Sunday, 1 January 2017

De Dubbelspion van MH17

Basic Dimension



    BIJGEWERKT GLOBAAL OVERZICHT VAN MH17 


Start 1 februari 2015.
Bijgewerkt: 9 februari 2016.
Onafhankelijk weblog.



DIT ARTIKEL WORDT NIET LANGER BIJGEWERKT.
ZIE DESGEWENST:
DE DUBBELSPION VAN MH17  (DEEL I  EN II)


De Dubbelspion van MH17 (Deel I)
De Dubbelspion van MH17 (Deel II)





De Dubbelspion van MH17 (English)               


- Separatisten lijken op het eerste gezicht een sterk motief te hebben om de MH17 neer te halen, omdat daardoor de burgerluchtvaart boven Donetsk verboden zou worden. Hierdoor zou Oekraïne haar militaire overwicht onder gijzeling van de burgerluchtvaart kwijtraken. Daarna zouden separatisten elk willekeurig toestel kunnen neerhalen.

- Weliswaar zou dit honderden onschuldige vliegtuigpassagiers het leven kosten maar die vielen weg tegen de vele duizenden eveneens onschuldige burgerslachtoffers die met Oekraïense bombardementen nog te verwachten waren.

- Maar zo simpel ligt het niet omdat Oekraïense militaire jagers en Antonovs vrij laag vlogen waardoor er van de hoger vliegende burgerluchtvaart maar weinig dekking uitging. Er was dus weinig winst te behalen met het verdrijven van de burgerluchtvaart.

- Ingeval de separatisten werkelijk van plan waren een burgervliegtuig neer te halen, konden zij het beste gebruik maken van een solitaire BUK TELAR die in autonomous mode niet correct kon onderscheiden tussen militaire en burgervliegtuigen. Dan konden zij voorwenden met een fles wodka in de hand een vergissing te hebben begaan en een burgervliegtuig te hebben neergehaald.

- Maar separatisten en/of Russen slaagden er ondanks de dekking van de burgerluchtvaart steeds beter in om laagvliegende militaire toestellen neer te halen, zoals de Antonov-26 op 14 juli. De gijzeling van de burgerluchtvaart was voor de laag vliegende militaire luchtvaart dan ook nauwelijks effectief.

- Wij concluderen daarom dat separatisten er geen groot belang bij hadden de burgerluchtvaart onmogelijk te maken, en zeker niet tegen de prijs van het neerschieten van een burgertoestel. 

http://www.buran.ru/htm/mh17_4.htm

  On 1 July 2014 the Ukrainian authorities closed the airspace over the zone of conflict for civil aviation to an altitude of 7900 meters (train FL260, ie 26,000 feet), and from July 8, represented by the Ministry of Transport Ukraine closed the airspace in the area of ​​combat operations for civil aircraft. (...) But the transit of "foreigners" remained above FL 260, and they continued to fly! Pravda, July 14, after the destruction of the An-26 at an altitude of 6000 ... 6500 m, the height of a comprehensive ban has been lifted to a height of9800 meters (32000 feet).

- Op 15 juli werd in de Openbare Verklaring van het leger bekend gemaakt dat de burgerluchtvaart sinds 14 juli alleen nog maar werd toegestaan boven de 9.700 meter en dat de militaire luchtvaart werd opgeschort. Maar feitelijk gingen militaire vluchten daarna gewoon door.

 Basic Dimension // February 6, 2016 at 9:48 pm // Reply
If you have no primary radar available but you can split civil and military aviation in altitude below and above 9700 meter, then they cannot collide and you need no primary radar. May be that was the real reason for that absurd measure and that’s why it had nothing to do with SAM.


Just an observation.
Ukraine has admitted having the BUK KUPOL unit of the 156th Regiment, 3rd Battalion in service in Kharkiv Oblast, presumably near ATO command at Izyum. It also had at least one ST-68UM field radar in use. Additionally, the military radar at 156th Air Defense Regiment, 2nd Battalion base A-1659 in Mariupol is not known to have been sabotaged, nor were local radar facilities at Mariupol airport. Finally, the local radar at Kramatorsk Military Air Field had to be functional to support ongoing flights to/from there.
These facilities were close enough and sufficient to see MH17’s flights and last minutes of distress.
Further, local partisans of Ukraine report military flights in the afternoon of July 17 on Twitter, which means military primary radar was active and being recorded for after action report purposes, especially given the shoot downs on the afternoon/evening of July 16.
The known damaged Ukrainian radars were at Donetsk, Lugansk, and Artemovisk and were taken down 4 to 7 weeks earlier. That civilian and military flights continued throughout up to July 17 means some method of  air traffic control must have been present to coordinate and control operations, as hundreds of military bombing and airdrop supply sorties occurred in that time, and civilian overflight included thousands of trips with potentially conflicting routes:

http://tinyurl.com/ht3dxl2




Now, if a military plane (AN-26) just flew below MH17 on the same track UkSATSE could not warn MH17 since they could not track their own military planes. The horrible dilemma is UkSATSE had no primary radar (AN-26), and the separatists definitely did not use Flightradar (MH17). So this is Russian roulette.
The fault in this scenario is no military plane was visible on Rostov radar. But we trust nobody and certainly no video radar images. But to be fair if a military plane was on the same track the Russians surely would have shown.
But not reality is important but the possible misunderstandings from this tragic situation we are just going to grasp.So we must think better and further.

 Basic Dimension // February 6, 2016 at 11:47 pm // Reply

We start thinking again and the Ukrainians had no primary radar from the airports left. But in any case they had their [BUK TAR radar car with a full-function identification FRIEND-OR FOE (IFF) and NON-COOPERATIVE SYSTEM TARGET RECOGNITION (NCTR) modes (motor resonances)].
So they easily replaced primary radar with complete BUK batteries throughout Luhansk and Donetsk. They made a network of primary radars in the field.

We start thinking again and the Ukrainians had no primary radar from the airports left. But in any case they had their [BUK TAR radar car with a full-function identification FRIEND-OR FOE (IFF) and NON-COOPERATIVE SYSTEM TARGET RECOGNITION (NCTR) modes (motor resonances)].
So they easily replaced primary radar with complete BUK batteries throughout Luhansk and Donetsk. They made a network of primary radars in the field.


ESPIONAGE BY CRACKED BUK COMMUNICATION

Step 1: Separatists discovered the Ukrainian army had no control over fighter aircraft without primary radar.

Step 2: Separatists sabotaged primary radar of airbases.

Step 3: Ukraine more and more had to separate civil aviation (high alt) from military aviation (low alt) since they could not track their military aircraft any longer and wanted to prevent collisions with civil aircraft.

Step 4: Ukrainian army replaced primary radars from the airbases with some BUK Target Acquisition Radars (TAR) in the field.

Step 5: This TAR, or better the BUK COMMAND VEHICLE communicated with the airbase. This communication contained all information about overflying military planes. The airbase informed about coming planes, on which TAR controlled the flight and the BUK COMMAND VEHICLE reported back to the airbase.

Step 6: I doubt the BUK system works with encrypted information between BUKs, because that would easily lead to mistakes. So separatists probably could intercept normal communication among BUKs on a distance of several kilometers.

Step 7: Communication from and to the airbase might be encrypted though I bet Ukraine never had experience with this situation before and they possibly still use the telephone for normal communication. Anyway the problem of spying has been reduced to decoding encrypted information at worst. This must be no problem for the Russians.

Step 8: We skip step 6, because step 7 gives direct information from the airbase. Also in step 7 separatists are not needed in the neighbourhood of any BUK system.

Step 9: This way separatists noticed when SU-25s approached from the airbase and shot down fighter jets with MANPADS, Pantsirs or BUKs.

Step 10: In this scenario separatists did not know their spying meanwhile was discovered by Ukraine. Now the airbase communicated a trick: an AN-26 was on its way to the stronghold below Snizhne bringing materials.


Step 11: Then separatists shot down MH17.


- Het zogenaamde sluiten van het militaire luchtruim moest aan airlines de psychologische zekerheid geven dat separatisten geen reden meer hadden om een vliegtuig uit de lucht te schieten. Tevens zou het Oekraïne juridisch vrij pleiten van het tegen beter weten in op misdadige wijze openhouden van de burgerluchtvaart boven Donetsk. 

- Na het opschorten van de militaire luchtvaart hadden burgervliegtuigen daarom op papier niets meer te vrezen. Maar airlines wisten niet dat de militaire luchtvaart gewoon door ging.

- In de Openbare Verklaring van het leger werd ook niet vermeld dat Pantsirs (A2A) reikend tot 15 km hoogte waarschijnlijk de AN-26 op 14 juli hadden neergehaald. Want dat werd alleen op een diplomatieke bijeenkomst geventileerd die bij de airlines niet algemeen bekend werd. En daarom verkeerden veel airlines ten onrechte in de veronderstelling dat er slechts eenvoudige manpads in het spel waren die zeker niet boven de 9700 meter reikten.

- In het meest voor de hand liggende scenario meende Oekraïne aan separatisten en Russen nog een enorme diplomatieke dreun te kunnen uitdelen voordat zij haar luchtruim voor burgervliegtuigen daadwerkelijk zou moeten sluiten. Zij zou hoe dan ook voor rekening van separatisten en Russen een burgervliegtuig (laten) neerschieten.

- Na 14 juli werd het allemaal nog wat gemakkelijker voor de separatisten. Alles onder de 9700 meter kon nu als militair toestel worden afgeschoten. Behalve natuurlijk wanneer vliegtuigen hun ADS-B transponder hadden aanstaan, als burgertoestel geïdentificeerd waren, maar op Flightradar toch lager vlogen dan 9700 meter.

- Welke conclusie moesten separatisten dan trekken en hoe kritisch is een verschil van 300 meter? De MH17 vloog op 10 km hoogte zwaar binnen de visuele foutenmarge van 9700 meter van de spotters. Maar hoe zit dat met Flightradar? Vloog MH17 letterlijk op de grens des doods? Natuurlijk zou geen zinnig mens haar daar dan neerhalen.

- Separatisten hadden geen enkele reden om op 17 juli al aan de hogere luchtlagen te beginnen, waar zij zonder Flightradar al direct tot Russisch roulette zouden moeten overgaan. Dat zou politieke zelfmoord zijn en dat begrepen separatisten net zo goed als Kiev. En met Flightradar was de MH17 zeker geïdentificeerd als burgertoestel.

- De 9700 maatregel was bepaald niet bedoeld om de internationale jet-set te beschermen. Er veranderde namelijk niets behalve dat separatisten nu impliciet werden uitgenodigd om alles onder de 9700 meter af te schieten. Zouden separatisten alleen op visuele informatie vertrouwen of ook nog Flightradar raadplegen voor ADS-B transponder identiteit en hoogte? Op Flightradar zijn militaire vliegtuigen niet te zien omdat zij geen moderne ADS-B transponder hebben of die anders wel uit zetten.

Voor mobiele SAM's als BUK TELAR en Pantsir veranderde er door de Openbare Verklaring van het leger ook niets. Deze maatregel had geen enkel strategisch effect. Want verstandige separatisten zouden in alle gevallen niet alleen op visuele informatie vertrouwen maar daarnaast Flightradar met ADS-B transponder identiteit en hoogtemeting altijd als controle meenemen. En dan veranderde er onder en boven de grens van 9700 meter dus niets.

- Flightradar speelt daarom een doorslaggevende rol bij de oplossing van de ramp met de MH17. Hebben separatisten daarvan gebruik gemaakt of niet? Beneden de 7 km konden zij met verrekijkers en zonder Flightradar de AN-26 er nog wel uitvissen. Maar boven de 9700 meter is er zonder Flightradar geen enkel onderscheid meer mogelijk.

- Mogelijk werden zij aangestuurd door Ruslands Rostov radar maar daar was de MH17 kind aan huis en bestond er geen enkele reden een burgertoestel neer te laten schieten.




Report MH17 crash:



http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/dutch-member-of-parliament-asks-32-questions-on-missing-radar-recordings/#comment-12323

 Basic Dimension // November 21, 2015 at 11:18 am // Reply

– Primary surveillance radar images are worthless because they simply can be manipulated. Only with normal accidents radar images can be trusted.

– Hence we agree all parties have same primary surveillance radar images and satellite information: NATO, Ukraine and RF. They unanimously have seen the launch of a BUK and they all exactly know from where. But the ambiguity is all parties can be perpetrator: Ukraine, separatists/Russians.

– Nobody knows exactly where separatists and Ukraine were in power in Donetsk, hence radar images cannot be faked adequately.

– Of course NATO and RF know places where definitely Ukraine or separatists were in power.
– But manipulation of data by one party would be punished immediately by the other. And the first showing falsified data would be designated as the culprit by the other which then, in turn, would change its radar data adequately.

– Hence, falsifying radar was a dead end.

– No one can show faked radar images, for parties hold each other at gunpoint. RF might just find the original primary surveillance radar images in an old shoe box.

– Falsifying radar was a dead end, but not for the US. We know DSB has seen satellite images of the Americans which – as they say – are in agreement with their ventilated opinion in the DSB-report. And because these images are highly classified DSB lost freedom of speech in its own report. That’s why we cannot trust the DSB-report any longer. We can trust nothing, only the facts gathered by ourselves.

– As a compromise all parties agreed it was a BUK launched from a very large area, so all parties could be the culprit. With such a carefully considered stalemate primary radar images were no longer necessary. And so it was decided in the dark club of DSB.

 Basic Dimension // November 21, 2015 at 11:54 pm // Reply

We should talk. It is off topic but important. It is not about radar images but about independent research into the cause of abnormal passenger aircraft accidents. Rules of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) should be reconsidered. This way we cannot proceed for the next hundred years.

New investigations should be delegated to an international respected scientific institute which randomly designates a team of outstanding experts of varying composition and nationality.

Concerned countries will harm their international position in aviation seriously if they do not recognize this committee and do not cooperate. Sanctions are not imposed prematurely by political machinations any longer, but after thorough neutral research. These sanctions will be easier accepted as righteous.

Of course fraud and corruption are still possible. But ties between countries and researchers involved are cut and independent experts are asked only once.

If we do not have the guts to adjust the rules of the game to adapt to international criminality, confidence in this type of research will quickly disappear.










Report MH17 crash:







When we check the flight history database of flightradar24.com, his claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I made the following animation of the flightpaths of MH17 from 8 July - 17 July and as you can see the flightpath (with one exception) always crossed the area between Donetsk and Luhansk. This area is on the right side of the image close to the border of Ukraine.


[​IMG]




- De vraag is of separatisten eigenlijk wel een vorm van Flightradar gebruikten. Dat lijkt vanzelfsprekend maar er zijn daarbij twee kanttekeningen te maken. Zouden zij zich beperken tot een hoogte van zeg 7 km dan betrof het boven Donetsk in de regel militaire vliegtuigen die geen ADS-B transponder aan hadden. Dan hadden zij dus niets aan Flightradar. Die waren nog wel zichtbaar op Rostov's primary surveillance radar.

- En hoe lager militaire jets overkomen hoe indrukwekkender hun grondsnelheid en hoe minder tijd voor Flightradar. Dat moet dan wel permanent aanstaan. En in de stress en hectiek vindt men maar moeilijk de rust om Flightradar te raadplegen.

- Dat vereist echt wel de beslotenheid van een BUK TAR radarwagen met ‘a full-function identification FRIEND-OR-FOE (IFF) SYSTEM and NON-COOPERATIVE TARGET RECOGNITION (NCTR) modes (motorresonanties). En daarover beschikten zij dus niet. 
Althans, de BUK TELAR heeft maar een zeer beperkte IFF/NCTR capability waarop hij de MH17 ook nog eens als vijandelijk vliegtuig waarneemt!

- Wel was er mogelijk hulp van Rostov's primary surveillance radar.


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


De Dubbelspion van Oekraïne

- Er is daarom ruimte voor een scenario waarin de separatisten geen Flightradar gebruikten, als volgt:

- De legerleiding meende dat separatisten van Flightradar geen gebruik maakten omdat zij niet geïnteresseerd waren in de hogere luchtlagen met burgervliegtuigen boven de 9,7 km. En separatisten gebruikten ook na de 9700 cesuur van 14 juli nog steeds geen Flightradar. Die enkele transport IL-76, SU-27 of MiG-29 die hoog overkwam was geen onmiddellijk gevaar en had trouwens zijn evt 
ADS-B transponder uit.

- Ingeval separatisten ooit geïnteresseerd zouden raken in de hogere luchtlagen, dan hadden zij met dezelfde grondsnelheid van de vliegtuigen veel meer tijd om Flightradar te inspecteren. Dus pas in de hogere luchtlagen zouden zij van Flightradar gebruik maken.

- Zouden zij in dat geval in de hogere luchtlagen een vliegtuig alleen maar visueel en zonder transponder waarnemen, dan zouden zij kunnen besluiten tot een militair toestel wat zij dan neerhaalden. Maar dat zou wel heel erg onverstandig zijn, omdat een toestel op grote hoogte geen onmiddellijk gevaar vormt. Dat zouden zij dus echt niet doen. Complete waanzin zeker binnen drie dagen na de 9700 cesuur. 

- Op 17 juli was het een bewolkte dag waardoor spotters de MH17 in de hogere luchtlagen waarschijnlijk niet of zeer slecht konden waarnemen. Zij konden de MH17 alleen op Flightradar zien aankomen. En daar maken hoogvliegers als de MH17 zich lang te voren als burgervliegtuig bekend. Ook een hoogte indicatie wordt gegeven. Het is daarom zo goed als uitgesloten dat de spotter van de BUK - met Flightradar aan - de MH17 abusievelijk als militair toestel zou kunnen hebben opgevat. Hij had Flightradar dus niet aan. Maar zoals gezegd zal de operator op de BUK de MH17 met IFF later wel als vijandelijk hebben beschouwd.

-  En daarom beschikten separatisten in dit scenario zonder Flightradar zeer waarschijnlijk niet over informatie over de MH17 ten tijde van de ramp. Want de spotter kon de MH17 door het wolkendek niet of nauwelijks waarnemen en had Flightradar niet aan omdat hij in de hogere luchtlagen eenvoudigweg niet geïnteresseerd was.

- Dus met Flightradar was een vergissing uitgesloten en zonder zou de MH17 visueel waarschijnlijk niet eens zijn opgemerkt. Dat schept ruimte voor een andere informatiebron.

- In dit scenario beschouwen wij daarom de afwezigheid van Flightradar als evidentie dat separatisten de MH17 niet geïdentificeerd kunnen hebben neergeschoten. En hadden zij Flightradar wel aan dan hadden zij de MH17 tijdig geïdentificeerd als burgertoestel en hierop niet geschoten.

- Maar Oekraïne wist in dit scenario dus ook dat de spotter van de BUK de vertrouwde aanwijzing van haar kant dat MH17 een militair toestel was onder de 9700 meter, niet met Flightradar af zou checken. En ook dat de MH17 op de IFF van de BUK TELAR als vijandelijk zou worden beschouwd. En daardoor komt er ruimte voor een dubbelspion.

- Een dubbelspion van Oekraïne die bij Dnipropetrovsk Radar (Oekraïne) als spion voor de separatisten werkte, of bij een luchtmachtbasis, die de spotter tipte over een naderend militair toestel, een Antonov (de MH17) die onder de 9700 meter overkwam.



 Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 6:33 am // Reply
There is no proof whatsoever rebels believed they targeted or launched at something. Its a false assumption emanating from the manipulation of the deleted Strelkov_info posting.
And the spotter claim is so ludicrous, its kind of weird people even started to think about its possible trustworthyness. A double agent, right. There are more credible conspiracy theories than this one.
But I guess for pro-Kiev people the feeling the incompetent spotter must have been there because the SBU claimed he was, is strong enough.
  • Hector: just by saying a theory is nonsense is not an argument. It is very well likely a BUK uses human eyes to spot targets. The simple reason it that as soon as the radar of a BUK is switched on, it can be detected by the enemy. And thus can be destroyed.
    Now tell me why a spotter telephone call is nonsense.
  •  Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 6:55 am //

    Second argument (sic!): its not credible because it entails the assumption the spotter must be incompetent or that he get false information by a (fictitious) double agent. I already wrote that too by the way.
(...)
A more realistic sequence is as follows (not that I necessarily believe this happened, but we will take it as a hypothetical and enthralling story to illustrate).
The spy/double agent at Dnipropetrovsk has been fed some of the flight plan and parameters of MH17 adjusted to make it look like an AN-26 to pass on the the rebels, pretending it is an AN-26 about to perform a HALO drop to the southern pocket from as close to 8 km as he can get. He is ignorant of the real plane to be hit.(...)




(..) The BUK crew most likely was for the first time in the field without an commander and radar systems. An error is by far the most likely cause.
It is likely Ukraine increased the chances for this error (not closing airspace, double spy providing false info)


 Basic Dimension // August 24, 2015 at 1:15 pm // Reply

Hence, Ukraine ‘knew’ (by Birdie) the danger for all passenger planes but they did not warn, because there was no trail to warn for. That’s because there probably was no military plane in the sky. But then how the separatists got this information in the first place?

Therefore, we are inclined to conclude there was no self-informing separatist spotter involved at all and the Birdie message never existed. And there were also no military planes in the sky because that could compromise Ukraine. Ukraine is in a big mess with this scenario because now only the double agent remains.

 Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 8:38 am //
Again, I established this with reason by pointing out to you the spotter and doubleagent scenarios are speculative, unfounded and only supported by dubious claims made by a party we cannot trust (the SBU timestanmped spotter taps).        
               


 Andrew // August 27, 2015 at 8:25 pm //

Admin:

“The simple reason it that as soon as the radar of a BUK is switched on, it can be detected by the enemy. And thus can be destroyed. Now tell me why a spotter telephone call is nonsense.”

If the spotter call is at 16:18:XX and the BUK radar is not even turned on, but the missile is fired by 16:19:28-30, with at least a 24 second launch sequence, then a go-to-launch command is spoken around16:19:01-05.
We are getting down to mere seconds to fire up the radar and find the target. How realistic is that?
The only way this works is if the rebel crew has also been pre-fed a flight plan which would make them immediately find MH17 because they already knew where to look. Otherwise, in searching for an AN-26 flying slowly at 7 km they wouldn’t find MH17 at 10 km and flying much faster.
This implies a Ukrainian double-cross via the supposed spy at Dnipropetrovsk and the deliberate shootdown of the civilian plane through the agency of manipulation of the targetting by the rebels to make them think MH17 was a military transport.


 igor // August 28, 2015 at 12:09 am // Reply
What exactly is the source for the Dnipropetrovsk´s spy story?

It appears to have originated from somebody called “Andrew”, in this post :
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/13-months-later-what-happened-to-flight-mh17/#comment-6922
where out of thin air he states, it as if it is know to be a fact : “The spy/double agent at Dnipropetrovsk has been …”…
  • There was a report in Ukraine press that someone who worked at the airport in Dnipropetrovsk informed the separatists about military aircraft movements. I will try to find that report which was in a newspaper. I believe the person worked for an airline.
    • A spy accuses the separatists and double-spy points to Ukraine in the first place. A spy easily leads to the accusation of committing an intentional and witting assault on civilians by the separatists. A double spy places the motive to shoot down a civilian airliner wittingly and intentionally by Ukraine or some Ukrainian renegade faction.




 Соответственно, СБУ начала кропотливую работу по выявлению и обезвреживанию "кротов", регулярно "сливавших" информацию сепаратистам о вылетах украинской авиации.(....)

Accordingly, the SBU start painstaking work on the identification and disposal of "moles" regular "merge" the information about the separatists departures Ukrainian aviation. The hunt for spies conducted by different methods and in almost all airfields from which the combat missions in the area of ​​the ATO. And occasionally in Ukrainian media leaked information on the detention of another "Russian spies" for example, according to the head of the SBU Valentin Nalyvaychenko, as of 15 January 2015 were arrested a total of 232 (!) Spy transmit information to the separatists and "GRU Russian Armed Forces ". This "surge spy mania" in Ukraine began in the second half of July 2014 when the failed offensive along the Russian border. If we talk about the "spy aircraft" detained close to the date of July 17th, 2014 - the day of the tragedy of flight MN17, it is possible to bring the case of detention 07/24/2014 An airline cabin attendant, or the suppression of attempts to install electronic intelligence post in the Kharkov region on July 8 and the detention of 23 July spy, "listen to the talks of military pilots and transmit information to terrorists," or detention of July 24 An airline cabin attendant, a spy in favor of the separatists at the airport Dnepropetrovsk (adding that reports of the capture of "aircraft spies" appear fairly regularly, and much later, for example 26.08.2014, 11.03.2015 and 03.21.2015). What is more important - if the official press releases of the SBU willingly and often reported the arrests of various separatists and terrorists among civilians and militants, the reports of arrests among the soldiers of the Ukrainian army will never be published. 

(...)
Важно другое - если официальные пресс-релизы СБУ охотно и часто сообщают об арестах разнообразных сепаратистов и террористов среди гражданских лиц и боевиков, то сообщения об арестах среди военнослужащих украинской армии никогда не публикуются.

... For one of the most "prolific" informants separatiststo inform them about the Ukrainian aviation sorties from one of the military airfieldsSBU hunted several monthsGradually managed to get on the trail of a spynarrow down the suspects - was a little bit moreanother outlet spy on contact, yet another attempt of communication, any errorthat it accurately locateAgent separatists had to express themselves in any way - and then it can be taken for sure. It was just July 17, 2014 ...


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


Separatisten hadden geen spotters 

-  Het van de separatisten afgetapte telefoonverkeer betrof real time intelligence wat betekent dat de Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) contact kon leggen met de (spotters van de) BUK. 

- De SBU wist ook dat de separatisten geen spotters hadden om de vanuit Kiev of van elders vertrekkende Antonovs-26 te traceren en zoals men weet was het die 17e juli ook veel te bewolkt om ze met verrekijkers te kunnen spotten:

(5,17/5,29)

Hmuryi: You see, we've got a GRAD, but no spotter. However we're waiting for Russia to shelter them from the other side.





 Basic Dimension // August 27, 2015 at 12:07 pm //
Comment on: Hector Reban // August 27, 2015 at 8:54 am //

Hector said:
‘Like I said: The spotter scenario is not credible because it entails the (non-supported) assumption the spotter must be totally incompetent (ie. can´t differentiate between planes) or that he get false information by a(fictitious) double agent. So who proves the spotter was competent any way and the double agent existed in reality?’

We only have logical reasoning:

A spotter can be postulated to inform the operator of the BUK about incoming military planes of Ukraine. He is the logical link in the chain. But of course, the operator can decide on other grounds to fire a BUK missile. Numerous options are available ranging from complete madness to a phone call from Moscow. But a spotter is most obvious.

Then, a set of requirements is established which the spotter must meet. These are personal characteristics but more important are the means at his disposal. From scratch and by logical reasoning we set boundaries for the spotter.

First of all separatists usually were not using Flightradar, otherwise they would have timely identified MH17. But this must be a fallacy in reasoning, because this would be incredible. We only proceed after finding a good reason why the spotter did not use Flightradar: Flightradar is senseless with military planes with their ASD-B responder off.

This means the spotter always needed inside information from the base of which military planes departed. He was a trustful spy of the separatists but has been unmasked by Ukraine because spotters make use of their telephone and are easily identified by the SBU. Now he was fighting for his life as a double agent.

Now, the operator of the BUK trusted his good old spotter blindly. And the double agent – with a gun against his head – said he needed not look at Flight Radar because that AN-26 or IL-76 had his ASD-B transponder turned off. And there were no civilians on that track, so don’t worry. Normally spotters would be double checked but the separatists had not enough spotters available at July 17.

·   admin // August 27, 2015 at 12:16 pm //
basic dimension: military aircraft like Antonov 26 and IL76 do not have ADS-B. Some IL76 used by civil companies transporting cargo into western countries have ADS-B


["The story passed about by the SBU is that “Birdie coming towards you” was radioed in from Gorlivka, 65 km from the Snizhne position."]



 Basic Dimension // August 24, 2015 at 1:15 pm // Reply

Re-estimating probabilities of scenario 1:

Conclusion: (p = .01): IL-76 en route of MH17, with self-informed separatist spotter.

(P = .8): ‘The BUK crew believed the airspace was closed for civil aircraft below 9,700 meters.’

======
Separatist spy or Ukraine double spy:
======
Separatist spy:

(P = .3): ‘A separatist spotter located some 50km from the BUK informed the crew that the target was coming towards the BUK.’

Remember Andrew’s analyses showing there were big logistical problems for a separatist spotter to identify any (military) aircraft in this time and place path.

—-
AN-26 or IL-76:
——
IL-76: (Remember in this scenario a real IL-76 was en route).

(P = .2): The BUK crew was informed an IL-76 was their target at 11 km, INTERFERING WITH civilian planes. But, because separatist did not use Flightradar this would come down to Russian roulette in the higher areas, which they feared.

Remember Andrew’s analyses showing there were big logistical problems for separatist spotters to identify the IL-76 in its time and place path, where they obviously used no Flightradar on a rather overcast day. The spotter really could not have the slightest clue to identify IL-76. He must have warned the operator of the BUK for uncertainty about this IL-76 observation and not to confound it with civilian aircraft.

Concluding separatists had no clue at all about the identity of that so called IL-76. They were completely unable to identify above 10 km, otherwise they would have identified MH17. (In case of Flightradar, IL-76 had its ABS-B responder off.)

(P = 0,01): Truth of: message intercepted by Ukraine. (‘Birdie coming towards you).

Our assumption is the SBU had real time information about phone calls of the separatists. Also remember Ukraine must have known Rostov’s primary surveillance radar would follow the track of IL-76.

So, if Ukraine trapped MH17 (with a real IL-76) it never would admit foreknowledge by ‘Birdie coming towards you’. They would only just in time change the course of IL-76 to sacrifice MH17.

Hence, a real IL-76 in the sky does not fit with the downing of a passenger plane by the separatists on behalf of Ukraine.

And a real IL-76 in the sky combined with the Birdie story certainly would compromise Ukraine (because no general alarm given).

Because if Ukraine was not setting a fall for the separatists – and a real IL-76 was en route – they would have aired ‘Birdie coming towards you’ AND they would have warned MH17 on the same course immediately, what they didn’t.

Hence, if someone obviously planned to target a real flying IL-76, – there probably was no other Birdie in the sky – Ukraine would have given a total alarm for all civilian planes above 9,700 meters in Donetsk.

The conclusion must be there was NO real IL-76 en route (also there was NO AN-26 in the sky).

Hence, Ukraine ‘knew’ (by Birdie) the danger for all passenger planes but they did not warn, because there was no trail to warn for. That’s because there probably was no military plane in the sky. But then how the separatists got this information in the first place?

Therefore, we are inclined to conclude there was no self-informing separatist spotter involved at all and the Birdie message never existed. And there were also no military planes in the sky because that could compromise Ukraine. Ukraine is in a big mess with this scenario because now only the double agent remains.

Conclusion:

The total probability of a Ukrainian military plane is near zero. We conclude there was no self-informed spotter of the separatists involved and there also was no ‘Birdie’ message. Because we concluded no IL-76 was in the sky, we need not judge about Russia cleaning its radar.


[Horlivka = Ukranian] [Gorlovka = Russian]








De separatisten hadden daarom nul komma nul informatie over alle vliegtuigen op 10 km hoogte. Wel 75 toestellen per dag. Waarom juist de MH17? Van wie kregen zij eigenlijk de informatie over Oekraïnse legervliegtuigen vertrekkende uit Kiev of van elders? De SBU kon hier een dubbelspion tussen schuiven die de MH17 als laag overvliegende Antonov-26 uit Kiev aanwees.

- Ook hadden Russen of separatisten op de BUK geen contact met Rostov radar, want anders hadden wij dat inmiddels via YouTube wel geweten. Daarom waren de separatisten volkomen afhankelijk van de SBU voor vanuit Kiev vertrekkende AN-26 toestellen.

- De operator van de BUK TELAR beschikte over een beperkte IFF-versie om het verschil tussen eigen en vijandelijke vliegtuigen vast te stellen. Het systeem is onvolkomen en beschouwde de MH17 als vijandelijk vliegtuig. Maar dat deed het natuurlijk ook met de overige 74 vliegtuigen die dagelijks overkwamen. Dus werd de spotter van de BUK waarschijnlijk misleid en beschouwde hij de MH17 als een Antonov-26 komende uit Kiev.

Rusland staat boven verdenking, maar dat geldt niet voor facties binnen het leger die op eigen houtje handelden en een oorlog met Oekraïne wilden forceren.


 Basic Dimension // August 26, 2015 at 9:49 am //

Rob, intriguing scenario, all scenarios must be taken seriously.

You wrote: ‘A high-level call came in from Moskow to switch on the radar at 17:20 Moskow time and shoot down the target that was approaching from 115 deg.’

If this scenario should have a chance of success, an additional degree of freedom should be given splitting the command of the Russian army: then we have got two opposing faces of the Russian Army:

1: Russia’s Defense Ministry.
2: A renegade faction within the Russian Army.

Russia obviously has no motive and therefore is above suspicion, but it does not apply to factions within the military who acted on their own and wanted to force a war with Ukraine.

The BUK was not under separatist control and Russian government was not yet informed about this renegade action. And this renegade faction would welcome the BUK shooting down a Russian aircraft because they desperately wanted an invasion into Ukraine.
But for some reason they have chosen MH17. Deliberately because they possessed all kind of radar equipment. May be those officers did not want a Russian invasion of Ukraine, cause in fact they blamed Ukraine and the separatists. Hence, the flaw in this script is they should have known the enormous damage brought to the separatists and that’s why it is not my favorite. This only has a very, very low total chance.

Just by adding an extra degree of freedom all arguments are in line. But now motives of the renegade faction are incorrect and seem completely false. In this scenario Russian government really must have been shocked about what happened. Just as we do they developed all kind of scenarios (not to blame Russia). If the official Russian government deliberately would have shot down MH17, it would never react as childish, silly and stupid as they did but would have offered a clever defense.


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


Het scenario van de BUK door Donetsk

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-you-see-is-all-there-is/

Posted on September 30, 2015 by  in ReconstructionResearchRoute

– the narrative of the BUK arriving from Russia at Donetsk around 09:00 EEST on July 17th and returning in the night after was constructed by the SBU to distract public opinion from the negligent and irresponsible behaviour of the Ukrainian authorities, namely the fact that BUKs had been present in eastern Ukraine before July 17th – possibly already since June – and that the airspace above the ATO zone should have been closed because of this presence (and also because of the air combat between Russian and Ukrainian jet fighters at the time);



 Hector Reban // October 1, 2015 at 8:56 am // Reply

Second, stunningly Arnold draws the conclusion “That there was a BUK in Snizhne is beyond reasonable doubt”. No, it isn’t.




Militant: Regarding the plane shot down in the area of Snizhne-Torez. It's a civilian one. Fell down near Grabove. There are lots of corpses of women and children. The Cossacks are out there looking at all this.

They say on TV it's AN-26 transport plane, but they say it's written Malaysia Airlines on the plane. What was it doing on Ukraine's territory?

Nikolay Kozitsin: That means they were carrying spies. They shouldn't be f...cking flying. There is a war going on.

- [De afgeluisterde gesprekken zijn volgens het OM afkomstig van de geheime dienst van Oekraïne, SBU.]

- De route van de BUK die het JIT (Joint Investigation Team) nu van het publiek wil weten was op het moment zelf al volkomen bekend bij de SBU (Security Service of Ukraine). Dit alles maakt het er voor Oekraïne niet beter op:

(1.01/ 5,29)

SBU: In the morning of July 17, 2014, the day of the tragedy, counterintelligence obtained trustworthy information of the DPR terrorists obtaining at least one BUK-M unit with a crew transferred across the Russian border near the town of Sukhodolsk around 1.00 AM.

- Men rijdt met een opvallende BUK op 17 juli dwars door Donetsk, een oorlogsgebied waar tal van spionnen van de SBU (Oekraïne) actief zijn. Zij beschikken over telefoon met internet voor het opladen van foto en film. Vanaf het eerste moment was de SBU daarom getipt over de komst van de BUK en heeft zij vervolgens de gangen van de BUK nagegaan.

- Wat betekent dat de SBU al op 17 juli over real time intelligence beschikte over waar de BUK was tot in Snizhne aan toe en waarschijnlijk ook precies wist welk burgervliegtuig op 17 juli in de namiddag binnen bereik van de BUK zou vliegen.

- Op 14 juli was er al een AN-26 neergeschoten. Dit land is permanent in oorlog en monitorde de BUK daarom al gedurende de gehele periode, dus ook op 17 juli, waarover de JIT (Joint Invervention Team) nu pas, na 8 maanden, informatie van het publiek wil krijgen.

-  Ook het afgetapte telefoonverkeer van de separatisten betrof hoogstwaarschijnlijk real time intelligence wat betekent dat de SBU contact kon leggen met de spotters van de BUK. Zij konden hier een dubbelspion tussen schuiven die de spotter van de BUK de MH17 als laag overvliegende Antonov-26 uit Kiev kan hebben aangewezen.

- In het andere geval zou Oekraïne onmiddellijk alle vliegverkeer hebben stilgelegd uit voorwetenschap van misdadige opzet. Maar dat is dus niet gebeurd...




 Basic Dimension // August 26, 2015 at 10:11 pm // Reply

 // August 26, 2015 at 7:38 pm // Reply

There is said: ‘And why would Russia present so many lies instead of telling the truth? And why did Russia used its veto? It you have nothing to fear and 100% evidence there is no problem to have a tribunal, right?

This could be a posteriori reasoning caused by lack of knowledge of the Russians. Remember if Ukraine was the culprit Russia had no foreknowledge of the attack and their a posteriori reasoning would be understandable. They obviously would develop wild theories just as we do, for they would have no facts. And Russian veto is completely understandable because they do not trust the “100% evidence” of JIT and Safety Board. If you have 100% evidence you normally go to court, otherwise you better look for political condemnation by the UN.

In contrast with Russia, Ukraine shared a priori facts with the public by releasing statements from (probably) real time tapped phone calls. These calls demonstrate ruthless foreknowledge and raise the question why Ukraine did not intervene to warn the airlines. A priori facts, which should have encouraged Ukraine to prevent the attack. As an example Ukraine timely ‘knew’ of the transport of BUK in Donetsk the 17e of July. The pinnacle was probably the real time registered “Birdie comes to you ‘, without alerting immediately all civilian planes over Donetsk. This is inexcusable and Ukraine will be accused of inciting war crimes by conditional intent with probability consciousness.



Dolus Eventualis refers to where a perpetrator foresees indirect consequences as a possibility. The legal definition of Dolus Eventualis is Awareness of the likely outcome of an action.

The downing of MH17 definitely was no mistake. It has been  a premeditated and intentional mass murder. 

Prosto:

The downing of MH17 definitely was no mistake. IMO it has been a premeditated and intentional mass murder. 

The downing of MH17 was no accident, Ukraine is extremely guilty of Dolus Eventualis what refers to where a perpetrator foresees indirect consequences as a possibility: Awareness of the likely outcome of an action. Ukraine is extremely guilty of immoral behavior not to have closed its airspace for civil aviation. This is pure war crime.

But there is more. I do not believe the separatists had the intention to shoot down a passenger airplane. Also I do not believe someone pressed the wrong button. Separatists and Russians had no motive. But maybe separatists effectively were the perpetrators. Separatists and Russians are guilty of war crimes if they brought Pantsirs and/or BUKs into Ukraine, just because of Dolus Eventualis.

Ukraine is the only country with a motive and it is off topic here to explain here further.

[“it’s difficult to find a black cat in a dark room, especially when it’s not there.” ]

Well, I see a big elephant in the room, which you apparently do not see.



https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/07/16/in-their-own-words/

From a collection of testimonials around Snizhne:

Conclusion

Though each piece of social media evidence described in this article is not conclusive on its own, a clear pattern emerged and matches the widely accepted narrative of July 17. A Buk anti-aircraft system was located in Donetsk in the late morning, headed east through Shakhtarsk, moved through Torez at around 12:10, and headed south out of Snizhne later that afternoonA rocket was fired—both seen and heard by locals supporters of separatist forces—from south of Snizhne immediately before the downing of MH17.

17 July BUK Sightings: Planting Evidence In Advance?



Now more information is coming through, although at low pace, a likely alternative reconstruction of the events can be made. It seems Ukraine has been preparing a ¨terrorist¨ BUK convoy at the 17th that never was there.


The BUK didn´t go with Vostok.
It is getting even worse for SBU, Bellingcat, Ukraine-at-war and the like. From videos and geolocation can be established Vostok departed much earlier than the truck with BUK allegedly did, as Michael Kobs shows in his latest report. This salient fact raises more doubts about the Khmuryi tapes, telephone taps about which Dutch head prosecuter Westerbeke said they were “authentic recordings” that “were analyzed through and through”.

# In fact pro-separatist people would probably be welcoming the arrival of a BUK containing convoy. But there are no street vids, dashcams or written sightings from pro-separatist people welcoming an anti-aircraft missile, something that could be expected after the bombing of Snizhne on the 15th. The sightings arrive for the most part from a small group of pro-Kiev infowarriors, collecting messages from unknown pro-Kiev sources;

# The Khmuryi tapes, about which Dutch head prosecutor Westerbeke said they were authentic, seem to have difficulties to be timed on the 17th. The three Gvozdikas (self-propelled howitzers) Khmuryi says are coming his way, were on the road to Donetsk two days before as part of a 7 machine or ¨tank¨ convoy carrying Russian flags.

An Alternative Track Trail: Another BUK On Another Day



The game is on.
Half an hour after the disaster a dispatch appeared on a pro-rebel page on Vkontakte (Russian Facebook), in name devoted to the Russian commando leader Strelkov. An AN-26 had been shot down near the mine Progress, the message said based on the perception of citizens in the area of the disaster.
The editors, like the people in the neighbourhood of the crashsite according to their social media postings, assumed too early and too eager an AN-26 was downed. Probably they were merely jumping to conclusions because the same event had happened three days before (14 july an AN-26 had been shot down by the rebels). They claimed a ¨success¨ without knowledgde of all the facts and official briefing from men in the field. When it became known MH17 had been victimized, the  message was deleted.
People of the other site also got the wrong idea. This deleted message with Strelkov´s name attached to it could be disseminated as evidence the rebels had taken out a civilian plane by mistake. Not only the citizens from Torez and Snizhne initially thought an AN-26 was downed, which were the original sources the ¨Strelkov¨ Vkontakte adiminstrators had used. The rebels and their chief themselves, obviously still clinging to their previously fired weapon, assumed that too when they were targeting the plane.
The suggestion that Strelkov was in any way connected to this VK.com site, was of course fallacious. But it was very expedient. With the speed of light the internet was fed by Ukrainian war dispatch services, pro Kiev activists and the western media pundits with the suggestion it was the commander in chief himself who thought he had shot down an Antonov.
The SBU rose to the occasion. Within a few hours a nicely edited, translated and finished up video clip with intercepted phone calls was spread on Youtube in which rebels ¨confessed¨ their mistake. From a computer of the secret service were popping up the photos and videos that were taken when the rebels moved the broken BUK with the Volvo truck and low-loader.

Maybe the SBU had anticipated by creating fake evidence, maybe they made it useful when expedient. In each case the trail theory could be set on track.(...)

Citizen researcher Max van der Werff, who has an extensive blog about the MH17 disaster, made a trip to the region in which the plane crashed, looking for evidence. According to a tweet he spoke to a witness who had a very interesting explanation. This witness, living across the Furshet Market in Torez where the BUK had been photographed at the crossroads, said (s)he saw the BUK all right, not at the 17th though, but at a previous date.





Posted on September 30, 2015 by  in ReconstructionResearchRoute

Main findings
– there is no convincing evidence that the BUK was transported from Donetsk to Torez in the morning of July 17th, 2014. The BUK may have been brought into the area of Torez/Snizhne before July 17th. The Paris Match photos are most likely faked. The Zuhres video seems to originate from another day;

– the BUK convoy never was accompanied by the Vostok battalion tanks. That narrative was evoked by InfoResist’s Dmitry Tymchuk’s reporting as well as by the SBU intercepts;

– there is evidence that there was a BUK at Torez and Snizhne on July 17th. The most important being the testimony by the AP journalists, who saw the BUK at Snizhne;

– the narrative of the BUK arriving from Russia at Donetsk around 09:00 EEST on July 17th and returning in the night after was constructed by the SBU to distract public opinion from the negligent and irresponsible behaviour of the Ukrainian authorities, namely the fact that BUKs had been present in eastern Ukraine before July 17th – possibly already since June – and that the airspace above the ATO zone should have been closed because of this presence (and also because of the air combat between Russian and Ukrainian jet fighters at the time);

– section one of the Bellingcat November report (dealing with the route of the BUK) heedlessly adopts the SBU/Tymchuk narrative, hardly contains any research apart from some geolocation and does not assess or examine any of the materials collected, but takes everything for granted.

Conclusion

Basically, one year after the downing of MH17 we know little more than that there was a BUK passing through Torez to Snizhne, and that it disappeared some time after 13:15 EEST. As for the rest there is no conclusive evidence. And, in case there were two BUKs present in the area of Torez and Snizhne that day, as Anton Gerashchenko suggests, we may start laying the puzzle anew…

As Humanrightsinvestigations.org already wrote on July 25th 2014 :
To sum up, the Ukrainians have managed to put together a credible narrative but the  scenario they present currently lacks concrete evidence, particularly of the BUK originating from or returning to Russia.The intercepts they have produced indicate that if the rebels did shoot the plane down, 
it was a mistake.
If the Paris Match images are not of July 17th, then either they are fabricated or they originate from 
another day. And since that imagery most likely shows the same trailer that is also visible on the 
Zuhres video, the Torez photo and the Luhansk video, it becomes doubtful whether these materials 
originate from the 17th.

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

Rethinking the spy scenario

January 2016

We must not alone autistic stick to the facts. We have the bounden duty to fully identify the domain of this terrible attack. So, once again use your full imagination to see if you have missed a possible scenario.

Facts are important but a mere concatenation of facts in logical order is dangerous since it could be a false flag. That's why the permutation of a series of events leading to a disaster always must be accompanied by research on motives. Then you work from two sides to the midst.

A year ago and not hindered by factual knowledge I developed a human thought scenario called 'Counter espionage with MH17'. It is important because it addresses motives in the first place. Meanwhile I know more and I made a new version with a better fit. Though, I still have no facts.

What has been changed? First, a minimum IQ-level for the captain of the BUK has been posed, and second the crew of the BUK got back their trusted spotter, a spy at Dnepropetrovsk Airbase - or another base - from whom they first thought he was arrested by the SBU. But that appeared not true since he phoned he had not been arrested but had a faulty cellphone. They were delighted because they had just acquired a BUK meant for chasing military planes and so they fully trusted their spotter who in reality was kept at gunpoint by the SBU at the Dnepropetrovsk Airbase, fighting for his life. Remember, this is a scenario and these are no facts.

- The adapted scenario again accepts the BUK as weapon which took MH17 down.

- We set the lower bound of intelligence for the captain of the BUK-TELAR on IQ 115. This is important since this immediately eradicates a lot of possible stupid actions of the crew as has been insinuated by counterparties.


- Rejected is the possibility the crew of the BUK was all separatists. That would have been a too stupid action of the Russians. So probably it were Russians. But at least one of them spoke Ukrainian and kept contact with the spotter at Dnepropetrovsk Airbase, possibly by an intermediary spotter near the BUK.

- On the other hand, if this BUK would have made a long journey through Donetsk - as accepted by reading Bellingcat and Greidanus -  then some separatist crew members could be included. Maybe they were former soldiers from the Ukrainian army who got experience with BUK-TELAR, but with a Russian captain.

- This script accepts definitely MH17 has been intentionally shot down for a number of reasons, though the crew was not aware of shooting down a passenger plane:

- Why MH17 must have been shot down intentionally:

- Also in automatic mode a BUK-TELAR needs a lot of handling to shoot down a plane.
And in case of distraction with fighter aircraft it is unlikely a BUK-TELAR easily changes focus from a SU-25 to a passenger aircraft for a number of technical reasons around radial speed. 
- Only in theory there might be a number of scenarios in which the crew of BUK-TELAR confuses an apparently fast and low flying fighter jet with a slow aircraft at 10 km altitude. 
- Also only in theory, the radar of BUK-TELAR jumps to the bigger passenger plane. 
- And as said, an experienced and intelligent captain on the BUK does not make these beginner's errors.
- Furthermore and most important: the product rule of independent chances of the vicinity of a 'fast flying' SU-25 and a 'low flying' passenger plane on the radar of the BUK at any moment in time - for more than some seconds - is extremely low. And this very low chance must be multiplied by the very unlikely mistake of the experienced captain on BUK-TELAR.

Proceeding with the scenario: 

- Remember, no intelligent captain of a BUK will shoot a passenger plane with hundreds of passengers and let it crash on his own ground, on Donetsk. Since, he knows in advance to get the whole world about them. So, the separatists had no motive.

- Only anti-separatists might have a motive to let a passenger plane crash in Donetsk. That's why in this scenario we only give Ukraine or Ukrainian factions within the army, or other military groups the motive. 

Now we split into two scenarios in which MH17 has been shot down by: 1) the misled crew of BUK-TELAR or 2) MH17 was shot down from Zaroshchenske.


- Concluding: If MH17 has been intentionally shot down from Snizhne but the crew was not aware of a passenger plane, then they must have been misled by third parties. And we do not accept tragic technical failure or human mistakes around the BUK.


- Proceeding in this scenario we think about a double agent of Ukraine working as a spy for the separatists on Ukraine's Dnepropetrovsk Air Force base or another base. The spotter near the BUK was tipped by his spy at the airbase about an incoming military aircraft, an IL-76 (the MH17) over 10,000 meters.

- So, the crew thought it was a high flying IL-76 (not an Antonov 26). Both military planes have no ADS-B. And we earlier argued at length separatists did not use Flightradar, otherwise they would have identified MH17. So from their premise it must be an IL-76 there was no way back to identify MH17. Hence, the crew of the BUK has been fallen in a trap.

- Also the crew had not the slightest information about the incoming plane from themselves. You know it was a rather overcast day. But more important the timeline was inadequate as perfectly indicated by Andrew.

Remember Andrew’s excellent analysis showing there were big logistical problems for separatist spotters to identify the IL-76 (or AN-26) in its time and place path, where they obviously used no Flightradar on a rather overcast day:

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/13-months-later-what-happened-to-flight-mh17/#comment-6922

- We conclude: the spotter near the BUK as intermediary of the spotter at Dnepropetrovsk Airbase really could not have the slightest clue to identify the IL-76. 

- But if we change our scenario of the crew from separatists to all Russians then some misunderstanding can be created in the communication with the spotter near the BUK and the spotter at Dnepropetrovsk Airbase. Remember there will be no Russian spotters in Donetsk.


- Hence, language problems may have occurred as well as badly known spotters.

- In this scenario separatists had spotters near Dnepropetrovsk Airbase. But around July 17 there were no spotters for GRAD:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2rmN7jeX8A

(5,17/5,29)

Hmuryi: You see, we've got a GRAD, but no spotter. However we're waiting for Russia to shelter them from the other side.

- Remember the SBU confessed the tactical error to have intercepted the separatists telephone calls which must have been real-time intelligence, what means the Security Service of Ukraine could make contact with the (spotters of the) BUK.

- And about those silly cell phones, how long do you think the SBU needed to track separatist spotters in the neighbourhood of their air bases and capture them?


- The SBU learned from the internet that the separatists had no spotters to report from Kiev or elsewhere departing AN-26 or IL-76 and we know at July 17 it was too cloudy to spot them with binoculars. So what would the SBU have devised?


- In this scenario they keep a prisoner spotter at gunpoint to give misleading information by his cell phone about an incoming IL-76 at high altitude of 10 kilometers (MH17). He is fighting for his life.

- Well, lack of facts gives interesting scenarios. But if this cell phone conversation among separatists really happened and they used no encrypted information it's all too bad for the SBU. Then instead of alerting civil aviation they let shoot down MH17. Hence, SBU made a fundamental error in publishing their real time knowledge of separatist's communication. 


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

Elena Kolenkina




Elena Kolenkina plaatste een maand voordat de MH17 werd neergeschoten deze video op YouTube: 

- Elena zegt daarin dat SU-25's onder dekking van burgervliegtuigen naar beneden doken, hun bommen afwierpen en in disguise weer opstegen zodat zij door de separatisten niet geraakt konden worden:

[(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.]

Maar stel dat de separatisten alleen Manpads tot 3,5 km tot hun beschikking hadden terwijl airliners op ongeveer 10 km hoogte vlogen. Dan hadden zij dus geen verhaal en dan hadden zij deze video niet zo op YouTube kunnen plaatsen. Wat betekent dat de separatisten hier al op 18 juni IMPLICIET TOEGEVEN over Pantsirs te beschikken, het kleinere broertje van de BUK met een hoogtebereik van 15 km. 



Pantsir-S1 (RussianПанцирь-С1NATO reporting name SA-22 Greyhound) is a combined short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system produced by KBP of TulaRussia


Pantsir-S1 carries up to twelve 57E6 or 57E6-E two-stage solid fuel radio-command-guided surface-to-air missiles in sealed ready-to-launch containers.  The first stage is a booster, providing rapid acceleration within the first 2 seconds of flight, after which it is separated from the sustainer-stage. The sustainer is the highly agile part of the missile and contains the high explosive multiple continuous rod and fragmentation warhead, contact and proximity fuses as also radio transponder and laser responder to be localised for guidance. The missile is not fitted with seeker to keep target engagement costs low. Instead high-precision target and missile tracking is provided via the system's multiband sensor system and guidance data is submitted via radio link for up to four missiles in flight.



http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/07/onderste_steen_seperatisten_sc.html| 17-07-15 | 11:10Ja, maar Elena trouwde enige weken later met de rebellenleider. Daarom is enige onzekerheid op zijn plaats of dit toch geen false flag was.Basic Dimension | 17-07-15 | 11:16 

- Wat ook betekent dat onze regering hiervan op de hoogte had kunnen en moeten zijn en al op 18 juni 2014 het vliegen boven Donetsk HAD MOETEN VERBIEDEN. Het geldt natuurlijk ook voor de graailines. Dat hele diplomatenoverleg is een cover up van de totale inertie en lethargie van het ministerie van Veiligheid.

- Deze video bewijst de angst van de separatisten voor de verschrikkelijke ramp die zij wanhopig probeerden te vermijden. Maar ook dat de Oekraïense regering al op 18 juni de burgerluchtvaart HAD MOETEN VERBIEDEN. Ieder uitstel betekende uitlokking van oorlogsmisdaden door voorwaardelijk opzet (dolus eventualis) met kansbewustzijn. 

- Van de YouTube video van Elena Kolenkina wordt begrepen dat de separatisten beducht waren voor TWEE STIPPEN TEGELIJK op de radar van de BUK TELAR: Een Oekraïns jachtvliegtuig in disguise aan de staart van een burgertoestel. Dan zou er zeker niet geschoten worden.

- De schutter van de BUK hanteerde daartoe een ambigue beslisregel: bij twee stippen op de radar zitten beide boven de 9700 meter grens. Maar bij slechts één stip weet hij de hoogte niet. Behalve natuurlijk wanneer hij in de stress schiet en al meent te weten dat er een Antonov op lage hoogte overkomt. Dan is hij wat eerder geneigd om de regel om te draaien en één stip als aanwijzing van een laagvlieger te nemen.

- Bij slechts één stip en nog wel ver onder de 9700 meter grens zou er vanaf 15 juli zeker van een Oekraïns legertoestel sprake zijn. Want volgens de nieuwe regel van de Leger Verklaring was dit nu gegarandeerd een militair toestel waarop geschoten kon worden. 

http://sexualreligion.blogspot.nl/2015/08/scenario-mh17-hidden-behind-su-25.html

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


More early warnings:

Posted on July 12, 2015 by  in NewsResearch 

What could well be an Ukraine air traffic controller already in June 2014 warned that the Ukraine air space should be closed instead of closing to Fightlevel 260. 
[Pressure altitude: 26,000 feet is about 8 km, BD
This could mean Ukraine state was already aware of Russian BUKs in East Ukraine as early as June 2014. He warned in a post at Pprune.org which is a forum used by airline pilots, air traffic controllers and others working in the airline industry.

At June 14 2014  this message: was posted by a user with nickname  TC_Ukraine in a thread called Ukrainian Il-76 shot down killing 49

Ukrainian officials should close whole airspace over eastern part. now is closed up to fl260. Russian terrorists can easily hit passenger a/c.


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


De Aanslag

- Maar dan kon de spotter van de BUK op een zwaar bewolkte dag dus worden misleid, een dag waarop hij de hoogte van de MH17 niet visueel kon vaststellen en dit ook niet met Flightradar afcheckte. Oekraïne zou daarom toeslaan op een zwaar bewolkte dag.






- En die behoorlijk zwaar bewolkte hemel was er al op 17 juli 2014. De spotter van de BUK kon de MH17 nu visueel vrijwel niet waarnemen en zoals beredeneerd gebruikten separatisten ook geen Flightradar omdat zij boven de 9,7 km niets te zoeken hadden en militaire vliegtuigen hun ADS/B transponder altijd uit hebben.



- Met dit bewolkte weer kon de spotter van de BUK deze informatie niet checken. Hij kon vandaag niet visueel controleren of die Antonov er ook daadwerkelijk aankwam. En een transporttoestel als de IL-76 op 10 km was al helemaal niet te identificeren. Maar er kwam uitkomst omdat de schutter op de BUK wel degelijk een enkel vliegtuig op zijn autonomous radar zag verschijnen, zij het zonder hoogte meting maar wel met IFF identificatie als 'vijandelijk', wat ook gold voor de MH17.

- Deze Boeing 777 (MH17) die een hoge grondsnelheid (905 km/u) had op 10 km, kwam op de BUK-radar slechts langzaam naderbij. Dus omdat de hoogte onbekend was leek het wel op de nadering van een trage Antonov (440 km/u) op slechts 6 km hoogte. Een trage Antonov kwam daarom langzaam naderbij met radiale snelheid (naar de BUK toe).

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/13-months-later-what-happened-to-flight-mh17/#comment-6981



Has anyone done the math for the radial speed of an AN26 vs the radial speed of a 777?
At a distance of 40 km the AN26 at 6000m would have an elevation of 8.5°, the 777 an elevation of 14°.
Radial speed of the AN26 would be:
cos 8.5° * 440 = 435 km/h
For the 777:
cos 14° * 905 = 878 km/h
Bottom line is, it’s hard to confuse an AN26 with a 777. Equally hard to believe is that a trained crew was not aware of the commercial airliners constantly flying overhead



Thanks, but that means Ukraine may have used SU-25′s to confuse the operator of the BUK as long as possible, also in this scenario.

Agree. Very hard to believe the crew misidentified an Antonov for a Boeing 777.
It could be their target was believed to be a IL76
It could be the missile was aimed at sU-25 and then retargeted at MH17

 admin // August 19, 2015 at 5:36 pm //
What was the first source mentioning an Antonov 26 was downed? I do not know. Could be the Strelkov fanpage.
It could just be an educated guess that an Antonov 26 was downed. And many media copied it without checking facts first.
I know at least one media mentioned a IL76 was flying near MH17.
https://burkonews.info/russia-shoots-down-malaysian-mh17/
The source in the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine reported that the route of a military transport aircraft IL-76 had lain close to the route of Boeing. IL-76 headed to deliver goods to the blocked Ukrainian troops. It was also noted that there were anti-aircraft defense units in the area of deployment of Ukrainian forces.

 Basic Dimension // August 19, 2015 at 7:09 pm // Reply
Comment on: admin // August 19, 2015 at 2:56 pm // Reply
Admin said: ‘Agree. Very hard to believe the crew misidentified an Antonov for a Boeing 777.
It could be their target was believed to be a IL76
We already wondered why Rostov’s primary surveillance radar missed AN-26 on about 6 km. But it would be peculiar to miss the IL76 at 11 km. Hence, there was probably only one plane on track: MH17.
 admin // August 19, 2015 at 7:14 pm //
It is an assumption Rostov radar recording provided by Russia shows all traffic it could detect.
What if Russia modified the recording?
We do not know.

Conclusion: Russia definitely would have reported any trail parallel to MH17 of Ukraine’s military planes but Russia did not and we therefore assume no trails existed. Hence we conclude THERE ALSO WAS NO SEPARATIST SPY SPOTTER.

Conclusion: Russia certainly would have reported any trail parallel to MH17 of Ukraine’s military planes, but Russia did not and we therefore assume no trails existed. Hence we conclude there could only have been a double spy spotter active from Ukraine. Therefore “Birdie coming towards you” must have come from Ukraine.



Reply on: admin // August 23, 2015 at 7:21 pm //

Admin said: ‘So why would Russia be the first to show an IL76 on Rostov radar? That would be a target for the BUK and a very good reason to shoot. So I can imagine Russia wipes this off the recording. An SU-25 is interesting to show to suggest this shot down MH17 (I am sure SU-25 did not shot down MH17)’

Good thinking. Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk radar will also keep its mouth shut though also they possess primary radar and of course know about IL-76. Now, if ‘the birdie story’ is true Ukraine would not take the risk of a BUK attack on its IL-76, which plane would take another course. So remember, Russia black mails Ukraine with their tapes of the track of IL-76 and Ukraine black mails Russia with separatists deliberately willing the IL-76 to shoot. NATO and Russia have full proof from their satellites while we are stubborn engaged with radial speed. We must wait for further inspiration, could be an interesting scenario :)


- (Achterhaald:) Maar na een zware koerscorrectie naar rechts stuurde de MH17 opeens recht op de BUK aan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh06SqVx_1Q [op (0:45/1.22)]. De opdracht hiertoe moet op de cockpitvoicerecorder staan. Mh17 werd neergeschoten nabij het dorp Grabove, ongeveer 15 km van Shizhne bij de Russische grens.

- De radiale snelheid schoot omhoog waarop de schutter van de BUK uiteindelijk in paniek de rode knop insloeg. Het kon immers ook een SU-25 zijn die het bij nader inzien op de BUK gemunt had.

- Maar het werkelijke misverstand moet zijn geweest dat de schutter op de BUK dacht dat er een militair toestel naderde op lagere vlieghoogte. 

- Dus inderdaad, wanneer de spotter van de BUK geen gebruik maakte van Flightradar en ook Rostov radar niet om uitleg vroeg en dus zonder meer op zijn informant vertrouwde, ja dan zou hij de schutter van de BUK opdracht gegeven kunnen hebben om  de MH17 neer te schieten.

- Zoals gezegd had de schutter van de BUK TELAR maar een beperkte autonomous radar waarmee hij hoogte noch identiteit van vliegtuigen op de juiste wijze kon bepalen. Juist twee zaken die bij het neerhalen van de MH17 een hoofdrol speelden. Hij was voor over komende vliegtuigen volkomen afhankelijk van spotter informatie. 

In dit meest kansrijke scenario moet een Oekraïense dubbelspion de spotter van de BUK toen hebben misleid. Hij wist dat de spotter Flightradar niet nodig had en dat de operator op de BUK door IFF misleid werd. De dubbelspion had wel op de radar gekeken en moet precies geweten hebben dat hier een burgervliegtuig aankwam. 

- Vervolgens heeft de spotter de schutter van de BUK onopzettelijk het verkeerde vliegtuig als laagvliegende Antonov aangewezen. En daarom riep de schutter na afloop ook vertwijfeld uit dat burgervliegtuigen daar (onder de 9700 meter) niet meer vlogen. Het zou toch een laagvliegende Antonov zijn? Want zelf kon hij met zijn radar geen vlieghoogten bepalen.

Published on Oct 27, 2014
Russian terrorists accidentally confirmed they shot down MH-17 after Kremlin-backed media channels had posted a video of the downed Ukrainian AN-26 according to the words of self-proclaimed Donetsk Republic's leader Igor Girkyn-Strelkov, but deleted it as soon as they found out it was Boeing-777:




- Wanneer een BUK van de separatisten de MH17 moet hebben neergehaald dan kan dat alleen gebeurd zijn door een stomdronken schutter in de BUK of op aangeven van een spion van Oekraïne die de spotter van de separatisten heeft misleid. 






SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much. On the subject of sanctions with respect to Russia, we are very understanding of our friend, Australia’s deep, deep anger and its need for justice with respect to what has happened. This is an unconscionable crime on a huge international order that findings already, without the full investigation being done – and we are pressing for a full investigation, because nothing is complete until you have a full investigation. But there is no question – and we’ve said this publicly previously, but that this type of weapon and all the evidence of it was seen on our imagery. We saw the takeoff. We saw the trajectory. We saw the hit. We saw this airplane disappear from the radar screen. So there’s really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from.


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

Map of a Tragedy:




How MH17 Came Apart Over Ukraine


The Wall Street Journal cataloged and mapped some of the debris of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which fell across three Ukrainian villages after the Boeing 777 was brought down on July 17, allegedly by a surface-to-air missile.















Report MH17 crash:







Report MH17 crash:









New photos of MH17 rooftop in Russia Today documentary


In the Russia Today documentary ‘MH17 A year without truth‘ some previously unknown parts of MH17 were seen. These parts are part of the cockpit roof and were found near Petropavlivka




STA = Station from the nose:







Grazing is understandable from the nearly parallel trajectory of shrapnel along the roof of the plane, but ricochets are more difficult to understand, for against what shrapnel had to collide before deflecting to the plane? The cause must lie in the short distance of detonation of the warhead. A lot of shrapnel parts must have collided against each other far above the plane and some must have deflected to the roof in the second instance. But this looks unlikely. Also it is possible earlier shrapnel reflected from the fuselage and caused later shrapnel – already far above the plane – to deflect to the roof. But also this is nonsense because earlier reflected shrapnel would be much too late to catch later shrapnel above the plane. Reflection from within the plane through the roof seems quite unlikely. So, I don’t understand how ricochets could be the cause of shrapnel holes far on the roof. Hence all shrapnel on the roof must be caused by grazing and the point of detonation must be in accordance.

 Wind tunnel man // October 21, 2015 at 1:31 pm // Reply
I think the term “ricochet” used by the Dutch refers to the shrapnel being deflected off the external surfaces of the forward fuselage and that would leave a grazing mark or a tear in the skin. I don’t think they meant a double hit, i.e. a hit deflected and ricocheting to another place on the forward external skin leaving a grazing mark (except perhaps due to the contours of the cockpit and damage in that external area produced by shrapnel coming from the calculated position of the warhead and making a double hit?)
Thanks, now I understand better: shrapnel was shot to the cockpit under a very sharp angle from the warhead. It bounced back into the air and caused by the resultant relative velocity between blast and airplane it came with tremendous force as tear or grazing on the roof of the plane.

 Wind tunnel man // October 21, 2015 at 4:17 pm // Reply
Yes shrapnel may have deflected off the contours of the cockpit and ricocheted anywhere on the port side of the plane. This was evident below the port side cockpit rear window where shrapnel penetrated the skin but was deflected out again when it encountered underlying structures due to it’s angle of approach.
However I think the damage to the forward roof was primarily caused by direct hits. At the aft end of those roof surfaces the direct hitting shrapnel grazed the skin and ricocheted away. In this instance the wording of ricochet damage (i.e. showing signs of the direct hitting, non-penetrating shrapnel hitting and then deflecting/ricocheting away) and grazing damage caused by direct hits are probably the same thing.



http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/damage-of-mh17-does-not-rule-out-a-launch-from-zaroshenskye/
 Andrew // June 27, 2015 at 6:46 pm // Reply
(...)
I previously posted upthread two links to debris maps. Note debris in the following locations on the Wall Street Journal map:
Hrabove (just west of town) – center plane fuselage with wings and engines
0.5 to 1.0 KM south of Hrabove – aft fuselage, tail, left wingtip, horizontal tail wings, cargo door frame, crew rest bunks
Rozspypne (just south of town) – cockpit and lower nose
Petropavlivka – flight deck window with shrapnel damage, both forward door frames, overhead bins, engine pod parts, lower forward fargo floor
Petropavlivka (just north of town) – forward fuselage wall and roof and upper fuselage skin
(...)

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/is-this-a-window-part-of-mh17/#comment-9502

 Basic Dimension // September 27, 2015 at 7:43 pm // Reply
To NNW 48°12’15.6″N 38°30’14.4″E, by Kumshats’ke, of course it had a lot of drag and fell down about 8 km north of the plane crash which was at : 48º07’37.7 “N; 38º31’34.7 “E, SW of Petropavlivka.
Earlier findings:
Petropavlivka – flight deck window with shrapnel damage, both forward door frames, overhead bins, engine pod parts, lower forward fargo floor
9H314: 2 types: paralellopipidum
9H314M: 3 types: I-profile (missiles 9M38M1)
I would say it is parallelepiped.




I then propose the following scenario for the crash. The plane is hit near Pol’ove. The small amount of debris behind this point is the small debris blown backwards from the initial impact by the explosion of the missile and decompression of the plane and crippling of the left engine. In the initial minute after impact, the plane slows from 900 km/h to 200 km/h as noted on Rostov ATC radar and also beings a slow curve left. The average speed of ~550 km/h in this minute would carry  the plane about 9.3 km. Within the first 30 seconds, the crippled cockpit and forward hull section is seperated from the main body of the plane and disintegrates. This tearing action causes the large amount of debris impacts between Pol’ove and Petropavlivka. The disintegrating front of the plane continues falling forward up to another 5 km to final impact of the cockpit and nose.
Meanwhile, the relatively intact center and rear of the plan glides forward and left, slowing to 200 km/h by the first minute and then continuing to fall and move forward at 200 km/h for the final two minutes. Due to losing the remainder of the nose, wind shear rushes through the fuselage and begins to tear the back of the plane off and in the final moments, the main body of the plane makes a final turn northwards to crash in Hrabove as the tail section continues forward and crashes south of Hrabove. At 200 km/h, this part of the plane moves 3.3 km per minute in the final two minutes. This gives a total distance of the plane in its last moments in the air around 16 km from point of impact to Hrabove crash site, which at 9.5 km from Hrabove to the field north of Petropavlivka and 6.5 km from that field to Pol’ove confirms by Rostov ATC recorded speed that the impact occurred near the top of the debris field noted on the maps I provided.
This time to crash also conforms to the time to fall from 10 km for the cockpit and nose section with no thrust or lift considering terminal velocity once it seperates from the rest of the plane. All front parts of the plane falls from 10 km high in 11 km or less of forward motion from missile impact with an initial 900 km/h speed – an almost perfect ballistic trajectory.
I welcome you or anyone else to poke holes in this reasoning.

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/an-overview-of-ukraine-air-force-flying-activities-in-period-july-14-july-17/#comment-5620


 Andrew // July 22, 2015 at 4:30 pm //
Rob:

“which is some 10 km away from the Dutch Safety Board last FDR location.”

And I explained why I thought this might be so based on the time aloft of the main section of the plane on radar and the speed reported of 200 km/h and thus the amount of total motion required to end up in Hrabove based on the speed and time aloft. You didn’t dispute any of those factors. Polove is just a convenient reference for the end of the debris trail, the plane may have been closer to Orlovo-Ivanivka which is in the same vicinity.

“That is when I pointed out that you forgot to include the drag equation, which started the whole discussion that you now seem to want to re-cycle again.”

[[In fluid dynamics, drag (sometimes called air resistance, a type of friction, or fluid resistance, another type of friction or fluid friction) refers to forces acting opposite to the relative motion of any object moving with respect to a surrounding fluid.[1]]]

[[In fluid dynamics, the drag equation is a formula used to calculate the force of drag experienced by an object due to movement through a fully enclosing fluid. The formula is accurate only under certain conditions: the objects must have a blunt form factor and the fluid must have a large enough Reynolds number to produce turbulence behind the object. The equation is
F_D\, =\, \tfrac12\, \rho\, u^2\, C_D\, A
F_D is the drag force, which is by definition the force component in the direction of the flow velocity,[1]
\rho is the mass density of the fluid, [2]
u is the flow velocity relative to the object,
A is the reference area, and
C_D is the drag coefficient – a dimensionless coefficient related to the object's geometry and taking into account both skin friction and form drag.]]


I didn’t forget drag equations. Pieces with different amounts of drag fell forward and down based on their drag to different locations. Those with more drag fell quicker and travelled less far forward. I am not proposing them wafting in the wind on a ballistic trajectory where an item falls 10 km down but 7 km NNW [BD: NorthNorthWest] when it was originally travelling very fast to the ESE. 





Do you suppose the debris fell in one minute to the 7 km mark? That would be a speed of 420 km/h. Where did that velocity come from? How about 2 minutes? Still 210 km/h. How about 4 minutes? 105 km/h. So the debris started at 915 km/h SSE and changed its velocity vector because of wind to 100 km/h NNW or possibly much, much more. How fast was that wind anyway, and what directions at what altitudes? You especially need to explain how dense human bodies were blown multiple kilometers in the wind to north of Petropavlivka.






On the other hand, I think the wind would have blown them to the left side as they went forward, which is consistent with the debris trails visible in the field on July 20 which have a general trajectory between 75 and 90 degrees.
If we use a wind speed of 60 km/h, we get 1 km vector of travel in the direction of the wind during the presumed ~1 minute it would take a piece without lift to fall from 10 km. If you want the fall to take longer you are proposing the debris piece has some sort of lift. Your beloved drag equation mostly serves to limit the forward motion and is  rather indeterminate due to changing drag as the piece tumbles in the air.

“As pointed out before, given the laws of physics and specifically the drag equation, and the prevailing winds at the time, that the MH17 debris field is entire consistent with the Dutch Safety Board’s report of the last FDR [BD: Flight Data Recorder] location, and INCONSISTENT with your Pol’ove intercept location.”

You claimed this from authority with no proof at all.
You still have not provided any sort of citation of the supposed last FDR location or how it was derived.
Please also reread this quote from the Canrfield paper I cited (“Revisiting trajectory analysis – Evolving the Cranfield model”):
“NATO and the US DOD define a ballistic trajectory as the “trajectory traced after the propulsive force is terminated and the body is acted upon only by gravity and aerodynamic drag.” [28]. Clearly this definition is appropriate when considering wreckage created through midair breakup. Exceptions to this definition would include an aircraft which is damaged but still producing propulsive force and components which are capable of generating lift. The latter point is an important one – in the subsequent analysis, the components will be considered to be acted on by drag alone; no lift force will be included. In addition, the ‘tumbling’ of parts whilst falling will also be discounted and instead replaced by a single drag coefficient.
“Both of these assumptions are deviations from reality. Whilst they might accurately describe the behaviour of a high mass, compact body (one with a high value of ballistic coefficient – see later), a lighter part with a large area capable of producing lift (such as a section of fuselage skin with stringers) is clearly very likely to produce lift and tumble as it falls such as a sheet of cardboard might do if dropped.
“Any trajectory model must depend upon some estimation of the drag coefficient of the part, which is often difficult to achieve. This is compounded by the fact that when objects tumble they effectively present a variable drag coefficient. Given the unavoidable inaccuracies inherent in drag coefficient estimation, it is arguable whether a more advanced calculation technique is necessary. However, there is no reason not to minimize as many errors as possible, as long as the other inaccuracies and limitations are understood.”



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


De ballistiek van de BUK

Almaz Antey: BUK missiles factory 

MIC-rapport in drie dimensies:

http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68332.htmlРасследования / Выпуск № 46 от 6 мая 2015Expertenbericht von russischen Raketenbauingenieuren und Militärexperten;
Russian rocket engineers MIC (ВПК - Военно-промышленный комплекс: Military Industrial Complex; Translated into Dutch by A. Grebenchtchikova @Nicolaewna,
mathematics & linguistics.

Deze opmerkelijke analyse over de ballistiek van de BUK, werd kortgeleden door 
Nicolaewna (A. Grebenchtchikova) op verzoek van GeenStijl in het Nederlands vertaald.

Eerder rapport van Erik Toonen in twee dimensies: 

Dit interessante MIC-rapport heeft een briljante voorganger in
Het moet daaruit ook zijn voortgekomen.

Welke permutatie van deze samengestelde gebeurtenis is de juiste? Lanceerden de separatisten een BUK op dezelfde dag dat zij deze als kermisattractie met veel tam-tam door Donetsk sleepten? Of schoot de SBU, de inlichtingendienst van Oekraïne, in reactie hierop een andere BUK af in Zaroshchens'ke? 

Of leverde de SBU aan de separatisten misleidende intelligence over de MH17 als een uit Kiev naderend AN-26 transporttoestel, waar hen bekend was dat separatisten die dagen niet over spotters op Kiev beschikten, noch van Flightradar gebruik maakten nodig voor 10 km en hoger en met verrekijkers de verkeersvliegtuigen niet konden identificeren, nog afgezien van het feit dat het op 17 juli - wellicht niet toevallig - een zwaar bewolkte dag was? 

Hoe kwamen de separatisten eigenlijk aan hun informatie over MH17? Dat wordt de kardinale vraag in dit onderzoek. Wie deze vraag beantwoordt rolt wellicht de juiste permutatie op. En daaraan leveren deze rapporten een belangrijke bijdrage. 


Gaat het OM de onschuld van de separatisten aantonen?

De SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) en de OVV (Dutch Safety Board) werken nauw samen in het onderzoek naar de toedracht van de aanslag op de MH17. Het OM (Public Prosecutor's Office), het Internet en het Nederlandse volk zoeken naar de daders. Hiertoe vroeg het OM de AIVD (Secret Service of the Netherlands) om informatie wat botweg werd geweigerd. 

Vervolgens deed het OM een beroep op de bevolking van Donetsk om de bemanning van de BUK te identificeren. Deze was door de SBU als separatisten aangewezen. Het OM controleert op deze wijze of het scenario van de SBU op juistheid berust en of de BUK ook inderdaad ten zuiden van Snizhne was toen de MH17 uit de lucht geschoten werd. En omdat een tweede BUK buiten Donetsk zeer zeker door de SBU zou zijn opgemerkt, was er op dat moment geen BUK van de separatisten in Zaroshchens'ke.
Op grond van ballistische gegevens zal het OM straks mogelijk concluderen dat separatisten de MH17 niet uit de lucht geschoten kunnen hebben.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/07/16/in-their-own-words/

From a collection of testimonials around Snizhne: 
Conclusion: Though each piece of social media evidence described in this article is not conclusive on its own, a clear pattern emerged and matches the widely accepted narrative of July 17. A Buk anti-aircraft system was located in Donetsk in the late morning, headed east through Shakhtarsk, moved through Torez at around 12:10, and headed south out of Snizhne later that afternoonA rocket was fired—both seen and heard by locals supporters of separatist forces—from south of Snizhne immediately before the downing of MH17.



De BUK van de separatisten

Volgens de geheime dienst van Oekraïne, de SBU, kwam de BUK van de separatisten met een oplegger om 1.00 uur 's nachts bij Sjeverne aan en wel op de dag van de ramp op 17 juli 2014. In de nacht en vroege ochtend reed hij door naar Donetsk. 

Om 9.08 AM onderschepte de SBU daar een telefoongesprek waarin de leider van de expeditie de bemanning van de BUK opdracht geeft rechtsomkeerts te maken naar Snizhne. Uit het telefoongesprek blijkt de vrees van de ondergeschikte voor herkenning van de BUK door het publiek. En dat terwijl Sjeverne vlakbij Snizhne ligt aan de Russische grens. Was de BUK gelijk vanuit Rusland naar de achtertuin van Snizhne gereden dan had daar geen haan naar gekraaid. Een onbegrijpelijke en onlogische actie.

Combineer dat met de latere vlucht van de BUK terug naar Rusland op 18 juli, een afstand van slechts 20 km:

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/re-examining-the-luhansk-video/#comment-4725
 Andrew // June 28, 2015 at 8:51 pm // Reply(...)You would think that a tainted BUK south of Snizhne needing to be quickly smuggled into Russia would simply proceed down Route T0522 to Stepanivka under the cover of darkness and then cross the border, as it is just 20 km, as opposed to making some sort of meandering journey to Krasnodon via Lugansk of over 160 km.(...)



Om 12 uur op het midden op de dag - na 6 uur zinloos rondtoeren - kwam de BUK bij Snizhne aan, waar hij werd afgeladen en zelfstandig verder reed naar het zuiden (self-propelled artillery). Tussen 12.00 en 16.20 uur was de BUK in het zuiden van Snizhne.

Dit is de officiële versie van de SBU die kennelijk voldoende wordt ondersteund door de OVV, maar het is een kwetsbare versie omdat men zich heeft vastgelegd op de coördinaten ten zuiden van Shizhne, waardoor de BUK-raket met lange vinnen:
 "9M38M1, behorend bij de SAM BUK-M1, de MH17 niet kon bereiken. De actie radius van 9M38M1 is 35 km en die van 9K37M is 24 km. 


http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-live-day-603-dutch-safety-board-release-mh17-report/#10438

Report MH17 crash:

The Dutch Safety Board report on the downing of MH17 has several clear conclusions:
- MH17 was destroyed by a 9N314M warhead carried by a 9M38 series missile, fired from a Buk, which was manufactured by the Russian Almaz-Antey company.
- The Buk was launched from somewhere within a 320-square-kilometer area.
Interestingly, both Russia and Ukraine were asked to assist in the investigation into the possible launch area of a hypothetical Buk. According to the report, while Russia did not confirm the use of a 9N314M warhead, they did provide a possible launch area which is in fact considerably smaller than yet consistent with the Dutch Safety Board's projections. Ukraine's estimate was even more exact.

Below you can see the projected launch area. Black is the area calculared by the Dutch Safety Board. Blue is the area calculated by Russia, apparently with the help of Almaz-Antey. Purple is the area calculated by Ukraine:






2015-10-13 13:55:27
The problem, however, is that the Russian government has once again been caught in a contradiction. In a briefing today by Buk manufacturer Almaz-Antey, the Russians made the already-debunked case that the missile which brought down MH17 was fired from Zaroshchenskoye.



Article is in Dutch: http://nos.nl/artikel/2062953-russen-maakten-terugtrekkende-bewegingen.html


The Dutch Safety Board (OVV) denies that during the investigation into the accident involving flight MH17 data that the Buk-factory contributor are ignored. "History shows otherwise," said president Tjibbe Joustra in a special broadcast of KRO NCRV.

Novikov director of the Buk-factory was in the delegation of the Russian Federation who attended meetings of the OVV. These meetings have met three times and each lasted three days. At the second meeting Novikov gave a presentation which showed that the plane was shot down by a rocket with a 9N314M-warhead. The Research Council was pleased. "It seemed that we would still end up on such important points in total agreement with all countries."



But in the third meeting, the Russians came with the announcement that the presentation of the previous meeting as an example had to be seen how it could have happened. Novikov said this morning that the Boeing 777 Malaysia Airlines is brought down by any other type of Buk missile. "That made the Russians retreating movements, Joustra said. When asked why that was, he said Novikov presumably by Moscow was rebuffed." If you see the history of those meetings so you do have that impression. "


The Russians also assume that the missile was launched from a site in Ukrainian territory. According to the Research Council, the missile fired from an area under the control of pro-Russian rebels.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG0Bi_wf7JM

Press 'cog' and choose: English







Almaz-Antey maintains its criticism and concludes that the left engine cannot have been hit from Snizhne. (But that's strange because the left wing lies in the path of the rocket chord).

A-A also claims the Boeing 777 has no shrapnel butterfly holes (double T or bow-tie), which definitely are found on the IL-86 hull. What would indicate a warhead 9H314 without butterflies and no 9H314M1. Therefore, if butterflies are shown in the bodies, how did they get there in the first place?
Because a detonation from Shizhne would have given about perpendicular shrapnel on the cockpit on a very short distance, it is very unlikely no butterflies would be found. Here A-A certainly has a point to be taken seriously.


Normally I would trust organizations as DSB, but damned I can’t. I don’t trust the Russians but I don’t trust DSB either. So I have to let calibrate this stuff for some time waiting for inspiration.
The report certainly has a lot of good elements, but that is more a kind of thorough administration. The framework of the Boeing is perfectly done, but that’s an order for a steel manufacturer, it’s not DSB.
So I’m in despair, waiting for inspiration of admin. For example: are there no butterflies or bow-ties found in the wreckage? But what does that mean? Has it been a 9M38 with warhead 9H314?
It is only the Russians who sabotage or are they clashing with the SBU of the DSB?

butterfly frags found means 9N314M warhead,Russia has them as does Ukraine,The erratic claims of the Russian side has now become little more than embarrassing nonsense.

butterfly frags found means 9N314M warhead,Russia has them as does Ukraine,The erratic claims of the Russian side has now become little more than embarrassing nonsense.

Yes, thanks, but the question is have butterfly holes been found in the fuselage and in the bodies?



found in human remains ergo they are part of missile strike,entry hole can be any shape

Almaz-Antey maintains its criticism and concludes that the left engine cannot have been hit from Snizhne. (But that’s strange because the left wing lies in the path of the rocket chord).
A-A also claims the Boeing 777 has no shrapnel butterfly holes (double T or bow-tie), which definitely are found on the IL-86 hull. What would indicate an old warhead 9H314 without butterflies and no 9H314M1. Therefore, if butterflies are shown in the bodies, how did they get there in the first place?
Because a detonation from Shizhne would have given about perpendicular shrapnel images on the cockpit on a very short distance, it is very unlikely no butterflies would be found. Here A-A certainly has a point to be taken seriously.
  •  Hector Reban // October 15, 2015 at 11:53 am // Reply
    NLR report states the damage to the left wing is consistent with a ¨secundary fragmentationpattern¨ if a BUK 9M38(M1) with a 9N314M warhead exploded 3 meters above the left side of the cockpit.
    The secundary fragmentationpattern is an area in the direction of the missile, so straightforward. But it contains mainly dust and parts from the missile itself.
    Remarkable enough it was just this primary and secundary pattern that was consistent with a Zaroshchenskoye launchsite according to the 2D model of Metabunk´s Mick West, as can be seen in an article on this website in june.

Hector, that’s correct.
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/damage-of-mh17-does-not-rule-out-a-launch-from-zaroshenskye/
I demand an explanation for missing butterflies on the Boeing hull!

DSB: ‘Air-to-air gun/cannon fire does not produce fragments in the shape of cubes or bow-ties as were found in the wreckage and in the bodies of three of the crew members.

Not interested in the wreckage but in holes in the hull, the fuselage, the outside of the plane.
How many butterflies are found in the cockpit, please offer statistics and photos. How many butterflies are found in bodies? Are butterflies found in violated corpses? Statistics?
 BigaC // October 15, 2015 at 4:09 pm // Reply
Seems many bowtie shapes in AA experiment.
http://cdn2.img.sputniknews.com/images/102850/10/1028501068.jpg
Only DSB didnt find such ones or MH-17 debris really lack such shaped holes?









DSB selected high energy (warhead) objects. They found 72 high energy objects or parts of them in the cockpit and in the bodies of the crew. They were selected on same size, mass and shape.

Persons with shrapnel in cockpit:

Captain Team A: hundreds of metal fragments found.
First officer Team A: 120 mostly metal fragments.
Purser: > 100 metal objects.

Within this group (72) they found 15 high energy objects in the bodies of the crew. Further they found one object in a passenger and 56 in the cockpit wreckage: 15+1+56=72.

The origin and the elemental composition of these 72 selected cockpit fragments, together with 21 other reference (probably cockpit) fragments (e.g. aeroplane metal structure, cockpit glass) was examined by the NFI (Dutch Forensic Institute) using a scanning electron microscope and energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX) system. Further examinations were conducted on cross-sections on fragments using a Focused Ion Beam (FIB).

As said, 15 high energy ferrous objects or parts of them were found in the cockpit crew: the captain, the first officer and the purser. And it seems the body of the captain contained only one bowtie element, the other was found in the cockpit wreckage.

But what is the total number of bowtie elements found on the whole crash site? Do we have statistics? Let’s refer to the appendix:

http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf

6.11
Bowtie fragments
[In the wreckage of flight MH17 several non-aircraft related, foreign fragments were found that are assessed to be the high-energy objects, or parts of the high-energy objects, that penetrated the aircraft from the outside. A number of these fragments found in the cockpit area have a distinct butterfly or bowtie shape, as the one seen in Figure 46. These fragments are recognized as one of the three types of preformed fragments used in the 9N314M warhead of the 9M38 and 9M38M1 missiles. Figure 47 shows these bowtie fragments in an inert 9N314M warhead. Accounting for deformation and abrasion due to explosion and impact, the bowtie fragments found in the wreckage of flight MH17 match the 9N314M warhead bowtie preformed fragments in shape, size and weight. ]

Used techniques are interesting but will not prove a causal relation between 9N314M and MH17, since the crash site and the bodies have been unattended for a long period of time and techniques only were used qualitatively (naked eye inspection). Hence for causal relations DSB comes with zirconium in the bowties from the windows of the cockpit.

The origin and the elemental composition of the 72 selected fragments were determined only qualitatively. It was found 43 of the 72 examined fragments consisted of unalloyed steel (rusty = warhead); hence, 29 were not from a warhead (stainless steel and one otherwise). That ‘otherwise’ fragment was non-metallic (coal-slag).

Only 4 (FOUR) of these 43 ‘had distinctive shapes: cubic and in the form of a bow tie’. As said, they were found in the cockpit. Hence, nowhere else in the wreckage bowties were found. I mean, we have no information. So, only two bowties have been found to support 9N314M. One in the body of the captain of team A and one in the cockpit wreckage.

And in 20 rusty, out of the 43 rusty, out of the 72 selected objects, fragments of unalloyed steel, aluminum and/or GLASS LIKE DEPOSITS were present. They have been inspected by the Focused Ion Beam (FIB). On 14 of these fragments, the glass deposit consisted of sodium, aluminum, silicon, oxygen and ZIRCONIUM.

Hence on 14 rusty, out of 20 rusty, out of 43 rusty, out of 72 selected objects THEY FOUND ZIRCONIUM. BUT… POSSIBLY NOT ON THE BOWTIES:

‘The chemical composition of 20 selected fragments which had either a very distinctive shape (including the two bow-tie shaped pre-formed fragments) or a layer of deposits OR BOTH was determined. This was determined by means of laser-ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry.’

This is the Dutch text:

‘Van 20 geselecteerde fragmenten met OFWEL een zeer uitgesproken vorm (waaronder de twee fragmenten in de vorm van een vlinderdas) OFWEL [[EN/OF; BD]] een laagje afzettingen werd de chemische samenstelling vastgesteld.’

Is it ‘and’, is it ‘or’ or is it ‘and/or’?

We don’t know if the bowtie had a layer of deposits. If not, we don’t know how it came into the body of the captain. May be no zirconium was found on the two bowties. Maybe they did not come through the window but through the skin of the cockpit. Maybe they were shot into the body of the captain of team A by criminals. We have no information from this research.

Now earlier was said 15 high energy objects were found in the crew of the cockpit. We also know 14 of the 20 had zirconium. So 6 out of 15 high energy objects, found in the crew possibly had no zirconium. One of them might be the bowtie found in the captain’s body.

So it turned out zirconium was found in 14 out of 72 pieces of possible warhead shrapnel. Hence and to be fair, if zirconium has been found on the bowtie in the body of the captain, it might be an important clue. But this zirconium has been demonstrated only qualitatively and it has not been cross checked by independent institutes. Hence this will not be enough to convince the judges. At most there could be a correlation between 9N314M and MH17; causality is not proven.

Now they found the shrunken experimental group (20) and the control group (21) (probably cockpit wreckage) had the same kind of aluminum, but this was not checked scientifically but only with the naked eye. Here and there they took at will somewhat material. But maybe they first must prove significant differences are to be expected between several kinds of aluminum of planes, using their Focused Ion Beam (FIB), for shrapnel could be transported into the wreckage otherwise.

Next it seems they SOMEHOW divided the 20 sample elements (n=20) into two groups of fragments. This is ABACADABRA in a scientific report.

They apparently took m=8 kind of independent variables as metal dimensions. A dependent dichotomous variable seems to indicate the difference or similarity between groups. That dependent variable could be the principal component on which groups can differ or agree. It looks like multiple regression or discriminant analysis but then not optimized because of PCA.

A number of techniques have been developed enhancing differences or similarities between groups, but sample size always influences significance in the first place.

 Basic Dimension // October 16, 2015 at 7:49 pm // Reply

In the report of DSB high energetic objects are described jointly. As a consequence, the chemical composition of the two bowtie elements is shrouded in darkness; they are disguised in the group. This is completely unacceptable, given the huge importance given by DSB itself to bowties for the distinction between 9H314 and 9H314M. Also PCA analysis is not revealing for individual elements.

On many places in the report, DSB relies with great confidence on the presence of these bowties. For example they are used as proof to negate air to air missiles. Therefore DSB should be urged to give separate  chemical analyses of each bowtie separately.

Undoubtedly, this data will be provided to the JIT. But in case specific data comes not available for the public and bowties are not cross-examined by independent institutes, legal proof for 9H314M will be invalidated.

 Basic Dimension // October 17, 2015 at 1:06 am // Reply

The DSB report:
10 Conclusions
10.2 Supporting conclusions (causes of the crash)

6. Fragmentation spray of pre-formed fragments.

‘(…) The objects that hit the aeroplane from the outside with high energy, as found in the aeroplane wreckage and the bodies of the crew in the cockpit, were made of unalloyed steel. Some of these showed evidence of having passed through the aeroplane’s exterior surface and/or cockpit windows. (…)’

This is a very strange conclusion. How else than through the plane’s exterior surface and/or through the cockpit windows, high energy objects could have entered the bodies?

Or did they pass without any damage? Isn’t that amazing if you have available a scanning electron microscope, an energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX) system and a Focused Ion Beam (FIB)?

Possibly, this means not all shrapnel found in the cockpit or in the crew bodies came in as expected. Maybe only some shrapnel came in through the plane’s exterior surface and/or through the cockpit windows. Maybe a lot of shrapnel found in the bodies entered in a very peculiar manner…

 Basic Dimension // October 17, 2015 at 12:11 pm // Reply

DSB report:

3.6. Weapon systems
3.6.5. Surface-to-air weapon systems common in the regio.

We know the following:

‘The Buk system’s missiles (the 9M38 and 9M38M1 missiles) carry a 70 kg high-explosive fragmentation warhead, composed of a high-explosive detonator surrounded by layers of pre-formed fragments. The 9N314 and 9N314M warheads are composed of two layers of pre-formed fragments. The inner layer of pre-formed fragments in the 9N314M warhead is composed of bow-tie shaped fragments together with square shaped ‘filler’ fragments. The outer layer consists of larger square shaped fragments (see Figure 5).’
Now it is obvious that the larger shaped cubes (8x8x5 MM) on the outside of the warhead of 9M38M1 first arrived at MH17. They made the first holes through which the bowties could penetrate the cockpit freely. But remember bowties are much bigger (13x13x8,2 MM). In which case there must have been found a lot of butterfly impressions on the skin of MH17. Maybe Almaz-Antey forgot to place the larger square shaped fragments (8x8x5 MM) on their warhead, since bowties were very well visible on the IL-86, but that aside.

Now, how DSB will prove 9H314M if bowties only were non-perforating fragments on MH17?

10. Conclusions
10.2. Supporting conclusions (causes of the crash)
10.2.5. Fragments from one location

The aeroplane was struck by a large number of small fragments with different shapes and sizes (cubic and in the form of a bow-tie) moving at high velocity. The direction of both the perforating and the non-perforating fragments originated from a single location outside left and above the cockpit. The fragments caused damage to the left hand side of the cockpit, the left engine intake ring and the left wing.

How has 9H314M been proven?

10.2.10. Weapon used

‘The aeroplane was struck by a 9N314M warhead as carried on a 9M38-series missile and launched by a Buk surface-to-air missile system. This conclusion is based on the combination of the following; the recorded sound peak, the damage pattern found on the wreckage caused by the blast and the impact of fragments, the bow-tie and cubic shaped fragments found in the cockpit and in the bodies of the crew members in the cockpit, the injuries sustained by three crew members in the cockpit, the analysis of the in-flight break-up, the analysis of the explosive residues and paint found and the size and distinct, bow-tie, shape of some of the fragments.’

A: The registered sound peak has nothing to do with 9H314M especially and is within margin errors and looks like tunnel vision, since the velocity of shrapnel from the blast is much too high for science fiction in the cockpit: Dismissed as circumstantial evidence for proof of 9H314M especially:

2. Sound peak
The Cockpit Voice Recorder recorded a 2.3 millisecond sound peak. Signal triangulation showed that the noise originated from outside the aeroplane, starting from a position above the left hand side of the cockpit, propagating from front to aft.

B: The ‘damage pattern found on the wreckage caused by the blast’ dismissed as circumstantial evidence for 9H314M: tunnelvision:
Since, the DSB report gives no model for 9H314:

3.9 Blast damage
‘By reviewing the observed damage on recovered parts of the aeroplane and by investigation of the blast pressure evolution for a number of discrete points on the aeroplane’s contour, the effects of the blast of the warhead was analysed. This was achieved by means of a so-called computational fluid dynamics simulation performed to provide a high-fidelity quantitative description of the blast loading. The computational fluid dynamic simulation takes into account the altitude, properties of the 9N314M warhead, velocity of the aeroplane, velocity of the warhead, and shape of the aeroplane.
The position and orientation of the detonating warhead relative to the aeroplane was taken from paragraph 3.8.3, model II.’

C: The damage pattern found on the wreckage caused by the impact of fragments itself: dismissed for court as proof of 9H314M, since it proves 9H314 much better.

For, the impact of fragments on MH17 misses bowties!

Both 9H314 and 9H314M have big cubes on the outside of the warhead: 8x8x5 mm. They come first and make the first holes.
But additionally 9H314 has even bigger cubes of 13x13x8 MM, which looks more like the damage on MH17. BTW have cubes 13x13x8 MM been found in the cockpit? Not reported.
Also besides cubes: 8x8x5 mm, 9H314M additionally has bowties (13x13x8,2 MM) and little filler cubes (6x6x8,2 MM), both which are not visible on the skin of MH17. That’s remarkable since bowties are much bigger than cubes from the outside layer of warhead 9H314M. May be A-A forget to place outside cubes because bowties are very well visible on the IL-86, but that aside.

D: Bow-tie and cubic shaped fragments in the cockpit and the body of the captain: dismissed for court without explicitly proven and double checked zirconium and aluminum profiles.

It must be said the cube found in the body of the First Officer is 6x6x8,2 MM. Might be from 9H314M or from a criminal suspect.

Up till now there is no prove bowties in the cockpit and in the body of the captain came from the supposed 9H314M. They may have been placed by criminals at the unattended crime site, or may have been shot into the captain before making Rontgen photo’s, since there was no control anywhere.

E: The injuries sustained by three crew members in the cockpit: until now and without clear evidence not convincing for 9H314M, dismissed.

F: The analysis of the in-flight break-up: questionable because of willful thinking and too many free parameters. Might be circumstantial evidence. Might fit 9H314 as well.

G: Explosive residues and paint found at the crash site: Dismissed because of unguarded crash site and also could be from 9H314.

This proof is a complete mess…

 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.”
http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14322
It certainly is a mess. Much of the evidence is inadmissable in court, but in international politics the report has served its purpose.
I have seen in the report some 20 points of doubt so far regarding the detonation, damage patterns, investigation procedures and results, its kind of dazzling to me.
One thing we know for sure: the Bellingcat evidence is not taken seriously and US evidence is totally absent.

> Rebels tried to collect every visible bowtie and opened the captain to dug those out also from him.
The report kind of indicates the opposite.
Page 85:
“Following identification, it was found that the body of the Captain from Team A was not one of the four bodies that underwent detailed examination. The body of the Captain from Team A had undergone an external and internal examination to remove foreign objects. This examination showed a great deal of fragmentation in the body. In addition, hundreds of metal fragments were found. Several bone fractures and other injuries that were observed in the Captain’s body were judged to be related to the impact of metal fragments travelling at a high velocity.”
It can be interpreted like this: After no bowtie fragments were found in human remains, all of the sudden it was noted that the fragments from the captain’s remains had already been removed elsewhere. How the fragments were assigned to the captain’s remains is unknown.

 Prosto Tak // October 18, 2015 at 2:53 pm // Reply
Actually, both versions seem to be incorrect. It has already been a point of controversy and seems to come out of the way the English text of the report was formulated.
It’s rather clear that the Captain’s body had been examined by the investigation’s expert themselves who found all those objects there but without knowing it was exactly the Captain’s body, and separately from a special examination of the presumed four bodies of the flight teams; it became clear afterwards, after the identification.
The Guardian had a story on this — and they’ve made a correction to that point: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/mh17-report-suggests-efforts-were-made-to-cover-up-causes-of-disaster
“The subheading and text of this article were amended on 14 October 2015. An earlier version wrongly stated that a “bungled autopsy” had been carried out on the pilot of Malaysian airlines flight MH17. In fact, Dutch forensic scientists carried out the autopsy on the body and removed “foreign objects”. The error was due to a difference in translation between the Dutch and English versions of the Dutch Safety Board’s report into the disaster.”

 Basic Dimension // October 18, 2015 at 4:27 pm // Reply
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/13/mh17-report-suggests-efforts-were-made-to-cover-up-causes-of-disaster
‘Among the fragments of missile shrapnel examined, two were in the shape of a bow tie, which the Dutch board found to be characteristic of a particular type of Buk missile warhead. However, the Russian manufacturer had earlier denied that any such fragments were found, and insisted an older Buk model was used, one that was no longer in service in the Russian armed forces.’

DSB report page 85:
‘(…) Following identification, it was found that the body of the Captain from Team A was not one of the four bodies that underwent detailed examination.(…)’

Now, think about it.
1: Where was the captain found? Not in the cockpit? And how come he was not identified as the captain?
2: Was his body examined by inexperienced students? Searching for shrapnel?
So, only DSB mistakenly thought to investigate the body of the wrong person. But the captain was of Malaysian origin. How many Malaysian males were at the plane? How come this terrible mistake? What is the chance of such an error made by professionals?

And isn’t it an amazing coincidence the Russians are positive there was no bowtie in the captain’s body? Hence, the Russians must have identified the body as from the captain. Otherwise they would not know.
Unless no bowtie has been found in an earlier stage, what the Russians generalized to the captain. So DSB suddenly must have done their amazing find after the Russians first got the impression no bowties were found.
So we definitely conclude the bowtie must have been detected in two steps: First phase no bowtie found, second phase eureka. Unless the Russians did not speak the truth…

So, in the second instance DSB examined his body again, searching for bowties and guess what, they found a bowtie. And in addition they found another one in the wreckage of the cockpit. But maybe they first found one in the cockpit wreckage then reexamined the bodies.

It is fairly certain this follows not the product rule of independent chances:
1: (p = 10%) They misidentified the captain times
2: (p = 40%) in the second instance they found the only human bound bowtie just in his body = 4 % chance.
This chance is low, unless as said we suppose some legitimate covariance between dependent chances. Now a legitimate covariate might be the captain was placed in the left chair (?), so if there was a bowtie to be found the biggest chance was in his body. That’s correct reasoning.

But of course, in that case you first inform the Russians about your plan for a second autopsy on the captain’s body, for a child can understand a bowtie from heaven would not be accepted by the Russians. So, is this silly administration of research by DSB without notarial record, or is this something else?
What is terribly missing is a logbook, an administration of findings from which later can be inspected what happened chronologically.

For now I refuse to believe fraud has been committed with research data. That goes way too far. But I demand a chronological explanation of DSB aligned with the Russian earlier perception that no bowtie was found in the first autopsy on the body of the captain.

     Prosto Tak // October 18, 2015 at 7:31 pm // Reply
    > Where was the captain found? Not in the cockpit?
    — Obviously, not in the cockpit, as there was no cockpit any more. His body was found on the ground.
    > And how come he was not identified as the captain?
    — Do you understand what has remained of many of the bodies reduced to charred remains on the ground?
    > Was his body examined by inexperienced students? Searching for shrapnel?
    — What on the Earth made you think so?
    > So, only DSB mistakenly thought to investigate the body of the wrong person.
    — Why do you think they “mistakingly thought” anything? They’ve just examined an unknown body and found lots of ‘Buk’ warhead fragments within it. Later, they found out it had been the captain. Or, actually, A  captain, as there were two separate flight teams, and two captains.
    > And isn’t it an amazing coincidence the Russians are positive there was no bowtie in the captain’s body? Hence, the Russians must have identified the body as from the captain.
    — Do you have any data stating that the Russians were meddling into the investigation and did their own separate autopsies of any bodies and even identifying them before giving them away to DSB?
    If you do, it would be an evidence into a criminal case against the Russians having tampered into the official DSB investigation. Please supply the data.

    Prosto:
    Thanks for your friendly reaction. I always appreciate your expertise in this area. We all have a role to play. We all want to find the perpetrators what unites us on this blog.

    > Where was the captain found? Not in the cockpit?
    [— Obviously, not in the cockpit, as there was no cockpit any more. His body was found on the ground.]
    Okay, accepted, though you have no proof.

    > And how come he was not identified as the captain?
    [— Do you understand what has remained of many of the bodies reduced to charred remains on the ground?]
    Well, many persons were recognizable. But maybe you’re right as far as it concerns the cockpit. But on the other hand the first person they looked for must have been the pilot. So it is illogical.

    > Was his body examined by inexperienced students? Searching for shrapnel?
    [— What on the Earth made you think so?]
    I don’t believe professionals just cut open bodies in series to collect shrapnel, of course not. They definitely must have had an idea it was the captain or someone from the cockpit.

    > So, only DSB mistakenly thought to investigate the body of the wrong person.
    [— Why do you think they “mistakingly thought” anything? They’ve just examined an unknown body and found lots of ‘Buk’ warhead fragments within it. Later, they found out it had been the captain. Or, actually, A  captain, as there were two separate flight teams, and two captains.]
    I think it was the captain of team A, who was also the pilot in function in the left chair, since on him they “found” the bowtie. And if someone was difficult to identify on that plane it had to be the pilot in function on that chair. So they were warned it could be the pilot.

    And remember the crucial argument of the Russians is DSB found the bowtie only in the second instance. If it was an honest action then it was stupid not to involve the Russians at that moment. That’s my point, cause if Jit really thinks the Russians are the perpetrators they missed an opportunity to involve them.

    > And isn’t it an amazing coincidence the Russians are positive there was no bowtie in the captain’s body? Hence, the Russians must have identified the body as from the captain.
    [— Do you have any data stating that the Russians were meddling into the investigation and did their own separate autopsies of any bodies and even identifying them before giving them away to DSB?
    If you do, it would be an evidence into a criminal case against the Russians having tampered into the official DSB investigation. Please supply the data.]

    Straw man argument.

     Basic Dimension // October 19, 2015 at 3:59 pm // Reply
    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-abouttheinvestigation-en.pdf
    3.3 Analysis and assessment
    2. What hit the aeroplane of flight MH17 (and what did not) (page 35)

    It looks like DSB in the results mingles:

    1: fragments of shrapnel (splinters).
    2: bowties and cubes.
    3: fragments or parts of a missile.

    Fragments of shrapnel:

    Part 1:

    ‘Metal fragments
    The shape and size of the metal fragments made it possible to issue statements about their source. A NUMBER of these fragments had a special shape, which can basically be described as CUBIC AND BOW-TIE SHAPED. Knowledge of weapons was used to establish that fragments having THIS SHAPE are released at the detonation of a certain type of warhead. Using knowledge about different types of weapons, a corresponding weapon was sought that could contain fragments WITH THIS TYPE OF SHAPE. Traces (of aluminium and glass) THAT WERE DISCOVERED ON THE FRAGMENTS were also relevant, because this enabled the investigators to deduce whether, and with what, the fragments had collided’.
    Here ‘THE’ definitely refers to a certain group of fragments extracted from the whole: bowties and cubes. Hence they have proof the bowties came through the cockpit window and/or the outer skin of the plane.
    But what comes now: fragments of shrapnel or fragments of a missile?

    Connecting Part II:

    ‘The Dutch Safety Board attempted to obtain reference material of the suspected weapon in order to further substantiate the origin of THE fragments. The objective was to establish that the chemical composition of THE fragments was consistent with that of the suspected weapon. This was not achieved, so this verification could not take place’
    Does this mean bowties chemically did not match 9H314M? Or missile fragments did not match 9H314M or the missile? No, it definitely has been concluded bowties were not of the same chemical composition as a warhead. But that’s not important. Only important is if the two bowties are covered with aluminum and zirconium of MH17. And that’s they confirmed.

    Connecting Part III:

    ‘During the recovery of the aeroplane, OTHER OBJECTS were found that correspond with parts of a specific missile in terms of shape and appearance. Two shards were discovered in the aeroplane (in the cockpit and the left wing tip). The paint and traces on the shards and traces on pieces of the wreckage were compared with paint and traces of an explosive on THE OBJECTS that were found. These analyses were performed by the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) at the request of the Public Prosecution Service and shared with the Dutch Safety Board.’
    Now we are sure OTHER OBJECTS are part of the missile and metal fragments (shrapnel, inclusive bowties and cubes) chemically were NOT involved in a warhead or a missile. We also know aluminum and zirconium of MH17 were found on the bowties and cubes. Maybe Jit has some proof which it does not want to reveal to the public now. Maybe they also have proof of butterflie images on the fuselage…
    What we see is JIT keeps its powder dry because, since as has been argued previously in this place they have no legal position. Would they now already lay their cards on the table suspects would take a stand to crumble their arguments.

     Basic Dimension // October 19, 2015 at 6:05 pm // Reply
    It is unlikely large debris has been stolen from the crash site. More likely is DSB had some reason to wait 4-8 months with their collection of debris, this meanwhile disappeared somehow. This moment many parts of the plane’s fuselage are missing which have not yet photographed. That’s because they are missing.

    It might be JIT already confiscated some parts. Although DSB already found two bow ties with aluminum and zirconium, it’s too meager in court. So I predict February 2016 JIT will report to have found butterfly images on some yet undiscovered parts of the fuselage. But remember I have no proof; it’s just a projection from what we know now.

     Basic Dimension // October 20, 2015 at 10:41 am // Reply
    The interview was meaningless. Joustra made it appear as if the DSB had numerous important measurements to do at the crash site and only getting half an hour of the separatists was inadequate. Therefore, one had to wait many, many months. But I remember that when they finally arrived they were mostly flotsam to loading.
    When it was objected that Australians and Malaysians all direct could be walking around at the crash site for seven consecutive days, he said that these people had a different task. The Dutch Ministry of Defense has discouraged DSB to go to the crash site.
    There are only two bow ties and two cubes found while the rest is scattered in the unit. That may be, but that does not apply to the outer skin of the plane. BTW have I found a bowtie in the middle of this photohttp://tinyurl.com/pbs9atp (on page 20 of 72 of appendix X. (figure 15))?






    http://www.npo.nl/mh17-het-onderzoek/13-10-2015/KN_1675251
    At (05.58 / 50.41) of the interview Mr. Joustra says DSB is pretty sure 9N314M is the warhead used. The question of the reporter whether he is 100% sure about 9N314M is avoided and Mr. Joustra keeps a detailed story in which the most important fact is the discovery of two bow-ties and two cubes. Only 9N314M has bow-ties. Further, the unsatisfactory cooperation with the Russians is discussed.

    Apparently, already in an early stage DSB theoretically decided to 9N314M, the warhead with the bow-ties. But this means later JIT is expected to show to the court an exuberant amount of evidence of this proposition and JIT should be able to exclude numerous grounds of falsification of research data.

    Hence, JIT should cite irrefutable physical evidence of the bow-ties just related to this very plane. Since aluminum and zirconium on the bow-ties can also be obtained by shooting a warhead against an identical Boeing after which the bow-tie could have been brought into the body of the captain of team A. Not that this is very likely but DSB – as a research institute – has taken a gigantic risk by possible backing the wrong horse. JIT certainly better comes with newly found butterflies on the wreckage.

    TNO concluded the warhead exploded exactly in front of the plane on the horizontal X-axis, but then 3.7 meters above the plane on the vertical Z-axis, and 2 meters to the left on the Y-axis. The rocket came about head on, with -27 degrees Azimuth from Snizhne and ascended lightly with 10 degrees elevation.

    In summer 2015 a draft of the report was sent to participating countries for remarks on the report. Ukraine and Russia have re-calculated and occasionally adjusted the models of NLR and TNO. They also concluded about the launch site of THIS design.

    The RF came to -.40 on the horizontal X-axis and high: 3.7 on the Z-axis and -3.5 to the left on the Y-axis. It is about the same results as TNO and NLR but apparently RF only controlled the math delivered by DSB. It not necessarily was their conception of reality.

    But here is our problem: It seems by re-calculating the math Russia implicitly was expected to endorse 9H314M as the warhead of MH17.
    How possibly such a misunderstanding can result?

    Uncertainty about on the one hand controlling the computational model of TNO and on the other hand endorsing the content of the DSB-model suggests a disturbed relationship between DSB and Russia.
    Perplexed DSB noted in her report: ‘The Russian Federation provided this data to the Dutch Safety Board without confirming that a 9N314M warhead, carried by a 9M38-series missile and launched from a Buk surface-to-air missile system, had caused the crash.’

    Well, if DSB organizes a panel it is her responsibility to prevent eventual misunderstandings in the first place. Apparently where model parameters were discussed Russia only simulated the model presented and gave no conclusions about the choice of 9N314M or 9N314.

    Like us, the Russians also must have missed any proof of 9H314M in the (first draft of the) report. So, why should they agree with this kind of canvassing in non-information? Why should they confirm bow-ties without proof? Hence, apparently they only agreed with the presented model but not with its premises.

    It was the responsibility of DSB to arrive at some diplomatic understanding and now they are not in the position to place inappropriate remarks in their report. Better DSB also ordered simulations of 9H314 to prove this type of warhead could not explain the results optimally.



    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14340


    By John Helmer, Moscow
    (...)This is despite the DSB’s reluctance to do so in its report; and despite the refusal to date of Australian and Dutch police, coronial investigators and pathologists to release the detailed autopsy evidence they have gathered of the shrapnel which struck the aircraft and the bodies of those on board. According to the DSB report, shrapnel killed the crew in the cockpit, and three pieces of shrapnel, characteristic of warhead type 9N314M , were found in the bodies of the pilot and co-pilot. No crew member or passenger in the aircraft, outside the cockpit, was struck by this shrapnel, according to the DSB.

    On these three pieces of metal hangs the case for a Buk missile detonation as the cause of crash; the cause of death; and Russian culpability for the shoot-down. But a search through the DSB records, and through the technical reports of shrapnel impact and blast simulation on which the DSB has based its conclusions, together with interviews with spokesmen for the Dutch investigations, finds that the only evidence for the source of the three metal fragments turns out to be a classified military secret of the Dutch Ministry of Defence.

    Questioned today for the source of its evidence for the firing of the 9M38 or 9M38M1 model missile , and for the detonation of the 9N314M warhead, NLR spokesman Jan Venema said the NLR will not disclose how, and from what source, it had obtained the missile and warhead data for its detonation and shrapnel testing, and for the conclusions it has reported. 

    Almaz-Antei has reported several times in public this week that the 9N314M warhead cannot be operated from the 9M38 missile series. The two cannot be connected electronically, according to the missile manufacturer. In addition, Almaz-Antei has confirmed that in the warhead types containing the distinctive shrapnel — the Russians are calling this “I-beam”, the Dutch “bowties” and “butterflies” — there are approximately 7,800 elements in total. Of this number, not less than a third, or 2,600 fragments, are of the bowtie type, again according to the manufacturer. If the DSB and its consultant analysts are all telling the truth, the identification of just three in the cockpit crew’s bodies, and one other fragment in the cockpit wreckage, is inexplicable. Almaz-Antei says its computer modelling, as well as its physical blast simulation, make this impossible.

    Asked today to explain how the evidence of Almaz-Antei that the missile model and the warhead type cannot be combined operationally and fired together, Venema said NLR is prohibited from answering questions by an agreement with the DSB.

    A third Dutch report by the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), a semi-government operation, has been published as an appendix to the main DSB dossier. The TNO claims it simulated the missile warhead detonation against a Boeing airframe by computer modelling, according to a programme called AUTODYN version 14.5. TNO reports that “in consultation with the DSB, the modelled warhead is type 9N314.” No explanation for selecting that warhead has been provided by TNO. 


    https://eriktoonen.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/analys/
















    Report MH17 crash:












    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/questions-for-dsb-having-no-answers-in-final-report/#comment-11512

     Basic Dimension // November 4, 2015 at 10:51 am // Reply


    RESTORING PERPENDICULARITY OF IMPACT HOLES

    NLR (Dutch Aerospace Laboratory) and TNO (The Netherlands Organisation of Applied Research) developed their clever 9N314M theory mainly on the basis of raw data obtained from the cockpit hull of MH17. But they only developed an interesting after the facts hypothesis, which still had to be tested in a practical experiment. That’s why AA did an amazing job with all shortcomings. At the end of our hypothetical research plan AA, together with NLR and TNO will test 9N314 against 9N314M (already done), paid by third parties.

    The Netherlands has emotionally called for closer cooperation with the Russian Federation in the investigation into the cause of the disaster of the MH17. Well Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs Bert Koenders, grab your chance, here your plan:

    In science it is common to make raw data available so others can replicate findings. If not, research will be rejected in the field, but also in court. Therefore, I urgently request NLR to make available the raw data referred to in this comment. Raw data are barely needed to test whether the – after the facts – hypothesis 9N314M can be true or must be rejected in favor of some alternative hypothesis as 9N314.

    NLR is urgently invited to make publicly available on the Internet all raw data of 350 independent holes found in the cockpit of MH17. We would like the following information for each independent hole in the file:

    The file of raw data:

    – From all holes we want sharp pictures taken from standard distance of about 10 cm: (http://tinyurl.com/nwpyyqd).





    – Holes must be scored dichotomic as left side (0) or right side (1) on this picture: (http://tinyurl.com/q4gfzse).

    – Holes must get coordinates in above two dimensional plane.

    – Holes must get the measure perpendicular on the direction of impact: (http://tinyurl.com/o7ndf9u).





    – Holes must get the Azimuth value of the supposed direction of impact in the above plane: (http://tinyurl.com/q4gfzse).

    – Holes must get an estimate of the (acute) angle of direction of impact, after which in three dimensional space we shrink and frame this impact dimension to normal perpendicular values again for each individual hole. Hence, we will manage to look from aside holes with acute impact to above holes with perpendicular impact.

    – We expect most holes to have about the same angle of direction of impact, what means we can easily reconstruct perpendicular impacts for 350 holes together. But directions may vary on the basis of the underlying theory of 9N314M. But in the end we see all holes as with perpendicular impact. As a consequence we might get more realistic measures of shrapnel on the hull.

    – Speed might differ somewhat for bowties and filler versus cubes. Categorical solutions might be needed in the interaction between speed and angles of direction of impact. But the expectation is with some trial and error we will find the real adaptations for kinds of shrapnel. Remember speed might be relevant because it can elongate the trace at very acute angles.


    NLR-CR-2015-155-PT-1 (Appendix Y report = NLR)

    Page 11:

    The Dutch National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR) was asked by the Dutch Safety Board to participate in the investigation of the impact damage due to high-energy objects on the wreckage of flight MH17.
    The work was performed as follows: First, the damage on the wreckage was thoroughly examined and quantified.

    Page 13:

    2.1

    Types of observed impact damage
    The impact damage due to the high-energy objects was investigated on the wreckage of the cockpit:

    Four types of impact damage were identified:
    1.Piercing damage.
    2.Plugging damage.
    3.Non-penetrating damage.
    4.Ricochet damage.


    Page 33:

    -Over 350 hits are present on the wreckage of the cockpit and over 800 hits are estimated in total, accounting for the structure of the cockpit that was not available.
    -The size of the penetration damage indicates that the objects that caused the damage to the cockpit had a size in the range of 6-14 mm: (http://tinyurl.com/nahug3m).



    One can argue bowties (13x13x8.2) of 9N314M are difficult to see on the hull, and they correspond with cubes (13x13x8) from 9N314. Both warheads also have the same little cubes (8x8x5). But in addition 9N314M has fillers (6x6x 8.2). Now we see the frequency distribution of found holes in the hull of MH17: 
    (http://tinyurl.com/nahug3m).

    DSB says:[The size of the penetration damage indicates that the objects that caused the damage to the cockpit had a size in the range of 6-14 mm]


    Because they measured but one side of shrapnel they run into difficulties of separating kinds of shrapnel. Also diagonals are disturbing. Now it becomes critical if they manage to identify fillers from cubes and cubes from bowties.

    They gave no raw data so we have to infer: There were 350 impacts. In the tabel there are three colums of 14, one colum of 13.5 etc. Hence 350/31=11.3 impacts per column. This add to 354, so with some corrections:


    14x3=34   

    13.5x1=11
    13x1=11
    ============ + (56 impacts >= 13 = bowties)
    12x4=45      
    11.5x3=34   
    11x1=11
    10.5x2=23
    10x8=91    X
    9.5x1=11
    8.5x2=27
    8x3=34      X
    ============ + (61 impacts of 8 and 8.5 = cubes)
    7.5x1=11
    6x1=11

    6x6x8.2 mm filler
    8x8x5 mm cube 

    13x13x8.2 mm bowtie

    As said, they measured but one side of shrapnel so this tabel is worthless. And there also are diagonals as side. So 6x6 filler has one diagonal of 8.5. What we do is we only take equal sides as norm.

    13 and higher is bowties (56).  56/360=.155 bowties (slight underestimation)
    8 and 8.5 is cubes (61). 61/350 cubes, forget about cubes.

    Number of bowties (13x13x8,2) in warhead 9N314M:
    1870/7840= .24 (real quantity)

    Number of cubes in warhead 9N314: 1790 (13x13x8mm)
    1790/6530=.27 (real quantity)

    If we had systematic organized and standard pictured raw data we could add diagonal values etc.

    We only can ask DSB to split the frequency distribution for the left (bowtieand filler) and the right side (bowtie, filler and cube) and show us the significance of their difference. What they already know, or course.



    Page 18:

    2.6 Size of penetration damage

    On the piece of cockpit skin with the highest number of penetrations, the size of the holes caused by these penetrations was measured (Figure 12).
    Only the damage that was assessed to be the result of single objects fully penetrating the plate was taken into account. Of each hole the dimension perpendicular to the impact direction was measured: (Figure 13): (http://tinyurl.com/o7ndf9u).
    Only this dimension gives an indication of the size of the object that caused the damage. The larger dimension, parallel to the projection of the impact direction on the plate, is the result of the speed and the angle at which the object impacts the plate. As can be seen in Figure 14, the size was found to range from 6 mm to 14 mm.


    Now we know the following: NLR/TNO postulated this: (http://tinyurl.com/q4gfzse), corresponding to this: (http://tinyurl.com/p464ekg) (Above is the left side of the picture). This is done very well.

    But remember this is a wrong statement:

    [The size of the penetration damage indicates that the objects that caused the damage to the cockpit had a size in the range of 6-14 mm: (http://tinyurl.com/nahug3m).]

    Because, they measured but one side of shrapnel, and now they run into difficulties of separating kinds of shrapnel. Now it becomes critical if they manage to identify fillers from cubes and cubes from bowties. That’s why I propose the intermediate step of restoring perpendicular impacts.

    NLR, please release the raw frequencies for the whole table:

    (http://tinyurl.com/nahug3m), but also broken down for to left and right side of the cockpit on this picture: (http://tinyurl.com/q4gfzse).


    Are frequency distributions significantly different?

    NLR, will you please make all cross tables for us and ask for significance tests between tables? If they differ significantly it must be because of the big cubes (8x8x5 MM) on the right side if we adhere to 9N314M: (http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr).

    This is what we are looking for:

    Bowties (red) and fillers (blue) are seen on the front portion of the cockpit hull (left at the picture).
    Bowties, fillers and squares (yellow) are seen on the rear portion (right at the picture): (http://tinyurl.com/q4gfzse).
    I understand these areas as the typical fract distribution delivered by 9N314M warheads: (http://tinyurl.com/p464ekg).


    9N314M gives: 6x6x8.2 MM filler diamond/cube fragments, which we expect on both sides left and right at the picture. Together with the bowties they form the inner layer of the warhead.

    9N314M also gives: 8x8x5 MM diamond/cube fragments. These are the big squares in the outer layer of the warhead and are only to be expected at the right side of the picture: (http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr).

    9N314 gives: 13x13x8 MM big cubes as inner layer, to be found left and right at the picture. And it gives 8x8x5 MM cubes only to be found in the outer layer to the right. But the latter is not certain and we are not yet proving 9N314 in the rebound. We only want to reject 9N314M. Falsifying a hypothesis does not force to prove another one.

    NLR, you conclude fillers on the left side of the table, this means:

    – NLR first must have discriminated fillers (6x6x8.2 MM) from diamond/cube fragments (8x8x5 MM) on the right side significantly. NLR might have found 5 MM elements at the right side. But cubes with 5 MM are not to be found on the left side.
    Hence, if NLR did not detect cube fragments (8x8x5 MM) on the left side this confirmed their theoretical grounds, otherwise 9N314M is disconfirmed. But remember confirming a hypothesis does not mean it is the true state of nature, only the theory has not been falsified.

    All the way we see NLR/TNO run into big trouble without corrected impact holes.

    It also is possible NLR did not discriminate significantly between fillers (6x6x8.2 MM) and cubes (8x8x5 MM) on the right side. Then they possibly found the proportion of fillers/cubes on the right side is significantly greater than on the left side. But now NLR runs into trouble because the distribution of 9N314 is not known. May be 9N314 has a completely different frag distribution, which we go explore with the Russians.

    Remember in the total frequency table fillers (6x6x8.2 MM) and cube fragments (8x8x5 MM) are messed up in category 6 MM, because fillers have a bigger minimum (6) than cubes (5). That’s why we want a breakdown of the 6 MM frequency column, broken down in 6 and 5 MM. It would be strange no cube fragments (8x8x5 MM) were gone through the hull at their 5 MM side: (http://tinyurl.com/o7ndf9u), but it is possible.

    This all must be corrected by estimating perpendicular impacts. Maybe butterflies can be reconstructed too.

    If raw frequencies are broken down for the left and right side of the picture and differentiated to 6 and 5 MM we have the following questions to NLR:

    To resume:

    NLR, are fillers (6x6x8.2 MM) and little cubes (8x8x5 MM) significantly different on the right side of the picture? I.e. can you identify fillers on the right side? Can you identify any 9N314M shrapnel on the right side? Can you identify bowties?

    NLR, can you prove/disprove fillers on the left side. Are there any fragments in the 5 MM category on the left side?

    NLR, remember if you found 8 MM on the left side it can be bowties (13x13x8.2 MM) (or 13×12.75×8 MM) (http://tinyurl.com/phvmqfh), but also diamond/cube fragments (8x8x5 MM) or big cubes (13x13x8 MM) of 9N314.

    If you cannot identify fillers (6x6x8.2 MM) on the left side as different from little cubes (8x8x5 MM) on the right side the hypothesis 9N314M is not confirmed. It might be true but is not confirmed.

    With the methodology of reconstruction of perpendicularity of impact holes we have a powerful instrument which can shed new light on the case, if it works.

    But first NLR/TNO, you give us the raw data, you have the key to cooperation. We expect you to provide this information to the world out of respect for the victims. We expect the Dutch parliament, if necessary, to be to your assistance.


    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/questions-for-dsb-having-no-answers-in-final-report/#comment-11905


     Basic Dimension // November 10, 2015 at 2:17 pm // Reply

    MH17: 9N314M DEBUNKED AND FALSIFIED

    DSB’s preconception of the launch of a BUK from Snizhne with warhead 9N314M turns out to be a distortion of the facts. A launch from Zaroshchenske with warhead 9N314 might fit the data better:

    http://tinyurl.com/oq35vma
    http://tinyurl.com/okx7sgq


    if DSB’s conception of how MH17 is shot down is disconfirmed, accusations will be worthless in court and the Dutch people should reckon with bitter disappointments. It concerns the launch site (Snizhne) and the postulated warhead (9N314M).
    There are a number of legitimate arguments against a launch from Snizhne. But here we focus on disconfirming 9N314M.

    http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr

    How must scientists cooperate with militaries and politicians? Can they put scientific stamps on unvalidated theories? Of course not, because then they implicitly would take responsibility for immanent assumptions.

    So, how is MH17 linked to politics and the military?

    DSB report Appendix, Z page 13:

    4.3 Warhead
    [Starting point for the terminal ballistics simulation [by TNO:The Netherlands Organisation of Applied Research] is a warhead with preformed fragments. In consultation with DSB, NLR [Dutch Aerospace Laboratory] and the Netherlands Ministry of Defence warhead 9N314M of Surface to Air Missile(SAM) type 9M38M1 has been modelled.]


    Page 3:

    [This study uses classified data as meant by the Wet Bescherming Staatsgeheimen (state secrets act). The text of this report is inspected and released for publication by the Netherlands Ministry of Defence.]


    TNO as a scientific institute accepted insufficient substantiated assumptions of the 9N314M model from political and military institutes. In this way, TNO granted the predicate ‘scientific’ to a form of tunnelvision.

    TNO better started with the facts from scratch. In any case, it would have been better if TNO also explored 9N314 as kind of control on 9N314M.

    In the following we debunk warhead 9N314M as form of tunnelvision of DSB and show how TNO easily could have disconfirmed 9N314M. As follows:

    The Russians say not to use 9N314 warheads any longer, which are still in use by Ukraine. Like Ukraine, Russians use the modern 9N314M. So if DSB can prove 9N314M downed MH17, Russians are involved as possible perpetrators.

    The main difference between warheads 9N314 and 9N314M is a piece of steel in the form of a bow-tie, also called the double T or butterfly:

    http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr

    This bowtie is only to be found in 9N314M. Hence, 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.

    DSB is a political institute. A scientific institute would provide the world with raw data of impacts on MH17. Then theories about bowties could be confirmed or falsified. Only on logical grounds we will refute the hypothesis of: ‘bowties found in MH17 as coming from the missile used’.

    Time is running out and soon there will be no control on raw data of MH17 any longer. Now DSB already made an extra hole in the forward pressure bulkhead (the nose of MH17) inadvertently.

    Bowtie evidence of DSB is very doubtful, since they only found two bowties and two cubes of (apparently) 9N314M. But their chemical analysis of aluminum (hull) and zirconium (windshield) on the bowties sticks to a qualitative assessment of the origin. It seems to be based on face value with the naked eye through a microscope.
    Now the problem is the probability of bowties in the cockpit (p(b)) is dependent on – or conditional on – the passage of bowties through the cockpit hull (p(bh)) or through the windshield.

    In theory we also could accept the passage of fillers through the hull (p(fh)), because they correlate perfectly with bowties. Then, DSB has to prove the conditional probability (|) of: p(b|bh)>0 or p(b|fh)>0. In other words DSB has to prove butterfly holes or filler holes in the cockpit hull.

    That’s to say, fillers are acceptable as stand in for bowties only if we don’t know how many bowties are to be expected. That’s why we need exact quantities. And because the number of bowties projected perpendicular on the cockpit hull – from a very short distance of only 3 meter – is exactly known, we demand full proof of butterflies in the hull.

    If DSB cannot prove this conditional probability > 0 – for example because pieces of the roof are lost or missing(?) – then the single bowtie in the captain’s body must have penetrated in a different way.

    Because DSB refuses to give the raw data of holes in the cockpit hull in a orderly and systematic manner, we use logical reasoning to debunk 9N314M. We think warhead 9N314M is not confirmed. What not means we attach to 9N314.

    DSB report Appendix X

    Report no NLR-CR-2015-155-PT-1


    Page 60

    6.17 Matching modeled and observed fragmentation damage
    [The best match was obtained for a detonation location of the warhead of 0.25 metres ahead of the aircraft’s nose, 3 metres to the left of, and 3.7 metres above the tip of the nose.]

    Like this: TNO report appendix Y, page 7:http://tinyurl.com/pyrhmr2)

    [The missile was travelling at a speed of approximately 700 m/s in the opposite direction to the direction of flight of the aircraft [azimuth 118], approaching 7 degrees from below and 20 degrees from the right [azimuth 318] with respect to the aircraft forward axis.] (like this: http://tinyurl.com/oq35vma)


    The requirement of perpendicularity

    But if a BUK was launched from Snizhne with azimuth 318 dgr and elevation 7 dgr and the warhead was a cylinder, then a lot of shrapnel was projected nearly perpendicular on the cockpit hull.
    This because the distance between warhead and aircraft was only three meters and they were nearly parallel. Hence one side of the warhead, a slice of about 50 degrees of the longitudinal axis of the cylinder was exactly parallel with the hull of MH17:

    http://tinyurl.com/nuvn9t8
    http://tinyurl.com/qffwbg6


    Note the slice exactly corresponds to the theory of 9N314M: On the left side we only see bowties and fillers and on the right side we see bowties, fillers and cubes:

    http://tinyurl.com/oxxy56l

    But it is very sad no roofparts were found in the wreckage:

    http://tinyurl.com/qbdbtfg
    http://tinyurl.com/pcwlxvw



    No swirls or tumblings

    As said, about such a short distance no swirls or tumblings of shrapnel are to be expected, since thrust of the blast is much stronger than aerodynamic drag. Then in a statistical sense we may forget the side views of bowties, fillers and cubes since they will not have turned in this short distance. But this means most shrapnel entered the hull as we see their upper side on the warhead:

    http://tinyurl.com/p464ekg

    Hence we expect, NO WE DEMAND most shrapnel elements to have made holes in the cockpit hull WITH THEIR TOPSIDE. So in this restricted area we definitely demand BUTTERFLIES IN THE HULL.

    But we need some cockpit roof to falsify 9N314M.

    http://tinyurl.com/qzhydqk

    So, in this 50 degree area projected on the hull of MH17 we expect following measures:

    To the left we expect to see:

    Bowties 13x13x8.2 MM
    Fillers 6x6x 8.2 MM


    To the right:

    Cubes 8x8x5 MM
    Bowties 13x13x8.2 MM
    Fillers 6x6x 8.2 MM


    Hence, if there was a roof we could perfectly test the hypothesis (9N314M) for the restricted area of:

    http://tinyurl.com/pypyptf

    The warhead

    Page 54:

    6.12
    Number and density of hits.

    [The 9N314M warhead is composed of approximately 7800 preformed fragments of three different shapes which are arranged in two layers. A digital reconstruction of the 9N314M warhead fragment arrangement can be seen in Figure 50:]

    http://tinyurl.com/p464ekg
    http://tinyurl.com/q8uh4qa
    http://tinyurl.com/ncmtkjs


    [The inner layer consists of bowtie and filler fragments and spans the entire length of the warhead. The outer layer consists of squares and spans approximately three quarters of the warhead length as can be seen by the change in diameter on the top half of Figure 49:(http://tinyurl.com/qdpdc5r). The number and density of hits on the wreckage of the cockpit is consistent with the number and density of hits expected from the detonation of a 9N314M warhead.]

    Last remark has not yet been proven, as I asked NLR in the earlier comment.


    What are the proportions of hits expected from detonation of a 9N314M warhead?

    Following AA: (http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr),
    9N314M has 7840 shrapnel elements:


    Cubes (4100) + bowties (1870) + fillers (1870) = 7840

    Calculation surface of different kinds of shrapnel:

    Cubes 8×8= 64 x 4100 = 262400 MMSQ
    Bowties 13×13= 169 x 1870 = 316030 MMSQ
    Fillers 6×6= 36 x 1870 = 67320 MMSQ


    (Bowties + fillers) – cubes = 383350 – 262400 = 120950

    Cubes / (Bowties + fillers) = 262400/383350 = .68 = 70 %


    This agrees with: ‘The outer layer consists of squares and spans approximately three quarters of the warhead length as can be seen by the change in diameter on the top half of figure 49.’

    Hence, 32 % of bowties and fillers are lying free from cubes. And 68 %lies under cubes.

    Now, we have an estimate for the ratio between shrapnel on the left and on the right, but not yet for the expected frequencies. For less than half the shrapnel goes to the aircraft.


    What quantities are to be expected from the 50 degree projection?

    As said earlier, we think 50/360 = 14%of the shrapnel comes nearly perpendicular on the plane:

    http://tinyurl.com/pypyptf

    To the left we expect to see:

    Bowties = .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84
    Fillers = .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84


    To the right:

    Cubes = .14 x .68 x 4100 = 390
    Bowties = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178
    Fillers = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178


    We definitely can expect 84 + 178 = 262 butterflies in our 50 degrees segment and there are no excuses. Presence of fillers is no longer sufficient. Bowties must be shown also.

    How the wreck looks:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNNOX2O1cFQ


    Now we all know DSB made a mess of the investigation. They waited 6 to 8 months with gathering the wreckage. Meanwhile a lot of wreckage has disappeared inexplicably. If journalists and mourning relatives of victims had not made pictures we would have lost a lot of evidence to falsify 9N314M.

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/new-photos-of-mh17-rooftop-in-russia-today-documentary/#prettyPhoto

    http://tinyurl.com/nvc99fm

    But we are very lucky to have saved some pictures of the roof on the left side of the plane and we have the left front windshield of the cockpit. And guess what, it all falls directly within our 50 degree area, so in the rebound we can test the 9N314M hypothesis.

    There can be NO escape for butterflies on the roof any longer. There are NO acute angles, NO ricochets and there is NO non-penetrating shrapnel. If there were bowties, they must have massively left butterfly impressions. And we know by what quantities.

    All the preconditions are met and all obstacles have been removed. If not any butterflies are visible in the roof, 9N314M is definitely debunked.

    http://tinyurl.com/n9q79c3
    http://tinyurl.com/owyaxvn
    http://tinyurl.com/phagxf6


    Falsifying 9N314M gave big problems, for our slice of 50 degrees of the longitudinal axis of the cylinder projected on the hull (the roof) seemed to be gone by the enormous bombardment. But fortunately the left front windshield covers half of the left side of our hypothesis: it must have let passed half of the bowties and half of the fillers, which quantities we estimate as 42 bowties and 42 fillers:

    http://tinyurl.com/pa42zge

    The results

    The left side of the 9N314M hypothesis:

    http://tinyurl.com/ofelwmp

    The front windshield on the left side of the plane has been saved more or less:

    http://tinyurl.com/oaey37u

    It has been quite possible to estimate the right quantities of fillers and bowties.

    http://tinyurl.com/o3fb54r
    http://tinyurl.com/oy6tnnf
    http://tinyurl.com/oaey37u
    http://tinyurl.com/nngv55z
    http://tinyurl.com/q4r9o2t


    Because the nearly perpendicular projection from the warhead on the plane contains 14%of the shrapnel, this means 84 bowties and 84 fillers have to give rather perfect images as holes on the plane at the left side. Half of that left side consists of the windshield. Following our estimation we expect 42 bowties and 42 fillers. But badly counting on the windshield gave an overestimation of 170 holes.

    http://tinyurl.com/ncctzo3

    Because we don’t know what impression bowties have to make in glass we conclude 9N314M has not been confirmed. 9N314M could be the true state of nature but has not been confirmed. It is not yet falsified.

    The right side of the 9N314M hypothesis:

    DSB report Page 57 of 279:

    [Upper left hand cockpit fuselage (1)
    A portion of the cockpit fuselage’s top section (STA236.5 to STA332.5) was located in the south-western region of site 1 (Figure 15). This part was not recovered. The fuselage showed evidence of perforation from the outside. The aft side of the fuselage skin was bent upwards and a number of formers and stringers were missing from the fuselage. The upper side of the fuselage showed traces of soot:]


    http://tinyurl.com/ox73ruu

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/new-photos-of-mh17-rooftop-in-russia-today-documentary/#prettyPhoto

    http://tinyurl.com/ox5q2kc
    http://tinyurl.com/pg7tptm


    On the right side we expect:

    Cubes = .14 x .68 x 4100 = 390
    Bowties = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178
    Fillers = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178


    The wreckage is from near the door so we might expect less shrapnel:

    Cubes = .14 x .68 x 4100 = 390 = 195 cubes = 100 cubes
    Bowties = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178 = 90 bowties = 50 bowties
    Fillers = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178 = 90 fillers = 50 fillers


    No bowties are detected in this 50%area. We know the holes butterflies must make on aluminum and therefore we must decide 9N314M is falsified.

    The DSB research is based on wrong assumptions, tunnelvision twisted the facts. Then NLR and TWO pressed their scientific stamp on it. We cannot comment on 9N314 based on this investigation.




    Report MH17 crash:

    “Based upon the damage examination it is concluded that the impact damage on the wreckage of flight MH17 is caused by a warhead with various types of preformed fragments in the 6-14 mm size range, including one type with a bow tie (vlinderdas) shape detonating to the left of, and above, the cockpit.”
    “The damage observed on the wreckage is not consistent with the damage caused by the warhead of an air-to-air missile in use in the region in amount of damage, type of damage and type of fragments. The high-energy object damage on the wreckage of flight MH17 is therefore not caused by an air-to-air missile.”
    “Of the investigated warheads only the 9N314M contains the unique bow tie shaped fragments found in the wreckage. The damage observed on the wreckage in amount of damage, type of damage, boundary and impact angles of damage, number and density of hits, size of penetrations and bowtie fragments found in the wreckage, is consistent with the damage caused by the 9N314M warhead used in the 9M38 and 9M38M1 BUK surface-to-air missile.”

    Butterfly or bow-tie shrapnel found in the bodies of the captain, the purser and the first officer in the cockpit:


    Report MH17 crash:





    Report MH17 crash:






    Butterfly or bow-tie shrapnel found in the bodies of the captain, the purser and the first officer in the cockpit:



    Wed Oct-14-2015



    Anyone can show me  damage showing clear x-shaped, bowtie, butterfly holes? Like this from AA test. 





    Wanneer men beide rapporten, het MIC-rapport en het Erik Toonen-rapport, integreert ontstaat er een veel beter beeld. De sleutel tot de oplossing van dit drama zou weleens in deze twee rapporten kunnen liggen.

    (Achterhaald: the drag equation) Maar de rapporten kennen nogal wat open einden. Natuurlijk heeft het MIC-rapport geen toegang tot de wrakstukken, maar ook worden er geen formules gegeven volgens welke het vliegtuig na de impact naar de aarde valt. 

    Ook is onvoldoende duidelijk welk traject de BUK volgt op weg naar MH17 en daarvan hangen de horizontale en verticale koershoeken af. 

    Dan is het wel jammer dat veel wrakstukken op de rampplek zijn achtergebleven. De verticale en horizontale koershoeken hangen in belangrijke mate af van de dispersie van de submunitie op de verder verwijderde delen als de vleugel en de staart. 

    Mogelijk heeft deze onvolledige terughaal actie tot gevolg dat de precieze coördinaten van de afvuurplek niet meer te achterhalen zijn.

    Hopelijk worden alsnog voldoende wrakstukken verkregen om alle in en uitslaggaten vast te leggen als input voor een computermodel om vervolgens het point of detonation en beide koershoeken op de boeing optimaal te kunnen modelleren.

    Onder het hoofdstukje: 'De ballistiek van de BUK' is geprobeerd op eenvoudige wijze aan te geven hoe de onderzoekers de plaats van de lancering van de BUK denken te kunnen bepalen. 

    Jammer, maar de Russen hebben wel degelijk een punt. Had de OVV tijdig alle wrakstukken geïnventariseerd en geen in- en uitslaggaten laten wegroesten op de rampplek, dan, ja dan hadden wij wellicht te weten gekomen wie dat ding heeft afgeschoten...

    De Russen beredeneren dat de BUK niet vanuit Snizhne kan zijn afgeschoten, omdat dat te ver is voor de BUK missile 9M38M1 (35 km) of de 9K37M (32 km). En een frontale koers van de BUK zou ook de neus van de cockpit hebben afgesneden. Op grond van het schadeprofiel aan de cockpit concluderen zij een horizontale koershoek van 73 graden vanuit Zaroshchens'ke net onder Shakhtars'k. 

    Is het dan nog relevant om uit te zoeken wie die BUK heeft afgeschoten? Neen zeker niet, dat is een gepasseerd station. Want had de SBU al een BUK weten te ontdekken in vijandelijk gebied (Donetsk) dan zeker ook op het minieme betwiste gebied daaronder van de postzegel Zaroshchens'ke (10x10 km). Daar opereerde het Oekraïnse leger immers naast dat van de separatisten en zou zij de bewegingen van een BUK van de separatisten zeker hebben opgemerkt. 

    En dan zou Oekraïne dit hebben gerapporteerd aan de Security Board (OVV), waarop het OM nu niet één maar twee BUK bemanningen zou hebben moeten opsporen. De kans dat de separatisten op 17 juli een BUK hadden staan in Zaroshchens'ke is daarom nihil en ook vanuit Snizhne kunnen zij de MH17 niet hebben geraakt. 

       Thursday 16 July 2015


    (October 13,2015)

    Retweeted

    We went to  this weekend: villagers didn't witness -launch previous to crash  & say Ukrainian army was 4-6km out.


    Het MIC-rapport van de Russische ingenieurs

    Aan de hand van de schade aan het wrak van de MH17 kan men de baan van de BUK berekenen. Dan blijkt dat deze beslist niet uit Snezhnoye (Snizhne) kan komen maar wel uit het gebied van Zaroshchens'ke dat vlak bij Shakhtars'k ligt. Dit gebied was op 17 juli 2014 betwist gebied tussen Oekraïne en de separatisten:

    Merk op dat de BUK weliswaar aan het begin van het gele traject op de MH17 werd afgevuurd, maar dat de BUK uiteindelijk pas na 21 seconden met 73 graden in het horizontale vlak en bij het begin van het groene vlak de MH17 raakte (14.20 GMT):

    Erik Toonen-rapport:






    NB: Koers vliegtuig - 115 graden volgens OVV, waar Flightradar het op 118 graden houdt. En 115 graden levert een slechtere horizontale koershoek op voor Zaroshchens'ke).

    “Uit de gegevens op de Flight Data Recorder bleek dat het vliegtuig vloog op een hoogte van FL330 bij een constante weergegeven koers van 115 graden en een constante snelheid van 293 knopen berekende luchtsnelheid (grondsnelheid 494 knopen, ofwel 915 kilometer per uur). De gegevens stopten abrupt bij 13.20:03 uur." 




    Track 118 graden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh06SqVx_1Q [0;50/1;22]






    (Bij  vertikale lancering en 10 sekonden reistijd van de BUK zou het groene segment als geheel naar links zijn opgeschoven en wel de helft van het gele gebied innemen, dat nu immers 21 seconden is.)




    Het MIC-rapport:

    De raket bewoog zich kruisend op de koers van het vliegtuig:

    Van belang hierbij zijn drie zaken: de horizontale en verticale koershoek waaronder de raket het vliegtuig naderde en het punt van ontploffing van de gevechtskop van de raket.

    De horizontale hoek:
    De BUK naderde de MH17 in het horizontale vlak als een auto die van rechts kwam, bijna haaks op 73 graden (horizontaal 72-75º): een flankbotsing waarbij de BUK de MH17 enigszins tegemoet kwam.



    Zaroshchens'ke
    2.5 km van noord naar zuid, en 3.5 km van west naar oost. 
    horizontale vlak (75 -78 graden);


    De vertikale hoek:
    En was de MH17 een schip dan kwam de BUK als een torpedo onder een zeer lichte hoek van 23-24º graden naar de oppervlakte (vertikaal 20-22º of 22-25º). 

    Model van de distributie van de fragmentatiestroom: vertikaal 20-22º.
    Nadere berekening met verbeterd model: 22-25º.
    Voor alle simulaties wordt evenwel van 20-22º uitgegaan.








    Punt van ontploffing:
    Verder is bekend dat de BUK ontplofte op 3-5 meter van de linkervoorstoel van de cockpit en wel een paar meter boven de cockpit.













    Voorts ontploft shrapnel als een ring rond de BUK loodrecht op de bewegingsvector in alle richtingen (perpendiculair aan de bewegingsvector van de raket). Dus de BUK klapt als een paraplu uit en de ribben vliegen loodrecht op de steel naar alle kanten weg. Staat de vector in het vertikale vlak 23-24º als van een torpedo net onder de oppervlakte, dan vliegt shrapnel daarop loodrecht weg en gaat als een zeis door de cockpit met dezelfde afwijking van 23-24º uit het lood:


                          










    Report MH17 crash:







     Basic Dimension // September 7, 2015 at 9:14 am // Reply

    Only if one thinks to have found the perfect theory one knows in advance what information must be gathered from the plane. This might be the case when shrapnel found in the plane and in the bodies certainly must come from a BUK-missile. Supporting evidence might be (?) the discovery of parts of a BUK-missile at the site.

    But as said earlier, then one has to prove also BUK-shrapnel has not been shot later into the fuselage and the bodies at the unattended crash site. If that is impossible to prove and the theory could be false then it might be too late to return to the site to collect additional parts for the next theory. And resembling ‘prove’ to support the most likely cause of crime (BUK) might come down to tunnel vision:

    [BUT they do have the relevant pieces, and if there is a piece that exonerates the accused, well it is up to them to find it to get a not guilty verdict.]

    Unfortunately this is a completely wrong conception of research and might be an exact form of tunnel vision where the damage is for the accused.

    A false dilemma involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

    Now, if it is proven to be a BUK and only pieces of the fuselage with holes of shrapnel are collected than DSB might be satisfied but JIT is not, because for the horizontal course angle of the missile they have to prove there is no damage in the other parts. Hence the whole fuselage is needed to estimate the horizontal and vertical course angle to find and prove the place of firing of the BUK missile.

















    Report MH17 crash:





    Report MH17 crash:



    Uit het verloop van de inslagen bij de cockpit en de romp kon de afstand van de BUK tot het vliegtuig op het moment van de ontploffing worden geschat op 3-5 meter. De BUK moet de MH17 zelfs al iets gepasseerd zijn omdat de cirkel van shrapnel als een zeis schuin en 23-24º uit het lood door het linkergedeelte van de cockpit ging. De dispersie van de submunitie kwam in de linkermotor, de romp, de linkervleugel en in het staartstuk terecht.





    Nu liggen alle parameters vast en kan berekend worden vanuit welke plaats de BUK werd afgeschoten. Dit kan alleen vanuit een gebied ten zuiden van Shakhtars'k bij het dorpje Zaroshchens'ke (zie onder).

    Maar voor het bepalen van de lanceerplaats is vertikaal 20-22º genomen:

    3.1.1 Locatie en parameters van beweging van vliegtuig Boeing-777
    De gebruikte locatie en de parameters van beweging van het vliegtuig zijn overgenomen uit het voorlopige rapport van de Internationale Commissie.
    Koers vliegtuig - 115 graden;
    Snelheid - +- 905 km/u;
    Hoogte - 33000 fyt (FL330), ~ 10060 meter
    Geschatte coördinaten van het vliegtuig - 48º07’37.7”N; 38º31’34.7”E




    3.1.2 Locatie en parameters van beweging van de raket
    De gebruikte locatie en parameters van beweging van de raket zijn bepaald aan de hand van de condities waarbij de raket het vliegtuig raakte (sectie 2.3 t/m sectie 2.5)
    De hoeken van het raken van het vliegtuig:
    horizontaal - 72-75 graden;
    verticaal - 20-22 graden.

    Zaroshchens'ke
    2.5 km van noord naar zuid, en 3.5 km van west naar oost. 
    horizontale vlak (75 -78 graden);
    maximalisatie van de fout van lanceringshoek (tot 2-3 graden);
    koers van het vliegtuig in het verticale vlak (schuine hoek: 20 - 22 graden);


    Snezhnoye (Snizhne)

    De BUK kan niet vanuit het verderop gelegen Snezhnoye (Snizhne) zijn afgeschoten,
    omdat Snizhne in de baan van het vliegtuig ligt wat min of meer op een frontale botsing was uitgedraaid. Dan zou de ring van shrapnel als een zeis in een oogwenk de neus van de romp hebben gezaagd. 

    Van de ramen van de rechterstoel zou dan niets meer over zijn, terwijl die nu nog intact zijn. Ook ontbreken daar de uitslaggaten. Shrapnel submunitie zou dan ook niet de romp, de linkermotor en zeker niet de vleugel of de staart hebben bereikt. Vanuit Snizhne is de hoek van de bijna frontale botsing in het horizontale vlak 5-20 graden. En omdat Snizhne verder weg ligt is de vertikale hoek tot tussen 0 en 12 graden gedaald. 




    Report MH17 crash:




    Possibly parts found of 9M38M1:



    Next question:

    DSB found the remains of a BUK-missile. If not mentioned elsewhere what are the exact coordinates of the site of the missile and the exact date of discovery. Also the question if the finder is inhabitant of Donetsk.

    Physical contact between the (remains of the) BUK-missile and the plane seems unlikely. But then the trajectory to the earth of an exploded BUK must be well known and must be in line with its trajectory before the crash. So, it can be known from what direction it has been fired.

    Probably the trajectory of the BUK-missile was straight forward and simple.

    Hence, fired from Snizhne the remains must have been found NW from Petropavlika, about 5 km against the flight path of MH17.

    Fired from Zaroshchens’ke it must have come down to the North and in the immediate vicinity of Petropavlika.

    Since it took about 10 months before the DSB reported the findings it can be questioned how they came there in the first place.

     Basic Dimension // September 25, 2015 at 11:30 pm // Reply
    Well, there is a big chance of a head-on collision with a launch from Snizhne, though we know it did not happen. Now, the question is: did a launch from Snizhne happen?

    In the research by AA (Almaz Antey) the launch of a BUK-missile from Snizhne is described. Not the left side of the cockpit, but the entire cockpit would have been cut off by the ring of shrapnel:

    ‘Snezhnoye (Snizhne)
    The BUK cannot have been fired from the more distant Snezhnoye (Snizhne), because Snizhne lies in the path of the airplane, which would come to a frontal collision. Then, the ring of shrapnel would have cut off the nose of the fuselage in an instant.
    Of the windows of the right side of the flight deck nothing would be left, while those still intact today. Also missing on the right side are the rash holes. In addition, shrapnel submunition would not have achieved the fuselage, the left engine and certainly not the wing or tail. From Snizhne, the angle of the almost head-on collision in the horizontal plane is 5-20 degrees. And because Snizhne lies further away the vertical angle dropped between 0 and 12 degrees.’

    But it is far more likely that the radar of the BUK-missile was aimed precisely at the nose of the cockpit, in which case a head-on collision is the most obvious. Then the BUK-remains were to be found in the wreckage of the cockpit.

    Therefore it could well be that both Snizhne as Zaroshchens’ke fall as a launching place. Hence, there might be a third candidate.


    Therefore it could well be that both Snizhne as Zaroshchens’ke fall as a launching place. Hence, there might be a third candidate.


    The trajectory of a BUK-missile is well known. Also is known how it falls to earth from 10 km altitude after detonation. Also we know the remains of the missile have not been found in the cockpit or the fuselage. So, there was no head-on collision. Hence, all the way the missile moved in a completely free trajectory.
    The exact coordinates of the crash are known. The exact coordinates of a launch from Snizhne are postulated and the angle of an almost head-on collision in the horizontal plane would be 5-20 degrees. And, since Snizhne lies further away than Zaroshchens’ke, the vertical angle dropped between 0 and 12 degrees.
    Now we already have two points on a straight line and we know firing a missile from Snizhne at MH17 would be a very simple and straightforward trajectory. So we draw that line to where the remains would have crashed.
    Now it would be very tempting for someone to drop the remains of an exploded BUK-missile exactly at the end of the forecast fall to earth.
    DSB research is not about legal liability of parties but that does not relieve you from running into a preconceived fall of tunnel vision. So, what have you done to make sure that no BUK-missile remains have been placed as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

     Basic Dimension // September 26, 2015 at 4:14 pm // Reply
    In the second instance, the BUK-remains are not on the straight line. After detonation BUK-parts lost thrust and were left with diminishing forward momentum. They underwent a changing velocity by diminishing speed by dragging and changing direction by strong winds. Hence the remains must be found NNW of the line Snizhne – aircrash.

     Basic Dimension // September 26, 2015 at 10:26 pm //
    If DSB was an independent scientific institute, the finding of remains of BUK would be accepted as really scientific proof of the direction from where the BUK was shot. We would be delighted and it would be the crowning glory.

    But we have an integrity problem; DSB is a hybrid between science and political opportunism. In the future the purely scientific part of such investigations should be outsourced to third parties, not to countries but to really independent institutes of good reputation. Rules of ICAO must be changed.

    We can reject the findings as possible scientific fraud of third parties but we better let calculate the various drag coefficients of found components in a wind tunnel by independent parties. We need all kind of photographs and physical measures as weight etc. Further we need the exact geolocations of all parts found.

    Then we trace the trajectories of the BUK-parts with their separate drag coefficients back to the point of detonation. And only if all converge into one point, only then we will know whether the ‘discovery’ might be considered as reliable.

    If DSB has failed to capture the geolocations the find must be rejected as negligent investigation.


     Basic Dimension // September 28, 2015 at 10:16 am //

    A BUK-missile 9M38 or 9M38M1 weighs 690 kg (1,520 Lb) and carries a relatively large 70 kg (150 Lb) warhead. The 9M38M1 is a modernized rocket with long chords (Russia and Ukraine). By detonation the ring of shrapnel will explode perpendicular to the missile but in forward conical projection.

    (Inspecting the damage to the cockpit this conical projection means the missile cannot be shot from Zaroshchenske but only in line with the flight path of MH17 from the direction of Snizhne. Launched from Zaroshchenske not the left side, but the right side of the cockpit would be sliced. Or rather, seen the point of detonation, the shrapnel would have missed the plane completely.)

    Exploding shrapnel has not the slightest influence on the direction of the missile remains. It is even doubtful if the explosion itself could lower forward momentum. With full thrust the missile had a speed of mach 3 = 3700 km/h, may be somewhat less since the fuel was already burned. After detonation the remains will lose forward momentum mainly by the lost of thrust, and not so much by dragging, since the remains will still be a very compact and heavy piece of metal. Also strong winds will not have much influence on direction.

    Velocity will only change by diminishing forward momentum by the lost of thrust. Now, what is the trajectory of 690 kg compact metal falling to the earth with a speed of 3000 km from 10 km altitude? That’s easy. Hence the remains must be found on the extended line from the launch site to the aircrash. And the place where someone found or placed the remains of BUK can be predicted to within a kilometer of the calculated  geolocation.

     sotilaspassi // September 28, 2015 at 10:32 am //
    Here is an example where the missile’s tail did not continue forward:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNAZ8FzWcAAq_YF.jpg

     Basic Dimension // September 28, 2015 at 10:39 am //
    The point of detonation approximately is within a few meters of the aircraft and it is a matter of milliseconds before the conical shape expands. Hence from Zaroshchenske, a factual perpendicular effect might still be possible.



     sotilaspassi // September 28, 2015 at 12:17 pm //
    Basic D:
    Note that proximity fuse sees 20…40 meters ahead in 30…60′ angle. From direction Z the detonation of warhead starts at least ~10 meters sooner than from S direction.
    It is also possible that from Z location the missile would hit closer to center, detonating when wing tip becomes in proximity fuse cone. (40m before fuselage?)

     Basic Dimension // September 28, 2015 at 1:06 pm //
    Sotilaspassi:
    Thanks for information. But isn’t it the proximity fuse aims on the radar in the nose of the cockpit? Then the wingtip would not be important. Z as well as S is not quite satisfying. How about a launch in line of Z but from the other side?

     sotilaspassi // September 28, 2015 at 2:00 pm //
    >But isn’t it the proximity fuse aims on the radar in the nose of the cockpit?
    Proximity fuse explode the warhead when some/any metal comes to it’s view. (IMO: exploded 2…5ms after the metal behind MH17 nose cone came into view.)
    Proximity fuse does not see directly ahead, because it’s radar (receiver) is in missile nose.
    Missile is homing towards strongest radar echo coming from target, radar signal is sent by TELAR.
    My “simplified proportional navigation” idea makes the missile to cross the target flight path slightly before target, when shot from ahead.
    This way, when missile is launched from slightly south of Snizhne, it will explode near pilot window,
    And when launched slightly north from Snizhne it will explode on co-pilot side.
    If launched directly from ahead, the missile would explode on MH17 center line or penetrate the cockpit before exploding.
    When approaching from side, it can be that strongest radar echo still comes from forward fuselage, but proximity fuse will anyway function a lot sooner vs coming from ahead.
    (we would not see explosive residue in cockpit parts like we now see. IMO: fireball radius of 70kgwarhead and 500kg rocket fuel exploding is only about 10m.)
    I doubt BUK uses highly complex math when it approach the target. It rather rely in speed & brute force.

     Basic Dimension // September 28, 2015 at 6:32 pm //
    Sotilaspassi:
    A BUK-missile 9M38 or 9M38M1 weighs 690 kg (1,520 Lb.) and carries a relatively large 70 kg (150 Lb.) warhead. If 690 kg means including 500 kg rocket fuel, the remaining weight before detonation is only 190 kg and the remains of BUK definitely will be subject to drag and wind.
    Will the exploding warhead ruin the rocket mantle? Hence, what are the remains of the missile which fall to the earth? That’s the question as you mentioned earlier.

     Basic Dimension // September 28, 2015 at 8:35 pm //
    Sotilaspassi:
    If the BUK-missile totally explodes at detonation, we must hope for heavy and compact elements which are not subject too much to drag and wind. In the first place we think of the proximity fuse, maybe the entire nose, which is very compact and will be separated from the rocket mantle after explosion. Another object is the rocket engine which is not compact. We expect the proximity fuse to come much further than the remaining rocket mantle.

    http://www.ultimax.com/whitepapers/2014_1.html
    ‘So GLOW [9М38M1] is 700 kg, with a 70 kg warhead (red-colored part in the figure below). It has 500 kg of propellant. Allocate 130 kg for everything else, airframe, fins, avionics/fuze/guidance, etc.’


    Het Mic-rapport stelt dat bezuiden Snizhne een BUK de MH17 niet had kunnen raken omdat dit de reikwijdte van de 9M38M1 missile van 42 km overstijgt (9K37M 35 km). Snizhne ligt meer dan 50 km van de impact. Voorts kan de radar van de BUK-TELAR maar 42 km ver kijken. Snizhne valt daarom af. Behalve misschien wanneer:

    (Achterhaald)
    mvdb22 maart 2015 om 12:08Een SA-17 met een 9M317 raket kan vanaf Rusland zijn gebruikt. Bereik ligt rond de 50km. Er zijn satelliet en fotos vanaf de grond genomen welke aantonen dat er RUS BUKs in de buurt van de grens waren. 
    (A SA-17 with a 9M317 can be used from Russia. Reach about 50 km. Satellite images prove the presence of Russian BUKs near the border.)








    U.S. Intel Determines SA-11 Downed MH17




    WASHINGTON/LONDON – Only days after Dutch officials recovered what they believe to be parts of the missile that downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine last year, the U.S. intelligence community has settled on the assessment that the offending system was a Russian-made SA-11, also dubbed the Gadfly by NATO. U.S. intelligence sources have long suggested it was likely an SA-11 that destroyed the Boeing 777-200ER en route from Amsterdam to Kaula Lumpur on July 17, 2014.




    Brendan:
    They [DSB, BD] obviously didn’t contact Almaz Antey, as AA had to reconstruct the fragment damage themselves from photographs. If they had contacted Almaz Antey, the first thing any competent engineer would have asked for is access to data on the damage to the plane.
    You would think allowing an objective investigation by the manufacturer of a complex weapon with the capability to simulate the effects of the warhead strike might be of interest to the investigators.
    Similar to this, the leaving behind of large pieces of debris is appalling. The key evidence that could very well be on some piece left rotting in a field. In other crashes like TWA800, great care was taken to get every single piece and reconstruct the plane as much as possible.


    http://en.censor.net.ua/news/346911/fragments_of_russian_buk_m12_missile_body_are_identical_to_fragments_from_mh17_wreckage_expert_report

    Fragments of Russian Buk- M1-2 missile body are identical to fragments from MH17 wreckage, - expert report


    Body fragments of the Russian anti-aircraft missile Buk- M1-2 were identified during examination of the wreck from the crash scene. Similar fragments of missiles were extracted from the wings and body parts of the airliner.

    According to Censor.NET sources close to the investigation into the downing of the Malaysian Boeing, chemical analysis proved the identity of these fragments.
    The examination of the fragments of the antiaircraft missile continues in The Hague. Source: http://en.censor.net.ua/n346911 Source: http://en.censor.net.ua/n346911


    "Russia is preparing itself for the final battle to change the results of the investigation of the Boeing crash. A group of Russian experts from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is going to visit The Hague to prove that the launch of the deadly AA missile was made not from the vicinity of Snizhne but from some other location. Source: http://en.censor.net.ua/n346911 Source: http://en.censor.net.ua/n346911

    It is 24.3 km from Snizhne to last FDR point[BD: Flight Data Recorder].
    With MH17 at 10 km altitude, that means a minimum flight path of 26.3 km.

    9M38M1 has a reported range of 35 km, this means MH17 was well within the range.
    However, if the burn time of a 9M38M1 is only 20 sec as AD suggests, at then this missile will travel only 17 km on its own power, and would have to “glide” the remaining 10 km (in the case of MH17) and even 18 km of glide to reach its reported range of 35 km.
    That does not add up.
    So either the burn time of a 9M38M1 is longer than 20 sec (closer to the 35 sec suggested in that video) or MH17 was not shot down by a 9M38M1.
    •  Andrew // July 15, 2015 at 11:32 pm // Reply
      Rob:
      “That does not add up.”
      The Admin has previously posted articles discussing the operation of BUK-M1 which includes flight paths of its missiles fired at various targets at various elevations from various distances.
      If the target is near, the missile approaches from below and in front and explodes just as it crosses above and in front of the target. If the target is more distant and well beyond the limit of thrust propulsion, the missile rises above the target and then glides on a quasi-ballistic trajectory from above down and in front of its target where it again intercepts it.
      This was also part of the presentation of Almaz Antey in explaining the pitch of the missile and thus the pitch of its warhead annulus as it exploded changed based on the distance to target and could help determine the launch location if the location and elevation for the termination of flight were known.




    Discussion in 'Flight MH17' started by Bruce LansbergMar 19, 2015

    Last year correspondent Jeroen Akkermans took with him some fragments of the murder weapon from the crash site in Ukraine for investigation. The material has been examined by an independent institute that has conducted a confidential investigation.

    Investigation into the chemical composition showed that they are remains from a BUK missile, among which fragments from the warhead – the pay load. The fragment of the warhead consists of a low-quality alloy of steel common to this form of ammunition. It appears from electroscopic enlargements that a fragment shows a cast-on Cyrillic serial number from the Russian language next to a partly broken number 2.



    [International experts endorse the conclusions of the forensic investigation. Defence experts of IHS Jane’s in London look into all weapon systems worldwide. They regard the damaged and deformed fragment below as a first piece of evidence. According to them the fragment directly belongs to the pay load of a 9M317 BUK missile, the modern version of the BUK 1-2 system.  Expert Nicolas De Larrinaga: "From the hour-glass form we can gather all the characteristics of an impact of a 9N314 warhead fragment. This fits perfectly."]


    9K37M1-2 (BUK M1-2):SA-17 (only Russian). 
    Warhead 9N314 in SA-11 (Russ/Ukr) and SA-17(Rus).
    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/a-detailed-description-of-the-buk-sa-11-which-could-have-shot-down-mh17/

    • Een 9N314 warhead hoort bij een BUK-M1 installatie. Deze installaties bezit alleen Oekraïne. Rusland bezit nog BUK-M1-2 en BUK-M2 installaties. Dan zouden de belastende vingers dus naar Oekraïne moeten wijzen.Waarom een 9N314? Omdat deze specifieke vlindervormige fragmenten bij een 9N314 horen.
              (BD: navraag bij Erik Toonen leert dat Rusland geen 9N314 warheads gebruikt).


    Als plaats die het beste de schade door de BUK verklaart wordt Shakhtars'k genoemd. En vlak ten zuiden van Shakhtars'k ligt dus Zaroshchens'ke:

    Erik Toonen rapport:











    Report MH17 crash:



    “Based upon the damage examination it is concluded that the impact damage on the wreckage of flight MH17 is caused by a warhead with various types of preformed fragments in the 6-14 mm size range, including one type with a bow tie (vlinderdas) shape detonating to the left of, and above, the cockpit.”
    “The damage observed on the wreckage is not consistent with the damage caused by the warhead of an air-to-air missile in use in the region in amount of damage, type of damage and type of fragments. The high-energy object damage on the wreckage of flight MH17 is therefore not caused by an air-to-air missile.”
    “Of the investigated warheads only the 9N314M contains the unique bow tie shaped fragments found in the wreckage. The damage observed on the wreckage in amount of damage, type of damage, boundary and impact angles of damage, number and density of hits, size of penetrations and bowtie fragments found in the wreckage, is consistent with the damage caused by the 9N314M warhead used in the 9M38 and 9M38M1 BUK surface-to-air missile.”

    Butterfly or bow-tie shrapnel found in the bodies of the captain, the purser and the first officer in the cockpit: 







    Shrapnel and contamination with other shelling






    Het shrapnel dat op de rampplek is gevonden wordt deels toegeschreven aan de warhead van de SA-11 BUK missile (SAM). Maar er is ook GRAD munitie gevonden (9M22U) van surface to surface missiles BM-21 GRAD (AAM). De MH17 crashsite is gebombardeerd van eind augustus tot begin september.

    Het is minder belangrijk wie zoveel munitie op de crashsite heeft gedumpd maar wel dat deze vele maanden onbeheerd gelaten is.

    The more time has passed, the more people had the occasion to view the site. The ones who should have been the first to collect the wreckage were actually the last to do. The blame for this lay squarely with Kiew, as they were either unable to provide safe access to the territory they claim as their own, or even actively engaging in military action at the crash site despite resolutions by the UNSC explicitly calling for a ceasefire near the crash site.
    Also those people who wanted to provide their own signature in the shape of machine-gun bullets, hand-grenade splinters, artillery and even “Scud”-type missiles had ample opportunity during any of the more than 100 days since the crash to do so. So the most recent pictures may not be the most informative at all.

     Ivan // March 20, 2015 at 11:05 am // Reply
    @ Thomas: The first ones looting on the spot were Russians/”separatists”. No way can it be blamed on Kiev, as RUS was doing everything they could to keep investigators or UKR troops away from the crash site.


    Verschillend BUK gebruik Ukraïne en Rusland (?)

    Ukraina dont have capability for shot down MH17 because dont have SA-11 close enough. Is it hard to understand?
     Antidyatel // July 18, 2015 at 2:02 pm // Reply
    Yes,yes. It was rebels controlled territory. How do you define the later? By July 2014 the total number of rebels was below 10,000. In the territory attributed to them it will give less than a rebel per square km, if uniform distribution is applied. In reality rebels were focused in 5 locations. So the rebel controlled territory is close to be an auximoron.
    • Thought you miss my description about difference ukrainian SA-11 and russian SA-11.
      Ukrainian SA-11 dont belong to GROUND FORCES and dont protect BATTLEFIELD. It is part of COUNTRY AIR DEFENSE (included in Air Force) and stay away from border or frontline (on range of missile strike). So ukrainian SA-11 dont invade deep into enemy territory never before or after.
      Russian SA-11 belong to GROUND FORCES and serve to purpose – protect troops on BATTLEFIELD. SA-11 in Russia dont belong to COUNTRY AIR DEFENSE but infantry, motorised and armored troops on army/division/regiment level of organisation. You can easy find SA-11 in infantry division or armored regiment (Ground Forces) but Country AirDefense for Russia dont have SA-11 but SA-10 etc.
      So im believe in travelling russian TELAR on territory controlled by russian proxies, but im cannot beleive in ukrainian TELAR invading on enemy territory with risk of damage or lost. For killing plane deep into DNR/LNR territory Ukraine dont need bring vulnerable TELAR behind enemy territory! Ukraine have SA-10 with enough range for launch missile from own territory!


    Samenvatting Erik Toonen Research

    Erik Toonen beheerst de Russische taal en is ingevoerd in de cultuur van Rusland en Oekraïne. Vanaf het begin ontwikkelde hij zijn eigen visie op de aanslag van de MH17. En zolang de onderste steen niet boven is moeten alle scenario’s in stand gehouden worden. Anders ontstaat al gauw tunnelvisie. 
    Een briljant artikel over MH17 verscheen reeds van zijn hand.

    Zijn stelling wordt puntsgewijs vervat:

    - U leest mijn blog. U bent dus duidelijk ook geïnteresseerd in de ware toedracht van het MH17 drama, anders zou u genoegen nemen met de leugens uit de Telegraaf, het Algemeen Dagblad, de Volkskrant, of nog erger, de verslaggeving op de publieke omroep en RTL.

    - Op 20 februari was mij al duidelijk dat vlucht MH17 niet door een BUK  raket uit de lucht kon zijn gehaald en toen ik erachter kwam dat op 16 en 17 juli 2014 gemodificeerde SU-25 gevechtsvliegtuigen actief waren boven Oekraïne ging er een lampje branden.




    De laatste onderzoeken van Russische zijde, gepubliceerd door Albert Naryshkin wil ik u daarom niet onthouden. Zij komen tot de conclusie dat MH17 is neergehaald door een air-to-air raket van het type Python 4 of Python 5. Een moderne raket van Israëlische makelij.(...) Zij concluderen dan ook, dat het zeer waarschijnlijk is, dat er geenBUK raket systeem is betrokken bij de aanslag op MH17.



    - De aangetroffen fragmenten op de crashsite, waarvan in de pers wordt aangenomen, dat ze afkomstig zijn van een BUK warhead zijn daar neergelegd door de SBU. Dit wordt ook door documenten aangetoond, welke ik in mijn bezit heb.

    - De Python is uitgerust met een matrix-imaging infrarode zoeker. Dit stelt deze raket met relatief kleine warhead in staat een groot vliegtuig aan te vallen en op de meest kwetsbare plaats te treffen. De warhead bestaat uit fragmentatie elementen van vastgestelde maat en slechts van één type. Daarnaast is dit ook het type raket wat afgevuurd kan worden door een Sukhoi-25KM. Georgië is in het bezit van 3 van dergelijke SU-25KM gevechtsvliegtuigen en bezit een arsenaal van Python-4 en Python-5 raketten. 




    De modificatie van het toestel is uitgevoerd door het Israëlische Elbit Systems en de Python raketten zijn ook door het Israëlische Rafael geleverd aan Georgïe. Standplaats van deze toestellen is de luchthaven van Tblisi sinds 2000. Een SU-25KM, uitgerust met 2 Python raketten.





    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/questions-for-dsb-having-no-answers-in-final-report/#comment-10835

     Basic Dimension // October 20, 2015 at 10:26 pm // Reply

    Intriguing question:

    12 Ukraine press stated an IL76 was flying close to MH17. DSB reports there was no other aircraft near MH17 besides the three civil aircraft. How did the DSB determine this as there was no primary radar coverage.

    – The primary radar of Ukraine civil air traffic control was not operational for maintenance.
    – The primary radar of Ukraine military air traffic control was not on at July 17 as according to Ukraine there were no flights scheduled that day. (Kind of circular reasoning: because no primary data are available no military aircraft was in the air.)
    – Russia erased the recordings of the raw primary radar.

    DSB better reported: there is no (reportable) evidence of military aircraft near MH17. How come DSB pertinently knows no military aircraft were in the air?

    If we take DSB seriously, they got additional classified information from the USA which might be (satellite) information or else. Might be this information relates to the subject.

    Mr. Joustra recognized to have taken notice of classified US information of MH17. The source of this information was not to be mentioned in the DSB report.

    He was likely permitted to draw and report conclusions – otherwise he would not have accepted the invitation – but he was not allowed to reveal the origin of the information. Then the USA could have shown Mr. Joustra all kinds of fake information, on which he possibly based his conclusions. No control is possible.

    Now what is the problem: by viewing of classified information DSB lost freedom of speech in their report. Mr. Joustra lost credibility in case he has drawn unsubstantiated conclusions from classified data. But we don’t know if and how far classified information interacts with the conclusions of the DSB report.

    And because no other information on military aircraft near MH17 has been reported and we assume claims made by Ukraine and Russia about having no primary radar information available are correct, we conclude DSB must base its conclusions only on classified information from the USA, the other correct source.

    What means all conclusions drawn by DSB about military aircraft near MH17 as far as obtained on the basis of classified information should be deleted in order to maintain credibility. DSB must reveal its source in the other case.



    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/was-a-parked-buk-the-reason-for-the-july-15-bombardment-of-snizhne/#comment-9709


    Please no more comments on SU-25. That is a nonsense story. If you want to discuss SU-25 do it at nonsense tinfoil hat sites. All further references to SU-25 will be deleted!
    • Admin:
      “Please no more comments on SU-25. That is a nonsense story.”
      Okay, but do you agree that people in Torez reported fighter planes overhead at 2:58 pm on July 17 (see the thread “Sirens” on Overhead in Torez), and that eyewitnesses and the Militia and Russian MoD all think that there were fighter planes near MH17 at 4:15-4:30 pm? We also now have a Reuters interview of a rebel claiming they fired BUK missile at a fighter jet around 3:30-4:00 pm (that would be inconvenient, because then the three missile BUK on a sightseeing tour in Lugansk would have needed to load up an extra missile to also shootdown MH17).
      I think these are integral claims/facts to the story. No obviously an SU-25 did not shoot down MH17 with cannonfire and R-60’s, but that isn’t what is being discussed and no professional has ever suggested it. Please reconsider. We need to have an open discussion.
      • Andrew: I agree with you. No discussion on if a SU-25 shot down MH17. That is nonsense.
        I agree there are many eyewitness who saw one or more SU-25s flying near Snizhne. We can discuss this and their role.


    - Zoals ik op 20 februari al schreef, deden er 2 Sukhoi-25KM toestellen mee aan NAVO operatie “Sea-Breeze” mee. Deze operatie liep af op 17 juli 2014, waarna deze toestellen naar Tbilisi zijn teruggevlogen.




    First, it would be an absurd form of tunnel vision to debunk the confusion and distraction theory of SU-25 with MH17 under acceptance of the entirely unreliable reporting of the Russian Defense Ministry’s ATC radar images. Hence we really do not know if SU-25 flew around MH17 or at a lower altitude of 5 km.

    (p= 1): Residents say to have seen SU-25 in the neighborhood of MH17.
    (p= 0.5): At the time of the disaster residents probably saw more than one object in the sky. They were very familiar with the daily stunts of SU-25, so they probably did not confuse SU-25 with BUK, even though they possibly had never seen BUK smoke trail or heard BUK thunder before.
    (p= 1): The witness is sure he has seen two objects in close proximity before the explosion. (That’s the only important information of the interview).

    If we suppose this grown man knows the difference between SU-25 and BUK, then he must have had a reason not make a choice or not to tell his conclusion. If he concludes a BUK he would make himself vulnerable to the separatists. And if he had chosen for SU-25 he would be chased by the SBU. Hence he possibly decided not to lie but also not to give full information. He decided to give just enough information for us to draw our own conclusion. Otherwise his cooperation to the interview would be worthless.

    From his experience he knows SU-25 cannot climb so fast and high. Also they are not that maneuverable at high altitude. He wants us to draw the conclusion it was no SU-25.

    And he describes quite exactly the path behavior of a BUK without saying anything about the sound of the launch or the smoke trail, since the BUK possibly was launched from a very distant position and it was cloudy. But I am no expert.

    He knows we will infer BUK. Unless Erik Toonen is right after all with his advanced SU-25 from Georgia: ‘The modification of the [upgraded SU-25; BD] device is performed by the Israeli Elbit Systems and the Python missiles are also provided by the Israeli Rafael to Georgia. Location of these devices is the airport of Tbilisi since 2000.

    I draw no conclusions but only protect a scenario against tunnel vision.



    - We kunnen ons nu een beeld vormen met welk wapen MH17 uit de lucht geschoten is. Dit beantwoord niet de vraag waarom? Waarom zou Oekraïne (met hulp van Georgië) moedwillig een burgervliegtuig uit de lucht halen? Ik schrijf heel doelbewust moedwillig, want waarom zouden er anders 2 SU-25KM toestellen gevechtsoperaties boven Oost-Oekraïne ondernemen? Waarom heeft Oekraïne MH17 neergehaald en waarom zo een moeite doen om een Sovjet BUK raketsysteem als wapen aan te duiden? Waarom geeft Amerika zijn radarbeelden van 17 juli 2014 niet vrij? Tot en met 17 juli was er een Amerikaanse AWAC operationeel boven de Zwarte Zee. Deze moet alles hebben kunnen vastleggen.Ik ga proberen hierop een passend antwoord te geven.

    Zoals ik reeds eerder heb geschreven, hebben een aantal landen grote financiële belangen in Oekraïne. De Donetsk bekken bezit veel grondstoffen als steenkool, en schaliegasJuist dit schaliegas is Amerika enorm in geïnteresseerd. Het is ook absoluut in het belang van Amerika, dat de Donetsk regio stevig in handen is van Poroshenko en Yatenyuk, om zo een Oekraïens/Amerikaanse onderneming als Burisma Holdings Ltd dit kostbare gas te kunnen winnen. Bekend is dat deze onderneming in handen is van de (toen nog) gouverneur van DnipropetrovskIhor Kolomoyskyi en geleid wordt door de zoon van de Amerikaanse vice-president Hunter Biden. Deze Ihor Kolomoyskyi mag met recht één van de machtigste en rijkste Olichargen van Oekraïne worden genoemd. Hij was ook de man die Poroshenko aan de macht hielp, zoals hij eerder Tymoshenko aan de macht hielp. Om zijn plannen uit te kunnen voeren, heeft hij geen belang bij opstandige “separatisten”, die zijn belangen dwarsbomen en ontginning, van de reeds aan hem toegekende schaliegasvelden, uitstellen of onmogelijk maken. Het is ook daarom dat hij miljoenen uitgaf om zijn eigen private militias in het leven te roepen zoals het Donbass, Azov, Aidar, Dnepr-1, Dnepr-2 bataljon. Dit zijn de mannen die het hardste vochten tegen de separatisten en beschikking hadden over tanks, BUK-raketsystemen, zware artillerie en luchtondersteuning vanaf Dnepropetrovsk luchtmachtbasis om de weg vrij te maken voor hun baas en opdrachtgever.

    - De militias van Kolomoyski hebben de beschikking over BUK-M1 raketwerpers uit het Sovjet tijdperk en deze worden in de dagen voorafgaand aan 17 juli in de directe nabijheid van het front geplaatst, bij het dorpje Shakhtarsk, met de bedoeling een duidelijk signaal aan de Wereld af te geven. Een andere reden om ze daar te plaatsen bestond ook niet, de separatisten bezaten geen luchtmacht. Of Kolomoyskyi en zijn mannen er echt voor hebben gekozen om een toestel vol Nederlanders neer te halen of een toevallig overvliegend passagiersvliegtuig, is mij tot op heden niet bekend. Nederland is een zeer trouwe NAVO partner en zeer beïnvloedbaar door Amerika. Wanneer MH17 een doelbewuste keuze is geweest, dan is er ook grote kans dat een aantal Nederlandse politici op de hoogte waren. Deze 196 Nederlandse slachtoffers kunnen door hen als collateral damage zijn ingecalculeerd.
    Het is vanaf het begin opzet geweest om MH17 met een BUK raket neer te halen. Daarom stonden deze raketwerpers ook opgesteld bij Shakhtarsk. Alle filmpjes die op het internet zijn verspreid rondom 17 juli, waarop te zien zou zijn hoe separatisten met een oude BUK rondrijden en het beroemde youtube filmpje van Igor Strelov, zijn op voorhand al gemaakt door de mensen van Kolomoyskyi (sommige zelfs al op 16 juli online gezet). Toch is er iets misgegaan.

    - De hele operatie was voorbereid en gepland door Svyatoslav Oliynik, de rechterhand van Ihor Kolomoyskyi. Deze heeft op 17 juli dan ook het voorrecht zijn baas te vertellen dat MH17 is neergehaald, maar door een air-to-air raket. Dit weet ik, omdat Svyatoslav Oliynik zit te chatten op 17 juli met Valery Geletey (minister van Defensie tot 14 oktober 2014) (...)

    Het was Amerika al bekend voor het drama op 17 juli, dat MH17 zou worden neergeschoten met een BUK-M1. Hun hele mediacircus was hier al op voorbereid. Dat MH17 uiteindelijk door een vliegtuig is neergeschoten, was een misrekening en moest worden rechtgezet met alle beschikbare middelen.

    Jeroen Akkermans van RTL nieuws heeft vier maanden na de MH17 crash de crashsite bezocht “om de waarheid naar de werkelijke toedracht” te achterhalen en op de grond fragmenten van een raket gevonden. Na analyse zouden dit fragmenten van een BUK raket zijn.

    Dat is de essentie van zijn verhaal. Probleem is nu natuurlijk, dat de fragmenten pas 4 maanden na de crash zijn gevonden in Oekraïne. Dan kun je amper nog spreken van een onaangeroerde plaats delict. Ik heb in september al gemeld, dat tot de eersten die de crashsite bezochten, vertegenwoordigers van de Oekraïense SBU waren. Er bestaan legio documenten en foto´s van soortgelijke fragmenten, die al door de SBU zouden zijn gevonden. Niets nieuws onder de zon dus. Dergelijke “vondsten” kunnen daar net zo goed geplaatst zijn door de SBU, om in de richting separatisten te wijzen.

    Maar goed, stel dat Jeroen een oprecht man is en deze fragmenten daadwerkelijk op de crashsite heeft gevonden. Dan worden we geconfronteerd met de volgende problemen:
    • Een 9N314 warhead hoort bij een BUK-M1 installatie. Deze installaties bezit alleen Oekraïne. Rusland bezit nog BUK-M1-2 en BUK-M2 installaties. Dan zouden de belastende vingers dus naar Oekraïne moeten wijzen.Waarom een 9N314? Omdat deze specifieke vlindervormige fragmenten bij een 9N314 horen.
              (BD: navraag bij Erik leert dat Rusland geen 9N314 warheads gebruikt).
    • Een 9N314 warhead barst bij explosie in 6000 vlindervormige fragmenten uiteen. Deze zouden aanzienlijk meer schade aan de voorzijde van een Boeing 777 hebben toegebracht dan daadwerkelijk is gebeurd. Wanneer MH17 door een BUKraket met 9N314 warhead zou zijn geraakt, zou er grote schade aan de middensectie en vleugels van het vliegtuig zijn toegebracht. De schade is echter heel beperkt gebleven tot de cockpitsectie.
    • Op de rechtervleugel van MH17 is een spoor van een projectiel zichtbaar dat van achter naar voren loopt. Dit is duidelijk zichtbaar door de wijze waarop één van de flaps is beschadigd. Dit is duidelijk niet in overeenstemming met een BUK explosie, waar de fragmenten van de voorzijde richting achterzijde zouden moeten zijn “geschraapt”. Hier gaat het BUK verhaal duidelijk niet op.
    • Wanneer het toestel door een BUK raket zou zijn geraakt en al snel in de lucht uiteen viel, dan zouden er amper fragmenten van een BUK op de crashsite te vinden zijn. Deze zouden hooguit in de bekleding (isolatie) van de cockpit, in de stoelen en in de piloten kunnen zijn blijven steken of met de cockpit zijn versmolten. De overige fragmenten zouden reeds veel eerder naar de aarde zijn gevallen tussen het moment van impact en moment van crash op de grond. Jeroen heeft er echter al vele gevonden en beschrijft dat er nog veel meer liggen. Dit lijkt meer de theorie te ondersteunen, dat deze fragmenten door de SBU zijn uitgestrooid. Het is ook volledig in tegenspraak met fragmenten van een R-60 air-to-air raket, die in de cockpitsectie van MH17 zijn aangetroffen.
    - Ik geloof best dat de fragmenten die Jeroen heeft gevonden van een 9N314 warhead zijn. Deze conclusie was ook al door de SBU zelf getrokken en vastgelegd in het beroemde document dat ik reeds eerder heb gepubliceerd. Hierbij hoorden ook foto´s van gelijksoortige fragmenten die reeds in juli op de crashsite werden aangetroffen en vreemd genoeg nooit met de Onderzoeksraad voor de Veiligheid en/of het JIT zijn gedeeld. Toen ik hen in oktober 2014 hiermee confronteerde, gaven zij aan van niets te weten en wilden direct deze Oekraïense documenten hebben.

    - Blijft nog het probleem, dat er maar één anonieme getuige “bestaat” die een BUK lancering zou hebben gehoord. Daarnaast is er maar één foto die een condensspoor toont, waarvan al is aangetoond, dat deze zich op een andere plek zou hebben bevonden. Lees hiervoor eens deze link op de 7mei.nl website. De auteur daarvan heeft echt een heel goed staaltje recherchewerk geleverd.
    Nu weet ik dat getuigen niet altijd de waarheid spreken of zich de waarheid niet altijd goed herinneren. Er zijn echter vele getuigen, met naam en adres bekend, die een “straaljager” in de nabijheid van MH17 hebben gezien. Een straaljager die volgens de Oekraïense luchtmacht niet heeft bestaan en door de Russen zou zijn verzonnen. Dan zouden al deze getuigen dus liegen of door Rusland zijn omgekocht? Maar ja, dat kan ook gelden voor de getuige die de BUK zag. Deze kan op zijn beurt door de Oekraïense regering zijn omgekocht.
    En dan is er natuurlijk gewoon de wiskundige berekening nog die aantoont dat een BUK-M1 TELAR, op de door de getuige aangewezen plaats, NOOIT MH17 zou hebben kunnen raken, omdat het bereik van 38 km ontoereikend is. Een BUK-M1-2 of een BUK-M2 heeft een bereik van 50km, maar daarmee wordt dan weer geen 9N314 afgeschoten. Dan had Jeroen dus heel andere fragmenten moeten vinden. En daarnaast zijn ons al zoveel filmpjes getoond op youtube en op websites van een BUK-M1 TELAR, in handen van de separatisten (allemaal zeer dubieuze filmpjes overigens). De pro-BUK aanhangers moeten hun creaties echt beter afstemmen. Ze spreken mekaar zo wel erg tegen.
    Voor mij is dit weer de zoveelste poging om de schuld in het verkeerde kamp te leggen. We weten toch intussen dat de Oekraïense regering liegt.(...)









    That's the most likely Su-25 connection to the shooting, for my money. It is extremely unlikely the MH17 was shot down by an Su-25 because that aircraft is capable of carrying only short-range heat-seekers with small warheads that would not cause the sort of damage the MH17 sustained. If the MH17 was struck by an air-to-air heat-seeking missile, that missile would have struck one of its engines causing a engine fire but not much else--the warhead is too small to even blow off the engine. This, in turn, would have given the crew time to issue a mayday call and take other measures to try and save the aircraft. They were not able to do that because the cockpit crew was killed almost instantly by the heavy Buk warhead exploding in close proximity of the cockpit. 

    http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/07/wat_zijn_het_toch_een_ongelofelijk_goede_toneelspelers.html


    De moedwillige invalidatie van het MH17-onderzoek

    Stel dat straks blijkt dat er shrapnel van warhead 9N314 in de lijken werd aangetroffen. En de OVV concludeert dan dat het moordwapen een BUK is. Dan is dit resultaat al direct geïnvalideerd, gefalsifieerd, confounded en heavily compromised.

    Want:

    1: De plaats des onheils is vele maanden onbeheerd gelaten.
    2: Eén der verdachte partijen kan tussen haar eigen bombardementen door shrapnel in de lijken geschoten hebben.
    3: De lijken van de piloten zijn geröntgend alvorens afvoer naar het vaderland.
    4: Daarvóór kan er 9N314 shrapnel in geschoten zijn.
    Basic Dimension | 28-07-15 | 23:11




    Comments on the original article, a year later:

    Wim

    mijn theorie is als volgt: de aanslag is een politieke set-up geweest, Porchenko heeft vele vijanden, de nieuwe regering na de coup heeft vele vijanden; we zien regelmatig knokpartijen in het Ukrainse cabinet; ook is de vorige President gevlucht met zijn handlangers; maar andere politieke figuren zitten er nog, ondergedoken (maar ook in de oppositie, en ondergrondse oppositie)

    de set-up is doelbewust gemaakt: MH17 is doelbewust uit de lucht geschoten, alleen de aanslagplegers wisten niet dat het om een burgervliegtuig ging; zij werden door ondergondse oppositie figuren doelbewust op het verkeerde been gezet;

    de aanslagplegers werden doelbewust voorgelogen door ondergondse politieke opponnenten van Porochenko, dat er een vrachtvliegtuig uit de richting van Kiev kwam aanvliegen met militair materieel; de militanten hebben het toen neergehaald; zij werden voorgelogen




    (dit sluit ook aan bij de verontwaardiging van de militanten dat een burgervliegtuig was neergehaald)

    alleen Kiev en opponenten hebben (hadden) toegang tot informatie over vluchten die door het ruim vlogen;

    met het neerhalen hoopten politieke (ondergrondse) opponenten een invasie van het russische leger uit te lokken en de ukrainische regering in verlegenheid te brengen.

    de russen zelf hebben niet met het neerhalen te maken; de ondergrondse oppositie van Kiev is vooral een ukrainse aangelegenheid, en geen russische aangelegenheid

    het toestel uit Amsterdam werd gekozen omdat het uit Amsterdam kwam, over kieve vloog in de richting van Donestk naar Malaysia;




    voor de militanten kwam het als het ware aanvliegen vanuit Kiev; en slot dit aan bij de valse tip die met opzet werd georganiseerd; dat het om een ukrains militair transport vliegtuig zou gaan




    dat het ukrainse leger vervolgens dagenlang de crash site en omgeving bestookte met mortier aanvallen op de militanten was niet voor niets; de tip aan de militanten kwam uit het ukrainse leger en radiocommunicatie

    deze radiocommunicaties worden verzwegen omdat zij de ondergrondse ploitieke opponenten van Porochenko blootgeeft en daarmee Kiev in en slecht daglicht zet; Kiev zou dan geen grip hebben op interne conflicten en ondergondse oppositie; Kiev is er alles aangelegen om unity te laten zien aan de internationale gemeenschap en rusland als aanstichter af te schilderen van hun interne, verscheurde politieke landschap; dat Ukraine verscheurd is in twee kampen (pro-russisch en pro euro) moge duidelijk zijn;

    Voorschrijdend inzicht:

    Erik Toonen heeft inderdaad een goed verhaal. We hebben uitgebreid zijn blog van verdere analysen en gedachten voorzien.

    Het lijkt waarschijnlijk dat KL4103/MH17 (de meeste passagiers stapte met een KLM ticket op) (in feite was MH17 een KLM partner waar KLM zich achter schuilt) door een air to air missile is neergehaald en niet door een ground to air missile: de cockpit is er vermoedelijk van rechterzijde uitgeschoten met een Hi-FRAG lucht raket, en de lichamen van de piloten waren total opengeretn en verscheurd.

    Conclusie:

    Uiteindelijk blijven er twee complot theorieen overeind staan. In beide gevallen wijst de smoking gun naar Ihor Kolomoyskyi:
    1) KL4103/MH17 is door een ground to air missile neergehaald door de rebellen. De rebellen waren doel bewust op een valse hak gezet door de ondergrondse geheime dienst van de SBU. De rebellen warden vals geinformeerd (via radio communicatie) dat het om een militair vrachtvliegtuig uit Kiev zou gaan. (Dit is aannemelijk omdat viseos duidelikj laten zien dat de rebellen verbaasd zijn dat het om een passagiersvliegtuig ging)
    2) KL4103/MH17 werd door een air to air missile neergehaald in een comlot gesmeed door Ihor Kolomoyskyi met mederwrking van zijn vriend Viktor Yanukovych, t.thans Secretaris van de Geheime Ukrainse Nationale Veiligheidsdienst (SBU/WikiLeaks)



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrfKZUttEwE













    Nog wat comments:


    Erik, bedankt voor al je bijdragen. Veel van je geleerd. Zolang de onderste steen niet boven is moeten alle scenario’s in stand gehouden worden. Door jouw terugtreden ontstaat er echter verdere tunnelvisie. Dat is een slechte ontwikkeling. Want uiteindelijk wil iedereen de waarheid vinden. Althans dat mag je hopen. Houd moed want ook als dat OVV-rapport er ligt zal er waarschijnlijk nauwelijks duidelijkheid zijn. Deze zaak zal nog vele jaren slepen en vergt concentratie en doorzettingsvermogen van alle partijen.


    Ik heb ook een erg lange adem hoor. Ik stop ook niet, maar ga in stilte door. Jullie gaan echt nog wel van mij horen.


    Erik, kun je nog even uitsluitsel geven of Warhead 9N314 nu wel of niet gebruikt wordt op SA-11 (BUK-M1) en SA-17 (BUK M1-2)? Volgens een tabel van Marcel is dat wel zo: http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/a-detailed-description-of-the-buk-sa-11-which-could-have-shot-down-mh17/


    Ik heb nog even voor je nagekeken. Een 9M38 raket past op een 9K37 (SA-11) op een 9K37M en op een 9K37M1-2 (SA-17). De 9N314 past op een 9M38 en kan dus zowel met een SA-11 als met een SA-17 worden afgeschoten. Ik zeg kan… ik beweer niet dat dit op 17 juli is gebeurd he?


    Er zijn vele landen die nog Buk-M1 installaties hebben. Ik weet dat Georgïe ze heeft en een aantal soldaten van Kolomoyski erin heeft getraind. Volgens mij bezit Syrië er ook nog (hopelijk krijgt ISIS die niet in handen).
    Deze raketten en warheads passen op een M1-2, welke oa Rusland ook heeft,
     maar Rusland gebruikt geen 9N314. Je moet nu de boel niet omdraaien.
    Er zijn vele landen die S-11 en S-17 installaties bezitten en onderhouden, het document waar ik je naar verwees, ging erom dat het type warhead, de 9N314,
     alleen door Oekraïne nog in voorraad wordt gehouden;




    Niet dat dat iets zegt. Al dit oude Sovjet materiaal is te koop. Iedereen met geld kan een M1 Telar met een 9N314 kopen.
    Ik weet dat er 3 Oekraïense Telars stonden opgesteld op 17 juli. Geen van deze 3 is echter in actie gekomen.





    aviationweek.com/defense/us-intel-determines-sa-11-downed-mh17

    U.S. Intel Determines SA-11 Downed MH17




    WASHINGTON/LONDON – Only days after Dutch officials recovered what they believe to be parts of the missile that downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine last year, the U.S. intelligence community has settled on the assessment that the offending system was a Russian-made SA-11, also dubbed the Gadfly by NATO. U.S. intelligence sources have long suggested it was likely an SA-11 that destroyed the Boeing 777-200ER en route from Amsterdam to Kaula Lumpur on July 17, 2014.



    http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150730/1025195049.html

    Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey has unveiled the results of its own inquiry into the crash, showing that flight MH17 was downed by a guided missile launched by a Buk-M1 system, which remains in service in the Ukrainian army.


    Verdere discussie:








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


    Further discussion: Snizhne or Zaroschens'ke

    Posted on June 21, 2015 by  of What happened to flight MH17








    (The author's tentative conclusion seems to be: launched from Zaroschens'ke.) 

    Most interesting comments, must read:

     Andrew // June 26, 2015 at 5:17 am // Reply
    Hector:
    Yes, I made all those calculations back in July of 2014 for myself int he day or two after the downing and am pretty well convinced ever since that Snizhne was out of range given: (1) the spread of the debris field and (2) the likely ballistic trajectory of the falling parts of the plane given that they start their descent moving forward at 900 km/h and at 10 km altitude.
    Until the Russian MOD [Ministry of Defense] released radar records, I was simply going on an educated guess that the plane took 3 minutes to fall and crash and guessing average speed from that to find an impact point. The Russian MOD gave more exact speed numbers by the minute which allowed more precision in determining how far the wreckage of the plane travelled. The wide spread of even the major debris field between Hrabove (fuselage, tail, engines, and wings), Rozspyne (cockpit), and Petropavlivka (large fuselage pieces) is indicative of the main part of the plane with the wings continuing to have some lift and possibly thrust, while the other large pieces slowed rapidly and reached terminal velocity in the downward vector. The very large debris field shown by the Dutch map gives the large spread of small debris coming out of the plane as it descended.
    Based on those calculations and the debris field, it appears to me that where a proposed BUK fired from Snizhne would have intercepted the plane was so far out in range at the necessary time of radar detection.    Given the duration of the proposed missile flight of around 38 km including distance to gain altitude would take around 45 seconds, and the human reaction time to initate missile launch, the plane would not have been seen on the TELAR radar and could only have been detected by a network linked KUPOL radar unit, which was not seen at Snizhne with the rebel BUK. The plane would travel 15 km during the 45 second flight to the impact point plus the launch reaction time of perhaps 15 seconds. [60 sec = 20 km]. If the impact point is already nearly 35 km from Snizhne [35+20=55 km], this would necessitate detection at 50 km or more, which is beyond the technical specification of the TELAR as I understand it.


    You understand very bad – techincal specification for TELAR is detection target with RCS = 1 sq.m. with probability = 0.9 on range 100km (pulse mode) or 70km (CW mode).
    TELAR radar must automatically lock and track same target on range 80/60 km.
    So all your undestanding is nothing.

     Andrew // June 26, 2015 at 5:57 pm // Reply
    AD:
    You seem to me to be explaining the operation of the TELAR radar in a normal BUK unit complete with an interlinked KUPOL radar vehicle for long range detection and a command post vehicle.
    The rebel BUK is clearly shown on film to be driving by itself south from Snizhne – no KUPOL and no command post. Unless you want to posit it linking up to the Ukrainian KUPOL network active nearby on 7/17, it was operating soley with its own TELAR radar, which has a more limited capacity than you state, alleged to be 42 km per online references (Wikipedia and others). If you have a different source that gives a TELAR range of over twice as much, I am sure everyone would appreciate a reference being provided to it.
    Per you description of the operation, the rebel TELAR would need to lock on to MH17 [see below] when it passed Konstantinovka (100 km out from Snizhne) and track it at least until Yenakijeve (60 km along track of MH17)[Gorlivka=Gorlovka]. The story passed about by the SBU is that “Birdie coming towards you” was radioed in from Gorlivka [Horlivka =Ukranian], 65 km from the Snizhne position.So you are seemingly saying that the spotter in Gorlovka [Gorlovka =Russiancould see over 35 km on an overcast day. 

    http://www.avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d/010&opt=0




    The missile would have been fired at around 40 km range near Komyshatka in order for the interception to occur near Pol’ove at around 32 km out to make a crash at Hrabove 18 km out from Snizhne. I put it to you this assumed operation makes the roll of the spotter in Gorlovka very questionable, as even on a cloudless day, he would not have been able to see the plane at 35 km out. Who then told the BUK operator to expose his position by turning on his radar when the plane was 7 minutes away?








         
     AD // June 27, 2015 at 3:46 pm // Reply
    TELAR dont need TAR Kupol [Radar] and CP[Central control]. TELAR even work better without adding CP/TAR but need it for all around defense of battery/division organisation (and for protect TELAR from ARR [mil aircraft]).
    During development early SA-11 BUK TELAR dont have no one CP/TAR but serve as search/fire radar for old SA-6 TELAR.
    Upper limit of detection dont mean it lowest limit too. TELAR crew have enough time for detect target like B777 and dont have troubles with shot down it. But you trying lie about lack of time, lack of range, lack of CP/TAR. It is LIE.
    Im dont trust in any SBU [secret service Ukraine] stories. Im just know how SA-11 can kill airplane, it all.
    TELAR have range 50-100km on own radar screen, wikipedia written by idiots which never seen this switch and dont understand how 9S35M1 radar work. Radar range =42km for missile with 35km range is outnormous stupid bullshit.

    Mister Liar, why TELAR have switch 50-100km scale and distance marks 50-100km too, if radar range limited by 42 km?
    What is CW mode and when it used? Why need switch from 50 to 100km and what happen with radar signal?
    So funny expert, im laugh!

     Andrew // June 27, 2015 at 5:43 pm // Reply

    AD:
    Nothing like some ad hominem’s to further the discussion – “incredible lie”
    My point was that from the time the TELAR indicates a target, the human firing the missile must decide this is a target he wants to strike, either by his own process of identification or by reference to a request for permission to fire in a military chain of command. Only by simply assuming a guy in the unit saw a target and in a near panic hit the launch button can you make this time be only a few seconds.

    Indeed it does not make sense that a guy saw a target and in near panic hit the launch button.
    Especially since there were dozens and dozens of planes flying over the same area in the hours before and after MH17 was taken out.
    In fact, a Russian airliner passed over just minutes before, and Singapore Airlines was minutes after MH17 (and within their radar the moment MH17 was hit).
    If they thought it was a Ukrainian fighter plane, then they would have taken out Singapore Airines as well.

    It is much more likely that whoever did this knew EXACTLY what they were shooting at.

     Andrew // June 27, 2015 at 9:26 pm //
    Rob:
    I would tend to agree that the downing was likely purposeful. I do not believe that a plane owned by Maylasian Air was randomly shot at, and I also do not believe a plane full of Europeans but with no Americans on board was randomly shot at. Asking “Cui bono?” tends to eliminate the rebels as suspects. They had nothing to gain from shooting this plane down and everything to lose.

     Rob // June 28, 2015 at 8:59 am //
    The “rebels” were never seriously suspect.Or do you seriously think that the Russian Defense Ministry would  simply hand off the keys of a Russian BUK from the 53rd BUK brigade from Kursk, and tell “here is the button” and have fun with it ?While the majority of planes flying overhead are Russian airliners ?

     Hector Reban // June 28, 2015 at 2:44 pm //
    So what´s your opinion, Rob? Who has willfully shot down this plane?



    AD and Admin:
    I finally found a Russian link that gives technical details of the capability of the BUK TELAR operating independently and operating linked to a command post and KUPOL radar. As it was posted on June 10, 2014, it is unlikely to be contaminated with post-MH17 edits.
    The summary:
    TELAR Fire Dome radar in offline mode [BUK TELAR,BD]:
    65-77 km detection range above 3000 m elevation
    32-41 km detection range at 30-100 m elevation
    21-35 km detection range for helicopters
    TELAR Fire Dome radar in centralized mode linked to KUPOL/Snow Drift and Command Post:
    44 km detection for 3000-7000 m elevation
    21-28 km detection at low altitudes
    Firing sequence duration (detection to launch) in offline mode
    24-27 seconds
    As reference, MH17 would have been 36 km downrange [distance] from a Snizhne BUK at 16:19:1551 km downrange at 16:18:15, and 66 km downrange at 16:17:15Gorlivka which is also 66 km downrange from the Snizhne BUK. As we can establish that launch would have been at 16:19:28/30, go to launch command would have been issued no sooner than 16:19:01 assuming a top-notch crew. At that time, MH17 would have been 40 km downrange and directly north of Kirovske and at 10 km elevation, while they have supposedly just received word within the past 45 seconds of a plane just having passed over Gorlivka at 6-7 km in altitude. Why would they have set the radar to look where MH17 is?










    Pantsir-S1


    Pantsir-S1 (RussianПанцирь-С1NATO reporting name SA-22 Greyhound) is a combined short to medium range surface-to-air missile and anti-aircraft artillery weapon system produced by KBP of TulaRussia


    Pantsir-S1 carries up to twelve 57E6 or 57E6-E two-stage solid fuel radio-command-guided surface-to-air missiles in sealed ready-to-launch containers.  The first stage is a booster, providing rapid acceleration within the first 2 seconds of flight, after which it is separated from the sustainer-stage. The sustainer is the highly agile part of the missile and contains the high explosive multiple continuous rod and fragmentation warhead, contact and proximity fuses as also radio transponder and laser responder to be localised for guidance. The missile is not fitted with seeker to keep target engagement costs low. Instead high-precision target and missile tracking is provided via the system's multiband sensor system and guidance data is submitted via radio link for up to four missiles in flight.



    BUK SYSTEMS (Advanced Defense Missile Complex (ADMC)




    aviationweek.com/defense/us-intel-determines-sa-11-downed-mh17

    U.S. Intel Determines SA-11 Downed MH17




    WASHINGTON/LONDON – Only days after Dutch officials recovered what they believe to be parts of the missile that downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine last year, the U.S. intelligence community has settled on the assessment that the offending system was a Russian-made SA-11, also dubbed the Gadfly by NATO. U.S. intelligence sources have long suggested it was likely an SA-11 that destroyed the Boeing 777-200ER en route from Amsterdam to Kaula Lumpur on July 17, 2014.


    OLD TELAR: 9K37(Russian code); BUK SA-11 Gadfly (NATO code) 
    New BUK M1-2 SA-17 Grizzly (NATO code) 




    http://www.army-technology.com/projects/buk-m2e-air-defence-missile-system/


    Buk-M2E missile system development


    The Buk-M2E surface-to-air missile (SAM) system is an export variant of the Buk-M2, which entered into service with the Russian Army in 2008(...)

    Combat equipment of the Buk-M2E SAM system


    The Buk-M2E missile system is equipped with a 9S510E command post, a 9S18M1E detection and target designation radar (TDR), and up to 12 9A316E loader-launcher units (LLUs).
    The ADMC comprises up to six 9A317E transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) self-propelled fire units (SPFUs). The SPFU can be mounted with a 9S36E illumination and guidance radar (IGR) to simultaneously track and illuminate multiple targets flying at low and extremely low heights in all terrains. The mast-mounted antenna of the 9S36E radar can be raised to a height of 21m.

    Buk-M2E missiles


    The ADMC uses 9M317 anti-aircraft-guided missiles (AAGMs) manufactured by Dolgoprudnenskoe Scientific Production Plant (DNPP). Each missile has a length of 5.5m, a wing span of 860mm and a weight of 710kg, and can carry up to 70kg high-explosive fragmentation warhead with radar proximity and contact fusing system. The missile is propelled by solid fuel propulsion system.

    BUK-installatie:

    BUK TELAR 1 : transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicle.
    BUK TAR: target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle.
    BUK TEL: transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicle.
    BUK COMMAND VEHICLE.

    BUK TELAR(K;P;A):
    [1966] Precursor BUK 1958 :2K12 Kub (Russian code); SA-6 Gainful, (NATO code). 
    Precursor BUK 1970: 2P25 (Russian code); SA-6 (NATO code).
    [ 1980] OLD TELAR: 9K37(Russian code); BUK SA-11 Gadfly long chords (NATO code) ;
    missile 9M38.
    OLD TELAR: 9A38 (Russian code); BUK SA-11 (NATO code). 
    9A38 with (M4 =) four rockets long chords (not in use anymore).
    9A310 (with range of missile up to 35 km).
    [1984] 9K37M (BUK M1)(SA-11);(missiles: 9M38;9M38M1).
    [1998] 9K37M1-2 (BUK M1-M2)(SA-17);(missiles: 9M38;9M38M1;9М38M2/9M317).
    [1998] Newer Buk-M1-2 (NATO code Grizzlyand Buk-M2 systems (SA-17).
    [1988;2007] 9K317E BUK-M2E (SA-17) (missile: 9M317).


    Radars (S):
    SA-6 :1S11 Distribution radar  + 1S31 Continuous wave illuminator  (Russian code).
    TAR 1S91: Radar vehicle (Russian code).
    9S35 (note – without M1 modification) = Radar of SA-11 (9A38).
    9S35M1: Modernized Radar .
    TAR 9S18 Kupol:
    Target acquisition range (by TAR 9S18M1, 9S18M1-1) range – 140–150 km, altitude – 15 m – 25 km.

    Batteries:
    2K12M4 Kub-M4 (battery of TAR 1S91 +  (M4=) 4 TEL 2P25 (three rockets) + 1 TELAR 
    TAR 1S91 + 4 TEL 2P25 + 1 TELAR 9A38.

    Missiles (M):
    SA-11 Gadfly Missiles:the missile has three variants, the 9M38, 9M38M and the 9M38ME1.9M38: old rocket with long chords (not in use anymore).
    9M38M: Gadfly missiles
    9M38M1: modernized rocket with long chords (Russia and Ukraine). XXX
    9M317: Grizzly (only Russian short chords).

    Warheads (N, H=Russian):
    9N310: 70 kg
    9N314: 70 kg
    9N314M: (missile 9M38M1) XXX

    Content Warheads (H=Russian):
    (http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/05/kak_du_lai.html)
    9H314: 2 types: paralellopipidum
    9H314M: 3 types: I-profile (missiles 9M38M1XXX

    [International experts endorse the conclusions of the forensic investigation. Defence experts of IHS Jane’s in London look into all weapon systems worldwide. They regard the damaged and deformed fragment below as a first piece of evidence. According to them the fragment directly belongs to the pay load of a 9M317 BUK missile, the modern version of the BUK 1-2 system.  Expert Nicolas De Larrinaga: "From the hour-glass form we can gather all the characteristics of an impact of a 9N314 warhead fragment. This fits perfectly."]


    9K37M1-2 (BUK M1-2):SA-17 (only Russian). 
    Warhead 9N314 in SA-11 (Russ/Ukr) and SA-17(Rus).

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/damage-of-mh17-does-not-rule-out-a-launch-from-zaroshenskye/

    (If Wiki is not well informed than BUK launched from Snizhne could have shot the MH17. Otherwise it seems unlikely that Almaz Antey as maker of missiles like BUK disinforms us about the qualities of BUK.)


     AD // July 1, 2015 at 7:52 pm // Reply
    1. TELAR of SA-11 (9A38) developed for autonomous use with TEL from SA-6 (2P25) even without TAR 1S91 (SA-6 radars 1S11+1S31), combination of one TAR 1S91 + 4 TEL 2P25 + 1 TELAR 9A38 called battery 2K12M4 Kub-M4. Reason why TELAR received radar was low survivality on battlefield of TAR, then many TELs become blind and useless. Its expirience from Arab-israeli war where SA-6 used.
    So TELAR of SA-11 can be used without TAR.
    2. Even old TELAR of SA-11 (9A38) which have radar 9S35 (note – without M1 modification) have detecting range up to 77 km (targets on alt =3km with RCS=1m2, B772 with alt=10km much easier for detect on any technical range). Readiness time (delay between detection target and launch missile) was 24-27 seconds (MH17 can fly only 6-7km). So you lied about detection range (for modernised radar 9S35M1) and about readiness time.
    3. Missile 9M38M1 have fly time 45 seconds, but B772 can run only 11 km during this time. You lie about 15 km.
    4. TAR 9S18 Kupol, at first, dont intend to use with TELAR 9A38 and 9A310. But development of 9A310 (with range of missile up to 35 km) as stand-alone air-defense complex show ability for use in division order where TAR 9S18 must be used. It again argument for possible use TELAR without TAR on range of technical detection range. Radar equation for radar 9S35M1 you can easy calculate.
    5. You still dont understand how stupid your limitation on detection range for radar 9S35M1 even after found distance 50/100 km on radar panel, switch Scale 50/100km on panel and scheme, link on open info from official source. im think you too much and now believe in your lie. But we dont.
    TELAR SA-11 dont have any troubles with detection MH17 on range up to 90 km and have enough time for lock, track and fire missile at maximum range.


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







    Report MH17 crash:



    “Based upon the damage examination it is concluded that the impact damage on the wreckage of flight MH17 is caused by a warhead with various types of preformed fragments in the 6-14 mm size range, including one type with a bow tie (vlinderdas) shape detonating to the left of, and above, the cockpit.”
    “The damage observed on the wreckage is not consistent with the damage caused by the warhead of an air-to-air missile in use in the region in amount of damage, type of damage and type of fragments. The high-energy object damage on the wreckage of flight MH17 is therefore not caused by an air-to-air missile.”
    “Of the investigated warheads only the 9N314M contains the unique bow tie shaped fragments found in the wreckage. The damage observed on the wreckage in amount of damage, type of damage, boundary and impact angles of damage, number and density of hits, size of penetrations and bowtie fragments found in the wreckage, is consistent with the damage caused by the 9N314M warhead used in the 9M38 and 9M38M1 BUK surface-to-air missile.”

    Butterfly or bow-tie shrapnel found in the bodies of the captain, the purser and the first officer in the cockpit: 









    Almaz Antey vs Censor.net.ua

    18 juli 2015

    Het Oekraïense Cencor.net stelt dat de Dutch Safety Board (OVV) onweerlegbaar bewijs heeft dat shrapnel uit de lichamen van de slachtoffers van MH17 uit een BUK komt die Oekraïne niet heeft.

    http://en.censor.net.ua/photo_news/344323/chemical_examination_found_submunitions_from_boeing_corresponding_to_russian_buk_missiles_butusov_photos

    http://uainfo.org/blognews/1437135312-vina-rossii-prakticheski-dokazana-neoproverzhimye-uliki.html


    Dit is de situatie:

    http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/05/kak_du_lai.html

    Almaz Antey claimt dat onderzoek heeft uitgewezen dat:

    MH17 is geraakt door een SAM raket 9M38M1 afgeschoten uit het ground to air raket systeem ‘Buk-M1’.

    9M38M1: modernized rocket with long chords (Russia and Ukraine).
    BUK-TELAR [1984] 9K37M (BUK M1)(SA-11);(missiles: 9M38;9M38M1).

    1.2 Analyse van schadelijke elementen/submunitie (gevechtskop)
    De studie naar fotomateriaal op het internet, met betrekking tot de crash van Boeing-777 MH17, resulteerde in de identificatie van twee type submunite, namelijk type “zwaar” en type “licht-1”. Het uiterlijk van submunite “zwaar” is weergegeven in figuur 2.


    mh17bukbewijs.jpg
    Figure 2 (I-profile)

    Het uiterlijk van schadelijk element type “zwaar” heeft de vorm van een “I-profiel”, die uniek is voor de gevechtskop 9N314M. De enige bekende raketten met deze modificatie zijn 9M38M1.

    Warheads (N, H=Russian):
    9N310: 70 kg
    9N314: 70 kg
    9N314M: (missile 9M38M1XXX

    Missile (M):
    9M38M1: modernized rocket with long chords (Russia and Ukraine). XXX

    Content Warheads (H=Russian):
    (http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/05/kak_du_lai.html)
    9H314: 2 types: paralellopipidum
    9H314M: 3 types: I-profile (missiles 9M38M1XXX

    Tussen 9H314 en 9H314M zijn een aantal grote verschillen:
    - Elk van deze gevechtskoppen is bewapend met unieke schadelijke elementen (9H314 met twee types, 9H314M met drie types), die van elkaar te onderscheiden zijn door hun verschillende massa-karakteristieken. Het “zware” type van de schadelijke elementen van 9H314 heeft de vorm van een “paralellopipidum”, en die van 9H314M van een “I-profiel”;
    - De schadelijke elementen van het de “lichte” en “zware” types hebben in elk type gevechtskop een verschillende maximum en minimum snelheid van expansie;
    - De bewapende delen hebben individuele hoekszones van de merdiaanshoek van de expansie van schadelijke elementen, en 9H314M heeft tevens een unieke hodorgrafische fragmentatie stroom.



    Oekraïene claimt alleen SA-11 Gadfly Missiles te hebben:

    An up-to-date chemical examination exactly determined the composition of metal parts, which pierced the hull and glass of the downed airliner before hitting the people.

    Source: http://en.censor.net.ua/p344323 
    Source: http://en.censor.net.ua/p344323
    Source: http://uainfo.org/blognews/1437135312-vina-rossii-prakticheski-dokazana-neoproverzhimye-uliki.html





    The second photo shows a close-up of the so-called double-t striking element. An antiaircraft missiles warhead contains four thousand of such elements. "This is a striking element extracted from the aircraft and its unused full-size counterpart extracted from Buk M1-2 (SA17) Russian surface-to-air missile complex produced in 1998. This missile was not supplied to Ukraine, but it was supplied to other countries," Butusov says.

    [International experts endorse the conclusions of the forensic investigation. Defence experts of IHS Jane’s in London look into all weapon systems worldwide. They regard the damaged and deformed fragment below as a first piece of evidence. According to them the fragment directly belongs to the pay load of a 9M317 BUK missile, the modern version of the BUK 1-2 system.  Expert Nicolas De Larrinaga: "From the hour-glass form we can gather all the characteristics of an impact of a 9N314 warhead fragment. This fits perfectly."]


    9K37M1-2 (BUK M1-2):SA-17 (only Russian). 
    Warhead 9N314 in SA-11 (Russ/Ukr) and SA-17(Rus).

    Ukrainian Buks are equipped with old Soviet missiles 9M38. Our anti-aircraft gunners cannot fire the upgraded Buk M1-2 missiles. But the Russian Buk M1-2 (SA-17) provides for using both types of missiles.

    Missiles (M):
    SA-11 Gadfly Missiles:the missile has three variants, the 9M38, 9M38M and the 9M38ME1.9M38: old rocket with long chords (not in use anymore).
    9M38M: Gadfly missiles
    9M38M1: modernized rocket with long chords (Russia and Ukraine). XXX
    9M317: Grizzly (only Russian short chords).

    [1998] 9K37M1-2 (BUK M1-M2)(SA-17);(missiles: 9M38;9M38M1;9М38M2/9M317).
    [1998] Newer Buk-M1-2 (NATO code Grizzlyand Buk-M2 systems (SA-17).
    [1988;2007] 9K317E BUK-M2E (SA-17) (missile: 9M317).




    "Striking elements have a chemical composition identical to that of double-t's, which destroyed the plane, passengers and crew," he added. Source: 


    http://en.censor.net.ua/p344323 Source: http://en.censor.net.ua/p344323


    (Achterhaald)
    mvdb22 maart 2015 om 12:08Een SA-17 met een 9M317 raket kan vanaf Rusland zijn gebruikt. Bereik ligt rond de 50km. Er zijn satelliet en fotos vanaf de grond genomen welke aantonen dat er RUS BUKs in de buurt van de grens waren.
    (A SA-17 with a 9M317 can be used from Russia. Reach about 50 km. Satellite images prove the presence of Russian BUKs near the border.)






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


    Sunday May 31, 2015.


    https://www.bellingcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Forensic_analysis_of_satellite_images_EN.pdf

    Conclusion Bellingcat

    The Russian MoD (Ministry of Defense) stated at the press conference that the satellite photos show the activities of Ukraine’s air defenses on the day that MH17 was shot down. In particular, Picture 5 purported to show the presence of two Ukrainian Buk missile launchers south of the village Zaroschinskoe that were within firing range of MH17.


    And Picture 4, according to the MoD, revealed the absence of a Buk missile launcher at military unit A-1428, north of Donetsk. Our forensic analysis of all three images clearly and unequivocally shows that these images have been altered. In each of the pictures, significant image content has been digitally modified with a high level of probability. Pictures 4 and 5 were shown to have been digitally modified using Adobe Photoshop CS5 software.


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


    http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/24109097/___Andere_lanceerplek_MH17___.html

    di 02 jun 2015, 14:05

    'Andere lanceerplek voor MH17 raket gevonden'


    MOSKOU - De luchtdoelraket waarmee een vliegtuig van Malaysia Airlines vol Nederlanders afgelopen zomer werd neergehaald, is afgevuurd vanaf een andere plek dan tot nog toe is aangenomen. Dat zegt de Russische defensiefirma Almaz-Antei, de producent van de opvolgers van de gebruikte raket, dinsdag in Moskou.
      Een expert van het bedrijf heeft berekend dat het projectiel niet is afgeschoten uit Snizjne maar waarschijnlijk uit de omgeving van Zarosjtsjenske, aldus het Russische persbureau Itar-Tass. Begin mei berichtte de Russische activistische krant Novaja Gazeta al over de uitkomsten van het onderzoek.
      Op satellietfoto's die het Russische leger openbaarde na de ramp was te zien dat het Oekraïense leger in dat gebied ten minste een BUK-installatie had gestationeerd op een militaire basis. Afgelopen weekeinde werden de foto's ontmaskerd als vervalsingen. Ze waren eerder genomen en er was een raketinstallatie met Photoshop ingezet.
      Volgens topman Jan Novikov van Almaz-Antei is de Boeing 777 van Malaysia Airlines getroffen door de BUK M1, een type raket dat sinds 1999 niet meer wordt gemaakt. „Daarom kan het concern en zijn bedrijven deze raketten aan niemand hebben geleverd in de 21e eeuw”, aldus Novikov. De firma staat op de westerse sanctielijst, maar heeft daar volgens de topman weinig last van.
      Welk land de gebruikte raket in bezit had, kon hij niet zeggen. Almaz-Antei werd in 2002 opgericht en produceert wel de opvolgers van de Buk M1. Het rapport is het zoveelste Russische rapport over de ramp.


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


      http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bellingcat-autor-war-hauptamtlicher-stasi-mitarbeiter-a-1037297.html

      Mit der Behauptung, das russische Verteidigungsministerium habe Satellitenbilder zum Abschuss von Flug MH17 manipuliert, sorgte die Rechercheplattform Bellingcat zuletzt für Aufsehen. Bild-Forensik-Experten haben den Report inzwischen als "Kaffeesatzleserei" und unwissenschaftlich kritisiert.


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




        | 

      Was wir aus der Berichterstattung über den Bellingcat-Report lernen

      Das trifft ebenso auf eine zweite Meldung zu, die wir am selben Tag auf unserer Startseite veröffentlichten und deren Überschrift lautete "Wie Russland die MH17-Beweise manipulierte" (inzwischen haben wir die Überschrift geändert). Auch hier hätten wir von Beginn an vorsichtiger formulieren und klarmachen müssen, dass es zwar den Vorwurf der Fälschung gibt, dieser aber nicht zweifelsfrei bewiesen ist.


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


      Andere scenario's

      - Maar naast een dubbelspion van het Oekraïense leger zijn er nog andere mogelijkheden:

      - 1: Een muitende factie binnen het Oekraïense leger kan zich aan de legercontrole onttrokken hebben om een eigen beleid te voeren. De dubbelspion komt in dat geval mogelijk van deze opstandige groepering.

      - 2: Hetzelfde kan zich binnen het Russische leger hebben voorgedaan, waar officieren met een eigen agenda wellicht een oorlog tussen Rusland en Oekraïne willen ontketenen.

      - Maar officiële Russische betrokkenheid lijkt hier uitgesloten. Want het is volstrekt onwaarschijnlijk dat het Rusland onder Poetin militairen naar Donetsk zou sturen om onder bevel van separatisten en zonder begeleiding van Rostov radar of een BUK target acquisition radar vehicle (TAR) het risico te lopen een Westers burgertoestel uit de lucht te schieten.

      - Dat zou bij voorbaat neerkomen op zelfmoord van de Russische buitenland politiek. Daarom moet het opzettelijk neerhalen van de MH17 door Rusland worden uitgesloten. En met genoemde radarbegeleiding vervalt ook iedere mogelijkheid dat de MH17 per vergissing kan zijn neergehaald. Het officiële Russische leger zal de MH17 daarom niet hebben neergehaald.

      - Maar in geval van opstandige Russische officieren kunnen zij welbewust een solitaire BUK TELAR aan Russische huursoldaten of separatisten hebben meegegeven, uitsluitend met de bedoeling om een Westers burgertoestel neer te halen om zo te rebelleren tegen de eigen regering die zij verwijten Oekraïne niet met militaire macht te bezetten.

      - Maar ook kunnen opstandige Russische officieren in een volstrekt solitaire actie een BUK SA-17 met een 9M317 raket vanaf Russische grondgebied hebben gelanceerd. MH17 vloog namelijk binnen Russisch bereik van 50 km van de Russische grens, direct achter SnizhneIn dat geval zouden de shrapnel fragmenten rods en /of ‘parallelepipeds’ (diamantvormige kraters) moeten zijn (unconfirmed).

      - Destabilisatie van het Russische leger is een grote bedreiging voor de wereldvrede.

      (Parallellepipedum = een driedimensionaal zesvlak, waarvan alle zijden bestaan uit parallellogrammen die paarsgewijs gelijk zijn.)


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


      Air fighter scenarios

      - En in weer een ander scenario ligt het voor de hand dat Oekraïne zelf met een BUK (SAM) of een A2A (AAM) het vonnis heeft voltrokken. Zou hierbij een SU-25 betrokken zijn dan is deze vóór de clash niet op Rostov radar waargenomen.  Wat betekent dat de SU-25 eerst een A2A moet hebben afgevuurd van onder de 5 kilometer en pas daarna zijn mitrailleur heeft leeg geschoten op de vallende cockpit. Maar dit is wat al te gekunsteld en dan zou de als eerste uitgevallen motor ook op de flight data recorder hebben gestaan. En dat is niet het geval.

      - Ook mogelijk blijft een stealth fighter aircraft van de NAVO (of de Russen), die op gelijke hoogte met de MH17 is meegevlogen. Maar in dat geval zouden de piloten van de MH17 daarvan melding hebben gemaakt omdat de kogelregen waarschijnlijk van voren kwam en zij de fighter aircraft dan mogelijk hadden gezien.

      Hetzelfde geldt voor een SU-27 of MiG-29 die in disguise direct op of onder de MH17 zou zijn meegevlogen. Vóór de clash moet die dan uit zijn schuilplaats zijn gekomen en zichtbaar zijn geworden op Rostov's primary surveillance radar. Tevens zouden de piloten daarvan waarschijnlijk melding hebben gemaakt over hun boordradio. 

      - Het is bij een aanval van een fighter aircraft onwaarschijnlijk dat een kogelregen van rechtsachter de rechtermotor, de computerverbinding met de black boxen èn de piloten in minder dan één seconde kan hebben uitgeschakeld. 

      - Een SU-25 piloot zal altijd eerst van grote afstand een A2A afvuren en pas bij voldoende nadering zijn mitrailleur leegschieten. Zou die hittezoekende A2A dan komende van rechtsachter als eerste de rechtermotor hebben uitgeschakeld dan had dit op de flight data recorder moeten staan. En dat is niet het geval.

      - Tenslotte ligt het voor de hand dat een fighter aircraft op de primary surveillance radar van Rostov te zien had moeten zijn en wel vóór de clash. En dat is niet het geval. Voorts vereist een aantal scenario's met air fighters dat zij al vóór de clash op gelijke hoogte met de MH17 moeten zijn gekomen. Maar dat zou betekenen dat Rusland in Rostov radar heeft gewist en daarmee de verdenking van de fighter aircraft op zich heeft geladen. In een Russisch scenario kwam de aanval dan van voren en van achter de horizon en werd MH17 met een kogelregen en/of A2A opgewacht. Dan waren alle systemen inderdaad in één klap uitgeschakeld en was de bemanning gedood.



       Basic Dimension // September 1, 2015 at 12:03 pm // Reply

      Russian Rostov radar has given quite remarkable interpretations of the alleged attack of SU-25 on MH17, which has been easily debunked as falling debris. In addition, Russia changed its theories regarding the cause of the attack continuously. Also Russia made an ‘understandable’ error where it changed 5000 feet into 5000 meters lower limit elevation angle. And indeed Rostov radar did not report SU-25s below 5 km.

      [But we can be wrong because sometimes Russian radars are working in standby mode this means detection possibilities at the given distance are over 5000 m altitude. Then the plane simply is too far from radar to see below 5 km.]

      Observations of Rostov radar should be interpreted with caution and may not be used as facts that Ukrainian SU-25 have not flown between 2000 and 5000 meters. Hence, the theory in which SU-25s confused and distracted the members of BUK, so they accidentally fired a BUK missile on MH17, cannot be debunked solely on the base of the Russian Defense Ministry’s ATC radar images.

      Another reason this theory cannot be easily debunked is the unreliability of reports concerning the exact operation of BUK-TELAR. As an example we have no reliable information that a BUK missile cannot “redirect” to a second target if it missed the first one. So far debunking is based on speculation and not on controllable facts.

      Especially ergonomics of BUK-TELAR to handle different aircraft at different speed and varying elevation angle is questionable:

      http://www.buran.ru/htm/mh17_4.htm

      Precisely I mean the rate of change of elevation target (MH17) combined with that of SU-25 over the horizon (angular velocity of movement) [angular velocity = radial speed]:

      http://www.buran.ru/MH17/980_80percent_256c_02t.gif

      On the basis of our knowledge of the working of BUK we are not in the position to exclude errors in human decision making. Hence, if angular velocities [radial speed] do not coincide because elevation angles differ, logically it might be impossible to confuse different aircraft but ergonomically confusion might be quite understandable. For, at the psychological level confusion is dictated by the complexity of the situation in the first place, as the BUK-environment is not designed to make such critical assessments with that silly radar screen.

      Radar measures slant range and with the optical target sensor BUK-TELAR also registers elevation angle, so the height of the plane and its ground track can be inferred. But all these measures are recoded and given digitally to the crew in the cabin. Ergonomically this looks irresponsible and in panic it might be much too difficult for the human mind to keep the overview.

      Google translate of http://www.buran.ru/htm/mh17_4.htm at
      http://sexualreligion.blogspot.nl/2015/08/scenario-mh17-hidden-behind-su-25.html

      [- Firstly, the target speed is not measured by conventional kilometers per hour, in meters per second, and its value is given to the digital two-digit (!) Indicator value x10; In other words, the speed of the Boeing 777, 900 km / h as the operator sees the “25”, and the speed of AN-26 is 450 km / h – as “13”; It is interesting, right? It is convenient for the purposes of the primary selection by type, for example – is less than “33” means the subsonic airplane, helicopter or a cruise missile, a value greater than “33” – a supersonic (ie uniquely military) aircraft, and in some cases more than “70” – it is flying missile, with the possible anti-radiation, i.e. released by someone at the SDA. In a sense, it is not so much the identification of the target as a signal operator – how fast he has to act, make decisions on missile launching; as you know, and Boeing, and the An-26 “sit” in a range of subsonic;- Secondly, the dial gauge in the bottom left corner of the photo shows the height of the target, but again on a scale of x10, ie height for the An-26 will be on this device as “0.5”, while Boeing-777 – “1”.]

      Further it is madness to think that setting strict standards regarding the use of BUK can avoid predictable human errors. And, a standalone BUK leads in advance to disasters. Therefore it is quite unlikely that Russia would have authorized to send a standalone BUK to Donetsk. This must have been decided by a renegade faction within the Russian army.

      BUK is a technologically very advanced lethal killer, but it can be a very unreliable murder weapon too. We have no scientific information, no international standards and no reports of how it really works. Far too little experience has been recorded in objective reports. That it can kill, we know, but we know nothing about checks and balances. And before we get this information we conservatively assume that from BUK everything can be expected. Hence we exclude no fatal interactions of human failure with BUK-failure.

      Scenario 3:
      The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. The missile missed the target. The missile found a new target being MH17.

      Scenario 5:
      SU-25s were flying very close to passenger aircraft to use as a human shield. On the 18th of June, one month before this disaster, Elena Kolenkina, a Russian separatist in Sloviansk and the wife of rebel commander Arsen Pavlov reported that the Ukrainian Air Force were tailing civilian planes over Eastern Ukraine. The claims, if proven true, indicate that the Ukraine were using civilian aircraft as human shields.

      Merging scenario 3 and 5.
      (p = 1.0): Civilians in the neighborhood of the disaster said to have seen one or two SU-25.
      (p = .5): There was one or two SU-25 of Ukraine at the disaster with MH17.
      (p = .8): Russian government was not well informed about the cause of the disaster.
      (p = .01): Rostov radar noticed a SU-25 near MH17 at 10 km altitude.
      (p = .9): Because the crew of the BUK also did not quite understand what happened the Russian government decided window dressing of the detrimental effects of SU-25 for the separatists.
      (p = .9): In this scenario Russia knows from Rostov radar – and the public – that SU-25’s were there, so this could not be denied. But their altitude would make an enormous moral difference. High altitude would accuse Ukraine of wittingly committing war crime; low altitude accuses Ukraine of instigation of war crimes by separatists, which would therefore be morally condemned as Russia.
      (p = .9) Because the Russians clearly have lied and again came up with different scenarios they lost all credibility. And that means that Ukrainian SU-25 may well have flown between 1500 meters and 5000 meters. It would be absurd to debunk the confusion and distraction theory of SU-25 with MH17 under acceptance of the entirely unreliable reporting of the Russian Defense Ministry’s ATC radar images and poor understanding of real qualities and shortcomings of BUK-TELAR in technical and ergonomic sense.





      Veteran Colonel Ralf Rudolph*:
      A very probable theory for the cause of the disaster

      “An unforeseen development in an exercise of the 156th anti-aircraft missile regiment of the Ukrainian Armed Forces may have been the cause of the disaster. This information has been confirmed by employees of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry who do not want to be identified.

      On July 17, the 156th Regiment of the Ukrainian air defense troops seems to have had orders to carry out a Buk launch unit exercise to protect the approach of National Guard troops and the Ukrainian Army in the Donetsk area. In training mode the entire process of detecting a target up to the launch of a missile had to be exercised. However, the launch of a real missile wasn’t planned. Two Su-25 from the 229th squadron of tactical air forces Nikolayev took off from Dnepropetrovsk to represent targets. As one of the Su-25’s flew into the detection range of the Kupol radar system it was followed and taken under surveillance. Coordinates were transmitted to a missile launch vehicle. Coincidentally, the flight paths of the Boeing 777 and the Su-25 crossed at different heights. The radar of the missile launch vehicle is designed in a way it always uses the most intense reflected radar beam (operational regime of “narrow beam”) and the radar system automatically switches to the largest target

      Because of the immense size differences of both aircraft the moment their routes crossed the missiles were thus directed towards the Boeing. Employees of the Ukrainian Secret Service now have to find out why the unplanned missile launch took place

      On that fatal day at 9:30pm the commander and crew of the Buk launch vehicle were taken into custody and meanwhile it became known that the flight controller at the Nikolayev airbase tower on duty July 17th has vanished.

      As long as the radar tracked the Ukrainian Su-25 due to the “Friend-foe identification system” it was identified as a friend which automatically blocks the start of any missile. But the moment the radar started following the Boeing the response signal never came because the Malaysian plane doesn’t have this response facility. The launch of a missile is possible when the start button was pressed for training purposes before.

      Should this be true or a similar statement of unhappiness and thus be Ukraine itself the cause of the disaster, the consequences would be incalculable. The government of Ukraine would be questioned, Russia and the eastern Ukrainian rebels would be rehabilitated and established inter alia with the disaster tightening of economic sanctions would collapse like a house of cards. Therefore, without a doubt, the United  States, the EU, Ukraine and NATO will do everything possible to continue obscuring the true cause of the disaster. But the extent of the cover-ups and manipulations carried out now is so large that there have to be many accomplices both in Ukraine and in the West. And sooner or later one or the other will make revelations.”


      * Mr. Rudolph, born in 1938, Colonel retired and graduate engineer studied at the Institute of Aerospace in Moscow and was for many years managing director of the rocket-repair work Pinnow (IWP). Complete CV and article source for this translation.



      Types of radar

      Report MH17 crash:





      Admin:
      ADS-B data is not radar data. Nor is secondary “radar”. Its a different sort of data. It is correct to call it ATC surveillance data, as the DSB does.
      The Russians tend to make very specific statements that must be read clearly.
      The DSB report clearly states that the only primary radar tapes provided were from Russia. Ole quotes it above. That would confirm Lavrov’s statement.
      Regarding secondary surveillance data:
      http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-primary-and-secondary-radar
      I again suggest that the reason Ukraine has not provided primary radar is possibly that all of its primary radar facilities near Donbass including military radar at the air defense bases and the capabilities of the Donetsk and Lugansk airport towers were blown up by the rebels. This occurred between early June and mid July. The rebels had obvious reason to do so – to cripple military radar capabilities and hinder military combat operations.
      Possibly the admission of permitting civilian overflight without primary radar over land is embarassing to Ukraine or perhaps aviation law makes some mention of liability this entails. I don’t know. It would obviously involve a level of risk to flights. Perhaps the loss of primary radar installations in the east motivated Ukraine it issuing NOTAM’s.
      I think this is also why we will never see a radar tape from Ukraine showing the alleged aerial shootdowns by Russia of its AN-26 on July 14 and SU-25M1 on July 16. It would need to come from primary radar.
      I also think the actual radar data Ukraine has available, if any, will be from its military field radar surveillance carried out as part of its deployment of BUK-M1 launchers into Donbass. The imavges on the Ukrainian TV program on July 16 show a BUK TELAR with an ST-68MU “Tin Shield” radar in operation in the field. This is a very sophisticated and capable military radar capable of scanning almost 200 km. Russia also alleges Ukraine had multiple BUK “KUPOL” radars in action covering much of southeastern Ukraine. Wouldn’t it be embarrassing to Ukraine to supply such data and confirm it had active BUK’s all over Donbass on July 17?
      The ATC transcript has Dnipr control querrying Rostov if he can see MH17 on radar. Why wold he ask that if he has primary radar and can see the mark fo the plane turn into a debris field himself? At 13:22
      DNP: Do you observe the Maylasian …
      RST: No, it seems that its target started falling apart.

      DNP: And we don’t see it .. its disappeaed. [wreckage only visable on primary radar, BD]

      DNP: Don’t you observe anything on primary?
      RST: Yes, yes, yes, nothing. We see nothing. [Rostov radar saw nothing on secondary radar]
      Should Dnipr control be able to look at their own primary radar and see the same thing?



      That's the most likely Su-25 connection to the shooting, for my money. It is extremely unlikely the MH17 was shot down by an Su-25 because that aircraft is capable of carrying only short-range heat-seekers with small warheads that would not cause the sort of damage the MH17 sustained. If the MH17 was struck by an air-to-air heat-seeking missile, that missile would have struck one of its engines causing a engine fire but not much else--the warhead is too small to even blow off the engine. This, in turn, would have given the crew time to issue a mayday call and take other measures to try and save the aircraft. They were not able to do that because the cockpit crew was killed almost instantly by the heavy Buk warhead exploding in close proximity of the cockpit. 


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


      Conclusies

      - Naast het land in oorlog zijn alle betrokken graailines die uit geldelijk gewin over Donetsk bleven vliegen en alle staten die hun burgers onvoldoende beschermden uit laksheid of uit politieke overwegingen medeschuldig aan het aanzetten tot oorlogsmisdaden tegen de mens(elijk)heid vanuit onzuivere motieven die de belangen van de vliegtuigpassagiers niet primair stelden. 

      - De controle op vliegveiligheid in de wereld dient daarom te worden overgedragen aan een onafhankelijke instantie. Regeringen die hun plicht verontachtzaamd hebben, dienen te worden afgezet en betrokken bewindslieden vervolgd.

      - Oekraïne is onder alle omstandigheden schuldig aan uitlokking van oorlogsmisdaden door voorwaardelijk opzet met kansbewustzijn. Na het neerschieten van de Antonov op 6,5 km hoogte had het luchtruim onmiddellijk voor alle burgerluchtvaart gesloten moeten worden.
       Andrew // July 19, 2015 at 2:03 pm // Reply
      Isn’t the real lie the lie to the innocent travellers flying over Ukraine on civil aviation flights that it was a safe act even though Ukraine was flying combat sorties, had deployed its own BUK’s in active combat duty, and knew of rebel BUK’s either stolen or from Russia as well, and failed to close the airspace to unlimited because of greed and a casual disdain for risks to human life?

      - Ingeval van levering van een solitaire BUK TELAR of van Pantsirs is ook Rusland medeschuldig aan de uitlokking van oorlogsmisdaden. 


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


      DE GESCHIEDENIS ZAL HARD OORDELEN OVER NEDERLAND.

      Zette Elena Kolenkina per ongeluk een val voor Oekraïne?

      Het interview met Elena (separatisten) werd op YouTube geplaatst op 21 Juni 2014, dus ongeveer een maand voor de aanslag. Elena Kolenkina alarmeerde daarin de wereld over een op handen zijnde ramp met een verkeersvliegtuig. Maar onduidelijk is of zij zelf de reikwijdte van haar opmerkingen besefte, namelijk dat niet de separatisten maar Oekraïne weleens een burgervliegtuig zou kunnen (laten) neerhalen:

      [(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.]

      Elena besefte ook niet dat zij daarin impliciet toegaf dat de separatisten reeds in juni 2014 over Grads en Pantsirs beschikten die 15 km hoog gingen en burgertoestellen konden uitschakelen. Wereldwijd alarm een maand van te voren, maar gemist....

      http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/07/onderste_steen_seperatisten_sc.html| 17-07-15 | 11:10Ja, maar Elena trouwde enige weken later met de rebellenleider. Daarom is enige onzekerheid op zijn plaats of dit toch geen false flag was.Basic Dimension | 17-07-15 | 11:16 

      Mogelijk dat Oekraïne vervolgens op conto van de separatisten de MH17 heeft neergehaald. Maar zeker is dat niet. Wel duidelijk is dat Oekraïne in haar euforie van de eerste dagen allerlei strategische informatie op YouTube heeft gedumpt. Zo gaf de SBU de telefoongesprekken tussen de separatisten van 17 juli vrij die zij net voor de aanslag had afgeluisterd. Blijkbaar niet beseffend dat daaruit real time medeplichtigheid blijkt aan mogelijk misdadig handelen door voorwetenschap. Oekraïne verzuimde namelijk de graailines onmiddellijk de toegang tot het luchtruim van Donetsk te ontzeggen.

      Ook minder slim was het op YouTube plaatsen van de telefoontap waaruit blijkt dat de separatisten op 17 juli niet over spotters beschikten. Want hoe kwamen die dan aan hun informatie over de MH17? Met verrekijkers houdt men burgertoestellen op 10 km hoogte niet uit elkaar. En Flightradar gebruikten de separatisten ook al niet. En het was toevallig ook nog eens zwaar bewolkt op die dag. Separatisten hadden daarom nul komma nul informatie over de MH17. 

      ["The story passed about by the SBU is that “Birdie coming towards you” was radioed in from Gorlivka, 65 km from the Snizhne position."]

      Rostov radar (Rusland) had naar onze inschatting geen enkel motief om de MH17 aan te wijzen. Zij kende MH17 goed want die was daar kind aan huis. Verder zijn Russen - anders dan Obama die nog geen drie stappen vooruit kan denken - goede schakers en wisten zij heel goed wat de gevolgen zouden zijn. 

      Een factie binnen het Russische leger met een BUK TAR: target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, net over de grens zou theoretisch wel kunnen maar ligt niet voor de hand omdat hun IFF system de MH17 wel degelijk als burgervliegtuig zou hebben herkend.

      Kortom Oekraïne schaakt zich hier volledig klem. Wie was hier de dubbelspion van MH17? Wie bewijst hier te beschikken over real time telefooncontacten met de separatisten en over intelligence van legervliegtuigen? Separatisten, die blijkbaar onvoldoende beseften dat zij werden afgeluisterd en mogelijk vertrouwden op orders van 'hogerhand'. 

      Ook onverstandig was het nadrukkelijk onder de aandacht brengen van een BUK die als kermisattractie door Donetsk werd gesleept. Immers, er was dus kennelijk slechts sprake van één BUK. En met veel tactisch inzicht werd deze BUK in de namiddag van 17e juli ook nog eens ten zuiden van Snizhne geparkeerd. Wat betekent dat de SBU zich wellicht volkomen onnodig schaak zette op mogelijk verkeerde en onmogelijke coördinaten met de enige genoemde BUK in Donetsk en omstreken, voor zover dit verhaal op waarheid berust.

      Dit tenzij de Russen de SA-17 hebben gebruikt:

      (Achterhaald)
      mvdb22 maart 2015 om 12:08Een SA-17 met een 9M317 raket kan vanaf Rusland zijn gebruikt. Bereik ligt rond de 50km. Er zijn satelliet en fotos vanaf de grond genomen welke aantonen dat er RUS BUKs in de buurt van de grens waren.
      (A SA-17 with a 9M317 can be used from Russia. Reach about 50 km. Satellite images prove the presence of Russian BUKs near the border.)




      Het OM baseert zich mogelijk op telefoontaps van separatisten onderling, verstrekt door de SBU. Maar welke gesprekken zijn hier achter gehouden? Heeft de SBU misschien voor dubbelspion gespeeld en de MH17 aangewezen en in deze positie gebracht? En het OM zal toch niet op aangeven van één der verdachten (Oekraïne) een aanklacht tegen de andere (separatisten) opstellen? Daarbij zijn deze aanwijzingen ook nog eens geen bewijs dat de separatisten de BUK ook daadwerkelijk hebben afgeschoten. Laat men uitsluitend oordelen op grond van wetenschappelijke criteria. 

      Door de opzettelijke verwaarlozing van de rampplek, de brutale beschietingen door Oekraïne en de nonchalante inzameling van wrakstukken is het vrijwel onmogelijk geworden om nog te bewijzen wie de dader is. Was dat wellicht de steen die onder moest blijven? 

      Weggerotte inslaggaten leiden mogelijk niet meer tot betrouwbare koershoeken en het juiste point of detonation. De lanceerplek van de BUK wordt daarom mogelijk nooit meer gevonden. 

      Bewijsvoering op basis van een maandenlang onbeheerd wrak zal door iedere verdediging met succes van tafel worden geveegd. Was dat wellicht ook de bedoeling? Tal van gaten kunnen er inmiddels bij geschoten zijn en onbeschadigde delen die nog steeds op de rampplek liggen zijn evengoed belangrijk als bewijs. Dit om de horizontale koershoek in te perken.

      Kortom, het geheel ademt de welhaast moedwillige sabotage van een quasi wetenschappelijke exercitie.  Op 28 juni 2015 staken de botten nog uit de grond naast de motor. Wat het OM thans nog rest is het uitsluiten van verdachten.



      'Any intelligent person understands that giving a suspect in a crime a veto-power over the ‘findings’ of the official investigation into the crime means that the ‘investigation’ is dishonest; it is corrupt. And yet journaliststs continue to play along with this game as if it weren’t corrupt. Instead of publicizing its corruptness, they pretend that the official ‘investigation’ isn’t corrupt. More is needed than merely to talk about “transparency,” or “propaganda fog.” The appropriate charge here is: “corrupt.” The official ‘investigation’ is corrupt. It is dishonest.'

      The Embassy of the Russian Federation held a press-conference on ‪#‎MH17‬ issues on Friday,June 24 2015.
      (...) 
      • We consider the issue of establishing an international tribunal concerning the MH-17 catastrophe to be premature and counterproductive.(...)
      Russia has been barred from any substantive participation in the investigation (the involvement of the Russian representative has been purely nominal and has not resulted in his opinion, and the data presented by Russia, being taken into account). Russia has been intentionally excluded from required objective standards of «transparency» by those who conducted the investigation – for example, Russian specialists were essentially denied full and equitable access to the materials which were in the possession of the Joint Investigation Team. (...)
      • We are forced to conclude that UNSC Resolution 2166, which set out clear and professionally founded requirements for investigating the MH-17 catastrophe, has not been implemented.






       Basic Dimension // September 6, 2015 at 12:36 pm // Reply

      Admin, I’m not sure if I’m allowed to give my emotional and personal opinion at this great and factual oriented website. If not, please skip this note.

      Reading this post I’m outraged again by the shocking gap between morals and politics of the Dutch government. It is completely abnormal if your country as your representative on the crash site is not able to resonate the deepest human emotions felt by the families of the victims.

      A government which weighs its ties with the Ukrainian government heavier than its basic responsibility to prompt and thorough bringing home all possible human remains as well.

      Though the Dutch were very moved by the solemn repatriation of the victims, there was and is also great anger with the opportunistic behavior of their government. We know the collection of human remains and personal belongings has not been optimal. And yes we are ashamed the world thinks we are just calculating opportunists.

      It may be that the area is large and without an army of sniffer dogs would be difficult to cover. But on June 28, 2015 crossed the bones still in the ground next to the engine (Kitty Logan); July 10, 2015 Patrick Lancaster: “Just found many pieces of human bones at the site # MH17. Why after 1yr have all remains not been given to the families?”

      Now after a year, the poor residents of Donetsk gathered a truck filled with bones and personal belongings but the Dutch talked in walks of life and trivialized a truckload of human bones: “For this reason, some employees of the Embassy, for example, a law enforcement officer attache, military attache, and certainement others should go and pick up this truck. The chief inspector from Holland will come to investigate what was discovered. He will be based in Kharkiv region. “This, by itself, will not be on the scale as it was before,” the ambassador said.’

      I have been saying since about the first week after the disaster that the Dutch government is collaborating with the Kiev government. Politics is far more important than getting to the truth. Too many indications for that. Dutch press is totally ignorant and even does not report on this.


      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11732678/One-year-on-MH17-evidence-against-separatists-appears-overwhelming.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


      6:00AM BST 16 Jul 2015

       The biggest pieces of wreckage have vanished, hauled away to the Netherlands for analysis, and green stalks of new grass are poking through the burnt ground where the centre section exploded.
      But a year after Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was destroyed over eastern Ukraine, the shadow of death still hangs heavily over Grabovo, Petropavlivka, and Rosipnoye, the villages where the 298 victims fell to earth.
      Under foot, bulbous fragments of melted metal litter the black earth, and a faint but evil smell still hangs in the air - a mixture of aviation fuel and decaying human bodies.
      “When the wind is in the west the houses next to the crash site get it worst,” said Vladimir Berezhnoi, the mayor of Grabovo. “We still find things. Fragments - not flesh, because the birds got to them you understand. But teeth, fingers, bones of course.

      “I was working some land at the end of May and found a passport - Dutch I think - and a mobile phone. It still worked - think of that, all winter under the snow and it still worked. We handed it to the investigators.” 


      Netherlandsshame on you!!!

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


      Na het OVV-rapport

      BUK-missile (SAM) of fighter aircraft (AAM), het wordt straks duidelijk uit de shrapnel-analyses op de lichamen. Maar zolang de onderste steen niet boven is houdt men beter alle scenario’s open zodat er geen tunnelvisie ontstaat. 

      Het straks uitkomende onderzoeksrapport zal haar beperkingen kennen. Want veel meer dan het Geschakelde Internet Brein kan het niet bedacht hebben. Daarnaast is het Internet in zijn totaliteit wetenschappelijk onafhankelijk, waar de OVV onder een verkeerd gesternte geboren is. 

      Wat allemaal betekent dat straks het moordwapen duidelijk wordt maar dat men in de dader analyse blijft steken. En als het OM haar gelijk moet halen uit een selectie van getuigenverklaringen aangereikt door één der verdachten kan het bij voorbaat inpakken. Keiharde wetenschappelijke bewijzen zijn nodig en daar moet zij ook mee komen. Deze zaak sleept daarom nog jaren voort en zal van het internet alle concentratie en toewijding vergen. 
      Niemoller points out that Russia is not going to passively accept any result the Dutch Safety Board comes up with, especially if not backed with evidence. He reminds that Russia has set up its own body, ready to refute any unfounded allegations against the separatists militias the JIT might bring forward

      HET ONDERZOEK NAAR DE OORZAAK:

      Er zijn drie belangrijke scenario's:

      1: BUK vanuit Snizhne (SNI).
      2: BUK vanuit Zaroshchenske (ZAR).
      3: SU-25 (SU25)

      Uit het onderzoek van de OVV komt mogelijk één van deze drie als wapen van de aanslag naar voren. Maar dan weet men nog niet veel, want dan zijn er nog de volgende interacties:

      (SNI)x(ZAR)
      (SNI)x(SU25)
      (ZAR)x(SU25)
      (SNI)x(ZAR)x(SU25)

      De meest eenvoudige beschrijving van de aanval op de MH17 ziet er dan ook als volgt uit:

      Oorzaak neerhalen MH17 = SNI + ZAR + SU25 + (SNIxZAR) + (SNIxSU25) + (ZARxSU25) + (SNIxZARxSU25)

      Dat is het werk van de OVV.


      DAN VOLGT HET ONDERZOEK NAAR DE DADER(S) DOOR HET OM:

      1: Separatisten en/of Rusland (SEP).
      2: Ukraïne (UKR).
      3: VS en EU (NAVO)

      En daarvoor geldt deze beschrijving:

      Daders neerhalen MH17 = SEP + UKR + NAVO + (SEPxUKR) + (SEPxNAVO) + (UKRxNAVO) + (SEPxUKRxNAVO)

      Wat voorbeelden:

      (SNIxZAR) 
      Het kan zijn dat UKR, gezien het transport van de BUK door Donetsk,  besloten heeft haar BUK vanuit ZAR af te vuren. Hieruit volgt dan de interactie (SEPxUKR).

      Maar volgens de dubbelspion kan UKR aan SEP ook best verkeerde informatie over een naderende AN-26 hebben verstrekt om de MH17 te laten neerschieten. Ook hieruit volgt de interactie (SEPxUKR).

      (SNIxSU25xNAVO) => (SEPxUKRxNAVO)
      SEP kan hebben willen schieten op een SU-25 van Georgië die in NAVO verband die dag in Oekraïne (UKR) oefende (SNIxSU25xNAVO). Vervolgens kan SEP of NAVO de MH17 hebben neergeschoten (SNIxSU25xNAVO) => (SEPxUKRxNAVO)

      Dus binnen iedere interactie bestaat er weer een veelheid aan verschijningsvormen. Het aantal vrijheidsgraden loopt daardoor giga hard op, zodat het achterhalen van de precieze oorzaak van deze oorlogsmisdaad weleens heel moeilijk kan gaan worden.

      Kortom voordat al deze verbanden zijn ingevuld zijn wij mogelijk jaren verder. Het enige verschil met vroeger is dat het Geschakelde Internet Brein de overheden nu op de voet volgt en na het OVV-rapport mogelijk zelfs de leiding neemt.


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



      De moedwillige invalidatie van het MH17-onderzoek


      In de regel willen onderzoekers hun resultaten wetenschappelijk aanvaard krijgen. Maar indien men ze juist wil invalideren dan zet men het OVV op precies zoals gedaan en geeft men één der verdachten ook nog vetorecht. En dan sluit men opzichtige kontrakten over geheimhouding van onwelgevallige resultaten.

      En inderdaad wordt dan het rapport van het OVV straks de grond in geboord als zijnde wetenschappelijk frauduleus en corrupt. Maar...als dat nu eens juist de bedoeling was???

      Eindeloos zijn de schendingen door het OVV van aan wetenschappelijkheid te stellen voorwaarden. Eén ding pik ik er uit.

      Stel dat straks blijkt dat er shrapnel van warhead 9N314 in de lijken werd aangetroffen. En de OVV concludeert dan dat het moordwapen een BUK is. Dan is dit resultaat al direct geïnvalideerd, gefalsifieerd, confounded en heavily compromised.

      Want:

      1: De plaats des onheils is vele maanden onbeheerd gelaten.
      2: Eén der verdachte partijen kan tussen haar eigen bombardementen door shrapnel in de lijken geschoten hebben.
      3: De lijken van de piloten zijn geröntgend alvorens vervoer naar Nederland.
      4: Daarvóór kan er 9N314 shrapnel ingeschoten zijn.

      Hetzelfde geldt voor mogelijk rondgestrooid shrapnel en voor granaatscherven die in de wrakstrukken gevonden zijn.

      Niet dat dit alles is gebeurd, maar het invalideert het bewijs....behalve mogelijk voor een Internationaal Tribunaal dat hieraan wellicht nog een politieke dimensie kan verlenen.

      Zo eindeloos is de rij van schendigen van de wetenschap dat opzettelijke invalidatie van onderzoeksresultaten welhaast de bedoeling MOET zijn.

      U begrijpt dat het OM dus maar beter niet aan verder onderzoek kan beginnen want de rechter veegt al die zogenaamde bewijzen zo van tafel.

      Geen der partijen verdient bij voorbaat onze sympathie, maar wij willen alleen wetenschappelijk verkregen en juridisch verantwoord bewijs voorgeschoteld krijgen. En tot die tijd houdt men beter alle opties ter voorkoming van tunnelvisie.



      Basic Dimension | 29-07-15 | 21:40 

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


      http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/mh-17-investigation-is-injustice-to-all.html




      August 4, 2015



      - We are facing a legal farce and a grave injustice for all the relatives of the 298 victims thanks to the fact that Netherlands and Ukraine have forgotten in the case of MH17 that “Nemo iudex in causa sua” or that no one should judge or investigate in his own cause, says Finnish judge and diplomat Peter Iiskola, who is expert in international air and space law.

      - What makes it even more ridiculous is that Netherlands should know better, as it is the seat for at least eight international Tribunals, says Iiskola.

      The MH17 investigation is led by the Netherlands - it is clearly procedurally biased from these general justice principles points of views. Therefore, this investigation should be nullified and replaced with a fair, unbiased and neutral one – or the 298 victims and their families will never find out the legal or the actual truth, and get justice! Now the fundamental human and legal rights are in this way denied, endangered and gravely breached.

      This says the Finnish judge and international diplomat Peter Iiskola, who has worked in Iran-United States Arbitration in The Hague, as well as in United Nations and Council of Europe justice and human rights projects, and is also specialized in international air and space law.


       Basic Dimension // September 3, 2015 at 6:31 pm // Reply

      This post handles not so much facts but more a rare and most intriguing conflict between science and politics. Without understanding of the interactions in which Western politics took science hostage, the options for the prosecution of who shot down MH17 cannot be discussed. Hence, first norms and values of the prosecutors must be analyzed. It is the gray area in which scientific ethics are intertwined with political haggling.

      As Peter Iiskola correctly said: “Nemo iudex in causa sua” or that no one should judge or investigate in his own cause.

      http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/mh-17-investigation-is-injustice-to-all.html

      Now, of course this does not relate well to the rules of ICAO, which defines the countries who have to carry out the investigation into MH17:

      ‘All participants of an aviation crash are part of the investigation. States which are recommended according Annex 13 of ICAO are state of occurance (Ukraine), state of registry (Malaysia), state of manufacturer (US plane and US for engines). Australia and Russia are invited by DSB because of expertise.’

      Hence, possibly criminal involved parties are necessary to cooperate in disclosure of the circumstances surrounding the disaster. That creates very insane and unhealthy research. Scientifically sound research would keep all parties involved out and let the research be done by independent countries. On the other hand politically motivated window dressing would exclude independent countries. And that’s why one had to make a choice. One had to compromise ethical and scientific norms and values.

      But mixing of scientific rigor with political objectives creates a monstrosity and just that happened with the research to the disaster of MH17.

      Now I give a list of what went wrong in this “research”:

      Methodological failures:

      1: Due to the willful neglect of the crash site, the brutal shelling by Ukraine and the casual collection of debris it is virtually impossible to prove who shot down MH17.
      2: Evidence based on a wreck unattended for many months will be wiped out by any legal defense. Additional holes can have been made and undamaged parts that were left at the scene are equally important as evidence. This is to limit the horizontal course angle of the missile. Furthermore BUK parts can have been placed at the scene afterwards, shrapnel can have been shot into the fuselage and into the bodies. Hence, all prove will be legally worthless.
      3: Eroded and rusted holes in the fuselage cannot possibly lead to reliable course angles of the missile and the proper point of detonation. Hence, the launch site of the BUK will possibly never be found.
      4: ‘The Joint Investigation Team (JIT, inquest) and the Dutch Safety Board (OVV, cause of crash), the authorities entrusted with the MH17 research, are seeing items that may come from a BUK missile’.
      Excellent formulated because more cannot be concluded in a scientific sense. It’s not about THAT it is a BUK, but HOW it ended up at the crime scene. In short, is this the CORPUS DELICTI, or are parts of a BUK added later as FALSE EVIDENCE.
      5: Hence, how BUK components have reached the wreck is much more important but this process is now probably no longer traceable. Therefore, these BUK parts have no scientific or legal value as corpus delicti and as key evidence. Whether it still can serve as supporting evidence is subsequently reasoned.
      6: Very important is the metallurgical research on impact holes. Only when occurred distortions really can be caused by insanely great heat of shrapnel from a BUK warhead, one is on the right track. But then it should be impossible to artificially make those holes afterwards.
      7: In proving BUK, the effects of incredibly high temperatures need also to be observed in the surrounding tissue of the bodies, unless the shrapnel has lost its heat already in the prior exposure to the fuselage.
      8: An aggravating circumstance is messing with the dead bodies in the first months. In Donetsk, the temperatures were well above 30 degrees, which will have led to a quick and violent destruction of the surrounding tissue of the wounds within days, within hours. Apparently not without reason dead bodies of the victims has been decayed in the burning sun for many months, while relatives from Australia and Malaysia just had normal access to the crash site. Now there is no difference anymore between hot shrapnel of BUK and forced inserted shrapnel afterwards otherwise.
      9:In short, “findings” of BUK are less important than METALLURGICAL EFFECTS on the fuselage of shrapnel and HEAT DAMAGE of SURROUNDING TISSUE just caused by shrapnel. But the tunnel vision accent on the BUK parts of JIT and OVV gives little confidence.
      10: Of course these metallurgical and tissue examinations of the NATO countries must have been confirmed by re-appraisals of Russia and China. Probably, OVV has demanded this already because of its scientific integrity. So that is accomplished.
      Indeed this rule already should have been prescribes by ICAO mandatory. If this research has not been carried out or there exists the slightest doubt, tissue examination lapses as key evidence and ‘found’ BUK parts no longer can be seen as supporting evidence.
      11: The prosecution possibly relies on wiretaps between the separatists, provided by the SBU. But what calls are withheld? SBU perhaps played for double agent and designated and positioned MH17. It can not be at the behest of one of the defendants (Ukraine) to submit a complaint against the other (separatists). In addition, these indications are no evidence that separatists have actually fired the BUK. Judgment must be based solely on scientific criteria and independent parties.

      There are a lot of other failures. The secrecy about the results of the study is indeed prescribed by ICAO but does not fit within this criminal investigation. A lot of other sneaky deals could be mentioned.

      The JIT seems to jump with open eyes into the tunnel vision of the most likely cause of tragedy with massive debunked internet material. Though BUK is the most obvious cause, it’s not about what is most likely, but what can be proven, and the way to do this has now become utterly impassable; it’s a lost battle that intentionally should not be won by justice. Now, a court conviction becomes an impossible task, but a political condemnation by the UN still seems possible.

      Finally: Science is needed to examine the circumstances of accidents. But that cannot mean scientific mores are violated. Let that be a bitter lesson.

      Hence it is completely irrelevant which of ‘three options for prosecution of who shot down MH17’ will be chosen.

       Andrew // September 3, 2015 at 10:11 pm // Reply
      Basic Dimension:
      Your wise comments emphasizes the insane criminality of (1) Kiev refusing safe passage to the international investigators from Kiev to Hrabove on July 18 and later, and the unwillingness of the international investigators to travel from Rostov to Hrabove, (2) the starting of an offensive military operation into the wreck site on July 21 by Kiev in an area that was otherwise peaceful and undisturbed by war up to that point and which need not have been attacked. In fact, the attack on this area, aside from failing completely in the supposed objective of capturing the crash site, was the direct cause of two of the major debacles of the war for Ukraine – the Ilovaisk encirclement and the Debaltsevo encirclement.

      Andrew: your wrote :
      “Kiev refusing safe passage to the international investigators from Kiev to Hrabove on July 18 and later”
      .
      any proof for that ?
      .
      And
      “the unwillingness of the international investigators to travel from Rostov to Hrabove”
      .
      I know the investigation started late. What is your indication late arrival was because of “unwillingness”?

      only blaming Ukraine for armed action around MH17 site ignores rebels clear disinclination for a ceasefire,Strelkov himself was opposed to humanitarian cease-fires” or even corridors to MH17 site
      http://cassad-eng.livejournal.com/2014/07/18/
      • RB2:
        Strelkov was opposed to a ceasefire because there was no fighting near the MH17 site on July 17. The surrounding area for at least 20 km was in the hands of the rebels. It was repeatedly stated the site was safe to visit.
        Kiev was asking for a ceasefire to rescue their finest troops traped in the southern pocket from destruction, not to guarantee safety of the MH17 investigation.
        Admin:
        “any proof”
        Families of the victims were able to travel safely to the site within days, as were reporters and other ordinary people, as well as rescue workers from Donetsk. No one was shot or shelled while the bodies were recovered on July 20 and 21. Therefore, the site was safe to reach and investigate.
        The rebels stated they would provide a guarantee of safety for the international investigators.
        “unwillingness”
        It would be a diplomatic breech towards Ukraine and the world position on the independence of the DNR and LNR for foreign government agents to travel directly to them without permission from Kiev, as it would be a form of de facto recognition. Malaysia faced the same problem obtaining the black boxes. The rebels had them, and the only way to get them was to recognize some sort of legitimacy of the rebels. Technically, the rebels being Ukrainian citizens, and the crash having occurred on the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine, the rebels should have handed over the black boxes to Kiev authorities who would then lead the investigation. This of course ignores the civil war and the war obviously being the cause of the crash.
        The issue was a diplomatic dilemma caused by the unwillingness of the rest of the world to recognize the right of Donbass to self-determination of its future. I believe that right is enshrined in the UN Charter, but the world is also full of hypocrites.


       Prosto Tak // September 4, 2015 at 1:14 am // Reply
      Basic Dimension:
      > Due to the willful neglect of the crash site, the brutal shelling by Ukraine and the casual collection of debris it is virtually impossible to prove who shot down MH17.
      — Please don’t forget that the wilful neglect was caused by no one other than the the Russian/separatist side; that there was no, as you call it, “brutal shelling by Ukraine” — there was a short period of the fighting nearby, during which Ukraine specifically tried not to shell the the crash sites themselves, and after that the combined Russian/separatist forces drew the Ukrainians far away; that the collection of the debris was not that much casual but carefully chosen by the Dutch side finally let by the Russian/separatist side to the crash site.
      > Evidence based on a wreck unattended for many months will be wiped out by any legal defense. Additional holes can have been made and undamaged parts that were left at the scene are equally important as evidence. This is to limit the horizontal course angle of the missile. Furthermore BUK parts can have been placed at the scene afterwards, shrapnel can have been shot into the fuselage and into the bodies. Hence, all prove will be legally worthless.
      — Please don’t forget that there are two separate inquiries, and the aviation security one led by DSB has no aim to put the blame on anyone and stand the court and does not have to prove anything “beyond reasonable doubt”; that all the alterations to the crash site could, as you suppose, be made there only by one side, i. e. the combined Russian/separatist forces, which would hardly tamper the place to implicate themselves.
      > Hence, the launch site of the BUK will possibly never be found.
      — Please don’t forget about the satellite data which haven’t been released to the public but which may be known to both investigation teams.
      > or are parts of a BUK added later as FALSE EVIDENCE.
      — Please don’t forget that we already know who was the only side that could have tampered the evidence: the combined Russian/separatist forces, as the Ukrainian side was never and nowhere close to the place.
      > An aggravating circumstance is messing with the dead bodies in the first months. In Donetsk, the temperatures were well above 30 degrees, which will have led to a quick and violent destruction of the surrounding tissue of the wounds within days, within hours. Now there is no difference anymore between hot shrapnel of BUK and forced inserted shrapnel afterwards otherwise.
      — Please don’t forget that we already know who was the only side responsible for that: the combined Russian/separatist forces. However, in reality most bodies were collected during the days immediately after the disaster and, alas, after a few days in the heat were finally preserved in a refrigerated train before being transported to the non-occupied parts of Ukraine and further airlifted to the Netherlands. Some bodies, or, for that case, body parts were in fact neglected at once and collected much later. As for the tampering with the evidence, see above.
      > The JIT seems to jump with open eyes into the tunnel vision of the most likely cause of tragedy with massive debunked internet material
      — Please don’t forget that in reality, it’s exactly the opposite: the JIT criminal investigation has formally still not dismissed even the absurd claim of the shooting down of MH17 by a Ukrainian Su-25 — exactly for the reason to get all possible evidence to be able to prove the absurdity of this (and other similar) claims in the court, which they still don’t have in full as of now.
      > Now, a court conviction becomes an impossible task, but a political condemnation by the UN still seems possible.
      — Please don’t forget that in fact, because of the veto by Russia (that claims Ukraine did it but, for some “strange” reason, is afraid to take Kyiv to the international tribunal for that), any political condemnation of any of the possible perpetrators except Ukraine (which is harldly the case) by the UN is absolutely impossible, while the investigation parties (Russia not belonging to them) now consider other options to set up an international court to produce a court conviction.


       Basic Dimension // September 4, 2015 at 11:17 am // Reply
      Well Prosto thanks, I welcome opposing information.

      Of course the ‘willful neglect of the crash site’ is a complicated situation, that’s right. From the Dutch side I know Prime Minister Rutte has said not to have bargained with the separatists about admission to the crash site, since the Netherlands only recognizes Ukraine as the eligible government and that point of view he has sustained for many months.

      While immediately after the assault Malaysia successfully negotiated with the separatists and obtained the black boxes. I do not remember Dutch Red Cross workers who have massively tried to enter the crash site immediately after the disaster and have been threatened and were expelled by the separatists.

      Because Donetsk was under effective control of the separatists, there arose a remarkable and artificial stalemate which irritated the Dutch population beyond measure. That’s because at the same time kin of Australian and Malaysian victims were allowed to visit the scene extinct to search for their loved ones.
      Also we have heard stories told by residents that the exceptional and rare official Dutch did not want to talk much to them and apparently were not interested in the dead bodies. But I see you agree with the (willful) neglect of the crash site, anyway.

      After the disaster Ukraine better showed some empathy with the victims without the aggression of shelling the crash site or its surroundings.

      Concluding, there would have been a lot of possibilities for the Dutch to repatriate their loved ones immediately after the disaster. Personally I conclude Prime Minister Rutte did not want to be there in the first place and apparently found an excuse.

      The fact that DSB does not have to prove the BUK scenario “beyond reasonable doubt” possibly will be their salvation. Metallurgical research on the holes in the fuselage made by very hot shrapnel of BUK will be their only chance. Otherwise “findings” of parts of BUK will be very suspicious.

      On the one side you accuse the separatists of threatening the crash site but on the other side you mention their caring collection of the dead bodies. It all must have been a psychologically horrifying and devastating experience for residents and separatists.

      I maintain international tribunals do not need to supply any evidence to cause political damage to arbitrarily chosen parties for many years. And since Ukraine holds the position that the separatists are citizens of Ukraine, their law must take its course there.

      Except of course if JIT possibly has no faith in Ukrainian law or has nail hard evidence that the Russians fired a BUK-missile 9M317 from Russia with a BUK SA-17.

       Andrew // September 4, 2015 at 2:38 pm // Reply
      Prosto Tak:
      “Please don’t forget that the wilful neglect was caused by no one other than the the Russian/separatist side; that there was no, as you call it, “brutal shelling by Ukraine” — there was a short period of the fighting nearby, during which Ukraine specifically tried not to shell the the crash sites themselves, and after that the combined Russian/separatist forces drew the Ukrainians far away”
      “Please don’t forget that we already know who was the only side that could have tampered the evidence: the combined Russian/separatist forces, as the Ukrainian side was never and nowhere close to the place.”

      I can’t tell if these misleading statements are just due to your own ignorance of the actual situation or if you are mendaciously repeating the falsehoods of Kiev here to try to get everyone else to believe them. The statement IS utterly false. I previously posted the exact coordinates of Ukrainian firing positions and artillery crater impacts near the debris field on this site on August 9.

      http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/cnn-leak-on-dsb-report-which-blames-pro-russian-rebels-for-shooting-down-plane-is-nonsense/#comment-6143

      There are hundreds of artillery impact craters inside the debris field, and hundreds more directly to its western edge.
      The actual facts are that the Ukraine Armed Forces lead by the 25th Airborne Brigade attacked from Debaltsevo through the village of Nikishino on July 26, through Rozsypne on July 28 and captured the town, then on July 31 headed to Shakhtersk. Another battle occurred on August 2 in the nearby village of Stizhkove. Throughout and after this period the Ukrainian Armed Forces shelled the crash site from their very strongly fortified artillery firing positions around Olkhovatka to the north-northwest that they held until the fall of Debaltsevo in February of this year.
      This is not a short period of fighting nearby and it is definitely not the rebels shelling themselves. This is a Ukrainian military offensive thrust directly into the middle of the crash site all while piously bleating to the world about a ceasefire and respecting the rights of international investigators to access the site and the big bad rebels preventing people from coming there.
      As to your concept of the rebels drawing the Ukrainians “far away”, where exactly was it they were drawn to? As I said above, the Ukrainians held Olkhovatka until February of this year with their massive defeat in Debaltsevo. They had artillery firing positions at Danylove during that time that were just 3-15 km from various parts of the debris field. Is that your idea of “far away”?
      You ridicule the idea of the Ukrainian Army being able to plant or damage the evidence, but the reality is within two weeks of the crash they had driven directly through the middle of the crash site including the key area containing the debris of the cockpit and front of the plane beneath where the missile would have hit the plane, riddled the area with artillery and machine gun fire, and thoroughly contaminated the site.
      Anyone interested in a more objective recollection of what happened and where and by who during that time can read through the tweets brought up by this search, especially the large number of tweets by pro-Kiev individuals bragging/reporting about their offensive through the crash site:
      https://twitter.com/search?q=Рассыпное%20since%3A2014-07-26%20until%3A2014-08-08


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


      http://tass.ru/en/world/813498?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+tass/QvIl+%28TASS%29


      TASS: RUSSIAN NEWS AGENCY

      ICAO’s non-participation in MH17 crash investigation raises questions in Moscow


      August 10, 16:01 UTC+3

      The fact that ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) does not participate in the investigation of MH17 crash in east Ukraine causes confusion and raises questions in Moscow, Russian Foreign Ministry’s official spokesperson Maria Zakharova told Rossiya 24 TV channel on Monday.(...)

      The manufacturer of Buk missile system was recognized as the guilty party in this catastrophe by many but investigators did not ask the manufacturer.(...)

      "It is more than strange because there is such organization as ICAO which professionally deals with such issues," the diplomat continued. "Considering its history, it is hard to doubt the level of its professionalism," she noted. "As far as I know, there is the manufacturer who made its own analysis of the possible causes of the catastrophe and provided all data and even convened a conference. But its findings were not interesting for anybody. Why?" Zakharova said.

      "I am not even talking about plane parts that were left in the field. Our questions on why not all debris were collected, we were told that what had been collected and transported was enough. But this is not right," she stressed.

      Moscow calls on countries that have information about MH17 crash in eastern Ukraine to make it public, she continued. "An informational model is created when one side is accused without direct evidence, without any evidence," Zakharova said speaking about the UN Security Council draft resolution on establishing an international tribunal on MH17 crash in Ukraine.

       "For a year, an image of an enemy, of absolute evil was being formed which is necessary to be strengthened by creating a model that will be convenient for adjusting the result well-known for someone already a year ago," she added.

      "Al een jaar werd een vijandbeeld van het absolute kwaad (Rusland) opgevoerd, wat alleen versterkt kan worden door een onderzoeksmodel te creëren wat geschikt zal zijn om het reeds een jaar bij een der onderzoekende partijen (Oekraïne) volstrekt bekende resultaat, de welbekende oorzaak van deze aanslag aan te passen" zo voegde zij eraan toe.

      "It was unacceptable to put with such an absolutely politicized approach in line with an aggressive informational campaign on vilification of someone and simultaneously on ‘brushing away’ all substantial facts. We are talking about hundreds of people who died. Their fate should not remain a ‘black hole’. Truth should be found, but it is necessary to do it in line with international law, and that is what we are going to do," the diplomat stressed.

      http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/increased-kremlin-propaganda-indicates-final-report-mentions-something-russia-does-not-like/

      One thing for sure is nonsense. The DSB investigation is done according Annex 13 of the ICAO. It is written in the DSB preliminary report. ICAO never ever made a statement the DSB investigation is not right.

      Another lie of Kremlin. All participants of an aviation crash are part of the investigation. States which are recommended according Annex 13 of ICAO are state of occurance (Ukraine), state of registry (Malaysia), state of manufacturer (US plane and US for engines). Australia and Russia are invited by DSB because of expertise.
      So the investigation is for sure international. When the final report is published we can judge if the report is independant and comprehensive. 


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











      Dinsdag 11 augustus 2015

      NU.nl

      "Het Joint Investigation Team [JIT; juridisch onderzoek] en de Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid [OVV; onderzoek toedracht MH17], de instanties die belast zijn met het MH17-onderzoek, bekijken onderdelen die wellicht afkomstig zijn van een Buk-raket."

      Goed geformuleerd want meer valt hier niet uit op te maken. Het gaat er namelijk niet om OF het onderdelen van een BUK zijn maar HOE deze op de plaats delict terecht zijn gekomen. Kortom is dit het CORPUS DELICTI of werden deze onderdelen hier later als SCHIJNBEWIJS aan toegevoegd.

      ['Westerbeke benadrukt dat het niet gaat om de stukken die correspondent Jeroen Akkermans vond op de rampplek. "Het is materiaal dat we zelf hebben gevonden. De stukken van Jeroen Akkermans zijn op dit moment in bezit van de Onderzoeksraad voor de veiligheid, we hopen dat we ze nog wel krijgen.']

      NB. Het materiaal van Jeroen betreft shrapnel van een BUK. Hoe dat daar gekomen is, en hoe dat zo kon vastkleven aan de buitenkant van de fuselage in een val over 20 km, met een snijdende wind die letterlijk door merg en been ging is niet duidelijk. En precies op de rampplek lagen die stukjes zo maar op de grond, naast de wrakstukken...(Erik Toonen).

      [ "De delen zijn op verschillende momenten tot ons gekomen", zegt Westerbeke.]

      HOE de BUK-onderdelen tot het wrak gekomen zijn is veel belangrijker maar dat traject is nu waarschijnlijk niet meer traceerbaar. En daarom hebben die BUK-onderdelen als corpus delicti en als hoofdbewijs geen enkele wetenschappelijke of juridische waarde. Of zij nog als steunbewijs kunnen dienen wordt navolgend beredeneerd.

      Iets anders is het metallurgisch onderzoek aan de inslaggaten. Wanneer de daar opgetreden vervormingen echt alleen maar kunnen zijn veroorzaakt door de waanzinnig grote hitte van shrapnel van een BUK warhead, dan is men op de goede weg. Maar dan moet het niet mogelijk zijn om die gaten achteraf kunstmatig aan te brengen.

      Hetzelfde geldt voor eventueel shrapnel in de lijken. Ook hier moeten waanzinnig hoge temperaturen in het omliggende weefsel van de lijken kunnen worden vastgesteld, tenzij het shrapnel zijn hitte al in de eerdere confrontatie met de fuselage heeft verloren.

      Kortom gaat het minder om de BUK dan om de METALLURGISCHE HOEDANIGHEID VAN DE INSLAGGATEN EN DE HITTESCHADE VAN HET OMLIGGENDE WEEFSEL IN DE LIJKEN. En het accent op de BUK-onderdelen wekt weinig vertrouwen.


      http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/13-months-later-what-happened-to-flight-mh17/#comment-6856

      ·  IsThatSo // August 19, 2015 at 9:40 pm //

      Where is the wreckage of the Buk missile itself? From either of the claimed launch locations its fuel would have been exhausted in about the first 15 seconds of flight (per western experts) and it would have been gliding to the impact point. The remains of the missile were less aerodynamic and not under power after the warhead exploded. From there the missile debris would not have traveled very far. Where are the rocket body parts? The nose cone? The rocket engine? A Buk missile is big. When the warhead explodes the balance of the missile doesn’t turn into confetti. What are the odds that a Buk missile launched, flew over a populated area and exploded with no eyewitnesses, no videos, no pictures and no missile debris?

      En natuurlijk moeten deze metallurgische en weefsel onderzoeken van de NATO-landen door contra expertises van Rusland en China zijn bevestigd. Wat heet, dat zal de OVV vanuit haar wetenschappelijke integriteit onmiddellijk zelf hebben geëist. Dus dat zal gebeurd zijn. Deze regel had ICAO trouwens dwingend moeten voorschrijven.

      Is dat alles nagelaten en bestaat er ook maar de geringste twijfel dan vervalt het weefsel onderzoek als hoofdbewijs en kan men de 'vondst' van BUK onderdelen ook niet meer als steunbewijs laten gelden. Een bezwarende omstandigheid is verder het gesol met de lijken in de eerste maanden. In Donetsk heersten temperaturen van ver boven de 30 graden waardoor - mede door de primitieve koelopslag - een heftige afbraak van het omliggende weefsel binnen dagen verondersteld mag worden.

      Kennelijk heeft men de lijken daarom niet zonder reden vele maanden bewust in de brandende zon laten wegrotten, terwijl familieleden uit Australië en Maleisië gewoon toegang tot de rampplek hadden. Niemand die dat merkwaardige gedrag van de Hollanders begreep. Maar de regering Rutte bleef op haar terrasje, naar verluidt vanwege de voortdurende shelling van de omgeving van de rampplek door haar overigens zeer gewaardeerde OVV- partner Oekraïne. Hoe bruin had u het gebakken willen hebben? 


      Annex 13 of the ICAO.


      3.2 The State of Occurrence [Ukraine, BD] shall take all reasonable measures to protect the evidence and to maintain safe custody of the aircraft and its contents for such a period as may be necessary for the purposes of an investigation.

      RESPONSIBILITY OF A STATE RECEIVING SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS
      Action on safety recommendations
      6.10 A State that receives safety recommendations [Ukraine, BD] shall inform the proposing State [Netherlands, BD] of the preventive action taken or under consideration, or the reasons why no action will be taken. 

      Niet dat WIJ bewijzen hebben dat Oekraïne het onderzoek expres in de wielen heeft gereden. Niet dat WIJ kunnen aantonen dat onverlaten stukken van een BUK tussen de wrakstukken hebben gefrommeld. Niet dat WIJ kunnen zeggen dat men shrapnel van BUK-warheads in de lijken en in de wrakstukken heeft geschoten. 

      WIJ hebben namelijk geen contra expertise mogen laten uitvoeren door wetenschappelijk boven iedere twijfel verheven internationale instituten die hier NIET hun eigen zaak staan te onderzoeken. En nu is het tij verlopen en het bewijs verziekt, vertrapt en verkracht. Was dat soms ook de bedoeling???

      De rampplek is vele maanden onbeheerd overgeleverd aan de kraaien, de vossen en de "thugs". Daardoor werd het materiaal BEWUST BESMET en daardoor is het onderzoek van JIT en OVV nu volstrekt GEÏNVALIDEERD, GEFALSIFIEERD, CONFOUNDED AND HEAVILY COMPROMISED.

      Wetenschappelijke en juridische claims van OVV en JIT zijn hierdoor volstrekt belachelijk geworden. De rechter veegt al die wanhopig geconstrueerde bewijzen straks zo van tafel. Met vereende krachten gaat hier de dader zijn straf ontlopen.

      In retrospect zal ooit nog iemand promoveren op de hypothese dat JIT en OVV een cover-up waren om de onderste steen onder te houden.

      http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/binnenland/gevonden-brokstukken-brengen-ons-dichterbij-daders-mh17

      'Nog niet 100 procent zeker'.
      Naast de onderdelen van de mogelijke BUK- raket, heeft het OM ook getuigenverklaringen en foto's en video's uit het gebied in handen. Het scenario dat de MH17 is neergeschoten met een BUK-raket is voor Westerbeke nog steeds het meeste aannemelijk. "Maar we zijn er nog niet 100 procent zeker van."     

      Het JIT trapt hier toch niet met open ogen in de tunnelvisie van de meest waarschijnlijke toedracht met massaal debunked internet materiaal? Want natuurlijk ligt een BUK het meest voor de hand, maar daar gaat het niet om, het gaat niet om wat het meest aannemelijk is, het gaat alleen maar om bewijs, en de weg daartoe is nu volstrekt onbegaanbaar geworden; het is een verloren strijd die wellicht met opzet niet gewonnen had mogen worden. Juridisch valt hier daarom geen garen bij te spinnen maar wellicht kan de VN er nog wel politiek brood van bakken. Wij kunnen er in ieder geval geen chocola van maken.

      Tot slot: Het kan best zijn dat het OVV zelfs niet de schijn van wetenschappelijkheid hoeft op te houden en alleen de toedracht van ongevallen onderzoekt. Maar dat kan nooit betekenen dat wetenschappelijke mores met voeten worden getreden. Nooit en te nimmer had een op wetenschappelijkheid leest geschoeid instituut zich door politieke chantage voor het karretje van de staat mogen laten spannen. De ambtelijke leiding van de OVV moet daarom worden vervangen door wetenschappers van naam die een reputatie te verliezen hebben. Laat dat een bittere les zijn...



      wo 12 aug 2015, 17:11
      |

      'Nooit Buk-onderdelen gevonden bij MH17'


      DONETSK - Er zijn nooit onderdelen van een Buk-raket gevonden op de plaats waar rampvlucht MH17 ten einde kwam in Oekraïne. Dat zegt een vertegenwoordiger van de zelfuitgeroepen Volksrepubliek Donetsk woensdag tegen de Russische nieuwssite TASS.
         Foto: AFP
        Denis Poesjilin zei „er helemaal zeker” van te zijn dat degenen die zeggen dat er stukjes Buk-raket op de rampplek zijn gevonden „daar geen bewijs voor hebben”.


        http://tass.ru/en/world/814046

        No damage agents found on MH17 crash site in east Ukraine— DPR prosecutors


        August 12, 17:18 UTC+3
        Earlier on Wednesday a press release said that the investigators were scrutinizing the elements that might be related to the Buk anti-aircraft missile system


        © TASS/Mikhail Sokolov

        MOSCOW, August 12 /TASS/. No damage agents have been found at the Flight MH17 crash site in east Ukraine, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic said on Wednesday.
        "Our agency has taken an active part in the search operation ever since the Malaysian Boeing (on flight MH17) crashed over Torez. No damage agents have been found in the wreckage, let alone the traces of some concrete types of weapons," the Donetsk news agency quoted the Prosecutor General’s Office spokesman as saying.
        The Prosecutor General’s Office said that all the debris, fragments and personal belongings from the crash site had been registered in a manner prescribed by the law and handed over to Dutch investigators.


        =========================================================
        http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/13-months-later-what-happened-to-flight-mh17/#comment-6856


        13 months later. What happened to flight MH17?


        • Hector:
          The “Birdie coming” spotter call is supposedly at 16:18:XX.
          The missile from Snizhne must be launched no later than 16:19:30 to intercept the plane at 16:20:03 at the supposed last FDR position.
          That leaves, one minute and possibly less, for the receipient of the call to inform the crew inside the TELAR of the information, then the supposed Rebel TELAR to orient its radar and launch shoe to the presumed area of the target, determine the correct 7 degree angle of elevation to search, decide the correct target is identified once found, illuminate, acquire, and track the target to let the missile computer calculate its flight parameters, issue a “go to launch” command from the commanding officer, and then execute a launch sequence within the TELAR  to get to the moment of firing the missile.
          This assumes that the TELAR engine is on and the radar is already on when the call is received.  If not, we also need to take those steps.
          I would invite our friend Anonymous Defender to comment on that, but I find such a sequence of events highly unrealistic in 45-90 seconds.
          A more realistic sequence is as follows (not that I necessarily believe this happened, but we will take it as a hypothetical and enthralling story to illustrate).
          The spy/double agent at Dnipropetrovsk has been fed some of the flight plan and parameters of MH17 adjusted to make it look like an AN-26 to pass on the the rebels, pretending it is an AN-26 about to perform a HALO drop to the southern pocket from as close to 8 km as he can get. He is ignorant of the real plane to be hit. This includes an approximate time past certain points, most importantly that it will be near Gorlivka between 16:15 and 16:20. The target is one of convenience, intended to give another little lesson to Malaysia. An American spy satellite will be overhead to observe the shootdown if the rebels take the bait. No Americans, and certainly no Ukrainians will be on the flight. This flight plan data is passed on to the rebel air defense command, who pass it to the TELAR crew. Its been boring during the early afternoon with no military flights, but now they have a target to be expected around a quarter past 4! The TELAR crew fires up the machine around 16:10 and gets ready for the target, with the radar aimed to the correct elevation and distance to find the target. At 16:15 the radar is turned on to illumination mode and begins scanning the sky in the intended hunting ground looking for a mark. At 16:17 a mark appears on the screen 70 km outIts MH17, but they don’t know thatMaybe this is the AN-26? The crew illuminates and begins tracking the mark, letting the computer calculate the missile flight parameters while they wait for confirmation. At 16:18:XX, “Birdie coming” message is passed on from Gorlivka – the plane was seen high up through a break in the clouds – two engines and since it is actually at 10 km, looking small enough to look like an AN-26 2-3 km lower. Its confirmed! They have the plane. The officer quickly issues a go for launch command and the crew initiates a launch sequence and fires the fateful missile at16:19:30. Around 16:24, the crew hears the rumble of the explosion of the plane, smoke begins arising above the horizon, and the Zello networks explode with discussion of the plane being downed. Since the rebels were told it is an AN-26, coms chatter begins and internet posts go up crowing about an AN-26 being downed before anyone would have any time to confirm it.
          This series of events, which has the necessary time to actually launch the missile from the phone call, of course also implies that the CIA/SBU purposefully fed targetting information of a civilian plane to the rebels, intending its destruction to heap blame and condemnation upon their heads. Lets not forget this necessary step to shortcut the time to find the plane.
          I suggest a couple more steps also took place if the previous scenario is true, a coda to the story. Ukraine’s BUK network of KUPOL radars Tin Shield radars active on 7/17 is able to see and track the launch and confirm the hit. The operators watch dispassionately or perhaps helplessly as the events unfold. In northern Virginia, a few CIA/DIA operators are monitoring the satellite imagery and watching flight MH17. At Fort Meade, analysts are scanning a selection of phone numbers provided by the SBU, waiting to record. A Ukrainian BUK officer reports up command to the SBU that the rebels have launched and the hit was confirmed. A similar message comes from Washignton. Earlier agents on the ground had been asked to look for a special vehicle and report on it on social networks. A call is made around 16:22 from an SBU agent @WowihaY to his friend Pavel Aleynikov in Torez: “Listen, remember what you saw in Torez earlier today? I think something just happened. We need you to take some pictures. Look out your window towards the fighting – go to the roof if you have to. There you will see what you should photograph. When you have the pictures, send them to me and plan on doing some work this evening!” Shortly after this, he hears the explosions and grabs his camera. He is a military man, and he immediately sees the smoke trail against the clouds and takes a couple of pictures, knowing what it is, then turns and goes to a position to capture several pictures of the wreckage. He hurries back to his apartment and plugs his camera into his computer. First he downloads the photos and emails them to @WowihaY. He posts a first one of the plane smoke cloud. They begin discussing the missile trail and trying to locate the launcher and how to make the trail more visible. A third person is contacted from north of Snizhne who also looked for the smoke trail. They triangulate the two views and settle on the field half way to Saur Mogila while Aleynikov has played with the photo settings to brighten up the sky and emphasize the trail. When they have it just right, @WowihaY sends the information to the higher-ups of the SBU who passes it to Anton Geraschenko. At the same time, they begin  creating a twitter post with the photo. Almost simultaneously, as the plane’s wreckage is still smoledering, the infamous photo comes out from both @WowihaY and the Ukrainian government, along with a thundering denunciation that it was done with a Russian BUK, which the American government confirms regarding the launcher. But how would they even know so early?
          That is, unless they knew all along and set the whole thing up and watched it unfold?
          War is a dirty business with innocent people suffering and dying and weighing on the conscience of those who wage it, but at least this time the Americans and Ukrainians involved look down and imagine in their mind that their hands are pretty clean compared to the suckers who just launched a missile and killed 300 people. Perhaps a couple of them chuckle to themselves, “those Russians really are terrorists!”
          The rebels arrive at the site and realize their error. Expecting to find dead Ukrainian military men, the ground is littered with civilians! Reports stream in to the rebel command who quickly puts together what has happened. A heavy report is made back to Prime Minister Borodai of what has happened, and he calls his handlers in Moscow – they have been fed bad information from a contact who clearly set them up to take down a civilian plane full of Europeans – a flight path and arrival time were supposed to have been confirmed to have been a military plane. One bit of direction is clear back to Borodai – “You had better get that F***ing BUK across the border by sunrise.”
          Defense Minister Shoigu is eventually tasked with the unpleasant job of informing President Vladimir Putin of the chain of events while he is in flight returning from the BRICS summit. The Donbass rebels have shot down a Malaysian Airliner by accident through misinformation fed from the Ukrainians using a BUK. Both men are furious at what has happened – its going to be hard to get out of being tarred with this catastrophe by the Americans and NATO. How could they have failed to consider such a double cross when they authorized use of a BUK in the conflict? Then Shoigu recalls a key detail of the operation. “Mr.  President, there is a silver lining here. The launcher was loaded in Lugansk with four old rockets stolen from the Ukrainian base A-0194. They also had their BUK’s deployed in the Donbass and they even left some broken ones behind at their bases. Lets ask them to give an accounting of their missiles and their deployment plan. They will never be able to do so without exposing themselves to responsibility. We will slowly leak out the locations of their equipment and challenge them to provide an account. When the time comes, we can certainly show records of where all of our missiles are. And if we are ever called to account, we will explain the double cross to the world.”
          For the first time since being awaken with the news of the catastrophe, Vladimir Vladimirovich cracks a smile. It is all an unfortunate business, but it will be hard for Kiev to ever escape the trap they didn’t see when they thought to set a snare for the Russian Bear.
          THE FORGOING IS OF COURSE SPECULATIVE, IF ENTERTAINING, FICTION.


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

        http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/13-months-later-what-happened-to-flight-mh17/#comment-7063



        Estimated probabilities of scenario 1:

        Prob. statement true = .20: ‘The BUK crew believed the airspace was closed for civil aircraft.’
        (P = .8): ‘The BUK crew believed the airspace was closed for civil aircraft below 9,700 meters.’

        ======
        Separatist spy or Ukraine double spy:
        ======
        Separatist spy:

        (P = .3) : ‘A separatist spotter located some 50km from the BUK informed the crew that the target was coming towards the BUK.’

        —-
        AN-26 or IL-76:

        AN-26: (Remember a real AN-26 was en route).

        (P = .8): The BUK crew was informed an AN-26 was their target below 9.700 meters, NOT INTERFERING with civilian planes. Remember separatists feared the higher areas and did not use Flightradar, otherwise they would have identified MH17.
        (P = 1.0): Message intercepted by Ukraine.
        (P = 1.0): Ukraine sends SU-25s for distracting operator BUK because radial velocity AN-26 NE MH17. (In this scenario really an AN-26 was approaching BUK, parallel to MH17).
        (P = 1.0): Just in time shifts AN-26 its course.
        (P = 1.0): Russia’s Rostov’s primary surveillance radar certainly would have shown the AN-26 trail parallel to MH17.


        IL-76: (Remember a real IL-76 was en route).

        (P = .2): The BUK crew was informed an IL-76 was their target at 11 km, INTERFERING WITH civilian planes. But, because separatist did not use Flightradar this would come down to Russian roulette in the higher areas, which they feared.
        (P = 1.0): Message intercepted by Ukraine.
        (P = 1.0): Ukraine sends no SU-25 for distracting operator BUK because radial velocity IL-76 EQ MH17. (In this scenario really an IL-76 was approaching the BUK, parallel to MH17).
        (P = 1.0): Just in time shifts IL-76 its course.
        (P = 1.0): Russia’s Rostov’s primary surveillance radar certainly would have shown the IL-76 trail parallel to MH17.

        Conclusion: Russia definitely would have reported any trail parallel to MH17 of Ukraine’s military planes but Russia did not and we therefore assume no trails existed. Hence we conclude THERE ALSO WAS NO SEPARATIST SPY SPOTTER.




        Seriously, admin, I’m with “Basic Dimensions” on this one.
        If there really was a Ukrainian IL76 flying on the 17th, at the time that MH17 went down, then the Riussians would have been the first to show that in their radar images.

        ===
        Ukraine double spy:
        ===

        (P = .8): ‘A Ukraine double-spy spotter located at Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk radar somehow informed the crew that the target was coming towards the BUK.’

        —-
        AN-26 or IL-76:

        AN-26: (Remember no AN-26 was en route).

        (P = .2): The BUK crew was informed an AN-26 was their target.
        (P = 1.0): Ukraine sends SU-25s for distracting operator BUK because radial velocity AN-26 NE MH17.
        (P = 1.0): Russia’s Rostov’s primary surveillance radar shows no AN-26 trail because there was no trail.


        IL-76: (Remember no IL-76 was en route).

        (P = .8): The BUK crew was informed an IL-76 was their target.
        (P = 1.0): Ukraine sends no SU-25 for distracting operator BUK because radial velocity IL-76 EQ MH17.
        (P = 1.0): Russia’s Rostov’s primary surveillance radar shows no IL-76 trail because there was no trail. Rostov only showed MH17 with working ADS-B-transponder

        Conclusion: Russia certainly would have reported any trail parallel to MH17 of Ukraine’s military planes, but Russia did not and we therefore assume no trails existed. Hence we conclude there could only have been a double spy spotter active from Ukraine. Therefore “Birdie coming towards you” must have come from Ukraine.



         Basic Dimension // August 24, 2015 at 1:15 pm // Reply

        Re-estimating probabilities of scenario 1:

        Conclusion: (p = .01): IL-76 en route of MH17, with self-informed separatist spotter.

        (P = .8): ‘The BUK crew believed the airspace was closed for civil aircraft below 9,700 meters.’

        ======
        Separatist spy or Ukraine double spy:
        ======
        Separatist spy:

        (P = .3): ‘A separatist spotter located some 50km from the BUK informed the crew that the target was coming towards the BUK.’

        Remember Andrew’s analyses showing there were big logistical problems for a separatist spotter to identify any (military) aircraft in this time and place path.

        —-
        AN-26 or IL-76:
        ——
        IL-76: (Remember in this scenario a real IL-76 was en route).

        (P = .2): The BUK crew was informed an IL-76 was their target at 11 km, INTERFERING WITH civilian planes. But, because separatist did not use Flightradar this would come down to Russian roulette in the higher areas, which they feared.

        Remember Andrew’s analyses showing there were big logistical problems for separatist spotters to identify the IL-76 in its time and place path, where they obviously used no Flightradar on a rather overcast day. The spotter really could not have the slightest clue to identify IL-76. He must have warned the operator of the BUK for uncertainty about this IL-76 observation and not to confound it with civilian aircraft. Concluding separatists had no clue at all about the identity of that so called IL-76. They were completely unable to identify above 10 km, otherwise they would have identified MH17. (In case of Flightradar, IL-76 had its ABS-B responder off.)

        (P = 0,01): Truth of: message intercepted by Ukraine. (‘Birdie coming towards you).

        Our assumption is the SBU had real time information about phone calls of the separatists. Also remember Ukraine must have known Rostov’s primary surveillance radar would follow the track of IL-76.

        So, if Ukraine trapped MH17 (with a real IL-76) it never would admit foreknowledge by ‘Birdie coming towards you’. They would only just in time change the course of IL-76 to sacrifice MH17.
        Hence, a real IL-76 in the sky does not fit with the downing of a passenger plane by the separatists on behalf of Ukraine.

        And a real IL-76 in the sky combined with the Birdie story certainly would compromise Ukraine (because no general alarm given).

        Because if Ukraine was not setting a fall for the separatists – and a real IL-76 was en route – they would have aired ‘Birdie coming towards you’ AND they would have warned MH17 on the same course immediately, what they didn’t.

        Hence, if someone obviously planned to target a real flying IL-76, – there probably was no other Birdie in the sky – Ukraine would have given a total alarm for all civilian planes above 9,700 meters in Donetsk.

        The conclusion must be there was NO real IL-76 en route (also there was NO AN-26 in the sky).
        Hence, Ukraine ‘knew’ (by Birdie) the danger for all passenger planes but they did not warn, because there was no trail to warn for. That’s because there probably was no military plane in the sky. But then how the separatists got this information in the first place?

        Therefore, we are inclined to conclude there was no self-informing separatist spotter involved at all and the Birdie message never existed. And there were also no military planes in the sky because that could compromise Ukraine. Ukraine is in a big mess with this scenario because now only the double agent remains.

        Conclusion:

        The total probability of a Ukrainian military plane is near zero. We conclude there was no self-informed spotter of the separatists involved and there also was no ‘Birdie’ message. Because we concluded no IL-76 was in the sky, we need not judge about Russia cleaning its radar.




        Scenario 2:

        Admin said: ‘The BUK crew saw an Antonov 26 flying at 6km. They shot a missile. The missile however hit MH17 at 10km. [Not included: Maybe because the missile guidance system was compromised. See scenario 4.]‘

        - A month before the MH17 was shot Elena Kolenkina posted this video on YouTube:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gENJhZwfEfc&list=LLZ3GTMiT5A5cyMntaf6Nh6w&index=4
        http://thebigsmoke.com.au/2014/07/28/smoke-signal-separating-issues-ukraine/
        - 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.]

        Estimated probabilities of scenario 2:

        (P = .5): The BUK crew saw an Antonov 26 flying at 6km. (Bad weather).
        (P = 0.0): They shot a missile.

        No, of course they shot no missile because in this scenario no threatening SU-25s were active. And because of this slowly approaching AN-26 with very low radial velocity, they have got time enough to inspect the autonomous radar of the BUK. Then, they immediately noticed not one, but two spots on radar, with quite different radial velocity. And chances of confounding these spots, following the product rule of independent chances are near zero. (No imposed course corrections on MH17 in this model).

        Now, because they were very experienced, they immediately grasped a civilian airliner must be nearby. Hence they did not shoot, though they did not expect their BUK missile would ever miss the AN-26, just because this was no quick SU-25. But they simply did not want to take the silly risk. May be the Pantsir of Elena would have missed AN-26 but even that can be doubted. Hence the total chance of the second scenario is zero.




        Scenario 3:

        Admin said: ‘The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. The missile missed the target. The missile found a new target being MH17. [Arguments: This retarget was the cause of the shotdown by an Ukraine S-200 missle of flight Siberian 1812 in 2001.Not a likely scenario. First of all a retarget can only happen if the original target has been destroyed. Also a retarget of a BUK missile is unlikely. Last as soon as a SU-25 aircraft has a lock from the BUK, there will be an alarm in the cockpit. The SU-25 would make all kind of movements. Ofcourse MH17 did not. So the operator must have thought in this scenario that something was not right.’

        Estimated probabilities of scenario 3:

        (P = 1.0): Two low flying SU-25s were on the scene.

        The high flying SU-25 on Rostov’s primary surveillance radar could be debris of MH17. But this scenario presupposes low flying fighter aircraft and there are said to be a lot of witnesses who saw one or more low flying SU-25. Therefore SUs possibly were not needed for shooting down MH17 by Ukraine, but for distraction of or attacks on the BUK. Hence, for the sake of argument we will suppose one or two still unproven SU-25s.

        (P = 0.3): ‘The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. The missile missed the target.’

        There must be statistics or simulations of this chance.

        (P = 0.1): ‘The missile found a new target being MH17.’

        [arguments: First of all a retarget can only happen if the original target has been destroyed. Also a retarget of a BUK missile is unlikely.]

        The total probability of scenario 3:

        (P = 0.3): ‘The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. The missile missed the target.’

        (P = 0.1): ‘The missile retargeted and found a new target in MH17.’

        Total probability: 0.3 times 0.1 = 0.03, a very unlikely scenario.

        Chances are dependent and somewhat higher if SU-25 dives in the direction of MH17. But this seems ridiculous.

        (May be some not really miscellaneous scenarios are missing in which separatists or Ukraine had the deliberate intention to shoot down MH17 with P = 1.0. Then all possibilities are inventoried before moralizing.)

        (Another possibility is the separatists were not interested in SU-25′s for the moment – because apparently fighter aircraft were not attacking the BUK- but separatists were deliberately aiming at AN-26 or IL-76 or even MH17 with P = 1.0).

        Furthermore, everyone who is aware of this situation can construct his own alibi and shoot down MH17 in the first place. And because the operator of the BUK must have some professional experience we must conclude conscious planning to shoot AN-26, IL-76 or MH17 in the first place.

        And finally a retarget will cost energy and time; hence it would be even more difficult to reach MH17 from Snizhne.

         Basic Dimension // August 21, 2015 at 12:06 pm // Reply

        Scenario 4:

        Admin said: ‘The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. Just after the launch, the missile guidance by the Russian BUK TELAR was compromised by a Ukraine TELAR or other radar system. This system guided the missile to MH17. [Arguments: This Tweet from a Fin who claims to have been a BUK operator suggests the BUK missile guidance system can be compromised. Add the story of Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta that says Russia provided a BUK without missiles. The missiles were stolen from Ukraine army bases. Maybe for this reason it was easy to compromise the guidance. It would be a perfect scenario to blame Russia. We know a Ukraine BUK TELAR was in the area.
        Scenario 4 explains why the United States was so quickly with saying it was a BUK launched from separatists controlled area. It also explains all the evidence (photos/videos) released by Ukraine. It also explains why the Dutch goverment keeps information secret. It also explains why Ukraine did not close its airspace.’

        Yes, and it possibly could explain more. There could be secret agreement between Ukraine and Russia since both have a stake in old BUK missiles. May be Ukraine and Russia immediately after the disaster with their toy contacted for a kind of window dressing. That could explain the exuberant and silly defending of the separatists by Russia as kind of distraction of their common interest. They possibly agreed Ukraine would accuse the separatists and Russia would defend them. But they would have a moderate attitude towards each other. Hence, Russia and Ukraine could agree to a cover up of integer research into the cause of the disaster of MH17.

        The old BUK missiles may have a defect or simply a secret security and control code:

        In case of a hidden defect it will be worthless in sales and the manufacturer can be sued for the consequences. This officially never would be admitted to the OVV and JIT. But the secret services of NATO could already be informed for years, so the United States also knows and blackmail Russia. What could be the reason the public never will come to the bottom of this issue. Of course, for Russia the financial loss because of the boycott has become much bigger now, but that they might have not foreseen from the start and now they cannot return without losing face.

        In case of a secret security and control code Ukrainian BUK missiles were protected against theft. Remember that electronic engineer who managed to fix the Ukrainian BUK missiles again.

        Estimated probabilities of scenario 4:

        (P = 0,4): The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. Just after the launch, the missile guidance by the Russian BUK TELAR was compromised by a Ukraine TELAR or other radar system.

        If it was a Russian BUK missile, then there would be a general system failure of BUK missiles. If separatists earlier had stolen Ukranian BUK missiles it could be they did not detect the secret code of Ukraine in their missiles.
        May be to compromise the guidance system of the separatist TELAR, the Ukrainian TELAR had to be in the neighbourhood. That could be a problem. Otherwise a Ukrainian TELAR in Zaroschenske would be able to take control over the BUK missile of Snizhne.

        (P = 0,6): This system guided the missile to MH17.

        This could be somewhat difficult because separatists possibly would notice and defend their missile.

        The total probability of (the very complex) scenario 4:

        (P = 0,4): The BUK crew shot at a low flying SU-25. Just after the launch, the missile guidance by the Russian BUK TELAR was compromised by a Ukraine TELAR or other radar system.

        (P = 0,6): This system guided the missile to MH17.

        Total probability: somewhat more than 0,24 because of dependency.

        But remember the second step is not really needed. This because it will be already concluded from the first step no legal guilt can be assigned and no cause of the disaster can be found. Hence the second step is unnecessary.


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


        http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/questions-journalists-should-ask-dutch-safety-board-after-release-of-final-report-on-mh17/#comment-9338


         Basic Dimension // September 23, 2015 at 12:41 pm // Reply
        1. Why were not all relevant debris of MH17 recovered in the months after July 17? In June 2015 still parts where found in fields. These parts had clear shrapnel damage.

        – Ad 1: Why was debris without shrapnel damage not collected? The horizontal and vertical course angle of the missile is determined by damaged AND undamaged parts. All parts must be collected and showed for legal proof.

        – Ad 1: Can JIT prove for court not collected debris was without shrapnel damage?

        – Ad 1: Selective sampling of evidence in the wreckage can be seen as cherry picking in raw data, which might invalidate DSB’s conclusions and possibly makes other theories impossible to check. The wreckage lies not on the seafloor and must be fully reconstructed.

        2. Why were parts missing in the cockpit reconstruction as shown in photos taken in March 2015 ? These parts were already recovered and photographed days after the crash. Like the area of the windscreen wipers.

        3. Are Ukraine air force aircraft seen on Ukraine ATC tapes? Many eyewitness reported seeing aircraft.

        – Ad 3: If there is no Ukraine air force aircraft seen on Ukraine ATC tapes, tapes apparently exist and must be handed over to independent specialists. If tapes do not exist there is no proof of the absence of Ukraine air force aircraft in the vicinity of MH17.

        4. Does DSB requested Ukraine Air Force to hand over taped communications between pilots and air traffic controllers?

        – Ad 4: The absence of ATC flight data must be considered as unusual and suspicious.

        5. MH17 was ordered to change its flightplan route. It was ordered to redirect to waypoint RND on request of Rostov ATC. What is the reason?

        – Ad 5: At July 17, 2014, was MH17 the only passenger aircraft that caused contact between Rostov ATC and Ukraine ATC on this matter?

        6. What did the Rostov air traffic controller mean with his saying: we have three of those there. The three aircraft flying at airway north to south at Rostov controlled airspace are not conflicting with MH17
        7. Did DSB investigate why the airspace over Eastern Ukraine was closed up to FL320? Why was decided to close only up to FL320? Why not a complete closure of the airspace?

        – Ad 7: At July 17, 2014, it has been proven the SBU thought the separatists had a BUK in Donetsk, which missiles go 15 km high but Ukraine did not close its airspace for passenger aircraft. Now, what’s DSB’s technical problem, the working of a BUK-missile of the separatists or foreknowledge of criminal intent by Ukraine?

        8. Avherald.com reports that “the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08)”. Can you comment on that?

        – Ad 8: At July 17, 2014, if transponder data of MH17 became unreliable, would this have been a technical shortcoming of MH17, which possibly can be controlled with FDR? And if not, did other civilian planes have the same problem?

        9. Did DSB find any other military traffic flying near MH17 like an IL76 transport aircraft?

        – Ad 9: Can Ukraine or Rostov Radar deliver proof from primary surveillance radar no military aircraft took off from Dnipropetrovsk before the assault on MH17? If there was such an aircraft, we want inspection of course corrections by independent parties.

        10. Did DSB investigate claims made in Russian media that GPS signal was jammed over Ukraine airspace at the day of the crash?
        11. Did DSB investigate under which circumstances a BUK crew could make a mistake and shot down a civil aircraft?

        – Ad 11: Well, may be better first DSB delivers genuine proof the separatist shot a BUK-missile at MH17.


        This all creates a ‘false dilemma’. DSB is not completely neutral, nor completely biased. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. As Peter Iiskola already said “Nemo iudex in causa sua” or that no one should judge or investigate in his own cause.
        Following the rules of ICAO, the separatists were barred from DSB while Ukraine was admitted. This means one suspect was favored over the other.
        Following ‘the argument to moderation’, this false dilemma can be corrected by supposing Ukraine – as a member of DSB – was in the position to withhold information. And as you will remember nobody asked the separatists for their opinion.

        Hence, independent researchers need to be extra critical on information from Ukraine.



        The final DSB report will be a mess, a bloody shame for science caused by a very bad marriage with opportunistic politics. It has become clear the rules of ICAO must be changed.
        There will be sufficient indications for a BUK-missile, but it cannot be proven how shrapnel came into the bodies and the fuselage. For example, shrapnel can have been shot into the bodies after the crash. This is not very likely, but the opposite cannot easily be proven, since the unattended bodies were rapidly decomposing at temperatures higher than 30 degrees and were not monitored by independent authorities. Later on the crash site has been intensively shelled by Ukraine and was unattended for many months. Hence, all shrapnel probably has zero legal value, which possibly was intended.
        Also finding parts of a BUK-missile in the vicinity of the wreckage is very remarkable. This missile had a different drag equation and a very different velocity in speed and direction. May be those missiles have very strong magnets to attach to aluminum, since the wind tore the victims literally apart. Of course this all has no legal value.
        Jit has no position and will resort to a political condemnation, but even DSB possibly only concludes a BUK-missile by exclusion of other possibilities. For direct evidence the shrapnel holes in the fuselage need metallurgical investigation and damage by high temperatures of BUK-shrapnel must be demonstrated by independent instances.
        There might be agreement about the point of detonation, but for both course angles a thorough screening of the whole fuselage and wings is needed, since wreckage without shrapnel is also important.

        The report will definitely make a lasting impression on the relatives of the victims.

        Description: https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2F55cb0fb8816ad8421549098b534e650a%3Fs%3D74%26d%3Dmm%26r%3Dg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F* Antidyatel // September 25, 2015 at 3:10 am // Reply
        “May be those missiles have very strong magnets to attach to aluminum, since the wind tore the victims literally apart. ”
        Magnetization of aluminium will guarantee a Nobel Prize in physics. Good sarcasm


        >The final DSB report will be a mess…
        Give them a chance.
        So far their work on MH17 is OK. Just wish they would have been on the site sooner.
        >There will be sufficient indications for a BUK-missile, but it cannot be proven how shrapnel came into the bodies and the fuselage.
        Do not be childish. Forward fuselage passengers and plane debris were spread across wide area. Too wide to frame it.
        https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wdEhSZFByVHZCbjA/view?usp=sharing
        >For example, shrapnel can have been shot into the bodies after the crash.
        With a shotgun filled with BUK shrapnel?
        >Later on the crash site has been intensively shelled by Ukraine
        That is a myth.
        I have found only one crater near the MH17 main debris areas. It explains only the GRAD rocket fragments (non metal) found from cockpit.
        >which possibly was intended.
        If one believes in fairy tales.
        >Also finding parts of a BUK-missile in the vicinity of the wreckage is very remarkable.
        Sane reasons:
        -planted there
        -found in debris field, not near wreckage
        -came down with plane debris
        -piece was moved deliberately or unintentionally

        Next question:

        DSB found the remains of a BUK-missile. If not mentioned elsewhere what are the exact coordinates of the site of the missile and the exact date of discovery. Also the question if the finder is inhabitant of Donetsk.

        Physical contact between the (remains of the) BUK-missile and the plane seems unlikely. But then the trajectory to the earth of an exploded BUK must be well known and must be in line with its trajectory before the crash. So, it can be known from what direction it has been fired.

        Probably the trajectory of the BUK-missile was straight forward and simple. Hence, fired from Snizhne the remains must have been found NW from Petropavlika, about 5 km against the flight path of MH17.

        Fired from Zaroshchens’ke it must have come down to the North and in the immediate vicinity of Petropavlika.

        Since it took about 10 months before the DSB reported the findings it can be questioned how they came there in the first place.

         Basic Dimension // September 25, 2015 at 11:30 pm // Reply
        Well, there is a big chance of a head-on collision with a launch from Snizhne, though we know it did not happen. Now, the question is: did a launch from Snizhne happen?

        In the research by AA (Almaz Antey) the launch of a BUK-missile from Snizhne is described. Not the left side of the cockpit, but the entire cockpit would have been cut off by the ring of shrapnel:

        ‘Snezhnoye (Snizhne)
        The BUK cannot have been fired from the more distant Snezhnoye (Snizhne), because Snizhne lies in the path of the airplane, which would come to a frontal collision. Then, the ring of shrapnel would have cut off the nose of the fuselage in an instant.
        Of the windows of the right side of the flight deck nothing would be left, while those still intact today. Also missing on the right side are the rash holes. In addition, shrapnel submunition would not have achieved the fuselage, the left engine and certainly not the wing or tail. From Snizhne, the angle of the almost head-on collision in the horizontal plane is 5-20 degrees. And because Snizhne lies further away the vertical angle dropped between 0 and 12 degrees.’

        But it is far more likely that the radar of the BUK-missile was aimed precisely at the nose of the cockpit, in which case a head-on collision is the most obvious. Then the BUK-remains were to be found in the wreckage of the cockpit.

        Therefore it could well be that both Snizhne as Zaroshchens’ke fall as a launching place. Hence, there might be a third candidate.


        The trajectory of a BUK-missile is well known. Also is known how it falls to earth from 10 km altitude after detonation. Also we know the remains of the missile have not been found in the cockpit or the fuselage. So, there was no head-on collision. Hence, all the way the missile moved in a completely free trajectory.
        The exact coordinates of the crash are known. The exact coordinates of a launch from Snizhne are postulated and the angle of an almost head-on collision in the horizontal plane would be 5-20 degrees. And, since Snizhne lies further away than Zaroshchens’ke, the vertical angle dropped between 0 and 12 degrees.
        Now we already have two points on a straight line and we know firing a missile from Snizhne at MH17 would be a very simple and straightforward trajectory. So we draw that line to where the remains would have crashed.
        Now it would be very tempting for someone to drop the remains of an exploded BUK-missile exactly at the end of the forecast fall to earth.
        DSB research is not about legal liability of parties but that does not relieve you from running into a preconceived fall of tunnel vision. So, what have you done to make sure that no BUK-missile remains have been placed as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

        In the second instance, the BUK-remains are not on the straight line. After detonation BUK-parts lost thrust and were left with diminishing forward momentum. They underwent a changing velocity by diminishing speed by dragging and changing direction by strong winds. Hence the remains must be found NNW of the line Snizhne – aircrash.


         Basic Dimension // September 26, 2015 at 10:26 pm //
        If DSB was an independent scientific institute, the finding of remains of BUK would be accepted as really scientific proof of the direction from where the BUK was shot. We would be delighted and it would be the crowning glory.

        But we have an integrity problem; DSB is a hybrid between science and political opportunism. In the future the purely scientific part of such investigations should be outsourced to third parties, not to countries but to really independent institutes of good reputation. Rules of ICAO must be changed.

        We can reject the findings as possible scientific fraud of third parties but we better let calculate the various drag coefficients of found components in a wind tunnel by independent parties. We need all kind of photographs and physical measures as weight etc. Further we need the exact geolocations of all parts found.

        Then we trace the trajectories of the BUK-parts with their separate drag coefficients back to the point of detonation. And only if all converge into one point, only then we will know whether the ‘discovery’ might be considered as reliable.

        If DSB has failed to capture the geolocations the find must be rejected as negligent investigation.


         Basic Dimension // September 28, 2015 at 10:16 am //

        A BUK-missile 9M38 or 9M38M1 weighs 690 kg (1,520 Lb) and carries a relatively large 70 kg (150 Lb) warhead. The 9M38M1 is a modernized rocket with long chords (Russia and Ukraine). By detonation the ring of shrapnel will explode perpendicular to the missile but in forward conical projection.

        (Inspecting the damage to the cockpit this conical projection means the missile cannot be shot from Zaroshchenske but only in line with the flight path of MH17 from the direction of Snizhne. Launched from Zaroshchenske not the left side, but the right side of the cockpit would be sliced. Or rather, seen the point of detonation, the shrapnel would have missed the plane completely.)

        Exploding shrapnel has not the slightest influence on the direction of the missile remains. It is even doubtful if the explosion itself could lower forward momentum. With full thrust the missile had a speed of mach 3 = 3700 km/h, may be somewhat less since the fuel was already burned. After detonation the remains will lose forward momentum mainly by the lost of thrust, and not so much by dragging, since the remains will still be a very compact and heavy piece of metal. Also strong winds will not have much influence on direction.

        Velocity will only change by diminishing forward momentum by the lost of thrust. Now, what is the trajectory of 690 kg compact metal falling to the earth with a speed of 3000 km from 10 km altitude? That’s easy. Hence the remains must be found on the extended line from the launch site to the aircrash. And the place where someone found or placed the remains of BUK can be predicted to within a kilometer of the calculated  geolocation.

         sotilaspassi // September 28, 2015 at 10:32 am //
        Here is an example where the missile’s tail did not continue forward:
        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNAZ8FzWcAAq_YF.jpg

         Basic Dimension // September 28, 2015 at 10:39 am //
        The point of detonation approximately is within a few meters of the aircraft and it is a matter of milliseconds before the conical shape expands. Hence from Zaroshchenske, a factual perpendicular effect might still be possible.

         sotilaspassi // September 28, 2015 at 12:17 pm //
        Basic D:
        Note that proximity fuse sees 20…40 meters ahead in 30…60′ angle. From direction Z the detonation of warhead starts at least ~10 meters sooner than from S direction.
        It is also possible that from Z location the missile would hit closer to center, detonating when wing tip becomes in proximity fuse cone. (40m before fuselage?)

         Basic Dimension // September 28, 2015 at 1:06 pm //
        Sotilaspassi:
        Thanks for information. But isn’t it the proximity fuse aims on the radar in the nose of the cockpit? Then the wingtip would not be important. Z as well as S is not quite satisfying. How about a launch in line of Z but from the other side?

         sotilaspassi // September 28, 2015 at 2:00 pm //
        >But isn’t it the proximity fuse aims on the radar in the nose of the cockpit?
        Proximity fuse explode the warhead when some/any metal comes to it’s view. (IMO: exploded 2…5ms after the metal behind MH17 nose cone came into view.)
        Proximity fuse does not see directly ahead, because it’s radar (receiver) is in missile nose.
        Missile is homing towards strongest radar echo coming from target, radar signal is sent by TELAR.
        My “simplified proportional navigation” idea makes the missile to cross the target flight path slightly before target, when shot from ahead.
        This way, when missile is launched from slightly south of Snizhne, it will explode near pilot window,
        And when launched slightly north from Snizhne it will explode on co-pilot side.
        If launched directly from ahead, the missile would explode on MH17 center line or penetrate the cockpit before exploding.
        When approaching from side, it can be that strongest radar echo still comes from forward fuselage, but proximity fuse will anyway function a lot sooner vs coming from ahead.
        (we would not see explosive residue in cockpit parts like we now see. IMO: fireball radius of 70kgwarhead and 500kg rocket fuel exploding is only about 10m.)
        I doubt BUK uses highly complex math when it approach the target. It rather rely in speed & brute force.

         Basic Dimension // September 28, 2015 at 6:32 pm //
        Sotilaspassi:
        A BUK-missile 9M38 or 9M38M1 weighs 690 kg (1,520 Lb.) and carries a relatively large 70 kg (150 Lb.) warhead. If 690 kg means including 500 kg rocket fuel, the remaining weight before detonation is only 190 kg and the remains of BUK definitely will be subject to drag and wind.
        Will the exploding warhead ruin the rocket mantle? Hence, what are the remains of the missile which fall to the earth? That’s the question as you mentioned earlier.

         Basic Dimension // September 28, 2015 at 8:35 pm //
        Sotilaspassi:
        If the BUK-missile totally explodes at detonation, we must hope for heavy and compact elements which are not subject too much to drag and wind. In the first place we think of the proximity fuse, maybe the entire nose, which is very compact and will be separated from the rocket mantle after explosion. Another object is the rocket engine which is not compact. We expect the proximity fuse to come much further than the remaining rocket mantle.

        http://www.ultimax.com/whitepapers/2014_1.html
        ‘So GLOW [9М38M1] is 700 kg, with a 70 kg warhead (red-colored part in the figure below). It has 500 kg of propellant. Allocate 130 kg for everything else, airframe, fins, avionics/fuze/guidance, etc.’



         Basic Dimension // September 26, 2015 at 1:07 pm // Reply

        Next question:

        Now, we have seen the main conclusion of the DSB-report is this disaster happened because Ukraine facilitated civil aviation over a war zone in which they considered BUKs present. You are right in your conclusion all other causes are of secondary nature.

        Though it is likely MH17 is brought down by a BUK-missile we all know it cannot be proven. Findings of BUK-remains and shrapnel in bodies and fuselage are indications which simply will be tackled for court. It probably will not even decide about a perpetrator.

        Therefore our question is if DSB is willing to take a pragmatic position and advise better ergonomic in BUK-TELAR, which as we all know is a mess and a psychological nightmare.

        Information must not be recoded digitally any longer but must be shown visually on advanced color computer screens. Throw away these autistic radar screens with radial speed fantasies and introduce modern psychology with visualized planes at different distances and of different kind.

        BUK-TELAR is not made for discrimination between civil aircraft and military aircraft and we propose the over-generous EU gives the Russians a grant to update their BUKs.

         Basic Dimension // September 29, 2015 at 10:33 pm // Reply

        Next question

        The downing of MH17 was the tragic result of civil war in Ukraine where the government has lost every jurisdiction over Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine wrongly claimed decision-making power above a part of the country where they already lost all authority.

        Following the rules of Annex 13 of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Ukraine still must be seen as the country in charge over Donetsk and Luhansk. But factually, Donetsk has become the state of occurrence.

        Following the rules of Annex 13 of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Ukraine still must be seen as the country in charge over Donetsk and Luhansk. But factually, Donetsk has become the state of occurrence.

        Do you agree this terrible accident is caused by a wrong perception of reality by Ukraine, ICAO, the United Nations and International Law. And if not, do you accept this happening again in many areas of the world which differ from this rigid administrative conception of reality? What is your opinion on this matter?
         Prosto Tak // September 30, 2015 at 12:09 am // Reply
        You base your words on the wrong presumption. There is no civil war in Ukraine except than in the view of Kremlin and its supporters. It’s a classic foreign-inspired illegal armed mutiny that later turned to be a direct foreign intervention.
        There is no such “state” as Donetsk, even in the view of Kremlin that has created the separatist movement there.
        And this perception of the reality in Ukraine by most part of the international community is very clear.
        So, you are still free to ask such a question but don’t be surprised that it goes unanswered.
        •  Hector Reban // September 30, 2015 at 5:59 am // Reply
          Misleading propaganda story. Facts are there was a coup, the eastern regions were not represented any more in the parliament and other state bodies, their representatives were kicked through the streets of Kiev. Its only logical people started to resist, with or without weapons from foreign powers.
          You really don’t have to second guess were the Poroshenko-Tanhybok side draws its support from, so foreign intervention already was there from the start. In fact, on the pro-western side. The US more or less instated “our man Yats”, remember.
          So the polical division there already was, was first channeled through the democratic process, buts disrupted by a coup and exclusion. So the division derailed into a violent one, starting with fascists sealing the doors of parliament and parliament issuing not very polite legislation from the perspective of the people in the eastern regions.
          Those people in the donbass seem to support the insurgency for the most part too.
          You can call this an Anti-Terror Operation as the US always calls their military interventions “counter-insurgency assisting”, but that is of course a very conceiling and deceptive way of talking about this strife.

        Next question
        As is well known, there are objective indicators of civil war. One of them is unmistakably killing your own unarmed inhabitants by bombing and shelling.
        Former question was not about political analysis but about a clean registration of observable facts. Now you bluntly refused to answer this question I must conclude you have done your investigation from a political bias. Do you agree this makes you unfit for objective research of objective facts?
        Please stay on-topic! The topic is questions asked by journalists to the DSB. Questions on war etc are not to be answered by DSB.
        . All other comments will be deleted from now on!


         Basic Dimension // September 29, 2015 at 11:05 pm // Reply
        Next question

        In addition to the country at war and all greedy grabbing airlines, which continued flying over Donetsk for financial gain, all states which failed to protect their citizens, because of laxity or political reasons, are complicit in inciting war crimes against humanity from impure motives that stated interests of air passengers not primarily.

        Will you advise to oblige airlines to give customers a risk analysis when offering shorter routes over war zones for a lowered price?

         Basic Dimension // September 29, 2015 at 11:20 pm // Reply
        Next question 

        Do you agree it is very wrong to let countries decide about their own airspace safety?

        If not, would you take responsibility for next casualties?

        Do you agree air safety control should be transferred to a worldwide independent organization, which compiles a weighted sum of objective indicators of insecurity?

        If not what are your opinions on this matter?

         Basic Dimension // September 29, 2015 at 11:42 pm // Reply
        Next question

        Following the rules of Annex 13 of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Ukraine must still be seen as the country in charge of Donetsk and Luhansk.

        Now we all know your organization was not one of the quickest to take up the investigation. And then I express myself mildly out.

        Can you confirm one of your members was shelling the crash site and/or its surroundings in August 2014, while this had not happened before?

        If you confirm, what actions have you taken to stop this sabotage of the investigation?

        If you don’t, what was the reason for your late start of the investigation?


        Next question
        As you claim to be an independent research institute stuck to observable facts you will have noticed to have omitted one of the suspects from your team, following the weird rules of annex 13 of ICAO, which does not accept reality in admission of parties which had effective control over Donetsk.
        Where in your text did you apply the adversarial principle regarding excluded suspects?

         Basic Dimension // September 30, 2015 at 8:25 am // Reply
        Sorry admin, last question might not be on topic.

         doradcar // October 5, 2015 at 6:40 pm // Reply
        Let me add some questions:
        1.HOw could be explain two holes ( at outer and inner wall) of the boeing belly http://imageshack.com/a/img909/8749/vHMwWs.jpg and why the second hole bears traces of explosion on its banks?
        2.How could be explain picture like this : http://www.shoutwiki.com/w/images/acloserlookonsyria/4/4f/MH17_cockpit_left_side_hole_closeup.jpg round holes bend inwards in inner skin and bend outside in outer skin.?
        3.How could be explain inside small explosions act parallel to the fuselage surface near inside holes act perpendicular to the fuselage surface https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/sta287-jpg.13711/ ?
        4. How could be explain marks like sooting and burned parts and bodys fallen already burned what providing an internal explosion :
        https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/15825312471/in/album-72157649358752251/lightbox/
        https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/15642454210/in/album-72157649358752251/lightbox/
        https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/15828748992/in/album-72157649358752251/lightbox/
        http://naforum.zapodaj.net/e23b4404f74b.jpg.html (These last fragments of the Boeing have been found north of the Petropavlivka, several kilometers from the fire of the central part. This is proof not only of high temperatures on board, but also internal explosion on the plane).
        5. How could be explain damage to the right engine under assumption that BuK missile explode on a left side of the boeing.?
        6. Could DSB show us map which compare data from Rostov Radar and Dnipro Radar?

         Basic Dimension // October 5, 2015 at 11:36 pm // Reply

        Intriguing problem: If a BUK missile cannot explain all this damage what else could have been the cause?

        Ad 1:
        http://imageshack.com/a/img909/8749/vHMwWs.jpg
        Do you think the plane burned already in the sky or just on the ground? Do you think a BUK near the cockpit could cause all this fire- and constructional damage? The inner skin of the plane seems too much bent inwards for decompression. Do you exclude an air to air missile? Are the ‘wavy edges traces’ on the picture caused by the crash on the ground or do you think decompression also deforms the supporting structure of the plane in this way?
        Ad 2:
        http://www.shoutwiki.com/w/images/acloserlookonsyria/4/4f/MH17_cockpit_left_side_hole_closeup.jpg
        Has the outer skin of the cockpit bent outwards by extreme heat and/or by decompression? Do you exclude other causes than a BUK missile?
        Ad 3:
        https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/sta287-jpg.13711/ ?
        Do you exclude inside small explosions along the fuselage and if so can decompression bent the supporting structure of the fuselage?
        Ad 4:
        https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/15825312471/in/album-72157649358752251/lightbox/
        Definitely also burning on the ground, but it looks like it brought the fire with it. No further sooting on the ground. Where and when do you think the fire originated?
        Ad 4:
        https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/15642454210/in/album-72157649358752251/lightbox/
        Where and how did this fire come about? Is this fire caused by electrical equipment and wires?
        Ad 4:
        https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/15828748992/in/album-72157649358752251/lightbox/
        The fire in this chair definitely started in the air. It looks like a fireball in the fuselage. If you exclude an air to air missile, how can a BUK detonation near the cockpit cause this kind of fire in the fuselage? The fire is extremely intense but missed the headrest. Is it a blast? Do you exclude a firebomb in the fuselage?
        Ad 4:
        http://naforum.zapodaj.net/e23b4404f74b.jpg.html
        Definitely missing parts of the cockpit, what explains the heat in the air. Parts were found near Petropavlika subject to drag and wind. The cockpit was found much further below on the course to Rozsypne. Do you think about decompression excluding an explosion in the cockpit?
        Ad 5:
        Apparently no damage found at the right engine.

         Basic Dimension // October 7, 2015 at 2:29 pm // Reply
        Ad 2:
        http://www.shoutwiki.com/w/images/acloserlookonsyria/4/4f/MH17_cockpit_left_side_hole_closeup.jpg
        Extremely hot shrapnel penetrates the aluminum outer shell of the cockpit. Exactly at these points the metal expands enormously and around the holes occurs cracking. Subsequently, the very hot and very soft aluminum is easily pressed outwards by decompression.
        Another effect could be meanwhile cooled shrapnel cannot penetrate the inner skin other than by pressing metal inwards.


        interesting that Almaz-Antey publish their report on that day too about warhead explosion test against decomissioned Boeing.
        IIRC they state in the earlier press conference video that they cooperated with DSB. I’m curious it will be a supporting or attacking evidence in addition to DSB report.
        Of course A-A already knows the DSB report. If they agreed they would not react or would choose for another day, for this is impolite.
        So we might infer DSB will designate Snizhne as the launch site. Hence, we understand A-A meanwhile has collected data and arguments to refute this. We also conclude DSB has no convincing arguments to propose a perpetrator. They are empty-handed.
        And that gives A-A the chance to come up with their realistic experiment. Probably they will come with the same horizontal and vertical course angles to negate Snizhne, since meanwhile DSB has been too lazy for real experiments.
        Which all means the DSB report must be substantively very weak and certainly cannot boast on real experiments, which gap now has been filled by A-A.
        It is the more bluish version of emerald green. Well, it seems from the long chord 9M38M1 of the older BUK SA-11. We all know very well the photo series made by Jeroen Akkermans immediately after the crash; he really has done a wonderful job.
        Now, if we dare to assume the whole world already knew from the start in July 2014 about that emerald green color on the wing, who would like to erase that paint within three months? Who would like to erase 9M38M1?
        Separatists did not use Flight Radar which can be taken as proven. But it is quite unlikely they wouldn’t know their telephones were tapped by the SBU. And it goes very far to assume separatists at that time had no internet and did not know of this photo series on Flickr from the start.
        Hence, we conclude separatists knew how to use telephones, the internet and Flickr.
        If the separatists recognized the very special emerald color of the BUK-missile on the wings and they also knew of Flickr, it would be senseless to remove that paint.
        Since, if they left the paint it later would be proven a BUK-missile by research of paint rests, but by removal they would deliver indirect proof by destruction of evidence. But indeed Jit would be inadmissible for court.
        But maybe other parties could have placed a false flag by the gaudy removal of that color and by adding black rims purposely. What could that mean? What party wanted to imply a BUK-missile but not that older one? Maybe a newer kind of missile? Maybe the short and UNPAINTED chord of 9M317 from SA-17 Grizzly? From the Russians.
        At this point destruction of evidence makes JIT inadmissible. Who may have interest in this? The answer possibly lies in insufficient knowledge in the first months after the crash of what parties used what kinds of BUK-missiles.

         Basic Dimension // October 11, 2015 at 10:18 pm //
        Prosto Tak
        ‘What they will possibly state is that the plane was shot down by a ‘Buk’ missile, type so-and-so, launched from this-and-that particular place. They may add the place was controlled by the Russian-incited and Russian-armed separatists at the time. That’s all.’
        We all know nobody is interested in the individual perpetrators but mainly in the country facilitating this mass murder. Hence the critical starting position for JIT is the “scientific” indication of the location of the launch site by DSB. And since DSB has been a bit lazy in reconstructing MH17 (their silly cockpit) and probably did not conduct any practical tests they run into big problems.
        To start with: for the course angles they need damaged AND undamaged parts of the plane. The error variance of the horizontal course angle will make sharp conclusions impossible and unreliable. The vertical angle is even trickier.
        That’s why A-A got the chance to rebut the presumed angles with practical tests. A-A only need to reveal the error variance of the angle determination to falsify the distinction between Zaroshchenske and Snizhne.
        Furthermore, they failed to secure the wreck, so meanwhile many tracks can be erased (the blue paint).
        They gathered witness statements with the commendation of ridiculous witness protection mechanisms that they can never live up to.
        All information for BUK transport came from SBU, partner of DSB.
        This research will be a mess.
         Basic Dimension // October 12, 2015 at 10:44 am // Reply
        Both the Boeing 777 and the BUK-missile 9M38M1 had enormous speed, but only on the time dimension. If we could partial out time or take the time derivative from Conic Shrapnel Damage Deployment f(t) to time (t), at that very moment of detonation time becomes unimportant under two conditions:
        1: the speed of the blast of the warhead must be enormous and,
        2: the proximity of the warhead to the cockpit must be close to the limit of zero.
        Just like time derivatives bring shrapnel deployment f(t) to time (t) down to frozen, A-A can explore the effects of shrapnel on the plane before conic expansion of shrapnel. Hence, in the limit of time, speed is frozen. And that the Russians understood earlier than DSB.


         Basic Dimension // October 14, 2015 at 2:48 pm // Reply
        Normally I would trust organizations as DSB, but damned I can’t. I don’t trust the Russians but I don’t trust DSB either. So I have to let calibrate this stuff for some time waiting for inspiration.

        The report certainly has a lot of good elements, but that is more a kind of thorough administration. The framework of the Boeing is perfectly done, but that’s an order for a steel manufacturer, it’s not DSB.

        So I’m in despair, waiting for inspiration of admin. For example: are there no butterflies or bow-ties found in the wreckage? But what does that mean? Has it been a 9M38 with warhead 9H314?

        It is only the Russians who sabotage or are they clashing with the SBU of the DSB?

         Basic Dimension // January 12, 2016 at 2:06 pm // Reply
        Humans feel the truth by concentric circles. They make a projection to proclaimed truth. They build a record of radial speed to the truth. It is called intuition.
        If you are lying it is very difficult to hide your real motives. Intransitivity will alarm human intuition. Everything you say must be in accordance with you earlier said and did.
        So the way to truth always is a straight line. And the greater the catastrophe, the greater your radial speed to the center of truth must be. So emphatically there’s only one way strait to the truth.
        Now, in his first statement Kerry projected a way straight to the truth which he did not continue. In the rebound we find him a liar, maybe unjustified.
        The behavior of a number of parties in the MH17 affair must consist entirely of lies. I especially call the Dutch government.
        Also how Ukraine behaved after the assault on MH17 cannot be seen as a straight line to some form of truth.
        Also the Russians are random liars.
        It’s a mess which we can easily decipher, since it seems politicians do not understand truth does not change with polls.


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

        Ruins of research

        http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/a-lot-of-evidence-is-missing-or-was-not-obtained-on-mh17/#comment-14475

         Basic Dimension // January 13, 2016 at 11:57 am // Reply



        An imaginary principal component analysis without data will be performed on the domain of the investigation of MH17.

        First we notice the investigation got a wrong start since one of the accused (Russia) has been condemned before any research and legal judgment.

        If the Western block was really convinced Russia was the perpetrator of the shooting of MH17, then just Russia would be treated with all egards and respect. Also separatists would not be put down as low intelligent drunks who accidentally captured a solitary BUK-TELAR.

        It is legally use not to see suspects as criminals before they are convicted. This is also meant to get their cooperation to the investigation.

        [- We are facing a legal farce and a grave injustice for all the relatives of the 298 victims thanks to the fact that Netherlands and Ukraine have forgotten in the case of MH17 that “Nemo iudex in causa sua” or that no one should judge or investigate in his own cause, says Finnish judge and diplomat Peter Iiskola, who is expert in international air and space law.]

        If the Western block wanted to frustrate the investigation by insulting one of the possible suspects (Russia), who became a random liar, naming and shaming proved an excellent way to thwart the whole investigation.

        Our objective conclusion must be the Western block wanted to frustrate and thwart the investigation of MH17, what sabotage was not needed if they were convinced Russians or separatists were the perpetrators.

        And a symbolic principal component analysis on the weird behavior of Western parties intuitively shows the Western alliance must be the perpetrator, since they behaved as subjects who try to hide a crime. Not that this would be the right conclusion but it would explain the deceitful behavior of the Dutch government and the illogical behavior of Ukraine, to say nothing about the USA.

        So, the principal component (main factor) of our hypothetical factor analysis will be DISTRUST, intentionally caused by the Western block. Now you can forget the rest of your research. It is mud throwing and street fighting, as has happened. These are all objective facts.

        All this happened because of the Chicago rules, which give alleged suspects (Ukraine) a decisive role in their own case. Of course the investigation must be conducted by independent scientists from independent institutes without ties with the countries involved.

        The total variance of the investigation into MH17 can be explained by about 4 general factors:

        1: DISTRUST FACTOR
        2: OBSTRUCTION FACTOR
        3: DECEIT FACTOR
        4: SLOWING DOWN FACTOR

        As main factor we see:

        1: DISTRUST by political manipulation of the Western block of the investigation in accordance to Chicago rules. On this factor are loading two enormous bundles of vectors which set the Eastern against the Western front. This first factor will explain about 60 % of all variance in the investigation.

        ====

        2: THE TECHNICAL OBSTRUCTION FACTOR

        Partly nested within this factor is the TECHNICAL OBSTRUCTION FACTOR. It shows the antagonistic obstruction between the Western block and the separatist / Russian block. Within DISTRUST it explains most variance, since it hides the key to the perpetrator.

        THE TECHNICAL OBSTRUCTION FACTOR is part of DISTRUST but also uniguely explains 20 % remaining variance as WITHHOLDING TECHNICAL INFORMATION. Again it puts our two blocks against each other, but partly under a different angle:
        TECHNICAL OBSTRUCTION OF THE WESTERN BLOCK:

        United States;

        – There are no United States Air Force SBIRS satellite images available. Reason: classified.
        – There are no United States Air Force optical satellite photos available. Reason: not known.
        – There are no other military radar recordings available obtained during excersize Sea Breeze.
        – There are no commercial satellite photos available of the BUK and the launchspot. Reason: unknown.

        Ukraine:

        – There are no primary radar recordings provided by the Ukraine Air Force. Reason: radar was switched off as the Air Force did not have flights planned for July 17.
        – There are no primary radar recordings provided by the Ukraine civil air traffic control. Reason: radar was in maintenance.

        TECHNICAL OBSTRUCTION OF THE EASTERN BLOCK:

        Russia:

        – There are no primary radar recordings provided by Russia. Reason: not kept after 30 days.
        – There are no secondary radar recordings provided by Russia. Reason: not kept after 30 days.

        ====

        3: DECEIT FACTOR (Sand in the Wheels)

        Within the Western side of DISTRUST we find the bulk of a kind of stand-alone factor of which the counter side also lies in DISTRUST but not in the eastern block. It partly also has its own unique variance. Hence, within and outside DISTRUST, the factor has a somewhat different and unique angle:

        THE DUTCH DECEIT FACTOR puts the pathological lying Dutch government against a honest faction of the parliament and a number of alert weblogs, whose WHATHAPPENEDTOFLIGHTMH17, De Nieuwe Realist, Arnold Greidanus, Erik Toonen and GeenStijl are most important:

        3: DECEIT FACTOR (Sand in the Wheels):

        A long list of obstruction:
        — 1: It took a couple of days BEFORE THE DUTCH APPEARED at the crash site. Safety concerns were the main reason. The Dutch and Australian government considered deploying army forces to the crash site but this never happened.
        –2: The Malaysian government was able to obtain the black boxes because they negotiated directly with the separatists. The Dutch seemed TO BE NOT INTERESTED in obtaining the black boxes. See more here.
        (–)
        (–)
        –49: at January 12 2016 Member of Parliament Pieter Omtzigt requested to ask oral questions to the Dutch government on the missing radar recordings of both Ukraine and Russia. However the request was not granted by the chairwomen of the dutch parliament. (source: Tweet of Pieter Omtzigt). Omtzigt will now request a debate about the radar recordings.
        –50: VVD and PvdA disagree to have a debat on the missing radar recordings. (Tweet Omtzigt)
        –51: Pieter Omtzigt and various other members of parliament asked minister van der Steur 42 questions on Mr Maat. Prime minister Rutte promised to have these questions at the latest at January 12. However van der Steur sents a letter to the Parliament dated January 12 that he will not be able to answer the questions on Tuesday and will take the regular time for answering questions. (Tweet Omtzigt)

        ===

        4: THE SLOWING DOWN FACTOR (DELAY OF INVESTIGATION)

        Within the Western side of DISTRUST we also find the DSB FACTOR with its partly unique angle, which sets the Western against the Eastern front with pure neglect and looking away:

        4: THE SLOWING DOWN FACTOR: (the looking away and neglect factor)

        – The air traffic controller responsible for MH17 was not interviewed by the DSB.
        – Eyewitness on the ground were not interviewed by DSB.
        – Some parts of the cockpit roof with shrapnel damage were not used in the reconstruction. Found too late.
        – Some parts of the business class section roof are missing. Reason: DSB did not immediately went to the crash site.

        A very long list follows…

        ====

        So the domain of disaster of MH17 definitely has been ruined by the Western world:

        1: DISTRUST FACTOR (WESTERN WORLD)
        2: OBSTRUCTION FACTOR (WESTERN AND EASTERN SIDE)
        3: DECEIT FACTOR (NETHERLANDS)
        4: SLOWING DOWN FACTOR (DSB)

        Research into the assault on the MH17 has been an immoral act and an indictment against civilization.

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



        Counter-espionage with MH17



        cc-by-nc-sa




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

        No comments:

        Post a Comment