The MH17 Downing: Won’t Get Fooled Again

Reading Time: 11 minutes
MH17: The Inconvenient Questions

MH17: The Inconvenient Questions

We share the horror and revulsion at the loss of 298 innocent lives in the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. And we believe It is imperative to ask inconvenient questions about a tragedy that has brought the world to the edge of a new and, indeed, very Cold War.

We also think everyone needs to become a smart news consumer. That means taking into account the history of disinformation foisted upon the public. It means recognizing that while our instinct is to accept stories where the “other” is the bad guy, things may be more complicated. And it means reminding ourselves of the military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned us about—and how our “public servants” operate under constant pressure from wealthy interests with a stake in particular outcomes.

Surely as we look into the eyes of those who lost their lives, we know they would not want to be pawns in the cynical calculations of money and power. They would want the truth to come out, whatever it might be.


Looking into those eyes

The shoot-down of MH17 must be viewed in the framework of a struggle that could affect the world’s power dynamic for years to come. Russia, China, India, Latin America and other players are cooperating more and more in ventures that have little room for the traditional domination by the U.S. Institutions like the World Bank are threatened by alternative bodies. The Western fossil-fuel establishment is facing increasing competition from state-run oil companies and others outside its usual spheres of influence.

And here is something even more dangerous: The U.S. military has been concerned about losing its ability to “project strength for U.S. interests” ever since the end of the Soviet Union sent the neocons in search of new “threats” to justify an ever-expanding U.S. military.

Without question, in the current international arena the downing of MH17 is a possible game changer. And game changers need to be rigorously examined.

Thus, while we allow for the very real possibility that the “authorized” version of the crash may prove true, we cannot ignore the larger picture—and the way in which this story has unfolded.

Rapid-Fire Conclusions

At WhoWhatWhy, we have a longstanding concern about the effectiveness with which the U.S. governments can quickly persuade Americans to rally around some simplistic narrative. From the Oklahoma City bombing to 9/11, our media and political establishments have failed to ask tough questions.

Within days of the Boston Marathon Bombings, we warned about a rush to judgment at a time when the authorities insisted they knew exactly what had happened, and that the investigation and questions about it should come to a halt. What gives us hope is that a significant minority, armed with memories of past fabrications and spin, refuse to simply accept what they are told. Perhaps that is why our first article on the bombings received more than 18,000 Facebook likes, quite a lot for a small site like ours.

With the MH17 crash, we were struck by the certainty with which U.S. and Western officials affixed blame, insisted that the plane had been brought down by a missile, and, moreover, asserted which “side” had fired it. Contrast that with TWA Flight 800 in 1996, where eyewitnesses stated they saw a projectile heading toward the plane before it exploded over Long Island. In that case, the government and media rushed to divert the public away from such claims—one of which implicated a U.S. Navy missile test gone awry.

(In an interesting sidelight to that continuing controversy, click here to watch CNN’s Anderson Cooper compare the MH17 incident to TWA 800, which he said had been “shot down”—Cooper returned shortly after to offer an apology for “misspeaking.”)


In all such events, the conclusions you draw depend largely on whom you listen to. When the State Department alleged that Russia was firing across the border into Ukraine, most Western media quoted U.S. officials without expressing any doubts. Predictably, the Russian network, RT, had a different take, citing one of the rare American journalists who refuses to simply parrot claims.

On its website, under the headline “State Dept. accuses Russia of firing artillery into Ukraine, refuses to provide any evidence,” RT wrote:

Matthew Lee, a veteran AP journalist known for his frequent showdowns with spokespeople during U.S. State Department briefings, raised questions about the latest claims during Thursday’s scheduled press conference.

“We have new evidence that the Russians intend to deliver heavier and more powerful rocket launchers to the separatist forces in Ukraine, and have evidence that Russia is firing artillery from within Russia to attack Ukrainian military positions,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters during the Thursday afternoon briefing.

When asked by Lee for any evidence, however, Harf said the State Dept. is unwilling at this time to disclose further details because doing so could expose the secret intelligence operations involved in making such claims.

“I would like to know what you’re basing this new evidence that the Russians intend to send any heavier equipment,” Lee asked.

The details, Harf responded, are “based on some intelligence information.”

“I can’t get into the sources and methods behind it,” Harf insisted to Lee’s chagrin. “I can’t tell you what the information is based on.”

Cui Bono: Who Benefits From the Current Situation?

We all know the official version about the Russian-backed separatists with the BUK missile system, who allegedly shot down the plane by mistake or simply because they were clumsy and drunk.

Yet the calls for sanctions ignore the possibility of an accident and imply a willful act. Which begs the question: What would Russia and its separatist proxies gain by blowing a passenger plane out of the sky? On balance, the downing seems a public relations disaster for Moscow.

It seems clear that in a situation and a place where several players are operating in secrecy under the proverbial “fog of war,” we need to be cautious about assigning blame. In such chaotic situations, many possibilities present themselves. They can range from an accident to a reckless, deliberate act by a few individuals operating without any sort of larger authority. There’s even the potential for an agent provocateur to launch a “false flag” attack, serving cynical interests that care nothing about the loss of innocent life when the stakes are high enough.


Provocations consisting of false horror stories are a favored arrow in the quiver of power. Look how effective it was to allege that Qaddafi and Assad ordered mass rapes. Those stories played big in the global media, though there is no reason to believe they were true, and plenty of reason to doubt.

And then there was the completely fabricated story by an American PR company that Saddam’s troops killed premature babies in Kuwait, which boosted public support for the first Gulf War under George H.W. Bush. This was topped by the false claim that Saddam was involved with 9/11, which in turn helped build support for the Iraq War under George W. Bush.

Yet when evidence points to the possible involvement of a U.S. ally (Saudi Arabia) and to the role of elements of the U.S. diplomatic and security establishment in, at minimum, covering things up regarding 9/11, there’s a near-total silence.

What’s going on here? Is it that we cannot bear to imagine that horrible things are being done, supposedly on our behalf, “to keep us safe”? Yet examples abound, from the My Lai massacre in Vietnam to the present-day assassination-by-drone of American citizens without due process—not to mention the slaughter of innocents by the U.S. or its proxies in any number of theaters of war including Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, to name a few.

What’s at Stake—and Rarely Mentioned

The overt assigning of blame to Moscow in the MH17 downing comports with the general trajectory of recent news coverage of Russian President Vladimir Putin, which portrays him and anyone associated with him in a negative light. This serves a purpose in an ongoing high-stakes battle characterized by such dramatic developments as Russia’s providing haven to the whistleblower Edward Snowden, and Putin’s role thus far in blocking a Western plan to remove Syria’s Assad, thereby thwarting what had been a successful streak of “regime changes” in the Middle East (Saddam and Qaddafi).

Most important to understanding what’s at stake in Ukraine, however, is the struggle over natural resources.

News media—traditionally poor at providing context—failed to note that the tragic MH17 downing came amid an unfolding trade war between Washington and Moscow for the lucrative European natural gas market. Or that the sanctions are strengthening the American market potential in the area.

The battle over natural gas, oil and other fuels and minerals involves the entire European continent, in fascinating and intrigue-filled ways we recently described.

The first piece of evidence that sanctions against Russia may be more about oil and gas than about punishment is the surprising new restriction on the export of hi-tech oil-production equipment, and a total ban on equipment destined for deep water, Arctic, and shale oil production. Shale oil is of increasing  importance to the United States, and the world.

Who are the Big Economic Losers?

According to an EU source familiar with the legal texts, the sanctions will cost the Russian economy €23 billion this year (1.5% of GDP) and €75 billion in 2015 (4.8% of GDP). The Economist meanwhile has calculated that Russian firms will suffer losses from the sanctions as high as $1 trillion (€744bn).

The sanctions will also weigh heavily on the economies of Western Europe: the EU commission forecasts that the European Union will lose €40 billion (0.3% of GDP) this year and €50bn in 2015 (0.4 % of GDP). That’s because Russia is expected to retaliate with trade bans of its own against EU countries, which are still largely dependent on Russian gas and have strong economic ties with Moscow and its Big Money. For example, London’s priciest real estate has long been dominated by Russian oligarchs.

With all these considerations, we would be foolish to view the plane tragedy in isolation.

Fascinating Discrepancies Raise Provocative Questions

–Was the person who shot down MH17 “a defector” from the Ukrainian army?

U.S. intelligence officials have suggested that the person who fired the missile that downed the plane may have been a “defector” (or defectors) from the Ukrainian army. This was an apparent attempt to explain why some CIA analysts thought satellite images revealed men in Ukrainian army uniforms manning the missile battery believed responsible for the shootdown. Of course, if the people firing on the plane can be identified with the Ukrainian army in any respect, they could also be….Ukrainian government soldiers.

–Could MH17 have been shot down by accident by the Ukrainian army, or the separatists?

The Russian news agency RIA Novosti—not to be trusted any more or less than any other major news organization—quoted a source as follows:

On July 17 the commanding officer of 156th Anti-Aircraft Regiment was instructed to conduct a training exercise of ground troops stationed near Donetsk, which involved deploying the troops, and carrying out a routine tracking and destroying of targets with the Buk-M1 missile.

In this scenario, Ukrainian troops, not rebels, accidentally fired off rockets when two Sukhoi Su-25 combat aircraft flew parallel to the Boeing 777—but at a different altitude. According to this version, when the three aircraft merged and became a single dot on the missile’s radar system, the Buk-M1 automatically chose the larger target, leading to the demise of MH17.

Another version, advanced by some U.S. intelligence officials, holds that the separatist rebels fired on the jet after misreading their radar, mistaking MH17 for a Ukrainian military plane.

An unidentified senior rebel leader admitted that a unit made up of Ukrainians and Russians fired the missile that downed the plane by accident, according to an Associated Press report. An AP reporter, and residents, witnessed a Buk missile launcher rolling through the town of Snizhne—about 10 miles from the crash site—on the same day MH17 went down. A soldier in unmarked camouflage, with a Russian accent, stopped to ensure the journalist was not taking photographs.

These plausible stories should be investigated before conclusions can be drawn.

–Was MH17 shot down after being escorted by Kiev fighters, as claimed by a Spanish air traffic controller?

Another version of the MH17 downing has been circulating on social media networks: the alleged Twitter posts of a Spanish air traffic controller named Carlos, described as working at the Boryspil International Airport in Kiev. In the series of July 17 tweets, translated from the original Spanish by an unknown person with a poor command of English, @spainbuca wrote:

“The B777 plane flew escorted by Ukraine jet fighter until 2 minutes before disappearing from the radar,” says an 11:48 tweet.

“Malaysia Airlines B777 plane just disappeared and Kiev military authority informed us of the downing, How they knew?” he asked at 12:00.

“7:00 minutes after [plane disappeared], the downing was notified, later our tower was taken with foreigner staff, they still here ” his next tweet said.

He blamed the Ukrainian government for shooting down the plane and trying to make it look like the work of pro-Russian separatists.

Some of his tweets suggest it may have been a military uprising against the current Ukrainian president by partisans of ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Others describe soldiers, accompanied by foreigners, coming to the control tower to gather up all the evidence and coaching the controllers on what to say about the downing if asked.

Mysteriously, the Twitter account of the user was deleted the next day, and the man’s full identity has never been made clear. Here’s where it gets even more interesting: he appeared on RT’s Spanish-language channel in May, claiming he’d sent his wife and children home after being threatened by Euromaidan supporters. Euromaidan is a broad coalition of people behind this year’s revolution, many of whom are allied with Tymoshenko’s party.

This may turn out to be an unreliable story, or an outright hoax carried out as a propaganda operation. Either way, the story of Carlos is one that should be checked—and that is just what we’re doing.

A Change of Course—Right Over the Conflict Zone

Significantly, radar screen shots show MH17 executing an unexplained change of course. The altered flight path took the aircraft directly over the eastern Ukraine conflict region, in contrast to the previous day’s routing of the same flight. See for yourself:

July 16


July 17



Russian Claims and Questions

A high-ranking Russian military official claims that a Ukrainian military jet was flying close to MH17 before it was downed.Lieutenant-General Andrei Kartopolov told a press conference that the SU-25 attack jet was gaining height and came within 3-5 kilometers of MH17. Those jets, which are primarily used for ground attack, can briefly fly high enough to have reached the altitude of the MH17, and can be equipped with air-to-air missiles that can destroy flying targets, he said.

Russian officials say they have evidence of the jet’s presence following images taken by the Rostov monitoring center. The implication is that it might have been a Ukrainian military jet that shot down the Malaysian plane.

Kartopolov criticized the U.S. for not releasing its own satellite images taken at the time of the shoot-down, which the Russians say will confirm just which missile or missiles were launched by the rebels.

Further, the general asserted that Ukraine itself had BUK missile launchers located a few miles to the northwest of the Lugansk crash site on July 14, near rebel-held territory. He said that satellite images revealed the Ukrainian batteries in place on July 14, but absent from images taken on July 17, the day of the shoot-down.

The Russians have posed 10 questions about the tragedy, though few if any Western media outlets have even acknowledged them. Here they are:

[box]1. Immediately after the tragedy, the Ukrainian authorities, naturally, blamed it on the separatist forces. What are these accusations based on?

2. Can Kiev explain in detail how it uses Buk missile launchers in the conflict zone? And why were these systems deployed there in the first place, seeing as the self-defense forces don’t have any planes?

3. Why are the Ukrainian authorities not doing anything to set up an international commission?

4. Would the Ukrainian Armed Forces be willing to let international investigators see the inventory of their air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, including those used in SAM launchers?

5. Will the international commission have access to tracking data from reliable sources regarding the movements of Ukrainian warplanes on the day of the tragedy?

6. Why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers allow the plane to deviate from the regular route to the north, towards “the anti-terrorist operation zone”?

7. Why was airspace over the warzone not closed for civilian flights, especially since the area was not entirely covered by radar navigation systems?

8. How can official Kiev comment on reports in the social media, allegedly by a Spanish air traffic controller who works in Ukraine, that there were two Ukrainian military planes flying alongside the Boeing 777 over Ukrainian territory?

9. Why did Ukraine’s Security Service start working with the recordings of communications between Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the Boeing crew and with the data storage systems from Ukrainian radars without waiting for international investigators?

10. What lessons has Ukraine learned from a similar incident in 2001, when a Russian Tu-154 crashed into the Black Sea? Back then, the Ukrainian authorities denied any involvement on the part of Ukraine’s Armed Forces until irrefutable evidence proved official Kiev to be guilty.[/box]

Anyone who wants to know what really happened in the MH17 tragedy needs to consider these theories and questions, and indeed, any legitimate questions from either side of the Ukrainian conflict.

Time and again, the world has seen open-ended wars erupt from fabricated or manipulated events. That potential exists today, in the fog of war that hangs ominously over an eastern Ukraine killing field.

[box] WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on us. Can we count on you? What we do is only possible with your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.[/box]

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.


0 responses to “The MH17 Downing: Won’t Get Fooled Again”

  1. Title

    […]Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine several unrelated information, nonetheless really worth taking a appear, whoa did a single master about Mid East has got more problerms as well […]

  2. Title

    […]although internet sites we backlink to beneath are considerably not related to ours, we really feel they may be in fact worth a go by way of, so have a look[…]

  3. Howard456 says:

    Some eyewitness accounts of missile(s) seen flying towards and/or exploding at or in the vicinity of TWA800 listed here:

    And there’s also this testimony of an Air National Guard chopper pilot (in the air at the time) witnessing a missile streaking through the sky and some ordinance explosions followed by a bigger fireball as TWA800 exploded. He was also a Vietnam vet with experience flying in combat conditions in Vietnam

  4. Georg says:

    It is important to evaluate the smoke on the surfaces of the front part of the planning, which is not existent at the rear parts and is a 100% singe of an explosion in front of the plane. There are a lot of evidences, which shows, that an external explosion in front of the plane downed the plane.
    The left part below the cockpit windows shows tremendous evidences, when it is seen in different angular directions. That is the piece which tells the truth
    right away.

  5. notfooled says:

    Won’t get fooled again? Sylvia and Russ might not but Amerika at large will get fooled over and over and over and over again and again and again ad infinitum.

  6. walter says:

    The shape of the Russian response strategy to the M17 affair and its entire context is beginning to become clear, at least in part. In french: However, the forces described by H.K. Smith vis a vis the German nazis seem to apply, so the Russian actions perhaps ought to be seen as hedges against possible outcomes. In the matter of conflicts such as this history shows that outcomes are determined early, but are not evident until late. This is to say that the matter to hand is desperately urgent – and may be attended by dark errors.

    In another matter, that of eye-witnesses… Murderers whose actions are observed seldom prefer to have eye-witness testimony given. Why do you suppose that is?

  7. Mike Rothschild says:

    Eyewitness testimony is not a credible reason to think Flight 800 was shot down. The majority of the claims of people who said they saw a missile strike only looked at the explosion AFTER they heard it, which means it had already been several minutes since the explosion took place. It would have been impossible to both see and hear the explosion at the same time, as the laws of physics don’t work this way.

    So extrapolating anything about MH17 due to anything that happened to TWA 800 is a fool’s game.

  8. Ole says:

    If – if MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile we would have heard from hundreds of local witnesses. A big missile goes up with a roar and leaves a trail of smoke all the way up that hangs in the air for several minutes. But all videos with witnesses don’t mention a smoke column or hearing a roar, just an explosion high up and a fighterplane near the passenger jet.
    Further: If a Buk missile was in fact fired – in a rather inhabited area – there would be many observers from many angles able to point to the firing spot.
    So it could be pinpointed right away, pure geometry – no need for radars or satellite confirmations. But nobody has heard from such witnesses or seen photos of smoke columns.
    So – isn’t it rather obvious that MH17 was taken down by the fighter jet?

  9. Patrick says:

    CHAFF used as a counter-measure against radar detection is a good metaphor for all the divergent stories about what happened to MH17. Enough plausible scenarios put out by factions and their intelligence agencies and assets will distract enough people to make the true story difficult to track. I find the wheat in the Ukraine fighter jet shoot-down most plausible from the physical evidence and the cui bono perspective.

  10. walter says:

    some might want to read Howard K Smith’s “Last Train from Berlin”. He provides an economic argument that the Nazis had no alternative other than war in 1939. For them it was either war or loss of power in Germany – ie no choice. Some delusional “folks” may imagine certain similarities to-day…

  11. Douglas Jack says:

    FALSE-FLAG MH17 shoot-down carried out by
    western financed mercenaries not Russia. Shooting down a plane from 10,000
    metres (33,000 feet) requires a fixed base missile launching pad or a mobile
    device of massive size with months of calibration, testing, a large multiple
    site radar system, well trained (months & years) technicians & a
    computer system with many integrated functions. Eastern Ukraine sovereigntists
    don’t have the secure-sites, equipment, training or systems integration. The BUK system is a huge, awkward (because of height & length doesn’t travel down most roads) easy target to be captured by satellite & destroyed.

    MH17 Shoot Down FABRICATED? Paul Joseph Watson
    InfoWars, Prison Planet, Time-stamps on recording show they come from the day
    before MH17 was shot down. + Ralph G WarCloud “. . . what i said about
    Buk earlier (i’m an AAF officer in past). Buk & Buk M1 shooting range is
    18-22km. Not 40km. Buk M1 is latest (1982 or 1986 year of production) that
    ukraine have. This complex is from USSR. 4 vehicles & a lot of specialists
    – i said it before. Yes, about 12-14 specialists they must have. They haven’t.”

    Video Evidence to Frame Russia For MH17 Shoot
    Down Fabricated? Paul Joseph Watson InfoWars, Prison Planet, Time-stamps on
    recording show they come from the day before MH17 was shot down.

    Busted! Kiev’s Video Implicating Russia Posted
    to Youtube BEFORE Plane Was Shot Down, 18Jul’14!bip3I4

  12. Gordon Johnson says:

    Everyone can does and will continue to torture logic, evidence, and all reports they can generate/manipulate to use MH17 as a vehicle to further their agendas.

    The US wants us to believe it is Russia. Russia wants us to believe it is Ukraine. The sepraratists can’t decide what they want and blow with the political wind.

    Disregard everything they say. It is too unreliable. Go to the physics. Go to the physical evidence.

    There are a very small number of systems that possibly could have done it. The SU-25UM is a Ukrainian modernized version of the SU-25. MH17’s altitude was at the TOP of its maximum. It could reach that altitude briefly – unloaded. If unloaded then what would it shoot? If loaded, then it would need to be several thousand feet lower. There is another problem with the SU25UBM theory. It is not fast enough. MH17 cruise speed was FASTER than the SU25UBM’s maximum unloaded speed. The only way, therefore, for an SU25UBM to have done it is to be circling within MH17’s intended route ahead of time. SU-25 has a variety of heat-seeking missiles. They would tend to follow the heat source – the engines – and then explode in their vicinity. With wings full of fuel, if that were the case we should not see large sections of wing on the ground – and in photos of the crash wreckage there are such photos.

    Some variants of the Su-25 can carry the R77 radar guided missile. A radar guided missile would tend to follow the largest radar return – the fuselage. In either case the Russian-released radar data would tend to indicate these missiles would have to be fired from behind. The primary missile damage to the fuselage would therefore be to the rear of the aircraft.

    Primary candidates for a SAM are a Ukrainian BUK or a ‘separatist’ BUK. Before MH17 separatists declared they had a BUK, and Ukraine denied. Their positions subsequently reversed after MH17.

    BUK is a radar guided system. It uses a separate radar vehicle for target acquistion. It uses a Transport Erector Launcher and Radar (TELAR) for lock, usually, so that the main radar can continue scanning. The BUK can receive normal radar information broadcast by entities like EuroControl or the FAA, when they are available.

    Given the Russians stated locations for the Ukrainian BUKs, the missile would have to have been shot to follow MH17, otherwise missile would close and impact to the north of the positions. If fired to trail MH17 the missile would target the largest radar return (rear of the fuselage) and detonate in its proximity.

    If MH17 shows primary missile damage (metal on fuselage holes bent to the inside) on the FRONT of the aircraft – as a photo of one piece suggests – then the missile would have to have been fired from in front of MH17’s flight path, because the missile would guide to the largest radar return – the fuselage – and the missile would detonate immediately after gaining proximity.

    If it turns out MH17 damage is primarily to the front of the aircraft, then by process of elimination, it was destroyed by a BUK that was positioned in Ukraine within 10miles of the Russian border. Given that ground battles are occurring at the crash site some 40-50km from the border, it seems improbable that a Ukrainian convoy large enough to protect the BUK would go unnoticed. Alternatively, it seems unlikely that a single Ukrainian BUK would be able to go so far into ‘separatist’ territory without attack or challenge.

    Note, it would be possible for a Russian BUK or Aircraft to have fired on MH17, either intentionally or as an accident – however I do not think it is likely. The Russians would have full contact with all relevant Eurocontrol feeds and unimpeded acquisition radars, etc, that would allow them to know it was a civilian flight. It would not be characteristic of the Russians to be sloppy in this way. Therefore, while possible, it is not likely the Russians.

    Whatever the truth, it is the wreckage that will tell the tale. To get any real conclusions will require representatives of the aircraft’s builder to help identify parts, their relative locations, and read the damage to them.

  13. whatwaysup says:

    I don’t want to introduce this as anything other than collateral to the real issue at hand here.
    The shoot-down of MH17 on balance must now be first considered false flag Mass-Murder provocation by pro-western Junta .
    The circumstance of MH17 presence over the fire-zone being diversion by Kiev ATC, the actions of Junta agents in the control tower including Carlos tweets; the presentation of data by Russian authorities revealing Ukrainian fighter, the Ukrainian Junta Army BUK systems in place, the presence of CHAFF over the smoke plume, the redacted BBC report eyewitness testimony of the fighter presence, the LACK of any substantial USA ‘evidence supporting their ‘pro-Russian’ accusations, and now the German pilot illuminating cockpit fuselage and wing machine gunning patterns all point directly toward the fighter strafing MH17.

    So the following is of peripheral interest only, but, in light of IMF chief Christine Lagarde making this statement on 1/15/2014 National Press Club speech, and the facts surrounding the flight being :
    MH17. Boeing 777. 17. 7.14 17:21 Moscow Time;
    it is at least worthy of approach:
    Lagarde:”“Now, I’m going to test your numerology skills by asking you to think about the magic seven, okay? Most of you will know that seven is quite a number in all sorts of themes, religions. And I’m sure that you can compress numbers as well. So if we think about 2014, all right, I’m just giving you 2014, you drop the zero, 14, two times 7. Okay,that’s just by way of example, and we’re going to carry on. (Laughter)”

  14. VoxFox says:

    The idiots running western “intelligence” agencies are mad men to risk a nuclear war that could destroy most of civilization. What could possibly be worth this massive disaster? To play these 19C ‘power games’ is so archaic.

    • Some Guy says:

      To farm out debt and retain the throne as the world super power while confronting a rising china with a declining dollar against the BRICS.

    • It is hard to remain a super power when one’s central bankers have sold off all of the gold in their possession, including that held in trust for others, in order to keep the spot down.

    • Some Guy says:

      Its hard to remain a super power without an industrial base and with a centralized fiat world reserve currency tied to the largest debt in the known history of mankind as well.

      At least we see eye to eye.

  15. jeczaja says:

    The blast of demonization following the crash of MH17 was unprecedented. Propaganda-watchers know that this is what powers do when they want to go to war. Some idiots wants to go to war with Russia (!) but first Putin must be the devil. Putin did not do it, but when that becomes undeniable, the drum beats from the MSM will have stopped. Check out this German pilot’s analysis. It makes a lot of sense.

  16. javhar says:

    The previous and subsequent downings of Ukrainian military aircraft by Russian separatists. The triumphant social media posts on July 17 about shooting down another aircraft, deleted when it became clear that it was a civilian airliner. The intercepted radio communications. The satellite images. The photos of BUKs being driven through rebel held territory.

    So we find people advancing conspiracy theories, including the old False Flag, to explain away evidence against their preferred belief, while at the same ironically presenting their own theories on no evidence whatsoever. That is a sign of basing one’s belief on whose side one is on, and thus thinking that if the rest of the world seems to believe something else then that can only be because they’re on the other side. Surprisingly then, other people’s beliefs may be based on THE FACTS — instead of the other way around.

    Most of the world accuses Russian separatists of shooting down this aircraft. IF they had not done it, THEN would it not be in their interest to facilitate the investigation to uncover the truth? Why have they been doing the exact opposite all along? Why have Russian separatists blocked and delayed independent investigators from reaching the crash site from the beginning? That they did so is a FACT, meaning that it is true no matter whose side you’re on.

    • Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte asked Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in a phone call Tuesday morning to halt the fighting around the crash site so that investigators can access it

      Donetsk, Ukraine (CNN) – For a fourth straight day, unsafe conditions in eastern Ukraine kept international investigators from reaching the site of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 wreckage.

      Dutch forensic researchers and unarmed military police decided Wednesday that it was unsafe to travel to the crash site, said Lodewijk Hekking, spokesman for the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security.

      The decision comes as Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council claims that “terrorists” — the term it uses to describe rebels — have set up firing positions and laid mines on the access road to the crash site.

      This makes the work of international experts “impossible,” the agency said.

      The decision by the Dutch to stay away from the site is independent of the choices that other international observers, including from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, might make.

      But for the three previous days, the OSCE has joined the 50-strong team of Dutch and Australian investigators in declaring the region too dangerous to work in.

      Dutch investigators have yet to lay eyes on the wreckage or the human remains believed still to be strewn across the huge debris field near the town of Torez.

      U.S. and Ukrainian officials have said that a Russian-made missile system was used to shoot down MH17 from rebel territory on July 17. Russia and the rebels have disputed the allegations and blamed Ukraine for the crash.

      Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte asked Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in a phone call Tuesday morning to halt the fighting around the crash site so that investigators can access it, Rutte spokesman Jean Fransman said.

    • Some Guy says:

      Yeah, international investigators couldn’t get in… but two Australian Nationals with an “I love my daughter” t-shirt in a small white van were able to get there.

      Yeah man… those rebels are totally keeping people out. You know nothing about war zones. Their ambiguous terminology is a negligible consequence of being in any war torn nation.

      If Rebels or “terrorists” were to kill some international investigators seeking the truth… it would only end in their demise.

      The reason there can not be an international investigation is because the western world doesn’t really want one. If there was one they might be exposed for their hand in a propaganda war.

      Furthermore, at this point its moot… because western media and international investigators will only claim that the site was tampered with from this point forward.

      In any case they have the data recorders and they haven’t released squat… why is that? Let me guess… they will only show information as to the heading, altitude, air speed and rate of descent… member because they already said the cockpit voice recorders were damaged even though the data was in tact.

      Be gullible if you want to… but don’t expect everyone else to be. There is all the proof in the world and the US isn’t seeking any of it.

  17. Walter says:

    Ok, the Ukrainian nazis did it and the empire knows it and exploits it. If so, what does this imply about imperial intent? That question is the important one, and the answer is obvious. And the answer is also obvious to the Russians… So the real important question is what are they going to do about it? What kind of actions will the Russians take to prevail over fascism? On you tube ( )Sergei Glazyev, a guy close to Putin’s ear, says the problem, the Russian problem, lies in Washington, as does, he says, the solution… So, given the obvious, it’s obvious where the Russians will act. How they’ll do that remains to be seen. The only mystery about that is tactical. Anybody thinks they will not act doesn’t know the history of Russia.

  18. Small tree says:

    Are we ever going to have any realistic independent investigation into this tragedy? I think the Malaysian Govt. should pressurise all relevant parties for an investigation. The UN should be made use of if possible.

  19. windywayer says:

    another unnamed source……(propaganda)

  20. ICFubar says:

    It now appears Mh 17 with all 293 souls aboard was shot from the sky by aircraft machine gun fire aimed at the cockpit. Who’s plane though? The Fascist Ukrainian air force? The Russian air force? The pro self determination forces (they captured one jet fighter), or some other nations plane… jets recently assigned to Poland bear no national markings …why?

    Perhaps to the neocons evidence doesn’t matter anyway. The big lie is told and they forge ahead regardless of who, what or why.

  21. editorsteve says:

    All points worthy of investigation. The course change, for instance, was supposedly due to weather, and controllers supposedly approved it. SA11 (says Janes) apparently can shoot down a plane at 30,000 feet some 11 ground miles from the launcher (shorter distance as altitude increases). Does not seem likely Ukrainian govt forces were that close, but not impossible. Airlines using that well – traveled lane were not warned anyone had missiles in the area that could reach a high – flying aircraft. Whoever supplied the missiles without such warningwas the prime causer of the accident.

  22. bart says:

    Whatever scenario you imagine to fit best, one fact remains unchanged… it was Kiev who pointed that plane to fly over the war zone and whoever is backing Kiev is the one who made this situation happen.

  23. $105101241 says:

    Great points, Sylvia & Russ. Thank you for digging into this important incident.
    My mind keeps flashing back to a similar incident in September, 1983: KAL 007 – The Korean Airlines Flight 007 which was shot down by the Soviets over Sakhalin Island “without any warning.” The Russians paid a very heavy price for that incident back then… and it looks like they are going to have to pay a similar penalty here once again. Interesting similarity.

  24. Tosman says:

    NATO conducted a large-scale military and intelligence drill in the Black Sea just south of Crimea named, SEA BREEZE , which just so happened to end on…July 7th. The drill included running ‘war simulations’ in electronic warfare, data collection from a spy satellite, and ‘monitoring’ of all passenger aircraft flying in the region:

    Interfax news agency reported that Ukraine’s SBU security service confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew immediately after the incident.

    “Russian officials say they have evidence of the jet’s presence following images taken by the Rostov monitoring center.”

    On Monday, the Russian government, with almost every major global media outlet in attendance, released all of its air traffic data and satellite imaging data (in fact, only part of it) – all verifiable, including time stamps and supporting data. The entire content of the presentation was also handed over to the European authorities.

    A Malaysian Airlines spokesman confirmed that, Kiev-based Ukrainian Air Traffic Control (ATC) ordered MH17 approximately 300 miles north off its usual route along the international air route, known as L980.Cruising at 58o mph (933 kmph), MH17 would have only been visible for just over 1 minute. Minutes before the downing of MH17, the plane made a sharp ‘Left Turn’ as it flew over the Donetsk, making a further14km deviation.

    • ShirlB says:

      Thanks for the link to the Global Research article. The course change is much easier to see on their graphic. A two-tap from a fighter fired missile followed by fire from a ground battery makes sense. The government and intelligence agencies of this country won’t be satisfied until Russia is destroyed and we control all of its resources.