Novaya Gazeta, a Russian newspaper known for its "liberal" and "ooppositionist" leanings, acquired a copy of a classified investigation performed by Russian aviation and missile specialists (including from the design bureau which created the Buk air defense system). The entire rather lengthy report is at the link, but here are the "money 'graphs". On the basis of known information about the nature of the damage and the shape of the fragments that have struck the airliner, they have come to the conclusion the missile in question was a Buk-M1. However, the graphic at the top rules out the possibility the missile was launched from the vicinity of Novorossia-held Snezhnoye (which is what the Ukrainian and NATO version allege) because of the fragmentation pattern Buk warheads create. If the missile came from Snezhnoye, in other words, if it was launched from nearly directly in front of the aircraft, one would not see extensive fragmentation damage both of the cockpit area and the engine, wings, and rear control surfaces. For such a pattern of damage to have occurred, the missile would have had to arrive at a trajectory more closely perpendicular to the airliner's flight course. In other words, it would have had to come from Ukrainian-held territory, specifically from the vicinity of the town of Zaproshchenskoye....Fort Russ
"It was Buk-M1"--Classified Russian report on MH17 published
J. Hawk
Novaya Gazeta: "It was Buk-M1"
3 comments:
Quite possibly the main reason why NATO has, for all intents and purposes, dropped the MH17 issue like a hot potato is because they have come to similar conclusions which, for obvious enough political reasons, can never see the light of day.
That much we can agree on !
I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the BUK theory. Both the BUK theory and the SU25 theory require drawing conclusions from photos of plane parts. Looking at a few photos is a poor substitute for a thorough investigation.
The strength of the BUK theory is that it would explain why the pilots did not have time to send a distress signal.
The weakness of the BUK theory is nobody saw a BUK launch.
The weakness of the SU25 theory is that it would require great luck to instantly disable both pilots with the SU25's 30mm cannon. More likely the pilots would survive the initial attack and have time to make a distress call.
Novaya Gazeta and the Moscow Times
"The Moscow Times ... has the circulation of a small town shopping guide. It is owned by Sanoma Corporation, a shadowy media company run by Arthur Hoffman, a former employee of Booz Allen Hamilton, a CIA intelligence contracting firm. Before that he worked for Arthur Andersen, the now defunct “Big Five” accounting firm tied to CIA money laundering."
"The Moscow Times regularly reports on another English language blog called Novaya Gazeta."
All of these groups are “run” for lack of a better word out of the Hoover Institution whose operational heads are Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld.
I saw that Dan, but the ownership mentioned doesn't seem to check out.
http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/18/4638
Post a Comment