What if MH17 was shot down by jet fighters?
By ROY BISHOP-October 13, 2014
Malaysian Airline flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur,cruising at flight level: FL330 (33,000 feet) was destroyed, apparently shot down over Eastern Ukraine, by a Russian missile, as claimed by the West and Ukraine or by Ukrainian ground-fire or fighter aircraft, as claimed by Russia. Each side's claim resonates from the political aims and standpoints of each party. Both claims cannot be correct and the truth and actual incident can only be derived from objective investigation and analysis.
The official air investigation conducted by – has released its preliminary report and it has not apportioned cause or blame but it has certainly muted some of the hyped claims hysterical demands for retaliation. It has not concluded that a missile shot down MH17 but it mentioned "high impacts objects" as the source of the damage to MH17.
Ukraine, Europe and USA are still insisting that a (Russian) missile is the only cause of the shoot down but the shrill hysteria has come down an octave or so. However, the ...report and other published info have enough info to give the neutral observer a reasonably good idea of what happened.
Malaysian Airlines say that MH17 was on the right track but the report shows MH17, 20 minutes before shoot down, requesting and then changing course 20 km northwards (towards East Ukraine) from the authorized flight path.(See Pic A) The reason was they feared adverse weather ahead. The report stated that there was no adverse weather on the track but alto-cumulous cloud formations and potential thunderstorms below 30,000ft. The crew asking for a left hand deviation could not be justified by threatening thunderstorms below.
MH17 according to the flight planwas supposed to be at FL350- a height of 35,000feet- but the captain refused to comply with the Uk ATC request to climb from 33,000ft level they were flying at. ATC had to rearrange the other nearby aircraft movements because of this. This is unusual in commercial aviation if there were no technical reasons for the refusal.
Remaining at this low level was potentially dangerous for MH17 because there was a NOTAM (international airlines warning to airliners) notice in place over East Uk warning of the war dangers below FL320- 32,000ft. All airlines and flight captains are supplied with NOTAMS each day. Given the notified dangers of flying at FL320 why did MH17 insist on flying at FL330 that is (1000 feet above) for no valid airline reason?Especially when there were threats of thunderstorms at FL300?
If MH17 captain had stuck to his official flight plan he would have been at FL350 – 5000ft above the NOTAM war risk flight level and 3000ft above thunderstorms. And he would have been 2 to 5 kms south of the East Ukraine war area.
Why did MH17 captain deliberately fly lower towards dangerous flight level and changed course towards the war area for no valid aviation reason? No answer so far has been given or attempted by Malaysian authorities, the West or Ukraine. Why did Ukraine ATC not refuse permission for MH17 to do these but instead allowed it?
The damage to the aircraft has been documented by the report. There is no analytical or photo evidence that MH17 was hit by a missile from below. On the contrary the evidence shows two disturbing factors. Firstly, the type of impact/exit damage to the forward fuselage was caused by "high impact objects" that look similar to either by bullets or shrapnel. In Pic 2, small clean holes can be seen caused by incoming objects. There are also lines of holes running diagonally across the fuselage skin similar to the line of machine gun bullets. Then there are holes or (cockpit window sill) panel damage and also large holes/gaps all outward edged showing the objects were moving out through the aircraft. This clearly points to the case of MH17 being fired at by machine gun (small holes) and cannon (large gaps) both of which are the standard armament of jet fighters.
Additionally, the photo of the cockpit floor shows small holes all exiting the cockpit floor from above to below indicating that the explosion or gun firing was from above MH17.
If a ground fired missile (such as the Russian BUK missile as claimed by the West and Ukraine) had hit MH17 there would be a massive explosion to the under belly or wing of the aircraft, as these missiles are heat/radiation seeking ones and target the engines.
The second disturbing factor is that all the impact evidence is on the forward fuselage around the cockpit and nosuch damage was found in the mid and rear sections of the aircraft. Why would a heat seeking missile fired from the ground hit the cockpit area of an airliner and not the main fuselage? The report does not seek to answer this question but calls for a full report.
The position of the fallen aircraft debris adds another factor. The cockpit /front fuselage lies in farmlands in Don about 1.6 kms from the estimated impact point while the rest of the aircraft – the main fuselage, wings engines and tail fell six kilometers further on. The front section was blown apart and fell immediately downwards while the main sections travelled further on and gradually fell.
When the Pan- Am aircraft was destroyed over Lockerbie by a bomb in the central luggage area, the debris was not so dispersed; neither would any aircraft hit by an explosive missile in its under-belly.
The reasonable conclusion would be that the impact projectiles, likely to be machine guns bullets/ cannon shells were aimed at the pilot cockpit area from both side of MH17 and slightly above it. As this is impossible to be from a ground missile, this can only be from jet fighters flying alongside MH17.
This is also consistent with the strange case of an Ukrainian ATC controller, 'Carlos' who claimed in tweets that Ukrainian jetfighters were trailing MH17 shortly before the shoot down. He was removed from duty shortly after and Ukrainian ATC Radar records were also removed. The Tweets were sent before any media reports of the tragedy therefore this 'Carlos' was either at ATC or had inside information. No official explanation of 'Carlos' has been given.
Why would Ukrainian jet fighters be following MH17? President Putin in his aircraft with roughly the same size, colour scheme and radar signature was reported to be flying from Brazil to Moscow and crossing the same area around the same time. If so, the shooting down of MH17 was either an assassination attempt on President Putin by Ukrainian hard line factions or to escalate the conflict in order to bring in the global powers after Russia's expected retaliation.
By ROY BISHOP-October 13, 2014Malaysian Airline flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur,cruising at flight level: FL330 (33,000 feet) was destroyed, apparently shot down over Eastern Ukraine, by a Russian missile, as claimed by the West and Ukraine or by Ukrainian ground-fire or fighter aircraft, as claimed by Russia. Each side's claim resonates from the political aims and standpoints of each party. Both claims cannot be correct and the truth and actual incident can only be derived from objective investigation and analysis.The official air investigation conducted by – has released its preliminary report and it has not apportioned cause or blame but it has certainly muted some of the hyped claims hysterical demands for retaliation. It has not concluded that a missile shot down MH17 but it mentioned "high impacts objects" as the source of the damage to MH17.
Ukraine, Europe and USA are still insisting that a (Russian) missile is the only cause of the shoot down but the shrill hysteria has come down an octave or so. However, the ...report and other published info have enough info to give the neutral observer a reasonably good idea of what happened.
Malaysian Airlines say that MH17 was on the right track but the report shows MH17, 20 minutes before shoot down, requesting and then changing course 20 km northwards (towards East Ukraine) from the authorized flight path.(See Pic A) The reason was they feared adverse weather ahead. The report stated that there was no adverse weather on the track but alto-cumulous cloud formations and potential thunderstorms below 30,000ft. The crew asking for a left hand deviation could not be justified by threatening thunderstorms below.
MH17 according to the flight planwas supposed to be at FL350- a height of 35,000feet- but the captain refused to comply with the Uk ATC request to climb from 33,000ft level they were flying at. ATC had to rearrange the other nearby aircraft movements because of this. This is unusual in commercial aviation if there were no technical reasons for the refusal.
Remaining at this low level was potentially dangerous for MH17 because there was a NOTAM (international airlines warning to airliners) notice in place over East Uk warning of the war dangers below FL320- 32,000ft. All airlines and flight captains are supplied with NOTAMS each day. Given the notified dangers of flying at FL320 why did MH17 insist on flying at FL330 that is (1000 feet above) for no valid airline reason?Especially when there were threats of thunderstorms at FL300?
If MH17 captain had stuck to his official flight plan he would have been at FL350 – 5000ft above the NOTAM war risk flight level and 3000ft above thunderstorms. And he would have been 2 to 5 kms south of the East Ukraine war area.
Why did MH17 captain deliberately fly lower towards dangerous flight level and changed course towards the war area for no valid aviation reason? No answer so far has been given or attempted by Malaysian authorities, the West or Ukraine. Why did Ukraine ATC not refuse permission for MH17 to do these but instead allowed it?
The damage to the aircraft has been documented by the report. There is no analytical or photo evidence that MH17 was hit by a missile from below. On the contrary the evidence shows two disturbing factors. Firstly, the type of impact/exit damage to the forward fuselage was caused by "high impact objects" that look similar to either by bullets or shrapnel. In Pic 2, small clean holes can be seen caused by incoming objects. There are also lines of holes running diagonally across the fuselage skin similar to the line of machine gun bullets. Then there are holes or (cockpit window sill) panel damage and also large holes/gaps all outward edged showing the objects were moving out through the aircraft. This clearly points to the case of MH17 being fired at by machine gun (small holes) and cannon (large gaps) both of which are the standard armament of jet fighters.
Additionally, the photo of the cockpit floor shows small holes all exiting the cockpit floor from above to below indicating that the explosion or gun firing was from above MH17.
If a ground fired missile (such as the Russian BUK missile as claimed by the West and Ukraine) had hit MH17 there would be a massive explosion to the under belly or wing of the aircraft, as these missiles are heat/radiation seeking ones and target the engines.
The second disturbing factor is that all the impact evidence is on the forward fuselage around the cockpit and nosuch damage was found in the mid and rear sections of the aircraft. Why would a heat seeking missile fired from the ground hit the cockpit area of an airliner and not the main fuselage? The report does not seek to answer this question but calls for a full report.
The position of the fallen aircraft debris adds another factor. The cockpit /front fuselage lies in farmlands in Don about 1.6 kms from the estimated impact point while the rest of the aircraft – the main fuselage, wings engines and tail fell six kilometers further on. The front section was blown apart and fell immediately downwards while the main sections travelled further on and gradually fell.
When the Pan- Am aircraft was destroyed over Lockerbie by a bomb in the central luggage area, the debris was not so dispersed; neither would any aircraft hit by an explosive missile in its under-belly.
The reasonable conclusion would be that the impact projectiles, likely to be machine guns bullets/ cannon shells were aimed at the pilot cockpit area from both side of MH17 and slightly above it. As this is impossible to be from a ground missile, this can only be from jet fighters flying alongside MH17.
This is also consistent with the strange case of an Ukrainian ATC controller, 'Carlos' who claimed in tweets that Ukrainian jetfighters were trailing MH17 shortly before the shoot down. He was removed from duty shortly after and Ukrainian ATC Radar records were also removed. The Tweets were sent before any media reports of the tragedy therefore this 'Carlos' was either at ATC or had inside information. No official explanation of 'Carlos' has been given.
Why would Ukrainian jet fighters be following MH17? President Putin in his aircraft with roughly the same size, colour scheme and radar signature was reported to be flying from Brazil to Moscow and crossing the same area around the same time. If so, the shooting down of MH17 was either an assassination attempt on President Putin by Ukrainian hard line factions or to escalate the conflict in order to bring in the global powers after Russia's expected retaliation.
