Preliminary report on the crash of flight MH17 full of holes
… just like the plane
* 9/11 FACT: The Pentagon Was Hit By A Cruise Missile From The US Military Arsenal … US Military False Flag Attack Against Its Own Citizenry Demands A War Crimes Tribunal
* The day the world fell down…9-11 was a nuclear attack
* The 108 Facts You Should Always Remember About 9/11
* Super Soldier Talk – John Stormm – Mkultra, Nazi Mind Brainwashing – August 10, 2014
Source of report here.
Joe Quinn, Sott.net, Thu, 11 Sep 2014
Western mainstream media whores are already jumping all over a single sentence in the Preliminary report [on the] Crash involving Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 flight MH17, that reads:
Damage observed on the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft appears to indicate that there were impacts from a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft.
According to paragons of bullshit like the BBC, this “pretty much rules out anything else other than a [BUK] missile”.
What the BBC and just about every other mouthpiece of Western anti-Russian propaganda are studiously ignoring is the evidence provided by Russia, which was corroborated by eyewitnesses, that fighter jets were in close approach to MH17 when it went down. And in case everyone forgot, high caliber bullets are also “high-energy objects”.
With any crime, the context in which it occurs is all important. The crash of MH17 and the death of all 298 people on board occurred in the context of a major ongoing propaganda war against Russia by Western governments that was launched in the aftermath of a US-sponsored coup in Ukraine bringing an anti-Russian government to power. This provoked Russia to facilitate the incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation and support the armed separatist movement in Eastern Ukraine. In short, the downing of MH17 occurred in the context of a major ‘world war’ between Russia and Western powers.
The preliminary report itself is very short on details. As regards MH17’s flight plan, the report begins its analysis of communications between Air Traffic Control and the plane only with the Dnipro ATC. MH17 had been previously corresponding with Kiev ATC over Ukraine, yet these communications are not included in the analysis.
The first communication with Dnipro ATC cited by the report occurred at 12.53, with Dnipro ATC asking MH17 to move to 35,000 ft “to clear a potential separation conflict with other traffic in the area”. The report simply states that the crew “replied they were unable to comply and requested to maintain at 33,000 ft”. This seems strange given that the flight crew of a commercial plane are not in a position to take decisions on the locations of other planes in relation to their own and other potential obstacles. That is, after all, the job of ATC. Yet the report glosses over this fact and also the question of why MH17 was flying at 33,000 ft to begin with. While the report states that “According to the flight plan [determined by Malaysia Airlines and “approved by all involved air traffic control centres for their concerned regions], flight MH17 would initially fly at Flight Level 330 [33,000 ft]”, according to several Malaysian newspapers, Malaysian Airlines previously stated that:
MH17 filed a flight plan requesting to fly at 35,000 ft throughout Ukrainian airspace. This is close to the ‘optimum’ altitude.
However, an aircraft’s altitude in flight is determined by air traffic control on the ground. Upon entering Ukrainian airspace, MH17 was instructed by Ukrainian air traffic control to fly at 33,000ft.
Strangely, this statement by Malaysian Airlines appears to never have been reported by Western media.
Why, immediately on entering Ukrainian airspace, did Kiev, or some other Ukrainian ATC (but NOT Eastern Ukrainian ATC), instruct MH17 to fly at 33,000 ft instead of the usual 35,000 ft? This clearly caused a problem for the plane over Eastern Ukraine when Dnipro ATC had to ask MH17 to move up to 35,000 ft.
Why does the preliminary report simply state that “the crew stated that they were unable to comply”? Why were they unable to comply? Why were the full Ukraine ATC-MH17 recordings (i.e. those recorded by Ukrainian ATC) not included in the report? Are claims by media sources, including the BBC, that they were confiscated by Ukrainian security services true? Were they also handed to US analysts in Kiev as has been claimed?
Why was MH17 flying further north than usual, putting it over the ‘rebel’ held area of Eastern Ukraine rather than its normal route of further south over the Sea of Azov? Was this also on the orders of Kiev ATC?
So many unanswered questions!