2:34:00 PM
Wrong Aircraft Identified As Malaysia Flight
MH-17 Fuels Doubts
A previous post
exposed the issue of foreknowledge when videos dealing with the
aftermath of the alleged missile attack, were revealed to be produced
prior to the crash of Flight MH-17.
On July 20th, the Corbett Report
published a useful summary that discloses many irregularities in
corporate media coverage and international governmental propaganda
sources.
Now we look at more media propaganda published as perception management to global audiences.
EXHIBIT A: The aircraft allegedly shot down over Shaktarsk is a Boeing 777-200, (Tail number, 9M-MRD) – the identical model aircraft that remains missing in the mysterious disappearance on Flt. MH-370 with tail number, 9M-MRO).
Recent, “near conclusive” evidence reports that MH-370 (9M-MRO) was actually hijacked raising the possibility that aircraft parts from 9M-MRO could have been salvaged, altered, re-painted and used to create the crash scene for MH-17 (9M-MRD).
Curious initial reports claim the smell
of decaying corpses was evident by witnesses on initial encounter with
the crash site. On July 18, ABC News reported:
“A top pro-Russia rebel commander in eastern Ukraine has given a bizarre version of events surrounding the Malaysian jetliner crash — suggesting many of the victims may have died days before the plane took off.”
Speculation is developing that 9M-MRO
alias MH-370 may have been substituted for Flight MH-17 to create a
False Flag event. In the evidence shown below, Flight Radar-24 reports
that MH-17 was reported “canceled” by Malaysia Airlines. If the flight
was canceled, the circumstances allow for the substitute of a “bogey”
aircraft on a mission. This could explain the false photo story by a
passenger at Amsterdam terminal as an attempt at “deception management”.
With the development of fly-by-wire and
drone technology, it’s possible that passengers aboard MH-370 were
already deceased when the missile struck the aircraft. It will be
interesting to see how the allegedly deceased pilots and crew will be
memorialized by the media.
EXHIBIT – A
EXHIBIT – B
The Tail Number for the allegedly doomed flight is 9M-MRD. The tail section apparently fell from the sky in a vertical position as a convenient opportunity for photographers to easily show the world this plane is not to be confused with tail number 9M-MRO from the missing flight MH-370 – the Malaysia airliner that is now revealed to have been hijacked.
EXHIBIT – C
EXHIBIT D: Prominent photo of tail section with Malaysia Airlines logo (livery) provides observers with hollow assurance that the aircraft was positively identified as 9M-MRD.
With the example of this “agent” walking
all over the crash scene evidence, the media has already promoted the
idea that the NTSB or designated crash scene investigators will not
likely be able to carry out a competent investigation. After all, what
would a thorough forensic analysis of the crash scene be obligated to
report if it were allowed to take place?
EXHIBIT – D:
EXHIBT E: Alleged crash scene baggage seems too clean to be true. How likely is it that not one ripped, burnt, charred, shredded or blood-stained item can be detected in this photo?
EXHIBIT – E
EXHIBIT F: Flight Radar-24 screen capture on the day following the crash (7/18) shows MH-17, (9M-MRD) as “canceled” on the date of the crash (7/17). Why is it reported that the “doomed” flight was “canceled” before it was struck by a missile?
As horrific as the crash was reported to be, why did Malaysia Airlines boldly resume normal scheduling for the following day (7/18) and before the risk of a repeated missile attack could be determined.? The screen-shot was captured after takeoff and while the aircraft (9M-MRL) was still in the air and presumably “safely” en route. When did Malaysia Airlines determine “business as usual” was more important than air safety?
EXHIBIT – F
EXHIBIT G: The record shows that from June 12 through July 17, thirteen (13) different B-777-200 aircraft were assigned to fly the MH-17 flight schedule for a total of 36 trips from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.
Of special interest is the last flight for 9M-MRD on this route, prior to the alleged crash, occurred on June 18, 2014 – an unusually long interval of one month . During this time only 3 other aircraft flew the route only one time:
(1) 9M-MRM on 6/16, (2) 9M-MRF on 7/5 and (3) 9M-MRC on 7/11.
Two of the aircraft flew the route within 12 and 6 days, respectively with the probability both aircraft could fly the route again before approaching or exceeding a 30 day hiatus. This distinguishes 9M-MRD and 9M-MRM as the only two – out of 13 aircraft – to exceed a 3 week hiatus between scheduled service as Flight MH-17.
EXHIBIT – G
SOURCE:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/20/wrong-aircraft-identified-as-malaysia-flt-mh-17-fuels-doubts/
