Exclusive: From 'Red October' village, new evidence on downing of Malaysian plane over Ukraine

Exclusive: From 'Red October' village, new evidence on downing of Malaysian plane over Ukraine

CHERVONYI ZHOVTEN, Ukraine (Reuters) - Villagers in eastern Ukraine have told Reuters they saw a missile flying directly overhead just before a Malaysian airliner was shot out of the sky on July 17 last year, providing the most detailed accounts to date that suggest it was fired from territory held by pro-Russian rebels.

The accounts from four villagers of Chervonyi Zhovten, which was then, and is now, controlled by the rebels, are significant because they indicate the rocket was in the early stages of its flight path.

That would mean it must have been launched from rebel ground nearby, challenging the suggestion of Moscow and the separatists that the plane was brought down by the Ukrainian military. At the time, the nearest Ukrainian-held area was about 6 km (3.7 miles) away.

Ukraine and its Western allies have said it was the rebels who shot down the airliner, using a Russian-made BUK anti-aircraft missile system. All 298 people on board were killed.

Until now, videos, photographs and accounts from residents have pointed to a BUK battery being delivered to the rebel-held town of Snizhne, 7 km north of Chervonyi Zhovten, on July 17, and then driven away from the area some time later. Its precise location at the time the plane was shot down has never been confirmed.

Click link for remainder of article.

Second - Reference the SU25 theory -
RT - Could SU-25 fighter jet down a Boeing? Former pilots speak out on MH17 claims

As the investigation into the MH17 tragedy continues in eastern Ukraine, the SU-25's chief designer has told German media that the fighter jet could not possibly have taken down the passenger plane. RT spoke to former pilots about the jet's capabilities.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, crashed down over rebel-held eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. Everyone on board – 283 passengers and 15 crew members – perished in the tragedy.

A report on the official investigation published in September 2014 said the crash was a result of structural damage caused by a large number of high-energy objects that struck the Boeing from the outside. However, it did not conclude what the objects were, where they came from, or who was responsible.

Kiev and some Western states have placed blame on eastern Ukraine militias and Russia. The Russian Defense Ministry shared radar data pointing to other possibilities in July – including an attack by a Ukrainian Sukhoi-25 fighter jet, which was said to have been tracking the passenger plane.

While an official international investigation into the crash has been dragging on for nine months, the debate into the cause of the tragedy has been once again reignited by recent comments from the chief designer of the SU-25.

READ MORE: MH17 broke up in mid-air due to external damage - Dutch preliminary report

Kiev-born Soviet and Russian aircraft designer Vladimir Babak said on Monday that the SU-25 jet – which was spotted tracking the MH17 Boeing at the moment it crashed down – did not have the capability to shoot down a passenger plane. He said the fighter jet could have successfully attacked the Boeing at an altitude of 3,000-4,000 meters, but not at the plane’s altitude of 10,500 meters. He added that air-to-air missiles would have only damaged the Boeing – not completely destroyed it while still in the air.

Click link for remainder of article.

You now have the designer of the SU-25 going on record stating the SU-25 does not have the capability to shoot down MH17. The air to air missile theory, pushed by the Russian military still, cannot cause the damage to the front of the aircraft that was reported by the Dutch investigators.

He also notes that an air to air missile would only cause damage and would not have destroyed MH17. It would not have caused the damage to the front of the aircraft either as that area could not be targeted by air to air missiles.

You now have people on the ground who witnessed the missile flying overhead, which destroys the "where is the contrail" contingent. Lets keep an eye on those giving their accounts and see how long it takes for them to disappear / turn up dead.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the added info. I have to admit I haven't read up enough on the Ukrainian situation. I do remember seeing a couple of pics though. How to explain the bullet holes in the plane if it was downed by a missile?. It feels as if I'm missing some info.

I'm highly confident the official investigation is going to state the Separatists in East Ukraine shot down MH17. The real question is will that report Link Russia as the cause by giving them the weapon or Russian forces actually operating the Buk launcher themselves inside East Ukraine.

If Russia is implicated then you could see special sanctions applied against them. Sanctions that bleed money away from Aeroflot for every overflight and direct the funds to MH17 families. Something like what the West did to Libya for the Lockerbie bombing is also possible.

originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the added info. I have to admit I haven't read up enough on the Ukrainian situation. I do remember seeing a couple of pics though. How to explain the bullet holes in the plane if it was downed by a missile?. It feels as if I'm missing some info.

The claim on bullet holes has never been confirmed to my knowledge. The results of the dutch investigation report high velocity impact damage which would not be caused by bullets and the location of that damage, the front of the commercial airliner, again would be problematic since bullets would not have brought the plane down in the manner it did.

It could be within the realm of possibility that any "bullet" holes were caused by individuals on the ground while fighting for control of the area. These questions are exactly why there needed to be an immediate push to secure the scenes of the crash.

a reply to: aboutface

They aren't bullet holes, they're shrapnel. Missiles don't generally hit and explode, they explode just short of the aircraft sending out a cloud of shrapnel that damages the aircraft.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
I'm highly confident the official investigation is going to state the Separatists in East Ukraine shot down MH17. The real question is will that report Link Russia as the cause by giving them the weapon or Russian forces actually operating the Buk launcher themselves inside East Ukraine.

If Russia is implicated then you could see special sanctions applied against them. Sanctions that bleed money away from Aeroflot for every overflight and direct the funds to MH17 families. Something like what the West did to Libya for the Lockerbie bombing is also possible.

Any case against Russia is going to require irrefutable proof that Russia was in fact behind the shoot down. I still think the shoot down was accidental based on mistaken identity. The attempts to push blame are a whole lot worse than if they came out and said it was a mistake.

If the evidence is good enough I could see Russian blaming the rebels in an effort to back out of the consequences. Even that option would be problematic since Russia has been insistent that the plane was brought down by everyone but themselves or Russians.

Considering the rebels claimed they shot it down only to back away and delete twitter references after they found out it was a civilian aircraft.

The investigation done by Bellingcat on this issue is interesting - Bellingcat MH17

Over there, that close to what is going on, you probably want to know as little as possible.
If they indeed claim that, they need to be in protective custody.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: aboutface

They aren't bullet holes, they're shrapnel. Missiles don't generally hit and explode, they explode just short of the aircraft sending out a cloud of shrapnel that damages the aircraft.

Or this...

Former SU25 pilots claim the aircraft is capable of flying and manouvering at that altitude.

SU25 vs Boeing Airliner

Commenting on the jet’s ability to maneuver at higher altitudes, the former commander of an aviation division, Major General Sergey Borysyuk, noted that the jet would have had the capability to “maneuver comfortably,” even at such a high altitude.

“I personally flew, and not once, at an altitude of 12,000 meters...,” he said. “My colleagues have risen to an altitude of 14,000 meters. The altitude of 10,500 was officially authorized during operations in Afghanistan. Therefore the plane, even at an altitude of 12,000 meters, has the capability to maneuver comfortably, its aerodynamic characteristics enable it to do so.”

They also claim the R-60 missile has an effective range of 7.5 km.

Borysyuk explained that the R-60 missiles on the SU-25 have an infrared homing and a rod warhead. Citing the nature of the plane’s debris and the “precisely sliced fuselage,” he said that R-60 missiles were possibly used.

“The firing range of the missile is 7.5km. And in those conditions, the probability of hitting the target increases,” he added.

Point-counter-point. Once again we're left debating the facts. Also did UAF forces have any BUK's in the vicinity of Chervonyi Zhovten? They said UAF forces were within 6 kms but I can't remember anything about UAF Bbuks being on or behind the battlelines.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ahhhhhh. I see.

Thank you.

a reply to: Kukri

I will take the word of the aircraft designer.

as for BUK's - The civilians in the first article saw the missile flying overhead, placing it inside rebel controlled territory. We have the pictures / video of the buk coming and going back into Russia. We have Russian media showing pictures of rebels with the Buk.

We have the words from rebel leaders themselves about brining the plane down.

Infrared missile home in on the largest heat point, which would be the engines and not the front of the aircraft.

a reply to: Kukri

The range isn't the problem. An IR missile isn't going to track on the cockpit, even fired from the front. The R-60 is an extremely light weight missile. The entire missile weighs under 100 pounds, and depending on variant the warhead can be as light as 7 pounds.

A warhead that light is not going to cause a sudden and catastrophic explosion that causes a 777 to explode in midair.

a reply to: charlyv

No point closing the door after the horses have fled. Assuming they are telling the truth or even exist.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well they would just have to wing it and follow it down till it's within gun range. Always verify the kill right Zaph?

Sorry Mate! Just playing Devil's Advocate again. So many possibilities and a hell of a lot of accusations from both sides

a reply to: Kukri

Except the data recorders show a sudden power loss and almost instant destruction of the aircraft. Not something that was intact and destroyed at lower altitude.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Any case against Russia is going to require irrefutable proof that Russia was in fact behind the shoot down. I still think the shoot down was accidental based on mistaken identity. The attempts to push blame are a whole lot worse than if they came out and said it was a mistake.

If the evidence is good enough I could see Russian blaming the rebels in an effort to back out of the consequences. Even that option would be problematic since Russia has been insistent that the plane was brought down by everyone but themselves or Russians.

Considering the rebels claimed they shot it down only to back away and delete twitter references after they found out it was a civilian aircraft.

The investigation done by Bellingcat on this issue is interesting - Bellingcat MH17

I think if the investigators can link the Buk launcher to Russia they could find Russia partially guilty no matter who pulled the trigger. I know there was immediate talk of over flight sanctions against Russia but they weren't considered because too many Asian flights from the EU would be affected. However I think that type of sanction might be something the EU considers. I also wonder if the Dutch don't suddenly slam Russia with sanctions if the report implicates them. They lost so many citizens it wouldn't surprise me. The Dutch could pressure Shell to pull out of Arctic Oil development, something that would really hurt.

www.reuters.com...

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Not sure how resource independent the Netherlands are but that could bite them in the rear if Russia supplies the gas to them.

Also would I be responsible if I sold you a car then you proceeded to run someone over with it. Apples and oranges I guess but the analogy is suitable.