First Examination of Malaysian MH-17 Cockpit Photo Shows Ukrainian Government Shot that Plane Down

Eric Zuesse

On July 30th, a German pilot headlined at anderweltonline, “Shocking Analysis of the ‘Shooting Down’ of Malaysian MH17,” and he provided the first public analysis of the photos that were available immediately after the disaster, of the plane’s cockpit, and of a wing. Google removed the photos soon after they were first available, but pilot Peter Haisenko had fortunately screen-saved them, and now shows them on that site, after having carefully analyzed and made sense of what they show. He says: “The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes.” And they’re unmistakable in the accompanying photo. “This aircraft was not hit by a missile” and it was not hit “in the central portion” of the airplane. “The destruction [that explains the way the entire wreckage was spread out] is limited to the cockpit area,” as he explains it: “A typical SU 25″ (which is the Ukrainian plane, or pair of planes, that accompanied the Malaysian jet into the conflict-area) “is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302,” carrying “a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum),” which are “designed to penetrate the solid armor of a tank” and which ripped to shreds the cockpit-area on both sides of the plane. “The cockpit of the MH017 has evidently been fired at from both sides: the entry and exit holes are found on the same fragment” of the cockpit, so that there had to have been two SU 25s, and not merely one, which were escorting that plane into the rebel-held area.

This type of “shelling” will “cause massive explosions inside the cockpit,” due to the shocking change of air-pressure, so that “the rear sections broke in mid air at the weaker points of construction most likely under extreme internal air pressure. The images of the widely scattered field of debris and the brutally damaged segment of cockpit fit like hand in glove. … Both the high-resolution photo of the fragment of bullet-riddled cockpit as well as the segment of [bullet-] grazed wing have in the meantime disappeared from Google Images.” Nonetheless, “The shelling of the cockpit of Air Malaysia MH 017, … is definitely not … speculative,” asserts Haisenko.

Haisenko, according to the Anderwelt website, was born in 1952 in Munich, trained at the Lufthansa Flight School, and piloted for 30 years numerous different plane-types. In addition, he has been a respected published investigative journalist and historian, including the favorably reviewed 2010 book, England, the Germans, the Jews and the 20th Century. So, he has experience not just in piloting but also in investigative journalism and historical writing. Unless the photos that he captured on his computer were faked by him (and they look like they’re of that wreckage-field), the United States and Ukrainian Governments have been lying about how the Malaysian airliner was destroyed. If those photos are authentic, then they are the most virginal, undoctored and unhandled evidence, relating to reconstructing what brought this airliner down.

This isn’t necessarily to say that the economic sanctions that the U.S. and EU have placed against Russia are necessarily based on lies, but it is to say that unless Mr. Haisenko has perpetrated a fraud, the U.S. and EU have. Right now, it’s his evidence against their “evidence,” at a time when their “evidence” has been widely challenged as being non-credible. Perhaps Haisenko’s isn’t. But, certainly, the imposition of the anti-Russian sanctions on the basis of the “evidence” that has been offered to justify them is scandalous in itself, as being, at the very least, highly premature, if not outright warmongering.

No one can doubt that George W. Bush and Tony Blair invaded Iraq on the basis of bogus “evidence” like that. Are President Obama and NATO aiming to invade Russia on that same fraudulent basis? Is history repeating itself here, only far more dangerously? And will the world’s press do as rotten a job this time, as they did last? The consequences this time could turn out to be far, far, worse.

One thing is very clear: the public have every reason to distrust both their governments and their press.

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Energy / Environment, General, Politics / World News, Science / Technology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Thor

    or…it was hit by a Buk missile which is a fragmentary missile designed to explode before it hits the target covering the target with high velocity shrapnel…lots more pictures here:

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh17-evidence-a-missile-was-used-shrapnel-etc.3997/

    • disqususername

      The only “evidence” for it being a BUK is that the UKR / US say it was. But they have not presented Radar/Satellite images to back that up. The Russians said the Yanks had a new hi-tech experimental satellite that could track missile launches, and “by coincidence” that hi-tech missile tracking satellite happened to be overhead for the half hour time slot when MH17 went down. The Russians challenged the US to show their satellite and radar images. As yet, they’ve produced nothing but social media postings to back their assertion that it was a BUK. The hard evidence is radar and satellite data. The only BUK’s present were UKR army. (Satellite) But radar detected no ground to air missile. The yanks are talking things up, but have not presented the Satellite images and radar images the Russians challenged them too. I think that speaks volumes.

      Note that the yanks and Ukrainians are desperate to “Bring back BUK” because if its an Air to Air attack, they cannot conceivably claim it was an accident. Interesting that no Air Traffic Control tapes are being released too. Interesting because MH17′s flight path has two kinks in it, as if they were re-directed over the battlefield. Initially Kiev said that was due to bad weather, but then admitted their was no bad weather. Also, Kiev/Washington said no Military aircraft present. Then later with the radar data admitted they were present. Just “escorting” MH17 for no explainable reason.

      Also, in the official video of MH17 blowing up, there are what appear to be flares coming down in formation with glittering chaff streaming above them. The flares look exactly like another video of a UKR jet deploying countermeasures before being shot down. Check out potrblog channel on youtube for an analysis of that. Its worth seeing.

      Some say its just toilet paper coming down. But its unusual to see toilet paper coming down in formation with glittering chaff above it.

      • Thor

        Sorry…the shrapnel damage on the plane is highly indicative of a fragmentary missile. 30 mm cannon would make a huge hole- much different that what is seen. Buks were used in the days preceding MH17 to shoot down Ukrainian planes from the same vicinity.

        Ukrainian fighters are not equipped with air-to-air capabilities.

        What is the typical way toilet paper descends from a plane after a mid-air explosion? (WTF?)

        All of your assertions have been thoroughly debunked here- if you disagree I suggest you join the conversation:

        https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh17-evidence-a-missile-was-used-shrapnel-etc.3997/

        • disqususername

          As I said, some of what the guy says makes sense. There are strafe marks on the wing, pointing at the cockpit. That indicates an air to air attack. Whether it be cannon fire as this expert suggests, or even graze marks from fins on an air to air rocket. But its very obvious that it was air to air.

          According to eye witnesses, there were at least three explosions, one over the first location, shortly there after over the second two more. It could all been air to air missiles. The point is, had a BUK hit the thing, radar should have detected it, and witnesses should have seen a vapour trail.

          The UKR/US governments certainly got worried there was no vapour trail in the narrative. A few days after releasing the video of the break up, UKR came up with that picture the BBC talk about of a “vapour trail” of smoke from a nearby factory! :-) Which unfortunately none of the locals saw any evidence of.

          The US/UKR have to “bring back the BUK”, because if its air to air, its very hard to deny a pre-meditated act.

          • tham58

            The graze or scrape marks on the left wingtip could not have been
            caused by an AAM – its proximity fuse would have caused an instant
            detonation even if it passed 20 feet above it.

            The multiple explosions, along with the many other smaller holes,
            had to be caused by 30 mm HEI and API round hits in a 4 to 1 ratio,
            typically the configuration in an Su-25′s ammo belt.

            You can see the trajectory of the shells in the diagram below :

            http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2014/07/proof-sam-never-shoot-down-boeing-772-2453256.html

        • tham58

          Ukrainian fighters are ”not equipped with air-to-air capabilties” ?!!?

  • disqususername

    That deleted BBC video that they had to put back had witnesses saying they saw two fighter jets shadowing MH17. No one saw a ground to air launch. The Russian radar images that the Russian military released picked up a fighter jet shadowing MH17, but no ground to air launch. That’s really the hard evidence. I think the US/Ukraine are pushing the BUK theory because then they might still be able to claim its an accident. If its air to air, it gets even harder to explain away for the public. Eye witness accounts indicate two separate hits, one that made MH17 veer off course a bit, then one after that which made it break up. First case a witnesses saw fighter jet(s) shadowing it, second case they heard the roar of a fighter jet after MH17 broke up. No one saw a ground to air vapour trail. Russian military radar did not detect a ground launched missile.

    Given the Militia don’t have an airforce, its going to be difficult to explain how Ukraine/US came to do this.

    Also, flightaware and other flight tracker web site data has now changed which means a cover up is in full swing. Also notice how many news articles try to “bring back the BUK”, even “pro-Russian” ones. Air to Air attack is more obviously no accident. Up until the third day after the disaster, flight tracker web sites showed MH17 had been avoiding the battlefield by flying around it for weeks. On the 17th MH17′s route shows (used to show!) a kink in the flight path when it was redirected to the war zone. No Air Traffic Control voice tapes have been released yet , so no one knows for sure who redirected the plane onto the battlefield. One thing I do know though, is that data on flightaware for historic flight routes for MH17 is now changed. A lot of desperation in Washington I would think.

    You can turn on english sub titles on this BBC interview of witnesses if you click one of the bottom buttons. The radar data from Russia is I think the key evidence, but witnesses fill in the details.

    • Thor

      can’t be cannon- it would have left much bigger holes….Buk missile is most likely has they were used in the previous days to shoot down Ukraine fighters, they were seen in the vicinity of the supposed trajectory and the damage is HIGHLY INDICATIVE of a fragmentary missile.

      Everything you mentioned has been addressed and mostly debunked here:

      https://www.metabunk.org/forums/flight-mh17.46/

      • Thor

        moreover- The Ukrainian SU-25s only carry the AA-8 “Aphid” infrared air to air
        missile. This missile has a range of 5nm and has a 3kg warhead. Given
        that it is a ground attack aircraft, with a ceiling of around clean
        ceiling of 22,000 feet and a loaded ceiling below 20,000 feet, coupled
        with no air intercept radar; ( it would have to be vectored into firing
        position via a ground controller), I have severe doubts about it being
        involved in any shoot down of a 777 flying three miles above it.

        • disqususername

          Note that the Ukrainians have a model of SU25 that can cruise at 10,000 meters (about 33,000 feet), though its ceiling for short times is much higher.

          Note that MH17 was ordered by flight control to descend to 33,000 feet from 35,000 feet, which supposedly dropped it below cloud cover. As yet UKR/US have not come up with a reason for that. But again, in the scenario you present, that is suspicious. It makes striking it down with a fighter that much easier.

          On the subject of flight paths. For weeks prior to its downing, MH17 had avoided the war zone, flying around it each day. On the 17th one can see a kink in its flight path, where it appears to have been redirected over the battle zone. US/UKR refuse to release Air Traffic Control tapes which would indicate who sent MH17 down what was closed air space. (See attached photo)

          Battlefield airspace closed, despite lies in the media. (see link below) Why was MH17 redirected there?

          http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/23212812-post288.html

          • Thor

            note that not only was it overcast that day but one would not be able to see an SU-25 at 33,000 feet from ground with the naked eye even if it were not cloudy.

            So…assertions based on “eyewitness” accounts fail in face of the facts.

        • http://Sott.net/ Joe Quinn

          Look up SU-25KM ‘Scorpion’.

      • tham58

        The small holes are from API rounds, the large big hole below the left cockpit
        window would be an HEI shell will about 48 grams of explosive.

        I carefully measured the small holes, adjusted for scale, and they are about
        25 to 30 mm.

        The steel balls from an SA-11 exploding in a proximity detonation would
        have showered the wing and centerline fuel tanks at 1,900 mph, exploding
        them, as well as disintegrating the engines.

        If you have photos of Iran Air 655 which was taken out by two Standards
        with 140 lb blast fragmentation warheads, you would probably compare.

        An autopsy on the passengers’ bodies , had they been done, would have
        found shrapnel in almost all of them.

      • tham58

        Those in the Metabunk forums ”debunk” everything and know little
        about air defence.

        • Thor

          so you say…perhaps you should show them.

          • tham58

            Why should I waste my time explaining to a bunch of idiots ?

            Not only did they ”debunk” GeoResonance’s findings about MH370′s
            possible wreckage in the Bay of Bengal, they conveniently made
            derogatory remarkes on the company and its background, with

            no understanding of people’s technology – as if they are a bunch
            of ”know-it-alls”.

      • tham58

        Those in the Metabunk forums ”debunk” everything and know little
        about air defence.

    • Thor

      As for the “eyewitness” accounts…a fighter jet would be invisible at 33,000 from the ground…

      • disqususername

        1) Witnesses saw 2 or 3 fighters depending on who the BBC spoke too.
        2) Radar detected 1 fighter shadowing MH17.
        3) The Russians stated that their radar would only detect objects above 5,000 feet altitude. As a result, the fighter was able to “appear” and “disappear” off radar. Combined that evidence suggests than one present. Eye witnesses reconcilable with radar.

        So the witness accounts are reconcilable with the hard radar evidence. If you watch the video, you’ll see the final witnesses where MH17 was blown completely apart saw no vapour trail, but heard a fighter jet after MH17 broke up.

      • tham58

        Cut out 3 inch-long paper airplane with similar wingspan, paste it
        on the wall, stand 33 feet away.

        Can you see it ? That’s MH17.

        The Frogfoot would be about an inch long.

        • thor

          sorry- not an accurate model for comparison. You are ignoring the atmospheric effects on visual accuity. One can often not even see a large jet airliner in clear sky at 33,0000 ft unless there is a contrail….

          • tham58

            Then perhaps all those eyewitnesses must have seen a flock

            of birds or UFOs attacking each other and exploding in the sky.

          • Becky S

            I have a few sky-gazing enthusiasts in the family that are always pointing out stuff for me to look at *sigh*. So I have to agree with the others… you can see planes… with or without contrails.. at high altitudes. It can be hard to see them but not impossible. Don’t forget about light reflection and shadow.. Planes & jets in a ‘no fly’ zone would have attracted some attention from locals. Especially if they could be heard. If my neighborhood had a no fly zone because everyone around me was PO’d and fighting each other, I would keep an eye on the sky too btw.

      • srmmedia

        i can see airplanes flying at 33,000 feet all the time.

    • tham58
    • tham58

      Yesterday’s local Malaysian headlines.

      • tham58

        This forum seems to have logs of bugs. Wonder why I am
        appearing as a ”Guest’ above ?

        • disqususername

          @tham58 : Thank you for posting that. Wow. That’s an explosive account of what happened and confirmed what you were saying all along. Now the mix of cannon fire and missile damage makes sense as well. It also makes sense of the eye witness accounts in lots of ways. e.g., witnesses heard a bang in one location, saw mh17 change direction and keep flying, then in another location they heard 2 or three bangs and saw MH17 break up.

          Also, I did see a Malaysian online news article a few days ago where the Malaysian government criticised Ukrainian authorities for not warning them the war zone was unsafe to fly over. The article said the plane had taken its NORMAL route. Which of course was not true. Malaysia Airlines had flown AROUND the war zone, not through it, for weeks prior to being shot down. Note that 3-4 days after the 17th, the history on flight tracker web sites (like FlightAware and FlightRadar24) was changed to make the old routes for previous days, suddenly match the fatal route. (I have before and after screen shots because I’d looked at the paths early on) The government with the power to order that change to happen is the US. UKR does not have any power, over anyone, especially not overseas web sites. So that puts the USA further in the frame for this mass murder. Also, the fact that the Malaysian Gov would go along with that lie , when it made Malaysian Airlines look bad (when it had done everything right) says they are under orders from the US. It also makes one wonder even more about what happened to MH370.

          I’m surprised the Malaysian government allowed an article like this to be printed. Perhaps so many Malaysians already knew the truth that they had no choice but to keep up with the public? How many Malaysians knew this information before that article do you think? Or is it just that Malaysian press is much freer and more honest than western press?

          Anyway, thanks again, its great to see the truth finally being exposed to the public.

          • disqususername

            @tham58:disqus I don’t think any of my posts have been gone the next day. I would say your posts disappear because they revealed some facts that the powers that be are working very hard to suppress.

          • tham58

            Many ignorant of air defence in many forums widely quote the
            Frogfoot’s 23,000 ft service ceiling as doubts to its ability to take down
            the airliner. That is actually just the quoted ceiling imposed by the
            nonpressurization of its cockpit.

            The Frogfoot’s powerful engines of almost 20,000 pounds total thrust
            can easily take it to 41,000 ft with two lightweight Aphids, peaking at
            46,000 ft. With two 240 lb Archers, it can easily climb to 35,000.

            Even if it were to reach only 23,000 ft, the Aphid can easily zoom climb
            the extra 10,000, having a tail chase range of 4.5 miles and head-on
            range of 7 miles, at high altitude, even its most basic R-60T version
            (over 30 years ago), with a ceiling past 60,000 ft.

            The Archer (probaby R-73M1), which it was more likely to have
            shot down MH17 with, has a tail chase range of 9 miles, head on
            19 miles. Ceiling 66,000 ft.

            carry

          • disqususername

            One other thing that could be added. The Russian military said there is a model of SU25 which can cruise at 10,000m (33k feet), and the Ukraine air force has that model of SU25. So there are a number of options for the initial strike. It may well be a strike from below, but Ukraine has some SU25s that go much higher.

            The civilian radar (which according to the media has a fair margin of error when working out altitude if an aircraft has no transponder to tell it – e.g. military), showed a military jet, presumably an SU25, at the same altitude as MH17 shadowing it. It was shadowed at a range varying between 3 to 5km behind it for a few minutes before it went down. (not clear to me just listening to the video, whether the presenters meant it disappeared off radar 3 mins before MH17, or was there for 3mins before MH17 went down).

        • disqususername

          UK saying : “Nothing out of the ordinary in the cockpit voice recorder”

          Well, if the scenario outlined by @tham58 is right (as now reported in NewStraitsTimes), then there SHOULD have been something on the voice recorder. Furthermore, if Ukraine will not reveal the Air Traffic Control tapes (Carlos the Air Traffic Controller – who was a celebrity before this event in Spain by the way, obviously a real person with an obviously real twitter account, who has proven to be right all along) then in some sense, not presenting either ATC or Black Box recordings yet to the public is very damning.

          Why this delay if they have nothing to hide? It looks like they are waiting to see how much comes out, and will adjust the recordings to suit what their final story has to be. By they, I mean the US who appointed and runs the UKR Gov (leaked phone calls arranging it) , the US/Ukraine military to carry out the job and the UK to change the black box data. They’d better do a more professional job on the new fake tapes than they did on their spliced “Russian army officer” tape. The dialogue was like a cartoon, and the creation date on their non-subtitled version of a few weeks before disaster looked amateurish.

  • Emil Enchev

    Now another lie is beginning to circulate on Internet space.

    “The MH17 was shot down not by missile, but by MACHINE GUN FIRE from military aircraft.”

    Sometimes I wonder to laugh or to cry how stupid lie they are trying to create.

    First, GSh-302 cannon CAN’T shoot from distance 5000 m.

    But
    some morons do not understand what mean to SHOOT TARGET FROM 5 KM
    DISTANCE WITH MACHINE GUN. They are watch too many WW2 movies where
    fighters plane shoot each other from distance usually no more from
    50-100 m, not from distance 5000 m.

    Second,
    from distance 5000 m even with powerful anti-aircraft guns such
    ACCURACY like shown in pictures WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE!

    BULLETS DISPERSION WILL BE ALMOST ALL OVER THE PLANE!

    If
    some part of the aircraft, there are signs of “machine gun” holes with
    such small dispersion and great accuracy – this means two things:

    1. In these parts was shot at close range. I.e. Someone tried to tampered with evidences.

    2. Or these are not holes from bullets at all – only look like.

    Some
    holes that look like “MADE BY BULLETS” are nothing more than torn out
    bolts or rivets heads which rend the metal plate. Like to stick a nail
    in a piece of paper and pull it through – the head of the nail will
    ripped paper.

    Before someone talks, he must first know where some part belonged to and what it looked like before destruction.

    As
    I have said more then once. Wreckage photos that I see to now – shown
    only signs of BOMB ON BOARD IN THE COCKPIT. They probably use NUTS as
    Fragments, because it is easy these parts to not to be notes or mistaken
    for plane parts from detectives.

    Little math.

    Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2:

    Rate of fire 3000 rpm.

    What this mean?

    3000 rpm mean that – one projectile on every 60/3000 sec. Or one projectile on every 0.02 sec.

    Now if one plane shoot below MH17 with GSh-30-2 – according the photos of the cockpit piece
    we have row from “bullet holes” that are about 20 cm each other.

    Even
    with theoretical assumption for NULL DISPERSION two planes must have
    speed synchronization about (1/0.02)*(0.2 m)= 10 m/s (36 km/h, 22 mph,
    or 20 knots)

    Such synchronization is difficult to achieve from great distance visual “by eye” – especially if you shoot the bottom up.

    Or in other words, the pilot of the Su-25 can not shoot with such accuracy!

    As I said another stupid lie.

    What I’m trying to tell you in simple language is that

    PATTERN
    OF THE “BULLETS HOLES” ON PARTS OF WRECKAGE OF MH17 NOT HAVE
    CHARACTERISTICS OF NO ONE ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUNS – THEY ARE NOT MACHINE GUN
    HOLES!

    • cracy times

      Who says the plane was in 5km distance?
      Listen what the Russians said. “A” plan appeared in 3 to 5km distance PROBABLY a SU25.

      It seems that you are not very familiar with the messages of diplomats. People always think that such messages are for public – nonsense – these are messages to show the others what information they really have. There is always a hidden message!

      1. Russia presented ONLY the civilian radar (you see ONLY planes with an transponder with on) Military planes usually do NOT switch there transponder on. But this plane in 5km distance had it on. You think they are so stupid and switch on the transponder to shoot down the plan?

      2. The Russians definitely know which plane it was as they still have the military radar data which is much more accurate. And also the NATO has with their AWACS!! So why telling the world only “probably”. Because they knew WHAT weapon brought the MH17 down. You can see the zero dispersion below the cockpit window with the big whole.

      3. There are not confirmed reports that two military planes patrolled the MH17 for minutes. They could have been close enough to the MH17. And you don’t see them on the civil radar if they have not switched on their transponder.

      4. What underlines this theory of the two military jets is a very simple fact (beside the photos). Until today the voice recording between pilots and flight control are not published.
      You do this only and only when you want to hide the truth. There is NO rational explanation why Ukraine keeps them under seal if they are not responsible for the MH17 crash!

      • Thor

        You could not see fighter jets from the ground if they were “patrolling” MH17 at 33,000 feet.

        lots of pictures of shrapnel damage here:

        https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh17-evidence-a-missile-was-used-shrapnel-etc.3997/

        • disqususername

          As explained above. Radar only picked up SU25′s if they were above 5,000 feet. That was how the one SU25 that radar picked up could “appear” and “disappear” by ascending and descending. Witnesses say 2 or 3 fighters were present. Radar only 1. Hence fighters at varying altitudes. Second hit on MH17 witnesses only heard a jet fighter, didn’t see it. No one saw a vapour trail, and radar that should have detected a ground launch saw nothing (see the BBC link to eye witnesses accounts above). Radar is definitive, eye witness accounts confirm it, in a way that shows the accounts not to be coordinated in any way, and apparent contradictions later provide further proof. This is a big deal.

          • thor

            except it was overcast that day so eyewitness accounts are either deliberately lying or simply fictitious.

            the Soviets only showed secondary civilian radar in their briefing…any military jets would not have had their transponder on.

          • disqususername

            When a hostile witness gives evidence in favour of an opposing party, that lends the evidence and testimony much more weight. The BBC is a hostile witness against Russia, and here exonerates them. The BBC has a very large and experienced investigative journalism team. Have you heard of the BBC? You think they are not capable of interviewing witnesses and evaluating their credibility?

            With regard the the witnesses lying. Consider that at first they appear to contradict one another, and even the radar. But on closer examination, their testimonies are reconcilable. Powerful evidence they are telling the truth.

            The SU25 presence was denied by UKR/US until Russia presented radar evidence. Now they admit it. Russia have military radar covering that area, as did the USA. Obviously neither side will reveal everything, but Russia made its case, and that data is public for the US to verify or deny with its data. That lends that radar data great weight.

            The Ukraine saw the same thing with its radar, and of course is not releasing the Air Traffic Control tapes, despite Russia’s challenge to do so. Their silence confirms the Russian data.

            It was overcast conditions and very different overcast conditions to the photo the UKR/US came up with of the “launch” a few days after the event. Note despite it being overcast, the official video shows MH17 blow up in mid air. MH17 in dropping to 33,000 feet on command, not only made it easier to reach for a fighter, it dropped below cloud height. Have a look at the BBC video before posting. BBC is a hostile witness for the Russian case, but have just destroyed the Ukrainian US case with their witnesses. That’s why the BBC deleted the video.

          • Thor

            no- they deleted the video because the reporter called the combatants “freedom fighters” instead of “separatists”

            Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable…and as you pointed out these have all sorts of problems…none more so than the FACT that a SU25 would not have been visible to people on the ground. Nothing you have said or can say reconciles that fact. Thus, your entire premise is false.

            Where has anyone admitted the SU25 “presence”? Why would a military plane have a transponder for civilian radar on – which is exactly what the Soviets showed in their briefing?

          • disqususername

            You’ve mischaracterised my argument with regard to eye witness accounts, and pretend you didn’t read the rest of it. Eye witness reports at first appear inconsistent with one another, and with radar evidence. Especially with regard to the number of planes present. As explained, as planes changed altitude and position, varying numbers would be visible to both people on the ground and radar in the air. In a court case, that shows the witnesses are independent and simply reporting what they saw. Witnesses also witnessed two different hits, a short way way apart. (only a very magic BUK is both invisible ,and able to come back for a second hit) Note the witnesses come from a hostile source, the BBC. As to why the BBC deleted its video, we can only speculate. But it is solid evidence against the US/UKR from their own side. Hence in court such testimony carries significant weight. I can’t find a link for the Ukraine conceding on the presence of military aircraft in the area. So perhaps after all this time they really are still denying they had fighter jets there. That denial is in the face of Russian radar evidence and the BBC’s multiple eye witnesses. It looks like the Ukraine government’s denials are as reliable as its spliced audio evidence.

          • tham58

            MH17 was apparently fired on by two Frogfoots. As one poster elsewhere postulated, it is also possible that a Frogfoot had fired an
            Aphid (or more likely, an Archer with a 16 lb warhead) head on,
            detonating in the vicinity of the left cockpit and left wing trailing edge.

            Both missiles have a continuous rod warhead, shearing the wing off
            and causing pin-type holes raking from the left wing trailing edge to the left cockpit area.

            Another Archer exploding further above or below the aft fuselage would have sliced it in two, spilling out the occupants, some still strapped in their seats, over a 15-mile radius between Hrabove and Rozsypyne as it spiralled down.

            An Alamo (R-27R or R-27T) fired by a Ukrainian Su-27 would also
            have easily sliced the airliner’s fuselage in two with its 86-lb CR warhead, and I would not be surprised if there had been one or two
            such fighters in the vicinity.

          • Gordon Johnson

            Go to flightradar24.com. Find a flight near you that is at 33,000 feet. Walk outside and try to see it.

            That is nearly 7 miles distance.

            An AIRBUS A300 – the largest passenger plane in the world -will look like a dot at that distance.

            Anyone who tells you they can see a 45-foot long CAMOFLAGED fighter at 7 miles distance is a liar. Simple as that.

          • disqususername

            That’s covered in two different ways elsewhere in this thread. Also covered is FlightRadar24′s historic routes for MH17 being changed. After 3 or 4 days all historic routes were changed on both FlightRadar24 and Flightaware. MH17 had avoided the war zone every day for weeks before the 17th. Also in this thread is a link so that you can check out the eye witness accounts from the BBC. Please read the thread first, then comment.

      • Gordon Johnson

        Go to your local gun range. Try to shoot anything at 3000M, anything at all. Then rent a machine gun and try to shoot anything at all, at any range.

        The only real difference between what you experience at the gun range and the 30mm cannon on an SU-25 is that the 30mm cannon bullets fly further and make bigger holes, and the pilot must move the entire aircraft to aim the cannon.

        For holes to be that close together in wreckage, they would have to be shot from the ground at relatively close range. Don’t forget there have been battles near the wreckage.

        Russian radar showed that the aircraft broke into pieces. Essentially the cockpit fell off. Cannon fire does not do that.

        The holes mean nothing.

        • disqususername

          Perhaps you meant to reply to another comment higher up? I cannot find a comment that matches your reply. Though the comment you happened to reply too does point some of the following things out.

          “Russian radar showed that the aircraft broke into pieces.” The Russian military revealed civilian radar, as another commenter said. It shows MH17 turn then disappear. Eye witnesses report the break up as described on this thread elsewhere. No one is saying a gun was turned on MH17 at 3,000m. That’s outside of gun range. The bullets wouldn’t even reach the target. As for “radar” showing the cockpit falling off, well, its certainly in little pieces now, many missing, but neither civilian radar, nor eye witnesses said that. Check out the BBC video link posted earlier to see what witnesses did say. The link to the Russian military presentation (or search YT) will tell you about radar. The jury is out on whether the cockpit damage was an air to air missile or gun fire. Media are pushing gun fire, that may be totally wrong. BBC witnesses will tell you it wasn’t a ground launch. Radar confirms that as much as civilian radar can. (See link to BBC vid in another of my comments) Satellite revealed who has what on the ground (again, published by Russians, yanks went silent after it, see official presentation on YT for info).

    • http://Sott.net/ Joe Quinn

      Nonsense. Look up modern fighter jet cannons with ‘tracking’ systems.

  • tham58

    The small holes are from API rounds, the large big hole below the left cockpit
    window would be an HEI shell will about 48 grams of explosive.

    The Frogfoot’s Gsh-302 cannon fires 30 x 165 mm rounds, typically in
    a four API to one HEI mix.

    I carefully measured the small holes, adjusted for scale, and they are about
    25 to 30 mm.

    The steel balls from an SA-11 exploding in a proximity detonation would
    have showered the wing and centerline fuel tanks at 1,900 mph, exploding
    them, as well as disintegrating the engines.

    If you have photos of Iran Air 655 which was taken out by two Standards
    with 140 lb blast fragmentation warheads, you would be able to compare.

    An autopsy on the passengers’ bodies , had they been done, would have
    found shrapnel in almost all of them, if MH17 had been taken out with an SA-11.

    • thor

      Do you know they didn’t find shrapnel? Did you review the autopsy reports?

      A 30mm cannon make a baseball sized hole.

      • tham58

        So that would prove that it was not an SA-11, wouldn’t it ?

        30 mm rounds come in AP and HE configuration in an Su-25′s ammo
        belt. The AP would just pass straight thru, while the HE would detonate,
        blasting an 8” by 10” hole easily, along with a shower of fragments

        causing the smaller holes you see in the left cockpit area.

      • Sinbad2

        So why don’t we know what happened, why is it taking so long to release the information that was promised in 24 hours by British PM Cameron.
        It seems pretty obvious that they are creating flight recordings that match the BS coming out of Washington.

    • John Pacella

      Dear “expert” Tham: the SA11 does NOT have “ball bearings” as a warhead. YOu dolt. It has an expanding rod warhead, like most medium to high altitude SAM’s since the 1970′s. Read much?

      • tham58

        Well, normally I don’t bother to reply like poorly informed idiots who know
        hardly anything other than what they read from comics, but anyway :

        Tell me, since you think you are the defence authority here :

        1. What warhead do all versions of the Nike Ajax from 1953 till deactivation
        of the last units in Japan in the 1970s use ?

        2. What warhead (non-nuclear, that is ) do all versions of the Nike Hercules
        from its deployment in 1958 till deactivation in 1988 use ?

        3. What warheads do the MIM-23A and MIM-23B Hawk of the 60s to 70s
        (indeed, all versions of the Hawk) use ?

        4. The Standard SM1-ER (RIM-67A) had the Mk 51 CR warhead initially, but
        what warhead did it convert to in 1980 with the SM-2ER (RIM-67B) ?
        ( I’ll give you a clue – it’s Mk 115 ……. )

        5. What warhead do all versions of the Standard SM1-MR (1967, RIM-66A)
        and SM2-MR (1978, RIM-66C) use ? And what kind of warhead shredded
        the passengers of Iran Air 655 ?

        6. What warhead does the SA-2, in service since 1957 till today – in 1991 shot
        down a Tornado, and in 1993 a Russian Su-27, use ?

        7. What warhead does the SA-3, in service since 1961 till today, with Ukraine
        upgrading theirs in 2010, use ?

        8. What warhead does the SA-6, in service since 1970 till today, and in 1995
        blasted Scott O’Grady’s F-16C over Bosnia despite his ALQ-131 jammer, use ?

        9. WHAT WARHEAD DOES THE SA-11 USE ?

        Incidentally, it was just several weeks ago that I happened to chat with
        Saddam’s SAM defences commander during the Gulf War on Youtube.
        (Yes, I believe he is who he said he is, because he described how his crews
        fired their SA-2s and SA-6s in the face of heavy jamming, as well as their
        deployment of the SA-8, Crotale and Roland, very authentically.)

        Go back to kindergarten for a few more years, before coming out to play
        with missiles.

        And don’t bother to reply – I won’t be wasting my time reading the writings
        of kindergarten kids, let alone reply them further.

        I was in the midst of finding the links to the photos attached to my letter
        to the New Straits Times editor on this shootdown, as requested by them,
        when you interrupted me.

  • tham58

    This was on the front page of the local Malaysian newspapers today.

    [url=http://postimg.org/image/8g5qgzzg9/][img]http://s20.postimg.org/8g5qgzzg9/FROGFOOT.jpg[/img][/url]

    [url=http://postimg.org/image/6pmpfihx5/][img]http://s20.postimg.org/6pmpfihx5/FROGFOOT_1.jpg[/img][/url]

  • supervivientes

    I can go along with this – very convincing but one thought came to mind, is it possible that the wreckage was fired on by ground troops after the crash ? No doubt experts could check this from the style and nature of the holes – should be considered though.

  • Kenzie

    Did
    they use a tracking or recording device to shot down the Malaysian MH-17? I am just
    curious on how they did this terrible incident.

  • Kenzie

    Did they use a tracking or recording device to shot down the Malaysian MH-17? I am just
    curious on how they did this terrible incident.

  • George Ross

    Yeah, it is stuff like this that makes me wonder what the hell to believe!

 

 

Twitter