fuze makes sure a missile does not only detonate on impact but at a certain distance. It doesn't in any way have any effect on the target finding process.

Actually one of the known cases of R-60 damage was to an airliner was indeed the wing, Korean Air Lines Flight 902:
Of course it damaged the wings since that's where the engines are located. But we talk about massive shrapnell damage to the cockpit of MH17 and other parts which caused the plane to break apart in the air so quickly that there was no sound recorded on the voicerecorders. That's just not possible for such a small missile.

And since you brought up Flight 902: wouldn't you not agree that this wreck here:


looks nothing like MH17?

PS: Do you actually claim that MH17 was shoot down with an R-60 or are you just arguing for the sake of it?
 
Last edited:

Herman Aven

Member
True, I had no access to the wreckage but Russia and the separatists did. If there was any sign that MH17 was downed by a missile with a continuous-rod warhead you can be sure the news would be all over it.
Lots of assumptions. And I'm not aware the Russians or the separatists sent any experts to examine the wreckage. And it's another wild conjecture to assume the "news" would be all over did if they had find something. Any expert in the field would know any finding would be declared contaminated and gathered against all common procedure! So no, your reasoning does not follow.

If you claim that MH17 was destroyed by a missile with continuous-rod warhead you'd have to prove the existance of such a rod or corresponding damage. You can't ask somebody to prove that something doesn't exist
You still don't get it, do you? The only thing I'm doing is challenging your claim. Now you try to make me have some straw theory.

Sorry but this is just not true. You are mixing up the guidance system with the proximity fuze. The proximity fuze makes sure a missile does not only detonate on impact but at a certain distance. It doesn't in any way have any effect on the target finding process.
So if you agree there might have been a proximity fuze of some kind then why do you claim the R-60 "would go for the engine and not the cockpit" while now also saying the R-60 shrapnel warhead "detonates at a certain distance". If you check the actual flight speed and penetration ability of the R-60, many scenario's might be possible how and where it exactly will detonate (since we established there's a fuze).

But we talk about massive shrapnell damage to the cockpit of MH17 and other parts which caused the plane to break apart in the air so quickly that there was no sound recorded on the voicerecorders. That's just not possible for such a small missile.
Another claim of yours which is easy to debunk by reading up on recovered voicerecorders in general. There are many circumstance where nothing could be recorded because of certain damage, cut wiring and so on. Depends where it hits and what it taken with the initial impact (of shrapnel faster than sound).

And since you brought up Flight 902: wouldn't you not agree that this wreck here looks nothing like MH17?
My point was that hitting the engine or wing clearly wouldn't stop it from damaging or penetrating the fuselage. Here are some other pictures. The first two are a bit more fair to show and this is from something hitting the wing (missed even the hot engine but exploded still on some distance from the fuselage?!). But I'm not trying to prove any theory here. You appeared to make a claim of zero possibility and that the known impact damage would be impossible to mistake for an shrapnel warhead. This ignoring that the R-60 not only has a (small) shrapnel warhead but you're also not able to falsify it completely ("highly unlikely" yes, I agree with that, it's not why I responded!).

PS: Do you actually claim that MH17 was shoot down with an R-60 or are you just arguing for the sake of it?
You make claims and I provide reasons why there's as of yet no 100% falsification of any use of other weapon systems including R-60 available but now you try to make me claim or belief something. But I deal with single, separate claims, one at the time, I'm sorry if this confuses you. As for any "sake", well, nobody is here to make money I presume but because they like puzzles, investigations, the topic or finding faults to elevate the overall body of evidence?

But if you insist, the theory for R-60 appears extremely weak, that's why I think initially the story went that some Su-25's GSh-30-2 was needed in that case to explain the clear scale of the damage, hard to imagine from one or two smaller warheads from an air-to-air missile. However I suspect that the original statement "Almaz-Antey’s experts had not “theoretically” excluded the possibility that the Boeing was hit by another type of weapon" was including many other theoretically valid possibilities. This is normal with expert judgments. But let me assure you again that I don't contest that the BUK theory fits all the evidence way better.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
MikeC said:
I do trust the manufacturer to be able to say "these fragments/missile pieces probably came from this type of missile that we make" - they have the greatest expertise in that matter.

I would agree with you if that's what Almaz-Antey said.
http://rt.com/news/264421-buk-missile-manufacturer-investigation/
I wasn't quoting the manufacturer, I was generalizing about what ANY manufacturer should be able to say, and "definitely" is a subset of "probably" in this context.
 

Hannibal

Member
I wasn't quoting the manufacturer, I was generalizing about what ANY manufacturer should be able to say, and "definitely" is a subset of "probably" in this context.
English is not my mother tongue but I always had the impression there is a big difference between definitely and probably...
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Yes there is a difference - but that's not important in the context of my post sorry - the context is more about the post being general about any manufacturer being "probably" able to identify their own warhead fragments.

Sorry for any confusion - I'm certainly not doubting the identification of het missile fragments.
 

Rob

Member
Guys, the question asked here is not if MH17 was taken down by an air-to-air missile or surface-to-air missile.

The question is if the weapon system can be determined AT ALL from the evidence available.

And here, in this press conference :


Almaz-Antey claims to have evidence that If a surface-to-air missile system was used [to hit the plane], it could only have been a 9M38M1 missile"

Which they mention THREE times in the press conference.

So the FIRST question to ask is, WHICH evidence exactly did Almaz-Antey present that eliminates all other surface to air missile systems, and leave ONLY the 9M38M1 ?
 

Rob

Member
And the FIRST step to answering that FIRST question would be to understand which evidence Almaz-Antey actually used, and their reasoning on HOW they could exclude all other surface to air missiles.

As far as I can see, Almaz-Antey has not even produced any transcript of the press conference, let alone any disclosure of evidence and written report about their "analysis" of MH17.

So I'm not sure why anyone would attach any significance to Almaz-Antey's opinion at this point.
Seems to be just another Russian institution venting unfounded conclusions by "authority", using undisclosed evidence and questionable reasoning.
 
Last edited:

Rob

Member
Hannibal, that video only STATES that the damage on MH17 matches the damage from a 9M38M1.
It tells NOTHING about why all other surface-to-air missile types are excluded.
 

Balance

Senior Member.
I thought Almaz-Antey were only firefighting the claim it was a BUK that brought down MH17 and that they were claiming something like "...if it were a BUK, we have determined it cannot have been the one the Russians would (currently) use (due to evidence of warhead damage) but matches damage from the older M1 warhead"?
 
Last edited:

Hannibal

Member
Hannibal, that video only STATES that the damage on MH17 matches the damage from a 9M38M1.
It tells NOTHING about why all other surface-to-air missile types are excluded.
Well both statements kinda go hand in hand. If you can prove that it was a certain missile you exclude every other missile.

1:23 - The video says high-density H-shaped damaging agents (aka shrapnell) were found which are only used in the 9M38M1
1:40 - Comparison with test targets show a very similar damage pattern suggesting it was a 9M38M1
2:00 - The explosion characteristics and the warhead composition correspond to a 9M38M1

And after all not that many SAMs can come into question. The weapon has to be of Russian/Soviet origin, mobile and beeing capable of reaching a target in at least 33.000 feet. Besides the Buk it could only be a S-300/400 variant or a 9K33 Osa. A 9K33 Osa would have a hard time to reach a target like MH17, the S-300 missiles are huge (about twice the size of a 9М38M1) and the S-400 is not in use in the Ukraine. So if it was a SAM it only leaves the Buk family as reasonable possibility and I think no expert thus far has questioned this assumption.
 
Last edited:

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
I still think the identification as a missile no longer in active use by Russian forces is a red herring.

It's perfectly plausible, even probable, that the Russians had a stock of older missiles that had yet to be modernized to draw from. (Or that older missiles couldn't be modernized, I couldn't find a good rundown of differences) It lends plausible deniability, and fits the MO of the remainder of the equipment they've allegedly trucked over.

Whether this is a Russian missile may never be known for sure to the general public, but the argument won't hinge on the use of a 9M38M1 instead of an M2.
 

TEEJ

Senior Member.
I agree, Spectrar Ghost.

9M38M1 is still regularly available to the Russian Military. The early varaint missiles are favoured during test and exercises. Only natural that they will use up older stocks as these missiles reach their shelf life.

Putin watching 9M38M1s (Buk-M1 on the screen) being launched during May 2014


Bellingcat posters have highlighted recent use of 9M38M1 with Russian forces.

2014


Also available on Russian TV.

http://clipiki.ru/video/257352/Na-p...shilis-ucheniya-voysk-PVO-i-aviatsii-20140424

9M38M1 in 2015


Russian forces TV

http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201503250808-igb3.htm
 

Rob

Member
Well both statements kinda go hand in hand. If you can prove that it was a certain missile you exclude every other missile.

1:23 - The video says high-density H-shaped damaging agents (aka shrapnell) were found which are only used in the 9M38M1
1:40 - Comparison with test targets show a very similar damage pattern suggesting it was a 9M38M1
2:00 - The explosion characteristics and the warhead composition correspond to a 9M38M1
Let us look at that FIRST claim at 1:23.
The English subtitles show "Pictures show the Boeing crash site" and "and a high density H-shaped damaging agent".
The images then shows a picture of round, H-shaped and squared fragments in pristine form.

What makes you believe that this shows that "H-shaped damaging agents (aka shrapnell) were found" ?
 
Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
Let us look at that FIRST claim at 1:23.
The English subtitles show "Pictures show the Boeing crash site" and "and a high density H-shaped damaging agent".
The images then shows a picture of round, H-shaped and squared fragments in pristine form.

What makes you believe that this shows that "H-shaped damaging agents (aka shrapnell) were found" ?
That doesn't show it - but that's what has been found - see https://www.metabunk.org/claim-jero...17-was-shot-down-by-a-russian-made-buk.t5915/
 

Hannibal

Member
Oh, but I didn't say I believe what they are telling us. I am merely answering your question about how they claim to determine the used missile.
 

Rob

Member
Jeroen Akkermans did not find any H-shaped fragments. At least none that he shared in public.

Mike, there is not a shed of doubt in my mind that MH17 was taken down by a BUK M1, using a 9M38M1 missile.
But that is because of the evidence we already have of the ONLY BUK missile system that was recorded on multiple videos and pictures from the 17th of July.

NOT because of Almaz-Antey's claims, which so far seem to be void of evidence.
 

Herman Aven

Member
9M38M1 is still regularly available to the Russian Military. The early varaint missiles are favoured during test and exercises. Only natural that they will use up older stocks as these missiles reach their shelf life.
Perhaps a small detail but the claim was "has not been supplied to the Russian Armed Forces since 1995" and "none are currently deployed by Russia’s military" at least that's the wording of the article of RT.

Deployment is a rather specific term, at least in the military, where it doesn't include tests and exercises but moving weapons to operational areas, conflict zones, battle field or weaponize something for launch. This could address all the possible examples of parades and exercises although of course it would leave open the possibility that some Russian groups, faction or secret order of politicans would have deployed them again without any knowledge or support by the supplier. One question would be here if test and exercises would actually employ armed warheads and active radar faculties or that the rocket launches would function as dummy. But I digress.

The question remains which wording, if any at all, was actually used in the press conference about any usage, deployment or availability to Russian Forces. An active state of deployment certainly would require all kinds of maintenance, inspection, certification and so on, at least formally. This kind of technology always does. It's unclear to me if using it as test or dummy outside operational areas would require the same level. Or a badly maintained military. But I digress.

From the press conference video of the company with I assume correct translation, from time-stamp around 48h20s:
(after restating the missile was completely out of production since 1999 and therefore never produced by Almax-Antey) "... back in 2005 our company provided the pre-contract extension of life-cycle of these missiles in Ukraine". Repeated around 57:50, that without formally extending the life cycle, the responsibility of failure, exploding would be the chief designer as he would be "solely responsible". At 58:50 he implies the Ukrainian side "decided to extent the life-cycle on their own"? To cut costs? This passage is not clear to me.

Other relevant statement later: "the missile is no longer in use" as reason for the full specs now being released in detail for the first time.

There's no good transcript but the translation of the video is provided in many languages on their official(?) Youtube channel and the presentation was said to have been held in May also before the international team of rhe Dutch Safety Board and all detailed evidence was submitted. To add a press conference and let journalists have a go at it does add to the credibility of this move or at least it's a bold one! It might be more geared to their global customer base than to the Kremlin though.
 

Rob

Member
Perhaps a small detail but the claim was "has not been supplied to the Russian Armed Forces since 1995" and "none are currently deployed by Russia’s military" at least that's the wording of the article of RT.
Yes. That is a small detail.
And let it be noted that you IGNORE the main messages from RT about this Almaz-Antey press conference regarding Russia's use of 9M38M1 BUK missiles :
http://rt.com/news/264421-buk-missile-manufacturer-investigation/

starting with the TITLE :
as well as
and
each of which are FALSE statements, as verified by TEEJ post #33 as well as Bellingcat, which show that the Russian Military is still actively using 9M38M1 missiles not only in parades, and in training, and near the conflict zone on the Ukraine border, but even in the very convoy that brought BUK 3x2 from the 53th BUK brigade from Kursk to the Ukraine border !
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-...-the-type-of-missile-used-to-shoot-down-mh17/

To add a press conference and let journalists have a go at it does add to the credibility of this move or at least it's a bold one!
Apart from the fact that we don't know if the Q&A session was scripted or not, what makes you think that Almaz-Antey and RT still have ANY credibility left over after their proven FALSE assertions that the 9M38M1 is no longer used by Russia, and their unfounded accusations that Ukraine must have done it ?
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Spongebob Judy Wood & Space beam/energy weapon etc.. Conspiracy Theories 1
Drew Crawford & Feight NY Radiation Weapon Plot Conspiracy Theories 4
Critical Thinker US 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt' Conspiracy Theories 5
BlueCollarCritic Another Anti-CCW (C0ncealed Carry Weapon) Video Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West Popular Science 1958: Weather As A Weapon Contrails and Chemtrails 6
H The German WWII "Knickebein" Navigation System and the Curvature of the Earth Flat Earth 11
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Ground Truth: Verifying Stellarium's Model of The Solar System Flat Earth 2
Mick West Debunked: Defcon level raised [Defcon Warning System is a Hobbyist Website] General Discussion 8
Svartbjørn The Solar System.. To Scale (just for fun, nothing to debunk here) General Discussion 0
Graham2001 Debunked: Sagan: Why is it that it is only our planet in the solar system that is like paradise? Quotes Debunked 12
Thor Odinson Debunked:Solar System Warming (Climate Change Conspiracy Theory) Conspiracy Theories 113
Trigger Hippie Explained: Agenda 21 Map of "Simulated Reserve and Corridor System / Biodiversity [Propaganda] Conspiracy Theories 19
C Conair spray system workshop photo [C-130 MASS Mosquito Spray System] Contrails and Chemtrails 17
George B Should there be a Conspiracy Forum Rating System. General Discussion 35
Mick West New Ratings System Site Feedback & News 82
mrfintoil Explained: "Exclusive: Leaked Photos of Chemtrail Dispersal System" Contrails and Chemtrails 87
Representative Press WTC7 Fire Temperatures and effects on the East Floor System 9/11 58
Keef Wivaneff Rail Energy Storage System General Discussion 12
Truthseeker007 Theory: Use of "chemtrails" to destroy the human immune system Contrails and Chemtrails 32
Mick West The Infraction System for enforcing the politeness policy Site Feedback & News 14
Spongebob SWIR - Short Wave Infrared Camera System Contrails and Chemtrails 9
HappyMonday Epoch Times' - 'Nervous-System Damage From the Sky' article Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Leifer Mick, what equipment used for podcast ? Site Feedback & News 3
N I used to be gullible Escaping The Rabbit Hole 3
Mick West Explained: Photo of "UFO" Used in Connection with Nimitz Incident [Balloon] UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 8
ManFrito Red Dragon, Cassini Picture Being Used As Nibiru Proof Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
Mick West Debunked: Hillary Clinton Used a "Body Double" after 9/11 Memorial Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West The Various Physical Models Used in Demonstrating Ideas regarding the WTC collapses 9/11 5
M Debunked: Bush "Admits" to Explosives used at WTC 9/11 0
TEEJ Bellingcat Analysis of Satellite Imagery Used In Russian Claims Against Ukraine Flight MH17 104
deirdre Debunked: The band on Lanza's hat wasnt used by Flexfit until 2013 Sandy Hook 27
NikTesla How Much Water is there in Jet Engine Exhaust? [About 1.3 Gallons per Gallon of Fuel Used] Contrails and Chemtrails 67
TEEJ MH17: Evidence a Missile was Used. Shrapnel, etc. Flight MH17 448
BlueCollarCritic Debunked: US AIrforce Admits that HARRP is used for Climate Engineering HAARP 7
Gary Cook Debunked: 'Gun used in Navy Yard shooting was an assault rifle.' General Discussion 8
TWCobra Max Bliss debunked-Aircraft engine oil systems used to dispense Chemtrail chemicals Contrails and Chemtrails 0
gerrycan Thermite Has Historically Been Used for Demolition (at least twice) 9/11 57
subhumn Can facilities like HAARP be used to manipulate the weather? (No) HAARP 3
Critical Thinker At change.org: Senators & Congressmen: Investigate Cointelpro Harassment Now Being Used To Silence A General Discussion 3
Noblelox Practical bunk used to debunk Boston Marathon Bombings 18
Joe Can cars be hacked and used to assassinate people? Conspiracy Theories 22
Mick West WTC Collapses: what type, weight, num, explosive, detonation would have to be used? 9/11 70
Mick West Paraody of AE911: Free-fall descent proves giant hole, not explosives used! 9/11 62
Pete Tar Apollo 17 UFO transcript used in Daft Punk song Contact General Discussion 1
David Fraser Bias and ethics in Debunking. Presenting data that can be used by CTs. General Discussion 4
Oxymoron Debunked: Dawn Hochsprung's photo used for witness of Boston Bombing [Hoax] Boston Marathon Bombings 2
HappyMonday Cannabis used as medicine in late 1800's to early 1900's Health and Quackery 23
solrey Debunked: RADAR used to GENERATE LIGHTNING via S-band HAARP 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top