MH17 Dutch Safety Board Preliminary Report published tomorrow

September 8, 2014 — 4 Comments

The Dutch Safety Board, which is the lead organisation in the investigation of the MH17 downing of 17th July, will be issuing a preliminary report tomorrow, which should shed light on the downing of the MH17 and will hopefully clear up some unexplained matters, although it is also bound to become a major focus of the NATO-Russia information war.

The Dutch Safety Board’s report will be available here at 10:00 AM local time Amsterdam (08:00 hours UTC).

According to the authors, the “preliminary report will present factual information based on the sources available to the Dutch Safety Board. In the months to come further investigation is needed before the final report can be written. The Dutch Safety Board expects to publish the final report within a year after the crash.“

A key question will be whether the US government have provided the detailed satellite images of the area from which they say the missile which brought the aircraft was launched.

The investigators should be able to confirm that a BUK missile was responsible for the downing of MH17.

We know from the Dutch Safety Board that “The following countries have contributed (to a greater or lesser extent) to the international investigation team into the crash of flight MH17: Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, France, Italy and Indonesia. The ICAO and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) also contributed to the investigation as organisations.”

Those who formally participated in the investigation will have been shown a copy of the draft report, allowing them to make comments.

The investigators have not visited the crash site. Those who visited the site were only forensic investigators helping in the recovery of bodies. However, many resources will be available, including those bodies, photographic evidence from journalists, the Cockpit Voice Recorder, the Flight Data Recorder, satellite and other images and radar information.

The available investigative information will not all be published “in accordance with the Dutch Safety Board Act (Rijkswet Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid) and the ICAO agreement.”

Conclusions will obviously be drawn based on this report. However, for reasons made clear previously, determining responsibility in this matter is likely to be difficult, because of the ongoing war in the area, the manifest penetration of rebel communications by the Ukrainian Secret Service (SBU) which would allow them to penetrate rebel operations, the profusion of rebel groups, the possibility of a false flag organised for geopolitical reasons, and the manifest Russophobia of those in the neo-Nazi core of the Ukrainian security apparatus.

A reporter for the BBC claims this evening to have found two anonymous eyewitnesses to a BUK in the area, one of whom claims it was accompanied by a man with a Moscow accent. Given the current information war, it would be surprising if the BBC didn’t find an “eyewitness” to link the BUK seen in the area of the launch to Moscow.

More seriously Bellingcat (the new site of Elliot Higgins) has published information which seeks to link the Paris Match photo, taken on the edge of Donetsk, with video previously uploaded to Russian social networks.

With regard to the Bellingcat evidence, it is self-evident that a false flag operation aimed at Russia would ensure photos and video taken of the BUK used, ostensibly by rebels, would be painted in markings linking it to a Russian BUK.

As regular readers will be aware, the video which the Ukrainian Interior Minister published was filmed in a location in Lugansk which indicates that the Ukrainian authorities had control of or knew the movements of this BUK in advance. Indeed, there is evidence the footage was filmed in pro-Kiev territory.

Whilst the possibility of an accidental shooting down by one of the many rebel groups seeking to defend from Ukrainian air attacks remains and Ukraine argues the downing was part of a false flag with an Aeroflot flight the intended target, an anti-Russian false flag can certainly not be ruled out and would fit in with the historical modus operandi of the national socialists in control of Ukraine’s security service. It is essential that the Dutch Safety Board Report fully explains the circumstances in which this video was made.

The Dutch Safety Board is also looking into the question of whether Ukraine should have closed its airspace to civilian aircraft, as it did for military flights, and it is difficult to see this part of the report being anything other than damning of the Ukrainian authorities.

Update: The published report confirms MH17 was hit by “a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside.” This is consistent with most theories as to what happened to the plane as photos of damage to the plane have been in the public domain for a long time. (A missile from a BUK explodes near a plane in such a way high-energy objects penetrate the plane).

It will be difficult for people to spin this report as pointing the finger of blame at anyone although, as we saw with the Ghouta investigation, this does not mean that the media will not attempt to do that.

4 responses to MH17 Dutch Safety Board Preliminary Report published tomorrow

  1. 

    The propaganda war also includes a serious pro-Russian activist push to blame Ukraine. I don’t say Russia is doing this. Instead a whole bunch of self-appointed emmissaries of the Russian tribe have been pushing totally ludicrous theories of Ukraine culpability, either as a technical exercise in FUD, or sadly, because they want to believe it.

    The major theme seems to be a Ukrainian SU-25 shot down MH17 with 30mm cannon fire perhaps in conjuction with an air-to-air missile. They base their claims on ‘analysis’ of wreckage photos which they claim show 30mm cannon fire holes (which they clearly don’t) and the presence of falling streamers immediately after main aircraft impact which they claim are ‘chaff’ from a hidden UA aircraft – chaff streamers from the 40s and 50’s (‘rope’) which would have to be hundreds of metres long and several metres wide. Subsequent photos of the wreckage shows long strips of plastic sheet off rolls that matches exactly.

    The report will not tire them. They will claim the black boxes have been tampered with, that Ukraine deliberately attacked the crash site to hide evidence, and that there is a conspiracy by Western Powers to hide the truth.

    • 
      Christopher Brooks September 9, 2014 at 09:55

      Russia identified an approaching military jet which requires explanation.
      Where is the clear evidence of a BUK plume?
      Eyewitness accounts report a military jet at the scene of the crime.
      The “intercepted audio” have been declared a concoction by forensic analysis.
      Kiev have dished up regular lies about Buks, no Buks, mines, invasions and conquest that leave me suspicious of all their statements.
      The US has made claims about their evidence that has evaporated.
      On the contrary, Russia has produced evidence and urged the investigation to
      release information.
      Considering the attitudes and atmosphere there is every reason to be suspicious
      Russia may not be guilty and are being framed for strategic advantage.

  2. 

    I should also mention the Western Institutionalised propaganda about the crash, perpetuated by an army of willing journalists.

    The main theme was that the crash site was seized by separatists and evidence tampered with, the investigations deliberately hampered, and the body recovery blocked for nefarious purposes.

    From what I can make out, what actually happened was a small separatist unit was tasked with escorting journalists in and out of the area and generally to keep them (journalists) in order. They otherwise had no involvement in the rescue works.

    At the same time the local Ukrainian civil authorities established a large recovery operation using firemen and other emergency workers, together with volunteers. They established a quite reasonable site procedure including marking all body fragments for later recovery and documenting as much of the wreckage as possible. As the bodies started to decompose they were removed to refrigerated storage for delivery to national morgue and forensic facilities.

    In terms of body recovery and process I don’t think it was markedly different to say Lockerbie where some bodies weren’t recovered for up to a week after.

    Not an ideal handling of the site, but certainly not a deliberate cover-up and tampering with evidence as stated, or at least implied by much of Western MSM

Trackbacks and Pingbacks:

  1. MH17 Dutch Safety Board Preliminary Report publ... - September 10, 2014

    […] The Dutch Safety Board, which is the lead organisation in the investigation of the MH17 downing of 17th July, will be issuing a preliminary report tomorrow, which should shed light on the downing o…  […]

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