Peter Haisenko talks nonsense about MH17!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Not a single well known defense expert believes MH17 was shot down by cannonfire or an air to air missile. All established experts agree it must have been shot down by a Surface to Air missile, likely a SA-11 BUK.

This does not fit the Russian story so Russian and alternative media (globalresearch.ca)have to look for other kind of experts. One of the persons who believes is an expert is Peter Haisenko. He appeared in several interviews only viewable on Youtube. He also was interviewed by Russia Today for a TV documentary.

Update October 1 2016: the Joint Investigation Team at September 28 made public the weapon used to down MH17 was a BUK of 9M38 series. At September 26 the Russian Ministry of Defense showed primary radar images and state there was not aircraft near MH17 capable of downing MH17 

However, at October 1 2016 Peter Haisenko still believes a SU-25 shot down MH17. See his blog

In short, Haisenko talks nonsense and this post will explain why. This article quotes for example 8 experts who tell MH17 was hit by a warhead.

Some facts about Peter Haisenko to quickly get an impression about him to understand his opinion on what happened to MH17

  • Haisenko does not have any proven expertise on military weapon systems. Before MH17 he never talked in media about weapons like BUK, cannon etc. He is quoted by Pro Russia media as an expert probably solely because he used to be an airline pilot.
  • his father is from Russia (source)
  • he presents at “Honigmann” which is a hardcore rightwing blog with lots of Nazi-UFO-stuff and alien religion. Honigman even doubts if the Holocaust ever happened.
  • So someone who does presentations for a group of people who doubt about the Holocaust believes MH17 was shot down by Ukraine. So far the credibility of Haisenko.
  • he does not like the foreign policy of the US.
  • Haisenko states it was made PUBLIC that an Itavia DC9 was shot down by the US. However the cause was never made public let alone it was made public the US were responsible. (at 26:06 in the Russia Today documentary)
  • he stated Air France AF447 crashed in the Atlantic Ocean because of  a bomb. In fact bad weather, a faulty pitot tube  and wrong pilot reaction was the cause of this crash.
  • German tv stations never invited Peter Haisenko to talk about MH17.
  • Peter Haisenko only appears in pro Russia documentaties like the one of Russia Today. He also is interviewed by different thinking people which have a Youtube channel
  • Haisenko wrote a guest column on the website of  Paulcraigroberts.com . Paul Craig Roberts expressed a lot of critism on the US foreign policy. Roberts believes the Charlie Hebdo attack is a false flag.
  • At November 15 Haisenko added a new blog. He writes about the fake satellite photo shoing a fighter and an aircraft. He writes about people who debunked this but stil he is sure this photo is real. He later adjusted his statement a bit but still is not convinced about the fake. See this post why the photo is 100% fake.

There are two experts, both German, who tell MH17 was shot down by an aircraft. Bernd Biedermann is the other expert. He is a former East German Army (NVA) officer. He too is Pro-Russian. He writes for a small German newspaper titled Neues Deutschland. It is a leftwing, socialist newspaper with was the newspaper of the East German regime.While Haisenko is no an expert, Biedermann wrote a book on the S-300 surface to air missile so he knows what he is talking about.

Interviews of Haisenko on MH17

Peter Haisenko appeared in several videos and documentaries on MH17.

  1. His first appearance was around end of October 2014 at Stein-zeit.tv. This is an alternative media. He had an interview of over 1 hour.
  2. KenFM pubished  long interview at January 12 2015 here. Haisenko is interviewed by a German man called Ken Jebsen. Jebsen does not like the main stream press in Germany. This video makes that very clear. Just like Haisenko he really like conspiracy. So you know the context of the interview.
  3. The third appearance was in a documentary of Russia Today called Reflections on MH17. It was published at January 16 2015 and can be seen at YouTube here.

Introduction to Peter Haisenko

Peter Haisenko is introduced in many interviews as a pilot. He talks in interviews about his 30 years of experience flying for Condor and Lufthansa. He has over 16.000 hours of flying in types as Boeing 727, Boeing 737, DC8, DC10, Boeing 747 and Airbus A340. Haisenko is also a writer on the website called Anderweltonline. It is a website full of anti EU and United States stories. Bernd Biedermann also wrote a blog here on MH17. Biederman wrote a book on the S-300 SAM and is a former East German army officer. He is sure a BUK could not have downed MH17 because in that case MH17 caught fire while still in the air. Haisenko expertise seems to be as well in the political area. He has written 2 books, one called “Bankraub globalisiert”, in which he attacks the U.S. and its negative influence. 

I have no doubt he was indeed a pilot. However a pilot is not automatically an expert on weapon systems. I am sure 99,99% of all commercial airline pilots never heard of a SA-11 BUK system before MH17 was shot down and that includes Peter Haisenko. So he is not per se an expert.

To get an impression on the expertise of Peter Haisenko on aviation lets have a look at a few of his statements. Luckily Haisenko is quite active with statements so it is easy to do research on him.

Peter Haisenko on MH17

Haisenko first appearance in regard to MH17 was on an interview with an Austrian alternative website Stein-Zeit.His opinon  was that MH17 was shot at by an aircraft using a cannon. Haisenko told he found detailled photos of the damage of the cockpit. Those photos later could not be found anymore at Google images suggesting those were deleleted on purpose. This is nonsense. There are many detailled photos of that cockpitpart to be found on internet.

He wrote a couple of blogposts on MH17. In this blog he states that “14 Minuten Stille im Cockpit – absolut unmöglich” which translates to “14 minutes of quiteness in the cockpit – absolutely impossible” . He based his conclusion on what has been documented in the Dutch Safety Board preliminary report. The report documented the conversation between Air Traffic Control and MH17. It was not a transcript of what was told in the cockpit and recorded by the Cockit Voice Recorder.
So Haisenko is talking nonsense. The recording of the CVR has not been released so the public does not not if there were 14 minutes silence in the cockpit.

Lets see what Haisenko theory is on what caused the shot down of MH17.

At April 28 he publishes a blogpost. The post is about the German TV documentary made by ARD. Haisenko writes that the programm provides propaganda. The blog is full of nonsense but I will highlight two of this incorrect statements:

1. He states a BUK-system needs at least three vehicles. There was only one photographed. So were are the others Haisenko asks himself. Well, Haisenko did not do much research on the BUK. A TELAR (that is the vehicle seen in the photos driving around East Ukraine) can operate on its own. This mode is called autonomous mode.

2. Haisenko also writes :  Es wird auch nicht darauf eingegangen, dass es untrügliche Spuren in den Leichen geben müsste, wenn eine BUK das Flugzeug getroffen hätte.” Basically he means that the German TV did not tell that if a BUK was used the bodies of passengers should have clear traces of the weapon.
Haisenko again is very much misinformed. Firstly the Dutch and Australian authorities told the press that metal parts were found in the bodies which were not of the plane. Also a forensic expert who examined the bodies of MH17 passengers told his audience at a presentation the aircraft was hit by a missle.

These are just two examples of what Haisenko tell. Lets discuss some more.

At March 7 he writes a blog titled “It is proved MH17 was shot down by Ukraine SU-25” . The link to the blog is here. This blog is complete nonsense for many reasons:

1. The chief designer of the SU-25 stated already at July 28 that a SU-25 is not able to shot down a Boeing B777 at 10 km altitude. First because the difference in speed. A SU-25 flies much slower. But more important: a SU-25 would crash when weapons are used at that altitude. It is designed to operate a low altitude. See German main news Tagesschau about what what Vladimir Babak said.

2. Babak also said the R-60 is too light to bring down a Boeing 777.

3. Haisenko states a air to air missile hit an engine and shrapnel of the missile damaged the fuselage. The aircraft reduced speed. Nonsense, as the Flight Data Recorder does not show any reduction of speed. Read on for more info on that.

4. Then Haisenko states parts of the R-60 missile were found in debris. Another nonsense story. Fully debunked here.  

5. Then Haisenko states the Ukraine Air Force made a mistake. Their intention was to shot down the Air Force One of President Putin. Haisenko believes it could be possible the aircraft in which Putin was seated overflew Ukraine. Totally nonsense. First of all this is the route the aircraft of Putin took at July 17. It overflew Poland and far away from Ukraine. Even Russia Today mentioned Putin did not use Ukraine airspace for quite some time.

putin-route

In this blog published at August 22 Haisenko states that the number two engine (right) has been hit by an air to air missile shot by an Ukraine SU-25. He states the speed of the aircraft was reduced as a result of the lost of power of the right engine. Also the aircraft would decend and turn back for an emergency landing at Kiev. Rostov on Don airport was closer but Haisenko said the stress of switching to a different air traffic control center would add to the stress of the pilots. The pilots were not aware the engine was hit by a missile. Now this all nonsense. An engine shut down happens once in a while and it no reason for stress.

When MH17 would be able to land at Kiev it would be clear the aircraft was shot at by  missile. So the SU-25 pilot decided to use his cannon and shot down MH17 to make sure there is no evidence.

Thid is what he wrote in a guest column on the website of  Paulcraigroberts.com

haisenko-conclusion

If Haisenko theory is true, why does the Flight Data Recorder not show a drop of speed , yawning moment and change in engine pressure ratio? This is an image of the data taken from the preliminary report of the Dutch Safety Board. And why did the pilots not inform Air traffic control. And why did the Dutch Safety Board did not report on this?

The engine pressure ratio (EPR) is used as the engine rating parameter, i.e. as an easily measurable indication of the thrust that the engine is currently producing. The image below taken from the DSB report clearly shows bots engines produced the same trust during the last moments of the flight. Certainly no lost of trust which MUST be the case when the number two engine of MH17 was hit and had to be shut down.

The Flight Data Recorder also shows no change in either altitude, speed or course contrary what Haisenko suggest in his theory.

Haisenko is sure the damage observed to the cockpit of MH17 is caused by a cannon of a SU-25. The picture below shows damage done by a 30mm cannon of a A-10 aircraft. The A-10 cannon can be compared to the cannon of a SU-25. Both are used to destroy tanks. Picture taken from here.

The photo shows perfectly round bullet holes. Different than the cockpit damage of MH17

A10-30mm-damage B40xefKCMAEsj5v

Real experts on MH17

Now lets see what real defense industry experts said about the cause of MH17 shot down.

  • Vladir Babak, the chief designer of the SU-25 said a R-60 is too light to destroy a Boeing 777. He also said a SU-25 could not shot down MH17 at that altitude. The sU-25 would crash if it used its weapons at that altitude. Babak said that already on July 28 here at aex.ru. German main news Tagesschau reported about Babak on March 10. The statements were the same.
  • IHS Jane’s Missiles & Rockets editor Doug Richardson here
  • Reed Foster works for IHS Jane’s, a defense consultancy firm. He is certain a missle was used.
  • Former Russian Air Force general (and head of the Russian air force) Peter Deynikin asserted to Russia’s RIA Novosti that it was an SA-11 (“Buk”), and not an air-to-air missile. Published by ria Novosti from Russia
  • Justin Bronk is a Research Analyst with the Military Sciences programme at RUSI. His research interests include airpower, land warfare, regional territory disputes, insider attacks, Psyops and nuclear weapons policy. He send a Tweet “#MH17 fuselage from port side cockpit section showing heavy shrapnel damage consistent with SA-11 hit”
  • Nick de Larrinaga, a defense analyst at London-based think tank IHS Jane’s, echoed that point, saying that medium-altitude SAM missile systems such as the 9K37 Buk (also known as the SA-11 ‘Gadfly’) or the S-300 (aka SA-10 ‘Grumble) “could all have been used in this scenario.
  • Stephan Fruhling, a ballistics specialist and senior lecturer at the Australian National University Strategic Defence Studies Centre in Australia said ““This very much looks like damage from a fragmentation warhead
  • John Blaxland, who is also at the ANU Strategic Defence Studies Center said “Those tiny fragmentations looks just like the surface-to-air SA-11 to me.”
  • Douglas Barrie of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the photographic evidence “was consistent with the kind of damage you would expect to see from the detonation of a high explosive fragmentation warhead of the type commonly used in a SAM system” (Source Financial Times)
  • German manufacturer of surface to air missiles MBDA is pretty sure the shot down has been caused by a missile (Der Spiegel) (Eindhovens Dagblad)
  • Douglas Barrie of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the photographic evidence “was consistent with the kind of damage you would expect to see from the detonation of a high explosive fragmentation warhead of the type commonly used in a SAM system”
  • Professor Ian Horsfall of Cranfield University says it is likely caused by fragments of a warhead in the BBC documentary “Inside Out”. It can be seen using BBC iPlayer here. Horsfall was also inteviewed by Australian TV program 60 minutes.

Three Russian experts tell a SU-25 could never have shot down MH17.

SU-25 service ceiling

In one of his posts Haisenko claims a SU-25 can operate at 10.000 meters even with fully loaded cannon and missiles. He claims the Wikipedia page was adjusted after July 17 changing the SU-25 service ceiling from 10km to 7km. That is incorrect. In fact the service ceiling of the SU-25 was change from 7km to 10km on Wikipedia from a Moscow based IP-address. It was then corrected again to 7000 meters. There are severall sources which state a SU-25 has a service ceiling of 7000 meter.

The manufacturer of the sU-25, Sukhoi, is the most reliable source. It mentions 7000 meters for the service ceiling. That is without weapons! Fully loaded the SU-25 max altitide is about 5 km.

Many other sources confirm 7 km as service ceiling. Search for ‘Pułap operacyjny’. Like this one and this one. Or this one or this one

service-ceiling

Haisenko states Ukraine aircraft were “seen” close to MH17 at radar

Haisenko wrote a blogpost at Globalresearch.ca. This website is notorious for articles which have a lot of false statements and Pro Russia Propaganda. The former Lufthansa captain writes:

So what could have happened? Russia recently published radar recordings, that confirm at least one Ukrainian SU 25 in close proximity to MH 017

I wrote a detailled blog of what actually was spotted at Rostov Radar. There is no other aircraft seen close to MH17. What you see is falling debris. Not a flying SU-25 or other type of aircraft.

Again Haisenko writes 100% nonsense. The article has more nonsense and I will come back later to that.

Other incorrect statements on other aviation incidents.

Haisenko for sure is not a fan of the foreign policy of the US. In this documentary of Russia Today he mentions for example the Iraq war and war on Libya which were started because of lies and not by Russia.

Next claim of Peter Haisenko is that Itavia flight 870 was shot down by a missile by the United States because the US believed the plane was of Gaddafi, the leader of Libya. Well, that is another nonsense story. While Itavia 870 is likely to have been shot down there is no prove for who did it. Some say it was a missile shot from a French Navy vessel. Some say it was shot down by a French aircraft during a dog fight with Libyian Air Force fighters. I have not found a single source which states the US shot down the Itavia aircraft.

This article (and here) mentions Haisenko in which he suggests Air France 447 was downed by a bomb.

haisenko

The final report of the French showed that is was certainly not a bomb. Wikipedia writes:

BEA’s final report, released at a news conference on 5 July 2012,[4][5] concluded that the aircraft crashed after temporary inconsistencies between the airspeed measurements – likely due to the aircraft’s pitot tubes being obstructed by ice crystals – caused the autopilot to disconnect, after which the crew reacted incorrectly and ultimately led the aircraft to an aerodynamic stall from which they did not recover.

Some more statements of Haisenko which are not true.

In a Russia Today documentary he states that the US does not lie. The US just chose their words very wisely. As an example he mentions Hillary Clinton. According to Haisenko Clinton said ” that the aircraft definately has been shot down by Russian made weapons” Haisenko continues: “that is the truth. Ukraine does not have weapons made in other countries than Russia”.

clinton-example

What Clinton actually said (for example this interview) is that is is clear MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile. And that the equipment must have come from Russia. So Clinton is very clear about the source of the  weapon.

 Conclusion 

Peter Haisenko is not an expert. He talks nonsense probably inspired by his anti US feelings. Another reason for the alternative way of thinking could be trying to sell as many books as possible. It is remarkable that a person like Haisenko who calls himself an expert has never been asked by German media for his expertise. That is exactly because of the reasons documented in this blog.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

7 Comments on Peter Haisenko talks nonsense about MH17!

  1. lodewijk vrije // March 21, 2015 at 7:21 am // Reply

    and again you fail to take into account that a buk missile explodes above a target. it doesn’t fly directly into it. or under it. no ABOVE

  2. zuckerbergstein // June 8, 2015 at 12:50 pm // Reply

    i really wanted to read this whole thing and get another perspective on this seemingly rather obvious case of american propaganda, but then i fell over the obvious ad hominem where ones father is insulted, as if his father had anything to do with his sons credibility in this case. the russian military even shot a 30mm canon at jets and the bulletholes were identical to that on MH17

    in short.. this article is based on an personal attack, a fallacy.

  3. His father’s nationality IS relevant when he is being passed off as a (wholly) German ‘expert’, presumably to establish his western credentials.
    This is as detailed a demolition of both the farcical expert and his opinions as I have seen, and I sat through the reflections propaganda piece…do you have any serious suggestions as to how an AAM and canNon and SHELLS got up to 33,000 ft on a plane that wasn’t even there?
    Even Russia has moved on to another official truth. Why is is so hard for you to accept what is written?

  4. Harald Meling // October 2, 2015 at 10:13 am // Reply

    Wrong.
    Pilots of SU 25 say they fly easily at 10 000 m.
    And facts do not change even if you belong to “dubious”
    organisations.
    Anyway, this is smearing, and I think that describing Hasinok as
    anti-semite is an interesting clue on how and why this blog biased.
    Now to the evidence that MH17 was NOT shot down by a BUK, no condensation trail.
    A trail would be visible under a perfect bly sky, a perfect fingerprint that a surface to air missile has been used.
    No such thing according to witnesses.
    But we are not supposed to believe witnesses I suppose?
    Lastly, please check if SU 25 was refitted with new avionics and operational ceiling in Georgia by the Israeli aviation industry.

  5. The reason you make so much effort to prove Haisenko is wrong, is enough proof for me he is right.
    You make many wrong assumptions.
    And you write badly structured articles.

    • Hi Mike. That is a very interesting thought. You are not judging based on arguments but on the level of effort someone put in making clear someone talks nonsense! You cannot be helped!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*