Tuesday, October 7, 2014

'German Military Expert' Bernd Biedermann | #MH17 ...not a BUK

Military expert:

MH17 did not get hit by  'Buk missile'


On September 15 was an 'Expert' Bernd Biedermann was a guest on the radio studio of the German program Contra-Magazine. For half an hour he is talking about his Biedermann MH17 analysis. He was formerly an officer in the NVA, the army of the GDR. , he also wrote a book, Offizier, Diplomat und der NVA Aufklärer. Over that period.
He is often invited to German media as a"free-thinking" military expert, specializing in missiles.
What he said was as remarkable and as concrete as one could expect. There is unattended in the Netherlands, more evidence and testimony of his needing attention. I will therefore, briefly summarize what were his observations. 
First Biedermann was not to talk about the preliminary report of the Safety Board. He called this report not scientific, because there is no forensic, ballistics, and material research to reference. Only  the basis of photographs and they were few, and they represent meaningless, conclusions. Over the actual cause of the downing, nothing in the report was said.
But on the basis of those same pictures were there to pull. According to this missile expert welder specific conclusions about the cause. Obviously, he said, with reservations, because he knows the deliberate wreckage only pictures.
The damage type on the pictures according Biedermann isn't typical for an impact with a ground-to-air missile. In such a missile, the head explodes into thousands of small pieces which hit a regularly even distributed area, over the entire surface of the target. Such a missile will always explode at a certain distance from the target. Not too close and not too far away, to allow for maximum destruction of the target. But such a regular slant pattern over the entire surface of the plane, and it is just not the case with the wreckage of MH17.

Only on some of the wreckage, can impacts be seen. The entry holes at the conscious cockpit posters are also markedly around. The rash holes are irregular and larger. For this kind of specific impact round and irregular holes, bigger holes rash, is a simple explanation. The board arm of a SU-25 fighter jet has a special kind of ammunition. An SU-25 is in fact specialized in armored ground targets. The bullets of a SU-25 hit the armor plate and then explode. Exactly the pattern shown here.

If an airliner is struck by a ground-to-air missile, it looks different then when hit if it is an air-to-air missile, says Biedermann. If it is shot by a ground-to-air missile, it burns The aircraft fired at almost always's. An average of about 30,000 splintered particles are the result of such a warhead exploding, weighing about eight ounces each, and have in fact such a high kinetic energy that practically all combustible components are torched by it in fire flies., but the device pictured has not burned in the air. Fire arose only when certain parts of the wreckage hit the ground, such as the engines and the fuel tank.

If air-to-air missiles would have been fired from a fighter jet, they do not burn. Bombarded plane In addition, air-to-air missiles in their heads usually contain enriched uranium. That one would therefore be able to find it in the bodies later.
So far Biedermann's story is simple, and easy to follow. It also follows what some other experts have said: That with a missile from a Buk, the Boeing 777 from Malaysia Airlines would have in the sky exploded in a firey explosion. In reality, the device is initially subdivided into two parts: The cockpit section and the middle and tail part, which for some time kept flying. Those big pieces are then back further parts disintegrated by the free fall, but come in groups on the ground. Between the cockpit group 'and the' motor group 'on the ground is about nine miles. That is well mapped in the preliminary report of the Research Council.

Such a sequence of events is almost inconceivable with a shot from a Buk missile system. Whether that Buk was from Ukrainian controlled soil or it stood on separatist territory.
The question remains now as to what jet could have done this. Was it indeed a SU-25? Here Also, there is much debate. Which was an SU-25 from in state? And if not, other, faster jets that can also higher, comparable exploding ammunition to shoot?

It was certainly not a separatist fighter jet. Because they do not exist. It was possible a Russian. It seems obvious that it was a Ukrainian earlier.
Below the interview with Biedermann.

*Note: If you watch it on YouTube and want a subscript caption, then click the CC button turn on captions then choose the translate on the menu there to pick your language. 

No comments:

Post a Comment