The Malaysian Airline MH17 Crash: Sixteen Central Issues Which Cannot be Ignored
Source: Global Research
In establishing who was behind the shooting down of MH17, there are a number of central issues as well as factual evidence which cannot be overlooked:
1. Malaysian Airlines confirmed that the pilot was instructed to fly at a lower altitude by the Kiev air traffic control tower upon its entry into Ukraine airspace. (Malaysian Airlines MH17 Was Ordered to Fly over the East Ukraine Warzone)
2. The flight path was changed. We still don’t know who ordered it, but we know it was not Eurocontrol:
MH17 was diverted from the normal South Easterly route over the sea of Azov to a path over the Donetsk. Oblast. (The Flight Path of MH17 Was Changed. July 17 Plane Route was over the Ukraine Warzone)
According to Malaysian Airlines “The usual flight route [across the sea of Azov] was earlier declared safe by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The International Air Transportation Association has stated that the airspace the aircraft was traversing was not subject to restrictions.”
…
The regular flight path of MH17 (and other international flights) over a period of ten days prior to July 17th ( day of the disaster), crossing Eastern Ukraine in a Southeasterly direction is across the Sea of Azov (click on the article link below to see the map). While the audio records of the MH17 flight have been confiscated by the Kiev government, the order to change the flight path did not come from Eurocontrol. Did this order to change the flight path come from the Ukrainian authorities? Was the pilot instructed to change course? (Malaysian Airlines MH17 Was Ordered to Fly over the East Ukraine Warzone)
3. The presence of the Ukrainian military jet was confirmed by Spanish air traffic controller “Carlos” at Kiev Borispol airport shortly after the plane was shot down, as well as eyewitnesses in Donetsk. (How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”, Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing MH#17
The Spanish air traffic controller documented the event on Twitter as it happened. He claimed it was not an accident, that the Ukrainian authorities shot down MH17 and were trying to “make it look like an attack by pro-Russians” . His Twitter account was closed down shortly after the tragedy. Although his account has yet to be fully corroborated, some of his claims have been confirmed by Malaysian Airlines and the Russian authorities.
There have been some reports to the effect the Spanish Air controller is fake and that the twitter message were sent out of London. Upon further investigation, the Spanish Air Controller conducted several media interviews in the last 2-3 months, see his interview with RT (Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing MH#17)
4. Russia has made available public radar and satellite imagery as evidence. Its images suggest the following:
a) Kiev’s regime deployed anti-air missile systems in Donetsk in and around the area where flight MH17 crashed.
b) An Ukrainian warplane SU-25 trailing flight MH17
c) the report pointed to the possibility of an air-to-air attack on MH17
d) the report also pointed to inconsistencies pertaining to the reports of the Ukrainian air traffic control
The Russian authorities did not come to any conclusion regarding who was to blame for shooting down the plane. (MH17 Show & Tell: It’s the West’s Turn – Russian Satellites and Radars Contradict West’s Baseless Claims)
5. The U.S., despite its global spying apparatus, has not shown any radar or satellite imagery to back its claim that Russia and the Eastern-Ukrainian opposition are responsible for the downing of MH17. The evidence it has presented so far is weak and based on pro-Kiev documents consisting of YouTube videos and various social media – “all of which are admittedly unverifiable and some of which is veritably fabricated.”:
Is US intelligence simply reading blogs? Or are the blogs somehow a clearinghouse of US intelligence? Or are the blogs fabrications by US intelligence in an attempt to frame Russia? One in particular, “Ukraine at War,” is a definitive collection of fabrications, biased propaganda, and dubious claims that appear to precede “US intelligence” claims. (Assigning Blame to East Ukraine Rebels: US Appeals to “Law of the Jungle” in MH17 Case)
6. “The Russian Defense Ministry pointed out that at the moment of destruction of MH-17 an American satellite was flying over the area”:
The Russian government urges Washington to make available the photos and data captured by the satellite.(How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”)
7. A U.S. intelligence source claimed the “U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms”. These images could confirm the evidence presented by Russia to the effect that Kiev’s regime deployed anti-air missile systems in Donetsk in and around the area where flight MH17 crashed. (Fact number 4, Whistleblower: U.S. Satellite Images Show Ukrainian Troops Shooting Down MH17)
8. Russia called for an expert independent investigation:
President Putin has repeatedly stressed that the investigation of MH-17 requires “a fully representative group of experts to be working at the site under the guidance of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).” Putin’s call for an independent expert examination by ICAO does not sound like a person with anything to hide. (How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”)
9. The U.S. claimed, without evidence, but “with confidence” that Russia was involved:
[On July 20, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry confirmed that pro-Russian separatists were involved in the downing of the Malaysian airliner and said that it was “pretty clear” that Russia was involved. Here are Kerry’s words: “It’s pretty clear that this is a system that was transferred from Russia into the hands of separatists. We know with confidence, with confidence, that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point and time, so it obviously points a very clear finger at the separatists.” (Ibid.)
10. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement above regarding Russian involvement is contradicted by the Russian satellite photos and numerous eye witnesses on the ground. (Ibid.)
11. US intelligence officials said there is no evidence of the Russian government’s involvement, also contradicting John Kerry’s statement above. (US Intelligence on Malaysian Flight MH17: Russia Didn’t Do It. “US Satellite Photos do not Support Obama’s Lies”, The author refers to this news item by the Associated Press: US INTELLIGENCE: No ‘Direct’ Russian Involvement In Downing Of MH17)
12. A few hours after the crash, Kiev authorities presented a video in which the opposition admitted shooting down the plane. Experts who studied the video concluded that it was a fabrication:
“The tape’s second fragment consists of three pieces but was presented as a single audio recording. However, a spectral and time analysis has showed that the dialog was cut into pieces and then assembled. Short pauses in the tape are very indicative: the audio file has preserved time marks which show that the dialog was assembled from various episodes.” (Ibid.)
The encoding of the video file shows it was created on July 16, the day before the plane was shot down. This information remains to be confirmed, but if it is accurate, it would mean that the Ukrainian authorities shot the plane down and fabricated evidence to frame the opposition (Did Ukraine Fabricate Evidence to Frame Russia for MH17 Shoot Down?, How American Propaganda Works: “Guilt By Insinuation”)
13. John Kerry “referred to a video that the Ukrainians have made public showing an SA-11 unit heading back to Russia after the downing of the plane with ‘a missing missile or so.’” The video was “posted on the Facebook account of the Ukrainian Interior Minister.”According to numerous sources the video was “taken in or near Krasnoarmeisk”, a town under Kiev’s control since May and located “ 120 kilometers from the Russian border and 80 kilometers from where the Malaysian Boeing 777 crashed”:
At least one other clip of the “Russian Buk” that has been made available also suggests that the Ukrainians are showing their own equipment. I’m still working on researching that one for you. (Key Piece of Video “Evidence” for Russian Responsibility for Malaysian Plane Shootdown Debunked)
14. Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Vitaly Yarema said the Ukrainian opposition did not possess a Buk missile system:
“Ukrainian Interior Minister Anton Gerashchenko said on July 17 that the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 airliner had been downed by the Buk missile system…Ukrainian Prosecutor-General Vitaly Yarema told Ukrainian Pravda newspaper on Friday: ‘After the passenger airliner was downed, the military reported to the president that terrorists do not have our air defense missile systems Buk and S-300… These weapons were not seized’” (Militias Do Not Have Ukrainian Buk Missile System — Ukraine General Prosecutor)
15. The MH17 incident is used to wage economic war against Russia. Sanctions imposed in the wake of the event, without any evidence of Russian implication, are used to weaken the ruble and destabilize the Russian Monetary system. (The Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crash: Financial Warfare –against Russia, Multibillion Dollar Bonanza for Wall Street)
16. In 1962, the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff planned Operation Northwoods, a secret “false flag operation” (declassified) in which a civilian airliner was to be shot down and blamed on the Cuban government. The objective was to manufacture a pretext to wage war on Cuba. (The Implementation of Operations Northwoods was turned down by President John F. Kennedy).
The downing of MH17 and the reaction of the US authorities and media bear strong similarities with the scenario depicted in Operation Northwoods, according to author R. Teichmann:
“Among other things the document proposed the following. I [Teichman] have inserted in bold (in parenthesis) my comments to illustrate why the MH-17 incident could be a re-run of the proposed Operation Northwoods:
It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft (a BuK Anti-Aircraft missile system supplied by Russia to the ‘Separatists” in eastern Ukraine) has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner (Malaysian Airlines MH-17) en route from the United States (Amsterdam, Schipol airport) to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama, or Venezuela (Kuala Lumpur) .
It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs (Eastern Ukraine ‘Separatists’) have destroyed a USAF aircraft (Malaysian passenger aircraft) over international waters (their territory) in an unprovoked attack. (Framing Russia? Fabricating a Pretext to Wage War: Flight MH-17 and “Operation Northwoods”)
Source: Global Research
Post Script update July 28th.
Bullet holes in the fuselage?!
Tonight on CBC news hr. , Michael Bociurkiw a Canadian monitor, part of the international team overseeing the retrieval of bodies from the MH-17 crash, described the whole scene. Near the end of the interview he mentioned seeing what looked like machine gun bullet holes in the fuselage. They actually showed footage of the holes, and repeated himself for emphasis,’ machine gun holes in the fuselage, unique to four parts of the fuselage’
see at 40:40 min in this video,
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/Latest+Broadcast/ID/2478593011/
His comment got my attention instantly because days ago I observed the exact same thing , or so I thought, namely what looked like bullet holes on parts of the wreckage panned by a CBC news camera. It happened so quickly, briefly, that i thought must be imagining it; and that it must be missile shrapnel, but nevertheless they looked like bullet holes, and that is what caught my eye. So what does it mean? There was no missile? The fighter jet fired on the airliner? Maybe the holes are from ground fire after the fact, rebels machine-gunned the wreckage…
I read the Su-30 is armed with a 30mm cannon with 150 rounds of ammunition. While some of the holes look small for 30mm check the link below. The bullet images are located here.
http://russianammo.org/30GSh.jpg
This report is also interesting.
‘Deleted BBC Report. “Ukrainian Fighter Jet Shot Down MHI7″, Donetsk Eyewitnesses’
http://www.globalresearch.ca/deleted-bbc-report-ukrainian-fighter-jet-shot-down-mhi7-donetsk-eyewitnesses/5393631
James (in Ontario)
The story is setting a new bar in the case of ‘who done it’. I keep thinking of Murder on the Orient Express, while reading Global Research’s alternative narrative, a view that’s been growing on their web site for a week. There some interesting missing data from the presentation. There were five or six planes downed in the space of one week, with flight MH-17 coming in the middle of the sequence. The (Russian backed) rebels took down one transport plane that was flying above the assumed range of the weaponry in their hands, on the ground, at around 5,000 meters. Definitely this is a war zone and getting worse by the day. It’s an ugly civil war, and now escalating on the world stage, as hard as the western media can push it.
The propaganda does not go unnoticed. Our Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird is bold-faced sure Russia did it. ‘They might not have pulled the trigger’ he says, ‘but they loaded the gun’. All evening the CBC has been running a slightly damming profile piece on Putin which supposedly is fair-minded in demonising Putin. The take-away is, that Putin has been good for Russia’s confidence, but he’s also the dangerous man who will be King; that and he ruthlessly kills his opponents on occasion. They painted Putin as aggressive. The piece was pure fear-mongering, in a subtle palatable way.
So, let’s try to drive a stake in the ground with hard facts, are there any? Yes. The missile took down the plane in Ukraine, where there is a war going on. One must have a well-organised technically skilled force to operate a BUK missile system. US Intel says Russia didn’t do it. Seems factual. That leaves two options. The Ukraine National force has the weapon, and the ability. It’s a hard fact. Do the rebels have the same weapon and the same ability? We have no hard fact proving they do, only hearsay. The Ukrainian Min says they didn’t capture any of the BUK’s, another fact. The implication is, IF the rebels have a BUK system, they got from the Russians. Only there’s no proof of that, so it’s not a fact.
On the other hand, what evidence is conspicuously missing? The satellite photos. It’s a fact. Therefore the US is withholding hard evidence. Where’s the beef?
So why if the rebels had or have the BUK system, why did they use it only once to take down only one aircraft flying at over 30,000 ft? And why was that first and only plane an airliner? With their first shot, using supposedly Russian trained, covertly supplied weaponry, they mistakenly took down a passenger plane? With their first salvo? I guess it’s possible..
I have to go with the facts at this point. The facts point to the likelihood that MH-17 was a political set up to be used in an effort to frame the Russians for the West’s geopolitical gain. The implications of that should alarm us all.
James (in Ontario)