Nieuwsuur item on MH17 shows BUK and shot down by fighter theory

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Dutch TV program Nieuwsuur on October 16 showed an item on theories which could explain why MH17 was shot down. The program both mentions the theory of a downing by a BUK as well as a shot down by an Ukraine fighter jet.

An expert on cyber security (Pim Takkenberg)  explains that it can be tricky to conclude based on evidence found on the internet. Eliot Higgins of the website Bellingcat did a lot of research on the BUK using sources like Facebook, Twitter and vKontakte. Together with others he was able to reconstruct the route that was taken by the BUK. Also  the website Ukraine@war helped with the reconstruction using geolocation.

The item can be seen here.

The item is partly in Dutch language. From 1 minute 50 seconds the translation is below.


1:50 Back to the reconstruction of July 17 in East Ukraine

Around lunchtime the BUK is driving through Torez

02:12 The time has been estimated by comparing the position of the sun with shadows.
02:20 journalists of AP see the BUK driving through Shiznoya. Reports were reporting about this before MH17 crashes

02:37 [pim takkenberg] Many times if you believe seeing something you will find the confirmation in the images you are seeing
02:43 [reporter] there is a lot of suggestion in images?
02:44 [pim takkenberg] that is possible. That is something you have to be very alert on
02:48 eye witnesses and this video confirm the presence of the BUK. The colossus has been offloaded and leaves the city
02:58 a Dutch blog analyses this satellite pictures. The BUK is supposed not to have taken the road to the left but entered the field.
03:05 that would prove seeing the tracks. Daily Telegraph will find later a burn spot.
03:11 It seems the pieces of the puzzle match. But Pim Takkenberg warns
03:15 [takkenberg] What you see in general is that more and more people participate in a part of an investigation. The risk for police and Justice is they have to respond each time to small pieces of information. Because of that they do not have time for fundamental investigation they like to perform. Becasue they are forced to respond to information published on various sites. This does not benefit according me to have to right pace and proper form for the investigation.
03:44 Other pieces of the puzzle are the by the Ukraine Secret Services intercepted telephone calls of the rebels.
03:55 Ten minutes to 04:30 PM. Inhabitants of Snizhne hear loud bangs. Shortly after the crash the separatists have a feeling it is a civil aircraft.
04:16 Kiev releases a new video. It shows the BUK is now missing one of its 5 missiles. By the way the Russian states the video was filmed in an area controled by the Ukraine Government.
04:40 Apparently the same BUK can be seen on a video from Russia filmed in June.
04:49 the latest news is that the red trailer which transported the BUK on July 17 again has been seen in East Ukraine.
05:05 So far the BUK. The evidence looks convincing but there are caveats.
05:15 I beleive the advance the police has is that they have multiple investigative means which other do not have. They have investigation power and with these allowance they are able to obtain other information and so they are better able to verify if information is correct or fake.
05:25 the Russians have a complete different theory. According to them MH17 has been shot down by an Ukraine fighter. They claim to have seen the fighter on radar near MH17.
05:38 [voice of Russian] Why was the fighter flying on the same course and same altitude as the civil aircraft?
05:48 the Russian engineers studied the traces on the debris and conclude they indicate the cannon of a figher has caused these.
05:57 Also a pensioned Lufthansa pilot confirms this
06:02 [pilot] They have hit the cockit really well. The biggest damage can be seen right at the height of the belly of the pilot
06:10 he feels his support by this interview with a OVSE observer.
06:24 also the remark of Frans Timmermans stating one of the victims was wearing an oxygen mask is according the Russians prove that the aircraft did not explode in one bang.
06:33 [Member of Parliament Sjoerdsma] These remarks spark conspiracy theories in Russia for example Ukriane is responsible for this disaster. That an ukraine fighter shot at the aircraft.
06:41 In the crash site area the fighter jet theory is supported. Some of the inhabitants even tell they saw it.
06:48 The figther closed in to the passengerjet. One time there is shooting. And then another time
06:57 Nieuwsuur recently tried to check both theories with the inhabitants.
07:03 it came in waves towards my direction
07:07 We all thought: this is a rocket and it is coming toward us.
07:10 We are hardly able to do freely investigation. We have to report at the head quarters of the separatists in Snizhne. It turns out this is in the same street as where the BUK was sighted. We get someone who accompanies us.
07:26 also at the supposed launch location we get visitors.
07:30 somewhere in the field behind me it is supposed that on July 17 MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile. We have not been able to find eyewitnesses who can confirm that. If the truth will ever come out can be questioned.


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

2 Comments on Nieuwsuur item on MH17 shows BUK and shot down by fighter theory

  1. Heerlijk, een ex-bromsnor die redeneert in termen van ‘in beslagname’ en ‘huiszoekingen’, terwijl het materiaal op internet staat en het echte werk natuurlijk online en digitaal plaatsvindt. Ook mooi dat er voor de journalistieke volledigheid nog een paar Oost-Oekraïners (24/7 bezopen en onthecht van de realiteit) aan het woord komen.

  2. Elliott Higgins has never answered why eyewitnesses told BBC Russian service (not a Russian media outlet) that they saw a fighter jet when MH17 went down. Also possibility that some of the photos of the BUK on a trailer pulled by a white truck may have been taken by the Ukrainians themselves in those towns back when they were under full Ukrainian military control before the Donbas separatist uprising in March. Higgins has acknowledged SBU produced fakes or at least released some of their own launchers photographed and tried to pass them off as THE ‘separatist Buk’, but insists that and there is nothing suspicious about ‘Paris Match’ suddenly producing a photo of the alleged guilty Buk in Donetsk on July 17 weeks after the crash.

    It would have been better had this Dutch TV program informed Dutch people. Also there is an increasing number of Dutchmen and perhaps even Australians wondering why their governments and investigators have made no attempt to reconstruct or reclaim pieces of MH17 which remain scattered over twelve miles area, now that there is no fighting between Ukraine and the separatists in that area. When the American Boeing 747 TWA Flight 800 went down investigators put it back together piece by piece. Some will ask whether investigators are working hard enough on putting the jet back together in order to distinguish between damage of the type a Buk larger warhead would cause versus two smaller warheads from an air to air missile. There would also theoretically be less shrapnel in the victims bodies from air to air missile and cannon fire than from a single Buk impact — these forensics and US NSA/DIA failure to release ELINT signature of SA-11 Kupola radar operating from Torez before shoot down or satellite photos of the crash site are problems Higgins social media theatrics are intended to solve or at least distract from. Why hasn’t US government released incontrovertible proof rather than making us rely on their word? Only the Russian government has released radar intercepts and electronic signatures it claims show presence of Su-25 and at least three Ukrainian BUKs that were within range of MH17 that day. Also problem for Higgins and others to answer: if Russians simply made up presence of Su-25 which never was near MH17, why did they not make up that the Ukrainian Air Force used a MiG-29 or Su-27 instead? Why say a ground attack fighter jet was close to B777 which allows Western media to quote experts ridiculing the Russian explanation as ‘conspiracy theory since everyone knows no Su-25 can reach 30,000 feet’ (though ‘experts’ never admit Su-25 can shoot air to air missiles whether infa-red homing R-60 or more modern powerful warhead-radar homing R-77 at targets above it).

    In conclusion, Dutch and Australian people are going to get impatient and suspicious of Ukraine if the investigation’s final report is put off for years and years and/or investigation produces leaks that there is not enough shrapnel in air frame or bodies to match a Buk.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.