New photos of MH17 rooftop in Russia Today documentary

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Update October 19: one of the parts that were found was shown during the DSB presentation of the final report at October 13.

 

In the Russia Today documentary ‘MH17 A year without truth‘ some previously unknown parts of MH17 were seen. These parts are part of the cockpit roof and were found near Petropavlivka. The parts are probably found in June 2015. The wreckage were delivered to the mayor of Petropavlivka Natalya Voloshina

In a thread on mh17.webtalk.ru some photos of the rooftop appeared as well.

The photo below shows a screenshot from the Russia Today documentary.

Russia Today at August 3 reports that the Dutch Safety Board contacted RT to recover the parts found. Spokeswoman Sara Vernooij of the DSB responded that they do not tell who is contacted and what the results are.

The recording of the news item on TV is here.

The photo left shows the part as shown in the RT docu. The photo right shows the same part(photo turned 90 degrees) as shown to the press at October 13 at Gilze Rijen)

97e39ee5153cmh17-wreckage-rotated

 

The left photo shows another part of the rooftop. The middle photo shows the rooftop part as shown in the RT docu

 

JC8GK (1)

The photo below shows both parts fit very well together.

fi4Gh

 

Some other parts of the rooftop were found.

 

5903628

 

ivDp4

mljT4

 

Already in July 2014 another part of the roof near the cockpit was found. The area aroud STA466 was photographed by Jeroen Akkermans. For example a close up here and here

 

8a14e521f42a

1a48557ac368 22a38ac9159a (1) f0e4c11cf2a9 high_szdcb512

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

20 Comments on New photos of MH17 rooftop in Russia Today documentary

  1. The second picture gives the wrong impression that it’s all a single piece. If you look at the RT documentary from about 22:49 to 22:53, you’ll see that it’s two different parts. That’s appears to be pointed out too in the image in the comment at 16:33:25 in the mh17.webtalk.ru thread.

    Still, the two parts were probably very close to one another, going by the similar direction of the fragments.

    The fragment direction relative to the most likely detonation location gives an indication of the location of those parts on the aircraft. It looks like they were situated on the plane’s left hand side, somewhere below the other previously found part of the roof in the other photo.

  2. Photo No. 2 is a strong evidence of the inside explosion of the Boeing.
    Metal sheet is bent outwards and fragment of the right edge is wavy.

  3. Such a nonsense. You know the cabine of an aircraft is kept under high pressure ? That is the reason for skin bent outwards. Did you see the damage caused by hot shrapnel? A bomb is a joke told by people who know nothing about weapons and/or have a agenda.

  4. There are various reasons for burn marks. For example a piece of glas which concentrated sun beams and set fire on dry grass. It is pure nonsense a missile or bomb exploded far away from the cockpit.

  5. There are all kinds of possible various reason for a plane to catch on fire after it has been hit with a warhead.
    The fact it carries a lot of aviation fuel, the fact it carries a lot of oxygen on board, the fact it has separate flammable gases, the fact the missile’s own propellant exploded, electrical fires, if one of the wings exploded in the air it would leave a fireball trail along other parts.
    You do know the plane was carrying enough fuel for it to fly a fuel more hours without refueling don’t you?
    Doradcar, your evidence has a lot of possibilities for its cause and I am sure the investigators are looking into it.
    You also know when the plane’s storage tanks hit the ground, if they did not explode in the air, would likely have caught on fire and burnt everything around them.
    You did see the smoke plume that came up from the plane crash didn’t you?
    Everything was on fire.
    If the admin will post the image I have as far as my ‘website’ or its link, you will see that the hole you think was a missile was likely caused by one of the wheel hubs penetrating NOT a missile.
    None of your ‘theories’ hold any water.

    Fare thee well

    • Do you think that this: http://www.thedrum.com/uploads/news/173818/MH17.jpg is the evidence that wheel hub did the hole? Certainly not.
      There are 2 holes in the image. The 1 hole (left) in the outer wall is circular. The second hole in the inner wall is deformed. It was deformed together with the wall. The wall was deformed during the colision with the ground. From this it follows that that the hole was created before the collision with a ground it means in the air.

    • Burned chairs can not be explained by fuel fire on the ground
      Fuel tanks fire were indeed but far from debris of the crew rest cabin and the places where fallen burnt chairs.
      Remember also that at an altitude of 10,000 meters the temperature is -50 ° C and the fuel is not explosive.

      • doradcar, You understand the environment inside the closed cabins of first class and regular seating are both pressurized artificially oxygen enriched atmospheres? And that when a ‘accident happens that the breath mask fall down and pump the air full of oxygen as well?
        You know oxygen is flammable and has a low flash point?
        It is extremely probably that for whatever reason, a person flicking a Bic to find an oxygen mask or for just illumination when everything went dark could have launched a serious fire, a short flash and then little blowtorches out of all the outlets of oxygen?

        Yes, as close as that hub is, I do see it being the reason for the penetration in the outer hull, I did look at your photo, and mine gives a broader image of the catastrophe and clarifies the situation.

        IF you look at the ground in my photo the grass and fields are all burnt.
        To me that says there was a large fire either starting somewhere else and traveled that way or started at that location.
        Does it not to you?
        Or are you claiming it landed on some kind of slag heap or something and that is just the cratering of the ground as the plane hit the ground and it tossed ALL the vegetation to the side?

        OOPS, there is that pesky little fire in my photo that disproves that theory.
        Still burning 15 minutes to an hour or longer after people got to that individual site.
        Maybe the terrorists were out there with flamethowers and gas cans and does the place with fire? I mean come on!
        Did you not see the videos of plane pieces crashing to the ground leaving a flaming smoke trail?
        Here is one for you –
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_Qgz2nqPTo

        Fare thee well

        • boggled: “oxygen is flammable and has a low flash point”

          What? Oxygen is not flammable itself and has not any flash point.
          Oxygen is necessary to make a fire, thats all.
          You wasted time for chemistry lessons at school.

          boggled: “for just illumination when everything went dark could have launched a serious fire,”

          What was the reason that everything went dark ?

          boggled: “Yes, as close as that hub is, I do see it being the reason for the penetration in the outer hull, I did look at your photo, and mine gives a broader image of the catastrophe and clarifies the situation.”

          Sorry I can’t understand what you wanted to say it certainly does not clarifies the situation. Can you say it in other words?

          boggled: “OOPS, there is that pesky little fire in my photo that disproves that theory.
          Still burning 15 minutes to an hour or longer after people got to that individual site.”

          Once again: burned chairs can not be explained by fuel fire on the ground
          Fuel tanks fire on the ground were indeed and is visible on “your” image but can not explain the burned remains located in other places.

          • YEs, O2 is an accelerant or ‘oxidizer’ and one of the needed items for a fire.
            Usually it needs something else to burn with it.
            BUT it can create the environment for a flash fire especially under pressure.
            Why do you think at the ISS they are so worried about fires?
            With an O2 enriched pressurized atmosphere, it can burn the air and set other things on fire and eliminate the O2 of the ISS or some other pressurized atmosphere.
            The fuel is the other things in the air, the oxidizer is O2 in a pressurized state.
            Ever wonder about Liquid O2 rockets? LOX.
            Or why the containers are marked flammable?

            Why it went dark? The front half of the plane got cut off with a BUK missile and fell to the ground separate?
            Which in turn that or the decompression would put out gas masks in the enclosed second class and pump O2 into it through the gas masks?

            I was trying to say plainly there was no rocket, both penetrations were when the body of the plane contacted the ground with the wheelhub and things bouncing around in different vectors.
            Do you think things would just create a crater and not bounce hitting the ground at 120 mph or so?

            Electric fires, fires as the plane is descending.
            You did see the video of the plane as it came down didn’t you? Flames all around it.
            That would explain various burnt parts in locations that were not part of the fireball when the plane contacted the ground.

            Fare thee well

        • http://naforum.zapodaj.net/e23b4404f74b.jpg.html
          These fragments of the Boeing have been found north of the Petropavlivka, several kilometers from the the fire of the central part. This is proof not only of high temperatures on board, but also internal explosion on the plane.

          • boggled wrote:
            “With an O2 enriched pressurized atmosphere, it can burn the air “.

            Again the same mistake . You insisted to burn air?. Good luck.

            boggled wrote:
            “I was trying to say plainly there was no rocket, both penetrations were when the body of the plane contacted the ground with the wheelhub and things bouncing around in different vectors.”

            From a technical imagination and knowledge poorly with you.
            How do you imagine it? The wheelhub break through two walls. Then it withdraws without changing the shape of the holes, and stands next to a few meters. At the same time, the second hole is deformed by repeated impact on the ground. This is pure nonsense

          • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiVaIQ_JEO8

            Wow, who would have thought that.
            I am not saying that by itself oxygen can burn, but the oxidizer of pressurized O2 can have effects.
            There is a reason they are deathly afraid of fire in a low gravity or micro environment.
            It can spread and burn through the air as the ‘fuels’ such as hydrogen and other ‘burnable’ gases are ignited.
            That is a flash fire.
            And yes, that is correct, that is what can happen as it does in various Hollywood movies that include ‘flash fires’ as an explosion spreads and burn the air and increases pressures inside an enclosed environment.
            Everyone knows, to stop a fire you either cut off the fuel source or the oxygen in the air.
            An oxygen enriched environment spreads and increases the fire damage and can therefore increase the temperature a fire burns at which can raise the temp of the fire to the flash point of some of the chemical components of air.
            If you increase the O2 in an Oxyacetylene torch higher, you get a bigger flame don’t you?
            Pressurization, increasing supply, and lower gravity makes a fire that can spread through the air.

            And yes, I think the above video is a fact, the guy either wiped the glass down in Alcohol before the experiment or held the trigger on the lighter for a few seconds to fill the glass with flammable gases before igniting it.
            Look up fires in space, they can burn the air.

            Fare thee well

  6. http://www.rt.com/news/311419-mh17-crash-rt-inquiry/

    Well done Admin: your website probably brought this to attention and helped the investigation

  7. Robert (alias Erkie999) // September 10, 2015 at 9:07 pm // Reply

    Just viewed a part of the RT documentary, from roughly 21:10 when they arrived at the spot of debris i find 2 aspects very strange:
    1) how is it possible multiply parts of debris are located on 1 small spot?
    2) the multiple parts of debris are very clean for laying outdoors for almost 1 year.

    At 22:07 more or less an overview of the area can be seen. In the forground is a cross and in the background is a house visable. Where the journalist and ‘finder’ are standing between what looks like garbish.

    These parts didn’t fell of the plane and landing by coincidence all together between that other garbish.

    There is too much fishy about this ‘find’.

    Did anybody geolocated this spot?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*