Log in

View Full Version : Breaking: MH17 May Have Been Downed By Ukrainian Jet, According to BBC Documentary



mick silver
26th April 2016, 04:32 PM
Breaking: MH17 May Have Been Downed By Ukrainian Jet, According to BBC Documentary

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor (http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/gordonduff/) on April 25, 2016
VT was right again: Read today's announcement and learn the facts by reading the hidden history of this tragedy below

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/MH-17-banner-crop-640x246.jpg
Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 that crashed in eastern Ukraine in 2014 could have been downed by a Ukrainian fighter jet, a BBC documentary will claim. We begin:


‘You can’t fire Buk missile in broad daylight with no witnesses’
___________

RT Report (2015) Speculation about the combat capabilities of the SU-25 jet stem from the Russian definition of the aircraft’s service ceiling – which is not the same as its absolute ceiling, as defined by the US military, Veterans Today senior editor Gordon Duff told RT.
“The claimed service ceiling is based on the oxygen supply in the aircraft. Now, there is a claim that this plane [SU-25] will only work to 22,000 feet. At the end of World War II, a German ME-262 would fly at 40,000 feet, a P-51 Mustang propeller plane flew at 44,000 feet. The SU-25 was developed as an analogue of the A-10 Thunderbolt, an American attack plane. The planes have almost identical performance, except that the SU-25 is faster and more powerful. The A-10 Thunderbolt has a service ceiling of 45,000 feet. The US estimates the absolute ceiling, which is a different term,” Duff explained.
“Duff said one cannot be entirely sure the detected fighter jet was an SU-25 at all, as modern radar spoofing counter-measures – such as those designed by BAE Systems and employed by NATO – are able to mask any other aircraft, be it an SU-27 or F-15, as another plane.”

It is highly unlikely that the launch of such a missile would have gone unnoticed in the area, Duff stressed, adding that the trail left by the rocket in the air would have been witnessed and filmed by “thousands.”
“One of the things we settled on early on is that in the middle of the day, if this were a Buk missile, the contrail would have been seen for 50 miles [80km]. The contrail itself would have been photographed by thousands of people; it would have been on Instagram, on Twitter, it would have been all over YouTube – and no one saw it. You can’t fire a missile on a flat area in the middle of the day leaving a smoke trail into the air and having everyone not see it,” Duff said.
“There is no reliable information supporting that it was a Buk missile fired by anyone,” he added.

http://cdn1.img.sputniknews.com/images/102932/64/1029326457.jpg

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The plane carrying 298 people crashed while en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, killing everyone on board. A Dutch-led inquiry concluded last year it had been blown out of the sky by a surface-to-air missile.

But the UK broadcaster’s program “Conspiracy Files: Who Shot Down MH17?” will explore the possibility that the Boeing-777 was shot down by a fighter jet.
“There are eyewitness accounts of other aircrafts seen flying next to MH17 close to impact,” BBC says on a webpage for the documentary.

The program, which will air May 3, took evidence from eye witnesses, experts and secret intelligence sources as well as studied satellite photographs, wire taps, and videos in an attempt to sort fact from fiction in many conspiracy theories involving Ukraine, Russia and CIA.
from the BBC official website:

The Conspiracy Files: Who Shot Down MH17?
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/corporate2/images/width/live/p0/3q/8x/p03q8x13.jpg/624

Confirmed for BBC Two on 3 May at 9pm to 10pm
Ep 1/1, Tuesday 3 May
9.00pm-10.00pm BBC TWO

On 17 July 2014, Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, travelling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, crashed, killing 298 passengers in the worst air disaster for two decades.

Alarmingly, the devastating crash occurred just four months after the mysterious disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370. Is this just a coincidence? The cause of the crash has been focus of a host of conspiracy theories, many of which involve Russia, Ukraine and the CIA.
The official investigation report into MH17 flight argues that only a powerful ground-to-air missile could be responsible. Yet, there are eyewitness accounts of other aircrafts seen flying next to MH17 close to impact. To further fuel the conspiracies, Russia and Ukraine blame each other but both countries are unable to provide all the critical radar data from that day.
Family members do not trust the official explanations and there is a long way to go to bring about justice for the victims. This programme tracks down eye witnesses, and speaks with secret intelligence sources to try to sort fact from fiction. Don’t miss this compelling Conspiracy Files unfold to see whether the mystery can be unravelled.
From Veterans Today, October 13, 2015
Today, Dutch investigators came up with their long predetermined solution, that a BUK missile shot down MH17 no matter how impossible that might be. Any other answer would have brought down NATO.

The Kiev backed SU25 pilots following MH17 “from below” have never admitted to seeing anything though the plane, according to them, nearly fell on them.

Then again, the American AEGIS radar imagery, units, one in Constanta and two more on ships in the Black Sea, though they recorded everything, was withheld along with American satellite imagery. Only one answer for this, because they recorded planes shooting down MH17 as is consistent with the German report.

Other than the simple issue of impossibility, there is rock solid evidence that MH17 was trailed by two SU25 aircraft that Kiev claimed could not be responsible because they were not capable of flight at altitude. In the below article, based on live interviews on Russia Today, pilots debunked this, pilots who have flown the SU25 to nearly 50,000 feet.

This is the crux of the story. The other “crux” of the story is not only the predetermined insanity the Dutch have come up with, long expected, but the behavior of the media, including the very weak Russian media, Russia Today, Sputnik News among others, who quickly lose focus.

This is a story all about control of the media. From Russia Today, March 12, 2015:
“Duff said one cannot be entirely sure the detected fighter jet was an SU-25 at all, as modern radar spoofing counter-measures – such as those designed by BAE Systems and employed by NATO – are able to mask any other aircraft, be it an SU-27 or F-15, as another plane.”

As the investigation into the MH17 tragedy continues in eastern Ukraine, the SU-25’s chief designer has told German media that the fighter jet could not possibly have taken down the passenger plane. RT spoke to former pilots about the jet’s capabilities.
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, crashed down over rebel-held eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. Everyone on board – 283 passengers and 15 crew members – perished in the tragedy.
A report on the official investigation published in September 2014 said the crash was a result of structural damage caused by a large number of high-energy objects that struck the Boeing from the outside. However, it did not conclude what the objects were, where they came from, or who was responsible.
http://img.rt.com/files/news/36/23/f0/00/plane-crash.n.jpg (http://rt.com/news/221759-lavrov-ukraine-plane-crash/)
Kiev and some Western states have placed blame on eastern Ukraine militias and Russia. The Russian Defense Ministry shared radar data pointing to other possibilities in July – including an attack by a Ukrainian Sukhoi-25 fighter jet, which was said to have been tracking the passenger plane.
While an official international investigation into the crash has been dragging on for nine months, the debate into the cause of the tragedy has been once again reignited by recent comments from the chief designer of the SU-25.
Kiev-born Soviet and Russian aircraft designer Vladimir Babak said on Monday that the SU-25 jet – which was spotted tracking the MH17 Boeing at the moment it crashed down – did not have the capability to shoot down a passenger plane. He said the fighter jet could have successfully attacked the Boeing at an altitude of 3,000-4,000 meters, but not at the plane’s altitude of 10,500 meters. He added that air-to-air missiles would have only damaged the Boeing – not completely destroyed it while still in the air.
http://rt.com/files/news/3a/90/90/00/mh17.jpg
At the crash site of of the Malaysian Boeing 777 near the village of Grabovo not far from Shakhtersk in the Donetsk region. (RIA Novosti)
“I believe all allegations that a SU-25 could be involved into this tragedy are a cover-up attempt,” Babak said in an interview to German channels NDR and WDR. “I cannot explain it otherwise. We cannot understand how an SU-25 could take down the Boeing.”


‘SU-25 capable of high altitude flights, can carry powerful missiles’
However, several former top officials and SU-25 pilots disagree with Babak.
Based on the analysis of the plane debris and the nature of the damage, there is a high probability the plane was stuck by an air-to-air missile and an aircraft gun, Lieutenant General Aleksandr Maslov, former deputy chief of the Russian Air Defense and Land Forces, told RT.
“The published photos [from the MH17 crash site] enable to assume that the Boeing was downed by a military jet. Besides that, the existing damage indicates that the airplane was shot with air-to-air missiles together with an aircraft gun with a 30mm caliber,” Maslov said.

Claims that the passenger plane was downed by a surface-to-air Buk missile “cannot be supported,” as the nature of the damage from the missiles is different, he added.
Commenting on the jet’s ability to maneuver at higher altitudes, the former commander of an aviation division, Major General Sergey Borysyuk, noted that the jet would have had the capability to “maneuver comfortably,” even at such a high altitude.
“I personally flew, and not once, at an altitude of 12,000 meters…,” he said. “My colleagues have risen to an altitude of 14,000 meters. The altitude of 10,500 was officially authorized during operations in Afghanistan. Therefore the plane, even at an altitude of 12,000 meters, has the capability to maneuver comfortably, its aerodynamic characteristics enable it to do so.”

Borysyuk explained that the R-60 missiles on the SU-25 have an infrared homing and a rod warhead. Citing the nature of the plane’s debris and the “precisely sliced fuselage,” he said that R-60 missiles were possibly used.
“The firing range of the missile is 7.5km. And in those conditions, the probability of hitting the target increases,” he added.
http://img.rt.com/files/news/2a/9a/00/00/malaysia-crash-russia-questions-.n.jpg (http://rt.com/news/174496-malaysia-crash-russia-questions/)
The former chief commander of Russia’s Air Force, Vladimir Mikhailov, also said he flew the SU-25, reaching an altitude of 12,000 meters and even 14,000 meters. He also stated that the plane “comfortably maneuvers” at such heights.
“If the plane was downed by Buk [missile defense system], it would have almost immediately fallen to pieces in the air and we could not have witnessed such large debris on the ground,” he said.
Along with Russia’s Ministry of Defense, he also questioned why the MH17 flight stayed within the flying corridor until it reached Donetsk, but then deviated from the route to the north.
In July 2014, Russia’s Ministry of Defense presented military monitoring data which showed Kiev military jets tracking MH17 shortly before the crash and posed a set of questions to Ukraine over the circumstances of the tragedy, which have still not been answered.
‘You can’t fire Buk missile in broad daylight with no witnesses’

Speculation about the combat capabilities of the SU-25 jet stem from the Russian definition of the aircraft’s service ceiling – which is not the same as its absolute ceiling, as defined by the US military, Veterans Today senior editor Gordon Duff told RT.
“The claimed service ceiling is based on the oxygen supply in the aircraft. Now, there is a claim that this plane [SU-25] will only work to 22,000 feet. At the end of World War II, a German ME-262 would fly at 40,000 feet, a P-51 Mustang propeller plane flew at 44,000 feet. The SU-25 was developed as an analogue of the A-10 Thunderbolt, an American attack plane. The planes have almost identical performance, except that the SU-25 is faster and more powerful. The A-10 Thunderbolt has a service ceiling of 45,000 feet. The US estimates the absolute ceiling, which is a different term,” Duff explained.

The known estimate for the absolute ceiling of the SU-25 is 52,000 feet (15.8km), he added.

Moreover, Duff said one cannot be entirely sure the detected fighter jet was an SU-25 at all, as modern radar spoofing counter-measures – such as those designed by BAE Systems and employed by NATO – are able to mask any other aircraft, be it an SU-27 or F-15, as another plane.
Duff said he also discussed the possibility of the MH17 flight having been shot by a ground-to-air missile with experts from the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), the FBI, the Air Line Pilots Association, as well as air traffic and air operational officers – and they all agreed that no proof of anti-aircraft missile use has been provided to the public.
It is highly unlikely that the launch of such a missile would have gone unnoticed in the area, Duff stressed, adding that the trail left by the rocket in the air would have been witnessed and filmed by “thousands.”
“One of the things we settled on early on is that in the middle of the day, if this were a Buk missile, the contrail would have been seen for 50 miles [80km]. The contrail itself would have been photographed by thousands of people; it would have been on Instagram, on Twitter, it would have been all over YouTube – and no one saw it. You can’t fire a missile on a flat area in the middle of the day leaving a smoke trail into the air and having everyone not see it,” Duff said.
“There is no reliable information supporting that it was a Buk missile fired by anyone,” he added.

Veterans Today’s July 17 Article:
“On 9/11, the infamous “Harley guy,” a Fox News employee wearing a Harley Davidson t shirt was interviewed moments after the triple towers vaporized. He described in detail exactly what the findings, absurd as they seem today, would be to the public 9/11 report released many years later. In fact, he was the real author of that farcical document.
On MH 17 we get a new “Harley guy” every couple of weeks, with a veritable army of them hitting the streets today, straining our patience, all peddling the same equally farcical “BUK missile” talking points.”

Editor’s note: You have just seen 4 minutes of a 17 minute video. News Corp (Murdoch) claims the complete video asserts that MH 17 was shot down by a plane. Why this video, shot by crash site investigators making some effort to secure the scene, has been held for a year is inexcusable. Stories about how the scene was protected and what went on there are now proven utterly false. VT has the story right in August 2014. Read the initial VT story here (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/06/315291/) followed by reports from Sputnik News and Russia Today. VT staffers are standing by waiting for the website to crash.
VT Exclusive: As the day progresses, a “toad and troll” media war has erupted along with massive denial of service attacks on Veterans Today. The BUK missile story that from the first ignored the fact that Kiev routed MH17 purposefully over a “no fly combat zone” is being peddled by not only the paid stooges of Israeli agent Jane Harmon’s Daily Beast but armies of misfits, pedophiles, chat room trolls and paid off military retirees.
We take this, the after the fact disinformation campaign, so stupidly orchestrated, and the wealth of evidence, only some of which is outlined below, that Israel had a clear hand in the downing of MH17 and quite probably MH 370 as well. They got “two birds with one stone” with MH 17, a blow against two enemies, Russia and Malaysia.
Everything made public about MH 17 has been a lie. New evidence supports two planes being shot down, MH 17 and the fighter that shot it down…shot down by what now appears to be a Russian fighter in Ukrainian air space, scrambled to defend MH 17. Two pilots of the SU25 bailed out before crash according to witness statements withheld for a year.
There is precedent for Russians defending Eastern Ukraine from air attacks. Russian pilots defended North Vietnam as well during the Vietnam War and American pilots flew missions over Israel, Syria and Egypt in the 1973 War and may well be flying unofficial missions on behalf of al Nusra or ISIS groups fighting inside Syria and Iraq as well.

Russia and its separatist allies withheld vital facts on MH17 because a Russian plane downed the Kiev (Israeli armed according to RT) Sukhoi 25 that shot down the airliner. The US and others with access to the crash scenes and satellite photos covered up the second crash site. Was it because the arms were Israeli? Was this done to block the public from learning how broad involvement was and how many nations were to blame for the MH 17 shoot down?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/fff_599.jpg (http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/fff_599.jpg)

Israeli Python missile cited in report

Why was this video withheld? Where was it all this time? Why is Murdoch, of all people, ordering it released now? How long has Murdoch known about it? What other evidence is being withheld? With the US having both AWAC and AEGIS cover for this region, why has the United States failed to release its evidence unless, as is so often the case, Americans working for Israel had reason to withhold this vital evidence.

Sputnik News Report including transcript of censored video
In Utter Disbelief
Meanwhile, the Australian news outlet News.com.au has published what it claims to be the transcript of the ”17-minute video shot by the rebels themselves on a camcorder as they captured what they initially believed to be a Ukrainian air force fighter jet they had just shot down”.
The website however has posted only a 4-minute video extract but published what it claims to be the transcript of the full version.
If true, the conversations made on camera prove that the alleged self-defense fighters arrived at the site of the Boeing crash searching for the Ukrainian Sukhoi fighter.
“They say the Sukhoi (Fighter) brought down the civilian plane and ours (Jim Dean: they could only be talking about a Russian plane) brought down the fighter,” the transcript quotes some commander as saying.”
“Background: The fighter jet brought down this one, and our people brought down the fighter.”
“Background: They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down the plane.”

The transcript also said that while the fighters were examining the site of the crash of the civilian plane, there was another crash site, presumably that of the fighter.
“The Sukhoi brought down the plane and we brought down the Sukhoi.
Is it far from here? Where did it fall?
Looks like … Where’s the smoke coming from?
Somewhere else is burning, the 49 village.
I mean … the two pilots landed with parachutes.”

The website however prefers not to notice the evidence of the existence of a second plane, which shot down the Boeing. It mostly concentrates on the people examining the remains of the Boeing and stubbornly insists that it was shot down with the surface-to-air missile.
Russia Today Report(RT) A report on Malaysian Airlines MH17 air disaster in Ukraine last year by a group of old-hand aviation security experts maintains that the Boeing might have been downed by an Israeli Python air-to-air missile.

The report was leaked via the private LiveJournal account of Albert Naryshkin (aka albert_lex) late on Tuesday and has already been widely discussed by social media communities in Russia.

The authors of the investigative report have calculated the possible detonation initiation point of the missile that hit the passenger aircraft and approximate number and weight of strike elements, which in turn designated the type and presumed manufacturer of the weapon.
Malaysian Airline Boeing 777-200 performing flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014, crashed on the territory of Ukraine near the village of Grabovo, killing all 283 passengers and 15 crewmembers aboard.
The aircraft disintegrated in the air and the debris of MH17 were scattered across an area of about 50 sq. km.
The external view of MH17 hull pieces indicates that “fragments of the pilots’ cockpit have suffered specific damages in the form of localized puncture holes and surface dents typical for hypervelocity impacts with compact and hard objects,” the report says, stressing that similar damage could be found on the inner side of the cockpit.
The report specifically points out that chips of the body coat around the holes in the fragment are typical of wave effects created by hypervelocity impacts.
Some damage, though larger and less clustered, could be found near the air-scoop of the left-wing engine of the aircraft.
The nature of the damage allows for the identification of the source as a high-explosive fragmentation warhead from a modern anti-aircraft weapon, claims the report.
Apart from the large puncture holes, the debris of the nose and the cockpit of the aircraft bear a large number of scattered micro-craters resulting from the impact of high-velocity dust and tiny debris, such as an unburnt blasting agent and elements of the ordnance that accompany a shock wave from a blast that occurred very close to the target. In the case of MH17, the pilots’ cockpit.
The report says that as a rule, the initial speed of the striking elements of modern anti-aircraft weapons vary between 1,500 and 2,500 meters per second.
Altogether, the experts considered photos of five fragments of the cockpit and left port of the flight MH17, on which they counted some 230 “battle-damage” holes and punctures.
All this considered, the experts claim that the exact zone of the blast impact could be established with a fair degree of accuracy..

mick silver
26th April 2016, 04:35 PM
Malaysian Airline Boeing 777-200 performing flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014, crashed on the territory of Ukraine near the village of Grabovo, killing all 283 passengers and 15 crewmembers aboard.
The aircraft disintegrated in the air and the debris of MH17 were scattered across an area of about 50 sq. km.
The external view of MH17 hull pieces indicates that “fragments of the pilots’ cockpit have suffered specific damages in the form of localized puncture holes and surface dents typical for hypervelocity impacts with compact and hard objects,” the report says, stressing that similar damage could be found on the inner side of the cockpit.
The report specifically points out that chips of the body coat around the holes in the fragment are typical of wave effects created by hypervelocity impacts.
Some damage, though larger and less clustered, could be found near the air-scoop of the left-wing engine of the aircraft.
The nature of the damage allows for the identification of the source as a high-explosive fragmentation warhead from a modern anti-aircraft weapon, claims the report.
Apart from the large puncture holes, the debris of the nose and the cockpit of the aircraft bear a large number of scattered micro-craters resulting from the impact of high-velocity dust and tiny debris, such as an unburnt blasting agent and elements of the ordnance that accompany a shock wave from a blast that occurred very close to the target. In the case of MH17, the pilots’ cockpit.
The report says that as a rule, the initial speed of the striking elements of modern anti-aircraft weapons vary between 1,500 and 2,500 meters per second.
Altogether, the experts considered photos of five fragments of the cockpit and left port of the flight MH17, on which they counted some 230 “battle-damage” holes and punctures.
All this considered, the experts claim that the exact zone of the blast impact could be established with a fair degree of accuracy.
The warhead of the missile exploded very close to the cockpit, to its left side at a distance of 0.8-1.6 meters from the cockpit windows, exactly opposite the sliding window of the aircraft commander.
The dimensions and character of the puncture holes left by the strike elements allegedly allow their size and form factor to be established, which in its turn makes it possible to identify the type of weapon used in a particular case.
The cross dimension of absolute majority, 86 percent, of the 186 hull holes studied by experts measure between 6 and 13mm, with explicit maximum of them having cross dimension of 8mm.
This fact brought the expert group to a conclusion about the size of the strike elements of the warhead. If the warhead had been armed with two types of strike elements, the majority of the holes would have been of two types, the reports notes.
The strike element has been established of being a rectangular block measured 8mm x 8mm x 6mm, with margin of error of 0.5 mm, a high probability it was made of steel and an estimated weight of 3 grams each. The total number of such elements should have varied between 2,000 and 4,000.
The bulk of the strike elements are estimated between 4.88 – 14.8 kilograms.
The report confutes the argument of Russia’s Almaz-Antey military concern that early claimed that “intricate shape”double-t steel fragments, similar to those used in warheads of surface-to-air Buk missile systems, have been extracted from the debris of MH17 flight.
Howwever, the double-t strike elements of a Buk missile weigh 8.1 grams, more than twice as much as a single damage fragment among those that pierced MH17’s hull. Thus, according to the report, the hypothesis about a Buk missile system being involved in the crash is “most probably incorrect.”
With 95 percent probability, the group of experts estimates the weight of the missile’s warhead (explosives plus strike elements) that shot down MH17 of being between 10 and 40kg.
This led the experts to determine the exact type of the weapon used against Malaysian Airlines flight MH17.
The report says that that Soviet- and Russian-made surface-to-air missile systems use more powerful warheads than the established maximum 40kg, as is the case with MH17.
Moreover, Soviet- and Russian-made air-to-air missiles which have a similar 10-40kg warhead capability use other types of strike elements within one warhead – obviously not the case with MH17.
A whole range of existing foreign air-to-air missiles have corresponding warhead characteristics, yet lack of physical elements of the missile used against MH17 prevented experts from establishing the exact type of the weapon used.
Still, the circumstances and conditions of the assault allowed experts to make certain assumptions.
The missile that attacked MH17 had a passive radar homing head, which explains why the missile exploded so close to the cockpit. Under the radar-transparent nosecone of a Boeing 777-200 there is a surveillance radar station operable during the flight, so most likely the missile homed on to this radar as the target.
Apart from a radar homing head, the missile could also be equipped with an advanced, matrix type, imaging IR seeker, which enables the missile to determine the size and the type of the target and choose for attack its most vital element. For a huge Boeing aircraft, that’s the cockpit.
A simulation of the missile attack has proved that missiles with that type of guidance choose to attack a big passenger plane from the front hemisphere.
There are four air-to-air missiles that fit the description established by the experts, namely: French Magis-2, Israeli Shafrir, American AIM-9 and Israeli Python – all short-range.
The first three have been struck off the list for various reasons, including type of warhead or guidance system specifications. The Python deserved a closer look.
The Python is equipped with a matrix-imaging IR seeker. It enables a relatively moderate power warhead to effectively engage big aircrafts. The warhead is armed with a set of ready strike elements. Even more importantly, some open military sources suggest that in early 2000s a number of Sukhoi Su-25 assault fighter jets we refurbished to use fourth and fifth generation Python missiles, which look very similar to the Su-25’s standard air-to-air R-60 missile.
The unofficial report leaked in LiveJournal has become yet another one among many other unofficial versions presented over the year that has passed since the catastrophe occurred on July 17, 2014.
The Dutch Safety Board that has been heading an international investigation into the cause of the crash is due to release its official report in October.
News Corp Australia has obtained a previously unknown video allegedly taken minutes after Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was downed in Ukraine exactly one year ago. The voices cited by the transcript of the full footage claim a warplane shot down the Boeing.
The four-minute clip posted by News Corp Australia is an extract from what is claimed to be a longer 17-minute video, which allegedly depicts the immediate aftermath of the MH17 Boeing crash. The clip shows rebel fighters who arrived at the scene, first looking to get things under control. Their commander is heard ordering them to clear the area of civilians and onlookers and search for the black boxes.


In the clip a man’s voice is heard, which is thought to be that of a rebel commander, who receives a number of phone calls apparently from other rebel fighters at different sites where the debris fell. The man is heard saying “What? There’s another plane?” and orders the men to “establish a perimeter and keep civilians away”.
READ MORE: Israeli-made air-to-air missile may have downed MH17 – report (http://www.rt.com/news/310039-mh17-israeli-missile-version/)
The four-minute clip posted by the News.com.au is followed by a transcript (http://www.news.com.au/national/full-transcript-russian-backed-rebels-ransack-the-wreckage-of-mh17-in-shocking-17-minute-video/story-e6frfkp9-1227444629703)from a longer 17-minute video, which has not been released. News Corp Australia told RT that they “stand by the transcript, it was taken from the full video, which investigators now have.”
The text cites a rebel commander as saying that “the Sukhoi [fighter jet] brought down the plane and we brought down the Sukhoi.”
Later on, the man is quoted as saying that “there’s two planes taken down,” while a voice in the background says, “the fighter jet brought down this one [MH17 Boeing], and our people brought down the fighter. They [the Ukrainians] decided to do it this way, to make it look like we have brought down the plane.”
According to the transcript, there were also between two and “five parachute jumpers” who landed at the nearby Grabove village. These included a pilot “roaming about Rassypnoe” [a nearby village] and a commander ordering his men go and get him immediately.
One of the rebels is also wondering who and why they [the Boeing] was given permission to fly over the warzone.
The four-minute clip shows rebels searching the debris for black boxes and finding one, as well as personal IDs of the passengers, which they then filmed on the camera.
Australia’s Foreign Minister Julie Bishop reacted upon the release of the video by saying that she could not verify its authenticity. “It is sickening to watch and, 12 months on from the downing of MH17, it is deeply concerning that this footage has emerged now,” she told the Nine Network.
Bishop also said “it is certainly consistent with all that we were told, the advice that we received two months ago, that flight MH17 had been shot down by a… missile,” she said.
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, which was heading from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was downed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, killing all 298 people onboard.

monty
23rd March 2017, 01:10 PM
Australian Government Believes Ukraine Used MH17 as 'Human Shield'


Report: Australian Government Believes Ukraine Used MH17 as 'Human Shield' (http://russia-insider.com/en/russia-lie-detector-catches-australian-prime-minister-canadian-foreign-minister-which-countrys-media)

Optimists believe that in time the truth always wins out. Skeptics believe men and women are liars by nature, so machines are necessary to catch them out. Pessimists believe that by the time that happens it will be too late to make a practical difference. Politics, the pessimists add, is about gain, not about truth. So is journalism.

Here are two stories about the difference between Australia and Canada in the way in which lying by ministers of state has been caught out recently on the subject of the civil war in Ukraine. Australia and Canada are former British colonies, whose head of state is still the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. They are also parliamentary democracies, and members of US treaty alliances which encourage them to fight in US wars in exchange for US protection if they are attacked. That’s the political practice, if not quite the truth.

The Australian story is of the way in which the government in Canberra conceals from voters the truth about an incident in Ukraine over which Australia’s prime minister planned to send troops to fight on the Russian border. The incident occurred on July 17, 2014. It was the destruction of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, and the deaths of all 298 people on board; 38 of them Australian. For details of the secret Australian plan to go to war, read this (http://johnhelmer.net/australian-armchair-general-weaponizes-himself-in-war-against-russia-3/), first reported in July 2016.

Last week it was revealed in Canberra that the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister have acknowledged between themselves, and in an exchange of classified communications, that the MH17 incident was not (repeat not) the Russian crime, or the crime of President Vladimir Putin, which it is Australian policy to declare in public – in the United Nations, in the local courts, and most often in the Australian media. For details of the new story, click to read (http://johnhelmer.net/australian-prime-minister-drags-foot-trips-up-ukrainian-court-claim-of-mh17-terrorism/).

In other words, Attorney-General George Brandis (below, left) and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull (lead image, left; below, right) are lying on a matter of life and death to their citizens, and of strategic security for their state.http://johnhelmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/снимок-7.png (http://johnhelmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/снимок-7.png)

The lie is being repeated by the Australian media. They include not only the state and commercial mainstream media, the latter dominated by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. All the alternative media, social media, and universities, think-tanks and non-government organizations which supply them with newsfeed are doing the same. The blackout of the truth is so total in Australia, not a word that the blackout is in force has been reported either.

The only mainstream media report of the Australian government’s reaction to the MH17 incident, when it happened, was published (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/laurie-oakes/mh17-bungle-led-to-security-review/news-story/8c8370908ad1cf77f29b79dc0e1f3e55)on September 19, 2014. This was a story, leaked by insiders, of how none of the intelligence, military and political bureaucrats could agree with each on who should decide what to do. That meant they couldn’t agree on whether, as then-Prime Minister Tony Abbott wanted and initially decided, a division of Australian troops should be sent to fight in Ukraine, alongside Dutch ground troops and NATO and US air support. “There was no bureaucratic system for co-ordinating the response to such an emergency. The PM, his staff and ministers had to make decisions with little or no bureaucratic guidance.”

This leak, two months after the MH17 incident, came a month after the troop intervention plan had been kyboshed at NATO headquarters. The leak was a form of bureaucratic in-fighting after details of the secret war scheme had been discussed and stopped. The reporter, a well-known parliament lobby journalist named Laurie Oakes, hadn’t the faintest idea of the truth he was helping to conceal. Nor did Oakes prove curious in time.

The only report Brandis has made to parliament on the MH17 incident dates from October 2015.Brandis had been attorney-general for just a month. He was asked what the Australian Government assessment was of the MH17 incident following the release of the report by the Dutch Safety Board. (DSB). Brandis’s answer was carefully worded. The DSB had carried out “a meticulous forensic investigation, and Australia has been closely involved in that investigation through the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The final report sets out compelling evidence indicating the type of missile and the launch site of the missile which brought down MH17. Its findings are based on a forensic technical analysis of all of the available evidence. It does not attribute responsibility for the incident.”

Brandis also acknowledged he and the Dutch were still working on the evidence. “The separate criminal investigation—as opposed to the forensic investigation I have just spoken of—is facilitated through the joint investigation team by a joint arrangement signed by Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine… The investigation is being coordinated by the Dutch prosecution service. The focus of the joint investigation team [JIT] is to ensure that the investigation is thorough and robust. On 20 August I met with the Dutch Prosecutor General, Mr [Herman] Bolhaar, when he and officials from the Dutch police and prosecution office came to Canberra to discuss investigations with the government and the Australian Federal Police, and I took the opportunity to assure them of the Australian government's full cooperation in the investigation.”

Brandis added an innuendo. “We are deeply disappointed that Russia used its power as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to veto the draft resolution [on the establishment of an ad hoc international criminal tribunal to prosecute crimes connected with the shooting down of MH17]. Those responsible for crimes connected with the shooting down of MH17 will not, however, be able to hide behind the Russian veto.” Brandis meant this to sound to parliament as if the Russian government was hiding its culpability in the MH17 incident.

The truth, revealed last week in Brandis’s papers, is that Brandis and Prime Minister Turnbull have been hiding what they, not Russian government officials, know about the incident. A source in Canberra close to these papers emerged following the release of this report (http://johnhelmer.net/australian-prime-minister-drags-foot-trips-up-ukrainian-court-claim-of-mh17-terrorism/)last week. The source identified himself as privy to the classified intelligence on MH17 in the days and weeks which followed the incident. The source was also privy to the discussion in the National Security Committee of Cabinet (NSC), the topmost decision-making body in Australia for Ukraine and Russia.
According to the new disclosures, the Australian Government believed in 2014 -- and Brandis and Turnbull believe still -- that in the daylight hours before MH17 was shot down, Ukrainian Government military forces were using the overflight of civilian airlines in eastern Ukraine as shadow and shield for attacks against ground targets in the belief the separatist forces would not return fire for fear of hitting the civilian airliners.http://johnhelmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Снимок3-5.png (http://johnhelmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Снимок3-5.png)

(Army Colonel-General Victor Muzhenko (left) has been Chief of the Ukrainian General Staff since July 3, 2014. Two weeks later he was in command when MH17 was shot down. The Ukrainian Air Force commander that day was Lieutenant-General Serhiy Drozdov (right), a career pilot of fighter-bombers. Drozdov was removed from his post after the incident, then reinstated (https://www.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/serhiy-drozdov-appointed-commander-of-ukrainian-air-force-393837.html)six months later. No explanation for Drozdov’s removal has been published. He was formally appointed (http://ukrcanco.org/serhiy-drozdov-appointed-commander-of-ukrainian-air-force/)Air Force commander in July 2015.)

The source has also revealed it was the Australian Government’s conclusion that the Kiev regime did not close the airspace in the Donbass region to civilian air traffic above the war zone because of the operational advantage Malaysian Airlines transit gave to Ukrainian Air Force operations. The Australian officials recognize (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule97)this calculation to be a violation of the Geneva Conventions on war crimes. The source is sure the intelligence leading to this finding was American, so the implication is that the US Government also shares the Australian finding – in secret.
The Australian officials concluded -- the source has reported -- that what had happened to MH17 was an unintentional accident on the part of those who fired the BUK missile. Without intention, there was no crime on the part of those on the ground, whoever they were -- if they were the Novorussian separatists, or a regular Ukrainian Army missile battery, or a unit of the irregular forces paid by Igor Kolomoisky and others.

On the other hand, the provable crime in the Australian intelligence papers was that of the Ukrainian government officials responsible for using MH17 as a human shield. On July 17, 2014, the chain of Ukrainian command and legal responsibility started with Drozdov and Muzhenko; and above them, Defense Minister Colonel-General Valeriy Heletey (below, left). Heletey was removed from office on October 14, three months after the MH17 incident, and sent to the State Security Service, a bodyguard unit. Above Heletey, there was President Petro Poroshenko (right).
http://johnhelmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Снимок5-2-5.png (http://johnhelmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Снимок5-2-5.png)

The two parts to the Australian government truth – the accidental destruction of MH17, the intentional use of MH17 as a military shield -- can be verified in Australian government papers. For more on human shielding in civil law, counter-targeting in military parlance, read this (http://www.marshallcenter.org/mcpublicweb/mcdocs/files/college/hshlds-schmitt.pdf). Not a word, however, nor a suspicion has appeared in the Australian media so far.

Look carefully at the most recent report of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) in which Brandis and the Dutch Attorney-General and Chief Prosecutor, Herman Bolhaar, command their national representatives; for details of the September 28, 2016, release and press conference, read this (http://johnhelmer.net/flashlight-from-mh-17-investigation-dutch-australian-and-ukrainian-police-announce-end-of-tunnel-russian-generals-announce-tunnel-vision/). Re-reading with hindsight, it can be seen that the Dutch are also concealing the human shield evidence.

At the end of last September this is how the JIT summed up (https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-crash/@96068/jit-flight-mh17-shot/) its findings. “The scenario that flight MH17 was shot down by a military aircraft was explored and discounted on the basis of radar data, witness testimonies and forensic research. The JIT has obtained sufficient radar data, both from Russia and Ukraine, which – when viewed in conjunction – provide a full picture of the airspace over eastern Ukraine. This shows that at the time of the crash, no other airplanes were in the vicinity that could have shot down flight MH17. The Russian Federation mentioned last week that they have found ‘new’ primary radar images. Based on those images the Russian Federation concludes also that there was no second airplane that could have shot down MH17.”

Re-read the phrases: “no other airplanes in the vicinity that could have shot down MH17”; “no second airplane that could have shot down MH17”. This is a finding by the governments of Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Malaysia and the Ukraine. But it is ambiguous, blank, on the crucial point – were there Ukrainian Air Force planes in the air at the time armed with ground-attack weapons? Was an air-defence missile battery unit on the ground likely to suspect a bomb attack from the air during the last crucial minutes of MH17’s transit?

The more detail the JIT findings (https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vliegramp/presentaties/presentation-joint/) spell out, the more obviously the JIT report avoids answering these questions. Instead, in its most exhaustive assessment of the evidence, the JIT avoids what the Australian Government already has concluded: “In the investigation so far, we have come to the conclusion that we can also rule out the air-to-air scenario. What follows is the explanation about how we reached that conclusion. If flight MH17 would have been shot down by another airplane, this plane would have been shown on the radar images. There has been quite some discussion about the radar data. The JIT has acquired sufficient and crucial radar images. These images were made available to the JIT by both Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Recently, through intensive investigation, the JIT found another video file containing relevant primary radar data of the area which had been recorded by a mobile radar in Ukraine. At the time, this radar was used to test new software. Although it had a limited range, it still detected flight MH17 and this completes the image further.”“As far as we are concerned, the discussion about the radar images can be concluded. Today we wish to emphasize that the material that we now have is more than sufficient to draw conclusions in the criminal investigation. For building up a solid criminal file, it will not be necessary to gather more evidentiary material. In addition to the radar images that we have, witnesses have been heard, such as the air traffic controllers who were working at that time; the JIT has an audio file of the conversations between the Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the airplanes that passed through the Ukrainian airspace on 17 July 2014, including flight MH17.”

“All these data together provide a sufficiently complete picture of the air traffic in the direct vicinity of flight MH17 and based on this picture the JIT concludes that there was no other aircraft flying in the vicinity of flight MH17 that could have shot it down. This conclusion in itself can already rule out that scenario. The Russian Federation mentioned last week that they have found ‘new’ primary radar images. Based on those images even the Russian Federation concludes that there was no second airplane that could have shot down MH17.”

Repetition of the same phrases doesn’t make a lie; it does contrive to camouflage the truth. That’s the truth the Australian government is holding in secret, and no public medium or press organ in the country will report.

The Canadian story of the lie of state about the Ukraine war is different in two ways. The first difference is that the liar, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, arranged with a reporter and the management of the Toronto Globe and Mail to plant the lie in a press conference. The second difference is that half the Canadian press, including a fraction of the mainstream media and most of the alt-media, not only didn’t believe Freeland’s lie. They have started investigating and publishing the truth.

For the story of Freeland’s campaign to defend her Ukraine policy, and for links to the mainstream media reporters defending her, click to open here (http://johnhelmer.net/in-the-canadian-cartoon-dudley-do-right-can-do-no-wrong-snidely-whiplash-no-good-in-real-life-can-robert-fife-david-walmsley-terry-glavin-alan-freeman-and-scott-gilmore-save-the-galicia-gang/). The campaign started at a press conference called by Freeland on March 6, in the lobby of the House of Commons in Ottawa. The purpose of the presser was to explain the official extension for another two years of Canada’s Operation UNIFIER. That’s the code name for what the Defence Ministry in Ottawa calls (https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2017/03/canada_renews_itsmilitarycommitmenttoukraine.html) “military training and capacity-building assistance to Ukrainian Forces personnel in support of Ukraine’s efforts to maintain sovereignty, security, and stability.”

At the question-and-answer exchanges on March 6, Freeland did all the talking. The Globe and Mail report of what was said, written by Robert Fife, the newspaper’s Ottawa bureau chief, ignored the defence minister entirely.

http://johnhelmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Снимок13-1.jpg (http://johnhelmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Снимок13-1.jpg)
(Source: http://www.thompsoncitizen.net/liberals-extend-ukraine-mission-to-2019-but-face-criticism-for-not-doing-more-1.11060757)

Above is a picture of the two ministers, as Freeland addresses a question from a reporter to her right, who is invisible to the camera. Sajjan (circle-1) is on Freeland’s left, his mouth shut. At the rear of the picture, in the centre of the row of reporters, the only male among them is Fife (circle-2). In front of Freeland, on the podium but screened from the reporters present, Freeland’s briefing book is visible (circle-3). The camera has picked up several script lines which Freeland and her staff had decided in advance that she would answer when asked.

Below is the moment after Fife had asked Freeland his question, according (https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/freeland-warns-canadians-to-beware-of-russian-disinformation/article34227707/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile)to the newspaper version. He is tilting his head leftwards, parallel with Freeland’s tilt, and he has extended his arm with his recorder towards her as she answers. As she does so, Freeland looks directly at Fife. The state radio tape of what Freeland said can be listened to here (http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/listen.html?autoPlay=true&mediaIds=896585283871) in the first 34 seconds.

http://johnhelmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Снимок5-2-1.jpg (http://johnhelmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Снимок5-2-1.jpg)

Another version (http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-monday-edition-1.4011751/march-6-2017-episode-transcript-1.4014029#segment3) from Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reveals exactly what Fife asked Freeland: “The Russians don’t like you. They’ve banned you from the country. Recently, there has been a series of articles about you and your maternal grandparents making accusations that he was a Nazi collaborator in pro-Russian websites. I’d like to get your view on do you see this as a disinformation campaign by the Russians to try to smear you and discredit you? Which they have to have a tendency to have done.”

This transcript, along with the Huffington Post Canada version (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/03/06/chrystia-freeland-russia_n_15190474.html), reveal more than the state radio excerpt aired later. “Let me start, Rob,” Freeland began with a personal note, “by saying that I don't think all Russians dislike me. I have many close and good Russian friends and I very much enjoyed living and working in Moscow as a foreign correspondent.”

At Fife’s prompting, Freeland was avoiding the question. Instead, she started her claim that reports of her lying about her family and her policy in Ukraine are part of Russian efforts “to destabilize” the US and Canadian political systems. “I am confident”, Freeland declared, “in our country’s democracy, and I am confident that we can stand up to and see through those efforts.”

Freeland’s claim has triggered a great deal of standing up to and seeing through, though this was not quite the democracy she was confident Fife and the Globe and Mail would reflect. Instead, a succession of stories in the Canadian press has intensified investigation of what Freeland’s family did during World War II; what Freeland has known about the war record; and what she, her family and their Ukrainian associates all stand for now, as the Canadians renew Operation UNIFIER and the Ukrainian civil war enters its third year.

The Canadian media investigations also reveal that it was Freeland herself who arranged for Fife to ask the question, for which her answer was already typed out in front of her. Is it true that Fife and his newspaper agreed to play Freeland’s patsy? Fife was asked by email:

http://johnhelmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Снимок5-3.png (http://johnhelmer.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Снимок5-3.png)
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)

Fife and the Globe’s editor-in-chief David Walmsley aren’t able to black out reporting of what has happened. They are Canadian, not Australian. But they refuse to answer questions about their role.
Source: Dances With Bears (http://johnhelmer.net/russia-lie-detector-catches-australian-prime-minister-canadian-foreign-minister-which-countrys-media-conceal-the-lie-machine/)

WE ARE NOW ON PATREON! Aww yeahhh - exclusive content and an easy way to automate monthly support for our herculean efforts SIGN UP NOW FOR $1.00!

Joshua01
23rd March 2017, 01:58 PM
What the fuck is wrong with these people? How can you give an order to kill innocent people? How can you carry such an order out? Armageddon can't come soon enough!

Glass
23rd March 2017, 08:02 PM
To Monty's post: So we can see who controls the narrative. The whole Ukraine episode has been a controlled operation.