Questions journalists should ask Dutch Safety Board (DSB) after release of final report on MH17

Various microphones aligned at press conference isolated over a white background
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

I really like crowdsourcing. Using ideas, thoughts, opinions of multiple people to reach a goal.

At October 13 Dutch Safety Board will publish the final report on MH17. It will document cause and circumstances of the shot down. My predication for the content of the final report is here.

What I expect is that many questions will remain unanswered in the report. For example questions on the process of the investigation.

DSB might provide journalists an opportunity to ask questions at a press briefing. Now lets help journalists a bit by submitting questions to DSB you want answers on. Use the comments at the bottom of this post or use the Contact from to submit questions.

I will list your questions on this page. I know many journalists frequently visit this site. Lets hope they get inspired by your questions!

 

Questions I like to have anwers on are:

1. Why were not all relevant debris of MH17 recovered in the months after July 17?  In June 2015 still parts where found in fields. These parts had clear shrapnel damage.

2. Why were parts missing in the cockpit reconstruction as shown in photos taken in March 2015 ? These parts were already recovered and photographed days after the crash. Like the area of the windscreen wipers.

3. Are Ukraine air force aircraft seen on Ukraine ATC tapes? Many eyewitness reported seeing aircraft.

4. Does DSB requested Ukraine Air Force to hand over taped communications between pilots and air traffic controllers?

5. MH17 was ordered to change its flightplan route. It was ordered to redirect to waypoint RND on request of Rostov ATC. What is the reason?

6. What did the Rostov air traffic controller mean with his saying: we have three of those there.  The three aircraft flying at airway north to south at Rostov controlled airspace are not conflicting with MH17

7. Did DSB investigate why the airspace over Eastern Ukraine was closed up to FL320? Why was decided to close only up to FL320? Why not a complete closure of the airspace?

8. Avherald.com reports that “the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08)”. Can you comment on that?

9. Did DSB find any other military traffic flying near MH17 like an IL76 transport aircraft?

10. Did DSB investigate claims made in Russian media that GPS signal was jammed over Ukraine airspace at the day of the crash?

11. Did DSB investigate under which circumstances a BUK crew could make a mistake and shot down a civil aircraft?

12. What are the NOTAMs numbers issued by the Ukriane ATC since June 2014. When were these issued and for what reason?

13. What caused the green patches of paint on the left wingtip of MH17? Could this be paint of a BUK missile?

More questions to follow

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

112 Comments on Questions journalists should ask Dutch Safety Board (DSB) after release of final report on MH17

  1. A good batch of questions admin, and reminder that the news agencies should be collecting and formulating their own.

    A couple I would like answered.

    Did you see any evidence in 2014 pre MH17 destruction of Ukrainian military aircraft shadowing civilian aircraft?

    What evidence was thrown out in forming their conclusions in the report, and what was used?

    Was any evidence not shown in the report used to make your conclusions?

    Did you have any refusals to comply with your requests for data or items that have been delayed until after the submissions to states that received the report 60 days ago, in other words, will there be new data and did anyone hamper with the investigation?

    How many images, videos and witness statements did you receive about a BUK on July 17?

    Were Russian radar images presented on their ‘report’ of what happened faked or factual?

    Was a spotter arrested in the airport?

    Were Ukrainian military planes flying July 17th in Ukraine? What types?

    DID IACO try to push Ukraine to close its airspace prior to MH17’s destruction?
    Did any other country try to push for this, including Russia?

    Whose helicopter was seen on the Russian radar tapes?

    Can you provide a HD satellite weather images and videos and data by the minute, for the record, between 10 am and 8 pm local time July 17 2014?

    Did any of the investigators get kidnapped, threatened, or injured while they were at the debris sites?

    Did Kyiv and Dnepr airport radar tapes match up?

    Just a few, I am sure others will come up with more.
    I am not sure how many of these actually are under their mandate to release.

    Fare thee well

    • Those interest me as well.
      +

      3.
      We see from released radar video that there was no military aircraft near MH17 at the time of destruction.
      But was MH17 escorted in western/central airspace of Ukraine?

      4.
      What data did Ukrainian Military provide about it’s activity 17Jul?
      Especially vs Air Force and Air Defence unit locations.

      7.
      There has been indigations that SBU had some intelligence of rebel BUK movement during 17Jul.
      Did Ukraine provide explanation why the airspace was not closed then?

      11. Did DSB investigate under which circumstances a BUK crew could make a mistake and shot down a civil aircraft?

      -We saw rebels and civilians load a lot of MH17 cargo to dumber truck. Was the stolen cargo returned and investigated?
      -We saw persons cutting some larger elements from MH17 forward fuselage and carrying it to van. Any info what it was? Where was it taken?
      -Is a 3D model of reconstructed forward fuselage and available for press analysis?
      -Did forward fuselage collapse on left side engine as there seems to be passenger chair textile stuck in engine nozzle?
      -Was US provided SAT intelligence helpful in investigation? Was any credible material received?
      -Did DSB find RU delivered intelligence material useful? Was any credible material received?
      -Did RU provide information of it’s air defence units at the time of MH17 crash?
      -Did RU provide military radar material from the area, showing identities of RU military aircrafts seen on radar near MH17 flight path?
      -We see that some larger element with black residue and green paint hit the left wing from cockpit direction. Any idea what it was? Was any particles of possible weapon inside that exact wing tip?
      -We saw CVR and FDR to stop recording at the same second. Is it known if the cause is specificly PSU failure or datalink failure?

    • This all creates a ‘false dilemma’. DSB is not completely neutral, nor completely biased. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. As Peter Iiskola already said “Nemo iudex in causa sua” or that no one should judge or investigate in his own cause.

      Following the rules of ICAO, the separatists were barred from DSB while Ukraine was admitted. Which means one suspect was favored over the other.

      Following ‘the argument to moderation’, this false dilemma can be corrected by supposing Ukraine – as a member of DSB – was in the position to withhold information. And as you will remember nobody asked the separatists for their opinion.

      Hence, independent researchers need to be extra critical on information from Ukraine.

      • >Which means one suspect was favored over the other.
        DSB task is to find out what happened.
        Not to find suspect.
        Via the more normal procedure Ukraine should have handled the investigation. I think DSB does it in more credible way.
        Another extreme would be that no crash participant (none of the victims) is allowed to take part in investigation because they are not neutral.

        >Ukraine – as a member of DSB – was in the position to withhold information.
        No it is not. It control only the information they themself have given to DSB. They could have chosen not to give any info, like everybody else.

        >Hence, independent researchers need to be extra critical on information from Ukraine.

        That is clear. RU, UA and US have too much politics involved.

    • an addendum question that I think is important.
      Are any of the cabin and forward fuselage pieces still missing?
      How much of the skin of the forward part of the plane do you have? 90 percent, 75 percent?

      Have DNR representatives or civilians demanded ransom for pieces they took from the crime scene?

      Do you endorse, or will you push for, changing of airspace closure rules to be changed to some kind of governing body as opposed to nation state’s regulation in conflict areas?

      Fare thee well

  2. 1. Why were not all relevant debris of MH17 recovered in the months after July 17? In June 2015 still parts where found in fields. These parts had clear shrapnel damage.

    – Ad 1: Why was debris without shrapnel damage not collected? The horizontal and vertical course angle of the missile is determined by damaged AND undamaged parts. All parts must be collected and showed for legal proof.

    – Ad 1: Can JIT prove for court not collected debris was without shrapnel damage?

    – Ad 1: Selective sampling of evidence in the wreckage can be seen as cherry picking in raw data, which might invalidate DSB’s conclusions and possibly makes other theories impossible to check. The wreckage lies not on the seafloor and must be fully reconstructed.

    2. Why were parts missing in the cockpit reconstruction as shown in photos taken in March 2015 ? These parts were already recovered and photographed days after the crash. Like the area of the windscreen wipers.

    3. Are Ukraine air force aircraft seen on Ukraine ATC tapes? Many eyewitness reported seeing aircraft.

    – Ad 3: If there is no Ukraine air force aircraft seen on Ukraine ATC tapes, tapes apparently exist and must be handed over to independent specialists. If tapes do not exist there is no proof of the absence of Ukraine air force aircraft in the vicinity of MH17.

    4. Does DSB requested Ukraine Air Force to hand over taped communications between pilots and air traffic controllers?

    – Ad 4: The absence of ATC flight data must be considered as unusual and suspicious.

    5. MH17 was ordered to change its flightplan route. It was ordered to redirect to waypoint RND on request of Rostov ATC. What is the reason?

    – Ad 5: At July 17, 2014, was MH17 the only passenger aircraft that caused contact between Rostov ATC and Ukraine ATC on this matter?

    6. What did the Rostov air traffic controller mean with his saying: we have three of those there. The three aircraft flying at airway north to south at Rostov controlled airspace are not conflicting with MH17

    7. Did DSB investigate why the airspace over Eastern Ukraine was closed up to FL320? Why was decided to close only up to FL320? Why not a complete closure of the airspace?

    – Ad 7: At July 17, 2014, it has been proven the SBU thought the separatists had a BUK in Donetsk, which missiles go 15 km high but Ukraine did not close its airspace for passenger aircraft. Now, what’s DSB’s technical problem, the working of a BUK-missile of the separatists or foreknowledge of criminal intent by Ukraine?

    8. Avherald.com reports that “the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08)”. Can you comment on that?

    – Ad 8: At July 17, 2014, if transponder data of MH17 became unreliable, would this have been a technical shortcoming of MH17, which possibly can be controlled with FDR? And if not, did other civilian planes have the same problem?

    9. Did DSB find any other military traffic flying near MH17 like an IL76 transport aircraft?

    – Ad 9: Can Ukraine or Rostov Radar deliver proof from primary surveillance radar no military aircraft took off from Dnipropetrovsk before the assault on MH17? If there was such an aircraft, we want inspection of course corrections by independent parties.

    10. Did DSB investigate claims made in Russian media that GPS signal was jammed over Ukraine airspace at the day of the crash?

    11. Did DSB investigate under which circumstances a BUK crew could make a mistake and shot down a civil aircraft?

    – Ad 11: Well, may be better first DSB delivers genuine proof the separatist shot a BUK-missile at MH17.

  3. 1. Annex 13 requests at 5.4 “…statements (to be)taken from witnesses”
    Have there been taken statements from witnesses, who saw/heard
    military aircraft near MH17 shortly before it crashed? If the answer
    is NO, why not?
    2. What methods have been used to determine the type of metal pieces
    found in the bodies of pilots and passengers?
    3. The draft of the final report was distributed on June 2ndto the
    respective countries. On that date, did the DSB know, what type of
    ammunition hit the AC?
    4. Did the DSB make use of “Bellingcat” or “Correctiv”-publications?

  4. These are my expectations concerning the final DSB report. I’ll be delighted if I’m wrong.
    1. The final report will be vague to a fault.
    2. Western media will rivet the world’s attention on some other event on Oct. 13.
    3. The report’s conclusions will not be supported by evidence that is independently verifiable.
    4. The criminal investigation will be used as an excuse to continue to withhold hard evidence.
    5. The western media will ask only softball questions. Hardball questions from other media will receive non-answers from the DSB.

    For starters I’ll want to know:
    1. Are the conclusions unanimous? If not then why not? Will there be a minority report? When?
    2. Describe in detail the metallurgical composition of all foreign objects found. Give detailed information about where, when, how and by whom the foreign objects were found. I don’t mean the 25 cherry picked objects. I mean all 500+. Did any of the foreign objects contain anything heavier than iron such as tungsten or depleted uranium?

  5. These are my expectations concerning the final DSB report. I’ll be delighted if I’m wrong.
    1. The final report will be vague to a fault.
    2. Western media will rivet the world’s attention on some other event on Oct. 13.
    3. The report’s conclusions will not be supported by evidence that is independently verifiable.
    4. The criminal investigation will be used as an excuse to continue to withhold hard evidence.
    5. The western media will ask only softball questions. Hardball questions from other media will receive nonanswers from the DSB.

    For starters I’ll want to know:
    1. Are the conclusions unanimous? If not then why not? Will there be a minority report? When?
    2. Describe in detail the metalurgical composition of all foreign objects found. Give detailed information about where, when, how and by whom the foreign objects were found. I don’t mean the 25 cherry picked objects. I mean all 500+. Did any of the foreign objects contain anything heavier than iron such as tungsten or depleted uranium?

    • The final DSB report will be a mess, a bloody shame for science caused by a very bad marriage with opportunistic politics. It has become clear the rules of ICAO must be changed.

      There will be sufficient indications for a BUK-missile, but it cannot be proven how shrapnel came into the bodies and the fuselage. For example, shrapnel can have been shot into the bodies after the crash. This is not very likely, but the opposite cannot easily be proven, since the unattended bodies were rapidly decomposing at temperatures higher than 30 degrees and were not monitored by independent authorities. Later on the crash site has been intensively shelled by Ukraine and was unattended for many months. Hence, all shrapnel probably has zero legal value, which possibly was intended.

      Also finding parts of a BUK-missile in the vicinity of the wreckage is very remarkable. This missile had a different drag equation and a very different velocity in speed and direction. May be those missiles have very strong magnets to attach to aluminum, since the wind tore the victims literally apart. Of course this all has no legal value.

      Jit has no position and will resort to a political condemnation, but even DSB possibly only concludes a BUK-missile by exclusion of other possibilities. For direct evidence the shrapnel holes in the fuselage need metallurgical investigation and damage by high temperatures of BUK-shrapnel must be demonstrated by independent instances.

      There might be agreement about the point of detonation, but for both course angles a thorough screening of the whole fuselage and wings is needed, since wreckage without shrapnel is also important.

      The report will definitely make a lasting impression on the relatives of the victims.

      • “May be those missiles have very strong magnets to attach to aluminum, since the wind tore the victims literally apart. ”

        Magnetization of aluminium will guarantee a Nobel Prize in physics. Good sarcasm

      • >The final DSB report will be a mess…

        Give them a chance.
        So far their work on MH17 is OK. Just wish they would have been on the site sooner.

        >There will be sufficient indications for a BUK-missile, but it cannot be proven how shrapnel came into the bodies and the fuselage.

        Do not be childish. Forward fuselage passengers and plane debris were spread across wide area. Too wide to frame it.
        https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wdEhSZFByVHZCbjA/view?usp=sharing

        >For example, shrapnel can have been shot into the bodies after the crash.
        With a shotgun filled with BUK shrapnel?

        >Later on the crash site has been intensively shelled by Ukraine

        That is a myth.
        I have found only one crater near the MH17 main debris areas. It explains only the GRAD rocket fragments (non metal) found from cockpit.

        >which possibly was intended.
        If one believes in fairy tales.

        >Also finding parts of a BUK-missile in the vicinity of the wreckage is very remarkable.

        Sane reasons:
        -planted there
        -found in debris field, not near wreckage
        -came down with plane debris
        -piece was moved deliberately or unintentionally

  6. Admin, sorry to post off topic, but the contact page doesn’t work with my browser.

    John Helmer has published 3 articles recently that focus on what is known about the autopsies. The articles are detailed and linked to supporting information. I don’t know anything about the writer, but he is approaching the subject from another perspective.

    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14084 (9/13/15) “MH17 – Dutch Prepare Missile Attack on Moscow”

    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14117 (9/16/15) “MH17 – Inadmissible Evidence for What Cannot Have Happened”

    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14153 (9/17/15) “MH17 – The Lie To End All Truths, and the New Evidence”

    • John Helmer has added another article to the series. If he has inferred correctly that the autopsy data does not correlate with a Buk missile strike, then sooner or later the investigators will be asked these questions:
      1. When did you know that MH17 was not shot down by a Buk missile?
      2. Why didn’t you inform the public?

      http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14240

      • Helmer is a farce, was not at the conference and does not know what was discussed.
        He fraudulently claims, as you do, that since Australian’s (sitting in various parts of the plane) autopsies did not show signs or fragments of a BUK missile, that means a BUK missile could not have been the culprit.

        Which is a false conclusion because most of the fragments were concentrated on the pilot’s and the odds of a their fragments hitting every single passenger of the plane is very low.

        They were shielded by various bulkheads, of the 4 thousand or so missile fragments, considering the donut, probably less then one thousand hit the plane, still a considerable number, but most were concentrated at the front of the plane.

        So we have two issues, Helmer making statements about a person that was at a conference that NEVER spoke to Hemler and never divulged any confirmed information.

        And a false conclusion that since Australian bodies did not show deaths from high energy objects a BUK missile could not have hit the plane.

        Those a just a few of his lies and false statements as a Uncle vova defender, who happens to work in Moscow as a journalist (propagandist? you make that call) I can easily pick out from his article.
        There are many more lies and obfuscations.

        Hemler is as terrible a liar as terrible as he is at a journalist with morals.

        Fare thee well

        • The number of fragments that struck MH17 is unknown. Or do you have a link that you haven’t shared?

          There were seven Australian passengers seated near the front in seats 1g, 1f, 2c, 2a, 2j, 2k, and 3k.
          http://graphics.wsj.com/documents/mh17-seatmap/

          • IsThatSo, Hemler never interviewed the Doctor, he was never at the conference.
            He has no reliable factual data on what was discussed.
            He is just making his story up as he goes.
            He may have got news a bunch of specialists were getting together for a conference, but that is all he knows.

            I can make a fictional tale up about you meeting your great great great great grandson which info I got from an anonymous source, and tell it from authority, but that does not make it true.
            Hemler is a liar and fictional storyteller.
            Much of his site does not stand up to scrutiny, even a reading with no added research necessary will expose many flaws.
            Thank you for the link.

            As far as the amount of shrapnel, I am just going on the size of the cloud, how quickly the 777 flew through it, the shape of the cloud, and were the common accepted guesstimate of location of the warhead when it exploded.

            Fare thee well

            Fare thee well

        • Yes. Helmer is just doing pro-RU propaganda.

  7. First question: the event was used for political decisions, like sanctions. Dangerous blame game was started against a country capable destroying world 5 times. Many accusations and counter accusations could be resolved by publishing the full transcript of the voice recorder. The content of that transcript cannot change, I repeat, CANNOT CHANGE no matter how long they withhold it. Interpretation of content can change in collaboration with other evidence but not the content itself. Hence the question. What was a moronic excuse or burocratic jibber jabber that convinced them to keep the whole transcript secret till now?

    • Question two. On a day of event John Kerry vividly described not just a single satellite image but it seems like the whole movie of how missile started, flew and then destroyed the plane. Did DSB request the movie from state department? Id they refused, did DSB recommend to Obama sending John Kerry for psychological treatment?

      • Kerry, being a civilian, may have described whatever he wanted; however, he hasn’t seen any “movie” as you describe it. There exists no “movie” of the shot-down. Specialized satellites analyze electronic signatures that allow them to identify a ‘Buk’ radar working and then the launch of a missile, that’s for sure, and maybe its track and even the explosion (of that I’m personally not 100 per cent sure but it can be so as well).

        If you remember, the US were quick to release their very first schematic image describing the event, and that scheme (not a direct satellite image but a small and a very low resolution scheme) correctly showed the launch point as somewhere south of Snizhne — long before first geolocations of this place were done.

        • Prosto Tak:

          “If you remember, the US were quick to release their very first schematic image describing the event, and that scheme (not a direct satellite image but a small and a very low resolution scheme) correctly showed the launch point as somewhere south of Snizhne — long before first geolocations of this place were done.”

          That isn’t the way I remember it. @WowihaY decided it was south of Snizhne on July 17. GirkinGirkin released his photo on July 17/18. The Snizhne video came out on July 17/18. Ukraine@War did geolocation on July 21. Russian MOD had their Zaroshchenske briefing on July 21. I think Oliphant was also on July 21. And then finally on July 22 the US released its power point marker drawing slide using Digital Globe base mapping. Kind of late to the game.

          • Do not forget as well, Operation Sea Breeze (I believe was the name) was happening in the Black Sea.

            So besides those two AWACs planes over watching the area in both Romania and Poland, who would have been out of range of observing the launch and destruction, there were surveillance ships in the Black Sea.
            Besides those USA and NATO based assets, there were land assets and other naval assets roaming around that are more specific to individual nations national security.
            Did China or India have their own satellites watching?

            Did USA have skunkworks craft such as stealthy unmanned high altitude drones that are technically a satellite, but really a remote controlled object?
            So they described it as a satellite but it was a drone capable of video and covering a large region from high altitude?

            Fare thee well

    • Question 3. There were quite a number of mid air collisions in the past. Both ATC and on board electronics for preventing such collisions was the reason for those. So pilots pay serious attention to messages from ATC about incoming traffic. And they look for the plane in those directions. In MH17 case pilot also had to manuvor to change the direction and manuvor was finished just 1 minute before the hit. Now, what is the probability for the pilot and co-pilot not to notice a vertical plume of smoke in front of them and not to comment about it for nearly 30 seconds of visibility? Assuming that rocket was launched from Snezhnoe and preliminary report didn’t lie that nothing interesting was on a black box?

      • Let me be even more specific. Vertical column of missile trail that crossed their field of view.

      • Antidyatel:

        To me it is fully clear that there was no relevant info in the rest of the ATC & CVR record.
        That is fully inline with what we saw in RU radar and via transponder based plane tracking and on debris field.

        There never was a sat image or video. Everyone who has spend some time thinking about it know it.
        https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wVVgyaGZmQ3JkUTQ

        >Both ATC and on board electronics for preventing such collisions was the reason for those.

        To my understanding civilian aircrafts do not always have active radar. Did Boeing777 have it?
        It is not normal use case for civilian radar to try to detect 40cm diameter object.
        It is sane to try to see small airplanes and larger than that.

        >Now, what is the probability for the pilot and co-pilot not to notice a vertical plume of smoke in front of them and not to comment about it for nearly 30 seconds of visibility? Let me be even more specific. Vertical column of missile trail that crossed their field of view.

        From the evidence so far, the plume never crossed their field of view.
        When missile rocket engine burned it’s fuel the missile was about 20+km away from the plane. Emitting grey smoke, comin through grey clouds, IMO, not possible to be seen from MH17 cockpit.
        After that the missile flew with very little emissions. I’m absolutely sure it is not possible to see 40cm diameter object flying to you at 4000km/h. +It hit’s you before your eyeballs delivered data is processed in your brain.

        So proppability to not to see is 102%.

        (I’m surpriced these same silly conspiracy stuff is up for over a year and still continue without any realism / facts.)

        • Although I disagree with this links assessment of what happened and much of its statements in general, it describes some of the assets in the area for surveillance at the time of the shooting.
          https://libya360.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/mh-17-and-nato-excercise-breeze-2014/

          This one describes a little more as far as AWACS.
          http://www.stopfake.org/en/lies-germans-proved-the-boeing-had-not-been-downed-by-buk/

          Now besides USA and NATO specific forces, many other nations had their radar trained up there.
          Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, and others had assets in the Black Sea or nearby.
          They may have transferred items behind closed doors, or it may have been acquired during operation Sea Breeze.
          China might have had its own spy ship that noticed what was going on and did not want to ruin relations openly with anyone so quietly passed something on.

          Could Kerry’s statement be a lie, doubtful.
          Could he have made that statement on a video created by analysts of SBIRS data? Maybe

          Could USA have had a plane at 50km or higher that is not a satellite taken images and video?
          You should ask yourself that.
          There are a lot of skunk works projects that we may not know about for a while, like stealth high altitude unmanned drones but not exactly satellites, but could be called that.

          Whether or not USA wanted to expose its secret ops too soon is a question to ask, that may be a reason for a bit of the secrecy on the evidence.

          Fare thee well

        • To me it is fully clear that your opinion is irrelevant. Who do you think you are to claim any authority on black box content? This western arrogance is really annoying. Your MSMs cried about the precious black boxes for 4 days. But after the boxes were transfered to them they pretended that it is not important. Fantastic Logic. The funniest thing is that you really don’t see the problem here. Let me repeat again. Content ofbthe black box cannot change (should not change) with time. It is fixed data. Only it’s interpretation will change. There is no excuse for not releasing on such a case. Even justice record the explosion time. SBU agent managed to hear explosion 15 kilometres away ground distance and 10 km in altitude. Why wouldn’t black box record a much louder noise? (I know that plume photographer invented his story but it is pleasure to troll you)
          I’m glad that you know that satellites don’t provide videos. But somehow you manage to make it your victory in anti-troll campaign. Some really twisted Logic. But let me me quote the hero:”We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory, we saw the hit. ” Kerry is lying and lying blatantly. And this is before any MOD report. How is it that Bellingcat doesn’t make the full investigation of the source that lied so often in the last century and continues till today?

          On which altitude the rocket will stop ejecting the plume? At which second it will cross the FOV of the pilot if it was launched from Snezhnoe?
          “It hit’s you before your eyeballs delivered data is processed in your brain.”
          I’m convinced about your’s brain processing power. But just to troll you, what is the processing time you are talking about? And what is the observation time are we talking about? You mentioned speed. But I have to disappoint you that it is grossly inadequate for time estimation. School physocs

          • Antidyatel:

            “western arrogance is really annoying.”

            The biggest western arrogance is the idea that this time there will be a trial for an airliner shootdown. There were no trials for Iranian Air 655 or Siberian Air 1812, etc. Here there has been constant talk of a trial from the very start when Geraschenko cried that Putin needed to face a tribunal over MH17. A neutral observer sees this as a species of western arrogance where the lives of official westerners are far more important and valued than a planeful of Iranians or Russian Jews, or for that matter the thousands of innocent victims of Turchinov and Yatseniuyk’s war in Donbass or the poor souls burned alive in Odessa or shot dead in cold blood at Maidan – none of whom have or will ever get a day in court for recompense.

            I will again state with complete certainty – there will not be any trial because there will be no one to put in the docket accused as guilty because any trial will become extremely embarrassing for all sides involved if the accused is given the opportunity to actually defend themselves.

            “SBU agent managed to hear explosion 15 kilometres away ground distance and 10 km in altitude. Why wouldn’t black box record a much louder noise?”

            I’ve come to believe many people must heard the warhead explosion, as there is not a good reason for them to otherwise notice the airliner falling from behind the clouds and decide to film it before it hits the ground.

            “How is it that Bellingcat doesn’t make the full investigation of the source that lied so often in the last century and continues till today?”

            Because Bellingcat is an asset of the western intelligence agencies in the soft war of Anglo-America against their perceived enemies around the world. The more slick productions in conjunction with major think tanks like the Atlantic Council that are put out by unemployed and technically non-qualified people and filled with expensive satellite imagery, supposedly funded by “crowdsourcing”, the more convinced I am of that.

            “On which altitude the rocket will stop ejecting the plume? At which second it will cross the FOV of the pilot if it was launched from Snezhnoe?”

            The rocket is launched on a slant angle and supposedly burns for 20 seconds (or more – Mr. AD insisted it burned longer than that, why shoudl we doubt him?) until it is at least past its zenith of altitude. As it would have climbed to 11 km at around 12-15 km range from Snizhne before interception from above the plane, the plume should have been quite visible coming out of the clouds with tops at 7-8 km, seeing as it was close to straight on to where they were being instructed to turn (direct to RND).

          • sotilaspassi // September 25, 2015 at 7:40 pm //

            >This western arrogance is really annoying.
            Playing idiot is annoying.

            > Your MSMs
            My MSMs?

            > … black boxes …not important.
            After I get info of debris field and RU radar, I knew FDR/CVR could not reveal anything signifficant.

            But it was surprice that shrapnel+explosion had destroyed FDAU/PSU/datalink so fast.

            >Why wouldn’t black box record a much louder noise?
            Sound travel 300m/s and shrapnel 1500m/s. Destruction is too fast for any audio record.
            Then audio samples need to be processed & packed & transferred to CVR via communication links. It will take some 50ms with ~y1992 technology. When data is at CVR it is saved. It takes more milliseconds.

            But perhaps I am the idiot.
            >But somehow you manage to make it your victory in anti-troll campaign.
            Oh. You admit you are.

            >But let me me quote the hero:”We saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory, we saw the hit. ” Kerry is lying and lying blatantly.
            He is not saying they have images or video.
            He say he has data that shows take off etc.
            By looking at data people “see”.

            Also I originally thought they have image. But, IIRC, just before the release of their 3D generated picture I had thought it out. It was IMPOSSIBLE for them to have any image.
            Then I calculated it might be possible to see faint blink of IR radiation of the 5s of intensive burn of BUK.

            I saw the hit on radar. I’m surpriced if US saw the trajectory etc. because I have used military IR imaging devices.

            >what is the processing time you are talking about?
            Collision speed of BUK and MH17 has been greater than the speed of rifle bullet.

            I say, if you look at approaching 40cm diameter thing, you might notice small dot 300m ahead of you. So you have far less than a second to compute what you see before you die.

            But so far it seems BUk aproached from the direction of clouds.

          • sotilaspassi // September 25, 2015 at 7:45 pm //

            Andrew:
            So far I have no concrete fact that the missile would have approached from above.
            Evidence point to me that it would have been still gaining altitude when it exploded.

          • Soltilspassi:

            Almaz-Antey explained the different trajectories the missile would take based on different ranges to the target. There is a transition a little over 20 km range from where the missile is still gaining altitude at interception to where it is dropping down on the target via gravity. Do you have some reason to think this is false?

            If you run some ballistic calculations based on engine burn times, you would see it has to be this way for a Snizhne firing, since the flight time is 33 seconds and the engine burn is supposedly around 20 seconds.

            Most of the BUK launch videos show the same type of path – missile climbs at a slant angle of around 45 degrees to altitude then flattens out in its final seconds of cruise.

          • “After I get info of debris field and RU radar, I knew FDR/CVR could not reveal anything signifficant.” Who do you think you are to claim any authority on the subject? If it was not segnificant there is no reason to keep them secret.
            “But it was surprice that shrapnel+explosion had destroyed FDAU/PSU/datalink so fast.”
            Glad that at least one thing you doubt in your understanding. Yes, how is it so lucky that FDAU and microphone were destroyed immeditelly. YOu know that Voice and data recorders are at the tail section and would not be affected by the explosion, don’t you?
            “Sound travel 300m/s” At 10000 m your pressure is reduced and sound travels at much slower speeds. But in case of proximity explosion the bulk of energy is tranfered by shock waves, that travel at few thousand m/s. Shock wave impact will appear on the records before your low probability event of FDAU destruction by shrapnell.
            “But perhaps I am the idiot.” – finally some self-reflection. Unknown quality for white elves. And I’m fine to be troll or Ogre if it means apposing arrogant, self-rightcheous and genocidal creatures like most westerners.
            “He is not saying they have images or video.
            He say he has data that shows take off etc.
            By looking at data people “see”.”
            So now you are phsycic. Kerry had more than a year to explain his blunder. But I’m glad that you noticed how hard it is to explain the trajectory part of it. But even remaining explanations are weak. I wonder which radar you imply when you talk about “I saw the hit”?

            When you talk about 40 cm, you mean that the rocket was going streight at the pilot. But then contradict yourself talking that rocket was coming from below. Then why do you use 40 cm cross-section. Andrew already gave you data that rocket launched from such far distance as Snezhnoe would have to cross the FOV of the pilots and it will cross it with engine still on. SO pilots will see the 50 meter long rocket and not just it’s cross-section. And they will observe the plume for many seconds before it hits them.
            Also think about. Where pilots in total silnce before the explosion? For explosion infront of you, you will react to it by sound. And voice recorder in the tale is independent of FDAU to record it. Your excuses for making this recording unimportant are really pathetic but not surpising, assuming that you are one of white elves.

          • Should be “5 meter long rovket”

          • Andrew:

            >Almaz-Antey explained …

            They lied already. Only fools believe any of their material created during last 1.5 years.

            Non A-A material that I have seen is not clear enough about the matter.

            >Do you have some reason to think this is false?

            I have not seen good analysis/test of how BUK flies to target at 10km height & 25km distance.

            >Most of the BUK launch videos show the same type of path – missile climbs at a slant angle of around 45 degrees to altitude then flattens out in its final seconds of cruise.

            The videos I have gone through:
            -missile turns towards the target at some 2…5km altitude
            -for low flying targets the missile dives from that altitude
            -the altitude of the target is never seen in videos
            -the distance of target is never seen in videos
            -the missile flight at 10km is not seen in videos

            Open for me: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxNz0P5oVk2wcWZjT3hZNlBjRzA

    • Sanctions were added PRIOR to MH17, on July 16. I don’t understand why everyone keeps missing that. Even Almaz-Antey didn’t understand that they were sanctioned before the shootdown.

    • The shooting down of MH17 was NOT used for any sanctions. Or, please name which sanctions were connected to this fact.

  8. posts are regressing at this late stage to old subjects long discussed to death,chance of pilots seeing the missile is very low as stated grey plume against grey background and likely past burnout
    as for Kerry we do not know what he meant,could well be SBIRS tracked the launch via IR,US has done so in the past quite successfully

    • No my dear R2B, regression is discussion of unverifiable photos and videos of BUK goofing around and then using mind screwing technics for making it relevant. DSB supposed to have technical experts that cam answer the question of the plume and if it was possible for the pilot to see it. Your subjective opinion, and mine, are irrelevant here. No need for aplomb. You have no clue if it is possible to see or not.

      • “regression is discussion of unverifiable photos and videos of BUK goofing around and then using mind screwing technics for making it relevant”
        this makes little sense,arguing about BuK pic dates may be relevant but fact is nearly all accept that is what downed MH17 and rebels did indeed have them
        claiming civilian pilots would have seen a climbing missile past burnout against a grey background is very unlikely,you may find that hard to accept but there it is
        “what was the American drone doing in that region?”
        what drone?

    • No matter what kerry meant. He accused someone of a very serious crime. If he doesn’t have evidence to back it up he should be prosecuted. What was the American drone doing in that region? Do you know their field of view? It is really narrow. He had to know where to look at in advance in order to detect anything

  9. Andrew, you can hear explosion if you somewhere below the hit point. For the distance 15 km away and 10 km below, there will be spreading attenuation, attenuation due to scattering. And finally refraction at interfaces of low density and higher density air. By the time the explosion reaches Torez, it will be less than a whisper.

  10. “What was the American drone doing in that region?”
    what drone?

    “regression is discussion of unverifiable photos and videos of BUK goofing around and then using mind screwing technics for making it relevant”
    not at all,argue about BuK pic dates all you want but clear now rebels had them and all seem to have accepted that,discussing SU-25 downing MH17 is however a regression

  11. Next question:

    DSB found the remains of a BUK-missile. If not mentioned elsewhere what are the exact coordinates of the site of the missile and the exact date of discovery. Also the question if the finder is inhabitant of Donetsk.

    Physical contact between the (remains of the) BUK-missile and the plane seems unlikely. But then the trajectory to the earth of an exploded BUK must be well known and must be in line with its trajectory before the crash. So, it can be known from what direction it has been fired.

    Probably the trajectory of the BUK-missile was straight forward and simple. Hence, fired from Snizhne the remains must have been found NW from Petropavlika, about 5 km against the flight path of MH17.

    Fired from Zaroshchens’ke it must have come down to the North and in the immediate vicinity of Petropavlika.

    Since it took about 10 months before the DSB reported the findings it can be questioned how they came there in the first place.

    • Well, there is a big chance of a head-on collision with a launch from Snizhne, though we know it did not happen. Now, the question is: did a launch from Snizhne happen?

      In the research by AA (Almaz Antey) the launch of a BUK-missile from Snizhne is described. Not the left side of the cockpit, but the entire cockpit would have been cut off by the ring of shrapnel:

      ‘Snezhnoye (Snizhne)

      The BUK cannot have been fired from the more distant Snezhnoye (Snizhne), because Snizhne lies in the path of the airplane, which would come to a frontal collision. Then, the ring of shrapnel would have cut off the nose of the fuselage in an instant.

      Of the windows of the right side of the flight deck nothing would be left, while those still intact today. Also missing on the right side are the rash holes. In addition, shrapnel submunition would not have achieved the fuselage, the left engine and certainly not the wing or tail. From Snizhne, the angle of the almost head-on collision in the horizontal plane is 5-20 degrees. And because Snizhne lies further away the vertical angle dropped between 0 and 12 degrees.’

      But it is far more likely that the radar of the BUK-missile was aimed precisely at the nose of the cockpit, in which case a head-on collision is the most obvious. Then the BUK-remains were to be found in the wreckage of the cockpit

      Therefore it could well be that both Snizhne as Zaroshchens’ke fall as a launching place. Hence, there might be a third candidate.

      • The trajectory of a BUK-missile is well known. Also is known how it falls to earth from 10 km altitude after detonation. Also we know the remains of the missile have not been found in the cockpit or the fuselage. So, there was no head-on collision. Hence, all the way the missile moved in a completely free trajectory.

        The exact coordinates of the crash are known. The exact coordinates of a launch from Snizhne are postulated and the angle of an almost head-on collision in the horizontal plane would be 5-20 degrees. And, since Snizhne lies further away than Zaroshchens’ke, the vertical angle dropped between 0 and 12 degrees.

        Now we already have two points on a straight line and we know firing a missile from Snizhne at MH17 would be a very simple and straightforward trajectory. So we draw that line to where the remains would have crashed.

        Now it would be very tempting for someone to drop the remains of an exploded BUK-missile exactly at the end of the forecast fall to earth.

        DSB research is not about legal liability of parties but that does not relieve you from running into a preconceived fall of tunnel vision. So, what have you done to make sure that no BUK-missile remains have been placed as a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

        • In the second instance, the BUK-remains are not on the straight line. After detonation BUK-parts lost thrust and were left with diminishing forward momentum. They underwent a changing velocity by diminishing speed by dragging and changing direction by strong winds. Hence the remains must be found NNW of the line Snizhne – aircrash.

          • If DSB was an independent scientific institute, the finding of remains of BUK would be accepted as really scientific proof of the direction from where the BUK was shot. We would be delighted and it would be the crowning glory.

            But we have an integrity problem; DSB is a hybrid between science and political opportunism. In the future the purely scientific part of such investigations should be outsourced to third parties, not to countries but to really independent institutes of good reputation. Rules of ICAO must be changed.

            We can reject the findings as possible scientific fraud of third parties but we better let calculate the various drag coefficients of found components in a wind tunnel by independent parties. We need all kind of photographs and physical measures as weight etc. Further we need the exact geolocations of all parts found.

            Then we trace the trajectories of the BUK-parts with their separate drag coefficients back to the point of detonation. And only if all converge into one point, only then we will know whether the ‘discovery’ might be considered as reliable.

            If DSB has failed to capture the geolocations the find must be rejected as negligent investigation.

          • A BUK-missile 9M38 or 9M38M1 weighs 690 kg (1,520 Lb) and carries a relatively large 70 kg (150 Lb) warhead. The 9M38M1 is a modernized rocket with long chords (Russia and Ukraine). By detonation the ring of shrapnel will explode perpendicular to the missile but in forward conical projection.

            (Inspecting the damage to the cockpit this conical projection means the missile cannot be shot from Zaroshchenske but only in line with the flight path of MH17 from the direction of Snizhne. Launched from Zaroshchenske not the left side, but the right side of the cockpit would be sliced. Or rather, seen the point of detonation, the shrapnel would have missed the plane completely.)

            Exploding shrapnel has not the slightest influence on the direction of the missile remains. It is even doubtful if the explosion itself could lower forward momentum.

            With full thrust the missile had a speed of mach 3 = 3700 km/h, may be somewhat less since the fuel was already burned. After detonation the remains will lose forward momentum mainly by the lost of thrust, and not so much by dragging, since the remains will still be a very compact and heavy piece of metal. Also strong winds will not have much influence on direction.

            Velocity will only change by diminishing forward momentum by the lost of thrust. Now, what is the trajectory of 690 kg compact metal falling to the earth with a speed of 3000 km from 10 km altitude? That’s easy. Hence the remains must be found on the extended line from the launch site to the aircrash. And the place where someone found or placed the remains of BUK can be predicted to within a kilometer of the calculated geolocation.

          • >still be a very compact and heavy piece of metal

            It would be interesting to see remains of some BUK missiles. To me it seems something green has hit left side wing tip.
            (I imagine sometimes parts of the missile remains can break loose and go with the blast. Most likely DSB/JIT got the relevant info and sample tails of missiles, from FI army if they asked.)

          • >still be a very compact and heavy piece of metal

            It would be interesting to see remains of some BUK missiles. To me it seems something green has hit left side wing tip of MH17.
            (I imagine sometimes parts of the missile remains/tail can break loose and go with the blast. Most likely DSB/JIT got the relevant info and sample tails of missiles, from FI army, if they asked.)

          • Here is an example where the missile’s tail did not continue forward:
            https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNAZ8FzWcAAq_YF.jpg

          • The point of detonation approximately is within a few meters of the aircraft and it is a matter of milliseconds before the conical shape expands. Hence from Zaroshchenske, a factual perpendicular effect might still be possible.

          • Basic D:

            Note that proximity fuse sees 20…40 meters ahead in 30…60′ angle. From direction Z the detonation of warhead starts at least ~10 meters sooner than from S direction.
            It is also possible that from Z location the missile would hit closer to center, detonating when wing tip becomes in proximity fuse cone. (40m before fuselage?)

          • Sotilaspassi:

            Thanks for information. But isn’t it the proximity fuse aims on the radar in the nose of the cockpit? Then the wingtip would not be important. Z as well as S is not quite satisfying. How about a launch in line of Z but from the other side?

          • >But isn’t it the proximity fuse aims on the radar in the nose of the cockpit?

            Proximity fuse explode the warhead when some/any metal comes to it’s view. (IMO: exploded 2…5ms after the metal behind MH17 nose cone came into view.)
            Proximity fuse does not see directly ahead, because it’s radar (receiver) is in missile nose.
            Missile is homing towards strongest radar echo coming from target, radar signal is sent by TELAR.

            My “simplified proportional navigation” idea makes the missile to cross the target flight path slightly before target, when shot from ahead.
            This way, when missile is launched from slightly south of Snizhne, it will explode near pilot window,
            And when launched slightly north from Snizhne it will explode on co-pilot side.
            If launched directly from ahead, the missile would explode on MH17 center line or penetrate the cockpit before exploding.
            When approaching from side, it can be that strongest radar echo still comes from forward fuselage, but proximity fuse will anyway function a lot sooner vs coming from ahead.
            (we would not see explosive residue in cockpit parts like we now see. IMO: fireball radius of 70kgwarhead and 500kg rocket fuel exploding is only about 10m.)

            I doubt BUK uses highly complex math when it approach the target. It rather rely in speed & brute force.

          • Sotilaspassi:

            A BUK-missile 9M38 or 9M38M1 weighs 690 kg (1,520 Lb.) and carries a relatively large 70 kg (150 Lb.) warhead. If 690 kg means including 500 kg rocket fuel, the remaining weight before detonation is only 190 kg and the remains of BUK definitely will be subject to drag and wind.

            Will the exploding warhead ruin the rocket mantle? Hence, what are the remains of the missile which fall to the earth? That’s the question as you mentioned earlier.

          • Sotilaspassi:

            If the BUK-missile totally explodes at detonation, we must hope for heavy and compact elements which are not subject too much to drag and wind. In the first place we think of the proximity fuse, maybe the entire nose, which is very compact and will be separated from the rocket mantle after explosion. Another object is the rocket engine which is not compact. We expect the proximity fuse to come much further than the remaining rocket mantle.

            http://www.ultimax.com/whitepapers/2014_1.html

            ‘So GLOW [9М38M1] is 700 kg, with a 70 kg warhead (red-colored part in the figure below). It has 500 kg of propellant. Allocate 130 kg for everything else, airframe, fins, avionics/fuze/guidance, etc.’

  12. Andrew:

    >I’ve come to believe many people must heard the warhead explosion, as there is not a good reason for them to otherwise notice the airliner falling from behind the clouds and decide to film it before it hits the ground.

    As there is no satisfying explanation for why so many people noticed the falling airliner and because there are so many accounts of hearing a loud double bang, another reason might be that one or two jet fighters in the vicinity produced supersonic bangs.

    Not that I am convinced of this theory (btw those jet fighters couldn’t be SU25) but in the absence of other explanations it should be considered.

    • Ole:

      Agreed, it could be jet supersonic bangs, but then that would be SU-27’s or MIG-29’s.

      There must be a good reason for people to come outside and see the plane falling from the clouds and some of them to videotape it. The eyewitness descriptions from the immediate aftermath on July 17 about the cockpit falling off the plane followed later by its tail are too precise for people who would not have yet had that special knowledge from looking over the whole crash scene.

      Then it must be determined if what was posted about starting at 16:23 pm on vKontakte and 16:25 pm on Twitter concerning something “loud as hell” as the residents put it, was the plane or a warhead or supersonic bang of a jet.

    • There is no subsonic or supersonic jets on radar.
      So, you believe there was a stealth fighter or plane flying supersonic below 1500m?

  13. Next question:

    Now, we have seen the main conclusion of the DSB-report is this disaster happened because Ukraine facilitated civil aviation over a war zone in which they considered BUKs present. You are right in your conclusion all other causes are of secondary nature.

    Though it is likely MH17 is brought down by a BUK-missile we all know it cannot be proven. Findings of BUK-remains and shrapnel in bodies and fuselage are indications which simply will be tackled for court. It probably will not even decide about a perpetrator.

    Therefore our question is if DSB is willing to take a pragmatic position and advise better ergonomic in BUK-TELAR, which as we all know is a mess and a psychological nightmare.

    Information must not be recoded digitally any longer but must be shown visually on advanced color computer screens. Throw away these autistic radar screens with radial speed fantasies and introduce modern psychology with visualized planes at different distances and of different kind.

    BUK-TELAR is not made for discrimination between civil aircraft and military aircraft and we propose the over-generous EU gives the Russians a grant to update their BUKs.

  14. There could be an easy solution for black boxes. DSB in open conference seal the reconstructed record and transcript. Then pass the black boxes and request them to submit their reconstruction in another sealed package. Then both packages are opened and played/compared against each other. If they coincide we get a first evidence that is confirmed and is clean from political bias. Other evidence could follow the same pattern. And thus achieve truely transparent investigation. Of course the differences of the results from two parties would be of very high interest. It is a simple solution that is still not too late to implement. Why DSB didn’t think about it?

  15. Next question

    The downing of MH17 was the tragic result of civil war in Ukraine where the government has lost every jurisdiction over Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine wrongly claimed decision-making power above a part of the country where they already lost all authority.

    Following the rules of Annex 13 of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Ukraine still must be seen as the country in charge over Donetsk and Luhansk. But factually, Donetsk has become the state of occurrence.

    Do you agree this terrible accident is caused by a wrong perception of reality by Ukraine, ICAO, the United Nations and International Law. And if not, do you accept this happening again in many areas of the world which differ from this rigid administrative conception of reality? What is your opinion on this matter?

    • You base your words on the wrong presumption. There is no civil war in Ukraine except than in the view of Kremlin and its supporters. It’s a classic foreign-inspired illegal armed mutiny that later turned to be a direct foreign intervention.

      There is no such “state” as Donetsk, even in the view of Kremlin that has created the separatist movement there.

      And this perception of the reality in Ukraine by most part of the international community is very clear.

      So, you are still free to ask such a question but don’t be surprised that it goes unanswered.

      • Misleading propaganda story. Facts are there was a coup, the eastern regions were not represented any more in the parliament and other state bodies, their representatives were kicked through the streets of Kiev. Its only logical people started to resist, with or without weapons from foreign powers.

        You really don’t have to second guess were the Poroshenko-Tanhybok side draws its support from, so foreign intervention already was there from the start. In fact, on the pro-western side. The US more or less instated “our man Yats”, remember.

        So the polical division there already was, was first channeled through the democratic process, buts disrupted by a coup and exclusion. So the division derailed into a violent one, starting with fascists sealing the doors of parliament and parliament issuing not very polite legislation from the perspective of the people in the eastern regions.

        Those people in the donbass seem to support the insurgency for the most part too.

        You can call this an Anti-Terror Operation as the US always calls their military interventions “counter-insurgency assisting”, but that is of course a very conceiling and deceptive way of talking about this strife.

    • Next question

      As is well known, there are objective indicators of civil war. One of them is unmistakably killing your own unarmed inhabitants by bombing and shelling.

      Former question was not about political analysis but about a clean registration of observable facts. Now you bluntly refused to answer this question I must conclude you have done your investigation from a political bias. Do you agree this makes you unfit for objective research of objective facts?

      • Please stay on-topic! The topic is questions asked by journalists to the DSB. Questions on war etc are not to be answered by DSB.
        . All other comments will be deleted from now on!

  16. Next question

    In addition to the country at war and all greedy grabbing airlines, which continued flying over Donetsk for financial gain, all states which failed to protect their citizens, because of laxity or political reasons, are complicit in inciting war crimes against humanity from impure motives that stated interests of air passengers not primarily.

    Will you advise to oblige airlines to give customers a risk analysis when offering shorter routes over war zones for a lowered price?

    • Some people would consider Chicago a War zone, would you?
      Russia and USA had about the same homicide numbers overall, but the USA has three times the population, so does that make Russia a war zone?
      A conflict zone?
      Some would consider Chicago a war zone or Detroit, should airlines be bound to what you describe there?
      Uncle Vova’s occupation and aggression has spiked Ukraine’s murder rate exponentially, should customers flying over Russia get that notice even though it is happening in another sovereign state?
      ASSad has murder rates he caused that are higher then the total deaths during the Iraq wars, what should be done there?
      Should nations that have had a SAM go off in the last 5 years have no fly zones placed over them?
      You’re question here sounds like your off your rocker Basic.

      It is just like me asking the IACO if they are responsible for not demanding NATO and the UN come in and secure the crash site and start WW3 because of how the Kremlin would react.
      BUT who cares about WW3, you must secure the crash site and conduct the investigation.
      You’re not using your head on a lot of your questions Basic.
      You are asking a lot of questions that answers you expect would actually cause even more detrimental effects and red tape and corruption then what we have now and make it not cost effective to fly.

      Fare thee well

  17. Next question

    Do you agree it is very wrong to let countries decide about their own airspace safety?

    If not, would you take responsibility for next casualties?

    Do you agree air safety control should be transferred to a worldwide independent organization, which compiles a weighted sum of objective indicators of insecurity?

    If not what are your opinions on this matter?

  18. Next question

    Following the rules of Annex 13 of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Ukraine must still be seen as the country in charge of Donetsk and Luhansk.

    Now we all know your organization was not one of the quickest to take up the investigation. And then I express myself mildly out.

    Can you confirm one of your members was shelling the crash site and/or its surroundings in August 2014, while this had not happened before?

    If you confirm, what actions have you taken to stop this sabotage of the investigation?

    If you don’t, what was the reason for your late start of the investigation?

    • We know rebel’s key supply route went past MH17 crash site, so it was important to cut it to get Donetsk pocket ready. Pocket was ready at the end of July.
      (we also see from satellite, that the area was later intensively used by rebels to attack to Debaltseve, there must have been counterfire)

      But sure, any sign of deliberate crime scene tampering/sabotage would be nice to know.

  19. A question or few I think would be important to answer to protect a little against future incidents.

    IF a country’s military has been targeted by insurgent forces with a SAM missile of some sort, what and when should airspace be closed?
    Maybe a list of SAM weapons fired that automatically trigger a declaration of no fly zone?
    Will you investigate all military and civilian plane shoot downs to make this assessment?

    IF an incident happens where one nation fires across a shared border at another nation’s military aircraft, should the nation firing the missile (be it from SAM or military jet) have there airspace closed, but the nation who was fired at have theirs remain open?

    Will border incidents cause airspace of both countries to be closed?
    IF a fighter jet fires missiles anywhere against anyone without UN mandate, should their airspace be declared closed?

    Also, if insurgents shoot down a plane, military or otherwise, besides the nation over the property the shoot down happened, should the country that supplied the insurgents and the military equipment (could be multiple nations if insurgents are from other nations) also have their airspace declared closed until hostilities cease?

    Or are all these giving IACO too much power and many of these are worth warranting declarations of war with a UN mandate and the member that is accused of shooting is automatically eliminated from voting be it SC or GA at the UN for a coalition and declaration of war there?

    Fare thee well

  20. Next question

    As you claim to be an independent research institute stuck to observable facts you will have noticed to have omitted one of the suspects from your team, following the weird rules of annex 13 of ICAO, which does not accept reality in admission of parties which had effective control over Donetsk.

    Where in your text did you apply the adversarial principle regarding excluded suspects?

  21. Sorry admin, last question might not be on topic.

  22. Let me add some questions:
    1.HOw could be explain two holes ( at outer and inner wall) of the boeing belly http://imageshack.com/a/img909/8749/vHMwWs.jpg and why the second hole bears traces of explosion on its banks?
    2.How could be explain picture like this : http://www.shoutwiki.com/w/images/acloserlookonsyria/4/4f/MH17_cockpit_left_side_hole_closeup.jpg round holes bend inwards in inner skin and bend outside in outer skin.?
    3.How could be explain inside small explosions act parallel to the fuselage surface near inside holes act perpendicular to the fuselage surface https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/sta287-jpg.13711/ ?
    4. How could be explain marks like sooting and burned parts and bodys fallen already burned what providing an internal explosion :
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/15825312471/in/album-72157649358752251/lightbox/
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/15642454210/in/album-72157649358752251/lightbox/
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/15828748992/in/album-72157649358752251/lightbox/
    http://naforum.zapodaj.net/e23b4404f74b.jpg.html (These last fragments of the Boeing have been found north of the Petropavlivka, several kilometers from the fire of the central part. This is proof not only of high temperatures on board, but also internal explosion on the plane).

    5. How could be explain damage to the right engine under assumption that BuK missile explode on a left side of the boeing.?
    6. Could DSB show us map which compare data from Rostov Radar and Dnipro Radar?

    • Hello again doracador.
      1) Nitrogen in the tires, and when they hit the ground they exploded and caved in the hole. Maybe even threw in some large pieces of the brakes to enlarged it. Any soot you see is from electrical fire and/or the plane catching on fire before it broke up completely.
      2) BUK shrapnel penetrations and weakening the outer skin which turbulence and headwinds caused it to peel back like a banana.
      3) Wind turbulence and hitting the ground, this thing was peeled open like a banana at 500+ mph and hit the ground like 10 pallets of bricks.
      4) a and b are electrical fires.
      c questionable, possible electric from tablet in seat, possible o2 induced, possible lighter in someone’s pocket used as a flashlight or exploded when hitting the ground.
      d likely electrical for overhead lights, but other overhead wites may have been culprit. note that also looks like a vent for air circulation , so likely more of a concentration of heat.
      5)One engine flamed out, the other was on full throttle the plane was spinning and breaking up, wind turbulance sent shards of titanium towards the right engine.
      6) Excellent question!

      Fare thee well

      • ad1. The wheels were not released. Nitrogen is not an explsosive material.
        ad2.Turbulence yes. But it was turbulence from explosion of cumulative bullets.
        ad3.Your answer is a poetry not engineer considerations.

        • 1) Airplane tires are inflated over 200 PSI, and although your right they are not combustible explosive, they are deadly and pack a lot of force with penetrations or decompression.
          This site give just a few accidents caused by airplane tires and discusses the PSI and nitrogen and Boeing.

          http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_05/textonly/m03txt.html

          2) Still going on about multiple plane’s firing and a BUK and multiple types of shrapnel we will find out in a few days?
          And firing at the 777 as it was rushing towards the ground.
          Okay then, DSB report will confirm or deny it, but I see it unlikely to impossible.

          3)Boeing was flying threw a debris cloud that was flying toward it at massive velocity as well.
          Since the is near the skin, there is also the fact that the warhead explodes in a Torus and blows some of its shrapnel with a forward velocity with a penetrations possible this way.
          Do not forget the shape of the Boeing is curved and shaped like a bullet.
          Also, I am not so sure that is the fuselage, are you?
          It looks like a tail or wing structure to me.
          To tight a radius on the curve to be fuselage.
          I am guessing that is probably from near the leading edge of a wing.
          I could be wrong, but it does not look to be part of the main body.

          Fare thee well

    • Intriguing problem: If a BUK missile cannot explain all this damage what else could have been the cause?

      Ad 1:
      http://imageshack.com/a/img909/8749/vHMwWs.jpg
      Do you think the plane burned already in the sky or just on the ground? Do you think a BUK near the cockpit could cause all this fire- and constructional damage? The inner skin of the plane seems too much bent inwards for decompression. Do you exclude an air to air missile? Are the ‘wavy edges traces’ on the picture caused by the crash on the ground or do you think decompression also deforms the supporting structure of the plane in this way?

      Ad 2:
      http://www.shoutwiki.com/w/images/acloserlookonsyria/4/4f/MH17_cockpit_left_side_hole_closeup.jpg
      Has the outer skin of the cockpit bent outwards by extreme heat and/or by decompression? Do you exclude other causes than a BUK missile?

      Ad 3:
      https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/sta287-jpg.13711/ ?
      Do you exclude inside small explosions along the fuselage and if so can decompression bent the supporting structure of the fuselage?

      Ad 4:
      https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/15825312471/in/album-72157649358752251/lightbox/
      Definitely also burning on the ground, but it looks like it brought the fire with it. No further sooting on the ground. Where and when do you think the fire originated?

      Ad 4:
      https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/15642454210/in/album-72157649358752251/lightbox/
      Where and how did this fire come about? Is this fire caused by electrical equipment and wires?

      Ad 4:
      https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/15828748992/in/album-72157649358752251/lightbox/
      The fire in this chair definitely started in the air. It looks like a fireball in the fuselage. If you exclude an air to air missile, how can a BUK detonation near the cockpit cause this kind of fire in the fuselage? The fire is extremely intense but missed the headrest. Is it a blast? Do you exclude a firebomb in the fuselage?

      Ad 4:
      http://naforum.zapodaj.net/e23b4404f74b.jpg.html
      Definitely missing parts of the cockpit, what explains the heat in the air. Parts were found near Petropavlika subject to drag and wind. The cockpit was found much further below on the course to Rozsypne. Do you think about decompression excluding an explosion in the cockpit?

      Ad 5:
      Apparently no damage found at the right engine.

  23. Ad 2:
    http://www.shoutwiki.com/w/images/acloserlookonsyria/4/4f/MH17_cockpit_left_side_hole_closeup.jpg

    Extremely hot shrapnel penetrates the aluminum outer shell of the cockpit. Exactly at these points the metal expands enormously and around the holes occurs cracking. Subsequently, the very hot and very soft aluminum is easily pressed outwards by decompression.

    Another effect could be meanwhile cooled shrapnel cannot penetrate the inner skin other than by pressing metal inwards.

  24. One other item as far as electrical fires, first I believe MH17 was carrying a shipment of Lithium batteries.
    Another thing, almost everyone that had a portable device such as mobile phone, laptop, mp3 player, tablet, camera, and others that utilize a AA or AAA size battery had lithium as well.

    I am not sure of the exact triggers for Lithium, but it may be one thing to look into.

    Fare thee well

  25. Journalists will not be allowed to ask questions or to conduct interviews.
    Just read it on #MH17.

  26. Extra questions:
    -On one of the videos some rebel is said to have seen MH17 pilot “crawling” on the field. Is there any confirmation to that? Did anyone try to help the pilot?
    -Some sources indicate there was more than two pilots on the plane. If there was, were they at crew rest room when missile hit?
    -As it seems decision is made to not allow questions before people have read the report, is there separate Q&A session planned?

    • It seem secondary radar and primary radar has some inaccuracy. Did DSB find the reason for why transponder indications did not fully match with Primary radar echo?
      (it seems PSR show the breakup kilometer(s) backwards from last SSR location)

    • I phoned the DSB this morning: they believe “the current way of giving a presenation and not allowing to ask questions is the most efficient way. All answers are in the report. ”

      This is far from being transparent and it seems DSB is avoiding difficult questions.
      There is no Q+A session planned at a later stage.

      • admin, I think the official DSB report will have a lot of information to sift through.
        And I think they are right to release the report first and force media outlets to read it before they begin asking tons of questions that are answered in the report.

        Of course media outlets will demand a followup Q&A.
        I do not think DSB can avoid this, or at least a written Q&A period.
        They may be strong enough to avoid that demand from the public, but I do not know.
        Worst scenario I expect to see is they post a FAQ in response to written submissions after the report from global media orgs.
        Best case would be a limited Q&A with reporters and a FAQ in response to written submissions.
        Many of the answers I imagine will be answered – ‘That is in the JIT mission and not ours.’
        But, that is far from obfuscating.

        Time will tell what they do and how global media will respond and how the DSB will respond to global media demands.
        It is one thing to respond to the 60 day period after June 2 2015 to many nations, it is another thing to plan a response to media demands.

        Have you heard of any official responses by other nations after they got their copy of the report?
        such as – Additional questions submitted? Questions about the report? Dissatisfaction with the report?
        I have not read about any disappointment other than the Kremlin defenders attempting to discredit DSB.

        It will be an interesting week.

        Fare thee well

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*