Statements of radar and air traffic control experts at MH17 hearing

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

At January 22 the Dutch Parliament commission for Foreign Affairs held a public hearing of several experts. Goal of the hearing is to get information on circumstances on the shot down of MH17. This information can be used by members of Parliament in a future plenary debate on MH17 in the House of Representatives.

Two experts on air traffic control and air traffic control radar systems were interviewed.

On the photo below Mr Piet Van Genderen is seen on the left. He is working as radar expert at Delft Technical University. On the right Paul Riemens, CEO of  Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland (responsible for Air Traffic Control in Dutch airspace).

Main conclusion is that Van Genderen believes it is very unlikely all radar stations were switched off because of maintenance.


A couple of Dutch newspapers reported about the hearing.

Deskundigen: er moeten radarbeelden zijn (NRC)

Deskundigen MH17: ‘Vreemd dat radars uitstonden’ (AD)

MH17-hoorzitting: Alle radars Oekraïne uit? Vreemd! (RTL)

’Vier civiele radarsystemen bij MH17’ (Telegraaf)

Mister Professor Ingenieur Piet van Genderen is a radar expert. He did a couple of statements.

  • primary radar images are very much required for the investigation into where the missile was launched from
  • he did an investigation into the radar systems of civil airtraffic control only.
  • he did not investigate military radar systems
  • Four primary radar stations must have been able to detect a missile. Van Genderen used Google Maps to locate these radar stations. He was not able to determine if these radar stations were operational at July 17.
  • it is weird that all three Ukraine radar stations were down for maintenance at the same time.
  • One of the radar stations is the terminal area radar of Luhansk airport
  • Two other long distance radar stations in Ukraine could have detected the missile
  • One radar station in Rostov on Don in Russia could have detected the missile but less likely
  • Those two long distance radar stations are Russian built radars with a limited capability to detect small objects like a missile. Van Genderen does not know if these are upgraded to modern version radar.
  • Repair of radar can be done in 20 minutes if sufficient spare parts are available
  • it is very well possible that a missile can be detected using the recorded raw radar data
  • Radar antenna’s rotate in about 5 to 10 seconds (depending on type). So if a radar is able to detect a missile, it will result in a max of about 3 plots.  The duration of flight of the BUK missile was around 30 seconds.

Mister Paul Riemens made a couple of interesting statements:

  • when asked how long it will takes to provide radar recordings and communication recordings to an investigation body, Riemens stated that it would take Dutch ATC about one day to provide these.
  • in each and every investigation into an aviation incident the air traffic controller is interviewed by the aviation authorities responsible for investigating the cause. However DSB stated that the Ukraine air traffic controller was not interviewed.

Dutch newspaper Telegraaf reported at January 23 that the Dutch Safety Board was not allowed by the Ukraine Air Traffic Control UkSATSE  to interview the air traffic controller who controlled MH17! This post has some more details on weird managemeny by UkSATSE.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

18 Comments on Statements of radar and air traffic control experts at MH17 hearing

  1. I think admin has already made his mind about the Ukraine military air-traffic that day, based on his recent posts. Good job.

  2. Deus Abscondis // January 22, 2016 at 6:17 pm // Reply

    “Four primary radar stations must have been able to detect a missile. Van Genderen used Google Maps to locate these radar stations. He was not able to determine if these radar stations were operational at July 17”

    Which radar stations did Van Genderen identify?


  3. What would you expect if MH17 had been shot down by a BUK?

    + Some eye witnesses/photos for the transportation
    + Hundreds of eye witnesses/pictures from the BUK launch
    + Satellite images
    + SBIRS detection
    + Radar images

    But what do we have?

    – not much except the “Paris Match” fakes
    – nothing but the famous launch trail fakes
    – no satellite images
    – no SBIRS detection
    – radars switched off

    Keep it simple: No BUK, no launch, no satellite imaginery, no SBIRS detection, no radar …

    • sotilaspassi // January 26, 2016 at 9:09 am // Reply

      In real life we have:
      +numerous eye witnesses and photos of the transportation
      +photo of potentially genuine launch smoke (surprise that anyone managed to photo it)
      -satellite images not possible because of clouds
      +SBIRS detected the launch (surprise again, SAM is smaller than a ballistic missile)
      +we have the radar images (normal radar detect only large objects, prove that MH17 was shot by missile)

      +we have BUK shrapnel in bodies + debris
      +we have BUK missile pieces found from debris
      +BUK does not fly without launch


      • Hector Reban // January 29, 2016 at 12:27 pm // Reply

        I am really interested what “real life” entails in your universe.

        In fact:

        There are no numerous eyewitnesses, at least not publically known. Most of the realtime accounts are second-hand and cannot be verified.

        The launch plume has been debunked. Its physically an impossibility it existed based on the Aleynikov pics and we don’t know what we are really looking at.

        We only have the word of the US that SBIRS of a launch exist and leads to a well-known suspect. But the US has a clear interest and lied on indefinite occasions in matters of strategical political matters. In fact, its their standard practice.

        BUK shrapnel has no name on it. There are serious doubts about the local origin of the missile and from where a missile launch originated.

        Etc. 🙂

  4. Its important to note one radar site was Russian in Rostov,one was Luhansk rebel controlled and of the two remaining one Artemivs’k was attacked and non operational a month prior to MH17,that leaves one near Kharkiv,a long distance from downing.and at increased tempo,expert seems simply to have given a historical list which seems of little use.
    I was surprised nothing made of Russian claim to have erased raw radar data after MH17 was downed and its importance would have been quite apparent to them

    • “Its important to note one radar site was Russian in Rostov,one was Luhansk rebel controlled”.

      The Luhansk radar station was under Ukrainian government control on 17 July if it was located in the airport as Admin says:
      “One of the radar stations is the terminal area radar of Luhansk airport”

      “I was surprised nothing made of Russian claim to have erased raw radar data after MH17 was downed and its importance would have been quite apparent to them”

      Russia didn’t claim to have ‘erased’ raw radar data. They only said it was not stored. That could mean that it was never recorded in the first place. The reason they gave for not storing it was that it was for territory outside its own borders, so they may have seen that as Ukraine’s responsibility.

      Hopefully Russia will clarify this, now that there is news coverage about the radar data, and the parents of some victims have written to Putin looking for that data.

  5. Actually, there was only one Ukrainian primary radar technically capable of detecting events at the crash area at the time of the incident, as shown in this post:

    The radar is named as “Chugujiv” in the table, other possible transcriptions are Chuhuyiv or Chuguev, not far from Kharkiv / Kharkov.

    So it’s highly plausible that exactly this one of about 18 functioning Ukrainian primary radars might have been on maintenance that very day.

    However, at least one radar from Russia did have primary detection there. But Russia chose to “erase the recordings as irrelevant”…

    • Denis Cashcov // January 27, 2016 at 1:07 am // Reply

      Prosto Tak said: [Actually, there was only one Ukrainian primary radar technically capable of detecting events at the crash area at the time of the incident,]

      If that is really the case then there should be no problem having a look at the other radar information, should there?

  6. “The Luhansk radar station was under Ukrainian government control on 17 July if it was located in the airport as Admin says”

    Luhansk airport was besieged with shelling by MLRs+arty commonplace,non functioning,militia briefings even mention successful attack on airport radar and communications and cutting of electricity supply,all prior to MH17 downing

    “Russia didn’t claim to have ‘erased’ raw radar data. They only said it was not stored. That could mean that it was never recorded in the first place. The reason they gave for not storing it was that it was for territory outside its own borders, so they may have seen that as Ukraine’s responsibility”

    automatic storage is a requirement,Rostov ATC radar is deep within Russia itself with 360 degree coverage,radar sweeps would have covered large areas of internal Russian airspace and air traffic as well as MH17,Russia acknowledged it keeps internal raw data,unrealistic to suggest Russia cherry picked MH17 raw radar data to not be saved while saving the rest


    On the MH17 hearing in the Netherlands of January 22, 2016, representatives of NLR (Dutch Aerospace Laboratory) and TNO (The Netherlands Organisation of Applied Research) said to be very pleased with the find of bowties in MH17.

    Bowties can only be found in 9N314M and the real fight is not about the BUK but about the bowties. Who can prove 9N314M involves the Russians, otherwise 9N314 could point to Ukraine.

    They claimed there was more evidence pointing to 9N314M and absolving 9N314. But considering all alleged evidence against 9N314M, the question arises for the total likelihood of this chosen permutation of the complex event of the shooting down of MH17. Is this perhaps a grand illusion? Might the total likelihood be near zero?

    Now the reader plays the judge, watching tunnel vision and circular reasoning in this complex investigation.

    Is this the first illusion:

    doradcar305 // August 14, 2015 at 4:53 pm // Reply
    The naked eye can see that shrapnels from 3 image are made from entirely different metal than shrapnel from image 1 and 2. So if 1 is BUK shrapnel than 3 are from another missile.

    sotilaspassi // August 14, 2015 at 8:44 pm // Reply
    Metal generates rust in different way when being under the sky vs being in a human body.

    Above we see two bowties from which the first allegedly was found in a body and the other in the cabin. But both bowties are definitely different from the third object. This means the corrosion theory in blood might be inadequate. So the premise of the bowtie found in the body of the captain, explaining the appearance of this bowtie can be wrong. It is the other way around. We first must prove this bowtie came into the body by the crash, what is unknown and not documented trustworthy.

    This is symptomatic for the whole investigation of the Western block. DSB detected only one permutation (a,b,c,d) of this complex event. First there was the premise of 9N314M (a), then it follows a bowtie must have been shot into the body of the captain (b). Then this bowtie must have been corroded by exposure to blood from his body (c). Consequently, this proves premise (a) which is pure circular reasoning, tunnel vision.

    These bowties are seen as main evidence for 9N314M as the warhead used in the shooting down of MH17. As if they were proven facts they dominated further methodological issues of research. But remember, up to now this alleged causal relation is neither confirmed nor falsified. We are empty handed and simply don´t know what is true or false.

    This may be normal in science but is devastating in court. JIT knows they have to jump into the ravine now the Russians blocked their saved by the bell by the United Nations.

    This all will become a new tragedy for the families of the victims. Desperate they begged the Dutch Authorities how long JIT still wants to wait for crushing the Russians, not yet grasping what fate awaits them.

    The Tragedy of the MH17 investigation:

    Did investigators make the basic error of tunnel vision in science? Did they prove the premise of 9N314M to be true by exclusion of other possibilities? Tunnel vision by circular reasoning? Yes it looks like, unless they withhold information.

    So, what kind of proof do they have for 9N314M?



    Bowties found in the cockpit prove that warhead 9N314M has shot down MH17.

    The find of the bowties was stunning but unproven. The crash site was unattended for many months, also in the first days of body decay. Then bodies of the crew were transported and X-rayed. That’s all we know. That’s to say, we know nothing.

    Also there seems to have been some misunderstanding with the Russians about the found bowtie in the captain’s body. And though kinds of shrapnel from the beginning were known as indications of the weapon used, there was no official protocol; I mean we did not see official autopsy reports. We did not hear any witnesses. We just do not have the slightest indication the alleged bowtie was really found in the body of the captain. Hence, these bowties look like a Deus ex Machina for DSB.

    That’s why we must demand proof of the conditional probability bowties entered through the hull or through the windshields. I desperately tried to prove this probability but failed. Hence, bowties found in the cockpit might be our first illusion.


    Frac spread on MH17 is an exact projection from 9N314M.

    In a physical model NLR thought to prove their theory of 9N314M as the warhead used by projecting the frac speed from the warhead exactly on the cockpit of MH17. They implied an identical projection:

    But even if they were right with their identical projection, then in the second instance they had to crash another plane with warhead 9N314M to see if their theory was correct. Only then their hypothesis was confirmed. That’s what they left for Almaz-Antey:

    Above meant methodological flaws of tunnel vision excluded the investigation of 9N314 as the possible warhead used. But maybe 9N314 even would have given a better frac spread on the cockpit. Consequently both warheads should have been modeled to conclude which of them gave the best prediction. Also then it was only found out which of the two was favourable.

    Hence, if you do not model different warheads, factually 9N314M as your premise will be proven one way or the other. And that’s exactly what happened. DSB left everything from the iron carcass of MH17 not supporting their 9N314M theory. It has been a methodological mess. Piles of roof plates wear out their second life on sheds in Donetsk.

    This might be a better height of detonation:

    And in the rebound their theory was falsified since the frac spread was like a random blur as shown on the computers of Almaz-Antey. Though somewhat more red bowties are visible on the left side. But remember this is also an animation of a computer model:

    This is the real experiment:

    This definitely does not justify their hypothesis of an identical projection of the frac spread from the warhead to the plane, which projection likely would be better in the static test of A-A than in the dynamic situation of MH17:

    So the theory of an identical projected frac spread from warhead 9N314M to MH17 was their second illusion. Circumstantial evidence for 9M314N as the warhead used crumbled further.

    But to be fair, despite the methodological mess of the DSB investigation, 9M314N can still turn out to be the warhead used. Except if there would be a causal relation between them. Except if (parties within) DSB knew 9M314N was not the warhead used. Although this must be seen as completely ridiculous, there still are a lot of unexplained and absurd tendencies pointing into that direction. This undermined confidence in DSB seriously from the start.


    The expected number of holes in the hull of MH17 matches the amount of shrapnel of warhead 9N314M.

    Until now we failed to prove the origin of the bowties, to prove identical frac spread and now we try to prove the amount of shrapnel on MH17 agrees with warhead 9N314M.

    I enthusiastically embraced this wonderful idea of identical projections, since now I could calculate exactly the number of bowties to be expected on a surface normal aria of the cockpit roof:

    But I failed again, since roof plates still lie in Donetsk:

    And here are the expected kinds of shrapnel:

    A segment on the roof of MH17 can be seen as reasonable surface normal to the sum vector.

    For this segment we exactly calculated the expected numbers of bowties:

    – A 14% warhead area is selected on the roof in front of door L1 to the left windshield as reasonable surface normal, which can be inspected from pictured roof plates.

    Reasonable surface normal:

    – Following the ‘separated time and space blast theory’ of DSB on the left side of this area are expected: .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84 bowties.

    – On the right side are expected: .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178 bowties.

    – But also under quite acute angles bowties would show characteristic impacts:

    – Maximally 617 bowties are expected accepting a 120% angle from the warhead to the aircraft: (.33 x .32 x 1870 = 197) + (.33 x .68 x 1870 = 420) = 617 bowties.

    – DSB found 350 holes of impact for 7840 striking elements. Then bowties would have shown maximally 84 butterfly holes, seen from all angles (24% of 350).

    – Assumptions regarding translations optimize chances for finding characteristic butterflies on the hull. But we also have 197+ 420 = 617 fillers (6x6x8.2). And for them rotations does not matter. This means holes of 168 bowties and fillers out of 350 holes on the hull of MH17 would have shown in case of 9N314M. But until now nothing has been found…

    As circumstantial evidence for 9N314M the number of impacts was staged. But only about 300 impacts were found and 500 were extrapolated. So also this kind of evidence does not exist in reality. All evidence from frac spread is illusions and not anchored in reality. There simply is no circumstantial evidence:

    So far, we failed to prove:


    FIRST ILLUSION: Bowties came through the hull or through the windshields.
    SECOND ILLUSION: MH17 and 9N314M have identical frac spread.
    THIRD ILLUSION: The amount of shrapnel proves 9N314M.
    FOURTH ILLUSION: Testing paint of the missile proves a specific missile.
    FIFTH ILLUSION: Statistical handbooks replace experimental testing.


    Testing paint of the missile proves a specific missile.

    Hector Reban // October 18, 2015 at 11:43 am // Reply

    [Then you even haven´t mentioned the procedures around the obtaining of paint and explosive samples:

    “As for the paint matching, the DSB says it tested “missile parts found at the wreckage area” with “fragments recovered from the aeroplane”. It concludes : “the paint samples taken from missile parts could not be distinguished from those found on the foreign objects extracted from the aeroplane”. How and when the two sets of samples were found, and by whom, is left unsaid.

    The testing of the explosive residues is just as faulty, or even worse, depending on your forensic standard: “A total of 126 samples were reportedly swabbed from parts of the plane wreckage. Just 30 of these tested positive for two types of explosive – RDX and TNT. A “few” are now reported to have shown traces of the explosive PETN.

    However, on the missile parts which the DSB claims to be proof of Buk, “traces of RDX was [sic] found. On the missile part [sic] TNT or PETN could not be identified.” The significance of the missing explosive evidence is left unexplained.

    But the DSB report concedes that “the objects from which the swab samples were taken had been exposed to the elements for a long period of time.” Just how long from crash to recovery the Dutch don’t say. “The possibility of contamination during transport and by the fact that the wreckage lay in an area of armed conflict is a concern for the explosive residue analysis.”]

    Oleg Storchevoy, Deputy Director,
    Federal Air Transport Agency of Russia: (see below: English)

    [3.2. Paint samples and traces of explosive

    The fact that paint samples taken from the missile fragments found at the crash site and those from foreign objects found in the aircraft wreckage match does not necessarily mean that the aircraft was hit by a 9M38-series missile of the Buk surface-to-air missile system.

    Forensic examination of paint is normally based on the chemical analysis of paint samples. Often, the objective is to establish whether certain pigments are present in the paint. However, due to the fact that the same chemical elements may be present in paints manufactured by different companies, the results of paint analysis can only be considered as indirect evidence corroborating other types of evidence.

    The same applies to explosives. Practically all the explosives used in anti-aircraft weapon systems are a mixture of TNT and RDX in various proportions. Hence, the fact that traces of these explosives were found on the missile fragments and the aircraft wreckage does not mean that the aircraft was hit by a 9M38-series missile of the Buk surface-to-air missile system.]


    Statistical handbooks replace experimental testing.

    Statistical handbooks dictate the loss of weight of bowties after impact on MH17.

    The representatives of NLR (Dutch Aerospace Laboratory) and TNO (The Netherlands Organisation of Applied Research) about said statistical handbooks predict the weight of bowties after penetrating the hull of MH17.

    One of the representatives tried to correct his Russian colleague avec dédain. But that’s counterproductive. The RF is a world power with an enormous aviation industry, where we once had Fokker.

    Details of genuine Russian complaints are contained in an official letter of the Vice Chief of the Russian aviation authority Rosaviacia, Oleg Stortschewoj, to the chairman of the Dutch Security Tjibbe Joustra: (press below: English).

    It is well known the impact of shrapnel on a target will lead to a loss of weight. It depends on the relative velocity of missiles, planes and kinds of shrapnel. It also depends on the material of bowties and the hull. Simply said it depends on speed and material. But there are a lot of other intervening variables. You may think of:

    Eugene // January 15, 2016 at 2:17 am // Reply

    [The physical reason for this effect is the following: on a high hitting speed the interaction time of a projectile and a target is smaller than on a slow hitting speed, allowing less target material to get involved in the process. Therefore on high speeds there will be less bending and tearing, and the shape of the hole will match the the shape of the projectile better. On a slow speed, on the other hand, the elastic propagation will have an opportunity to distribute the energy wider (i.e. the phonons will bounce off more and reach further, for you physicists out there) and thus a greater area of the target will participate in the interaction.

    Here is an alternative explanation: on a higher speed the collision forces are higher. For extremely high collision forces the inertial properties of the material become more important than the elastic properties. This is indeed the case, as a penetration of a shaped charge jet into an armour is often modelled as a penetration of a fluid jet into a fluid target (=ignoring any elastic properties/intrinsic strength), giving sufficiently good results. On such speeds the strength of an armour becomes almost irrelevant (for some hard ceramics it is not fully the case though), and the only thing that matters is the density. That’s why Abrams tanks sometimes use depleted uranium armour and depleted uranium projectiles.]

    We understand it definitely is not known from statistical handbooks precisely how the weight of bowties is dependent on all these interacting independent variables. Statistical handbooks interpolate simple physical formulas with a minimum of interactions; otherwise interpolation would not be possible. Probably they do not cover interactions entirely.

    This means only reading scores from statistical handbooks is dealing in illusions and a replacement of reality. It might be the fifth illusion. And that’s why bowties impacting on planes must be weighed and assessed.

    But on the other hand, to keep it simple, we may confine the problem to speed, unalloyed steel from bowties and aluminum from the plane. Maybe that’s what handbooks mean to say.

    Though in a static experiment we cannot change speed, as compensation we can change the thickness of aluminum. That’s a great idea. And maybe following statistical handbooks nothing will be left from bowties which pierced through 8 mm aluminum (4 x thickness of the hull).

    Now, RF argues the two bow ties must have been heavier after passing the hull or the windshield of MH17. They say they are to light. But NLR says their weight is quite normal and in accordance with statistical handbooks. Well, we see forward to their fruitful cooperation.

    Now to proceed there are two possibilities left to falsify the DSB results completely:

    1: The algorithm of the proximity fuse.
    2: Spitting the static tests of A-A into two parts.


    If the following is true, this might be devastating information, since the cockpit would not have been ruined. Here we only miss a counter-investigation into the algorithm and the technical specifications of the proximity fuse:

    [According to the data provided by the company that designed the Buk surface-to-air missile system, if a 9M38-series missile approaches an aircraft at the angle presented in the final report, the algorithm of its proximity fuse will detonate the warhead after a certain delay so that the detonation area is 3-5 meters away from the nose towards the tail, which does not agree with the actual data.]

    DSB/TNO report appendix Y, page 7:

    Remember this rocket is developed against small fighter jets, so something must be better explained.


    The Russian static tests of A-A must be split into two parts:

    1: The most important investigation is on the written-off IL-86 airliner. This is the best controlled static experiment matching the dynamic situation of MH17. From this experiment we need the total number and the average weight of bowties and their standard deviation. Then we see how significant the alleged bowties of MH17 differ from the average weight of bowties in the IL-86 airliner.

    In the second test all plates were blown away in the shock wave:

    Hopefully the blast causing the speed of bowties was quicker than the shock wave. Below this seems to be true:

    Fortunately plates were numbered. From inspection of the number of holes in the first plate (plates 1.0-1.5) we find the maximum amount of shrapnel pierced through aluminum. Then we want to know how many shrapnel elements succeeded to pierce the second plate, etc. We are very interested in the rank order.

    In the YouTube film it is said all bowties were gathered. That’s fine but they were blown everywhere and we do not know how many plates individual shrapnel has pierced.

    If most bowties pierced most plates we accept the average weight of bowties as after piercing all plates. If not we may use all kinds of estimation formulas to estimate the total effect on plates. But that would unwise.

    Since, if bowties allegedly found in MH17 significantly differ from the static test on the IL-86 then the RF is almost there. Then they must be prepared to repeat the test with the aluminum plates. Then they must perform three separate tests with massive aluminum plates of respectively 4 mm, 6 mm and 8 mm thickness. This time the plates must be very stable and must not be blown away. Bowties in the wooden construction must not be counted. If bowties can pierce these plates without substantial loss of weight, then the bowtie hypothesis of MH17 is not confirmed. It might even be seen as falsified. Depending on earlier specified interactions. This test must be controlled by independent scientists.

    Consequently, since only speed and material can be manipulated we vary thickness of aluminum for we cannot perform dynamic tests.


    The 9N314M hypothesis might be true despite the investigation of DSB, but until now there is no convincing evidence. It has neither been confirmed nor falsified. DSB is skating on very thin ice.

  8. [What would you expect if MH17 had been shot down by a BUK?]

    I definitely would expect a causal relation between MH17 and the crew of the BUK in the first place for the following reasons:

    – Shooting down a passenger aircraft like MH17 can hardly be coincidence, since in this situation complot theories fit much better. And this is rightly so.

    – Even for the crew of a solitary BUK-TELAR shooting down a passenger plane demands willingness and concentration, since even in automatic mode the object must be designated for a while on the radar.

    I would reject distraction by shooting at fighter aircraft, since the product rule of independent chances of their going together at one location in the air for longer time is nihil for several reasons.

    – In theory it could be possible the radar in the second instance confused MH17 with a fighter aircraft, but in practice this chance must be seen as very low. And we do not go for special cases in this investigation.

    A configuration of motives of parties must be made in advance of the launch of the investigation. There we would wonder why just a BUK was used and by whom. In case of intent we would assume a preconceived plan with a false flag attack. And we definitely expect intent.

    – What means separatists will not be the intentional perpetrators or they were misled and saw MH17 as military aircraft like an IL-76. A possibility could be a revenge on separatists for the shooting down of an II-76 at the landing on Luhansk at July 14. But there are many other scenarios thinkable since the Ukrainian army consists of opposing groups between which everything could happen.

    We only would proceed if the total likelihood of our complex scenario remains above some imagined minimum chance level. Hence, we would not accept weak links in the permutation. This also means the permutation must be kept as short as possible (a,b,c,) instead of (a,b,…,z).

    Consequently, we have to conclude there is a big chance separatists have shot down MH17 (b). This means in our scenario Ukraine must be the inventor of the false flag (a). This is the most simple and promising permutation (a,b). Now a lot of actions will have been planned before the attack for example the alleged concatenation of shootings of BUK films, which all must eliminated from the core permutation.

    So, the scenario with the shortest permutation assigns Ukraine as the inventor of the false flag and the separatists as factual perpetrators. This set up is needed since separatists had not the slightest motive to shoot down a passenger aircraft. So, they must have mistakenly chosen MH17 in a very conscious handling.

    So, [What would you expect if MH17 had been shot down by a BUK?]

    A lubricated condemnation of Russia by the United States.
    A touching story – full of lies – from Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans at the United Nations, with insults about the ‘thugs’ of Donetsk, who collected the dead bodies and children’s dolls.
    The fed of public anger against the Russians by Dutch National Propaganda News station NOS
    A sneaky association agreement between Ukraine and the EU.
    A total collapse of Schengen, the EU and the euro.
    And behold, I’m right.

    You see, after the fact events are questionable and not that relevant.

  9. Sorry to comment so long after the original post, butI have a question. According to the Telegraaf, Genderen said:

    Het gaat om drie Oekraïnse systemen – één op de luchthaven Lugansk en twee lange afstandradars in de nabijheid – en een vierde, Russische radar bij Rostov.
    “Dat deze installaties allemaal uitstonden of in onderhoud waren zoals Oekraïne en Rusland beweren, is niet geloofwaardig”, aldus de hoogleraar.

    Is he saying here that the Russians too claim their radar at Rostov was inoperational due to maintenance? I had not heard this before.

    • This is an incorrect reporting by Telegraaf I guess. Rostov Radar was operating. Russia showed the primary radar recordings.
      The handed over an at the glass recording to the DSB

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.