Questions for DSB having no answers in final report

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

DSB did not allow journalists to ask questions after the presentation by chairman Joustra. The response of DSB was: “all answers are in the report”. On a question of a journalist spokewomen Sara Vernooij litterly said:

So the DSB spokesman, Sara Vernooij, was asked from what source did the DSB obtain the parameters of the missile and warhead which have become the evidence for the DSB’s determination that a Buk missile was the sole cause of the MH17 crash. Vernooij said the DSB will not answer. “If it’s not in report, it is not to be released,” Vernooij said.

That does not look like transparancy at all. Now that the final report has been published we can ask questions which answers are not in the report.

Please use the comment to ask your questions. If DSB does not anwer them someone else can investigate.

  1. The  engine exhaust nozzle have blue paint. What is the source of the blue paint ? The DSB video tells something. blue-paint-buk-missile-nozzle
  2. Why does the reconstruction not have all recovered parts of the cockpit roof?
  3. DSB used a limited reconstruction of the cockpit. Wreckage parts were tied to a wooden frame. Only end of May 2015, when the draft final report was ready, the steel frame was ready and DSB started to attach wreckage to it. The main goal of this steel frame is obviously for the presentation.
    Why didn’t DSB use a professional frame soon after the wreckage arrived in Gilze Rijen (december 2014)
  4. Some parts of wreckage were photographed many times in the first weeks after July 17.Still these important parts like part of the cockpit roof were not included in the recovery. Some of the parts were lost. A rather large part of the roof of the business class section was never recovered. What did DSB do to find out what happened to this part. Did DSB use satelite photos to find out when the parts were taken away, how and by whom?
  5. The cockpit floor was not used in either the reconstruction nor in the analysis of TNO. Why not?
  6. Internal parts of cockpit were also not used in analysis. Why not?
    TNO
  7. Pieces of wreckage which were photographed at the crash site, were not part of the reconstruction. DSB states these parts were not found at the time of the recovery. What efforts did DSB make to find out when these parts were removed and by whom?
  8. Air India and Singapore Airline flights were flying close to MH17 at the time of the crash. The DSB report does not state the crews of these flights were interviewed. Why were these crews not interviewed?
    DSB answered this question at the public hearing on November 3: DSB did interview the cockpit crews of civilian aircraft flying near MH17. The crew stated they did not see anything. 
  9. Did the DSB use the stringing method using photos of the parts that were missing but showed clear shapnel damage?
  10. Did NLR do the investigation on impact of fragments on a partially reconstructed aircraft missing fital parts?
  11. What is the range of the radar in the TELAR? How much was elapsed between detection of the aircraft and hit of the missile?
  12. Why is there no mentioning  in the final report of other types of fragments photographed at the crashsite.
  13. Is it correct that Russian airlines continued to overfly East Ukraine airspace after July 17? As stated by Correct!v.
  14. What was the correct reason to deviate MH17 to waypoint RND by Rostov ATC?
  15. How often does Ukraine ATC do maintenance on their primary radar?
  16. How likely is it that Ukraine Air Force switch off primary radar when no sorties are scheduled for a particular day?
  17. Who did the shelling of areas near the crashsite? Because of the shelling it was according DSB unsafe to recover debris. Because of that crucial parts showing holes of fragments were not recovered. So which party had an interest such that parts of the cockpitroof could not be retrieved.  The situation at the crashsite is described here.
  18. Ukraine press stated an IL76 was flying close to MH17. DSB reports there was no other aircraft near MH17 besides the three civil aircraft.How did the DSB determine this as there was no primary rader coverage.
  19. NATO picked up signals  of a surface to airmissile system from Ukraine. Did DSB contact NATO to find out what signal? See the questions of German Parliament and answers of government here.
  20. Appendix X section 2.4 page 13 mentions exit damage on the righthand side of fuselage. What is the exact location of the exit damage?
    exitdamage
  21. Damage to the engine nacelle is not described in the final report. Why not?
  22. Which states besides Russia and Ukraine did DSB consult for knowledge on the BUK system?
  23. How much knowledge on the BUK was provided by Russia and Ukraine?
  24. What is true about statement of Malaysian Minister of Transport saying Malaysia did not get full access to investigtation (New Strait Times)
  25. Preliminary report states DSB has primary radar provided by Russia. Final report states both Ukraine and Russia did not provide primary radar. Can you explain?
    radar
  26. DSB report that air to air missile is not possible. DSB states “in addition, no other aircraft that could have launched an air-to-air missile was observed on the radar data as provided by the Russian Federation (taken from ábout the investigation PDF”.
    However in the actual report DSB stated Russia did not supply any primary radar. Only primary radar is able to detect an military aircraft capable of launching missile.
    So how can DSB conclude there was no aircraft observed?radar-data
  27. DSB tried to obtain a BUK warhead to compare fragments found in MH17 to fragments in reference/obtained warhead. They did not succeed. In one of the appendix however DSB states that is does not make sense to compare fragments. Why?
    CSZzuozWcAA13Vj no-buk-warhead
  28. DSB stated “interview of eyewitness on the groud was not our task”.  Many eyewitness said they saw one or more SU-25 flying at the time of the crash. Annex 13 of ICAO writes When possible, the scene of the accident shall be visited, the wreckage examined and statements taken from witnesses http://www.emsa.europa.eu/retro/Docs/marine_casualties/annex_13.pdf
  29. The only availble primary radar data was supplied by Russia. This was a video recording of the screen the air traffic controller sees. Based on this video DSB concludes there was no military aircraft in the vicinity of MH17.
    Why did DSB not mention the minimal altitude the Russian radar can cover? And estimate is that the radar could not detect objects flying lower than 2000 meters.
  30. The final report (appedix A) mentions a loss of GPS signal over Ukraine. Sputnik reported at July 25 about loss of GPS signal. Did DSB investigate the source of the loss of GPS signal? Could loss of GPS have an effect on the transmission of transponder data?
    loss of GPS
  31. Did DSB establish that the foud bow-tie fragment by Jeroen Akkermans was of the same metal as the other bow-ties?
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

227 Comments on Questions for DSB having no answers in final report

  1. Thank you for pointing out that parts of the roof are missing from the reconstructed aircraft. I saw that you tweeted about that on 13 October when the reconstruction was made public, but hardly anyone else has noticed the absence of those parts since then.

    I think that the answer to question nr. 2 is clear. The damage to those parts literally points to a different detonation location to what appears in the report. The DSB left out the parts that would prove their conclusion wrong.

    The detonation actually occurred lower down and closer to the cockpit than where the DSB said it did. Even though Almaz Antey’s presentation in June had a number of flaws, they were fairly accurate about the detonation location. Several pieces of evidence from the wreckage back up this finding and there appears to be no evidence that contradicts it.

    The significance of where the warhead detonated is that this location can be used to calculate where the missile could have been fired from. With the location provided by Almaz Antey, the missile could not have come from the direction of Snizhne. That’s because from that direction, the fragments would have had to be propelled almost directly ahead to cause the damage seen on MH17. That is not what happens in any normal fragmentation warhead like the one in a BUK, which propels its fragments in a more sideways direction.

    The consensus in the West since July 2014 has been that MH17 was shot down with a BUK fired from Snizhne. The DSB report has selected only very limited evidence that supports that scenario, and left out anything that disproves it.

    • “Snizhne. The DSB report has selected only very limited evidence that supports that scenario, and left out anything that disproves it.”

      Here is my conclusion, what evidence can I find to support it?

      vs.

      Here is the evidence, what conclusions can I support from it?

      • Obviously, the DSB investigation has just not found any evidence that would support any other scenario than shooting the plane down from around Snizhne. For sure, the A-A attempts could not be considered “evidence.”

        • Prosto Tak:

          “the DSB investigation has just not found any evidence that would support any other scenario than shooting the plane down from around Snizhne”

          I know this sounds like Yogi Berra, but you only find what you look for.

          “For sure, the A-A attempts could not be considered “evidence.””

          Of course not, they are merely the manufacturer of the system for the bast 39 years. What could they possibly know about it’s operation? (/sarcasm)

          So on a more serious note, can you explain what you think AA is holding back or misrepresenting or hiding from us? Do you think they are presenting false information that could be easily contradicted by tests using weapons in Ukraine or Finland? Do you think they hid results coming out of their live tests? Or maybe you think they are misrepresenting performance parameters of the system?

          • Prosto Tak // October 19, 2015 at 6:12 am //

            And, being the manufacturer, they better knew how to twist the data to make them fit into their version, not supported by any other evidence.

            We may not know at the moment if the ‘Buk’ seen near Snizhne was the perpetrator, but there is not a single piece of evidence of a ‘Buk’ near Zaroshchenske, only empty claims.

            As for what AA did, you would not call it a serious experiment when they have blasted a stationary missile near a stationary piece of a plane at the ground level. No serious investigation would rely on that. I am sure JIT investigation will dismiss it as well.

          • Hector Reban // October 19, 2015 at 7:31 am //

            Prosto:

            Duely noted you can’t invoke serious arguments against the AA case (In fact I can make a few myself but they are submersed in about 20 seriously doubtfull observations I made regarding the DSB report so far).

            Second, There is evidence of the Zaroshchenskoye site, namely the Russian SATs, which have not been debunked by Bcat (nor by the SBU) in the least, though they seriously still claim they have.

            BTW, maybe Andrew, who has studied this topic really carefully and thorouhgly, can fill you in there are in fact a lot more clues a BUK was positioned around Shaposhnykove, a few kilometers south, later that day.

            Third, its really mindboggling to me you, in my view a reasonable and intelligent person, still can hold on to the Bcat trail. The only thing that has been established, but hardly by them, is there probably was a BUK. But the 17 july trail is clearly a fraud.

          • Prosto Tak // October 19, 2015 at 11:48 am //

            Hector,

            you may think Bellingcat were wrong to say the Buks had been pasted in the Russian sat pictures. However, you need no special digital forensics, just an easily available set of sat photos of the place, to see that the Russian pictures were in fact taken much earlier than they claim, sometime in May or June, but not in July. In this case, it’s just irrelevant whether any Buks were there — a month or so before the crash.

            You are, of course, absolutely free to think and believe what you like. There are many nice people who believe the Americans have not been on the Moon. I am not a court to give you a final proof. However, in this case you also won’t believe in the findings of any court and the results of JIT and any other investigation if they would not be what you’d like them to be.

  2. Thank you for pointing out that parts of the roof are missing from the reconstructed aircraft. I saw that you tweeted about that on 13 October when the reconstruction was made public, but hardly anyone else has noticed the absence of those parts since then.

    I think that the answer to question nr. 2 is clear. The damage to those parts literally points to a different detonation location to what appears in the report. The DSB left out the parts that would prove their conclusion wrong.

    The detonation actually occurred lower down and closer to the cockpit than where the DSB said it did. Even though Almaz Antey’s presentation in June had a number of flaws, they were fairly accurate about the detonation location. Several pieces of evidence from the wreckage back up this finding and there appears to be no evidence that contradicts it.

    The significance of where the warhead detonated is that this location can be used to calculate where the missile could have been fired from. With the location provided by Almaz Antey, the missile could not have come from the direction of Snizhne. That’s because from that direction, the fragments would have had to be propelled almost directly ahead to cause the damage seen on MH17. That is not what happens in any normal fragmentation warhead like the one in the BUK, which propels its fragments in a more sideways direction.

    The consensus in the West since July 2014 has been that MH17 was shot down with a BUK fired from Snizhne. The DSB report has selected only very limited evidence that supports that scenario, and left out anything that disproves it.

    • sotilaspassi // October 24, 2015 at 6:52 am // Reply

      >The DSB report has selected only very limited evidence that supports that scenario, and left out anything that disproves it.

      Is there any evidence that would support any other scenario?

      Is there any evidence that disprove missile coming from ahead?

      After 1000 hours studying MH17 case, I have found none.

      • The most important evidence lies in the direction of the grazing on the wreckage, much of which the DSB ignored. That damage points to a place much closer to the cockpit than the DSB claim. This is described a little bit in the other post “Simulation versus facts of MH17 missile damage”.

        • sotilaspassi // October 24, 2015 at 8:07 am // Reply

          >The close detonatThat damage points to a place much closer to the cockpit than the DSB claim.ion

          Closer detonation point only confirm snizhne launch direction.
          Z direction is absolutely surely impossible vs the damage.

        • “Closer detonation point only confirm snizhne launch direction.”

          Snizhne is situated almost straight ahead in the direction of the aircraft’s flight path. Closer detonation would therefore mean that a missile from near Snizhne would have had to fire fragments almost directly ahead to cause the grazing and other damage seen on the wreckage. Normal S-A missiles, including the BUK, do not fire fragments straight ahead.

          “Z direction is absolutely surely impossible vs the damage.”

          I don’t believe that the missile was launched as far west as Zaroshenskye, but it was not launched as far east as the DSB’s calculated location either.

          • sotilaspassi // October 24, 2015 at 11:45 am //

            >Snizhne is situated almost straight ahead in the direction of the aircraft’s flight path. Closer detonation would therefore mean that a missile from near Snizhne would have had to fire fragments almost directly ahead to cause the grazing and other damage seen on the wreckage.

            I really fail to follow that logic.
            Are you ignoring that there is the secondary fragmentation cone as well?
            And in the primary cone there are different speed of fragments.

            Grazing on the surface of the wreckage indicate the direction that DSB calculated.

            But the smoke plume and some other logic would indicate closer to Snizhne…Torez location vs DSB/bellingcat/Ukraine@war.

          • Wind tunnel man // October 24, 2015 at 11:54 am //

            Brendan,

            “I don’t believe that the missile was launched as far west as Zaroshenskye, but it was not launched as far east as the DSB’s calculated location either.”

            I agree – the DSB say the missile was probably on a direct course to the collision point and that makes a launch from their stated area unlikely. The Almaz Antey static test with a 9N314M warhead, if proven conclusive, would demonstrate that the missile was not heading from that area at the moment of detonation. With the current, publicly available evidence I do tend to believe that that is the case.

          • “Are you ignoring that there is the secondary fragmentation cone as well?”

            The secondary fragmentation is basically junk created from the missile, in front of the warhead, that gets blown to pieces. That would be made up pieces of all different shapes and sizes. The damage to the cockpit looks like it was nearly all caused by pre-formed fragments of a much more limited range in size.

            “And in the primary cone there are different speed of fragments.”

            I don’t see how the variation in fragment speed is large enough to have a signicant effect on the fragmentation pattern or on the damage.

            “Grazing on the surface of the wreckage indicate the direction that DSB calculated.”

            The only grazing whose direction that they are approximately right about is that above the cockpit right window. That points in about the same direction as A-A’s estimated location of detonation, but the DSB places that location much further away from the cockpit. The DSB does not give details about how they figured out the direction from any other grazing or damage. You need more than one line of direction to calculate location by means of triangulation.

            “But the smoke plume and some other logic would indicate closer to Snizhne…Torez location vs DSB/bellingcat/Ukraine@war.”

            The problems with the smoke plume and the other logic have been covered on this website and elsewhere. The biggest problem that I have with the smoke plume is that nobody in or around Sniznhe (pop. approx. 40,000) took a photo of such a large unusual smoke trail.

      • “After 1000 hours studying MH17 case, I have found none.”

        You tried really hard not to find it

  3. All good questions admin, and shows your inquisitive intellect.
    Still reading through the report, but after seeing your article, I thought I would comment on your questions.
    1) My guess might be falling through a vehicle or a house, but would be a good thing for the DSB to clear up.
    2)My guess is it is easier to technically analyze penetrations when pieces are one the ground and in smaller pieces to handle, although it does to me seem to introduce the possibility for errors.
    A scaffolding would have to be set up around the nose piece for further analysis which would make it less safe for an investigator that is not to sure of his or her footing.
    3)typo -final not fital
    I imagine initial investigation and detailed photography of the parts (for both investigations) was done on the ground, and then when placed on the frame, they were used to verify or disqualify results from analysis on the ground.
    4)Would this be in the DSB or the JIT, or both, mandate to go this deep into detail?
    5)Interesting question and I hope the DSB responds.
    6)I have not covered this in report. Are you saying that Rostov ATC ordered MH17 to make an alteration to flight path?
    7)Great question, and also how long does it take before it is up and running?
    Did it get running again on schedule?
    Was it working correctly prior to scheduled maintenance as well?
    Were All primary radar at all airports under this maintenance, including Kharkiv and Zaporizhia International Airport and Dnipropetrovsk International Airport?
    Or was it just the control station in Kyiv was down for maintenance and the others were working but Kyiv being the library for them could not store them because it was down for ‘maintenance’?
    8) This is one of the biggest problems I have.
    A nation’s early warning radar in a conflict zone would have been a high priority with RF shooting across the border and flying across it.
    This shows a state of neglect to me and irresponsibility for Ukraine’s military and I hope some explanations come from Ukraine about this.
    9)Depends what you consider shelling when you ask this question.
    Mortars are one thing, Tank shells another, MRLS Grad are another, etc.
    I believe both parties had their part to play in ordinance found in the area.
    Still a good question, but hard to identify each and every impact site and who fired it even if you had ten years to do it in a 20 km radius.
    10)There are many articles about a London specialist said about an IL76, a Dr. Igor Sutyagin.
    I am not sure where he got his info and where it originated from.
    Was it a radar contact that was a 777 that was flying South of MH17 (and behind it) that he labeled a IL76?
    I am not sure, he stated they can be cross identified.
    The Candid IL76 if you look up on Wiki could be various sorts of civilian transports 1L76 as well.
    I am not sure if this was the fog of confusion and everyone searching for answers and making assumptions or if there was actually a IL76 Ukrainian military transport.
    UA says no, however this former US(? or Western MI5) spy caught in Russia and traded for 10 other spies living in London, says there was.
    article about him and the IL76 – http://www.discussionist.com/101445081

    An interesting read and something that covers BUK ranges and military emplacements spotted from satellite can be found here.
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BEjgpPaQybM/U-PYX8J3rpI/AAAAAAAAT4E/r–HW0MCZMU/s1600/BUK+ranges+13.jpg
    and – http://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/08/ukrainian-sbu-comes-with-conspiracy.html

    Fare thee well

  4. Why has the missile fragment found in the left window frame a different appearance on photos shot in fall 2014:
    http://uploads.ru/vm8Bn.jpg

    The probable launch area in Figure 64 on page 146 has been updated and now includes an area further to the south. Is that caused by the decision of the DSB on Aug 11th to also consider the missile fragments? The way the fragment is lodged in the window frame indicates the fragment’s trajectory was parallel to the window. That only seems possible if the tail end of the missile collided with the window frame. That would have consequences on the possible missile flight path.
    http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=368&p=4#p38958

  5. Why do the trajectories of grazing shots on the port site of the fuselage converge in an area different to the area predicted by the DSB simulations?

    http://s3.uploads.ru/BDorg.png

    • Clearly, the DSB were using a non-euclidean geometry. If you are familiar with Einstein’s theories this is what has happened. A Russian made Buk missile exploded near the plane and created a black hole. The black hole curved the space around it. Therefore, the lines that look straight to you were not actually straight. And vice-versa: the straight lines do not look straight. That black hole later sucked some important pieces of evidence, such as the roof fragment. To avoid confusing the public with such complicated matters, the DSB decided not to mention this and not have a QA session. As you see, this consistent theory explains everything.

      • You don’t have monopoly one theories that are at least slightly more probable than DSB “investigation”. I think that more relevant is militarization of tooth fairies by Russian MOD. In the night the fairies collected all the bowtie pieces, leaving nothing to DSB. So later, being sure about Russian guilt (because John Kerry and Brown Moses seen everything with their own eyes), had to salvage bowties from Ukrainians. The problem was that Ukrainians sold all the BUKS to Georgia. So only two pieces were available. But it doesn’t matter, the Russians are guilty independent of independent and unbiased investigation. Because gurus said so! And Elliott Higgins is preparing the 30 page reportyfull of social media evidence about the militarised tooth fairies. We will all be astonished.

        I think this theory explains everthing.

        • Your tooth fairy theory also explains more than the report.
          Seriously though. No matter how hard I try, I cannot come up with any possibilities to explain what I see on the picture posted by Ole other than the following two:
          1) the DSB were blind, or
          2) the DSB were corrupt.
          Can you?

    • At least the pieces seem to be miss-aligned.
      The blue paint is not in straight line.

      The final reconstruction was only for the show.
      Trajectories were found out with pieces attached on wooden frame.

      • > The final reconstruction was only for the show.
        > Trajectories were found out with pieces attached on wooden frame.

        So, to determine such an important parameter as the explosion point the DSB used a crude structure made out of wooden planks with only a few fragments placed rather than a meticulously constructed precise metal structure, with most fragments placed, including the internal ones. Are you implying the DSB were morons?

      • >Trajectories were found out with pieces attached on wooden frame.

        NLR had already calculated approach course and approach velocity end of January, long before the wooden makeshift construction was even started. This calculation then was used to prime the TNO simulation:

        Page 25 Appendix Y (TNO report):
        “[7] NLR, flight data, e-mail message, 28 Januari 2015, National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR).”

        Footnote [7] refers to :
        “NLR has determined the probable terminal velocity of the guided weapon by means of a fly out simulation [7].” (Page 13)

        “Starting point for the terminal ballistics simulation is the warhead position (X, Y, Z) and orientation (azimuth, elevation) according to the initial assessment by NLR [7].” (Page 17)

  6. Maksym Ponomarenko // October 18, 2015 at 3:30 am // Reply

    Why did the report not look at the punkture holes behind or at back the cockpit that show the fragments were travelling longitudinally? These holes look to show the missile came from side as the direction of fragment is from front to back of plane

    • Wind tunnel man // October 18, 2015 at 11:31 am // Reply

      Possibly because they didn’t want any “magic shrapnel” scenarios where deflection/ricochet angles might be argued with regard to internal damage. Always better to look primarily at external damage and the effects on the immediate underlying structures.

      • Several deflections/ricochets striking from the same direction, in this case from almost straight ahead? I assume that Maksym is talking about the damage on the rear cockpit seat, shown here:
        (see “Headrest of left jumpseat”, about a quarter of the way down the page): http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/damage-of-mh17-does-not-rule-out-a-launch-from-zaroshenskye/

        • Wind tunnel man // October 19, 2015 at 1:55 am // Reply

          I must admit those penetrations in the jump seat do look as if they were not caused by seriously deflected or randomly ricocheting warhead fragments. However what I found particularly interesting in the Almaz Antey presentation was they only indicated fragment direction by mentioning penetrations in the cockpit floor/underlying structures, the captain’s control column and lack of penetrations to the starboard side cockpit wall and windows.

          Probably both the Dutch and Almaz Antey thought it best not to elaborate on other internal damage, such as the seats. Even in the reconstruction the rear cockpit wall/jump seats were not included.

  7. 1) The blue discoloration need not necessarily be paint, Jet engine exhaust often show that, see e.g. the right engine of this Belorussion MiG-29:
    http://walkarounds.scalemodels.ru/v/walkarounds/avia/after_1950/MiG-29_9-13_001/061_MiG-29_17.jpg.html
    2) The cockpit roof mentioned in the RT documentary was not in its place, but displayed decoratively in front of the engine inlet ring (6th Photo):
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mh17-plane-reconstructed-fragments-wreckage-recovered-crash-site-ukraine-photos-1523823
    8) Of course all Ukrainian air defense systems were on maximum alert that day, given that Kiev’ propaganda had phantasized about the Russian airforce bombing Snezhne and shooting down Ukrainian fighter jets the previous days. Why they are today ashamed of that fact is also quite clear.

  8. > How likely is it that Ukraine Air Force switch off primary radar when no sorties are scheduled for a particular day?

    — It was not an Air Force radar but a civil aviation air control radar. The closest one to the crash site, in Pechenihy (Rus. Pechenegi) in Kharkiv Region (about 200 km), as far as I know was in fact switched off for maintenance that day. The next primary radar as to the distance, somewhere in Dnipropetrovsk Region (I don’t know the exact place), was functioning properly but was out of range to detect anything at the crash area. In the peace time, the situation over there was covered by a radar near Artemivsk, Donetsk Region — but it has been blown up by the separatists by the time.

    > Ukraine press stated an IL76 was flying close to MH17. DSB reports there was no other aircraft near MH17 besides the three civil aircraft. How did the DSB determine this as there was no primary rader coverage.

    Yes, there were a couple of such statements in the press. However, they were proven to be incorrect by Russia itself. Russia has supplied DSB with a video recording of its primary and secondary data on a radar screen (though not the data itself, neither raw nor processed). The recording clearly shows there were no other planes there at the time (except from a couple of other civil flights).

    > NATO picked up signals of a surface to air missile system from Ukraine. Did DSB contact NATO to find out what signal?

    — If you read the document published by the German Communist paper attentively you’ll clearly see that NATO AWACS systems identified several SA-3 (‘Goa,’ not SA-11 ‘Buk’) radar signals as well as one unidentified radar signal (again, signals of working radars, not missile launch signatures) “within its operation range.”

    And that range was over very far away from the crash site. The same German document states that AWACS planes lost track of MH17 at “14.52 Central European Time” — 28 minutes before the crash. At the time, MH17 was above Kremenchuk, Poltava Region, and 1 minute later, at 12.53 UTC it entered Dnipropetrovsk Flight Information Region that begins at this place.

    So, everything what AWACS planes had seen took place not closer that about 500 km from the crash site and was absolutely irrelevant to the crash.

    • Prosto Tak:

      “The next primary radar as to the distance, somewhere in Dnipropetrovsk Region (I don’t know the exact place), was functioning properly but was out of range to detect anything at the crash area. ”

      So the military radars here:
      47°06’29″N, 37°28’29″E

      and here:
      47°06’28″N, 37°28’27″E

      and here:
      47°06’2.50″N, 37°28’36″E

      at Mariupol were not working either?

      And this civilian radar at Dnipr could not view 250 km away in Donbass?
      48°21’45″N, 35°06’44″E

      • > And this civilian radar at Dnipr could not view 250 km away in Donbass?

        — Correct, that’s what they say. I can neither attest nor deny it.

        And the military radars were not in question in the part of the report we are talking about. I have not read it all so maybe the military radars (both Ukrainian and Russian) are mentioned in another chapter.

        However, according to ICAO rules, countries are obliged to keep civil radar data. Ukraine did and handed over everything it physically had. Russia had had the data but destroyed them. That’s what was the problem.

        • The DSB had patience until *end of March* with the Ukrainians. Then they resorted to sending a special envoy for international affairs to Kiev. Only then the Ukrainians could explain why no primary data was available. I understand, that there was no explanation for the lack of primary radar data by Ukraine and only end of March they came up with the explanation that the primary radar was switch off for maintenance:

          “At the end of March, a team of investigators from the Dutch Safety Board travelled to Ukraine together with the Dutch Safety Board’s special envoy for international affairs. The objective of this trip was to obtain primary radar data and documents from the Ukrainian military authorities related to the management of the airspace. The latter involved a request by Ukraine’s military authorities to Ukraine’s air traffic control services to close the airspace for civil aviation below a certain altitude. The delegation also wanted an answer to supplemental questions about the airspace management by Ukraine and to establish relations at the highest possible level in order to ascertain which other information was still missing. The visit yielded documents from the Ukrainian military authorities, but no raw primary radar data. During the visit, the Ukrainian authorities explained why the radar data were unavailable to the Dutch Safety Board. They also provided written answers to questions about the decision-making related to closing the airspace.

          From Ukraine the Dutch Safety Board only received the data from the secondary surveillance radar (raw and processed). In addition, Ukraine also provided a video replay of a radar screen from the processed secondary surveillance radar data.”
          http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-abouttheinvestigation-en.pdf
          page 61

          • Prosto Tak // October 20, 2015 at 1:04 am //

            > The DSB had patience until *end of March* with the Ukrainians…

            From Ukraine the Dutch Safety Board only received the data from the secondary surveillance radar (raw and processed). In addition, Ukraine also provided a video replay of a radar screen from the processed secondary surveillance radar data.”

            So, when did the DSB lose patience with Russia? Who finally supplied NOTHING except from a video replay — which, by the way, showed there had been no Ukrainian plane anywhere near.

        • Prosto Tak:

          “Correct, that’s what they say. I can neither attest nor deny it.”

          Of course you can. You know it is the same ATC equipment present there as across the border in Russia. Our friend AD discussed this extensively on this site and provided the specifications for these radars which shows detection at 10,000 m nearly out to 400 km.

          http://i.imgur.com/CHNk1VO.jpg

          The Russian radar at Baturskaja is 265 km away and had no problem viewing the MH17 area.

        • Prosto Tak:

          Specifications of radar from manufacturer Almaz Antey:

          http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/catalogue/civil_catalogue/1343/1348/1317

          States a range of 360 km.

          So Dnipr radar could see unless it was also conveniently turned off on July 17, which quite frankly would be incredible.

          • Prosto Tak // October 20, 2015 at 1:09 am //

            Andrew, maybe you are right. As I don’t know the case I say nothing except from quoting others.

            But anyway, Ukraine has produced the maximum in this case, i. e. at least the secondary data, both raw and processed. What Russia did was they produced NOTHING, except from a video replay.

            Which, by the way, has shown there had been no Ukrainian plane anywhere near there — neither a ground attack Su-25 nor a fighter nor a military transport hiding near MH17.

          • Prosto Tak:

            “Andrew, maybe you are right. As I don’t know the case I say nothing except from quoting others.”

            Well, I personally find it incredible that Ukraine can with a straight face claim to not have a single civilian or military tape of primary radar because its entire primary radar system east of the Dnipr was turned off on July 17, and that Russia sincerely claims that “oops, we deleted the primary radar records, we had no idea you’d want that”.

    • [Ukraine press stated an IL76 was flying close to MH17. DSB reports there was no other aircraft near MH17 besides the three civil aircraft. How did the DSB determine this as there was no primary rader coverage.]

      From where an IL-76 with supplies would likely take off, from Kiev or from Dnepropetrovsk? Kremenchuk, Poltave lies before Dnepropetrovsk and comes far behind Kiev. Hence, from the NATO satellite we would know if an accompanying military plane was in the neighbourhood of MH17 before Dnipr Radar. But unfortunately, it is classified. Not available to DSB, alone seen by Mr. Joustra. But as long as DSB has no freedom of speech in her own report concerning NATO satellite information all options remain on the table.

  9. Liane Theuer // October 18, 2015 at 2:50 pm // Reply

    Question regarding this official DSB-video :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=185&v=KDiLEyT9spI
    At 3:09 the last FDR is shown to the south of Petropavlivka.
    At 11:51 the last FDR is shown to the north of Petropavlivka.
    Does the DSB don´t know the exact FDR ???

    Another question :
    There were parts of the missile found in the left wingtip.
    If the trajectory of the missile would be as the DSB stated, it would be impossible to find parts of the missile in the left wingtip !
    The missile should have shown with its nose to the left wingtip ! Only then parts of the missile could be find inside the wingtip.

    But a missile trajectory pointing to the left wingtip would indicate that the missile came upside down and had fallen from above.
    I think this trajectory is impossible from a launchside near Snizhne.

    Last question :
    As Almaz Antey said correctly, the proximity fuse reacts when there is enough mass to initiate the explosion.
    Looking at the DSB simulation the missile could not have detonated that early if coming from Snizhne.

    • As to your last question: A proximity fuse is a sort of primitive radar that can only interrogate “is something there?”. The launch crew can adjust its sensitivity: High sensitivity means the warhead detonates after 1-2 consecutive echos. This mode is used against difficult targets with small rcs like cruise missiles, drones and stealth aircraft. For larger aircraft like bombers, the fuse is set to detonate only after 5-7 consecutive echos. This reduces the sensitivity to noise and/or decoys, and brings the warhead closer to its target for detonation. What setting the crew of that fateful Buk actually chose, is one of the secrets they probably took with them into their graves. But it was certainly one of the less-sensitive modes, meaning they knew they were firing on a big target.

      • Thomas:
        This is quite interesting information. I think MH17 had been shot down deliberately, for nowhere I found a logical explanation for a natural disturbance. One of the last possibilities would have been some distraction by SU-25’s flying around the BUK. But as you imply then the crew of the BUK would have programmed the missile as ‘sensitive’. I think ‘sensitive’ would be the standard setting. Where is AD when we need him?

        Now we have a new hypothesis offered by Thomas: It might be the crew of the BUK was sure a big aircraft had to be shot down. It could be an AN-26, an IL-76 or intentionally a passenger plane. And think about it: the crew of the BUK and their spotter had NO information about MH17. All information must have come from other sources.

        • “crew of the BUK would have programmed the missile as ‘sensitive’.”

          There would not seem to be any sane reason to enable BUK crew to mess with the sensitivity setting of the missile.
          With would only make the system less reliable.

    • Hector Reban // October 19, 2015 at 7:41 am // Reply

      The DSB claims the shell piece they retrieved from the left wing was “secundary fragmentation”, in fact the parts of the missile itself and small/dust parts from the payload going in the direction of the missile, so straight on. This would fit a Snizhne launch.

      What doesn’t fit the Snizhne launch is the heavy damage done by high-density fre-formed fragments to the left wing and left enige, clearly “primary fragmentation”.

      This would be consistend with a launch site far more to the west, say in the direction of Zaroshchenskoye. And this is by far not the only part of the damage pattern their Snizhne launch area can’t explain.

      • The report says. 6.18 Kinematic Fragment Spray Pattern Simulation

        On detonation the missile disintegrates and forms the secondary fragmentation described in Section 6.16. Extrapolating the missile trajectory in the Kinematic Spray Pattern Simulation shows that the secondary fragmentation caused by this disintegration, as depicted in Figure 55, will travel in the direction of the left engine. This secondary fragmentation damage is consistent with the damage observed on the left engine cowling ring shown in Section 2.11. The secondary damage on the left wingtip is assessed to be caused by a larger missile fragment grazing the upper surface of the wingtip.

        I agree with you that it seems to be pretty clearly warhead fragment damage.
        But what could the DSB do? They are caught. If they admit is it primary damage then we know that the Snizhnoe launch is alie.

      • The report also says. The size of the damage caused by objects that penetrated both front and rear plate is significantly larger than the impact damage found on the wreckage of the cockpit. The size of all penetrations of the front of the ring was measured and found to range from 1 to 200 mm. Only 5 of the 47 penetrations were in the same 6-14 mm size range as the ones found on the cockpit panel of Figure 14. None of the objects that caused these 5 penetrations also penetrated the back plate.

        However in the recent Almaz Antey presentation they suggest that the fragment damage did pass through two layers.
        We need the precise details of the various holes, to get the true picture

    • sotilaspassi // October 24, 2015 at 7:06 am // Reply

      A to Q1: DSB videos are only illustrations, not exact imagery.
      11:51 is some kind of 3D illustration. The vertical line shows MH17 position vs Petropavlivka.

      A to Q2: Look at the A-A example detonation of full missile. The tail section of the missile breaks in pieces and fly into every direction. So some parts have hit MH17 when missile came from ahead.

      A to Q3: Proximity fuse does not react to mass. It reacts to radio/radar signal reflections from the target, when the target starts to appear in the 30…60degree side view. Boeing777 nose is very wide vs A-10 nose, so it will be in view sooner than A-10 “nose”.
      (for missile coming from z, it would detonate when Boeing wingtip come to it’s view, or when right side engine come to it’s view, or when boeing fuselage come to it’s view. Proximity fuse “see” 20…40meters forward in 30…60 degree angle!)

      • Solitaspassy:

        [A to Q3: Proximity fuse does not react to mass. It reacts to radio/radar signal reflections from the target, when the target starts to appear in the 30…60degree side view. Boeing777 nose is very wide vs A-10 nose, so it will be in view sooner than A-10 “nose”.(for missile coming from z, it would detonate when Boeing wingtip come to it’s view, or when right side engine come to it’s view, or when boeing fuselage come to it’s view. Proximity fuse “see” 20…40meters forward in 30…60 degree angle!)]

        This might be contrary to the sensitivity hypothesis of the proximity fuse as disposed by the crew of the BUK. If the missile was ‘insensitive’ it possibly could have flown over the cockpit.

        • >This might be contrary to the sensitivity hypothesis of the proximity fuse as disposed by the crew of the BUK. If the missile was ‘insensitive’ it possibly could have flown over the cockpit.

          It does not make any sense. There is no reason for manual sensitivity tuning of the proximity fuse.
          Only sanity would be for the system to automatically set the sensitivity based on the movement of the target.
          But I’m 99% sure BUK does not have anything like that.
          (even if it had the 3-5m delay, that A-A tries to say, it would not enable Z direction for launch vs MH17 damage)

  10. Did they finally publish the full transcript from the black box? What are “British experts” payed for? Or is the excuse that nothing important is recorded still used?

    • sotilaspassi // October 24, 2015 at 7:12 am // Reply

      I think full transcripts of CVR is never ever published as it contains personal discussions etc. Can you prove otherwise?
      Beside the final moments, there is nothing to see, because we already see the flight was 100% normal vs previous days. Only insane conspiracy theorists think otherwise.

  11. In the reconstructed animation the engine of the rocket is still working and leaves the plume behind. Is DSB intentionally showing their incompetence? The approach angle is against the mode of operation for the rocket as well, no matter what our finish friend is inventing here. The rocket will not be able to chase f-15 at 32 km if it goes at this angle

    • “still working” on approach to the plane. Meaning more than 30 sec after it was launched, assuming Snezhnoe.

    • Antidyatel:

      “The approach angle is against the mode of operation for the rocket as well”

      Its pretty amazing that for a rocket whose engine burnt out 10-15 seconds prior and has a trajectory resembling an upsidedown letter “J” it somehow manages to remain nose up and climbing in elevation under the effects of gravity.

      I believe the varying rocket trajectories with distance is the key piece of evidence provided by Almaz Antey and rejected by all of the Dutch simultations. It should certainly be something easy to prove with a single test firing that would invalidate the Dutch conclusions on launch site, although all the online videos of BUK launches already show the same thing.

      • Andrew, what is the probability for everwatchful Bellingcat sect to notice this inconsistency of DSB animation with reality? It is much more obvious than satellite photos problems and social media fairytale that they promote.

        I didn’t have time to read the report. Did DSB finally provide the transcript of black box voice recorder? They made such big deal about black box, and now so silent. For me it is important, as the pilot could not miss the ascending missile just in front of him, if it was Snezhnoe. And there should be a comment about it. Why wouldn’t they use such clear piece of evidence?

      • How do we know it resembles and upsidedown “J”?
        That seems to be disputed here, though I don’t know if this source is reliable.
        https://www.metabunk.org/almaz-anteys-live-buk-explosion-tests.t6903/page-3#post-167590

        • Such trajectory is only possible, while engine is on and you have propulsion. With engine off, the vertical turn will dramatically increase surface area of missile and thus, drag force. It will loose all its forward momentum. It will be uncontrolled and go into frenzy spin. For far targets, beyond, engine work time the reverse J will be necessary.

          • Antidyatel // October 20, 2015 at 5:03 am //

            Unless I misunderstood physics completely 😉

          • Prosto Tak // October 20, 2015 at 11:01 am //

            Actually, ‘Buk’ missiles may use two different trajectories, both “downhill” and “uphill.” The “downhill” version, going higher than the target and then down on it, is more effective; however, not many anti-aircraft systems can do it: most go only “uphill” on a ballistic trajectory, and ‘Buk’ can do this as well. The exact trajectory is chosen by the missile’s flight calculator according to its programming and the data passed from the launch vehicle. The missile has enough momentum to move up and seek the target after the engine is off.

          • Antidyatel // October 20, 2015 at 11:34 am //

            It is not downhill or uphill issue. The question in metabunk was about inverted S shape. That shape appears due to proportional navigation and while the engine still provides propulsion. When target is beyond the distance where engine is working. Any sharp movements will force rocket to loose control. For uphill ballistic trajectory the rocket will have to go with proportional navigation practically switched off, which is not the case. While downhill trajectory allows to use proportional navigation.
            So what do you think about DSB animation that presents missile with engine working up to explosion point? Are they secretly implying that Snezhnoe location from Bellingcat is impossible?

          • Prosto Tak // October 20, 2015 at 11:24 pm //

            Antidyatel,

            Frankly, I still didn’t have the time to look through all DSB documents and I’ll hardly have to. But, if there’s such an animation, I think it’s an obvious blunder by both the person who has prepared it and the person who has supervised it.

            But it’s good you’ve turned attention to this mistake. Let’s hope they won’t draw a missile exhaust smoke when they’ll do such presentations at JIT.

          • Antidyatel // October 21, 2015 at 12:12 am //

            Here is animation
            https://youtu.be/tHzavUArAXQ
            BBC used bits and pieces of it http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34516436
            Here the full animation is directly identified as coming from DSB http://www.businessinsider.my/animation-of-mh17-being-hit-2015-10/#QtbRA1L1W1sGfDth.97
            So no doubt that it is their blunder. At 1:34 of the first video they make a perfect argument for why black box transcript should be provided, as pilot could easily notice approach rocket even from this incorrect trajectory. If DSB technical team is making such silly mistakes that discredit their finding, why should JIT with less technically strong team avoid it. Explanation is that DSB is not doing technical analysis but participates in information war.

          • Prosto Tak:

            [Actually, ‘Buk’ missiles may use two different trajectories, both “downhill” and “uphill.” The “downhill” version, going higher than the target and then down on it, is more effective; however, not many anti-aircraft systems can do it: most go only “uphill” on a ballistic trajectory, and ‘Buk’ can do this as well.]

            From Snizhne the downhill trajectory seems more appropriate because of the great distance and the constant course of MH17. Uphill is used for short distance and against avoidance maneuvers.

            Antidyatel:

            [So what do you think about DSB animation that presents missile with engine working up to explosion point? Are they secretly implying that Snezhnoe location from Bellingcat is impossible?]

            From Snizhne BUK would have come from above over a large distance. It would be easy. But from Zaroshchenske it would have come from below on a short distance. In that case it possibly still would burn fuel. So DSB managed to find a hybrid between Snizhne and Zaroshchenske.

        • Wind tunnel man // October 20, 2015 at 1:23 pm // Reply

          In the NLR report (appendix-x, DSB report) they accept that the missile after launch will perform an initial course correction towards the predicted collision point. If the target does not manoeuvre or change it’s velocity the missile will follow a more or less straight path towards the collision point for the remainder of the flight.

          So one can also assume that they accepted A-A’s data regarding the vertical angle of the missile at the moment of collision and the proximity fuse worked as expected given a particular scenario. Also one would assume that they accepted that the rate of climb of the missile would decrease progressively after the burn phase (i.e. vertical angle of the missile would decrease) dependant on range until the rate of climb would be zero at a certain distance from the launch site. Obviously this vertical flight profile would not be a “straight path” when engaging a non-manoeuvring target (i.e. a target flying straight and level) but there certainly would be corrections to the missile’s rate of climb (vertical flight profile,) within it’s operational range, if the target ascended or descended after the missile was launched.

          I think any counter-arguments regarding the missile’s vertical flight profile have to be dismissed unless the target changed speed or manoeuvred away from the predicted collision point.

          • Antidyatel // October 21, 2015 at 12:24 am //

            Mh17 changed course just 1 minute before the hit. So you assumption on unmanuvouring target is strange. The angle of attack for the rocket is indeed a good indicator. But for shooting distances beyond engine working time the trajectory proposed by DSB is physically possible but detrimental for probability of “successful” hit. Small turn of the target or more importantly descend will force rocket to make a turn, that will make it uncontrollable.

          • Antidyatel:

            [Mh17 changed course just 1 minute before the hit. So your assumption on unmaneuvering target is strange]

            The change of course was before the launch and is not to be compared with a diving jet.

          • Antidyatel // October 25, 2015 at 2:03 am //

            Basic dimension
            [The change of course was before the launch and is not to be compared with a diving jet.]
            The point here is that upward trajectory is only feasible if the operator of BUK knows for sure that target will go with constant speed and altitude till intercept for intercept distances beyond burn out of the engine. Here we have 10-20 seconds flight without engine propulsion. Gravity and friction will slow down the rocket and bend it’s trajectory. Attempts to control it within straight line, proposed by our friends here, will cause rocket to slow down much faster and possibly go into uncontrollable spin. This problem is reduced if reverse J trajectory is chosen. Because now gravity is on your side. That is why this trajectory is preferable for shooting targets beyond burnout time. That is what we are arguing about and not the ability of airliner to dive away from rocket. Sorry for the confusion

    • sotilaspassi // October 24, 2015 at 7:39 am // Reply

      BUK missile does not chase it’s target. It flies to the target and tries to hit on 1st attempt. If it misses, it looses the echo from target.

      BUK rocket engine does not do any steering. During first 5s or so, the missile is not able to do any steering. After some 300m/s speed it has gained capability to steer with the arerodynaics of it’s wings.
      This steering capability will remain untill the speed again drops below 300m/s or so.

      When rocket engine provides the trust BUK maneuvers with up to 19G acceleration. After rocket fuel is used the maneuverability will start to drop. IIRC, at some 20km distance it still can do 13…15G manauvering.

      In 26km distance it seems BUK still flies 600-750m/s, and is well capable of manauvering.

      Small comparisson to TOW. TOW accelerates to about 175m/s speed and then glides to target with it’s very small wings. After 3,7km of flight it can not maneuver any more and it drops to ground.

  12. Intriguing question:

    12 Ukraine press stated an IL76 was flying close to MH17. DSB reports there was no other aircraft near MH17 besides the three civil aircraft. How did the DSB determine this as there was no primary radar coverage.

    – The primary radar of Ukraine civil air traffic control was not operational for maintenance.

    – The primary radar of Ukraine military air traffic control was not on at July 17 as according to Ukraine there were no flights scheduled that day. (Kind of circular reasoning: because no primary data are available no military aircraft was in the air.)

    – Russia erased the recordings of the raw primary radar.

    DSB better reported: there is no (reportable) evidence of military aircraft near MH17. How come DSB pertinently knows no military aircraft were in the air?

    If we take DSB seriously, they got additional classified information from the USA which might be (satellite) information or else. Might be this information relates to the subject.

    Mr. Joustra recognized to have taken notice of classified US information of MH17. The source of this information was not to be mentioned in the DSB report.

    He was likely permitted to draw and report conclusions – otherwise he would not have accepted the invitation – but he was not allowed to reveal the origin of the information. Then the USA could have shown Mr. Joustra all kinds of fake information, on which he possibly based his conclusions. No control is possible.

    Now what is the problem: by viewing of classified information DSB lost freedom of speech in their report. Mr. Joustra lost credibility in case he has drawn unsubstantiated conclusions from classified data. But we don’t know if and how far classified information interacts with the conclusions of the DSB report.

    And because no other information on military aircraft near MH17 has been reported and we assume claims made by Ukraine and Russia about having no primary radar information available are correct, we conclude DSB must base its conclusions only on classified information from the USA, the other correct source.

    What means all conclusions drawn by DSB about military aircraft near MH17 as far as obtained on the basis of classified information should be deleted in order to maintain credibility. DSB must reveal its source in the other case.

    • > Ukraine press stated an IL76 was flying close to MH17. DSB reports there was no other aircraft near MH17 besides the three civil aircraft. How did the DSB determine this as there was no primary radar coverage.

      — Thanks to the Russian data only 🙂

      Russia who did its utmost to claim Ukraine’s guilt presented at least a video replay of its (deleted) radar data — which clearly showed there had been no Ukrainian planes anywhere near.

      Actually, DSB were very careful and only stated that, according to those Russian data, there had been no indication of any other plane to be there except for three more commercial international flights.

      > Then the USA could have shown Mr. Joustra all kinds of fake information, on which he possibly based his conclusions

      — Oh, the whole Universe is sure the USA always lie, and Russia is the only side in this world that always tells only the ultimate truth 🙂

      > Mr. Joustra lost credibility in case he has drawn unsubstantiated conclusions from classified data.

      — No, he did not. He hasn’t drawn ANY conclusions from the secret data in DSB report though he mentioned those conclusions half-privately outside the report presentation and after the report had taken place. There’s nothing stemming from such conclusions in the report itself.

      He did acknowledge in some interviews that some secret data had corroborated the findings of his report. However, he has never mentioned the data, and they hasn’t been used in the report.

      And that’s why there’s still a 320 sq km launch area in the report and not a single point caught by the US but still secret.

      > And because no other information on military aircraft near MH17 has been reported

      — Actually, now we know that absolutely NO information on any military plane near MH17 has been corroborated by any means though it had been concocted.

    • page 65 of this document of the DSB deals with the classified information.
      http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-abouttheinvestigation-en.pdf

      There are also many other important issues discussed in this document.
      Including discussions about the criminal investigation, Primary Radar, demands for withheld evidence by Donetsk Administration – the reason for the priority debris being recovered first, etc.

      Fare thee well

    • Hector Reban // October 21, 2015 at 5:27 am // Reply

      It seems the Russian did store their primary radar data!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDUgZQm9E7Y

      • Hector Reban // October 21, 2015 at 5:29 am // Reply

        Better read: http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=368&p=6#p39100)

        From a Russian source:

        1) Russia DID provide the Rostov’s primary/secondary radar data …0:18:00… the data are still kept;

        2) The DSB saw another aircraft in close proximity of MH17 at the time of the crash …1:00:45;

        3) The DSB presented in August pictures of 5 found parts of Buk… one of the parts raised questions from AA because it could not withstand the blast… That part (with another one) disappeared from the final report (3 left) …0:42:30;

        4) One of the bow-ties was weighed and measured as 5.5g… later the same bow-tie was mentioned by the DSB as of 6.1g.., but it is still way beyond the results of the first AA’s field test in which no more than 7-10% loss of the bow-tie weight was registered (the bow-tie has 8.2g) …1:27:00;

        5) Two independent calculations were conducted to define the point of the blast… both (AA and MoD) produced the distance to the point 1.6m-1.8m… A Russian was allowed to work near the 3D-model in August with a laser pointer… First he asked to lift him in the DSB’s point of the blast (4m from the cockpit) and used the pointer to show how far the splinters could reach… All members were able to see that the DSB’s point of the blast would produce much larger damage along the fuselage (behind the first door)… then he asked to move him closer to the cockpit and while doing this he used the laser pointer to detect when to stop (i guess the ricochets were the signs)… Once he stopped a ruler was used to measure the distance from the cockpit to the laser pointer – exactly 1.6m ….0:52:50;

        6) There is a difference in origin of the frags… the non bow-ties are properly recorded (when, where, whom) while the bow-ties are not… AA made a metallurgical analysis of the frags produced during the field tests… The result doesn’t correlate with the final report… that is why Russia insist such an analysis have to be done on the found frags …1:37:00;

        7) The 38M1 had to blow 5-7m from the nose if it were launched from Snizhne (behind the cockpit, close to the first door)… it is for it’s proximity fuse algorithm …1:45:00;

        8) Missile detection by radars depends on the missile trajectory … If the missile were launched from Snizhne then it should appear on Russian radars (from Zaroschenskoe – not)… Taking into account Ukrainian radars activity Ukraine should be able to detect the missile and Ukraine would present such a proof… it is an opinion of a russian expert in radars… 1:42:00;

        • > From a Russian source:

          1) Russia DID provide the Rostov’s primary/secondary radar data …0:18:00… the data are still kept;

          2) The DSB saw another aircraft in close proximity of MH17 at the time of the crash …1:00:45;

          — However, the reality, at least in these two points, is very different.

          Russia did NOT provide any of its radar data: no raw primary, no processed primary, no raw secondary, no processed secondary, no ADS-B.

          The only thing Russia provided was a video replay from a radar screen!

          And it was exactly that video replay that attested NO Ukrainian plane had been there at the time of the crash, only three other international civil flights.

          See DSB Report, 2.9.5.

        • 1), 2), NOT true. Just spread of RU propaganda.
          4) A-A field test detonation was done too far from cockpit, in thick air and it lacked a lot of shrapnel kinetick energy.
          5) 1.6m + cockpit radius is close to what DSB indicated?

          IMO: explosion has been closer to cockpit surface than what the DSB final result indicates.

          7) The proximity fuse algorithm claim most likely is not true. But it could be tested.
          A-A said there would be 3…5m delay if missile is on head-on collision course?
          And that there is no delay if courses cross?
          Anyway… 6.2m diameter boeing “body” is detected sooner by the proximity fuse than 2m diameter A-10 “body”.

          +if launched from Z, the delay would not be working (right?) and detonation would happen 15m to the south of MH17?

          8) If there was artilery radars in the area, those should see BUK kind of missile in 10+km distance or so.
          But to my understanding UA had none, untill US gave them one in late 2014.

          • Sotilaspassi:

            [ 7) The proximity fuse algorithm claim most likely is not true. But it could be tested.
            A-A said there would be 3…5m delay if missile is on head-on collision course?
            And that there is no delay if courses cross?
            Anyway… 6.2m diameter boeing “body” is detected sooner by the proximity fuse than 2m diameter A-10 “body”.
            +if launched from Z, the delay would not be working (right?) and detonation would happen 15m to the south of MH17?]

            Remember, if courses cross it would have been intentional mass murder and the sensitivity of the proximity fuse would have been lowered. Hence, for an intentional assault we have a different strategy to explore.

          • “would have been intentional mass murder and the sensitivity of the proximity fuse would have been lowered”

            There is no way for passenger airliner to survive from BUK attack. (No need to set the sensitivity.)

        • Hector, do we have list of what was and what was not released by both Russia and Ukraine? I see all different reports.
          What did Russia release and what did they keep secret.
          What did Ukraine release and what did they keep secret.
          Thank you

          • Hector Reban // October 25, 2015 at 5:23 pm //

            No, I don’t. Its better to assess based from various sources, thats why I posted this video.

      • Both Russia and Ukraine withheld the primary radar data. Both likely have it. Very likely. There a two of scenarios to consider, really:

        1) The primary radar data contains information incriminating Ukraine, such as warplanes in the area. Then Russia might decide to withheld their radar data in case Ukraine supplies falsified data. To have a card to beat Ukraine’s one, so to speak.

        2) The primary radar data contains something incriminating Russia, such as registered Buk missile launch or a Russian warplane. Then, it is unlikely that Ukraine would withhold the primary radar data, as they’ve been more than forthcoming in blaming Russia on any pretext, real or fake.

        Therefore we can infer that the fact that both counties withheld their data, has a higher chance to be an indication that the data contains info incriminating Ukraine than Russia.

    • Maksym Ponomarenko // November 20, 2015 at 11:23 am // Reply

      Russia have not erased any data. They correctly divine that there is no point in playing all their cards.

  13. DSB animation with working rocket engine leaving plume till it explodes
    https://youtu.be/tHzavUArAXQ

    • sotilaspassi // October 24, 2015 at 7:53 am // Reply

      As stated elsewhere. The animation graphics are silly and only for illustration.

      But anyway, at 1:33 we see a realistic trail. Rocket engine has shut down and only faint fume come from the steering system. (old missiles use gas/CO2/air pressure to control the wings of the missile)

      Also the plume at 1:35 might be realistic. Note that it is only some 50cm wide.
      Vary rare eyes have seen BUK in flight after rocket fuel is used.
      ((And no eye want to see it either (cause they then die).))

      • Sotilaspassi:

        [As stated elsewhere. The animation graphics are silly and only for illustration.]

        Yes, but it also was senseless, silly and manipulative to show the reconstruction when the speech was held.

        Where must we take this report seriously?

    • sotilaspassi // October 24, 2015 at 7:57 am // Reply

      btw. around 1:34 there is animation of how approaching BUK missile might have looked like (IN SLOW MOTION), when seen from pilot side.
      (but to me it seems too far from right in that anim)

  14. Wind tunnel man // October 21, 2015 at 1:25 am // Reply

    Antidyatel:

    “Mh17 changed course just 1 minute before the hit…”

    Are you sure about that? The data recovered from the flight data recorder showed the aircraft was flying at 33,000 feet, on a constant displayed heading of 115 degrees and at a constant computed airspeed of 293 knots (ground speed 494 knots.) The recording stopped abruptly at 13:20:03. At 13:19:49 (14 seconds before the FDR stopped) the flight was cleared to proceed direct to waypoint RND and this was confirmed by the crew between 13:19:56 and 13:19:59. I don’t see any mention of a course change 1 minute before the FDR stopped.

    • See figure 2 in preliminary report by DSB. You can clearly see the turn required for MH17 in order to follow towards RND POINT. Pilot acknowledged that they accomplished the turn, as per transcript of communication in the same report. This is how I interpret this data. Let me know where my understanding has a flaw, if any.

  15. Wind tunnel man // October 21, 2015 at 2:46 am // Reply

    Antidyatel:

    Please see the FDR data for the last approx 3 minutes of MH17’s flight here http://avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d/010&opt=0 you can see that the heading, speed and flight level was constant.

    • Your source is an interesting summary. But let’s Stay on topic first. So we get that pilot just didn’t have time to even start the manuvor. And if he did it immediately or of the rocket was launched 20 sec later, it will have to struggle with proportional navigation without engine and has much smaller chance of hitting the plane, or importantly hitting pilot. It was quite a sharp turn if pilot had time to accomplish it. What an unfortunate 10-20 sec? but of course one wonders why both FDR and voice recorder are still not provided for independent analysis.

      • Wind tunnel man // October 21, 2015 at 12:48 pm // Reply

        I was not referring to the summary on the avherald web site but to the FDR readout graphic shown on that site. It’s entitled “Flight Data Recorder last seconds (Graphics: DSB)” and it’s just above the reader comments on the MH17 page.

        Sorry I don’t follow your arguments regarding the aerodynamic properties of 9M38 type SAM missiles: if the target is still within operational range, i.e. altitude and down range distance, then they should still be able to intercept such large targets as a manoeuvring B777 with a high degree of success. Beyond their operational range then intercepting any target may be impossible.

        • Simple. The maximum burn out time for this missile is 21 seconds. Usually less. Top speed is 850 m/s. For simplicity let’s assume 1km/s and that speed was maximum all the way from launch to hit. From Snezhnoe alleged launch site to FDR last point the ground distance is between 26-28 km depending on which fairy tale from western media you believe. Plus we have 10 km up. Assuming straight line trajectory, that you are proposing. The overall distance will be at least 28 km. So in best case scenario you will have 7 seconds of rocket flight without propulsion. If during that time rocket has to make a turn the deceleration will be huge. If at the same time the rocket is facing nose up and the target decides descend the situation will be quite bad for promotional navigation and ability to maintain stability. Of course the actual time that rocket will have to fly without propulsion from Snezhnoe is much longer. And you can assess probability of success yourself. The range of 32 km is reached by pushing missile above the target first, and then allow it to glide from slightly above, with minimum loss to kinetic energy.

          • Wind tunnel man // October 21, 2015 at 3:26 pm //

            You had better check with Almaz Antey regarding the performance characteristics of 9M38 type missiles, within their operational range, before theorizing about their navigational and aerodynamic stability abilities when tracking a target that is manoeuvring off straight and level flight and/or changing airspeed.

            Certainly even a target flying straight and level at a constant airspeed could be impossible to intercept if it was beyond the limits of the missile’s operational range, i.e. down range distance and altitude.

    • The interesting statement in your link, I suppose from DSB report. (That I still didn’t have time to read)
      “The Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder stopped abruptly at 13.20:03 (15.20:03 CET) because the power supply was interrupted. ”

      Both recorders are at the tail section of the plane. At least one engine was still working after the hit. Signal to voice recorder is supplied by microphones (4 Channels). The statement from DSB doesn’t make sense.

      • But I’m glad that they managed to hear the explosion. I think Prosto Tak was claiming earlier that it is impossible. Or maybe it was Soli….(forgot how to spell – Finish guy). Now why wouldn’t they analyse the probability for pilot and co-pilot reading to make a turn, not to notice an approaching 5 meter rocket. And according to DSB it was approaching at an angle, not straight onto them. And even funnier it was ejecting plumes behind, according to their animation. It should have been visible for crew for 10 seconds or more. Why didn’t they comment on it?
        Maybe Occam’s Razor will be useful to filter theories and thus place rocket approach from the right side of the plane?

        • sotilaspassi // October 21, 2015 at 7:51 pm // Reply

          BUK missile is a about 40cm diameter missile coming directly towards cockpit (without smoke trail).
          (understanding the “directly” part requires some common sense or trigonometry math)
          Against a clear sky I doubt it is possible to see such 40cm object (a small dot in the cloud) from further than 500m away. So, if a pilot had seen it, his brains had only 0,5s to understand there is something coming.

          From DSB material. It seem to confirm what I expected. Sound is sampled in 20ms sections, then packed and sent via serial datalink to CVR.
          It seems that in the last 20ms sample that CVR received/saved there are symptoms that would indicate a start of an explosion sound.
          Explosion was never fully recorded, though, because the system became broken.

          • sotilaspassi // October 21, 2015 at 7:57 pm //

            To further clarify. 20ms is 1/50 of a second. Something that a human ear / brain can not “hear”.

            (eg. GSM technology relies on that fact, the voice sounds ok, even if some 20ms section is missing/fake/noice every now and then)

          • Antidyatel // October 21, 2015 at 11:24 pm //

            So I can just quote here and wait for your further explanations/corrections Sound peak

            “The Cockpit Voice Recorder recorded a 2.3 millisecond sound peak. Signal triangulation showed that the noise originated from outside the aeroplane, starting from a position above the left hand side of the cockpit, propagating from front to aft. ” How can you record 2.3 Ms peak with 20 Ms sampling?

          • Antidyatel // October 22, 2015 at 12:33 am //

            Here you go. No need to imagine rubbish about 20ms. All A/D conversion and storage are taking place directly at CVR placed in the tail section.
            “The audio processor samples the flight deck audio signals 8,000 times per second and the cockpit voice recorder microphone audio signals 12,000 times per second.”
            http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/542785-boeing-777-fdrs-cvrs-informational.html
            Let’s see if Bellingcat sect members can ever accept to be wrong

          • Antidyatel // October 22, 2015 at 12:49 am //

            “BUK missile is a about 40cm diameter missile coming directly towards cockpit (without smoke trail).
            (understanding the “directly” part requires some common sense or trigonometry math)
            Against a clear sky I doubt it is possible to see such 40cm object (a small dot in the cloud) from further than 500m away. So, if a pilot had seen it, his brains had only 0,5s to understand there is something coming.”
            First, DSB drawn in their animation a missile with plume up till explosion. How do you like it.
            Second missile was coming at angle even in rubbish DSB analysis, so it is not 40 cm cross section
            And finally from Snezhnoe had to be reverse J. Otherwise physics will make it uncontrollable after slightest turn when the engine stopped working

          • In GSM (same era of invention as the Boeing777 CVR technology) records 8000 samples per second. Those samples are collected to 20ms chunks/sections and packed for data bus & to be saved.
            Boeing 777 technology is very similar.

          • >First, DSB drawn in their animation a missile with plume up till explosion. How do you like it.

            All animations of MH17 graphics are done by idiots.
            Fact is BUK rocket engine burn lasts 15…20s depending on the model of the missile.
            (Then there is only faint vapor from gas powered steering.)

            >Second missile was coming at angle even in rubbish DSB analysis, so it is not 40 cm cross section

            I know you do not understand physics+trigonometry+common sense.
            So, it’s futile for me to try to educate you about basics.

            >in rubbish DSB analysis
            Only a RU troll thinks so.

          • Antidyatel // October 22, 2015 at 6:36 am //

            I totally agree that DSB are not professionals. Their report speaks volumes. And if they didn’t notice the blunder with the plume, it only increases confidence that they are not investigating but producing ammo for propaganda war.
            Do you have degree in physics? I have, so try me. I hope you do understand that if rocket is not going straight at you the fins crossection increases very quickly. 5 meter long cylinder will also look nice. So, yes. Try to explain your 40 cm diameter of the cross section. It will be entertaining.
            I though that we already established that I’m RU troll and you errogant white elf full of supremacist tendencies.

          • I believe DSB outsourced the silly animations to outside idiots.
            Otherwise the DSB study look very professional to independent eyes.

            No time to do proper math but your 5mBUK ellipsoid is something like <45cm long at 500m distance. So much easier to see than the 40cm?

          • Antidyatel // October 22, 2015 at 11:28 am //

            You trigonometry and physics are quite rusty. I guess you are using some angle of approach provided by DSB and then calculate how much the body ofbthe cylinder show up from behind the rocket head. Defining it as single axis of the ellipsoid projection is not useful. You need the actual crossection. Because you will have a high contrast dark green rocket on the background of White clouds. How does the physical cross section suddenly start depend on distance is peculiar? I guess you wanted to talk about resolvable objects at particular distances. But you should be careful with formulating your statement. The human can resolve a 30 cm object at 1 km. At 500 meter you get 15 cm. But we don’t want to resolve, we want to detect, so limit goes more down. Now, human reaction to visual stimulus is on average 0.25s on average. Although for professionals, like pilots the limit is lower. For 800 m/s rocket it gives you 200 meter distance. Now, rocket was already flying without engine for more than 10 seconds and without propulsion the friction will very high in nearly horizontal flight. So the actual speed will drop to probably 500 or even 400 m/s. Although plane speed will compensate for this loss. In any case there will be plenty of time for pilot to react and acknowledge the missile even without plume behind.

          • Cloud is white on sections where the sun shines on it.
            There was thunderstorm nearby, I doubt the upper surface of cloud cover was smooth & white. So it was not clean white behind the missile.

            If there is a pilot with super eyes and could see some 45cm ellipsoid, lets say from 1km distance.
            Missile travelled 600-700m/s at the time of detonation.
            MH17 travelled 230m/s or so.
            So it takes ~1s from 1km distance to detonation.

            >will be plenty of time
            Your super eyed pilot must have super brains as well.

            In maximum time of one second I’m absolutely sure no human can detect and recognize a incoming missile.

          • Antidyatel // October 23, 2015 at 12:13 am //

            “Cloud is white on sections where the sun shines on it.
            There was thunderstorm nearby, I doubt the upper surface of cloud cover was smooth & white. So it was not clean white behind the missile.”
            That was funny. Do you know why storm clouds look dark FROM THE BOTTOM?
            How many seconds does boxer need to evade a punch? How bad are your reactions? Please don’t drive, as you would be dangerous for everyone. I know that there are many jokes on slow reacting Estonians, but those are just jokes. Plus you are Finish.
            Pilot didn’t need to recognise that it is a rocket. He had to react to the fact that a big thing is flying at him and just say WTF.

          • Clouds look “dark” from above for same reasons as from below. (look darker if there is a cloud “mountain” blocking the sun)
            https://alexraphael.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/img_7434.jpg
            http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2005Q1/101/student_cloud_photos/CU_airborne_j_reuer.jpg

            >How many seconds does boxer need to evade a punch?

            Boxer is expecting a punch.

            >He had to react to the fact that a big thing is flying at him and just say WTF.

            40…45cm thing is not a “big thing”.
            Especially in 1km distance.
            In 100m distance it starts to look threatening.

            +WTF takes 2 seconds to say.

            When driving a car, one is required to react on actions on the visible area. My eyes can detect automatic radar post (40cm diameter) in 200m…300m distance or so, if I look for it. I have ~10s to slow down.
            When a deer jumps in front of me, in 50m distance, its a lot bigger, seeing such a big thing in close range will trigger my reactions very fast. (in 0,25..0,5s I believe)
            In MH17 the approaching missile was not a sudden big event until in the last few hundred meters.

            Then… when driving go-kart cars, after a few laps my senses tune up. I can drive in 1cm accuracy and react to events that happen in less than 5m before me. etc…

        • There is no reason for voice recorder to do 20 Ms sampling. FDR can do it,due to a lot of data. But analogue signal of microphone goes directly to A/D converter in CVR in the tail. Why are you inventing things?

          • 20ms sampling of CVR was confirmed by DSB.

            (It would not make any sense to save data 32000 times per second to a mass storage (8000khz x 4 channels). )

            FDR does not do 20ms sampling.

      • “That I still didn’t have time to read”

        Maybe you could do it? 🙂 Seems you are spending a lot of time with debate, but no time to reading the basis of debate 🙂

        • It is a smartphone debate on coffee breaks and public transport travel . No time to read 200 pages. But the content comes in bits and pieces from analysis here. So no need to make full investigation of the full report. Just point inconsistency or obvious blunders of propaganda warriors is enough

      • Wind tunnel man // October 21, 2015 at 2:52 pm // Reply

        “The Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder stopped abruptly at 13.20:03 (15.20:03 CET) because the power supply was interrupted.

        Both recorders are at the tail section of the plane. At least one engine was still working after the hit. Signal to voice recorder is supplied by microphones (4 Channels). The statement from DSB doesn’t make sense.”

        The relay of 2 sound peaks (which helped in the positioning of the warhead at the moment of detonation) were recorded by the CVR moments before the power supply was interrupted. Do you have a problem with that?

        • Go to slide 9
          http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/alpha_sherdil/fdr-and-cvr-of-aircrafts
          Line for FDR and voice recorder are independent. There is very low probability for both of them to be damaged. For voice recorder there are 4 microphones in Boing 777. Even if all engines fail they’ll continue to work due to battery blocks in the tail section that was not damaged by explosion. So DSB is playing a trick. They rightly say that FDR stopped after explosion, because data acquisition unit was destroyed. But it should not apply to voice recording

          • Wind tunnel man // October 21, 2015 at 4:59 pm //

            Look at the damage to the cockpit – don’t you think it highly likely that the microphones and connections were damaged by both the blast wave and the shrapnel. Also many microphones require an electricity supply in order to amplify the signal – are you saying that the microphones will work without an electrical source and don’t need amplification or are you saying that any amplification required comes from a battery source in the tail? The CVR may have continued to function but it probably didn’t have an input signal to record.

          • sotilaspassi // October 21, 2015 at 7:02 pm //

            Data is processed in MEC and then sent to FDR and CVR.
            No instrument is wired directly to FDR or CVR.
            Only serial data links go to recorders.
            Also power for both recorders come from MEC.
            All electric power of Boeing777 come from MEC.
            FDR and CVR have only battery backed up emergency beacon.

          • Antidyatel // October 22, 2015 at 12:36 am //

            Power supply to amplifier is directly provided from CVR placed at the tail. See schematics http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/542785-boeing-777-fdrs-cvrs-informational.html

          • Antidyatel:

            Thank you for pointing out that material. I think I’ve missed that one.

            So, analog to digital conversion is done by CVR itself at the rear.

            CVR is provided 115V from airplane main PSU (at/near MEC behind/below cockpit) and CVR then provides 30V to amplifier etc.

          • Antidyatel // October 22, 2015 at 6:27 am //

            You are welcome. From 2008 Aviation regulators demanded that all CVR and FDR will be equipped with back up batteries, in case of power interruption. This website says that back up is sufficient for 10 minutes after power interruption http://www.l-3ar.com/products/independent_power_supplies.htm

          • FYI: Boeing777 was manufactured before 2008

            The article you linked show that there is now battery pack addition available for CVR.
            I have so far not spotted info of MH17 having such a battery on it’s CVR.

            For FDR it would not seem so sane as the data is processed at the front of the airplane. If the MEC&FDAU does not have power, there is nothing for FDR to record.

            Planes like Boeing787 have batteries in front and in the middle of the plane. So it might remain powered even without the cockpit. 😉

  16. Wind tunnel man // October 21, 2015 at 9:11 pm // Reply

    Sotilaspass:

    There is one thing that bothers me though: what was the sound that they picked up? The shrapnel would have been travelling faster than the speed of sound at that range (?) so perhaps it was the sound of the shrapnel hitting the aircraft rather than the sound of the detonation. Anyway it was from the front left and that’s what counts.

    • At distances below 10 meters most of energy propagates as shockwave, not sound. Shock waves travel at speeds up to 3000m/s. Faster then shrapnel.

      • Wind tunnel man // October 22, 2015 at 1:01 am // Reply

        The DSB report, pages 111 to 113, says it was a highly energetic sound wave that originated from outside the aircraft. It also says the first sound peak was representative for an ‘electrical spike’ as it showed the form of an electro-magnetic pulse that could have been caused by a static discharge or similar. Is that what would be recorded if it was a supersonic shock wave resulting from the detonation of the warhead?

        • It is probably the case. Shock wave first reached the cockpit. Then sound traveled through aluminium (3000 – 6000 m/s) and other solids towards the microphone. First noise could be due to electromagnetic wave from explosion in microwave or radio frequency (going at speed of sound), or it could just be electronic noise

    • What does an explosion sound like when you listen in 3m distance of 70kg of the exploding warhead…

      Sound is just air movement / pressure changes vs the microphone.
      When explosive detonates the explosion & pressure wave move 8000m/s.
      In BUK case a lot of the explosion energy is transferred to shrapnel, but still there is the pressure wave (x000m/s).
      I think microphones recorded that wave.

      • Wind tunnel man // October 22, 2015 at 11:58 am // Reply

        “Sound is just air movement / pressure changes vs the microphone.”

        Thanks I understand now: rather like a microphone picking up “wind rattle” outdoors on a windy day. The pressure wave caused by the detonation, travelling faster than the shrapnel, transferred into cockpit interior air and that was recorded as sound peaks via the microphones?

        Amazing that they could determine the location of the pressure wave source if the wave was travelling so fast! I guess the pressure wave must have become subsonic in the cockpit interior?

  17. I think DSB had no mention where the blue paint came to the large hole in engine nozzle. Or how the blue textile got stuck on it.
    (/me just curious)

  18. talk of likelihood of pilot seeing the approaching missile ignores basic fact of an unexpected attack on civilian pilots who are not trained similar to military pilots,also ignores missile burnout which creates the designed effect of newer missiles with low smoke signatures designed to be hard to spot

    • Yep.
      Today watched some figter-jet low pass videos on youtube. The jet looks like a small dot in the horizon and only in final few seconds it can be detected to be a fighter jet. And that happens already in subsonic speeds. MH17 “met” the BUK at 4x the speed of sound.

    • Both of you should be banned for driving cars if your response times are in seconds. You are dangerous. It could be fun observing you two during scary movies in theaters. Whole audience gets screams and then two of you scream with delay. Classics.
      In any case, I’m not even talking about pilot taking action against the rocket, but just him or co-pilot acknowledging it through scream or swear. Nothing on voice recorder.
      SOTI, please reconsider 4x the speed of sound claim. Even if we ignore deceleration due to friction and gravity after engine was off, the relative speed of plane and rocket would be slightly above 1000 m/s. You seem to be pretty ignorant of physics, after your errogant statements earlier. But I’m not surprised, as you are typical white elf

      • sotilaspassi // October 24, 2015 at 10:59 am // Reply

        FYI: You act like a clown.

        • Information is accepted and will be given all serious consideration. For your information if you first make derogatory assertion about other’s ability to comprehend science and then show total lack of comprehension in science, that is just showing your bigotry. But I’m sure, as white elf, you can leave with it.
          Let’s give you one more chance: what is 4 x of speed of sound? Which temperature and atmospheric pressure we are considering.

      • sotilaspassi // October 24, 2015 at 11:06 am // Reply

        FYI: Speed of sound is 343m/s at ground level.
        (BUK and MH17 met at 2,6x…3x the speed of sound not 4.
        (1250m/s is max speed of buk at low altitude flight, IIRC))

        • Good, so you know that it is not 4x. And you ever clarified ground level. Not physics, but better than nothing. So why did you claim 4x?
          Why do you need to react to something for more than one second, while your senses allow you to beich faster?

          • sotilaspassi // October 24, 2015 at 11:56 am //

            > So why did you claim 4x?

            Hastily writing after considering the subsonic speed in the videos I saw.

            Just meant that as it is HARD to detect incoming jet in 1km distance on the video, when it’s coming 500km/h, detecting 45cm object at 4000km/h is 4x harder (impossible especially if not expecting it).

            >Why do you need to react to something for more than one second, while your senses allow you to beich faster?

            I’m pretty sure you are the only one that does not understand the matter that is being discussed.
            (my post with longer answer has been in moderation for a day)

      • I would not be so sure that pilots in the last seconds can not have given a shout, except of course when the BUK came from Zaroshenske. I think we must take this hypothesis more seriously and not dive off into tunnel vision.

      • “Both of you should be banned for driving cars if your response times are in seconds”
        comment made in relation to what exactly? no one said pilots response was slow,it never occurred at all,commercial pilots are not trained to detect incoming missiles nor is it an expectation they have,development of low smoke missiles was for precisely this reason,plume makes them easier to spot,BuK missile that downed MH17 would have reached burnout already.simply denying data and claiming pilot should have gasped or cursed is reaching and not relevant to what is known

        • Are you trained to scream in horror movies? We are talking here not just about some dark object on the white background, but dark object that moves and quickly increases in size. Human is very fast in responding to differentials. Here we have two people that were just seconds before told about incoming traffic that requires them to change the course. And pilot acknowledged the command. So they were not on autopilot and they were looking into the sky for foreign objects. After two planes collided In Switzerland due to ATC wrong commands. All pilots take it seriously. So we have desire and ability to detect incoming object. Which didn’t happen. And this argument works even for unrealistic upward trajectory proposed, instead of reverse J.

          • Anti,
            I would encourage you to glance at page 109 of the main DSB report.
            It states that no system warnings or cautions were recorded on MH17, such as the autopilot being disconnected.
            Hence it was not prematurely turned off.

            Honestly, I think the Captain was not concerning himself with looking out the front window, instead he was consulting the gauges and adjusting waypoints while the CoPilot was consulting the various manuals and atlas they have on board.
            Really looking out the wind shield is not necessary during flight.
            Could they have glanced up and saw something?
            Sure they could have, but it was unlikely that would have been a priority.
            And to catch just the right moment to see the non reflecting paint covered missile zooming at them would be unlikely.

            According to the CVR statement on page 257, ‘The communication between flight crew members gave no indication of malfunction or emergency prior to the occurrence.’

            In other words, No statements of, ‘look out the windshield for other objects in flight path.’

            You place your own distrust of ATC and paranoia on other pilots widely, and I do not think you actually know what was on the mind of the MH17 flight crew.
            Human reaction times vary, there is a reason they recommend a car length for every ~10 mph as you increase in speed.

            Time to react verbally is differently then physically of course, but a relaxed unprepared person (like a pilot) will have slower reaction times then a person that is consciously watching out the front windshield for potholes to avoid.
            A person with his MP3 player or texting with his gf will not be looking out the windshield and have an even large reaction time.
            If your nervous and expecting something and watching intently (as in a scary movie) your reaction times with be considerably faster.
            Even if your playing wack a troll, oops I mean mole, at an amusement park, your reaction times are figured and not many can do well with that game that your intently trying to do good at.
            And some of those trolls, oops moles did it again, stay up for a second at a time.

            Fare thee well

          • Boggled:

            It is perfectly legitimate to raise the question why the crew did not respond to the incoming missile. To avoid tunnel vision all options should be kept open. Unless one argues that the missile came from the right side, from Zaroshchenske, so then they would not make a sound.

          • Antidyatel // October 26, 2015 at 12:20 am //

            Boggled, your always coming out with excuses to save Bellingcat sect story. You seem less eager to accepts excuses from other side. Funny, isn’t it?
            Bit let me reiterate. Pilot was told by ATC that there is an incoming traffic on his route just seconds before the hit. After two planes collided In Switzerland mid air due to airtraffic idiotic commands, same happened in Brazil, pilots take such messages very seriously and double check by looking out. So both him and co-pilot would be looking out for any object in the sky that moves. And your assumptions is false

            AND who said that I mistrust ATC. What I mistrust is that FULL CVR and ATC communication transcript are still not published. There is nothing to hide there, but somehow they are not publishing it. Very suspicious.

            And as Basic Dimension pointed to you, the absence of any response from pilot or co-pilot on the incoming rocket from front is making that direction highly improbable and requiring your multiple bogus assumptions about mp3 players and texting girlfriends to stay relevant. While it makes a version of rocket coming from the side a clear winner based on Occam’s Razor.

          • Anti,
            you – Pilot was told by ATC that there is an incoming traffic on his route just seconds before the hit.
            me – Nearest plane was 30km away. What would have they seen?
            ATC did not report near miss or change current flight path.
            Just a plane was going to be near them.

            If I was in the cabin, I would have checked altitude, heading, speed and adjusted for transponder recognition of other aircraft.
            Looking out the windshield would have been a thing to consider near meeting point, but not at +30 km.

            You and I can guess about what the things pilots were doing.
            You simply stated, autopilot was off.
            I proved you wrong.

            I think you place to much importance on a statement about traffic in the region.
            There is a lot more in the neighborhood of an aerodrome (where they are watching out the windshield intently and trusting ATC to guide them correctly) then there is on that flight path.
            If the ATC mentioned flights in the area, the pilot would not be concerned unless ATC stated they needed to adjust to avoid.
            Glances outside the windshield could be probable, but concentrated effort like watching a scary movie for the first time or intently scanning the horizon like a hawk would be doubtful.

            ATC’s announcement would have just made the pilots verify FL they were on (check a gauge) and FL the other was on (adjust MFD and/or ask for it from ATC if there was risk of collision and possibly the direction the BOGEY was coming from) if the paths were to intersect.
            Those are on the Main Panel not in the sky.

            Fare thee well

  19. Question about BUK that I have not come across in the older manual yet but that only deals with a 9M38.
    Can a BUK standalone launcher’s targeting computer hold the missile until it is in a certain kill zone?
    Can the commander override that?

    We all know a TELAR can see far and TAR can see further.
    Imaging cameras can see various distances as well.

    I believe all these distances are beyond the standard 46 roughly km kill zone.
    The targeting range is 65 km to 77 km according to admin’s other article.

    Now, if there is a ‘hold’ the computer puts on the missile before launch, and the commander overrides it, does the targeting computer figure the most likely trajectory to achieve a kill?

    IN effect turning the missile into a kind of ‘smart bomb’?

    Goes up to the maximum height, then essentially glides down to the target with the battery controlling the gyroscope and the ailerons to maintain stable flight and a lower level of control then powered flight, but still some targeting control for the radar seeker?

    Personally, I do not think this happened concerning the shrapnel damage.
    But I think it may be a debate that comes up in the future.

    I am still not sure about flight attitude of the Boeing and how much nose up it had either and it did not seem like any of the presentations had any.
    It could be the Boeing is completely level.

    This video however looks like it might not be completely level during flight.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTR8bWRAbSU

    Another thing interesting about the video is how much the wings are up swept for those damage simulations, I imagine this would be important.

    Fare thee well

  20. Questions for DSB having no answers in final report.

    Question 28: What are the exact pitches and form of holes of filler, squares and bowties used by DSB to prove 9N314M?

    MH17- Crash Appendix Z TNO Report (M11094)

    Damage reconstruction

    3.4 Damage pattern analysis

    (See this picture:http://tinyurl.com/pddrmjz)

    [The observed perforation damage to panel AAHZ3163NL and window frame AAHZ3544NL points to a warhead with preformed fragments. The relative distance between individual fragment holes (the ‘pitch’) is an indicator for the distance between the warhead and the airplane. The pitch is used in Chapter 5 during the matching of the observed and simulated damage patterns. Figure 3.9 shows an enlargement of panel AAHZ3163NL. From the holes pattern a pitch is derived between two fragments of the same type of about 9-10 cm.]

    First question: We know 9N314 has big squares (13x13x8 MM). And 9N314M has bowties with virtually the same size (13x13x8.2 MM or 13×12.75×8 MM). To distinguish between bowties (9N314M) and big squares (9N314), the pitch and/or shape of the holes must be different. What are the distinct pitches and form of holes and where is this to be found in the text?

    The same for little squares in 9N314M and 9N314 (8x8x5 MM) and bowties in 9N314M (13x13x8.2 MM or 13×12.75×8 MM). What are the pitches and where to be found?

    Second question: If butterflies in the hull cannot be shown, possibly fillers can be proven with (6x6x8.2 MM)? Are there really found three forms of shrapnel holes in the hull? What are the pitch and form characteristics of filler of 9N314M?

    Third question: 9N314M has an inner layer of bowties and filler. The big squares on the outer layer cover 3/4 of the bowties and fillers of the inner layer. This gives the characteristic leap in shrapnel damage on the hull. 9N314 has an inner layer of only big squares (13x13x8 M) and the same outer layer of squares (8x8x5 MM) as 9N314M. Does this outer layer also cover 3/4 of the big inner squares? Does 9N314 show the same leap in shrapnel damage as 9N314M? Does this leap not distinguish between 9N314 and 9N314M?

    If DSB is able to prove filler elements it implicitly proves 9N314M.

    Bowties in the cockpit p(b) is a conditional probability on bowties first passing the hull p(bh): p(b|bh)>0. But fillers might be seen as stand in for bowties: p(b|fh)>0.

    Annex: MH17 Crash Appendix X – NLR Report

    2.7 Regularity of hits:

    http://tinyurl.com/pogxk6e

    http://tinyurl.com/noqeajl

  21. Bowties of warhead 9N314M on an old missile 9M38, launched from Zaroshchenske will ricochet with 17 degrees.

    http://tinyurl.com/olkktrs

    • A question for you: what is this?

    • Wind tunnel man // November 2, 2015 at 3:23 am // Reply

      Basic Dimension:

      Looks like somebody has tried to demonstrate ricochet/deflection damage caused by a “bow-tie” fragment by using the “Damage pattern analysis” Figure 3.9 from page 10 of the DSB appendix y report. The picture caption describes the holes as “elongated with a typical narrowing in the middle” – guess that could indicate strikes by “bow-ties” from above and in front on the panel below the rear port cockpit window. But from A-A’s photos (slide 4 of their report) of that panel the shrapnel has penetrated through the skin and damaged the underlying structures consistent with either 13mm x 13mm x 8.2mm bow-ties (9N314M) or 13mm x 13mm x 8mm cubes (9N314).

      • It is as Wind tunnel man said. Ricochet/deflection of bowties can be very realistic with a launch from Zaroshchenske.

        Remember if shrapnel on the cockpit hull really can be divided into two parts, to the left possibly bowties (13x13x8.2 MM) and fillers (6x6x8.2 MM), and to the right possibly bowties, fillers and squares (8x8x5 MM), then we must see if in a statistical sense on the left there really are two kinds and on the right three kinds of shrapnel. We know the numbers and proportions of bowties and filler without outer layer of squares (left side of the cockpit).

        And with 9N314, on the left side of the cockpit hull only big squares (13x13x8 MM) would be found. So we definitely can come to a conclusion. We must give every scenario a real opportunity to prove itself.

        Further we must investigate if the pitch of bowties (9-10 cm) from 9N314M is different from big squares (13x13x8 MM) from 9N314. And we must see if their holes in the hull are really different.

        Hence, first thing to determine is the acute angle of bowties on the hull (17 degrees).
        Not all bowties will ricochet/deflect, but a lot of them will. Penetrated bowties can make holes first but might be lost later in the crash. The window might have had a less sharp angle with bowties, maybe that’s the bowtie found in the captain’s body.

        The probability of bowties = p(b) in the cockpit is conditional on passing the hull (window)= p(bh). The conditional probability must be: p(b|bh)>0. But if fillers can be proven to the left side than p(b|fh)>0 will also prove the bowties in the cockpit.

        • Wind tunnel man // November 2, 2015 at 1:08 pm // Reply

          Basic Dimension:

          Do we have any definite details about 9N314 warheads? Are the 1790 13mm x 13mm x 8mm cubes in a 9N314 modified to 1870 13mm x 13mm x 8.2mm bow-ties with 1870 6mm x 6mm x 8.2mm filter cubes in a 9M314M warhead. And are the 4740 8mm x 8mm x 5mm cubes in a 9M314 modified in number to 4100 8mm x 8mm x 5mm cubes in a 9M314M forming a similar layered design?

          It seems that the numbers of 13mm x 13mm x 8mm cubes and 13mm x 13mm x 8.2mm bow-ties, i.e. 1790 versus 1870, doesn’t match. That suggests the warheads will possibly have a differing shape and/or size and hence different fragmentation spread patterns and pitch distances between fragments over a specific range (and indeed whether a 9N314M warhead could be fitted to an older 9M38 missile.)

          Your suggestion to validate whether or not a 9N314M warhead was used by considering if there are three sizes of holes and how they are dispersed is certainly valid – in particular there should not be holes created by 6xmm x 6mm x 8.2mm filler cubes if a 9N314 warhead was used.

          • Wind tunnel man // November 2, 2015 at 1:15 pm //

            Sorry typo: should have been 9N314 and 9N314M and not 9M314 and 9M314M when I was talking about fragment sizes.

          • There is not a lot of information avaiable on the size and number of fragments in 9N314 and 9N314M.
            Alma did a presentation and showed sizes. We are not sure about the reliability. DSB mentioned sizes. As these are agreed by all parties we have to assume these are correct.

          • Wind tunnel man:

            Good arguments with which I mostly agree. I only proposed a methodological way out to find the truth. And you illustrated this with practical objections. Then admin told us there might already be a lot of agreement in the field.

            Now, first we have to agree about the strategy to choose between 9N314 and 9N314M. This might be very simple and I think we might agree. After we made a unanimous choice we accept the outcome of the investigation. And in the third instance – and if we decide to 9N314M – we first must built new theories to explain the loss of bowties. And if we come so far we really made a lot of progress.

          • In the second instance we might not have reliable information on the size and number of fragments in 9N314 and 9N314M.

            But for our most intriguing question this information is not needed. To decide between 9N314 and 9N314M we simply must prove how many different kinds of shrapnel are on the left side and on the right side.

            If there are two kinds of shrapnel left and three on the right we might choose for 9N314M. If there is one to the left and two to the right we might conclude to 9N314.

  22. Reality check.

    9M38 and 9M38M(1) launched from Zaroshchenske:
    -would detonate on right side of the MH17.
    -would cause shrapnel movement from right to left
    -would have been seen by eyewitness

    On MH17 we see the exact opposite:
    -detonation happened on the left side of the plane
    -shrapnel traveled from left to right
    -missile launch (+launcher) was seen from south of snizhne, not from Z

    • Sotilaspassi:

      [9M38 and 9M38M(1) launched from Zaroshchenske:
      -would detonate on right side of the MH17.]

      1: Could be in the perfect horizontal plane, but it also depends on the vertical course angle of 21 degrees. In the vertical plane choosing between right wing and nose would make no difference.

      2: Maybe the sensitivity of the proximity fuse was influenced as not has been falsified until now.

      [-would cause shrapnel movement from right to left]

      1: I would agree.

      [-would have been seen by eyewitness]

      – This is a very weak argument. Several weeks ago a Dutch journalist was in Zaroshchenske and nobody dared to have heard the launch of a BUK.

      Proof always starts from the corpus delicti. In this case we start from the holes in the cockpit. From there in modern science we do not work with strings as in the Middle Ages but with logical arguments. Not infrequently the farther from the holes in the cockpit, the weaker the arguments.

  23. Wind tunnel man // November 2, 2015 at 4:36 pm // Reply

    Basic Dimension:

    When you say “To decide between 9N314 and 9N314M we simply must prove how many different kinds of shrapnel are on the left side and on the right side,” I assume you referring to the positions of different kinds of shrapnel within the frag spread, i.e. left being aft and right being forward in relation to the foreward and aft damage on MH17’s cockpit section?

    Please also note that on slide 28 of the A-A report it’s very difficult to distinguish the difference between the holes created by 6mm x 6mm x 8.2mm filler diamond/cube fragments and 8mm x 8mm x 5mm diamond/cube fragments. When one only has access to photographs of the damage to MH17 then I’m sure you’ll agree that determining what caused the smaller holes is virtually impossible – did the Dutch find 3 distinctive shapes of holes, A-A believed there were only 2, i.e. from the smaller and larger diamond/cubes?

    However your reasoning regarding the proportions of small to large fragments in particular areas of the frag spread is certainly valid, if I’m understanding your description of “left” and “right” correctly.

    • Wind tunnel man:

      Yes sorry, misunderstanding, I mean left on next picture and not in relation to the aircraft:
      I refer to fig. 5.3 of Appendix Z of the TNO report (page 19 of 41):
      http://tinyurl.com/q4gfzse.

      I will keep better administration in the following:

      Bowties (red) and fillers (blue) are seen on the front portion of the cockpit hull (left at the picture).
      Bowties, fillers and squares (yellow) are seen on the rear portion (right at the picture).
      I understand these areas as the typical fract distribution delivered by 9N314M warheads.

      9N314M gives: 6x6x8.2 MM filler diamond/cube fragments, which we expect on both sides left and right at the picture. Together with the bowties they form the inner layer of the warhead.

      9N314M also gives: 8x8x5 MM diamond/cube fragments. These are the big squares in the outer layer of the warhead and are only to be expected at the right side of the picture.

      9N314 gives: 13x13x8 MM big cubes as inner layer, to be found left and right at the picture. And it gives 8x8x5 MM cubes only to be found in the outer layer.

      Again we must separate methodological from practical and political questions:

      You write and I agree: [When one only has access to photographs of the damage to MH17 then I’m sure you’ll agree that determining what caused the smaller holes is virtually impossible – did the Dutch find 3 distinctive shapes of holes, A-A believed there were only 2, i.e. from the smaller and larger diamond/cubes?]

      You mean the following:

      A-A found to the left of the picture: Big cubes 13x13x8 MM.
      A-A found to the right of the picture: Big cubes 13x13x8 MM + little cubes 8x8x5 MM.

      DSB found to the left of the picture: Bowties 13x13x8.2 MM and filler 6x6x 8.2 MM.
      DSB found to the right of the picture: Bowties 13x13x8.2 MM and filler 6x6x 8.2 MM + little cubes 8x8x5 MM.

      Do you see it would be WEIRD if A-A found left at the picture only very big cubes of 9N314: 13x13x8 MM (or bowties of 9N314M: 13x13x8.2 MM) but would completely miss the much smaller filler of 9N314M: 6x6x8.2 MM on the left side? If we can narrow the dispute to this point it must be solvable by physical inspection by A-A.

      [Please also note that on slide 28 of the A-A report it’s very difficult to distinguish the difference between the holes created by 6mm x 6mm x 8.2mm filler diamond/cube fragments and 8mm x 8mm x 5mm diamond/cube fragments.]

      That’s not the point; the point is not detecting filler at the left side of the picture. Remember, bowties are the biggest elements and fillers are the smallest of this investigation. This is where our problem focuses: Is there any filler on the left side of the picture?

      So, if a very important conclusion of research about the death of 298 innocent civilians hangs on the inspecting of raw data by third parties, science would be kidding. I cannot accept A-A and independent institutes are not allowed to physical inspection and measurements of found holes in the hull of the cockpit. DSB is morally and scientifically obliged to allow other scientific institutes to physical inspection of raw data.

      • Wind tunnel man // November 2, 2015 at 11:04 pm // Reply

        Basic Dimension:

        You write and I agree: [When one only has access to photographs of the damage to MH17 then I’m sure you’ll agree that determining what caused the smaller holes is virtually impossible – did the Dutch find 3 distinctive shapes of holes, A-A believed there were only 2, i.e. from the smaller and larger diamond/cubes?]

        “You mean the following:

        A-A found to the left of the picture: Big cubes 13x13x8 MM.
        A-A found to the right of the picture: Big cubes 13x13x8 MM + little cubes 8x8x5 MM.”

        I think firstly A-A didn’t accept that at the moment of detonation the missile was heading from the direction of Snizhne due to the damage pattern/distribution and the direction of penetrations, then they were unable to locate any indications of penetrations made by bow-tie shaped fragments and the penetrations that they did see were consistent with the two sizes of diamond/cube fragments found in the older 9N314 warheads.

        Because they believed, due to the damage pattern/distribution, direction of penetrations, no bow-tie shaped holes and their knowledge of the fragmentation spreads, that a 9M38/9N314 launch from the Zaroshens’ke area was more likely. From the photos of MH17 there do appear to be variously sized holes and impact marks beginning just aft of the forward pressure bulkhead. I would think that would indicate the rearmost area of the frag spread and from that point aft they probably assessed the distribution of the two sizes of diamond/cube fragments consistent with a 9N314 warhead’s frag spread pattern/distribution.

        The 9N314 frag spread pattern doesn’t seem to have been disclosed publicly (?) so perhaps we can only speculate about the possible distribution of the two sizes of diamond/cube fragments and how they would appear in TNO‘s illustration figure 5.3. TNO’s illustration is based on their version of events and the characteristics of the warhead used and may not be relevant to A-A’s 9M38/9N314/Zaroshens’ke version.

        • Wind tunnel man:

          Thanks for your reaction.

          Last week I came to the conclusion all parties involved in the MH17 disaster have agreed to disagree and to close this case.

          [I think firstly A-A didn’t accept that at the moment of detonation the missile was heading from the direction of Snizhne due to the damage pattern/distribution and the direction of penetrations, then they were unable to locate any indications of penetrations made by bow-tie shaped fragments and the penetrations that they did see were consistent with the two sizes of diamond/cube fragments found in the older 9N314 warheads.]

          Well, that’s not what I asked. We all know AA thinks of Zaroshchenske but that need not obstruct their participation in the following:

          Would AA be inclined to investigate physically if there are any holes of FILLERS on the left side of the picture, right after the forward pressure bulkhead?

          [Because they believed, due to the damage pattern/distribution, direction of penetrations, no bow-tie shaped holes and their knowledge of the fragmentation spreads, that a 9M38/9N314 launch from the Zaroshens’ke area was more likely.]

          Well, we know the strategic position of AA, but that need not frustrate the whole investigation. Would AA be inclined to investigate physically if there are any holes of FILLERS on the left side of the picture, right after the forward pressure bulkhead?

          [From the photos of MH17 there do appear to be variously sized holes and impact marks beginning just aft of the forward pressure bulkhead. I would think that would indicate the rearmost area of the frag spread and from that point aft they probably assessed the distribution of the two sizes of diamond/cube fragments consistent with a 9N314 warhead’s frag spread pattern/distribution.]

          Yes, tunnelvision what they blame DSB. Would AA be inclined to investigate physically if there are any holes of FILLERS on the left side of the picture, right after the forward pressure bulkhead? At the moment we are not interested in cube fragments.

          [The 9N314 frag spread pattern doesn’t seem to have been disclosed publicly (?) so perhaps we can only speculate about the possible distribution of the two sizes of diamond/cube fragments and how they would appear in TNO‘s illustration figure 5.3. TNO’s illustration is based on their version of events and the characteristics of the warhead used and may not be relevant to A-A’s 9M38/9N314/Zaroshens’ke version.]

          Now you are kidding me. I don’t believe this. This all cannot be secret information because this rusty warhead 9N314 has been developed 25 years ago and is passed out in Russia; the world is still full of them.

          Of course DSB could have ordered Ukraine to bring them a truckload. But I guess it was not in their political interest to do so. DSB did not want to hear anything about 9N314 because that would point to Ukraine.

          Hence, I don’t buy this argument. DSB must have agreed Ukraine refused to offer all kinds of information about 9N314, inclusive the frag spread, which information they definitely must have or immediately can produce if wanted. Ukraine must still have hundreds of 9N314.

          Well, let’s guess 9N314 and 9N314M are essentially the same on frag spread as disposed on http://tinyurl.com/q4gfzse. The numbers of fragments might be changed a bit, the outer layer could have been altered somewhat but that’s it. It’s only to master de gas explosion that bowties were developed.

          Not revealing frag spread information of 9M314 must somehow be profitable for Ukraine, for DSB, for AA and for the RF and this all looks a deliberate stalemate, the second after the omission of primary radar data.

          • Wind tunnel man // November 3, 2015 at 3:19 am //

            Basic Dimension:

            “Well, let’s guess 9N314 and 9N314M are essentially the same on frag spread as disposed on http://tinyurl.com/q4gfzse. The numbers of fragments might be changed a bit, the outer layer could have been altered somewhat but that’s it. It’s only to master de gas explosion that bowties were developed.”

            Please proceed with your investigations into the distribution of fragments on MH17 – if there is conclusive evidence that it was not hit by a combination of 3 different types of striking elements (cube, filler cube and bow-tie) in the manner described by NTO in their “Snizhne launch” scenario then we can probably rule out a 9N314M warhead approaching from that direction.

            A-A, in my opinion, did cast considerable doubt upon the validity of the conclusions contained in the DSB report and it’s appendixes with their static live test on the IL-86 simulating a 9M38M1/9N314M approaching from the Snizhne direction. Obviously the frag spread lacked the characteristics which one would expect if the missile was actually travelling at approximately 700m/s at an altitude of 10 kilometres but it did give a good indication of the penetration direction and pattern/distribution of the shrapnel. Would a 9M38/9N314 detonation looks similar? Perhaps it would but I guess there would be a smaller proportion of smaller holes…

  24. RESTORING PERPENDICULARITY OF IMPACT HOLES

    NLR (Dutch Aerospace Laboratory) and TNO (The Netherlands Organisation of Applied Research) developed their clever 9N314M theory mainly on the basis of raw data obtained from the cockpit hull of MH17. But they only developed an interesting after the facts hypothesis, which still had to be tested in a practical experiment. That’s why AA did an amazing job with all shortcomings. At the end of our hypothetical research plan AA, together with NLR and TNO will test 9N314 against 9N314M (already done), paid by third parties.

    The Netherlands has emotionally called for closer cooperation with the Russian Federation in the investigation into the cause of the disaster of the MH17. Well Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs Bert Koenders, grab your chance, here your plan:

    In science it is common to make raw data available so others can replicate findings. If not, research will be rejected in the field, but also in court. Therefore, I urgently request NLR to make available the raw data referred to in this comment. Raw data are barely needed to test whether the – after the facts – hypothesis 9N314M can be true or must be rejected in favor of some alternative hypothesis as 9N314.

    NLR is urgently invited to make publicly available on the Internet all raw data of 350 independent holes found in the cockpit of MH17. We would like the following information for each independent hole in the file:

    The file of raw data:

    – From all holes we want sharp pictures taken from standard distance of about 10 cm: (http://tinyurl.com/nwpyyqd).

    – Holes must be scored dichotomic as left side (0) or right side (1) on this picture: (http://tinyurl.com/q4gfzse).

    – Holes must get coordinates in above two dimensional plane.

    – Holes must get the measure perpendicular on the direction of impact: (http://tinyurl.com/o7ndf9u).

    – Holes must get the Azimuth value of the supposed direction of impact in the above plane: (http://tinyurl.com/q4gfzse).

    – Holes must get an estimate of the (acute) angle of direction of impact, after which in three dimensional space we shrink and frame this impact dimension to normal perpendicular values again for each individual hole. Hence, we will manage to look from aside holes with acute impact to above holes with perpendicular impact.

    – We expect most holes to have about the same angle of direction of impact, what means we can easily reconstruct perpendicular impacts for 350 holes together. But directions may vary on the basis of the underlying theory of 9N314M. But in the end we see all holes as with perpendicular impact. As a consequence we might get more realistic measures of shrapnel on the hull.

    – Speed might differ somewhat for bowties and filler versus cubes. Categorical solutions might be needed in the interaction between speed and angles of direction of impact. But the expectation is with some trial and error we will find the real adaptations for kinds of shrapnel. Remember speed might be relevant because it can elongate the trace at very acute angles.

    NLR-CR-2015-155-PT-1 (Appendix Y report = NLR)

    Page 11:

    The Dutch National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR) was asked by the Dutch Safety Board to participate in the investigation of the impact damage due to high-energy objects on the wreckage of flight MH17.

    The work was performed as follows: First, the damage on the wreckage was thoroughly examined and quantified.

    Page 13:

    2.1
    Types of observed impact damage
    The impact damage due to the high-energy objects was investigated on the wreckage of the cockpit:

    Four types of impact damage were identified:
    1.Piercing damage.
    2.Plugging damage.
    3.Non-penetrating damage.
    4.Ricochet damage.

    Page 33:

    -Over 350 hits are present on the wreckage of the cockpit and over 800 hits are estimated in total, accounting for the structure of the cockpit that was not available.

    -The size of the penetration damage indicates that the objects that caused the damage to the cockpit had a size in the range of 6-14 mm: (http://tinyurl.com/nahug3m).

    Page 18:

    2.6 Size of penetration damage
    On the piece of cockpit skin with the highest number of penetrations, the size of the holes caused by these penetrations was measured (Figure 12).
    Only the damage that was assessed to be the result of single objects fully penetrating the plate was taken into account. Of each hole the dimension perpendicular to the impact direction was measured: (Figure 13): (http://tinyurl.com/o7ndf9u).
    Only this dimension gives an indication of the size of the object that caused the damage. The larger dimension, parallel to the projection of the impact direction on the plate, is the result of the speed and the angle at which the object impacts the plate. As can be seen in Figure 14, the size was found to range from 6 mm to 14 mm.

    Now we know the following: NLR/TNO postulated this: (http://tinyurl.com/q4gfzse), corresponding to this: (http://tinyurl.com/p464ekg) (Above is the left side of the picture). This is done very well.

    But remember this is a wrong statement:

    [The size of the penetration damage indicates that the objects that caused the damage to the cockpit had a size in the range of 6-14 mm: (http://tinyurl.com/nahug3m).]

    Because, they measured but one side of shrapnel, and now they run into difficulties of separating kinds of shrapnel. Now it becomes critical if they manage to identify fillers from cubes and cubes from bowties. That’s why I propose the intermediate step of restoring perpendicular impacts.

    NLR, please release the raw frequencies for the whole table:
    (http://tinyurl.com/nahug3m), but also broken down for to left and right side of the cockpit on this picture: (http://tinyurl.com/q4gfzse).

    Are frequency distributions significantly different?

    NLR, will you please make all cross tables for us and ask for significance tests between tables? If they differ significantly it must be because of the big cubes (8x8x5 MM) on the right side if we adhere to 9N314M: (http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr).

    This is what we are looking for:

    Bowties (red) and fillers (blue) are seen on the front portion of the cockpit hull (left at the picture).
    Bowties, fillers and squares (yellow) are seen on the rear portion (right at the picture): (http://tinyurl.com/q4gfzse).
    I understand these areas as the typical fract distribution delivered by 9N314M warheads: (http://tinyurl.com/p464ekg).

    9N314M gives: 6x6x8.2 MM filler diamond/cube fragments, which we expect on both sides left and right at the picture. Together with the bowties they form the inner layer of the warhead.

    9N314M also gives: 8x8x5 MM diamond/cube fragments. These are the big squares in the outer layer of the warhead and are only to be expected at the right side of the picture: (http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr).

    9N314 gives: 13x13x8 MM big cubes as inner layer, to be found left and right at the picture. And it gives 8x8x5 MM cubes only to be found in the outer layer to the right. But the latter is not certain and we are not yet proving 9N314 in the rebound. We only want to reject 9N314M. Falsifying a hypothesis does not force to prove another one.

    NLR, you conclude fillers on the left side of the table, which means:

    – NLR first must have discriminated fillers (6x6x8.2 MM) from diamond/cube fragments (8x8x5 MM) on the right side significantly. NLR might have found 5 MM elements at the right side. But cubes with 5 MM are not to be found on the left side.

    Hence, if NLR did not detect cube fragments (8x8x5 MM) on the left side this confirmed their theoretical grounds, otherwise 9N314M is disconfirmed. But remember confirming a hypothesis does not mean it is the true state of nature, only the theory has not been falsified.

    All the way we see NLR/TNO run into big trouble without corrected impact holes.

    It also is possible NLR did not discriminate significantly between fillers (6x6x8.2 MM) and cubes (8x8x5 MM) on the right side. Then they possibly found the proportion of fillers/cubes on the right side is significantly greater than on the left side. But now NLR runs into trouble because the distribution of 9N314 is not known. May be 9N314 has a completely different frag distribution, which we go explore with the Russians.

    Remember in the total frequency table fillers (6x6x8.2 MM) and cube fragments (8x8x5 MM) are messed up in category 6 MM, because fillers have a bigger minimum (6) than cubes (5). That’s why we want a breakdown of the 6 MM frequency column, broken down in 6 and 5 MM. It would be strange no cube fragments (8x8x5 MM) were gone through the hull at their 5 MM side: (http://tinyurl.com/o7ndf9u), but it is possible.

    This all must be corrected by estimating perpendicular impacts. Maybe butterflies can be reconstructed too.

    If raw frequencies are broken down for the left and right side of the picture and differentiated to 6 and 5 MM we have the following questions to NLR:

    To resume:

    NLR, are fillers (6x6x8.2 MM) and little cubes (8x8x5 MM) significantly different on the right side of the picture? I.e. can you identify fillers on the right side? Can you identify any 9N314M shrapnel on the right side? Can you identify bowties?

    NLR, can you prove/disprove fillers on the left side. Are there any fragments in the 5 MM category on the left side?

    NLR, remember if you found 8 MM on the left side it can be bowties (13x13x8.2 MM) (or 13×12.75×8 MM) (http://tinyurl.com/phvmqfh), but also diamond/cube fragments (8x8x5 MM) or big cubes (13x13x8 MM) of 9N314.

    If you cannot identify fillers (6x6x8.2 MM) on the left side as different from little cubes (8x8x5 MM) on the right side the hypothesis 9N314M is not confirmed. It might be true but is not confirmed.

    With the methodology of reconstruction of perpendicularity of impact holes we have a powerful instrument which can shed new light on the case, if it works.

    But first NLR/TNO, you give us the raw data, you have the key to cooperation. We expect you to provide this information to the world out of respect for the victims. We expect the Dutch parliament, if necessary, to be to your assistance.

  25. MH17: 9N314M DEBUNKED AND FALSIFIED

    DSB’s preconception of the launch of a BUK from Snizhne with warhead 9N314M turns out to be a distortion of the facts. A launch from Zaroshchenske with warhead 9N314 might fit the data better:

    http://tinyurl.com/oq35vma
    http://tinyurl.com/okx7sgq

    if DSB’s conception of how MH17 is shot down is disconfirmed, accusations will be worthless in court and the Dutch people should reckon with bitter disappointments. It concerns the launch site (Snizhne) and the postulated warhead (9N314M).

    There are a number of legitimate arguments against a launch from Snizhne. But here we focus on disconfirming 9N314M.

    http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr

    How must scientists cooperate with militaries and politicians? Can they put scientific stamps on unvalidated theories? Of course not, because then they implicitly would take responsibility for immanent assumptions.

    So, how is MH17 linked to politics and the military?

    DSB report Appendix, Z page 13:

    4.3 Warhead
    [Starting point for the terminal ballistics simulation [by TNO:The Netherlands Organisation of Applied Research] is a warhead with preformed fragments. In consultation with DSB, NLR [Dutch Aerospace Laboratory] and the Netherlands Ministry of Defence warhead 9N314M of Surface to Air Missile(SAM) type 9M38M1 has been modelled.]

    Page 3:
    [This study uses classified data as meant by the Wet Bescherming Staatsgeheimen(state secrets act). The text of this report is inspected and released for publication by the Netherlands Ministry of Defence.]

    TNO as a scientific institute accepted insufficient substantiated assumptions of the 9N314M model from political and military institutes. In this way, TNO granted the predicate ‘scientific’ to a form of tunnelvision.

    TNO better started with the facts from scratch. In any case, it would have been better if TNO also explored 9N314 as kind of control on 9N314M.

    In the following we debunk warhead 9N314M as form of tunnelvision of DSB and show how TNO easily could have disconfirmed 9N314M. As follows:

    The Russians say not to use 9N314 warheads any longer, which are still in use by Ukraine. Like Ukraine, Russians use the modern 9N314M. So if DSB can prove 9N314M downed MH17, Russians are involved as possible perpetrators.

    The main difference between warheads 9N314 and 9N314M is a piece of steel in the form of a bow-tie, also called the double T or butterfly:

    http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr

    This bowtie is only to be found in 9N314M. Hence, the real fight is not about the BUK but about the bowties. Who can prove 9N314M involves the Russians, otherwise 9N314 could point to Ukraine.

    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. Only on logical grounds we will refute the hypothesis of: ‘bowties found in MH17 as coming from the missile used’.

    Time is running out and soon there will be no control on raw data of MH17 any longer. Now DSB already made an extra hole in the forward pressure bulkhead (the nose of MH17) inadvertently.

    Bowtie evidence of DSB is very doubtful, since they only found two bowties and two cubes of (apparently) 9N314M. But their chemical analysis of aluminum (hull) and zirconium (windshield) on the bowties sticks to a qualitative assessment of the origin. It seems to be based on face value with the naked eye through a microscope.

    Now the problem is the probability of bowties in the cockpit (p(b)) is dependent on – or conditional on – the passage of bowties through the cockpit hull (p(bh)) or through the windshield.

    In theory we also could accept the passage of fillers through the hull (p(fh)), because they correlate perfectly with bowties. Then, DSB has to prove the conditional probability (|) of: p(b|bh)>0 or p(b|fh)>0. In other words DSB has to prove butterfly holes or filler holes in the cockpit hull.

    That’s to say, fillers are acceptable as stand in for bowties only if we don’t know how many bowties are to be expected. That’s why we need exact quantities. And because the number of bowties projected perpendicular on the cockpit hull – from a very short distance of only 3 meter – is exactly known, we demand full proof of butterflies in the hull.

    If DSB cannot prove this conditional probability > 0 – for example because pieces of the roof are lost or missing(?) – then the single bowtie in the captain’s body must have penetrated in a different way.

    Because DSB refuses to give the raw data of holes in the cockpit hull in a orderly and systematic manner, we use logical reasoning to debunk 9N314M. We think warhead 9N314M is not confirmed. What not means we attach to 9N314.

    DSB report Appendix X
    Report no NLR-CR-2015-155-PT-1

    Page 60

    6.17 Matching modeled and observed fragmentation damage

    [The best match was obtained for a detonation location of the warhead of 0.25 metres ahead of the aircraft’s nose, 3 metres to the left of, and 3.7 metres above the tip of the nose.]

    Like this: TNO report appendix Y, page 7:http://tinyurl.com/pyrhmr2)

    [The missile was travelling at a speed of approximately 700 m/s in the opposite direction to the direction of flight of the aircraft [azimuth 118], approaching 7 degrees from below and 20 degrees from the right [azimuth 318] with respect to the aircraft forward axis.] (like this: http://tinyurl.com/oq35vma)

    The requirement of perpendicularity

    But if a BUK was launched from Snizhne with azimuth 318 dgr and elevation 7 dgr and the warhead was a cylinder, then a lot of shrapnel was projected nearly perpendicular on the cockpit hull.

    This because the distance between warhead and aircraft was only three meters and they were nearly parallel. Hence one side of the warhead, a slice of about 50 degrees of the longitudinal axis of the cylinder was exactly parallel with the hull of MH17:

    http://tinyurl.com/nuvn9t8
    http://tinyurl.com/qffwbg6

    Note the slice exactly corresponds to the theory of 9N314M: On the left side we only see bowties and fillers and on the right side we see bowties, fillers and cubes:

    http://tinyurl.com/oxxy56l

    But it is very sad no roofparts were found in the wreckage:

    http://tinyurl.com/qbdbtfg
    http://tinyurl.com/pcwlxvw

    Hence it seems 9N314M cannot be rejected.

    No swirls or tumblings

    As said, about such a short distance no swirls or tumblings of shrapnel are to be expected, since thrust of the blast is much stronger than aerodynamic drag. Then in a statistical sense we may forget the side views of bowties, fillers and cubes since they will not have turned in this short distance. But this means most shrapnel entered the hull as we see their upper side on the warhead:

    http://tinyurl.com/p464ekg

    Hence we expect, NO WE DEMAND most shrapnel elements to have made holes in the cockpit hull WITH THEIR TOPSIDE. So in this restricted area we definitely demand BUTTERFLIES IN THE HULL.

    But we need some cockpit roof to falsify 9N314M.

    http://tinyurl.com/qzhydqk

    So, in this 50 degree area projected on the hull of MH17 we expect following measures:

    To the left we expect to see:

    Bowties 13x13x8.2 MM
    Fillers 6x6x 8.2 MM

    To the right:

    Cubes 8x8x5 MM
    Bowties 13x13x8.2 MM
    Fillers 6x6x 8.2 MM

    Hence, if there was a roof we could perfectly test the hypothesis (9N314M) for the restricted area of:

    http://tinyurl.com/pypyptf

    The warhead

    Page 54:

    6.12
    Number and density of hits.

    [The 9N314M warhead is composed of approximately 7800 preformed fragments of three different shapes which are arranged in two layers. A digital reconstruction of the 9N314M warhead fragment arrangement can be seen in Figure 50:]

    http://tinyurl.com/p464ekg
    http://tinyurl.com/q8uh4qa
    http://tinyurl.com/ncmtkjs

    [The inner layer consists of bowtie and filler fragments and spans the entire length of the warhead. The outer layer consists of squares and spans approximately three quarters of the warhead length as can be seen by the change in diameter on the top half of Figure 49:(http://tinyurl.com/qdpdc5r). The number and density of hits on the wreckage of the cockpit is consistent with the number and density of hits expected from the detonation of a 9N314M warhead.]

    Last remark has not yet been proven, as I asked NLR in the earlier comment.

    What are the proportions of hits expected from detonation of a 9N314M warhead?

    Following AA: (http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr),
    9N314M has 7840 shrapnel elements:

    Cubes (4100) + bowties (1870) + fillers (1870) = 7840

    Calculation surface of different kinds of shrapnel:

    Cubes 8×8= 64 x 4100 = 262400 MMSQ
    Bowties 13×13= 169 x 1870 = 316030 MMSQ
    Fillers 6×6= 36 x 1870 = 67320 MMSQ

    (Bowties + fillers) – cubes = 383350 – 262400 = 120950
    Cubes / (Bowties + fillers) = 262400/383350 = .68 = 70 %

    This agrees with: ‘The outer layer consists of squares and spans approximately three quarters of the warhead length as can be seen by the change in diameter on the top half of figure 49.’

    Hence, 32 % of bowties and fillers are lying free from cubes. And
    68 %lies under cubes.

    Now, we have an estimate for the ratio between shrapnel on the left and on the right, but not yet for the expected frequencies. For less than half the shrapnel goes to the aircraft.

    What quantities are to be expected from the 50 degree projection?

    As said earlier, we think 50/360 = 14%of the shrapnel comes nearly perpendicular on the plane:

    http://tinyurl.com/pypyptf

    To the left we expect to see:

    Bowties = .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84
    Fillers = .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84

    To the right:

    Cubes = .14 x .68 x 4100 = 390
    Bowties = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178
    Fillers = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178

    We definitely can expect 84 + 178 = 262 butterflies in our 50 degrees segment and there are no excuses. Presence of fillers is no longer sufficient. Bowties must be shown also.

    How the wreck looks:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNNOX2O1cFQ

    Now we all know DSB made a mess of the investigation. They waited 6 to 8 months with gathering the wreckage. Meanwhile a lot of wreckage has disappeared inexplicably. If journalists and mourning relatives of victims had not made pictures we would have lost a lot of evidence to falsify 9N314M.

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/new-photos-of-mh17-rooftop-in-russia-today-documentary/#prettyPhoto

    http://tinyurl.com/nvc99fm

    But we are very lucky to have saved some pictures of the roof on the left side of the plane and we have the left front windshield of the cockpit. And guess what, it all falls directly within our 50 degree area, so in the rebound we can test the 9N314M hypothesis.

    There can be NO escape for butterflies on the roof any longer. There are NO acute angles, NO ricochets and there is NO non-penetrating shrapnel. If there were bowties, they must have massively left butterfly impressions. And we know by what quantities.

    All the preconditions are met and all obstacles have been removed. If not any butterflies are visible in the roof, 9N314M is definitely debunked.

    http://tinyurl.com/n9q79c3
    http://tinyurl.com/owyaxvn
    http://tinyurl.com/phagxf6

    Falsifying 9N314M gave big problems, for our slice of 50 degrees of the longitudinal axis of the cylinder projected on the hull (the roof) seemed to be gone by the enormous bombardment. But fortunately the left front windshield covers half of the left side of our hypothesis: it must have let passed half of the bowties and half of the fillers, which quantities we estimate as 42 bowties and 42 fillers:

    http://tinyurl.com/pa42zge

    The results

    The left side of the 9N314M hypothesis:

    http://tinyurl.com/ofelwmp

    The front windshield on the left side of the plane has been saved more or less:

    http://tinyurl.com/oaey37u

    It has been quite possible to estimate the right quantities of fillers and bowties.

    http://tinyurl.com/o3fb54r
    http://tinyurl.com/oy6tnnf
    http://tinyurl.com/oaey37u
    http://tinyurl.com/nngv55z
    http://tinyurl.com/q4r9o2t

    Because the nearly perpendicular projection from the warhead on the plane contains 14%of the shrapnel, this means 84 bowties and 84 fillers have to give rather perfect images as holes on the plane at the left side. Half of that left side consists of the windshield. Following our estimation we expect 42 bowties and 42 fillers. But badly counting on the windshield gave an overestimation of 170 holes.

    http://tinyurl.com/ncctzo3

    Because we don’t know what impression bowties have to make in glass we conclude 9N314M has not been confirmed. 9N314M could be the true state of nature but has not been confirmed. It is not yet falsified.

    The right side of the 9N314M hypothesis:

    DSB report Page 57 of 279:

    [Upper left hand cockpit fuselage (1)
    A portion of the cockpit fuselage’s top section (STA236.5 to STA332.5) was located in the south-western region of site 1 (Figure 15). This part was not recovered. The fuselage showed evidence of perforation from the outside. The aft side of the fuselage skin was bent upwards and a number of formers and stringers were missing from the fuselage. The upper side of the fuselage showed traces of soot:]

    http://tinyurl.com/ox73ruu

    http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/new-photos-of-mh17-rooftop-in-russia-today-documentary/#prettyPhoto

    http://tinyurl.com/ox5q2kc
    http://tinyurl.com/pg7tptm

    On the right side we expect:
    Cubes = .14 x .68 x 4100 = 390
    Bowties = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178
    Fillers = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178

    The wreckage is from near the door so we might expect less shrapnel:

    Cubes = .14 x .68 x 4100 = 390 = 195 cubes = 100 cubes
    Bowties = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178 = 90 bowties = 50 bowties
    Fillers = .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178 = 90 fillers = 50 fillers

    No bowties are detected in this 50%area. We know the holes butterflies must make on aluminum and therefore we must decide 9N314M is falsified.

    The DSB research is based on wrong assumptions, tunnelvision twisted the facts. Then NLR and TWO pressed their scientific stamp on it. We cannot comment on 9N314 based on this investigation.

    • Not trying to negate your work, but there is a much simpler way to show that the warhead was not a 9N314M. Just try to find holes on the wreckage that look like these: http://savepic.su/6411148.jpg

      Remember that for Ukraine it would be very easy to plant the bow-tie fragments. They had exclusive access to the evidence material (wreckage, bodies) before passing it to the Dutch.

      But it would be impossible for Ukraine to change the holes in the cockpit after they’ve been photographed on site.

    • Foreword:

      The frag speed of warhead 9N314M is 2000 meter/sec. The distance of the point of detonation to the hull of MH17 is 3 meter. Hence within 3/2000 = 0.0015 second shrapnel enters the hull. The question is in what order shrapnel arrives at the hull in such short time. Is this in chaos as AA believes, or is this in perfect harmony as DSB supposes.

      Now Wind tunnel man showed good insight by bringing this dilemma to our attention:

      DSB believes the shrapnel composition of warhead 9N314M remains the same on the hull as it was on the warhead: left (bowties and fillers) and to the right (bowties, fillers and cubes). Then warhead 9N314M is projected on the cockpit roof of MH17 as an identical template:

      http://tinyurl.com/ofelwmp

      Even from the pitch between high energy objects DSB believes it can distinguish different types of shrapnel. Well, is it strange that I suppose this also means that shrapnel will land on the hull with the upside within 0.0015 second? So DSB must expect to see perfect butterflies on the hull:

      On the other hand AA believes in the chaos theory where much more is happening than in the big bang in the first 0.0015 second. But it turns out not chaos but also perfect harmony, for a lead bearing compound keeps all bowties in good order until the blast and directly after that spinning forces all shrapnel in parallel. That would be amazing to prove mathematically within such short time of 0.0015 second: spinning correcting the chaos of the blast.

      We know DSB had no roof to prove its theory, it is all simulation what is another word for science fiction. And the chaos theory can be true but is impossible to prove within a timeframe of only 0.0015 seconds.

      Hence we have no proven theory for how shrapnel behaves in the first 0.0015 second after the blast. What does this mean?

      Well of course DSB can project its template on a roof that is not there. But DSB cannot show bowties of warhead 9N314M went through the hull before entering the cockpit. And because this is a conditional probability for bowties in the cockpit, DSB cannot prove the origin of its two bowties and two cubes. DSB therefore cannot connect to the warhead the found bowties. But we will demonstrate 9N314M indeed can be falsified under the harmony assumption of DSB.

      Our proof uses the forgotten and disappeared roof plates on the left side of the plane. They were placed in front of the first left door (L1) after the cockpit. These plates contain a number of very neat and rather perpendicular holes which do not indicate to bowties.

      That’s why we conclude 9N314M is falsified by DSB’s own assumption of harmony.

      • Wind tunnel man // November 14, 2015 at 3:35 am // Reply

        Basic Dimension:

        Almaz Antey emphasised the scalpel/lancet form of the frag spread when a 9M38(M1) missile carrying a 9N314M warhead is detonated when travelling at speeds of more than 600m/s. When detonated at that speed 42% of the total payload of striking elements, in terms of weight and energy, is directed in a narrow area approximately between 75 to 95 degrees to the missile’s longitudinal axis – this is the scalpel core of the spray zone.

        If a 9N314M warhead is detonated when not moving (0m/s) then the scalpel/lancet core does not form adequately because the varying speeds of the fragments within the frag spread are not brought into a concentrated radial region. If one looks at A-A’s IL-86 static test there is a certain amount of fragment concentration (slide 56 of their presentation) but if the missile had been moving then the shrapnel would probably have sliced through the IL-86 target like a surgeon’s scalpel due to it’s increased concentration at that range.

        We don’t have much detail about 9N314 warheads, only that they don’t contain bow-tie shaped fragments and cube shaped filler fragments, but perhaps one can assume that they have similar scalpel/lancet characteristics. In the case of MH17 the greatest concentration of shrapnel was directed from above and from the port side of the nose into the port side of the cockpit obliterating the port side windows, window frames and the roof immediately above them. Further aft where the concentration of shrapnel is less one would expect to see clear indications of their shape in the aircraft’s skin. We do and they are cubes, not bow-ties. However in the IL-86 test there are bow-tie shaped holes in the skin of the aircraft where the concentration of penetrations is less.

        • Wind tunnel man:

          Thanks for the information.

          We have a static (IL-86) and a dynamic (MH17) model:

          The static model is stable and harmonious and only knows a single force perpendicular to the static missile. If we forget about aero drag the bowtie will be launched from the warhead with the upside (13×13). Within 0.0015 second this upside impacts on the hull at three meters. That’s why we see perfect bowties (13×13) in the A-A static experiment.

          The dynamic model is unstable and chaotic and knows at least two forces. The first is again perpendicular to the missile from which the bowtie is launched as an UFO. In the second instance a second force results from the combined velocity of the missile and the blast. Their sum vector causes the UFO (13×13) to proceed on its side as an airplane (13×8.2). This causes imbalance what we call ‘swirls, tumbling or spinning’. Because of chaos and spinning in the dynamic model bowties impact on the hull in all positions. This is what was to be expected below the cockpit window on the left side of MH17: we expected butterfly impacts from all directions within the red cone of heavy metals; but they weren’t there.

          So, we conclude surface normal (perpendicularity) works excellent only within the static model of IL-86. In the dynamic model spinning is an intervening variable which distorts (13×13). But – as said – this does not mean (13×8.2) cannot give very good recognizable butterflies on the hull or MH17. These were not found.

          In a static model there is no unifying force, since shrapnel is launched as placed on the warhead. Heavy elements (red) as bowties and cubes concentrate mainly around the set-off point and light elements (blue) as fillers and little cubes come somewhat further. So no scalpel/lancet form of the frag spread develops, there comes no cone, no knife through the butter.

          In a dynamic model the velocity of the missile as a second force reshapes the static corona in a cone. The faster the missile flies, the sharper the cone. That’s what we call the scalpel/lancet force of the frag spread. A greater relative velocity means a sharper knife through the cockpit.

          The velocity of the missile causes the scalpel/lancet form of the frag spread. This forms an inner cone (red) of heavy metals and a more diffuse outer cone which has not much impact. But the first force of the blast already put elements in parallel order as placed on the warhead. Spinning as an artifact of aero drag is not needed for parallelity.

          Now if there are different kinds of shrapnel in weight and shape placed on the warhead, it would be obvious to expect this template projected on IL-86 in a static situation. But on IL86 we only saw a diffuse mess of red and blue shrapnel. That’s why they tried a million times what Einstein prohibited.

          This diffuse mess also happened in their dynamic simulation. Hence, we conclude dynamic simulation also has big shortcomings modeling dynamic reality. On the other hand it simply can be 0.0015 second and three meters is insufficient to fully deploy the template of the warhead.

          We don’t need to be rocket scientists to understand what happened with MH17. Only logical reasoning suffices. The velocity of the missile introduced a disturbing force which caused shrapnel to whirl, tumble and spin. Within only 0.0015 second and three meter this sum vector sharpened the cone which sliced through the cockpit.

          We also know surface normal only works perfect in a static model to deliver perfect butterflies on the hull as with IL-86. It is proven bowtie impacts are very well recognizable coming from all kinds of (acute) angles. And that means if bowties are not found in the center of the red cone (under the left windshields) this disconfirms 9N314M. Furthermore the lack of butterflies on the more surface normal roof plates definitely falsifies 9N314M for MH17.

          • [Now if there are different kinds of shrapnel in weight and shape placed on the warhead, it would be obvious to expect this template projected on IL-86 in a static situation. But on IL86 we only saw a diffuse mess of red and blue shrapnel. That’s why they tried a million times what Einstein prohibited.]

            Wrong, must be:

            [Now if there are different kinds of shrapnel in weight and shape placed on the warhead, it would be obvious to expect this template projected on IL-86 in a static situation. Well, it does because the image of the template was not projected as the front of a circle but as its side, as is small rectangle on IL-86. That’s why we only saw a diffuse mess of red and blue shrapnel, exactly as Einstein predicted.]

          • Wind tunnel man // November 15, 2015 at 3:37 pm //

            Basic Dimension:

            That’s a very interesting analysis.

            Are you saying that the warhead has a “shaped charge” directing a large proportion of the shrapnel at an angle greater than 90 degrees from the missile’s longitudinal axis, i.e. a static warhead would have a large proportion of the shrapnel projected in directions to the rear of the missile. A missile travelling forwards at speeds in excess of 600m/s would effectively move that large proportion of shrapnel to positions nearer to 90 degrees (perpendicular) to the missile’s longitudinal axis at the moment of detonation and create a lancet. And because the shrapnel’s direction of travel (that would be expected from a static detonation) is effectively changed by the forward speed of the missile that would cause an “imbalance what we call swirls, tumbling or spinning?”

            Perhaps if the “shaped charge” is counteracted by the forward speed of the missile then the bow-tie shaped fragments would still be projected away from the warhead with their 13mm x 13mm bow-tie side facing forward within the lancet? Perhaps it would only be bow-ties not within the lancet (subject to imbalance) and/or those covering a longer range, subjected to aerodynamic forces, that would tend to tumble?

            Also if the bow-tie fragments are tightly packed around the warhead wouldn’t that tend to discourage initial tumbling despite they and the filler cubes being only 8.2mm in depth?

          • Wind tunnel man:

            Firstly, the reason of butterflies on the hull of IL-86 is because there is only a single force of 90 degrees from the direction of the static warhead. If we discard aero drag within 3 meters, bowties cannot rotate.

            [Are you saying that the warhead has a “shaped charge” directing a large proportion of the shrapnel at an angle greater than 90 degrees from the missile’s longitudinal axis, i.e. a static warhead would have a large proportion of the shrapnel projected in directions to the rear of the missile?]

            This totally depends on how the charge has been shaped on the warhead.
            In 9N314M the smallest layer of shrapnel is at the backside of the warhead (bowties and fillers). Dependent on from where the explosion originates shrapnel is easily projected to the rear of the missile. This gives the sum vector of a parallelogram with a somewhat restrained cone.

            [A missile traveling forwards at speeds in excess of 600m/s would effectively move that large proportion of shrapnel to positions nearer to 90 degrees (perpendicular) to the missile’s longitudinal axis at the moment of detonation and create a lancet.]

            I think so.

            [And because the shrapnel’s direction of travel (that would be expected from a static detonation) is effectively changed by the forward speed of the missile that would cause an “imbalance what we call swirls, tumbling or spinning?”]

            No, I’m wrong. It’s the other way round:

            1: forward speed missile.
            2: 90 degrees shrapnel speed.
            3: translation of bowtie (no rotation) by sum vector.

            Firstly, the bowtie has a forward motion just like the person in the train of Einstein. But the bowtie is unaware of the velocity of the missile. The bowtie is ‘in harmony’ with its forward motion.

            Then, a bomb explodes in the train and now the person experiences a motion which in fact is perpendicular on the direction of the train. But he experiences a single (additional) force. His body is thrown out of the train as in a translation, not in a rotation. Since for a rotation we need at least two impulses, but we discard aero drag.

            The bowtie is translated following the sum vector of the missile and the blast:

            http://tinyurl.com/nadc32q

            And this means, if we discard drag, there need be no rotations because the thrust is in the bowtie itself. There can be only translations in the direction of the hull. And that means it might be possible bowties come with their upside on the hull of MH17, just as in the static example of IL-86.

            [Perhaps if the “shaped charge” is counteracted by the forward speed of the missile then the bow-tie shaped fragments would still be projected away from the warhead with their 13mm x 13mm bow-tie side facing forward within the lancet?]

            Yes, it is quite possible.

            [Perhaps it would only be bow-ties not within the lancet (subject to imbalance) and/or those covering a longer range, subjected to aerodynamic forces that would tend to tumble?]

            No, the lancet is only the combined translation of all launched shrapnel. The lancet itself is a hypothetical construct. The lancet is another word for the increasing velocity of the missile. And if we introduce aero drag within 3 meters we come into problems which lead to rotations.

            So we really are only ADDING the perpendicular explosion to the ALREADY EXISTING forward impetus of the missile. There is no fight between powers, simply there is adding in a smooth translation.

            [Also if the bow-tie fragments are tightly packed around the warhead wouldn’t that tend to discourage initial tumbling despite they and the filler cubes being only 8.2mm in depth?]

            No, after the blast bowties are independent elements, they all contribute to the lancet without knowing what that is.

  26. Eugene, thanks for your reaction and I agree for a part. But there are important differences:

    [Not trying to negate your work, but there is a much simpler way to show that the warhead was not a 9N314M. Just try to find holes on the wreckage that look like these: http://savepic.su/6411148.jpg%5D

    I know no butterfly holes were found. But your action does not create legal proof, for it only generalizes to the wreckage found. You forgot ‘missing’ wreckage, possibly effectively demolished by bowties. Then finding no butterfly holes could be seen as proof of bowties. And most part of the plane is still missing.

    The difference is I am not pointing to bowties in the hull, but I prove they cannot be there if not found in this 50% region. Your action is only valid for the wreckage found, but my proof generalizes to “not found” wreckage.

    Furthermore, your specimen (http://savepic.su/6411148.jpg) was not made under conditions which apply to MH17.

    Proponents of 9N314M will say failure to find butterfly holes in the hull is not unusual because holes can have all forms which may be caused by a lot of circumstances as relative velocity, acute angles and ricochets.

    Therefore, I created an artificial way to prove no bowties were found in optimal circumstances of perpendicularity and bowtie impact on top side. But these are natural circumstances governing MH17.

    So if not found under these created laboratory circumstances, nowhere on the wreckage of MH17 bowties are to be expected. I created legal proof because my findings generalize to the whole plane: I proved 9N314M cannot be the warhead used.

    • “I created legal proof because my findings generalize to the whole plane: I proved 9N314M cannot be the warhead used.”

      no you proved nothing,except that your prone to wild and grandiose claims,
      Bow -Tie frags were found period,simply claiming they are not is silly
      claiming as proof of that the lack of clear bow-tie impressions in fuselage is also a non-runner,AA claim it was an ALL cubic frag warhead and seem blissfully unconcerned at lack off clear cubic impressions,this proves they do not even believe their own claims about bow-ties
      Impressions on fuselage at 10km alt with added kinetic energy cannot be equated to a static arena test

      • Wind tunnel man // November 11, 2015 at 4:12 pm // Reply

        RB2:

        “…Bow -Tie frags were found period,simply claiming they are not is silly
        claiming as proof of that the lack of clear bow-tie impressions in fuselage is also a non-runner,AA claim it was an ALL cubic frag warhead and seem blissfully unconcerned at lack off clear cubic impressions,this proves they do not even believe their own claims about bow-ties…”

        Only 2 fragments that possibly resembled bow-ties from a 9N314M warhead were mentioned in the DSB report. They claimed that due to re-solidified cockpit glass and/or aluminium deposits on their surfaces they must have originated from a source external to the aircraft. The Russians wanted the type of unalloyed steel to be matched to the unalloyed steel fragments used in 9N314M warheads but in the opinion of the Dutch, because the steel was of a low quality etc., any exercise in matching would be futile. However, since the Russian asked for this to done they obviously it thought would be a viable. Other questionable features and characteristics of the fragments were also raised by the Russians but it’s probably not necessary to go into those issues now.

        Regarding the “lack of clear bow-tie impressions in [the] fuselage” the Russians were of the opinion that no penetrations were made by bow-tie shaped fragments. The only evidence, according to the Dutch, for bow-tie shaped fragments having been used were the 2 alleged bow-tie fragments found in MH17 (the cockpit and the captain’s body)and apparently on that basis alone they came to the conclusion that a 9N314M warhead was used.

        Is there a “lack of clear cubic impressions” on the skin of MH17?

        • The reason why unalloyed steel was not even attempted to be matched is given in the DSB report,made from different batches,different sources,different manufacturing locations and at different times,pointless to try and match them clearly
          bow-tie frags were found,in any court that is evidence,if ppl want to accuse the DSB or someone off tampering or faking evidence they should do so openly with cause.
          AA raised many points found to be erroneous,wrong on expected weight of bow-tie frag and wrong on nothing but pre-made frags could pierce engine cowling fully,these were all stated by them as an expert opinion and failed to stand up
          AA criteria for no/few bow-tie impressions also applies to all cubic 9N314 warhead which they state was the one used,going by their criteria many cubic holes will be visible as they predominate in the 9N314 warhead,they don’t hence criteria is flawed
          What ppl are doing is trying to use an AA claim consisting only of a power pint slide show and a incomplete video to counter the DSB report without holding them to the same standard,this is disappointing

          • Wind tunnel man // November 11, 2015 at 7:10 pm //

            Sorry I’m trying to take a neutral view: the Dutch concluded that it was probably a 9N314M warhead and the Russians disputed that conclusion. The Russians believed that if it was a BUK missile that brought down MH17 then it would have to have been an out-dated 9N314 warhead; the Dutch concluded from their findings, research and simulated tests that it was probably a 9N314M warhead.

            People can read both the DSB report and the A-A report, listen and watch the videos produced by both parties and look at the photographic evidence of the damage, that can be accessed on the internet, and conclude who has the most persuasive argument.

            Some of the evidence (or perhaps a large proportion of the evidence) has not been made public and on that basis, from the evidence that we have access to, the probability that a 9N314M was used by excluding other possible weapons perhaps still needs to be questioned?

            Personally I’m not convinced that it was probably a 9N314M warhead that detonated whilst on a heading away from the area south of Snizhne and in my opinion it was wrong of the DSB to infer that it was launched from rebel held territory.

            Regarding the topics of the dangers of flying over a war zone and the description of how the aircraft broke-up there certainly the DSB has made some very valid points and observations.

  27. Impressive work, Basic. But I think the hypothesis that the fragments do not turn and stay perpendicular seems odd to me. An explosion is a rather chaotic event and I see no reason why the forces on the fragment should be constantly well balanced during the exlosion.
    1. If we allow arbitrary – or even some – rotation, the number of bow tie “holes” should be very few.
    2. If we calculate relative velocity of fragments re the outer sheet it is further more improbable that a bow-tie frag produces a bow-tie hole (like in the AA experiment where there was no relative velocity)
    During travelling through the aluminium sheet (approx. 2mm) which makes the lenght of “penetration” = 8 + 8 + 2 = 18 mm the forward movement of the frag is still about estimated 4mm which covers a third of the bow tie “length” so that the hole completely looses its bow tie charcteristic.

    In other words: I think that bow tie frags produce very view – if at all – bow tie holes in the dynamic scenario.

    Therefore it is futile to concentrate on the holes. One should concentrate on the found frags. Which is very nice for the CT guys.

  28. Horst thanks for your reaction.

    [An explosion is a rather chaotic event and I see no reason why the forces on the fragment should be constantly well balanced during the exlosion.]

    ‘An explosion is a rather chaotic event’ does not mean the initial power of the blast is already balanced by relative velocity in the first meters and first milliseconds. There is not spoken about ‘constantly well balanced’.

    The blast itself is not chaotic, it only looks chaotic. The power of the blast is much stronger than surrounding forces and that’s why the behavior of fragments actually is very predictable in the first milliseconds, and within the first meters. Only thereafter will be a moment when bowties turn. Hence, arbitrary rotation of bowties is not on the agenda. Please show the model where this is possible and prove me the power of the blast is already balanced or even affected by relative velocity from the very start.

    [2. If we calculate relative velocity of fragments re the outer sheet it is further more improbable that a bow-tie frag produces a bow-tie hole (like in the AA experiment where there was no relative velocity)]

    Interesting hypotheses are formulated around conflicting powers of inner and outer blades of shrapnel but remember DSB has no roof to prove or even touch on their 9N314M theory. DSB accidentally missed or could not retrieve the most important parts of the plane: the roof.

    – In the AA experiment relative velocity was zero, but in the limit of time, given in the first milliseconds of the blast relative velocity is not that important. It’s not AA who has to prove they are right, DSB has to prove AA is wrong by falsifying their experiment in a real shooting down of a plane.

    – [During travelling through the aluminium sheet (approx. 2mm) which makes the lenght of “penetration” = 8 + 8 + 2 = 18 mm the forward movement of the frag is still about estimated 4mm which covers a third of the bow tie “length” so that the hole completely looses its bow tie charcteristic.]

    As you imply all parameters of impact are known, even the angle of impact, hence it must be possible to correct pictures of impact holes for kinds of shrapnel. Correction to perpendicularity.

    – [In other words: I think that bow tie frags produce very view – if at all – bow tie holes in the dynamic scenario. Therefore it is futile to concentrate on the holes. One should concentrate on the found frags. Which is very nice for the CT guys.]

    No you forgot to falsify the AA-experiment in a dynamic scenario in the first place.

  29. Horst, I think that Basic assumes that cylindrical charge can provide quite uniform outward pressure.
    For length to diameter proportions above 2 for cylindrical charges this assumption is quite reasonable. You can look through declassified report from 1982 from USA called “Blast effects from cylindrical explosive charges”. Unless I misunderstood their findings. However, the concern can be that the region considered is bombarded by bowties from secondary layer. Meaning there are cubes in the outer layer. Interaction with those cubes will likely cause rotation. But I’m not sure about it. Also, the same report describes secondary shockwaves fro such charges that are fast enough to catch up with flying shrapnel.
    But in general I tend to agree with Basic that expected damage is not there.
    There is also the issue of presumed constant speed for the shrapnel in DSB report. That is not true, as there is initial acceleration period. That shifts the effective explosion spot in assumption of constant and uniform acceleration. However if acceleration is not constant and uniform a very different damage pattern should be expected in comparison with constant speed and constant acceleration. It affects how shrapnel ejected at different angles from high speed missile changes the trajectory relative to the moving plane

  30. Basic,

    [Please show the model where this is possible and prove me the power of the blast is already balanced or even affected by relative velocity from the very start.]

    I never implied my point 1) has something to do with relative velocity. I just can’t imagine a blast that leads to NO rotation at all. But I am no expert. It just seems counter intuitive.

    [No you forgot to falsify the AA-experiment in a dynamic scenario in the first place.]

    Reversal of burden of proof here. I would say it is a no-brainer that in a dynamic scenario bow-tie frags most probably do not produce bow-tie shaped holes. AA did not even make a statement that this is the case. The just flooded the world with misleading information IMHO.

    http://oi66.tinypic.com/1zwdd7s.jpg

    Imagine a Bow Tie frg approaching the plane hull.
    When it leaves the hull (assumption: no deformation) it travels 4 mm along the hull, so bow-tie hole is gone.

    All “non-flat” scenarios are surely different. But I cannot think of any resulting bow-tie holes like in the static scenario.

    What needs to be done is find a spot where the frags penetrate perependiculary (taking plane speed into account) to the plane surface AND the frags reach the hull flatly .

    I do not see such a point in both (S an Z scenarios), so no bow tie holes.

  31. Let me try it in an easier way:

    1. you say the blast does not create rotation of the bow ties. Let’s take this as a given. So the “H” surfaces keeps being parallel to the missile path.
    2. The resulting velocity vector of the fragment in referenced to air aims forward.
    3. The velocity vector is never perpendicular to the “H” surface.

    As a clean bow tie hole needs correct orientation of frag AND perpendicular punch there won’t be any “clean” bow tie holes.

    (For simplicity speed of plane ignored)

    • Wind tunnel man // November 11, 2015 at 1:51 pm // Reply

      Horst:

      Even a tumbling/rotating bow-tie shaped fragment can produce a distinctive penetration and even if it’s not tumbling/rotating it can make a distinctive penetration when impacting a surface at an acute angle. The form of the bow-tie shape may not be imparted to the target but it will cut through the surface in a distinctive manner and will probably not leave a clean square or elongated rectangular hole. The exception being if it’s flat 13mm x 8.2mm face happens to be the leading face when it impacts the target and then it would create a rectangular or elongated rectangular hole. Also if it was spinning really fast then it would tend to drill a hole rather than punch a hole.

  32. Wind tunnel man: agreed. I see you agree with my point that there are no / few bow tie holes to be expected.

    • Wind tunnel man // November 11, 2015 at 2:34 pm // Reply

      Horst:

      “Wind tunnel man: agreed. I see you agree with my point that there are no / few bow tie holes to be expected.”

      Absolutely – to determine whether or not the aircraft was hit by bow-tie shaped fragments one has to look at the nature of the penetrations and not just their superficial appearance from one angle.

      However from the photographs taken at varying angles of the penetrations and grazing marks on MH17, that I have seen, there doesn’t seem to be any conclusive evidence of bow-tie shaped fragments and 6mm x 6mm x 8.2mm filler cube shaped fragments having been involved.

  33. Horst:

    [As a clean bow tie hole needs correct orientation of frag AND perpendicular punch there won’t be any “clean” bow tie holes.]

    Of course I meant nearly perpendicular, but why don’t we look at the facts, for the pictures of the roof show very neat holes. Hence, characteristic bowtie holes were very much possible. That’s the proof.

    What I do not understand is why DSB proudly presented their 9N314H model with two blades of shrapnel without any roof to proof. They have no roof.

    And from the left front windshield and the pictured roof plates nothing refers to this elegant model. This 9N314H model projected onto a not existing roof is completely unsubstantiated. 9N314H is complete science fiction.

  34. Wind tunnel man:

    [Absolutely – to determine whether or not the aircraft was hit by bow-tie shaped fragments one has to look at the nature of the penetrations and not just their superficial appearance from one angle.]

    To disconfirm 9N314M, I kept the angle of bowties constant by only looking at a rectangle of raw data on the roof. Because this prevents ricochets and uncontrolled angles the ‘nature of penetrations’ is significantly restricted. And inspecting the nice and neat holes in the roof wreckage you must agree that the ‘nature of penetrations’ has been mastered.

    • Wind tunnel man // November 12, 2015 at 1:15 am // Reply

      Basic Dimension:

      Yes there are plenty of photographs of the roof sections and none seem to have the impression of a bow-ties nor the deformed edges to the rectangular holes that one might expect if impacted by bow-tie shaped fragments. In particular with the “not recovered” upper, forward, port side roof section (the one with peeled back and curved skin) it’s fairly easy to match entry holes and exit holes through the skin. Also the direction of probable cube shaped fragment penetrations from STA 236.5 to STA 287.5 (see slide 8 from the A-A report) is very clearly shown.

  35. Guys, this is how striking elements behave. An expert opinion. Almost.

    The detonation front is reasonably uniform, true. It is uniform enough to strictly confine the flying striking elements in the sectors. Junk does fly everywhere, but the striking elements never fly, say, forwards or backwards. However, the uniformity of the detonation front is far not sufficient to push the SEs in a parallel fashion. So they *do* spin. But there is a stronger reason for why they spin. The warhead wall is made out of a strong load-bearing compound. When the explosion shock shatters the wall, the process is quite chaotic. As a result the SEs not only start spinning but their velocities also get perturbed. That’s why we don’t see a regular pattern of holes on the targets (though some regularity is still present).

    (There exists another physical argument for why the striking elements do spin, which I omit).

    As to leaving the appropriately shaped holes. There are three things at play here: surface normal, velocity vector and SE orientation. Two facts to know:
    -A hole will be distinguishable as bow-tie if the orientation is appropriately aligned wrt the velocity vector. Surface normal plays little role here. This has been shown by AA. Intuitively this can be explained in the following way: because of such a high speed SEs cut through aluminium like through butter, the incident angle plays little role. The hole can be quite elongated but it will still be a clear-cut bow-tie hole.
    -The hole will not look bow-tie if the SE is not appropriately aligned with its velocity vector. Surface normal here is irrelevant.

    Thus most bow-tie SEs will not leave bow-tie holes, but some will do. Statistics helps us here. As there are a lot of SEs, there should be a reasonable number of bow-tie holes visible even on the limited area of the gathered wreckage. Which are, of course, not there.

    • Wind tunnel man // November 12, 2015 at 1:23 pm // Reply

      Eugene:

      “When the explosion shock shatters the wall, the process is quite chaotic. As a result the SEs not only start spinning but their velocities also get perturbed. That’s why we don’t see a regular pattern of holes on the targets (though some regularity is still present).”

      Interesting that you should say that since TNO (appendix y DSB report) appear to base their findings on the pattern of hits on MH17. They talk of the frag pattern created by the warhead whose arrangement of striking elements is similar to the construction of a wooden barrel. They use the analogy of the circumference and staves of the wooden barrel and that similar arrangement of striking elements would be projected onto the target. Also they use the distance (pitch) between hits by the same type of striking elements, that were positioned together in the warhead, to determine the range, i.e. based on the divergence of the elements they estimated the distance between the warhead and a particular small area on the surface of MH17.

      When one takes into consideration the limited area of damage that TNO used for their analysis (e.g. they appear to have only used the recovered starboard side cockpit roof and not other sections of the roof (?) – see page 18) then would “some regularity is still present” be sufficient for an accurate analysis of warhead position and orientation?

      Especially I would question their stated azimuth angle of 27 degrees +/- 3 degrees (pages 21 and 22) since they appeared to only consider a limited area of damage on MH17.

      • Wind tunnel man:

        [Interesting that you should say that since TNO (appendix y DSB report) appear to base their findings on the pattern of hits on MH17.]

        Well thought. But both theories might be wrong. The theory of Eugene is intriguing but still looks experimental and the theory of DSB projects on a not existing reality, since they have no roof. The more we learn the less we know.

        • Wind tunnel man // November 12, 2015 at 3:42 pm // Reply

          Basic Dimension:

          Yes, it’s the angles of penetration that interest me more: those shrapnel penetrations and grazing marks in the roof and the port side of the upper fuselage, back to door 1L, are difficult to match with a missile approaching from the direction of an area south of Snizhne.

          What would be the minimum angle of frag spread with a “Snizhne launch” scenario to get those angles of penetrations in the roof and fuselage relative to the aircraft’s horizontal axis? I guess the minimum angle of spread would be approximately the same as the missile’s horizontal angle relative to the aircraft, i.e. approximately 27 degrees? And those angles would have to take into account the forward distance travelled by the aircraft relative to the distance travelled by the shrapnel over the longer range to door 1L assuming the warhead detonated close to the nose of MH17.

          • Wind tunnel man // November 12, 2015 at 5:10 pm //

            Basic Dimension:

            Using Mick West’s graphic http://tube.geogebra.org/material/simple/id/FP58nKZJ with these settings:

            frag spread 72 degrees
            missile speed 700m/s
            frag speed 2000m/s
            plane speed 252m/s
            plane track 118 degrees
            missile track 325 degrees
            position of the warhead approx in line with the outside of the port side main fuselage and at 90 degrees to the nose of the aircraft.

            Even using a very generous frag spread angle the possible shrapnel penetrations from a missile approaching from an area south of Snizhne don’t appear to match those seen on MH17. A much better match is found if the missile approaches nearer to a direction from Zaroshens’ke.

  36. Eugene:

    2: Why is parallel fashion needed because parallelity is already formed by the cone caused by the velocity of the missile?

    Do you mean spinning is needed to average out deviating directions by means of centrifugal forces? To prevent Striking elements (Se’s) will cluster in parallelity? Then we must discriminate clustering – what is ineffective – from parallelity. So spinning mainly prevents clustering and gives no parallelity. As a result of spinning the SEs their velocities get perturbed: they lose velocity by spinning. That’s the price to prevent clustering. That’s what I understand.

    Are Se’s spinning all the way to the target? Surface normal (perpendicularity) seems not to play a big role in AA’s static experiment. But I think it is better to control this condition on MH17.

    This I do not understand: [The hole will not look bow-tie if the SE is not appropriately aligned with its velocity vector.] This seems to be the main reason of not seeing bowties on the hull.

  37. Wind tunnel man:

    If I understand you correctly the azimuth of the missile is 17 degrees (Appendix Y, page 2, fig 2.5) in relation to horizontal axis of the plane. Then the angle of spread comes to the midst of the plane. With a minimum angle of spread of 27 degrees the port roof on the other side behind L1 could be reached. Maybe somewhat wider seen the relative velocity. Zaroshchenske fits much better.

    No not enough, since 27 degrees is only 5 more to the left. And indeed Mick West tells us even 72 degrees is not sufficient.

    • Wind tunnel man // November 12, 2015 at 7:35 pm // Reply

      Basic Dimension:

      I was using the “best match” azimuth of 27 degrees used by TNO on page 21 Table 5.1 of appendix Y. I took this to be the horizontal angle of the missile’s longitudinal axis relative to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. To get penetrations or grazing marks at a points near to door 1L the minimum angle of the front part of the spread, relative to the missile’s horizontal axis and direction of travel, would need to be approx 27 degrees, i.e. the shrapnel would need to be travelling in almost the opposite direction to the aircraft.

      To get penetrations just aft of the forward pressure bulkhead the rear part of the frag spread (maximum angle) would have to be slightly greater than 90 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the missile (this would give a total frag spread angle from front to back of more than 62 degrees.) This is of course assuming that the warhead detonated in the position that TNO gave in their “best match”.

      But the angles I’ve used are for an aircraft that is not moving. If the aircraft is moving toward the warhead then the effective total angle of the spread will increase, i.e. the distance between forward penetrations and aft penetrations will increase dependant on the speed of the aircraft relative to the shrapnel speed and range distances. Only a static aircraft can give us the exact total spread angle or alternatively we can calculate the total spread angle from the penetration positions on a moving aircraft as per Mick West’s graphic.

  38. Wind tunnel man [November 12, 2015 at 7:35 pm]

    1: Relative velocity between MH17 and a BUK from Zaroshchenske is much smaller than from Snizhne.
    2: Relative velocity between shrapnel from Z. and MH17 is optimal for shrapnel goes perpendicular on the missile to MH17.
    3: But the sum vector of missile speed and vector speed from Z. points shrapnel to the left engine.
    4: So Zaroshchenske is a failure too, since it misses the fuselage.
    5: As said earlier I prefer a launch site between S and Z at 45 degrees.

    • Wind tunnel man // November 13, 2015 at 12:21 pm // Reply

      Basic Dimension:

      “3: But the sum vector of missile speed and vector speed from Z. points shrapnel to the left engine.”

      Divergence of the shrapnel over the range from the nose to the engine would probably mean that there would be relatively few penetrations to the left engine intake ring. Also there has been little or no information about the engine, did it ingest shrapnel? Possibly some internal engine components where found several kilometres away from the main crash site…

      “4: So Zaroshchenske is a failure too, since it misses the fuselage.”

      Sorry I don’t understand that.

      “5: As said earlier I prefer a launch site between S and Z at 45 degrees.”

      Guess that would put the launch site approx south-southwest of Torez just inside the area defined by the DSB if the missile was on a heading of approx 343 degrees. That angle of interception would possibly match the shrapnel distribution on the fuselage but would the penetration angles match?

  39. Wind tunnel man [November 13, 2015 at 21:21 pm]

    Sorry, it’s not my profession and I did not understand directly what you mean. But now I see frac spread of 72 degrees calculated by Mick West for a launch from Snizhne is just too wide for frac damage further backwards on the port side of the roof back to door L1 (STA332). I also see it is a dynamic display.

    So 72 degrees is not sufficient to reach door L1 and the angle must be somewhat sharper. The bat wings must have a somewhat smaller front angle of maybe 60 degrees. And since the angle of the wings is changed the aft part frac spread now misses the starboard side of the cockpit completely as actually happened.

    So indeed, a frac spread of 27 degrees certainly covers door L1. But that’s way too conservative for this covers the whole left side of the plane. Maybe 50 degrees already will do for L1.

    There are limits in creating a sharper angle between the bat wings because then the aft part of the spread misses the cockpit. And so you reasoned a launch from Snizhne must be impossible.

    [“5: As said earlier I prefer a launch site between S and Z at 45 degrees.”
    Guess that would put the launch site approx south-southwest of Torez just inside the area defined by the DSB if the missile was on a heading of approx 343 degrees. That angle of interception would possibly match the shrapnel distribution on the fuselage but would the penetration angles match?]

    With 45 degrees frac spread damage comes further on starboard, what is not the case. So no, in the second instance I have no arguments to discard Zaroshchenske.

  40. Wind tunnel man // November 15, 2015 at 10:30 pm // Reply

    Basic Dimension (November 15, 2015 at 8:28 pm):

    So a lancet (42% of weight and energy of the frag spread in a radial region between approx 75 and 95 degrees relative to the missile’s longitudinal axis) is created by a 9N314M warhead travelling at a forward speed in excess of 600m/s is claimed by Almaz Antey. Was that characteristic considered by NTO when they said that there is a “sudden transition in the thickness of the outer geometry of the warhead…a sudden transition occurs in the fragment velocities over the airplane outer geometry (page 25 appendix y DSB report) ? Then they talk of the slaves and rings (barrel analogy) in areas aft of that transition point where penetrations become increasing less concentrated (page 20.)

    As you have previously said it is in those aft areas where one would expect to find a mix of 3 types of distinct penetrations: by bow-ties, filler cubes and cubes if a 9N314 warhead had been used. However TNO base their findings on a missile approaching from an area south of Snizhne, alternatively if the missile had approached from the direction nearer to Zaroshens’ke then the forward section of the aircraft would have been hit primarily by the lancet and in that case the lessening concentrations of impact marks would be due to range distances along the fuselage. The lancet would presumably mainly consist of filler cubes and bow-ties and they should leave distinctive holes and grazing marks. A near perpendicular lancet created by a 9N314 warhead would leave only elongated cube shaped holes, which is what we see, and they are at the correct angle relative to the aircraft’s longitudinal axis given a “Zaroshens’ke launch” scenario.

    • Wind tunnel man // November 15, 2015 at 10:38 pm // Reply

      Correction: I should have said page 19 of the TNO report not page 25.

      • Wind tunnel man [November 15, 2015 at 10:38 PM]:

        In the first place we need no A-A theory to disconfirm DSB. We already refute the 9N314M hypothesis on DSB’s own assumptions about deploying shrapnel: there must be found bowties everywhere. But in the second place we need to know the distribution of shrapnel on the lancet of A-A.

        http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq

        I think weight and shape are important. Intuitively, light shrapnel comes further by the blast. Hence, discarding form, fillers (6x6x8.2) will be found in the outer radial region (blue and light) and bowties (13x13x8.2) in the inner radial region (red and heavy). But this is very ambiguous. We definitely has to know the exact distribution of A-A’s radial region before we can disconfirm their hypothesis about MH17 as well. Until I have more information I will stick to mapping on the basis of only weight.

        Conflicting information about heavy metals are found in the periphery of the radial region as red on this figure:

        http://tinyurl.com/qddgnka

        But now your excellent perception:

        [So a lancet (42% of weight and energy of the frag spread in a radial region between approx 75 and 95 degrees relative to the missile’s longitudinal axis) is created by a 9N314M warhead travelling at a forward speed in excess of 600m/s is claimed by Almaz Antey. Was that characteristic considered by NTO when they said that there is a “sudden transition in the thickness of the outer geometry of the warhead…a sudden transition occurs in the fragment velocities over the airplane outer geometry]

        Well, you are right:

        DSB report Appendix Z

        Page 19

        5 Damage matching

        [In this chapter the observed damage pattern and the simulated damage pattern are
        compared.]

        5.3.1 Fragment distribution within the damage area

        [The simulated ejection of individual fragments requires some clarification. The figures 4.3 and 4.4 show a SUDDEN TRANSITION in the thickness of the outer geometry of the warhead.

        http://tinyurl.com/p5kygsq

        Due to the applied simulation model, a SUDDEN TRANSITION occurs in the fragment velocities over the airplane outer geometry. The consequence for the fragment damage area is shown in Figure 5.3]

        http://tinyurl.com/q9479x2

        They really mean the thick layer comes later IN TIME AND PLACE.

        And I understand A-A thinks of only one wave of shrapnel only SEPARATED IN SPACE within the radial region. This is the lancet:

        http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq

        Indeed that is a tremendous different concept.

        TNO definitely thinks of two different waves SEPARATED IN TIME AND SPACE of two successive radials: first wave consists of bowties and light fillers and the second wave consists of cubes, bowties and fillers:

        http://tinyurl.com/pypyptf

        What means in the lancet of A-A bowties are to be found at the front left windshield – the center of red- and the left part of the roof before door L1, and for TNO bowties have to be found near the front left windshield in the first wave and on the whole roof in the second wave. Bowties must be found on the roof in both theories. (But as said there also are bowties in the periphery of the radial region of the lancet).

        We know the theory of NLR is clever but highly speculative, since there was no roof to project on. Also no bowties have been detected below the left cockpit windows, the center of the red area of bowties:

        http://tinyurl.com/oaey37u
        http://tinyurl.com/q7xsmv7

        By logical reasoning we know the following:
        On this very short distance of only 3 meters and within 0.0015 second and without any rotations by omission of aero drag or tumbling from the blast, perfect butterflies were expected.

        (Now I understand what you meant with [Also if the bow-tie fragments are tightly packed around the warhead wouldn’t that tend to discourage initial tumbling despite they and the filler cubes being only 8.2mm in depth?]. Indeed rotation might be initiated by the construction of the warhead too.)

        Now you proceed:

        [As you have previously said it is in those aft areas where one would expect to find a mix of 3 types of distinct penetrations: by bow-ties, filler cubes and cubes if a 9N314 [sic: 9N314M] warhead had been used. However TNO base their findings on a missile approaching from an area south of Snizhne, alternatively if the missile [of TNO] had approached from the direction nearer to Zaroshens’ke then the forward section of the aircraft would have been hit primarily by the lancet and in that case the lessening concentrations of impact marks would be due to range distances along the fuselage.]

        This is a confusing part but the TNO concept launched form Zaroshchenske would hit the left part of the cockpit in the first wave, but completely miss the plane in the second wave.

        http://tinyurl.com/okx7sgq

        [alternatively if the missile [of A-A] had approached from the direction nearer to Zaroshens’ke then the forward section of the aircraft would have been hit primarily by the lancet and in that case the lessening concentrations of impact marks would be due to range distances along the fuselage.]

        Indeed A-A from Zaroshchenske would work excellent:

        http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq (Snizhne)

        But remember it is unclear where the heavy bowties of A-A in their radial region are positioned. There seems to be a distracting separation of elements:

        http://tinyurl.com/qchqgk4
        http://tinyurl.com/p5pzep9
        http://tinyurl.com/ptfgtgn

        But in case of TNO grazing on the roof from Zaroshchenske impossibly comes from bowties, fillers and bigger cubes (8x8x5) in the second wave.

        You proceed:

        [The lancet would presumably mainly consist of filler cubes and bow-ties [WHY? what are the rules? And remember the outer region also is the lancet] and they should leave distinctive holes and grazing marks. A near perpendicular lancet created by a 9N314 warhead would leave only elongated cube shaped holes [why?], which is what we see, and they are at the correct angle relative to the aircraft’s longitudinal axis given a “Zaroshens’ke launch” scenario.]

        http://tinyurl.com/oqgvhcr

        We are almost there. Disconfirming DSB has already done, but confirming A-A becomes a problem without an exactly known distribution on the radial of the lancet. Please tell us how the theory of the lancet works. Here we first must agree before we can conclude.

  41. THE FALSIFICATION OF 9N314M

    – Main evidence is no butterflies are found in the hull of MH17.

    Circumstantial evidence:

    – Bowties are launched with their upper side.

    – They are packed together as they will not rotate but translate in the blast.

    – The blast is no conflicting impulse perpendicular on the missile’s velocity.

    – Both directions are simply added in a sum vector of missile direction and blast direction.

    – This means bowties are translated into the direction of the sum vector. There is no rotation caused by the blast itself.

    http://tinyurl.com/nadc32q

    – Because of this sum vector one resulting force prevails in space.

    – For rotations of bowties a second and intervening force would be needed as aerodynamic drag.

    – But thrust of bowties is many times stronger than any aerodynamic drag. Moreover, the air is thin at 10 km. Strong winds are definitely weaker than the blast in the first 0.0015 second.

    – The point of detonation is about 3 meters from the hull. Already within 0.0015 second, bowties crash on the hull with their upper side. This must give characteristic butterflies.

    – The selected area on the roof in front of door L1 to the left windshield is reasonable surface normal, which can be inspected from the pictured roof plates.

    – But also under quite acute angles bowties must show characteristic impacts.

    – All this evidence together falsifies 9N314M.

    • Basic, would like to correct you a bit. Not the first time you talk about speed and force as equivalent. Force is only related to acceleration. Constant speed movement doesn’t require any force. Newton was quite assertive with his laws. 😉
      Force is exerted in a blast, usually for around 200 us. For cylindrical charge the force is relatively uniform if length is at least twice of diameter of the charge. However, there is a second co-propagating shockwave observed in cylindrical charges that exerts force on the shrapnel going in particular direction. It is practically a wave reflected from opposite side of the charge casing. It is much faster than shrapnel so it is catching up with it. This second shockwave can potentially cause rotation of bowties as it is impinging them at slight angle due to translation of the rocket. It might be that rotation is indeed introduced, but I can’t even approximate the magnitude.

    • ” All this evidence together falsifies 9N314M.”

      I would say that more precisely it falsifies 9N314M coming from Snizhne direction. If rocket was coming from more orthogonal direction the bowtie holes would be in the support components and not something in the skin.

      • THE FALSIFICATION OF 9N314M (2)

        – Main evidence is no butterflies are found in the hull of MH17.

        Circumstantial evidence:

        – Bowties are launched with their upper side.

        – The warhead wall is made out of a strong load-bearing compound with partially underneath a layer of cubes. This wall prevents rotation of bowties at the moment of blast. Rotation only happens if the compound exerts differential influence what is not likely.

        – Hence, bowties are packed together and covered as they will not rotate but translate by the blast.

        – The blast is no conflicting impulse perpendicular on the missile’s velocity.

        – Both directions are simply added in a sum vector of missile direction and blast direction.

        – This means bowties are translated in the direction of the sum vector.

        http://tinyurl.com/nadc32q

        – Because of this sum vector a single speed prevails.

        – For rotations of bowties an intervening influence would be needed as aerodynamic drag.

        – But the blast causing the speed of bowties is many times stronger than any aerodynamic drag. Moreover, the air is thin at 10 km. Strong winds are definitely weaker than the blast in the first 0.0015 second.

        – The point of detonation is about 3 meters from the hull. Already within 0.0015 second, bowties crash on the hull with their upper side. This must give characteristic butterflies.

        – A 14% area on the roof in front of door L1 to the left windshield is selected as reasonable surface normal, which can be inspected from the pictured roof plates.

        – Following the ‘separated time and space blast theory’ of DSB on the left side of the 14% area are expected: .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84 bowties.

        – Following the ‘separated time and space blast theory’ of DSB on the right side of the 14% area are expected: .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178 bowties.

        – Also under quite acute angles bowties would show characteristic impacts:

        – Maximally 617 bowties are expected accepting a 120% angle from the warhead to the aircraft: (.33 x .32 x 1870 = 197) + (.33 x .68 x 1870 = 420) = 617 bowties.

        – DSB found 350 holes of impact for 7840 striking elements. Bowties would have shown maximally 84 butterfly holes, seen from all angles (24%of 350).

        – All this evidence together falsifies 9N314M.

        NB: cylindrical charges are known to have co-propagating shock waves reflected from the opposite of the charge casing. In the second instance this additional shock wave might cause rotation of bow ties due to translation of the rocket. However, this most intriguing effect would be found in a variation of butterfly impressions on the hull, which is not the case. Finally, acute angles are more detrimental for recognizing bowties than rotations.

        • Funny you used my drawing that says exactly the opposite.
          Once again
          If your assumption of NO rotation is true, you won’t find ANY bowtie hole in the dynamic scenario. Because velocity vector is never perpendicular to the frag surface.

          • The poetic mind of Basic Dimension cannot get the simple idea that if the fragments did not spin they’d be flying in the original formation, and thus every hole on the target could be traced to the fragment on the warhead. But in reality the picture is more chaotic than that.

            Again, why the fragments spin:
            -The detonation wave front is not that uniform.
            -The detonation wave front approaches the wall at an angle, so a force starts pushing on one side of each fragment first.
            -The fragments are held in a strong compound that needs to break. There is no way that the breaking of the compound will be smooth and uniform.
            -In general, it is hard to push little things without inducing rotation. The physical reason being that the inertia depends on size (r) as r^5, while torques due to the non-uniformity are roughly proportional to r^3. As things get smaller the inertia gets smaller a lot faster than the torques.

    • sotilaspassi // November 17, 2015 at 7:47 am // Reply

      Just a note that bowties that hit the metal without any rotation holes are larger than 13mm. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wdnJOMmd4VmIzQkU
      (bowties cause all shapes of holes, also square holes)

  42. Wind tunnel man // November 17, 2015 at 12:23 am // Reply

    Basic Dimension:

    “…confirming A-A becomes a problem without an exactly known distribution on the radial of the lancet. Please tell us how the theory of the lancet works. Here we first must agree before we can conclude.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs – there is some information from 13 minutes and 30 seconds in the video. Unfortunately no details regarding the nature of the detonation – just the subsequent form of the lancet.

    Thanks for correcting my error when I wrote “a mix of 3 types of distinct penetrations: by bow-ties, filler cubes and cubes if a 9N314 [sic: 9N314M] warhead had been used.” I’m sorry if it caused any confusion.

  43. Wind tunnel man // November 17, 2015 at 4:33 pm // Reply

    Eugene:

    “The poetic mind of Basic Dimension cannot get the simple idea that if the fragments did not spin they’d be flying in the original formation, and thus every hole on the target could be traced to the fragment on the warhead. But in reality the picture is more chaotic than that.”

    NTO (pages 19 and 20 appendix y DSB report) seemed to suggest that the warhead’s fragments when projected onto a target would resemble their positions on the warhead – they used the analogy of a wooden barrel’s circumference and staves to indicate a “regular holes pattern.” Also they used the pitch between the same type of fragment impact marks to determine the range, i.e. the divergence of fragments over distance (page 10.)

    In NTO’s view does that suggest a significantly chaotic event? Also if the fragments were tumbling at a very high rate then they would tend to drill holes rather than punch holes. Certainly some tumbling can not be discounted but even with minimal tumbling/rotation any penetration holes should still be identifiable if they were made by either cube or bow-tie shaped fragments. A bow-tie fragment in most orientations penetrating a target at various angles would probably leave evidence of it’s shape, though obviously in many instances not necessarily a perfect bow-tie shaped puncture.

    • NTO can say whatever they want. They’ve proved that they were not particularly troubled by fact that it does not match the reality. Here are a couple of examples:

      – The spread pattern they calculated with the help of Split-X contained a reasonably sized gap. They apparently were not troubled by the fact that the gap was not observed on the wreckage.

      -They haven’t noticed that the geometric shape of the warhead contained two segments, not one: one fully convex (barrel-like), and another is concave on the chord direction. Again they haven’t been much troubled by the fact that the model they’ve fed into their simulator was different from the real
      thing.

      -My best understanding of the matching methods they’ve used (as far as I could understand from their vague language) lets me believe that the results they’ve obtained were very sensitive to the shrapnel spread angles. Therefore feeding a wrong warhead geometry would have a significant impact on the results. Again, they didn’t bother considering that. (Not delving into the fact that the stringing methods should have been used as being a lot more specific).

      Given above, instead of taking the NTO’s words, it is by far the safest way to just look at the results of the real-life experiment by AA. Do you see regular patterns of holes on Il-86? Even if lines can sometimes be perceived they are not pronounced. Mostly it’s just a random spray.

      Fragments don’t spin enough to drill. But probably enough to do a couple of revolutions before hitting. Here, to be honest, it’s hard to estimate the amount, a high speed footage would be needed. But, honestly, I strongly believe they do spin, and therefore all hit the target at different orientations.

      • Wind tunnel man // November 17, 2015 at 7:06 pm // Reply

        Eugene:

        Please remember the static test done by A-A on the IL-86 didn’t allow their claimed “lancet” to be formed within the frag spread hence it probably does look like a “random spray”. NTO considered a moving missile and how fragments might be propelled onto a moving target. That would change the fragment distribution and if a “lancet” did form then the varying concentration of, and the pattern of impacts, would possibly be apparent.

        When NTO say “In reality the fragment velocity leap will be less sudden, so that the two strips with fragment impacts will merge into each other” (page 19) are they confirming the “lancet” characteristics within the frag spread claimed by A-A when a missile is moving at speeds in excess of 600m/s?

        I agree that they did use a different design model to that given by A-A (design II rather than design III – see page 15) but they noted the main difference was the “angular range for the fragment ejection.”

        Sorry I’m going to use a bullet analogy again: a tumbling bullet can leave a distinct hole in a target. If it is not tumbling too rapidly and has, at the moment of impact, rotated through 90 degrees relative to it’s longitudinal axis but still travelling in the same direction it will punch a clean hole resembling it’s shape. A bullet tumbling more rapidly will pierce through a target and leave a ragged indistinct hole.

        • > Please remember the static test done by A-A on the IL-86 didn’t allow their claimed “lancet” to be formed within the frag spread hence it probably does look like a “random spray”.

          If you think that the “random spray” will turn into an ordered pattern for a dynamic test, then I’ve got a bad news for you…

          • Wind tunnel man // November 17, 2015 at 8:51 pm //

            Eugene:

            “If you think that the “random spray” will turn into an ordered pattern for a dynamic test, then I’ve got a bad news for you…”

            Please elaborate and explain why shrapnel propelled at varying average speeds at varying range distances from a moving 9N314M warhead should not conform to a ordered pattern. If the designers wanted a weapon that had the desired effect then they would surely consider the pattern distribution.

            Almaz Antey claim a “lancet” design would most effectively destroy/disable heavily armoured fighter-bomber aircraft and for that a random spray would probably not be as effective. The “lancet” was certainly not incorporated into the design for use as a static fragmentation bomb.

            So, in a way, A-A’s static test was of a static fragmentation bomb and since their claimed “lancet” was not properly formed the shrapnel distribution did appear random.

  44. Horst, Sotilaspassi and Eugene thanks for your good critique. Eugene, remember we are testing the theory of DSB with models of A-A and Mick West. I need not really believe in only translations. I’am testing their implicit model.

    I corrected the model a bit. Reasonable perpendicularity of bowties to the hull only occurs when the dynamic model of AA were true and at detonation the missile was already exhausted and only had a velocity of 600 m/s or Mach 2 left. What seems quite possible so for from Snizhne.

    THE FALSIFICATION OF 9N314M (3)

    http://tinyurl.com/pk3wc8l

    – Main evidence is no butterflies are found in the hull of MH17.

    Circumstantial evidence:

    – Bowties are launched with their upper side.

    – The warhead wall is made out of a strong load-bearing compound with partially underneath a layer of cubes. This wall prevents rotation of bowties at the moment of blast. Rotation only happens if the compound exerts differential influence what is not likely.

    – Hence, bowties are packed together and covered as they will not rotate but translate by the blast.

    – The blast is no conflicting impulse perpendicular on the missile’s velocity.

    – Both directions are simply added in a sum vector of missile direction and blast direction.

    – This means bowties are translated in the direction of the sum vector.

    – The sum vector is reasonable surface normal to the hull.

    – Because of this sum vector a single speed prevails.

    – For rotations of bowties an intervening influence would be needed as aerodynamic drag.

    – But the blast causing the speed of bowties is many times stronger than any aerodynamic drag. Moreover, the air is thin at 10 km. Strong winds are definitely weaker than the blast in the first 0.0015 second.

    – The point of detonation is about 3 meters from the hull. Already within 0.0015 second, bowties crash on the hull with their upper side. Speed of the plain is barely relevant. This must give a number of characteristic butterflies.

    – A 14% area on the roof in front of door L1 to the left windshield is selected as reasonable surface normal, which can be inspected from the pictured roof plates.

    – Following the ‘separated time and space blast theory’ of DSB on the left side of the 14% area are expected: .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84 bowties.

    – Following the ‘separated time and space blast theory’ of DSB on the right side of the 14% area are expected: .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178 bowties.

    – Also under quite acute angles bowties would show characteristic impacts:

    – Maximally 617 bowties are expected accepting a 120% angle from the warhead to the aircraft: (.33 x .32 x 1870 = 197) + (.33 x .68 x 1870 = 420) = 617 bowties.

    – DSB found 350 holes of impact for 7840 striking elements. Bowties would have shown maximally 84 butterfly holes, seen from all angles (24%of 350).

    – All this evidence together falsifies 9N314M from Snizhne.

    NB: cylindrical charges are known to have co-propagating shock waves reflected from the opposite of the charge casing. In the second instance this additional shock wave might cause rotation of bow ties due to translation of the rocket. However, this most intriguing effect would be found in a variation of butterfly impressions on the hull, which is not the case. Finally, acute angles are more detrimental for recognizing bowties than rotations.

    • > Hence, bowties are packed together and covered as they will not rotate but translate by the blast.

      What a stubborn man. In the AA test the bowties did rotate. Look at this picture http://savepic.su/6411148.jpg. The three holes all have been made by fragments at different orientations. So we can see that they at least rotate around the surface normal vector. This is the direction of rotation around which the torques should be small (compared to other axes). Therefore, we can conclude that normally fragments would spin about all axes.

      This subject should really be moved somewhere, as these two guys added so much unrelated stuff to the page. I understand they are covering gaps in their understanding, which is a good thing; but it should be done somewhere else.

  45. As to the question 20:
    “Appendix X section 2.4 page 13 mentions exit damage on the righthand side of fuselage. What is the exact location of the exit damage?”

    Has anybody found where it is on the body?
    I want to speculate. The hole is on the very bottom. Only slightly to the side, just enough to make it legally “right”. On the photograph a bit of dirt is visible sprinkled on top (you need a higher res version to see). Thus it was probably photographed in the field, facing upwards, not on the mock-up.

  46. Thanks for all constructive criticism. I reformulated the model and relaxed the translation principle somewhat. We might conclude the lancet proposed by A-A is a phenomenon not yet well understood. Millions of simulations just delivered a random blur with some heavy metals in the midst:

    http://tinyurl.com/pszygp8

    Predictions from the dynamic model are not much better. Yet there is something fascinating with the lancet what may explain the working of the scythe through the cockpit of MH17. But until now at best the blast throws light metals far in the outer radial region (blue) while heavy metals remain more in the inner region. The form of the lancet might also be influenced by the positioning of shrapnel on the warhead.

    Speed really makes a difference:

    http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq

    But without good predictions hypotheses from A-A also must be rejected. The state of the art not yet explained the state of nature.

    Both, Eugene and Antidyatel stipulate the second shock wave shatters the wall, what could make the detonation process somewhat chaotic. Hence we accept some rotation around the frac speed vector translated to the sum vector. Also vertical rotations sporadically are possible. Because of co-propagating shock waves bowties accidentally can rotate around the surface normal vector of the hull. Bowties also can rotate otherwise.

    But it is expected most bowties approach the frag surface at an angle given on the frac speed vector by the blast, which vector needs not be surface normal. Which also means the velocity vector is not strictly perpendicular to the frag surface. Bowties on the sum vector will enter the hull under independent angles.

    All these rotations need not affect the model of DSB because Striking elements (Se’s) maintain their position in the group. They might rotate but are not mingling. Therefore, DSB model now agrees better with the data of AA which are said to show some rotations:

    http://tinyurl.com/pc8evla

    Heavy spinning is not yet assumed because it is not clear how this could lead to parallelity of Se’s. And there are not found so many drilled holes.

    TNO has reported that the spread pattern they calculated with the help of Split-X was not well observed on the wreckage. What was not surprising since the roof was gone.

    THE FALSIFICATION OF 9N314M (4)

    http://tinyurl.com/okb5y6m

    It is well known no clearly identified butterflies are found on the hull of MH17. But under what conditions bowties certainly could have been expected? We set the conditions for finding butterflies on the hull:

    – It is true bowties are launched with their upper side.

    – Also we know the warhead wall is made out of a strong load-bearing compound with partially underneath a layer of cubes. This wall prevents rotation of bowties at the moment of blast. Now a force is needed to break the casing but without proof we will not accept this leads to much rotation of bowties.

    – Rotations will happen if the compound exerts differential influence on the Striking elements (Se’s) what not seems likely. But deliberate construction can cause rotations.

    – We think it would be convenient if bowties are packed together and covered as they will not rotate much but translate with the blast.

    – In the flight bowties could rotate unintentionally because of cylindrical charges are known to have co-propagating shock waves reflected from the opposite of the charge casing. In the second instance this additional shock wave might cause rotation of bowties due to translation of the rocket. In what case their original angle also could be changed.

    – A sum vector is combined by adding speed from the direction of the blast (the frag speed vector, 2000 m/s) to the missile’s velocity vector (600 m/s). Then it shows a missile with a velocity of Mach 3 (3000 km/h) would bend the sum vector too much from the aircraft and perpendicular holes could not have been expected from Snizhne.

    – Only a missile from S. slowed down to Mach 2 (2000 km/h) gives reasonable perpendicular holes. From Z. with Mach 3 perpendicular holes barely can be expected.

    – Bowties are launched and translated into the direction of the sum vector. But a number of them will rotate around the frag speed vector, what becomes visible on the sum vector. Bowties will only accidentally rotate around the surface normal vector of the hull.

    – Extraneous influences on the sum vector causing rotations are not expected. The blast causing the speed of bowties and the shock waves are many times stronger than any aerodynamic drag. Moreover, the air is thin at 10 km. Strong winds are definitely weaker than the blast in the first 0.0015 second.

    – The point of detonation was about 3 meters from the hull. Already within 0.0015 second, bowties crashed on the hull mostly with their upper side. Speed of the plane is barely relevant. This must have given a number of characteristic butterflies.

    – A segment on the roof of MH17 can be seen as more or less surface normal to the sum vector. For this segment we exactly calculated the expected numbers of bowties:

    http://tinyurl.com/qd6fyj9

    – A 14% warhead area is selected on the roof in front of door L1 to the left windshield as reasonable surface normal, which can be inspected from pictured roof plates.

    – Following the ‘separated time and space blast theory’ of DSB on the left side of this area are expected: .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84 bowties.

    – On the right side are expected: .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178 bowties.

    – But also under quite acute angles bowties would show characteristic impacts:

    – Maximally 617 bowties are expected accepting a 120% angle from the warhead to the aircraft: (.33 x .32 x 1870 = 197) + (.33 x .68 x 1870 = 420) = 617 bowties.

    – DSB found 350 holes of impact for 7840 striking elements. Then bowties would have shown maximally 84 butterfly holes, seen from all angles (24% of 350).

    – All this evidence together and no bowties found falsify 9N314M from Snizhne.

    So far good progress has been made; please don’t stop your scathing commentary 🙂

  47. Wind tunnel man // November 19, 2015 at 8:45 pm // Reply

    Basic Dimension:

    http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq – please note that’s not actually a “lancet” rather it’s merely an indication of the “entry hole angles of submunitions” from a theoretical warhead prior to repositioning and reorienting – A-A presentation, slide 43, top image “dynamic position”.

    The lower image “static position” also shows the entry hole angles of submunitions but with a repositioned and reoriented warhead, i.e. with “adjustment corrections”, simulating a moving missile approaching from an area south of Snizhne and intercepting a target representing MH17’s movement and heading – that was used for the live test on the IL-86 and a “lancet” was not correctly formed.

    The formation of the “lancet”, as intended by the designers, from an actual moving M38(M1) missile and 9N314M warhead is shown in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsohFzbJ-vs at 13 minutes and 30 seconds.

  48. Range differences between warhead 9N314 and 9N314M

    The main problem of warheads is overshoot of small fighter aircraft by too early or too late detonation.

    Fighter aircraft are fast and so missiles must be much faster. The maximum speed of a BUK-missile is Mach 3 (1000 m/s) on a very short distance. But this speed also is the enemy of precision. And a BUK cannot slow down near the target.

    So what is the problem of a BUK-missile? It is the sum vector formed by the frac speed vector (2000 m/s; Mach 6) and the speed of the missile (1000 m/s; Mach 3), by which the fast missile might fire behind the fighter jet from a too sharp angle:

    http://tinyurl.com/ogsw8pk

    If the missile flies as slow as 600 m/s (Mach 2) the sum vector would be more perpendicular to the jet. But if chasing fighter jets on very short distances missiles are not yet exhausted.

    http://tinyurl.com/okb5y6m

    Hence, the predecessor of A-A invented a means of firing backwards from the rear part of the warhead: He divided the warhead into two parts. In the back part he placed early exploding bowties and fillers to acquire an angle of more than 90 degrees in case of late detonation. And at front of the warhead he placed cubes, bowties and fillers which fired forwards for a sharper angle by early detonation.

    http://tinyurl.com/p5kygsq
    http://tinyurl.com/ncmtkjs

    Conclusion: The overall strategy of a 9N314M is to broaden the range of the blast compared to 9N314. The range had to be broadened since the reach of the frac speed vector itself is extremely short and the point of detonation is almost on the fighter jet.

    http://tinyurl.com/oxxy56l

    Since the detonation point is on minimal distance from the jet, the sum vector needs an angle of 90 degrees or more to fire backwards. That’s the sophisticated strategy of warhead 9N314M. And look at the DSB model: bowties and fillers are firing backwards:

    http://tinyurl.com/q9479x2

    With an exhausted missile very far from Snizhne and a big passenger aircraft, warhead 9N314M definitely was not needed. So, if the Russians deliberately shot down MH17 from S. they never would have used 9N314M but 9N314.

    [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG0Bi_wf7JM]
    http://tinyurl.com/p458ahk
    http://tinyurl.com/qgmxhkk
    http://tinyurl.com/o6v2ns7

    On the other hand, if someone intentionally shot down MH17 from Zaroshchenske he could have used 9N314M, for it was a very short distance with a big risk of overshoot. But again with a very big passenger plane even a 9N314 would not miss:

    http://tinyurl.com/qz5oqk2
    http://tinyurl.com/pssa42o
    http://tinyurl.com/qg5vpb7

    So, 9N314M was no optimum.

  49. tony baum // May 21, 2016 at 4:55 am // Reply

    Excellent analysis , Just to add my thoughts , you are looking for a a form , my family filled out a blank form here https://goo.gl/ftpKaQ.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*