One year later: All evidence suggests MH17 shot down by jet fighter

One year ago today over Eastern Ukraine, someone deliberately shot down Malaysian Flight MH17 killing all 298 passengers and crew, most of them Dutch citizens.

In the immediate aftermath of the event, and I mean, ‘immediate’, the Western media and the Western political elite its works for, blamed ‘pro-Russian rebels’, Russia, and even Vladimir Putin himself for bringing down the plane with a Buk M1 missile. No evidence was presented to back up the claim.

Since then, the ‘trial by media’ has continued, although still without one shred of evidence that ‘Russia did it’. With the 1 year anniversary approaching, CNN released a ‘damning’ new report citing unnamed “U.S. officials” who said they had seen a draft of the final official report by Dutch investigators due in October this year. The draft apparently reveals shocking new hard evidence in the form of the statement: “Russia did it”. Slam dunk!

As part of the media’s “Russia did it” campaign, News Corp Australia apparently acquired video taken by Eastern Ukrainian rebels immediately after the plane hit the ground. The video shows rebels going through passengers bags in an effort to determine the identify of the plane and passengers. This was the appropriate first thing to do, particularly in a war zone. Other excerpts from the video of rebels talking makes for interesting reading:

Background: “This is another plane, I think. It’s the fighter.

Cmdr: Yes, it’s the Sukhoi. […] They say the Sukhoi (Fighter) brought down the civilian plane and ours brought down the fighter. […] They saw a pilot crawling at Rassipnaya. A pilot was seen crawling.

Background: They are not Russian. [Note: this suggests the rebels, knowing that the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian SU-25 jet, expected it to be a Russian airliner]

Cmdr: Show me the photo.

Background: …. Muhamed Jatri …

Cmdr: The other plane that fell down, they are after them, the pilots.

Background: The second one?

Cmdr: Yes, there’s 2 planes taken down. We need the second.

Background: The second one is a civilian too?

Background: The fighter jet brought down this one, and our people brought down the fighter.

Background: They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down the plane.

(Phone ringing)

Yes Kalyian. I understood you, but we’re already at the crash site. A passenger plane was brought down. They brought down the passenger plane and we brought down the fighter.

Cmdr: The other team is working there, they are already taking over.

Guys, where’s the village 49 (Grabovo)?

Background: We’re not from around here, we don’t know. There, ask them. Who’s local here? Forty-nine? On the other side of the field.

Cmdr: The parachute jumpers are there.

Background: But there are two planes, from my understanding.

Background: And what’s the other one? A Sukoi?

Cmdr: A Sukhoi. The Sukhoi brought down the plane and we brought down the Sukhoi”

But to hear it from news.com.au, the video is “sickening“. In their minds, it irrefutably demonstrates “the moment Russian-backed rebels realised their momentous mistake after shooting down flight MH17“, showing rebels “rummaging” through the wreckage, making it “harder for Russia to deny the plane was shot down by anti-government rebels and it was shot by a surface-to-air missile”. How’s that for force-fitting the evidence to support your preconceived conclusion?

The Real Evidence

Four days after the crash of MH17, the Russian military released radar data that showed a Su-25 jet approaching the doomed airliner. The Russian Defence ministry also stated that an American satellite was flying over the area at the time, and urged the U.S. government to release the data (strange behavior for the guilty party). The U.S. government has never done so.

The claim that a rebel Buk M1 missile fired from the ground destroyed MH17 is implausible for several reasons. There is no evidence that rebels had such a launcher in the area. Eyewitnesses to the crash, including those who saw it fall from the sky, did not report a missile trail (the trail from an Buk M1 launch is visible for several minutes). The same eyewitnesses did, however, report hearing the buzzing noise of a jet fighter. Had a Buk missile been used, its launch and flight would have been picked up by Rostov-on-Don ATC. Yet Rostov ATC detected no such launch.

Russian aviation security experts have produced a report which, using clear and credible analysis, concludes that the size of the fragments (strike elements) that perforated the cockpit area of MH 17 weighed 3 grams each. A Buk M1 warhead disperses fragments weighing at least 8 grams. The report tentatively concluded that an Israeli-made air-to-air ‘Python’ missile best fit the damage profile. An Israeli Elbit and Elgad systems-upgraded Su-25KM ‘Scorpion’ is the only version of the Su-25 capable of carrying such a weapon.

The US and EU governments used the hysterical claim that Russia was to blame for the MH17 catastrophe to impose sanctions against Russia last year. Once that goal was achieved, the US largely dropped the MH17 case. In January this year it was the Russian government that had to push for the release of preliminary results of the investigation, from which Russian investigators had been locked out. The Russian Investigative Committee has also released the name, photograph and passport of Evgeny Agapov, an aviation armaments mechanic in the Ukrainian Air Force. Agapov testified that on July 17, 2014 a Ukrainian Sukhoi SU-25 jet aircraft piloted by Captain Voloshin “set out for a military task” and returned without ammunition. Agapov implied that an air-to-air missile was missing and claimed he overheard Voloshin say to his colleagues that some plane was “in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

In March this year, Kiev-born Soviet and Russian aircraft designer Vladimir Babak told German media that the Su-25 jet that air-to-air missiles would have only damaged the Boeing and not destroyed it while still in the air. This is possibly true, which is why it is possible that a bomb had also been planted on the plane at Schipol airport before departure. This idea is backed up by the fact that large parts of the fuselage were found many miles from each other. So what happened to MH17? The cockpit was clearly targeted by a missile in order to ‘incapacitate’ the pilots. Immediately thereafter, a bomb exploded in the fuselage breaking the plane apart in mid air. Who did it?

One week after the slaughter of the passengers of MH17, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said that the US military command had been ““looking inside of our own readiness models to look at things we haven’t had to look at for 20 years” i.e. they were dusting off their ‘Cold War’ playbook. What did the US military get up to during the ‘Cold War’?

During the 1960s, the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff tabled a series of proposals which called for the Central Intelligence Agency, or other operatives, to make it appear that Cuba had attacked a member of the Organization of American States (OAS) so that the United States could retaliate. One suggestion was that “a contrived ‘Cuban’ attack on an OAS member could be set up, and the attacked state could be urged to take measures of self-defense and request assistance from the U.S. and OAS.”

The documents state that:

… the use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. Reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.

And

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday.

So the idea that the US government (or some section thereof) would stage a well-planned and equally well covered-up provocation as part of an information war against an enemy should surprise no one.

They say you should never let the facts get in the way of a good story, and as far as Western government and media are concerned, facts are not relevant to the question of what happened to MH17. As always, innuendo, hysterical headlines and outright slander suffice to inform Western populations of reality and what their ‘leaders’ want them to believe.

In this case, what Europeans and Americans are meant to believe is that Russia is the new Nazi Germany and is planning an aggressive take-over of most of the world if they can manage it, starting with the EU. Why? Because that way US, and particularly EU, politicians garner public support for anti-Russian sanctions and rhetoric that serves to economically and politically contain Russia and prevent it from assuming its rightful place as a major world power and, certainly, the dominant force in Eurasia.

The US, naturally, has most to lose from a resurgent Russia, and if killing 298 civilians on a passenger plane is what it takes to get the job done, then so be it. They’re only useless eaters anyway.