Tweet sent 9 minutes after MH17 was hit by missile suggests multiple missiles where directed to aircraft

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

A Tweet sent at July 17, 2014 shortly after MH17 was downed states that the sender of the Tweet saw two missiles flying towards  aircraft.  The Tweet can be read here. A screenshot is shown below.  The Tweet was sent at 13:29:01 UTC. The Flight Data Recorder and Voice Data Recorder of MH17 stopped recording at 13:20 UTC. So the Tweet was send 9 minutes after the BUK missile hit MH17.

The translation reads:

From the hill, in the direction of the side of Loetoegino, a few rockets flew, they overtook the planes (literally: the aviation). Then a loud noise. Something was hit.

Another source did the translation as well

“A pair of missiles flew out of (behind) the hill from the direction of Lutugino , chasing aviation. Then a loud rumble. Did they shoot down something or what ;(“

It is hard to tell what is meant with with the word авиация. It means aviation. It suggest multiple planes as for a single plane the word самолёт would be more likely.

Lutuguno/Loetoegino is an area north of Torez. A landmark is the black hill. Ukraine renamed the city of Torez to Chistiakove.

 

The Tweet is hardly noted by MH17 researcher. A person nicknamed Slozny mentioned i 2016 the Tweet in a Russian forum.

This map shows where the missile hit MH17, where it was launched from, and where the eyewitness saw a few missiles flying.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

11 Comments on Tweet sent 9 minutes after MH17 was hit by missile suggests multiple missiles where directed to aircraft

  1. sotilaspassi // December 14, 2017 at 6:49 am // Reply

    To see missile flying person(s):
    -should be ~2km from launch site to have time to react to launch sound and to see the missile before it go into cloud (it’s nearly impossible to follow supersonic buk flight unless seeing the launch)
    -beyond 2km one has to look to the direction of the launch to see missile before it go into cloud
    -if someone saw missile flying above ~2km was difficult/impossible because of the clouds

    Multiple missiles:
    -there is no other evidence of multiple missiles to back up the tweet
    -“multiple” missiles (mistake) could be explained by sound echoes and sonic booms

  2. I ultimately agree with sotilaspassi. Eye witnesses (or in this case ‘ear’ witness) are important as Fred Westerbeke has pointed out. However their testimony has to be cross-referenced with other witnesses and available forensic evidence for matches, disparities and anomalies.

    The trail of a second missile would be visible in at least 1 of the 2 smoke trail photos which were of course taken from different locations. Even if both missiles were fired from BUK332 we are then led to the question why is BUK332 only missing one missile in post-shootdown video? This suggests a 2nd BUK missile launcher, a 2nd crew, a 2nd lowloader etc -that managed to move through that region without being seen, tweeted about, photographed or filmed. That scenario is as improbable as the MH17 Truthers/pro-Ru/Pro-Separatist/Almaz Antey fairytale of a Ukrainian BUK deployment in Zaroshenske. It is similarly unsupported by any evidence.

    My guess is the witness heard the launch, the detonation and possibly a sonic boom in between and having heard those first misinterpreted what they could see in the sky.

    Finally, even if it were standard for BUKs to fire 2 missiles at a fighter it is very, very improbable that those responsible thought they were firing defensively at a fighter or any small aircraft at that height.

  3. They wouldn’t be able to see flight MH17, it was flying too high and above cloud cover.

    If they saw anything they saw the military aircraft that Ukraine swears weren’t in the air at the time. You know, the aircraft Carlos at the Kiev ATC said were tracking MH17.

    ““A pair of missiles flew out of (behind) the hill from the direction of Lutugino , chasing aviation”

    BUK missiles from Snizhne can’t “chase” or “overtake” MH17 – it would heading directly in the opposite direction.

    I am told there are dozens of people who witnessed military aircraft in the air that day, you are cherry-picking this single tweet because you think you can manipulate for the narrative you want. The Ukraine aircraft were there to draw missile fire so the separatists would think they had down MH17 – like that radio intercept congratulating cossacks at intersection a long long way from Snizhne

  4. They wouldn’t be able to see flight MH17, it was flying too high and above cloud cover.

    If they saw anything they saw the military aircraft that Ukraine swears weren’t in the air at the time. You know, the aircraft Carlos at the Kiev ATC said were tracking MH17.

    ““A pair of missiles flew out of (behind) the hill from the direction of Lutugino , chasing aviation”

    BUK missiles from Snizhne can’t “chase” or “overtake” MH17 – it would heading directly in the opposite direction.

    I am told there are dozens of people who witnessed military aircraft in the air that day, you are cherry-picking this single tweet because you think you can manipulate it into the narrative you want. The Ukraine aircraft were there to draw missile fire so the separatists would think they had downed MH17 – like that radio intercept congratulating cossacks at intersection a long long way from Snizhne

  5. Sean -I refer you to my previous post. The scenario you are depicting is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. Carlos does not exist.
    Personally I’m surprised there were no Ukrainian AF flights that day though the weather wouldve made ground attack difficult. Even if there had been a whole bunch of Ukrainian aircraft present the task is way outside their operational perameters, the damage and forensic data does not match an Air-to-Air attack in any way and such aircraft would’ve shown up on radar. They’re simply not there. Even the Russian MOD evidence demonstrates this.

    You are correct that they could not see MH17. That merely confirms my point they knew they weren’t shooting at a small aircraft such as a sushka as they come in low when in a hostile area. They fired ‘blind’ at an assumed, unconfirmed target. That makes this potentially a war crime.

  6. “Carlos does not exist.”

    Well he did exist as of July 17 2014 – whether he has subsequently been gunned down by Dutch or American thugs is something you may know more about than me. He had a social media footprint a mile wide

    ” The scenario you are depicting is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.”

    I don’t depict a scenario, nor did I suggest an air-to-air attack. You are seeing what you want to see, now what I wrote. I correctly pointed out that if that tweet is genuinely then it cannot refer to MH17 and the missiles it talks about cannot be Buk missiles – since such missiles, fired from Snizhne, could not overtake MH17. If the tweet is genuine it points to Ukraine lying about military aircraft not being in the air that day. End.

  7. Sean, dry your eyes and raise your game please.
    “Carlos” is or was a handle used by someone on twitter claiming to be a Spanish AT controller working in Ukraine. That is a demonstrable falsehood. There is no such person. I can’t help you any more with that. If you choose to believe in his/her existence that’s your business.

    Dutch thugs? The Dutch had 200 of their people butchered and have no interest in covering the tracks of the guilty if the fictitious “Carlos” could have helped them find those responsible.

    The entire final paragraph of your previous post alludes to a possible air to air scenario.

    Finally you need to check a map of the area. Snizhne is south east of where MH17 was attacked. The missile was fired north-west and approached head on.

  8. ‘“Carlos” is or was a handle used by someone on twitter claiming to be a Spanish AT controller working in Ukraine. That is a demonstrable falsehood’

    You haven’t demonstrated it. Unless someone was engaged in a perplexing and meaningless social media charade, over a long period of time a fluent Spanish speaking person lived in Bucharest and worked in the airline industry, in Feb 2014 he then claimed in moved to Kiev and a few months later gave an interview to RT. He sent tweets saying he had been expelled from Ukraine but – and since his twitter account has been deleted – a week or so later he received tweets telling him to be careful, consistent with being allowed to return to Ukraine. Could this all be a hoax? Anything possible, but the absurd online articles claiming this go nowhere to proving their claim.

    “The entire final paragraph of your previous post alludes to a possible air to air scenario. ”

    No, it doesn’t.

    “Finally you need to check a map of the area. Snizhne is south east of where MH17 was attacked. The missile was fired north-west and approached head on.”

    Precisely my point. Which is why such a missile can not “overtake” a plane and certainly can’t be seen to overtake a plane hidden by a cloud layer. Hence the tweet – if genuine – can only refer to a military aircraft and not MH17. Your refusal to acknowledge this point reveals your agenda

  9. Sean -whoever or whatever Carlos is he/she is not and has not worked as an ATC in Ukraine nor has any harm come to any such Spanish national living in Ukraine.

    We know this because if harm had come to him -for that matter if he’d even lost his job over anything to do with MH17 -everyone from the IFATC, his local union, the Spanish foreign office, the Spanish media and his presumably distraught family would be kicking down Ukraine’s door demanding his safe return and reinstatement. He is a ghost. A figment of someone’s imagination.

    I do have to backtrack a little in one assertion I made earlier
    “You are correct that they could not see MH17″. I’d change that to “it is unlikely they established visual contact with MH17”.
    If you look at the photos in the tweet there are gaps in the cloud. It is possible aircraft were seen momentarily passing through those gaps by witnesses on the ground and also by the beer swigging heroes of Russia’s 153rd air defence regiment on their little hillock in Pervomaiske. There were four commercial over-flights on Dnipro ATC radar (including MH17) when MH17 was hit. The region was on the edge of a weather system and MH17, travelling east, was emerging from that weather system into clearer skies. The west bound aircraft would have been more visible and for longer to people in that region. Which brings me back to the tweet and your obsession with Ukrainian military planes that simply weren’t there.

    Reading the translations of that tweet again -and allowing for the subtle vagaries of translation -what is described fits quite comfortably with the evidence of a missile launch from Pervomaiske striking MH17 almost right over Rosypne. If the translation “chasing” is correct or for that matter “overtook” –whichever. It may well be the case the witness assumed the missile was fired at one of the westbound aircraft.

  10. small correction: 53rd not 153rd

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*