Although the fighter jets that were said to have been escorting the Malaysian plane into the war-zone were alleged to be SU-25 planes, a different type might have been used. SU-25s are designed to be flown up to 23,000 feet without an oxygen-mask, but can go much higher if the pilot does wear that mask, which was probably the case here. Of course, an airliner itself is fully pressurized. That pressurization inside the airliner is, moreover, a key part of Haisenko's reconstruction of this airliner's downing. Basically, Haisenko reconstructs the airliner's breaking apart as soon as that hail of bullets opened and released the plane's pressurization.
The specific photo of that cockpit-fragment, which Haisenko had downloaded immediately after the disaster, was removed from the Internet, but other photos of this fragment were posted elsewhere, such as at the British publication (which, like the rest of the Western "news" media is slanted pro-Obama, anti-Putin), on July 21st, headlining their anti-Putin missile-theory bias, "MH17 crash: FT photo shows signs of damage from missile strike." Their "reporters" opened with their blatant anti-Russian prejudice: "The first apparent hard evidence that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was brought down by a surface-to-air missile is emerging from the crash site in eastern Ukraine, after experts confirmed on Monday there were signs of shrapnel damage to the aircraft." Although they didn't say in their opener that the "surface-to-air missile" was from the rebels, they made clear their pro-Ukrainian-Government anti-Russian bias by saying, "Over the weekend, western intelligence agencies pointed to mounting evidence that backs Ukraine's claim that the aircraft with 298 people on board was shot down by mistake by pro-Russian separatists and Russian military personnel with an SA-11 missile launched from a Buk-M1 SAM battery." Their stenographers (or as they would say "reporters") stenographed ("reported") that, "Douglas Barrie of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the photographic evidence 'was consistent with the kind of damage you would expect to see from the detonation of a high explosive fragmentation warhead of the type commonly used in a SAM system'." No analyst from the pro-Putin camp was interviewed by their "reporters." For example, Russia's Interfax News Service headlined on July 29th, the same day as the FT's article, "Boeing's downing by Buk missile system unlikely -- military expert," and they stenographed their "expert," as follows:
Chief of the Russian Land Forces' tactical air defense troops Maj. Gen. Mikhail Krush said he doubts that the Malaysian passenger liner was brought down by a Buk surface-to-air missile system. "No one observed a Buk engaging targets in that region on that day, which provides 95 percent proof that Buk systems were not used in this concrete case," the general said in an interview with the Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kuryer military weekly to be published on Wednesday [July 30th]. "This is no more than a theory for now. However, a guided missile launched by a Buk missile system leaves behind a specific smoke trail as it flies, like a comet. In daylight this trail can be clearly seen within a radius of 20-25 kilometers from the missile system. It cannot remain unnoticed. There are no eyewitnesses to confirm there was any. No one reported a launch. This is one thing," he said. "Second. The holes left by the strike elements on the Boeing's outer skin indicate that the warhead blew up from below and sideways. A Buk missile strikes the target from above," he said. "The damage done to the plane suggests that a different missile was used. Our guidance method is a zoom, when the missile strikes the target from above covering it with a thick cloud of fragments" the general said. "I cannot state categorically, guided by this data, but I can suggest, using my experience, that it was not a Buk missile that hit the Boeing," the expert said.
General Krush's statement can fit with Haisenko's and with Bociurkiw's, but not with FT's or the rest of the "reporters" (just consider them as rank propagandists) in the West.
U.S. President Barack Obama has been saying all along that Russia -- against which he is actually systematically building toward war -- and not Ukraine (which he's using as his chief vehicle to do that), is to blame for this airliner-downing. Previously, he had said that the snipers who in February had killed many people at the Maidan demonstrations against the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych came from Yanukovych's State Security Service and not from the far-right political parties that were trying to bring Yanukovych down and that Obama's agent Victoria Nuland selected to run the new Ukrainian government. But that too was an Obama lie. He lies a lot, and it's just about the only type of statement he ever makes about Russia, and about Ukraine: lies.
If someone wants to verify how rabidly the U.S. Government lies, and has lied since at least the time of George W. Bush's Presidency, just look at this video, by starting at 16:00 on it and going to 42:00 on it, and you will be shocked. (It pertains to lies by Bush that are still being covered up by Obama.) And when you further consider the many obvious questions it points out, which U.S. "news" media refused to ask and still refuse to ask about the matter, you'll recognize that we are being lied to systematically and with utter contempt of the public, and with no respect for the public's right to know the truth, even regarding massive history like that. It's really brutal.
Ignorant "reporters" sometimes slip-up and include, in their stenography, facts that actually support the opposite side's narrative of events and that discredit their own story-line. Such has been the case, for example, in the Financial Times piece, which included the statement that, "Anti-aircraft missiles are not designed to score a direct hit as they are targeted to destroy fast, agile fighter jets. Instead, they are designed to explode within about 20m of their target, sending out a cloud of red hot metal to increase the chances of inflicting as much damage as possible."
But rather than merely "a cloud of red hot metal," what actually brought down this plane was what Haisenko has said brought it down: magazines-full of carefully targeted rapid-fire machine-gun bullets pouring forth from below the plane, at both its left and right.
This was a Ukrainian Government job. It was close-in. (No missile fired from the distance more than 30,000 feet down to the ground could have been that precise to target the pilot rather than the far larger target of the plane's entire body.) It came from the Government that Obama installed there in February and that's now carrying out an ethnic-cleansing campaign against the residents in Ukraine's southeast, the places where Yanukovych's voters live (to the extent that they still can and do live).
Compare that picture with the following one, which I take from a propaganda-site for the U.S. regime, and so which is intended instead to support the Administration's line on this, certainly not Haisenko's explanation of how the airliner was downed, though it actually supports Haisenko's case:
As you can see there, a plane that's hit by a ground-fired missile, instead of by bullets fired from an attack-plane only a few yards away, has the damage spread rather widely over its body, not concentrated into a tiny area, such as to where the plane's pilot is seated. Certainly, the contrast between that photo and this one is enormous.
Furthermore, note also that the shrapnel damage to that plane comes from above it, which is where missiles usually hit a plane from, releasing their shrapnel from above, down onto the plane. By contrast, the hail of bullets to the Malaysian plane's pilot came from below the plane, aiming upward at the cockpit, from both sides of the cockpit.
Furthermore, note also that all of the holes appear to be inbound into the plane, none outbound.
As regards whether there were actually two fighter jets firing into the Malaysian airliner or only one, a proponent of the single-jet hypothesis, Bill Johnson, posted as a reader-comment to my article on August 4th, a series of extreme close-ups of the side-panel, in which he inferred that the explanation of the apparent left-side (pilot-side) bullets was probably the shape of the bullets. I then asked him why he declined to accept the possible existence of two jets. He said, "from what I could find Russian military radar detected only one Ukrainian fighter jet, not two. I have looked and looked for any type of radar confirmation of a second fighter jet and can not find it." However, the most virginal, very earliest, online evidence concerning the matter was on July 17th, within moments of the downing, headlining in the subsequent English translation, "Spanish Air Controller @ Kiev Borispol Airport: Ukraine Military Shot Down Boeing #MH17," and it included, "@spainbuca's TWITTER FEED," which included his observation, only minutes after the downing, "2 jet fighters flew very close" to the plane. Furthermore, immediately before that, he had tweeted, "The B777 plane flew escorted by Ukraine jet fighter until 2 minutes before disappearing from the radar." So, perhaps the second jet appeared distinct to him only immediately prior to the downing. An extensive file of tweets from @spainbuca was posted below the headline story and it included also the note: "LAST MINUTE Air Traffic Controller: The Boeing 777 'flew fighters escorted by two Ukrainians' before disappearing." (The original Spanish there was: "'vol???? escoltado por 2 cazas ucranianos' antes de desaparecer.")
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
11
8
7
