5 August: Even More Certain Now: Obama’s Ukrainian Stooges Did Intentionally Down that Malaysian Airliner

Eric Zuesse

Information continues to pour in confirming the retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko’s reconstruction of how that Malaysian airliner (MH-17) came to be downed over the war-zone in Ukraine, the place to which Obama’s Ukrainian stooges had guided it and then shot it down in order to blame Russia for the tragedy so that Obama’s international sanctions against Russia could be increased. The present article is an updated version of the prior ones I’ve done attempting to present this case as clearly and as fully and honestly as I can. The “PS: at the end here is the main addition to the version I posted yesterday.

We’ll go considerably farther than has yet been revealed by the professional intelligence community, to provide the actual evidence that conclusively shows that (and how) the Ukrainian Government shot down the Malaysian airliner, MH-17, on July 17th.

The latest report from the intelligence community was headlined on August 3rd by Robert Parry, “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts,” and he revealed there that, “Contrary to the Obama administration’s public claims blaming eastern Ukrainian rebels and Russia for the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, some U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame, according to a source briefed on these findings. This judgment — at odds with what President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have expressed publicly — is based largely on the absence of U.S. government evidence that Russia supplied the rebels with a Buk anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.”

It’s actually based on lots more than that; it’s based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done. You will see this proof, right here, laid out in detail, for the first time anywhere, as of the present date.

The reader-comments to my July 31st article, “First Examination of Malaysian MH-17 Cockpit Photo Shows Ukraine Government Shot that Plane Down,” provided links and leads to independent additional confirmatory evidence backing up that account, of retired Lufthansa pilot Peter Haisenko’s reconstruction of this event, to such an extent that, after exploring the matter further, I now feel confident enough to say that the evidence on this matter is, indeed, “conclusive,” that Haisenko is right. Here is all of that evidence, which collectively convinces me that Haisenko’s conclusion there, is, indeed, the only one that can even possibly explain this wreckage:

“There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine-gun fire, very very strong machine-gun fire.” This remarkable statement comes not from Haisenko, but from one of the first OSCE investigators who arrived at the scene of the disaster. Go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ze9BNGDyk4 and you will see it.

That youtube snippet in an interview with Michael Bociurkiw, comes from a man who is “a Ukrainian-Canadian monitor with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), [who] has seen up close … the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. Bociurkiw and one other colleague were the first international monitors to reach the wreckage after the jet was shot down over a rebel-held region of eastern Ukraine July 17.” That description of him is from the lead-in to the full interview with him, at the 29 July 2014 CBC news article, “Malaysia Airlines MH17: Michael Bociurkiw talks about being first at the crash site.” The far briefer youtube clip shows only what’s presented on 6:10-6:24 of this CBC interview with Bociurkiw. The CBC reporter in the video precedes the interview by announcing, “The wreckage was still smoldering when a small team from the OSCE got there.” So: he had to have been there really fast. “No other officials arrived for days,” she said.

So: one of the two first international monitors on-site saw conclusive evidence that the Malaysian plane had been hit by “very very strong machine-gun fire,” not by ground-based missile-fire. Peter Haisenko’s reconstruction of the downing of that airliner, was here being essentially confirmed on-site by one of the two first OSCE international monitors to arrive on-site, while the wreckage was still smoldering. That’s as close to virgin, untouched evidence and testimony as we’ll ever get. Unlike a black-box interpretation-analysis long afterward by the Russian Government, or by the British Government, or by the Ukrainian Government, each of which governments has a horse in this race, this testimony from Bociurkiw is raw, independent, and comes from one of the two earliest witnesses to the physical evidence. That’s powerfully authoritative testimony, and it happens to confirm pilot Peter Haisenko’s theory of what happened. Bociurkiw arrived there fast because he negotiated with the locals for the rest of the OSCE team, who were organizing to come later: Bociurkiw speaks the local languages there — Ukrainian and Russian.

Furthermore, this is hardly testimony from someone who is supportive of the anti-Government rebels. Earlier, there had been this, http://pressimus.com/Interpreter_Mag/press/3492, which transcribes the BBC’s interview with Bociurkiw on July 22nd. He said then: “We’re observing that major pieces, and I’m looking at the tail fin as I said, and then there’s also the rear cone section of the aircraft, they do look different than when we first saw them, … two days ago.” So, he had arrived on-scene July 20th at the latest. (Neither the BBC nor the CBC, both of which interviewed him, were sufficiently professional to have reported the specific date at which Bociurkiw had actually arrived on-scene, but, from this, it couldn’t have been after July 20th. The downing had occurred July 17th. If some of the debris was still “smoldering” as the CBC journalist said, then maybe he had arrived there even earlier.)

The youtube snippet of Bociurkiw came to me via a reader-comment to my article, from Bill Johnson, after which I web-searched the youtube clip for its source and arrived then at the 29 July 2014 CBC news article and its accompanying video.

Further, there’s this crucial 21 July photo-reconstruction of that cockpit-fragment positioned into place on the aircraft as it had originally been in that intact-airliner:  https://twitter.com/EzraBraam. (Sometimes that doesn’t work, so here’s another screen of it from someone who copied it.) Looking at that photo-reconstruction, one can easily tell that the SU-25 or other fighter-jet that was firing into the cockpit from the pilot’s left side didn’t just riddle the area surrounding the pilot with bullets, but that it then targeted-in specifically onto the pilot himself, producing at his location a huge gaping hole in the side of the plane precisely at the place where the pilot was seated. Furthermore, this gaping hole was produced by shooting into the plane, precisely at the pilot, from below and to the pilot’s left, which is where that fighter-jet was located — not from above the airliner, and not from beside it, and also not from below it.

In other words: this was precise and closely-targeted firing against the pilot himself, not a blast directed broadly against, and aiming to hit, the plane anywhere, to bring it down.

Haisenko explained how this penetration of the plane, though it was targeted specifically at the pilot, caused immediately a breaking-apart of the entire aircraft.

Other readers have responded to my news-report about Haisenko’s article, by saying that shrapnel from a Buk missile could similarly have caused those holes into the side of the cockpit. However, that objection ignores another key feature of Haisenko’s analysis. Haisenko said there: “You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likeley that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that … these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent — outwardly!”

What this means is that in order to have some of those holes frayed inwardly and the other holes frayed outwardly, there had to have been a second fighter-jet firing into the cockpit from the airliner’s right-hand side. That’s critically important, because no ground-based missile (or shrapnel therefrom) hitting the airliner could possibly have produced firing into the cockpit from both  sides of the plane. It had to have been a hail of bullets from both sides, that brought the plane down, in that circumstance. This is Haisenko’s main discovery, by his pointing that out. You can’t have projectiles going in both directions — into the left-hand-side fuselage panel from both its left and right sides — unless they are coming at the panel from different directions. Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through that panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any  ground-fired missile.

Peter Haisenko posted an extremely high-resolution image from that photo which he used, and it shows unequivocally that some of the bullet-holes were inbound while others of them were outbound: Here it is, viewed very close-up.

Although the fighter jets that were said to have been escorting the Malaysian plane into the war-zone were alleged to be SU-25 planes, a different type might have been used. SU-25s are designed to be flown up to 23,000 feet without an oxygen-mask, but can go much higher if the pilot does wear that mask, which was probably the case here. Of course, an airliner itself is fully pressurized. That pressurization inside the airliner is, moreover, a key part of Haisenko’s reconstruction of this airliner’s downing. Basically, Haisenko reconstructs the airliner’s breaking apart as soon as that hail of bullets opened and released the plane’s pressurization.

The specific photo of that cockpit-fragment, which Haisenko had downloaded immediately after the disaster, was removed from the Internet, but other photos of this fragment were posted elsewhere, such as at the British publication (which, like the rest of the Western “news” media is slanted pro-Obama, anti-Putin), on July 21st, headlining their anti-Putin missile-theory bias, “MH17 crash: FT photo shows signs of damage from missile strike.” Their “reporters” opened with their blatant anti-Russian prejudice: “The first apparent hard evidence that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was brought down by a surface-to-air missile is emerging from the crash site in eastern Ukraine, after experts confirmed on Monday there were signs of shrapnel damage to the aircraft.” Although they didn’t say in their opener that the “surface-to-air missile” was from the rebels, they made clear their pro-Ukrainian-Government anti-Russian bias by saying, “Over the weekend, western intelligence agencies pointed to mounting evidence that backs Ukraine’s claim that the aircraft with 298 people on board was shot down by mistake by pro-Russian separatists and Russian military personnel with an SA-11 missile launched from a Buk-M1 SAM battery.” Their stenographers (or as they would say “reporters”) stenographed (“reported”) that, “Douglas Barrie of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the photographic evidence ‘was consistent with the kind of damage you would expect to see from the detonation of a high explosive fragmentation warhead of the type commonly used in a SAM system’.” No analyst from the pro-Putin camp  was interviewed by their “reporters.” For example, Russia’s Interfax News Service headlined on July 29th, the same day as the FT’s  article, “Boeing’s downing by Buk missile system unlikely — military expert,” and they stenographed their  “expert,” as follows:

Chief of the Russian Land Forces’ tactical air defense troops Maj. Gen. Mikhail Krush said he doubts that the Malaysian passenger liner was brought down by a Buk surface-to-air missile system. “No one observed a Buk engaging targets in that region on that day, which provides 95 percent proof that Buk systems were not used in this concrete case,” the general said in an interview with the Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kuryer military weekly to be published on Wednesday [July 30th]. “This is no more than a theory for now. However, a guided missile launched by a Buk missile system leaves behind a specific smoke trail as it flies, like a comet. In daylight this trail can be clearly seen within a radius of 20-25 kilometers from the missile system. It cannot remain unnoticed. There are no eyewitnesses to confirm there was any. No one reported a launch. This is one thing,” he said. “Second. The holes left by the strike elements on the Boeing’s outer skin indicate that the warhead blew up from below and sideways. A Buk missile strikes the target from above,” he said. “The damage done to the plane suggests that a different missile was used. Our guidance method is a zoom, when the missile strikes the target from above covering it with a thick cloud of fragments” the general said. “I cannot state categorically, guided by this data, but I can suggest, using my experience, that it was not a Buk missile that hit the Boeing,” the expert said.

General Krush’s statement can fit with Haisenko’s and with Bociurkiw’s, but not with FT’s  or the rest of the “reporters” (just consider them as rank propagandists) in the West.

U.S. President Barack Obama has been saying all along that Russia — against which he is actually systematically building toward war — and not Ukraine (which he’s using as his chief vehicle to do that), is to blame for this airliner-downing. Previously, he had said that the snipers who in February had killed many people at the Maidan demonstrations against the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych came from Yanukovych’s State Security Service and not from the far-right political parties that were trying to bring Yanukovych down and that Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland selected to run the new Ukrainian government. But that too was an Obama lie. He lies a lot, and it’s just about the only type of statement he ever makes about Russia, and about Ukraine: lies.

If someone wants to verify how rabidly the U.S. Government lies, and has lied since at least the time of George W. Bush’s Presidency, just look at this video, by starting at 16:00 on it and going to 42:00 on it, and you will be shocked. (It pertains to lies by Bush that are still being covered up by Obama.) And when you further consider the many obvious questions it points out, which U.S. “news” media refused to ask and still refuse to ask about the matter, you’ll recognize that we are being lied to systematically and with utter contempt of the public, and with no respect for the public’s right to know the truth, even regarding massive history like that. It’s really brutal.

Ignorant “reporters” sometimes slip-up and include, in their stenography, facts that actually support the opposite side’s narrative of events and that discredit their own story-line. Such has been the case, for example, in the Financial Times  piece, which included the statement that, “Anti-aircraft missiles are not designed to score a direct hit as they are targeted to destroy fast, agile fighter jets. Instead, they are designed to explode within about 20m of their target, sending out a cloud of red hot metal to increase the chances of inflicting as much damage as possible.”

But rather than merely “a cloud of red hot metal,” what actually brought down this plane was what Haisenko has said brought it down: magazines-full of carefully targeted rapid-fire machine-gun bullets pouring forth from below the plane, at both its left and right.

This was a Ukrainian Government job. It was close-in. (No missile fired from the distance more than 30,000 feet down to the ground could have been that precise to target the pilot rather than the far larger target of the plane’s entire body.) It came from the Government that Obama installed there in February and that’s now carrying out an ethnic-cleansing campaign against the residents in Ukraine’s southeast, the places where Yanukovych’s voters live (to the extent that they still can and do live).

Compare that picture with the following one, which I take from a propaganda-site for the U.S. regime, and so which is intended instead to support the Administration’s line on this, certainly not Haisenko’s explanation of how the airliner was downed, though it actually supports Haisenko’s case:

As you can see there, a plane that’s hit by a ground-fired missile, instead of by bullets fired from an attack-plane only a few yards away, has the damage spread rather widely over its body, not concentrated into a tiny area, such as to where the plane’s pilot is seated. Certainly, the contrast between that photo and this one is enormous.

Furthermore, note also that the shrapnel damage to that plane comes from above it, which is where missiles usually hit a plane from, releasing their shrapnel from above, down onto the plane. By contrast, the hail of bullets to the Malaysian plane’s pilot came from below the plane, aiming upward at the cockpit, from both sides of the cockpit.

Furthermore, note also that all of the holes appear to be inbound into the plane, none outbound.

As regards whether there were actually two fighter jets firing into the Malaysian airliner or only one, a proponent of the single-jet hypothesis, Bill Johnson, posted as a reader-comment to my article on August 4th, a series of extreme close-ups of the side-panel, in which he inferred that the explanation of the apparent left-side (pilot-side) bullets was probably the shape of the bullets. I then asked him why he declined to accept the possible existence of two jets. He said, “from what I could find Russian military radar detected only one Ukrainian fighter jet, not two. I have looked and looked for any type of radar confirmation of a second fighter jet and can not find it.” However, the most virginal, very earliest, online evidence concerning the matter was on July 17th, within moments of the downing, headlining in the subsequent English translation, “Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing #MH17,” and it included, “@spainbuca’s TWITTER FEED,” which included his observation, only minutes after the downing, “2 jet fighters flew very close” to the plane. Furthermore, immediately before that, he had tweeted, “The B777 plane flew escorted by Ukraine jet fighter until 2 minutes before disappearing from the radar.” So, perhaps the second jet appeared distinct to him only immediately prior to the downing. An extensive file of tweets from @spainbuca was posted below the headline story and it included also the note: “LAST MINUTE Air Traffic Controller: The Boeing 777 ‘flew fighters escorted by two Ukrainians’ before disappearing.” (The original Spanish there was: “‘voló escoltado por 2 cazas ucranianos’ antes de desaparecer.”)

Additionally, a news story from the Spanish language edition of Russian Television on 8 May 2014, soon after the Odessa massacre, had been headlined in google trans English as “Death threats to a Spanish review in Ukraine crisis” and it said: “Spanish air traffic controller who was threatened by supporters of the Maidan, Carlos, who spoke with RT on the condition of anonymity, has received threats despite not defending any interest. ‘I have my opinion and my view of a normal person, with a separate work [unrelated] or media, or any political party, nor to any association.'” These “supporters of Maidan … threatened to kill him, to send him to ‘do not know what battalion’ and out of the country.” Then on July 17th there was, yet again in google trans from Spanish, “Block a Twitter account accusing Kiev of the demolition of the MH17,” which reported that a controller at “Ukraine’s largest airport said the plane from Malaysia, which crashed in the east with 298 people on board, was escorted by two Ukrainian fighters until minutes before disappearing from radar.”

Another news-report, also on July 17th, came from Global Travel Industry News datelined 17 July and it headlined “Ukraine air traffic controller suggests Kiev military shot down passenger plane.” It said: “This Kiev air traffic controller is a citizen of Spain and was working in the Ukraine. He was taken off duty as a civil air-traffic controller along with other foreigners immediately after a Malaysia Airlines passenger aircraft was shot down over the Eastern Ukraine killing 295 passengers and crew on board. The air traffic controller suggested in a private evaluation and basing it on military sources in Kiev, that the Ukrainian military was behind this shoot down. Radar records were immediately confiscated after it became clear a passenger jet was shot down.” If this is true, then the radar-records upon the basis of which those tweets had been sent out were “confiscated.” That news-story from Global Travel Industry News closed by saying that the report was “based on” “tweets received” and “the statements of one airline controller.”

That person, who called himself anonymously by the name “Carlos,” had produced a file characteristic of someone hostile toward, and personally afraid of, the new Kiev government, and nothing further was heard from him, if he even survived. The Ukrainian Government said that he never existed, though the 8 May 2014 news report of his frictions with the Kiev authorities could hardly have been concocted after July 17th simply out of nowhere; it had pre-existed the airliner-downing, and it fit with his tweets on July 17th.

The best evidence is consistent with the view that those bullet-holes came from two directions not from one. What is virtually certain, however, is that at least one jet fighter was close up and shot down the Malaysian plane targeting the pilot at close range. There is no way that a 33,000-foot-away ground-fired missile could have produced that cockpit side-panel.

And the European Union has been playing along with this hoax. (If you still have any further doubts that it’s a hoax, just click onto that link and look.) And the mass of suckers in the West believe that hoax: it’s succeeding to stir a fever for war, instead of a fever to get rid of our own leaders who are lying us into a war that will benefit only the West’s aristocrats, while it inflicts massive physical and economic harms against everyone else – as if it were the invasion of Iraq except multiplied in this case a thousand-fold, especially with nuclear weapons possibly at the end of it.

If we had a free press, the news media would be ceaselessly asking President Obama why he doesn’t demand accountability against the Ukrainian Government for their massacre perpetrated on May 2nd inside the Trade Unions Building in Odessa, where that newly Obama-installed regime’s peaceful opponents were systematically trapped and then burned alive, which the Obama-installed Ukrainian Government has refused to investigate (much less to prosecute). Basically: Obama had sponsored the massacre. So, our “news” media ignore it, even though it started this civil war on Russia’s doorstep, and thereby re-started the Cold War, as Obama had intended that massacre (his  massacre, and his  subsequent ethnic cleansing) to do. (Similarly, the “news” media, though all of them receive my articles by email, virtually all refuse to publish them, because I won’t let them control what I find and report.)

And while Obama leads this Republican policy, and Vice President Dick Cheney’s top foreign-policy advisor Victoria Nuland actually runs it for Obama, congressional Democrats are just silent about it, and do not introduce impeachment of this fake “Democratic” hyper-George W. Bush neo-conservative President, who’s a “Democrat” in rhetoric only — and though Obama’s policy in this key matter threatens the entire world.

A reader-comment to an earlier version of this news report and analysis objected to my identifying Obama as a Republican-in-“Democratic”-sheep’s clothing, and said: “They may be rethug policies in origin but they are decidedly BI-PARTISAN to anyone who wants to admit FACTS. The democratic party you all think still exists is DEAD and only exists in your brain (the part that doesn’t accept reality).” However, U.S. Senate bill 2277, which invites Obama to provide direct U.S. military support to the Obama-installed Ukrainian regime, has 26 sponsors, and all of them are Republican U.S. Senators. Democratic Senators, by contrast, are just silent on Obama’s turn toward nazism (or racist — in this case anti-ethnic-Russian racist — fascism); the Senate’s Democrats aren’t seeking for it to be stepped up. This is a Republican policy, which congressional Democrats are simply afraid to oppose. Any realistic person knows that however far right Obama turns, the overt  Republican Party will turn even farther to the right, because they have to be to his right in order for them to be able to win Republican primaries and retain their own  Party’s nomination. Just because Obama’s game of moving the American political center as far to the right as he can move it is succeeding, doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party itself should end. It instead means that progressives need to take the Democratic Party over, just like conservatives took the Republican Party over with Reagan. There is no other hope. If a Democrat in the U.S. House will simply introduce an impeachment resolution against Barack Obama, then the right-wing takeover of the Democratic Party might finally end, and the world might yet be saved, because the Democratic Party itself could then reject Obama as being a fake “Democrat,” a Democrat-in-rhetoric-only. It could transform American politics — and American politics needs such a transformation, which would move the Democratic Party back to progressivism, more like the FDR Democratic Party was, so that Republican politicians would no longer need to be so fascist as they now have become (and as they now need to be  in order to be able to win their own  Party’s nomination). If Democrats fail to renounce the conservatism of Obama and of the Clintons, then the Party will end, and needs to be replaced, just like the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party immediately before the Civil War. Nazism has become today’s slavery-type issue – it’s beyond the pale, and Obama’s installation and endorsement of it in Ukraine is like James Buchanan’s endorsement of slavery was during the 1850s: either the Democratic Party will become the progressive party, or else the Democratic Party is over.

But that’s just my own theory of how Obama’s frauds might yet be able to be overcome and defeated, if they still can be; it’s not part of my presentation of the explanation of what brought down the Malaysian airliner, which has been an open case since July 17th, and which is now a closed case. This is past history, not future.

The present news story is being circulated free of charge or copyright to all “news” media in the English-speaking world, in the perhaps vain hope that the cover-ups of our leaders’ constant lies will cease soon enough to avoid a World War III, even though communism is long since gone from Russia and so the ideological excuse wouldn’t make any sense here. This insanity is actually all about aristocratic conquest, like World War I was. It’s not for the benefit of the public anywhere. Silence about it (by “Democrats,” and the “news” media) is a scandal, which needs to stop. The real Democratic Party (the Party of FDR, who loathed and despised nazis — and even mere fascists — yet today Obama installs nazis into power in Ukraine) must be restored, and a real news media needs to become established in America. Even Republicans need it, because the very idea of “victory” in a nuclear war is a vicious fantasy. It is a dangerous lie, though there are some people who find it a very profitable one. And time might be short — let’s hope not already too  short.

After all, Obama’s hoax of having won from Europe the stepped-up economic sanctions against Russia after the government that Obama had installed in Ukraine downed the Malaysian plane and successfully blamed it on “Russian aggression,” is very encouraging to him. And European leaders know that Obama’s entire operation is a very bloody fraud (read the phone-transcript there — it’s a stunner). So, they certainly won’t save the world from it. It’s up to us.

PS (dated August 5th):

Some readers disagree with Peter Haisenko’s reconstruction of the event on account of their not understanding his reconstruction of it (not understanding what I have been trying here to state as clearly as I can, bringing in other evidence). For example, see:

http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/evidence-now-conclusive-2-ukrainian-government-su-25-fighter-jets-shoot-malaysian-airliner-buk-missile-ground-shot-involved/

reader-comment:

“Benoit • [c. 8AM on 5 August 2014]

“I do not agree with Peter Haisenko’s conclusions : if external hull of the cockpit is bent outwards, it is not necessarily because some of the bullets came outwards. It may also be because it’s a double hull, and explosive bullet coming inwards may, when exploding, have torn outer aluminium hull outwards. A very careful analysis shows tha the inner hull (the green one) is bent inwards, and that may well in fact confirm the present analysis. Here’s this careful analysis (in french, use Goolgle translate):

“Benoit” links there to:

http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/international/article/mh17-preuve-de-canonnage-et-155019

“MH17: evidence gunnery and Western Bankruptcy”

by joelim , Wednesday, July 30, 2014, in which is buried its conclusion:

“Anyway, these five aligned and clearly visible impacts directly lead to the conclusion that fire gunnery (not gun, which stops 20 mm) was made precisely to where stood the driver (see here  and here ). The damage (physical, human, decompression) left them no chance. This is the cause of the crash. The plane did not explode which also explains the appearance of debris found.”

Here is the French original on that:

“MH17 : preuve de canonnage et faillite occidentale”

“Quoiqu’il en soit, ces 5 impacts alignés et parfaitement visibles mènent directement à la conclusion qu’un tir de canonnage (et non de mitrailleuse, qui s’arrête à 20 mm) a été effectué précisément à l’endroit où se tenait le pilote (voir ici et ici). Les dégâts occasionnés (matériel, humain, décompression) ne leur laissaient aucune chance. C’est donc la cause du crash. L’avion n’a pas explosé ce qui explique aussi l’aspect des débris retrouvés.”

In other words: “Benoit” couldn’t understand what he was reading, and so he said “I do not agree with Peter Haisenko’s conclusions.” He cited against Haisenko’s theory of the case, an analysis that was published a day after Haisenko’s, which concluded the same as Haisenko did.

The author of that French article refused to even use the word “Haisenko” in his article, much less to credit Haisenko’s article in any way, but the source-photo that he linked to came from Haisenko’s high-definition pdf of the photo that Haisenko was using. He was trying to get credit for Haisenko’s theory of the case.

There is a lot of lying going on, a lot of misrepresentation. The only way to get to the truth is to base it on the best available evidence, which is what Haisenko did. He found it; he analyzed it; he solved the mystery (though he could have explained it better). To the extent that other “evidence” is reliable, it fits his explanation — an explanation that I shall keep expanding on to the extent that new relevant evidence comes forth, pro and/or con, on it. The important thing to keep in mind, however, is this. It’s even more important than how that plane was brought down.

Barack Obama lies to us. All Republican (or conservative) politicians do. The Democratic Party will die if it fails to state that this is so and to make the case for the charge so that they separate themselves from the Republican Party and be clearly the progressive alternative to conservatism in America. A Democratic impeachment against this Republican President is essential in order to salvage the Democratic Party, and even in order to salvage democracy in America, because no country can be an authentic democracy if the country’s main political parties are all conservative, if none of the main parties is progressive. That’s not a democracy: it is a dictatorship. That’s what we’ve got.

———-

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.

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • jo6pac

    Thank You

    • kimithomas369

      just before I looked at the bank draft which was of $4722 , I didn’t believe …that…my best friend woz like actually making money in their spare time from their computer. . there neighbor has done this for under 12 months and recently repaid the morgage on there house and got opel. Anybody can make money easily her. To make money click FINANCIAL REPORT in ——- web site———NETPAY20.COM

  • Jim G

    Thanks for the update. Please spread the word – Zero Hedge? I also support your conclusion on impeaching Obama. I recommend you write articles of impeachment. I doubt the Dems will support as the entire Senate voted support for Israel’s massacre in Gaza, but it would make for good reading and help people focus on the problem.

  • yo

    If I am not mistaken, that picture you posted is an A-10 flown by Kim Campbell during the illegal invasion of Iraq. I don’t quite remember, but I believe she was hit by ground AA cannons or a SAM that caused FLAK damage that explode on contact or near an object. Just a heads up – I couldn’t find any definitive info on it since I’m not sure they were able to determine the exact weapon hit that A-10, other than the pilot stated she felt the plane get hit and that it was “loud.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

    I would say MH17 was definitely either hit by cannon fire or maaaybe a missile from a jet.

  • ICFubar

    Zuesse seems to have missed Vidal’s seminal summation of the American federal political scene when he stated that “America has one political party with two right wings, the Republicans and Democrats”. His call for the impeachment of a traitorous president may as well be the call for the renunciation of a solar centric solar system. The dudes in Washington serve the plutocracy…end of story, period, so get over it already and pursue a different strategy for bringing democracy to the American people.

    Further theorizing may be necessary as an SU 25 fighter (equipped with a 30 mm auto canon and no radar) would have a very difficult time and possibly might never catch up to a 777 at cruising altitude and speed. Perhaps if the SU 25 slowed the 777 by disabling an engine with a rocket first it would be able to move in for a kill with canon fire. All speculation everywhere, but I think we can discount Obama’s lying it was rebels with a Russian ground to air guided missile.

    • Goy Rebel

      Both Zuesse and you, sir, seem to have let yourselves be fooled (by the mono-media and its presstitutes, that is) into thinking in terms of this ostensible (pseudo) dychotomy of “Democrats vs. Republicans” (or “left vs. right” for that matter). It’s just hegelian dialectics (or pilpul, rather) in action. The truth is very different, although hidden in plain sight for the majority of sheeple. This is what the Republican Neocons faction looks like: http://mycatbirdseat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/jewish_zionists_and_iraq_war_relation-500×5251.jpg
      The Democrats follow suit pretty much (like e.g. the Clintons were any less obedient to their zio-masters than Ziobama, sure).
      The reality looks like this: http://yankeedoodlesoc.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/saudi-cartoon-2008.jpg
      Anyone who thinks otherwise is a bloody idiot. But there is in fact a cure for their madness: http://www.davidduke.com http://www.youtube.com/user/drdduke

      The article, however, is very accurate it terms of sheer factual analysis, validity-wise. It’s just that geopolitical naivity that spoils the whole picture. Apart from that, full thumbs up.

      • ICFubar

        You seem to have missed my statement that the duopoly serves the plutocrats. Now not wanting to write an entire article I did not pursue who these plutocrats are. These are the denizens of the one world banking fraternity and the multinational corporations that are the hangers on of the financiers. One more big war and they will have it all.

        http:// http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world-htm#.U-J7f-NdWpc

        • Goy Rebel

          You’re still missing the point. It is not “them”, not the enigmatic “elite”, nor just “bankers” or “Illuminati”. The key to understand the problem is to indentify the common denominator, and that is their ethnicity (not counting shabbas-goyim). We know who they are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y36vRBrYVGk

          • ICFubar

            The ethnicity of the controlling elites, or what their current names are is of little importance…it is the actual workings of the institutions of the system that is the root problem whether it’s run by a Rothschild, Rockefeller or Xi Jinping.

          • Goy Rebel

            You’re so woefully mistaken it hurts my heart (I hope you were kidding). The ethnicity is the CRUX of the whole deal. Oh my, oh my… Truth be told, whenever I come across somebody that ignorant (pardon my frankness) on the subject, I don’t know where to begin really, since it’s been years now that I’m exploring this dark realm of geopolitics and because I’ve been through tons of material (both written and recorded) over this period. Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Warburgs, Morgans, Schiffs, Kuhns, Kochs et al. — they are all of one particular stock (as pretty much every single FED chairman since decades (not counting shabbas-Goyim). Nowadays even the vice-chairs tend to be kosher [as was the case with Bernanke and Yellen]) and that, my friend, is no coincidence. Anyhow, may I suggest to you, sir, authors like Henry Makow, Mike Stathis, Michael Hudson. I also strongly recommend the book by Dr. David Duke “Jewish Supremacism”. Bottom line: usury (or fractional reserve system, printing money ‘ex nihilo’, out of thin air) was their invention, it had been clearly stated in the Torah:

            Deuteronomy 15:6 — “For the Lord
            your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many
            nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but
            none will rule over you”.
            The problem is they don’t view You or me as humans. It’s their ultra-racist doctrine of Talmud thats causing mayham the worldover. http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ovadia-yosefs-most-controversial-quotations/

          • ICFubar

            Listen up no mind, anyone preaching the wholesale hatred of another ethnicity of human beings is doing the world a huge disservice. Just as there are those who do evil among the Jewish population there are those who do wonderful good. The same applies to all groupings of human beings. Right alongside your self identified Jewish conspiracists are your Anglos and with them your Latinos, African and Asians of every stripe you can think of. Odd how they screw over not only other identified groups of humans but their own supposed ethnicity/religiosity as well. Sorry but your budding ethno centred hatred won’t wash with anyone with an IQ above a carrot….but if that’s who you like to hang out with and be identified with fill your boots my root staple debater. P.S. you need to go a little easier on the sky god mythology doctrine stuff as it is known to warp the human mind in unexpected ways.

          • Goy Rebel

            ” (…) anyone preaching the wholesale hatred of another ethnicity of human beings is doing the world a huge disservice” — couldn’t agree more. It’s a pity though, that your reasoning does not keep up with this otherwise apt observation.
            It is not “hatred” to expose someone else’ hatred (how hypocritical [yet typical for a lemming] of you to say so). Liken your statement with the following quotations from the Talmud and tell me if they do not preach hatred.

            Yebamith 60b/61a (http://halakhah.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_60.html):

            “It was taught: And so did R. Simeon b. Yohai state
            that the graves of idolaters do not impart levitical uncleanness by an
            ohel, for it is said, And ye My sheep the sheep of My pasture, are
            men; you are called men but the idolaters are not called men.”

            Sanhedrin 58b (http://halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_58.html):

            “R. Hanina said: If a heathen smites a Jew, he is
            worthy of death, for it is written, And he looked this way and that
            way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian. R.
            Hanina also said: He who smites an Israelite on the jaw, is as though he
            had thus assaulted the Divine Presence; for it is written, one who
            smiteth man [i.e. an Israelite] attacketh the Holy One.”

            Sanhedrin 57a (http://halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_57.html):

            “R. Huna, Rab Judah, and all the disciples of Rab
            maintained: A heathen is executed for the violation of the seven
            Noachian laws; the Divine Law having revealed this of one [murder], it
            applies to all. Now is a heathen executed for robbery? Has it not been
            taught: ‘With respect to robbery — if one stole or robbed or [seized] a
            beautiful woman, or [committed] similar offences, if [these were
            perpetrated] by one Cuthean against another, [the theft, etc.] must not
            be kept, and likewise [the theft] of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but
            that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained’? But if robbery is a
            capital offence, should not the Tanna have taught: He incurs a penalty?
            — Because the second clause wishes to state, ‘but that of a Cuthean by
            an Israelite may be retained,’ therefore the former clause reads,
            ‘[theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean] must not be kept.’ But where a
            penalty is incurred, it is explicitly stated, for the commencing clause
            teaches: ‘For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an
            Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an
            Israelite, there is no death penalty’? — How else could that clause
            have been taught?”.

            Add to the list also those “words of love”:
            http://coteret.com/2009/11/09/settler-rabbi-publishes-the-complete-guide-to-killing-non-jews/
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef#Gentiles.27_role

            And acts like these (keep in mind wikipedia is ever-so-kosher a source, but even they cannot hide the whole truth):
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

            Of course you are right in what a famous “self-hating Jew” Israel Shamir has describes in the following words: “Everyone can kill a Jew within themselves”. And so we have people like the magnificent Gilad Atzmon (ex-Israeli), but the thing is – such individuals are few and far between. Atzmon is “one in a million”. The problem with world Jewry is that the majority of them (including those ostensibly secular, even atheist) acquiesce to their elite’s racist ideology, be it for convenience, tradition, out of sheer ignorane or for various other reasons.

            Those who dare to oppose the jewish racist ideology, like Brother Nathanael (aka Milton Kapner, another self-proclaimed “ex-Jew”) are ostracized by the Jewish community and eventually banished. Suffice it to mention the brave Holohoax debunker, David Cole (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oinItLYg7qQ).

            To wrap it all up: trust me, friend, I wouldn’t have called you “an ignorant”, hadn’t I been so naively philo-Semitic at one time. Believe me, years ago I have been at this stage, too. You couldn’t have had more zealous pro-Jewish person than me back then. I’d been 100% for Jews due to all those moudlin holocaust stories, etc. It passes. The more you research the subject, the more you realize how pathetically fooled you’ve been by the Jewish-owned mainstream media (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMvE0B976BU – Brother Nathanael again).

            I hope this condensed, succint info to be an incentive for you to embark on a tough yet rewarding journey down the proverbial rabbit hole. Bless you and wish you awakening ASAP.

            For dessert:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H56FUHgqRNE

      • jeffbguarino

        Yes Goy you sound very intelligent and wordy and able to articulate very well but adeptness in English does not mean you are a critical thinker.

        I credit you for keeping up the debate but would like to see references and data instead of blanket statements. You are up to the task. Find the views from both sides and then carve out an analysis.

        • Goy Rebel

          Okay, here’s a confession. I may not be as familiar with all those technicalities as e.g. Mr. Zuesse, however, my non-substantive – in the MH-17 context – knowledge allows me to navigate through various media reports with ease. It’s like with e.g. 9/11. Once you get knowledgeable about the mechanisms running the society (in this respect, I highly reccomend the book by infamous tribesman Edward Bernays – “Propaganda”, really an eye-opener, second only to “Protocols of Zion” maybe, perhaps also Orwell’s “1984”), you pretty much can recognize blatant lies on spot. What I’m trying to say here is that you don’t necessarily need to know each and every detail in order to know, wheter the theory presented is sound or does not hold watter at all – once you know who’s behind it.

          We now know that Obama administration has been sponsoring “Syrian rebels” all along. Even though Jabhat al-Nusra and FSA are admitted to have serious links to al-Qaeda, those bastard have had no scruples about sending them God know how many millions of dollars in weapons, supplies and ammo.

          It’s the same with Ukraine. Having been born in a state bordered by Ukraine, I might know about certain facts you may not have heard of before. Do you know what kind of people are behind the so called “Right Sector”, anointed by Victoria Nulland as the new rulers of Ukraine, after a coup d’etat that resulted in illegal overthrow of the lawfully elected President Yanukovich. Essentially, they are neo-banderovtsy:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia
          This is what they used to do for sports back in WW2:

          The recent conflict in Ukraine’s South-East has seen similar atrocities, enough to mention the Odessa Trade Union Building massacre, where people (of Russian descent, specifically targeted) were burned alive:
          Okay, here’s a confession. I may not be as familiar with all those
          technicalities as e.g. Mr. Zuesse, however, my non-substantive – in the
          MH-17 context – knowledge allows me to navigate through various media
          reports with ease. It’s like with e.g. 9/11. Once you get knowledgeable
          about the mechanisms running the society (in this respect, I highly
          reccomend the book by infamous tribesman Edward Bernays – “Propaganda”,
          really an eye-opener, second only to “Protocols of Zion” maybe, perhaps
          also Orwell’s “1984”), you pretty much can recognize blatant lies on
          spot. What I’m trying to say here is that you don’t necessarily need to
          know each and every detail in order to know, wheter the theory presented
          is sound or does not hold watter at all – once you know who’s behind
          it.

          We now know that Obama administration has been sponsoring
          “Syrian rebels” all along. Even though Jabhat al-Nusra and FSA are
          admitted to have serious links to al-Qaeda, those bastard have had no
          scruples about sending them God know how many millions of dollars in
          weapons, supplies and ammo.

          It’s the same with Ukraine. Having
          been born in a state bordered by Ukraine, I might know about certain
          facts you may not have heard of before. Do you know what kind of people
          are behind the so called “Right Sector”, anointed by Victoria Nulland as
          the new rulers of Ukraine, after a coup d’etat that resulted in illegal
          overthrow of the lawfully elected President Yanukovich. Essentially,
          they are neo-banderovtsy:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia
          This is what they used to do for sports back in WW2:
          http://www.konserwatyzm.pl/img/articles/rze%C5%BA.jpg
          The recent conflict in Ukraine’s South-East has seen similar atrocities, enough to mention the Odessa Trade Union building massacre, where people (of Russian descent, specifically targeted) were burned alive.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycfOCxR5mxM

          Here you can find lots of footage showing how those butchers have been conducting a regular genocide of the people of Donbass:
          https://www.youtube.com/user/newsanna1945/videos

          Hope this will help. Wish you could find this a wake-up call.

  • Aug 5, 2014 The Road to the MH17 Crash Site: Russian Roulette

    Over the past week, the Ukrainian military has recaptured a number of cities across eastern Ukraine. In this dispatch, VICE News correspondent Simon Ostrovsky heads towards the MH17 crash site, as the Ukrainian military has successfully recaptured the cities surrounding it. On his way there, he visits a former separatist checkpoint and dugout, where he finds artillery the separatists used — some of which dates as far back as World War II.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0ATOexim7s

  • jeffbguarino

    I have trouble with the theory. The shrapnel from the missile also
    consists of tiny round projectiles that would make entry and exit
    holes. Also if the cockpit blows apart from the initial wave and then
    get hit with more projectiles , it could easily have entry hole from
    opposite sides of the cockpit. What they need here is someone with
    experience with CSI and not journalists and ex pilots. Computer
    simulation of a missile strike , a BUK missel should be done and the
    complete reconstruction of the plane. Of course if they can find
    pieces of shrapnel or the BUK there would be no question. Don’t
    forget the rebels had exclusive access to the site for hours and could
    have actually shot up the plane piece with 30mm guns just to confuse
    everyone and contaminate the evidence. Keep an open mind. Don’t jump
    to conclusions. I am just presenting some of the many possibilities
    here so you can all see how what looks like one thing can be another.
    The Ukrainian fighter jets were known to follow and hide behind
    passenger jets to enable them to get into the rebels airspace. Well
    this time the rebels may have missed the fighter jet or screwed up
    something. The Ukrainians would of course be embarrassed by using this tactic and putting a passenger jet in harms way, which is why they are reluctant to release satellite data.

    I
    don’t know how you can do a good investigative job from looking at
    blown up pictures of the plane pieces. You need to look at both sides
    of the pieces and it is just a very crappy way to do it. You may be
    able to pose questions from what you see but to draw conclusions is
    going too far.

    This is not balanced and makes accusations without providing references. I consider it poor journalism to print rumors and hearsay.

    • Goy Rebel

      Oy Vay! The plentiful amount of evidence in the article is stunning and yet – you had to cavil at the bullet holes, very incompetently btw. Typical chutzpah.

      But you’re in for a surprise! I’ve got a present for you, all of you. After soon to be 13 years after the event, it is now obvious – in the light of an abundance of proof – that 9/11 was an inside job. No wonder then, that a very disturbing incident took place in the wake of WTC building 7 collapse. Oh wait! That had actually happened BEFORE there was even a collapse! In case you haven’t heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

      Why do I recall this revealing BBC setback? Here’s why: it’s been a precedent for its Ukrainian counterpart. Enjoy:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28MrASx-RiM

      • Bane

        LOL- can anyone say STRAWMAN?? Because the BBC erred on 9/11 therefore MH-17 has to be an air-to-air Ukraine attack. Talk about logic..or lack thereof.

        Examination of the evidence- yes- ballistic holes in, in fact, key to understand what happened. Just waving away a logical and reasonable line of questioning with appeals to 9/11 incredulity is a very weak argument.

        • Goy Rebel

          You, sir, are not impressing anyone with your cheap sophisms and eristic techniques, which – in essence – are nothing but false reasoning conducts. What you’re trying to do here is to – instead of referring to the essence of the matter and trying to argue with facts – divert readers’ attention from a plethora of hardcore evidence named in the article. It’s obvious. Once you get familiar with the techniques used by Hasbara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara_Fellowships) trolls, it is easy to identify them as such. Thank goodness, you guys have publicized your guide on how to manipulate public opinion in favour of your own tribe: http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf

          • Bane

            Thats funny- you got called out for running Strawman argument some how I’m the troll?? What twisted logic you use.

            With an intellectually honest review of the facts one can only come to the conclusion that the stated “conclusive” proof in this article is nothing more but conjecture and speculation.

            the fact that YOU had to resort to changing the topic to 9/11 suggest that the available evidence is weak thus you resort to strawman arguments. Its a tactic long used by fools to avoid the reality of failure-

            Good luck with that.

            PS: The BBC erroneously reported #7 had fallen because it was widely considered to be doomed to fail given the conditions. There were numerous instances of people indicating it was likely to fail. That BBC erroneously reported it had fallen already is not proof of anything more that poor reporting.

            but dont let that stop you- continue to use that incident 13yrs ago as proof Ukraine shot down the plane.

      • jeffbguarino

        I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any scenario until much more evidence is in.

        Off topic , building # 7 , you are referring to was the first steel structured building to ever collapse due to a fire and there is ample explanations of what really happened.
        Quote:
        It was the only steel structured building in history to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours. The water mains were broken.

        http://911debunkers.blogspot.ca/2011/09/building-7-explained.html
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

        http://911debunkers.blogspot.ca/2011/09/building-7-explained.html

        So the so called “abundance of proof” seems to go poof. Do not ever trust such statements and always scrutinize what you are reading or viewing or you fall into traps.

        Many of the journalists get a mind set and must prove something is so. Then they cherry pick the data and accumulate a seemingly convincing article. So I just say always keep an open mind because 1+1 does not always = 2

        • Goy Rebel

          As I’ve said before, I have been researching the subjcet for years, seen tons of documentaries, read many articles. For those of you who really want to investigate the matter, I suggest watching: Loose Change: Final Cut, Painful Deceptions, 9/11 In Plane Site, Wake Up Call, Zeitgeist (partly) – the amount of hard factual evidence is astonishing.

          You are obviously wrong by claiming: “It was the only steel structured building in history to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours. The water mains were broken”. From the top of my head, ad hoc, as far as I’m able to recollect those documentaries (which for the last time I watched at least few years back – 9/11 was just a beginning, just on of many pieces of the puzzle; I then moved on to research more relevant issues, in order to grasp “the big picture”), apart from WTC buildings 1 and 2 (surprise!) there was another building which had burnt for a significantly longer period of time and withstood (regrettably, I can’t remember the name) the fire (sic!). By the way, the so called “fire”, which the official story claims, caused WTC7 collapse was ridiculously tiny and irrelevant really, paled in comparison with WTC 1 and 2. Besides, all the experts from Eng. Richard Gage’s Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth unanimously say this silly sparks couldn’t have made the building collapse, all the more that even the much stronger and longer fires in WTC 1 and 2 weren’t able to do that (as we know, the building were demolished using therite and thermate, vide: the report by Danish scientist Niels Harrit’s discovery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o). I could go on for hours, days, perhaps weeks even.
          Bottom line: I’ve come across lots of those “debunkers”. 99.9% of such “revelations” are based on their ignorance of the enormous amounts of material and footage that is out there in the Internet, for everyone to see. The remaining 0.1% are plain stupid.

  • Goy Rebel