In the “case of Malaysian Boeing” a “secret witness” stepped forward whose testimony remove all charges from the militia and Russia. And explain the mysterious behavior of Western experts.
This man came to the editorial office of “Komsomolskaya Pravda” by himself. We checked his papers – he is not an actor and not a fake person. We can not yet reveal his personal information – he still has relatives in Ukraine and is afraid of revenge and blackmail. Judging by what Alexander (let’s name him that) told us, the fear is substantiated. We provide a transcript of our conversation virtually uncut:
THE FIGHTER RETURNED WITHOUT MISSILES
- Where were you on July 17, 2014, the day Malaysian Boeing was shot down?
– I was on the territory of Ukraine, in the city of Dnepropetrovsk, the village Aviatorskoye. It is a regular airport. There at this time were based fighter jets and helicopters. Planes regularly flew on bombing missions, Su-25 attack aircraft bombed Donetsk, Lugansk. This lasted a long time.
- The aircraft flew every day?
– Daily.
- Why did you assume that these airplanes could be related to the downing of the “Boeing”?
– A few reasons. Out of the eight airplanes, which were based there, only two had “air-to-air” missiles. They were suspended.
- Why? Were there any aircraft battles in the air?
– No, the aircraft was fitted with missiles to cover themselves in the air. Just in case. Mostly they had air-to-ground ammunition. NURS, bombs.
-Tell us about July 17.
– Airplanes flew regularly. All day since the morning. In the afternoon, about an hour before the downing of the “Boeing”, three attack fighters were raised into the air. I don’t remember the exact time. One of the airplanes was equipped with such missiles. It was a Su-25.
- Have you personally seen it?
– Yes.
- Where was your vantage point?
– On site. Cannot tell you exactly.
- Did you have an opportunity to see specifically what the pylons of the aircraft where fitted with? Could you confuse “air-to-air” and “air-to-ground” missiles?
– No, I couldn’t confuse it. They vary in size, plumage, coloration. With a guidance head. Very easy to recognize. Anyway, after a short time, only one airplane returned, two were shot down. Somewhere in the East of Ukraine, I was told. The airplane that came back, was the one with those suspended missiles.
- It returned without the missiles?
– Without the missiles. That pilot was very scared.
- Do you know this pilot, have you seen him?
– Yes.
- Can you tell us his name?
– Last name Voloshin.
- Was he alone in the airplane?
– Yes. The airplane is designed for one person.
- Do you know his name?
– Vladislav, I think. Don’t remember exactly. Captain.
- Captain Voloshin came back. What happened next?
– Came back with blank ammunition.
- No missiles left?
– Yes.
“NOT THE RIGHT PLANE”
- Could you tell us, Alexander, the airplane came back from the mission, you still do not know about the loss of the “Boeing”, but you were somehow surprised by the absence of “air-to-air” missiles. Why?
– These “air-to-air” missiles are not included in the basic ammunition package.
They are used only with a special order. Typically, the aircraft with such rockets were not to allowed into the air. Because this missiles should not be frequently transported in the air.
In all two such missiles can fit on this plane. Never before they had been applied. They were written off previously. But literally on the eve, a week before this incident (the loss of “Boeing” – Ed.) the use of these missiles was urgently renewed. And they put again into service. They have not been used for many years.
- Why?
– They were expired. Made back in the Soviet years. But by the urgent order their expiration date was extended.
- And on this day they were put on the plane?
– They always stood with these missiles.
- But didn’t fly?
– Tried to let them in the air less frequently – every flight depletes the resource. But on this day, the plane flew.
- And came back without them?
– Yes. Knowing this pilot a little bit… (quite possibly, when the other two airplanes were shot down in front of him), he just had a frightened reaction, inadequate. Could out of fright or in revenge launch the missiles into a Boeing. Maybe he took it for some other combat aircraft.
- Are these missiles with self-guiding heads?
– Yes.
- When he launched them, they began to look for a target?
– No. The pilot himself finds the target. Then launches the missile, and it flies at the target.
- Could the pilot use these missiles against ground targets?
– It’s pointless.
- What else do you remember this day? What did the pilot say?
– He said a phrase, when he was lead out of the airplane: “It was not the right plane.” And in the evening there was a phrase to a question from one pilot to him, to Voloshin: “What’s up with the plane?” To which he replied: “The plane was in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
“AND AFTER THE TRAGEDY THE FLIGHTS CONTINUED”
- Did this pilot serve there for a long time? How old is he?
– Voloshin is about 30 years old. His base is in Nikolaev. They were transferred to Dnepropetrovsk. Before they were sent to Chuguev near Kharkov. And all this time they bombed Donetsk and Lugansk. And, according to one of the officers of the Nikolaev base, they still continue to do so.
- Did the pilots have good combat experience?
– Those who were there, had experience. Nikolaev base was even one year, in my opinion, 2013, the best base in Ukraine.
- Was the story about the “Boeing” discussed among the pilots?
– All attempts to discuss were immediately stopped. And the pilots mostly talked among themselves only, they are so… stuck-up…
– After everyone learned about this “Boeing” what happened to this pilot, captain Voloshin?
– After all of this flights continued. And the pilots did not rotate. The same faces.
“THERE WAS NO FLIGHTS… BUT IT WAS SHOT DOWN”
- Let’s try to recap the events. How could it develop? Three airplanes left on a combat mission. They were roughly in the same area, as Boeing. Two airplanes were shot down. This captain Voloshin was nervous, got scared, and possibly he mistook the Boeing for combat aircraft?
– Possible. The distance was long, he may have not seen specifically what kind of aircraft.
- What distance do these missiles need?
– At 3-5 kilometers they can find the target.
- And what is the speed difference between combat aircraft and the Boeing?
– No difference: the rockets have pretty good speed. Very fast rocket.
- Will catch up anyway? And height?
– It may easily at its maximum altitude – to 7 thousand meters – quite easily focus on the target.
- To reach it higher?
– Yes. The aircraft can simply lift the nose up, and can find the target with no problems and launch the rocket. The range of this missile is more than 10 kilometers.
- At what distance from the target does this rocket explodes? Does it hit the fuselage and explodes?
– Depending on the modification. Literally could when it hits the body or at a distance of 500 meters.
- We worked at the crash site and noticed that the fragments were trapped in the hull of the aircraft very closely. It seemed like it exploded literally two feet away from the Boeing.
– There is such a missile. The principle of fragments – it breaks, and the fragments hit. And then hits the main warhead of the rocket.
- Ukraine announced that on this day they had no combat flights. We checked different aggregate sources on the downed airplanes, Ukraine denied everywhere that its military aircraft flew on this day.
– I know about this. Ukraine also announced that two of these airplanes were shot down on the 16th, and not the 17th. And many times the date was changed. But actually, the flights were on a daily basis. I saw it myself. Even during the ceasefire there were flights, although, less frequent.
PROHIBITED BOMBS
- What ammunition was on the aircraft at your airfield? Were phosphorus bombs used, incendiary devices? Ukrainian artillery used it very actively on the ground.
– I didn’t see phosphorus bombs. But space-detonating bombs were used.
- Are they prohibited?
– Yes. This bomb was intended for Afghanistan. It was prohibited and was not used until lately. It was prohibited by some Convention, I do not remember, can’t say. This bomb is inhumane, burns everything. Burns absolutely everything.
- They were attached and used during hostilities?
– Yes. And there were also banned cluster bombs. Aircraft cluster bomb – depending on size can hit a very ambitious target. One bomb covers a stadium. Entirely, the whole entire area – two hectares.
- Why did they use such weapons?
– They were following orders. And whose order is unclear.
- What’s the point of such weapons – scare tactic?
– Maximum annihilation of manpower
CAN BE BEATEN FOR EVERY CARELESS WORD
- Why did you go to Russia, why decided to tell? Why, finally, no one learned this before? You’re not the only witness!
– Everyone is intimidated by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine. – Ed.) and the National Guard. People can be beaten for every careless word, jailed on any insignificant suspicion of sympathies towards Russia or the militia. I was initially against this “anti-terrorist operation”. Did not agree with the policy of the Ukrainian state. The civil war is wrong. To kill your own people is not normal. And to take some part in it or not, but to be on the Ukrainian side and to be partially involved in this, I don’t want to in the first place!
Please go to Komsomolskaya Pravda for the video recording of this conversation (in Russian) and more infographics
Translated by Kristina Rus for FortRuss.blogspot.com
You can get this when attempting to access protected directories... or, since it is the top level URL...
"It's possible that your public IP address, or your entire Internet Service Provider, has been blacklisted, a situation that could produce a 403 Forbidden error, usually on all pages on one or more sites."
You can get this when attempting to access protected directories... or, since it is the top level URL...
"It's possible that your public IP address, or your entire Internet Service Provider, has been blacklisted, a situation that could produce a 403 Forbidden error, usually on all pages on one or more sites."
BUT, it appears 4th Media have been completely taken down - none of their other articles are available, either. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:54 am Post subject:
Oiginal Pravda article:
'US fears Russian publication of satellite photos of the tragedy of 9/11
07.02.2015 | Source: To Pravda.Ru ':
http://www.pravda.ru/news/world/northamerica/usacanada/07-02-2015/1247 485-0/# _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
A mother and son took a selfie just as they were about to set off for a holiday on Malaysia Airlines flight MH17.
Gary Slok, 15, posed with his mother Petra as they waited for the plane to take off.
A mere three hours later, the plane was shot down over Ukraine, killing Gary, Petra and the rest of the 298 passengers and crew on board.
Gary, a keen footballer, was travelling to Kuala Lumpur with his mother as part of a trip for single parents and their children.
Gary was a goalkeeper for his local team in Maassluis, Netherlands.
Speaking to the Daily Mirror, a spokesperson for the club said: ‘Gary and his mum Petra were on their way to Malaysia to have the dream holiday of their life.
‘His story and his last picture tell you how dreams of many people with wonderful lives ahead of them have been wrecked.’
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by a mid-range surface-to-air-missile as it flew over Ukraine on Thursday.
Pro-Russian rebels have since claimed responsibility for the attack.
MH17.jpg
Description:
Nobody has forgotten the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 tragedy. Many have also seen the very sad last selfie of passenger Gary Slok with his mother at the Amsterdam airport, just before they boarded flight MH17, which was later shot down by Russian separ
Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 44 Location: Brisbane Australia
Posted: Fri May 01, 2015 1:58 am Post subject:
Can I modesty refer readers to two articles I have recently posted on the topic. The first is in Counterpunch on 19 December 2014 and the second in New Eastern Outlook on 28 April 2015.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri May 01, 2015 11:47 am Post subject:
Come on James
Links please
James O'Neill wrote:
Can I modesty refer readers to two articles I have recently posted on the topic. The first is in Counterpunch on 19 December 2014 and the second in New Eastern Outlook on 28 April 2015.
MH17: How the Media Failed the Victims and the Families
In examining the evidence relating to the shooting down of Flight MH17 over the eastern Ukraine in July 2014 it is appropriate to approach the task as one would a prosecution of those responsible.
First, one has to establish the facts as they can be established to the requisite standard of proof. Secondly, discard the highly improbable, impossible, or just plain speculation.
One may then reach a logical conclusion based on the established facts, or at least a working hypothesis that further facts will either confirm or reject. In doing so it is necessary to maintain a healthy skepticism about claims made by obviously interested parties. Apart from an agenda that may have little to do with establishing the truth, the experience thus far suggests that such parties rely upon assertions rather than evidence.
In reporting those assertions and disregarding important evidential developments it is clear that the western mainstream media have failed in several important respects. Ever since the plane was destroyed on 17 July 2014 with the loss of all on board, the media have subjected their readers to a barrage of allegations, half-truths, innuendo and speculation, almost none of which has a proper evidential basis.
Instead of asking what should be the obvious questions and seeking answers, the media have in effect reached a conclusion at the outset and then sought to cherry pick evidence as it emerged, almost universally ignoring that which did not fit their original allegations which have been treated as a conclusion not to be questioned.
This is of course the antithesis of the procedure for a proper inquiry. Given the geopolitical context of the MH17 disaster, a reasonable starting point would be to note that the conclusion reached by the media at the outset and maintained thereafter reflects an opinion and an agenda toward Russia and its President more than it does a genuine wish to determine the evidence and hold those responsible accountable.
What is the evidence that can be relied upon as establishing a factual basis? There is at this stage (April 2015) quite a significant amount, although one would have trouble determining that from the mainstream media coverage.
First we have the so-called black boxes, being the voice and flight data recorders. These boxes were recovered from the scene by soldiers of the militias engaged in a civil war between residents of two Russian speaking eastern provinces in Ukraine’s south east who had voted for independence from the Kiev government installed in an American financed and organized coup in February 2014, and soldiers of the Kiev military, aided by militia groups controlled by pro-Kiev oligarchs. This latter group have a heavily neo-Nazi component, a relevant fact concealed by the mainstream media.
Those black boxes were in turn handed over to the British for analysis. In the context of this inquiry it would be unwise to assume that all the relevant data have been released. I will confine myself to noting only those data that have been corroborated from other sources.
On 9 September 2014 the preliminary report of the accident investigation headed by the Dutch released some of the information from those boxes. The Dutch are conducting the inquiry, apparently on the basis that the flight originated from Amsterdam and the largest group of victims were Dutch citizens. Malaysia, the owners of the plane, was excluded from leading the inquiry for reasons set out below. The Ukraine, where the plane came down, should have been the logical place for the investigation but was also excluded, but in a different manner to the Malaysians. I will return to this issue below.
The only information released in their report confirmed that the pilots had no prior warning of the catastrophe that was about to befall them. There is only very limited data as to the contact between the aircraft and Kiev air traffic control, and Rostov air traffic control (the next way point on the flight path). There are unsubstantiated reports that officers of the Ukrainian security services seized the Kiev air traffic control data immediately after the plane crashed. While that has not been confirmed it is established that no details of the conversations have been released.
We do not therefore know the reasons for the plane’s flight path was diverted while it was in Polish air space in a manner that took it directly over a war zone. Not only have the relevant recordings not been released, the personnel involved have not been interviewed by the investigators. This is a fact that might lead to a negative inference being drawn, but it is not of itself determinative of very much.
The flight data recorder evidence does confirm at least one incontrovertible fact: that the devastation of the plane was caused by externally sourced objects. Of itself, that does not add much to the narrative other than excluding sources specific to the plane such as a bomb or structural failure.
The more important questions are what were those objects; from where did they originate; and who was responsible for them being fired? A subsidiary question is whether the objects were fired with the intention of downing the aircraft, or was it a case of accident or mistake?
The second sources of verifiable facts are satellite and radar imagery. This area of information points to a number of important circumstances that not only shed light on how the disaster may have occurred, but also confirm the proposition that the western media have failed in some very basic responsibilities.
Immediately after the crash on 17 July 2014 the western media immediately blamed Russia in general and President Putin in particular. This was before anything remotely approaching the gathering of evidence had occurred. In the absence of any admissions such a stance was at the very least premature.
The suspicion that this instant apportioning of blame on Russia was not coincidental was reinforced by the release of two pieces of “evidence” by the Ukrainian authorities. This “evidence” consisted of recorded conversations between members of the pro-independence militias; and a picture of a BUK missile battery being transported across the border into Russia.
The intercepted conversations were of two militia officers discussing the successful shooting down of a plane. It was rapidly established however, that the conversations were a pastiche of different conversations, and not only referred to the shooting down of a Ukrainian military aircraft, had actually been recorded in days prior to 17 July 2014. This demolition of what had been presented as strong evidence of Russian supported militias was not reported in the mainstream media.
Similarly, the photograph purporting to show a BUK missile battery being transported across the border into Russia was also quickly proven to be actually taken in a Ukrainian town and was a Ukrainian military BUK battery. Again, this fact was not reported.
Again, this presentation of fake evidence is not determinative of the issues, but it does raise legitimate suspicions about the authenticity of the investigation, and the motives of, in this case, the Ukrainian government.
Prior to the G20 meeting in Brisbane in November 2014 the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott infamously promised to “shirt-front” Mr Putin over Russian “responsibility” for MH17’s shooting down. The “shirt fronting” never occurred, but the threat helped to feed a generally ignorant media frenzy that never allowed the facts to impede the flow of misinformation.
In the face of this orchestrated media barrage the Russians organized a media conference on 23 July 2014. At this conference, to which all major media organizations were invited, the Russians presented their radar and satellite data for the period leading up to the shooting down of MH17.
A number of important facts emerged from this presentation, although again one would be hard put to find it in the western mainstream media. The first was that the Russian radar identified a military aircraft, most likely a SU25 of the Ukrainian air force, in close proximity to MH17. The main response to this information by the media was a claim that the SU25 was incapable of operating at the height MH17 was flying. This was clearly misinformation as the operating capacity of the SU25 is readily available from military reference sources. Again, the question is raised as to why false information should be disseminated, and why did the mainstream media not disclose that fact. An explanation for the military aircraft’s presence in a civilian flight path has not been forthcoming.
The second fact of significance to emerge from the Russian presentation was that at the time of the shoot down an American satellite was directly overhead. The Russians invited the Americans to release their satellite data, which may well be definitive as to many aspects as to the sequence of events. To date the Americans have refused to do so, rather bizarrely referring to matters on social media as the basis for their campaign of demonizing Mr Putin.
Sufficient is known about the capacity of spy satellites to confidently conclude that their data would be both relevant and instructive. The failure to produce this evidence publicly again invites a negative inference being drawn. The interim Dutch report was silent on the point of either the Russian or the American satellite and radar evidence.
Also at the time of the shoot down American warships were engaged in exercises in the Black Sea. They also have sophisticated electronic monitoring equipment that potentially has information about the sequence of events surrounding the shoot down. Again, nothing has been disclosed to the inquiry.
Looked at from a different angle, given the blame being apportioned to Russia and/or Russian supported separatists, if the Americans in fact had satellite proof of a ground to air missile being fired (the alleged culprit being a BUK ground to air missile) it is a reasonable assumption that the data would have been released.
There are a number of factors that militate against the cause of the crash being a BUK missile. It is for example, a sophisticated weapon. It is known to be in the possession of the Ukrainian military. Even if the separatists had seized one, there is no evidence that they had the training to be able to operate it.
Even if the separatists had the requisite personnel and expertise, there are further factors that militate against the culprit being a BUK missile. The first is that it is a very large and noisy weapon; when fired there is a powerful flash at the launch site; and that it leaves a distinct vapour trail lasting several minutes after it has been fired. There is no plausible evidence of such a weapon being either seen or heard.
The second factor is that the BUK is designed to explode 50 to 100 metres from the target causing an aerial shockwave, which results in high-speed fragment distribution. Those fragments are capable of breaking the fuselage of a Boeing 777, but the pattern of destruction of MH17 is not consistent with being damaged by a BUK missile. The damage pattern of multiple bullet holes is also inconsistent with a BUK missile.
Thirdly, had the plane been damaged by a BUK missile it is likely that the pilots would have been able to broadcast the fact they had been damaged. No such broadcasts were made according to the data released by the Dutch investigation. The evidence does show however, that the pilot’s seats were damaged by bullet penetration. The most plausible explanation for the failure of the pilots to radio the fact that they had been attacked is that the bullets fired into the cockpit area instantly killed them. Even if the bullets, which is unlikely, did not hit them the penetration of the cabin would have cause instant depressurization, which would also have killed the pilots.
The plane would have continued for a period in automatic flight mode. The missile would then have depressurized the whole cabin causing the plane to go into a tailspin. The g-forces thus created would have caused the breakup of the plane at high altitude. This accounts for the widespread nature of debris.
The fourth factor is that nobody has been able to suggest a plausible motive why the Russians or the Russian supported separatists would wish to bring down a civilian airliner from a country and carrying passengers entirely unrelated to the ongoing conflict. The opprobrium attached to such an act carries no benefit for the Russians or the separatists. On the other hand being able to blame the Russians has considerable benefits for the Kiev regime.
A fifth factor that has progressively emerged and upon which most western media is silent, is the claim that the fuselage, especially the cockpit area, was riddled with what appeared to be bullet holes consistent with 30mm cannon fire. Thirty-millimeter cannons are part of an SU25’s armaments.
The first suggestion to this effect came from a Canadian OSCE observer who inspected the wreckage in situ. Michael Bociurkiw, a Canadian of Ukrainian origin, gave an interview on Canadian television on 29 July 2014. He described his preliminary conclusion that the observed damage to the cockpit area of the plane was consistent with 30mm cannon fire. No word of that interview or Mr Bociurkiw’s conclusions has been published in the Australian mainstream media.
A German former pilot, Pater Haisenko, has put forward some further confirmation of that cause of damage to MH17. Considerable caution should be exercised about Mr Haisenko’s opinion, as he had to work solely from photographs of the wreckage. This is not to question Mr Haisenko’s sincerity, but that it is possible to provide a more definitive explanation than an examination, however expertly, of photographs. I will return to this below.
There have been at least two further developments on this issue. In the first of these the Russian military conducted an experiment, firing 30mm shells into an old aircraft. The pattern of damage observed was markedly similar to the damage on MH17. A documentary on these experiments is available on Russian websites, although no report of the results has appeared in western mainstream media.
Secondly, in March 2015 Dutch officials allowed foreign investigators to inspect the damaged MH17 which was slowly being reconstructed in a hangar in the Netherlands. Military experts who saw the damage confirmed the earlier reports that the damage in the cockpit area was consistent with cannon fire. The pattern of damage was typical with both entry and exit holes. Again, none of this has been reported on the mainstream media.
The Dutch preliminary report of September 2014 described the damage as being consistent with the aircraft being hit by a large number of high velocity objects. These were undefined and the phrase was not elaborated upon. This did not prevent the Australian Prime Minister declaring that the Dutch interim report “confirmed” that the plane had been shot down by a BUK missile. That the report said no such thing again escaped the attention of the media who reported the Prime Minister’s comments without question.
For the reasons noted above, “high velocity objects” is inconsistent with a BUK missile, but entirely consistent with both 30mm cannon fire and an air to air missile.
The issue of what hit the plane from outside is one that is capable of definitive resolution. Forensic examination of the damaged fuselage would immediately reveal what struck the aircraft. All objects have a distinct chemical signature, traces of which are ascertainable from the wreckage. That evidence may be the single most important element of a proper investigation. No results were disclosed in the Dutch interim report. The final report is expected later this year and that is an aspect that will be closely anticipated.
If the forensic examination does confirm what is widely suspected, that the destruction of MH17 was caused by a combination of cannon fire and an air to air missile, then that would radically affect the entire premises upon which the mainstream reporting has been predicated.
The technical ability to conduct such an examination is not in doubt. Nine months after the disaster it is probable that such an examination has been completed. The political will to release the forensic data is a different matter, for two reasons.
If the results of the forensic examination confirmed that it was a BUK missile, that would tentatively support the “Russia and/or Russian supported separatists did it” theme so assiduously promoted by the western media, although it would far short of proof that either party had actually done it. Who actually fired such a missile is not as amenable to forensic proof, although proof seems the least of the considerations of the mainstream media to date.
The second reason is far more likely. If the results showed that it was in fact an air to air missile then the responsibility for the tragedy then shifts squarely onto the Ukrainian government. No reasonable alternative hypothesis is possible.
The Dutch in that case would almost certainly not publish the results because an agreement between Ukraine, Belgium, the Netherlands and Australia was entered into on 8 August 2014. This agreement provides that the results of the Dutch investigation will not be published unless all four governments agree. This effectively gives a veto to the prime suspect, Ukraine, which must be unprecedented for a major criminal investigation.
Malaysia, which as the owner of the plane should have been a party to any agreement governing the investigation. They refused to sign the 8 August 2014 agreement. It has since been reported in the Malaysian press that Malaysia did join the investigation in December 2014. Curiously however, the Malaysians have not disclosed either the reasons for their initial refusal, nor the reasons for apparently changing their mind in December 2014.
The fact of the 8 August 2014 agreement has not been published in the Australian mainstream media. The terms of the agreement have thus far resisted Freedom of Information Act endeavours in Australia and the Netherlands for their release. Both governments cite national security issues, although how that is relevant is unclear.
The alternative media remains rife with speculation and claims of dubious veracity. Many undoubtedly have a lot of merit. It is significant however, that reporting of the ongoing investigation and publication of serious analyses is confined to the alternative media. It is a role that the mainstream should be performing but manifestly are not. The problem is particularly acute in Australia where there is a concentration of media ownership in so few hands.
On 22 July 2014 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2166 (2014), one of whose co-sponsors was Australia. The resolution reads in part:
“Stressing the need for a full, thorough and independent international investigation into the incident in accordance with civil aviation guidelines.”
On the available evidence thus far it is not possible to conclude that the investigation is “full”, “thorough” or “independent”. A number of factors militate against any confidence in the integrity of the investigation. These include but are not limited to:
The refusal of the Americans and the Ukrainians in particular to fully disclose relevant information;
The secrecy about releasing the results of the investigation and even the fact that such an agreement exists;
The veto power accorded the prime suspect; and
The apparent determination of many countries to use the tragedy to advance a geopolitical agenda that seeks to undermine Russian society and government.
It might be the decisive piece of evidence proving who and what and how and why the MH17 Malaysian airliner over the conflict zone in Ukraine on 17 July 2014 was shot down, but the pilot’s corpse has been hidden even from the people who have the most right to see it.
The corpse of the pilot of the MH17 Malaysian airliner might contain in it bullets, or bullet-residues, that can prove a Ukrainian military jet intentionally fired into the pilot; or else it might contain only missile-shrapnel, which would be consistent only with the plane’s having been erroneously shot down by a ground-based missile such as the Ukrainian government says it was; but the Malaysian government has prohibited anyone to see it — not even his relatives, who are still trying to find out how and who murdered their loved-one and the 297 other people who were aboard that tragic plane on July 17th of 2014.
Until recently, the Malaysian government itself had had no access to the coroner’s report on the corpse: it was done by a Dutch coroner, in Holland.
The corpse has been hidden from everyone, and the Malaysian Government isn’t even being permitted, by the other four nations on the official investigatory commission, to say anything to anyone outside the commission — not even to the pilot’s family. The coroner’s report on the pilot’s body exists, but has been seen by no one outside of the now 5-nation investigatory commission. (The commission was originally just Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, and Ukraine, but Malaysia was recently added. The Dutch government heads the commission. The Dutch government had helped to install the current Ukrainian government, whose Air Force is a suspect in having possibly shot down the MH17 airliner. Netherlands, along with the U.S., and also along with George Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation, had funded Hromadske TV, which propagandized heavily for forcing the democratically elected Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, to leave his Presidency before the next election would be held, and which then propagandized Ukrainians heavily for the ethnic cleansing operation to get rid of the residents in Ukraine’s Donbass, the only area of Ukraine that had voted 90%+ for Yanukovych. So: the Dutch government had actually helped to install the current Ukrainian government — which might have shot down the MH17, and yet which is a member of the official ‘investigation.’)
This cover-up of what might be the decisive evidence in the MH17 case was revealed when Russian Television sent reporters last month to interview the pilot’s family.
See the brief Russian documentary interviewing the pilot’s wife here:
The pilot’s wife says, at 5:42 on the video, “We were not allowed to open” the coffin. Q: “Not allowed by who?” A: “Not allowed by the [Malaysian] government.” The existing four-nation team had required the Malaysian government to sign onto their secret 8 August 2014 agreement, in order for Malaysia to be allowed to join. This agreement says that Ukraine will have a veto-power over any report that the commission produces — and this veto-power is the reason why the ‘investigation’ continues dragging on. The now-five nation commission can’t yet produce a report that the Ukrainian government will sign onto.
Then, the interviewer in the documentary says that she had taken her camera-crew to the crash site two months after the plane’s downing, and says that they saw there, still in the field of grass, the pilot’s chair. This video at 6:21 shows it — its bare frame, because the padding had blown off. Here is the pilot’s chair:
Those 30 mm round holes through it are bullet holes; they’re definitely not shrapnel holes, which are larger and very irregular (not at all round). Furthermore, the bullet-holes through the side-panel of the chair’s backrest are fairly head-on instead of at any steep angle; and, so, might have been from stray bullets among the gunner’s fusillade into the left cockpit-side that was focused around the pilot’s belly-area. This chair backrest is thus yet further evidence suggesting that the pilot’s corpse had bullets, or bullet-residues, in it.
For more background on the pilot’s corpse’s evidentiary importance to solving this crucial mass-murder case, see this. For my reconstruction of the evidence, and of where it points to regarding guilt and motive, see this.
RUSSIA’S GAME ON THIS:
On July 29th, Russia vetoed at the United Nations an attempt by the U.S. and its allies to transfer the MH17 investigation to a rigged UN commission that would be set up in order to enable the guilt for the cover-up to be transferred away from Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, and Ukraine, the four nations that set up the existing official corrupt ‘investigation,’ whose ‘findings,’ at this late stage, would be believed only by outright suckers in the West — and that number of people might not be enough now to protect the actual guilty parties in the case. Russia wants the guilty parties to bear the blame not merely for the mass-murder itself, but for the subsequent and ongoing cover-ups. If the official ‘investigation’ finds Russia and/or the people of Donbass to have perpetrated it, then Russia will presumably make public, evidence, which it has thus far withheld just in case America and its allies turn out to be that brazen. So, Russia might even be eager for that to happen. The official ‘investigation’ has already announced that its conclusions will be made public in October. Until then, the commission is doing everything they can to forestall, if not prevent, a scandal-squared, from resulting. (For example: if anything, Richard Nixon’s Watergate cover-up doomed him even more than the Watergate-crime itself did.)
Here are some of the typical ways the Western press have reported on Russia’s veto:
“Russia threatens UN veto on Julie Bishop’s MH17 tribunal”
“Why Russia Vetoed the MH17 Tribunal”
“Alternative solution needed for investigating loss of MH17: Russia’s Security Council veto means other means may be used to find those responsible”
For some unexplained (though accepted-without-question by the Western press) reason, the Western powers aren’t satisfied for the official ‘investigating’ commission (though itself entirely Western until the recent addition of Malaysia to the commission) to be blamed for producing the official ‘findings.’ Western leaders had wanted the UN to be blamed instead. Russia voted no on the Western proposal (which was fronted by Malaysia, on behalf of the West); China abstained (perhaps in the hope that the West won’t go after them, too).
The result is heightened fear within the official ‘investigating’ commission. On 3 August 2015, Russian Television headlined “Dutch Safety Board asks for RT’s assistance in MH17 probe after documentary,”and reported that:
The Dutch agency heading the international probe into Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash in eastern Ukraine has contacted RT over the footage used in our recent documentary on the tragedy. RT’s documentary discovered fragments of the plane still in Donetsk.
The RT Documentary film, titled “MH17: A year without truth,” showed fragments of the crashed Boeing and pieces of luggage still scattered in the area at the time of filming. The RTD crew collected the parts of the plane’s exterior they spotted, bringing them to the administration of the nearby town of Petropavlovsk.
“With great interest we watched your documentary, ‘MH17: A year without truth,’” Dutch Safety Board spokesperson Sara Vernooij wrote to RT. “In this film, RT shows parts of the cockpit roof which were found near Petropavlivka. We would like to gather those pieces and bring them over to the Netherlands so the Dutch Safety Board can use them for the investigation and the reconstruction.”
On 17 July 2015, Rupert Murdoch’s Australian Courier-Mail published behind a paywall, and his The Australian republished open on their website, the complete transcript, plus video excerpts, of 17 minutes of video footage that had been taken by the independence fighters in Donbass at the wreckage site while the fires were still aflame on the fateful day, 17 July 2014; and this remarkable footage, never before made public, and published by a lifelong anti-Russian, shows the rebels’ “Commander,” trying to understand what he was seeing, and saying that there are two planes destroyed in the area, one a Malaysian airliner, and the other a Sukhoi fighter-jet, the latter from which had parachuted out five (or else two) people. Someone off-camera in the background is saying, “They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down the plane.” In other words: these people speculated immediately that the presence of the downed fighter-jet indicated that the Ukrainian authorities were trying to pin onto the rebels the blame for shooting down the airliner. Here is that link, and the relevant passages in the transcript itself:
“Full transcript: Russian-backed rebels ransack the wreckage of MH17 in shocking 17-minute video”
• JULY 17, 2015 12:01AM
• Video [just an excerpt, but the transcript is complete, only excerpts from which are reproduced here:]
Cmdr: Yes, there’s 2 planes taken down. We need the second.
Background: The second one is a civilian too?
Background: The fighter jet brought down this one, and our people brought down the fighter.
Background: They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down the plane. …
Cmdr: Let the firefighters extinguish the flames.
(Phone ringing)
Yes Kalyian. I understood you, but we’re already at the crash site. A passenger plane was brought down. They brought down the passenger plane and we brought down the fighter. …
Cmdr: The parachute jumpers are there.
Background: But there are two planes, from my understanding.
Background: And what’s the other one? A Sukhoi?
Cmdr: A Sukhoi.
The Sukhoi brought down the plane and we brought down the Sukhoi. …
I mean … the two pilots landed on parachutes.
(Phone ringing)
Cmdr: Yes, speak. I’m here, I’m in Grabovo. Right at the place. I’m not at the bird site, I’m in the field. I didn’t get there yet.
Cmdr: Five parachutes jumped off this plane. Five people jumped off this plane. …
Of course, at that chaotic moment, everything was new, and so the assertions by those people (for example, as regards whether there were five parachutists, or only two) were uncertain. One early reader of this article, who looked at that video, made the following insightful observation: “Ironically, the Dutch wanted the piece of cockpit roof of the plane. That piece showed no bullet or shrapnel impacts – which in essence excludes a Buk missile. Buk missiles engage the target from above.” That’s entirely correct. So: Might the Dutch Safety Board actually have been trying to nail down a case so strong against Ukraine, as to now be negotiating with Ukraine Ukraine’s capitulation – the degree of guilt that Ukraine must sign onto in the final report? (Sort of like in a plea-bargain.) How could Obama (whose power stands above all of the nations on the commission) deal with such a situation?
CONCLUSION:
It’s like the way the West handled the 2008 economic crash: extend-and-pretend. While Western leaders transferred their aristocracy’s investment losses onto future taxpayers and pretended that the enormous governmental debts that resulted from these ‘bailouts’ to the aristocracy won’t destroy the economic future for the public, no one can yet say with certainty that they were lying about that. As ridiculous as extend-and-pretend seems to be, no appropriate historical precedent exists to show with any near certainty that no way will be found for it to ‘succeed.’ Russia has apparently placed its bet that it won’t succeed, in regards to the MH17 case.
Russia’s game seems to be: In the short term, we’ll suffer contempt from the West’s suckers while Western leaders keep on doing this; but, the longer the West’s leaders do that, the worse the outcome will be for those leaders.
So: will that game on Russia’s part work? The precedents don’t look favorable:
After George W. Bush kept lying about “Saddam’s WMD,” and became exposed simply by none being found, did his extend-and-pretend on the truth there hurt his Republican Party? They extended the lie so far that even today most Republicans still think that WMD did exist there in 2002 and 2003, and they even think that WMD were subsequently found there — though none of that was at all true. Even in 2015, 51% of Republicans agree with the statement, “American Forces Found an Active Weapons of Mass Destruction Program In Iraq.” (32% of Democrats do. 46% of Independents do.) (40% of Republicans said it was “Definitely not true” or “Probably not true,” but yet even they continued to label themselves as “Republican,” even after their own Party had deceived them for so long on such a crucial matter, which had produced America’s invasion of Iraq.) Despite such brazen lying, the Republican Party still has as many suckers as before. (And, in the Democratic Party, Barack Obama is still overwhelmingly supported, despite being now exposed, to all open-minded people, to be the best asset the Republican Party has hadwithin recent decades.)
Extend-and-pretend can work for a very long time, indeed. Russia’s game could fail. But it might nonetheless be their best chance to win.
If the West’s game succeeds, then the entire world will fail as a result. If some power-group — here, the West’s aristocrats — can get away with lying, no matter how long they persist in it, they might as well own the entire world: the public are then just their slaves. The public might as well have no minds at all. Anyone who accepts a politician who has lied is either an aristocrat or an idiot. There are only a few thousand aristocrats in the world, but there are, it is clear, plenty of idiots — perhaps the majority of people — so that everyone else, the decent people, suffer constantly the many idiots who believe the few aristocrats. That combination is toxic to democracy.
One year after the tragedy of flight MH17, RTD revisits the investigation into the Boeing 777 crash. The film explores theories relating to the cause of the tragedy, and also tells some of the personal stories of the victims and their families. It presents interviews with experts, witnesses and bloggers who are trying to establish the truth of what might have brought the plane down. As the Dutch-led investigation continues to be shrouded in secrecy, many believe it may be overlooking important evidence. Meanwhile, the relatives of those who died in the crash are still waiting for answers.
December 19, 2014 Why the Secrecy on the Mh17 Investigation by James O'Neill
On 17 July 2014 Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot down over the Eastern Ukraine.
Although the precise circumstances were at that point unknown the western media were quick to blame Ukrainian “rebels”. The means by which MH17 was destroyed, the media alleged, was a surface to air BUK missile supplied to the “rebels” by Russia. For a host of reasons it was almost certainly not a BUK missile that caused the crash. The stage was set however, for a demonization of Russia in general as the alleged supplier of the missile, and President Vladimir Putin in particular. The relentless propaganda enforcing this view has continued unabated to this day, although the evidential foundation for the allegations remains at best remote.
The Russians produced an initial denial of involvement. Four days after the tragedy however, as anti-Russian hysteria was escalating to extreme levels, the Russian military held a press presentation. The fact of this presentation was barely reported in the western media. The content, more importantly, was either ignored or misrepresented.
The Russians disclosed, inter alia, their radar and satellite data. These data showed that MH17 had been diverted from its scheduled route so that it flew directly over the war zone in eastern Ukraine. They asked for an explanation but one has never been forthcoming. These data also showed that MH17 had been shadowed during its last minutes by two SU25 fighter jets, a model flown by the Ukrainian air force. Again the Russians asked why this had happened.
The main response was a claim that the SU25 could not fly above 10,000 metres. Not only is this untrue, as an examination of military resources readily demonstrates, but the Wikipedia entry on the SU25 had been altered days before the shoot down to claim that the SU25’s operating ceiling was only 7000 metres. Again the western media ignored this obvious alarm bell.
The Russians further disclosed that at the precise time of the shoot down an American spy satellite was directly overhead the scene and would have recorded the sequence of events. The Russians invited the Americans to share these data with the official investigation that had been launched, but to date the Americans have failed to do so. Again, the western media are singularly incurious as to the reason for this lack of cooperation.
Under IATA Rules, the parties responsible for the investigation would be the Malaysians, as owners of the plane and home country of the airline, and the Ukrainians over whose territory the atrocity occurred. It was the Dutch however, who took the lead role, citing two facts: the plane had departed from Amsterdam; and they had suffered the largest number of their nationals as victims. The Malaysians were initially excluded from the inquiry for reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained. They were finally invited to join the Joint Inquiry on 2 December 2014.
Instead, the initial inquiry group consisted of Ukraine, the Netherlands, Australia and Belgium. The Australians suffered the third largest loss of life but had no standing to be one of the investigatory nations, and certainly less of a claim than the Malaysians. The Australian Prime Minister and some other politicians had been at the forefront of making extreme allegations against Russia and President Putin. Why Belgium was included remains a mystery.
On 8 August 2014 these four investigating nations signed an agreement that the results of the investigation would not be published unless all four countries agreed. This gave one of the prime suspects in the atrocity, Ukraine, an effective veto over any investigations result that attributed blame to them. This is an astonishing situation and probably without precedent in modern air crash investigations.
More significantly however, is that the existence of this secret agreement was not announced by the Australian government, nor to the best of my knowledge has any report about the existence of the agreement or its extraordinary terms, been published in any mainstream publication.
The Dutch magazine Elsevier, under Dutch Freedom of Information laws, sought a copy of the agreement. On 19 November they announced that the request had been refused on the grounds that it “could endanger the relations with other countries involved.”
An Australian citizen (name redacted) wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development (Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss) seeking a copy of the agreement. By letter dated 15 October 2014 the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) replied on behalf of the Minister, refusing the requester a copy of the agreement as its contents were “classified.”
The present writer wrote to DFAT on 21 August 2014 seeking a copy of the agreement of 8 August 2014 under the Freedom of Information Act. The department declaimed responsibility and said that they had passed my request on to the Attorney-General’s Department. This was odd, but even odder was advice from the Attorney General that my request had been passed in turn to the Australian Federal Police who were the responsible body.
This must be the first time in Australian history since 1901 that negotiations and agreements between sovereign nations had been conducted on Australia’s behalf by the Federal Police.
On 2 December 2014 the Australian Federal Police finally gave their decision on the FOI request. It was declined on the basis that disclosure of the document (which they acknowledged existed) under section 33 would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to:
(i) the security of the Commonwealth; or
(ii) the defence of the Commonwealth; or
(iii) the international relations of the Commonwealth.
The refusal also relied upon section 37(1)(a) of the Act which exempts a document if it could reasonably be said to prejudice the conduct of an investigation.
Thirdly, the Federal Police relied upon section 37(1) (c) where disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of a person.
The fourth ground of refusal was under section 37(2)(b) which exempts disclosure where it might reasonably be expected to prejudice an investigation by disclosing methods of investigation or detection of unlawful activity.
In the circumstances of this case it is very difficult to see how any of those provisions would apply. The agreement, it should be remembered, is to give any one of the four investigating countries a veto over publication of the results. A final report would be entitled to withhold details of the investigation that would truly prejudice matters of national security.
An investigation of a crash of an aeroplane is however, carried out under IATA Rules and its procedures are well established and well documented. Whose life or safety might be endangered by releasing the agreement is unspecified.
One is left with the conclusion that 33 (iii) is the real ground and the “international relations” referred to are the difficulty Australia and other nations have got themselves into by prematurely blaming Russia when all of the emerging evidence points squarely at Ukraine.
Given the existence of this agreement it is difficult to see how anyone can have any confidence in whatever final report is published by the Dutch. The preliminary report was careful not to apportion blame or even state the cause of the crash other than to say that the plane was hit a by a large number of “high velocity objects” which were undefined.
Another major question is why have the mainstream media kept up a barrage of misinformation up to and including the recent G20 debacle, when they know, or ought to know that the investigation is a sham?
It is also difficult to see how the continued demonization of Russia and Mr Putin for manifestly geo-political reasons (and the probable reasons for the shoot down in the first place) represents any form of justice for the families of the 298 victims and in particular the 37 who were Australian citizens or residents.
It is clear that the Government’s professed support for Security Council Resolution 2116 (2014) for a “full, thorough, and independent international investigation into the incident in accordance with international civil aviation guidelines” is no more than window dressing for a much wider geopolitical agenda.
James O’Neill is a former academic who has practiced as a barrister for the past 30 years. He has a special interest in international human rights issues. He may be contacted at j.oneill@bigpond.net.au
It might be the decisive piece of evidence proving who and what and how and why the MH17 Malaysian airliner over the conflict zone in Ukraine on 17 July 2014 was shot down, but the pilot’s corpse has been hidden even from the people who have the most right to see it.
The corpse of the pilot of the MH17 Malaysian airliner might contain in it bullets, or bullet-residues, that can prove a Ukrainian military jet intentionally fired into the pilot; or else it might contain only missile-shrapnel, which would be consistent only with the plane’s having been erroneously shot down by a ground-based missile such as the Ukrainian government says it was; but the Malaysian government has prohibited anyone to see it — not even his relatives, who are still trying to find out how and who murdered their loved-one and the 297 other people who were aboard that tragic plane on July 17th of 2014.
So, I know what it feels like to confront issues of considerable consequence like the shoot-down of MH-17 and the killing of 298 passengers and crew amid intense pressure to choreograph the judgments to the propagandistic music favored by senior officials who want the U.S. “enemy” – in this case, nuclear-armed Russia and its Western-demonized President Vladimir Putin – to somehow be responsible. In such situations, the easiest and safest (career-wise) move is to twirl your analysis to the preferred tune or at least sit this jig out.
But the trust-us-it-was-Putin marathon dance has now run for 13 months – and it’s getting tiresome to hear the P.R. people in the office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper still claiming that the U.S. intelligence community has not revised or updated its analysis of the incident since July 22, 2014, just five days after the crash.
Back then, Clapper’s office, trying to back up Secretary of State John Kerry’s anti-Russian rush to judgment, cited very sketchy evidence – in both senses of the word – drawn heavily from “social media” accounts. Obviously, the high-priced and high-caliber U.S. intelligence community has learned much more about this very sensitive case since that time, but the administration won’t tell the American people and the world. The DNI’s office still refers inquiring reporters back to the outdated report from more than a year ago.
None of this behavior would make much sense if the later U.S. intelligence data supported the hasty finger-pointing toward Putin and the rebels. If more solid and persuasive intelligence corroborated those initial assumptions, you’d think U.S. government officials would be falling over themselves to leak the evidence and declare “we told you so.” And the DNI office’s claim that it doesn’t want to prejudice the MH-17 investigation doesn’t hold water either – since the initial rush to judgment did exactly that.
So, despite the discomfort attached to making judgments with little reliable evidence – and at the risk of sounding like former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld – it seems high time to address what we know, what we don’t know, and why it may be that we don’t know what we don’t know.
Those caveats notwithstanding I would say it is a safe bet that the hard technical intelligence evidence upon which professional intelligence analysts prefer to rely does not support Secretary of State Kerry’s unseemly rush to judgment in blaming the Russian side just three days after the shoot-down.
‘An Extraordinary Tool’?
When the tragedy occurred U.S. intelligence collection assets were focused laser-like on the Ukraine-Russia border region where the passenger plane crashed. Besides collection from overhead imagery and sensors, U.S. intelligence presumably would have electronic intercepts of communications as well as information from human sources inside many of the various factions.
That would mean that hundreds of intelligence analysts are likely to have precise knowledge regarding how MH-17 was shot down and by whom. Though there may be some difference of opinion among analysts about how to read the evidence – as there often is – it is out of the question that the intelligence community would withhold this data from President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and other top officials.
Thus, it is a virtual certainty that the Obama administration has far more conclusive evidence than the “social media” cited by Kerry in casting suspicions on the rebels and Moscow when he made the rounds of Sunday talk shows just three days after the crash. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Kerry told David Gregory that “social media” is an “extraordinary tool.” The question is, a tool for what?
The DNI report two days later rehashed many of the “social media” references that Kerry cited and added some circumstantial evidence about Russia providing other forms of military equipment to the rebels. But the DNI report contains no mention of Russia supplying a Buk anti-aircraft missile system that Kerry and the DNI cited as the suspected weapon that downed the plane.
So, why does the administration continue refusing to go beyond such dubious sources and shaky information in attributing blame for the shoot-down? Why not fill in the many blanks with actual and hard U.S. intelligence data that would have been available and examined over the following days and weeks? Did the Russians supply a Buk or other missile battery that would be capable of hitting MH-17 flying at 33,000 feet? Yes or no.
If not supplied by the Russians, did the rebels capture a Buk or similar missile battery from the Ukrainians who had them in their own inventory? Or did some element of the Ukrainian government – possibly associated with one of Ukraine’s corrupt oligarchs – fire the missile, either mistaking the Malaysian plane for a Russian one or calculating how the tragedy could be played for propaganda purposes? Or was it some other sinister motive?
Without doubt, the U.S. government has evidence that could support or refute any one of those possibilities, but it won’t tell you even in some declassified summary form. Why? Is it somehow unpatriotic to speculate that John Kerry, with his checkered reputation for truth-telling regarding Syria and other foreign crises, chose right off the bat to turn the MH-17 tragedy to Washington’s propaganda advantage, an exercise in “soft power” to throw Putin on the defensive and rally Europe behind U.S. economic sanctions to punish Russia for supporting ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine resisting the new U.S.-arranged political order in Kiev?
By taking a leaf out of the Bush-Cheney-Tony-Blair playbook, Kerry could “fix the intelligence around the policy” of Putin-bashing. Given the anti-Putin bias rampant in the mainstream Western media, that wouldn’t be a hard sell. And, it wasn’t. The “mainstream” stenographers/journalists quickly accepted that “social media” was indeed a dandy source to rely on – and have never pressed the U.S. government to release any of its intelligence data.
Yet, in the immediate aftermath of the MH-17 shoot-down, there were signs that honest intelligence analysts were not comfortable letting themselves be used as they and other colleagues had been before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
To buttress Kerry’s shaky case, DNI Clapper arranged a flimsy “Government Assessment” – reprising many of Kerry’s references to “social media” – that was briefed to a few hand-picked Establishment reporters two days after Kerry starred on Sunday TV. The little-noticed distinction was that this report was not the customary “Intelligence Assessment” (the genre that has been de rigueur in such circumstances in the past).
The key difference between the traditional “Intelligence Assessment” and this relatively new creation, a “Government Assessment,” is that the latter genre is put together by senior White House bureaucrats or other political appointees, not senior intelligence analysts. Another significant difference is that an “Intelligence Assessment” often includes alternative views, either in the text or in footnotes, detailing disagreements among intelligence analysts, thus revealing where the case may be weak or in dispute.
The absence of an “Intelligence Assessment” suggested that honest intelligence analysts were resisting a knee-jerk indictment of Russia – just as they did after the first time Kerry pulled this “Government Assessment” arrow out of his quiver trying to stick the blame for an Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack outside Damascus on the Syrian government.
Kerry cited this pseudo-intelligence product, which contained not a single verifiable fact, to take the United States to the brink of war against President Bashar al-Assad’s military, a fateful decision that was only headed off at the last minute after President Barack Obama was made aware of grave doubts among U.S. intelligence analysts about whodunit. Kerry’s sarin case has since collapsed.
The sarin and MH-17 cases reveal the continuing struggles between opportunistic political operatives and professional intelligence analysts over how to deal with geopolitical information that can either inform U.S. foreign policy objectively or be exploited to advance some propaganda agenda. Clearly, this struggle did not end after CIA analysts were pressured into giving President George W. Bush the fraudulent – not “mistaken” – evidence that he used to make the case for invading Iraq in 2003.
But so soon after that disgraceful episode, the White House and State Department run the risk that some honest intelligence analysts would blow the whistle, especially given the dangerously blasé attitude in Establishment Washington toward the dangers of escalating the Ukraine confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Given the very high stakes, perhaps an intelligence professional or two will summon the courage to step up to this challenge.
Falling in Line
For now, the rest of us are told to be satisfied with the Sunday media circus orchestrated by Kerry on July 20, 2014, with the able assistance of eager-to-please pundits. A review of the transcripts of the CBS, NBC, and ABC Sunday follies reveals a remarkable – if not unprecedented — consistency in approach by CBS’s Bob Schieffer, NBC’s David Gregory (ably egged on by Andrea Mitchell), and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, all of whom hewed faithfully to a script apparently given them with two main talking points: (1) blame Putin; and (2) frame the shoot-down as a “wake-up call” (Kerry used the words repeatedly) for European governments to impose tight economic sanctions on Russia.
If the U.S. government’s hope was that the combination of Kerry’s hasty judgment and the DNI’s supportive “Government Assessment” would pin the P.R. blame for MH-17 on Putin and Russia, the gambit clearly worked. The U.S. had imposed serious economic sanctions on Russia the day before the shoot-down – but the Europeans were hesitant. Yet, in the MH-17 aftermath, both U.S. and European media were filled with outrage against Putin for supposedly murdering 298 innocents.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other European leaders, who had been resisting imposing strong economic sanctions because of Germany’s and the European Union’s lucrative trade with Russia, let themselves be bulldozed, just two weeks after the shoot-down, into going along with mutually harmful sanctions that have hurt Russia but also have shaken the EU’s fragile economic recovery.
Thus started a new, noxious phase in the burgeoning confrontation between Russia and the West, a crisis that was originally precipitated by a Western-orchestrated coup d’état in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, ousting Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych and touching off the current civil war that has witnessed some of the worst bloodshed inside Europe in decades..
It may seem odd that those European leaders allowed themselves to be snookered so swiftly. Did their own intelligence services not caution them against acquiescing over “intelligence” from social media? But the tidal wave of anti-Putin fury in the MH-17 aftermath was hard if not impossible for any Western politician to resist.
Just One Specific Question?
Yet, can the U.S. concealment of its MH-17 intelligence continue indefinitely? Some points beg for answers. For instance, besides describing social media as “an extraordinary tool,” Kerry told David Gregory on July 20, 2014: “We picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.”
Odd that neither Gregory nor other “mainstream” stenographers have thought to ask Kerry, then or since, to share what he says he “knows” with the American people and the world – if only out of, well, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. If Kerry has sources beyond “social media” for what he claims to “know” and they support his instant claims of Russian culpability, then the importance of his accusations dictates that he describe exactly what he pretends to know and how. But Kerry has been silent on this topic.
If, on the other hand, the real intelligence does not support the brief that Kerry argued right after the shoot-down, well, the truth will ultimately be hard to suppress. Angela Merkel and other leaders with damaged trade ties with Russia may ultimately demand an explanation. Can it be that it will take current European leaders a couple of years to realize they’ve been had — again?
The U.S. government also is likely to face growing public skepticism for using social media to pin the blame on Moscow for the downing of MH-17 – not only to justify imposing economic sanctions, but also to stoke increased hostility toward Russia.
The Obama administration and the mainstream media may try to pretend that no doubt exists – that the “group think” on Russia’s guilt is ironclad. And it seems likely that the official investigations now being conducted by the U.S.-propped-up government in Ukraine and other close U.S. allies will struggle to build a circumstantial case keeping the Putin-did-it narrative alive.
But chickens have a way of coming home to roost. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
It's a common pattern by now. The Dutch are leaking tidbits of information that seem to implicate Russia - but failing to back it up with evidence
In fact, all evidence points to a vast suppression of forensic evidence gathered
Dutch officials have been happy to leak that metal fragments were found in bodies of MH17 victims - and to speculate that this means plane was shot down by a Buk missile
But have failed to disclose forensic evidence, or to say what type of metal this was, though they undoubtedly know
Meanwhile an Australian forensics report reveals few metal fragments were recovered from bodies - which may not imply a Buk missile shrapnel blast
John Helmer Subscribe to John Helmer(Dances with Bears) Mon, Sep 14 | 5,964 50
Donate!
The most shameful plane crash investigation yet?
This article originally appeared at Dances With Bears
The Dutch Government has decided to launch a missile attack on Moscow in October. By suppressing all evidence obtained from the bodies of victims of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17, officials of the Dutch Safety Board and associated Dutch military officers, police and prosecutors are preparing to release a report on the crash with a gaping hole in its veracity.
At the same time, and apparently unknown in The Netherlands, an Australian coroners’ report on the identification and forensic testing of the bodies carried out in The Netherlands reveals post-mortem evidence to show that in their public statements the Dutch government officials have been lying about metal evidence they claim to have found.
This evidence has not only been buried with the passengers’ remains. It has been buried by the Dutch Government and by coroners in the UK and Australia, who are now legally required to investigate independently what caused the deaths of citizens in their jurisdiction.
All are withholding the CT scans, X-rays, autopsy and other post-mortem results, including metallurgical assays, the documentation of which accompanied the coffins of the aircraft’s victims from The Netherlands to their homelands.
Erwin Muller (below, left), co-chairman of the Dutch Safety Board (DSB), the official aviation accident body, and Fred Westerbeke (right), a Dutch police officer heading the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a forensics unit of the Dutch prosecution authority, have announced that on July 1 a draft “final” report on the destruction of MH17 was issued to the states participating in the investigation.
There are 7 of these states, according to the DSB: The Netherlands, Malaysia, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia The JIT is a more restricted group comprising Dutch, Ukrainian, Australian, and Belgian security and intelligence officers. The Dutch officials also claim they have been considering comments from officials of the other governments, and have scheduled October 13 for public release of the DSB document.
What the DSB report means now hinges — government officials, pathologists and lawyers say — on four lookalike words with fundamentally different meanings.
The “first” is onderdelen (parts) which DSB officials have been using to refer to a Buk ground-to-air rocket.
The second term is “metallfragmente” and “metalen deeltjes”, which Westerbeke and his spokesman have been using interchangeably to mean metal from outside the MH17, and also from the fuselage itself.
The third key word is “missile”, which Australian coronial investigators say refers, not to a Buk or any other type of explosive ordnance, but to “flying objects which strike the body”.
The fourth term is “raket”, which Dutch investigators, including those engaged in the official identification of the MH17 victims, say applies to air-to-ground rockets like Buk, as well as to air-to-air, infrared and other rockets fired by aircraft.
For the Dutch to make the case that MH17 was shot down by a Russian-made and Russian-deployed Buk ground-to-air missile, the metal in the corpses and body parts is the only certain evidence which has been recovered from the crash site; analysed painstakingly in the record of the Dutch investigations; and repatriated in certified dossiers Dutch and other sources say accompanied the coffins when they were flown home. This documentation is now held in files in The Netherlands and in the coronial agencies of all the countries to which remains and coffins have gone.
Over the past week Dutch, British, and Australian officials all refuse to confirm they are holding this evidence. Nor will they answer questions about when, or if, they plan to commence inquests at which this evidence must be presented publicly.
Dirk Huyer, the chief coroner in Ontario, home province of Andrei Anghel, the lone Canadian passenger to lose his life on MH17, says Canada is not going to investigate.
“It is very uncommon for the death investigation system to become involved in a death that occurred outside of the province… Our authority for investigation is limited to Ontario—we do not have any authority to direct investigation outside of our provincial jurisdiction.”
Accordingly, his office has not been involved in the MH17 investigation, “and therefore there will be no inquest.”
If the inquest evidence does not substantiate the difference in meaning of the ambiguous terms issued publicly so far – and if the inquests themselves are postponed indefinitely so the evidence is kept secret, then one conclusion is certain – there is no evidence that a Buk missile explosion struck MH17 and caused the death of those on board.
A Dutch pathologist, Professor George Maat (photo) who had participated directly in the identification of the bodies at Hilversum military base, was fired in April by the Dutch government for presenting medical students studying identification techniques with illustrations of the records he made.
Last month Maat wrote to contradict claims circulating on Ukrainian websites that an X-ray showing metal fragments originated from either an MH17 victim, or from the Dutch investigation. The fabrication can be examined here. Maat presented no X-rays at his controversial lecture, and has aired no claim that missile shrapnel was identified in victim bodies.
An Australian coronial investigation, reported at a professional meeting of international coroners and pathologists in Melbourne, Australia, last November, has reported the only authenticated details of the process which the Dutch undertook after the crash.
The two authors of the report are David Ranson (below, left) and Iain West (centre); the first is an associate professor of forensic pathology and deputy director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine; the second is the deputy state coroner at the Coroners Court of Victoria. This is the official agency in charge of receiving all 27 Australian victims of the MH17 crash.
The Victoria state coroner, Judge Ian Gray (right), is also in charge of conducting investigations and inquests on 18 victims who were residents of Victoria, and who have been returned for burial to families in the state.
Reporting “the features of the remains”, Ranson and West say that “fire damage” was pervasive: “all patterns [including]…complete incineration, partial incineration, unburned”. The injuries they identify include those which destroyed the body “variably” and “completely”. There were, they report, “massive internal injuries with little external signs” and “no haemorrhage round fractures”. According to sources involved in the MH17 investigation, this means there was no blood pressure, and the victims were dead before they hit the ground.
Most importantly, the Australian experts report: “missile injuries [were] rare but present.” An Australian expert source who is familiar with the evidence covered by the Ranson-West report but who spoke on background, warns:
“Don’t confuse the meaning of the word missile. It means flying objects which strike the body.”
It is not known whether Ranson and West were shown X-rays or CT scans of the Australian victims. Their full report can be read here. LINK.
When MH17 was downed over eastern Ukrainian territory on July 17, 2014, a total of 298 people were on board. To date, remains of 296 have been recovered and officially identified, according to Dutch reports.
The nationalities of the victims, reported from airline releases, are Dutch, 193; Malaysian, 43; Australian, 27; Indonesian, 12; British, 10; German, 4; Belgian, 4; Philippino, 3; New Zealanders, 1; and Canadians, 1. The identities of the 2 unrecovered individuals have not been released.
The Australian report spells out the problems of gathering and authenticating evidence in Ukraine, where there was “no forensic control”; where the international air crash guidelines issued by Interpol weren’t followed; and where there was “inappropriate interim storage and body preservation.”
When the bodies reached the Dutch military barracks, where investigation took place, there was, according to Ranson and West, “CT scanning of contents of coffin.” They describe the triage procedure followed: “If suspicious foreign objects [identified on the scans], Proceed to Limited Forensic Autopsy. If no suspicious foreign objects – Proceed to DVI [Disaster Victim Identification] examination area.”
This reveals that CT scans were done of all remains, and thus a CT scan has been recorded for every victim whose body has been recovered and repatriated or transferred to the next of kin. There is no reference to X-rays at this stage of the Dutch procedure; they may have been taken during the “limited forensic autopsy”. One reason for suspecting that X-rays appearing in Ukrainian media are fakes is that the Dutch procedures used CT scans instead.
Ranson and West explain the steps followed for the main nationalities and the kinds of testing and evidence collected for identification.
The Australian report does not reveal what evidence was gathered in the “limited forensic autopsy”. But Ranson and West reveal that “suspicious foreign objects” detected in the CT scans as “missile injuries” were “rare”. Just how rare has been admitted, inadvertently, by the Dutch prosecutor Westerbeke.
What is certain, medical pathologists say, is that the Dutch autopsied remains in order to remove what the Australians are calling “suspicious foreign objects” when they were spotted.
The timing of the repatriation process also indicates that Westerbeke had taken control of these “objects” and had tested them, assaying the metals and comparing the results with munitions specifications, by the time in October when the last repatriations to Australia took place. There can be no doubt, says a Dutch source, that “by then Westerbeke knew exactly what metal or metals he was dealing with.”
When the Dutch DVI process was completed, and to ensure that remains were reliably identified before repatriation, the Australian report says there were “documents and identification label checks.” For each individual, these materials included “CT scan and photography.”
Australian sources report these materials were then attached to each coffin for repatriation. All the Australian coffins were flown to Melbourne, transported to the Victorian coroner’s morgue, and re-certified. Those victims whose residence and next of kin were in other states were flown on to those destinations.
Australian sources say the Australian forensic and coronial court process is “alive and ongoing, but not yet started.” The sources say also “there have been meetings with the Australian Federal Police” (AFP), and this process is also continuing.
Included in this police and government intelligence investigation are the Australian pathologists who worked on the DVI line in Holland, as well as other experts.
The AFP has already collected a dossier of evidence, covered by a summary brief, which is circulating for discussion at meetings the AFP has called with the experts.
This process and the brief are secret; some of the experts and investigators involved in the ante-mortem and identification process have been excluded. According to one expert, “there is enormous variation among the victims. Lots of possibilities [on cause of death] are being canvassed.”
Victorian coroner Gray was asked to say whether he has decided that the inquests he will hold will be restricted to identification of the victims, or will be extended to cause of death and forensic issues. Inside sources believe Gray will be guided by the AFP report. Gray was asked to say whether he will “be taking and considering evidence of victim injuries, including X-rays, CT scans, and reports of the Dutch authorities (LTFO, JIT, DSB) which accompanied the remains on repatriation? Will [he] be taking testimony from the Australian Federal Police (AFP)?”
His spokesman, Nola Los, replied: “Judge Gray will need to approve the release of any information relating to details regarding the Victorian victims of MH17. Unfortunately he will not be available to do so until next week.”
Los and Gray confirm the Australian count of 27 victims in all; 18 Victorians. Their cases are “open”, adding “that an inquest date is being considered for later this year.”
In the UK, where press reporting of the alleged Buk missile attack is widespread – as it is in Australia and Canada — there is a similar blackout in the coronial system. Altogether, 10 British nationals or residents have been identified on board the aircraft. However, because some were dual nationals or resident in other countries, the UK media have reported just 4 burials in the UK. Others may have been buried in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.
The government in London has announced that “special arrangements were made by the Chief Coroner [Judge Peter Thornton QC], following the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 disaster in Ukraine in July 2014. Coroners have a duty to investigate violent or unnatural deaths which occur overseas where the body is returned to England and Wales. In this case, with the consent of all families concerned, all repatriated bodies were received first in one central coroner area where one senior coroner co-ordinated all arrangements with the assistance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the police. The coroner’s co-ordinated investigations will be subject to the outcome of the extensive Dutch inquiries.”
The coroner in charge is Catherine Mason (photo), who heads the coroners court in Leicester. A lawyer and nurse by training, she previously served in junior coroner posts in other regions, and has been chief coroner in Leicester for 6 years.
A check of her court records for the MH17 victims’ names reveals that on September 22, 2014, the inquest into Richard Mayne’s death was opened, then immediately adjourned without a new date. A month later, on October 27, the inquest into the death of John Alder was also suspended.
The legal authority cited for Mason’s action was Schedule 1 Paragraph 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009. This provides carte blanche: “a senior coroner may suspend an investigation under this Part of this Act into a person’s death in any case if it appears to the coroner that it would be appropriate to do so.”
Last week Mason was asked how many MH17 victim inquests she is conducting and their individual names. What circumstances, she was asked, “have you deemed to be appropriate for suspension in these cases? Have you delegated authority for evidence gathering and forensic testing in these cases to another body, British or foreign? To whom has this delegation been made, and on what authority?”
Finally, Mason was asked what post-mortem or autopsy evidence of the victims’ remains she is holdng. Mason refuses to answer. A source at her court says Mason is deferring “while inquiries are conducted abroad.” The source implies the British Government has decided to rely on the Dutch for evidence.
In The Netherlands, the aviation accident body, the DSB, published its preliminary report in September 2014. For details of what evidence it identified and what conclusions it drew, read this. The day after the DSB release, the principal Russian official responsible for Russian participation in the Dutch investigation, Oleg Storchevoy (below), Deputy Head of the Federal Air Transport Agency (RosAviation), said the DSB had missed crucial evidence.
“The investigation should further study the data from the radars and post mortems of the victims.
All these steps are widely regarded as a must in civil aviation and no preliminary conclusions are usually made before completing all of them.
Regrettably, significant time has been wasted, and some of the data will be unavailable – I now refer to the remains of the victim’s bodies and the plane’s debris which are not secured enough and located in the zone of an armed conflict.
Nevertheless, this work must be done to ensure a speedy and unbiased investigation into the cause of the crash.”
Storchevoy was telling the DSB what it was already admitting in the preliminary report. On page 4, the report claimed it would include the “result of the pathological investigations” in “further work…to substantiate the factual information.” At page 32 the DSB repeated the promise that for “Further Investigations” it would analyse “results of pathological investigation”.
On September 25, RosAviation released the text of the letter Storchevoy had sent to DSB itemizing the evidence the DSB investigation should cover for its final report. Here is the 24-point release. Point 3 is a priority for evidence:
“Pathological examination of the dead passengers and crew members, including the presence of submunitions and other foreign bodies and substances.”
At DSB Chairman Muller was asked to confirm he had read Storchevoy’s letter, and to say what reply he had sent. He refuses to say. He was then asked: “When the remains were released to relatives and repatriated, what death certificate was issued by the Dutch authorities? What was given as cause of death? Were X-rays taken of all victims’ remains? What other pathology tests were conducted on remains and tissue samples? What official documents accompanied the remains on repatriation, and did these include X-rays and other pathological investigation results?”
Muller’s spokesman Sara Vernooij (photo) replied, saying “as long as the investigation is ongoing we can’t give any information or details. The Dutch Safety Board will publish the final report on 13 October, before that we won’t issue any information concerning investigation material or sources.”
But that cannot be true, she and Muller were told, since in recent days the DSB has issued news releases disclosing “information or details” on the purported discovery and investigation of Buk missile parts; and on the manner and consciousness of victims ahead of their deaths.
Vernooij then conceded these were “information or details”, but she now claims: “I can’t give any more details than we already gave.” As for the questions to Muller about what evidence had been collected before repatriation, and what went on the Dutch death certificates, Vernooij said: “The repatriation and the identification is done by the forensic team of LTFO, spokesperson is Mr. Fransman (j.s.t.fransman@minvenj.nl ).”
The Landelijk Team Forensische Opsporing (National Forensic Investigations Team, LTFO) in the Netherlands is a police and military organ of the Dutch Government, headed by Arie De Bruin (photo). In investigating the MH17 victims’ remains, the Dutch were joined by a German officer of the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), the Federal Criminal Police, and the equivalent AFP officer from Australia.
According to a Malaysian government release, the MH17 victim identification operation was “assisted by Executive Officers of (a) logistic and accommodation, (b) Ante-mortem (AM) Process, (c) post-mortem (PM) Process, (d) Reconciliation process and (e) Release Process . The other countries involved in the MH17 operation were Malaysia, Belgium, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany and Indonesia. The team leaders of the 6 countries were officially appointed as executive officers in the DVI MH17 Organisation.
A team of international forensic experts led by Dutchman Gert Wibbelink of the Dutch National Forensic Investigations Team, or LTFO, was handed control of the investigation in Kharkiv. The LTFO has eight staff members in Ukraine, including Mr. Wibbelink. “We have been collecting DNA samples, hair, fingerprints, information about scars or tattoos or moles,” from the victims’ first-degree relatives, Jos van Roo, the LTFO team leader in the Netherlands, said in an interview.”
For LTFO, spokesman Jean Fransman (photo) was asked on Friday whether the LTFO procedures for the MH17 victims included an autopsy to determine cause of death and find shrapnel, bullet or other metal fragments; and to attach CT scan, X-ray and other pathological test results to the repatriated remains. Fransman claimed: “I’m not the spokesperson for the LTFO. But I will forward your questions to my colleagues.” The first point was false; the second, a deadend. When informed that he had been identified as LTFO spokesman by the DSB and on the signature line of his own email, and that he was making a record of misinformation and evasion by LTFO, Fransman stopped responding.
Fransman, like his boss de Bruin, did not know that the questions they refuse to answer have already been published by the Australians. This is the only public disclosure by LTFO of what it has been doing.
The remaining Dutch official to be asked the questions the Australians answered last year is Westerbeke of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT). The Dutch, Ukrainian, Australian and Belgian governments have announced that the JIT is bound by its founding agreement on August 7, 2014, to keep confidential the evidence it has been finding. Westerbeke’s record is one of leaking to the Dutch and German media, and to the BBC, details DSB claims to be withholding until next month. Westerbeke has made a record too of leaking one detail, and then contradicting it later.
According to this graphic, published by Westerbeke’s men, one of the key forms of evidence in his criminal investigation is “metal particles from victims’ bodies”.
On September 12, 2014, Westerbeke told a Dutch paper, Der Volkskrant, that metal fragments had been found in victims’ bodies. According to this report, Westerbeke (and a police spokesman, Patricia Zorko) counted 500 samples that had been taken; this appears to be a count of what the Australians are calling the “limited forensic autopsy”.
Explaining why the Australians have reported “missile injuries rare but present”, Westerbeke told the local newspaper there were 25 “metalen deeltjes” – that’s to say, “metal particles”, just as Westerbeke had put into his chart. If 25 of 500 samples had tested positive for metal, that was a rate of 0.05%. Another way of estimating the rarity of the metal found is to estimate that they were recorded in 0.08% of the identified bodies or body parts. That appears to be a very small incidence in a jet aircraft struck from outside the fuselage.
The Ranson-West report confirms that for timing, these pieces of evidence had been collected early in the triage process at Hilversum barracks, possibly weeks before Westerbeke leaked the details. The DSB failed to mention them in its September report. Westerbeke himself omitted to say what testing he had already done on the “metal particles” to identify the metal.
A BBC version of what Westerbeke said on September 12, 2014, adds detail: “At a news conference in Rotterdam on Friday, Fred Westerbeke…said that the investigation was particularly interested in the origin of 25 pieces of iron [sic], drawn from 500 samples. ‘The most likely scenario was that the plane was shot down from the ground,’ he said. ‘If we can establish that this iron is coming from such a missile, that is important information of course,’ he said. ‘At this moment we don’t know that, but that is what we are investigating.’”
Two other reporters listening to Westerbeke detected ambiguity in what he was actually claiming about the metal evidence. A DutchNews website claimed to have heard Westerbeke say the metal was found “between the wreckage [on the ground] and in some of the bodies, which could come from a missile.” A Reuters reporter claimed the metal particles had been found in passenger luggage, as well as in bodies. The location of both Westerbeke omitted to say, concealing thereby whether they were concentrated in a pattern of shrapnel, and whether the metal samples were identical in all 25 cases.
A month later Westerbeke tried again, this time for German consumption. On October 27, 2014, Der Spiegel quoted Westerbeke as conceding the “Metallfragmente” could be “shrapnel from a Buk missile, possibly also parts of the aircraft itself.” Between Westerbeke’s two press leaks, the reporters had failed to notice that Westerbeke had taken 45 days not to confirm the nature of the metal he was holding. But he was conceding the original leak was losing its initial meaning. If the metal had been tested and compared against the aluminium, titanum and other alloys in the aircraft wings, walls and floor, then Westerbeke must have known whether “iron” was ruled in, or out.
Nine months then elapsed before Westerbeke started leaking again. Here he is in an interview obligingly scripted in advance by the BCC, and broadcast on July 17. This time Westerbeke omitted to say anything at all about “metal”—and the BBC forgot to ask. Notwithstanding, there was no hesitation in London to headline the story: “MH17 investigator: Missile strike most credible scenario”.
Last week Westerbeke was asked to explain where all the missile metal had flown. Specifically, the Dutch policeman was asked questions to which the Australian coronial investigators had already revealed the answers. “Were X-rays taken of all victims’ remains? What other pathology tests were conducted on remains and tissue samples? What official documents accompanied the remains on repatriation, and did these include X-rays and other pathological investigation results? What release to any party of the investigation, including next of kin, has there been of these data, the so-called metal particle data?”
Westerebeke refuses to answer. This is the black hole the Dutch have created in their own investigation, but they are unable to fill it with “iron”, and they cannot explain how the alleged detonation of a Buk warhead could release so little recovered shrapnel; possibly none at all. _________________ This is an orange
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk
Dutch MH17 report
The double tragedy here is the investigation has been hijacked.
Aviation safety has a very good record but it relies on proper investigations.
This Dutch investigation is being conducted by authorities in a NATO country. NATO is one of the participants in the Ukraine conflict. Other governments represented in the investigation are Belgium, Australia and Ukraine. Malaysia was only included AFTER a deal had been signed restricting what the Malaysians were allowed to do or say with the evidence.
No autopsy has been made public of the pilot Wam Amran nor of his copilot.
Neither the contents of the black box nor the cockpit voice recorder have been made public.
Like Iran Air and Lockerbie in 1988 this MH17 investigation is being politicised and militarised so lessons are unlikely to have been learned
This investigation not proper - July
BACKGROUND
8000 killed and 18000 wounded so far in Ukraine conflict
Evidence of Buk missile - inconclusive
MH17 was inexplicably diverted from its usual course by Kiev ATC 2000 feet down and 300 miles North, TOWARDS the war zone where ten aircraft had already been shot down.
In July 2015 there was an attempt to begin an international UN tribunal but Russia vetoed move because it wasn't sufficiently represented.
FAMILIES of nearly 300 victims, under the Montreal Convention, should be entitled to $180,000 compensation but have only been offered $10,000 by Malaysian Airlines and have been given a deadline of This Thursday to accept the much reduced offer.
ALSO far-right Ukrainian defence secretary Andriy Parubiy, Andriy Volodymyrovych Parubiy, resigned three weeks after the downing of MH17 with no explanation so were forces under his command involved?
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=22393&start=120
The Dutch report 'conveniently' doesn't mention holes from both sides; many of the holes were round, as caused by machine gun fire. Or why the [parents of the pilot weren't even allowed to view the body, never get forensic tests on bullet or shrapnel left in his body. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
One month after the 9/11 attacks, a Siberian Airlines Tu-154 flying from Tel Aviv to Novosibirsk in Russia crashed into the Black Sea off the Crimean coast; 78 people perished. While initial fears were of terrorism, the Ukraine government admitted (following several days of denials) that a radar-guided S-200 missile launched during military exercises had struck the plane after missing its drone target.http://www.cbsnews.com/news/past-commercial-airliners-shot-down -by-military-rebels/
Cameron is being let off the hook when there’s ammunition to bury him.
October 14, 2015 Michael Aydinian
Give us the data
I AM SO ANGRY. At Prime Minister’s question time all I saw was Cameron back in his comfort zone when the treacherous little rat should be grovelling. I presented Jeremy Corbyn with the perfect question after all, Cameron had the temerity to accuse the new Labor leader of being a threat to national security yet when he became PM we were friends with Russia. Now we’re enemies! WHO’S A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY?
Within 24 hours of this heinous act Mr. Prime Minister, you accused Russia of downing flight MH17. After 15 months of exhaustive study & analysis however, the Dutch investigation could not arrive at the conclusion you drew within 24 hours. Is this the reason why you refuse to hand over the data on the Black Boxes of MH17 & by not doing so, haven’t you hindered this very investigation?
Afterwards I realised I omitted the perfect line – ‘are you looking to put all air-crash investigators out of business or is there something more sinister involved here?’ The Z word perhaps? Seriously though, tell me what’s wrong with this question. The timing couldn’t be more perfect! Maybe you can tell me what’s not relevant or poignant? I’m lost for words & I ain’t never been that yet!
What really annoys me & it truly beggars belief – 15 months investigating just to produce lame drivel from a bunch of paid off plums who deserve to be strung up by the balls & all the while the biggest scumbag of all, Cameron, sits on the Black Box data that would have rendered this 15 month period of bs a figment of our imagination. Not only was there no mention that had the Black Box data been released we wouldn’t have to suffer this but no one is applying any pressure on Cameron whatsoever.
I’m fed up with telling people the Z word is written all over this! I knew that within half an hour of the plane going down. I explained all the reasons why. Then when the Black Boxes are sent to London & not Malaysia we’re told the data can be extracted in 24 hours so I explained why & I waited. 6 months passed so I thought – better write to our Prime Minister. I wanted to say – WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO RELEASE THE DATA YOU LITTLE PUKE? But I thought better tone it down a notch or ten –
“If a British plane was shot down over Ukraine and then out of the blue the Black Boxes were sent to Malaysia, what would you say to the British people if the Malaysian authorities withheld the all-important data in the Black Boxes for 6 months?
Give us the data
No reply. No mention in the media. What Black Boxes? You know the ones that will reveal who exactly shot the plane down! Another 9 months pass & not one iota of pressure is put on Cameron to release the data on the Black Boxes of flight MH17 & in the meantime the media is still placing the blame on Putin. At least RT won’t do that but they deserve ZERO credit because they never said a word about how the Black Boxes remain hidden from public gaze in London. This is Russia Today…….. & they aren’t even saying what’s patently obvious!
The political and media response to the report of the Dutch Safety Board into the crash of MH17 on 17 July 2014 has been unfortunately predictable.
It is clear from the comments, both in and out of Parliament by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister respectively, that they have not read any of the 278 page report nor its equally voluminous appendices.
That is a great pity because the Report and its appendices contain a wealth of information that does not support either specific allegations or the more general “blame Russia/Putin” meme beloved of the Murdoch press.
There is also a great deal that is not in the Report. This is partly because the scope of the Report did not include determining criminal culpability for the shoot down. That is to be determined, if possible, by a separate criminal investigation not due to report for several months.
Even then, it may not be able to establish a case that is prosecutable in a court. This is for the very good reason that a lot of the forensic evidence, as the Report makes clear, is contaminated and therefore likely to be inadmissible in accordance with normal principles of the admissibility of evidence.
Rather than being obstructive, as the Prime Minister alleges, Russia has been very helpful to the inquiry, as again the report makes clear. They released, for example, previously classified material relating to the design, construction and capabilities of the BUK missile to which the destruction of MH17 has been attributed by the report, although there are still some doubts about that conclusion.
Other relevant information released by the Russians has not been incorporated into the Report. This includes, for example, detailed radar and satellite data that was given in a public presentation by the Russian authorities on 21 July 2014. This was scarcely reported in the western media. It is hardly reasonable to suppress relevant information provided by a country and then accuse them at a later date of not being forthcoming.
Neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Minister have ever acknowledged that any Report was going to be necessarily circumscribed by the existence of the 8 August 2014 agreement. This agreement, signed by Australia, Belgium, Netherlands and Ukraine (and Malaysia in December 2014) provided that nothing would be in the Report that all the parties to the agreement did not consent to.
This gave any one party an effective veto. Given that the Ukraine is at least a prime suspect in the investigation, despite the willful refusal of our politicians to acknowledge this, that is an extraordinary situation.
The precise contents of that agreement remain suppressed and thus far resistant to FOI requests. Again, the politicians can hardly pretend that such an agreement does not exist and simultaneously proclaim that Russia is not being transparent. The mainstream media has also manifestly failed in its responsibilities in not giving the existence of this agreement the attention it deserves.
There has in fact been a significant suppression of highly relevant data, but it was not by the Russians. The Americans had a satellite overhead the location of the missile launch that led to MH17’s destruction. The Russians noted that fact in their 21 July 2014 presentation when they invited the Americans to release that data.
If you are not inclined to accept the Russian version, then you need look no further than John Kerry the US Secretary of State. On 20 July 2014 on NBC;’s “Meet the Press” Mr Kerry said:
“We picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.”
American technical capabilities in this area are well known. There is no reason to doubt Mr Kerry’s statement. Yet the Americans refused to release that satellite data to the Dutch Inquiry.
This is very important. The Inquiry was only able to limit the area of the missile launch to an area of some 320 square kilometers. Contrary to the plainly untrue assertion of the Foreign Minister that large area was partially controlled by the Kiev forces and partly by the separatists.
The American satellite data was capable of pinpointing the exact location to within a few square metres. This would probably have definitely resolved the question of who fired the missile. The identity of the perpetrators being known is probably the reason the data have not been released. The facts are being subsumed to the political imperative to demonize Russia and Mr Putin in particular.
It also has to be assumed that the Russians know precisely where the missile was fired. Their air defence systems rely in part in being able to quickly identify where a missile originates, its trajectory and type. Rather than releasing this data themselves it has instead been presented in two parts, leaving us to put the two together and draw the obvious inference.
The first part came from the Russian presentation of data on 21 July 2014 when they identified Ukrainian radar systems that were operative in the Donetsk region on 17 July 2014. These systems are an integral component of the successful firing of a BUK missile.
The second component came from the BUK missile manufacturer Almaz-Antey that conducted its own forensic tests and presented the results on the same day as the Dutch report was released. Almaz-Antey pinpointed the most probable missile launch site as being an area to the south of the village of Zaroschenskoe. That was an area controlled at the relevant time by the Ukrainian military.
There is one other area where the Australian government has been less than forthcoming. Autopsies were carried out on the Australian victims at the facility at Hilversum in the Netherlands. The head of the Australian team was Professor David Ranson. His eight-page autopsy report was given to the Victoria Law Institute and a summary of the findings was published in the December issue of the Institute’s Journal.
That summary suggested that none of the victims examined by Professor Ranson and his team had any injuries consistent with shrapnel wounds from a BUK missile. A BUK missile contains about 8000 metal pieces. If, as has been suggested, the missile exploded less than two metres from the left front cockpit area of the plane, then the basic laws of physics would suggest that at least some of the 8000 metal fragments would have been distributed throughout the front section of the plane and into the bodies of the victims located there.
The detailed autopsy evidence however, has been suppressed. The Victorian Coroner Judge Gray has met a formal request for its release with refusal. Those autopsy details are clearly relevant to a determination of exactly what happened to the plane and its passengers.
A failure to make all the relevant evidence available leaves the door ajar for some sections of the mainstream media to propound baseless allegations that owe more to a political agenda than they do to a determination of the truth.
Instead of making inflammatory statements, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister would better direct their energies to insisting that all the relevant evidence should be released.
Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 44 Location: Brisbane Australia
Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2015 2:46 am Post subject:
Thank you for reprinting this article. As its author I claim the right to due attribution and would appreciate your making this clear to readers.
It is also customary when reprinting an article in full, that the consent either of the author or the original place of publication, in this case Gumshoe News of Australia, is obtained first. As far as I am aware the publishers were not approached for consent, and neither was I.
As a matter of courtesy either or both of us should have been asked first.
By including the link, the post clearly does attribute the article. I think you'll find what is consider 'customary' in your world is no longer the case and your expectations are unrealistic. If you don't want your words of wisdom to be reproduced else where on the internet I suggest not using an outlet like gumshoenews that makes its content freely available. It is not as if there is any financial motivation in its reproduction and by reproducing it, your views reach a wider audience, which I would have thought would be welcome.
Australian investigation into MH17 crash says that Russia is not to blame as they continue to investigate the real cause
The official Australian investigation into the cause of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 have accused the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) of failing to provide “conclusive evidence” of what exactly destroyed the aircraft, and say that Russia did not shoot down the plane despite accusations to the contrary from DSB.
The senior Australian policeman investigating the MH17 crash, Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghue, testified in an international court recently saying that a “tougher standard than the DSB report” is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon that caused the crash.
Donoghue also testified that ten months after the crash, only half of the planes fuselage fragments were handed over for inspection and that “some fragments were not consistent with debris of the aircraft”.
Johnhelmer.net reports:
Their criminal investigation will continue into 2016, Donoghue told the Victorian Coroners Court (lead image) on Tuesday morning. He and other international investigators are unconvinced by reports from the US and Ukrainian governments, and by the DSB, of a Buk missile firing. “Dutch prosecutors require conclusive evidence on other types of missile,” Donoghue said, intimating that “initial information that the aircraft was shot down by a [Buk] surface to air missile” did not meet the Australian or international standard of evidence.
The Coroners Court in Melbourne is the first in the world to hold an inquest into the MH17 crash on July 17, 2014, and the cause of death of those on board. Iain West (right), the deputy state coroner presided, after the state coroner, Judge Ian Gray, withdrew at the last minute. The inquest opened for a single hour of hearing on Tuesday. A second hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, when West will announce his findings. In the UK, where an investigation into the death of 10 British nationals, is being supervised by Leicestershire coroner, Catherine Mason, all court proceedings have been suspended without a date being set for inquest. It was reported in the Melbourne court that British post-mortem experts participated in the Dutch investigations, alongside Australian, Dutch, and German teams, plus a joint Indonesian-Malaysian group.
In the Melbourne courtroom press reporters outnumbered representatives of the families of several of the victims. Of the 28 Australian citizens killed, 11 were from Victoria state; 10 were permanent residents of Australia; and 3 had close ties to Australia. A local newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch reported from the courtroom “the Kuala Lumpur-bound Malaysia Airlines flight… was hit by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile over eastern Ukraine”. In fact, Donoghue of the AFP said this was an unverified claim by the DSB for “a missile of a type previously provided to Ukraine.”
In court, in addition to members of the Coroner’s staff, there was one government intelligence agent who kept his official identification tag inside his coat, and refused to say whether he was an Australian or American national.
Donoghue was the lead witness. He continues to direct a team of 22 Australian police, forensic specialists and intelligent agents stationed in The Netherlands and Ukraine. He was followed by Dr David Ranson (right), a Victorian pathologist who led a team of 4; they worked at the Dutch military base at Hilversum in July and August of 2014, after the bodies of the MH17 victims were taken there for identification and forensic analysis. Donoghue said a full report by the AFP had been included in the coroner’s evidence. Ranson has filed two reports with the coroner – one of August 25, 2014, and one on December 16, 2014. So far the Coroner has classified these documents as secret.
Testifying on oath, Donoghue revealed for the first time that the Australian government had quietly negotiated two agreements to investigate the crash site in eastern Ukraine. The first, he said, was with the Ukrainian government in Kiev for security around the crash site. The second was with Novorussian leaders in order for the Australians to carry out their searches for victims’ bodies, personal property and other evidence, as well as to run a command post in Donetsk city. Political recognition by the Australians of the separatists has never been acknowledged before. Donoghue refused to say who signed the agreement for the Novorussians.
For the first time also, Donoghue acknowledged publicly that the international investigators had had “no ability to collect aircraft parts or other debris”. It was not until May 2015, he added, that forensic examination of the aircraft began.
DUTCH SAFETY BOARD TAMPERING WITH MH17 FUSELAGE EVIDENCE
DUTCH SAFETY BOARD TAMPERING WITH MH17 FUSELAGE EVIDENCE
The recovered aircraft wreckage was first photographed and registered in The Netherlands by the DSB. Image-1 shows the first DSB photograph, with a single hole visible. Image-2 shows that a new photograph published by DSB reveals a second hole. See here.
In his testimony Donoghue said that ten months after the crash, and after Kiev officials had handed over less than half the fuselage fragments to the Dutch, the discovery was made of “some fragments not consistent with debris of the aircraft”. Had he found shrapnel from an explosive device, missile or cannon? Donoghue refused to answer. The deaths of the passengers, he testified, had been caused by “inflight breakup [of the aircraft] and immediate decompression”, not by munitions. The lack of shrapnel as evidence of cause of death is analysed here.
Australian police calls for Ukrainian witnesses on the ground, who may have seen or heard what happened on the fateful day, were issued in March 2015, and then again in June. Some of those who came forward to testify refused to do so, Donoghue said Tuesday, unless the Australian and Dutch police protected them in “a safe location”; excluded Ukrainian government officials; and kept the identities of the witnesses secret.
Asked whether there had been any evidence of disrespect towards the victims’ bodies on the ground – as has been claimed in reporting by the Murdoch media — Donoghue testified: “there was no evidence of disrespect towards the bodies.”
Ranson, who is an associate professor of forensic pathology and deputy director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, told the court he and his team had spent two and half weeks studying the victims’ bodies at Hilversum. There, he confirmed, X-rays and CT scans were carried out and more than 700 autopsies. He testified that when the Australian victims’ bodies were repatriated to the morgue at the Coroners Court, another CT scan was taken of each body, and matched against the scan taken at Hilversum. Ranson’s reports ruling out the presence of shrapnel from a missile strike in any of the MH17 bodies have been kept secret to date.
On oath, Ranson told Coroner West the deaths of the passengers had been caused by the aircraft breaking up. He dismissed the possibility that an oxygen mask found on a body on the ground had been worn by the victim. There was no DNA evidence to support that, and little likelihood, Ranson said, that the high-speed airflow through the aircraft at decompression would have left oxygen masks on the victims, if they had time to put them on. Death came too fast, Ranson believes.
The court heard that the survivors of the crash victims have been regularly briefed and counselled by Australian Government officials. They have also been coached not to answer press questions, although one admitted his family had been allowed to meet lawyers. Three statements were given in evidence at the inquest by representatives of the victims. One from members of the Van Den Hende family — Shaliza Dewal, her husband Hans Van Den Hende and their three children Piers, 15, Marnix, 12, and daughter Margaux, 8, were killed – said media reports of the crash were unreliable and unconvincing: “we are unsure who or what to believe.” _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Important facts on the Boeing 777 MH17 crash in Ukraine
Thursday January 14, 2016 14:03 MSK / Rosaviatsia
Letter sent by Oleg Storchevoy, deputy head of Rosaviatsia, to Dutch Safety Board Chairman Tjibbe Joustra, the Russian experts “continued their research based on the additional data specified in the final report and as a result obtained some new important facts that had been not examined in the course of the investigation."
Mr. T.H.J. Joustra
Chairman, Dutch Safety Board
PO Box 95404 25 09 CK The Hague
Dear Mr. Joustra,
In September 2015, the Federal Air Transport Agency sent you a letter pointing out a number of contradictions and discrepancies in the investigation into the crash of Boeing 777-200 9M-MRD (Flight МН17) near Hrabove, Ukraine, on July 17, 2014. We have not received any reply to the above letter. The final report released on October 13, 2015, did not reflect many of the important facts that the Russian side had repeatedly drawn your attention to.
Follow us on: Follow ruaviation on Twitter
The Russian experts who had participated in the investigation continued their research based on the additional data specified in the final report and as a result obtained some new important facts that had been not examined in the course of the investigation.
Based on the provision stipulated by standard 5.13 of Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention, I herewith forward for your consideration and decision-making new important facts that need to be reflected in the final report.
The new important facts obtained by the Russian experts through additional experiments and examinations attest to the fact that the information provided in the final report with regards to the following conclusions was unsubstantiated and inaccurate:
on the possible presence of heavy air defense systems in eastern Ukraine that were not controlled by Ukrainian government forces;
that the aircraft was hit by a 9N314M high-explosive fragmentation warhead;
that the warhead that hit the aircraft was carried by a 9M38-series missile launched by a Buk surface-to-air missile system;
on the position of the missile in relation to the aircraft at the moment of detonation, as well as the area it was launched from.
We emphasize that all the statements in this letter are limited strictly to the conclusions drawn by the investigation team regarding the circumstances of the aircraft downing and analysis of Ukraine’s failure to close its airspace. This letter does not touch upon the recommendations on the safety of civil aircraft presented in the final report, as the Russian side intends to comment on them separately.
Attachment on 12 pages.
Yours sincerely
Oleg Storchevoy
Deputy Director,
Federal Air Transport Agency of Russia
Accredited Representative of the Russian Federation to
International Investigation Team on MH17 Crash
Attachment to the letter of the FATA
1. Grounds for closing Ukraine’s airspace prior to the crash of Boeing 777, Flight MH17
The final report reviews requirements contained in the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and its annexes germane to the provision of flight safety over areas that may pose a threat to civil aircraft (Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the final report).
The conclusion made in the report (Section 6.6.2 of the final report) that Ukraine, having sovereign control of its airspace, was responsible for ensuring the safety of flights, including situations where another state is the source of a threat, appears to be incomplete and does not reflect the objective fact that Ukraine ignored safety risks for civil aircraft after unleashing hostilities in the east of the country.
The final report names the accidents of an Antonov An-26 on July 14, 2015, and a Sukhoi Su-25 on July 16, 2015, as the only grounds based on which Ukraine should have fully closed its airspace, which is absolutely inadequate.
Standard 3.1.3 of Annex 17 to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, as well as ICAO Document 9554, require that states keep the level of threat to civil aviation within their territory under constant review.
Obviously, the Antonov An-26 and Sukhoi Su-25 accidents cannot be considered as the only grounds based on which the Ukrainian authorities should have made a decision to completely suspend civil flights over the conflict zone. The Ukrainian authorities should have made this decision back in April 2014, when hostilities broke out in eastern Ukraine after the Acting Ukrainian president signed Decree 405/2014 “On the Decision by Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council of April 13, 2014, ‘On Urgent Measures to Counter the Terrorist Threat and Preserve the Territorial Integrity of Ukraine,’” after which confrontation between Ukraine’s official authorities and opposition forces in eastern Ukraine escalated, creating a conflict zone unsafe for civil flights. After the Ukrainian president issued Decree 405/2014, both military and aviation authorities of Ukraine should have begun implementing coordinated measures to ensure the safety of civil flights over the conflict zone, as recommended by Section 2.15 of ICAO Document 9554.
In addition, while issuing a restriction for the use of airspace below FL260, and then FL320, the Ukrainian authorities failed to develop and publish special procedures for the instances described in ICAO Document 9554, Section 3.9, Subsection E (the last bullet): coordination in the event of civil aircraft emergencies or other unforeseen circumstances. Nevertheless, the final report does not address the question of whether Ukraine prepared appropriate ground infrastructure considering the risks of simultaneous operations by civil and military aircraft over the conflict zone. The report fails to mention that the Dnipropetrovsk ATC Center primary radar outage and the fact that the Ukrainian Air Defense monitoring systems were not integrated as a backup option created additional risks for flights over the conflict zone in the event of further outages of ground-based equipment or other unforeseen circumstances.
Besides, the statements by US and NATO officials presented in the final report (Section 5.4) are limited to speculations on whether Russian troops or the Russian Army’s weapons were present in Ukraine, which is not true.
The final report does not provide any facts regarding the presence or the use of Buk surface-to-air missiles in the region, but references to the Antonov An-26 and Sukhoi Su-25 accidents do not rule out such a possibility. Consequently, the conclusion made in the final report that the Ukrainian authorities should have closed their airspace undeservedly narrows down the time when they should have made this decision to July 14-17, 2014, and links it with the alleged appearance of “heavy” air defense systems, not controlled by Ukrainian government forces, in the region.
Also, the final report unfairly obscures the issue of liability, shifting the blame from Ukraine to airlines and international aviation organizations, e.g., ICAO. The final report basically ignores the clarification provided by ICAO in Letter AN13/4.2-14/59 on July 24, 2014, which clearly stresses in paragraph 6 that “the obligations of States under the Convention and the requirements in its annexes should not be confused with hazard notifications circulated in State letters by ICAO under those exceptional circumstances where potential risks to the safety of civil aviation operations are incapable of being effectively communicated by States, whether over sovereign territory or over the high seas.”
Sections 7.6.1, 7.6.2 and 7.6.3 of the final report point out the lack of reaction from ICAO and other states and airlines in terms of introducing their own restrictions on flights over Ukraine. Again, the report mentions the Antonov An-26 crash as grounds for making such a decision. But this accident was only reported by the Ukrainian President’s Executive Office in a closed briefing for Western diplomats (Section 5.7) and contained obvious discrepancies. (Information provided by the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD) in Section 5.2.2 of Appendix T of the final report also points out contradictions in official statements by the Ukrainian authorities.)
Throughout the whole period from the beginning of the armed conflict in April up to the MH17 crash in July 2014, the Ukrainian authorities failed to issue a single official NOTAM that would unambiguously, as required by international standards, indicate threats to the safety of international civil aircraft associated with the use of various weapon systems in the region as a consequence of the armed conflict.
The final report does not provide any facts indicating the deficiency of ICAO requirements or national documents of Ukraine which could explain Ukraine’s failure to make a timely decision to close its airspace over the conflict zone.
Thus, the Ukrainian authorities deliberately concealed or distorted information on real threats to the safety of civil flights arising from the military activities of Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense in abuse of Article 9 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, Annexes 15 and 19, as well as ICAO Document 9554. As a result, other states and airlines (including Malaysia Airlines) did not have sufficient official information for making a decision to suspend flights over Ukraine.
2. Conclusion that the aircraft was hit by a 9N314M warhead
Section 10.2 of the final report indicates that:
• the aircraft was struck by a large number of small fragments made of unalloyed steel moving at high velocity, their shape and size consistent with the 9N314M warhead (subsections 5, 6 and 10);
• the location, size and boundaries of the damage, as well as the density of hits on the wreckage, are consistent with the 9N314M warhead (subsections 6 and 10).
Thus, the conclusion that the aircraft was hit by a 9N314M warhead was based on the characteristics of the fragments and the damage on the aircraft wreckage.
2.1. Fragments
Section 2.16 (Fig. 37, Table 11) of the Factual Information part of the final report indicates that a total of two bow-tie shaped fragments consistent with the 9N314M warhead were found:
• Fragment 1: 14 × 14 × 4.5 millimeters, 6.1 grams, found in the cockpit;
• Fragment 2: 12 × 12 × 5 millimeters, 5.7 grams, found in the captain’s body.
Yet Section 2.12 of Annex X mentions only one fragment (14 × 14 × 4.5 mm) found in the cockpit (Fragment 1).
The data provided in the final report is inaccurate, because the actual mass of Fragment 1 is 5.5 grams, not 6.1 grams, as evidenced by the photos made by members of the international investigation team during the weighing of this fragment in February 2015 at the Gilze-Rijen air base. In addition, the final report does not specify where exactly the fragment was found in the cockpit.
The captain’s body from which Fragment 2 was extracted did not undergo special examination (instead, the body of the Team B captain, who was not present in the cockpit at the time of the accident, was examined).
The new important fact is that, even assuming the aircraft was brought down by a Buk surface-to-air missile, the description of fragments provided in the report does not match the pre-formed fragments used in the 9N314M warhead.
The final report does not take into account the mass of the bow-tie shaped fragments. Compared with standard bow-tie shaped fragments used in the 9N314M warhead, which weigh 8.1 grams and are 8.2 millimeters thick:
• Fragment 1 in reality lost 32 percent of its mass (or, based on the mass indicated in the report, 24.7 percent);
• Fragment 2 lost 29.6 percent of its mass;
• Relative transverse deformation (thickness reduction) of the fragments was over 60 percent.
The significant loss of mass in Fragment 1 cannot be explained by damage because the fragment does not appear greatly damaged (otherwise, it would lose its bow-tie shape).
Fragment 2 shows clear signs of damage, specifically in the transversal section (in relation to the front side). The diminished mass of this fragment can be explained by damage. However, the thickness of the fragment indicates significant deformation (over 60 percent), which is not consistent with its shape.
Russian experts have examined the effects of obstacle penetration on the shape and mass of bow-tie fragments of the 9N314M warhead by staging full-scale experiments and simulating transversal deformation of fragments.
In experiments with the 9N314M warhead, the average mass of bow-tie fragments that preserved their shape after penetrating several aluminum sheets (with a combined thickness of 12 mm) in one case and the cockpit of an Ilyushin Il-86 aircraft in the other case was 7.2-7.9 grams. The average loss of mass was merely 3-12 percent.
The simulation of transversal deformation revealed that the shape of a fragment with 60 percent transverse deformation is very different from the shape of the fragments presented in Section 2.16 (Fig. 37, Table 11) of the Factual Information part of the final report.
The results of these experiments and simulations are consistent with the results of validation tests of the 9N314M warhead, in which 96 percent of bow-tie fragments preserved their shape and lost only 6-7 percent of their mass after penetrating two 5-mm sheets of steel.
Thus, the mass and dimensions of the two fragments (Section 2.16, Fig. 37, Table 11 of the Factual Information part of the final report), based on which the report concludes that the aircraft was hit by a 9N314M warhead, are not consistent with the results of the full-scale experiments and simulations.
Section 2.16.2 and Table 12 of the Factual Information part of the final report provide data regarding the chemical composition of the fragments retrieved from the wreckage and the bodies of the victims.
Russian experts examined the chemical composition of the material used to manufacture pre-formed fragments of the 9N314M warhead and concluded that the chemical composition of the retrieved fragments as published in the final report does not agree with the conclusion that they belonged to a 9N314M warhead.
2.2. Damage to the aircraft wreckage
Section 2.12 of the Factual Information part and Section 3.5 of the Analysis part in the final report, as well as Section 2.13 of Appendix X, indicate the approximate number of penetration holes in the skin of the left-hand side of the cockpit (around 200) and the perpendicular dimensions of 31 penetration holes. No further examination of penetration holes on the aircraft wreckage was performed.
The final report and its appendices fail to provide any information on the shape of penetration holes, whether penetration holes are present in the skin of the right-hand side, or conclusions that can be drawn regarding the characteristics of the warhead based on the fragmentation spray pattern on the aircraft wreckage.
The new important fact is that, even assuming the aircraft was brought down by a Buk surface-to-air missile, penetration holes on the aircraft wreckage are not consistent with those normally created by the detonation of a 9N314M warhead.
Russian experts have performed a full-scale experiment with a 9N314M warhead emulating the engagement conditions presented in the final report. The experiment left a large number of bow-tie shaped holes in the skin of the test aircraft. The wreckage of Boeing 777-200 9M-MRD does not show any bow-tie shaped holes.
Also, unlike the damage observed on the Boeing 777-200 9M-MRD wreckage, in the experiment the windows on the captain’s side of the cockpit, as well as the stiffeners over the windows, were completely destroyed. There were also multiple penetration holes on the right-hand side of the cockpit (exit holes) as well and not just on the left-hand side.
The analysis of the fragmentation spray pattern on the aircraft wreckage by Russian experts shows that the total number of fragments and the specifications of the warhead that hit the aircraft (according to the DSB) do not match the specifications of the 9N314M warhead.
3. Conclusion that the warhead which hit the aircraft was carried by a 9M38-series missile launched by a Buk surface-to-air missile system
Section 10.2 of the Conclusions part of the final report indicates that:
• a number of larger fragments found on the ground and a few fragments found in the aircraft wreckage match parts of the 9M38-series missile in the Buk surface-to-air missile system (subsections 7 and 10);
• paint samples taken from the missile parts found in the wreckage area match those found on the foreign objects extracted from the aircraft (subsections 7 and 10);
• traces of the same explosive were found both on the missile parts and on the aircraft wreckage (subsections 7 and 10).
Thus, the conclusion that the aircraft was hit by a 9M38-series missile launched by a Buk surface-to-air missile system was made based on the appearance of missile fragments found on the ground and in the aircraft wreckage, paint samples and traces of explosive.
3.1 Missile fragments
At the meeting of authorized representatives in August 2015, the DSB presented photographs of five fragments found at the crash site and identified as fragments of a 9M38-series missile of the Buk surface-to-air missile system:
• a stabilizer fragment;
• a hatch fragment;
• an antenna fragment;
• a Section 3 encasing fragment;
• a nozzle fragment.
As can be judged by the photo, the Section 3 encasing fragment has no significant damage.
Section 2.12 of the Factual Information part in the final report mentions only three fragments (the Section 3 encasing fragment is not included).
The new important fact is that the appearance of the Section 3 encasing fragment found at the crash site does not match the appearance of fragments of the same encasing normally resulting from the detonation of a 9M38-series (9M38M1) missile.
Russian experts conducted a full-scale experiment with a 9N314M warhead as part of a 9M38M1-series missile, which has the same Section 3 encasing as 9M38-series missiles, emulating the engagement conditions presented in the report.
The test missile was fitted with a used engine; the parameters of all pyrotechnic components corresponded to those 40 seconds after the launch.
In the full-scale experiment, after the warhead detonated, Sections 3 and 4 of the missile disintegrated into large shapeless fragments, with the serial number of the missile still visible on the fragments.
Yet the fragment of Section 3 encasing, supposedly found in the Boeing 777 wreckage area, was only slightly damaged and was not deformed by the explosion. This indicates that, most likely, it was not part of the missile that brought down the aircraft.
3.2. Paint samples and traces of explosive
The fact that paint samples taken from the missile fragments found at the crash site and those from foreign objects found in the aircraft wreckage match does not necessarily mean that the aircraft was hit by a 9M38-series missile of the Buk surface-to-air missile system.
Forensic examination of paint is normally based on the chemical analysis of paint samples. Often, the objective is to establish whether certain pigments are present in the paint. However, due to the fact that the same chemical elements may be present in paints manufactured by different companies, the results of paint analysis can only be considered as indirect evidence corroborating other types of evidence.
The same applies to explosives. Practically all the explosives used in anti-aircraft weapon systems are a mixture of TNT and RDX in various proportions. Hence, the fact that traces of these explosives were found on the missile fragments and the aircraft wreckage does not mean that the aircraft was hit by a 9M38-series missile of the Buk surface-to-air missile system.
In identifying the missile that hit the aircraft, the report completely overlooks a unique attribute of Buk missiles, namely, the algorithm of their proximity fuse. The sections of the final report covering the simulation of the 9M38 missile trajectory (Section 3.8.6 of the Analysis part and Sections 6.19 and 6.20 of Annex X) do not offer any information on the analysis of the performance of the proximity fuse.
The new important fact is that, assuming that the aircraft was indeed brought down by a Buk surface-to-air missile, the engagement conditions as presented in the report do not agree with the algorithm of the proximity fuse used in 9M38-series missiles of the Buk surface-to-air missile system.
According to the data provided by the company that designed the Buk surface-to-air missile system, if a 9M38-series missile approaches an aircraft at the angle presented in the final report, the algorithm of its proximity fuse will detonate the warhead after a certain delay so that the detonation area is 3-5 meters away from the nose towards the tail, which does not agree with the actual data.
4. The position of the missile in relation to the aircraft at the moment of detonation
Sections 3.8.2 through 3.8.5 of the final report estimate the detonation point and orientation of the missile in relation to the aircraft at the moment of detonation. Section 3.8.2 of the final report indicates that the detonation area was determined using a simulation model of the damage boundary constructed by NLR for a pre-determined warhead rather than being identified by the traces of non-perforating ricochet hits.
Figure 61 of the final report shows the area where, according to the DSB, the warhead detonated. The area is less than one cubic meter and is located about 4 meters above the nose tip of the aircraft on the left side of the cockpit.
Table 20 of the final report gives the coordinates of the detonation area. The table distorts the data provided by JSC Concern Almaz-Antey: the coordinates (X, Y, Z) calculated by Russian specialists have been replaced with the coordinates suggested in the initial TNO calculations, which were included in the draft version of the final report circulated in June 2015 among investigation team members for their review in accordance with Annex 13 of the Chicago Convention.
The new important fact is that the location of the missile in relation to the aircraft at the moment of detonation as provided in the final report does not match the fragmentation spray area on the aircraft wreckage.
4.1. Corrections to the fragmentation spray area on the Boeing 777 aircraft
In examining the boundary and dimensions of the fragmentation spray area on the Boeing 777 aircraft in the final report, DSB experts overlooked the damage sustained by an important element of the left side of the aircraft (STA276.5 to STA309.5), even though experts were aware of the location and the appearance of this damage as early as February 2015. The draft version of the final report shows this element on page 140 (Figure 52 - Grid reconstruction of the outside skin of the forward fuselage. The overlaid outline indicates the approximate boundary of the piece prior to dismantling for transport to the Netherlands) as Item 2. The Russian side has copies of PowerPoint presentations with the photos of this fragment which were shown at the meeting of authorized representatives in February 2015.
The analysis of the damage to the top section of the fuselage shown on Fig. 15 of the final report ignored the actual location of this element in the aircraft. The location of this fragment was also shown in the draft version of the final report on page 140 (Figure 52) as Item 1.
Also, the final report does not even mention damage to the fragments of the left upper side of the cockpit (STA287.5 to STA358) which were handed over to Dutch experts after television channel RT aired its “MH17: A Year without Truth” documentary. These fragments were not added to the 3D reconstruction of the fuselage; damage sustained by them was either not examined, or the results of the examination were not added to the final report. The Russian side has photographs of this fragment.
Also, the final report does not contain analysis of the damage sustained by the Boeing 777 frame, specifically formers on the left side from STA172.5 to STA332.5, as well as the central and left side of the top of Section 41.
The actual boundary and dimensions of the fragmentation spray area, taking into account the above elements, have a fundamentally different configuration and in the middle and upper left side of the aircraft significantly exceed the damage area shown in Fig. 58 of the final report. At the same time, the damage area in the lower part of the left side of the aircraft (from STA276.5 on) is significantly less than shown in Fig. 58.
4.2. The missile warhead detonation area
Calculations by Russian experts show that, based on the location and dimensions of the fragment spray area on the aircraft wreckage as well as the orientation and location of grazing hits, the warhead detonation point was outside the aircraft, no more than 1.6 meters away from the captain’s window.
The accuracy of this conclusion was demonstrated at the meeting of authorized representatives at the 3D reconstruction site in August 2015. Yet the calculations of the detonation area by Russian experts were not included in Table 20.
4.3. Discrepancies in static and dynamic warhead simulations
In creating static and dynamic simulations of a 9N314M warhead detonation, NLR experts ignored the data provided by the company which designed the missile. Instead of using the data provided in the design and technical documentation of the 9N314M warhead and confirmed by the reports of state and validation tests, Dutch experts chose their own Design II as the best model (Table 18, Section 3.8.3 Warhead Simulation).
The speed and meridional angles of fragment fly-out in the Design II model do not match the technical specifications and test results of the 9N314M warhead of Buk missiles. Design II takes into consideration only 64 percent of the fragment spray area, ignores significant areas of pre-formed fragment fly-out (68-76° and 112-124°) as well as secondary fragments (fragments of missile section encasings).
A model like Design II can only be used to evaluate damage to typical tactical aerial targets for a specific set of parameters: distance to the target on the X, Y and Z axes and horizontal and vertical angles of engagement.
Such a model cannot be used to examine damage to a Boeing 777, let alone to calculate the engagement parameters. Discrepancies in the rear front of the fragment spray area simulated by Design I and Design II models (with areas of 12-15° left out) automatically generate significant errors in determining the missile trajectory on the horizontal plane, allowing a shift in the estimated warhead detonation area in order to make it appear consistent with one of the theories of how the aircraft was brought down.
5. The area from which the missile that hit the aircraft was launched
The sections of the report covering the calculations of the launch area for the missile that hit the aircraft (Section 3.8.6 of the Analysis part and Sections 6.19 and 6.20 of Appendix X) locate the launch site within an area of 320 square kilometers in eastern Ukraine.
The new important fact is that the location, dimensions and boundary of damage, the number and density of penetration holes on the wreckage and especially the nature of damage to the frame of the Boeing 777 aircraft are not consistent with the warhead detonation point and missile orientation as presented in the final report. As a result, the possible launch area was calculated incorrectly.
The engagement conditions (the detonation area and orientation of the missile in relation to the aircraft) indicated in the final report contradict the technical specifications of the proximity fuse used in Buk missiles. Under these conditions, the warhead detonation point could not be closer to the nose tip of the aircraft than 3 to 5 meters.
Russian experts simulated a number of engagement scenarios based on actual technical specifications of the warhead and proximity fuse used in Buk missiles and came to the conclusion that the damage observed on MH17 can only be explained if the missile was crossing the Boeing 777’s trajectory at an angle of at least 50-60° (in the horizontal plane). Otherwise, it is impossible to logically explain the actual fragment spray area and the nature of the damage to the frame of the aircraft by a Buk missile.
Based on the results of the full-scale experiment conducted by Almaz-Antey, if the aircraft was brought down by a Buk missile, it could only be launched from the area near Zaroshchenskoye. The possible launch area indicated in the final report was determined based on an erroneous interpretation of the engagement conditions.
Assuming the aircraft was indeed brought down by a Buk missile, the missile could not approach the plane at an angle of over 50° from any point within the area indicated in the final report (Fig. 62, Section 3.8.6).
Thus, the detonation point, the orientation of the missile and the possible launch area indicated in the final report contradict the specifications of 9M38 missiles and are not consistent with the actual damage to the front section of the Boeing 777 fuselage.
6. Conclusion
The new important facts, which render the information contained in the final report inaccurate, assuming that the aircraft was indeed brought down by a Buk missile, are as follows:
• The description of fragments in the report does not match that of pre-formed fragments in the 9N314M warhead;
• The description of penetration holes on the aircraft wreckage in the report does not match that of penetration holes caused by the detonation of a 9N314M warhead;
• The appearance of at least one missile fragment (Section 3 encasing) found at the crash site does not match the appearance of encasing fragments resulting from the detonation of a 9M38-series missile warhead;
• The engagement conditions do not agree with the algorithm of the proximity fuse used in 9M38 missiles of the Buk surface-to-air missile system;
• The position of the missile at the moment of detonation as described in the report does not match the fragment spray area on the wreckage;
• The conclusion regarding the area from which the guided surface-to-air missile that brought down the aircraft was launched does not match the technical specifications and operational principles of 9M38 missiles.
Also, there is no evidence that two Ukrainian military aircraft, an Antonov An-26 on July 14, 2015, and a Sukhoi Su-25 on July 16, 2015, crashed because they were brought down by “heavy” air defense systems. The Ukrainian authorities should have closed the airspace over the conflict zone back in April 2014, as soon as the conflict entered the active phase.
Official report said Boeing 777 was downed by Russian-made Buk missile
Evidence suggests witnesses saw the plane being shot down by fighter jet
Other new theory says attack was part of CIA-backed 'terrorist operation'
New evidence suggests that the downing of the Malaysian Airlines plane MH17 was caused by a shot from a Ukrainian fighter jet rather than a ground-to-air missile.
The damning allegations will be revealed in a BBC documentary which puts forward a number of theories as to why the aircraft exploded.
It is even argued that the tragedy was caused by a CIA-backed 'terrorist operation.'
New evidence suggests that the downing of the Malaysian Airlines plane MH17 was caused by a shot from a Ukranian fighter jet rather than a ground-to-air missile (file photo) +9
New evidence suggests that the downing of the Malaysian Airlines plane MH17 was caused by a shot from a Ukranian fighter jet rather than a ground-to-air missile (file photo)
The fresh allegations come as three Ukrainian soldiers were killed and six injured in an upsurge of fighting between pro-Russian rebels and government forces in the country's separatist east, today.
The Boeing 777 exploded over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014 and killed 298 people, as it headed towards Kuala Lumpur.
Although the official report states that the plane was hit by a Russian-made Buk missile fired from an area of the Ukraine that was under the control of Russian-backed rebels, the programme notes that people saw the aircraft being shot down by a fighter jet.
Speaking in the documentary, Natasha Beronina, said: 'It was summer, harvest time. We heard a bang.
'At first we thought we saw black smoke and two planes, little ones like silver toys. One flew straight on and the other one turned round when the bang happened and flew back from where it had come.'
Another witness even said that they saw a jet launch a missile before hearing a big boom.
The Sunday Express noted that German investigative journalist, Billy Six, interviewed 100 witnesses for the programme, seven of which said they saw a fighter jet.
The official report states that the plane was hit by a Russian-made Buk missile (pictured) fired from an area of the Ukraine that was under the control of Russian-backed rebels (file photo)
They believed that two jets were present and that one fired an air-to-air missile, while the other fired a canon from the back into MH17's cockpit.
However, this was something that was profusely denied by pilot, Captain Vladislav Voloshin, who was accused of being responsible.
In the interview, Voloshin said that there were no flights on that day and there were also no air-to-air missiles, as they were carrying air-to-surface missiles for ground targets.
Another extraordinary theory mentioned in the programme is that the aircraft was detonated in a CIA-backed 'terrorist operation', where two bombs were planted on the airliner.
The Boeing 777 was detonated over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014 and killed 298 people, as it headed towards Kuala Lumpur (file photo)
This allegation was put forward by private investigator, Sergey Sokolov, who claimed that the CIA were helped by the Ukrainian secret service and Dutch security service, to place the bombs on the plane in Holland.
He said: 'This terrorist act was a pretext for firstly intensifying sanctions on Russia, secondly to show the world that Russia is a barbarian country and thirdly to strengthen the presence of Nato in Europe, particularly Ukraine.'
Speaking after the death of three Ukrainian soldiers today, Military spokesman Oleksandr Motuzyanyk said: 'As a result of hostilities, three Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and another six wounded over the past 24 hours'.'
According to Motuzyanyk, the situation along the frontline 'had escalated again', accusing separatists of ramping up attacks against the Kiev military and using heavy weapons.
He said: 'The invaders are actively using mortars and armoured vehicles along the entire frontline.'
The damning allegations will be revealed in a BBC documentary and put forward a number of theories as to why the aircraft exploded (file photo) +9
The damning allegations will be revealed in a BBC documentary and put forward a number of theories as to why the aircraft exploded (file photo)
Another extraordinary theory mentioned in the programme is that the aircraft was detonated in a CIA-backed 'terrorist operation', where two bombs were planted on the airliner
The new casualties came after three Ukrainian soldiers were killed by pro-Russian rebels in a mortar attack earlier this week, in the deadliest attack in nearly two months, the Kiev military said.
A series of truce agreements have helped reduce the violence, although sporadic clashes continue and prevent the sides from reaching a firm political reconciliation deal.
Around 9,200 people have died and more than 21,000 been injured since the revolt against Ukraine's pro-Western leadership erupted in eastern Ukraine in April 2014.
Kiev and the West accuse Russia of supporting the insurgents and sending regular troops across the border, claims that Moscow denies.
Earlier this week, Ukraine's defence minister Stepan Poltorak warned it may take years to end a war that plunged Moscow's relations with the West to a post-Cold War low.
The documentary, Conspiracy Files: Who Shot Down MH17? Will be aired on BBC Two on May 3 at 9pm
READ MORE
MH17: Ukrainian fighter jet shot Malaysia Airlines plane, BBC documentary claims | World | News | Daily Express _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
