Evidence Is Now Conclusive: 2 Ukrainian Government SU-25 Fighter-Jets Did Shoot Down that Malaysian Airliner. No “Buk” Missile Ground-Shot Was Involved.

Preface by Washington’s Blog: The New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times, Bloomberg, Sydney Morning HeraldInternational Business Times and many other news sources have reported that the numerous holes in the wreckage of Malaysian airlines flight 17 are shrapnel from missiles fired from the ground in Ukraine.

Eric Zuesse and the witnesses he quotes claim that the evidence points elsewhere …

By Eric Zuesse:

Reader-comments to my July 31st article, “First Examination of Malaysian MH-17 Cockpit Photo Shows Ukraine Government Shot that Plane Down,” have provided links and leads to independent additional confirmatory evidence, to such an extent that I now feel confident enough to say that the evidence on this matter is, indeed, “conclusive.” Here is all of that evidence, which collectively convinces me that pilot Peter 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. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ze9BNGDyk4 and it’s right there.

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 at the 29 July 2014 CBC news article and its accompanying video.

Further, there’s this 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. Looking at that photo-reconstruction, one can easily tell that the SU-25 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 SU-25 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 SU-25 fighter-jet firing into the cockpit from the airliner’s right-hand side. That’s critically important, because no Buk 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.

Although the fighter jets that were said to have been accompanying 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 is, moreover, a key part of Haisenko’s reconstruction of the airliner’s downing.

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 a lie.

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 “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 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).

And the European Union has been playing along with this hoax. (If you 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 — like invading Iraq multiplied a thousand-fold.

If we had a free press, the news media would instead 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 new regime’s peaceful opponents were systematically trapped and then burned alive, which the new Ukrainian Government (which Obama and the CIA had actually imposed in Kiev) 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 to do.

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, though he’s a “Democrat” in rhetoric only, and his policy in this matter threatens the entire world.

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. 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, is a scandal, which needs to stop.

———-

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 Business / Economics, Energy / Environment, General, Politics / World News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • disqus60

    Nice story, full of accusations. You have evidence of the claims or just hope it gets stated enough to become the truth? Who exactly is Eric Zuesse? Some kind of expert in warfare and aircraft or some credentials that would give him the expertise to declare something absolutely? Oh wait, he’s an author, and a liberal, Obama supporter at that. Wonderful credentials for the truth there. Yeah thanks

    • cettel

      Ad hominem comments are likewise not germane.

      • joe schmoe

        That’s funny considering your response to me was an ad hominem and on top of it you originally posted exactly what I said you posted.

        • cettel replies to “discus60”, and “joe schmoe” replies for “discus60” implying he’s BOTH “discus60” and “joe schmoe” (?). That’s what it looks like above!

      • Vassily

        What’s germane Zuesse is that your hero Girkin/Strelkov is complaining about only 1000 volunteers from the local population of 2,500,000. Time to put your money where your mouth is. Trade your cheerleader costume and pompoms for fatigues and a gun.

        You will meet a lot of like minded people in the Russian volunteer army and be loved by many. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/anal-sex-porn-more-popular-in-russia-than-any-other-country-study-suggests-9645014.html

    • The Censor

      How in God’s name could you possibly conclude Eric Zuesse is “a liberal, Obama supporter”??? Did you read the article? I’m not real fond of liberals but it sounds like for different reasons than you (“10 degrees to the left of center in good times; 10 degrees to the right when it affects them personally” as the great song writer Phil Ochs used to say). But I am not at all fond of gutter level political discourse.

      • disqus60

        I researched him to find out about him, something you should do before believing something someone says. Hardly gutter level political discourse when I’m armed with information that is relevant to the discussion

  • Joe Schmoe

    Dude, I have doubts about the official story as well, but there are a lot of flaws with your theory:

    First of all, the shrapnel from a BUK COULD go through both sides of the cockpit.

    Second, since the cockpit is conical, shrapnel from a BUK COULD penetrate both sides. Alternatively, two missiles could have been fired at once which is not uncommon when using a sam.

    Most importantly, the SU 25 can’t reach 32,000 feet. Of course MH17 might have been ordered to a lower altitude (Let’s hear the ATC tapes already!)

    Also, your theory of two SU 25’s firing at once is sort of dumb. There would be no need to do it, it is dangerous and the idea that two SU-25’s would hit at the exact time is sort of silly.

    • cettel

      Re. your “First of all, the shrapnel from a BUK COULD go through both sides of the cockpit.”:

      I didn’t allege to the contrary. Your comment is irrelevant to what I did allege.

      Re. your “Second, since the cockpit is conical, shrapnel from a BUK COULD penetrate both sides.”:
      I didn’t allege to the contrary. Your comment is irrelevant to what I did allege.


      Please learn to read, and to think, and to make comments that are at least somewhat germane to what you allege to be commenting upon. That would be much appreciated. Your comments were not.

      • Joe Schmoe

        I did read. Here is what you said “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 SU-25 fighter-jet firing into the cockpit from the airliner’s right-hand side. That’s critically important, because no Buk missile (or schrapnel therefrom) hitting the airliner could possibly have produced firing into the cockpit from both sides of the plane”

        That took balls of you to complain that I can’t read. You either can’t remember what you just posted or you have zero compunction about lying about what you just posted.

        • cettel

          No 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.

          • Jeff

            You’re probably right about an explosive only able to be unidirectional but how does the evidence then jump to being two planes. What about two missiles ? What about projectiles bouncing off other ojects already blow off the plane and ricocheting . Why on earth would they need two planes to shoot down a jet.?
            Far too many implausibilities here. If what you’re saying is true then we must draw no conclusions at all until this is studied very thoroughly. In the short time they looked at things could they have gotten pieces mixed up and left and right and etc. who knows. trying to figure things out in a few hours in a big rush. I say wait and see and stop publishing nonsense.

      • jjjj

        You wrote this are you getting demented…….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 SU-25 fighter-jet firing into the cockpit from the airliner’s
        right-hand side. That’s critically important, because no Buk missile (or
        schrapnel therefrom) hitting the airliner could possibly have produced
        firing into the cockpit from both sides of the plane. It had to hav

        • Septic

          The new photos from the Dutch report have clear indication no aircraft machine gun or cannon could have caused some damage shown. There is no caliber that size ever used on a fighter aircraft. This means only a fragmentary missile could have been responsible.

  • Franz Von Steuben-Augsburg

    If you want to get a better understanding regarding the ongoing events in Ukraine and viewed from a purely Geostrategic standpoint, then watch this documentary titled “Unsurvivable” produced by the LaRouche PAC, specifically a portion of 8 minutes from 15:49 to 23:11
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8kXQb8MkIk

    Read carefully this statement at the end of that portion:

    “The positioning of new offensive weapons in South and Northwest Russia for taking out the missile defense complexes, including the deployment of Iskander missile complexes in the Kaliningrad region
    is one of the options for the destruction of the ABM infrastructure in Europe. Taking into account the destabilizing character of the ABM systems, namely the creation of the illusion of an unpunishable disarming strike, the decision for the preemptive application of the existing offensive means will be made in a period of aggravating conditions.”

  • Did you see this? There’s closeups of what looks like many bullet holes (NOT “missile”) in the fuselage, mainly the cockpit. Excellent closeups.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/31/germans-say-mh17-shot-down-by-ukie-migs/

    • Septic

      But closeups of the damage is conclusive. There is no aircraft machine gun or cannon that could have caused some of the impact hoes. It is a fragmentary missile that caused the crash.

  • THE FINAL PHOTO OF MH17 ON ITS 17th BIRTHDAY – An Israeli named Yaron Mofaz took this photo of the Malaysia Airlines plane (MH17) shortly before it was shot down while flying over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. Yaron Mofaz is also connected to GA Telesis, the Israeli-owned airlines company in Florida that owns a similar Malaysia Airlines plane that is parked in a hangar in Tel Aviv. So, why did the Israeli Mofaz take a photo of the plane that was shot down in the Ukraine?

    “There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked; it almost looks like machine gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire that has left these unique marks that we haven’t seen anywhere else. We have also been asked, for example, have we seen any examples of missile. Well, no we haven’t. That’s the answer”.

    – Michael Bociurkiw, Canadian investigator with the OSCE, at the crash site of MH17

    – See more at: http://www.bollyn.com/#article_14814

  • 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!”

    If this is correct, and no missile was fired from a fighter AIRCRAFT (I agree no ground based missile, buk or otherwise, was used – that was just “blame Russia” neocon Nazi mendacious propaganda), THEN the pilots lived long enough to SAY SOMETHING on tape. the black box IS NOT located in the cockpit (it’s towards the rear of the aircraft) SO it has damning evidence on it of the airborne attack.

    I originally postulated a missile BECAUSE, in this type of operation, the culprit would not want the pilots to have time to say they were being attacked by an aircraft on the tape.

    I accept that bullets were employed but continue to believe that an air-to-air missile was employed TOO. WHY? because the wreckage on the ground covers a 10 mile swath. You just CANNOT get that type of wreckage deposition pattern from bullets only.

    Here is my original hypothesis (with simulations from flight simulator screen shots).

    MH17 Downing: Background Context & Cause Hypothesis

    • Septic

      An type of SA-11 missile used on the Buk uses a high explosive fragmentary warhead with a proximity fuse. The missile will explode before hitting the aircraft sending a halo of shrapnel at the aircraft. It is likely that it will shrapnel will be located across the fuselage, wings, and any exposed parts of the airframe facing the explosion. If a great deal of shrapnel hit the cockpit will

      have killed or disabled the pilots and those who weren’t killed soon would be incapacitated due to decompression. All electronics and flight controls would be badly damaged or inoperative. The investigators have concluded the damage is consistent with this kind of warhead but I also think they had not discounted cannon fire from another aircraft. The damage created by a halo of fragments and a cannon look similar especially when a small part of the plane is examined. The wings and fuselage pieces further away from one damaged area will give them conclusive evidence.

  • I have actual video that shows the contrary. You judge for yourselves!

    ACTUAL VIDEO FOOTAGE OF MH17 SHOOT DOWN PROVES ONE THING WITH CERTAINTY July 22nd, 2014

    That the Western Powers, including NATO, have in their possession the satellite imagery, technical data and radar signatures which categorically locates exactly where in the eastern Ukraine the missile was fired from which took down MH17. The unique signatures, in particular, also identify the precise type of missile.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaeSwhen4mQ&list=UUKqFo29EDYngB8QcWEJ3Smg#t=31

  • Septic

    The operative term is “almost” in “it almost looks like.” In the interview he admitted to not being an expert and that he wouldn’t know how to tell if the aircraft was brought down by a missile. He is an OSCE observer and diplomat who was there to help the investigators and observe the crash site. In the interview he said he saw the cockpit change as it was opened up a little more each day by those going through the airplane.

    This article is only proof of yellow journalism.

  • disqus60

    Zuesse, it would be nice if you actually knew what you were talking about before presenting something as fact when it is nothing but propaganda that confuses people who don’t otherwise know. Let me clue you in- The SU25 is a ground attack aircraft. You say “These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likeley that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile.”

    Do you know what a 30mm CANNON is designed for? The SU25 is armed with CANNON, not “Machine guns”.. It’s 30mm CANNON is designed To take out ARMORED VEHICLES, and hardened targets. Do you think for a moment that a 30mm round, one that is over an INCH IN DIAMETER, with the ability to penetrate and destroy armor, would merely “leave small holes round and clean” on an aircraft? Are you just an incompetent researcher or just a useful tool who wants to paint the picture that the Kremlin would have the world believe?

    Nevermind of course the evidence presented of the telephone conversation of DNR leaders and the other evidence that the insurgents shot down the plane, and nevermind the evidence of the insurgents being advised that they must not lose control of the area, and the fact that they didn’t allow access to the plane for several days.. the most likely scenario is that the insurgents shot up the aircraft with their “machine guns” during the time it had control over the site, in an effort to be able to offer this alternate scenario as a possibility so people like you would help cover up their crime. a 7.62 caliber weapon would be what would make “small holes and clean” on aluminum sheeting and it or a 50 caliber round would provide for a larger exit hole… but either of those could be done by shrapnel from an exploding missle like the buk since it’s exactly how they bring down aircraft.

    I hope people who read your BS can see the ridiculousness of the claim. Unfortunately some of the propagandist now mention your “analysis” as some kind of reported truth to what happened. Absolute BS.

  • Cain Abel

    Pure crap.

  • Al-Assad

    “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.”

    I love how kids can type things like that then type this not 5 paragraphs later.

    “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 a lie.”

    Of course, you forget that Su-25s are ground attack fighters, that the airliner wouldn’t be visible at 33k feet other than as a speck, so how again could visual confirmation of Su-25’s at that altitude be anything but fabricated?

    I don’t have much of a problem with believing it might have been Ukraine’s AF… But logic leads me to ask why they didn’t use dedicated interceptors or air superiority aircraft.
    There’s disinformation in this article.

  • Good Article, Included it in:
    #Ukraine #Flight #MH17 Off Course Flying In #Restricted #Airspace; More https://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/flight-mh17-was-off-course-flying-through-restricted-airspace/

    Last Words #AirAsia #QZ8501 #BlackBox NOT, Explosion, More #MH370 #MH17 #BlackOps https://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/ed-ward-mds-hypothesis-for-airasia-qz8501/
    Best,
    DrEd
    Ed Ward, MD