USA AS PROFESSIONAL MAGICIANS: THE CRASH OF THE BOEING 777 (MH-17) IN UKRAINE

The Ukrainian journalist Anatoly Shariy, who likes me with his videos, who found refuge just in Holland, spoke with indignation to those senile people who discuss the moronic-fantastic version that there were dead people on board the Malaysian Boeing. His argument is ironclad – Shariy himself has been to Amsterdam airport more than once and guarantees that it is impossible to load at least a dozen dead people on board the plane there. Is it logical? Very. If you do not take into account the professional meanness of the USA.

And if you take into account?

Of course, the search engines did not give out all the photos, but, in any case, those that interested journalists. What can I say. A lot of things confused me. For example, here is a photo of an engine fan of an unfortunate Boeing 777.

and here is a photo of the engine itself

These photos are good because there are people standing near the fan and engine, and their height can be used for scale. And here’s what a real GE90-115B engine installed on a Boeing 777 looks like compared to a human

And so the engines of the 777th look in comparison with the engines, and the fuselage of the Boeing 737

(The diameter of the Boeing 777 engine is only 30 cm less than the width of the 737 cabin). I don’t want to start with statements, but don’t you find that the remains of the engines at the crash site are somehow very different in size from the engines of a real Boeing 777?

Further, in my life I had to load scrap metal into railway gondola cars and onto platforms. Of course, I can make a mistake, but, in my opinion, there is no more than 20-25 tons of black and non-ferrous scrap metal from the Boeing 777 in all photos and videos. Moreover, the scrap metal is very dimensional – there are no very large pieces, although the dimensions of the Boeing 777 even of early modifications are 67 by 65 meters of very strong structures. And the dry weight of the Boeing 777 is up to 160 tons. Where are the rest of his designs? Burned down?

Yes, the main structural material of the airframe is rolled (sheet, beams, pipes) made of alloyed aluminum.

When heated in the air to the melting point, such a material can burn, but it is necessary to organize this gorenje – it is necessary to heat and supply oxygen (air) with understanding. First of all, it is necessary to organize as large an oxidation surface as possible (for which, when it is necessary to oxidize all aluminum, it is sometimes crushed into powder). After all, you have both frying pans and aluminum pots in your kitchen, and the temperature of the blue flame of the gas stove burner is about 2000 degrees. Well, how many frying pans have you disappeared, like a Boeing 777, burned on the stove? They will melt, but they will not burn – they have a small oxidation surface. And the gorenje temperature of aviation kerosene in the air is only 800 degrees.

It can be agreed that such favorable conditions for the oxidation of aluminum to smoke (from the smallest particles of aluminum oxide) in CERTAIN CASES are created in the places gorenje kerosene fuel tanks of crashed aircraft.

We can agree that when the whole plane falls nose down, and the wing fuel tanks fall on the crumpled nose part, and the tail part falls on them, then a well-organized bonfire turns out, hot gases from which rise up, drawing in new and new portions of air from the sides. But even in this case, the wings behind the fuel tanks will remain intact. And according to our version of the case, the plane fell to pieces in the air, and its fragments fell in a strip, according to some evidence, 60 km long. That is, we can agree that in the places where the fuel tanks fall, part of the aircraft structures will burn, but the rest of the airframe will remain intact!

But all this, of course, is not for A. Sharia, who does not consider moronic-fantastic versions. However, let him forgive me, but I will allow myself to consider this version further.

Information that the Boeing passengers were dead even before the accident was first received from Strelkov on July 18 at 11:53.

He told the correspondent: “According to the people who collected the corpses, a significant part of the corpses are “stale”. People died up to a few days ago. I cannot vouch for the complete reliability of this information – of course, the conclusion of forensic experts is necessary.” There is no, say, propaganda background in the information, for example, to blame their responsibility on the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The information that there were corpses in the liners will not harm Kiev. The correspondent did not understand, and asked for details: “Someone else has to pilot such an aircraft, which will also be impossible to leave. The version with an airplane full of dead people is exciting, of course, but somehow it doesn’t make sense.”

And Strelkov answered in more detail at 12:40: “Firstly, not all the people on the plane were dead before the fall. Secondly, a large amount of medicines, blood serum and other things were found on the plane, which is uncharacteristic for a conventional airliner. It seems that there was a medical special cargo. Thirdly, I do not insist on anything (yet). Just now I was talking to two people who personally collected the corpses immediately after the fall (both were from Shakhtersk and arrived at the scene less than half an hour after the disaster). I write from their words. They stressed that many corpses turned out to be “completely bloodless” – as if the blood had coagulated long before the disaster. They also noted the strongest corpse smell, noted by many locals – such a smell could not be formed in any weather for half an hour, and the weather yesterday was cloudy, not too hot. Fourthly, I myself am extremely suspicious of all kinds of “conspiracy theories”, but 18 of our fighters poisoned with chemicals at positions in Semenovka, the executions of members of militia families and other “little joys of well-known patriots” convinced me that the Ukrainian authorities are capable of any meanness.” Here Strelkov is mistaken, such a scam is beyond the junta’s shoulders – the junta is nothing more than the executor of certain actions of the American plan. Strelkov finished: “The pilots, of course, were quite alive – the whole cabin (and the front part was well preserved) was literally flooded with their blood.”

Let’s remember this information – the militia saw the cabin well preserved – this information will be useful to us later.

And now about the bodies and their fragments. The video from Sharia’s website shows about three dozen bodies, several of them burned, but the rest did not get into the fire. And there are no traces of blood on any of them. By the way, the victims are almost all dressed as if they fell not from the cabin of an air-conditioned plane, but directly from the tropics, that is, they beat their naked bodies on the ground. And the blood is not visible! A leg torn off at the ankle is shown, without a sock… and without traces of blood. And how so? Shari believes that it is not worth paying attention to. And if you do?

There are a lot of questions. For example, everything is fixed firmly enough on the plane, but I didn’t see a single device or object attached to the structures – everything is separate.

Here is a hydraulic cylinder of some kind of drive with fingers carefully removed from the eyelets

The “black boxes” are touching – the impression is that they were only brought from a dusty warehouse at all

Did the crew take the plane apart during the fall? If it was a passenger plane, then it was carrying people and their luggage. But in the photo we see a pile that leaves the impression of an unloaded garbage truck.

There are also peacocks

And where are the suitcases and bags, which should be about six hundred, given the flight distance? They are there, but in a very, very modest amount

And this is all the luggage of almost 300 passengers? They will tell me that the luggage was stolen by the militia. It’s you, being at the crash site, who would definitely have stolen luggage, and I will believe it. But I can’t believe that the luggage was stolen by the militia, overloaded with weapons, bulletproof vests and shooting their comrades for looting. And here is a question for Shariy, who is sure that it was impossible to load corpses into the plane in Amsterdam. And where is at least one material proof at the crash site that the passengers found dead near Donetsk boarded the plane in Amsterdam?

But their safety and appearance have already caused such a wide discussion on the Internet that I will leave the passports without comment. Cash and various paper products have been preserved.

But among these papers there is not a single boarding pass, half of which is stored at the airport, and half at each passenger. And there is not a single baggage tag or receipt, and these baggage tags are not visible on those suitcases and bags that were photographed at the crash site. But these tags are attached to the luggage very firmly.

So how can we prove that the dead people found in the Donbass boarded the plane at Amsterdam airport? The fact that they are dressed the way they dress in the tropics? Or by the fact that dead peacocks were found, and to prove by further reasoning that it was the Dutch who deported peacocks to their historical homeland due to the lack of visas?

There are a lot of oddities, but I will stop discussing the details and deal with the cabin, as promised.

And when the militia reported to Strelkov that the cabin was well preserved, then, indeed, it should not have burned down. In general, the entire front part of the aircraft should have been well preserved up to the wings with fuel tanks (and this is a third of the fuselage of the aircraft), if the 777, as legend or version says (as it seems more convincing to anyone), fell apart into several pieces in the air.

But did the militia, reporting on the cabin, imagine what size the Boeing cabin was? Here’s the question.
But there is nowhere to go – the militia actually saw something similar to the cockpit, because he reported that it was covered with blood. It remains to find a photo of the cabin, fortunately, its location is known – near the settlement of Rassypnaya.

However, the search did not yield anything – not a single photo of anything similar to the cockpit of the Boeing 777 was found in the photo from the crash site. Unless, of course, the militia was not talking about this fragment:

or this

But these fragments are definitely not the cabin of a Boeing 777, even if they are covered in blood. How so? The cabin was of no interest to journalists, or is there really no real 777 cabin on earth? In aviation, the Boeing 777 is not one of the last giants – it has a fuselage with a diameter of 6 meters. And not a single piece of an airplane of this size has been found at the crash site so far. Yes, I repeat, it’s hard to believe, but suppose that such a giant plane could fall apart in the air. But it couldn’t shatter into small pieces in the air, even if it exploded from the inside! The head of the aircraft, the tail, 15-20 meter wing tips – all this would have to be on the ground. But there is no such thing!

Moreover, even what is there cannot be accurately identified as fragments of the 777th. I have already written about the engines, but here is the only and deliberately bad photo of a piece of skin, allegedly from the cockpit of this unfortunate Malaysian Boeing 777.

We will not pay attention to the holes, in my opinion, punched with a pickaxe, both from the outside and from the inside. But is it possible to say for sure that this part of the extreme left frame of the cockpit glazing is from the Boeing 777:

and not from a Boeing 737?

What is the result. Near Donetsk there is no most of the design of the Boeing 777, but there is a dump of a small part of the fragments of the fuselage and equipment, as if from a Boeing 777, a dump that stretches for many kilometers. There is a lot of garbage of various contents. There are about three hundred corpses, but by the complete absence of boarding passes and baggage receipts with them, it can be argued that these people did not board the plane at least at some European airport. There are few suitcases and bags about which it can be said that they were not accepted on board the plane at any European airport. So what’s the point of speculating about whose and which missile shot down not a Boeing 777, but these couple of gondola cars of scrap metal and an air morgue?

A reliable and unconditional conclusion is that the Malaysian Boeing 777, which took off from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on flight MH17, has disappeared.

And once it has disappeared, then you need to turn to a country that is a professional in the field of aircraft disappearance – the United States. For them to “disappear” the plane, it’s like a spit.

UKRAINE. FLIGHT MH17. INFORMATION FOR REFLECTION

Let’s remember at least September 11, 2001 in the USA – the day when two planes crashed into two New York skyscrapers in front of the public, and these skyscrapers collapsed in front of the people. But on the same day, the third Boeing 757 (length – 54.07 m, wingspan – 38.05 m, height – 13.56 m, fuselage width – 3.7 m) disappeared without a trace in the Pentagon, slipping inside into a hole comparable to the window of the building, and leaving neither the wings nor a piece of skin outside:

The fourth Boeing 757 crashed in Pennsylvania. Fell without a trace. Journalists were shown from afar a burnt place with some garbage (in which, of course, the “investigating” this disaster found the passports of terrorists). Here is a top view of the place of his fall:

And if you consider that the third skyscraper in New York is the 47-storey “Seventh Tower” of the shopping center

– which was supposed to get that Boeing, which crashed in Pennsylvania, as it were, – five hours later it collapsed by itself from grief, and just like the first two skyscrapers (which the planes hit), the degree of illusionism of the United States is off the scale.

The lights of world democracy are such magicians that it’s amazing how Copperfield hasn’t hanged himself with envy yet, and the UN hasn’t declared September 11 World Illusionist Day. Of course, the United States owes all these tricks to stupid and vile journalists, but this is by the way.

As an example of American tricks, I want to cite the very first, already ancient, but practically similar case with the “shooting down” of a Korean Boeing 747 by a Soviet fighter over the Sea of Okhotsk on September 1, 1983.
But about this and the rest of the facts of the “moronic-fantastic” version – at the end of the article.

The United States as specialists in provocations

So, in the first part it is noted that not a single witness of the disaster in Donbass saw a falling plane – everyone saw only falling debris. But if a real Boeing 777 collapsed and fell in the air, then there must be complete fragments of the fuselage on the ground and, most importantly, two of the world’s largest turbojet engines, 3.2 meters in diameter and weighing 9 tons each. There are none.

If it was flight MN 17 from Amsterdam, then baggage tags must be on the luggage, and baggage receipts with the bodies. For some reason, they were not photographed. And why can’t you see several hundred mobile phones, tablets and laptops of passengers? Well, okay.

Now, from the point of view of the disaster near Donetsk, let’s consider the case of a Korean airliner that was allegedly shot down by Soviet air defense in the sky over Sakhalin almost 30 years ago – September 1, 1983.

The official and generally accepted media legend: the brutal Soviet scum shot down a peaceful defenseless Boeing-747 passenger plane that was flying from the United States to South Korea on flight KAL-007. In addition to the crew members and unaccounted persons, 269 passengers were killed in this plane. Thanks to the “free” democratic press and, by the way, the press of the USSR, the whole world knows about this.

A significantly smaller number of people knew that this plane was not flying on its usual safe route, but specifically flew into the territory of the USSR and flew over it with a spy mission. He was supposed to provoke the inclusion of Soviet air defense radars, and the American satellite above him to determine the parameters of these radars. (In this regard, the Boeing took off from Anchorage specifically 40 minutes later than the schedule in order to be over the territory of the USSR simultaneously with the satellite). The Americans needed radar data so that, in the event of war, they could launch their bombers along a route where it would be impossible to detect them with our detection means. Accordingly, it did not occur to the Soviet air defense that a passenger plane was flying, everyone believed that it was an American RC-135 electronic reconnaissance aircraft.

Today, the obviously mean behavior of the then US President Reagan and his administration in all matters related to the investigation of this case is no longer surprising. For example, the investigation of this disaster, like any plane crash, in the United States should have been handled by the National Transportation Safety Administration – since this is a direct matter of its specialists. But the agency was immediately banned by the US government. The “investigation” was taken up by the US State Department (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in our opinion), although there are no specialists in sight there. As a result of such an “investigation”, the records at the tracking stations for this aircraft were destroyed, the negotiations of American and Japanese dispatchers disappeared, the tape recording of our pilot’s negotiations with the guidance stations was forged so rudely that even American journalists noticed it at the first time it was voiced, etc., etc.
And now evaluate the story of the Malaysian Boeing. Ukraine should investigate the accident, but it has transferred its responsibility to the Netherlands, and that “black boxes” have already been sent to England. And already on July 27, the press happily reported that the data of the “black boxes” confirmed the missile hit the Boeing, as they confirm “decompression as a result of a powerful explosion.” And who would doubt that they would “confirm”?

However, when in 2001 the Ukrainian air defense with an even more powerful missile shot down a Tu-154 flying from Tel Aviv to Novosibirsk at the same altitude over the Black Sea, the pilots turned on the radio transmitter three times for another 45 seconds of its fall and all the dispatchers on the ground heard their screams. And then silence… Moreover, Ukraine does not transmit recordings of its air traffic controllers for investigation, but this fact does not bother the British-Dutch “investigators” at least. Well, okay, let’s go back to that Korean Boeing.

How a Korean was shot down

Evaluate how competently the Boeing pilot flew the plane over our territory, who, by the way, before serving in this civilian Korean airline was a pilot with the rank of colonel of the South Korean Air Force. See. A Boeing flew into our territory from Kamchatka. He was spotted by ground-based radar stations (radars), a couple of our fighters took to the air, but the Boeing pilot dropped from 10 to 3 km and entered the radar-impenetrable zone of the Kamchatka volcanoes. The guidance stations of our fighters lost it and could not bring the pair into the air. She, having used up fuel, sat down. Boeing appeared on the radar screens again, then a couple more fighters were lifted into the air, but it was already so far away that they did not have enough fuel to catch up with it. Then the Korean flew to Sakhalin, 2 more of our fighters were lifted into the air there, but the Boeing maneuvered again and entered an area inaccessible to ground-based radar, and our guidance stations lost it again, that is, they were again unable to direct fighters at it.

However, Lieutenant Colonel Osipovich, who was lifted into the air on his Su-15, still managed to spot the impudent on-board radar and find him. However, on approach, when Osipovich wanted to show himself to Boeing and demand landing from him, he made another maneuver – the Boeing dropped the speed from 900 to 400 km/ h. The Su-15 cannot fly at such a speed, he missed the Korean and had to do new maneuvers to turn around and approach the Boeing, after which there was little fuel left in the tanks of our interceptor, and the Korean was already close to the border. As a result, without having time to gain altitude, Osipovich lifted the nose of the aircraft and fired two missiles after it from an atypical position – from the bottom up, from a distance of 5 km. So let’s say a word of praise to the late Boeing pilot: he was “that kind of thing”: he knew how to fly and was able to evade combat with fighters.

I will not be distracted by the question of why, the Soviet side immediately confirmed the fact of the destruction of the Korean airliner by a Soviet fighter. As expected, the Korean Boeing crashed in neutral waters off the island of Moneron. The USSR began searching for the wreckage a week later, and deep-sea vehicles for bottom surveys and lifting bodies and debris were able to deliver to the scene of the event only a month later. All this time, American and Japanese ships and ships freely sailed through this area of the sea, American planes flew.

What have you found

Indeed, deep-sea vehicles found something at the bottom. Not the fuselage of a huge Boeing, not its wings, not hundreds of seats, etc., but a few very small aircraft debris, flattened by some kind of explosion. And not a single burnt thing was found among the wreckage. And what was found, not only from experts, but already from divers caused a lot of questions. Here is the story of one of them: “I didn’t miss a single descent. I have a very clear impression: the plane was filled with garbage and there were no people there. Why? Well, if a plane crashes, even a small one. As a rule, there should be suitcases, handbags, at least handles from suitcases… And there was something that, I think, normal people should not carry on the plane. Well, say, a roll of amalgam – like from a garbage dump… The clothes are all like from a landfill – pieces have been torn out of it… We’ve been working for almost a month! There were also few wearable things – there were jackets, raincoats, shoes – very few. And what they found was some kind of rags! Here we found, say, a scattering of compact boxes. They remained intact, opened. But what is strange is that everyone has broken mirrors inside. The plastic cases are completely intact, and the mirrors are all broken. Or umbrellas: all in covers, in whole covers – not even torn. And they themselves are crumpled, non–working… Knives, forks are twisted.”

But the main thing is not that, the main thing is that out of almost 300 people who flew on this Boeing, not a SINGLE body was found! But they should have been there, strapped to their seats like anchors, or surfaced if they had time to put on life jackets. For the entire time of the search, a clump of hair and an allegedly torn hand in a sleeve and glove were photographed by deep-sea vehicles. That’s it! And where are the passengers? After all, the fact that they died is for sure, but where are their bodies?

To what extent this “crash site” reeks of a fake, one can judge by such examples.

2 years later, exactly the same Boeing 747 of an Indian airline exploded in the sky over the Atlantic at an altitude of 10 km. On the first day of the search, the bodies of 123 passengers were found, the next day 8 more and 4 months later, during a deep–sea study, another one was strapped to the seat.

5 years later, in 1988, the Challenger exploded with 7 astronauts on board at an altitude of about 15 km. 254,000 fragments of the spacecraft, 90% of the fragments of the cockpit and the bodies of all astronauts were lifted from the ocean floor. And there’s not a single passenger here?

Both our and Japanese rescuers collected a total of 1,020 fragments of this Korean airliner disaster, among which the Japanese picked up 13 fragments of bodies, but not at the search site – more on this below.

Inconsistencies of facts

There is a natural question that the Soviet press, leading an “irreconcilable ideological war”, unanimously did not discuss – was this Boeing shot down by a Soviet fighter? After all, Lieutenant Colonel Osipovich, having fired two missiles at him and presumably hitting one in the fuselage and the other in one of the 4 engines, said: “The target has been destroyed,” only because, firstly, he had already turned to the airfield on the remnants of fuel and did not see the plane crash, secondly He believed that he had launched an American RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft, which could have had enough missiles (“dry weight” – 45 tons). But in order to shoot down such an aircraft as this Boeing-747 (“dry weight” – 162 tons), it is required by calculation at least 7 such missiles as were on the Su-15!

Further, the Americans calculated the time of the Boeing’s fall from the marks on their radars after it was hit by missiles. Up to a height of 300 m (when the mark disappeared from the radar), it fell for 12 minutes. Compare: if he was just going to land, it would take him 15 minutes, but if he was falling out of control, then 30 seconds. So was he falling or flying? That is, the Boeing was not shot down, the pilot simply dropped to a height at which normal pressure was established in the depressurized cabin. But if the plane didn’t crash in the place where some debris was found, then where did it go?

Facts from a specialist

In the case of the Korean airliner, there was indeed a specialist – a person whose profession is the investigation of plane crashes – Frenchman Michel Bran. He, as a specialist, investigated not only those facts that the owners of the “free” press and the then Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU liked, but also those about which they are silent. And he came to conclusions for which, naturally, he was considered a visionary and an idiot.

Looking ahead, I must say that Bran was wrong in believing that Osipovich shot down not a passenger Boeing-747, but a reconnaissance aircraft, but Bran was not mistaken about what really happened to the Korean airliner. In 1991, M. Bran gave an interview in the book by A. Illem and A. Shalnev “The Secret of the Korean Boeing-747” (“fantasies” in their terminology), in which I shortened the part in which Bran assumes a battle between Soviet fighters and an American intelligence officer. (The wreckage of this scout, in his opinion, was examined by our divers, mistaking it for the wreckage of a Boeing). M. Bran reported (highlighted by me): “In this case, the most important thing is the specific details, which an amateur can pass by, but which a professional will certainly cling to. I once took part in the investigation of a number of major disasters in civil aviation and I remember when I first heard about the loss of the South Korean Boeing, I said to myself right away – it will be found within two weeks. Well, on the strength of a month – after all, the world’s largest “passenger” cannot get lost at shallow depths with a bottom as flat as a plate, when even much smaller planes were found in ocean crevices at a depth of one and a half to two kilometers. Alas, I made a mistake in my forecast, some kind of secret leapfrog began with the participation of many “influential parties” and with the presentation of such justifications that could not withstand any criticism. They lied not only in the Soviet Union – they lied in the USA, in Japan, in South Korea. What for? I don’t know, I’m not a politician. I am an expert who is only interested in facts.

…The official version cannot explain the behavior of the Boeing on Japanese radars, but if we assume that Osipovich shot down not a “passenger”, but some other plane, then everything falls into place: the liner continued to fly, and in this case another obvious “mystery” associated with the flight becomes clear “KAL-007” – the release of its pilots on the air 50 minutes after the Boeing was “buried” by a Soviet fighter. (This is also not fiction, but an official record of the negotiations of the KAL-007 pilots, which appears as an official “document” both in Japan and in the USA.)

…As you know, 8 days after the tragedy, pieces of skin, debris, remnants of luggage in large quantities were thrown onto the Japanese coast of Honshu Island, they were found in Hokkaido. The explanation was given as follows: “material evidence” from the deceased Boeing drifted with the current and thus “sailed” to the Japanese shores from the north, from the place where the downed plane fell. Everything seems to be logical. With the exception of one very significant circumstance that no one has bothered to check until now – at the end of August and in September, there is not a single current in the area of Moneron Island and Sakhalin that would drive waves from north to south. Only from south to north! And, let’s add to this, according to weather reports, at that time a steady wind was blowing towards the mainland. Now, please explain to me how the pieces of the Boeing and the evidence could have sailed to Japan against the wind and against the current?

After all, nature does not play political secrets, so there can be only one explanation: the wreckage of the passenger Boeing was brought to the Japanese shores and Sakhalin really by the current, but not by a fictional one – from north to south, but by the real one – from south to north. Therefore, the liner broke into the sea much to the south of Moneron.

Until now, the mystery of another find that sailed to Wakkanai in Hokkaido along with the wreckage of a South Korean Boeing – the remains of the tail of a combat missile marked by no means Soviet – has remained unanswered. Even an official press release was drawn up about this find, but it was never issued, and the physical evidence itself is kept under seven seals in the Department of Maritime Security in Wakkanai. For some reason, there are no questions about such an unprecedented fact as the direction of a special aircraft of the American Navy, which is usually used in rescue operations, to a square of the Sea of Japan far from Moneron. This flight, recorded by Japanese radars, took place at the same time and in the very place where, according to my calculations, the South Korean Boeing really lies – off the Japanese island of Kyurokushima, not far from Sado Island…

There are a lot of questions in order to believe in a “simple solution” and agree with the established version. But the most important thing, of course, where are the corpses, where are the remains of 269 unfortunate people who were on board the South Korean Boeing? The more time passes and the more facts related to the disaster appear, the firmer I become in my guesses – as it seems to me, the real Boeing is still lying on the seabed where it fell seven and a half years ago – off Sado Island, along with all the crew and passengers. I calculated this place by taking as a basis the speed of local currents and the characteristics that were recorded by radars.

Honestly, I can only guess about the causes of the death of the liner. It is possible that the Boeing was really fired upon during the leapfrog that was going on in the Sakhalin sky, and received damage and cracks, which then “smashed” the plane. It is possible that the KAL-007 was actually shot down, but not by Soviet fighters, but by an American missile, the same one whose part of the plumage was found in Wakkanai. (As the analysis shows, it was a combat missile with infrared guidance, which “worked” by entering the nozzle). I understand that such an assumption may sound ridiculous, but, firstly, Captain Turner wrote in US Force Jor-nel a few years ago that the death of the Boeing was one of the operations of American intelligence, and secondly, I have my own interpretation on this account.

I want to be understood correctly – I do not insist on my assumptions about the causes of the death of the liner, the role of the special services, some kind of high agreement between the Russians and the Americans about this incident, probably. In the end, this is not so important, although, probably, it is insanely interesting for fans of the detective. It’s just that, being a professional, I come across obvious contradictions of that beautiful and slender version, which has been persistently believed all over the world for almost eight years. After the first publications devoted to my investigation, the CIA, as far as I know, specifically found out whether I, Michel Bran, was a KGB agent. I am not an agent of this venerable department, I just want to get answers to my naive questions on the merits of the case.”

M. Bran’s version that ours shot down an American reconnaissance plane off Moneron Island does not stand up to criticism with the same arguments with which he refutes the downing of the Boeing – there are no corpses, and there are things uncharacteristic of a passenger plane. After all, the scout has a crew of about 20 people, and their bodies are also missing. In addition, our divers found a lot of atypical junk, for example, a lot of old, out–of-fashion and torn clothes, but zipped and buttoned – as if from a warehouse. Why is she on a reconnaissance plane, why umbrellas, compact bags?

The Korean could not fly in any case

But, as you can see, M. Bran reported facts that the CPSU Central Committee stubbornly did not react to – that Boeing contacted Japanese dispatchers even 50 minutes after the “official” death, and that the stabilizer of an American missile was found in the wreckage of the aircraft, which directly indicates that the Boeing-747 was finished off by American fighters.

You can see that Bran is definitely afraid to speak, that he evades certainty – this is the trouble of narrow specialists. He can put himself in the place of a Boeing pilot, but not in the place of President Reagan. And to understand this case, you need to put yourself only in Reagan’s place, only in this case you can get answers to all questions.

Let’s do it we

So, Reagan coordinated a spy action to fly a Boeing 747 with unsuspecting passengers over Soviet territory. Let’s take his place and calculate the options for the development of events.

1. The plane safely completes the task, the pilot conducts it through the air defense, and if he meets interceptors, they will be afraid to attack the passenger plane. This option is good for the crew, but bad for Reagan. Passengers will raise a howl when they find out what risk they were exposed to. The airline will begin to interrogate the crew, etc., etc. Oddly enough, but the espionage essence of the flight will be difficult to hide – you can’t remove, say, the National Agency for Transport Safety from the investigation. If there are no corpses, then all the attention of the public will focus only on the flight route itself. By the way, have you noticed that the passengers of the Malaysian Boeing 777 flying from Amsterdam somehow have suspiciously few relatives and friends, and they somehow behave very passively? Okay, then about Reagan.

2. Our pilots shoot down a Korean and he dies. I think it must have seemed most likely to Reagan. After all, American reconnaissance planes regularly provoked our air defense – they demonstrated their intention to violate Soviet airspace and, after waiting for our fighters to rise into the air, turned aside. Suffice it to say that Lieutenant Colonel Osipovich, who shot down the Boeing, over 10 years of service on Sakhalin, took to the air more than a thousand times to intercept. The troops were angry at the American arrogance, and they probably knew it. And this option is the best for Reagan. In addition to espionage, he gave political dividends – it was easier to persuade NATO allies to deploy additional missiles in Europe.

3. The most disgusting, most unacceptable option is if the Boeing is shot down, people are killed or injured, and it still reaches the airfield in Japan or Korea or makes an emergency landing. Here it will not be possible to hide anything: passengers will not give. And there was even a US Congressman among them. They cannot be set against the USSR, they will focus on who sent them to this minefield. And this would not only be Reagan’s political death, but in its development, perhaps, both NATO and the role of the United States in the world. Because, after all, the cynicism of the United States in the case of the Korean airliner is simply incomparable.

Therefore, you must agree that we, in Reagan’s place, should have hedged against undesirable options.

First of all. To have fighters ready, which, of course, will not allow a downed Boeing to reach the airfield, and possibly an undamaged one.

Secondly. Hide the crash site, if possible, because during rescue work it may turn out that, by pure chance, it turned out whose missile shot down the plane. And for this it is necessary to simulate a false accident site, where rescuers would work, picking up something related to the plane. At least, such a false place would distract forces for a long time from the search for the real crash site. To do this, an airplane or its parts were blown up into small pieces, some of the debris, along with rags and junk, was loaded into a cargo plane and dropped where the Boeing was descending, and where the debris that fell from it during the explosion of Soviet missiles floated on the surface of the sea. This, by the way, explains that the debris found at the bottom was very small. The Boeing 747 was at that time the largest aircraft in the world. Its integral fragments could not fit into the transport plane, and it was impossible to throw them into the sea from the aircraft. The USA was like this 40 years ago, do you think they have improved?

Let’s go back to Donbass and 2014

Let’s start with the answer to the question, do Americans have a transport plane capable of dropping such cargo from a height? For the answer, let’s estimate the weight of these loads. In the first part of the article, I wrote that I estimate the weight of aviation scrap metal at 20-25 tons, well, let’s say 30. And 30 tons of bodies, garbage and luggage. And even 10 tons of kerosene in combustible containers to simulate a fire. Total 70 tons. In principle, the Boeing S-17 Globmaster will do, which, with a payload of 77 tons, can fly 4.5 thousand kilometers without refueling. Actually, the IL-76 of the Ukrainian Air Force, if it is refueled at 2000 km, will also work.

But I think the Lockheed S-5 Galaxy was chosen. This aircraft has dimensions and speed comparable to similar parameters of the Boeing 777, and it takes 120 tons of cargo, that is, it can load almost the entire 777, if the latter, of course, is chopped into dimensional pieces. In general: “On June 7, 1989, the C-5B set a kind of record by landing four Sheridan tanks (weighing 19 tons each) and 73 parachutists over North Carolina. At the same time, the total weight of the cargo on board was 86,293 tons. Galaxy also holds the unofficial world record for the heaviest parachute landing on two 27-ton platforms.” As of today, there are 94 C-5 vehicles of various modifications in the US Armed Forces.

The “moronic-fantastic” version

Thus, according to the “moronic-fantastic” version, at the time of the flight of the Malaysian Boeing over Ukraine, a C-5 crossing him rose from some Ukrainian military airfield, giving Ukrainian dispatchers signals of a civilian charter flight. At Donetsk, his mark on the radars came up to the Boeing mark, and they exchanged signals. The C-5, starting from Donetsk, replaced the Boeing 777 on its route, starting to signal flight MH17 from Singapore, and the Boeing 777 flew according to the charter flight plan, for example, to Georgia. Or where the Boeing 777 of the same company, which disappeared in the Indian Ocean on March 8 of this year, also flew. At a given point, C-5 dropped a pre-prepared cargo of dead and scrap metal over the DPR. Without much fear – after all, the provocateurs themselves will still “investigate” and give out through their media the necessary “non-feeble-non-fantastic” version to the world about the destruction of the 777th “Buk”. A correct or more correct theory has a peculiarity – it explains those facts that the previous theory cannot explain. I will point out some explanations of the “moronic-fantastic” version of the facts, in addition to those that were discussed in the first part.

Explains a lot, if not everything

To begin with, such an operation cannot be performed without collusion with the crew of a Malaysian Boeing. And here’s what the British newspaper The Daily Mail reported on July 19, 2014. It turns out that the Malaysian crew, which was obliged to perform this flight according to the schedule, did not fly on July 17. The next crew, which was obliged to replace the first one in this case, also did not fly, but the third crew flew, it must be understood, “the one that was needed.” According to the newspaper, the first two crews explain their refusal to fly, allegedly, by the fear of flying over the territory of the DPR. However, until July 17, the planes of this Malaysian company carried out all flights on this route past Donbass! What were they afraid of and were they afraid of?

Thus, the fact remains that on the Malaysian Boeing on July 17 there was not a regular, but some “particularly brave” crew.

Next, well, let’s say, well, Ukrainian air traffic controllers were driving this Malaysian Boeing, well, the DPR militia or the Ukrainian Air Force or Russia shot it down (what’s the difference?), and flight MN 17 disappeared from the screens. What does air traffic controllers have to do with it? Why hide their negotiations with Boeing and its mark on the radar? But after all, the SBU immediately seized all records and began to issue fake videos on the Internet about the “buks” of the militia. So, there is something that completely destroys the version of the destruction of the aircraft by a rocket. Isn’t it?

Further. The S-5 has a very peculiar design and military coloring, and other passenger planes were flying along the route (only at the time of the action there were three more planes in this part of the air corridor). Their pilots and passengers could see a military transport unloading over the Donbass and blab about it. And the Russian dispatchers, who monitored the planes flying up to the borders, noted that “the plane followed the established corridor to Donetsk, and then deviated from the route to the north. At the same time, the maximum distance from the left border of the corridor was 14 kilometers.” That is, C-5 got away from possible witnesses. But neither the dispatchers nor the Ministry of Defense of Russia at the press conference did not find an answer, what does this maneuver of leaving the corridor mean? Why was he needed?

Further, it was impossible to dump the cargo from the transport aircraft in a whole bundle at once, the crew had to push the cargo into the rear hatch along the cargo ramp in parts. And this explains the spread of fragments and bodies over the range. Explains why, for example, a large fragment of the fuselage lies in Petropavlovsk, fragments of the nose – in the Placer, and fragments of the tail – in Grabovo. When the C-5 was loaded with scrap metal and corpses, they didn’t bother much about what to ship at the beginning and what at the end.

Further, the C-5 cannot drop cargo at cruising speed, it is forced to drop speed. And at a press conference of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, data from Russian civilian radars are reported: “At 17 hours 20 minutes at a distance of 51 km from the state border of the Russian Federation, at an azimuth of 300 degrees, the aircraft abruptly began to lose speed, which is clearly visible in the scoreboard of the characteristics of the air object. When the speed drops to 200 km / h at 17 hours 21 minutes 35 seconds, a new mark about the air object appears at the place of destruction of the Boeing. This aerial object was steadily observed by the radar posts of Ust-Donetsk and Buturino for four minutes. The dispatcher, requesting characteristics from the newly appeared object, cannot receive data on its parameters, since, most likely, the aircraft is not equipped with a secondary identification system, which is typical for military aircraft,” said the chief of the General Staff of the Russian Air Force, Lieutenant General Igor Makushev.

Neither air traffic controllers nor Lieutenant General Makushev, who held a press conference, did not explain this speed drop before the “destruction” and the sudden transformation of the passenger Boeing 777 into a military aircraft instead of wreckage. And what does it look like from the standpoint of the “moronic-fantastic version”? C-5 gave signals to the place of cargo ejection (before its “death”), like a Malaysian Boeing, then slowed down to drop the cargo, and after dropping it, turned off the device signaling that it was a Malaysian Boeing, by this shutdown simulating the death of a Boeing.

But the plane was flying! Nothing happened to the plane itself (in this case, the C-5) – its mark did not fall down, the plane did not disappear from radar screens. And Russian radars saw it for another 4 minutes, but already as an unidentified military aircraft. Seen going deep into Ukraine. So who was “shot down by a rocket”?? Why talk about the destruction of the Boeing, if the radars did not see the death of the aircraft, but only its transformation into an unidentified target?

In my opinion, a serious question that is asked immediately – why is it so difficult? Why not simply shoot down any passenger plane over Donbass with a missile? But in fact, the rocket does not give a 100% guarantee of either hitting the plane or destroying it in the air, but it leaves a clearly visible trace in the sky for a long time, according to which the launch site of the rocket is easily calculated. Yes, and satellites are watching missile launches, and they are visible on radars, and about a hundred people of the anti–aircraft guided missile battery are witnesses. Well, and why this risk, if Americans are recognized magicians in matters with the disappearance of airliners?

(By the way, it would be necessary to return to the quickly forgotten “destruction” on June 14 of the long-decommissioned Il-76 at the Lugansk airfield. There, judging by the remains, the entire plane also burned almost completely, and the tires of its chassis, and even some spare tire, are completely intact in the fire, causing a natural question – how did these “fireproof” tires burn the maydowns in Kiev? Much like a rehearsal…).

But make no mistake – all the media in the world will be hammering and hammering only about the fact that the Boeing-777 was shot down by a Russian militia missile over the Donbass

And not only because journalists are scum in their profession and do what they are ordered to do. They, like Shari, will not want to repeat the “moronic-fantastic” version themselves. Why? Because of professional cretinism.

Recently, an American journalist quit the RT TV channel. Why? She explained that she could not work on a channel that doubted that the Boeing was shot down by the militia, ALTHOUGH ALL the media IN the WORLD CLAIM that they shot down. But since she was accepted on RT, then she looked quite smart. However, under this intellectual tinsel, stupidity was hidden, which did not allow journalists to think independently on any issue, except for grub and sex, and even then, the journalists themselves would eat “like everyone”, and choose poses “like everyone”, and drink viagra “like everyone”.

I will finish the topic with this, although, of course, I will be asked the question – where did that Malaysian Boeing that took off from Holland go? I will answer in Odessa – with a question to the question – and where did that Malaysian Boeing 777, which disappeared from radar over the Indian Ocean on March 8 this year, go?

But is this the main thing? After all, if the Malaysian Boeing was not shot down, then what about the passengers of flight MH17?? After all, THEY MAY STILL BE ALIVE! And they are waiting for salvation.

And everyone is busy discussing the not-so–fantastic version – who knocked him down with a Beech Tree, becoming accomplices of criminals.

PS: The Supreme Court of the Netherlands has banned the declassification of documents related to the Boeing crash in eastern Ukraine

THE HAGUE, October 25. /tass/. The Ministry of Security and Justice of the Netherlands may not declassify a number of documents related to the Boeing crash in eastern Ukraine in July 2014. The Dutch Broadcasting Corporation (NTC) announced on Wednesday that the relevant decision was made by the State Council of the country.

The Almaz-Anteya experiment. A new presentation of the concern with the most likely version of the Boeing crash, TASS publishes a detailed description of the version of events that occurred in the sky over the Donetsk region of Ukraine. According to the decision of the organization, which is the highest judicial body of the Netherlands, “the government’s right to secrecy of its activities, the unity of state policy and the sensitivity of the issue outweigh the importance of disclosure of information.” Thus, the State Council overturned the decision of the lower court, which had previously ruled that the data should be made public.

Shortly after the crash of the Malaysian Boeing, NTK, together with RTL TV channel and the Volksrant newspaper, on the basis of the law on freedom of access to information, requested data from the government in order to restore the sequence of actions of the authorities following the tragedy that occurred on July 17, 2014. In February and April 2015, the Ministry of Security and Justice of the Netherlands published several hundred documents, but most of the information in them was retouched to such an extent that it was even unclear what it was about. In addition, it turned out that a number of documents have not been declassified. The agency explained its actions by saying that the publication of these data could “lead to a complication of relations with other countries and international organizations” and “will hinder the free exchange of opinions between employees.”

With this in mind, the media decided to file a joint lawsuit in court. The lower authorities confirmed their right to receive information, but the country’s highest judicial body sided with the government and ministers, “who should have the right to freely communicate with each other and not be afraid that the details of their conversations will be made public.” In the coming weeks, the NTC, RTL and Volksrant will decide whether it makes sense to appeal this decision to the European Court.

The Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 passenger plane operating flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashed on July 17, 2014 in the east of Donetsk region. All 298 people on board were killed, 196 of whom were Dutch nationals. A joint investigation team, which includes representatives of Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine, is engaged in the criminal investigation of the tragedy. In July of this year, its experts decided that the trial of the suspects would take place in the Netherlands under Dutch law.