A lot of evidence is missing or was not obtained on MH17

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

There is a lot of evidence on MH17 missing, or not obtained, or handed over late. This is an overview:

  1. there are no United States Air Force SBIRS satellite images available. Reason: classified
  2. There are no United States Air Force optical satellite photos available. Reason: not known
  3. There are no other military radar recordings available obtained during excersize Sea Breeze.
  4. There are no commercial satellite photos available of the BUK and the launchspot. Reason: unknown
  5. There are no primary radar recordings provided by the Ukraine Air Force. Reason: radar was switched off as the Air Force did not have flights planned for July 17
  6. There are no primary radar recordings provided by the Ukraine civil air traffic control. Reason: radar was in maintenance
  7. There are no primary radar recordings provided by Russia. Reason: not kept after 30 days
  8.  There are no secondary radar recordings provided by Russia. Reason: not kept after 30 days
  9. The air traffic controller responsible for MH17 was not interviewed by the DSB
  10. Eyewitness on the ground were not interviewed by DSB
  11. Some parts of the cockpit roof with shrapnel damage were not used in the reconstruction. Found too late
  12. Some parts of the business class section roof are missing. Reason: DSB did not immediately went to the crash site
  13. Dutch governement delayed the recovery not willing to request UN to sent peacekeeping forces, and is hiding information. A long list of obstruction.
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

14 Comments on A lot of evidence is missing or was not obtained on MH17

  1. An imaginary principal component analysis without data will be performed on the domain of the investigation of MH17.

    First we notice the investigation got a wrong start since one of the accused (Russia) has been condemned before any research and legal judgment.

    If the Western block was really convinced Russia was the perpetrator of the shooting of MH17, then just Russia would be treated with all egards and respect. Also separatists would not be put down as low intelligent drunks who accidentally captured a solitary BUK-TELAR.

    It is legally use not to see suspects as criminals before they are convicted. This is also meant to get their cooperation to the investigation.

    http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/mh-17-investigation-is-injustice-to-all.html

    [- We are facing a legal farce and a grave injustice for all the relatives of the 298 victims thanks to the fact that Netherlands and Ukraine have forgotten in the case of MH17 that “Nemo iudex in causa sua” or that no one should judge or investigate in his own cause, says Finnish judge and diplomat Peter Iiskola, who is expert in international air and space law.]

    If the Western block wanted to frustrate the investigation by insulting one of the possible suspects (Russia), who became a random liar, naming and shaming proved an excellent way to thwart the whole investigation.

    Our objective conclusion must be the Western block wanted to frustrate and thwart the investigation of MH17, what sabotage was not needed if they were convinced Russians or separatists were the perpetrators.

    And a symbolic principal component analysis on the weird behavior of Western parties intuitively shows the Western alliance must be the perpetrator, since they behaved as subjects who try to hide a crime. Not that this would be the right conclusion but it would explain the deceitful behavior of the Dutch government and the illogical behavior of Ukraine, to say nothing about the USA.

    So, the principal component (main factor) of our hypothetical factor analysis will be DISTRUST, intentionally caused by the Western block. Now you can forget the rest of your research. It is mud throwing and street fighting, as has happened. These are all objective facts.

    All this happened because of the Chicago rules, which give alleged suspects (Ukraine) a decisive role in their own case. Of course the investigation must be conducted by independent scientists from independent institutes without ties with the countries involved.

    The total variance of the investigation into MH17 can be explained by about 4 general factors:

    1: DISTRUST FACTOR
    2: OBSTRUCTION FACTOR
    3: DECEIT FACTOR
    4: SLOWING DOWN FACTOR

    As main factor we see:

    1: DISTRUST by political manipulation of the Western block of the investigation in accordance to Chicago rules. On this factor are loading two enormous bundles of vectors which set the Eastern against the Western front. This first factor will explain about 60 % of all variance in the investigation.

    ====

    2: THE TECHNICAL OBSTRUCTION FACTOR

    Partly nested within this factor is the TECHNICAL OBSTRUCTION FACTOR. It shows the antagonistic obstruction between the Western block and the separatist / Russian block. Within DISTRUST it explains most variance, since it hides the key to the perpetrator.

    THE TECHNICAL OBSTRUCTION FACTOR is part of DISTRUST but also uniguely explains 20 % remaining variance as WITHHOLDING TECHNICAL INFORMATION. Again it puts our two blocks against each other, but partly under a different angle:

    TECHNICAL OBSTRUCTION OF THE WESTERN BLOCK:

    United States;

    – There are no United States Air Force SBIRS satellite images available. Reason: classified.
    – There are no United States Air Force optical satellite photos available. Reason: not known.
    – There are no other military radar recordings available obtained during excersize Sea Breeze.
    – There are no commercial satellite photos available of the BUK and the launchspot. Reason: unknown.

    Ukraine:

    – There are no primary radar recordings provided by the Ukraine Air Force. Reason: radar was switched off as the Air Force did not have flights planned for July 17.
    – There are no primary radar recordings provided by the Ukraine civil air traffic control. Reason: radar was in maintenance.

    TECHNICAL OBSTRUCTION OF THE EASTERN BLOCK:

    Russia:

    – There are no primary radar recordings provided by Russia. Reason: not kept after 30 days.
    – There are no secondary radar recordings provided by Russia. Reason: not kept after 30 days.

    ====

    3: DECEIT FACTOR (Sand in the Wheels)

    Within the Western side of DISTRUST we find the bulk of a kind of stand-alone factor of which the counter side also lies in DISTRUST but not in the eastern block. It partly also has its own unique variance. Hence, within and outside DISTRUST, the factor has a somewhat different and unique angle:

    THE DUTCH DECEIT FACTOR puts the pathological lying Dutch government against a honest faction of the parliament and a number of alert weblogs, whose WHATHAPPENEDTOFLIGHTMH17, De Nieuwe Realist, Arnold Greidanus, Erik Toonen and GeenStijl are most important:

    3: DECEIT FACTOR (Sand in the Wheels):

    A long list of obstruction:

    — 1: It took a couple of days BEFORE THE DUTCH APPEARED at the crash site. Safety concerns were the main reason. The Dutch and Australian government considered deploying army forces to the crash site but this never happened.
    –2: The Malaysian government was able to obtain the black boxes because they negotiated directly with the separatists. The Dutch seemed TO BE NOT INTERESTED in obtaining the black boxes. See more here.
    (–)
    (–)
    –49: at January 12 2016 Member of Parliament Pieter Omtzigt requested to ask oral questions to the Dutch government on the missing radar recordings of both Ukraine and Russia. However the request was not granted by the chairwomen of the dutch parliament. (source: Tweet of Pieter Omtzigt). Omtzigt will now request a debate about the radar recordings.
    –50: VVD and PvdA disagree to have a debat on the missing radar recordings. (Tweet Omtzigt)
    –51: Pieter Omtzigt and various other members of parliament asked minister van der Steur 42 questions on Mr Maat. Prime minister Rutte promised to have these questions at the latest at January 12. However van der Steur sents a letter to the Parliament dated January 12 that he will not be able to answer the questions on Tuesday and will take the regular time for answering questions. (Tweet Omtzigt)

    ===

    4: THE SLOWING DOWN FACTOR (DELAY OF INVESTIGATION)

    Within the Western side of DISTRUST we also find the DSB FACTOR with its partly unique angle, which sets the Western against the Eastern front with pure neglect and looking away:

    4: THE SLOWING DOWN FACTOR: (the looking away and neglect factor)

    – The air traffic controller responsible for MH17 was not interviewed by the DSB.
    – Eyewitness on the ground were not interviewed by DSB.
    – Some parts of the cockpit roof with shrapnel damage were not used in the reconstruction. Found too late.
    – Some parts of the business class section roof are missing. Reason: DSB did not immediately went to the crash site.

    A very long list follows…

    ====

    So the domain of disaster of MH17 definitely has been ruined by the Western world:

    1: DISTRUST FACTOR (WESTERN WORLD)
    2: OBSTRUCTION FACTOR (WESTERN AND EASTERN SIDE)
    3: DECEIT FACTOR (NETHERLANDS)
    4: SLOWING DOWN FACTOR (DSB)

    Research into the assault on the MH17 has been an immoral act and an indictment against civilization.

  2. There is one more critical piece of evidence that DSB was not interested about for some reason. Ukraine has less than 1000 Buk missiles in stock. Each of them had unique serial number. It would take maximum a week to go and catalogue the current location of those missiles just after the shoot down. Even now it might be useful. The good thing is that DSB could also request the lost from Russia who produced all those missiles. The request could be done simultaneously and delivered in sealed envelopes until both lists are available. That way there will be no chance of manipulation of evidence. It would be amazingly easy, reliable and cost effective solution. But it is amazing thatit was not even considered

    • Liane Theuer // January 13, 2016 at 4:07 pm // Reply

      Antidyatel, you know what the DSB would answer :
      “We DEFINITELY know that it was a 9N314M warhead. And the Ukraine does not have this typ of warhead. So, why ask for a catalogue of ukrainian missiles ?”
      TWO bow-ties of unknown origin support this statement…

      But my counterquestion would be :
      „Did you have prove for the type of weapon that early to obviate the need for asking the Ukraine to their buks ?“

  3. Liane Theuer // January 13, 2016 at 3:44 pm // Reply

    The DSB final report itself makes it difficult for the reader to follow the reasonings.
    You have to struggle through the various Appendixes to find out what the DSB overall says to a certain thing.

    An example: The evidence for the murder weapon.
    Only after one has read the report and Appendixes, it becomes clear that the only evidence of “9N314M warhead, carried by a missile 9M38 series”, are the two bow-ties.
    All the other “evidence” has NOT proved this specific type of weapon !

    About the bow-tie, which was found in the cockpit, the DSB does not tell when it was found and by whom.
    About the bow-tie, which was found in the body of the pilot, the DSB does not tell, who has taken the shrapnel out of the body.
    Because, strangely enough, just the pilot’s body has not undergone detailed autopsy :

    „Following identification, it was found that the body of the Captain from Team A was not one of the four bodies that underwent detailed examination.“
    WHY NOT ???
    „The body of the Captain from Team A had undergone an external and internal examination to remove foreign objects.“
    WHERE WAS THAT DONE ? In the Netherlands or in Ukraine ???

    WHY the body of Captain from Team A was burned ?
    WHY in the whole report the chemical composition of this bow-tie is not specifically determined ?

    In my eyes, the final report raises more questions than it answers.
    And my question-list is very long !

  4. Liane Theuer // January 14, 2016 at 1:11 pm // Reply

    IMPORTANT :
    The Russian aviation authority Rosaviacia has named six new facts that demonstrate the lack of credibility of the conclusions drawn by the Netherlands, according to which the MH17 had been shot with a 9M38M1-Buk missile.
    These details are contained in an official letter of the Vice Chief of the Authority, Oleg Stortschewoj, to the chairman of the Dutch Security Tjibbe Joustra.

    Here is the link (scroll down to read the english version. Open the 12 pages appendix in english !)
    http://www.favt.ru/novosti-novosti/?id=2311

    As I wrote in my previous post about captains body, the appendix contains a new information.
    Because the DSB doesn´t mention who the four bodies were, that undervent a special examination :

    2.1. Fragments
    Section 2.16 (Fig. 37, Table 11) of the Factual Information part of the final report indicates that a total of two bow-tie shaped fragments consistent with the 9N314M warhead were found:
    • Fragment 1: 14 × 14 × 4.5 millimeters, 6.1 grams, found in the cockpit;
    • Fragment 2: 12 × 12 × 5 millimeters, 5.7 grams, found in the captain’s body.
    Yet Section 2.12 of Annex X mentions only one fragment (14 × 14 × 4.5 mm) found in the cockpit (Fragment 1).
    The data provided in the final report is inaccurate, because the actual mass of Fragment 1 is 5.5 grams, not 6.1 grams, as evidenced by the photos made by members of the international investigation team during the weighing of this fragment in February 2015 at the Gilze-Rijen air base. In addition, the final report does not specify where exactly the fragment was found in the cockpit.
    The captain’s body from which Fragment 2 was extracted did not undergo special examination (instead, the body of the Team B captain, who was not present in the cockpit at the time of the accident, was examined).

    • The letter is probably one formal step in a planned course of actions by Rosaviacia. It makes the complaints official, unlike their informal October presentation.

      One seemingly innocent point is very interesting. Rosaviacia claims that the DSB report stated a wrong weight of one of the bowties, and that they have a proof of that – the photographs of the scales when the piece was weighed. For the DSB it would be very easy to respond to this allegation – just let Rosaviacia representatives reweigh the piece. This would also be an easy way to discredit the rest of Rosaviacia’s claims.

      But if the DSB do not let Russians reweigh the bit, then this will be a final proof that the DSB are lying bastards.

      So, if the weight is indeed wrong, it seems that the best action for the DSB, is either to ignore the Russian allegations, which would also serve as a good indication that they’ve lied in the report, or to tell that there has been a mistake in the stated weight.

      If the DSB admit that they’ve stated a wrong weight by mistake they’ll still be in trouble. Few people will believe them because a typo in the weight of such a critical piece of evidence is pretty much impossible. Besides, this will cast big doubts on the overall integrity of the report.

      My bet is that the DSB will make it look like they haven’t noticed the Rosaviacia letter and will do nothing about it.

    • OLEG STORCHEVOY (ROSAVIATSIYA)

      http://www.favt.ru/novosti-novosti/?id=2311 (press below: English)

      In defense of Ukraine not to have warned civil aviation for the risks of flying over Donetsk has been given the argument that from a proud state cannot be expected to admit to have lost control of its country. But also Chicago rules are involved in this situation:

      [Also, the final report unfairly obscures the issue of liability, shifting the blame from Ukraine to airlines and international aviation organizations, e.g., ICAO. The final report basically ignores the clarification provided by ICAO in Letter AN13/4.2-14/59 on July 24, 2014, which clearly stresses in paragraph 6 that “the obligations of States under the Convention and the requirements in its annexes should not be confused with hazard notifications circulated in State letters by ICAO under those exceptional circumstances where potential risks to the safety of civil aviation operations are incapable of being effectively communicated by States, whether over sovereign territory or over the high seas.”]

      About 9N314M:

      [The new important fact is that, even assuming the aircraft was brought down by a Buk surface-to-air missile, the description of fragments provided in the report [and found in the cockpit] does not match the pre-formed [bowtie] fragments used in the 9N314M warhead.]

      Butterfly or bow-tie shrapnel found in the bodies of the captain, the purser and the first officer in the cockpit:

      http://tinyurl.com/hcvjg6g

      [Russian experts examined the chemical composition of the material used to manufacture pre-formed fragments of the 9N314M warhead and concluded that the chemical composition of the retrieved fragments as published in the final report does not agree with the conclusion that they belonged to a 9N314M warhead.]

      Additional statement:

      In addition to proven shortcomings of fragments allegedly coming from a 9N314M-warhead, and causing the crash of MH17, no proof or indication is given that these fragments fulfill the conditional probability of penetration through the hull or the windshields. In case of doubt the number of bowties which must have entered the aircraft can be accurate estimated.

      [The final report and its appendices fail to provide any information on the shape of penetration holes,(–)]

      [Section 2.12 of the Factual Information part and Section 3.5 of the Analysis part in the final report, as well as Section 2.13 of Appendix X, indicate the approximate number of penetration holes in the skin of the left-hand side of the cockpit (around 200) and the perpendicular dimensions of 31 penetration holes. No further examination of penetration holes on the aircraft wreckage was performed.]

      DSB is a political institute. A scientific institute would provide the world with raw data of impacts on MH17. Then theories about bowties could be confirmed or falsified.

      [Forensic examination of paint is normally based on the chemical analysis of paint samples. Often, the objective is to establish whether certain pigments are present in the paint. However, due to the fact that the same chemical elements may be present in paints manufactured by different companies, the results of paint analysis can only be considered as indirect evidence corroborating other types of evidence.]

      This also applies to traces of aluminum and zirconium allegedly found on bowties in the cockpit, which possibly will be used in all kinds of Boeing.

      Hence, JIT should cite irrefutable physical evidence of the bow-ties just related to this very plane. Since aluminum and zirconium on the bow-ties also can be obtained by shooting a warhead against an identical Boeing, after which the bowtie could have been brought into the body of the captain of team A. Not that this is very likely but DSB – as a research institute – has taken a gigantic risk by possibly backing the wrong horse. JIT certainly better comes with newly found butterflies on the wreckage.

      If the following is true, this might be devastating information, since the cockpit would not have been ruined. Here we miss a counter-investigation into the algorithm and the technical specifications of the proximity fuse:

      [According to the data provided by the company that designed the Buk surface-to-air missile system, if a 9M38-series missile approaches an aircraft at the angle presented in the final report, the algorithm of its proximity fuse will detonate the warhead after a certain delay so that the detonation area is 3-5 meters away from the nose towards the tail, which does not agree with the actual data.]

      DSB/TNO report appendix Y, page 7:http://tinyurl.com/pyrhmr2

      This means the missile might have come from Zaroshchenske:

      http://tinyurl.com/hg39pfx

      And from Zaroshchenske the right engine might be targeted by the radar of BUK-TELAR in the first place:

      http://tinyurl.com/hnkw4c9

      From Zaroshchenske it would be a 9M38-series missile with a 9N314 warhead.

      The rest of the report shows the tunnel vision of the Dutch who first determined 9N314M as the warhead used and then selected the best model to match the holes in the hull as if 9N314M was true. This is pure circular reasoning. As a matter of fact they had to leave roof plates and other elements out or their research to sustain the 9N314M model.

      http://tinyurl.com/z2zd2e2

      • http://www.favt.ru/novosti-novosti/?id=2311

        http://tinyurl.com/hcvjg6g

        In Russian experiments with the 9N314M warhead, the average mass of bow-tie fragments that preserved their shape after penetrating several aluminum sheets (with a combined thickness of 12 mm) in one case and the cockpit of an Ilyushin Il-86 aircraft in the other case was 7.2-7.9 grams. The average loss of mass was merely 3-12 percent.

        Remark:

        Russian analysis on bowties must be split into aluminum sheets and the cockpit. Aggregate figures are not acceptable. The proper analysis must be equivalent with a single perforation on the aluminum skin of Boeing 777 of 23 mm with special aluminum. Boeing 777 uses ALCOA Triple X ALUMINUM skin.

        Full description of the experiment is required in number of sample elements, means and standard deviations, to determine if alleged bowties found in MH17 differ significantly from these results.

        http://courses.washington.edu/ie337/Boeing%20Tour%20Facts.pdf

        Fuselage skin Boeing 777 average thickness .08 -.09 inches or 0.2-0.23 cm.

        The Russian results:

        2.1. Fragments
        Section 2.16 (Fig. 37, Table 11) of the Factual Information part of the final report indicates that a total of two bow-tie shaped fragments consistent with the 9N314M warhead were found:

        • Fragment 1: 14 × 14 × 4.5 millimeters, 6.1 grams, found in the cockpit;
        • Fragment 2: 12 × 12 × 5 millimeters, 5.7 grams, found in the captain’s body.
        Yet Section 2.12 of Annex X mentions only one fragment (14 × 14 × 4.5 mm) found in the cockpit (Fragment 1).

        The data provided in the final report is inaccurate, because the actual mass of Fragment 1 is 5.5 grams, not 6.1 grams, as evidenced by the photos made by members of the international investigation team during the weighing of this fragment in February 2015 at the Gilze-Rijen air base. In addition, the final report does not specify where exactly the fragment was found in the cockpit.
        The captain’s body from which Fragment 2 was extracted did not undergo special examination (instead, the body of the Team B captain, who was not present in the cockpit at the time of the accident, was examined).

        The new important fact is that, even assuming the aircraft was brought down by a Buk surface-to-air missile, the description of fragments provided in the report does not match the pre-formed fragments used in the 9N314M warhead.

        The final report does not take into account the mass of the bow-tie shaped fragments. Compared with standard bow-tie shaped fragments used in the 9N314M warhead, which weigh 8.1 grams and are 8.2 millimeters thick:
        • Fragment 1 in reality lost 32 percent of its mass (or, based on the mass indicated in the report, 24.7 percent);
        • Fragment 2 lost 29.6 percent of its mass;
        • Relative transverse deformation (thickness reduction) of the fragments was over 60 percent.

        The significant loss of mass in Fragment 1 cannot be explained by damage because the fragment does not appear greatly damaged (otherwise, it would lose its bow-tie shape).

        Fragment 2 shows clear signs of damage, specifically in the transversal section (in relation to the front side). The diminished mass of this fragment can be explained by damage. However, the thickness of the fragment indicates significant deformation (over 60 percent), which is not consistent with its shape.

        Russian experts have examined the effects of obstacle penetration on the shape and mass of bow-tie fragments of the 9N314M warhead by staging full-scale experiments and simulating transversal deformation of fragments.

        In experiments with the 9N314M warhead, the average mass of bow-tie fragments that preserved their shape after penetrating several aluminum sheets (with a combined thickness of 12 mm) in one case and the cockpit of an Ilyushin Il-86 aircraft in the other case was 7.2-7.9 grams. The average loss of mass was merely 3-12 percent.

        [Remark: This must be done with the resistance of a full layer aluminum at once. Also it is unacceptable to combine results of research.]

        The simulation of transversal deformation revealed that the shape of a fragment with 60 percent transverse deformation is very different from the shape of the fragments presented in Section 2.16 (Fig. 37, Table 11) of the Factual Information part of the final report.

        The results of these experiments and simulations are consistent with the results of validation tests of the 9N314M warhead, in which 96 percent of bow-tie fragments preserved their shape and lost only 6-7 percent of their mass after penetrating two 5-mm sheets of steel.

        [Remark: No technical and statistical information delivered.]

        Thus, the mass and dimensions of the two fragments (Section 2.16, Fig. 37, Table 11 of the Factual Information part of the final report), based on which the report concludes that the aircraft was hit by a 9N314M warhead, are not consistent with the results of the full-scale experiments and simulations.

        [Concluding: Only research on full thickness of aluminum (2.3 cm) in a single perforation can be used. Aggregate figures from different kinds of research are not acceptable. All research parameters must be given, especially the number of sample elements, means and standard deviations, to see if alleged bowties from MH17 differ significantly. Test must be controlled by independent research institutes.]

        • “the aluminum skin of Boeing 777 of 23 mm with special aluminum.”
          Is it a typo? Should be 2.3mm, correct?

  5. Thanks, that’s correct 🙂

  6. http://www.favt.ru/novosti-novosti/?id=2311
    http://tinyurl.com/hcvjg6g

    Russians must prove alleged bowties from MH17 came from regular or irregular (rusty) bowtie populations. The hypothesis is bowties are rusting away – and are losing weight – as a function of time, which is an independent variable. This means also rusty bowties (made from unalloyed steel) must be collected left behind after field tests with 9N314M.

    Recovered rusty bowties are weighted before and after cleaning in a rust remover and an alcohol solution. Now a number of subpopulations with different weight arises from which the alleged bowties in MH17 might not diverge significantly.

  7. SECOND HAND BOWTIES

    http://www.favt.ru/novosti-novosti/?id=2311
    http://tinyurl.com/hcvjg6g

    Rosaviatsia letter January 2016:

    [The final report does not take into account the mass of the bow-tie shaped fragments. Compared with standard bow-tie shaped fragments used in the 9N314M warhead, which weigh 8.1 grams and are 8.2 millimeters thick:
    • Fragment 1 in reality lost 32 percent of its mass (or, based on the mass indicated in the report, 24.7 percent);
    • Fragment 2 lost 29.6 percent of its mass;
    • Relative transverse deformation (thickness reduction) of the fragments was over 60 percent.]

    Rosaviatsia only concludes about bowties, why not about squares (cubes)? Are they from different populations (warheads)?

    In the link above, especially bowties give a rusty impression; it is as if they have been cleaned somehow. Now we already know shrapnel might corrode in the warhead, but the square (cube) definitely did not. This means those elements likely came from different populations. They apparently did not emerge from the same warhead.

    Repetition from October 2015:

    Weird differences in weight of bowties and possible deception in this regard by DSB force us to re examine the origin of the bowties. And look, we fall into repetition because this debate has been conducted earlier. And indeed it was the same subject:
    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/rosaviatsia-russias-federal-air-transport-agency-states-dsb-manipulated-investigation/#comment-10535

    October 2015 we noticed it was difficult to distinguish rusty from not-rusty shrapnel, not realizing “rusty” might be the clue to dismantle possible lies:

    [The origin and the elemental composition of the 72 selected fragments were determined only qualitatively. It was found 43 of the 72 examined fragments consisted of unalloyed steel (rusty = warhead); hence, 29 were not from a warhead (stainless steel and one otherwise). That ‘otherwise’ fragment was non-metallic (coal-slag).]

    And we have elucidated the hide and seek text in the DSB report as follows:

    [Hence on 14 rusty, out of 20 rusty, out of 43 rusty, out of 72 selected objects THEY FOUND ZIRCONIUM. BUT… POSSIBLY NOT ON THE BOWTIES.

    ‘The chemical composition of 20 selected fragments which had either a very distinctive shape (including the two bow-tie shaped pre-formed fragments) or a layer of deposits OR BOTH was determined. This was determined by means of laser-ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry.’]

    Wouldn’t we be interested in found deposits just on the bow ties? DSB, you were expected just to say: We found aluminum and/or zirconium on the bowties. From the English text we might conclude you did. But you played hide and seek and forced us to parse the text to come to a conclusion.

    But from the (not leading) Dutch text we conclude no aluminum and/or zirconium was found on the bowties:

    [‘Van 20 geselecteerde fragmenten met OFWEL een zeer uitgesproken vorm (waaronder de twee fragmenten in de vorm van een vlinderdas) OFWEL [[EN/OF; BD]] een laagje afzettingen werd de chemische samenstelling vastgesteld.’

    Is it ‘and’, is it ‘or’ or is it ‘and/or’?

    Hence, we don’t know if the bowtie had a layer of deposits. If not, we don’t know how it came into the body of the captain. May be no zirconium was found on the two bowties. Maybe they did not come through the window but through the skin of the cockpit. Maybe they were shot into the body of the captain of team A by criminals. We have no information from this research.]

    [Now earlier was said 15 high energy objects were found in the crew of the cockpit. We also know 14 of the 20 had zirconium. So 6 out of 15 high energy objects, found in the crew possibly had no zirconium. One of them might be the bowtie found in the captain’s body.

    So it turned out zirconium was found in 14 out of 72 pieces of possible warhead shrapnel. Hence and to be fair, if zirconium has been found on the bowtie in the body of the captain, it might be an important clue. But this zirconium has been demonstrated only qualitatively and it has not been cross checked by independent institutes. Hence this will not be enough to convince the judges. At most there could be a correlation between 9N314M and MH17; causality is not proven.]

    In another way, we also wondered if aluminum and/or zirconium were found on the alleged bowtie in the body of the captain of team A. But despite parsing of the text we were not convinced by our own conclusion:
    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/rosaviatsia-russias-federal-air-transport-agency-states-dsb-manipulated-investigation/#comment-10739

    Here I possibly drew the wrong conclusion bowties were covered with aluminum and zirconium, but a scientific report must not be written as a detective roman:

    [http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-abouttheinvestigation-en.pdf

    3.3 Analysis and assessment

    2. What hit the aero plane of flight MH17 (and what did not) (page 35)

    It looks like DSB in the results mingles:

    1: fragments of shrapnel (splinters).
    2: bowties and cubes.
    3: fragments or parts of a missile.

    Fragments of shrapnel:

    Part 1:

    ‘Metal fragments
    The shape and size of the metal fragments made it possible to issue statements about their source. A NUMBER of these fragments had a special shape, which can basically be described as CUBIC AND BOW-TIE SHAPED. Knowledge of weapons was used to establish that fragments having THIS SHAPE are released at the detonation of a certain type of warhead. Using knowledge about different types of weapons, a corresponding weapon was sought that could contain fragments WITH THIS TYPE OF SHAPE. Traces (of aluminum and glass) THAT WERE DISCOVERED ON THE FRAGMENTS were also relevant, because this enabled the investigators to deduce whether, and with what, the fragments had collided’.

    Here ‘THE’ definitely refers to a certain group of fragments extracted from the whole: bowties and cubes. Hence they have proof the bowties came through the cockpit window and/or the outer skin of the plane.]

    (But in the rebound of January 2016 I think I drew the wrong conclusion in October 2015 and DSB arbitrarily concatenated this sentence to the foregoing: ‘Traces (of aluminum and glass) THAT WERE DISCOVERED ON THE FRAGMENTS were also relevant, because this enabled the investigators to deduce whether, and with what, the fragments had collided’. So, from this text we cannot conclude the bowtie allegedly found in the body of the captain of team A was covered with aluminum and zirconium)

    Proceeding:

    [But what comes now: fragments of shrapnel or fragments of a missile?

    Connecting Part II:

    ‘The Dutch Safety Board attempted to obtain reference material of the suspected weapon in order to further substantiate the origin of THE fragments. The objective was to establish that the chemical composition of THE fragments was consistent with that of the suspected weapon. This was not achieved, so this verification could not take place’

    Does this mean bowties chemically did not match 9H314M? Or missile fragments did not match 9H314M or the missile? No, it definitely has been concluded bowties were not of the same chemical composition as a warhead. But that’s not important. Only important is if the two bowties are covered with aluminum and zirconium from MH17. And that’s they confirmed.]

    (No, in January 2016 I doubt this conclusion).

    [Connecting Part III:

    ‘During the recovery of the aero plane, OTHER OBJECTS were found that correspond with parts of a specific missile in terms of shape and appearance. Two shards were discovered in the aero plane (in the cockpit and the left wing tip). The paint and traces on the shards and traces on pieces of the wreckage were compared with paint and traces of an explosive on THE OBJECTS that were found. These analyses were performed by the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) at the request of the Public Prosecution Service and shared with the Dutch Safety Board.’

    Now we are sure OTHER OBJECTS are part of the missile and metal fragments (shrapnel, inclusive bowties and cubes) chemically were NOT involved in a warhead or a missile. We also know aluminum and zirconium of MH17 were found on the bowties and cubes. Maybe JIT has some proof which it does not want to reveal to the public now. Maybe they also have proof of butterfly images on the fuselage…

    What we see is JIT keeps its powder dry because, since as has been argued previously in this place they have no legal position. Would they now already lay their cards on the table suspects would take a stand to crumble their arguments.]

    (No, this is a wrong end conclusion, since the text is completely distracting and misleading.)

    • Liane Theuer // January 20, 2016 at 2:37 pm // Reply

      „.. we cannot conclude the bowtie allegedly found in the body of the captain of team A was covered with aluminum and zirconium.“

      Precisely. This applies to BOTH bow-ties !
      To my knowledge, the DSB has not said anything to the special chemical composition of the bow-ties. Because they call bow-ties and cubes always together !

  8. The Russian static tests of A-A must be split into two parts.

    1: The most important investigation is on the written-off IL-86 airliner. This is the best controlled static experiment matching the dynamic situation of MH17. From this experiment we need the average weight of bowties and their standard deviation. Then we see how significant the alleged bowties of MH17 differ from the average weight of bowties in the IL-86 airliner.

    In the second test all plates were blown away in the shock wave. Hopefully the blast causing the speed of bowties was quicker than the shock wave. This was not the case with MH17. Fortunately plates were numbered. From inspection of the number of holes in the first plate (plates1.0-1.5) we find the maximum amount of shrapnel came through. Then we want to know how many shrapnel elements succeeded to pierce the second plate, etc. We are very interested in the rank order.

    In the YouTube film it is said all bowties were gathered. That’s fine but they were blown away everywhere and we do not know how many plates individual shrapnel has pierced.

    If most bowties pierced most plates then we accept the average weight of bowties as after piercing all plates. If not we may use all kinds of estimation formulas to estimate the total effect on plates. But that would be unwise.

    Since, if bowties allegedly found in MH17 differ significantly from the static test on the IL-86 then the RF is almost there. Then they must be prepared to repeat the test with the aluminum plates. Then they must perform three separate tests with massive aluminum plates of respectively 4 mm, 6 mm and 8 mm thickness. This time the plates must be very stable and must not be blown away. If bowties can pierce these plates without substantial loss of weight, then the bowtie hypothesis of MH17 is not confirmed. It might be seen as falsified. This test must be controlled by independent scientists.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*