What is the cause of a perfect square in MH17 debris?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

The reconstructed cockpit section of MH17 shows on the lefthand side a perfect square. This must have been made manually.

The question: why, by who?


The original part did not have a square in it! It showed a small hole most likely caused by shrapnel


This photo shows the cockpit. The square is above and behind the cockpit window.


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

16 Comments on What is the cause of a perfect square in MH17 debris?

  1. Well, I agree and the pieces must be the same but photographed from a different angle. What is the difference? I think the piece of Almaz-Antey on the right might be attached to something and DSB found an orthodox way to separate the pieces. In the picture on the right the piece of wreckage seems attached and folded around something. To the left the surface has been flattened.

    See the adhesive seam (?) in the red square:


    • That piece is not separated or attached to anything. The ‘seam’ is where the blast of the detonation pressed the skin against beam STA 228.5. I reckon that the same blast, combined with heat, played a part in blowing the paint off the skin in that area.

      To have tat effect, the missile must have been very close, as well as travelling very fast relative to the aircraft. That should give an indication of both its position and trajectory.

      • Indeed. The location of the explosion must have been closer to the cockpit than stated by DSB.

      • To be more accurate, it’s the direction of the blast (from the warhead) that must have been moving very fast relative to the aircraft.

        • Yes, I agree. Have a new, but not so strong idea. People tried to remove two alleged butterflies from the hull. They did not bother about the result. With such a rough action you are insane and might make this kind of interpretation failures:


        • Brendan

          In the Almaz-Antey experiment with the plates of aluminum, we saw the blast of shrapnel seems earlier than the pressure wave:


          But looking at the holes in this piece of wreckage it seems the pressure wave came before the blast with shrapnel. Since bigger squares are made with already impressed aluminum than the square exactly on 228.5:


          Or the hot hole has been widened by the pressure wave coming later? So what is faster, the shock wave or the transport of shrapnel?

          • Liane Theuer // April 10, 2016 at 11:40 pm //

            “So what is faster, the shock wave or the transport of shrapnel?”

            The shock wave on a short distance. The greater the distance the more likely the fragments overtake the shockwave.

  2. The DSB must have cut out that square in order to carry out some analysis. Does anyone remember any kind of tests that might have been done on it?

    You can see where the cutting saw overshot the bottom left hand corner in the downward direction.

    • Yes, for example the well known control group of pieces of aluminum from the cockpit for shrapnel found in the bodies, the 20 subjects experiment. But then they needed only very little material from the fringe. I can’t imagine they would cut out this piece. If there’s no reason to loosen the piece, I think of sabotage

  3. Sergey Tokarev // April 11, 2016 at 3:13 am // Reply

    Sorry, off topic. Marcel! Could you please make a post regarding ‘phone intercept’? I think it is important, because it is a smoking gun, if it indeed was forged one day earlier. In such case, there are two options: 1) pre-planned false flag, or 2) a number of ridiculous, laughable explanations. Maybe we should invite bloggers from LiveLeak?

    • sotilaspassi // April 11, 2016 at 6:20 am // Reply

      Yes. It would be interesting to have analysis of all released “phone intercepts”.

      We know many of them have been manipulated by SBU during the war for propaganda.
      It seems clips have been created by low guality cut & paste methode from original audio. Most likely some audio clips have also been manufactured/faked for the purpose.

      -audio release timing (vs MH17 event)
      -real origin of the copied clips

      Spotter: Bird flew to you.
      Bezler?: Did a bird fly to us.
      Spotter: Yes she did, alone.
      Bezler?: Reconnaince or a big one?
      Spotter: I can’t see above the clouds… so high …
      Bezler?: I see … Roger …

  4. What if the “spotter” was a SBU member? Thought of that?

    • The hunt for Ukraine warplanes and transports had been going on for a few months already. Rebels shot down 24 documented planes and helicopters of Ukraine. So that conversation could have happened on any of those occasions or on a yet bigger number of unsuccessful shooting attempts. So, one would have a hard time proving that that particular conversation was about the flight Mh-17.

      • sotilaspassi // April 14, 2016 at 12:51 pm // Reply

        If this would be genuine: “Spotter: I can’t see above the clouds… so high …”
        I doubt other targets were that high and in cloudy weather.

    • sotilaspassi // April 14, 2016 at 12:53 pm // Reply

      So, for example, SBU member hijacked rebel spotter’s phone and arranged the rebel team to shoot at MH17. Yes, unlikely, but it is possible, IMO.

    • Hmuryi: You see, we’ve got a GRAD, but no spotter. However we’re waiting for Russia to shelter them from the other side.

      – Remember the SBU confessed the tactical error to have intercepted the separatists telephone calls which must have been real-time intelligence, what means the Security Service of Ukraine could make contact with the (spotters of the) BUK.

      – And about those silly cell phones, how long do you think the SBU needed to track separatist spotters in the neighbourhood of their air bases and capture them?

      – The SBU learned from the internet that the separatists had no spotters to report from Kiev or elsewhere departing AN-26 or IL-76 and we know at July 17 it was too cloudy to spot them with binoculars. So what would the SBU have devised?

      – In this scenario they keep a prisoner spotter at gunpoint to give misleading information by his cell phone about an incoming IL-76 at high altitude of 10 kilometers (MH17). He is fighting for his life.

      – Well, lack of facts gives interesting scenarios. But if this cell phone conversation among separatists really happened and they used no encrypted information it’s all too bad for the SBU. Then instead of alerting civil aviation they let shoot down MH17. Hence, SBU made a fundamental error in publishing their real time knowledge of separatist’s communication.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.