Follow live presentation of the final report on MH17

On Tuesday October 13 Dutch Safety Board will present the final report on the investigation into the cause of the crash of MH17.

The DSB scope was:

  • what is the cause of the crash?
  • why did MH17 fly over a war area?
  • Why did it took 2 days before a list with passenger names was completed?
  • Did the 298 people on board MH17 suffer? .
Dutch and international press will cover the pressconference of the DSB in Gilze Rijen.
In extra broadcasts of the NOS Journaal , NOS Radio 1 Jouraal and on NPO Nieuws channel the pressconference will be broadcasted.
Next of kin, politicians and experts will respond. Also reporters in Moscow and Donetsk will report.
Also RTL will broadcast the pressconference live on RTL Z. The program starts at 12:45. Also rtlz.nl and rtlnieuws.nl will broadcast the pressconference. After the pressconference has finished next of kin and experts will react. RTL Z will contact reporter Jeroen Akkermans in Ukraine

Tuesday evening Dutch NPO will have an exclusive live interview with the head of DSB Tjibbe Joustra about the MH17 investigation. The program last 50 minutes. Start 20:25.

NOS Journaal Rapport MH17

Presentor: Rik van de Westelaken
12.30-14.30** uur, NPO 1
NOS Radio 1 Journaal
Presentator: Lara Rense
Starting 13.00 uur, NPO Radio 1

13 Comments on Follow live presentation of the final report on MH17

  1. interesting that Almaz-Antey publish their report on that day too about warhead explosion test against decomissioned Boeing.
    IIRC they state in the earlier press conference video that they cooperated with DSB. I’m curious it will be a supporting or attacking evidence in addition to DSB report.

    • Of course A-A already knows the DSB report. If they agreed they would not react or would choose for another day, for this is impolite.

      So we might infer DSB will designate Snizhne as the launch site. Hence, we understand A-A meanwhile has collected data and arguments to refute this. We also conclude DSB has no convincing arguments to propose a perpetrator. They are empty-handed.

      And that gives A-A the chance to come up with their realistic experiment. Probably they will come with the same horizontal and vertical course angles to negate Snizhne, since meanwhile DSB has been too lazy for real experiments.

      Which all means the DSB report must be substantively very weak and certainly cannot boast on real experiments, which gap now has been filled by A-A.

      • Actually, it’s not DSB job to find the perpetrator, and it won’t be in their report — it’s up to JIT who do the criminal investigation, not the air security one that DSB does.

        So, the only idea of AA report exactly at that day is to shift attention from the real findings to their claimed but unsubstantiated ones.

        Don’t forget the previous AA report was announced on June 2, 2015 — again, exactly the day DSB sent their preliminary report to its parties (though not made it public).

        So, such a “perfect timing” shall obscure the fact that all AA did, according to Russian official media reports, was they blasted a stationary ‘Buk’ missile near a stationary old Boeing airframe at the ground level — which immediately makes all their efforts irrelevant, at the best, and misleading, in reality.

        And the only grateful audience for them would be the Russians — and some Western “truth seekers” that abound at this site.

        • Hector Reban // October 11, 2015 at 7:18 am // Reply

          What do you think of the perfect timing of the Bellingcat “primer on MH17” to mould the contents of the DSB report into a frame of Russian guilt?

          • Prosto Tak // October 11, 2015 at 9:30 pm //

            Nothing. What Bellingcat team published now is mainly to sum up their previous findings. There’s not much new in their recent report that was made public. However, from what I’ve read they didn’t publish everything they know but passed to JIT (not DSB) their new data about the individuals who had something to do with the shooting down of MH17.

            Otherwise, there would be nothing in the DSB report to “frame the Russian guilt.” It’s just not their job.

            What they will possibly state is that the plane was shot down by a ‘Buk’ missile, type so-and-so, launched from this-and-that particular place. They may add the place was controlled by the Russian-incited and Russian-armed separatists at the time. That’s all.

            And that’s what the investigation under ICAO rules does: not to put any criminal blame at anyone but to look into making such incident more improbable in the future.

            If you want to know who would be named the alleged criminal perpetrators you’ll have to wait until the report by JIT. It might be released somewhere in February.

          • Prosto Tak

            ‘What they will possibly state is that the plane was shot down by a ‘Buk’ missile, type so-and-so, launched from this-and-that particular place. They may add the place was controlled by the Russian-incited and Russian-armed separatists at the time. That’s all.’

            We all know nobody is interested in the individual perpetrators but mainly in the country facilitating this mass murder. Hence the critical starting position for JIT is the “scientific” indication of the location of the launch site by DSB. And since DSB has been a bit lazy in reconstructing MH17 (their silly cockpit) and probably did not conduct any practical tests they run into big problems.

            To start with: for the course angles they need damaged AND undamaged parts of the plane. The error variance of the horizontal course angle will make sharp conclusions impossible and unreliable. The vertical angle is even trickier.

            That’s why A-A got the chance to rebut the presumed angles with practical tests. A-A only need to reveal the error variance of the angle determination to falsify the distinction between Zaroshchenske and Snizhne.

            Furthermore, they failed to secure the wreck, so meanwhile many tracks can be erased (the blue paint).

            They gathered witness statements with the commendation of ridiculous witness protection mechanisms that they can never live up to.

            All information for BUK transport came from SBU, partner of DSB.

            This research will be a mess.

          • Prosto Tak // October 12, 2015 at 12:41 am //

            Basic Dimension,

            > We all know nobody is interested in the individual perpetrators but mainly in the country facilitating this mass murder

            — And all the world knows the country, unofficially. However, it’s not any of DSB responsibilities to point at this country. I bet you wouldn’t find a single word of the guilt of Russia in DSB report.

            > A-A got the chance to rebut the presumed angles with practical tests

            They might have gotten the chance — but they’ve missed it spectacularly, according to what Russian media have reported so far.

            If those reports are correct, AA have just blown up a stationary ‘Buk’ missile firmly fixed near a stationary Boeing airframe at the ground level.

            Which has not a slightest similarity with a ‘Buk’ missile approaching a cruising Boeing at a speed of several Mach and at a height of about 10+ thousand meter.

            Besides, the missile launch from the separatist controlled Snizhne has much more direct confirmations apart from the almost virtual “error variances of the horizontal course angle” than a fictional launch from the separatist controlled Zaroshchenske which is not confirmed by anything except from the hollow Russian claim.

          • Hector Reban // October 12, 2015 at 5:39 am //

            Recycling old (and mostly debunked or heavily doubtful) stuff pointing to a clear perpr just before the DSB report, and you say that means nothing? Really?

            They put a lot of work in balming Russians without proof the BUK originated form a Russian convoy. We all know the Paris Match pictures are frauds and the side-skirt fingerprinting – certainly in the way it is performed by Bcat – is an outright scam.

            Its a shame these people get that much attention, but I guess that’s emanating from the fact they are delivering what NATO needs and the (pro)western media can blindly follow.

          • Hector Reban // October 12, 2015 at 5:48 am //

            Prosto: what standing evidence is there for a south of Snizhne launchsite?

            The only thing we can assume is the rebels may have had a BUK in shooting range, but so had the Ukrainians. There is really not much else to say about all the stuff the SBU has conveyed to construct a trail of guilt.

            The sightings are all second-hand and dubious at least
            The PM pic is a fraud
            The Luhansk and Zuhres vids are probably from other dates
            The Snizhne vid of the lone BUK doesn’t fit the timeline
            The AP testimonies combined with the Girkin pic at Karapetyan street are doubtful
            And foremost, the two-faced contrail wasn’t a launch plume.

            If you want some supporting arguments of another site, maybe southwest from Snizhne, you may read https://hectorreban.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/did-the-ukrainians-shoot-down-flight-mh17/

          • Only possible approach angle for BUK M1 missile to explode near pilot window, is from ahead.
            Little to south of the flight path.

            It’s a little bit dull fact, but still a fact.

          • So, we can be 100% sure there was a BUK launcher near the flight path.

            >The only thing we can assume is the rebels may have had a BUK in shooting range,

            All evidence so far show only that.

            >but so had the Ukrainians.

            There is absolutely zero evidence yet to support that.

            >The sightings are all second-hand and dubious at least

            Dubious perhaps, but less dubious than SU25 or Z location. +JIT will need more.

            >The PM pic is a fraud

            So the conspiracy theorist like to insist. But it still is not proven a fraud or fake.
            +JIT will need study it more.

            >The Luhansk and Zuhres vids are probably from other dates

            +JIT must study it more.
            But it PROVES there was BUK on a rebel stolen lowloader.

            >The Snizhne vid of the lone BUK doesn’t fit the timeline

            +JIT must study it more.
            But it PROVES there was a BUK.

            >The AP testimonies combined with the Girkin pic at Karapetyan street are doubtful

            So far neither that picture is proven irrelevant.

            >And foremost, the two-faced contrail wasn’t a launch plume.

            It can not be anything else than missile launch plume (+ some black smoke closer to photographer).
            +JIT must study it more, to make sure it is not a higly talented photo manipulation + less talented EXIF manipulation.

      • The DSB report will likely not say anything much, because they know their fake evidence will be easily refuted

        • DSB report will “say” only things that could be scientifically found out, to determine the cause of the crash.

          As they have the shrapnel, explosive residue and trajectories through the fuselage I hope the tell all they know (the exact angle of BUK missile when it detonated).

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*