Shocking Analysis of the ‘Shooting Down’ of Malaysian MH17

Shocking Analysis of the ‘Shooting Down’ of Malaysian MH17

Juli 30, 2014
By Peter Haisenko Zur deutschen Version bitte hier anklicken

Peter Haisenko in Cockpit of Condor DC 10

The tragedy of Malaysian MH 017 continues to elude any light of clarity being cast over it. The flight recorders are in England and are evaluated. What can come of it? Maybe more than you would assume. Especially the voice recorder will be interesting when you look at the picture of a cockpit fragment. As an expert in aviation I closely looked at the images of the wreckage that are circulating on the Internet.

First, I was amazed at how few photos can be found from the wreckage with Google. All are in low resolution, except one: The fragment of the cockpit below the window on the pilots side. This image, however, is shocking. In Washington, you can now hear views expressed of a “potentially tragic error / accident” regarding MH 017. Given this particular cockpit image it does not surprise me at all.

Entry and exit impact holes of projectiles in the cockpit area
Source for all photos: Internet

I recommend to click on the little picture to the right. You can download this photo as a PDF in good resolution. This is necessary, because that will allow you understand what I am describing here. The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that at these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent – outwardly! Furthermore, minor cuts can be seen, all bent outward, which indicate that shrapnel had forceful exited through the outer skin from the inside of the cockpit. The open rivets are are also bent outward.

In sifting through the available images one thing stands out: All wreckage of the sections behind the cockpit are largely intact, except for the fact that only fragments of the aircraft remained . Only the cockpit part shows these peculiar marks of destruction. This leaves the examiner with an important clue. This aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion. The destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to factor in that this part is constructed of specially reinforced material. This is on account of the nose of any aircraft having to withstand the impact of a large bird at high speeds. You can see in the photo, that in this area significantly stronger aluminum alloys were being installed than in the remainder of the outer skin of the fuselage. One remembers the crash of Pan Am over Lockerbie. It was a large segment of the cockpit that due to the special architecture survived the crash in one piece. In the case of flight MH 017 it becomes abundantly clear that there also an explosion took place inside the aircraft.

Tank destroying mix of ammunition

Bullet holes in the outer skin

So what could have happened? Russia recently published radar recordings, that confirm at least one Ukrainian SU 25 in close proximity to MH 017. This corresponds with the statement of the now missing Spanish controller ‘Carlos’ that has seen two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the immediate vicinity of MH 017. If we now consider the armament of a typical SU 25 we learn this: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, equipped with: a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum), arranged in alternating order. The cockpit of the MH 017 has evidently been fired at from both sides: the entry and exit holes are found on the same fragment of it’s cockpit segment!

Now just consider what happens when a series of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells hit the cockpit. These are after all designed to destroy a modern tank. The anti-tank incendiary shells partially traversed the cockpit and exited on the other side in a slightly deformed shape. (Aviation forensic experts could possibly find them on the ground presumably controlled by the Kiev Ukrainian military; the translator). After all, their impact is designed to penetrate the solid armor of a tank. Also, the splinter-explosive shells will, due to their numerous impacts too cause massive explosions inside the cockpit, since they are designed to do this. Given the rapid firing sequence of the GSh-302 cannon, it will cause a rapid succession of explosions within the cockpit area in a very short time. Remember each of these is sufficient to destroy a tank.

What “mistake” was actually being committed – and by whom?

Graze on the wing

Because the interior of a commercial aircraft is a hermetically sealed pressurized chamber, the explosions will, in split second, increase the pressure inside the cabin to extreme levels or breaking point. An aircraft is not equipped for this, it will burst like a balloon. This explains a coherent scenario. The largely intact fragments of the rear sections broke in mid air at the weaker points of construction most likely under extreme internal air pressure. The images of the widely scattered field of debris and the brutally damaged segment of cockpit fit like hand in glove. Furthermore, a wing segment shows traces of a grazing shot, which in direct extension leads to the cockpit. Interestingly, I found that both the high-resolution photo of the fragment of bullet riddled cockpit as well as the segment of grazed wing have in the meantime disappeared from Google Images. One can find virtually no more pictures of the wreckage, except the well known smoking ruins.

If you listen to the voices from Washington now who speak of a “potentially tragic error / accident”, all that remains is the question of what might have been the nature of this “mistake” perpetrated here. I am not given to hover long in the realm of speculation, but would like to invite others to consider the following : The MH 017 looked similar in it’s tricolor design to that that of the Russian President’s plane. The plane with President Putin on board was at the same time ”near” Malaysia MH 017. In aviation circles “close” would be considered to be anywhere between 150 to 200 miles. Also, in this context we might consider the deposition of Ms. Tymoshenko, who wanted to shoot President Putin with a Kalashnikov.

But that this remains pure speculation. The shelling of the cockpit of air Malaysia MH 017, however, is definitely not.

One comment

  • theunhivedmind

    IF you were going to load dead bodies and dead pilots or no pilots onto an aircraft and dead fly it, and then do a false flag with it, the best rational method would be to destroy the cockpit, and there is a very good reason for this, which is:

    The cockpit is the strongest part of the aircraft, and often remains intact after a crash. If you were going to false flag a plane down, you would not want an intact and empty cockpit, or an intact cockpit with pilots that had been “dead for days and smelling of decay” would you? Targeting the cockpit would be key to keeping a lid on a remote controlled flight that had no pilot interaction at all.

    The fact the cockpit only was targeted once again confirms flight 370, because even if it was a 777 with a body identical to MH17, 15 years of technology advancement would make the cockpit very different and THAT could not be permitted to show up in any wreckage photos. Better to blow it completely to smithereens. To ensure this, they used fighter jets to do the job rather than take a random chance of a missile leaving obvious evidence that could end up on Youtube.

    And if they were not playing filthy with all of this, WHY BOTHER WITH A MISSILE STORY? Why say center mass was targeted, and produce cute graphics of a center hit? The public would have accepted targeting of the cockpit bringing the plane down, why would the perpetrators HAVE TO spawn a lie about a missile?
    Summary of inconsistencies from the beginning of all this:
    1. The bodies were rotting and dead for days on DAY ONE, no one living boarded the shot down plane.

    2. The cockpit was targeted, had entry and exit holes proving guns took the plane down and a lie about a BUK missile was spawned, WHY?

    3. In all original photos, the flag on the plane matched flight 370, yet the photos were all subsequently hacked to put all flags on all Malaysia airlines planes in exactly the same position. After this, subsequent photo hacks were done to show all kinds of different versions of the same wreckage pieces, issued directly from Mainstream news sources which allowed cross comparison to prove tampering and hard proof the mainstream media was muddying the waters, and I would like to ask WHY? Why not just show us the wreckage AS IT WAS?

    4. Initially the mainstream media reported 108 aids researchers were on the plane “according to the boarding log” and then that same media was forced to redact that and reduce the number to six, which is another lie because IF A BOARDING LOG REALLY EXISTED, THE ORIGINAL 108 AIDS DOCTORS STORY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REDACTED. Fact? ZERO aids doctors boarded the shot down plane already dead for days and smelling of rot.

    5. The shoot down corresponded with the ground assault on Gaza within a provable time frame of 10 minutes, and probably to the exact minute. This would be lottery style luck if Israel did not order the shoot down or have the Mossad set it all up to get double use out of the shoot down by having it distract the news from dirty business elsewhere.

    6. The flight was 200 KM off course and over a war zone for the first time EVER. Modern avionics do not allow for such errors, even late 70’s avionics would not. HOW DID THAT ERROR HAPPEN other than willful intent and WHY? Well, the frame up of Russia for all of this right when Russia was making a big push for the BRICS alliance that threatened the dollar’s reserve status might give you a clue, a huge war on Russia would certainly cause problems for that.

    7. Flight 370 had to be gotten rid of, and people disposed of, and it looks like the perpetrators of the shoot down wanted NO WITNESSES so they made sure EVERYONE was smelling of rot to make good and sure they were dead and would not survive any crash and then speak about what happened to flight 370.

    8. Media glitches proved this was a psy op being prepared days in advance, which is why an RC showed up in the wheel well of the plane “to show people what it looked like if it crashed” when MH17 had an RD and flight 370 had an RO. And the D on MH17 had a perfectly flat back, the C is a dead giveaway, this was in the works for at least a week and probably longer, RC had not flown for a week and was still on the ground in Malaysia after this shoot down. How did a picture of it supposedly being boarded by a “crash victim” end up in the news?

    9. Route MH17 stayed PERFECTLY ON SCHEDULE after this shoot down, yet route 370 was canceled for weeks. How could this be, if flight MH17 really lost an aircraft to an unexpected situation? This difference in behavior is fairly easy to explain: Malaysia airlines was ambushed by the theft of flight 370, but probably went along with the story about the shoot down of MH17 under threat of blackmail, and since all questions were already answered they had no reason to cancel the normal schedule for route MH17.

    Jim Stone

Leave a Reply