Factual incorrect statements in Joost Niemöller blog

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Joost Niemöller is a Dutch freelance journalist. He wrote a book on MH17 titled ‘De doofpotdeal” and publishes blogs on this subject on his personal website joostniemoller.nl. His book had a couple of factual incorrect statement and Niemöller again makes various mistakes in his  blog.

Today Niemöller published a new blog which is about the BBC documentary titled ‘Conspiracy files: who shot down MH17?“which will be broadcast on May 3.  The docu will discuss various scenario’s which could have been the cause for the downing of MH17. Scenario’s like a shot down by an Ukraine fighteraircraft, a bomb planted by the CIA and a BUK surface to air missile.

The docu will show  an interview with German journalist Billy Six. Six went to Ukraine and spoke to eyewitness. 7 of these eyewitness say they saw a fighter jet.

Niemöller writes in his April 25 blog: Daarin komen voor het eerst in de westerse media getuigen aan het woord die zich bevonden op de crashsite. Translated: “In the BBC documentary for the first time in Western media witness who were at the crashsite  are telling what they saw”

Niemoller continues to state the Dutch media are not interested in showing eyewitness who testified that they saw fighter jets. “There has never been a Dutch documentary in which eyewitness were shown unprejudiced”  according Niemöller

On Twitter Niemoller even states the Dutch media is censoring the “news”  MH17 was shot down by a fighter aircraft.


It is really nonsense.

Dutch TV KRO Reporter made a documentary about MH17. It showed both the scenario of a BUK as well as the scenario MH17 was shot down by an aircraft. The documentary was aired at October 30, 2014 and can be seen here. At 21:54 into the program an eyewitness is seen stating “i saw a small military aircraft”

For example  Dutch TV program Nieuwsuur went to the crash site and interviewed some people. This man also saw a military aircraft.

Jeroen Akkermans item in the Dutch RTL Nieuws also showed an eyewitness talking about seeing a military aircraft.  It is at 4:46 in the item.

An overview of many more eyewitness who saw one or more jets is here. 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

65 Comments on Factual incorrect statements in Joost Niemöller blog

  1. Joost Niemöller spoke about the role of the dutch media regarding MH-17 at Tilburg University some days ago. He published the text of his speech on his website:

    “Hoe door de media de waarheid achter #MH17 verborgen blijft. Lezing.”


  2. Admin, if you would have the critic on “De doofpotdeal” again, would you write the same? It seems to me you had much more confidence in Bellingcat at that time, then you have now.

  3. Hugh Eaven // April 27, 2016 at 1:38 pm // Reply

    The criticism in this article appears to be not entirely justified. Joost wrote: “There has never been a Dutch documentary in which eyewitness were shown *unprejudiced*”. This is of course a subjective viewing in the end, the question if something looks unprejudiced or not. The two documentaries linked to in this article appear to be quite spotty here and there. Certain phrasings and framings could be explained as “prejudiced” and some seem just plain wrong. So I certainly could see why someone would call them prejudiced (especially the NOS one, less so the KRO). But it would need a detailed analysis to build a convincing case or more objective evaluation. In any case I don’t think one can call it “really nonsense” so easily.

    In the end, the focus should be on the possibility (and clear likelihood) of the presence of those military jets, not just on their capacity to take out an airliner. Because their presence alone would open up theories like “hiding behind airliner” (as even Su-25 could easily reach that altitude to start a run to outsmart SAM, just read ANY detailed air-war overview on the Soviets in Afghanistan to get endless examples, even back then with older versions of the craft). Other theories could be Ukrainian BUK faulty training exercises and locking on wrong aircraft since there’s enough media evidence to show Ukraine suspected strongly some Russian air force involvement starting to escalate the air war (also local precedent in 2001, the S-200 incident). In other words: there’s a motive plenty here to move armed and combat ready BUKs to the front lines, to protect their own planes from counter attacks.

    Investigations should be open and only base themselves on facts and reports. And not trying to create one “favorite” storyline first. Which is what Joost accuses the Dutch (and most western) media of. And he might have a point but it’s often contextual and hard to pinpoint.

    • sotilaspassi // April 28, 2016 at 4:55 am // Reply

      No operative SU25 is able use airliner as cover. That is just RU invention for brainless people.

      • According to the Ukrainian company Ukroboronservice they can. It all depends on the version. Ukraine has some of the most modern Su25. Before accusing someone you should check your sources. The official website states the service ceiling is 7000m, but this refers to the basic/export variant.

        • I have gone through what Ukraine upgraded to SU25.

          SU25 is a ground attack aircraft, not meant to fight or fly at high altitude. Therefore it’s max ceiling is 5km with weapons and it is slower than Boeing777, even without any weapon.

          • So you are saying Ukroboronservice is talking nonsense.

          • If your point is MH17 wasn’t shot down by a SU-25, I agree, this is highly unlikely. However Hugh Eavan is making a different point: Was there a Ukrainian fighter that might have been the original target?
            According to Westerbeke the most plausible scenario is that the passenger plane was accidentally shot down because it was mistaken for another, as yet unknown target.

          • Rob:

            [If your point is MH17 wasn’t shot down by a SU-25, I agree, this is highly unlikely. However Hugh Eavan is making a different point: Was there a Ukrainian fighter that might have been the original target?
            According to Westerbeke the most plausible scenario is that the passenger plane was accidentally shot down because it was mistaken for another, as yet unknown target.]

            Russians knew there was a war in Donetsk, where SU-25’s flew below 5 km. They were able to see from 2 km to 5 km and Donetsk was nearby. Nobody beliefs they laid the threshold at 5 km for Donetsk. Nobody beliefs in this war situation Russia threw away their data. We simply must conclude Russians know perfectly all military movements in Donetsk between 2 and 5 km at July 17, 2014.

            We have to conclude only fighter aircraft below 2 km were not discovered by the Russians. Then we take the earlier calculations of Rob to conclude the SU-25 falls from the Sky if ‘hiding’ before the slow and far away flying MH17. Then we calculate the chance the crazy dancing SU-25 – with radial speed – can be on the same point of the BUK radar for just one moment in time. This chance is nil. So they cannot have confused a SU-25 with the MH17.

            Then and last but not least, if the SU-25 is below 2 km it must have been in the neighbourhood of the BUK at the time of the launch. Otherwise there cannot be a straight line to the MH17. But targeting this SU-25 only takes 7 seconds for the experienced crew of the BUK, not 27 seconds. So they deliberately shot down a plane at 10km altitude.

            Yes ‘the passenger plane was accidentally shot down because it was mistaken for another, as yet unknown target’. But this never can be a SU-25, but it might be a IL76 which the separatists could not verify with their own possibilities. Hence, they were misinformed by the Ukrainians, or the MH17 has been shot down by the Ukrainians, the most promising scenario until now, discarding albert_lex conclusions.

            Including albert_lex conclusions partly, MH17 must be downed by the Russians by squares (8x8x6 mm), but it is to early for this crazy scenario


          • Rob // August 29, 2015 at 7:03 am // Reply

            Now that it is clear that MH17 was not shot down by any (Ukrainian) fighter jet, this scenario (where the BUK fires a missile at a jet that flies below the radar and in between the BUK and MH17) is the ONLY scenario left over where a (Ukrainian) fighter plane may have been involved.

            That sole remaining scenario is where then the BUK fired a missile at a fighter at low altitude, which then missed, and then by being in the radar beam, found MH17 as a new target, I’d like to discuss that scenario.

            First of all, we also determined that the Ust-Donetsk ATC radar can see targets flying as low as 1500-2000 meter over the target area in Eastern Ukraine.
            Which means that in the scenario you present here, the Ukrainian jet must have been flying below that radar detection limit (1500 meters to be sure) to NOT show up on the Russian Defense Ministry’s radar images presented on July 21.

            Next, for this scenario to work, the missile must lock onto MH17 after it lost its lock on the jet.
            I’m not sure if that is even possible with a BUK radar lock system, but assuming it is, both planes would AT LEAST have to stay in the radar beam for the duration of the flight of the missile. Otherwise the radar would no longer illuminate MH17, which would make a downing impossible.

            To stay in the radar beam for the duration of the missile flight, the jet would have to be moving along the same azimuth angle as MH17, and at a velocity that is proportional to the altitude difference between the two planes. That altitude difference is 1500/10000 = 0.15, so the velocity of the jet would have to be 250(velocity of MH17)*0.15 =37.5 m/sec. That is 135 km/hour. Can a SU25 stay aloft at 135 km/hours ?

            And not to mention that the missile would reach the jet (at 1500 meters altitude and 25*0.15=3.75 km distance) at about 0.15*30=4.5 sec.

            Which means that the BUK crew has 25 sec to figure out that the jet was not downed, and thus they should switch off the radar or force the missile to self-destruct. Pretty slim line of events to make that scenario happen….

          • Rob:

            [Now that it is clear that MH17 was not shot down by any (Ukrainian) fighter jet, this scenario (where the BUK fires a missile at a jet that flies below the radar and in between the BUK and MH17) is the ONLY scenario left over where a (Ukrainian) fighter plane may have been involved.]

            No, it is not the only scenario left.

            – MH17 likely is not shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet.
            – MH17 cannot have been confused with a SU-25.
            – But SU-25s can still have served as a false flag for accusing the separatists of shooting at them, while Ukraine shot down the MH17. This last scenario has also the highest total chance.

            But following albert_lex we have to skip all Ukrainian BUK-warheads. Are there any warheads left in the Ukraine with only squares (8x8x6 mm)? Does NATO have them? If we must skip SU-25 we are stuck to SAMs. It is SAMs from Ukraine or from Russia.

            Do we understand albert_lex must have made some interpretation errors if we cannot find a light version warhead with 8x8x6 mm squares?

            Happily we already separated facts from statistical interpretations. At the moment we only accept squares and up till now the Russian missile 9M317 with warhead 9N318 is the only candidate…

          • If the separatists or Russians used a BUK to down MH-17, why don’t the USA show their satellite images?

          • “Nobody beliefs they laid the threshold at 5 km for Donetsk.”
            I do, because the radar we are talking about is a specially designed civilian radar. The Russian might have used military radar, but this would have been noticed by the Ukrainians immediately, long before the crash of MH17.

          • BD,

            > But following albert_lex we have to skip all Ukrainian BUK-warheads. Are there any warheads left in the Ukraine with only squares (8x8x6 mm)?

            The DSB haven’t done a proper analysis required to exclude all warheads. And we probably know why. For example, take a look at this picture (from wikipedia) of R23 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Missile_R-23R_2008_G1.jpg

            The high resolution of the photo allows us to read the note. The note in Ukrainian talks about the missile in the present. The note says that it can be equipped with a 25 kg fragmentation warhead. This is about in the range that we want. This missile can be carried by old Mig-23s. The comparison of Google images for the Kulbakino airfield where the planes are stationed, shows that Mig-23s might have been flying in 2014. Kulbakino airfield, is well within a flying distance for the plane to the crash site.

            Next, on the photo, is R27, a more modern version of the above missile (for Mig-29 and Su-27). Although it was designed to be equipped with the fragmentation based warheads, the use of these warheads is a bit elusive. There are however some indications that Ukraine had been equipping R27s with fragmentation warheads in one or both (big) batches they’d been producing for India in 1999 and 2003 (there are rumors that India had returned some of the missiles). R27, being a good candidate too, can additionally be equipped with a passive seeker, that would happily home onto the weather radar of the Boeing, located in front of the cockpit, just like we want.

            (Here someone compares the GE images of Kulbakino http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=326&p=19#p45826)

          • Just want to make a little prediction. Besides me, there are quite a few people here who see the above missiles to be likely candidates. But there are almost no people in their sane mind who still think that the plane was shot by a gun from a Su-25 (it’s only people like solispassi keep mentioning that lunacy, while most others dropped it weeks after the crash). Now, the oncoming BBC programme will talk about the Su-25 theory. But it will not talk about the interesting theories that are being considered by our community, oh no. This is because the goal of the programme is not really to gig for the truth; the goal is something else.

          • IsThatSo // May 1, 2016 at 12:44 am //

            Three interesting details about the R-27 missile:

            1. It is manufactured in Ukraine by Artem. They’re a state joint stock holding company related to Ukroboronprom.
            2. The 39 kg warhead can be either fragmentation or the continuous rod type.
            3. Ukraine makes extended range versions with ranges of 120 and 130 km.



            We aren’t the only ones who are looking into missiles. On March 7 the criminal investigators met with family members of the victims. One of the presenters was Wilbert Paulissen who is head of the Dutch National Crime Squad. He disclosed that:
            1. 80 investigators are working full time on the MH17 case, some at the Netherlands and some at Ukraine.
            2. Among other things they are doing in depth research into the capabilities of missile systems.
            3. Their objectives include identifying exactly the type of missile and the launch location.

            It seems a little odd that they say they’re seeking to identify precisely which missile system was used because the DSB was already specific. Do they doubt the DSB? Will they actually contradict details of the technical report? Are they simply building a case to support the DSB finding that it was a 9M38/9N314M and that no other missile system could have produced the damage?

      • sotilaspassi

        Thanks for the all the pictures. BTW, to use airplanes as cover does not mean to fly as high as a passenger plane as Rob long ago demonstrated. It must be seen more as distraction. Anyway Elena Kolenkina suggested the separatists had Pantsirs a month before MH17 was downed.

        • >to use airplanes as cover does not mean to fly as high as a passenger plane

          I know. But:
          -airliner at 10km can not cover SU25 at 5km max ceiling with arms.
          -slower can not take cover behind the faster
          -airliners fly straights paths, ground attacks does not happen in straight paths, etc.

          • The Russians demonstrated that a Su-25 can fly at 11,800 meters. The Su-25 does not need to be faster than MH-17 if it is guided to it’s target (eg. by Dnipro Radar) …

          • MH17 was out of reach for Dnipro primary radar. When a SU-25 flew at an altitude of lets say 5 km it would have been on Rostov radar.
            SU-25 is a nonsense story.

          • I was meaning “Dnipro Air Traffic Control” when I wrote “Dnipro Radar”.

          • >The Russians demonstrated that a Su-25 can fly at 11,800 meters.

            Yes, yes. without any weapons. Then it would stall if it uses cannon.
            All that has been informed by Sukhoi before any silly RU propagandademo.

            >The Su-25 does not need to be faster than MH-17 if it is guided to it’s target (eg. by Dnipro Radar) …

            Yes. That would mean that SU25 would be waiting for the MH17 at high altitude and is able to try to hit it with one round of cannon bullets. With SU25 capability to put 5…10 bullets to a non moving ground target, perhaps it then could hit the MH17 flying by with one bullet.

            May I recommend this if you feel need to continue.

          • Hugh Eaven // May 1, 2016 at 10:24 am //

            A basic airframe of the Su-25 can not FLY controlled 10km ceiling. This is why it’s called “service ceiling”. But flying is something entirely different from REACHING altitude to start a run, armed and ready. However, it won’t be in any position to do any air-to-air attacking at that altitude, which is why the SU-25-killed-MH17-from-nearby theory is extremely unlikely unless we’re talking about very recent modifications like SU-25KM (precise capabilities unknown to me).

            As for any statements on radar, which official or known primary radar data we’re talking about here? Secondary is really not interesting in this context.

  4. Apparently you did not understand that there is a type of BUK missile you will not find in Wikipedia und you cannot purchase from Almaz-Antey.

    This type of BUK is the “political BUK missile” and is created during months of political negotiations.

    It does not make any noise when it is launched and there is no visible smoke trail. Therefore it causes no problem if no eye witness on the ground has ever seen it.

    The political BUK missile’s warhead consists of political agreement. It does contain neither explosives nor shrapnel and explodes silently. When it hits a plane, you won’t find any shrapnel. Neither bow-tie nor any other shape.

    You will only get confused if you falsely assume that the “polictical missile” is a physical missile and start to look for it’s traces, wonder about missing eye witnesses on the ground and the lack of bow-tie shaped shrapnel in the wreckage.

    Because in reality the “political BUK missile” might have been a fighter jet firing some air-to-air-missile …

    • Clearly it was not political missile, because there is a lot eyewitness who saw it and heard it and took even photos.
      Also plenty of shrapnel and missile pieces were found.

      “fighter jet firing”
      Impossible. Go http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/russian-radar-does-not-show-any-ukraine-fighter-aircraft/ already. To hit in cockpit we would see fighter jet ahead of MH17 with 70kg warhead.

      • … went to see again how long the missile would be visible after launch…

        Clouds were 300m/900m/1500m from ground on the area.

        If the public BUK missile acceleration/speed graph is accurate … in 3s BUK has travelled already about 6km from launch position… (yeah, sounds too much but anyway)

        And if clouds would be as high and 1.5km from ground, if launched in 45degree angle (towards target) missile should be in clouds after ~2200m of flight.

        So that would be in about 1s after launch.

        If launched from the corner of the burned field, the missile is in the clouds far before sound is at Red October village.
        (sound is at the village 4.5s after missile was launched)
        -> Pretty damn hard to see the launch?
        (but perhaps it could be seen via some holes between clouds)

      • “there is a lot eyewitness who saw it and heard it and took even photos”

        If there are lots of eye witnesses, it won’t be a problem for you to give me a name and a testimony?

        Here is an example of an eye witness who claims he has seen a fighter jet which shot down MH-17:

        Bulatov Lev Aleksandrovich lives in Petropavlivka and told Max van der Werff in an interview what he has seen:

    • Sergey Tokarev // April 29, 2016 at 11:47 am // Reply

      A great, insightful essay on the whole new class of missiles. I am impressed. Thank you, H.L.

  5. For BUK-warheads of 70 kg the state of the art already in 1998 converged to only one kind of fragments: squares of 8x8x6 mm.

    AD: https://www.metabunk.org/almaz-anteys-live-buk-explosion-tests.t6903/

    [Technically, square elements have very good penetration on high speed – sharp edge can “cut” target material with lower density. Also square have best ratio weight/size.(..)
    Previous design with square elements reveal a problem – square under stressing pressure start to exploding in size. As any metal – direction of this exploding depend from lowest density. Lowest density happen on edge. Cube/Square exploding on edges and become as flatten sphere.(..)
    All these troubles solved with new design exchanged square heavy elements for bow-tie elements.]

    But bowties lost speed in the explosion:

    [For example, inner layer with bow-tie lose some many energy in exchange and after it receive additional force from explosion only when gas-leaking happen so bow-tie strike elements receive almost half of inner layer speed – near 1200-1800 m/s.]

    After solving the problems with the leakage of gas, squares came back as the better fragments.

    So, for heavy BUKs squares became the optimum shrapnel. But in many situations 70 kg warheads were expensive forms of overkill. Lighter SAMs were developed which proved as effective with 40 kg warheads. They probably use the same squares of 8x8x6 mm since this depends also on the kind of target. But we must find out.

    If someone had the intention to shoot-down a passenger plane he would not use an Air-To-Air missile, since fighter jets would be visible on Rostov radar, which of course used its war radar instead of its civilian radar with a civil war in its back yard. The war radar reaches up from 2 km of the ground and sees all flights of SU-25.

    But maybe Ukrainians did not bother at all about Russian radar in their own airspace, we simply don’t know. Then a fighter aircraft could have been used with the deliberate intention of bringing down a passenger plane as the perfectly identified MH17. We have evidence to the contrary?

    If someone wanted to shoot down a passenger plane intentionally he would not use the heavy 70 kg BUK, which would be easily noticed in Donetsk. Then he would take a different type of SAM which produces less noise and is about as effective as a BUK, apparently a lighter SAM. Only a launch from Russian territory of the 9M317 with warhead 9N318 would be unnoticed by the public of Donetsk.

    The conclusions of albert_lex still lead to the intentional or unintentional shooting down of MH17. It can be the Russian missile 9M317 with warhead 9N318, intentionally by a faction of the Russian army to provoke a war with Ukraine, or ‘simply’ unintentional as an error of miscommunication. Or it can be done by an Air-To-Air missile, about which later.

    Please notice, we skipped the separatists with their alleged old BUK-missile 9M318 with warhead 9N314 which is not confirmed by albert_lex. Also and for the same reason we skipped all Ukrainian BUKs in Donetsk. 9N314M has been falsified as scientific fraud. So, we start again from scratch.

    Then we are left with the Russian 9N318 and an array of lighter SAMs. But in this stage of the investigation we must accept also Air-To-Air missiles because we cannot trust the Russians to have used their civilian radar with a dangerous civil war in their own backyard. And of course with military radar they saw every SU-25 from 2 km of the ground at July 17, 2014. And this logical dissonance is the real reason why we cannot trust any Russian information allegedly obtained from their radar. Also, we cannot exclude a pact between Russians and Ukrainians, just after the assault.

    We made much progress and our choices are diminished. Only squares from a foreign (rocket) part passed the requirement of conditional probability. We are inclined to accept squares of 8x8x6 mm.

    Furthermore and to avoid tunnelvision we must also investigate A2A scenarios. From these, A2A with squares ànd rods are disconfirmed.

    If we have inventoried all weapons with squares, especially 8x8x6 mm, we will check all scenarios again and accurately but now without the misguidance of the Russian radar.

  6. Antidyatel // May 4, 2016 at 11:42 am // Reply

    Here is one of the systems that confuses semi-active missiles http://defin.by/en/products/talisman/
    “The modulated reemission
    simultaneously with the echo signal
    from the helicopter results in the
    wave front distortion, recognized by
    the antenna systems of the hostile
    RESs, which exerts an integrated
    effect on angle, range and velocity
    (Doppler)measuring instruments
    and tracking systems of the hostile
    RESs. This effect shows itself in the
    form of stable false targets (marks)
    spaced at a considerable distance in
    range, Doppler, azimuth and elevation
    from the true position data of the
    object under protection. ”

    The resident “expert” on buk systems Eugene, is not aware of developments in last decade, but it doesn’t mean that his literal frequencies are something magical. There are systems, and Israel one that I’ve seen at recent airshow, that can redirect SAM to a distant target – false or real. Hence, there is a full possibility of Ukrainian aircraft flying in the shadow of MH17 to climb up immediately after launch is detected, and then use such system for redirecting buk missile at mh17. This scenario can explain all the strange and contradicting claims from Russian, USA and Ukrainian sides. Meaning that there was ukr aircraft, rebels had a buk and launched the missile. Both are on satellite and radar data of USA and Russia.

    • Antidyatel: In each case it seems the real scenario has to be found in a situation in which all parties, Ukraine, Russia and the US, have something big to lose when it comes out in the open.

      • Antidyatel // May 5, 2016 at 12:25 am // Reply

        Hector, that is the reason I started looking into a scenario where all parties are sharing the blame. Retargeting of buk missile launched by rebels, assisted by Russians, can explain the strange propaganda war based on secondary circumstantial evidence, while by all means the direct evidence exists. For example, USA satellite images showing missile launch but at the same time capturing ukr fighter jet. Russian primary military radar seeing both fighter jet and buk missile.

    • Antidyatel:

      If a Ukrainian BUK-TAR could break in the radar signals sent by a separatist BUK-TELAR to the target, say an IL-76, and could redirect them to MH17, then the BUK missile would be misled. This is a very simple and logical scenario.

      The only problem is BUK-TAR must react within seconds while the moment of launch can take days. Then there must be also a passenger plane nearby. This is a weak point in the scenario. And weak also because it is deliberate and premeditated murder; it is the intention to a war crime with lots of tension for the crew on BUK-TAR.

      We have an even more complicated scenario if a Ukrainian airplane takes over the role of BUK TAR.

      Be aware of severe inconsistencies in this scenario:

      – In the first place to redirect a missile to another plane is intentional war crime, it is not routine as flares.

      – And in case of deliberate and premeditated murder the Ukrainian aircraft likely is not in the neighbourhood of the passenger plane.

      – The separatists were unable to identify any of the planes. It can be seen as proven they did not use Flightradar as they otherwise would have identified the MH17 immediately. So, both planes were seen as enemy aircraft on the BUK-TELAR radar: [At least, the BUK TELAR has but very limited IFF / NCTR capability, in which it perceives the MH17 as enemy aircraft.]

      – Hence, separatists must have seen two blips together at the autonomous radar of the BUK-TELAR. Then, they likely would not have fired a BUK as they expected only a single Ukrainian plane.

      – Or they saw only one combined blip. This would indicate both planes must have flown for longer times in parallel on the same track as a single blip on the radar. This means it would be very difficult for the Ukrainian plane to divert the BUK-missile to a different position which was identical to its own.

      • Antidyatel // May 5, 2016 at 12:20 am // Reply


        Killing civilians for political gain is quite conceivable even within command circles of “good empire” (Operation Northwoods”. In Ukraine crisis we have Maidan, where at least part of the protesters were murdered by people linked to current leaders of Ukraine. We also have at least one video of deliberate civilian killing by ukr airforce in Lughansk. So I don’t see how can you dismiss such possibility of premeditated murder for political gains. You have people involved that has shown readiness to kill and that had motive and opportunity to do it.
        We also have at least one witness reporting strange behaviour of ukr airforce flying in the shadow of airliners. And it wad witness before MH17 tragedy.
        The link that I gave shows, that you do not need buk-tar for retargeting buk missile. The system is attacjed to a fighter jet and performs the task from the fighter jet itself.

        • Antidyatel:

          I agree with your remarks about the deliberate killing of civilians by Ukraine. But if your scenario will have a reasonable chance the Ukrainians must have had everything in their own hands which was not the case. First we need a timeline where all phases get their place. See it as a ranking of events where all events must have a reasonable chance.

          Now, the first step is the military Ukrainian plane was on its way to eastern Donetsk. It will not have waited for the MH17. That chance is low. Then it is not known if and when the separatists wanted to shoot their BUK to the military plane.

          Then, the plane must take over the action of BUK-TELAR, which is a matter of seconds. If Ukrainians noticed this action timely and filmed their radar they would have proof against the separatists.

          Then, a passenger plane (MH17) must be in the direct neighbourhood which likelihood is nil.

          Knowing the alleged BUK just reached the MH17, the military plane must have flown in front of or parallel to the MH17. This chance is minimal for then the MH17 would have noticed their position. So the military plane must have flown behind the MH17 what makes it nearly impossible to divert the BUK-missile to the MH17.

          Then, if the crew of the BUK would have noticed two blips on their autonomous radar they would be very stupid to shoot a BUK, where they knew nothing about planes higher then 10 km.

          Otherwise in case both planes were on the same combined blip on the radar, which chance is very, very low, the military plane would be unable to divert the alleged BUK-missile to the MH17, which of course had the same position on the radar of BUK-TELAR.

          This permutation of events nowhere has a reasonable chance to happen. But the intervention of Ukrainian BUK TAR with separatist BUK-TELAR has a much bigger chance if the SBU would have had foreknowledge of the plans of the separatists to shoot down a military plane south of Snizhne. Then the Ukrainians mastered all the steps of the permutation. And that scenario could be very likely.

          We see the SBU was very stupid to simulate foreknowledge of the phone calls between the separatists, for now they have proven to be able to interact with them. So the SBU made itself part of the assault, while in the same time they could have diverted all international aircraft away from Donetsk.

          Also we see for any airfighter scenario in the MH17 disaster it is extremely difficult to give a reasonable scenario with a credible time line.

          • Why make it that complicated? All what Ukraine needed for a false flag is a fighter jet with some air-air-missile and some fake evidence for a BUK.

            And what have we found?

            Eye witnesses for fighter jets and a lot of fake evidence!

          • IsThatSo // May 5, 2016 at 2:12 pm //

            H. L. is right, there is no need to snatch complexity from the jaws of simplicity.

            The evidence is thin that MH17 was shot down by a Buk missile and also thin that there was a Buk launcher controlled by the rebels. There’s no mention in the US Government Assessment of 7/22/14 that the Russians provided any Buk hardware or training to the rebels, and the US government stands by this report. Appendix T of the DSB final report says that per Dutch intelligence the rebels had no Buk weapons, and the DSB said yesterday that their investigation is closed. The DSB stands by their report.

            So why all the discussion and speculation about a nonexistent Buk launcher in rebel hands?

          • at H.L.
            >And what have we found?
            -no fighter jet on radar
            -Weather that made it impossible to see any attack above clouds.

            >All what Ukraine needed for a false flag is a fighter jet

            Stealth fighter jet to be in front of MH17 when launching a missile.

            > with some air-air-missile

            To my knowledge, Ukraine air force does not own any Air-to-Air weapon to do what happened to MH17.

            If you have any hard evidence that proves otherwise, please show it.

          • Antidyatel // May 5, 2016 at 1:56 pm //

            Basic, you are a bit contradicting yourself by nullifying the probability of MH17 being in vicinity of Ukrainian jet the moment the buk missile was launched. From june Ukrainian jets were noticed to behave strangely by flying in the shadow of airliners. So every time ukr jet was flying towards the war zone it first waited for the airliner. Then he trailed it, the launch of SAM is detected by jet quite quickly. The jet doesn’t need to do much. The moment the cw illumination starts the system takes over and starts emitting signal of particular frequency, modulation and preprogrammed doppler shift. This convinces the missile to follow a new path. Buk-telar would not even know that something goes wrong.

          • Antidyatel:

            ‘Flying in the shadow of airliners’ full with arms to the war zone does not make a SU-25 fly fast and high. Hence, SU-25s must have flown far below the airliners. Maximal at 5 km alt and with lower speed. Then if the separatists of Elena Kolenkina shot a kind of Pantsir and that SU-25 dived, there might be an unknown possibility of targeting the passenger plane at 10 km altitude.

            But in your scenario I thought more about an IL-76 flying on the same track as the MH17 at 10 km alt. And it was this IL-76 which had the technical equipment you meant.

            I do not believe the crew of the BUK would be so stupid to launch a BUK to two blips, nearly together on their autonomous radar, knowing nothing about the identity of that second plane. That’s why Elena said they could not target that SU-25 and rightly so.

            But it could be possible Elena unwittingly brought the Ukrainians an idea. They would send some SU-25s as a false flag to accuse the separatists and meanwhile shot down the MH17. And the blips on the autonomous radar would be far apart.

            And here lies the compromise with what you might mean. It is not an IL-76 but a SU-25 flying at 5 km alt and far below the MH17, waiting for the launch of a BUK.

            And now the Ukrainians has the scenario in their hands. Separatists would not target two blips together. But there was no need for the SU-25 to hide below the MH17. The passenger plane only had to be accessible for the BUK within 22 to 35 km. So the blips could fall far apart. And now we’re getting somewhere.

            If the crew of BUK-TELAR somehow could be tempted to launch a BUK, then it might be technically possible the SU-25 diverted the missile from itself to the MH17.
            This would make a bow around the SU-25 to the MH17. At the same time the SU-25 would make a preprogrammed escape maneuver to the other side.

            This might be a very interesting scenario, for now the Ukrainians did not need to launch a BUK to the MH17 by themselves. And the separatists could not stop or let explode the BUK because they were sabotaged. This is a new and progressive view on the situation. Thank you Antidyatel 🙂


          • Antidyatel // May 6, 2016 at 12:41 am //

            It seems that system for diverting missiles requires to be in front of the missile so that it can send signal into the seeker. So your drawing might be impossible. That is why I was suggesting that su25 or another Ukrainian jet were flying in the shadow of mh17 well below it, so that on buk-telar radar they will be clearly separated as 2 blips. The moment the launch is detected the jet goes vertically up and illuminates the seeker from vicinity (<1km) of mh17. For the radar recording of civilian radar shown by russian MOD with poor spatial resolution, there will still be only one blip. Another option is that there were 2 jets. One provoking the missile and another redirecting. There were witness accounts talking about 2 jets.

            In any case, technically it is possible. The question is how confident Ukrainians could be that such scenario will work without a hick up. Flying in the shadow of airliner drastically increases probability of success for such operation, and it directly points to intent. There is no other scenario when flying in the shadow makes any sense. That is why I hold to this idea.

          • Antidyatel:

            1: the missile aims at the SU-25 which flies below the MH17.

            2: The SU-25 drags the track upward and rises straight up to the MH17. It drags the missile to the MH17.
            [The moment the launch is detected the jet goes vertically up and illuminates the seeker from vicinity (<1km) of mh17.]

            3: A second jet redirects the seeker to the coordinates of MH17.


    • Hugh Eaven // May 5, 2016 at 10:37 am // Reply

      Antidyatel: “This scenario can explain all the strange and contradicting claims from Russian, USA and Ukrainian sides. Meaning that there was ukr aircraft, rebels had a buk and launched the missile. Both are on satellite and radar data of USA and Russia.”

      Very good point. One scenario which explains all behavior up until now rather well. Supplying a BUK would break too many international laws to ever admit to it (think of the claims) which is why Russia will never go that route. Ukraine denied having planes in the air which is rather unlikely but they need to hide the evidence if it’s the case. American detection perhaps shows indeed evidence of both stories but not to the degree that any redirection could be derived with certainty from the data. And certainly the US does not want embarrash Ukraine at this stage with possible evidence on them having jets in the air (which would also be used by Russia if published). So all parties gain by dragging this out as long as possible and providing as little evidence as possible. Any other theory would have to explain way more than the above theory already is doing. To wheel a BUK in over the border just to shoot drunkenly at unidentied planes is just a rather big hurdle to take here. If indeed shipped, it was meant to take out the few remaining active Su-25’s and prevent bombing raids in that area. They could always claim it was just MANPAD if questions were asked. Perhaps that plan was intercepted?

      • One thing is clear, soon after 17Jul the “militants” started to show more modern than the BUK HW gear (like Pantsir, y2013 model of tanks, TOS-1 Buratio, etc…) .

        • Hugh Eaven // May 6, 2016 at 11:35 am // Reply

          Which almost defies the idea of pushing one old isolate BUK over the border if next week Pantsirs would roll in unrestricted and unashamed. The Ukrainian military on the other hand, had not much more modern at all to defend any expected assault or supply runs from their neighbor. In terms of motive and murder weapon, a Russian endorsed operation to send in that one old BUK is not likely, nor justified by any development.

          • IsThatSo // May 7, 2016 at 2:17 am //

            Governments with access to hard information have not stated that the separatists had a Buk missile system.

            Indeed, why would the separatists want a Buk system in the middle of July 2014? They weren’t being bombed from high altitude. They weren’t attacked with tactical ballistic missiles until late in July 2014.

            They couldn’t use a Buk system against ground targets.

            The only aircraft attacking them were vulnerable to manpads, and they had an adequate supply of manpads.

            Why would they want to be burdened with a Buk system that is hard to conceal, likely to be attacked, requires a lot of training and requires a significant commitment of scarce manpower?

            The idea that Russia would have provided weapons to separatists that they didn’t need defies common sense.

  7. Earlier we started with scenarios suggested by the possible perpetrators. But a different line of reasoning started with the corpus delicti. In the rebound we could start again from the wreckage but now only accepting all kinds of SAM and A2A with (different kinds of) squares. Then it makes no sense to explore scenarios from weapons with unknown fragments or with squares and rods. Also we better accept no bullets because we have no proven bullet holes. We found a foreign (missile) part proven in the frame of the cockpit. We definitely found squares in the hull. We found no butterflies.

    After collecting all kinds of weapons we might return to the suggested scenarios. Only this line of reasoning points into the direction of the right scenario.

    If we are wrong and we find no weapon and no scenario we must reconsider the conditional probability caused by the unattended crime scene and the almost certainly falsified bowtie of RTL. For, somewhere in the domain of reality the bowtie scenario might be true, though not confirmed and partly falsified:


    • Confirmation and falsification

      From a random sample of holes in the hull of the MH17 cannot be confirmed the warhead used. This if investigating only the transverse measures of the holes perpendicular on the direction of impact.

      Transverse measures cannot identify shrapnel but confirm the profile of the different widths of the shrapnel used.

      And shrapnel is falsified if a certain width observed in transverse measures is too low to happen for a certain square. This apart from pitting. The width of a rib may be larger but not smaller.

      So, the warhead used cannot be confirmed because other warheads might fit the holes also. But statistically, if a square has lowest width of 5 mm (n=3), we do not expect most of the scores pile on category 6 (n=33). Though some change of the value 5 over 6 into the direction of the hypotenuse (9.4) is possible by rotation.

      In the sample of albert_lex the old warhead 9N314 misses width 6 which has a high value (33) in the histogram. This score might only come from width = 5 from little squares (8x8x5), which is very unlikely since category 5 has a score of 3.

      That’s why the old BUK-missile 9M38 with warhead 9N314 likely is not used in the shooting down of the MH17. Only the combination of 9N314M (bowties) placed on 9M38 might be used. But Almaz-Antey denies this possibility, which has no other purpose than to combine bowties with the old BUK-missile 9M38 from Bellingcat.

      That’s why we may see Bellingcat as nearly falsified:


      • As a sidenote, Basic Dimension:

        Yesterday I went throught the tweets from Bellingcat’s “Daniel Romein” who shows us a real example of a bow-tie shaped hole.


        I remarked maybe the two holes above this “bow-tie” were 2 cubics perforated side by side, and if his were true, his bow-tie was really tiny.

        Of course, I don’t know if what I said was true, but the problem is: neither does he. He shows something without context, without measurements, without knowing what the other damage represents (possible cubics).

        Thats the way Bcat is doing their investigation: searching for context-less, illogical and unscientific established leads to confirm their hypothesis (which becomes a dogma by this way). Its appalling.

        • Hector, good comment. That hole is too small, true. It does not even look to be directed correctly. One needs to look at the holes along the direction of their velocity.

          As I previously noted, if there was one, just one, bow-tie shaped hole it would be meticulously measured and photographed from all angles by the DSB, given the obvious drive to prove the Buk warhead. The fact that we don’t see this in the report speaks quite loudly there there are no such holes. The report is rigged.

        • Yes, that hole is probably the exit hole for entry hole that is just on the right from it. The entry hole does not exhibit any bowtieness.

          The way those guys try (unsuccessfully) to find anything resembling bowtie holes is quite telling.

        • Hector:

          Earlier I reported the same hole and I have no information about measures:


          And I read the opinion of Logical Reason:




          I have recoded the data of DSB into the format of albert_lex:


          At first glance, it looks like DSB forced the sample into the format of 9N314M:


          But also in the sample of albert_lex 9N314M it is not impossible:


          This all means 9N314M might be one of the possible warheads used. I did not consider direct observations of perpendicular holes. They could point immediately into the direction of squares.

          So, I am inclined to think only on the basis of transverse measures perpendicular on the direction of impact warhead 9N314M is not impossible.

          Warhead 9N314M is confirmed nor falsified on the basis of this histogram profile. The bowtie of RTL is almost totally falsified by Admin and the two alleged bowties in the bodies of the crew are not yet confirmed. This because transverse measurements cannot confirm 9N314M where more warheads can do the job.

  8. Antidyatel // May 6, 2016 at 1:56 am // Reply

    Here is a detailed summary of possible deceptive techniques for radars
    For the case of semi-active missile the deception is simpler, because missile doesn’t have means tp detect it, while ground station is unaffected

  9. Inspecting the histogram of albert_lex it must be concluded categories are sharply identified:


    This is not on the basis of chance, for then we would expect a smoother transition over classes:


    So, a certain ordering principle affects translations by earlier rotations:


    What kind of principle makes categories 6 and 8 on albert_lex so sharp come forward?


    Now we all know bowties do not have a simple structure. Earlier I might be wrong and they tumble more than squares, for they have no optimal aerodynamic design. Then squares translate, where bowties rotate. And they also get more diffuse boundaries on the albert_lex histogram:


    • The question I haven’t seen addressed is how fast must a fragment rotate to affect its orientation at impact? The fragments reached MH17 in a tiny fraction of a second.

      If a fragment is rotating at say 1,000 revolutions per minute and travels 5 meters at whatever effective speed then will it complete even a single revolution before striking the aircraft?

      It takes energy to rotate fragments, and I doubt that AA or their predecessor would have wanted much energy lost that way. Then again, given the power of the explosive, maybe rotation doesn’t matter to a manufacturer.

      • Basic Dimension // May 10, 2016 at 7:30 pm // Reply

      • Basic Dimension // May 10, 2016 at 7:30 pm // Reply


        Passing through the hull with acute angles force cubic fragments to the same behavior. It is not an effect caused by the alignment of squares along the frac speed vector, because perpendicular hits can give diamond impressions.

        It seems the hull forces squares to pass with their sides aligned to the impact direction:


        Anyway it looks like acute angles splendidly strip the categories from any fringe. Just what we need to identify the fragments.

        It might be only squares are brought in line with their front ribs. For bowties a different mechanism might be working.

        Anyway if the histogram of albert_lex gives the real measures of squares, then acute angles bring squares to their ground form without many rotations:


        Then we made amazing progress. Then we could conclude warhead 9N314 from missile 9M38 must be falsified because a rib of 6 mm does not exist and Bellingcat is falsified:


        Also warhead 9N318 from missile 9M317 would be falsified. This because its rib of 6.5 mm cannot be narrower and I guess albert_lex found mostly 6 mm ribs.


        Only the profile with bowties passes the test of the histogram of albert_lex. But there can be more warheads passing the test. But I think we must conclude 9N314M is the only warhead not falsified by this histogram:


        Remember, though the width of the rib cannot be narrower than 8.2 mm for bowties and fillers, it is allowed for little squares with the biggest share in ribs of 8 mm.


    Without the amazing research of albert_lex we had no possibilities to do scientific research on the holes in the hull of the MH17. For this we are grateful.

    A fragment can impact on a target from all points of a sphere:


    Yet, somehow nature has arranged these angles of impact into less than 15 categories:


    I suppose albert_lex already had an idea of the kind of fragments before he started his research. He had seen diamonds from perpendicular impacts of squares. Then it is understandable also presuppose squares in the research of transverse measures perpendicular on the direction of impact. But that would be tunnel vision.

    The compression of all possible angles of impact into less than 15 categories of ribs of squares has first to be explained, for this piling on just a few categories is remarkable.

    First was thought fragments choose position in line with the frac speed vector in order to balance weight and to minimize air resistance. This was a stupid idea:


    It is untenable because then there were no diamonds of perpendicular impacts. It all would have been squares for perpendicularity is also an impact direction. No, there is something rotten in this argument, but it was helpful:


    Anyway, we conclude all conditioning of fragments into only a few categories must come from the target. It seems the hull forces squares to pass with their sides aligned to the impact direction:


    But then we have a problem, for now it depends on the form of the fragment how it will be conditioned by the target:


    This means bowties are disadvantaged in the histogram of albert_lex. They possibly are normally distributed around some value.

    Only if ribs and ‘flat’ surfaces of bowties are already perpendicular on the direction of impact, their measures will be reproduced like squares. Which means on category 13 we will find only a portion of the bowtie impressions:


    And that means we cannot falsify the bowtie scenario by the histogram of albert_lex. On the other hand warhead 9N314M is also not confirmed, because with this profile more warheads can do the job. Only the profile of 9N314M is confirmed, not the warhead itself.

  11. Shrinking of fragments by ricochet


    These must be ricochet. The transverse dimensions of the entry holes are much wider than the dimensions of the pieces on the exit holes on the vertical plate. Fragments will have lost half their mass?

  12. Attachment albert_lex histogram

    Before I start the ‘arithmetic’ I suppose all squares exploded with their face (8×8 mm) to the target. But later this turns out not always to be the case:


    So, it are not squares which turn themselves in line with the direction of the frac speed vector but they were already born in that position. But remember, this does not happen after a quarter rotation as below:


    Suppose the frag speed of squares is 2000 meter/sec. Following DSB the distance of the point of detonation to the hull of MH17 is ~3 meter. Hence within 3/2000 = 0.0015 seconds fragments enter the hull. But following scientists on the internet it must be 1.5 meter and 0.00075 seconds flying time. Furthermore:

    IsThatSo // May 10, 2016 at 8:25 pm // Reply
    The question I haven’t seen addressed is how fast must a fragment rotate to affect its orientation at impact? The fragments reached MH17 in a tiny fraction of a second.
    If a fragment is rotating at say 1,000 revolutions per minute and travels 5 meters at whatever effective speed then will it complete even a single revolution before striking the aircraft?
    It takes energy to rotate fragments, and I doubt that AA or their predecessor would have wanted much energy lost that way. Then again, given the power of the explosive, maybe rotation doesn’t matter to a manufacturer.

    We will take this example:

    1,000 revolutions per minute is 1000/60=17 revolutions per second. Then a revolution would take 1/17=.06 seconds (from 8×8 front side to 8×8 mm front side). But we only have 0.00075 seconds. In this time a square can make .00075/.06=.0125 revolutions.

    Half a revolution (from 8×8 mm front side to 8×8 mm rear side) would take 0.03 seconds. A quarter of a revolution (from 8×8 front side to the 8×6 side needs 0.06/4=.015 seconds. Sigh, that’s good news. Now, we can conclude squares have about sufficient time to rotate to their 8×6 mm side in a natural way. This means for categories 6 (33) and 8 (64) to be possible (in relation to rectangle 6×8 mm) we only have to relax somewhat the no rotation assumption.


    But there is more, also the diagonal of side 8×6 mm (10 mm, n=30) comes within reach:


    The diagonal of the (8×8 mm) front side has a low probability (score=11, n =8), because in case of impact on the front side usually no rotation happened and the hypotenuse as transverse dimension is less likely. But in case of a quarter rotation, yielding side (8×6 mm) a diagonal of 10 mm is also more likely (n = 30). So we are able to force reality into our tunnelvision.

    What can we conclude? In case of translations we get more of category 8 (n=64) (with some from rotation to 8×6 mm). And in case of quarter rotations we get the combined categories 6 (n=33) and 10 (n=30). Did we find the connection between categories 6 and 10? For some unconscious reason this makes sense.

    In most cases we still need the following assumption:


    Why rotations?

    Warheads are made purposely to reach certain goals. There are different effects caused by the start position of ignition, in the front or in the rear. The highly esoteric and almost religious fake discussion around that ‘Lancet’ has also to do with it. But the co-propagating shockwave seems to be a real effect:


    Also in old warheads there might be a gas-effect which can rotate squares:

    [Previous design with square elements reveal a problem – square under stressing pressure start to exploding in size. As any metal – direction of this exploding depend from lowest density. Lowest density happen on edge. Cube/Square exploding on edges and become as flatten sphere. Spheres have holes for gas leaking between them, also shpere have lesser penetration. Outnormous pressure during explosion can even destroy square on a few debris which can be too small for penetrate armored targets (main idea of heavy strike elements is penetration of armored targets like close-support war plane Su-25 or A-10).]


    So, we might already use a quarter rotation on the left windshields. And towards the rear of the cockpit there is more room for rotation to fill category 13 (11.3, n=4).

    We only have very limited information about this disaster. But sometimes you feel you can trust somebody. I am inclined to trust the histogram of albert_lex more than that of DSB. Albert_lex has seen the holes and probably has more information. Squares passed the requirement of conditional probability, maybe different sorts of squares. I would give it a try.

Leave a Reply to sotilaspassi Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.