by Oriental Review
The long-awaited Final Report on MH17 crash released by the Dutch Safety Board’ International Commission last week has only left a cold scent in the headlines. The reason is hardly the booming Syrian epic. The Dutch report lacked the substance so vigorously expected by all concerned parties: direct indication to the perpetrator. The legally impeccable statement about Ukraine’s failure to comply with its obligation to close the sky over the war-torn area for civilian aircraft was important, but did not answer the key question: who pushed the button? The 279-page report is full of commonplace charts and infographics, but when it comes to principal data and assessments, it exposes a 320 sqr km zone of the “possible launching site” and mispresents the type of BUK missile which hit the Malaysian Boeing (“9M38 and 9M38M1 missiles” while no signs of specific I-beam striking elements of 9M38M1 missile were found on the wrecked parts of fuselage). At one point it regretfully slips into the outright forgery when publishing a visualization map (p.146, fig.64) claiming that the marked area was determined by BUK manufacturer (Concern Almaz-Antey) as the most likely launching spot zone (in reality that map from a slide presented during June 2, 2015 press-conference by Almaz-Antey was to illustrate a hypothesis that the missile was launched from Snezhnoe location, subsequently declined by further computation of the manufacturer).
On the contrary, the new Almaz-Antey investigation report made public almost simultaneously last Tuesday, gives a comprehensive and detailed footage for categoric conclusion: the missile was launched from the Zaroshchenskoe location under Ukrainian Armed Forces’ control at that time. The conclusion was based on the thorough and transparent research including computer modelling and a full-scale real-life experiment conducted on Oct 7, 2015:
As far as the missile type dilemma is concerned, the difference between 9M38 and 9M38M1 striking elements was clearly exposed by Concern Almaz-Antey:
The fact is that there were no holes caused by I-Beam type elements on the fuselage of the Malaysian Boeing. That means that it was downed by 9M38 missile compatible with only the first-generation BUK 9К37 launcher which was produced in Soviet Union in 1978-1986. A large number of BUK complexes were on service in the Ukraine-based Soviet Army Air Defense regiments and were left there after the collapse of Soviet Union. Since 1983 the Soviet (and later Russian army) was receiving the modernized 9K37M1 Buk-M1 modification equipped with 9М38М1 missiles, while the latter is being replaced by a newer modification, 9K37M1-2 Buk-M1-2 (missile code 9M317) since 1998. As a matter of fact by 2011, the ultimate life limit for the last 9M38 missiles produced in 1986, there were no BUKs of that type on active service in the Russian Army. Meanwhile according to documented data, in 2005 there were 502 units of 9M38 missiles still serving in Ukraine (inspection report in disposal of Concern Almaz-Antey). The main task of any international commission to investigate the air accident of this nature should be scrutinising the Ukrainian munition stock records of the Air Defense units for the last 10 years.
Now, going to the probable launching pad in Zaroshchenskoe. The first remark about this location was made by Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov from the Russian Army General Staff on July 21, 2014 when he introduced the original space surveillance evidence of the presence of Ukrainian BUK launchers near Zaroshchenskoe in the morning July 17, 2014:
Besides the “official” reports, there are a number of independent researchers from Malaysia, Netherlands, United States, Germany, Russia and elsewhere who have already published their own forensic reports on the incident based on data they could collect. Among them we would draw your attention to the following:
The MH17 Shootdown – Origin of Equipment and Military Control of the Area of the Zaroshchens’ke Ukrainian Armed Forces BUK Deployment, a private report released in October 2015 by an American civil engineer;
Confidential Report on the Circumstances of the MH17 Shootdown, made public by the Russian forensic expert Albert Naryshkin (aka Albert_Lex) in July 2015. As the latter was in Russian only, hereby is the conclusion:
Accomplished forensic research suggests that the fragments of fuselage of Boeing 777-200 board number 9M-MRD which collapsed during flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014, have damages caused by the combat weapons. The locations of holes and other damages indicate that the aircraft was hit in the air by a weapon equipped with high-explosive fragmentation warhead with ready strike elements.
The explosion took place at the distance 0.8-1.6 m outside the glass cover of the pilot’s cabin. The warhead weight did not exceed 40 kg. It contained 2000-4000 individual fragments (submunitions) in form of rectangular blocks with physical dimensions 8x8x6 mm, around 3 g each.
The targetting was carried out by either radiolocation or thermovision devices of the warhead. According to available data, the specific weapon used to attack Boeing 777-200 cannot be determined univocally, but the most probable option basing on the parametres of the warhead, is the Israel-made Python air-to-air missile.
While analysing air-to-air version of the MH17 tragedy is beyond the line of this article, it should be noted that 4th and 5th generation of the Python missile was adapted for SU-25 “Scorpion” fighter and exported to several post-Soviet states in early 2000s. More details on Albert’s report can be found here. Considering the exposed facts it is at least surprising that the Dutch report does not contain a scrupulous review of all warheads produced worldwide with similar striking elements inside.
Evidently, the main issue – who is the criminal perpetrator – is still unsolved 15 months after MH17 shootdown as it was at the very first day. The quality and professionalism of the costly clandestine investigation carried out by the Dutch Safety Board is now questioned not only by Russian and international observers, but the members of the International Commission itself. After the prejudiced allegations about “Russia protecting the guilty” made by DSB chief Tjibbe Joustra last Friday, we can’t bear more illusions about impartiality of this Commission (if they ever were the case). Important point in this regard is that the absense of any direct accusation of Russia or “pro-Russian rebels” in the DSB report means that the Commission could not find (or fabricate) a single evidence which could be presented as a “prove” of Russian involvement.
So the next logical step should be opening the case within the jurisdiction of International Criminal Court. According to Rome Statute, the tragedy over Ukraine is clearly a war crime case:
Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;(Article 8, paragraph 2, b(ii))
The international investigation under ICC should be initiated by Prosecutor of ICC (article 15). To open the case, a State Party of the ICC should refer a situation to him (article 14). In this particular situation Ukraine is not a Party of ICC (Rome Statute not ratified by Ukraine yet), so the options on the table are Netherlands (ICC State Party) giving the formal request to ICC or Ukraine accepting an Act of recognition of ICC jurisdiction over MH17 incident (article 12, paragraph 3) and thus referring to the Prosecutor. Quite noteworthy is that during 2014-2015 the incumbent Kiev’s authorities have already twice (!) accepted acts of recognition of ICC jurisdiction over “crimes against humanity, committed by senior officials of the state… within the period Nov 21, 2013 – Febr 22, 2014” (February 25, 2014) and over “crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by senior officials of the Russian Federation and leaders of terrorist organization DNR and LNR” (February 4, 2015). (The latter does not contain a single reference to MH17 shootdown, by the way.) So what impedes Ukrainians, in case they feel themselves absolutely clean in the situation around MH17, to adopt another act of recognition? We have strong confidence that they perfectly know that any serious international criminal investigation would inevitably lead to the real perpetrator of this crime: Ukrainian Air Defense and current regime in Kiev.
So only one chance for justice for the victims of MH17 is left: Malaysia, being a non-Party of ICC as well, adopts the same Act of recognition of ICC jurisdiction over MH17 case and secures the investigation till the final verdict.
The entire sickening events in Ukraine since the Maidan coup d’etat can really only end when the Ukranian army turns it’s guns around and destroys the volunteer battalions.
There are already hints and reports of regular army shelling the v-b positions,Tornado battalion mutinying and mining a defensive position after it’s psychotic commander was arrested for raping and using a cattle prod in ‘Tornado Productions’ filming.
The regular army was talking with Alexi Mosgavoi before he was murdered in an ambush,I believe that was why he was ‘taken out’.
He was video conferencing with 3 or 4 colonels of the UAF…..skyping and of course MS/US owns skype……
IMHO, justice for MH17,Maidan,Oddesa,Kherson and the Donbas will only be delivered when the UAF drive out their own devils overthrowing the Junta.
How the world is working
Regarding using the ICC to investigate the MH17 shoot down, I believe the Russian government has already said they thought it would be a mistake. Given that the ICC has shown itself to be as corrupt and fraudulently inclined as the Dutch investigators, using the ICC would only give the zionazis more cover for their war crime against the airliner. IE: an incredibly stupid move.
The ICC is utterly corrupt, a tool of the US and nothing more. We are still waiting for the USA’s hand-picked Aunty Tom ‘Chief Prosecutor’ to do anything in regard to Israel’s barbarity during the recent Gaza massacre. The vile stooge probably is still awaiting orders from Samantha Powers.
Facts take work and intelligence to appreciate. Sadly, the modern consciousness is about perception and more to the point: apperception. And tragically this condition is used by psychotic war-mongers against us.
Still, thanks for presenting the facts and logic behind them. In the long game, facts and reality along with a mature apperceptive development will prevail. In the old language, it was called truth and justice.
It’s an information war all right but more than that it’s a meta-game of love and anti-love.
I’m caught somewhere in the middle most of the time. “I can keep both feet on the ground, I can follow the path, I can read the signs, stay right with it when the road unwinds. Most of the time.”
At other times I get lost which shows up in my dreams and dysfunctions. Thanks to all for helping to keep me on track.
Peace to all those victims and families of M17 and its countless replicas, caught in the cross-hairs of vicious killers and their sick sycophants who cover up the facts with lies.
Dennis, in the psychotic swamp that is the ‘West’, in the long-term, not only will we all be dead, but so will the Truth. I do not hear the Truth or even a vague approximation to it, uttered any time at all in Western politics, MSM, business etc, anymore, save when it incidentally serves the purposes of the ruling psychopaths. Otherwise the diet is entirely lies, hypocrisy, fear and hate-mongering and vilification. The glorious West is not just mad, bad and dangerous to share the planet with, it actually believes its lies, although their utter falsity is plain to see for all but psychopaths and their brainwashed and obedient serfs.
You quote the Almaz-Antey report as stating: “The fact is that there were no holes caused by I-Beam type elements on the fuselage of the Malaysian Boeing.”
However the DSB report does include pictures of some small butterfly- or bow-tie-shaped metal objects, one or more of which were found in the body or bodies of MH17 pilot(s).
If I have understood it correctly there seems to be a contradiction here. Can anybody explain?
I believe Almez-Antey tested both warhead types and photographed the holes produced.
The first report of the butterfly shrapnel was by a dutch journalist who apparently “found” some at the site months after the shootdown.
Peter, just like Lockerbie!! The killer ‘evidence’ turned up long after the crash, then was ‘examined’ by an FBI ‘expert’ with a long record of manipulating his ‘research’. It is so brazen, but don’t hold your breath waiting for the Western MSM presstitutes to notice. I have a vague recollection that this ‘Dutch journalist’ is, in some manner (apart from being a Western presstitute)a ‘shady character’, too.
There are, from what I have gathered, at least 3 models of BUK with different shaped ‘shrapnel’ and that also differ in size/weight of the individual shrapnel or ‘strike elements’ as they are called. They number in the thousands in each warhead, the idea being to create an expanding ring or wall of objects to ensure penetration of the target aircraft.
Take an ‘H’ shape and stretch it horizontally and fatten the whole thing and you have one of the strike elements of the later models, discounted because the size and weight and corresponding hole size in MH17 don’t match. None of the BUKs in current Russian service match the MH17 damage.
Another model has ‘butterfly shaped’ strike elements and the last has diamond shaped strike elements.
Why the MH17 cockpit area has so many circular holes is curious. Does the BUK have circular ball strike elements too? Even so, with the speed of MH17 added to the missile closure from in front wouldn’t a ball shape cause a horizontally stretched hole -an ellipse or oval tear?
Some discount those holes being caused by cannon shells saying these are explosive (not exclusively and even the explosive ones have a delay to ensure penetration first), others say the quantity of holes/narrow spacing are not achievable from the distance of an attacking fighter -they’d be more widely spaced.
I have yet to see a picture of the Python missile’s strike elements but unless that air launched missile can be disproven it’s the one hypothesis that avoids all the problems the BUK theories have.
Somebody knows all the answers and the truth will out eventually.
Sanctuary, on the contrary, as far as the glorious West and its insect ‘journalistic’ sect and, of course, their elite owners, are concerned, the Truth will never ‘out eventually’. Never, ever. Good God, they’re still lying about the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, Pearl Harbor and Dallas.
I hear you, believe me I hear you, and agree with your conclusion. Don’t forget the Lusitania too.
But there is faint hope; we have the Internet and perhaps more anonymous whistleblowers and communication -emails, images, diplomatic missives etc. Hacking can only improve. All the better for scooping up by Wikileak type collectors.
Additionally, empires are cracking and those who might formerly have kept their patriotic mouths shut in comfort until death may feel differently under future dystopias and betrayal.
Talk about ‘spooky synchronicity’, Sanctuary. I considered mentioning the Lusitania or the Maine, but was frightened that I’d give away my age.
If one looks at the ‘metadata’ surrounding the MH17 investigation, that is, ignoring all of the content but merely following the course, timing and quality of the investigation then the lack of interest in MH17 wreckage and continual avoidance of data, obfuscation and outright lies is tantamount to proof of a massive coverup.
What they left out is damning -the lack of any ground observers of a BUK launch, the inability of a single BUK launcher to target MH17 (low targets only) at that high altitude without a BUK command centre vehicle with a more powerful radar system, and as far as launch point they spoke only of the nose fuselage damage and totally ignored the damage to the #1 engine (left) which provided far more data for missile direction and negates their inference that it was launched from a ‘rebel’ area. The ignored data goes on and on and their inability to see must rival that of the OSCE observers.
How easy was it for the collected MH17 wreckage, that had no provenance or chain of custody, to get salted with a BUK rocket nozzle?
How can you have a credible investigation when one (or more) of the investigators are also potential suspects and that one of them has veto power over the investigations?
Words like ‘sham’ and ‘travesty’ come to mind.
This report doesn’t deserve the attention your giving it-people. Unless you like the smell of B.S well then have at it. I wouldn’t how do you say it-give it legitimacy by even looking at it. It was fixed from the get go. It is not admissible evidence. Period.
Attacking the process would gain more political currency.
Some interesting reading here:
The writer is an Aussie barrister who seems to be close to the victim families.
Myself, I smell something very, very rotten.
Interesting video showing a Ukrainian BUK battery, shot in 07/16/2014 -yes, one day before the MH17 tragedy – in the so called ATO zone
The Dutch Safety Board was in an impossible situation. Can you imagine the blowback if they found the Ukrainians guilty? It was absurd to expect them to produce clear results. Laying the blame has been postponed for a “further study”, apparently when no one cares anymore. Not only does the Dutch team fail to identify the culprit, they do not even prove their own thesis: that a Buk missile shot down the Boeing. They offer little evidence, but repeat the same “facts” until we sense that, maybe, at least they believe it.
Here is an article that analyzes the Dutch investigation report piece by piece, showing they’ve established no proof whatsoever for the Buk missile theory: