BUK bow-tie found by Dutch journalist likely planted

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Dutch RTL Nieuws journalist Jeroen Akkermans published a breaking story in March 2015 on MH17 .

He reported that he found parts of a  BUK missile and warhead fragments at the crash site. He found these parts at November 10 or November 11  2014 and had them analyzed by independant experts.

One interesting part found by Akkermans was a bow-tie shaped piece of rusted material. It looks like to be shrapnel part of the BUK warhead.

One of the experts who looked at this fragment was Nicolas De Larrinaga of Janes. His quote published by RTL is  “From the hour-glass form we can gather all the characteristics of an impact of a 9N314 warhead fragment. This fits perfectly.”

The item can be seen here. If you are unable to watch (for some reason people abroad see an error message) then click here for a mirror of the RTL video)

This is the bow-tie shaped fragment which could be a part of the BUK warhead

Rusty warhead fragment. Consists of a layer of alloyed steel. Strongly deformed and folded. (picture Jeroen Akkermans / RTL News).

The item as shown in the RTL Nieuws broadcast can be seen here.

However, judging by the exact position where the bow-tie was found by Akkermans, the fact the bow-tie was loose on the floor  and the fact that the wreckage piece was turned over by people since the crash, it is likely this bow-tie was planted by someone.

It is also remarkable that the wreckage part in which Akkermans found the bow-tie was recovered by DSB just one week later.

Let us have a closer look.

Akkermans showed in his item the exact piece of wreckage where he found a fragment part of the BUK warhead. Mind the inner side of the fuselage can be seen!

The debris was found in wreckage located near the chicken farm close to Hrabove. In the left picture you can see the farm buildings.

chicken-farm fuselage

The same piece of wreckage was photographed months earlier before Akkermans made this video. At that time the piece was upside down.

In this animation made by Michael Kobs who used Google Earth images, we see this piece of wreckage. Then the piece is turned around, and then removed. It was turned around betwee August 1 and 3 2014.

In a very detailed story published by Jeroen Akkermans at March 21 2016, the Dutch journalist showed for the first time a close-up of the location where the bow-tie fragment was located when he found it.

The photo is shown below. In the middle of the photo the bow-tie fragment can be spotted. It was in a pool of water. To the left probably one of the windows can be seen.

Akkermans found the piece somewhere near the window most right on the photo below. There is no fragment damage such as an entry hole to be seen anywhere on the wreckage.

Mind the photos below where made shortly after July 17 2014. The wreckage was at that time not turned.

This video shows the wreckage part at 53 seconds into the video.



Flowers lay on a piece of the crashed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 near the village of Hrabove eastern Ukraine Monday, July 21, 2014. Four days after Flight 17 was shot out of the sky, international investigators still have had only limited access to the crash site, hindered by pro-Russia fighters who control the verdant territory in eastern Ukraine. Outrage over the delays and the possible tampering of evidence at the site was building worldwide, especially in the Netherlands, where most of the victims were from. (AP Photo/Dmitry Lovetsky)

Flowers lay on a piece of the crashed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 near the village of Hrabove eastern Ukraine Monday, July 21, 2014. Four days after Flight 17 was shot out of the sky, international investigators still have had only limited access to the crash site, hindered by pro-Russia fighters who control the verdant territory in eastern Ukraine. Outrage over the delays and the possible tampering of evidence at the site was building worldwide, especially in the Netherlands, where most of the victims were from. (AP Photo/Dmitry Lovetsky)


What was the location of the wreckage?

Using the final DSB report on the MH17 crash we can locate where this piece of wreckage was exactly found.

The location is 2 km south, southwest of Hrabove. DSB describes the wreckage as ‘left hand fuselage between door 3L and 4L’. This image shows the exact location indicated by the number 9. The image can be seen at page 69 of the english language final DSB report.


Now lets look where this part is exactly located on the fuselage of a Boeing 777. The yellow circle shows the part of fuselage where Akkermans found the fragment of a BUK warhead. It is located between door 3 and door 4. Almost at the back of the fuselage.

The image is taken from Appendix X of the NLR report published by DSB.


Could the bow-tie have entered the aircraft during the explosion?

Jeroen Akkermans stated in his item ” part of the warhead went through the body of MH-17 just behind the cockpit and was deformed’.
However this cannot be correct. It is impossible a small fragment has enough energy to penetrate the fuselage near the cockpit and finish somewhere in the back.

DSB reconstructed only the cockpit and part of the business class. The final report did not state anything about fragment damage observed on parts behind the business class section.


Let us now take a look at the field of distribution of BUK missile fragments. Page 57 of the Appendix X of DSB final report shows the  image below. It shows the impact zone of the BUK missile based on a location near the cockpit where the missile exploded. The impact zone is based on a launch in the area south of Snizhne.

The image makes clear the back of the aircraft (between door L3 and door L4) can impossible have been directly hit by fragments of a BUK missile.

While the wreckage does show a couple of rather large entry holes, these are likely to have been caused during the crash by hitting other objects or just by brute force.


So that leaves two options:

  1. the fragment was kind of absorbed/sucked/catched into into the fuselage during the fall
  2. someone put the fragment in the wreckage after the crash

It is unlikely the fragment entered the cockpit and ended somewhere in the back of the fuselage. Firstly there is no mentioning of passengers being hit by fragments. Secondly the fragment would not have enough energy to travel all the way to the back.

Could it be that the fragment entered the fuselage during the breakup of the fuselage? Very unlikely. The fuselage from the wings section towards the tail was largely intact when the aircraft smashed into the ground. The fuselage part where the fragment was found was located very close to the location where the biggest part of the fuselage including the wings crashed.

The part was found and photographed with the inside of the fuselage facing the ground. Akkersmans found the fuselage including the fragment in November turned around. If a fragment was stuck into this wreckage from the direct hit it would still be stuck.

Could it be the fragment was moved to the final position when the piece of wreckage was turned around? Could be but unlikely. If a fragment was not stuck in the fuselage at July 17 it would have likely fallen on the ground when the wreckage was turned around later.

Was it a BUK fragment at all  ?

The bow-tie shaped piece found by Akkermans could be a part of a BUK. It could be something else. The DSB report is not clear. It only mentions this in the document titled ‘About the investigation’.

We cannot conclude anything from the statement of DSB.


The photo left shows a bow-tie in a warhead that did not explode. The warhead was rusted as you can see. The photo right shows the bow-tie found by Akkerman.


Recovery of the wreckage where the bow-tie was found.

According the Appendix of the final report made by DSB, the recovery of the MH17 wreckage started November 16 2014 and lasted till November 22.

This photo was taken at November 18 according Globaltimes.cn. It shows very likely the recovery of the wreckage in which Akkermans found the bow-tie. Remember Akkermans found the bow-tie in this wreckage at November 10 or November 11.


If the bow-tie has been planted, when?

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

So if someone planted the bow-tie, it could be the purpose to either be found by Akkermans or by the recovery team. The recovery team recovered the wreckage at the most 8 days after Akkermans visited the crash site.

Akkermans describes he was together with his cameraman on the field. The taxidriver was sleeping in his car. It is not impossible that someone knew about Akkermans plans to stray for two days on the crashsite. Mobile phones are tapped. A fixer could have connections to a secret service.

If the bow-tie was planned, why and who would benefit?

Another hard to answer question. DSB/JIT found just a couple of bow-tie shaped fragments. The bow-tie is only used in the 9N314M warhead part of a BUK missile. 9N314M is in use by both Russia and Ukraine.

By planting a bow-tie, Russia was included as a state which could have shot down MH17. So in that case Ukraine could have planted the bow-tie.

Russia could also have planted the bow-tie to contaminate evidence. However it would make more sense to plant a non bow-tie shaped fragment of an older warhead not in use by Russia.

Could the location of the debris provide an indication? 

This blogpost shows the distribution of warhead fragments from a launch near Snizhne and a launch from near Zaroshens’kye.

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

If the bow-tie found by Akkermans was indeed planted, the person who did it  likely was not aware of were exactly the wreckage was originally located in the fuselage of the Boeing 777.


Manipulation of evidence is nothing new. In October 2014 photos where published showing brown square pieces attached to the headrest of one of the pilotseats. DSB did not report on this and till today the source of this pieces are unknown.

Jeroen Akkermans describes other cases of manipulation in his article.

  1. Green paint was removed from the wing
  2. Bones were all of a sudden discovered at the crash site. The next day all bones were removed
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

65 Comments on BUK bow-tie found by Dutch journalist likely planted

  1. sotilaspassi // March 21, 2016 at 2:23 pm // Reply

    “brown square pieces”
    IIRC, some identified those as GRAD warhead shrapnel. (sorry, I do not have link to that)

    About bones … after the crash there was loose dogs eating human remains. I wonder if they ever were shot/captured to save rest of the evidence.

    • I doubt if these brown squares are actually GRAD fragments. Could be part of the cockpit as well. Like something like for a key in a keyboard

  2. Wind Tunnel Man // March 21, 2016 at 6:16 pm // Reply


    “A distinct group was identified as small pieces of metal that were suspected to be high-energy objects, or parts of them. These fragments were extracted from the Captain from Team A, the First Officer from Team A, the Purser, who was present in the cockpit at the time of the crash, and from the cockpit wreckage (Figure 37). These fragments were found to be ferrous.” Page 88 DSB report.

    It seems that only ferrous fragments from the cockpit environment were forensically examined for traces of glass and/or aluminum. So a ferrous object of the size, shape and weight matching a possible “bow-tie” striking element from elsewhere amongst the wreckage (?) was not selected for examination of glass and/or aluminum traces. 43 objects in total were of unalloyed steel and 20 had traces of glass and/or aluminum and/or were of a distinctive shape. Only 2 “bow-tie” shapes having the same composition of elements (group 1) were mentioned and they originated from the cockpit environment – page 92 and 93 DSB report.

  3. Brilliant research Admin!

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

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

  4. What are the implications of this finding? They are enormous. It means we can probably throw away half of the scenarios.

    Of course, also Russians could have used a 9N314 warhead. But what is the likelihood? Now the Dutch government is empty handed when condemning the Russians any longer. And Storchevoy might be completely right. And what about the DSB report, leaning heavily upon 9N314M? It is fine they already concluded this bowtie is in accordance with the bowtie found in the body of the captain. That settles the matter!

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

    • Mind it is not 100% sure this fragment was indeed planted. I am pretty convinced it is though. The photo of Akkermans showing the fragment in the wreckage was the last bit I needed for the story.

      There is a lot of suspicious smell on the Bellingcat narrative. And maybe there was indeed a Russian supplied Buk in Snizhne. But was it used to shot down MH17?
      It is unbelieveable the JIT will announce only after two years of investigation where the missile was launched from and what type of missile was used.
      In 2001 the US was able to determine Ukriane shot down a Tupolev 154 within 10 days or so!

      A construction with Ukraine part of JIT is insane,

      • “In 2001 the US was able to determine Ukriane shot down a Tupolev 154 within 10 days or so!” Yes, and although the Ukrainians paid some compensation, they still don’t accept full responsibility. In fact, they even challenged the findings.
        Remember the findings of the Bundes Nachrichten Dienst: “The BND has intelligence indicating that pro-Russian separatists captured a BUK air defense missile system at a Ukrainian military base and fired a missile on July 17”. This could have been Buk 322.
        According to Der Spiegel, the representative of the BND, also said the photo’s provided by the Ukrainians where manipulated. In the original German version, they wrote “afnahme”, which means “recording” not “foto” or “bild”. BND may have referred to the sound recordings in stead of photos, or maybe both.
        This story was all over the media, except for one detail: the part in which the BND accused the Ukrainians of manipulating the evidence.

        • My German is probably better than yours, let me therefore clarify: “Aufnahme” means literally “recording”, while “Bild” or “Foto” means picture, or photo. However in the context of photography, Aufnahme can indeed be a reference to the moment a picture has been taken, or the number of pictures taken. I haven’t read the German original, but “die Aufnahme stammt vom 17. Juli” or “es existieren 7 Aufnahmen” can indeed refer to a photo.

          • In the German version it reads “aufnahme”. In the English version this is translated with “photo”.
            The first evidence provided by the SBU was a recording of several phone calls between rebels. This recording was a clear fake. In the original Russian language version, you could see time running backwards. But at the time, no one seemed to bother. The big difference between fake photos and fake sound recordings is, fake sound recordings have to been made by the SBU, they cannot be the result of an honest mistake.
            On 30th of March 2015 JIT came up with a scenario, a look-alike of the scenario the SBU presented to us on the 18th en 19th of July 2014, with some of the same intercepted phone calls. Not all of them of course, you can’t be at two different places at the same time, can you? Spokes man Wim de Bruin from JIT was asked if there was any doubt the information was authentic. “We have no reason to doubt” he said.
            Admin wrote: A construction with Ukraine part of JIT is insane. He is right, even more than he might have thought, but the real problem is, without Ukraine there might not be an investigation at all.

          • Call me a truther/conspiracy theorist whatever but I do believe the political interests are higher than truth finding. I believe the reputation of Ukraine has to be protected at all costs. It HAS to become a part of EU and HAS to be cut off politically from the Russian Federation.

            In that sense anything can happen, even a prosecutor that knows he is guided to an outcome which simply cannot be the truth.

            Maybe some whistleblower will come forward and tell his story. However I believe nobody dares to do that.

            I am not saying Ukraine did it, but it sure is a possibility.

          • admin, a conspiracy theorist is someone who has no open mind to alternative explanations. I don’t think you are. The term is often used to discredit the ideas of others, by people who themselves are narrow minded. To keep an open mind, it is useful to work with several conflicting scenarios at the same time.

          • Liane Theuer // March 25, 2016 at 9:48 am //

            There is no doubt the German Government spoke about an intercepted phonecall !
            I already have posted the link, but once again :

            „Der Bundesregierung ist auch ein in den Medien veröffentlichter Telefonmitschnitt des ukrainischen Geheimdienstes bekannt. Dessen Authentizität konnte nicht verifiziert werden.“

            „Telefonmitschnitt“ means „Telephone recording”.

  5. Akkermans has a lot of explaining to do. The Dutch investigators were already at the crash site on 11/06/14, several days BEFORE Akkermans’ “discovery” of the bogus fragment.

    The were accompanied by OSCE observers and representatives of the DPR’s Emergencies Ministry. The inspectors examined the wreckage of the plane, putting items they discovered at the crash site into black plastic bags. They also placed special warning signs around the sites with the largest concentrations of debris.

    So what was Akkermans doing there, ignoring warning signs and tampering with (if not actually planting) evidence?

    He should be locked up.


  6. Why didn’t Akkermans content himself with taking pictures and pointing out the “evidence” to the investigators who were either on site or nearby? Why did he not only remove the piece but also send it to IHS Jane’s Information Group in London?

    Nothing Akkermans has done passes the sniff test.

  7. Liane Theuer // March 23, 2016 at 9:30 pm // Reply

    This is the video where you can see Akkermans finding the bow-tie :
    „MH17 shot down by BUK missile: The definite proof“

    Now the video is not available anymore…

  8. Liane Theuer // March 23, 2016 at 9:42 pm // Reply

    Admin wrote : „A research on the route of the bodies and who could have been tampering with it, is being worked on.“

    Marcel, I´ve already posted about this in your blog.
    Most important is the location of the dead bodies in Kharkiv : Malyshev tank factory ! The factory is owned by Ukraine’s state arms industry, UkrOboronProm !

    There are a lot indications that there were autopsies made in Malyshev tank factory :

    „Interpol, the international police agency, said one of its teams had begun preliminary identification work on the remains, which will all be flown to the Netherlands this week for fuller identification.“

    „Kees van Baar, a member of the Dutch team that leads the forensic operation, said once the bodies were released they would be met by a team of international experts and each would be identified, either in Ukraine or elsewhere.
    Ukraine government spokesman Andriy Lysenko said Kharkiv was ready to receive the bodies.
    “We have everything in Kharkiv, experts from international organisations and from Ukraine,” he said. “They have all the facilities ready for all the forensic investigation and examination. “If the train is dispatched and arrives we are prepared to receive it.”

    „But when news of the train of the dead came through, Anderson was re-routed to Kharkiv, where a cavernous space in an abandoned Soviet era weapons factory was being prepared as a transit mortuary. With just 36 hours to do the job, the clean up was more a lick-and-a-wipe than a clinical scrub-down.“

    Malyshev tank factory is NOT „abandoned“ :

    Malyshev tank factory could have been the place where the bow-tie was planted into the body of captain team A or allegedly extracted.

  9. Admin: “Call me a truther/conspiracy theorist whatever but I do believe the political interests are higher than truth finding.”

    Name calling and fear of name calling should not be allowed to inhibit this work. The search for the truth is already crippled by the lack of hard evidence. The search is already distracted by nebulous official reports and highly questionable photos, videos and social media. If you add to that a reluctance to examine the political context then you are examining less than all of the evidence that is available.

    Moreover, the political context is far more concrete than pictures of smoke and videos of moving vehicles with wheels that do not spin. You are right that political interests are higher than truth finding. I’ll put a sharper point on it: political interests have blocked truth finding, and they have done so from the beginning.

    Admin: “I believe the reputation of Ukraine has to be protected at all costs.”

    The leaders of Ukraine do everything they can to remain credible as leaders, including refusing to implement the Minsk II agreement. Europe is caught is its own commitment to maintain the sanctions until Minsk II is implemented. Ukraine will not implement Minsk II. Western efforts to soften Minsk II have failed. This is an impasse, but only in the short term.

    Time is on the side of Russia, who has already demonstrated that sanctions and cheap energy are ineffective and that the longer sanctions last the more alternative markets Russia will engage and the more diverse its domestic economy will become. Russia will not waver from its insistence that every detail of Minsk II must be implemented. But implementing Minsk II is political suicide for the leaders of Ukraine. If large scale fighting resumes then it will proceed to a military solution. There will be no Minsk III, and even the West admits that Russia will prevail militarily.

    Time is also on the side of Russia as the sanctions continue to inflict pain in Europe, especially upon French farmers and German industry who have significant political clout. Leaders of northern Europe and the US have hitched their wagons to the coup leaders at Ukraine. They’re trying protect their own reputations, not that of Ukraine. The sanctions aren’t popular in Europe, and the longer the pain lasts the higher the political price that will be paid by Europe’s leaders. The sanctions — which were strengthened as a direct consequence of the downing of MH17 — have backfired on Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande.

    Admin: “(Ukraine) HAS to become a part of EU and HAS to be cut off politically from the Russian Federation.”

    This was the goal of the coup, but it is no longer viable. It is so dead that only an act of divine intervention can resurrect it. The biggest prize (Crimea) is already integrated into the Russian Federation. Ukraine will gladly suck all the money it can out of the EU, but it has little of real value to offer in return. Nothing short of full scale ethnic cleansing in eastern Ukraine can eliminate the cultural, religious and economic ties to the Russian Federation. Minsk II and the Russian Federation have taken that option off the table.

    Now the goal is to salvage what little it is that the leaders of northern Europe and the US imagine they have gained from the coup. Continuing to obstruct the truth about MH17 while pointing an accusing finger at Russia is integral to the salvage operation. A search for the truth about MH17 that ignores the hard political realities will continue to go in circles.

  10. Sergey Tokarev // March 25, 2016 at 9:30 am // Reply

    ‘Conspiracy theorist’ is a term coined by CIA in 1966 to smear intelligent people, who see their plots time and again.

  11. Liane Theuer // March 25, 2016 at 10:14 am // Reply

    Slowly it dawns on many people that they are being lied to by Kiev.
    Akkermans now seems to belong to them.
    And he has recognized that it is a big geopolitical game. Better late than never, Jeroen…

    An interesting part of his article is about a possible SU-25 in the slipstream of MH17.
    He rightly points out that the final report only mentioned that at the time of the launch there was no military aircraft in 30 km periphery. But what about the minutes before ?

    In his article Akkermans now doubts to parts of the final report and statements from Kiev. This is a remarkable achievement.

    Greetings to Sergey Tokarev. It´s nice to have you on board.


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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Liane Theuer // March 25, 2016 at 2:40 pm // Reply

      [But then DSB discovered an awful thing: the wreckage had been turned around after the crash. Now they were trapped…]

      Three traps :
      1. The place where the bowtie was found is inconsistent with the DSB analysis.
      2. The chemical composition does not match the other two bowties.
      3. The assumption that the bowtie could have been deliberately placed, also allows for issues relating to the other fragments.

      • Liane: you wrote The chemical composition does not match the other two bowties.

        How do you know?

        • Wind Tunnel Man // March 25, 2016 at 4:04 pm // Reply


          Actually we don’t know whether it is specifically of a group 1 or a group 2 composition. It could even be of an unclassified ferrous material – unalloyed steel – similar to other fragments found in the cockpit wreckage and in the first officer’s body. But you are correct in questioning whether a match to the other two possible “bow-ties” in terms of chemical composition has neither been refuted nor confirmed by the DSB.

        • Liane Theuer // March 25, 2016 at 11:50 pm // Reply

          Akkermans stated, that “his” bow-tie is of alloyed steel. “Rusty warhead fragment. Consists of a layer of alloyed steel.”

          Akkermans also stated, that the fragments were found to be a 9M317 missile from a Buk-M1-2. The DSB comes to the 9N314M warhead, carried by a 9M38 series missile.
          My logical conclusion is, that Akkermans bow-tie can not match the other two bow-ties. Different weapon – different bow-tie.

        • Liane Theuer // March 26, 2016 at 12:13 am // Reply

          The Final Report mentioned unalloyed steel and stainless steel, but not alloyed steel :

          2.16.1 Forensic examination
          „A distinct group was identified as small pieces of metal that were suspected to be high-energy objects, or parts of them. These fragments were extracted from the Captain from Team A, the First Officer from Team A, the Purser, who was present in the cockpit at the time of the crash, and from the cockpit wreckage (Figure 37). These fragments were found to be ferrous.“
          2.16.2 Examination of the selected fragments
          „The elemental composition of these fragments was determined qualitatively and it was found that 43 of the 72 examined fragments consisted of unalloyed steel.
          The fragment obtained from the passenger was found to be non-metallic (coal-slag) and the others
          were made of stainless steel.
          The chemical composition of 20 selected fragments which had either a very distinctive shape (including the two bow-tie shaped pre-formed fragments) or a layer of deposits or both was determined. This was determined by means of laser-ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry.
          A comparison between the fragments and their composition was made using a statistical analysis method called Principal Component Analysis. The analysis showed that the 20 selected fragments from the wreckage and the remains can be divided in two distinctive groups. Within such a group, no statistical difference could be determined between the fragments, indicating that the fragments originated from the same source.
          In other words, the fragments within a group were made from the same unalloyed steel base material (i.e. the same plate). One of the analysed fragments could not be linked to a distinctive group.“

          • 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.]

          • Some definitions are required here:
            – Unalloyed steels are made of only iron and carbon, without any other metals added. Their properties are determined by the carbon content, any impurities, the manufacturing process, and post-treatment. Usually they rust.
            – Alloyed steels contain one or several other metals added to influence its properties
            – Stainless steels (yes there are several of them) are one group of alloyed steels, which include metals like chromium and nickel to inhibit corrosion. Other types of alloyed steel like armour steel containing manganese can rust as well.

            So alloyed steel and stainless steel are not synonims, but don’t rule each other out.

          • Liane Theuer // March 26, 2016 at 11:47 pm //

            Athomas, thanks for the details.

            Section 10.2 of the final report indicates that:
            • the aircraft was struck by a large number of small fragments made of unalloyed steel moving at high velocity, their shape and size consistent with the 9N314M warhead (subsections 5, 6 and 10)

            As I understand the final report ALL fragments were made of unalloyed steel.
            Stainless steels do not belong to the HE frag of the warhead (if we believe the final report).

            So, if Akkermans bow-tie has a layer of alloyed steel it can not belong to the warhead fragments that were analyzed by the DSB.

  13. I have copied the Video of RTL from one of Ukrainian chanels http://youtube.com/watch?v=ClIzb6KHr18


    The amazing work of Admin leads to a breakthrough in the research of the downing of MH17. We are very near proving it must have been a Ukrainian BUK downing MH17. I might be wrong only for a few percent of chance.

    [Akkermans also stated, that the fragments were found to be a 9M317 missile from a Buk-M1-2. The DSB comes to the 9N314M warhead, carried by a 9M38 series missile.]

    Both allegations are false.

    First remember the state of the art by the manufacturer of BUK, Almaz-Antey:


    and what is a parallelepiped:



    Much bigger: http://tinyurl.com/js6wgdr
    Much bigger: http://tinyurl.com/jxplhkv
    Much bigger: http://tinyurl.com/oaey37u
    Much smaller: http://tinyurl.com/zdlwes7

    Only the still existing but dangerously out of expiration date UKRAINIAN very old BUK-M1 with missile 9M38 and with warhead 9N314 with squared parallelepipeds of (8x8x5 mm) ànd (13x13x8 mm) fits the impact holes of MH17 discarding bowties.


  15. RTL Nieuws video has been pulled out. This is probably the effect of this post.

    Really a jewel, admin. Massive kudos if you found this all by yourself. It’s been on the surface, but no-one was noticing.

  16. I’m wondering if admin’s wish for a whistleblower has been realized, just not in public yet. I didn’t pay much attention to the story about the bounty being offered by an unknown party through a German private investigator, Josef Resch.

    He claimed that someone credible finally came forward and received the promised reward which by that time had grown to $47 million. I thought to myself, yeah right, and wondered which government agency was the anonymous party using Resch to troll for anyone foolish enough to leak.

    The announcement of a March 15 raid on Resch’s homes and places of business makes me wonder. Officials claim they were seeking evidence of the MH17 crime and identities of people involved. I doubt that. Does the BND need Resch’s information to know who shot down MH17, how they did it and from where the attack was launched? Not likely.

    So what do they want? First, I think they want to discourage Resch from continuing to give interviews and cash in with a book deal. Second, they fear that the anonymous informant was one of their own. Who leaked, and what did he or she leak? The answers to those questions are probably the real objectives of the raid. I hope Resch has at least made plans for whatever he knows to become public in the event of his disappearance or untimely death.

    • News about the razia at the home of Josef Resch can be found at the website of German Capital. Capital is a magazine about business.

      Thanks IsThatSo for the mention. I was not aware of this news. I will create a new blogpost about it soon.

      • You’re welcome, and thank you for posting the correct link in your reply.

        If you want a little more background there’s a March 1 interview with the person who is writing a book for Resch that include a MH17 chapter.

        And a little more here:

        Whatever Resch knows that we do not know seems to make German authorities uncomfortable. I do not think that it is a coincidence that the raid occurred soon after news that he is working on a book.

        I haven’t checked dates, but if I recall correctly the announcement that Resch found a credible informer occurred just a few days before there was a major house cleaning at Ukraine’s SBU. Coincidence?

        Good luck making sense of this.

      • Liane Theuer // March 30, 2016 at 5:06 pm // Reply

        I could contribute a few more info about Josef Resch, but I’ll wait for the new blog post.
        Resch is completely trustworthy and he knows with certainty more about the truth behind MH17 than we.

        • Liane: appreciate if you can post your info on Resch right now. I will make sure it is included in my blogpost if relevant

          • Sergey Tokarev // April 5, 2016 at 3:36 pm //

            To keep database manageable, we have to attribute certain degree of credibility/importance to pieces of info. I attribute degree ‘spam’ to this Resch theme. Either he tries to show off and make name out of nothing, or we will know nothing for sure from this Agatha-Christie-style theme. Unknown informant, unknown degree of access to information. Any objections?

          • Sergey: I do not understand the point you are trying to make.
            For example, what do you mean with “database”” ?
            I just do not know how to judge the story of Resch. If the raid on his house is true, and I have no reason to doubt at this moment, we need to wonder why.
            Anyone is free to investigate. Numbers are on the Wifka site. German prosecutors must have a spokesman/woman.

          • Sergey Tokarev // April 5, 2016 at 6:45 pm //

            Bloggers here have researched lots of things, got answers to many minor questions. These things constitute a big massive of information. I believe that those things are sufficient to solve this problem firmly; they should be just structured, analysed. There are important and reliable pieces of info, and there are unimportant and unreliable. I don’t see scenario when this Resch can be useful. I don’t see under which circumstances he could possibly release some important, reliable info – if he has such info at all.

  17. Liane Theuer // March 30, 2016 at 5:59 pm // Reply

    Josef Resch is Managing Director of Wifka GmbH

    His clients included Siemens, the German Bundeskriminalamt and various state criminal police offices.

    His new book ist titled „Gefahr ist mein Beruf“

    June 15/2015 :
    “Concerning the investigations solving the crash of Malaysian Airlines flight number MH-17 on July 17, 2014, we disclose that the rewards written out from our client via the company Wifka amounting to
    1. 30 million US$ for leads to perpetrators
    2. 17 million US$ for leads about attempts at cover-ups from states or state organisations (second Snowden)
    Are no longer available for disposition due to substantial means of evidence and adequate status of information delivered to their clients by the company Wifka.
    The clients of the company Wifka and Josef Resch want to hereby thank all parties involved.”

    Interview STERN with Resch :
    Translation of the most important :
    Question : Do not you have already received documents that you consider to be controversial?
    Resch : Yes. We have received a lot of documents. Correspondences between authorities. Many lines of evidence. Perhaps the all-important hint is included. Only we can still not see it as such, can not prove that it is genuine. One thing is certain, we have received very good fakes. Because sometimes the Ukrainians, even the Russians and even the separatists were responsible for the shooting. So there is a great interest to sell us expensive fakes as genuine.
    Qoestion : Specifically: Who do you think is responsible?
    Resch : Faith belongs in the church. Yet we can not really exclude anything. But we have serious doubts about the current theory.
    Question : You believe that the pro-Russian separatists shot down MH-17 with a BUK missile, as the head of the Federal Intelligence Service Gerhard Schindler has stated before the members of the Parliamentary Control Panel in early October?
    Resch : That is the weirdest number yet at all. The BND claims he got clear satellite images from the US. I wonder two things: Firstly: Why did the international commission of inquiry under the auspices of the Netherlands did not get these images ? Their chief investigator Fred Westerbeke said in an interview that he knows nothing about substantiating satellite images. He also said that he could not exclude any scenario.
    Secondly: The BND gets so apparently top secret information exclusively. And what does the BND with it? He introduces himself and tells politicians about it, although everyone knows that often informations from the control panel were leaked to the public. What a nonsense. This should be leaked with full intention.
    Question : According to your findings, therefore it were not the separatists?
    Resch : I did not say that. I just do not believe in the evidence. They are playing a double game. The absolute Gau would be if came out, it were the Ukrainians. No with intention, but in an accident. But it was covered up. Would then the full support of the West for the government in Kiev still be viable? Hardly likely. And vice versa. What if the Russians direct participation could be proved? Where the West just want to de-escalate. And if it were the separatists? Then there is an ominous group without a state apparatus that could be taken in regress. That would be the easiest solution for all parties.

  18. Liane Theuer // March 30, 2016 at 6:09 pm // Reply

    Statement Resch in a radio interview :
    “The population does not want to know who is covering up (MH17).
    (Resch means that in the sence that it is better to let the public not know)
    The man who gave the crucial info about who covered this up, would never have gone to any authority or to the press. And above all, he would not have received money for it.
    Governments know that we (Wifka) know who covered this up. We know that, effective (or “definitely”).”

  19. Liane Theuer // March 30, 2016 at 6:25 pm // Reply

    On June 15, investigator Josef Resch of Wifka told that “sound evidence and information” had been received and the funds would no longer be available. (..)
    If the story is true, there are of course guesswork about whether the client is keen to tell the truth about the shooting or on the contrary to obscure the perpetrator by destroying the evidence. It also remains unclear whether the informant has provided clues to the perpetrator or to the cover-up of a state.”
    If the putative authority actually provide evidence that he is this probably not make itself. In addition, would be interesting to know if there will be really convincing and indisputable evidence. The requested UN tribunal would be a possible address, which could give rise to the suspicion that perhaps Malaysia could be the principal.http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/45/45305/1.html
    Translation :

  20. Liane Theuer // March 30, 2016 at 6:43 pm // Reply

    November 24/2014 :
    Translation :
    “We very much trample on the feet of some powers. Therefore it is clear that we must be careful. Whoever covers the facts, must fear that he get discovered. And my assessment of the situation is, there is a lot of cover up in this case.”

  21. Liane Theuer // March 30, 2016 at 9:40 pm // Reply

    June 16/2015 SPIEGEL :
    Translation :
    „At the confidentiality clause he signed, bounce off too detailed inquiries.
    Resch and his colleagues took months to the processing of false hints and more or less clumsy attempts at deception. Supposedly reputable informants contradicted themselves. There were documents allegedly from the Ukrainian secret service. Resch is sure his phone was monitored. There were threatening phone calls and letters. (..)
    “It is best to have eggs in your pants and ring at my door. But the fewest have done so.”
    One who dared stand in May at Resch´s door. The man was a middle-aged European, have spoken German very good. Resch assumes that the stranger acted on behalf of others. “I quickly had the feeling that this is not a weirdo or impostor.”
    Resch claims that he mediated a meeting of the informant with a contact person of his client, a man with a Swiss accent. (..)
    More than an hour the meeting lasted. First, he and an employee were with them, says Resch. Then the informant and the middleman spoke alone. “At the end of the meeting you have not seen any aggression in the two, no tensions, nothing,” said Resch.
    The job – sifting through the clues and placement of the contact – was done. He got his money, he says. (..)
    Whether the informant got the total of 47 million or at least some of the money, he did not know. “That is not my affair, it even does not interest me. I prefer not to know.” He had not been asked to provide clarification or to drag people through the mire. “I have only brought together one with the other, and they have fixed a deal.”
    Who his clients are, he does not know to this day. He does not even know the name of his contact man with Swiss accent. The feeling to have been used by others as a figure on the chessboard, clueless, what role to play: “That gnaws already,” says Resch. But he could see nothing wrong in helping to solve the question who caused the deaths of 298 people.
    If indeed comes a disclosure to MH17, he will feel vindicated. If it has to do with his work or not – who could prove it ? And just if nothing happens, you could still argue that this was precisely the goal of Resch’s clients: to keep things under wraps.
    However, this would not be in the sense of the private citizen Resch. “I have a request: My client should make the information public. But I personally fear that it will be handled internally.”

    March 6/2016 DER STERN :
    Translation :
    Resch : Two years ago I was approached. Whether I can not place the message on my website: Who can give hints, who shot down the plane, gets $ 30 million reward. Also, we have again awarded $ 17 million for the one who can tell us which institution or which country covered this up. Many people came forward. I got not only informations, but also death threats.
    STERN : How many people have come forward?
    Resch : 2000. However, at the end I got only a hint of who covered up something about the shooting down of MH17.
    STERN : Is there any real evidence that it is true what you tell us?
    Resch : The documents are with my client, and my notes are at the notary.
    STERN : It could be a fairy tale. There is no external proof.
    Resch : Come on, we go to the bank, I will show you that I got a commission for the MH17-order. I had to report to the tax office in order to leave no suspicions of money laundering.
    STERN : Who shot down the plane?
    Resch : I dont know. But even if I knew, I would not say it because I am committed to silence.
    STERN : It involves many lives. There has arisen a lot of suffering.
    Resch : But it might occur that much more will suffer when people know what happened. I’m pretty sure. And also that internally already much more is known than in public.

  22. Liane Theuer // March 30, 2016 at 9:57 pm // Reply

    By the way : There are reasons to take death threats very seriously…
    The latest contract killing was committed to Yuriy Hrabovskiy, the lawyer of the Russian Aleksandr Aleksandrov :




  23. Liane Theuer // April 4, 2016 at 9:06 am // Reply

    More about the „Josef Resch Collection“ :

    March 31/2014 TELEPOLIS :

    Translation :
    “But if the report in the journal Capital is right, and it seems they have a good channel to Resch, then the Attorney General is keen that Resch now unpacks more than it has happened in the book. On March 15, “eleven partly heavily armed officers are said to have searched the residential and business premises of Resch in Lübeck”. (..)
    It would be interesting for whatever reason the attorney general now has started an investigation into MH17 ? From their own findings or based on clues that Resch gave in interviews and in his book ? Or in assistance for another party ? For example, for the Joint Investigative Team?
    Resch said to have stayed in Bavaria during the raid and stated to Capital : “If the attorney general believes to find evidence for the shooting in my home, then he appears not to trust the findings of the BND. Or he fears the informant comes from the environment of the BND. And should be convicted in the raid.”
    Of course this would be a possibility. According to the BND Ukraine also had Buk systems in the vicinity of the crash site. The separatists had at least one captured, what they themselfes said, while it was denied in Kiev.
    With such a captured Buk system then the MH17 was shot down. According to the SZ the BND now explains that the Buk missile came from Russia.”

    Until now the article in TELEPOLIS has 216 comments.

  24. Sergey Tokarev // April 4, 2016 at 9:25 pm // Reply

    Apparently at this point the main issues for this spectacular civil investigation are: 1) Akkerman’s background. Did he plant bow-tie fragments on the order of CIA, or another secret service? 2) Conclusion of a licensed lab regarding ‘phone intercept’ – date it was forged, and 3) I think the material on this site is sufficient for legal actions, for lawsuits, but it should be systematized with lawyers.

  25. Liane Theuer // April 5, 2016 at 9:05 pm // Reply

    Not only Akkermans but other journalists too have stolen evidence from the crash-site.
    If Demjin Doroschenko would be a Russian-Ukrainian there would be a global outcry. But he is an Australian-Ukrainian :

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.