How Russia Today and John Helmer twist facts on missile impact

a short guest blog by Arnold Greidanus

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

On July 17th Russia Today published its documentary “MH17: a year without truth“. In this video the younger and older sister of captain Wan Amran were interviewed. The younger sister tells the interviewer that she identified her brother at Hilversum (where all the victims’ bodies were investigated) and brought the body home to Malaysia.

wan amran en zus

She tells that she was shown a full length photo of her brother and she was able to identify him. His body wasn’t damaged, only slightly burned. The older sister then tells that on arrival in Malaysia the government allowed no one to open the coffins.

This statement has been used by several people to suggest that there has not been any shrapnel damage on the pilot in charge. After the Dutch Safety Board final report was published John Helmer writes:

They, the DSB has concluded, “sustained multiple fatal injuries associated with the impact of metal fragments moving at high velocity”. The DSB report says there were “hundreds of metal fragments” in the Captain’s body; “over 120 objects (mostly metal fragments)” in the First Officer’s body; and “more than 100 objects” in the Purser’s body.

This is new evidence. Earlier reporting of what Lailatul Masturah, sister of MH17 flight captain Wan Amran, said she saw of his body, and was told at the Hilversum Army base when his body was released to her, suggests nothing of the sort. Read her testimony here. 

In an earlier post Helmer wrote the following:

As the JIT investigation progressed, however, the Malaysian pathologists who attended the identification process at Hilversum reported their concerns to their government. The sister of Captain Wan Amran, the pilot of MH17, who went to Hilversum to identify his body, said she had seen a film of his body and had been told by investigators there were no shrapnel or bullet wounds.

The Malaysian Ambassador to the Netherlands, Fauziah Binti Nohd Taib, then issued a public complaint that Malaysian officials were “not sufficiently involved” in the Hilversum investigation. Press reports of what she said exactly have been removed from the internet. They were reported in Dutch several weeks later.

Both fragments seem to suggest that the captain in charge was not hit by shrapnel. In the second fragment cited there’s also the suggestion that this finding then led the Malyasian Ambassador to complain about the lack of involvement in the investigation. And also that her statement has been removed from the internet.

Helmer does not provide any sources on these statements. If he had, it would have been clear that the statement by the Malaysian Ambassador was made in a NOS Nieuwsuur broadcast on October 29th, 2014 (fragment on Ambassador starts at 18m45s). The complaint concerned the fact that Malaysia at the time was no member of the Joint Investigation Team and was only indirectly involved and informed. So, that statement had nothing to do with the story on the identification of captain Wan Amran in the RT documentary, published 9 months later. Also, news articles on her statement of that time can still be found.

Further on in the second cited post Helmer writes: “[…] the autopsy records ruled out one cause of death of the victims — the allegation that a Russian Buk missile had struck MH17.” Here he is referring to statements by two of the Australian pathologists and coronial court officers, who made public that the passengers of MH17 had not been hit by shrapnel. (The conference presentation by the Australian coroners, that Helmer refers to, can be found here.)
Now that the DSB report has been published we know this is correct, but Helmer’s conclusion there was no (Buk) missile fired at MH17 is unfounded, since their statements do not concern the crew present in the cockpit.

The main issue here is whether Wan Amran was indeed the captain in charge when MH17 was downed. As can be learnt from the DSB report there were two teams present on the flight, in accordance with Malaysia Airlines’ procedures for longer flights. The names of the cockpit crew members are not given in the report (and I will not give them here either, but they can easily be found), yet their ages are mentioned.
The case is that Wan Amran (49 years) was the captain of team B, which was to fly the second half of the flight. On the first half of the flight his colleague, aged 44 years, was the captain of team A, assisted by a first officer, aged 26 years. At the time MH17 was downed Wan Amran was most likely staying in the rest area, just like the other first officer, aged 29.
(It was the latter’s wife who gave a very moving speech at the MH17 memorial on July 17th, 2015, when she spoke the words her husband would have spoken to the passengers if they would have made the descent to Kuala Lumpur that day.)

Therefore: the bodies that were hit by shrapnel were those of the members of team A. On the internet a few pictures of one, possibly two members of team A have circulated. I will not publish these here, out of respect for the bereaved. However, I can state that these photos show loss of body parts and several entrance wounds, caused by shrapnel. There are no doubts whatsoever on the dreadful consequences of a missile exploding.

Of course Russia Today knew Wan Amran was not the captain in charge at the time of downing. The family interviewed will have provided this information, but it was left out on purpose by Russia Today. (The statement on coffins not allowed to being opened on behalf of the Malaysian government could also have been taken out of context – but I do not know that.)
Anyway, if John Helmer had read the DSB-report attentively and if he had done a little research he could have found out Wan Amran was not in charge at the time.
Instead, both Russia Today and John Helmer are just disinforming the public and twisting facts.

Helmer’s first cited article also produces some fog with regards to statements by the Australian Federal Police officers. Where Helmer suggests these statements contradict the DSB findings, in fact they only deal with a controverse on the question whether the Ukrainian State Emergency Services conducted their recovery work properly and respectfully, or not. (They did.) And they also deal with the question whether the cause of death of the passenger victims can be established umabiguously, or not. (It can not on an individual level).
The sources (here, here and here) he is referring to contain nothing that contradicts the DSB report.

Helmer may have a point regarding the conclusiveness of the evidence presented by the Dutch Safety Board in another recent post, but his method of arguing is not untainted, given the examples above, and therefore not convincing at all. His posts rest on one rhetorical trick, namely raising suspicion and thereby adding to confusion.

Postscript, November 4th 2015


In response to some of the questions or remarks in the comments to this post:

As for the presence of two teams of a captain and a first officer: on July 20th Malaysia Airlines published a list of the passengers and crew. That list literally mentions two captains and two first officers.
The crew names had been published already on the 17th e.g. here and here. So, John Helmer should have known there were two teams present and he might have asked himself whether Wan Amran was the one in command at the time of downing.

As to the remark whether it was knowable which team was flying at the time of the downing and which team was the relief crew: there are some sources, but not from official channels (as far as I know, but I haven’t checked sources in the Malay language). These sources, however are not all definitive on this issue but they have proved to be correct, e.g. here, here or here.

Russia Today, however, knew for sure who was flying! On October 22nd 2014 they released an earlier documentary, “MH-17: the untold story“, in which the wife of the 1st officer of team A was interviewed. At 4m17s it is stated that this 1st officer was to fly the first stage of the journey.

With regards to the statement that the Malaysian authorities did not allow the coffins to be opened: the remains of Wan Amran, as well as of the other captain and the 1st officer of team B, were repatriated to Malaysia on September 2nd, 2014. The plane carrying their remains and those of other victims landed at Kuala Lumpur International Airport at 08:35 local time. Immediately after there was a ceremony, which was attended by PM Najib Razak. See also this report. After this the funeral of Wan Amran took place at 11:25 local time, at Shah Alam muslim cemetery, Selangor, which is located 45 km from the airport.

Islamic burial tradition prescribes that a funeral takes place ‘as soon as possible’, taking into account particular circumstances. In this case it may be probable that Malaysian authorities and/or imams insisted that the funeral took place following the ceremony and that there was no opportunity to open the coffins. But, this is no more than an assumption!

The conference presentation by two Australian coroners dealt with Disaster Victims Identification (DVI) process. As is stated in their presentation (slide 20): in case a CT scan of a body (part) showed suspicious foreign objects it was transferred to the forensic investigation, and if not it was to be part of the DVI investigation. So, John Helmer might have guessed that the bodies of those with missile impact traces would not be part of the DVI process, and hence was not to be addressed by the conference presentation.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

25 Comments on How Russia Today and John Helmer twist facts on missile impact

  1. Admin,

    Thanks a lot for clarifying this issue – I brought it up in a previous post, as I automatically assumed that the pilot in question must’ve been in the cockpit, not realizing that there were indeed two teams for that flight.

  2. Hector Reban // October 20, 2015 at 5:15 am // Reply

    “Further on in the second cited post Helmer writes: “[…] the autopsy records ruled out one cause of death of the victims — the allegation that a Russian Buk missile had struck MH17.” Here he is referring to statements by two of the Australian pathologists and coronial court officers, who made public that the passengers of MH17 had not been hit by shrapnel. Now that the DSB report has been published we know this is correct, but Helmer’s conclusion there was no (Buk) missile fired at MH17 is unfounded, since their statements do not concern the crew present in the cockpit.”

    So you are blaming Helmer for not being able to look into the future?

    Guess you must assess this in the light of what was put forward before the DSB report: everybody screaming BUK, but not supported by Australian autopsies.

    Furthermore, is someone deliberately adding confusion, as you seem to suggest in accordance with all western politicians and news outlets, just by not knowing/having researched (as you obviously only did *after* the report came out?) two teams were flying at the time of writing? You do some unfouned conjecturing yourself when you state “the family must told him…”, without proof.

    Of course RT will suffer from the same deficiencies as our own media, especially in a time of a severe (info)war when truth perishes always first. But muting dissent voices by blaming them for confusion is as disingenious as blaming every dissenter for being a Kremlintroll.

    If I am allowed to say: After reading some important parts of the DSB report and comparing this with the AA report, I must say the latter makes a far more better impression with respect to scientific accuracy.

  3. Hector,

    It is obvious that the further away from impact point, the less likely it would be that shrapnel would hit passengers. For all that I could tell already a long time ago, it seemed that shrapnel did not travel much beyond the initial impact points, which would be the forward section of the plane, and the cockpit in particular. Nobody needed the autopsy report from Australia to confirm what was already pretty obvious – pilots died instantly after being hit by shrapnel, while it is likely that the number of other passengers that were hit by such shrapnel was very limited.

    I had troubles taking John Helmer seriously ever since I initially came across his writings on this subject. He surely has some skill in twisting words and facts.

    • Hector Reban // October 20, 2015 at 10:29 am // Reply

      If it was obvious, then the Aussies wouldn´t have had to classify the reports. Itś kind of easy to say afterwards we all knew things before.

      The false inferences made in Arnold´s posting had to be addressed. Or does he have more right to twist than some journalist?

  4. I would say that it is fairly obvious. Just look at the video of A-A blowing up the cockpit of an IL-86 with a BUK missile. Plenty of damage close to the impact point, but it’s not as though a BUK missile would perforate an entire plane and everyone inside with shrapnel. As for the report being classified, I think this has little to do with it. It is sensitive material I guess, but that does not mean that it contains major secrets that would show flaws of the DSB report or anything else.

    And I do not know which ‘false interferences’ in Arnold’s postings you are referring to.

  5. Is it fair in hindsight to say that on 7/17/15 RT knew for a fact who was at the controls when MH17 was shot down? Can anyone find a link proving that this information was publicly known beyond a doubt prior to the release of the DSB’s final report?

    I have searched and not found anything establishing beyond a doubt who was at the controls. News.com.au came pretty close on 7/19/14 but left room for doubt.
    http://www.news.com.au/world/the-crew-of-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17-who-will-never-come-home/story-fndir2ev-1226994738788

    I have searched and found nothing establishing that the families of the flight crew were informed before the public concerning who was in the cockpit. Can anyone find a link confirming this assumption?

    The RT documentary was misleading in hindsight, but to say that it was deliberately misleading is to say that RT knew for a fact who was at the controls when the documentary was released. To say that the families would have told RT is to claim that (1) the families knew for a fact who was at the controls and (2) the families disclosed information to RT that they likely were not at liberty to disclose.

    The statement that the Malaysian government did not allow families to open coffins has never been challenged. Surely a knowledgeable source would have objected by now if this is false information.

    In his 10/13/15 article John Helmer was angered by the DSB’s withholding so much information for many months. It is hard to avoid misleading others when you have also been kept in the dark. His earlier articles were an important contribution made at a time when almost everyone else was distracted by questionable social media videos and photographs mostly of unknown origin. The benefit of hindsight does not entitle anyone to denigrate Helmer’s facts, his motives and his reputation. The same is true of RT. Such accusations should be backed by iron clad proof.

    • IF RT or Hemler did not have proof, they should not have printed it as a fact, instead it should have been specifically labelled as opinion or as a rhetorical question to be answered by future evidence.
      They did neither.
      They provided themselves as factual and making conclusion based on evidence they did not have.
      That is against all journalistic ‘morals’.
      They had every opportunity to question ‘official’ sources.

      So yes IsThatSo, they should be chastised for their lack of morals and exposed when they are liars.
      Kudos Admin and Arnold.

      Arnold, small question regarding part of the article.

      you state – ‘Here he is referring to statements by two of the Australian pathologists and coronial court officers, who made public that the passengers of MH17 had not been hit by shrapnel.’

      Do you have a link to where that is an official statement and release?

      I heard tell that Hemler got that info by hearsay from an ‘anonymous’ source that overheard two pathologists discussing MH17 at a conference that had just finished.
      But actually those pathologists did not release what was discussed in that conference.
      I believe Hemler himself was the source of the release of the ‘gossip’ tht was written about in other publications about – no MH17 passengers had BUK shrapnel wounds.
      And actually if I remember what I read in the article about the conference, the two pathologists together did autopsies on less then 20 of the 38 Australians, and that was all they could actually speak about.

      Fare thee well

    • IsThatSO,
      Well, RT could have looked at the crew list and said hmmm, why is their two captains and two vice captains listed?
      Whose names and crew positions were named on July 17th 2014.

      http://www.ibtimes.com/malaysian-airlines-mh17-passenger-list-names-15-crew-members-released-malaysia-media-1631888

      Also the preliminary DSB report stated Captain and Relief Captain, and First Officer and relief First Officer.
      So RT could have inquired very easily who was flying the plane instead of assuming something.
      Malaysia Airlines or DSB probably would have identified it easily to anyone that inquired.
      RT journalists should not be looking through a large variety of articles on the web for proof of what they write, they should be contacting sources and inquiring from officials.
      They repeatedly make statements without confirmation (also Kremlin ordered statements), that is what makes RT such a failure.

      Fare thee well

  6. “However, I can state that these photos show loss of body parts and several entrance wounds, caused by shrapnel. There are no doubts whatsoever on the dreadful consequences of a missile exploding.”

    This does not fit with the DSB report.
    page 92 , table 11

    One (!!) bow-tie formed shrapnel (nr.20, 5,7 g) was found in the pursers body, another one (!!) cubic formed (nr.15, 1,3g) in the body of the first officer. None (0!) shrapnel in the captain.

    Purser and 1.officer had 100 to 120 (respectively) metal parts (no shrapnel) in their bodies. Source? Outer parts of a BUK warhead? So many little parts? Metallurgical investigation of these little parts? A lot of question-marks!

    Besides the fact that these two shrapnels are missing about 25 % of their weight (compared to a BUK shrapnel) they seem to be DSBs only hard evidence for a BUK. The other shrapnells were collected in Nov.2014 in wreckage parts.

    There should be much more than 1 (one!) shrapnel in a body, when a BUK explodes about 5 m from the cockpit. If in this sector we have let us say about 10 % of 7600 shrapnel, we would expect in an area of 2x2m= 4 sqm about 19 shrapnels in a 10x10cm area.
    This number is the minimum to expect in a body so near to a BUK detonation as assumed.
    In addition the AA experiments with a stationary BUK and a Iljushin cockpit showed, that there were bow-tie shaped wholes in the outer skin of the plane, which were not observed in MH 17.

    Also the calculations of AA, if A was the cause, then it could be only started south of Sherenskoje, does not appear in the DSB report.

    Conclusion: the hypothesis of a BUK is not very probable. The DSB report is a (political) report to obscure something.

  7. What is wrong?

    “However, I can state that these photos show loss of body parts and several entrance wounds, caused by shrapnel. There are no doubts whatsoever on the dreadful consequences of a missile exploding.”

    The question is still what kind of missile?

    Look into the DSB report. page 92 , table 11

    One (!!) bow-tie formed shrapnel (nr.20, 5,7 g) was found in the pursers body, another one (!!) cubic formed (nr.15, 1,3g) in the body of the first officer. None (0!) shrapnel in the captain.

    Purser and 1.officer had 100 to 120 (respectively) metal parts (no shrapnel) in their bodies. Source of these metal parts? Outer shape of a BUK warhead? So many little parts? Metallurgical investigation of these little parts? A lot of question-marks!

    Besides the fact that these two shrapnels are missing about 25 % of their weight (compared to a BUK shrapnel) they seem to be DSBs only h a r d evidence for a BUK. Remmeber: the mentioned other shrapnells were collected in Nov.2014 in wreckage parts.

    There should be much m o r e than 1 (one!) shrapnel in a body, when a BUK explodes about 5 m from the cockpit. If in this sector we have, let us say , about 10 % of 7600 shrapnel, we would expect in an area of 2x2m= 4 sqm about 19 shrapnels in a 10x10cm area.
    This number is the minimum to expect in a body so near to a BUK detonation as assumed.
    In addition the AA experiments with a stationary BUK and a Iljushin cockpit showed, that there were bow-tie shaped wholes in the outer skin of the plane, which were not observed in MH 17.

    Also the calculations of AA, if A was the cause, then it could be only started south of Sherenskoje, does not appear in the DSB report.

    Conclusion: the hypothesis of a BUK is not very probable. The DSB report is a (political) report to obscure something.

  8. What is wrong?

    “However, I can state that these photos show loss of body parts and several entrance wounds, caused by shrapnel. There are no doubts whatsoever on the dreadful consequences of a missile exploding.”

    The question is still what kind of missile?

    Look into the DSB report. page 92 , table 11

    One (!!) bow-tie formed shrapnel (nr.20, 5,7 g) was found in the pursers body, another one (!!) cubic formed (nr.15, 1,3g) in the body of the first officer. None (0!) shrapnel in the captain.

    Purser and 1.officer had 100 to 120 (respectively) metal parts (no shrapnel) in their bodies. Source of these metal parts? Outer shape of a BUK warhead? So many little parts? Metallurgical investigation of these little parts? A lot of question-marks!

    Besides the fact that these two shrapnels are missing about 25 % of their weight (compared to a BUK shrapnel) they seem to be DSBs only h a r d evidence for a BUK. Remmeber: the mentioned other shrapnells were collected in Nov.2014 in wreckage parts.

    There should be much m o r e than 1 (one!) shrapnel in a body, when a BUK explodes about 5 m from the cockpit. If in this sector we have, let us say , about 10 % of 7600 shrapnel, we would expect in an area of 2x2m= 4 sqm about 19 shrapnels in a 10x10cm area.
    This number is the minimum to expect in a body so near to a BUK detonation as assumed.
    In addition the AA experiments with a stationary BUK and a Iljushin cockpit showed, that there were bow-tie shaped wholes in the outer skin of the plane, which were not observed in MH 17.

    Also the calculations of AA, if A was the cause, then it could be only started south of Sherenskoje, does not appear in the DSB report.

    Conclusion: the hypothesis of a BUK is not very probable. The DSB report is a (political) report to obscure something.

    • Johannes, you do realize, and I hope Hemler realizes by now, there were 2 different Captains on the flight, 2 different First officers.
      One Captain was more injured then the other.
      One got his injures from the BUK the other got his injuries from when the cabin broke off the front of the plane, I believe.

      Russia Federation signed off on the report.
      It was a BUK missile.
      They admit that fact.

      Fare thee well

    • Arnold Greidanus // November 4, 2015 at 6:45 pm // Reply

      As can be read in the DSB report on page 89 and 91 one bow-tie element was found in the captain’s body and another in the purser’s body. So, your statement none was found in the captain’s body is false.

      • Hector Reban // November 7, 2015 at 7:07 am // Reply

        Incorrect. The captain´s body contained a fragment of imho unidentified form – they claim its a cubic – but certainly no bow-tie.

      • Hector Reban // November 7, 2015 at 12:09 pm // Reply

        This is incorrect information. The purser’s body contained one – imho not distinctly shaped – but designated to be a cubic fragment. see bottom left fig 37, p. 89 and fig 11, p. 92 dsb report.

        Only the captain’s body contained a bow-tie. The other one was found elsewhere in the cockpit.

        • Wind tunnel man // November 8, 2015 at 7:03 pm // Reply

          Hector:

          “Only the captain’s body contained a bow-tie. The other one was found elsewhere in the cockpit.”

          Yes I agree, that does seem to be DSB’s conclusion. And since both alleged “bow-tie” shaped fragments had deposits of re-solidified cockpit glass and/or aluminium on their surfaces and were of the same elemental composition the view was taken that those similar shaped fragments originated from the same source external to the aircraft.

          Whether those two alleged “bow-tie” shaped fragments are actually from a 9N314M warhead is certainly debatable: at the weights of 6.1g and 5.7g they should no longer resemble bow-ties according to the tests conducted by A-A.

    • Arnold Greidanus // November 4, 2015 at 6:46 pm // Reply

      As can be read in the DSB report on page 89 and 91 one bow-tie element was found in the captain’s body and another in the purser’s body. So, your statement none was found in the captain’s body is false.

    • Arnold Greidanus // November 4, 2015 at 6:49 pm // Reply

      As can be read in the DSB report on page 89 and 91 one bow-tie element was found in the captain’s body and another in the purser’s body. So, your statement none was found in the captain’s body is false.

  9. @Arnold Greidanus.
    My statement is correct! Read the report carefully!
    No bow tie or other shrapnell documented (!) in the captain of team A.

    http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/1006/debcd724fe7breport-mh17-crash.pdf page 85
    “2 .13. 2
    Crew autopsy …..The findings were as follows:

    First Officer Team A
    : The First Officer was found with a four-point harness on and had
    an epaulette worn by a First Officer.
    ……In this body, an aeroplane part identified as belonging to the right hand side of the aeroplane, was found during the post-mortem examination. During the body scan of the First Officer’s body, over 120 objects (mostly metal fragments) were detected.
    The majority of the fragments were found in left side of the upper torso.

    Purser
    : More than 100 objects were detected. The scatter pattern that the fragments formed was uniform and comparable with the pattern of the First Officer.

    Captain Team B (non-operating flight crew)
    : Three metal fragments were detected by means of X-ray examination. Two of which were identified as surgical clips. The third fragment was found not to be present inside the body

    …Following identification, it was found that the body of the Captain from Team A was not one of the four bodies that underwent detailed examination. The body of the Captain from Team A had undergone an external and internal examination to remove foreign
    objects. This examination showed a great deal of fragmentation in the body. In addition, hundreds of metal fragments were found.

    Several bone fractures and other injuries that were observed in the Captain’s body were judged to be related to the impact of metal
    fragments travelling at a high velocity.”

    Very odd statement! N o detailed examination of Team A captain!! The assumption that the “other injuries” originated from metal fragments travelling at a high velocity, w i t h o u t finding shrapnels of a warhead in his body (from whatever origin), see table 11 page 92, in the Team A captain, is a clear sign of a cover up.
    See also
    http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/1006/3ae49217f73breport-mh17-crash-appendix-nlr.pdf
    p.59
    “6.16 Primary and secondary fragmentation pattern
    The fragmentation pattern described in the previous sections is called the primary or main fragmentation pattern. All the preformed fragments (bowtie,filler and square) that will become the high-energy objects are found within the fragment spray zone defined by this primary fragmentation pattern. However the warhead is not located at the very front of the missile. In front of the warhead the
    guidance, electronics, proximity fuse and seeker sections are
    located. Upon detonation of the warhead these sections will disintegrate and create a secondary fragmentation pattern moving forward in the direction of flight of the missile in a cone as shown
    in green in Figure 55.”

    So we have to differentiate in between Primary (red in figure 55) and Secondary (green in figure 55) fragmentation pattern, and the over 100 metal fragments in purser and first officer a r e n o t explained. It cannot be secondary fragmentation metal parts from the BUK missile. From what source did these pver 100 metal parts come? Metallurgical investigation? Was not done. Why?
    Primary fragmentation parts are shrapnells, and there are only two shrapnells (one bow tie, one cubic (which fits not only with a BUK) proven in the bodies of the first officer and purser. The amount (only two) does not fit at all!

    page 85 of the basic report

    “Summary of the autopsy results of the crew members in the cockpit
    The Captain and First Officer from Team A and the Purser sustained multiple fatal injuries associated with the impact of metal fragments moving at high velocity.”

    And the Team A captain,(which is not mentioned)see above, was not properly examined and documented, obviously a cover up!!
    page 88
    “2 .16 .1
    Forensic examination
    In the course of the investigation, hundreds of fragments were found in the wreckage of the aeroplane, the remains of the crew members and passengers. Some of the fragments were found to be aeroplane parts, some were identified as personal belongings and other fragments originated from the ground.”

    So the DSB mixes up “fragments” (some from personal belongings, some from the ground) with the metal fragments and these with the here interesting shrapnells!!

    “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).”

    So they claim to have extracted “fragments” from the Team A captain, b u t no shrapnel of a warhead, see table 11, page 92 , were found!

    “Fifteen of these 72 fragments were found in the remains of the three crew members, one was found in the body of a passenger”

    And this is the most interesting part of this investigation! From these 15 “fragments” in the remains of the three crew members (see table 11 page 92) only t w o “fragments” could be identified as shrapnells from a warhead s u s p e c t e d as a BUK warhead (but the numbers and the weight does not fit!).

    page 92 Table 11
    What matters are (“BUK”) shrapnells in human remains, so number 12-20
    Here we have Nr.15 , 6x6x5cm , 1,3 g group OTHER , so n o elemental classification possible, no proof for a BUK shrapnel.
    Then we have Nr. 19, Cubic, 12 x 12 x 1cm, 1,2 g , group Nr.2 found in purser
    An then we have Nr.20,Bow-tie, 12 x 12 x 5g, 5,7 g group Nr.1 found in 1.officer

    In the captain Team A (but also team B) , at this time in the cockpit (and normally sitting on the left side!) no shrapnell!

    For the group, the elemental composition, see table 12.
    page 95:
    “Over 500 fragments were recovered from the wreckage of the aeroplane, the remains of the crew members and passengers. Many of the objects were identified as personal belongings, aeroplane parts or objects that originated from the ground after impact. In addition, many of the objects were metal fragments that were suspected to be high-energy objects, or parts of them. ”

    Emphasizing: ” In addition, many of the objects were metal
    fragments that were suspected to be high-energy objects, or parts of them.”

    So, the whole BUK hypothesis of the DSB lies on t w o shrapnells (one bow-tie, one cubic formed), with a loss in weight of 25 % which came only supposedly (look at “suspected” in the summary) from a BUK warhead.

    And exactly this shows, that there is something wrong in this report, (which is a political influenced report) because one would expect much more “BUK” shrapnells in the bodies of the three crew members present during detonation in the cockpit!
    See also http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/1006/7c3683079996report-mh17-crash-appendix-consultation-a.pdf

    • Your comment was seen as spam by the spam filter because it is long and full of link.
      Kind request to keep your posts short as this will increase the possibility people actually read it.

  10. Notwithstanding the attack against his character, John Helmer has graciously referred his readers to this site.

    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14500

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*