the home of online investigations

New Images of the MH17 Buk Missile Launcher in Ukraine and Russia

January 17, 2015

By Eliot Higgins

Following the Bellingcat report Origin of the Separatists’ Buk, which showed that the Buk missile launcher linked to the downing of MH17 was filmed inside Russia a few weeks earlier, the Bellingcat investigation team has continued to search for additional information, and has recently discovered two more images of the Buk missile launcher linked to the downing of MH17.

The first image is one that appeared recently in the print edition of Der Spiegel, which was part of their joint investigation with Correct!v into the downing of MH17, which included visiting the same sites Bellingcat identified as being part of the route the MH17 linked Buk missile launcher travelled along on July 17th. This image shows the Buk missile launcher travelling through separatist controlled Donetsk on the morning of July 17th:

PM2-BUK-Snijne17072014

This image, provided by and reproduced with the permission of Paris Match, is the second of two images of the MH17 linked Buk missile launcher taken in Donestk, the first of which was published in Paris Match on July 25th. Here we can see much more of the Buk missile launcher, including the netting covering the rear of the Buk that was also visible in the photograph of the Buk missile launcher taken in Torez on July 17th:

Buk netting

More importantly, details on the Buk yet again confirms this is the same Buk missile launcher filmed inside Russia in June. In the Bellingcat investigation Origin of the Separatists’ Buk the damage on the rubber side skirts of Buk missile launchers seen in Ukraine and Russia was examined and a match was found between the MH17 linked Buk missile launcher and a Buk filmed inside Russia referred to as Buk 3×2

Buk 3x2 comparison

However, in the original Paris Match photograph that was used to compare the side skirt damage the right-hand side of the side skirt was not visible. In this newly published photograph that area is visible, and it continues to match the side skirt damage seen on Buk 3×2 inside Russia. On the exhaust slot on the right-hand side there’s also a black mark visible above the exhaust that’s also visible in the new Paris Match photographer. The following video shows the matching features:

While it’s reasonable to assume some of these exhaust marks might be removed in a short period of time, it seems unlikely that they would build up in a few weeks without very heavy use, and the fact this is another element that matches between images of the Buk missile launcher in Ukraine and Russia cannot be dismissed as a mere coincidence.

The second images uncovered by the Bellingcat investigation team is a new image of Buk 3×2 inside Russia, posted on VK.com in June to a page used by locals in the town of Alexeevka, southeast of Stary Oskol:

NtAx_E_cFSo

The time and location the photograph was taken fits with the route Bellingcat identified as travelled by the convoy containing Buk 3×2 towards the Ukrainian border in late June. In the earlier Bellingcat report it was noted there was a discrepancy between the comparison of the rubber side skirt of the Buk featured in the Paris Match photograph and the side skirt of Buk 3×2. This was a result of the skewing of the Paris Match image not being able to be correctly adjusted to take into account surfaces that were not flat, and we identified this discrepancy as being the result of major damage to the rubber side skirt:

22

What was particularly interesting about this damage is it seems while most rubber side skirts we examined on Buks from Ukraine and Russia had various dents, this level of damage is extremely rare, and this new photograph shows how severe the damage is to the rubber side skirt:

Buk skirt

Both of these new images, as well as the Correct!v investigation supports the earlier findings of the Bellingcat report Origin of the Separatists’ Buk that a Russian provided Buk missile launcher was filmed travelling through separatists held territory towards the alleged launch location of the missile that shot down flight MH17.

Eliot Higgins

Eliot Higgins is the founder of Bellingcat and the Brown Moses Blog. Eliot focuses on the weapons used in the conflict in Syria, and open source investigation tools and techniques.

Join the Bellingcat Mailing List:

Enter your email address to receive a weekly digest of Bellingcat posts, links to open source research articles, and more.

Support Bellingcat

You can support the work of Bellingcat by donating through the below link:

122 Comments

    • AnonymousDefender

      I dont see nothing special here. KGB-supported journalist and his dreaming about USA role.

      Reply
    • karlis

      Not true, according to Victoria Nuland, US assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs: “[MH17] was shot down by a BUK missile from separatist-held territory. We have given all of our information, including our classified information, to the Dutch who are the investigators, and to ICAO. So any efforts to say that we have not are also untrue.”
      Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3pGFA0jHJ8#t=3267

      Reply
    • Rob

      Frazer, can PLEASE set aside your bias, and look at the evidence ?
      Perry writes (in your reference) :

      “Either the Russian radar showed the presence of a jetfighter “gaining height” as it closed to within three to five kilometers of the passenger plane – as the Russians claimed in a July 21 press conference – or it didn’t. ”

      Now, Perry claims to be an investigative journalist.
      Can’t he find the answer to this question himself ?
      Here are these Russian radar images :
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bNPInuSqfs

      Turn off the audio, start at 16:31, and then tell us exactly when in these radar images the “jetfighter” shows up and when exactly it is “gaining height”.

      If YOU can’t figure that our from the radar images, then you are not alone.
      Perry could not either.

      Then take a close look at what is REALLY shown with these radar images :

      1) There are NO objects present near MH17 before it starts to loose altitude and speed.

      2) The object that the Russian defense ministry is talking about is splitting off from MH17, and has no altitude information, as one would expect to see on a radar when MH17 is breaking apart.

      So the radar images do NOT show any fighter jet “gaining height” as Russian Defense Ministry claimed, and Perry still can’t figure out. And neither were there any fighters

      Instead, the Russian Defense Ministry used the falling pieces of MH17 to start a conspiracy theory about “fighter jets” just so they could blame Ukraine.

      The hypocrisy of this Russian theory, and parrots like Perry, is mind boggling.

      Reply
  1. AnonymousDefender

    Answer on https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/#comment-8022
    q: Again, hiding the black boxes would have been possible, but was not done… How is it proven that the scene was wiped?
    a: Two different things:
    1. Black box which MUST be found because presence on plane is undoubt.
    2. Missile remains which MAY be found because special team of FSB cleaning all what can before investigation arrived. And separatists closed area and even shooting here.
    q: So you suggest the “Russians” stole ammunition from Ukraine, mounted it on their BUK and shot down the plane from their territory?
    1. BUK is soviet surface-air missile system so have presence in both Russia and Ukraine (Russia have alot more then poor Ukraine andn have it in good condition since developer/manufacturer on russian territory).
    2. Russia obtain ukrainian SA-11 twicely before MH17 – war 08.08.08 and annexation of Crimea.
    3. Separatists obtain ukrainian SA-11 (unknown condition) when captured Military Unit A-1402.
    So when you planning to use SA-11 in contested region you can try to imagine your TELAR and missiles like ukrainians (captured by separatists and now using), without delivery from Russia and supporting by crew etc. It how all weapon in DNR/LNR delivered – Russia lie about “captured” and provide everything what looks like ukrainian or ex-soviet (so can be left in Ukraine).
    q: On one hand this might explain why no results of metallurgy are yet known, as it would bring Ukraine into problems. So before doing that, it’s tried to prove this theory using these pictures.
    a: Ok, you believe in metallurgy – right?
    Then please beileve in ballistic, guidance and dynamic field of strike elements – it same physic and chemistry like in metallurgy.
    q: The problem I see with this is, that it cannot be proved for either side beyond reasonable doubt.
    a: You left house and going to shop. On the way you robbed and wounded.
    Police said – it is your guilt because robber dont trust in our investigation. What you think about this police and justice?

    Reply
    • Steve

      The point is, that the seperatists could have lied and hide the boxes, but they didnt. Kiev did not send investigators in time but still complained. A few hectar of land was more important to them than to investigate…as they continued fighting.
      Still no proof of wiping the scene.

      Interesting you agree ukranian weapons were delivered to Georgia in 2008…as Kiew is denying that till today.

      Ukraine denied that Seperatists captured a BUK.
      How do captured arms fit to the investigation, that they are russian vehicles?

      Do you see that there are no reliable public informations in this conflict? Each side is claiming, thats why we can only rely on real evidence ans not suspicions.

      But we are developing ballistic and guidance theories before establishing the basis for it…which would be the type of weapon/warhead.
      Its like Elliots picture mappings of BUK…we skew, rotate, scale until we see what we want Tod see…without verifying the SOURCE of information.
      So lets get the metallurgy first…they pretend as if there would be any way to destroy evidence 6 month later…

      Every piece of russian information is marked as lie. But all of unverified ukranian information is published in the West.

      Regarding SIBIR flight, Putin trusted ukraine in 2001 but later had to admit they lied to russia too, to cover their mistake.

      Reply
      • AnonymousDefender

        q: The point is, that the seperatists could have lied and hide the boxes, but they didnt.
        a: They cannot hide what must be find. It is Haague immediately.
        q: Kiev did not send investigators in time but still complained.
        a: Kiev cannot answered for separatists.
        q: A few hectar of land was more important to them than to investigate…as they continued fighting.
        a: Yes, separatists denied any peaceful solutions and continue war in Ukraine.
        q: Still no proof of wiping the scene.
        a: You should ask FSB for proofs. Common, you can do it!
        q: Interesting you agree ukranian weapons were delivered to Georgia in 2008…as Kiew is denying that till today.
        a: As any country Ukraine can sell weapon or help with study it. Russia blame Ukraine for ukrainian crew and SA-11 in 08.08.08 war. But im talking about time before this war. If you want a poiltic discussion then you found wrong site.
        q: Do you see that there are no reliable public informations in this conflict? Each side is claiming, thats why we can only rely on real evidence ans not suspicions.
        a: My version of MH17 killing dont based on public information. It is knowledge how missile fly and what damage deliver. When photo of cabin is published – i found enough facts in my mind.
        q: Ukraine denied that Seperatists captured a BUK.
        How do captured arms fit to the investigation, that they are russian vehicles?
        a; As im said – separatists use “capture” as mask for russian support. And you cannot know if separatists dont got one of missile from Military Unit 1402.
        And here another ways for obtain ukrainian equipment – 08.08.08 and Crimea. Enough.
        q: But we are developing ballistic and guidance theories before establishing the basis for it…which would be the type of weapon/warhead.
        a: This situation like in Fergusson. Bandits proclaim the policeman killed another bandits in back and start riot. But study of ballistic on body destroy lie.
        In MH17 cause damage from missile from ahead destroy lie about ukrainian BUK so oly separatists amd Russia left. But you will continue find a new reasons for support russian lie. I see it last 6 months with new and new impossible teories and incredible lie. So hard to defend murder Putin.
        q: Every piece of russian information is marked as lie. But all of unverified ukranian information is published in the West.
        a: I dont know about West and what they preffered. Aslo new for me – defense of criminals depended from number of publications.
        q: Regarding SIBIR flight, Putin trusted ukraine in 2001 but later had to admit they lied to russia too, to cover their mistake.
        a: Putin as president of country which organised exercise with Ukraine closed investigation and agree with Ukraine about unknown source. Now Putin wanna redo SIBIR flight? Ok. But it just because he want defend himself from MH17 flight.

        Reply
  2. AnonymousDefender

    Answer on https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/01/17/new-images-of-the-mh17-buk-missile-launcher-in-ukraine-and-russia/#comment-7986
    q: Since a Singapore Airliner was just 25 km behind MH17, your data suggests that the BUK operators in this TELAR would have seen 3 (three) dots on their radar at the time they tuned in…
    Is that correct ?
    a: yes and now
    1. I dont know when radar in turned on
    2. I dont know Wide Zone or Narrow Zone used

    Possible scenarios for one dot on screen:
    a) Radar turned on when range to target was 50km or lesser, then crew dont need radar scale 100km and dont receive other dots. Reason for activate radar on this range can be spotter in direction on Dnipro/Kramatorsk airbases which called TELAR with incoming plane message. Another version is TELAR waiting specific plane like military transport but found MH17.
    When MH17 coming close then 50km TEALR crew switched radar anyway in 50km scale.
    When MH17 locked – radar switched in Narrow Zone.
    b) Radar turned on with Narrow Zone search then only MH17 can be indicated if Field of View was in this direction. Again – TELAR can receive info from outside and use it for pre-ready guidance of radar.
    And as im said – only MH17 dot on screen looks for TELAR crew like real danger (if they believe in military a/c) – coming almost right on them.

    Reply
    • Rob

      Take a look at this video of flights over the launch/crash site during the 17th :
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofz88mbAIs4&t=8m22s

      With that amount of traffic, the only way in which MH17 was an accident would be a scenario like time :

      (1) BUK arrives at Snizhne at 14:00. Does NOT test their radar (or they would have immediately seen planes “attacking” from all directions.

      (2) BUK crew commander waits THREE HOURS for a message from a separatist spotter in Horlivka, to tell you at 16:18 that he saw something that moved through the clouds (while he did not see ANYTHING during hours and hours before).

      (3) Then BUK switched on radar on SHORT range (50km) screen setting, sees a dot on 120deg mode, lock in within 20 sec, fire missile, then immediately switch off radar (otherwise second plane from same direction (Singapore airlines) would be a new target.

      (4) Make sure to keep radar switched off, even though you just shot down an attacking plane that may be part of a wave of attack planes
      Instead, wait for message from spotter, even though sky is full overcast.

      (5) When an hour (and another dozen planes missed) later you realize you shot down MH17, you get the hell out of there.

      In summary : with this amount of air traffic going on, the change that MH17 (and ONLY MH17) was downed as “an accident” is highly unlikely.

      Reply
      • AnonymousDefender

        q: (1) BUK arrives at Snizhne at 14:00.
        a: arrive dont mean DEPLOY
        q: Does NOT test their radar (or they would have immediately seen planes “attacking” from all directions.
        a: radar dont need tests, anyway it can be checked without activation (with work on equivalent of antenna)
        q:(2) BUK crew commander waits THREE HOURS for a message from a separatist spotter in Horlivka, to tell you at 16:18 that he saw something that moved through the clouds (while he did not see ANYTHING during hours and hours before).
        a: we dont know what to do TELAR and crew, they can just wait for firing crew or refueling, or just dont have order for deploy TELAR
        q: otherwise second plane from same direction (Singapore airlines) would be a new target.
        a: do you understand – first dot was MH17? if crew choose it as target then they cannot kill SIA351 before MH17 – so you dont know if TELAR see SIA351 or not
        TELAR killed MH 17, it all, one target – one missile
        q: (4) Make sure to keep radar switched off, even though you just shot down an attacking plane that may be part of a wave of attack planes
        Instead, wait for message from spotter, even though sky is full overcast.
        a: flightpath of SIA351 was different from MH17 so if TELAR targetted radar in Kramatorsk direction then SIA351 coming from another direction
        and incoming enemy plane it is adrenaline but with time it disappeared
        MH17 porbably was unaware presence of enemy aircraft+scary of detection and destruction
        after firing “enemy” airplane dont do any maneurs and dont use ECM so adrenaline gone away and other plane dont count as “enemy”
        they have 1 minute at least for thinking, in cause of MH17 they can dont have it time
        and again – enemy a/c coming from enemy airbase almost directly on TELAR it just VERSION
        but SIA351 after MH17 – it just a version of version
        q: Instead, wait for message from spotter, even though sky is full overcast.
        a: spotter or outside info like from spy, then SIA351 cannot be target
        q: In summary : with this amount of air traffic going on, the change that MH17 (and ONLY MH17) was downed as “an accident” is highly unlikely
        a; ABSOLUTELY AGREE IN UKRAINE CAUSE!
        With so much presence of civilian aircrafts, Ukraine cannot fire a missile!
        But solo TELAR fo separatists fired it because dont have info about civilian traffic or it was just a moment when they turned on radar.

        Reply
        • AnonymousDefender

          q: sees a dot on 120deg mode
          a: if TELAR have info from spotter or outside then they dont need Wide Zone search, enough Narrow Zone with 10 degree.

          Reply
          • Rob

            According to the flightradar24 data
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh06SqVx_1Q

            at the moment that MH17 was shot down (FDR point), Singapore Airlines was 10deg east of MH17, entering the 50km range from the launcher. At that time the TELAR was obviously still illuminating MH17 (or else this missile would have missed).

            To NOT have seen Singapore Airlines means the BUK must have switched off their radar after they were done illuminating MH17.

            I guess they did not want to know if there were TWO attack planes, right ?

  3. CoreBreak

    1.Ukraine knows what planes are flying in their territory and from which direction, so maybe they believed Poland is invading them?
    2.There were reports that rebels took control of BUK, before that event.
    http://itar-tass.com/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/1287030
    3.Civilians will not know how to use BUK.
    4.There was announcement on VKontakte and on Twitter by “rebel” Igor Girkin (*also videos), that they shot down Ukrainian plane. Later post was removed. This was second “cargo” plane shot down by rebels.
    5.Territory was under rebel control, plane fell near Russian border
    P.S.How did Novorossiya appeared on Ukrainian territory? This is Putin’s Reich.

    Reply
  4. Erik

    Only one fault with this article,

    The BUK complex in Russia is a newer version than that is used in Ukraine (like 25+ years newer). So, easy said, cannot be a russian surface to air.

    Beside that, everyone knows by now that the plane was taken down by air-to-air missile “small high velocity metal pieces” at 10500m. No machinegun in world can surface-to-air that.

    Hence I get a question in my head, why don’t this journalist consider facts that is reported? Is this another blame russian blog? I think so

    Reply
    • AnonymousDefender

      c: The BUK complex in Russia is a newer version than that is used in Ukraine (like 25+ years newer). So, easy said, cannot be a russian surface to air.
      a: Russia have a few versions of BUK: BUK-M1, BUK-M1-2, BUK-M2, BUK-M3. Bad economic situation prevent from wide upgrade from BUK-M1 to newer versions.
      BUK-M1 (SA-11) still most numbered version.
      BUK-M1-2 (SA-17) developed in 1998 and so far only one brigade equipped with it.
      BUK-M2 (SA-17) developed in 1988 but first firing exercises only in 2010, army got it in 2010 and again only one brigade, also Russia have a few in Armenia on russian military base.
      BUK-M3 developed in 2011, still testing by army, no presence in regular troops.
      Old missile 9M38M1 (both Ukraine and Russia have it) can be fired by SA-11 (BUK-M1 by Russia and Ukraine) or SA-17 (BUK-M1-2 by Russia) – totally around 400 launchers.
      New missile 9M317 (only Russia have it) can be fired from SA-17 only (BUK-M1-2, BUK-M2, BUK-M3 by Russia) – totally around 50 launchers.
      Russia have 400 launcher of 9M38M1 missile (old version).
      Ukraine have 60 launchers of 9M38M1 missile (old version).
      Russia have 50 launchers of 9M317 missile (newer version).
      But “cannot be a russian surface to air” because “BUK complex in Russia is a newer version than that is used in Ukraine” with only 50 launchers.
      Awesome selective thinking!

      Reply
    • Rob

      Erik,

      What makes you think the BUK complex in from Kursk Russia (BUK 3×2) is 25 years newer than the one we see in the evidence from Donetsk to Shnizne ?

      Reply
  5. JOE

    Rob What about the documented interviews with civilians directly after the crash confirming fighter jets were flying around ? were they paid by kiev?

    Reply
    • Rob

      I don’t know, JOE.
      But whatever these eye witnesses saw, it is not showing up on the radar images from the Russian Defense Ministry.

      Reply
    • AnonymousDefender

      a: at moment when MH17 entered 50km range SIA351 still on range 80-90km so TELAR can not see second plane.
      q: At that time the TELAR was obviously still illuminating MH17 (or else this missile would have missed).
      a: When MH17 locked then TELAR cannot see nothing then +-5 degree from MH17, SIA351 was too far beside
      q: To NOT have seen Singapore Airlines means the BUK must have switched off their radar after they were done illuminating MH17.
      a: who worry what to do TELAR after MH17 kill? how it can help to MH17 and why you see only one scenario?
      q: I guess they did not want to know if there were TWO attack planes, right ?
      a: i dont sit in TELAR so dont know their mind, but im can ask about possible scenarios.
      TELAR can hit MH17 and did it, all other it thinking about what-if with only target – prevent Supreme Commander of russian troops PUTIN from Haague. Anyway and by any cost, with any lie or any clue – save Murder from justice.

      Reply
      • Rob

        “at moment when MH17 entered 50km range SIA351 still on range 80-90km so TELAR can not see second plane.”

        Right, And more importantly, Singapore Airlines 351 was about 50 km away (and about 10deg east) for the BUK launcher south of Snizhne at the time the missile hit MH17:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QayZ3Z9GSgQ

        So the TELAR switched off its radar right after it was done shooting down MH17, and it did not bother to check if a SECOND “Ukrainian” attack plane would be following the one it just shot down.

        Why would they let some 35 planes fly overhead uncharged, then switch on their radar less than 20 sec before MH17 comes into sight, shoot down the one spot they see (MH17) using their short-sighted (50km) narrow (120 deg) vision, and immediately switch off their radar afterwards, so they don’t see the next plane that is right in the same line (10 deg off) and at less than 50km away ?

        Given this evidence of flight density over Eastern Ukraine at the time, it seems to me that the “standard” theory (that MH was taken down by “accident”) is not so likely any more.

        Reply
        • AnonymousDefender

          q:So the TELAR switched off its radar right after it was done shooting down MH17, and it did not bother to check if a SECOND “Ukrainian” attack plane would be following the one it just shot down.
          a: Again, you think about only one scenario – ukrainian military plane. But still available more then one scenario.
          Even this version still have a reasons for one attack:
          1. second target show AFTER MH17
          2. second target dont show if NARROW ZONE search used
          3. SIA351 coming from different direction and will passing TELAR on 20km range
          4. spotter or outside info dont said about another planes.
          q: Why would they let some 35 planes fly overhead uncharged, then switch on their radar less than 20 sec before MH17 comes into sight, shoot down the one spot they see (MH17) using their short-sighted (50km) narrow (120 deg) vision, and immediately switch off their radar afterwards, so they don’t see the next plane that is right in the same line (10 deg off) and at less than 50km away ?
          a: Because you need to switch on radar in one time, from now you can detect planes, but before you cannot. And if you wait one specific plane or plane in direction from Dnipro or Kramatorsk to eastern cauldron then you dont need other planes. Or if your spotter and intel dont give you info about other planes too.
          q: Given this evidence of flight density over Eastern Ukraine at the time, it seems to me that the “standard” theory (that MH was taken down by “accident”) is not so likely any more.
          a: Im dont know what is standart theory. SA-11 designed for killing planes. In regular army commander of TELAR must receive info and allowance from commander of battery/brigade with much more capabilities for search and recognition targets. But in irregular army you dont have this so TELAR alone can only fire one missile to incoming target.
          If you kill one man on street that dont mean you cannot did it because before you dont kill no one man on this street even when passed 35 people, and because you dont start fire all people after it. You just have a reason for kill this man. When found a trigger, when see he is ugly, when voice in mind order to kill etc.
          Fact is – separatists doing war crimes all time with all possible weapon from Putin’s shop. It all.
          When im inned to know how think separatist which killed MH17, im dont start to think why he dont kill others, i will just remove his brain and slice it for small pieces.

          Reply
  6. Rob

    I was not talking about a ukrainian fighter. There is zero evidence that there was any ukrainian fighter in the air.

    I was talking about this BUK south of Snizhne.
    And yes, it is clear that this Russian BUK from Kursk with a Russian crew had instructions to NOT use their radar to identify the enemy airplane in the crowd of planes fighing overhead. They listened to their Russian commander. Who obtained information from somebody to switch on the radar and shoot down the spot that will show up and then switch the radar off again.

    Who gives the orders to a Russian brigade commander ?

    Reply
      • Rob

        I doubt that Putin himself called this BUK crew at the exact time necessary, but the
        the fact that this BUK crew relied on a command from outside rather than their own radar suggests that the BUK crew did not know what they were shooting at.

        Instead, the decision when to switch the radar on, when to fire and when to switch the radar off was made by somebody outside, somebody with enough authority to tell a Russian BUK brigade commander what to do.

        I doubt that a “separatist” informed by a low level “spotter” in Horlivka, who could not see anything through the clouds, was that “somebody”.

        But even if so, then the question is why the Russians did not simply blame that one “separatist” and deliver him to The Hague.

        That would be so much easier than letting a general from the Russian Defense Ministry lie through his teeth spreading 5 conspiracy theories in they 21st of july press conference.

        So MH17 was not an accident. It was a deliberate act, and it came from very high up (likely from Putin himself).

        What is still unclear is why exactly Putin wanted to take out MH17 with so many Dutch and Malaysian people aboard.

        Reply
        • AnonymousDefender

          You dont understand why Russia dont blame a single terrorists and dont support investigation against this person because dont understand who is Mr. Putin and why Ukraine at war.
          This unknown terrorist (s) is unknown soldier of Putin’s war against USA in Ukraine. How supreme commander can blame his best soldier? And if he did it how he can send more and more soldiers on this war?
          A tsame time without war with all world Putin cannot stay on trone, how Putin think.
          So just add 2 to 2 – Russia need this war and need this terrorist.

          Reply
  7. Rob

    Correct!V (in cooperation with FlightRadar24), has created a very nice application that shows the flights over Eastern Ukraine on the 17th :
    https://apps.correctiv.org/mh17/

    Dozens and dozens of flights (international airliners, Russian domestic civiel airliners, and unidentified (private) planes) passed overhead Snihzne on the 17th before and after MH17 was downed.

    But what is truly perplexing is the Russian airliners still passing over the crash site a week later :
    https://apps.correctiv.org/mh17/?date=2014-07-24

    If MH17 was an “accident”, a rogue “separatist” in control of a powerful SAM system, shooting down a random plane by “accident”, then WHY are the Russian civilian airliners still flying merrily over the same area a week later ?

    Reply
    • AnonymousDefender

      Because RUSSIAN separatist shooting down a plane. So RUSSIAN planes can fly over RUSSIAN separatists.
      But ukraininan planes and MH17 – cannot and shot downed.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)