I’m not an aviation or explosives expert or anything like that, but simple common sense points to some major flaws in the West’s claims about flight MH17.
And, why exactly is there no noise from the West about this disaster any more? Why the silence and sudden lack of interest in the truth and justice for the victims?
Take a look at this picture:
I got the picture from this German source, and what I’m stating here is largely from that same source.
The picture shows damage to the Plane’s cockpit. The other pictures that exist from the wreckage do not show such damage to other parts of the plane. The plane was attacked at its front end. And the holes look like there was a heavy barrage of something like a big machine gun. Or a spray of extremely heavy shrapnel or whatever they call it!
Now, a very important fact to note in the picture is that there are 2 types of holes clearly visible. One type has signs of an outward explosion, as if the bullets were exiting the surface of the cockpit. These holes or tears on the surface appear to bend outwards.
And the other type of holes show smaller, round holes as if bullets were fired at the cockpit from the outside.
The logical conclusion is that the cockpit was attacked from 2 different sides! Whatever the weapon that was used, the bullets or missiles entered the plane’s cockpit from opposite sides of the aircraft.
This means that this damage to the cockpit could not possibly have been made by an anti-aircraft missile fired at the plane, be it of the air-to-air or surface-to-air type.
Now, there is another separate source that states:
“Yesterday, the New Straits Times quoted experts who had said that photographs of the blast fragmentation patterns on the fuselage of the airliner showed two distinct shapes — the shredding pattern associated with a warhead packed with “flechettes”, and the more uniform, round-type penetration holes consistent with that of cannon rounds.”
And it goes on to describe the evidence of the first external ‘monitors’ on the scene of the crash:
“Parry also cited a July 29 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) investigators to arrive at the scene of the disaster, near Donetsk [stated]… “There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machinegun fire; very, very strong machinegun fire,” Bociurkiw said in the interview.”
So the question arises is: What kind of a pro-Russian rebel machine gun can target a passenger airliner flying at an altitude of 33,000 feet? None of course! This damage was more likely done by fighter jets attacking the passenger airliner:
The article goes on to state:
“It had to have been a hail of bullets from both sides that brought the plane down. This is Haisenko’s main discovery. You can’t have projectiles going in both directions — into the left-hand-side fuselage panel from both its left and right sides — unless they are coming at the panel from different directions.
“Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through that panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any ground-fired missile,”
In this context, I can guess why the West has basically shut up about it all!
But the question remains: Who in their right mind would do such a thing? Why shoot down a Malaysian Airline plane in the middle of a war like this?
And the only plausible answer I have heard so far – and I am open to all theories – is the one that the first article cited above concludes with. It happens to be an explanation that the Russians have proposed since this tragedy happened. Apparently, Putin was flying in a similar plane nearby at the time flight MH17 was shot down, and the Ukrainians were trying to kill him:
“If you listen to the voices from Washington now who speak of a “potentially tragic error / accident”, all that remains is the question of what might have been the nature of this “mistake” perpetrated here. I am not given to hover long in the realm of speculation, but would like to invite others to consider the following : The MH 017 looked similar in it’s tricolor design to that that of the Russian President’s plane. The plane with Presdient Putin on board was at the same time ”near” Malaysia MH 017. In aviation circles “close” would be considered to be anywhere between 150 to 200 miles. Also, in this context we might consider the deposition of Ms. Tymoshenko, who wanted to shoot Presdient Putin with a Kalashnikov.
But that this remains pure speculation. The shelling of the cockpit of air Malaysia MH 017, however, is definitely not.”
There you have it. The best explanation we have so far for this war crime is that the Ukrainians thought they were shooting down Putin’s plane when they downed Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukrainian air space.
And on the question of what type of weapon could have been used in the attack, there are some more clues cited in the above article:
“Russia recently published radar recordings, that confirm at least one Ukrainian SU 25 in close proximity to MH 017. This corresponds with the statement of the now missing Spanish controller ‘Carlos’ that has seen two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the immediate vicinity of MH 017. If we now consider the armament of a typical SU 25 we learn this: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, equipped with: a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum), arranged in alternating order.”
Here are some more photos.
This fragment looks like it was hit by machine gun fire rather than a missile attack for sure:
Note how little missile or bombing damage is evident to the other plane parts on display: