Social media reports of people living in Torez directly after MH17 crash

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Based on postings on a vKontakte group for people living in Torez a reconstruction can be made of what was heard in Torez around the time MH17 crashed.

One of the people living in Torez and close to the apartment of the photographer of the plume photos posted he heard two loud booms/explosions within 14 seconds of eachother. The photographer stated that as well.

While posts at vKontakte do not show the time the post was done, an API can be used to retrieve the time of post.  VK API for comments:

You can find owner_id and post_id from url (owner_id: -70279965, post_id: 83850). Set count to 10 or more and press execute button. You get json-data with time in unix format (you can convert unix to datetime in any online converter). More information can be found in the comments here.

A user called Eugene made a couple of interesting comments and made the images below.

This is the timeline of posts grouped by user in that vKontakte group.

This shows the timeline of the postings sorted on by time. All the seconds shown in the image are the seconds starting from time 13:20:44.

Below a copy of the timeline of messages posted at vKontakte

  1. 1405603244 (+0 s    ) 2014-07-17 13:20:44 Ого бахнуло
  2. 1405603258 (+14 s   ) 2014-07-17 13:20:58 еще
  3. 1405603308 (+64 s   ) 2014-07-17 13:21:48 Что это было?
  4. 1405603308 (+64 s   ) 2014-07-17 13:21:48 Что это бахнуло?
  5. 1405603320 (+76 s   ) 2014-07-17 13:22:00 ебануться что это такое?
  6. 1405603324 (+80 s   ) 2014-07-17 13:22:04 а где это?
  7. 1405603324 (+80 s   ) 2014-07-17 13:22:04 началось
  8. 1405603328 (+84 s   ) 2014-07-17 13:22:08 На Град похоже
  9. 1405603328 (+84 s   ) 2014-07-17 13:22:08 на лесной херакнуло
  10. 1405603333 (+89 s   ) 2014-07-17 13:22:13 это же рядом
  11. 1405603337 (+93 s   ) 2014-07-17 13:22:17 ебать
  12. 1405603337 (+93 s   ) 2014-07-17 13:22:17 пизда хана
  13. 1405603341 (+97 s   ) 2014-07-17 13:22:21 совсем
  14. 1405603353 (+109 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:22:33 только что сбили его
  15. 1405603358 (+114 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:22:38 Ааааааа на рассыпной это!!!
  16. 1405603363 (+119 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:22:43 кого его?
  17. 1405603367 (+123 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:22:47 Подбили суку
  18. 1405603367 (+123 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:22:47 упал в вилах
  19. 1405603371 (+127 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:22:51 самолет
  20. 1405603371 (+127 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:22:51 твою мааать
  21. 1405603375 (+131 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:22:55 видел со двора
  22. 1405603380 (+136 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:23:00 Катапультнулся недалеко
  23. 1405603388 (+144 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:23:08 вилах?
  24. 1405603392 (+148 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:23:12 И я
  25. 1405603392 (+148 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:23:12 да
  26. 1405603396 (+152 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:23:16 как на грабово ехать
  27. 1405603401 (+157 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:23:21 а звук был как у то на раене настолько громко еще не слышал
  28. 1405603409 (+165 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:23:29 ахуеть там дыма
  29. 1405603409 (+165 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:23:29 кв,только что на моих глазах взорвался самолёт!!!Клубы дыма,ужас аж стёкла дрожат
  30. 1405603424 (+180 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:23:44 [id59954256|Александр], где?,
  31. 1405603442 (+198 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:24:02 [id223560738|Евгений], где криничка примерно,
  32. 1405603446 (+202 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:24:06 Из моего окна только полоса черная была видна.
  33. 1405603446 (+202 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:24:06 что это так сильно бахнуло???
  34. 1405603453 (+209 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:24:13 [id183737668|Юлия], это где?,
  35. 1405603453 (+209 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:24:13 ебать, как ебнуло
  36. 1405603465 (+221 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:24:25 [id205378903|Олеся], где грабово,
  37. 1405603470 (+226 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:24:30 как туда ехать,
  38. 1405603486 (+242 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:24:46 хз пойду посмотрю,
  39. 1405603490 (+246 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:24:50 [id205378903|Олеся], на квартоле,
  40. 1405603490 (+246 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:24:50 Так это звук падающего самолета?Я думала истребитель слишком низко летит или бомбят без перерыва
  41. 1405603490 (+246 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:24:50 мож фотки скину,
  42. 1405603501 (+257 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:25:01 Квартол, самолет упал! + attachments
  43. 1405603506 (+262 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:25:06 [id55699928|Янчик], я тоже думала((((,
  44. 1405603506 (+262 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:25:06 возле 9 –этажки
  45. 1405603518 (+274 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:25:18 в лесу
  46. 1405603518 (+274 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:25:18 дым
  47. 1405603523 (+279 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:25:23 прямо над моим домом ебнуло,я думал ща ко мне во двор упадет)
  48. 1405603539 (+295 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:25:39 да да слышно было и волна пошла…думал щас хату снесет
  49. 1405603548 (+304 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:25:48 никого не задело?
  50. 1405603583 (+339 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:26:23  + attachments
  51. 1405603588 (+344 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:26:28 бля я пересрал больше чем когда возле меня упала
  52. 1405603600 (+356 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:26:40  + attachments
  53. 1405603630 (+386 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:27:10 2 катапультнулись возле дома!
  54. 1405603677 (+433 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:27:57 [id113279932|Артём], хватай их),
  55. 1405603695 (+451 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:28:15 самолет упал
  56. 1405603710 (+466 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:28:30 Кошмар! Дым с города видно!
  57. 1405603720 (+476 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:28:40 это у нас на девятой
  58. 1405603728 (+484 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:28:48 я там живу
  59. 1405603732 (+488 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:28:52 где это случилось!!?
  60. 1405603736 (+492 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:28:56 А еще надо хватать тех кто сбил в черте города.Спасибо Богу что на дом не упал.Об этом никто не думает.
  61. 1405603748 (+504 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:29:08  + attachments
  62. 1405603752 (+508 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:29:12 вы уже определитесь или на квартале, Рассыпной или 9той?)
  63. 1405603764 (+520 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:29:24 [id193515226|Богдан], точно на девятой?,
  64. 1405603780 (+536 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:29:40 че там
  65. 1405603785 (+541 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:29:45 На рассыпной в поле
  66. 1405603806 (+562 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:30:06 [id113279932|Артём], скоко км туда с Ц П или города, и на это место подьезд есть?,
  67. 1405603810 (+566 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:30:10 С окна на 4 районе.А стороне 7.сбили самолет + attachments
  68. 1405603831 (+587 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:30:31 можете сказать где,точно???
  69. 1405603854 (+610 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:30:54 упал самолёт тряслось всё капец летел над моим домом и упал в лесу
  70. 1405603861 (+617 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:31:01 я видел только что с окна, пиздец
  71. 1405603871 (+627 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:31:11 [id143346459|Егорий], че незаснял?),
  72. 1405603871 (+627 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:31:11 это где то не далеко от лесной
  73. 1405603880 (+636 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:31:20 [id45728613|Юлия], Да,
  74. 1405603880 (+636 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:31:20 ебанутся !
  75. 1405603884 (+640 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:31:24 я просто в шоке
  76. 1405603888 (+644 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:31:28 [id132099002|Александр], та я расстерялся,
  77. 1405603888 (+644 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:31:28 Блин, я аж проснулся, вот так бомбануло…
  78. 1405603897 (+653 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:31:37 Даже с центра видно дым….Тау бабахнуло.что мы в подвал убежали(((
  79. 1405603901 (+657 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:31:41 иду такой с магаза,и тут бумШАКАЛАКА
  80. 1405603942 (+698 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:32:22 [id193515226|Богдан], так на 9, лесной или Рассыпное?,
  81. 1405603946 (+702 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:32:26 [id142676306|Сергей], очконул? 😆,
  82. 1405603956 (+712 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:32:36 [id45728613|Юлия], на 9 за тереконами,
  83. 1405603964 (+720 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:32:44 там никто не пострадал?
  84. 1405603980 (+736 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:33:00 Я ахуела,мягко говоря)все дома задрожало
  85. 1405603986 (+742 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:33:06 Ужас😭 + attachments
  86. 1405604014 (+770 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:33:34 девятая сразу отпадает, рассыпное в другой стороне,
  87. 1405604030 (+786 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:33:50 Кто-то знает точно, где сбили самолет?А то только разные версии….
  88. 1405604030 (+786 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:33:50 так не задело дома? всё пучком?
  89. 1405604042 (+798 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:34:02 [id79044347|Дмитрий], сначала сказать,что очконул – не сказать ничего!,
  90. 1405604051 (+807 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:34:11 В Грабово
  91. 1405604061 (+817 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:34:21 9 не как не может быть лол
  92. 1405604078 (+834 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:34:38 [id231427934|Sweet], так тут говорят, что 9,
  93. 1405604098 (+854 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:34:58 [id45728613|Юлия], не правдо,
  94. 1405604117 (+873 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:35:17 [id64379892|Артём], а где тогда? кому верить?,
  95. 1405604122 (+878 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:35:22 А может хватит?
  96. 1405604164 (+920 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:36:04 Какое грабово,какая девятая,с ума сошли??
  97. 1405604179 (+935 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:36:19 [id183737668|Юлия], где именно¿,
  98. 1405604183 (+939 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:36:23 в стороне лесной или за лесной в лесу дым. упал самолет.
  99. 1405604217 (+973 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:36:57 знаю где точно упал
  100. 1405604230 (+986 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:37:10 я с 3бис разобрать
  101. 1405604236 (+992 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:37:16 33 км
  102. 1405604240 (+996 s  ) 2014-07-17 13:37:20 Хер с ним, главно что б некто не пострадал от его падения!!
  103. 1405604266 (+1022  s) 2014-07-17 13:37:46 фото с 9 этажа,это за Грабово + attachments
  104. 1405604266 (+1022  s) 2014-07-17 13:37:46 пожарка поехала в сторону с района на лесную.
  105. 1405604328 (+1084  s) 2014-07-17 13:38:48 жаль я не успела сфоткать такие искры красивые были )
  106. 1405604336 (+1092  s) 2014-07-17 13:38:56 Ребята самолет разлетелся на 4 части, возле взрослой поликлиники на трибис.. + attachments
  107. 1405604346 (+1102  s) 2014-07-17 13:39:06 мне ближе видно
  108. 1405604358 (+1114  s) 2014-07-17 13:39:18 на требесу бомбанули! Там сейчас дым! и у меня там сейчас был паап(((((
  109. 1405604366 (+1122  s) 2014-07-17 13:39:26 [id141146249|Анастасия], вот… + attachments
  110. 1405604380 (+1136  s) 2014-07-17 13:39:40 вот + attachments
  111. 1405604384 (+1140  s) 2014-07-17 13:39:44 это с откуда фото
  112. 1405604384 (+1140  s) 2014-07-17 13:39:44 Самолёт упал в Грабаво на старую ферму
  113. 1405604400 (+1156  s) 2014-07-17 13:40:00 3бис не пострадал. это в лесу
  114. 1405604426 (+1182  s) 2014-07-17 13:40:26 [id45318921|Юлия], Та не в лесу это,
  115. 1405604426 (+1182  s) 2014-07-17 13:40:26 Быстрей на металл)
  116. 1405604455 (+1211  s) 2014-07-17 13:40:55 никто походу не может точно сказать где это было. все в догадках. куча версий
  117. 1405604486 (+1242  s) 2014-07-17 13:41:26 под грабово упал, летчик не пострадал
  118. 1405604517 (+1273  s) 2014-07-17 13:41:57 [id156135932|Инна], слава Богу что не из глаз.Чему радуемся, могли ж люди пострадать.,
  119. 1405604522 (+1278  s) 2014-07-17 13:42:02 [id45728613|Юлия], Я могу точно сказать я в Грабаво он упал тут на Ферму,
  120. 1405604522 (+1278  s) 2014-07-17 13:42:02 и хер с ним
  121. 1405604529 (+1285  s) 2014-07-17 13:42:09 [id45728613|Юлия], на грабово,
  122. 1405604549 (+1305  s) 2014-07-17 13:42:29 [id231427934|Sweet], надо ему пиздюлей дать,
  123. 1405604561 (+1317  s) 2014-07-17 13:42:41 [id231427934|Sweet], откуда знаешь что не пострадал? Кто его забрал? Армия? или Боевики?,
  124. 1405604610 (+1366  s) 2014-07-17 13:43:30 Я без страшно к этому отнеслась ) хотя дом гудел стёкла дрожали…,
  125. 1405604627 (+1383  s) 2014-07-17 13:43:47 [id133290493|Никита], пострадавших нет?,
  126. 1405604642 (+1398  s) 2014-07-17 13:44:02 [id153054083|Аня], ты вообще живешь на квартале. я живу на 3-бису и возле поликлиники ничего нет!,
  127. 1405604657 (+1413  s) 2014-07-17 13:44:17 а я с ребенком в подвал((((((((((((
  128. 1405604661 (+1417  s) 2014-07-17 13:44:21 [id45728613|Юлия], Ферма старая заброшенаю там некто не живёт,
  129. 1405604684 (+1440  s) 2014-07-17 13:44:44 короче, судя по версиям, он упал на ферму,которая в грабово !! и летчик сука жив???
  130. 1405604727 (+1483  s) 2014-07-17 13:45:27 я без понятия, сосед прошелся, сказал что под грабово, летчик еще на рассыпной высадился, так сказать,
  131. 1405604741 (+1497  s) 2014-07-17 13:45:41 У кого есть номер автовокзала?
  132. 1405604884 (+1640  s) 2014-07-17 13:48:04 [id231427934|Sweet], в смысле высадился? Он что..? В маршрутке ехал? Объясни толково.. + attachments
  133. 1405605172 (+1928  s) 2014-07-17 13:52:52 У на рассыпной труп лежит
  134. 1405605207 (+1963  s) 2014-07-17 13:53:27 [id160133043|Olle4ka], какой труп???,
  135. 1405605211 (+1967  s) 2014-07-17 13:53:31 Olle4ka, кого, нормально можно писать?,
  136. 1405605219 (+1975  s) 2014-07-17 13:53:39 [id136149317|Максим], пилота,
  137. 1405605244 (+2000  s) 2014-07-17 13:54:04 [id160133043|Olle4ka], офигеть, на кого похож, глянуть документы,
  138. 1405605248 (+2004  s) 2014-07-17 13:54:08 Короче 2 самолета упали,2 пилота катапультнулись.самолеты упали в грабово в поле,есть видео пилотов летящих
  139. 1405605254 (+2010  s) 2014-07-17 13:54:14 сейчас сказали что подбили его на солëной, там вроде он сбросил бомбы, дальше дотянул до грабово. летчик по всей вероятносте не выжил, так говорят, что на рассыпной никто не катапультировался.,
  140. 1405605301 (+2057  s) 2014-07-17 13:55:01 и да, самолëт упал на первой остановке в грабово.,
  141. 1405605337 (+2093  s) 2014-07-17 13:55:37 [id113279932|Артём], так 2 или один?,
  142. 1405605364 (+2120  s) 2014-07-17 13:56:04 Подбили на сауровке
  143. 1405605372 (+2128  s) 2014-07-17 13:56:12 Еще 1 летит
  144. 1405605456 (+2212  s) 2014-07-17 13:57:36 [id231427934|Sweet], хреново это всё…Очередная жертва “выдуманной” войны..,
  145. 1405605866 (+2622  s) 2014-07-17 14:04:26 так видео будет?
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

110 Comments on Social media reports of people living in Torez directly after MH17 crash

  1. The time of the messages is relative to 13:20:44. I should have put that on the pictures.

  2. Daniel Been // July 7, 2016 at 11:15 am // Reply

    “More information can be found in the comments here”.

    That URL is not a public link but admin related. My guess probably was meant: and onward.

  3. As discussed in another thread on this site, the time of the first “bang” message was 41 seconds after MH17’s flight data recorder suddenly stopped. (Final FDR reading at 13:20:03, message at 13:20:44).

    The bang in that first message could not have been from the missile striking the 777, because the sound of the detonation of the warhead could not have reached Torez until several seconds after the time the message was sent. Eugene calculated 48 seconds for the sound to reach the area where the Vk poster lived, near where Pavel A. took the alleged Buk plume photo. I calculated the same result.

    The time of the next message, about the second bang, was 14 seconds later at 13:20:58. That’s 55 seconds after MH17’s FDR stopped, or seven seconds after the sound of the detonation reached that area in Torez. Seven seconds is about the length of time it would take someone sitting at their keyboard (having just sent off the first message), and who has just heard another bang, to type in “еще” (more/another one) and click on ‘Send’.

    It’s extremely unlikely that there was some other bang within a couple of seconds of the time when the detonation was expected to be heard. The second message at 13:20:58 is therefore almost certainly about the sound of the detonation and the destruction it caused to the 777.

    • Here’s the timing in seconds after detonation:
      0 – MH17’s FDR stops, due to missile explosion.
      41 – First Vk ‘bang’ message sent from Torez.
      48 – Sound of missile explosion reaches Torez.
      55 – Second Vk ‘bang’ message sent from Torez.

      • We need to think a little bit out of the box. I remember at least one person posted a message saying he heard a fighterjet.
        Could one of the booms indeed be a sonic boom caused by a fighterjet going steep upwards as one eyewitness stated?

        Maybe someone who understands Ukraine can watch the videos of eyewitness. I compiled a post about eyewitness.

  4. > The second message at 13:20:58 is therefore almost certainly about the sound of the detonation.

    Can hardly believe that. A Buk explosion from 8 km is barely audible outdoors: listen at 1m14s of The guy was indoors at his computer and the distance to the explosion was double that, so the heard boom should be 4x quieter than on the video. Could he hear that?

    • The sound could have come not just from the detonation but also from the sudden destruction of the aircraft.

      The cockpit and front fuselage were broken off almost instantly. Some other parts, such as the left wing, could have broken off very quickly as well.

      Noise would have been made by the sudden rush of air through the rest of the fuselage, which had lost its aerodynamic shape. So would the ripping out of various parts the insides of the aircraft.

      The left engine was probably hit, judging by the number of holes in its cowling. It could have produced a lot of noise as soon as it was damaged.

      A normal aircraft, smaller than the 777 and flying at a higher altitude, can be clearly heard when flying overhead, as long as there isn’t much background noise. I’m sure that far more noise came from MH17 when it was destroyed.

      • Other exploding incidents recorded noises, but not mh17:

        It need some time to tear off base parts of aircraft:

        See A-A experiment: BUK can’t damage aircraft frame.

        • JayDi:
          “Other exploding incidents recorded noises, but not mh17”

          MH17’s cockpit microphones recorded a short burst of noise before the power supply stopped. The DSB used the relative timing of those recordings to confirm that the blast of the explosion was outside the cockpit, to the top and left.

          “See A-A experiment: BUK can’t damage aircraft frame.”

          The purpose of A-A’s experiment was to show what didn’t happen (a Buk exploding more than three metres from the cockpit). In reality, the cockpit and business class area snapped off and landed a relatively short horizontal distance away. Also the aircraft in that experiment was not travelling at more than 200 m/s.

          • A-A experiments: they used BUK’s fly algorithm, created model and simulation, run real test to correct that model and then calculate missile’s position for mh17 speed and direction. It’s the most detailed and and truthful simulation with real life experiments results — but DSB and JIT do not want to use it.

            Missile position on the ground is correspond to real buk’s missile explosion near mh17.

          • Liane Theuer // July 7, 2016 at 10:06 pm //

            Brendan wrote : “MH17’s cockpit microphones recorded a short burst of noise before the power supply stopped. The DSB used the relative timing of those recordings to confirm that the blast of the explosion was outside the cockpit, to the top and left.”

            This recorded sound peak of 2 milliseconds is worth an extra blogpost. There would be much to say about.

          • sotilaspassi // July 11, 2016 at 10:00 am //

            “truthful simulation” A-A and truth does not sync. A-A is just another RU propaganda output for MH17.

            >Missile position on the ground is correspond to real buk’s missile explosion near mh17.

            Absolute nonsense. Heavy fragments lack 20% of energy, they fly wrong path, secondary fragment cone is pointed to sky etc…

          • Basic Dimension // July 16, 2016 at 1:31 pm //

            Liane Theuer // July 7, 2016 at 10:06 pm //

            [ Brendan wrote : “MH17’s cockpit microphones recorded a short burst of noise before the power supply stopped. The DSB used the relative timing of those recordings to confirm that the blast of the explosion was outside the cockpit, to the top and left.”]

            IMO the blast was earlier and on sound peak 1:


            DSB Main report: page 111 of 279:

            The first sound peak had a duration of 2.1 milliseconds and the signal was recorded on the cockpit area microphone channel only. Because no other Cockpit Voice Recorder channels recorded the first sound peak, the direction of this signal could not be established. Wave spectrum analysis suggested that the sound peak was representative for an ‘electrical spike’ as it showed the form of an electro-magnetic pulse that could have been caused by static discharge or similar.


            The time difference between the first and the second sound peak was determined to be 2.3 milliseconds. The second peak had a duration of 2.3 milliseconds and was recorded by all four channels. However, the recordings of the second peak were not simultaneous on all channels; some of the recordings had a different timestamp. The wave spectrum is representative for a sound wave. The time difference between the channels showed that the sound was recorded by the cockpit area microphone (CAM) and pilot 1 (P1) microphones first, followed by the pilot 2 (P2) microphone and, lastly, the observer (OBS) microphone. This difference in time showed that the sound wave originated outside the aeroplane starting from a position above the left hand side of the cockpit, propagating from front to aft (see Figure 43). It is concluded that the event was highly energetic in nature based on the short time duration of the event.


      • Brendan, I see your point, but I don’t think any of those events you describe are capable of producing the sound energy output comparable to 33 kilos of high explosives going off.

        For an engine to explode that loud it needs around 33 kilos of fuel mixed with the an oxidizer. It’s far from being the case. Remember the engines are tested for safety by test explosions. An engine would never pass the test if its explosion was equivalent to 33 kg of C4, because such explosion would inevitably lead to the wing destruction.

        • Eugene, I wasn’t saying that the engine could explode, more that the turbine blades and other parts could get broken and cause a lot of screeching of metal.

          • Possibly, but those would be less loud. An explosion is probably as good as one can get if the most effective way of generating sound is needed.

          • > the turbine blades and other parts could get broken and cause a lot of screeching of metal.

            I hope this will finally get you convinced. The kinetic energy of the 7.5 ton engine during the flight is only 50% greater than that released during 33 kilos of TNT going off. But to release this energy you’d need to drive the engine into a concrete wall, not into the soft air. Even if you’d manage to do that the sound energy output of such an event may still be smaller than a 33 kilos of TNT explosion. Screeching of metal is no way near in magnitude to the strength of sound of a Buk explosion.

          • Wind Tunnel Man // July 7, 2016 at 3:08 pm //


            Please also consider a turbofan compressor surge and the intensity of any resultant “explosive” sound. Such a surge could be caused by an engine malfunction due to shrapnel damage. Usually a compressor surge happens at take off but it’s perhaps possible that it could happen at cruise altitude if the engine was damaged?

          • WTM you have a pretty poor grip of numbers if you think that this can be comparable to a Buk explosion.
            There is just no energy reservoir in the engine to make a loud explosion comparable to a Buk.

          • WTN, I don’t think your engine will survive after an explosion of a 2kg of TNT
            While from the video it was clear the compressor surges are often recoverable.

      • Wind Tunnel Man // July 7, 2016 at 2:25 pm // Reply


        I agree with most of the points you made:

        The combined sounds of the warhead detonating and an engine malfunction, caused by being hit by striking elements and/or ruptured missile components, is by no means impossible. I believe it is possible that such a combination of almost simultaneous sounds could be heard at ground level from a considerable distance away. It’s possible that the separation of the cockpit section, which occurred moments after the detonation, may have contributed to a lesser extent to the overall “loudness” of such a perceived single explosion.

        However the perception of the unobstructed sound of the warhead detonation alone would also be possible – for example, artillery shells exploding can sometimes be heard up to 15 kilometers away at ground level. I’ve not heard a 9N314 or 9N314M warhead exploding at an altitude of 10km so there is perhaps, in my mind, some uncertainty regarding their perceived noise levels.

        • Wind Tunnel Man // July 7, 2016 at 4:33 pm // Reply

          Just to add:

 engine malfunction recorded from a range of approx 3km – the “bang” has a similar sound level to that of the reverse thrust. If from the ground one can hear a turbofan engine at an altitude of 10km then a “bang” might also be heard?

          • Rather like 2400m. From 16 km this will be heard around 45 times as quiet, at least. The sound does not like to travel from up to down for two reasons: air density goes up, temperature gradient bends the sound upwards.

  5. And I think Aleynikov said that it was the second boom that made his windows shake. Would the little puff sound shake windows? Surely not.

    • I would be much more interested to see what other witnesses said about the bangs, soon after they heard them.

      I would be very slow to believe anything that Aleynikov says. He keeps on updating his story after gaps of many months. He’s not necessarily lying but he’s not a very impartial witness.

      He might have remembered the first bang as being the quiet one, because it fits the narrative of the Buk flying a few kilometers overhead, and later exploding and causing a much bigger bang.

      • The real-time eye witness report on Vk contradicts what Aleynikov said about the first bang: “Wow, that was loud”. The Vk poster said nothing about the second one being loud, only More/ another.

  6. The comment to this video
    links a sharp bang to a military jet passing from west to east immediately prior to the crash of MH17. The video was shot here: 48.1463714, 38.372738 – 12 km to the west of last FDR position.

    This video
    was shot 19 km to the north of last FDR position

    The google translation of the comment says: “17.07.2014g. About five in the evening near Snow two powerful explosions, a few minutes after the explosion rose thick black dym.Pozzhe media reported that Boeing fell 777.”

    The comment to the first video could be a hint a supersonic boom was created by a military jet as proposed by Eugene. The comment to the second video demonstrates that the “double detonation” was also heard much further to the north, making it improbable one of the booms was a supersonic boom of a BUK passing Pavel’s flat.

    P.S: In this blog
    a retired NVA and BW air defense officer states he never has heard a supersonic boom created by a SAM in all his career.

    • Ole, if you’ve missed this, guess what the following two tweets were about?
      “That massive bang then was mad, genuinely thought we were under attack”
      “Our whole house shook and I’m still trembling. What was that explosion in [..]?”

  7. Hugh Eaven // July 8, 2016 at 6:11 am // Reply

    Well I’m confused now. Would the warhead detonation at supersonice speed be more powerful sonically over 10km up in the sky than any MH17 fuselage hitting the ground? They cannot be as close together as the sequence here reported. Did the fuselage then completely break up before hitting the ground? Did any fuel explode? Any random comparison of Youtube video would say warhead detonations in the sky wouldn’t be that loud (through a microphone perhaps not very sensitive <50 Hz), although a launch might. Eg

    It also makes sense in terms of energy. Part of the crash energy will be directed towards the earth which will have a more direct fast horizontal distribution and absorption. Any explosive air displacement in the sky would be spherically distributed and travel through air layers. Shock waves travel through Earth a bit faster than sound through air, don't forget! It would need only one or two seconds to register impact on the ground from the suggested distances.

    We might need a new timeline like and accept, reject or re-interpret Pavel's estimation from memory.

    • I doubt the ground impact would be perceived as a sharp bang at Pavel’s location.

      He was 11.4 km to the south of the impact. This video
      was shot 13.4 km south of the impact site (48.029938, 38.620716), 2 km further away than Pavel was. At that location the sound of the impact should be heard ~40 seconds after impact. It’s a little hard to judge at exactly what time after/before impact the video starts, but there can’t be much doubt it starts not later than 40 sec after impact, so the sound of the impact must be in the audio of that video. I’m convinced it’s the rumble around 29s.

      For the sound not to be a sharp bang I see two physical explanations:
      1) The “explosion” of the kerosine is not a detonation (supersonic) but a deflagration (subsonic), that makes the sound “less sharp”.
      2) Traveling 11 – 13 km parallel to the surface the sound will be subject to significant dispersion, spreading the wave packet.

      The human mind tends to mix correlation and causation. We should seriously consider the bangs to be only correlated with the missile that hit MH17 and not necessarily to be caused by it.

      • Ole: a German who worked with SAM’s stated he never heard a sonic boom caused by a missile. See my post about the Saur Mogila photo for a link.

        I think we should start about thinking about a sonic boom caused by a figherjet. This triggered Pavel.
        Try to calculate the windspeed based on this assumption.

        • A sonic boom is when the cone overtakes the observer. About the cone:
          A missile reaches speed of sound at some distance from launch location, it’s where the cone appears.
          People who “work with SAM” are at launch location. Launch location is inside the cone, so gets no sonic boom.

          • Yeah, the missile reaches speed of sound at about 3 seconds/30 meters from the launch location. See this blogpost.
   and search for Überschallknall

          • 9M38M1 missile reaches speed 1100 m/s at slant distance about 8 km from launch site:

          • That’s average speed (Vср, ср – средний – average).

          • The BUK ground force air defense system (NATO reporting name SA-11 Gadfly) is designed to operate in intense electronic countermeasure environments for defeating aerodynamic targets (LANS-type ballistic missiles objective) flying at low and medium altitudes at speeds of up to 830 m/s and maneuvering at up to 10-12g – at ranges of up to 30 kilometers

            source: UKROBORONSERVICE who does upgrades of BUK

          • That’s max speed of successfully destroyed targets.

          • Hugh Eaven // July 8, 2016 at 8:45 pm //

            “A sonic boom is when the cone overtakes the observer”

            The missile goes UP, so does the shock wave. Nobody is going to hear it unless they’re up there! Helpful animation showing sub, sonic and super cases and the wave front/cone always moves in direction of flight….


            No rocket boom when vertical… and I just watched 25 video’s of BUK and other SAM launches from all possible distances… never any boom but giant roar though. Also hardly explosion after 20s yet but they might not use actual HE warhead during those tests. That remains a question mark…

          • 9M317 missile has farther range (max distance). The graph I used corresponds to 9M38M1 missile.

            Buk missile goes not up, but at angle (45° or so), and soon almost horisontally. The missile flew exactly overhead the photographer:

          • Hugh Eaven // July 9, 2016 at 9:24 am //


            “Buk missile goes not up, but at angle (45° or so),”

            The shock wave would then just travel at a resulting 0° or so, perhaps never reaching the surface again. See:

            “and soon almost horizontally.”

            But we’re not talking launch time anymore now, are we? It would shift all calculations on timings again with 5-10 seconds. And it would depend how much distance needs to be covered, in your theory then 40km+ way beyond current scenarios. See this:

            Added to that the claimed missile elevation at impact is between 10-22° upwards, depending which research you prefer. But that means the angle of the shock wave would be 55° at least in the last stage of the flight since it definitely would not have pointed down a while and then move upwards again. In any case many witnesses of “bangs” would be completely excluded eg those in Torez.

          • Hugh Eaven // July 9, 2016 at 9:45 am //

            Oops missile elevation between 10-22° means instead of 45° downwards aimed wave of a horizontal flight, it will be between 23-35°. We need a more complete flight envelope and 3d projection on the area to see if any of the witnesses could have heard it. Also the exact angle of the Mach cone behind the missile is unknown but could be calculated:

            You’ll find the Mach angle declining with Mach 3.

          • Brendan // July 9, 2016 at 2:19 pm //

            A sonic boom does not just suddenly appear when an object reaches the speed of sound. The boom is made up of the sounds that were originally created over a period of time, and which later arrive together at almost the same time at the observer (that’s why it’s so sharp and loud). So the object’s speed must be supersonic and the constituent sounds must have time to to add up. For that reason, a loud boom cannot be heard until some time, maybe seconds, after breaking the sound barrier.

            Another condition for a sonic boom to occur is that the speed and direction must be fairly constant. That’s necessary so that the different sounds can arrive together in a “synchronised” way at the cone’s surface. Actually a very small acceleration can make the boom sharper, but the rapid acceleration of a Buk launch will completely dampen the boom.

            It’s therefore no surprise that the German officer did not hear a sonic boom. He was only between 45 and 600m from the launch sites, and he was near the missiles when they were going at a very high acceleration through the sound barrier.

          • Brendan // July 9, 2016 at 2:21 pm //

            Lena: “A missile reaches speed of sound at some distance from launch location, it’s where the cone appears.”

            There isn’t any real cone until some time later and when the velocity is reasonably constant. A drawing of the propagated sound waves soon after the missile reaches the speed of sound would be a weird mixture of supersonic (the tip of a cone), Mach 1 and subsonic. Only later, when the acceleration is much smaller, will the drawing look like a cone.

          • Brendan // July 9, 2016 at 2:23 pm //

            “Buk missile goes not up, but at angle (45° or so), and soon almost horisontally. The missile flew exactly overhead the photographer”

            If a Buk from south of Snizhne flew directly over the photographer, it would not have been almost horizontal. It would have been about halfway through its flight that began at +45 deg and ended while still rising, according to both A-A and the DSB. At its nearest position to him, it would have been even earlier in its flight and therefore at an even steeper angle. I estimate a minimum of 30 degrees.

          • Brendan // July 9, 2016 at 2:25 pm //

            Hugh Eaven: “The missile goes UP, so does the shock wave. Nobody is going to hear it unless they’re up there! ”

            The missile goes up but the cone goes back at an angle towards the earth. For example, a missile flying at Mach 2 at an angle of 45 degrees could, in theory, create a sonic boom directly below its current position.

          • Brendan, you are explaining it nicely, including the following

            > Another condition for a sonic boom to occur is that the speed and direction must be fairly constant.

            The acceleration of a Buk missile during the first 4 seconds is so high (20g), that during this time a sonic boom cannot be created. During this time around half of the fuel burns off. If we assume that the remaining 15 seconds the missile manages to stay on the imaginary sphere centered around Aleynikov and shrinking with the speed of sound then the intensity of the boom he’ll hear will be five times that heard at 1m14s of (under the assumption that the specific energy of the fuel is roughly sequel to the high explosives and other reasonable assumptions). This will be quite audible, but will it be heard indoors? I am not sure. This is however an unrealistic top estimate, because the chance of the missile flying that way (staying at the distance from the listener steadily reducing with the speed of sound) is unrealistically small. Or impossible at all, because the missile will still be accelerating. A more realistic top estimate would be for the missile to stay on the sphere for, say, 3 seconds. This will make the loudness of the sonic boom at Aleynikov place equal to that of the explosion on the video. Even if that can be heard indoors (I doubt that), it will certainly be nothing to post about online.

          • Hugh Eaven // July 9, 2016 at 4:48 pm //

            Brendan: “The missile goes up but the cone goes back at an angle towards the earth”.

            You seem to mistake forward moving shock wave propagation with the resulting cone shape afterwards or the overall sound wave distribution. The front propagates during a vertical launch up and sideways depending, on Mach speed under which angle precisely.

            Following video shows in a sequence all three modes, during a horizontal flight.

            Follow the wave *front* direction, where all the pressure differences will be, not the waves inside the cone. The wave front might be slower than the craft but is forward and sideways moving only. Never backward.

          • The sounds were heard at the times below. Someone able to explain how someone in Torez can hear the sonic boom of a missile when that missile hit MH17 at 13:20:03 local time?

            13:20:44 Wow, that was loud
            13:20:58 More

          • I think it is hard to believe a sonic boom of a BUK missile at 10k or so is able to vibrate the windows in Torez

          • Brendan // July 9, 2016 at 9:23 pm //

            Hugh: “You seem to mistake forward moving shock wave propagation with the resulting cone shape afterwards or the overall sound wave distribution.”

            I was in fact describing the (angle of the) resulting cone shape, and not its direction of motion, when I said “The missile goes up but the cone goes back at an angle towards the earth”. I probably shouldn’t have said that “the cone goes back”, when I was describing its shape and not its motion.

            This might be hard to explain when there are different things at different directions in different situations. Let’s look at various directions for the example of a missile at Mach 2 and 45 degrees:

            Movement of missile: forwards and upwards (+45 deg)
            Movement of the “front”: horizontal (0 deg)
            Shape of the “front”: vertical (90 deg)

            The result of such a launch is that there will be a vertical sonic boom front underneath the missile, moving in a horizontal direction.

            The best way to visualise what I’m saying is to look at the “supersonic” part of the linked video, and imagine how it it would look if rotated anti-clockwise.

          • Hugh Eaven // July 10, 2016 at 7:24 am //

            Admin: “someone able to explain how someone in Torez can hear the sonic boom (at 13:20:44) of a missile when that missile hit MH17 at 13:20:03 local time?”

            While the missile does average Mach 2-3, a supposed shock wave in line with an observer would only move with Mach 1. At first glance there could be solutions possible for the boom travelling 41+x seconds with the missile only x seconds to go considering the difference in speed and the distance between the typist and missile trajectory.

            For example 41+8s at Mach 1 results in roughly 15-16km distance through the air or a 11-13km circle on the map around the typist on which the intersection would be. But there are other solutions of course, it’s unclear when the supersonic boom in line with the typist could start, it all depends on atmosphere, missile elevation and possible more factors.

            So I wouldn’t exclude it based purely on these timings.

          • Hugh Eaven // July 10, 2016 at 8:09 am //

            Brendan, you wrote:

            “The result of such a launch is that there will be a vertical sonic boom front underneath the missile, moving in a horizontal direction”.

            Yes, the cone “grows” as the missile goes up and the wave front moves (slower) sideways. Look at it as being stretched fast at the top and pulled slower at the sides. The cone is not pulled down, only noise eminates down.

            Indeed check the video again, the front is not developing in any place where the plane wasn’t flying before.

            To be honest I’m not sure about the 45 degrees angle of the front I gave before. Probably Mach angle is a bit less at Mach 3 so the 45 degrees launch could in theory boom although as mentioned by others, it’s more likely to happen at more steady flight level a few seconds later, if we have to have a missile boom at all. Personally I don’t think it will be loud enough to count as explosion, that would really be a jet thing where we have more effect.

      • Ole, good post.
        Please check the question about two real tweets around two page-ups away, it’s interesting.

        • I lived for some time in central Florida when the space shuttle was still active. When they returned to land at Cape Canaveral they generated sonic booms that made our house shake and was as loud and sharp as nothing I ever heard before or since. Those tweets are reminding me of that…

          Some more videos of BUKs by the finish army.

          There are bangs to be heard after 15 – 19s. I don’t think they are as impressive as described by the witnesses.

          • We should check what caused these booms and how likely they fit in the timeline. We should assume the time of destruction is correct.
            We can also use a couple of other hard facts like missile flighttime from launch to hit, etc.

            Anybody is aware of people living in Torez reported another explosion after the two which had a 14 seconds interval?
            Or maybe nobody reported the impact of the fuselage because it could not be heard in Torez or other places?

          • Slozhny // July 8, 2016 at 1:26 pm //

            Google translate (slightly corrected):
            “I personally heard about 4 explosions, which occurred after the plane crash. First there was one explosion. Half a minute later another, louder. I still think that we are bombed and urgently need somewhere to hide. Then two more explosions. Well, I thought that’s all. And yet a moment later a huge explosion, which I shot on video. Not the explosion itself, but its terrible consequences.”

          • > Those tweets are reminding me of that…

            Yes, the two tweets were about sonic booms made by a pair of fighter jets.

            Some other person on webtalk also confirms that sonic booms from fighters can be loud. I too live close to a military airfield (15 km actually), however, the fighters that I regularly see never go supersonic over the city (may be for that exact reason).

            By the way, I think in military operations fighters are often sent in pairs. There are reasons for this. Firstly, one fighter will see if something happens to the other. Secondly, this greatly reduces probability that one plane just drops bombs at a random safe place. Thirdly, possibly to cover one another back or something.

      • Ole, to add to your points. Near the ground the wind was from the East. The sound does not like to travel against the wind. It really does not. Not only because the moving medium makes the effective travel path longer. That’s a small effect actually. But because the wind height gradient due to friction of the bottom layers with the ground very effectively bends the sound trajectories upwards (similar to the temperature gradient effect but stronger). (The vice versa is also true – the sound does like to travel along the wind near the ground, and can do so for long distances).

    • > Would the warhead detonation at supersonic speed be more powerful sonically over 10km up in the sky than any MH17 fuselage hitting the ground?

      Supersonic or not it does not really matter if you look at the missile explosion. I strongly believe a Buk warhead will be louder than the plane destruction up in the air.

      On the ground it’s a different story. The plane hitting the ground will actually release a lot of energy (up there there is simply no mechanism for that, as I’ve tried to show).

      > Did the fuselage then completely break up before hitting the ground?

      No. The main part of it fell in Grabovo with most people at the same place. This question is being looked at very carefully on the Russian forums.

      > Did any fuel explode?

      No. The fuel cannot explode. Burning of fuel is a chemical reaction, and the crucial component – the oxygen – is being mixed in continuously in the engine. The stored fuel is not mixed with the oxidizer and cannot undergo the chemical reaction, thus it cannot all explode at once. This is unlike real explosives that already have the oxidizer mixed in the fuel. When cars full of petrol hit something on a high speed the fuel never explodes for the above reason. Yes, it burns intensely afterwards but does not explode. Having said that, on the impact of the plane with the ground a lot of fuel turned into spray, which could sort of explode and add to the main sound of the impact.

      Talking about the timeline, the witnesses in Torez who reported first could not have heard the plane impacting the ground. They even could not have heard the missile explosion ~90 seconds earlier, as Brendan showed and admin ‘forgot’ to mention.

      > Any random comparison of Youtube video would say warhead detonations in the sky wouldn’t be that loud

      Fully behind you on that. The distance is actually the best shield against any explosions. Someone has yet to come up with a video showing a Buk explosion being any loud on the ground.

      > Shock waves travel through Earth a bit faster than sound through air, don’t forget!

      People often get confused about that. Shock waves do travel faster than sound but not for long. After around 10-15 metres a shock wave from a Buk explosion degrades into a normal sound wave, traveling with the speed of sound. I could elaborate, but I suggest to read up.

      Sonic booms also can be said to travel faster that the speed of sound, buts that’s a confusion again: the cone does travel faster, namely with the speed of the sound source, but the wave front travels at the speed of sound.

      • Hugh Eaven // July 9, 2016 at 12:13 pm // Reply

        Thanks Eugine, yes you’re right of course, the fuel would become at worst a fireball if some ignition would occur like: but I’d still call that “explosive release of energy”. Sound production of that remains unclear though.

        My point actually was about the ground impact. The wave would propagate as well through the ground (the more solid the faster) and any “shake” and rumble would be way faster to arrive than the sound the impact had through just air. You could then have a delay: first the impact/vibration with lower sound generation (deep rumbling clung), then later the slower air waves arriving of any explosion or crash sound.

        Just thinking out loud here. Crash reconstruction is very tricky.

  8. Found some more info on sonic booms of missiles.

    This document is an assessment of expected noise levels when firing MLRS on a test firing range. On page 12 there is a map showing the expected noise carpet of the sonic boom.
    The missiles fly approximately 1300ft (400m) above ground. The area in which window shaking noise level would be experienced (pink) is within a cylinder with radius ~1.5 km around the flight path.

    The Reduced-Range Practice Rocket (RRPR) used is described here:

    It has a front area 1/3 the front area of a BUK. That will be offset to a certain degree by the fact, that the RRPR has a blunt nose in order to increase its drag and thus decrease its range. So an educated guess would be for the respective noise cylinder of the BUK to have twice the radius, i.e. 3km.

    Above Pavel’s flat a BUK would have an altitude of 8-10 km.

    • Hugh Eaven // July 9, 2016 at 4:59 pm // Reply

      Nice find Ole, after going through the document, I’d like to highlight these parts:

      – “sonic booms are not expected during every RRPR firing”
      – “test rockets would fly approximately 1300f (400m) above the ground”
      – “Launching of rockets would create a loud jet-like sound, followed by a sonic boom that sounds similar to thunder”
      – “sonic boom can only be heard forward of the launch site and inside an area within which the sonic boom propagates (mach angle; USAC
      HPPM 1999).”

      Not sure how much information could be derived further since the report maps overall noise levels, including *potential* booms but not limited to. And all at quite a low altitude.

  9. Liane Theuer // July 10, 2016 at 9:46 pm // Reply

    I want to add some witness statements that are not mentioned in this blog post.

    This Zello talk started 2-3 minutes after MH17 was either hit or touched the ground :

    1) 17.07.14 Zello record of DNR separatists talk of shooting An-26 turned out to be Boeing-777

    0:01 :
    – Pals, a plane was shot down over Torez. I saw it with my own eyes. It fell somewhere around „Quartal“ suburb.
    – Great news, very great news ! But tell me when and where did you see it, please.
    – Torez, literally 2 – 3 minutes ago, it fell, saw it with my own eyes. It fell around „Quartal“, that is in Torez.
    – Over Torez, it was clear it nosedived, it´s an AN-26 plane. There is black smoke over it. It´s finish.
    – I doubt it. How did you identify what plane it is. (Discussion about that)
    – Pals, if it fell on a residential area. What is the situation of casualities, any distruction ?
    – Why would you care military or civilian plane is shot down ?
    – They shot a plane, I say OK, they did. But when he at once tells the plane´s make that gets me thinking.
    3:11 :
    – In Debaltsevo a big explosion had been heard, in Luhansk direction a powerful one and two stronger ones, they even shook the air.
    – It was all the plane explosions : first one in the air and then stronger one when it hit the ground.
    – In Shakhtyorsk also a big explosion has been heard. Tell me what was it ?
    – Asu 223247, are you on that Torez channel ? What can you tell us ?
    – Boris, PM me, I have a couple of words for you.
    – In Torez people saw a plane falling into pieces.
    – I live in „Quartal“, I can see it fell in the forrest behind the disabled children shelter. I haven´d seen any bombs dropped as there is no smoke or any other signs. The pilot on parashoot landed somewhere in that area too. The men are going to search for him.
    5:03 :
    – Can you guys run over the events again ? Who, what and where fell ?
    – Why don´t you listen to Zello conversation history ?
    – A plane has been shot over Torez.
    – The natzis can´t just give up flying.
    – It was flying for quite a while here. I was watching but had problems with the connection. It flew for a long time and very high. Then there was a very loud „bakh“. In short, it was shot and nose dived. I saw it with my own eyes.
    – If you could video that, it would have been priceless. And we could watch it.
    – There is, on the channel from Senya, 7 pieces could be collected (unclear).
    – Over the airport there was a propellar airplane circling a whole day today, I was told.
    – Explosion in Torez video has just been uploaded to YouTube.
    – I couldn´t find it using that name.
    – It is there, it´s called „(in russian)“ – „a plane was shot in Torez“.
    7:44 :
    – Hi all. A person from Torez just told it fell around „Progress mine“ area.
    8:26 :
    – Is there someone from Dzerzhinsk here ? I can hear some shooting.
    – At Voroshilovsky I can hear a plane far away behind the clouds.
    – A civilian plane has flown over from Avdeevka over Donetsk towards Makeevka. Look out there may be another plane following it.
    – The plane hasn´t hit the ground and the video is already on the internet.
    – What´s the video called ?
    – (russian, but another video then the first mentioned) „Explosion of a plane in Torez“.
    – Regarding the plane in Torez that was shot down. It fell near Grabovo village. One more thing. It was flying high. Many people who saw it also saw a rocket coming from the Russian side.
    – Regarding information related to Russia. Forget this kind of information, in general. Where, what, where from flew, who shot.
    – Yes Kostya. Don´t say such things on air.
    – I saw the rocket came from Washington.
    – Pals, tell me how one can see Russia from Torez ? One is completely seperate from the other. What´s he talking about ?
    – It may be possible to see Russia from Torez, only from a certain hill.
    – Ukrops shot their plane themselves. I saw a rocket flying in that direction.
    – Self-targeting airconditioners. (Some more joking about the Ukrainian version of the Luhansk bombing)
    – From Kalinsky district there is a plane flying over me.
    – Boeing 777 Dubai from Stockholm or something similar.
    – What´s interesting, Ukrops couldn´t post a real photo of the shot SU-25 and instead posted one of a training plane.

    In the comments Elena Evdokimova stated : „A lot is missing, distorted sense”

    • Thanks Liane. The witness saying that the plane fell in the forest is located similarly to the lady from the second picture, and describes the situation similarly, I think. Several people saw other aircraft, one plane was flying above Torez for long time apparently.

    • However reliable those accounts may be, they contain more descriptions of big “explosions” to be heard as far away as Debaltsevo, Shakhtyorsk, and even Luhansk.

      This piece by u@w also has several accounts of big explosions heard in Shnizhne, one stating the plant near the infamous Correctiv/Paris Match launch site was rattling.

      BTW thunder generated by lightning normally can be heard (meaning it’s still audible, not rattling windows) at a maximum distance of 10 miles (16 km)
      so it’s not plausible that all these accounts of rattling windows describe the detonation of the warhead.

    • The missing u@w link from my previous post:

      Bcat also has some witness accounts:

      @other331 seems to be based in Torez
      4:25pm @other331 Something just made *a loud as hell* sound from the direction of Shakhtarsk
      4:29pm @HuSnizhne: No, grads fire with a droning, and this was *a singular [sound]*, they are saying
      4:35pm @other331: At first it was a single explosion that wasn’t too strong, and then after a minute a second stronger one thundered
      5:19pm @IrinaWayreed: During the ongoing droning I heard *separate loud booms*, and right now a volley has gone out

      Sergey Petrov from Snizhne:
      Vlad, I also didn’t immediately realize. I saw that something was flying. I was out in the country in a tree and picking pears. *And then an explosion. There was an extremely strong sound…*

      Irina from Snizhne:
      7:42pm I saw how a rocket flew from the direction of Saurovka…and then a minute-long lull and *a loud explosion*…

  10. Liane Theuer // July 10, 2016 at 9:51 pm // Reply

    2) 7) Torez orphange. How MH17 fell down | Eng Subs

    Comment : „I came to this orphanage in Torez where there were 16 children at that time. They were witnesses of the crash of the airplane, of three bodies falling down to the garden of this orphanage.“
    1:16 director of the orphanage Timchenko Tatyana Vasilievna :
    „It was the second part of the day. I was at home already. The first what I heard was military airplanes. I don´t know the quantity, but the sound was familiar because I live not far from here, we often went to a field when military airplanes bombed… so called 20th… The very moment when… I heard the harsh sound. But I didn´t certainly see that they shot from the airplane… or not from the airplane, but airplanes were flying. Then in a second or two, a terrible sound, a strong slam. When I hid(e), I didn´t hear sounds of explosions after some time. Though we knew them already. I understood that there was something non-standard, unclear.”

  11. Liane Theuer // July 10, 2016 at 9:54 pm // Reply

    3) Russian Roulette (Dispatch 60)

    2:00 – Man from Rassypnoe who found a body in his garden :
    “It all started with the plane humming. Then, there was an explosion. Things started falling.
    There was a big black cloud in that direction, towards Grabovo.
    The wings and the main part of the plane probably exploded.
    But here, bodies started falling from the sky.“

    4) 2) MH-17: The Untold Story

    1:23 Man from Hrabove :
    „We were inside when the first one happened. The second, louder one was when we ran outside.
    It was a whirling around in the air.“
    1:31 Man from Hrabove :
    „A grey box fell to the right. Something red fell to the left. When pieces started coming down, I was already behind the hill. The plane exploded and flew here.“
    2:03 Woman from ? :
    „It was flying, but I couldn´t see it´s windows. I guess it was as high as the tallest trees. Two minutes later, there was the sound of a plane flying away. The clear sound of a plane flying away, going in that direction. There were two planes.“
    8:13 Man from Hrabove :
    „I heard two pops. They sounded like the shots we are used to. Then a big explosion. And then there was a loud roar, I could hear the movement was accompanied by a sound, I lifted my head and saw a small military aircraft in the sky. It had a silvery underside. So I´m 100% sure there was a second aircraft.“

    5) Reflections on MH17

    10:49 Woman with pink wool cap :
    „We heard two booms in the air.“
    10:52 Man with glasses :
    „Boom boom.“
    11:00 Woman with pink wool cap :
    „I turned around and saw a military plane.“
    11:05 Man with glasses :
    „I went out and in that area (points to the sky) and saw a SU-25. It was going up like this.“ (shows a steep angle).
    11:12 Woman with pink wool cap :
    „It was a steel-coloured military plane, from over there. There was a booming sound, and people start falling from the sky.“

  12. Liane Theuer // July 10, 2016 at 9:57 pm // Reply

    6) MH17: Wichtige Wrackteile liegen gelassen!

    Translation :
    When he heard the roar of an airplane, he looked up to the sky.
    2:30 Man from Hrabove :
    „There was an airpane. But I ignored it. It was a military plane, a fighter jet.
    Question : How could you know it was a fighter jet ?
    „I served in the army. I know that.“
    Question : What happened next ?
    „It went up to the passenger plane and soon the two were at the same level, it shot to the engine of the other aircraft. There was once a flash.”
    3:06 Woman :
    “There we have seen a black airplane falling down. That was the Boeing. And from there, the Boeing was approached by a small silver-colored aircraft, probably a military plane.”
    Question : So you’ve seen two planes in the sky ?
    „Yes. A black one that was already burning with black smoke and this small silver-colored aircraft.
    My colleague has seen that this small silver-colored aircraft first approached and then then flown back. Then it fired flares. There were silver-colored stripes falling down.”

    7) Sur les lieux du crash du MH17, en Ukraine
    Published on July 23/2014 by ParisMatch reporter Alfred de Montesquiou.
    He interviewed witnesses who saw a second plane.

    • sotilaspassi // July 11, 2016 at 9:53 am // Reply

      “black airplane falling down” yep, right, those are MAL colors.
      “A black one that was already burning with black smoke” not black, no black smoke as we saw from videos.

      etc. So very easy to see 90+% of f.jet eyewitnesses are liars.

  13. Hugh Eaven // July 16, 2016 at 3:34 pm // Reply

    Liane Theuer, your quoted accounts made me wonder, since terminal velocity of falling bodies and luggage would differ from cockpit and winged fuselage with engines running going down, what would happen if we’d think of first the impact of the heavier bodies and then the rest, from such a distance of over 10000m.

    A skydiver will not go faster than 54 m/s unless he does his best. Meaning it would take at least ~200s (3m20) to crash from 10km and it would take a few seconds to first gain that speed too.

    The exact picture might be more complex. We have some ballistic trajectory first, not knowing at which stage smaller parts and cargo would start to fall in their own frame. But overall, from the DSB reports (page 162):

    “The time interval between the separation of the front fuselage and the moment that the remainder of the airplane impacted the ground is estimated to have been 1-1.5 minutes”.

    Therefore I’d carefully suggest that at least a whole minute after impact of the large airplane debris, probably causing one or two booms, all M-17 content with greater drag would keep dropping down. This would be in line with these witnesses. First the sound, then quickly moving to some position to observe, then seeing e.g. bodies and lighter debris falling out of the sky.

    If the booms were related to detonation or sound barrier, there would be another (long, reported) minute added between sound and seeing dropping of objects. Plus one would then expect for more witnesses of seeing the larger plane parts actually fall down and making some sound too. Therefore, my suggestion here is that most reported “explosions ” are from the crash itself.

    Also possible: first the sound of the cockpit hitting the ground but fuselage was still going down (drag and horizontal vector). This would explain some report of a sequence of a bang and still seeing plane (fuselage) part going down, breaking up.

    Just a quick calculation, it might contain errors but it’s a sketch
    – 1 ton TNT: ~4 gigajoules
    – cockpit rough est. 30000 kg, falling 10km =~ 3E9 Joules?
    – explosion impact: around 0,75 ton TNT or 750 kg

    That’s more than a Tomahawk cruise missile exploding and in the range of conventional bomb or terrorist explosions even if we’d keep a large error margin of 30% for the mass of the cockpit.

    Any remarks?

    • “– cockpit rough est. 30000 kg, falling 10km =~ 3E9 Joules?”
      Take terminal velocity of cockpit to be the above 54 ms/s, then the kinetic energy 30000*50*50/2/1e6 = 37.5MJ, that is thirty times less than yours.

      When an explosion takes place pretty much all released energy is transferred to the air (not all of that, however, gets transferred to the sound energy, as the air can only take that much). While when a fuselage falls, most energy goes into the heat of the plastic deformation, and the remaining one is also not being fully transferred to the sound. The main body hitting the ground would be a very loud event, no question, though putting an estimate on its loudness is tricky. I previously put similar estimates on the loudness of the event when a Buk missile hits the plane, but those were the top estimates, more reliable.

      • Hugh Eaven // July 16, 2016 at 7:44 pm // Reply

        Do you think it could be assumed the cockpit would fall more or less nose down? The drag would be way less than a skydiver because of material and aerodynamics. The 54 m/s was taken from an example of a human skydiver. The formula I supplied excludes the drag factor.

        It’s hard to estimate the percentage of energy of *any* explosion converted to sound. Exploding bombs and missiles with equal kinetic energy will also put energy into heat, shrapnel and so on. It might not be that different in the end?

        Added to that, the wave would have many frequencies. The lowest ones might shake windows but be hardly audible, just a rumble.

        However I do agree some energy will be transfered on impact to other things than just air movement. Bur I still think it might be a big sound compared to any 10km high detonations or sonic shock waves, having to travel down all the way through air densities. But I think we agree on that.

        We might need to find some good audio of plane crashes in the far distance to compare with explosives.

        The major problem would be to have all timings right for all witness reports. Some of them might be too early on Vk for impact sounds.

        • > We might need to find some good audio of plane crashes in the far distance to compare with explosives.

          That would be good, but the chances we’ll find a good match are small.

          Here is an interesting crash. Cargo 747 plane full of fuel crashes near the camera. From inside the car the sound is audible, but I don’t think it’s loud. This video is relevant to the question whether the fuel contributes to the sound of explosion or not – not.

          • Hugh Eaven // July 17, 2016 at 9:41 am //

            Not sure if that’s the original audio for the NAF 102. Sounds like propeller sounds to me. Many other versions of this recording are silent which would be more usual with dash cam.

          • I guess the dashcam is located in an armoured vehicle with bulletproof windows. I have a hard time to believe a planecrash at such a short distance hardly produces any noise.

          • That’s a genuine sound. As long as you hear the engine sound the vehicle it was filmed from is not armored. There may be some mic maxing out effect.
            Anyway, on a slow speed the sound of a plane crash will not be much different from an impact of a blob of plasticine. The plane is quite soft. And the fuel not only does not explode, but may help damping the sound (like on Space Shuttles).

            Anyway, a much better reference that we need to look at is that second WTC tower crash happening at high speed, filmed from open air in several locations.

          • Btw, the wings of Mh17 filled with fuel did fall off not long before the impact. A witness located a bit North from Grabove described the event.

          • Correction South “from Grobovo”.

          • To get a better feel for sound heard from a distance, try to imagine what is located at 10-12 km distance from you. You should get the idea that this is quite far. At least I was not expecting that in my case.

            I recently (under 1 year ago) had a some explosion hearing experience. A WW2 bomb or shell was found 540 meters from my house. I was at the place when the military personnel was talking to the inhabitants of the neighboring houses about the evacuation. They told the bomb/shell was 250 kg. I haven’t seen it. They told that the detonation was going to be tomorrow, but it happened after around a week. They seemed to have built dirt mounts around the bomb for safe detonation. I did hear it, and the windows shook a bit I think. But it was not the event I’d post online about, maybe because I knew what it was. I made pictures of that heavily dug place afterwards.

        • Another video of a plane crash with sound heard 8 seconds after the impact, that is 2.7 km away. The plane speed there was quite high, higher than that of the Mh17 hitting the ground. This makes me doubt that the Mh17 fall will be heard 12 km away so loud that people will be posting “fuck me, what was that?”

          (more WTC hits with sound:

          • Hugh Eaven // July 17, 2016 at 11:38 am //

            Which speed for crashing Mh-17 (parts) would you suggest?

            Max speed 9/11 767 is what 200-220 m/s? But end speed falling non-moving object (idealized) from 10000m would be 442 m/s. Exact drag unknown. But MH-17 was already moving at cruise speed, 250 m/s, part of which would be also transferred downward as some starting speed. Then acceleration added, minus drag forces.

            Quite likely then MH-17 would crash into solid earth double the velocity of those jets slamming into the exterior and steel beams of the tower.

            Recordings are tough, they don’t capture the lower frequency well which would really be the defining difference. Also, surface area amplifies the lower frequency quite a bit (just place your loud speaker near wall or corner to get direct demonstration).

          • > Which speed for crashing Mh-17 (parts) would you suggest?

            That is a difficult thing to estimate. The speed an object will fall with greatly depends on if there is a stable aerodynamic configuration. For example if you take a wooden plank and drop it it’s not going to fall with high speed as it will be tumbling. But if you attach something heavy on one end then it’ll be falling stably and much more quickly with that end down.

            The chance of the Boeing without the front section having a stable configuration seems to be low. Therefore, as a first guess, for a fall speed I’d take something like a terminal velocity of a human body falling – 54 m/s like you say.

          • Thinking more about the final fall speed, the 54 m/s may be a reasonable estimate.

            Firstly, the wings separated maybe at an altitude of around 1km, because one witness had seen the event. They are lying at the crash site 6, which is around a kilometer away from the crash site 4, where most of the fuselage is located. Therefore the plane was likely tumbling during the fall. The wings separated because the wing attachment to the fuselage does not like unusual force directions it is not optimized for. Therefore, the human body terminal velocity is probably a reasonable estimate for the fuselage fall speed.

            Secondly. If we assume the entire fall to take place at 54 m/s, then it’ll last around 3 minutes, which is too high – we want around 1.5 minutes. But the terminal velocity at 10 km is double that near the ground, and the plane was flying up there in a more streamlined fashion. So, this again tells that the number around 54 m/s near the ground for the fall speed may be not that far off.

          • Hugh Eaven // July 17, 2016 at 1:19 pm //

            Eugene, the 54 m/s was derived for a skydiver belly down. Head down would be closer to 80 m/s up to 133 m/s (when completely streamlined).


            v = sqrt(2*m*g/p*A*C)
            C is here drag for human body 0.5
            m is mass and A = area cross-section.

            A plane part would be hundreds times more mass than a human. But cross-section also be many times more. But I suspect the larger mass compensates more than engouh for increased drag area. Meaning terminal velocity (if any) probably would be a few times higher, between 200-300 m/s, less than just simple gravity 442 m/s.


          • Hugh, I agree with your points. For the same density objects the terminal velocity grows with size (as a sqrt(size), from the top of my head). But the density of the fuselage is quite a lot smaller than that of a human. It’s not clear which factor wins. So what would be the fuselage terminal velocity compared to a human body? You guess. But I don’t think it can be higher than, say, 100 m/s, as then well have a problem with the overall fall time.

          • Hugh Eaven // July 17, 2016 at 2:10 pm //

            Eugene, as for the overall fall time: 111-166 m/s for 10km if we take the 60-90s after initial seperation. Likely it traveleld a bit more than 10km since it didn’t fall straight down. Cockpit probably more striaght (2m ground distance).


            For impact calculation the end speed counts of course. For average fall speed between 111-166, it would depend on initial vertical vector for descend at break-up time. But I don’t think around 200 m/s impact speed is that unlikely if 60-90s is total time of the fall.

          • Hugh Eaven // July 17, 2016 at 2:12 pm //

            2km not 2m for the cockpit.

          • > It’s not clear which factor wins

            The density of the loaded fuselage is around 1/10 of a human body. The size of the human body is smaller than that of the fuselage by around 20 times. Therefore, these imprecise calculations, suggest that the terminal velocity of the fuselage should be SMALLER than that of a human (as sqrt(20)<10). But I am not claiming that. Merely that that these calculations should be checked more carefully. But there still will be a large uncertainty. The range of values where the fall speed can lie is pretty big.

          • Wind Tunnel Man // July 17, 2016 at 2:32 pm //

            I believe it was only the wing tips that separated (plus some flaps and spoilers) before the central fuselage section complete with most of both wings and both engines impacted at site 6 (DSB report page 76.) The remains of the central fuselage and wings were found inverted so that part of the aircraft probably rolled through 180 degrees during it’s descent (it might have rolled several times before ending up inverted?)

            To me it looks as if that part of the aircraft didn’t impact the ground vertically but came in at a shallower angle and the forward movement of the fuselage and wings was possibly impeded by the bank of the elevated road.

          • > I believe it was only the wing tips that separated

            To me the site 4 has a lot more fuselage parts
            than site 6

            The wing separated as a hole (it’s actually a single part in the industry’s terminology, AFAIK) grabbing with it a bit of the fuselage, true.

          • Wind Tunnel Man // July 17, 2016 at 3:08 pm //


            Actually your analogy: “…wooden plank and drop it it’s not going to fall with high speed as it will be tumbling” might be quite relevant to the fall of the central fuselage section and most of the wings after the tail and rear section separated. The weight of the remains of the fuselage and undercarriage might have been fairly evenly balanced between the remains of both wings and engines and those remaining attached parts would certainly be aerodynamically unstable.

          • Two examples for terminal descend rates of airliners whose wings no longer generate lift but only drag:
            1) Pulkovo 612 took 3.5 minutes to descend in a tailspin from 39000 feet.
            That’s an average of ~11000 feet/min or ~55 m/s, it probably slowed down in the lower atmosphere due to higher air density.
            2) AF447 recorded 10000ft/min (50 m/s) as terminal rate of descend

            BTW air density doubles every 5500m so at 11000m it’s only 1/4 of the value at sea level.

          • Thanks, Ole, much needed examples.

            > BTW air density doubles every 5500m so at 11000m it’s only 1/4 of the value at sea level.

            That’s why the terminal velocity at 11000m is a 1/2 of that near the ground (as drag ~= v^2)

        • Good quality sound from a short distance

    • I have a bit limited knowledge of witness testimonies. But my impression is that the close witnesses do not describe the main body falling as being exceptionally loud, while they’d definitely would if it was an almost kiloton of TNT going off. I think, the wings also separated mid air, and did not contribute to the main impact.

    • Liane Theuer // July 16, 2016 at 5:34 pm // Reply

      Hugh Eaven wrote : „Therefore, my suggestion here is that most reported “explosions ” are from the crash itself.“

      I think so too.
      First explosion described as „not so loud“. That could be the Aft-section coming down. We know that there was a big fire, something must have exploded there.
      Second explosion must be the coming down of debris at the main crashsite and the explosion of full.

      About the two short „backs“ :
      We know that the cockpit with parts of the forward cargo section came down in one piece.
      As well as a large piece of the cargo section, which came down on asphalt.

      Could that be heard as two short “backs” in Torez ?

      • could be. The aft section burned as well. See this post

        It could be that the APU including some fuel exploded at impact and was the first explosion heard in Torez. 15 seconds later the main fuselage with wings and engines impacted the ground.

      • I’ve spent some more time trying to geolocate more posters from the “Eavesdropped in Torez” group who described the bang as loud. One lady saying “fuck me, what was that?” (+76 s, 13:22:00, “ебануться что это такое?”) likely lived 2.5 km south-south-west from Aleynikov and 12.2 km from the main crash site at the time. Otherwise, the chances of locating more people are slim. Many of them are very young and not yet registered in the Ukraine address database.
        Reading social network talking about all what was happening around the war was quite heavy on my mood. I’ve run a few times in their attempts to get help saving people injured during the bombing of that building in Snezhnoye that Ukraine hit on the 15th. Me doing the research on the Mh-17 is not so motivated by the desire to uncover the truth for those innocent Dutch who died but more so for those innocent locals who suffered or died during the war in Donbass. I regret that admin, seemingly motivated to serve justice to his people, pays very little attention to those civilians suffering in Donbass. The only thing they were guilty about was wanting independence from Ukraine turning nazi.

        • Liane Theuer // July 16, 2016 at 9:01 pm // Reply

          Eugene, I believe that most of us (Admin included) have a strong sense of justice.
          That is why we want to bring the truths to light – whether in MH17, Maidan, Odessa, Mariupol, Luhansk or elsewhere.

          And as you mentioned the bombing of that building in Snezhnoye, I want to illustrate that with a video (even if it is OT) :

          I hope that something like this never happen to me. But IF it would happen, I hope the people around me are just as determined to help as in the video.

  14. Liane Theuer // July 17, 2016 at 12:50 pm // Reply

    In this video the witness Mark Shorr describes the Plane Crash in Queens. This plane crashed because of a technical failure.
    At 10:10 he says he heard a very loud noise like a concord. Then his house started to shake. Then the plane crashed.
    So the shaking appeared BEFORE the plane hits the ground !
    TWA 800
    More than 150 credible witnesses – including several scientists and business executives – have told the FBI and military experts they saw a missile destroy TWA 800.
    The reports give a good insight of what can be seen and heard when a missile strikes an aircraft :
    Quotes :
    “I looked up because it sounded like thunder. I kept looking trying to figure out what it was. And that’s when I saw a flare come off the water. The flare, trailing orange flame, shot up roughly at a 45 degree angle, then rapidly increased its angle of ascent. Then it appeared to strike something.“
    „It zigzagged a little. We thought it was strange. Then, several seconds later, we saw an eruption of fire. We never heard anything. We saw a fireball, and at that point we identified what was an aircraft.“
    Quotes :
    Witness 73: „At the instant the smoke trail ended at the aircraft’s right wing, she heard a loud sharp noise which sounded like a firecracker had just exploded at her feet. She then observed a fire at the aircraft followed by one or two secondary explosions which had a deeper sound. She then observed the front of the aircraft separate from the back. She then observed burning pieces of debris falling from the aircraft.”
    Witness 88: “All of a sudden he heard an explosion. He glanced over to the southeast and observed what he thought was a firework ascending into the sky.“
    Witness 675: Approximately two (2) seconds later he saw the plane go into a spiral and explode. With five (5) seconds [of losing the falling debris behind the tree line] he heard what sounded like thunder and felt the ground shake.”
    Witness 145: She heard a loud noise and saw an explosion just as the object hit the plane. The plane dropped towards the water and appeared to split in two pieces. A few seconds later, she heard another explosion. She stated that the explosions were so loud that they shook the house.”

    • Hugh Eaven // July 17, 2016 at 1:51 pm // Reply

      Liane “So the shaking appeared BEFORE the plane hits the ground !”

      This is the more complete statement “I heard a rumble and at first I thought it was the Concorde… I heard another roar and I knew it wasn’t the Concorde. The whole house started shaking like a subway train and then I saw an orange glow outside the window. I screamed for my son and my wife to get out of the house”.

      The ground shock wave propagation is way faster than sound through air. So one cannot be sure when Mark would look out of the window or how fast the orange glow would envelop, probably slightly after the initial quake or sound waves.

      Anyway, I don’t think the other witness statements conflict with the official conclusion of “explosion of the center wing fuel tank resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank”. So was the main explosive sound here caused by the in-flight breakup and fuel ignition or the impact on the ground?

      Or are those stories demonstrating how unreliable multiple witness statements might become when describing a single large, unusual event in the sky?

      • Liane Theuer // July 17, 2016 at 4:19 pm // Reply

        Hugh wrote : “Or are those stories demonstrating how unreliable multiple witness statements might become when describing a single large, unusual event in the sky?”

        No, I believe TWA 800 was a cover up and the witnesses really saw a missile. Even the DailyMail suggest it :

        Obviously it is possible to sell a missile strike as “explosion of the center wing fuel tank”. To change the circumstances of MH17 shoot down might be even easier as indeed the plane was destroyed by a weapon.

        By the way : TWA 800 exploded on July 17/1996 – exactly 20 years before MH17.

        • > TWA 800 exploded on July 17/1996 – exactly 20 years before MH17.

          *20 years before today

        • Hugh Eaven // July 17, 2016 at 5:57 pm // Reply

          “Even the DailyMail suggest it”

          Which would mean exactly what? I do read articles there at times, mostly because they post a lot of pictures with it. But journalistic as insightful as FOX news in the US (and also market leader I think).

          I’m not saying there was no missile, just that it’s missing sufficient forensic evidence of any impact or damage patterns. So then it needs cover-up of evidence and so on.

          The July 17 is interesting, but perhaps just as interesting as a “777′ on the 17th of the 7th month. Or that 9/11 was on 9-11, the national alarm number or two towers spelling the number ’11’. We have to be careful with these type of matches. It’s tempting and I’ve entertained my own theories. They exclude human supervision though, it’s just too hairy.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.