How and why did flight MH17 die over Donbass? Briefing by the Russian Ministry of Defense. Facts, fakes and silence from officers Fake. Shot down a Buk, but it was Ukrainian
On July 17, 2014, five years ago, a plane crash occurred in the east of the Donetsk region. The Boeing 777-200ER aircraft of the Malaysian airline Malaysia Airlines was en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. 2 hours and 49 minutes after takeoff, the plane was shot down by a missile fired from a Buk air defense system. As a result of the plane crash, all 298 people on board died: 283 passengers and 15 crew members. It has not yet been established who shot down the Malaysian airliner.
Airplane, crew and passengers
The Boeing 777-200ER was produced at the Boeing plant in Everett (Washington, USA) in 1997. On July 29 of the same year, it was transferred to the Malaysian airline Malaysia Airlines. Therefore, the crew of the aircraft was represented by Malaysian citizens.By the time of the disaster, the plane had been flying for seventeen years, had completed 11,434 takeoff-landing cycles, and had flown 75,322 hours. The airliner last underwent a technical inspection on July 11, 2014, but it did not reveal any problems in the operation of the aircraft.
On 16 July 2014, the aircraft operated daily flight MH16 Kuala Lumpur - Amsterdam, arriving at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport at 04:23. The aircraft began its return flight MH17 Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur at 10:14 am and took off from the Schiphol airport runway at 10:31 am. We had to fly, among other things, over the territory of Ukraine, where by this time the Civil War in Donbass.
In total, the aircraft crew consisted of 15 people. The commander of the main crew of the aircraft was 44-year-old Eugene Cho Jin Leong, and the co-pilot was 26-year-old Muhamad Firdaus Abdul Rahim. The relief crew was commanded by 49-year-old Wan Amran Wan Hassin, and the co-pilot was 29-year-old Ahmad Hakimi Hanapi. All of them were experienced pilots with many thousands of flight hours. In addition, there were 11 flight attendants on the plane - 3 stewards and 8 flight attendants - all of whom were also Malaysian citizens.
There were 283 passengers on the Boeing on this ill-fated flight. Most of the passengers were Dutch citizens as the plane took off from Amsterdam. In addition to the Dutch, citizens of Malaysia, Australia, Indonesia, Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, the Philippines, Canada, Romania and New Zealand flew on the Boeing.
Tragedy in the skies over Donbass
At 13:20 UTC, the plane, which by that time was flying over the eastern part of Donbass, was shot down by a missile. Its warhead exploded to the left of the plane, in the area of the cockpit, after which the plane began to disintegrate in the air. The cockpit and half of the business class cabin almost immediately broke away and fell to the ground, and the rest of the plane remained in the air for some time, flying another 8.5 kilometers to the east. From the moment of defeat until the last parts of the plane fell to the ground, only about one and a half minutes passed.
The plane, or rather its wreckage, crashed near the village of Grabovo in the vicinity of the city of Torez, Donetsk region. Debris was scattered throughout the area with total area more than 15 square kilometers. All people on board the plane died.
In terms of the number of deaths, the disaster in the Donetsk region became the largest since the events of September 11, 2001. It also entered the top ten worst aviation disasters in the entire history of aeronautics.
National Bureau of Aviation Accident and Civil Incident Investigation aircraft Ukraine received information about the disappearance of a Boeing 777-200 aircraft with registration number 9M-MRD from radar screens on the morning of July 18, 2014. Notifications about the incident were sent to Malaysia as the country of registration and operation of Boeing, to the United States of America as the country of origin, as well as to the Netherlands and Australia, whose citizens died as a result of the plane crash.
Search work began on the ground. Since the plane crashed in a zone under the control of Donetsk militias, the leadership of the Donetsk People's Republic allowed Ukrainian specialists to participate in the search operation.
On July 21, 2014, the train carrying the bodies of 282 victims departed from railway station Thorez to Kharkov. It was decided to carry out the procedure for identifying the bodies of the dead in the Netherlands. Another 16 bodies were located under the wreckage of the fuselage and were recovered only after the entire search operation was completed. The Netherlands took the leading role in investigating all the circumstances of the tragedy. The flight recorders were handed over by representatives of the DPR to the Malaysian authorities, who, in turn, handed them over to the Netherlands.
The airliner was shot down by a missile
The investigation into all the circumstances of the disaster took more than a year. Initially, different versions of what happened were put forward, but ultimately the final conclusion was made - the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile. On October 13, 2015, the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) presented the final version of the investigation report into the circumstances of the disaster. Analysis of the wreckage of the plane and fragments recovered from the bodies of passengers and crew members of the airliner showed that the plane was shot down by a missile with a 9N314M warhead. Such warheads are equipped with the 9M38 and 9M38M1 missiles. These missiles are used as part of the Buk, Buk-M1 and Buk-M1-2 anti-aircraft missile systems.The second part of the report concluded that the Ukrainian services responsible for air traffic management did not adequately take into account all the risks that could accompany the flight civil aircraft over the combat zone in Donbass.
The results of the investigation caused a negative reaction in both Ukraine and Russia. President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko hastened to refute the accusations against the Ukrainian air services, emphasizing that they had already closed the airspace to an altitude of 9725 meters and did not assume that flying above this level was also dangerous.
In the Russian Federation, the results of the Dutch investigation were considered biased and tendentious. Information was published that the missile was launched from territory that was at that moment under the control not of the DPR militias, but of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Deputy head of the Federal Air Transport Agency Oleg Storchevoy, speaking at a press conference on October 14, 2015, called the report of the Dutch side fabricated, carried out using “the technique of adjusting facts to predetermined conclusions.”
On January 14, 2016, they sent a letter to the Dutch Safety Board criticizing the report, but the Dutch authorities responded that the letter did not contain any new or valuable information. Meanwhile, almost from the very beginning of the investigation, the fact that Malaysia was allowed to see the results of the investigation only a few months later could not but arouse suspicion. But Malaysia was the country of registration and operation of the crashed plane, and both the crew and a significant part of the passengers were citizens of this country.
In turn, the United States and the European Union fully supported the Dutch report, since it fit perfectly into their paradigm of attitude towards Russia as a country that allegedly started a war in Donbass and poses a threat to both Ukraine and the world as a whole.
The Dutch Foreign Ministry and the Australian Foreign Ministry officially blamed Russia for the disaster. The international Joint Investigation Team (JIT), formed after the disaster, which included representatives of the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia and Ukraine (Malaysia was admitted to it only in the fall of 2014), stated that the airliner was shot down by a missile that belonged to the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade of the Russian Armed Forces, stationed in the Kursk region. But, of course, no real evidence was provided for this.
As for Ukraine, its President Petro Poroshenko almost immediately after the disaster accused Donbass militias and Russian special services of involvement in it. The Security Service of Ukraine opened a criminal case in connection with the incident under Article 258 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (terrorist act). Naturally, the West immediately took advantage of the disaster in Donbass to impose additional economic sanctions against the Russian Federation.
In turn, Alexander Borodai, who then held the post of chairman of the DPR government, said that the militias do not have in their arsenal such anti-aircraft missile systems that could shoot down such a high-flying aircraft.
The representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Major General Igor Konashenkov, said that the missile that hit the airliner was indeed made on the territory of modern Russia, but back in Soviet times, and after the collapse of the USSR, the missile ended up on the territory of Ukraine. Russian Buk-M1-2 anti-aircraft missile systems, according to a representative of the Ministry of Defense, did not cross the border between the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
Five years later. The West continues to blame Russia, Malaysia has doubts
In June 2019, it became known that the Ukrainian side had also appointed “suspects” of organizing a missile attack on the airliner. These are Igor Girkin (Strelkov), who at that time held the post of Minister of Defense of the Donetsk Republic, Sergei Dubinsky, who headed the intelligence of the DPR, the commander of the reconnaissance unit of the GRU of the DPR Leonid Kharchenko and lieutenant colonel of the Russian army reserve Oleg Pulatov.All of the above, except Kharchenko, are citizens of the Russian Federation. At the same time, information has also appeared that the Ukrainian authorities will not demand the extradition of the listed citizens, and this circumstance in itself raises big questions. In fact, it is completely unprofitable for Kyiv to have a public trial of those who were “appointed” in Ukraine as the perpetrators of the tragedy. After all, any trial can shed light on real reasons airliner crash. It is not for nothing that the Dutch authorities still do not agree to publish the results of the investigation into the disaster.
The position of the Malaysian leadership is very interesting in this context. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad (pictured) said in June 2019 that Malaysia is very disappointed by the attempts of Western countries to place all the blame for what happened on the Russian Federation and use the disaster for political purposes.
According to the Prime Minister of Malaysia, until now the world has only “rumors” regarding Russia’s alleged involvement in this tragic event. As for evidence, the West does not provide it, but accusations against Moscow began to pour in even before the investigation into all the circumstances of the disaster began.
They blame Russia, but where is the evidence? We know that the missile that brought down the plane was Russian, but it could also have been made in Ukraine. The idea seemed to center on trying to pin the blame on the Russians,
- said Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad.
These words from the head of government of the country that owned the downed Boeing, and more than any other country is interested in an objective investigation of what happened, are very indicative, as is the fact that Malaysia is still not allowed to access the data decoding the “black boxes” of the aircraft.
It is beneficial for the West to portray Russia as the direct culprit of the disaster, and for this purpose, Amsterdam, Brussels, Washington, and London are ready to do anything, including outright falsification of evidence and suppression of facts.
Illustration copyright Getty Images Image caption According to Dutch investigators, a Buk missile exploded to the left of the Boeing cockpit.
More than two years have passed since the crash of the Malaysian Boeing in the skies over Ukraine. During this time, Russian media have repeatedly questioned the results of the official investigation into the causes of the tragedy, which claimed the lives of 298 people. The BBC monitoring service tracked how the versions of the disaster changed in the interpretation of the pro-Kremlin media.
Spanish dispatcher
July 17, 2014 at 19:00 Moscow time news channel LifeNews reported about a “new victory for the Donetsk militias,” who allegedly managed to shoot down another An-26 transport plane of the Ukrainian Air Force. This time - near the city of Torez.
“It all happened around five o’clock in the evening, Moscow time. An An-26 was flying over the city, suddenly a rocket hit it, there was an explosion, the plane began to fall,” the presenter noted, commenting on an amateur video from the scene. The news was immediately picked up by many news sites and the Rossiya 24 TV channel.
However, less than an hour later it became clear that the footage shown on Russian television channels was not an An-26 at all, but a Malaysian Boeing flying to Kuala Lumpur from Amsterdam.
In the first hours after confirmation of information about a downed passenger airliner in the skies over Ukraine, Russian media rejected the possibility of Donetsk separatists being involved in the disaster.
“Experts assure that it is impossible to shoot down the airliner with the means that the rebels have at their disposal so high,” said a correspondent for the Vremya program on Channel One.
"The plane crashed in the area settlement Grabovo, not far from the village of Snezhnoye, which was bombed the day before yesterday, was intensively bombed by the Ukrainian Air Force,” noted a journalist from the Rossiya TV channel.
In parallel with this, alternative theories, including conspiracy theories, began to actively spread in the media. Late in the evening of July 17, the Russian-language website of the RT television channel published a tweet from a “Spanish dispatcher” in Kyiv that a few minutes before the Boeing crash, Ukrainian military aircraft were spotted near it.
The message was soon picked up by the Rossiya-24 TV channel, as well as a number of online publications. Soon the Twitter account of the “dispatcher” was recognized as fake and blocked.
Illustration copyright AFP Image caption There was even a version in the Russian media that the target was not the Malaysian Boeing, but the plane of the Russian presidentPutin's plane
Another version that gained wide currency in the Russian media in the evening of the same day was the theory that the likely target of those who shot down the Boeing was probably Air Force One of the Russian President, returning from a Latin American tour.
“The contours of the aircraft are generally similar, the linear dimensions are also very similar, and as for the coloring, at a fairly distant distance it is almost identical,” Interfax quoted a source in the Federal Air Transport Agency as saying.
The next day, while the world's headlines were filled with accusations against the Kremlin, Russian state television channels continued to blame Ukraine for the incident.
“Formally, the Malaysian airliner was shot down in peaceful skies. Despite the fact that the Ukrainian authorities declared the area over the southeast no-fly on July 8, transit trains continued to operate,” noted the Vesti correspondent.
At the same time, a new conspiracy theory appeared on the Internet: the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper reported, citing “eyewitnesses” and one of the then separatist leaders, Igor Strelkov, that perhaps some of the Boeing passengers were dead before the crash.
However, a few days later, this version, as well as rumors about an attempt to shoot down Air Force One, faded into the background, giving way to official statements by the Russian Ministry of Defense.
Disappearing Buk
On July 20, US Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking on CNN, accused Russia of supplying large quantities of weapons to separatists in eastern Ukraine.
On July 21, Russian state television channels stated that, according to Russian military data, a group of Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft systems appeared in the Donetsk region on the eve of the tragedy and disappeared shortly after it.
“In addition, at the time of the crash, there was another object on the same echelon with the airliner - a Ukrainian Su-25,” the Vesti presenter noted, citing data from the Ministry of Defense.
At the end of May 2015, the international independent group Bellingcat stated that the photographs of the Ukrainian Buk complex, which allegedly recorded its movement on July 14 and 17, 2014, were fake.
On July 25, 2014, the version about the Ukrainian Buk was again heard on TV screens. This time, the NTV channel, citing the opinion of an expert, stated that the Boeing-777 could have been shot down during an exercise by the Ukrainian air defense forces.
On September 9, the Dutch security service published a preliminary report on the causes of the crash of flight MH17. His main conclusion is that the Boeing fell apart in the air as a result of external influence.
On the same day, a correspondent for the Rossiya TV channel criticized the opinion of experts, again recalling that the Ukrainian military allegedly has Buks at its disposal. “This photograph shows a missile system with a rotated launcher. On July 17, it unexpectedly disappeared somewhere,” he noted.
“Specialists are confident that the experts missed the time when a full and objective investigation could have been carried out. The Ukrainian side seemed to have deliberately done everything possible so that the real cause of the disaster could no longer be found out,” the correspondent concluded.
Illustration copyright AFP Image caption Russian authorities have consistently denied that the Malaysian Boeing could have been shot down by a Russian Buk.Sensational photo
However, in November of the same year, the version about the Ukrainian Buk was unexpectedly replaced by a new one - about an air-to-air missile.
The host of the “However” program, Mikhail Leontyev, stated that “Channel One has obtained a sensational photograph, allegedly taken by a foreign spy satellite in last seconds flight of a Malaysian Boeing over Ukraine." In the photograph, the presenter noted, "a missile launch from under the left wing" of the MiG-29 fighter "is clearly visible directly into the cockpit."
“In short, there was most likely no Buk,” he concluded.
The episode of the "However" program was aired on Channel One on November 14 - a few days before the G20 summit in Australia. According to Leontyev himself, “on the eve of the most important meeting of world leaders... the topic of investigating the deaths of passengers on that flight is more than relevant,” and the sensational footage “speaks in favor of a version that was almost never heard in the West.”
On the evening of the same day, a similar story with “photo evidence” of the destruction of the plane by a fighter appeared on the Rossiya TV channel. On the same day, popular Russian photoblogger Ilya Varlamov discovered signs of fake satellite footage.
Secret Witness
After the loud exposure of the fake photo, the version about the fighter began to be actively discussed in the Russian media again at the end of 2014.
This time the occasion was a publication in the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper on December 22. As the publication reported, journalists “found a witness who claims that the Malaysian Boeing was shot down by a Ukrainian Su-25 attack aircraft.
“In the case of the Malaysian Boeing, a secret witness has appeared whose testimony clears all charges against the militia and Russia,” the authors of the article concluded. Soon this story was picked up by online publications, major TV channels and even the Investigative Committee of Russia. However, the story did not end there.
In early June 2015, the “secret witness” again appeared in the headlines of state media. “The investigation into the Boeing crash in the Donetsk region is making significant progress. And today the Investigative Committee of Russia named the name of the main witness,” Channel One reported on June 3. According to journalists, he turned out to be a former Ukrainian soldier, Yevgeny Agapov.
At the same time, Russian media reported the results of an investigation conducted by the developer of the Buk anti-aircraft systems, the Almaz-Antey concern. According to the company's experts, the Malaysian Boeing was shot down over the Donbass by a 9M38M1 missile fired from the Buk-M1 complex. At the same time, representatives of the concern at the press conference did not rule out that the missile could have been fired by Ukrainian air defense.
In response, Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins said that Almaz-Antey used incorrect and edited images in its report on the MH17 crash.
Special operation
According to this version, on July 17, 2014, a bomb exploded on board the Boeing. “I’m almost sure that the plane was destroyed from the inside, and this was a special operation,” an expert from the federal government said then on the TV channel. information center"Analytics and Security" Sergey Sokolov.
Outdated "Buk"
On October 13, the Dutch Security Council published the final report of its investigation into the causes of the crash, which stated that the airliner was shot down by a missile launched from a Russian-made Buk.
A Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 passenger flight MH17 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) crashed on July 17, 2014 in eastern Ukraine. There were 298 people on board the liner (including 15 crew members), among them 85 children. Citizens of 10 countries died, including 43 Malaysians. Most of the dead - 193 people - .
The plane, following the established international transit corridor, passed Donetsk, at 17.20 Moscow time at an altitude of 10 thousand meters, it began to sharply lose speed and from the radar screens at 17.23 Moscow time. The wreckage of the airliner was discovered near the city of Torez, Donetsk region, in territory controlled by the self-proclaimed Donetsk militia. people's republic(DPR).
On the evening of July 17, President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, adviser to the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Anton Gerashchenko announced that the aircraft (SAM) was a Buk. Kyiv blamed the crash of the airliner on militias, which the West believes are supported by Russia. The militia stated that they do not have the means to...
In December 2014, Malaysia was included in the international criminal investigation team into the causes of the Boeing MH17 crash. Before that they .
By the end of April 2015, the international mission of experts completed its work, and in early July, a draft version of the final report on the causes of the Malaysian plane crash was sent to the countries participating in the investigation. From the point of view of the Federal Air Transport Agency, in the document " more questions than answers." The Russian department said that they were interested in argumentation and technical information and expressed the hope that the additions and comments of the Russian Federation will be reflected in the final version of the report.
On July 29, the UN Security Council considered the initiative of a number of countries to establish an international tribunal for the plane crash in Ukraine. Russia blocked the draft resolution. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated, the crash of the airliner was the result of a criminal offense, and not a threat to international peace and security, as the draft resolution implied. According to the minister, the UN Security Council will never be involved in a situation with airliner crashes, and the very idea of its creation is intended to ensure the guilt of those whom Washington considers responsible.
After the draft resolution on the establishment of an international tribunal was not adopted by the UN Security Council, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said that Malaysia would pursue various legal options regarding the Boeing crash in eastern Ukraine.
In mid-September 2015, the DPR Prosecutor General's Office received 2.5 thousand fragments of a Malaysian Boeing that were found local residents. She appealed to the Prosecutor General of the Netherlands with a request to take away the debris collected in Donbass.
On September 28, Dutch experts together with the OSCE mission visited the village of Grabovo, Donetsk region. They also explored the area.
On October 13, 2015, the Dutch Safety Council presented the results of the investigation into the plane crash. The report noted that the airliner crashed on the left side of a 9N314M warhead mounted on a 9M38 series missile fired from the Buk system. However, the document does not provide information about from which territory the aircraft was shot down and who is to blame. Chairman of the Dutch Security Council that further investigation will be required to establish the exact location of the missile launch on the Malaysian airliner.
The Russian concern Almaz-Antey (manufacturer of the Buk anti-aircraft missile system), in turn, is responsible for the MH17 plane crash. According to his data, Boeing was shot down by a 9M38 missile of the Buk complex, launched from the area of the village of Zaroshchenskoye. It was this area that the Russian Ministry of Defense mentioned.
In January 2016, after Russian experts studied the Netherlands, Deputy Head of the Federal Air Transport Agency Oleg Storchevoy sent a letter to the Security Council of the Netherlands, in which he indicated that research and field experiments conducted by Russian experts indicate that the conclusions of the Dutch side are unreliable.
In June 2016, a joint international team of investigators investigating the crash of a Malaysian airliner in Ukraine acknowledged the difficulties associated with the lack of experience in investigating disasters of this scale and knowledge of special terms.
In the summer of 2016, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, together with the National Prosecutor's Office of the Netherlands, as part of the investigation into the crash, requested the competent Russian departments, including the Almaz-Antey concern, to provide materials that could contribute to the progress of the investigation. In particular, Holland also requested raw primary radar images of the Ukrainian airspace of the Lugansk-Donetsk region for the period when the airliner crashed.
The Almaz-Antey concern managed to obtain from one of its factories - the Lianozovsky Electromechanical Plant - from the head processors of the Rostov route radar. He provided these materials to the competent authorities of the Russian Federation for study.
On September 26, 2016, the head of the radio technical troops of the Russian Aerospace Forces, Major General Andrei Koban, said that the analysis of primary radar information refutes the assertion of the Ukrainian side and the conclusions of the technical Dutch investigation that the missile that shot down the Malaysian Boeing could have been launched from the eastern regions of Donbass. According to him, the technical capabilities of Russian means of objective control do not allow us to conclude whether the missile was launched from territories located to the south or west of the point of the disaster. Koban noted that space images, “the existence of which was announced by the American and Ukrainian sides, but no one has seen,” could clarify the situation with the missile launch from territories controlled by the Ukrainian security forces.
On September 28, an international investigative team presented a preliminary report on the investigation into the MH17 crash near Donetsk. It claimed that the Boeing was shot down from the area of the village of Pervomaiskoye, south of the village of Snezhnoye, which on the day of the tragedy were under the control of the militia. It also follows from the report that the Buk anti-aircraft missile system that shot down the airliner, which allegedly arrived from Russia on the territory of Ukraine, returned to the Russian Federation in the morning.
The Almaz-Antey concern said that it had already conducted three experiments that confirm the version of the missile being launched from another location - from the area of the village of Zaroshchenskoye, which is under the control of the Ukrainian army. The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed disappointment with the situation surrounding the investigation into the MH17 crash and that the group's findings confirm the bias of the investigation.
In October 2016, Russia transferred radar data to the Netherlands Malaysian Boeing in as much detail as possible, unprocessed, which indicates their authenticity. At the end of January 2017, the media reported that the Dutch prosecutor's office could not decipher the radar data transmitted by Russia, and Dutch investigators were sent to Moscow. The Russian side stated that it was ready at any time to provide international investigators with the assistance of specialist developers, who and that no one had come to the Russian Federation for help in decrypting the data during this time.
Russia has repeatedly stated that Holland is trying to delay the investigation and that the investigation was provided by the Russian side.
The material was prepared based on information from RIA Novosti and open sources
Boeing 777 crash near Donetsk: the mystery of the passenger list
Regardless of how soon the true culprits and reasons for the crash of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 near Donetsk become known to the world, intriguing details of the machinations with the passenger list will become public knowledge lost plane. After the publication of the article “The Boeing 777 crash near Donetsk is a deafening failure of a US special operation!” its author received a letter detailing the mysterious situation.
Here it is:
I have been working with foreigners for a long time, and for the last two years I have been working with Malays. Therefore, when I saw information about Boeing on the Internet, and it was July 17 in the evening, and, assuming that there might be people on board whom I know, I immediately began searching for details.
The first thing I did was go to the Malaisiya Airlines website, but that evening it was not working, the information was displayed incorrectly, and there was nothing at all about the crash. It didn't start working until the next morning, and the passenger list appeared sometime after one o'clock in the afternoon. It was a table with the following columns: first name, last name, citizenship, age. First there was information about the crew: first name, last name, citizenship, position, age. It was clear that there were two crews on board, but this is understandable, because the flight is long and there is a shift. Next was information about the number of citizens by country, at that time, if I’m not mistaken, there were 42 with undetermined citizenship, and Europeans predominated. And then the list of passengers. I went through the first and last names. No one I knew, thank God, was there! By that time, I had read and looked at everything that was known about the tragedy, then I will be brief and outline it in theses:
1) 80−85 children according to the media. On the list I counted 5 children aged 2, 3, 4 years. The next age was 18 or 19 years old.
2) In the story with passports, the first open passport was in the name of a 12-year-old girl, Sophie Charlotte Van der Meer. She wasn't listed by any of her names or ages!
3) A large number of Chinese citizens, although they were not on the list of citizens.
4) Two Ukrainians (with Slavic names and surnames).
5) There are many passengers with a first name, last name, age, but with undetermined citizenship. The surnames are predominantly Asian.
There were many questions in my head. But I had to go to work. And then I MADE A HUGE MISTAKE! I should have taken a screenshot of the page, but I didn't! At work, I learned that there was a family on board whom I knew very well: Thambi G, his wife Ariza Ghazali and their four children, 13, 15, 17, 19 years old. When the emotions subsided, the brain began to analyze. I tried to find a logical explanation for all the inconsistencies, but it didn’t work out well:
1) I didn’t find them in the lists. They have 3 words in their first and last names, maybe they were registered by one of these names. But where have the children gone? In terms of age, there were no such people on board!
2) new passports and the absence of their owners on board. Deep mail, but why didn’t anyone declare that the girl was someone’s daughter, sister, etc. and was alive, because by that time these images had already spread all over the world.
3) a large number of Asian surnames, although Europeans predominated on the list. Asians with European citizenship.
4) why weren’t there 2 Ukrainians who were on the list...
Already at home, I opened the computer again, but this list of passengers was no longer there! There were cargo manifests! The list only appeared this evening, and there I already found my friends and the girl Sophie, whose passport was shown on TV.
Now that my head is clearer, I suspect that this was a list of passengers on MH370, but it was also not entirely reliable, because it did not include a Russian, for example, who was on board MH370.
If I at least remembered the names of the Ukrainians from the MH17 list, I would be able to compare these lists, but I don’t remember. I can only say with full responsibility that they were on the MH17 list that was published. But then removed from the Malaysia Airlines website, there were two of them and the first and last names were Slavic.
In general, it’s up to you how to dispose of it. But just one earnest request, if you place it on the wall, please, without misrepresentation, only in the form it is.
Detail: I checked my visit log, on Friday I went to the Malaysia Airlines website at 11:31, at 13:18 (the list was at that time and, apparently, on the page itself because it looks like this http:// www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/site/mh17.html and then I went to the main page (www.malaysiaairlines.com) and at 20:12 (by this time I already knew about the deceased family, coped with my emotions and decided double-check, BUT the list was no longer there, but there were cargo manifests, the path of the pages www.malaysiaairlines.com, http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/site/mh17.html, http://www.malaysiaairlines. com/content/dam/malaysia-.).
I also checked all the other pages I was looking for listings on in case I was wrong about something, but NOPE! I remember very well what that list looked like and I still have the main clues in my memory: the type of list, 2 Ukrainians on it, a large number of first and last names, mostly short Chinese ones, and in the citizenship column “not certain.” Igor, I ask you to convey this information to those who may find it useful.
Now I can also add this: https://www.facebook.com/AfrRock01?fref=ts This is the page of one of my friends' children. Now these pictures seem so meaningful and predictive, and for me they also point directly to a clear connection between the two catastrophes. (End of letter)
Let's draw some conclusions.
1. After the briefing of the Russian Ministry of Defense on July 21, 2014, not a single sane person, which does not yet include US President Barack Obama, nor British Prime Minister David Cameron, nor some other Western political figures, has any doubts that that the crash of Boeing 777 flight MH17 on July 17, 2014 was a pre-planned provocation.
Unlike Kyiv, Washington and London, Moscow presented objective control data, which no one has yet been able to refute.
True, there are numerous doubts that anyone is going to do this at all, since the organizers of the plane crash have their own far-reaching goals.
2. They are obvious and clear:
A). Blame the Russian Federation and the unrecognized republics of South-East Ukraine for the accident;
b). Present to R.F. and the unrecognized republics of the South-East of Ukraine accusations of international terrorism and, thus, transfer the state of the conflict from domestic Ukrainian to international;
V). To force the world community, led by the United States, to act as a united front in terms of imposing sanctions against the Russian Federation;
The whole difficulty of organizing this gross provocation was that it had to be carried out in close proximity from the borders of the Russian Federation, which has a developed radar field in this direction.
Noteworthy is the fact that the head of the main operational department General Staff V.S. RF Lieutenant General Andrei Kartapolov, in his report on July 21, 2014, referred only to data from the Rostov Air Traffic Control Center, which has its own radar facilities.
Their capabilities for detecting and tracking air targets, including in range and altitude, are, of course, very limited in comparison with the radar systems of the Air Force and Air Defense of the Russian Federation.
From which it follows that at this briefing the main data on the flight of the Ukrainian military aircraft were not announced, since the means radar control The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation at a distance of 50-100 kilometers are capable of detecting targets at altitudes of much less than 5 thousand meters. It was at this height, according to Lieutenant General Andrei Kargopolov, that the Ukrainian Su-25 attack aircraft was discovered by means of the Rostov Central Internal Affairs Directorate.
In addition, there is no doubt that in the area of combat operations in the South-East of Ukraine, the Russian Federation has taken additional measures to control airspace In particular, A-50 AWACS aircraft are used and the number of radar posts has been increased. All information they receive is carefully documented. Simply put, the entire flight route, including the takeoff and landing airfield of the Su-25, is already known.
Thus, the fact is clear: Russian Federation has irrefutable evidence of Ukraine’s involvement in the downing of Boeing 777 flight MH-17. It is ready to present them to the international community at the moment when it considers it necessary to do so.
And the leaders of Europe know this after their conversation with Vladimir Putin.
Let us return, however, to the list of passengers on this flight. The organizers of the provocation undoubtedly had to take into account the danger of its disclosure, even to the extent of exposing the countries and even the persons who organized it.
This development of events guarantees a huge international scandal and a catastrophic drop in the level of trust in the United States and its Kyiv puppets. Moreover, all this still threatens huge multimillion-dollar claims from states and individuals not against Malaysian Airlines.
From this point of view, the complete reduction in the number of probable sources of filing claims, in other words, relatives of victims, seems very logical and understandable.
Therefore, from the point of view of conducting an objective, truly independent investigation, it is necessary:
1. Research and, if possible, publish video materials about the passage of pre-flight control and inspection by passengers of flight MH17, data on the place and time of purchase of air tickets in order to establish the true number of passengers and their identities;
2. Conduct a genetic analysis of the remains of the deceased to establish the degree of their identity with the persons who declared themselves to be their relatives;
3. Organize an examination of the passports found at the scene to determine if they belonged to the deceased.
The answers to these and other questions will not only allow us to identify the organizers of the provocation and those responsible for the incident, but will also become the moment of truth for Washington and London.
more details: http://www.worldandwe.com/ru/page/katastrofa_boinga777_pod_doneckom__tayna_spiska_passazhirov.html#ixzz3Mvj1DAcU
Publication date: 22 July 2014 12:26
The scenario for the MH17 disaster was written by the CIA. Part 1
Today is two years since the tragic crash of a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 in the skies over Ukraine. There are still more questions than answers.
I. The plane was shot down according to the Operation Northwoods scenario.
Few people paid attention: the scenario of the disaster and subsequent events is fully consistent with the American Operation Northwoods. The operation was planned in 1962 by the US Department of Defense and was intended to prepare American public opinion for an armed invasion of Cuba to overthrow the government of Fidel Castro. The operation involved carrying out terrorist acts with imaginary or real victims in the United States, Cuba and other countries, including hijacking aircraft, simulating hostile acts under a false flag, and state-sponsored acts of terror.
Regarding downed civilian aircraft, the declassified primary source literally says the following:
“It is possible to create an incident that convincingly demonstrates how a Cuban aircraft attacked and shot down a chartered civilian airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The direction is chosen to cross Cuba. Passengers may be students or any other group of people with common interests to justify use charter flight off schedule."
If we assume that in Ukraine we are dealing with such a special provocation operation, it becomes clear why a civilian Boeing seemed to be deliberately sent through the ATO combat zone, where navigation actually no longer worked. Moreover, they released the plane from the transport corridor.
“An aircraft will be prepared at Eglin Air Force Base, painted and numbered as an exact duplicate of a civilian registered aircraft owned by a CIA-sponsored organization in Miami. At the appointed time, the backup aircraft, filled with specially selected passengers under carefully prepared fictitious names, will be replaced by a civil aircraft controlled remotely."
And let us remember again: on March 8, 2014 and July 17, 2014, two aircraft of exactly the same modification were lost 777-200ER the same airline. Such a coincidence, you see, can hardly be an accident. The point of this situation is to save on the operation: the aircraft does not need to be repainted, you only need to replace a very similar number ( M.O. on M.D.). They fell for greed.
“The take-offs of the radio-controlled and real aircraft will be coordinated in such a way as to ensure that their paths intersect south of Florida. After this, the plane with passengers will descend to a minimum altitude and land on an additional field at the Eglin airbase, where the passengers will be evacuated, and the plane will be returned to its original status.
Meanwhile, the radio-controlled plane will continue to fly along the intended route. Over Cuba, it will begin transmitting a distress signal on an international frequency. SOS that he was being attacked by a Cuban MiG. The transmission of this message will be interrupted by the destruction of the aircraft via radio signal. This will allow International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to report to the US what happened to their aircraft, thereby eliminating the need for the US to 'sell' the incident."
Now let's compare this plan with several key events of 2014:
1. On February 23-27, 2014, a change of leadership was carried out executive power Sevastopol and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The new Crimean authorities declared the illegitimacy of the new leadership of Ukraine and turned for assistance and assistance to the leadership of Russia, which provided the Crimean authorities with all possible support.
2. On March 7, 2014, the delegation of the Supreme Council of Crimea met in Moscow with State Duma Chairman Sergei Naryshkin and Speaker of the Federation Council Valentina Matvienko. Naryshkin said that Russia will support the free and democratic choice of the population of Crimea and Sevastopol. Matvienko assured that senators would support the decision to incorporate Crimea into Russia if it is adopted.
3. On March 8, 2014, a Boeing 777 flight goes missing. MH370 Malaysian Airlines. The plane's wreckage was never found. In the future, a version circulates and even testimonies from residents of the Maldives appear, which give reason to believe that the plane was hijacked and landed on the territory of a military base Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. These facts are not commented on by the West in any way.
4. Mid-July 2014 - units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (about 5,000 soldiers and dozens of pieces of equipment) fall into the Izvarin cauldron. On July 16, the cauldron was closed, and hundreds of Ukrainian Armed Forces military personnel died in the “Izvarin cauldron.”
Again, such coincidences are not accidental: expecting such a random coincidence is like waiting for a coin tossed into the air to land on its edge. Therefore, we have no doubt: the operation was planned by US intelligence agencies and implemented by the armed forces of Ukraine in order to blame Russia. Moreover. immediately blame both for the events in eastern Ukraine and for the allegedly downed Boeing. The very next morning after the tragedy, the media came out in the West with such accusations, with portraits of Russian President Putin and an image of the Buk air defense system.
However, a lot has gone wrong - a year later, the West cannot figure out how to hang the plane on us. The problems started from the very first day.
II. Strange video with Ukrainian Buks
Immediately after the disaster on the leading Ukrainian portal liga.net an article was published with the headline: “Poroshenko about Boeing 777: The army has no targets in the air.” Samantha Power at the UN Security Council, she went even further in her lies and stated: “The Ukrainian military had SA-11 (Buk) systems in their warehouses, but there were no such weapons near this area.”
Samantha Power
However, we know what happens when the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. In this case, all attempts to justify the downing of the plane are refuted by the following video from the Ukrainian media the day before the disaster:
The video shows: the Buk air defense system and the Kupol SOC (target detection system) of the Ukrainian Armed Forces are in full combat readiness in the ATO zone as of July 16, 2014. It turns out: they have targets in the air. Follows: Are Poroshenko and Power lying?
III. Fakes
Immediately after the disaster in Ukraine, many fakes were born. This strategy was also part of Operation Northwoods: Create a Lot of Rumors.
Fake 1. A photograph of a “contrail” in the Snezhny area, capturing an absolutely clear sky! The actual sky at the time of the disaster was quite cloudy.
Fake showing a contrail from Snizhne
The actual situation at the time of the plane explosion.
Actual situation according to meteorological services from the Commission's report. The green dot indicates the last position of the aircraft, followed by maximum cloud cover - 8 out of 8. Doesn't look like a completely clear sky, does it?!
Fake 2. “Telephone conversation” by Igor Bezler (Bes), who reported the downed plane to “his curator” in Russia. But everyone knows that Bezler was defending Gorlovka at that moment, so he could not have first-hand information about the situation in the Grabovo area. Moreover, the recording talks about a plane that fell beyond Yenakievo (32 km from the site of the tragedy), that is, about a completely different plane. This information was then relayed in Western media as obvious evidence of Russia's guilt. Hackers discovered - The recording was made before the plane crash .
Fake 3. The recording of another conversation claimed that the militia, according to them, according to the fake, had already become “easier after the arrival of Buk” - they (Buk) had already “managed to knock down two drying blocks yesterday and a second one today.” At the same time, judging by the chronology of events in the Ukrainian media, Buk arrived at the place of combat duty only a few minutes before the downed plane!
Moreover, not a single plane before the Boeing contained any traces of destruction by the Buk air defense system; all were shot down from portable air defense systems. The recording ends with an intriguing horror story - a statement about an imminent attack by Russian troops on Ukraine.
There were many provocations - a photograph of the “Russian fighter” in Buk, Sanya Sotkin (with identification marks!) with studio quality processing and a theatrical facial expression depicting an idiot. Or the movement of a clean “shot” Buk urgently “back to the Motherland”, and, as you know, to such a state it only takes two or three days to wash it after the shot. Or the version that Russia wanted to shoot down an Aeroflot flight (which actually flew 140 km from the combat zone) and then blame Ukraine. We missed.
It is reasonable to ask the following question to Mr. Poroshenko and the Ukrainian media: if you are so sure that you are right, why do you lie so much? The word "rightness" and the word "truth" are similar, aren't they?
IV. Inconsistencies
Inconsistency 1. Few people bothered to compare the latest video from the plane with real fragments. But in vain. The video clearly shows: the marking of places is to the left of the handle, and at a considerable distance. The markings on the airplane fragments are strictly above the handle, and on the right, not the left.
Photo of the interior in the video - the seat numbers are located on the edge of the shelf, to the left of the handle.
Close-up of interior detail with shelf number 31 HGFED.
The scenario for the crash of flight MH-17 was written by the CIA. Part 2.
V. Mathematical calculations
Location of the lesion
Mathematical calculations show that the plane was hit at a distance of over 34 km from the city of Snezhnoye. The plane began to lose speed no later than 16.20 and disappeared from radar at 16:21.35 at a speed 200 km/h (presumably at altitude 5000 meters). Real cases and mathematical models of such disasters show that the falling time of the debris is unlikely to be less than 2 minutes, and the distance traveled to the point of impact is unlikely to be less than 20 km.
Radar data suggests that until 16:20.43 the plane was still flying at a speed of about 900 km/h 40 seconds of flight at this speed is already 10 km. It is interesting that after the supposed defeat the plane first increased, rather than decreased, its speed. The distance from Snezhnoye to Rassypnoye is 18 km. The cockpit flew 6.5 km to Rassypnoye after its separation from the aircraft. Only after the cabin separated (not earlier) did the speed begin to drop. Obviously, the separation of the cabin did not occur immediately, but some time after the explosion. According to radar data, the cabin separation time was about 40 seconds.
We get:
From Snezhnoye to Rassypnoye: 18 km;
From Rassypnoye to the cockpit separation point: 6.5 km;
From the place of the alleged hit at 16:20.03 to the separation of the cabin and the beginning of the catastrophic drop in speed at 16:20.43 - 10 km.
Total: 34.5 km.
These facts, however, do not coincide with the data of the Preliminary Report of the International Commission, according to which the estimated coordinates of the point of impact of the aircraft are 48º07‘37.7”N; 38º31‘34.7”E, closer to the crash site. It was probably beneficial for the commission to submit a report in which the place where the plane was hit would be as close as possible to the city of Snezhnoye. However, such a conclusion contradicts the laws of physics and mathematics.
The nature of the damage to the aircraft, severe damage is highlighted in red.
According to the materials of the Preliminary Report of the International Commission, the most severe damage included the destruction of the power frame of the aircraft's nose section. It was these damages that led to the further destruction of the aircraft. At the same time, it is obvious that these destructions did not lead to the immediate stalling of the aircraft in its dive.
Until the moment the plane began to disintegrate, it moved horizontally and did not dive. Usually, one missile hit is not enough to immediately destroy an aircraft weighing about 250 tons (the warhead of the missile is 70 km, the mass of the destructive elements is about 2 times less, and most of them do not hit the target). The kinetic energy of the striking elements reaching the target is too small (much less than 0.1% of the corresponding indicator of the aircraft) to lead to a significant change in the characteristics of the movement of the aircraft, or the immediate destruction of its structure. It can be concluded that the plane gradually descended to 5000 meters, where it disintegrated.
At the same time, we are not inclined to judge that the defeat occurred significantly west of Kirovsky (see below). The destruction of the bow led to a relatively rapid loss of speed than would have been the case with standard gliding.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the Buk air defense system could have shot down a plane from Snizhne (the main version of the Ukrainian media), since 35 km is the limit of performance characteristics. And at the limit of performance characteristics, the Beech operates with a low probability of defeat. It is also necessary to take into account the flight time of the rocket during which the approach took place. At the moment of launch, the plane would be even further away, not to mention the fact that having only the Buk air defense missile system launcher, without a target detection system and a command post for processing information, it becomes impossible to hit the target at the considered distance. In this case, the beech will turn into a blind weapon that will fire “from a cannon at sparrows.”
Rocket launch site
We covered cases of aerial terrorism in detail in the article “History of aerial terrorism. Who is to blame for the destruction of planes in the air." We only have one question left to ask: how many more years and how many more victims will it take for the “world community” to pay attention to the “Air Terror” of the United States and stop indulging and broadcasting everything that is beneficial to the United States? Perhaps the existence of an operation "Northwoods" Can this also be attributed to the invention of Russian propaganda? It’s time for the world to say a decisive “no” to US provocations.
Issues that need to be resolved:
3. If another plane crashed, who were the people who were flying on it?
We asked these questions on the Russia-1 TV channel in a program dedicated to the loss of a Boeing 777 in March 2014. Frankly speaking, the fate of the passengers on this flight is unknown. Based on the scenario of Operation Northwoods, these are specially selected people, that is, having connections with the intelligence services. Changing documents and legends for them is not difficult.
However, we understand that this is a sensitive issue, people may have relatives, so if the assumption about their recruitment is incorrect, we would not want to hurt the feelings of relatives. Perhaps time will reveal more information regarding these terrible events.
There has already been a lot of speculation about the fate of the passengers on this flight. However, as of March 27, 2015, 296 bodies had been identified (all but two passengers). Thus, if you follow official version, the list of people flown out corresponds to the list of those found in the Donetsk region.
However, there are also an endless number of questions here - the identification process dragged on for several months and we did not see the indignation of their relatives. In general, we saw unprecedentedly little of them. On April 9, 2015, the Dutch authorities published 569 documents relating to the disaster. Personal Information the dead passengers of the plane and their relatives were retouched.
However, we are not ready to make statements on this topic. In the meantime, there is too much evidence in favor of the scenario of a pre-planned provocation.
4. Why come up with such a complex scenario?
In our opinion, for maximum effect. If special people do not participate in the special operation, the likelihood of failure will increase sharply. Relatives will do their best to get to the bottom of the truth; if something goes wrong, the truth will immediately be revealed. The consequences of such a failure are difficult to overestimate. In complex intricacies it is always easy to hide the ends in the water! The main thing is not to get confused in them yourself.
However, all the details of the operation are unknown. There is no complete picture of the provocation. It is unlikely that we will know the truth in the next 30-40 years. All the information we can count on today is hypotheses.
5. Could the Buk air defense system quickly destroy the plane?
Here experts disagree:
The Russian Union of Engineers claims that the destructive elements “can penetrate the fuselage of the aircraft, but, given the size of the Boeing 777 (63.7 meters long, with a large wingspan of more than 60 meters), they cannot lead to the destruction of the aircraft into separate small parts, as this happens with aircraft seven to ten times smaller in size.” In addition, “there was no recorded plume in the form of thick white condensation from the combustion products of rocket fuel, as well as a contrail, which appear and persist for several minutes after launch and are visible within a radius of at least 10 km from the rocket launch point.”
Experts from the manufacturer of the Buk air defense system insist that the plane was destroyed by the Buk. Corresponding traces of damage by various fractions of damaging elements were found, the damaging elements themselves being of the “I-beam” type. The form of a “heavy” fragment in the form of an “I-beam” is used only in 9M38M1 anti-aircraft guided missiles equipped with a 9N314M high-explosive fragmentation warhead, which makes it possible to unambiguously determine the type of warhead - 9N314M. Only missiles of the 9M38M1 modification are equipped with this warhead.
However, we cannot be satisfied with this answer, since the destructive elements have not yet been presented. The warhead contains 32 kg of destructive elements: about 4,500 I-beams weighing 8 g and about 1,500 cubes of 4 g. Of course, no more than a few percent of this number hit the plane, but the world saw the first sample of the destructive element only on March 19, 2015, later 8 months after the disaster. Why was it impossible to do this before?
6. Perhaps Boeing shot down the plane after all?
An air strike is likely. At the very least, this may be at least some explanation for the changes in aircraft parameters at 16:21.43. A heavy rocket flying at enormous speed can significantly change its speed characteristics.
In addition, this version was voiced in December in Komsomolskaya Pravda by an employee of the military air base in Dnepropetrovsk, who did not want to give his last name for security reasons. On July 17, 2014, in the afternoon, a plane took off for a combat mission. SU-25 Ukrainian Air Force, piloted by Captain Voloshin. On board were R-60 air-to-air missiles with a thermal guidance principle. They can fly up to 10 kilometers in search of a target.
Voloshin returned to the airfield with empty ammunition. Flight director Dyakiv asked the captain: “What’s wrong with the plane?” Voloshin replied: “The plane arrived at the wrong time and in in an unnecessary place» . Immediately after publication in our newspaper, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation provided state protection for an important witness. In June, the Russian Investigative Committee decided to declassify him: a citizen of Ukraine Agapov Evgeniy Vladimirovich, who served as an aviation mechanic in the first squadron of the tactical aviation brigade of the Ukrainian Air Force in military unit No. A4465.
When an investigation lasts so long, and neither journalists, nor experts of interested parties, nor the public are allowed access to any information, such an investigation, in our opinion, cannot be considered independent. Any conclusions and evidence of the commission for such a period of time may be falsified. It is worth noting that, at the request of the Ukrainian side, information may be withdrawn from the disclosure of data by the expert commission.
Hence, various versions still have the right to exist. Moreover, the investigation commission has not yet rejected the air attack version. In theory, this could mean having both a ground attack and an air attack. This version is very unlikely, but it could explain such a rapid destruction of the plane.
By the way, we would not take at face value any statements made by the commission of inquiry. So, for example, immediately after the disaster the information was different: the last reliable data was transmitted by the plane’s transponder at 16:18 local time over Gorlovka, after which reliable information stopped arriving and was finally lost at 16:20.
This means that our version of the plane crashing over a longer period of time receives additional confirmation. But this is too inconvenient for the Ukrainian side, because the whole version with Snezhny collapses! If, however, these data are correct, then the probable picture of the incident should be changed: over Gorlovka, the Boeing was fired at the cockpit from a cannon by a military aircraft, and then was finished off by a Buk air defense system in the Zaroshchensky area.
Traces of an attack by a military aircraft.
However, a version of the missile fired by a military aircraft has not yet been ruled out. For example, like this:
The famous collage of a military plane shooting down a Boeing at 16:19.47 local time is most likely a fake.
In particular, the collage claims to be a photo from space, but uses Google maps from 2012, and the time is incorrect (UTC 1:19 instead of UTC 13:19). However, many perceived it as a deliberate hoax to hint to the States that we know everything.
7. Was the Boeing not shot down at all?
There are versions that there was no disaster at all, and that the pre-prepared debris was thrown from transport aircraft. This version was presented by Yuri Mukhin. The author convincingly, using photographic material, proves: on the wreckage we see traces of the work of a tool - hydraulic shears. Some of the debris actually contains cuts that could not have occurred in a disaster of this kind. In addition, all the wreckage of the plane is approximately the same size, as if it had been pre-cut into pieces convenient for transportation by transport aircraft. In accidents of this kind, large pieces are always contained; this is ensured by the sufficiently strong materials from which the aircraft is made.
However, the publication New Straits Times tried to explain the presence of many pieces of approximately the same size by constructing a model of the destruction of the aircraft:
However, since the contradictions in the official version of the incident are visible to the naked eye, one can believe in any version, even the most fantastic, since it provides at least some explanation of the events - something that is not in the official conclusion of the commission.
8. The Commission takes too long to provide information to the public.
The Commission's Report contains too little meaningful information.
There is no exact flight route - even a year after the accident, it was not made public. Still would! It is not difficult to imagine how many questions there will be about this “exact route”.
There is no protocol for conversations in the cockpit. At first, there was so much talk about the fact that the last voice on the recording did not belong to the pilots. Everyone was intrigued. Today we only have radio and telephone communications with dispatchers. The Report states that the Commission has 30 minutes of perfectly clear recordings that suddenly end at 16:20.03. There is nothing interesting there, the Commission claims. What about the intrigue? There is a hypothesis - the recordings are interrupted earlier, and the last voice on air on behalf of MH17 may be from another device. But they promised to provide the records a year ago. Was it really that difficult?
There is no information about what traces of destructive elements were found on the plane or in the bodies. No chemical analysis of the debris at the affected sites was carried out.
9. Why did the Commission refuse to deliver all the wreckage of the plane to the investigation site?
This fact is very strange. In conditions of complete confusion of the case, not to use the opportunity to obtain all possible information - this is criminal. This fact indicates that the commission is not interested in the investigation.
10. The plane was flying very strangely.
The maximum cruising speed of the Boeing 777 is 905 km/h, and it must be taken into account that the plane was flying with almost a full supply of fuel, which increased its weight. Why was it necessary to exceed cruising speed, since this is very uneconomical? There is clearly no talk of impressive financial results for the airline; the savings regime is very strict. Typically Boeing 777s fly much slower.
The plane left the transport corridor, and the dispatchers decided to ask it to return there. If you think about the conversation with dispatchers, it gives a lot of ground for doubt about the adequacy of the situation. Dnepropetrovsk's conversation with MH17 begins with an exchange of pleasantries at 16:08 local time. After this, for 12 minutes Dnepropetrovsk does not communicate with the plane at all.
All this time, flight MH17 is not passing through the transport corridor, but is approaching dangerously close to the other two aircraft. Additional tension is caused by flight altitude restrictions, which greatly narrow the air corridor. Why didn’t Dnepropetrovsk air traffic controllers direct the plane back into the corridor? We see only two reasons: they didn’t need it, or the plane had already been attacked by that time.
Protocol of conversations with dispatchers.
The transport corridor was very heavily loaded, and a maneuver to the north looks highly unjustified.
In our opinion, the information presented in this article confirms: the whole picture of the disaster from beginning to end is deliberate performance Western provocateurs, like all the events of the “color revolution” called “Euromaidan”.
Witness: Malaysian Boeing-777 was shot down by a Ukrainian attack aircraft
Donetsk, Torez. Downed Boeing 777, with my own eyes. Autumn 2014
MH17: aborted flight
More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website “Keys of Knowledge”. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite everyone who wakes up and is interested...