Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Another Malaysian airliner crashed in Ukraine

A rather odd story that has emerged this week - a German private detective, Josef Resch, hired to investigate MH17 says an informant has come forward however he does not know who the informant is and cannot reveal the information given – but hopes his client will release the information. More details from the Independent:
A whistleblower has come forward with information about flight MH17, a German private detective has claimed.

Detective Josef Resch says that he was hired by an unnamed client to find out what had really happened to the flight. He says that his client offered a reward worth $47 million for information about the tragedy and that an unnamed person has now come forward with information to claim the cash.

However, Mr Resch has refused to reveal who his informant is or what information he has uncovered. He also says that he does not know the identity of his client as all their dealings were conducted through a Swiss middleman.

“Our clients have got all the information they wanted to get, so my job is finished. I expect something will happen very soon. Anyone who pays that kind of money for information does not keep it to himself.”

However, he later expressed misgivings, telling Spiegel magazine: “I have a request - that my client makes the information public. But I have a fear it will be handled internally.”
Click to expand...
 
Reuters have been told by an (unnamed) Dutch government official that the Netherlands is in discussions aimed at seeking a UN backed international tribunal at which to prosecute suspects. Dutch prosecutors expect to issue indictments once the Dutch Safety Board releases a report in October detailing how the plane was downed.
 
2hats said:
Reuters have been told by an (unnamed) Dutch government official that the Netherlands is in discussions aimed at seeking a UN backed international tribunal at which to prosecute suspects. Dutch prosecutors expect to issue indictments once the Dutch Safety Board releases a report in October detailing how the plane was downed.
Click to expand...

That's interesting but think we can guess about the cause. It will be better to have any evidence for the families though.
 
The Dutch Safety Board has sent a draft of the final crash investigation report to all to representatives of the countries involved in the probe (Malaysia, Ukraine, the US, Russia, the UK, Australia and the Netherlands). They have 60 days (ie until the start of September) to comment on the draft. The final report is expected to be released in October.
 
MH17: Russian separatist leader sued for $900 million by crash victims

Igor Girkin, the leader of Russian separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, was on Wednesday formally accused of orchestrating the shooting down of the Malaysia Airlines flight, MH17, in July last year.
A writ filed in Chicago also alleges that Mr Girkin was acting with the blessing of the Kremlin when his forces fired at the Boeing 777 en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.
The case has been brought on behalf of the families of 18 of the passengers on board the aircraft, including six Britons.
They are claiming a total of $900 million (£575 million)....
Click to expand...
 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...an-backed-rebels-sifting-wreckage-after-crash

A video has been published on the first anniversary of the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 showing the immediate aftermath of the disaster in which all 298 people on board died.
The 17-minute footage was published by News Corp Australia as ceremonies were held in Ukraine, Australia and the Netherlands 12 months after the plane was shot out of the sky with what is believed to be a surface-to-air missile.
Click to expand...
 
According to CNN, sources connected to the Dutch Safety Board investigation have told them that the several hundred page draft of the final report (circulated to countries involved in the investigation and expected to be published early October 2015) clearly identifies evidence pointing to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible for shooting down MH-17 with a Buk missile launched from a village in Russian rebel controlled territory.

The draft is apparently also critical of Malaysia airlines for not reviewing other countries' warnings; it was unaware of conflict zones other airlines were avoiding.


As regards the criminal investigation, according to the Telegraph, a spokesman for the Dutch chief prosecutor's office said the criminal investigation's final dossier for the court would give a "detailed account of what happened". "We didn't expect to get as far as we are now. There will be charges of murder and possibly charges of war crimes."
 
There's a three day meeting of the Dutch Safety Board, Onderzoeksraad Voor Veiligheid (OVV), with other investigators (representatives also from the US, Malaysia, UK, Russia, Australia, Ukraine) in the Netherlands that runs yesterday through to tomorrow where the final form of the report (due October) is being discussed. I guess the information has arisen from that.
 
The final Dutch Safety Board report will be published on 13th October. Relatives of the deceased will be informed of the contents of the report in a private meeting prior to that date.
 
The final Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report is due to be published Tuesday.

Recent notable developments:

In a PR release, Almaz-Antey (current manufacturers of the Buk system) are due to give a presentation, coincidentally on the same day as the release of the final DSB report, regarding their own reconstruction of a commercial aircraft shootdown by a Buk (which their PR release already essentially says backs up their previous assertions regarding it having been shot down by a Buk fired from Zaroshchenske).

Last night a Ukraine government minister stated on TV that there are two witnesses who confirm that the Buk missile battery was in the place near Snizhne from which it shot down the MH17 passenger plane. They took photos of the Buk battery, one in firing position and the other of the missile’s exhaust trail. The minister further claimed that Dutch experts had confirmed the authenticity of the photos.

The Telegraph reports the claim of a Ukrainian investigator that the Dutch investigation has found that “the fragments found in the bodies of the victims and the remains of the aircraft, are elements that resemble the samples from Buks given to experts for comparative research”.
 
The twitter feed from guardian shaun walker at the Moscow press conference makes the whole thing look like a propaganda exercise by Russia.
 
not-bono-ever said:
The twitter feed from guardian shaun walker at the Moscow press conference makes the whole thing look like a propaganda exercise by Russia.
Click to expand...

Watching it I felt for the journalists trapped there. I found it pretty stodgy seated in a comfortable chair though vaguely amused by the stream of contradictory statements. Evidently most of the media fell asleep as the first question was (from Ria Novosti) "what was the point of this experiment?". Eventually more of the Russian media woke up and started asking questions irrelevant to the dynamics of the missile strike. Top marks to the Chilean journalist who asked why their version of events was always changing (if only for the awkward glances and shuffling it provoked).

To be fair it was hard to say whether the translator for the event really reflected what was being said - the English narrative was at best barely semi-coherent and the descriptions contradicted the graphics being presented (as well as much of the DSB report). For example, a tedious and overly laboured segment of the presentation about fragments moving parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft when the actual crash debris images clearly illustrate airframe penetration with significant components of velocity perpendicular to such (the distribution of orientations and velocity vectors of fragments will be modified with each interface and other fragments, original and newly formed, that they encounter). They seem to have found alignments of fragment damage where they wanted to see them - though with only photos to go on and not a full 3D reconstruction directly to hand, it's not surprising that they could mislead themselves.

To summarise: on 7th Oct 2015 AA mocked up a shootdown of an air liner by detonating a Buk 9N314M warhead in proximity to an old Ilyushin-86 forward section (designed and produced in the Soviet era almost 2 decades before the 777-200):


They concluded based on their tests:
  • it must have been a 9M38 missile due to lack of bow tie/'I' (or 'H") fragments - only there weren't (see the DSB report) but also they ignored the deformation of such fragments and the range of presentations of such fragments to a target surface - they only carve their distinctive shape in a limited subset of orientations (and conditions).
  • it must have been launched from Zaroshchenske based on modelling the geometry of the fragmentation pattern (ignoring terminal guidance, ignoring the combined velocities, ignoring the lack of high velocity rocket body continuing onward and associated fragmenting parts and atomised components, ignoring the much higher air density on the ground, ignoring the relative velocities of missile and target, ignoring the lack of aircraft pressurisation and ignoring the different material composition/layout of the aircraft and thus shielding and ricochet effects). This, they stated, accounted for the damage around the port engine - they claimed their Snizhne conforming test resulted in no fragments there however you can clearly see some holes in the aluminium sheet that stood in for the engine. They also ignored or were ignorant of the DSB CFD modelling which indicated localised overpressure ahead of and at the throat of the port engine arising from the warhead detonation and highlighted the blastwave reflection off and along the body of the fuselage (which was of course missing from this 'test').
 
As some might have noticed, the full final Dutch Safety Board MH17 report is now out (over 700 pages including all appendices). The presentation of which was far more concise, coherent and significantly more engaging than other media events that day...

The conclusion is that MH17 was downed by a 9N314M warhead from a 9M38 series Buk surface to air missile.

Video summary:


Some key points from the report itself (reference to report sections in parentheses):

On evidence collection:
  • Contrary to repeated claims by Russian representatives/media/sources/trolls the Russian authorities handed over no raw radar data to the investigation, only video of a processed display (Ukraine authorities handed over raw secondary radar data as well as video of the processed data). The processed data is of limited use for investigation as it does not present a 'pure' picture of the airspace situation but rather a sanitised one best suited for air traffic management (both videos clearly exhibit coasting of data and estimates of aircraft positions and the nature of targets). In failing to preserve data the Russian authorities are in contravention of ICAO Annex 11 Air Traffic Services paragraph 6.4.1 - (automatic recording of surveillance data) which exists to facilitate accident investigations (2.9.5.3).
  • Photographs taken by numerous third parties immediately after the event and subsequently by crash investigators highlight the fact that some of the crash sites were disturbed and parts of the aircraft were removed and not recovered (2.12.2.3, 2.12.2.5, 2.12.2.6).

Regarding the shootdown itself:
  • From examination of flight deck crew bodies it is clear that the majority of foreign (non aircraft origin) objects were in the left side of torsos, consistent with the proposed explosion location (2.13.2).
  • Forensic analysis (energy dispersive X-ray spectrography, focussed ion beam analysis and subsequent statistical classification) clearly identify the high energy foreign body fragments (ie those exhibiting microscopic deposition of aircraft skin/window arising from resolidification) as coming from a 9N314M warhead carried on a 9M38M1 (or 9M38) missile which had first penetrated aircraft skin and windows (2.16.2).
  • Of all the missiles in use in the conflict area (surface and air to air missiles), these foreign body fragments (mixture of cuboid and bow tie types) are only found in the 9N314M warhead (3.6.2). The fragment types, number of witness marks (and radar data) rule out engagement with cannon by aircraft (3.6.1).
  • Paint on missile fragments found embedded in the debris (in particular around the left cockpit windows and in the left wing) and missile parts at the crash sites matched both microscopically (paint layers matched) and chemically as determined by IR spectroscopy (2.16.3).
  • From analysis of the cockpit voice recorder data peaks were identified on each of the four cockpit microphones. These high frequency peaks indicate the arrival of the detonation pressure wave and they are offset for each microphone. The pressure wave clearly travelled from the left to the right of the cockpit. The timing differences were used to triangulate the point of detonation indicating it originated outside of and above the left hand side of the cockpit.
  • Blast damage and traced perforation holes all point to some 800+ high energy objects originating in a location to the left of and above the cockpit ie from a single volume in space. This was confirmed by a fragmentation visualisation model: "Simulation showed that the observed damage and the modelled fragment pattern resulted in an estimated detonation location of the warhead to the left and above of the cockpit." The estimated position of the detonation was 0.25 metres ahead of the aeroplane’s nose, 3 metres to the left of, and 3.7 metres above the tip of the nose (3.8.2).
  • Analytical analysis of the warhead fragmentation (based on data supplied by Almaz-Antey) demonstrated that a 70 kg warhead best matched the damage observed on the wreckage of the aeroplane. The warhead detonated in a 1 cubic metre volume of space about 4m above the tip of the aircraft nose on the left side of the cockpit (the same result was reached by 4 teams: two Dutch, 1 Ukrainian, 1 Russian (Almaz-Antey)) (3.8.3).
  • Flyout modelling using the above starting conditions constrained the potential missile launch area. The same four teams (Dutch, Ukrainian and Russian) identified overlapping launch areas, all consistent, pointing to a location a few km S of Snizhne/SE of Torez. (see diagram below). This is consistent with independently researched information (eye witness reports, photographs, private investigators, journalist investigations and the launch trajectory published by the US authorities). Further identification of the precise launch location is the work of the joint investigation team who are conducting the criminal investigation (3.8.6).
launchareas.jpg

Aircraft break up:
  • From ballistic trajectory analysis based on the distribution of the aircraft components and cargo on the ground (aided by video taken at the time of the crash) it can be concluded that aircraft breakup began immediately after weapon detonation with the cockpit and part of the forward fuselage floor separating (cracks propagating on a timescale of a second or so as the airframe flexed and tore first in the face of blast damage then turbulent aerodynamic flow). Parts of the forward fuselage above the floor and a cylindrical section just behind that broke away quickly afterwards as the result of further crack propagation. The centre and rear fuselage (with wings and stabilisers) then experienced greatly increased drag and turbulent airflow. The wing tips and then the stabilisers and tail of the fuselage separated from the remaining centre fuselage. The vertical and horizontal stabilisers separated from the tail section which inverted shortly before impact. The centre fuselage section with wing box (and the bulk of the unspent fuel) followed a trajectory that was not purely ballistic (the partly intact wings provided some aerodynamic input), changing orientation (flipping over on to its back) just prior to impact which occurred between 60-90 seconds after the initiation of the break up (3.11.8).

Passengers:
  • How many of the passengers died before ground impact could not be determined (2.13.4).
  • 49 out of 50 passenger oxygen masks that were recovered had clearly been deployed and activated (force applied to initiate oxygen flow, firing pin out of place, generator indicator positive). Whether this occurred due to accelerative forces, impact, or by conscious intent can not be determined (3.12).
  • "It cannot be ruled out that some occupants remained conscious for some time during the one to one and a half minutes for which the crash lasted". One victim was found on the ground with the oxygen mask strapped to them. (3.14).

Interestingly the representatives from Almaz-Antey seemed to be in broad agreement with the findings of the report until the final review meeting when they changed their opinions. In an interview on Dutch TV the chairman of the Dutch Safety Board (Joustra) said the Russian delegation backed up their findings with the chairman of Almaz-Antey, Novikov, even making a presentation to the investigation team that MH17 must have been brought down by a 9N314M warhead. Joustra noted how the Russians then back tracked and he got the impression that they had been persuaded to do so by persons in Moscow.

Notable is appendix V of the report which details consultation remarks by participants in the investigation. Sadly (though perhaps not surprisingly) it is dominated by specious Russian objections (which are ably countered with thorough responses) and attempts to politicise the report by both the Ukrainian (in large part) and Russian participants (all were rejected).

It is worth noting that the final recommendations in the report (11) highlight the needs for (in airspace management) closure or restriction of the use of airspace with rapid provision of information regarding said airspace in areas of armed conflict and coordination between civil and military air navigation service providers. The report also (in respect of risk assessment) recommends the ICAO/IATA encourage the timely sharing of threat information between all operators and states and that operators clearly, regularly, make available clear information to potential passengers about flight routes over conflict zones.
 
Last edited:
A couple of developments:

The European Air Safety Agency, EASA, has recommended the re-opening of some air routes within Ukraine air space. These are transit corridors (L851 and M856), in the far SW of their flight information region, which would reduce flight times from Europe to Middle and Far East destinations. This has been objected to by Russian aviation authorities who claim responsibility for managing the flight region; however this responsibility is not recognised internationally.
385266221.jpg

In other news, the Dutch criminal investigation team (JIT) has sent a letter to relatives of victims updating them on their progress:
In the update it is explained that before the second half of this year the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) expects to have gathered conclusive evidence with which kind of weapon and from which location MH17 was shot down.

In the same period the JIT expects to gather more information on possible perpetrators. It is not possible to say when in the future the JIT will be able to establish what their exact connection to the crime is, their identity, and actual place of residence.

The letter also discusses the way the launch location of the missile can be established and how radar and satellite data could contribute. The letter also outlines options for prosecution and trial for the perpetrators.
Click to expand...

It should also be mentioned that Bellingcat have published a report in which they claim to have identified the individuals who were responsible for launching the Buk missile that downed MH17. They state that they have provided the full report, with details of identities of those concerned, to the JIT.
 
2hats said:
This has been objected to by Russian aviation authorities who claim responsibility for managing the flight region; however this responsibility is not recognised internationally.
Click to expand...

For those disinclined to cut and paste, here's what Google Translate did with the Russian statement:

Comments to the Federal Air Transport Agency established EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency), the Information Security Bulletin (EASA SIB 2015-16R2 Simferopol Flight Information Region (FIR), dated 17 February 2016)

February 19, 2016

As is known, the EASA is the agency of the European Union, whose task is to ensure the security of EU carriers flying and not publish biased reports on issues that do not have this organization in any way.

Since October of last year, EASA systematically misinforming the aviation authorities and airlines of EU countries on the situation of air traffic in the Flight Information Region Simferopol (Simferopol FIR). In its bulletin EASA proposes EU airlines and their passengers to carry uncoordinated missions at your own risk. More than a strange position for the security agencies.

EASA urges European airlines to operate on air routes L851 and M856 controlled by Ukrainian air traffic controllers. However, it is known that these tracks are included in the zone of responsibility of the FIR Simferopol, under the control of Russian air traffic controllers of the Crimean branch of Federal State Unitary Enterprise "State Corporation for Air Traffic Management in the Russian Federation." This branch has the necessary and modern technical equipment, experienced personnel and provides air traffic control to the highest world standards. The Russian side did not coordinate the application EASA, and has no plans to transfer control of air traffic in FIR Simferopol Ukrainian dispatchers.

By making statements against the two alleged safe routes EASA does not hide that so cynically trying to achieve revenue generation Ukrainian air navigation service provider in any way, even at the risk of safety in all conceivable violation of ICAO decisions. In particular, the statement EASA is contrary to ICAO's decision to convene a special ICAO Task Force on the Black Sea (BSTF) in order to develop a coordination mechanism in order to find operational and technical solutions that contribute to the resumption of normal and safe production of fly international civil aviation in the airspace over the high seas the FIR Simferopol. Working Group, composed of representatives of the neighboring countries of the Black Sea region, will begin in March 2016. This EASA participation in the ICAO Task Force is not provided.

The Russian side calls come from A38-12 Resolution Adding the G, the ICAO Assembly, which states that "... the limits of ATS air space over the territory of States or over the high seas shall be established on the basis of technical and operational considerations in order to ensure safety and optimizing the efficiency ... for those who provide and those who use such services. "

It is obvious that EASA recommendation is purely politically motivated decision, which does not reflect the actual technical capabilities of Ukrainian dispatch centers and poses a threat to aviation safety in the region. Politicized solutions must not replace safety principles.
The Russian side, in accordance with ICAO recommendations based on the fact that, in the interests of international civil aviation should be applied approaches, which are based on consideration only of technical capacity and resources to guarantee the safe and efficient air navigation services in a particular segment of the international airspace except political aspects and individual economic interests. Rosaviation urges EASA not make hasty decisions and not wishful thinking.​
 
An update from the JIT on some of the work that has been carried out as part of the criminal investigation, with particular emphasis on the very high standard of forensic evidence being collected (with a view to criminal prosecution). In it, further unambiguous evidence pointing to the downing of the aircraft by a Buk missile, with warhead detonation just outside the cockpit windows, is presented. Eg a missile exhaust system found at the crash site which has been positively identified as coming from a Buk:
Missile-part-found-at-Malaysia-Airlines-Flight-17-crash-site.jpg
 
I don't suppose this is really telling anyone much more than was already suspected, but still...

Russia Implicated in Shooting Down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Over Ukraine

A Dutch-led investigation has concluded that the powerful surface-to-air missile system that was used to shoot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine two years ago, killing all 298 on board, was trucked in from Russia at the request of Russian-backed separatists and returned to Russia the same night.

The report largely confirmed the already widely documented Russian government role not only in the deployment of the missile system, called a Buk, or SA-11, but the subsequent cover up, which continues to this day....
Click to expand...
 
The suspects were named as Igor Girkin, a former colonel of Russia’s FSB spy service; Sergey Dubinskiy, employed by Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency; and Oleg Pulatov, a former soldier with the GRU’s special forces spetsnaz unit. All were Russian soldiers previously sent abroad.

A fourth suspect, Leonid Kharchenko, is a Ukrainian. He led a military combat unit in the city of Donetsk as a commander, it was alleged.

Girkin was minister of defence in the Moscow-backed Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR). He was the commander of the DNR when the plane was shot down on 17 July 2014. Dubinskiy served as Girkin’s deputy in the DNR, and Pulatov was Dubinskiy’s deputy. Kharchenko was under their command.

Investigators said the soldiers “formed a chain linking DNR with the Russian Federation”. This link was how the separatists obtained heavy equipment from Russia including the Buk launcher used to fire at MH17 with “terrible consequences”.

The accused did not push the button themselves but were responsible for bringing the anti-aircraft system to eastern Ukraine. They could therefore be held criminally liable and charged with murdering 298 people, investigators said.

Three Russians and one Ukrainian to face MH17 murder charges
 
gosub said:
The suspects were named as Igor Girkin, a former colonel of Russia’s FSB spy service; Sergey Dubinskiy, employed by Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency; and Oleg Pulatov, a former soldier with the GRU’s special forces spetsnaz unit. All were Russian soldiers previously sent abroad.

A fourth suspect, Leonid Kharchenko, is a Ukrainian. He led a military combat unit in the city of Donetsk as a commander, it was alleged.

Girkin was minister of defence in the Moscow-backed Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR). He was the commander of the DNR when the plane was shot down on 17 July 2014. Dubinskiy served as Girkin’s deputy in the DNR, and Pulatov was Dubinskiy’s deputy. Kharchenko was under their command.

Investigators said the soldiers “formed a chain linking DNR with the Russian Federation”. This link was how the separatists obtained heavy equipment from Russia including the Buk launcher used to fire at MH17 with “terrible consequences”.

The accused did not push the button themselves but were responsible for bringing the anti-aircraft system to eastern Ukraine. They could therefore be held criminally liable and charged with murdering 298 people, investigators said.

Three Russians and one Ukrainian to face MH17 murder charges
Click to expand...

Presumably all four suspects are safely ensconced in Russia and so will not in fact ever face the charges?
 
Bahnhof Strasse said:
Presumably all four suspects are safely ensconced in Russia and so will not in fact ever face the charges?
Click to expand...
Well its very much a crime well with the scope and rasion etre of the GRU (more so than the Salisbury nerve agent) so is unlikely theyd get thrown under a bus, but their holiday prspects have diminshed somwhat Id guess
 
Bellincat's take on it. Mostly taking the piss, fairly reasonably imo.

www.bellingcat.com

The Impossible Conspiracy Fueling Russia's MH17 Defence - bellingcat

Translations:English (UK)Русский (Россия)Ahead of the commencement of the MH17 trials in the Netherlands on March 9, 2020, various Russian government officials have made statements defending Russia against accusations that Russia provided the Buk missile launcher that shot down MH17 on July 17...
www.bellingcat.com www.bellingcat.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Is Zelensky no longer convenient both inside and outside Ukraine? [Bot spam]
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
existentialist
existentialist
Bingoman
Another potential impeachment coming in America
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
ATOMIC SUPLEX
ATOMIC SUPLEX
hash tag
Plane crash Brazil 09.08.24
Replies
8
Views
413
bcuster
bcuster
WhyLikeThis
Another fascist in power - Gert Wilders
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
yield
Y
cupid_stunt
Massive worldwide IT outage, hitting banks, airlines, supermarkets, broadcasters, etc. [19th July 2024]
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
568
Views
19K
tommers
tommers
Back
Top Bottom