The Netherlands did not find Ukrainian fighters in the skies over the Donbas during the MH17 crash

17 2021 June 27

Justice and Themis of the Netherlands continue to study the circumstances of the July 2014 crash of a Boeing 777-200ER airliner flying MH17 on the Amsterdam - Kuala Lumpur route. On June 17, 2021, Judge Hendrik Steinhuis, closing the meeting, announced that the hearings in the case would resume on June 24.

At the last meeting in the Schiphol court complex, the Dutch prosecutor's office stated that it had not found Ukrainian fighters in the skies over the Donbas during this disaster. Prosecutor Manon Ridderbeks spoke about this during the hearing.

She noted that the International Joint Investigation Team (JIT) "has carefully studied the matter." Data from the Ukrainian and Russian authorities were requested, witnesses were heard, and the wreckage of the airliner, information from open sources and intercepted telephone conversations were examined.

The prosecutor explained that the primary radar data did not register a single military aircraft in the area. In addition, there are testimonies from Ukrainian witnesses and documents submitted by Ukraine, which indicate that there were no fighters in the air over the conflict zone. She presented documents showing that on an area of 50-60 sq. km, no other aircraft was shot down.

Ridderbeks added that all the collected debris was examined by employees of the Almaz-Antey Concern VKO JSC (Russia). As a result, no other wreckage was found that belonged to a different aircraft. She stressed that the prosecutor's office is open to new information that could help establish the truth and facilitate the adoption of a court decision.

She clarified that the prosecutor's office has no additions to voiced earlier by the court of the main version - flight MH17 was shot down by a Buk air defense missile system. However, the prosecutor's office has additions on two other issues: whether the missile that shot down the airliner was fired from near Pervomaysky, and whether the accused were involved in what happened with flight MH17.

The prosecutor presented a map on which it was noted how the findings of Almaz-Antey differ from the arguments of the Netherlands Aerospace Center and the Royal Military Academy (Belgium) about the place of the launch of the rocket. With regard to the involvement of the accused, she considers it necessary to re-wire some of the intercepted telephone conversations, which had already been presented earlier, in order to place them in the right context.

We remind you that the USA hide satellite images from the moment of the MH17 crash, refusing to provide them to the court.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Sergey Latyshev

-6

17 June 2021 23: 31

So even earlier they were not found in Russia. Only "Eksperdy", TV and mass media still find them, pilots, mechanics, dispatchers and even telephone operators ...
1. Ulysses
  
  +3
  
  18 June 2021 00: 04
  
  So even earlier they were not found in Russia. Only "Eksperdy", TV and mass media still find them, pilots, mechanics, dispatchers and even telephone operators ...
  
  Have you already found the Ukrainian flight control dispatcher who flew the Boeing under the Buk ??
  
  Then go surprise your Latvian public with "incredible discoveries" ..
  1. kig
    
    -3
    
    18 June 2021 05: 36
    
    Quote: Ulysses
    You have already found a Ukrainian dispatcher
    
    what kind of dispatcher is this?
    1. Petr Vladimirovich
      
      0
      
      18 June 2021 07: 08
      
      The Boeing dispatcher from Dnepropetrovsk dispatched to the Ukrainian Buk's affected area.
      1. kig
        
        0
        
        18 June 2021 08: 13
        
        Quote: Ulysses
        Have you already found the Ukrainian flight control dispatcher who flew the Boeing under the Buk ??
        
        Which one is Petrenko? Is this the one that Dutch investigators interrogated along with the rest of the dispatchers? The one that drove the Boeing for 14 minutes in its area of responsibility? Who asked Boeing to increase the altitude (they refused) and allowed them to deviate to the left (they themselves asked)? Which then handed the plane over to the next dispatcher, who then contacted Rostov and asked to clarify if they were watching Boeing on the screen?
        
        123
        
        0
        
        18 June 2021 09: 05
        
        Is this the one that Dutch investigators interrogated along with the rest of the dispatchers? The one that drove the Boeing for 14 minutes in its area of responsibility? Who asked Boeing to increase the altitude (they refused) and allowed them to deviate to the left (they themselves asked)? Which then handed the plane over to the next dispatcher, who then contacted Rostov and asked to clarify if they were watching Boeing on the screen?
        
        Can I get more details at this point?
        When was he interrogated?
        Where does the information about her testimony come from?
        Will there be a link to the information?
        
        kig
        
        +1
        
        18 June 2021 10: 37
        
        links, alas, will not be. There is only mention of her at one of the meetings in The Hague, where it was mentioned about interrogations or conversations with dispatchers back in 2014, conducted by DSB investigators. It was not a criminal, but a technical investigation, the causes of the disaster were being investigated.
        
        123
        
        +1
        
        18 June 2021 10: 42
        
        links, alas, will not be.
        
        Not surprising.
        
        There is only mention of her at one of the meetings in The Hague, where it was mentioned about interrogations or conversations with dispatchers back in 2014, conducted by DSB investigators. It was not a criminal, but a technical investigation, the causes of the disaster were being investigated.
        
        Why so? Just a mention? Technical investigation?
        In court, they hear packs of people who have heard or seen an airplane in the sky.
        But the dispatcher Anna Petrenko does not deserve this?
        Does this seem strange to you?
        
        kig
        
        -1
        
        18 June 2021 14: 55
        
        There is a video from the courtroom
        www.courtmh17.com/en/livestream/archive/2020/livestream-9-june-2020---4.html,
        there the prosecutor or the prosecutor sets out the essence of the case, talks about the technical details, analyzes the versions, and at the 52nd minute mentions Voloshin and Petrenko. None of them was invited to the courtroom, especially Voloshin.
        
        Quote: 123
        In court, people are heard in packs
        
        So far, they have not heard anyone live, only the video is shown. True, I have not seen all the movies yet.
        
        123
        
        +3
        
        18 June 2021 15: 45
        
        There is a video from the courtroom
        there the prosecutor or the prosecutor sets out the essence of the case, talks about the technical details, analyzes the versions, and at the 52nd minute mentions Voloshin and Petrenko. None of them was invited to the courtroom, especially Voloshin.
        
        It's clear with Voloshin, why not listen to Petrenko? The prosecutor can state what he is supposed to, the interrogation of witnesses does not cancel this in any way.
        
        So far, they have not heard anyone live, only the video is shown. True, I have not seen all the movies yet.
        
        Enjoy watching the dispatcher show you write.
        
        kig
        
        0
        
        19 June 2021 10: 04
        
        Quote: 123
        Enjoy watching the dispatcher show you write
        
        Thank you absolutely. But where can I find you? This topic will soon run dry
        
        123
        
        +1
        
        19 June 2021 18: 01
        
        Thank you absolutely. But where can I find you? This topic will soon run dry
        
        Well, what are you, the topic will be procrastinating for at least half a year. The furnishings do you know is. The Netherlands and this court will be written often. Things are moving towards a reduction in economic ties, similar to that of China with Australia. As far as I remember, the Netherlands is the second trading partner after China, we could not help but hit this place, I’m still surprised that it took so long. But the process has already begun, the agreement with the offshore has been denounced, taxation will change starting next year, companies have already reached out to Russia, the column is headed by Gazprom's subsidiaries. And the court creates an external environment, as the time comes for new sanctions to give birth, and the corresponding verdict will arrive in time.
        In extreme cases, you will find the nickname on the site, it is not difficult to remember it.
        But I doubt that you will have a reason to write to me.
        
        Ulysses
        
        0
        
        18 June 2021 22: 50
        
        Is this the one that Dutch investigators interrogated along with the rest of the dispatchers?
        
        links, alas, will not be. There is only mention of her at one of the meetings in The Hague, where it was mentioned about interrogations or conversations with dispatchers back in 2014, conducted by DSB investigators.
        
        There were no interrogations, no conversations with DSB investigators.
        
        There is your indistinct muttering "about mention about mention", read from LiveJournal.
        https://schekn.livejournal.com/24175.html
        
        There, this "whistleblower" was asked a lot of counter questions.
        To which there are no answers ...
        
        PS So the question remains open, where is this dispatcher (by the way, she was not alone) and where is the real desire of the court to interrogate her ??
        
        kig
        
        0
        
        19 June 2021 10: 06
        
        I see it for the first time, but about Petrenko there is in the video from the courtroom, I gave a link.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +1
        
        19 June 2021 02: 05
        
        Which one is Petrenko?
        
        Do not strain yourself for nothing.)
        
        This whole story does not stand up to scrutiny.
        
        Any specialist in the field of air defense, in the slightest degree, understands that Buk-type complexes must be provided with an external target designation system, that is, radar surveillance systems.
        
        This is a whole system.
        
        In the "concocted" case, some sort of notorious single launcher (SOU) appears.
        
        In view of the Boeing flight conditions (distance, direction, speed), a single Buk, and even on a head-on course, from the side of the militia, could shoot down a civilian airliner only (!) Deliberately, and only (!!) if its route the route was known in advance, but you yourself claim that Boeing maneuvered:
        
        .. This is the one that drove the Boeing for 14 minutes in its area of responsibility? Which asked Boeing to increase the altitude (they refused) and allowed them to deviate to the left (they themselves asked) ..
        
        This automatically zeroes out all the chances of a single launcher having a target tracking channel antenna pattern width of only 1,3 ° in azimuth and 2,5 ° in elevation, and an illumination channel - 1,4 ° in azimuth and 2,65 ° in corner of the place, have time to catch and calculate, a fairly fast flying Boeing.
        
        In such conditions, it is difficult to get into the sky from the BUK, not to mention the plane.)
        
        So, if they were firing from the BUK, then only those who could provide it with full-fledged target designation and "illumination".
        
        Only Ukraine had this opportunity, both technically and geographically.
        
        Something like that.)
        
        Oleg Rambover
        
        -2
        
        19 June 2021 16: 15
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        Any specialist in the field of air defense, in the slightest degree, understands that Buk-type complexes must be provided with an external target designation system, that is, radar surveillance systems.
        
        You are not an expert.
        https://docplayer.ru/63585046-Strelba-i-boevaya-rabota-sou-9a310.html
        It says here that the viewing angle in the paired mode (this is with the Dome) is 10 degrees. Standalone 120 degrees. On any TV channels such as a star, they broadcast that the Buk SDU, unlike its predecessor Cuba, is capable of independently detecting, recognizing, recognizing, capturing, tracking and highlighting an air target (and also issue target designation ROMs).
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        Only Ukraine had this opportunity, both technically and geographically.
        
        The plane crashed in the center of the territory controlled by the militia, so the geography is in trouble.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +3
        
        20 June 2021 15: 51
        
        It says here that the viewing angle in the paired mode (this is with the Dome) is 10 degrees. Standalone 120 degrees
        
        I understand that for such a "specialist" as you, there is no difference between the "width of the antenna pattern of the target tracking channel" and the "viewing angle", so the beads from me will no longer fly at you.).
        Teach materiel.
        
        The plane crashed in the center of the territory controlled by the militia, so the geography is in trouble.
        
        Yes, trouble.)
        
        Before it fell, the Boeing was apparently flying? At an altitude of 10 km and at a speed of about 300 m / s.
        I flew along the line (in the area of the DB) from Horlivka in the direction of Grabovo, where I actually fell.
        That is, you, who taught physics at school, probably understand that in order for the plane to fall in the Grabovo area, it should have been shot down "a little" earlier? From Horlivka to Grabovo about 45 km. (This is approximately, only 2,5 minutes of flight)
        The remains of the aircraft were scattered along the line to Grabovo for 15 km. From the moment when the plane began to fall apart and fall, and before the first fragments touched the ground, 1,5 minutes passed - and this is about another 27 kilometers!
        
        That is, adding 15 and 27 km on this line, we get that the plane was hit somewhere else in the Gorlovka area (42 km from the place where the last part fell).
        But before they fired at the plane, he was led? This means that they began to follow the plane, logically, even earlier.
        Go ahead. The deployment time of the BUK is approximately 5 minutes. This is another 90 km, which the Boeing manages to fly, during the deployment of the BUK (+ 22 sec. Reaction time (this is if a miner, well, sooo experienced)) = another 6,5 km. )
        
        Total, we get: The distance to the Boeing aircraft, at the time of its detection, by the conventional BUK, was at least 138,5 km!
        I.e;
        - firstly, it is far beyond the line of hostilities (Ukrainian territory).
        - secondly, the detection range of the BUK is up to 100 km.
        
        So estimate with your spinal cord where and whose was this "BUK" (if, of course, he had any business at all)
        
        Oleg Rambover
        
        -3
        
        21 June 2021 01: 28
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        I understand that for such a "specialist" as you, there is no difference between the "width of the antenna pattern of the target tracking channel" and the "viewing angle", so the beads from me will no longer fly at you.).
        Teach materiel.
        
        I do not pretend to be a beech connoisseur, but its characteristics say:
        
        Target Detection Area:
        - when operating in the mode of receiving target designation from PBU 9S470 is in azimuth - 10 degrees, and in elevation - 7 degrees, review time - 2 s;
        - when working in autonomous mode, it is 120 degrees in azimuth, 7 degrees in elevation, review time - 4 s
        
        For some reason you have given the characteristics of the antenna, but this is not the detection area of the radar.
        For example, for a 9C18 radar, the antenna pattern in the horizontal plane is 2,2 degrees, in the vertical plane it is 1,45 degrees. According to your logic, it turns out that this radar is not capable of detecting and escorting a slow-moving, directly flying, without the use of electronic warfare means, Boeing.
        Hence, we can draw the following conclusion: either you know all this and are stupidly lying by replacing the radar detection zone with the BOTTOM, or you do not understand anything about this and copied a text that is meaningless to you from any topwar. In any case, with the beads, you somehow did not work out very well, only an indistinct grunt.
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        Before it fell, the Boeing was apparently flying? At an altitude of 10 km and at a speed of about 300 m / s.
        I flew along the line (in the area of the DB) from Horlivka in the direction of Grabovo, where I actually fell.
        That is, you, who taught physics at school, probably understand that in order for the plane to fall in the Grabovo area, it should have been shot down "a little" earlier? From Horlivka to Grabovo about 45 km. (This is approximately, only 2,5 minutes of flight)
        The remains of the aircraft were scattered along the line to Grabovo for 15 km. From the moment when the plane began to fall apart and fall, and before the first fragments touched the ground, 1,5 minutes passed - and this is about another 27 kilometers!
        That is, adding 15 and 27 km on this line, we get that the plane was hit somewhere else in the Gorlovka area (42 km from the place where the last part fell).
        But before they fired at the plane, he was led? This means that they began to follow the plane, logically, even earlier.
        
        I just taught physics, so:
        Firstly, at a speed of about 230 m / s (300 m / s is 1100 km / h, too much for a liner)
        Secondly, they are scattered not along a line of 15 km, but over an area of 15 km2
        Thirdly, your reasoning would be correct if it happened anywhere on the moon. For the earthly atmosphere, you are oversimplifying.
        Fourth, how smartly did you manage to add 15 and 27. Did some of the debris accelerate?
        Accordingly, the maximum distance from the place of the missile hit to the place where the main debris fell in Grabovo is a maximum of 10 km. I'm not even talking about all sorts of radars that recorded the beginning of the plane crash.
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        Go ahead. The deployment time of the BUK is approximately 5 minutes. This is another 90 km, which the Boeing manages to fly, during the deployment of the BUK (+ 22 sec. Reaction time (this is if a miner, well, sooo experienced)) = another 6,5 km. )
        
        Couldn't it have been deployed already?
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        Total, we get: The distance to the Boeing aircraft, at the time of its detection, by the conventional BUK, was at least 138,5 km!
        I.e;
        - firstly, it is far beyond the line of hostilities (Ukrainian territory).
        - secondly, the detection range of the BUK is up to 100 km.
        
        So estimate with your spinal cord where and whose was this "BUK" (if, of course, he had any business at all)
        
        You are some kind of thimble-maker. They all piled up. How could a non-deployed beech detect a plane?
        For SOU 85 km, for SOC 120 km. I'm already afraid to ask where this beech of yours stood, I suppose near Lviv?
        For the spinal cord, your logic may be normal, but for the brain it does not fit into any gate.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        21 June 2021 08: 30
        
        You are some kind of thimble-maker. They all piled up. How could a non-deployed beech detect a plane?
        For SOU 85 km, for SOC 120 km. I'm already afraid to ask where this beech of yours stood, I suppose near Lviv?
        
        Don't make yourself a fool. You perfectly understand what I mean.
        
        If you omit all the nonsense that you are writing here, and assume that the Boeing was shot down by the BUK, the conclusion remains:
        
        It was possible to shoot down a Boeing with a single launcher, on a head-on course, and from the side of the militia only if:
        
        a) They knew the exact parameters of the plane's flight - time, altitude, direction, speed, etc. (Accordingly, knowing in advance exactly what kind of plane it was)
        
        b) The installation stood in a deployed position, aiming the radar at the pre-calculated point of the future meeting of the aircraft and the rocket, and waited for the “launch” command at a given time.
        
        Let me remind you that the plane made two more maneuvers. So the SOU still gave external target designation.
        
        The Boeing was unambiguously "led", and although, perhaps, not from Lvov, but in any case - from the territory of Ukraine.
        
        These conditions mean the following:
        
        The plane was shot down not by accident, but purposefully and deliberately, perfectly understanding what they were doing, what kind of plane it was, and understanding what kind of reaction would have to follow.
        
        Today we are observing the result of the performed operation.
        
        If you claim that Russia did it by shooting itself in the foot, then you are definitely moronic.
        
        Oleg Rambover
        
        -4
        
        22 June 2021 10: 40
        
        Quote: Dear couch expert.
        Don't make yourself a fool. You perfectly understand what I mean.
        
        Judging by your calculations of the missile hit, you are making yourself a fool and you have no equal in this. I understand perfectly well that you are trying to pull an owl onto the globe, but in principle it is difficult to do, and especially for you. According to your estimates, it turns out that the wreckage from Gorlovka to Garbovo flew 1.5 minutes at a distance of 42 km, if you studied physics, then it is easy to calculate that with your assumption that there is no atmosphere on Earth, the velocity of the wreckage should be at least 465 m / s or 1650 km / h. I am sure that the Boeing is not designed for such speeds and would fall apart in the air without any beeches.
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        If you omit all the nonsense that you are writing here, and assume that the Boeing was shot down by the BUK, the conclusion remains:
        
        What is nonsense? That there is an atmosphere on Earth? That the SDA can autonomously perform the entire cycle from detection to target illumination without the help of the Dome? For you, it may be nonsense, but these are the facts.
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        It was possible to shoot down a Boeing with a single launcher, on a head-on course, and from the side of the militia only if:
        
        a) They knew the exact parameters of the plane's flight - time, altitude, direction, speed, etc. (Accordingly, knowing in advance exactly what kind of plane it was)
        
        b) The installation stood in a deployed position, aiming the radar at the pre-calculated point of the future meeting of the aircraft and the rocket, and waited for the “launch” command at a given time.
        
        Let me remind you that the plane made two more maneuvers. So the SOU still gave external target designation.
        
        The Boeing was unambiguously "led", and although, perhaps, not from Lvov, but in any case - from the territory of Ukraine.
        
        What does on a collision course mean? Was the beech moving somewhere? As far as I know, the Buk air defense missile system is designed to protect the troops while in the order of these troops, that is, for it, the approaching targets should be a priority, what you set about the "oncoming" course is not clear.
        a) All parameters of the target's flight can be obtained by the BU Buk itself. What makes you think that this is not so, it is not clear.
        b) Not a point, but a sector of 120 degrees, and the target parameters in this sector could be obtained independently. This is based on the characteristics of SOU Buk, where you get your version from is not clear.
        Accordingly, someone did not necessarily give external target designations. If only type to deploy the installation to the north-west.
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        The Boeing was unambiguously "led", and although, perhaps, not from Lvov, but in any case - from the territory of Ukraine. These conditions mean the following:
        
        The plane was shot down not by accident, but purposefully and deliberately, perfectly understanding what they were doing, what kind of plane it was, and understanding what kind of reaction would have to follow.
        
        The Boeing was definitely shot down by accident, since no sane goals that could be achieved by shooting down the plane are impossible for any side in this story to imagine.
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        If you claim that Russia did it by shooting itself in the foot, then you are definitely moronic.
        
        Should you accuse anyone of dementia, after your "ingenious" calculations of the missile hit at the level of secondary school for children with special needs.
        Your reaction reminded me of the stages of accepting the inevitable:
        1. Denial. You have already passed.
        2. Anger. Now we are watching in the form of your rudeness.
        3. Humility, comprehension, acceptance. It remains to wait for this stage.
        
        Dear sofa expert.
        
        +2
        
        22 June 2021 13: 07
        
        The Boeing was definitely shot down by accident, since no sane goals that could be achieved by shooting down the plane are impossible for any side in this story to imagine ...
        
        I quickly get tired of communicating with people like you. Therefore, this is the last thing I will write to you.
        
        Of course, I understand that for you, as for a "Bandera", clumsily hiding under the guise of a Russian liberal, the truth is not important. Your task is to lavish the anti-Russian stench here, therefore I am writing further not so much for you as for the others who are on this site.
        
        Here, just a small excerpt from a 329-page work of a certain Yuri Mukhin, where a complete alignment of the MH17 case is given in a language that is quite understandable for an ordinary reader. In general, this is of course his personal version, but it was according to BUK that he said simply and to the point.
        
        In my opinion, for your brain to work even for a second, this is quite enough.
        
        .... That installation, which you may have seen in the photo as proof that this is a Buk of the militia is just a self-propelled gun mount (SDU) of the Buk anti-aircraft missile system - just one of the vehicles that are needed to destroy objects, flying at maximum ranges for the "Buk".
        But the Buk itself is a COMPLEX of combat vehicles, which, in addition to the SDU, also includes a detection and targeting station (SOC), which even the head of the Security Service of Ukraine Nalyvaichenko keeps mum about, since SOC can only be part of the Buk battery, therefore, on Donbass - only for the punishers.
        
        Fig. 1. Media announcements in the West
        Briefly about the principle of guidance of the Buk missile on the target. It is not guided by a thermal signal, like missiles of portable anti-aircraft systems (MANPADS). After the launch, at the beginning of the path, the Buk missile is guided to the target by radio commands from the ground, and at the final section, the missile itself is guided by the radar signal reflected from the target. But the Buk missile is not capable of carrying the entire radar on itself in order to irradiate the target itself, and only the receiving antenna is located on it. And the radars that irradiate the target are on the ground - powerful at the SOC and weak at the SOS. If they stop irradiating or the signal reflected from the target is weak and the rocket loses it, it will go vertically upward and explode when fuel is used up.
        
        It is pointless to have only an SOC car and not to have a SOC car.
        The fact is that the Buk missile launcher has a low-power and very narrowly focused locator, its function is to be an auxiliary one on the battery.
        Fig. 2. Self-propelled gun mount of the anti-aircraft missile system "Buk"
        With this locator it is very difficult to locate the target, and just as difficult to irradiate it with a sufficiently powerful signal so that the Buk missile will find it and not lose it. If there is a SOC in the battery, like the punitive forces in Donbass, the Buka missiles can hit even such a small target as a fighter at a distance of 50 km and at an altitude of 16 km. But if the SDU acts alone, as is attributed to the militia, then, with a target height above 3 km, the Buk air defense system was able to shoot down the target with a probability of 0,70-0,93 only if the range to the target did not exceed 20,5, 3,4 km, and some targets could be shot down only at a distance of XNUMX km ...
        
        https://stockmagia.ru/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Muhin-Yurij-Kto-Sbil-Malajzijskij-Boing-Provokaciya-Veka-2015.pdf
        
        Oleg Rambover
        
        -2
        
        23 June 2021 18: 11
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        I quickly get tired of communicating with people like you. Therefore, this is the last thing I will write to you.
        
        This is understandable, you have nothing to answer. As far as I understand, we figured out geography? That the rocket hit somewhere in the Petropalovka area.
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        Of course, I understand that for you, as for a "Bandera", clumsily hiding under the guise of a Russian liberal, the truth is not important. Your task is to lavish the anti-Russian stench here, therefore I am writing further not so much for you as for the others who are on this site.
        
        Why, well, why are there no people among your brother who are able to defend their position reasonably? Even somehow it is not interesting. As soon as you begin to poke their noses into the facts, there is essentially nothing to object to, only "Bandera," "libirast," "stench." This is all from stupidity. Read more.
        And yes, you do not need the truth in this matter. You do not like it and you are trying to come up with all sorts of ridiculous excuses, hiding your head in the sand.
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        Here, just a small excerpt from a 329-page work of a certain Yuri Mukhin, where a complete alignment of the MH17 case is given in a language that is quite understandable for an ordinary reader. In general, this is of course his personal version, but it was according to BUK that he said simply and to the point.
        
        Oh yeah! Mukhin can probably be called the main conspiracy theorist of all Russia. A very active guy. A metallurgist who understands everything in the US lunar program, Stalin's assassination stories, genetics (according to him, pseudoscience) and Michurin agrobiology (according to him, not pseudoscience), theology (there is no god, but there is a soul), physics (he refuted the theory of relativity). An anti-Semite at last. It is clear that for him to spit and grind some Boeings with beeches.
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        In my opinion, for your brain to work even for a second, this is quite enough.
        
        How did your brain work with "geography"? Or do you still have bodies in the earth's atmosphere flying like in a vacuum?
        To warm up your brain:
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        And the radars that irradiate the target are on the ground - powerful at the SOC and weak at the SOS.
        
        http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_12.htm
        SOC does not provide target illumination, only SDU
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        The fact is that the Buk missile launcher has a low-power and very narrowly focused locator, its function is to be an auxiliary one on the battery.
        
        Where he gets it from is not clear. What does auxiliary mean. Everywhere it is said that the SOU is capable of working independently from the SOC. The transmitter power of the SOTs locator is 3,5 kW, the SOC is 1 kW.
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        With this locator it is very difficult to locate the target and it is just as difficult to irradiate it with a sufficiently powerful signal so that the Buk missile will find it and not lose it.
        
        There is no other locator for target illumination, except for the SDA radar. How difficult it is to find the target is left to the author's conscience
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        If there is a SOC in the battery, like the punitive forces in Donbass, the Buka missiles can hit even such a small target as a fighter at a distance of 50 km and at an altitude of 16 km.
        
        There is such a thing, the 50M9 rocket of the Buk-M317 complex flies at 2 km. Although this complex was put into service in 1988, it actually began to enter the troops in 2008. Ukraine does not have such complexes. There Buk-M1. They have a maximum of 32 km.
        
        Quote: Dear sofa expert.
        But if the SDU acts alone, as is attributed to the militia, then, with a target height above 3 km, the Buk air defense system was able to shoot down the target with a probability of 0,70-0,93 only if the range to the target did not exceed 20,5, 3,4 km, and some targets could be shot down only at a distance of XNUMX km ...
        
        I do not know where he got it from, but from Snezhnoye to Petropalovka about 20 km, from Zaroshchenskoye 18 km.
        In short, your Mukhin does not know how to work with sources.
        
        Try, for the sake of variety, to think sometimes. I am sure you will like it.
Bakht

+2

18 June 2021 07: 43

I'm not an investigator, but even I understand what needs to be done. Rockets for BUKs are piece goods and each has a registration certificate. Request the missile list and check the numbers. First of all, Ukrainian.
There were not only satellites in the sky at that moment. Two AWACS hung over Poland and Romania. Request data on the operation of the radar station in the Donbass region. At that time, the 156th anti-aircraft missile regiment was training there. This is according to Russian electronic warfare equipment. This should be checked. None of this was done.
1. Petr Vladimirovich
  
  0
  
  18 June 2021 07: 51
  
  The task there is simple, blame Russia.
The comment was deleted.
kig

-1

18 June 2021 15: 04

Quote: 123
Does this seem strange to you?

Probably not. The court establishes the degree of guilt of the four suspects. Petrenko and other dispatchers were interviewed by an office named DSB, which deals with transport incidents. DSB, apparently, has submitted all the materials to the court, and the court has nothing against it so far. If the defense declares the need to interrogate Petrenko, they will consider this issue - this seems to be how the procedure works.
1. Ulysses
  
  0
  
  18 June 2021 23: 08
  
  Petrenko and other dispatchers were interviewed by an office named DSB, which deals with transport incidents. DSB, apparently, has submitted all the materials to the court, and the court has nothing against it so far.
  
  Please submit your materials.
  We will carefully review them ...
  1. kig
    
    0
    
    19 June 2021 10: 22
    
    Quote: Ulysses
    Please submit materials
    
    Investigation material (technical, not criminal) is available on the DSB website http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/. More precisely, I can’t, I’m at the country house now, I work from the phone, so it’s not very convenient. But it's easy to find, in the search you need to type mh17 and somewhere in the bottom right there will be links to many documents. Some are even in Russian. In the final document, however, little attention was paid to the dispatchers' negotiations - but they are there where the decoding of the black boxes is described.