MH17: what I believe what happened

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

At September 28 2016 the Dutch prosecutor will make public the first results of the criminal investigation into the downing of MH17. The exact type of weapon (missile and warhead) and exact launchlocation will be made public.

In 26 months there has been a lot of complete nonsense in main stream media and social media about who did it and why. In the next weeks this blog will publish more evidence supporting the believe documented below.

I have not seen any single credible alternative scenario presented by either the Russian Federation nor the Russian media. When the statements of the MoD presentation were all debunked, Russia decided to use the media to confuse the public. Helped with an army of all kind of trolls and Russia fanboys.

We have seen: SU-25 canon fire , Mig-29 air to air missile,  Ukraine BUK at Zarochenske and a bomb planted in the cockpit by the CIA.

all-scenarios

Some examples of disgusting methods to influence the public is sending fake evidence to next of kins and newspapers. Some Western newspaper even published the rubbish.

People commenting on this site which are unable to provide reasonable arguments while their comments looks like propaganda are banned from this site! Trolls will cry about “censoring”. I could not care less. Find another site to publish your opinion.

Oh, you think I am a Bellingcat fanboy now! While I do appreciate the effort Bellingcat did, I was and remain critical. See for example my post here.

Some people say “there is no evidence for a BUK. 100.000 people living in the area and nobody heard the launch”. First of all, the DSB scope was to determine the cause of the crash. Not the exaxt type of missile. In a highly sensitive investigation DSB could not reveal more than needed. We DO NOT know what the Joint Investigation Team has found out as this is not made public. Journalists talked to eyewitness who saw a missile flying.

This is what I believe happened:

  1. Ukraine air force attacks were a major threat to the separatists. The few Strela-10 they had were not effective enough. Ukraine air force aircraft operated at heights out of reach for MANPADS after Ukraine lost many aircraft due to MANPADS.
  2. Russia delivered at least one BUK TELAR system to the separatists to be able to destroy aircraft operating at altitudes out of reach of MANPADS. The route and origin of the BUK has been documented by Bellingcat.
    Some believe the narrative of the BUK was a fake story as the reports on social media about BUK sightings on July 17 were all from pro-Kiev people. However there are at least two reports of a BUK on July 17 from people supporting the separatists. See this post here.
  3. To distract the origin of the BUK, separatists claimed to have captured an Ukraine BUK showing an old photo.
  4. Ukraine intelligence services were fully aware of the presence of at least one BUK but failed to close the airspace
  5. The BUK TELAR was positioned in a field somewhere south of Snizhne
  6. The crew of the BUK believed an Antonov transport plane was their target.
  7. Not trained in autonomous mode the crew made an error in the assessment of the type of target
  8. The crew nationality will be hard to establish but most likely it was Russian
  9. Under stress by SU-25s of Ukraine Air Force in the neighborhood which can detect the BUK radar, the radar of the BUK was switched on last minute, making identification of target difficult.
  10. Crew made a mistake and shot down MH17
  11. Separatists initially believed they shot down a military aircraft
  12. As soon as it was clear they made a mistake the Russian propaganda started. One of the first was the famous Carlos Tweets.
  13. Dutch government found it very difficult to act in a highly political situation and decided to cooperate with Kiev
  14. As soon as the bodies were recovered Ukraine forces started an offense towards the crashsite making recovery into the cause of the crash very difficult. This attack was clearly a disgrace and delayed the investigation and recovery. The reason for the attack was that Ukraine wanted control over the crashsite. Ukraine promised to the Dutch government to respect the cease fire but it did not. The Dutch government documented that. Agreed was a ceasefire in the area with a radius of 40 km. Ukraine government had to vote in parliament to allow recovery teams to operate.
    Conclusion: the first priority of Ukraine was to capture the area around crash site. Recovery and investigation was a lower priority. At the end of July Ukraine indeed controled parts at the south and southwest of the crashsite.
    wob-afspraken-kiev-houden-geenstand
  15. Because of the delay in recovery some crucial parts of wreckage disappeared from the crashsite. Some of the parts were very big so likely this was some sort of organized removal. Obviously the main evidence, being the cockpit, could not be removed.
  16. Prosecution of the perpetrators will be very difficult
  17. Dutch government does its best to keep information secret. A reason for it can be not to bring the courtcase in danger. Another reason is politics. Other states will not appreciate if confidential talks are made public.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

68 Comments on MH17: what I believe what happened

  1. Quote:
    “5. The crew of the BUK believed an Antonov transport plane was their target.
    6. Not trained in autonomous mode the crew made an error in the assessment of the type of target.”

    An An-26 is significantly smaller than a Boeing 777 and can not reach an altitude of 10 km. There was also no trace of an An-26 or a Su-25 in the presentation of Russian air control radar recordings.

    Therefore, to me points 5. and 6. do not seem to be probable. Other points on the other hand fit with western theories.

    • It is not relevant what the Russian MoD presented in July 2014 as most of the statements were clear lies.
      Ofcourse there was no mention of an Antonov as there was none.

    • sotilaspassi // September 1, 2016 at 5:12 pm // Reply

      Bushkin, do you think rebels deliberately targeted a civilian plane?

      5. I say the crew most likely was not informed of what kind of enemy plane was approaching.
      Later rebel group was sent to look for military plane survivors from the crash site.
      Eyewitness saw two engine plane coming down ->thought it is AN26 -> reported forward.

      6. even if they see that the target is huge, too huge, do they dare to not to launch? If it’s Ukrainian MIG, radar homing R27 might already approac their Fire Dome at 3500km/h.
      (Girkin looks a little like Hitler and gave death penalties even faster.)

  2. Admin, your version is plausible, but in this case the Russian high command which sanctioned passing TELAR to “separatists”, had to understand the very high risk of shooting down a random airliner flying along L980. So it either didn’t care a damn if one could be downed, or deliberately allowed this to happen.

    • Someone probably believed the crew of the BUK TELAR was trained well enough to prevent mistakes.
      Remember a crew of a US Navy ship made a mistake and shot down an Iran Air airliner with a misisle believing it was an attacking Tomcat fighterjet.

      • Shootdown of any airliner was a unlikely outcome of presence of the US Navy ship in Iranian territorial waters yet. Here the probability of downing a random airliner within a few days was close to 100% I think. Russian (or Soviet) TELAR crews were trained just to fire at targets they’re given, they were not trained to look for and identify them. So if in this case targeting was given by separatists (like “a bird is flying towards you, high above clouds”), such an outcome was inevitable.

      • I like you say “someone believed” as I’m not convinced all the Russian material was sent by one group in charge at the Kremlin. Russia likes to keep that appearance and needs to keep that intact for obvious reasons. But it’s clear to me Ukraine was crawling at both sides with official and unofficial support, foreign fighters (any pro and anti-Russia veteran war lover), various kinds of extremists, local well-equipped private militias and various foreign training and supplies. I don’t believe in one overarching control at either side. And all is then fine, all help is welcomed until something bad happens: then some sudden distancing will be needed. But that requires accepting a detailed research into who is who and why they where there. And how many international laws would be broken. And in my view neither side of the conflict can afford that. It would be kept internal and a status quo is needed. Perhaps we’re seeing exactly that.

  3. sotilaspassi // September 1, 2016 at 4:44 pm // Reply

    One thing more to hint a Russian crew on BUK: they did not know the airspace was under heavy use of airliners.

    • So the Russian command which sanctioned passing the TELAR to “separatists”, allowed a crew not aware of the heavily used airway over them, to operate the TELAR, and they fired at the first target appeared on the screen? Maybe so, but what was the motive to allow that?

  4. 12….and decided to cooperate with Kiev. No, they had no choice, because of international rules.

    • I don’t think there’s a rule book who to contact exactly after a coup and during a following civil war. At that moment there was no clear representation. The decision to cooperate with Kiev was clearly based on a de facto political acceptance of the coup and the temporary government formed. Only after that, any international rule could be applied based on earlier political judgment and alignment (although not publicly stated, since there’s no legal base exactly).

      • BS! ICAO annex 13 and 2000 EU Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (JIT)

        • That’s a meaningless reply. The Dutch could just as well have send people to the insurgents and embed there as well to prepare repatriation. But they didn’t. As can be read now, they refused to give any credit to the insurgence and treated Kiev as default government, sanctifying the coup and indirectly recognizing the new unelected government as being the only representative party to deal with. This was a political choice not described by any “rule book”. No wonder the insurgents became distrustful. In my opinion it was a mistake which created additional drama and delays for the Dutch citizens. It was betting on the wrong horse on the wrong time. That’s political game play, no ICAO procedure!

  5. If that downed aircraft had been the Singapore Airlines machine flying just a few km away, that scenario would make much more sense. The Logo at the tail could easily have been mistaken for the yellow and blue markings of the Ukrainian Air Force.

    So maybe it was the wrong aircraft being taken down?

  6. Wind Tunnel Man // September 1, 2016 at 9:55 pm // Reply

    Admin:

    “4. The BUK TELAR was positioned in a field somewhere south of Snizhne”

    Are you rejecting Almaz Antey’s opinion that if it was a BUK-M1 missile that downed MH17 it would have approached from the general direction of Zaroshens’ke?

  7. James O'Neill // September 2, 2016 at 1:46 am // Reply

    This is not a statement of what happened, but a statement of belief as to what happened. As soon as one reads that Bellingcat is relied on for anything, then the whole argument becomes suspect.
    It is significant that there is not a shred of evidence presented for these conclusions, and indeed for many it would be impossible.
    Your point 13 is an obvious clue. If the Russians and/or separatists were responsible, why would the Ukrainians make the recovery of evidence more difficult?
    You blame other websites for speculating, but you are one of the worst offenders in this regard. Why not wait for the report to be published and then analyse it, instead of trying to preempt the findings with evidence free speculation that is little more than an attempt, yet again, to blame the Russians.

    • sotilaspassi // September 2, 2016 at 6:04 am // Reply

      >why would the Ukrainians make the recovery of evidence more difficult?

      Please provide proof to what you say.
      What proves Ukraine deliberately made the recovery more difficult?

      There was war ongoing. Girkin refused to stop fighting & UA had to try to stop the terrorist from getting further supplied from RU. Rebels used crash site as a shield for their attacks.

      • WTF are you talking about?

        To that days Ukraine army was ALREADY failed and smashed by local militia and Russian forces from the border. They stuck in trap and try to run away but can’t (read about “южный котел”).

        Ukraine searching for any way to help his soldiers, even by mh17 tragedy.

        • Nope.
          Rebels were on the run. They were also under the risk being totally cut off from the connection to RU.
          Their “last” hope was to cut the supply to UA troops trying to encircle them.
          http://www.interpretermag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/150602-map-rnbo.jpg

          “You can also see that despite the fact that the DPR has lost a lot of territory, much of the LPR, especially areas that border Russia, remain intact, which is how the separatists are getting new armored vehicles, tanks, fighters, and other supplies.”
          http://www.interpretermag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/LiveUMap-Timelapse-July-13-Aug5.gif
          +
          http://www.interpretermag.com/ukraine-liveblog-day-169-195-ukrainian-troops-return-from-russia-attacked-by-militants/

          They totally lost the war, until RU send thousand tanks and tens of thousands of men to assist in August.

          • You are BIG wrong and failed by Kiev propaganda. Do not use UA map at all — it lied from start to end for political reason.

            Go to read about “zelenopillya rocket attack” on July 11 — what was real Russian “invasion”. After that Ukraine army was trapped and after 3 weeks of heavy shelling run away to Russian territory without any armoury (on first days of August).

            Big columns of new military equipment from Russian was massive appear from start/middle of July. That’s why Ukraine leaders cry that days before mh17 about Russian invasion and that’s why CIA ordered full satellite shot of Donbass and border to DigitalGlobe.

          • Sotilaspassi, you are absolutely correct. Changing of the map of the ATO zone, July 2014 – April 2016:
            https://youtu.be/Fr8l1HfmP_U

          • Interesting map video but often completely misunderstood by people not being aware of any of the political issues at stake and probably live on a diet of propaganda only. Let me introduce you to the Game.

            The decision to opt for a military solution to regain the East was well calculated and literally a dagger pointed at the Kremlin. Here’s why: the two possible responses for Russia were that moment:

            A) enter fully Ukraine which would be politically suicide without long term benefits. Ukrainian government (even in exile) would become a full NATO client protégé overnight with all the emergency funding and weaponizing of where Russia would not occupy. It would be very costly to hold any territory as well

            B) not interfere which would put a dagger to the regime as it would be seen as mortally weakening Russia, submissive behavior and incapable leadership. Putin would not to be able to keep the needed internal support (any book about Russian politics will enlighten). And obviously the forcefully pacified pro-Russian east would become militarized in time by Western supply, that way becoming an immediate threat as well.

            By Kiev moving forcefully to the east instead of settling the difference politically, Russia was in a binder and Ukraine could force a much needed subsidy in bankrupt times to boot. Clever!?

            The solution from Russia was also clever but very difficult: maintain that “ATO” zone, solidify it, align it with the border but walking the fine line of being there and not being there. That’s exactly what they ended up doing. The sanctions were survivable but other solutions not. This put the pressure back on Kiev to accept EU conditions, squeezing their population and suffer defeat to some degree.

            To make this possible, supplying temporary and secretly heavy material like some scattered BUKs were needed to shut down all Ukrainian supply lines to their fronts. With or without Ukrainian trickery the accidence then happened. The fine line was obviously too narrow, too difficult without some collateral. But when buying time, responsibility would surely be found in more than one places. The Kremlin could survive this. It was all about survival for Putin, not about “expansions blah blah”. When looking at the map video with this perspective it’s a success story for Russia mostly. Despite MH-17 they succeeded in delivering the only possible response to the Kiev Gambit. And now it’s a fact on the ground while Ukraine is slowly sinking.

          • Hugh Eaven, there is an interesting opinion of Andrei Illarionov (http://www.cato.org/people/andrei-illarionov), the former chief economic adviser of Putin:
            http://aillarionov.livejournal.com/865581.html
            The special operation “Peace enforcement by terror and diplomacy”. In Russian, but autotranslation by Google is readable. I think it would be interesting for you and some others here.

          • Hugh Eaven // September 4, 2016 at 7:18 am //

            Thanks Slozhny, I’ve been reading Andrei Illarionov. It’s unclear how relevant or accurate his views areh. He never was involved in any foreign policy or anything else really but some (good, high level) economic advisory work. And he’s completely cut off from Russian government for more than 11 years now. His bread is buttered in the US part-neoconized Cato institute and a stream of anti-Putin publications and interviews seem his very livelihood.

            Plus history showed he was pretty wrong on Georgia (amongst other thing). Not sure what to make of him really. It does not seem to be reliable source for the inner sanctum, secret plans of Putin, that’s for sure.

          • Hugh Eaven, Andrei Illarionov was also the personal representative of Putin (sherpa) in the G8. He was one of the few being absolutely correct on nearly everything related to Russo-Georgian war. On January 31, 2014 (3 weeks before the escape of Yanukovych) he predicted many things Putin would do in Ukraine: http://aillarionov.livejournal.com/602777.html
            Sorry, the video is in Russian. Even I was unable to believe in what he had said then. What really happened exceeded even his expectations though.

      • “What proves Ukraine deliberately made the recovery more difficult?”

        A few days later Ukraine has begun fighting in the crash area. Map by Ukrainian sources.
        https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-CTGb4byNAG8/V8ldWNpFF7I/AAAAAAAAXT8/rZHqQP0-BPUtFzYPZ51DIKZ16mQIUEAbwCL0B/w1043-h573-no/map.jpg
        “Girkin refused to stop fighting & UA had to try to stop the terrorist from getting further supplied from RU.”

        That’s motive. Shoot down aircraft that would make surrender. And where did you get the idea that terrorists are in the Donbass? The terrorists were in Kiev, they overthrew the president, whom he had chosen my people, and your country is recognized, too.

        • LOL!
          Yanu escaped / Putin picked him up, even when new elections were scheduled. Plan seemed clear. To capture areas, to stop them from joining EU/Nato. Propaganda pushed Nazi-fobia was a good tool for it.

          https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russias-igor-strelkov-i-am-responsible-for-war-in-eastern-ukraine-41598

          UA is run by democratically elected government & president.
          ((+perhaps it’s news to you but rebels/terrorist/Russian military shot MH17. Confirmed by DSB findings and other sources.))

          • “UA is run by democratically elected government & president.”

            As we say, try for yourself. Just otvette, in your country, you can not submit to the police, you can beat it, burn? Is it possible in your country to support such an anti-government conspiracy Lavrov and attend rallies against the government? Is it possible to overthrow the government, you have chosen a handful of thugs and then choose their ruler? If all this is possible in your country, in the Donbas terrorists, and if not, then there are people who do not agree with the coup and lagging democracy in Ukraine.
            I have no desire to start a discussion here on the subject, just a request – to refrain from words terrorist, especially since the Court of any European country did not recognize DNR and LNR terrorists.

            ((+perhaps it’s news to you but rebels/terrorist/Russian military shot MH17. Confirmed by DSB findings and other sources.))
            I know that there are, until proven in court, such a hypothesis. 🙂

      • >why would the Ukrainians make the recovery of evidence more difficult?
        Just read the documents provided by the Dutch government.

    • @James
      “Why not wait for the report to be published and then analyse it, instead of trying to preempt the findings with evidence free speculation that is little more than an attempt, yet again, to blame the Russians.”

      Tell that to your friends of the Russian media. The last two years haven been an avalanche of attempts to blaim Ukraine,

    • James O’Niell wrote:This is not a statement of what happened, but a statement of belief as to what happened. As soon as one reads that Bellingcat is relied on for anything, then the whole argument becomes suspect.
      It is significant that there is not a shred of evidence presented for these conclusions.

      This is true. The Admin has not supplied any evidence in this article but he promised to provide evidence in “coming weeks”.

  8. Wind Tunnel Man // September 2, 2016 at 3:28 am // Reply

    All we have are the remains of low grade steel fragmentation striking elements that can not be (or were not) attributed to a specific individual warhead or batch of warheads, inconclusive explosive residues and a few fractured missile components that are reportedly consistent with a BUK-M1. None of this tangible evidence links to the person or persons who launched the alleged missile. If there is conclusive proof of a missile being launched by individuals from an exact location and it was tracked during it’s entire flight (through possibly fairly extensive cloud cover) and the fragmentation striking elements that impacted MH17 are matched with that missile’s warhead then and only then is there a solid case against the perpetrators.

    • sotilaspassi // September 2, 2016 at 6:15 am // Reply

      Spamming with my summary about fragments found https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrRfGRaXYAAmq55.jpg

      And I consider it well proven that missile was launched from the only TELAR unit seen in the only possible launch area.
      JIT “just” need original images and/or (those 100s of) eyewitnesses to confirm.

      • Wind Tunnel Man // September 2, 2016 at 1:52 pm // Reply

        sotilaspassi:

        “And I consider it well proven that missile was launched from the only TELAR unit seen in the only possible launch area.”

        I see nothing proven as yet.

        “JIT “just” need original images and/or (those 100s of) eyewitnesses to confirm.”

        Yes if the launch, trajectory of the missile, detonation of the warhead in close proximity to MH17 and the aircraft almost immediately breaking up were observed and were recorded with absolute accuracy then there is proof. However I have not seen that proof – are you aware that such an observation actually exists?

        • sotilaspassi // September 4, 2016 at 9:00 am // Reply

          Already known.
          By looking at the damage, knowing the weapon and exact detonation location I know for sure missile came from rebel area.

          • Wind Tunnel Man // September 4, 2016 at 3:25 pm //

            sotilaspassi:

            “By looking at the damage, knowing the weapon and exact detonation location I know for sure missile came from rebel area.”

            Since a record of an observation of the launch, trajectory and detonation of the missile hasn’t as yet been made publicly available then I agree with your form of analysis: the type of weapon that caused the damage based on recovered evidence, the pattern of the damage and, based on that pattern of damage, the direction from which the missile approached. Also the last FDR position, heading and altitude of MH17 and the approach heading of the missile plus the distance it traveled (again based on the damage pattern) gives us a possible launch site.

            The DSB report suggested a very large area from where the missile could have been launched based on their findings that it was probably a 9M38M1 missile. Almaz Antey disagreed with the DSB’s opinion regarding the approach heading and distance covered by an alleged 9M38M1 missile when it intercepted MH17, i.e. further to the south west. Are you stating with certainty that the DSB are right and Almaz Antey are wrong?

          • sotilaspassi // September 4, 2016 at 7:42 pm //

            “Are you stating with certainty that the DSB are right and Almaz Antey are wrong?”

            Almaz-Antey is 400% surely wrong (irrelevant vs what DSB says). A-A lied deliberately hoping to fool simple & uneducated people.
            Their lie is exposed by stydying:
            -guidance&aiming (the missile would not target boeing nose)
            -proximity fuse operation (warhead detonates on right side)
            -fragment flight paths (fragment do not fly from left to right inside cockpit if missile comes from Z)
            -secondary fragmentation would not hit left side engine

            etc…

          • Wind Tunnel Man // September 4, 2016 at 9:53 pm //

            sotilaspassi:

            Thanks for your critique of Almaz Antey’s opinion, I guess you agree with most, if not all, of the DSB’s findins which concluded that the missile was launched from somewhere within a very large area and they were unable (or unwilling) to name a specific location.

          • Wind Tunnel Man, DSB did not even want to identify the exact location, just not to point directly to the guilty party. I think that in this map https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kclwEmFUSdRtlcPdbls_m8qCggA the green line marks the correct area identified by NLR. However, as it appeared entirely controlled by “separatists”, DSB and/or NLR decided to extend it, to include small spots nominally controlled by UAF and thus avoid needless political problems. The yellow line marks the final 320 km² area identified by NLR.

          • Wind Tunnel Man // September 5, 2016 at 12:50 am //

            Slozhny:

            Thanks for the reply and I am aware of the DSB report pages 143 to 147 and the summary:

            “The area from which the possible flight paths of a 9N314M warhead carried on a 9M38-series missile as installed on the Buk surface-to-air missile system could have commenced is about 320 square kilometres in the east of Ukraine.

            Further forensic research is required to determine the launch location. Such work falls outside the mandate of the Dutch Safety Board, both in terms of Annex 13 and the Kingdom Act ‘Dutch Safety Board’.”

  9. You still do not understand that a Buk on its own is practically useless. What were they going to do after they used all four missiles? Shooting down a civilian airplane is relatively easy. Bringing down a fighter is a whole different story.
    “The route and origin of the BUK has been documented by Bellingcat”. Bellingcat claimed the Buk crossed the border near Sjevernyi. As prove the rebels used this crossing, they referred to an incident that was supposed to have happened weeks later, under totally different circumstances. In fact this weakness was known by the Ukrainian army, yet these Buk(s) could pass unseen. At the time the Buk(s) were supposed to cross the border, heavy fighting was going on. Bellingcat ignored all that.

    • Rob: “Shooting down a civilian airplane is relatively easy. Bringing down a fighter is a whole different story.”

      A BUK system is design to bring down fighterjets! Even a standalone BUK in autonomous mode is perfectly able to bring down a fighter.
      So can you elaborate your statement : Bringing down a fighter is a whole different story?

      What were they going to do after they used all four missiles?

      Good question. There are lots of civilian cranes around. And as Russia was able to bring many military vehicles over the border, the supply of extra missiles is not rocket science either.

      • >> What were they going to do after they used all four missiles?

        Judging by the weather, this video was filmed likely in the evening of July 16, 2014:
        https://youtu.be/14t45Sc7HZE
        48.2985°N 40.2434°E. The TEL was carried towards RU-UA border.

      • A Su 25 is equipped with counter measures, a civilian airplane is not. A Su 25 pilot knows that a buk is targeting him, a civilian pilot doesn’t. If you take on a fighter on a long range, it has more chance to response and it will be more difficult to bring it down.
        Stand alone doesn’t mean alone. It means without an operating Target acquisition radar, not without other Telars. A Buk has no eyes in its back.
        “There are lots of civilian cranes around” Did you see any of them in the neighborhood of a BUK? “And as Russia was able to bring many military vehicles over the border”. Possibly, but do you have any evidence that this happened before the 17th of July?

        • No, I did not see cranes near a BUK. This does not mean this BUK could not be loaded with missiles.
          I did not study the movements of Russian warfare into Eastern Ukraine before July 16. The Strela-10 could be from Russia.
          Most Russian warfare started to enter Eastern Ukraine in August
          https://bellingcat-vehicles.silk.co/

        • Speculating here a bit but the main reason the standalone BUK might have been supplied was likely to target transport planes on higher altitudes. From what I understood the main vulnerability for Kiev became the problem of resupplying the troops. In a few documented cases they got seriously, massively isolated and ran out of gas, ammunition, medical supplies, some basic electronics etc. Without these transports, the war could have been lost pretty quickly, so it was truly paramount to get something there to turn the tides. The pro-Russian militias did not suffer that problem with the Russian borders so nearby.

          Considering the above, the BUK would be there specially to target eg the Antonov 26 at Monday July 14. As for shooting at any Su-25, that might have been more like defense since these jets seem to have been particularly targeting the roaming BUK and perhaps other heavy equipment. Just to hunt for Su-25’s using some spread out set of modern MANPADs could suffice. Plus, one needs to know where to place that one single BUK. Not likely unless it’s known where the Su-25 would try to do something. But the A-26 targeting without radar network (assuming some Russian radar was not helping) would be a bit easier if insurgents knew or estimated the narrow supply route in advance and could place the BUK where the Antonov was expected to fly over.

          If that was indeed the case, one can see the MH-17 accident waiting to happen. They’d be waiting exactly for a big target like that, flying as high as possible on a specific route. Some intelligence then somehow erred and bang!

          Now for the importance of the possible related Su-25 attacks: some might have been targeting the traced BUK all along but this would have to remain classified as these missions would unravel the whole case for Ukraine. They would be charged as equally responsible for this particular air war at higher altitudes. Or perhaps even messing with intelligence?

  10. Yes, something similar was my first “common sense” approach scenario. And I would not be surprised if it really happened that way.
    However, the propaganda campaign against Russia, launched by Kiev before any investigation was even commenced, let alone published results, concvinced me otherwise.
    I believe it to be the “nasty surprise” Poroshenko promised to the “separatists” (actually he called them “terrorists” while the only terror attacks were perpetrated by Lyashko, or other scumbags like those in Odessa 2 May 2014)
    They had shot down a military aircraft, packed with assault troops bent to kill them, on June 14th. Poroshenko promised vengeance, and the fate of being regarded as a slayer of civilian aircraft passengers is certainly worse than death.
    Just my opinion

  11. admin
    “15. Because of the delay in recovery some crucial parts of wreckage disappeared from the crashsite. Some of the parts were very big so likely this was some sort of organized removal.”

    2 years I have been in the main wreckage of the plane, and 2 years I hear about “stolen” fragments. But no one and no where has not provided evidence that the rebels have taken at least one fragment. Here is what was written in November 2014
    “The DSB said today: ” With the transport from Torez to Kharkhov the recovery operation has ended. After a considerable period of planning, the actual recovery of wreckage started Sunday November 16. In the week following as much wreckage relevant for the investigation as possible was recovered.
    “Despite the complex circumstances and local safety situation, the team was able to work as planned under the guidance of (European security organisation) OSCE. The team was supported by local services and the work was done in good cooperation.”
    The DSB went on: ” Although this recovery operation has ended, there is still wreckage left at the crash site – mostly smaller pieces of wreckage with no value for the investigation. Local services will remove those pieces of wreckage from the site as was agreed by the recovery team.”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2846018/MH17-recovery-operation-completed.html#ixzz4JAzxDTP9

    That is, none of the things that no longer need to remain.
    The report also nothing that something is stolen. Some publications indicating the zones in which rebels are allegedly not allowed to collect the fragments is also not supported by nothing more than the words. In the subject of the door 1L I have shown that such statements are false, as 2R door was precisely in this area, but taken out in November. Door 2L as in the “red zone”, but on the model it is.

    Dear Admin, and what sources of information did you follow to its conclusion on the organized removal of the debris?

    • @Vam: you are cherrypicking meaning you read the facts you want to read ignoring facts that contradict!
      Lets start with the list of wreckage DSB wanted to have. Some of the wreckage on that list which are photographed could not be recovered. That is the part next door L1.

      Wreckage not at location of impact

      Page 57 of the DSB final report shows the upper left hand cockpit fuselage. There are photos made before the recovery. DSB could not recover this part which has clear shrapnel damage.
      Page 57 and 57 has several lines of text saying “wreckage was no longer present”

      The report does not state that parts were stolen for two reasons:
      1. this would be a political statement
      2. it is not proven it was stolen. However seeing the size and the relevance of the pieces to the investigation these pieces did not disappear without a good reason.

      Secondly a part of wreckage ended up in a Russian town for an exhibition http://www.smh.com.au/world/mh17-plane-fragment-to-be-displayed-by-russian-museum-reports-20150415-1mm1xr.html

      Thirdly there are photos of separatists who used pieces of wreckage to build a shelter. They should not have touched those pieces.

  12. @admin
    “Lets start with the list of wreckage DSB wanted to have.”
    This list is not very professionals. The same fragment is marked twice (№ 5 and 6) and in addition is also not in the place where he was, and a few kilometers to the west.
    @admin
    “The report does not state that parts were stolen for two reasons:
    1. this would be a political statement
    2. it is not proven it was stolen. However seeing the size and the relevance of the pieces to the investigation these pieces did not disappear without a good reason.”

     In November there were no public statements that any fragments that do not have in place, took everything they wanted, which is confirmed by the link I gave that. Where did they go after and why they were absent at the time of writing, I do not know
    You think you know what other people think .I such a gift does not have. Fragments not stolen otherwise indicated. Everything else is fantasy, I want to deal with the facts, politics does not interfere with Kerry called the guilty in 5 days.
    @admin
    “Secondly a part of wreckage ended up in a Russian town for an exhibition”

    I did not find this confirmed in the press is independent, all references to the anti-Russian or Ukrainian websites in Russia. Probably fake, newspapers do not print as headers
    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-n1N6eQ8Tck0/V8q0YQKbURI/AAAAAAAAXVU/0llKFL0fRTggmdDyRPwiVj5rDjrc6YXAACL0B/w762-h448-no/7985a16aea5a75d30e7703bfe6832093.png
    But I try to understand, and to find the source.
    @admin
    “Thirdly there are photos of separatists who used pieces of wreckage to build a shelter. They should not have touched those pieces.”

    Here I completely agree with you.
    sorry for my English

    • @Vam: “This list is not very professionals”. Well, these pictures were taken just after the crash. Experts could not enter the crash site for better investigation. The quality of the “DSB wanted wreckage list” is not related to the fact that wreckage which was on that list disappeared!

      @Vam: ” In November there were no public statements that any fragments that do not have in place”

      Statements in newspapers are not important. DSB opinion is only given in the final DSB report. That report is very clear: we miss wreckage parts we like to have. The chairman of DSB confirmed in an interview at October 13 DSB would like to have parts of the cockpit roof which were missing.

      Again, in who’s interest would it be that parts disappear? Who was responsible for guarding the crashsite?

      • @admin
        “Statements in newspapers are not important. DSB opinion is only given in the final DSB report. That report is very clear: we miss wreckage parts we like to have. The chairman of DSB confirmed in an interview at October 13 DSB would like to have parts of the cockpit roof which were missing.”
        When in November 2014 the DSB announced that they took all that they need, and the fate of Other people tend to fragment they are not interested, then, in October 2015 blamed the fact that the fragments which they do not, they can only themselves.
        @admin
        “Again, in who’s interest would it be that parts disappear? Who was responsible for guarding the crashsite?”
         Pictures of 30 October show all the pieces in place, Snapshots for November 20, why it is only available for Hrabovo, but perhaps we will see them and be able to opredilit that the Commission took, and what to leave. Now there is not any reason to blame someone or theft, with the same success it is possible to claim that the DSB has lost or hid some wreckage,which contradicted their versions, but I do not do that, because I have no proof.
        For me the two sides are equal.

        • @Vam: again you are jumping to conclusions and cherry picking.
          I read the article you refer too:
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2846018/MH17-recovery-operation-completed.html#ixzz4JAzxDTP9

          It reads as:
          DSB recovered all pieces of wreckage that they could recover.
          There are smaller pieces still at the crashsite but these are not relevant for the investigation.

          This does not mean DSB was able to recover all the wreckage THEY WERE INITIALLY INTERESTED IN,days after the crash and based on the photos.

          If you continue with your propaganda I wil block you from making new comments!

          • By the way, DSB was failed with debris and didn’t want to recover it a YEAR. Until RT created film about it and what DSB do not want more debris from mh17 crash site. And this is was a BIG debris.

            https://www.rt.com/news/317162-ukraine-mh17-debris-investigators/

            can remember RT material about unrecovered mh17 debris after 1-2 years and what DSB

          • @admin
            That said, it is said.
            The DSB went on: ” Although this recovery operation has ended, there is still wreckage left at the crash site – mostly smaller pieces of wreckage with no value for the investigation. Local services will remove those pieces of wreckage from the site as was agreed by the recovery team.”
            As it is familiar not comfortable questions declared propaganda. I see what is written, what you see is what you want.
            sotilaspassi show rather than tell about the truck and the export of fact I will be put to shame.
            They gave up the fragments in November and it is a fact. All we wanted was taken, there was a trifle, kotoroya do not need, and do not invent them. Good-bye, you become one of the many, unfortunately.
            I have the honor, with respect.

  13. In his video report DSB
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGm00TdqirY 10:38
    said
    “It was produced by the explosion of an experimental model to calculate the point 9N314M warhead explosion …”
    ( в оригинале на русском
    “Был произведен экспериментальный взрыв боевой части 9N314M для расчета точки взрыва…”)
    But the report is determined by the point of explosion modeling, and there is no mention of the experiment. Help to understand, is not it in the video and the DSB is deceiving me, or the experiment was conducted, but then why the angles and the point determined by the program, but were not taken actual, as a result of the explosion?

    • Vam, indeed “experiemental model” might be a tricky wording. It’s generally seen as some kind of “heuristic” model, something using the analytical inquiries for research and hypothesis. It’s not implying there’s a one major physical experiment being done. It’s a model arrived by various other means which can then be run in a simulation.

      Leave it to a Russian, Stachowiak, for (arguably) the final definitions of the types of scientific modeling: a. didactical model (demonstrational); b. experimental model (heuristic model) for research and exam of hypothesis; c. theoretical model for knowledge transmission and d. operational model. But there might be others too.

      Background: http://www.muellerscience.com/ENGLISH/Theconceptofmodel.definitions.htm

      • @Hugh Eaven
        It is not a model, but the explosion of the warhead, that is how it is written in Russian. I do not know English, esle not complicate, write as in the video told in English.

  14. “To distract the origin of the BUK, separatists claimed to have captured an Ukraine BUK showing an old photo.” Completely unnecessary. Contrary to what you may think, there was nothing illegal at providing weapons to the rebels. There was no embargo. On what base do you think, the US provided weapons to the rebels in Syria? Besides there was already enough evidence there were Ukrainian Buks in the area that may or may not have been beyond repair.

  15. sotilaspassi // September 5, 2016 at 9:41 am // Reply

    Some interesting matters to follow up + study further:
    -where is the video UA informed they had about the BUk transport from RU to Ukraine (via Luhansk)
    -the exact launch point vs the launch smoke / plume photo
    -what is the exact route of the BUK out from Ukraine (going via Luhansk is a “little” strange)
    -Where did the BUK units go from the luhansk air defence base after 16Jul (&who took them)
    -events that lead to the BUK launch vs MH17 from rebel area (why, who ordered the launch, did someone fool rebels to launch vs MH17)
    -what kind of BUK eyewitnesses JIt has got
    -does JIT manage to get originals of those BUK transport videos we have seen
    -…

    • sotil wrote: Some interesting matters to follow up + study further:
      -where is the video UA informed they had about the BUk transport from RU to Ukraine (via Luhansk).

      Most likely that is the video that is claimed to be from the 18th. It probably was not shot on the 18th as claimed by the SBU and Bellingcat.

      After that press conference the SBU claimed this earlier video was shot on the morning of the 18th. Bellingcat repeated this claim without ever supporting it with evidence. It was repeated so many times that people just believed it was from the 18th July 2014

      • sotilaspassi // September 8, 2016 at 9:39 am // Reply

        The “18jul” BUK seem to have one missile less than 17Jul BUK, but anyway on top of same lowloader.

        So, I doubt BUK with three missiles was taken to RU to reload and then back to Donetsk for another use.
        But in theory, if it malfunctioned before 17Jul, when launching a missile vs some UA plane, it could have been sent back to RU for repairs before 17Jul.

        I think: MOST LIKELY, UA/NSDG lied about the video 17Jul / made mistake, they potentially thought video of their own transport was the rebel one. https://017qndpynh-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/SBU-Buk-312.jpg That’s why they have been so silent about it, poor idiots.
        Then, most likely “18Jul” video really is from 18Jul.

  16. Admin wrote: 7.Not trained in autonomous mode the crew made an error in the assessment of the type of target
    8.The crew nationality will be hard to establish but most likely it was Russian

    thank you Admin. can you expand on this a little for us?
    Are you thinking a Russian crew was sent in that was not trained to operate a BUK in “autonomous mode”?

  17. 5.The BUK TELAR was positioned in a field somewhere south of Snizhne……..

    I will be very interested to see what evidence led to this conclusion Admin when you post your evidence over coming weeks.
    Thanks

    • sotilaspassi // September 9, 2016 at 7:15 am // Reply

      From my study:
      -evidence of secondary fragmentation damage
      -proximity fuse functionality
      -proportional navigation logic
      -evidence of fragment light paths
      -eyewitness records about the launch
      -eyewitness & videos of BUK movement on the area
      (+perhaps some other matters I overlooked)

    • I will not post evidence on the location of the TELAR. Dutch prosecutor will do that at September 28. Just be patient.
      I will post evidence the separatists were sure they downed an aircraft and present additional evidence about the BUK route.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*