"The comrades had to shoot a passenger plane over Russia or Belarus and then say that Ukraine was responsible".
"The Ukrainian Army had to shoot a passenger plane over Ukraine and then say that Russia was responsible".
Monday, May 2, 2022:
Ukraine: Russian spies wanted to implement 'MH17 plan'
Ukrainian security authorities say they have discovered a gang of Russian agents. "The comrades had to shoot a passenger plane over Russia or Belarus and then say that Ukraine was responsible," reports a consultant from President Volodimir Zelenski on Sunday evening at the Ukrainian news agency Urkinnin. Aerial weather missiles from Ukrainian stocks would be used for this.
The plan shows many similarities with the downing of the MH17 of Malaysia Airlines on July 17, 2014 in Eastern Ukraine, where an armed battle was also going on at that time. The aircraft was en route from Schiphol to the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur. All 298 passengers died in the disaster. Among them were many Dutch people. According to the Dutch Public Prosecution Service, pro-Russian separatists have brought down the aircraft with a BUK rocket.
One of the unmasked spies would even have worked in the General Staff of the Ukrainian army, according to the presidential adviser. He did not announce how many members the group would consist of.
At 10 km altitude there is no air resistance from the bow wave of the aircraft to interfere with the sum vector. But maybe there's a sticking effect from the hull on shrapnel. Not directly but more along the fuselage. May be visible on the roof of the aircraft. Not my profession anyway. I don't know.
But it is certainly possible that the hull places itself somewhat under the shrapnel by its 900km/h speed. This by increasing the perpendicular frac speed of shrapnel in the sum vector, relatively to the airplane:
2000 m/sec = 120 km/min = 7200 km/h. (speed of shrapnel).
7200 + 900 (MH17) = 8100 km/h (resulting perpendicular relative speed of shrapnel).
So, we must add 900 km/h from MH17 to the shrapnel speed, insofar this is in line with the direction of the airplane. We simply increase relative blast speed from 2000m/sec to 8100 km/h, which also means the warhead explodes in a smaller oval on the left side of the cockpit, something like that.
And below we increase missile speed relatively:
Don't forget DSB is not a scientific but a political institute:
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: Intervening interest:
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
– 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.
And the Ukrainian SBU is actually a member of this board. Here, Ukraine assesses its own actions while being a possible perpetrator. The DSB is a joke which evades the rules of scientific scrutiny.
Later comment: Basic Dimension, March 19, 2022:
Please, don't blame me if I forgot things in the meantime:
www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.comis in my opinion one of the best interdisciplinary blogs on MH17, composed of mathematicians and physicists from all over the world. Brilliantly led by the owner, Marcel van den Berg, all participants knew how to treat each other with respect.
MH17 has been analyzed with amazing depth from which I have learned a lot. By the way, my articles below are not indicative of the quality of that blog, it's no more than my personal notebook, but until now I did not dare to delete it.
And remember that all this was written before it became clear how the attack must have happened. As a scientist and a layman, I still will not take any position unless Ukraine submits its radar data from the left of MH17.
Below I would like to draw your attention to the albert_lex histogram. Because, if it is reliable, this is the only overall scientifically sound measurement on the corpus delicti, the fuselage of the plane. It's done by the Russians, not by DSB, why not?
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 fuselage, but the facts of albert_lex do not make the profile of 9N314M impossible. (Well, now in 2022, I think we can accept butterflies as a fact in the bodies of the crew.) 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:
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. Warhead 9N318 is within the tolerance of 6 +/- 0.5 mm. But it was difficult to install this warhead on that old BUK. So, not likely and stupid because it would refer to the Russians.
I remember the old Russian warheads 9N314M were used in Russia only for training purposes. But more importantly, they were normally in use by the Ukrainian Army.
'There is only one problem with this story: Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of the BUK system, 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). '
I remember the old Russian warheads 9N314M were used in Russia only for training purposes. But more importantly, they were normally in use by the Ukrainian Army.
This combined with the serial number of the projectile, which was allegedly stationed in Ukraine, leads to Ukraine as the culprit, if we only assume the corpus delicti: the fuselage. But as a scientist and a layman, I cannot take the end conclusion.
Two false flag options are the best logical solutions to the downing of MH17: 1: The most likely is that the Ukrainian army has misled the separatists with an incoming AN-26, which in fact was the MH17. Then the BUK came from the official trapezoid in front of the MH17.
But no judge can convict separatists without considering the following arguments:
1: Separatists were out of spotters that day.
2: Bad weather, bad visibility that day.
3: Separatists were totally dependent on Ukrainian BUK radio from Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk radar, or another Air Force base for any overcoming flight as the allegedly 'approaching AN26'.
2: The second possibility is that Ukraine has launched a BUK far away from the ground track of the MH17 on the left side with the intention of putting the blame on the separatists. That BUK had enormous freedom to change course during the flight.
No judge can convict separatists without considering the following argument: Why did Ukraine refuse to submit their radar data from the left side of MH17 where Ukrainian BUKS were stationed?
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.
End of later comment: Basic Dimension, March 19, 2022:
According to Almaz-Antey (manufacturer of BUK), the MH17 could not have been shot in a frontal collision with the BUK (from Snizhne), because then the nose of the aircraft would have been completely cut off. That's what we accept for a fact *: Then there remain two possibilities left, the BUK came from the right side, allegedly from the separatists, or from the left side possibly from the Ukrainian Army. A-A: ‘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.' * Almaz-Antey, don't forget the drift angle of 4 degrees, which makes Snizhne no frontal collision. Although Snizhne lies somewhat on the ground track of the MH17, true track turns the plane 4 degrees to the right. And that means the alternatives from DSB and others, which lie more to the right of the plane, are relatively more on head-on collision what possibly makes them more unlikely:
Further, Almaz-Antey has no scientific experience with giant airplanes as the MH17. The BUK has been developed for small fighter jets. This means they cannot predict the behavior of extremely hot shrapnel, glued around the fuselage under enormous air pressure. And because the semi-homing BUK did not follow a straight trajectory, it could have literally been launched from anywhere, although a BUK coming from the right side is most likely, given the damage. Allegedly separatists from the right side:
Shrapnel follows the direction of the missile, but within a meter of the plane it is more perpendicular on that direction. Superhot shrapnel glued around the fuselage under pressure of the airstream came everywhere. (And the BUK may have gone through the roof of the cockpit from the left side):
A BUK coming from the right side fits the data rather well. But the left side is also quite well possible according to the damage done to the cockpit. Part of the casing has been shot in the second left window style, which window had a reasonably sharp angle with the longitudinal axis of the plane. This facilitates a BUK coming reasonably far from the left side of the plane while the exploding casing still could hit the window style. To be clear, an approach angle of 60 degrees from the left side to the longitudinal axis from the plane is very well possible. Launches from the official trapezium would sooner lead to sort of frontal collisions, so 60 degrees in not a bad guess: Furthermore, in the last stage of the encounter the BUK is homing on metal from the plane and is not avoiding the collision, as seems to be in above pictures. The proximity fuse explodes with a certain acceleration from received radar pulses. But nowhere is stated the missile is steering around the object. So, do we know it passed the MH17 within one meter? No, because then it can also have pierced the roof from 60 degrees to the left, a side-impact collision. sotilaspassi // September 28, 2015 at 2:00 pm //
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.
Finally, if someone would bring the MH17 down in a false flag operation, he would take care that the 'perpetrators' were in line with the ground track and would himself be at a large approach angle with the course of the MH17. So there are two false flag options: 1: The most likely is that the Ukrainian army has misled the separatists with an AN-26, which in fact was the MH17. Then the BUK came from the official trapezoid in front of the MH17. 2: The second possibility is that Ukraine has launched a BUK far away from the ground track of the MH17 on the left side with the intention of putting the blame on the separatists. Parts of the BUK allegedly found in the left wing may also be caused by a missile coming from the left side. But are these finds trustworthy? At the end of the day only the albert_lex research from the Russian Army about the size of the holes in the fuselage likely can stand scientific standards. Most of the investigation makes no sense, because of fraudulent management from the wreckage over many months. Everything can have happened in this sham:
Possibly Ukrainian Army from the left side:
Key analysis points The albert lex histogram
According to this blog, it has been proven the MH17 was shot down by the BUK with the bow-ties, if it was a BUK:
Only the profile of warhead 9N314M (bow-ties) passes the test of the histogram from albert_lex. The warhead self is not confirmed, because more warheads can pass the test and one of them has done the job. But I think we must conclude 9N314M is the only warhead not falsified by this histogram:
Head-on collision (not supported) There has been some debate on this topic on the great site from Marcel van den Berg:http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/. As an example this chapter: http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/questions-journalists-should-ask-dutch-safety-board-after-release-of-final-report-on-mh17/#comment-9451 Here I found one of my comments in a discussion with sotilaspassi who has experience with this subject: Basic Dimension // September 25, 2015 at 11:30 pm // Reply It turned out that a head-on collision between the BUK and the MH17 is incompatible with the facts: But a launch from the far left side remains possible, because of the angle of the second left window to the longitudinal axis of the plane. Almaz Antey In the research by AA (Almaz Antey: Manufacturer of BUK) the launch of a BUK-missile from Snizhne is described: ‘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.’
>BD: But isn’t it the proximity fuse aims on the radar in the nose of the cockpit?
No, 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 70kg warhead 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. The situation
The wreckage has not been investigated for many months. Material has been removed or may have been deposited:
Anyway, the alleged BUK came from the right side:
Different sorts of impact 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. On the left side from the cockpit we see heavy shrapnel fragments which entered the fuselage perpendicularly. But coming from the right side (alleged Separatists) it isreally difficult to make these orthogonal holes. Then the explosion must overturn the forward speed of the missile by an orthogonal force on the direction of the missile. But it can be seen clearly the holes X1 and X2 fit the hypothesis 'coming from the right side': The 18 degree line In the picture below, left above we see a ricochet from the casing of the warhead, which makes a sharp angle of about 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 articles: There are just two side conditions. Any missile collision course is acceptable which satisfies the casing parts in the second left window styleandthe perpendicular shrapnel holes in the cockpit fuselage. BTW, notice the warhead exploded into a white hot halo formed cloud from shrapnel particles, which unfolded into all directions. Squeezed by the air stream this lancet embraced the fuselage. So, we have shrapnel aimed directly at the fuselage and particles which were indirectly pressed against the roof of the aircraft by the airflow: Conclusion The alleged BUK is most likely shot from the right side of the plane. But a launch from the far left side remains possible, because of the angle of the second left window to the longitudinal axis of the plane.The involvement of Russians and the alleged BUK is built on hard to control circumstantial evidence, heavenly interfered by the SBU. Further, the separatists had no spotters that day. The weather was bad and visibility poor and for information about an eventual Antonov An-26 freightcarrier from Kiev to the Russian border, they were fully dependent on the Ukrainian Army: Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk radar, or another Air Force base. Maybe there will ever be hard evidence blaming separatists in the future, but we are not there yet.
In case separatists shot 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 (Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk radar, or another Air Force base) 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:
“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 from 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.
Basic Dimension // March 26, 2016 at 11:11 am // Basic Dimension // October 16, 2015 at 11:04 am // Reply [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.]
What could have been their design?
n= 20 subjects:
I propose they had a subject group with shrapnel in their bodies (n1=9) and a cockpit group of pieces of aluminum (n2=11). They want to know if groups differ.
They had m=8 metal variables as vectors from the origin, and might have extracted up to 8 principal components in that 8-dimensional metal space. Discarding unique factors there might remain p=2 components reducing the variable space to 2 dimensions. PCA is a form data reduction.
Now for example you may project iteratively your n=20 individuals (2 groups) from a 20-dimensional subject space into the m=8 dimensional variable space. This converges into a solution in which the n=20 individuals as vectors from the origin are plotted onto the p=2 factor space. Hence, in this iteration from subject space to variable space and back, you will find the factors in the p=2 factor space, as the reduced variable space.
So you might have n1=9 elements of shrapnel from 9 subjects and n2=11 elements from the aluminum cockpit frame. Now you project these 20 vectors onto the resulting 2-dimensional factor space. And now it is interesting if the 9 shrapnel elements from the subjects agree with the 11 pieces of aluminum of the cockpit frame. For example they agree if they score randomly on the p=2 factors. Or in the same bundle of vectors. If the 9-subject bundle scores only on the first and the 11- cockpit bundle on the second factor than groups do not match on metal.
On the other hand if there is no combined bundle and a random mess results, it also may be caused from your poor design and from too less sample elements. So only if these small groups are amazingly different on the factors it gives information. It seems they were not different, so DSB did not gain any insight.
Remember in the social sciences Principal Components Analysis is an explorative technique only meant for a lot of individual subjects n, about ten times more than the number of variables m. So we needed about 80 sample elements. But disregarding statistics it all is possible. Hence, statistical testing is not the main purpose of PCA, only getting an idea how subjects score on the reduced metal factor space.
After this explorative analysis there are a lot of techniques to find optimal differences or optimal agreement between groups. But remember you need parameter free tests if you have very few subjects. And I think this study is only for explorative use. So if they got the idea groups were the same this is no hard evidence and other tests had to follow. But why, if they were already satisfied these groups looked the same on metal?
So they concluded groups did not differ. Can we conclude shrapnel came through the fuselage or through the windshields? No, they don’t know, for the crash site has not been guarded adequately from the beginning. Hence now they also must prove the aluminum and zirconium in the cockpit of MH17 differ significantly from thousands of other airplanes in the world, which all can have changed their window shields. This is an impossible dead end in research.
If there is no significant difference between planes, perpetrators could have smuggled shrapnel and bow-ties from every other plane in the world.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-21/mh17-report-compromised-start On September 17 2018, the Russian Ministry of Defense in a YouTube
response to a May 24 2018 JIT exhibition, said it had tracked down those
serial numbers, 8868720, and 1318869032, and 9M38, and said both the
launcher and missile corresponding to the numbers were purchased by
Ukraine from Russia as far back as 1986, transferred there, and had
never left the country since. I get that information from a lengthy, deep-digging and highly recommended essay by Eric Zuesse, from December 2018, MH17 Turnabout: Ukraine’s Guilt Now Proven, which I’ve been reading the past few days, in which Eric says:
“…if the JIT’s supplied evidence is authentic — which the
Ukrainian team asserts it to be — then it outright convicts Ukraine.
This is an evidentiary checkmate, against the Ukrainian side.”
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 fuselage 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. In case separatists shot 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 (Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk radar, or another Air Force base) 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:
“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 from 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.
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 fuselage only. And from the damage to the fuselage 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 fuselage 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 styleandthe perpendicular shrapnel holes in the cockpit fuselage. 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 fuselage perpendicularly by the sidewards force. Head-on collision (not supported any longer)
But far more to the left remains possible, because of the angle of the second left window to the longitudinal axis of the plane.
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 fuselage 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 fuselage 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 fuselage perpendicularly. This all means there are a number of alternatives.
Missile from the far left side of the plane
MH17: DRIFT ANGLE AND DOWNING OF THE MH17 From the far left remains possible! 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 the 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 butpossibly 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 fuselage. So, after detonation, the lancet unfolded around the plane (sidewards) after which shrapnel entered the fuselage perpendicularly (forwards). Below we leave the head-on-collision course and the missile takes a 38 degree encounter with the MH17: Far left side remains possible:
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. (No can come from really far to the left side, because of the angle of the second left window to the longitudinal axis of the plane).
So, forget about witnesses because we have them in all scenarios. Only look at the real holes in the fuselage. Then, without the Russians, we would have known completely nothing about where the missile came from.
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.
Laut dem ehemaligen Major der ukrainischen StreitkrƤfte, Juri Baturin, ist die malaysische Boeing 777/Flug MH17, die im Juli 2014 im Gebiet Donezk abgestĆ¼rzt war, von dem damals von Kiew kontrollierten Territorium des Dorfes Saroschtschenskoje aus abgeschossen worden. Das geht aus einem Interview Baturins fĆ¼r den TV-Sender Swesda hervor.
Baturin, der zum Zeitpunkt der Flugzeugkatastrophe den Befehlsstand des Truppenteils A-1215 der Fla-Raketentruppen bei Charkow geleitet hatte, will die Boeing am UnglĆ¼ckstag auf Radarbildschirmen gesehen haben.
Man habe alle Flugzeuge beobachtet, die Ć¼ber dem Kampfgebiet geflogen seien, so Baturin. Das Verschwinden der Boeing sei bemerkt worden, als die entsprechende Kennungsmarke plƶtzlich vom Bildschirm verschwunden sei, so Baturin.
Wenige Tage nach dem Boeing-Absturz sei eine MilitƤrkolonne, 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.
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‘ gehƶrte“.
„Eben damals wurde alles klar“, sagte der Ex-Major. Die Medien in aller Welt hƤtten faktisch gleichzeitig und mit gleichen Worten an die groĆe Glocke gehƤngt, dass Russland ein Verkehrsflugzeug abgeschossen habe, ergƤnzte er.
Baturin, der gegenwƤrtig in Russland lebt, betonte, er trage die volle Verantwortung fĆ¼r jedes seiner Worte.
Inzwischen hat der Konzern Almas-Antej, der Hersteller von Fla-Raketenkomplexen Buk, nach drei Experimenten die Version bestƤtigt, 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 Ć¼ber dem ukrainischen Gebiet Donezk ums Leben. Kiew beschuldigte die Donezker Volkswehr, fĆ¼r die Tragƶdie verantwortlich zu sein. Diese beteuerte jedoch, Ć¼ber keine Waffen zu verfĆ¼gen, die ein Flugzeug in einer solchen Hƶhe abschieĆen kƶnnten. 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:
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.
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
2 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;
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
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
2 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;
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
'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:'
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:'
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 fuselage. 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.
Australiƫ 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 fuselage (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.
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.
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.
“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.
>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
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
Basic Dimension // April 9, 2016 at 7:43 pm //
admin // August 28, 2015 at 9:22 am //
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.
Deus Abscondis // April 11, 2016 at 3:13 pm //
I’ll need to read it twice
Andrew // March 11, 2017 at 4:56 pm //
.jpg)
.jpg)
This post is great, thank you for sharing. MH17 Ukraine plane crash
ReplyDelete