Ukrainian online tags expose
In June of this year, the Dutch prosecutor's office announced that by the end of September it would publish the first results of the investigation into the crash of a Boeing 777-200ER aircraft, flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur and shot down on July 17, 2014 in the skies over Donbass, not far from the combat zone.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Telegram, Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
On July 21, the UN Security Council demanded a comprehensive independent investigation. On October 13, 2015, the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) published a final report that did not say anything about the perpetrators of the tragedy. One of the conclusions was an indication of the negligence of the Ukrainian side in ensuring the safety of civil aviation flights over the combat zone.
Without waiting for the end of September, revelations about the causes of the death of flight MH17 flared up with renewed vigor. One of the first to break the silence was the British tabloid Sunday Express with a viral advertisement for Mike Rudin's new conspiracy film with the self-explanatory title “Conspiracy Theories. Who shot down flight MH17? It is interesting that one of the main roles in the film is played by the famous armchair analyst Eliot Higgins, who draws serious conclusions based on viewing pictures in various online “murzilkas”.
And it is not at all surprising that the brewed porridge is not allowed to cool by the initiative group Bellingcat, headed by movie star Higgins, which blamed Russia for the disaster based on an analysis of dubious materials from dubious sources.
A certain catalyst that spurred interest in the investigation was package of encrypted telegrams of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, put up at an online auction, accusing the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Muzhenko as the direct culprit of the disaster.
The Ukrainian propaganda resource “Censor” could not remain silent and came out with its own “investigation”, cutting quotes from the DSB report at random.
This whole information vinaigrette greatly disorients the respectable public, who in such cases usually “vote with their hearts.”
Zakhar Galimzhanovich Omarov undertook to comment on the “investigation” of the “Censor”, concocted by anchovies of the pen on the basis of the DSB Report. Without exaggeration, his comments are a large-caliber salvo in response to the maneuvers of a predatory roach. Omarov Z.G. – technical expert, chief researcher at the Research Center of the Air Force Research Institute of the Russian Ministry of Defense, vice-president of the Society for Independent Investigation of Aircraft Accidents, Doctor of Technical Sciences.
The commentator's track record is also impressive. Omarov Z.G. participated in more than 150 examinations of aviation accidents and aircraft failures, in the investigation of aviation accidents and incidents. These include about 20 investigative measures for incidents involving the destruction of aircraft by military means. In particular, the study of the causes of the crash of Tu-154 RA-85693 of Siberia Airlines, shot down over the Black Sea on October 4, 2001 by Ukrainian air defense.
The main conclusion of the specialist: the content of the “Report on the results of a technical study of the Malaysian Boeing crash”, presented by the Ukrainian side, is intended for laymen who are not fully familiar with the actual data and results presented in the materials of the final DSB Report. At the same time, the very fact of posting a Ukrainian “investigation” on Censor, known for its anti-Russian orientation, speaks about the purpose of its appearance.
Well, it’s as if the Nazi leaflet “Volkische Beobachter” began to speak authoritatively about the guilt of the USSR in the events of 1941-1945.
On the basis of which Omarov Z.G. claims that the “investigation” of the “Censor” has zero expert value? Briefly.
1. Unfounded assertion that the damage to the aircraft wreckage corresponds to damage by the warhead of the 9M38M1 missile.
Neither the Dutch report nor the appendices contains not only an analysis of the damage to the Boeing fragments, but also any mention of them at all.
It is interesting that the DSB Report concluded that flight MH17 was shot down by a 9M38-series missile, but with a 9N314M warhead, which Ukrainian “world-famous experts” are stubbornly silent about in their “investigation”, since this is precisely what This type of missile is still in service with Ukrainian air defense units. Pointing to the 9M38 missile, the Dutch actually agreed with the arguments of the specialists of the Almaz-Antey concern that the flight and ballistic characteristics of the 9M38M1 missile do not allow it under any circumstances to reach the detonation point. That is, Ukrainian “experts” ignore the significant difference between the 9M38 and 9M38M1 missiles.
However, both missiles were removed from service with Russian air defense units back in 2011, but Ukraine had and still has approximately 500 9M38 missiles and about 1000 9M38M1 missiles in service. In addition, Ukrainian sources have repeatedly and with great fanfare reported that Ukroboronprom specialists modified the 9M38 series missiles on their own, without the approval and expert control of the Almaz-Antey concern. Despite the fact that air defense systems of this type have never been developed or repaired in Ukraine. Presenting poverty as a benefactor, the Ukrainian media indicated that for modification, instead of Russian components, Ukrainian craftsmen used certain analogues of unknown origin.
In general, Ukraine has been heading into the abyss for so long that now the abyss is already staring intently at Ukraine.
2. Ukrainian “expertise” reports that the detonation point of the warhead missile was located at a distance of 4 meters from the aircraft cockpit.
The goal is to use the method of fraud to prove that the missile that hit MH17 came from Snizhne, from the territory of the militia. There is nothing in the DSB Report cited by the Ukrainian “experts” that could support this conclusion.
The results of the “modeling” of the field of fragmentation covering the nose of the Boeing, obtained by Ukrainian “experts” during computer visualization, do not correspond to the actual damage on the fragments of the MH17 flight, presented both in the photographs attached to the final DSB Report and the fragments in the final 3D display.
3. Comparison of the results of modeling the affected area of the cockpit. Here, the results of the Ukrainian “expertise” again diverge from the data of the DSB Report in terms of detecting traces of submunitions. The Dutch in their conclusions rely on the data of the Almaz-Antey examination, but the Ukrainian side has its own pride and an opinion different from some “vatniks” there.
Thus, the appendix to the DSB Report states that when an aircraft was hit by a 9M38M1 missile from a distance of ~1.5 meters, about 1400 warhead submunitions should have entered the cockpit, of which more than 300 should have fallen to the crew commander.
Can you imagine this picture? A mince of people and debris, I apologize for the somewhat vulgar comparison.
Ukrainian thinkers respond to this: No big deal! The rocket exploded 4 meters from the cockpit and only 700 elements were supposed to hit it. And they even provide evidence - only 200 fragments were extracted from the body of the crew commander during the pathological examination! Checkmate, cotton wool!
In fact, here too the public is being nailed down with the help of lies and distortion.
There are official results of the examination of Dutch pathologists, which, unfortunately, were not included in the final DSB Report. Attached to them are x-ray photographs of the bodies of the commander and co-pilot, from which it follows that at least the upper parts of the bodies have retained their integrity. Yes, about 200 fragments were recovered from the body of the crew commander, but the vast majority were not fragments of destructive elements, but so-called secondary fragments - fragments of the aircraft’s structural materials (fragments of the hull, partitions, glazing, etc.). From the bodies of four crew members, Dutch experts extracted 43 steel fragments, which may have some relation to the striking elements of the warhead missile.
The final DSB report only included that hundreds of fragments of foreign bodies related to parts of the aircraft, personal belongings of passengers and objects located at the crash site (stones, parts of soil, vegetation, etc.) were found in the remains of crew members and passengers.
A total of 72 fragments were selected for further study. 15 of them were recovered from the remains of three crew members and another from the body of a passenger. 56 elements were isolated from the debris.
The final conclusion of the Dutch commission states: from all the bodies of the aircraft crew members, 8 objects were recovered that can be identified as destructive elements. Which clearly does not fit with the conclusions of Ukrainian “experts”.
The reasons why the Dutch commission excluded the results of the pathological examination from the final report are obvious. They diverge too much from the version about the explosion of a warhead with 8000 destructive elements at the distance they stated from the aircraft cockpit.
As for the Ukrainian manipulators, they happily got into trouble and, with their interpretations that do not correspond to the actual data, only discredited the conclusions of the Dutch commission.
For which we congratulate the Ukrainian “onalitegs”. With such “experts” you don’t need any enemies - they will discredit and spit on themselves worse than any ill-wisher. What else new can you come up with to justify yourself?
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.