The opinion of German self-proclaimed “experts” on MH17 filmed by Billy Six

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Billy Six is a German freelance journalist. He is investigating MH17 in a not so common way. At November 2 Russia Today Germany published a video made by Billy Six on MH17. Six spoke to several German people.

Billy Six made a movie of over an hour about MH17. More in this German article.

Billy Six attended the JIT pressconference at September 28 and asked a question to the panel. The question was:

“DSB checked the metal composition of the BUK fragments found in the cockpit. DSB concluded pieces of glass on the fragments were of the exact type of glass used in Boeing 777 cockpitwindows. How many holes caused by fragments in the fuselage itself were checked by a microscope?”

The anwer of the JIT member Wilbert Paulissen (head of Dutch forensic investigation) answers:  “This specific information is not known here. We have to check. I cannot answer the question right now”

This is important to remember as Billy Six in his item pretends the answer of JIT was different!

Billy Six also forgets that JIT is doing a criminal investigation in most likely one of the most complex and geo-political sensitive criminal cases ever! JIT cannot tell all the information it has.

If someone is not able to understand, this person clearly shows extreme bias and tunnelvision.

Billy Six is then shown in the video stating that at the start of the investigation the JIT should have investigated the type of metal used in the fragments. This could make clear if a BUK was used or an air-to air missile. BUK fragments are made of steel, A2A missile fragments are made of  uranium.

Billy Six forgets to mention a couple of things. First of all DSB found several bow-tie shaped fragments. These are unique for a BUK warhead. Secondly all parties including the Russian Federation agree there was no fighter jet in the area near MH17. So an air to air missile cannot be the cause of the shot down. Also here are eyewitness who saw the launch and photo which show a smoke plume.

Six is then jumping to conclusions stating JIT did not investigate the fuselage using an electron microscope. Again, JIT never made public how they did the investigation.

Then Billy shows a couple of German people which could be regarded as experts based on their career. This German article shows there are more such experts which are Pro-Kremlin.

Next the video shows a former German Army general named Dr. Hermann Hagena.

Billy Six twists the answer of the JIT given to Six at the JIT pressconference  by saying  “JIT stated the investigation using an electron microscope is probably not important” . Here Six is suggesting JIT did not investigate holes using a electron microscope because JIT believed this was not important to investigate.  Ofcourse this is nonsense. JIT did not say that.

I repeat the answer of  the JIT member Wilbert Paulissen (head of Dutch forensic investigation) :  “This specific information is not known here. We have to check. I cannot answer the question right now”

Surprise surprise Hagena states that it is an important question if JIT used an electron microscope or not. Hagena states he is not an expert on ballistic missiles (a BUK is not a ballistic missile BTW)

Next shot shows Six at a technical university in Berlin. He shows an electron microscope. This university has ten raster electron microscopes. Six states that pieces of metal attached to the  holes in the MH17 fuselage could be checked with electron microscopes.

Hagena is shown again telling the failure to investigate the holes using a microscope is a gap in the investigation. This is done on purpose so the result ” MH17 was shot down by a BUK” is not disturbed.

Next Six shows the final report of the DSB investigation and states “at pages 91 to 95 DSB states it used microscopes to investigate BUK fragments. However not on the MH17 fuselage itself’.

I assume Billy Six believes BUK fragments with pieces of Boeing 77 cockpitwindow glass could have been planted.

Next Peter Haisenko is shown, Peter is another German tinfoil hat. I wrote a comprehensive blog about Haisenko here. The man talks complete nonsense.  Hainsenko states it is not normal that investigation is not done properly. He compares the TWA800 crash in which according Haisenko evidence disappeared.

Next is Dieter Kleemann, a former East Germany fighterpilot.  He discusses the photo of the cockpit part and states it is very strange that the outer layer of the fuselage skin is bent  outwards. Kleemann states that bending outwards can happen when a fragment penetrates the first layer and then explodes. Billy Six asks if ricocheting (bouncing of the fragments on the skin of the fuselage) can create the damage pattern. Kleemann has never seen such ricocheting and cannot imagine this can happen. He states that for sure the fragments will go right through the fuselage which is made of aluminum. The fragments have such a high kinetic energy that ricocheting is not possible.

In this part of the video the ignorance of Six and Kleemann is clearly proven. Kleemann likely has no idea of the position of that damaged piece of cockpit fuselage relative to the location where the missile exploded. He probably also does not know the type of metal used in the cockpit fuselage.

NLR wrote in Appendix X part of the DSB final report this (see image below) about ricochet. According to Almaz Antey which produces the BUK system, fragments of the Buk 9M38M1 missile do not ricochet at angles greater than 30 degrees on the aircraft’s aluminium surface.


The image below shows what could have happened. It is very likely the cockpit section has titanium parts below the aluminium surface. For sure the cockpit window frames are made of titanium. See this source.


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

1 Comment on The opinion of German self-proclaimed “experts” on MH17 filmed by Billy Six

  1. sotilaspassi // November 2, 2016 at 1:14 pm // Reply

    Also, Billy Six “forgot” that fragments were found to be made of unalloyed steel.

    I have no info if holes were analysed for BUK fragment remains, BUT I have seen rust in some “holes through aluminium” of the wreckage. (surely not possible to be 100% sure it is rust from unalloywd BUK steel and not something else, just by photos, but Boeing777 is not made of unalloyed steel)

    One year ago I saw this “hole analysis must be done” matter pushed (by some NovaShpakova) after it already was 100% sure (by DSB) the unalloyed BUK frags (&bowties) punctured the plane.

    Later I saw Nova being a proRU troll, “partying” on top of MH17 victim garves, with other famous trolls. (Nova has at least half brain, unlike those other trolls, therefore usefull for trollfactory, but anyway…)
    Almost too many similarities with billy’s stuff and Nova’s. Same troll/truther group?

    It is not credible theory that BUK frags were shot through identical Boeing777 window+aluminium, then injected to bodies etc. -> BillySIx is a fool.

    “the outer layer of the fuselage skin is bent outwards”

    Simple people do not understand that. When hard particle hits another hard metal (Boeing777 structure below the aluminium) and soft aluminium is left in between, the soft aluminium will splash/explode. “Crater” appears.
    (some small pieces of the hard shrapnel may also become loose and ricochet outwards)

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.