Revelations of
German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the “Shooting Down” of Malaysian MH17.
“Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile” by Peter Haisenko
The
tragedy of Malaysian MH 017 continues to elude any light of clarity being cast
over it.
The
flight recorders are in England and are evaluated. What can come of it? Maybe
more than you would assume.
Especially
the voice recorder will be interesting when you look at the picture of a
cockpit fragment. As an expert in aviation I closely looked at the images of
the wreckage that are circulating on the Internet.
Peter Haisenko in
Cockpit of Condor DC 10
First, I was amazed at
how few photos can be found from the wreckage with Google. All are in low
resolution, except one: The fragment of the cockpit below the window on the
pilots side. This image, however, is shocking. In Washington, you can now hear
views expressed of a “potentially tragic error / accident” regarding MH 017.
Given this particular cockpit image it does not surprise me at all.
Entry and exit impact holes of projectiles in the cockpit area
Source for all photos:
Internet
I recommend to click on the little picture to the left.
You can download this photo as a PDF in good resolution. This is necessary,
because that will allow you understand what I am describing here. The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond
the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the
entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These
are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely
that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the
larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced
by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that at these exit
holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are
shredded or bent – outwardly! Furthermore, minor cuts can be seen, all bent
outward, which indicate that shrapnel had forcefully exited through the outer
skin from the inside of the cockpit. The open rivets are are also bent outward.
In sifting through the available images one
thing stands out: All wreckage of the sections behind the cockpit are largely
intact, except for the fact that only fragments of the aircraft remained . Only
the cockpit part shows these peculiar marks of destruction. This leaves the
examiner with an important clue. This
aircraft was not hit by a missile in the central portion. The destruction is
limited to the cockpit area. Now you have to factor in that this part is
constructed of specially reinforced material. This is on account of the
nose of any aircraft having to withstand the impact of a large bird at high
speeds. You can see in the photo, that in this area significantly stronger
aluminum alloys were being installed than in the remainder of the outer skin of
the fuselage. One remembers the crash of Pan Am over Lockerbie. It was a large
segment of the cockpit that due to the special architecture survived the crash
in one piece. In the case of flight MH 017 it becomes abundantly clear that
there also an explosion took place inside the aircraft.
Tank destroying mix of ammunition
Bullet holes in the
outer skin
So what could have
happened? Russia recently published
radar recordings, that confirm at least one Ukrainian SU 25 in close proximity
to MH 017. This corresponds with the statement of the now missing
Spanish controller ‘Carlos’ that has seen two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the
immediate vicinity of MH 017. If we now
consider the armament of a typical SU 25 we learn this: It is equipped with a
double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, equipped with: a 250 round
magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells
(dum-dum), arranged in alternating order. The cockpit of the MH 017 has
evidently been fired at from both sides: the entry and exit holes are found on
the same fragment of it’s cockpit segment!
Now just consider what
happens when a series of anti-tank
incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells hit the cockpit. These are
after all designed to destroy a modern tank. The anti-tank incendiary
shells partially traversed the cockpit and exited on the other side in a
slightly deformed shape. (Aviation forensic experts could possibly find them on
the ground presumably controlled by the Kiev Ukrainian military; the
translator). After all, their impact is designed to penetrate the solid armor
of a tank. Also, the splinter-explosive shells will, due to their numerous
impacts too cause massive explosions inside the cockpit, since they are
designed to do this. Given the rapid firing sequence of the GSh-302 cannon, it
will cause a rapid succession of explosions within the cockpit area in a very
short time. Remember, each of these is sufficient to destroy a tank.
What “mistake” was actually being committed – and by whom?
Graze on the wing
Because the interior of
a commercial aircraft is a hermetically sealed pressurized chamber, the
explosions will, in split second, increase the pressure inside the cabin to
extreme levels or breaking point. An aircraft is not equipped for this, it will
burst like a balloon. This explains a coherent scenario. The largely intact fragments of the rear
sections broke in mid air at the weaker points of construction most likely
under extreme internal air pressure. The images of the widely scattered
field of debris and the brutally damaged segment of cockpit fit like hand in
glove. Furthermore, a wing segment shows traces of a grazing shot, which in
direct extension leads to the cockpit. Interestingly, I found that both the
high-resolution photo of the fragment of bullet riddled cockpit as well as the
segment of grazed wing have in the meantime disappeared from Google Images. One
can find virtually no more pictures of the wreckage, except the well known
smoking ruins.
If you listen to the
voices from Washington now who speak of a “potentially tragic error /
accident”, all that remains is the question of what might have been the nature
of this “mistake” perpetrated here. I am not given to hover long in the realm
of speculation, but would like to invite others to consider the following : The MH 017 looked similar in it’s tricolor
design to that that of the Russian President’s plane. The plane with
President Putin on board was at the same time ”near” Malaysia MH 017. In
aviation circles “close” would be considered to be anywhere between 150 to 200
miles. Also, in this context we might consider the deposition of Ms.
Tymoshenko, who wanted to shoot President Putin with a Kalashnikov.
But
that this remains pure speculation. The shelling of the cockpit of air Malaysia
MH 017, however, is definitely not speculation.
Copyright © 2014 Global Research
Global Research, July
30, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment