August 7, 2014
(Updated August 9, 2014 below)
In the last few days there have been a flurry of reports in the Western dissident press and a day ago, in the Malaysian mainstream press based principally on a couple of cross-linked articles offering evidence that the MH17 crash was due to Ukrainian Air Force fighters shooting down the plane (as a false-flag attack) and not because of a ground-to-air Buk.
These articles authored separately by the well known investigative reporter Robert Parry in Flight 17 Shoot Down Scenario Shifts and Global Research’s Eric Zuesse in Evidence is Now Conclusive Two Ukrainian Government Fighter Jets Shot Down Malaysian Airlines MH17 cite
(A) remote analysis of high definition pictures of various pieces of physical evidence from the crash site, alleging 30 mm machine gun holes compatible with that found on a SU-25;
(B) a July 29th recorded statement of an Ukrainian-Canadian member of the OCSE who was on-site within a day of the crash also giving the same opinion;
(C) recorded eye witnesses of citizens on the ground immediately after the crash in a now expunged BBC report about Ukrainian planes flying near by;
(D) initial live reports in the BBC about the deviation in its normal flight path and the Ukrainians seizing all ATC recordings (not released to date);
(E) a July 20th article in the Times of India about what a nearby Air India plane heard about the ATC directing MH17 to fly straight into a known war zone, minutes before the crash;
(F) the July 21 Russian defense ministry’s detailed briefing of radar tracks indicating among other deviations in flight, the presence of a SU-25:
(G) and the lack of concrete official analysis from Western governments who MUST have detailed radar, satellite imagery (let alone ATC recordings), 3 weeks into the crash,
to conclude that the MH17 was brought down by a military aircraft(s).
I would strongly urge the reader to read Parry’s and Zeusse’s articles to get a better understanding of the analysis. Objectively the circumstantial analysis presented is far stronger than any in the mainstream Western media that argue that the Rebels shot it down.
However, the fundamental problem with the air-to-air theory is the one that faces any conspiracy theory: which is the extraordinary level of cover-up that would be needed to pull this off. The pre-meditation, planning and execution would have involved several people and everything going just right. The risk of the execution being botched; witnessed by satellites, radar and/or other flights in the vicinity or from the ground; the pilots radioing for help over frequencies monitored by multiple sources; or evidence in the cockpit voice recorders (currently under the control of the UK) is HUGE.
The implications of such an action being leaked or proven would be devastating since this false-flag attack would not just immediately undermine the US government case but would imply direct criminal culpability – a deliberate shoot down of a civilian airliner is not something that can be written of as a “tragic accident”.
The Rebels-are-Guilty theory however is one that presumes the rebels made a mistake – which is far easier to believe, though the lack of verifiable evidence that the Rebel’s had a Buk and expertise capable of shooting down a plane at 30,000 feet plus the absence of any concrete evidence presented so far other than falsified audio and social media chatter, is damning. All the Rebel theory has going for it is the greater plausibility of a mistake versus a deep conspiracy.
(Keep in mind that serious flaws in the Rebel’s-shooting-mistake theory include the
(A) lack of conclusive proof they had a Buk (despite articles claiming they did like this surreal Reuters one);
(B) the time and expertise to launch it – it requires three platforms working on concert. – and a lead time to locate and launch it (with a 60-70% probability of hit);
(C) the lack of witnesses to either the firing or a distinctive Buk plume which as per the Chief of Russian Land Forces tactical air defense, Mikhail Krush, would be visible for 20-25 km in daylight.)
In order for Parry and Zuesse to strengthen their assertions, they need to not just identify the mechanics of the shoot down (as they have done) but the motivation, planning, logistics and identification of various parties who would have to be involved to pull off such an audacious crime.
August 9, 2014 (Day 23) Update
Robert Parry in an updated article, “Was Putin Targeted for Mid-Air Assassination?” alleges that his sources in the US intelligence community allege that the motive for the attack was to shoot down Putin’s plane returning from the BRICS summit – a theory that was mooted and debunked in the Russian media in the first couple of days.
So the theory is that a rogue set of Ukrainian right-wingers decided to assassinate Putin (much as the theory of a mafia cabal assassinating Kennedy). This supplies the “motive”.
Again the problem with this scenario is the sheer logistics involved: there must be a a couple of dozen people at various levels involved in planning and execution (including the pilots) with any number of things that could have gone wrong. In addition, if Obama knows about this intelligence assessment and is working to cover it up, he is directly culpable in a homicidal crime (worse than the framing of another nation with specious evidence). (This is one of the reasons that Kennedy refused to sign-off on Operationalizing the notorious and astonishingly reckless false-flag Operation Northwoods proposed by the Joint Chief of Staffs which would have involved US Government assets creating domestic incidents including shooting down an American airliner to blame Cuba and start a war).
And there is this: let’s imagine for a moment that Putin’s plane WAS brought down…the repercussions of that would be enormous almost certainly leading to war. Which of course can be argued was the whole point of it.
Keep in mind that while conspiracy theories (ie those that require a lot of actors at various levels acting covertly and in secret) require a lot more coordination than those which are spontaneous or involve a couple of actors, the deep state in the West has gotten deeper and more skilled. The Iran-Contra affair for example DID happen (as was disclosed first by the above mentioned Robert Parry). This was a fairly huge conspiracy that aimed to destroy a nation (Nicaragua) signed off at the highest levels. And we still don’t know how much Blair and Bush knew that the Saddam WMD evidence was faked and which of course served as a casus belli to the US government invasion of Iraq. And see all the recent proven USAID conspiracies to bring down Cuba.
While Parry’s theory – without strong proof about the specific actors involved – is still speculative and based on circumstantial evidence, what is definitely suspicious about the leading Rebels-Are-Guilty theory (based on even more speculative and specious “evidence”) that is supported by Western media is
(A) the near absolute silence from the investigative authorities weeks after the black boxes were recovered of any evidence, in sharp contrast to the MH370 crash where radar tracks, snippets of ATC recordings and so on were quickly released even without a single part of the plane found.
(B) the deafening silence of Western authorities to join calls to speed up the investigation and indeed work to suppress the fact that Ukraine is violating article 7 of the UN Security Council resolution 2166 on a ceasefire in the region which definitely doesn’t not any favours to those who argue that Ukraine wants to destroy all ground evidence.
(C) the silence of the major Western media organizations around MH17 the past few weeks since the initial hysteria that the rebels backed by Putin did this. Indeed the mainstream Western media has not even mentioned the Ukrainian-Air-Shootdown theory even if it echoes strongly in the blogosphere (even if to just pooh-pooh it).