Despite what you may have heard, or think you heard, there is no official explanation as to what happened to MH17. If you 'know' that Russia was responsible, then you've fallen victim to the lies and anti-Russian propaganda of the West.
While the US govt. citing 'intelligence sources' has claimed that they have satellite evidence that a BUK missile destroyed the plane, and that, given the area in which it crashed, it must have been the 'rebels', they have failed to provide any evidence to back up their claim.
publicly presented satellite images in support of its allegation that the Ukrainian military moved BUK missile launchers into an area 5kms from Donetsk and also to an area near separatist-held territory on July 14th and then removed them out again on July 18th, raising the question of why surface to air missile batteries would be moved into that area at that time by the Kiev regime when everyone knew that the separatists had no aircraft. The Russian government has also provided evidence that a 'Ukrainian jet' trailed MH17 before it went down and that the jet then circled the crash area for several minutes afterwards. Interestingly, the Russian govt. has also stated that, according to their data, a US govt. "experimental" satellite was flying directly over Eastern Ukraine at the exact time of the downing of MH17. Coincidence? If so, it's a pretty big one.
The best way to determine what caused the crash of MH17 is not to be found in satellite images however, but in the wreckage of the plane itself. While the investigation is ongoing, some details and images of plane parts have been released. For example, when asked if he had seen anything that could explain what happened to MH17, OSCE spokesperson Michael Bociurkiw told an Australian interviewer in late July:
There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked, it almost looks like machine gun fire, very very strong machine gun fire that has left these unique marks that we haven't seen anywhere else. We've also been asked have we seen any examples of [a] missile, no, we haven't that's the answer, and even if it was there, we don't have those trained eyes to pick that up, but now there are experts here who would be able to.Mr. Bociurkiw claimed that, in late July, over 1 month ago, there were people at the crash site pouring over the wreckage who would be able to determine whether or not the plane was hit by a missile. What is the result of their judicious study of the evidence? Nothing, at least, nothing that they, or the governments they are attached to, are willing to make public. Now, why do you think that is? If evidence had been found to substantiate the hysterically
But there's another reason why it is unlikely that a BUK M1 missile hit MH17. Watch this short video of a BUK missile launch. Note the long white trail that is visible for a considerable amount of time after the launch and that the impact can be observed from the ground. Given that MH17 came down over a reasonably densely populated area, there is a strong probability that at least a few people would have seen the missile trail as it streaked toward the doomed airliner and that, in the immediate aftermath, those eyewitnesses would have told someone about it. Yet not one report exists of even one person seeing a missile trail in the vicinity of the crash that day.
There were witnesses to the event however, and what they saw tells a different story:
Aleksandr, another local who witnessed the plane falling from the sky, was watching TV but when he heard "a roar and two explosions." He went out to see what was going on.At this point therefore, we can tentatively conclude that the evidence (and lack of it) suggests that something other than a BUK missile was used to bring down MH17. So what was it?
"[I] saw a spinning plane without a wing with something falling out of it. The plane was shot down," he told RT. "There were explosions in the sky. And apart from the loud sounds of the plane itself, I heard the buzz which fighter jets make."
The available images of the fuselage of MH17 support the conclusions of Mr Bociurkiw: MH17 was hit by high caliber machine gun fire, with the cockpit area being specifically targeted. Flying at 33,000 feet, there is only one plausible explanation of where that machine gun fire came from: the 'Ukrainian' jet caught on Russian civilian radar flying near MH17. Does that mean that the Kiev government ordered the destruction of MH17?
The Russians have stated that the jet was most likely an Su-25. The Su-25 basic model is a rather 'dated' fighter aircraft that does not have a pressurized cockpit meaning that flying for any length of time above its operational ceiling of 7,000 meters is problematic for the pilot (MH17 was at 10,000 meters). The standard SU-25 also has fairly basic instruments and weapons, with only a laser guidance system for rocket and canon fire which, apart from being designed for ground target acquisition, has an error range of up to 13 feet. If the Su-25 came no closer than 3-5 kms and was only equipped with laser guidance, accurate targeting of the cockpit would not have been possible... with a standard Su-25.
Since the 1970s, several variants of the Su-25 have been produced, the most recent of which is the Su-25KM 'Scorpion' which was announced in early 2001 by the original manufacturer, Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing in Georgia, in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel.
The aircraft uses a standard Su-25 airframe, enhanced with advanced avionics including a glass cockpit, digital map generator, helmet-mounted display, computerized weapons system, complete mission pre-plan capability, and fully redundant backup modes. Performance enhancements include a highly accurate navigation system, pinpoint weapon delivery systems, all-weather and day/night performance, NATO compatibility, state-of-the art safety and survivability features [...]A burst of DU/explosive rounds from a Su-25MK 'Scorpion' (which might explain the round entry holes and jagged exit holes in the fuselage) aimed at the cockpit area of MH17 would certainly have 'taken out' the pilots and rendered them incapable of communicating with ATC or the three other nearby aircraft on the emergency frequency, but it would have been risky to leave it at that and hope no passengers would survive to tell any tales. A much 'safer' way to definitively 'take out' MH17 and sow a lot of confusion about the actual cause would be to plant a bomb on the plane and detonate it either before or after the cockpit attack. In this case, the bomb would most likely have been placed on the plane at Schipol airport. For the scoop on what goes on at Schipol, read Niall Bradley's Asymmetric Warfare: MH17 False-Flag Terror and the 'War' on Gaza.
interesting connections between an Israeli named Yaron Mofaz who took a photo of MH17 shortly before it left Schipol airport and the 'duplicate' Malaysian Airlines 777 at Ben Gurion airport.
Regardless of the precise way in which MH17 was brought down, at this point we can draw some reasonable conclusions: a BUK missile was most likely not involved; a jet fighter shot at the cockpit; what communication there was from MH17 has apparently been confiscated by Ukrainian authorities.
At present, we are still waiting for the preliminary report on the investigation being carried out by Dutch authorities, but we shouldn't hold our breath. If the Lockerbie crash is an indication of how suspicious commercial airliner crashes are handled, we'll be waiting at least 3 years for anything substantial and another 4 for a trial of those accused, if any. In this case, given the likely culprits, the whole event will most likely be pushed back and hushed up. After all, it has already served its purpose: 298 innocent people were sacrificed in service to Western powers' pathological drive to demonize Vladimir Putin and prevent Western populations from seriously considering his message of peace, good will and a world rid of the pervasive and toxic influence of the Anglo-American Empire.