Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 Crashes in Ukraine
- Thread starter Keit
- Start date
Palinurus said:
I'm sure the JIT will convene a great kangaroo court; should be a real show trial. Malaysia alone will not bring any balance, although they may try. However, this 'prosecution' trial will no doubt produce much headline fuel to further paint the criminals already decided upon; NATO will rejoice, as will the Ukrainians. As usual, the families of lost loved ones will be ill served, and that is sad.
Palinurus
The Living Force
Source: https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2017/10/16/74192-the-purpose-is-to-bring-this-matter-to-court
Dutch coverage (in English) of this interview here:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/10/mh17-prosecutor-trial-could-start-within-months/
EDIT: repaired lay-out failure
“The purpose is to bring MH17 matter to court”
Fred Westerbeke, Chief Prosecutor with the Dutch National
Prosecutors Office, in an exclusive interview to Pavel Kanygin,
a special correspondent of the Novaya Gazeta.
Общество
01:02 16 октября 2017
Павел Каныгин
спецкор
A red brick building on the Rotterdam harbor bank. A guard is smiling behind the glass of the checkpoint. A modest plaque nearby, saying “Prosecutor’s Office”. We meet Fred Westerbeke, Chief Prosecutor, at the round table in the reception area. Mr. Westerbeke brings along a stack of notes, some print underlined, a whole paragraph added by hand.
Chief Prosecutor Fred Westerbeke
Chief Prosecutor Fred Westerbeke is the head of the joint investigation team (JIT) that is looking into the Malaysian Boeing downing on 17 July 2014 over the Donbass. The MH17 Amsterdam – Kuala Lumpur liner carried 298 civilians — 283 passengers, and the crew of 15. They all died. In addition to the Netherlands, the investigation group is represented by Malaysia, Belgium, Australia and Ukraine.
In September 2016, JIT presented its findings (article in Russian), evidencing that the passenger flight was shot down by the surface-to-air missile launched by the Buk system from a site near Pervomayskoye (a settlement close to Snezhnoye), a Donbass area then controlled by the so-called “DPR”. The group also presented evidence that the Buk system was delivered to Donetsk Oblast from Russia, only to be whisked away immediately after the deadly shot. Based on the JIT materials, one may conclude that the Buk transportation was supervised by a militant who went under the moniker of “Khmuriy”. Based on the JIT materials it can be concluded that the insurgent called Khmuriy was responsible for the Buk transportation; records of intercepted telephone conversations involving Khmuriy were added to the case files.
The Novaya Gazeta ran its own investigation early in 2017 and identified “Khmuriy” (article in Russian) who happened to be one Sergey Dubinskiy. Presented in the photo Dubinskiy usually wears a uniform of a Major General of the Russian army. It is unclear yet whether Dubinskiy was in military service on July 2014. Dubinskiy-Khmuriy was identified by his fellow officer Sergey Tiunov, an Afghan war veteran. In an exclusive interview with the Novaya Gazeta, Tiunov said that he and Dubinskiy discussed the consequences of the MH17 tragedy, and he offered legal help to Khmuriy. By request of the newspaper, experts of the International Association of Criminalistic Phonetics and Acoustics (IAFPA) carried out the analysis of the voices of Khmuriy and Dubinskiy and concluded that they belong to one and the same person.
Sergey Dubinskiy is on the left holding a gun
In our conversation, Fred Westerbeke explained how the official investigation is “closing in” on identifying every single accessory to the MH17 crash, including top officials and military commanders who made the decision to bring the Buk system to Ukraine. Westerbeke went on to explain what guarantees are in store for the witnesses and what people like Khmuriy are to expect, if they wish to cooperate with the prosecution.
“The arrests will follow”
— Mr. Westerbeke, how does the investigation go on? What stage are you in?
— The investigation goes on and I cannot tell when this matter will be put to rest. But it is going to happen, no one should doubt it. We presented our preliminary findings on 28 September 2016 and answered the questions about what had happened to MH17 and where the Buk missile was launched from. Back then, we outlined the individuals involved, to a varying degree, in the tragedy. We have been looking for these people ever since.
— How do you mean “put to rest”?
— When those responsible for the downing of the passenger airliner are brought before the court, this will be the result of the JIT efforts.
— When the investigation team announced the cause of the MH17 catastrophe, it became all too clear that Russian would be the principal place of search for the individual suspects. Are you getting any cooperation from Moscow in identifying these people?
— We have been focusing our efforts on identification of these people over the last year. We know that the Buk system was delivered to the launch site by Snezhnoye from the border between Russia and Ukraine. We know that the system was smuggled back to Rostov Oblast after the fatal launch. We keep digging on and on, to find the answer to the questions: who brought the system, who escorted it, who pushed the button, who gave the order. So far, I cannot say that we have a finalized list of suspects. We keep gathering information from everywhere, and we welcome any cooperation from Russia, Ukraine and other countries and individuals who are in the know. Any information about who was behind this heinous crime would be greatly appreciated.
— A year ago, you said that you had information about a hundred individuals involved in the MH17 tragedy. Can you give us the names of those whose involvement is beyond any doubt? Who are these people?
— No, I cannot. The investigation goes on and we have no right or wish to disclose the names of the suspects or witnesses. But we will disclose everything when this investigation is over, and we will give the names at the trial.
— Not exactly the most transparent investigation.
— We are open where we can afford it. We keep the victims’ families and the public up to date. You may consider in this light our presentation in the autumn of the last year. Our laws and regulations allow us only to be completely transparent about a criminal investigation once the files are moved to the court. So that will be the moment when we can and will be totally transparent about the details of criminal investigation.
— But how are you going to find these people if you are not willing to disclose their names?
— If we want to have someone arrested, we will turn to the Interpol. We have procedures to follow. This stage is yet to come, but we will do it, if any arrests are required.
“The SU-25 attack on the Boeing is total nonsense”
— Are the Russian officials willing to cooperate with JIT at all?
— All I can say is that we have made several official requests to Moscow and I have talked with my Russian colleagues. If you are asking whether they are willing to cooperate, I would say they had given us some information. Are they willing to cooperate in honest? Well, a lot of people in the Netherlands find it hard to understand why it took the Russians grand total of two years after the plane crash to provide the original data from their radar in Rostov Oblast? And why did they time it exactly two days prior to our MH17 report? Anyway, they have given us these details. And I can say, there is a cooperation of sorts. Nothing goes smoothly there, as it is common to every international investigation, but there is the cooperation. Next year will show, if we are going in the right direction. So far, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt it.
— What do you think about the alternative report made by the Russian government-owned Almaz-Antey company?
Almaz-Antey presentation / EPA
— Their conclusion [saying that the Buk was launched from the area next to village of Zaroshchenskoye, allegedly controlled by the Ukrainian army] is the total opposite of ours. We disagree with it. My mission is to collect all pertinent information and give the file to the court. From this point of view, what Almaz-Antey did is a small technical detail, part of the extensive investigation carried out by our team. They made a test, blew a missile next to an airplane and drew some conclusions. Fine, we used their data. But we also made a similar test and gathered quite a few information: photos, videos, intercepted telephone conversations and, what really matters, found the eyewitnesses – individuals who saw the Buk. This trumps everything what Almaz-Antey has. However, I am not going to judge whether their conclusions are wrong or right.
— Why? Aren’t they making your job harder?
— I see a lot of diverse data around this matter. And a lot of, mildly put, fairy tales. First there was that story about a fighter shooting down the Boeing with the air-to-air missile, then they came up with a Buk launched from Zaroshchenskoye. My task is to check and verify every fact, no matter how hard it would be…
— You are very delicate, when you talk about disinformation that had been long refuted by mass media and your colleagues.
— Firstly, I am a functionary who has been a cop and a prosecution officer for 37 years. Secondly, I am not in the least bit inclined to argue who sees what as disinformation or whatever. That is totally beyond my mission.
— However, since we started about it… You mentioned an SU-25 fighter version. Have you really given it a thought in your investigation?
— Of course, we have. This was one of the wildest versions. At first glance, the evidence was rock solid, including the radar data, photographs and even a pilot (one captain Voloshin – editor’s note)… However, our experts immediately disregarded all these data as total rubbish. For example, the fighter jet on the pictures was larger than Boeing 777. Then we established that on that tragic day there were no fighter jets in the area, not a single one.
— According to the JIT report, the Buk system was brought to Ukraine from Russia and after the shot it was smuggle out back. Does it mean that the system was Russian?
— As a prosecutor, I can only talk about what I can prove. Even if it is perfectly clear for someone whose system that was, it is still not a legally established fact. It simply does not work this way. This is what everyone unhappy with the lengthy investigation should understand. So far, we have conclusive evidence of where the system came from and where it went back. Next, we need to establish the identity of the operators and, what is even more important, those who were in charge – the chain of command that made the decision about the Buk. Only when we are totally confident about our evidence, we will present it to the court and to the public. However, and I would point this out, no one is going to blame the entire population of the country whose officers owned that Buk. I am only interested in specific individuals involved in the attack: who pushed the button, who gave the order and those who approved the delivery of the Buk to Ukraine. We need some more time, to gather the evidence. The investigation is further hampered, because we cannot visit the areas controlled by the militants. And we are unable to make any arrangements there, including interviews and arrests. It all would take more time than I’d like to admit.
— Do you communicate in any way with the self-proclaimed “DPR” and ‘LPR”?
— We do not recognize these entities.
“We are able to protect witnesses in any part of the world.”
— Mr. Westerbeke, if Russian authorities fully cooperate with you, what can they expect as a quid pro quo?
— Quite honestly, I do not understand your question.
— Well, it’s all obvious to me.
— Let me put it this way. There is this UN Resolution No. 2166 [dead link, at least for me (Palinurus)], signed by Russia, actually. The Resolution says that every state in the conflict region shall provide assistance to international investigation. Full [unconditional] cooperation is the only way for the investigation to proceed. Five countries, not the Netherlands alone, are carrying out this investigation. And none of us may make bargains with any government. Our sole mission is to establish the facts. In case somebody missed this, I repeat: the truth is non-negotiable issue. This kind of approach does not work in the Netherlands.
— Suppose the Russian side agrees to extradite “Khmuriy” and close the issue of its involvement in the tragedy…
— I have read your investigation about that individual (article in English). Publications like this get us closer to the solution. However, the answer would be the same: no bargains when it comes to establishing the truth. If there is an individual [with the Russian authorities] who knows what happened to MH17, all I can say is: here’s the UN Resolution No. 2166, and your country has signed it. We would be happy to interview [Khmuriy] and anyone else who can share some information, but I have nothing to offer them in return. Everything is crystal clear. What else is there to offer?
— How about lobbying to lift the sanctions?
— But it does not work this way in the Netherlands. Someone in Russia may have a hard time believing it, but the prosecutor’s investigation in the Netherlands is independent. The minister of foreign affairs cannot just pick up the phone and tell me, hey, buddy, here’s the deal… Likewise, I cannot turn to the minister or anyone else with similar offer. This is the advantage of the Netherlands: the investigation is out of reach of politicians and officials. And we stay out of their business. I expect your question about the role of Ukraine in the investigation group. The answer is obvious: the crime happened within its jurisdiction. If we want to investigate the crime, we need to do it with them. In fact, the Ukrainians never once disappointed us in the course of joint operation. They provide everything we ask them for, omitting nothing, hiding nothing and doctoring nothing. Officers representing the other four countries participating in the JIT will corroborate this statement. Ukraine is a trusted member of our group. I would add, if MH17 were shot down over Russia, I would have suggested that Russia be made a member of the JIT group.
— I hear you. However, just to wrap things up with “Khmuriy”, if he or any other figure, like Strelkov, Boroday, etc., wish to testify, what guarantees you could give them?
— Every Russian citizen, not just Khmuriy, who wish to cooperate will be offered a number of options. If it is being a protected witness, we are ready to guarantee their safety and security, giving them a safe place anywhere in the world. If the figure is a party to the tragedy but wishes to cooperate, there may be a deal envisaged by the laws of the Netherlands.
— Asylum can be given to figures who are a party to the tragedy?
— Normally, we would not give any asylum to such figures. However, one needs to understand the extent of their involvement, assess the information they can share and how they can help the investigation. It’s all negotiable.
“Enough about the radars, OK?”
— Going back to specifics of cooperation with Moscow. The data from the primary radar that Moscow intended to provide to the JIT, allegedly refuting the involvement of separatists in the Boeing attack. Have you ever checked them?
— Let me tell you how it happened. About 2 days prior to publishing of our report in September 2016, the Russian side made a statement about the original data from the Utyos-T radar in Rostov. We obtained these data from the Russians only one month thereafter. We simply could not update our report on the basis of the new information. If you ask me whether or not we used those data back then, the answer is “we did not have it at the time”. It maintained that if the Buk had been shot from around Snezhnoye, the area controlled by pro-Russian separatists, the Rostov radar would have been able to detect the launch. Allegedly, that radar never detected any such launch. At least according to what the Russians told us two years after the tragedy. However, by the time of the report, we had an extensive and diverse package of evidence, testimony given by real eyewitnesses, photographs, videos, satellite photos – and all these unrelated sources indicated that the Buk had been launched from a site close to Snezhnoye.
— Anyway, have the Rostov radar data ever been used? Have you ever studied it?
— We received it a month ago and have been working on it ever since. Nothing to report so far. Why did it take us so long to start studying it? It’s quite simple: for some reason, Moscow first provided the data in Russian format, although we had specifically requested it in international form. We would say, if you have any new information, please share it in the form we would be able to study! We ended up waiting and waiting, until we have finally received it in the required format recently. Your readers, like everyone else who is following our investigation, may rest assured that all data provided by the Russian Federation will be filed to the case and be submitted to the Court.
— there is this one more thing that the Russians officially use to whitewash the involvement of pro-Russian separatists in the MH17 downing – the JIT report contains no primary data from the radars in Dnepropetrovsk. Moscow claims that the Ukrainians deleted the data immediately after the incident in an effort to cover things up. Meanwhile, the official Kiev claims these radars were simply shut down. What do you think about it?
— Indeed, in our 2016 presentation we pointed out that the Ukrainian station that would normally trace the flights over the area in question had been out of service, and the other station had been under repair. We have checked this information once again and got quite a lot of supporting evidence: the stations indeed were under repair. Later on, we found yet another radar close to the area in question. We gathered data from it, used it in our findings and properly reported it. Still, I would say, too much attention is given to radars of every kind, whereas there is an abundance of other evidence. There are eyewitnesses. Live people saw this Buk! There is a video of Buk going to Snezhnoye! It all makes me want to cry out, “Enough already! We no longer need anything about the radars! We have more than enough evidence and proof of what had happened. Imagine: you have eyewitnesses of a crime where one individual shot another. And you have video records and photos of the perpetrator buying the gun. And he discussed all this on the phone. And you have every bit of proof. So, what’s the point in looking for and investigating other guns in the city, and keep asking oneself, “Where are the radar data?”?
— In addition to the radars, Ukrainian Buk systems are a hot item as well. As you know, Moscow insists that the Boeing was shot down by a Ukrainian missile launched from Zaroshchenskoye. And Moscow doubts that Kiev has provided data on where its Buk systems are stationed and stored.
— My answer would be the same: no point looking for other Buk systems which could have shot down the airplane, if we already know exactly where and whose Buk had been shot. These questions were answered way back in 2015 in the report of the Dutch Safety Board, aided by the experts from a dozen countries, Russia included. For our own part, we in the JIT have established that the Buk has been brought from Russia. We have not an iota of a doubt in our absolutely unbiased conclusions.
“Testimony of our witnesses is worth more than the US satellite data.”
— The JIT report mentions satellite photos, which also prove that the Buk was launched from the Snezhnoye area. Are these photos made by the US satellites? Did you really get them?
— Yes, we have these photos. An officer from my department who has clearance for handling the intelligence papers stamped “top secret” and “national security” saw and studied satellite data kept by the United States.
— Can you share more details about these photos? Do they provide the broad picture of the incident?
— Unfortunately, it’s nothing like the movies showing the unlimited abilities of satellite observation and zooming. Mass media made a lot of people believe that the U.S. space technologies are capable of virtually continuous video recording of the events down on Earth. It does not quite work that way…
— So how does it work? Where else would the U.S. keep its satellites at the time of unprecedented hostilities in Europe?
— I assure you, not even the U.S. satellites are able to see everything all the time. Besides, as you remember, that day was overcast. I cannot talk about what was on these photos, because they were seen by my authorized officer with proper clearance for handling sensitive data. He saw the report and conclusion of the U.S. side, and we used their data in our investigation as well.
— Are you satisfied with the involvement of the U.S. team?
— I am. This tiny piece only adds up to the evidence that the missile was launched from the Snezhnoye area.
— Why tiny?
— Because they [photos] are just a fraction of an immense body of evidence. It is all about the testimony of our eyewitnesses that is worth more than all data from the radars or satellites.
— But you could publish these photos and put an end to all speculation, couldn’t you?
— There is just this little simple thing: those who wish to speculate, will keep speculating regardless of whether we publish anything or not. Quite honestly, all speculation should have ended in September of the year before when we came out with extremely hard evidence that the attack on MH17 originated from Snezhnoye. Yet it never ended. Any idea why?
— Regardless, Russian propaganda labels the evidence from your report as “fakes from the Internet” and keeps demanding the American photos.
— Then whoever is doing that [propaganda] should be aware that we made our presentation for the report on the basis of the original data which we gathered anywhere but the Internet. Our witnesses recorded these frames with their cameras and phones. These are authentic and verified materials we would vouch for. I would personally vouch for them, and I am a professional with 37 years of prosecution under my belt. You can watch this video any time you want. As for the updates, please, wait till the trial. We will present everything to the court. We are doing our best, to bring that day when we hold enough evidence to start the trial. We may need a few months more, maybe a year or so. Or it may be a matter of a couple of weeks, if a couple of witnesses turn up tomorrow and tell us the entire story and offer the evidence. We count on it, and we hope that new witnesses will find a way to get in touch with us.
— Mr. Westerbeke, what kind of trial it will be?
— We would very much like it to be a tribunal under the UN auspices. Unfortunately, Russia has vetoed this idea in the UN Security Council. That is why the countries participating in the JIT chose it to be the trial in the Netherlands and it will be held in accordance with our national laws. I think our legal system has proven itself as reliable, transparent, independent and fair. We are doing everything to make this trial happen. Hundreds of families around the world are waiting for it and it keeps us on our toes. Nothing will stop us until we have found every party involved, including the commanding officers and the top brass. This is our warning to those who still hope that they will get away with this massacre of the innocent.
Rotterdam
Dutch coverage (in English) of this interview here:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/10/mh17-prosecutor-trial-could-start-within-months/
EDIT: repaired lay-out failure
Palinurus said:
Of course, the only option open to the Chief Prosecutor, Westerbeke, is to maintain the narrative of the Buk at all costs. In the little video linked by him below, there is a alleged chain of custody of said Buk from outside Ukraine, from Russia, to inside Ukraine - to do the dirty deed and than back outside again. This is offered up by a parade of crumbs for all to follow, which they have only released dodgy bits into the narrative. The alleged evidence hinges on the cell phone calls, and we are to presume they have a rock solid chain of custody of the phone logs coming from the Ukrainians who I'm sure are only to pleased to be able to provide evidence to the chief prosecutor and his team.
For a prosecutor who is "not inclined tho argue" it is nice to know that he can use words like "total rubbish" to explain away a few data points just so that can be completely dispelled with.
If his "conclusive evidence" is provable, which he said he needs more time to gather, I thought it was interesting that he used this response: "...no one is going to blame the entire population of the country whose officers owned that Buk." Seems to me that the "blame" has been a constant. However, what game is he playing at with those words? What narrative could they weave as perhaps something will be offered up that saves face?
That's rather clear, yet they do recognize neo-fascists and American/NATO whips, and as long as you are not from the DPR/LPR, you will be protected.
I don't live in the Netherlands, yet one might suspect that generally in the West "truth" is negotiable as has been well demonstrated. If he had added that this non-negotiability is an "established fact," some in the Netherlands might take exception.
He seems to be talking like a prosecutor with limited and sketchy evidence, he shows not a lot of confidence at this stage.
Yes, quite right, it could be nothing like other high-level investigations (JFK, 911, multiple other airlines and on and on) whereby the investigation is "out of reach" from others who only want to meddle and provide direction. It is heartening to know that the Ukraine government, likely via their military intelligence arm, has been "omitting nothing, hiding nothing and doctoring nothing" and everyone is in corroboration with the prosecutors "statement." Look at it this way, to recap, the "trusted" group in Ukraine gave everything - "omitting
From non-negotiability to negotiability, depending on the context.
Wonder how "unrelated" these sources really are? I know Bellinigcat knitted together evidence. A question might be is this some of the same evidence the prosecutor is relying on?
The good prosecutor seems to have gotten pretty emotional right there - radar of any kind would not be welcomed as he already has an "abundance of other evidence" and "live people."
Of the Rostov data, he said he has nothing to report - of the fresh radar data now in international format, and we know he does not like radar data. He makes it sound like he has a slam-dunk case despite what he said well above concerning looking for more evidence.
Well, again he make it clear with the impression that they have the big banana, nothing else to see.
This was the missing data that the American's kept claiming was proof, I guess will have to wait and see. It must be very good data as it is not being rejected out of hand like other data that was mentioned.
Hmmm. Did we not see and hear many witnesses from the DPR/LPR discuss what they heard and saw with such honest conviction? Oh, forgot, there can be no evidence allowed from the DPR/LPR as the prosecutor previously stated, so I guess we will have to relive what has been up till now contradictory statements from his good witnesses likely heard before, and these witnesses we are told are better than photos and radar/satellite. One can understand with regards to some photos, cause you never know who had control of them. With witnesses though, that can also be a problem if they are coerced or inclined to lie. However, if it is a believable lie, it can work to the advantage of the prosecutor.
Perhaps this "why" was because what was rolled out was sketchy and inconsistent, yet I'm just one of many of the internet 'speculators' after all, so, it's for what it is worth.
This is the video evidence of the cell-phone logs mentioned above, and we should be rest-assured that they are being personally vouched for by the prosocutor.
Thanks for posting the interview.
I started reading the above without the intention to comment, yet the prosecutor, and he is no Perry Mason, go the better of me as he seemed to have a funny way with presenting the case and the evidence therein, the little evidence there was, and if it can be called true evidence remains to be seen - I'll not hold my breath. However, the prospector went out of his way to dismiss and malign what seems inconvenient, repeatedly, while gushing over such things as the Ukraine right-sectors alleged evidence as being very trustworthy. This has been a constant for all these years.
It is really sad for the families, they want closure and they need to know the why and the who, yet it looks like they will get what has been already decided upon and they will have to be either satisfied with it or not. With the prosecutors words, he does seem to put forth, if seen that way, the possibility that a finger will be pointed at a select group who acted alone, not sure though. As with investigations spanning back a half century and more, it seems likely that in this present political climate that the evidence at court, if that ever happens, will be selective with all the right authorities giving their nod, and people have seen this play out before.
Palinurus
The Living Force
voyageur said:
Thank you voyageur for your thoughts.
I agree it's sometimes very hard not to react when confronted with all these lopsided twists of, and sideway assaults on the mere facts.Meanwhile, for archiving purposes: https://nltimes.nl/2017/10/25/council-state-rejects-request-disclose-mh17-documents
angelburst29
The Living Force
Thanks for keeping up with all the new information. A Dutch Professor by the name of Kees van der Pijl, has just published a book and has an active Blog listed to share opinion and information. http://der-abschuss.blogspot.ru/2017/06/buch-quellen.html
A New Twist in the Investigation into Flight MH17 04/09/2017 (Map and photo of book cover)
https://orientalreview.org/2017/09/04/new-twist-investigation-flight-mh17/
In late August Russia handed over decoded radar data to the Netherlands from the aerial zone where Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down on July 17, 2014. These materials had initially been provided in their original, i.e., non-decoded form, along with the software needed to decode them.
However, the Dutch investigators, despite being armed with the latest in modern technology as well as the assistance of their British colleagues, were not able to decode the recordings, and in the end they asked Russian experts to do it. In three years this has been the only time they have asked to collaborate. Never before had the commission accepted any Russian offers of assistance.
The decoded recordings clearly showed that the missile had been fired from the zone controlled by the Ukrainian military. And this is not some fabricated story concocted by journalists, but documented, technical information.
However, every sign seems to indicate that the decoded information obtained from Russia will not be included in the case file, but will instead face the fate of so much other data that does not fit neatly into the preferred version of the investigation. It will probably just fall into a black hole, which is what happened to the photos of the tragedy that were taken by American spy satellites.
In the meantime however, it will not be easy for the investigators to stick to their prescribed approach to the investigation. Independent experts are conscientiously suggesting new avenues of inquiry that could help move the process along.
For example, since all of the Ukrainian army’s existing launch sites for its Buk-M1 missile-defense system can be accounted for and examined by the commission, it would be a simple enough matter to establish whether at least one of them was used to fire the missile. An inspection of the 60 existing launch sites within this system is both physically possible and could provide some surprising information. The launch of a Buk-M1 missile leaves indelible “burns” on the ramp that cannot be concealed, even under a new coat of paint. Although that would seem to be a very simple suggestion, it’s a significant one.
Kees van der Pijl, a Dutch professor in the Department of International Relations at the University of Sussex and the president of the NGO The Committee of Vigilance Against Resurgent Fascism, recently finished writing a book titled “The Launch: Flight MH17, Ukraine and New Cold War” (Der Abschuss: Flug MH17, die Ukraine und der neue Kalte Krieg). The German-language version of the book will go on sale later this month, and the English original and Portuguese translation will be available by the end of the year.
Professor van der Pijl examines the tragedy from a geopolitical perspective and asks: who benefited most from this disaster? And he answers: the US, which subsequently imposed sanctions against Russia, undermining its gas industry and checking its growing role on the international stage.
Specifically, the professor cites the following arguments:
– One day before the tragedy, the BRICS nations signed an agreement to establish their own bank, which the US saw as a rival to the IMF and World Bank.
– Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel had settled on a new conceptual framework for resolving the crisis in Ukraine – without US input – and real progress was being made.
– In addition, once the Boeing 777 was downed, American gas companies were suddenly able to find the traction to kick-start their work in Europe and force Russia out of the EU market. Moscow was forced to abandon the construction of the South Stream gas pipeline, and relations with the government in Kiev, which subsequently became a pawn in the games played by the West, definitively soured.
Not a single European or American media outlet has reacted to the announcement of the book’s publication and its path onto the shelves of bookstores is unlikely to be an easy one. However, times are changing, and many people are taking an interest in and flocking to Professor van der Pijl’s blog, Der Abschuss Flug MH17, which provides information about the publication of the book as well as links to his sources.
Using the materials available to them, the authors of the blog intend to shed light on the absurd inconsistencies evident during the investigation, as well as the investigators’ stubborn reluctance to answer awkward questions. Some known examples are:
– How could Ukrainian President Poroshenko, who announced the tragedy 15 minutes after it occured, have known that the Boeing 777 had been shot down by a Russian Buk missile?
– Why does the investigative commission not take into account the results of the experimental destruction of a retired passenger airliner by the company Almaz Antey, while also refusing to take part in a second experiment?
– What prompted Ukrainian dispatchers to alter MH17’s flight path right before tragedy struck?
We shall soon see whether officials will block the distribution of the book and what the consequences of that might be. But events could take an interesting turn. As a result of Professor van der Pijl’s efforts, we will learn the price of not only the work of the Dutch commission investigating the tragic fate of flight MH17, but the European democracy and European justice as well…
The publication is based on Dmitry Sedov’s article by Strategic Culture Foundation (in Russian), adapted and translated by ORIENTAL REVIEW.
A New Twist in the Investigation into Flight MH17 04/09/2017 (Map and photo of book cover)
https://orientalreview.org/2017/09/04/new-twist-investigation-flight-mh17/
In late August Russia handed over decoded radar data to the Netherlands from the aerial zone where Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down on July 17, 2014. These materials had initially been provided in their original, i.e., non-decoded form, along with the software needed to decode them.
However, the Dutch investigators, despite being armed with the latest in modern technology as well as the assistance of their British colleagues, were not able to decode the recordings, and in the end they asked Russian experts to do it. In three years this has been the only time they have asked to collaborate. Never before had the commission accepted any Russian offers of assistance.
The decoded recordings clearly showed that the missile had been fired from the zone controlled by the Ukrainian military. And this is not some fabricated story concocted by journalists, but documented, technical information.
However, every sign seems to indicate that the decoded information obtained from Russia will not be included in the case file, but will instead face the fate of so much other data that does not fit neatly into the preferred version of the investigation. It will probably just fall into a black hole, which is what happened to the photos of the tragedy that were taken by American spy satellites.
In the meantime however, it will not be easy for the investigators to stick to their prescribed approach to the investigation. Independent experts are conscientiously suggesting new avenues of inquiry that could help move the process along.
For example, since all of the Ukrainian army’s existing launch sites for its Buk-M1 missile-defense system can be accounted for and examined by the commission, it would be a simple enough matter to establish whether at least one of them was used to fire the missile. An inspection of the 60 existing launch sites within this system is both physically possible and could provide some surprising information. The launch of a Buk-M1 missile leaves indelible “burns” on the ramp that cannot be concealed, even under a new coat of paint. Although that would seem to be a very simple suggestion, it’s a significant one.
Kees van der Pijl, a Dutch professor in the Department of International Relations at the University of Sussex and the president of the NGO The Committee of Vigilance Against Resurgent Fascism, recently finished writing a book titled “The Launch: Flight MH17, Ukraine and New Cold War” (Der Abschuss: Flug MH17, die Ukraine und der neue Kalte Krieg). The German-language version of the book will go on sale later this month, and the English original and Portuguese translation will be available by the end of the year.
Professor van der Pijl examines the tragedy from a geopolitical perspective and asks: who benefited most from this disaster? And he answers: the US, which subsequently imposed sanctions against Russia, undermining its gas industry and checking its growing role on the international stage.
Specifically, the professor cites the following arguments:
– One day before the tragedy, the BRICS nations signed an agreement to establish their own bank, which the US saw as a rival to the IMF and World Bank.
– Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel had settled on a new conceptual framework for resolving the crisis in Ukraine – without US input – and real progress was being made.
– In addition, once the Boeing 777 was downed, American gas companies were suddenly able to find the traction to kick-start their work in Europe and force Russia out of the EU market. Moscow was forced to abandon the construction of the South Stream gas pipeline, and relations with the government in Kiev, which subsequently became a pawn in the games played by the West, definitively soured.
Not a single European or American media outlet has reacted to the announcement of the book’s publication and its path onto the shelves of bookstores is unlikely to be an easy one. However, times are changing, and many people are taking an interest in and flocking to Professor van der Pijl’s blog, Der Abschuss Flug MH17, which provides information about the publication of the book as well as links to his sources.
Using the materials available to them, the authors of the blog intend to shed light on the absurd inconsistencies evident during the investigation, as well as the investigators’ stubborn reluctance to answer awkward questions. Some known examples are:
– How could Ukrainian President Poroshenko, who announced the tragedy 15 minutes after it occured, have known that the Boeing 777 had been shot down by a Russian Buk missile?
– Why does the investigative commission not take into account the results of the experimental destruction of a retired passenger airliner by the company Almaz Antey, while also refusing to take part in a second experiment?
– What prompted Ukrainian dispatchers to alter MH17’s flight path right before tragedy struck?
We shall soon see whether officials will block the distribution of the book and what the consequences of that might be. But events could take an interesting turn. As a result of Professor van der Pijl’s efforts, we will learn the price of not only the work of the Dutch commission investigating the tragic fate of flight MH17, but the European democracy and European justice as well…
The publication is based on Dmitry Sedov’s article by Strategic Culture Foundation (in Russian), adapted and translated by ORIENTAL REVIEW.
Palinurus
The Living Force
Thanks angelburst29 for your successful sleuthing. 
I've never heard of Kees van der Pijl so I went searching. He appears to have been rather active on this subject.
This video in English is from Tuesday October 13, 2015 about the JIT report (8:52 min.):
A more recent presentation from about one month ago (September 19, 2017) can be found here: https://dutchreport.nl/professor-kees-van-der-pijl-mh-17-video/
(NOTE: video in Dutch, 1:05:38 min. -- talk starts at the 8:20 mark)
A summary in English of this recent speech (video again included at the bottom) can be read here: http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/presentation-van-kees-van-der-pijl-on-ukraine-and-mh17/
A blog post of October 9, 2016 (English translation) here: http://oorlogisgeenoplossing.blogspot.nl/p/blog-page_71.html
Info about the man (in English):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kees_van_der_Pijl
https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=l6xXFxIAAAAJ&hl=nl
Sources in Dutch:
http://oorlogisgeenoplossing.blogspot.nl/2016/10/wordt-mh17-ons-911-16-het-eindrapport.html?spref=tw
https://www.geenstijl.nl/5005702/wordt_mh17_ons_911_16_het_eind/
https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2139769-mh17-misbruikt-voor-opvoeren-spanning-met-rusland.html
https://www.grenzeloos.org/content/%E2%80%98associatieverdrag-met-oekra%C3%AFne-vergroot-de-kans-op-conflicten%E2%80%99
I've never heard of Kees van der Pijl so I went searching. He appears to have been rather active on this subject.
This video in English is from Tuesday October 13, 2015 about the JIT report (8:52 min.):
A more recent presentation from about one month ago (September 19, 2017) can be found here: https://dutchreport.nl/professor-kees-van-der-pijl-mh-17-video/
(NOTE: video in Dutch, 1:05:38 min. -- talk starts at the 8:20 mark)
A summary in English of this recent speech (video again included at the bottom) can be read here: http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/presentation-van-kees-van-der-pijl-on-ukraine-and-mh17/
A blog post of October 9, 2016 (English translation) here: http://oorlogisgeenoplossing.blogspot.nl/p/blog-page_71.html
Info about the man (in English):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kees_van_der_Pijl
https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=l6xXFxIAAAAJ&hl=nl
Sources in Dutch:
http://oorlogisgeenoplossing.blogspot.nl/2016/10/wordt-mh17-ons-911-16-het-eindrapport.html?spref=tw
https://www.geenstijl.nl/5005702/wordt_mh17_ons_911_16_het_eind/
https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2139769-mh17-misbruikt-voor-opvoeren-spanning-met-rusland.html
https://www.grenzeloos.org/content/%E2%80%98associatieverdrag-met-oekra%C3%AFne-vergroot-de-kans-op-conflicten%E2%80%99
Palinurus said:Thanks for your successful sleuthing.
I've never heard of Kees van der Pijl so I went searching. He appears to have been rather active on this subject.
This video in English is from Tuesday October 13, 2015 about the JIT report (8:52 min.):
A more recent presentation from about one month ago (September 19, 2017) can be found here: https://dutchreport.nl/professor-kees-van-der-pijl-mh-17-video/
(NOTE: video in Dutch, 1:05:38 min. -- talk starts at the 8:20 mark)
A summary in English of this recent speech (video again included at the bottom) can be read here: http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/presentation-van-kees-van-der-pijl-on-ukraine-and-mh17/
A blog post of October 9, 2016 (English translation) here: http://oorlogisgeenoplossing.blogspot.nl/p/blog-page_71.html
Info about the man (in English):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kees_van_der_Pijl
https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=l6xXFxIAAAAJ&hl=nl
Sources in Dutch:
http://oorlogisgeenoplossing.blogspot.nl/2016/10/wordt-mh17-ons-911-16-het-eindrapport.html?spref=tw
https://www.geenstijl.nl/5005702/wordt_mh17_ons_911_16_het_eind/
https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2139769-mh17-misbruikt-voor-opvoeren-spanning-met-rusland.html
https://www.grenzeloos.org/content/%E2%80%98associatieverdrag-met-oekra%C3%AFne-vergroot-de-kans-op-conflicten%E2%80%99
Very good catch on the video, angelburst29 and further info, Palinurus.
Kees van der Pijl basically said he was undecided (and does not like the 'official' explanations) on what took down the MH117 i.e. a BUK, he said the patterns do not represent what a BUk explosion would do. He cites the journalist John Helmer who has independently been investigating (example on SOTT here) and also discussed the "demonetization" by the West of Putin and then expands on this by discussing the sanctions imposed against Russia, which he then eludes to it being in the back of the Western powers minds as a
When you look at other 'downed' aircraft's, such as Pan Am Flight 103, TWA Flight 800, Swissair Flight 111, of course American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93, and Air France Flight 447, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Germanwings Flight 9525, EgyptAir Flight 804 (and many many more possibilities from this list) which were investigated and have either been completely suspect or could be suspect to a completely different investigative reality.
Palinurus
The Living Force
Archiving from SOTT a rather lengthy report on a group of American lawyers who want to sue in a US court the Russian state bank Sberbank on behalf of MH17 victims and their next of kin:
https://www.sott.net/article/367292-American-motley-crew-of-lawyers-try-selling-Sberbank-lawsuit-to-MH17-victims
Most of the article contains sort of a compendium on all other court cases started, still running or pending.
https://www.sott.net/article/367292-American-motley-crew-of-lawyers-try-selling-Sberbank-lawsuit-to-MH17-victims
Most of the article contains sort of a compendium on all other court cases started, still running or pending.
Palinurus
The Living Force
Since the latest parliamentary elections in the Netherlands (on March 15, 2017) there has been the longest formation period in Dutch post WWII history: 225 days, and the new cabinet (Rutte III) was sworn in on October 26, 2017. The new government was formed by a coalition of four parties: VVD (33), CDA (19), D66 (19) and CU (5). Combined, they have the slimmest majority of just one seat: 76 out of 150.
Pieter Omtzigt was and is a parliamentarian, member of the CDA party (Christian Democrats), formerly in opposition and now supporting the newly formed coalition government. Among other activities, he has been a fervent searcher for truth about anything that happened with flight MH17 and also a highly critical monitor of all things passing with and around the international investigation into it. This has resulted in numerous parliamentary questions, a high media profile and frequent speeches on all sorts of occasions concerning MH17 and its aftermath. A tentative overview of some of those can be found here (all Dutch): _https://www.geenstijl.nl/search/?keyword=pieter%20omtzigt%20mh17
One of those speeches was held on May 11, 2017. A short video snippet thereof was posted by bjorn in Reply #849 on page 57 of this thread and it was briefly discussed in Reply #850 and #851.
This is that video (2:38 min):
Now for what happened over the weekend.
Source: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/11/omtzigt-faces-calls-to-quit-over-fake-witness-who-spoke-at-mh17-meeting/
In the meantime it has been confirmed (in Dutch) that Omtzigt himself has for the time being withdrawn as parliamentary spokesman of the CDA-party on all matters concerning flight MH17.
EDIT: rearranged lay-out, added a few hyperlinks and one word that somehow disappeared.
Pieter Omtzigt was and is a parliamentarian, member of the CDA party (Christian Democrats), formerly in opposition and now supporting the newly formed coalition government. Among other activities, he has been a fervent searcher for truth about anything that happened with flight MH17 and also a highly critical monitor of all things passing with and around the international investigation into it. This has resulted in numerous parliamentary questions, a high media profile and frequent speeches on all sorts of occasions concerning MH17 and its aftermath. A tentative overview of some of those can be found here (all Dutch): _https://www.geenstijl.nl/search/?keyword=pieter%20omtzigt%20mh17
One of those speeches was held on May 11, 2017. A short video snippet thereof was posted by bjorn in Reply #849 on page 57 of this thread and it was briefly discussed in Reply #850 and #851.
This is that video (2:38 min):
Now for what happened over the weekend.
Source: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/11/omtzigt-faces-calls-to-quit-over-fake-witness-who-spoke-at-mh17-meeting/
In the meantime it has been confirmed (in Dutch) that Omtzigt himself has for the time being withdrawn as parliamentary spokesman of the CDA-party on all matters concerning flight MH17.
EDIT: rearranged lay-out, added a few hyperlinks and one word that somehow disappeared.
Palinurus
The Living Force
UPDATE on the Omtzigt affair: Pieter Omtzigt will stay on as member of parliament for the CDA party but his portfolio of all things MH17 related will be transferred (in Dutch) to his colleague Chris van Dam.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/11/cda-mp-does-not-have-to-resign-despite-role-in-priming-fake-mh17-witness/
Other news: bone fragments found at the crash site in July this year (in Dutch) by an American freelance journalist named Patrick Lancaster have been just recently (October) transferred to the Netherlands. DNA-analysis has shown that some fragments belonged to several of the victims already identified.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/11/bone-fragments-found-in-ukraine-do-come-from-mh17-victims/
EDIT: added first quote.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/11/cda-mp-does-not-have-to-resign-despite-role-in-priming-fake-mh17-witness/
Other news: bone fragments found at the crash site in July this year (in Dutch) by an American freelance journalist named Patrick Lancaster have been just recently (October) transferred to the Netherlands. DNA-analysis has shown that some fragments belonged to several of the victims already identified.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/11/bone-fragments-found-in-ukraine-do-come-from-mh17-victims/
EDIT: added first quote.
Palinurus
The Living Force
Further update on aftermath of Omtzigt affair:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/11/mh17-investigation-could-be-hurt-by-omzigts-fake-witness/
Further setting the tone and 'guiding' public debate, here:
https://nltimes.nl/2017/11/14/russian-fake-news-threat-netherlands-interior-minister
https://nltimes.nl/2017/11/15/dutch-mps-outraged-russias-fake-news-influence-public-opinion
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2017/11/mh17-investigation-could-be-hurt-by-omzigts-fake-witness/
Further setting the tone and 'guiding' public debate, here:
https://nltimes.nl/2017/11/14/russian-fake-news-threat-netherlands-interior-minister
https://nltimes.nl/2017/11/15/dutch-mps-outraged-russias-fake-news-influence-public-opinion
