The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewThe Saker Archive
The Saker Interviews Max Van der Werff About the MH-17 Conspiracy
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Introduction: MH17 is to Novorussia, what the Markale (also see here) has been to Bosnia and Racak (also see here) has been to Kosovo: a typical false flag operation which pursued two goals: first, of course, to justify a military aggression and, second, to force everybody to chose one of two options: first, either pretend to believe the official narrative or, second, be vilified and discredited. From this perspective, the MH17 false flag has been a tremendous success, mostly due to the extremely successful lobotomy inflicted by the legacy Ziomedia on the western public opinion (I would argue that the Skripal fairy tale is even more self-evidently ridiculous than the MH17 fairy tale, and yet that was also swallowed hook line and sinker by most western “experts”). But then, we live in a post-9/11 world, in which neither facts nor logic matter much anymore, except for a rather small amount of people, including Max van der Werff who has proven to be one of the most tenacious and courageous investigative journalists. I am most grateful for his time and answers!

The Saker

The Saker: First, a question about yourself: why and how did you get involved in this topic of MH17? What did were you doing before you got involved in this topic?

Max van der Werff : The very moment the news of the shoot down of the Malaysian Boeing broke on July 17th 2014, I immediately realized this tragedy would have long term geopolitical implications. What further struck me was the fact most passengers were citizens of my country, The Netherlands.

Since childhood I have an interest in geopolitics and history. The fact my father was an immigrant from Indonesia surely contributed and as a teenager I read a lot about Dutch colonial history.

After Japan surrendered and World War II ended 150,000 Dutch troops were sent to restore Pax Hollandia in the old colony and the main motive was to restore the exploitation of the ‘wingewest’ (area for profit) as soon as possible. The Dutch elite had the opinion that the Japanese rule over the Dutch Indies was merely a short interruption and that Dutch colonial rule would be reinstated for generations to come. This fatally wrong perception of reality led to the Indonesian war of independence lasting from 1945 to end 1949 causing hundreds of thousands casualties.

Prior to my MH17 investigations I spent a lot of time in archives and on the ground in Indonesia searching for evidence of Dutch war crimes. There’s a documentary about my work:

The Saker: Now, let’s immediately jump into the core question: after having researched and analyzed the topic of MH17, what personal conclusion did you come to?

What do you believe really happened that day?

Max van der Werff : Having spent thousands of hours researching the case and being interviewed by the official Joint Investigation Team more than once my answer to your core question might be disappointing for some: I don’t know what happened.

Let me elaborate. Depending on political preferences all kinds of ‘experts’ claim to know for sure what happened exactly. One camp is sure it was a false flag, executed by Ukraine. The opposing camp is sure Russia is responsible. There are many variants as to who is an accomplice. On social media you see claims Ukraine was just a proxy for the CIA or Mossad. On the other side Russia just supplied the weapon and rebels shot down the airliner.

Then there are more exotic claims flight MH17 was shot down by a drone, a modernized Georgian SU-25 or by Israeli Python-5 missile(s) fired from the air or from the ground.

I have not encountered any credible evidence supporting any of the theories. This specifically includes the official version. Too many things simply do not add up. I’ve written a lot about the questionable evidence the official investigators have presented to the public so far and was one of the producers of a documentary that already has more than 200,000 views on Youtube:

The Saker: I outlined my personal guesstimate here where I wrote that in my opinion the Ukronazis used the radar of a Buk battery to guide a Su-25 withing 8 clicks of the MH-17 at which point the Su-25 fired a R-60 IR missile which hit one of the engines which caused the Boeing to go into a sharp turn and lose altitude – the Su-25 easily caught up and finished the Boeing with its 30 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 autocannon (I explain my reasons in details here: Do you have any elements of proof which would undermine/negate my guesstimate? Specifically, do you consider it as admitted by all sides now that a Buk missile did strike MH-17?

Max van der Werff : President Putin recently said: “We have our own version, we presented it, unfortunately, no one wants to listen to us. And until there is a real dialogue, we will not find the right answer to those questions that are still open

For five years I am asking: What exactly is the Russian official version of events?

To my knowlegde the Russian Federation has never claimed the Malaysian Boeing was shot down by a buk missile. You have to be very precise here. Over the years Russian media have presented all kinds of versions about what happened. One version even more exotic than the other.

As most of your readers will know Almaz Antey, the company producing the missile system, gave a press conference and conducted a life experiment detonating a buk missile

During the press conference the Almaz Antey spokesman explained that the observed damage patterns in the hull of the Boeing could not have been caused by a buk missile fired from the location near Snizhne as claimed by the MH17 Joint Investigation Team. If a buk missile caused the damage, it must have been fired from an area southeast of the village Zaroshenskoye. Notice the little word “IF” in the sentence.

Concerning your assessment a Su-25 fired a R-60 IR missile. You do get some support for your theory from Zahar Omarov, chief researcher at the Central Research Institute of the Air Force of the Russian Ministry of Defense:

I can say that our results disprove the conclusion that the plane was shot down by a missile from a Buk-type anti-aircraft missile system. Most likely, it was an air-to-air missile with a mass of high-explosive fragmentation warheads not exceeding 33 kg (the mass of the warhead of the Buk missile is 70 kg).

Omarov repeatedly attended meetings of Russian delegations with members of the Dutch Safety Board. Here’s a very interesting segment of what he experienced during one of those meetings:

During the first meeting, in which I had to take part, and this was in February 2015, the Dutch reported that the plane, in their opinion, was shot down by a Buk anti-aircraft missile. Moreover, a definite modification of this missile was indicated, and, moreover, even the area from where it was launched was indicated.

I will not hide, we were very surprised. After all, before this, fragments of the aircraft with holes were examined, and there was not a single fragment with cut out sections that would indicate the conduct of any laboratory research.

I want to draw attention to such a dialogue that I had with a speaking expert.

–I asked a question: “Excuse me, did you investigate combat damage on fragments of an airplane?”

–Answer: “No. We are only planning to do this.”

–Question: “But how did you establish that the plane was shot down by Buk missile launcher?”

–Answer: “We found out from the Internet that the aircraft could have been hit either by a GSh-23 type air gun, or a R-60 type air missile, or a Buk anti-aircraft missile. One of the steel pieces found in the wreckage of the aircraft, in our opinion, is somewhat reminiscent of the shape of a “butterfly”. And we know that the warhead of one of the modifications of the Buk missile has damaging elements in the form of a “butterfly”. Therefore, of the three versions, the last was chosen.”

Logic, as they say, is iron. Something reminds me of our school exam. Dutch experts, apparently, have a good university education. However, for such work, education alone is not enough. Of course, experience is necessary, but even this is not the main thing. It is necessary to know, or, in extreme cases, at least conceptually understand the methodology for investigating such aviation events.

Now back to the type of air-to-air missile allegedly used. Omarov claims:

The warhead was equipped with compact striking elements in an amount of not more than 4000 pieces. The missile most likely had a matrix-type thermal imaging homing head or passive radar. I note that missiles with similar characteristics are not in service with the Russian Aerospace Forces and never have been.”


The Saker: Russia and Malaysia were denied the right to participate to the investigation. Can you outline what the legalities are to decide which countries do or do not get the chance to participate? Do Russia and Malaysia not have any legal instruments to invoke to challenge the absolutely ridiculous way the official inquiry was formed and, even more so, the way this commission of inquiry operated (such as using social media sites, but not official Russian data)? Russia is an IATA member, so is Malaysia. Can they not sue?

Max van der Werff : This is a question for legal experts, but I’m quite certain Malaysia would have a strong case. ICAO Annex 13 describes in detail how the composition of an air disaster investigation must be. For sure the country of the operator (in this case Malaysia Airlines) has to be part of the investigation from the very beginning, which we all know was not the case. Malaysia only was a llowed to become MH17 JIT member four months after the shoot down.

Russia could argue that Ukraine as a potential suspect of the crime is a member of the official investigation and to compensate this obvious anomaly the Russian Federation should be part of the investigative team too.

Connected to this issue Lawyer and expert international criminal law Geert-Jan Knoops argues:

In my view, the OM made a wrong choice by first setting up a trial model with the JIT team, with the Netherlands and The Hague District Court as the place of trial, then presenting the report with the suspects and then expecting Russia to cooperates.


I think Russia might have been more cooperative if there had been trial in a neutral country, a non-JIT country.“


The Saker: What is going on in Russia? First, they strongly hinted that some Ukie aircraft had shot MH17, then they declared that it was a Buk owned by the Ukronazis. So did they actually change their working hypothesis and ditched the Su-25 hypothesis to the (much less credible, at least in my opinion) Buk missile scenario?

Max van der Werff : Information management of the Russian Federation is of very low quality, to put it mildly. It took Russia four days to present its version of events and claimed a (most probably) Su-25 appeared on radar as it broke the 5,000 meter altitude. Russia also claimed it had deleted its radar data only to find a copy a few days before the official JIT press conference. And on those radar data a Russian expert explained there was no fighter jet visible. How credible is all this and how could it fail to explain why on one set of radar data a fighter jet is visible and on the other there is not?

Another criticism is Russia reacts when new accusations are disseminated by the official investigators, but fails to take the initiative and to communicate its own version of events in a simple, complete and credible narrative. More about this in two radio interviews with patrick Henningsen of 21st Century Wire en Chris Cook of Gorilla Radio.

The Saker: If the quasi official hypothesis now is that a Buk was shot (by somebody, nevermind for the time being how did it)? In spite of the fact that a HUGE plume should have been seen and in spite of the fact that any such Buk launch was absolutely certain to be tracked and recorded by all sides? Does it not strike you that the Buk hypothesis is just not credible at all? To ask the question a little differently: do you think that challenging the Buk hypothesis is still a viable strategy or should I (and a few others) give up on our Su-25 hypothesis and accept the Buk theory as established beyond reasonable doubt (or even by a preponderance of evidence)?

Max van der Werff : The narrative of a buk missile fired from rebel held territory was the first narrative that circulated in western media and after five years it is unchanged and still the dominant narrative. It is now also the official version of the MH17 Joint Investigation Team.

To your question if challenging the Buk hypothesis is still a viable strategy the answer depends very much on who is questioning this hypothesis. For sure the Russian Federation knows a lot more than what it is sharing with the public.

The tragedy happened merely thirty kilometers from the Russian border. For me it is unthinkable Russia does not know exactly what happened on July 17th 2014. What facts and information does it hide after even five years and for what reasons? If a buk missile was not the murder weapon, why not explain this to the world with irrefutable evidence?

The Saker: Finally, do you believe that the full truth about MH17 will eventually come out and, if yes, roughly how and when?

Max van der Werff : For sure at some point in time the truth will come out. However, I am not sure we will be living long enough to witness this event.

The Saker: thank you so much for your time and replies!


Afterword by The Saker:

During my years as an strategic intel analyst I had the chance to personally witness how the airspace over Europe is controlled in peacetime: not a single aircraft can take off without immediately being detected by numerous and redundant reconnaissance capabilities of many different actors including NATO, but also the various member states and even some neutral countries. I can only begin to image the degree, the concentration, of intelligence/reconnaissance means deployed by ALL SIDES of the conflict in the Donbass. There is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that both the Russians and the Empire have very detailed radar tracks, signal logs and God knows what else which gives them a 20/20 vision of everything which took place on that day (and before and after too, of course). This brings me to three different questions:

  1. Why are the Russians not releasing to the world the full and irrefutable evidence of what took place that day? I could understand why the Russians remained silent about 9/11, but in this case I really don’t get it!
  2. How are the various NATO states justifying that they are not simply showing the general public the full picture of what took place that day? Has nobody asked them point blank?
  3. How is it that journalists with a lot of contacts (say a Seymour Hersh or a Robert Fisk) not get at least ONE (even anonymous) source to give them the full picture? There must be HUNDREDS of people between all the US and EU intel agencies who know exactly what has taken place and most of those probably do not sympathize with the Ukronazi regime in Kiev). Why this deafening silence?

I think that MH-17 will go the way of the Kennedy assassination or the way of 9/11: everybody will know that the official version is a load of bull, everybody will have his/her version of what really might have taken place, and we will probably never know for sure.

Unless one of the hundreds of people of actually do know know the truth steps forward.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Conspiracy Theories, MH 17, Russia, Ukraine 
Hide 16 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The Dutchman’s manner of speech repeatedly betrays anti-Russian bias, which coupled with faulty reasoning, puts his “years of research” into serious question, to the point of casting doubt on his motives.

    He says, among other things: ” Information management of the Russian Federation is of very low quality, to put it mildly. It took Russia four days to present its version of events …”

    It doesn’t seem to occur to him that this is actually the normal response, in any kind of forensic investigation. One cannot know, if one is not involved, what really happened, at least not before long, painstaking investigation. It is precisely the Western authorities’ tendency to give immediate explanations–such as blaming 9/11 on Bin Laden, Charlie Hebdo on Isis, and so on–and the media’s uncritical megaphoning of these evidence-less attributions, which raises suspicions.

    And since when is criminal investigation called “information management?” That sounds rather like a CIA/Mossad formulation.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @Rabbitnexus
    , @El Dato
  2. Isabella says:

    I would very much like to know Saker, what it is you understand about why the Russians are silent about 9/11 – because that one too, I dont get.
    About this poor information handling, I suspect it just reflects back to those years of Soviet paranoia – which, given the plans of Churchill et al to rain nuclear missiles down on Russia, and the constant efforts to destroy her made by the Empire, is not surprising. When you think of it, all the leading lights in Russia, from President Putin to the senior Duma deputies, are Soviet products. They were adults when the USSR ended. Probably this reluctance to release any information stems from that. We are all, to various extents, products of the system we developed in.
    It has been noted by several other journalist who are totally in sympathy with Russia, and supportive of her, that the major frustration they have is this reluctance to come to grips with the Information War, and learn to be more pro-active and aggressive in supplying non-classified information.
    The appearance of secrecy lends itself to an interpretation of guilt in Anglo minds – and thus makes the propaganda war against Russia easier for her enemies. Do Russian Universities even have degrees in information handling?. Russia needs someone young, free of Soviet influence, trained in all aspects of this field to head up her Information dissemination units – and take the fight to the enemy. And soon.

    • Agree: Rabbitnexus
  3. IMO the answer to your 3 questions is the same: if they reveal what they really know, it will tell “the other side” what their capabilities are.
    If you are NATO and looking to nuke Moscow you want to know what Russian capabilities are.
    If you are Russia looking to defend and/or launch a counter offensive, you want to know NATO’s capabilities.
    From day 1, there has been no coherent explanation provided as to why MH-17 turned and flew into the airspace where it as shot down. The absence of that explanation, alone, is evidence that this was a set-up.

  4. FKA Max says:
    @Nosquat Loquat

    An overview of disinformation and lies by former RT journalist Yerlashova and Dutch blogger van der Werff &

    You have been Bonanzaed #1: a visit by the secret service &

    The leaks reveal that Bausman, rather than relying on crowdfunding for Russia Insider, asks for money from Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeev via his associate Alexey Komov.
    Konstantin Malofeev seems to have ties to Gazprom, like Putin’s daughter’s Dutch partner Jorrit Faassen
    All this leads me to the conclusion that Eric van de Beek’s which promotes Max van der Werff and his research on MH-17 is likely funded/sponsored by Russian (government) money.

  5. I thank The Saker, Max Ver Der Werff and Unz Review for keeping MH17 in the public eye.

    What is solely lacking is a forum where we can share what we know and discuss. There could have been one if Marcel van den Berg hadn’t systematically banished every commenter with a brain. It would be helpful for Max or Billy Six or Hector Reban or someone else who is reasonably credible to fill the void.

    I’ve been following the MH17 story from the beginning. Even now new facts emerge. For example, just yesterday I learned that it was Malaysia’s ambassador to Ukraine, Chuah Teong Ban, who handed over the black boxes to the Dutch.

    Too much pressure is being applied to Russia and too little to Malaysia. Russia continues to withhold, but they have been more forthcoming than other governments. Russia is not obligated to say or to do anything. The burden of proof lies upon the accuser, not the accused. Russia does not have a western mindset, so it is easy to become frustrated by what Russia says, doesn’t say, does and doesn’t do. Is Russia to blame for my inability to think Russian?

    Malaysia deserves scrutiny and criticism. After MH370 Malaysia should have known that the West would not help them. But they gave up the black boxes. in the months that followed they were more concern about joining the JIT than following the evidence. The government didn’t let Malaysians examine the bodies of relatives who died on MH17. Now Dr. Mahathir is runs the show. He talks the talk, but what is being done? Malaysia may have solid legal grounds to abandon the JIT and repudiate their pledge not to disclose what little they know. Do they have lawyers working on this? Have they done anything tangible about reclaiming the black boxes or any other debris? Have they reached out to Josef Resch or anyone else who claims to have new evidence or information?

    As for Josef Resch, it is time for him either to disclose or shut up. He knows that anything he has that contradicts official lies is plutonium to the JIT. It is past time for him to choose either silence or public disclosure. No more teasing.

    I’ll close by advising all who wants to understand MH17 to start with the undisputed fact that MH17 broke up in the air. There is a long and rich history of attacks on civilian aircraft and explosive decompression events. Civilian airliners are not prone to breaking up in air. For a break-up to occur there must be either an explosion inside the fuselage or, as the aircraft falls, it exceeds its design limits. The great majority of missile strikes on airliners do not result in a break-up. This is true even if you ignore strikes at relatively low speeds and altitudes by weak MANPADs. For example, an S200 with its massive 217 kg warhead failed to cause Siberia Airlines flight 1812 to break up in air, notwithstanding the fact that the Tu-154 was cruising at 36,000 feet when the S200 struck. Getting the Buk fiction out of your mind is the first step towards the light. Debris doesn’t lie.

  6. @Nosquat Loquat

    Not at all. He seemed very balanced, and was only speaking honestly when he was critical of Russian actions. Russia has not served their own interests well in this or similar instances and he pinpoints their information management without any implications beyond this failure. No attempt to support the official story on his part. The fact he investigaes Dutch war crimes in Indonesia suggests he is anything but inclined to go along iwith consensus.

    He said “Information management” is what failed Russia. It was not used as a surrogate for “criminal investigation” . Russia was not involved in the investigation remember? Absent such involvement Russia’s only choice was managing what information came from them which with all the various theories they failed to do. I thought this was one of the better points made myself.

  7. The Faker himself, on this very blog, proudly announced that an insurgent unit, operating a BUK, had shot down an Antonov-26. Hours later, when it became clear that it was a civilian plane, the Faker was retelling the tale to deny his earlier words. The insurgents shot down the plane with a BUK which may or may not have been supplied and operated by Russians. The insurgents allegedly a BUK of their own from the Ukrainians. The witnesses are now dead (the first of the assassinations of Novorossiyan activists by Moscow) or deep inside Russia.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  8. Anonymous[607] • Disclaimer says:
    @Philip Owen

    He did?
    Could you please provide the links to his statements?
    Thank you!

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
  9. Smith says:

    This is hilarious, the Saker disagrees with the Russian narrative, he should be sent back to the Kremlin or Israel/Tehran for his firmware to be updated.

  10. @Anonymous

    Just dig back to the date, a Wednesday in 2014, unless he’s deleted it. It’s here. I’m too busy just now. I was meeting 6 potential clients who wanted me to help them enter the Russian market that day. I haven’t had a British or US client since.

  11. El Dato says:

    Good interview.

    I outlined my personal guesstimate here where I wrote that in my opinion the Ukronazis used the radar of a Buk battery to guide a Su-25 withing 8 clicks of the MH-17 at which point the Su-25 fired a R-60 IR missile which hit one of the engines which caused the Boeing to go into a sharp turn and lose altitude – the Su-25 easily caught up and finished the Boeing with its 30 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-30-2 autocannon

    Goddammit Saker, stop sounding like a protagonist from a Tom Clancy novel!

    Also, the above sounds extremely complicated. Why not have the Su-25 approach on its own volition? It’s made for that. Can you even get the radar of a BUK to interwork with a Su-25 in flight? Does Shadow Ukraine have the A-Team on call?

    Anyway, too complex for my tastes.

    And wasn’t there unusual directing of the aircraft by Ukrainian air traffic control? What happened to that? Why was MH-17 doing a Lusitania above a conflict zone??

    Occam’s razor says:

    – Russia fucked up somehow / got suckered into a trap and thus is not forthcoming; its info-management is still Soviet tier
    – Our western specialists set the trap and are enhancing the truth for all its worth

    It’s so much like

    that it is uncanny.

  12. El Dato says:
    @Nosquat Loquat

    The Dutchman’s manner of speech repeatedly betrays anti-Russian bias, which coupled with faulty reasoning, puts his “years of research” into serious question, to the point of casting doubt on his motives.

    Please stop doing low-effort Soviet-era doubt seeding.

    He says, among other things: ” Information management of the Russian Federation is of very low quality, to put it mildly. It took Russia four days to present its version of events …”

    Ain’t that the truth. Step up your game. The 80s are over.

    It took Russia four days to present its version of events and claimed a (most probably) Su-25 appeared on radar as it broke the 5,000 meter altitude. Russia also claimed it had deleted its radar data only to find a copy a few days before the official JIT press conference.

    Literally a media-management catastrophe [why would they “delete the data”; why isn’t the data in a vault somewhere?]. Like having Monsieur Zuckerberg explain why all the data harvested from warm Facebook bodies went walkabout to Cambridge Analytica.

    Stop being shifty, that’s 50% of the game already won.

  13. Smith says:

    Well, at least admitting that Russia MIGHT have shot it down on mistake/accident is something new I guess.

    MH-17 and the dead Donbass leaders (Motorola, Privi) are why I think Russia is NOT trustable, the russian jews would kill their own allies if they are too influential.

  14. Anonymous[780] • Disclaimer says:

    I believe the plane was shot down by Russian Ukrainians (the rebels) with the buk, and it’s not so mysterious how it might have happened.

    – Rebels operate the Buk without an external radar and like it’s some 80s video game
    – They spot a nice promising green blob on the screen and fire the missile at it, as they knew how to press what buttons in what sequence
    – Boast on Twitter that they shot down a military plane then delete the tweet (I remember someone on the Internet saying it was very roughly the equivalent of a C130 plane, so somewhat big though much less big than an Airbus/Boeing, and should fly at a much lower altitude I believe…)
    – Would not have done this if mobile Internet was available at the firing site. Just check flightradar24 on “Android browser”. Though, they would have been concerned about being ratted out by either the Internet, the carrier or their own 3G signals anyway.
    They could also have failed to listen to the transponder signal (does the Buk lack this? do the missing support and command vehicles or people do this?) or been paranoid about spoofing.
    – Ukraine was conducting operations in the area but didn’t want to declare the air space closed (to avoid bad publicity? for small money collected from overflying rights?)
    – The plane was to avoid the area, but due to bad weather the pilot was concerned for the safety of his flight and thus flew into a war zone

    This fits much with what the Mainstream Media said when they weren’t hysterical, but well.
    (the story of the suppressed tweet was itself suppressed. is it too meager, or does it make the shooting look honest?)

    About planes I have a scoop for you. The WTC towers were brought down by enormous planes. Planes are seen entering towers like it’s butter, and blowing up and burning. Above them sit huge masses of steel, concrete and boring paperwork from lawyers and companies. Maybe there were thousands tons of sales brochures and cease and desist letters (in the entire building, top to bottom) that contributed to massive collapses, destruction and loss of life. You can’t prove this is less plausible than other theories.


    My favorite Skripals story : Iulia visited her aging father. An utterly ordinary day. What’s not to like! While she helps cleaning up the kitchen or bathroom or similar, she finds the perfume bottle. Sergei doesn’t think much of it either. She was getting rid of empty shampoo bottles and old medicines, cleaned the bath tub, perhaps she even threw out mildly rotting vegetables from the fridge. Your bell peppers are a bit ugly dad, you should have cooked them already
    Anyone may be curious about a “perfume” bottle. Iulia contaminated herself, her dad and the door knob when they left for a walk.
    (It’s unknown who made the “perfume”, it could have been British made. It was either somewhat diluted or had worn out)

    Iulia is young so she fared better, Sergei is old so he fared worse. So Iulia was back to healthy (as for Sergei I forgot he didn’t die, when I started writing this)
    It’s a variation on drinking from the bleach bottle under the kitchen sink.

  15. a_German says:

    Surely nobody is interested, because everybody knows he is a fool when he read further (and understand).

    The most likely cause is an accident. The warhead was guided by the (collision and weather) radar of the airplane, run to it and explode. That’s all. Happens before during UA maneuver to an RU freighter in the Mediterranean Sea. Same weapon, same countries.

    I posted this lot of times before (in much more detail) in every forum i can write. You will ignore this obvious cause like everybody did before.

    My prediction 2 days after the shoot down that it must be rocket (obvious too if you take a look at the damage pattern from the photos) was ignored too.

    Most of you are stuck to “experts” and know nothing.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All The Saker Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
How America was neoconned into World War IV