In the year since MH17 was destroyed it has become very clear that there is little or no interest in the truth behind this event from any of the states involved.
The preliminary results of the investigation into this event shed no light on what happened nor who was responsible, referring futilely to the fact the Boeing aircraft was struck by “high-velocity objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside.”
The fact that the terms of the investigation extend veto power over information released to all the four nations involved, including the Ukraine erases all confidence in the investigation and means that the entire process was corrupted on the date the investigation begun.
If the Western political leadership had any real concern for the truth in this matter, or even any pretensions towards even APPEARING to have an interest in the truth about this tragedy they would never have allowed the Ukraine to have veto power over the investigation
In addition, the raw data that will form the basis of the investigative findings will never be released under the provisions of Dutch law.
“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 Boardexcludes 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. “
The investigation is thus clearly intended to be another in the Lockerbie or TWA 800 style farce where the facts are fashioned towards a predetermined conclusion and all contrary information simply discarded.
There has been a lot of strong journalistic work on this case, possibly the only bright spot in the whole mess. Some of the best work has been done by journalists from a mainstream background with Robert Parry a prime example.
The recent piece by Parry “MH 17 Case Sinks into Propaganda Fog provides a coherent explanation as to why the investigation into the tragedy remains a non-event.
“A source who has been briefed on the outlines of the investigation said some U.S. intelligence analysts have reached a contrary conclusion and place the blame on “rogue” elements of the Ukrainian government operating out of a circle of hard-liners around one of Ukraine’s oligarchs. Yet, according to this source, the U.S. analysts will demur on the Dutch findings, letting them stand without public challenge “
“Throughout the Ukraine crisis, propaganda and “information warfare” have overridden any honest presentation of reality – and the mystery around the MH-17 disaster has now slipped into that haze of charge and counter-charge. Many investigative journalists, including myself, have been rebuffed in repeated efforts to get verifiable proof about the case or even informational briefings.”
“ Over the past 11 months, the DNI’s office has offered no updates on the initial assessment, with a DNI spokeswoman even making the absurd claim that U.S. intelligence had made no refinements of its understanding about the tragedy since July 22, 2014.”
“I’m told that the reason for the DNI’s reversal from openness to secrecy was that U.S. intelligence analysts found no evidence that the Russian government had given the rebels sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles capable of downing an aircraft at 33,000 feet, the altitude of MH-17, and that an examination of U.S. satellite and electronic intelligence instead implicated extremists linked to Ukraine’s U.S.-backed regime, although not to Kiev’s political leadership.”
Satellite Imagery- the “Dog that did not bark.”
On July 20th, 2014 US Secretary of State John Kerry appeared on US television and referred to the US having “imagery” depicting the launch of the missile that destroyed flight MH17. Kerry may simply have misspoken but it can be confidently assumed that the launch of a missile in Eastern Ukraine at a time of high tension could not possibly have evaded the surveillance capabilities of the US.
Therefore the complete lack of supporting photographic evidence from the United States in the circumstances can only rationally be explained by the fact that the imagery the US possesses contradicts the Western propaganda narrative. This is as Parry writes a classic example of “the Dog that did not bark.”
This remains, amidst the welter of often self contradictory propaganda claims from both sides, a powerful and incontrovertible piece of inductive evidence.