Evidence Is Now Conclusive: 2 Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Did Shoot Down that Malaysian Airliner. No ‘Buk’ Missile Ground-Shot.

[Preface by Washington’s Blog. We are still agnostic regarding Mr. Zuesse’s argument.]

Eric Zuesse

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.

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:

3.August.2014.Screen shot 2014-08-03 at 3.25.30 PM

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.

———-

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.
  • Dan Lynch

    First let me say that I am not sure what happened to MH17 — we don’t have enough evidence to come to a conclusion.

    In order to hit a moving plane with a machine gun, the SU25 (or whatever) would have to be within a few hundred yards. While the 30mm cannon round has a range of up to 5000 m, what that means is that a bullet can travel 5000 m and still have enough velocity to do some damage — it doesn’t mean that you can hit anything at 5000 m. To even score one hit at 5000 m would be a miracle, never mind riddling the cockpit with holes.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think the SU25’s 30mm cannon has any precision aiming system ? You just point the SU25 at the target and hope for the best ?

    Hence if the closely spaced holes in the cockpit were indeed caused by machine gun fire, then the intercept plane was at very close range — a few hundred yards. Yet the Russian radar data puts the SU25 3 – 5 km away from the 777.

    If there were two planes firing on the 777, one from each side, at close range, that would run the risk of the two SU25’s firing on each other, so that scenario seems unlikely to me.

    The Saker has a theory that an SU25 wounded the 777 with an R60 missile, then after the 777 slowed down the SU25 was able to approach closely to finish off the 777 with 30 mm cannon. Perhaps the SU25 turned around and made a 2nd pass at the 777, resulting in bullets penetrating from both sides? However, if that is what happened, then why don’t we have radar data showing it?

    • cettel

      Please tell me what questions you need answered that I’ve not answered. I want to address all of them.

      • Bane

        Well my question is why does the supposed jet fighters “on radar” that the Russians showed not have any characteristics of an
        aircraft, its not sending any transponder data, but the image
        doesn’t even show ANY speed or direction.

        Why is it only there AFTER the crash? And where does it go eventually?

        It seems to me to have all the flight characteristics of falling debris, and none of a jet fighter.

        • TJ

          Quite correct, Bane. That Russian MH17 brief was a joke. I agree falling debris.

          Has Russian military intelligence messed up just the same as they did with the claim in the same brief of the Buk on the trailer video? This phantom “Su-25” is nothing more than radar returns of the Boeing 777 breaking apart. See following.

          http://whoisstrelkov.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/russian-atc-lesson-101-the-phantom-su25/

          Now remember that this is Russian Intelligence that we are talking about here. The same presentation also highlights the following glaring error, so with that in mind have they also messed up and completely misinterpreted the radar picture?

          With all their intelligence resources they can’t even geo-locate this image of the Buk on the truck. Not Krasnoarmeisk as the Russians claim but Lugansk which was in separatist hands.

          https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/70c35c6d39af2ee715e80e276739d64d.jpg

          So why did they mess up with all the intelligence sources they have at their disposal? No the banner does not say any reference to Krasnoarmeisk or any reference to a dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. All that happened here was that the Russians simply ran with the Krasnoarmeisk claims straight off social media. The reality is that the video has been geo located to Lugansk. Even the billboard has been identified with the correct reference to the Lugansk dealership.

          Transcription of the Russian Military brief at

          http://www.rusemb.org.uk/press/1865

          Further details on the following thread.

          https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-buk-launcher-trucked-out-of-ukraine.3977/

          • Muhammad Abbass

            The Russian brief was accurate and verifiable and no official attempt to reject any of it has happened since. It has been simply ignored in the West like all the real facts. You are a shill.

          • TJ

            How far down the Rabbit hole are you? The Russian brief was a sham. Explain why the Russian Intelligence during that brief couldn’t even geo locate the video with the Buk?

            This is what that Russian brief stated on that video

            ‘The good example of such fact is that some mass media showed transportation of the Buk-M1 missile system from Ukrainian to Russian territory.We can clearly see that its frame-up. These pictures were made in the city of Krasnoarmeisk that is confirmed by a banner situated close to the road. This banner has an address of the car shop situated at the Dnepropetrovskaya, 34. Since May 11 the Krasnoarmeysk city is under control of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.’

            http://www.rusemb.org.uk/press/1865

            There was no address banner on the billboard and internet sleuths quickly found the true filming location in Luhansk. Was that the best that Russian military intelligence could do with all their intelligence resources? Even today they still have that Krasnoarmeysk lie on their UK Embassy website.

            The video was geo located to Luhansk.

            https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-buk-launcher-trucked-out-of-ukraine.3977/page-3#post-117606

            https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-buk-launcher-trucked-out-of-ukraine.3977/page-3#post-117620

            The Russians in that brief stupidly went with a claim straight off social media. They didn’t double check which left them with egg on their face. It was a lie.

            https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-buk-launcher-trucked-out-of-ukraine.3977/page-3#post-117549

            You live in a fantasy world, Muhammad.

          • Muhammad Abbass

            Again you spread the blatant lies. There has been no official refutation of the Russian data. The matters you refer to have nothing to do with the brief and are typical of the dishonest tactics used by the Beast Empire. http://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=85857

            That proves media lies in the West about MH-17/ Poor old BBC, first the weakest link in the 9/11 cover-up and now they have been caught red-handed censoring evidence of Mh-17 truth. There was NO BUK missile involved, since the smoke trail would have been visible for a very long time and un deniable. There was NO smoke trail and NO reports of one. End of lie it was a BUK missile. We also have adnmissions from the Ukrainians that they move those BUK missiles so stop trying to hold back the tide you pathetic shill.

            This is evidence you are pretending was not even in the presentation whilst you fool a round with peripheral matters of BUK missiles.

            http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017208279

            There is no doubt at all that Kiev shot it down and NATO and allies covered it up. That is why the only evidence they dare present is social media posts. That fact alone renders your pretences to a farce.

            http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/07/25/mh17-verdict-real-evidence-points-to-us-kiev-cover-up-of-failed-false-flag-attack/

          • TJ

            Muhammad, “9/11 cover-up” Good grief you certainly are deep down the conspiracy rabbit hole. I bet just getting out of bed for you is a conspiracy 🙂

            There doesn’t need to be an official refutaion of the Russian data in that brief. It was a hit piece designed to muddy the waters. You obviously have not watched the brief. Take a look at the transcription provided by the Russian Embassy in the UK and watch the video.

            Watch from 25:00 in the following from Russia Today.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSpeo5RcQQo#t=1507

            Explain why Russian Intelligence can’t geo locate the video that they are using as evidence in the brief. Yes in the brief, Muhammad. This official brief that you claim is unrefutable? They even repeat the lie of “We can clearly see that its frame-up. These pictures were made in the city of Krasnoarmeisk that is confirmed by a banner situated close to the road. This banner has an address of the car shop situated at the Dnepropetrovskaya, 34”

            http://www.rusemb.org.uk/press/1865

            Complete lies as the video was filmed in Luhansk. So why the lie, Muhammad? No doubt you were punching the air when the Russian military played the video during the brief and claimed that it was filmed in Krasnoarmeisk 🙂

            If the Russian Military and Russian Intelligence got this so badly wrong then think what they did with the other data? Such as mistaking MH17 break-up on radar as evidence of a Ukrainian fighter jet.

          • TJ

            Yes images of possible missile contrail/contrail remains do exist.

            https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-buk-launcher-trucked-out-of-ukraine.3977/page-2#post-117150

            http://avva.livejournal.com/2788606.html

            Your claims of the lack of definitive missile contrail footage is flawed. Ask yourself why there are no images of these Ukrainian fighter jets that witnesses claim to have seen?

            No doubt you will be telling me that the MH17 cockpit wreckage shows bullet holes! I get it it is a mindset that you need in your life!

          • Tannenhouser

            TJ. No one will ever know for certain how the plane was downed. All you/we will be left with is a choice between two possibly three narratives on the subject. What we know for sure is that downing this aircraft in absolutely ZERO way benefits Russia or the Ukrainians forced to defend themselves from their own ‘government’. The downing of this plane only benefits the US supported coup. As far as I’m concerned that’s also the answer as to who or why this craft was downed. Good day.

          • TJ

            Yes they will and do know how MH17 was downed. Even the manufacturers of the Buk system recognise and acknowledge that it was one of their Buk systems. They recognise the fragmentation warhead damage and confirm that the Buk detonated near the cockpit. The dispute is from where the Buk was fired from – either Ukrainian controlled territory or Pro-Russian controlled territory. You are not taking into consideration that the downing was an accident by pro-Russian forces. You are quite right that no one will ever know. The crew of that pro-Russian operated Buk that messed up are likely to have been executed in secret for the accidental downing. Dead men tell no tales. They likely messed up due to poor intelligence thinking that MH17 was an anticipated Ukrainian military transport or recon aircraft?. A combination of factors likely led to this error. It was the crew of MH17 themselves that requested a deviation of some 20 miles further south due to a weather front that they could see on their radar. Please don’t come back and say that they didn’t as the Russian ICAO agreed with and signed off on the flight path and flight plan the MH17 followed.

    • Not a chance

      Russian radar shows MH17 making a wide turn to the left and starting to head back from the direction it came. It is very plausible and air-to-air missile hit first and did not bring it down – then the fighters riddled the cockpit to either cover up their misfire or to finish the job. The big turn would let a single fighter hit both sides – but nothing says the machine gun fire happened at the same time, so it could have happened before and after the turn.

  • Jed

    What you have is, at best, a speculative argument. Titling it “conclusive” is just bad journalism and damages your credibility.

    • cettel

      Please tell me what questions you need answered that I’ve not answered.

  • Tinky

    Love your work, George, and am strongly inclined to believe the conclusion. However, the evidence is not yet “conclusive”, but rather has shifted and now weighs heavily in that direction.

  • Jim G

    I have been watching this narrative for some time. Gordon D over at veterans today featured much of the narrative, but you submission of the early observations provide needed support. Yours is the best journalism so far on the downing. You get the pulitzer so far. Thanks for your hard work on the Peoples behalf, and thanks for taking the risk. Where is that Spanish flight controller now?

    • cettel

      I’m updating the piece right now by providing more discussion of that. Thanks for your question about it: the article needed to say more about that.

  • ICFubar

    Yes great reporting and article here with many supporting links by Eric Zuesse . Unfortunately I do not have the slightest bit of faith that the Democratic Party is other than a totally owned club franchise where all members are well vetted before being allowed membership. Ditto the entire federal political scene and most state legislatures as well. Did the fascists parties of Europe allow non fascists to become party faithful?… Any issue of importance to the Nazi aristocracy is well planned out and decided far in advance, political pantomime notwithstanding. The democracy such as it was has long ceased to exist and the masters are just letting the pretenses fade and facade to be taken down by such as Mr. Zuesse, while agents of mass conditioning like Greenwald and Snowden ply their trade.

  • marki

    The Israel Question;how much has the USA(powersthatbe) said ,”Crank it up Israel!” to divert the media public interest away from the MH17 downing, ukraines part in it and the likelihood of untold political damage should the world realise a reckless belligerent ukraine has acted dumbly enough to expose and ruin their USA backers?

  • Neil Foss

    How come the pilot or co pilot did not use the radio to at least say’we are being fired at’?
    If you say it’s been covered up please state how no receiver in the world picked it up.
    I’m sure there is more to this than Russia aiming a missile for pro rebels but is it possible they were firing at the Ukrainian fighters which were using the jet as cover to attack the rebels?

    • Muhammad Abbass

      The pilots were dead in the first seconds. Look at those holes and where the pilot’s seats were.

      However you forget maybe that any evidence such as Kiev ATC records or the blackboxes recordings have been with held by “investigators” which means we don’t know what was said by the pilots.

  • griffinalabama

    Another fact that adds to the two plane theory is the BBC eyewitness report which was deleted after the BBC posted it online. Eyewitnesses on the ground who were interviewed by the BBC immediately after the crash saw fighter jets around the plane and stated that it was common for the jets to use commercial planes as cover. Here’s the link to that story which the BBC deleted but other individuals cached before it was taken offline.

    The following video is the original BBC Video Report which was published by BBC Russian Service on July 23, 2014. Immediately after it was posted it was deleted by the BBC. Eyewitness testimony is admissible as evidence.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro

    “Why did BBC delete this report by Olga Ivshina?

    “Is it because the BBC team was unable to find any evidence that a rocket was launched in the area that the Ukrainian Security Service (“SBU”) alleges to be the place from which the Novorossiya Militia launched a “BUK” missile?

    “Or is it because every eyewitness interviewed by the BBC team specifically indicated the presence of a Ukrainian military aircraft right beside the Malaysian Airlines Boeing MH17 at the time that it was shot down?

    “Or is it because of eyewitness accounts in the report confirm that the Ukrainian air force regularly used civilian aircraft flying over Novorossiya as human shields to protect its military aircraft conducting strikes against the civilian population from the Militia’s anti-aircraft units?”

    The following is a link to a thread that ‘verifiably proves’ that the BBC covered up atrocities on more than one occasion during the Ukraine crisis (Hotel Ukraine sniper, Odessa Massacre) and now in regards to MH-17.

    http://www.discussionist.com/101439512

    • Bane

      Can you explain how could eyewitnesses have seen fighter jets at 33,000 feet- impossible in clear skies…let alone overcast like it was that day.

      • griffinalabama

        Actually the BBC’s own video shows the sky was clear and people can see passenger jets in the sky at 33,000 feet quite easily. A person with normal eyesight can see planes at 33,000 feet. http://forum.flightradar24.com/threads/3419-What-s-the-furthest-away-you-ve-seen-a-plane-using-FR24-to-confirm-the-distance

        • Bane

          Here is the satellite image from July, 17th at the approximate time of the downing over the area:

          https://www.metabunk.org/threads/evidence-for-the-buk-missile-launch-site.4005/

          It is very hard to see a passenger jet at 33k ft unless it leaves a contrail..a jet fighter is even smaller.

          Now…as for seeing through clouds?? not sure ho they do that.

          • griffinalabama

            Here is video of the sky at the time. There are clearly massive holes throughout he cloud layer which debunks your entirely overcast theory. A normally sighted individual could clearly see through those gaps in the clouds and verify jets at 33,000 feet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUltrf8n_vA This particular video also delves into the fact that ‘chaff’ is deployed and streams down through the falling wreckage. That particular type of chaff would only come from a Soviet era fighter jet. At the 3:25 mark in this video large holes are seen in the cloud layer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvaApkyojPQ Those holes would negate your theory in regards to a lack of human visibility.

          • Bane

            no. You could not see a fighter jet at 33k ft from the ground, with the naked eye.

            Thats simply untrue. You are either lying or ignorant. Which one is it?

          • srmmedia

            perhaps they saw the jets as they were ascending or descending in altitude. I see passenger jets flying at maximum altitude all the time they fly over my house ever day.

  • griffinalabama

    July 4th Associated Press article which proves the Ukrainian ministry knowingly lied about their own BuK missile systems in the war zone where the plane was shot down. John McCain is also on record as saying the Ukrainian military didm’t have them. The logical questions are 1) why did they lie about it? And 2) why did they need them when the rebels have no planes? http://www.cp24.com/world/ukrainian-forces-win-more-ground-in-eastern-ukraine-1.1899368 The fact they lied and the fact they had them speaks volumes about their truthful character. They intentionally covered up a very important fact related to the case. One that begs the question…why did they have them in the war zone in the first place?

  • Bob S

    It would probably not be an SU25 if it was taken down by cannon, because a deflection shot without a HUD that computes for you is just not going to be successful. This is just air to air combat stuff… but hitting a commercial jet rather precisely with a 23mm burst, aimed at the flight deck… well it would rip the nose off of that airframe really fast.

    I guess unless Washington would like to hand over some IR imagery to support it’s missile theory…

    Also agreed on generally the missile damage being spread all along an airframe… the warhead on the SA11/17 systems is large.

    It would not just poke a hole in the airframe. It would pepper that doomed bastard with damage.

    If it does turn out that the storyline fed to the people in the west is total horseshit… I think NATO is finished as an organization. I do not see the Dutch just blowing it off… also do not believe for a second that Germany or France want to roll tanks on Moscow… our V and VII corps are not sitting in Germany any more… it is not 1989.

  • Milt

    The A-10 picture you’re using to show what a missile strike should look like is actually from Wikipedia, and shows a plane that has been hit by ground-air fire, not a missile.

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

  • tham58

    Yesterday’s local Malaysian headlines.

    • tham58

      Second page.

  • tham58

    Moderators, this forum has lots of bugs. Many times, posts appear one moment,
    the next they are gone. Same for image uploads too.

  • 0k_ballsack

    Hi, just wanted to say this article is complete dogshit.

    • Jill

      Anyone can alter or make a false video, seriously

  • Steve Rendall

    This is nonsense. The OSCE official did not say he saw “conclusive evidence.” He said he saw “what almost looked like” machine gun fire, and he said that he saw no evidence of missiles damage, THEN quickly added that he was not a expert on the subject. He is not a forensic plane crash expert! There is also no evidence offered that the the pilot has any expertise in plane crash forensics, and he hasn’t eve been to the site. I drive a car– that doesn’t make me an expert on car crashes. The “analysis” here doesn’t even reach level of Amateur Hour.

    • Jill

      Yes, but Peter Haisenko is! When the head of the powerful Svoboda party in the Ukrainian government calls Russians, Jews and Germans “scum,” as recorded in his speech quoted in Reuter’s, we really need to wake up and stay out of there. We are supporting outright evil.

  • srmmedia

    I totally think Ukraine shot down the plane , but let’s face facts until the official investigation is concluded and the experts reveal their findings everything you read on the internet is just speculation. I would however like to know who are Robert Parry’s sources where he claims that expert intelligence anaylist have shifted their opinion .. Who are these people? Why don’t they come out? We need some real proof here so we can shove it in their lying faces but until we get that offical proof the the propaganda information war will continue.

  • M.V.

    Yesterday, Ukrainian Secret Service (SBU) Chief Valentyn Nalyvaichenko held a briefing about their own MH17 investigation. They claim that Russians “planned cynical terrorist attack at Aeroflot civil aircraft” and shot MH17 instead. The official publication is here: http://www.ssu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129860&cat_id=35317 They claim that Russians wanted to shoot their own plane in order to use it as a pretext for invasion of Ukraine on the next day.

    Instead of providing their radar data and air traffic control conversations with the pilots, 3 weeks later, they publish this -?! Incidentally, this was on the day Rasmussen was in Kiev –and!– just hours after a major Malaysian paper printed the same info that you discuss here. The article also quoted the head of the Malaysian team saying that they will publish their preliminary results by the end of next week.

    The strangest part is that, given the interest in this investigation by the world community, no major MSM has touched this SBU story yet, not even RT. Perhaps because it is so bizarre?

  • FreeWorld

    What a waste of your time to write such a long bullshit story

  • Gath Gealaich

    I love how the author destroys his own argument by showing a picture of a flak-damaged A-10 and self-confidently proclaiming that this is how a missile hit looks like. 😀 So much for his ability to distinguish between the two.

  • Jill

    Yes, I read the report in Investment Watch as the German Allianz SE Company had insured the plane. German investigator, cum-air-pilot technology expert, Peter Haisenko
    , stated that the holes in the cockpit could only be made by an SU-25 Ukrainian fighter plane, Like the two planes that the Spanish air control Spotted following the Malaysian plane at that time.

  • jeffbguarino

    It must have been Russian jets then .. The su25 cannot fly high enough. I’ve searched the internet and there is no language on these jets flying higher with oxygen masks. The author of this articel supplies no references. There are hundreds of web sites about the specs of the su25 though and this one speaks of a Russian trying to insert a much higher ceiling into Wikipedia.
    http://aviationweek.com/blog/how-su-25-can-shoot-down-faster-higher-flying-aircraft

  • jeffbguarino

    Michael Bociurkiw is a new hire to the OSCE and is a journalist with no
    expertise analysing holes in the wreckage. He admits so in the
    interview.This is irresponsible journalism by CBC. There are entry and
    exit holes that he tries to explain with faulty physics. Missile
    shrapnel also spays out in a pattern and it has entry holes and
    ricochets against the plane structure and creates exit holds also.
    That is physics.

    Aug 18 update. Black box evidence shows plane was destroyed by missile.

  • Ashara Shadai

    the United States government asked fontatsii wrote the first thing that came to mind, and in the head prishol movie “Behind Enemy Lines” where American Beech istribitel shoot down missiles. For this Rosii obsolete missiles

  • Text is really good payed bullshit. As almost all of activity of Eric Zuesse.

  • Shailvi Arora

    Mahima the world famous independent hyderabad escorts girl
    offering their elite hyderabad escorts service just in 10000 INR. Good looking
    hyderabad escorts girl for fun.http://mahimakapoor.co.in/

  • Shailvi Arora

    Purple Hyderabad escorts
    service is a famous for client satisfaction, you can connect our other service
    like as escorts in Hyderabad, Hyderabad escorts agency and etc.http://purplehyderabadescorts.co.in/

  • Shailvi Arora

    Call Shailvi arora (Call 09619402993) because she is a point
    of your dating and set your life enjoyment, service offering Hyderabad escorts,
    escorts in Hyderabad and Independent Hyderabad escorts.http://www.shailviarora.com/

  • Shailvi Arora

    if you are disturb to daily work then you can fix your personal
    appointment with me, guaranteed your mind is sharp after using my Hyderabad
    escorts service.http://aviny.in/