Saturday 2 August 2014

Analysis of the shooting down of MH17 by Peter Haisenko

This is analysis by German pilot, Peter Haisenko, of MH17

Shocking Analysis of the ‘Shooting Down’ of Malaysian MH17

By Peter Haisenko


Anderwelt Verlag,

30 July, 2014

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 expresssed 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 likeley 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 forcefull 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 amunititon

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. Remeber 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 contstruction 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 Presdient 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 Presdient Putin with a Kalashnikov.


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



7 comments:

  1. The bullet like holes are consistent with a SA-11 missile with a fragmentation warhead. The frags of the warhead are spheres.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So then, Mick Jones, are you saying that the theory with pictorial evidence by Peter Haisenko is either a Red Herring or a load of bollocks?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I will go with a load of bollocks.
    1. Peter Haisenko flew commercial planes at one time but that certainly does not make him an expert on munitions. 5 years ago Haisenko speculated that Air France Flight 447 was downed because of a bomb. After it was recovered in 2011 it was found that the crash was mainly due to pilot error. Peter expertise seems to lie more in the political area. He has written 2 books, one called "Bankraub globalisiert", in it he attacks the U.S. and its negative influence. I will let you decide if this bias plays into his theory. Or possibly his Russian ancestry.
    2. Haisenko theory does not even address the SA-11 theory which is favored by professional Weapons Experts. He always does not discuss the limitations of the Su-25 in this scenario.

    Hopefully the "experts" will soon come up with a consensus on who and what shot down MH17. I doubt the results will not satisfy many of those who have some type of bias regarding this conflict.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that comment/reply Mike.

      A Canadian that did this report:

      http://www.mediafire.com/view/61qa99yt6v3dq64/MH17Analysis_Parts_1_and_2.pdf

      Seems to have the same impression on the 'SA11 vs SU25' scenario a you do and has gone to quite some length to graphically explain his theory. However, I'm not sure if one would call it bias or opinion but the evidence he puts forth suggests that it is impossible, if it was a Buk, that it could have been fired from 'terrorist' held territory. I would be keen to hear your opinion on that one if/when you decide to check it out.

      Delete
  4. Do you know who CDN is? Does CDN have anything to do with the http://cdn.rt.com? The source of this .pdf is The Vineyard of the Saker. Interesting person. The report is quite involved, like a good Tom Clancy novel. It seems odd he would expose his complete hatred of the Ukraine and U.S. at the end of his analysis, at that point you question his impartiality on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You mentioned bias in your original contact with me. Having carefully absorbed what you have put forward in your linguistic expression I have decided to terminate this discourse as you appear to me to be tragic example of one that points the finger of accusation at those who strive to deliver a true and unbiased opinion whilst your comments/hypocritical bias clearly define your enclosure of mind that prohibits truth from being a beacon. Thanks, Bye (or are you a paid plant?)

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Odessa, shoot them down as they attempt to escape the flames, and rape a pregnant woman
    before strangling her with a telephone cord, the west does nothing but rant against Putin."

    This was the text from the "Analysis", and you expect me to call this an unbiased opinion?

    If I were to read an analysis that had anti-Russian rhetoric I would deem it biased as well.

    Good day to you sir.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.