Russian Federation never confirmed MH17 was shot down by BUK missile

In the press and also by the Dutch Safety Board the impression is given to the public that the Russian Federation had said something while in fact the press published something. We have to make sure we are not mixing stuff.

A perfect example of misunderstanding is the public presentation by DSB board member Marjolein van Asselt at November 2 in Amsterdam.

Joost Niemoller asked a question to one of the presenters. The presenter had said that Russian Federation agreed MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile. Niemoller asked for a source. The presenter admited he did not have a clear source and had to look it up.

Then DSB board member Van Asselt responded (she was not part of the panel). She explained that all statements of members of an investigation team are automatically the statement of the state. In this case Almaz Antey had confirmed in DSB meetings that MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile. “This implies according Annex 13 that the Russian Federation agrees MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile” quoting Van Asselt.

However, if we look at Annex 13 we get a different view.

Lets first look at who were member of the team of the  Russian Federation in the DSB lead investigation. The names are not made public.

We know a couple of experts were part of the Russian team. We know an employee of Almaz Antey was member.

I requested DSB to inform about which organizations participated in the team representing the Russian Federation. During the three progress meetings 6 to 7 persons attended. The worked for :

  • accredited representative: Federal Air Transport Agency FATA (Rosaviatsiya) (my guess 4 persons)
  • advisers                                : GKOVD (organization for Air Traffic Control in Russia) (my guess 1 person)
  • advisers                                : JSC Concern Almaz-Antey (my guess 1 -2 person)

Participation of GKOVD was because DSB wanted to obtain radar recordings

Participation of Almaz-Antey was because of knowledge of the weapon system BUK

Annex 13 knows accredited representatives and advisers. 
Russia’s deputy director of the Federal Air Transport Agency , Oleg Storchevoy, is representing the Russian Federation.
Everybody else from Russia then could not be more than an adviser.  Almaz Antey is an adviser. Aviation crash inspectors are advisers.
————–
ENTITLEMENT OF ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVES
Advisers 5.24 A State entitled to appoint an accredited representative shall also be entitled to appoint one or more advisers to assist the accredited representative in the investigation.
Note 1.— Nothing in the above provisions is intended to preclude a State participating in an investigation from calling upon the best technical experts from any source and appointing such experts as advisers to its accredited representative.
Note 2.— Facilitation of the entry of the accredited representatives, their advisers and equipment is covered in Annex 9 — Facilitation. The carriage of an official or service passport may expedite the entry.
5.24.1 Advisers assisting accredited representatives shall be permitted, under the accredited representatives’ supervision, to participate in the investigation to the extent necessary to enable the accredited representatives to make their participation effective. 
————-
In a scathing letter to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), Oleg Storchevoy, Russia’s deputy director of the Federal Air Transport Agency and accredited representative in the international investigation team into the MH17 tragedy, accused the DSB of ignoring “comprehensive information” relating to the investigation provided by the Russian side.

30 Comments on Russian Federation never confirmed MH17 was shot down by BUK missile

  1. To say that the Russian Federation never confirmed MH17 was shot down by BUK missile is putting it mildly.

    Russia officially condemns the DSB’s investigation and its conclusions in no uncertain terms. This is clearly stated by Oleg Storchevoy before and after the release of the DSB’s final report. Consider first what he said before the release of the report, from the source cited by admin (http://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/10/russians-angered-dutch-probe)

    1. He accused the DSB of ignoring “comprehensive information” relating to the investigation provided by the Russian side.
    2. He said that instead of studying the nature of the damage to the aircraft’s front fuselage and then arriving at a logical and final conclusion, the DSB sets, from the get go, to prove that the aircraft was destroyed by a BUK missile, launched from a location given right after the incident. “This is before any research into the characteristics of the warhead which brought down the plane was done. Basic data and methods of identifying where the missile was fired from were also not explained by the DSB.”
    3. He said that the DSB ignored detailed information the Russians provided about the 9M38 and 9M38M1 missile systems including technical specs, flight and ballistics characteristics, launch parameters, algorithms governing the detonator and characteristics of the warhead.
    4. He said that the DSB ignored the results of a warhead detonation test under controlled conditions to determine shrapnel dispersal patterns and what fragments of the missile could have impacted the fuselage.
    5. He said that the DSB arrived at conclusions that contradict common sense and are not consistent with the design of the BUK weapons system.
    6. He said that according to the DSB calculations, the weight of the warhead was no more than 33kg, and the main warhead was equipped with between 3,000 and 4,000 ‘pre-formed fragments’ (flechettes) that weighed around 3g each. These do not correspond with the BUK at all.
    7. He said that the DSB ignored Russia’s insistence that the flechettes and shrapnel allegedly found at the impact site — their weight, shape, sizes and material type — be identified, tagged and bagged. As a result, a year after the accident, there is no proof to connect the pre-formed fragments with missiles of any type. “Taking the abovementioned into consideration, there is no proof that this aircraft was destroyed by the BUK rocket.”

    All the above were cited in a letter received 9/16/15 by the ICAO from Oleg Storchevoy. Now consider his statements after the public release of the DSB’s final report.

    Source: https://www.rt.com/news/318628-russia-regulator-dutch-report/
    8. He said that the authors of the Dutch report slanted the documents towards their version of events beforehand, and the quality of the probe has been unsatisfactory.
    9. He said that the Russian party was suspended from the investigation.
    10. He said, “The important information on finding alleged BUK fragments on the scene was hidden from us. We only found out about it during our last meeting in August, when it was said that we would have no more meetings, and none of our further comments would be accepted.”
    11. He said, “The report presented by the Dutch commission uses the calculations by the Almaz-Antey company on the area of the missile launch, but they are just taken out of context. The possible area, indicated in the report, was established basing on the wrong interpretation of the missile-plane encounter.”
    12. He said that all Russian suggestions that it should participate in the investigation were left unanswered.

    Source: http://tass.ru/en/politics/828861
    13. He has formally asked the ICAO to intervene in the investigation.
    14. He said that Russia’s Federal Air Transport Agency (Rosaviatsiya) does not rule out a possibility of a conspiracy between the foreign members of the commission on the investigation of the MH17 crash.
    15. He said that the U.S. informally and unofficially provided satellite images to the DSB who refused to provide the data to Russia’s investigators.

    Source: http://sputniknews.com/world/20151021/1028890923/malaysian-official-complains-mh-17-crash-probe.html
    16. He said that the version of events according to which the Malaysian airliner was shot down using a Buk missile system was not final.
    17. He said the DSB refused to give Russia access to the Buk fragments allegedly found at the MH17 crash site or disclose their serial numbers.

    The Russian perspective is that the DSB investigation is fundamentally flawed, that the DSB has withheld critical information from Russian investigators and that data provided by Russia to the DSB has been either ignored or abused. Russia in no way supports the DSB’s conclusion that MH17 was shot down by a Buk missile.

    • What DSB and Joustra said was not even close. Almaz-Anty, providing the main body of the Russian evidence, made it perfectly clear that the aim of their research was to proof if and only if a Buk had shot down MH17, it couldn’t have been a Russian Buk. They did not investigate different scenario’s (press conference 2-6-2014). The Russians didn’t change their viewpoint on this subject as Joustra suggested.

  2. hard to understand why he claimed DSB believed
    “the weight of the warhead was no more than 33kg, and the main warhead was equipped with between 3,000 and 4,000 ‘pre-formed fragments’ (flechettes) that weighed around 3g each”
    this is clearly an error or worse and seems based on nothing

    some of the information DSB ignored was the claim used bow-tie frags should weigh at least 7.2g and not 5.5g,yet AA static test show them at 6.02g and 4.53g

    • It may have come from the draft of the DSB’s final report. RT’s version of the story gives a little more insight at https://www.rt.com/news/318316-russia-mh17-probe-letter-icao/

      From the article:
      He added that the DSB draft report also had discrepancies with regards to the metallurgical properties of the missile and size of the warhead.

      “According to the [DSB] calculations, the weight of the warhead was no more than 33kg, and the main warhead was equipped with between 3,000 and 4,000 ‘pre-formed fragments’ that weighed around 3g each. These do not correspond with the BUK at all.”

    • Hector Reban // November 5, 2015 at 5:49 am // Reply

      But then its really strange the TNO put in its recommendations (app. Y) there should have been more research to establish the mass of the warhead.

      • Hector Reban // November 5, 2015 at 10:40 am // Reply

        TNO has two recommendations for follow-on investigation, if necessary:

        Reconstruct the warhead by means of augmenting analysis of recovered remains and traces. Examples are the metallurgic characterisation of the fragments, chemical characterisation of the residue and estimation of the warhead mass based on the fragment numbers.

        (On the new website they seem to have switched appendices Y en Z in the english version).

  3. it mirrors the rather odd claim it was a Python missile and resembles nothing within the DSB report which according to Russia itself in the DSB report was weighing BuK bow-tie frags in February at the first meeting,DSB even ran tests off smaller warheads which failed to match so clearly not in an earlier draft either
    Russian rollback from BuK was based it seems on the weight of the BuK bow-tie frag a factor which it itself has now shown not to be relevant

    • The DSB did not evaluate every warhead that was available to both sides of the conflict, to say nothing of third parties with their own agendas.

      Given the lack of radar and satellite data, how odd is the Python missile claim relative to the claim about a Buk missile that nobody saw or heard in flight?

  4. “how odd is the Python missile claim relative to the claim about a Buk missile that nobody saw or heard in flight?”

    very odd,Python not in the area,too small,even TAM the SU-25km (which Ukraine do not have btw) manufacturers say only armed with R-60+R-73
    bow-tie frags tie it to 9M38M1 BuK missile,hard to deny really

    • Anything other than a BUK can be ruled out. There is not a single evidence for another weapon.
      Mind there are parts of a BUK missile found in the wreckage. Besides the bow-tie fragments found in the body.
      And there are various people who saw a missile launched from surface.

      • Wind tunnel man // November 5, 2015 at 4:28 pm // Reply

        Admin:

        “…Besides the bow-tie fragments found in the body…”

        Were there only two alleged bow-tie fragments found according to the DSB report: one in the captain’s body (human remains) and the other in the cockpit?

        On page 91 of the DSB report the Micro CT-image does look as if it could be a bow-tie shaped fragment found in the captain’s body. On page 89 of the DSB report there is a picture of what could be bow-tie fragment found in the cockpit (together with another picture of the possible bow-tie shaped fragment found in the captain’s body.) Both alleged bow-tie shaped fragments were in the same group 1 classification based on their elemental composition, see pages 92 and 93 of the DSB report.

        So we have only two possible bow-tie shaped fragments pictured from the same angle without an indication of their three-dimensional shape nor any verification (?) from the manufacturers that their elemental composition is consistent with that used in 9N314M warheads operational in that region.

        Additionally there do not appear to be any penetrations and grazing marks on the outer surfaces of MH17’s cockpit area that would conclusively indicate impacts of bow-tie shaped elements. Also the 6mm x 6mm x 1mm cube shaped fragment found in the first officers body could not be classified according to it’s elemental composition and the cubic 12mm x 12mm x 1mm fragment found in the purser’s body was classified as group 1.

        If I am reading the DSB report correctly it seems far from certain that a 9N314M warhead was used.

      • > Anything other than a BUK can be ruled out

        admin, when will you start making inferences from your own posts? Here are two pieces of evidence against a Buk that you can verify from your sofa.

        One: the DSB found a wrong detonation point. Though the verb “found” does not apply here. The right point was pretty obvious and found by the community (it was demonstrated to them, and they well knew where it was). A more applicable verb should probably be “rigged”.

        The DSB simply figured out that the correct explosion point does not fit into the Buk theory and had to move it out. To see that the detonation point was wrong one does not need to go much further than your post called “Simulation versus facts”. Also AA demonstrated that from the alleged explosion point a lot of areas undamaged on the Mh17 were damaged in the test. If not enough, in your post called “DSB did not tell the truth about the MH17 reconstruction” you’ve demonstrated that the DSB did not give a crap about the correct detonation point (like they gave little crap about bringing evidence from the crash site or questioning witnesses): never used the mock-up to search for it and ignored the mistake when it was visually indicated by an AA man before to the whole commission team in the mock-up building (according to Storchevoy).

        So why they’ve found a wrong detonation point? Because if you use a correct explosion point then the density of the holes in the cockpit becomes too high for a Buk. If the point is twice as close (and it can be even closer) then the density must quadrupole. The AA experiment gave us useful information to see this flaw of the Buk theory: for a wrong detonation point the hole density on the Il-86 cockpit matched that of Mh17.

        Two: no bow-tie holes were found on the cockpit of Mh17, while we need around a dozen. The more I look at the alleged bow-tie holes on Mh17 the more I get convinced that they are not real bow-tie holes but flukes (made by non-bow-tie shrapnel bits or merged with bolt holes), or photographic flukes (that would not look like bow-tie from other angles) or of wrong size. While the many AA ones are much clear, well-defined. (Show me the one that looks bow-tie to you most)

        Furthermore, there is little doubt, seeing the drive to push the Buk theory, that if one, just one, right bow-tie hole was found it would be photographed and measured from all angles. The report would stress on it. But, in reality, it was left to the pro-Ukrainian audiences to come up with their weak versions of photo proofs. While in the AA experiment there are a dozen of clearly identifiable bow-tie holes. They’ve even managed to cut off a 20×20 cm fragment containing THREE ideally looking bow-tie shaped holes: http://savepic.su/6411148.jpg

        One more point to mention about the AA experiment. There are no ricochets on Il-86 whatsoever. High speed striking elements cut through the aluminium like through butter. On Mh17 we have more than plenty of ricochets visible on photographs. Go first look at the Mh17 cockpit photos and then the AA videos/photos, paying attention to this particular issue. Then, go ponder why there is such a drastic difference.

        Now, what does this tell us? This tells us that the very few bow-tie bits and missiles fragments were sneaked in by Ukraine. Bow-ties cannot get inside without leaving holes in the skin.

        Have you also heard the following story told by Storchevoy? In August 2015 AA was told (for the first time!) that five fragments of the missile were found. Their reaction was “ok, give us the details and serial numbers and will find the origin of the missile”. Now you need to explain:
        1) Why was that fact hidden from AA for so long (hint: for AA not to be able to trace the missile)?
        2) Why were no details, such as serial numbers, given to AA (hint: the same answer)?
        3) Why was the investigation material classified after investigation (hint: the same answer)?
        4) Why did not one of the Buk fragments, after AA said that it was impossible for it to survive the blast, end up in the report (hint: Ukraine, did not think of that before they planted the fragment)?

        You need a lot to explain if you take the DSB report at face value. Those questions are largely known, but I want to add one more.

        When it comes to courts, one of the justice principles that govern the process is that the defendant is always given access to all the material, so they can defend themselves. This applies to aircraft investigations just as well. Can you imagine an investigation blaming an aircraft manufacturer for a crash but not giving them access to the material? No? The DSB has effectively done that. The report essentially blames Russia. But all the factual materials is classified, effectively making Russia unable to defend itself. Furthermore the crime perpetrator was responsible for supplying evidence, vetoing report paragraphs, etc.

        Just this one big red flag must stop you from saying “anything other than a BUK can be ruled out”.

        As to the real missile. It was likely an R-27 with fragmentation warhead shot from a Ukrainian fighter. Half the power of Buk. Ukraine makes it. If you are willing to go for a further discussion I’ll elaborate.

  5. seems no doubt bow-tie frags were found,afaik Russia does not deny they are bow-tie frags simply says they don’t know how they got there!
    admin was commenting on no proof of BuK missile not on particular model

    • Wind tunnel man // November 5, 2015 at 5:21 pm // Reply

      RB2:

      “admin was commenting on no proof of BuK missile not on particular model.”

      Sorry I read it as further evidence that a BUK missile was used and if there were no bow-tie shaped fragments found then that would indicate the possibility that another type of weapon was used. Indeed a BUK 9M38 with a 9N314 warhead could have been used and that is a matter of dispute between the Russians and the DSB: the Dutch claim that there were bow-tie shaped fragments found but have the Russians had an opportunity to actually verify that claim. If not the Russians are quite justified in asking how such claimed fragments got there.

  6. no mention as i recall by Russia that they thought bow-tie frags were planted in the DSB report,they asked for many changes and made many suggestions,only time they doubted the bow-tie frags was on the basis of weight loss but have since shown themselves the basis was erroneous

    • Wind tunnel man // November 5, 2015 at 9:21 pm // Reply

      RB2:

      “no mention as i recall by Russia that they thought bow-tie frags were planted in the DSB report”

      I certainly wasn’t trying to imply that the Russians thought that the bow-tie frags had been planted! Undoubtedly the Russians agree that there were fragments found but from their deformed shape etc., illustrated and mentioned the DSB’s report, the DSB’s claim that two fragments are definitely bow-tie fragments from a 9N314M warhead has to be questioned especially if the manufacturer has some doubts.

  7. “two fragments are definitely bow-tie fragments from a 9N314M warhead has to be questioned especially if the manufacturer has some doubts.”

    AA doubts re the bow-ties was based on their insistence that a used bow-tie should weigh at least 7.2g and not 5.5g
    AAs own tests prove this to be wrong and clearly so,they show used bow-ties much lighter even

    • Wind tunnel man // November 5, 2015 at 11:12 pm // Reply

      RB2:

      “AA doubts re the bow-ties was based on their insistence that a used bow-tie should weigh at least 7.2g and not 5.5g
      AAs own tests prove this to be wrong and clearly so,they show used bow-ties much lighter even”

      A-A showed that an I-beam/bow-tie fragment would lose it’s distinctive shape when it’s reduced to a weight of 6.2g (slide 27 of their report) the heavier of the two alleged I-beam/bow-tie shaped fragments found in MH17 was 6.1g. Hence we can perhaps understand why A-A thought that a distinctive I-beam/bow-tie shaped fragment should weight no less than 7.2g. A-A used I-beam/bow-tie fragments weighing 8.1g when detonating their example 9N314M warheads…

      • Wind tunnel man
        would also like you to look at engine cowling picture showing large penetration through front+back,available in both DSB report and AA slide and get your opinion on AAs repeated claim that only ready made frags can pierce this double layer as proof of Z launch

        • Wind tunnel man // November 6, 2015 at 12:25 am // Reply

          RB2:

          “would also like you to look at engine cowling picture showing large penetration through front+back,available in both DSB report and AA slide and get your opinion on AAs repeated claim that only ready made frags can pierce this double layer as proof of Z launch”

          A-A say it’s probable that only ready made fragments from the warhead could penetrate through both the front and back of the port engine intake ring making holes no larger than 14mm x 14mm. Perhaps holes larger than 14mm x 14mm could have been created by other objects causing impact damage.

          If the “high intensity” 14mm x 14mm sized “diamond” holes, where penetration is front to back, are consistent with the fragmentation spread of a BUK missile approaching from the Zaroshens’ke direction, at the moment of detonation, then perhaps that is significant?

          • therein lies the problem,AA state several times that ONLY ready made high density frags could pierce cowling front to back as proof of Z launch,however as well as DSB report proving that is not the case the pic off the cowling shows a huge penetration through both layers,clearly secondary damage,
            another error from AA?

  8. “Hence we can perhaps understand why A-A thought that a distinctive I-beam/bow-tie shaped fragment should weight no less than 7.2g”

    AAs reason for raising doubt on used bow-tie frag was based on weight,should at least be 7.2g,this they stated to DSB as an expert opinion,this was wrong as they have shown themselves.belief that they were fooled by the shape does not bode well for their expertise really

    • Wind tunnel man // November 5, 2015 at 11:41 pm // Reply

      RB2:

      Perhaps we should agree to disagree. Please remember though that group 1 fragments (same composition of elements as alleged bow-tie fragments,) mentioned in the DSB report, ranged from 0.1g to 6.1g.

  9. maybe but still AA claim of 7.2g as minimum is wrong
    but no use going in circles i agree

  10. Captcha isn’t letting me post this as a reply to admin who wrote, “And there are various people who saw a missile launched from surface.”

    Link(s) please? I’m aware of the research by an American civil engineer that includes tweets by people who may or may not have heard the sound a Buk missile from the direction of Shakhtersk. I’ve seen the controversial photography of smoke that may or may not be a vapor trail from a Buk missile. There is quite a difference between actually seeing and hearing a Buk missile in flight and hearing what may or may not have been a missile and seeing what may or may not be a missile’s vapor trail. What evidence do you have that various people saw a missile launched from surface?

    If “there are various people who saw a missile launched from surface” then why is the launch location not precisely known?

    If “there are various people who saw a missile launched from surface”, and these people are credible and have already spoken about what they saw, then why is the JIT still searching for witnesses?

  11. In addition to IsThatSo’s and other’s comments with regards to the alleged BUK launch, something I’ve been wondering about is: If the US satellite images were able to detect the exact spot from where the alleged BUK missile was launched, then why did they not do an effort on following up with what happened to that BUK missile system? Bellingcat and most media in the West wants us to believe that this system came from Russia and then went back there. Following the movements of that missile system shouldn’t be a problem for the US, yet there are no reports about what happened to the crew, nor to the missile system itself.

    Ever since this incident happened, I’ve been asking a very simple question: Where’s the evidence that Russia provided BUK missiles to the rebels, and that this system was then moved back to Russia after the downing of MH17? The silence is deadly whenever that is brought up, nobody has offered any concrete evidence.

  12. Pianoman, All that is needed to increase the supply of a fiat currency is for a bank to make a loan.

    All that is needed to create fiat evidence is a statement by a highly placed government official claiming that the fiat evidence exists and is in the government’s possession. The more the statement is repeated by government officials, the media and government spokespersons, the more the fiat evidence is believed. The more the government and media sources are regarded as credible, the more the fiat evidence is believed.

    This higher the stakes, the more we should regard unsubstantiated evidence as fiat evidence until proven otherwise. Endless repetition does not constitute proof.

    The destruction of inconvenient hard evidence is very easily achieved by a government. All that’s needed is an accident such as a deleted file or a fortuitous fire.
    http://mianews.ru/en/2015/11/02/the-fire-on-the-ukrainian-warehouses-in-svatovo-destroying-evidence-in-the-case-on-the-boeing/
    http://southfront.org/07-11-2015-ukraine-military-report/

    When confronted with conflicting fiat evidence we become anxious and impatient to know the truth. The more anxious we are the more vulnerable we become to the temptation to choose a side. This is what most of us have done in the case of MH17.

    The more difficult path is to recognize the truth that over 15 months after the event what we know about the big picture is exceeded by what we don’t know. It is to recognize that we can’t choose a side if we really seek the unvarnished truth. This path requires great reserves of patience, diligence and self-control as the story unfolds.

  13. Hector Reban // February 23, 2016 at 9:33 am // Reply

    In fact, the Russians haven’t confirmed ANY scenario.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*