Negligence and indifference in Netherlands in MH-17 investigation

From Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation
Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, February 3, 2017:

The Netherlands claim Russia’s primary radar data fail to meet international standards

Over the past several months we received a large number of questions, to which we were unable to respond at the time, as we were awaiting an appropriate reaction from the Netherlands, in particular, with regard to its statement that the format of the primary radar data provided by Russia was not up to international standards. As we informed you, such data were transferred to the Netherlands. We expected a corresponding reaction and so did not comment on it. That was followed by statements from The Hague claiming that the format of the primary radar data provided by Russia did not meet international standards. Again, we waited for a while, believing that this would be followed by some official correspondence or response. After all, the data that we provided were transferred through official channels. However, considering the large number of questions on the issue, I am ready to comment on it now.

I would like to start by saying that our Dutch colleagues chose a rather strange method of relating their problem. All of this is being done through the media. Presumably, this is a new Dutch fashion: communicating with Russian official agencies through the media. After all, there is the concept of “legal interaction,” within the framework of which the confidentiality of certain aspects of communication is still relevant due to an ongoing investigation. This legal interaction is part of an investigation that is in progress. There is also diplomacy, and there are diplomatic communication channels. Strangely, the Netherlands forgets this.

There is another aspect that we find surprising and cannot possibly ignore. How can one explain the time that the Netherlands required to see the so-called failure to meet international standards? For instance, it took them three months to understand that the disc could not be read. Somehow, this is hard to believe.

We believe that the explanation of what is going on is very simple. It is simply that the official investigation is in no hurry. In the summer, the victims’ relatives will mark the third anniversary of this terrible tragedy. However, to date, there is no coherent answer to the question about its causes or who is to blame.

Instead of prompt and transparent action, we are still seeing attempts to make groundless and unsubstantiated accusations against Russia. This time, to all appearances, they are aimed at diverting the attention of the victims’ families, who are demanding the resumption of the search mission and are accusing the Dutch authorities of negligence and indifference. None of that is in the interest of our Western colleagues, who do not bother to look for an answer to the question about what actually happened there.

I would also like to say a few words about these international standards that, according to the Netherlands, the format of our primary radar data failed to meet. As Russian Aviation Agency Deputy Chief Oleg Storchevoi explained recently, international civil aviation standards do not set any requirements on the list of parameters or radar data recording or storage format. In investigating air accidents, the ICAO recommends ensuring close interaction with companies that have specialists, equipment and software to decode such information.

Russia will be pleased to help, provide specialist assistance and equipment. The only problem is that no one is in a hurry to send this kind of request to Russia.
http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/spokesman/briefings/-/asset_publisher/D2wHaWMCU6Od/content/id/2623713

Advertisements

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. 

“Support MH17 Truth”: OSCE monitors identify “shrapnel and machine gun-like holes” indicating shelling. No evidence of a missile attack. Shot down by a military aircraft

Global Research, October 18, 2015
Global Research 31 July 2014

su25

Su-25 aircraft

The evidence presented in this article first published by GR on July 31, 2014 (updated in September 2014) contradicts the recently released report of the Dutch Safety Board.

The evidence confirms that MH17 was not brought down by a surface to air missile.

The West accuses Russia and the Donbass separatists of having brought down the plane with a surface to air missile. IT’S A LIE. 

The evidence available in September 2014 –including a BBC report which the BBC decided to suppress– refutes the official story.

As we recall, the alleged role of Russia in bringing down the plane was used as a justification to implement the economic sanctions regime against Moscow. 

Michel Chossudovsky, July 29, 2015, minor update October 18,  2015

*     *     *

According to the report of German pilot and airlines expert Peter Haisenko, the MH17 Boeing 777 was not brought down by a missile.

What he observed from the available photos were perforations of the cockpit: 

 The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. (Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the “Shooting Down” of Malaysian MH17. “Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile” Global Research, July 30, 2014)

[click image right to enlarge]

Based on detailed analysis Peter Haisenko reached  the conclusion that the MH17 was not downed by a missile attack:

This aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion. The destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to factor in that this part is constructed of specially reinforced material

The OSCE Mission

It is worth noting that the initial statements by OSCE observers (July 31) broadly confirm the findings of Peter Haisenko:

Monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe reported that shrapnel-like holes were found in two separate pieces of the fuselage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines aircraft that was believed to have been downed by a missile in eastern Ukraine.

Michael Bociurkiw of the OSCE group of monitors at his daily briefing described part of the plane’s fuselage dotted with “shrapnel-like, almost machine gun-like holes.” He said the damage was inspected by Malaysian aviation-security officials .(Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2014)

The monitoring OSCE team has not found evidence of a missile fired from the ground as conveyed by official White House statements. As we recall, the US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power stated –pointing a finger at Russia– that the Malaysian MH17 plane was “likely downed by a surface-to-air missile operated from a separatist-held location”:

The team of international investigators with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) are uncertain if the missile used was fired from the ground as US military experts have previously suggested, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported. (Malay Mail online, emphasis added)

The initial OSCE findings tend to dispel the claim that a BUK missile system brought down the plane.

Evidently, inasmuch as the perforations are attributable to shelling, a shelling operation conducted from the ground could not have brought down an aircraft traveling above 30,000 feet.

Ukraine Su-25 military aircraft within proximity of MH17

Peter Haisenko’s study is corroborated by the Russian Ministry of Defense which pointed to a Ukrainian Su-25 jet in the flight corridor of the MH17, within proximity of the plane.

Ironically, the presence of a military aircraft is also confirmed by a BBC  report conducted at the crash site on July 23.

All the eyewitnesses  interviewed by the BBC confirmed the presence of a Ukrainian military aircraft flying within proximity of Malaysian Airlines MH17 at the time that it was shot down: 

Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …

Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.

Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.

Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].

BBC Report below

<iframe width=”640″ height=”360″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/zUvK5m2vxro&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen><!–iframe>

The original BBC Video Report published by BBC Russian Service on July 23, 2014 has since been removed from the BBC archive.

In a bitter irony, The BBC is censoring its own news productions.

This is the BBC Report, still available on Youtube

Media Spin

The media has reported that a surface to air missile was indeed fired and exploded before reaching its target.  It was not the missile that brought down the plane, it was the shrapnel resulting from the missile explosion (prior to reaching the plane) which punctured the plane and then led to a loss of pressure.

According to Ukraine’s National security spokesman Andriy Lysenko in a contradictory statement, the MH17 aircraft “suffered massive explosive decompression after being hit by a shrapnel missile.”  (See IBT, Australia)

In an utterly absurd report, the BBC quoting the official Ukraine statement  says that:

The downed Malaysia Airlines jet in eastern Ukraine suffered an explosive loss of pressure after it was punctured by shrapnel from a missile.

They say the information came from the plane’s flight data recorders, which are being analysed by British experts.

However, it remains unclear who fired a missile, with pro-Russia rebels and Ukraine blaming each other.

Many of the 298 people killed on board flight MH17 were from the Netherlands.

Dutch investigators leading the inquiry into the crash have refused to comment on the Ukrainian claims.

“Machine Gun Like Holes”

The shrapnel marks should be distinguished from the small entry and exit holes “most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile” fired from a military aircraft. These holes could not have been caused by a missile explosion as hinted by the MSM.

While the MSN is saying that the “shrapnel like holes” can be caused by a missile (see BBC report above), the OSCE has confirmed the existence of what it describes as “machine gun like holes”, without however acknowledging that these cannot be caused by a missile.

In this regard, the GSh-302 firing gun operated by an Su-25 is able to fire 3000 rpm which explains the numerous entry and exit holes.

According to the findings of Peter Haisenko:

If we now consider the armament of a typical SU 25 we learn this: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, equipped with: a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum), arranged in alternating order. The cockpit of the MH 017 has evidently been fired at from both sides: the entry and exit holes are found on the same fragment of it’s cockpit segment (op cit)

The accusations directed against Russia including the sanctions regime imposed by Washington are based on a lie.

The evidence does not support the official US narrative to the effect that the MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile system operated by the DPR militia.

What next? More media disinformation, more lies?

See:

Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the “Shooting Down” of Malaysian MH17. “Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile” By Peter Haisenko, July 30, 2014

Revelations of German pilot: Shocking analysis of the “shooting down” of Malaysian MH17. “Aircraft was not hit by a missile”

Global Research, October 18, 2015
Malaysia MH17

This article  first published on July 30, 2014 contradicts the substance of the recently released Dutch Safety Board Report. 

 Zur deutschen Version bitte hier anklicken

The tragedy of Malaysian MH 017 continues to elude any light of clarity being cast over it.

The flight recorders are in England and are evaluated. What can come of it? Maybe more than you would assume.

Especially the voice recorder will be interesting when you look at the picture of a cockpit fragment. As an expert in aviation I closely looked at the images of the wreckage that are circulating on the Internet.

Peter Haisenko in Cockpit of Condor DC 10

First, I was amazed at how few photos can be found from the wreckage with Google. All are in low resolution, except one: The fragment of the cockpit below the window on the pilots side. This image, however, is shocking. In Washington, you can now hear views expressed of a “potentially tragic error / accident” regarding MH 017. Given this particular cockpit image it does not surprise me at all.

Entry and exit impact holes of projectiles in the cockpit area

Source for all photos: Internet

I recommend to click on the little picture to the left. You can download this photo as a PDF in good resolution. This is necessary, because that will allow you understand what I am describing here. The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that at these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent – outwardly! Furthermore, minor cuts can be seen, all bent outward, which indicate that shrapnel had forcefully exited through the outer skin from the inside of the cockpit. The open rivets are are also bent outward.

In sifting through the available images one thing stands out: All wreckage of the sections behind the cockpit are largely intact, except for the fact that only fragments of the aircraft remained . Only the cockpit part shows these peculiar marks of destruction. This leaves the examiner with an important clue. This aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion. The destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to factor in that this part is constructed of specially reinforced material. This is on account of the nose of any aircraft having to withstand the impact of a large bird at high speeds. You can see in the photo, that in this area significantly stronger aluminum alloys were being installed than in the remainder of the outer skin of the fuselage. One remembers the crash of Pan Am over Lockerbie. It was a large segment of the cockpit that due to the special architecture survived the crash in one piece. In the case of flight MH 017 it becomes abundantly clear that there also an explosion took place inside the aircraft.

Tank destroying mix of ammunition

Bullet holes in the outer skin

So what could have happened? Russia recently published radar recordings, that confirm at least one Ukrainian SU 25 in close proximity to MH 017. This corresponds with the statement of the now missing Spanish controller ‘Carlos’ that has seen two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the immediate vicinity of MH 017. If we now consider the armament of a typical SU 25 we learn this: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, equipped with: a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum), arranged in alternating order. The cockpit of the MH 017 has evidently been fired at from both sides: the entry and exit holes are found on the same fragment of it’s cockpit segment!

Now just consider what happens when a series of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells hit the cockpit. These are after all designed to destroy a modern tank. The anti-tank incendiary shells partially traversed the cockpit and exited on the other side in a slightly deformed shape. (Aviation forensic experts could possibly find them on the ground presumably controlled by the Kiev Ukrainian military; the translator). After all, their impact is designed to penetrate the solid armor of a tank. Also, the splinter-explosive shells will, due to their numerous impacts too cause massive explosions inside the cockpit, since they are designed to do this. Given the rapid firing sequence of the GSh-302 cannon, it will cause a rapid succession of explosions within the cockpit area in a very short time. Remeber each of these is sufficient to destroy a tank.

What “mistake” was actually being committed – and by whom?

Graze on the wing

Because the interior of a commercial aircraft is a hermetically sealed pressurized chamber, the explosions will, in split second, increase the pressure inside the cabin to extreme levels or breaking point. An aircraft is not equipped for this, it will burst like a balloon. This explains a coherent scenario. The largely intact fragments of the rear sections broke in mid air at the weaker points of construction most likely under extreme internal air pressure. The images of the widely scattered field of debris and the brutally damaged segment of cockpit fit like hand in glove. Furthermore, a wing segment shows traces of a grazing shot, which in direct extension leads to the cockpit. Interestingly, I found that both the high-resolution photo of the fragment of bullet riddled cockpit as well as the segment of grazed wing have in the meantime disappeared from Google Images. One can find virtually no more pictures of the wreckage, except the well known smoking ruins.

If you listen to the voices from Washington now who speak of a “potentially tragic error / accident”, all that remains is the question of what might have been the nature of this “mistake” perpetrated here. I am not given to hover long in the realm of speculation, but would like to invite others to consider the following : The MH 017 looked similar in it’s tricolor design to that that of the Russian President’s plane. The plane with President Putin on board was at the same time ”near” Malaysia MH 017. In aviation circles “close” would be considered to be anywhere between 150 to 200 miles. Also, in this context we might consider the deposition of Ms. Tymoshenko, who wanted to shoot President Putin with a Kalashnikov.

But that this remains pure speculation. The shelling of the cockpit of air Malaysia MH 017, however, is definitely not speculation. 

MH-17 documentary interviews international experts

Reflections on MH17
From Russia Today

http://rt.com/shows/documentary/223071-mh17-plane-crash-investigation/

27:54

Startling information about what was done and what wasn’t done in the investigation. This is an overview documentary on some of the issues. More has been posted at Global Research and here.

From RT’s website:

“The tragedy of MH17 in which 298 people lost their lives made the conflict in Ukraine real for many other countries. While the international community awaits the outcome of the crash investigation, speculation in the media continues to fuel the blame game. RTD travels far and wide to interview international experts on what has hindered the investigation, what procedures were needed to collect vital evidence and what might have brought down the ill-fated Boeing 777.”

Congress is failing the Tonkin Gulf test on Ukraine

by Robert Parry
Posted on  Information Clearing House, February 21, 2015

As the Ukraine crisis worsens, Official Washington fumes only about “Russian aggression” — much as a half century ago, the Tonkin Gulf talk was all about “North Vietnamese aggression.” But then and now there were other sides to the story – and questions that Congress needed to ask, writes Robert Parry.

February 21, 2015 “ICH” – “Consortium News” – Many current members of Congress, especially progressives, may have envisioned how they would have handled the Tonkin Gulf crisis in 1964. In their imaginations, they would have asked probing questions and treated the dubious assertions from the White House with tough skepticism before voting on whether to give President Lyndon Johnson the authority to go to war in Vietnam.

If they had discovered what CIA and Pentagon insiders already knew – that the crucial second North Vietnamese “attack” on U.S. destroyers likely never happened and that the U.S. warships were not on some “routine” patrol but rather supporting a covert attack on North Vietnamese territory – today’s members of Congress would likely see themselves joining Sens. Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening as the only ones voting no.

Bravery in hindsight is always easy, but things feel quite different when Official Washington is locked in one of its pro-war “group thinks” when all the “important people” – from government to the media to think tanks – are pounding their chests and talking tough, as they are now on Russia and Ukraine.

Then, if you ask your probing questions and show your tough skepticism, you will have your patriotism, if not your sanity, questioned. You will be “controversialized,” “marginalized,” “pariahed.” You will be called somebody’s “apologist,” whether it’s Ho Chi Minh or Vladimir Putin.

And nobody wants to go through that because here’s the truth about Official Washington: if you run with the pack – if you stay within the herd – you’ll be safe. Even if things go terribly wrong – even if thousands of American soldiers die along with many, many more foreign civilians – you can expect little or no accountability. You will likely keep your job and may well get promoted. But if you stand in the way of the stampede, you’ll be trampled.

After all, remember what happened to Morse and Gruening in their next elections. They both lost. As one Washington insider once told me about the U.S. capital’s culture, “there’s no honor in being right too soon. People just remember that you were out of step and crazy.”

So, the choice often is to do the right thing and be crushed or to run with the pack and be safe. But there are moments when even the most craven member of Congress should look for whatever courage he or she has left and behave like a Morse or a Gruening, especially in a case like the Ukraine crisis which has the potential to spin out of control and into a nuclear confrontation.

Though the last Congress already whipped through belligerent resolutions denouncing “Russian aggression” and urging a military response – with only five Democrats and five Republicans dissenting – members of the new Congress could at least ascertain the facts that have driven the Ukraine conflict. Before the world lurches into a nuclear showdown, it might make a little sense to know what got us here.

The Nuland Phone Call Continue reading

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

http://slavyangrad.org/2014/12/11/unreported-rostovs-mh17-flight-data/

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

MH 17 articles:

https://freeukrainenow.org/2014/08/29/air-india-pilots-heard-mh17-redirected-over-hot-airspace-by-ukrainian-air-traffic-controller/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/looking-who-is-talking-mh17-and-the-us-role-in-downing-passenger-airplanes/5398153