MH17 Coverup Debate, Mossad Asset Caught

MH17 Coverup Debate, Mossad Asset Caught

Posted by Gordon Duff on March 12, 2015

Claims SU-25 shot down MH17 unsupportable

[ Editor’s Note: VT once again helped a major internet platform by debunking a carefully selected disinformation operation — a ballsy one that used the head person of the Sukhoi design group as an “irrefutable source” to keep the phony BUK missile shoot-down theory alive.

But there was just one problem with his story. He lied. VT had debunked this back in the summer, when we found published pilot manuals having the flight ceiling numbers changed shortly after the event to eliminate the SU-25 as the potential perpetrator. That is a slam dunk proof of a cover up.

RT was able to quickly verify Gordon’s technical ceiling claims, simply by talking to some pilots who verified them 100%. But RT had no need to check when you have one of the chiefs of the SU designers as your primary source.

We are seeing this over and over, even on the major country online forums — where they are being fed a bogus story via a credible source, which no one feels the need to check. Sometimes, these are the particular country’s Intel service doing it as part of an operation they are running. The CIA has done this here for decades.

But lesser known is that foreign Intel agencies also use their “expert assets” as bogus story conveyor belts. The most common method is using groomed think-tank shills; but sometimes they use people with no credentials at all, which Gordon shows you below what less than five minutes of background checking can turn up.

We do this routinely on people we don’t know, because if you don’t, you get nailed all the time. Yet we are surprised to see almost no one else, even those platforms with big budgets doing background checks on the stories. And it is not unusual to find, when trying to point their goofs out to them, that they don’t want to know.

RT – to their credit – ran a major follow up story with Gordon’s material, which is a blockbuster for them today. We would do the same thing if someone got over on us as sometimes they do… just do a follow up story on how we found out; live and learn… and try to be more careful next time.

This is how you maintain your credibility. And you don’t have to be perfect to do that; just be consistent in letting your audience know that you don’t roll over as the easy way out. When you roll over, you turn a little mistake into a bigger one, a brain dead stupid thing to do… Jim D. Dean ]

______________________________________

- First published … March 12, 2015 -


MH-17 is one of the most sham investigations in history
MH-17 is one of the most sham investigations in history

Electronic countermeasure pods are no longer reliable source of information, so anyone who says the radar has identified a SU-25 aircraft in the MH17 tragedy is trying to mislead people, Gordon Duff, senior editor of Veterans Today newspaper, told RT.

RT: Though the preliminary results of the investigation into the crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine won’t be known until July new theories of what happened appear every day. One claim is that the Boeing was brought down by an SU-25 fighter jet. But its chief designer has now told German media that’s impossible, because it can’t fly high enough. What do you make of that?

Gordon Duff: The claim that it was an SU-25 is unsupportable. Since 2010, NATO has begun using electronic countermeasure pods. They are designed by Raytheon and BAE Systems. When attached to an aircraft, an SU-27, an SU-29 maybe even an F-15, these allow the backscattering – that is when you use radar, and this is what was said the radar identified as two SU-25 aircraft.

Well these pods that attach to any plane can make a plane look like an SU-25 when it’s not an SU-25 or a flock of birds or anything else. It’s a new version of poor man’s stealth…It’s called radar spoofing, so with radar spoofing anyone who says they have identified an aircraft by radar is trying to mislead people because that’s no longer a reliable way of dealing with things.

If I could go on with the SU-25, the claimed service ceiling is based on the oxygen’s supply in the aircraft. Now there is a claim that this plane will only work to 22,000 feet. At the end of the WWII a German ME-262 would fly at 40,000 feet. A P-51 Mustang propeller plane flew at 44,000 feet. The SU-25 was developed as an analogue of the A-10 Thunderbolt, an American attack plane. The planes have almost identical performance except that the SU-25 is faster and more powerful.

The A-10 Thunderbolt has a service ceiling of 45,000 feet. The US estimates the absolute ceiling, which is a different term, of the SU-25. And we don’t know whether the SU-25 was involved at all, we are only taking people’s word and people we don’t trust. But the absolute ceiling for the plane is 52,000 feet.

Continue to read:
[link to veterans.dfns.net]