Connect with us


MH17 – The Methodology of an International Cover-Up



Investigative journalists’ inquiries into the facts behind the fateful crash of Malaysia Airlines on Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014 are being stonewalled by all of the directly and indirectly implicated parties. The discourse is dominated by political and geopolitical positioning and scapegoating with the aid of “partial” not independently verifiable “evidence”. Everything, including law, suggests that all parties are interested in denying investigative journalists access to verifiable, testable evidence.

On June 5, 2015 the Russian Foreign Minster Sergey Lavrov met his Dutch counterpart in Moscow to discuss “efforts to prosecute suspects in the downing of the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777-200 on Flight MAS MH17from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.” Dutch Foreign Minister Koenders would state that “the discussions had not been easy but needed to happen”.

The Dutch Safety Board (DSB) was assigned the lead role in the investigation of the crash that plunged all 298 passengers and crew on board the Boeing 777-200 to their death in eastern Ukraine. Reasons cited for assigning the lead role to the DSB were that the majority of souls on board that Malaysian plane were Dutch citizens and that Ukraine was a belligerent party to the civil war in that country.

The DSB had previously published an intermediate report in which it stated that the airliner had been struck by high-velocity objects. These objects reportedly struck the fuselage from the outside. On June 7, 2015, the DSB published a statement about a meeting of investigators from Ukraine, Malaysia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands and the Russian Federation. The statement read:

“This afternoon, the team of international aviation investigators who investigate the cause of the crash of flight MH17 concluded an investigation meeting at Gilze Rijen air force base. During the team’s first meeting (at the end of February) the members shared the findings of the investigation as a whole on the preliminary results of the forensic investigation. The participants also received further details on the work carried out to reconstruct the aircraft. The meeting is part of the procedure for international aviation investigations as laid down by the ICAO Convention. During the meeting, good progress has been made.”

The DSB also reiterated its commitment to find the cause of the crash but that prosecuting those responsible will be part of a criminal investigation. AS mentioned above, Dutch and Russian diplomats were stressing that it will be legally and politically challenging to put foreign suspects on trial.

The Firewall against Transparency.

Numerous journalists, the author included, have made considerable efforts to elicit independently verifiable evidence from all of the involved parties. This includes mails and phone calls to relevant ministries in Ukraine, the USA, UK, Russia, Australia, Malaysia, and the Dutch Safety Board in The Netherlands.

All requests to provide independently verifiable data have remained unanswered. That includes requests for a certified copy of radar data released by the Russian Ministry of Defense, certified copies of communications between Ukrainian Air Traffic Controllers and the flight crew on board the downed Boeing 777-200, and not least a certified copy of the Comma Separated Variable (CSV) file from the downed Boeing 777-200’s flight data recorder.

To mention but a few examples that demonstrate the significance of the need for full transparency. The DSB published a “transcript” of ATC – Flight Crew communications. Investigative journalists have, in other words, no possibility to see whether the audio has been tampered with or for that matter, if the voices even are consistent with those of the flight crew.

Dennis Cimino, an expert on Flight Data Recorders discovered that a FOIA request pertaining the flight data recorder data from American Airlines Flight 77 on September 11, 2001 were from a “bench unit”.

That is, the data had been falsified – to say the very least. Journalists and the international flying public are expected to “take the DSB’s word for that it works independently and follows professional standards, ICAO guidelines and ethical standards”.

The radar data that were released by the Russian Ministry of Defense could as well have been computer generated after the fact. What independent journalists have to demand is access to certified, independently testable data that would stand up in a court of law.

The Anatomy of the Firewall.

One might be puzzled by the fact that all inquiries including freedom of information requests are being stonewalled by all of the ministries and authorities from all of the countries who are part of the investigative team.

The explanation for this is extremely simple, but it raises extremely complex problems. The key lies in the fact that the DSB is the lead investigative authority, in Dutch law, and the fact that Ukraine, Russia, Australia, Malaysia, the USA, the UK, and the Netherlands all are parties to the investigative team and bound by Dutch legislation.

Sara Vernooij from the Dutch Safety Board implicitly provided the key to the puzzling question why non of the involved parties is forthcoming with regards to independently testable and verifiable data and evidence by stating to the author:

“The Dutch Safety Board is financed from the national budget via the Department of Security and Justice, but national legislation guarantees the Dutch safety Boards independence. The department has no access to the investigations conducted by the Board and the department cannot influence the investigations….”

The investigation information is protected by Dutch law (Dutch Kingdom Act) . This act determines that only the information issued in the Final Reports is public, sources and files containing investigation information are not publicly accessible. In case of the investigation into the cause of the MH17 crash, the Dutch Safety Board works by the international ICAO agreement, annex 13”. (emphasis added)

In the Netherlands it is possible to register a WOB (Open Government Act) with the body involved. But I point out the fact that the Kingdom Act concerning the Dutch Safety Board excludes investigation information from the WOB. There is no possibility to get any access to investigation information by the Dutch Safety Board if you are not a member of the investigation team”. (emphasis added)

By implication, and due to the fact that the governments of Australia, Ukraine, USA, the UK, Malaysia and Russia have delegated investigators and become party to the DSB-led investigation, they have thus agreed to work within the framework of the Kingdom Act. That is – no independently testable and verifiable information will be made available to the public.

All that investigative journalists can do is to encourage whistle-blowers from within the relevant ministries and other authorities in Australia, Malaysia, Russia, Ukraine, UK, USA and The Netherlands to show the integrity that the worldwide flying public should be entitled to expect from all of the involved parties.

Unprecedented tragedies like the downing of MH17 require unprecedented initiative, integrity and courage. Without the possibility for independent media to have independent experts test the validity of alleged “evidence” there is no transparency at all. Period!

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply


Captured Soldiers Not OSCE Observers as Claimed: Germany and Russia Held Talks



The eight captured men in the Ukrainian city Slaviansk are not OSCE observers, affirmed OSCE official Claus Neukirch. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier spoke with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov on Monday, to discuss Moscow’s possibilities to intervene on behalf of the 4 German, 1 Danish, 1 Polish, 1 Czech and 1 Swedish soldiers who were arrested in civilian clothing, in a vehicle displaying the OSCE name. The men are being accused of espionage.

The Reuters news agency reports that Steinmeier and Lavrov discussed the detention of the eight men on Monday, while Reuters falsely designates them “observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe”.

The Russian Foreign Ministry gave no further details, other than that the talk was a German initiative. Earlier on Monday, Germany urged Moscow to do do what it can to discuss the captured soldiers release from Slaviansk.

It is noteworthy that the initial negotiations about the captured soldiers exclusively were managed via the German Ministry of Defense.

In a subsequent press conference it was announced that one of the eight, a Swedish soldier, had been released due to considerations about his health. Axel Schneider, who is one of the four German soldiers from the Center for Verification Tasks in Geilenkirchen, Germany, said: (direct not-corrected transcript)

“We are now since days here in the city in the hands of the mayor of this town. WE have not been touched and we have not been treated…at the maximum extend which is possible under these circumstances. We have no indication when we will be sent home to our countries and to see our families”.

The Center for Verification Tasks is maintaining the German Federal Defense Forces verification tasks with respect to armament control agreements. The center carries out its work in cooperation with the German Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Defense. nsnbc has tried throughout the morning of 29 April to call the center but the telephone appears to be “off the hook”.

Where the four German soldiers on official duty and if so, is it correct that they were driving in a vehicle marked OSCE, and in plain, civilian clothing. Why were they accompanied by armed Ukrainian soldiers, and why were armed Ukrainian soldiers travelling with them in the vehicle with OSCE markings?

Moreover, as German soldiers on official duty, should they not have worn their uniform? So far, we have not succeeded in attaining more detailed information about the Swedish, Danish, Czech and Polish soldiers. German Defense Minister von der Leyen was v

siting the Center for Verification Tasks on April 28.

OSCE Rejects Claims that the Eight Soldiers are OSCE Observers. Western mainstream media as well as US, German, and other EU member states officials continue describing the captured men as OSCE observers. That, despite the fact that the OSCE rejects the claim.

The OSCE stressed that the eight soldiers were not working for they OSCE. The soldiers are in Ukraine, as military observers, under a bilateral agreement made on the basis of an OSCE document. In an interview, broadcast by the Austrian TV Channel ORF, OSCE Spokesman Claus Neukirch said:

“But I also have to say, that they, to be exact, are not working for the OSCE, but that they are military observers who are active there (Ukraine) under a bilateral agreement based on an OSCE document. We have, parallel to them, also an OSCE-mission, an observer mission, that already has over 125 civilian observers in the country, including that region”.

The situation is, in other words, as follows: Eight soldiers were sent to Ukraine under a bilateral agreement; The agreement is a “parallel agreement” to the agreement about the OSCE observer mission. 4 of the capture soldiers are German, serving at the Center for Verification Tasks. The others are from Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Czech Republic and Poland.

These eight soldiers have been deployed on the basis of a bilateral agreement. Judging by the composition of the team, by the fact that Germany has led the negotiations, and by the fact that German Foreign Minister Steinmeier contacted his counterpart in Moscow to ask for help, this bilateral agreement is one between Germany and the post-coup government in Kiev. The bilateral agreement was most probably based on the OSCE’s Vienna Declaration.

Accusations Claims and Questions.

Accusations, that “pro-Russian separatists” have captured “OSCE observers” are false. Such accusations can only be considered as an attempt to cover-up the facts about the soldiers, their mission, and their actual status. These false accusations and claims are also an attempt to position anti-coup, pro-referendum, and pro-federalization protesters as “militant pro-Russian separatists”.

There are a number of questions which must be answered before it is possible to say anything really meaningful about the situation. These questions are:

Does a bilateral agreement between Germany and a government in Kiev, which illegally seized power on February 21, have any standing according to international law?

Does that bilateral agreement between Germany and the post-coup government in Kiev, even if it is based on “an OSCE document” authorize the eight soldiers from Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Czech Republic and Poland to use a vehicle that is designated as OSCE vehicle?

Is it legal, according to international laws as well as according to German, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish,Czech, Polish and Ukrainian law for active duty military officers to carry out official tasks while wearing civilian attire?

Are the accusations, made by those who captured and detained them, that they are spies, supported by national laws or by international law? It is these questions we have tried to ask the Centrum für Verifikations Aufgaben since early morning April 29. As of 12.41 CET their telephone is still off the hook.

Continue Reading


VIDEO: Rockets in Damascus CW Attack Fired from Makeshift Flatbeds



Video emerges of unmarked truck-mounted launcher surrounded by militants, firing same ordnance used in August 21 Damascus (and other) chemical attacks.

A note of clarificationThe US maintains that the chemical weapons attack in Damascus in late August could only have been the work of the Syrian government because the militants do not possess the means to carry out such an attack. The report below proves that the technology used to fire the rockets allegedly used in the attack require nothing more than a modified flatbed truck, and that the militants on record have received training and are assisted by Western contractors specifically to handle weapons inside of Syria. 

The very concept of a false flag attack is to use weapons that one’s framed enemy would have at their disposal. This report lays to rest the myth of exotic, inaccessible technology preventing US-backed terrorists from carrying out the Damascus attacks. Considering which party stood the most to gain from the attacks, and the amount of time that has passed with the West still unable to produce convincing evidence, it is clear America and its allies have failed (and will be unable) to make their case. 

Tony Cartalucci (LD) , -In September 17, 2013’s article, “5 Lies Invented to Spin UN Report on Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack,” one fabrication used by the West was exposed in particular [emphasis added]:

Lie 1. Chemical weapons were delivered with munitions not used by rebels: This claim includes referencing “Syria watcher” Eliot Higgins also known


s “Brown Mos

s,” a UK-based armchair observer of the Syrian crisis who has been documenting weapons used throughout the conflict on his blog.

While Higgins explains these particularly larger diameter rockets (140mm and 330mm) have not been seen (by him) in the hands of terrorists operating within and along Syria’s borders, older posts of his show rockets similar in construction and operation, but smaller, most certainly in the hands of the militants.

The Washington Post contends that somehow these larger rockets require “technology” the militants have no access to. This is categorically false. A rocket is launched from a simple tube, and the only additional technology terrorists may have required for the larger rockets would have been a truck to mount them on. For an armed front fielding stolen tanks, finding trucks to mount large metal tubes upon would seem a rather elementary task – especially to carry out a staged attack that would justify foreign intervention and salvage their faltering offensive.

Video has now emerged showing just the sort of unmarked improvised trucks predicted US-backed terrorists would use to carry out the attacks, surrounded by a combination of civilian-dressed and semi-uniformed individuals firing ordnance identical to those used during the Damascus chemical weapons attack. Western media sources are scrambling to explain how this is instead, the “smoking gun” proving the Syrian government was behind the attacks, and not the so-called “rebels.”

This tenuous argument is being spearheaded by the “Brown Moses Blog” run by UK sofa-based, self-taught “weapons expert” Eliot Higgins, which claims:

The following video was just sent to me by


oxy13, showing the type of munition linked to alleged chemical attacks being loaded and fired by what appears to be Assad’s

Unfortunately for Higgins’ credibility and objectiveness, the conclusion he jumps to (based apparently on the color hats everyone is wearing in the video) is based on “evidence” sent to him by Twitter user @Paradoxy13, an overt supporter of the armed militants operating in Syria. His Twitter timeline is proudly topped with the French-colonial flag now being used by the so-called “Free Syrian Army” and flooded with overtly biased propaganda backing both the terrorists in Syria, and their Western sponsors abroad.

The alleged footage Higgins posted on his blog comes from YouTube account, “Darya Revolution” – clearly belonging to militant supporters.

The video descriptions claims:

The moment of launching surface- to –surface missile from Mazzeh military airport — it could carry a chemical head- on the day of the “chemical massacre” in Eastern Ghouta. Darayya Media Centre shot the missile at the exact second it was launched from Mazzeh Military Airport towards Eastern Ghout at around 6 AM. Many soldiers were seen around the point of launching the missile with red caps, which indicates that they were presidential guards.

forces .

What serendipity to have both a massive chemical attack in Damascus just as UN monitors arrived in the Syrian capital, and now video shot by militants who claim they just so happened to have a camera ready to film the rockets as they were launched toward Eastern Ghouta in Damascus.

At face value, nothing about this points to the Syrian government – as Higgins claims. Higgins even has to remind readers that the chemical weapons attack allegedly took place at night, directly contradicting the description of the video he is citing as a “smoking gun.”

The video shows two trucks surrounded by a motley crew of both uniformed and non-uniformed individuals carrying a variety of weapons – typical of “Free Syrian Army” formations, atypical of the Syrian Arab Army’s operations which include columns of tanks, clearly marked aircraft, camouflaged trucks, and soldiers in full battledress.

There appears to be one truck for carrying and loading the rockets, and another for launching them – the launcher can be seen at the end of the video being concealed under a tarp. Aside from this, there are no other military vehicles seen in the vicinity, and the trucks themselves are unmarked, converted civilian vehicles typical of the “technicals” (improvised fighting vehicles) used by terrorists both in Libya and now Syria. For trucks allegedly carrying “government” chemical weapons, or even large high-explosive rockets,  there is surprisingly lax security around them and a suspicious desire to conceal the improvised weapon system after use.

The painstakingly slow process of loading and firing a single rocket would also negate any practical tactical advantage on the battlefield were this footage of another attack, on another day, using a conventional rocket for an artillery strike – as Higgins seems to suggest. The Syrian military possesses an extensive arsenal of artillery pieces and multiple rocket launchers that could easily bombard targets with better accuracy, increased frequency and effectiveness.

Additional “evidence” cited by Higgins of “regime use” of these rocket systems consists solely of militant footage of rocket impacts – not of Syrian troops actually firing the weapons. Higgins operates under the false assumption that previous chemical attacks showing up in militant videos depicting similar rockets could only be the work of the Syrian government, and not false flag operations carried out by an increasingly desperate West and their proxy forces inside Syria. Aside from this assumption, he provides no evidence to back up his claims.

Higgins was handed a “smoking gun” by the people most likely to have benefited from the crime, who claim they “found it” at the feet of the very government they are fighting. Without critical examination, and apparently based on the color hats several individuals were wearing, Higgins concludes that the footage portrays the Syrian government launching a single massive rocket from a modified flatbed.

In reality, we are most likely looking at the EXACT method the US-backed terrorists in Syria used to carry out the chemical weapons attack in Damascus in late August. Whether or not the rockets contained chemical weapons could be a matter of debate – as the rockets and other evidence were all clearly tampered with in the days before the UN investigated the site – this according to the UN itself. On page 18 of the UN’s report (22 of the .pdf), the UN states [emphasis added]:

The time necessary to conduct a detailed survey of both locations as well as take samples was very limited. The sites have been well travelled by other individuals both before and during the investigation. Fragments and other possible evidence have clearly been handled/moved prior to the arrival of the investigation team.

It is confirmed that the US has been training militants and providing “contractors” to accompany them into Syria where they have been operating specifically to handle chemical weapons. CNN reported in their 2012 article, “Sources: U.S. helping underwrite Syrian rebel training on securing chemical weapons,” that:

The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.

The training, which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.

While the video above is claimed to be a “smoking gun,” it instead, under critical examination, illustrates the means with which the false-flag operation was carried out in late August – for the sole purpose of justifying direct Western military intervention to save a faltering proxy war.

That the same rocket used in Damascus has now been seen launched from makeshift flatbeds and not olive green military rocket launchers, along with answering the basic question of “to whose benefit?” and considering that militants are confirmed to have US training in handling of chemical weapons – all at the very least tear down the narrative that “only the Syrian regime” could have carried out the attacks.

Tony Cartalucci via LandDestroyer

Continue Reading


Dumas, “Top British Officials Confessed to Syria War Plans Two Years before Arab Spring”



The former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas admits, the war on Syria was planned two years before “The Arab Spring”. Dumas states in a TV interview, that “top British officials” confessed that they were preparing a war on Syria and asked “If I wanted to participate”.

The former French Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared in aTV interview with the French TV Channel LPC, saying:

“I am going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me, that they were preparing something in Syria”.

Dumas continued, indicating that the subversion and invasion of the Syrian Arab Republic with the help of “rebels” was primarily a British plan, while he carefully avoided implicating himself and France, saying:

“This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister of Foreign Affairs, if I would like to participate. Naturally, I refused, I said I am French, that does not interest me”

Dumas continued the interview, pointing to the role of Israel in the Middle East and Israel´s role with regard to western Middle East foreign policy and the war on Syria. The war has so far cost an estimated 93.000 lives and has displaced more than two million since the onset of the western subversion attempt in 2011. The majority of those who were killed were Syrian civilians, murdered by western-backed insurgents and terrorists.

Dumas also indicated that nothing had changed since the Sikes – Pikot European colonialism in the Middle East, and implicitly argues for the legitimacy of European colonialism and warfare on behalf of the Zionist state of Israel.

What annoys Dumas is apparently not neo-colonialism and violations of international law, but the fact that western powers are not open and honest about it. Dumas said:

“This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived and planned… in the region it is important to know that this Syrian regime has a very anti-Israeli stance”.

“Consequently, everything that moves in the region…- and I have this from a former Israeli Prime Minister who told me ´we will try to get on with our neighbors but those who don´t agree with us will be destroyed. It is a type of politics, a view of history, why not after all. But one should know about it”.

With his statements, Dumas aligns himself legally and politically with Henry Kissinger, who doubts whether the provisions of international law on national sovereignty and non-interference into domestic affairs of sovereign nations, enshrined in the Treaty of Westphalia and the Charter of the UN apply to “former colonies, whose borders have been arbitrarily drawn by former colonial powers”.

Although Dumas was careful to avoid implicating France or himself directly in the planning stages of the subversion, his statement reveals that British officials have been vetting and contacting leading French policy makers for their potential involvement in planning the illegal war on Syria, at least two years before the onset of the first “incidents” which sparked mass protests. International analysts as well as Syrian sources have since 2011 maintained, that the eruption of violence was systematically created from abroad.

Whether Dumas will ever have to testify before an international war crimes tribunal under oath and risk of perjury, to tell a judge who exactly the “top British officials” were, who attempted to recruit Dumas, who allegedly rejected the offer of “taking part” is doubtful as long as the International Criminal Court, ICC at The Hague remains the sole option for the prosecution of war crimes.

Continue Reading