A mere four days later, on the 26th, CBS News headlined the results,
“Black box findings consistent with missile blast,” but
they declined to report who, or even what country’s government, had
actually done the analysis. CBS reported merely: “Unreleased data from a
black box retrieved from the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in
Ukraine show findings consistent with the plane’s fuselage being hit
multiple times by shrapnel from a missile explosion. ‘It did what it was
designed to do,’ a European air safety official told CBS News, ‘bring
down airplanes.’ The official described the finding as ‘massive
explosive decompression.’” That’s all. Nothing more.
However, this “explosive decompression” would have happened with
bullets too, if the pressurized airliner were punctured by bullets
instead of shrapnel. Why did that person (whomever it was) assume that
the plane had been hit by a missile’s shrapnel, instead of by hails of
bullets fired by machine-guns from a fighter-plane flying alongside it?
Maybe because Britain is allied with the Obama-installed Ukrainian
Government, against the anti-Government rebels who have no airplanes at
all and thus cannot get gunmen 33,000 feet up into the air to shoot
directly at the Malaysian airliner’s pilot, and that that’s what
actually brought this plane down. We’ll show that the latter scenario
is, indeed, correct.
Only idiots would trust Britain
to interpret these black boxes to determine what and who brought down
that plane. But, fortunately, the physical evidence lying on the ground
at the site in Ukraine was photographed very quickly by locals there and
uploaded to the Internet sometimes before any fighters and any
governments were able to tamper with anything; and there happened to be
one modest-looking item found at the site that tells a remarkably
complete and entirely credible and convincing account of how this plane
came down.
It tells that the Ukrainian
Government itself did this airliner-downing, with bullets, not with
shrapnel. You’ll see the evidence laid out before you here; you won’t
need to rely upon the British Government to tell you how this event
happened. The evidence will tell you that.
On July 30th, the retired Lufthansa pilot and published historian Peter Haisenko issued his
“Shocking Analysis of the ‘Shooting Down’ of Malaysian MH17,” in
which an extremely close-in photo of the most important piece of
physical evidence regarding this event is shown — it’s the side-panel on
the left-hand side of the cockpit directly where the downed plane’s
pilot was seated — and this photo shocked me, too.
This is incredibly precise targeting, of a specific person, and not merely
of the far larger body of an airliner. A ground-based missile-shot
fired from 33,000 feet below cannot achieve that gaping hole precisely
where the pilot sits. A fighter jet plane that’s escorting the airliner
into the conflict-zone can. This is how:
Here is that side-panel shown close-up, from Haisenko.
Some of the projectiles that pierced it, as you can see, were inbound
into the plane (or bent inward), and some of them were coming out of the
plane (or bent outward). In other words, going back again to
the full-cockpit photo,
and if there were two fighter jets escorting this plane into the
conflict-zone, and if one of them was below the pilot and cockpit to the
left, and the other was below them to the right, and if both of those
fighter-planes then suddenly fired machine-gun magazines directly into
the pilot, so that the bullets that were coming from his right exited
outward from this left-side cockpit-panel, while the bullets that were
coming into the pilot from his left entered into and through this
cockpit-panel and bent the panel inward to the cabin, then the evidence
would be able to look exactly like what we see it as being here — but
otherwise, probably not (and we’ll get to that in a moment).
Haisenko further managed to post to the Web
an astoundingly clear and detailed photo of this cockpit-panel,
so that even individual screws and their deformations can be seen and
examined now by the general public. Looking at that, some of the holes
to the aluminum-layer on the plane’s outside are splayed outward as if
the projectile were outbound, while the plastic layer toward the plane’s
inside is obviously splayed inward, and this divergence there, between
the inward-folding plastic layer and the outward-folding aluminum layer,
can indicate that the aluminum layer was getting pulled back either by
the wind on the descent downward to the ground, or else by the ground
itself as the panel impacted with the ground — that aluminum outer-layer
didn’t always have to be ripped into an outward-folding position by a
projectile’s actually
coming outward. It could sometimes
result instead from the wind-impact and/or the ground-impact. Moreover
(and this is very important here), since a bullet has a sharp point
going into an object, even an inbound bullet can peel
outward
in a rush the relatively brittle aluminum outer layer, by the mere fact
of its own impact, violently throwing that aluminum layer
sideways
as the point pierces and forces that aluminum outward, while the
more-yielding inner plastic layer simply yields into the direction that
the bullet is traveling, and is pushed and then pulled by that bullet
inward into the plane, as the bullet thence proceeds onward into the
plane. A shrapnel projectile,
by contrast, doesn’t have a bullet’s
sharp front, and so would not produce such
outward flares in the aluminum layer while penetrating into the plane from the plane’s outside.
So, what is seen in this photo
is 100% consistent with the projectiles going in both directions
(inbound and outbound), and with the projectiles being bullets instead of shrapnel.
Haisenko examined the many
online photos of this wreckage, and he saw nothing like the
concentration of projectiles that were focusing on that pilot, such as
is displayed by this side-panel: it’s unique. His article says, “This
aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion.” He’s a
retired airline pilot, and so he knows how missile-shrapnel-punctures
are splayed over a rather broad surface-area of a plane, and all of them
are inbound into the plane; a shrapnel-spray onto a plane
isn’t bi-directional.
Here is a photo of such a plane that was hit by missile-shrapnel in Iraq.
As
you can see there, a plane that’s hit by a ground-fired missile,
instead of by bullets fired from an attack-plane only a few yards away,
has the damage spread rather widely over its body, not concentrated into
a tiny area, such as to where the plane’s pilot is seated. Certainly,
the contrast between that photo and this one is enormous.
Furthermore,
note also that the shrapnel damage to that plane comes from above it,
which is where missiles usually hit a plane from, releasing
their shrapnel from above, down onto the plane. By contrast, the hail of
bullets to the Malaysian plane’s pilot came from below the plane,
aiming upward at the cockpit, from both sides of the cockpit.
Furthermore, note also that all of the holes appear to be inbound into the plane, none outbound.
It’s radically different: what hit the Malaysian airliner wasn’t missile-shrapnel.
What, then, could have been the military planes that actually did this?
On 17 July 2014 the pro-junta
Kiev Post headlined
“Russian military plane shot down Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft in Ukraine,” and
reported that, “The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council
(NSDC) has said that a Russian military aircraft launched a missile
strike against a Su-25 aircraft of the Ukrainian Armed Forces over
Ukrainian territory on Wednesday, July 16.” So, even the Ukrainian
military admitted that they had Su-25 jets flying in the
conflict-zone. But Su-25s are designed only for low-altitude combat and
bombing; so, Su-25s would be the type of planes that the rebels would
likeliest succeed at bringing down (and did on July 16th), as opposed to
the higher-flying Su-27s, which are far less likely to be hit by the
rebels’ ground-based fire. (There’s no independent confirmation that
“Russian military aircraft” had actually been involved in the incident
reported in the
Kiev Post; and there have been numerous
instances when the Ukrainian Government charged that there was such
direct Russian involvement and it was subsequently established that
there hadn’t been any at all. Obama and the Ukrainian Government want a
pretext to extend their war into Russia, but Russia has
not
been cooperating with their desire. Thus, “(NSDC) has said that a
Russian military aircraft launched a missile strike” there was probably
reporting a lie.)
During the very late afternoon
in Ukraine on July 17th — the same day as the headline “Russian military
plane shot down Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft in Ukraine” — the Malaysian
airliner, MH-17, went down. The most-thorough article on the plane’s
flight-path and timeline was published by Twenty First Century Wire on
July 25th
here. Two of the fighter jets it notes to be in the Ukrainian Government’s air force are:
“Su-25 ‘Frogfoot’ fighter – Ceiling: 23,000 ft/ 7,000 m, or up to 32,800 ft/ 10,000 m(depending aircraft modifications)
Su-27 ‘Flanker’ fighter – Ceiling: 64,000 ft/ 19,000 m”
Su-25s could barely have escorted the Malaysian airliner into the
conflict-zone at around 33,000 feet where it was hit, but Su-27s
definitely could easily have done that job.
On July 21st,
The Aviationist bannered
“All flights, including Malaysian B777, were being escorted by Ukrainian Su-27 Flanker jets over Eastern Ukraine” and
(though in language that’s cumbersome to understand) reported that,
“Six fully armed Flankers [or Su-27s] have always been in the sky
especially when the other Ukrainian Air Force airplanes such
as transporters and attackers like Fulcrums and Rooks were in the East
of Ukraine,” and that, “Provided the Su-27s were really escorting
or (more likely) watching from their CAP station,” the Malaysian
airliner could have been hit by a Buk missile 33,000 feet below from the
ground, just as the Ukrainian Government was saying, notwithstanding
its “escorting or (more likely) watching from their CAP station.” The
speculation continued on like that, stenographcally following the
Ukrainian Government’s line (that ground-fired Buks did it, via rebels,
not via the Government), by asserting that, “in the wake of the downing
of the Su-25 [on July 16th], the operators inside the Buk [what Buk? –
The Aviationist
was merely assuming this] may have mistaken the Boeing 777 shadowed
by/near two Flankers for a high-value plane of the Ukrainian Air Force.
On their radar screens, the sight of a large plane with two accompanying
(or circling in CAP not too far away) fighter jets was completely new
and may only mean the Ukrainians were escorting an important plane. And
that would be the reason why they downed it.”
If ”they” downed it.
The Twenty First Century Wire article also noted that, “The
BBC reported on July 17th:
‘Ukraine’s SBU security service has confiscated recordings of
conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the
crew of the doomed airliner, a source in Kiev has told Interfax news
agency.’”
However, the BBC subsequently removed from their online article the
statement that was quoted there, perhaps as part of their cleansing
history of things that are subsequently determined by the managers to be
inappropriate for readers to know. However, that quoted assertion does
appear also in a web-search (quoted at other sites), where it is also
attributed to the BBC. Perhaps, then, after the Snowden affair,
more-ironclad means of whitewashing “history” will become established,
so as to cleanse “history” of the sorts of things that aren’t supposed
to be known by the wrong people (such as are you and I). It’s not just
the Ukrainian Government that retrospectively removes what it wishes the
public not to know (such as radar-records).
The Twenty First Century Wire article also mentioned that, “On June 4, 2014,
Janes Defense reported
that Kiev have recently returned to service two other higher
performance fighters, including the Su-27 ‘Flanker’ and the
MiG-29 ‘Fulcrum’ fighters.” Moreover: “According to IHS Jane’s World Air
Forces data, Ukraine still possesses a fleet of 24 Su-24Ms, 36 Su-25s,
45 Su-27s, 20 An-26s and 140 MiG-29s,” but regarding the MIGs, “39
of these were captured” by Russia when Crimea broke away from Ukraine
and rejoined Russia, of which it had been a part between 1783 and 1954.
Obama and his regime demand that Crimea be returned to Ukraine, which
the Crimeans never ever voted to become part of. He supports the
Ukrainian Government’s promise to seize it by military means.
Some readers have objected that
it’s difficult to bring down a plane by air-to-air fire. One person
cited the shooter’s need to take into account the other plane’s evasive
maneuvers, and
to aim at where the target-plane will be when
the bullets are expected to get there. This is a valid point, if the
targeted plane is an enemy’s fighter-jet. That’s called a “dogfight in
the air.” However, if the target-plane isn’t military, and if the pilot
in the target-plane has been given to understand that the fighter jets
that are accompanying him are friendly, he’s just a sitting duck for
those “escorts,” and the targeters can align themselves exactly where
they want to be, and coordinate when they will jointly commence firing
at him. The result will be like this side-panel is.
There was another expert who happened to be shocked by this side-panel and who concluded from it what Haisenko does.
As I have previously noted and explained in detail,
the first member of the international investigating team to arrive on
the scene in order to negotiate with the locals the safety of the entire
team that was to come into this civil war area, was immediately struck
by the fact that, “There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that
have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine-gun
fire, very very strong machine-gun fire.” However, he didn’t examine it
then as closely as Haisenko has now done, to such a fine point as to
have noticed that some of those bullet-holes came from the plane’s
right, and some came from the plane’s left. That fact is even more
remarkable than that the projectiles were probably bullets, because this
fact confirms that they actually had to be.
I also made note in that article that:
The latest report from the intelligence community was headlined on August 3rd by Robert Parry, “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts,” and he
revealed there that, “Contrary to the Obama administration’s
public claims blaming eastern Ukrainian rebels and Russia for the
shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, some U.S. intelligence
analysts have concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at
fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame,
according to a source briefed on these findings. This judgment — at odds
with what President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have
expressed publicly – is based largely on the absence of U.S.
government evidence that Russia supplied the rebels with a Buk
anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian
jetliner flying at 33,000 feet, said the source, who spoke on condition
of anonymity.”
It’s actually based on lots more than that; it’s based not on an
absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government
shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done.
Unlike what Parry’s source
alleged, there does exist powerful and convincing evidence of how this
plane was downed, and it’s that side-panel.
What, then, of the possibility
that the inbound and outbound bullet-holes might have been produced by
just a single Su-27? That scenario has been proposed, but it fails to
account for the event, and here is why: The very moment when that gunman
poured his hale of bullets into the pilot and thereby pulverized and
blew open that huge gaping hole where the pilot was sitting, the plane’s
pressurized air would have immediately rushed out that hole. It might
have broken into pieces within seconds. As Haisenko said, due to the
air-pressure-shock to the plane, “The largely intact fragments of the
rear sections broke in mid air at the weaker points of contstruction
[sp],” thereby producing “the widely scattered field of debris.”
I shall close with what I think is the most important fact of all:
No matter whom the
trigger-pullers at the bottom of any power-and-authority hierarchy are
who actually did this (gunmen or else missilemen), and regardless of
whether they even did it intentionally at all, or else entirely by
mistake, a far deeper and indisputable reality is that
“Obama Definitely Caused the Malaysian Airliner to Be Downed.” That’s
true in the same sense that Adolf Hitler definitely caused the
Holocaust to happen: It wouldn’t have happened but for him and the
decisions and choices that that person at the very top of the
power-structure made, which were merely being carried out by his
subordinates.
He is the one person who should be held accountable
the most of all.
Obama intends the ethnic-cleansing campaign that is occurring in
southeastern Ukraine to get rid of the people who live in the areas that
overwhelmingly elected as Ukraine’s President in 2010 the man whom
Obama’s February 2014 coup in Ukraine overthrew. Without that
ethnic-cleansing campaign and the consequent need of the residents there
to shoot down the Government’s planes, even the Obama-team’s
explanation — that the aircraft-downing was a case of the residents
there firing upon what they thought to be a Government bomber — wouldn’t
have existed at all, because there wouldn’t then have been the
ethnic-cleansing campaign for them to be protecting themselves from. So:
even if the downing of that airliner
hadn’t been done
intentionally by the Ukrainian Government as a “false flag event” to
blame the victims in order to get the EU to go along with stiffened
sanctions against Russia for helping the rebels, those sanctions would
still
be an outrage: morally, practically, and also violations of
international law: aggression that’s based on lies. The fact that this
was a false-flag event by Obama’s people only makes it, and the current
U.S. President, an outrage
squared: an outrage upon an outrage.
There need to be EU sanctions
now against the United States — my own country — or else the EU itself
is as rotten as the U.S. has become. Instead, the EU has joined Obama’s
sanctions against Russia. America under Clinton, Bush, and Obama, has
performed fine for its aristocracy (which control them all), but
abominably for everyone else. Is that the kind of model the EU wishes to
copy? If so, it should end, because the EU’s leadership then seeks to
go the way of the U.S., aristocratically controlled, against the public,
a model that’s shameful — scandalous, in fact: something not to be
perpetrated against
anyone, neither the victims in Obama’s MH-17 downing, nor the victims in his
ongoing ethnic-cleansing campaign against the residents in Ukraine’s southeast. Obama’s crimes are much bigger than just the downing of that single airliner.
There is a subordinate fact that
extends from this central fact of Obama’s clear guilt — his guilt that
would apply regardless of whether some Buk missile system had been fired
by rebels to protect themselves and their families from being bombed by
planes of the Kiev government: Even if that were the case, the rebels’
measure in that matter was purely defensive. Contrast that with the
situation that has been described here: The situation that has been
described here is that the Kiev government intentionally brought this
airliner down. That’s not an innocent error; it is instead an enormous
intentional war crime, planned as such. If the rebels made a tragic
error, by falling for a trap in which the Kiev government had escorted
the Malaysian airliner into the war-zone hoping that the rebels would
make such an error, then who is the actual guilty party? Is it Obama and
the Kiev regime that he installed in order to do this ethnic cleansing
so that Ukraine in the future will have only anti-Russian Presidents? Or
is it the victims of that ethnic cleansing?
No matter how one looks at this,
the guilt is clear and damning against Barack Obama: first, by his
installing this ethnic-cleansing regime into power in Ukraine; and then,
by his continued support of those bloody psychopaths whom he had
empowered there.
Thus far, the penalties have fallen on Russia and Vladimir Putin, not on the Ukrainian Government and Barack Obama.
Posts
