Steven Gaal Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Hi Vitali, I agree. The aircraft certainly brought down by a SAM, most likely a BUK. From there on, it is very hard to determine any facts. We have no hard evidence who fired the missile. I still believe that it was the rebels, though. I believe it was a mistake, and that they thought they were firing at a Ukrainian military transport. If this is the case and if it was supplied by the Russians, I don't believe the Russians hold any culpability in the affair. I believe , I believe ...Burton a man of great faith ......Romans 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” ####################################################################################################################### see http://www.globalresearch.ca/malaysian-airlines-mh17-was-ordered-to-fly-over-the-east-ukraine-warzone/5392540 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So far, it was impossible for nsnbc international to acquire certified audio copies of conversations between Ukrainian Air Traffic Controllers and the flight crew on board the Boeing 777-200 from Ukrainian authorities or from the Dutch Safety Board. In its preliminary report the DSB released a “transcript” of the communication, claiming it to be correct and truthful. The “transcript” however, does not allow independent media to analyze the data, to make inquiries into whether the data have been tempered with, or even if the voices match with those of the flight crew. The international flying public is presumably expected to “believe” the DSB and other authorities rather than independent media and verifiable, testable data. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-downed-mh17-flight-in-eastern-ukraine-investigation-marred-by-omissions-and-distortions/5454138 WHY EVAN ?? WHY EVAN CANT WE GET REAL CONVERSATION INFO ?? (GAAL) ______________________________________________ GAAL a man of great faith AND facts... Washington Was Behind Ukraine Coup: Obama admits that ... http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-was-behind-ukraine-coup-obama-admits-that-us-brokered-a-deal-in-support-of-regime-change/5429142 Feb 3, 2015 - US President Barack Obama revealed the United States' involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from its outset and admitted that the United States ... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- also see >>>>>>>> http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/05/chronology-of-the-ukrainian-coup/ <<<<<<<< ####################################################################################################################### Meet the Americans Who Put Together the Coup in Kiev = By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News 25 March 14 f the US State Department's Victoria Nuland had not said "xxxx the EU," few outsiders at the time would have heard of Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, the man on the other end of her famously bugged telephone call. But now Washington's man in Kiev is gaining fame as the face of the CIA-style "destabilization campaign" that brought down Ukraine's monumentally corrupt but legitimately elected President Viktor Yanukovych. "Geoffrey Pyatt is one of these State Department high officials who does what he’s told and fancies himself as a kind of a CIA operator," laughs Ray McGovern, who worked for 27 years as an intelligence analyst for the agency. "It used to be the CIA doing these things," he tells Democracy Now. "I know that for a fact." Now it's the State Department, with its coat-and-tie diplomats, twitter and facebook accounts, and a trick bag of goodies to build support for American policy. A retired apparatchik, the now repentant McGovern was debating Yale historian Timothy Snyder, a self-described left-winger and the author of two recent essays in The New York Review of Books – "The Haze of Propaganda" and "Fascism, Russia, and Ukraine." Both men speak Russian, but they come from different planets. On Planet McGovern – or my personal take on it – realpolitik rules. The State Department controls the prime funding sources for non-military intervention, including the controversial National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which Washington created to fund covert and clandestine action after Ramparts magazine and others exposed how the CIA channeled money through private foundations, including the Ford Foundation. State also controls the far-better-funded Agency for International Development (USAID), along with a growing network of front groups, cut-outs, and private contractors. State coordinates with like-minded governments and their parallel institutions, mostly in Canada and Western Europe. State's "democracy bureaucracy" oversees nominally private but largely government funded groups like Freedom House. And through Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, State had Geoff Pyatt coordinate the coup in Kiev. The CIA, NSA, and Pentagon likely provided their specialized services, while some of the private contractors exhibited shadowy skill sets. But if McGovern knows the score, as he should, diplomats ran the campaign to destabilize Ukraine and did the hands-on dirty work. Harder for some people to grasp, Ambassador Pyatt and his team did not create the foreign policy, which was – and is – only minimally about overthrowing Ukraine's duly elected government to "promote democracy." Ever since Bill Clinton sat in the Oval Office, Washington and its European allies have worked openly and covertly to extend NATO to the Russian border and Black Sea Fleet, provoking a badly wounded Russian bear. They have also worked to bring Ukraine and its Eastern European neighbors into the neoliberal economy of the West, isolating the Russians rather than trying to bring them into the fold. Except for sporadic resets, anti-Russian has become the new anti-Soviet, and "strategic containment" has been the wonky word for encircling Russia with our military and economic power. Nor did neoconservatives create the policy, no matter how many progressive pundits blame them for it. NED provides cushy jobs for old social democrats born again as neocons. Pyatt's boss, Victoria Nuland, is the wife and fellow-traveler of historian Robert Kagan, one of the movement's leading lights. And neocons are currently beating the war drums against Russia, as much to scupper any agreements on Syria and Iran as to encourage more Pentagon contracts for their friends and financial backers. But, encircling Russia has never been just a neocon thing. The policy has bi-partisan and trans-Atlantic support, including the backing of America's old-school nationalists, Cold War liberals, Hillary hawks, and much of Obama's national security team. No matter that the policy doesn’t pass the giggle test. Extending NATO and Western economic institutions into all of a very divided Ukraine had less chance of working than did hopes in 2008 of bringing Georgia into NATO, which could have given the gung-ho Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvilli the treaty right to drag us all into World War III. To me, that seemed like giving a ten-year-old the keys to the family Humvee. Western provocations in Ukraine proved more immediately counterproductive. They gave Vladimir Putin the perfect opportunity for a pro-Russian putsch in Crimea, which he had certainly thought of before, but never as a priority. The provocations encouraged him to stand up as a true Russian nationalist, which will only make him more difficult to deal with. And they gave him cover to get away with that age-old tool of tyrants, a quickie plebiscite with an unnecessary return to Joseph Stalin's old dictum once popular in my homestate of Florida: "It's not the votes that count, but who counts the votes." Small "d" democrats should shun such pretense. Still, most journalists and pollsters on the scene report that – with the exception of the historic Tatar community – the majority of Crimeans want to join the Russian Federation, where they seem likely to stay. Tensions will also grow as the US-picked interim prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk – our man "Yats" – joins with the IMF to impose a Greek, Spanish, or Italian style austerity. Hard-pressed Ukranians will undoubtedly fight back, especially in the predominantly Russian-speaking east. According to Der Spiegel, a whopping three quarters of the people there do not support the coup or government. What a tar patch! A domestic conflict that could split Ukraine in two will inevitably become even further embroiled in the geo-strategic struggle between Russia and the West. On Planet Snyder, as in most Western media, these realistic considerations make absolutely no difference. Ideology rules, masked as idealism. Fine sounding abstractions fill the air. Ukrainians are making their own history. They are acting with great courage. They are seeking the rule of law and their rightful place in "European Civilization." They are defending "sovereignty" and "territorial integrity." Russians remain vicious. Big bad Vlad is the new Hitler. He is seeking his own Eurasian empire (as opposed to NATO's), which could soon include parts of Moldova, Belarus, and Kazakhstan that the West needs like a "lok in kop," a hole in the head. And those watching in the West must abandon what Snyder calls "our slightly self-obsessed notions of how we control or don't control everything." "It was a classic popular revolution," proclaims the professor. An undeniably popular uprising against "an unmistakably reactionary regime." Writing in The Nation, Professor Stephen Cohen shreds Snyder's argument. My concern is more pointed. Popular uprisings deserve our support or opposition depending on who comes to control them and to what ends. As McGovern puts it, "The question is: Who took them over? Who spurred them? Who provoked them for their own particular strategic interests?" Detailed evidence provides the answers. For all the courage of the Ukrainian minority who took to the barricades, US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and his team spurred the protests in Kiev and exercised extensive – though never complete – control over them. Tactically, Pyatt and his fellow diplomats showed unexpected skill. Strategically, they should have stayed home. Revolution on Demand Arriving in the Ukrainian capital on August 3, Pyatt almost immediately authorized a grant for an online television outlet called Hromadske.TV, which would prove essential to building the Euromaidan street demonstrations against Yanukovych. The grant was only $43,737, with an additional $4,796 by November 13. Just enough to buy the modest equipment the project needed. Many of Hromadske's journalists had worked in the past with American benefactors. Editor-in-chief Roman Skrypin was a frequent contributor to Washington's Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and the US-funded Ukrayinska Pravda. In 2004, he had helped create Channel 5 television, which played a major role in the Orange Revolution that the US and its European allies masterminded in 2004. Skrypin had already gotten $10,560 from George Soros's International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), which came as a recommendation to Pyatt. Sometime between December and the following April, IRF would give Hromadske another $19,183. Hromadske's biggest funding in that period came from the Embassy of the Netherlands, which gave a generous $95,168. As a departing US envoy to the Hague said in a secret cable that Wikileaks later made public, "Dutch pragmatism and our similar world-views make the Netherlands fertile ground for initiatives others in Europe might be reluctant, at least initially, to embrace." For Pyatt, the payoff came on November 21, when President Yanukovych pulled back from an Association Agreement with the European Union. Within hours Hromadske.TV went online and one of its journalists set the spark that brought Yanukovych down. "Enter a lonely, courageous Ukrainian rebel, a leading investigative journalist," writes Snyder. "A dark-skinned journalist who gets racially profiled by the regime. And a Muslim. And an Afghan. This is Mustafa Nayem, the man who started the revolution. Using social media, he called students and other young people to rally on the main square of Kiev in support of a European choice for Ukraine." All credit to Nayem for his undeniable courage. But bad, bad history. Snyder fails to mention that Pyatt, Soros, and the Dutch had put Web TV at the uprising's disposal. Without their joint funding of Hromadske and its streaming video from the Euromaidan, the revolution might never have been televised and Yanukovych might have crushed the entire effort before it gained traction. For better or for worse, popular uprisings have changed history long before radio, television, or the Internet. The new technologies only speed up the game. Pyatt and his team understood that and masterfully turned soft power and the exercise of free speech, press, and assembly into a televised revolution on demand, complete with an instant overdub in English. Soros then funded a Ukrainian Crisis Media Center "to inform the international community about events in Ukraine," and I'm still trying to track down who paid for Euromaidan PR, the website of the Official Public Relations Secretariat for the Headquarters of the National Resistance. Orange Revolution II Preparing the uprising started long before Pyatt arrived in country, and much of it revolved around a talented and multi-lingual Ukrainian named Oleh Rybachuk, who had played several key roles in the Orange Revolution of 2004. Strangely enough, he recently drew attention when Pando, Silicon Valley's online news site, attacked journalist Glenn Greenwald and the investor behind his new First Look Media, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. Trading brickbats over journalistic integrity, both Pando and Greenwald missed the gist of the bigger story. In 2004, Rybachuk headed the staff and political campaign of the US-backed presidential candidate Victor Yushchenko. As the generally pro-American Kyiv Post tells it, the shadowy Rybachuk was Yushchenko's "alter ego" and “the conduit” to the State Security Service, which "was supplying the Yushchenko team with useful information about Yanukovych's actions." Rybachuk went on to serve under Yushchenko and Tymoshenko as deputy prime minister in charge of integrating Ukraine into NATO and the European Union. In line with US policy, he also pushed for privatization of Ukraine's remaining state-owned industries. Despite US and Western European backing, the government proved disastrous, enabling its old rival Yanukovych to win the presidency in the 2010 election. Western monitors generally found the election "free and fair," but no matter. The Americans had already sowed the seeds either to win Yanukovych over or to throw him over, whichever way Washington and its allies decided to go. As early as October 2008, USAID funded one of its many private contractors – a non-profit called Pact Inc. – to run the "Ukraine National Initiatives to Enhance Reforms" (UNITER). Active in Africa and Central Asia, Pact had worked in Ukraine since 2005 in campaigns against HIV/AIDS. Its new five-year project traded in bureaucratic buzzwords like civil society, democracy, and good governance, which on the public record State and USAID were spending many millions of dollars a year to promote in Ukraine. Pact would build the base for either reform or regime change. Only this time the spin-masters would frame their efforts as independent of Ukraine's politicians and political parties, whom most Ukrainians correctly saw as hopelessly corrupt. The new hope was "to partner with civil society, young people, and international organizations" – as Canada's prestigious Financial Post later paraphrased no less an authority than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. By 2009, Pact had rebranded the pliable Rybachuk as "a civil society activist," complete with his own NGO, Center UA (variously spelled Centre UA, Tsenter UA, or United Actions Center UA). Pact then helped Rybachuk use his new base to bring together as many as 60 local and national NGOs with activists and leaders of public opinion. This was New Citizen, a non-political "civic platform" that became a major political player. At the time, Pact and Soros's IRF were working in a joint effort to provide small grants to some 80 local NGOs. This continued the following year with additional money from the East Europe Foundation. "Ukraine has been united by common disillusionment," Rybachuk explained to the Kyiv Post. "The country needs a more responsible citizenry to make the political elite more responsible." Who could argue? Certainly not Rybachuk's Western backers. New Citizen consistently framed its democracy agenda as part of a greater integration within NATO, Europe, and the trans-Atlantic world. Rybachuk himself would head the "Civil Expert Council" associated with the EU-Ukraine Cooperation Committee. Continuing to advise on "strategic planning," in May 2010 Pact encouraged New Citizen "to take Access to Public Information as the focus of their work for the next year." The coalition campaigned for a new Freedom of Information law, which passed. Pact then showed New Citizen how to use the law to boost itself as a major player, organize and train new activists, and work more closely with compliant journalists, all of which would seriously weaken the just-elected Yanukovych government. Part of their destabilization included otherwise praiseworthy efforts, none more so than the movement to "Stop Censorship." "Censorship is re-emerging, and the opposition is not getting covered as much,” Rybachuk told the Kyiv Post in May 2010. He was now "a media expert" as well as civic activist. “There are some similarities to what Vladimir Putin did in Russia when he started his seizure of power by first muzzling criticism in the media.” One of Rybachuk's main allies in "Stop Censorship" was the journalist Sergii Leshchenko, who had long worked with Mustafa Nayem at Ukrayinska Pravda, the online newsletter that NED publicly took credit for supporting. NED gave Leshchenko its Reagan Fascell Democracy Fellowship, while New Citizen spread his brilliant exposés of Yanukovych's shameless corruption, focusing primarily on his luxurious mansion at Mezhyhirya. Rybachuk's Center UA also produced a documentary film featuring Mustafa Nayem daring to ask Yanukovych about Mezhyhirya at a press conference. Nothing turned Ukrainians – or the world – more against Yanukovych than the concerted exposure of his massive corruption. This was realpolitik at its most sophisticated, since the US and its allies funded few, if any, similar campaigns against the many Ukrainian kleptocrats who favored Western policy. Under the watchful eye of Pact, Rybachuk's New Citizen developed a project to identify the promises of Ukrainian politicians and monitor their implementation. They called it a "Powermeter" (Vladometer), an idea they took from the American website "Obamameter." Funding came from the US Embassy, through its Media Development Fund, which falls under the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Other money came from the Internews Network, which receives its funding from the State Department, USAID, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and a wide variety of other government agencies, international organizations, and private donors. Still other money came from Soros's IRF. New Citizen and its constituent organizations then brought together 150 NGOs from over 35 cities, along with activists and journalists like Sergii Leschchenko, to create yet another campaign in 2011. They called it the Chesno Movement, from the Ukrainian word for "honestly. " Its logo was a garlic bulb, a traditional disinfectant widely believed to ward off evil. The movement's purpose was "to monitor the political integrity of the parliamentary candidates running in the 2012 elections." This was a mammoth project with the most sophisticated sociology. As expected, the Chesno monitoring found few honest politicians. But it succeeded in raising the issue of public integrity to new heights in a country of traditionally low standards and in building political interest in new areas of the country and among the young. The legislative elections themselves proved grim, with President Yanukovych's Party of the Regions taking control of parliament. What then of all New Citizen's activism, monitoring, campaigning, movement-building, and support for selective investigative journalism? Where was all this heading? Rybachuk answered the question in May 2012, several months before the election. "The Orange Revolution was a miracle, a massive peaceful protest that worked," he told Canada's Financial Post. "We want to do that again and we think we will.” He Who Pays the Piper Rybachuk had good reason for his revolutionary optimism. His Western donors were upping the ante. Pact Inc. commissioned a financial audit for the Chesno campaign, covering from October 2011 to December 2012. It showed that donors gave Rybachuk's Center UA and six associated groups some $800,000 for Chesno. PACT, which regularly got its money from USAID, contributed the lion's share, $632,813, though part of that came from the Omidyar Network, a foundation set up by Pierre and his wife. In a March 12th press release, the network tried to explain its contributions to Rybachuk's Center UA, New Citizen, and the Chesno Movement. These included a two-year grant of $335,000, announced in September 2011, and another $769,000, committed in July 2013. Some of the money went to expand Rybachuk's technology platforms, as New Citizen explained. "New Citizen provides Ukrainians with an online platform to cooperatively advocate for social change. On the site, users can collectively lobby state officials to release of public information, participate in video-advocacy campaigns, and contribute to a diverse set of community initiatives," they wrote. "As a hub of social justice advocates in Kiev, the organization hopes to define the nation’s 'New Citizen' through digital media." Omidyar's recent press release listed several other donors, including the USAID-funded Pact, the Swiss and British embassies, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, the National Endowment for Democracy, and Soros's International Renaissance Foundation. The Chesno Movement also received money from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). Figures for fiscal year 2013 are more difficult to track. Washington's foreignassistance.gov shows USAID paying PACT in Ukraine over $7 million under the general category of "Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance." The data does not indicate what part of this went to Center UA, New Citizen, or any of their projects. What should we make of all this funding? Some of it looks like private philanthropy, as back in the days when the CIA channeled its money through foundations. Was the Soros and Omidyar money truly private or government money camouflaged to look private? That has to remain an open question. But, with Rybachuk's campaigns, it makes little difference. USAID and other government funding dominated. The US Embassy, through Pact, coordinated most of what Rybachuk did. And, to my knowledge, neither Soros nor Omidyar ever broke from the State Department's central direction. Strategic Containment, OK? When Ambassador Pyatt arrived in Kiev, he inherited Pact and its Rybachuk network well on its way to a second Orange Revolution, but only if they thought they needed it to win integration into Europe. That was always the big issue for the State Department and the Ukrainian movement they built, far more telling than censorship, corruption, democracy, or good governance. As late as November 14, Rybachuk saw no reason to take to the streets, fully expecting Yanukovych to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union at a November 28-29 summit in Vilnius. On November 21, Yanukovych pulled back, which Rybachuk saw as a betrayal of government promises. That is what "brought people to the streets," he told Kyiv Post. "It needed to come to this." Euromaidan would become a "massive watchdog," putting pressure on the government to sign the association and free trade deal with the EU, he said. "We'll be watching what the Ukrainian government does, and making sure it does what it has to do." That is where the State Department’s second Orange Revolution started. In my next article, I'll show where it went from there and why. Edited June 14, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 *sigh* "wall o' text". Even you agreed it was a Buk. Detailed information about accidents are normally not released until after the results of the investigation are complete. Sometimes partial information is provided, but wait until the investigation is complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 The evidence suggests that it was a missile fired from a buk system that ukraine has, fron ukrainian occupied territory. Personally, I think not enough attention is given to the tandem revelation that a ukrainian pilot and ground crew were also involved. These missile system need guidance such as those can provide. It's not a matter of 'point and shoot'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 The evidence suggests that it was a missile fired from a buk system that ukraine has, fron ukrainian occupied territory. Personally, I think not enough attention is given to the tandem revelation that a ukrainian pilot and ground crew were also involved. These missile system need guidance such as those can provide. It's not a matter of 'point and shoot'. I'm not sure that it was fired from "government" held territory; can you give some evidence of that? To be honest, I don't who held what territory on that day. We would need to see if there were any sightings of missile smoke trails, what the range of the Buk is and thus what areas it could have been fired from, etc. I don't know if the investigation can tell what general direction the missile came from. Without all this type of information we're pretty much stuck to saying "it was fired from somewhere within this radius around the aircraft at impact". Secondly, I hadn't heard about this "ukrainian pilot and ground crew"; can you tell me what that was about and throw in a couple of references for me to read (no walls of text, please)? Many thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 bit busy atm, I'll answer tomorrow. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 bit busy atm, I'll answer tomorrow. Thank you. Good on you. Many thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) bit busy atm, I'll answer tomorrow. Thank you. see https://www.metabunk.org/was-mh17-downed-by-a-buk-fired-from-zaroshens%E2%80%99kye.t6345/ ============ wreckage tells the tale (from above link) HOWEVER NON HONEST brokers AUSTRALIANS are studying the debris field as we speak to make (coverup) official report. (GAAL) ====================================== Fake Evidence Blaming Russia for MH-17? May 18, 2015 -------------------- https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/18/fake-evidence-blaming-russia-for-mh-17/ ]]]]]]]]]]]]---------------o--------------------[[[[[[[[[[[[[ also see http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/russian-pundit-attacks-tony-abbott-over-cynical-mh17-plot-20141115-11nbk3 ===================================== Let’s Debunk Some of the Debunking of the Flight MH17 Shoot Down Photo Posted on November 15, 2014 by willyloman by Scott Creighton https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/lets-debunk-some-of-the-debunking-of-the-flight-mh17-shoot-down-photo/ (THIS SHOWS BELLINGCAT (BURTON SOURCE) PURE DISINFO,GAAL 00000000000000000000000000000 AUSTRALIA OUT FOR THE BIG LIE (GAAL) Edited June 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Quotes from various articles:"Agapov, a Ukrainian citizen, was serving as a military mechanic in the first squadron of the Ukrainian Air Force’s tactical aviation brigade.According to Markin, the man “voluntarily crossed the state border of the Russian Federation and expressed a desire to cooperate with the Russian investigation.”Agapov has testified that on July 17, 2014, a Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-25 jet aircraft piloted by one Captain Voloshin “set out for a military task,” Markin said.The aircraft returned to the airfield with empty ammunition. To his colleagues, Voloshin said that the plane was "at the wrong time or in the wrong place,” said the Investigative Committee spokesman.“Our jets were flying regularly,” Agapov said in his testimony. “When one returned, the pilot, Captain Voloshin, got out of the cockpit.” He added that, as Captain Voloshin walked away with the other pilots, Agapov heard him say: “That was the wrong plane.”“In the evening we learned that a passenger Boeing was shot down that day,” the witness said.At the end of July, Russia’s Defense Ministry released military monitoring data showing Kiev military jets tracking the MH17 plane shortly before the crash. The ministry also posted satellite images of nearby areas where Kiev had had its air defense units deployed.[find]“If a surface-to-air missile system was used [to hit the plane], it could only have been a 9M38M1 missile of the BUK-M1 system,” Almaz-Antey.among the materials received and examined by their experts were heavy fraction sub munitions, which only the older 9M38M1 missile modification is equipped with. Production of BUK-M1 missiles was discontinued in 1999, at the same time Russia passed all such missiles that were left to international clients,” the company said, adding that this missile type has not been supplied to the Russian Armed Forces since 1995, and none are currently deployed by Russia’s military. Almaz-Antey has evidence that hundreds of BUK-M1 air defense missile systems and their accompanying missiles were still deployed by the Ukrainian Armed Forces as of 2005, the company’s head engineer, Mikhail Malyshev, told reporters on Tuesday. According to the manufacturer, Kiev had a total of 991 9M38M1 missiles at that time, and information available to Almaz-Antey suggested that they had been maintained by Ukraine’s military.If the BUK-M1 missile had indeed been used, it could only have been fired from the area around the village of Zaroschenskoe, the manufacturer said.Earlier in April, senior eastern Ukrainian rebel commander Eduard Basurin stated that the Donetsk People’s Republic had got hold of some of the Ukrainian army’s maps, which showed the positions of Kiev’s forces in July 2014, the time of the MH17 tragedy. Zaroschenskoe was then controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Basurin said. "as far as I can work out using the name as Zaraschenkoe: Zaroshenske is located in the large pocket then occupied by Ukraine. If you look at the map and go to the east sea and follow the border to the first large pocket of Ukrainian occupiers. Z is in the top region of that. It is a mall settlement of about 14 people. This battle map is from about a month later whenm the DNR was reducing this area by the successful campaign that eventually freed this area. Map 2 is as it was/is roughly nowThere is also an account of the pilot and the traffic command person and their communications. Hvaen't found that yet. With that there is sufficient for the launching/spotting/guidingof the missile. The DNR had neither a missile like it nor the logistic support to use it. To say they made a mistake in trying to shoot down a military aircraft is wrong. They didn't have the means to do so in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Some more info on the witness and about an article calling for witnesses with a reward: At interrogation as the witness it reported that served in the Air Force of Ukraine. He knows that on July 17, 2014 after a lunch on a fighting task the Air Force SU-25 plane of Ukraine piloted by the captain Voloshin took off. The specified plane returned on airfield with an empty unit of fire, thus Voloshin explained to the colleagues that "the plane appeared not at that time and not in that place". Later the witness learned that on the same day the civil plane with passengers onboard belonging to Malaysian airline crashed. Originally in the territory of Russia the state protection was provided to this witness. Its indications were carefully checked by investigators, including researches on a polygraph are conducted. As now there are all new proofs of reliability of words of the witness, and also taking into account various throws concerning doubts of the separate engaged mass media in real existence of this witness at this stage we made the decision to open information on him. This witness is the citizen of Ukraine Agapov Evgeny Vladimirovich who passed military service as the mechanic of aviation arms of the first squadron of crew of tactical aircraft of the Air Force of Ukraine (military unit No. A4465). And now it continues to remain under state protection. _____________________ The unknown demanding remuneration of £30 million for information on the tragedy Boeing 777 of the Malaysian Airlines company, injured accident in July, 2014 in the sky over Donetsk region of Ukraine appeared in Germany, the British newspaper The Daily Mail writes. As it is noted, the informant owns data on the one who exactly brought down an airliner. The German private detective Josef Resch declared existence of the person who is ready to tell about causes of the tragedy, however refuses to tell the name. Now he demands the promised award which as emphasizes the edition, exceeds even the remuneration declared by the U.S. President Barack Obama for Osama bin Laden (£25 million). Josef Resch declared remuneration of £18,3 million in September, 2014. Then he declared that will pay this sum to any who will provide information on on what fault there was an accident in the sky over Ukraine. Since then the size of an award grew to £30 million. Arguing on when new sensational data become property of the public, Resh emphasized that expects some loud event shortly. "Any who pays such money for information, doesn't leave it at itself" — he added. At the same time the German hinted that the acting or former employee of intelligence services of one of the countries interested in investigation and establishment of causes of the tragedy can appear the informant the British newspaper writes. Thus it is noted that to Josef Resch the keeper of secret of accident of the flight MH 17 was presented by the intermediary from Sweden. Besides, the source of The Daily Mail reported to the edition that the unknown demanding an award "was in the center of very important political processes for a long time". Earlier the head of the International association of air transport (IATA) Tony Tyler declared that any conclusions about the causes of accident of the Boeing 777 Malaysia Airlines plane in Donetsk region are premature. "Investigation proceeds. And still prematurely to draw some conclusions" — he declared. We will remind, Boeing 777 following flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was wrecked near Donetsk on July 17. Onboard the liner there were 298 people, all of them were lost. The Kiev authorities were accused of accident of rebels, those declared that have no means which would allow to bring down the aircraft at such height. In the preliminary report on investigation it appears that the plane collapsed in flight because of "the structural damages caused by external influence of numerous high-energy objects", but the source of these objects didn't manage to be established. Investigation is made under the leadership of the Netherlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) MH-17 Case Slips into Propaganda Fog By Robert Parry Global Research The Dutch investigation into the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine last July has failed to uncover conclusive proof of precisely who was responsible for the deaths of the 298 passengers and crew but is expected to point suspicions toward the ethnic Russian rebels, fitting with the West’s long-running anti-Russian propaganda campaign. A source who has been briefed on the outlines of the investigation said some U.S. intelligence analysts have reached a contrary conclusion and place the blame on “rogue” elements of the Ukrainian government operating out of a circle of hard-liners around one of Ukraine’s oligarchs. Yet, according to this source, the U.S. analysts will demur on the Dutch findings, letting them stand without public challenge. Throughout the Ukraine crisis, propaganda and “information warfare” have overridden any honest presentation of reality – and the mystery around the MH-17 disaster has now slipped into that haze of charge and counter-charge. Many investigative journalists, including myself, have been rebuffed in repeated efforts to get verifiable proof about the case or even informational briefings. In that sense, the MH-17 case stands as an outlier to the usual openness that surrounds inquiries into airline disasters. The Obama administration’s behavior has been particularly curious, with its rush to judgment five days after the July 17, 2014 shoot-down, citing sketchy social media posts to implicate the ethnic Russian rebels and indirectly the Russian government but then refusing requests for updates. But why the later secrecy? If Director of National Intelligence James Clapper decided that unverified information about the shoot-down could be released five days after the event, why would his office then decide to keep the U.S. public in the dark as more definitive data became available? Over the past 11 months, the DNI’s office has offered no updates on the initial assessment, with a DNI spokeswoman even making the absurd claim that U.S. intelligence had made no refinements of its understanding about the tragedy since July 22, 2014. I’m told that the reason for the DNI’s reversal from openness to secrecy was that U.S. intelligence analysts found no evidence that the Russian government had given the rebels sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles capable of downing an aircraft at 33,000 feet, the altitude of MH-17, and that an examination of U.S. satellite and electronic intelligence instead implicated extremists linked to Ukraine’s U.S.-backed regime, although not to Kiev’s political leadership. At that point, admitting to an erroneous rush to judgment would have embarrassed the administration and undermined the “public diplomacy” campaign around the MH-17 case. By blaming Russia and its President Vladimir Putin last summer, the Obama administration whipped Europe into an anti-Russian frenzy and helped win the European Union’s support for economic sanctions against Russia. Keeping Putin on the defensive is a top U.S. priority. As one senior U.S. government official explained to me, information warfare was the only area in the Ukraine crisis where Washington felt it had an edge over Moscow, which benefited from a host of other advantages, such as geography, economic and cultural ties, and military pressure. ‘False Flags’ It also appears that right-wing Ukrainian political forces, which seized power in the Feb. 22, 2014 coup, have understood the value of propaganda, including “false flag” operations that pin the blame for atrocities on their opponents. One of the most successful may have been the mysterious sniper attacks on Feb. 20, 2014, that slaughtered both police and protesters in Kiev’s Maidan square, with the violence immediately blamed on President Viktor Yanukovych and used to justify his overthrow two days later. Later independent investigations indicated that extreme right-wing elements seeking Yanukovych’s ouster were more likely responsible. Two European Union officials, Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and European Union foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton, were revealed discussing in a phone call their suspicions that elements of the protesters were responsible for the shootings. “So there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition,” Paet told Ashton, as reported by the UK Guardian. [A worthwhile documentary on this mystery is “Maidan Massacre.”] Even U.S. officials have faulted the new regime for failing to conduct a diligent investigation to determine who was to blame for the sniper attack. During a rousing anti-Russian speech in Kiev last month, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power inserted one criticism of the post-coup regime – that “investigations into serious crimes such as the violence in the Maidan and in Odessa [where scores of ethnic Russians were burned alive] have been sluggish, opaque, and marred by serious errors – suggesting not only a lack of competence, but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators accountable.” In other words, regarding the Maidan sniper massacre, the Kiev regime wasn’t willing to reveal evidence that might undermine the incident’s use as a valuable propaganda ploy. That attitude has been shared by the mainstream Western media which has sought to glue white hats on the post-coup regime and black hats on the ethnic Russian rebels who supported Yanukovych and have resisted the new power structure. For instance, since Yanukovych’s ouster nearly 1½ years ago, The New York Times and other mainstream outlets have treated reports about the key role played in the coup regime by neo-Nazis and other far-right nationalists as “Russian propaganda.” However, this week, the Times finally acknowledged the importance of these extremists in Kiev’s military operations. [see Consortiumnews.com’s “Ukraine Merges Nazis and Islamists.”] A similar propaganda fog has enveloped the MH-17 investigation, with the lead investigators – the Dutch, British, Australians and Ukrainians – all firmly in the pro-Kiev and anti-Moscow camp. (Specialists from the United States, Russia and Malaysia have also been involved in the inquiry.) Not surprisingly, leaders in Ukraine and Australia, as well, didn’t wait for the investigation to reach a conclusion before placing the blame on Putin. Last October, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott used an Australian football term in vowing to “shirtfront” Putin about his supposed guilt in the MH-17 case. Media Fakery Keeping the later U.S. intelligence analysis secret also allows for the Putin-did-it propaganda campaigns to go forward in mainstream media outlets and various propaganda fronts. A good example was the Australian “60 Minutes” report in May presenting bogus video evidence supposedly corroborating “Russia-did-it” claims made by British blogger Eliot Higgins. While the segment appeared to be authoritative – supposedly proving that Putin was responsible for mass murder – a closer examination showed that the program had relied on video fakery to mislead its viewers. The key scene supposedly matching up a video of a getaway Buk anti-aircraft missile battery with landmarks in the rebel-controlled city of Luhansk didn’t match up at all. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “You Be the Judge.”] After I revealed the fraud by showing how the two scenes were almost entirely different, the Australian show fell back on a claim that one utility pole in the getaway video looked like a utility pole that its reporting team had found in Luhansk. It is perhaps a sign of how crazy the anti-Russian propaganda has gotten that a major news program could feel that it can make such an absurd argument and get away with it. In a rational world, matching up the two scenes would require all the landmarks to fit, when in this case none of them did. Further, to cite similarities between two utility poles as evidence ignored the fact that most utility poles look alike and there was the additional fact that none of the area around the two utility poles matched at all, including a house behind one that didn’t appear in the scene of the other. [see Consortiumnews.com’s “A Reckless Stand-upper on MH-17.”] However, as long as the U.S. government’s comprehensive intelligence information on MH-17 is kept secret, such sleights of hand can continue to work. I’m told that the Dutch report is likely to contain similar circumstantial claims, citing such things as the possible angle of the fired missile, to suggest that the ethnic Russian rebels were at fault. Last October, the Dutch Safety Board’s initial report answered very few questions, beyond confirming that MH-17 apparently was destroyed by “high-velocity objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside.” Other key questions went begging, such as what to make of the Russian military radar purporting to show a Ukrainian SU-25 jetfighter in the area, a claim that the Kiev government denied. 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. The Kiev authorities insisted that they had no military aircraft in the area at the time. But the 34-page Dutch report was silent on the jetfighter question, although noting that the investigators had received Air Traffic Control “surveillance data from the Russian Federation.” The report also was silent on the “dog-not-barking” issue of whether the U.S. government had satellite surveillance that revealed exactly where the supposed ground-to-air missile was launched and who may have fired it. The Obama administration has asserted knowledge about those facts, but the U.S. government has withheld satellite photos and other intelligence information that could presumably corroborate the charge. Curiously, too, the Dutch report said the investigation received “satellite imagery taken in the days after the occurrence.” Obviously, the more relevant images in assessing blame would be aerial photography in the days and hours before the crash. The Dutch report’s reference to only post-crash satellite photos was also odd because the Russian military released a number of satellite images purporting to show Ukrainian government Buk missile systems north of the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk before the attack, including two batteries that purportedly were shifted 50 kilometers south of Donetsk on July 17, the day of the crash, and then removed by July 18. Russian Lt. Gen. Andrey Kartopolov called on the Ukrainian government to explain the movements of its Buk systems and why Kiev’s Kupol-M19S18 radars, which coordinate the flight of Buk missiles, showed increased activity leading up to the July 17 shoot-down. The Ukrainian government countered these questions by asserting that it had “evidence that the missile which struck the plane was fired by terrorists, who received arms and specialists from the Russian Federation,” according to Andrey Lysenko, spokesman for Ukraine’s Security Council, using Kiev’s preferred term for the rebels. Lysenko added: “To disown this tragedy, [Russian officials] are drawing a lot of pictures and maps. We will explore any photos and other plans produced by the Russian side.” But Ukrainian authorities have failed to address the Russian evidence except through broad denials. Where’s the Intelligence? On July 29, 2014, amid escalating rhetoric against Russia from U.S. government officials and the Western news media, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity called on President Obama to release what evidence the U.S. government had on the shoot-down, including satellite imagery. “As intelligence professionals we are embarrassed by the unprofessional use of partial intelligence information,” the group wrote. “As Americans, we find ourselves hoping that, if you indeed have more conclusive evidence, you will find a way to make it public without further delay. In charging Russia with being directly or indirectly responsible, Secretary of State John Kerry has been particularly definitive. Not so the evidence. His statements seem premature and bear earmarks of an attempt to ‘poison the jury pool.’” However, the Obama administration has failed to make public any intelligence information that would back up its earlier suppositions or any new evidence at all. One source told me that U.S. intelligence analysts are afraid to speak out about the information that contradicts the original rush to judgment because of Obama’s aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers. If the Dutch final report emerges with carefully circumscribed circumstantial evidence implicating the pro-Russian rebels, the nuances will surely be carved away when the report is fed into the existing propaganda machinery. The conventional wisdom about “Russian guilt” will be firmed up. A sense of how that will go can be seen in a recent New York Times article by David Herszenhorn on June 29: “Pro-Russian separatist leaders in the eastern Ukrainian region of Luhansk have blocked access to Dutch law enforcement officials pursuing an investigation into the downing of a Malaysian jetliner nearly a year ago, the Netherlands Public Prosecution Office said. … “The obstruction by separatist officials prompted the investigators, from the Dutch National Police and Ministry of Defense, to cut short their field work in Ukraine without conducting research into cellphone towers and cellular networks in the region, the public prosecution office said. … “Based on preliminary analysis and intelligence, including from the United States government, the aircraft was widely believed to have been destroyed by a surface-to-air missile fired from territory controlled by Russian-backed separatist forces.” While the thrust of Herszenhorn’s article made the ethnic Russian rebels look bad – and foreshadows some of the points likely to be featured in the Dutch investigative report – perhaps the most significant word in the story is “preliminary.” While it’s true that the U.S. government’s “preliminary” report on July 22, 2014, implicated the rebels, the more pertinent question – not asked by the Times – is why there has been no refinement of that “preliminary” report. The Dutch Safety Board issued a brief progress report on July 1 noting that it had submitted a draft of its final report to “accredited representatives of the participating States on … June 2,” giving them 60 days to submit comments before a “definitive final” report is published in October. Meanwhile, Dutch prosecutors handling the criminal investigation say they have no specific suspects, but lead investigator Fred Westerbeke claims the probe has a number of “persons of interest.” Westerbeke said the criminal probe will likely run through the end of the year or later. Edited July 11, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vitali Zhuk Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) Everybody should to know the time of satellite flights to analyze correctly the satellite photo. This is the timetable of all reconnaissance satellites flights above MH17 crash point at July 17, 2014: Time (UTC+0) = Satellite Name = Resolution, m =Owner 3:12 COSMO-SKYMED 1 = 1 = Italy 3:25 COSMO-SKYMED 2 = 1 = Italy 3:26 COSMO-SKYMED 4 = 1 = Italy 3:32 KOMPASAT 5 = 1 = S.Korea 7:50 USA-245 = 0,1 = USA 8:09 CARTOSAT 2a = 0,8 = India 8:42 Ресурс-ДК-1 = 1 = Russia 9:03 CARTOSAT 2 = 0,8 = India 9:03 CARTOSAT 2b = 0,8 = India 9:10 GeoEye-1 = 0,41 = USA 9:19 WorldView-1 = 0,5 = USA 9:26 Pleiade 1 = 0,5 = France 9:33 Ikonos 2 = 0,8 = USA 9:43 Ресурс-П-1 = 0,7 = Russia 11:04 Helios 2B = 0,3 = France 11:13 USA-224 = 0,1 = USA 11:28 Kompsat 3 = 0,7 = S.Korea 12:41 IGS-6A = 0,6 = Japan 12:52 Eros B = 0,7 = Israel 13:15 Flight MH17 16:32 COSMO-SKYMED 1 = 1 = Italy 16:39 KOMPASAT 5 = 1 = S.Korea 16:45 COSMO-SKYMED 2 = 1 = Italy 16:46 COSMO-SKYMED 4 = 1 = Italy 17:16 USA-186 = 0,1 = USA ? QuickBird-2 = 0,61 = USA Edited July 14, 2015 by Vitali Zhuk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) Everybody should to know the time of satellite flights to analyze correctly the satellite photo. This is the timetable of all reconnaissance satellites flights above MH17 crash point at July 17, 2014: Time (UTC+0) = Satellite Name = Resolution, m =Owner 3:12 COSMO-SKYMED 1 = 1 = Italy 3:25 COSMO-SKYMED 2 = 1 = Italy 3:26 COSMO-SKYMED 4 = 1 = Italy 3:32 KOMPASAT 5 = 1 = S.Korea 7:50 USA-245 = 0,1 = USA 8:09 CARTOSAT 2a = 0,8 = India 8:42 Ресурс-ДК-1 = 1 = Russia 9:03 CARTOSAT 2 = 0,8 = India 9:03 CARTOSAT 2b = 0,8 = India 9:10 GeoEye-1 = 0,41 = USA 9:19 WorldView-1 = 0,5 = USA 9:26 Pleiade 1 = 0,5 = France 9:33 Ikonos 2 = 0,8 = USA 9:43 Ресурс-П-1 = 0,7 = Russia 11:04 Helios 2B = 0,3 = France 11:13 USA-224 = 0,1 = USA 11:28 Kompsat 3 = 0,7 = S.Korea 12:41 IGS-6A = 0,6 = Japan 12:52 Eros B = 0,7 = Israel 13:15 Flight MH17 16:32 COSMO-SKYMED 1 = 1 = Italy 16:39 KOMPASAT 5 = 1 = S.Korea 16:45 COSMO-SKYMED 2 = 1 = Italy 16:46 COSMO-SKYMED 4 = 1 = Italy 17:16 USA-186 = 0,1 = USA ? QuickBird-2 = 0,61 = USA http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/5468928/us-not-registering-all-spy-satellites Its not clear there is a true list of reconnaissance satellites. ,gaal =========================================== Russia's space defense troops spot foreign spying satellites ... rt.com/news/249001-spy-satellites-disclosed-russia/Cached RT Loading... Apr 12, 2015 - A group of electronic reconnaissance satellites disguised as space junk has been disclosed by Russian aerospace defense troops. The devices were put into ... Edited July 14, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vitali Zhuk Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Its not clear there is a true list of reconnaissance satellites. ,gaal =========================================== Russia's space defense troops spot foreign spying satellites ... rt.com/news/249001-spy-satellites-disclosed-russia/Cached Loading... Apr 12, 2015 - A group of electronic reconnaissance satellites disguised as space junk has been disclosed by Russian aerospace defense troops. The devices were put into ... DigitalGlobe shot this images on July 16, 2014. It means there were no stealth satellites at this region to do that job. Misty project: USA-53 (Misty-1) is down. USA-144 (Misty-2) is very old (operated since 1999): USA-144 orbit is a mystery. Hobbyist satellite observers continue to track an object from that launch in a 2700 km × 3100 km, 63.4° orbit, but detailed orbital analysis reveals significant solar radiation pressure perturbations, from an area to mass ratio of about 0.1 m2/kg, 10 to 20 times that of a payload, and more akin to debris or a decoy, can be deduced. It appears to be no more than 5 to 10 m across, and only a few hundred kilograms in mass. If USA-144 is Misty-2, then it is likely to be in a 700 to 800 km, quasi 65° orbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Its not clear there is a true list of reconnaissance satellites. ,gaal =========================================== Russia's space defense troops spot foreign spying satellites ... rt.com/news/249001-spy-satellites-disclosed-russia/Cached Loading... Apr 12, 2015 - A group of electronic reconnaissance satellites disguised as space junk has been disclosed by Russian aerospace defense troops. The devices were put into ... DigitalGlobe shot this images on July 16, 2014. It means there were no stealth satellites at this region to do that job. Misty project: USA-53 (Misty-1) is down. USA-144 (Misty-2) is very old (operated since 1999): USA-144 orbit is a mystery. Hobbyist satellite observers continue to track an object from that launch in a 2700 km × 3100 km, 63.4° orbit, but detailed orbital analysis reveals significant solar radiation pressure perturbations, from an area to mass ratio of about 0.1 m2/kg, 10 to 20 times that of a payload, and more akin to debris or a decoy, can be deduced. It appears to be no more than 5 to 10 m across, and only a few hundred kilograms in mass. If USA-144 is Misty-2, then it is likely to be in a 700 to 800 km, quasi 65° orbit. at a time. Satellite vuln - Yumpu https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/26458667/...the...-/79Cached DigitalGlobe launched its first WorldView-1 satellite in 2007, and GeoEye ... Little is known about the capabilities of the stealth satellites in the Misty program. ==================== I don't think a definitive statement can be made of locations of all stealth satellites. ,gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vitali Zhuk Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/26458667/...the...-/79 Cached DigitalGlobe launched its first WorldView-1 satellite in 2007, and GeoEye ... Little is known about the capabilities of the stealth satellites in the Misty program. ==================== I don't think a definitive statement can be made of locations of all stealth satellites. ,gaal I think a definitive statement can be made of locations of all stealth satellites. It's a question of safeness in space. It is found the RCS can be decreased with the stealth satellite, but not enough to hide it from modern Space Fence system. http://www.jpier.org/PIERM/pierm42/11.15033102.pdf To the Theme The new report of Russian specialists was published (in Russian) - http://albert-lex.livejournal.com/68374.html (pdf version - https://vk.com/doc279048278_407591063 ) I'm not sure of correctness of this report, just for information. Main in this report about missile warhead that blew MH17 1. Warhead weight was 10..40 kg (Buk missile warhead weight is 70 kg) 2. All warhead elements were of the same type and had size 8*8*6 mm and weight 2.4..3.7 g (Buk missile warhead consists of three types of elements and most massive element weight is 8.1 g) It's differ from the version Almaz-Antei published. Edited July 15, 2015 by Vitali Zhuk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now