Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts

Exclusive: From magazine covers to pronouncements by top politicians, Official Washington jumped to the conclusion that Ukrainian rebels and Russia were guilty in the shoot-down of a Malaysian passenger plane. But some U.S. intelligence analysts may see the evidence differently, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Contrary to the Obama administration’s public claims blaming eastern Ukrainian rebels and Russia for the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, some U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame, according to a source briefed on these findings.

This judgment – at odds with what President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have expressed publicly – is based largely on the absence of U.S. government evidence that Russia supplied the rebels with a Buk anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

President Barack Obama delivers a statement on the situation in Ukraine, on the South Lawn of the White House, July 29, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

President Barack Obama delivers a statement on the situation in Ukraine, on the South Lawn of the White House, July 29, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

Despite U.S. spy satellites positioned over eastern Ukraine, U.S. intelligence agencies have released no images of a Buk system being transferred by Russians to rebel control, shipped into Ukraine, deployed into firing position and then being taken back to Russia. Though the Obama administration has released other images of Ukraine taken by U.S. spy satellites, the absence of any photos of a rebel-controlled Buk missile battery has been the dog not barking in the strident case that Official Washington has made in blaming the rebels and Russia for the July 17 shoot-down that killed 298 people.

Given the size of these missile batteries – containing four 16-foot-long missiles – the absence of this evidence prompted caution among U.S. intelligence analysts even as senior U.S. officials and the U.S. mainstream media rushed to judgment blaming the rebels and Russians.

In making that case, Kerry and other senior officials relied on claims made by the Ukrainian government along with items posted on “social media.” These snippets of “evidence” included ambiguous remarks attributed to rebels who may have initially thought the shoot-down was another of their successful attacks on lower-flying Ukrainian military aircraft but who later insisted that they had not fired on the Malaysian plane and lacked the longer-range Buk missiles needed to reach above 30,000 feet.

If the U.S. intelligence analysts are correct – that the rebels and Russia are likely not responsible – the chief remaining suspect would be the Ukrainian government, which does possess Buk anti-aircraft missiles and reportedly had two fighter jets in the vicinity of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 at the time of the shoot-down.

Some independent analyses of the initial evidence from the crash site suggest the jetliner may have been destroyed by an air-to-air attack, not by an anti-aircraft missile fired from the ground. Yet, the working hypothesis of the U.S. intelligence analysts is that a Ukrainian military Buk battery and the jetfighters may have been operating in collusion as they hunted what they thought was a Russian airliner, possibly even the plane carrying President Vladimir Putin on a return trip from South America, the source said.

The source added that the U.S. intelligence analysis does not implicate top Ukrainian officials, such as President Petro Poroshenko or Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, suggesting that the attack may have been the work of more extremist factions, possibly even one of the Ukrainian oligarchs who have taken an aggressive approach toward prosecuting the war against the ethnic Russian rebels in the east.

Obviously, a successful shoot-down of a Russian plane, especially one carrying Putin, could have been a major coup for the Kiev regime, which ousted Russian ally, President Viktor Yanukovych, last February touching off the civil war. Some prominent Ukrainian politicians, such as ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, have expressed the desire to kill Putin.

“It’s about time we grab our guns and kill, go kill those damn Russians together with their leader,” Tymoshenko said in an intercepted phone call in March, according to a leak published in the Russian press and implicitly confirmed by Tymoshenko.

The Shoot-Down Mystery

The Malaysia Airlines plane, flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was not expected to be over the eastern part of Ukraine on the afternoon of July 17, but was rerouted to avoid bad weather. The plane was nearing Russian airspace when it was shot down.

Some early speculation had been that the Ukrainian military might have mistaken the plane for a Russian spy plane and attacked it in a scenario similar to the Soviet shoot-down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 in 1983 after misidentifying it as a U.S. spy plane.

In the two-plus weeks since the Ukrainian air disaster, there have been notable gaps between the more measured approach taken by U.S. intelligence analysts and the U.S. politicians and media personalities who quickly rushed to the judgment blaming the rebels and Russia.

Only three days after the crash, Secretary of State Kerry did the rounds of the Sunday talk shows making what he deemed an “extraordinary circumstantial” case supposedly proving that the rebels carried out the shoot-down with missiles provided by Russia. He acknowledged that the U.S. government was “not drawing the final conclusion here, but there is a lot that points at the need for Russia to be responsible.”

By then, I was already being told that the U.S. intelligence community lacked any satellite imagery supporting Kerry’s allegations and that the only Buk missile system in that part of Ukraine appeared to be under the control of the Ukrainian military. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “What Did US Spy Satellites See in Ukraine?”]

On the Tuesday after Kerry’s Sunday declarations, mainstream journalists, including for the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, were given a senior-level briefing about the U.S. intelligence information that supposedly pointed the finger of blame at the rebels and Russia. But, again, much of the “evidence” was derived from postings on “social media.”

The Los Angeles Times article on the briefing took note of the uncertainties: “U.S. intelligence agencies have so far been unable to determine the nationalities or identities of the crew that launched the missile. U.S. officials said it was possible the SA-11 [the Buk anti-aircraft missile] was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems.”

That reference to a possible “defector” may have been an attempt to reconcile the U.S. government’s narrative with the still-unreleased satellite imagery of the missile battery controlled by soldiers appearing to wear Ukrainian uniforms. But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts have largely dismissed the “defector” possibility and are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity.

A Hardened Conventional Wisdom

Nevertheless, even as the mystery of who shot down Flight 17 deepened, the U.S. conventional wisdom blaming Putin and the rebels hardened. The New York Times has reported Russia’s culpability in the airline disaster as flat-fact.

On July 29, Obama prefaced his announcement of tougher sanctions against Russia by implicitly blaming Putin for the tragedy, too. Reading a prepared statement, Obama said: “In the Netherlands, Malaysia, Australia, and countries around the world, families are still in shock over the sudden and tragic loss of nearly 300 loved ones senselessly killed when their civilian airliner was shot down over territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine.  …

“Since the shoot-down, however, Russia and its proxies in Ukraine have failed to cooperate with the investigation and to take the opportunity to pursue a diplomatic solution to the conflict in Ukraine. These Russian-backed separatists have continued to interfere in the crash investigation and to tamper with the evidence. They have continued to shoot down Ukrainian aircraft in the region. And because of their actions, scores of Ukrainian civilians continue to die needlessly every day.” [Emphasis added.]

Though one could argue that Obama was rhetorically tip-toeing around a direct accusation that the rebels and Russia were responsible for the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down, his intent clearly was to leave that impression. In other words, Obama was pandering to the conventional wisdom about Russian guilt and was misleading the American people about what the latest U.S. intelligence may suggest.

It’s also grotesquely deceptive to blame the Russians and the rebels for the indiscriminate shelling by government forces that have claimed hundreds of lives in eastern Ukraine. The rebels have been resisting what they regard as an illegitimate coup regime that, with the aid of neo-Nazi militias from western Ukraine, overthrew elected President Yanukovych in February and then moved to marginalize and suppress the ethnic Russian population in the east.

By presenting the conflict in a one-sided way, Obama not only misled Americans about the origins of the Ukraine crisis but, in effect, gave the Kiev regime a green light to slaughter more ethnic Russians. By pointing the finger of blame at Moscow for all the troubles of Ukraine, Obama has created more geopolitical space for Kiev to expand its brutal onslaught that now has included reported use of poorly targeted ballistic missiles against population centers.

Obama’s covering for the Kiev regime is even more outrageous if the U.S. intelligence analysts are right to suspect that Ukrainian forces were behind the Flight 17 shoot-down.

And as for who’s been responsible for destroying evidence of the Flight 17 shoot-down, an assault by the Ukrainian military on the area where the plane crashed not only delayed access by international investigators but appears to have touched off a fire that consumed plane debris that could have helped identify the reasons for the disaster.

On Saturday, the last paragraph of a New York Times story by Andrew E. Kramer reported that “the fighting ignited a fire in a wheat field that burned over fuselage fragments, including one that was potentially relevant to the crash investigation because it had what appeared to be shrapnel holes.” The shrapnel holes have been cited by independent analysts as possible evidence of an attack by Ukrainian jetfighters.

Accepting Reality

Yet, given how far the U.S. political/media establishment has gone in its Flight 17 judgment pinning the blame on the rebels and Russia even before an official investigation was started, it’s not clear how those power-brokers would respond if the emerging analysis fingering Ukrainian forces turns out to be correct.

The embarrassment to high-level U.S. officials and prominent mainstream U.S. news outlets would be so extreme that it is hard to believe that the reality would ever be acknowledged.  Indeed, there surely will be intense pressure on airline investigators and intelligence analysts to endorse the Putin-is-to-blame narrative.

And, if the investigators and analysts won’t go that far, they might at least avoid a direct contradiction of the conventional wisdom by suggesting that the Flight 17 mystery remains unsolved, something for historians to unravel.

Such has been the pattern in other cases of major mainstream mistakes. For instance, last year, some of the same players, including Secretary Kerry and the New York Times, jumped to conclusions blaming the Syrian government for an Aug. 21 sarin gas attack that killed hundreds of people in a Damascus suburb.

On Aug. 30, Kerry gave a bellicose speech filled with “we knows” but providing no verifiable evidence. A punitive U.S. bombing campaign against the Syrian government was averted at the last minute when President Obama decided to first seek congressional approval and then accepted President Putin’s assistance in working out a deal in which the Syrian government surrendered all its chemical weapons while still denying a role in the Aug. 21 incident.

Only later did much of Kerry’s case fall apart as new evidence pointed to an alternative explanation, that extremist Syrian rebels released the sarin as a provocation to push Obama across his “red line” and into committing the U.S. military to the Syrian civil war on the side of the rebels. But neither U.S. officialdom nor the mainstream U.S. press has acknowledged the dangerous “group think” that almost got the United States into another unnecessary war in the Middle East. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Collapsing Syria-Sarin Case.”]

It may seem cynical to suggest that the powers-that-be in Official Washington are so caught up in their own propaganda that they would prefer the actual killers of innocent people – whether in Syria or Ukraine – to go unpunished, rather than to admit their own mistakes. But that is often how the powerful react. Nothing is more important than their reputations.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

Share this Article:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati
  • email

135 comments on “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts

  1. Mr. Perry, you seem to have developed a pattern of leaving possible Israel connections out.

    For example, Russian evidence points to a Ukraine army unit that has Israelis “volunteers” in charge that they say shot down flight 17. Their evidence includes infrared satellite tracking from the Ukraine/Israel position and exactly how many radars they had operating. Of course MSM won’t print it, since it is much better evidence than any the US has produced.

    I first notice a bias when you spoke about comments….but failed to mention the Israelis government was paying college students to post their story line (where many get nasty, obscene, threatening and clearly in violation of most sites policy) on social media…. your site included.

  2. Ma hongqing on said:

    Thanks for the new released article for flight 17. I appriciate you a lot you are still struggling to find out the facts as the medai almost fogot the victims.

    • Man on the street on said:

      I wanted to find the other Side of the story? I went to. Malaysian English News papers to find out what Malaysians are saying about their two airlines? To my surprise NOTHING! So all the excitement of the downed two airliners are only a concern of the West press? How is that possible? I was thinking that Malaysia may have alternative views or even more educated views?

  3. Matteo Brustia on said:

    Dear Robert Parry, was so many days I was looking forward for a masterpiece of your Journalism on this topics, and now I had it with more than simple satisfaction. “Parallel big caliber machine gun holes” so evident on the cabin of the crashed plane and the intercepted radar signal of at least one Ucranian Su-25 ascending to the MH17 at the moment of the crash by russian radars were enough to point to the rightous murderer of 298 people weeks ago. Alas US and EU with the complicity of far too many newspapers twisted te evidence to their purposes. Thanks for restoring the truth!!!!

  4. Coleen Rowley on said:

    Pentagon asks Congress to allocate $19 million in support of Ukrainian army (http://en.itar-tass.com/world/743301 )

    So our tax dollars are being used to needlessly increase conflict with Russia and also increase the risk of mutual destruction as this new Cold War heats up and brings us another minute closer to midnight on the “Doomsday Clock.”

    • We all need to stop paying federal taxes = our tax dollars are being used needlessly

    • Joe Tedesky on said:

      Coleen Rowley, I would like to ‘thank you for your service’. Taxes, you raise a very interesting theme. What finally brought down Al Capone was convicting him of financial tax crimes. Hmmm…could this be away to reign in our out of control war machine, by tax reform? In any case you bring up a great topic when pointing out our tax burdens. Take care J.T.

  5. I prefer to explain things with Occhams Razor.
    Your theory loses!

    • You can’t even spell “Occams razor” (or alternately Ockhams razor) so I doubt very much you are accustomed to using it.

      Here it is in action :-

      The Ukrainian junta are known for a certain fact to have the means to shoot down the jetliner, the rebels not. Therefore it is simpler to believe that the Ukrainian ‘government’ did it.

      It is also simpler to believe that a person who seems to be wearing a Ukrainian army uniform is a member of the Ukrainian army rather than not.

      Got the idea?

      • Mario Monaro on said:

        But why would Ukrainian forces do that? Their enemy has no planes, wo what did they expect to shot down? The story of a plane with Putin on board is hard to believe. Why would/should Putin fly over that area?

    • Oops, missing apostrophe alert.

      I should have said Occam’s razor or Ockham’s razor and so should you.

    • Gregory Kruse on said:

      I think you use Occham’s Razor to shave your pubic hair.

  6. marlene jobelle on said:

    Thanks, great article. There is two points which elude me right now. Why does Washington not asking Kiev to hand over the last control tower conversation with MH-17 ? What is happening with the black boxes ? it as been a while since they were handed over to Britain for analysis. I am a flight simulator engineer and it does not take very long to dump the box’s memory and feed it to a simulator which is equipped to produce abundant flight data replay and analysis. The outcome does not favor Kiev version ?

    As for the blatant US propaganda, their lies and incompetence have done huge damage around the world in destroying their credibility forever.

  7. As far as I understand the known facts so far, there is one detail in this article here which I heard of otherwise. This one:

    The Malaysia Airlines plane, flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was not expected to be over the eastern part of Ukraine on the afternoon of July 17, but was rerouted to avoid bad weather.

    As far as I understand the situation so far, the only one fact where everyone seems to agree is that there was no bad weather. See eg Washingtons Blog, 31/7/2014: First Examination of Malaysian MH-17 Cockpit Photo Shows Ukrainian Government Shot that Plane Down:

    Interesting because MH17′s flight path has two kinks in it, as if they were re-directed over the battlefield. Initially Kiev said that was due to bad weather, but then admitted their was no bad weather.

    A more authoritive source for the weather I have currently not at hand.

    • The bad weather is an interesting cause… I grew up in that region, and the summer is very hot there with one or two rains per whole season.

    • Clever Handle on said:

      You’re quoting from a comment to the blog entry, not the blog entry itself. I haven’t seen Kiev admitting that there was no bad weather anywhere else. Do you have a source for it?

    • carlo on said:

      I agree, the “rerouting due to bad weather” conjecture doesn’t seem to hold up. On July 17, the weather at Mariupol and the Sea of Azov (the region MH17 evaded by taking a more northern route) was fine:

      http://www.wunderground.com/history/wmo/34712/2014/7/17/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Mariupol%27&req_state=&req_statename=Ukraine

      The weather archive does indicate a minor tempest in the afternoon, but if you look at the indicators (precipitation, air pressure, wind speed), it was bascially a non-event. Though I can’t exclude that the forecast may have been worse.

    • Brendan on said:

      The Russian military would have pointed out that there was no bad weather if that were true, especially when weather conditions are easy to verify.

      They’ve done a very good job of finding other major flaws in what the Ukrainians say, including a Ukrainian satellite photo supposedly taken when it was very cloudy but the photo showed no clouds.

      The Russians also claim that the MH17 deviated 14 km from the international corridor but they don’t seem to mention anything about the weather.

      • My bad that I haven’t cited any serious source for discrediting the “bad weather” argument. However, my reading is usually mostly non-Nato countries media, and I remember quite well to have read about the idea of bad weather retracted. See the comment of Carlo who was better then me using the internet.

        But what I agree is absolutely not retracted is questions why the MH17 jet flew where it flew. There are many subuestions to this, but some main questions lack answers, too. So far I remember to have heard that the jet got something like a direct path, an allowance by Ukrainian control to run where it wants. But things are more difficult. In the days before Malasia Airways flew some hundred miles south of the conflict zone, while many other jets, eg those of Lufthansa, flew directly over the conflict zone. The airspace was not closed, and even if MH17 just took a short routine path over Donetsk, why was it -a nd many other jets – allowed to do so? Wasn’t it established before by Ukraine that Russian-friendly militia shot down a high-flying military jet in that region, with a high-reaching weapon that only could have been a Buk or something like that? The Ukrainian government says, pro-Russian militias in Donetsk/Lugansk region are terrorists. If they do think so, why didn’t they close the affected airspace? Might it be, that, as a militia member said a month before the MH17 shootdown, that Ukrainian fighter jets needed civilian airliners as cover for military flights and bombing missions? I don’t know. And than, of course, come strange questions out of Russian military observation that MH17 strayed for a dozen of kilometers or so. Is that true and if so, why?

        I heard a lot of controversial things about MH17. However, I think, that there was good weather in the region at the relevant time is one of the few things most people from all sides agree upon.

  8. Hillary on said:

    Almost immediately the MSM began blaming Russia after the incident without a shred of evidence .
    Russia released their data and the U.S. failed to release theirs.
    It seems the MSM will continue with their accusations hoping to drown the facts in a web of lies.
    The Video Report Deleted by the BBC .
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvK5m2vxro#t=53

  9. Joe Tedesky on said:

    Back on July 11th Moon of Alabama posted a story stating “The Ukrainian 79th and 24th brigades from Lviv, western Ukraine, bunched up over night in some place around Zelenopliya between the south-eastern rebel positions and the nearby Russian border. They were hit by a barrage of grad rockets fired by the pro-federation forces.”

    Then I recalled Webster Tarpley making a remark as to how the Kiev coup masters had become pinned down between the pro-Russian federalist and the Russian border. As it turned out the Kiev coup government admitted to having BUK missile batteries somewhere in that area. No one, (except some here)ever explained why the Kiev coup military had such a weapon to be used against an opponent who doesn’t even have planes.

    Now, I wonder ( just me) if the Kiev coup didn’t want to be in that terrible position. It would be cunning to position your BUK batteries there. Then shoot down a civilian airliner only to blame the pro-Russian federalist. Don’t forget the Kiev coup missiles were in the pro-Russian federalist area.

    I realize what I have here is just more speculation. Sorry, but I feel an investigation should include this time table.

    Our government needs to settle down. The media backlash on this story (which certainly includes the media) will only be the prelude to the “Blowback”, when it comes. We cannot go on like thus. Between supporting a genocide regime in Israel, to sticking a finger in everyone else’s eye (BRIC nations) our country will fall upon it’s own weight. We truly possess much good to offer the world. Instead, we create chaos, and cause disparity to whole populations, and for what?

    If Obama really wants to go down in history, he should fire all the Neocons, shut down these military endeavors, and stop with the sanctions. Yes, there is more than what I have mentioned here to be done, but this would be a start. If ever there was a time for a radical difference I think it is now.

    No more “Shock Doctrine”!

  10. batyrbaj on said:

    Here proofs that the plane was brought down by Putin. http://instagram.com/p/q3IQVyPoUN/?modal=true
    Parade football fans in Kharkov patriots skip a trick 3.08.2014. Here to whom there are your taxes in Ukraine.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCrn-MmLa1I&index=3&list=UUHuvgpwPtZlOTTQqXZdimFg

  11. steve on said:

    Please investigate the idea that the plane was blown apart by bombs. According to a resident of the area speaking in a news video, the tail and cockpit ended up on the ground far from the main fuselage, 1km and 500 meters respectively, on a line. I find it hard to believe that this pattern of debris could form without the plane coming down already separated into these parts. I have heard, but do not know for a fact, that missles do not cause entire parts of a plane to break off, but use small objects projected from the warhead to pierce the plane and disable it. In addition, it is well known that human bodies were falling all over the place, and this is another indication that the plane was opened up in midair, perhaps at the tail and front ends, which would allow the bodies to fly out. So the main questions are: did these plane parts fall into position or somehow bounce there off the ground (assuming the locations and size of the pieces are as stated), and whether missiles can actually blow off entire sections of a large aircraft.

  12. voon71 on said:

    I like to draw some attention to the initial evidence evidence provided by the Ukrainian government concerning the taped conversation between the Russian separatists. It has been debunked as a fake but what I find fascinating lately is that the time stamp on that youtube video has not been mentioned lately.
    Has it been removed too soon for anybody to verify it? ( I first saw it on Dahboo77 channel. ) If it is ‘manufactured’ 24 hours before the incident then it is obvious the incident of MH17 is planned, not an accident.

  13. onno frowein on said:

    The evidence shown by Russian media is overwhelming against USA/NATO claim that MH 17 was downed by the separatists who don’t have any BUK launchers. Even now German specialists have proven that MH 17 was shot down by Ukrainian SU 25. Proven by the round holes in the fuselage and cockpit. http://cont.ws/post/38897

    When is Washington coming up with their ” promised’ evidence or does the White House have to admit that they are at the short end and have to admit that they lied to the world. That would make MY DAY but that will be a dream. This of course will be declared ‘ classified ‘ and will be closed to Congress and the World even if this would cause WW III under a so-called peace loving, incompetent president Obama and even more incompetent VP Biden and travelling ‘loser’ Kerry.
    What amazes me why Congress has NO public hearings about the downing of MH 17 and request the evidence?

  14. Desperate to find a pretext

    MH-17 flight: Another tragic incident to be exploited

    http://goo.gl/NdJ3w5

  15. herman.doorn@gmail.com on said:

    To me this looks at a classic Northwood operation. Fully documented examples. There is evidence that MH17 was labelled M9-MRC, not MRD. MH17 pilots were part of the plot. israel prepared a drone copy M9-MRD. See plane spotters seeing the plane at Tel Aviv in March 2014. Also ineresting, major ATC secondary radar outages around Austria, possibly when the drone was flown to its final airport. MH17 flew at 35000 ft, the drone underneath at visible height. See statements of local people (deleted BBC video). UKR fighters did not need to fly above 30.000 ft, as they did not down MH17, but the lower flying drone.
    This also explains unfresh bodies and crisp passports. As we now seem to find matching DNA in the Netherlands, we can assume MH17 passengers were killed. Remember the delays with the Donetsk train.

    • A train delay would not destroy DNA, falling from 33,000 would not damage a passport.

      What is your evidence that Israel flew such a drone and to what end?

      In other words why the cliched and uninformed antisemitism.

      If you have evidence of some other state involved, provide it, instead of a speculative tale.

    • youniquelikeme on said:

      The C/D is debunked here:

      https://www.metabunk.org/threads/solved-mh-17-was-9m-mrd-so-why-are-there-photos-of-9m-mrc-d-partially-obscured.4006/

      Your passport was designed to last years and is coated with plastic. Most people keep their passports in a protective sleeve in their purse or carry-on. None were exposed to anything that would damage them … except the fall and they would have all been contained.

      That you believe the bodies were faked is sad. Their loved ones should not have to read this being constantly and carelessly bandied about.

  16. Nupura on said:

    The articles are well written, facts clearly identified and accounted for. A couple of news items was added by you, with proper attribution and ownership. The net result has been something extraordinary. Last few articles on MH17 have been quite extraordinary.

    The good work are recognized, I hope they will be sooner than later, with an impartial investigation results and objective reporting in MSM rather than burial of the story.

  17. notlurking on said:

    Follow these links… interesting new take on what happened.

    On the video listen carefully around the 6:10 mark.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNMj-M-GDl0

    http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/

  18. Jean de Peyrelongue on said:

    Mr Pary is trying to bury that crime in a set of complex assumptions.
    It is clear to me after having read the following analysis that MH17 was shot by the ukrainian jet fighters Sukois 25.
    For me ir was not an accident but a deliberate murder.
    The question is: who ordered the crime ? As we know that the ukrainian interior minister is in charge of the civil war, he is the first suspect. But has he acted alone or with the US counselors wishing to create a new ‘Pearl Harbour’ to triger a war against Russia. So far they failed thanks to God and Putin and not to Obama.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/german-pilot-speaks-out-shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/5394111

  19. Check this out – look how the US states are divided up – California’s Guard is responsible for Ukraine so they’re being deployed to train!!

    National Guard State Partnership Program
    http://www.eucom.mil/key-activities/partnership-programs/national-guard-state-partnership-program

    I found this when looking to verify an article I saw on RT entitled:
    California and Ukraine National Guard gear up for military collaboration in 2015

    http://rt.com/usa/177520-california-ukraine-obama-military/

    In the latest step by Washington to increase the pressure on Russia’s border with Ukraine, the Obama administration has informed Congress that the US will train and arm the Ukrainian National Guard next year, the Pentagon said.

  20. This canard of flight MH17 possibly being mistaken for Putin’s jet was laid to rest officially by the Russians very soon after it raised its ugly head shortly after the disaster, at a time when some so-called reporters were suggesting the possibility of the airliner (six miles high) being taken down by shoulder-mounted artillery!

    When you refer to “Some independent analyses…”, without specifying the actual source or providing a link, you give more credence to these analyses than perhaps they deserve.

    It has certainly seemed to me most probable from an early stage that Kiev forces were indeed responsible for the attack on MH17, and the lack of any substantial contrary evidence, not to speak of the pathetic attempts by Kiev and Washington to fake evidence, has served only to make it seem more probable; but to build a case, as this article does, on doubtful sources and highly imaginative hypotheses is quite pointless. Sooner or later we shall have more solid evidence, and as it is presented so the jigsaw puzzle can be filled in. Until then, much as I and others may wish the crime to have been committed by Kiev+Washington, there is no virtue in rehashing tired, half-baked old stories and merely wishing for it to be so.

  21. Check this out – look how the US states are divided up – California’s Guard is responsible for Ukraine so they’re being deployed to train!!

    National Guard State Partnership Program
    http://www.eucom.mil/key-activities/partnership-programs/national-guard-state-partnership-program

    I found this when looking to verify an article I saw on RT entitled:

    California and Ukraine National Guard gear up for military collaboration in 2015

    http://rt.com/usa/177520-california-ukraine-obama-military/

    In the latest step by Washington to increase the pressure on Russia’s border with Ukraine, the Obama administration has informed Congress that the US will train and arm the Ukrainian National Guard next year, the Pentagon said.

  22. David Ravicher on said:

    This is a responce to your article that I received on Reddit today from redisnotdead -
    I don’t support this view what so ever, but wanted to pass it along.
    This judgment … is based largely on the absence of U.S. government evidence
    Yet we see here Perry openly admits the conclusion is drawn not from evidence, but a lack of evidence.
    Absence of proof is not proof of absence, the very foundation of his argument is a logical fallacy.
    Some independent analyses of the initial evidence
    One. By a retired pilot. Three military analysts on the other hand say the damage is consistent with the narrative.
    Perry highlights evidence that supports him, ignores any that doesnt.
    The Los Angeles Times article on the briefing took note of the uncertainties:
    Yet ignores entirely the certainties produced by that briefing, that the launch came from a location just outside Snizhne. This is supported by a huge swath of independent evidence not from US intelligence which show Rebels operating a BUK in the launch location, eye witness accounts of the launch and evidence at the scene of the launch deemed by a military analyst as consistent with a BUK.
    This location is some 30km+ behind Rebel front lines.
    the U.S. conventional wisdom blaming Putin and the rebels hardened.
    The big problem with this narrative is that it isn’t just the US.
    Germany, France and the Netherlands all have much warmer relations with Russia and have a vested interest in supporting pretty much any narrative that continues to foster that relationship. All have done the opposite, citing the same narrative as the US. For the Netherlands and Germany it has caused a huge shift in their policy towards Russia and is leading to calls to strengthen of NATO.
    None of this fits, if this is a CIA/US/Ukrainian false flag which would continue to allow these EU countries to pursue their self interests and join the Russian narrative. Their intelligence and analysts are reading the same blog posts you do.
    Despite this being consortiumnews and therefore as interesting and intellectually challenging of a read as trying to shove a needle in my piss slit while blindfolded, I actually went ahead and read it.
    There’s no doubt the separatists had access to a BUK system. They fucking boasted about it on multiple occasions. There’s absolutely no point releasing all their intel when the separatists themselves boasted about taking down ukrainian jets with a BUK system.
    And let’s look at the sources they link to: rt.com and globalresearch.ca, which are two of the least reliable “news” source out there. No more reliable than consortiumnews anyways.
    I mean, even if you remove US and Ukrainian and and Separatists and Russian medias and PR from the equation, you’re still left with pretty damning evidence. There’s the separatist BUK being towed in the area, hull damage that is consistent with a BUK missile fragmentation warhead (and absolutely not like anything a SU-25 missile or 30mm cannon would leave), the launch burn marks at the probable launch location being coherent with a BUK launcher system, etc etc.
    I mean, I may be wrong, but until someone comes up with actual evidence and not just what-ifs and conjecture, i’m not going to listen to their drivel anymore
    So either bring on that evidence that a SU-25 got completely overhauled to shoot down a 777, either shut the fuck up. I think I was patient enough, and I’m growing tired of your inane bullshit.

    • David Ravicher on said:

      sorry, that was 2 commenters
      reddit user walkinghumble top to “none of this fits the CIA…”
      reddit user redisnotdead from “Despite the fact…” to the bottom.

    • Joseph on said:

      You are basing your opinion on assertions of “missile burn marks” “behind federalist lines” and your interpretation of undocumented eyewitness accounts. No such evidence as you suggest exists. Did you make it up, or just listen only to convenient assertions? The witnesses said many things, mostly supporting the presence of fighters, maybe or maybe not a missile. No evidence of whodunit or why. So you drop into insults. Feel free not to bother more cautious thinkers.

      • that opinion is of two different people on reddit, neither one of them being me, as I agree that the US evidence is more than lacking. Just wanted to put those replies to the article up so that “other” views could get expressed.

    • Mike Rennie on said:

      hull damage that is consistent with a BUK missile fragmentation warhead (and absolutely not like anything a SU-25 missile or 30mm cannon would leave)

      The damage to the Boeing 777 is exactly what one would expect from one or two R-27 air-to-air missiles shot from an Su-27. These (R-27R or R-27EA, not the infrared homing R-27T) missiles have the same radar homing, radar-proximity fuse, blast/fragmentation warhead like the alleged SA-11 BUK missile (and 39kg of explosive compared to 70kg of explosive for the SA-11).

      The Kiev-regime has 45 Su-27′s – and hundreds of AAMs that could easily shoot down a commercial airline with no defenses, flying on a known path at a known position (thanks to Kiev ATC data). The Su-27 could even fly over “rebel held territory” at Mach 2, fire from there to make it look like the “missile was launched from rebel held territory”, and still would not have been seen by Russian radar if they stayed below 5km altitude (unlike the spotter plane seen by Russian ATC radars, making sure the airline went down).

      The Kiev-regime has the overwhelming means, motive and opportunity to shoot down MH17. Coming out with the BS social media story immediately about a “rebel BUK” (and they got the timestamp wrong in the first version, dated the day BEFORE the shootdown, still preserved in Web caches for anyone interested in the TRUTH) immediately takes suspicion off their 45 Su-27′s, any one of which could have shot down MH17 – and all evidence left behind would match the known evidence so far.

  23. Joseph on said:

    Mr. Parry has the right idea. Now that the oligarchy’s media and politicians have revealed their private agendas with obvious propaganda, the truth will be suppressed permanently, both by Kiev and Washington and those “independent experts” who can be forced or bribed to go along.

    There is no other reason that the US would suppress all its evidence, or that Kiev forces would suppress the ATC logs and recordings and radar and weather data, or that they would fight over and even burn a certain farm field full of wreckage.

    And what did those “independent experts” do there? If I had been there for a few hours I would have more photographic evidence than necessary to dispose of some hypotheses. A few days would be required to decode the black box data and process chemical evidence. So this long delay means that evidence is being destroyed and faked up by the US, primarily to deceive the people of the US and EU, primarily to serve the warmongering oligarchy we have in the ruins of democracy..

    • It did take a very long time for any “crash” experts to show up, didn’t it ??? Lots of hand wringing about recovering body parts – but not much work on figuring out how the plane was shot down, or by who. Explosive residue on wreckage pieces for chemical analysis, combing the area for missile fragments – a Boy Scout troop could have gathered more hard physical evidence in one or two days than all these “international investigators” in almost 3 weeks.

      Conclusion – the Powers That Be don’t want a real investigation. They already have the propaganda they need, now it’s just going through the motions… Leaks coming out about the Cockpit Voice Recorder in the UK say “nothing unusual – gee, we might NEVER know what caused this shootdown”.

      Especially if the Kiev regime is successful in capturing the wreckage site.

  24. The war time precipice propaganda of NYT and others is appalling, this is a review I did (http://whiteapple.ninja/index.php/8-technological-progress-and-moral-evolution/8-international-law-of-private-propaganda), of Der Spiegel’s article written by Christian Neef… ‘Fairy Tales and Fabrications in Eastern Ukraine’. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-trip-to-the-site-of-the-crash-of-flight-mh-17-a-983268.html), It is quite clear that the US/UK MSM is not alone with their pom poms.

  25. Mr Parry:

    Careful with linking that German pilot story, since he seems to think the canon on the SU25 did the shooting down of the jetliner.

    The problem is that the SU25 has an unpressurized cockpit, and can’t fly higher than about 23,000 feet–not clear if this limit is only about cockpit pressure, or something else like engines or wings.

    In other words the SU25 is a ground attack plane probably incapable of flying at 33,000. And the German pilot had no business making this claim without explaining exactly how the SU25 got up that high.

    • Clever Handle on said:

      It’s service ceiling is 23000 feet (7km), but that’s not the same thing as it’s absolute ceiling.

      • Clever Handle:

        You’re going to have to document the SU25 flying at 33,000 feet.

        Flying that high in an unpressurized cockpit is really difficult, even with oxygen.

        So if you have evidence of the plane being regularly used at that height, provide it. And it needs be checkable, not some Russian said he did this in 1985, but he’s been dead since 1997.

        It’s the same mistake the German pilot’s website made. Now if that pilot’s website had made clear that the he had documented the SU25 operating at 33,000 that would be a hugely different story. But the German pilot doesn’t even mention the basic 23,000 feet (7KM) ceiling. He’s more interested in his conclusion not any evidence that may call that conclusion into question–sloppy.

        As it stands now, an SU25 blasting the jetliner with a cannon looks really suspect.

        And I don’t for a second accept John Kerry’s assertions about being sure. But why pretend that this plane could be the culprit, when the are big technical problems with that “answer”?

        The fact is that anti-aircraft missile warheads do indeed fragment–that’s a proximity blast not an impact blast, then the fragments can hit the target.

        (Can’t wait to see the name and model number of the plane change in the next week from SU25 to SU27, the latter being capable of flying that high easily. And no, I don’t mean the Russians will change their claim. I mean that the model number will be changed to distract from finding a real solution.)

        • Clever Handle on said:

          Source: http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25

          This Ukrainian defense contractor website lists the Su-25 having a practical ceiling of 7-10 km. I’m sure

          I agree with you, nothings definitive. But I don’t think the plane scenario can be ruled out at this point. The main thing working in the favor of Haisenko’s theory is that it explains the damage that looks like both entry and exit holes in the cockpit of the plane.

          I’d agree, if the designation shifts that’d be pretty suspicious. But the briefing has been out for over a week now and I don’t think Russia’s Defense Ministry has changed it’s story at all on what kind of fighter it was they detected in the vicinity of MH 17.

  26. Mike Rennie on said:

    The Kiev-regime could have easily have shot down MH17 with an Su-27. One or two R-27 air-to-air missiles (the Su-27 can carry six) would damage a Boeing 777 very similarly to a Buk SA-11 missile – same radar homing, 39kg of explosive compared to 70kg of explosive for the SA-11, radar-proximity fuse, blast/fragmentation warhead. Of course the Kiev coup government put out their story of a “rebel Buk” immediately (literally – as soon as Malaysia realized communication with MH17 was lost), because social media could make one of theirs look like a “rebel Buk”. Kiev has 27 working Buks – they just had to make it look like the rebels had ONE – even if they had no launch codes from an old, captured Buk half-system. Even for that low bar of “proof”, Kiev and their Washington backers failed.

    Now, how could it be proven that MH17 wasn’t shot down by an Su-27 ? Kiev has dozens of such planes, hundreds of such missiles that would do exactly the damage we’ve seen. We know Su-27′s were flying in exactly that area earlier in the week, even that very afternoon according to some reports. The Russian ATC radars wouldn’t see the Su-27 if it was flying below 5 km. Kiev ATC has refused to show any data to the Investigators, but that’s OK since the US-controlled “investigation” already decided the rebels did it with a Buk – and The West punished Russia for it already. BBC Russia interviewed some people in “rebel controlled territory” that saw some “military aircraft” flying around right before they heard the boom of MH17 blowing up. So BBC deleted that video from their archives (but it’s still on YouTube).

    Why is nobody talking about this simplest explanation ? Because if it was an Su-27, there was NO way it could be the anti-Kiev rebels in the east. If it was a Buk, there is a slight chance it magically appeared from Russia, was used for ONE shot by Russian mentors, then magically disappeared back into Russia – with no satellite photos from the USA proving such a nonsense conspiracy theory.

    Meanwhile, Kiev has dozens of Su-27′s, any one of which could have shot down MH17, knowing exactly where the plane was and where it was going (having access to official Kiev ATC data). It could even fly a few minutes over rebel territory, so that any “infrared satellite” watching for “missile launches” would see one or two R-27′s launched – right over rebel “controlled” territory. To a sloppy analyst, those infrared blotches might look close enough like a “Buk missile” firing from “rebel controlled territory”. Enough to convince John Kerry, but maybe not enough to convince an honest, retired analyst – hence no such satellite data is released. Too bad the rebels don’t control the sky over their territory, except for lucky shots with their Igla-S MANPADS (which can hit targets up to 7km high, but with a probability-of-kill most reliable for altitudes up to 3.5 km).

  27. F. G. Sanford on said:

    When the “official” story is true, they stick to it. In this case, it changes almost daily. The denials will become more robust as it becomes harder to deny that an Su-25 did the shooting…with cannon fire, as I pointed out on 23 July.

    In 1932, R. J. Mitchell designed the Supermarine 224. It first flew in 1934. It was an open-cockpit, fixed landing gear single seat prototype with a 600 horsepower piston engine. It’s ceiling was 38,500 feet. Obviously, the pilot wore an oxygen mask. This was an experimental design that predated the Spitfire, which was designed in 1936. It also had a “ceiling” of 38,500 feet. With a supercharger and stripped of its armor, photo-reconnaissance missions were routinely flown at 40,000 feet, and some tales claim 60,000 feet to escape enemy fighters.

    If you believe an Su-25 can’t exceed the flight characteristics of a 1932 piston engine airplane with an open cockpit and fixed landing gear, you have no business speculating. At this point, anybody pushing that “theory” is either pitifully gullible or a shill for the Whacky Psaki Cracker Factory.

    • Mike Rennie:

      But has anybody provided any evidence that an SU27 was flying in the area at the time?

      The Russian claim specifies an SU25, and then doesn’t draw specific a conclusion, just seeking an explanation for the plane climbing and being in the area.

      The fact that the SU25 has a ceiling of 23,000 (the cockpit is unpressurized) is a real problem for this plane being involved in downing the jetliner, and I’m sure the Russians understand this point.

      A day or two ago (Aug 2, 2014), I did some internet searching for claims about the SU27 and MH17, and nothing turned. So if some party knew about real evidence for use of an SU27 don’t you think those claims would have at least shown up on the interwebs by now?

      • Mike Rennie on said:

        The Kiev military has Su-27′s, they were flying in that area days before the shoot down.

        Who could have seen an Su-27 shoot down MH17 ? The Russian ATC radars would not have seen it if it was below 5km. Some eyewitnesses saw “military aircraft” in the skies “near” MH17 before they heard the explosion. Kiev ATC would have seen it, but that data has been confiscated by the Kiev Secret Service – Investigators don’t have it.

        I’m not saying there’s absolute proof an Su-27 did it, I’m saying it’s consistent with all known evidence. The “rebel BUK” was an immediate, desperate attempt by Kiev to blame it on the rebels – and then, by saying they are hard to operate, on Russia. Kiev changes their BS stories all the time, always trying to blame their “terrorists” or Russia. When the AN-26 transport went down days before MH17, first they claimed Russian jets shot it down. After MH17, they changed their story to the rebels shot it down, “proving” they had a BUK system even days earlier. When a BBC analyst questioned their whole “claim” that it was even flying at 6500 m, and that anyway the rebels had Igla-S MANPADS that can bring down aircraft up to 7 km, they just dropped the propaganda point. They just throw stuff out, and see what sticks.

        Investigators should consider what COULD have shot down the MH17 – then see what the evidence eliminates. Nobody disputes that an Su-27 could have shot it down easily – I bring it up, because all the “experts” interviewed in Western articles about air-to-air missiles say “the damage is not consistent with MH17″ – and when you look closer at the interview, they are saying that because “most” AAMs use infrared homing, and would have targeted the engines. So what ? Who cares what “most” AAMs do, if the Kiev-regime has a perfectly good AAM that does exactly what a BUK SAM would do – target the radar coming from the cockpit ?

        Don’t ask “what evidence is there that an Su-27 shot it down?” Ask “what evidence is there that an Su-27 didn’t shoot it down?”

        So far, there is none. I hope investigators find missile fragments at the wreckage site, before Kiev captures the site and removes all evidence.

        BTW, the Russian news conference said they saw a “military aircraft” once it climbed above 5km. Only one guy said “Su-25″, and it was tentative – the translator said “It is supposed that it was Su-25″. The other guy only said “military aircraft”. I bet the ATC radar couldn’t distinguish an Su-25 from an Su-27. Thanks for your Russian data – nobody else is releasing hard evidence, except a vague claim that US satellites saw infrared evidence of a missile launch “over rebel territory” (with no actual data released). Even if that were true, the Su-27 scenario could explain it.

        • mike rennie:

          Now, I’ll have to check the exact transcript of the Russian news conference.

          If I were obsessing, I’d ask my Russian friend to check the translation.

          Anyhow: Why haven’t the Russians then made very clear that they have not identified the exact small jet they saw on radar–and that calling it an SU25 is ambiguous at best.

          As for the SU27 claims, just find something to back them up that can be checked.

          Look: “It’s possible” is interesting, but were SU27(s) flying that day?

  28. To argue an ‘Official Washington’ willing to ‘allow killers of innocent people to go unpunished’ for strategic purposes must also allow for an ‘Official Washington’ to willingly plan the atrocity in the first place (Northwoods provocation), and use the “preference to letting the killers go rather than admit their own mistakes” as an operational ploy should the false flag intention of the atrocity be exposed. Not everything is just a ‘mistake’ that has to be “aw-shucks” owned up to. 911 was an inside job. Its cover was a very effective aw-shucks ’ Failure of Imagination’ (plus a lot of promotion), so we know it works.
    Ghouta gas attack was false flag, messier because its harder to exercise control in hot war conditions, and Russia stood up and confronted the US ‘lack of evidence’ with actual evidence. . turning the tide of misinformation back onto a very empty KERRY .
    As with MH17- Russia stood up with actual evidence. After all, they were the target of the provocation.

    Further to the ‘Northwoods’ type probability becoming certain, we know how deeply involved in the Maidan Coup the USState dept. was (Nuland etal) along with USAID, NED – hell, US/NATO are backing real honest to god fascists – Nazi Svoboda and right-sector. the presence of US/NATO allies in the ongoing Ukrainian war attest to how much covert US has at stake there – so rather than ‘admitting to their own mistakes’ vis a vis MH17 they are more likely PROTECTING the truth unfolding by having ‘their own mistakes’ a conditional narrative should evidence be presented leading back to Washington, not Moscow.

  29. F. G. Sanford:

    Those are interesting claims about the early Spitfire.

    I’d have thought perhaps there were prop problems in the thin air. (Yes, I realize that Superfortresses and Lockheed Constellations flew up there with props.)

    Anyhow, the Spitfire has significantly different wings than the SU25, and the Spitfire’s are going to be better for lift in thin air. So it’s not simply that the SU25 has an unpressurized cockpit that’s the problem.

    If you have documented evidence of the SU25 being flown at 33,000 feet, please provide it. Not claims about what was possible with a different plane.

    • F. G. Sanford on said:

      All Su-25 aircraft brought up to current modification standards have an operational ceiling of 10,000 meters, or 33,000 feet. Older Su-25′s not updated have 23,000 “ceiling”, but that is not an altitude limit. Cabin pressurization has nothing to do with max altitude. GO BACK TO SLEEP, you’re both dreaming.

      • F.G:

        Please provide a source for claims of the SU25 flying at 10,000 meters?

        Assertions of it being so don’t help.

        It isn’t simply lack of a pressurized cockpit that may be the problem with flying the SU25 at 33,000 feet.

        Wake up to the problems and provide checkable sources regarding actual use of the SU25 at 33,000 feet. This means pilots alive today who’ve flown the plane that high.

  30. steve on said:

    An su-27 fighter jet, or an su-25, Ukraine has both, and/or a BUK missile could have attacked MH-17, I suppose. Why not? The instant PR was that a rebel missile did it. But how would you explain how MH-17 broke apart in mid-air, releasing human bodies and body parts that landed in a very wide area? Missiles usually explode outside an aircraft, sending small metal pieces into the plane, but do not usually open up the fuselage and allow its contents to fly out. To break a large plane open, a large enough bomb or bombs would have to explode inside the aircraft, perhaps from within the walls of the fuselage. Such large explosions would ensure that the plane would fall immediately and not limp off to some other place with passengers still alive. The downside of this kill plan is that the evidence would point to internal explosions, and internal explosions would point away from the rebels and even away from Kiev. That is why it was necessary to have at least some shrapnel damage to implicate a missile attack. A missile would explode outside the plane leaving evidence of missile attack, then the bombs would be set off to finish the job with no survivors and maximum public outrage.

    • Mike Rennie on said:

      At 33,000 feet, a Boeing 777 is pressurized so the passengers can breathe comfortably. Shrapnel puncturing that pressurized plane would cause “explosive decompression” as they call it – like a balloon popping. This is a commercial plane, optimized for lightness and minimum fuel consumption. Military planes have more armor, and burn more fuel. Planes don’t “fall down out of the sky” – they have tremendous forward momentum (it was flying at about 555 mph when it was hit). It slowed down abruptly because the explosion ruins it’s aerodynamic shape, so there is more air resistance – but it still has the same forward momentum, a missile exploding meters away doesn’t change that much. All the extra stresses can rip off wings, tear sections off the fuselage – you don’t need any internal bomb to give the pattern of destruction seen. It wasn’t “limping away” – it was falling, decelerating, and probably spilling out contents as it fell for 8 minutes or so.

      • steve on said:

        Holes introduced into a container pressurized to less than one atmosphere does not cause the container to pop like a bubble. Where did you get that idea? It is more like a compressed air tank that starts leaking where rust has eaten it away. And I am sure you have seen the airplane disaster movie where a window is broken or sombody shoots a hole in the wall. Air leaks out.
        And if the plane does not rip apart from the missile explosion, it should be able to handle any aerodynamic forces, even in a spin descent.

  31. dominik.woz@hotmail.co.uk on said:

    Boys,

    You really believe that Russians DO NOT KNOW S*** ABOUT THEIR OWN JETFIGHTERS? They produced and designed it, and they do know all modification done by surrounding countries – especially Ukraine. Only problem with Su-25M1 (that is modernized version) is air (oxygen) delivery system , and it has a max ceiling of 10km and max ceiling is not MAX ALTITUDE….so

    Sanford,

    1. It is hard however to believe that Cannons NOT missiles has been used as it leaves SOMETHING on black boxes.
    2. During Russian press conference they tried to say something to the world. Notice that there was TWO speakers, ONE said about SU -25 another said ABOUT “military airplane” near MH17 and it sounded as some NEW military airplane….

    however…Ukraine is under almost Svoboda/pravy sektor party ruling so anything could happen.

  32. Mike Rennie on said:

    “All flights, including Malaysian B777, were being escorted by Ukrainian Su-27 Flanker jets over Eastern Ukraine” Jul 21 2014 – The Aviationist.

    This article argues that Su-27 jets were flying that very day. The R-27R AAM has a range of 80 km – I don’t think the fighter jet would fly right behind the MH17 before it blew it out of the sky, since the flight crew might comment on the unusual situation. Still, I believe the wreckage (explosive residue, missile fragments) should be the main evidence of what missile was used – not some admission by the Kiev-regime that they had an Su-27 flying over rebel territory that afternoon. If Kiev did it, it was a highly covert mission – they (and the U.S.) will not be confirming anything for you, you must figure it out from the physical evidence. I don’t know why the Russians haven’t come out with a more plausible scenario after their July 21st news conference – maybe it’s related to anything they say being attacked in The West as “desperate propaganda” and included with tabloid “Russians think MH17 was really MH370!”stories. The Kiev-regime had their story ready the day before the shoot down – Russia was caught off guard, trying to figure out what had happened. But from the evidence presented so far, objective observers can give whatever plausible scenario comes to mind. I only looked into the R-27 air-to-air missiles after I saw an article with a Western “expert” saying it couldn’t be an AAM, because “most of them use infrared homing, and we don’t see the engines exploded”. WTF ? That is expert reasoning ? What about an AAM that uses semi-active radar homing, just like the alleged SA-11? Another website was arguing endlessly that the Su-25 was a stupid choice for Kiev to shootdown MH17, and Su-27 would have been much easier. That’s when I went back to the news conference, and was wondering how set in stone that “Su-25″ comment was. It seems tentative – “It is supposed it was Su-25.” And they said nothing about the radar signature suggesting an Su-25 over an Su-27 – just that they saw no ID transponder codes, so it must be a military aircraft. The Kiev military has two perfectly capable weapons for shooting down MH17 that everyone knows they have – Su-27′s with R-27R or R-27EA missiles, or their own 27 BUK SAM systems. You’ll notice that Kiev and Washington have release NO hard evidence – ATC transcripts, radar scans from that afternoon, satellite data from the shootdown time. Anything that could show Kiev behind the shootdown has not been released. Just heavily edited “audiotape intercepts” and alleged “BUK movements in rebel territory” that Kiev released within minutes of the tragedy – as though they knew that if they shot down the airliner, they had a blame-story all set to go to frame the rebels. And it’s worked too, NATO is giving them weapons to counter “Russian aggression”, the EU has agreed to sanctions the USA was pushing them on – all because of the MH17 shootdown.

    Russia asked a dozen questions based on their ATC data presented on July 21st – Washington and Kiev have just ignored them. They are not acting like they want to “find out who shot down MH17″ – they are acting like they want everyone to believe their initial, immediate propaganda, now move on. Kiev is attacking the crash site, to keep investigators out. Washington is releasing nothing that would shed more light on the mystery. Washington and Kiev have already gotten the benefits that come from blaming “the rebels, with Russian help”. You’ll never see any more evidence from them. I hope Russia copied the black box data, because the UK would easily lie about what they find, if Kiev was behind the shootdown. The West is pushing for a showdown with Russia – 300 people as “collateral damage” is nothing in their geopolitics schemes.

    • mike rennie,

      Interesting but it looks like article implies the Buk missiles were shot by the rebels at the Ukrainian SU27s escorting the Boeing.

      So there are problems here.

      • I was only interested in the part about Su-27′s flying that day. Since it hasn’t been proven yet that a Buk SA-11 was even the cause of the MH17 shootdown, or if the anti-Kiev rebels even had a working Buk, I think that author speculating about the “reason” the anti-Kiev rebels fired their hypothetical Buk can profit by waiting for hard evidence about the missile involved, just like I am waiting for it.

        It’s interesting to consider scenarios and match it to what is known so far, but speculation from July 21 is pretty old now, on August 5th. But as I said, various people thought Su-27′s were flying that afternoon. And others said only “military jets” were flying.

  33. steve on said:

    If you think it would be too hard to place bombs aboard Mh-17 flying out of Schiphol airport in the Netherlands, note that the Israeli company doing security there, ICTS International, (according to Wikipedia) let the “underwear bomber” through security there, and is the same company fired for its lax security at Logan airport on 9/11 where two of the 9/11 planes originated. I am not saying that Israel is involved, but blowing up MH-17 would serve to distract from the Gaza slaughter while definitely contributing to the U.S. and EU campaign to vilify Putin and the rebel Ukrainians. Even without Gaza, the Israeli company would probably be willing to help out with American black ops.

  34. Mike Rennie on said:

    Whoops – made my whole last post a link.
    Ukrainian Air Force Su-27 Flanker heavily armed for Combat Air Patrol
    Taken, on Mar. 1 by Andrey Rakul, at an undisclosed location (possibly, Mirgorod Air Base, the airbase hosting the only Ukrainian Air Force Flanker Squadron), it shows Su-27 “45 Blue” armed with 6 Vympel R-27 missiles (NATO reporting name AA-10 Alamo-C) semi-active-radar homing extended-range air-to-air missiles and 4 Vympel R-73 (AA-11 Archer), a configuration adopted for Combat Air Patrols (CAPs) established by Kiev after the Russian invasion of Crimea.

    Kiev has dozens of Su-27′s. The R-27 air-to-air missile with semi-active-radar homing is denoted R-27R. One R-27R missile (13.4 feet long, with an 86 pound warhead) is more than half the destruction of on SA-11 BUK missile (18′ 3″ long, 154 pound warhead). And the Su-27 here has SIX such missiles. Kiev doesn’t need a BUK to down a Boeing 777 if they have 45 Su-27′s. And yet they have dozen of BUK’s, too. One side has all the weapons, all the motive. The anti-Kiev rebels have just the Kiev regime, who is trying to kill them, coming out with an endless stream of quickly falsified claims released on Twitter and YouTube. Real professional. (“We saw Russia give them 3 working BUK systems, they fired one missile, then Russia took all 3 BUK systems back. At 2 am, so no satellite saw it.”) Kiev is like the Secret Service who cried wolf.

    • mike rennie:

      I’m not disputing that Ukraine has SU27s armed with air to air missiles, I’m saying we need evidence the SU27s were flying that day.

      This link suggests that the SU25 can be used at 10,000 meters:

      http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25

      I just would like to see if there are living pilots who talking about using it at that altitude.

    • Mike Rennie on said:

      You have evidence that eyewitnesses saw “military jets” flying right before the shootdown. You have evidence Russia saw some military aircraft in that area, whereas Kiev lied and said they had none flying in that area.

      I’m saying that if the Investigators found out the Boeing 777 was shot down with an R-27 missile, then you’ll have your evidence an Su-27 was flying that day, and shot down MH17.

      There is no hard evidence the anti-Kiev rebels had a working BUK – they admitted they captured a BUK weeks earlier, but only part of a working system, and you need launch codes to use it -which they didn’t have. The Kiev claim that they “saw” Russia quickly deliver BUKs, then quickly whisk them out of the country, for that ONE missile launch, is less believable than that Kiev used an Su-27 that day.

      If Kiev had released their ATC radar data, that would go a long way to showing what was in the air that day – but they refuse to release that data. If the US would show the alleged “infrared satellite” data on the missile launch right before the shootdown, that could be analyzed for SA-11 vs. R-27 infrared signature – but they refuse to release the alleged evidence. Meanwhile, we await investigators finding missile fragments or explosive residue, or flight crew talk of any Su-27′s in the area.

      Investigators have to prove what shot down MH17 – I’m saying they better be considering the possibility of R-27 missiles shooting down MH17. It was certainly either a SAM or an AAM – and Kiev had plenty of both. The anti-Kiev rebels might have had one SAM launcher – but so far, no proof. There are only two suspects in the shootdown, and the Kiev suspect is the one providing “evidence” that the other suspect actually shot down the Boeing 777. And the evidence keeps being shown to be doctored and faulty. So Kiev releases something else…

      It’s been almost 3 weeks, has anyone even looked for missile fragments in the debris yet ? They are still looking for body parts…

      • Right, if the plane is found to have been shot down by a missile only carried by the SU27 that’s serious evidence for the use of an SU27. I suspect though that various planes can fire, perhaps not guide though, that air to air missiles.

        Seeing military planes that day is not evidence.

  35. If Malaysian Air MH-17 was attacked by a military aircraft, it was likely one or more Sukhoi Su-27 “Flanker” air superiority fighter aircraft. The slower, heavier, lower flying Su-25 “Frogfoot” ground attack aircraft is a less likely suspect.

    The Su-27 has a service ceiling of 19,000 m (62,500 ft) and is armed with one GSh-30-1 single-barrel recoil-operated cannon in the starboard wing root.

    The Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30 is the standard 30mm cannon armament of most Russian military jet aircraft, including the Su-27 and Su-25 aircraft operating with the Ukrainian Air Force.

    In combination with a laser range finding/targeting system, the GSh-30 cannon is an extremely accurate and powerful weapon. Its maximum effective range against aerial targets is 200 to 800 meters (650-2600 ft). Projectile variants can be fitted with distance-armed and delayed action fuses.

    Ukranian air traffic control had re-routed Malaysian Air flight MH-17 300 miles north of its normal flight path, putting it directly over the active conflict zone. Su-27 aircraft perform combat air patrol in this area, and may have been “escorting” MH-17.

    Experienced pilots operating Su-27 could have precisely fired upon the commercial aircraft in a sudden, rapid surprise attack using GSh-30 cannon only.

    • Abe:

      The “could” is fine, but what is the evidence that there were SU27s flying that day? Or any other highflying Soviet fighter, say the Mig 29?

      • Mike Rennie on said:

        What’s the evidence it was downed by a BUK missile? Much less a BUK missile shot by anti-Kiev rebels?

        Since there is NO hard evidence of what shot down MH17 – and yet the fact that it was shot down with something seems pretty solid – then all scenarios must be considered and matched to the available evidence, and evidence yet to be uncovered.

    • The evidence has not been released by the regime in Kiev: Ukrainian air traffic control data and Ukrainian air force operational information. Detailed examination of the records would reveal the specific type(s) of aircraft, the identity of the pilot(s), what weapons were fired, what orders were issued, the chain of command, etc. But all that may indicate that the US/NATO client regime was responsible for an international terrorist incident and potential casus belli.

      “Records? We ain’t got no records. We don’t need no records. I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ records!”

  36. Hillary on said:

    Interestingly Mr. Parry is not ready to accept “the official” version of this Ucrainian crash when he firmly believes the official 9/11 report 100% even though not a drop of blood was seen at the Shanksville crash site.
    Even though the FBI took the official position that “Osama Bin Laden was never wanted in connection with 9/11, because there is no hard evidence Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11.” and Elias Davidsson’s book Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11 explains – that none of the 19 Arabs blamed was even on board any of the allegedly hijacked planes.
    All this while a FULL El Al flight took off on 9/11 from JFK for Tel Aviv…
    .
    http://rainbowwarrior2005.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/full-el-al-flight-took-off-on-911-from-jfk-to-tel-aviv/

    • Hillary:

      Just had to connect Israel to the 9/11 thing.

      You can make all the points you like about problems with the official story, but connecting one party without any evidence shows a bias of yours.

      In fact with the El Al claim you weaken any case that there’s a problem with the 911 tale. Perhaps that’s the point. (You do realize that link has no sourcing, other than someone says? Funny JFK is not an isolated airport, so if it happened, a plane taking off could easily have been seen by tens of thousands of people, so someone on the street should remember–the weather was incredibly clear that day in NY.)

      And who cares if Parry doesn’t want to go there, let’s stick with the tales being told about the jetliner in Ukraine.

      It’s not hard to imagine a much bigger war being started over the events in Ukraine than any US invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq.

  37. James on said:

    Does Mr. Parry actually have some information to pass along? This is yet another article pointing out the flaws in the state department’s accusations against Russia.

    While this kind of skeptical journalism is useful, I feel that Mr. Parry already made these points before. Mr. Parry’s twitter account says that this article provides “new twists in the Flight 17 evidence.”

    Where are these new twists? In previous articles, Mr. Parry alluded to “sources” who claimed that US intelligence identified Ukranian wrongdoing pertaining to the MH17 crisis. Is Mr. Parry going to leave that claim unresolved?

  38. rus_programmer on said:

    Thanks to the author. Unfortunately, all as always.
    1. In the first part of the play we heard loud accusations. The free press in a single chorus sings.
    2. In the second part we see a reaction in the form of bombings and sanctions.
    3. At the end of the TV performances in the credits, we see a refutation (whispers and small handwriting).

  39. Sergey Devy on said:

    Fascists in Ukraine with the help of the U.S. state Department kill peaceful Russian population in the new Novorossia

    Press conference of the Ministry of defense of Russia about Boeing, which provides proof of guilt of Ukraine
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSpeo5RcQQo

    Start the Ukrainian crisis, the fascists are striving for power
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKuDzXAgdf4

    But that right now makes the fascist government of Ukraine, with the Russian population of Novorossia
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE18iPQ1Euk

  40. Hadbang on said:

    I wonder why some people claims that an SU25 cant climb at 10000 meter.
    The A10 has two about 40kN Engine and the SU25 has two 40kN Engine both Jets are Build for Ground attacks. The A10 has an official service ceiling around 13500 meter! I cant belive that a russian airplane with the same amount of thrust has not comparable performance capabilities. The German Ju87 service ceiling was 8000 meters with piston driven engine and 1000 – 1400 PS compare 1400 PS to 2x 40kN.

    • Hadbang:

      The equivalent US plane is the A10, Warthog, not the A7. (However the A10 indeed does have a higher ceiling than the SU25.)

      Beyond just getting to 10,000m, which is significantly beyond normal for the SU25, the plane would have to operate there.

      Don’t bring up other planes and pretend they have the same operational characteristics.

      • Hadbang: on said:

        Oops I see you referred to the A10.

        The fact remains, that the SU25 is not really supposed to be flyable at 10,000m for whatever reason, perhaps it has to do with wing surface area. Note the A10 has big wings.

  41. Hillary on said:

    “Just had to connect Israel to the 9/11 thing “
    .
    Yaj on August 5, 2014 at 7:17 pm said:

    Will you please explain what you mean by your “9/11 thing” ?

    Do you mean that you are looking for a connection ?

    Perhaps this will help you in your much needed research .
    http://rediscover911.com/international-zionism-did-911-23-facts/

    • Hillary:

      You just had to go there H.

      What does your problem with Israel have to the with events Ukraine?

      The link is crap I read in 2002, and it was weak then. And also not about Ukraine.

      • Hillary on said:

        Yaj ,
        As you must know Israel is a powerful player in world affairs with the notorious Israel Lobby being strictly anti-Russian.

        The State Dept. official Victoria (“Fuck EU”) Nuland personally directed the Kiev coup; she handpicked the government and the president of the new American colony on the Dnieper River. Her husband, Robert Kagan, is a founder of FPI, the successor of infamous PNAC, the extremist
        Zionist think tank which promoted wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and pushed for a war with Iran. Now they are attacking Russia, but they do not forget about their support for Israel.
        ..
        For example an Israeli citizen & multibillionaire oligarch Mr.Kolomoyskyi is the current Governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast the most important industrial region of the Ukraine.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXoLqOrGgAM&feature=related

        • H:

          All of which has not a thing to do with which party shot down MH17.

          So more distraction.

          If Israel is responsible for all crimes, then it’s just noise that’s rightly ignored, thereby missing real abuses by Israel–say in Gaza.

          One could almost say you are an agent of Israel, albeit probably unknowing.

  42. You call this piece of junk “investigative journalism”? Or are you just trying to sound contrary to White House, regardless of the facts? Conspiracism is destroying brains, be careful.

    • rus_programmer on said:

      Are you interested in the facts?
      1. Is fact that the Ukrainian authorities have not darkened the skies over the combat zone. Also was already a precedent when they shot down a passenger plane. Siberia Airlines Flight 1812
      2. Another fact although wreckage yet smoldered but already Ukrainian authorities made ​​statements and presented fake negotiations. This suggests that the action was prepared in advance.
      3. Generally in the world accepted, at first to understand, and to find evidence and then press charges. Especially because officials have repeatedly “sat in a puddle” because their wild guesses were given as the facts.

  43. Anton from Russia on said:

    Thank you.
    I asked this question and the data on it a lot, but all of them are somehow ignored.
    I want to add:
    1) the Motive, is the most important thing in the crime… air defense system capable of shooting down the plane at an altitude of 10 km can’t break it by chance. In particular, the system “Buk” has a semi-active guidance systems, i.e. the goal “is clearly identifiable and it sent a rocket to the moment of destruction”who would not have shot down a civilian airliner, he knew that the plane was a civilian and he wanted to capture it.

    Why shoot down the militias of civil aircraft, with the daily military aircraft of Ukraine inflict massive bomb attacks by militia and systematically what for civilian residential areas where no militia is not and can not be…)… there is no point to waste precious missiles, it is a political and military suicide.

    Why shoot down “the new authorities of Ukraine”, and here the motive is. To the “destruction of the Boeing European countries resisted the introduction of sanctions and support actions against Russia, and after the sanctions were instantly entered, and began the “anti-Russian hysteria”.

    2) the Ukrainian side, three times already provides fake facts… three times!
    - talk “militias to discuss the destruction of Boeing”, which provided the Security Service of Ukraine… turned out to be fake, and sewn together from bits and pieces of different conversations. But most importantly, the file creation date… 2 days before the crash!!! Who would not create this file, he knew that after two days is shot down a civilian airliner.

    - Photo of the “system “Buk” brought on the carrier from Russia with room 312 (provided by Ukrainians)… also turned out to be fake. This same setup, with the same number 312 twice was fixed at photo before… but in the composition of the Ukrainian army!!! place pictures are not suitable declared.

    - photo courtesy of the Ukrainian army “the crash site, and the lack in the area of air defense of the Ukrainian army”… also turned out to be fake. It changed the date and time… in particular shadows falling from trees do not match the length and direction at this time of day.

    Question: Why the “innocent party”… three times to give false evidence? Who attempts at investigation of crimes, cheating?

  44. mike padpy on said:

    Detailed expert analysis of the MH17 downing

    New analysis on where the BUK was fired from by CDN on vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

    drive.google.com/file/ d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCV DduaHVORHM/edit?usp= sharing

    mediafire.com/view/61qa 99yt6v3dq64/MH17Anal ysis_Parts_1_and_2.p df

    After looking at BBC and Telegraph reports and using Russian supplied pics of BUK positions only 1 could have hit MH17 and cause the debris damage,

    The position south of Shakhtars. This position offers an optimum firing solution as the aircraft will be approaching the launch position rather than moving away from it, thus avoiding pursuit mode. MH17 is clearly within the 35 km missile range.

  45. F. G. Sanford on said:

    @ Hadbang-You are absolutely correct. This nonsensical idea that an Su-25 could not fly high enough to shoot down an airliner is just absurd. The holes in the fuselage are 30mm in diameter, consistent with armor-piercing cannon fire (NOT machine gun fire), and the breakup of the plane, which would have turned into confetti if hit with a missile, also suggest rapid fire cannon damage. All this nonsense is just muddying the waters and will eventually serve to discredit any attempt to lay the blame where it belongs. The DeHaviland Mk XV Mosquito, a World War Two piston engine bomber, was modified to defend against high-altitude German bombers – it had a service ceiling of 45,000 feet, and the cabin, as far as I know, was not pressurized. These “armchair” experts are part of the typical strategy of misinformation to cloud the issue. At this point, there will never be a conclusive verdict.

  46. Conserp on said:

    It is cynical, ’cause the powers-that-be in Washington themselves ARE the actual killers of innocent people.

    Even Muslim extremists nowadays are, essentially, nothing more than a “next-gen zombie-plague-like bio-weapons” employed by them.

  47. Conserp on said:

    It may seem cynical to suggest that the powers-that-be in Official Washington are so caught up in their own propaganda that they would prefer the actual killers of innocent people – whether in Syria or Ukraine – to go unpunished, rather than to admit their own mistakes

    It is cynical, ’cause the powers-that-be in Washington themselves ARE the actual killers of innocent people.

    Even Muslim Extremists nowadays are, essentially, nothing more than a “next-gen zombie-plague-like bio-weapons” employed by them. They are cheap, efficient, reliable, self-breeding, expendable & disposable. Same goes for neo-Nazis.

  48. F.G.

    It is not at all preposterous to point out that flying the SU25 at 10,000m is a problem that hasn’t been dealt with by those claiming that an SU25 used a cannon to shoot the jetdown.
    (Also that hypothetical cannon fire would have to have immediately destroyed the Boeing’s radio–not likely.)

    Anti-aircraft missiles like the Buk are designed detonated in proximity and fragment. So holes in the plane resembling gunfire damage in no way preclude the use of an anti-aircraft missile.

    If you have evidence of SU25s in regular level flight at 10,000m, provide it.

    • Conserp on said:

      flying the SU25 at 10,000m is a problem

      What? Why? “Wikipedia says so”?

      First of all, it does not need to climb to 10,000 to shoot anything at 10,000 down.

      Second, it has a ceiling of 10,000, and it can climb much higher dynamically. Su-29TM’ ceiling is 12,000.

      You want proof? Here, Su-25 flying at 8,700 m with combat load :

      youtube:
      GY_2NoHdNso

      Altimeter is clearly seen at 5:32 in the center

    • You just can look to the Russian Wikipedia (and a lot of other sources) (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D1%F3-25). The flying ceiling of a Su-25 with a R-195 engine (1986) (not with earlier R95SH (1979)) is 10,000 m. That’s all.

      • Yar:

        And other figures get cited.

        It’s not at all clear that 10,000m is sustainable or means level flight.

        • Yar,

          Did you check that Russian wikipedia page.

          10,000 is not there.

          Nor, 10000. Not 10k.

          Do you read Russian?

    • Yaj.
      Yes, I read. If you point a cursor to a supra note *2 in the phrase:
      Практический потолок: 7000 м[* 2]
      (Practical ceiling: 7000m), you will get a pop-up window with a needed clarification.

      • Okay, found the popup bubble.

        Does it say 10,000m is normal for this plane? Can the SU25 fly level at 10,000m if the pilot so chooses?

        Clearly you realize that 7000m is the 23,000 that I’ve been quoting.

      • Yes, It’s a normal height. I can send you a page with Su-25 technical parameters from a book on this plane – in Russian of course, but I’ve underlined the figures. I just cannot post pictures here.

    • From the ukies themselves…

      Practical ceiling, m7000-10000
      Max combat height m5000

      http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25

      It can fly higher but can not maintain it for long. Ceiling depends on a lot of factors and not just power and lift. So how long you can stay there depends on your environment itself. If you dont have heater and air to breathe then the plane can fly there but you would end up dead. Past 5000m it gets really hard to breathe. Try running and you will find out fast but does not mean you will die or you cant walk up higher.

      • Are Russian sources not good for you?
        Practical ceiling – the heights where the plane can operate (without a pilot’s death of course – it would be absolutely stupid). Combat level is lower because it is an attack aircraft (stormovik) not a fighter – its targets are on the ground. But it can easely shoot a civilian plane on the height.

  49. “The current government in Kiev has a history of fabricating and manipulating evidence when it’s politically expedient.”
    http://scgnews.com/flight-mh17-what-youre-not-being-told

  50. F. G. Sanford on said:

    @Yaj – What exactly is your point? You must accept reality if you are going to analyze this issue intelligently. 30mm cannons are not “hypothetical”. That is the PRIMARY weapon system with which all Su-25′s are equipped. There is no available “recording” of what was on the radio, which would not necessarily have been turned on. The cockpit recorder microphones would become immediately useless after the first shell impact due to explosive depressurization. No recording is available to argue the point. Some misinformed individual suggested that the “missile” would home on the “radar coming from the cockpit”. IFF systems are passive; they respond to radar by emitting a radio identification signal which identifies the aircraft. There WAS NO MISSILE.

    The important issue here is this: 1) Did the Western Ukrainian Nazi Air Force or Nazi Militia Ground Forces shoot down the airliner? OR 2) Did the Eastern Ukrainian Democratic anti-Nazi Freedom Fighters shoot it down?

    By contributing hypothetical misinformed opinions in the form of pseudo-technical conjecture, the important issue becomes clouded. Only the Nazi elements had the means, motive and opportunity to shoot down the airliner. The “official” NATO opinion will be #2, blaming the Freedom Fighters. Those who favor #1 will become the “lunatic misinformed conspiracy theorists with a thousand different opinions”. That’s a shame, because it is characteristic of every false-flag operation ever conducted. Only the perpetrators know what really happened, and the victims discredit themselves with a million “theories”. In this case, the “bad guys” have already won.

    • FG:

      It’s not hypothetical to question the use of an SU25.

      Being so sure about cannon damage doesn’t do your claims much good.

      An hypothetical clam would be that an F22 took off from Poland shot the plane down, with a missile, since the pilots could have called for help if a cannon were used, and then the F22 returned to Poland or flew on to Romania.

      And the Russian military would never want to admit publicly that they’d tracked a F22, since that would be admitting that they can see stealth planes.

      See how that could work?

      Try using “hypothetical” correctly.

      The problem is the assurance about the SU25, without providing a source for that plane’s regular use at 10,000m.

      You also assume incorrectly that I’m advocating the John Kerry line, you may want to check what I’ve posted here instead of jumping to the idea that I just assume the Ukrainians innocent and wonderful folks fighting big bad Russia.

    • FG,

      Try to use the word “hypothetical” correctly.

      Hypothetically an F22 from Poland could have shot the Boeing down.

      See the difference?

      The big problem with the SU25 cannon idea is that the cannon would be noted and likely reported by the pilots.

    • FG,

      No, all I did was give a real hypothetical example.

      It’s not winning to point out there are problems with a cannon being used. Because the pilot would have picked up the radio and said something.

      10,000m for the Su25 remains in question.

      I’m well aware of lies told about the destruction of the World Trade Centers and say the Kennedy assassination, and clearly these lies are told, and repeated, to confuse matters.

      • >>Hey, people! Su-25 does not fly so high! <<

        http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/aviakosmicheskaya-tehnika/84-cy-25

        Practical ceiling, m7000-10000
        Max combat height m5000

        So the people upgrading the plane itself says it can fly that high for extended periods of time and higher for limited periods of time. Combat ceiling is 5000m.. How people can talk about a civilian plane flying higher than a combat plane is beyond belivable. Even the concorde has a celing of 75KM.. But okay that has the same engine types as fighter planes. So planes like SU27 have similar ceiling. The SU27 can do mach 2.35.. But Israel shot down 2 of them using mach 2.2 missiles… Going max speeds burns out the engine and melts the exhausts. Like seen on the fighters that ended up in Egypt trying to escape Israeli F15's..

  51. Hey, people! Su-25 does not fly so high! Trying to determine the colors of the plane Putin at 3000 ft. can only idiot. The conclusions in this article are based on a lie.

  52. …found another interesting analysis by @davigilant:
    http://www.mediafire.com/download/61qa99yt6v3dq64/MH17Analysis+Parts+1+and+2.pdf

  53. sergio on said:

    Just see this
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/view?sle=true
    The citizens of the world must pay attention to the fact that the US has not provided any reasonable means to assist in the identification of the perpetrators of the MH17 shoot down. The bulk of its ”evidence” consists of a rehash of what is found on social media. And much of what is found on social media has been shown to be forged by the Ukrainian Security Service and Ministry of the Interior. 

     When the neoNazis in Ukraine overthrow a democratically elected government, the west does nothing but rant against Putin. When the unelected government of Ukraine launches air strikes, 
    MLRS Grad launches, and ballistic missile strikes against its own civilian population in Donbass, the west does nothing but rant against Putin. When the Kiev neo­Nazis burn people alive in Odessa, shoot them down as they attempt to escape the flames, and rape a pregnant woman 
    before strangling her with a telephone cord, the west does nothing but rant against Putin. When 298 innocent lives are lost, the west again rants against Putin. But it finally does more. In the person of the USA, it issues a cartoon which seeks to implicate the rebels, individuals fighting against the outrages perpetrated against them by the unelected government in Kiev. By its actions the US, and all those leaders aligned with it, demonstrates complete, total, and utter disrespect for the basic tenets of democratic freedom and for those citizens of the Netherlands, 
    Malaysia, Australia, and those others who lost their lives in the MH17 shoot down. This year marks the launch of the First World War 100 years ago. Any reading of the history of that conflict shows the political leaders, and the media, doing all they could to provoke war, not prevent it. The actions of Ukraine, the irresponsible invective and blathering of Obama, Kerry, Cameron, and the rest, appear designed to provoke what will likely be the Last World War. 
    The citizens of the world should act to stop them.

  54. The dog that didn’t bark is the lack of a report of any rocket trail, which would be highly visible over a large region. If a Buk missile had been fired, we would all know about it from many local commentators.
    There are none. Therefore it was not a Buk missile. Therefore it was one or both of the fighter planes.
    Therefore it was Ukraine, for whatever reason.

  55. Niesslbeck on said:

    Dear Mr. Parry,

    I am not used to comment any articles in english language, because I am german, but I wish to thank you for your unbiased opinion in regard to the shoot down of MH17, please continue to investigate the real reasons for this unbelievable crime

    best regards
    Hannes

  56. Artyom on said:

    Hello from Russia. addressed to ordinary Americans, do not you see that your government, media believe for donkeys ?! you slip only two options, black and white and life has many shades. remember the story !! hidden government America has always fueled the war and the people who suffer. Russia has provided all the evidence at once. negotiations despecher? why the plane changed course? why nahobilis Ukrainian missile in the square? why the Ukrainian army will not allow experts to the wreckage and continue the war? why black boxes given to the British? why American intelligence does not give shots if accuses Russia there must be irrefutable evidence – show and the question is removed. Russian military were asked 10 simple surveys. no answers !! delaying the investigation. do not let yourself out of the flock! ask questions, really need everything. We, Russian 100% sure that the plane shot down by the Army of Ukraine

    • Artyom:

      You are addressing the wrong website. Try your comment at the New York Times, CBS News, Fox News, etc. Few readers of this website ever bought the stories told by the likes of John Kerry and repeated by the New York Times as if verified.

      And claims of 100% assurance don’t help your case. (Though yes, it is certainly likely Ukraine shot the jet down, there could be some other explanation.)

  57. Karl-Wilhelm Haase on said:

    There was a CNN report showing a strange part in the middle of the wreckage.
    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=312996
    And here a picture of an air-to-air missile R-27
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_%28air-to-air_missile%29#mediaviewer/File:R-27_T_3D.jpg

    The fins are very similar.

    • Coherent on said:

      You still watch CNN ? May be also BBC ?
      And read NY Times ? Than -you will never know the truth.

  58. Informative article, exactly what I needed.

  59. Coherent on said:

    HERE IS ALL INFO YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT MALAYSIAN BOEING..

    Malaysian Mainstream Media: MH17 was downed by a Military Aircraft……..

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/malaysian-mainstream-media-mh17-was-downed-by-a-military-aircraft-cannon-fire-from-fighter-jet/5395134

  60. Konstantin on said:

    Эм…