The surprising results of the MH17 criminal investigation

[Will Wiley]

1. How do you know there are supposed to be fragments passing through the cockpit? Almaz-Antey deliberately used a different angle and position for the detonation than what DSB concluded was the most likely one.

It's quite simple Jay Jay. The missile coming from Snizhne come from almost head on. It sprays fragments out to the side and the fragments should pass through the left side of the cockpit and some should pass right through and out the other side.
If the missile came from the side this wont happen.

Having the investigators say.."we examined things thoroughly...doesn't mean much".
What else are they going to say when they have been under so much pressure to find that the missile came from Snizhne.

If they admit it did not come from there they will be calling John Kerry and America and Ukraine deliberate liars.

Are they really going to do that?

 

[Will Wiley]

The Dutch used computer models that simulate the relative speed and air drag better than a static real-world experiment actually.

So? AA used computer simulation too. And how computer simulation can help with "secondary" fragmentation?

The Dutch/Ukrainian report had to agree with what America said.

Here is what America said happened from very early on.


Either the JIT report agreed with that or they call America a liar. So they agreed with it and ignored AA computer simulation.

 

[Jayjay]

1. How do you know there are supposed to be fragments passing through the cockpit? Almaz-Antey deliberately used a different angle and position for the detonation than what DSB concluded was the most likely one.

It's quite simple Jay Jay. The missile coming from Snizhne come from almost head on. It sprays fragments out to the side and the fragments should pass through the left side of the cockpit and some should pass right through and out the other side.
If the missile came from the side this wont happen.

View attachment 8325

"Almost" head on, but not quite. The Almaz-Antey graphic above is ten degrees more "head-on" than the Dutch estimate, and 1.5 meters more to the left side of the aircraft*. This alone could explain why there is no damage to the right-side windows. The Almaz-Antey presentation gives no clue why they chose those particular incorrect coordinates, but their own simulation confirms launch site from Snizhne if the TNO detonation position is assumed, so clearly this was not to present a honest "launch from Snizhne" scenario. More likely the intent was the opposite: to construct a straw-man scenario that they knew would fail.

(* Sources: slide 43 from the Almaz-Antey presentation, and table 19 from the MH-17 DSB report.)

Having the investigators say.."we examined things thoroughly...doesn't mean much".
What else are they going to say when they have been under so much pressure to find that the missile came from Snizhne.

If they admit it did not come from there they will be calling John Kerry and America and Ukraine deliberate liars.

Are they really going to do that?

Yes, they would do that. 193 Dutch citizens died on the plane. The Dutch have ample reason to find out who did it, regardless of what Ukraine or U.S. may have said beforehand. I urge you to look at the evidence, read the reports by both DSB and Almaz-Antey, instead of making accusations based on conspiracy theories.

 

[Malintent]

If it was a Russian missile, then what next? Is there any evidence of someone deliberately the plane while knowing it was a commercial aircraft?

I doubt anyone is suggesting deliberate act. Rebels certainly had no reasons to shoot passenger plane. Only ukrainian side could conceivably do that deliberately.

because "people of interest" never take commercial airlines?

 

[Jayjay]

Why would the Ukrainian side shoot down a passenger plane deliberately? Only rationale for that could be to frame the rebels or Russia. But the same reasoning applies to the rebels, doesn't it? These false flag conspiracy theories don't hold water in a world where the risk of getting caught is so much bigger than the reward for being successful.

 

[Will Wiley]

I urge you to look at the evidence, read the reports by both DSB and Almaz-Antey,

If they can openly verify their sources it will be stronger. As it is it is not compelling unless you trust the Ukrainian Secret Service and some suspect social media posts from ultra nationalist Ukrainians.

Criminal cases have strict rules of evidence and protocols they should follow.

Unfortunately for all involved the investigation has been compromised by putting Ukraine on the investigation team and relying too much on Ukrainian Secret Service.
Maybe Russia is involved but we need a truly independent investigation.

 

[Will Wiley]

Why would the Ukrainian side shoot down a passenger plane deliberately? .

The Ukrainians weren't one united group, all acting in concert. Robert Parry's source in US intelligence thought it could have been a rogue element under the control of one of the oligarchs.

 

[Jayjay]

I urge you to look at the evidence, read the reports by both DSB and Almaz-Antey,

If they can openly verify their sources it will be stronger. As it is it is not compelling unless you trust the Ukrainian Secret Service and some suspect social media posts from ultra nationalist Ukrainians.

Criminal cases have strict rules of evidence and protocols they should follow.

Unfortunately for all involved the investigation has been compromised by putting Ukraine on the investigation team and relying too much on Ukrainian Secret Service.
Maybe Russia is involved but we need a truly independent investigation.

More obfuscation. The simulation results confirming the launch site and Snizhne do not come from Ukraine, they were arrived to by the TNO (the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research), using the fragments of the plane and characteristics of the missile as provided by Almaz-Antey. This is not the type of evidence that can be tainted by "Ukrainian Secret Service" or social media.

Of course, evidence from social media, photographs, and witnesses as well as data that is probably not even public yet, all confirm the same conclusion. This is not because of some impossibly massive conspiracy, but because reality tends to be consistent, and the missile really was fired by Snizhne like JIT says.

Seriously, Russian intellligence services tried to fake evidence and they got caught in a hearthbeat. US government has occasionally tried twisting evidence to fit its own narrative (the famous Colin Powell power point presentation to the UN, for example), and they were never very successful in doing so. Why do you think the SBU can do what CIA, FSB and KGB can't?

- - - Updated - - -

Why would the Ukrainian side shoot down a passenger plane deliberately? .

The Ukrainians weren't one united group, all acting in concert. Robert Parry's source in US intelligence thought it could have been a rogue element under the control of one of the oligarchs.

I for one think Robert Parry's "source" is a Russian plant. Judging from Parry's most recent article that you linked, it seems that even Parry is suspicious of his sources as he points out that he can't verify whether that was a consensus or a dissenting opinion.

 

[Will Wiley]

Of course, evidence from social media, photographs, and witnesses as well as data that is probably not even public yet, all confirm the same conclusion.

How would you know?

I for one think Robert Parry's "source" is a Russian plant. .

Right if some one from an intelligence service even considers an alternate scenario you think they must be a Russian plant???
Don't you think it might be you that are believing crazy conspiracy theories?

I guess you think those CIA officers who thought Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction were Iraqi plants too.....

 

[Jayjay]

How would you know?

Because i have brains, and I can see where the evidence points.

I for one think Robert Parry's "source" is a Russian plant. .

Right if some one from an intelligence service even considers an alternate scenario you think they must be a Russian plant???
Don't you think it might be you that are believing crazy conspiracy theories?

Well, he may be a Russian plant, or he may not be. It is a bit suspicious how one anonymous source's claims contradict wildly with all the available evidence. But there are other explanations of course.

But, I am glad you finally admit that it's a crazy conspiracy theory to assume that any anynymous source is a plant for, say, Russian or Ukrainian intelligence service, without further proof. Just try to keep this in mind next time you try to discredit evidence by referring to "Ukrainian Secret Service", okay?

I guess you think those CIA officers who thought Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction were Iraqi plants too.....

So you admit CIA is a reliable source? Good. You have no valid reason to suspect the US intelligence community's consensus regarding the evidence for MH-17 being downed by a BUK from Snizhne then. On the other hand Russian claims about MH-17 have been almost categorically proven false.

 

[barbos]

When CIA are not forced to lie for greater good they can be reliable. Unfortunately it only happens when you get leaks. I mean actual leaks not organized by CIA itself.

As for Ukrainian shooting the plane trying frame russians. Then yes, in theory russians can do that too but they are not stupid enough to think it will work or they can get away with it. In Ukraine on the other side, there is and especially was a complete chaos. 30% of ukrainian army are convicted criminals. Even their attorney general is a former convicted felon who does not even have any kind of law degree or relevant education. They had to change the law to let him take the position.
His arrests and conviction can and actually was called politically motivated, I can give you that but the guy was a weirdo prior to the arrest.
Minister of internal affairs (former and current "businessman") have a son who was caught on video discussing his corrupted deals plus gambling ridiculous (especially for Ukraine) amounts of money. Minister himself has a public feud with Saakashvili (governor of Odessa region) who calls him a thief at metings with President and throw stuff at each other quite regularly. Members of the Parliament have regular fist fights but that's not such a big deal.

 

[Will Wiley]

I for one think Robert Parry's "source" is a Russian plant. .

Right if some one from an intelligence service even considers an alternate scenario you think they must be a Russian plant???
Don't you think it might be you that are believing crazy conspiracy theories?

Well, he may be a Russian plant, or he may not be. It is a bit suspicious how one anonymous source's claims contradict wildly with all the available evidence. But there are other explanations of course.

What is suspicious is that US intelligence would not sign off on the version you got from Ukrainian Secret Service.

I have no doubt you, having looked on the internet, have a far better grasp of these things than a mere ex CIA analyst, but I'll post his thoughts anyway.

Propaganda, Intelligence and MH-17

Yet, in the immediate aftermath of the MH-17 shoot-down, there were signs that honest intelligence analysts were not comfortable letting themselves be used as they and other colleagues had been before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

To buttress Kerry’s shaky case, DNI Clapper arranged a flimsy “Government Assessment” reprising many of Kerry’s references to “social media” that was briefed to a few hand-picked Establishment reporters two days after Kerry starred on Sunday TV. The little-noticed distinction was that this report was not the customary “Intelligence Assessment” (the genre that has been de rigueur in such circumstances in the past).

The key difference between the traditional “Intelligence Assessment” and this relatively new creation, a “Government Assessment,” is that the latter genre is put together by senior White House bureaucrats or other political appointees, not senior intelligence analysts. Another significant difference is that an “Intelligence Assessment” often includes alternative views, either in the text or in footnotes, detailing disagreements among intelligence analysts, thus revealing where the case may be weak or in dispute.

 

[Jayjay]

I for one think Robert Parry's "source" is a Russian plant. .

Right if some one from an intelligence service even considers an alternate scenario you think they must be a Russian plant???
Don't you think it might be you that are believing crazy conspiracy theories?

Well, he may be a Russian plant, or he may not be. It is a bit suspicious how one anonymous source's claims contradict wildly with all the available evidence. But there are other explanations of course.

What is suspicious is that US intelligence would not sign off on the version you got from Ukrainian Secret Service.

I have no doubt you, having looked on the internet, have a far better grasp of these things than a mere ex CIA analyst, but I'll post his thoughts anyway.

Ray McGovern is entitled to his opinion. But he's long retired and not an insider anymore, and trying to draw some suspicion over wording of "intelligence assessment" versus "government assessment" is shaky at best. In any case, I could not find a transcript of the DNI presentation, nor any original government documents to verify what it was called. I would appreciate original reports rather than second-hand commentary. Until then it's just hearsay.

Elsewhere in the article McGovern seems to complain mostly about US not publicizing its intelligence about where the BUK came from. This is not a rebuttal that this intel doesn't in fact exist, and it doesn't contradict in any way the "version I got from Ukrainian Secret Service" i.e. the JIT and DSB reports.

 

[Jayjay]

When CIA are not forced to lie for greater good they can be reliable. Unfortunately it only happens when you get leaks. I mean actual leaks not organized by CIA itself.

As for Ukrainian shooting the plane trying frame russians. Then yes, in theory russians can do that too but they are not stupid enough to think it will work or they can get away with it. In Ukraine on the other side, there is and especially was a complete chaos. 30% of ukrainian army are convicted criminals. Even their attorney general is a former convicted felon who does not even have any kind of law degree or relevant education. They had to change the law to let him take the position.
His arrests and conviction can and actually was called politically motivated, I can give you that but the guy was a weirdo prior to the arrest.
Minister of internal affairs (former and current "businessman") have a son who was caught on video discussing his corrupted deals plus gambling ridiculous (especially for Ukraine) amounts of money. Minister himself has a public feud with Saakashvili (governor of Odessa region) who calls him a thief at metings with President and throw stuff at each other quite regularly. Members of the Parliament have regular fist fights but that's not such a big deal.

Even if this bunch would be stupid enough to try to shoot down a plane to frame Russia, there is no way they would be competent enough to execute such an elaborate conspiracy perfectly. This is why I think that the only possible scenario how Ukraine could have done it would have been to deliberately feed false information to Russia or the rebels to provoke them into shooting the plane down. It would be very interesting to know what were the flight plans of Ukrainian air force for that day, and whether those plans had been changed.

The evidence that it was a Russian BUK and the location where the missile was launched is iron-clad. What we don't know though is the motivation and why that particular spot on that particular day was chosen. Did they have advance intel? And if so, why was it apparently wrong (as there was no Ukrainian aircraft nearby that time that could have been the target)?

 

[barbos]

What is so hard here? You take one of the BUKs which you have tons of there and move close to the rebel controlled position, push the button and move back. This does not even preclude russians giving BUK to rebels. I mean yes, russian sent BUK to rebels but it was ukrainian one which was used. They knew rebels got BUK and decided to frame them immediately. For Russians and rebels to fight this theory they need to admit that they did in fact have BUK there, they can't do that and SBU knew/know that. Yes, that sounds convoluted but it's not really hard to implement for ukrainians, all they needed to know that there was a rebel controlled BUK in the area.

I have said it before and will repeat it again. Assuming russians are responsible then they would not just give BUK to rebels and hope for the best, operators would be russians too, and they would be well trained/prepared and aware of passenger planes. Also the apparent lack of secrecy is suspicious.

 

[Jayjay]

What is so hard here? You take one of the BUKs which you have tons of there and move close to the rebel controlled position, push the button and move back. This does not even preclude russians giving BUK to rebels. I mean yes, russian sent BUK to rebels but it was ukrainian one which was used. They knew rebels got BUK and decided to frame them immediately. For Russians and rebels to fight this theory they need to admit that they did in fact have BUK there, they can't do that and SBU knew/know that. Yes, that sounds convoluted but it's not really hard to implement for ukrainians, all they needed to know that there was a rebel controlled BUK in the area.

For the conspiracy to work out, it's not enough that "they knew rebels got BUK". They would have to know when and where exactly it was moving and fire it at exactly the time when the rebel BUK was also in position to fire. Furthermore they would have to make sure that nobody saw or record the secret Ukrainian BUK, or the smoke plume it makes when fired, or the tracks on the ground and scorched Earth behind, or that there is no commercial or military satellites around, or that the missile is not caught by Russian radar, as well as elaborately fake phone records complete with accurate metadata to lead the investigators off. And all this they would do in an area that was under rebel control. No matter how you look at it, this requires an immensely complicated plan that would have to be executed in inhuman precision, and even then they would have to get lucky not to be caught.

I have said it before and will repeat it again. Assuming russians are responsible then they would not just give BUK to rebels and hope for the best, operators would be russians too, and they would be well trained/prepared and aware of passenger planes. Also the apparent lack of secrecy is suspicious.

And as I have said before and will repeat again likely, the normal procedure for BUK TELAR operator is not necessarily to check for passenger planes, because that is the job for target acquisition radar which in this case was not used.

 

[barbos]

For the conspiracy to work out, it's not enough that "they knew rebels got BUK". They would have to know when and where exactly it was moving and fire it at exactly the time when the rebel BUK was also in position to fire. Furthermore they would have to make sure that nobody saw or record the secret Ukrainian BUK, or the smoke plume it makes when fired, or the tracks on the ground and scorched Earth behind, or that there is no commercial or military satellites around, or that the missile is not caught by Russian radar, as well as elaborately fake phone records complete with accurate metadata to lead the investigators off. And all this they would do in an area that was under rebel control. No matter how you look at it, this requires an immensely complicated plan that would have to be executed in inhuman precision, and even then they would have to get lucky not to be caught.

Well, Either way, perpetrators left no smoking gun here. There is no satellite pictures, no radar data, and phone records are inconclusive, (that cursing records could be about ukrainian BUK rebels captured or as I suggested earlier about some random contraband)

All they needed was knowledge that "russian" BUK was in the certain area, after that they could blame it on russians.

I have said it before and will repeat it again. Assuming russians are responsible then they would not just give BUK to rebels and hope for the best, operators would be russians too, and they would be well trained/prepared and aware of passenger planes. Also the apparent lack of secrecy is suspicious.

And as I have said before and will repeat again likely, the normal procedure for BUK TELAR operator is not necessarily to check for passenger planes, because that is the job for target acquisition radar which in this case was not used.

Which brings the point that russians would have used full system or used other ways to identify the plane.

 

[Jayjay]

Well, Either way, perpetrators left no smoking gun here. There is no satellite pictures, no radar data, and phone records are inconclusive, (that cursing records could be about ukrainian BUK rebels captured or as I suggested earlier about some random contraband)

There are at least three photographs of the smoke plume, there are tracks on the ground showing that something was fired near Snizhne, there are multiple videos and photos (including publicly available satellite images) of the Russian BUK en route from Donetsk to Snizhe and then through Luhansk (with one rocket missing). Even if you disregard all the phone intercepts and possible undisclosed military radar and satellite data, there is a massive amount of evidence for a launch in Snizhne.

At the same time, there is no similar evidence for a launch from Zaroschensky (however you spell it). No photos, videos, witnesses, tracks, nothing.

All they needed was knowledge that "russian" BUK was in the certain area, after that they could blame it on russians.

They'd have to have this info in advance (or they would not be able to deploy their own BUK in time) and they would have to cover up their own tracks perfectly afterwards. That's assuming the kind of competence I don't think is possible.

I have said it before and will repeat it again. Assuming russians are responsible then they would not just give BUK to rebels and hope for the best, operators would be russians too, and they would be well trained/prepared and aware of passenger planes. Also the apparent lack of secrecy is suspicious.

And as I have said before and will repeat again likely, the normal procedure for BUK TELAR operator is not necessarily to check for passenger planes, because that is the job for target acquisition radar which in this case was not used.

Which brings the point that russians would have used full system or used other ways to identify the plane.

You work with the equipment you have. You said that Russians would try to be secret, which means making some compromises; in this case using only the TELAR unit without the supporting radar. Also Russia had not and still hasn't officially admitted to having any troops or equipment in Donbas, so most likely they would only use vehicles that Ukrainian army also has so that there would be plausible deniability in case they get captured.

You seem to give way too much credit to both Russian and Ukrainian militaries.

 

[barbos]

There are at least three photographs of the smoke plume, there are tracks on the ground showing that something was fired near Snizhne, there are multiple videos and photos (including publicly available satellite images) of the Russian BUK en route from Donetsk to Snizhe and then through Luhansk (with one rocket missing). Even if you disregard all the phone intercepts and possible undisclosed military radar and satellite data, there is a massive amount of evidence for a launch in Snizhne.

I don't trust these photographs.

At the same time, there is no similar evidence for a launch from Zaroschensky (however you spell it). No photos, videos, witnesses, tracks, nothing.

Of course there are no such evidence from Zaroschenskoe, nobody is "looking" for evidence there. Whereas Snizhnoe was named immediately by State Department so SBU knew what kind of evidence had to be manufactured.

All they needed was knowledge that "russian" BUK was in the certain area, after that they could blame it on russians.

They'd have to have this info in advance (or they would not be able to deploy their own BUK in time) and they would have to cover up their own tracks perfectly afterwards. That's assuming the kind of competence I don't think is possible.

Competence can be replaced by dumb luck and brass "balls".

I have said it before and will repeat it again. Assuming russians are responsible then they would not just give BUK to rebels and hope for the best, operators would be russians too, and they would be well trained/prepared and aware of passenger planes. Also the apparent lack of secrecy is suspicious.

And as I have said before and will repeat again likely, the normal procedure for BUK TELAR operator is not necessarily to check for passenger planes, because that is the job for target acquisition radar which in this case was not used.

Which brings the point that russians would have used full system or used other ways to identify the plane.

You work with the equipment you have. You said that Russians would try to be secret, which means making some compromises; in this case using only the TELAR unit without the supporting radar. Also Russia had not and still hasn't officially admitted to having any troops or equipment in Donbas, so most likely they would only use vehicles that Ukrainian army also has so that there would be plausible deniability in case they get captured.

You seem to give way too much credit to both Russian and Ukrainian militaries.

And you give no credit to them, especially to russian one.

 

[Jayjay]

I don't trust these photographs.

At the same time, there is no similar evidence for a launch from Zaroschensky (however you spell it). No photos, videos, witnesses, tracks, nothing.

Of course there are no such evidence from Zaroschenskoe, nobody is "looking" for evidence there. Whereas Snizhnoe was named immediately by State Department so SBU knew what kind of evidence had to be manufactured.

The scope of evidence is such that it's impossible for anyone to manufacture. Too many different sources from international newspapers to social media to local witnesses to rebels themselves to satellite photos. You don't have to trust any single photograph or other piece of evidence, but the whole picture they paint is pretty clear.

All they needed was knowledge that "russian" BUK was in the certain area, after that they could blame it on russians.

They'd have to have this info in advance (or they would not be able to deploy their own BUK in time) and they would have to cover up their own tracks perfectly afterwards. That's assuming the kind of competence I don't think is possible.

Competence can be replaced by dumb luck and brass "balls".

I have said it before and will repeat it again. Assuming russians are responsible then they would not just give BUK to rebels and hope for the best, operators would be russians too, and they would be well trained/prepared and aware of passenger planes. Also the apparent lack of secrecy is suspicious.

And as I have said before and will repeat again likely, the normal procedure for BUK TELAR operator is not necessarily to check for passenger planes, because that is the job for target acquisition radar which in this case was not used.

Which brings the point that russians would have used full system or used other ways to identify the plane.

You work with the equipment you have. You said that Russians would try to be secret, which means making some compromises; in this case using only the TELAR unit without the supporting radar. Also Russia had not and still hasn't officially admitted to having any troops or equipment in Donbas, so most likely they would only use vehicles that Ukrainian army also has so that there would be plausible deniability in case they get captured.

You seem to give way too much credit to both Russian and Ukrainian militaries.

And you give no credit to them, especially to russian one.

I think I'm giving a fairly realistic scenario why they messed up. They were in territory with enemy spies all around, were not using the typical configuration they were trained for, had to move in and out of position as quickly as possible and probably had to plan it on a moment's notice. They did manage to do exactly what they were trained to do though: shoot down what they thought was an enemy aircraft. Assuming that they did not check whether it was a civilian aircraft is not that hard to believe, because during training or in most real life scenarios the airspace would be closed from civilian traffic.