Introduction: MH17 is to Novorussia, what the Markale (also see here) has been to Bosnia and Racak (also see here) has been to Kosovo: a typical false flag operation which pursued two goals: first, of course, to justify a military aggression and, second, to force everybody to chose one of two options: first, either pretend to believe the official narrative or, second, be vilified and discredited. From this perspective, the MH17 false flag has been a tremendous success, mostly due to the extremely successful lobotomy inflicted by the legacy Ziomedia on the western public opinion (I would argue that the Skripal fairy tale is even more self-evidently ridiculous than the MH17 fairy tale, and yet that was also swallowed hook line and sinker by most western “experts”). But then, we live in a post-9/11 world, in which neither facts nor logic matter much anymore, except for a rather small amount of people, including Max van der Werff who has proven to be one of the most tenacious and courageous investigative journalists. I am most grateful for his time and answers!
The Saker
——-
The Saker: First, a question about yourself: why and how did you get involved in this topic of MH17? What did were you doing before you got involved in this topic?
Max van der Werff : The very moment the news of the shoot down of the Malaysian Boeing broke on July 17th 2014, I immediately realized this tragedy would have long term geopolitical implications. What further struck me was the fact most passengers were citizens of my country, The Netherlands.
Since childhood I have an interest in geopolitics and history. The fact my father was an immigrant from Indonesia surely contributed and as a teenager I read a lot about Dutch colonial history.
After Japan surrendered and World War II ended 150,000 Dutch troops were sent to restore Pax Hollandia in the old colony and the main motive was to restore the exploitation of the ‘wingewest’ (area for profit) as soon as possible. The Dutch elite had the opinion that the Japanese rule over the Dutch Indies was merely a short interruption and that Dutch colonial rule would be reinstated for generations to come. This fatally wrong perception of reality led to the Indonesian war of independence lasting from 1945 to end 1949 causing hundreds of thousands casualties.
Prior to my MH17 investigations I spent a lot of time in archives and on the ground in Indonesia searching for evidence of Dutch war crimes. There’s a documentary about my work: https://vimeo.com/288088492
The Saker: Now, let’s immediately jump into the core question: after having researched and analyzed the topic of MH17, what personal conclusion did you come to?
What do you believe really happened that day?
Max van der Werff : Having spent thousands of hours researching the case and being interviewed by the official Joint Investigation Team more than once my answer to your core question might be disappointing for some: I don’t know what happened.
Let me elaborate. Depending on political preferences all kinds of ‘experts’ claim to know for sure what happened exactly. One camp is sure it was a false flag, executed by Ukraine. The opposing camp is sure Russia is responsible. There are many variants as to who is an accomplice. On social media you see claims Ukraine was just a proxy for the CIA or Mossad. On the other side Russia just supplied the weapon and rebels shot down the airliner.
Then there are more exotic claims flight MH17 was shot down by a drone, a modernized Georgian SU-25 or by Israeli Python-5 missile(s) fired from the air or from the ground.
I have not encountered any credible evidence supporting any of the theories. This specifically includes the official version. Too many things simply do not add up. I’ve written a lot about the questionable evidence the official investigators have presented to the public so far and was one of the producers of a documentary that already has more than 200,000 views on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkDWwYk4-Ho
The Saker: I outlined my personal guesstimate here where I wrote that in my opinion the Ukronazis used the radar of a Buk battery to guide a Su-25 withing 8 clicks of the MH-17 at which point the Su-25 fired a R-60 IR missile which hit one of the engines which caused the Boeing to go into a sharp turn and lose altitude – the Su-25 easily caught up and finished the Boeing with its 30 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 autocannon (I explain my reasons in details here: https://10.16.86.131/mh-17-one-year-later/). Do you have any elements of proof which would undermine/negate my guesstimate? Specifically, do you consider it as admitted by all sides now that a Buk missile did strike MH-17?
Max van der Werff : President Putin recently said: “We have our own version, we presented it, unfortunately, no one wants to listen to us. And until there is a real dialogue, we will not find the right answer to those questions that are still open”
Link: https://sputniknews.com/world/201906201075985579-russia-has-its-own-version-on-mh17-crash/
For five years I am asking: What exactly is the Russian official version of events?
To my knowlegde the Russian Federation has never claimed the Malaysian Boeing was shot down by a buk missile. You have to be very precise here. Over the years Russian media have presented all kinds of versions about what happened. One version even more exotic than the other.
As most of your readers will know Almaz Antey, the company producing the missile system, gave a press conference and conducted a life experiment detonating a buk missile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r63cskl08o
During the press conference the Almaz Antey spokesman explained that the observed damage patterns in the hull of the Boeing could not have been caused by a buk missile fired from the location near Snizhne as claimed by the MH17 Joint Investigation Team. If a buk missile caused the damage, it must have been fired from an area southeast of the village Zaroshenskoye. Notice the little word “IF” in the sentence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs
Concerning your assessment a Su-25 fired a R-60 IR missile. You do get some support for your theory from Zahar Omarov, chief researcher at the Central Research Institute of the Air Force of the Russian Ministry of Defense:
“I can say that our results disprove the conclusion that the plane was shot down by a missile from a Buk-type anti-aircraft missile system. Most likely, it was an air-to-air missile with a mass of high-explosive fragmentation warheads not exceeding 33 kg (the mass of the warhead of the Buk missile is 70 kg).”
Link https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2720372
Omarov repeatedly attended meetings of Russian delegations with members of the Dutch Safety Board. Here’s a very interesting segment of what he experienced during one of those meetings:
–QUOTE–
During the first meeting, in which I had to take part, and this was in February 2015, the Dutch reported that the plane, in their opinion, was shot down by a Buk anti-aircraft missile. Moreover, a definite modification of this missile was indicated, and, moreover, even the area from where it was launched was indicated.
I will not hide, we were very surprised. After all, before this, fragments of the aircraft with holes were examined, and there was not a single fragment with cut out sections that would indicate the conduct of any laboratory research.
I want to draw attention to such a dialogue that I had with a speaking expert.
–I asked a question: “Excuse me, did you investigate combat damage on fragments of an airplane?”
–Answer: “No. We are only planning to do this.”
–Question: “But how did you establish that the plane was shot down by Buk missile launcher?”
–Answer: “We found out from the Internet that the aircraft could have been hit either by a GSh-23 type air gun, or a R-60 type air missile, or a Buk anti-aircraft missile. One of the steel pieces found in the wreckage of the aircraft, in our opinion, is somewhat reminiscent of the shape of a “butterfly”. And we know that the warhead of one of the modifications of the Buk missile has damaging elements in the form of a “butterfly”. Therefore, of the three versions, the last was chosen.”
Logic, as they say, is iron. Something reminds me of our school exam. Dutch experts, apparently, have a good university education. However, for such work, education alone is not enough. Of course, experience is necessary, but even this is not the main thing. It is necessary to know, or, in extreme cases, at least conceptually understand the methodology for investigating such aviation events.
–UNQUOTE–
Now back to the type of air-to-air missile allegedly used. Omarov claims:
“The warhead was equipped with compact striking elements in an amount of not more than 4000 pieces. The missile most likely had a matrix-type thermal imaging homing head or passive radar. I note that missiles with similar characteristics are not in service with the Russian Aerospace Forces and never have been.”
The Saker: Russia and Malaysia were denied the right to participate to the investigation. Can you outline what the legalities are to decide which countries do or do not get the chance to participate? Do Russia and Malaysia not have any legal instruments to invoke to challenge the absolutely ridiculous way the official inquiry was formed and, even more so, the way this commission of inquiry operated (such as using social media sites, but not official Russian data)? Russia is an IATA member, so is Malaysia. Can they not sue?
Max van der Werff : This is a question for legal experts, but I’m quite certain Malaysia would have a strong case. ICAO Annex 13 describes in detail how the composition of an air disaster investigation must be. For sure the country of the operator (in this case Malaysia Airlines) has to be part of the investigation from the very beginning, which we all know was not the case. Malaysia only was a llowed to become MH17 JIT member four months after the shoot down.
Russia could argue that Ukraine as a potential suspect of the crime is a member of the official investigation and to compensate this obvious anomaly the Russian Federation should be part of the investigative team too.
Connected to this issue Lawyer and expert international criminal law Geert-Jan Knoops argues:
“In my view, the OM made a wrong choice by first setting up a trial model with the JIT team, with the Netherlands and The Hague District Court as the place of trial, then presenting the report with the suspects and then expecting Russia to cooperates. ”
and
“I think Russia might have been more cooperative if there had been trial in a neutral country, a non-JIT country.“
The Saker: What is going on in Russia? First, they strongly hinted that some Ukie aircraft had shot MH17, then they declared that it was a Buk owned by the Ukronazis. So did they actually change their working hypothesis and ditched the Su-25 hypothesis to the (much less credible, at least in my opinion) Buk missile scenario?
Max van der Werff : Information management of the Russian Federation is of very low quality, to put it mildly. It took Russia four days to present its version of events and claimed a (most probably) Su-25 appeared on radar as it broke the 5,000 meter altitude. Russia also claimed it had deleted its radar data only to find a copy a few days before the official JIT press conference. And on those radar data a Russian expert explained there was no fighter jet visible. How credible is all this and how could it fail to explain why on one set of radar data a fighter jet is visible and on the other there is not?
Another criticism is Russia reacts when new accusations are disseminated by the official investigators, but fails to take the initiative and to communicate its own version of events in a simple, complete and credible narrative. More about this in two radio interviews with patrick Henningsen of 21st Century Wire en Chris Cook of Gorilla Radio.
http://www.gorilla-radio.com/2019/07/26/gorilla-radio-chris-cook-max-van-der-werff-july-25th-2019/
The Saker: If the quasi official hypothesis now is that a Buk was shot (by somebody, nevermind for the time being how did it)? In spite of the fact that a HUGE plume should have been seen and in spite of the fact that any such Buk launch was absolutely certain to be tracked and recorded by all sides? Does it not strike you that the Buk hypothesis is just not credible at all? To ask the question a little differently: do you think that challenging the Buk hypothesis is still a viable strategy or should I (and a few others) give up on our Su-25 hypothesis and accept the Buk theory as established beyond reasonable doubt (or even by a preponderance of evidence)?
Max van der Werff: The narrative of a buk missile fired from rebel held territory was the first narrative that circulated in western media and after five years it is unchanged and still the dominant narrative. It is now also the official version of the MH17 Joint Investigation Team.
To your question if challenging the Buk hypothesis is still a viable strategy the answer depends very much on who is questioning this hypothesis. For sure the Russian Federation knows a lot more than what it is sharing with the public.
The tragedy happened merely thirty kilometers from the Russian border. For me it is unthinkable Russia does not know exactly what happened on July 17th 2014. What facts and information does it hide after even five years and for what reasons? If a buk missile was not the murder weapon, why not explain this to the world with irrefutable evidence?
The Saker: Finally, do you believe that the full truth about MH17 will eventually come out and, if yes, roughly how and when?
Max van der Werff : For sure at some point in time the truth will come out. However, I am not sure we will be living long enough to witness this event.
The Saker: thank you so much for your time and replies!
——-
Afterword by The Saker:
During my years as an strategic intel analyst I had the chance to personally witness how the airspace over Europe is controlled in peacetime: not a single aircraft can take off without immediately being detected by numerous and redundant reconnaissance capabilities of many different actors including NATO, but also the various member states and even some neutral countries. I can only begin to image the degree, the concentration, of intelligence/reconnaissance means deployed by ALL SIDES of the conflict in the Donbass. There is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that both the Russians and the Empire have very detailed radar tracks, signal logs and God knows what else which gives them a 20/20 vision of everything which took place on that day (and before and after too, of course). This brings me to three different questions:
- Why are the Russians not releasing to the world the full and irrefutable evidence of what took place that day? I could understand why the Russians remained silent about 9/11, but in this case I really don’t get it!
- How are the various NATO states justifying that they are not simply showing the general public the full picture of what took place that day? Has nobody asked them point blank?
- How is it that journalists with a lot of contacts (say a Seymour Hersh or a Robert Fisk) not get at least ONE (even anonymous) source to give them the full picture? There must be HUNDREDS of people between all the US and EU intel agencies who know exactly what has taken place and most of those probably do not sympathize with the Ukronazi regime in Kiev). Why this deafening silence?
I think that MH-17 will go the way of the Kennedy assassination or the way of 9/11: everybody will know that the official version is a load of bull, everybody will have his/her version of what really might have taken place, and we will probably never know for sure.
Unless one of the hundreds of people of actually do know know the truth steps forward.
The Saker
Very simple:because Israel is behind.All vassals states can not say a single word against the Tribe.Same to a lower extend for Russia(we saw that after the killing of the 15 russians soldiers).Except Shoigu(and even maybe to just play bad cop)reacted for a few days…Kolomoisky ordered the all thing with Mossad support and action.Let’s remember that the security at Amsterdam Airport is managed by a subsidiary of a friend of Net and yahoo.
Hmm, many countries citizens look upon Russia as evil entirely due to the attack on that plane, it was a character assassination that just kept on giving. I’ve always wondered why Russia never offered a credible and consistent alternative when they no doubt know exactly what happened. So yeah, maybe Israel was somehow linked and Russia doesn’t want to release that.
antiwars
In fact, this is what happened. On that fateful day President Vladimir Putin’s plane was in the vicinity of the Malaysian airliner. Both planes had almost identical logo colors. Both NATO and Kiev knew President Putin’s plane would be in the vicinity of the area where the tragedy would unfold. At least one, and possibly two Ukrainian SU-24’s were dispatched with orders to shoot down President Putin’s plane, a clear case of attempted assassination. According to an unofficial report I heard here where I live, the whole operation was supervised by a team of NATO electronics experts (something I cannot prove).
As the Ukrainian pilot approached the Malaysian airliner, he mistook it’s logo colors for the logo colors of President Putin’s plane. He fired one air to air missile, hitting it’s port side engine, which caught fire, something that can clearly be seen from the video that emerged on the Internet after the incident. As the plane began to fall, the pilot (or pilots) opened fire at the cockpit of the airliner, firing 30 mm armor piercing shells, the intent being to kill the pilots. When the plane crashed, photographs were taken. You can clearly see 30 mm entry and exit holes on both sides of the cockpit, something a BUK cannot do. This means that the cockpit was fired upon from sides.
When MH17 investigators presented their Report, they showed the photograph of the cockpit. The cockpit was patched up, covering up the 30 mm cannon holes.
There is no question that this was an assassination attempt gone horribly wrong, both Washington and Kiev wanting to remove President Putin from the political scene.
It is probably a fact that Moscow is keeping quiet on the actual truth. Why ? Most probably not to raise political tensions, as Obama would then have a lot of explaining to do.
And that Ukrainian pilot, whose photograph appeared shortly after the incident. What happened to him ? He died. Dead men don’t talk, now do they.
Assuming you are correct, how would Russia respond most probably? Blaming Kolomoisky on attempted assasination of Putin would have been havily pushed back by western media. Putin would have been under pressure to adequately respond, but how? Could Putin have continued his quiet politics in Syria and else? I believe, he would have restricted his politics unnecessarily without much benefit. Therefore, I can imagine, that he decided to continue his business as usual.
But, I am not sure, whether my observation is correct, but since then Putin did not attend many international meetings beyond areas he has some control about. Neither safety conferences in Munich, nor G7 or G20 summits except Argentina. The summit with trump was in Helsinki, from where he flew by avoiding any NATO airspace and he was guarded by Russian fighters. Putin might have been not too eager to attend any G7 summits too unprotected. Having been excluded might have been welcome. In any case it would be interesting to list up which countries Putin visited since then, and which he avoided. Comparing to the past might exhibit some different pattern.
very plausible.
In the event of a failed assassination, the better part of reason and discretion may well be to just shut up.
Often the safest tactic is to pretend you just don’t see something, don’t know something. Lie low.
Don’t rile the beast further. And other beasts.
Acknowledging an assassination attempt could also have the effect of making Putin look like a dead man walking. It would affect his image in unknown ways. Best to keep mum and don’t attract wrong kind of attention.
I would hope that anyone who attempted an assassination is taken care of quietly with extreme prejudice.
Katherine
The late Robert Parry and others on the award-winning longest running independent online news media http://www.consortiumnews.com gave some credence to the assassination of Putin gone wrong hypothesis. See:
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/08/was-putin-targeted-for-mid-air-assassination/
I recall Putin himself being uncharacteristically rattled when he went on Russian media to respond to the shoot-down and the apparently highly coordinated MSM deluge of headlines such as ‘Putin’s Missile!’ accompanied by photoshopped sinister versions of his face as the accused murderer of nearly 300 people. All being portrayed to the vast majority of the world’s population. I think even The Saker commented at the time about Putin’s uncharacteristic anxiety and sleep-deprived state.
This hypothesis that it was a misguided assassination makes some sense in terms of Russia’s poor handling of the information-wars aftermath. What do they do? To give proof it was an assassination attempt would’ve upped the risk of global instability and a major WW-III outbreak. It diminishes Putin and the Russian patriotic elites’ strategy of being seen as the honest-broker for peace in the Middle East, Venezuela etc. if he cannot be seen as moving safely internationally to employ Russian diplomacy. Ultimately sustained peace is the strategy for overthrowing the bankrupt banking/bankster Empire of The West, you retreat tactically to win strategically in the long-run.
I recall the G20 in Brisbane some months after the MH17 shoot-down. The Australian PM at the time – Tony Abbott – had made much political mileage scorning Putin as the architect of the killing of innocent passengers and had threatened to ‘shirt-front’ him (a brutal shoulder charge into the chest of an opponent in Australian rules Football – banned in recent years) if he ever met with him.
In the end Putin politely shook Abbott’s hand and Abbott looked rather sheepish at the G20. At the time though, the Australian media were attempting to whip up more Russophobia by heaping scorn and fear in equal measure on the alleged fact of a small fleet of Russian warships steaming at full-speed towards Brisbane. I did wonder at the time if the Russians truly trusted my country to honour the security of the Russian head of state – why would Russian warships be doing such a thing?
I think behind the scenes there are a list of redlines and threats known to all sides. Russia probably plays a deeper defence and won’t retaliate unless something really awful happens (not that MH17 going down wasn’t awful enough for the families involved and the threat to the Russian state if this in fact was a misguided assassination attempt). But to Russia ‘really awful’ probably includes actual assassination of its incumbent president with his immense popularity and acquired gravitas, knowledge and wisdom. If Putin had been assassinated in Brisbane – had the Russian warships steaming into missile launching range been a threat to our 3rd largest city or to some other targets here in Oz – and would a ‘statement’ have been made??
Like The Saker, and having followed the MH17 scenario in detail at the time, I agree with his theory. I watched the BBC-Russian language report aired within a couple of days of the shoot-down on YouTube – where the interviewer speaks with villagers in Donbas directly beneath the shoot-down location. All appeared genuinely shocked. All reported no sign of a Buk plume but clearly saw two fighter jets speed upwards at the airliner before there was first one explosion, the airliner turned around headed back in direction of Kiev for a few seconds and then a second explosion (both presumably small explosions from the way the villagers spoke of it) and the plane started to fall out of the sky. These villagers spoke in shocked emotional states and corroborated each others’ stories, there was no sense of them being plants by the Donetsk militia. The BBC/YouTube cover-up added credence as it kept removing the BBC report which people kept reposting for a time til the Deep State won out with persistence.
The BBC report is available here:
https://www.sott.net/article/391617-Deleted-BBC-News-report-on-MH17-Local-witnesses-of-the-incident-believe-fighter-jets-brought-it-down
Very interesting.
Strategic Intel Analyst–the Saker:
If you cannot supply us with the “reasons” for Russian silence, radar proof not offered, etc, how can anyone less trained come to some conclusion.
Reconstructing the event from the damaged corpse of the airplane certainly should be easy for experts. Yet, no expert has a foolproof answer.
Even though the big lie was in action from the moment of the shoot down, it is the big lie which alone stands as the official answer and the only answer. Everything else is speculation.
What matters is the air traffic control guided that plane to the kill zone. Then the Ukies disappeared all evidence of their guiding hand.
It was a singular instance of air traffic control playing that role in the event. It is the first fingerprint, DNA of Kiev, on the tragedy. The only plane guided over the battlefield gets shot down. Prima facie evidence. Secondary evidence is the comments of the air traffic person who has disappeared, and the disappearance of all records from the air traffic tower.
Accessory before, during and after the crime.
Kiev cannot escape that role it played.
There were some radar plots released from russian military radar. This actually placed an ukrainian SU-25 within a few kilometers of the MH17 before disappearing from radar (dive). The dive was observed by several witnesses that do not appear in western media. A report on BBC was never aired, but appeared on Youtube for a short period before being taken down. There was never any sign in the area of a BUK launch.
On the other hand it is not fair to overestimate the capabilities of Russian surveillance radar/air defences.
Remember back in the Soviet time when Mathias Rust landed a Cessna on the Red Square ?
Vintage News
DNIPROPETROVSK ATC if I’m not mistaken, when Kolomoisky was still governor if I’m also not mistaken..
This is the first I’ve heard that ATC was not out of Kiev. Yes, Kolmoysky was governor of Dnipropetrovsk at the time. Do you have any source for Dnipropetrovsk being the ATC center ?
I agree with you on the conclusions of shooting down the MH17. I have had this opinion since day 2, after real evidence started to appear.
Not knowing is not an option as there are many elements that do not add up, and these elements are suppressed by the official narrative.
I think also from the time of the conflict in Donbass this happened, a ukrainian/israeli citizen Kolomoisky had a private army that were involved in this Ukraine state operations on a large scale (CIA linked), and also specifically training some of his mercenary army on a BUK battery (allegedly) , made it possible to provide such target direction, (a direct ukrainian army involvement would be more difficult to control since it would be on a larger scale and more risk of leaks). A leaked telephone call with Kolomoisky later made it obvious he knew who was behind the shoot down , and that this pointed in the direction of a ukrainian state or rather a clandestine run (CIA) false flag operation of the Ukraine State, and certainly not to Russia. All the other
physical evidence point in the same directions, but after all Ukraine was “awarded” a VETO over every finding, and Ukraine control over the area of the crashsite starting with an overall bombardment by Ukraine would delay any investigation and access to the crash site, and tampering with evidence took place and further contamination was possible , material from an (antique) Buk was picked up from the ground there by an ukrainian official as “evidence”.
<a href="http://www.jewworldorder.org/flight-mh-17-likely-shot-down-by-kolomoisky-nato-coordination-russia-issues-arrest-warrant-for-ukrainian-oligarch-kolomoisky/"warning anti-jewish publication, relevant information on Kolomoisky
see also: political vel craft
There are some matters related to the aviation business concerning Kolomoisky that are equally interesting.
igor part of mafia israel-ukraine involved in Boeing 777 twin of MH370
more mysteries linked to Kolomoisky regarding the twin malaysian Boeing 777
Anyway an ukrainian SU-25 returned to base in Ukraine with missing air to air missiles that had been fitted that day which was rare I think it was later proven these ukraine SU-25 had adopted the isreaeli missiles.
There were a number of holes in the MH17 fuselage corresponding to SU-25 machine cannon caliber so the official ukrainian story obviously did not add up from day 1. Photos had to be by alternative sources , there was a gigantic cover up and planting of false news documents in western media. Paris Match printed a photograph of a BUK said to be transported to Russia, a photograph heavily manipulated that did not reveal the serial number , it was just another ukrainian transport at some time not related.
Bellingcat was engaged in a massive fake satellite photo analysis involving the CIA’s operation (Google) from which Bellingcat received a SCOOP award in the west.
But MH17 shoot down, a tragedy or rather a crime against humanity where the involved parties gives awards to each other afterwards. By the way pres. Barack Obama, ultimately the formal highest executive officer over CIA , received the Nobel peace prize before he actually achieved anything .
The fact that the recovered piece of fuselage bore marks of machine-gun (perfectly round holes) was noted by the inquiry commission led by Michael Bociurkiw, who showed photos of it. He described in an interview with Susan Ormiston from CBC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNMj-M-GDl0) that several sections of the fuselage were pockmarked with “what almost looks like machine gun fire. Very, very strong machine gun fire that has left these unique marks that we haven’t seen anywhere else [on the plane]” (http://rogerannis.com/cbc-disinformation-on-the-crash-of-malaysia-airlines-flight-17/
The matter was discussed in the same terms by the “military expert’ Pavel Felgenhauer. Then silence.
People can’t remember that the idea that Putin’s plane was the real target was discussed immediately.
My first source regarding of the machine cannon fire (caliber) was the german airline pilot Peter Haisenko. It came out very quickly , he had managed to obtained by search engines high res photos that has since been removed from the internet that revealed shocking details, even the caliber of machine cannon impacts could be calculated. here reported on Anderwelt online
His report was not picked up by anyone, and certainly not of interest to the dutch safety board investigation who actually deny interest in parts from the wreckage unless included in their first official inquiry on-site. So the interview with the OSCE observer (organisation for security and cooperation in Europe) was welcoming , since he was a member of a large widely recognized organisation. This report did not gain any traction either, it was quickly buried as non-consequencial.
More sources of information (facts) were quickly denounced as russian in the western media:
SU-25 returned with no missiles
Zacharckenko witness the downing of MH17
Ground personell witness account
The situation defies explanation. I recall the bizzare chain of events in which the Russian MOD, I believe, claimed to have detected a military aircraft on radar near MH-17. They even demanded an explanation from Kiev as to the mission of the aircraft (presumed to be an SU-25, as above). Strange that this theory has become an “exotic” scenario.
I do recall at the time of the initial shootdown, a BUK missile was considered. However, as pointed out above, there should have been plenty of observable evidence if that was correct. So the BUK scenario was dismissed rather quickly. Somehow, in the intervening years, the BUK is back. I was flabbergasted when updated radar data was released in, I believe fall 2016 in which the SU-25 (or whichever) was gone. I can’t conceive of a possible explanation for this. The explanation that the radar data was “lost” and then found again, except that whoops! somehow the SU-25 was no longer detected by the radar. This has to be one of the most bald-faced nonsensical explanations I’ve ever heard.
It’s even more incredible to me that the on-line community has appeared to swallow this at face value. It seems inconceivable that the Russian government, for whatever reasons, was not involved in some kind of cover-up. What exactly is the Russian government explanation for the downing? It somehow seems to me that they are slowly moving toward acceptance of the BUK scenario. Mr van der Werff states that the Russian Government has never claimed that MH-17 was shot down by a BUK. Well, have they ever denied it was shot down by a BUK?
It must be remembered, as you point out, that Russia is now on it’s third version of what happened. In any criminal investigation, that is not good.
Apparently, the Russian government accepts the primacy of the US imperial media, and tries to work from that.
That is a bad policy. There was no BUK. Trying to accept part of the propaganda and work from that is a losing ploy.
At this point, the truth could smack us in the face and not be accepted. Russia, for what it may know, could never deliver the truth and it be accepted.
I remember the TWA 800 incident back in 1996. I stayed up all night watching the news and kept up with the story until the agreed upon conclusion. It seemed fairly certain that the plane was hit by a missile fired from a US Navy ship. Then, as the hours wore on, the story began to get shaped into the fuel tank explosion, which was ‘verfied’ with recovery of wreckage.
“After the explosion, more than three dozen witnesses reported they’d seen contrails going up into the sky towards the plane; 18 of those people said they saw something coming up from the water, rising to meet the plane.”
Since that incident, I lost all trust in our government and media. The truth was presented plainly in real time and then scrubbed right before our eyes. The process has only been refined since.
We have probably already heard the true version of MH 17, but it will never be admitted to.
@Woogs
“/The truth was presented plainly in real time and then scrubbed right before our eyes. “/
For me it was 9/11. I watched all night…. until about 3am I saw Building 7 freefall. In the days following I searched for mention of this 3rd destroyed tower.
2003/4 I found websites dedicated to the “mystery” of Building 7.
And from there the journey down the rabbit hole started…..
Yes White Whale – me2!!!!! im a civil engineer too, and the Building 7 cover up was too damn much. that is what led me down the rabbit hole to this wonderful community!
So MH 017 is back in the blogosphere. It is undisputed that this B 777
was downed with military means. It was not victim of an on board explosion.
Why was this particular B 777 so important that someone decided to shoot it down !?
Or was this plane the victim of a mistaken identity?
Early in the discussions online the idea surfaced the MH017 was mistaken for Vladimir Putins Il 96 which was returning from an event in South America.
His plane was however delayed by 30 minutes and the team assigned to assassinate the Il 96 mistakenly brought down the Malaysian airliner.
It is too soon to rule out an explosion on board. Commercial airliners do not break apart in the air in the absence of an explosion inside the fuselage or a loss of control resulting in the aircraft exceeding its design limits. The missile(s) used against MH17 weren’t designed to cause onboard explosions, nor were they powerful enough to blast a large airliner into pieces. MH17 appeared to have broken up at high altitude, never flying in a manner beyond the limits of a B777. Explosive decompression is not sufficient to cause a break-up. Haisenko believes the source of the onboard explosive energy was explosive anti-tank rounds fired by a Su-25’s rapidly firing Gsh-30-2 cannon.
1. Why are the Russians not releasing to the world the full and irrefutable evidence of what took place that day? I could understand why the Russians remained silent about 9/11, but in this case I really don’t get it!
2. How are the various NATO states justifying that they are not simply showing the general public the full picture of what took place that day? Has nobody asked them point blank?
3. How is it that journalists with a lot of contacts (say a Seymour Hersh or a Robert Fisk) not get at least ONE (even anonymous) source to give them the full picture? There must be HUNDREDS of people between all the US and EU intel agencies who know exactly what has taken place and most of those probably do not sympathize with the Ukronazi regime in Kiev). Why this deafening silence?
What would the Russians gain by it? The effort to get to the truth is very high and the gains so little. The Russian government is not being blamed for it. At worst it is a case of “Russian backed” people doing it and even this is unclear.
Why would it be in NATO’s interest to come up with the truth or to help in getting the truth out? They are not in the truth business. They have little to gain by getting the truth out and something to gain by keeping quiet since it helps to pain the Russians in a not so good light, at least in media terms.
Journalists like Seymour Hersh and Fisk only get inside information when one faction or the other (in The West) has an interest in getting information out. This is mostly done in order to be one up in relation to competing factions. In a case like this all factions are united or not interested so these journalists do not get the scoops.
I was up to answer the -intriguing- questions in the Afterword, but jiri was ahead of me and I largely agree with it. However, I want to add a few points of consideration.
1- Russia *and* NATO will never give full insight in what intel they have. If they do, the opponent knows what they know and what kind of Intel gathering they operate. In WW2 the British cracked the German cryptology (Enigma), but they purposedly accepted certain losses that they might prevent, in order to keep the Germans unaware that they had cracked their codes.
Therefore, when they claim something no evidence is shown. Especially the USA, when they want to *play* the public, come up with pictures that are so crappy that the main zombified public will still believe it, but somewhat more educated not – *but they were not the main target*.
(Just one stupid example – pictures of ‘Ze Iranians’ lately taking an unexploded mine from a hit oil tanker. Small boat, some 10 people on it wearing almost reflecting life jackets, in broad daylight. Some covert operation. On top of that, if you have ever seen the working discipline and gear of someone defusing an unexploded mine -if not, see the movie ‘the hurt locker- it’s clear that it’s pure BS. )
2- Nothing to add.
3- The same as with the JFK murder and 9-11, the noise of alternative theories gets so broad -maybe that is even largely fed by the guilty- that ‘the Truth’ would be regarded as just another alternative theory.
Finally, without forensic evidence I don’t believe the BUK Story. When you look at pictures of the crash site, it is visible that most of the hull, the wings and even the engines are more or less located at their original place. That proves that the plane has come down mainly as one piece. A BUK explosive load would have torn the plane in several if not many pieces by the shock wave only- it’s designed for that.
Malaysia was excluded from the JIT. They have held an alternative conference about it.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.anderweltonline.com%2Fwissenschaft-und-technik%2Fluftfahrt-2019%2Fmh-17-auf-der-suche-nach-der-wahrheit-in-kuala-lumpur%2F
Original German site article via Google translate. For Information.
Cheers, Rob
There’s no point. Russia could release proof positive and it would be instantly and uniformly denounced by all Western political and media vermin as ‘Russian lies’. It’s in the Russian DNA to lie, remember, as Mad Dog Clapper observed, with unintended irony.
1. They were not silent. But the analyses presented by the Russian defense ministry were greeted with silence in the western media. The Russian presentation included the name of the Ukrainian pilot who shot it down, and a detailed description of the few minutes/seconds of that ‘dogfight’. You did not hear about it because it was ignored. I heard about it because I was already following the twitter accounts of some english-language reporters from the Donbass and Moscow. (some of whom have recently had their twitter {and facebook, etc.} accounts deleted without notice)
2. Their media outlets are now wholly-owned propaganda organs. Take for example the Washington Post, now owned by the owner of Amazon. The same Amazon with a huge (billion? dollar) contract to provide cloud/database services to the CIA. The connection is probably much deeper and more extensive than that, but that much is public information.
3. Hersh and Fisk deal in facts. Verifiable on-the-ground facts. They have reported such facts about Syria, but must not have been actively investigating the Ukraine, so they haven’t commented. I expect they know a lot more than they have written. But when those guys publish any second-hand info, they are excoriated by the folks who do not wish to have that info published. There are some younger people honestly reporting, but you will not read their reports in the NYT nor see them on CNN.
One of the last persons I would expect to tell the truth is Robert Fisk. I used to read all his articles in The Independent. One year, he finally went to Iraq for a few weeks, and from Iraq he wrote that he knew who was behind all the car bombings that killed about 5,000 Iraqi engineers and Ph.D. level scientists, and that he would reveal all when he got back to Beirut. I read every scrap he wrote for months afterwards, and Fisk never wrote another word about all those murders. I assume he was threatened and chose living over being a dead hero, trying to write an article which The Independent editors would squash anyway. Fisk’s coverage of the 2006 Israeli attack on Lebanon was a stain. He never traveled the few miles from his lair in northern Beirut, into southern Beirut, so he could report on the massive destruction. That disaster was on another planet as far as Fisk was concerned, and anyway the short drive would have interfered with his heavy schedule of dinners with Lebanon’s elite. Fisk did write one eloquent line that “you could see the smoke billowing 20 miles out to sea.” But in retrospect, that one line was its own smokescreen. In June 2009, Fisk got a 1 week visa to cover the elections in Iran. He had a perfect opportunity to understand what was going on in Iran, but he threw it in the trash can. All he reported on was a single incident of him running with the Gucci crowd in north Tehran and getting tear gassed. FIsk’s report was the essence of propaganda: all emotions, no context, no analysis, and only two minor facts: the tear gas and the running crowd. By 2009, The Independent was the last British newspaper I had hoped was credible, but Fisk’s BS “report” was the last straw.
The murders of Iraqi intellectuals was a MOSSAD operation, as numerous Iraqis observed, but, naturally, went unreported in the Western Free Press sewer. The killing of enemies is a Judaic religious observation, a duty in fact, and a mitzvah or ‘good deed’.
First off: this is excellent journalism. Whether or not the Saker is “a journalist”, the honest presentation of facts and theory he gives, is very attractive—journalism, so called, is become so much just theater and amusement, that such an article, as above, seems to not belong to that category.
Thoughts on the first question, regarding Russia: there must, inevitably, be certain doubts, but, so what? —As has been pointed out already, Russia is not a suspect; not a suspect amongst her friends and supporters, at least. So why the tight-lipped secrecy? Because of the secrecy shrouding very many aspects of this incident, it should be considered that the “actual facts”, as they occurred, are not at all in agreement with the official narrative. Not to say that the official narrative is correct, as no one here believes it, but that there may be almost none, or very little, true elements to it. For example: that the plane took-off as it was said to; that it proceeded on the route described; that it was in fact the same plane. Assuming the Russian innocence, as we might, all things considered, then perhaps the evidence that they can present is just too jarring, and therefore not easily explainable-especially as Russia is caught here on the proverbial back foot.
I see no shame in silence here, as the criminals are the guilty party, and they are the ones who have been, and will be found responsible , and the galvanizing effect of this event has only strengthened Russia and not weakened her. Also the proverb: he who does not defend himself, God Himself will defend.
The primary rule to false flag analysis is that 90% of useful information will be released within the first 48 hours before TPTB can gain full control over the narrative and instruct their presstitutes what is permissible to report. Most of the presstitutes are bottom feeders and don’t really have a solid handle on the Cabal’s agenda.
I find the most interesting data of the first few hours of the MH-17 debacle were the dozens of Ukrainians who flocked to the scene of the crash to help any possible survivors reporting that a substantial percentage of the bodies were so badly decomposed that their stench was unbearable. So how is that explained? Also, as I recall the rebels turned over the black boxes to the Russian government which had them for several days before passing them on to the Malaysian government, who in turn eventually passed them to the Dutch. I am not so credulous to believe that the Russians never made copies of all the data in those two recorders.
Also, the argument about what happened should not be totally a discussion of the armaments that brought the plane down. There are many related circumstances, such as the question of why the Ukrainian air control diverted the flight path to bring it over a combat zone when all previous flights were not. And the Spanish air controller’s comments who was on duty at the time and fled the country for his life. This should all be included, and much more, in any sort of trial format.
Also, recall that BBC Russia documentary report in which the locals, without exception, stated that there were two or three military jets shadowing the flight. And they heard loud noises coming from the direction of the jets, but no one saw a SA missile being launched.
And recall how that BBC documentary went into the memory hole, along with Carlos and his twitter account and all the Borispol ATC records from that day.
I think there were two reasons for the event. One was as a FF to blame “Russian aggression”, despite the fact that no part of it took place in Russia, and no Russian military or aviation assets were involved.
The second reason was to establish a lede, a corridor, to one or more of the “pressure cookers” where the Donbass militia were seriously kicking Kiev/NATO butt in the area. (this is my opinion only, I have seen very few other mentions of it)
The first reason was a “success”, in that at least the story was published and endlessly repeated by the empire’s complicit media. The second was a total failure, as the Donbass militia did not relinquish a safe corridor to the crash site.
Providing relief to troops in the pressure cooker could have been a motivation. Certainly the crash caused a diversion of scarce resources and attention from the war effort. The plan could have been for MH17 to crash in or closer to the pressure cooker. That is what I suspected at the time because the Kiev/NATO troops were in dire straits.
Such a plan can be tricky to implement. But the people who scheme like that typically are neither military experts nor the brightest lights on the tree.
There is an online video of the two orange flight recorders being given by the separatists to, as I recall, the Malaysians. They were not given to the Russians, or I certainly would have remembered, because that would have raised the obvious question of “chain of custody”. The video was good enough to see that the flight recorders were in nearly perfect condition. Five years later, and the British still have not released the contents of the flight recorders, and that concealment says everything.
“Why are the Russians not releasing to the world the full and irrefutable evidence of what took place that day? I could understand why the Russians remained silent about 9/11, but in this case I really don’t get it!”
Ask yourself this Saker – why does Putin, two decades or so later, reveal that Russian intel intercepts captured communications between jihadist commanders in Chechnya directly with the CIA? Additionally, details of CIA supply flights from Baku Azerbaijan to Chechnya? If Russian intel knows this, Putin knows this, then they know a lot more. This is devastating information. Well, some say knowledge is power, & if what Russia knows has the potential to be used in power plays with the west, then what they know is used for more strategic value than revelations to the public which in the end have little effect. You mention 9/11. Well by now it has been fairly well established that 9/11 was a Mossad operation using Saudi proxies/patsies with CIA & FBI logistical support & assistance. And in knowing this what are the results? Zero, except for a growing public awareness & what positive effect does this public awareness have? Maybe it is harder for the US to rally support for wars, this is no trivial matter, but that seems to be more a consequence of Iraq & Afghanistan. Information & intelligence is a tradeable commodity, a while back Putin reminisced on working in the KGB & explained how the packaging of intelligence is referred to as a “intelligence product”. I can relate to this in working professionally in the UK criminal justice system, information is traded. This is why Russia does not reveal a fraction of what it actually knows, because the information is of more use as a tradeable commodity than a freely given revelation to little or no effect. Occasionally, Russia releases some tid bit, like the Nuland “f— the EU” intercept, but you notice the bulk of the discussion with Pyatt was not released, that was kept within the classified material documentation. That snippet of the intercept was released to strategically alienate the EU from the US & to also set the discourse that the Maidan was a coup & not a popular revolution. But what Russia does behind the scenes with the information it has, God only knows, but maybe one of the reasons Putin is still alive is attributable to this, not just his excellent security detail.
What is the point of revealing the truth about the Real Evil Empire? The vast majority of Western publics are dull, happily ignorant and uninterested and thoroughly brainwashed.
They are going happily to their doom through ecological collapse, and could not give a stuff.
Security at Amsterdam Schiphol is like all major airports in the world run by mossad run ICTS. International headquarters of ICTS is in Amstelveen, close to Schiphol.
MH 17 & MH 370. Some say MH 17 is a make over of MH 370…. Anyway. The slc, sweet little country on the eastern boarder of the Mediterranean since 1948 founded by the moneyshitters of the RotSchild banking cartel who have a global monopoly in aforementioned profession has 2 reasons in their twisted mindset to take revanch on Malaysia and the Netherlands.
The Kuala Lumpur war crimes tribunal set up by PM Mahathir charged the slc for genocide against the Palestinians in 2013.
In jan. 2014 the largest Dutch pensionfund PGGM boycotted israeli banks over settlement ties
Mahathir, old boy back in town is OK, called jews hooknosed* in Cambridge, England this year.
But he should speak out against the >gobal genocidal 5 G roll out< (another jew project) also in Malaysia.
*check out: the Gabreal Jones comment August 26, 2019 at 6:11 pm at:
https://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2019/08/22/first-nationwide-food-riots-then/
(how jew inc. trumps America, why did Donald T. got a nose job, many years ago? Donald Tweet most probably has to go to very regularly to a dermatologist just like Larry Silverstein on 911)
CIA O
Silverstein does not go to the dermatologist (reptile) unless it is an urgent priority to avoid dying in a controlled demolition.
I think you found the crucial point why Russia doesn’t Fight a Media campaign on the truth of mh17. They make politics with that Information. To make IT fully public gives to much options of reaction to the other side so that this complex information looses all his worth. The russians know the moral climate in the West. At the end they are still the Bad boys. So its better to work in the background with it.
The Ukrainian side prevented investigators from reaching the wreckage for almost a month and tried without success to overrun the crash site. The investigators who did reach the site did not do a thorough and professional job of retrieving the wreckage for analysis. Many bits are still in people’s sheds or lying about the forest and fields I believe. The investigators did not do professional level forensic analysis on the wreckage they did recover. Eye witness was not sought from local residents – and of course it was many weeks before the investigation got up and running. Ukraine tried to prevent the handover of the black boxes to Malaysian authorities. Ukraine did not provide communications and radar data to the investigators. Contents of the black boxes have not been made public. On and on…
Yet
The US did not make public it’s evidence from satellites or other electronic means (Nor did Russia).
The story that dominated the western press from 15 min after the crash has remained The Story…
What to make of this?
So Russia did not cause this accident so no proof can be offered of malfeasance – only allegation and innuendo. If there was such proof it would have been offered I believe.
You would think that if people in Russia know who is responsible and have evidence to prove it the would present it…. but the MO seems to be “let us participate in deliberative/fact-finding bodies as legitimate and normal participants or nothing”. This seems to be the MO in Skripal also.
What happened to the investigation about the Russian passenger plane downed over Egypt??? Who was responsible? how was it brought down?
In the case of the plane with the military band that crashed into the Black Sea Russia accepted responsibility – mechanical problems and pilot error wasn’t it?
Curious
The Russian-chartered A321-231 that went down over Egypt was the work of a bomb. Not sure whose bomb. The bomb resulted in the tail separating in air, the immediate cut of black box recording, and debris scattered over a 20 square kilometer area. Any time a big plane breaks up in air not due to poor maintenance, crew error or concealed fractures/corrosion you can count on the cause being an onboard explosion.
The crash of the Tu-154 in the Black Sea with the military band is unresolved. I think the investigation continues, but I’m not following the story. The official theory was pilot error due to disorientation the last time I checked. It doesn’t smell right to me.
The Metrojet 9268 flight in Egypt was most likely Israel. I believe this is most likely for several reasons including gloating in the Israeli social media, the location of the airport and most importantly, the very clumsy and awkward way the news was handled by the Obama administration. I recall particularly the obviously quickly thrown together and unprofessional video supposedly showing the shootdown taking place due to MANPADs.
Israel was very unhappy about Russia’s Sept. 2015 intervention at Syria. Ditto the USA and Turkey. It is so annoying when the grownups spoil the party.
Metrojet 9268 was bombed Oct. 31, 2015.
Russia has or will even the score.
There’s this interview with Canadian OSCE monitor, Michael Bociurkiw who was one of the first responders at the scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNMj-M-GDl0 He notes lots of evidence of machine gun fire and no evidence of a missile, although he says his eyes aren’t trained to find missile fragments. Also, an interview from Donbass https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2476872779
Just a note on the Bociurkiw interview: if he was trying to discretely, diplomatically, leak a key piece of evidence in his remarks, perhaps we should consider the papers he spoke of for an AIDS summit that one passenger was en route to, in addition to the machine gun holes?
/the-saker-interviews-max-van-der-werff-about-the-mh-17-conspiracy/#comment-688334
(by jiri)
&
/the-saker-interviews-max-van-der-werff-about-the-mh-17-conspiracy/#comment-688341
(from Srbalj)
These are both excellent comments.
From the Werff interview, I would have liked to have seen some elaboration of this:
“Omarov claims:
“The warhead was equipped with compact striking elements in an amount of not more than 4000 pieces. The missile most likely had a matrix-type thermal imaging homing head or passive radar. I note that missiles with similar characteristics are not in service with the Russian Aerospace Forces and never have been.”
Such as which air to air missiles could be suspect.
I take it as a reference to the Isreali Python missile. Look up the Albert Lex report.
On that day, the plane of the president Putin flew not far from this place. There has been a version that Ukrainians mistook the identity of the plane, thinking it the Putins one. If that was the case, the Russian silence is easy to explain. Such an event would demand a strong reaction from Russia, including a military one. That is what the perpetrators would want, and what Russia skillfully avoided in all these years. Such an option would put Russia on a collision course with the Europeans.
I concur with your opinion, mr Cekic. Ukrainians were targeting VVP. That was also my belief from day 1
“Such an event would demand a strong reaction from Russia, including a military one. ”
Exactly.
Better to pretend not to notice.
Katherine
Another unsatisfactory article about MH17.
This is what I am sure about:
The Dutch led investigation is a load of rubbish.
There were machine gun holes in the fuselage.
A Ukrainian fighter jet was in the air at the same time as the incident. (Some time later that pilot committed suicide.)
The Ukrainian Air traffic control directed the plane’s flight over the conflict area.
The Ukrainian authorities confiscated relevant air traffic information and effectively silenced Carlos the Spanish air traffic controller.
A Jewish Oligarch is intimately involved with air traffic and aviation in Kiev
The incident was prematurely used by Obama ,Cameron etc to demonize Pro-Russian rebels and Russia when a prudent person would wait for more definite evidence
The incident drew public attention away from atrocities being committed by Israel in Gaza.
The USA will not provide definitive satellite evidence.
The Russians seem reluctant to provide evidence that would remove all doubt.
The Russians and the Americans both have Israeli connections and often seem content to let Israel get away with murder
Conclusion:
Work it out for yourself because you ain’t gonna get any satisfaction from politicians, media or judicial institutions
Mahathir of Malaysia twice (or as they idiots say these days, uniformly, ‘two times’)observed that the ‘investigation’ was rubbish that set out, from the beginning, to blame Russia. The manner in which these observation have been totally disappeared by the Western fakestream presstitutes tells you all you need to know about the ‘Free Press’. Once Mahathir dies they will deny that he ever said it, and anyone who disputes that is a ‘Putin puppet’.
The SU25 (whose pilot has committed suicide) was an insurance policy in case the BUK failed?
No, the Buk had at most 2 roles:
1. One or more Buk batteries may have guided the Su-25 to MH17.
2. The Buk story is essential to pinning the blame or Russia and/or the freedom fighters. No Buk, no blame.
There are zero stories about the launch of a Buk that missed.
Go back to the no vanished BBC video with local interviews of eyewitnesses. What BUK?????????
The situation reminds me in a way of Syria in 2015. At some point the adults must take over and end the ridiculous party. The adults are showing signs of growing impatience. Mahathir has said the investigations are not credible and called for an all new investigation by independent countries. Putin has undone the JIT/SBU kidnapping of Tsemakh to block the inclusion of coerced testimony in a one-sided trial. Russia, Malaysia and even Australia (!) have expressed interest in viewing the information offered by Josef Resch in the event that the JIT again refuses Resch’s offer.
After Resch’s informaton is in the public domain we’ll have a better idea of what to expect next. At some point Malaysia should sue for the release of the black boxes and all debris stored at Hilversum. A reconstruction performed by grownups will reveal the already obvious truth. There was no Buk. Then even “serious” writers like The Saker and Max Van Der Werff will say, “There was no Buk.”
The answer seems very simple, perhaps I have over simplified but these points are important.
Russia vetoed a joint investigation by the UN, which would have included experts and scientists from Russia. This, the claim that Russia was excluded from the investigation is a false flag created to garner sympathy from those that do not know the full truth.
Second, Russia is now on it’s third version or so of what happened. The fact that Russia’s version has changed so many times suggests a government that is more interested in throwing theories against the wall and see which one sticks.
Larchmonter is right
Many people still remember the Spanish twitter account with the handle “spainbuca” whose tweets they were reading from the early days of Maidan. Supposedly this was an air traffic controller twitting straight from the control tower at Borispol (Kiev’s main airport). I find this highly unlikely for the obvious reason that the Kiev authorities –even allowing for their colossal incompetence in those days– would have long gotten wind of this matter and easily grabbed the guy, who by early summer 2014 had lots of followers from many countries. And a Spanish air-traffic controller twitting from the control tower of Ukraine’s main airport is not exactly like a needle in a haystack. More likely, it seems to me, is that this was someone located elsewhere — some have said he was tweeting from Romania [hence Buca…] — someone who had a very direct ear to what was going on in that tower, which was under direct military command. In any case, the fact is that for several months he had been providing nearly real time information that was proving pretty accurate. On this particular day, he was frantically twitting about the downing of this plane within minutes of it happening. He also reported the presence of military aircraft in the vicinity before the plane disappeared from radar. Within hours his twitter account was erased and the guy was never heard from again. There must be written accounts of his last tweets that day. Various people on this blog commented on this guy, for example, this comment:
/short-message-from-the-saker-2/#comment-32919
And in addition to all that, publicly available flight tracking sites still had MH17 flight course for the previous 10 days or so. It was immediately obvious that on this particular day the flight was deviated from its usual path in order to make it go over the conflict zone. Shortly after being downed, it was also ordered to descend well below the usual altitude.
also, all the recordings of air traffic controllers that day were quickly confiscated and have been unavailable since.
All this an much more has gone down the memory hole. Instead we have been treated to endless tales about buks and does sniffing each other, and to the pathetic spectacle of the Netherlands behaving consistently well below the servility level of a banana republic.
One cannot expect to obtain the right answers until the right questions have been asked.
In my opinion, some of the most important questions have yet to be asked. If we keep treating MH17 as an isolated incident we will not find neither the right questions nor the right answers. We must look at MH17 as part of a bigger picture.
If we lift our stare to obtain a wider horizon, let us briefly include MH370 in the discussion and ask one of the (im)pertinent questions: Which airplane is missing, MH370 or MH17? After all, they are the same Boeing type, right?
el Galanazo above said “I find the most interesting data of the first few hours of the MH-17 debacle were the dozens of Ukrainians who flocked to the scene of the crash to help any possible survivors reporting that a substantial percentage of the bodies were so badly decomposed that their stench was unbearable. So how is that explained? ”
I remember this as well, and there was also videos about this that I saw, they had interviews with Donbass locals talking about the smell of formaldehyde.
Given that the official MH17 explanations are laughable, let us hypothesize something equally laughable (or maybe not). The story of MH370 in March 2014 was an obvious case of remote hijacking, A big passenger plane does not disappear unless someone wants it to happen, and they had the uninterruptible auto pilot, right?
The goose chase in the southern ocean was never convincingly justified and was clearly designed to take forever and find nothing, which it succeeded in doing. Instead we must assume something more likely: that the remote hijacking took place and that the plane landed where the hijackers wanted, such as at the isolated military base at Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean (early reports strongly indicated this).
So assuming MH370 landed at Diego Garcia, where did it go from there? Perhaps to “somewhere in the middle east”, where the now deceased passengers had to wait for the plane to be fitted for the next phase (MH17), perhaps with even more remote control gadgets?
Before we go on, what could be the objective of the MH17 debacle? As for MH370 it was no accident, so clearly there was an objective behind it. It stands out as a NATO excercise in blaming Russia after losing Crimea, but was it just that? Consider for example 911 with swapped planes (yes, there too) and multiple objectives, we should expect multiple objectives in this case also. It has been said in this article that it is hard to understand why Russia has kept silent on what it obviously knows. Perhaps one of the objectives of “you know who” was to accuse Russia of something outrageous (that they did themselves) in order to provoke the russians to prove they were innocent as accused, and that way lay bare information about their information gathering techniques. After all intelligence is a commodity as they say, it is valued in those circles. Also, “you know who” had an extra plane they didn’t want to keep much longer. Seems like a plan.
As we know, the Netherlands has been very eager to tell a certain story as part of the JIT, but this appears like a paradox since many of the victims is said to be dutch. But what if the plane that fell over Donbass was not the plane that took off from the Netherlands, but the MH370 plane that had been waiting idly in the middle east for several months, waiting for its final mission? Then there would be no dutch victims so that makes it easier. It also explains the smell that was reported.
So where did MH17 go if anywhere?
This news article highlights one of the key outcomes from the search for MH370:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/mh370-search-indian-ocean-1.4212005
“One of the largest marine mapping surveys ever conducted, the search for MH370 collected 278,000 square kilometres of bathymetric data within the search area and 710,000 square kilometres of data.” “Stuart Minchin, chief of Geoscience Australia’s environmental geoscience division, said the remote search area was now among the most thoroughly mapped regions of the deep ocean on the planet.”
On the question of which plane crashed in East Ukraine, this news article from 2014 contains a series of photos:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-reportedly-shot-down-near-ukraine-russia-border-1.2709881
Photo 8 shows a piece of debris with “M-MRD” on it. Photo 19 shows a picture of the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777-200 plane taking off in 2012 with tail number “9M-MRD” visible. This plane is the same aircraft that was heading from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, the photo caption reads, although the article says a Boeing 777-200ER was shot down over Eastern Ukraine.
BTW, according to Wikipedia, MH-370 is a Boeing 777-200ER plane, tail number 9M-MRO.
Hello Norwegian,
After your insightful commentary yesterday, I hoped you would post a following message with more tracks to follow! Back to the subject of which plane crashed in Eastern Ukraine (something that never occurred to me anyway before you suggested it.) If we tease out some more careful wording from the CBC coverage of the crash… in addition to the 777-200 v. 777-200ER issue:
– the Boeing 777-200ER aircraft is reported shot down at 10,000 feet about Eastern Ukraine (this could be MH370) by the Ukrainian bureau of Interfax. This plane is reported feasibly (weaselly word used by Canadian military expert) shot down by a surface to air missile, reported by Gerashenko to be a missile from a Buk launcher
– The European air traffic control agency Eurocontrol said the aircraft was flying above the airspace that had been closed by Ukrainian authorities. The route had been closed from ground to flight level 320 [32,000 feet] — the aircraft was flying at Flight Level 330 [33,000 feet]. Okay, so this could be be MH17 flying at 33,000 feet, and not reported shot down? It would be guided to land somewhere by the Russian fighter jets and met by Putin, who was in a jet in the same airspace, who would explain to the passengers why they are now guests of the Russian Federation? Whew! Getting ahead of myself. :-) Norwegian, look what you started!
– Photo 10 in that article shows personal belongings strewn near the town of Shaktarsk, Ukraine. The crash site of the plane shot down at 10,000 feet is reported near Grabavo. Relevant?
A very interesting discussion, but I’m wondering why you did not mention that in the not too distant past the Russian Federation checked the production number on a fragment of a buk missile that had been found among the scattered wreckage and announced that that particular buk missile had been delivered to the Ukraine area military in 1988 or 1989, I think. That means it would very probably have been the property of the present-day Ukrainian military after independence. This news was widely covered by RT and the indie media.
As for why the RF and the Empire don’t release their data, it might be for reasons of secrecy about their respective defensive and offensive systems. It might not be a conspiracy. Anyway, lets hope they do release their data soon.
Here is an AP article about the Russian announcement last fall about the buk missile production numbers that were found by the Dutch. The buk missile was produced in 1986 and shipped to an anti-aircraft unit in Ukraine.
https://www.apnews.com/f53b42ce3aab44308730eb2d89c9e545
A very neutral-minded, almost scholarly look at a subject fraught with deliberate fog of confusion and politically motivated obfuscation. Thanks to you both
Instead of infusing the reactions of involved actors with assumptions (especially those regarding competencies) let’s treat them as separate data points:
– Russia has not released detailed radar and/or other surveillance information of the incident (only ‘massaged’ information).
– There was a civil war on Russia’s doorstep which threatened to spill over into Russia itself.
– It would be highly naive to assume that Russia was not monitoring the area intensely.
– About a week before the MH17 incident the Ukraine accused Russia of having shot down one of it’s aircraft over the Donbass area.
– this accusation was not (!) supported in any meaningful way I can recall by the US or Ukraine’s other, western, allies.
– despite this the Ukraine kept threatening retaliation up to the day of the MH17 incident, including the deployment of antiaircraft units into the area.
– The west, and US in particular, kept up the propaganda campaign in the media characterizing the civil war as a ‘Russian attack/invasion’ of the Ukraine.
– Yet they ignored or dismissed the claim that the Russians had shot down a Ukrainian military aircraft near the border almost immediately. (This struck me as odd at the time, even before MH17 was shot down. Far more absurd claims were and are held as ‘fact’ in the western narrative of the civil war).
– Like the Russians the Americans/NATO would have been monitoring the area in a number of ways.
– Shortly after MH17 went down, the Americans (by way of John Kerry if I remember correctly) announced they had detailed (satellite?) pictures/recordings of the incident and would release these shortly.
– They never did.
– The Russians have since then come forwarded with several different stories about what happened although one should be careful not to equate every Russian with the Russian government.
– which leads to this data point: no one really seems to know for sure what the exact and official position of the Russian government is (and has been over time) on what exactly happened that day.
It’s easy to assume that Kerry’s remarks were due to incompetency or faulty intel. The same can be said about the behavior of Russian authorities. I don’t buy it. Just because Ukrainians have shown phenomenal ineptitude during the conflict doesn’t mean they all did. On the contrary, both the rebels and Russians have shown great skill. Just look at the operation to secure the Crimea.
Look at this way. The Russians know what happened. But they don’t come out and tell. Instead they obfuscate by dragging their feet, spreading different stories and ‘muddying the water’. Are they doing this deliberately? It sure looks that way.
They Americans know what happened. But they don’t produce the evidence the almost certainly have. Why? And why were the Americans and their NATO allies doing their best in the preceding week to avert international attention away from what was going on in the air over eastern Ukraine?
If both sides in a conflict know exactly what happened and have the necessary evidence yet neither side comes forward with it, there is only one reason I can think of that makes sense. Releasing the information creates a ‘new reality’ that both sides see as undesirable. In particular, the new reality will likely create a level of unpredictability on all sides. Instead the choose to try and influence proceedings at a remove without showing what they know.
But we can make a guesstimate. Look at how relations between Russia and the west have deteriorated since MH17. Look at the damage the economic sanctions have inflicted (and not just on Russia). Look at the damage the Russia-gate hoax has done to the American political system. Look at how much more dangerous the world has become the last five years.
And neither side has played the MH17 truth card to their advantage. Because both sides have preferred the existing international situation over the truth (and the evidence to back it up). Why?
There is one other possibility though. Perhaps neither side can show the evidence because the evidence shows more than just what happened to MH17. Possible, but not very likely.
With regards to MH17, there are mostly questions unfortunately, not answers and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
Let me add an aspect that is rarely mentioned anywhere nowadays…
I saw Poroshenko waving alegedly recovered passports from the wreckage, all with perforations, which will indicate that those passports are invalidated by their issuer. There were couple of voices on the net at the time, soon everyone stopped mentionening it. I for once, know that it is ipossible to board a plane with a passport that has perforations on it, and if it happens that many “victims” were carrying such passport at the time of an airliner was downed (whoever was responsible to doing it), I will question that there were real victimg.
To me, very similar to a disco bar full of gays, where the shooter shoots 1500 bullets from a machine gun into the poor buggers, the press does not show a single dead person, and the only injured person I saw carried on a strech later laughs and walks normally in a matter of minutes afterwards. Very theatrical, but the society still claims at large that it was a true event.
To be honest – JFK, 911, Charly Hebdo, MH17, Tooth Fairy, Father Christmass, you name it – I do not care anymore…
Critical thinking and the MH17 narrative (of Ukraine).
Why should the SBU (ukrainian secret service) have such detailed knowledge of the cause of the shootdown of MH17 while claiming it took place in the territory controlled by Donbass rebel fighters ? It is simply impossible. Nevertheless the SBU quickly put out information that the MH17 was shot down by Donbass rebel fighters at an exact location with a russian BUK missile system , the rebels then transported it back to Russia on a truck which SBU had filmed !
Interestingly SBU also put out a lot of forged material obvious fakes, and material from archieves that was forged with false claims for instance time of event from another year during ukrainian military exercises and or movements. The reputation of any ukraine gov source of Ukraine is very low simply because that gov is inserted by a foreign led coup d’etat and the SBU and other agencies are more or less shadows of the foreign masters, SBU the CIA, electory system, SBU the CIA, the Rada the electory system result and direct insertions of the CIA and so on. The Ukraine gov nevertheless has a VETO on the dutch safety board investigation report and any findings of the investigation.
It is now clear from the official report that the MH17 was downed by a russian BUK missile that had been brought into Ukraine to the rebel forces of Donbass , implying also that Russia was behind the shootdown.
Clearly repeating the SBU narrative or the Ukraine gov which has also been issued a VETO on its findings.
The dutch safety board also has said that they do not have such a mandate as to determine this complex responsibility, what they have is a technical mandate of establishing the cause of the accident.
Other critical thinking scenarios: The crashsite was clearly contaminated by ukrainian artillery causing it to be deserted for days. Anything could have been planted there, especially by those (the ukrainian side) who controlled the shelling.
Ukraine is of course operating the BUK and should be the primary suspect in its use on its territory.
They have the old Soviet issue BUK in service to this day. Ukrainian Military pages
Simulations done by the BUK manufacturer have shown that the fragments found in the wreckage and obtained from the dutch investigation, do not correspond to the newer version in use in Russia, and the weight of the fragments indicates it is more likely from a lesser missile consistent with the isreaeli python air to air missile, adopted on a number of ukrainian SU-25 (ca year 2000) according to military sources.
I do not imply that the above can explain the shootdown of the MH17 or its cause but more the necessity for critical thinking is the basis for finding the truth. In critical thinking of today), it is necessary to seperate the official agenda of governement operations from the facts.
So it is that critical thinking is necessary in todays world of deceit.
In a world of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell.
Telling the truth is in many countries illegal in many circumstances (for instance EU – the law on Xenophobia). It is more Orwellian than Orwell, the way I understood 1984 the main character(s) had already been interned in a prisonlike structure controlled by the government with a totalitarian imprisonment system. Today most of the people are controlled by the government through lies and deceit and false flag operations where tech companies are surveilling everyone for the behalf of the gov and its agencies , they now have demanded specifically access to the camera of the device and the microphone in their service agreement. They are directing a censorship of critical thinking. This has developed at a remarkable speed under pres. Trump and the EU runs its xenophobia policies on many levels. Surveillance by tech companies and other rights of corporations are embedded in extensive trade agreements.
All these comments just add to the mystery that is not mysterious at all.
THE PLANE HAD BULLET HOLES IN IT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNMj-M-GDl0
https://www.globalresearch.ca/german-pilot-speaks-out-shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/5394111
The only people that had an aircraft in the air capable of putting those holes in it were the Ukrainians.
Case closed.
It is the smoking gun. The reason I still think that the BUK conclusion is false.
I think the Ukr Army / SBU plantet a BUK nosecone, and a carrier shell in the crash area. Any BUK remains other than embedded in the aircraft that was downed, cannot be at the crashsite of course , it would have to be fired on a collison trajectory from acquisition of data to the perfect intercept closest to the BUK. It would then explode and fall to the ground below . The aircraft was on a high subsonic speed forward and would continue at that trajectory for quite a distance. The BUK nose cone and carrier shell might be damaged it is probably not recoverable or found normally. I have seen the dutch safety board holding a nose cone slightly dented from a BUK, and a carrier shell that appeared to be undamaged but seperate. I think these were dropped in the crash area by UkR army / SBU, and represent false evidence to establish a false conclusion of the shoot down and to hide the real crime.
The UKR gov issued an overwhelming alibi to themselves , the ukr air force had not been in the air that day. So the main suspect displaced itself from the crime. It is totally classic. But false.
The russian demonisation was at full throttle then.
Witnesses do not count , the SU-25s was operating close to the MH17 , and was even reported by a BBC report but censoring was immediate and the report could not be aired . Other witness accounts did not count either because they were not western media, and thus do not count suddenly. This is part of a Russia hoax that takes place simultaneously. The people in Donbass are russian (dehumanised by the fascist regime).
This version of BUK was designed to avoid firing at civilian aircraft (with a failsafe system).
These systems were however not available to these forces even if they had a legitimate right to defend themself from the attackers who actually bombed civilian areas bothby the UKR airforce, and killed the civilian population at large by directed artillery fire at towns, cities and rural areas also by the main operation of the UKR army and their mercenary armies.
The self defence represented a necessary defence of the russian population in Ukraine as a whole, but was only effective in Donbass (and the Crimea that managed to decide its independance by the fact that Russia had (by treaty) up to 25.000 military servicemen there, and they decided to protect the elections for independence and the follow up election on annexation to Russia.
The Ukrainian attack on Donbass included occupation for extraction of gas and oil for Chevron and Burisma both linked to USA. A polish ex-president was director of Burisma and was seen behind an artillery unit himself, and Joe Biden’s son was later elected to the board of director of Burisma. So Polen became the partner of USA in this vicious attack on a sovereign country by fascists trained by NATO, and established what later emerged as a dictatorship. A fascist country by design (its laws).
So the stakes for establishing this perfect US controlled territory (with no russians to upset their paradise re: Tymochenko: nuke the russians) the stakes were high , and somehow one of the countries that opposed US zionism openly ,Malaysia, again was the target.
To hope to come to some resemblance of the truth in a situation like this you can not just dismiss one side of the equation and then forcefit ideas into a predetermined position. This applies whether we hope it was the Ukrainians or the Rebels that shot down the airliner.
Without considering fully the opposing view then it is not possible to come to a rational conclusion. To have some false view of the world is not good.
Could the Ukrainians have shot the airliner down? Yes they have the Buk missiles and they have some history, theyve done it before. Would they have intentionally shot it down as a false flag? Well thats a very nasty thing to do to an ally and a big risk when they can assume the Russians will be monitoring them very closely. Who knows what might be in the “Black box thats falls into Rebel hands or what satellite imagery might reveal. A false flag would carry very big risk. Could it be an accidental shoot down by the Unkrainians?
Possibly, we saw just recently the Syrians shoot down a Russian plane by accident and I would not have thought previously that could happen.
Could the Rebels have shot the plane down by accident? Did they have the means? Would the response by the Russians fit such a scenario? These questions need to be explored objectively.
Most internet sites have their following and they are only interested in hearing good news that shows their side is all good and the other is all bad. I hope that this site has people that are strong enough to look for the truth, whatever that result might be.
Saker is right, the Buk theory seriously lacks credibility.
I’m not comfortable with theories on both sides that MH17 was mistaken for something else and shot down in error. One side theorizes that an incompetent Russian Buk crew mistook MH17 for a Ukrainian military aircraft. The other side theorizes that a Ukrainian pilot or Buk crew mistook MH17 for Putin’s plane.
Godless people who had no problem with murdering thousands on 9/11 to justify wars also would have no problem with murdering hundreds on 7/17 to escalate economic war. We can’t rule out the theory that shooting down MH17 was a deliberate act.
I suppose Ukrainian Buk crews and pilot(s) could have been conned into thinking that their target was Putin’s plane. Haisenko has said that at the range when the first air-to-air missile was launched the pilot would have no way to distinguish a B777 from Putin’s plane; the pilot couldn’t even see whether it had 2 or 4 contrails. So maybe the trigger puller(s) were deceived.
But behind the scenes no confusion is evident. They were 100% prepared to bring down MH17 and to follow through immediately with a media blitz. Until the complete truth is unleashed whoever has the loudest bullhorn wins.
What if the SU-25 military jet was using the MH-17 airliner for cover, while flying a mission over Donbass?
Based on the assumption that the rebel air defense won’t fire at the military jet, because the civilian airliner in the area was vulnerable. Similar tactics (and miscalculations) as in Syria, in Sept 2018, that resulted in the downing of the Russian intelligence aircraft that was preparing to land.
Regarding Donbass Defence forces air defense capabilities at the time.
In the beginning only volunteers were able to operate 1 WW2 style air defense machine gun against aircraft, later they possibly acquired a few Soviet manpads since they got information of all the secret Soviet weapons depos in Donbass. They eventually had russian modern manpads . There were volunteers from Russian military , and a lot of weapons and spare parts were brought and bought from Russia for sure ,and over time the rag tag defence force became professional soldiers and they also took a large number of ukrainian weapons including tanks. They succesfully repaired and commisioned hundreds of tanks . Anyway, there were no need for a SU-25 to hide with civilian aircraft at 10000m.
The max combat ceiling of a modern russian manpad 9K333 is 4500m. Flying high would be enough, and these aircraft routinely fly at 9000m or above. The combat ceiling published in the west to be 7000m is wrong. This has been confirmed by expert pilots and designers of the aircraft. The pilot dont even need extra oxygen to be shortly above 10000m, and some pilots fly routinely back to base at 9000m or higher altitude to conserve fuel or for other reasons. There is no extra oxygen. Fighter pilots are highly trained to withstand high g-forces and other physical exertions . The aircrafts published max ceiling is about 14.600m. Regarding this there was a coordinated propaganda (official) effort to hide these facts and publish false data through wikipedia and other sources . The german pilot Peter Haisenke mentioned that this had been changed suddenly , he had the old sources.
In addition to that, the Rebel forces on the 14th of July shot down a Ukrainian An-26 at an altitude of 6500m. That altitude is well beyond the most optimistic range of a shoulder fired missile. I was surprised that so little attention was given to this at the time. How was it that aviation authorities could continue to allow civilian aircraft to fly over such a dangerous airspace given that most missiles that can reach 6500m can also go on the reach 10,000m?
Actually the downing of the An-26 got immediate attention. If the strike occurred at 6,500 m then it would be a game changer that established direct Russian involvement. For this reason the Dutch MIVD (their Military Intelligence and Security Service) investigated immediately. They published their findings to their internal customers on 7/17/14, and the findings reached the public domain on 10/13/15. You might recall that at the time when MH17 was shot down the Ukrainians and western governments were desperately seeking a smoking gun that proved direct Russian involvement in the conflict.
See the document at http://www.ctivd.nl/documenten/rapporten/2015/10/13/rapport-mh17 and start reading about the An-26 downing at page 24.
The report’s conclusions:
1. The An-26 was struck in the right engine.
2. Subsequently 5 to 6 parachutes appeared.
3. If the weapon was powerful then the crew probably would not have survived.
4. The damage report was not consistent with a damage report that corresponded with a powerful anti-aircraft system.
5. The damage report and eyewitness accounts supported a downing by MANPAD fired from Ukrainian territory, in which case the An-26’s altitude was substantially lower than 6,200 or 6,500 m.
6. It is possible that the weapon was a short range vehicle borne system.
Ukrainian official reported that the An-26 was delivering food rations and water to soldiers trapped near the Russian border. The cargo would have been via parachute drop. I read somewhere that in order to make such a drop the aircraft descends to a lower altitude, makes the drop, and then climbs to a safer altitude as fast as it can. This one was struck before it could get out of MANPAD range.
The event occurred 7/14/14 and, and the false statements about the altitude received widespreat media attention. The public release of the Dutch report was over a year later and received very little media attention. False information about the An-26’s altitude lingers to this day.
Agreed about SU-25 max ceiling for certain variants, it was sufficient to fly as high as the airliner, at 33000 ft. At that altitude manpads are not a threat. But what if it was indeed a BUK missile system targeting the SU-25?
In that case, a Ukrainian SU-25 using the airliner as cover would have been possible and useful, considering that other Ukrainian aircraft had been downed by the rebels not so long before this situation occurred.
Reports suggest there was a lot of abandoned military equipment, more or less out of order, in Donbass. Not only tanks, but even some incomplete BUK missile systems. Trained specialists using necessary spare parts could then deliver a basically functional BUK missile system for the rebels.
If indeed the military aircraft used the civilian airliner for cover, and a missile targeting the military aircraft accidentally struck the airliner, then what? That would be a serious reason for all sides involved to avoid sharing some critical information, in the context of political warfare, which is an important element in this type of conflict.
The Donbass defence forces for sure came across part of BUK systems.
For instance when they took over a ukrainian small fort that had been equipped with air defense BUK. But these events were widely published as everything else they did, along with any weapons they had. They were at the time publishing widely without restrictions on Facebook and Twitter . There were a total openness of what was going on in detail from that side. Weapons, russian and other volunteers, everything was published as they evolved. The russian (volunteers) became enlisted in the Donbass Defence Forces formally for instance. There were never any secrets.
They did not have any BUK system in operation or it woul be published if for nothing else to keep the attack aircraft away from a certain area. It would give them a lot of defence capabilities. They were being bombed heavily, did you know that the Ukr Army fired ballastic missiles at them, and that was directed at civilian target areas or specific government locations and of course also against the defence forces. They just had to take all this there was no defence against it.
The Ukr attack was in its nature an ethnic cleansing campaign , and I think as it happens there were a successful defence , it became a tactical cleansing campaign to keep the russian population from voting in a ukrainian election by physical seperation and this happens to this day.
At one time, and I think it was shortly before the shootdown of MH17, a supposedly complete part of the BUK system, (one part of a BUK may be used fo launch rockets), was found totally abandoned on a road. There were ukrainian transports but this seemed to have been driven into the Donbass controlled area and left there. The BUK in question here was a defect part- unit as they found it. It became subject to speculations why the ukrainian wanted to give them a BUK. It was as everything else, published by Donbass defence forces.
When the shootdown happened , it was of course speculated that the whole thing had been part of a plan, to shoot down a civilian airliner and blame it on the Donbass Defence Forces and have photos proving they had obtained such a unit.
This was also the main line of the BUK conspiracy, but they probably decided this would not stick and decided that a russian BUK had been brought in and that it was operated by russian forces.
The air defense were manpads , and the concern of the defence forces were actual attack runs.
Concerning a shootdown at 6500 m, there has always been lucky strikes , this is the max range of the 9K333 Verba manpad, I guess therefore the SU-25 would stay at 7000m until their attack run.
The debris of mh17 doesn’t lie. The damage is not at all consistent with a
Buk strike. The holes are the wrong size and shape. The recovered strike elements are too few and too small. The distribution of holes couldn’t have been made by a Buk. There are no exit holes that are consistent with a Buk strike.
The Russians didn’t launch a Buk.
The rebels didn’t launch a Buk.
The Ukrainians didn’t launch a Buk.
There was no Buk.
Amazing confidence, beautifully simple conclusion. We can all stop thinking now about the complex details. The bad guys did it, end of story. One side all bad, the other side all good, it goes without saying, let’s not complicate things. I wish war was that simple.
Notice though if it really was that simple, then there would be far more relevant information released, from all sides involved. So there must be something in this story that is politically damaging to each side involved, and it’s obfuscated in layers upon layers of deception, in accord with political warfare methods.
Maybe one day, when it is all irrelevant anyways, we’ll find out the truth.
Thank you for this very important work, trying to answer important and basic questions about one of the biggest false flags in history.
This is an excellent summary of the world trying to do an investigation of a fake investigation so it’s a work-in-progress.
But in a different essay, one for the general public, we need to begin with a summary of the absolutely proven points which demonstrate that this was a false flag. Your list might be longer than mine; please add what you know. Here’s my list:
1. Air Traffic Control diversion of MH17 to a lower altitude and directly over a known zone of active combat. This diversion in itself is enough for a civil suit against Kiev.
2. Exclusion of Malaysia from the investigation team (and thanks for the info that this violated IATA’s Annex 13).
3. The JIT protocol which included a probable suspect, the Ukraine, on the investigation team, and then, in a secret protocol, gave Ukraine the power to prevent any report from being issued. If that’s not a smoking gun, then there is never a smoking gun.
4. The plane’s black boxes were recovered in very good condition and the separatists turned the vital flight recorders over to the Malaysians (as I recall) who turned them over to the Dutch government, who turned them over to the British, and then the black boxes were never seen again. In an honest investigation, it only takes a 3 to 10 days, to retrieve all the data and make it public. We are now beyond five years, and no promises about when the data will be released – or even if it will be released ever. I suppose the Brits are still trying to perfect a cooked-up story with flight recorder data to fit the story. Absolutely never ever have flight data recordings been withheld from the public – until now.
5. The Ukraine government prevented the official Malaysian investigators from traveling to the crash site, and I wondered why these investigators were so uncomplaining about being sidelined in Kiev hotel rooms. The world wondered why the Malaysian government was silent, but now we know the reason: Prime Minister Najib Razak had received many hundreds of millions in bribes from Saudi Arabia and he is on trial for that corruption.
6. There was never a serious effort to collect the debris. Even all the human remains were not collected, and this went on for years. Never in the history of a peacetime crash on land was there such indifference to the debris. But it’s worse than mere neglect. When a Dutch investigator went to Donbass and collected debris and sent it to Holland, telling the Dutch government before it arrived, that this debris would be immediately turned over to the JIT, the journalist was immediately arrested on arrival back in Holland, and his cell phone and computer were confiscated.
7. The autopsies of the pilot and co-pilot were sealed, and all the coffins of the victims were sealed. In the case of the Australians, this was the subject of court cases and the Australian government became part of the cover-up. Normally, the victims’ families have the right to order a private autopsy, but perhaps that would have recovered 30mm anti-tank fragments.
8. The Ukrainians, the Americans and Russia all have radar data and none of them have released it. This is the only hard fact which could possibly point the finger of blame at the Russians. And, as Saker pointed out, the Russians may have had reason to not publicize this exculpatory evidence.
9. The Ukraine has never released the air traffic control audio tape. Again, that’s something that never happened in 70 years of ICAO crash investigations.
10. The photos of the left side of the cockpit, riddled with nice round holes, about 30mm diameter, and at least one photo of the left wing, with a dark streak pointing straight at the cockpit, almost certainly coming from a 30mm anti-tank projectile. Some of the other commenters here have links to those photos.
I believe everything beyond this is still speculation, and while everyone wants the exact truth, the basic fact is that the Ukraine did it, and the West was Johnny-on-the-spot in turning this into anti-Russian propaganda.
That’s at a minimum, without getting into reasons to believe it was far more sinister, such as the West having planned this, as Christian Lagarde suggested in her January 2014 speech and her teasing about the number 17.
Engineers say “The better is the enemy of the good,” and I think we have enough hard evidence to prove Ukraine is the guilty party, so we can move on to the next topic.
Remember, this all plays out in the court of public opinion, and as in any court, a verdict must finally be reached, and loose strings are common. Realize too, that the standard for guilt is not set by the ICC nor by The Hague, because those courts have become nothing more than EU puppets, as evidenced by a long litany of abuses, of which the most clear is the ICC’s 100% illegal prosecution on their own against the Syrian government, without the required referral from the UN Security Council.
If you think the above list of hard and relevant facts is incomplete or has any errors, please feel free to add or delete. This is a work in progress, even after rendering a verdict.
About the 30mm caliber bullet holes: they could also happen after the crash, later, on the ground.
The crash investigation was not done as required, and the wreck was located in a battle zone. Not only the SU-25, but some infantry vehicles (BMP, BTR) and helicopters also use 30mm cannon, it’s a very popular caliber.
And the implication that bullet holes “prove” that there was no missile is indeed very attractive, especially when the deception of the SU-25 using the airliner for cover was fully understood, after the fact. And when contemplating major political consequences, resulting from an accidental hit on an unintended target!
Political warfare is a very powerful motivation in all the interpretations, and a barrier to understand the real situation.
To provide some more context, in Oct 2001 Ukrainian forces during exercises in peace time have accidentally downed a Russian civilian airliner arriving from Israel, over the Black Sea, killing all aboard.
So what are the chances that an airliner could also be accidentally hit by rebel forces, while being used for cover by enemy military aircraft? It is quite conceivable, in that ecosystem.
That should not give any right to lay blame prematurely, not before all the facts are clarified, such as the unusual route the airliner was flying and the directions given to fly lower that requested (so the SU-25 can keep up with it’s cover?)
A somewhat similar situation occurred in another battle zone – Syria Sept 2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_missile_strikes_(September_2018)
The SU-25 reportedly had fitted air to air missiles that day. They are believed to be israeli Python missiles and there was no need to fit these in the Donbass mission unless they had a very special purpose that day. There were simply to enemy aircraft.
The 30mm is primarily used in aircrafts but some infantry fighting vehicles like BMP-2 have such caliber. However, who in their right mind would bring a BMP-2 to the crashsite and fire at the wreckage? Anyway, wreckage spread over a large are ridden with bullet holes also. Panels found, as you can see from Peter Haisenko ‘s report are widely separated.
The main conclusion of many here are agreeing with the sakers analysis which is linked to in the interview above, that a SU-25 fired air to air missiles (2) into MH17, and followed up with its autocannons. There are smoking gun evidence in the wreckage that corresponds to the caliber, and witness reports confirms it. There were no launch of a BUK missile which would have pointed directly to the hit and people in the area has seen only the Saker scenario. The MH17 was followed to low level by at least one SU-25 that took off in a different direction after the final explosions that happened closer to the ground. The wreckage were scattered.
@D,
“About the 30mm caliber bullet holes: they could also happen after the crash, later, on the ground.”
I don’t think this happened. After about 20 minutes or so there was a Canadian OSCE observer at the crash site who saw the cockpit panel in the condition which Peter Haisenko has written about.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/support-mh17-truth-osce-monitors-identify-shrapnel-like-holes-indicating-shelling-no-firm-evidence-of-a-missile-attack/5394324
If a car hits another car and and silently escapes, the police analysts take parts of the paint and the metal and can determine the manufacturer and color of the other car.
So if a plane is hit by metallic particles, analysts can find out the exact metal composition (alloy) within one day. If you have that, you can say for sure what it was. The time when weapons where made from 100% iron is a few thousands years ago.
Fascinating.
So what if the police only look at the part that hit the roadbarriers when they investigate a crime? I am referring to the dutch commision who do not acknowledge otherwise clear evidence of bullet holes . These are not analysed.
I have seen a lot of pictures that was availalbe at the time. There were no doubt, and some of them were very clear pictures of good quality. It was even possible to determine that the shots of the caliber of the aircraft cannon were fired before the aircraft collapsed either by explosion or by hitting the ground because the angle of wreckage could give it away if someone had fired into the wreckage on the ground . And what I am referring to were not shrapnel from a rocket . In some areas these existed side by side, in other areas not.
Because both Russia and NATO both do or atleast think benefiting on current uncertainty keep on living. You are what you believe in.
“During my years as an strategic intel analyst I had the chance to personally witness how the airspace over Europe is controlled in peacetime: not a single aircraft can take off without immediately being detected by numerous and redundant reconnaissance capabilities of many different actors including NATO, but also the various member states and even some neutral countries.”
I’m no analyst, but on Sept. 11, 2001, I waited anxiously for the official report from NORAD. In Canada, the CBC reported NORAD’s official statement which said that it had nothing to report because it hadn’t noticed anything (or something to that effect.) “That means there were no planes involved,” I thought, because as the Saker comments above with the airspace over Europe during peacetime, the airspace over North America is similarly monitored. In Canada, all attention was next diverted to what the American response will be. For all the tap-dancing that’s happened since, in my mind, the most incriminating piece of evidence for 9/11 was NORAD’s response. Although the CBC Archives include a response from NORAD on the 1 year anniversary of 9/11, I can’t find that brief comment from the day about the downing of the World Trade Center towers (can’t say about the Pentagon.)
I know how the european airspace works in general. Ukraine is not part of the european airspace system , neither is Russia. Meaning there is no access to the data .
There are also other limitations regarding opeational military traffic especially. Unless you have a primary radar covering the area that is fed into your system(meaning receiving echo of an object physically) , you are only seeing aircraft that present themselves, usually the squawk (a transponder), it is called secondary radar. The civilian systems rely more and more on secondary radars , and for coverage reasons they extend their systems to satellites as well. Secondary radar fits their service well. ATC may contact military radar for assistance in their service.
Military aircraft may hide themselves during operative mission so they would not squawk to the civilian system. Only primary radar can pick them up.
The radar game for military is avoiding detection (stealth). The SU-25 is not stealthy though even if they maintain electronic silence they will be seen on (primary) radar.
Russian radar have seen the SU-25 close to MH17 and it was published almost immediately.
I am not familiar with NORAD. I dont think they have a connection to ukrainian or russian radar screens because they are not available. Ukraine probably still rely on primary radar and has all data, but Ukraine has not released any civilian data, and certainly not military data. We know what probaly happened to their ATC service also. Locked down. Total silence. No tapes.
The discussions of the possible scenarios regarding the MH-17 shootdown are interesting. It also seems likely to me, although a non-expert, that a military aircraft (possibly an Su-25) was involved.
However, according to the data provided by the Russian government, there was NO SU-25. Russia has completely shot itself in the foot and left the BUK scenario as the only possible explanation. Why?
Recall the quote from Mr van der Werff:
It took Russia four days to present its version of events and claimed a (most probably) Su-25 appeared on radar as it broke the 5,000 meter altitude. Russia also claimed it had deleted its radar data only to find a copy a few days before the official JIT press conference. And on those radar data a Russian expert explained there was no fighter jet visible.
What possible explanation can there be for this?
I dont think so.
Russia have however identified the BUK parts that were presented by the dutch safety board investigation or JIT. Russian Commentary
Witness reports from the airbase is very interesting.
Vladislav Soloshin
The BUK has been identified and were Soviet era , delievered to Ukraine in 1986. So saying, it means that if the plane were shot down with a BUK rocket, the rocket they use as evidence is totally ukrainian. I dont know how this qualify for charges or other sanctions against anyone else. Maybe USA and others involved should be put before a criminal court of justice. They used the shootdown as pretext for invasion of Ukraine, the outline of the evil plan ?
Here is a new documentary of MH17 that tell the malaysian side:
report on Zero Hedge, Call for Justice
Russian Commentary
“Russia’s relevant agencies……………… providing primary radar data and documents showing that the missile that downed the Malaysian Boeing belonged to Ukraine”.
Are the Russians saying here that, they have accepted that the MH17 was shot down by a Buk missile and more that, they have categorically proven that it was the Ukrainians that did it?
No doubt it is Russia’s official wording as dated June 19 2019. It is however a speach. I don’t think you can use it as evidence. You have to go back to the original documents that were referred to, which content is fairly clair relating to what has been published by Russia along the way.
They have provided the Almez-Antei very thorough investigation which included live firing of a BUK at a comparable aircraft shell. If I remember correctly, in the Almez-Antei analysis, they specifically exclude russian BUK’s , they don’t rule out a Soviet era BUK that are still in service in Ukraine, but they don’t really make that conclusion. They find it is not consistent with the size and weight (and format) of the pieces that penetrated the aircraft. They prefer to believe from the evidence that it is from a lesser missile, an air-to -air missile. Actual aam’s that fits the scenario best makes a short list which include an Israeli python , the pythons that are adapted to the SU-25 (also in Ukraine). The short list is based on the fact that it targeted an active radar (the nose of the MH17 aircraft) and not the engine (heat seaking infrared).
I think the reading of the speach would imply that in any case, they have proof that the missile that downed the Malaysian Boeing belonged to Ukraine, but the wording make it easy to assume that they go along with the BUK scenario of JIT .
Technically that is not the case.
“with Almaz-Antei, to providing primary radar data and documents showing that the missile that downed the Malaysian Boeing belonged to Ukraine, as well as precision expert analysis proving that the video clips supporting the JIT’s conclusions were fabricated.”
Russia have provided in public enough evidence that support that the shootdown was more likely the SU-25 fighter/attack aircraft , and they have people that escaped to Russia to tell a more complete story from the actual airbase, they have radardata of the SU-25 that was publicly disclosed also, and they have the analysis from Almez-Antei, they have experts on the SU-25 who immediately penetrated the max ceiling hoax of 7000m, and on and on, the fabrications of the SBU audio and video.
(Dutch Safety Board Investigation which did not include Russia, and Malaysia by not including them from the beginning, and was heavily corrupted by allowing Ukraine to direct it with VETO powers. Such Ukraine preference means also that the JIT is corrupted from day 1, and that they are hiding facts why should there be a VETO for secrecy otherwise). So probably USA is behind all this , it is clear that they were behind the whole coup d’etat in Ukraine, and installed this rogue government of theirs, which turnde its laws into fascism which suited USA. In this case they wanted to use MH17 for invation of Ukraine.
@John4truth,
The name of the SU-25 pilot is Vladislav Voloshin. He committed suicide in March 2018 after a period of mental depressions.
Sorry to hear that.
@John4truth,
Sorry? You’ve had to be schocked. It was the SU-25 pilot who attacked MH-17. He was silenced because he was the weak link, due to his depression.
I mean my condolances to the family. I am sorry for the man also. He may have committed suicide while at home according to the report but you never know whatever happens in such circumstances. I understand your concerns, it is a shock especially for people hoping one day to find out what really happened.,
D’s arguments and Saker’s assessment are off the mark. If there were fighter jets in the vicinity
of MH17, then it is equally plausible that an air to air missile brought down the plane, and the evidence
corroborates this: the missile exploded 1m from the cockpit window which is precisely the
MO of the Python missile and inconsistent with a Buk which has a proximity fuse that detonates the
warhead 17m from the target. Both the JIT investigation and the Almaz-Antes analysis confirm
that the fragmentation damage to the cockpit and front fuselage were caused by multiple high
velocity projectiles consistent with the shrapnel from a missile warhead. This also rules out the R-60 angle, since an infrared homing missile would have targeted the engines and there is no evidence for this nor does the Russian side even dispute this.
“This also rules out the R-60 angle, since an infrared homing missile would have targeted the engines and there is no evidence for this nor does the Russian side even dispute this.”
R-60 cannot be ruled out.
In which scenario did the SU-25 approach the MH17 according to witnesses? From below. Then he supposedly aimed his weapons and fired. The rockets trajectory will be that of the SU-25 and its speed at close range will make sure it continues that way, he must aim his aircraft ahed of the MH17. The seeker will not see a hot source, and it may be seeking on a straight course . A heat seeking missile of this era is very simple and not very steerable therefore it should be fired from a position behind another aircraft or from the rear sector. We know that there is only one missile that actually strike on MH17, and it happened while the missile passed the aircraft from below. At that time it will register a large heatsource from the engines and may explode as it is in proximity of a large heatsource. It may or may not explode. The R-60 may fit that scenario well when you think about it.
D’s argument and Saker’s assessment are off the mark. If there were fighter
Jets in the vicinity of MH17, then it is equally plausible that MH17 was brought
down by an air to air missile, and the evidence corroborates this: the missile
exploded 1m from the cockpit window which is precisely the MO of the Python
missile and inconsistent with a Buk which has a proximity fuse that detonates
the warhead 17m from the target. This also rules out the R-60 angle, since an
infrared homing missile would target the engines. There is no evidence for
this and even the Russian side doesn’t dispute this.
Here it is , the saker personal analysis:
I think you confuse the saker with Max van der Werff’s answers.
“The Saker: I outlined my personal guesstimate here where I wrote that in my opinion the Ukronazis used the radar of a Buk battery to guide a Su-25 withing 8 clicks of the MH-17 at which point the Su-25 fired a R-60 IR missile which hit one of the engines which caused the Boeing to go into a sharp turn and lose altitude – the Su-25 easily caught up and finished the Boeing with its 30 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 autocannon (I explain my reasons in details here: /mh-17-one-year-later/). ”
So it is fairly consistent with other facts, only that the R-60 must have exploded in front of the engines (outside the cockpit) while fired from below it merely passed the aircraft and while in proximity of a large heatsource exploded .
John, but that was the Saker’s analysis in 2015. It was clearly based on the radar data released in 2014. That data was: lost? deleted? suppressed? simply wrong? I don’t know. But the current data submitted to the JIT, and what must be held as authoritative, does not indicate the presence of an SU-25 or any other military aircraft. The facts have simply changed since 2014. It makes no sense to adhere to scenarios that no longer have evidence to support them.
The facts are more or less unchangeable . For me a fact is a fact and it correspond with the truth. The facts of 30mm canon, the facts of the witness accounts at the airbase, the facts of the local people that are the primary witnesses to what took place, those represent the facts.
While still waiting for a full crash report to ICAO standards, ie. assemble all relevant facts, and present a crash report to everyone involved and the public, there is one more conclusion. This has not happened. Where are the transcript of Ukraine ATC, where are the transcript of Ukraine military ATC or Ground Control, where are the transcript of radar or its data? So there is one more crime, failure to comply with International civil aviation organisation ICAO regulations, all data of such must be stored for 1 month, in case of incidents it must be handed to civilian police team that is appointed to ensure safe handling , and the crash investigation team must be investigating all the involved ensuring all this. There were no problems involved physically in this side of the investigation, ensuring the cooperation of Ukraine which is a member of ICAO must ensure it takes place as under such rule of law. The Ukraine miitary shelling of the crash area is simply horrendous crime and should also be included in further lawsuits at the JIT.
The government as such or its military has no place in the investigation.
I know there is a lawsuit already vs. the JIT in EU (dutch safety board investigation team), and there should be more. A lot more.
I don’t disagree. But it doesn’t matter too much what you or I say on a blog. The Saker, on the other hand, has to maintain a professional level of credibility. The loss of the 2014 radar data was quite devastating. I doubt if the Saker could advance the same scenario now. But really the unanswered question is why was the 2016 radar data so completely different than the 2014 data. Personally, my tendency is to believe the 2014 data. I can only think of one plausible explanation for the change and that the 2014 data was suppressed for some reason by the Russian government.
They are under pressure from the dutch safety board investigation (JIT) . Since they have delievered all the radar data to JIT and complied with all JIT’s demands, they may have complied with the secrecy VETO that was initiated by JIT (posibly on behalf of Ukraine’s VETO but we dont know why for sure). Russia could therefore deny earlier russian investigation resuts. Just my thoughts on that.
Can the R-60 angle be ruled out on the basis that it does not carry a
large enough warhead to account for the observed damage? I have
not seen any references that heat seeking missiles carry such large
warheads. Also the speculation that the rebels salvaged some derelict
Buk system during the course of hostilities and then used it are not plausible.
Has anyone seen pictures of the interior of the Buk Telar on the internet?
It is bewildering and intimidating. The suggestion that the rebels salvaged
a Buk and learned to use it, when it takes at least a year of comprehensive
training to successfully operate, is ludicrous. But then, they were trained by
the Russians who also taught them how to disable the safety measures of
the IFF system.
There is no evidence of a BUK ever was in the area , definitely not in the Donbass controlled area. There was only a fake SBU photo of some smoke but they have falsified and fabricated most other “evidence ” they presented including audio and video (analyzed both in Malaysia and Russia to be heavily edited and faked). They included also a photo of faint smoke it was not the dense contrail of a BUK even, but agian they fabricated dates and times and audio. Everyone would have known and seen if a BUK was fired it is seen for 10 minutes as very concentrated contrail all the way to the target.
What is a witness importance in a criminal case? It is the primary source of information of what took place.
The saw the SU-25, more than one actually in a combat situation firing their weapons into what was a civilian airliner that crashed literally on their houses and in their fields.
In the head story Max van der Werff links a video produced by Russia’s Buk missile manufacturer.
The video shows experiments undertaken the the manufacturer to simulate the damage caused by a Buk missile on a commercial airliner. Their conclusion is that the extent of damage and the size and shape of the holes in MH17 match the damage caused by the Buk simulation. The Buk simulation damage was so similar to the MH17 damage that they could also identify that it was an early version of Buk missile that brought MH17 down.
This evidence from the manufacturer is overwhelming and in contrast, there is zero evidence for any other theory as to why the aircraft crashed.
Without any new evidence it has to be concluded that a Buk missile shot the plane down.
There is zero evidence because no other evidence was investigated. If you rule out
certain scenarios a priori, then there will inevitably be no evidence for those scenarios.
For instance did Almaz-Antey test a Python missile? Obviously not, and therefore there
can be no evidence that the shrapnel pattern of the Python missile is more
consistent with the actual pattern than the Buk.
It comes down to the scientific method vs. the political method.
The scientific method follows the evidence to wherever it leads. When applied to aircraft disasters it often converges on broadly accepted conclusions within a matter of days, weeks or months.
The political method starts with a conclusion and gathers only evidence that supports the conclusion. The selective evidence gathering and analysis can drag on for years. At the end there is divergence, not convergence.
The MH17 investigations have carried the political method to such an extreme that the Buk theory is a litmus test. As Max Van Der Werff can attest, either you accept the Buk scenario as overwhelming or you are obviously a Kremlin troll.
I’ve seen comments here to the effect that Ukraine had the Python air to air missile in 2014. I haven’t found any articles documenting that Ukraine upgraded any of its aircraft to mount Python missiles or documenting that Ukraine acquired aircraft (such as Georgia’s Su-25KM Scorpion) compatible with the Python missile.
If anyone has such a link, then please reply and provide it. I’m particularly interested in finding an article dated prior to July, 2014.
I have seen it as commented in various articles, there was a large article some time after the MH17 shootdown that become very hot. Sorry I cannot find it just now. I found that some independant military experts have concluded that Ukraine received such an upgrade at the same time Georgian SU-25 was developed with israeli Elbit to use Python4 and Phyton-5 AAMs.
It is clear however that Georgia/Elbit integrated the Vympel R-73 which is listed as adopted by SU-25 by many sources including Russia. These rockets have both radio fuse and laser fuse. Quote “The passive infrared homing head supports target lock-on before launch. Guidance to the predicted position is by the proportional navigation method. The missile’s combat equipment consists of an active proximity (radar or laser) fuze and impact fuze and a continuous-rod warhead. The engine operates on high-impulse solid propellant and has a high-tensile steel case.” Unquote from the Wikia Military link below.
Time capsule from old rockets to new:
SU-25 Air-to-air missiles:
K-13A
R-60
R-73E
From Wikia.org Military :
Vympel R-73 Archer
Ukraine has the upgraded SU-25M1.
details of equpiment SU-25M1 Ukraine
SU-25M1
See also technical details and armament.
Thank you for the links. A lengthy report was released in 2015 that identified the Python as a misile that could have inflcted some of the damage seen on the skin of the cockpit. I haven’t see anything that convinces me that Ukraine had the Python. Georgia had aircraft participating in Sea Breeze 2014 that may have included the Su-25KM. However, Ukraine had ample means to shoot down aircraft air-to-air. I don’t see a role for Georgia. The Python isn’t essential for explaining what happened anyway.
Whatever did the deed was violent enought to reduce MH17’s land speed by 400 kph in 2 seconds. Neither a Python exploding 1.6 m away nor a Buk exploding 4 m away can do that. Not unless it triggered an onboard explosion which seems unlikely.
It is hard to imagine a large airliner heavy with passengers, cargo and fuel that was cruising at mach 0.8 suddenly breaking up and slowing by about 250 mph in only 2 seconds. Fragmentation warheads kill for sure, but they work by destroying equipment, rupturing hydraulic lines, igniting fuel, etc. They’re not designed to cause onboard explosions and immediate structural failure.
Maybe the Python theory is part of a clever disinformation. The Georgian SU-25 which was developed with israeli Elbit yes, but never became a success with regard to actually selling the aircraft. IThe russian Vympel R-73 missiles were integrated by Elbit, after which my theory now is that Python is derived from that , it is a classic example of techonlogy transfer or in this case possibly not intended by Russia but neverthe less happened knowingly. The technology was then further transferred into the American AIM-9x. So all these new rockets may have been used in the downing of MH-17. The only aircraft we actually know was there is the ukrainian SU-25, and this is supported by a large number of witnesses. Following the trail of R-73 I have found it listed with an alternative fragmentation warhead that is similar to R-60 only larger, the fuse is both radar and laser And following the trail of R-60 I have found that it has a highly effective warhead of fragmentation but has interlinked wolfram rods, the target pattern will be shrapnel with open and diamond shapes as well as smaller particles. Both are evident in MH-17. The SU-25 normally load 2 R-60 (or R-73) on the outer pylons if AAM’s are required by mission. At least one of them exploded will passing the aircrafts cockpit area , the explosion was not heavy enough to penetrate more that one side according to Alma Atez the manufacturer of BUK states that a BUK would be very heavy impact the aircraft will disintegrate and fall out of the sky (from 10km height) and its fragments will have penetrated bot with an entry hole and an exit hole. It seems from the evidence of photos of which 7mei.nl discussed thoroughly the R-60 scenario with also the main witness from the airbase and made this conclusion: quote “Summary:
– At least five eyewitnesess near the crash site saw at least one fighter jet near the Boeing-777
– Holes in the debris of the MH17 cockpit coincide with damages caused by R-60 missile that hit Korean Boeing in 1978 and fit the description of the use of R-60M missiles: huge diamond holes in central parts of the Boeing. ” unquote
– Evgeny Agapov, mechanic at air base 299 brigade of the Ukrainian Air Force testified that the pilot who shot down MH17 with two missiles R-60 was pilot Vladislav Voloshin flying Su-25M1 (number 06), a modernized Sukhoi 25.
– Two days after MH17 crashed, July 19, captain Voloshin was awarded for courage and heroism although he claims that he was involved in a fight on July 23.
MH17: Buk + Air-to-Air missiles R-60?”
The author also linked to this site which obviously is presenting the russian side of analysis.
MH17
But who says that the russian side is wrong? The truth is right, the facts are right, but a corrupted JIT is wrong however and they have violated rules for conduction an air crash investigation.
Regarding the JIT predetermined facts I found this interesting video:
Downed Boeing 777 – a special operation
From the airbase technician interview : ” Agapov testified that July 17, 2014, three jets went into the air about an hour before MH17 crashed. One of the jets was equipped with two air-to-air missiles type R-60. This particular jet later returned to base without these missiles.” It also turned out that commands later existed had ordered a transfer of Agapov (a threat to their story) to the frontlines in Donbass so that he could be conveniently killed. That was when he escaped.
@ John4truth,
Great information, thank you!
There’s no telling whether the Python theory was intended as disinfo. People who have an agenda sometimes give useful information and analysis. I don’t buy the Python idea (I can’t 100% rule it out either), but the albert_lex analysis made clear that the rocket undoubtedly was smaller than a Buk and exploded closer to the cockpit than stated by the DSB. Likewise, Almaz Antey clearly has an agenda, yet they’ve given strong evidence that Buk preformed elements don’t lose much weight and have enough power to create exit holes on the opposite side. No exit holes, no Buk. No bow-tie shaped entry holes, no 9N314M warhead. But why let facts get in the way of an investigation with a predetermined outcome?
Arms makers knock off each other’s work, hence the similarities you noted among the R-73, Python and AIM-9x. At 33,000 feet under partly cloudy skies a lot of weapons can get the job done out of public view. I’m not that concerned about what the little bit of available radar does and doesn’t show. It is entirely possible for a platform (Su-25 or whatever) to be out of the reach of radar but within the reach of a target with its weapons. Both sides have some knowledge of each other’s blind spots.
I like the R-60 for this crime. It produces many of the signature holes seen on MH17’s skin. The wolfram (tungsten) rods make a big nasty entry hole and wreck anything they hit. You’ve seen the picture Col. Cassad has in his article showing what looks like an R-60 rod in the MH17 debris. I don’t trust pictures much, but where you see certain kinds of holes you expect to see strike elements that are known to make such holes.
The Russian side gave Evgeny Agapov a lie detector test and said he is credible. Voloshin said Agapov lied, but Voloshin took no lie detector test. The details of Voloshin’s death are fishy. I hope Agapov is at a safe place where there’s no chance that some day he too will appear to have shot himself to death with a Makarov with the serial number filed off.
All sides have acted in ways that keep the public in the dark. There are no good guys who are 100% in the right. To make matters worse, we keep ourselves in the dark and off balance. We’re too focused on figuring out who brought down MH17 with what weapons. What we need is clearer thinking about the final minutes of flight MH17. When and where did the initial attack occur? We’ve been told what to believe about unverifiable CVR and FDR data. The official investigations weren’t able to muzzle the transponder’s reports. We haven’t been looking hard enough at what the transponder reported.
I too am a Dutchman.
I have been following the story from June 2014 when “rebels” took a Buk transporter-erector-launcher from an Ukrainian army base carrying three missiles. The Buk TEL was slowly retreating for the advancing Ukrainian army when it arrived in the neighborhood of Lugansk on July 14, the day an An-26 of the Ukrainian air force was shot down approaching Lugansk airport. Kiev said the aircraft was flying at about 6000 m altitude implying that the rebels ( or according to the BBC website the Russian army ) shot it down using a Buk missile – no other weapon able to reach that altitude was about. Photographs of the wreck that appeared within hours showed that it had not been hit by a large anti-air missile. These photographs have now been replaced by some of another An-26 wreck that also wasn’t hit by such a missile.
Three days later MH17 was brought down and I concluded, based on Kiev’s lie, that Kiev was the likely perpetrator and that the lie had been used to prepare the world for a False Flag incident. The rebels were immediately accused, as well as the local population, for violating the remains of the victims and their possessions. Thirteen months later the Dutch authorities said that the launcher in the hands of the rebels had not been able to launch any missile.
The rebels said they brought down the An-26 from an altitude of 2000 m using a shoulder launched missile. The Russian provided these missiles and apparently the information for the users when to look where which enabled them to exterminate the ground attack capabilities of the Ukrainian air force in the time of about six months.
Why did the “rebels” took a defective Buk TEL? I suppose it might have been an invitation to Kiev to commit a False Flag crime. When MH17 was shot down the TEL was to be destroyed by an air attack with Kiev claiming that the “criminal rebels” had been punished. Instead the TEL was immediately evacuated. Next there was the possibility that Kiev would be accused by the investigators or, expectedly, that the Western investigators would create a fairy story that they will now have to defend from March 9, 2020.
@John4truth
“The facts are more or less unchangeable . For me a fact is a fact and it correspond with the truth.”
The facts are what they are, but nobody really knows all the facts. Not even the direct witness, the SU-25 pilot, not the eye witnesses on the ground. They have all witnessed only a part of the facts, and the correct explanation depends on proper analysis of all the facts contributing to the outcome.
Besides, another fact, and a very important fact relevant to this case, is that political warfare agents, from all sides, will actively use distorted interpretations of the facts, or lying by omission, and other similar methods, in order to gain political advantage, regardless of the truth.
If one understands what is “motivated reasoning”, that is using arguments selectively, to promote a predetermined conclusion, then they can check how much text, even in the messages above does just that!
So, what about the “truth”? Obviously it was already decided we cannot handle the truth… Not yet, in any case.
A huge problem occurred on 7/21/14 when the separatists handed over the CVR and FDR to the Malaysians who handed them over the Dutch who handed them over to the British. I knew then that the odds weren’t good that the murder of Flight MH17 would be solved in a satisfactory manner in my lifetime. It is easy to lie about and conceal the contents of the recorders when the contents can’t be independently examined. The same is true for all evidence that is not available for independent examination.
Countries have been known to lie about civilian airliners downed by alleged military actions. Consider for example the debates concerning Itavia Flight 870, Korean Air Lines Flight 007 and Pan Am Flight 103. When two or more governments present contradictory “facts”, we can be sure that at least 1 of them is lying. It is not unreasonable to assume that we are exposed to lies and misrepresentations concerning flight MH17. In fact, it is unreasonable not to assume that we are hearing lies from all sides.
The official story – which can’t be verified independently – is that the flight was completely normal. The attack is said to have occurred in an instant with the explosion of a single missile’s fragmentation warhead. The cockpit and business class section were said to have instantly sheared off due to the combination of the blast and being struck by over 800 preformed fragments. Power or signals to the CVR and FDR was lost so fast that there is no recording of the sounds of explosive decompression and structural failure. Or so we are expected to believe.
The official story about the attack itself and the aftermath of the attack leaves questions unanswered. If the attack occurred in an instant then why does the skin under the left side cockpit windows show evidence of both cannon rounds and missile fragments? Disregarding holes that are consistent with cannon fire, how can the cockpit and business class section of a large passenger aircraft be sheared off instantly by a missile that is not designed to have this effect on large civilian aircraft?
What was the source of the energy that caused the amputation? Answering this question requires thinking outside the box which in turn requires the recognition that the box is worse than useless.
What’s wrong with the box? The list of defects is long and growing.
01. The investigators are operating under a secret agreement. Even the existence of the agreement was kept secret for a while.
02. Any investigating country has the right to block the release of information.
03. Ukraine, who should be a suspect, is allowed to participate in the investigation.
04. Violations of chain of custody rules.
05. Slow collection of bodies and debris.
06. Physical evidence was left behind in the debris field.
07. Uncollected physical evidence was declared to be irrelevant.
08. The reconstruction is grossly incomplete.
09. The autopsies were incomplete. For example, DSB never analyzed the air inside the lungs of passengers and crew.
10. Satellite data has been withheld.
11. Radar data has been withheld.
12. Recorded Ukrainian ATC conversations with MH-17 were confiscated by the SBU. Other governments who likely monitored the conversations haven’t released them.
13. Videos, sound recordings and pictures of unknown and questionable provenance are regarded as compelling evidence.
14. Videos, sound recordings and pictures of extremely poor and questionable quality are regarded as compelling evidence.
15. Eyewitnesses are ignored by official investigators.
16. Lack of chemical and metallurgical analysis of the debris.
17. Lack of independent verifiability of the evidence.
18. The investigation began with a conclusion and looks for supporting evidence.
19. Evidence that doesn’t support the conclusion is disregarded.
20. Evidence that doesn’t support the conclusion is concealed from the public.
21. Evidence such as lithium-ion batteries in the cargo hold isn’t described accurately.
22. Omitted evidence. The DSB final report says that the transponder’s upper antenna was not damaged (page 57 of the report). The DSB didn’t report that the transponder continued to work for at least 49 seconds after the DSB-reported time of the CVR and FDR cutoff. Or that following the alleged time of CVR/FDR cutoff the transponder reports indicated no significant change of speed and altitude for 39 seconds.
23. Slow pace of the investigations.
24. The criminal investigation has been used as an excuse for withholding information from the public.
25. The investigators have made public accusations without providing supporting evidence.
26. Media serving as a megaphone for the investigators.
27. Media failing to criticize the flaws of the investigations.
28. Media failing to criticize countries other than Russia for withholding evidence.
We have no reason to confine our thinking to the DSB/JIT box. No real progress will be made by independent journalists and investigators until the box is treated with the utter contempt it deserves.
I have another perspective on the Almaz-Antey simulation. In the simulation, the relative
velocity between the missile and plane is obviously 0. I have read analyses on the internet
that due to the proximity fuse constraints, the missile would have had to approach the plane
horizontally from the front(actually it is amusing to read the tortured lengths to which people
will go to concoct a situation where a missile with a 17m proximity fuse would detonate 1m
from the target). In such a scenario the missile would purportedly not see the plane until it was
about 5m from the target. If such were the case then the relative velocity of the missile and plane
would then be in the 1000mph range. If the simulation reproduces a reasonably similar shrapnel
pattern at 0 relative velocity then what is the possibility that it would produce a pattern even remotely
similar at a relative velocity of 1000mph? I have read analyses where it is stated that blast waves
travel faster than the speed of sound. If we add the effect of the relative velocity, then the effect of
blast wave velocity and intensity would be significantly magnified creating a far more destructive
pattern. Since the simulation creates a reasonable facsimile of the actual pattern, then we know that the relative velocity between the plane and missile must be very low. This might be possible with the Python
missile. It is definitely not possible with the Buk missile.
Following the trail of the SU-25, there is a fact that is being misrepresented so far.
The R60 has often been explained away because it is a heatseaking rocket , and the detonation seemingly occurred close to the cockpit. Although this impact may have been caused by only rocket , the SU-25 carried two rockets. So one may have hit somewhere in the wing area close to the engine, and the other may have missed the heat target entirely but being close to a radar exploded outside the cockpit. At least this is my understanding but a close examination of the wreckage is the only way to establish whether two rocket hits is possible. It is established as a fact that a rocket detonated close to the cockpit. The other ordnance used was machine cannon of a SU-25 or two SU-25’s . Source:
How MH-17 was shot down
So although the steering mechanism towards the target is an infrared seeker, it does not mean that it has to hit a heatsource in order to damage the target. The main fuse of R60M is a radio fuse that will detonate when it gets within 5m of a radar. There is also a secondary fuse , an impact fuse that will detonate the warhead with any impact or contact with the target. So if while homing in on either a straight or impulsive or directed infrared course , there are various ways it may detonate and damage the target.
So in this case the particular rocket(s) possibly detonated by being within the radar distance, or touching an engine or wing or other parts of the aircraft. ( The seeker only bring it to the target ).
Several years ago I recall a hypothesis posed online that the attacking aircraft was actually a Mig-29 not an SU-25. Any thoughts on this?
If I was an Israeli who wanted to be clever I’d get one of the modified SU-25s (not strictly necessary) and use a Python air-to-air with all identifications removed and salted with BUK shrapnel. I think perhaps this is why Russia has never openly spread what they know. I don’t believe the ‘nobody will believe us’ meme. Evidence is evidence and you only have to have one credible person to accept this and the facades that are so poor then crumble.
Russia either has a hold over Israel or vice versa.
Gordon Duff at veterans today is an advocate of the Mig-29 angle,
maintaining that with radar spoofing capabilities any aircraft can
appear as any other aircraft. As an aside, I would like to point out
how vicious, deranged and maniacal the propaganda campaign against
the separatists and Russia has been. For example, propagandists, con-
sistently maintain that the IFF system would have labeled MH17 as enemy
or unknown. This is false. The transponders of civilian aircraft automatically
transmit their identification numbers and other data like their altitude and bearing.
Their radar blip then lights up. This is simply the operation of Mode C of the IFF
system. And then get this: the propagandists maintain that the IFF system of the
Buk Telar has safety measures that would prevent the destruction of a civilian
airliner, and then at the very same time assert that the IFF system cannot identify
civilian airliners! Can you imagine the mental illness of the people babbling
such insane nonsense. It almost beyond belief.
For what it’s worth, here is the original video I saw on Youtube. Looked legitimate to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nI_6dvw17U
Very informative, especially the radar info. For what its worth, I never understood the fixation
on the Su-25.
They never showed the profile of SU-25 so here it is: SU-25 profile
They showed profiles of typically air to air fighter jets of which the select two witnesses had to chose one.
The first witness seemed to look for more profiles but was not holding any Su-25 profile and chose the MIG-29 who may seem closest of those, some of which were extremely swept wing designs to confuse even more. It would be easy to find two witnesses out of thousands that mistook an aircraft profile especially in such a way.
There are other witness from the Donbass Defence Forces who came to the MH17 crashscene, that they had got 1 or two of the attackers, when in range both low flying SU-25 . Interestingly though one of the witnesses in the movie mentioned that the ukrainian airforce jets had circled over the area that day for a long time then one of them disappeared , it obviously could be that it went high.
It would be equally possible for a retired airforce general to downplay or mistake the combat ceiling and airspeeds of a SU-25, and overestimating the airspeed of a Boeing 777 which he did. He said the boeing travel at around 1000km/h. He is obviously assuming things. Cruise speed is Mach 0.84 (482 kn; 892 km/h). Boeing 777
Overall the presentation and witnesses are OK. But you can only find out who the real perpetrator is by proof, and such proof that qualify as proof are from the SU-25 scene. Not from a selected circumstantial witnesses who may be disoriented by pressing on them a decision they have never made before and not supplying enough time or not even the correct material .
There were also just personal views of experts from only 2 selected individuals, however knowledgeable they might be considered by some, it does not qualify as they were circumstantial by all means.
Update: I need to add some comments that was left out.
This is supposedly the airspeed of MH17 during the last minutes of its flight , Airspeed is average 909 km/h:
>a href=”http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/gN7L5.jpg”>what happened to MH17
The data of modernised/upgraded SU-25: Airspeed at high altitude is max 984 km/h :
>a href=”https://sputniknews.com/infographics/20100812160169830/”>SU-25 attack aircraft
What do you make of the Russian MOD on Sep 26 2016 where they present a long detailed account of their radar data showing no other planes anywhere near the MH17?
For what purpose did the Russians make the presentation? To me it did not seem to answer any questions.
I think the russian has been handed a bone in a fragment of a BUK that had some serial numbers recoverable that proved that the BUK was delivered to Ukraine in 1986 (probably from the factory) and that the BUK in question is not russian. Therefore their side can be given the knowledge that Russia did not do it. The downside is that the rest of the world dont believe them.
It is like a game of chess in an information war, providing a safe route in an intermediate phase.
Maybe there is the sideeffect of denying the former radar data which I think was derived from the civilian sources (ATC) and not military. And the military data somehow disappeared now to support this.
Personally I think they have a clear picture of an attack by several SU-25’s, they have gathered witness reports from Donbass in large numbers, they have a primary witness from the airbase where the Su-25’s operated out of , and that they can find the military radar data if required. Just my thoughts on a direct question. I dont think we have reached the final phase yet.
Maybe they are still waiting for a breakthrough in the case, like more ukrainian defectors willing to speak.
The Russian MOD presented the radar as “objective information”. I took it as a political presentation, the result of behind the scenes negotiations. Both sides know what happened, when it happened, where it happened and who pulled the trigger. For the Russians the main point of the presentation was “no Buk was launched from the direction of Snizhne” as they said repeatedly. For the other side the prize was no fighter seen anywhere near MH17. As a bonus the Russians got to jab the other side for continuing to withhold their satellite images and radar.
It was unsatisfying political theater for public consumption.
Other than an explosion caused the destruction of MH-17 I have no conclusion on what caused it. However many of the arguments are weak. Certainly from a miltary strategy a ground attack SU-25 would not be the first choice but that doesn’t rule it out. Glider pilots frequently climb to 32000 feet with just a regular oxygen tank and mask, why does an SU-25 need to climb level with MH-17? Only the missile needs to do that and they have no wings or ceiling, only the length of solid fuel burn determines its range and altitude. As for transponder equipped MH17 and ADSB beaming out position, speed, direction and altitude anyone can pick that up -just look at flight tracker for any airline flight. The Su-25 can’t catch up to MH17? Why does it need to? Just wait ahead for it to come to the SU-25 and launch when in missile range.
It could be a Mig, Su27, SU25 or anything else -even an on-board explosion courtesy of a three letter agency.
I personally feel the BUK theory is weak because in an inhabited area the launch could not have gone unnoticed both in terms of racket and smoke trail. A single BUK/radar normally only works for low altitudes and it would need other BUK units with larger radar for high altitude targets. By Russia releasing all the military paper trail for serial numbers the BUK in question is definitely Ukrainian and was not ‘smuggled’ across the border to and from Russia. Nobody disputes this but just ignores it.
The lack of any forensic testing of explosive residue, metallurgical etc. no protection of debris, no chain of evidence and the ridiculous cover up points to anyone except Russia.
There’s more to this than meets the eye.
Does the truth matter? If so why? I don’t think it matters. The only thing to really go over is the battle for power and control. The US excels at propaganda. Russia was never very good at it. Russia would have a lot of catching up to do. Russia is better at making winnable strategic moves with diplomacy and the military. Creating better “facts on the ground” and diplomatic moves to enhance economic cooperation with countries on the fence and a bit outside of US influence. They are not going to win the battle of propaganda with the US. The US does not care about truth. Truth is what they say it is. There is no arguing or debating with them. They decide what the truth is and will do everything in their power to shove it down the disbelievers throats. This is the reality. This was the real message from Ron Suskind’s article. People misdiagnosed this as just arrogance of the Bush administration. It wasn’t. This is the standard way of thinking of both political parties and politicians. They may have occasional arguments about what the “truth” is that they are going to shove down our throats but that is about it.
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html
Having a politician that told the truth. That would be different. I think a lot of people would like that. It would be great if it caught on and became a thing.
And if they tried to do good and stop suffering, instead of being greedy and arrogant and causing destruction everywhere.
Our expectations have become low that this seems like fairyland instead of everyday reality. We supposedly live in a free society, should we not demand better of our politicians. Is it not our acceptance that allows them? Therefore the fault lies at our feet.
If politicians told the truth (almost) nobody would vote for them, money and lobbies would not support them and certain lobbies, governments and corporations would seek to destroy them.
I get your point but truth, to some people at least, does matter, and that truth if possible must absolutely include the larger picture -whatever that is. So truth in the larger picture may contain many other truths and that picture thus nuanced when viewed from the stratosphere. But each truth will be an independent truth.
The “we’re an empire now,,” quote is attributed to Karl Rove, an eloquent and cunning sleezebag endearingly nicknamed ‘Turd Blossom’ -which is a Texas term for any number of flower species that bloom from within a pile of cow dung. Quite appropriate.
Karl Rove has, worringly, not been in the news for a while and I wonder what he is up to -certainly nothing that would involve truth.
What have been the positive MH17-related outcomes for Russia? Maybe by looking for the bright side we can understand Russia better. The sanctions that followed MH17 have enabled Russia to make faster progress in important areas.
1. Greater self-sufficiency.
2. Stronger military alliances.
3. New and stronger economic alliances.
4. Less need for petrodollars.
5. USA weaker and less prestigious globally.
6. EU learning that friendship with Russia helps and sanctions hurt.
It is hard to say which is worse, the evidence governments withhold or the evidence governments provide. We aren’t misled by evidence we know is being withheld. Governments release evidence for the purpose of shaping public perception of the facts and public opinion. Our focus is riveted on contradictory evidence released by adversarial governments. The real danger is when adversarial governments release “facts” that are in agreement. We’re prone to assume that if both sides agree then the facts must be true.
Consider the 9/26/16 release of radar data by Russia’s MoD. In this presentation Russia agreed with the official investigators on key “facts”.
1. A devastating attack occurred at 13:20:02 or 13:20:03 UTC.
2. MH17 suffered immediate structural failure.
3. MH17 made a turn to the east at the moment of the attack.
4. No military aircraft were flying near MH17.
Both sides agree so it must be true, right? This is the danger. Russia’s 9/26/16 presentation doesn’t agree with the “facts” provided to the DSB by Russia’s Federal Air Transport Agency. In Appendix I of the DSB’s Final Report we see a different version. We see a normal flight until 13:20:45. Then at 13:20:47 a very sharp turn to the left, a drop of ground speed from 893 to 593 kph, and for the first time a second primary return.
We don’t know which version from Russia is more accurate, but we do know:
1. We have no way to verify independently the “facts” that both sides agree about.
2. The facts that both sides agree about are in conflict with the transponder reports.
3. The transponder reports are in the public domain, uncontrollable by either side. There was only a feeble attempt by the avherald to suggest with no supporting evidence that “the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08) and was lost at FL330 at 13:20Z”.
4. A transponder has no reason to lie.
The Saker commented that MH17 could go the way of the JFK assassination and 9/11 if none of the hundreds who know what happened don’t step forward. There are two other possible sources of breakthroughs. One is the loss of control or break-up of the JIT which is showing signs of weakness including Malaysia’s complaints about the JIT’s work, Malaysia PM Mahathir calling for an entirely new and independent investigation, Malaysia and Australia saying that they will look at Josef Resch’s information in the event that the JIT refuses again to do so, the Dutch prosecutor’s evident distrust of the JIT, Ukraine’s release of Volodymyr Tsemakh despite intense pressure from the Dutch Prosecutor, the JIT and 40 European MPs, and ongoing trilateral consultations involving Dutch, Australian and Russian diplomats. The imperial alliance is wobbly.
The other possible source of a breakthrough is the discovery of new hard evidence. How can that be possible after over 5 years? Well, it won’t be possible if nobody looks for it. Many who visit this site agree that a pair of R-60 missiles could have played a key role in the downing of MH17. If true, then there should be remnants of R-60 missiles on the ground, or perhaps resting on tree branches or at the bottom of a stream or pond. Maybe the DSB/SBU have already rounded up the pieces. But what if they haven’t, and what if they searched with no success or less than complete success? The pieces won’t be found if nobody searches. Independent searchers aren’t likely to succeed if they make the wrong assumption about exactly when and where the strike(s) occurred.
I should add that conflicting evidence presented by adversarial governments is not risk free. As consumers of the conflicting evidence we may:
1. Given in to temptation to pick a side, which can have a blinder effect.
2. Close our minds to other possibities. For example, when the JIT and Russia argue whether the Buk was from Russia or Ukraine, we might conclude that it definitely was a Buk and the only question is whose Buk. Many on both sides of the issue have jumped to that conclusion prematurely.
The level of deception in a the global network of interconnected states and the organisations they run is almost fatal to the world at this point.
Is it possible Blackwater advanced fighting vehicle Humvee’s anti-aircraft turret (AIM-9x ) used in secret operations in Ukraine against MH-17 ?
AIM-9x
It is highly possible since Blackwater operated in Ukraine under the name Academi from the beginning of ATO the socalled anti terrorist operation, and may well be involved in false flag attacks sanctioned by the deep state USA. Blackwater is known for training UAE forces (mercenaries), their presence accounting for high level of sofisticated military capability along with resources and in the area were missiles recently were launced recently against tankers in the Hormuz Strait highly aligned with US strategy of tension against Iran. This is in contrast to the Mike Pompeo statement that there were no proxy forces with advanced capability in the area.
At the time of John McCain involvement in Ukraine, USA would also had the opportunity to use Blackwater. And John McCain is accused of supporting false flag operations to shoot down civilian airliners as leaked from Ukraine (CyberBerkut or Ukr. Wikileaks), link and interview below.
There are two distinct desinformation regarding the shootdown of MH-17 that are suspicious since they have the characteristics of never being able to be pinned on anyone since it never happened:
BUK (the theory of JIT the offical dutch safety board investigation)
MIG-29 (in case someone would produce the witnesses that observed that SU-25’s were involved in the shootdown, a film was produced with credible witnesses given sketches of aircrafts deciding they saw a MIG-29 attack MH-17 , see earlier explanation in this thread).
About AIM-9X developed for Humvee special purpose vehicles, they were used in Iraq.
During the test a telemetered AIM-9X was cued by an off-board sensor. The missile, which was mounted on a LAU-7A/D launcher on a U.S. Marine Corps Humvee, tracked, launched and guided to within lethal range of the target.
“A ground-based AIM-9X missile system makes perfect sense from a value and capabilities perspective,” said Harry Schulte, Raytheon Missile Systems vice president of Air Warfare Systems. “AIM-9X has transformed air-to-air engagements and will now provide a revolutionary surface-to-air capability for force protection, high-value asset protection and overall air defense.”
AIM-9X Sidewinder Specifications
Dimensions
Diameter: 130 millimeter (5.12 inch)
Length: 3 meter (118 inch)
Wingspan: 350 millimeter (13.8 inch)
Performance
Max Range: 26,000 meter (14.0 nautical mile)
Speed
Top Speed: 850 mps (3,061 kph)
Weight
Warhead: 10 kilogram (22.0 pound)
Weight: 85 kilogram (187 pound).
It may reach MH-17 at 10000m above sealevel, a similar occurence as other instances, as A321 russian airliner over Sinai 10200m (above sealevel) were downed .
According to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_level
“In aviation and aviation meteorology, flight level (FL) is an aircraft’s altitude at standard air pressure, expressed in hundreds of feet. The air pressure is computed assuming an International Standard Atmosphere pressure of 1013.25 hPa (29.92 inHg) at sea level, and therefore is not necessarily the same as the aircraft’s actual altitude, either above sea level or above ground level.”
Here is a very interesting interview with Leuren Moret involving John McCain and Odessa governor Saakashvili in false flag operations in a rather lengthy interview that cover a lot of ground regarding the US deep state operations including operation Northwoods that were a plan for false flag opeations against civilian aircrafts and much more. The interviewer is a war crime judge. Leuren Moret is a respected scientist and international expert in her fields (whistleblower), who went on to research the deep state.
Leuren Moret interview
See also Leuren Moret
This is a reworked post that was originally posted under “we lied, we cheated. the result was the MH-17….” in the selected commentary section, while it belonged in this thread.