Schlagwort-Archive: #BUK


Bonanza Media Newsletter 2 – February 17th, 2020



Today we present new material from unpublished MH17 Joint Investigation Team documents. It concerns directly the MH17 investigation and is analysed by Max van der Werff on behalf of Bonanza Media.

The contents of 4 new leaks are:

DOC 1. BILLY SIX talks about witnesses of Ukrainian fighter jets

Quelle: #BonanzaLeaks – NEWSLETTER 2

 Full document: maxfromthewharf MH17 properly investigated 20200218

Robert PARRY: MH-17’s Unnecessary Mystery, consortiiumnews, Jan 15. 2016

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, 18.01.2016

Robert Parry, tirelessly investigating the backgrounds of MH17-launching from the very first, reports on the latest research in this case. His special attention applies to the obdurate reserving of the US-intelligence findings and duping the public on the part of the Obama-administration.
We remind you of the Informational Briefing from the Russian Union of Engineers, 15/08/2014: Analysis of the causes of the crash of Flight MH17 (Malaysian Boeing 777); see:
The essential results of this study are affirmed by the latest investigation of Rosaviacia, the Russian aeronautical authority [aviat.]; see:

MH-17’s Unnecessary Mystery
January 15, 2016

Exclusive: Nearly 18 months after Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crashed in eastern Ukraine, one of the troubling mysteries is why the U.S. government – after rushing to blame Russia and ethnic Russian rebels – then went silent, effectively obstructing the investigation into 298 deaths, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry

Demonizing Putin
Yet, despite the flimsiness of the “blame-Russia-for-MH-17” case in July 2014, the Obama administration’s rush to judgment proved critical in whipping up the European press to demonize President Vladimir Putin, who became the Continent’s bete noire accused of killing 298 innocent people. That set the stage for the European Union to accede to U.S. demands for economic sanctions on Russia.

The MH-17 case was deployed like a classic piece of “strategic communication” or “Stratcom,” mixing propaganda with psychological operations to put an adversary at a disadvantage. Apparently satisfied with that result, the Obama administration stopped talking publicly, leaving the impression of Russian guilt to corrode Moscow’s image in the public mind.

But the intelligence source who spoke to me several times after he received additional briefings about advances in the investigation said that as the U.S. analysts gained more insights into the MH-17 shoot-down from technical and other sources, they came to believe the attack was carried out by a rogue element of the Ukrainian military with ties to a hard-line Ukrainian oligarch. [See, for instance,’s “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario
Shifts” and “The Danger of an MH-17 Cold Case.”]

But that conclusion – if made public – would have dealt another blow to America’s already shaky credibility, which has never recovered from the false Iraq-WMD claims in 2002-03. A reversal also would embarrass Kerry, other senior U.S. officials and major Western news outlets, which had bought into the Russia-did-it narrative. Plus, the European Union might reconsider its decision to sanction Russia, a key part of U.S. policy in support of the Kiev regime.

Still, as the MH-17 mystery dragged on into 2015, I inquired about the possibility of an update from the DNI’s office. But a spokeswoman told me that no update would be provided because the U.S. government did not want to say anything to prejudice the ongoing investigation. In response, I noted that Kerry and the DNI had already done that by immediately pointing the inquiry in the direction of blaming Russia and the rebels. (…)


Robert PARRY: MH-17: The Dog Still Not Barking; Oct 13, 2015

MH-17: The Dog Still Not Barking
Robert PARRY
October 13, 2015

Exclusive: The dog not barking in the Dutch report on the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is the silence regarding U.S. intelligence information that supposedly had pinned down key details just days after the crash but has been kept secret, writes Robert Parry.

E x c e r p t

… I was told by a U.S. intelligence source earlier this year that CIA analysts had met with Dutch investigators to describe what the classified U.S. evidence showed but apparently with the caveat that it must remain secret.

Last year, another source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts told me they had concluded that a rogue element of the Ukrainian government – tied to one of the oligarchs – was responsible for the shoot-down, while absolving senior Ukrainian leaders including President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. But I wasn’t able to determine if this U.S. analysis was a consensus or a dissident opinion. (…)

The Dutch report did seek to discredit one alternative theory raised by Russian officials in the days after the shoot-down – that MH-17 could have been the victim of an air-to-air attack. The Dutch dismissed Russian radar data that suggested a possible Ukrainian fighter plane in the area, relying instead of Ukrainian data which the Dutch found more complete.

But the report ignored other evidence cited by the Russians, including electronic data of the Ukrainian government allegedly turning on the radar that is used by Buk systems for targeting aircraft. Russian Lt. Gen. Andrey Kartopolov called on the Ukrainian government to explain the movements of its Buk systems to sites in eastern Ukraine in mid-July 2014 and why Kiev’s Kupol-M19S18 radars, which coordinate the flight of Buk missiles, showed increased activity leading up to the July 17 shoot-down.

The Dutch-led investigation was perhaps compromised by a central role given to the Ukrainian government which apparently had the power to veto what was included in the report. Yet, what may have spoken most loudly in the Dutch report was the silence about U.S. intelligence information. If – as Kerry claimed – the U.S. government knew almost immediately the site where the fateful missile was launched, why has that evidence been kept secret?

Given the importance of the conflict in eastern Ukraine to U.S. intelligence, it was a high-priority target in July 2014 with significant resources devoted to the area, including satellite surveillance, electronic eavesdropping and human assets. In his rush-to-judgment comments the weekend after the crash, Kerry admitted as much.

But the Obama administration has refused to make any of its intelligence information public. Only belatedly did CIA analysts brief the Dutch investigators, according to a U.S. government source, but that evidence apparently remained classified.

The second source told me that the reason for withholding the U.S. intelligence information was that it contradicted the initial declarations by Kerry and other U.S. officials pointing the finger of blame at the ethnic Russian rebels and indirectly at Russian President Vladimir Putin, who stood accused of giving a ragtag bunch of rebels a powerful weapon capable of shooting down commercial airliners. (…)

As early as July 29, 2014, just 12 days after the shoot-down amid escalating Cold War-style rhetoric, VIPS wrote, “As intelligence professionals we are embarrassed by the unprofessional use of partial intelligence information. …As Americans, we find ourselves hoping that, if you indeed have more conclusive evidence, you will find a way to make it public without further delay. In charging Russia with being directly or indirectly responsible, Secretary of State John Kerry has been particularly definitive. Not so the evidence.”

But the release of the Dutch report – without any of that data – indicates that the U.S. government continues to hide what evidence it has. That missing evidence remains the dog not barking, like the key fact that Sherlock Holmes used to unlock the mystery of the “Silver Blaze” when the sleuth noted that the failure of the dog to bark suggested who the guilty party really was. (…)

4 questions for Dutch probe into MH17 crash;, Oct 13, 2015 05:06 local time

4 questions for Dutch probe into MH17 crash, 13 Oct, 2015 05:06 – URL:

The final report into the causes of the MH17 crash in Ukraine over a year ago is ready and is expected to be revealed within hours. Russia claims some that findings have not been included in the Dutch report while remaining questions hang heavy in the air.
The much anticipated report investigating the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, which was downed in Ukraine on July 17, 2014, killing nearly 300 people on board, is planned to be released by the Dutch Safety Board (DBS), which led the probe, on Tuesday. The DBS investigation is aimed at providing technical details of the crash, while another investigation carried out by the Joint Investigation Team (JIT)will determine who was responsible for the incident. The latter report is to be issued by the end of this year.
The DBS issued a preliminary report in September 2014 which only confirmed that the passenger plane crashed due to external damage. Amid the probe there has been extensive media speculation regarding the causes of the incident.
Days ahead of the DBS official report, a letter addressed to the head of the UN aviation agency about the investigation was leaked to the media. It was published by a Malaysian newspaper on Sunday.
The letter was written by the Russian Federal Air Transport Agency’s Chief, Oleg Storchevoy, who was acquainted with the results of the investigation, to Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu, the head of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Storchevoy asked the UN aviation body to intervene in the DBS investigation.

Ahead of the DBS report, RT examines some of the controversial points which are expected to be answered by the probe.

1. Why did the DBS fail to use the BUK manufacturer’s declassified data in the probe?
It has been widely speculated that a BUK anti-aircraft missile was fired at the plane. Dutch investigators previously told RT that they could not confirm reports that a BUK missile had been used.
In order to aid the investigation Almaz-Antey, the designer and producer of BUK missile systems, carried out two meetings with the DBS in which it declassified the specifications of its rockets – the 9M38 and 9M38M1 surface-to-air missile systems – Storchevoy said, in the letter addressed to the UN.
The declassified information included technical specifications, flight and ballistics characteristics, launch parameters, algorithms governing the detonator and characteristics of the warhead, he said.
The arms maker also provided the results of a simulated test of a BUK missile hitting a Boeing and described the damage, he added.
He stated that in the final Dutch report all these calculations were ignored. He added that the report had discrepancies with regards to the metallurgical properties of the missile and size of the warhead.

2. Why did the probe ignore Russian findings?
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday that the facts delivered by the Russian side were ignored “for unclear reasons.”
In his letter, Storchevoy added that the DSB ignored “comprehensive information” provided by the Russian side which related to the downing of the Boeing 777.
Days after the catastrophe, the Russian military provided monitoring data of a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet gaining height towards the MH17 Boeing on the day of the downing.Russian military had also posed a set of questions to Kiev regarding the jet which have not been answered.

3. Why did the investigation focus on the BUK missile version?
The investigation was conducted in an illogical order, Storchevoy said, explaining that the DBS started with an assumed hypothesis, and worked backwards to demonstrate that the evidence met the criteria necessary to prove their preconceived conclusions.
This violates the principle of “sequence of conclusions,” one of the most fundamental rules when conducting probes into air crashes, he said explaining that firstly, the damage to the airplane should have been examined and then, based on this analysis, conclusions as to its cause and source should have been drawn.

4. Why did DBS fail to collect all debris in over a year after the crash?
An RT Documantary film crew traveled to the site of the MH17 downing, discovering that debris from the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 was still covering the crash site in eastern Ukraine a year after the catastrophe. The RTD crew collected parts of the plane’s exterior which they spotted, bringing them to the town administration of nearby Petropavlivka.

After the film “MH17: A year without truth” was released in July *, the DBS contacted RT asking for help gathering the pieces.
“With great interest we watched your documentary, ‘MH17: A year without truth,’” Dutch Safety Board spokesperson Sara Vernooij wrote to RT. “In this film, RT shows parts of the cockpit roof which were found near Petropavlivka. We would like to gather those pieces and bring them over to the Netherlands so the Dutch Safety Board can use them for the investigation and the reconstruction.”

* Video, 27:38min, published on July 17, 2015 – URL:

Martin ZEIS/ Stephan BEST – Ergänzende Bemerkungen zum Abschuss von MH17, 12.10.2015

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis, Stephan Best – 12.10.2015

Guten Abend zusammen,

morgen soll nun – 15 Monate nach dem Abschuss der Passagiermaschine Malaysian Airlines Flug MH-17 – der Abschlussbericht der Untersuchungskommisssion unter Leitung der Niederlande veröffentlicht werden. Aus diesem Anlass haben wir einen ergänzenden Text zu unseren Vorträgen zu diesem Thema im Januar und Juni 2015 verfasst. Der gesamte Text ist als pdf-Datei im Anhang verfügbar.


— A u s z ü g e —

Abgeschossen über der Ukraine – Malaysian Airlines Flug MH-17 – Beispiel eines macht- und medienpolitischen „Ereignisses“
Martin Zeis, Stephan Best
Stuttgart, 12.10..2015

Dieser ergänzende Text bezieht sich auf unsere Vorträge/Präsentationen zu dem o.a. Thema in Stuttgart und Besigheim im Januar bzw. Juni 2015. Die Vortragstexte, Präsentationsfolien, Dokumente/Quellen sind online vollständig verfügbar über:

Der abschließende Bericht der nicht unabhängigen Untersuchungskommission zum Absturz/ Abschuss der Passagiermaschine Malaysian-Airlines MH17 am 17.07.2014 über der Ostukraine soll nun morgen, a,m 13. Oktober 2015, veröffentlicht werden.


Letztlich kann die Absturzursache definitiv nur durch eine präzise, transparente, von unabhängiger Seite überprüfbare

  1. Auswertung der nachweislich unversehrt der Untersuchungskommission übergebenen Blackboxes, d.h. des Flugdatenschreibers und des Audiorekorders, der alle Geräusche und Gespräche im Cockpit und nach außen aufzeichnet,
  2. und die forensische (Material-)Analyse der Einschuss-/Austrittslöcher in der Flugzeughülle und der im Flugzeug, im Bereich des Absturzgebiets vorgefundenen und in den Körpern der Crew und Passagiere steckenden Projektile/ Metallteile

geklärt werden.

Hilfsweise können die Radar-/Sensoren-/Bildaufzeichungen der zivilen und militärischen Luftraumüberwachungs-Einrichtungen auf Seiten Russlands (v.a. nahe der Ostukraine gelegen) herangezogen werden. Gerade auch die Daten der US-amerikanischen AWACS- und Satellitenaufklärung könnten zeigen, welche Art von Flugzeugen sich im fraglichen Zeitraum vor, während, nach dem Abschuss in der Nähe der MH17-Maschine aufhielten und welche Flugbahnen/-manöver jeweils vorliegen.


zu a)
Im Gegensatz zu dem Fall des (vom Copiloten) herbeigeführten Absturzes der Germanwings-Maschine in den Pyrenäen, wo in vier Tagen sämtliche Daten der Blackboxes einer globalen Öffentlichkeit anschaulich, verständlich präsentiert wurden – u.a. die Geräusche aus dem Cockpit, wo das Hämmern des Kapitäns an die von innen verriegelte Außentür deutlich hörbar war – gibt’s bei MH17 keine vergleichbare öffentliche Aufklärung. Die USA weigern sich beharrlich, die vorhandenen Erkenntnisse/Daten ihrer Luftraumüberwachung herauszurücken. (vgl. Ray McGOVERN: Propaganda, Intelligence and MH-17, Aug 17, 2015)

Dass der ukrainische Geheimdienst SBU unmittelbar nach dem Abschuss von MH17 sämtliche Flugdaten und die aufgezeichnete Kommunikation der MH17-Piloten mit dem Tower in Kiew beschlagnahmte und seither unter Verschluss hält, rundet das Bild ab.

zu b)
Da die Projektile der Bordkanonen (im Flugzeug installierte/s MG/s) eines jeweiligen Kampfjet-Typs und die Metallteile/Schrapnells, welche bei der Explosion des Sprengkopfs einer Luft-Luft-Rakete oder einer Boden-Luftrakete wie der BUK entstehen, sich in der Größe, in der Form, in der Materialbeschaffenheit, in der Bewegungsenergie/Durchschlagskraft, in der Art der Einschuss- und Austrittslöcher in der Außenhaut des Flugzeugs und bei den hinterlassenen Spuren eindeutig voneinander unterscheiden, liegt hier der wesentliche Schlüssel für die Ursachenanalyse und Beweisführung. In diesem Bereich findet man nur mit sehr großem Zeitaufwand einige empirische Körner. (vgl. hierzu auch die detaillierten Ausführungen des ehemaligen Lufthansa-Kapitäns Peter Haisenko in einem Gespräch mit Ken Jebsen am 12.01.2015 – URL:

Beispielsweise berichtete das unter der Leitung des später entlassenen niederländischen Pathologen George Maat arbeitende Untersuchungsteam in Hilversum, dass die Autopsie der von ihm untersuchten Toten australischer Staatsangehörigkeit zeigt, dass keine Detonation der Sprengladung einer BUK Boden-Luftrakete mit ihren mehr als 7.800 Schrapnell-Teilen stattgefunden haben könne, die Körper der Passagiere hätten durchsiebt sein müssen. Dies sei jedoch bei den untersuchten Opfern nicht der Fall gewesen, in ihnen steckten, wenn überhaupt, wenige, kleine Projektile. (vgl. )

Ein wichtiges Faktum in diesem Bereich ist auch, dass die Regierung Malaysias den Familienangehörigen der 43 malaysischen Opfer verboten hat, die Särge ihrer Angehörigen zu öffnen und sich – nach Landessitte – von ihnen zu verabschieden. „None of the kin of those killed was permitted to view the victims in their coffins, Wan Laila-tul Masturah said. “We were not allowed by the government, nobody must see. All the corpses who came back were not allowed to be opened.” The co-pilot, Capt Eugene Choo, appears to have been cremated in The Netherlands, before his remains were repatriated. (vgl. J. Helmer: MH17 – The inadmissible Evidence for what cannot have happend, Sep 16, 2015; URL: )

Aus der Fülle der seit Februar 2015 erschienenen Texte, Dokumente, Analysen zu MH17 eine kleine Auswahl (Anm: die wirklich interessanten online-Publikationen liegen großteils nur auf Englisch vor)



Wer schoss die MH17 ab? – Leserbrief auf


Wer schoss die MH17 ab?


Aufgrund der außerordentlichen Brisanz dieses Themas und der kritiklosen Übernahme des Berichts des Recherchebüros CORRECT!V in deutsche Mainstreammedien geben wir einen Leserbeitrag wieder, denn so klar, wie es CORRECT!V erscheinen lassen will, ist es wohl doch nicht.

Von: Frank.xxxx.xx [mailto:Frank.xxxx.xx]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 11. Januar 2015 21:22
Betreff: Bericht von correkt!v

Liebe Freunde,

Den von Ihnen abgedruckten Bericht dieses sogenannten Recherchebüros correkt!v habe ich mir sehr genau durchgelesen. Wenn es nicht um so ein tragisches Ereignis gehen würde, könnte man dieses Pamphlet als haarsträubendes Horrormärchen durchgehen lassen.
Aber das kann man nicht. Sie können diesen Bericht nicht unkommentiert von wirklichen Fachleuten so stehen Lassen. Ich bin kein solcher Fachmann, kann aber meinen Kopf zum Denken gebrauchen und kann mir noch einiges merken.

Der dort angeführte Rupert Smid als “der Fachmann” für russische Waffen scheint nicht so die allumfassenden Kenntnisse zu haben, wie da beschrieben wird.

Das was andere ehemalige Offiziere der NVA, die mit diesen Waffen durch entsprechende Manöver und das Studium der Bedienung einer solchen BUK – Einheit einschätzten und bei verschiedenen Medien aussagten, wären erstens die Fluzeugteile in einem viel schlechteren Zustand und völlig durch entzündeten Treibstoff schwarz und verkohlt. Auch die Leichen und das Gepäck wären nicht mehr in diesem Zustand gewesen, sondern verbrannt und verkohlt. Die Wirkung einer solchen Rakete, so die Aussagen, hätte dieses Flugzeug vollkommen zerfetzt. auch die runden Einschüsse und Einschläge in die Flugzeughaut würden auf einen anderen, einen Beschuss aus der Luft hindeuten. (…)