Again, show where it is "conspiration theory".

It is, by all what I can say, a reasonable theory indeed, thought out well and covering all known - and now "once known" facts and released materials. He is able to explain it all reasonably and with an easy, simple, elegant theory - and without needing to construct absurd conspiracies and fantasy-enriched nonsense. The scenario sounds perfectly realistic, and it is such that it explains all known pieces of info, in a simple, reasonable and elegant way.

That is much more than you two can show up with: rhetorics meant to prevent a scenario being brought to people's attention and to public discussion that you would not welcome to be true.

If the same theory would end in: it were the Russians, there would be postings like "I told you so, damn those Russians" by now. ;)

I do not claim the theory by the man is true. I say it is reasonable enough a theory, and sufficiently thought out, to justify giving it serious examination and consideration. And certainly more credit than just claiming "it is conspiracy theory, the man should wear a tin foil hat".

I don't think I claimed that it was a conspiracy. Only that it was still speculation. Did the author examine the wreckage first hand?

If not then he's a speculator basing his theory on photos. Unless he is a credible aircraft crash investigator with access to original evidence, he's a speculator no matter how well thought out the theory.

I remember seeing a video of an interview with one of the first experts who got to the crash site saying he thinks it was shot down and says basically the same thing regarding the cockpit holes.

deleted

You mean this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76PG9RQStFU#t=470

At minute 6:00 he says: "There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have really been pock-marked, it looks like machine gun fire - very very strong machine gun fire. (...) We also have been asked for example have we seen any samples of missile. No, we haven't, that's the answer. And even if it was there - we don't have those trained eyes to pick that up. But now we have those experts here who would be able to."

-----

I apologize that I did not note it earlier, but the full text I mentioned is available in English translation as well. It is even linked to in the German text, at the very top. Completely my own fault, sorry. I simply did not see it.

Here it is in English:

http://www.anderweltonline.com/wisse...alaysian-mh17/

And do like the guy says, download that picture in highres, it is quite revelaing even for laymen, I would say: clearly both sides of the cockpit were being shot at from two direcitons, the plate has both entry and exit holes (which means it was penetrated from both sides):

http://www.anderweltonline.com/filea...kpit-MH017.pdf

What we do know is that the wreckage was under the control of the Russians for what, a week? Plenty of time to manufacture or erase all kinds of evidence.

Does not explain why photographs disappeared and got cleaned off the web, and why that Spanish air controller cannot be found and talked to anymore. Also, the experts finally reaching the wreckage complained about bodies removed - but so far nobody claimed to have found indications that pieces of wreckage have been manipulated or "forged".

That is a theory of your own, August, or better: an implied claim. I think the author's theory is much better, because it is more consistent.

It's not a theory or a claim to note that the wreckage was under the unobserved or supervised control of the ones who not only stand to benefit by your authors theory but have the technical means to manufacture evidence.

The fact is, this is going to be a bit like Malaysias other aircraft incident in that we're not going to find out definite answers for either a long time or perhaps ever at all, so both sides of the divide are going to draw their own conclusions based on their own political and ideological leanings.

The photograph looks more like the plane had been hit by shrapnel possibly from the warhead not 30mm cannon.

Yes shrapnels - that passes from inside the cockpit to the outisde. The tiny round holes are not shrapnels, but from tiny round objects that penetrated from the outside into the inside.

The text explains it, why do you treat it as if it were not explained? and the Canadian expert in the video who was at the scene, confirms it.

Honestly I regard the "kill Putin" and Su-25 theory as nothing but wide-eyed conspiracy at this point, started and promoted largely by RT who in my eyes have a credibility level roughly on par with Fox News. As much as there's some interesting conjecture there, there is simply not enough evidence to say anything either way. It's based on very indirect evidence at best right now.

As a side note to that, if there was a Ukrainian conspiracy to assassinate Putin, whoever planned it had to be very extremist and very stupid. As counter-intuitive as it might sound, that would be one of the best things that could happen to the Donbass insurgency, and Putin is arguably the one person who is holding back the far less restrained nationalist forces in the Russian regime and military structure from getting more directly involved. It is in the interest of everyone from Poroshenko on down to deal with Putin as opposed to anybody else in the Russian regime, and contrary to the popular belief, Putin does not embody that regime at all. It would not collapse without him, and it would certainly not be less of a danger to Ukraine without him. He's a key figure/figurehead, but he is not an absolutist autocrat, and in many ways his success hangs not on exercising a lot of political/miltiary power but his ability to restrain and limit others' exercises of theirs. Removing Putin would be the stupidest thing anybody could do, if their goal is to stabilize Ukraine and reinstate some semblance of a working independent government there.

I dont' know...not expert , but the small holes look like entries ,might be frag warhead.
Most holes look like entries , there are places where the top layer of sheet metal pills outward and second layer shows entry.
Quite possible depending on the angle.
There could be also some ricocheting and aircraft tearing itself apart while collapsing.

Me ...not convinced.

...and if there's any plausible rationalization for Ukraine theoretically shooting down the airliner, I'd at least drop the Putin pretense and go with this one, as expressed by a local in a VICE interview:

http://i.imgur.com/Sxg5Gfk.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OfUBfJD.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7kHlEbj.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/2Z25waf.jpg

This? Maybe. Trying to kill Putin? Nah.
Actual details? Still a lot of conjecture. I'm personally waiting for reports on black box data and what the official investigation uncovered so far.

Seems the speculation revolves around a pilot making a crossing engagement with guns to achieve those kinds of holes. The point here is nobody would waste ammunition making that kind of a difficult engagement when they could swing behind the target and end up in the equivalent position of shooting fish in a barrel. I mean, what would the pilot be worried about, that the civilian airliner might shoot back? Not to mention that the 30mm rounds which can turn tank armor into Swiss cheese would have virtually destroyed the cockpit, not just perforated it.