Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
The JIT hasn't (and doesn't) release any preliminary report(s). You appear to be confusing the JIT investigation and that of the Dutch Safety Board, which have very different purposes. The Dutch Safety Board has addressed black-box info, ATC records etc already in september of last year in its preliminary report, which in terms of content follows the requirement set forth by international treaties regarding air incidents. There will not be a second preliminary report, only a final report.
Dutch Safety Board
MH17 probe looking for witnesses to back ‘Buk missile’ scenario — RT News
A preliminary report of the official investigation published in September 2014 only said that the crash was a result of structural damage caused by a large number of high-energy objects that struck the Boeing from the outside. The report did not specify what the objects were, where they came from or who was responsible.
Wreckage from MH-17 downed over Ukraine being sent to Netherlands - LA Times
A preliminary report in September by the Dutch-led international investigative team said the crash, which killed all 298 passengers and crew on board, was caused by the impact of "high-energy objects," consistent with being hit by a ground-to-air missile.
Is The MH17 Joint Investigation Team Avoiding The Question Of Kremlin Guilt? - Forbes
The Joint Investigation Team (JIT), comprised of investigators from Belgium, Australia, Ukraine, Malaysia and the Netherlands, is charged with bringing the “perpetrators of the attack on MH17 (Malaysian Airlines Flight 17) to justice.”
The JIT has issued a YouTube video that traces the path of the BUK missile that allegedly shot down MH17 from its entry from Russia into eastern Ukraine, to its location near the crash site, and to its hasty retreat back into Russia. The JIT released the video to encourage eyewitnesses to come forward to testify. Insofar as such witnesses would be from occupied eastern Ukraine, the JIT has offered them a witness protection program.
The JIT release contains videos of the BUK as it entered east Ukraine on a Volvo lorry, sat parked for the night at “hotel,” preceded through various towns on its way to Torez, and then made its hasty exit back across the Russian border after the crash. The video also contains transcripts of intercepted conversations between the crew (code named Bibliotekar, or “librarian”) and various controllers discussing the location of the BUK, where to park it, and confirmation the day after what they called “yesterday’s mess” that “the truck is in Russia.”
The JIT release contains little that is new. The videos of the BUK as it moved from point to point and the intercepted phone calls have been widely circulated and commented upon. Although Russian sources heatedly dispute their authenticity, the Dutch public prosecutor has concluded that the audio intercepts are genuine. That may be the most important new news. If these intercepts are authentic, then the intercepts among rebel officials and Moscow in the immediate aftermath of the disaster should be authentic as well.
I can appreciate the JIT’s methodical approach, but calling for eyewitnesses will only bring forward conflicting accounts and even Russian plants. If the true goal is to bring the actual perpetrators to justice, the JIT should be talking to higher-ups, whose knowledge of and participation in the catastrophe has been apparent from day one.