It has been a year now to the day since Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-17 was brought down over Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine.
A scheduled international passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, it was allegedly shot down by Russian-backed rebels – this being the story still maintained by the mainstream Western media today. 283 passengers and 15 crew were on board. But the truth about MH-17 has not yet been established, despite what Western government officials and media want us to believe. This post will highlight again some of what the mainstream media coverage won’t.
A warning: this post contains at least one distressing image.
Newly released footage doing the rounds today and showing pro-Russian rebels disrespectfully rifling through dead passengers’ belongings will further reinforce the mainstream-backed view that the rebels are the villains of the equation; no doubt, what the pro-Russian rebels are shown doing is distasteful, and in any case I’ve no interest in condoning or endorsing them or even necessarily their cause. But this is highly emotive media maneuvering designed to incite further indignation and reinforce the image of Russia and the pro-Russia rebels in Ukraine as being the Bad Guys.
And considering how little coverage has been given in the last year-and-a-half to crimes committed by Ukrainian militias or to the Neo-Nazi Ukrainian battalions, it’s difficult to view this as anything other than attempted manipulation of the viewing public. But there’s nothing new in that. The video, perhaps crucially, seems to show alleged Russia-backed rebels on the scene of the MH-17 wreckage believing at first that they had shot down a Ukraine Airforce fighter, and then being stunned that they had in fact shot down a passenger plane. While this will no doubt be cited as decisive evidence that the pro-Russian rebels shot down MH-17 (and will probably feature heavily in the report, due in four months’ time, by the Dutch-led multi-national investigation), it is worth noting that News Corp’s video also indicates that there were two planes shot down and that the rebels seen in the video were on the scene searching for ‘Ukrainian pilots who reportedly parachuted after their aircraft was shot down’ and were not expecting to find the debris of a commercial plane or the bodies of civilian passengers.
The video also features the commander saying (off-camera): “They say the (Fighter) brought down the civilian plane and ours brought down the fighter.’ This actually seems to suggest the rebels had shot down what they viewed as a legitimate target – a Ukrainian Fighter plane – while the actual MH-17 plane might’ve been shot down by the mysterious fighter. What this video certainly seems to indicate, at any rate, is that the rebels hadn’t deliberately shot down the passenger plane; indeed one of them is heard on-camera asking “Who’s opened a corridor for them to fly over here?”, which re-raises the question of *why* Flight MH-17 was flying over that area in the first place (which we will will return to shortly). This newly released footage in fact seems to accomplish the rather remarkable task of corroborating elements of *both sides* of the MH-17 narrative we’ve been getting since a year ago, suggesting that (1) the pro-Russia rebels did fire a surface-to-air missile, and (2) that, even so, it might’ve been a Ukrainian plane that shot down MH-17. If anything, it creates even more confusion.
Yet I’ve been looking through some of the coverage of this new footage, and most of it is focused heavily on the ‘disrespectful’ actions of the rebels on the scene, specifically the rifling through passengers’ baggage and belongings, while only mentioning the ‘second plane’ element towards the very end of their coverage and in almost trivial terms – some of the articles don’t even mention that aspect of the footage at all and instead simply go for the purely emotive approach of ‘look what these terrible people are doing’. However, this is hardly surprising.
What happened in the immediate aftermath of the MH-17 crash was a mass ‘rush to judgement’ (to quote Mark Lane’s famous 1965 documentary on the Kennedy assassination), with Western government officials and the mainstream media working in concert to firmly plant the idea in the public consciousness that Russia had been behind the shoot-down of the plane. That line was in fact being taken virtually as soon as the plane hit the ground, despite the absence of evidence at that stage. This strategy, which can be rightly defined as ‘trial by media’, had already been highly (and tragically) effective in establishing the false narrative of Libya in 2011, when the fabricated anti-Gaddafi campaign was so quickly and adamantly pushed by both the media and our governments that some 140 NATO nations were already bombing and destroying that country before any sort of inquest or investigation had even been started (note: there has to date been NO formal inquest into what actually happened in Libya).
After that initial flurry of anti-Russian media coverage and the bombardment of accusations, things suddenly quieted down a little on the MH-17 front.
The worldwide media frenzy over the MH-17 horror seemed to coincide with – and help distract attention away from – both the Israeli invasion of Gaza and the astonishing spread of ISIS/ISIL from Syria into Iraq (which the Western, mainstream media this time last year was very slow and very reluctant to begin reporting on, probably due to Western government’s position on arming Syrian rebels). While in the year since then, there has been constant anti-Russian propaganda and various accusations made (including various demonstrably fake ‘proofs’ of Russian aggression in Eastern Ukraine), specific information regarding the downing of Flight MH-17 has been sparse in Western media. This, one has to suspect, is because the initial accusations hold up so poorly that it no longer benefits NATO or Western media propagandists to continue pushing the subject. There will be talk of it again now, specifically because it’s now the one-year anniversary of the tragedy; but because the line initially taken by the corporate-controlled media was so adamant, they are now obligated to stand by it in order to avoid embarrassment. It’s the same way the mass media will never, even now, admit to how much it lied about Gaddafi and Libya, even amid all the chaos still ripping apart that country even four years later.
The MH-17 disaster of course had all the hallmarks of a staged false-flag operation; the magically recovered passports with no burn-damage, the discernible (and immediately pursued) Geo-Political agenda, even the citing of Social Media reports and You Tube footage as ‘proof’ of who carried out the crime. This modern strategy of the mainstream media and our government officials to rely heavily on You Tube and Social Media is particularly curious. For one thing, these essentially unreliable ‘sources’ are frequently utilised in place of any actual journalism or legitimate investigative reporting. For another, we know for a fact that military and intelligence agencies have programmes in place to hijack and utilise social-media platforms for the sake of establishing a scripted/false narrative. The absolute masterclass of this strategy was in Libya in 2011, where military agencies faked hundreds (if not thousands) of so-called Twitter and social-media accounts and passed them off as being the accounts of civilian ‘protesters’, as well as putting out hundreds of clearly fake You Tube videos allegedly showing ‘crimes’ of the then Libyan government forces. These fake accounts, videos and posts were then cited frequently by mainstream/corporate media outlets as ‘proof’ that the late Gaddafi and the Libyan government was attacking its own people.
This highly modern misinformation strategy is, again, very useful in the absence of actual journalism. In the case of Gaddafi/Libya, the utter absence of actual proof of the alleged ‘crimes’ – and the utter absence of any legitimate or reliable journalistic source able to demonstrate the validity of any of the accusations being made by Western governments against Gaddafi – left the MSM and our government officials embarrassingly unable to justify their claims. Hence, social media and You Tube came to the rescue. The same strategy was applied in Syria from 2011 onwards, and it was also entirely evident in the case of Malaysian Flight MH-17 and the mad rush to blame Putin and the pro-Russia rebels. The entire case was built almost exclusively on You Tube and Social Media posts.
As William F. Engdahl noted; ‘In a July 21st Washington press briefing, State Department Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland’s press spokesperson, Marie Harf, was asked why, if Secretary John Kerry and the US Government possessed “irrefutable” evidence of Russian and rebel involvement in MH17, were they refusing to make it public, as had been done in earlier instances such as the 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis? Harf merely referred to July 20th statements by (John) Kerry, saying that “our assessment is that this was an SA-11 fired from Russian-backed, separatist-controlled territory.” When pressed again for proof she said that “we saw it in social media afterwards, we saw videos, we saw photos of the pro-Russian separatists bragging about shooting down an aircraft…”
That’s it? “We saw videos” and “we saw it in social media..”? I saw a cat wielding a Sith lightsaber on Twitter – I’m pretty sure it was Photo-shopped though.
As Prof Michel Chossudovsky noted, ‘Immediately after the downing of MH17, an adviser to the Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs – a Mr. Anton Gerashchenko – stated categorically that the Boeing 777 MH17 “had been downed by an air-defense missile system Buk” (without, however, mentioning who was behind the missile operation). How did Mr Geraschenko know that so quickly and so categorically? And likewise, why were American, British, and other government officials so sure it was Russia so quickly? Wasn’t it very suspiciously reminiscent of how quick they were to accuse Gaddafi of the crimes he hadn’t committed? Or to accuse Assad’s government of the massacre in Houla?
It is always highly suspect when governments state the guilt of a chosen party as fact even before any investigation has been carried out or any proof provided.
It also always highly suspect when a clearly discernible demonisation campaign is embarked upon, almost instantaneously – as if with the flip of a switch. When someone makes that ‘decision’, whoever it is ultimately calling the shots, you can sit back and observe, like clockwork, all the mainstream media and news networks falling into line with the lead taken by key government officials. In early February 2011, Muammar Gaddafi was frontrunner for Amnesty International’s ‘Human Rights Hero, 2011’ award – by mid-February, he was, according to all mainstream media broadcasters and Western government officials, a ‘War Criminal’ and a ‘brutal dictator’ who ‘had to go’. Flip of a switch. Soon after that, Bashar Assad, once jokingly referred to as “Mr Soft-Heart” in Syria, was now apparently a man using chemical weapons on children.
In 2014 it was the turn of Vladimir Putin; which is not to say, by the way, that Putin is a hero or even necessarily a Nice Guy – but that’s not the point. The point is that the degree of concerted propagandising against Putin that soon overtook all Western media was so ridiculous and so obviously contrived that it had to have been pre-planned. The fact that so-called reputable news organisations were, within just hours of the MH-17 crash, practically accusing Putin of having personally ordered the shooting down of the plane (at a point when it hadn’t even been established that Russia was responsible) just showed how much blatant propagandising and how little actual journalism was taking place. Look at the Daily Mirror headline below, for example; it is of course very reminiscent of the nonsense maintained for so many years about Gaddafi and Lockerbie (in fact, in 2011, when the anti-Gaddafi propaganda needed to ramped up to maximum, it was suddenly being reported in mainstream press that Gaddafi “had personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing” – something that had never before been suggested in all those years even when Libya was being blamed for it).
Of course, the MH-17 counter-narrative was pretty much immediate in the realms of alternative media; but even amid all the clashing, contradictory views, accusations, claims and counter-claims, the position taken by Western government and corporate media has been consistent and unwavering: that pro-Russia rebels shot down the Malaysian passenger plane and that they were supplied with the weaponry by the Russian government. Decisive proof of this has of course been lacking all the while; but high-ranking government officials engaged at the Geo-political level have already frequently demonstrated their ability and willingness to sidestep lack of evidence and simply keep repeating their mantras over and over again; “Saddam has WMDs”, “Gaddafi attacked his own people”, “Assad gassed the children”, “Putin ordered MH-17 shot down… for no real reason or gain.”
So let’s look again at just some of the points about the downing of Flight MH-17 that the mainstream media and our government officials will almost certainly fail to factor in to their coverage as they continue to discuss the matter;
- The entire region was naturally being very closely monitored by the US, NATO and Russia by satellite and radar throughout the entire conflict. If a missile had been fired at MH17, one wonders why the satellite data and radar signatures wouldn’t have corroborated the story. The US, NATO and Ukraine have all declined thus far to produce any such evidence: because in all likelihood, just like the alleged attack on Tripoli by Gaddafi’s Libyan air-force in 2011 (which turned out to be utter bullshit, as was demonstrated by – ironically – Russian satellite data), no such data exists. Yet remarkably, the US still claims to *possess* this crucial data – it’s just not being disclosed.
- Former Associated Press reporter Robert Parry asks the legitimate and pressing question: what did the US surveillance satellite imagery show? ‘It’s hard to believe that – with the attention that US intelligence has concentrated on eastern Ukraine for the past half year that the alleged trucking of several large Buk anti-aircraft missile systems from Russia to Ukraine and then back to Russia didn’t show up somewhere,’ he writes. ‘So why hasn’t this question of US spy-in-the-sky photos – and what they reveal – been pressed by the major US news media? How can the Washington Post run front-page stories, such as the one on Sunday with the definitive title “U.S. official: Russia gave systems,” without demanding from these US officials details about what the U.S. satellite images disclose?‘
- Further, Robert Parry claimed to have been told by an intelligence source that the United States was in possession of satellite imagery which shows Ukrainian troops were responsible for the shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. “What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that US intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.” If true, this could be one clear reason why no data has been released.
- Russia’s Defense Ministry has long since published its own detailed account of the final moments of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-17, claiming that Russian radar had spotted a second aircraft in the vicinity shortly before the crash and that satellite imagery showed Ukraine had moved missile systems into the area before the incident. Numerous media commentators dismiss this Russian data as having been faked. That may or may not be the case; but, again, where is the opposing (US/Ukrainian) data to prove the case? We should also note that the aforementioned, newly-released video footage causing a stir today seems to now support this Russian claim of a second aircraft.
- In fact, Russia has repeatedly demanded that the black-box evidence be made public, along with any satellite data that the US has control or possession of, and that further, independent and impartial, investigations be conducted. The US, however, has not made any of the data available, despite claiming to possess it (and despite even having frequently *cited it* as proof of Russia’s involvement). Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey recently unveiled the results of its own inquiry that showed the missile allegedly shot at MH17 had not been produced in Russia since 1999, but was still in service in the Ukrainian army.
- Why was the plane flying over a known war-zone? Despite claims to the contrary in much of the ‘official’ narrative, Flight MH-17 was following a different flight-path to its standard route over Ukraine. According to data at ‘flightaware.com’ (a website that tracks civil aviation traffic), the flight had been diverted about 200km north from the paths the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 had used in previous days. And it led the plane right over the war-torn Donetsk Region. Further, Malaysian Airlines confirms that the pilot was instructed to fly at a lower altitude by the Kiev air-traffic control tower upon its entry into Ukraine airspace. A Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles was also reported to have been detected within 5-10 km of the Malaysian passenger plane, and was moving within an air-corridor usually reserved for commercial aircraft. Again, this now seems to be corroborated by the newly-released Australian video footage from the crash scene.
- According to the controversial report of the Spanish air-controller at Kiev Borisol airport there was, again, an unexplained change of course of the Malaysian MH17 flight which took the aircraft directly over the Eastern Ukraine warzone. The Spanish air-controller indicated that the order to down the plane had come from the Ukrainian Ministry of the Interior and not from the Military. He also said that the MH17 flight was being escorted by Ukrainian fighter jets minutes before it was downed. “The fighters flew close to 777, up to three minutes before disappearing from the radar; just 3 minutes.” The presence of the Ukrainian fighter jets as reported by the Spanish air-traffic controller was also confirmed by eyewitness reports in the Donetsk region. The Air-Traffic Controller has allegedly been subsequently subject to death threats. He and his family were deported from Ukraine on orders of the Kiev regime.
- Have any of the mainstream media outlets ever reported that, from the very start, the Malaysian government had accused the Ukraine government of shooting down the plane?
- Some German experts also pointed a finger at Ukrainian air-force jets having been involved and ruled out the possibility of a surface-to-air missile attack. German technology expert Peter Haisenko published this piece on the subject The pilot published pictures of the MH-17 wreckage, strongly indicating that Flight MH-17 was shot down by two Ukrainian government fighter jets.
- A division of Buk missile systems of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was, according to Pravda, deployed to the Donetsk Oblast on July 15th, two days before the downing of the Malaysian airlines MH17 flight. The Buk missile system has the capabilities of downing an aircraft flying at 35,000 feet.
- As with the case of the 7/7 London Bombings and the phantom train to Kings Cross that the four ‘suicide-bombers’ couldn’t possibly have been on, there is a strong indication that Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 had actually been cancelled and couldn’t have been shot down. Flight Radar-24 screen-capture on the day following the crash shows Flight MH-17, (9M-MRD) as having been “canceled” on the date of the crash.
- Satellite data provided by Kiev was subsequently exposed as being fake. Similarly, a look at the time-stamps for the nine versions of the video that allegedly shows a conversation between Ukrainian anti-fascists and the Russian military (and uploaded to what is said to be the Ukrainian Security Service (SSU) You Tube account), indicates that all these videos were created before the MH17 shoot-down and were therefore also faked.
- Adequate analysis of the actual crash site was never allowed to be carried out in any independent or reliable way; this was in large part due to the fact that the area was under control of pro-Russian rebels. It is clear that the crime scene in Donetsk was not kept intact, which naturally serves to confuse results of any investigation. For example, a Sky News reporter was able to wander around the crash site and rummage through the contents of the victims’ scattered suitcases and belongings – which was later deemed to have been highly disrespectful and improper. But this was implication of the haphazard way the crash site was being handled. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte complained about the lack of respect shown to the personal belongings of the dead which were reportedly looted. He initially announced his disgust about the handling of the bodies that were reportedly being “dragged around” and “thrown”.
- Of course, the classic calling-card of any false-flag operation: the magic passports. All the passenger passports appearing in the video were in perfect condition. They all somehow managed to survive the inferno in pristine condition, did they? Some of the passports were also revealed to be invalid or expired. The point was also made by several sources that the alleged crash-scene baggage and personal belongings that were discovered seemed too clean and too perfect to be true, seeming more like items that had been deposited onto the scene after the fact rather than items that had survived a fiery explosion and a plane crash.
Speculation on-line also quickly developed that the still-missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-370 may have been substituted for Flight MH-17 to create the False-Flag event;
- The possibility was considered by various independent analysts (and conspiracy theorists) very early on that aircraft parts from Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-370 (M9-MRO) could have been salvaged, altered, re-painted and then used to create the ‘crash scene’ for MH-17 (M9-MRD). More than that, some were quick to hypothesise that the still-missing MH-370 actually *was* the downed MH-17, and that the missing plane from three months earlier in the year had been hijacked and kept out-of-sight for this very purpose. Mainstream commentators naturally mocked or poured scorn on this idea; however, it is still not known what happened to Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-370, which apparently disappeared without a trace. Even as recently as three days ago, aviation experts have said we will ‘probably never know what happened to MH-370’. What’s particularly ironic is that I remember reading theories *at the time* of MH-370’s disappearance suggesting that the plane would show up again some time soon to be used in a staged terrorist attack: I dismissed it at the time as overly speculative conspiracy-theorising.
- It is of course a remarkable coincidence (or misfortune) that two identical planes from the same airline both happened to suffer such disastrous fates within just a few months of each other. The MH-17 plane shot down was of course the same plane model as MH-370. The plane allegedly shot down over Shaktarsk was a Boeing 777-200 (ID number M9-MRD). The missing MH370 was the same model, 777-200, but with a slightly different ID number (M9-MRO). This of course doesn’t prove that they were the same plane; but it does justify enquiry along those lines, particularly when combined with other elements of both the MH-370 and MH-17 stories. There was, for one thing, the very strange report given by a rebel leader at the time of the MH-17 crash in which he claimed the bodies appeared to have been dead for some time and not killed in the crash. Curious initial reports also claim the smell of decaying corpses was evident by witnesses on initial encounter with the crash site, suggesting the bodies had been dead a lot longer than was being claimed.
- Former MI5 agent and whistleblower David Shayler wrote; ‘If the bodies are decayed… then this would be prima facie evidence of a false-flag operation in which dead bodies were loaded on a plane, which was designed to be shot out of the sky. What other explanation could there be for finding already decomposed bodies at the crash site?’
Just as the mass deceptions in Libya and Syria in 2011 were perfectly foreshadowed by ‘The 2010 Unconventional Warfare Manual of the US Military’ (the document published by the US military laid out the strategies for infiltrating and destroying any sovereign nation of choice via ‘irregular’ means; in other words, via means other than traditional military invasion or war), the strategy apparently employed in regard to Flight MH-17 is rather presciently foreshadowed by precedents set much earlier in ‘Operation Northwoods’ in the 1960s. See more about ‘Operation Northwoods’ here.
Originally the plan, approved by all the Joint Chiefs of Staff, consisted of manufacturing mass false-flag ‘terrorism’ aimed at the destruction of Cuba; but could of course be modified to target any specified nation or government in the world. In fact, a study of ‘Operation Northwoods’ can be seen to read pretty much like a blueprint for the modern post-9/11 ‘War On Terror’. Among the various, heinous plots specified in ‘Operation Northwoods’ was a plan to stage a destruction of a commercial aircraft and blame it on Cuba. Among the various elements of the plan;
– An aircraft at [US military base] would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civilian registered aircraft.
– At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all boarded under
carefully prepared aliases.
– The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
– Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous.
– From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude (in order to disappear from the radar) and go directly into an auxiliary military base where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status.
– The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan.
– When over the target area, the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a ‘MAY DAY’ message stating he is under attack (by the chosen enemy). The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.
– At precisely the same time that the aircraft is presumably shot down, a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc. [i.e. plane parts]. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.
See here for 15 pages of declassified Joint Chiefs of Staff documents on Operation Northwoods (as posted on the National Security Archive of George Washington University).
There remains no definitive explanation so far of what happened to Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-17 one year ago; only accusations and counter-accusations. Two parallel investigations led by the Dutch are still pending, one expected to be released in October this year, with another potentially not coming to light until late 2016. There also remains no decisive answer as to what happened to Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-370, for that matter. The international calls now for a tribunal into the MH-17 disaster have been met angrily by Russian officials; this reluctance on Russia’s part is portrayed by Western commentators as being implicative of guilt, while Russian sources say it is because they perceive any such investigation to be biased and in keeping with the same agendas that were in play a year ago. In truth, Putin and the Russian government has very little reason to expect impartiality, particularly as they haven’t received any so far and also given that they were front-row observers to how little fairness or impartiality Gaddafi and Libya were shown in 2011 when the international community conducted its campaign against them.
It is perhaps worth noting the largely-forgotten case of Iran Air-Flight 655.
Iran Air Flight 655 was a civilian passenger flight from the Iranian capital Tehran to Dubai. On 3rd July 1988, the aircraft operating this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided-missile cruiser USS Vincennes. The incident took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran’s territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight’s normal flight path. All 290 civilians on board, including 66 children and 16 crew, died. No international investigation was ever conducted in this instance, no ‘tribunal’. Indeed, there was no ‘outrage’ in the West, no condemnation from Western governments, and in fact a virtual media black-out on the incident. The US has never even formally apologised for the incident. At the governmental and media level, the contrived ‘outrage’ or moral indignation often seems to go hand-in-hand with the flow of international relations and Geo-political agendas, rather than as a human response to tragedy, suffering or loss of life. Where were the demands for a tribunal for the sake of the almost-300 Iranian civilians? Where was the mass media outrage? I ask that question with no intended disrespect to the almost 300 innocent victims of MH-17; they were all innocent people, including many children, and their deaths are both an absolute tragedy and travesty.
There is no question that Western governments and NATO immediately seized upon the MH-17 crash as a tool in the maneuvering against Putin and Russia; given everything highlighted in this article (and more besides), there is therefore also reasonable grounds to suspect the same governments and agencies had a pre-existing vested interest in that tragedy occurring. The pro-Russia rebels certainly had no motivation for shooting down a Malaysian passenger plane and killing 298 innocent victims from all over the world and had nothing to gain from it; neither did Russia itself. And, as the newly-released video footage seems to demonstrate, the rebels – even if they did shoot down MH-17 (which is still not clearly demonstrated) – they certainly hadn’t intended to.
The question again has to be asked as to why MH-17 had been diverted off its normal course, and why several disparate sources are now separately indicating a second plane that may have in fact shot down MH-17.