Sunday, 1 January 2017

Number Archive




From http://sexualreligion.blogspot.com/ 



FOR MH17: See http://mh17crystalball.blogspot.com/
Latest published article: February 13, 2017
MH17: False flag planning

FOR MH17: See www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com

May 25, 2018.



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


Investigation into the disaster of the MH17 led me to the conclusion that the BUK 9M38M1 with warhead 9N314M1 (bow-ties) most likely is used. See my report* based on the albert_lex investigation of the Russian army. They measured the holes in the hull of the MH17 in perfection and made the histogram below. They concluded to parallelepipeds (8x8x6mm) as shrapnel. Subsequent, I concluded to bow-ties and squares (cubes), after comparing the only three possible BUK-warheads. Rocket installation BUK 9M38M1 is still in use by Ukraine, but in Russia only for exercises. There is no proof the Russians shot down the MH17. 

Separatists were out of spotters on 17 July 2014 and had no idea what plane really was coming. Daily, a lot of international planes crossed over the area. On that day, visibility was poor. There is broad agreement that separatists could impossibly have identified the MH17. 

Maybe the Ukrainian army or the SBU gave false information about an incoming Antonov An-26 freightcarrier from Kiev to the Russian border, flying on the same track, but in a lower air corridor. How? We don't know, but here is a possibility:

Maybe separatists eavesdropped Ukrainian BUKs:

Andrew // February 14, 2016 at 8:03 am //

“It is not considered in Buk design a scenario when enemy also has Buks. I doubt it was envisioned, particularly for older models”

The BUK’s possessed by Ukraine are legacy Soviet units that were previously fully integrated operationally with units in Russia proper. If they can no longer talk to each other electronically, it could only be from Ukraine changing the method of data link (anyone think UKRBORONPROM did that?) or encrypting it with a code somehow not possessed by Russia (seems farfetched given Russian penetration of Ukraine’s military and secrete services). Its unlikely that Almaz Antey removed backwards compatibility from Russia’s BUK-M1-2’s and BUK-M2’s. After all, one of the key selling points of BUK-M was its ability to control and guide firing stations of the prior air defense system called KUB.


False flag hypothesis: Ukraine could encrypt or decrypt the method of data link to falsely inform eventual penetrated Russian BUKs, whatever they wanted. Then, the Ukrainian army might have informed their BUK-systems in Eastern Ukraine about the overflight of an Antonov AN-26 freight carrier, which would drop goods for the troops near the Russian border. Because it was a low flying aircraft and not a civilian plane the BUK-systems had to be informed. The track of this non-existing AN-26 was equal to that of the MH17. 

Anyway, separatists likely had no information about the MH17 of themselves and would not have shot blindly on invisible airplanes crossing over their higher airspace. Furthermore, BUKs cannot be operated by amateurs and the crew probably was not drunk. If done by separatists they probably have been set up, since it all looks like a false flag.

DSB and JIT are biased and in no way compliant with scientific and legal standards to carry out an objective investigation into the MH17. This compromised the whole investigation. 

I do not support the Russians, I support the truth.


MH17: The albert_lex histogram :



BD: Comparing three BUK-warheads leaves us with 9N314M, the warhead with the bow-ties: 



The other warheads do not fit the histogram by missing category 6 or else:

Warhead 9n318:

'As said, albert_lex results suggest a parallelepiped of 8x8x6 mm, which is about the content of the Russian warhead 9N318 (8x8x6.5 mm), if it has to be a BUK. Though 6.5 mm differs only slightly from 6 mm, it is structural. Which means most transverse measures must be wider than 6 mm, for a rib cannot be smaller than its width. That's why the more modern Russian warhead 9N318 (8x8x6.5 mm) is questionable. I think 9N318 is falsified by this histogram. '


Warhead 9N314, old Ukrainian BUK:



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 likely the BUK with the bow-ties.




MH17: Location of the missile from entry holes

On re-reading my articles after several years, I have the impression that the holes in the MH17 could also fit a near-head-on collision from the left side of the plane. See my last edited pictures. This means the missile can be fired by separatists but also by unregistered BUKs from the Ukrainian army. 
https://www.rt.com/news/360056-mh17-crash-bellingcat-bloggers/Published time: 20 Sep, 2016 18:51
In the report Russian bloggers have countered Bellingcat’s claims that there have been no Ukrainian BUK missile systems in the conflict-zone in the country’s East. They provided various screen shots of Ukrainian media reports, picturing BUK missile systems of the Ukrainian army in the conflict area.
One of the screenshots contains part of the program called “Hour CH” by the Ukrainian First National TV channel. The respective program is dated July 16, just a day before the MH17 crash.
“The photo shows a self-propelled fire installation "Buk" [missile system] and radar 19ZH6 (35D6). This radar station in the Ukrainian army is used as an additional means of controlling the air space and targeting systems for air defense fire units, armed with ‘Buk’ [missile system]”, the bloggers’ investigation finds.
We forget about all distorted information around the MH17, all witnesses and all so called 'circumstantial evidence' and confine to the holes in the hull only. And from the damage to the hull we only consider two aspects:

1: the casing parts in the second left window style.
2: the perpendicular holes from shrapnel below the left window.

In the picture below, left above we see a ricochet from the casing of the warhead, which makes a sharp angle of 18 degrees to the bottom line of the left window. Green arrows are other grazing marks from casing parts. Casing parts kept between the glass of the window and the window style can be found in the article.

We also see heavy shrapnel fragments which entered the cockpit hull perpendicularly.




From now on we only accept two side conditions. Any missile collision course is acceptable which satisfies the casing parts in the second left window style and the perpendicular shrapnel holes in the cockpit hull.

And then we have to accept as realistically the collision course of a missile of 38 degrees on the course of the plane in one of my last pictures below. This means that the missile can also be shot down from the leftside of the MH17. And there were separatists and possibly unregistered Ukrainian BUKs present. This means the Ukrainian army can also have downed the MH17.

Different impact angles, from the enclosure of the warhead (casing) and shrapnel give the impression of different kinds of ammunition. Some investigators think of machine gun fire from fighter jets (violet/blue lines from perpendicular fragments). Anyway, the warhead exploded within less than a few meters from the nose of the plane. If the missile approached from the right side of the plane, then the casing must have exploded first and parts are still visible in the second left window style (yellow/blue lines). Probably the right side of the plane was separatist area. 

Then, the missile passed the nose in 0.005 seconds before shrapnel from the warhead "backfired" perpendicularly (violet/blue lines). This means machine gun fire is unsubstantiated and - by the way - fighter jets are quite impossible for a lot of other reasons:

(Perpendicular to the track of the plane is also a missile launch from Zaroshchens'ke.)


(See the 18 degree angle between the red line from the second left window and the blue and yellow/green lines from the casing, which direction dispersed somewhat. Star number 3 is the ricochet from the picture above.)






The problem with backwards directed shrapnel is that the warhead does not really fire backwards. The cloud of shrapnel - the lancet - keeps an enormous forward speed at detonation of the warhead. So, shrapnel expands sidewards with forward speed. 





It fits better if the missile from the right side did not pass perpendicular to the course of the plane (Zaroshchens'ke), but more in parallel to the left window (DSB-angle missile, see below). Then we use the sidewards expansion from shrapnel for perpendicular impact.

So, if the missile flew parallel to the left window and within one meter off the cockpit, then shrapnel entered the hull perpendicularly by the sidewards force. 

Also a good fit we would get if the missile came somewhat more from the left side of the plane, on a near-head-on collision trajectory (launch site NRC). But then we increasingly use the forward speed of shrapnel to enter the hull perpendicularly. This means with a head-on-collision approach the detonation must be somewhat earlier as with the parallel approach. This, to be able to expand the lancet first.

So, if we change the collision course of the missile increasingly to the left side of the plane, we must have completed the sidewards force a bit and explain further with forward speed. But in this case (launch site NRC), the change from sidewards to forwards is minimal. It really plays when the missile comes even more from the left side.

Thus, if the missile entered the MH17 significantly from the left in head-on-collision (light blue line), then the warhead detonated some meters in front of the cockpit and the sidewards force was already deployed somewhat, after which shrapnel entered the hull perpendicularly with forward speed.

Also possible is a missile approach (38 degrees) still farther to the left. But then we could come into the area of possibly unregistered BUKs from the Ukrainian army. Also then we use early detonation and forward speed of shrapnel to enter the hull perpendicularly.

This all means there are a number of alternatives. 



Missile from the left side of the plane



MH17: DRIFT ANGLE AND DOWNING OF THE MH17

As said, it is also possible that the missile came slightly from the left side of the plane in a near-head-on collision (the light blue line). Note, the dotted line is ground track and the plane is tilted 4 degrees to the right to counter the wind from the right. The area to the left of the plane was occupied by separatists but possibly infiltrated by BUKs from the Ukrainian army.






In case of undifferentiated ignition of the warhead:

If we give up the perpendicular missile course from the right side of the plane (Zaroshchens'ke), we do not need a staged ignition of the warhead any longer. 

Then, and more in head-on-collision, we let casing and shrapnel explode at the same time. Again, casing parts must be shot directly between the glass and the second left window style with the very acute angle - with the window pane - of a near-head-on collision approach.

But as said before, shrapnel follows quite a different path of unfolding. It unfolds sidewards and forwards at the same time. It unfolds as a lancet, as an exploding cloud of particles in full speed which embraces the hull. So, after detonation, the lancet unfolded around the plane (sidewards) after which shrapnel entered the hull perpendicularly (forwards). Below we leave the head-on-collision course and the missile takes a 38 degree encounter with the MH17:




Well, then the missile could possibly have come from still further to the left of the plane. There is a side condition: casing parts must be shot into the second left window style. Therefore, moving to the left is limited. 





So, forget about witnesses because we have them in all scenarios. Only look at the real holes in the hullThen, without the Russians, we would have known completely nothing about where the missile came from. Also, forget about DSB-measurements.





In court, circumstantial evidence is acceptable. But because JIT, DSB and some countries involved lost their moral integrity and scientific trustworthiness from the start, we will not accept any 'circumstantial evidence', but require hard and convincing proof. Which is not there, yet.






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


https://de.sputniknews.com/politik/20171207318601967-mh17-absturz-boeing-ex-major/

December 7, 2017




Laut dem ehemaligen Major der ukrainischen Streitkräfte, Juri Baturin, ist die malaysische Boeing 777/Flug MH17, die im Juli 2014 im Gebiet Donezk abgestürzt war, von dem damals von Kiew kontrollierten Territorium des Dorfes Saroschtschenskoje aus abgeschossen worden. Das geht aus einem Interview Baturins für den TV-Sender Swesda hervor.




© Sputnik/ Maxim Blinov
Baturin, der zum Zeitpunkt der Flugzeugkatastrophe den Befehlsstand des Truppenteils A-1215 der Fla-Raketentruppen bei Charkow geleitet hatte, will die Boeing am Unglückstag auf Radarbildschirmen gesehen haben.
Man habe alle Flugzeuge beobachtet, die über dem Kampfgebiet geflogen seien, so Baturin. Das Verschwinden der Boeing sei bemerkt worden, als die entsprechende Kennungsmarke plötzlich vom Bildschirm verschwunden sei, so Baturin.
Wenige Tage nach dem Boeing-Absturz sei eine Militärkolonne, die Kampftechnik des 156. Fla-Raketenregiments ins Dorf Saroschtschenskoje verlegen sollte, im Befehlsstand bei Charkow eingetroffen. Unter den Waffen habe sich ein Fla-Raketenkomplex Buk befunden. 





© AP Photo/
Durch die Zusammenstellung der Fakten ist der Ex-Major nach eigenen Worten zu dem Schluss gelangt, dass die auf dem Radarbildschirm angezeigte Boeing „im Wirkungsbereich einer gelenkten Rakete des Fla-Raketenkomplexes Buk verschwunden war, zu dem auch der Punkt ‚Dorf Saroschtschenskoje‘ gehörte“.
„Eben damals wurde alles klar“, sagte der Ex-Major. Die Medien in aller Welt hätten faktisch gleichzeitig und mit gleichen Worten an die große Glocke gehängt, dass Russland ein Verkehrsflugzeug abgeschossen habe, ergänzte er.
Baturin, der gegenwärtig in Russland lebt, betonte, er trage die volle Verantwortung für jedes seiner Worte.
Inzwischen hat der Konzern Almas-Antej, der Hersteller von Fla-Raketenkomplexen Buk, nach drei Experimenten die Version bestätigt, laut der die besagte Buk-Rakete vom Ort Saroschtschenskoje abgefeuert worden war. 




Am 17. Juli 2014 befanden sich 298 Menschen an Bord der Boeing 777 auf dem Flug MH17 von Amsterdam nach Kuala Lumpur. Alle Passagiere und die Bord-Crew kamen beim Absturz über dem ukrainischen Gebiet Donezk ums Leben. Kiew beschuldigte die Donezker Volkswehr, für die Tragödie verantwortlich zu sein. Diese beteuerte jedoch, über keine Waffen zu verfügen, die ein Flugzeug in einer solchen Höhe abschießen könnten. 

https://mh17crystalball.blogspot.nl/2016/07/mh17-location-of-missile-from-entry_6.html

After having worked through all scenarios I came out on this:













https://mh17crystalball.blogspot.nl/2016/06/mh17-drift-angle-and-downing-of-mh17.html









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


November 14, 2017

Next story has been discussed extensively on What happened to flight MH17 :  

                                    http://kremlintroll.nl/?p=340


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

September 6, 2017

https://www.ad.nl/politiek/koenders-noemt-mh17-brief-van-baudet-stuitend~a7a86c81/


Koenders noemt MH17-brief van Baudet 'stuitend'

Een brief gericht aan Donald Trump waarin begin dit jaar de onderzoeken van de Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid (OVV) en het Openbaar Ministerie (OM) naar de ramp met vlucht MH17 werden weggezet als niet-onafhankelijk, was volgens minister Bert Koenders van Buitenlandse Zaken 'stuitend' en een vorm van desinformatie. De brief was mede ondertekend door de leider van Forum voor Democratie, Thierry Baudet.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/baudet-vraagt-trump-om-nieuw-onderzoek-naar-mh17-nabestaanden-geschokt~a4455637/

https://www.rt.com/news/374893-trump-letter-mh17-investigation/


A group of European journalists and aviation experts has sent an open letter to Donald Trump asking him to back a new UN-run investigation into the 2014 crash of Flight MH17. The current Dutch-led inquiry is “neither independent nor convincing,” they said. 

The open letter, signed by 25 journalists, former civil aviation pilots and researchers from Germany, the Netherlands and Australia, was posted on the website of Joost Niemoller – a Dutch journalist who publicly challenged the current investigation into the ill-fated Flight MH17, which was downed over Ukraine in July 2014. 

Basic Dimension: In my opinion, the DSB (Dutch Safety Board or Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid) is biased and incompetent in a legal sense to judge the MH17. This extends to JIT and the Dutch jurisdiction:


http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0017613/2010-10-10

Rijkswet Onderzoeksraad voor veiligheid


Geldend van 10-10-2010 t/m heden

  • De raad neemt eveneens door hem vergaarde informatie niet in het rapport op voorzover het belang daarvan niet opweegt tegen de volgende belangen:
    • a. de betrekkingen van het Koninkrijk of de landen van het Koninkrijk met andere staten of met internationale organisaties;
    • b. de economische of financiële belangen van het Koninkrijk, van de publiekrechtelijke lichamen van de landen van het Koninkrijk, of van de in artikel 1a, onderdeel c en d, van de Wet openbaarheid van bestuur bedoelde bestuursorganen;
    • c. de opsporing en vervolging van strafbare feiten;
    • d. inspectie, controle en toezicht door bestuursorganen van de landen van het Koninkrijk;
    • e. de eerbiediging van de persoonlijke levenssfeer;
    • f. het voorkomen van onevenredige bevoordeling of benadeling van bij de aangelegenheid betrokken natuurlijke personen of rechtspersonen dan wel van derden.

                 
2 The Board shall also not include gathered information in their reports in so far as its importance does not weigh against the following interests:
                 
                 a. the relations of the Kingdom or the countries of the Kingdom with other                                      states or with international organizations;
                 b. the economic or financial interests of the Kingdom,
             
The DSB-reports are not under scientific control and can be partly politically motivated. The Public Prosecutor's Office is not really independent from the government, which is not trustworthy. This means a legal procedure in the Netherlands will not be accepted by other parties.

Volgens Koenders raakte de brief 'zonder enige redengeving het hart van onze instituties, de OVV en het OM'. Het gaat om 'hetzelfde type desinformatie' als uit Rusland is gehoord over de ramp met vlucht MH17, aldus de minister.

The reason not to trust the OVV and the Public Prosecutor's Office lies in above given law concerning the working of the Dutch Safety Board.


https://twitter.com/TSlicht/status/903401420313026560



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

August 31, 2017


http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/445361.html

Memo on MH17 info exchange between Ukraine, Netherlands to help Kyiv sue Russia

Ukraine and the Netherlands will soon sign a memorandum on the exchange of information on the case of Boeing 777 flight MH17 shot down in 2014, which will help Kyiv in its lawsuit against Russia, Deputy Foreign Minister Olena Zerkal said.

Representatives of the countries cooperating in the inquiry into this crash - the Netherlands, Australia, Malaysia, Ukraine and Belgium agreed that the cases against suspects in the case on the downing of the MH17 flight are planned to be considered in the Netherlands under the Dutch law.

Basic Dimension: In my opinion, the DSB (Dutch Safety Board or Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid) is biased and incompetent in a legal sense to judge the MH17. This extends to JIT and the Dutch jurisdiction:


http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0017613/2010-10-10

Rijkswet Onderzoeksraad voor veiligheid


Geldend van 10-10-2010 t/m heden

  • De raad neemt eveneens door hem vergaarde informatie niet in het rapport op voorzover het belang daarvan niet opweegt tegen de volgende belangen:
    • a. de betrekkingen van het Koninkrijk of de landen van het Koninkrijk met andere staten of met internationale organisaties;
    • b. de economische of financiële belangen van het Koninkrijk, van de publiekrechtelijke lichamen van de landen van het Koninkrijk, of van de in artikel 1a, onderdeel c en d, van de Wet openbaarheid van bestuur bedoelde bestuursorganen;
    • c. de opsporing en vervolging van strafbare feiten;
    • d. inspectie, controle en toezicht door bestuursorganen van de landen van het Koninkrijk;
    • e. de eerbiediging van de persoonlijke levenssfeer;
    • f. het voorkomen van onevenredige bevoordeling of benadeling van bij de aangelegenheid betrokken natuurlijke personen of rechtspersonen dan wel van derden.

                 
2 The Board shall also not include gathered information in their reports in so far as its importance does not weigh against the following interests:
                 
                 a. the relations of the Kingdom or the countries of the Kingdom with other                                      states or with international organizations;
                 b. the economic or financial interests of the Kingdom,
             
The DSB-reports are not under scientific control and can be partly politically motivated. The Public Prosecutor's Office is not really independent from the government, which is not trustworthy. This means a legal procedure in the Netherlands will not be accepted by other parties.

https://twitter.com/TSlicht/status/903401420313026560

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


August 27, 2017

https://twitter.com/MH17files/status/901660455642550272

https://mh17scenario5.wordpress.com/

'Why did the official investigation conclude it must have been a BUK missile?

The only reason why the official investigation concluded MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile is that two pieces of butterfly-shaped warhead fragments were “found” in the debris of the plane:'

fragments-found-mh17
Two pieces of butterfly-shaped fragments found in the debris of MH17 (top-left and top-right).
'These butterfly-shaped warhead fragments are found in only one specific warhead: a BUK warhead of type 9N314M1:'bukshrapnel-11
Different types of BUK missiles and warheads.

'There is only one problem with this story: Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of the BUK sytem, attested that a 9N314M1 warhead can only be used on an advanced BUK missile of type 9M38M1 (see image above). However, even the official investigation acknowledges that the Eastern Ukrainian rebels could not have possessed this advanced type of BUK missile, but only a standard missile of type 9M38. Yet according to the manufacturer, a standard 9M38 BUK missile can carry only a standard warhead of type 9N314, which does not contain the butterfly-shaped warhead fragments (see image above). ' 

Comment Basic Dimension: The allegedly found butterfly shaped warhead fragments in the cockpit of the MH17 are not the only basis for the suspicion of BUK 9M38M1 with warhead 9N314M1(with bow-ties). Further suspicion comes from the albert-lex investigation leading to their remarkable histogram, from which has been decided (on this blog) only fragments of 9N314M1 or likewise projectile can explain the holes in the hull. I think to remember all air to air missiles have very different kinds of shrapnel, which cannot explain the holes in the MH17. The second remark is missile 9M38M1 which fired warhead 9N314M1 (bow-ties) is used by Ukraine as well as by the Russian Army. Our research concluded BUK 9M38M1 with warhead 9N314M1 (bow-ties) most likely shot down the MH17 if it is BUK. The second conclusion is both Russians and Ukrainians could have fired this missile. Though we run into difficulties when proving a BUK without visible trail, a bigger problem is proving the kind of ammunition of a drone, from which we have no knowledge yet.

July 16 2017

http://www.nu.nl/147015/video/australie-spreekt-over-mogelijke-rechtszaak-zonder-daders-mh17.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cuXroQKhJA  (3:00)

Australië spreekt over mogelijke rechtszaak zonder daders MH17

De rechtszaak over vlucht MH17 wordt mogelijk gehouden zonder de verdachten van het neerhalen van de Boeing van Malaysian Airlines. Dat heeft Julie Bishop, de Australische minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, zondag gezegd.






'We have confirmed that we will back a Dutch National Prosecution to transform the full jurisdiction of Ukraine to the Netherlands.'

Well, that's disastrous for a real prosecution. I don't trust the Russians, but I don't trust Ukraine and the Netherlands either. Circumstantial evidence comes from the Ukrainian secret service, the SBU, the CIA and some by Soros funded institutions.
In an international trial this would all be wiped off the table, but in the Netherlands everything may happen. This trial will be a cover up of the truth.

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

It is funny that it were just the Russians who investigated the holes in the MH17 thoroughly by the albert_lex research (Russian MoD). They might have been lying but at least they concluded a BUK as possible weapon. So, I gave them the benefit of the doubt and completed their research.

Squares can rotate or translate. They can enter surface normal or ricochet.  Below we developed holes from the features of the squares themselves. Only if the warhead exploded exactly parallel to the hull (surface normality) we might expect perfect ribs of 8 mm on a flat part of the plane. All other measures must be in deviation of 8 mm. Then there must have been a huge variation around 8 mm, what is not the case...









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:

http://tinyurl.com/h2vg9f3



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.


That leaves us with 9N314M, the warhead with the bow-ties. 

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.





So it is very likely a BUK 9N314M from Russia or Ukraine. Well, the odds are against Russia, but only because most information is channeled by the SBU. And this means we have indications, we have troublesome circumstantial evidence but no firm proof to nail the Russians.

So why so hasty with the SBU trial of the MH17 in the Netherlands? You name it... a cover up maybe, because they dare not wait for the unmistakable whistleblowers of the future. 


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


http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/was-an-ukraine-air-force-il76-transport-aircraft-the-target-of-the-buk-crew/

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.

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

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/former-ukraine-chief-investigator-of-mh17-ukraine-buk-captured-in-crimea-could-have-downed-mh17/

Posted on May 21, 2017 by  in Uncategorized // 0 Comments

Former Ukraine chief investigator of MH17 “Ukraine BUK captured in Crimea could have downed MH17”


                                                          --------------------------------



Last published article: February 13, 2017
MH17: False flag planning


False flag planning:

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


Good. Im happy with your answer. It is logical that if Russians passed TELAR to rebels, they would also provide TAR support from across the border. The only scenario when TAR will NOT be used is if there was an intent to shoot down an airliner. I’m sure you would get a lot of support in pushing the intent theory.

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. 


9 March 2017

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/a-summary-of-the-hearings-on-the-ukraine-application-at-icj-against-russia/

Ukraine has several BUK systems in the area. According to Rogachev, Director of the Department of New Challenges and Threats at the Russian Foreign Ministry,

“it should be noted that during the summer of 2014 the Ukrainian Army’s anti-aircraft missile regiment No. 156, equipped with ‘BUK-M1’ missile systems, was stationed in the zone of conflict. The regiment’s headquarters and its first division were located in Avdiivka near Donestk, its second division in Mariupol and its third in Lugansk. In total the regiment was armed with 17 BUK-M1 SAMs, identical to the one identified by the JIT.”

Difficult to take a position. But Ukraine was in war, so why would not they install BUK's? Well, what planes had to be shot down? Maybe, if there was so much Russian equipment they also had to expect Russian SU's. So, it is complicated and all parties - especially the Dutch - lost their scientific credibility already from the start. 




http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/new-bellingcat-report-identifying-khmuryi-the-major-general-linked-to-the-downing-of-mh17/#comment-24303


 Andrew // March 11, 2017 at 4:56 pm // Reply
>The Buk was photographed/filmed/mentioned to be seen on the route Donetsk-Pervomayske many times.
Just to be clear, you should state that several hours after the shootdown, pictures and videos of a BUK on this route began to be released without any attribution of metadata and thus no ability to tie the pictures/videos to a specific time and date. This was followed up after several YEARS by the uncovering of a BUK on a commercial satellite image that coincidentally lines up with a newly released video.
Think about it. All those billions spent on CIA analysts and NRO imagery every year, and they couldn’t even be bothered to release the blurry image off the publicly available Digital Globe picture in the first few days/weeks/months.
It is also fascinating that contemporaneous mentions of BUK only show up on American controlled Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook but that a perusal of VK.com public message boards for Shakhtersk, Torez, and Snizhne have no mention at all of it passing through their towns until after the shootdown. The locals did not hesitate at all to constantly post about messages, images, and videos of battles, shelling, military convoys and aerial combat operations. They openly discussed the rebels firing anti-aircraft missile weaponry at military jets all day long on July 16.
There are literally several dozen (maybe even 100) YouTube videos of random people (and local news organizations) filming and posting Ukrainian BUK movements throughout 2014, most of them uploaded within hours of the sighting off dashcams and cell phone cameras. Thousands of  cars, all with dashcam recorders must have passed the supposed Russian BUK on the route it allegedly took, yet its taken years for a single video to be uploaded. Apparently not a single person in all Donbass was interested in showing they saw this fascinating war machine loaded with huge green missiles on the day it actually moved? Or did they all just get religion and suddenly adhere to military secrecy protocols just for this piece of equipment? Preposterous.

Comment BD: You know, if scientific research becomes fraudulent and corrupt, they better stop the investigation. MH17 research lost any credibility from the start, I think this was meant to be so.

Number Archive MH17 



MH17: CONFIRMATION OF 9N314M NOT POSSIBLE
MH17: Falsifying 9N314M by RF
MH17: Rosaviacia versus DSB report 
MH17: THE ILLUSION OF JUSTICE
MH17: The framework of justice around MH17
MH17: BUK-TAR scenario downing MH17
MH17: B777 mistaken for SU-25 but debunked
MH17: THE GAME CHANGER OF MH17
MH17: The albert_lex histogram
MH17: BUK AS BATTERING RAM

MH17: THE TRACK OF THE BUK THROUGH THE MH17
MH17: THE INDIRECT PROOF OF BUK
MH17: DRIFT ANGLE AND DOWNING OF THE MH17
MH17: Possibly torpedoed straight from the south of Snizhne
MH17: Witnesses
MH17: CALCULATING THE POINT OF DETONATION
MH17: Location of the missile from entry holes
MH17: HOW THE COCKPIT FELL APART
MH17: Reflected  shockwaves
MH17: JIT in despair?
MH17: The immoral role of Ukraine
MH17: Russia's official response to the Bellingcat probe
MH17: False flag planning


From http://sexualreligion.blogspot.com/ 


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