Sunday, 1 January 2017

MH17: THE GAME CHANGER OF MH17


Basic Dimension











Finding the best scenario

Russians were accused immediately after the downing of MH17. But they had no motive, neither had the separatists. Only Ukraine had a motive.

This means in a credible scenario Ukraine was placed at the start of the permutation (a, b, c, d) with a false flag operation (a), in which a passenger aircraft was indicated as a Ukrainian military airplane, 
after which the separatists brought down the wrong plane (b).

This mini permutation (a, b) provided a credible scenario for the downing of MH17, but still needed an interaction between Ukraine and the separatists. This also applies to the Double agent. Such scenarios are only addressed as more promising scenarios are falsified.

It is easier if no interaction between the parties is required. Then the first step could be a false flag operation of Ukraine with two low-flying SU-25 fighters (a), giving the separatists supposedly a reason for firing a BUK, but with Ukraine ultimately shooting down the MH17 (b). This permutation has the greatest chance of success because no interaction is required between parties. And for this scenario, the use of warhead 9N314 would be a strong indication. Keep that in mind.

In these scenarios we think MH17 was downed by a BUK. Any other scenario has no reasonable likelihood. Air to Air (A2A) missiles are light and heat sensitive and usually hit the engines. The modern Python might be programmed different. But remember how big the MH17 was and how small and light an A2A rocket. Which, in a millisecond should have crashed the computer and all main connections in the MH17. 

Also, there are many logistical problems with possible Ukrainian fighter jets, which had to come close in the vicinity of the MH17 in order to be effective. A difficult scenario for a country like Ukraine. Why complicate things with fighter aircraft as it can be easier with a BUK?

Qualified blogs tried to prove the Russian scenario in every way possible. The only scenario is with warhead 9N314M with bowties: 






Almaz-Antey was able to show butterfly impressions in their realistic test with 9N314M:


83b107d1ce402bf18ad1b663a0cd8269.


DSB however failed:















albert_lex


It is all more complicated. Following 
albert_lex normal distribution of squares there result only one parallelepiped of 8x8x6 mm, which is exactly the content of the Russian warhead 9N318. 



This normal distribution indicates the use of only one parallelepiped with sides 8x8x6 mm. (ic.pics.livejournal.com). This means we must think of the modern Russian warhead 9N318 or the BUK is too heavy and it must be a lighter 40 kg warhead.

http://tinyurl.com/hn25huv




[- Python is equipped with an array imaging infrared seeker. This enables the missile with a relatively small warhead to attack a large plane and well on the most vulnerable place. The fragmentation warhead consists of elements of fixed size and only one type. In addition, this is also the type of missile which can be fired from a Sukhoi-25KM. Georgia is in possession of 3 such SU-25KM fighter aircraft and has an arsenal of Python-4 and Python-5 missiles.]




http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr








Transport of a BUK in Donetsk

Also, the possible transport of a BUK in Luhansk and Donetsk was recalculated in detail and questioned (Arnold Greidanus).

And even if the separatists in Donetsk on July 17, 2014 really possessed a Russian warhead 9N314M, this does not mean they brought down the MH17. Precisely then a recast of the permutation was possible and Ukraine could have take action with a false flag.

Russia or Ukraine would be the possible culprit if warhead 9N314M was proved. Then Russia was possibly involved in the downing of MH17.

But the hypothesis of the scenario with 9N314M has been virtually falsified. Unless JIT has retained a lot of evidence of bowties. But then Joustra would have blatted.


The requirement of conditional probability

In a crime investigation it is required bowties found in the fuselage also left a butterfly impression in the hull. Else perhaps bowties could have been placed in the wreck otherwise. Hence, we demand a conditional probability for bowties in the cockpit. A few hundred bowties should have gone through the hull and the windshields, but no butterfly was found. Therefore, the conditional probability must be zero. No haggling with criminals.


Estimating the number of bowties through the hull

- A segment on the roof of MH17 can be seen as reasonable surface normal to the sum vectorFor this segment we exactly calculated the expected numbers of bowties:





– A 14% warhead area is selected on the roof in front of door L1 to the left windshield as reasonable surface normal, which can be inspected from pictured roof plates.
– Following the ‘separated time and space blast theory’ of DSB on the left side of this area are expected: .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84 bowties.
– On the right side are expected: .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178 bowties.
– But also under quite acute angles bowties would show characteristic impacts:
– Maximally 617 bowties are expected accepting a 120% angle from the warhead to the aircraft: (.33 x .32 x 1870 = 197) + (.33 x .68 x 1870 = 420) = 617 bowties.
– DSB found 350 holes of impact for 7840 striking elements. Then bowties would have shown maximally 84 butterfly holes, seen from all angles (24% of 350).
- Assumptions regarding translations optimize chances for finding characteristic butterflies on the hull. But we also have 197+ 420 = 617 fillers (6x6x8.2).  And for them rotations does not matter. This means holes of 168 bowties and fillers out of 350 holes on the hull of MH17 would have shown in case of 9N314M.
– All this evidence together and no bowties or fillers detected falsify 9N314M from Snizhne.





We must reject bowties in MH17

Therefore we reject the bowtie "found" in the body of Captain A. This bowtie just came out of the blue without report of a reliable coroner from for example, the Red Cross. It is not even sure the bowtie was really found in his body. Now JIT is too late to be credible.

Furthermore, the imprint of a bowtie on EFIS, a mechanical instrument in the cockpit, cannot be confirmed because just at that spot there was a big hole in the windshield. 


'An EFIS has been found with an alleged bowtie hole. It is expected to be the left EFIS:'

http://tinyurl.com/ptce6wf












The game changer of MH17

In short, nobody confirmed the hypothesis of warhead 9N314M. But the hypothesis can be falsified? I think so. As follows:

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/buk-bow-tie-found-by-dutch-journalist-likely-planted/

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.





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.





Note that this line of primary evidence by confirming bombs and grenades leads to complete other outcomes than the political framing of the Dutch government, the manipulation of so-called telephone calls by the SBU (DSB) and the desperate surveys of JIT from the social sciences. Primary argument always comes before desperate framing of circumstantial evidence as committed by the Dutch State Propaganda Channel NOS (Bellingcat).


What we conclude:






According to the specification of Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of the BUK, two BUKs are about: the ancient Ukrainian BUK missile 9M38 with warhead 9N314 and the modern Russian BUK missile 9M317 with warhead 9N318. The latter, however, produces only small holes while precisely many large are found in the MH17, so 9N318 falls off and 9N314 remains ...

No, not true since albert_lex found a normal distribution of only one square: 8x8x6 possibly coming from warhead 9N318 from 9M317.

As follows:

Akkermans also stated that the fragments were found to be a 9M317 missile from a Buk-M1-2 (this might be true). The DSB comes to the 9N314M warhead, carried by a 9M38 series missile (this is falsified).

It could have been a Russian 9M317 missile. Admin proved earlier it cannot be a (Russian) 9N314M warhead. 






http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/buk-bow-tie-found-by-dutch-journalist-likely-planted/

If the bow-tie has been planted, when?


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

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/buk-bow-tie-found-by-dutch-journalist-likely-planted/#comment-16047


Brilliant research Admin!
Until now Ukraine had to prove the conditional probability of bowties entering the plane after leaving butterfly impressions in the hull or the windshield. They failed with the captain and with EFIS (BTW, how about EFIS).

Now the situation is reversed and we are about to prove this bowtie definitely cannot have passed the hull. This means all bowties in this investigation are falsified for court. Also, this falsifies 9N314M as the warhead used. Admin, congratulations, this is a major breakthrough in this investigation.

Thanks. A research on the route of the bodies and who could have been tampering with it, is being worked on.

 Basic Dimension // March 21, 2016 at 11:17 pm // Reply
What are the implications of this finding? They are enormous. It means we can probably throw away half of the scenarios.

Of course, also Russians could have used a 9N314 warhead. But what is the likelihood? Now the Dutch government is empty handed when condemning the Russians any longer. And Storchevoy might be completely right. And what about the DSB report, leaning heavily upon 9N314M?


This finding will cause an earthquake in MH17-land, the sooner we realize the better. From now on we will construct sharper scenarios starting with Ukraine as the false flag. Then we have a choice to let the separatists shoot down MH17 or Ukraine. The latter scenario is most promising since there is no interaction involved. But the simplest scenario needs not always be true, though it is easiest for the perpetrators. This finding is a real gamechanger.


 admin // March 21, 2016 at 11:29 pm // Reply
Mind it is not 100% sure this fragment was indeed planted. I am pretty convinced it is though. The photo of Akkermans showing the fragment in the wreckage was the last bit I needed for the story.

There is a lot of suspicious smell on the Bellingcat narrative. And maybe there was indeed a Russian supplied Buk in Snizhne. But was it used to shot down MH17?

It is unbelieveable the JIT will announce only after two years of investigation where the missile was launched from and what type of missile was used.

In 2001 the US was able to determine Ukriane shot down a Tupolev 154 within 10 days or so!

A construction with Ukraine part of JIT is insane.

(...)

 admin // March 23, 2016 at 7:33 pm //
Call me a truther/conspiracy theorist whatever but I do believe the political interests are higher than truth finding. I believe the reputation of Ukraine has to be protected at all costs. It HAS to become a part of EU and HAS to be cut off politically from the Russian Federation.
In that sense anything can happen, even a prosecutor that knows he is guided to an outcome which simply cannot be the truth. Maybe some whistleblower will come forward and tell his story. However I believe nobody dares to do that. I am not saying Ukraine did it, but it sure is a possibility.

 Basic Dimension // March 25, 2016 at 1:24 pm // Reply
ADAPTED SCENARIO

DSB took the bowtie found by Jeroen Akkermans very seriously. Also this bowtie was examined professionally like the butterfly allegedly found in the body of the captain. Of course, they had too.

But the finds of RTL did not get the same status as that other ‘found’ bowtie in the body of the captain. And that’s weird. Why not draw the attention of the public to this remarkable find of Jeroen? Is it because DSB did not find the bowtie by itself? No, since also they did not extract the alleged bowtie from the body of the captain. This was done by…? There are no official reports of trustworthy Red Cross coroners concerning the bowtie found in the body of the captain. In fact nothing is known about that bowtie.

Therefore – following this remarkable research – we reverse the permutation and propose the SBU placed an elsewhere demolished bowtie into the water of the wreckage. We also assume there never has been a bowtie in the body of the captain. We hypothesize both bowties came from the SBU, member of DSB. We assume their original plan was to report about the bowtie found by Jeroen with the same hype as the one ‘found’ in the captain’s body.

But then DSB discovered an awful thing: the wreckage had been turned around after the crash. Now they were trapped and were still forced to report about the find of Jeroen. But at the same time they had to distance themselves from this find. Since if it became obvious that scientific fraud was committed with the alleged bowtie in the wreckage, all bowties in the report would be falsified and the whole DSB-report would be disqualified. Then, they would fall into their own pit.

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

From Zaroshchenske the angle with the fuselage would be less than 30 degrees and the bowtie would ricochet.


The fulfilling of conditional probability

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/part-found-by-journalist-suggested-to-be-buk-part-likely-to-be-boeing-777-part/#comment-16421

http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/1006/debcd724fe7breport-mh17-crash.pdf

Main report Dutch Safety Board

(Ch2.16.3) pag 93 of 279:

[One of the fragments that was recovered from the wreckage of the aeroplane, was found in the left wing tip and a second one was found lodged in the left cockpit window frame. Figure 40 shows images of both of these fragments.]

http://tinyurl.com/jaahmuh




http://tinyurl.com/je4qn6y





DSB decided to 9N314M because they probably are convinced by the evidence of bowties. But we think they have no proof of bowties passing the hull. So we reject 9N314M. But they might have at least one rocket part fulfilling the conditional probability of passing the hull. Then this might prove a BUK. But what kind of BUK? That’s the question.



http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/part-found-by-journalist-suggested-to-be-buk-part-likely-to-be-boeing-777-part/#comment-16443


In retrospect we may conclude that possible malpractice with shrapnel and rocket parts concerning the wreckage of MH17 clearly took no account of the methodological requirement of conditional probabilitythat invading parts must leave clear traces on the airplane. For, this is not a normal accident but a criminal investigation into a war crime.

But from now on we are bothered by dialectics of progress. We must expect artificial butterflies made in the wreckage by criminal parties. We can expect parties coming to court with withheld and ‘convincing’ evidence.

To be more specific the biggest threat is criminals withheld parts of the roof on the port side above the first door L1 to the nose of the plane and meanwhile provided these panels with artificial butterfly holes:

http://tinyurl.com/qbdbtfg



http://tinyurl.com/j67qcnw





That’s why we now formulate an additional methodological requirement. We understand JIT to withhold very delicate evidence not to alert beforehand parties and individuals for court.
But we do not accept the withholding of key evidence regarding the conditional probability as provided here. Regarding impressions in the hull, the wings and the windshields we consider the investigation of DSB as decisive and closed.







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