Bias and balance

My parents only agreed on a very small number of issues. They…

One million jobless – unprecedented, and out of…

By William Olson  The Morrison government released its latest unemployment statistics on Thursday,…

Extreme Moderation in the Spittoon: Kamala Harris for…

The Vice Presidency has always gotten a degree of bad press in…

"Hey, Bill, your son's made a racist cartoon!"…

When a friend asked me why I'll read the Murdoch media if…

Mr Morrison - are you a sadist?

One issue which has been vividly revealed by the current crisis in…

Low wage growth confirmed (again) – critics say…

By William OlsonWhile the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has been…

Blight and Revelation: Coronavirus, Austerity and the UK

Epidemiologist Michael Marmot begins his August 10 piece in The Guardian on…

JAGGED #9 - Crazy Daze

Follows on from JAGGED #8 – ghost-woman MOTHER(JAGGED has contained some difficult…


The downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17 – Part 12

We conclude Dr George Venturini’s exposé into the shooting down of MH17.

Beyond the fog (continued)

Claims of indirect Russian responsibility for the destruction of MH17 continue to be at the heart of the U.S.-N.A.T.O. propaganda over Ukraine, but the Preliminary Report says nothing of the sort. In fact, it does not even state that the aircraft was shot down.

The Preliminary Report states that, in accordance with the stated “sole objective” of “the prevention of similar accidents and incidents,” it does not “apportion blame or liability in respect of any party”.  No more.

The only ground on which the media can again repeat their assertions that pro-Russian separatists were responsible is the Preliminary Report’s statement that “The damage observed in the forward section of the aircraft appears to indicate that the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft”.

But the Report never once specifies what it means by “high-energy objects”. It also claims that, even though enough of the wreckage was recovered to confirm that the aircraft appears to have been particularly badly hit above the level of the cockpit floor, the Board’s investigators supposedly failed to recover or study any of the objects that penetrated the plane.

The Report fails to mention radar and satellite data presented on 21 July by the Russian military, indicating that a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet was in the immediate vicinity and ascending towards MH17 as it was shot down. Missiles and machine gun rounds fired by an SU-25 are also “high-energy objects.” This possibility has not been addressed, let alone refuted by the Ukraine government, the American administration or anyone else involved in the investigation. Despite Russia continually requesting that the American administration supply the investigation with the images and data it obviously possesses relating to the MH17 crash, it has refused to do so.

Silence was the preferred reaction.

Mr. Abbott felt comforted by The New York Times of 10 September 2014. The paper continues to call itself ‘a newspaper of record’, but on the downing of MH17 it has been misreporting, and misleading its readers from the day of the tragedy. It has continued to propagate anti-Russian sentiments in the United States and to support the Ukrainian government.

In an article titled: ‘Report finds missile strike likely in crash of Flight 17’ and datelined Brussels, two of The New York Times reporters wrote in their lead paragraph that “investigators, in their first account of the calamity, released evidence … consistent with an attack by a surface-to-air missile but shed no clear light on who was responsible”  They went on to write, on the basis of no evidence at all, that the Preliminary Report “…gave some indirect support to assertions by the United States and Ukraine that pro-Russian rebels shot down the aircraft with an SA-11, or Buk, surface-to-air missile”.

Both paragraphs are completely at odds with the Report. Nothing of the sort.

In fact, the Report makes absolutely no mention at all of an SA-11 missile being the cause of the downing. On the contrary, it states quite clearly:

“Noting that the investigation team has not yet had the opportunity to recover [the components of the cockpit and front of the plane] for forensic examination, photographs from the wreckage indicated that material around the holes was deformed in a manner consistent with being punctured by high-energy objects. The characteristics of the material deformation appear to indicate that the objects originated from outside the fuselage”.

And the investigators also wrote:

“The pattern of damage observed in the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft was consistent with the damage that would be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside”.  And no more.

There is no mention of a specific missile. This is important, because there are witnesses –  eyewitnesses on the ground, and Russian radar records – which suggest that there were one or two Ukrainian fighter jets flying near the MH17 just before it went down.

Nowhere does the Preliminary Report suggest responsibility for the downing of Flight 17. Nowhere does it offer speculation or analysis which would eliminate one option or another as to what brought down the plane, or of who was responsible.

Later in the article, the reporters noted that Mr. Tjibbe H. J. Joustra, chairman of the Dutch Safety Board, “said in a telephone interview from the Hague that a final report would be issued sometime in the middle of next year and investigators hoped to clarify ‘the type of object that penetrated the plane’ ”.

Clearly, that would mean that thus far investigators have no idea what or whose it was.

But The New York Times also took the liberty of reporting that what Mr. Joustra said implied that a BUK SA-11 missile was likely responsible for the downing were the separatist rebels – and thus the Russians by extension – were responsible for this reprehensible event.

In reality, even if it were established that the plane was downed by a Buk or SA-11, that conclusion would do nothing to solve the question of who launched it.

There remains the question of why on earth Russia, or the rebels, would have wanted to down a western civilian aircraft, thus bringing down the wrath of N.A.T.O. and the western public on them.

Vladimir Chizov, Russia’s ambassador to the European Union in Brussels, said that the Preliminary Report shed no significant light on what had happened and said Russia, unlike the West, had stayed interested in the fate of Flight 17. “Until today, it seemed as if the whole crash was forgotten for several months by everybody except Russia – and perhaps Malaysia” he said. “There was silence”.

On the evening of 9 September 2014 Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss – Leader of the Nationals – welcomed the Report’s findings and said they made it clear the tragic downing “was not due to aircraft malfunction or pilot error”.

“The findings are consistent with the Government’s statement that MH17 was shot down by a large surface-to-air missile” said a statement by Mr. Abbott and Mr. Truss.

“The international community must remain focused on finding, prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of this cowardly attack.

“We owe this to the innocent victims of the MH17 downing and their families”.

Mendacious pieties!

A national memorial service was held on 7 August in Melbourne, where Prime Minister Abbott told mourners MH17 victims would never be abandoned or forgotten.

“There will be a time to judge the guilty, but today we honour the dead and we grieve with the living” he said at the service held in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. “We cannot bring them back, but we will bring them home as far as we humanly can”.

On 10 September 2014 Malaysia’s transport minister Mr. Liow Tiong Lai said those behind the attack must be punished. “I call upon the international community and all of those involved in the Ukraine conflict to seek justice and find the perpetrators who caused this brutal act of aggression” Mr. Lai said. “As we mourn the loss of all 298 passengers and crew, we will not relent until those responsible are brought to justice”.

Prime Minister Abbott issued a statement in response to the Report, saying that the preliminary findings “make clear that the tragic downing of MH17 was not due to aircraft malfunction or pilot error”.

Then came a surprise.

On 15 August 2014 the Russian Union of Engineers made available its ‘Analysis‘ of the causes of the crash of Flight MH17.

The analysis concerned itself with two main issues:

  1. What are the circumstances of the crash?
  2. Who could have been involved in the plane’s destruction?

As the Russian Report says: “A group of experts from the Russian Union of engineers was convened to analyze the situation, including reserve officers with experience in the use of anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as pilots having experience with aircraft weapons. This problem was also discussed at a meeting of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, where many variants were tested and discussed again. In the course of their analysis the experts used materials derived from public sources, found in the media. The situation was also analyzed using a computer simulation of the Su-25”.

As a result of such work, the engineers offered the following analytical material:

“The general conditions in the air in the vicinity of ​​Donetsk were discussed at a special briefing held 21.07.2014 by the Russian Defense Ministry on questions about the destruction of Flight MH17 while it was in the sky over Ukraine.

At the briefing, the Chief of the Main Operations Directorate, Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Lieutenant-General Andrew Kartapolova presented in his speech objective monitoring data from the period 17.10 to 17.30 hours Moscow time.

During this period, in that air space, three civilian aircraft were operating regular flights:

  • A flight from Copenhagen to Singapore at 17:17 [12.17];
  • A flight from Paris to Taipei at 17:24 [12.24];
  • A flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.

In addition, Russian air traffic control recorded the ascent of a Ukrainian Air Force aircraft, presumably an Su-25, in the direction of the [MH17]. The distance between the SU-25 aircraft from the Boeing 777 was between 3 and 5 km”.

The Russian engineers Report continues:

“A detailed analysis of its fragments can provide a more complete picture of the causes of the crash. In reviewing the photos of the plane fragments presented on the Internet, you can see the different forms of damage to its shell or skin – tears and factures, holes with folds on the outer and the inner sides of the fuselage, tell-tale signs of a powerful external impact on the plane”.

Attaching several pictures, the Report continues:

“Of particular note are the holes folded inward in the fuselage. They are round-bored, and usually grouped. Such holes can only be formed by metal objects with a circular cross-section, possibly rods or shells from an aircraft gun.”

And the Report notes:

“The question arises: who could deliver such projectiles to the aircraft, by what means, and what might they look like ?”

The Russian Union of Engineers had studied those basic versions which have already been presented by experts from various countries. Taking into consideration the technical side of the issue, it concluded that they could assert that the [MH17] would have been destroyed by means of anti-aircraft weapons – either by ground-launched anti-aircraft missiles or by other aircraft armed with missiles and cannon. Using the methods of engineering analysis, the experts of the Russian Union of Engineers have looked at both of these versions, towards which practically all the pronouncements of experts and specialists converged.

The Russian Report devoted quite some space in considering the possibility that the MH17 was destroyed by an anti-aircraft missile system, for example, a Buk-M1.

The Report went on:

“6.1.4. The narrative detailing the use of the BUK-M1 Rocket complex, in the opinion of our experts, contains a number of issues which render it, as an accurate chronicle of events, open to doubt”.

Nevertheless, the Report considered the possibility at great length.

After a lengthy, technical discussion of the case that the MH17 might have been downed by a surface to air missile, the Russian Report concluded:

“That which has been written above renders doubtful the initial proposition that the [MH17] was brought down by the means of anti-aircraft missile fire from a BUK-M1 installation”.

It then proceeded to consider the alternative proposition: that the MH 17 was destroyed as a result of air-air rocket-cannon fire.

“7.1. In support of this version the following circumstantial factors can be observed:

7.1.1. There were many witnesses who reported in the sky, in the region where the Boeing crashed, a military plane (some witnesses report two), assumed to be a fighter, as reported, given the height and speed (Altitude of the fighter being 5000—7000 m, and the velocity 950 kmh). There were also reports of aviation noise in the sky. It is possible that these reports relate to MIG-29 or SU-29 aircraft.

The armament of the MIG-29 includes the single-barrelled cannon GSH-301 (30 mm, comprising 150 rounds, rate of fire 1500 rounds/minute) in the port wing root. There are six hard-points under the wing which can be utilised: for Air-Air combat: 6 R60 guided missiles or Р-73 short range I/R guided missiles; 4 close range guided missiles and two mid-range guided missiles Р-27РE with radio lock-on or Р-27ТE I/R guided system Р-77.

Also according to the Russian Defence Ministry, on the 17th of July, Russian Air traffic control tracked an aeroplane, potentially an SU-25, of the Ukrainian Air force, climbing towards the [MH17]. The distance between the two aircraft did not exceed 3—4 km.

It must be noted that, in line with its specifications, the SU-25 is capable of briefly reaching heights in excess of 10 thousand metres. Standard equipment includes R60 Air to Air missiles. These missiles are capable of engaging and destroying targets to a range of up to 10km with a 100% hit ratio up to 8 km. Accordingly it is not necessary for the aeroplane to closely approach the target – It will be sufficient to simply ensure that the distance to the target falls within the guaranteed limits of the missile.

7.1.2. The Russian Defense Ministry said that Russian military radar detected the ‘Dome’ Ukrainian air defense system battery ‘Buk-M1’,working, on the day of the Malaysian Boeing 777 disaster.

7.1.3. An SU-25 and MIG-29 appear identical on radar, insofar as they have similar sized reflective surfaces. The practical surface ceiling of a MIG-29 is 18013 m, thus the height at which the Malaysian airliner was travelling (10100 m) can be easily reached. The MIG-29 has two engines generating high thrust which allows the plane to reach speeds of up to 2000 kmh.

7.1.4. The meteorological conditions also support the narrative of the [MH17] being attacked by another aircraft. The weather conditions in the region of Donetsk city from 1500 – 1800 on the 17th July 2014 are characterised by rain and thick cloud. The route of the flight passes above the cloud base of the upper level. At this height only cirrus clouds are present. These are sparsely occurring, white fibrous and transparent clouds, occasionally with thick or flaky formations. These are arranged in the apparent bundles or strands stretching across, meeting at the horizon. The average height of the lower boundary of these clouds is between 7 to 10 thousand metres and the cloud layer can measure in width from hundreds of metres to a few kilometres.

An attack by a military plane swiftly ascending from the cloud layer could come as a surprise to the crew of the [MH17]. The attack would not be observable from the ground because of the thick layer of cloud at the medium and lower levels.

On this basis, the thesis can be advanced with confidence that the [MH17] flying a horizontal course at 10000 metres could quite feasibly find itself within range of the Rocket / Cannon armament of a fighter, either a MIG-29 or an SU-25”.

The Russian Report then considered the question: What weapons led to the destruction of the [MH17]?

and proceeded:

“Both the MIG-29 and the SU-25 can be equipped with short range P-60M guided missiles.

The MiG-29 is equipped with a 30-millimeter GSh-301 cannon, firing at a rate of 1500 rounds per minute. This gun is loaded with 150 shells containing tungsten alloy. Its effective range for airborne targets is 200-800 m, for land-based targets, 1200-1800 m. This kind of projectiles pass through, leaving a track that is perfectly round in shape; they do not explode inside the cabin and are not incendiary, but they can kill the crew and destroy the cabin. The entry and exit holes exhibit a typical configuration. The entry holes show the edges pushed inside the opening; on the opposite wall, the edges are pushed outward.

The Su-25 is equipped with GSH-2-30 guns.

In addition the Su-25 may carry SPPU-22 containers with 23-mm GSh-23L dual-barrel cannons.

During combat both types of cannons are used against aerial targets to cause damage analogous to that seen on the wreckage of the [MH17]”.

At this point the Russian Report concluded that:

“ … according to the analysts from the Russian Union of Engineers, we have the complete destruction of the [MH17] as [a result of] missile systems using ‘air-to-air’ close-combat missiles as well as a 30-mm aircraft cannon or an SPPU-22 container with GSh-23L 23-mm dual-barrel guns. At the same time, when firing on a target, a laser range finder can be used, or a laser sight, that allows for significantly improved accuracy. This is indicated by the pattern of damage and the dispersal of the fragments: there are round holes, which are typically produced as a result of gun shots, and discontinuous holes characteristic of flechette rockets”.

Further analysing the debris, the Russian Report said:

“If we consider the first version of the crash, it is evident from the way the holes are arranged in the fragments of the flat surfaces and the fuselage that they do not reflect the typical picture of the impact of “Buk-M1” missiles, which would have left a very noticeable and characteristic pattern of damage marks. In this case, it is clear that there are no such traces on the debris fragments.

As far as the possibility of such damage resulting from close-combat ‘air-to-air’ missiles, it should be noted that the R-60 (Su-27) and R-73 (Mig-29) are low-power rockets for close air combat, with infrared guidance. Their kill radius is only 3-5 meters, and a sure hit requires direct contact. The mass of the warheads in the former case is 3.5 kg, in the latter, 5 kg. The warheads contain fine particles of tungsten wire. These are pretty weak rockets; they are designed exclusively for small targets. Such missiles follow the heat trail and are primarily designed to kill the engine.

It would be logical to assume that the damage shown in [the following photo] is more commonly associated with aircraft cannon shells of the GSH or SPPU type.

Damage to the Boeing 777 is not characteristic of the SAM “BUK-M1” missile.


As further shown in the following photograph:


The nature of the damage to the cabin of the Boeing 777


“The picture of the entry and exit holes in the cockpit of the [MH17] are fully consistent with the passage through the flight of shells from the 20-30 mm caliber guns found on military aircraft. This confirms the second version of what brought down the Boeing. This is further supported by the way the puncture holes are dispersed along the surface of the aircraft. The edges of the fragment of the fuselage from the left side of the cockpit are folded from the inside outward, which indicates that a significant blast occurred within the cockpit as a result of the dynamic impact of the shells on the right side.

On the trim panel the characteristic entry holes are visible as well as some exit points. The edges of the holes are bent inward; they are much smaller and are circular in shape. The exit openings are less clearly formed; their edges are torn outward. In addition, it is clear that exit holes broke through double aluminum lining and tilted it outward. That is, the strike elements ([judging] by type of impact – aircraft cannon shells) punched right through the cockpit. The open rivets were also bent outward”.

All this appears even clearer from the following photograph:


The inward folds are clearly seen, which are characteristic of this type of projectile.

A fragment of the Boeing 777. Clearly seen are the entry holes in the outer layer, folded inward, caused by a 30-мм gun.

The Russian Report went on:

“The general typology of the holes and their location suggest that is most likely the [MH17] was fired on using a GSh-2-30 aircraft cannon or an SPPU-22 container with dual-barrel 23-mm GSh-23L cannons: sighting was targeted in the area of the cockpit; while the shells that broke through the cockpit proceeded out the other side and caused damage to the flat surface of the wing (see photo 20). Both types of weaponry cause damage to aerial targets analogous to that seen on the fragments of the[MH17].

The nature of the holes on the fragments of the skin surfaces and fuselage shown on information networks allows us to assert that it was missiles/gunfire from an aircraft that was used”.

After a detailed reconstruction of the event, the Russian Report dealt with the party responsible for the death of 283 passengers and 15 crew members:

“On 17.07.2014, the armed forces of the self-proclaimed Donetsk National Republic had no relevant combat aircraft capable of destroying an aerial target similar to the [MH17], nor the necessary airfield network, nor the means of radar detection, targeting and tracking.

No combat aircraft of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation violated the airspace of Ukraine, which the Ukrainian side confirms as well as third parties who conduct space surveillance over the situation in Ukraine and in its airspace.

To establish the truth, it is necessary to objectively and impartially investigate all the circumstances of the destruction of the [MH17], to interview the thousands of citizens who may have seen something. Naturally, experienced professionals should conduct the surveys. To ask the right questions – this is a rigorous science, and a great art in advancing the truth. Important information is contained in the wreckage of the aircraft and the remains of the dead, but this precise information is easy to destroy, distort and hide. And there are plenty of parties interested in concealing the real facts. As confirmation, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia signed an agreement on August 8 providing that information about the crash investigation would be disclosed only upon the consent of all parties. “The investigation is ongoing, [utilizing] expertise and other investigative actions” – announced the Spokesman of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Yuri Boychenko. “The results will be announced at the conclusion of the investigation and with the consent of all parties that have executed the agreement”.

Procrastination and the evasion of an objective investigation by all sides, with the participation of prestigious international organizations, raises doubts whether the concerned parties will make public the true circumstances surrounding the crash of the [MH17]”.

‘Know-nothing’ diplomacy

On 20 September 2014 Ukraine’s former president Kuchma, speaking of the negotiations among members of a Contact Group – Russia, the separatists and the Kiev Government – meeting in the Belarus capital, said that the implementation of a memorandum just signed was to start the following day.

The Contact Group had begun a new round of talks on 19 September. Kiev authorities and pro-independence fighters in southeastern Ukraine had agreed on complete ceasefire, establishment of the buffer zone, withdrawal of heavy weapons away from the contact line on both sides, and deployment of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe monitoring mission.

Representatives of Russia, Ukraine, the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People’s republics and the O.S.C.E. aligned positions and formulated a memorandum of nine provisions that will regulate the implementation of a ceasefire agreement between Kiev and independence supporters in eastern Ukraine. The agreement includes setting up a 30 kilometres buffer zone, a ban on over-flights of part of eastern Ukraine by military aircraft and the withdrawal of ‘foreign mercenaries’ on both sides.

The trilateral Contact Group had first met to discuss the situation on Ukraine on 5 September agreeing upon a ceasefire in east Ukraine which began that same day.

The five-month conflict has killed over 3,000 people so far, in addition to damaging Ukraine’s economy.

But the Minsk agreement did not satisfy American Air Force General Philip Breedlove. He is the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe and thus the distant successor to General Wesley K. Clark already mentioned.

General Breedlove, speaking after a meeting with N.A.T.O. military chiefs in Vilnius, Lithuania, declared that truce was “in name only.” N.A.T.O. has plans to bolster its military presence in countries bordering Russia, including the Baltic states, which used to be part of the Soviet bloc.

One need not refer to Georges Clemenceau and his famous saying “War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men” to advise General Breedlove to keep out of diplomatic matters. But General Breedlove is too important a person to be ignored; he is ‘a big lifter’ in the American administration.

On the evening of 22 September 2014 the Australian Foreign Minister, in complete lockstep with General Breedlove, went on television to express her contempt for the Russian Report and to repeat the usual propaganda against Russia. This might have been the first time that viewers were told of the existence of that Report. No matter – just propaganda, rubbish!

In different circumstances it might have seemed unusual for a person like Ms. Julie Bishop. Ms. Bishop came from a well-off South Australian family, was educated at a privileged private school in Adelaide, where she went to university and graduated in law in 1978. She should know the meaning of the word ‘evidence’. After some years of practice as a barrister and solicitor in Adelaide, she moved to Perth where she joined a prestigious law firm and easily climbed into the local well-society. In 1998 Ms. Bishop entered the federal parliament for the Liberal Party, of which she is now Deputy Leader and Foreign Minister.

Perhaps she destroyed the myth that bully-sm as a way of behaving belongs exclusively to Australian men.

When the fog does not lift, everything is possible in a vassalised place.

Of liars, war criminals, bullies and a Jesuit manqué

The entire Australian political Establishment seized on the tragic deaths of 298 people in the crash of MH17 in Ukraine to ratchet up the escalating U.S.-led provocations against Russia.

Before any investigation team reached the disaster site in eastern Ukraine, the Liberal-National Coalition government of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, followed by the Labor Party Opposition – the two wings of a decaying sub-tropical Westminster System – accused Russian-supported separatists in eastern Ukraine of shooting down the plane, and called for retribution against the rebels and Russia itself.

This irrepressible fanaticism must be seen under the long arch and in the light of post second world war political fortunes in the place. One third of that time saw at the government of Australia Liberal-National Coalitions – which incidentally are not liberal but backwoodsman’s conservative, aided and blackmailed by the agrarian-socialists who are only concerned with their narrow privileges, though they call themselves National. Naturally!

There were first almost 17 sycophantic years of Menzies (1949-1966), an hallucinating monarchist who distinguished himself by lying to the Australian populace over a ‘request’ from Saigon’s clique in 1962. That lie would cost the lives of 521 Australian boys and cause untold misery to the Vietnamese people. The requesting communication was never produced and/or found.

In time Menzies would be followed for 11 stultifying years by another boring monarchist, John Howard (1996-2007). He happened to be in Washington at the time of 9/11 and gave prompt, obsequious guarantees to President G.W. Bush that ‘Australia would be there’ – in Afghanistan, first and then in Iraq. That war crime cost the lives of some 1,455,590 people, and caused the dispersions of millions of refugees.

The Abbott Government – by far much more right-wing than the previously mentioned, viscerally Anglophile and unflinchingly America-dependent than the previous ones – has committed 600 Australians to the new venture in the Middle East. The purpose of the new commitment – not to a war, of course, oh no! – is to carry out a “humanitarian mission with military elements”. That amounts to much more than treble-speak. Humanitarianism is the pretence, not the purpose.

More Reading:

The downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17 (as observed from Australia) – Part 1

The downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17 – Part 2: An avalanche of inconvenient questions

The downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17 – Part 3: Who was behind the MH17 downing?

The downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17 – Part 4: Cui prodest? Huh . . . it is the oil, men!

The downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17 – Part 5: (continuing) Cui prodest? Huh . . . it is the oil, men!

The downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17 – Part 6: (continuing) Cui prodest? Huh . . . it is the oil, men!

The downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17 – Part 7: (concluding) Cui prodest? Huh . . . it is the oil, men!

The downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17 – Part 8: Down in thick fog

The downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17 – Part 9: Beyond the fog

The downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17 – Part 10: (continuing) Beyond the fog

The downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17 – Part 11: (continuing) Beyond the fog

Dr. George Venturini has devoted sixty years to the study, practice, teaching, writing and administering of law in four continents. He is the author of eight books and about 100 articles and essays for learned periodicals and conferences. Since his ‘retirement’ Dr. Venturini has been Senior Associate in the School of Political and Social Inquiry at Monash; he is also an Adjunct Professor at the Institute for Social Research at Swinburne University, Melbourne. He may be reached at


Login here Register here
  1. Michael Taylor

    The final instalment is now up. I like the comment from the Dutch PM (from one of the links) that we should be jumping to conclusions.

  2. John Fraser


    Once again playing devils advocate, its in Russia's best interests to point to a fighter jet downing MH Flight 17.

    This is concerning :

    "Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia signed an agreement on August 8 providing that information about the crash investigation would be disclosed only upon the consent of all parties."

    And it has been repeated recently here in Australia with the Sydney siege ….. thats why the only media reports are coming from relatives or friends of those involved, nothing from those directly involved, but absolutely no shortage of information released to the media by the government authorities on the murderer.

    The agreement between the 4 countries involved is unacceptable and if those countries would want to take action in the International Court in relation to Flight MH 17 I believe the court would find their position untenable and request all information be made available and possibly public.

    Will the Netherlands, Belgium and Australian governments continue with International court action if this is the case ?

    That's up to the public of those respective countries …. to pressure their governments to make sure it happens.

    "The international community must remain focused on finding, prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of this cowardly attack." .. Abbott.

  3. BenC

    Oh wow. Am I going to have a field day with this.

  4. John Fraser



    I have posted 2 comments here but they appear to have disappeared.

    The first was in relation to your comment, it should read :

    "Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte has cautioned against jumping to conclusions about the cause of the crash of Malaysia Airways flight MH17 in July."

    "cautioned against".

    I hope BenC takes note !

  5. Florence nee Fedup

    Michael, the Dutch PM said during the PC with Abbott, that he had been presented with some interesting propositions but personally he would wait until the investigations were finalised. I felt at the time he was advising Abbott to pull his head in, wait until the evidence, facts were in.

  6. BenC

    Before I start, I have to laugh.

    “There were also reports of aviation noise in the sky. It is possible that these reports relate to MIG-29 or SU-29 aircraft”

    Behold, the aircraft that shot down MH17!

    lol. Great article. Factually rock solid.

  7. donwreford

    Of course Abbott has a fantasy about Russia as the evil empire and blames Russia for the plane destruction, without any proof he decided this country is to blame, he is a menace not only to himself but to the electorate, as he no longer is able to discriminate between truth and his psychotic disorder, it is a reflection of the Australian electorate not having the insight of what this individual is about, it is hoped that in future the electorate will have a better judgement of leaders for our future welfare.
    Whilst Abbott is flitting about globally at the expense of the taxpayer to avoid the wrath of many Australians, this interference of other countries policies will do him no good as the house he is from is far from good order.

  8. Michael Taylor

    BenC, if you like, you might want to submit an article on the matter yourself.

  9. DanDark

    He was on the foreign news in Iraq last night, popped over there apparently for a surprise visit, more like did a runner, because things are so bad for him here, and he thinks running over seas and beating the war drums will boost his polls, He is a f-wit and the country knows it,,, whilst his over that way, go home Tony, go back to pommie land, we will be right mate, we will do way better if he stays in his Mother Country, with the Knights and dames 🙂

  10. BenC

    “Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte has cautioned against jumping to conclusions about the cause of the crash of Malaysia Airways flight MH17 in July.”

    “cautioned against”.

    I hope BenC takes note !

    You don’t seem opposed to the author jumping to conclusions. Where is your chastisement of him? He concluded weeks and weeks ago that the Rebels could have played no part, and should be dismissed from the investigation entirely.

    Oh wait, sorry. You mean don’t make any conclusions that don’t agree with your bias. Sorry. My bad.

    My only input, again, is not to conclude on the cause but to specifically rebut factual inaccuracies in the article and incorrectly theories on technical matters postulated in the following comments.

  11. BenC

    Comment eaten by spam filter. Please restore, thanks. Also how do you quote correctly? Is it BB code? [quote][/quote] ? Or other. Thanks

  12. The AIM Network

    Thanks Bacchus. You beat me to it.

  13. John Fraser



    "You don’t seem opposed to the author jumping to conclusions. Where is your chastisement of him? He concluded weeks and weeks ago that the Rebels could have played no part, and should be dismissed from the investigation entirely."

    But have I stated that they are innocent ?

    Pull your zealotry into check.

    "My only input, again, is not to conclude on the cause but to specifically rebut factual inaccuracies in the article and incorrectly theories on technical matters postulated in the following comments."

    Really ?

    If your not going to write an Article here at The Aimn why don't you copy and paste us your expert analysis that you will surely be sending to the Dutch investigation ….. they are probably waiting for that.

  14. BenC

    Have you chastised the author for jumping to conclusions? Or anyone else? Or just me. Be honest.

    I have been writing my analysis for some time. I wrote quite an in depth analysis to your question of ‘why couldn’t they modify the Su-24 to carry R-27 missiles’. Remember? I believe you called me an idiot in reply.

    I see you’ve decided to start beating the Zealot drum. Interesting choice. I’m here to discuss facts regarding the technical elements of the article. For that you’ve called me an idiot, a zealot, a selection of political pejoratives like ‘extreme right wing’ and on and on.

    To me, a Zealot would be one who, despite not having any expertise in a field, would constantly bicker with one who does, would deny the evidence provided and expertise shared. Would constantly dismiss anything that didn’t fit with their bias and resort to insults when incapable of winning the debate on merit. Picture that idiot standing in Buzz Aldrins face denying the moon landings.

    Is it ‘coincidence’ that every single theory put forward, even the wacky massively improbable ones exonerates the Russian side? If we’re just spit balling possibilities on how a plane was brought down, then why does every single one on this particular website only ever implicate the west or Ukraine? Its ALWAYS a Ukrainian plane. Always a Ukrainian bullet, or missile. Could there be any better evidence to show prejudice?

    Personally, I have no idea if it was Ukrainian or Rebel/Russian. Insufficient evidence available to me exists at this time. But ill happily follow the evidence wherever that leads. If it leads to Ukrainian responsibilty, then fine. Those are the facts. If not, also fine. Its clear here however that people have made up their minds and the evidence will never, ever be relevant unless it happens to align with their bias.

    I have no doubt that when the final report comes out, if it assigns blame to a Rebel/Russian BUK launch, that it will be dismissed with some idiotic conspiracy article on grobalresearch and on it’ll go.

  15. John Fraser


    "BenCJanuary 5, 2015 at 9:21 am
    Oh wow. Am I going to have a field day with this"

    Fortunately BenC didn't start of with any preconceived ideas.

    ROFLMAO ….. or should I say SNAFU.

  16. Gregory White

    why is that an intellectually flawed animal in a zoo causing obvious damage to it’s environment would be immediately sedated and removed for it’s, and others safety and comfort yet an intellectually flawed prime minister can continue wreaking havoc on the environment and the well being of the nation? This man is a political terrorist and a traitor to the people. Is there nothing we can do?

  17. John Fraser



    "Remember? I believe you called me an idiot in reply."

    Present that direct quote and my apologies will be fulsome.

    “You have chastised the author for jumping to conclusions? Or anyone else? Or just me. Be honest.”

    My second comment above :

    “Once again playing devils advocate, its in Russia’s best interests to point to a fighter jet downing MH Flight 17.”.

    Does that look like I am agreeing to everything in the Article ?

  18. BenC

    Fortunately BenC didn’t start of with any preconceived ideas.

    ROFLMAO ….. or should I say SNAFU.

    What on earth are you talking about.

    I read part 12, identified immediately an embarrassing litany of factual errors, some of them truly absurd (listing as possible aircraft that shot down MH17, a proper driven aerobatic sports aircraft ffs) and commented that I would enjoy pulling these errors apart.

    Now answer the question, have you chastised anyone else for jumping to conclusions. Not ‘did you agree with him’. That’s not what I asked. I apologize if English isn’t your first language.

  19. BenC

    John Fraser wrote

    Sweet cheesus your thick.

    Thats you, calling me, an idiot. And of course, because irony is dead here, misspelling “you’re” in the process.

  20. John Fraser



    Oh ! I see …. you were just indulging in some hubris.

    Before getting down to the nitty gritty.

    By the way …….. where is the "nitty gritty" on Part 12 ?

    Any sign of the quote you have attributed to me …. you remember … the one you want me to apologise for.

    Or was that an "invisible missile" you fired off at me ?

  21. BenC

    Are you intentionally being nonsensical?

  22. John Fraser



    Thick = idiot ?


    BenC … I wholesomely apologise for calling you an idiot.

    I should have used "zealot".

    Now that we have that out of the way, will you be sending your "facts" and "expertise" to the Dutch Board investigating MH Flight 17.

  23. John Fraser



    "Are you intentionally being nonsensical?"

    Absolutely not.

    This is your comment :

    "BenCJanuary 5, 2015 at 9:21 am
    Oh wow. Am I going to have a field day with this."

    When will we see the results of your "field day" ?

    In relation to this Article Part 12.

  24. BenC

    I’d be done faster if there weren’t so many errors. That you question my resolve to deliver on technical matters after I’ve lasted this long in the face of seemingly insurmountable ignorance is surprising.

    That said, I do wonder if there is a point. Even detailed technical analysis here is met with utter silence and dismissal when it doesn’t marry up to your bias. You’ve made not even the slightest acknowledgement (beyond calling me an idiot of course) for my detailed explanation of your SU24/R27 theory. Where is Citizen after I revealed his smoking gun evidence was a botched photoshop job? Where is Florence after he asserted there were no facts! Only to be shown there were dozens. And so many other examples. So many. People here simply vanish when met with evidence they can’t explain or refute.

    Should I go to the effort of explaining all that is flawed with this report, why should I expect any different?

    A simple example, the report lists a tiny little civilian proper driven aircraft as being possibly responsible for shooting down a 777. Not a whisper from anyone.

    Re MH17. The facts i’ve been posting are not ‘new’ discoveries. The resident panel already are well aware and agree with everything I’ve posted. That I’m not directly involved in no way affects their veracity.

  25. John Fraser


    You're the one who said :

    "BenCJanuary 5, 2015 at 9:21 am
    Oh wow. Am I going to have a field day with this."

    I'm just waiting.

    BTW …. " a tiny little civilian proper driven aircraft" …. what's that, don't mean to get all semantic but once again you are the one who drew my attention to this :

    " And of course, because irony is dead here, misspelling “you’re” in the process."

    Breathlessly awaiting for your comment on this Article Part 12.

  26. BenC

    You’re waiting? I guarantee you haven’t been waiting as long as I have. I have been waiting for you to acknowledge my detailed answer about your SU24/R27 theory (and still am!). I’m waiting for Citizen to acknowledge that his evidence is fraudulent. I’m waiting for Florence. I’m waiting on half this board.

    BTW …. ” a tiny little civilian proper driven aircraft” …. what’s that, don’t mean to get all semantic but once again you are the one who drew my attention to this :



    The article asserts this shot down a 777.

    Breathlessly awaiting for your comment on this Article Part 12.

    Why? So you can ignore it again? Even the post you reply to, you ignore the vast majority and cherry pick a line here or there. Its absurd. I think i deserve a medal for patience and tenacity in the face of extreme absurdity.

  27. John Fraser



    I really do look forward to your summation of the Article, not just Part 12.

    I do not doubt your expertise (as stated yesterday) but I do have reservations about where to apportion blame.

    That is for a Court of Law to decide.

  28. BenC

    I agree that a court should accord blame after a criminal investigation. It is not for the accident investigation team to assign, nor will they try.

    Still waiting by the way. Including the other thread I believe thats 7 times now I’ve pointed out that you’ve ignored my response to your Su24/R27 analysis.

    Whats the record around here? Surely we’re looking pretty good for it.

  29. BenC

    Section 7.1.1 lists that aircraft as one of the possibilities.

    7.1.3 is a section I will be dealing with in my analysis. The 25 and 29 absolutely do not appear similar on primary radar, not to mention IFF, with which the 25 is fitted.

  30. John Fraser



    Go back and read …. what you describe as "analysis" …… where I have stated as gospel that a Su-24 carrying R-27 is what happened.

    It was a possible scenario,

    And lo and behold the Ruskies also put out differing scenarios.

    You appear to believe that the Ukrainian air force never upgraded its planes in the same way that the F-111 and F-18 avionics were upgraded many, many times.

    "What's the record around here ?"

    You're the expert …. why don't you tell.

    This is boring !

    Give your final summation and lets get at it.

  31. BenC

    I didn’t accuse you of stating it as gospel. Of course it was only a theory.

    I did however, in detail, explain why not only was it wildly improbable, impracticable and almost entirely impossible to complete. Further I highlighted how even the logic behind your theory was entirely flawed.

    Lets have a look again.

    lol @ this comment.

    “Fraser: If the Ukrainian air force is not receiving any more missiles or aircraft from Russia wouldn’t it be in their best interests to modify their aircraft to use whatever weapons they have ?

    If they aren’t getting R-60 missiles, what on earth makes you think they’re going to be given modern air to air radars, custom tailored to fit the nose section of an Su-24, with instrumentation, screens, an interface and cockpit panel modifications (a huge job) to fit the cabin. Hardpoints and wiring loom for the missile. Oh and the several years it would take to retro fit the fleet.

    I appreciate devils advocate, but I’m sorry. This is a field you clearly are entirely ignorant of.

    As for Aardvark updates, again, showing your ignorance. The F-111 was never ‘role changed’ to provide any kind of air to air capability. Aircraft are tools built for a purpose. You improve them, but its extremely rare you entirely re task them for a purpose they were not designed, and are entirely unfit for. Doubly so when you already have other aircraft to plug into that problem, and do it far better. And TRIPLY so you don’t do it entirely in secret, which is almost impossible when talking about the scale and scope of the modifications required.

    It was a hail mary theory, and its wrong. The burden of proof is on you to show any evidence, at all, even a REPORT that these modifications where undertaken. You won’t be able to , because no such report exists.

    You could at least do me the courtesy of acknowledging the large effort I went to, to answer a question you posed and assist you in a field you’re obviously not versed in. Instead, I’ve had to goad you literally 7 times to get you to even admit the reply exists at all. And even then you fail to comprehend what I wrote and continue along the same, already disproved vein.

    And you want me to invest at least a day, probably more writing an even bigger technical analysis. To what ends? Even greater dismissal?

    Anything I write about it, has already been written 100 times. If you actually cared at all about the facts, and not your bias, you would have already done your own research and reached the same conclusions.

    Go here for example;

    A whole series of articles, some in exceeding technical detail. If you actually care, go read. If you don’t, then continue to sit here and be spoon fed conspiratorial crap from globalresearch and some “Dr” who uses idiots for references and thinks civilian sports aircraft can shoot down airliners.

    Maybe it was Elvis.

  32. Florence nee Fedup

    Michael, I hope Ben takes up your offer. Then I might be able to figure out what is the point of what he is arguing so persistently.

  33. Florence nee Fedup

    Ben, I am not being smart or ridiculing you. What I would like to know, why should we accept your explanations at face value. Why should we reject what others say, on your say so.

    ” have been writing my analysis for some time. I wrote quite an in depth analysis to your question of ‘why couldn’t they modify the Su-24 to carry R-27 missiles’. Remember? I believe you called me an idiot in reply.”

    You could be 100% correct. Then the opposite could be true. Once again, whatever one says, it is only supposition at this stage. The writer of the article has kept this in mind. I am not sure that the article actually said they carried missiles. What more at this stage, it is immaterial.

  34. Möbius Ecko

    Florence I have no trouble figuring out his point. All he is doing is pointing out the military, technical and factual flaws in the articles and posts.

  35. Florence nee Fedup

    I wonder what type of person does not pickup that Florence is a female name in this century.

  36. Florence nee Fedup

    ME. I do not see anyone disagreeing with him on those points. Mainly because most do not have the knowledge. I know you do, and accept what he is saying.

    ME, is that what the article is really about. I thought it was saying there is no solid evidence that Putin is responsible. I was under the belief, that there could be many explanations. ben seems to be saying, because he believes one of the explanations is wrong, they whole article is.

    Picking a sentence or two out of the numerous posts, then kicking it to death does not make sense.

    Time to move on. What he is saying, the whole article is wrong because of one or maybe =two technical mistakes.

    ME, what do you make of the whole article. Does it make sense to you. Just asking.

  37. stephentardrew


    I think the most important points of this article are the political dimensions and I entirely agree with your summation.

    Thanks for your fine input and excellent research.

  38. Möbius Ecko

    Florence there’s some things that may be correct and some that may not be (fence sitting I know), but because of the technical and military errors I can’t go with it, though I do agree with the political summation. NATO pushed by the US has hemmed in and provoked Russia and is not innocent in many areas, but I just don’t see this being a false flag operation.

    Just an early opinion on what I’ve read from both sides, e.g. this series of articles and sites like and the media reports, to me it leans towards Russia supplying pro-Russian separatist with a BUK system or them stealing one (supposed German intelligence report), which I believe they have fired at Ukrainian military targets before MH17, and they either deliberately or accidentally shot down the passenger airliner.

    I’ll be easily swayed from that if irrefutable evidence points to something else and by whatever the official report(s) and findings come out with.

    There’s more than likely irrefutable evidence out there but whether it sees the light of day in the next 30 years is hard to tell, and that’s ISR information, specifically ELINT, and that’s from all sides, Russia, the US and NATO. I cannot believe that there were not ELINT stations within emitter intercept range but especially ELINT satellites whose swaths would have covered the area.

  39. mark delmege

    Gregory White perhaps there is something that can be done. For those (still) in the ALP, how about getting a better leader – one that hasn’t spent as much time dissing on his mates to American intelligence (see wikileaks) and one that is less enamoured with Empire ( see his response to Mh17 or anything really if it relates to empire).
    As for Dr George, I’m not normally a backpatter (bad word) but technical issues aside I reckon this series is a good effort. I did read the Russian report when it came out but now we have had the valuable attention and input from Ben I’m now even more inclined to believe them than Ben.

  40. Florence nee Fedup

    ME, I think I agree with you. With this one, there is too much politics, both national and international involved for us ever to find the truth. Nothing would surprise.

  41. Roswell

    Mark, I agree. Dr George V has done a brilliant job in putting this together. Agree with him or not, it has been some effort.

  42. citizen

    BenC, I confirm that the evidence I referred to is not a photoshop job.

  43. mark delmege

    Florence the Truth is out there but the bastards will hide it if they can and they will repeat the lies for ever especially if people give up on what is real. Every war is based on lies and its true in Ukraine as much as it is in Syria, Libya and Iraq. These are wars of empire and Obama has shown himself to be as nasty bloody and vicious as any of the Bush’s and you can bet which ever side of politics the next Emperor comes from he/she/it will kick open more gates to hell and open up more fronts for barbarism. And most likely our bastards will be offering up us as political and military support

  44. Möbius Ecko

    Yet mark delmege all BenC has done is pick out the technical items that you now say there are issues with, so you agree with BenC, but then you go on to say you don’t but you believe a series with technical errors. If the article hasn’t got the technical details right then surely it is flawed and if BenC has got the technical details and the facts on them correct then surely he is right in those areas.

  45. BenC

    BenC, I confirm that the evidence I referred to is not a photoshop job.

    Whoa. What?

    You posted this link.

    This image was released by the Russian government purporting to show direct evidence that a Ukraine fighter shot down MH17. And you say its not a photoshop? In fact, you can go one better, and can confirm it?! I’m DYING to hear how.

    Detailed analysis of how absurd a photoshop job it is, is here.

    For the love of god its not even a B777, but a B767-200.

    I want you demonstrate some intellectual integrity and acknowledge that that image is entirely fraudulent. Don’t ignore it. Don’t just disappear again. Man up and own what you’ve said.

  46. Möbius Ecko

    Am I missing something here because I’m reading some convoluted logic from posters who are normally lucid and knowledgeable in their replies, at least with things political, but either I’ve slipped off the rail and gone down another tangent or there’s some pie-in-the-sky stuff being posted that has little to do with the facts as presented, and facts is something this site is normally very good at, it’s the only thing we can fight the MSM and political misinformation being sprayed around, especially now with this very venal government.

  47. BenC

    ” have been writing my analysis for some time. I wrote quite an in depth analysis to your question of ‘why couldn’t they modify the Su-24 to carry R-27 missiles’. Remember? I believe you called me an idiot in reply.”

    You could be 100% correct. Then the opposite could be true.

    To give each position equal weight is a false equivalence, and intellectually disingenuous. To support my position on that specific topic I can bring a wealth of relevant and factual information to the table. Historical precedent and my own expertise. Fraser brings absolutely no evidence what so ever, a total ignorance on the subject and no precedent, at all. He suggests an outlandish theory and attempts to place the burden of proof on me, suggesting that if I can’t conclusively disprove it (disprove a negative of course), then the theory must be given equal weight.

    To adopt Frasers reasoning, Courts of Law deal in matters of fact, and weigh evidence in simple ways. On the balance of probabilities it is far, far, FAR more likely(I really can’t stress just how extreme the disparity is) that the aircraft were not modified to carry the R-27, vs being modified in total secret, with a pointless weapons system, to do a pointless job already undertaken by 130 other aircraft already in service, at massive cost, over many years.

    No court on earth bothers itself with such silly dalliances as this. On civil matters they deal with the balance of probabilities. In a criminal matter, beyond reasonable doubt. There is absolute nothing reasonable about the suspicion that an Su24 fleet was modified in the manner suggested. Any expert would scoff at the notion, the opposition entirely incapable of providing a scrap of proof that it was under even thought about.

    To go against this method is to suddenly lend equal weight to the theory that Elvis shot MH17 down, using laser beams from an alien space ship.

    No military Journal, not Janes, no military forum or internal reporting mechanism that I have access to. No photo taken, or satellite image posted. No word of mouth or even rumor. Nothing, absolute nothing exists, on the entire planet to suggest that Ukraine ever modified those aircraft in such a massive way to accommodate that weapons system.

  48. citizen

    Mark Delmege, I completely agree with you.

  49. John Fraser



    And there is absolutely nothing reasonable about the suspicion that a BUK was fired, let alone fired by either separatists or Russians.

    There is a probability ….. and in the British legal system (on which the International Court is based on) that is not enough to gain a conviction.

    Therefore CBen all your posturing with your expertise, repeated again and again (7 times ?) , amounts to diddly squat when it comes to the Prime Minister's assertion that :

    "“The international community must remain focused on finding, prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of this cowardly attack.

    “We owe this to the innocent victims of the MH17 downing and their families”.

    Catch the part where Abbott says "prosecuting" ?

    "Probabilities" in the legal system are about as useful as Elvis and/or a hill of beans.

    Time to get over me CBen and post your summation of Dr. George Venturini's Article (sub titled “Beyond the fog”).

    Or am I supposed to ask you "7 times" ?

  50. Michael Taylor

    BenC, I have no idea why your comments get caught up in the spam filter. It could be due to the links with your comments.

  51. Florence nee Fedup

    ME. what is being asked of us, is whether Ben’s technical explanations have any thing to do with what happened. He is discrediting one of many propositions put forward in the article, from the media. As there are many, most cannot be right. If what Ben is saying, this is one of the4 false clues being spread aboard.

    He has taken a small part of 12 articles, in fact become one could say, be come obsessed with it.

    Yes, we are going around in circles. If that is the case, surely it is time to accept that there are different views and move on.

    As there were 12 articles, with many links and background information, there must be more to talk about.

    Leave it up to time, to see who is correct.

  52. John Fraser


    "Political dross dressed up to look like analysis." … and …. "The politics don’t interest me."

    "Sorry, are we on the same planet? An entire website that does nothing but characterize anyone not left leaning as an idiot, "
    "Thats you, calling me, an idiot. And of course, because irony is dead here, misspelling “you’re” in the process."

    " Accept that I’ve treated you just as you treat your opponents. The politics are irrelevant. I don’t care if you’re right, or left wing. Had this website exhibited a pattern of respect for their opponents, then a tone of respect from me you would have received."

    "Yet the Russians so far are the only ones to have been PROVEN to have published fraudulent information directly relating to the downing of the 777."

    (shoud have waited for Part 12 before making that false assertion … )

    "What is clear to me is that a lot of people are drawing their own conclusions based solely off political alignment."

    (actually the conclusion you make is that the separatists or Russians are responsible)

    All above quotes attributed to CBen before I entered the fray.

    "John Fraser
    January 2, 2015 at 11:59 pm


    You really should try to keep your Russophobia in check.

    Perhaps you would be better off looking at the Ukraine's Sukhoi Su-24.

    Try to step back from your preconceived ideas and look at it from other perspectives.

    Instead of just calling out "lefty" all the time.

    BTW I haven't decided who the likely culprits are in the shooting down of MH17"

    Notice this part … "Perhaps you would be better off looking … etc"

    Yup ! ….. I put forward a proposition and CBen thoroughly destroyed it with his superior knowledge.
    Thankfully I didn't pretend that that I was pleading the innocence or guilt of any party involved …. or a political view.

    Nothing definitive there in relation to the " Fraser brings absolutely no evidence what so ever, a total ignorance on the subject and no precedent, at all. He suggests an outlandish theory and attempts to place the burden of proof on me, suggesting that if I can’t conclusively disprove it (disprove a negative of course), then the theory must be given equal weight."

    Did you just call me an "idiot" there CBen ?

    I think I have been quite restrained, even apologised for calling you "thick".

    And then you follow up with that ….. O ! CBen I am cut to the quick.

    Here's a tip CBen … if you want to display your weapons expertise do not mention the word "politics" from the get go.

    In fact never mention it.

  53. mark delmege

    Not quite ME @ 4.16. The other day I did offer agreement with Ben on the matter, assuming he knew what he was talking about and acknowledging that I didn’t – in that regard. I also asked some questions which were not answered. The Part12 reminded me of the Russian report and I felt they answered some of Ben’s criticisms adequately. No point me arguing about this sort of stuff and I wont anymore. They seem like straw arguments to me.

  54. BenC

    I want you demonstrate some intellectual integrity and acknowledge that that image is entirely fraudulent. Don’t ignore it. Don’t just disappear again. Man up and own what you’ve said.

    Sigh, he ignored it. Can’t say I’m surprised.

    Fraser, stop bugging me to post a massive article in no time at all. I’ve already acknowledged I’ll write it. It takes time to construct something referenced properly. Motivation is running a little low at the momen. Anything I write has 1, been written and could be instantly looked up if you actually cared about the facts and 2, anything I write will be instantly dismissed if it doesn’t fit the bias around here anyway. Refer citizen. Or you. Or about 5 other people.

    Still, write it I will.

    And there is absolutely nothing reasonable about the suspicion that a BUK was fired, let alone fired by either separatists or Russians.
    There is. Its a technical matter. I have already explained it. Refer here for an even more in depth, expert analysis.

    You do like to continue sticking your nose into technical matters despite being entirely ignorant of them. You remind me of Bart grabbing the electric fence. Yet persist you do.

    As for probabilities. I see math is another of your strong suits. Reasonable doubt and the balance of probabilities are both statements of.. Drumroll, probability. To gain conviction you do not need to prove to ‘absolute certainty’. That is no legal standard in any western court system.

    Unless of course, you’re suggesting there has never been a wrongful conviction in the British Legal system?

    (actually the conclusion you make is that the separatists or Russians are responsible)

    And now you’re good ole inventing stuff.

    I wrote ;

    Personally, I have no idea if it was Ukrainian or Rebel/Russian. Insufficient evidence available to me exists at this time. But ill happily follow the evidence wherever that leads. If it leads to Ukrainian responsibility, then fine. Those are the facts. If not, also fine

    Could it be any clearer? Seperately I have stated that on the balance of probabilities I think it was a Rebel/Russian fired weapon. But I am not certain and I certainly have not concluded it as fact as you assert. You’re wrong. Apologize. (again)

    Did you just call me an “idiot” there CBen ?

    No, I called you ignorant. Ignorant is not a synonym of idiot. You are ignorant about technical matters.

  55. BenC

    Also could you try to quote more clearly? its very difficult to follow what you’re on about. Use the blockquotes /blockquotes thing. or etc.

  56. BenC

    Dear god. Did you really just bring up the dutch preliminary report? How much time did I spend in the last thread explaining this to you?

    Lastly, you clearly are entirely ignorant about the goals and method of an NTSB preliminary report, or the time frame it must be completed in. At the time of writing they didn’t even have lab access to the relevant debris. In no way are causes or theories to be entertained at this stage. The purpose of the report is to provide a description of the evidence. That is all.

    The dutch prelim investigation will not state anything definitive or postulate on theories or possibilities. No preliminary investigation will, ever.

    To repeat myself (yet again!)
    The dutch prelim investigation will not state anything definitive or postulate on theories or possibilities. No preliminary investigation will, ever.

    Please don’t make me repeat it a 4th time?

    So, deep breath. For 4th time.

    “The dutch prelim investigation will not state anything definitive or postulate on theories or possibilities. No preliminary investigation will, ever.” It serves as a descriptive document only, providing factual background and observational information only. Absolutely no assessment or analysis is done at this stage. The pieces photographed had never seen the inside of a lab at the stage that report is published.

    The lack of information in that report about a missile in no way, at all, in any capacity, affects the credibility of a BUK strike.

    I honestly don’t understand how to write this any more simply. This is remarkable exasperating. Is he doing this on purpose?

    Honestly I’m at a loss. Surely you’re being this dense on purpose. This can not be a genuine attempt to engage in a factual debate.

    Yet again you ignore the vast body of my post, and cherry pick a line. Where is your acknowledgement that you were wrong, I did not conclude that the Rebels/Russians were responsible. Its gone! Vanished like so many times before it.

    I discussed your hilarious take on probabilities and the criminal law system. Poof! Forgotten in an instant.

    I even gave you an English lesson. The response? Ah you just call me stupid again because I asked you to make more clear your posts. You paste large numbers of quotes from different areas, intersperse them with your own comments and then label me an idiot when I ask you to make it easier for me to read.

    Is this really the standard of debate at this site?

    As for the BUK missile trail. Have you bothered to look at the weather? Of course you haven’t. Its in the dutch preliminary report. Who’d ever read that!

  57. BenC

    Here’s another opinion :

    What do you mean ‘another opinion’. Its exactly the same person (Peter Haisenko) that was used as a technical source by the good Dr in this very article.

    Do you even bother to read this stuff?!

  58. John Fraser



    Did you mention the upgrades to Su-25 ?

    This Article says Flight MH17 was rerouted to avoid bad weather :

    A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle.

    Why are there no photos of the rest of the BUK support vehicles ? …. are they with Elvis ?

    Why did the Ukraine Security Service release a photo showing a missile trail (with clear blue sky in background) … phoney information ?

    Lot here to read …. weather is interesting …. have to finish tomorrow :

    CBen you should consider yourself lucky to have a little meerkat like me sitting up acknowledging your superior wisdom, everyone else got totally bored with your airs and graces a long time ago.

  59. Möbius Ecko

    John Fraser why do you mention a BUK battalion (straight from Wikipedia), but if a BUK was involved in the shooting down of MH17 it would not be a battalion but a single battery?

    You do know that the radar tracker and command units don’t have to be anywhere near the launcher?

    Did you mention the upgrades to Su-25 ?

    How to shoot yourself in the foot.

    Not everyone has got bored with BenC, but some of us have got very bored with your airs and graces in this John Fraser.

  60. John Fraser


    @Möbius Ecko

    But the support team does have to be somewhere ….. and there's been absolutely no sighting of them.

    Sorry you feel that way ….. but I didn’t see anyone Replying here.

    Thanks for your Royal prerogative.

    Tugs forelock.

  61. citizen

    BenC, I do confirm that Russian images are not fake. If you can’t see it now, time will tell. Do you agree that Ukraine is responsible for an air-controller who directed MH17 in a war zone?

  62. BenC

    Fraser I’m tired of your constant ducking.

    You ignore absolutely everything.

    Look at the time I can spend rebutting something, and then you literally just post it again, completely without understanding, like the pre lim report above.

    You don’t even read the drivel you post. I see you trolling google, finding a headline and just dumping it in here , in the hope of finding something that sticks. The Su-25 ugprade program did not change their service ceiling. In fact based on the information you posted, its gone from 7000m loaded, to 5000m.

    I’m not wasting any further time on you, you’ve demonstrated breathtaking intellectual dishonesty and I have better things to do than entertain children.

    Citizen : You are a lost cause. The evidence is conclusive regarding the photo. I’m not even going to bother to comment further on it. Like Fraser, the only way you could entertain such preposterous beliefs is to be so ideologically dominated that you’re incapable of objective observation of the world around you.

    I don’t know why I’m bothering to type this, but the Ukrainian controller did not direct MH17 through a war zone. A flight crew is responsible for their own tracking. The NOTAM put the ceiling of the restricted area at FL330. Thats where they were at. The lateral track adjustment was requested by the crew.

    Ill happily discuss the technical elements with others here if they wish, but I won’t continue to be pointlessly led around in circles by trolls.

  63. John Fraser


    Due to weather conditions visibility was down to 10,000 feet.

    No photos of any BUK support vehicles (radar) only a photo of the launcher.

    4 countries signed an Agreement in relation to the Investigation ……. Australia, Netherlands, Malaysia and the Ukraine.

    One country put forward a condition of veto.

    The separatists are not involved in the Investigation so it wasn't them.

    Russia isn't isn't involved in the Investigation so it wasn't them.

    Which country has the most to gain from a veto ?

    This post equals all of BenCs 1+1 = 2.

  64. citizen

    The 4-country agreement is just disgusting. I guess Ukraine put forward a condition of veto.

    What about your finger-pointing and shirt-fronting business, Mr Abbott? Isn’t it a shame?

  65. BenC

    I was half way through my technical rebuttal when this was released. Addresses basically everything I was going to write and saves me wasting time writing something I know will be dismissed anyway!

    If you care about the facts, there you go. If you’re an utter idiot entirely blinded by your political drivel, to the point that you can only consider possibilities that marry up to your batshit world view, then don’t bother! The facts never mattered in the first place.

    Further data;

    Happy ignoring.

  66. mark delmege

    Well I read and listen to all sorts of stuff. I even listen to the religious programs on Radio national but unlike your Igor Ivanovich Strelkov I am neither a right wing monarchist nor religious. He was relieved of his position some time ago and replaced with a local – if my memory serves me correctly. This is though a good story – perhaps nothing more. And yes I am familiar with your
    Eliot Higgins from brown moses. I had assumed he was CIA or some sort of similar intelligence operative with a civilian cover.
    I guess we will go on believing what we want for our own reasons.

  67. Lyle Upson.

    There remains the question of why on earth Russia, or the rebels, would have wanted to down a western civilian aircraft, thus bringing down the wrath of N.A.T.O. and the western public on them.


    far more importantly, there remains the question of why it is that the fake US information presented just ten minutes after the attack is not being seriously hammered, particularly so, given the Abbott is using the ten minute investigation/conclusion to engage in a trade war against a superpower

    i am deeply concerned that this has gone ignored in the discussion … so ‘why on Earth’ is this glaring anomaly being dismissed, overlooked, ignored, when we all know that it takes many months for an air crash investigation, not ten minutes after the attack with readily available fake information ??

    to produce fake information within ten minutes of the attack suggests that fake information was ready and waiting well ahead of the attack … please help me to understand this anomaly … it is doing my head in that i seem to be the only person deeply concerned about the ten minute investigation and pre-planned fake information being held by our major ally … at face value, this looks like the US government is involved in the mass murder of Australians

    can you please produce an explanation for the US presenting fake information within ten minutes of the attack ??

  68. Lyle Upson.

    i posted a comment, it is now gone .. i wonder why ??

  69. Lyle Upson.

    please be kind to me and let me post what i wrote

  70. Michael Taylor

    Lyle, it was caught in spam. It’s through now.

  71. Lyle Upson.

    oh thanks, that was weird

  72. Möbius Ecko

    Lyle Upson what 10 minute fake information is that?

  73. John Fraser



    Good of you to jump to conclusions …….. again.

    ha ha ha

  74. Lyle Upson.

    immediately after the attack, the US was publishing the conclusion; that being a ground to air missile launched by the Donetsk resistance fighters (and by extension blaming the Russian Federation). There were a bunch of faked utube vids to back the conclusion. The Abbott has taken up this fake conclusion and engaged in a trade war against the Russian Federation … while you may not recall the ten minute conclusion, it is central to the Abbott’s position on the attack, so needs to be understood

    have you noticed that the Abbott is adamant that the attack was as described, a ground to air missile ??

    the only published basis for the Abbott’s claim is bogus, and that other than the faked information immediately after the attack, there is no other information to support the Abbott’s claim. So far, all of the verifiable information points to the alternative explanation, for which the Murdoch media is silent on

    i have noticed a trend with the Abbott accepting only the first explanation on any topic, be that right or wrong, and then he bullies all those presenting clarification or correction

    this issue that is apparent to me, is that while those following this matter quickly moved on from the faked utubes etc, the Abbott has not, thus he is free to continue the false claim, while those interested in the truth have not returned to the initial ten minute conclusion, giving the Abbott a free path to continue the nonsense claim. In my view, this raises two issues, 1) the Abbott hanging onto the nonsense, and 2) the US making the false announcement immediately after the attack …

    if as appears, the cockpit is riddled with cannon fire from a fighter jet, the final report due mid year will be in conflict with the Abbott’s and the US claims leaving the Australian population to conclude that the US, our ally, is involved in the mass murder of Australians. When it comes to the mass murder of Australians, i cannot see the Australian population accepting the cover up and the political games being played out by the US and the Abbott…

  75. Lyle Upson.

    crikey, i have now read the entire comments section and i must say, BenC displays extreme I-centricity … he looks like he is waving a flag yelling ‘look at me, look at me’ and then when people look his way, he spews insults and bile all over the show … a very nasty personality who is troubled with himself, not those he wishes to create arguments with. It is hard to give any credibility to BenC in follow to his venom and hatred toward other posters, no matter how many times he yells that he is a specialist in the field

    on the question of courts and the judiciary, it needs to be noted that the courts are only as good as the analysts who examine information … propping the courts up as the source of the analytical skills seems to be apparent, yet is a flawed understanding of the capacity of courts

    nevertheless, perhaps BenC can answer my concern about the US ten minute conclusion, as i have posted above ??

  76. citizen

    the presumption of innocence means you are not guilty until it’s proven.

    Abbott, a 10-minute investigator, should apologise for accusing President Putin of killing 298 people. Of course, if Abbott has some sort of conscience.

  77. Möbius Ecko

    Thanks for a non-answer Lyle Upson. No links or sources just your opinion and repeated words like fake and bogus.

    The assertion the cockpit was riddled with cannon fire from a fighter doesn’t stack up. Also you must be prescient, already predicting what a final report will contain months before it’s to be released.

    In conclusion I will ask if you know what ELINT and ISTAR are? I would be very surprised if NATO, individual advanced European countries and the US along with all the intelligence sharing partners didn’t know at any moment what was happening electronically in that area down to every RF stream and pulse.

    You keep saying immediately after the attack or after 10 minutes of it, which doesn’t seem plausible to me. Have you got a timeline of the moment MH17 was downed to when it was first reported?

    According to CNBC part of the timeline was this:

    Thursday 10:15 GMT: Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 departs from Amsterdam en route to Kuala Lumpur with 298 people on board.

    Thursday 14:15 GMT: Ukraine aviation authorities inform Malaysia Airlines it lost contact with the flight about 30 kilometers (20 miles) from Tamak waypoint, which is 50 kilometers (30 miles) from the Russia-Ukraine border. The flight was at 33,000 feet.

    Thursday around 20:41 GMT: U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said the plane crash was “not an accident,” adding that it was “blown out of the sky.” No survivors were reported.

    So that’s six and half hours from the lost contact to when the US officially stated the crash was not an accident, not the 10 minutes you claim.

  78. John Fraser


    The U.S. neither confirms nor denies it had eyes over the Ukraine.

    Even though so many different civilian nationalities were killed.

    Shows a distinct lack of empathy for the rest of the world.

    Is that what it boils down to ………. accuse but don't show the proof.

    The land of the free and the home of the brave ?

    And yet somehow Putin is supposed to be worse.

  79. mark delmege

    If you find this convincing remind yourself of who in our Parliament and media suggested otherwise – and ask yourself can you trust them about anything. (good work John Fraser)

  80. John Fraser


    @mark delmage

    The interviewer could not have found a more useless twat than Murdoch's Courier Mail's Des Houghton.

  81. mark delmege

    yes John Fraser a useful (or not) idiot

  82. Lyle Upson.

    Thanks for a non-answer Lyle Upson. No links or sources just your opinion and repeated words like fake and bogus.


    thing is, it is not up to me to explain why the Abbott launched into a trade war against Russia. The fact is, the Abbott entered into that trade war for a reason, it is based on the ten minute air crash investigation and conclusion

    dismiss the Abbott’s position as much as you wish, it doesn’t change the Abbott’s decision to make accusations ahead of the real investigation due to the nonsense he was handed by the US ten minutes after the attack on the passenger jet

    while you might cause me to stumble in my posting up my expression of concern over the Abbott decisions because I have no wish to dig through the history, those decisions are real and require an explanation – the trade war does exist, the allegations are present … so let’s for the sake of determining the basis for the Abbott decision we can assume that i am wrong. Can you please explain why the Abbott has acted on the ten minute investigation and conclusion as provided by the US, and as a result, entered into a trade war against the Russian Federation ???

    to explain the Abbott’s decision, in my view, requires an examination of the ten minute investigation and conclusion, not anger with the idea that links are needed, for that would be a denial of the Abbott’s ongoing allegations against the Russian Federation, the trade war and obvious to all, the pathetic nonsense about shirt-fronting the President

    given the Abbott’s conduct, links are not needed unless you are denying the Abbott’s conduct in relation to blaming the President for the attack on the passenger jet, ahead of the real investigation and real conclusion

  83. Lyle Upson.

    hey, I seem to have lost another post…

  84. Michael Taylor

    I found it for you.

  85. l

    oh there it is, cheers

  86. mark delmege

    While our media goes apoplectic over the death sentence for two Aussies you can be certain the Indonesian Government has its own views on the downing of MH17 and the death of a dozen of it’s own citizens and the role of Abbott AND the West in the coverup and even how Nazi militia and its members are now a ‘welcome’ part of the Ukraine ‘regime’.
    But then none of these sorts of carry-ons would be news to our near neighbours. They would be too polite to point out how we operate as a vassal state and if they ever said so out media would be unlikely to ever report it.

  87. BenC

    Well, won’t you look at that. Draft copy of the Dutch investigation finds MH17 brought down by pro Russian rebels. Wonder how they got a BUK? /s

    I wonder if those who argued so fervently against this for nothing other than political bigotry will accept the findings, or continue to deny reality?

    Just kidding, I’m not really wondering that. I know they will.

  88. mark delmege

    well …. lets see what it actually says and doesn’t say, ah?

  89. BenC

    Of course. Having spent 30 minutes on the phone with a college who has read it, the leaked reports are accurate.

    I spent countless hours writing technical briefs on this site to convey that information only to end up banging my head against the wall as ignorant theory after ignorant theory was instead thrust forward and my analysis ignored. In fact going back and re reading the thread I’m literally amazed I lasted as long as I did. The number of times people here simply cherry picked or flat out ignored evidence boggles my mind.

    Still, those here were interested only in the facts of the matter! No question. Its simply coincidence that in their helpful suggestion of theory after theory for what could have happened, every single one without exception absolved Russia of responsibility. TOTAL. COINCIDENCE.

    Interesting too that when Russia recently officially acknowledged that a BUK missile was responsible (not a fighter shoot down like they first said), like I have said since day dot, nothing was mentioned (at least that I saw) on this site.

    Has the author of this woefully flawed technical analysis updated the document? Published a retraction or even acknowledged the existence of Russian confirmation of the BUK? Much was been quoted above from an initial Russian engineering report citing a likely fighter shoot down with GSh-301. What about the most recent, and actually official Russian report, titled “The result of expert review of investigation into the crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 on July 17, 2014”. Which directly contradicts this? Which specifically rules out an air to air attack, the R-60 and ilk, and cannon, and specifically concludes it was a BUK?

    You people harp on about the bias in the media, and the need to create your own independent media source, then proceed to engage in bias that would make Fox News blush.

    For a change, I want to see some intellectual honestly from people on this board. Starting with Citizen. He made the absurd claim that the overhead satellite picture was real.

    Citizen : “BenC, I confirm that the evidence I referred to is not a photoshop job.”

    Then promptly disappeared. Its now officially acknowledged as fake, by Moscow. Where is his retraction and apology?

  90. mark delmege

    your ability, BC, to conflate is staggering.

  91. Benc

    Sees what he believes is me ‘conflating’ an issue, is staggered and driven to comment.

    Witnesses half a dozen people blatantly and intentionally duck and evade, ignore evidence and display breath taking intellectual dishonesty. Result? Silence.

    Staggering indeed.

  92. mark delmege

    I dunno BenC but it looks like another art installation to me – and we have seen many of those – played to the max with all the emotionalism possible of the best propaganda – pumped at every opportunity by our national state broadcaster – like that so called revealing video yesterday which only showed people doing what anyone else in a similar position would do – we’ve been told nothing and Abbott and Bishop lie like there is no tomorrow….

  93. Benc

    And the silence continues.

    As for your post, Abbot and co have nothing to do with the fully independent investigation which I refer.

  94. Benc

    This would be the same that published that there were no Russian forces in Ukraine? Or the same one that said an su25 was responsible and published the worlds worst photoshop job to prove it?

    The final report that will be published in October is independent. What’s clear is that many of you absolutely do not care about the evidence and will do anything you can to frame this in a way that agrees with your bias. This is shown clearly and repeatedly by the total determination to ignore or obfuscate simple verifiable evidence posted by me in this thread and the others.

    Now. Where is citizen? does he have the intellectual honesty to admit he was wrong?

    I jest of course.

  95. mark delmege

    Ben dont be silly – media outlets use many sources and generally offer many perspectives – as for the Dutch government running an independent assessment that will/might be open to question. Lets see what it has to say first and the words used to clarify or mystify. My guess is that if it leaves open any doubt then it will be another coverup – just like the report into the use of chemical weapons by western backed rebels in Syria. If it continues to hide key evidence from the public we will know it is doing NATO’s bidding.
    As a matter of interest what did you think of the report that argued that the missile used could have been an Israeli weapon?

  96. Benc

    I actually laughed out loud when I read your insinuation that, the government owned mouthpiece of Moscow presents ‘many perspectives’.

    Nice straw man regarding the chemical weapons report.

    If the report ‘continues to hide key evidence’ ? Continues from what? Where did they start doing that? They specifically being the investigation team. Look how your bias shapes your perceptions. You’ve made up your mind before you’ve even seen it. You will undoubtably sift through the report come October with the sole purpose of trying to refute it. Objectivity isn’t even in your lexicon.

    My thoughts of a report of Israeli weapons? Who cares! My expert opinions since day dot have been entirely ignored unless they married up with the rabid bias on display here. How many times did I have to repeat the same evidence, over and over and over. Simple verifiable stuff. All ignored. I can happily refute that report, but why bother? A total waste of time. I put thousands of words into refuting the junk in this article, one of the most poorly researched, factually inaccurate and biased pieces of garbage I’ve ever come across. End result? Ignored.

    Let’s see if you can answer one question. Is it a coincidence that without exception, every single alternate theory suggested on this board absolved Russia of responsibility?

  97. mark delmege

    At least you haven’t been as crass as our PM in declaring that the passenger plane was ‘deliberately’ shot down by the rebels or Russia.

  98. Benc

    So I’ll take that as a no, you cannot answer one question. A perfect illustration of my time here,

    And no, extremely unlikely those responsible believed it was a pax aircraft before the shoot down.

  99. mark delmege

    There is always the question of why? The ‘rebels’ had taken out a couple of low flying military aircraft in the previous week without using a Buk. So why would they bring in a highly complex missile system to bring down a plane flying so high? And who diverted it over a conflict zone anyway?

  100. Benc

    You refuse to answer my one question, and instead demand I answer your questions, ignoring the fact that I already have answered both, a fact I suspect you’re well aware.


    Answer my question.

  101. mark delmege

    I don’t demand anything. Would you like a longer handle?

  102. Benc


    Please answer my question. For the 4th time.

  103. mark delmege

    ‘Let’s see if you can answer one question. Is it a coincidence that without exception, every single alternate theory suggested on this board absolved Russia of responsibility?’ demanded BenC.
    I can’t speak for others but Maybe the posters here don’t believe the MSM narrative. They have good reason. Everyday we are flooded with bullshit in their efforts to control our minds and perceptions. Maybe for some this was all too convenient a case to blame Russia (though I doubt that many here would be pro Russian) and the way Abbott and co have used the event as propaganda has contributed to the doubt over what really happened. Actually and unfortunately I just don’t think many people are much interested in foreign events – which is a pity because what is happening over there is also happening here and there are lessons to be learnt. Significantly, for me at least, the way our National Broadcaster has covered the matter is typical of their approach to matters foreign – and its Goebbels-esque.
    Anyway for those interested I add another link of criticism to the MSM narrative. And I’ll say it again if you want to find out what is really happening in the world you probably won’t find it in the MSM. And those hacks over at your favourite morning newsprogram should be seen for what they are – propagandists. As a ten year old I would listen to them before school and now 50 years later I still listen but these days less with awe and more with rage.
    Meanwhile Ukraine forces continue to shell hospitals homes and businesses in Donbass (Western Ukraine) and Nazi militia gunbattle with the Ukraine government (in Eastern Ukraine) while old Ukrainian women queue up in the rain for food rations in exchange for their votes.

  104. BenC

    Predictably, you didn’t answer my question.

    Is it a coincidence, or not. Simple yes or no. You don’t have to speak for other people, they’ve already done that for themselves. You have to see what they’ve written and determine that, if they’re simply offering ‘alternate theories’, whether its simply ‘chance’ that every single one happens to absolve Russia, or if there is a bias on display.

    Now if you’re even the slightest bit clued on, you’ll realize that this is a rhetorical question because the answer is bleedingly obvious. My challenge was to see whether or not you had the intellectual honesty to recognize it. Ignoring the question 4 times then dodging it in true Joe Hockey style has given me the answer I expected.

    The hypocrisy over the complaints of MSM bias just blows me away. You sit there, engaging in horrifying group-think and bias that not even Fox news would engage in, yet complain about the ‘msm’. At the same time, incredibly you’re happy to parrot, the closest thing to ‘The Onion’ that I’ve ever seen.

    There is no objection rationalization going on here in your approach to this problem. You haven’t rejected a narrative because of evidence, but because of bias. I didn’t come in here banging the drum for anyone, in fact I went to extreme lengths to steer clear of the politics despite repeated and determined attempts to try to draw me into it. I applied my expert knowledge and tried to provide you all with a technical understanding of why the Russian position at the time was wrong, and why the technical data in this article that attempted to prematurely absolve BUk involvement was flawed. I didn’t get this from ‘my favorite morning newsprogram’, but from my years in the field.

    Did any of you take this information? Most of it easily verifiable? Absolutely not. You ducked, evaded, and simply ignored anything that didn’t fit whatever you read on that day. Disastrously photo-shopped images pushed by Moscow showing hilarious fighter planes shooting down a 767 (not a 777!)? You (2nd person plural) bought it, regardless of its credibility. Why? Because you wanted to.

    As for your junk link written by a mouthpiece of In a perfect demonstration of how absolutely absurd your view of the world is, you’re going to take his conclusion with greater weight than the official independent investigation. You do this, despite knowing that this guy is not a technical expert, or affiliated with the field in anyway, has no access to raw data, vs the entire team of technical experts in the field with full access to the raw data.

    Worse, you view as more credible this report which is demonstrably and factually wrong, using information I’ve already given you, AT LEAST THREE TIMES. From your moronic report;

    “At that moment, what appears to be an SU-25 Ukrainian fighter jet appears on ATC radar, climbing in the direction of MH17 before trailing MH17 on the same flight path approximately 3-5km behind the passenger airliner, as it began rapidly approaching the same flight level”

    The SU-25, can not attain the same flight level as the 777 EMPTY, let alone with a weapons load. But don’t take my word for it, ask Vladamir Babak, the chief designer of the bloody thing.

    “The Su-25 could attack a Boeing at a height of three or four thousand meters, but it can’t shoot down a plane flying at an altitude of 10,500 meters,” he said.

    You’ve been armed with all the technical data you require to come to that conclusion, but you’ve either not bothered to read it (in which case, what are you even doing here beyond spreading misinformation), or you don’t care.

    You are a lost cause.

  105. BenC

    2 further points. The first, please don’t think that the SU25 reference was the only gross error I found in that document. I found more than 10.

    “And I’ll say it again if you want to find out what is really happening in the world you probably won’t find it in the MSM”

    That you think your disgraceful link is the answer to that statement would boggle a rational mind. I doubt it troubles yours.

    Second, a little experiment.

    Do you acknowledge that Russian warplanes shot down Korean Flight 007, a regular passenger flight in 1983 AND Korean Flight 902 a few years before killing 271 people? Just a yes or no will suffice thanks.

  106. mark delmege

    A Russian plane certainly shot down a Korean passenger plane as have other countries – Ukraine I think Israel and the US have shot down planes and another most importantly held UN secretary general, Dag Hammarskjöld. I’m sure there are many more. RT pushes commentators that are critical of the MSM and Empire – just like the ABC push commentators who hold to their line on matters foreign. (BTW many of them disagree) That’s how the media works. You have your views BenC that dosn’t make you right either no matter what facts you selectively accept or pick out as false. A lot has been said and a lot of rubbish written and neither of us know what really happened but some people do but I’m not certain we will ever really find out.

  107. BenC

    spam filter ate my reply. Admin?

  108. BenC

    Oh look, Russia veto’d the criminal tribunal. I wonder why. Not even China or Venezuela voted against it.

    As for my reply that never made it. your statements are a hilarious false equivalence. Do not dare compare the ABC or MSM with RT. Find me a single article critical of Putin on I dare you. Do you think I can find articles critical of Abbot on the ABC or MSM? RT is a government funded propaganda mouthpiece.

    As for ‘selective fact picking’, this is an outright fabrication. I have not avoided a SINGLE fact or point of evidence in this entire thread. My calculator doesn’t have enough digits to count the number of times you people have simply ignored whatever wasn’t convenient. Objectivity here is beyond dead. I’m actually starting to wonder if I’m just arguing with these guys

    Normal people, even blatantly biased ones aren’t as absurd as some of you people. (Still haven’t heard from Citizen! FUNNY THAT)

    And you’re right, the US and Ukraine have both shot down commercial airliners. But here is the critical thing, something which I know like everything else, you’ll simply ignore.

    The US didn’t deny it. They didn’t accuse the Iranians of shooting themselves down, or filling the plane full of dead bodies, or any other number of absurd conspiracy and distracted theories being pushed by Moscow.

    The Ukraine didn’t deny it. They immediately accepted responsibility when an errant (russian!) missile failed to self detonate and acquired Siberia Airlines 1812.

    Only Russia has played the deny game. They denied they shot down Korean 007. They denied shooting down 902. They denied shooting down two SU25s in 2014 flying at 17,000 ft, far higher than the capability of SLS systems last year.

    And despite this record of lies, you continue to buy the bullshit posted on Why? Because you want to, and for no better reason than that. Absolutely no rational person could come to the conclusions you have, from the facts and precedent available.

    RT coverage is so ludicrous, that not one but TWO RT anchors quit their jobs, live on air, in protest of the deliberate misinformation on the MH17 incident. Christs sake, how much evidence do you need?

    As I said, you’re a lost cause.

  109. mark delmege

    Well… lets see what the October report says or doesn’t say. shall we?

  110. mark delmege

    I should know better but I’ll see you and raise you

    Its good to hear that at least RT employ journo’s who are prepared to act with a conscience. Lets see in Ozland recently there was a writer who was sacked (I think) after mild remarks critical of Israel and there was the independently minded long time SBS frontwoman who I think left or was forced out after the appointment of the NZ sock puppet. But if you think RT is biased – and it is – what do you make of the ABC/SBS news and current affairs? Unbiased? I think not. Have you ever heard them mention the US run coup in Ukraine? (or any of the other colour revolutions) Or how the war in Libya (Like Iraq) was based on a lie and the once most developed country in Africa is now reduced to a vengeful failed state – and how the war itself killed tens of thousands and unleashed weapons and fighters across North Africa and the ME in general. Or how the US’s intent (even before the so called arab spring) to remove the President of Syria is the real reason for the deaths of so many people and refugees from there. And how they and their Royal Kingdoms along parlicularly with Turkey ( with the help of France and the UK and Israel) have used al Qaeda and various of militia groups and even helped arm IS. Any of that in our ABC/SBS newsfeeds? I don’t think so.

  111. BenC

    I see no sources or names for your examples so I can’t comment.

    Is SBS/ABC biased? Of course. But bias is not the same as paid political propaganda.

    I say again, you’re an idiot if you make the false equivalence between western mass media at the state run RT. Your examples are of people who were (possibly, I see no evidence), fired. My examples are of the Anchors quitting of their own accord, so disgusted with the conduct of their own network, RT, and the obvious lies it was broadcasting, at the command of Putin.

    Have I ever read that the war in Iraq was based on a lie, in the western mass media. Gee I dunno, maybe 200,000 times? Maybe more? How the Libyian war caused mass casualties? Are you joking? It was everywhere.

    There is absolutely no shortage of mass media in existence that is critical of the western powers, political apparatus and specific politicians, from all sides of politics.

    There is none, ABSOLUTELY NONE of it on RT, it terms of self criticism.

    Find me articles critical of Putin on RT.

    Do you understand the difference? Of course not, you just want to continue to spout me shit from moronic holocaust denying, 9/11 troofer conspiracy sites like globalresearch.

    An amusing, and highly accurate description.

    You reaction is the most telling feature of your mindset. I’m putting to you that RT is broadcasting only propaganda, cheaply created lies and DEMONSTRABLY so. Your reaction isn’t to then question the credibility of RT, but to simply dismiss the whole concept because ‘other people are biased too’.

    Do you even begin to see how you’ve totally lost any ability to objectively look at the world? You WANT to believe something, so you do. Evidence isn’t relevant. Its why every single alternate theory offered on this board absolved Russia of responsibility. You people aren’t interested in what happened, you’re interested only in persisting your world view. You really expect anyone to believe it was a coincidence?

    Do you really think the volume of verifiable facts I have posted would have been ignored, sometimes as many as 6 times in a row if they had aligned with Russian absolution of the incidence? I laugh at that thought.

    That other media outlets may be biased is IRRELEVANT.

    What RT pushes is horrifying. Its wrong, demonstrably wrong. Wrong factually. Its inconsistent. Its conspiratorial. Its unsubstantiated. It is nothing more than propaganda, published under instruction by the government it represents.

    I say again. Many nations have shot down civilian airliners. It happens. But only Russia has ever played this puerile game of denying it, and attempting to blame others. And every single time, there are idiots out there who will just lap it up, because they are politically predisposed and weak minded enough to believe it. LOOK AT THE PRECEDENT.

    The contents of the independent report are irrelevant to you. Your mind was made up before MH17 even took off that day.

  112. BenC

    To summarise;

    The US DOES have a demonstrated record of acknowledging responsibility for shooting down civilian airliners.
    The US DOES NOT have a demonstrated record of ever lying about shooting down civilian airliners.

    The Ukraine DOES have a demonstrated record of acknowledging responsibility for shooting down civilian airliners
    The Ukraine DOES NOT have a demonstrated record of ever lying about shooting down civilian airliners.

    Russia DOES NOT have a demonstrated record of acknowledging responsibility for shooting down civilian airliners.
    Russia DOES have a demonstrated record of lying about shooting down civilian airliners.

    RT DOES have a demonstrated record of publishing knowingly false evidence, and out right lies. (I absolutely dare you to challenge me on that).

    And yet, despite this, you people still twist yourself into incredible shapes trying to place the likely blame on the US/Ukraine, and believing the garbage shovelled to you by RT.

    And for the love of god, please don’t ever write ‘I should know better’ before addressing me. I’ve done nothing but been factual, accurate, objective, COMPLETE IN MY ANSWERS and IMMENSELY patient. The only person who should know better is me.

    edit : and a quick one, just for a laugh. I enjoyed how my specific and very much on topic example of RT lies on MH17 by the Anchors quitting on air is somehow ‘raised’ by 2 nameless journalists who were possibly fired for something entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Great grip on reality you have there.

  113. BenC

    As typical, you ignore absolutely everything, and regurgitate , get this, more RT garbage.

    There is nothing to discuss in October. I’ve now read the report and know that like everything here, you’ll simply ignore it. Then you’ll vomit out more RT tripe as ‘rebuttal’.

    You’ve read nothing, and learned nothing in this entire thread.

    There is a village somewhere missing an idiot.

  114. BenC


    The moronic Su 25 theory, yet again.

    How many times must I debunk the same tripe, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.


    You can’t even keep up with your own propaganda.

  115. BenC

    Brilliant alternative media you have there.

    “The accusations directed against Russia including the sanctions regime imposed by Washington are based on a lie.

    The evidence does not support the official US narrative to the effect that the MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile system..”

    What next? More media disinformation, more lies?”

    Whats next? Oh I dunno, the Russians themselves agree with “the lie”?

    Absolute idiot.

  116. Harquebus

    Thanks for that BenC

    “one that the Russian armed forces do not possess.” More evidence that is was not the Russians.

    Other things that I have read include a Ukrainian pilot distressed after returning from mission on the same day at the same time, air traffic controller tapes confiscated by Ukrainian security, the silencing of air traffic controllers and various other cover ups and conspiracy theories.

    It will be interesting if or when the truth ever comes out and what it is. If it does, perhaps then your big mouth won’t be so big.


  117. BenC

    haha! So the fact that your theory is utterly ridiculous and completely debunked doesn’t phase you, you just jump on the first piece of metaphorical floating debris you can find. The Russians say it wasn’t them!

    GEE, I WONDER IF THEY HAVE EVER DONE THAT BEFORE. Korean 007? 902 ring a bell? Have the Ukrainians ever done it? Siberian 1812? Oh wait, they put their hands up and acknowledged it was them.

    Thats interesting. So we’ve proven Russia to lie multiple times about this issue before. We have proven that the Ukrainians don’t. We know the Russians lied initially about MH17, saying it was an Su-25 (literally impossible).

    Applying occams razor? Well it couldn’t be the Russians!


  118. BenC

    “Other things that I have read”

    All you read is junk. You have demonstrated that by posting an already disproved moron theory about an SU25.

    I have written thousands of words of factually accurate and verifiable information.

    You managed 8 words before you managed to make an enormous factual error. Why are you even here?

    As for the ‘truth’ coming out, you’ll believe whatever you’re instructed to believe. Minutes ago you thought an Su-25 shot down MH17. When the official report is made public, with factual information, you’ll simply wait for the first puff piece from globalresearch or RT and buy that. In your eyes, it’ll be as much the ‘truth’ as the Su25 theory you held so dear only minutes ago. A theory you obviously hadn’t even bothered to corroborate for yourself. You just bought it, hook line and sinker. A child could have refuted that theory. I have done it here, multiple times. But look at the way you just accept it unquestioningly. Therein lies the problem.

    You could care less about the truth.

  119. Harquebus


    For a start, I haven’t claimed anything. I have only posted a link for discussion and I appreciate your input however, if you want a slanging match, I will oblige.

    The link you posted states this:

    “The BUK missile manufacturer revealed its own findings into the flight MH17 downing over Ukraine, effectively proving that a missile type consistent only with the Buk-M1 system was used – one that the Russian armed forces do not possess.”

    So if the Russians do not posses the missile system, who does?

    As for your “thousands of words of factually accurate and verifiable information”, maybe you’d like to tell us your qualifications and where you get your “accurate” information from when, no one else seems to know.

  120. BenC

    My professional field deals with technical military matters. I’m not going to reveal personal information on the internet. All of it however, is irrelevant. Its what I write that counts. You’re welcome to comb over all technical information that I have posted in this thread, and the other one. All of it is easily verifiable. I’d enjoy the irony of you going to any effort to verify my technical information, whilst blindly accepting a non experts view simply because it happens to meet your bias.

    As for the rest of your junk, thanks for taking the time to read my post. /s

    Look at how incredibly rapidly you’re prepared to accept ANYTHING at face value, if it meets your bias. Why do you believe it? What other evidence do you have that this is true? You’ve read it on Well, it must be true!

    Lets take a look shall we. Amlaz-Antey (the manufacturer) says MH17 was ‘most likely’ shot down with the 9M38M1 missile. A missile that Russia doesn’t even have anymore! Russia now uses the 9M317!

    Lets have a look at them.

    Now remember, Russian armed forces to not possess!

    Hey, that thing looks familiar! OH WAIT. ITS A 9M38M1. Is that the President of Ukraine? I forget, politics isn’t my strong suit. Oh, my bad, now I remember, its the 102nd Russian Airbase in Armenia, in 2013.

    It confounds me how you people are able to put on blinkers to the world. You willingly, longingly accept whatever is fed to you, should it meet your bias. Do you ever even attempt to independantly verify what is being told to you? Of course not. RT says its true, you INSTANTLY accept it as fact. You instantly dismiss anything contradictory RT has told you in the past. Su25? Never heard of it. It was a BUK you know, only the Ukranians have one. Thats a fact.

    I’ve got a spot for you in the ministry of truth, you’ll fit right in. Maybe you can sit next to Winston?

  121. Harquebus

    I have been reading your posts and am still reading the links provided by you and others as well a search on the specifications of the SU25. There seems to be some dispute on the maximum ceiling of the SU25. It has been claimed that it can reach 14,000 meters. Not verified. Misinformation on military hardware is not uncommon.
    It has also been stated that it could be a combination of a missile attack and a later machine gun attack to prevent an emergency landing.

    I am not claiming anything of this to be true. Anything so far, in my opinion, is possible.

    I do not readily accept anything that I read, especially from MSM and I am not just going to take your word for it either.

    The criticisms that you have of us could just as well be said of yourself. Your opinion is set as hard as those you criticize.


  122. BenC

    My opinion is formed by evidence, and I do NOT ignore or evade evidence that “I don’t like”. That is the domain of those here only. If irrefutable evidence of Ukrainian involvement came out tomorrow, I would happily accept that as the facts and demand justice from those responsible. I am directed by evidence and the facts alone. I do not care about your moronic politics.

    You understand nothing of technical matters. To even suggest that an Su25, even empty, could get to FL460 just goes to demonstrate this. You don’t even understand how absurd you sound. An equivalent would be to suggest there is ‘some dispute’ as to whether or not a Toyota Camry can achieve 600 km/hr. Thats roughly where you’re at with that statement.

    Nobody credible, literally NOBODY, not even the Russians are saying its an Su25 any more. When they first made this stupid claim, they were mocked around the world. The only people left spouting this garbage are globalresearch nutcases, taking time off from denying the holocaust.

    I’m not going to waste my time speaking to someone with a childs grasp of the technical issues involved.

  123. Harquebus

    Were you part of the investigation? Do you posses confidential information? Who is paying you to write your rubbish.
    I find it difficult to accept your premise of forming an opinion based on evidence when, very little of it has been released.
    When did my “moronic politics” get mentioned? Fool.
    As for technical matters, I am a computer scientist and have no trouble with them.
    I think that your hubris and demeaning attitude toward others only belittles you and diminishes your argument so, if you do not wish to waste your time then, please feel free to piss off.

  124. BenC

    My attitude was fine the first 300 replies to the same garbage, but I grow tired of it and idiots such as yourself forcing me to revisit the same issues over and over, already debunked. Despite being tolerant and immeasurably patient, I’ve been abused, insulted and ignored. I think its fairly understandable that I’ve finally grown tired of it and become short tempered.

    You have no trouble with technical matters? Thinking a ground attack Su25 can nearly reach the edge of space says otherwise.

    You’ve got no idea what you’re talking about, stop pretending like you do.

    lol @ ‘who is paying me’. Someone takes the time to provide you with facts, SORELY needed after the utter tripe written in this article, and the result is to accuse me of being paid. Maybe it was the jews!

    Though this is clearly a waste of my time, I’m here as an experiment. Can you take someone completely lost, someone who has well and truly ‘drunk the kool aid’, and bring them back? After thousands of patient words, sadly I think the answer is no.

  125. BenC

    Continue covering the humiliation of your utter ignorance and frankly embarrassing assertions with mock outrage. Never seen that strategy before. Go play with computers and stay the hell away from things you don’t understand, which appears to be basically everything else.


  126. Benc, or nsnbc ìnternational, is a lowercase alternative news site created in 2013 by a Danish man named Christoff Lehmann as a replacement for his blog.[1] The website is one of the more professional-looking crank sites. However, under the shiny exterior, the website supports a wide range of conspiracy theories and woo.
    nsnbc features articles supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories,[2][3] FEMA concentration camps,[2][4] Bilderberg conspiracies,[2][5] Zionist conspiracies,[6] Rothschild conspiracies,[6] Monsanto conspiracies,[7] Séralini’s discredited rat study,[8] vaccine-induced autism,[9] fluoride conspiracies,[10] and cancer woo.[11]

    Another fantastic source. Regardless.

    I’m not interested in the politics. Should a rational adult show up and wish to discuss the technical elements, I’d be happy to.

    You however, have shown over and over and over again to be nothing other than complete waste of my tm

  127. mark delmege

    so you can google Have you read the Australian or other MSM outlets recently and seen and believed all the carp they produce? I could get on my hobby horse and name a couple of outrageous stories on the ABC radio today – but hey what’s the point?

  128. BenC

    I don’t care about the politics. I don’t care that you don’t like the ‘mass media’. I don’t care about your pointless straw man arguments. I don’t care about irrational mouth foaming zealots incapable of even basic reasoned discussion. I don’t care about you.

    If anyone else is interested in discussion on the technical aspects of this investigation, you know where to find me.

  129. mark delmege

    just to keep it rolling…. nsnbc of course publishes a lot of stuff but not that much written by Lendman himself – who is an American BTW. He does still write a blog ( ). As for the investigation… it looks like it was predetermined sometime back … and frankly I wouldn’t expect The Netherlands to do anything to upset the USofA. It does house US nuclear weapons within its borders and as with other close allies like Britain and Australia will never embarrass Uncle Sam to any serious degree. It’s a CLUB. And if you doubt any of that have a listen to Tom Switzer’s show on the RN last Sunday to understand the nature of that relationship.
    But for more on the shoddy investigation have a read of this

  130. Harquebus

    It appears that anything that does not come from BenC’s keyboard is rubbish.
    I have stopped responding this fool who, thinks that he knows more than he does and that he is smarter than he actually is. He is poor entertainment value only.

  131. BenC

    You’re a deluded idiot Harquebus. Everything I have written is simple, verifiable fact. Everything written by you is easily verifiable bullshit. ‘Su25s at 46,000 feet!’, ‘The Russians don’t have the 9M38M1!’ etc. Have you had the integrity to acknowledge that you were wrong, and have not the first clue what you’re talking about? Of course not.

    I’ve pointed out how ‘coincidental’ it is that every single ‘theory’ offered from this board just happens to absolve Russia of responsibility, but still you forge on seemingly oblivious to the absurdity of your position, posting discredited crank site tripe, most of which has already been disproved or corrected, even by the Russians themselves. You are a disgrace.

    You are of no entertainment value. You are simply a sad, confused little man pushing an agenda you likely don’t even understand.

    You’re no better than Mark, who has demonstrated probably 40 times that evidence is entirely irrelevant to him. If his theory is disproved, he just moves on to the next one. Does he ever stop to ever ask why he’s been disproved? To look dispassionately at the evidence and reassess his position? A scenario: Russia has officially stated that statement X is a fact (eg they don’t have the 9M38M1 since 1999). X is then disproved (A picture of Putin standing in front of one less than 2 years ago). Should I question the credibility of other ‘facts’ put forward from Russia? Of course not.

    Disgraceful and nothing other than an utter waste of my time.

  132. BenC

    All I have posted is evidence and proofs. Who I am or what I do is irrelevant. I could be a 6 year old child, it doesn’t change the veracity of what I say. Go look it up.

    Or don’t, the eff do I care.

  133. mark delmege

    Calm down Ben, you’ll have people thinking you are a paid troll.

  134. Harquebus

    A link to wikimedia, a couple of news outlets and opinion pieces are not proof. Your evidence stacks up no better or worse than any other.

    Out of curiosity, why are you so passionate about this subject and why are you so dead certain that you are correct? To just say that you know better and have inside information doesn’t really cut it.

  135. BenC

    I’m stating my expert opinion. You say you need independent proof. Ok, though what I’m posting is so easily verifiable it annoys me that you’re too lazy to look it up yourself. Regardless, lets have a look.

    My initial involvement with this site was to discredit the garbage posted in this article. The assertion is that an Su-25 shot down MH17 using either the R60 AAM or GSh-30 cannon. Now, keep in mind this entire conversation takes place under the shadow of Russian acknowledgement of what I’ve been saying since day dot. It was a BUK. Also keep in mind Ive literally said all the following before. I do love repeating myself.

    Sadly, I assume you do not have a Janes IHS account, which is the worlds pre-eminent source of military technical data. Thus, I will try to link you to sources that correlate with it.

    The R60 (Nato deg AA-8) is a 44 kg light weight IR AAM. It has a mighty 3kg warhead. It has a maximum practical range of 4km at altitude. In 1978 the Russians fired 2 at a civilian airliner, KAL 902, a Boeing 707-321B. It caused minor damage only, and forced the aircraft to make an emergency landing due to cabin de pressurization and a control linkeage issue.

    The R60 employs a tungsten continuous rod warhead, deploying an annular blast pattern. In simple terms, it cuts a very clear circle into a target. Like an explosive cookie cutter. You can read about this here;

    To contrast, when the Russians decided shooting down 1 civilian airliner wasn’t enough, in 1983 they did it again. This time however, they used a proper missile. The AA-3 or K-8. This missile weighs more than 290 kg. The warhead itself weighs 40kg and deploys a blast fragmentation pattern. Despite being hit with not 1 but 2 missiles, and the warhead of these missiles being more than THIRTEEN times the size of the R60 warhead, the 747 still did not structurally fail in flight. The crew retained limited control of the aircraft and continued flying for 12 full minutes.

    What should be clear here is the warheads on small to medium AAMs are simply not capable of causing total structural failure of a transport category aircraft with its multiple redundancy systems, especially one the size of a B777-200. MH17 failed instantly upon detonation of the warhead, the aircraft completely separating in flight. No example of this occurring from an AAM exists in history. It would take a very large warhead indeed to impart the necessary energy to affect such an outcome. The 9M38M1 carries a 70kg warhead. Thats more than 23 times the size of the R60 device. Only something of this scale could affect the outcome witnessed.

    The article here mentions the GSh-30 cannon and ‘holes’ in the debris to indicate the likelihood of its use. Evidence against this is quite simple. The damage is to the top half of the fuselage and angled down. The attack was from above. MH17 was at FL330. The Su-25 service ceiling empty is FL230, and with a a weapons load struggles to make FL160. Maximum speed for the Su-25 is M0.82, AT SEA LEVEL. As the aircraft climbs, it loses TAS dramatically. The B777-200 was travelling much faster. Lastly, radar data puts this magical aircraft behind MH17. So now you have a slower aircraft, flying lower, shooting a very low muzzle velocity cannon. The rounds would need to go up, left, turn right, and drop into the forward fuselage to land in the affected area. Not to mention the rounds would need to then magically explode on impact to cause the total structural failure of the aircraft, something that has never happened in history.

    But hey, don’t take my word for it. Lets ask the guy who built it, Chief Engineer Vladamir Babak.

    “The Su-25 could attack a Boeing at a height of three or four thousand meters, but it can’t shoot down a plane flying at an altitude of 10,500 meters,” he said.
    According to Babak, he was engaged in the construction of this attack aircraft for about 30 years.
    “Our team has designed this plane so that it can be used only at low and medium altitudes,” he said.
    “The aircraft can briefly rise to high altitude, but in order to destroy the Boeing, which at the time of the disaster broke apart in the air, there would have to have been heavy missiles on the Su-25,” Babak said.
    “Air-to-air missiles could only cause damage to the Malaysian aircraft, but they could not lead to what happened,” he said.
    “Many more factors indicate that the Boeing 777 was hit by a ground-to-air missile that was launched from a Buk missile system,” Babak said.
    “I believe that all allegations of the Su-25 involvement in the tragedy are an attempt to cover tracks. I can’t explain it in any other way. We do not understand how a Su-25 could shoot down a Boeing,” he added.”

    The damage seen and quoted in the article to appear like ‘bullet holes’ is actually damning evidence for the BUK. The Buk’s warhead has 6000 or more striking elements. It explodes before impacting the structure of the target and expands its shrapnel in a cone, forwards. As such you are peppered by hundreds or thousands of ballistic fragments. How many?

    A rough estimate. Surface area of a sphere

    A = 4 pi R^2.

    For a 10-m radius A = 1,200 sq.m.

    Shrapnel density: 6000/A = 5 pcs per sq. m.

    A visual illustration of that;

    This mirrors what we see from the wreckage.

    It should be noted of course that the Russians denied responsibility for both KAL 007 and 902 incidents initially. When they did finally acknowledge the shootdown, Marshal Nikolai Ogarchov decreed KAL 007 was a ‘false flag operation’. After that disproved, Russia lied about the FDR and CVR for TEN YEARS, before Boris Yeltzin finally produced the recorders on a goodwill trip to South Korea in 1993, and a memo from the KGB head at the time Viktor Chebrikov saying they had located the wreckage and data. Does a bear ever change its spots? The parallels with MH17 are incredible. Surely the Russians haven’t lied this time though right? Just every other time this has happened…

    Do the Russians have the 9M38M1? They allege they don’t, and got rid of them all back in 1999. Is it a lie?

    Did an Su-29 shoot down MH17?

    Any issue of fact you want to verify, please look it up. You can’t get access to Janes, which is the definitive text however there are many alternate sources that will serve to corroborate anything I’ve written, from warhead sizes and deployment patterns to Mcrit on the Su25. If you’re unable to verify something, tell me what it is and I’ll reference it for you.

    The evidence is simple, and clear. An Su25 did not shoot down MH17. It is not possible. No independent expert in the world would conclude otherwise.

  136. Harquebus

    Many thanks for that. It is appreciated.
    Give me time to digest.

  137. BenC

    I found a Janes analysis that’s open to the public.

    I agree with the majority of Almaz-Antey claims, specifically regarding the nature of the damage done, eg the double T shaped striking elements only found in the 9M38M1. The 317 model changed that specification. It should be noted that actual BUK elements have been found in the wreckage, surely putting to bed the notion of an Su-25/other type shoot down with AAM.

    There is still room for the possibility of Ukrainian operation of the BUK site, however in conjunction with a mountain of circumstantial evidence and demonstrated Russian dishonesty and misinformation thus far, it seems on the preponderance of the evidence to be far more likely rebel operated and Russian supplied.

  138. Harquebus

    Thanks again.
    I haven’t forgot. I will check it out probably over the weekend when I have more time. I appreciate your time and effort and will not let it be wasted and have bookmarked that link.

  139. Harquebus

    I have read your post and links and you have convinced me. A Buk-M1 missile was used.

    You posted this link.

    According to the map, the Ukrainians could not have been responsible. As the Russians no longer have the M1 system, that leaves the rebels with a captured launcher and perhaps with covert Russian military assistance as the only suspect.

    Breifly what is your opinion as to who? If you have already stated such then, my apologies, I have missed it. Thanking you in advance.

    Found these links while following up on a few things and am only posting them for sharing purposes.

    Thanks again for your time and effort.


  140. BenC

    “As the Russians no longer have the M1 system”

    They do. Refer this picture from less than 2 years ago. I have others.

    You can distinguish it from the 9M317 from the control fins, which are entirely different, plus other small features.

    As for position, I’m wary of anything that originates from a Russian Governmental controlled source, such as the Concern. I’m happiest talking about the technical capabilities of equipment involved. Locating the launcher is a job for people with a different technical skill set. The final report will be public soon out-laying their findings. Their process looks solid to me from my readings.

  141. Möbius Ecko

    BenC isn’t there an English group who just by using open sources has time lined and tracked the BUK launcher used, from base to paddock? I heard an ABC interview with the leader of the group who started this project, and it looks very good.

  142. BenC

    After all thats been written, your only comment is an attempt to discredit that photo. Everything else you just blissfully ignore.

    The 102nd Russian Military base is in Armenia. Correct. It is also entirely under Russian control, populated with Russian forces and reports to Moscow. Its a Russian base just as much as any other, regardless of its location.

    If you were wondering why I get so cranky Harquebus, its shit like this.

  143. mark delmege

    ok fair enough it seems BenC

  144. mark delmege

    Pravda.Ru attaches the deciphered talk. The audio file can be found on:

    June 25, 2014

    X (non-identified person): Hello.
    David L. Stern: Hello.
    X: How is the preparation work going?
    David L.Stern: Just as it was planned.
    X: Have you met with Ukrainian “warriors”? (laughs)
    David L. Stern: (laughs) Not today.
    X: I need you to personally control “the complex.” It should be at a certain location at certain time. Understand?
    David L. Stern: Yes, sure.
    X: I want you to personally do this.
    David L. Stern: Yes, don’t worry.
    X: Ok, good luck.
    David L. Stern: Good luck.

    June 27, 2014

    David L. Stern: Hello! I didn’t have time to tell you yesterday… It was a right decision to get Poroshenko replace Koval.
    X: That was John’s decision (presumably John Brannon). We thought it was right.
    David L. Stern: I am proud to be in his team.
    X: He said we should follow the Saudi model… You know what I mean.
    David L. Stern: Yes, sure.
    X: Why are you talking about this now?
    David L. Stern: I got many questions concerning Buk’s movement from the Koval’s team. I hope, they don’t suspect anything?
    X: Of course, no. Thank you for telling me this. It is important there is no leak.
    David L.Stern: Don’t worry. We completely understand everything.
    X: Excellent. Goodbye.
    David L.Stern: Bye.

    July 1, 2014.

    David L. Stern: Hi.
    X: Hi.
    David L. Stern: I want to ask you something. Just for understanding.
    X: Sure. Go ahead!
    David L. Stern: Who recommended Heletey to us?
    X: Are there any problems with him? Is he…?
    David L. Stern: No, no… Everything is fine… I just need to know…
    X: One of our people recommended him… Do you need to know his name?
    David L. Stern: mmm… Is there a problem?
    X: His name is Nalyvaichenko… He asked to discuss this with John… through Kondratyuk.
    David L. Stern: I understand. That is all. No more questions. (laughs)
    X: (laughs) Great. Remember you should be very careful with “the complex.” Time frames are of crucial importance. You can’t be early. You can’t be late. You’ve got to be just in time. I don’t trust Ukrainians. They are on drugs and drunkards. David L. Stern: Sure, don’t worry. No problem.
    X: Good luck.
    David L. Stern: Good luck.

    July 4, 2014

    X: Hi. People working with “the complex”… are they freshmen or professionals?
    David L. Stern: Say it again. I did not hear, what?
    X: Soldiers who work on “the complex”… Buk… Do they know what they are doing?
    David L. Stern: We found the best of those available
    X: I was a little worrying, that’s it. We were planning it for a long time. If there are any faults… any mistakes… people we work with will never forgive us. David L. Stern: Yes, sure. I’m doing my best.
    X: Very good. I count on you.
    David L.Stern: Goodbye.

    July 11, 2014

    David L.Stern: Hello.
    X: What happened?
    David L. Stern: No problems. Everything is fine. But I need to tell you something.
    X: I’m listening.
    David L. Stern: I am worried, there probably was a leak. Can we change the staff?
    X: Do you have exact information? Or is it just your suspicion?
    David L. Stern: No, no. It is just … intuition. (laughs)
    X: Ok. I will check everything again. Let’s hope your intuition let you down this time. (laughs)
    David L. Stern: Thank you. Goodbye.

    July 15, 2014

    X: Hi.
    David L. Stern: Hi.
    X: How are you?
    David L. Stern: John, I need to tell you something important.
    X: I would ask you not to mention our names in the conversation. Have you forgotten it?
    David L. Stern: Sorry… I am very irritated and worried.
    X: Has anything happened?
    David L. Stern: Not yet. But I am sure it may.
    X: Listen… There is no reason to worry… You are just tired… We’re all tired…
    David L. Stern: No! I got absolutely exact information that Russians are hunting me.
    X: Where does it come from?
    David L. Stern: Stop! Please, don’t interrupt me. I personally made sure our Ukrainian colleagues are watching me. And I they might be listening to us now. I can’t understand what the reason is… It can be either treachery or…
    X: Listen, it is just how the things always are… Let them do their job.
    David L.Stern: No, just listen it to the end. I have absolutely exact information that Russians are hunting me. All the more, they have a positive experience in this, if you know what I mean but… I’m sure if something happens, our bosses will give me up, and believe me I, we, personally I will have to get out of this myself. You know it very well how easily they can let us down.
    X: Yes…
    David L. Stern: So I have my own system that can ensure my safety. For at least our bosses will not forget or abandon me.
    X: What are you talking about?
    David L. Stern: I have several documents confirming that in Ukraine we are acting not on our own behalf… We are not terrorists… We act at the order of our management.
    X: You are mad!
    David L. Stern: No, it is very serious. These are not the games we played in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is much more serious. And I don’t want to alone hold responsibility for everything that should happen with this object! I don’t want to!
    X: Wait…
    David L. Stern: No, mate. I have already decided everything. I have these documents in several memory sticks and they, as you understand, are in different places. If something goes wrong, Russians get me and I get no support, then the documents will appear in mass media.
    X: Listen… Do you understand that I’ll have to report on this.
    David L. Stern: Yes, that’s what I count for…
    X: OK… But I would ask you… Not to act thoughtlessly…
    David L. Stern: Sure… I have thought everything through… But you should understand me… Ukrainians try to follow every step I make… Russians are hunting me… Our bosses are simply indifferent to the situation. The only thing that matters for them is the successful completion of the operation.
    X: I understand… You’re tired… You know, I will try to do something… I promise. And you don’t make any steps now.
    David L. Stern: Sure.
    X: Can you tell me where you got these documents from?
    David L. Stern: (laughs) You know the answer… Of course, no.
    X: Ok… You made me worry. I’ll try… I mean, I promise to do what I can for your safety.
    David L. Stern: Ok… I have no doubt in you… Alright… Good luck… Talk to you later.
    X: Bye… Take care… Talk to you later.

    (It wouldn’t be the first fake tape… (everything can be faked these days) but who knows?)

  145. BenC

    Its hilarious. If you actually listen to it, it sounds like it was recorded with google translate. The accent of one of the parties suddenly changes from British to American at 4 minutes through the recordings. lol! He’s moved! Its jilted, the intonation is wrong. Nobody with English as a first language converses like this.

    Its just an awful attempt at a forgery. Roughly on par with that ludicrous photoshop job of an Su27 shooting down MH17 that we saw from a few months ago.

    As we speak its being ridiculed across the world, and rightly so.

    The audio is here if interested.

  146. mark delmege

    Mr Stern will be in a Tiz, I wonder if he is still in Ukraine. I guess not.

  147. Harquebus

    Thanks for that information and photo.
    The plot thickens.

  148. mark delmege

    Propaganda, Intelligence and MH-17

    Propaganda is the life-blood of life-destroying wars, and the U.S. government has reached new heights (or depths) in this art of perception management. A case in point is the media manipulation around last year’s Malaysia Airlines shoot-down over Ukraine

    By Ray McGovern

  149. mark delmege

    So 15 months after the downing of the MH17 we are still really non the wiser. The head of Dutch Intelligence delivered the report in a no question presser and declared the plane was shot down by a Buk Missile. And that’s about it.

    Both Russia and Ukraine had Buk missiles BUT no one was named as the perpetrator.

    I said many months ago if this report does not provide details and evidence – and just leaves it hanging then most likely there is a coverup in action. Nothing I have read changes that opinion….

  150. BenC

    Nothing you read could ever change your opinion. As you’ve shown about 47 times now, your opinion was formed long before you saw any evidence.

    The dutch report was not allowed to apportion blame. That’s the law. But you knew that, because you’re just so well educated on the subject.

    The criminal investigation, which is still ongoing and hopefully will be released early next year however, will.

    That you conclude its ‘most likely’ a cover up from ‘our’ side (using simplistic terms here, so you at least have a chance at understanding) boggles my mind. But it doesn’t surprise me, not anymore.

    Now that you’ve opened the door to considering just the preponderance of evidence, let me try!

    The US, Ukraine and Russian military’s have all shot down civilian airliners.

    US – USS Carl Vinson – Iran Air Flight 655
    Ukraine – Siberian Airlines 1812
    Russia – Korean Air Flight 902
    Russia – Korean Air Flight 007.

    There is only 1 pattern of behavior.

    The US admitted its mistake immediately.
    The Ukraine admitted its mistake immediately.

    Russia, BOTH TIMES, denied any responsibility. Denied shooting down these flights. Denied knowing about it. Only till the evidence was so absurdly overwhelming, did they finally admit responsibility. In 007’s case, it took more than 10 years before the Kremlin produced the evidence it was them and they knew about it.

    There is only 1 party here that has a track record of only ever lying about scenarios such as this. There is only 1 party that has already demonstrated intentional deceit MULTIPLE TIMES, about THIS VERY FLIGHT, MH17. (hows that Su25 theory going? with its ‘satellite evidence’)


    Yet you find it ‘most likely’ to be a dutch cover up, not even understanding the law surrounding the report itself.

    You are the definition of ignorance, and a disgrace.

    Speaking of disgraces, where is the Author of this piece of garbage article? Now that the evidence is clear, where is his retraction? Probably the same place as Citizens admission of error eh?

    This entire site is infested with intellectual cowardice.

  151. mark delmege

    It could have done better, much better BenC and surely you must know that. After 15 months!
    But the news readers can report a ‘Russian Made Buk Missile’ – and thats all that is necessary for propaganda purposes. Kick it down the road for another time.
    As for ‘intentional deceit’ … the US is a master at that.

  152. BenC

    There is a village somewhere missing an idiot.

  153. mark delmege

    At least someone is reporting on events that brought down MH17 – but as far as I know (tell us if you know better)– no one in the Australian media is doing so. And as I said in another post in the recent few hours labor ‘ They work within a straightjacket and are beholden to the power elite almost as much as the Liberals’ And such is the case with this significant event.
    Where is Dastyari, Xenophon , Ludlam or Wilkie?

  154. mark delmege

    After the Australian Coronial Inquest I wrote via electronic messaging to the ALP’s Sam Dastyari, the Greens Scott Ludlam, Tasmania’s independent Andrew Wilkie and SA independent Senator Nick Xenophon – asking if they would be looking into the dodgy coronial report findings. I did receive an immediate confirmation of receipt from three of them but not from the Greens Ludlum. And nothing else since from any of them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: