Part of the front fuselage has been recontructed and will be on display during the presentation.

Quoting maartent (Reply 3): Later on, there might be a separate criminal investigation, I understood, that will focus on WHO did it. This, I fear, will be more difficult.

The criminal investigation has been underway for quite some time and is the largest ever conducted in Dutch history.

What's really dishartening in all this are the attempts by some parties to politcize the accident investigation. In general, the Dutch are a fairly neutral people. We managed to stay out of WW1 and tried to do so with WW2. There is no natural bias against any side in this investigation, all we are interested in is the truth. But that seems to be too much to ask.

During a press conference in Moscow BUK manufacturer Almaz-Altaj claimed MH17 was shot down by Ukraine using an older version, the 9M38. This variant, no longer in use by Russian forces, still happens to be present in the Ukrainian arsenal.

The missile was supposedly fired from the small town of Zarotsjsjenskoje, which Almaz-Altaj says was in Ukrainian hands at that time. The Dutch evening news interviewed some local villagers there yesterday, and they were adament their town was never in the hands of the 'Nazi's', but under seperatist control. They also stated they never saw any weaponry that could represent a BUK installation.

Quoting 76er (Reply 7): During a press conference in Moscow BUK manufacturer Almaz-Altaj claimed MH17 was shot down by Ukraine using an older version, the 9M38. This variant, no longer in use by Russian forces, still happens to be present in the Ukrainian arsenal.

Why don't the Russian just give it a rest & punish the separatists?

Their attempts at covering up the truth is a bit tiresome to be honest and it doesn't do justice to the 298 people who were died that day, not to mention the thousands of lives affected like the families of those involved, those who lived in the areas around the crash site, and the MH staff members who lost their jobs because of the restructuring brought on by the loss of both MH370 & MH17.

Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 8): Their attempts at covering up the truth is a bit tiresome to be honest

It's a very old BUK missile - the only ones still using them is the Ukrainian Army. They never had war activties so their equipment is very simply and old. This is a fact, even the Army confirms that there weren't many investments during the last decades.

Saying that Russia is guilty because it's Russia is simple BS - hopefully the investigations will include more research than that.

Quoting 76er (Reply 7): some local villagers there yesterday, and they were adament their town was never in the hands of the 'Nazi's', but under seperatist control

Sorry, but that doesn't mean anything. Do you really think they'd say the Ukrainian Army did such stuff? People claiming so and living in Army held territory right now won't have an enjoyable future.

Just to give a final question - what reason would Russia itself and the Seperatists have to shoot down a plane? I'm sorry for the Dutch people for their losses but how about that the attack had nothing to do with the people onboard but was shot down because they thought it was a huge cargo plane instead? Army personnel aren't aviation geeks so seeing a large plane flying over a war zone might cause the feeling of an IL76 bringing in equipment or so. And please give a proper answer and don't come up with 'it's Russia so of course it's them'.

Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 8): the MH staff members who lost their jobs because of the restructuring

IIRC some kind of re-structering was planned long before the shot-down. Their A380s should have been on sale for some time.

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 9): Just to give a final question - what reason would Russia itself and the Seperatists have to shoot down a plane? I'm sorry for the Dutch people for their losses but how about that the attack had nothing to do with the people onboard but was shot down because they thought it was a huge cargo plane instead? Army personnel aren't aviation geeks so seeing a large plane flying over a war zone might cause the feeling of an IL76 bringing in equipment or so. And please give a proper answer and don't come up with 'it's Russia so of course it's them'.

I have no problem with that. IMHO the shootdown was by mistake and not a delibarate act. The next of kin don't care WHO did it, be it the Ukrainians, the Russians, the seperatists or whoever. As long as the ones responsible are brought to justice. There is NO anti-anyone bias in that.

In the meantime it appears only Russian journalists are allowed to ask questions at the press conference in Moscow so far. Why?

Main conclusions of the Safety Board (as related to the families this morning):

-East Ukrainian airspace was unsafe and should have been closed completely
-Nearly all people on the plane died immediately as a result of the explosion, a few may have lived for a minute but were most likely unconscious

Interesting blog posting on the Almaz-Antey press conference: http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17....-almaz-antey-has-two-major-errors/

Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of the Buk, presented the difference between the shrapnels produced by different missiles, yet they didn't tell *which* kind of shrapnels were eventually found in the victims' bodies.

And then, the blog posting explains that the Buk type that probably shot down MH17 was and still is in use by the Russian army, and this type was seen in Ukraine.


David

Video feed from press conference: http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-34514727

Now live:

http://nos.nl/livestream/2062818-rapport-over-ramp-mh17.html



Maybe not available everywhere.

Warhead identified as a 9N314M.

Cockpit torn off immediately after detonation.

In the week leading up to the incident 61 airlines from 32 countries operated flights overhead eastern Ukraine.

On the day of the incident 160 civilian flight overflew the area.

Location of the explosion was determined by triangulation from the 4 microphones on the flight deck.

[Edited 2015-10-13 04:45:42]

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 9): It's a very old BUK missile - the only ones still using them is the Ukrainian Army.

Which the separatists had managed to get their hands on IIRC.

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 9): Saying that Russia is guilty because it's Russia is simple BS

Had they not tried to obfuscate facts with lies I wouldn't have faulted them. But the moment they went ahead & parrot all the lies about how Ukrainian fighters shot down MH17 was the moment they became accomplices & hence they're guilty by association.

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 10): IIRC some kind of re-structering was planned long before the shot-down. Their A380s should have been on sale for some time.

Nope, the restructuring was not as severe as what's now occurring.

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 9): Just to give a final question - what reason would Russia itself and the Seperatists have to shoot down a plane?

The question should be why were they so trigger happy? Had they taken the time to properly check their systems they could have avoided killing all those people.

[Edited 2015-10-13 04:49:57]

Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 17): Which the separatists had managed to get their hands on IIRC.

No, according to Ukraine, they didn't lose any missile to the separatists. And the markings on the missile carrier show that it belongs to a regiment stationed in Kursk, Russia.

Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 17): Had they not tried to obfuscate facts with lies I wouldn't have faulted them.

I second that. When you're saying it was shot down by a Su-25 using a wholly different missile, you better be damn sure about it, and be ready to present the evidence.


David

Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 17): not as severe as

But existing, right?

---

First of all I'm very impressed by the quality of the report. Absolutely stunning what you can model these days. I hope they'll keep the reconstruction as some kind of memorial and open it for the public to have an impression what happens if a missile crashes into something. There's truely a difference between documentaries and movies seeing it happen compared to seeing the result in real life instead.

One thing I'm bit confused about is how it's possible for Ukraine to state such exact location of the launching if neither Russia nor the DBS can. Of all three parties Ukraine is the one with the oldest and most out-of-date techniques. I don't have a map at hand showing the exact front line location during the hour it happend but it I'm pretty sure it lies exactly in those areas mentioned by all parties.

If Russia wants to back the Seperatists, why would they've shown a larger area than Ukraine itself? They would have simply shown an area with no Seperatists activity nearby.

Don't get me wrong - I'm neither pro-Russian nor pro-US, I just don't like people saying that Russia is guilty for everything that happens because they still trust the good old times.

Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 17): But the moment they went ahead & parrot all the lies about how Ukrainian fighters shot down MH17 was the moment they became accomplices & hence they're guilty by association.

And to continue with my position - didn't you follow how many times the US changed their statement regarding the hospital bombing in Kunduz? Sharing false information with the public is something common and definitely NOT only practiced by the Russian Federation.

[Edited 2015-10-13 04:59:32]

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 19): One thing I'm bit confused about is how it's possible for Ukraine to state such exact location of the launching if neither Russia nor the DBS can. Of all three parties Ukraine is the one with the oldest and most out-of-date techniques. I don't have a map at hand showing the exact front line location during the hour it happend but it I'm pretty sure it lies exactly in those areas mentioned by all parties.

Possibly their radars saved a raw data dump, and then they, possibly with the help of external experts, modelled a "best fit" for a missile trajectory based on the weak radar returns from the missile. But I can be mistaken... is a USAF radar expert here willing to share his secrets? 

And yes, I'm very impressed by the investigation. I've downloaded the 76 MB of PDF files, more than 400 pages for sure... the final report is longer than the AF447 one.


David

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 20): And yes, I'm very impressed by the investigation. I've downloaded the 76 MB of PDF files, more than 400 pages for sure... the final report is longer than the AF447 one.

Would you mind sharing a link for that?

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 20): But I can be mistaken... is a USAF radar expert here willing to share his secrets?

They'll sure come up with something once an uncomfortable anti-west conclusion comes up.  

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 21): Would you mind sharing a link for that?

You're welcome... http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/


David

Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 8): Why don't the Russian just give it a rest & punish the separatists?

Well, granted that 'separatists' = 'Russian army' = 'Kremlin', punishing the separatists means punishing the Russians. Do you really expect them to admit their fault? How long did it take putin to admit that the Russian forces were in fact the 'self-defence forces' in the Crimea? He still maintains that there are no Russian troops in Ukraine, even though the whole world knows otherwise.

Quoting TheFlyingDisk (Reply 17): Had they not tried to obfuscate facts with lies I wouldn't have faulted them. But the moment they went ahead & parrot all the lies about how Ukrainian fighters shot down MH17 was the moment they became accomplices & hence they're guilty by association.

Since we in Ukraine have access to the Russian state TV - the number of versions that they have come up with and the number of 'local residents' that they interviewed and that can distinguish between this or that plane high up in the sky, and the number of foreign air traffic controllers that the Russian TV fake-employed in Ukraine would astonish anyone. All these theories are manufactured lies, and only brainwashed Russians would believe them. The tragedy of the situation is not that the Russian version would cloud the judgement of the rest of the world - their propaganda is not that effective outside of Russia or to people who did not emigrate from Russia. But the real tragedy is that Russians may have to wait for a long time to learn the truth what their country did - same as we did not know the extent of the crimes that the USSR committed. And even bigger tragedy is that the real criminals, those who launched the aggression and those who supplied the weapons (although very few in Ukraine believe that it were the untrained locals, and think that it was a Russian unit), those who sit in the Kremlin will most likely escape the punishment.

And more importantly - all these 'versions' manufactured by the Russians are for domestic consumption only.

Quoting Andriyko (Reply 23): crimes that the USSR committed

You mean the one Ukraine used to be part of?

Quoting Andriyko (Reply 23): have access to the Russian state TV

Do you know who owns the Ukrainian media? It's either the gov or local oligarchs that like to see their point of view published.

Quoting Andriyko (Reply 23): although very few in Ukraine believe that it were the untrained locals, and think that it was a Russian unit

That doesn't mean anything. Asking civilians about the 'aggressor' and military stuff will always end up with the same answer.

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 9): It's a very old BUK missile - the only ones still using them is the Ukrainian Army. They never had war activties so their equipment is very simply and old. This is a fact, even the Army confirms that there weren't many investments during the last decades.

Only little problem: MH17 was not hit by an 9M38.

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 9): Saying that Russia is guilty because it's Russia is simple BS

Agreed. Just another little problem here: nobody did that.

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 19): Don't get me wrong - I'm neither pro-Russian nor pro-US, I just don't like people saying that Russia is guilty for everything that happens because they still trust the good old times.

So who said "Russia is guilty for everything"? Mind sharing a link?

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 19): I just don't like people saying that Russia is guilty for everything that happens because they still trust the good old times.

Nobody said they were "guilty for everything because they still trust the good old times" (whatever that means.

In fact, they are guilty because they armed a rag-tag group of "rebels", giving them deadly weapons, which in turn brought almost 300 innocent civilians to their deaths.

And they are guilty because they continue to try to cover-up their involvement.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 25): So who said "Russia is guilty for everything"? Mind sharing a link?

If I start I won't finish...

Check out various German news and see how anti-Russian they are these days.

Quoting Unflug (Reply 25): Agreed. Just another little problem here: nobody did that.

Not directly but reading between the lines is quite clear. (not just inside this discussion)

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 26): whatever that means

Thinking black and white. Same as during cold war.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 26): they are guilty because they armed a rag-tag group of "rebels"

Possibly, yes. BUT which world power doesn't do the same? The problem is if the West does it it's for so called 'democracy' and human rights (...) - if Russia does so they're treated like the evil.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 26): And they are guilty because they continue to try to cover-up their involvement.

Unless an independent party confirms they're guilty with proves everybody has access to they're not guilty of anything. => presumption of innocence (I'm not talking about their activities in Ukraine but about who actually shot down MH17)

Once again: the report presented today is about HOW it happened, not WHY or WHO.

I urge you to discuss THIS report, and its conclusions. not anything else.

There is an ongoing criminal investigation, but that is hampered by the fact that the area as almost impossible to reach for the investigators. The question of who are the culprit and what was the reason, is unanswered at this moment.
But: if the Russians are really interested, they should really cooperate and not doing something like the BUK headman did, simply deny the outcome of the investigation.

The Dutch are not stupid  

The U.S. had a satellite over Ukraine during the time it happened. They would have best results at hand but do not publish them for some reason.

Quoting Delta777Jet (Reply 30): They would have best results at hand but do not publish them for some reason.

Indeed. Once Russia started bombing in Syria they had HQ images at hand blaming Russia for what-so-ever right away.

I wonder who they cover up for with hiding those images from Ukraine...

Quoting maartent (Reply 28): not doing something like the BUK headman did

He also seemed to have offered help with real BUKs for a comparision but nobody seemed to care.

This full video report on MH17 is published by the Netherlands Safety Board:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDiLEyT9spI#t=42

Some interesting points, quoted from the report:

"When implementing the above measures, the Ukrainian authorities took insufficient
notice of the possibility of a civil aeroplane at cruising altitude being fired upon.
This was also the case, when, according to the Ukrainian authorities, the shooting down
of an Antonov An-26 on 14 July 2014 and that of a Sukhoi Su-25 on 16 July
2014 occurred while these aeroplanes were flying at altitudes beyond the effective
range of MANPADS. The weapon systems mentioned by the Ukrainian authorities
in relation to the shooting down of these aircraft can pose a risk to civil aeroplanes,
because they are capable of reaching their cruising altitude. However, no measures
were taken to protect civil aeroplanes against these weapon systems."

"There is a lack of effective incentives to encourage sovereign states faced with
armed conflicts to assume their responsibility for the safety of their airspace"

This is an important point, and one that needs to be looked at in depth. There is a conflict between the definition of the sovereignty of a state and its responsibilities, and how these responsibility are affected when the state believes its sovereignty is being threatened. What happens when a state no longer feels that it has adequate control over a portion of its land, but is still responsible for it? In no way would a government be willing to admit or concede that it has lost control, but for the safety of air travel this is an important question. Please note I am talking in general about conflict areas, not specifically about this incident.

This point is mentioned in the report as well:

"The sovereignty of states is one of the fundamental principles of the Chicago Convention,
one of the stated objectives of which is the safe development of aviation. This not only
means that states have complete control over their airspace, but that they are also
responsible for ensuring the safety of the airspace that is open to civil aviation. The Dutch
Safety Board’s investigation has demonstrated that, in practice, this fundamental principle
can lead to vulnerability. The fact that the state manages the airspace does not mean
that, in all cases, it has an adequate overview and control of weapon systems that could
threaten the safety of that airspace from the ground or in the air. This turned out to be
the case in the eastern part of Ukraine. This raises the question how states that are
involved in an armed conflict can be motivated to fulfil their responsibility more than is
currently the case. "

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 29): Hmm, it reminds me of a country who also armed a group of rebels in Syria, Afghanistan, Irak, etc. etc....yep it definitely was Russia.

Yep... how well did Russia's occupation in Afghanistan turn out? And how well do you expect their efforts to prop up Syria's dictatorship to do?

It will be a long shift tonight for the notorious Kremlinbots here on a.net

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 27): If I start I won't finish...

We have seen that couple months ago... You have been one of those pushing that nonsensical Su-25 theory when even the Russians have abandoned it as utter BS.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 35): You have been one of those pushing that nonsensical Su-25

Interesting, can't remember. Link for that please?

What I find beyond bizarre about the whole matter is that of it was indeed them, there are no reasonable grounds to assume that Russia resp. the separatists intentionally fired on MH17. In other words, if it was really them, why not just execute either the real perpetrators (who would most likely be some expendable cretins anyway), or some random scapegoat. Then formally apologise, pay $$$ in damages, and the whole sordid matter is pretty much over. A slight dent in one's national pride, sure. But still preferable over the whole circus of sanctions and such, no?

[Edited 2015-10-13 11:09:14]

Quoting aw70 (Reply 37): sanctions and such

sanctions weren't made because of the shot-down

Quoting aw70 (Reply 37):

Yes.

But they never give away a good propaganda opportunity when it comes for free... the West can point at Russia to either have supplied some dimwits with a dangerous weapon, or at Russian troops having fired, in gross negligence, at a airliner. It doesn't look good, however one turns it.

And the Russian media can portray the West as an entity which likes to sacrifice scores of people for a greater end. As far as I know, the last time the Russian population has disagreed with its government was in 1917... the October Revolution. But when they send young men to fight in Chechnya or Afghanistan, they trust their government.

Germany is the total opposite - they have always feared soldiers to come home dead from Afghanistan.

Sorry for this piece of non-aviation opinion...

David

As the evidence now points to a Buk missile, why does Russia, between saying it was a Ukrainian Buk, still trot out the air to air missile from a Ukrainian fighter BS line?
The apologists don't have an answer for that one?

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 31): Quoting maartent (Reply 28): not doing something like the BUK headman did He also seemed to have offered help with real BUKs for a comparison but nobody seemed to care.

Well, I can only repeat: the Dutch are not stupid. Nor biased in any way.

You may well consider the fact that they identified the type of BUK with the particles and scrapnel they recovered. I don´t think you can actually do that without some knowledge of what was in those warheads, or do you think that info came fallen out of the air (pun intended)?

If you want to say that they refused the "help" (and I think they don´t even have to ask for it on their knees) from the BUK manufacturers, you should provide some proof. Can you?

Once again, I am not interested in political babble. 290 or so persons died, needlessly, and someone should take the responsibility for that. It is already a gain that it is confirmed to have been a BUK rocket, that is the result of this investigation, with or without the help of the constructor.

One of the main reasons I don't trust the pro-Russian trolls (including on here) is that most of their arguments are basically 'Well the West has done it as well', which is not a defence. Western countries have done many nasty things, I give you that. But in this context, why do they matter? These people simply badwagon onto shreds of vaguely plausible evidence that fits a conspiracy theory narrative.

Anyway as for the report, it confirms what most of us suspected from the start: it was a BUK, which incidentally means that anyone who thought it was an Su-25 was clearly wrong, despite the clear evidence of it being wrong.

Quoting aw70 (Reply 37): What I find beyond bizarre about the whole matter is that of it was indeed them, there are no reasonable grounds to assume that Russia resp. the separatists intentionally fired on MH17.

The missile was fired from rebel-held territory, and there is a trail of evidence linking a specific missile unit, but also a regiment that is responsible. The issue isn't whether they did it intentionally, I think most rational people would say it was a mistake/incompetence, but they are still involved despite denying any.

Quoting aw70 (Reply 37): In other words, if it was really them, why not just execute either the real perpetrators (who would most likely be some expendable cretins anyway), or some random scapegoat.

It reflects very badly on Russia and Putin, they'd be associated either with interfering or incompetence.

Quoting aw70 (Reply 37): Then formally apologise, pay $$$ in damages, and the whole sordid matter is pretty much over. A slight dent in one's national pride, sure.

A slight dent in national pride... and possibly a war. These issues are very sensitive.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 42): and possibly a war

What? Who? Ukraine vs. Russia directly? That war is over before it even started.

Quoting maartent (Reply 41): If you want to say that they refused the "help"

I didn't say they refused to but how is it possible that such investigation is being made without specialists coming from both ends? (Boeing and Almaz-Antey)

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 42): The missile was fired from rebel-held territory

Any source for that? I watched the livestream on BBC and nobody said anything about that. Just that the left side of the plane was hit.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 42): 'Well the West has done it as well', which is not a defence.

Sure that but nobody cared about the West doing the same stuff - now Russia's being back on the stage everybody starts caring about their faults... you might not get that I'm neither pro-Russian nor pro-US - I'm simply against the Putin/Russia-bashing that a lot of guys practice in here. It doesn't require any thinking to notice that the US is strictly against a well connected European-Russian relation as it would make them more independent. People may like it or not but there is an American press campaign running to let every action Russia does look like an anti-Western move to strenghten the relation to Europe again - and local media copy that unisono.

Peter Scholl-Latour once said the biggest mistake the US made during the invasion of Afghanistan was to think that everybody not voting for Russia is automatically a friend of the US. As I said I'm neither on one nor the other side. Calling everyone Kremlinblablabla just proves their ability to both accept other opinions and also being able to understand them.

[Edited 2015-10-13 12:00:54]

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 42): It reflects very badly on Russia and Putin, they'd be associated either with interfering or incompetence.

It would indeed. However, given the damage the whole sanctions thing has caused, one cannot but wonder whether just owning up would not have been the far cheaper option (provided it was them in the first place, of course). Especially as coming clean would, at least as far as Russia is concerned, not require more than admitting handing dangerous weapons to people of questionable ability and character. Which is not a topic that would allow any current major power to start pointing fingers at anyone else.


[Edited 2015-10-13 12:08:10]

Quoting aw70 (Reply 44): just owning up would not have been the far cheaper

Comment #1, Take #2: The sanctions weren't made due to this attack. The US wanted the EU to set them up.

Please don't comment the source - I just picked the first article that contains the important quotes of Mr Juncker confirming so.

http://www.neopresse.com/politik/jun...ionen-wurden-von-den-usa-diktiert/

[Edited 2015-10-13 12:16:46]

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 43): I didn't say they refused to but how is it possible that such investigation is being made without specialists coming from both ends? (Boeing and Almaz-Antey)

You really should read the report. Almaz-Antey provided information, including pictures of the fragments used inside the warhead which are identical to those found in the aircraft and embedded in crew bodies, and are only used in the BUK 9N314M warhead.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 46): You really should read the report.

Hah! good one

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 45): Comment #1, Take #2: The sanctions weren't made due to this attack. The US wanted the EU to set them up.

If the U.S. really demonstrably forced the EU to impose sanctions the EU did not actually want to impose: wouldn't Russia rolling over and admitting blame for the MH17 fiasco make it harder to sustain said sanctions?

Not that coming clean would make Russia the good guys - but if spun correctly, this might still go a long way to making the sanctions look like an over-reaction. Or to put this differently: admitting that the fuck-up originated in their own back yard would not cost Russia much at this stage (half the world already believes this anyway, and the other half does not care either way). But potentially it might gain them at least some goodwill. Not much, probably, but still.

OTOH, sticking to their story in spite of there being a more obvious alternative would be fairly typical, old-school Russian military style. So it would not be a total surprise if they actually were to blame, and did not try to come clean while there still was some point in doing so.

Quoting Marvinhsv (Reply 43): Any source for that? I watched the livestream on BBC and nobody said anything about that. Just that the left side of the plane was hit.

This report did not clarify the launch location, it was not the DSB responsibility.

Quote from the report:

The area from which the possible flight paths of a 9N314M warhead carried on a
9M38-series missile as installed on the Buk surface-to-air missile system could have
commenced measures about 320 square kilometres in the east of Ukraine. Further
forensic research is required to determine the launch location. Such work falls outside
the mandate of the Dutch Safety Board, both in terms of Annex 13 and the Kingdom
Act ‘Dutch Safety Board’.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 46): You really should read the report.

I started but it's just too much for an afternoon. So even if they shared information about fragments and the warhead - why are they claiming other results later on? If it would indicate that some Russia-connected groups used it which is not in the interest of Russia so why would they've shared 1) something at all & 2) something that could indicate that Rebels used it?