This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 797 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in financial realm. Please join us and participate via our Tip Jar, which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we’re doing this fundraiser, what we’ve accomplished in the last year, and our fourth target, 24/7 coverage, 365 days a year.
Yves here. If you’ve been following John Heelmer’s series on the MH17 downing, he has focused relentlessly on the evidence and sourcing. Today, he describes obfuscation by the head of the Dutch Safety Board.
By John Helmer, the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears
Tjibbe Joustra, chairman of the Dutch Safety Board, wants it to be very clear that Russia is criminally responsible for the destruction of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014; that a Russian-supplied ground-to-air missile, fired on Russian orders from territory under Russian control, exploded lethally to break up the MH17 aircraft in the air, killing everyone on board; and that Russian objections to these conclusions are no more than cover-up and dissimulation for the guilty.
Joustra also wants to make sure that no direct evidence for what he says can be tested, not in the report which his agency issued last week; nor in the three Dutch government organs which prepared and analysed the evidence of the victims’ bodies, the aircraft remains, and the missile parts on contract to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) – the Dutch National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR), the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), and the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI). So Joustra began broadcasting his version of what he says happened before the release of the DSB report. He then continued in an anteroom of the Gilze-Rijen airbase, where the DSB report was presented to the press; in a Dutch television studio; and on the pages of the Dutch newspapers.
But when he and his spokesman were asked today for the evidence for what Joustra has been broadcasting, they insisted that if the evidence isn’t to be found in the DSB report, Joustra’s evidence cannot be released. So, if the evidence for Joustra’s claims cannot be found in the NLR, TMO and NFI reports either, what exactly is Joustra doing – is he telling the truth? Is he broadcasting propaganda? Is he lying? Is he covering up for a crime?
In the absence of the evidence required to substantiate what the DSB chairman is broadcasting, is the likelihood that Joustra is concealing who perpetrated the crime equal to the probability that he is telling the truth? And if there is such a chance that Joustra is concealing or covering up, is this evidence that Joustra may be committing a crime himself? In English law, that may be the crime of perverting the course of justice. In US law, it might be the crime of obstruction of justice. In German law, it might be the crime of Vortäuschung einer Straftat. By the standard of World War II, Joustra’s crime might be propagandizing for the losing side, that’s to say the enemy of the winning side.
When William Joyce, an Anglo-American broadcaster on German radio during the war and known as Lord Haw-Haw, was prosecuted in London in 1945, he was convicted of treason and hanged. The treason indictment said he “did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King’s subjects propaganda on behalf of the King’s enemies.” The legality of this indictment and the conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.
By the customary civilized standard, Joustra must be considered innocent of any crime of broadcasting unless he’s proven guilty. And the proof of such a crime would require evidence admissible in court, acceptable to a judge or jury beyond reasonable doubt. Of course, such a standard of Joustra’s innocence will be the standard by which his public statements must also be judged. But if Joustra lacks the evidence for what he is claiming in his broadcasts then perhaps the evidence is also lacking for his innocence of crime.
Joustra, 64, has served most of his career as a Dutch government apparatchik, first at the Ministry of Agriculture; then at the agency for unemployment benefits; then coordinator of anti-terrorism operations; and since February 2011 at the DSB. Last Tuesday, after presenting the DSB report to the press, but not allowing questions, Joustra spoke briefly to Dutch reporters. He told them what had not been reported in several hundred pages of the DSB’s report and appendixes – that he has pinpointed the launch area for the Buk missile, and that it “was controlled by separatists at the time. The area that we designate as launch location is located within this area.” “So they [separatists] are responsible?” the reporter asked. “We can’t answer this question. It’s not for the DSB to do this.” The reporter asked: “One plus one equals two, doesn’t it?” “Yes, that’s true,” Joustra said. “Sometimes another person needs to make this calculation.”
A little later Joustra gave an interview to the Dutch newspaper Volkskrant, which published the text of his remarks on October 16. Joustra told the newspaper the evidence of the Buk missile was “irrefutable”. He was “certain”, he added, that the firing position was from what the newspaper described as “pro-Russian rebel held territory.” Joustra told the reporters to look closely at the DSB document for the evidence. “I thought it was clear.” He claimed his saying-so was “factual, not a slip”.
Joustra went further, dismissing criticism of the DSB’s evidence and conclusions. “Every time the Russians come up with different stories and different speakers,” Joustra told Volkskrant. “I’ve got the impression that they are trying to take the report back and it does not matter what argument.” Russia is trying to protect the guilty, he added. “How did that Buk battery get there – where did it come from exactly? Who ordered it to do so? I expect that it is possible to make that clear.” To Joustra it was already clear. Russia is protecting the guilty. “Several countries are not eager to deliver [suspected] people at all,” he told Volkskrant, which added that he meant Russia, and believed that Russian suspects have already been identified in the Dutch investigation.
Joustra said today through spokesman, Sara Vernooij, that he had been accurately quoted in Volkskrant. When he spoke of meetings with Russians, Vernooij says Joustra was referring to meetings held this year on February 17-20; May 6-7; and August 11-12. He refuses to identify the Russians by name “due to privacy reasons.”
For evidence of his “certainty” and for the “ irrefutability” of the evidence of missile and warhead, Joustra replied that he is relying on “appendix X the NLR report, appendix Y TNO report, appendix Z TNO report. Data that are not mentioned in the reports or appedicces [sic] will not be released.”
These reports, Joustra and Vernooij were then asked, “do not refer to direct evidence. They refer to computer simulations based on parameters of missile and warhead which originated from the Dutch Ministry of Defence; are classified; and are not disclosed in the TNO documents. The direct evidence available is that the missile model and the warhead type cannot be fired together. A computer simulation is not evidence that they were. Is there any other evidence on which Mr Joustra relies for his certainty and irrefutability?”
“I have nothing to add to the final report”, Joustra and Vernooij have replied.
For more details on what the DSB, the NLR and TMO reports call evidence, and the conclusions they draw, read this and this. For the DSB’s summary of the Russian evidence and Russian objections to what the Dutch call evidence, see Appendix V.
Additional physical evidence of Joustra’s claims about the missile and warhead are residues of the explosive from the warhead, and paint from the missile traces or parts which have been found, according to the DSB, in the aircraft wreckage and on the ground. The DSB says it relied for analysis of this evidence on the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI). The NFI is an agency of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security. It has publicly acknowledged participating in the MH17 case by analyzing DNA samples from victims during the identification phase of the examination of bodies in August of 2014. Here is the NFI’s release of August 28, 2014.
Not since then has the NFI admitted to doing anything more on the MH17 case. But it did do chemical analysis of explosive residues and paint samples, NFI spokesman Suzan Demirhan said today. “That’s correct, we did.” Asked to say when the analysis was commenced, and when the NFI report was delivered to DSB, Demirhan said: “We are not allowed to discuss this. The Public Prosecutor [Service] ordered [the study]. I cannot confirm [the details]. We are not allowed to bring anything to the public. You have to ask your question to the Ministry of Justice and Security.”
According to the DSB (page 35), analyses of explosive and paint residues “were performed by the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) at the request of the Public Prosecution Service and shared with the Dutch Safety Board”. The Ukrainian Government in Kiev had refused to cooperate in this part of the investigation, the DSB has also reported (same page). “The Dutch Safety Board attempted to obtain reference material of the suspected weapon in order to further substantiate the origin of the fragments. The objective was to establish that the chemical composition of the fragments was consistent with that of the suspected weapon. This was not achieved, so this verification could not take place.”
Jean Fransman, spokesman for the Justice Ministry, was asked to address these DSB disclosures about the source of the evidence in the NFI report, and say where, if not the Ukraine or Russia, the evidence came from. He replied he cannot answer. “This is all part of the independent investigation of the DSB. We as a ministry have no say or involvement in this investigation. The NFI has done its work for the DSB investigation and for them only.” When it was pointed out that the NFI claims it was up to Fransman to respond as the ministry had “coordinated” the evidence-gathering, analysis and reporting, Fransman insisted he can say nothing at all. “And thank you for your friendly and non-insinuating questions.”
37 comments
Comments are closed.
They would have a lot more to work with if they had bothered to collect the whole plane. Graham Phillips has been showing off a lot of pieces of wreckage that was never picked up by investigators on his YouTube channel. He was even given a piece by villagers as a gift.
Joustra has a job to do and he is doing it. It just doesn’t appear in the official job description.
Joustra has a job to do and he is doing it. It just doesn’t appear in the official job description.
Joustra is a civil service bureaucrat in it’s pure form. How is he deviating from his official job description?
I very much doubt that he is charged with post report speculation. Ultimately any coloring between the lines will have to be driven by the courts.
It is interesting to note that William Joyce, despite being a citizen of the United States, was convicted and hung for betraying a country and king that was not his own.
Indeed. I was going to let this one go. Beyond this implied misdirection (Anglo-American), citing William Joyce seems a rather odd rhetorical flourish?
Isn’t it time to just admit that the official theories has been correct all along?
There are two investigations: the DSB’s, which only concerns itself with the actual cause of the crash, and a criminal investigation that was prompted by the DSB’s findings.
It is very likely that the criminal investigation will be able to name the Russian servicemen who were manning the actual BUK-M.
It is very likely that the criminal investigation will be able to name the ——- servicemen who were manning the actual BUK-M.
[ This is lying; malicious, rotten lying. Not “very likely” lying, but certainly lying. ]
You are aware, I presume that no satellite surveillance has been released, nor the Ukranian ATCs conversations with the pilot. Why is this critical evidence missing. The Dutch bureaucratic puppets should quit while they are ahead; after all they got all their gold back from the NYFED while Germany has been waiting….waiting….waiting for almost 3 years. Nice quid pro quo for their “spin”.
from either the Russians or the Americans. The cult of secrecy is deeply embedded in many governments.
Russians did present their satellite evidence. It showed 2 fighter jets, no BUKs.
I recall an image that was widely criticized as being a fabrication, but maybe another image is out there. Can you please supply us with a link? Thanks.
Here’s a web site that provides evidence that the image with the fighter planes was photoshopped:
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/proof-the-russian-tv-satellite-photo-of-mh17-is-fake/
Supposedly, the image shows a 767 instead of a 777, and the clouds were copied from a different day using Google Earth.
If the Russian government really believed that fighter planes shot down MH17, they would have said so when the Dutch report was issued. Instead, they made claims about the type of BUK that was used, which I am not qualified to comment on. Optimader has provided some insights into this.
Of course – once the data is on the net, it’s value as a bargaining chip goes to Zero.
I believe that Putin got Syria in return for keeping whatever imagery and data that the Russians have inside the secret vaults. Some US generals and whatnot are bitching, but, probably, mostly because they now know they are not “in” on anything important.
Why the Dutch are so adamant about “fighting the cause”, I don’t know. Maybe this comes from NATO. Everyone must know by now that the US always back-stabs it’s allies eventually.
It is very likely that the criminal investigation will be able to name the Russian servicemen who were manning the actual BUK-M
That presupposes Russian servicemen, any basis for your optimism, or just throwing some noise in the bandwidth?
I will speculate very low but finite possibility this resolves to any MIL service personnel of any stripe.
John Helmer’s series on the MH17 downing, he has focused relentlessly on the evidence and sourcing. Today, he describes obfuscation by the head of the Dutch Safety Board.
On the subject of obfuscation, what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. Helmer is advancing an editorial POV, he is not doing objective journalism with his critical read bending rhetorical style..
I conclude from this and other reading that Helmer is hardly a source of objective journalism on this case.
1.) Helmer is still claiming a BUK missile wasn’t used, based on controversy of which missile -warhead model # combination may or may not have been used.
—Even the manufacturer Almaz-Antey (AA) concedes a BUK was used, but they claim the (missile/warhead) model # combination cited in the DSB report is incorrect and: “… cannot be connected electronically, according to the missile manufacturer….” with no elaboration.
So it is either a case that the model # combination citation is mistaken, or the AA quote (which presumably is a translation) is inaccurate in the definitive (cannot be connected vs would require modification to be connected, therefore is unlikely). Neither scenerio supports Helmer’s claim that a BUK was not involved! .
A quick sidebar on “cannot be combined”, what does that actually mean?
A.) it would be a nuisance for them to be electrically compatible without modifying an electrical connector?
B.) The actual electrical activation signal to the detonator irrevocably incompatible? (doubtful),
The manufacturer specifically does not state that the missile/warhead combination are physically incompatible. No detail on what the electrical activation signal provided to the detonator is, but I would bet dollars to donuts that is it as dead simple as a 24VDC electrical pulse that pops a detonator cap and in principle and execution the signal remains unchanged from other models.
But I digress….
Further on Helmers objectivity, from another source (previously cited but the http doesn’t stick)
How Russia Today and John Helmer twist facts on missile impact
On July 17th Russia Today published its documentary “MH17: a year without truth“. In this video the younger and older sister of captain Wan Amran were interviewed. The younger sister tells the interviewer that she identified her brother at Hilversum (where all the victims’ bodies were investigated) and brought the body home to Malaysia.
She tells that she was shown a full length photo of her brother and she was able to identify him. His body wasn’t damaged, only slightly burned. The older sister then tells that on arrival in Malaysia the government allowed no one to open the coffins.
This statement has been used by several people to suggest that there has not been any shrapnel damage on the pilot in charge. After the Dutch Safety Board final report was published John Helmer writes:
They, the DSB has concluded, “sustained multiple fatal injuries associated with the impact of metal fragments moving at high velocity”. The DSB report says there were “hundreds of metal fragments” in the Captain’s body; “over 120 objects (mostly metal fragments)” in the First Officer’s body; and “more than 100 objects” in the Purser’s body.
This is new evidence. Earlier reporting of what Lailatul Masturah, sister of MH17 flight captain Wan Amran, said she saw of his body, and was told at the Hilversum Army base when his body was released to her, suggests nothing of the sort. Read her testimony here.
In an earlier post Helmer wrote the following:
As the JIT investigation progressed, however, the Malaysian pathologists who attended the identification process at Hilversum reported their concerns to their government. The sister of Captain Wan Amran, the pilot of MH17, who went to Hilversum to identify his body, said she had seen a film of his body and had been told by investigators there were no shrapnel or bullet wounds.
The Malaysian Ambassador to the Netherlands, Fauziah Binti Nohd Taib, then issued a public complaint that Malaysian officials were “not sufficiently involved” in the Hilversum investigation. Press reports of what she said exactly have been removed from the internet. They were reported in Dutch several weeks later.
Both fragments seem to suggest that the captain in charge was not hit by shrapnel. In the second fragment cited there’s also the suggestion that this finding then led the Malyasian Ambassador to complain about the lack of involvement in the investigation. And also that her statement has been removed from the internet.
Helmer does not provide any sources on these statements. If he had, it would have been clear that the statement by the Malaysian Ambassador was made in a NOS Nieuwsuur broadcast on October 29th, 2014 (fragment on Ambassador starts at 18m45s). The complaint concerned the fact that Malaysia at the time was no member of the Joint Investigation Team and was only indirectly involved and informed. So, that statement had nothing to do with the story on the identification of captain Wan Amran in the RT documentary, published 9 months later. Also, news articles on her statement of that time can still be found.
Further on in the second cited post Helmer writes: “[…] the autopsy records ruled out one cause of death of the victims — the allegation that a Russian Buk missile had struck MH17.” Here he is referring to statements by two of the Australian pathologists and coronial court officers, who made public that the passengers of MH17 had not been hit by shrapnel.
Now that the DSB report has been published we know this is correct, but Helmer’s conclusion there was no (Buk) missile fired at MH17 is unfounded, since their statements do not concern the crew present in the cockpit.
The main issue here is whether Wan Amran was indeed the captain in charge when MH17 was downed. As can be learnt from the DSB report there were two teams present on the flight, in accordance with Malaysia Airlines’ procedures for longer flights. The names of the cockpit crew members are not given in the report (and I will not give them here either, but they can easily be found), yet their ages are mentioned.
The case is that Wan Amran (49 years) was the captain of team B, which was to fly the second half of the flight. On the first half of the flight his colleague, aged 44 years, was the captain of team A, assisted by a first officer, aged 26 years. At the time MH17 was downed Wan Amran was most likely staying in the rest area, just like the other first officer, aged 29.
(It was the latter’s wife who gave a very moving speech at the MH17 memorial on July 17th, 2015, when she spoke the words her husband would have spoken to the passengers if they would have made the descent to Kuala Lumpur that day.)
Therefore: the bodies that were hit by shrapnel were those of the members of team A. On the internet a few pictures of one, possibly two members of team A have circulated. I will not publish these here, out of respect for the bereaved. However, I can state that these photos show loss of body parts and several entrance wounds, caused by shrapnel. There are no doubts whatsoever on the dreadful consequences of a missile exploding.
Of course Russia Today knew Wan Amran was not the captain in charge at the time of downing. The family interviewed will have provided this information, but it was left out on purpose by Russia Today. (The statement on coffins not allowed to being opened on behalf of the Malaysian government could also have been taken out of context – but I do not know that.)
Anyway, if John Helmer had read the DSB-report attentively and if he had done a little research he could have found out Wan Amran was not in charge at the time.
Instead, both Russia Today and John Helmer are just disinforming the public and twisting facts.
Helmer’s first cited article also produces some fog with regards to statements by the Australian Federal Police officers. Where Helmer suggests these statements contradict the DSB findings, in fact they only deal with a controverse on the question whether the Ukrainian State Emergency Services conducted their recovery work properly and respectfully, or not. (They did.) And they also deal with the question whether the cause of death of the passenger victims can be established unambiguously, or not. (It can not on an individual level).
The sources (here, here and here) he is referring to contain nothing that contradicts the DSB report.
Helmer may have a point regarding the conclusiveness of the evidence presented by the Dutch Safety Board in another recent post, but his method of arguing is not untainted, given the examples above, and therefore not convincing at all. His posts rest on one rhetorical trick, namely raising suspicion and thereby adding to confusion.
Sorry, I may have posted in the wrong place. I was referring to this scurrilous lie:
“Again, this is simply lying.”
He’s not alone; the climate change deniers have used this rhetorical device quite effectively.
Well, ya know, when the head of the Dutch Safety Board swans around making statements that the evidence in his own report doesn’t support, my suspicions do tend to be raised. Why aren’t yours?
Rhetoric is, alas, inescapable when language is used; just a tool.
I have suspicions about many things. Whether or not the Dutch official is being misleading does not alter the fact that John Helmer is also being misleading.
Why aren’t your suspicions raised when John Helmer writes misleadingly about the injuries to the members of the crew? Last week I pointed out that there were two crews on the flight, and that Helmer’s statements about whether or not a particular body was identifiable or not ignored the fact that there were two captains.
One man’s “obfuscation” is another man’s “not being able to say something happened with 100% certainty”.
Please note that in any air crash investigation, they always refer to the “Probable Cause”. Especially in cases with no surviving flight crew members. Even in cases where the investigating authority has 100% control of the wreckage, bodies, external evidence, etc. starting from the time the fires are put out.
Yeah, it’s “possible” that the airplane was shot down due to some kind of giant Ukrainian/US conspiracy that they have managed to keep quiet. (although it amazes me how our government can be so stupid doing everything else it does, but can always pull off conspiracies like this). On a 1-10 scale of probability, I’d give that one about a .01 out of 10.
OTOH……the chance that “Russian Seperatists” accidentally zapped an airliner over their free-fire zone? (see list of Ukrainian aircraft shot down during the previous 60-90 days)……… I’d give that about a 9 out of 10 on the probability scale.
How did Optimader come up with such an extensive response to Helmer’s latest revelations – and based on what Helmer just stated in this post? Opti is remarkable. We should ask him to analyze the foreclosure crisis, MERS, the Twin Towers and Bldg 5, press and internet censorship, the Kennedy assassination; and the strange cooperation between Russia and us. Among other things.
How did Optimader come up with such an extensive response to Helmer’s latest revelations
I started by actually reading it.
I’ve read/listened to enough bamboozling presentations, picking them apart is 2nd nature.
Much of it is
How Russia Today and John Helmer twist facts on missile impact
as I point out from another source (previously cited but the http doesn’t stick), If you are interested in reading it directly, search on the bold. I would just post the http but it will be vaporized. Not so much ideological axe grinding there, equal opportunity criticism.
BTW, I apologize if you don’t like the critique, I would appreciate your correcting any of it.
On the rest of it, I do offer my opinions where I have them, I think I’ve been shouted down, in particular, on what I consider to be some of the more unlikely conspiracy scenarios which I am not particularly interested in dwelling on anyway.
I do try and be explicit w/regard to identifying what is my opinion.
Bottom line is what is the Truth, it would be good to know, but in the end I tend to be an agnostic cynic about this kinda stuff. Given enough time in perpetual hostility, atrocious things happen. Do I think anyone intentionally shot down a Malaysian Commercial passenger Jet? No, probably not.
And given a scenario whereby the shootdown wasn’t a deliberate act, the question of who pulled the trigger becomes hugely less weighty and fraught.
Tend to agree that Helmer appears to only see one view and is defensive about what he sees as an attack on Russia, without presenting all the evidence – secrecy from coroners, relatives not able to see their loved ones bodies, contradictions everywhere…
I think there is more to this. We may never find out, but it is going to take people like Helmer to keep the issue in the public eye
Here’s a link to some info that people may not have seen, including supposedly cached video from some of the first reporters on the ground:
try again http://www.globalresearch.ca/support-mh17-truth-osce-monitors-identify-shrapnel-like-holes-indicating-shelling-no-firm-evidence-of-a-missile-attack/5394324
Again, this is simply lying.
Posted in the wrong space. Intended as an angry response to accusations about the meticulous work of John Helmer.
It amazes me how many people in the West insist that the “facts/evidence” found during the investigation be held to a courtroom-level standard, while anything the Russians say is treated as Gospel truth.
For starters, see Russia’s long history of “shooting first, then sweep it under the carpet later” when it comes to zapping commercial airliners. The Russians had every reason in the world to “muddy the waters” in this case. Especially since all of the “evidence” landed in their front yard. Mission accomplished. As far as identifying the crew that launched the missile, good luck finding them, even if you do find them. Once again, the Russians have a long history of people who know inconvenient facts somehow turning up “missing”. I’ll bet that crew was watching the grass grow from the wrong side of the turf line within a week of the airplane being shot down.
Just a clarification:
Radar guided surface to air missiles typically don’t actually physically strike the target. It guides itself close to the target, then explodes and lets the shrapnel from the warhead do the rest. Damage a few critical or semi critical bits of the aircraft structure, and the stresses and air loads finish the job.
Heat seekers track the engine heat signatures. Damage from a heat seeker to a airplane the size of a 777 will typically be limited to the back of the engine, and adjacent wing structure, even it it has a proximity fuse. There has been more than one airliner hit with a heat seeker that managed to fly for quite a while, or even land……even airplanes as small as Hawker 700/800 business jets
It amazes me how many posters get triggered by post subject matter into pontificating in ways that don’t address the subject of the post. #JustSaying.
We’re not talking about a courtroom level of proof, here. That’s straw-manning and misdirection. We’re talking about the head of the Dutch Safety Board making claims that aren’t backed up by the evidence in his own report, and then refusing to provide the evidence when asked. The headline cues that, and the text — if actually read — confirms.
I think John Helmer has exaggerated what Tjibbe Joustra said. Here’s the first line of the article, to which I’ve added some highlighting:
I can’t find a place where Joustra said that Russia is criminally responsible for the destruction of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17, nor can I find a place where he said that the missile was fired on Russian orders. He did say that maybe Russia fears that a Russian will be implicated by the separate criminal investigation. Perhaps I’m just a victim of the strange Google translation of a Dutch news article.
So I agree that Tjibbe Joustra exaggerated what is in the DSB report, but John Helmer exaggerated what Tjibbe Joustra said.
For starters, see Russia’s long history of “shooting first, then sweep it under the carpet later” when it comes to zapping commercial airliners.
Ukraine has whacked (at least) Two – so your point is?
Whether it’s true or not, the first paragraph really needs to be backed up with some direct quotes and isn’t. The whole piece kind of hinges on the accuracy of the opening paraphrase.
Whatever happened to the Spanish flight controller who tweeted within minutes of the crash that there where two Ukrainian jets near the plane?
More digital evidence, gone where the woodbine twineth….
Whatever happened to the Spanish flight controller who tweeted within minutes of the crash that there where two Ukrainian jets near the plane?
Before your question drops in the memory hole, for a serious explanation, you might want to start here:
whathappenedtoflightmh17 dot com/atc-carlos-spainbuca-sent-first-tweet-two-hours-after-mh17-fdr-stopped/
ATC Carlos (@spainbuca) sent first Tweet two hours after MH17 FDR stopped
A Twitter account claiming to be working at Kiev Air Traffic Control sent Tweets at July 17 2014 suggesting Ukraine shot down MH17.
Soon it turned out this was a fake account. However lets double check the times he sent his Tweets….
The DSB report is a fraud. How can you insinuate pictures of missile parts and not provide proof of their provenance? Why hasn’t the Russian BUK manufacturer tested a Python missile as well as the BUk to see which shrapnel pattern is more consistent with the actual damage? Why hasn’t the forensic analysis of the metals been done?