DSB final report doubts: no bow-tie shaped damage on outer skin
by 
DSB concluded the missile that downed MH17 was a 9N314M. This was based on the three fragments found on cockpit and bodies of cockpit crew.
It would be logical to assume not only bow-tie shaped fragments were found, but also bow-tie shaped holes in the fuselage.
However there are no clear bow-tie shaped holes observed on the MH17 wreckage.
A possible explanation of the lack of bow-tie shaped holes could be that because of the cabin pressure leaking to the outside, and forces of the wind and thrust of the aircraft changed the shape of holes caused by fragments. I do not think this is a very likely explanation.
This because it would be true for other shapes as well. There are a couple of clear round holes caused by filler fragments as well as square holes. Additionally , some pieces of the structure of the cockpit are made of extra strong steel. These parts are less likely to change shape because of wind or pressure.
The Almaz Antey experiment where it exploded a missile on an IL86 aircraft on the ground clearly shows bow-tie shapes.
by
It’s easy to plant bow-ties, it’s impossible to change the pictures in circulation!
> A possible explanation of the lack of bow-tie shaped holes could be that because of the cabin pressure leaking to the outside, and forces of the wind and thrust of the aircraft changed the shape of holes caused by fragments. I do not think this is a very likely explanation.
There is no way the air escaping from a vessel at half an atmosphere pressure would bend the aluminum skin.
> There is no way the air escaping from a vessel at half an atmosphere pressure would bend the aluminum skin.
An clarification is required. The air would not bend the edges of the aluminum sheets because the pressure is far too little for that. Imaging taking a 2mm sheet of aluminum and placing it next to a bicycle tire that you are going to puncture. No way the escaping air will bend the edges of an aluminum, that air will not even harm your hand. The pressure in bicycle tires normally is at least four times greater than that of inside an airliner (wrt outside).
Because, according to AA, most bowties preserve the shape after multiple penetrations, one does not have to limit their search for the bowtie shaped holes in “outer skin” but can look among holes in the internal structures too. There are no bowtie shaped holes to be found there either.
The lack of the bowtie shaped holes and apparent miscalculation of the detonation point are the two loudest facts speaking for the report being rigged to justify the Buk as a kill weapon.
There can be very few holes when most of the skin was blown away, unlike in A-A fake demo.
But still, there are tens of suitable holes. Also A-A agreed on this in spring 2015 (before they were ordered to lie in another way).
@ Sotilaspassi: do you have a link to the statement of AA that says that AA found holes which could have been caused by bow-tie shaped fragments?
Like a link to a video of a AA presentation and time into the video where this is said.
I think they found boutie and filler made holes:
(no time to check the video again, but A-A seemed 100% sure it was M1, until they were told to tell another story)
Sotilaspassi:
It is not the point that it could be bowtie holes (13x13x8.2 mm) from 9N314M, but it must be very clear it cannot be also squares (13x13x8 mm) from 9N314. So Almaz Antey can be perfectly right it could be bowtie holes, but at the same time the requirement of conditional probability is not met in this criminal case. In a normal crash situation we would have accepted bowties immediately.
http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr
AA in their first presentation stated it was a 9M38M1 missile equipped with a 9N314 warhead.
– Following DSB, the point of detonation was about 3 meters from the cockpit. Already within 0.0015 seconds, fragments crashed on the hull. There are found perpendicular squares and acute diamonds of squares. Big squares and little squares:
http://tinyurl.com/hzcy85w
Only 9N314 has two kinds of squares: (4740) 13x13x8 mm and also 8x8x5 mm.
And 9N314M has 1870 bowties (13x13x8.2 mm) and 4100 squares (8x8x5 mm) and 1870 fillers (6x6x8.2 mm). So 9N314M definitely has no big squares.
And if no evidence is needed to prove bowties other than ‘suitability’, than my evidence certainly is sufficient to ‘prove’ two kinds of squares. So, you will accept 9N314?
We know 100% surely DSB was wrong. Everyone can see with their own eyes that warhead detonated much closer than what DSB states.
DSB stated that detonation happened 3meter left and 3.7 above the tip of the nose of Boeing777.
IIRC Boeing 777 fuselage diameter is about 6meters.
So the warhead detonation was not 3m from the cockpit according to DSB. In real life we (and A-A) know detonation was very close to cockpit surface.
>There can be very few holes when most of the skin was blown away
Quoting the report:”Over 350 hits are present on the
wreckage of the cockpit and over 800 hits are estimated in total”
– A segment on the roof of MH17 can be seen as reasonable surface normal to the sum vector. For this segment we exactly calculated the expected numbers of bowties:
http://tinyurl.com/qd6fyj9
– A 14% warhead area is selected on the roof in front of door L1 to the left windshield as reasonable surface normal, which can be inspected from pictured roof plates.
– Following the ‘separated time and space blast theory’ of DSB on the left side of this area are expected: .14 x .32 x 1870 = 84 bowties.
– On the right side are expected: .14 x .68 x 1870 = 178 bowties.
– But also under quite acute angles bowties would show characteristic impacts:
– Maximally 617 bowties are expected accepting a 120% angle from the warhead to the aircraft: (.33 x .32 x 1870 = 197) + (.33 x .68 x 1870 = 420) = 617 bowties.
– DSB found 350 holes of impact for 7840 striking elements. Then bowties would have shown maximally 84 butterfly holes, seen from all angles (24% of 350).
– Assumptions regarding translations optimize chances for finding characteristic butterflies on the hull. But we also have 197+ 420 = 617 fillers (6x6x8.2). And for them rotations does not matter. This means holes of 168 bowties and fillers out of 350 holes on the hull of MH17 would have shown in case of 9N314M.
– All this evidence together and no bowties or fillers (?) detected falsify 9N314M from Snizhne.
”Over 350 hits are present on the wreckage of the cockpit and over 800 hits are estimated in total”
So, it would seem that some of the 350 hits are on the skin of the MH17. And 450 estimated hits are not found.
I wonder if more than 25% of the shrapnel hit skin is found…
Sotilaspassi:
I agree. Those 350 hits came through the hull and the windshields into the wreckage. We know most of the hull has been demolished but not the windshields. It might be blue light fillers are faster than bowties and go through the windshields, while red heavy bowties impacted somewhat later on the cockpit frame.
http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq
Hence, we probably see no butterflies on the windshields:
http://tinyurl.com/z7v5gg8
http://tinyurl.com/h9kw2lx
In a normal accident we would take the two allegedly found bowties in the bodies of the crew for granted. But this is a criminal case with an unattended crime scene for many months. IMO Admin earlier proved what can happen. I think the bowtie found by Jeroen Akkermans is the most important find of this investigation, for it almost certainly proves deception by some party. I think this disqualifies all bowties in court.
To resume: I think most bowties are lost in the crash, but we did find 350 impressions somewhere in the wreckage. Then a quarter of them must be made by bowties. For, we may expect 84 bowties from 350 impacts within the wreckage in case of 9N314M. Bowties might be demolished earlier by their passage through the hull. Maybe they are splintered fragments. But that’s a problem for them who want to prove bowties.
Is it statistically possible only two bowties are found? I think so. But as said earlier the bodies of the crew followed a very suspicious trajectory through Donetsk:
[This means no conclusion from these bodies can be trusted anymore by judges. This ruins the DSB report completely. And this information comes not from the DSB-report, but from Dutch RTL.
I have no information about international teams sending the 37 bodies (from the cockpit and first class) to Kalininskiy mortuary. So here responsibilities diverge which ruined the DSB set up for 9N314M.
For the contamination of the bodies of the crew it does not matter who was in charge in Kalininskiy mortuary: separatists or the Ukrainian government.]
This means DSB never had to conclude prematurely to 9N314M as the warhead used. They had to test 9N314 and maybe SAM’s with 40 kg warheads too.
And the IL86 aircraft on the ground was:
1. not moving and neither was the test missile. Which could remove a LOT of kinetic energy from the equations which might show different holes from different levels of impact energy.
2. not pressurized? (assuming this would have actually some effect)
So I’m not sure the experiment is that useful when analyzing impact holes and comparing them with a significantly different situation in terms of energies involved and looking at the exact, detailed shapes of various holes. Any counter arguments are of course welcome.
Well, if it was only soft aluminum, you might be right and elastic propagation would have the opportunity to distribute the energy from acute impacts wider than perpendicular impacts. Then we might see blurs of fragments in the hull.
But a part of the cockpit was fortified and surface normal to fragments. This works like a tank without lateral displacement of kinetic energy.
So, we still expect a lot of butterflies in the cockpit. But also in soft and elastic material and under sharp angles butterflies will easily be recognized.
Hence, the absence of proof of butterflies cannot be seen as evidence of bowties found in the cockpit. We must conclude, bowties simply do not pass the requirement of conditional probability.
Furthermore, fragments from the same steel but apparently with completely different metallurgic characteristics are found in the body of the purser and in the bodies of team A. And that is weird.
Together with other evidence of possible fraud with bowties we are building a record to falsify bowties completely in relation to MH17.
> “significantly different situation”
The speed of fragments for the real situation would be greater by only around 6%. That’s not a significant difference.
And, if anything, a greater speed of impact only has the effect that the hole contours match those of the projectile better. That’s because on a higher speed the interaction time is shorter, allowing the energy to propagate for shorter distance. This may not be the best explanation; I’d give you examples if I was not typing on a phone.
>And the IL86 aircraft on the ground was:
>1. not moving and neither was the test missile. Which could remove a LOT of kinetic energy from the equations which might show different holes from different levels of impact energy.
IMO, heavy shrapnel like the bowties get 20% more energy:
>2. not pressurized? (assuming this would have actually some effect)
I doubt it.
But the thin air in 10km make light and fast shrapnel (+metal dust) hit the target with more energy (they do not slow down as fast as on ground).
3. In A-A the detonation has been meter(s) futher away vs real MH17 case.
4. And in totally different angle vs the fuselage.
So the result is totally different.
+no-one could not verify that real (in service) warhead was used
+it is said that almost 70% of shrapnel change shape in detonation before they hit the target
+it is known that the (low quality) metal of the shrapnel have changed over time, we do not have any information what kind of metal A-A used in the demo warhead.
A-A is 100% in the control of RU federation, the main suspect of giving weapons + troops to shoot down airplanes in eastern Ukraine.
RU has provided mainly lies & fake images so far, also A-A has lied many times. So…
In the limit of time to zero, which is approached by the velocity of shrapnel of 2000 m/s and a distance to the target of just several centimeters, the effect of the cone of 600 m/s is nil.
Relative velocity between missile and MH17 approaches zero and in case of surface normality, fragment energy goes straight and perpendicular into the hull.
But also the rotation of bowties in the blast is very questionable in the first 0.0005 milliseconds. Hence, we expect rather well defined bowtie holes as butterflies in the hull.
http://tinyurl.com/okb5y6m
http://tinyurl.com/j5y6nkj
1. I’m not.
3. If they had nothing to hide,they would not have lied ~hundred times vs MH17.
“all Russian’s are liar”
You said it, not me.
But I admit I do not understand them. I do not value humans that do not value life.
The “bow tie” fragments are the wrong size anyway aren’t they?
So something doesn’t add up.
Not really. When warhead explodes, some of the shrapnel deform. When they go through metal layers they again deform. Also when they hit hard surfaces they tend to loose some mass & break into smaller pieces.
A-A show that after going through 2mm aluminium into a trap, bowties weight 5,2…7,9g. Before detonation the bowtie weight little above 8g.
DSB analyzed bowtie shaped pieces weighted 5,7 and 6,1g.
http://www.favt.ru/novosti-novosti/?id=2311
Oleg Storchevoy:
Section 2.16 (Fig. 37, Table 11)
http://tinyurl.com/jngmagj
2.1. Fragments
Section 2.16 (Fig. 37, Table 11) of the Factual Information part of the final report indicates that a total of two bow-tie shaped fragments consistent with the 9N314M warhead were found:
The data provided in the final report is inaccurate, because the actual mass of Fragment 1 [cockpit, BD] is 5.5 grams, not 6.1 grams, as evidenced by the photos made by members of the international investigation team during the weighing of this fragment in February 2015 at the Gilze-Rijen air base. In addition, the final report does not specify where exactly the fragment was found in the cockpit.
The captain’s body from which Fragment 2 was extracted did not undergo special examination (instead, the body of the Team B captain, who was not present in the cockpit at the time of the accident, was examined).
The new important fact is that, even assuming the aircraft was brought down by a Buk surface-to-air missile, the description of fragments provided in the report does not match the pre-formed fragments used in the 9N314M warhead.
The final report does not take into account the mass of the bow-tie shaped fragments. Compared with standard bow-tie shaped fragments used in the 9N314M warhead, which weigh 8.1 grams and are 8.2 millimeters thick:
• Fragment 1 [cockpit] in reality lost 32 percent of its mass (or, based on the mass indicated in the report, 24.7 percent);
• Fragment 2 [captain’s body] lost 29.6 percent of its mass;
• Relative transverse deformation (thickness reduction) of the fragments was over 60 percent.
The significant loss of mass in Fragment 1 [cockpit] cannot be explained by damage because the fragment does not appear greatly damaged (otherwise, it would lose its bow-tie shape).
Fragment 2 [captain’s body] shows clear signs of damage, specifically in the transversal section (in relation to the front side). The diminished mass of this fragment can be explained by damage. However, the thickness of the fragment indicates significant deformation (over 60 percent), which is not consistent with its shape.
In experiments with the 9N314M warhead, the average mass of bow-tie fragments that preserved their shape after penetrating several aluminum sheets (with a combined thickness of 12 mm) in one case and the cockpit of an Ilyushin Il-86 aircraft in the other case was 7.2-7.9 grams. The average loss of mass was merely 3-12 percent.
The simulation of transversal deformation revealed that the shape of a fragment with 60 percent transverse deformation [generally] is very different from the shape of the fragments presented in Section 2.16 (Fig. 37, Table 11) of the Factual Information part of the final report.
The results of these experiments and simulations are consistent with the results of validation tests of the 9N314M warhead, in which 96 percent of bow-tie fragments preserved their shape and lost only 6-7 percent of their mass after penetrating two 5-mm sheets of steel.
Thus, the mass and dimensions of the two fragments (Section 2.16, Fig. 37, Table 11 of the Factual Information part of the final report), based on which the report concludes that the aircraft was hit by a 9N314M warhead, are not consistent with the results of the full-scale experiments and simulations.
[The A-A experiment must be repeated, separating the IL86 part from the plates. The plate experiment must be divided into 3 groups of thickness of aluminum. Finally, from all sub experiments means and standard deviations should be published. The experiments should be controlled by international observers.]
http://tinyurl.com/jffgh6t
Some things from thoughts …
Detonation close vs far, movement vs no movement etc.
If Albert Lex is right and only parallelepipeds with sides 8x8x6 mm were on the scene, then we must think of the Russian warhead 9N318?
http://tinyurl.com/z8k9yqb
http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr
No, not a 9N318 in the context of the entire albert_lex report. The report determined the location of the warhead relative to the aircraft at the moment of detonation. Then it studied a sample of 186 holes to produce the histogram that you linked.
According to the report the warhead detonated 0.8 to 1.6 meters away from the pilot’s window. A 70 kg 9N318 warhead with 7,000 – 8,000 striking elements would have produced a narrower pattern of destruction with a higher hole count and tighter spacing between holes.
So not a 9N318 or any other Buk warhead. Albert_lex concluded it was a smaller warhead weighing 10-40 kg with fewer than 4000 striking elements. That was at a 95% confidence interval if I recall correctly.
The DSB failed to do a thorough analysis of the holes. This failure is summarized in the first two paragraphs of section 2.2 of the attachment to Oleg Storchevoy’s letter to the DSB dated 1/14/2016. Here is the attachment’s description of the DSB’s negligence regarding hole analysis:
“Section 2.12 of the Factual Information part and Section 3.5 of the Analysis part in the final report, as well as Section 2.13 of Appendix X, indicate the approximate number of penetration holes in the skin of the left-hand side of the cockpit (around 200) and the perpendicular dimensions of 31 penetration holes. No further examination of penetration holes on the aircraft wreckage was performed.
The final report and its appendices fail to provide any information on the shape of penetration holes, whether penetration holes are present in the skin of the right-hand side, or conclusions that can be drawn regarding the characteristics of the warhead based on the fragmentation spray pattern on the aircraft wreckage.”
The English translation of the letter and attachment is online at http://www.favt.ru/public/materials//1/6/c/0/3/16c0341512fcae3c1ebd64fd2a486136.rtf.
IsThatSo thanks for the explication.
I agree with this opinion. Following the Russian reports and Albert Lex it cannot be a BUK. In their line of reasoning BUK is disconfirmed in relation to MH17. It is a rather convincing combination of the properties of BUK and statistics.
But it did not falsify a BUK in relation to the downing of MH17. Somewhere in a hole of reality there might be a little chance it was still a BUK. And the fact that DSB did not investigate holes in a thorough analysis is irrelevant for the cause of the crash.
Following the requirement of conditional probability we found different sizes of diamond impressions in the hull:
http://tinyurl.com/hzcy85w
Now we might agree with Albert Lex and accept different sizes all indicate the same type of square of about 8x8x6 mm:
http://tinyurl.com/z8k9yqb
Then we accept only parallelepipeds of about 8x8x6 mm as passing the requirement of conditional probability. In that case, strictly speaking, we must still include the Russian warhead 9N318 from missile 9M317 fired with a range of 50 km from over the Russian border, what of course would be a crazy scenario.
http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr
Yes, strictly speaking if we accept that only parallelepipeds with sides approximately 8x8x6 mm produced the holes, then the cause could have been a 9M317 missile with a 9N318 warhead that was fired from Russian territory and that somehow produced self-contradictory evidence on the skin of the aircraft. It is indeed a crazy scenario, perfect for a BBC documentary.
“And the fact that DSB did not investigate holes in a thorough analysis is irrelevant for the cause of the crash.”
I mentioned that fact because it is relevant to the topic of “DSB final report doubts: no bow-tie shaped damage on outer skin”. The DSB report attempted to establish that the evidence points to a 9M38 missile equipped with a 9N314M warhead fired from somewhere within a specified zone in eastern Ukraine. The report attempted to rule out all other possible causes.
The truth simply exists, but false reports require maintenance, and maintenance is costly. We are not equipped to determine what happened, but we are equipped well enough to determine that the technical report does not ring true. This ability matters because just as natures hates a vacuum, people hate to be misled.
To the extent that the DSB report is discredited political pressure increases. The pressure cannot be relieved with news articles supporting the report. It cannot be relieved with BBC documentaries. It cannot be relieved with a criminal investigation report that is underpinned by the shaky technical report. It cannot be relieved with financial compensation to families of the victims.
Add to this MH17-specific pressure the approaching implosion of Ukraine and the building public dissatisfaction with EU leadership. These are conditions that can force the truth to the surface sooner rather than later. If we wish to force the truth to the surface sooner rather than later then we must use every tool in the toolbox and not limit our efforts to logical and statistical analysis.
IsThatSo:
Good comment.
Since Admin almost completely falsified 9N314M we must find 40 kg warheads with 8x8x6 mm squares.
The airfighter scenario is very hard to believe, but possibly fulfilling the requirement of conditional probability we must also investigate the Israeli python. This rocket also seems to have an optical seeker to find the nose of the target.
[- Python is equipped with an array imaging infrared seeker. This enables the missile with a relatively small warhead to attack a large plane and well on the most vulnerable place. The fragmentation warhead consists of elements of fixed size and only one type. In addition, this is also the type of missile which can be fired from a Sukhoi-25KM. Georgia is in possession of 3 such SU-25KM fighter aircraft and has an arsenal of Python-4 and Python-5 missiles.]
Python-4 has an effective range of 15 km, and Python-5 has a range of 20 km. Both are capable of guiding themselves to a large target’s point of greatest weakness. Both incorporate sophisticated design to make unnecessary the massive firepower of old school missiles like Buk.
A Python-equipped SU-25 doesn’t need to get very close to a 777 flying at cruising altitude and speed. This raises the question of whether it is possible for an SU-25 to have been out of reach of Rostov radar and yet within Python-4/5 range of MH17.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/python4.htm
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/python-5-air-to-air-missile-aam-rafael-israel/
Rib length and diagonals of squares (8x8x6 mm) in a visualized relation to the histogram of the aircraft fragments largest transverse dimension (Albert Lex).
– Holes must get the measure perpendicular on the direction of impact:
http://tinyurl.com/o7ndf9u
http://tinyurl.com/z8k9yqb
http://tinyurl.com/hsxr2pq
Oh, and there’s this:
“Python-5 is a dual use missile suitable for air-to-air and surface-to-air missions. It integrates a fifth-generation imaging seeker, modern software, advanced infrared counter-countermeasure (IRCCM) and flight control systems.
Python-5 has a length of 3.1m, wing span of 64cm and diameter of 16cm. The weight of the missile is 105kg. It can carry an 11kg high explosive fragmentation warhead equipped with an active laser proximity fuse.”
In other words, a Python-5 could have done the job from the ground. No fighter necessary. A Python’s ground launch and flight would be much less likely to draw attention than that of a Buk.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/python-5-air-to-air-missile-aam-rafael-israel/
AA was not able to destroy a cockpit with 70kg warhead. Now you say it is possible to be done by 11kg warhead from georgia.
That is very far beyond rediculous.
Agree. The Python story does not seem to be very realistic. First of all the amount of explosives in the warhead. Secondly, seeing the damage done to a Hezbollah drone by a Python 5, these holes seems smaller than that seen at MH17.
Thirdly: Ukraine does not have Python missiles. So a Georgian SU-25 shot down MH17 with a Pyhton???
Unrealistic.
http://militaryedge.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Hezbollah-Drone-1.jpg
Right.
And to hit cockpit with a electro-optical-IR sight you need to launch the missile towards the target straight from ahead of the target (impossible with SU25). eoIR sight is designed to avoid distraction from flares and to hit the center body of an aircraft (where the fuel is) instead of just the IR radiating engine.
Basic Dimension and I were discussing on this page what is possible based on the conclusions of the albert_lex report. Not what is probable.
Here’s a brief recap of the conclusions of the albert_lex report:
1. Based on string analysis the warhead exploded 0.8 to 1.8 meters from the pilot’s window.
2. The distribution of hole sizes is unipolar, so the warhead contained only 1 size of submunition.
3. The submunitions were cube-shaped with 8x8x6 mm sides, give or take 0.5 mm. The minimum size was 7.5×7.5×5.5 mm. The maximum size was 8.5×8.5×6.5 mm. The minimum mass of each submunition was 2.4 g. The maximum mass of each submunition was 3.7 g. That is assuming submunitions made of steel.
4. The calculated mass of the submunitions was between 4.88 kg and 14.80 kg. At a 95% confidence interval the overall mass of the warhead was between 10 and 40 kg. There’s a 2.5% chance it was smaller than 10 kg and a 2.5% chance it was larger than 40 kg.
5. The quantity of submunitions was between 2000 and 4000.
The closer the detonation coordinates are to the aircraft the less submunition mass is needed. The albert_lex report calculates that if the detonation was 0.8 meters away then the observed damage is consistent with a submunition mass of only 4.88 kg. At double that distance (1.6 meters) the calculated submunition mass is 14.80 kg, which is 3 times as great.
The reasonable size of the warhead is very sensitive to the detonation coordinates. The closer the detonation coordinates, the more likely the Buk scenario is wrong.
Whatever missile it was, the actual warhead did not rip the aircraft to pieces all by itself. It caused an instant loss of flight control. Because of the loss of flight control the 777-200 exceeded its design limits and natural forces did the rest. It isn’t necessary for a missile warhead to rip apart a high speed target.
We concluded that if one assumes the albert_lex report is accurate then it is strictly speaking possible for MH17 to have been shot down by either a Python missile or a Buk 9M317 missile with a 9N318 warhead. We said possible, not probable. The conclusion is correct.
I believe the Python scenario is nonsense for severall reasons. Will write a blog about this soon. To start with, a Georgian airforce aircraft had to shot MH17 down, as Ukraine does not have the Python missile nor the aircraft that can carry the missile.
Also, judging by the stringing, the warhead exploded around 2,5 meters from the cockpit. It would require over 14,80 kg of submunition.
The Python warhead is only 11 kg. That is fragments plus the weight of the explosives.
albert_lex reported about 2000-4000 fragments of 3 gram. With 2000 fragments the fragments would weigh 6 kg. That leaves 5 kg for the explosives.
Mind albert_lex report carefully ignores that Ukraine does not have the Python missile.
Please continue the discussion. It can be used for a post on the Python.
Typically in Frag-HE 10-20% of mass is explosives, not 50%. And Ukraine imported ministers and governors from Georgia, why not missiles?
First an error correction. I wrote “0.8 to 1.8 meters”, but the actual range of dimensions in the albert_lex report is 0.8 to 1.6 meters.
“albert_lex reported about 2000-4000 fragments of 3 gram. With 2000 fragments the fragments would weigh 6 kg. That leaves 5 kg for the explosives.”
In section 4.3.1 the report cites a range of sizes and weights:
7.5×7.5×5.5 mm weighing 2.4 g. 2000 of them would weigh 4.8 kg.
8x8x6 mm weighing 3 g. 2000 of them would weigh 6 kg. as you noted.
8.5×8.5×6.5 weighing 3.7 g. 2000 of them would weigh 7.4 kg. 4000 of them would weigh 14.8 kg.
Although the report specified 2000 to 4000 fragments it specifies a maximum quantity of 3650 in section 4.3.2. The minimum size isn’t specified, but considering Figure 16 it appears the calculated minimum is 2350.
“Also, judging by the stringing, the warhead exploded around 2,5 meters from the cockpit. It would require over 14,80 kg of submunition.”
If the warhead exploded 2.5 meters from the cockpit then far more than 14.8 kg of submunition would be required to produce the observed hole damage. The explosion coordinates are absolutely critical! Albert_lex calculated 0.8 to 1.6 meters based on a quantity of 6 tangential (grazing) strikes in section 4.2.1. The explosion coordinates need very careful attention. Are there known tangential strikes that albert_lex didn’t use? Or did albert_lex draw the lines incorrectly? This is an area where your future Python article should go into significant detail.
A Python article will force you to address both technical and political considerations. The starting point for the political evaluation is whether the event was an accident or a false flag. If it was an accident then the choices narrow down to either Ukraine or separatists. If it was a false flag then the pool of suspects is larger and you have to consider qui bono (who profits?). The conflict was and is far larger than Ukraine vs. separatists. There is way more at stake than a small chunk of eastern Ukraine. We don’t know whether it was accident or false flag, but we do know that the cover-up has been extensive. The cover-up points to a false flag although not with certainty.
When you include a false flag motive, as I believe you must, then it becomes harder to label the Python scenario as nonsense. The best way to “kill” the Python scenario is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the explosion occurred farther than 1 meter from the cockpit.
btw. this shows the amount of MH17 “skin” found and identified by DSB.
(… far less than 25% of shrapnel affected skin of MH17 was found, IMO)
The scenario of fighter aircraft in relation to the downing of MH17 is almost impossible for a number of reasons. Be warned, the power to prove or disprove fighter aircraft is in Russians hands.
Where do we stand after so many months? Well, this blog has made real progress:
– In the first place and only after falsifying 9N314M twice, we can now fully accept the Albert Lex norm about the kind of shrapnel used. It is based on conscientious research and fortunately leads us to a very simple strategy. Squares 8x8x6 passed the requirement of conditional probability and we must search further into that direction.
– Nothing is more important than finding warheads with these squares. And in this stage of the investigation it does not matter in what way they came to the plane. Airfighters, Russian BUKs, it does not matter.
– Remember, Albert Lex did research on real holes in the first place and afterwards drew a lot of statistical conclusions. Not that I am in the position to disqualify these conclusions, but they are not reality in the first place, they are conclusions about alleged reality.
What means at this moment we only accept the kind of squares (8x8x6 mm), but we cannot discard BUKs with a 70 kg warhead already. We cannot discard the Russian missile 9M317 with warhead 9N318, which perfectly fits the requirements of squares (8x8x6 mm):
http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr
I checked for the combination of two kinds of squares, with 8x8x6 and 6x6x6 mm but this gave a very bad solution.
http://tinyurl.com/jewzkpt
Therefore and from now on I think only squares of 8x8x6 must be the norm. This means also 9M38 with 9N314 is falsified.
– At this moment nothing is more important than finding warheads with squares 8x8x6 mm. Only after we found them we can inspect scenarios. Maybe, they all seem impossible but we must avoid tunnelvision.
Now, what completely crazy scenario can have happened which fits all requirements? An uncontrolled faction of the Russian army shot a 9M317 missile with warhead 9N318 into the airspace of Ukraine. For some reason they did not check the identity of MH17. After the Russian government understood what had happened, the MoD came with the story of the SU-25. Then the cripple airfighter scenario resulted.
Do we know how many shrapnel warhead 9N318 has? No. Do we know if the Russians have still other versions of 9N318? No. Do we know if test versions exists of 9N318 which have less shrapnel? No, we know nothing. And that’s why in this stage of the investigation we cannot discard warhead 9N318.
One short point I already mentioned in an earlier thread:
A bowtie shaped fragment only creates a bowtie shaped damage hole if all of the following contition apply:
* the angle of the bow-tie surface is parallel to the surface of the plane at the moment of impact
* the relative lateral velocity during passage of the surface has to be a below a certain amount
* the fragment rotation during the passage of the surface has to be below a certain amount
I do know nothing about warheads, but under the given dynamic conditions I would not expect ANY bowtie formed damage shape.
One short point I already mentioned in an earlier thread:
A bowtie shaped fragment only creates a bowtie shaped damage hole if all of the following contition apply:
* the angle of the bow-tie surface is parallel to the surface of the plane at the moment of impact
* the relative lateral velocity during passage of the surface has to be a below a certain amount
* the fragment rotation during the passage of the surface has to be below a certain amount
I do know nothing about warheads, but under the given dynamic conditions I would not expect ANY bowtie formed damage shape.
Horst:
A rectangle of the MH17 is reasonably surface normal to fragments. There, all your conditions are met.
http://tinyurl.com/qd6fyj9
http://tinyurl.com/z33gpq2
It is a pity if genuine bowties did not have a chance to fulfill the conditional probability of leaving butterflies in the hull. But that’s the responsibility of them who did not attend the crashsite for so many months.
http://tinyurl.com/zrouafy
Conditional probability is required in an unattended crime scene, not in case of a normal accident.
To be more specific, also when surface normality is not completely fulfilled, butterflies will be recognized in a number of cases. The low probability of butterflies in the hull does not relax the requirement of conditional probability.
Rotating bowties are postulated, but not yet proven mathematically. Furthermore, since the point of detonation is about on the cockpit the time to rotate is about 0.0005 seconds. This time interval might be too short for the co-propagating shockwave to turn them around.
http://tinyurl.com/okb5y6m
More important is the two bowties allegedly found in the bodies of team A are very different from the fragment in the body of the purser. That’s weird and still unexplained. They likely are from a different steel .
http://tinyurl.com/jngmagj
Also only 11 from 37 from 298 victims got a very peculiar treatment in the Kalininskiy mortuary where they have undergone autopsy, and guess what, the captain of team A was one of them. This means the bodies of the crew members are contaminated and relatively worthless for further research.
Albert_lex already disconfirmed butterflies in the hull of MH17. This means it could be 9N314M but it has not been proven. Furthermore with three kinds of shrapnel he would not expect a normal distribution of holes, which indicates only squares (8x8x6 mm).
http://tinyurl.com/hn25huv
Next Admin almost completely falsified the bowtie found by Jeroen Akkermans and proved this bowtie never could have entered through the hull. This means after albert_lex already disconfirmed bowties they now are also falsified with the highest likelihood. Together with earlier mentioned circumstantial evidence we must conclude bowties entered the MH17 as not coming from the warhead used.
* the fragment rotation during the passage of the surface has to be below a certain amount
What do we know about fragment rotation ?
When does a fragment start to rotate ?
From the very beginning of the explosion or after a certain distance or never ?
We don’t know much about fragment rotation, and I believe that we don’t need to know much.
Consider the math. Let’s assume the explosion and other forces spin the average fragment at 5,000 revolutions per minute. Assume also the fragment flies 1.5 meters at a closing speed of 2,000 meters per second before striking MH17. At that speed and distance it reaches MH17 in 0.00075 seconds. 5,000 r.p.m. is 83.33 revolutions per second. In 0.00075 seconds this fragment makes 0.0625 revolutions before striking MH17. That is only 22.5°.
Go ahead and play with the numbers. Assume a fragment rotates at 10,000 rpm and travels 3 meters at 2,000 meters per second before striking MH17. The fragment travels this distance in 0.0015 seconds. In that amount of time is has completed 1/4 of a revolution, a mere 90°.
Bottom line: A warhead with about 2,000 bow-tie shaped fragments definitely will have made bow-tie shaped holes in the skin of MH17.
Where are the bow-tie shaped holes?
Agree. Fragments cannot spin too much so that they don’t leave a distinctive impression. By a large margin. Even if a fragment is accelerated by being hit at one edge only, this still will not give enough rotation. Besides, in the AA test there are bowtie holes. There is no reason to believe that the 6% speed increase will drastically change the picture.
To put is simply, the ratio of bow-tie shaped holes should be roughly the same as in the AA test. The slightly increased (+6% for S-launch) velocity in the real situation compared to the static test by AA can only make the holes look cleaner.
Small notes:
-velocity/energy increase is almost 20 for slowest fragments
-warhead was in different position vs the target
-warhead was much further away from target
-less than 25% ? of the fragment affected skin of MH17 was found?
-no-one could verify the warhead A-A used, (previously they said they or RU have no M1) we know different production runs can use different metal compound for fragments
Someone has posted images from the Almaz Antyy test. Although, there is nothing new, it’s still interesting to have another look, and appreciate how the holes on Mh-17 are different from those made by a Buk. Bow-tie shaped holes are clearly visible too.
http://storage1.static.itmages.ru/i/16/0430/h_1462031196_4880170_a570c841a5.jpg
http://storage2.static.itmages.ru/i/16/0430/h_1462031217_3587391_7da42cede5.jpg
http://storage3.static.itmages.ru/i/16/0430/h_1462031239_9558536_71299a37e3.jpg
Source: http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=261&p=4#p45829
I want to do some own further study on the holes on MH17.
What is the size of the rivet head/stub on Boeing 777?
Are there different sizes on structure vs surface rivets?
After quick googling I see estimates from 6.25mm to about 8mm.
-> I use 5mm for rivet holes and 8mm for rivet heads.
Strange, some holes under a close examination look like they were made by round objects, balls. No holes on the following picture look to be made by cubes or squares. What do you think?
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/1ca7cfd130494702d2abc7b14d60098d.jpg
Eugene,
I think screws jumped out of the holes by flexing plates and got a different ‘impact angle’ than the other fragments:
http://tinyurl.com/jkevdhh
http://tinyurl.com/zmavvor
http://tinyurl.com/gkpyk4d
I think there is only one hole can be ascribed as a jumped out screw – the leftmost on the pictures. Those five in a row are definitely not screws. The characteristic deformation of the outer skin is the clue.
Basic Dimension, I’ll elaborate. If you see the outer layer of the skin around a hole bent backwards, that’s a proper hole and not a screw or a rivet (your examples do not violate the rule). This pattern is formed by the following process. When the hole is being made, a little bit of material is thrown backwards, bending the thin layer out. There was a nice video explaining the process, but I won’t find it quickly. A similar effect occurs when you shoot into water – the water gets splashed back.
http://uploads.ru/AOUCS.jpg
(the holes are best examined with a good zoom)
I cant believe this particular issue of fragments looking to be balls is discussed for the first time!
Eugene,
We agree this definitely is a screw thread:
http://tinyurl.com/zuak2d6
And given the massiveness of screws, I would think here about screw patterns in the first place:
http://tinyurl.com/hmfdord
http://tinyurl.com/zg85b36
I have not yet an opinion about the other round holes, though earlier people thought about machine gun bullet holes, what I do not believe. I do not see rivet holes but I can see impact holes likely from a warhead. Maybe some are totally round but others have at least one right angle. You know this is really hard and very stiff material and I guess the diamonds of the squares could be malformed as round holes.
I think the round holes are blurted out rivets.
Your rivets are my rivets too. No disagreement there. But there are proper holes made by round fragments, which I marked here http://uploads.ru/AOUCS.jpg
Liane, have a look.
Rivets on the picture are smaller too. Btw, my statement about the only rivet hole is a bit wrong. I simply was not looking the candidates that you correctly marked as rivets, my mind was skipping over.
On my picture where I marked the ball-made holes I marked only the most obvious ones, there are quite a few other such holes, but the round shape is not very discernible or shadowed.
Eugene: “I cant believe this particular issue of fragments looking to be balls is discussed for the first time!”
The round holes have been mentioned elsewhere since soon after photos of the crashed plane started to appear. I think that those holes have been ignored because they have been mainly used to make an unconvincing argument that they were from onboard cannon that was used to shoot down the aircraft. That theory focussed on comments by an OSCE observer who compared the damage to machine gun fire.
See how circular the holes are on the left of this image of near one of the windows, at 0:51 of that interview:
http://i.imgur.com/SfIjX3p.jpg
Thanks Breandan. Yes, I remember some people arguing that the five in a row were a signature of a gun. If those five holes were not made by round objects they’d probably not put forward the theory. Anyway most sensible people abandoned the gun theory very quickly. But the roundness of the holes should not be ignored because of the gun theory was abandoned.
> See how circular the holes are on the left of this image of near one of the windows, at 0:51 of that interview:
http://i.imgur.com/SfIjX3p.jpg
To me they look to be made by balls too. Not by cubes. Though the view does not allow to judge reliably. May be there is some rounding effect and the whole fuss about ball fragments is unfounded. But according to AA pictures, there should be reasonably discernible cube shaped holes, I think.
> May be there is some rounding effect
There seem to be a rounding effect that can make smaller holes made by cubes rounder. Such as the two holes on this picture http://savepic.su/6411148.jpg. They are close to being round, but still a bit “rectangular”. The rounding does not have the ability to mask the holes made by the larger bowties, though.
So I am not adding the observation about holes being mostly round to the list of things proving that the DSB report was rigged. But if you wonder, it was.
Yes, a cube can leave a hole that’s a bit rounded if it strikes at the right angle, as Basic D illustrated:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sKm69vUc6nE/VyMsA_yE9bI/AAAAAAAAP44/aNt_rJP-P24uZ_F9uye4eXLRE0IdO5nKwCLcB/s1600/Almaz-Antey%2B%25282125%252C5%2529.png
And fragments that are placed beside each other in the warhead would be expected to strike the target at almost the same angle. That might explain the presence of a number of ’round’ holes close together on the 777.
It would also appear to make more sense for the missile maker to use fragments with sharp edges, which are better than spheres at puncturing an aircraft’s surface.
Still, It’s strange that there are hardly any holes with a distinct rectangular shape. There are more round or oval holes, like under the window shown here:
http://i.imgur.com/AFf9c5i.jpg
Source: http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/10/13/photos-mh17-reconstruction-and-dutch-investigation/
Thanks.
> It would also appear to make more sense for the missile maker to use fragments with sharp edges, which are better than spheres at puncturing an aircraft’s surface.
I don’t fully buy that. A little effect like that may take place but not significant, I believe. The ball fragments are bad from the production point of view (cannot be packed as densely) and are not accelerated by the blast as well as the tightly packed cubes. Overall, it seems cubes make better preformed fragments from several standpoints. But this is not a professional opinion. Anyway, I’ll keep an eye on the issue, it is indeed strange.
I wonder if Malaysia can take back all the plane remains, as their property. So that all the holes can be properly examined.
Most of those holes can also be seen from a different angle in an image that you linked to in another post:
http://savepic.ru/9952570.jpg
I’ve highlighted the most obviously round holes in both photos. There are others that are fairly round as well:
http://i.imgur.com/A0KweQJ.jpg
In case there’s any mix-up, the part shown in my last message is different to the one in the Youtube video I mentioned earlier. One is below the window and the other is apparently from above it and a bit further back.
This is the thread in the frame:
http://tinyurl.com/jkevdhh
To keep this plate attached:
http://tinyurl.com/zmavvor
Anyone knows where this image is from vs MH17?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjiwW9dUoAEjnG3.jpg:large
Sotilaspassi,
Definitely from the cockpit floor…
http://tinyurl.com/j2f8rsw
Pictures could have been aggregated intentionally. Also it can be another EFIS. But from bolt and nut we can estimate the proportion of this hole exactly. I guess this might possibly pass the requirement of conditional probability. But then JIT must show the corpus delicti for court. It could be the next gamechanger.
Also it can be the hole of the broken piece above…
You’ve got two images combined together there, but the front one is part of a bulkhead beam on RHS of cockpit roof
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/16246067893
Guys. I believe you are considering too much complicated scenarios.
Lets think what Russian generals could do after the crash. They had a plane which was hit into the cabine, so only few people got killed by shrapnel.
I believe the clean up plan was simple:
1. Remove shrapnel from the bodies. Is it a pure coincidence that they did autopsy to the captain, but not passengers?
2. They had an unlimited supply of the men with the guns. The simple screwdrivers are abundunt in the area too. Why not to task the people to check the wreckadge and expand or damage all bow-shaped holes with the ?