I have read the entire report, and your assertion is an irrational conclusion from it. The ‘investigation’ fails to even address the most solid evidence, and the many strong indications that there are 30MM bullet holes, both entering and departing from the cockpit. There wouldn’t be any bullet holes in either direction, from the scenario that the official report presents. Furthermore, on 8 August 2014, the then-four nations in the official investigation-team, Ukraine (which is a major suspect in the case), Australia, Belgium, and Netherlands, signed an agreement that each of the four nations can veto any report that’s being considered to be issued by the team, so they’d all four of them need to accept the report, if a report is to be issued at all. This is the report that resulted from that agreement.

Only an idiot would trust an official ‘investigation’ of a crime that provides veto-power to one of the main suspects in that crime. I mean: that’s shocking!

Google
“Eric Zuesse” MH17
and then click onto the links in those articles.

Especially click on the links in the article:
“The MH17 Pilot’s Corpse: More on the Cover-Up”

In fact, the plane would be more likely to catch fire if hit by an air-to-air missile, as many models are IR guided and attack the engines or the point at which their heat exhausts. On an airliner, that is the rear part of the engine. A surface-to-air missile like the SA-11, which is the missile fired from the Buk system, explodes its warhead using a proximity fuse, which causes the warhead to explode when the sensor detecys it is close to the target, but the missile typically does not hit the target itself – it destroys itself right alongside the target so as to pepper it with fragments. This is why it is a mystery that the Dutch investigation keeps making reference to “Buk missile parts” found in the wreckage. The entirety of the missile should have fallen back to earth – in pieces, of course – underneath the impact point, which is far from where the aircraft crashed. The only parts of the missile which should be found in the aircraft are the shrapnel fragments generated by the exploding warhead, and these will be distorted by whatever they passed through.

Enriched uranium, depending on its percentage, is used as reactor fuel to power a nuclear reactor or as an explosive vehicle to initiate nuclear fission in a nuclear detonation. There have been a couple of air-to-air nuclear missiles but they were mostly experimental. Depleted uranium is a heavy-metal subpenetrator formerly used in the ammunition of air-defense guns; because of the radiation hazard from both handling it and in remaining traces of expended rounds, it has been largely replaced by tungsten. The most common material in anti-air missile warheads is iron or steel. The only Russian air-to-air missile known to use depleted uranium in the warhead is the AA-8. Some are probably still in service, but it’s pretty old, it was introduced in the mid-70’s. I wouldn’t rule it out entirely – Ukraine does have it. But it’s a long shot.

I mean Ukraine keeps saying Russia is sending state of the art equipment across the border all the time.

but in this one case, Russia sent a system using obsolete missiles like Ukraine uses?

Come on.

well basically both.

the Buk manufacturers’ original report referred to the same type of warhead used on the 9M38 and 9M38M1 missiles as the Dutch report does.

so it’s an old missile and an old warhead, which Ukraine still has in active service and definitely did have deployed in the war zone.

sure, Russia no doubt has them in storage as well.

so either Ukraine launched one or some strange sequence of events happened involving Russia sending a Buk across the border with old missiles or the rebels captured a Buk, and somehow figured out how to use it.

Ok, found both. No need to reply.

When you say the report was clear, do you mean the Dutch report or the one from the BUK manufacturers?

Great find Eric! This – and Shaun’s pitiful retraction – should be ATL.

Do you have the URL for the article? and a link to Walker’s retraction?

The lying bastards have now corrected their report.

Shaun Walker ‏@shaunwalker7 1h1 hour ago

We made a change to this story. There’s enough confusion/disinfo already so apologies for inadvertently adding to it