Novaya Gazeta is one of the very few independant newspapers in Russia. It is also one of the very few newspapers worldwide investigating the MH17 shoot down.
Thank you anonymous person who translated this.
Novaya Gazeta investigation, 9 November 2015.
The “bow-ties” case.
The matter of presence or absence of this type of striking elements is the main issue of the investigation as it allows to determine the type of the BUK rocket launcher.
Novaya Gazeta is continuing its research into the circumstances of Malaysian Boeing MH-17 crash in the Eastern Ukraine in summer of 2014 with the help of specialists in rocket design and aircraft experts.
On the 13th October this year, practically simultaneously, were published the DSB report about the results of their investigation and the AA concern’s results who conducted a practical test , that imitated the the warhead explosion near a plane.
From the DSB report:
– the reason of explosion- a warhead 9N314 M of the surface-to-air missile complex BUK , striking elements that characterize [this type of a missile] were found
– a point there the missile exploded was calculated with a certainty of a few metres
– the position of the missile respectively to the plane body at the moment of the warhead explosion was found with a relative precision
– all other versions – air-to air missile and a bomb inside the plane were refuted
From the press conference of the representatives of Russian Military Industrial Complex:
-The plane was shot with a 9N314 warhead of a 9M38 missile, the bow tie striking elements were not present.
– According to the modelling of the the positions of a missile and a plane , the missile was launched not from Snizhne, but from Zaroshchens’ke
Let us remind you why those discrepancies are so important:
The type of the missile and its warhead will allow to determine the type of complex BUK, if we believe the Dutch, than Russia has such complexes , if we believe AA specialists, Russia stop using this type of BUK, but Ukraine has it.
If the rocket was launched from the Snizhne area, it undoubtedly indicates that Donetsk separatists were responsible. The discussions are still going about who was controlling Zaroshchens’ke at the moment when the rocket was launched.
An independent historian and aircraft design engineer Mark Solonin published his notes about the Dutch and the Russian specialists work [ my comments : born in 1958, graduated from Uni approx. in 1982-1983, worked 4 years according to his education 30 years ago, since 1987 worked shoveling coal into furnaces of and did his “historical research”
His main points:
– yes, Dutch were too cautious in their report, much more was expected of them, but nevertheless a lot was done , the rest of the questions will be answered in the next International committee report in February 2016.
– The areas of Snizhne and Zaroshchens’ke , with an exclusion of a small village Marinovka, in July 2014 and nowadays ares controlled by the DPR /DNR.
-the July’s report AA indicated that the bow-ties were present, but in October they refute this fact, already established by the Dutch. [ manipulation, he did not want to take into the account the practical test that showed what kind of damage can be expected from that particular warhead explosion from that particular direction and if this damage does not match the experiment , the theory should be adjusted, not the test results ]
– ” this [particular] spatial distribution of damage could occur only in case of a collision with objects that flew towards the aircraft fuselage on the left, that is from Snizhne”
– As for the practical test- the AA’s model did not accommodate for the differences in the air density at 10 km height, which is 1/3 of the air density on the ground Because of the low density of the atmosphere at 10 km height the aerodynamic drag at 10 km height there will be 3 times different and this will affect the striking elements dynamics , their speed and energy of the impact with the target.
The answer of AA:
In connection with the a large number of “expert opinions” investigating the circumstances of the Malaysian” Boeing crash “allegedly refuting the results of full-scale experiment conducted by the specialists of Almaz-Antey , the company explains that those statements of so called “competent professionals ” that 3 types of striking elements were found in the bodies of the victims and structural components of the aircraft, the ones that were used in the 9N314 M warhead of the missiles 9 M38 M1, “specifically used only in this warhead” bow-ties ” are not reasonable and are not supported by a single fact. The same is applicable to the reported “numerous holes in the form of a shape of the ” butterfly wings” caused by the bow-ties hitting structural elements of the aircraft.”
AA welcomes public interest towards the practical tests conducted by the AA specialists, designed to find out the circumstances of MH-17 demise and to confirm or to refute the data that was published by the International Committee, investigating the incident. You can find the detailed explanations by the AA specialists responding to the commentaries , received from the independent observers during the 2 weeks following the AA report release about the results of series of practical tests.
DSB did present to AA three elements in the form of “bow-tie”, resembling the striking elements of the 9M9N314 warhead missiles M38 M1. However, the presence of these “bow-ties” among the material evidence presented by the International Commission, raises questions: how, when, where and by whom these striking elements were found.
Full-scale experiments carried out by the experts in the study group, unequivocally confirmed that if Malaysian “Boeing” was shot down by a missile complex “Buk-M1”, then it could be only a 9M38 missile, which has no striking elements in the form of “bow-tie”.
Specialists of the company comprehensibly explained at a press conference on October 13, 2015 that based on the full-scale experiments that confirmed the results of the study, a conclusion was made that “bow-ties” should have left on the outer skin of the fuselage the characteristic holes in the form of a “butterfly”, this type of holes were not found on the Boeing.
On the fragments of the outer skin structure of Boeing-777 (MH17) that were studied by the AA specialists ( on the the pieces of wreckage mounted on the Boeing frame and on the photographs from public source) holes in the shape of “butterfly” were not found.
At the same time there were found the through holes made by the heavy striking elements the size of 13-14 mm.
In Figure 1 shows the examples of such holes.
All 13-14 mm holes on the Boeing-777 outer skin pieces have a characteristic shape – “rectangular prism.” Holes of this shape are usually made by the heavy fraction of warhead’s striking elements, the 13x13x 8 mm rectangular prism of 9N314 warhead, that the outdated models of missiles 9 M38 were equipped with. The appearance of a such striking element is shown at the bottom part of Figure 1.
However, photographs of holes in the shape of “double T” on the structural elements of MH-17 started to appear on Internet . Examples of such “butterflies” are shown in Figure 2..
Those photographs are usually of low quality, not to scale and cannot give any indication about the sizes of those holes.
In reality holes that look like a butterfly are twice the size of the real holes, obtained as a result of the AA experiment ; they are the result of the body of the plane being hit by two-three striking elements simultaneously, it is easy to check by measuring them with a ruler.
The analysis of the holes, that look like a “butterfly”, shows that the ratio of the sides ( height-width) is significantly more than 1:2 – 1:3. It means that those holes were made by 2 or 3 striking elements hit together ( pic. 2A and 2 Б) or by 3 elements (drawing 2В). The red crosses on the drawing represent the direction (orientation) of the striking element when it went through the part of the plane.
The internet “experts” do not bother themselves with performing even simple calculations and are ready to use any photographs found by a search engine in the internet , using the keyword “bow-tie” (двутавр) .
The hole on the picture 2Г is formed as a result of a striking element hitting 2 rivets, that were holding the elements of construction together.
Moreover all those “butterflies” are located on the internal elements of the cockpit equipment , but not on the skin of the plane.
While all the butterfly shaped holes, obtained as a result of the experiment are located on the outer skin and their size were corresponding to the size of the striking element of 13-14 mm.
The first and the second experiments had clearly shown that holes in a shape of a butterfly usually appear ON THE OUTER SKIN of the plane.. The example of such a hole is shown on the bottom right corner of picture 2.
As for the “bow-ties” that the International Investigation team had presented as an evidence, their weight and sizes do not correspond to the real weight and sizes of real bow-ties after they struck an obstacle. Pic. 3 shows a AA presentation slide that compares the data obtained by the experiments with the archived data.
In this case the experiments did not present any new information, they just confirmed the data from the experiments conducted in 1980s , when those striking elements were designed..
” We would like to analyse one particular “statement of one Russian “expert” who used in his model a missile approaching on the angle coinciding with the straight line from Snizhne to Boeing. The model, that was calculated by Mark Solonin, using a sheet of graph paper , a cheap $2 calculator and 15 minute search on the Net , is following exactly the recently revealed Ukrainian Defense Forces model . This model is describing only the damage done to the outer skin , does not take into consideration striking elements movements, so it cannot explain the character of the damage done to the reinforced elements of the plane
The second stage of the AA experiment , which was conducted according to the reference conditions given by the Dutch investigating team, clearly showed that in case of a [BUK] missile shot from Snizhne , the right side of the plane would have had multiple holes going though [the plane] and the glass would have been destroyed in the right hand side windows..
The experiment had confirmed the result of mathematical modelling, that if the missile had exploded on the head-to-head course with a plane, the right side of the plane would have had multiple holes.
The drawing below shows the vectors of the striking elements movement in this case, they are practically perpendicular to the plane axis.
In this case the striking elements cannot go though the ribs of the plane on the left hand side [along the plane], and, moreover, they cannot hit the left engine.
But in reality we see a different picture, glass [in the windows] on the right hand side is intact, there are no holes on the right side of the plane and the left hand side reinforcement ribs have multiple holes.
So, the experiment had confirmed that the missile could not be launched from Snizhne, this version is incorrect, The question why all “couch experts” and “internet specialists” just ignore this particular version is just hanging in the air .
Novaya Gazeta decided to have a break in order to collect all opinions of Russian and foreign [couch] experts in order to study [presented here ] arguments We ask to join us all experts who are interested in the matter in order to continue the investigation after the second part of the Investigation team report will be published in February 2016.”