MH17 Was Struck By Multiple "High-Energy Objects From Outside The Aircraft", Crash Report Reveals

Tyler Durden's picture

Over a month after the crash of flight MH 17 over east Ukraine, and with the confiscated Air Traffic Control voice recording still kept confidential by a western-led task force for reasons unknown, overnight the Dutch Safety Board released its preliminary report on the causes of the crash. As the AP reported, it agency "stopped short of saying the Boeing 777 was shot down by a missile, but its findings appear to point to that conclusion. It also did not say who might have been responsible." Actually, what the Dutch report did say is the following: MH17 was struck by multiple "high-energy objects from outside the aircraft," causing it to break up over eastern Ukraine, a preliminary report into the deadly aviation disaster concluded Tuesday.

From the report: "The damage observed in the forward section of the aircraft appears to indicate that the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft," the report said. "It is likely that this damage resulted in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft, leading to an in-flight break up."

In essence what the board "reported" is what has been widely known by now: "The initial results of the investigation point toward an external cause of the MH17 crash," the board's chairman, Tjibbe Joustra, said in a statement. "More research will be necessary to determine the cause with greater precision. The Safety Board believes that additional evidence will become available for investigation in the period ahead.... Detailed examination of the structural damage is ongoing," the report said. "Forensic examination will be performed if the wreckage can be removed."

Not unexpectedly, by the time the Dutch conclude their report, nobody will care about MH 17 and the current Ukraine civil war foreplay will be long forgotten, having been either long since resolved or grown into something much bigger. To wit:

The board is leading the international investigation into the cause of the disaster. Its full report is expected within a year of the crash.

But while the report itself was largely neutral as expected for a preliminary report, the "experts" promptly jumped in to steer the discussion in the desired direction, starting with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott who said, "The findings are consistent with the government's statement that MH17 was shot down by a large surface-to-air missile."

Another that saw in the report what he wanted to see was Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who "welcomed the report, saying in a written statement that its key conclusion "leads to the strong suspicion that a surface-to-air missile brought MH17 down, but further investigative work is needed before we can be certain." Well at least he covered his bases by saying his conclusion is not really based on anything in the actual report.

Yet other, supposedly credible voices also took over "concluding" what was a very inconclusive report: next cited was an "aviation safety specialist" at Yates Consulting, Christopher Yates, who told the AP the report "is extremely consistent with damage from a missile for the simple reason there are penetration marks.

"It must have been moving at very high velocity to create the damage," he said. "It could only be a missile of the type that would reach the altitude that would have struck the aircraft, potentially a Buk missile. He said the report gave no indication whether the missile had been fired from the ground or from another aircraft, but it likely came from the ground as there were no military aircraft known to have been flying at the time. The missile could not have been shoulder-fired because it would not have reached the necessary altitude, he added.

So if it is so clear that a Rebel-fired missile destroyed the airplane, we should look forward to the undoctored ATC recordings finally beings released to the public? After all, they have been held in secret custody longer even than the MH 370 ATC recordings, another plane whose fate is still a mystery.

Finally, we are stunned that nobody has observed the obvious: "high-energy objects from outside the aircraft" like for example... bullets? As in a warplane-fired volley of high-powered bullets. Curiously, there is not even a single mention of the word "bullet" in the entire 34 page report: apparently even the mere possibility of such an "high-energy object" is too inconceivable to even consider?

Then again, one can see why this possibility was not even mentioned by the experts, the politicians and the pundits: for the simple reason that should bullets be noted as a culprit, that would immediately put all the blame on the Kiev government as only a Ukraine warplane could have shot down the Malaysian Boeing 777 over Ukraine airspace.

But we are confident this possibility will be extensively covered in the final Dutch Board report, some time in late 2015 or 2016, by which point we can only hope the ATC recording which may just reveal why the airplane was redirected, will be finally released...

* * *

Update: it appears that at least a part of the ATC transcript has been released and can be found in the report as follows:

This is the transcript immediately surrounding the crash and confirms the redirection from Dnipropetrovs’k air traffic control centre (Dnipro Radar) "due to traffic." From the report:

At the time of the occurrence flight MH17 was under control of Dnipropetrovs’k air traffic control centre (Dnipro Radar). Shortly after 13.20 hrs, both Ukraine and Russian Federation Radar lost contact with the aircraft. The last radio transmission made by the crew began at 13.19:56 hrs and ended at 13.19:59 hrs. Dnipropetrovs’k air traffic control centre made a radio transmission to flight MH17 which began at 13.20:00 hrs and ended at 13.20:05 hrs. The crew did not respond to this transmission or subsequent transmissions. No distress message was received from the aircraft at any point in time by ATC.

What is not disclosed is the actual transcript that notes the path redirection. Instead the Dutch report reveals the following in paraphrase:

According to the flight plan, flight MH17 would initially fly at Flight Level 330 (FL330)5 above Ukraine until the waypoint PEKIT, which is on the Flight Information Region (FIR) boundary between Kiev FIR (UKBV) and Dnipropetrovs’k FIR (UKDV). From waypoint PEKIT the flight plan indicates FL350 for the remaining part over Ukraine.


According to ATC data, at 12.53 hrs the aircraft was flying within the Dnipropetrovs’k FIR, Control Sector 2, at FL330, controlled by Dnipro Control. At that time, Dnipro Control asked whether MH17 was able to climb to FL350 in accordance with the flight plan of MH17 and also to clear a potential separation conflict with other traffic in the area, another Boeing 777 flying at FL330 and approaching from behind.


The crew replied they were unable to comply and requested to maintain at FL330. This was agreed by Dnipro Control. As an alternative to solve the separation conflict, the other traffic climbed to FL350. According to ATC data, at 13.00 hrs the crew of flight MH17 requested to divert the track 20 NM to the left, due to weather. This also was agreed by Dnipro Control, after which the crew requested whether FL340 was available. Dnipro control informed MH17 that FL340 was not available at that moment and instructed the flight to maintain FL330 for a while. At 13.07 hrs the flight was transferred to Dnipropetrovs’k CTA 4, also with call sign Dnipro Control.

The provided map, which however fails to note any military aircraft in the vicinity, something that the Russians had supposedly caught on their radar.

And previously from Russia:

Here is a screengrab of a Su-25 fighter jet detected close to MH17 before crash.

Considering the seriousness of this redirection and the pilot's alleged "inability" to comply, it would be far more useful if the Dutch Safety Board would release this part of the transcript as it certainly will reveal much more than the part of the conversation that is already well known.

And some more from the report, first on the fate of the Flight Recorders:

The flight recorders were not recovered from the wreckage site by investigators of the Annex 13 investigation team, but individuals unknown to the team took them from the site. On 21 July 2014, the recorders were handed over to a Malaysian official in Donetsk by representatives of the armed group controlling the area. The recorders were transported by train from Donetsk to Kharkiv in custody of a Malaysian official and accompanied by Dutch officials and then transported to Kiev also in custody of a Malaysian official and accompanied by Dutch and ICAO officials. In Kiev the recorders were handed over to the Dutch Safety Board on 22 July 2014.


Immediately after the handover to the Dutch Safety Board, the recorders were transported to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch’s laboratory at Farnborough, United Kingdom, accompanied by an international team of air safety investigators from Germany, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and representatives of ICAO. At Farnborough a French investigator joined the team whereupon the work to download the data of both recorders was started. Later on an air safety investigator of the Interstate Aviation Committee also joined the team.


No evidence or indications of manipulation of the recorders were found.

The Cockpit Voice Recorder:

The housing of the CVR (figure 4) had been damaged and, although the model and serial numbers were unreadable on the data plate, the serial number 1366 - matching the one provided by Malaysia Airlines - was found stamped on the underside of the chassis. The external damage found on the CVR is consistent with impact damage, the internal memory module was intact. The recording capacity of this recorder is 30 minutes.


The full 30 minutes were successfully downloaded and contained valid data from the flight.


The replay of the CVR matched ATC communications with the aircraft (see ATC transcript). The recording also included crew communication which gave no indication that there was anything abnormal with the flight. The CVR audio recording ended abruptly. A replay of the CVR did not identify any aircraft aural warnings or alerts of system malfunctions. Detailed analysis is ongoing.


No aural warnings or alerts of aircraft system malfunctions were heard on the cockpit voice recording, which ended at 13.20:03 hrs. Crew communication gave no indication that there was anything abnormal with the flight.

Finally, data on the wreckage:

Wreckage distribution


Wreckage from flight MH17 was discovered spread over a large area near the towns of Rozsypne and Hrabove in eastern Ukraine. The main wreckage site was located 8.5 km on a bearing of 080° from the last known position of the aircraft in flight. On the accident site, a large amount of photographs was made, which allowed identification of certain aircraft parts, including preliminary assessments of localization and the nature of damage on the fuselage skin and the engines.

The aircraft wreckage, identified from the on-site photographs and satellite images, consisted of many large and small pieces distributed over an area of approximately 10 km by 5 km (figure 6). Fuselage pieces, cargo and baggage were scattered throughout the wreckage site. There were many additional unidentified pieces that are not shown in the figure. For easy reference the wreckage site has been divided into sections as shown in figure 6. These sections match with the aircraft sections shown in figure 7.



Some pictures of relevant parts of which the location was known, are discussed hereinafter.


Cockpit and forward area damage


Large parts from around the cockpit and forward section were found in the area closest to the last recorded FDR position (figure 6). Among these parts were portions of the cockpit, the forward cargo bay floor and the cockpit side wall. The remains of the cockpit were located at the southern end of Rozsypne, 2.3 km east from the last recorded FDR position.


Photographs from the some wreckage showed that a number of pieces contained multiple holes and indentations. An example of a piece of wreckage containing such damage was a piece of skin from below the left cockpit window (figure 8) found in the town of Petropavlivka.



Around 1.7 km north of the position where the cockpit window structure was found, was a section of the cockpit roof also showing holes indicating penetration from outside (figure 9).



Noting that the investigation team has not yet had the opportunity to recover these components for forensic examination, photographs from the wreckage indicated that the material around the holes was deformed in a manner consistent with being punctured by high-energy objects. The characteristics of the material deformation around the puncture holes appear to indicate that the objects originated from outside the fuselage.

Full report below (link to original):

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
crzyhun's picture

Who or what was on these Malaysian plane that they had to disappear and be shot down? Or? 

forwardho's picture

Re; apparently even the mere possibility of such an "high-energy object" is too inconceivable to even consider?

Why is it inconceivable that someone was ordered to fire their 30MM cannon right at pilots? Seems as though the plan worked perfectly, with the western media there to shape the story.

Missiles are proximity detonated near highest heat source, not cockpit area.

Think of useing 00 Buckshot to open a can of beer, 30MM cannon would shred the cockpit.

Mitzibitzi's picture

It's a radar guided missile, so the guidance radar would actually aim it at the area of highest RF reflectivity - which for an airliner, cargo plane, tanker, etc is the wings. Granted, the proximity fuze would probably detonate the warhead as it neared the cockpit (assuming it was approaching the 777 from the front) but a blast-frag warhead is pretty directional; most of the blast and shrapnel comes out the front in a cone of about 30 degree width. So it really would have to be heading right at the cockpit for you to get significant damage to both sides of the airplane, as the photos show there clearly was.

stilletto's picture

Most modern missiles (radar and heat-seeking)have 'rate bias'. This works by detecting the path of the tracked object and Biasing the guidance to track the front of the aircraft. Developed after early missiles would just blow the exhausts off aircraft due to crossing speed of target. Now aimed at most vulnerable area - the cockpit or just behind, not at centre of mass. Rate bias is in air to air and surface to air missiles.

post turtle saver's picture

like I said, the damage is simply not indicative of air-to-air gun fire... period, end of story

MarsInScorpio's picture



You're nuts - you really are.


Arkadaba's picture

From the Guardian article on the report's release:

"Russia, Ukraine, the US, the UK, Malaysia and Australia were all given the politically sensitive report for review, and investigators say they have since amended it before publication."


Kina's picture

There is no possible reason they could not release the air traffic control transcript unedited.

What possible reason could there be at all for not releasing it? If the plane was claimed shot down by a missle there would be no conversation between pilot and air traffic no unpleasant recording of that could exist.

The only thing that the transcript would reveal is the run of mill dealings with the plane......nothing controversial there...>WELL unless there is and that is why they wont release it.


We must assume that because they wont release the unedited recording of the dealings betwee MH17 and air traffic control is that it shows the plane being directed into a kill zone for no logical reason.

withglee's picture

"It must have been moving at very high velocity to create the damage," he said. "It could only be a missile of the type that would reach the altitude that would have struck the aircraft, potentially a Buk missile. He said the report gave no indication whether the missile had been fired from the ground or from another aircraft, but it likely came from the ground as there were no military aircraft known to have been flying at the time. The missile could not have been shoulder-fired because it would not have reached the necessary altitude, he added.


Does a missile make "multiple high velocity" external impacts? Must have been some sort of fragmenting missile then?

Who is it that "knows" no military aircraft were flying at the time?


Mitzibitzi's picture

Actually, yes. The 'Buk' has a blast-frag warhead. Kinda like a 60Ib shotgun shell.

Don't get me wrong, I think the official story is bullshit, too. But the damage in the photos could be consistent with that done by a warhead of this type. Maybe.

Kina's picture

Don't worry about the NYT. It has one purpose, and that nothing to do with truth or news.

bullchit's picture

A preliminary report stated object entry on both sides of the cabin, which would preclude a single missile strike.


God is The Son's picture

MH17 scraficial lambs, just like 9/11. One was blamed on fictious man called osama bin laden and the other on ficitous russian BUK SAM system which again there will not be a shred of evidence. Just like 9/11 on the first day the so called guilty were marketed like coca cola. It's clearly those who market are guilty ones.

Seal Team 666 will find BUk system and transport into the middle of the ocean and dump it there, so that the russians don't make shrine for the BUK system.


It's just a matter of time till the western main stream media will be seen as joke. Nothing but propaganda and lairs. If western civilians really knew what was going on behind the scene's, pretty much all the mainstram media center's would be turned in charcoal and lots of western leaders would hanging on lamp posts.

p00k1e's picture

HAARP Attack?

basho's picture

that's it?

"MH17 was struck by multiple "high-energy objects from outside the aircraft,"

we knew that on day one.

it is lame BS.

if it was the RU or the militia it would be all over the news as such.

NATO would be screaming.

Barry would be frothing at the mouth.

The EU would be screaming sanctions.

The UE would be screaming 'we told you so'.

pure BS

lpierre1955's picture

"High-Energy objects"? how about

"small metal objects, bullet shaped that gets their energy from an explosion of some gun powder behind, when shot by a trigger"

Hobbleknee's picture

Shouldn't the plane have completely disintegrated, like the planes on 9-11?

kowalli's picture

nothing to see here

P?keh?'s picture

There are two possibilities..  first the aircraft was shot down by a BUK missile system..  or 2nd the aircraft was shot down by a SU-25 R-60 Aphid missile..

The big difference is that the latter is heat seeking (the former uses sophisticated radar..) which would if fired on the airline would have hit the engine.  Clearly the data from the flight recorders show that both engines were functioning up to the point of the hull breaking up..  therefore the airline was not shot down by the SU-25.  

The shrapnel patterns to the front of the indicate that a missile via a proximity fused detonated in front of the aircraft.. indicated that the missile hit the the aircraft in a more or less head on collision..  

"and designed to fight cruise missiles, smart bombs, fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles." - wikipedia

so the flight path of the missile is consistant with the interception profile of the BUK weapon system.

Outwardly it appears that the airliner was indeed struck by a BUK missile.. the question remains, by who?

WarPony's picture

& Ukraine has 60 or so Russian BUKs

stilletto's picture

Modern air to air heat-seeking (IR tracking) missiles do not aim to explode on the engine. They have a Rate bias which factors the direction of travel of the target and biases the impact point to the front of the objects travel (See Aim9L sidewinder for example). Radar guided missiles also move the aim point to the front of travel not at centre of mass. I dont see how the shapnel shows a detonation in front of aircraft? It looks like the impact point was just behind/abeam cockpit. Most modern missiles either air to air of surface to air are designed to explode abeam the cockpit regardless of where fired from - front, rear or underneath. If fired from Ground one would expect massive damage under the floor of the cockpit and a 'spray' up. The panels shown are side of aircraft - leading a suspion that the weapon did not come from below but from a similar altitude.

 The damage looks like there are several candidates for causing it - even more than one being used. Reference Air fired cannon shells of 20/30mm calibre, these are high explosive so they penetrate and then explode like mini-hand-grenades. It will need detailed forensic examination to narrow the field but thats what we expected from this report. What have they been doing all this time?

tired1's picture

Why no visable ascending smoke trail?

loonyleft's picture

OT but if NATO is engaging ISIS and ISIS is in Syria, and Syria is backed / supported by Iran and Russia this really looks like the beginning of something big. 

If NATO only targets ISIS maybe, but if Syria and Assad get a few 'accidental' missiles shot at them, how is Russia going to react?

To me this seems like the same runaround that the US has used time and again to achieve it's own goals.


God is The Son's picture

I don't know if the NATO or the US really is going after ISIS, Islamic Jihadists have been NATO and US allies for Lybia and Syria. I suspect they just acting like enemys, when they are really allies. Maybe ISIS is being used as a means to build a military build up in order to attack Syria and Iran.

WarPony's picture

feint within a feint - sanction Russia energy and lay some Saudi pipelines to the med.  Europe has its energy, banksters have Syria and Ukraine central banks and the US taxpayer flips the bill.  Brilliant!

Who was that masked man's picture

Preliminary Report:  Big airpwane faw down from sky.

paint it red call it hell's picture

Oh, what a tangled web we weave

The lie is coming apart  Now what about MH370?

lakecity55's picture

I suspect "MH370" may reappear on 9/11.

With a different payload.

AgeOfJefferson's picture

As I suspected Dutch authorities (another American puppet) cover-up/disguise the facts. By the way my INFOGRAPHIC THE DOLLAR DEFENDE:

tony wilson's picture

small world A
a dutch firm has been given the search contracts for the first lost mh370 plane nice fat 6 month contract.
funny that.
it would seem norway holland and poland are all zion in like flynn

tony wilson's picture

it was a pole or an israeli flying a ukie plane or maybe a romanian mig29.
this is a cat and mouse game putin needs to dump his intel soon before the next false flag after which nobody will care about any of these malay planes.

no1wonder's picture

A highly plausible version of the tragedy:

Boeing-777 was downed by Ukrainian MiG-29, Romanian expert says (published 13.08.2014)


[...] the Romanian expert believes that it was not a Ukrainian Su-25, as the plane could not reach the altitude of 10,300 meters and strike the Boeing due to the poor level of training of Ukrainian flight personnel and technical imperfection of old Su-25. Vasilescu indicates that radars show Su-25 identically to MiG-29 fighter jet, as the planes have identical reflective surface area

[...] The fleet of the Ukrainian Air Force has fighter aircraft MiG-29 that are capable of intercepting Boeing-777. The fighters are based near Kiev and in Ivano-Frankivsk.

[...] The Romanian expert noted that Polish military pilots are best trained in south-eastern Europe and have many hours of flight time (180-200 hours per year). "They are familiar with the airspace of Ukraine, they took part in all exercises that Ukrainian Air Force has organized in the last four or five years. Polish Air Force has 31 MiG-29 jets, 16 of which were re-equipped by specialists of Israel Aerospace Industries. Polish pilots were trained by Israeli instructors who have extensive experience in destroying a variety of air targets.

kianator's picture

More disinformation coming down the mountain!  Downright silly at times!

peggleball's picture

Who gives a shit. The people are dead and the world keeps spinning.

The internet discussion are nothing contest in faith, just like a mud slinging contest between chistian and muslims over "truth" of god. Zerohedge continues parroting whatever "contrarian" view it find on the rumormill that is on the internet, much to Russias delight of course.  Other sites picks and chooses whatever fits there world view.

Russia knows who shot it down. Ukraine knows who shot it down. NATO knows who shot it down. And in the end it doesn't matter because there are more important things that determines the agenda.

Meanwhile internet continues to both credit and discredit any fake or real evidence out there. People will just follow their faith anyway.



peggleball's picture

Can down vote it as much as you want. Doesn't change the fact that this report is currenlty used as proof by all sides. 

People discuss bullets holes,  pieces, flight trajectories and other pictures. But they can't even validate authenticity of any data. And if they wre 100% on all data, they dont have the expertise interpet it. It is FAITH ALL THE WAY.




btdt's picture


People discuss bullets holes,  pieces, flight trajectories and other pictures. But they can't even validate authenticity of any data. And if they wre 100% on all data, they dont have the expertise interpet it. It is FAITH ALL THE WAY.


except some people DO have some expertise to apply.

some expertise can be applied to the data itself

the sum of expert oberveration can be greater than the individual observations

FAITH all the way vs - attempt to find the truth is a false dichotomy.

you are cynical on the observations of cynics - and? 

who cares about "all sides". as if all sides can be valid.




kianator's picture

Faith All the Way.  Some SAM radar operator is feeling very bad about accidentally killing all those passengers, whoever he may be!

kianator's picture

I couldn't agree with you anymore!  The many faces of "Tyler Durden" know their audience very well.  :-)

stilletto's picture

A sketchy report that says little and leaves some big questions to answer.

Why not publish the actual flight plan filed data from the flight? At least covering 2 hr prior to shootdown to 1hr after so we can see deviations from plan?  The report says MH17 was following the route and Altitude cleared by ATC. But the flight was not on its planned route. Did ATC contribute to this deviation from plan?

Why not publish the full 30mins of Cockpit voice recorder?  rather than a short edited precis? We need to hear everything the pilots said to ATC and to each other. Why not reveal all their comms?

Why not publish all the ATC Comms from first contact with Ukraine ATC?  Rather than just from 1308 when checking in with CT4 ATC. The crucial deviation north of planned track occurred before this time. Why is their no transcript of all the comms with CT2 ATC?

The report says 'UkSATSE provide the recording and a transcript of the radio(RAD) and telephone Communications ..' . Was this a recording of the SS Radar picture only (which wouldnt show a military jet if it selected its transponder off!), and a transcript of the comms? Thats How the report reads. Will investigators comfirm they have the original recordings of all the ATC Comms? It appears from the report that they haven't got them!

Thus the investigators have not had access to the ATC voice recording only an (edited and fabricated?) transcript from KIev? The Report states that the aircraft CVR and Data recorders had not been manipulated (handed over by Rebels), but the report does NOT say that the ATC recordings (property of Kiev) had not been manipulated! Who has analysed the original ATC tapes? Who has verified that they havent been manipulated? This report says nothing! The full, unedited ATC tapes from first contact with KIev need publishing!

What did CT2 ATC say to MH17  when the aircraft diverted from track prior to 1253. There is a CLAIM in the report that MH17 asked to deviate left by 20nm but no CVR or ATC transcript is presented to cover this track deviation? Why is the data not revealed? What did CT2 ATC say to MH17? What evidence is there that the pilots asked for a track deviation and it wasnt initiated by ATC? (Alas the CVR may not reveal this as it is only 30mins in duration - note to Safety inspectors - longer recording times should be fitted to CVRs) The flight was not on its planned track, show how the deviation north was initiated (the focus in the report on a turn 15secs before shootdown is irrelevant as this was a turn to regain track).

Report shows MH17 at FL330 for its last 3mins, but there was a claim that it had descended to FL310 in many reports over the last 6 weeks. Where and why did this claim of FL310 emerge and why was it not refuted weeks ago?

Whether it was hit by bullets or air to air missile or surface to air missile is still conjecture without forensic evidence.

Why did Kiev continue to battle for the last 6 weeks to get control of the crash site and thus render it unsafe to investigate? Why did Kiev not hold back its armies from that area so as to allow the investigation? Why has KIev done all its power to frustrate the investigation? Is it just a co-incidence that Kiev only agreed the ceasefire when this outline report had been finished?

This is a very inadequate attempt at a report, which hasnt published all of the vital evidence that it the investigators have in their possesion or, if it doesnt have the ATC recordings explain why it doesnt have them. This is not a fulsome report but is distinguished by what it withholds. It reads as though it has something to hide!


former RAF Crash Investigation Co-ordinator.


Day_Of_The_Tentacle's picture

Thank you for adding your level-headed voice to the discussion.

btdt's picture

great points R E N.

and add a few more items.

if the pilot requested a course change to avoid weather - T storms or a front of some kind.

then weaher racdar and ground station observations should confirm this weather

as should radio comms records with other pilots nearby making similar requests


- a little hard to believe that an outbound flight at FL330 whose pilot didn't want to go to FL350 (not enough fuel burned off yet?) would request a drop to FL310.

- report says a request by MH17 (or the ATC) for FL340 - this makes no sense as even FL #s are not a choice for headings 0 dgreees to 179 degrees.



SilverRaven's picture

I just saw the latest news report with close up footage of parts of the fuselage displaying a series of what looks like large bullet holes. They looked approx 20mm in size. The only thing that could do that at that altitude is a military jet fitted with 20mm canons.

Just need to figure out whose jet it was. Judging by the West backed investigators not releasing black box info, I know where I'd start looking first.

Source: aus ABC news 24

Son of Captain Nemo's picture

"High energy objects outside the aircraft" aside...

Great summary on all the other evidence which should be leading to criminal indictment(s) for the NATO members that started all of this in December!...

No small wonder these cocksuckers want to expedite a war as a full blown market collapse first will mean their heads will be "presentation material" on a pike or a plate!...

I bet Vicki and her husband Bobby just hate getting up every morning these days?!!!  Especially when you have the likes of George Soros calling them weekly bitching about the financial blood letting he is facing associated with his involvement with this wonderful little mis-adventure!!!

lakecity55's picture

Pretty obvious by what is left out it was an air-to-air encouner, not a BUK system.

gcjohns1971's picture

This is very dumb.

Pure propaganda and wishful thinking.

The hole that is purportedly a bullet hole is too small to be from an SU25.  See for yourself.  Look at the screw that is still in place right next to the hole.(the one witht he red arrow in the second 'wreckage' picture).   The screw head is about 3/4 inch in diameter.  Look at the screw heads in the next airplane you board to confirm this size.

Bullets fired from an SU25 are 30mm - 1 3/16 inches.    If that hole was from an SU 25, it would be AT LEAST twice as big as it is.  That hole, relative to the size of the phillips head screw in the photo is a .30 caliber would be fired from an AK-47 or from a PKM Machine gun, neither of which is capable of hitting MH17 while in the air.

Note that the other holes the called out in the photos are not round.  A 30mm bullet from an SU25 is HARD.  It is intended to penetrate armored vehicles on the ground.  It will not turn sideways when passing through a very thin, very soft alluminum skin on an aircraft, even when fired obliquely.

This is what bullets fired into soft alluminum look like:

The damage in these photos is not consistent with bullet damage.  It is consistent with damage from high-speed irregularly shaped pieces of metal, passing through the hull.

What can do that at 33,000 feet? (It is a rhetorical question, because the list is short, and only one of the candidates can be fired from an SU-25...and would require the SU25 to be at a lower altitude, because it is heavy.)

Therefore, this damage cannot have been caused by an SU25.

But it could have been a BUK from either side in the Ukraine War.

MarsInScorpio's picture



Ever seen a video of 30mm cannon fire from a ground attack fighter? It explodes!


There are objects going into the cockpit from outside, and objects coming out of the cockpit as well.


Not all holes are less than 3/4-inch - many are more than big enough to be 30 mm entrance holes - and the smaller are small enough to be the shrapnel from the explosions occurring inside the cockpit from those shells.


Also - how do you explain the graze mark on the left wing directed towards the cockpit - especially if a missile exploded * in front of * the plane? Missile exploding in front is pure fabrication – the graze marks disprove it.


Deal with it - it was a Ukrainian SU-25 as tracked - and documented - on Russian radar.



gcjohns1971's picture

Who needs a video?  I've had up close and personal experience.  It is no fun.

But the holes don't look like that.  Period.

Here's the data on the ammo:

The SU25 ammo is a little past the middle of the page.

Think what you want to think.  You are clearly going to do that anyway.

A 30mm bullet is not a missile that explodes in vicinity of the target.  It is a bullet made for piercing armor, and behaves like one.  The operating principle of the fuze is totally different. 

For the most part these bullets are designed to penetrate armor and then explode inside an armored vehicle.  When these bullets get fired at a soft, thin-skinned aircraft they often go right through it, because the fuze is an electronic one that operates on impact - and the thin aluminum skin doesn't always provide enough impact.

That's the whole problem with this story.  The entrance hole should be round and larger than your thumb if it were a 30mm cannon.  The cannon bullets would then explode inside the aircraft making lots of little holes exiting - or pass through it making another nice round exit hole. 

These photos simply do not look the way that 30mm targets look.  Where these photos are concerned it is totally conclusive.

That's not what these pieces of fuselage look like.  Here you have large irregular shaped holes going in...along with a bunch of holes thta look EXACTLY like a 7.62mm bullet hole, going in.  and then you have huge holes opening out of the fuselage.

I showed you what the entrance holes should look like if it were from a 30mm cannon.  Specifically there are holes from a 30mm cannon in the picture I posted.  You can clearly see them.  They are the big round ones. 

I am not saying who it was or was not, only what equipment it was or was not.

It was not a 30mm cannon that made these holes in these particular photos. .  Anyone who has had close-up experience with things with 30mm cannon damage can come to no other conclusion.  I challenge you to produce photos that look like these from any known 30mm cannon target.  But you will not, becaues they do not exist.

I have shown you what such bullet holes in a plane look like.

It is unreasonable to depart for total fantasy on this without producing any supporting information at all. 

If you disagree, then post what YOU THINK a 30mm cannon impact looks like and we can compare.  Otherwise it is pure fantasy.

I did that.

Your turn.