The article in defencenet claims that a Ukrainian pilot, who is reportedly one of the two pilots flying Su-25s (machine gun fighters) that apparently flew next to the fatal Malaysian plane admitted that he is responsible for shooting down -in cold blood- the aircraft. The announcement, which was made through the German Wahrheit fuer Deutschland newspaper has certainly raised a few eyebrows to all concerned. This, claims the article in defencent, could just be the fighter plane that was shown -by means of satellite images- by the Russian General Staff when they presented reporters with compelling evidence over its fatal flight last week.
The news certainly brakes the (parrot -y-) line of the mainstream media which was quick to point the finger at Russia without any solid evidence.
Reading various reports throughout the morning, HellasFrappe also checked out the photos that were presented by the authors below and although we are not experts it is clear that the cockpit was shelled with dozens of bullets (probably from some sort of machine gun). Speaking about the bullet holes, defencent, says the angle of the holes is such that it clearly indicates that they could not have been caused from fragments of a land-surface missile.
Defencent also alleges that OSCE experts, who are presently examining (or have examined) the wreckage, also unearthed their own evidence that could possibly confirm the confession that was made by the Ukrainian pilot.
One OSCE observer, Michael Bochurkiv. said that it is obvious, even for someone who is not an expert, that the holes on the plane could have only been caused by a machine gun.
After conducting our own research we also discovered the article by Peter Haisenko which the Slog based his story on. In his article this former pilot -more or less- claims that there is no doubt in his mind, that a fighter plane shelled the cockpit of Malaysian MH 017.
But first we want you to read the Slog's story and then we will provide you with the link and the transcript of Peter Haisenko's original article (translated in English) so you too can view the pictures as well as the information and judge for yourself!
This is the Slog's post today
By John Ward (The Slog) - This is what a German pilot-cum-air technology expert Peter Haisenko (Click HERE) has just published on the subject of the MH17 disaster (my emphases):
‘The misfortune of the Malaysian MH 017 is known to all. The flight recorder is in England and is being evaluated. What can come of this? May be more than you want to accept….if you look at the image of Cockpit-Fragments, this picture is certainly shocking.Russia has published radar data that a Ukrainian SU 25 was close to MH 017. this corresponds with Spanish air traffic control that two Ukrainian fighter aircraft were in direct contact with MH 017. Examine the weaponry of the SU 25: it is fitted out with a 30mm cannon Type GSch-302 /AO-17A, with 250 rounds of splintering exploding bullets on a belt – shrapnel rounds. The cockpit of MH 017 was hit from TWO sides, as there are entry and exit holes on the same side….’
Entry And Exit holes from bullets in the area of the Cockpit. This is not speculation, but analysis of clear facts: the cockpit shows clear evidence of bullet holes. You can see the entry holes and some exit points. The edges of the bullet holes are bent inwards, these are much smaller and round in shape. A 30mm calibre. The exit holes are less well formed and the edges are torn outwards.
Furthermore it is visible that the exit holes have torn the double aluminium skin and bent them outwards. That is to say, splinters from inside the cockpit blew through the outside of the cabin. The open rivets have also been bent outwards….There is only one conclusion one can make, and that is that this: the aircraft was not hit by a missile. The damage to the aircraft is exclusively in the cockpit area….
Very compelling stuff, is it not?
Now read this (also German) article by defence expert Bernd Biederman (Click HERE), who offers equally sound reasons why the shooting down could NOT have been from a surface to air missile:
‘the shooting down of the Malaysian Boeing on July 17 in the Eastern Ukraine “could not have been hit by a surface to air defense missile”.This is the assessment of retired Colonel Bernd Biedermann in an article for the daily newspaper published in Berlin “new Germany” (Thursday edition).
Had splinters from a surface to air missile hit the plane, it would have immediately caught fire, argues the NVA anti-aircraft missile specialist.
His reasoning is because of the “enormous frictional heat that the splinters generate on penetrating the fuselage.
A single splinter contains the same kinetic energy as a 40-ton freight car hitting the buffers at 60 kilometers per hour.”
In the case of the Malaysian Boeing, scattered fires had broken out after the impact with the ground, because hot debris from the aircraft had come in contact with combustible materials.
Biedermann is familiar with Soviet and Russian air defense technology, he led units in the duty officer system in East Germany and taught at the Military Academy in the field of anti-aircraft missile troops.’
Articles are beginning to appear across the Web to the effect that Angela Merkel is disturbed by (and growing tired of) the incessant US propaganda being emitted in favour of its energy agenda…. and so we must perhaps in turn view these articles in the light of her alleged new agenda concerning the creation of an alternative bloc to that of America. (More on this here in the near future).
But spin or not, these analyses make sense.
The US State Dept has now shifted its position from ‘Russian atrocity’ to ‘tragic accident’.
The above opinions suggest that neither are true: they suggest strongly that the Ukrainian air force took out MH17.
Editor's note - Now that you have read this startling information we also suggest that you read the original article that was posted by Peter Haisenko and which is causing quite a stir in media circles today. Please note that the pics, and article below were taken from Peter Haisenko's site.
It does not want a light in the darkness to the misfortune of the Malaysian MH come 017. The flight recorders are in England and are evaluated. What can come of it? Maybe more than you would assume. Especially the voice recorder will be interesting when you look at the picture of a cockpit fragment. As an expert in aviation I looked at the pictures of the wreckage made, are circulating on the Internet.
First, I was amazed at how few photos can be found from the wreckage with Google. All are in low resolution, except one: The fragment of the cockpit below the window on the master page. This image, however, is shocking. In Washington, you can hear voices now speaking regarding MH 017 from a "potentially tragic error / accident". Given that image does not surprise me that.
I recommend to click on the little picture on the right. You can download this photo as PDF in good resolution. This is necessary, because only then is to understand what I am describing here. I'm not talking about speculation, but of clear facts: The cockpit shows traces of shelling. You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is after! inside! bent. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, about 30 millimeters caliber. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes is after! outside! bent. Moreover, it is evident that at these outlet holes partially the outer layer of the double aluminum is bent or weggefetzt - outwardly! Furthermore, minor cuts can be seen, all bent outward, which indicate that splinters the outer skin from the inside of the cockpit ago by beat. The open rivets are bent outward.
In sifting through the available images of a fall on: All wreckage of the sections behind the cockpit are largely intact, except for the fact that it is a whole order fragments. Only the cockpit part is desolate destroyed. This suggests an already close: This aircraft was not hit by a rocket in the middle. The destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to know that this part is made of special reinforced material. Finally, the nose of the aircraft must be able to resist the impact of a large bird at high speed fairly harmless. You can see in the photo, that in this area significantly stronger aluminum alloys has been installed as the remainder of the outer skin. One remembers the crash of Pan Am over Lockerbie. The only largely undamaged part was a large cockpit segment. Here undoubtedly an explosion took place inside the aircraft.
So what can be happening? Russia has published radar recordings, the 25 show at least a Ukrainian SU in close proximity of MH 017. This corresponds with the statement of the lost Spanish controller that has seen two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the immediate vicinity of the MH 017. Consider the armament of the SU 25: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, fight record: 250 rounds anti-tank fire or splinter-explosive projectiles, in a defined order a Gliederzerfallgurt are attached. The cockpit of the MH 017 has been fired from two sides: the entry and exit holes on the same page.
Now just imagine what happens when a series of armored fire and splinter-explosive projectiles hitting the cockpit, which are after all designed so that they can destroy a tank. The tanks fire shells are partially escape across the cockpit from the other side slightly deformed again. Finally, their clout is designed for a solid armor. However, the splinter-explosive projectiles will explode inside the cockpit, so they are designed. With the rapid fire sequence of GSh-302 cannon, there is therefore in a very short time a rapid succession of explosions within the cockpit area, each of which is sufficient to destroy a tank.
Because the interior of a commercial aircraft is a hermetically sealed chamber, the pressure inside the aircraft in a split second will rise to extreme levels by these explosions. But the aircraft is not equipped. It will burst like a balloon. This declaration results in a coherent picture. The largely intact fragments of the rear sections are broken at the points that are based on the construction breakup most likely under extreme pressure. The image of the widely scattered debris field and the brutally damaged cockpit segment fit to do so. Furthermore, a wing segment shows traces of a grazing shot, which directly leads to extension to the cockpit. Interestingly, I found that both the high-resolution photo of the cockpit as the segment are also now been removed from the grazing shot on the wing from Google Images. One can find virtually no more pictures of the wreckage, except smoking ruins.
If you follow the voices from Washington who speak of a "potentially tragic error / accident", all that remains is the question of what might have been "mistake" committed here. I am not now be issued in the realm of speculation, but enter the following to be considered: The MH 017 is interchangeable with that of the Russian President in her painting. Both are wearing the colors of the Russian tricolor. The machine with Putin on board was at the same time near the MH 017 when you "close" with aviator eyes considered: about 200 to 300 kilometers. To this end, we will still accept the testimony of Ms. Tymoshenko, she wanted to shoot Putin prefers a Kalashnikov. But that is pure speculation. The shelling of the cockpit of the MH not 017.
Sources
Defencent
http://www.defencenet.gr
The Slog
hat4uk.wordpress.com
Peter Haisenko
www.anderweltonline.com
Posts
