Released a preliminary report on the crash of the Boeing Ukraine
Lenta.ru, Sep 9 2014
The Netherlands has released a preliminary report on the investigation of the MH17. According to the document, prepared by the Dutch Council for security, the plane broke up in flight as a result of structural damage caused by external events, reports RIA Novosti. “There is no evidence that the plane crash caused by technical malfunctions or errors of the crew,” the report quoted by ITAR-TASS. “In the cockpit didn’t hear any warning signals that would indicate technical problems,” the document says. Possible cause of the accident is called “the destruction caused by the contact liner to a variety of external objects with high energy.” AP drew attention to the fact that the Dutch experts not directly say that Boeing was hit by a missile, although many of the formulations given in the text of the report, suggests exactly that. According to one version, the airliner was shot down by a missile. Official Kyiv and Western countries, on the one hand, and the militia on the other, blame each other in the plane crash.
Niqnaq 
15 Comments
the plane broke up in flight as a result of structural damage caused by external events
i am no military aeronautics wonk but does this not say, when translated into english, that mh17 was destroyed by an internal explosion rather than a missile hit?
as i recall, missiles target engines, which when messed up are set on fire, forcing the aircraft into a crash landing where the plane is largely intact or debris over a small area?
No, lobro. “External events” means “events originating outside.”
Interesting a heavy owned usa controlled aircraftmaker like Boeing.. Do NOT give exact blame game on Russia or the seperatists.
For usa to not have been able to use their “influence” to blame naf/russia… Is a leading clue of how weak the wests case against naf/russia very very likely is.
If there was a shred of evidence against naf there, then usa gov would almost guaranteed to use their influence to give naf almost direct blame for it.
Lets see if they can keep the rest of the reports kinda “clean”.
I think the idea is to hold this over Putin’s head, like a bloody chopper, until the Ukraine game is well & truly over. Just in case he gets any fancy ideas, like maybe starting up the “red tap voentorg” again.
Did the report provide any data on the location of the plane during the various events – i.e. its location when it broke-up, etc.?
i got the “event” part, rowan.
it’s just that i recall somebody explaining how in general, missiles don’t hit the aircraft directly, certainly not right on the nose, but are designed to explode in proximity, ie, tolerable distance of the jet engine, thus catastrophically disabling the engine, which goes on fire, which spreads to wings, aircraft rapidly losing altitude all that time, spiraling into the ground largely intact.
if you watch some wartime clips of fighter jets getting hit, that’s how it goes, pilots ejecting, plane heading down wrapped in smoke but still recognizable as plane.
what the report seems to intimate that some massive projectile ripped the fuselage open in midair.
how plausible that is, i cannot say, not a ballistic expert, but it seems to me a bit out of ordinary.
It’s pressurised, Lobro, not like in WW2. If you puncture a pressurised thin skin envelope, anywhere, it will rip open and burst, all over. But you know and I know that missiles never aim at the cockpit anyway, but at the centre of the heat (or in this case radar) signature. Even the supremely intelligent “Buk”, which dares to soar above the plane before swooping upon it from above, don’t ask me why, doesn’t aim for the nose. So, anyway, whoever heard of a “Buk” full of buckshot? That was some sort of cannon fire, we both know it.
A buk missile would be launched from a buk radar, and when up at certain attitude it will instead use its onboard mini-radar (not sophisticated the onboard radar).
Then it usually hits towards targets from above (not from below).
And selfdestruct some distance (50-300 meters?) from the target. (Selfdestruct according to some local censors i guess).
And the shrapnel i dont think is roundish, like the ones found on the cockpit.
So IF it were a buk missile, then damages should be accordingly.
And a plane does not fall straight down.
So if it was launched from a buk, then that buk had to be around ukr army territory.
And naf did not have a full buk (with own buk radar module), so kinda hard the extreme reaction time their glued eyes have had to perform for it.
Do you know how many posts I’ve got on the “Buk” now? 20, not counting comments. I haven’t even counted the comments. But on the subject of the radar. It’s true, if they didn’t have the radar truck, they couldn’t really have done it. See here:
Basicly, almost only some msm that still believes that it was downed by only a buk.
Usa msm, politicians was suddenly quiet when to much evidence surfaced.
Another sign of usa/kolomoiskys false flag failed.
(But will always be a burden for Putin, since even usa silence will be like point blame towards russia. Since noone in west politicians will refute the false “evidences”, that the west tried to stick on russia/naf).
(And buk-missiles leaves a clearly visible rear-smoke from the ongoing missile).
Zero witnesses have reported anything like that.
The BUK-topic (buk-evidence) is so talked about and the socalled evidence of buk is so wripped to shreds by real facts.
Sadly in the next days the topic will proberly be restarted, since some msm will bring back the nonexistant buk missile. (Msm does lousy research work).
If usa claimed they had sent a man to mars, many msm would just accept it as facts.
Actually, I have read through the report (the link to it is in the post at the top), and it claims that the roof the centre section had these buckshot holes in it too. So, conceivably, you could say, Kolomoisky’s boys launched the “Buk”, it went up and over the plane, swooped on it and exploded at 30 m or whatever, showering cockpit, centre section & all with buckshot… but no… the holes in the sides of the cockpit are almost (but not quite) horizontal. It still seems more like cannon fire.
The report ATC snapshot appears to place MH17 at time of impact at 40 km uprange from the alleged rebel BUK near Pervomaiskyi. The detail map of the crash scene, however, claims the last FRD point was essentially at the crash site, which is still 25 km from the alleged rebel BUK. The cockpit is shown somehow landing 2km down range from impact – i.e. it fell 10 km down while travelling only 2 km forward. Other parts are shown falling backwards. The map of parts does not appear complete compared to other maps the Dutch previously released. It will certainly be interesting to see how they explain the ability of the BUK unit to track, target, and lock-on to MH17 so as to be able to bring it down at that range.
The 20 nautical mile diversion spoken of is the size of the diversion from Air Path L-69 (where Russian ATC showed the plane) to Air Path L-980 (where the report shows the plane).
The meterological image provided of noontime does not comport to the bright sun and cloudless sky of the image of the BUK in Torez distributed by the SBU.
where did i leave the notes i took when sylvester stallone explained to me how to hang onto the wing of air force 1 with one hand that the arab terrorist is stomping on from above while hanging onto the screaming girl with the other hand …