Kiev fires BUK missile at OSCE observation drone; Ukraine’s lie exposed about anti-aircraft missiles when MH17 shot down (VIDEO)

Evidence indicates that MH-17 was shot down by cannon fire from UAF fighter jets. However, Kiev says any missile fired from the ground could not have come from government-controlled territory because they didn’t have such equipment there.
February 1, 2017 – Fort Russ News –
RusVesna – translated by J. Arnoldski –

NOTE from J. Arnoldski: Fort Russ guest analyst Dr. Eduard Popov has received confirmation of this report straight from Makeevka. 

Yesterday evening, January 31st, the tail section of a BUK missile launched by the Ukrainian army from the outskirts of Avdeevka fell in the residential sector of the city of Makeevka. 
The missile part fell right in the yard of a private home and caught fire.

Employees of the Ministry for Emergency Situations of the Donetsk People’s Republic arrived at the scene upon calls from local residents and extinguished the fire.
Russian Spring News would like to offer the following commentary:
At what target was this shot by such a Ukrainian anti-air defense complex which Ukraine has assured there are none of in the so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation zone in Donbass, and whose absence from the frontline is alleged to be the main reason why Ukraine couldn’t have shot down the Malaysian Boeing?
The target of the Ukrainian missile was a large unmanned aerial vehicle of the OSCE observatory mission which is recording Kiev’s genocide against the peaceful civilians of Donbass and is thereby seriously hindering the Ukrainian Armed Forces from executing the criminal orders of the Kiev authorities.
Let’s see how Ukraine will comment on the presence of the infamous BUK complex in the Avdeevka area which, as it has assured, there is no such thing in Donbass. 

Unreported: Rostov’s MH17 flight data

Quite interesting evidence has appeared that indicates that the Malaysian Boeing was hit not by a Buk missile, as the Junta and the USA are trying to claim, but by a Ukrainian aircraft which was close to the Boeing at the time of the crash.

Air traffic controllers’ data confirms that a military aircraft flew close to the Boeing which crashed in Ukraine.

Translated from Russian by Alexander Fedotov / Edited by GBabeuf and Olga Luzanova
Head photo credits: Harald Doornbos

On Tuesday [November 11, 2014—ed.] at the APEC Summit in Beijing, discussions about the crash of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 in eastern Ukraine arose once again. According to Western media, the Australian Prime Minister told Vladimir Putin the Australian version of the accident according to the Australian intelligence service. Nothing new—the Australian, as well as the European and American intelligence agencies, assert: the liner was destroyed by a missile fired from a rocket launcher.

However, the facts tell us a different story. A document, certifying that at the time of the disaster a military aircraft was near flight MH17, has been made available to “MK”—a fact which the West is trying hard to ignore.

The reconstruction of the data from the radar of the Rostov air traffic control centre is a picture of events from a moment of the accident plus another 20 after it. The labels in the form of the letter ‘Т’ designate the military aircraft. A line of movement of flight MH17 displayed in lilac colour.

The reconstruction of the data from the radar of the Rostov air traffic control centre is a picture of events from a moment of the accident plus another 20 after it. The labels in the form of the letter ‘Т’ designate the military aircraft. A line of movement of flight MH17 displayed in lilac colour.

This document—a snapshot of the radar data of an air traffic controller at the time of the MH17 disaster—was granted to “MK” by the advisory and analytical agency, “Flight Safety”. We asked Sergei Melnichenko, the director-general of the agency, to comment on the air traffic situation data presented in this picture. He told us the following:

— I would not like to fully disclose the source of this information; however, if a specialist were to look at the picture, he would immediately understand where it came from—the photo was taken in an air traffic control centre. I worked for a long time in one and am well acquainted with the equipment used there.

The picture which we are now discussing, is, so we can say, the data which came from the Rostov air traffic control centre.

The radar in the Rostov area ‘sees’ the air traffic situation not only up to the border, but also somewhat further. This is necessary in order to know what is awaiting our air traffic controllers within the next few minutes: what approaching planes are about to enter their control, what intervals there are between them, at what altitude they are tracking… Accordingly, the radars ‘look’ beyond the border. Anyway a border is a broken line, while the radar coverage area is something closer to a circle. Therefore, though not all of the information above Ukraine is visible from the Russian side, the part which is now in question—and the aircraft was shot down in close proximity to our borders—was, of course, captured by the Rostov radar.

That information, then, has been collated and presented precisely as in the images here. We fully and completely trust the sources who have helped us to make it public.

— Does it correspond with the data presented by the Russian General Staff on the third day after the disaster?

— Our data are somewhat more precise than those presented by the military. They did not present the airline flight path so precisely. I do not know, perhaps they did this intentionally. But the overall picture—yes, it coincides with what the military presented at their press conference.

— What conclusion do you draw on the basis of the data from the Rostov radar?

— The data represent the trajectories of aircraft movements for the period up to 13:40:55 UTC.

— How does this relate to the timing of the crash?

— This is a picture of the events from the time of the accident, plus another twenty minutes after it—from the moment at which the signal from the Boeing disappeared. That is to say, it is not a momentary snapshot but a record of the movements of the aircraft in the area after the disaster.

The image represents a display of the radar used for air traffic control. It clearly shows that at the moment of the disaster, and after it, movement of some aircraft was observed to the North of the Boeing’s route. Most likely, military, since the tags are very closely grouped. One may conclude that it is either one or two aircraft. In any case, there was definitely something there.

The “unidentified object” is marked in the photo by the letters “T”. The blue lines show the other aircrafts’ routes. The lilac line shows the trajectory of flight MH17. The point where the line ends is the locality where the surface radars received a signal from the Boeing for the last time.

— How did you reach the conclusion that the “unidentified objects” in the area of the Boeing were military aircraft?

— Because they transmitted only primary radar signals.

— What do you mean by “primary”?

— How does radar work? It sends signals to all sides of the sky. And if there is an aircraft there, it is detected and a label appears on the radar screen, which shows that there is something in the sky. Though it is not clear what exactly it is. For the air traffic controllers to identify the objects, the aircraft should be equipped with special devices called transponders. They receive a signal from the radar and respond to it. When the transponder is on, a controller can see the transponder code, which is set by the crew, altitude, speed and the other parameters required for air traffic control.

Military aircraft are either not equipped with transponders or pilots switch them off while conducting combat missions. In that case, only a primary label can be seen on the radar screen. It means you cannot identify exactly what kind of aircraft was there—neither its type nor the altitude. Though the fact that the plane was there is unquestionable.

You know the Militia has no air force. If it had been a Russian aircraft, you can imagine what a noise would have been raised in the world concerning Russia violating the airspace of a sovereign country. However, so far no military airplane of our state has violated the Ukrainian border.

The probable trajectory of the shooting.

The probable trajectory of the shooting.

— What if they did it without being noticed?

— No, that is not possible. Ukrainian radars would have registered everything immediately, and we would have received a corresponding diplomatic note, as there is a standard procedure for such cases.

— Such a violation would surely have been registered by NATO satellites, which—as we now know—were situated above that location at the time, as well as NATO AWACS aircraft monitoring that borderline zone.

— NATO and Ukraine, both would have already responded long ago. Yet they did not—because there was nothing to respond to.

However, without any facts, they are trying to convince all of us—including Europeans and Australians—that there was an air defense complex, delivered from Russia, which, allegedly, brought down the Boeing 777. They just try to ignore the data taken from the radar screen (the labels marked with the letters “T”), which proved the fact that a military aircraft was in the air space for another 20 minutes after the disaster.

However, the availability of these markers on the radar screen conflicts with statements of the Ukrainian side that the Ukrainian Air Force conducted no flights in the investigated time frame.

It is also important that the location of the markers on the radar screen to the left of the Boeing’s course correspond with the photos made at the crash site, in which you can clearly see the signs of external action at the left wing and the left side of the Boeing 777 cockpit.

The damage of the cockpit of Boeing 777

The damage of the cockpit of Boeing 777

Original article in Moskovskiy Komsomolets #26672, November 13, 2014.

MH 17 articles: