Secret BUK missile tests in Finland by criminal investigation team

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Secret missile tests were executed in Finland by the investigation team, the Netherlands largest newspaper Telegraaf reports at September 27. The tests were  likely done in Finland because this country once operated BUK systems. It is one of the few reliable, neutral states worldwide which has knowledge of BUK and operated these systems.  Sources near the criminal investigation reported to the Telegraaf.

In July 2016 Ukraine executed missile tests as reported here.

Later on September 27 the Finnish KRP (National Bureau of Investigation)  confirmed via Twitter  it has provided assistance to the Netherlands on MH17, but it did not comment on details. Also  chairman of the Finnish commision for foreign affairs confirmed Finland helped the Dutch investigators.

JIT did several tests with different type of missiles. From the results of those tests is was irrefutable concluded  that a Russian version of the BUK missile was used to shot down MH17. And not an Ukraine version of the BUK missile.

There will be not an announcement on the law and court the perpetrators will be prosecuted. Ministers of the JIT countries meet several times to discuss the court but so far nothing has been made public.

Only at the end of the criminal investigation it will be made public under which law and court the prosecution will be done. A source with knowledge told Telegraaf everything has been arranged in detail. As soon as a perpetrator is known the court can be made ready very quickly. Countries only need to decide on the number of seats for judges and have to agree on the financials. This court case will cost a lot of money.

The reason the JIT countries wait deciding for using an international tribunal or a national court is because it depends on the perpetrators. For one kind of perpetrator international law is better because it makes extradiction more easy. With a group of perpetrators an international tribunal is better. “Fact is we cannot make errors” according the source.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

41 Comments on Secret BUK missile tests in Finland by criminal investigation team

  1. There is no Russian or Ukranian version of the BUK missile. There is a 9M38M1 and a (older) 9M38 version and the only difference is electronics. Both Russia and Ukraine operate 9M38M1’s and 9M38’s.

  2. btw, from where does this come from:
    “was irrefutable concluded that a Russian version of the BUK missile was used to shot down MH17.”

  3. So the warheads are interchangeable and thus Ukraine BUK1 can fire a misslie having a “newer russian” warhead as does Russian one? And that there might be 9M38 missiles with “newer russian” warhead based on production run / upgrade / whatever?

    I’m bit lost. So what does this warhead prove now? That we just need to take Ukraine’s word that they do not have any 9M38 missiles with newer warhead? Not even after the upgrade. Or what?

    So the type does not rule out who used what. Then we need evidence that Ukraine did not have any newer warheards in ther posession while Russia obviously had those.

    Could someone shed some light on this?

    • JIT will probably explain more tomorrow at the press conference

    • “So the type does not rule out who used what.”
      Right. Both sides had both known warheads. The exact combination is not known until tomorrow…

      • I thought that was supposed to be clear in DSB report and now it it obvious that it is not.

        This is quite confusing. But at the end of the day, this report is not going to be anything else than criminal investigation. As it is likely that this will be a court case, we will be seeing a lot more evidence which not yet made public.

        So all we have at the moment might turn upside down in the court. Hopefully we do not need to be just as ashamed as we were with Iraq weapons of mass destruction and Chilcott report this summer.

        • No, I think the DSB is right about the 9M38/9N314M combination. 9M38′ s were produced until 1986 and somewhere on Censor.net there is a leaked picture of a 1986 build 9N314M warhead. So 9N314M warheads were produced before production of 9M38 missiles stopped. A warhead is not a high-tech device, why should you use old 9N314 warheads if you have 9N314M warheads on the shelves.

          • Sure that is logical. But it also means that Both Ukraine and Russia can have the same warhead.

            Thus the explosion pattern does not rule out anyone, as both could have old ones as well. How we it is possible to dig into the armories of these countries?

            Only thing left now is the fragmentation pattern and the angle of the incoming missile based on that. Almaz-Antey did a quite proper experiment and offered all result and calculations how they adjusted the stationary test to match the actual speeds.

            It will be interesting to see how JIT is going to explain how it would be possible to get the shrapnel pattern in MH17 from a missile coming from forward. From the right it matches the hits in the engine way better.

            That part wast the weakest link in the DSB -raport. And they knew it, why else they would make these tests?

            On the other hand, everyone knows, who US wants to go to the court, so that part is clear. There is no way any other outcome would be allowed.

            What will the outcome be? No-one knows. Even Milosevic and Serbs were proven Innocent by Hague ICJ 8 years later. And that will be the strategy here also. A case hanging out in the courts for a decade.

          • Wind Tunnel Man // September 27, 2016 at 5:36 pm //

            Frogfoot:

            The quote below is taken from the DSB final report, appendix consultation part A, which you may be aware of and relevant to your post.

            “Work by the Dutch Safety Board, NLR, TNO and JSC Concern Almaz-Antey regarding the identification of the weapon used resulted in the following:

            The warhead identified as the only one having bow-tie shape fragments is the 9N314M (in Cyrillic text, the 9H314M).

            The 9N314M warhead uses the 9M38M1 missile but it is known that it also uses the 9M38 missile. The 9M38 can be launched from the TELAR of the Buk and Buk M1 system, while the 9M38M1 can be launched from the Buk M1 and Buk M1-2.”

          • sotilaspassi // September 27, 2016 at 7:32 pm //

            at janne

            “Both Ukraine and Russia can have the same warhead.”

            But it is possible that the available (to Ukraine) rocket+warhead combinations or fragment chemical compounds limit options.

            “Thus the explosion pattern does not rule out anyone, as both could have old ones as well.”

            9N314M warhead is confirmed already by DSB.

            “Only thing left now is the fragmentation pattern and the angle of the incoming missile based on that.”

            Only south of snizhne is possible.

            ” Almaz-Antey did a quite proper experiment”

            Nonsense. They got almost everything wrong.

            “offered all result and calculations”

            Nonsense. I have not seen any factual material from them. Only russian garbage.

            “how they adjusted the stationary test to match the actual speeds.”

            Nonsense. You can not mimic a moving warhead in stationary situation.

            “It will be interesting to see how JIT is going to explain how it would be possible to get the shrapnel pattern in MH17 from a missile coming from forward.”

            DSB did that. Only possible direction to cause the observed MH17 damage is from ahead.
            The rest is nonsense.

            ” From the right it matches the hits in the engine way better.”

            Nonsense. Damage on left side engine is done by secondary fragments not the primary fragments.
            South of snizhne is far better match.

          • Chemicals – yes maybe or no. Remember that in Soviet union these similar warheads with same chemical characteristics have been delivered to different regions. And chemical traces are weaker, as the fragments were out in the open for days and even in rain.

            “9N314M warhead is confirmed already by DSB.” Yes but now it is quite obvious that that does not rule out the model of missile.

            Perhaps you could point out what was incorrect in Almaz maths or test, in detail please. Trigonometry was correct since it was quite simple vector calculations.

            I’m not saying that the could not be something incorrect in it, but to say that something is garbage, detailed proof what is wrong is required. Would it be the possible if you could also refer the page number in your response.

            And think about it. How do you think that the software DSB used to simulate the paths of the fragments did it? It was not moving. It was doing math. And you can combine maths to lab test.

            Of course it is possible to mimic a moving warhead and also compensate the missing speed vector in field test by compensating it by changing the direction and attitude of the warhead being exploded.

            Speed of the plane and the missile are just vectors in XYZ space, just like the paths of the fragments are. Change two out of XYZ a bit and you get the a missing third. Voila! Compensation done.

            It should be remembered that in this case, the target on the fragments is not 300m away, it is 3-15m. Aerodynamics of the fragments do not matter to the pattern.

            Bowtie and small fragment marks at the engine cowl are the key. Think about why.

          • sotilaspassi // September 28, 2016 at 6:43 am //

            at Janne

            >Perhaps you could point out what was incorrect in Almaz maths or test, in detail please.

            Too much work for now.
            https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wUkxOU3otbUFQbUU
            http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/what-almaz-antey-presented-on-october-13/

            >Trigonometry was correct since it was quite simple vector calculations.

            Fragments from non moving missile vs non moving plane spread like cylinder or donut.
            With moving missile & plane fragments spread like a cone.
            Totally different shape of spread.
            And light fragmenst + fillers + heavy fragments + rear fillers + rear heavy fragments + secondary fragments all form their own different shape of cone when missile is moving!
            https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cr0S0_FXgAAoiZS.jpg

            > you could also refer the page number in your response.

            Is there any other than the russian language propaganda slideshow from A-A?

            >Bowtie and small fragment marks at the engine cowl are the key.

            There is no proven Bowtie, filler or light killing element hole in engine cowling according to DSB findings. So A-A lied also about that.
            -> All engine cowling damage seem to be done by secondary fragments -> Snizhne launch.

            There are many more facts that seem to make Zarohenskoe direction impossible, just like DSB clearly stated.
            https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2waS1FT2tjWEh0bk0

            I’m at least 400% sure Zarohenskoe direction is impossible.
            (+ against eyewitness)

          • sotilaspassi // September 29, 2016 at 5:28 am //

            at Janne

            Is it not strange to you that A-A provided their detonation test results only two weeks ago to JIT?
            They are criminals.

            It is impossible for BUK missile to get the warhead to the A-A insisted position if shot from zarohenskoe. Proximity fuse is forward looking and starts the detonation when target is withing 20m range.
            And A-A warhead angle is against the evidence of penetrations from left to right on cockpit roof, co-pilot chair, right side floor and out through right side fuselage.
            A-A arhead location & angle would have peppered passengers + second flight crew & rest bunks with BUK shrapnel. It did not happen.

            So, do not be a fool.

    • I was lost in talk about types of warheads and which they wanted to prove over year ago. The only relevant info is that spectroscopic analysis which says: “Warhead fragments have materials from two different sources.”.

      I also didn’t see any info about which Kiev military radars were active and theirs positions. (At least they could say how many were active and just refuse to provide location of Ukrainian BUKs for security reasons).

      As for your question. The warhead proves there was a military missile which shot down the plane. (Which overflew the front line during a major military operation…) And that’s it.

      If they found these PCB during search for all fragments of wreckage, we would have proper analysis of possible warhead and it’s origin. And because these electronic parts would be found shortly after shot down, when the area was mined by rebels, and Kiev was shooting artillery into the area, we would have high chance these parts were deployed by someone after the shot down. Alas Holland committee, overlooked these parts and they were found year later. Too late for helping with analysis, and now too risky to be used as an actual proof of anything.

      When they would find the same shrapnel spectral composition on other BUK warheads, they might actually identify the possible origin of the warhead and track where it was send. Alas there is still possibility of another 1000 warheads which used shrapnel from two different suppliers.

  4. From FI media:
    1) Parliament was not aware of the missile tests for JIT, it seems they do not think it’s very important matter either(for parliament to know about).
    2) Finnish KRP (National Bureau of Investigation) has also given investigative/juridistical support to JIT. https://twitter.com/krp_poliisi/status/780728791597518848 They can not reveal more details (NDA rulez).

    • More secrecy we have around this investigation, less people trust the result.

      Only open investigation with all materials publicly available will meet scientific and legal criteria. All else is just an another form of politics.

      • Well… the investigators can not find much better competence+independence+low corruption partner than Finland.

        Not from this planet, that is.

        Someone could say we are too proRussia or too “Finlandizated” but anyway…

        I’m extremely happy when/if FI military + police had balls to assist, even when our sky is crowded already by transponderless RU jets & iskanders pointed to us. 😉 Perhaps we could also say: “that is what you get when you sell us backdoored BUK M1 missiles”

        • No I mean that unless all the methods, all the materials are not made public and there is anything like the NDA in the DSB report research in this JIT study, the it will be toast.

          No way anyone will accept nothing but open access to all materials and evidence. Unless the evidence of the prosecution is not available, all know what that would mean.

          No, that would not be the fault by Finns, but more there is secrecy and lest open tests, less credibility there will be.

          There were no press. No 3rd party controllers or anything like that. So all criticism which we made towards the Almaz Antey first test – we just made it valid towards us.

  5. No, Janne, you will not see all the evidence. Not that it matters, since you are here trying to cast doubt on the investigation and there is no evidence in the world that will make you admit that the Russian federation shot down the plane.

    However, it is quite simple. Either you think that the international investigation are doing their job, or you rather trust the documented liars in the Russian MoD,

    • Quite contrary. All analytic persons in law or science know that only open evidence is credible. This is basic things is law.

      If you or me would be convicted based on classified evidence, that would be an problematic judgement. Not even a ICJ In Hague could accept that. An it is actually the main task of court to cast doubt on all evidence and witnesses and try them.

      That is the reason why it is called a trial.

      And furthermore your demand is the classic US “you are either on our side or against us”.

      Scientific method is not that, it is the same as with law. All evidence from all sources should available to anyone and tried until no-one can find fault in it.

      No results should be based on trust. Even the good guys, whether it is the police or or criminal investigation need to have the proof not just trust.

  6. Leak of FI support info might be because today we hear fragments are from post soviet union era, matching with missile/warhead sold to Finland.

  7. Finnish “Iltalehti” writes: One of the two detonation tests done by JIT was performed in Finland.

    • And the other one in Ukraine. On one of the pictures is a white 9M38 missile. Finland doesn’t have white and/or 9M38 missiles.

    • And “HelsinginSanomat” seem to confirm. They got confirmation from dutch investigators. Detonation test has been done already some time ago (year+?).

  8. The article is fundamentally wrong because JIT does not have the results from tests made in Finland.

    Dutch criminal investigators have but the JIT does not have. The noise in Finnish media is for releasing the test information to JIT.

    JIT member Ukraine should test their own BUK´s.

  9. As a Finn I’m a bit miffed that no-one commended Finland for the participation. It’s not like it was without real risk of worsening the already iffy relations with Russia. What we get in the news is criticism for not sharing the original technical data about the system (covered by NDA in the buy) which has nothing to do with the data from the warhead test. Journalists have trouble telling between the two. Ah well, what’s new. We walk it alone…

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*