Malaysian Plane MH17 shot down with over 295 on board. But by who?

[Cidersomerset]

West Embarrassed By Russia in Syria, Now Blaming Russia for MH17 Disaster

By David Icke on 14th October 2015



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




West Embarrassed By Russia in Syria, Now Blaming Russia for MH17 Disaster

October 13, 2015 By Stuart Hooper 14 Comments

21st Century Wire says…

If you cannot see how obviously suspicious the timing of the release of this
report is, we have some ocean front property, at bargain basement prices,
with your name on it.

Watch a video of this report here:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=QZGBdktMJEo

‘Today, the Dutch Safety Board released a report blaming a ‘Russian-made
BUK missile’ as the cause of the destruction of MH17.However, they
begrudgingly admit that they cannot say who fired the missile.As we
mentioned above, the timing of the release of this report is more than suspicious…

Russia has just dramatically embarrassed the West in Syria, destroying 40%
of the terrorist infrastructure in just one week and causing a terrorist exodus.’


Read More...
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/10/1...mh17-disaster/

[Cidersomerset]

BUK manufacturer says Russian-made air defenses ‘absolutely’ not involved in MH17 crash

By David Icke on 16th October 2015



====================================================
====================================================

RT NEWS.....

BUK manufacturer says Russian-made air defenses ‘absolutely’ not involved in MH17 crash

Published time: 14 Oct, 2015 13:26
Edited time: 14 Oct, 2015 14:33



Journalists attend a news conference, organized by officials of Russian missile manufacturer
Almaz-Antey and dedicated to the results of its investigation into Malaysia Airlines flight
MH17 crash in eastern Ukraine, in Moscow, Russia, October 13, 2015. © Maxim Zmeyev

‘The damage caused by shrapnel to the aircraft involved in flight MH17 could not have been
caused by a modern Russian BUK missile, the manufacturers of the weapon Almaz-Antey have stated.

The manufacturer staged two real-life tests involving decommissioned aircrafts and BUK
anti-aircraft missiles to see whether missile complexes currently deployed by Russian troops
could have been involved in the downing of the Malaysian Airlines aircraft on July 17, 2014.

The experiments were carried out on July 31 and October 7 with the help of 9N314M BUK
missile warheads, which are currently deployed by the Russian military. The results of the
tests “decisively indicate” that an explosion from such a missile leaves a distinctive
“butterfly-shaped” puncture holes due to the shape of the shrapnel, Almaz-Antey, the
manufacturer of Buk air defense missile complexes, said.’

Read more: BUK manufacturer says Russian-made air defenses ‘absolutely’ not involved in MH17 crash

https://www.rt.com/news/318653-buk-m...dated-warhead/

[Cidersomerset]

The Richie Allen Show on Davidicke.com: Michael Rivero
on Western Media Attempts To Pin Flight MH17 On Russia

By David Icke on 17th October 2015

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CZdfF2WrzCo

Published on 14 Oct 2015
Please Support The Show – http://richieallenshow.com/donate/

[Sophocles]

Closing the BUK on MH17? Dutch final report is clearly biased

Joe Quinn
Sott.net
Fri, 23 Oct 2015 21:35 UTC

Like so much other propaganda that issues from the official Western channels in recent years, the 'official' story about what happened to MH17 has been presented to the public upside down, inside out and backwards.

Within a day of the crash, Western governments and their subservient press were screaming "Putin's missile!", without a shred of hard evidence to back up their hysterical claims. Yet with the recent release of the final report by Dutch authorities that pointed the finger at a "9N314M warhead as carried on a 9M38-series missile and launched by a Buk surface-to-air missile system" as the cause of the destruction of the plane, the response from the same Western powers and press has been shockingly muted.

The reason for this should be clear to all: the real goal behind the shoot down of MH17 was achieved in the immediate days and weeks after the crash.

Soon after Putin's immediate "trial by Western media", sanctions were imposed on Russia and the South Stream pipeline agreement between Russia and the EU was cancelled. These and other punitive anti-Russian measures benefited the USA in its long, ultimately futile, war aimed at preventing the emergence of a strong Russia onto the international stage. So, as some suggest about the 9/11 attacks, was the shooting down of MH17 by Ukrainian rebels a stupendously lucky break for Western warmongers in that it came at just the right time to add fuel to its ongoing anti-Russian propaganda campaign? Or is it possible that Western warmongers themselves were responsible for the shooting down of MH17?

Before you decide, there are a few things you should consider.

The Dutch authorities that conducted the investigation were, by default, biased in their approach. This bias stems from the scurrilous and unfounded accusations leveled at Putin in the immediate aftermath of the crash that established an emotionally-charged bogus narrative that a Buk missile must have brought the plane down. From there, the Dutch investigators proceeded to 'fix the facts around the policy' and attempted to show how the plane could have been brought down if a Buk missile was used. Their approach was similar to a police officer deciding that, since the victim was shot by a gun, it must have been a Colt 45.

Bow-tie fragments

Much of the report's 'evidence' to support the Buk missile theory rests on the shape of the fragments that were retrieved from the plane and the bodies of the captain and first officer. The report asserts that no less than 120 metal fragments were found in the body of the first officer with more than 800 puncture holes found in the available wreckage of the cockpit.

"Some" of these fragments allegedly had a "bow tie" shape that is characteristic of the war head on the 9M38M1 Buk missile. The report states that there are 8,000 fragments in a Buk warhead: 4,000 large square-shaped, 2,000 small square-shaped and 2,000 bow-tie shaped. So naturally, you'd expect to find a fairly consistent ratio of 2:1:1 of large squares, small squares and "bow ties". Below is an image from the report showing 4 fragments it claims were retrieved from MH17.


Dutch safety board: 'Crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17' report, page 89

While over 800 hundred metal fragments were retrieved from the bodies of the pilots, passengers, the cockpit and the fuselage, and the report states that "some" were bow-tie shaped, only 20 were specifically used for the report, and of those 20, only two were "bow-tie shaped". This raises the question of why, in attempting to prove that a Buk missile was used, the report did not specify exactly how many incriminating bow-tie-shaped fragments were found and why, in particular, only 2 of the 20 fragments chosen for specific analysis and inclusion in the report, were actually bow-tie shaped.

But the main problem with the claim of "bow-tie" shaped fragments was highlighted by Russia's national aviation regulator, Rossaviation, during an October 14th press conference, when its deputy chief said: "There is not a single hole in the plane's remains that shows a bow-tie pattern". The point being, how did a few bow-tie-shaped metal fragments get into the bodies of the flight crew without leaving bow-tie-shaped holes in the fuselage? When asked by a Spanish news agency if it was their official position that Dutch investigators contaminated evidence, RossAviation responded: "Absolutely yes. We have proof."

It's important to note here that RossAviation does not even accept that a Buk missile of any variety was used. Their statements in response to the Dutch report were simply intended to contest the findings based on investigators' singular focus on a Buk missile being responsible. The deputy head of RossAviation, Oleg Storchevoy, has stated that their investigation into what really happened to MH17 are continuing.

Also, the Russian manufacturer of the Buk missile system, Almaz-Antey, conducted their own investigations and released their report the day before the DSB released their own final report. They, too, noted the absence of any bow-tie-shaped holes in the wreckage, concluding that the warhead could not have been an 9N314M. Rather, if it was a Buk, it would have to be a B9N314, which does not include bow-tie shrapnel, and which is only used on older-model 9M38 missiles - no longer in use by the Russian military. The Ukrainian military, on the other hand, still uses this older variant. (Though they claim to have sold their stockpile to Georgia.)

And as for those 2 or 3 bow-tie-shaped fragments that are so crucial to the report, it looks like the source of the fragments themselves is a classified military secret of the Dutch Ministry of Defence.

The image below from page 140 of the report models the damage pattern to MH17 from a missile similar to a Buk 9M38M1:



It shows that the missile that targeted MH17 did so with almost "pinpoint" accuracy in that the full destructive power of the warhead was unleashed on the cockpit and the cockpit crew only. It seems reasonable to conclude therefore that those who fired the missile did so with the deliberate intention of instantly killing the pilots and severing the cockpit from the rest of the plane (which is what happened moments after the missile detonated, according to the report). This fact is clearly at odds with the narrative of both the report and even those in Western nations who have accused East Ukrainian rebels of being responsible for the shoot down. There has never been any suggestion, from any quarter, that the rebels intentionally shot down MH17. In fact, how exactly a team operating a Buk missile system, that can easily distinguish commercial aircraft from military, could have "accidentally" shot down MH17 has never been explained.


The detonation point of the missile suggests deliberate intent to immediately kill the cockpit crew

Page 166 of the report concludes:

"The numerous injuries resulting from the perforation of the pre-formed fragments after detonation of the warhead immediately killed the three crew members in the cockpit.

There were no pre-formed fragments found in the bodies of the other occupants. As a result of the impact, they were exposed to extreme and many different interacting factors: abrupt deceleration and acceleration, decompression and associated mist formation, decrease in oxygen level, extreme cold, strong airflow, the aeroplane's very rapid descent and objects flying around.

As a result, some occupants suffered serious injuries that were probably fatal. In others, the exposures led to reduced awareness of unconsciousness within a very shirt time. It was not possible to ascertain at which moment the occupants died. The impact on the ground was not survivable."

Further evidence of the highly speculative nature of the evidence presented by the report is seen in the section that deals with the parts of the body of the alleged Buk missile that were found in Ukraine. On page 80 of the report, images of these parts alongside images of the body of a Buk missile are shown. One of the parts is described as a "missile engine nozzle" that was "found in Ukraine". See below:



The problem with the cone shaped nozzle as 'evidence' that a Buk missile was used is that there are no distinguishing marks on this nozzle, and virtually every missile of similar size to a Buk 9M38M1, including many air-to-air missiles, uses a similar cone-shaped nozzle. As for the "fin" and the "data cable"; correct me if I'm wrong, but most other missiles are composed of such parts, not to mention cars, houses...etc.

In its conclusion on the cause of the in-flight breakup of the MH17, the report states that it was "not caused by an external event such as a lightning strike, the impact of a meteor or the re-entry of space debris". The report also dismissed, in a qualified way, the possibility that a bomb on board may have detonated:

"While the breakup sequence of the fuselage had some similarities with the failure and break up sequences noted in accidents such as those at Lockerbie in 1988, this accident differed in that the perforation was from the outside. An explosive device inside the pressure hull would not produce the damage patterns found in the wreckage".

The problem here is that the "damage patterns found in the wreckage" do not exclude a bomb detonating on board the plane. Indeed, the report itself states that after the separation of the cockpit, the rest of the fuselage essentially broke in two. Exactly when and why this happened is "unknown" because "no radar fixes or eyewitness statements on the moment of the in-flight break up were available". The report's authors were apparently not interested in the eyewitness statements that do exist and which tell a different story. For example:

Aleksandr, another local who witnessed the plane falling from the sky, was watching TV but when he heard "a roar and two explosions." He went out to see what was going on.

"[I] saw a spinning plane without a wing with something falling out of it. The plane was shot down," he told RT. "There were explosions in the sky. And apart from the loud sounds of the plane itself, I heard the buzz which fighter jets make."

Again, the Dutch authorities appear to have had a pre-formed belief about what the cause of the crash was and sought to make the data fit that belief. In addition, this "final report" is really only a partial report, because approximately 40% of the fuselage was "not recovered".


Dutch safety board: 'Crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17' report, page 55

But perhaps the most glaring problem with the Dutch report concerns the use (or lack thereof) of satellite data as part of the investigation. Weather satellite information was used in the report to determine weather conditions on the day of the crash. Voice and data transmission satellite data was used to determine the last communications to and from MH17. Radar data was used to determine the last known position of the plane and imagining satellites were used to determine that some of the wreckage had been "disturbed" on the day of the crash and the day after. What is strange, however, is that arguably the most important alleged satellite data was not even mentioned, let alone used, by Dutch authorities.

Three days after the crash, on July 20, 2014, John Kerry announced on NBC's Meet the Press that the US State Deptartment "knew to a certainty that within hours of the event, this particular system [Buk SA11] passed through two towns right in the vicinity of the shoot down. We know because we observed it by imagery, that at the moment of the shoot down, we detected a [missile] launch from that area and our trajectory shows that it went to the aircraft".

Kerry made it very clear that the US government had conclusive and damning evidence about the origin of the missile he claims shot down MH17, yet the final report is extremely ambivalent about the source of the alleged Buk missile, concluding that it is not possible to say from where exactly the missile was fired - 'rebel' territory or the territory held by the Ukrainian military. That didn't stop DSB inquiry chairman Tjibbe Joustra from allegedly telling Dutch journalists that the Buk was launched from rebel-controlled territory. But again, Almaz-Antey concluded that the missile could not have been launched from that location - the blast pattern on the plane would have been different. But still, I really want to know where John Kerry's "imagery" of the shoot down is.

In early August last year, Malaysian aviation experts told the Malaysian Straits Times newspaper that MH17 could have been brought down by an air-to-air missile and a cannon of the Su-25 fighter that had been "shadowing it". The suggestion that a Su-25 was involved was first made by Russian military authorities a few days after the crash when they revealed that their radar had detected the presence of a fighter jet in the vicinity of MH17 immediately after it was shot down. The reason the jet was not detected before this moment was because Russian radars were configured to monitor airborne objects in that area that were flying above a certain height. As the jet increased altitude it became visible. This information was reportedly provided to the Dutch authorities but was omitted from the final report.

Given the inherent bias in the Dutch report, which leaves open the possibility that the evidence was falsified to support a pre-formed policy of incriminating Russia; the evidence that the cockpit was specifically targeted to kill the flight crew; the unexplained breaking in half of the fuselage; the almost total lack of 'bow tie'-shaped fragments indicative of a Buk missile; and the clear motive of Western powers, including Dutch authorities, to defame Russia on the international stage in the service of (primarily) Washington's hysterical drive to thwart Russian economic expansion, I submit that, in the context of understanding the truth of what happened to MH17, the Dutch 'final report' isn't worth the paper on which it was written.

Source

[Hervé]

First Coroner’s Court Inquest on Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crash: Australian Police, Dutch Prosecutors Break with Dutch Safety Board

By John Helmer Global Research, December 16, 2015
John Helmer 15 December 2015

The Australian Federal Police and Dutch police and prosecutors investigating the cause of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 believe the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) has failed to provide “conclusive evidence” of what type of munition destroyed the aircraft, causing the deaths of 283 passengers and 15 crew on board.

Testifying for the first time in an international court, Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghoe, the senior Australian policeman in the international MH17 investigation, said a “tougher standard than the DSB report” is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon which brought the aircraft down, or pinpoint the perpetrators. Their criminal investigation will continue into 2016, Donoghoe 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,” Donoghoe 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, Donoghoe 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.

Donoghoe (below, left) 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. Donoghoe 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. For details, read this.

Testifying on oath, Donoghoe 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. Donoghoe refused to say who signed the agreement for the Novorussians.

For the first time also, Donoghoe 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

CLICK TO ENLARGE

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 Donoghoe 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? Donoghoe 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, Donoghoe 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 — Donoghoe 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.”

The original source of this article is John Helmer
Copyright © John Helmer, John Helmer, 2015

[Hervé]

Final MH17 crash report ‘unsubstantiated, inaccurate,’ new Russian probe says

Published time: 14 Jan, 2016 08:21
Edited time: 14 Jan, 2016 11:14

The reconstructed airplane serves as a backdrop during the presentation of the final report into the crash of July 2014 of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine, in Gilze Rijen, the Netherlands, October 13, 2015. © Michael Kooren / Reuters

Some of the key conclusions of the Dutch Safety Board’s final report on the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crash were ‘unsubstantiated and inaccurate,’ Russia’s aviation agency said in a letter to its counterpart in the Netherlands, citing new research.

Since the final report, released on October 13, 2015, did not reflect many important facts mentioned by the Russian side, the country’s experts continued their investigation into the reasons for the crash, Oleg Storchevoy, deputy head of Rosaviatsiya, wrote in a letter addressed to leadership of the Dutch Safety Board (DSB).

The Dutch side confirmed on Thursday receiving Storchevoy’s letter and said they would study it and reply as soon as possible.

Flight MH17 crashed in the war-torn Donetsk Region in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, killing all 298 passengers and crew on board.

According to the DSB’s findings, the Boeing 777 was shot down by a Russian-made Buk missile with a 9N314M warhead. However, the Dutch experts were unable to determine which side in the conflict – the Ukrainian government forces or the rebels – was responsible for firing the missile.

BUK manufacturer says Russian-made air defenses ‘absolutely’ not involved in #MH17 crash http://on.rt.com/6tvh

In the letter, the Rosaviatsiya official stresses that the final DSB report “unfairly obscures the issue of liability” for ensuring flight safety over the war-zone in Donbass, “shifting the blame from Ukraine to airlines and international aviation organizations, e.g. the ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization].”

Kiev should have closed the airspace in the area as soon hostilities broke out between government forces and the rebels in eastern Ukraine in April 2014, the letter says.

The DSB report provides no explanation for Ukraine’s failure to close the airspace over the conflict zone, it adds.

“Thus, the Ukrainian authorities deliberately concealed or distorted information on real threats to the safety of civil flights arising from the military activities… 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,” Storchevoy writes.

“The statements by US and NATO officials presented in the final report are limited to speculations on whether Russian troops or the Russian Army’s weapons were present in Ukraine,” the letter said, adding that those claims were “not true.”

RT Verified account ‏@RT_com

‘It remains our belief’: US insists rebels downed MH17 with BUK missile, ignores Dutch report http://on.rt.com/6tud

According to the letter, the Dutch report provides no facts proving “the presence or the use of Buk surface-to-air missiles in the region,” only saying that the downing of an An-26 and Su-25 in the area shortly before the MH17 tragedy does not rule out such a possibility.

“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 strike elements used in the 9N314M warhead,” Storchevoy stresses.

In the DSB’s final report, the shape of the fragments is examined separately from their mass. However, Russian tests revealed that the chemical composition of the shards does not match that of a 9N314M warhead.

Storchevoy also pointed out that the “penetration holes on the aircraft wreckage are not consistent with those normally created by the detonation of a 9N314M warhead.”

In addition, the final report did not mention several fragments of the alleged Buk missile found on the Malaysian plane’s crash site that had been shown by the Dutch experts to their Russian colleagues.

One of them – the Section 3 encasing – “does not match the appearance of fragments of the same encasing normally resulting from the detonation of a 9M38-series (9M38M1) missile,” the letter stressed.

RT Verified account ‏@RT_com
8 things we learned through Dutch report, BUK arms maker on #MH17 crash in Ukraine http://on.rt.com/6tts

During a full-scale experiment conducted by the Russian side, the missile “disintegrated into large shapeless fragments,” while the fragments from the MH17 crash site were “only slightly damaged… not deformed,” it added.

Another important point, according to Storchevoy, 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.”

The possible launch area of the missile, which allegedly hit the MH17 was also “calculated incorrectly,” he stressed.

“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,” the letter explained.

RT Verified account ‏@RT_com

Dutch cop arrested on suspicion of selling #MH17 crash items online http://on.rt.com/6y1n

The Dutch investigators said the missile came from somewhere within a 320 square kilometer area within eastern Ukraine, which would mean it couldn’t establish the side of the conflict which had controlled that launch site.

However, a comprehensive experiment conducted by Russian arms producer Almaz-Antey demonstrated that the aircraft could only have been hit by a Buk missile if it had come from the village of Zaroshchenskoye, Storchevoy said.

The letter concludes that the Dutch report is inaccurate and flawed in its reasoning. The evidence the Dutch side cites matches neither the 9N314M warhead, which they believe had caused the crash of MH17, nor any of the 9M38 series of BUK missiles, which the Dutch believe delivered the warhead.

The scenario of how the missile approached its target does not match the fragment spray area of the wreckage, it added.

It also stressed Ukraine’s responsibility to close its airspace to civilian aviation in the area of hostilities in the east of the country, which it failed to observe, and challenged the Dutch report’s assessment that two Ukrainian military aircraft downed before MH17 may have been destroyed by heavy anti-aircraft weapons.

[Hervé]

Storchevoy's Letter to Dutch Safety Board Regarding MH17

Fort Russ - 14th January, 2016

*Oleg Storchevoy is the Deputy head of the Russian federal air transport agency Rosaviatsiya*

See full letter at: http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2016/01/...ch-safety.html

[Hervé]

Moscow shared MH17 radar images, Dutch probe ignored evidence, Russia tells victims’ relatives

RT
Published time: 9 Feb, 2016 11:33
Edited time: 9 Feb, 2016 11:37

Wreckage of the MH17 airplane is seen after the presentation of the final report into the crash of July 2014 of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine in Gilze Rijen, the Netherlands, October 13, 2015. © Michael Kooren / Reuters

Moscow provided the Netherlands with radar and other data on the MH17 crash but it has all been ignored, a Russian aviation official said, responding to the relatives of Dutch victims who recently wrote to President Vladimir Putin.

Oleg Storchevoy, the deputy head of Rosaviatsia, the agency representing Russia in the Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crash investigation, has personally addressed the relatives of the victims in a lengthy letter.

READ IN FULL: Official letter on MH17 investigation by top Russian aviation official Oleg Storchevoy

"I would like to emphasize that Russia is strongly committed to establishing the actual cause of the crash, and has consistently done everything in its power to help find out the truth, both throughout the course of the technical investigation and following its official completion," he said.

Desperate for answers that would shed the light on who fired the BUK missile that allegedly hit the passenger plane on July 17, 2014, and dissatisfied with the slow-moving Dutch probe, the relatives have turned to the heads of several states, including Russia’s. On January 22, they sent a letter to Putin, asking about the primary data from radars and satellites, which they think is crucial.

"We did not impose any conditions or restrictions regarding further use and disclosure of radar data, records of phone conversations and other data we submitted to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) at its request. Moreover, Russia has stored all that data to this day, and is willing to provide it once again to the relevant authorities," said Storchevoy.

In mid-January, the relatives wrote to Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, demanding a global campaign to obtain radar images that could help identify those responsible for the death of their loved ones.

“We can’t accept that people have refused to provide crucial information,” they wrote.

‘Only radar data available is Russia’s’

While the Russian authorities were not involved in controlling the fatal flight, they still soon became de-facto participants of the investigation due to the unique information obtained from radars in Rostov-on-Don, a Russian city not far from the Ukrainian border.

"I would like to stress that Russia disclosed all of its available satellite data in the days immediately following the crash," said Storchevoy.

Rosaviatsia’s deputy head stressed that the Russian radar data was the only such data available to the Dutch investigators, as it appeared that Ukraine’s radar stations “for unknown reasons” were not functioning on July 17. Neither did Ukrainian authorities have any backup system to maintain flight safety in the military zone.


Dutch report ignored Russia’s data
Having provided the radar data and phone records requested by the Dutch, Russia has never prohibited the Netherlands from either sharing with other states or publishing the information generally, Storchevoy said.

However, this evidence appears not to have been reflected in the Dutch Safety Board’s (DSB) final report, released in October.

Russia is still ready to provide the same data, which it collects in video files in accordance with domestic regulations, to any authorized parties.

Moscow has also published the satellite images from July 2014 that showed Ukrainian BUK missile systems maneuvering in the conflict zone close to the site of the crash. It had handed the same images over to the DSB. However, this evidence has been ignored as well.

"This data confirms, among other things, that there was movement and increased activity by Ukrainian Buk surface-to-air missile systems observed within the conflict area in Eastern Ukraine one day ahead of the tragedy," Storchevoy mentioned.

"Russia shared that information with the Dutch Safety Board, but once its final report was released, it turned out the DSB had chosen not to consider Russian satellite data or even include them in the report," he added.

Netherlands drags out probe, delays final report
Speaking of Russia’s efforts, the Rosaviatsia officials accused the DSB of leaving a number of important questions unanswered, of distorting the facts and of deliberately carrying out the probe at a sluggish pace.

Storchevoy has called on Ukraine and the US to provide the information they have. He said Washington “must” share satellite images that it claims it has, while Kiev should either share its radar data or prove that it doesn’t have it.

"As far as the quality of the technical inquiry is concerned, I must point out that, in a totally inexplicable fashion, its final report leaves the most important question unanswered: How far is Ukraine responsible for failing to close its airspace? The report is extremely vague regarding the responsibility of the government in Kiev," Storchevoy said.

Russia extremely interested in truth
In his address to the relatives of Dutch victims, Storchevoy has stressed Russia’s commitment to uncover the truth. Even after the end of the official probe, he said, Moscow is still going out of its way to find answers to major questions.

Moscow provided data from all of its radars that recorded the MH17 flight to the Dutch Safety Board in August 2014, shortly after the catastrophe, Storchevoy said.

Aside from that, Almaz-Antey, the manufacturers of the 9N314M BUK missile that the investigation said downed the plane, have staged two real-life tests. They involved decommissioned aircraft and BUK anti-aircraft missiles to verify whether missile systems currently deployed by Russian troops could have been involved in the downing of the Malaysian Airlines aircraft.

However, the results of these tests have also been ignored, as has Russia’s invitation to the Dutch investigators to participate.

Storchevoy has urged the relatives of the MH17 victims to not give up on their efforts to dig out the truth and to demand maximum transparency from both Dutch authorities and their partners in the probe.

"Russia has repeatedly pointed out that the Dutch technical investigation was performed in an extremely nontransparent and biased manner. We support you in your efforts to get answers to the numerous questions that remain unanswered," he said.

The Netherlands is finalizing its second, criminal investigation into the MH17 incident, which is likely to point fingers at specific suspects. The crash killed nearly 300 passengers and crew members on July 17, 2014 in the Donetsk Region of Eastern Ukraine. A majority of those killed in the crash were Dutch citizens.

Rather than pointing fingers, Storchevoy says it would be better for the DSB to answer questions regarding why the investigation took so long and why they hid certain pieces of information.

"The Dutch authorities should explain why they distorted facts and concealed data, and why they ignored important data provided by Russia. The DSB should explain why its final report distorted data about missile fragments and places where they were found, why it failed to thoroughly examine penetration holes on the aircraft, why it mismanaged the aircraft debris, why it misrepresented the probable location from which the missile was launched, and many other discrepancies in the final report," Storchevoy concluded.


Related:
Russian evidence on MH17 crash ignored – Peskov
BUK manufacturer says Russian-made air defenses ‘absolutely’ not involved in MH17 crash
4 questions for Dutch probe into MH17 crash

[Cidersomerset]

MH17 downing: Dutch lawmakers raise questions on probe, slam secrecy

By David on 3rd March 2016

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=p-r0FYL9T-E

Published on 2 Mar 2016
Pressing issues have been raised during a Parliamentary debate in the Netherlands, with
lawmakers questioning the investigation into the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17.

RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air

[mgray]

It would not surprise me in the least if the Malaysian Air crash and the Goldman Sachs scandal I have written about were not connected in some way.

I have looked at the manifest many times, but do not know enough about Malaysian government officials to draw a conclusive connection.

[Hervé]

Dutch MPs slam secrecy, question lack of evidence in MH17 investigation

Published time: 3 Mar, 2016 02:34
Edited time: 3 Mar, 2016 12:07
Get short URL

© Marko Djurica / Reuters

Dutch lawmakers have questioned the course of the investigation into the MH17 crash in Ukraine, highlighting innuendos in the Dutch Safety Board report, and lack of raw data despite US claims of picking up “imagery” as the jet disappeared from radars.

Dutch MPs have held a parliamentary debate on the investigation into the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014 that killed all 298 on board, most of them citizens of the Netherlands.

In particular, the Tuesday discussion focused on the final report into the causes of the incident issued by the Dutch Safety Board last October, and the recent chief prosecutor’s letter which revealed the investigation has no raw radar data, useful footage or satellite images of the missile launch.

During the debate, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s government insisted that there was already enough information for a criminal investigation into the crash, while Dutch opposition lawmakers questioned innuendos and a lack of firm evidence.

Among the questions raised by Dutch MPs was an issue concerning raw radar data and satellite imagery that the United States claimed to have in its possession and which it called strong evidence.

“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,”

said US Secretary of State John Kerry in an interview with David Gregory of NBC's Meet the Press in July 2014.

The reason why Dutch investigators apparently haven’t seen that data was questioned during the parliamentary debate: “So our question is, why has [it] not been asked what information they had because Kerry literally says: we saw it “disappear from the radar” screens,” said Pieter Omtzigt of the of the Christian Democratic Appeal.

The Dutch Minister of Security and Justice Ard van der Steur in response argued that the Safety Board on one hand “stated in their report that they themselves did not ask for this data” while on the other the investigators “were given insight into the information distributed to the [?] by the Americans via the Military Intelligence Services.”

Meanwhile, Washington officials have failed to clarify to what extent alleged US intelligence was shared with the investigation.

“I believe we have collaborated with the Dutch in their investigation,” State Department spokesperson Mark Toner told RT’s Gayane Chichakyan. “I just don’t know to what level we shared information with them, I’d have to look into that.”

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=p-r0FYL9T-E

The evidence provided by Ukraine has also raised questions during the debate, in particular the lack of raw radar data, which was unavailable because the military radar was allegedly switched off and the primary civil radar was allegedly on maintenance, according to Kiev’s claims.

“We know that a part of the information we received from Ukraine is incorrect,” Omtzigt said, referring to Kiev’s conflicting statements and noting that secrecy over the evidence used in the investigation complicates the issue even further.

Meanwhile, Henricus van Bommel of the Socialist Party wondered how can it be possible that “Ukraine did not notify the European Air Traffic Organization ‘EuroControl’ about the fact that the radars were switched off, while this should have been done. How do you react to this?”

Van Bommel also called it “weird” that in contradiction to Washington’s claims of having the imagery of the missile launch, the Public Prosecution Service now admits that no “useful” data exists as the day the MH17 was shot down was “cloudy.”

The Russian side has provided the Dutch Safety Board with all available primary radar data tracing Flight MH17 right after the tragedy, as early as August 2014, according to the Deputy Head of the Federal Air Transport Agency, Oleg Storchevoy. Moreover the data is stored to this day, and can be provided once again to the relevant authorities if necessary.

However, it remains unclear if the investigators had indeed received “all cooperation and documents needed” for a conclusive probe, Omtzigt added.

“Through the primary rough radar-data a rocket [launch] is very likely to be detected,” Omtzigt said.

“And what is the case? This is the only, the only plane disaster in Europe in the last ten years, where this data is not available to the researchers.”

“Did these strange events lead to an insight of the ministry that not everyone involved was cooperating?” Omtzigt wondered. “Did these countries [the US, Ukraine and Russia] oblige to the UN resolution 2166… did these three countries oblige regarding this radar data?”

Among the topics up for debate was Kiev’s failure to close its airspace for civilian aircraft, and the fact that the Dutch government concealed for six months that it was briefed by Kiev about insecurity of the airspace above eastern Ukraine ahead of MH17 crash, according to the Dutch MPs.

“The [Dutch] government was privy to the information given to diplomats at the Kiev briefing,” said Raymond de Roon of the Party for Freedom. “At the day of the briefing the government knew – the government agencies knew – the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense knew that planes were shot down above the Ukraine, above a certain altitude.”

“All of this was known, none of it shared with the airlines. This is what should have happened. Can the prime minister vow that this information from here on in will be shared?” he wondered.

Parliamentarians also believe that the investigation into the MH17 disaster is taking too long as 19 months have passed since the crash.

Some families of the MH17 victims have been trying to take legal action against Ukraine by suing the country and its president for manslaughter by negligence, as it was Kiev’s obligation to close the airspace at the time. Elmar Giemulla, aviation law professor, who is representing several families of the victims told RT that they have filed a lawsuit, however received no clear response from Ukrainian authorities.

“We had filed our lawsuits more than one year ago and we never received response from the court except from the acknowledgment of receipt. We know definitely that our lawsuit arrived at the court but for the time being we have been left completely in darkness by the court,” he said.

“We don’t know if the Ukrainian defendant had received a copy of our lawsuit. We do not know whether the Ukrainian side has responded to our allegations, claims. And we do not know what the court has in mind or whether the court will be treating this lawsuit …”

Any criminal investigation “revolves around evidence” but ultimately, Ukraine is responsible for the safety of its airspace, international lawyer Thomas Sima told RT, reiterating one of the Dutch Safety Board’s conclusions.

“At all levels it sounds though the evidence has been blocked,” Sima said. “From what I understand the Ukraine has not released key radar information… so if evidence is sealed and you are not allowed to see it and other evidence is being withheld, it is going to be hard to make a case and prove it.”

In the meantime the United States may indeed be “rather loathed” to release its intelligence, because raw data might reveal some of the military secrets, Julian Bray, aviation security and airline operation expert told RT.

“There are 101 different reasons why they won’t hand it over, but they have actually opened the door, because they say they have irrefutable proof,” Bray said. “Now, if they have the proof somehow they’re going to need to release it.”


Related:
Dutch investigators say no sat images of MH17 crash exist, enquiry could last years
Moscow shared MH17 radar images, Dutch probe ignored evidence, Russia tells victims’ relatives

[Ron Mauer Sr]

The only reason for not sharing accurate data is to prevent disclosure of a false flag event.

[Cidersomerset]

MH17 investigation needs more transparency – Dutch MP ahead of update report for relatives

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GbGyL5nb51g

Published on 7 Mar 2016


Criminal investigation that's due to assign responsibility for MH17's downing is still ongoing
- it's being carried out by a joint international team of experts.

To discuss that further, we are joined LIVE now by Dutch lawmaker Harry van Bommel,
from the Socialist party.

[Hervé]

Zakharova Comments on Bellingcat's Publications on Alleged Russian Involvement in MH17 Incident

Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ
11th March, 2016

RT

The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, has commented on the falsified evidence presented by British organization Bellingcat, on the alleged involvement of the Russian authorities in the crash of flight MH17.

"It puzzles the Russian side how the media of the Netherlands, including those close to the government, are spreading disinformation from the British organization Bellingcat about the involvement of the Russian leadership in the destruction of flight MH17 in July 2014 in the sky above Donbass. As evidence, some murky photos of unknown origin, duplicated links to recordings of some telephone conversations, and correspondence on social networks by unidentified persons were published on the page. Nothing new in Bellingcat's methods: regarding Russia, they not only have always used such sources of information, but they themselves "cook" fake documents and release them," said Zakharova.

"The Dutch media seems to have forgotten that six months ago Bellingcat had already been brought into the light by the magazine Der Spiegel. The German publishers were attracted by such a fake, and had to apologize in front of their own audience", — noted the diplomat.

==================================

... so that the propaganda piece is repeated along with the debunking... resulting in that unfamous "cognitive dissonance" being continuously nurtured.

[Hervé]

BUK bow-tie found by Dutch journalist likely planted

Posted on March 21, 2016 by admin in Uncategorized // 2 Comments

Dutch RTL Nieuws journalist Jeroen Akkermans published a breaking story in March 2015 on MH17 .

He reported that he found parts of a BUK missile and warhead fragments at the crash site. He found these parts at November 10 or November 11 2014 and had them analyzed by independant experts.

One interesting part found by Akkermans was a bow-tie shaped piece of rusted material. It looks like to be shrapnel part of the BUK warhead.

One of the experts who looked at this fragment was Nicolas De Larrinaga of Janes. His quote published by RTL is “From the hour-glass form we can gather all the characteristics of an impact of a 9N314 warhead fragment. This fits perfectly.”

Rusty warhead fragment. Consists of a layer of alloyed steel. Strongly deformed and folded. (picture Jeroen Akkermans / RTL News).

The item as shown in the RTL Nieuws broadcast can be seen here.

However, judging by the exact position where the bow-tie was found by Akkermans, the fact the bow-tie was loose on the floor and the fact that the wreckage piece was turned over by people since the crash, it is likely this bow-tie was planted by someone.

It is also remarkable that the wreckage part in which Akkermans found the bow-tie was recovered by DSB just one week later.

Let us have a closer look.
Akkermans showed in his item the exact piece of wreckage where he found a fragment part of the BUK warhead. Mind the inner side of the fuselage can be seen!

The debris was found in wreckage located near the chicken farm close to Hrabove. In the left picture you can see the farm buildings.

The same piece of wreckage was photographed months earlier before Akkermans made this video. At that time the piece was upside down.

Flowers lay on a piece of the crashed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 near the village of Hrabove eastern Ukraine Monday, July 21, 2014. Four days after Flight 17 was shot out of the sky, international investigators still have had only limited access to the crash site, hindered by pro-Russia fighters who control the verdant territory in eastern Ukraine. Outrage over the delays and the possible tampering of evidence at the site was building worldwide, especially in the Netherlands, where most of the victims were from. (AP Photo/Dmitry Lovetsky)

In a very detailed story published by Jeroen Akkermans at March 21 2016, the Dutch journalist showed for the first time a close-up of the location where the bow-tie fragment was located when he found it.

The photo is shown below. In the middle of the photo the bow-tie fragment can be spotted. It was in a pool of water. To the left probably one of the windows can be seen.

Akkermans found the piece somewhere near the window most right on the photo below. There is no fragment damage such as an entry hole to be seen anywhere on the wreckage.

Mind the photos below where made shortly after July 17 2014. The wreckage was at that time not turned.

What was the location of the wreckage?
Using the final DSB report on the MH17 crash we can locate where this piece of wreckage was exactly found.

The location is 2 km south, southwest of Hrabove. DSB describes the wreckage as ‘left hand fuselage between door 3L and 4L’. This image shows the exact location indicated by the number 9. The image can be seen at page 69 of the english language final DSB report.

Now lets look where this part is exactly located on the fuselage of a Boeing 777. The yellow circle shows the part of fuselage where Akkermans found the fragment of a BUK warhead. It is located between door 3 and door 4. Almost at the back of the fuselage.

The image is taken from Appendix X of the NLR report published by DSB.

Could the bow-tie have entered the aircraft during the explosion?
Jeroen Akkermans stated in his item ” part of the warhead went through the body of MH-17 just behind the cockpit and was deformed’.

However this cannot be correct. It is impossible a small fragment has enough energy to penetrate the fuselage near the cockpit and finish somewhere in the back.

DSB reconstructed only the cockpit and part of the business class. The final report did not state anything about fragment damage observed on parts behind the business class section.

Let us now take a look at the field of distribution of BUK missile fragments. Page 57 of the Appendix X of DSB final report shows the image below. It shows the impact zone of the BUK missile based on a location near the cockpit where the missile exploded. The impact zone is based on a launch in the area south of Snizhne.

The image makes clear the back of the aircraft (between door L3 and door L4) can impossible have been directly hit by fragments of a BUK missile.

While the wreckage does show a couple of rather large entry holes, these are likely to have been caused during the crash by hitting other objects or just by brute force.

So that leaves two options:

1. the fragment was kind of absorbed/sucked/catched into into the fuselage during the fall
2. someone put the fragment in the wreckage after the crash

It is unlikely the fragment entered the cockpit and ended somewhere in the back of the fuselage. Firstly there is no mentioning of passengers being hit by fragments. Secondly the fragment would not have enough energy to travel all the way to the back.

Could it be that the fragment entered the fuselage during the breakup of the fuselage? Very unlikely. The fuselage from the wings section towards the tail was largely intact when the aircraft smashed into the ground. The fuselage part where the fragment was found was located very close to the location where the biggest part of the fuselage including the wings crashed.

The part was found and photographed with the inside of the fuselage facing the ground. Akkersmans found the fuselage including the fragment in November turned around. If a fragment was stuck into this wreckage from the direct hit it would still be stuck.

Could it be the fragment was moved to the final position when the piece of wreckage was turned around? Could be but unlikely. If a fragment was not stuck in the fuselage at July 17 it would have likely fallen on the ground when the wreckage was turned around later.

Was it a BUK fragment at all ?
The bow-tie shaped piece found by Akkermans could be a part of a BUK. It could be something else. The DSB report is not clear. It only mentions this in the document titled ‘About the investigation’.

We cannot conclude anything from the statement of DSB.

Recovery of the wreckage where the bow-tie was found.
According the Appendix of the final report made by DSB, the recovery of the MH17 wreckage started November 16 2014 and lasted till November 22.

This photo was taken at November 18 according Globaltimes.cn. It shows very likely the recovery of the wreckage in which Akkermans found the bow-tie. Remember Akkermans found the bow-tie in this wreckage at November 10 or November 11.

If the bow-tie has been planted, when?
It seems very likely the bow-tie was planted just before Akkermans discovered it. It is very unlikely the bow-tie has been in the wreckage ever since July 17. Akkermans found the bow-tie very easily without having to do all kind of weird movements during his searching. So if the bow-tie was there since the crash or since it was turned around, likely someone else would have found it. Remember that piece of wreckage was not located somewhere remote. It was a few hundred meters from the main crash site which was visited by many people.

So if someone planted the bow-tie, it could be the purpose to either be found by Akkermans or by the recovery team. The recovery team recovered the wreckage at the most 8 days after Akkermans visited the crash site.

Akkermans describes he was together with his cameraman on the field. The taxidriver was sleeping in his car. It is not impossible that someone knew about Akkermans plans to stray for two days on the crashsite. Mobile phones are tapped. A fixer could have connections to a secret service.

If the bow-tie was planned, why and who would benefit?
Another hard to answer question. DSB/JIT found just a couple of bow-tie shaped fragments. The bow-tie is only used in the 9N314M warhead part of a BUK missile. 9N314M is in use by both Russia and Ukraine.

By planting a bow-tie, Russia was included as a state which could have shot down MH17. So in that case Ukraine could have planted the bow-tie.

Russia could also have planted the bow-tie to contaminate evidence. However it would make more sense to plant a non bow-tie shaped fragment of an older warhead not in use by Russia.

Could the location of the debris provide an indication?
This blogpost shows the distribution of warhead fragments from a launch near Snizhne and a launch from near Zaroshens’kye.

A launch from Zaroshens’kye makes it a bit more likely a bow-tie ends up close to the tail. However in that case also additional penetrations of shrapnel in the lefthand fuselage would be observed. That is not the case.

If the bow-tie found by Akkermans was indeed planted, the person who did it likely was not aware of were exactly the wreckage was originally located in the fuselage of the Boeing 777.

Manipulation
Manipulation of evidence is nothing new. In October 2014 photos where published showing brown square pieces attached to the headrest of one of the pilotseats. DSB did not report on this and till today the source of this pieces are unknown.

Jeroen Akkermans describes other cases of manipulation in his article.

1. Green paint was removed from the wing
2. Bones were all of a sudden discovered at the crash site. The next day all bones were removed

[Hervé]

Ukrainian warplane shot down Malaysian Flight MH17: Purported witnesses

PressTV Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:20AM

A piece of the wreckage of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 is presented to the press at the Gilze Rijen Airbase in the Netherlands, October 13, 2015. (Photo by AFP)

Malaysian Flight MH17, which went down in eastern Ukraine some two years ago, was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet, not a ground-to-air missile, people claiming to have witnessed the incident say.

A BBC documentary titled “The Conspiracy Files: Who Shot Down MH17?” which will be aired on May 3, includes interviews with people who claim to have seen the aircraft being shot down by a Ukrainian warplane.

German investigative journalist Billy Six talked to 100 eyewitnesses, seven of whom said they saw a warplane.

“One of them even told me how he saw it launch a missile. It was like a small line in the sky going into the clouds. Then he heard the big boom,” Six said.

Another eyewitness, Natasha Beronina, said, “It was summer, harvest time. We heard a bang. At first we saw black smoke and two planes. … One flew straight on and the other one turned round when the bang happened and flew back from where it had come.”

Flight MH17 crashed on July 17, 2014 over Ukraine’s volatile Donetsk region while en route from the Dutch city of Amsterdam to the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur. All 298 passengers and crew on board the plane were killed.

Almost two years into the incident, the circumstances under which it happened remain undetermined.

Ukraine and Western powers have been accusing Moscow of having been involved in the downing of the plane, arguing that it was shot down by a Russian-made BUK missile fired from the town of Snizhne, which is controlled by pro-Russia forces in eastern Ukraine. Russia has denied any involvement in the deadly incident.

Following the disaster, Russian media reported the name of a pilot they said was responsible for shooting the plane down, identifying him as Captain Vladislav Voloshin and saying that he is based at a southern Ukraine airfield. Voloshin, however, has denied the allegation.

A picture taken on July 26, 2014 shows flowers left by the parents of an Australian passenger on the wreckage of the Malaysia Airlines MH17 near the Ukrainian village of Hrabove in the Donetsk region. (Photo by AFP)

‘CIA-backed operation’
The BBC documentary also explores another hypothesis: that the shooting down of the jet was a CIA plot that sought to pin blame on Russia.

Private investigator Sergey Sokolov deployed more than 100 of his agents to investigate the site of the crash and examine evidence. He said they found no shrapnel from a Russian missile, adding that he was “sold” a phone intercept between two CIA agents that implies they masterminded to plant two bombs on the plane.

“The driving force of the operation were CIA agents and the Dutch security service also had a part to play as the bombs were put on the plane in Holland and this couldn’t have been done anywhere else,” Sokolov 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,” he added.

Ukraine’s eastern provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk have witnessed deadly clashes between pro-Russia forces and the Ukrainian army since Kiev launched military operations in April 2014 to crush pro-Moscow protests there.

The crisis has left around 9,200 people dead and over 21,000 others injured, according to the United Nations.

[Hervé]

Russian lawmaker praises new BBC documantary on Boeing crash in Donbass

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor on April 25, 2016

Alexey Pushkov considers a new BBC documentary on the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine in July 2014 capable of helping to shed light on the tragedy

The site of the crash of Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777

MOSCOW, April 25. /TASS/. A senior Russian lawmaker considers a new BBC documentary on the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine in July 2014 capable of helping to shed light on the tragedy.

“There will be a BBC film that can bring closer the truth on the downed Boeing. The false masks start coming off,” Alexey Pushkov, who chairs the lower house’s foreign affairs committee, wrote in his Twitter microblog.

The documentary “Conspiracy Files: Who Shot Down MH17?” will be broadcast on BBC Two on May 3 at 9 p.m. local time (11 p.m. Moscow time). New evidence in the film suggests that the plane may have been downed by a Ukrainian fighter jet rather than a ground-to-air missile.

© AP Photo/Peter Dejong

A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 passenger airliner on flight MH17 from the Dutch city of Amsterdam to the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur crashed in the Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, killing all 298 people on board. Most passengers – 193 people – were Dutch nationals.


Related:
Russian ministry calls distorting Bellingcat’s probe into Boeing downed above Ukraine
http://tass.ru/en/politics/860960

[animovado]

http://www.voltairenet.org/article190874.html

The deputy of the parliament of the Netherlands Pieter Omtzigt (CDA) reported that during the closed hearings concerning the investigation of Malaysian Boeing MH17 crash in Donbass, there was declared that only Ukraiane could had shot down the plane.
On January 22 this year in the parliament of the Netherlands there have taken place the closed hearings on investigation of the causes of MH17 crash. The Dutch deputies were addressed by the head of the special commission which is engaged in supervision of intelligence agencies and Defense Ministries, so-called CTIVD (the supervisor of secret services) Harm Brouwer.
This Dutch official told the deputies that, according to the investigation of the causes of MH17 crash, the passenger plane had been shot down from ”BUK” surface-to-air missile system. At the same time, according to investigation, as of July 17 when the plane was shot down, only the Ukrainian party had an efficient "BUK" system in Donbass.
The deputy Omtzigtt, being at the closed hearings in the parliament, published this information on the twitter account on the same day, on January 22. It is remarkable that this information wasn’t widely popularized.
The first who paid attention to this information was the Ukrainian political scientist, the director of the Center of the Euroasian researches Vladimir Kornilov. Besides this really sensational tweet,which for some reason remained unnoticed, Kornilov also gives a surprising illustration from the Dutch newspapers and the websites which publish pages from an official crash report of MH17.
The fact is that most of these pages were simply deleted. What kind of information was on these pages and why investigation was afraid to publish it, remains unclear.
As for the deputy Omtzigt, it is difficult to suspect him of support of Russia. In due time he actively supported release of Yulia Tymoshenko from prison. He demanded in the name of PACE to release Tymoshenko, and also one more arrested politician — Yury Lutsenko who directs now the faction of Poroshenko’s party in the Verkhovna Rada.
Source
Regnum (Russia)

[Hervé]

Malaysia Begins Their Own Investigation Into the "Boeing" Tragedy

Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ
25th May, 2016

Antifashist

The meeting of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Malaysia Najib Razak on the sidelines of the ASEAN - Russia in Sochi has caused panic among the Ukrainian authorities. As is known, the two leaders agreed to coordinate an investigation into the downed "Boeing" over Ukraine in the framework of a joint working group.

After a meeting with Vladimir Putin, Najib Razak noted the progress in the case of the "Boeing", which crashed in 2014 over Donbass. "I saw that we made positive steps on the path to justice for families and victims of MH17 when the Russian President and I agreed that after our next steps will be determined, we will outline the research results of the joint investigation team in October," said a statement published on the website of the Prime Minister. He also urged all parties not to succumb to speculation and not to come to premature conclusions. However, the Minister of Transport of Malaysia sent a letter to the Dutch Commission on the investigation of the tragedy with the Boeing, requesting to include Russian experts in its composition.

At the request of Petro Poroshenko, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavlo Klimkin contacted by phone the US Secretary of State John Kerry and complained to the latter that Russia has dragged Malaysia to its side. Klimkin appealed to Kerry to urge them to take steps in order to disrupt the emerging Russia and Malaysia joint investigation into the causes of the disaster.

Poroshenko and his clique understand that the lack of real evidence of Russia's involvement in the downed "Boeing" makes Malaysia the first country to seek the truth about whether and under what circumstances the airplane crashed. Malaysia in this case has more right than any other country due to the passengers whom died in the crash.

In fact, with this step Malaysia expressed distrust towards the results of the investigation, which was conducted by the Dutch Investigative Commission.

The sharp turn of Malaysia to Russia is in itself sufficiently eloquent. Kuala Lumpur praised the willingness of Russia from the first days of the tragedy to make all information available to Malaysian investigators. Malaysia insisted Russian experts were included in the investigation group of the tragedy. However, this was not done. The Dutch Commission did not include a single Russian expert and ignored all the competent Russian organizations that conducted their independent investigation into the tragedy. We are talking in particular about the famous report of the Corporation "Almaz-Antey", which experimentally reproduced the last minutes before the collapse of the "Boeing". However, this report was ignored by the investigators of the Netherlands.

Accumulated dissatisfaction with the progress of the investigation sparked the Prime Minister of Malaysia's initiative to establish a joint group to investigate the reasons for the investigation of "Boeing".

As soon as the guests left the Sochi summit, the Minister of Transport of Malaysia Liow Tiong Lai sent a letter to the Commission of Inquiry of the Netherlands with the requirement to include representatives of Russia in all expert groups.

This circumstance caused panic in Kiev, where they realized they cannot refuse Malaysia's claim, threatening an international scandal, but also Kiev fears to allow Russian experts.

Such a sharp and inadequate response by Poroshenko and his Minister Klimkin only shows that in Ukraine, the fear of disclosure of all the details of the tragedy that will eventually point to the involvement of Kiev.

Washington doesn't know how to respond to the initiative of Malaysia, because regardless of the possible participation of Russian experts in the work of the Dutch investigative Commission, Russia and Malaysia have already agreed to announce the results of [their] own [joint] investigation in October 2016.

[shaberon]

Whatever actually happened, the downing of this plane lacks the primary ingredient for the plan to succeed:

Plausible deniability.

Russia didn't turn out to be as good of a patsy as 19 guys with box cutters, or a Japanese fleet crossing the entire Pacific Ocean, or all those other misleading things usually fingered right away by the narrative producers. A primary victim (Malaysia) starting its own investigation two years later...what kind of obstruction of justice requires this??