The Dutch recently released a report that said nothing about who was responsible for the tragedy, as was to be expected with new Western colony Ukraine having veto power over its contents. The report ruled out technical causes and came to the conclusion that the plane was brought down by ‘high energy objects’ (shrapnel? bullits?).
Earlier the Russian Union of Engineers produced a report (on 15/08/2014).
About the authors of the report:
A group of experts from the Russian Union of engineers was convened to analyze the situation, including reserve officers with experience in the use of anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as pilots having experience with aircraft weapons.
The Russians accept that the plane was brought down by means of anti-aircraft weapons (missiles and/or cannon). The Russians proceed by investigating two possible scenarios:
1) Buk missile, as was initially promoted by the West (politics and media), but later quietly dropped
2) Air-to-air rocket-cannon fire.
The Russians admit that in general it is very well possible to down a passenger plane like the MH17 with a Buk missile with a hit probability of 0.8-0.95. However, the launch of a Buk is accompanied by a lot of noise between 100-3000m as well as a powerful explosion at the launch site. Furthermore, there is a trail of exhaust up until the clouds and will remain in the air for up to 10 minutes:
Finally, there is an explosion with a known signature in the air at the point of impact:
The 40-50 kg warhead would explode 50-100 m from the target and shrapnel could penetrate the plane, but not break it up. If the hydraulic system would have been damaged, resulting in loss of control over the airplane, the pilots would have been able to inform flight control about the situation, but nothing like that seems to have happened.
Furthermore the plane was downed at broad daylight, over a heavily populated area with many people having telephone-camera’s at their disposal who would have recorded the launch of a Buk from different angles, exactly like happened with the meteor over Chelyabinsk [large compilation here], and would subsequently have been posted on the internet (forums, twitter, youtube). Nothing of the sort happened. Eyewitnesses merely reported explosions and bodies falling from the sky.
Regarding the second option, the Russian engineers observe that there were many eyewitnesses who saw a military plane (some even two):
The Russian Defense ministry has reported during their MH17 press conference…
on the 17th of July, Russian Air traffic control tracked an aeroplane, potentially an SU-25, of the Ukrainian Air force, climbing towards the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777. The distance between the two aircraft did not exceed 3—4 km. It must be noted that, in line with its specifications, the SU-25 is capable of briefly reaching heights in excess of 10 thousand metres. Standard equipment includes R60 Air to Air missiles. These missiles are capable of engaging and destroying targets to a range of up to 10km with a 100% hit ratio up to 8 km. Accordingly it is not necessary for the aeroplane to closely approach the target – It will be sufficient to simply ensure that the distance to the target falls within the guaranteed limits of the missile.
[Editor: as far as we know the presence of a fighter plane was never denied by the West, just ignored]
The Russians bring in another fighter plane candidate, apart from SU-25:
An SU-25 and MIG-29 appear identical on radar, insofar as they have similar sized reflective surfaces. The practical surface ceiling of a MIG-29 is 18013 m, thus the height at which the Malaysian airliner was travelling (10100 m) can be easily reached. The MIG-29 has two engines generating high thrust which allows the plane to reach speeds of up to 2000kmh.
The Union of Engineers conclude that the second scenario could very well have taken place:
Thus, according to the analysts from the Russian Union of Engineers, we have the complete destruction of the Boeing 777 as [a result of] missile systems using “air-to-air” close-combat missiles as well as a 30-mm aircraft cannon or an SPPU-22 container with GSh-23L 23-mm dual-barrel guns. At the same time, when firing on a target, a laser range finder can be used, or a laser sight, that allows for significantly improved accuracy. This is indicated by the pattern of damage and the dispersal of the fragments: there are round holes, which are typically produced as a result of gun shots, and discontinuous holes characteristic of flechette rockets.
Furthermore, the damage as shown below…
…is not characteristic for a Buk, but more commonly associated with aircraft cannon shells of the GSH or SPPU type. The lite weight warheads R60 (3.5 kg, SU-25) or R-73 (5 kg, MIG-29) are heat seeking devices with little power and designed to kill an engine.
The picture of the entry and exit holes in the cockpit of the Boeing 777 are fully consistent with the passage through the flight of shells from the 20-30 mm caliber guns found on military aircraft. This confirms the second version of what brought down the Boeing.
The Russian Union of Engineers conclude:
An unidentified combat aircraft (presumably a Su-25 or MiG -29), which was a tier below, on a collision course, in the cloud layer, sharply gained altitude and suddenly appeared out of the clouds in front of the civilian aircraft and opened fire on the cockpit, firing from a 30 mm caliber cannon or smaller. The pilot of a fighter jet can do this while in “free hunting” mode (using onboard radar) or with the help of navigational guidance using airspace situation data from ground-based radar.
As a result of multiple hits from shells there was damage to the cockpit, which suddenly depressurized, resulting in instant death for the crew due to mechanical influences and decompression. The attack was sudden and lasted a fraction of a second; in such circumstances the crew could not sound any alarm as the flight had been proceeding in regular mode and no attack was expected… The pilot of the unidentified combat aircraft maneuvered to the rear of the Boeing 777. After that, the unidentified plane remained on the combat course, the pilot provided a target tracking aircraft equipment, took aim and launched his R-60 or R-73 missiles. The result was a loss of cabin pressure, the aircraft control system was destroyed, the autopilot failed, the aircraft lost the ability to maintain its level flight path, and went into a tailspin. The resulting overload led to mechanical failure of the airframe at high altitudes… Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia signed an agreement on August 8 providing that information about the crash investigation would be disclosed only upon the consent of all parties… “The results will be announced at the conclusion of the investigation and with the consent of all parties that have executed the agreement.”
Full report Russian Union of Engineers:
[globalresearch.ca] – Malaysian Flight MH17 Crash Analysis, by The Russian Union of Engineers
[joostniemoller.nl] – Rapport: Zo schoot Oekraïense jet MH17 neer
Editor: we agree completely with what the Russian Union of Engineers brings forward. The behavior of the West speaks volumes: they are embarrassed and try to cover up the case. It is obvious and embarrassing that the Dutch government is so completely in the pockets of the Americans that the former willingly helps to cover up the deaths of 200 of their own compatriots.