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.
The bullet like holes are consistent with a SA-11 missile with a fragmentation warhead. The frags of the warhead are spheres.
ReplyDeleteSo 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?
ReplyDeleteI will go with a load of bollocks.
ReplyDelete1. 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.
Thanks for that comment/reply Mike.
DeleteA 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteYou 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"Odessa, shoot them down as they attempt to escape the flames, and rape a pregnant woman
ReplyDeletebefore 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.