Piece of MH17 wreckage gets extra hole at DSB reconstruction

You might have reached this page from an article on the Australian Coroners Court hearing. 

I suggest to read this post for more information first.

That post will explain that John Helmer writes a lot of nonsense on MH17.  The website you are reading now is the only one with no agenda.
 

 

The forward pressure bulkhead of MH17 was recovered from the crash site. According the DSB final report (page 63) three holes were visible.

Wreckage was at arrival in Gilze Rijen first photographed and registered. When it was photographed there is a single big hole visible. See page 63 of the english report and page 68 of the Dutch report.

However at the 3D reconstruction shown at October 13 an additional hole  could be seen. It is unclear what caused this additional hole.

However it is likely the hole was made by DSB staff to be able to attach the bulkhead to the frame as photos below indicate.

Appendix Y explains the lower hole is caused by airplane parts pushed through the bulkhead. See image below.

DSB writes in the final report there is a risk of damaging the wreckage when it is being attached to the frame.

extra-hole

CTQE0_XUAAAzd_3 CTQE2cTUcAA07M1

bulkhead-damage

reconstruction-3

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

11 Comments on Piece of MH17 wreckage gets extra hole at DSB reconstruction

  1. Charles Wood // November 6, 2015 at 9:44 pm // Reply

    Most likely artefacts of the previous wooden mounting. Note the new steel bracket just to the left of the holes.

  2. Of course this is just an incident. But as earlier proposed all holes in the cockpit hull must be inventoried by independent third parties. After a year nobody has sight on the raw data anymore.

    In the future there will be more of this kind of disasters. Then one desperately wants to inspect the data of MH17. And then the report of DSB will be a sloppy and random mess of raw data. I gave an idea of a more professional file of raw data of impact holes on the cockpit hull in comment 165 of ‘Questions for DSB having no answers in final report’. Agreement about the method of restoring perpendicularity of holes is not necessary. Independent inventory with standard picture techniques is barely needed. It still is possible…

  3. gabriele Wolff // November 6, 2015 at 10:17 pm // Reply

    I just can’t recognize this part in the second picture: there are lot of differences. Where does it stem from?

  4. The DSB were practicing pushing bow-ties through the skin by force. Still could not get the holes look like on Il-86 :()

  5. The hole wasn’t there in the photo that was leaked to Censor.net in March, where the parts were mounted on wooden frames.

    Hole is missing from top right hand corner of curved rectangle on right hand side of photo:
    http://storage1.censor.net.ua/images/a/5/f/0/a5f064cc7cb62e43817f6403f4635833/640×426.jpg

    source: http://censor.net.ua/resonance/328926/porajayuschie_elementy_rossiyiskoyi_rakety_bukm12_kotoraya_sbila_malayiziyiskiyi_boing_mh17_eksklyuzivnyyi

  6. no frag damage on this piece of MH17 according to DSB report,as already noted likely mounting on frame is cause

  7. Not likely the result of mounting. The extra hole isn’t round. When you need to make a hole in a part like that you use a drill. Surely whoever did the reconstruction was smart enough to use the proper tool.

  8. Hi you all, it’s me who made this photocollage, added tha text and the arrows, after I stumbled into these photo’s that I retreived from the Dutch Safety Board MH17 Investigation’s website. Apparently this image quickly found it’s way to this website after I’d send it to an investigating friend. The DSB wrote in its report that it found three holes in this panel. So fare I’d seen only these two square holes, that are similar to the typical square holes made by the square parts of the BUK missile warheads. I was intrigued by the squareness of these holes, because I’d expect them to be rectangular, stretched out, if the warhead exploded at the location the DSB claims it did. The angle in which the fragments would have hit this panel would be less than 20º, so I would not expect these holes to look like they’ve been caused by a more frontal hit. If these holes would have been made for some reconstruction, then why would they be square and why would they not have been used for the reconstruction after all? Only because of this, my special attention was drawn to these holes, and that’s why I was very surprised when I saw one of these holes not being there earlier, although bothe photos were taken by the investigators team.

  9. also mentions in the DSB report certain fragments only removed at late stage in the investigation because it was impossible without causing damage,may be something related

  10. If they wanted to fakes something they would do in the report and not in the reconstruction.

  11. If the lowest of the tow holes indicated here was caused by the crash, by some object that was bolted to the other side of the panel being ripped off, then how much of a coincident it is, that a very similar hole, same size, same shape, that was not there when this panel photographed after it arrived at Gilze Rijen, was caused by some later event. I do not believe that these two holes were caused by warhead fragments, but when they were made for a reconstruction, then how come one hole was already there at arrival, long before the reconstruction and the other hole was made for a reconstruction, but then not used for it. One just does not mess around with selected collected evidence like that, does one?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*