Cyprus-Forum.com

[supporttheunderdog]

http://www.putin-itogi.ru/putin-voina/

July 17, 2014 in the area of ​​armed confrontation in the east of Ukraine was shot down Boeing 777 of Malaysia Airlines, carrying out the flight MN17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.

Place of crash: east of the Donetsk region of Ukraine near the village of Grabovo near the town of Torez. All were on board 298 people (283 passengers and 15 crew members) were killed.

The sudden (with explosive destruction) death of the aircraft over the area of ​​combat operations from the first hours made it obvious 96 that Boeing was shot down, and not crashed due to a failure of technology 97 or a human factor (pilot's error or ground services).

Statements by separatists

Russian media from the very beginning of the fighting in the Donbass regularly reported that the separatists successfully shoot down planes and helicopters of the Ukrainian army. In total, from May to July 17, 2014, four helicopters were shot down (on May 2 and May 5 - MI-24 98 , on May 29 - MI-8 99 , on June 24 - MI-8 100 ) and 3 planes (June 6 - AN-30 101 , June 14 - IL-76 102 , July 14 - AN-26 103 ).

On July 17, on the day of the Boeing 777 crash, the ITAR-TASS news agencies and RIA Novosti announced that the "militiamen" shot down an AN-26 plane near the town of Torez 104 . Defense Minister of breakaway DNI Igor Girkin (arrows) in the evening of the same day according to the social networks that the "militia" shot down a plane 105
Both the militants and the Russian media call the place of its crash (the district of the city of Torez in the Donetsk region) and the time of the crash (about 4 pm local time), which exactly coincide with the time and place of the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 106 . All of them identify the downed aircraft as the Ukrainian AN-26. However, by the evening, when the real picture of the incident clears up, such statements cease.

Shortly before the crash of the plane, the Kremlin media - NTV, Russia 24 and others 107 - informed the Russian audience that the Buk anti-aircraft missile systems had appeared in the Donbas fighters. In an interview with Reuters, one of the separatist leaders, Alexander Khodakovsky, spoke about this in particular. The next day Khodakovsky said that he did not say that. "Reuters" had to make public an audio record 108 , which confirmed the separatist's statement: the militants in the Donbass really got at their disposal the complexes "Buk".

Indirectly the guilt of terrorists for the downed Boeing was recognized by 109 representatives of Russia in the United Nations Vitaly Churkin. "People from the east (Ukraine) said that they shot down a military aircraft. If they believed that they had shot down a military aircraft, it was embarrassing. If it was embarrassment, it was not an act of terrorism, "Churkin said.

How did the tracks

After the death of Boeing, the Russian media began to voice the various versions of the tragedy one by one. In fact, the Kremlin propaganda launched an information security operation aimed at creating a kind of "smokescreen" around the investigation of the causes of the crash of a Malaysian aircraft. The purpose of the special operation, apparently, was the concealment of involvement in the tragedy of the separatists armed with the Russian anti-aircraft missile system.

Four days after the collapse of the "First Channel" of Russian television, voiced a version of the General Staff that Boeing was shot down by Ukrainian attack aircraft SU-25 110 . This hypothesis was refuted by 111 expert on the effectiveness of aviation complexes Vadim Lukashevich: "SU-25 is an attack aircraft, the ideology of this machine is ground work, direct support of troops on the battlefield. Shoot down the plane at an altitude of 11 thousand with SU-25 - it's just not serious ... in my opinion, this is untenable. Moreover, I would like to look at those eyewitnesses who see from the ground an aircraft measuring 15-20 meters, located at an altitude of 11 thousand meters, and unmistakably determine its brand. "

General designer of the Su-25 Vladimir Babak called version that Malaysian Boeing 777 was shot down by the Su-25, "an attempt to hide the ends in water" 112 . According to the creator of the Su-25, the attack aircraft could attack Boeing at an altitude of 3-4 thousand meters, but the Su-25 is not able to shoot down an aircraft flying at an altitude of 10,500 m.

Another resonant "version" was voiced by the odious Kremlin propagandist Mikhail Leontiev. In the program "However," on Channel One on November 14, he stated 113 that he had at his disposal a "sensational snapshot" allegedly made by a foreign spy satellite in the last seconds of the flight of the Malaysian Boeing 777 over Ukraine. This photo, according to Leontiev, confirmed that Boeing was shot down by the MiG-29 fighter that pursued him.

Many Russian mass media replicated photos. But this picture was a fake. The experts revealed several signs of falsification 114 : the general plan is made from Google Maps images from 28.08.2012, and for the "zoom" they took a picture of Yandex-cards in 2012. In the collage was used a photo of a military aircraft, similar to the Su-27, and in the report of the "First Channel" mentioned MiG-29.

Does not coincide with the real and the location of the incident. On the photo of "First Channel" you can see the airport of Donetsk, and Boeing was shot down about 50 kilometers from it. The time indicated on the fake collage of the "First Channel" - UTC - is the world-coordinated time - Greenwich Mean Time. In the picture it is indicated as 1:19:47, in fact, at this time over Ukraine was night. And the Malaysian Boeing 777
was shot down at 16:20 local time.

Attempts by the Kremlin to influence public opinion and confuse the investigation, however, did not prevent the establishment of real causes of the tragedy.

Investigation

Countries that have lost their citizens in this tragedy, like no one else, are interested in establishing the truth and identifying the perpetrators. In addition to the official investigation of the circumstances of the tragedy, the European community and the media conducted their own independent investigations, the collection of evidence and the questioning of eyewitnesses.

According to the organization of journalistic investigations CORRECT! V, announced in January 2015, 115, the passenger Boeing 777 flight MN17 Malaysian Airlines crashed as a result of a shot of the Buk M1 air defense missile system. Based on the testimony of a military expert, journalists concluded that the passenger plane could not have been shot down by a fighter. Researchers, through the analysis of photo and video documents, interviewing witnesses and inspecting the area, tracked the movement of the Buk M1 air defense system from which Boeing was shot down and concluded that the complex was delivered from the Russian city of Kursk. On the positions from which the plane was fired, Buk was delivered by the 53rd SAM fleet to protect Russian tank divisions that fought without identification marks on Ukrainian territory. On the question of investigators who could release a rocket from the "Buka", all experts, including former soldiers of the 53rd air defense brigade in Kursk, that separatists can not use the "Beech". "There is no doubt that the order to shoot on MH17 was given by a Russian officer," the authors of the investigation summarize.

In March 2015, several research materials were published immediately confirming that Boeing was shot down by the Buk SAM from the territory controlled by the separatists. In particular, the journalists of the German TV channels WDR and TVK, as well as the newspapers SüdDeutsche Zeitung visited near the town of Snezhnoe, at the site of the alleged launch of the Buk M1 missile, and interviewed local residents. Witnesses stated 116 that on July 17 they had observed the launch of an anti-aircraft missile from the ground, but "they were afraid to speak about it earlier, because they would not have been believed." The words of one of the eyewitnesses: "There was an explosion from Stepanovka. Then hiss, and then an explosion in the sky ... "

The presumed launch site for the missile was plowed.

Trace of Torez 117


Documentary evidence that the Malaysian Boeing was shot down by a surface-to-air missile launched from the Beech facility located in a territory controlled by the separatists in the Donets Region is a photograph taken by a resident of the town of Torez in about 3-4 minutes after the launch rockets. The photographs show an inversion trail from the rocket at the earliest, starting point of its trajectory.

This track, described as a "pillar of smoke," was seen by many local residents. This is confirmed by the evidence collected by the Reuters correspondent from the residents of the village of Krasny Oktyabr, over whose heads the newly launched missile was fired. Testimonies 118 these directly on the spot: talk to local residents became possible after the village was outside the zone of active hostilities.

A few hours after the Boeing disaster in social networks, a photo appeared, followed by the launch of a rocket by one of the local residents. The photograph was subjected to thorough examination in the community of investigative journalists Bellingcat, the findings of which testify to its undoubted authenticity 119 120 .

In particular, the key thesis, casting doubt on the authenticity of the photo: the color of the sky on the image, was refuted. The place where the aircraft fell, where cloudiness was recorded, is about 15 kilometers from the point where the photographer was placed, and the zone to which the photographer's lens is directed is another 20 kilometers. at such a distance, clouds over two points (launching a missile and dropping an airplane) might not be the same at all. Especially since the satellite meteorological survey of this part of Eastern Ukraine shows: Donetsk and its suburbs were on that day on the edge of a large cloud front, and the weather there could be very changeable.

Russian journalist Sergei Parkhomenko managed to find the author of the above photo and get the original photograph from him. When looking at the jpeg file (and especially the original NEF files in the RAW format), it becomes clear that there are no "divorces" and "blobs" that appeared to such suspicious skeptics. All this "garbage" has turned out at compression of full-size files up to a format necessary for a photo of a download on Twitter. The original photo is much lighter than the one that was published on July 17, 2014. "Darkened" it before posting on Twitter, to make a more visible band of smoke in the middle of the frame.

Original photo with an inverse trace of a missile that shot down the Boeing MN-17. Published by Sergey Parkhomenko
Original photo with an inverse trace of a missile that shot down the Boeing MN-17. Published by Sergey Parkhomenko.
The author of the photo told Sergey Parkhomenko about the circumstances of the photo: "During the day, being in my own apartment in a house on the outskirts of Torez, I heard a roar much stronger than the already familiar sounds of working artillery, mortar rents or volleys of Grad. He ran to the window and saw that the wind was slowly smearing the smoky trace over the horizon. The camera lay on the windowsill. He grabbed it and rushed down the stairs to the roof to remove it. I clicked for the first time. I saw that there were electric wires running straight across the frame. Twisted the zoom to the maximum and took it a second time. Then he turned and saw from the other side, in the north (that is, just in the direction of Grabov) a column of thick black-blue smoke. I decided that the missile had got into some gas station or a tank with fuel oil. Use on the other side of the roof to remove from there, where wires and antennas do not interfere. For three minutes he climbed - then took the third picture. The fact that the third image of the smoke from a just fallen plane, did not guess: I saw no aircraft. Therefore, I did not take off any further: if I knew that I had got into the picture for the event, I would, of course, shoot more. But I did not know about what exactly happened until a couple of hours later. Then he sent the shots to a friend, and he posted it on Twitter. "

In the system information contained in NEF-files transferred by the author, all necessary information about the camera used, its settings and exposure was really found, as well as the time of shooting of these frames: "Photo 1" - 2014-07-17 16: 25: 41.50 ; "Photo 2" - 2014-07-17 16: 25: 48.30; "Photo 3" - 2014-07-17 16: 30: 06.50. This - respectively, six and ten minutes after the time, which is officially considered the moment of the death of the Boeing MH-17.

Photographs taken by the photographer contain enough details and to reliably tie the survey point to the real terrain. On the first photo, representing a wider angle of view, many such details are easily distinguished.


The next step in the analysis is an attempt to identify these characteristic details in a "view from above," that is, on satellite imagery. We have a lot of such staff at our disposal, and they are made in very good, detailed resolution and are available, in particular, to users of the Google Earth program.

Here is a fragment of satellite imagery, on which all the landmarks noted in the two photographs are perfectly visible.

Point A here marks the original position of the author of the photo, specified by himself. Indeed, satellite imagery can be used to find everything that has got into the lens: a farm, individual trees, two holiday villages, low and high power transmission lines, a well-recognized heap (all landmarks are indicated here with the same letters as in the original photos). This proves that the author of the photo accurately indicated his location.

Thus, it becomes possible to draw an imaginary "axis of view", through which the photographer could see black smoke rising above the supposed point of launch and gradually being blown to the right by the wind. In the photographs, we see it approximately in the direction of the middle support of the high-voltage power line - the one that is indicated here by the letter M. This line (XY) can be drawn on a satellite map: from the point of shooting through a high electric mast. For comparison, it is noted in photographs with marked landmarks. A logical conclusion: on this axis or just next to it is the point from which the missile that hit Boeing was launched.

With a high degree of probability, the installation of "Buka", committed a fatal shot, was located on this site.


This is an elongated field near the road. At the left edge - well-marked traces of maneuvers of some heavy equipment and next to - a large piece of charred, black earth, partially already plowed. This position is convenient for placing the missile system: right from the road there is a congress through a narrow but dense forest belt, which hides the field from prying eyes. And one more thing: this road leads to the village of snow, which was repeatedly photographed and filmed on video in July 2014 121 plant "Buk".

On March 30, 2015, the International Investigative Group, consisting of experts from Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine, conducting a criminal investigation on the flight of MN17, shot down on July 17, 2014, made a statement 122 that a version of the Boeing missile complex " Buk ", which came from Russia and was under the control of the separatists.

[supporttheunderdog]

and there is more
http://www.russialies.com/russias-top-10-lies-about-downed-malaysia-airliner/

So many contradictions - all in the Russian versions of events - also clear use of faked images - a trick they were caught out in Syria...that in my mind suggests he Russians are seeking to hide the Truth....

A Salient point?

What planes do the Rebels have?

[Get Real!]

who shot down MH17?

Whoever stood to gain the most shot it down so there’s no need to read any articles on this because it’s basic common sense.

Now be a good boy and tell us who stood to gain the most from this.

[supporttheunderdog]

Your premise that anyone sttod to gain only holds true if the intended taget was MH17' but MH17 was shot down by mistake, as the Russians/Rebels thought they were shooting at an An26....and the cover up had to start when the realised they had fucked-up, and where there is evidence of using faked images to support various untenable theories.

[Get Real!]

Your premise that anyone sttod to gain only holds true if the intended taget was MH17' but MH17 was shot down by mistake, as the Russians/Rebels thought they were shooting at an An26....and the cover up had to start when the realised they had fucked-up, and where there is evidence of using faked images to support various untenable theories.

Stud, modern radar systems that trigger and guide S2A missiles are intelligent enough to differentiate between civilian and military planes so I’m not buying any stories that they didn’t know what was flying over.

[supporttheunderdog]

The fact that the Rebels claimed to have brought down an An 26 http://tass.com/world/741164 and https://ria.ru/world/20140717/1016409306.htmland then tried to change the story shows the Truth.

The fact the Rebels claimed after the event not have a Bukh when a few days before they proudly announced to Rueters they had one. https://www.svoboda.org/a/25468582.html

The Separatists had a new toy and they wanted to use it.

[Get Real!]

The fact that the Rebels claimed to have brought down an An 26 http://tass.com/world/741164 and https://ria.ru/world/20140717/1016409306.htmland then tried to change the story shows the Truth.

The fact the Rebels claimed after the event not have a Bukh when a few days before they proudly announced to Rueters they had one. https://www.svoboda.org/a/25468582.html

The Separatists had a new toy and they wanted to use it.

According to the article an A-26 is a military transport plane so I don’t see a need to change any stories and neither have I seen a change of story, and not to mention that I see no relevance to MH17.

You don’t even have any circumstantial evidence!

[Robin Hood]

Your premise that anyone sttod to gain only holds true if the intended taget was MH17' but MH17 was shot down by mistake, as the Russians/Rebels thought they were shooting at an An26....and the cover up had to start when the realised they had fucked-up, and where there is evidence of using faked images to support various untenable theories.

That scenario was cobbled together from recordings made by the Ukraine Secret Service. Later shown to have been several recordings of previous radio chatter from the separatist. So unlikely ..... the separatists had no way to determine what aircraft it was ..... they had neither aircraft or RADAR (primary or secondary) they would have to wait until it hit the ground.

[Robin Hood]

STUD:

I thought you did not want to engage in further discussion on the subject?

Short answer ..... we don't know only those that did it!

MEANS, MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY ........ the three platforms you need to give any case a foundation. The case against the separatists falls flat on all three!

MEANS? The separatists had no BUK missiles and even if they had some they had acquired, they did not have all the bits or the expertise to use them!

The Ukraines did have many BUK missiles, but what is more significant is that to launch a BUK you need the Command Module, which is a separate vehicle. Without the RADAR targeting function of the command module the guidance system could not be configured. So even if .... as your suggestion ..... the Russians transported the BUK missiles from the Russian border to the launch point, how did the separatists (assuming they ever had the expertise) manage to launch a missile with what appears to be almost pin-point accuracy? No pictures of the command module but dozens of the launch vehicle, seems a bit strange, surely they would have travelled together? One was no good without the other!

Even the Dutch report defines the type of BUK missile, and confirmed as such by the Russians, as a specific model from debris found at the site. Another small problem ...... this model was taken out service by the Russians in 1999, but the Ukraines still have many in their inventory.

In answer to your question ...... THE SEPARATIST HAVE NO AIRCRAFT ...... which raises the question – why do the Ukraines need ground-to-air missiles, when their opponents have no aircraft?

A BBC News slot on the following day interviewed several people who claimed they saw the fighter jet. I found that difficult to believe as the article you posted points out. A German expert, actually an airline pilot (retired), said that from photos of part of the aircraft skin, from the Captains side of the flight deck, still where it fell, showed what looked very much like 30mm (?) cannon shell impacts. Having seen the same damage on a chemical plant that had been repeatedly strafed I have to agree they looked remarkably similar. But, I think an attack from a military combat aircraft an unlikely scenario.

MOTIVE? The separatists had no motive!

They, unlike the Ukraines, had no idea that the aircraft was there and even if they were looking at a vapour trail how would they know anything about the target? But the Ukraines did because MH17 was under their secondary RADAR and Ukraine ATC control, even if nothing else was working. So what happened to these records? What happened to the ATC people who were in contact until MH17 fell from the sky? The Ukraine security services took over the building within minutes and put it on lock-down.

These ATC guys have all disappeared along with the records .......... but some days later the Russians handed all their records over! The US had it all on record ..... they said so within a few hours of the event ...... Kerrys word was taken as irrefutable proof by some. They claimed not only RADAR but satellite images defining the launch point. Where is that evidence?

As GR points out, such an action would be of zero benefit to the separatists or the Russians. BUT ..... if the Ukrains thought they were targeting Putins aircraft coming back to Russia from Mexico ..... now THAT would be a motive and has been suggested as a possibility but ignored in the Western media.

OPPORTUNITY? If the separatists had no means and no credible motive .......... then making use of this opportunity would be extremely problematic.

Instead of pasting some article or articles, try working it out as if YOU were planning the event?

The Russians would have needed weeks to find this obsolete missile and the command module to operate it ..... a bit of a tall order that would need weeks if not months of planning. So let’s assume the separatist stole a BUK launcher from a Ukraine depot .... which I believe they did at one time. OK they have the missile but no-expertise and no launch module! The Russian later version command modules would be no good on an obsolete missile ..... so they would need to transport both vehicles to Ukraine but the second vehicle is never referenced by Bellingcat or anyone else. Where are all the photos of the command module?

A far more feasible explanation and only my perception, would be: some Ukraine hot head or even the Ukraine military, were trying to bring down Putin’s aircraft but got it all wrong. I think HAD the separatist carried it out ......... Russia would have tossed them to the wolves. To me the Ukraines had means/motive/opportunity but it could have been a rather embarrassing accident that the Ukraines would obviously not wish to admit to.

Nobody knows what happened and I doubt we ever will know for sure .... unless there is a full, in depth enquiry by completely independent experts, ALL evidence thoroughly examined for authenticity and the case heard by an independent International Court and that will be extremely difficult to attain. Just as the Russians have asked for from day one.


One last point. When the first inspectors arrived on site a couple of days after the crash, the site was shelled by the Ukraine forces, although they knew the inspectors were there. When the shelling eventually stopped and the inspectors were able to do a preliminary investigation and left a few days later, they had nothing but praise for the assistance they had received from the separatists and the professional and respectful way they treated the remains of the victims. Contrary to the reports of body looting that were spread by Ukraine and appeared on MSM, the inspectors found exactly the opposite. Many valuables were recovered by the separatist, including items such as wedding rings and other jewellery.

[supporttheunderdog]

Your premise that anyone sttod to gain only holds true if the intended taget was MH17' but MH17 was shot down by mistake, as the Russians/Rebels thought they were shooting at an An26....and the cover up had to start when the realised they had fucked-up, and where there is evidence of using faked images to support various untenable theories.

That scenario was cobbled together from recordings made by the Ukraine Secret Service. Later shown to have been several recordings of previous radio chatter from the separatist. So unlikely ..... the separatists had no way to determine what aircraft it was ..... they had neither aircraft or RADAR (primary or secondary) they would have to wait until it hit the ground.

I stand by my promise - I am out of here since all you are doing is reproducing Russian Garbage -

-- which ignores that Russian media was reporting an An26 had been shot down - and who toled them that - and it ignores all the fake theories backed by fake evidence Russia produced....