MH17 crash: Dutch experts say numerous objects hit plane

[reorg]

88. Look, this is getting ridiculous

ed·i·to·ri·al·ize
verb \ˌe-də-ˈtȯr-ē-ə-ˌlīz\
ed·i·to·ri·al·izeded·i·to·ri·al·iz·ing
Definition of EDITORIALIZE
intransitive verb
1 : to express an opinion in the form of an editorial
2 : to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts
3 : to express an opinion (as on a controversial issue)

If you present facts (like what the report actually says or doesn't say) and at the same time make opinionated conclusions (like: see, like we said all along, it must have been a Russian missile), it is called editorializing. The NYT did not say that it was conclusively proven that it was a missile of said kind, they said it was "consistent with", IOW it still could have been something else. So why mention just one possibility and not others? Editorializing.

Then they pick something that somebody might have said, I don't know - although I read quite a few RT reports, I never saw the claim that there were communications between pilots and air control "in the last moments" about a military plane. Factual, objective reporting would precisely point out who allegedly said that, the NYT does'nt. They also don't mention the radar data (facts, not conspiracy theories) submitted by the Russians showing these planes.

That is editorializing, heavily slanted towards: see, we told you so, these BS theories by the Russian media are already proven to be false! However, the report points out that the only primary radar data they received were those of the Russians. Since the report does not mention them any further and doesn't draw any conclusions, are we supposed to realize it "indirectly supports" the Russian claims about military planes in the vicinity? And, if so, why doesn't the NYT mention this?

As to the damage pattern and whether it proves that the plane was not shot down by gun fire, the report doesn't say anything about it either. I don't have the expertise to form an opinion. The NYT doesn't mention any experts, next to their babble about "being consistent with". YOU have drawn conclusions, based on what somebody else may have said on DU. I don't know if the idea that gun fire may have caused the damage has been debunked, and, frankly, I don't really care. I trust that real experts will deal with this question and that there will be valid conclusions at some point in time.

The observation that Ukrainian military planes were using airliners as human shields may have been inconclusive, but there are credible sources that the DPR self-defense believed they did, and stated so. They uploaded a video stating this observation several days or weeks before the incident, so unless YouTube is in on it, they didn't come up with a "conspiracy theory", they saw the military planes while they shot some of them down, and apparently observed that airliners flew right over them. Make of that what you will.