Proving the kind of warhead used
03:19 - 24 jan. 2017
European experts ask Trump to back new independent inquiry into MH17 crash:Notably, the open letter calls for a forensic investigation into the impact holes on the fragments of the MH17 wreckage, and suggests the same damage patterns should be reproduced in a shooting test.
Almaz Antey's experts said that judging by the T-shape strike elements [found on their IL-86, but missing on MH17, BD], the missile was an old Buk-M1 model fired from a Ukraine-controlled area, contesting the preliminary theory by Dutch investigators. “If the Malaysian Boeing was downed by a Buk missile, it was done with an old Buk model which does not have double-T iron strike elements,” CEO Yan Novikov told a media conference in Moscow after the experiment.
Remember, albert_lex is a thorough investigation into shrapnel holes of the MH17 by the Russian Ministry of Defense. From their research I come to a different conclusion:
We ruled out
Old Ukrainian warhead 9N314
Proceeding with the albert_lex research.
Following the histogram of albert_lex we can forget about the old BUK-warhead 9N314 because category 6 (33) is missing:
Little squares (8x8x5MM) of old Ukrainian warhead 9N314 have insignificant mass and so their velocity vector was bent straight through the hull. This means the pile of category 6 cannot be caused by category 5 of this square. Category 5 is from 4.5 - 5.5. Our conclusion is the old warhead 9N314 has not been used to shoot down the MH17. This conclusion is in line with the albert_lex histogram which states: "The results of evaluation of hole sizes available in the photos suggests that the submunitions were in the form of a parallelepiped with sides 8x8x6 mm with a tolerance of +/- 0.5 mm.
Also warhead 9N318 from missile 9M317 was falsified. This because its rib of 6.5 mm cannot be narrower and I guess albert_lex found mostly 6 mm ribs. Nearly all 6.5 ribs would have fallen into (6.5-7-7.5) which received only two observations:
But remember, only the profile of 9N314M is confirmed by albert_lex, not the warhead itself. So, in theory there might be other warheads with the same profile. Only if it definitely is a BUK, than it is proven the BUK with the bow-ties.
Warhead 9N314M (bowties: Ukraine and Russia)
But can we also forget about bowties in the albert_lex histogram? Forget about warhead 9N314M? I'm afraid not. Following the requirement of conditional probability we did not found butterflies in the hull, but the facts of albert_lex do not make the profile of 9N314M impossible.
And if we cannot discard the profile of 9N314M there might come a moment we also have to accept bowties. But remember, warhead 9N314M self is not proven, because other warheads with the same profile can have done the job. With the research of albert_lex we only proved the conditional probability of the profile of 9N314M, not of warhead 9N314M self.
Hence, in the sample of albert_lex warhead 9N314M is not impossible:
False flag planning
NEW SCENARIO, February 13, 2017
This new scenario is only relevant in case of false flag planning.
Russia and Ukraine use the more modern warhead 9N314M(1). This is the warhead with the bow-ties. Russia uses the old 9N314 only for training and exercise purposes in the army. We also know Ukraine still uses both warheads: the 9N314 and the 9N314M.
Now, think about the following:
If you were the Russian army planning assaults on military Ukrainian aircraft above Don Bass and in Donetsk, which warhead would you prefer? Notice, these BUK's would be out of control in Ukraine which might be dangerously in a diplomatic sense. Then Russians could be easily unmasked with warhead 9N314M.
Would they send their 9N314M into Donetsk or the old 9N314 which is still in regular use by the Ukrainian army? What do you think? Yes, they anyway would be expected to send the old warhead 9N314.
And if Ukraine was the perpetrator, would they use the 9N314, which is in regular use by Ukraine, or would they fire the more modern 9N314M which is also in active use by the Russians? Well if intentionally, Ukraine would shoot down a passenger plane (what else?) with warhead 9N314M.
So our decision rule is as follows: the Russians would use warhead 9N314 and the Ukrainians warhead 9N314M.
Well, we know warhead 9N314 is falsified by my research on data from albert_lex. And in the same way the profile of 9N314M is confirmed. And last but not least the modern Russian warhead 9N318 is falsified. So, if it is a BUK it definitely is warhead 9N314M.
This means for our new scenario we accept the use of a BUK with warhead 9N314M. Then we are inclined to think Ukraine must have shot down the MH17 purposely. Now we know it is said there are found fragments of bow-ties in the bodies of the captain and the purser:
But these bow-ties apparently came from a different type of steel. Maybe the rusted one has been in water for some time, or in blood. Anyway, because this whole investigation has the character of a cover-up we cannot trust these alleged facts. And that concerns all crumbled pieces of bow-ties allegedly found in the wreckage. And that also concerns the autopsy reports, which cannot be trusted. The whole investigation has been corrupted from the beginning. The DSB report can into the shredder (partly).
But now our problem. This does not prove warhead 9N314M has not been used. Only can be concluded warhead 9N314M is not confirmed. And immediately after the disaster a lot of people had their doubts about the bow-ties, since no butterflies were found in the hull, nowhere were reliable findings of bow-ties.
In our new scenario the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) also concluded that proof for warhead 9N314M, which they had used to shoot down the MH17, was not trusted by the public on the internet. They expected the DSB report, written by the SBU, would not be more impressive, just like their JIT-report. Beware, I'm not joking.
Jeroen returned to the crash site after a number of months what became known by the SBU. Well, what would you do in this situation? Or course, you would reverse the bowl and place a rusty bow-tie in it with some buckets with water, excellently visible for Jeroen.
So, in this scenario the SBU led him to a major piece of wreckage laying like a bowl and within this bowl Jeroen found the bow-tie.
Jeroen delivered unambiguous prove of a real bow-tie for the SBU, whose DSB reports of bow-ties found on the crew would never be trusted by anybody. So, Jeroen proved warhead 9N314M in use by the Russians and Ukraine. Now everybody was delighted since the Russians were the perpetrators.
But remember, we concluded earlier the Russians would not be so stupid as to use 9N314M across the border of the enemy knowing 9N314M would point to them directly. No, the Russians definitely would have used warhead 9N314, which I falsified as used on the MH17.
Now the incredible happened and Marcel van den Berg shocked the MH17 incrowd world by proving the bow-tie of Jeroen nowhere made a butterfly in the hull and was way to far from the point of detonation. This can be proved scientifically.
But the most brilliant finding of his painstaking research was that the bowl meanwhile must have been reversed, proving someone had placed the bow-tie into the reversed bowl just before Jeroen arrived. And a lot of people had frequented the site before, so the bow-tie would have been detected much earlier by other people.
Reversed bowl with the bow-tie (Later):
Recently, the unlikely happened when Marcel van den Berg has proven virtually that the bowtie found by RTL at the crash site must be based on deception. This bowtie, found in a puddle of rain water in the bowl of a large piece of wreckage must be placed there only after the wreckage has been reversed.
Namely, Marcel compared the bowl of RTL with the first picture of the wreckage taken immediately after the plane had crashed, then with the convex side up. This article is the game changer of the MH17 investigation.
Bowl immediately after the crash (Earlier):
Now follows my wrong conclusion:
Now I think it can be considered as proven bowties did not penetrate MH17 through the hull or through the windshields, so the conditional probability of bowties 'found' in the airplane is zero and automatically all bowties in relation to MH17 are disconfirmed. Hence, also 9N314M as the warhead used is disconfirmed. That's what the judge will decide right too soon. He will likely reject Russian participation in 9N314M on the basis of this article of van den Berg. Unless JIT has secured other evidence. For example, maybe JIT thinks about 9N318 of the 9M317.
So the SBU wanted to prove warhead 9N314M because everybody then could conclude the Russians were the perpetrators, avoiding cognitive dissonance.
And in this scenario the SBU really has shot down the MH17 with warhead 9N314M.
But by the brilliant finding of Marcel van den Berg the contrary was 'proven': It must have been the old Ukrainian warhead 9N314 (what is not true in this scenario) or something else.
So, what is my point? On the basis of pure and logical military false flag planning the Russians would have used warhead 9N314 and the Ukrainians warhead 9N314M.This means this scenario if true sets Ukraine check. But it is just a scenario. Can Ukraine escape checkmate?
Marcel van den Berg:
'JIT was not able to find a motive for the shot down. Most likely because the motive is something which should not be made public. My guess Ukraine somehow provoked the launch of a missile.'
Counter-espionage with MH17 (Part I)
Was an Ukraine Air Force IL76 transport aircraft the target of the BUK crew?
Posted on May 30, 2017 by in Uncategorized // 1 Comment
Most likely the shotdown of MH17 was a mistake. But what could be the target?
BD: What is most likely can just be a false flag and not a mistake by the Russians in the first place. If a mistake then first prove the innocence of the Ukrainians.
A source of Ukraine censor.net states
On July 14 and 16, Ukrainian IL-76 transport planes passed near the route taken by the Malaysian Airlines plane, but at lower altitudes–6,000 to 7,000 meters. Evidently, the Russian military [17 July, BD] mistook the Boeing for our [Ukrainian] transport, and ignored its altitude and the fact that the liner was following an international air corridor.
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attibution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.