I get confused easily so perhaps someone can explain to me: why were there no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?
Little things like that make me suspicious.
That there is no witnesses is odd. A couple of factors though. I think the rocket engine has a 14 second burn time (depending on model) 14 seconds at Mach 2.7 is approximately 12.8 km though it would be slightly less due to the acceleration stage.
So if a BUK missile was launched more than 12/13 kilometres from the target there would be no smoke plume as it gets close to the target.
According to the original investigation report there was heavy cloud to the south of the crash site and showers. I think that weather report was for midday on the 17th.
But showers and cloud would greatly reduce viability as far as the smoke plume.
In the original report put out by Almaz-Antey the possible launch site at that time may have been covered by heavy cloud and showers.
There are numerous flaws and omissions in the Dutch investigation report. Some analysts have concluded that the report gave so little evidence for BUK missile involvement, it is still the most probable scenario that Flight MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter plane, possibly an SU-25. The following article mentions the conspicuous lack of witnesses, along with a lot of other reasons to throw out the Dutch “findings”:
We all know the ukro-nazis shot down the Boeing. All the evidence is out there (bullet-holes in the plane, the spanish air-controller, the fact that the militia did NOT have a functioning missile system, the ukronazi fighter planes near the Boeing and so on). We must spread the truth!
As yet there is no proof that there are bullet holes.
Certainly evidence a Ukraine military aircraft was present though.
The Almaz-Antey tests does make it a pretty sure thing MH17 was hit with a BUK missile.
Whether the military aircraft fired at MH17 or not is another thing.
“We all know” – Speak for yourself. As soon as I saw the high-res image of that cockpit side panel, I knew it had been a missile. There’s clear results of a shock wave loaded with fine (down to dust size) particles. Also those holes were not bullet holes, and they all came from the left side of the plane. Metal edges bent outwards are due to the shockwave gases arriving just after the larger penetrators, forcing between the skin layers, and blowing the outer layer outwards around holes.
The Spanish ATC guy’s posts were real, but he said the trailing fighters left shortly before MH17 vanished. Presumably they’d been told to get clear.
All the “fighter planes shot up and/or fired an air to air missile at it” rubbish has been disinformation, designed to bury that one damning and war-crimes trial worthy proof the Kiev Junta (and US puppetmasters) preplanned the event. That was the video released on the Kiev Ministry of Interior’s official web site right after MH17’s downing. The video was the 2nd released from the same source, in a common style. It purported to be an intercepted communication between separatists and a Russian general, in which they discussed having downed the plane with a missile fired by separatists.
Analysis of the video’s audio (the alleged ‘conversation’) revealed it was an collage edited together using short word sequences. A fake. But also a massive mistake – it was reported that analysis also found the video still contained timestamps from the editing process. It had been constructed the DAY BEFORE the downing.
So… the official Ukrainian ministry of the interior had released via their own web site a fake video-audio product, pretending the downing was done by separatists and it was an after-the-event conversation… but the Interior Ministry had produced the video file the day before the downing. Proof of prior knowledge of an ‘accident’ (or act supposedly by someone else) is proof of planning it.
The Spanish ATC guy’s real-time tweets are consistent with this story. He said ordinary military arrived at ATC first, but then Interior Ministry guys arrived and took over, removing all evidence tapes.
This is real, but it has been flushed down the memory hole. The Kiev government absolutely and provably self-incriminated. And by extension, their masters in the US government were certainly involved in planning too.
All Western and Kiev claims (official, leaked and ‘expert comments’) to the contrary since, have been orchestrated to bury and obfuscate that key evidence.
MH17 was downed by a BUK fired by Kiev government forces, intending to down MH17 and claim the Russians were responsible. US fingers in this scheme can be seen in the selection of an Air Malaysia plane. More payback to Malaysia for their Trial of Israel for war crimes, and also trying to ship that stolen US military drone control system to China, on MH370.
This does not exclude the BUK hypothesis. The pilot may have been instructed to obscure the real cause, or told to deliver a payload too. Or simply act as a lure to divert the plane into the missile path.
@eimar That’s an interesting documentary, however you should exercise a little more discernment. These witnesses are not credible, or are speaking of unrelated events. MH17 was flying at 33,000 feet. At that height an airliner is little more than a dot, and a fighter plane may not be visible at all. No chance of telling which one is ‘below’ the other if they are near each other. How about that guy who says he “ran outside to see” then claims he saw the entire sequence? Yeah, so what made him run outside? As for the lack of sightings of a BUK smoke trail, I’d put that down to the rainy, cloudy weather. And what was the cloud height anyway? Lower than 33K feet seems likely. Also the site the Russians claim the missile was launched from is unpopulated fields. Could easily be no witnesses, especially since the Ukraine military would want to make sure no one saw them (or lived to speak of it.)
Other points: – right after the event, Russian sources reported their military signals intelligence in the E-Ukraine conflict area had detected a BUK systems targeting radar activation at the time of the downing. That would be rather unlikely to admit, if they fired it.
Plus, MH17 flight path would have put it over Russian territory in a few more minutes, and Russian ATC expected it. Why on earth shoot it down over Ukraine, if they wanted it down? From the Russian side there’s no conceivable practical motive. The Separatists would have no motive either, since at that altitude MH17 couldn’t possibly be mistaken for a Ukie military flight.
Many other points all indicate Ukie government responsibility for this war crime. And the nature of the Western ‘investigation’ also shouts of high level awareness of Western guilt.
What a fantastic summary. Chapeau to Russia. The level of expertise and competence of the Russian team is incredible. And this video is so well made…
I knew from the beginning that the UkroNazi were behind this false flag. The purpose was to accuse Russia and support the sanctions. In fact, some of the “evidence” was made-up prior to the “accident”. I also believe that the US was part of it. They may plead “Plausible deniability” but their game is well known and for one I am not fooled. If it look like a duck…
If the US wants to fight the Russians, I have bad news for the psychopaths.
Thanks for this demonstration of science used in the pursuit of truth. But the paid scientists of the west are prostitutes for whom truth is lies. In forensics motive is part of truth. What rings true for me is that the US used the Ukrainians to shoot down Putin’s plane which I hear was flying in the same area. Except that once again the Ukrainians proved poorly trained and hit the wrong plane. Or as an alternative motive, they did hit the right plane to punish Malaysia for its independence and to scare the EU into conformity and to intimidate Russia.
Per the Dr. Judy Woods scientific method, first get the facts straight and later weigh the possible motives. Russia again gets the facts straight and possibly the motive as expressed by a retired Russian strategist on another thread. With the West, it’s “don’t bother me with the facts; I’ve got my mind made up.” Reality is a mother when it comes to truth who will deal with the lies in her own timing.
Why did Rusdia even allow England to take black box? Then allow Holland to take wreckage? They are not neutral parties. So is Rusdia that stid to belive that the enquiry will not blame Rusdia?
Besides anglos alywas have this tactics to involve opponents get entangled on small accusations and waste time in refuting those allegations. Rusdia fakls for it rather then simply say that it is sll lies andointbout what evil things west foes. Russia must Stop justifying her action or even her existence.
That is the wateful trick west plays on Rusdia.
Why give credence to English language media by quoting them?
guys, so what happened to the expert opinion that the way the boeing was damaged
1) could in no way be done by a BUK missile, and
2) indicated that it had been shot at by a fighter plane?
and what about the testimony of a Ukrainian army soldier that he’d seen a pilot return on the day and time of the downing of MH17, confirming that the boeing had been shot by a Ukrainian fighter plane?
the fact that russia is now conceding that the MH17 was hit by a BUK missile completely changes the equation for me. we’ve either been lied to with the expert opinion and the eye witness account, or the BUK story is a fake.
What is ex spurt opinion? A Japanese ex pilot gave his opinion at one stage,based on pics, and many believed that a documented fact.
Others have given their opinion at different stages and some of these seem to be taken as facts.
Perhaps time for people to look at others opinion, look at facts available and form their own opinion.
Group think. Great for fashions and fads and lynch mobs.
Re: “… the fact that russia is now conceding that the MH17 was hit by a BUK missile completely changes the equation for me.”
Please note that this Almaz-Antey MH17 field Experiment was done to support their commercial interests in a court battle to recover damages for reputation and sanctions. It does not necessarily reflect Russian government position (although it could hardly counter it either).
It is a well timed PR ‘Buk’ at the corrupt and cynical 15-month Dutch insult to their own MH17 dead citizens and the wider global traveling public.
Where the MH17 project goes from here is anyone’s guess — but in the reputation and credibility stakes Russian share value is rising and EU/Nato is dropping fast. What is clear, is, any ‘win’ by the usual suspects will be slow and at a very high cost.
I suspect a lot is calibrated end with the fall of Ukraine’s nazi Poreshenko regime. One long cold winter (on a month-by-month pre-payment plan) coming up!
Who is conceding? All I have heard in the Almaz-Antey press conference was based on an “if”, without any definite “it was”. So, if it was a BUK, then it was an old one, out of use in the Russian army already 2011. If it was a BUK, it started in the region of Zaroshenskoje, not near Snezhnoje.
There were two experiments carroed out by Almaz Antey. In both, the warhead used was 9N314M (9H314M in Russian). In the first, carried out some months before the final report was released by the DSB, only the warhead was used and and only duralumin sheets. The orientation of the warnead relative to the sheets was such as deduced by Almaz Antey from the damage apparent from the parts of the Boeing aircraft retrieved from the crash site. The orientation of the warhead relative to the duralumin sheets corresponded to that from the alternatiive missile launch site.
In the more recent experiment a 9M38M1 missile with the same warhead was placed with the Dutch version of the orientation of the missile relative to the cockpit section of an IL-86 – and with sheets of duralumin to represent the location of the port (left) side engine and wing. This experiment showed that the orientation of the missile relative to the cockpit could not have caused the damage to the port side engine and wing as found on the MH17 aircraft, and so the launch site deduced in the Dutch investigation, and declared in the final report, was incorrect.
In the second experiment Almaz Antey state that the damage to the IL-86 cockpit by the I-beam (double -T/”bow-tie”) shaped “kill” elements was not found in the MH17 aircraft. This seems to have led Almaz Antey to deny the evidence of I-beam elements being involved in the downing of the MH17 aircraft, and then noting that the missile must have been 9M38 type that had not been upgraded with the 9N314M warhead.
In the video above the experiment featured is the first experiment. This is the one in which duralumin sheets get blasted away by the explosion of the warhead. It is not the second experiment although the video features the IL-86 cockpit!
(Note – on page 137 of the English language version of the DSB’s final report it states that “bow-tie” elements were found on the floor of the cockpit in and in the body of one of the cockpit crew.)
I should have mentioned that the 2nd experiment is also shown in the video above. It comes after the first experiment with the warhead only where the sheets of duralumin represent the main fuselage. (I also apologise for any typing errors – I have dyslexic fingers!)
I get confused easily so perhaps someone can explain to me: why were there no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?
Little things like that make me suspicious.
That there is no witnesses is odd. A couple of factors though. I think the rocket engine has a 14 second burn time (depending on model) 14 seconds at Mach 2.7 is approximately 12.8 km though it would be slightly less due to the acceleration stage.
So if a BUK missile was launched more than 12/13 kilometres from the target there would be no smoke plume as it gets close to the target.
According to the original investigation report there was heavy cloud to the south of the crash site and showers. I think that weather report was for midday on the 17th.
But showers and cloud would greatly reduce viability as far as the smoke plume.
In the original report put out by Almaz-Antey the possible launch site at that time may have been covered by heavy cloud and showers.
There are numerous flaws and omissions in the Dutch investigation report. Some analysts have concluded that the report gave so little evidence for BUK missile involvement, it is still the most probable scenario that Flight MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter plane, possibly an SU-25. The following article mentions the conspicuous lack of witnesses, along with a lot of other reasons to throw out the Dutch “findings”:
https://quemadoinstitute.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/mh17-dutch-investigation-weak-inconclusive-quemado-institute-analysis/
We all know the ukro-nazis shot down the Boeing. All the evidence is out there (bullet-holes in the plane, the spanish air-controller, the fact that the militia did NOT have a functioning missile system, the ukronazi fighter planes near the Boeing and so on). We must spread the truth!
As yet there is no proof that there are bullet holes.
Certainly evidence a Ukraine military aircraft was present though.
The Almaz-Antey tests does make it a pretty sure thing MH17 was hit with a BUK missile.
Whether the military aircraft fired at MH17 or not is another thing.
“We all know” – Speak for yourself. As soon as I saw the high-res image of that cockpit side panel, I knew it had been a missile. There’s clear results of a shock wave loaded with fine (down to dust size) particles. Also those holes were not bullet holes, and they all came from the left side of the plane. Metal edges bent outwards are due to the shockwave gases arriving just after the larger penetrators, forcing between the skin layers, and blowing the outer layer outwards around holes.
The Spanish ATC guy’s posts were real, but he said the trailing fighters left shortly before MH17 vanished. Presumably they’d been told to get clear.
All the “fighter planes shot up and/or fired an air to air missile at it” rubbish has been disinformation, designed to bury that one damning and war-crimes trial worthy proof the Kiev Junta (and US puppetmasters) preplanned the event. That was the video released on the Kiev Ministry of Interior’s official web site right after MH17’s downing. The video was the 2nd released from the same source, in a common style. It purported to be an intercepted communication between separatists and a Russian general, in which they discussed having downed the plane with a missile fired by separatists.
Analysis of the video’s audio (the alleged ‘conversation’) revealed it was an collage edited together using short word sequences. A fake. But also a massive mistake – it was reported that analysis also found the video still contained timestamps from the editing process. It had been constructed the DAY BEFORE the downing.
So… the official Ukrainian ministry of the interior had released via their own web site a fake video-audio product, pretending the downing was done by separatists and it was an after-the-event conversation… but the Interior Ministry had produced the video file the day before the downing. Proof of prior knowledge of an ‘accident’ (or act supposedly by someone else) is proof of planning it.
The Spanish ATC guy’s real-time tweets are consistent with this story. He said ordinary military arrived at ATC first, but then Interior Ministry guys arrived and took over, removing all evidence tapes.
This is real, but it has been flushed down the memory hole. The Kiev government absolutely and provably self-incriminated. And by extension, their masters in the US government were certainly involved in planning too.
All Western and Kiev claims (official, leaked and ‘expert comments’) to the contrary since, have been orchestrated to bury and obfuscate that key evidence.
MH17 was downed by a BUK fired by Kiev government forces, intending to down MH17 and claim the Russians were responsible. US fingers in this scheme can be seen in the selection of an Air Malaysia plane. More payback to Malaysia for their Trial of Israel for war crimes, and also trying to ship that stolen US military drone control system to China, on MH370.
TerraHertz
@Terrahertz
Of course there is no unanimity about how MH-17 was brought down.
But ‘none’ is not just speaking for him/herself.
Check out this RT doc at 12.40: a local witness to a jet directly approaching the plane from below, followed by a blue flash:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W3Ai0nUxKE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
This does not exclude the BUK hypothesis. The pilot may have been instructed to obscure the real cause, or told to deliver a payload too. Or simply act as a lure to divert the plane into the missile path.
Or it was a coincidental presence.
But a Ukrainian fighter jet was on the scene.
@eimar That’s an interesting documentary, however you should exercise a little more discernment. These witnesses are not credible, or are speaking of unrelated events. MH17 was flying at 33,000 feet. At that height an airliner is little more than a dot, and a fighter plane may not be visible at all. No chance of telling which one is ‘below’ the other if they are near each other. How about that guy who says he “ran outside to see” then claims he saw the entire sequence? Yeah, so what made him run outside? As for the lack of sightings of a BUK smoke trail, I’d put that down to the rainy, cloudy weather. And what was the cloud height anyway? Lower than 33K feet seems likely. Also the site the Russians claim the missile was launched from is unpopulated fields. Could easily be no witnesses, especially since the Ukraine military would want to make sure no one saw them (or lived to speak of it.)
Other points: – right after the event, Russian sources reported their military signals intelligence in the E-Ukraine conflict area had detected a BUK systems targeting radar activation at the time of the downing. That would be rather unlikely to admit, if they fired it.
Plus, MH17 flight path would have put it over Russian territory in a few more minutes, and Russian ATC expected it. Why on earth shoot it down over Ukraine, if they wanted it down? From the Russian side there’s no conceivable practical motive. The Separatists would have no motive either, since at that altitude MH17 couldn’t possibly be mistaken for a Ukie military flight.
Many other points all indicate Ukie government responsibility for this war crime. And the nature of the Western ‘investigation’ also shouts of high level awareness of Western guilt.
Just for reference, my collected chronology of media reports here:
http://everist.org/archives/links/__Flight_MH17_shootdown_info.txt
(and lots more in the same folder.)
What a fantastic summary. Chapeau to Russia. The level of expertise and competence of the Russian team is incredible. And this video is so well made…
I knew from the beginning that the UkroNazi were behind this false flag. The purpose was to accuse Russia and support the sanctions. In fact, some of the “evidence” was made-up prior to the “accident”. I also believe that the US was part of it. They may plead “Plausible deniability” but their game is well known and for one I am not fooled. If it look like a duck…
If the US wants to fight the Russians, I have bad news for the psychopaths.
Thanks for this demonstration of science used in the pursuit of truth. But the paid scientists of the west are prostitutes for whom truth is lies. In forensics motive is part of truth. What rings true for me is that the US used the Ukrainians to shoot down Putin’s plane which I hear was flying in the same area. Except that once again the Ukrainians proved poorly trained and hit the wrong plane. Or as an alternative motive, they did hit the right plane to punish Malaysia for its independence and to scare the EU into conformity and to intimidate Russia.
Per the Dr. Judy Woods scientific method, first get the facts straight and later weigh the possible motives. Russia again gets the facts straight and possibly the motive as expressed by a retired Russian strategist on another thread. With the West, it’s “don’t bother me with the facts; I’ve got my mind made up.” Reality is a mother when it comes to truth who will deal with the lies in her own timing.
Why did Rusdia even allow England to take black box? Then allow Holland to take wreckage? They are not neutral parties. So is Rusdia that stid to belive that the enquiry will not blame Rusdia?
Besides anglos alywas have this tactics to involve opponents get entangled on small accusations and waste time in refuting those allegations. Rusdia fakls for it rather then simply say that it is sll lies andointbout what evil things west foes. Russia must Stop justifying her action or even her existence.
That is the wateful trick west plays on Rusdia.
Why give credence to English language media by quoting them?
guys, so what happened to the expert opinion that the way the boeing was damaged
1) could in no way be done by a BUK missile, and
2) indicated that it had been shot at by a fighter plane?
and what about the testimony of a Ukrainian army soldier that he’d seen a pilot return on the day and time of the downing of MH17, confirming that the boeing had been shot by a Ukrainian fighter plane?
the fact that russia is now conceding that the MH17 was hit by a BUK missile completely changes the equation for me. we’ve either been lied to with the expert opinion and the eye witness account, or the BUK story is a fake.
What is ex spurt opinion? A Japanese ex pilot gave his opinion at one stage,based on pics, and many believed that a documented fact.
Others have given their opinion at different stages and some of these seem to be taken as facts.
Perhaps time for people to look at others opinion, look at facts available and form their own opinion.
Group think. Great for fashions and fads and lynch mobs.
Re: “… the fact that russia is now conceding that the MH17 was hit by a BUK missile completely changes the equation for me.”
Please note that this Almaz-Antey MH17 field Experiment was done to support their commercial interests in a court battle to recover damages for reputation and sanctions. It does not necessarily reflect Russian government position (although it could hardly counter it either).
It is a well timed PR ‘Buk’ at the corrupt and cynical 15-month Dutch insult to their own MH17 dead citizens and the wider global traveling public.
Where the MH17 project goes from here is anyone’s guess — but in the reputation and credibility stakes Russian share value is rising and EU/Nato is dropping fast. What is clear, is, any ‘win’ by the usual suspects will be slow and at a very high cost.
I suspect a lot is calibrated end with the fall of Ukraine’s nazi Poreshenko regime. One long cold winter (on a month-by-month pre-payment plan) coming up!
Who is conceding? All I have heard in the Almaz-Antey press conference was based on an “if”, without any definite “it was”. So, if it was a BUK, then it was an old one, out of use in the Russian army already 2011. If it was a BUK, it started in the region of Zaroshenskoje, not near Snezhnoje.
Dear The Saker,
“Dutch-led commission for MH17 crash probe dishonestly used Almaz-Antey data — company”
http://tass.ru/en/world/829204
How much lower will they sink?
Rgds,
Veritas
There were two experiments carroed out by Almaz Antey. In both, the warhead used was 9N314M (9H314M in Russian). In the first, carried out some months before the final report was released by the DSB, only the warhead was used and and only duralumin sheets. The orientation of the warnead relative to the sheets was such as deduced by Almaz Antey from the damage apparent from the parts of the Boeing aircraft retrieved from the crash site. The orientation of the warhead relative to the duralumin sheets corresponded to that from the alternatiive missile launch site.
In the more recent experiment a 9M38M1 missile with the same warhead was placed with the Dutch version of the orientation of the missile relative to the cockpit section of an IL-86 – and with sheets of duralumin to represent the location of the port (left) side engine and wing. This experiment showed that the orientation of the missile relative to the cockpit could not have caused the damage to the port side engine and wing as found on the MH17 aircraft, and so the launch site deduced in the Dutch investigation, and declared in the final report, was incorrect.
In the second experiment Almaz Antey state that the damage to the IL-86 cockpit by the I-beam (double -T/”bow-tie”) shaped “kill” elements was not found in the MH17 aircraft. This seems to have led Almaz Antey to deny the evidence of I-beam elements being involved in the downing of the MH17 aircraft, and then noting that the missile must have been 9M38 type that had not been upgraded with the 9N314M warhead.
In the video above the experiment featured is the first experiment. This is the one in which duralumin sheets get blasted away by the explosion of the warhead. It is not the second experiment although the video features the IL-86 cockpit!
(Note – on page 137 of the English language version of the DSB’s final report it states that “bow-tie” elements were found on the floor of the cockpit in and in the body of one of the cockpit crew.)
I should have mentioned that the 2nd experiment is also shown in the video above. It comes after the first experiment with the warhead only where the sheets of duralumin represent the main fuselage. (I also apologise for any typing errors – I have dyslexic fingers!)