Malaysia B772 flight MH17 AMS-KUL downed near Donetsk, Ukraine

[Passenger]

flanker, here you go again ... You somehow manage to employ tactics usualy employed by russian authorities

Regarding MH17, the European Union surpasses Russia when it comes to lies and desinformation.

[mooney058]

flanker, here you go again ... You somehow manage to employ tactics usualy employed by russian authorities

Regarding MH17, the European Union surpasses Russia when it comes to lies and desinformation.

Can you clarify? EU has no competence in MH 17 matters - what is your point? Investigation of aviation disasters is national competence ...

[Passenger]

flanker, here you go again ... You somehow manage to employ tactics usualy employed by russian authorities

Regarding MH17, the European Union surpasses Russia when it comes to lies and desinformation.

Can you clarify? EU has no competence in MH 17 matters - what is your point? Investigation of aviation disasters is national competence ...

I'm not going to quote about the European Union lying about Russia's involvement in Ukrain - I'm going stay on topic. The EU indeed has no competence in MH17, I agree with that. But then, they use "the downing of flight MH17" and "sanctions against Russia" in one phrase in such way that readers can only conclude that Russia is responsible for the crash:

"...The EU ministers discussed the situation in Ukraine following the downing of flight MH17 as well as further sanctions against Russia...".

this is quote from this official press release:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/homepage ... light-mh17

(and the above is just one little example)

[mooney058]

Russia's involvement in Ukrain - I'm going stay on topic. The EU indeed has no competence in MH17, I agree with that. But then, they use "the downing of flight MH17" and "sanctions against Russia" in one phrase in such way that readers can only conclude that Russia is responsible for the crash:

"...The EU ministers discussed the situation in Ukraine following the downing of flight MH17 as well as further sanctions against Russia...".

this is quote from this official press release:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/homepage ... light-mh17

(and the above is just one little example)[/quote]

Your point is? Council is where national governments meet, so national governments, having intelligence etc made conclusions. Sanctions is not about MH17, its about russian aggression - there is nothing new about it. Governments of EU member states long dealt with non democratic countries, kadafi is just one example ... The issue is that putin is much more than kadafi....

[Squelsh]

Your point is? Council is where national governments meet, so national governments, having intelligence etc made conclusions.

Ow yeah, politicians, sure, I believe everything they say

[Passenger]

The reason why the Nato blames Russia for "interference in Ukrain" and the crash of MH17 is indirectly explained in this interview Knack had with Idesbald Goddeeris, hoofddocent imperiale geschiedenis at the KU Leuven (main professor imperial history at the University Leuven/Louvain). He's no politician...

http://www.knack.be/nieuws/wereld/poeti ... 75289.html

[Passenger]

Finally:

The Dutch Safety Board will publish it's preliminary report on Tuesday 09 Sept 2014, at 10h00.

[regi]

Finally:
The Dutch Safety Board will publish it's preliminary report on Tuesday 09 Sept 2014, at 10h00.

and will it be made public ?

[Flanker2]

That Knack article of Passenger is first class journalism. That history professor of Leuven knows what he's talking about.
I'm glad that there is journalism that puts the whole situation under another light, instead of the usual one-sided reporting. This gives me some hope that there is sill some democracy and freedom left in our countries and that lecturers in universities are trying to depict the situation in the best possible way, without being influenced by the government.

I had not even considered the motives of NATO that he mentions, ie "NATO creating a purpose for its existance and further expansion". Interesting point of view. After all, NATO's main purpose has always been to be against Russia and China.
IMO it was justified during the cold war as the USSR was lead by radicals, but this time the offensive comes from our side.

IMO Ukraine is one country and should remain such.
However, the current Kiev government is too radical. Ukraine needs a leadership that can appease both East and West Ukraine, while also becoming the liaison between The West and Russia.
I think that Ukraine would be better off with Vitali Klitschko as its leader. He has a desire to lead Ukraine forward in a much less radical way, with diplomatic conversation. He considers Russia and Ukraine as the "big brother who shouldn't tell the little brother what to do".


Some excepts from the Knack article:
"Het aanvaarden van Oekraïne als nieuw lid binnen de NAVO zal alleen maar zorgen voor een verdere escalatie van het geweld. Tegelijkertijd zorgt een toetreding voor meer verdeeldheid binnen Oekraïne: heus niet iedereen in het land staat te springen voor een militaire tussenkomst vanuit het Westen. Wat me ook tegen de borst stuit, is dat er hier geen maatschappelijk debat wordt gevoerd. De retoriek over bewapening en oorlogsvoering groeit en wordt zomaar overgenomen zonder dat daarbij kritische vragen worden gesteld."

The acceptance of Ukraine as a new member within the NATO will only contribute to a further escalation of the violence. At the same time, it will lead to more division within Ukraine: not everyone in that country is enthusiastic about a military intervention from the West. What I also find disturbing, is that no social debate is taking place. The arming and war rethoric is relayed without asking any of the critical questions.

"We moeten dringend van koers veranderen in plaats van verder te dreigen en af te schrikken. Poetin weet dat hier geen draagvlak is voor een echte oorlog, dus onze dreigingen klinken sowieso hol in Rusland. En in Oekraïne creëert Europa te hoge verwachtingen. Beloftes die we niet kunnen waarmaken. Daardoor zal de ontgoocheling en de frustratie bij de bevolking alleen maar toenemen wat tot nog meer radicalisering leidt."

We need to change course instead of threatening and creating fear. Putin knows that there is no substance for a real war, so our threats sound empty in Russia. And in Ukraine, Europe is creating too high expectations. Promises that we can't keep. Because of that, the disappointment and frustration of the population will only increase, leading to even more radicalism.


Porosjenko is een oligarch, en andere oligarchen in de Oekraïense politiek hebben niet altijd zo'n goede reputatie opgebouwd. Jatsenjoek spreekt de laatste dagen echt wel krasse taal, en wij gaan daar heel licht over heen. En dan vergeten we nog het gebrek aan democratische traditie in het land. We zwaaien echt wel heel snel met slogans als 'de wil van het Oekraïense volk' en het 'Europese karakter van Oekraïne'."

"Waarom gebeurt dat allemaal? Zeker door onwetendheid, vrees ik, maar ik vermoed dat het in tijden van financiële crisis en onzekerheid ook eenvoudig is om een vijand te creëren en de aandacht af te leiden van de echte problemen. Dat is al zo vaak gebeurd, bij ons in het verleden en elders tot op de dag vandaag. Het maakt me oprecht ongerust dat dat nu weer in Europa aan het gebeuren is en dat zo weinig mensen reageren.

Poroshenko is an oligarch (comparable to autoritarian) and other oligarchs within the Ukrainian politics have not always built a good reputation. Jatsenjoek is using very dirty language the last days, and we are taking it very lightly. And then we forget the lack of democratic tradition in the country. We are too easily waving with slogans such as "the will of the Ukrainian population" and "the European character of Ukraine".
Why is it all happening? Certainly due to ignorance I'm afraid, but I suspect that in times of financial crisis and uncertainty, it's easy to create an ennemy to detract the attention from the real issues. That has already happened so often, here and elsewhere. It makes me truly worried that it's happening again in Europe and that so little people are reacting to it.

I think that I share the concern of the professor, and invite readers of luchtzak.be to not take this whole Ukraine issue and MH17 accident lightly and exercise critical thinking to create your own opinions.
I'm also relieved to see people such as Passenger trying to create awareness around this issue because it concerns us all.

[Passenger]

Finally:
The Dutch Safety Board will publish it's preliminary report on Tuesday 09 Sept 2014, at 10h00.

and will it be made public ?

Yes, for sure.

The link to the report will appear on http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl (Nl) and http://www.safetyboard.nl (ENG). And a few minutes later, the report will appear on http://www.avherald.com If AvHerald.com is not beaten by Luchtzak.be off course...

[Passenger]

Finally:
The Dutch Safety Board will publish it's preliminary report on Tuesday 09 Sept 2014, at 10h00.

and will it be made public ?

see http://www.avherald.com

[sn26567]

MH17 crash: Dutch experts say numerous objects hit plane

Dutch experts say Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 broke up in mid-air after being hit by "numerous objects" that "pierced the plane at high velocity".

A report released by the Dutch Safety Board said there was "no evidence of technical or human error".

A BBC correspondent says this evidence is consistent with the plane being struck by shrapnel from a missile.

Dutch aviation investigators relied on information from the black box flight data recorders, air traffic control, satellite images and photos from the scene to compile the preliminary report.

The cockpit voice recorder revealed no signs of any technical faults or an emergency situation, the experts said.

The investigators have not visited the crash site because of fighting in the area but they said photographic evidence of the wreckage suggests the plane split into pieces during "an in-flight break up".

Maintenance history showed the aircraft was airworthy and had no known technical problems when it took off from Amsterdam, the report added.

Experts said it was manned by "a qualified and experienced crew".

Radio communications between the pilot and Ukrainian air traffic control confirm that no emergency call was made.

While it is not the final report into the crash, the findings are significant because they are the first official account of what happened, says the BBC's Anna Holligan in the Netherlands.

The report does not attribute blame or liability for the crash but a separate criminal investigation is being conducted by prosecutors in The Hague, she adds.

Ukraine's government and several Western leaders say there is strong evidence that pro-Russian separatists shot down the plane with an anti-aircraft system known as Buk.

Russia has consistently denied allegations that it had supplied any missiles or weapons to the rebels.

Experts from the UK, Germany, Australia, Malaysia, the US, Ukraine and Russia are collaborating on the case.

The board says it expects the final report to be published within a year.

Full article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29119024

Report from The Aviation Herald: http://www.avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d/0099&opt=0

[sn26567]

Analysis of the DSB report by a BBC correspondent:

This report doesn't say flight MH17 was knocked from the sky by a missile. But it pretty much rules out anything else.

There were no emergencies on board, no mechanical problems, the pilots didn't make any mistakes.

Instead, it talks about the plane being punctured by "high-velocity objects", which is consistent with how the BUK missile system works (that's the system many suspect was responsible). They don't actually hit the target, they explode nearby and pepper it with shrapnel for maximum damage.

But all of this doesn't answer the critical question. Who fired the missile?

Both sides in this conflict use the same weapon. To find out who made this terrible mistake, they need to determine where on the ground the missile was actually launched from. And one expert told me that they should eventually be able to work that out with a combination of radar data and evidence from the scene.

There is one very sobering fact also highlighted in this report. Three other, very large commercial airliners flew over the same area at around the same time.

[regi]

strange for me is that there have been found metallic objects but that it has not been determined yet from where these objects come from.
Very easy: a spectograph would take some minutes. By this you know the chemical composition. And by this you can know very fast if it was a part from the airplane or something else.
E.g. if they find wolfram ( tungsten) carbide parts of unusual shape, you know how late it is.

[Passenger]

Russia is not happy with the first report from the Dutch Safety Board:



- the report did little to advance our understanding of what happened, and only confirming what was already known before

- too many blank spots

- there is complete ignorance of the issue of at least one Ukrainian warplane that reportedly was in midair near the Malaysian plane when the disaster occurred: "The report says another three commercial airliners were cruising in the vicinity at the moment of tragedy, but it does not say anything if Ukrainian warplanes were there, too. Our Defense Ministry said at least one military jet might have been there and eyewitnesses also say they saw one or two jets in the sky"

- the DSB report doesn’t say a word about the UN Security Council's resolution about the need for conducting a thorough independent international investigation, not to mention the fact that it contains an important provision about the cease-fire in the area of the crash

- why was there a 40-day delay in delivering the ATC recordings from the Ukrainian side to the investigators?

- very important expert examinations have actually not been conducted on the crash site. Without them, valid conclusions on the reasons of what happened are impossible

- Russia insists on maximally transparent work of the international commission, fulfilling all norms of ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) and is ready to participate in it on a team basis

Source:
http://rt.com/news/186812-mh17-report-russia-churkin/

[Passenger]

A Swiss private investigation company gives a reward of 30,000,000 USD (23.000.000 EUR) for the first lead that unmasks the culprits. The person who has given this 30 mio USD wants to remain anonymous.

http://www.wifka.de/wer-hat-mh17-abgesc ... aeter.html

(no English version yet ?)

[Passenger]

A Swiss private investigation company gives a reward of 30,000,000 USD (23.000.000 EUR) for the first lead that unmasks the culprits. The person who has given this 30 mio USD wants to remain anonymous.

http://www.wifka.de/wer-hat-mh17-abgesc ... aeter.html

(no English version yet ?)

Yes : here is the English text:

http://www.wifka.de/who-shot-down-mh17- ... ation.html

[globetrotter]

MH used their 747-400 to fly victims relatives to AMS and KIV, for information sake, this aircaft has been brought out from storage as standby incase A380 goes tech.

[regi]

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/2311 ... H17__.html

Dutch article:
AWACs has received signals from a SA-3 system. So not a BUK system.
SA-3 is not more in use of Russia.
The Ukrainian company Aerotechnica , based in Kiev, manufactures an updated version of this SAM.
http://www.aerotechnica.ua/en/index.php ... 5&prodid=7

[Passenger]

Some relatives of German victims will ask the European Court for Human Rights for a condemnation of Ukrain because of gross negligence. The German relatives say that the Ukrain authorities had to close its airspace because they knew it was unsafe (= closed in total, and not only above a certain altitude).

EN:
http://rt.com/news/189428-germany-plane-sue-ukraine/

DE:
http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/flug ... .bild.html

Background : as per the Montreal Convention, the indemnity for an airline is limited to 114.000 € per passenger. However, when a third party could be held responsible for a crash, a court can decide that the indemnity is higher then 114.000 € (example: when a father of three infants is killed in a crash, his widow may ask for all education costs).

The EU Court of Human Rights will not have to discuss an amount: the ECHR only has to consider the fact that Ukrain had – or had not – to close its airspace.