MH-17: The Dog Still Not Barking

Exclusive: The dog not barking in the Dutch report on the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is the silence regarding U.S. intelligence information that supposedly had pinned down key details just days after the crash but has been kept secret, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The Dutch Safety Board report concludes that an older model Buk missile apparently shot down Malaysia Airline Flight 17 on July 17, 2014, but doesn’t say who possessed the missile and who fired it. Yet, what is perhaps most striking about the report is what’s not there nothing from the U.S. intelligence data on the tragedy.

The dog still not barking is the absence of evidence from U.S. spy satellites and other intelligence sources that Secretary of State John Kerry insisted just three days after the shoot-down pinpointed where the missile was fired, an obviously important point in determining who fired it.

On July 20, 2014, Kerry declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “we picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.”

Russian-made Buk anti-missile battery.

Russian-made Buk anti-missile battery.

But such U.S. government information is not mentioned in the 279-page Dutch report, which focused on the failure to close off the eastern Ukrainian war zone to commercial flights and the cause of the crash rather than who fired on MH-17. A Dutch criminal investigation is still underway with the goal of determining who was responsible but without any sign of an imminent conclusion.

I was told by a U.S. intelligence source earlier this year that CIA analysts had met with Dutch investigators to describe what the classified U.S. evidence showed but apparently with the caveat that it must remain secret.

Last year, another source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me they had concluded that a rogue element of the Ukrainian government tied to one of the oligarchs was responsible for the shoot-down, while absolving senior Ukrainian leaders including President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. But I wasn’t able to determine if this U.S. analysis was a consensus or a dissident opinion.

Last October, Der Spiegel reported that German intelligence, the BND, concluded that the Russian government was not the source of the missile battery that it had been captured from a Ukrainian military base but the BND blamed the ethnic Russian rebels for firing it. However, a European source told me that the BND’s analysis was not as conclusive as Der Spiegel had described.

The Dutch report, released Tuesday, did little to clarify these conflicting accounts but did agree with an analysis by the Russian manufacturer of the Buk anti-aircraft missile systems that the shrapnel and pieces of the missile recovered from the MH-17 crash site came from the 9M38 series, representing an older, now discontinued Buk version.

The report said: “The damage observed on the wreckage in amount of damage, type of damage, boundary and impact angles of damage, number and density of hits, size of penetrations and bowtie fragments found in the wreckage, is consistent with the damage caused by the 9N314M warhead used in the 9M38 and 9M38M1 BUK surface-to-air missile.”

Last June, Almaz-Antey, the Russian manufacturer which also provided declassified information about the Buk systems to the Dutch, said its analysis of the plane’s wreckage revealed that MH-17 had been attacked by a “9M38M1 of the Buk M1 system.” The company’s Chief Executive Officer Yan Novikov said the missile was last produced in 1999.

Who Has This Missile?

The Russian government has insisted that it no longer uses the 9M38 version. According to the Russian news agency TASS, former deputy chief of the Russian army air defense Alexander Luzan said the suspect warhead was phased out of Russia’s arsenal 15 years ago when Russia began using the 9M317 model.

“The 9M38, 9M38M, 9M38M1 missiles are former modifications of the Buk system missiles, but they all have the same warhead. They are not in service with the Russian Armed Forces, but Ukraine has them,” Luzan said.

“Based on the modification and type of the used missile, as well as its location, this Buk belongs to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. By the way, Ukraine had three military districts , the Carpathian, Odessa and Kiev, and these three districts had more than five Buk anti-aircraft missile brigades of various modifications – Buk, Buk-M, Buk-M1, which means that there were more than 100 missile vehicles there.”

But Luzan’s account would not seem to rule out the possibility that some older Buk versions might have gone into storage in some Russian warehouse. It is common practice for intelligence services, including the CIA, to give older, surplus equipment to insurgents as a way to create more deniability if questions are ever raised about the source of the weapons.

For its part, the Ukrainian government claimed to have sold its stockpile of older Buks to Georgia, but Ukraine appears to still possess the 9M38 Buk system, based on photographs of Ukrainian weapons displays. Prior to the MH-17 crash, ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine were reported to have captured a Buk system after overrunning a government air base, but Ukrainian authorities said the system was not operational, as recounted in the Dutch report. The rebels also denied possessing a functioning Buk system.

As for the missile’s firing location, the Dutch report said the launch spot could have been anywhere within a 320-square-kilometer area in eastern Ukraine, making it hard to determine whether the firing location was controlled by the rebels or government forces. Given the fluidity of the frontlines in July 2014 and the fact that heavy fighting was occurring to the north it might even have been possible for a mobile missile launcher to slip from one side to the other along the southern front.

The Dutch report did seek to discredit one alternative theory raised by Russian officials in the days after the shoot-down that MH-17 could have been the victim of an air-to-air attack. The Dutch dismissed Russian radar data that suggested a possible Ukrainian fighter plane in the area, relying instead of Ukrainian data which the Dutch found more complete.

But the report ignored other evidence cited by the Russians, including electronic data of the Ukrainian government allegedly turning on the radar that is used by Buk systems for targeting aircraft. Russian Lt. Gen. Andrey Kartopolov called on the Ukrainian government to explain the movements of its Buk systems to sites in eastern Ukraine in mid-July 2014 and why Kiev’s Kupol-M19S18 radars, which coordinate the flight of Buk missiles, showed increased activity leading up to the July 17 shoot-down.

The Dutch-led investigation was perhaps compromised by a central role given to the Ukrainian government which apparently had the power to veto what was included in the report. Yet, what may have spoken most loudly in the Dutch report was the silence about U.S. intelligence information. If as Kerry claimed the U.S. government knew almost immediately the site where the fateful missile was launched, why has that evidence been kept secret?

Given the importance of the conflict in eastern Ukraine to U.S. intelligence, it was a high-priority target in July 2014 with significant resources devoted to the area, including satellite surveillance, electronic eavesdropping and human assets. In his rush-to-judgment comments the weekend after the crash, Kerry admitted as much.

But the Obama administration has refused to make any of its intelligence information public. Only belatedly did CIA analysts brief the Dutch investigators, according to a U.S. government source, but that evidence apparently remained classified.

The second source told me that the reason for withholding the U.S. intelligence information was that it contradicted the initial declarations by Kerry and other U.S. officials pointing the finger of blame at the ethnic Russian rebels and indirectly at Russian President Vladimir Putin, who stood accused of giving a ragtag bunch of rebels a powerful weapon capable of shooting down commercial airliners.

Despite Russian denials, the worldwide revulsion over the shoot-down of MH-17, killing all 298 people onboard, gave powerful momentum to anti-Putin propaganda and convinced the European Union to consent to U.S. demands for tougher economic sanctions punishing Russia for its intervention in Ukraine. According to this source’s account, an admission that a rogue Ukrainian group was responsible would take away a powerful P.R. club wielded against Russia.

Among the organizations that have implored President Barack Obama to release the U.S. intelligence data on MH-17 is the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of mostly retired U.S. intelligence analysts.

As early as July 29, 2014, just 12 days after the shoot-down amid escalating Cold War-style rhetoric, VIPS wrote, “As intelligence professionals we are embarrassed by the unprofessional use of partial intelligence information. As Americans, we find ourselves hoping that, if you indeed have more conclusive evidence, you will find a way to make it public without further delay. In charging Russia with being directly or indirectly responsible, Secretary of State John Kerry has been particularly definitive. Not so the evidence.”

But the release of the Dutch report without any of that data indicates that the U.S. government continues to hide what evidence it has. That missing evidence remains the dog not barking, like the key fact that Sherlock Holmes used to unlock the mystery of the “Silver Blaze” when the sleuth noted that the failure of the dog to bark suggested who the guilty party really was.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and 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.

90 comments for “MH-17: The Dog Still Not Barking

  1. d_le_nen
    October 20, 2015 at 16:21

    Read the report. It is very well made and thorough. And the Russian expert had every possibility to correct anything not sound and did so in many cases.

  2. cohen 63
    October 17, 2015 at 19:34

    OK, any attempt by me to understand all the technical data is doomed from the start.
    According to John Helmer at Dances with Bears, Almaz/Antey says that the missile and warhead the DSB comes up with are incompatible electronically . Ah but they would say that, wouldnt they, retort the critics.However , the other source for weaponry data is the NATO expert Janes. Can that be said to be neutral?There seems to be a boneheaded insistence that all Russians lie, but not Ukrainians or NATO.A fair investigation can not start with that premise,
    The other miscellany I wonder if someone could clear up for me is how did bits of missile end up at the crash site. I would have expected fragments , yeah, from the exploded war head, but the delivery part of the missile didnt explode,and should have ended up somewhere close to the strike site, surely. Or am I just being silly?

  3. October 16, 2015 at 11:38

    Is it just my lap top but when I try to google anywhere Putin’s trip to Switzerland and return to Moscow in July 2014, it comes up with nothing, saying that pages cannot be opened?

    Never happened to me before, even when I asked for the most unlikely combinations about looney conspiracy theorist me and others.

    Is NSA et al. just taking over what is out there, and what we can see?

  4. Andor
    October 15, 2015 at 21:14

    There is one piece missing in the report. After the Crimean Peninsula went into Mother-Russia’s embrace, three regimens of anti-aircraft military brigade stayed in Crimea. They boasted to have 20 BUK-1 systems. Somewhere in my postings I still have the newspaper article about it. It is in Russian, and published by the Russian newspaper.

  5. MS
    October 15, 2015 at 19:05

    Should be added, that the Dutch claimed, they will get the satellite data – and now, no word about it.

    “Dutch authorities have taken the lead in the criminal probe into what brought down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over conflict-torn Ukraine on July 17, killing all 298 on board, most of them Dutch. Westerbeke said that they had yet to obtained US satellite photos of areas from which a missile might have been launched. “We will get them,” Westerbeke said, adding that it was a “long process”.”

    • cohen 63
      October 17, 2015 at 19:40

      Is it possible that the US does have the satellite data , but is milking the most propaganda it can from MH17. It either shows the Ukrainians did it ,so will never release it(in which case someone will hack into the data or a whistleblower will step in ..hahah we can only hope)
      Or the data shows the rebels did do it but the US sits on this for the most advantageous point of release. My guess is they want to keep this simmering for as long as its useful

  6. Canisferus
    October 15, 2015 at 15:07

    Is the MH17 shoot-down just an excuse for Obama to drop arms and munitions to jihadists in Syria? To directly involve the US in taking out Assad while ostensibly opposing Russian “aggression”?

  7. LondonBob
    October 15, 2015 at 11:49

    You are missing another key point the investigation shows regarding Ukrainian claims of two shoot-downs not done by MANPADS. The report, on p185, debunks this, the SU 25 wasn’t shot-down at 8250m as originally claimed, the Ukrainians now admit it was 6250m, in range for a MANPAD, however they have not determined the cause yet. The AN 26 they also say was shot down by a MANPAD, according to Dutch intelligence, at a height of 6500m. So the Ukrainian claims of two prior shoot downs by SAMs, or by a MIG, aren’t true at all.

    So basically if it were accidentally shot down by the rebels then this would have been the very first time they had used a BUK. Again there is no evidence they had an operating BUK.

    • Mick Mack
      October 15, 2015 at 14:51

      London Bob,
      My information regarding maximum level of MANPADS is here,
      MANPADS -9K338 Igla-S /SA-24 Maximum range=20,000 ft (6,000 m) That is for the latest “known” version and I guess it is still possible but beyond its real range. Of course very hard to trust what Ukraine says, do you remember when their aircraft attacked Lugansk city administration building and they suggested, with a serious face, that the rebels had fired a heat seeking missile (at what they didn’t say) and it returned to blow up the buildings air conditioning unit?

  8. Vitaliy
    October 15, 2015 at 00:26

    ‘MH17 report: No clear answers, means there’s no smoking gun evidence’

  9. Charles Wood
    October 14, 2015 at 22:36

    What I find extraordinary is that Ukraine did not supply any military radar records due to the systems being ‘down for maintenance’.

    This was in a period when it’s alleged Russian jets entered Ukraine airspace and shot down Ukraine military aircraft. Not only that, the Ukranians had just suffered a massive defeat with 5000 casualties and 1600KIA. They were acutely interested in what was happening in the district.

  10. Maree Dee
    October 14, 2015 at 21:28

    Just for interest’s sake. Has anyone read the Victorian (Australia) Coroner’s report on the victims? It seemingly was released here to the families concerned without any government interference. (The coroner must release this, it is a legal requirement before release of remains) These same reports have been denied to the families of other nationals. THere seemed to be some disconcern at the lack of projectile fragments discovered. Enough to cause comment in the reports? I have not read it, only passing on comments but thought anyone interested might wish to further investigate.

  11. Old Uncle Dave
    October 14, 2015 at 20:23

    Shortly after the crash, agents from Ukraine Security entered the tower and seized the recordings of voice communications between MH17 and air traffic control.
    To my knowledge, those recordings have not been released to the public, and maybe not even the Dutch investigators.

  12. Helge
    October 14, 2015 at 17:25
  13. Helge
    October 14, 2015 at 17:19

    The aftermath of the Dutch report is interesting. I can observe that the rumour “the Russians supplied the BUK and the launcher” has somehow died in Western Media, all this Bellincat nonsense has indeed been nonsense. It looks like as that the Russian side accepted that it was indeed a BUK missile but the claim that it was a version of BUK phased out by the Russian army but still in use by the Ukrainians was not rejected by Western media or politicians. That is remarkable and that makes it likely to me that it was indeed a Ukrainiain BUK, the question is who launched it? The Ukrainians, the Seperatists? Robert earlier reported rumours that the US satellite image show Ukrainian uniforms launching it but one has to be careful here, quite a few Ukrainian soldiers defected to the Separatists so it could have been an accident or a false-flag operation by both sides. The 320 square-km area the report claims the missile was fired from was actually a battle zone, this time one can refer to the NYT and the maps they have published ( On 21-July the area was still mainly categorised as “rebel-activity” but battles have already taken place in that area so the Ukrainian armee must have been present as well. On 29-August most of the area was actually held by the Ukrainian armee. The Dutch presenter Joustra said later in an interview that he has seen the US satellite images but is not allowed to talk about what he saw. Well, we may all wonder why. They must show somehting which could be troublesome for the Ukrainian side but the possibility of a defector launching the missile cannot be ruled out.

    • Peter Zwitser
      October 14, 2015 at 19:02

      We both heard and saw probably the same interview with Joustra. You heard he had seen the US satellite images. I heard he didnt’t exactly say that, but suggested he had seen them. In quite a long, confusing answer.

      Joustra is not stupid, absolutely not. I think answering those questions in a confusing way you could here different answers is part of a strategy of vague accusations, planting wrong impressions in the head of people, etc.

  14. October 14, 2015 at 16:18

    See no mention of the early report that the Ukrainians shot MH17 down, thinking that it was a Russian one carrying President Putin back from Switzerland.

    James Bamford provided this motive for such a crash when he started writing that article about most dangerous leaker Edward Snowden in Moscow. in June 2014.

    It infuriated CIA to take drastic action since Bamford previewed his claims about Snowden by mentioning other most serious Agency failures, especially Moscow getting the atomic bomb, and preventing the end of the Cold War with a non-nuclear one which spies like Rick Ames alerted the Soviets of.

    Snowden was the worst thorn in its side, and it could do nothing to stop him, so it tried to take out his duplicitous proctor, Putin.

    And by the time Bamford’s article – whose contents NSA had eavesdropped upon – was published on wired, everyone missed the connection to the set up of the Russian President.

  15. Joe L.
    October 14, 2015 at 14:42

    Overall blame should be squarely put on the Ukrainian Government for keeping this airspace open in the first place – had they closed it then all of the passengers of MH-17 would be alive today! The fact is, as Robert Parry points out, “The Dutch-led investigation was perhaps compromised by a central role given to the Ukrainian government which apparently had the power to veto what was included in the report.” then we were never going to get the truth about what happened with MH-17 and should really raise questions about what Ukraine had to hide where it required a “veto” on the information in the report. Again, the blame can go back and forth all day but the Ukrainian Government had the power to prevent this from ever happening and did nothing to stop this.

    • Abe
      October 14, 2015 at 16:14

      It would be illuminating to have a catalog of points where Ukraine exercised its “veto”.

      • Joe L.
        October 14, 2015 at 16:42

        Abe… Well I think the fact that anyone has a “veto” in an investigation where a whole bunch of people died is disturbing to say the least and ultimately means that we cannot truly trust the information that they are revealing. If our media even had a shred of integrity then they would be exploring “why” Ukraine needs a veto in the first place. But ultimately I still stand with my original feeling that Ukraine had all of the power to prevent this from happening in the first place and did nothing. So I think the Germans that are suing the Ukrainian Government for not shutting down their airspace are the most logical in all of this…

        • Mick Mack
          October 15, 2015 at 14:20

          Hi Joe,

          Your point is a strong one. Yes there are lawsuits from Germans suing Ukraine, rightly so. In Australia class action law firm is going to sue MAS instead. There is a significant but small note in the report as to why Ukraine is ultimately responsible. MAS are going to be sued for not applying a risk assessment in regards to the flight path. Interestingly though, the Notice to Airman (NOTAM) provided by Ukraine after their own aircraft were shot down twice in the days before, failed to adhere to ICAO standards which clearly state that a reason must be given as to why a NOTAM is issued. Question is do we think that all airlines might have had been able to better assess the risk if Ukraine had have given the reason they were issuing these NOTAM was because they had lost two aircraft at significant flight levels that were well above where MANPAD style weapons could reach? Ukraine even suggested one was shot down by an air to air missile, from Russia! Good luck getting any compensation, their leaders have stolen all the country’s money.

      • Danvr
        October 15, 2015 at 02:43

        You could have a look in the Consultation Reports A and B, downloadable from, to find objections and comments raised by the Ukrainian government (and others). I wouldn’t expect it to contain any ‘vetoed’ material, but it might provide clues about veto-able information.

  16. Abe
    October 14, 2015 at 13:49

    BUK manufacturer says Russian-made air defenses ‘absolutely’ not involved in MH17 crash

    • Curious
      October 14, 2015 at 22:16

      Abe, this same manufacturer has given some very detailed accounts from previous launches when these were used in the SU years ago and has shown some very distinct blast patterns post explosions. For some reason the Dutch report seems to have excluded all of these details. If this were a report in the US we could never prove faulty GM parts could effect an accident. It is just bafflingly laughable to have such a poor report after a tragedy of such proportions.
      What also interests me is the manufacturer has provided (they may still be on youtube) a very scientific explanation of the exhaust patterns from a BUK-1 missile. Whether one defines it as smoke, or vapor, or condensation or a contrail, there are no eye witness reports from the area describing a visual account of a missile? On a clear day where this same manufacturer has described how the missile trail would have been clearly seen for up to 12 minutes after launch, given the good clarity of a sunny day and low wind conditions, defies any and all logic.
      The little puffs from Bellingcat as some sort of missile proof could be as accurate as the backfiring of one of Ukraines’ illustrious tractors in the field. It’s all very discouraging.

  17. Abe
    October 14, 2015 at 13:34

    20 page summary of the Dutch Safety Board report on the MH17 Crash:

    Page 8 of the report details the radar findings:

    “Radar images of flight MH17:

    During the investigation, the investigators only had the raw data from Ukraine’s air traffic control’s secondary radar at their disposal. According to the authorities, the primary radar system in Ukraine was not active. Russian air traffic control did not store the raw data from its primary or secondary radar because the accident did not occur on Russian territory. However, Russian air traffic control did provide a video film of the radar screen.

    These images show flight MH17 up until the moment when the aeroplane broke up. According to the radar data from both services, three civil aeroplanes were present in the vicinity of flight MH17 at the time of the occurrence. All three were under the control of Ukrainian air traffic control. The nearest aircraft was located at a distance of 33 kilometres from flight MH17. No military aircraft were visible in the radar images provided.”

    Page 8 of the report adds clarifying notes regarding radar:

    “Two types of radar are used in air traffic:

    • Primary radar: this system uses reflections of radio waves off objects. The primary radar provides an object’s angle and distance, which are converted into a position. This can then be
    used to calculate the object’s speed as well.

    • Secondary radar: in this system a transmitter in the aeroplane responds to a signal transmitted from the ground. In addition to position and speed, the secondary radar can display other information about the aeroplane (such as the type of aeroplane, the operator and the destination).

    The raw radar data are received by air traffic control, which then converts it into images on a screen.”

    Page 9 of the report lists the “Sources of the findings” and specifies that “Radar data and radar images provided by Ukraine and the Russian Federation” were used only to base “The time when the aeroplane was downed “. There is no indication that radar data was evaluated for any other purpose.

    Page 9 of the report further notes that “It was also examined whether there had been an aerial attack by a military aircraft. An attack from the air could not have caused the crash given the high energy objects found, the damage to the aircraft and the trajectory followed by the high energy objects. Moreover, analysis of the available material has revealed that no military aircraft were present within at least a radius of 30 kilometres of the aeroplane.”

    There is no indication in the Dutch Safety Board report that the DSB evaluated the radar information cited by Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation during the July 21, 2014 “Special Briefing on the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 in the Ukrainian air space”.

    The Russian Defence Ministry noted that “on the day of the accident the Ukrainian Armed Forces deployed 3 to 4 artillery battalions of Buk-M1 missile system not far from Donetsk”. Russian radar observed the presence of “military aircraft” in the region and noted that MH17 was “inside the air defense battle zone of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ Buk-M1 missile system”.

  18. Abe
    October 14, 2015 at 12:18

    The Joint Investigation Team report is designed to corroborate the Bellingcat reports which are designed to corroborate other Bellingcat reports.

    The latest “open-source evidence” from Eliot Higgins:

  19. Abe
    October 14, 2015 at 11:56

    The West’s Go-to MH17 Expert Is a Social Media Hack Who Pushed Syria Chemical Attack Lies

  20. Robert
    October 14, 2015 at 10:54

    If I recall things right, soon after the crash the Ukrainians released ‘evidence’ , a conversation between rebels talking about the crash and a video were a BUKsystem with one rocket missing is going back to Russia. Both turned out to be fake , the conversation was edited from multiple (older) conversations , and if I recall correctly some of the editing was done on the 16th of Juli. The video of the BUKlauncher was filmed in a town under Ukraine control.
    If correct ,both are strong indications the Ukrainians were involved.
    If the conversation was partly edited on the day before this is a clear sign of Ukraines’ guilt.
    What happened with the missile missing from the (Ukrainian)BUKsystem filmed in Ukraine held territory?

  21. October 14, 2015 at 07:22

    The Guardian’s Shaun Walker has been in the vanguard of pointing the finger at Putin and Russia for the Buk attack. Probably the most cynical of UK journalists reporting from Russia and Ukraine, I dissected one of his pieces published just before the anniversary of the downing of MH17. It included a sentence that neatly sums up the corporate media’s response to the tragedy:

    “Instead of drawing the conclusion that the most likely source of a Buk missile would probably be from the side proven to have lots, Walker tries to find one where probably none existed.”

    The rest of the article was posted by Off-Guardian:

    An abridged version appeared at Russia Insider:

  22. Peter Loeb
    October 14, 2015 at 05:47


    The report amid splinters of non-“information” blending
    rhetoric and fact by Robert Parry above deserves
    commendation as well as some extremely pertinent

    One can only wonder what all these “intelligence
    services” do with their time when not trying
    to survive the pressure for so-called “proof”
    of their governments’ rhetoric. How many drafts
    were written? How many meetings were held on how
    many levels. From the intelligences’ perspective
    it must make for an endless demand from governments
    to provide incontrovertible “proof” for for governmental
    rhetorical “needs”.

    People died. A tragedy. What happened
    is still dependent on who is exploding in self-beneficial

    Peter Loeb, Boston,MA, USA

  23. October 14, 2015 at 03:26

    Apart from the strange exclusion of any American evidence, it seems the Snizhne site it supported, has been key premisse for investigation, especially when calculating the area from where the missile would have been fired.

    Imho it is remarkable the weapon type and the exact position to the plane from where the missile exploded, have been calculated right by the 2nd June Almaz Antey report, but their calculated launch area and field experiment are discarded.

    I haven´t studied the DSB method yet, but from the presser I understood they made projections on the basis of the malfunctioning of 4 present microphones and the milliseconds after the impact they stopped recording. That seems to me a very crude method.

    Second, Joustra manipulated the meaning of the official report by declaring afterwards the calculated launch area was rebel controlled. The report doesn´t claim that and moreover, when studying the fightings and military maps, I would reckon at least the bottom one-third of the 320 square km launch area was in Ukrainian hands. In fact the fronline, at that time the most heavily disputed area in the conflict, goes right through the appointed launch area.

    Before reaching any conclusions this must be investigated further, as the report says. But we all know the JIT has a very narrowminded tunnelvision, as they adopted the Bellingcat BUK trail though rebel controlled area to be the main secenario and citizen investigation shows many of its contents are frauds or dubious at least.

    I am not very optimistic we will really know what has happened on that fateful day.

    • Peter Zwitser
      October 14, 2015 at 04:54

      One small clarification: the report says the rocket was launched form an area of 320 square km. Joustra, after the press conference in which the official report was presented, brought this area back to a very small area. And that very small area was controlled by rebels.
      So Joustra didn’t contradict the report. He’s too clever to do that. He just said the area was much smaller. He even didn’t say rebels fired the rocket. But since that area was controlled by rebels, everybody gets what he really means.
      That makes it so hard to correct him: he still agrees with the report, only ‘made it a little more accurate’.

      • Peter Zwitser
        October 14, 2015 at 05:44

        Sorry I’ve sent two times the same message.
        Joustra’s very clever remark is working. There’s some critic from analysts like “why was that not written in the official report? Put it in the report or shut up”.
        But the overall effect is: they didn’t write this in the report because of political reasons, to stay friends with Russia. That’s also the reason our prime minister can’t say what he really means. We need Russia to get suspects for the judge.
        So our government keeps its hands clean, while the most important ‘independent’ investigator can freely make his accusations.

        In one of the big newspapers there was already an article written by somebody who lost some beloved ones. He writes a.o. ‘So now we know the rocket is fired from rebel-controlled area’. It’s hardly possible to correct somebody like that, because for these people this of course is a tragedy. The last thing I want to do is start some kind of argument with somebody who lost his wife/husband/children about what’s true.
        That’s why Joustra’s strategy works: who wants to start an argument whit these heavily affected people?
        (I don’t give the name of the paper or the writer, exactly because of this reason.)

  24. George
    October 14, 2015 at 03:01

    What if Kerry just lied about having evidence who fired the missile? We caught this guy in way too many lies already.

  25. Joe Tedesky
    October 14, 2015 at 01:29

    Concentrating on who was behind changing flight MH17’s flight path, to me seems like a good place to start. I get a kick out of how we can’t provide certain information, due to secrecy concerns. Everything, is a secret, but why does it always seem that these administration people are hiding something, and for what reason? My hope, is that someone, somehow, will turn the volume down, before someone does something stupid. Not, stupid as in stupid, but as much as in planned stupid. If behind the scenes someone is trying to rid our foreign policy makers, from the likes of the Petraeus Brzezinski class, then I’m rooting for that someone. Somebody with some influence should tame down the Saudi’s over their arming the mercenaries with TOW missiles. God forbid if these nut job rebels were to get Stinger man pads. There is a lot going on, and the outcome of the MH17 affair is just one more slap in the face to the Russian people.

    • David Lombardo
      October 14, 2015 at 07:31

      The pilot, most likely. The plane deviated off of it’s course, which took it down L980. This is very routine. Pilot’s deviate off of courses all the time during weather events. Moreover, the air traffic controller is blinded to some of the things the pilots report, and thus rely on pilot reports to verify all sorts of things (turbulence, weather, VFR aircraft, etc). I would guess the pilot took the plane about 10-20 degrees left of course to avoid a prominent storm on L980. Controllers can deny deviation, but it is rare. Of course, one of the reasons why this is done is because of restricted or military airspace, or in some cases, adjacent sectors. In air traffic control, proper authorization and coordination is necessary to deviate into another controller’s airspace. This is often called a ‘point-out’ (i.e.,’pointing out to another controller that you’re going to bust into their airspace). This requires approval, because that other controller is doing all sorts of stuff on his/her own. But again, usually approved and no big deal. Routine. But…was the plane allowed to deviate into military active airspace? Moreover, at what altitude (remember air traffic control is 3-dimensional!) Would this have happened if the plane deviated to the right instead of the left? These are questions that are interesting to me. But the point is, the deviation most likely started from the pilot….hope this helps
      (air traffic controller here)

      • Joe Tedesky
        October 14, 2015 at 10:41

        By your explanation David, this all sounds routine. Consider this though, that passenger plane was flying right into a war zone. A war zone which had recently encountered aircraft being shot down within that week. Also, the Keiv Ukrainian’s as of July 11 managed to position themselves up against the Russian border in between the Donbass freedom fighters. Not, a good place to be, but none the less, this would have put them (& their BUK’s) in and around where the said missile was to have come from. More than likely, we will never know, unless someone high up should tell us, who was really responsible for this awful tragedy. The MH17 story already has so many, maybe too many, points of reference, that the truth will be hidden within plain sight by so many explained actions, that we will never know the truth. Why, we may even have a better chance to find out who really assassinated the Kennedy’s and Martin Luther KIng. Thanks for explaining too me how planes fly off course (a little), but this plane was flying over a war zone, this wasn’t a flight from New York to Cleveland. The best we could all hope for now, is that whatever the official story turns out to be, that both sides can save face, and negotiate a peace settlement, the people of Europe, especially Eastern Ukrainians have suffered enough.

  26. bobzz
    October 13, 2015 at 23:53

    Motive: why would the rebels shoot down MH-17? What could they possibly gain? More likely, Ukrainian forces shot it down as a false flag. If that is right, they succeeded as far as the West is concerned.

  27. Zachary Smith
    October 13, 2015 at 22:14

    I’ve downloaded all seven of the Dutch reports, and I suppose I’m going to have to wade through them. Before even beginning I have a question about the point of explosion – right at the cockpit. Is there any reason for a BUK missile to home in on that area? An airliner is a large airplane, and the missile going precisely there seems at this point to be odd.

    • Kiza
      October 13, 2015 at 23:32

      Hello Zachary, there is no real reason for a warhead to hone in onto the cockpit. There was a completely wrong theory that a BUK missile honed in on the MH17 weather radar in the Boeing’s nose, but this is totally false because whether radar operate on frequencies which reflect off water (clouds), which is exactly the frequency that military radars avoid otherwise they could not shoot-down planes in overcast weather, quite silly. There was another theory that the warhead was a passive-guidance AA warhead (launched from a military jet) and this theory would explain why the missile exploded so close to the cockpit, as opposed to a SAM which guides itself to the ground radar reflections off a plane. Please note that the nose of a plane is not very reflective for a ground radar, a wing or body would be much more reflective. Unfortunately, there is a pure element of chance as well – it could have been a SAM which exploded near the cockpit purely by chance. It is really, really hard to tell apart missiles (method of shoot-down) without any hard evidence – fragments of casing which could have fallen anywhere in the war zone. The missile payload (metal fragments) are similar between missiles and not super-reliable evidence.

      Considering how politicized this investigation is (led by a member of the Dutch Secret Service), I do not believe it gives a definite answer: AA or SAM.

      • Peter Zwitser
        October 14, 2015 at 05:22

        Joustra is not a member of the Dutch Secret Service. In an earlier reaction I wrote about his past and how he became chairman of this board. Most important: he was National Coordinator Contra Terrorism. Here in The Netherlands that’s (officially) a civil function, not military. In that function he cooperated with the secret service etc.
        That kind of things and the way he got chairman are enough to doubt his impartiality, without him being a member of the secret service.
        If you have a trustable source that he is, at this moment, a member of the Dutch secret service, please give that source. It would make the headlines for weeks here.

        • Kiza
          October 14, 2015 at 10:03

          Sorry Peter, I misunderstood your explanation of who Joustra was. Also, we need to appreciate that even military intelligence commonly uses civilian agents. I only read before about Joustra’s multi six digit salary. Obviously, he is a politically selected individual.

          I am looking forward to reading the opinions of commenters here about the report itself, really appreciate the effort of people doing it. I would never trust the MSM to tell me what the conclusions are.

    • Zachary Smith
      October 14, 2015 at 00:17

      Kiza, I’ve looked at the “X” part of the Appendices, and the authors devoted only 5 pages to Air-Air missiles. And to only the “missiles operated by the Russian Federation and Ukraine”.

      That’s mighty selective tunnel vision, if you ask me. When I finally get into the details, I’m going to look for an estimate of the size of the warhead. That is, if they bothered to put that in the report.

      • Kiza
        October 14, 2015 at 10:20

        A group of Russian experts have concluded that the AA missile was most likely of Israeli origin, which SU25 was capable of carrying. I know more about ground radar than AA missiles, but their explanation was reasonably credible.

        But the main problem with this whole investigation is, as Perry suggests, is the lack of military SIGINT/ELINT. The US had planes flying in NATO Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, it had signals monitoring ships in the Black Sea and finally had low orbit satellites monitoring the war zone. You could not turn on a children’s walking-talkie or a mobile phone without being recorded, let alone a high power ground radar. Every radar is easily identified by its signal and its location pinpointed. In other words, if a SAM shotdown MH17, then the US intelligence knows exactly which ground radar tracked the civilian airliner and where it was located at the time of the event.

        My best guess that this is not being published because the intelligence community is not willing to cook the intelligence for politicians any more and get blamed later. Dick’s and W’s Iraq War killed that approach.

      • Zachary Smith
        October 14, 2015 at 16:26

        On page 141 of the main report is this Finding: “Simulation demonstrated that a 70-kg warhead best matched the damage observed on the wreckage of the airplane.”

        Exactly the warhead size of the Buk missile. What other evidence was there? At the Naked Capitalism site I found this:

        The DSB conclusion is that these fragments came from a missile warhead, but not conclusively from a Buk missile warhead type 9N134M. The evidence for this Buk warhead comes, the DSB reports, from 4 – repeat four – fragments. These, “although heavily deformed and damaged, had distinctive shapes; cubic and in the form of a bow-tie”. The DSB’s exact count is two cubic shapes, two bow-ties. One bow-tie was recovered from the cockpit wreckage; one from the body of a cockpit crew member. Both cubic fragments were found in the bodies of the crew members.

        A computer simulation and 4 (!) Buk fragments. Looks to like it’s a totally ironclad case.

        Still, I still wonder how nobody at all noticed the smoke and flame of the Buk missile launch. They’re supposedly mighty conspicuous.

    • Michael
      October 14, 2015 at 09:12

      Hi Zachary Smith,

      The report seems to indicate a precise launching area of 320 km², and this bring some questions .
      It looks like a very large area, but it is not it is just 18 x 18 km (or 11 x 11 miles), a Buk missile as an operating range of about 30 km (considering the grade it has to climb that’s less), still the area it can cover is closer to 700 km². First question how did the Duch reduced the area ?
      A buk is not just one lorry with rockets, you have an other lorry with a long range radar, around 140 km for target acquisition and identification, plus a command car. And surely enough the Ukrainians army has 3 or 4 of those in the area. That’s their radars that were activated and spotted by the Russian DM. Considering the speed of targeted plane the time for firing is about 9 minutes.
      Now if you don’t have the long range radar (pictures from Bellingcat and other Sherloks show just one lorry ) you can use the radar build in the missile; but the range then is just 35 km and you have just little more that 3 minutes to fire and no identification of the target.

      You can see now the interest of restricting the supposed lauching area

      A good thing also is to learnt about the proximity fuse system in the Buk and its reliability after 25 years in notorious poor maintenance condition. That’s maybe why a hunter jet was positioned on the MH-17 route, for a “coup de grace” if necessary.

      PS: proximity fuse (see wiki) are operating on return wave or echo.the one used for Buk is set to explose between 15 and 50 meters max. little bit on top of the plane; the air to sol considering the speed of plane targeted and distance is almost never fired in pursuit mode.

      Hope to read you again on the subject, but take your time to scrutinize this reports.

      • dahoit
        October 14, 2015 at 14:05

        Sherlocks or Shylocks.I Go with the latter.

  28. Bruce
    October 13, 2015 at 20:48

    NixOn the Dootch! It’s The COVER-UP, U Styoopids!! Remember Operation NORTHWOODS!!!

  29. cohen 63
    October 13, 2015 at 20:25

    Robert, I’m a bit confused now. RT says that the Buk manufacturers dispute the DSBs finding that the missile is a more recent version. The DSB cites the bow tie fragments, which are a feature of recent(ie Russian modifications)
    So is there agreement that it was an older version or not?Personally I don’t trust this investigation at all.I find it peculiar that certain missile fragments(not many) were lo and behold discovered, late in the piece.I would also love to know how much evidence has been vetoed. Presumably the workings of the DSB will not be put under scrutiny or subjected to peer review because of the secrecy pact of Aug.2014

    • Zachary Smith
      October 14, 2015 at 00:30

      Regarding the distinctive fragments, those could have been “salted” into the wreck by the first of the conspirators to arrive on the scene. OR, they could have been inserted in the wreckage at any time after the parts were gathered up for transport. OR, they could have been from a warhead of an entirely different missile “modified” with the incriminating parts. Or they might be the real mccoy.

      OK, I’m bloviating, but at this point I don’t really care. What I want is for whoever did that mass murder to be brought to justice, and again, I don’t care who that turns out to be. All this assumes somebody will someday make a serious effort to locate the perps. If it was some “good terrorists” that somebody won’t be the US of A.

      October 14, 2015 at 10:44

      cohen 63, the various comments from Tuesday are a bit confusing, but the issue seems to be how old the relevant missile was. Both agree that the shrapnel matches an earlier version of the Buk missile but there is a disagreement about whether that system was manufactured in the 1980s or the 1990s. In either case, the Russians say these older Buks were phased out of their arsenal.
      Robert Parry

      • October 18, 2015 at 03:07

        In fact the background of AA statement is they performed their experiment with a 9M38M1 missile (at a Snizhne detonation point) and saw the debris/cockpit showed multiple clear recognizable bow-tie shaped entry holes. In their damage assessment of MH17 these entry holes are absent.

        Hence the conclusion the missile shot at MH17 didn´t contain the bow-tie shaped pre-formed fragmentation load that are part of a 9M38M1 payload and not of a 9M38 older model payload.

        Now the DSB has found 2 (TWO) bow-tie fragments. One in the body of crew attending the cockpit at the time of the crash, one in the cockpit debris.

        So when AA states the damage pattern is not consistent with a 9M38M1 missile but there are found 2 bow-tie fragments, everybody knows what can be deduced from this.

      • Natylie Baldwin
        October 19, 2015 at 04:12

        I’m curious as to why there is no mention in your article of John Helmer’s multi-part in depth investigative series on the Dutch report and how forensic evidence (e.g. autopsies) does not support the use of a BUK missile at all.

        Thanks for all of your important work, by the way. You’re one of the best news sources I rely on.


    • george Archers
      October 15, 2015 at 08:24

      and the misaligned report does not mention– the forensic autopsies of the pilot’s bodies became classified.
      It was reported that most shrapnel were removed-tampered with, but no mentioned by whom. Whole affair stinks to high hell.

  30. Liam
    October 13, 2015 at 19:57

    The AP filmed Ukrainian BUK systems in the shoot down zone in the weeks before it happened. Why is Ukraine getting a free pass? The Right Sector fascist battalions committed numerous false flag attacks before MH-17. They conducted the Odessa Massacre, the Maidan sniper attacks, the Luhansk Bombing, the Mariupol Massacre and they bombed the civilian population for a year killing 8,000 ethnic Russian innocent people and causing over 1.5 million refugees to flee to Russia for safety. Ukrainian government forces maneuver antiaircraft missile launchers Buk as they are transported north-west from Slavyansk, eastern Ukraine Friday, July 4, 2014. (AP Photo/Dmitry Lovetsky)

    • deschutes
      October 14, 2015 at 15:46

      Thank you. Yours is perhaps the best post on this thread. Cheers for making the best and most prescient insights.

  31. Peter Zwitser
    October 13, 2015 at 18:12

    It’s even worse.
    I’m a Dutchman living in the Netherlands. First a disclaimer: I think Putin is a (mild) dictator. And I think the most probably scenario is rebels and/or Russian ‘volunteers’ shot down the plane by accident.
    This investigation is a completely farce. It has been manipulated from begin to end to use it against Putin/Russia.

    Tjibbe Joustra, chairman of the Dutch Research Safety Board (I don’t know the exact English translation, but it’s the Board leading this investigation) was National Coordinator Contra Terrorism in The Netherlands (again: don’t know the exact English translation), in which function he closely worked with (Dutch) secret service, army, etc. In 2010 he helped writing the election program for the VVD, the promiment Dutch political party in the government right now (the prime minister for example is VVD).

    On 7 february 2011 he was made chairman of the Safety Board, appointed by a VVD-minister. The former chairman of this Board, the well respected Pieter van Vollenhoven, said because of this appointment the independence of the Safety Board was in danger. He was appointed without any consultation of the members of the Safety Board, just parachuted there.
    (Under chairmanship of Pieter van Vollenhoven the Safety Board made some ministers step down, he was not very popular in government circles, I guess, grin)
    Remember: this Safety Board was the leading investigator in the shooting down of the plan.

    The official report says the rocket is fired from an area that was partly occupied by Ukraine, partly by rebels. After the official publication of this report Joustra said it was fired from a much smaller area, controlled by rebels. But that’s not in the official report.
    Very handy to say that afterwards: lots of people believe you and you don’t have to deal with more integer investigators, who could protest.

    Tonight on Dutch television Joustra gave an interview. He was repeatedly asked for the American satellite proof, that’s secret till this day. Had he or somebody else seen that? Had the commission gotten copies? He refused to answer that. He himself had seen ‘some things that convinced him’, but he even refused to say if that was the proof Kerry talked about. That was a state secret and he had promised not to say anything about that. Why the hell? If Kerry says he had seen that, why could Joustra not say that? Or deny it?
    Personally I think he has not seen it, or Kerry lied and there are no satellite photogaphs, and Joustra is afraid of flat out lying, so he just refuses to answer.
    (His exact wording was a bit different, because I write this down from my memory. But the meaning of his words is correct.)

    Again: I’m absolutely not a friend of Putin. (Not from Obama too, but that’s another discussion :o)

    The manufacturer of the Buk rocket said this morning the investigation committee had refused (part of) their evidence. Joustra was asked about that. He gave a very long answer saying the Russians had been present at every meeting etc. etc., asked again, again a bullshit answer, etc. So personally I think the Russian manufacturer is right about the evidence.
    It’s sure the evidence is not in the official report. And as the manufacturer has given it, like he says, it’s censored.

    The OCSE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) was the first or second day after the crash on the place of the crash. So were the Australians. Asked why there were no Dutch investigators, he again gave no clear answer. It was not safe etc., but the OCSE man said they had been there for a week right after the crash, and only the first day there were some problems. The rest of the week it was safe.

    In the past year it became clear the real reason for not going there, or after a very long time, was Dutch government had more or less forbidden it. They would not have any ‘official’ contact with the rebels, even not with their fire brigade, because that could be used by the rebels for ‘hey, Dutch government recognizes us’.
    (There was about eight months ago a report on Dutch television. Some journalists were talking with a local fire brigade commander that had collected quite a lot wreckages and personal belongings of the victims, found by local people living there. He really begged Dutch investigators to come and collect that stuff. He had had it for months and should really be glad to get rid of it.)

    Why this ridiculous show?
    Personally I think rebels and/or Russian shot down the plane (can be wrong, have no evidence). But that’s not enough at the moment: no matter how, this terrible accident has to be used to blame Putin. So you make things worse then they are, just to blame Putin.
    I guess, maybe I’m wrong, most of the writers/readers here blame Ukraine for the shooting down. But in one thing we can agree: this ‘investigation’ is a completely political upset to blame Putin.

    Pfff, longer than I planned. Hope my English is good enough to understand.

    • Gregory Kruse
      October 13, 2015 at 18:21

      It’s good enough.

    • Peter
      October 14, 2015 at 08:00

      Thank you!

    • dahoit
      October 14, 2015 at 13:53

      Good to see other viewpoints.
      Just what is your problem with Putin?Codify his badness with facts.I see a hero trying to block the wacko sexual nihilist atheist overt racist warmongers from more outrageous and evil depredations on the powerless.
      Do you think it possible that the Russian govt. would have a hand in,or let their supposed agents in Eastern Ukraine do this?Sure its possible that the separatists did it,but where are the US satellite pics,where are the cell phone(almost everyone has one today) photos of the clear blue sky smoke trail?Where did the AT Controller disappear to?
      The absence of our govt releasing our spy satellite photos and this reports lack of certainty should be the clincher in not all appears as the ZIomonsters(The drivers of the worlds abject condition)wish the mushroom public would see.

      • Peter Zwitser
        October 14, 2015 at 17:18

        About Putin: I think he’s certainly not the worst leader at the moment. But I really dislike how he put people up against homo’s etc. Independent press is having a hard time in Russia. Laws giving the government the right to close websites at will. Torturing/abusing of prisoners by police. Demonstrations from the opposition that almost always end with police brutality. To name a few things.

        On the other hand he did some really good thing too for Russia, like restoring some kind of order after that idiot Jeltsin. And kicking out some of the oligarchs that stole Russia’s possessions, with the help of Jeltsin.
        But at the moment there is no leader at all I trust, with maybe the exception of the Bolivian president.

        I wrote I’m no fan of Putin because I really dislike the choice you ‘have’ to make (at least here in The Netherlands): you’re in favor of Putin, so Ukraine shot down the plane, or you hate Putin so he shot the plane.
        It’s hardly possible to say you dislike Putin, but don’t believe he’s responsible for the shooting down.
        And maybe this makes you happy: a lot of the things I said about Putin i can also say about Obama, or the American police or the American foreign politics. :o)
        (Hmmm, even about my own prime minister, police and foreign politics.)
        And Putin at least doesn’t use drones to kill people at will in tens of countries, without even a trial.

        The reason I think chances are the separatists shot the plane down: it’s the most logical explanation for me. Since I can’t trust the Dutch ‘investigation’, but can’t trust Russia/rebels not too, the only thing that’s left is think for myself. But I can be wrong, of course.

        The only party that could have had a benefit is Ukraine. Shoot down the plane and blame the rebels/Russia. But the chance that doesn’t stay a secret is far too big. So I don’t believe that.
        Apart from that nobody had any benefit shooting down the plane. So I think it’s an accident.
        There were Russian soldiers in Eastern Ukraine. NATO c.s. says it were official soldiers, Putin c.s. says it were volunteers that had left the army. I guess it were volunteers, because if there were really thousands of soldiers, why didn’t I see one prisoner of war on tv? If it were real volunteers or if they were a bit ‘helped’ by Putin to volunteer, I don’t know.

        To operate such a launcher you need to have special knowledge. Only the Ukrainian army and Russia have that knowledge. That’s why I don’t believe it was a missile stolen from the Ukrainian official army and shot by fascists fighting for Ukraine. That fascists are only a short time in the army and don’t have the knowledge to shoot that missile.
        And the ‘real’ Ukrainian army is an organized army.

        The rebels are not an well trained, organized army. So the chance they make a mistake is bigger, I guess. The Russians that have the knowledge to operate that launchers are, I guess, also less organized than a completely visible operational well-organized army.

        So my guess the biggest chance is the rebels shot it with help from Russian real volunteers of ‘helped’ volunteers.

        But I can be completely wrong.
        Actually I don’t think it’s that very important who shoot down the plane. Because I believe it was an accident. Of course, if possible, the people who did it should been brought to justice. But if it’s an accident, than it shouldn’t be that important for political consequences.
        It would be completely different if Putin or Ukraine had ordered to shoot down the plane, but I don’t believe that. It’s war and such things happen in war.

        It was Ukraine that didn’t close, for whatever reason, the airspace above the warzone. That’s maybe the only thing that was not an accident in this whole tragedy, because Ukraine surely must have known how many planes already had been shot down.
        But apart from that, I really believe – until further proof of the opposite – it was an accident.

        • Helge
          October 14, 2015 at 17:48

          Hi Peter! I also live in the Netherlands and I mostly agree to your assessment. But further below I wrote that I believe it was a missile owned – or previously owned- by the Ukrainian army. The simple fact that the claim of the BUK manufacturer that this BUK has been phased out by the Russian army while still in use by the Ukrainian was not disputed by anyone in the West makes me believe that. But, as I wrote below, that does not necessarily mean that those who launched it were Ukrainian army regulars, a lot Ukrainians defected to the Separatists, so it could have been an accident, it could have been a false-flag operation, we may never get to know. But it appears to be accepted now that the BUK was not supplied directly by the Russian army.

        • a.z
          October 15, 2015 at 08:19

          msm is all about brainwashing but the trouble with alternate media is when when a nuanced viewpoint somehow sides with the prevailing mainstream p.o.v the people getting their info from alternate news sources get really, REALLY SUSPICIOUS of that viewpoint.
          i also think the rebels did it because of the logical reasoning that you described

        • October 18, 2015 at 02:57

          To support a fatal mistake narrative, you have to come up with a plausible story what and how things went wrong. Until this time this hasn´t been given.

          Invoking rationality one would say its not rational for Russian generals to hand over an unsupported stand-alone BUK – though with trained crew! – to play some Russian Roulette in the sky when everybody knows civilian aircraft is flying overthere (in fact 4 planes flew there at 16:20 local time on the 17th)

          Moreover, when investigating, you will come to the conclusion the fatal mistake narrative has a dubious origin. The meme spread through the net and fixed in many minds has a few building blocks that can be traced, see

          A building block of this narrative I am working on right now consists of the socalled ¨confession tapes¨, intercepted phonecalls of commander Igor Bezler and others, conveyed by the SBU within 2.5 hrs after the crash (as was the story of the maliciously deleted Strelkov_info message).

          I will prove these calls/taps constitute a ¨deceptive message¨ fabricated by the SBU (Ukr. secret service).

    • EdR
      October 15, 2015 at 01:44

      Thank you for this. Very insightful. However, why do hold that the rebels shot down the plane when your argument basically concludes the opposite?

    • george Archers
      October 15, 2015 at 08:17

      Fuddle Duddle
      You are sucking and blowing at the same time. Make up your mind.Listen numb nuts—Russia had nothing to do with the attack.Big ZERO evidence. Would you like to explain how is it Kosher Dutch want Russia surrounded with American Nuclear missiles???
      i’ll bet $10 that downing MH17 were CIA operations. Challenge-please explain why Malaysia lost two planes just after their Government concluded hearings and found that Sept 11 2001 was Black Flag operation–self imposed. Get off the pot !

      • Peter Zwitser
        October 15, 2015 at 18:00

        And Elvis still lives…

  32. October 13, 2015 at 18:00

    The Official Report On The Downing Of Flight MH17
    Following an extensive investigation, the official investigators who conducted the extensive investigation have concluded that Ukrainian airspace should never have been open to civil flights as it was not safe for civil flights due to the risks which were found to exist in and around a war zone as officially concluded by the official investigators who conducted the official investigation.
    a BUK missile built by PUTIN led soviet russians, KILLED THE 298 PASSENGERS on board Flight MH17. there will be no speculation as to who launched the RUSSIAN missile LAUNCHED from an area CONTROLLED by PUTIN backed RUSSIANS who are behind it all.
    in other news … MLB playoffs are in full swing …

    • Bob In Portland
      October 13, 2015 at 18:47


    • Jay
      October 13, 2015 at 19:37


      What’s a “Putin lead soviet Russian”?

      Ukrainians would be Soviet, well until the Soviet Union fell apart 24 years ago.

      And there’s not some iron curtain separating the eastern Ukraine (the Russian part) from the western part. These launchers are mobile.

      Do you work for a western PR firm? You’re not doing a very good job.

      • October 13, 2015 at 21:47

        that was an attempt to ridicule the dutch “Official Investigation.”
        I took in the dutch presentation of the “official report,” and the most conclusive point they could come up with after a year and a half of “investigating,” was that civil flights should not be allowed to fly near or around war zones.
        the rest was blatant allusion to Russian culpability … with out pointing fingers of course.
        most people who can still think know that the soviet union disintegrated long ago. except, over the course of a year and a half since the putsch in Kyiv, even bbc and cbc reports have made sure to include the tittle “soviet” frequently. it helps to bring up images of “Russian red hoards of aggression” coming over the hills to get us. I was only having fun with it.

        • Michael
          October 14, 2015 at 08:28

          yes it was obviously a sarcastic comment, a risky way of expressing your disgust and disbelief on the net.

          • Jay
            October 14, 2015 at 19:35


            Yeah obviously sarcasm, not.


            Not a strong case that the Russians did it.

    • Aidar
      October 14, 2015 at 14:04


    • Rabbitnexus
      October 18, 2015 at 20:54

      What a senseless and desperate comment. You’re just making a fool of yourself dopey. Nothing by way of evidence or even reason exists to support that fairy story, and you need to ignore most of the real evidence to make it stick even in the tiny brains people like you must possess.

    • Rabbitnexus
      October 18, 2015 at 21:00

      Sorry I didn’t get the ironic tone on the first reading. Not always easy to catch irony when stupidity as such is very common on the net.

  33. Dan
    October 13, 2015 at 17:38

    What is important to keep in mind is the final Dutch report investigated the *cause* of the crash (why the aircraft stopped flying, killing all on board). The technical reason(s) and cause(s). This report does *not* concern itself with who shot the aircraft down.

    >The Dutch report did seek to discredit one alternative theory
    > raised by Russian officials in the days after the
    > shoot-down – that MH-17 could have been the victim of
    > an air-to-air attack.

    The above statement is not accurate. Here is part of the report:

    – Other weapons

    + Air-to-air gunfire The high-energy object damage was not caused by an air-to-air gun or cannon because the number of the perforations was not consistent with gunfire, and because air-to-air gun/cannon fire does not produce fragments with the distinctive forms that were found in the wreckage and in the bodies of three of the crew members in the cockpit.

    + Air-to-air missile None of the air-to-air missiles in use in the region have the distinctly formed bow-tie shaped fragments in their warhead.

    + The aeroplane was not struck by more than one weapon considering the wreckage distribution, the damage patterns and the fact that only once source of damage was found.

    Reference: The Aviation Herald,

  34. October 13, 2015 at 17:36

    It goes without saying, that while more information is forthcoming, as long as the NATO nations are not releasing the Air Traffic Control data – which would pinpoint who sent the commercial aircraft into a known battle field; or the black box of cabin conversations;; or the US Satellite findings, that it’s all a dog and pony show with the same agenda; indict and convict Russia for an egregious act of terrorism, that only Kiev has demonstrated a stomach for.

    Look no further than the example of the Eastern cities of Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea.. for evidence. When these regions in the East of Ukraine expressed a desire to align with Russia, their ‘mother country’ set to bombing them. Apparently it is of no consequence for the Nazis of Ukraine to destroy lives, when it suits their agenda.

    • October 13, 2015 at 17:38

      “When these regions in the East of Ukraine expressed a desire to align with Russia, their ‘mother country’ set to bombing them. ”

      For clarification, ‘mother country’ in this case being The Ukraine.

      • Vierotchka
        October 14, 2015 at 12:03

        Oops, I didn’t see your caveat before posting. So sorry.

    • Vierotchka
      October 14, 2015 at 12:02

      Note that the Ukraine never bombed Crimea, and that Russia very much is the mother country of Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea.

  35. onno
    October 13, 2015 at 16:54

    This was not about a fact finding mission of the downing of MH 17 its all about a political conspiracy to accuse Russia and its President Putin. All facts about this air crash are manipulated nobody saw ever an oxygen stream on this beautiful clear day connected to any ground-to-air missile, or the round bullet holes in the cockpit area to name just a few points not handled in this DSB report. This report was written In Washington. Nobody talks about the mistaken identity between Presidents Putin plane and the similar looking MH 17 with identical markings on the plane’s body. What do you expect from an Ukrainian low paid pilot with a couple of Wodka’s in his blood? It looks like this tragedy will go in the books and the truth will be disclosed 20-30 years from now.

    • Gregory Kruse
      October 13, 2015 at 18:15

      If then.

      • george Archers
        October 15, 2015 at 07:54

        Zip Notta–just like USS Liberty attack and worse the Bombing attack Sept 11 2001, which killed 3000 Americans and blamed it purposely on innocent Arabs.

  36. mike
    October 13, 2015 at 16:27

    Fair enough summary in light of the fact it is still and was a highly charged political climate when all this happened!

    • Kiza
      October 13, 2015 at 23:04

      Yes, this is an excellent summary of the facts available and those not available. But I am noting the speed at which this event has been used for pure, unadulterated propaganda by the Western MSM. Unlike the US intelligence dog which did not bark, this dog barked, barked immediately-quickly and barked a lot. This may suggest that there was a US/Israeli/British deep state involvement in the MH17 affair, which is no being blamed on Ihor Kolomoyskyi.

      Probably the single most honest fact in the Dutch report is that it focuses on the failure to move or shut-down the international flight corridor over this war zone. Let us do a mind experiment: let us imagine for a moment that a Ukranian minority in Russia was accused of shooting down MH17 over Russia and that this minority was at a full-scale war against the Russian army for months before the shoot-down. Who do you think would have been blamed for allowing civilian aircraft to overfly a war zone? Who would be excused for a “tragedy” (not willful act) of mixing up a civilian and Russian military plane?

      Therefore, there are only three certain things in this life:
      1) Death.
      2) Taxes.
      3) MSM Brainwashing Propaganda.

      As for this event, the balance of information available points at Ukrainians and their US collaborators as culprits, because Kolomoyskyi is part of a US-Ukraine-Russia network of oligarchs.

Comments are closed.