373 Shot down by a Ukraïnian fighterplane. 4 Testimonies.

This blog:  http://tiny.cc/apeyjx

Update: The Saker shows us how it could have happened: (Saker)

A. -- The most well known OVSE man, Michail Bociurkiw, says he sees clear machine-gun holes in the fusillage.

B -- A german pilot sees holes in the cockpit that look exactlylike the holes that are produced by the guns you find on Ukraïnian jet fighters.  Anti-tank guns that cause an explosion inside the plane, which also explains why the wreckage looks as it does.

C -- Villagers who saw the plane come down , also saw a jet fighter very near to it.

D -- The Russian civil-radar information shows that there was a jet fighter very close to MH17 at the moment when it lost speed and fell down from the sky.

For people who want to know the truth, this is rather convincing information.

Note: These four testimonies keep disappearing: 
A -- The Canadians took the interview with Buciurkiw off the air.  But the crucial 54 seconds is on youtube: ( Buciurkiw) 
B -- Maximum hight for Ukrainian jet fighters was always 10.000 meters, on Wikipedia.  It was recently changed to 7000meters.  'Specialists' say that the Jet Fighters cannot reach 10.000 meter with heavy loads.  But the pilot Peter Hasenko ( see B)  gives us a reliable source: certainly 10.000 meter, some even maximum 14.600 meters. See this blog: 'Debunked ?' 
C -- The BBC doc was for some  time on the BBC website, but then was taken off of it. 
D -- I notified a local paper about the Russian Press conference on 21 july, which I had even translated for them.  On 25 july I got this reply: "Onze correspondent in Moskou heeft deze verklaring al eerder tot zich genomen en komt tot de conclusie dat uw vertaling niet gaat leiden tot een verhaal. We kennen immers deze verklaring en zien geen nieuwe inzichten.

Desalniettemin hartelijk dank voor uw mail."

In short:" We know about the press conference. Your translation contains no new info for us. "

I went to a friend to check their paper newspapers of the last days, to see if they had written anything about it.  They had written one statement in their 22 july paper:  "Russian Ministry of Defense says: "There was not a Buk missile seen by us." I do not remember this statement form the pressconference, but it is possible.  Why did this paper ( One of the Wegener regional newpapers) not tell us all of the facts? Why did they give us only a statement that contradicts the US info, which is widely promoted as 'true'. Just to make Russia look like a liar ? 

The credibility of the opponents is very very low: 
Maybe these 4 testimonies are not proof in itself, but the USA and Ukraïne HAVE all the proof they need in their hands to corroborate their story: ATC conversations with the cocpit,  very high quality radar info from Ukraïne and from American ships in the Black Sea.

Also the Americans have a terrible track reckord as a source for truth: See below at **
The problem is: there are no critical Media anymore, so we are stuck with a PR machine that has made all people believe that Putinis guilty.

Here are the 4 testimonies:
===================
A.
In a Canadian documentary the most well known OVSE man at the place of the crash says this:

Question: What do you think we know about what happened to that aircraft,today, as compared to the first day when you came?

Michael Buciurkiw ( Canadian from Ukrainian heritage who was in Ukraïne many times before): 

"There have been  two or three pieces of fuselage that that have been pop ( put ?) marked. That look like machine gun fire.  Very very strong machine gun fire. That has left these unique marks that we haven’t seen anywhere else.

We have also been asked, for example “Have you seen any example of missile  ?

Well no, we haven’t , and even if it is there,we don’t have those trained eyes to pick that up.  But now there are experts here.. "

Here is the doc. and the quote is to be heard at 6 minutes. Here it is. 

Note: Michael Bociurkiw was a journalist for the Huffington Post and wrote that he was a supporter of Poroshenko.

=========
B.
I will copy the Global Research article almost completely. I leave out the speculation of the pilot that the attack was meant to kill Putin.
No, if Washington speaks about a tragic mistake,iot could mean that they see no way in which to hide that it was a Ukraïnian jet fighter who did it.  Something went wrong maybe?
Well it does not make any differece. 'The sheeple' will believe them that it was a mistake by a single Ukraïnian pilot.  And the people will not be able to change their mood aboput Putin: 'After all: look how many bad thing he has done that were real: occupying Crimea etc."
Here is the aricle.
To see the cockpit foto in high resolution you must go to the original Global Research article. .

The tragedy of Malaysian MH 017 continues to elude any light of clarity being cast over it.

The flight recorders are in England and are evaluated. What can come of it? Maybe more than you would assume.

Especially the voice recorder will be interesting when you look at the picture of a cockpit fragment. As an expert in aviation I closely looked at the images of the wreckage that are circulating on the Internet.

Peter Haisenko in Cockpit of Condor DC 10

First, I was amazed at how few photos can be found from the wreckage with Google. All are in low resolution, except one: The fragment of the cockpit below the window on the pilots side. This image, however, is shocking. In Washington, you can now hear views expressed of a “potentially tragic error / accident” regarding MH 017. Given this particular cockpit image it does not surprise me at all.

Entry and exit impact holes of projectiles in the cockpit area

Source for all photos: Internet

I recommend to click on the little picture to the left. You can download this photo as a PDF in good resolution. This is necessary, because that will allow you understand what I am describing here.The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that at these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent – outwardly! Furthermore, minor cuts can be seen, all bent outward, which indicate that shrapnel had forcefully exited through the outer skin from the inside of the cockpit. The open rivets are are also bent outward.

In sifting through the available images one thing stands out: All wreckage of the sections behind the cockpit are largely intact, except for the fact that only fragments of the aircraft remained . Only the cockpit part shows these peculiar marks of destruction. This leaves the examiner with an important clue. This aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion. The destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to factor in that this part is constructed of specially reinforced material. This is on account of the nose of any aircraft having to withstand the impact of a large bird at high speeds. You can see in the photo, that in this area significantly stronger aluminum alloys were being installed than in the remainder of the outer skin of the fuselage. One remembers the crash of Pan Am over Lockerbie. It was a large segment of the cockpit that due to the special architecture survived the crash in one piece. In the case of flight MH 017 it becomes abundantly clear that there also an explosion took place inside the aircraft.

Tank destroying mix of ammunition

Bullet holes in the outer skin

So what could have happened? 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. The cockpit of the MH 017 has evidently been fired at from both sides: the entry and exit holes are found on the same fragment of it’s cockpit segment!

Now just consider what happens when a series of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells hit the cockpit. These are after all designed to destroy a modern tank.The anti-tank incendiary shells partially traversed the cockpit and exited on the other side in a slightly deformed shape. (Aviation forensic experts could possibly find them on the ground presumably controlled by the Kiev Ukrainian military; the translator). After all, their impact is designed to penetrate the solid armor of a tank. Also, the splinter-explosive shells will, due to their numerous impacts too cause massive explosions inside the cockpit, since they are designed to do this. Given the rapid firing sequence of the GSh-302 cannon, it will cause a rapid succession of explosions within the cockpit area in a very short time. Remeber each of these is sufficient to destroy a tank.

What “mistake” was actually being committed – and by whom?

Graze on the wing

Because the interior of a commercial aircraft is a hermetically sealed pressurized chamber, the explosions will, in split second, increase the pressure inside the cabin to extreme levels or breaking point. An aircraft is not equipped for this, it will burst like a balloon. This explains a coherent scenario. The largely intact fragments of the rear sections broke in mid air at the weaker points of construction most likely under extreme internal air pressure. The images of the widely scattered field of debris and the brutally damaged segment of cockpit fit like hand in glove. Furthermore, a wing segment shows traces of a grazing shot, which in direct extension leads to the cockpit. Interestingly, I found that both the high-resolution photo of the fragment of bullet riddled cockpit as well as the segment of grazed wing have in the meantime disappeared from Google Images. One can find virtually no more pictures of the wreckage, except the well known smoking ruins.

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.

======================================
C.
Here are the statements of 3 women who saw a fighterplane:

Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …

Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.

Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.

You can see the videop here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa_R2NA1txc
The link on Global Research, fdoes not work anymore.
On another blog of mine: ( blog ) I have put the new, working link.

The women say: everybody saw it. But we did not hear from many witnesses thatthey saw it.  Most people heard it.
Why was this?  I think that the clouds were such that only if you have a hole in the clouds that leaves you to see the plane, you can see it. People that are 500 meters away don't see it.
So for these woman it was clear: they all saw it. They have no doubt. But other witnesses lookes and saw only clouds.
Here is a video of the clouds in the area , at the moment of the disaster.  ( Look at the first seconds)

==============
D.
Here is the moment in the Russian press conference where they speakabout the jet fighter that appears on the radar screen , at the moment when the MH17 is going down. ( Video )

There is a blog if mine that gives  the whole press conference, and some explanation.  But it is mainly in Dutch: ( Blog )


Debunked? 
There is uncertainty wheter the Ukraïne has a jet fighter that can reach the hight of 10.000 meter. 
Some varieties of the SU25 seem to be able to do it. 
The Russian press conference stated that they can.

I think that a kind of heat-seeking rocket maybe easier to hit the target than a machine gun. Bullets from a gun will not be searching their target. Or is the gun itself steerde by a robot?  Is that possible. 

Whatever the real explanation will be: the holes are there for everybody to see. They demand explanation. And they definitely are not shrapnel lauched by a BUK. 

here is a critic: http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/can-the-su-25-intercept-and-shoot-down-a-777/


I just found the answer to the question of the hight: the SU 25 can reacht 14.600 meters ! 

See this info below: ( German Pilot's update) 

Supplement, 2014-08-01:

Time and again it is stated that the SU 25 has a maximum flight altitude of 7,000 meters and that’s why this jet couldn’t be able to bring down MH 017. Seeking for an answer on Wikipedia – this statement will be confirmed. If you go to the trouble of broadening your knowledge by questioning a specialist book, you’ll get completely different information: the maximum flight altitude of the SU 25 is 14,600 meters. Check here: http://www.fliegerweb.com/militaer/flugzeuge/lexikon.php?show=lexikon-50

Until beginning of july 2014 Wikipedia gave the maximum flight altitude for the SU 25 with “ca. 10.000 Meters”. As well in the english version as in the german one. Now one finds it “corrected” to 7.000 meters. In the Wikipedia discussions-forum roared up an intensive discussion about the correct value.

The handbook “Flugzeuge der Welt” by W. Green (1984), a standard work which essentially quotes the facts of the military “Janes Manuals” (also used to be NATO reference), already 1984 determined the maximum flight altitude of SU 25 (SU 25 MK, export version) with 10,670 meters (page 208 f.). The performance of the SU 25 has been upgraded since that time.

Here a link to the statement of a canadian OSCE-participant, who observed evidence on parts of the wreckage, that the aircraft had been hit by rounds of heavy machine-gun-fire:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76PG9RQStFU#t=470

================================================

**  Americans NEVER told the truth:  ( I will put in the links later)
They have destroyed 3 countries in 11 years on the basis of lies:
- Irak.  All the-solid evidence-  of Colin Powel were deliberate lies. ( 'intelligence and facts were beiing fixed around the policy )
- Libya. There is no way that Ghadaffi was going to bomb his own people. ( Alan Kuperman, Forte )
- Syria.  Sy Hersh and others have shown us that Assad diod not throw gas.  Why would he commit suicide?

In Ukraïne the record  is the same:
- Maidan snipers. Why would Yanukovichchase himself out after having reached an agreement? ( Umar Paet,  Monitor )
- Odessa massacre.  Why would the separatists attack and retreat and then kill their won people? ( Blog.)

BUT: IF YOU ÀLWAYS  LIE, WILL THAT NOT WORK AGAINST YOU, IN THE END?
Here are some answers to that question:
- 95% of the people don't even hear that the lies were debunked.
- Those who hear about it, only hear it once: not enough times to change their 'general imporession.'
- Those who are real truth seekers have enough info if they find one very convincing truth. But then they still have to change their world-view. All their strongly felt believes ( like the believe that the jews were the powerless eternal victims) have to be changed. That process takes years. It cannot be done quickly.
- If you kill a person for the wrong reason, he will not get alive again.
Karl Rove knows that, and he says: 'Thats why we go on killing for the wrong reasons.  And we win, and you loose.'
Here is what he exactly said:

 "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously (met wijsheid), as you will —we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."