Thursday, July 31, 2014

German experts point finger at Ukrainian air-force jets for MH17 murders

NEW MH17 SENSATION: German experts point finger at Ukrainian air-force jets.


BY JOHN WARD

ukrainejetsSurface to air missile attack ruled out as calibre of cockpit bullet holes puts Ukraine pilots in the frame for MH17 murders

This is what a German pilot-cum-air technology expert Peter Haisenko has just published on the subject of the MH17 disaster (my emphases):
‘The misfortune of the Malaysian MH 017 is known to all. The flight
recorder is in England and is being evaluated. What can come of this?
May be more than you want to accept….if you look at the image of
Cockpit-Fragments, this picture is certainly shocking.
Entry And Exit holes from bullets in the area of the Cockpit. This is not speculation, but analysis of clear facts: the cockpit
shows clear evidence of bullet holes. You can see the entry holes and
some exit points. The edges of the bullet holes are bent inwards,
these are much smaller and round in shape. A 30mm calibre. The exit
holes are less well formed and the edges are torn outwards.
Furthermore it is visible that the exit holes have torn the double
aluminium skin and bent them outwards. That is to say, splinters from
inside the cockpit blew through the outside of the cabin. The open
rivets have also been bent outwards….There is only one conclusion one can make, and that is that this: the
aircraft was not hit by a missile. The damage to the aircraft is
exclusively in the cockpit area….
Armour-Piercing Ammunition. Russia has published radar data that a
Ukranian SU 25 was close to MH 017. this corresponds with Spanish air
traffic control that two Ukranian fighter aircraft were in direct
contact with MH 017. Examine the weaponry of the SU 25: it is fitted
out with a 30mm cannon Type GSch-302 /AO-17A, with 250 rounds of
splintering exploding bullets on a belt – shrapnel rounds. The cockpit
of MH 017 was hit from TWO sides, as there are entry and exit holes on
the same side….’
Very compelling stuff, is it not?
Now read this (also German) article by defence expert Bernd Biederman, who offers equally sound reasons why the
shooting down could NOT have been from a surface to air missile:
‘ the shooting down of the Malaysian
Boeing on July 17 in the Eastern Ukraine “could not have been hit by a
surface to air defense missile” .
This is the assessment of retired Colonel Bernd Biedermann in an
article for the daily newspaper published in Berlin “new Germany”
(Thursday edition). Had splinters from a surface to air missile hit
the plane, it would have immediately caught fire, argues the NVA
anti-aircraft missile specialist. His reasoning is because of the
“enormous frictional heat that the splinters generate on penetrating
the fuselage. A single splinter contains the same kinetic energy as a
40-ton freight car hitting the buffers at 60 kilometers per hour.” In
the case of the Malaysian Boeing, scattered fires had broken out after
the impact with the ground, because hot debris from the aircraft had
come in contact with combustible materials.
Biedermann is familiar with Soviet and Russian air defense technology,
he led units in the duty officer system in East Germany and taught at
the Military Academy in the field of anti-aircraft missile troops.’
Articles are beginning to appear across the Web to the effect that Angela Merkel is disturbed by (and growing tired of) the incessant US propaganda being emitted in favour of its energy agenda….and so we must perhaps in turn view these articles in the light of her alleged new agenda concerning the creation of an alternative bloc to that of America. (More on this here in the near future).
But spin or not, these analyses make sense. The US State Dept has now shifted its position from ‘Russian atrocity’ to ‘tragic accident’. The above opinions suggest that neither are true: they suggest strongly that the Ukrainian air force took out MH17.


Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/new-mh17-sensation-german-experts-point-finger-at-ukrainian-air-force-jets/#CuJsKJVT1gKiDyGx.99

8-1-2014 Update

 1st responder / #OSCE tells of seeing multiple large caliber bullet holes in wreck #Ukraine 

Watch

 

Shocking Analysis of the ‘Shooting Down’ of Malaysian MH17

Peter Haisenko in Cockpit of Condor DC 10
By Peter Haisenko                       Zur deutschen Version bitte hier anklicken
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.
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 expresssed 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 right. 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 likeley 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 forcefull 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 amunititon
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 contstruction 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. 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.

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


No comments:

Post a Comment