Emerging Evidence Points to #MH17 Being a Ukrainian False Flag

I don’t know what the truth is on the downing of flight MH17. How credible is Putin? I do know that anything coming from Obama or the US government over the last 6 years should be treated as suspect.

boudica-uslogo-left

Translated by Gleb Bazov
Combined Sources

July 17, 2014 – Examination of Available Evidence Manufactured by Ukraine

July 17, 2014 – “Proof of Rebel Responsibility” Video Faked & Uploaded 1 Day Earlier

Video Originally Created and First Uploaded: July 16, 2014, 19:10:24

Vide Re-Uploaded to YouTube for Second Time: July 18, 2014 00:09:00


Original Source: Gmorder LiveJournal

The Shooting-Down of Boeing Was Planned By Ukies

On the video you can see a mix-up in timings, so people started digging, and voila – here is the first video (identical to the video now being offered as proof of the involvement of Militia): RGHost Download

At 1:09 the time of 17:32 froze

Looks like SBU [Ukrainian Security Service] operatives were in a hurry.

However, that is not all of it, by far.

Let’s look at the creation date of the video: 2014-07-16 19:10:24

The creation date cannot be changed in any manner, other than by re-creating and re-uploading the video at a future date.

Let’s look at the re-upload date: 2014-07-18 00:09:00

If this is not proof, then I have no idea what would count as proof.

NOTE: Adding or subtracting the suggested 14 hours, 10 hours or 4 hours difference (or any combination thereof) due to, respectively, California or UTC local time, from either of the timings does not fix the problem. Read more…


 

Key Information in Reverse Chronological Order


#15 – Dissecting the Fake Intercept Disseminated by SBU (Ukrainian Security Service)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5E8kDo2n6g

Note: Half of the Post Translated; The Remaining Half is Speculative
Complete Original of the Post (in Russian) Can Be Found at Eugene-DF LiveJournal

In the disseminated intercept, the place from which the missile was allegedly launched is clearly indicated: the checkpoint at the settlement of Chernukhino.

Pay close attention at the Alleged Map of the MH17 Catastrophe.

As you can see, the distance from the point of launch to the point of the fall is 37 kilometres. At the same time, the elevation of the plane was 10-11 kilometres. For the Russian BUK M2 this distance is, in fact, achievable (although with a very important caveat discussed below).

However, Ukraine does not, and cannot, have modern digital high-tech Anti-Aircraft systems in its arsenal. What it does have, at best, is the older version BUK M1. The system itself is not too bad, and could even fit the stated distance. Except for the caveat that was mentioned.

The thing is that most short to medium range Anti-Aircraft systems work extremely poorly in a “pursuit” mode. There are a number of reasons for this, and I do not intend to belabor the point, but you can take it as an axiom that when the launch is made in “pursuit” of the target, the maximum distance of the launch that successfully hits the target is at least half of the advertised maximum distance (in reality, it even worse, but let’s leave aside the sad part). Accordingly, the real distance of a “pursuit” launch for BUK M1 is 16 kilometres. What’s more, the last 3 kilometres are purely “God willing” and “without guarantees.”

And, so, we have the background. Let’s see how the picture unfolds:

The launch is alleged to have been made from Chernukhino. The maximum distance of the launch is 16 kilometres. The aircraft fell between Snezhnoye and Torez. That’s 37 kilometres, which is 20 kilometres more than the maximum possible point at which the plain could have been hit. You know, even a plane with turned-off engines can’t glide like that. But the trouble is that the aircraft was not whole.

According to the pattern of the spread of fuselage fragments and bodies, the plane was ruptured practically with the first shot. Here it must be mentioned that the high-explosive/fragmentation warhead of the rocket has a mass of approximately 50 kilograms (by the way, Ukrainians have an outdated modification, which is only 40 kilograms).

Overall, that’s not too little; however, it must be understood that it detonates not when it sticks into an airplane, but when it is still at a certain, and fairly significant distance. Moreover, the main strike factor is not the blast wave, but far more significantly – the stream of fragments. These fragments are previously prepared rods (and in the earlier versions – little cubes, if I recall correctly). And yes, for a jet fighter, that, in itself, is more than sufficient.

However, here we are dealing with a huge airliner. Yes, one rocket will rip the casing, cause depressurization, and will kill a lot of passengers. But it will not break up the airliner into pieces. Given certain conditions, the pilots may even be able to land it. And, in fact, there have been precedents (to be provided in future posts). For example – the very same An-28, which is alleged to have been the first victim of a BUK system; even though it was done for, but the crew was able to successfully catapult out. Which, in some way, symbolizes. An An-28, by the way, is far smaller than a Boeing.

Nevertheless, this has relation to the next part of our analysis. For now, let’s accept as a fact the break-up of the aircraft in the air, at a significant height (which is, in essence, what was observed. Allow me to remind you: “fragments spread over a radius of 15 kilometres.” The key here is that this means the following: the aircraft (or, more precisely, the core of the aircraft) fell literally at the point where the rocket impacted it. Clarifying: as soon as the aircraft turned into a host of fragments of different mass, the separation of these fragments began due to air resistance and the difference in inertia. The densest fragment flew a further 3-6 kilometres, falling more and more steeply. The lightest – spread out and, due to gliding and air currents, fell somewhere within a 10 kilometre radius. The medium ones (primarily pieces of casing with high sail-effect and the victims’ bodies) – fell almost vertically.

In other words, the rocket caught up to the plane no closer than 25 kilometres away from Chernukhino. Which is absolutely impossible for a BUK system.

By the way, we can’t overlook the fact that, at maximum distances, BUK can be used only provided there is support from an external radar installation for location and guiding purposes. In other words, even if a rockets flies far, BUK’s mobile radar does not cover its entire distance.

Accordingly, if SBU’s video above is not fake, then, to our surprise, we discover that it was literally impossible for the aircraft to be shot down by the rebel’s BUK. By the way, what exactly this BUK was doing in Chernukhino with the Cossacks is pretty much inexplicable. It is 60 kilometres whether you go to Donetsk or to Lugansk from there, and this BUK would be unable to protect the skies over either of the key cities. Nor are there any hostilities in the area. It’s also strange for the Militia to expect enemy planes there – it’s not like the pilots are their own enemies to make such detours over the enemy’s territory, is it? Well, all right. As I already stated, let’s accept, for the moment, that the intercept is not fake.

And that is what is so strange here: SBU literally offers evidence that proves that that the Militia had no part in the shooting down of the Boeing! The fact that they blame themselves in the recording is quite understandable. Unlike the fascists, they have a conscience, which takes its toll until you are sure it was not you who did it.

Ok. But somebody did, in fact, shoot down the plane?

Of course it was shot down. And here we have another question: what if this recording is a falsification through and through? Then it had to have been prepared somehow? And then disseminated?

That’s when smoke starts to clear, and mirrors – to break.

That’s the problem with tricks.


#14 – An Industry Outlet Confirms Carlos (@spainbuca) as ATC at Borispol Airport in Kiev

Original: EturboNews (ETN Global Travel Industry News) – July 17, 2014

ETN received information from an air traffic controller in Kiev on Malaysia Airlines flight MH17.

This Kiev air traffic controller is a citizen of Spain and was working in the Ukraine. He was taken off duty as a civil air-traffic controller along with other foreigners immediately after a Malaysia Airlines passenger aircraft was shot down over the Eastern Ukraine killing 295 passengers and crew on board.

The air traffic controller suggested in a private evaluation and basing it on military sources in Kiev, that the Ukrainian military was behind this shoot down. Radar records were immediately confiscated after it became clear a passenger jet was shot down.

Military air traffic controllers in internal communication acknowledged the military was involved, and some military chatter said they did not know where the order to shoot down the plane originated from.

Obviously it happened after a series of errors, since the very same plane was escorted by two Ukrainian fighter jets until 3 minutes before it disappeared from radar.

Radar screen shots also show an unexplained change of course of the Malaysian Boeing. The change of course took the aircraft directly over the Eastern Ukraine conflict region.

Some tweets received suggest this may have been a secret military uprising against the current Ukrainian president under the direction of formerly-jailed Prime Minister Timoshenko.

According to other rumors, the black box for this crashed Malaysian Airlines flight was taken by Donetsk separatists. A spokesperson for the rebel group said this black box would be sent to the Interstate Aviation Committee headquartered in Moscow.

The First Deputy Prime Minister of the self-proclaimed People’s Republic of Donetsk, Andrew Purgin, stated that the flight recorders of the crashed aircraft will be transferred to Moscow for examination.

Sources say the Rebel group leadership hopes this would confirm the Ukrainian military actually shot down this aircraft. This was reported by the news agency Interfax-Ukraine.

ETN statement: The information in this article is independently confirmed and based on the statement of one airline controller and other tweets received.


#13 – A Brief Well-Made Presentation Regarding Ukraine’s Manufactured Evidence

Video: Paul J. Watson – “Evidence to Frame Russia For MH17 Shoot Down Fabricated?”


#12 – Analysis from an Aerodynamics/Physics Standpoint – Ukrainian Army Responsible


RESUME OF ANALYSIS: What all this means is that if a BUK rocket was launched from the territory controlled by the Militia, the Boeing would have fallen much further to the south-east – i.e. will into the Russian territory. Otherwise, there would have been not time to detect the aircraft, perform electronic capture and launch the rocket. If this was a BUK, and not a jet fighter, then it is most likely that the launch was made from the territory controlled by the Ukrainian army, and the rocket was sent “chasing after” the airplane.


Original: 4yma3iy LiveJournal

I am not an aerodynamics specialist. I am a radioelectronics expert. Nevertheless, I specialize in aviation. If there are aerodynamics specialists here, please critique away.

Initial Data: the plane’s elevation is 10,000 metres, speed is 900 km/h (or 250 m/s).

Judging from the photos from the site of the crash, where all the pieces lie together in one place, it appears that the plane fell as a whole (i.e. some fragments may have broken off, but the fuselage remained intact). So, the aircraft well “as one piece” – i.e. it did not break apart in the air.

Accordingly, it must be considered as one body, the speed of which has a very large dependence on air resistance, particularly given the design features and its intended use. Read more…

 

_If you comment we reserve the right to use your comment in/as a post

Follow us Follow Boudicabpi on Twitter

This entry was posted in Obama Administration, President Obama, Russia, Vladimir Putin and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s