It's radically different: what hit the Malaysian airliner wasn't missile-shrapnel.
What, then, could have been the military planes that actually did this?
On 17 July 2014 the pro-junta Kiev Post headlined "Russian military plane shot down Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft in Ukraine," and reported that, "The Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) has said that a Russian military aircraft launched a missile strike against a Su-25 aircraft of the Ukrainian Armed Forces over Ukrainian territory on Wednesday, July 16." So, even the Ukrainian military admitted that they had Su-25 jets flying in the conflict-zone. But Su-25s are designed only for low-altitude combat and bombing; so, Su-25s would be the type of planes that the rebels would likeliest succeed at bringing down (and did on July 16th), as opposed to the higher-flying Su-27s, which are far less likely to be hit by the rebels' ground-based fire. (There's no independent confirmation that "Russian military aircraft" had actually been involved in the incident reported in the Kiev Post; and there have been numerous instances when the Ukrainian Government charged that there was such direct Russian involvement and it was subsequently established that there hadn't been any at all. Obama and the Ukrainian Government want a pretext to extend their war into Russia, but Russia has not been cooperating with their desire. Thus, "(NSDC) has said that a Russian military aircraft launched a missile strike" there was probably reporting a lie.)
During the very late afternoon in Ukraine on July 17th -- the same day as the headline "Russian military plane shot down Ukrainian Su-25 aircraft in Ukraine" -- the Malaysian airliner, MH-17, went down. The most-thorough article on the plane's flight-path and timeline was published by Twenty First Century Wire on July 25th here. Two of the fighter jets it notes to be in the Ukrainian Government's air force are:
"Su-25 'Frogfoot' fighter -- Ceiling: 23,000 ft/ 7,000 m, or up to 32,800 ft/ 10,000 m(depending aircraft modifications)
Su-27 'Flanker' fighter -- Ceiling: 64,000 ft/ 19,000 m"
Su-25s could barely have escorted the Malaysian airliner into the conflict-zone at around 33,000 feet where it was hit, but Su-27s definitely could easily have done that job.
On July 21st, The Aviationist bannered "All flights, including Malaysian B777, were being escorted by Ukrainian Su-27 Flanker jets over Eastern Ukraine" and (though in language that's cumbersome to understand) reported that, "Six fully armed Flankers [or Su-27s] have always been in the sky especially when the other Ukrainian Air Force airplanes such as transporters and attackers like Fulcrums and Rooks were in the East of Ukraine," and that, "Provided the Su-27s were really escorting or (more likely) watching from their CAP station," the Malaysian airliner could have been hit by a Buk missile 33,000 feet below from the ground, just as the Ukrainian Government was saying, notwithstanding its "escorting or (more likely) watching from their CAP station." The speculation continued on like that, stenographcally following the Ukrainian Government's line (that ground-fired Buks did it, via rebels, not via the Government), by asserting that, "in the wake of the downing of the Su-25 [on July 16th], the operators inside the Buk [what Buk? -- The Aviationist was merely assuming this] may have mistaken the Boeing 777 shadowed by/near two Flankers for a high-value plane of the Ukrainian Air Force. On their radar screens, the sight of a large plane with two accompanying (or circling in CAP not too far away) fighter jets was completely new and may only mean the Ukrainians were escorting an important plane. And that would be the reason why they downed it." If "they" downed it.
The Twenty First Century Wire article also noted that, "The BBC reported on July 17th: 'Ukraine's SBU security service has confiscated recordings of conversations between Ukrainian air traffic control officers and the crew of the doomed airliner, a source in Kiev has told Interfax news agency.'" (That's time-stamped at the BBC site as "15:29" on the 17th.) That is damning; it proves the Ukrainian Government's complicity. (Why else would they do that?)
The Twenty First Century Wire article also mentioned that, "On June 4, 2014, Janes Defense reported that Kiev have recently returned to service two other higher performance fighters, including the Su-27 'Flanker' and the MiG-29 'Fulcrum' fighters." Moreover: "According to IHS Jane's World Air Forces data, Ukraine still possesses a fleet of 24 Su-24Ms, 36 Su-25s, 45 Su-27s, 20 An-26s and 140 MiG-29s," but regarding the MIGs, "39 of these were captured" by Russia when Crimea broke away from Ukraine and rejoined Russia, of which it had been a part between 1783 and 1954. Obama and his regime demand that Crimea be returned to Ukraine, which the Crimeans never ever voted to become part of. He supports the Ukrainian Government's promise to seize it by military means.
Some readers have objected that it's difficult to bring down a plane by air-to-air fire. One person cited the shooter's need to take into account the other plane's evasive maneuvers, and to aim at where the target-plane will be when the bullets are expected to get there. This is a valid point, if the targeted plane is an enemy's fighter-jet. That's called a "dogfight in the air." However, if the target-plane isn't military, and if the pilot in the target-plane has been given to understand that the fighter jets that are accompanying him are friendly, he's just a sitting duck for those "escorts," and the targeters can align themselves exactly where they want to be, and coordinate when they will jointly commence firing at him. The result will be like this side-panel is.
There was another expert who happened to be shocked by this side-panel and who concluded from it what Haisenko does. As I have previously noted and explained in detail, the first member of the international investigating team to arrive on the scene in order to negotiate with the locals the safety of the entire team that was to come into this civil war area, was immediately struck by the fact that, "There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machine-gun fire, very very strong machine-gun fire." However, he didn't examine it then as closely as Haisenko has now done, to such a fine point as to have noticed that some of those bullet-holes came from the plane's right, and some came from the plane's left. That fact is even more remarkable than that the projectiles were probably bullets, because this fact confirms that they actually had to be.
I also made note in that article that:
The latest report from the intelligence community was headlined on August 3rd by Robert Parry, "Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts," and he revealed there that, "Contrary to the Obama administration's public claims blaming eastern Ukrainian rebels and Russia for the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, some U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame, according to a source briefed on these findings. This judgment -- at odds with what President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have expressed publicly -- is based largely on the absence of U.S. government evidence that Russia supplied the rebels with a Buk anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet, said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity."
It's actually based on lots more than that; it's based not on an absence of evidence, but on positive proof that the Ukrainian Government shot the plane down, and even proving how it was done.
Unlike what Parry's source alleged, there does exist powerful and convincing evidence of how this plane was downed, and it's that side-panel.