MH17 might have been shot down from air — chief Dutch investigator

[sgarg]

From wikipedia:

Four Su-25M1 and one Su-25UBM1 were upgraded in 2010-2011.[62][63]
8 upgraded to Su-25M1: #04 Blue, #05 Blue, #06 Blue, #07 Blue, #08 Blue, #38 Blue, #40 Blue, #41 Blue.
1 upgraded to Su-25UBM1: #62 Blue.
Ukrainian Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ukraine did upgrade some Su-25s.

From a discission forum:

Cris Devit said, on July 27, 2014 at 1:45 am
@ Scott Locklin. It's service ceiling is indeed 7,000 Mtr , however it does fly sluggishly at 10,000 Mtr.
Flight MH 17 was in fact flying at 10,000 Mtr, it had been ordered to do so by ATC.
The R-60 has also been configured as a SAM, sometimes with a booster that is usable on the A2A version.
I think you should take a further look at this, if anyone wanted Plausible Deniability, the SU-25 Frogfoot was the perfect aircraft to use.

Reply
Chris devit said, on July 31, 2014 at 3:24 pm
It depends on what model, the M1 and t model easily make 10,000Mtr and higher, some 2 seat trainers made in Georgia also do this with less adverse effects on the pilots health. It is believed Georgia supplied a few of their SU 25 to Ukraine. The service ceiling of all SU 25's used by the UAF is 10,000 Mtr. Ukraine AF SU-25 are M1 versions. Avionics and engine upgrade came at T-version.

 

[sgarg]

I don't get it. So what if the Odessa plant was for different aircrafts and not for Su25.

You claimed the following:

With that claim you should be able to explain a lot about how guns are used and how an R-60 would get used if fired by an Su25 against an airliner.

Actually I discarded the R-60 because of the differences in effects. No comparison between a gun kill and a R-60 kill.

With R-60 it becomes very difficult to explain the gaping holes in the cockpit area. And the fact that the cockpit went silent and the fact that the cockpit fell to the ground first.

We do not know which missile was used. I have just provided information that UAF Su-25 were upgraded beginning 2010. We also have possibility of transfers from Georgia. Do we know FOR SURE all the capabilities of the upgraded Su-25??

You cannot close the chapter on Su-25 just due to specs of a Soviet era Su-25. Upgrades can change a lot of technical parameters. I believe Russia is telling the truth about this incident. It is indeed an air to air kill involving UAF Su-25 aircraft.

 

[sgarg]

We are living in a horrible world where the "leader of the free world" lies on a regular basis. The WTC was brought down by Saudis but Iraq was invaded instead. We were told Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction", then none were found after years of searching.

It continues on the same pattern. Now Russia is being implicated on false pretexts. There is heavy preparation for war going on in Poland, Romania and Baltic states under US leadership. What for?

 

[Khagesh]

I can explain the principle of induction and start aiming and firing of the missile. If I can repair the engine VAZ, that doesn't mean I can repair the engine of the Mercedes.

As I said I am convinced the R-60 could easily have been used by the alleged Su25 against MH-17. I also do not deny that there are theories claiming that besides the gun kill there was a missile also involved. But it is obvious that cockpit got the kind of damage that is apparent even to a layman (like myself) and which any truthful man will not dismiss as irrelevant. But there can be more damage that may have escaped the attention of layman like me and which only qualified people may be able to understand.

My focus is on the gun solution.

What I want you to tell us is:
1) if and how much is the ASP-17 capable of aligning the guns at around 3-4 km, low angle off the tail of MH-17 in a non-turning flight. Or how it becomes easier for the reflector sights to generate a gun solution while the target is at a greater distance, obviously because of the lesser effort the Su25 would have to put in to align his guns.

2) And if and how easy it is take a tracking shot in a low angle off tail for a Su25 and MH-17 are not on co-planar trajectories. And how the alleged Su-25 pilot must in order to take a track shot at the MH-17, maneuver to generate a leading shot pointing his guns a bit ahead of the MH-17 trajectory. Which is also when you, besides getting the best low deflection shot also end up targeting the cockpits.

Can you deny the easy possibility of a scenario where MH-17 simply flew into a hail of bullets cockpit first even when the suspected Su25 was merely executing BFM.

 

[Akim]

As I said I am convinced the R-60 could easily have been used by the alleged Su25 against MH-17. I also do not deny that there are theories claiming that besides the gun kill there was a missile also involved. But it is obvious that cockpit got the kind of damage that is apparent even to a layman (like myself) and which any truthful man will not dismiss as irrelevant. But there can be more damage that may have escaped the attention of layman like me and which only qualified people may be able to understand.

My focus is on the gun solution.

What I want you to tell us is:
1) if and how much is the ASP-17 capable of aligning the guns at around 3-4 km, low angle off the tail of MH-17 in a non-turning flight. Or how it becomes easier for the reflector sights to generate a gun solution while the target is at a greater distance, obviously because of the lesser effort the Su25 would have to put in to align his guns.

2) And if and how easy it is take a tracking shot in a low angle off tail for a Su25 and MH-17 are not on co-planar trajectories. And how the alleged Su-25 pilot must in order to take a track shot at the MH-17, maneuver to generate a leading shot pointing his guns a bit ahead of the MH-17 trajectory. Which is also when you, besides getting the best low deflection shot also end up targeting the cockpits.

Can you deny the easy possibility of a scenario where MH-17 simply flew into a hail of bullets cockpit first even when the suspected Su25 was merely executing BFM.

To shot down such a large jet, not enough of one R-60M, even two. These missiles are only needed for self-defense against enemy fighters.I'm not going to prove next. You want to be sure that the Boeing was downed by a Ukrainian attack aircraft.

 

[Khagesh]

^^^
So basically the one who claims he understands optics and lasers and what not now wants to avoid the basic physics pertaining to targeting and ranging.

Hey I don't want to prove anything. I don't know if it was the Ukrainian Su25 or some other aircraft. I just wanted to point out that the most common aircraft with the ammo it regularly carries is perfectly capable of doing the job that has been observed even by a layman like me.

 

[sgarg]

@Khagesh, let us leave it to Dutch to build their case. I hope they have good evidence.

My arguments is only to prove that it is NOT open and shut case of a Buk fire.

 

[Khagesh]

@Khagesh, let us leave it to Dutch to build their case. I hope they have good evidence.

My arguments is only to prove that it is NOT open and shut case of a Buk fire.

I agree.

I don't know how the hell did US media decided that they could sell Buk as the culprit. They must think all of the world thinks like Americans do.

 

[pmaitra]

I Found a Valuable Piece of MH17 and the Investigators Could Care Less
The peculiar story of how fearless Graham Phillips found what he thinks might be a good clue in the MH17 investigation, and his fruitless efforts to get investigators to take an interest.

Graham Phillips | (The Truth Speaker) | Russia Insider

Excerpts:

. . .

I’d always adhered to a policy of never removing parts from the site, unlike Dutch journalist Jeroen Akkermans who decided to start removing parts from site, rather writing to investigators with photos / videos, and location details. However, when out on July 22nd questioning local people in the several villages located on the MH17 site, two of them replied that parts of MH17 (pictured) had fallen on their homes, they hadn’t known what to do with them, and thus the pieces of the downed liner were still in their possession.




. . .

I immediately contacted the investigation, with photos – all these emails are as written, with individual names removed, as the investigators asked me to do from the outset –

Hello ….,

Patrick and myself were around the villages MH17 came down in today.

2 homeowners we spoke to had pieces which had fallen on their houses, and they simply didn’t know what to do with them.

Please find photos of them attached. The Air Flow looks like an important part, with visible signs of damage.

I have them with me, and am keen to get them to you as soon as possible.

Best wishes, Graham​

. . .

I responded on the same day –

Let’s be clear about this, whether by conspiracy or incompetence, you are currently conducting what must surely be the worst major aircrash investigation in the history of the aviation industry. If you do arrive at the truth it will be a miracle rather by design.

Let me hit on the point you make about your current arrangements ‘working perfectly’. This is how ‘working perfectly’ really is –

– none of the hundreds of local people I’ve spoken to have ever made any mention of being aware of your arrangement
– you gave no addresses of the several places you listed I could put the pieces, if I chose
– you didn’t give me the names of any contacts there, or how – even if – I should confirm to whom they had been given – what documentation is there, for example, to ensure things are to procedure?
– you didn’t ask where the pieces were found
– the delay in your replying meant that by the time I received note of your intentions I had had to leave for Russia, I took the most significant part with me to Russia, the Air Flow, where I’m keeping it safely, the other is being kept safely back in Donbass, by Patrick.

I believe in such an important matter, that everything must be done to protocol. If I have an important part of the plane, you must say –

– exactly where I should take it, and who will collect it
– there must be documentation there to confirm everything is to procedure

And it should go without saying, that the matter should be resolved quickly – it’s now 2 weeks since I first contacted you about this. I certainly don’t understand why you would reject my offer to bring the parts to you myself, as a matter of urgency. I would have got on the next plane with them, at my own expense, just to give the investigation the best opportunity of reaching the truth. To do that, of course, you need all the evidence.

I note that over recent weeks various leaks have emerged from the investigation, and noises from you, that you are ‘ahead of schedule’ etc, in the run up to October’s first announcement of findings.

I find any assertion that your investigation is ‘ahead of’ or even ‘on’ schedule to be confounding. To reach any kind of meaningful result requires the analysis of all significant parts. There are significant parts still left on site, as well as human remains, as myself and Patrick have been informing you of for months.

And then, there are all kinds other parts lying all around the site – as in the below photos attached, taken July 18th and 22nd. These have both been posted on my social media sites, which you have informed me several times you follow, as well as yourselves being notified directly either by Patrick, myself, or both.

None of this investigation corresponds to anything ‘working perfectly’ – all of it is just an absolute mess. These are parts we were given by local people when we knocked on their doors – how many more parts like this are out there because people are not aware of where to take them?? People have not been made aware.

I won’t be back in Donbass until September. Please let me know how I can convey the Air Flow part to you, and Patrick, with a part of the plane’s body in his possession, is equally keen. Both of us will demand that everything is done to proper practice and protocol – the 298 victims of MH17 deserve no less, and they deserve a lot better than this.

I reserve the right to republish parts of our correspondence on my site, the Truth Speaker. I await instructions on what to do with the Air Flow.

I’m deeply disappointed in this entire experience. MH17 was a tragedy, a botched investigation blaming the wrong people, will be another one.

What else can you say to an investigation that doesn’t really want parts of the plane its investigating?​

 

[pmaitra]

Dangerous Rumour Mongering Surrounds MH17 Investigation
As usual western investigators and the media have no hard proof of anything but that isn’t stopping them from slyly pointing the finger at Russia

Roger Annis | (CounterPunch) | Russia Insider


After a year of trying to implicate Russia - still nothing

This article originally appeared at CounterPunch

‘Could be.’ ‘Might be.’

‘Can’t show or prove anything, but maybe.’​

Is there any wonder that with such language coming lately from the “official” but secretive investigation of the July 17, 2014 crash of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, there is little reason for confidence in a final report? And lots of reason for concern of what a flawed or reckless final report could spark?

On August 11, the Dutch Safety Board and the ‘Joint Investigation Team’ investigating the MH17 crash issued a speculative statement saying they have discovered pieces among the debris they collected from the fields in eastern Ukraine where the plane came down that “possibly originate” from a spent Buk missile.

They say they can’t be sure. “At present, the conclusion cannot be drawn that there is a causal connection between the discovered parts and the crash of flight MH17.” And they can’t show us anything. But they are making the statement anyway.

The statement was reported widely by Western media along with predictable spin and wild interpretation. Western media has reported all along that the thinly-equipped self-defence forces in eastern Ukraine are the “likely” culprits in bringing down the MH17, “possibly” with backing coming from ‘somewhere’ in the Russian military command.

Manipulation and misreporting of the known fact of the crash of the plane is disrespectful toward the victims and their loved ones. Much more troubling is the fact that it disregards the deadly context of events surrounding the investigation, including the string of military exercises upon which NATO is embarked in eastern Europe and now the latest news that Ukraine is moving heavy artillery back to the front line of its war in eastern Ukraine, to be unleashed on the civilian population.

Here is how the European correspondent of Canada’s daily Globe and Mail, Mark MacKinnon, reports the Dutch investigators’ statement in a special, center-spread article in the newspaper on August 12:

The recovery of the missile fragments adds to the bulk of evidence implicating pro-Russian fighters in the downing of the passenger jet, which killed 298 people. Moscow, which accuses the Ukrainian military of shooting MH17 out of the sky, recently used its veto at the United Nations Security Council to block the establishment of an international criminal tribunal to prosecute the case.​

Who needs an official investigation with such an apparent, open and shut case? The implications of such thinking and writing are becoming unthinkable considering the exceptionally dangerous context reported in the opening of the very same Globe article:

War between Russia and the NATO alliance should be unthinkable. But a new study of recent military exercises suggests both powers are preparing for just that possibility.

Researchers at a European think tank [the European Leadership Network] warned that while there was no evidence that either side intended to go to war, the increasing frequency and size of military exercises on both sides [sic] of the NATO-Russia border heighten the possibility of an unplanned incident that could spark a wider conflict (Read the report PDF).

The finding raises the spectre of a continent-wide clash of conventional armies, the sort not seen since Russia and the Western allies combined to defeat Nazi Germany in the Second World War.​

The British press is piling on. Bryan MacDonald explains in RT.com on Aug 12:

‘So it WAS Putin?‘ headlines London’s Daily Express following the release of a statement by the Joint Investigation Team saying that it is investigating “several parts, possibly originating from a Buk surface-air-missile system”.

The Guardian goes with ‘Flight MH17: fragments from site could be Russian-made missile, say Dutch prosecutors’. The BBC exclaims, ‘MH17: ‘Russian missile parts’ at Ukraine crash site’.

‘Russian missile shrapnel in MH17 wreckage’, bellows the London Times.

The British government has announced that it will double the number of Ukrainian soldiers and extremist militia members that it plans to train this year, from 1,000 to 2,000. Presently, Britain says it has 75 soldiers in the country. Speaking in Kyiv on August 11, British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon described the conflict in eastern Ukraine as “red hot”.

Rebel forces in eastern Ukraine have been receiving vital humanitarian aid from the Russian government and from widespread citizen initiatives. They have also received important political/diplomatic support from the Russian government.

The Russian government makes the utterly evident argument that Kyiv should respect the terms of the Minsk-2 ceasefire agreement it co-signed signed on Feb. 12, 2015 and negotiate the grievances which the population of eastern Ukraine has expressed over Kyiv’s radical, extremist turn to a pro-Europe, anti-Russia and pro-austerity orientation for Ukraine.

The issuance of another unfounded, speculative accusation by the Dutch-led MH17 investigation, then seized upon and manipulated by reckless journalists and editors, is another reason why this investigation cannot be taken seriously.

The Dutch government is refusing demands by Dutch media that it release documentation pertaining to its response to the crash last year. A formal request to this effect was made by RTL Nieuws.

The government defends its refusal by saying that documents contain the names of individuals and that the release of the documents could have negative consequences for relations with other countries.

RTL Nieuws has said the following in response to the government’s decision:

We think it perplexing that the minister does not work harder to disclose more information. Of course, we understand that not every piece of information can be thrown into the street. But withholding basic facts and decisions? We will study the decision and decide if going to the courts is desirable and useful.”​

Late last year, the Dutch news magazine Elsevier revealed some details of the secret agreement signed on August 8, 2014 by the four countries composing the so-called Joint Investigation Team investigating the disaster. The four are Holland, Belgium, Ukraine and Australia. (Malaysia was added to the JIT late last year following pressure and protest over its initial exclusion.) The secret agreement said that any one of the member countries of the JIT can veto release of any information gathered by the investigation.[1]

The implications of an official report that ‘goes rogue’ by leaving vital questions unanswered and throwing anti-Russia speculation and prejudice to the wind are very serious.

The words ‘Russia’ and ‘Buk missile’ have been pounded out in tandem so frequently by Western governments and media during the past year that any speculative report of a “Buk” missile in relation to the MH17 crash just reinforces the ‘blame Russia narrative’ they have worked to establish.

A survey of the circumstances of the crash and the composition of the investigation underlines the danger of the situation.

The armed forces of Ukraine and quite possibly the extremist, right-wing militias allied with it possess the Buk missile system. The government in Kyiv failed to close the airspace over eastern Ukraine when it launched a war there in the spring of 2014. This flew in the face of decisions by the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States and major international airlines months before the MH17 crash to prohibit passenger planes from flying there.

Following the crash/shoot down, Ukraine ignored the July 21, 2014 resolution at the Security Council demanding that the investigation be given unfettered access to the crash site. Investigators were forced in and out of the area, according to the exigencies of the war which Kyiv declined to put on hold. To the point where parts of the plane and parts of bodies are still being randomly discovered today by visitors to the scene.

The circumstances of the crash should easily argue in favour of excluding Ukraine from the official, international investigation, or at the very least, they argue for including Russia since its border lies only a few dozen kilometers away from the crash site. But no, the JIT investigation is being conducted by governments that are hostile to Russia and to the pro-autonomy rebellion in eastern Ukraine.

Malaysia showed its colours last month when it introduced a resolution at the UN Security Council on July 29 proposing that a witchhunt-style tribunal be established by the Security Council to investigate matters. The resolution was a win-win for the anti-Russia crowd. A special tribunal could conduct an investigation without having to go through the motions of impartiality required of the JIT. The terms of the Dutch-led investigation is that it establish the facts, not search for guilt.

Russia vetoed the resolution. The Russian government argued that with two investigations already taking place, what was the purpose of adding a third? Russia’s suspicions were already on high alert given the fact that its offers to cooperate with the investigation have been rebuffed or treated at arm’s length.

Russia’s ambassador to Britain explained his country’s vote:

Our partners preferred to conduct a vote that is impossible to explain by any other motive than seeking a fresh pretext for pointing a finger at Russia.”

Progress towards justice must be seen. So far, we have seen nothing.​

The vetoed Security Council resolution looked for all the world as a staged ‘aha’ moment. As in, ‘Aha, what is Russia trying to hide by vetoing a tribunal?’ That’s exactly how much of Western media and Western governments reported the veto.

Moscow-based writer John Helmer who publishes an investigative website Dances With Bears has been following and reporting the MH17 story closely. He provided a comment about the latest developments:

So far, as I have reported, the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) stands out for an investigation that has failed to bring to light and analyze the most obvious sources of data or explain why the Board, the Dutch police and prosecutors have failed to do this.

For example, in public disclosure so far, there has been no analysis of U.S. satellite images, including infrared images, of the MH17 site just before, during, and just after the strike and crash, and no disclosure of whether the Dutch investigators requested this data, what they were told, or if the Dutch believe the data exist and is being withheld from the investigation.

I’ve seen no DSB analysis of the silence on the last four seconds of the Cockpit Voice Recorder, and no explanation of how this is possible. There has been no published analysis of the Ukrainian air traffic control radar and radio tapes or confirmation of whether Kiev handed them over to the Dutch, and if they haven’t been handed over, why not. So far, too, there has been no disclosure of evidence from the autopsy and post-mortem data collected from the victims’ bodies.

What is missing is obvious. So what to make of particles of evidence whose provenance, authenticity and authority of disclosure are far from obvious? The Dutch want to be thought of as careful, methodical, clean. Why so careless all of a sudden?​

The “official” investigation is proceeding at the speed of a turtle and in unprecedented secrecy for a civilian airline disaster. Meanwhile, journalists and hostile governments are promoting a ‘blame Russia’ narrative and speculating on worst case scenarios. It’s a dangerous and toxic mix.

The Globe and Mail article mentioned earlier closes by citing a military analyst based in Moscow: “The lines of communication [between NATO and Russia] are closing and everyone is beefing up for an eventuality that could be very, very unpleasant.”

The Globe writes further, “… for now, the two sides were just posturing, ‘but posturing is the path to war. It always has been’.”

Notes:
[1] The website of the Dutch Prosecution Service (OM) explains: “The Joint Investigative Team conducts the criminal investigation and the Dutch Safety Board the investigation into the cause of the crash. Both investigations are conducted separately but JIT and DSB occasionally share material.”

 

[pmaitra]

The MH17 Tribunal Was a Trap Which Russia Wisely Avoided
Western countries have done nothing to show they’re actually interested in getting to the truth of the MH17 - so why let them find a tribunal to pass judgment at?

Christopher Black | (Gorchakov Fund) | Russia Insider


Still waiting for the Dutch-led investigation report

The author is a prominent criminal and human rights lawyer who is an outspoken critic of what he says are miscarriages of justice in the prosecution of global political leaders. He is known for defending Slobodan Milosevic. He lives in Toronto, Canada.

This article first appeared on the website of the Gorchakov Fund, a non-profit foundation created and funded by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to serve as a platform for discussion of foreign policy issues.

The push by NATO countries for a UN tribunal to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 last year over eastern Ukraine was an intentional provocation against Russia. There was no other purpose for this NATO initiative than to use it to demonize the Russian leadership, to increase the negative war propaganda being put out by the NATO alliance and ultimately to use it as justification for further aggression against the peoples of east Ukraine and Russia.

There must be no doubt in any reasonable person’s mind that the only result of the creation of such a tribunal by the Security Council was to be an indictment against President Putin himself accusing him of some type of command responsibility. Once Putin was indicted as a war criminal, the anti-Russian propaganda in the west would have increase beyond even the intense levels it now has reached.

We saw what happened to President Milosevic of Yugoslavia when the Yugoslav tribunal indicted him with war crimes at a point during the NATO attack in 1999 when the French and Germans were looking for a political solution. The US driven indictment, arranged through their agent Louis Arbour, effectively killed a political solution since as Arbour stated, and I paraphrase, “you can’t negotiate with a war criminal.”

The same happened to Muammar Gaddafi. The International Criminal Court, again through its US marionettes in the prosecution, labelled him a war criminal and used it to justify their destruction of Libya. Both Milosevic and Gadhafi ended up dead at NATO’s hands. But they are not alone. The list includes a number of African leaders who are in the way of western interests. All labelled as war criminals when in fact it is the west that committed the crimes. The accused’s’ only crime was to resist.

A further stumbling block is the legality of such tribunals. The UN Charter does not give the Security Council the right or jurisdiction to create these ad hoc tribunals and in fact this possibility was explicitly excluded when the International Court of Justice was created which has very limited jurisdiction and none over criminal matters. Of course tribunals have been created as a matter of fact despite this problem but an illegal precedent is still illegal no matter how many times it is repeated.

It is clear that the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda were set up during a period when Russia was under the sway of President Yeltsin and others willing to act in US interests without caring about the implications for Russian and world interests. Russia, and China lost all control over the funding, staffing and running of these tribunals from the very beginning which, from this writers’ personal experience, are controlled at all levels by western intelligence assets.

The indictments and evidence are concocted against selected accused for political and propaganda reasons which are three; to defame the leaders targeted, to justify the western aggression involved in these wars, and finally to cover up the real role of the west in these wars. The judges themselves are selected by the Americans after being interviewed to make certain their subservience is assured.

The other problem with the proposed MH17 tribunal was the claim that it was a matter under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, that is, a matter of international peace and security. The fact that the other ad hoc tribunals have been created under Chapter VII reveals their true political nature. But in the case of MH17, no such argument can be validly made since there has never been an example of a plane being brought down in any circumstances that has triggered the use of Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

If there was to be a tribunal regarding MH17 then why was there not one regarding the shooting down of the Iranian civil airliner Flight 655 in 1988, an airliner that was deliberately shot down by the US Navy. Hundreds were murdered but the Americans never demanded a tribunal to bring their officers to account. In fact the commander and crew of the USS Vincennes were given medals for this massacre. If the Soviet Union had demanded such a tribunal at the time the US would certainly have vetoed the motion.

But there is another problem with the proposal that reveals its true political nature. A court can only try those accused of a crime determined to have taken place and can only try accused against whom there is evidence.

In regard to MH17 there is the NATO propaganda on one side claiming Donbass militias were involved, aided and abetted by Russia, but without any evidence of this being produced, and, on the other hand, evidence supplied by eye witnesses, air traffic controllers, Ukrainian military pilots and Russian radar plots that indicate that it was more likely shot down by a Ukrainian government Sukhoi jet fighter.

In any case, whatever the facts really are, the investigation is not complete and not complete because the NATO alliance refuses to release information that is necessary to make a determination as to who is responsible and what their motives were.

Since NATO is not willing to offer this information to investigators now or to make it public why would they do so if a tribunal was created? They would not. They would have used the tribunal as a forum to bash Russia, fabricate evidence and used it to justify even more western aggression.

The proposal was clearly a trap for Russia and so its veto of July 29th is welcome news. Russia will face criticism from the usual suspects in NATO and more ravings by Samantha Power that it is trying to stop “justice” or is afraid of the investigation, but better to treat these false accusations with a dismissive wave of the hand than to have taken the bait and be faced with the constant harassment, and injustice that would have surely followed if such a tribunal had been approved.

Comment on the article:

Boris Jaruselski • 6 days ago
Russia, with their veto, have ENSURED, that the investigation about the MH-17 tragedy, ...no matter how flawed, MUST be completed! ...MUST!

...it very likely involve some more attempts at shifting the blame to Russia, but with all these high-calibre Russian scientists and engineers involved in finding out THEIR facts, the investigation is a pretty much foregone conclusion: the TRUTH W I L L be told!

...and that the west/NATO/US is equally determined to STOP this investigation in it's tracks, is a given! But their 'wiggle-room' is getting smaller by the day!​

 

[pmaitra]

Murdoch's NewsCorp Australia Blows Up the West's Blame Game on MH17
Hoisted by their own petard:

• Video released to damn them actually establishes the rebels observed both an airliner and a Ukraine Sukhoi
• And that they believed that the Sukhoi brought down the airliner and they brought down the Sukhoi

Rob Slane | (TheBlogMire) | Russia Insider


Truth is finally coming out...

This article originally appeared at TheBlogMire

News Corp Australia have, I believe, inadvertently released some of the strongest evidence yet as to why the official Western narrative behind the shooting down of flight MH17 is to be treated with the utmost suspicion.

Even before any new evidence, that version of events — that flight MH17 was shot down by “pro-Russian” separatists using a BUK M1 missile system supplied to them by the Russian Federation — ought to have raised a number of questions in the minds of any reasonably open-minded person seeking the truth about what happened, for the following reasons:

1. Within hours of the crash, Western governments and media had apportioned blame on both the separatists and on the government of the Russian Federation.

Yet the fact that this rush to judgment occurred before the commencement of an investigation ought to have struck any person with a concern for the truth and the presumption of innocence as nothing short of scandalous.

It is indeed true that the rebels were possible suspects, since the plane was brought down close to an area under their control and they had been known to have downed military aircraft in the days prior to the crash.

However, it is equally true that the plane was brought down close to areas under the control of Ukrainian armed forces and, what is more, it is certain that they were in possession of the kind of missile or aircraft that could have been used to bring down a plane flying at that altitude.

Impartial observers would have clearly seen that there were at least two sets of potential suspects, yet the fact that Western governments and media have never treated the Ukrainian armed forces, or perhaps one of their “volunteer battalions”, as suspects is dubious to say the least.

2. After the initial rush to blame the separatists and the government of the Russian Federation, the Russian military gave their own presentation which was subsequently either ignored or ridiculed by the Western media.

But ignorance and ridicule are never a substitute for hard facts and there were a number of claims made in the presentation that required serious attention, yet which have never been dealt with, let alone refuted, either by Western governments, the Western media, or the Government of Ukraine. Amongst these claims were:

a) Radar readings from nearby Rostov showing the presence of a Ukrainian fighter jet (possibly a Sukhoi SU-25) within 3-5 kilometres of the Boeing when it came down

b) Satellite evidence that the Ukrainian government had BUK systems in the near vicinity of the crash area (this evidence has supposedly been debunked by the investigative website Bellingcat, but then their own study has itself been debunked fairly comprehensively by other investigative websites)

c) Evidence of increased activity of Kupol-M19S18 radars (used to coordinate BUK missiles) in the days prior to and including July 17th

Now it could be that all these claims are false, but the fact that neither Western governments nor the Kiev government have made a proper attempt to refute them, but have instead chosen to ignore them, again ought to set the alarm bells ringing in the heads of those who seek the truth.

It is also worth pointing out that whilst the Russian Federation produced these substantial claims in a presentation open to the press, the West, by contrast, has produced nothing similar and we still await the U.S. satellite evidence to be revealed to the world.

3. The flight and cockpit recorders from MH17 were taken to RAF Farnborough to be analysed, but to date the full recordings have never been made publicly available. In addition, the Air Traffic Control recordings were confiscated by Kiev and have never been released.

Had the Russian Federation taken the Black Boxes and refused to release the information … well I hardly need to tell you what the Western media would make of that, and rightly so.

4. The flight took an inexplicable diversion directly over the conflict zone. No reasonable explanation has ever been given for this, and I’ve yet to read of a Western leader demanding an answer from Kiev as to why this critical manoeuvre was made.

5. The evidence for the supposed transfer of a BUK missile system from Russia to the South East of Ukraine relies on some extremely suspect videos on social media and to date neither the U.S. nor its allies have provided any hard intelligence analysis to confirm what these films purport to show.

But even if we suspend our judgement for a moment, there is still a huge problem for the “BUK missile system supplied by Russia theory”, and that is that no witnesses have ever come forward to say that they heard the launch, saw the missile, or witnessed the smoke trail. This stretches credibility for that theory somewhat, since BUK launches are a) extremely noisy and b) leave a lengthy trail of smoke in the air.

In the case of MH17, given the trajectory involved, the column of smoke would have been something like 15 kilometres long and would have stayed in the air for some time after the missile was fired. Yet no eyewitnesses or credible photographic evidence?

On the other hand, there were eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen military aircraft in the vicinity, for example in a BBC report, made days after the crash, but which has since been taken down from the BBC website and blocked on YouTube. To my knowledge, the investigative committee looking into the accident have made no attempt to contact those alleged witnesses.

Now, a year after the tragedy, a four minute video purporting to show the separatists arriving at the crash area has just been released by News Corp Australia, along with a transcript containing not only the conversation shown in the video, but also dialogue covering another 13 minutes of video footage which they didn’t release.

I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the film or the transcript. Certainly the images look genuine, but there is never any clear shot of faces and so it is possible that the film has been dubbed.

Nevertheless, there is good reason to believe that the film and the transcript are authentic. The four minute video was shown on the anniversary of the disaster purely to further vilify the separatists. That this is so is shown by the headline of the article:

“For 17 minutes, they ransacked the luggage of innocent people who had just been shot out of the sky. The full transcript of the never-before-seen footage reveals what they were looking for.” ​

However, the transcript of the full 17 minutes actually serves not to bolster the Western narrative, but rather to puncture its credibility even further.

If RT, Sputnik or Tass had released the transcript, we would be right to ask questions about its authenticity. But since it was released by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, and since it inadvertently works against the narrative his organisation has spun from the outset (remember “Putin’s Missile”?), I think it reasonable to assume it is indeed genuine.

So what does it show? Well, the four minute portion of the video shown by News Corp, wrenched from the context of the whole 17 minutes of footage, appears to show the separatists rummaging through belongings that had fallen from the plane (I say wrenched out of context, because the whole 17 minute transcript gives some context as to why they were doing this, and no it wasn’t because they were intent on looting).

But what is far more important in terms of what actually happened to the plane is the dialogue that takes place in the 13 minutes of footage which was not released on video.

I would urge readers to go and read the whole thing for themselves here, but the most crucial portions are the following exchanges:

Cmdr: The other plane that fell down, they are after them, the pilots.

Background: The second one?

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.

…

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.

Is it far from here? Where did it fall?​

What is the significance of this? Chiefly two things.

Firstly, it throws into doubt one of the main claims made by Western governments and mainstream media. The claim, based on (highly dubious) audio recordings posted on YouTube, was that the separatists had shot down a plane thinking it was a military aircraft, only to find out to their surprise that they had actually downed a civilian airliner.

What this new transcript does is to show that this is not the case at all. The people speaking in the transcript are in no doubt whatsoever that the plane they shot down was a military aircraft, not a civilian one, but they are also in no doubt whatsoever that it was a Ukrainian military aircraft that shot down the Boeing.

In other words, a key part of the claims of the West against the rebels is that they shot down the “wrong” plane. That is, they brought down the civilian plane believing it to be a Ukrainian military jet. But this transcript, taken moments after the crash, shows that they actually believed they had shot down the “right” plane — a Sukhoi — and that it was this plane, or perhaps even a second Sukhoi, which was responsible for the downing of the Malaysian plane.

Note that this is not to say you need to accept their claims that a Sukhoi shot down MH17 — maybe it did, maybe it didn’t. Rather, the point is that the claim made by the West — that the separatists shot down MH17 thinking it to be a Sukhoi — is simply not borne out by this transcript. They shot down a Sukhoi thinking it was a Sukhoi, and they believed it was this plane, or perhaps even a second Sukhoi, which had shot down the Boeing.

It should also be borne in mind that the conversations on the transcript occurred immediately after the crash and therefore well before the Russian military had made their claims about a Ukrainian military plane being picked up by radar at Rostov, and also well before any theories of MH17 being shot down by a SU-25 began circulating on the Internet.

Of course none of this proves who shot down MH17 or how it was shot down, but what it does show is that one of the key claims behind the Western narrative is based on a false premise.

The second point, which is closely connected with the first, is that the claim of there being at least one military aircraft in the area is — assuming the transcript to be accurate — surely now established beyond all reasonable doubt. This is not on the strength of this transcript alone. Taken on its own it would prove nothing.

However, we now have at least three independent sets of witnesses claiming that at least one (or possibly more) Ukrainian fighter jets was airborne in the near vicinity at the time that MH17 came down:

1. The eyewitnesses in the area that testified to this (and who still haven’t been interviewed by the accident investigators)

2. The radar evidence given by the Russian military in their presentation shortly after the crash (ignored by the accident investigators)

3. And now the News Corp transcript from a video shot moments after the crash showing that the separatists had seen a Ukrainian fighter jet in the area, and had apparently shot it down

Piecing these three independent witnesses together, it would seem that the evidence that there was a Ukrainian fighter (or fighters) in the area is now irrefutable.

This is not to say that the claim made by the separatists in the transcript that the Sukhoi shot down MH17 is also irrefutable. It is a real possibility, but without other evidence, nothing more than that. Yet on the strength of three independent witnesses, we ought now to be able to say that there was at least one Ukrainian Sukhoi within the near vicinity of the shoot down.

The reason this is significant is that the Ukrainian government has categorically denied this to be the case, claiming that none of their military aircraft were operating in the area at that time. But given the strength of witnesses now contradicting their claim, we can either conclude that the Ukrainian government was and still is completely unaware that one or more of their military aircraft was in the vicinity of MH17 at the time of the shoot down (highly unlikely), or that they are just plain lying.

Just to be clear, the evidence from this new transcript does not prove that MH17 was shot down by a fighter jet. What it does show, however, is that the narrative put forward by the Ukrainian government and their Western sponsors, is based on extremely flimsy evidence.

That the separatists believed that they had shot down a Sukhoi and not a civilian airliner is established by this transcript. That there was at least one Ukrainian fighter jet in the vicinity of MH17 is now shown to be beyond reasonable doubt.

It is for the Ukrainian government and their Western sponsors to tell us why the Sukhoi(s) was there and, even more importantly, why they have chosen to cover it up.

 

[pmaitra]

Why MH17 Was Most Likely Shot Down by a Ukrainian Su-25 Jet
If the rebels had shot it down this would have been easy for US, which monitors the war zone, to prove

• The Saker explains how a Ukrainian Su-25 plane could have easily shot down the civilian airliner, as he believes is the most likely explanation

The Saker | (The Unz Review) | Russia Insider


The Su-25 ground attack plane

This article originally appeared at The Unz Review

Over a year has passed since Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17 has been shot out of the skies by somebody, but we still don’t know the truth and all sorts of hypotheses are circulating on the Internet.

In the West, the Emperor Barak Ist decreed on the day after the actual shoot-down that the party responsible for this atrocity was, of course, the Novorussians. That is as predictable as it is irrelevant since not a shred of evidence has been presented by anybody in the West.

In contrast, the Russians did provide quite a lot of evidence, but it was all immediately dismissed without further ado. Again, this is also as predictable as it is irrelevant.

The undeniable fact is that the western narrative about the Ukraine absolutely mandates that either the Russians or the Novorussians shot down MH-17. Any other version is completely unacceptable and therefore shall never be considered, nevermind accepted, by the western politicians and their corporate media.

But for the rest of the world the question remains opened: who shot down MH-17 and how?

The first thing we know is that the Ukrainian traffic air controllers directed MH-17 to fly directly over the combat zone and to lower its altitude.

We also know for a fact that there was at least one Ukrainian aircraft in the immediate vicinity of MH-17 that day. This was confirmed both by Russian radar signals and by several local witnesses who saw at least one, possibly two, SU-25 aircraft in the air that day.

Finally, we also know that Ukrainian air defense units were present in the area that day and that their radars were active. What nobody saw that day was the kind of large and highly visible smoke plume which would have accompanied any large missile launch, not did anybody hear anything special. Apparently, no missile launch, and yet the Ukrainian radars were active. How come?

I believe that MH-17 was shot down by a Ukrainian SU-25. Critics of this theory have pointed out that the SU-25 is a “close-air-support aircraft” which was designed to fly very low and to engage attacking amour columns, that it was never designed to fly very fast or very high, and the SU-25 does not have a radar or air-to-air missiles. Finally, the cockpit of the SU-25 is not pressurized which means that the pilot cannot fly over 7’000 meter in altitude. This is all quite true. But it also misses the point.

First, while it is true that the cabin of the SU-25 is not pressurized, all a pilot needs to do is use a mask to supply him with oxygen. The aircraft itself can easily fly well over the 7’000 meter limit.

It is true that the speed of the aircraft is inadequate to intercept a large civilian jet flying at its cruising speed. The SU-25 engines were never designed to fly high and while they can be made to bring the aircraft over 7’000 meters, they cannot develop enough speed in this rarefied atmosphere.

But what the SU-25 can do is carry a R-60 infrared-guided missile. Not only does such a missile not require an engagement radar, but it’s speed is over 3’000 kilometers per hour, way faster than any civilian airliner. The problem with the missile, however, is that it’s range is short, about 8’000 meters.

The SU-25 does not have a radar capable of detecting a civilian airliners and guiding the SU-25 towards it. But the Buk missile radar battery definitely does.

Since the course of the MH-17 was known well in advance, all the Ukrainians had to do was the keep one or two SU-25 loitering at low altitude under the air corridor which MH-17 would take and wait for the Buk missile operators guide the best placed SU-25 towards the airliner at the appropriate moment.

All the pilot would have to do when given the signal was to sharply climb towards MH-17 and get inside the missile’s flight envelope (in this case within less than 8 kilometers of MH-17) and then fire off his R-60 missile. At that point, the missile would guide itself towards the biggest heat source of the aircraft – one of the engines.

The R-60 is a rather small missile and it would never be able to destroy a large airliner like the Malaysia Airways Boeing 777. But the R-60 is more than capable to destroy one of the Boeing’s engines.

At this point, the airliner would rapidly lose speed and enter into a sharp turn while the pilots would be trying to figure out what happened, extinguish a burning engine and compensate for the increased drag. This is exactly what was observed on radars, by the way.

The rapid loss of speed and altitude would make the Boeing easy prey for the SU-25 which has a powerful cannon on board which would then easily catch up and finish off the attack with a volley of 30mm cannon fire.

Having finished off it’s target, the SU-25 would then sharply turn and return to its base. This is exactly what the Russian radars saw.

One might wonder why the Ukrainian would use a close air support aircraft like the SU-25 instead of a dedicated interceptor like the SU-27 or a fighter like the MiG-29.

Here again, the explanation is very simple: not only does the Ukraine have many more SU-25s than SU-27s or MiG-29s, but these would also be very conspicuous to any witness.

In contrast, the one (or, possibly two) SU-25s tasked with the destruction of MH-17 would be very easy to conceal in the eastern Ukraine and on any airfield. It is precisely because the SU-25 would be an unlikely aircraft to be given such a mission that it is the perfect aircraft to execute what is a textbook example of a false flag attack.

As for the Buk, it is such a big and conspicuous missile system that it is impossible to hide. Furthermore, had such a missile been fired broad daylight, the launch would have been clearly seen for many miles around. However, as long as all the Buk battery was doing is guiding the SU-25 towards MH-17 nobody would have noticed it. Nobody except the Russian, NATO and the USA, of course.

As somebody who has personally monitored military and civilian air traffic over Europe, I can attest to the fact that several militaries in Europe are constantly monitoring the entire airspace between the Atlantic and the Urals. These countries include the US and NATO. This is especially true for a battle zone.

In fact, US and Russian AWACS aircraft are always present when a conflict occurs anywhere near Europe. They have been monitoring the war in the Persian Gulf, the war in Bosnia and Croatia, the war in Afghanistan and many other conflicts. Besides their AWACS, the Americans and Russians also use their space based satellites to monitor any conflict zone.

Of course, neither side is willing to share all the detailed information it has, but the real problem here is political: the US won’t share anything at all because of the need to protect the regime in Kiev while anything the Russians would share will be immediately dismissed as “propaganda” (which is exactly what happened with the little the Russians did share).

I would add here that if had been the Novorussians who had shot down MH-17 the US could easily have proven it just as they have done it with KAL007 in 1983.

In fact, in the 20 years which separate us from the shooting down of KAL007 US intelligence capabilities have considerably improved, so I would expect the US could provide much more data than just radio intercepts. And yet the US provided exactly *nothing*.

There is only one logical possibility for that otherwise bizarre US refusal to provide any data at all: the US points to the “wrong” party. In other words, the fact that the US is not releasing any data all all is, by itself, an indirect proof that the Ukrainians did it.

As for the Ukrainians themselves they, of course, know *exactly* what happened and there is no need for them to “investigate” anything. So there is really nothing left to investigate. The Ukrainian did it and the West will never admit it.
____________________________________________________________

Commentary:
I would add that the Ukrainian Sukhoi-25s were reported to have been upgraded by Georgia, once ruled by a US backed dictator Mikhail Saakashvili and had access to Israeli technology for the purpose of upgrading their military equipment. It has been reported that several Ukrainian Sukhoi-25s were upgraded that they could fly at about 10,000 metres.

____________________________________________________________

Comments on the article:

- - - - -

colinjones2014 • 21 hours ago


"Why MH17 Was Most Likely Shot Down by a Ukrainian {doesn't really matter}"

...because soon after Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium and UKRAINE entered into a non-disclosure agreement regarding any official reports. The Dutch cannot release a report into MH17 without approval from Ukraine.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...

Quote [from the Australian Government]:
"All parties to the criminal investigation have signed a non-disclosure agreement which requires consensus among the parties before information regarding the investigation will be released".

Does that sound normal? A possible guilty party [Ukraine] being part of the official investigation? No, it does not sound normal, it reeks of impropriety.

- - - - -

Tsarkov19 Stavros Hadjiyiannis • 13 hours ago


That last sentence is unfortunately very true.

This whole event has been about media spin and opinion control. As has been pointed out numerous times, any legitimate investigation CANNOT have one of the suspects in on the investigation and with veto power over releasing information from the investigation.

It's all madness.

- - - - -

teddyfromcd Veritas Vincit • 13 hours ago


THE first smoking gun is:

WHY WAS THE AIRLINER DIRECTED by no one else that CONTROLLED AIRSPACE BUT KIEV air control -- to fly DIRECTLY - be re-routed -- into the KNOWN war-zone?

everything starts from there.

- - - - -

Boris Jaruselski • a day ago


That it was a aircraft ALONE with downed the MH-17 is hard to maintain, ...as the shrapnel pattern on the exterior fuselage is peppered with VERY distinct shrapnel holes, ...something Almaz Antey have scientifically researched and identify as being of POST 1992 Ukrainian owned and operated.

But that a aircraft was ALSO involved, is obvious from the VERY distinct 30 mm projectile entry holes on the pilots side, ...something which also is clearly visible on images take of the fuselage debris. Almaz Antey have not said a SINGLE world about these 30 mm projectile holes, ...simply because ALL they were interested in, to simply show, that it was NOT a Russian missile!

Now to the Suhoi, ...while it is true, that the SU-25 was concepted PRIMARILY as a ground support aircraft, ...with all that such a rage of tasks includes, the SU-25 I S capable of supersonic flight, and I S capable of high altitude, upto and including 10 000m! What the aircraft CAN'T do, is either fly supersonically AND/OR stay at 10 000 m for a LONG time! ...it can fly high and can fly fast, ...but NOT FOR LONG!

...since the trajectory of the airline was KNOWN, ...as it was SENT that way, it presented NO problem for the pilot to incept and shoot down the airliner, ...AT ALL!

...but WHY?

Better be 'safe', then sorry, ...THAT'S why! ...and there is another 'option' TOO: the MH-17 was a 'MISTAKEN IDENTITY'! ...since the attack was AIMED at a VERY different aircraft: IL-96!

 

[Akim]

And it did not read too. Already designers SAM Buk acknowledged that it was a missile "earth-air".@pmaitra
proves otherwise.

 

[pmaitra]

And it did not read too. Already designers SAM Buk acknowledged that it was a missile "earth-air".@pmaitra
proves otherwise.

Nonsense. I have read the analysis by Almaz-Antey. It was also posted some time back. You are fooling no one.

 

[Yumdoot]

Not just that analysis, the so called analyst himself was no designer of the Buk. I think he was even based in US or west ukraine.

 

[pmaitra]

Not just that analysis, the so called analyst himself was no designer of the Buk. I think he was even based in US or west ukraine.

There were many analyses.

There was an official analysis from Almaz-Antey. This one was not from someone based in the US.

 

[Akim]

Nonsense. I have read the analysis by Almaz-Antey. It was also posted some time back. You are fooling no one.

Teach Russian!
......................................................

 

[pmaitra]

Teach Russian!
......................................................

Very smart.

Now, here is the full version:

And a shorter version:

Almaz-Antey did not say it was shot down by BUK-M1. They said that if it was shot down my SAM, then it had to be 9M38M1 missile fired from a BUK-M1 system, and this missile is out of production since 1999 in Russia, but is in the inventory of Ukraine.

P.S.: I was talking about an analysis that I had R-E-A-D.

 

[Akim]

Very smart.

Now, here is the full version:

And a shorter version:

Almaz-Antey did not say it was shot down by BUK-M1. They said that if it was shot down my SAM, then it had to be 9M38M1 missile fired from a BUK-M1 system, and this missile is out of production since 1999 in Russia, but is in the inventory of Ukraine.

P.S.: I was talking about an analysis that I had R-E-A-D.

Therefore, you deduce that the nature of the lesion could do little R-60M? Look, I'm not interested to argue with you. Soviet sausage was disgusting taste (by the way - modern cheap sausage, too). But you will say that it was tasty and you believe this.