Remember the MH17 Crash in Eastern Ukraine in 2014? The Show Trial Continues …

ER Editor: As a reminder to readers, way back on July 17, 2014, after the Maidan coup in Kiev took place (February 2014) to oust the democratically elected government in Ukraine (to be replaced in a regime change operation by western Neocons), the Malaysian airliner MH17 was shot down over Ukraine territory. 196 Dutch passengers were on board; none survived.

As Eric Zuesse reported in 2020, not long after the crash, a four-country investigation team comprising 4 Atlanticist and/or NATO countries – The Netherlands, Ukraine, Belgium and Australia – was put together; Malaysia (not in NATO) was excluded from this team until it agreed to certain terms of entry, all of which remain secret except one – which was not to criticize Ukraine. Why? Further, the Dutch government promised not to grant FOI requests on this secret deal.

So what Zuesse terms a ‘show trial’ was started on March 9, 2020. In it, the investigation team presented evidence that it was a RUSSIAN missile, a BUK-TELAR, that took the plane down. The evidence rested on particular serial numbers being visible on crash fragments. Except that Russia traced these serial numbers back to missiles that had been deposited in Ukraine for a length of time beforehand. As Zuesse concludes, this type of evidence trail could therefore CONVICT UKRAINE in this affair.

And where did this plane get shot down? Why, over the DONBASS region (ethnically Russian) no less, near a town called Snizhne:

It had flown right across Ukraine from the western side, starting from Amsterdam:

As the article reveals below, the case is still ongoing two years later, and is not expected to end before June 2022, with a verdict likely to be delivered as late as December 15th. A timing which we find curious given current events in Ukraine. As if two layers of events were to be superimposed for maximum political effect.

The following article by author Eric van de Beek updates us on the trial, particularly the nature of the forensic evidence in play. Van de Beek wrote the book ‘MH17 de onderste steen’ (MH17 the Bottom Stone). Related to the developments of the criminal case in The Netherlands is the news from March 14, 2022 that Australia and The Netherlands are starting criminal legal proceedings against the Russian state. 

Notice a telling detail in the article below: the crash took place on July 17 2014, yet missile fragments, &etc. were not found until April of 2015. Meanwhile, Ukrainian military had fired missiles into this area. Which constitutes contamination of a crime scene. Why did this forensic investigation into the crash take so long? It’s not surprising that defence lawyers find that ‘evidence’ could have been placed at the crime scene.

This is pure speculation, but the more time that elapses in the context of, first, the Covid plandemic, then the Ukraine war (which Thierry Meyssan argues was started by Ukraine a week before Russia entered, on Feb. 24), THEN the overlay of this fake trial that has had a ridiculous amount of time to unfold, THEN the news of Australia (38 of their citizens were on board) and the Netherlands starting proceedings against Russia, it’s looking like Deep State players have carefully orchestrated (at least) two very different events in Ukraine (2014 and 2022) against Russia, to play out simultaneously at a later date.

Many thanks to journalist Michel van der Kemp for helping with the preparation of this article.

********

MH17: Buk missile scenario falters

Was flight MH17 shot down with a Russian Buk installation?

ERIC VAN DE BEEK

According to the Dutch lawyers of the suspect Oleg Pulatov, there is no evidence for this. The fatal missile may have been of a very different type.

In the Netherlands, three Russians and a Ukrainian are on trial for murder without being suspected of having committed it themselves. They also had no motive for the murder in question. Their involvement in the deaths of the 298 occupants of flight MH17, which was shot down over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, is alleged to have consisted of: requesting an anti-aircraft system with crew, designating a suitable launch site for that system, as well as transport and monitor it. The real killers are still at large.

It is unclear who they are and why they launched the fatal missile. However, the Public Prosecution Service (OM) suspects the 53rd anti-aircraft brigade of the Russian army in Kursk. A Buk-Telar from this brigade is said to have entered the rebel area on the trailer of a Volvo truck and shot down MH17 from an agricultural field south of Snizhne. However, the Public Prosecution Service does not know who ‘pressed the button’, why he or she did this and who was in command of the Telar crew.

Seven loose parts of a Bukra missile that were found in the area by a Dutch recovery team turned out to be of zero value. During the court hearing on June 8, 2020, the Public Prosecution Service already announced that forensic researchers were unable to determine that these parts came from the missile that brought down MH17. The missile parts, including an engine shroud, exhaust, stabilization wing, data cable and three shards, may have ended up in the disaster area before or after July 17. It also seems that the engine casing and the exhaust are of a different type of Buk missile than the other parts. At least this is what the Dutch lawyers of the only one of the four suspects who can be defended in the MH17 criminal case, Oleg Pulatov, made plausible last week.

They also announced that the Ukrainian anti-aircraft defenses, which have exactly the same Buk missiles as the Russians, launched two Buks in February 2015 within firing range of the disaster area. That was two months before the recovery team found the engine casing and the three shards. A number of parts can therefore come from this. But the lawyers do not rule out the possibility that the parts have been deposited to be found, with the aim of giving the impression that MH17 was shot down with a Bukra missile.

About a hundred metal parts were found in the pilot’s body, including a butterfly-shaped particle. Such a butterfly particle has also been found in the insulation material of the aircraft. The Public Prosecution Service sees this as evidence for a Bukra missile, because a 9N314M warhead of this missile contains 1,870 particles with such a shape. This has already raised the question of where the remaining 1,868 particles have gone. The Public Prosecution Service says about this that not all particles hit the aircraft, that they fell out during the crash or that they were so deformed that they were no longer recognizable as butterfly particles. The lawyers only partially agree. They point out that experiments by the Russian Buk manufacturer Almaz Antey have shown that at least 40 percent of the fragments retain their shape. The same experiments also showed that the butterfly-shaped fragments create butterfly-shaped impact holes in the aircraft skin. Holes of this shape cannot be found in the wreckage of MH17. How is it possible that two butterfly-shaped particles have been found? The lawyers say that it is not certain that these particles were originally butterfly shaped. They may have been square and deformed by the detonation of the missile warhead.

Furthermore, a green metal plug was found that was clamped in the left window frame of the cockpit. According to the Public Prosecution Service, this is the bottom plate of a Buk missile. The lawyers have argued that it could also be part of another type of missile. The Public Prosecution Service has not had any investigations carried out into parts of other types of missiles used by Ukraine or Russia. Explosive investigation by the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) has shown that some parts of the wreckage show traces of the explosive PETN. However, these do not appear in the head of Buk missiles. They only contain the explosives TNT and RDX. This is therefore strange, even though the NFI does not rule out the possibility that the PETN traces come from the fuse or the booster of the warhead of the rocket.

If it wasn’t a Buk missile, what was it? The lawyers point to “bullets”, spherical objects, that were found between the wreckage. According to the OM, the bearings come from the aircraft. But the lawyers point out that the warhead of an SA-5 missile contains exactly such particles. With such a missile, the Ukrainian Air Force accidentally shot down a Russian airliner during an exercise in 2001.

The court will rule this fall. If the judges conclude that a Buk missile must have been the murder weapon, then the perpetrators will not yet be known. It could have been Russians or Ukrainians. Well-known are the photos and videos of a Russian Buk installation in eastern Ukraine, which were promoted by the Ukrainian authorities and the research collective Bellingcat. But the special thing is that no Western military intelligence service has seen this Buk installation. However, the services have identified Ukrainian Buk installations around the conflict area, as is apparent from a report by the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD), which was discussed during the MH17 trial.

Pulatov’s lawyers will continue to plead this month. They have announced that they will oppose the launch of a missile at the site that the OM says was fired, and they will also object that their client had anything to do with the disaster.

************

Source

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.