Thursday, September 29, 2016

Robert Parry — The Official and Implausible MH-17 Scenario

As far as I can see, there is no entirely plausible scenario on the table this far. There is also no scenario that has a plausible account of both motive and execution of a plan. However, the situation is complicated by several factors. All the evidence available has not been revealed publicly for examination and likely will not "for security reasons." Secondly, the investigation was compromised by a party to events with a stake in the outcome of the investigation being included as a member of the investigative body.

Robert Parry suggests why the recent report is more disinformation in the ongoing information war. There are more reasons that Parry lists.

Consortium News
The Official and Implausible MH-17 Scenario
Robert Parry


Anonymous said...

The Dutch have concluded that the MH-17 was shot down by a ground to air missile, but they don't know who fired it and they don't have any evidence that a ground to air missile was fired. Russian radar data have been released that show MH-17 was shadowed by two fighter jets. Some things that have not been explained carefully are:

1) Why was MH-17 diverted to fly over hostile Ukrainian territory by Ukrainian flight controllers?
2) Why was no ground to air launch observed by anyone?
3) Why did the damage to MH-17 more closely reflect damage from and air to air missile than a ground to air missile.
4) Why hasn't the US released its sensor data obtained over the territory that day?
5) Why were two Ukrainian fighters shadowing MH-17?

So here is my opinion and that of many independent analysts of what happened, and why Ukraine had an interest in seeing an incident like this happen.

Ukraine saw an opportunity to create an incident that would embarrass Russia and result in world opinion coming down so hard on them that they would have to stop supporting eastern Ukrainians in Dombas, who have close ethnic and cultural ties to Russia. And, they saw a way that they wouldn't be blamed for the incident.

Ukraine knew that Dombas rebels had ground to air missiles to shoot down fighter aircraft. They needed to insure that MH-17 flew over hostile territory where such missiles existed. And they needed to position their fighter aircraft below and in close vicinity to MH-17 where the rebel ground to air missiles would discover their usual targets. They knew the fighter aircraft they used could detect the launch of a ground to air missile and flee the immediate area to avoid being shot down. They had done it many times before. Once the fighter aircraft vacated the target area, the ground to air missile would lock onto the largest radar signature in the area, that being the MH-17.

The only problem was that the ground to air missile was never fired at the fighter aircraft below the MH-17, so the fighters shot down the MH-17 to complete the incident.

So why didn't the US release their sensor data covering the area? Because it would show that no ground to air missile was fired and that two Ukrainian aircraft were shadowing MH-17, raising suspicion of the planned incident.

I haven't heard any other scenarios that explain the incident any better. If you have one, post it.

Tom Hickey said...

Here is additional info from Patrick Armstrong. Links to his assertions are embedded in the original here.

MH17. The new report is out and says the rebels did it. I’m not going to waste time reading it: more blurry photos, data supplied by Ukraine, social media and none of Kerry’s “imagery“. It still ignores the damage to the port engine. Why is that important? Because in order to damage it, a Buk (given the warhead blast pattern) would have had to be coming from Kiev-held territory in a more southerly direction. The first report ignored the damage so it could claim the missile came from rebel-held territory to the east. QED.