Inden der var gået et døgn efter flystyrtet, råbte vestlige regeringer og deres underdanige presse "Putins missil!" uden noget som helst solidt bevis for deres hysteriske påstand. Ikke desto mindre har reaktionen fra den samme vestlige presse været chokerende tavs, efter at den endelige rapport fra de hollandske myndigheder pegede fingeren på et "9N314M sprænghoved båret af et 9M38-serie missil og affyret af et Buk jord-til-luft missilsystem" som årsagen til ødelæggelsen af flyet.
Arsagen til dette bør være klart for alle: det virkelige mål bag nedskydningen af MH17 blev opnået i dagene og ugerne umiddelbart efter flystyrtet.
Kort efter Putins øjeblikkelige "retssag ved de vestlige medier", blev sanktioner pålagt Rusland og aftalen om South Stream rørledning mellem Rusland og EU blev annulleret. Disse og andre antirussiske straffeforanstaltninger gavnede USA i det lange nytteløse kamp for at hindre fremkomsten af et stærkt Rusland på den internationale scene. Så, ligesom nogen foreslår det om 9/11 angrebene, var nedskydningen af MH17 af de Ukrainske oprørere et helt enestående lykketræf for de vestlige krigsmagere, i og med at det kom på det helt rigtige tidspunkt i forhold til at lægge brænde på deres vedvarende antirussiske propagandakampagne? Eller er det muligt, at vestlige krigsmagere selv var ansvarlige for nedskydningen af MH17?
Før du beslutter dig, er der nogle få ting, du burde overveje.
De hollandske myndigheder, som udførte efterforskningen var per automatik forudindtagede i deres tilnærmelse. Deres forudindtagethed stammede fra de grove and grundløse anklager rettet mod Putin i de straks efter nedstyrtningen, som etablerede en følelsesladet falsk fortælling om at et Buk missil måtte have skudt flyet net. Derfra, gik det Hollandske efterforskningshold videre med 'at få kendsgerningerne til at passe omkring den politik' og forsøgte at vise, hvordan flyet kunne være blevet bragt ned, hvis et Buk missil blev brugt. Deres tilnærmelse svarer til, at en politimand beslutter at siden ofret blev dræbt med et skud, må det have været en Colt 45.
Butterfly formede fragmenter
Meget af rapportens "beviser" til at støtte Buk missil teorien hviler på formen af de fragmenter som blev fundet fra flyet og kroppen af kaptajnen og første officer. Rapporten påstår at intet mindre en 120 metalfragmenter blev fundet i kroppen på første officeren, med mere end 800 punkteringshuller fundet i de tilgængelige dele af cockpitttet
"Nogle" af disse fragmenter havde, påstås det, en "butterfly" form som er karakteristisk for sprænghovedet på et 9M38M1 Buk missil. Rapporten siger, at der er 8000 fragmenter i Buk sprænghoved, 4000 store kvadratformede, 2000 små kvadratformede og 2000 butterfly formede. Så helt naturligt ville man forvente at finde et ret konsistent forhold på 2:1:1 af stor kvadrater, små kvadrater og "butterflys." Nedenfor er der et billede fra rapporten, der viser 4 fragmenter, som der hævdes blev samlet op efter MH17.
side 89
På billedet står der: "Figur 37: Fire tydeligt formede fragmenter. Øverst til venstre; cockpit, øverst til højre; kaptajnens krop, nederst til venstre; kabineleder, nederst til højre; første officerens krop. (Kilde: NP). Skalaen er i millimeter."
Kommentar: Denne artikel er en delvis oversættelse fra Closing the BUK on MH17? Dutch final report is clearly biased Dog er konklusionen i slutningen af artiklen også oversat.
While over 800 hundred metal fragments were retrieved from the bodies of the pilots, passengers, the cockpit and the fuselage, and the report states that "some" were bow-tie shaped, only 20 were specifically used for the report, and of those 20, only two were "bow-tie shaped". This raises the question of why, in attempting to prove that a Buk missile was used, the report did not specify exactly how many incriminating bow-tie-shaped fragments were found and why, in particular, only 2 of the 20 fragments chosen for specific analysis and inclusion in the report, were actually bow-tie shaped.
But the main problem with the claim of "bow-tie" shaped fragments was highlighted by Russia's national aviation regulator, Rossaviation, during an October 14th press conference, when its deputy chief said: "There is not a single hole in the plane's remains that shows a bow-tie pattern". The point being, how did a few bow-tie-shaped metal fragments get into the bodies of the flight crew without leaving bow-tie-shaped holes in the fuselage? When asked by a Spanish news agency if it was their official position that Dutch investigators contaminated evidence, RossAviation responded: "Absolutely yes. We have proof."
It's important to note here that RossAviation does not even accept that a Buk missile of any variety was used. Their statements in response to the Dutch report were simply intended to contest the findings based on investigators' singular focus on a Buk missile being responsible. The deputy head of RossAviation, Oleg Storchevoy, has stated that their investigation into what really happened to MH17 are continuing.
Also, the Russian manufacturer of the Buk missile system, Almaz-Antey, conducted their own investigations and released their report the day before the DSB released their own final report. They, too, noted the absence of any bow-tie-shaped holes in the wreckage, concluding that the warhead could not have been an 9N314M. Rather, if it was a Buk, it would have to be a B9N314, which does not include bow-tie shrapnel, and which is only used on older-model 9M38 missiles - no longer in use by the Russian military. The Ukrainian military, on the other hand, still uses this older variant. (Though they claim to have sold their stockpile to Georgia.)
And as for those 2 or 3 bow-tie-shaped fragments that are so crucial to the report, it looks like the source of the fragments themselves is a classified military secret of the Dutch Ministry of Defence.
Cockpit crew specifically targeted
The image below from page 140 of the report models the damage pattern to MH17 from a missile similar to a Buk 9M38M1:
The detonation point of the missile suggests deliberate intent to immediately kill the cockpit crew
"The numerous injuries resulting from the perforation of the pre-formed fragments after detonation of the warhead immediately killed the three crew members in the cockpit.Further evidence of the highly speculative nature of the evidence presented by the report is seen in the section that deals with the parts of the body of the alleged Buk missile that were found in Ukraine. On page 80 of the report, images of these parts alongside images of the body of a Buk missile are shown. One of the parts is described as a "missile engine nozzle" that was "found in Ukraine". See below:
There were no pre-formed fragments found in the bodies of the other occupants. As a result of the impact, they were exposed to extreme and many different interacting factors: abrupt deceleration and acceleration, decompression and associated mist formation, decrease in oxygen level, extreme cold, strong airflow, the aeroplane's very rapid descent and objects flying around.
As a result, some occupants suffered serious injuries that were probably fatal. In others, the exposures led to reduced awareness or unconsciousness within a very short time. It was not possible to ascertain at which moment the occupants died. The impact on the ground was not survivable."
In its conclusion on the cause of the in-flight breakup of the MH17, the report states that it was "not caused by an external event such as a lightning strike, the impact of a meteor or the re-entry of space debris". The report also dismissed, in a qualified way, the possibility that a bomb on board may have detonated:
"While the breakup sequence of the fuselage had some similarities with the failure and break up sequences noted in accidents such as those at Lockerbie in 1988, this accident differed in that the perforation was from the outside. An explosive device inside the pressure hull would not produce the damage patterns found in the wreckage".The problem here is that the "damage patterns found in the wreckage" do not exclude a bomb detonating on board the plane. Indeed, the report itself states that after the separation of the cockpit, the rest of the fuselage essentially broke in two. Exactly when and why this happened is "unknown" because "no radar fixes or eyewitness statements on the moment of the in-flight break up were available". The report's authors were apparently not interested in the eyewitness statements that do exist and which tell a different story. For example:
Aleksandr, another local who witnessed the plane falling from the sky, was watching TV but when he heard "a roar and two explosions." He went out to see what was going on.Again, the Dutch authorities appear to have had a pre-formed belief about what the cause of the crash was and sought to make the data fit that belief. In addition, this "final report" is really only a partial report, because approximately 40% of the fuselage was "not recovered".
"[I] saw a spinning plane without a wing with something falling out of it. The plane was shot down," he told RT. "There were explosions in the sky. And apart from the loud sounds of the plane itself, I heard the buzz which fighter jets make."
page 55
But perhaps the most glaring problem with the Dutch report concerns the use (or lack thereof) of satellite data as part of the investigation. Weather satellite information was used in the report to determine weather conditions on the day of the crash. Voice and data transmission satellite data was used to determine the last communications to and from MH17. Radar data was used to determine the last known position of the plane and imaging satellites were used to determine that some of the wreckage had been "disturbed" on the day of the crash and the day after. What is strange, however, is that arguably the most important alleged satellite data was not even mentioned, let alone used, by Dutch authorities.
Three days after the crash, on July 20, 2014, John Kerry announced on NBC's Meet the Press that the US State Deptartment "knew to a certainty that within hours of the event, this particular system [Buk SA11] passed through two towns right in the vicinity of the shoot-down. We know because we observed it by imagery, that at the moment of the shoot-down, we detected a [missile] launch from that area and our trajectory shows that it went to the aircraft".
Kerry made it very clear that the US government had conclusive and damning evidence about the origin of the missile he claims shot down MH17, yet the final report is extremely ambivalent about the source of the alleged Buk missile, concluding that it is not possible to say from where exactly the missile was fired - 'rebel' territory or the territory held by the Ukrainian military. That didn't stop DSB inquiry chairman Tjibbe Joustra from allegedly telling Dutch journalists that the Buk was launched from rebel-controlled territory. But again, Almaz-Antey concluded that the missile could not have been launched from that location - the blast pattern on the plane would have been different. But still, I really want to know where John Kerry's "imagery" of the shoot-down is.
In early August last year, Malaysian aviation experts told the Malaysian Straits Times newspaper that MH17 could have been brought down by an air-to-air missile and a cannon of the Su-25 fighter that had been "shadowing it". The suggestion that a Su-25 was involved was first made by Russian military authorities a few days after the crash when they revealed that their radar had detected the presence of a fighter jet in the vicinity of MH17 immediately after it was shot down. The reason the jet was not detected before this moment was because Russian radars were configured to monitor airborne objects in that area that were flying above a certain height. As the jet increased altitude it became visible. This information was reportedly provided to the Dutch authorities but was omitted from the final report.
Kommentar: Se også MH17, Syria and Ukraine: The lies eventually catch up