Sunday, 1 January 2017


Basic Dimension


January 24, 2016
Independent blog

On the MH17 hearing in the Netherlands of January 22, 2016, representatives of NLR (Dutch Aerospace Laboratory) and TNO (The Netherlands Organisation of Applied Research) said to be very pleased with the find of bowties in MH17. 

Bowties can only be found in 9N314and the real fight is not about the BUK but about the bowties. Who can prove 9N314M involves the Russians, otherwise 9N314 could point to Ukraine.

They claimed there was more evidence pointing to 9N314M and absolving 9N314. But considering all alleged evidence against 9N314M, the question arises for the total likelihood of this chosen permutation of the complex event of the shooting down of MH17. Is this perhaps a grand illusion? Might the total likelihood be near zero?

Now the reader plays the judge, watching tunnel vision and circular reasoning in this complex investigation.

Is this the first illusion:

The naked eye can see that shrapnels from 3 image are made from entirely different metal than shrapnel from image 1 and 2. So if 1 is BUK shrapnel than 3 are from another missile.

 sotilaspassi // August 14, 2015 at 8:44 pm // Reply
Metal generates rust in different way when being under the sky vs being in a human body.

Above we see two bowties from which the first allegedly was found in a body and the other in the cabin. But both bowties are definitely different from the third object. This means the corrosion theory in blood might be inadequate. So the premise of the bowtie found in the body of the captain, explaining the appearance of this bowtie can be wrong. It is the other way around. We first must prove this bowtie came into the body by the crash, what is unknown and not documented trustworthy. 

This is symptomatic for the whole investigation of the Western block. DSB detected only one permutation (a,b,c,d) of this complex event. First there was the premise of 9N314M was the weapon used (a), then it follows a bowtie must have been shot into the body of the captain (b). Then this bowtie must have been corroded by exposure to blood from his body (c). Consequently, this proves premise (a) which is pure circular reasoning, tunnel vision.

These bowties are seen as main evidence for 9N314M as the warhead used in the shooting down of MH17. As if they were proven facts they dominated further methodological issues of research. But remember, up to now this alleged causal relation is neither confirmed nor falsified. We are empty handed and simply don´t know what is true or false. 

This may be normal in science but is devastating in court. JIT knows it has to jump into the ravine now the Russians blocked its saved by the bell by the United Nations. 

This all will become a new tragedy for the families of the victims. Desperate they begged the Dutch Authorities how long JIT still wants to wait for crushing the Russians, not yet grasping what fate awaits them.

The Tragedy of the MH17 investigation:

Did investigators make the basic error of tunnel vision in science? Did they prove the premise of 9N314M to be true by exclusion of other possibilities? Tunnel vision by circular reasoning? Yes it looks like, unless they withhold information. 

So, what kind of proof do they have for 9N314M?



Bowties found in the cockpit prove that warhead 9N314M has shot down MH17.

The find of the bowties was stunning but unproven. The crash site was unattended for many months, also in the first days of body decay. Then bodies of the crew were transported and X-rayed. That's all we know. That's to say, we know nothing.

Also there seems to have been some misunderstanding with the Russians about the found bowtie in the captain's body. And though kinds of shrapnel from the beginning were known as indications of the weapon used, there was no official protocol; I mean we did not see official autopsy reports. We did not hear any witnesses. We just do not have the slightest indication the alleged bowtie was really found in the body of the captain. Hence, these bowties look like a Deus ex Machina for DSB. 

That's why we must demand proof of the conditional probability bowties entered through the hull or through the windshields. I desperately tried to prove this probability but failed. Hence, bowties found in the cockpit might be our first illusion.


Frac spread on MH17 is an exact projection from 9N314M.

In a physical model NLR thought to prove their theory of 9N314M as the warhead used by projecting the frac speed from the warhead exactly on the cockpit of MH17. They implied an identical projection:

But even if they were right with their identical projection, then in the second instance they had to crash another plane with warhead 9N314M to see if their theory was correct. Only then their hypothesis was confirmed. That's what they left for Almaz-Antey:

Above meant methodological flaws of tunnel vision excluded the investigation of 9N314 as the possible warhead used. But maybe 9N314 even would have given a better frac spread on the cockpit. Consequently both warheads should have been modeled to conclude which of them gave the best prediction. Also then it was only found out which of the two was favourable.

Hence, if you do not model different warheads, factually 9N314M as your premise will be proven one way or the other. And that's exactly what happened. DSB left everything from the iron carcass of MH17 not supporting their 9N314M theory. It has been a methodological mess. Piles of roof plates wear out their second life on sheds in Donetsk.

This might be a better height of detonation:

And in the rebound their theory was falsified since the frac spread was like a random blur as shown on the computers of Almaz-Antey. Though somewhat more red bowties are visible on the left side. But remember this is also an animation of a computer model:

This is the real experiment:

This definitely does not justify their hypothesis of an identical projection of the frac spread from the warhead to the plane, which projection likely would be better in the static test of A-A than in the dynamic situation of MH17:

So the theory of an identical projected frac spread from warhead 9N314M to MH17 was their second illusion. Circumstantial evidence for 9N314M as the warhead used crumbled further. 

But to be fair, despite the methodological mess of the DSB investigation, 9N314M can still turn out to be the warhead used. Except if there would be a causal relation between them. Except if (parties within) DSB knew 9N314M was not the warhead used. Although this must be seen as completely ridiculous, there still are a lot of unexplained and absurd tendencies pointing into that direction. This undermined confidence in DSB seriously from the start.


The expected number of holes in the hull of MH17 matches the amount of shrapnel of warhead 9N314M.

Until now we failed to prove the origin of the bowties, to prove identical frac spread and now we try to prove the amount of shrapnel on MH17 agrees with warhead 9N314M.

I enthusiastically embraced this wonderful idea of identical projections, since now I could calculate exactly the number of bowties to be expected on a surface normal aria of the cockpit roof:

But I failed again, since roof plates still lie in Donetsk:

And here are the expected kinds of shrapnel:

A segment on the roof of MH17 can be seen as reasonable surface normal to the sum vector

For this segment we exactly calculated the expected numbers of bowties:

– A 14% warhead area is selected on the roof in front of door L1 to the left windshield as reasonable surface normal, which can be inspected from pictured roof plates.

Reasonable surface normal:

– Following the ‘separated time and space blast theory’ of DSB on the left side of this area are expected: .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84 bowties.

– On the right side are expected: .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178 bowties.

– But also under quite acute angles bowties would show characteristic impacts:

– Maximally 617 bowties are expected accepting a 120% angle from the warhead to the aircraft: (.33 x .32 x 1870 = 197) + (.33 x .68 x 1870 = 420) = 617 bowties.

– DSB found 350 holes of impact for 7840 striking elements. Then bowties would have shown maximally 84 butterfly holes, seen from all angles (24% of 350).

- Assumptions regarding translations optimize chances for finding characteristic butterflies on the hull. But we also have 197+ 420 = 617 fillers (6x6x8.2).  And for them rotations does not matter. This means holes of 168 bowties and fillers out of 350 holes on the hull of MH17 would have shown in case of 9N314M. But until now nothing has been found...

As circumstantial evidence for 9N314M the number of impacts was staged. But only about 300 impacts were found and 500 were extrapolated. So also this kind of evidence does not exist in reality. All evidence from frac spread is illusions and not anchored in reality. There simply is no circumstantial evidence:

So far, we failed to prove:


FIRST ILLUSION: Bowties came through the hull or through the windshields.
SECOND ILLUSION: MH17 and 9N314M have identical frac spread.
THIRD ILLUSION: The amount of shrapnel proves 9N314M.
FOURTH ILLUSION: Testing paint of the missile proves a specific missile.
FIFTH ILLUSION: Statistical handbooks replace experimental testing.


Testing paint of the missile proves a specific missile.

 Hector Reban // October 18, 2015 at 11:43 am // Reply

Then you even haven´t mentioned the procedures around the obtaining of paint and explosive samples:

“As for the paint matching, the DSB says it tested “missile parts found at the wreckage area” with “fragments recovered from the aeroplane”. It concludes : “the paint samples taken from missile parts could not be distinguished from those found on the foreign objects extracted from the aeroplane”. How and when the two sets of samples were found, and by whom, is left unsaid.

The testing of the explosive residues is just as faulty, or even worse, depending on your forensic standard: “A total of 126 samples were reportedly swabbed from parts of the plane wreckage. Just 30 of these tested positive for two types of explosive – RDX and TNT. A “few” are now reported to have shown traces of the explosive PETN. 

However, on the missile parts which the DSB claims to be proof of Buk, “traces of RDX was [sic] found. On the missile part [sic] TNT or PETN could not be identified.” The significance of the missing explosive evidence is left unexplained. 

But the DSB report concedes that “the objects from which the swab samples were taken had been exposed to the elements for a long period of time.” Just how long from crash to recovery the Dutch don’t say. “The possibility of contamination during transport and by the fact that the wreckage lay in an area of armed conflict is a concern for the explosive residue analysis.”

Oleg Storchevoy, Deputy Director,
Federal Air Transport Agency of Russia:

[3.2. Paint samples and traces of explosive

The fact that paint samples taken from the missile fragments found at the crash site and those from foreign objects found in the aircraft wreckage match does not necessarily mean that the aircraft was hit by a 9M38-series missile of the Buk surface-to-air missile system.

Forensic examination of paint is normally based on the chemical analysis of paint samples. Often, the objective is to establish whether certain pigments are present in the paint. However, due to the fact that the same chemical elements may be present in paints manufactured by different companies, the results of paint analysis can only be considered as indirect evidence corroborating other types of evidence.

The same applies to explosives. Practically all the explosives used in anti-aircraft weapon systems are a mixture of TNT and RDX in various proportions. Hence, the fact that traces of these explosives were found on the missile fragments and the aircraft wreckage does not mean that the aircraft was hit by a 9M38-series missile of the Buk surface-to-air missile system.]


Statistical handbooks replace experimental testing.

Statistical handbooks dictate the loss of weight of bowties after impact on MH17.

The representatives of NLR (Dutch Aerospace Laboratory) and TNO (The Netherlands Organisation of Applied Research) about said statistical handbooks predict the weight of bowties after penetrating the hull of MH17. 

One of the representatives tried to correct his Russian colleague avec dédain. But that's counterproductive. The RF is a world power with an enormous aviation industry, where we once had Fokker. 

Details of genuine Russian complaints are contained in an official letter of the Vice Chief of the Russian aviation authority Rosaviacia, Oleg Stortschewoj, to the chairman of the Dutch Security Tjibbe Joustra: (press below: English).

It is well known the impact of shrapnel on a target will lead to a loss of weight. It depends on the relative velocity of missiles, planes and kinds of shrapnel. It also depends on the material of bowties and the hull. Simply said it depends on speed and material. But there are a lot of other intervening variables. You may think of:

The physical reason for this effect is the following: on a high hitting speed the interaction time of a projectile and a target is smaller than on a slow hitting speed, allowing less target material to get involved in the process. Therefore on high speeds there will be less bending and tearing, and the shape of the hole will match the shape of the projectile better. On a slow speed, on the other hand, the elastic propagation will have an opportunity to distribute the energy wider (i.e. the phonons will bounce off more and reach further, for you physicists out there) and thus a greater area of the target will participate in the interaction.

Here is an alternative explanation: on a higher speed the collision forces are higher. For extremely high collision forces the inertial properties of the material become more important than the elastic properties. This is indeed the case, as a penetration of a shaped charge jet into an armour is often modelled as a penetration of a fluid jet into a fluid target (=ignoring any elastic properties/intrinsic strength), giving sufficiently good results. On such speeds the strength of an armour becomes almost irrelevant (for some hard ceramics it is not fully the case though), and the only thing that matters is the density. That’s why Abrams tanks sometimes use depleted uranium armour and depleted uranium projectiles.

We understand it definitely is not known from statistical handbooks precisely how the weight of bowties is dependent on all these interacting independent variables. Statistical handbooks interpolate simple physical formulas with a minimum of interactions; otherwise interpolation would not be possible. Probably they do not cover interactions entirely. 

This means only reading scores from statistical handbooks is dealing in illusions and a replacement of reality. It might be the fifth illusion. And that's why bowties impacting on planes must be weighed and assessed.

But on the other hand, to keep it simple, we may confine the problem to speed, unalloyed steel from bowties and aluminum from the plane. Maybe that's what handbooks mean to say. 

Though in a static experiment we cannot change speed, as compensation we can change the thickness of aluminum. That's a great idea. And maybe following statistical handbooks nothing will be left from bowties which pierced through 8 mm aluminum (4 x thickness of the hull).

Now, RF argues the two bow ties must have been heavier after passing the hull or the windshield of MH17. They say they are too light. But NLR says their weight is quite normal and in accordance with statistical handbooks. Well, we see forward to their fruitful cooperation.

Now to proceed there are two possibilities left to falsify the DSB results completely:

1: The algorithm of the proximity fuse.
2: Splitting the static tests of A-A into two parts.


If the following is true, this might be devastating information, since the cockpit would not have been ruined. Here we only miss a counter-investigation into the algorithm and the technical specifications of the proximity fuse:

[According to the data provided by the company that designed the Buk surface-to-air missile system, if a 9M38-series missile approaches an aircraft at the angle presented in the final report, the algorithm of its proximity fuse will detonate the warhead after a certain delay so that the detonation area is 3-5 meters away from the nose towards the tail, which does not agree with the actual data.]

DSB/TNO report appendix Y, page 7:

Remember this rocket is developed against small fighter jets, so something must be better explained.


The Russian static tests of A-A must be split into two parts:

1: The most important investigation is on the written-off IL-86 airliner. This is the best controlled static experiment matching the dynamic situation of MH17. From this experiment we need the total number and the average weight of bowties and their standard deviation. Then we see how significant the alleged bowties of MH17 differ from the average weight of bowties in the IL-86 airliner.

In the second test all plates were blown away in the shock wave:

Hopefully the blast causing the speed of bowties was quicker than the shock wave. Below this seems to be true:

Fortunately plates were numbered. From inspection of the number of holes in the first plate (plates 1.0-1.5) we find the maximum amount of shrapnel pierced through aluminum. Then we want to know how many shrapnel elements succeeded to pierce the second plate, etc. We are very interested in the rank order.

In the YouTube film it is said all bowties were gathered. That's fine but they were blown everywhere and we do not know how many plates individual shrapnel has pierced.

If most bowties pierced most plates we accept the average weight of bowties as after piercing all plates. If not we may use all kinds of estimation formulas to estimate the total effect on plates. But that would unwise.

Since, if bowties allegedly found in MH17 significantly differ from the static test on the IL-86 then the RF is almost there. Then they must be prepared to repeat the test with the aluminum plates. Then they must perform three separate tests with massive aluminum plates of respectively 4 mm, 6 mm and 8 mm thickness. This time the plates must be very stable and must not be blown away. Bowties in the wooden construction must not be counted. If bowties can pierce these plates without substantial loss of weight, then the bowtie hypothesis of MH17 is not confirmed. It might even be seen as falsified. Depending on earlier specified interactions. This test must be controlled by independent scientists.

Consequently, since only speed and material can be manipulated we vary thickness of aluminum for we cannot perform dynamic tests. 


The 9N314M hypothesis might be true despite the investigation of DSB, but until now there is no convincing evidence. It has neither been confirmed nor falsified. DSB is skating on very thin ice.

[What would you expect if MH17 had been shot down by a BUK?]

I definitely would expect a causal relation between MH17 and the crew of the BUK in the first place for the following reasons:

– Shooting down a passenger aircraft like MH17 can hardly be coincidence, since in this situation complot theories fit much better. And this is rightly so.
– Even for the crew of a solitary BUK-TELAR shooting down a passenger plane demands willingness and concentration, since even in automatic mode the object must be designated for a while on the radar.

I would reject distraction by shooting at fighter aircraft, since the product rule of independent chances of their going together at one location in the air for longer time is nihil for several reasons.

– In theory it could be possible the radar in the second instance confused MH17 with a fighter aircraft, but in practice this chance must be seen as very low. And we do not go for special cases in this investigation.

A configuration of motives of parties must be made in advance of the launch of the investigation. There we would wonder why just a BUK was used and by whom. In case of intent we would assume a preconceived plan with a false flag attack. And we definitely expect intent.

– What means separatists will not be the intentional perpetrators or they were misled and saw MH17 as military aircraft like an IL-76. A possibility could be a revenge on separatists for the shooting down of an II-76 at the landing on Luhansk at July 14. But there are many other scenarios thinkable since the Ukrainian army consists of opposing groups between which everything could happen.

We only would proceed if the total likelihood of our complex scenario remains above some imagined minimum chance level. Hence, we would not accept weak links in the permutation. This also means the permutation must be kept as short as possible (a,b,c,) instead of (a,b,…,z).

Consequently, we have to conclude there is a big chance separatists have shot down MH17 (b). This means in our scenario Ukraine must be the inventor of the false flag (a). This is the most simple and promising permutation (a,b) (Ockham's razor). Now a lot of actions will have been planned before the attack for example the alleged concatenation of shootings of BUK films, which all must eliminated from the core permutation.

So, the scenario with the shortest permutation assigns Ukraine as the inventor of the false flag and the separatists as factual perpetrators. This set up is needed since separatists had not the slightest motive to shoot down a passenger aircraft. So, they must have mistakenly chosen MH17 in a very conscious handling.

So, [What would you expect if MH17 had been shot down by a BUK?]

A lubricated condemnation of Russia by the United States.
A touching story – full of lies – from Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans at the United Nations, with insults about the ‘thugs’ of Donetsk, who collected the dead bodies and children’s dolls.
The fed of public anger against the Russians by Dutch National Propaganda News station NOS
A sneaky association agreement between Ukraine and the EU.
A total collapse of Schengen, the EU and the euro.
And behold, I’m right.

You see, after the fact events are questionable and not that relevant.

People, who are lying, exhibit evasive behavior from the truth. By analyzing the structure of their lies we know why they are lying. Now it is common sense Western alliance is guilty of systematic lying all the time. It is called ‘politics’. Complot theories are the anti-projection of Western Neocons politics and they are very enlightening.

In case of MH17 the Russians seem to be overtaken by events and that’s why they look more as random liars. If they had shot down MH17, surely they first would have prepared a marked and slick defense without those ostentatious errors.

Of course it would be very sophisticated and refined if Russians first planned to shoot down MH17 and then agreed to lie gaudy and clumsy. But that would be counterproductive, so mark it off.

The art of lying is different for politics or morality. In politics flatly lying is generally accepted but in morality humans are very sensitive and susceptible. Gaudy lying with MH17 will be unmasked immediately. And so it happened.

Professional pathological liars as Prime Minister Rutte of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and his Minister of Foreign Affairs Frans Timmermans are politicians who have lost their sensibility to lie within morally accepted frameworks.

MH17 is not a political issue but touches the core of human existence. And now the public was alert and unmasked these pathological liars immediately. But until this day they are bewildered and do not understand precisely how morality works.

Only the lies of Ukraine were very systematic. They seem the least surprised by the assault on MH17. It is as if they expected this disaster and their brutality was correspondingly.

Maybe not the government, but the army or other uncontrolled groups might know more.

We earlier concluded the separatists (b) had not the slightest motive to shoot down a passenger aircraft. But they could have mistakenly shot down MH17 in a conscious handling. The only party with a motive must be Ukraine (a). This means in our scenario Ukraine must be the inventor of the false flag (a). Then most simple and promising permutation is (a,b) (Ockham's razor).

 Buran // January 28, 2016 at 5:30 pm // Reply
> In case of MH17 the Russians seem to be overtaken by events and that’s why they look more as random liars.
I’m intrigued about these “Russian lies” that you talk in your posts. Do you have a list?

As I wrote, I distinguish two types of politicians: systematic liars and random liars. Systematic liars have a plan while random liars try to escape their fate: a situation not planned. Regarding MH17, Ukraine seems to me a systematic liar and Russia a random liar.

Russia lied a lot, for example regarding weapon delivery to Donetsk, so it became difficult to trust them when they told the world not to have brought a BUK-TELAR across the border. May be they were right, may be not, it is a random guess.

Also debris from the fallen MH17 on primary surveillance radar definitely was no fighter aircraft and they must have known that before. So they lied to the world.

Furthermore they must have known this fighter jet had to be seen long before on primary radar on the same flight level in the neighbourhood of MH17 to be able to shoot the passenger plane down. This was not the case and that was another lie.

I registered a lot of random lies from the Russians but it is not my task to keep records of everything that happens in the world.

In relation to the DSB-report I think the Russians spoke the truth. I do not think they brought MH17 down. They had no motive and a mistake seems impossible since they knew MH17 very well on a daily basis from ADS-B.

At risk off topic a small correction. With ‘Russians’ I mean of course the RF government and not an uncontrolled faction from the Russian army.

Things might become very complicated if they brought a BUK-TELAR to Donetsk and held no contact with Rostov Radar. Then Russian soldiers as crew members could easily have been misled to see MH17 for an IL-76. This may have caused communication problems with Ukrainian spotters, which in fact may have been double agents of Ukraine.

Reply to Basic Dimension:

> Russia lied a lot, for example regarding weapon delivery to Donetsk

I haven’t seen any proof of Russia delivering vehicles. There’s no modern weapons or potent anti-air systems. While you and I suspect that Russia does it, as I said, I do not have proof. I’ve seen plenty of videos with the rebels ending up with trophies (Ukrainian army running away and leaving some vehicles with white lines and tons of ammunition behind). But I’m just curious, do you really expect Russia to reveal state secrets if it did transfer weapons and ammo? I think they admitted that there were many volunteer soldiers, and with what was happening in Ukraine (Odessa massacre, etc.) and with a third of Ukrainians have relatives in Russia, I’m sure there were many volunteers. Russia certainly facilitated this…

> Also debris from the fallen MH17 on primary surveillance radar definitely was no fighter aircraft
And you know this … how? You are trusting some other source, am I right? So what makes you think that it is your source that is telling the truth rather than Russia is lying here?
The thing is, the truth is on Russia’s side, so they don’t need to lie 😉 What photos and videos do you have as proof that rebels had Buk? Just 4 fake photos with Buk that came out hours or days after MH17 was shot down, and 3 fake videos (for example, made in Adobe After Effects) with Buk that were also uploaded hours after MH17 was shot down 😉
There’s a lot to say, but I’m off topic here, so I’ll stop.

 sotilaspassi // January 29, 2016 at 8:32 am // Reply

>> Russia lied a lot, for example regarding weapon delivery to Donetsk
>I haven’t seen any proof of Russia delivering vehicles.

Then how did those thousands “volunteer” Russian fighters get those hundreds of “more modern than UA” weapons? (T72B3, Pantsir, GPS jammers, etc etc.)
You can also verify a lot of vehicle paths from satellite images by yourself.

>> Also debris from the fallen MH17 on primary surveillance radar definitely was no fighter aircraft
>And you know this … how?

Everyone who has studied the matter rather than believe someone else knows.
Simply: Open your eyes. Unless you are paid to not to.
Initially Russia started to shoot over the border to Ukraine (eg. the AN26 14Jul). But they soon had to deliver more to Ukraine soil to continue. Also the BUK.

 Prosto Tak // January 28, 2016 at 11:45 pm // Reply
“Ukraine seems to me a systematic liar”

I’m intrigued about these “Ukrainian lies” that you talk in your post. Do you have a list?

I just planned to ask you :)

 Basic Dimension // January 29, 2016 at 11:01 am //

An example of a systematic lie campaign is to pretend your airspace is safe above 9700 meters while you definitely know it’s not:

[On July 15, it was announced by the military in a Public Statement since July 14 civil aviation was only allowed above 9,700 meters and military aviation was suspended. But actually military flights went on as usual.]

[- The Public Statement of the army also did not mention Pantsirs (A2A) reaching up to 15 km altitude, probably downed the AN-26 on July 14. For, this was aired only on a diplomatic meeting generally not known to the airlines. Therefore many airlines wrongly assumed only simple MANPADS were in the game certainly not reaching above 9700 meters.]

But very well must have been known by the army and the SBU the video posted on YouTube by Elena Kolenkina a month (!) before MH17 was shot down:

[- Elena says SU-25’s under the cover of civilian aircraft dived down, dropped their bombs and rose again in hiding, so they could not be touched by the separatists:]

[(1:32/2:14). This means it was a provocation; they wanted the self-defense force to shoot down an airliner so that the militias can be declared to be terrorists who shoot down airlines. Hundreds of passengers would have died; it would have been a huge catastrophy.]

[- But suppose the separatists only had Manpads to 3.5 km at their disposal while airliners flew about 10 km altitude. Then they had no story and no reason to put this video on YouTube. This means separatists already on June 18th IMPLICITLY ADMITTED the possession of Pantsirs, the little brother of the BUK with an altitude range of 15 km.]

Here started the fundamental trace of lies of Ukraine causing the downing of MH17. They definitely must have known separatists possibly could shoot down an airliner.

Do you really believe their defense they had no proof of advanced weapons before July 17, 2014? Must they wait a passenger aircraft to be shot down to have proof?

Has Elena – not intentionally – brought Ukraine an idea? Don’t you see the reverse? But even if it was not Ukraine which brought this idea in practice, already on JUNE 21, 2014 they were known with the possibility an airliner could be brought down, one way or the other.

But Ukraine did not close its airspace above Donetsk immediately on JUNE 22, 2014. Instead they started a SYSTEMATIC LIE CAMPAIGN to the world their civil airspace was safe. And so it happened.

Does it really matter what party shot down MH17? From this systematic lie campaign all other scenarios must be developed. Also the random lie campaign of the Russians.



This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attibution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.

No comments:

Post a Comment