Ukraine’s SBU Now Denies Arresting Tow Truck Driver Of ‘BUK Missile Launcher’ Involved In MH17 Case

Donate

Ukraine's SBU Now Denies Arresting Tow Truck Driver Of 'BUK Missile Launcher' Involved In MH17 Case

In a complete 180 degree turn, the Ukrainian Security Service – the SBU now said that it hadn’t detained the driver of the tow truck that transported MH17 case’s “BUK Launcher.”

On July 20th, the SBU said that another person drove the tow truck, not the one arrested. The one arrested was the Donetsk People’s Republic militiaman who was allegedly involved in the seizure of the BUK launcher.

“On July 17, 2019, a briefing was held in Kyiv on the course of the investigation of this tragedy. After the event, mass media disseminated unreliable information about the detention of the trailer driver, who transported “BUK” air-defence missile system on July 17, 2014. In fact, on the briefing was mentioned the fact of the arrest and conviction by the Ukrainian court of the “DNR” (editor: DPR) terrorist organization militant, involved in the illegal capture of a trailer in Donetsk in July 2014. In the following on this trailer other persons transported “BUK” air-defence missile system through the territories of Luhansk and Donetsk regions, temporarily uncontrollable to the Ukrainian authorities, by means of which Boeing 777 MH-17 flight was shot down,” the SBU statement read.

This followed a July 17th press conference during which the SBU said that it had detained the driver of the tow truck.

Russia, too, released a statement on July 17th, saying that the MH17 investigation was quite dubious and provided no substantive evidence to any of their claims.

Essentially, the Russian side expressed what was quite apparent for a while – Russia was found guilty prior to the investigation and any subsequent efforts by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) and Ukraine, US, etc. are solely focused on constructing a narrative that makes enough sense to be believable.

“At the request of the investigators, Russia declassified for the first time ever documents on the Buk surface-to-air missile complex, proved that the missile that downed the aircraft, according to the JIT, belonged to Ukraine, and many other things. Unfortunately, all these unique data are insistently ignored and not taken into consideration by the investigation or silenced during JIT’s news events that increasingly resemble political propaganda shows.

At the same time, evidence is based on sources that are quite questionable: social media, poor quality photo images and video footage, data from Ukrainian special services with nothing to back them, and investigations by would-be independent bloggers. It is no surprise that guided by an approach of this kind it took some time before the JIT allowed Malaysia to join the investigation. The latest statements made by this country’s officials and experts show that Malaysia is not inclined to make any hasty accusations. The prohibition to publish any data without the approval from all the participants in the group, including Ukraine, also raises eyebrows,” the Russian statement read.

The JIT, which, under the leadership of the Prosecutor General of the Netherlands without the participation of Russia, is conducting an investigation into the circumstances of the crash, has previously presented interim results. The investigation claims that the Boeing was shot down by the Buk air defense system, which belonged to the 53rd anti-aircraft missile brigade of the Russian Armed Forces from Kursk.

The JIT announced the names of four suspects in the MH17 crash case. According to the statement, among the suspects are Russians Igor Girkin, Sergey Dubinsky and Oleg Pulatov, as well as the Ukrainian Leonid Kharchenko. The investigation considers them to be involved in the delivery of the Buk air defense missile system to the position in the Donbass, to be used in the attack on the Malaysian Boeing.

As the representative of the JIT said, the investigation will issue international warrants for their arrest. The JIT also reported that the trial of the MH17 crash case will be held in the Netherlands, it will begin on March 9th, 2020.

As stated by Russian Deputy Prosecutor General Nikolai Vinnichenko, the Russian side gave the Netherlands data from the Russian radar and documentation indicating that the Buk missile system that hit Boeing belonged to Ukraine, but this information was ignored by investigators.

Even the Malaysian side has repeatedly said that if Russia, in fact, was responsible for the downed airplane, then sufficient evidence should be provided. Malaysian top officials stated that no evidence confirming this claim has been presented.

The most recent backtracking and attempt to “retcon” the narrative by the Ukrainian SBU is quite showing of the attempts to “fit” reality to the narrative, and not discover what really transpired.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

Donate

  • Mario8282

    JIT is a political fraud. There was no BUK involved in downing MH17.

    • Toronto Tonto

      Your a dumbazz , Russia shot it down and even Putin knows it he just wont admit it .

      • Concrete Mike

        Explain to me why the ukrainian air traffic control rerouted the plane north to pass over donbass instead of over the sea like all the other planes??

        Where are the radar tapes Tonto? Where are the black.boxes tonto??

        Withholding informatikn as the JIT is doing at this moment is lying.
        You.want ww3 to start over a plane?

        You must have a lust to shit radioactive bricks. I dont, life.is too precious and beautiful to piss it all away. For what?? Money??? Power?? Revenge???

        Your fucken nuts!

        • Toronto Tonto

          Russia needs to get its equipment and troops out of Ukraine or the will be cargo 200 .

          • Doom Sternz

            lmao there are no Russian troops in Ukraine, you are loosing the war to a bunch on miners. Imagine if Russian troops actually were in Ukraine, Kiev would fall in hours.

            Why is the ATO murdering civilians in Donbass, because Russian troops are there right. Why wont the ATO attack Crimea, because Russian troops are there right.

            What a completely dishonest and despicable person you truly are. A total fraud and a total psychopath.

          • Concrete Mike

            Nice rebuttal!!! Top notch!

          • Gary Sellars

            East Ukrainians tell you to go and fuck yerself.

        • AM Hants

          Not forgetting, just why did they allow the air traffic controller, who was looking after the MH17 to go on holiday, and never return to Ukraine, the following day, without interviewing her?

        • Bruno Giordano

          How do you know “air traffic control rerouted the plane north to pass over donbass instead of over the sea like all other planes”? Have you studied Malaysia Airlines flightplan for that day? Where was flight SI351 flying? Where was flight AI113 flying and which ATC “rerouted” that to fly over Donbas? Which route had flight MH16 taken earlier that day?

          “Radar tapes”?

          The black boxes and their content have been examined with the help of the AAIB and with the presence of representatives from several countries and organisations, among them Malaysia, the Interstate Aviation Committee and ICAO.

          The JIT is doing a criminal investigation, building files for a court case. Why would they share sensitive information that can help the suspects in this stage?

          • Concrete Mike

            “Why would they share sensitive information that can help the suspects in this stage?”

            Ukraine is also a suspect in this case and they are getting information shared with them.

            The Malaysian governement certainly does not agree with the investigation so far as the PM has stated recently.

            You dont know what radar tapes are? Come on dont play the dumbass card.

            That plane should never have been there, many planes were shot.down in the days prior.

            You can say what you want, the JIT is a sham and its conclusion was drawn before the investigation was even initiated.

            Confirmation bias is a dangerous thing!

          • Bruno Giordano

            Even if Ukraine would be a suspect, even if the other members in the investigation team would not trust Ukraine, then still an investigation would be impossible without Ukraine’s co-operation. It is purely hypothetical, because there is not a single indication that Ukraine as a state is indeed guilty. Accusations came from Russia, telling inconsistent stories. Fighter jets that appeared to be invisible on Russia’s own radar. Ukrainian BUK systems in fake satellite images. Calculations “proving” that the missile would have been lauched from government controlled area. All to obfuscate Russia’s own role.

            I don’ know if tapes are used to store and transport radar data. Perhaps for video that is taken from the screen. Ukraine provided secondary radar data. Russia initially provided video taken from the screen, showing processed primary an secondary data, worthless for analysis. Screenprints of both Ukrainian an Russian radar are in the DSB report. Russia claimed the data had been destroyed. Real primary radar data that they magically found was provided in Fall 2016.

            How do you know the “JIT is a sham” when much of what they do and have done is not published for reasons that I already mentioned?

            Mahathir is critical, but it is not true that “the government does not agree with the investigation”. The Malaysian prosecutor has expressed his support. And some of Mahathir’s critiques are incorrect and show his ignorance.

          • Concrete Mike

            You use the term obfuscate right after IF IF IF. Your obfuscating right now, shameless bastard!

            Ukraine IS a suspect, always has been and it always will be until we have a REAL OBJECTIVE imvestigation.

            What JIT is attempting to do is fit and investigation with a pre determined conclusion, that russia is guilty!

            That is not how investigations work.

            Luckily im.not the.only one that thinks this way.

            Chew on this.
            https://southfront.org/documentary-on-mh17-reveals-5-year-long-string-of-lies/

          • Bruno Giordano

            Look how ridiculous you make yourself “Ukraine is a suspect” and then “fit and investigation with a pre determined conclusion” That is indeed not how investigations work. But apparently it is how it works in your head. Btw, rude person, until now the DSB and the JIT, have not accused “Russia”, only Russian individuals.

          • Concrete Mike

            Oh really?
            In Canada , mh17 is.blamed.on russia. Officially.

            Your saying the same thing as I am. Im not blaming anyone except the incompetent JIT.

            Its been 5 years and the evidence showed is garbage. Absolute trash that no honest judge would accept.

            The skripal case follows the same.pattern very closely.

            But you see those patterns of lies yet?

          • Bruno Giordano

            Canada is not a party. They can say what they want. So can newspapers etc. “… trash that no honest judge would accept.” How do you know it is “trash”? You have inside information? It seems you are judging the evidence without knowing what the evidence is. Like I said, the JIT is doing a criminal investigation; there is a lot that they will not share until the case is in court. Whether you like it or not.

      • AM Hants

        Which is why Kolomoisky stated they had taken down the wrong aircraft, as he laughed about the loss of lives of the MH17.

        The pilot, who later committed suicide, also stated, when his military jet returned, with it’s air to air missiles missing, that he had taken down the wrong aircraft.

        Now who were they expecting to fly through Ukrainian airspace (which he does not do, owing to safety concerns), when returning from a very successful BRICS summit? The Prime Minister of India, who was also returning from the successful BRICS summit, was just behind the MH17.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d10ed1162bb16bb148c2638ccddbde29084039886b5261b58497f7675c7f0dd2.jpg

      • Gary Sellars

        Stupid Kanuck Ukropi inbred retard… and those are your good qualities… LOL!

      • Mario8282

        There was no AA missile involved in destroying the MH17 cockpit. All black box data are kept secret by JIT. All satellite imagery is kept classified by the US. Ukraine claims their civil AND military radars ditn’t work at precisely that time. All evidence of a jet fighter attack (round holes only 30mm bullets can pierce, holes proving piercing from both sides of the plane – no misslie explodes in such a way that it pierces a wall from both sides) is neglected by JIT.

        JIT must stand trial for covering up the MH17 mass murder.

  • Rodger

    Who cares at this point? Once they let the Ukraine, one of the two possible culprits, into the JIT it was over for it ever being something else then politics.

    • AM Hants

      Allowing Ukraine to classify all information.
      JIT and the CIA, who share the same building as the SBU.
      Nothing suspect there, now is there? (sarc).

  • Feri Solar

    Doterajšie vyšetrovanie bolo absolútne neprofesiálne a malo za cieľ pošpiniť Rusov! Myslím, že to lietadlo vedome zostrelili ukrajinskí fašisti!

    • BMWA1

      ano

  • AM Hants

    Bit weird, when Ukraine stated they had lost no BUKs.

    • Doom Sternz

      Why was MH17 altitude reduced? For the record the SU25 manufacturers have indicated that a variant of the SU25 sold to Ukraine can operate at the height levels that MH17 was reduced to, that of course is the point in asking why the decrease in altitude, ie to make it within strike range of the variant SU25 sold to Ukraine.

      This act alone shows that it was premeditated. An egregious crime perpetrated by Banderites (West Ukrainians)

      • AM Hants

        Good questions and I love it when people keep asking those questions.

        Didn’t they also change the ceiling zone of the Su 25, just prior to the MH17?

        New Evidence: Did Google Down MH 17, Killing 238?

        ‘… Google has something to hide, let’s take a look. On July 17, 2014, Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, a Boeing 777-200ER with 238 onboard was redirected over the combat zone near Donbass in Eastern Ukraine by air traffic control in Kiev…

        …Following MH17 into “enemy territory,” according to Kiev officials, were two SU25 “Frogfoot” attack aircraft. This is the key, and where Google got involved.

        Only a day before the attack, the SU25 had a flight ceiling of 60,000 feet and a range of over 600 miles, much more with wing tanks and no bomb load. Its speed, well over 600 mph made it a capable fighter at altitude using its powerful guns and air to air missiles though it was generally tasked for ground attack…

        For those easily fooled, the rationale for establishing the “service ceiling” for the SU 25 was based on a loadout with only one pilot oxygen tank. A second tank, however, doubled the “service ceiling” due to greatly increased high altitude range to 46,000 feet through the actual “flight ceiling,” with diminished handling is over 60,000 feet…’

        https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/01/19/new-evidence-did-google-down-mh-17-killing-238/

        Ukraine Primary Radar was not working, when they sent the MH17 into a warzone, allegedly changing route and ordering it to drop it’s height, to the ceiling zone of a SU 25.

        NATO were conducting ‘Operation Breeze’ in the Black Sea, which ended on the 17 July 2014. Using an Aegis Destroyer and the exercise involved air traffice communications and also electrical jamming. Now why does ‘fly by wire’ technology, so come to mind. Yet, NATO, refused to release any of their radar intelligence, which would have recorded the MH17 going down.

        US satelite was actioned, at the time the MH17 was hit, yet the US refused to hand over any intelligence, relying purely on social media, as stated by the spokesperson for the State Department.

        The air traffic controller, who was responsible for the flight, was never interviewed and allowed to leave for a holiday, the following day. She never returned.

        Then you have the suicide of the pilot, who returned, stating they took down the wrong plane. On his return to base with his air to air missiles missing.

        Not forgetting, there was no forensic analysis, on the shrapnel fragments of the entry and exit holes. Which would have proved exactly what missile or missiles took down the MH17, air to air, surface to air, or a mixture of both.

        • אהרון

          I, too, love it when people ask questions, although I prefer honest questions, as opposed to your thinly veiled accusations.

          The Russian operated site VT states that, in 2014, Russia’s MoD submitted radar images which appear to show at least one Su-25 in the vicinity of MH-17 when it was destroyed. This, of course, is partially true. Russia’s Ministry of Defense did submit a “video representation” (not the actual radar data) in 2014. However, in 2016 the MoD was forced to admit that Russia’s ATC radar data (the actual data and not a video representation) shows only three civilian aircraft in that airspace at the time MH-17 was destroyed – one of those aircraft included MH-17.

          My question is this: How do you reconcile VT continuing to report the presence of a Su-25 in the vicinity of MH-17 after the Russian MoD admitted in 2016 that no Su-25 is to be seen on their raw radar data?

          Lastly; Can you cite Veterans Today in any academic papers?

          • AM Hants

            Thinly veiled accusations????????

            Were Ukraine’ Primary radar working that day or not?
            Did or did not Ukraine, send a civilian passenger plane into a war zone? Yes or No?
            Did the MH17 have to drop it’s height to 3,000 feet below what was required?
            Were NATO finishing off ‘Operation Breeze’ in the Black Sea, on 17 July 2014?
            Was the Aegis Destroyer part of the exercise?
            Were there complaints from civilian airline pilots, to NATO, owing to interference in air communications?
            Did NATO offer to provide any of their radar intelligence, obtained by the Aegis Destroyer, in the Black Sea, on 17 July 2014?
            Did the US refuse to provide their satelite intelligence, when their satelite was actioned, at the time the MH17 was taken out?
            Did or did not Steph Harf, the US spokesperson from the State Department state that the US relied on social media, with regards events of MH17?
            Did or did not, the air traffic controller, in control of the MH17 go on holiday on the 18 July 2014 and never return back to Ukraine?
            Did or did not the air traffic controller, in control of the MH17, avoid giving a statement, concerning events of the day, prior to leaving the country, the following day?
            Why did the groundsman at the Ukraine military base, notice the SU25 return with no air to air missiles? Did he or did he not report that the pilot, who later commited suicide, stated he took the wrong plane down. Confirming what Kolomoisky claimed.
            Was their any forensic analysis of the shrapnel fragments on the entry/exit holes? Which would have proven the DNA of the missile or missiles? Whether they be air to air, ground to air or a mixture of both

            Now if a military jet, was hidden by a civilian airliner, when shadowing it, would it or would it not be shown on a radar screen? Or would the larger aircraft hide the military jet from view?

          • אהרון

            Yes, thinly veiled accusations.

            My questions were as follows: 1. How do you reconcile VT continuing to report the presence of Su-25s in the vicinity of MH-17 after the Russian MoD admitted in 2016 that no Su-25 is to be seen on their raw radar data? 2. Can you cite Veterans Today in any academic papers?

          • AM Hants

            Darling as stated, the military jets were shaded and hidden from radar view, owing to the close proximity of shadowing the MH17.

            MH17 FLIGHT AND NATO EXERCISE “BLACK SEA BREEZE”…

            ‘… 23/07/14
            Officially the United States announced the military maneuvers codenamed Black Sea Breeze 2014 and Rapid Trident II, the 21 May 2014. The NATO exercise in the Black Sea, which lasted for 10 days, is over, but it was still underway during the slaughter of the Malaysian Airlines MH17 flight in the eastern part of Ukraine, 40 miles from the Russian border.

            Maneuvers included the use of war aircraft and electronic intelligence such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E-3 Sentry (photo), Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS).

            The first one has the main function of carrying out SEAD missions, that is the suppression of the opposing antiaircraft defenses, and it is a real concentrate of technologies able to hook up the emissions of the search and guiding radars of the adversaries. The on-board equipment is mainly composed of: the ALQ-218 receiver, the CCS (Communication Countermeasure Set) ALQ-227, the digital version of the USQ-113 used for communication disturbance, the CMDS (Counter Measures Dispenser System) AN / ALE-47 for launching chaff and flare and the 16 Link Encrypted Data Transmission System.

            The Boeing E-3 AWACS can detect planes far to 400 km, far beyond the range of anti-aircraft defense. An AWACS flying at a height of 9000 meters, has a radar coverage of 312.000 square kilometers, in fact, only three overlapping orbits can monitor the entire Central Europe…

            In air-to-air combat, AWACS systems communicate with friendly airplanes, to extend the range of their sensors and also facilitates less visibility, as the raiders no longer need to use their radar to detect the enemy intrusions.

            During the Black Sea Breeze exercise, NATO’s surface units and aircraft had underdone radar and electronic surveillance across the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, and the US Army said that in the 10 days it also monitored commercial air traffic , it could therefore be inferred that it included the flight MH-17. At the same time as Sea Breeze, approved by the Ukrainian Parliament, was underway a second exercise known as Rapid Trident, which also included the actual 200s of the US Army coming from the bases in Germany, and this was headed by the Ukraine Ministry of Defense.

            The USS Vella Gulf missile cruiser participated in the Sea Breeze (photo), sailing in the Black Sea since last May. The Vella Gulf is part of the Aegis class of cruisers. The AEGIS AN / SPY1 radar is able to continuously monitor the airspace on 360 degrees without the dead time due to the rotation of a mechanical antenna; it can track and manage the engagement of numerous multiple targets at the same time. The SPY-1 improves a series of functions normally used for different traditional radar systems: long-range aerial surveillance; three-dimensional aerial discovery; surface discovery; tracking targets; Intermediate guide for missiles equipped with semi-active radar sensor. In fact, the surface unit can trace all the aircraft over a large region.

            Therefore, from the Black Sea, the Vella Gulf could monitor the Malaysian Airlines MH17 and any missiles fired at the aircraft; AWACS aircraft flew over the region when the MH-17 passed over Ukraine and the Growler aircraft were enabled to intercept all missile radars. It is therefore credible that the electronic surveillance and discovery systems of NATO have recorded what happened to the MH17 flight…’

            http://en.difesaonline.it/mondo-militare/il-volo-mh17-e-lesercitazione-nato-black-sea-breeze

            With regards what I can cite, bearing in mind I am just a simple housewife, who does not have access to the classified information of the MH17 tragedy. So like everybody else, for the next 26 years, until the classified information is made public, I would not be able to cite the facts, now would I? Which is why I ask questions, like so many others and wonder why the DSB and JIT ignore the answers.

            Veterans Today, together with John Helman and many others have provided many questions, which the DSB and JIT investigation have completely ignored, for some reason. No doubt their reliance on Belingcat and other forms of social media. As the US State Department have acknowledged, as the source of their intelligence.

          • אהרון

            No, sweetie, you’ve misunderstood what the Russian Ministry of Defense showed the world in 2016 after a copy of the original 2014 raw ATC was discovered after being thought deleted in days after MH-17 was destroyed.

            The 2016 Russian radar data confirmed that which was discovered in Ukraine’s radar data and that from MH-17 and two additional commercial airlines flying in the vicinity at that time. No aircraft approached MH-17 close enough to shadow MH-17.

            It’s been nearly three years now that the Russian government has dropped the entire theory of an air to air shoot down. How do you reconcile VT continuing to report the presence of Su-25s in the vicinity of MH-17?

          • AM Hants

            Part 2

            Interesting, just come across these two articles. The first one I read a while ago, but, just read the John Helmer article.

            So love how they raise so many questions.

            …………………

            Malaysia Airlines MH17: Michael Bociurkiw talks about being first at the crash site

            Michael Bociurkiw was among the very first people to reach the Malaysian jet’s wreckage… https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh17-michael-bociurkiw-talks-about-being-first-at-the-crash-site-1.2721007

            ………………..

            Evidence Is Now Conclusive: Two Ukrainian Government Fighter-Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It was Not a ‘Buk’ Surface to Air Missile…

            ;…The accompanying news-report, also on July 17th, said:

            “This Kiev air traffic controller is a citizen of Spain and was working in the Ukraine. He was taken off duty as a civil air-traffic controller along with other foreigners immediately after a Malaysia Airlines passenger aircraft was shot down over the Eastern Ukraine killing 295 passengers and crew on board. The air traffic controller suggested in a private evaluation and basing it on military sources in Kiev, that the Ukrainian military was behind this shoot down. Radar records were immediately confiscated after it became clear a passenger jet was shot down.” If this is true, then the radar-records upon the basis of which those tweets had been sent were “confiscated.”

            The best evidence is consistent that those bullet-holes came from two directions not from one. What is virtually certain, however, is that at least one jet fighter was close up and shot down the Malaysian plane. The rest of the tweets from @spainbucca, there, described the immediate hostility of the Kiev authorities toward him on the occasion, and his speculations as to who was behind it all…’

            https://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-is-now-conclusive-two-ukrainian-government-fighter-jets-shot-down-malaysian-airlines-mh17-it-was-not-a-buk-surface-to-air-missile/5394814

            ………………….

            Do like the work of John Helmer and just seen this article.

            John Helmer: Four MH17 Questions – The Answers to Which Prove the Dutch Police, Ukrainian Secret Service, and US Government Are Faking the Evidence of the MH17 Shootdown…

            ‘…The newest models of the Buk system have incorporated the target acquisition radar on board, and the vehicle is called a transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR). This radar can be seen in the grey box attached to the front of the turret. Unlike the old TAR, though, the antenna in the grey box has a relatively narrow 120-degree focus unless the entire turret is rotated. The JIT’s evidence and animations (below, left) indicate a TELAR. In the JIT claims of the convoy and route travelled by the BUK to and from the alleged firing point, there is no sign of a TAR vehicle….

            …How then can the BUK which the JIT has now pinpointed in a field at the village of Pervomayskiy, near the small town of Snizhne, have aimed east to west, head-on towards the MH17, and fired with the intention of bringing down the approaching aircraft? Why that target, and not the other two targets, also civil aircraft flying above 10,000 metres within a few minutes of each other and within firing range? Why target an aircraft flying so high, at a constant, level altitude? What evidence is there in the JIT presentation that the BUK and about one hundred men the Dutch claim to have been involved knew what they were aiming at and intended the result which occurred? A Russian military source asks: “did the BUK operators know where to direct their radar antenna? A 120-degree angle is not very large for target interception.”

            Question 2. For the BUK missile the JIT claims to have been fired from a position to the east of the aircraft, the missile must have been visible to the pilots in the cockpit as it approached the cockpit window in clear sky. How then can the JIT explain the lack of a record from the cockpit’s voice recorder (CVR) that the pilots saw anything? Between the last pilot voice contact with Dniepropetrovsk Air Traffic Control, and the destruction of the aircraft, there were four seconds on the CVR tape.

            Repeat: IT TAKES FOUR REGULAR SECONDS TO READ THIS ALOUD. Did you see the nine words? Did you have time to say them aloud?

            The CVR tape from the MH17 cockpit has not been released publicly. However, the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) reports of last year say the last 4 seconds are soundless; not even the pilots’ breathing can be heard. The evidence can be followed here. How does the JIT explain the missile trajectory if it was not seen by the pilots?

            Also, the JIT revealed on September 28 for the first time that the Ukraine has released its air traffic control tapes and communications for JIT analysis. Do the Ukrainian audio and radar tapes provide evidence that someone on the ground spotted the approaching missile during the 4 seconds the pilots in the MH17 cockpit saw, heard, said nothing? If the Ukrainian tapes are as silent as the cockpit voice recorder, then there is proof – nothing could have approached MH17 head-on from a firing position to the east…

            Unique to the BUK warhead, according to the Dutch investigations, as well as to the missile manufacturer Almaz-Antei, is a piece of metal shaped like a bowtie or butterfly. About one-third of the BUK warhead’s shrapnel – that’s about 2,600 pieces of metal – is bowtie or butterfly-shaped. Another third of the shrapnel is cube-shaped. According to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) papers issued in October 2015, 20 pieces of shrapnel were recovered, including 2 bowties and 2 cubes

            DUTCH SAFETY BOARD INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF MISSILE SHRAPNEL

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ca4988453722811aebe83001683f46a48f7e4b2a7e4f30fed01dc92d9e568783.jpg

            The spread or spray of the shrapnel after detonation is not more than 60 degrees. From mapping this spread from the impacts of metal fragments on aircraft panels it is possible to determine the angle of the missile to the aircraft at detonation. This in turn allows the tracking of the missile’s approach trajectory and the firing position on the ground. Testing warhead detonation against aircraft panels will also reveal the number and type of shrapnel impacts which ought to be registered if the missile and warhead types have been correctly identified.

            According to the latest JIT report this week, the number of bowties and cubes has dwindled from four identified in last October’s Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report to two, one of each shape. How and why did the other two pieces of evidence disappear in The Netherlands over the past twelve months? How does the JIT explain there was no shrapnel at all in the bodies of the 295 people, crew and passengers, who were behind the cockpit, in the main cabin of the aircraft?

            According to Mikhail Malishevsky, the Almaz-Antei briefer in Moscow yesterday, test-bed detonations of the BUK missile at the port position, 1.5 metres from the cockpit, where the Dutch claim the missile detonated, show many more impact holes and evidence of bowties than the Dutch report they have recovered. Malishevsky records that in the Dutch analysis reported last year the shrapnel impacts had an average concentration of 80 per square metre. He says the Dutch are now reporting an average concentration of 250 per square metre, but with fewer of the BUK warhead’s characteristic bowties.

            The discrepancy in shrapnel count is so large, Malishevsky draws two conclusions – that it was impossible for the missile to have approached from the east and struck head-on; and that the only trajectory consistent with the MH17 shrapnel damage pattern was one in which the missile flew parallel to the aircraft before exploding, and approached from the south, not from the east…

            A summary of these questions and the answers so far can be plotted on the map of the crash area.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c1d516c273febd542811a48dadea8c993ed145f17c895af55a3166029da8b5bf.jpg

            https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/john-helmer-four-mh17-questions-the-answers-to-which-prove-the-dutch-police-ukrainian-secret-service-and-us-government-are-faking-the-evidence-of-the-mh17-shootdown.html

            KEY
            Red line – MH 17.
            Blue line – firing point at Snizhne (in Russian Snezhnoe), according to the JIT version.
            Green line – firing point at Zaroshchenskoe (misspelled in the map), according to Almaz-Antei version.
            Source: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68376.html

          • Bruno Giordano

            I like that last sentence. Lol

      • Bruno Giordano

        “Why was MH17 altitude reduced? “ Was it “reduced” and who told you? What does the flight plan tell about the altitudes over Ukraine? What has been discussed between the ATC and the pilot? For what does the actual altitude make a difference? Is the “upgraded” SU-25 capable of firing/launching its weapons at the “upgraded” ceiling?