the home of online investigations

Six Takeaways from Today’s Dutch Safety Board MH17 Response

February 25, 2016

By Bellingcat Investigation Team

On February 25, the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) published responses to questions asked by the Dutch Parliament on February 4 and 10, along with its response to a letter written by Oleg Storchevoy, the Deputy Director of Russia’s Federal Air Transport Agency. Many of the questions posed by the Dutch Parliament concern the air traffic control primary radar data from Ukraine and Russia at the time of the tragedy. Along with information about the radar data and the investigative process, there were a handful of responses that provided clarification to questions regarding Russian claims regarding the MH17 case. Additionally, the DSB’s response to the Russian letter reiterated its stance on a number of Russian concerns regarding the investigation, most notably regarding the Buk missiles type and launch site.

The response of Tjibbe Joustra, the Chairman of the DSB, to the Russian letter is, to put it mildly, succinct. The response letter itself is two paragraphs and refers to an eleven-page appendix letter, along with a note that “none of the information provided can be regarded as new and significant evidence.” In other words, the DSB does not find the “new” evidence provided by Russia and its Federal Air Transport Agency sufficiently reliable or noteworthy to contradict the findings of its final report. In the letter’s appendix, the DSB responds every question from Storchevoy by referencing the DSB’s final report, and ending with the sentence “The Dutch Safety Board concludes that on the basis of the arguments put forward, there is no new and significant evidence.”

The DSB’s response to the Dutch Parliament is more revealing. Here are six takeaways from their responses:

1) As previously reported, the investigation has viewed “satellite data” of a missile launch provided by the United States. But no radar data.

q-34

Q: Did you ask for or receive satellite data concerning the firing of the missile? If yes, what kind of information does it concern?

A: Two members of the Safety Board have had the opportunity through the MIVD (Dutch Military Intelligence) to take note of classified information that has been provided to the Dutch security services. The studied information is in line with the conclusions that the Safety Board has taken, based on other research information.

Q: Can it be clarified which United States radar and satellite data has been received?

A: The Safety Board has not requested radar data from the US (see table 8 of the report “MH17 Crash”). With regard to satellite data, the Safety Board is bound to secrecy.

2) The DSB has “explicitly” ruled out the possibility of military aircraft (e.g. a Ukrainian Su-25) within 30km of MH17

q-13 q49

Q: Are you familiar with the fact that in the news broadcasts of RTL and Nieuwsuur, TV Zvezda, Russia Today, Channel One (all three from the Russian Federation), Hromadske.tv (Ukraine), BBC Russia, and Paris Match, recognizable witnesses clearly state that they saw one or more military planes near MH17?

A: The Safety Board is aware of this. Based on multiple sources, it has been able to establish the cause of the crash of flight MH17 and has explicitly ruled out other possible causes, including the presence of military aircraft in the immediate vicinity of flight MH17.”

Q: Why is the text about the absence of a military aircraft removed after Russian intervention? Does that mean that there was still the possibility of a military aircraft in the vicinity of MH17 (appendix V)?

A: On page 279, the Safety Board concludes that no evidence has been found that there were other aircraft, civilian or military, in the direct vicinity of flight MH17. On page 136 of the report, it is noted that within 30km of flight MH17 no (military) aircraft were present at the time of the crash.

3) The DSB mapped the front lines of the conflict to determine who controlled the Buk launch site

q17

Q: During the presentation of the report, the chairman of the DSB said that the rocket came from separatist-held territory and that this is apparent from maps. Currently, there are no maps of the front lines in the report. Can the DSB indicate which areas in the potential launch area were controlled by the rebels?

A: Thereby, reference was made in figure 65 in the report, which practically coincides with the area controlled by separatists in July 2014.

The map that the DSB is referring to in its response can be seen below. As we know from various reports of fighting in mid-July, there were numerous pockets of Ukrainian control within the “area of armed conflict,” depicted as orange in the map below. It is unclear exactly where the DSB believes separatist control begins and ends near the launch location.

fig-65

4) The circular holes on the wreckage are smaller than half the size of 30mm cannon holes

q48

Q: Is there also penetration damage on pieces of wreckage (appendix X) that could have been caused by an on-board cannon?

A: In appendix X it is concluded that the damage that has been detected on pieces of wreckage does not match the damage that is caused by an on-board cannon when it comes to the number of hits, the density of the hits, the direction of the hits, and the type of damage. Concerning the type of damage, it is noted that the armor-piercing projectiles have a diameter of 23 to 30mm. The average size of the impacts is 11mm. An armor-piercing shell of 23 to 30mm cannot produce an impact of 11mm.

5) The DSB used both Google Earth and other satellite imagery, including classified materials

q29

Q: Which countries have been asked for satellite images of MH17 during the crash and what other countries have supplied them to the DSB?

A: In the investigation, an overview photograph of the crash site originating from various satellite images was used. Initially, work was done with images from Google Earth. Later on, the DSB was able to see other (classified) satellite images, with which the images of Google Earth could be verified. The DSB is bound to secrecy when it concerns satellite data.

6) Neither the Ukrainian flight traffic data nor the cockpit voice recorder data (from the black box) were manipulated with

q2

Q: Has it been ruled out that the received transcripts on the contact between the Ukrainian air traffic controller and flight MH17 have been manipulated with in any way?

A: Yes, the Safety Board has been able to rule that out. The Safety Board has the ‘cockpit voice recorder’ on which the conversations between the pilot of MH17 and the Ukrainian air traffic controller are recorded. In its research, the Board concludes that there are no indications of manipulation of the recorders. The Board also has copies of the tapes with conversation between the air traffic controller of Ukraine and flight MH17. The information on these tapes matches that of the ‘cockpit voice recorder.’

Bellingcat Investigation Team

The Bellingcat Investigation Team is an award winning group of volunteers and full time investigators who make up the core of the Bellingcat's investigative efforts.

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:

161 Comments

  1. Andrea

    1) You had been warned
    Aric Toler – February 27th, 2016
    I’m tempted to delete your comments for being insane and your repetition, but they’re so great to read that I wouldn’t dare.

    2) Also the comments of many other users got stuck in moderation (mine too) …

    Reply
    • Aric Toler

      Yeah, that’s an issue — the tools we have built into WordPress are sometimes overly sensitive to catching spam. The most common reasons why are too many links in one post (which is common with real spam messages, but also in many legitimate comments) or keywords (Nazi, fascist, etc — words that are most often used in comments that are not at all constructive).

      Reply
      • Aric Toler

        And, upon reading this fellow’s most recent comments, his conspiracies are no longer amusing and now just disrespectful and completely off-topic. No more from him.

        Reply
  2. Andrea

    You see…you can still post comments…i have some stuck in moderation too…
    So, before crying is better if you wait like all others do…

    Reply
    • Andrea

      If you find someone who had ever been censored on this website i’ll come to shake your hand…cause since i’m on this blog (years) i saw so many comments published proving there is no censoreship at all (insults, spamming, xenophoby…)

      Reply
    • LongGoneJohn

      What is the definition of a conspiracy theory? Isn’t that, save some very moronic stories out there that are easily debunked, ultimately defined by time?

      Let’s not kid ourselves. That knife cuts both ways. Conspiracies are real, there is no discussing that. This does not mean that every theory about conspiracies is worthy of attention and research. 99,99% aren’t. But that leaves plenty that may be.

      Personally, I am very distrusting of all parties involved and I am longing for the final criminal investigation and even more so the criminal case. Personally, I think only then I will be at ease.

      Reply
  3. Andrea

    I don’t have any interest in setting up a discussion with somebody who can’t hold it…

    I just made a couple of precise questions, you replied “discussion is over”, showing everybody what you really are…that’s more than enough…

    Maybe you should include this too in the article you’ll write 😉

    Reply
  4. Aric Toler

    It was caught by the spam filter because the word “Nazi” is on the spam list. For obvious reasons.

    Reply
  5. DUrq

    I’ve lost count of the number of times JvD has ‘closed the discussion’ or started a post with ‘Finally’…

    Irrelevant conspiracy theory tittle-tattle and links to unconvincing ‘research’ posted on blogs, rather than in reports with any kind of peer review or clarification, will not divert people from the horrific truth behind what happened to MH17. Also, the disrespect being shown to some very knowledgeable posters is a clear indication you are out of your depth. Have the good grace to know when you’re beaten ‘Johan’.

    Reply
    • Mad Dog

      Johan, I like your take on the Night Wolves and I think they are just a group of organized thugs used by Putin to intimidate. However, I really doubt and I do not think the evidence points to any involvement with the MH17 tragedy.

      Reply
    • Kevin M

      It’s easy! Militants did’t have airforce, so Ukraine didn’t have anti aircraft weapons operating. Contrarily, prorussian militants were downing one or two Ukranian jets per week with anti aircraft weapons. GET YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS! 😉

      Reply
  6. ohn Zenwirt

    Dongen, if you had been here with the regulars you would know I covered the “Night Wolves” weeks ago…

    Reply
  7. Horstl

    Q: Did you ask for or receive satellite data concerning the firing of the missile? If yes, what kind of information does it concern?

    -> why are they dodging the question? They surely must know if they received “satellite data concerning the firing of the missile? The pure fact, which should result a “yes” or “no”, is not a state secret, right? So why the shadiness?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)