MH17 Update
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting nugget from the investigation
Having sat through the private briefing this morning, there was a fair amount of expectations being met.
However, there was some surprise at the following: the safety board identified the warhead as a specific type with a definite fingerprint. They used forensic evidence of warhead paint, explosive compounds, sub components and the butterfly shaped shrapnel that peppered the cockpit and the bodies of the 3 flight crew. All members of the safety investigation including the Russian Federation agreed at the second internal review that it was this specific warhead, commonly found on the Buk system. However, by the third internal review, the Russian Federation changed its mind about all that. Hence their current formal position that there is insufficient evidence to determine the type of warhead that brought MH17 down.
However, there was some surprise at the following: the safety board identified the warhead as a specific type with a definite fingerprint. They used forensic evidence of warhead paint, explosive compounds, sub components and the butterfly shaped shrapnel that peppered the cockpit and the bodies of the 3 flight crew. All members of the safety investigation including the Russian Federation agreed at the second internal review that it was this specific warhead, commonly found on the Buk system. However, by the third internal review, the Russian Federation changed its mind about all that. Hence their current formal position that there is insufficient evidence to determine the type of warhead that brought MH17 down.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London Under EGLL(LHR) 27R ILS
Age: 31
Posts: 500
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surveillance data from the radar systems of both Ukraine and the Russian Federation was requested for the investigation. The Data request for the investigation was as follows. (Page 38) and most if not all was "Not available"
Not available??! I wonder why...
Not available??! I wonder why...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the Russian data because A - They are being awkward, B - They don't want any analysis done on the primary shadows shown in their video (that are AIUI likely to be fragments of MH17). (Although their claim is that they do a spatial save, only retaining data from within their territory and filter out data outside their territory - which seems like an improbable effort to have gone to to save a bit of storage cost).
For the Ukranian data, they said their primary Radars in the area were down for maintenance and they were using only secondary data, hence there is no ATC data (section 2.9.5.2). The Ukrainians also claim not to have military primary radar data due because they were not operating their military Radar as they had no military aircraft in the area (same section).
For the Ukranian data, they said their primary Radars in the area were down for maintenance and they were using only secondary data, hence there is no ATC data (section 2.9.5.2). The Ukrainians also claim not to have military primary radar data due because they were not operating their military Radar as they had no military aircraft in the area (same section).
I havenīt really kept up with all the information. But, I was wondering what is the story behind Igor Girkin aka Strelkov and his 'claim to fame' on vk.com to have shot down MH17 before all his related entries were deleted when it was realized what has been shot down? 
Thatīs what I understand as well. The screen shots still available today leave little doubt who is responsible. Just some people are questioning the whole thing and reckon itīs a set up. Is there any substance this could have been made up from the 'other side'?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'the other side' is the government of Ukraine who had no reason to shoot down aircraft in their own airspace. Russia could not use aircraft and pretend that the pilots had borrowed the aircraft to go on holiday in the same way that soldiers borrowed their tanks and BUK missile launchers to go on holiday in Ukraine.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EHAM
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the report shows that good investigative work has been done. The conclusion about the 9N314M warhead type is strongly based on the preformed bow-tie shaped fragments which are stated to be unique for this particular BUK warhead. There are 2 points where I miss a bit of reflection:
- A group of 72 high energy objects was identified in the cockpit / crew members bodies. These were ferrous. 43 were made of unalloyed steel such as used in the BUK missile and generally matched the shape. But apparently also 28 stainless steel fragments were found. No explanation is given as to where they could come from?
- Parts of the wreckage were chemically tested for explosives. RDX, TNT and trace amounts of PETN were found. On the recovered missile parts RDX was found. It is not mentioned whether an 9N314M warhead is indeed RDX based?
- A group of 72 high energy objects was identified in the cockpit / crew members bodies. These were ferrous. 43 were made of unalloyed steel such as used in the BUK missile and generally matched the shape. But apparently also 28 stainless steel fragments were found. No explanation is given as to where they could come from?
- Parts of the wreckage were chemically tested for explosives. RDX, TNT and trace amounts of PETN were found. On the recovered missile parts RDX was found. It is not mentioned whether an 9N314M warhead is indeed RDX based?
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 StuntPilot
I wonder where have your numbers (about fragments) come from?
In the DSB report, p. 92, Table 11, it is clearly stated that only 20 fragments were judged to be so-called "high-energy objects". 16 were of an "irregular" shape , 2 considered as "cubic" and 2 - as "bow-tie".
Quite poor statistics, especially as after so great deformation the output shape will not often match the original one.
I wonder where have your numbers (about fragments) come from?
In the DSB report, p. 92, Table 11, it is clearly stated that only 20 fragments were judged to be so-called "high-energy objects". 16 were of an "irregular" shape , 2 considered as "cubic" and 2 - as "bow-tie".
Quite poor statistics, especially as after so great deformation the output shape will not often match the original one.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EHAM
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A_Van,
The report states on page 88 that
Then, on page 89, after the photo of the fragments that are stated to be characteristic for the 9N314M warhead, the report says that the forensic institute made a composition depth profile by cutting into the fragments with a focussed ion beam and performing x-ray spectroscopy. 43 of the 72 fragments were found to be made of unalloyed steel (which the fragments of a 9N314M warhead are indeed made of). 20 of the 43 fragments had clear deposits of aluminium or glass. The 14 with glass carried the signature of the cockpit glass layers (sodium, zirconium), the aluminium composition matches the aircraft's. A high accuracy composition measurement shows that there are 2 slightly differing unalloyed steel compositions, these elements could for example come from 2 different tubes (the 9N314M warhead has an inner and an outer layer of elements).
A 44th fragment was non-metallic.
Interestingly, on page 89 it says that the remaining (72-43-1) 28 fragments are made of stainless steel, not of unalloyed steel. The report does not say where they might come from.
I think the statistics is as good as it can be: although the missile spewed out many thousands of fragments, only 800 or so hit the plane, but they did so with tremendous energy. Most of them passed right through. The blast tore off the entire nose of the plane. To find some tens of fragments is then quite a bit. Many were found in the crew's bodies.
The report states on page 88 that
A distinct group was identified as small pieces of metal that were suspected to be high-energy objects, or parts of them. These fragments were extracted from the Captain from Team A, the First Officer from Team A, the Purser, who was present in the cockpit at the time of the crash, and from the cockpit wreckage (Figure 37). These fragments were found to be ferrous.
Further forensic examinations were conducted on a number of these fragments. The selection was based on size, shape, mass and ferrous properties. In total 72 fragments were selected for further examination. Fifteen of these 72 fragments were found in the remains of the three crew members, one was found in the body of a passenger. The remaining 56 foreign fragments were recovered from the wreckage.
Further forensic examinations were conducted on a number of these fragments. The selection was based on size, shape, mass and ferrous properties. In total 72 fragments were selected for further examination. Fifteen of these 72 fragments were found in the remains of the three crew members, one was found in the body of a passenger. The remaining 56 foreign fragments were recovered from the wreckage.
A 44th fragment was non-metallic.
Interestingly, on page 89 it says that the remaining (72-43-1) 28 fragments are made of stainless steel, not of unalloyed steel. The report does not say where they might come from.
I think the statistics is as good as it can be: although the missile spewed out many thousands of fragments, only 800 or so hit the plane, but they did so with tremendous energy. Most of them passed right through. The blast tore off the entire nose of the plane. To find some tens of fragments is then quite a bit. Many were found in the crew's bodies.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
I do not object to what is written in the excerpt that you copied in your post. Was only meaning that the conclusion is obvious (a missile was the cause) and does not give any details or clear the picture.
Special disappointment comes from simulations that were performed by NLR and TNO (appendices x-z to the report). I know both organisations and really pay great respect to the experts that work there. However, I can imagine what administrative pressure they faced to agree conducting simulations with nearly no real data about the missile. Clearly, no matter what tool are you using (MATLAB, Simulink, NASTRAN, WEST, whatever) the devil is in (precise knowledge of) all the parameters of the object/process you are simulating. As far as the missile is concerned, here we have guidance and control laws/software, a seeker model, actuators, missile dynamics - hundreds of parameters, tens of dif. equations, non-linear, non-stationary. It usually takes years for the manufacturer to generate and validate such models. And all these data are quite secret. Entering arbitrary parameters instead of real ones will result in an arbitrary output , from "black through white". If so, the customer could just select what he likes to get. I am even skeptical that Almaz-Antey could absolutely correctly reconstruct the trajectory though they do know all the data (it is their stuff).
I do not object to what is written in the excerpt that you copied in your post. Was only meaning that the conclusion is obvious (a missile was the cause) and does not give any details or clear the picture.
Special disappointment comes from simulations that were performed by NLR and TNO (appendices x-z to the report). I know both organisations and really pay great respect to the experts that work there. However, I can imagine what administrative pressure they faced to agree conducting simulations with nearly no real data about the missile. Clearly, no matter what tool are you using (MATLAB, Simulink, NASTRAN, WEST, whatever) the devil is in (precise knowledge of) all the parameters of the object/process you are simulating. As far as the missile is concerned, here we have guidance and control laws/software, a seeker model, actuators, missile dynamics - hundreds of parameters, tens of dif. equations, non-linear, non-stationary. It usually takes years for the manufacturer to generate and validate such models. And all these data are quite secret. Entering arbitrary parameters instead of real ones will result in an arbitrary output , from "black through white". If so, the customer could just select what he likes to get. I am even skeptical that Almaz-Antey could absolutely correctly reconstruct the trajectory though they do know all the data (it is their stuff).
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with everything - 'crap in = crap out' and yes the devil is certainly in the detail. However, there is a huge difference between "arbitrary parameters" and sufficient approximation for the input to a numerical simulation. A sufficient approximation is intrinsic to Finite Element Analysis since infinite precision and accuracy is not possible.
I must confess that I haven't read the appendix z report fully, I've only read the simulation setup and skimmed the results. Could you point me to the approximations of input parameters that have been made that are arbitrary?
As I've understood: It's stated that the model of the 9N314 warhead that was used is a 70 kg cylindrical charge of 60% RDX and 40% TNT. The "modified fisher" model was used to calculate the energy released as a blast wave. The aircraft was travelling at 254 m/s and the warhead ~600 m/s. You mentioned reconstruction of the trajectory - is a highly accurate trajectory necessary for simulation of the warhead and its interaction with the airframe as per this report?
I must confess that I haven't read the appendix z report fully, I've only read the simulation setup and skimmed the results. Could you point me to the approximations of input parameters that have been made that are arbitrary?
As I've understood: It's stated that the model of the 9N314 warhead that was used is a 70 kg cylindrical charge of 60% RDX and 40% TNT. The "modified fisher" model was used to calculate the energy released as a blast wave. The aircraft was travelling at 254 m/s and the warhead ~600 m/s. You mentioned reconstruction of the trajectory - is a highly accurate trajectory necessary for simulation of the warhead and its interaction with the airframe as per this report?
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dutch experts worked all the way from the holes in the cockpit walls back. First they determined the approximate point of detonation and the orientation of the missile at that point in time . For this step, the detonation simulation was used to get the position and orientation, which gave the best fit to the observed ricochet traces and hole distribution.
The detonation point was a little high, left and in front of the cockpit, and the orientation, which is essential for determining the area of origin, was a small angle to the low and to the right side.
The trajectory could not be and has not been exactly reproduced. Starting from the detonation point in space, direction and speed, allowing for a certain uncertainty in those 6 parameters, and also allowing for some uncertainties concerning all the elements belonging to the missile, a pretty large area of possible launch points has been determined, more or less everything right and sufficiently in front of the flight path. This was done by simulating many launches whith a special software, while varying the launch location, launcher orientation and other factors, and then taking the area, from wich launches with the observed missile orientation at detonation point where possible.
If the missile had been fired from a point less in front and more lateral, it would have had a considerably larger lateral angle at the detonation point, as it is known to have been designed to follow a constant angle approach.
This seems reasonable. The report seems to me very well made and thorough, BTW.
The detonation point was a little high, left and in front of the cockpit, and the orientation, which is essential for determining the area of origin, was a small angle to the low and to the right side.
The trajectory could not be and has not been exactly reproduced. Starting from the detonation point in space, direction and speed, allowing for a certain uncertainty in those 6 parameters, and also allowing for some uncertainties concerning all the elements belonging to the missile, a pretty large area of possible launch points has been determined, more or less everything right and sufficiently in front of the flight path. This was done by simulating many launches whith a special software, while varying the launch location, launcher orientation and other factors, and then taking the area, from wich launches with the observed missile orientation at detonation point where possible.
If the missile had been fired from a point less in front and more lateral, it would have had a considerably larger lateral angle at the detonation point, as it is known to have been designed to follow a constant angle approach.
This seems reasonable. The report seems to me very well made and thorough, BTW.
Last edited by dlen; 21st Oct 2015 at 23:40.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 aperturescience
Please do not misinterprete what I was talking about. I am not an expert in explosive physics and was not discussing it. However, when I read the words like:
- a "mathematical model of a (9N314M) warhead" from TNO (App. X, p. 52),
- "design" II from TNO matches better that design III from Almaz-Antey"
a lot of questions arise.
I.e. TNO claims to know the (top secret) hardware from Almaz-Antey better than the designer and manufacture, bravo! BTW, A-A announced publicly in their press conference that the material they provided earlier to DSB was ignored.
Actually I was talking about the missile trajectory reconstruction, and on this point there are just a couple of pages in App. X: paras 6.19 - 6.20, pp. (60-61). What equations, what parameters? Just a trivial text for public, not for experts.
E.g., it is vaguely written (App. X, p. 60, second sentence in para 6.19) that the "simulation is based on a validated aerodynamic missile fly-out model, a rocket engine thrust profile model and models of the radar seeker, missile guidance logic and autopilot..". Bravissimo!
It usually takes years of work of a missile designer and its subcontrators (seeker, ground radar, autopilot and guidance software, etc.) to develop and validate (by means of many real launchs) all this. No need to say that all these data is top secret.
Imagine that a company in a country that does not produce aircraft would publish some results of their simulations of, say, F-22 combat operations, mentioning that their model is better than that of Boeing. The reaction of the latter is quite predictable. Here we have a similar situation and it is well below the level of engineering discussion.
Please do not misinterprete what I was talking about. I am not an expert in explosive physics and was not discussing it. However, when I read the words like:
- a "mathematical model of a (9N314M) warhead" from TNO (App. X, p. 52),
- "design" II from TNO matches better that design III from Almaz-Antey"
a lot of questions arise.
I.e. TNO claims to know the (top secret) hardware from Almaz-Antey better than the designer and manufacture, bravo! BTW, A-A announced publicly in their press conference that the material they provided earlier to DSB was ignored.
Actually I was talking about the missile trajectory reconstruction, and on this point there are just a couple of pages in App. X: paras 6.19 - 6.20, pp. (60-61). What equations, what parameters? Just a trivial text for public, not for experts.
E.g., it is vaguely written (App. X, p. 60, second sentence in para 6.19) that the "simulation is based on a validated aerodynamic missile fly-out model, a rocket engine thrust profile model and models of the radar seeker, missile guidance logic and autopilot..". Bravissimo!
It usually takes years of work of a missile designer and its subcontrators (seeker, ground radar, autopilot and guidance software, etc.) to develop and validate (by means of many real launchs) all this. No need to say that all these data is top secret.
Imagine that a company in a country that does not produce aircraft would publish some results of their simulations of, say, F-22 combat operations, mentioning that their model is better than that of Boeing. The reaction of the latter is quite predictable. Here we have a similar situation and it is well below the level of engineering discussion.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EHAM
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A_Van,
A-A has made data available to te investigation. A-A and the russian federation have been present at several meetings and have agreed to the findings. Then, suddenly, in the third and last meeting and response round, they have changed their story. All of this is well documented and you can read a summary of these events from page 94 onwards in the 'about the investigation' document http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documen...igation-en.pdf .
You underestimate the expertise of TNO. They are very much tied to the Dutch defense industry which, although maybe not widely known, consists of several hundreds of companies. Missile simulations belong to their area of competence.
Although I reject statements based on secrecy as much as you do, consider that the head of the DSB has by now stated on record and publicly that there is secret evidence (from a classified infrared missile early warning system), that has also yielded a trajectory. It is in accordance with the published findings.
A-A has made data available to te investigation. A-A and the russian federation have been present at several meetings and have agreed to the findings. Then, suddenly, in the third and last meeting and response round, they have changed their story. All of this is well documented and you can read a summary of these events from page 94 onwards in the 'about the investigation' document http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documen...igation-en.pdf .
You underestimate the expertise of TNO. They are very much tied to the Dutch defense industry which, although maybe not widely known, consists of several hundreds of companies. Missile simulations belong to their area of competence.
Although I reject statements based on secrecy as much as you do, consider that the head of the DSB has by now stated on record and publicly that there is secret evidence (from a classified infrared missile early warning system), that has also yielded a trajectory. It is in accordance with the published findings.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In related news, Russian cyber-espionage group targets MH17 investigation board:
Pawn Storm Targets MH17 Investigation Team
According to Trend Micro, the 'Pawn Storm' cyber-espionage group have a long history of attacks against US and NATO government targets, Russian dissidents, Ukrainian activists, and various media organizations.
October 22, 2015 Trend Micro -- The Dutch Safety Board (known as Onderzoeksraad) became a target of the cyber-espionage group before and after the safety board published their detailed report on the MH17 incident on October 13, 2015. We believe that a coordinated attack from several sides was launched to get unauthorized access to sensitive material of the investigation conducted by Dutch, Malaysian, Australian, Belgian, and Ukrainian authorities.
According to Trend Micro, the 'Pawn Storm' cyber-espionage group have a long history of attacks against US and NATO government targets, Russian dissidents, Ukrainian activists, and various media organizations.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StuntPilot,
I do not underestimate knowledge and expertise of TNO and other organisations from the Netherlands (Ik werkte veel met Nederlandse bedrijven vooral met Dutch Space. Niet voor militaire, maar voor ruimte-projecten. Ook had contacten met NLR, TNO-FEL en sommige kleinere).
Just wanted to say that lack of precise data is critical and none of Russian companies, having just publicly available data, could correctly and accurately reconstruct the trajectory of the Buk either . What A-A disclosed, was definitely some general information. Specific data about guidance, an autopilot, seeker, actuators, etc. are highly classified with IPRs belonging to the MoD. If A-A disclosed these data, we would see them not at a press conference, but "behind the bars". This is, by the way, why I am skeptical about any material from A-A: they also did not disclose details.
They "draw the curves" with no proof, the same as DSB - not serious.
Thanks for pointing to the link with another DSB document. Indeed, the material from p. 94 and onwards looks strange: a childish game "you say "yes", and I say "no". Each side playes its own game and does not want to hear another one.
Regarding an early warning system, yes, shortly after the catastrophe it was heard from the US that their system detected the launch and that they "knew the area where the missile started from."
I assume they indeed had some data as both SBIRS-GEO and SBIRS-HEO satellites are in operation already (SBIRS-LEO, too, but it "addresses" missiles at relatively high altitudes, AFAIK).
However, the US declined sharing that data (evidence) and this lowers the credibility bar to zero. Also, technically speaking, it is unlikely that SBIRS could provide a highly accurate estimate of the launch point, it is just purposed for "general detection", but not for target acquisition, etc.
So, IMHO, the situation is still well unclear. I am not impressed, neither by the work by DSB, nor by the Russian groups (i.e. what I hear here in the Russian media).
I do not underestimate knowledge and expertise of TNO and other organisations from the Netherlands (Ik werkte veel met Nederlandse bedrijven vooral met Dutch Space. Niet voor militaire, maar voor ruimte-projecten. Ook had contacten met NLR, TNO-FEL en sommige kleinere).
Just wanted to say that lack of precise data is critical and none of Russian companies, having just publicly available data, could correctly and accurately reconstruct the trajectory of the Buk either . What A-A disclosed, was definitely some general information. Specific data about guidance, an autopilot, seeker, actuators, etc. are highly classified with IPRs belonging to the MoD. If A-A disclosed these data, we would see them not at a press conference, but "behind the bars". This is, by the way, why I am skeptical about any material from A-A: they also did not disclose details.
They "draw the curves" with no proof, the same as DSB - not serious.
Thanks for pointing to the link with another DSB document. Indeed, the material from p. 94 and onwards looks strange: a childish game "you say "yes", and I say "no". Each side playes its own game and does not want to hear another one.
Regarding an early warning system, yes, shortly after the catastrophe it was heard from the US that their system detected the launch and that they "knew the area where the missile started from."
I assume they indeed had some data as both SBIRS-GEO and SBIRS-HEO satellites are in operation already (SBIRS-LEO, too, but it "addresses" missiles at relatively high altitudes, AFAIK).
However, the US declined sharing that data (evidence) and this lowers the credibility bar to zero. Also, technically speaking, it is unlikely that SBIRS could provide a highly accurate estimate of the launch point, it is just purposed for "general detection", but not for target acquisition, etc.
So, IMHO, the situation is still well unclear. I am not impressed, neither by the work by DSB, nor by the Russian groups (i.e. what I hear here in the Russian media).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A-Van, the DSB report needs to be seen in its totality, not just in fragments.
The case is built from the wreckage evidence backwards - damage and break-up sequence lead to a cause outside the aircraft, a shrapnel producing detonation to the left and above the cockpit area. Only way to get such an explosive device there is by way of a weapon system. Deduction of all available knowledge and evidence leaves only a specific type of warhead as culprit. That type of warhead is only delivered by a few models of rocket, launched by BUK system.
Sufficient military intelligence material is available to then calculate from where a missile COULD HAVE BEEN launched, in orde to deliver its warhead in the position where, according to available evidence, it detonated near MH17 cockpit.
Dutch safety Board does not go any further than to display that whole possible launch area and does not appoint any perpetrator.
The years of testing and validating that an arms manufacturer goes through does not imply that NLR needs years to figure out the possible launch area - the years of effort to gather information about SA systems have taken place long before MH17 was killed - remember that back in 1973 SA-6 systems operated in the Middle East and not all systems remained in the hands of the armies that received them from the Soviet Union ...
The case is built from the wreckage evidence backwards - damage and break-up sequence lead to a cause outside the aircraft, a shrapnel producing detonation to the left and above the cockpit area. Only way to get such an explosive device there is by way of a weapon system. Deduction of all available knowledge and evidence leaves only a specific type of warhead as culprit. That type of warhead is only delivered by a few models of rocket, launched by BUK system.
Sufficient military intelligence material is available to then calculate from where a missile COULD HAVE BEEN launched, in orde to deliver its warhead in the position where, according to available evidence, it detonated near MH17 cockpit.
Dutch safety Board does not go any further than to display that whole possible launch area and does not appoint any perpetrator.
The years of testing and validating that an arms manufacturer goes through does not imply that NLR needs years to figure out the possible launch area - the years of effort to gather information about SA systems have taken place long before MH17 was killed - remember that back in 1973 SA-6 systems operated in the Middle East and not all systems remained in the hands of the armies that received them from the Soviet Union ...
Apparently a German Private Investigator has some "explosive" information hidden in a safe of a Swiss bank. (UBS) He has been searching for information on behalf of an unknown party, offering 30.000.000 euro's to solve the mystery.
report in German: http://www.wifka.de/capital-informant-news.pdf
The Dutch safety board is aware of this info hidden in Switserland, and has asked for the safe to be opened and all paperwork to be handed over, as part of a criminal investigation. See article in a dutch newspaper:
MH17-geheimen uit bankkluis|Binnenland| Telegraaf.nl
report in German: http://www.wifka.de/capital-informant-news.pdf
The Dutch safety board is aware of this info hidden in Switserland, and has asked for the safe to be opened and all paperwork to be handed over, as part of a criminal investigation. See article in a dutch newspaper:
MH17-geheimen uit bankkluis|Binnenland| Telegraaf.nl
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UPI is carrying a story which says that a BUK missile part has been found near the debris field of MH-17.
Link to the story:
Look: Missile part found at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crash site in Ukraine - UPI.com
Link to the story:
Look: Missile part found at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crash site in Ukraine - UPI.com
Nope. Swiss police knew exactly which UBS branch it was, and the safe has been opened by them. The contents were taken by the Swiss police, and handed over to the dutch investigators. The exact nature of these documents will be revealed at a later stage.....To be continued.
(all freely translated by me)
(all freely translated by me)