Report on MH17 presentations at Spui25 evening

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Spui25 organized an interesting evening on MH17 at November 3. Four persons did a presentation of various subjects about MH17.

One of the speakers was  Marjolein van Asselt. She is member of the Dutch Safety Board and she did a presentation on the investigation into the cause of the crash.

At the end of the four presentations three of the four presenters were seated on stage and anwered questions of the audience. The representative of the DSB was not supposed to take part in the panel. And she said she was not supposed to answer questions. However the audience addressed the DSB representative in questions. And Mrs Van Asselt did answer the questions. Also after the meeting had ended she answered a couple of questions before she had to leave the building.

There were no real scoops in the DSB presentation but still some interesting small quotes of Mrs van Asselt.

“Almaz Antey published their presentation first on the internet before it was presented to the Dutch Safety Board”. That is not according ICAO Annex 13. I think Van Asselt means the second meeting where Almaz Antey confirmed it was a 9N314M missile

“DSB contacted Russia Today to get information about the recovered cockpit roof parts”. See this item of Sputnik.

DSB staff got the book written by Joost Niemoller titled ‘de Doofpot deal’ as a Christmas present. The goal was to keep everyone of DSB critical.

The statements done by Almaz Antey done in the DSB investigation must be regarded as official statements of the Russian Federation . So this means the Russian Federation agrees MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile

“DSB did not interview eyewitness on the ground. That is a task of the prosecutor”

“DSB learned a lot from the Russian Federation about the warhead. Almaz Antey was initially not sure which warhead had bowtie fragments. DSB did not have the knowledge. Without the help of the Russian Federation DSB could not have concluded a 9N314M warhead must have been used because of the unique fingerprint being bow-tie fragments”

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

12 Comments on Report on MH17 presentations at Spui25 evening

  1. Nice bits and pieces of info! Thanks for sharing.

  2. > “DSB did not interview eyewitness on the ground. That is a task of the prosecutor”

    The task of the criminal investigation is to determine who is guilty. The task of the DSB was to figure out what’s happened. There is nothing wrong with questioning witnesses with the goal to determine what’s happened.

    • I completely agree with that. To me DSB just did not do its best to find out truth. Joustra telling press that area BUK was launched from was controlled by separatists was a mega blunder.

  3. “DSB learned a lot from the Russian Federation about the warhead. Almaz Antey was initially not sure which warhead had bowtie fragments. DSB did not have the knowledge. Without the help of the Russian Federation DSB could not have concluded a 9N314M warhead must have been used because of the unique fingerprint being bow-tie fragments”
    esp. “Almaz Antey was initially not sure which warhead had bowtie fragments.” Initially means initially. And there is a big problem for DSB.
    Look into the DSB report. page 92 , table 11

    One (!!) bow-tie formed shrapnel (nr.20, 5,7 g) was found in the pursers body, another one (!!) cubic formed (nr.15, 1,3g) in the body of the first officer. None (0!) shrapnel in the captain.

    Purser and 1.officer had 100 to 120 (respectively) metal parts (no shrapnel) in their bodies. Source of these metal parts? Outer shape of a BUK warhead? So many little parts? Metallurgical investigation of these little parts? A lot of question-marks!

    Besides the fact that these two shrapnels are missing about 25 % of their weight (compared to a BUK shrapnel) they seem to be DSBs only h a r d evidence for a BUK. Remmeber: the mentioned other shrapnells were collected in Nov.2014 in wreckage parts.

    There should be much m o r e than 1 (one!) shrapnel in a body, when a BUK explodes about 5 m from the cockpit. If in this sector we have, let us say , about 10 % of 7600 shrapnel, we would expect in an area of 2x2m= 4 sqm about 19 shrapnels in a 10x10cm area.
    This number is the minimum to expect in a body so near to a BUK detonation as assumed.
    So, hard evidence vor a BUK warhead is missing.

    • Sure there’s always room for improvement, especially for perfectionist’s taste.

      >DSBs only h a r d evidence for a BUK.
      You are saying it was something else than a BUK?

      >There should be much m o r e than 1 (one!) shrapnel in a body,

      It depends where the body was. What body you mean?
      Does DSB state there was only one shrapnel in captain’s body?
      Or do they say there was only one boutie fragment in captain’s body?
      We know the body was opened on the site and we do not know how many shrapnel was taken. Same for the whole wreckage.
      We do not know how many shrapnel traveled through captain body etc…

      > when a BUK explodes about 5 m from the cockpit.

      DSB states the explosion was 4m from the tip of the Boeing777 nose.
      It means something like 2m from the captain’s window.
      But I’m sure it was closer.
      A-A demonstrated that BUK does very little structural damage when exploded meters away from cockpit. Unlike what we see on MH17.

      >So, hard evidence vor a BUK warhead is missing.
      Look how dense the shrapnel hit pattern is on MH17 vs A-A demo of BUK warhead. A lot more dense on MH17. So it must have been BUK kind of warhead or even larger with even more shrapnel.

      • quick refresh:
        At least 43 of the inspected fragments were confirmed to be from missile warhead. (it seems only 72/500 fragments were studied in high detail) So far those 43 deformed fragments seem to match with BUK M1 warhead.

        The paint of BUK missile pieces that were found on crash site were compared to missile pieces found from the plane. They match.

      • quick refresh:
        At least 43 of the inspected fragments were confirmed to be from missile warhead. (it seems only 72/500 fragments were studied in high detail) So far those 43 deformed fragments seem to match with BUK M1 warhead.

        The paint of BUK missile pieces that were found on crash site were compared to missile pieces found from the plane. They match.

      • Wind tunnel man // November 3, 2015 at 2:37 pm // Reply

        Sotilaspassi:

        “A-A demonstrated that BUK does very little structural damage when exploded meters away from cockpit. Unlike what we see on MH17…Look how dense the shrapnel hit pattern is on MH17 vs A-A demo of BUK warhead. A lot more dense on MH17. So it must have been BUK kind of warhead or even larger with even more shrapnel.”

        Or the missile was approaching from the direction of Zaroshens’ke at approximately 700m/s rather than from Snizhne where a different shrapnel hit pattern and direction of hits would be expected? The A-A demo was done in order to demonstrate the unlikelihood of a 9M38M1 missile targeting MH17 from the Snizhne area. A-A were not ruling out other scenarios completely but they did demonstrate the unlikelihood of the scenario presented in the DSB report. So you view that an even larger warhead than a BUK-M1 could have been used also casts doubt on the conclusions of the DSB report or doubts on the validity of the A-A demo?

  4. > “Almaz Antey was initially not sure which warhead had bowtie fragments”

    Microsoft was not sure which version of Windows had a Start button.
    (there had to be some sort of misunderstanding which they twisted their way)

  5. sottilaspassi: “There should be much m o r e than 1 (one!) shrapnel in a body,”

    It depends where the body was. What body you mean?

    Johannes: “Look into the DSB report. page 92 , table 11
    One (!!) bow-tie formed shrapnel (nr.20, 5,7 g) was found in the pursers body, another one (!!) cubic formed (nr.15, 1,3g) in the body of the first officer. None (0!) shrapnel in the captain.”
    There were three persons in the cockpit. 1.Officer, purser and Captain.

    sottilaspassi: “Does DSB state there was only one shrapnel in captain’s body?”

    No, there was n o (not one) shrapnel from a BUK warhead in the captain.Read the DSB report.

    Johannes: “There should be much m o r e than 1 (one!) shrapnel in a body, when a BUK explodes about 5 m from the cockpit. If in this sector we have, let us say , about 10 % of 7600 shrapnel, we would expect in an area of 2x2m= 4 sqm about 19 shrapnels in a 10x10cm area.
    This number is the minimum to expect in a body so near to a BUK detonation as assumed.
    So, hard evidence vor a BUK warhead is missing.”

    sottilaspassi : “DSB states the explosion was 4m from the tip of the Boeing777 nose. It means something like 2m from the captain’s window. But I’m sure it was closer.”

    Closer than 2 m ? Then the person who was left in the MH 17 cockpit (normally the captain) would have been torn in pieces by the detonation pressure of a BUK.
    About 5 m or exactly 4 m from MH 17 doesn t matter in my opinion. I am sure it was n o t closer, 2 m from the captains window is impossible , because there was the 1.officer /or the captain , the detonation pressure of a BUK would have damaged much more (huge hole)the outer skin and the pilots and we wold have seen a lot of soot, as in the AA presentation with a Iljushin where the BUK detonated (under stationry conditions) at a larger distance.

    sottilapassi “quick refresh: At least 43 of the inspected fragments were confirmed to be from missile warhead. (it seems only 72/500 fragments were studied in high detail) So far those 43 deformed fragments seem to match with BUK M1 warhead.”

    This is not correct. Nothing so far seems to match a BUK M1 warhead. We are speaking from BUK shrapnels in victim bodies and not from metal fragments of unknown origin ( this could be every other missile or munition or a HE fragment warhead)
    why?
    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-abouttheinvestigation-en.pdf
    page 95 ff
    “The bow-tie shaped fragments
    The Russian Federation provides three general reasons why the discovery of the pre-formed (cubic and bow-tie shaped) fragments would be insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the aeroplane was hit by a 9N314M warhead that detonated to the upper left-hand side of the cockpit, in close proximity to it.
    1.
    The Russian Federation stated that, assuming that a 9N314M warhead detonated close to the aeroplane, the number of bow-tie shaped and cubic fragments found is too small. ”
    M Y P O I N T
    “In addition, the Russian Federation stated that the ratio of the different shapes of the particles found is not commensurate with the ratio between these shapes in a 9N314M warhead.”

    A n s w e r DSB: “…..Two bow-tie shaped and two cubic fragments were recovered from the bodies of crew members and from the wreckage…”

    And exactly one bow-tie and one cubic shaped was found in the first officer and the purser respectively. Taking into account that the captains seat is normallly on the left side, this is further odd and suspicious, because there were no schrapnells found in his body.
    Confirmation of what I am writing here.

    Following DSB , only one bow-tie and one cubic shaped was recovered from the wreckage, which speaks against a BUK warhead. So your assumption is false:

    sottilaspassi: “At least 43 of the inspected fragments were confirmed to be from missile warhead”

    This is not correct and the big question is : from w h a t missile warhead!
    From what source the more than 100 metal fragments (no shrapnells) in 1.officer and purser came is up to now totally unknown!

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-abouttheinvestigation-en.pdf
    “2. The Russian Federation stated that, based on a test performed by Almaz-Antey, the weight of the pre-formed fragments found does not match with the fragments originating from a 9N314M warhead. The fragments are supposedly too light.”
    That is correct an the answer of DSB to this issue is weak:

    “As indicated before, the fragments’ shape and weight can change as a result of the impact, among other things by deformation and the abrasion of material. The extent to which this happens strongly depends on the location where the detonation took place and on the material that the fragments impact. Therefore, the results of the tests are irreconcilable with the weight of the fragments actually found.”

  6. > The statements done by Almaz Antey done in the DSB investigation must be regarded as official statements of the Russian Federation . So this means the Russian Federation agrees MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile

    As far as I can see AA never state that they’ve established that it was a Buk. When they say it was a 9M38, they always add “if it was a Buk at all”. Can anybody point mo to where they don’t add that caveat?

    AA don’t show what the missile was, they only show what the missile was not. It was not a 9m38m1, the one with the bow-ties.

  7. @sottilaspassi
    My point is, that only documented shrapnels from a warhead in the cockpit members are hard evidence. An there is hard evicence missing.

    No bow tie or other shrapnell documented (!) in the captain of team A.

    http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/1006/debcd724fe7breport-mh17-crash.pdf page 85
    “2 .13. 2
    Crew autopsy …..The findings were as follows:

    First Officer Team A
    : The First Officer was found with a four-point harness on and had
    an epaulette worn by a First Officer.
    ……In this body, an aeroplane part identified as belonging to the right hand side of the aeroplane, was found during the post-mortem examination. During the body scan of the First Officer’s body, over 120 objects (mostly metal fragments) were detected.
    The majority of the fragments were found in left side of the upper torso.

    Purser
    : More than 100 objects were detected. The scatter pattern that the fragments formed was uniform and comparable with the pattern of the First Officer.

    Captain Team B (non-operating flight crew)
    : Three metal fragments were detected by means of X-ray examination. Two of which were identified as surgical clips. The third fragment was found not to be present inside the body

    …Following identification, it was found that the body of the Captain from Team A was not one of the four bodies that underwent detailed examination. The body of the Captain from Team A had undergone an external and internal examination to remove foreign
    objects. This examination showed a great deal of fragmentation in the body. In addition, hundreds of metal fragments were found.

    Several bone fractures and other injuries that were observed in the Captain’s body were judged to be related to the impact of metal
    fragments travelling at a high velocity.”

    Very odd statement! N o detailed examination of Team A captain!! The assumption that the “other injuries” originated from metal fragments travelling at a high velocity, w i t h o u t finding shrapnels of a warhead in his body (from whatever origin), see table 11 page 92, in the Team A captain, is a clear sign of a cover up.
    See also
    http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/1006/3ae49217f73breport-mh17-crash-appendix-nlr.pdf
    p.59
    “6.16 Primary and secondary fragmentation pattern
    The fragmentation pattern described in the previous sections is called the primary or main fragmentation pattern. All the preformed fragments (bowtie,filler and square) that will become the high-energy objects are found within the fragment spray zone defined by this primary fragmentation pattern. However the warhead is not located at the very front of the missile. In front of the warhead the
    guidance, electronics, proximity fuse and seeker sections are
    located. Upon detonation of the warhead these sections will disintegrate and create a secondary fragmentation pattern moving forward in the direction of flight of the missile in a cone as shown
    in green in Figure 55.”

    So we have to differentiate in between Primary (red in figure 55) and Secondary (green in figure 55) fragmentation pattern, and the over 100 metal fragments in purser and first officer a r e n o t explained. It cannot be secondary fragmentation metal parts from the BUK missile. From what source did these pver 100 metal parts come? Metallurgical investigation? Was not done. Why?
    Primary fragmentation parts are shrapnells, and there are only two shrapnells (one bow tie, one cubic (which fits not only with a BUK) proven in the bodies of the first officer and purser. The amount (only two) does not fit at all!

    page 85 of the basic report

    “Summary of the autopsy results of the crew members in the cockpit
    The Captain and First Officer from Team A and the Purser sustained multiple fatal injuries associated with the impact of metal fragments moving at high velocity.”

    And the Team A captain,(which is not mentioned)see above, was not properly examined and documented, obviously a cover up!!
    page 88
    “2 .16 .1
    Forensic examination
    In the course of the investigation, hundreds of fragments were found in the wreckage of the aeroplane, the remains of the crew members and passengers. Some of the fragments were found to be aeroplane parts, some were identified as personal belongings and other fragments originated from the ground.”

    So the DSB mixes up “fragments” (some from personal belongings, some from the ground) with the metal fragments and these with the here interesting shrapnells!!

    “A distinct group was identified as small pieces of metal that were suspected to be high-energy objects, or parts of them. These fragments were extracted from the Captain from Team A, the First Officer from Team A, the Purser, who was present in the cockpit at the time of the crash, and from the cockpit wreckage (Figure 37).”

    So they claim to have extracted “fragments” from the Team A captain, b u t no shrapnel of a warhead, see table 11, page 92 , were found!

    “Fifteen of these 72 fragments were found in the remains of the three crew members, one was found in the body of a passenger”

    And this is the most interesting part of this investigation! From these 15 “fragments” in the remains of the three crew members (see table 11 page 92) only t w o “fragments” could be identified as shrapnells from a warhead s u s p e c t e d as a BUK warhead (but the numbers and the weight does not fit!).

    page 92 Table 11
    What matters are (“BUK”) shrapnells in human remains, so number 12-20
    Here we have Nr.15 , 6x6x5cm , 1,3 g group OTHER , so n o elemental classification possible, no proof for a BUK shrapnel.
    Then we have Nr. 19, Cubic, 12 x 12 x 1cm, 1,2 g , group Nr.2 found in purser
    An then we have Nr.20,Bow-tie, 12 x 12 x 5g, 5,7 g group Nr.1 found in 1.officer

    In the captain Team A (but also team B) , at this time in the cockpit (and normally sitting on the left side!) no shrapnell!

    For the group, the elemental composition, see table 12.
    page 95:
    “Over 500 fragments were recovered from the wreckage of the aeroplane, the remains of the crew members and passengers. Many of the objects were identified as personal belongings, aeroplane parts or objects that originated from the ground after impact. In addition, many of the objects were metal fragments that were suspected to be high-energy objects, or parts of them. ”

    Emphasizing: ” In addition, many of the objects were metal
    fragments that were suspected to be high-energy objects, or parts of them.”

    So, the whole BUK hypothesis of the DSB lies on t w o shrapnells (one bow-tie, one cubic formed), with a loss in weight of 25 % which came only supposedly (look at “suspected” in the summary) from a BUK warhead.

    And exactly this shows, that there is something wrong in this report, (which is a political influenced report) because one would expect much more “BUK” shrapnells in the bodies of the three crew members present during detonation in the cockpit!
    See also http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/1006/7c3683079996report-mh17-crash-appendix-consultation-a.pdf

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*