Evidence Continues to Emerge MH17 Is a False Flag Operation

Disclaimer: Whilst I am posing this article with the above titled headline, it doesn't mean that I have arrived at a conclusion that last Thursday's incident over eastern Ukraine was a false flag operation. I am only insisting we keep an open, objective mind before jumping into conclusions based on as Washington itself puts it, " most likely" or sketchy information from Western intelligence sources that have shown several times in the past to be unreliable and lack credibility....I must admit however that it isn't looking good for the nazi dominated Ukranian authorities and their US/CIA allies....

Note that the evidence that the Russians provided isn't based on some dodgy audio recording that CANNOT be pinned with certainty to the tragic events of MH17 (remember that the separatists had shot down several military aircrafts using MANPADS in the recent past). Note that the Russian evidence isn't based on very inconsistent footage of some truck transporting a Buk battery all the way back to motherland Russia to be hidden (See my previous posts). Note that the Russian evidence isn't based on some dodgy audio recording that according to our CIA brothers still can't be "verified" or "confirmed"........

The Russian presented raw satellite images and radar tracks... Can the Ukranians do same? Will they do same??

Read these reports in their entirety

http://vineyardsaker..ca/2014/07/evidence-continues-to-emerge-mh17-is.html?m=1

http://vineyardsaker..com.br/2014/07/the-russian-military-finally-speaks.html

Una get time sha!!!

This is so far the American response to Russia's evidence provided...


Just yesterday the best the deputy spokesperson of the State Department, Marie Harf could offer was a “preponderance of evidence” pointing to the fact that militia in eastern Ukraine downed flight MH17. That the US government’s suspicions were based on information gathered from social media sites.
“We saw in social media afterwards, we saw videos, we saw photos of the pro-Russian separatists bragging about shooting down an aircraft,” “Sometimes you can’t get into all the specifics,” she said. “Based on open information which is basically common sense, right – we know where it was fired from, we know who has this weapon.” Wow! Just, wow! The US government want to impose sanctions and possibly go to war based on evidence from social media sites and common sense?? Shame, shame, shame!!

In case you missed it, here is the evidence provided by the Russian Defense Ministry..... Theirs isn't based on "social media" or "common sense"...

MH17 Show & Tell: Russia is showing its satellite pictures and radar information for GLOBAL SCRUTINY.

They are showing the Kiev regime deploying anti-air missile systems in Donetsk in and around the area where MH17 crashed. They also provided information regarding Ukrainian fighters trailing flight MH17, the possibility of an air-to-air attack on MH17, and inconsistencies with Ukrainian air traffic control.

There were a series of questions asked throughout the presentation, nothing "concluded" - which is funny when you compare it with the West who has shown the world NOTHING but have drawn MANY conclusions.

Now it's time for the Pentagon to show us their pictures and explanations.

Video (English & Russian):

http://www.vesti.ru/only_video.html?vid=610598

Western world lying since 1880

Updates:

Desperate, desperate West

A few minutes ago on CNN Breaking News, the US State Department (probably taking a cue from their Russian counterparts) made a truly atrocious and pitiful press briefing in which "new evidence" with regards to MH17 was presented ONLY that as expected they repeated pretty much what they have been saying all along: that the separatists most likely fired the SA-11 (Buk) missile, blah, blah, blah. The only difference this time around in the accusations from the US authorities (perhaps due to they realizing their narrative is falling apart at the seams) is that they are yet to determine if the Russians themselves had any direct involvement in the alleged attack. This is a remarkable change of tune consisdering what they have already accussed Russia of: transporting the missile batteries back to Russia, consfisticating the black boxes, hindering the investigators on site and so much other crap!

The only other item of note that was presented was satellite images of these Russian training camps right over the border in Rostov, Russia. Like duh! If these camps truly do exist (and that is if they are not actually legitimate Russain military installations), of course it's known to everyone one that the Moscow has supported the separatists from day one. That was a open secret. Duh! You can see how the US authorities have tried to play a fast one and insult our intelligence by presenting evidence of support from Russia for the rebels as "new evidence" that the separatists lauched a Buk missisle..... Just how stu.p.id do they think people are?? Really? Just how stu.p.id? Lol!

Mind you, with reagrds to a Buk missile being used by the separatist, till today, no satellige images has been presented. No radar tracks as well. Nothing! Zilch! Nada! Those "unconfrirmed", "unverified" YouTube videos and audio recodrdings which the West is pinning its hopes on have been discredited!
The Ukranian authorities also are yet to answer the questions posed by their Russian counterparts.

And here is a video of US State Department's spokeperson Marie Harf holding a press conference discussing its "comon sense", "Social media", "unverified", "unconfirmed" evidence

It is now very obvious that the US authorities - like in the Ghouta chemical attack - have no evidence whatsoever to present...Watch the cringe inducing video here:


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

The Russian Defense Ministry has shown that that video purpotedly showing a Buk missile battery being snuck back to Russia being a fake. It was shot in the Ukranian government controlled town of Krasnoarmeisk, as evidenced by the billboard you see in the background, advertising a car dealership at 34 Dnepropetrovsk Street. Krasnoarmeysk has been controlled by the Ukrainian military since May 11.

Now, lets take a look at the authentity of those tapes....

Well, they too have turned out to be a total fabrication.We were all aware of the date and time stamps issue indicating it was made a day before the crash. Now it has been also confirmed that it is made up of several frames pieced together.....


BOOM! Kiev Caught Plotting Crash of Malaysia Flight MH17 , Before It Happened!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c__Fm5liCo&


I wonder what next Kiev/CIA move will be...

Landdestroyee :
US Appeals to "Law of the Jungle" in MH17 Case

 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) After the Russian Federation disclosed to the worldsatellite imagery, radar information, and abnormalities in Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 flight MH17's flight path, it asked Ukraine and the Western nations backing the regime in Kiev, questions regarding their alleged evidence. To these questions, the West has responded with increasingly suspicious silence and evasion. At one point, US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf, told journalists that the summation of US evidence was "YouTube" videos and other forms of social media - all of which are admittedly unverifiable and some of which is veritably fabricated.


All of Harf's comments assigning blame to eastern Ukrainian separatists so far rests entirely on the alleged veracity of "YouTube clips" and "Facebook posts." Harf left no room for the possibility that the evidence she is hinging her comments on may be fabrications, taken out of context, or otherwise inaccurate.

The abject failure of the United States to once again put forth credible evidence amid a firestorm of propaganda and rush to judgement - and subsequent action - echoes the attempted rush to war after NATO-member Turkey and Saudi Arabia assisted terrorists from the Syrian Al Qaeda franchise, Al Nusra, in carrying out a false-flag sarin gas attack in Damascus in August 2013. It also echoes the fallacious, fabricated evidence peddled before the United Nations regarding Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" that in fact did not exist - but led to the invasion and nearly decade-long occupation of Iraq and over a million dead.

The serial fabrications the West has produced to advance its agenda worldwide is a troubling indictment of the "international order" it presumes itself chief proponent of and arbiter over. It appears to be an "international order" where the "law of the jungle," prevails over the rule of law. Instead of an impartial investigation to ascertain the facts surrounding the downing of MH17, the US has resigned to citing "YouTube" clips as the basis upon which it seeks to undermine, isolate, and diminish the nation of Russia and its population of 142 million people, both politically and economically.

Harf insists on behalf of the US government that "commonsense" dictates who is responsible for the downing of MH17 - but to that a simple question can be asked, and demonstrably answered - cui bono? Downing the Malaysian airliner with nearly 300 on board and blaming it on Russia has been the "game changer" desperately needed by NATO and its collaborators in Kiev to turn the tides in a battle they were decisively losing, politically, tactically, strategically, and economically.

Another curiosity is the fact that most of the "intelligence" the US claims to have is in reference to "YouTube" clips, photography, and conclusions drawn on a series of pro-Kiev Ukrainian blogs (written in English). Is US intelligence simply reading blogs? Or are the blogs somehow a clearinghouse of US intelligence? Or are the blogs fabrications by US intelligence in an attempt to frame Russia? One in particular, "Ukraine at War," is a definitive collection of fabrications, biased propaganda, and dubious claims that appear to precede "US intelligence" claims. 

The list of questions the US must answer after its nearly week-long campaign of baselessly accusing Russia is growing exponentially - with diversions, evasions, and juvenile deferrals to "social media" only further compromising America's waning credibility.

Hmm... The false flag operators are still in the business.

Look people, more evidence that Ukraine's 'evidence" is fabricated...

PS: The US is also still yet to provide any shred of forensic evidence or any indisputable evidence of any sort for that matter. All they keep repeating is that the blame "lays at Putin's feet" as he is ultimately affiliated with the separatists. I highly suspect that like the concocted "evidence" of the Ghouta chemical attacks last year, this too will never be mentioned again and be forgotten..... Watch this space....

Bogus photos of ‘Russian’ air-defense systems in Ukraine debunked by bloggers




Still from VK.com video/love_donbass


Ukraine continues to concoct ‘evidence’ a Russian air defense system brought down Flight MH17. Ukraine’s secret service published as ‘proof’ month–old photos of a Ukrainian BUK-M missile system, claiming it is Russian.

Despite the US admitted it has no evidence Russia is directly involved in the Malaysian Airlines disaster of July 17, Kiev has its own ideas.

On July 19 Kiev’s Security Service (SBU) published photos online it claimed showed ‘Russia’ secretly withdrawing a BUK-M (NATO designation SA-11) surface-to-air missile system from the Ukraine civil war zone.

UPDATE – shortly after publishing this article the photos in question were deleted. Below are screenshots from the SBU site.



Screenshot from www.sbu.gov.ua


At the time SBU Chief Vitaly Naida declared to a mute press“The SBU has taken measures within the investigation and is getting clear evidence of Russian citizens’ involvement in the terrorist attack (on the Malaysian Airlines Boeing)”.

However, bloggers immediately spotted the photos were of a Kiev air-defense system no. 312, previously pictured in March this year.

As back-up Kiev took a still from video filmed in March, when several BUK-M systems were filmed at Yasinovataya, north of Donetsk.

http://vk.com/video246185435_168140448?hash=c2fc6c689b4fb0db

In the video snow is quite visible and people are wearing warm clothes, whereas the SBU maintains that the picture shows a Russian Buk-M being transported back to Russia on July 18, the day after the Boeing 777 was taken down in the Donetsk region.

The visible snow and warm clothing didn’t dissuade Kiev’s pr-machine though. The SBU maintained the picture showed a Russian BUK-M being transported back to Russia on July 18th, the day after the MH17 tragedy.

Backfire: A video taken in March captures the same Ukrainian BUK-M complexes. At the time Ukrainian media reported the country’s military was concentrating air defenses closer to the Russian border to repel an “invasion”.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-VZB0ZdEA#t=17


The notorious BUK-M “312” is third in the column.



Photo from http://censor.


The Ukrainian photos show a single missile launch vehicle, whereas a Buk-M complex consists of at least four vehicles: missile launcher, radar, command vehicle and transporter loader.

Russia’s Defense Ministry presented detailed satellite photos of the area where the Boeing was downed, demonstrating how Kiev BUK-M presence around Donetsk was at maximum intensity immediately prior to the MH17 tragedy.

The US, which also monitors Ukrainian territory with satellites, has not rushed to publish photos of Russian military vehicles in Ukraine which simply couldn’t move there unnoticed.

The US, whose satellites monitor Ukrainian territory, has not yet published any photos of Russian military vehicles in Ukraine.

Besides up to 9 Ukrainian BUK-M complexes being stationed close to the MH17 crash site, Russian radar also detected a Ukrainian Su-25 fighter that briefly ascended towards the doomed Boeing 777 at the time of the catastrophe.

So far Kiev has not explained why a military jet was tracking a passenger airplane, nor published its ATC data.

Soldiering on

Ukraine army conscript, Sergey Paschenko, was caught up in the civil war spin-storm over a Vkontakte photo of him and Buk-M vehicles he was assigned to guard.

Pro-Kiev trolls slammed him as a “Russian terrorist” and threatened to kill him, forcing him to delete the photo.

Britain’s Daily Mail threw the righteous UK tabloid book at him – based on his hapless Buk-M photo, asking ‘Is this the smoking gun? This picture has emerged of a pro-Russian rebel posing in front of the same type of Buk missile launcher that is believed to have shot down MH17”.



Screenshot from dailymail


Those suggesting a Ukrainian soldier cannot be a “Russian terrorist” at the same time were largely ignored.

Paschenko finally updated his Vkontakte status with:

“I do not take part in hostilities, civil war is not for me; oligarchs are carving power whereas ordinary people are dying like flies.”

Despite comments pointing out the total falsehood, the Daily Mail has yet to take down or amend its claims.

Aren't these completely appropriate and reasonable statements and questions that the Russians are asking?

"The separatists, the Russians are guilty, they are guilty, they are the guilty party" so says the West.........Oya where your evidence na?


If Russia is behind MH17 crash, where’s the evidence? – Defense Ministry



Russia has so far been the only nation to release evidence related to the MH17 crash, the Defense Ministry said, urging other countries to follow suit. Though there have been a lot of claims of Russia’s involvement, none have been backed by proof.

Malaysia MH17 crash: 10 questions Russia wants Ukraine to answer

The US claims its intelligence data and satellite imagery confirm that the missile which downed MH17 was fired from rebel-controlled territory. So far it’s only a claim that has to be supplemented by proof, Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said in an emotional address released on Thursday.

“Where is this data? Why hasn’t it been made public? Is it because it is still being cooked, if I may say so?” Antonov asked in the statement. “By the way, one of the four US experts reportedly said that Russia may have been involved in creating conditions for the launch of this missile. It was nice, of course, of the other three that they did not say anything, but what about the fourth? Does he have any grounds to make such accusations? Or is it something predetermined?”



Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov (RIA Novosti / Vladimir Pesnya)


Antonov wondered how the bulk of accusations that Russia has been facing could possibly be based on unverified material taken from social media.

“US intelligence officials refer to some photos posted on social networks which allegedly show a missile launcher crossing the border between Russia and Ukraine. What exactly are they talking about? Are they talking about a picture of a Ukrainian Buk being transported somewhere by Ukrainians on a prime mover with a white cab, made in the town of Krasnoarmeysk, which has long been controlled by the Ukrainian military? Or maybe they are talking about a photograph of Buk No. 312? If so, there is another picture of the same launcher rolling as part of a Ukrainian armor column. Gentlemen, are you implying that this is the launcher that fired the missile? If so, demand an explanation from Kiev.”

Antonov reminded that following the plane crash, the Russian Defense Ministry released monitoring data related to the accident. Based on this information, the ministry developed a number of questions for Ukraine and other countries which are blaming Russia for the tragedy. The questions have remained unanswered.

The Russian Defense Ministry would like to know, for example, why the US rules out the possibility that the plane was shot down by the Ukrainian military.

“This begs the question: are US experts ready to assume responsibility for their claims? Do they know where all the SAM launchers are deployed in Ukraine? What do they have to say about the monitoring data presented by Russia? Do they ignore it simply because there is nothing for them to say?”

Speaking about accusations of Russian military build-up on the border with Ukraine, Antonov recalled “nine instances of Russian territory coming under fire in the course of June and July” from Ukraine. One of those instances turned fatal for a Russian citizen, Andrei Shulyatyev.

“What if US territory was shelled from a neighboring country and, God forbid, a US citizen was killed?” Antonov asked.

“What would the United States do? I think the answer is obvious. Yet Russia is behaving in a reserved and responsible manner. It is therefore self-evident who is trying to provoke whom at the border. Why don’t you take note of the constant rocket shelling of Donetsk and Lugansk instead, which claims civilian lives?”

10 more questions Russian military pose to Ukraine, US over MH17 crash

Nigerian Conspiracy Theorists are the most deluded and unoriginal of the entire bunch.

The only original entry from the OP on this thread is his disclaimer...every other post is lifted word for word from other blogs and websites.

Not one shred of an original thought from the OP at all

The funny thing is, the OP via his sneakily plagiarized content(Yes one can still plagiarize even after providing references) has only provided 'evidence' from blogs and social media while saying this:

NairaMinted: Wow! Just, wow! The US government want to impose sanctions and possibly go to war based on evidence from social media sites and common sense?? Shame, shame, shame!!

The mind boggles.

There will be an argument that the US will need a stronger platform than social media to launch their war machine into Eastern Europe, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander no?

OP needs to get a life.

Thank God he's been banned by the spambot

1. I was indeed banned by the Spambot – I wonder why – but I am back now and your celebratory demeanour would drive home what point exactly? Thanks for taking the precious time to go through my status though and informing me about the Spambot ban… Now, who needs to get a life?

2. Yes, what I have posted has being a mix of my own thoughts and materials from several sites.? Wasn’t it obvious I was posting materials from sites in addition to my remarks? Did I ever at any point claim it was all my own original work? And my many replies to HollyHolla, bookface and others are all plagiarized too huh?

3. Conspiracy theories you say? A plaintiff presents “evidence”, the defendant debunks it, proving that this “evidence” is clearly a fabrication whilst presenting his own indisputable forensic evidence and challenging the plaintiff to explain inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s “evidence” and the best you can do is dismiss it all as conspiracy theories?
So in summary, from your understanding, debunking ludicrous accusations that can’t be defended makes the debunker the conspiracy theorist not the instigator? Amazing!

4. Yes, I have used social media to inform others of lies and fabrications posted on social media. How else do you propose I disseminate information? Hold a press conference? Oh wait, the Russians already did that!

Points 1-4 by the way are all my own words in case you are wondering if I also lifted that from some site.

http://journal-neo.org/2014/07/26/the-propaganda-and-politics-of-mh17/

"The Kiev regime has proclaimed repeatedly that Russia was behind the attack, offering “evidence” of “Russian participation.” The first piece of “evidence” were the tape recordings that purportedly provided proof that anti-Kiev rebels and, by implication, Russian agents working with them, had admitted to downing MH17. However, a careful analysis by renowned digital sound analyst Nikolai Popov and his team of experts concluded that that the recordings were not authentic, that is to say, they were cobbled together using various recordings from before the disaster occurred. As Popov noted, “This audio recording is not an integral file and is made up of several fragments.”

While Popov’s team’s findings should not be taken as gospel, they do call into question the authenticity of the supposed “evidence.” In fact, it is quite likely that the recordings were constructed from actual conversations by anti-Kiev rebels discussing the downing of a Ukrainian Su-25 fighter jet days before the MH17 incident. Of course, the findings should not be seen as definitive, but as yet, they constitute the only sound analysis done of the recordings. It seems more than convenient that neither the US nor any of its partners have carried such an analysis, and have instead chosen to proclaim the recordings’ authenticity based purely on faith that Kiev is telling the truth. Naturally, this is a dangerous assumption considering the established pattern of lying by Kiev to further its war against the citizens of the East."

Downed Airliner: Fake Audio Tape Shows US-Backed Hit to Frame Russia

Finian CUNNINGHAM21.07.2014 10:30


In a devastating twist to emerge over the weekend it now seems that the Malaysian civilian airliner downed over Ukraine was most probably brought down as a result of sabotage by the US-backed Kiev regime.

The purpose of this audacious act of mass murder – in which 298 lives were lost – was carried out with the intention of framing the Russian government. Washington, the chief sponsor of the Kiev regime, must have known about the plot, if not being fully complicit in it.

The key to this dramatic twist is the identification of incriminating audio tapes over the weekend as fake – tapes that were created initially to implicate Moscow, as part of a massive black operation involving the destruction of the civilian airliner and all those onboard.

Within hours of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 crashing into a wheat field in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine last Thursday, Western governments and media have gradually stoked a frenzy of accusations that Moscow had a hand in the disaster.

Nationals from more than 12 countries were onboard the doomed Boeing 777, most of them Dutch, Malaysian, Australian, as well as American, Canadian, British and several other European states.

Western fingers of blame began pointing at Russia the day following the crash when US President Barack Obama announced that unnamed American intelligence sources said that the suspected surface-to-air missile believed to have taken the jet down was fired from territory held by anti-Kiev self-defence militias. Or as Obama put it: «Russian-backed separatists».

The American president did not accuse Moscow outright then but he implied Russian involvement in the incident with the reasoning that Russia (allegedly) provided «technical assistance» in the firing of the sophisticated missile system, known as a Buk SA-11.

The missile system can fire warheads up to an altitude of 70,000 feet – well within range of civilian long-haul jumbo jets – with the armed projectile soaring at three times the speed of sound. The system is Soviet-era make, and is also used by the Ukrainian state forces.

Over the weekend the accusations against Russia from Western governments and media have steadily grown to a crescendo. In his usual round of Sunday television programmes, US Secretary of State John Kerry went as far as claiming that American intelligence was now certain that Russia had supplied the missile system to the militia in eastern Ukraine…

Kerry told CNN: «It’s pretty clear that this is a system that was transferred from Russia in the hands of separatists».

Kerry added: «We know with confidence that the Ukrainians [that is, the Western-backed Kiev regime forces] did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point in time. So it obviously points a very clear finger at the separatists.» Kerry’s claim is contradicted by Russian intelligence, as we shall see.

The American press were also chiming in with the same story. The Wall Street Journal reported: «US officials believe the anti-aircraft systems were moved back across the border into Russia…»

The Sunday edition of the Washington Post headlined: «Russia supplied missile launchers to separatists, US official says».

So what began as a circumspect implication on Friday from President Obama soon snowballed into a full-blown grave accusation against Russia within 48 hours.

Meanwhile, Washington’s closest European ally, Britain, was also turning up the pressure on Russia over the downed airliner.

In an unusual Sunday Times article, British Prime Minister David Cameron laid the blame on Moscow for unleashing instability in Ukraine and called for tougher sanctions in response. Cameron said: «Tougher EU [European Union] sanctions against Russia will be needed if Moscow does not change its approach to the downing of the Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine.»

Subordinate ministers went even further in their accusations. Britain’s new Defence Minister Michael Fallon told media that Russia was «sponsoring terrorism» in Ukraine, on the back of the stricken airliner incident.

However, it is clear from a closer reading of the media reports carried in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the British press that the alleged case for implicating Russia relies on a mixture of anonymous assertions by unidentified «US intelligence officials, fragments of unverified phone intercepts, and unverified video and photographs. The latter images purport to show a Buk launcher and its missiles being driven across the Ukrainian border into Russia. It is impossible to verify if the alleged location and time is accurate.

The second aspect of the «evidence» – anonymous, unspecified US intelligence – has no credibility whatsoever given the numerous times that such a formula has been invoked previously; and subsequently has been shown to be baseless or, worse, concocted, as in the Iraqi «weapons of mass destruction» that sparked off the US-led Gulf War in 2003, or in the allegations of chemical weapons allegedly used by the Syrian army last August against civilians, which also turned out to be false.

That leaves us with the third element – the alleged communication intercepts. Since the fatal crash of Flight MH17, the Western media have given prominence to audio files that purportedly relate to conversations between members of the anti-Kiev militia, in which individuals appear to acknowledge that militia units mistakenly hit a civilian airliner, thinking that it was a warplane belonging to the Kiev military forces.

The intercepts were supposed to be the central damning evidence of culpability against the pro-Russian militia, and by extension, Russia itself. The files, posted on the internet by the Kiev secret services, were referred to in all the major Western news media outlets as being «a smoking gun».

The Western media frenzy over the weekend based on all of the above «evidence» produced headlines such as: ‘Putin’s rebels blew up plane’ in Britain’s Daily Express; ‘Ukraine claims ‘compelling evidence’ of Russian involvement’ in the British Guardian; and ‘US sees evidence of Russian link to jet’s downing’ in the New York Times.

This political and media stampede to impugn Moscow and Russian President Vladimir Putin in particular is telling in itself of a premeditated black operation.

But then came this devastating twist. Russian audio recording experts revealed over the weekend that the intercepts invoked by Kiev and its Western supporters turn out to be fake.



Reputed digital sound analyst Nikolai Popov and his expert team examined the files made public by the Kiev intelligence services, and they found that the files had been doctored from separate and unrelated conversations.

On first hearing, the alleged conversations tend to implicate the self-defence militia in firing a missile at the passenger plane. But on closer examination, the digital fingerprints show that the files were fabricated, taken from separate recordings and spliced together to give the impression of integral conversations.

«This audio recording is not an integral file and is made up of several fragments,» Popov told Russian news agency Itar-Tass.

Moreover – and this is crucial – the sound analysis of digital data shows that the tapes were engineered the day

before Flight MH17 was seemingly hit by a missile and blown out of the sky.

This latest discovery makes for some incontrovertible and deeply unsettling conclusions: firstly, parties were involved in deliberately forging the files with the purpose of framing others – the self-defence militia and Moscow; secondly, and more disturbingly, the people who faked the files must have known that the airliner was going to be hit with a missile, or some other catastrophic external force, in order to bring it down with all the horrific loss of life entailed.

In all the maelstrom of Western innuendo against Russia over the doomed airliner, the obvious anomaly is that neither the Moscow nor the anti-Kiev rebels would have anything to remotely gain by carrying out such a dastardly act.

Furthermore, the eastern Ukraine self-defence militia have categorically denied possessing such weaponry and the skill to operate these radar-controlled systems.

But here is more potentially damning information on who the culprits are. Russia’s ministry of defence says that it has radar data showing that an anti-aircraft Buk missile launcher was operated by the Kiev forces in the vicinity of the doomed airliner and that these Kiev forces had the plane in their radar target sites. A digital recording could easily verify that claim.

In addition, there are several other troubling questions that the Kiev regime has so far refused to answer: why was Flight MH17 instructed by Kiev Air Traffic Control to fly on this unusual more northerly route on that fateful day, through a dangerous conflict zone? Also, why were the pilots of MH-17 instructed to fly at the lower altitude of 33,000 feet instead of 35,000 feet?

Taken all this into account, the finger of suspicion now points not at Moscow, but rather at the Kiev regime and its military forces.

More damningly, given the close dependence of the Kiev junta on American government sponsorship for its military operations, the ongoing deep involvement of the CIA in bringing this regime to power in the first place with the illegal coup back in February; and given the concerted way that Washington has sought to exploit the airliner disaster for geopolitical gains – all that strongly points to a deeply criminal collusion. A criminal collusion that involves the deliberate shooting down of a civilian flight and the killing of nearly 300 people.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/28/update-latest-us-government-hoax-paul-craig-roberts/

“Part of the US propaganda mill’s effort is into forming the conversation. Once certain narratives take hold, true or untrue, they edge out other narratives. So the effort is to get control of the narrative, to form the conversation with whatever materials, usually false, are available. Then, of course, the false information will be referenced as true, and the direction of the narrative will be fixed. The narrative being lowered into place, for example, is that Russia was somehow responsible for the downing of Flight 17. With the help of the media, the hope is that the narrative will gain momentum. Eventually, if it catches properly, it will be impossible to question, just as people are considered freaks who question the official narrative of 9-11. That is why the narratives are introduced as quickly as possible. Thus, we saw how quickly it was announced that Flight 17 was brought down by a surface to air missile. That would lead me to believe that it was actually not brought down by a surface to air missile. So also with this incredibly amateurish effort regarding Russian shelling of Ukrainian positions. Russian reaction is never obtained in the articles about it, and it is no longer mentioned that Russian territory has been shelled by the Ukrainian military.”

The Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has expressed the Russian government’s concern that Washington will corrupt the official investigation of MH-17: “We are concerned by the fact that some of our partners are trying to organize the investigation by means of holding separate bilateral talks with the Ukrainian authorities.” Lavrov said that Russia hopes that “only honest, open participation of all who possess information on the catastrophe” is considered to be the appropriate way to proceed and that “no one will try to cover tracks.” http://rt.com/news/176040-lavrov-russia-ukraine-plane/

Deleted BBC Report. “Ukrainian Fighter Jet Shot Down MHI7″, Donetsk Eyewitnesses

The Catastrophe of #MH17: #BBC in the Search of the “#BUK” – The Video Report Deleted by @BBC



By Global Research News

Global Research, July 27, 2014



The original BBC Video Report was published by BBC Russian Service on July 23, 2014.

In a bitter irony, The BBC is censoring its own news productions.

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 confirming 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?

Highlights of Witness statements (see complete transcript below)

Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …

Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.

Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.

Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].



Video: The Catastrophe of #MH17: #BBC in the Search of the “#BUK”

Introductory Paragraphs to the BBC Video Report

by slavyangrad.

Intro of BBC Report (For Full Transcript see below)

The “black boxes” of the crashed Malaysian Boeing have finally been transferred into the hands of the experts. However, how much can they tell us?

The recorders logged the coordinates and the heading of the aircraft at the time of the incident and may have recorded the sound of the explosion. However, they will not tell us what exactly caused the explosion.

The inhabitants of the nearby villages are certain that they saw military aircraft in the sky shortly prior to the catastrophe. According to them, it actually was the jet fighters that brought down the Boeing.

The Ukrainian government rejects this version of events. They believe that the Boeing was shot down using a missile from a “BUK” complex that came in from Russia.

The Ukrainian Security Service has published photographs and a video, which, in its opinion, prove that the Boeing was shot down with a “BUK” missile.

BBC reporter Olga Ivshina and producer Oksana Vozhdayeva decided to find the place from which the missile was allegedly launched.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zUvK5m2vxro
Original BBC Video Report: Preserved by Google Web-cache

Transcript of the BBC Video Report

DPR Representative: Here it is.

Olga Ivshina, BBC: The black boxes from the crashed Boeing are finally being transferred into the hands of the experts. However, how much can they tell us?

The recorders logged the coordinates and the heading of the aircraft at the time of the incident and may have recorded the sound of the explosion. However, they will not tell us what exactly caused the explosion.

The inhabitants of the nearby villages are certain that they saw military aircraft in the sky shortly prior to the catastrophe. According to them, it actually was the jet fighters that brought down the Boeing.

Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …

Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.

Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.

Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].

Olga Ivshina, BBC: The Ukrainian government rejects this version of events. They believe that the Boeing was shot down using a missile from a “BUK” complex that came in from the direction of Russia.

Vitaliy Naida, Department of Counterintelligence of SBU [Ukrainian Security Service]: This was a BUK M1 system from which the aircraft was shot down. It came to Ukraine early in the morning on the 17th of July. It was delivered by a tow truck to the city of Donetsk. After that, it was redeployed from Donetsk, as part of a column of military equipment, to the area of the city of Torez, to the area of Snezhnoye, to the area of Pervomaisk.

Olga Ivshina, BBC: The Ukrainian Security Service has published photographs and a video, which, in its opinion, prove that the Boeing was shot down with a “BUK” missile. We attempted to verify these photographs and information at the location.

One of the photographs showed a landscape not far from the city of Torez, on which smoke could be seen coming from the presumed location of the missile’s launch. We attempted to find this location, and it appears that we were successful.

We are now on the outskirts of the city of Torez. Behind me, approximately five kilometres away, is the city of Snezhnoye. And the landscape here matches the landscape that we can see on the photograph published by the Ukrainian Security Service.

To find the place from which the smoke was allegedly coming from, we adopted as markers these three poplars and the group of trees. Presumably, this is the place that can be seen on the photograph published by the SBU. And here are our markers: the three solitary poplars and the small group of trees in the distance.

The smoke that can be seen on the photograph came from somewhere over there [pointing behind her], behind my back. The SBU believes that this is a trace coming from the launch of a “BUK” missile.

However, it must be noted that there are here, approximately in the same place, the Saur-Mogila memorial, near which the fighting continues almost unabated, and a coalmine. It turns out that the smoke with the same degree of probability could have been coming from any of these locations.

Having circled around the nearby fields, we were unable to find any traces of a missile launch. Nor did the local inhabitants that we encountered see any “BUK” either.

At the ruins of an apartment building in the city of Snezhnoye, the topic of the jet fighters that may have been escorting civilian aircraft comes up again. A bomb dropped from above took away the lives of eleven civilians here.

Sergey Godovanets, Commander of the Militia of the city of Snezhnoye: They use these civilian aircraft to hide behind them. It is only now that they stopped flying over us – but, usually, civilian aircraft would always fly above us. And they hide [behind them]. [The experience in] Slavyansk had demonstrated that they would fly out from behind a civilian aircraft, bomb away, and then hide, once again, behind the civilian aircraft and fly away.

Olga Ivshina, BBC: The commander of the local militia emphasizes that they have no weaponry capable of shooting down a jet fighter [flying] at a significant height. However, he says that if such weaponry were to appear, they would have tried to.

Sergey Godovanets: If we know that it is not a civilian aircraft, but a military one, then – yes.

Olga Ivshina, BBC: So, could the Boeing have been shot down by the militias that had mistaken it for a military aircraft? There is as yet no unequivocal confirmation of either this or any other version [of what took place]. The international experts are just beginning their work with the information obtained from the crashed airliner. It now appears that it is difficult to overstate the importance of this investigation. Olga Ivshina, BBC.

The Catastrophe of #MH17:

#BBC in the Search of the “BUK” – The Video Report Deleted by BBC


Translation by: Valentina Lisitsa
http://slavyangrad.

Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the “Shooting Down” of Malaysian MH17. “Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile”



By Peter Haisenko

Global Research, July 30, 2014

[url]anderweltonline.com[/url]


Region: Russia and FSU

Theme: US NATO War Agenda

In-depth Report: UKRAINE REPORT



Zur deutschen Version bitte hier anklicken

-

The tragedy of Malaysian MH 017 continues to elude any light of clarity being cast over it.

The flight recorders are in England and are evaluated. What can come of it? Maybe more than you would assume.

Especially the voice recorder will be interesting when you look at the picture of a cockpit fragment. As an expert in aviation I closely looked at the images of the wreckage that are circulating on the Internet.




Peter Haisenko in Cockpit of Condor DC 10

First, I was amazed at how few photos can be found from the wreckage with Google. All are in low resolution, except one: The fragment of the cockpit below the window on the pilots side. This image, however, is shocking. In Washington, you can now hear views expressed of a “potentially tragic error / accident” regarding MH 017. Given this particular cockpit image it does not surprise me at all.

Entry and exit impact holes of projectiles in the cockpit area

http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Cockpit-MH017.pdf

I recommend to click on the little picture above. You can download this photo as a PDF in good resolution. This is necessary, because that will allow you understand what I am describing here. The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely 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 at these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent – outwardly! Furthermore, minor cuts can be seen, all bent outward, which indicate that shrapnel had forcefully exited through the outer skin from the inside of the cockpit. The open rivets are are also bent outward.

In sifting through the available images one thing stands out: All wreckage of the sections behind the cockpit are largely intact, except for the fact that only fragments of the aircraft remained . Only the cockpit part shows these peculiar marks of destruction. This leaves the examiner with an important clue. This aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion. The destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to factor in that this part is constructed of specially reinforced material. This is on account of the nose of any aircraft having to withstand the impact of a large bird at high speeds. You can see in the photo, that in this area significantly stronger aluminum alloys were being installed than in the remainder of the outer skin of the fuselage. One remembers the crash of Pan Am over Lockerbie. It was a large segment of the cockpit that due to the special architecture survived the crash in one piece. In the case of flight MH 017 it becomes abundantly clear that there also an explosion took place inside the aircraft.

Tank destroying mix of ammunition

Bullet holes in the outer skin




So what could have happened? Russia recently published radar recordings, that confirm at least one Ukrainian SU 25 in close proximity to MH 017. This corresponds with the statement of the now missing Spanish controller ‘Carlos’ that has seen two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the immediate vicinity of MH 017. If we now consider the armament of a typical SU 25 we learn this: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, equipped with: a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum), arranged in alternating order. The cockpit of the MH 017 has evidently been fired at from both sides: the entry and exit holes are found on the same fragment of it’s cockpit segment!

Now just consider what happens when a series of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells hit the cockpit. These are after all designed to destroy a modern tank. The anti-tank incendiary shells partially traversed the cockpit and exited on the other side in a slightly deformed shape. (Aviation forensic experts could possibly find them on the ground presumably controlled by the Kiev Ukrainian military; the translator). After all, their impact is designed to penetrate the solid armor of a tank. Also, the splinter-explosive shells will, due to their numerous impacts too cause massive explosions inside the cockpit, since they are designed to do this. Given the rapid firing sequence of the GSh-302 cannon, it will cause a rapid succession of explosions within the cockpit area in a very short time. Remeber each of these is sufficient to destroy a tank.

What “mistake” was actually being committed – and by whom?

Graze on the wing


Because the interior of a commercial aircraft is a hermetically sealed pressurized chamber, the explosions will, in split second, increase the pressure inside the cabin to extreme levels or breaking point. An aircraft is not equipped for this, it will burst like a balloon. This explains a coherent scenario. The largely intact fragments of the rear sections broke in mid air at the weaker points of construction most likely under extreme internal air pressure. The images of the widely scattered field of debris and the brutally damaged segment of cockpit fit like hand in glove. Furthermore, a wing segment shows traces of a grazing shot, which in direct extension leads to the cockpit. Interestingly, I found that both the high-resolution photo of the fragment of bullet riddled cockpit as well as the segment of grazed wing have in the meantime disappeared from Google Images. One can find virtually no more pictures of the wreckage, except the well known smoking ruins.

If you listen to the voices from Washington now who speak of a “potentially tragic error / accident”, all that remains is the question of what might have been the nature of this “mistake” perpetrated here. I am not given to hover long in the realm of speculation, but would like to invite others to consider the following : The MH 017 looked similar in it’s tricolor design to that that of the Russian President’s plane. The plane with President Putin on board was at the same time ”near” Malaysia MH 017. In aviation circles “close” would be considered to be anywhere between 150 to 200 miles. Also, in this context we might consider the deposition of Ms. Tymoshenko, who wanted to shoot President Putin with a Kalashnikov.

But that this remains pure speculation. The shelling of the cockpit of air Malaysia MH 017, however, is definitely not speculation.

The closeup look at the pockmarked cockpit of MH17

From Anthony Cartalucci of New Eastern Outlook:


"Canadian OSCE investigator on Canadian CBC News says MH17 looked like it took fire from what appeared to be a large machine gun and that nothing he saw at the crash site indicated that a missile took it down (he was one of the first there on the scene).

None of this is conclusive, but these observations have been noted many times since images of the crash site began spreading across the Internet. The United States, UK, and Europe who have been exploiting the disaster politically have given no insight on the appearance of these holes or entertained any other theory besides Buk missiles - and of course have done so without any evidence underpinning their conclusions.


Watch the full video because his remarks are omitted from the article..."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh17-michael-bociurkiw-talks-about-being-first-at-the-crash-site-1.2721007?cmp=rss&partner=sky

“Support MH17 Truth”: OSCE Monitors Identify “Shrapnel and Machine Gun-Like Holes” indicating Shelling. No Evidence of a Missile Attack. Shot Down by a Military Aircraft?



By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, July 31, 2014

In-depth Report: UKRAINE REPORT

[img]http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/su251-400x247.jpg[/img]
Su-25 aircraft

According to the report of German pilot and airlines expert Peter Haisenko, the MH17 Boeing 777 was not brought down by a missile.

What he observed from the available photos were perforations of the cockpit:


The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. (Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the “Shooting Down” of Malaysian MH17. “Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile” Global Research, July 30, 2014)


Based on detailed analysis Peter Haisenko reached the conclusion that the MH17 was not downed by a missile attack:

This aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion. The destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to factor in that this part is constructed of specially reinforced material




The OSCE Mission

It is worth noting that the initial statements by OSCE observers (July 31) broadly confirm the findings of Peter Haisenko:


Monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe reported that shrapnel-like holes were found in two separate pieces of the fuselage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines aircraft that was believed to have been downed by a missile in eastern Ukraine.

Michael Bociurkiw of the OSCE group of monitors at his daily briefing described part of the plane’s fuselage dotted with “shrapnel-like, almost machine gun-like holes.” He said the damage was inspected by Malaysian aviation-security officials .(Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2014)

The monitoring OSCE team has not found evidence of a missile fired from the ground as conveyed by official White House statements. As we recall, the US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power stated –pointing a finger at Russia– that the Malaysian MH17 plane was “likely downed by a surface-to-air missile operated from a separatist-held location”.

The initial OSCE findings dispel the claim that a BUK missile system brought down the plane.

Evidently, inasmuch as the perforations are attributable to shelling, a shelling operation conducted from the ground could not have brought down an aircraft traveling above 30,000 feet.

Ukraine Su-25 military aircraft within proximity of MH17

Peter Haisenko’s study is corroborated by the Russian Ministry of Defense which pointed to a Ukrainian Su-25 jet in the flight corridor of the MH17, within proximity of the plane.

Ironically, the presence of a military aircraft is also confirmed by a BBC report conducted at the crash site on July 23.


All the eyewitnesses interviewed by the BBC confirmed the presence of a Ukrainian military aircraft flying within proximity of Malaysian Airlines MH17 at the time that it was shot down:


Eyewitness 1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …

Eyewitness 2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.

Eyewitness 1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.

Eyewitness 3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].

BBC Report below


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




The original BBC Video Report published by BBC Russian Service on July 23, 2014 has since been removed from the BBC archive. In a bitter irony, The BBC is censoring its own news productions.



Media Spin

The media is now saying that a missile was indeed fired but it was not the missile that brought down the plane, it was the shrapnel from the missile which punctured the plane and then led to a loss of pressure. According to Ukraine’s National security spokesman Andriy Lysenko in a contradictory statement, the MH17 aircraft “suffered massive explosive decompression after being hit by a shrapnel missile.” (See IBT, Australia)

In an utterly absurd report, the BBC quoting the official Ukraine statement says that:



The downed Malaysia Airlines jet in eastern Ukraine suffered an explosive loss of pressure after it was punctured by shrapnel from a missile.

They say the information came from the plane’s flight data recorders, which are being analysed by British experts.

However, it remains unclear who fired a missile, with pro-Russia rebels and Ukraine blaming each other.

Many of the 298 people killed on board flight MH17 were from the Netherlands.

Dutch investigators leading the inquiry into the crash have refused to comment on the Ukrainian claims.




“Machine Gun Like Holes”

The shrapnel marks should be distinguished from the small entry and exit holes “most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile” fired from a military aircraft. These holes could not have been caused by a missile attack as hinted by the MSM.

While the MSN is saying that the “shrapnel like holes” can be caused by a missile (see BBC report above), the OSCE has confirmed the existence of what it describes as “machine gun like holes”, without however acknowledging that these cannot be caused by a missile.


In this regard, the GSh-302 firing gun operated by an Su-25 is able to fire 3000 rpm which explains the numerous entry and exit holes.

According to the findings of Peter Haisenko:


If we now consider the armament of a typical SU 25 we learn this: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, equipped with: a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum), arranged in alternating order. The cockpit of the MH 017 has evidently been fired at from both sides: the entry and exit holes are found on the same fragment of it’s cockpit segment (op cit)

The accusations directed against Russia including the sanctions regime imposed by Washington are based on a lie.

The evidence does not support the official US narrative to the effect that the MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile system operated by the DPR militia.

What next? More media disinformation, more lies?

The Malaysian Airline MH17 Crash: Sixteen Central Issues Which Cannot be Ignored



By Julie Lévesque

Global Research, July 26, 2014


In establishing who was behind the shooting down of MH17, there are a number of central issues as well as factual evidence which cannot be overlooked:


1. Malaysian Airlines confirmed that the pilot was instructed to fly at a lower altitude by the Kiev air traffic control tower upon its entry into Ukraine airspace. (Malaysian Airlines MH17 Was Ordered to Fly over the East Ukraine Warzone)

2. The flight path was changed. We still don’t know who ordered it, but we know it was not Eurocontrol:


MH17 was diverted from the normal South Easterly route over the sea of Azov to a path over the Donetsk. Oblast. (The Flight Path of MH17 Was Changed. July 17 Plane Route was over the Ukraine Warzone)

According to Malaysian Airlines “The usual flight route [across the sea of Azov] was earlier declared safe by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The International Air Transportation Association has stated that the airspace the aircraft was traversing was not subject to restrictions.”

…

The regular flight path of MH17 (and other international flights) over a period of ten days prior to July 17th ( day of the disaster),crossing Eastern Ukraine in a Southeasterly direction is across the Sea of Azov (click on the article link below to see the map). While the audio records of the MH17 flight have been confiscated by the Kiev government, the order to change the flight path did not come from Eurocontrol. Did this order to change the flight path come from the Ukrainian authorities? Was the pilot instructed to change course? (Malaysian Airlines MH17 Was Ordered to Fly over the East Ukraine Warzone)

3. The presence of the Ukrainian military jet was confirmed by Spanish air traffic controller “Carlos” at Kiev Borispol airport shortly after the plane was shot down, as well as eyewitnesses in Donetsk.

The Spanish air traffic controller documented the event on Twitter as it happened. He claimed it was not an accident, that the Ukrainian authorities shot down MH17 and were trying to “make it look like an attack by pro-Russians” . His Twitter account was closed down shortly after the tragedy. Although his account has yet to be fully corroborated, some of his claims have been confirmed by Malaysian Airlines and the Russian authorities.

There have been some reports to the effect the Spanish Air controller is fake and that the twitter message were sent out of London. Upon further investigation, the Spanish Air Controller conducted several media interviews in the last 2-3 months, see his interview with RT (Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing MH#17)

4. Russia has made available public radar and satellite imagery as evidence. Its images suggest the following:


a) Kiev’s regime deployed anti-air missile systems in Donetsk in and around the area where flight MH17 crashed.

b) An Ukrainian warplane SU-25 trailing flight MH17

c) the report pointed to the possibility of an air-to-air attack on MH17

d) the report also pointed to inconsistencies pertaining to the reports of the Ukrainian air traffic control

The Russian authorities did not come to any conclusion regarding who was to blame for shooting down the plane. (MH17 Show & Tell: It’s the West’s Turn – Russian Satellites and Radars Contradict West’s Baseless Claims)

5. The U.S., despite its global spying apparatus, has not shown any radar or satellite imagery to back its claim that Russia and the Eastern-Ukrainian opposition are responsible for the downing of MH17. The evidence it has presented so far is weak and based on pro-Kiev documents consisting of YouTube videos and various social media – “all of which are admittedly unverifiable and some of which is veritably fabricated.”:


Is US intelligence simply reading blogs? Or are the blogs somehow a clearinghouse of US intelligence? Or are the blogs fabrications by US intelligence in an attempt to frame Russia? One in particular, “Ukraine at War,” is a definitive collection of fabrications, biased propaganda, and dubious claims that appear to precede “US intelligence” claims. (Assigning Blame to East Ukraine Rebels: US Appeals to “Law of the Jungle” in MH17 Case)

6. “The Russian Defense Ministry pointed out that at the moment of destruction of MH-17 an American satellite was flying over the area”:


The Russian government urges Washington to make available the photos and data captured by the satellite.(How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”)

7. A U.S. intelligence source claimed the “U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms”. These images could confirm the evidence presented by Russia to the effect that Kiev’s regime deployed anti-air missile systems in Donetsk in and around the area where flight MH17 crashed. (Fact number 4, Whistleblower: U.S. Satellite Images Show Ukrainian Troops Shooting Down MH17)

8. Russia called for an expert independent investigation:


President Putin has repeatedly stressed that the investigation of MH-17 requires “a fully representative group of experts to be working at the site under the guidance of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).” Putin’s call for an independent expert examination by ICAO does not sound like a person with anything to hide. (How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”)

9. The U.S. claimed, without evidence, but “with confidence” that Russia was involved:


[On July 20, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry confirmed that pro-Russian separatists were involved in the downing of the Malaysian airliner and said that it was “pretty clear” that Russia was involved. Here are Kerry’s words: “It’s pretty clear that this is a system that was transferred from Russia into the hands of separatists. We know with confidence, with confidence, that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point and time, so it obviously points a very clear finger at the separatists.” (Ibid.)

10. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's statement above regarding Russian involvement is contradicted by the Russian satellite photos and numerous eye witnesses on the ground. (Ibid.)

11. US intelligence officials said there is no evidence of the Russian government’s involvement, also contradicting John Kerry's statement above. (US Intelligence on Malaysian Flight MH17: Russia Didn’t Do It. “US Satellite Photos do not Support Obama’s Lies”, The author refers to this news item by the Associated Press: US INTELLIGENCE: No 'Direct' Russian Involvement In Downing Of MH17)

12. A few hours after the crash, Kiev authorities presented a video in which the opposition admitted shooting down the plane. Experts who studied the video concluded that it was a fabrication:


“The tape’s second fragment consists of three pieces but was presented as a single audio recording. However, a spectral and time analysis has showed that the dialog was cut into pieces and then assembled. Short pauses in the tape are very indicative: the audio file has preserved time marks which show that the dialog was assembled from various episodes.” (Ibid.)

The encoding of the video file shows it was created on July 16, the day before the plane was shot down. This information remains to be confirmed, but if it is accurate, it would mean that the Ukrainian authorities shot the plane down and fabricated evidence to frame the opposition (Did Ukraine Fabricate Evidence to Frame Russia for MH17 Shoot Down?, How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”)

13. John Kerry “referred to a video that the Ukrainians have made public showing an SA-11 unit heading back to Russia after the downing of the plane with 'a missing missile or so.'” The video was “posted on the Facebook account of the Ukrainian Interior Minister.”According to numerous sources the video was “taken in or near Krasnoarmeisk”, a town under Kiev's control since May and located “ 120 kilometers from the Russian border and 80 kilometers from where the Malaysian Boeing 777 crashed”:


At least one other clip of the “Russian Buk” that has been made available also suggests that the Ukrainians are showing their own equipment.

14. Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Vitaly Yarema said the Ukrainian opposition did not possess a Buk missile system:


“Ukrainian Interior Minister Anton Gerashchenko said on July 17 that the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 airliner had been downed by the Buk missile system...Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Vitaly Yarema told Ukrainian Pravda newspaper on Friday: 'After the passenger airliner was downed, the military reported to the president that terrorists do not have our air defense missile systems Buk and S-300... These weapons were not seized'” (Militias Do Not Have Ukrainian Buk Missile System — Ukraine General Prosecutor)

15. The MH17 incident is used to wage economic war against Russia. Sanctions imposed in the wake of the event, without any evidence of Russian implication, are used to weaken the ruble and destabilize the Russian Monetary system. (The Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crash: Financial Warfare --against Russia, Multibillion Dollar Bonanza for Wall Street)

16. In 1962, the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff planned Operation Northwoods, a secret "false flag operation" (declassified) in which a civilian airliner was to be shot down and blamed on the Cuban government. The objective was to manufacture a pretext to wage war on Cuba. (The Implementation of Operations Northwoods was turned down by President John F. Kennedy).


The downing of MH17 and the reaction of the US authorities and media bear strong similarities with the scenario depicted in Operation Northwoods, according to author R. Teichmann:


"Among other things the document proposed the following. I [Teichman] have inserted in bold (in parenthesis) my comments to illustrate why the MH-17 incident could be a re-run of the proposed Operation Northwoods:

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft (a BuK Anti-Aircraft missile system supplied by Russia to the ‘Separatists” in eastern Ukraine) has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner (Malaysian Airlines MH-17) en route from the United States (Amsterdam, Schipol airport) to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama, or Venezuela (Kuala Lumpur) .

It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs (Eastern Ukraine ‘Separatists’) have destroyed a USAF aircraft (Malaysian passenger aircraft) over international waters (their territory) in an unprovoked attack. (Framing Russia? Fabricating a Pretext to Wage War: Flight MH-17 and “Operation Northwoods”)

By Julie Lévesque

Global Research, July 26, 2014


In establishing who was behind the shooting down of MH17, there are a number of central issues as well as factual evidence which cannot be overlooked:


1. Malaysian Airlines confirmed that the pilot was instructed to fly at a lower altitude by the Kiev air traffic control tower upon its entry into Ukraine airspace. (Malaysian Airlines MH17 Was Ordered to Fly over the East Ukraine Warzone)

2. The flight path was changed. We still don’t know who ordered it, but we know it was not Eurocontrol:


MH17 was diverted from the normal South Easterly route over the sea of Azov to a path over the Donetsk. Oblast. (The Flight Path of MH17 Was Changed. July 17 Plane Route was over the Ukraine Warzone)

According to Malaysian Airlines “The usual flight route [across the sea of Azov] was earlier declared safe by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The International Air Transportation Association has stated that the airspace the aircraft was traversing was not subject to restrictions.”

…

The regular flight path of MH17 (and other international flights) over a period of ten days prior to July 17th ( day of the disaster),crossing Eastern Ukraine in a Southeasterly direction is across the Sea of Azov (click on the article link below to see the map). While the audio records of the MH17 flight have been confiscated by the Kiev government, the order to change the flight path did not come from Eurocontrol. Did this order to change the flight path come from the Ukrainian authorities? Was the pilot instructed to change course? (Malaysian Airlines MH17 Was Ordered to Fly over the East Ukraine Warzone)

3. The presence of the Ukrainian military jet was confirmed by Spanish air traffic controller “Carlos” at Kiev Borispol airport shortly after the plane was shot down, as well as eyewitnesses in Donetsk.

The Spanish air traffic controller documented the event on Twitter as it happened. He claimed it was not an accident, that the Ukrainian authorities shot down MH17 and were trying to “make it look like an attack by pro-Russians” . His Twitter account was closed down shortly after the tragedy. Although his account has yet to be fully corroborated, some of his claims have been confirmed by Malaysian Airlines and the Russian authorities.

There have been some reports to the effect the Spanish Air controller is fake and that the twitter message were sent out of London. Upon further investigation, the Spanish Air Controller conducted several media interviews in the last 2-3 months, see his interview with RT (Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing MH#17)

4. Russia has made available public radar and satellite imagery as evidence. Its images suggest the following:


a) Kiev’s regime deployed anti-air missile systems in Donetsk in and around the area where flight MH17 crashed.

b) An Ukrainian warplane SU-25 trailing flight MH17

c) the report pointed to the possibility of an air-to-air attack on MH17

d) the report also pointed to inconsistencies pertaining to the reports of the Ukrainian air traffic control

The Russian authorities did not come to any conclusion regarding who was to blame for shooting down the plane. (MH17 Show & Tell: It’s the West’s Turn – Russian Satellites and Radars Contradict West’s Baseless Claims)

5. The U.S., despite its global spying apparatus, has not shown any radar or satellite imagery to back its claim that Russia and the Eastern-Ukrainian opposition are responsible for the downing of MH17. The evidence it has presented so far is weak and based on pro-Kiev documents consisting of YouTube videos and various social media – “all of which are admittedly unverifiable and some of which is veritably fabricated.”:


Is US intelligence simply reading blogs? Or are the blogs somehow a clearinghouse of US intelligence? Or are the blogs fabrications by US intelligence in an attempt to frame Russia? One in particular, “Ukraine at War,” is a definitive collection of fabrications, biased propaganda, and dubious claims that appear to precede “US intelligence” claims. (Assigning Blame to East Ukraine Rebels: US Appeals to “Law of the Jungle” in MH17 Case)

6. “The Russian Defense Ministry pointed out that at the moment of destruction of MH-17 an American satellite was flying over the area”:


The Russian government urges Washington to make available the photos and data captured by the satellite.(How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”)

7. A U.S. intelligence source claimed the “U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms”. These images could confirm the evidence presented by Russia to the effect that Kiev’s regime deployed anti-air missile systems in Donetsk in and around the area where flight MH17 crashed. (Fact number 4, Whistleblower: U.S. Satellite Images Show Ukrainian Troops Shooting Down MH17)

8. Russia called for an expert independent investigation:


President Putin has repeatedly stressed that the investigation of MH-17 requires “a fully representative group of experts to be working at the site under the guidance of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).” Putin’s call for an independent expert examination by ICAO does not sound like a person with anything to hide. (How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”)

9. The U.S. claimed, without evidence, but “with confidence” that Russia was involved:


[On July 20, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry confirmed that pro-Russian separatists were involved in the downing of the Malaysian airliner and said that it was “pretty clear” that Russia was involved. Here are Kerry’s words: “It’s pretty clear that this is a system that was transferred from Russia into the hands of separatists. We know with confidence, with confidence, that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point and time, so it obviously points a very clear finger at the separatists.” (Ibid.)

10. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's statement above regarding Russian involvement is contradicted by the Russian satellite photos and numerous eye witnesses on the ground. (Ibid.)

11. US intelligence officials said there is no evidence of the Russian government’s involvement, also contradicting John Kerry's statement above. (US Intelligence on Malaysian Flight MH17: Russia Didn’t Do It. “US Satellite Photos do not Support Obama’s Lies”, The author refers to this news item by the Associated Press: US INTELLIGENCE: No 'Direct' Russian Involvement In Downing Of MH17)

12. A few hours after the crash, Kiev authorities presented a video in which the opposition admitted shooting down the plane. Experts who studied the video concluded that it was a fabrication:


“The tape’s second fragment consists of three pieces but was presented as a single audio recording. However, a spectral and time analysis has showed that the dialog was cut into pieces and then assembled. Short pauses in the tape are very indicative: the audio file has preserved time marks which show that the dialog was assembled from various episodes.” (Ibid.)

The encoding of the video file shows it was created on July 16, the day before the plane was shot down. This information remains to be confirmed, but if it is accurate, it would mean that the Ukrainian authorities shot the plane down and fabricated evidence to frame the opposition (Did Ukraine Fabricate Evidence to Frame Russia for MH17 Shoot Down?, How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”)

13. John Kerry “referred to a video that the Ukrainians have made public showing an SA-11 unit heading back to Russia after the downing of the plane with 'a missing missile or so.'” The video was “posted on the Facebook account of the Ukrainian Interior Minister.”According to numerous sources the video was “taken in or near Krasnoarmeisk”, a town under Kiev's control since May and located “ 120 kilometers from the Russian border and 80 kilometers from where the Malaysian Boeing 777 crashed”:


At least one other clip of the “Russian Buk” that has been made available also suggests that the Ukrainians are showing their own equipment.

14. Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Vitaly Yarema said the Ukrainian opposition did not possess a Buk missile system:


“Ukrainian Interior Minister Anton Gerashchenko said on July 17 that the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 airliner had been downed by the Buk missile system...Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Vitaly Yarema told Ukrainian Pravda newspaper on Friday: 'After the passenger airliner was downed, the military reported to the president that terrorists do not have our air defense missile systems Buk and S-300... These weapons were not seized'” (Militias Do Not Have Ukrainian Buk Missile System — Ukraine General Prosecutor)

15. The MH17 incident is used to wage economic war against Russia. Sanctions imposed in the wake of the event, without any evidence of Russian implication, are used to weaken the ruble and destabilize the Russian Monetary system. (The Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crash: Financial Warfare --against Russia, Multibillion Dollar Bonanza for Wall Street)

16. In 1962, the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff planned Operation Northwoods, a secret "false flag operation" (declassified) in which a civilian airliner was to be shot down and blamed on the Cuban government. The objective was to manufacture a pretext to wage war on Cuba. (The Implementation of Operations Northwoods was turned down by President John F. Kennedy).


The downing of MH17 and the reaction of the US authorities and media bear strong similarities with the scenario depicted in Operation Northwoods, according to author R. Teichmann:


"Among other things the document proposed the following. I [Teichman] have inserted in bold (in parenthesis) my comments to illustrate why the MH-17 incident could be a re-run of the proposed Operation Northwoods:

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft (a BuK Anti-Aircraft missile system supplied by Russia to the ‘Separatists” in eastern Ukraine) has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner (Malaysian Airlines MH-17) en route from the United States (Amsterdam, Schipol airport) to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama, or Venezuela (Kuala Lumpur) .

It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs (Eastern Ukraine ‘Separatists’) have destroyed a USAF aircraft (Malaysian passenger aircraft) over international waters (their territory) in an unprovoked attack. (Framing Russia? Fabricating a Pretext to Wage War: Flight MH-17 and “Operation Northwoods”)

lol

http://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-is-now-conclusive-two-ukrainian-government-fighter-jets-shot-down-malaysian-airlines-mh17-it-was-not-a-buk-surface-to-air-missile/5394814

Part 1

Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air Missile



By Eric Zuesse

Global Research, August 04, 2014


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 transcribed 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.

Part 2

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.
[img]http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/mh17zuesse1.png[/img]


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, earliest, online evidence concerning the matter was on July 17th, within moments of the downing, headlined 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.

The accompanying news-report, also on July 17th, 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 were “confiscated.”

The best evidence is consistent 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. The rest of the tweets from @spainbucca, there, described the immediate hostility of the Kiev authorities toward him on the occasion, and his speculations as to who was behind it all.

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.

Meanwhile, this is the headline in a Maylasian newspaper yesterday.... The kinda of headline you will never see in Europe or the info buble called the United States........

People aren't buying Uncle Sam's lies, deceits and manipulations all in the quest for world hegemony anymore.....

Uncle Sam is also yet to provide evidence....

finalllly anoda nairalander who sees the light

theHill

Ron Paul: US 'hiding truth' on downed Malaysian plane



By Jesse Byrnes - 08/08/14 06:08 PM EDT



Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) accused the U.S. government of "hiding" the truth behind the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, which crashed in eastern Ukraine last month.

"The U.S. government has grown strangely quiet on the accusation that it was Russia or her allies that brought down the Malaysian airliner with a Buk anti-aircraft missile," Paul said on his news website Thursday.


U.S. officials believe the plane was brought down by a missile likely fired by pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine, killing all 298 people on board. The U.S. and Europe have slapped tougher sanctions on Moscow for providing the rebels with weaponry and assistance.
Paul, though, questioned that account and said the U.S. could be more forthcoming with information.

"It’s hard to believe that the U.S., with all of its spy satellites available for monitoring everything in Ukraine, that precise proof of who did what and when is not available," the former lawmaker and GOP presidential contender said.

"Too bad we can’t count on our government to just tell us the truth and show us the evidence," Paul added. "I’m convinced that it knows a lot more than it’s telling us."

Paul is the father of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has said he is weighing a 2016 bid for president. The younger Paul has faced criticism from other Republicans over some of his foreign policy views.

After the crash, Ron Paul initially suggested the U.S. was partly responsible for the downed plane and accused Western media and the government of spreading "propaganda."