After reading the English version and looking at the photos I'm convinced that the theory is pure speculation. No frat hand experience with metallurgy or crash investigations or any of the primary materials point to a lack of supporting evidence for the claims being made.

He's got some photos that can be misinterpreted and that's about it.

There is not just the photo, which nobody of you have explained better than the author, who has the best argument here to explain why what holes look like what. By far the best argumentation he has.

There is the eyewitness report of the Canadian expert who was on scene for the OSCE.

There is the earlier report filed by that Spanish air controller that now has dissapeared for unknown reason. Uktrainian fighters in the air, approaching the Malaysian machine.

There is radar reports both from European air control and Russian control that show that at least two Ukrainian fighters have approached the airliner.

There is the quite similiar looks of the Malaysian plane, and the Russian presidential plane, which use the same tricolor on their fuselages.

To dismiss an Ukrainian plot to assassinate Putin just becaue one cannot imagine it, is naive and ignores the intense hostility that is simemring between Moscow and Kiew since the separation of the ukraine, and the intense hate of key leading figures in Kiew for the Russians in general and Putin in special. Also tak einto account that Kiew gas realsised by now that they will not get back the Crimean without escalating to a major war with Russia - and loosing such a war, necessarily.

But I see that you guys are determined to not take into account any scenarios not meeting your desire to hold Russia or the separatists responsible, althio9gh a missile hit is the most unoikely of all explanations by now.

Lt last time I checked, either Lufthansa pilots (retired) nor the OSCE nor European air control authorities were part of the Russia Today network, CCIP. The OSCE and Europe, and Russia, atre on different siders ov er the Ukraine. Why shoudlthe first promote Russian propaganda stunts? BTW, nothing of what I said and linked, is RT-related.

MH, again, the different looks and sizes of the fragments are bvetter explained by the auhtor'S theory, that perfectly corrpsonds, as far as I xcan say, with the loadout for a tank-killing aircraft thnat fires with its cannon.

Dreasd Knot, the cockpit IS found to be the most destroyed part of the aircraft. Read again what the author says on that part of the fuselage, and that the non-round exit holes in the cockpit photo indicate by the way how the meatl is bend outwards that explosions INSIDE the cockpit have caused these marks. I have looked up the ammo loadout for the SU-25, and you are wrong when thinking it is loaded with kinetic, non-explosive rounds only: like the author explains, it indeed is listed to be loaded with a mix of explosive and fragmentation non-explosive rounds.

I explained early why the Ukrainians - if the scanario unfolded like described - tried the attack this way and not in another way: it is to not being blamed for it and to mask their attack. The key thouh was not to mess with the Western opinion if they start toi assassinate the govenrment leadership of another nation, and to achieve that in a way that leaves no traces, and it was to be assured by destroiyjn g the airplane in mid air without missiles (which would leave traces), but explosive decompression after critical hull damage - by peppering the cockpit with explosve machine cannon rounds, to make sure it gets shreddered to pieces.

You guys can believe what you want. But so far nobody of you has shown to be able to deal with anything the author and the Canadian inspector wrote and said in a believable way. That Lufthansa guy has the better arguments over any points you brought up so far. So who is speculating here?

Anf MH, what could riccocheting against the nose of a plane that flies high and fast, when the hull behind the cockpit segment does not show signs of the massive penetrating damage to be found only at the cockpit section? However, when you have explosive decompression in the hull behidn the cockpit due to the cockpit having broken up, what is there that could explode and overtake the whole plkane and then hit a cockpit section that has exploded BEFORE, and why are there no huge impact marks at the cockpit, only small, round entry holes - the bigger holes are EXIT holes, obviously? Your reasoning ignores a little bit too much there, I think. The author's explanations beats yours easily, since it explains more, easier, and without any contradiction. Note that the Candian expert who was on the scnee and exmained thew wrckage with his colleagues says it was - original quote - "very very heavy machine gun fire". I prefer his expertise over yours, sorry. ;)

P.S. Assuming that Kiew did not want to kill Putin (and misidnetified the target), but wanted to down an airliner only to bring NATO into the war when blaming Russia for it: wouldn't that be a scenario that is even more outraging and revealing an even more diabolic attitude of the deciders in Kiew? When the whole mess started, I said from start on: donÄT line up with Kiew, those guys are not one bit better than those they claim to be evil and their enemies. I have no reason to change that assessment. So: hands off the Ukraine, dear West, there is nothing to win and no honest knight in shiny armour is to be supported there. Kiew and the separatists, they both are wild gangs of criminals and mobsters.

Your Canadian Michael Bociurkiw is not an expert and even admits that in his video interview. He is clearly just highlighting as a non-expert, holes that to him look like machine-gun fire. I expect that if you showed him fragmentation images from A-10 Warthog hit by a SAM warhead then he would describe the damage as looking like "machine-gun fire".

I think a lot of the "exit" holes on MH17 are actually the aluminum skin being blown back from the underlying steel due to fragmentation and possible liquidification of aluminum. But you know what? That's idle speculation on my part and just as useless as if it was in a breathless You Tube video. Which is why we all need to settle down and wait for the proper investigation.

Hmmm. Putin's Presidential Ilyushin-96-300 has four engines to the Malaysian 777's two. I guess to make this conspiracy work we merge inept Ukrainian aerial indentification and a dismal pre-flight briefing with some darn crack marksmanship.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...l-96-300PU.jpg

I would also end to agree with CCIP in what good would've come out of shooting Putin and his staff out of the sky? It would've immediately plunged both countries into war, a war in which the Ukranian government could never prevail in a million years. It would've been national suicide for them. Russia would've unleashed everything they had on the Ukranians, and there isn't a country in the world that would've stopped them. Certainly not "No-Drama Obama", the reluctant warrior.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that if the Russian government had the irrefutable evidence that Ukraine had so much as attempted an aerial assassination attempt on Putin, even one that failed in this fashion, that their attitude would be as laid back and cavalier about it as it currently seems. The Bear doth protest too little.

Until I see something more persuasive than stuff pulled off the internet I guess I will.

I don't care which side did what , yet I don't see it.
By ricocheting I did not mean against the nose.
Whatever entered the nose of the airplane could have enough kinetic energy to send stuff / splinters flying in different directions me think.
No need for explosive shells.
Some of the top sheet layer could also bend outward due to air friction after the explosion?

I've honestly never heard of that one. I've thought that if the plane was shot down by the Su-25's it's due to Ukraine wanting NATO to get involved.

If Putins plane is a four engined aircraft, and MH17 a two engined aircraft, and if the Su-25 was supposed to have closed to guns range to shoot this aircraft down then it begs the question why a short-sighted half-blind pilot was allowed to qualify in the Ukrainian airforce.


http://www.plunderbund.com/wp-conten...8f_2551070.jpg

On the exit holes, I stick to prefering the statements of those two men who by their background and the fact that one of them saw the pieces with his own eyes in real life simply are better qualified than anyone here. Talking of betting my money on the fastest running horse.

Comparison of the colour schemes:

http://teluguandhranews.com/wp-conte.../07/plane1.jpg

When i saw that, I immediately thought by myself: yes, these two planes could much more easily being mistaken for each other than many other plane-combination you could compare. Absolutely possible.

You can also see that the Il-96 has three engines and the B777 has one engine only. Didn't know that. :D

Mistaking 2 for 4 engines - well, worse stuff has happened in history once the adrenaline got pumping. From a distance, and the side, you may not even see how many engines there are. You speed in, pull trigger, zoom away, and wonder maybe that somehow the plane looked - strange, something seems to have been wrong, eh...? And who knows what the pilot was told his target specifically looks like. If he was sent with order like "S&D some big airliner that is in the area that has Russian colours on it, then anything is possible. Visual misidentifying of targets and missing obvious detials is what happens in the action of war. Sometimes they even intentionally fire on their own troops, thinking they are enemies. And again: who knows what the pilots have been told their target would be like. There could be failing briefings, too. But here we indeed leave the trail of founded theories, and enter the realm of speculation.

On the motivation of Kiew, if Kiew indeed ordered the shunt, there are two theories. The one claiming that a civlian airliner was targetted intentionally to bring NATO into war by blaming Russia/Saparatists, the other theory claiming that one was after assassinating a most hated political leader of the enemy, but misidentifying the target and by error killing another plane. In both cases it is of paramopunt importance for Kiew to hide its respjnsibility and to delete the traces. This would explain why the attack was carried out the way it took place (if the story is true): using the a.) cannons of a b.) SU25 to destroy c.) the cockpit to see the rest of of the airplane being destroyed by d.) explosive decompression and so e.) not to leave behind fragments of a SAM that could tell the identity of the shooter, maybe.

And the Russians? Would be told that their own allies accidentally killed the Russian plane. However, not few people in Kiew seem to fear a full war with Russia and a full invasion anyway, so they do not have much to loose, at least from that way of thinking.

And Putin's cavalier attitude? Originally,and I said that very< early on already, I doubt that he wanted to go into the East in full invasion, he wan ted to get the Crimean and he wanted to divide the Ukraine and so get a ruling word in its inner politics and prevent it from entering NATO via EU. He survived. Cavalier attitude I cannot see any since in the past days we have seen a huge massing of combat-ready troops at the border to the Ukraine again (says NATO. One has to take into account another possible explanation, too, however: the he has lost contorl of the separatists to some degree or was surprised to get less civil support in the East as planned, and so maybe needs to intervene more actively in order to get out of the East what he intitially wanted. I admit, that is possible also, and then would have nothing to do with the airplane event. The separatists' criminal behavior oin the regions they control(led) certainly has alienated some people that originally may have been pro-Russian. The Russian objective has not been helped by the way the separatists presented themselves.

Before, the most likely explanation I believed was that separatists misiodntified the plöane or misled a missile when engagiung maybe that SU-25 in its vicinty, and shot it down with gorund.-based SAM. But I have not heared and seen any reports since then that support the view of a SAM being engaged here. And there are no such traces and debris. What there is, is perforated metal fragments from the totally destroyed cockpit that so far are best explained by a certain cannon ammunition penetrating the cockpit and exploding inside, and metal fragments from other parts of the plane showing almost no such damages. Whatever destroyed the cockpit: it neither was a SAM, nor has the rest of the plane been destroyed by the same effect.

P.S. I expect the Americans to know more about the events than they say, their satellite and other intelligence simply is too good and too focussed on the Ukraine as if it makes sense to assume differently. Of course they will not tell all thy know, since that woudl comrpriomse their attmept to hide how good their possibilities indeed are (thats why any relased info by them also has to be taken with extreme caution). But isn't it suspicious indeed that they stage so little pressure and action over this incident when you consider that it was an airliner with complete loss of life? I remember the outcry and furor over the Koreean airliner shot down in the 80s by the Soviets. That one probably was either diverted to do a spying flight for the US, or the US underestimated the Soviet determination to prevent what otherwise maybe was a testing of the Soviet air defence reaction times. Both scenarios however, usually mentioned as the most likely explanations, could not be proven by the Soviets or anyone else, and so Wahsington risked nothing to opening verbal fire from all media and diplomatic platforms. Compared to that storm back then, what we get today from Washington (not over the complete conflict, but this one incident), is relatively silent. Why is that? Is it really so far fetched a thought that they know damn well what happened - and do not want it to become known since it would be opposing their official political strategy to confront the Russians over the Ukraine and to support Kiew instead? Why have many of the pictures been cleaned from the internet? And what about that Spanish air controller?

Still its all speculation isn't it either way you look at it. Until investigators on the ground confirm one way or another.

I gave you an interview with one such investigators on the ground, one of the first arriving there. Just that you do not accept him, since he does not have to say by his eyes' witnessing what people here want to hear. The OSCE sent him there - because he was an incompetent dilettante...???

You want experts that confirm your view of things. And you want an official expert from Western bodies that report exactly what the Western position wants to see being confirmed.

I just wait for somebody wanting the US Air Force to examine the pieces and presenting their report. That the Russians manipulated the debris they got their hands on, is being taken for granted. That the Americans or that Kiew of course would not do so, seems to be taken as granted, too.

I said it before, this whole story is a theory, and a well-founded one that explains all known facts better than any other explanation so far. It avoids all contradictions earlier explanations suffered from, too. I do not say its true. I only say it must be taken into account, and must be "tested". It also is supported by what the examiners at locations so far have said.

Different to many people who seem to know what really happened and that it were the Russians/separatists, I simply take it and try to view it from all angles and perspectives, no matter where they lead me to - even those perspectives that in the West are tabooized by now. Before, I took the separatist-SAM theory as best theory there is - until the theory seem to have collapsed. So, one-sided bias or Russian media-implemented prepossession I do not accept to get accused of.

No I want the official report from the international investigation team. Till that's handed down all we have is conjecture.

In something less conjectured: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-1...rposes/5660686
This will be interesting to watch play out.

I doubt Putin will be losing much sleep over the above.

http://redalertpolitics.com/files/2012/09/ObamaGolf.jpg

Nope

Are you seriously comparing Kievs technical ability to manipulate evidence that is located in hostile territory with Moscows technical ability to manipulate evidence that is located friendly territory?

Really?

Let's not speculate too much shall we?:D

Read again the reference you quote me by - maybe then you get what I really said.