Ainakin yksi Venäjän äänitorvi jaksaa yhä jankuttaa hävittäjäselitystäkin:
And now back to the report itself. OCSE monitor Michael Bociurkiw in
an interview shortly after the incident on July 17 stated that there are
two or three pieces of fuselage which show indications of heavy
machine-gun fire and no evidence of missile damage. The same monitor
declared later that certain pieces of the fuselage looked different a
few days after he had first seen them. On July 22, he stated to the BBC that certain sections of the fuselage “do look different than when we first saw them”.
What about the eye-witness reports of two Ukrainian Air Force fighter jets trailing the plane at the time of the incident? How to explain the circular holes bend inwards at impact, when such holes are made by bullets from machine-gun fire? Shrapnel from a BUK missile system would have caused tears in the fuselage more of a triangular shape and would not have concentrated on and targeted the cockpit specifically. Furthermore, fuselage sections on another part of the aircraft have outward-bent impact marks, showing that the MH-17 was being fired at from two different directions.
Siihen voi sitten uskoa vaikka tiistaisin, torstaisin ja lauantaisin ja ukrainalaisten ampumaa BUK:iin muina päivinä. Sunnuntaina voisi ehkä vielä uskoa siihen että koneessa oli pommi ja matkustajat valmiiksi kuolleita.