Limited damage to cockpit suggests missile exploded around 15 meters in front , left and just above cockpit
by 
Pictures made during the recovery of the cockpit could indicate that a missile exploded about 15 meters in front and just above the cockpit. Damage observed to the area just behind the cockpit on the lefthand side of the fuselage at the belly of the aircraft is very limited to none.
The image below shows the distribution of fragments of a SA-11 BUK missile. It seems MH17 and mostly the cockpit area was hit by a part of the area indicated by 1.
This image shows an indication of the area hit most by the missile
The well known photo of the area just below the lefthand side of the cockpit window shows many impact holes.
The area below the cockpit shows limited damage. This part shows the angle of attack probe which is just below the left cockpit window. There are some clear damages visible to the fuselage suggesting objects coming from above the cockpit
The top of the cockpit shows some moderate damage.
The above there pieces of debris combined in a single photo
The photo below shows the part near the nose cone as extra. The area between the two yellow lines is completely gone.
At an airforce base in the Netherlands the cockpit of MH17 is being reconstructed. These photos were taken early 2015
The part below is close to the nose of the aircraft.
The cockpit floor and pilot seats show some quite a few holes caused by shrapnel
The area just behind the cockpit windows on the left hand side
The area just behind the cockpit on the lefts side shows limited damage.
The fuselage behind the first door hardly shows damage which could haven been caused by a missile. Damage observed is caused by decompression and by debris hitting eachother during the 10 km fall to earth.
This is a part of the area between the first and second door on the left (L1 and L2, STA529 and STA655)
One of the rings in front of the engine has some clear damage. This is likely the left engine .
The nosegear door does not show any damage
by
This pinpoints the warhead detonation area in 1m accuracy or so:
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/698f7042bdaefeacd4063d2033fed0fc.jpg
(IMO:almost perfect)
Knowing the position of the warhead at the point of detonation is one thing. Knowing what kind of warhead and its direction of travel are the rest of the story.
The details that are being gradually leaked point to all of the high energy objects originating from a single missile. So we must ask concerning all of the observed external impacts by high energy objects, “Could all of them originate from a single warhead?” This will be a topic of discussion soon.
The latest scrap of leaked information is in today’s reports that the criminal investigators are returning cameras, laptops, smart phones, etc. to the families of the victims. Specifically, the criminal investigators have announced that they analyzed the surviving data from every device for information concerning the final minutes of the flight. The investigators say that the data they found added nothing to their investigation. This information leak reinforces the belief that nobody on board had any idea that they were under attack before a lone warhead exploded.
http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/binnenland/mobieltjes-en-laptops-slachtoffers-mh17-terug-naar-families
“Could all of them originate from a single warhead?”
We do not need to use any leaked info to get into that conclusion.
By looking at the photographs we can pinpoint the detonation point with high accuracy.
(we can also be pretty sure about from what direction the missile came from, if we know the warhead type, so far it seems to have been 9M38M1 missile and 9N314 warhead. etc.)
It would make no sense that large warhead explode the cockpit into pieces and then the remains are attacked again by something else.
Example of shrapnel path analysis:
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/albert_lex/73995734/246628/246628_original.jpg
http://albert-lex.livejournal.com/68374.html
(just ignore the silly python missile part, it does not match, too small and IR guided)
End result looks very much like in metadebunk version: http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/albert_lex/73995734/248162/248162_original.jpg
The problem is not as simple as I described above, and it can’t be addressed merely with shrapnel path analysis.
If a strike by a single Buk missile is assumed then a lot of puzzle pieces must fit this scenario.
1. Does every external impact reasonably correspond with the assumed shrapnel path?
2. Do the hole sizes and shapes make sense? Some of the holes are much larger than the fragments of a Buk warhead.
3. Given that a Buk warhead produces thousands of fragments does it make sense that large portions of the aircraft were completely untouched? Stated another way, given the assumed location of the warhead when it exploded, are there untouched surfaces that should have been impacted by fragments?
4. Regarding the foreign objects found embedded in luggage and bodies, could all of them have originated from a Buk missile? Did any object contain a metal not found in a Buk warhead, such a tungsten?
5. Regarding metal traces found at entry holes, does chemical and metallurgical analysis confirm that a Buk missile was the only source of the penetrating objects?
6. Could the assumed location of the Buk warhead explosion account for the instantaneous halt of black box recording?
This list of questions is just off the top of my head. Other questions will arise as one evaluates the goodness of fit of the evidence to the theory of a lone Buk missile which nobody saw or heard in flight.
>1. Does every external impact reasonably correspond with the assumed shrapnel path?
So far it seems.
>2. Do the hole sizes and shapes make sense? Some of the holes are much larger than the fragments of a Buk warhead.
So far they seem. Size and shape match. Two shrapnel hitting nearly same spot generate larger hole.
Also A_A was sure it was a BUK M1, they had interesting reference photos of other BUK detonations.
>3. Given that a Buk warhead produces thousands of fragments does it make sense that large portions of the aircraft were completely untouched?
Perfectly because shrapnell are thrown to the sides of the BUK missile + forward momentum.
When exploding Stated another way, given the assumed location of the warhead when it exploded, are there untouched surfaces that should have been impacted by fragments?
It seems perfet match so far.
DSB reconstruction should make it 100% clear.
>4. Regarding the foreign objects found embedded in luggage and bodies, could all of them have originated from a Buk missile? Did any object contain a metal not found in a Buk warhead, such a tungsten?
We know weapon was launched by something invisible in radar (doubt it was the helicopter ahead).
But sure if there is non BUK shrapnell, then the origin of those must be solved.
(IIRC, ceramic GRAD fragments were also found)
>5. Regarding metal traces found at entry holes, does chemical and metallurgical analysis confirm that a Buk missile was the only source of the penetrating objects?
Do you believe that after MH17 was blown to pieces at 10km, it’s pieces were further attacked on the way to ground?
Get real. Only some RU people believe that.
But sure, IMO, DSB should have made metal analysis. But I know they might leave the job to JIT.
>6. Could the assumed location of the Buk warhead explosion account for the instantaneous halt of black box recording?
So far it would seem to match pretty well.
Also it seems the whole front was ripped off in one second.
>lone Buk missile which nobody saw or heard in flight.
Do not spread RU propaganda, please.
There are several eyewitness that described a missile/rocket + photos of smoke,
more:
The link did not work?
Another attempt, photo or not:
Data to FDR:
Force of the warhead:
Debris field:
Example hole “under” co-pilot chair:
Old image of shrapnel pattern, here I had too small speed to side direction, 1000m/s “collision” speed and 1000…2400m/s to sides:
sotilaspassi:
even if you suppose the georgian python missile to be silly, the study leaked on albert-lex comes to the conclusion that the warhead had between 2500 and 3500 pieces of shrapnel. They did that by counting 230 impacts on the parts for which photos exist in the public domain. These 230 impacts were extrapolated to the total amount of shrapnel in the warhead. A BUK M1 warhead has 7800 fragments.
Another calculation: The kill radius of the BUK is 17m. Shrapnel density is proportional to 1/r^2. Then if the detonation was at a distance of 1.7m it should have been an overkill by the factor of 100 if the distance was 1m the overkill factor would be 300.
Yet another calculation: The BUK M1 warhead has a fragment mass of 40 kg. At an average speed of 1700 m/s the total kinetic energy of the shrapnel is 57,8 MJoule. The detonation being that close, one can estimate ~1/3 of the shrapnel will hit the aircraft. 20 MJoule is the kinetic energy a 40t truck has at a speed of 110km/h.
You probably have observed in the photos, that the cockpit came down in on part, the body of the copilot received limited injuries, and that large parts of the cockpit hit the ground intact. Looking at the above calculation any conclusion that MH17 was hit by something the size of a BUK seems premature.
The size of the debris field doesn’t tell anything about the size of the warhead. PanAm 103 (Lockerbie) was destroyed by a bomb hidden in a ghetto blaster, yet the debris field was much larger, due to in flight breakup an strong winds.
Thanks Ole. More: this is what a *tenth* amount of explosives of a Buk warhead does to a Hummer.
https://youtu.be/cDoRmT0iRic?t=382
If the investigation does come up with the Buk, AA will do a test explosion on a decommissioned plane. I look forward to see the results of that.
>They did that by counting 230 impacts on the parts for which photos exist in the public domain. These 230 impacts were extrapolated to the total amount of shrapnel in the warhead. A BUK M1 warhead has 7800 fragments.
Very little is left of cockpit + forward fuselage of MH17.
+ the amount of shrapnel change fast when distance to Boeing change.
+ all three different shapes of BUK M1 shrapnel get slightly different velocity, so the shrapnel cloud is not homogenous, so, hard to estimate
+ in close distance some shrapnel go through same hole
+I doubt there is any other warhead with similar than BUK shrapnel.
(also A-A agreed, but perhaps they lie everything)
>Another calculation: The kill radius of the BUK is 17m. Shrapnel density is proportional to 1/r^2. Then if the detonation was at a distance of 1.7m it should have been an overkill by the factor of 100 if the distance was 1m the overkill factor would be 300.
Overkill factor … did not understand.
But it is clear that forward fuselage was blown away + cut off by it.
>Yet another calculation: The BUK M1 warhead has a fragment mass of 40 kg. At an average speed of 1700 m/s the total kinetic energy of the shrapnel is 57,8 MJoule. The detonation being that close, one can estimate ~1/3 of the shrapnel will hit the aircraft. 20 MJoule is the kinetic energy a 40t truck has at a speed of 110km/h.
Truck did not hit MH17. Damage does not match.
I’ve estimated that 1/5 or 1/4 of the fragments have hit MH17.
But the share changes rapidly vs the distance to Boeing surface.
>You probably have observed in the photos, that the cockpit came down in on part,
In one part?
Everything above floor level, from pilot chair towards passenger section almost vanished in explosion. Cockpit parts were found kilometers away from where largest cockpit piece came down.
>Looking at the above calculation any conclusion that MH17 was hit by something the size of a BUK seems premature.
I have limited experience of explosives from military + from what I have gathered, the exlosive damage match with BUK caliber of warhead.
(also A-A agreed 100%, unless they lied also that)
We know two 40kg radar guided warheads did not break similar size KAL007, so I’m sure 10Kg IR homing python would not do it either. (just destroy one engine + start fire)
>The size of the debris field doesn’t tell anything about the size of the warhead.
It shows that MH17 spread around the last FDR/transponder point.
Forward fuselage spread to a 10km long area, cockpit separated immediately.
(+Links to both FDR and CVR were cut faster than it could be recorded.)
It tells me something. But perhaps it lies.
hummer detonation:
-explosive inside a target do ~10x damage vs explosive at 1-2m distance.
-hummer is much weaker than Boeing-777 cockpit
-hummer is tiny
>Truck did not hit MH17. Damage does not match.
Imagine the kinetic energy of a 40t truck driving at 110 km/h absorbed by the left half of the cockpit, which is the only area with shrapnel damage. And that is only the kinetic energy of the shrapnel, the detonation pressure blast comes on top of that.
>But it is clear that forward fuselage was blown away + cut off by it.
If anything is clear, it’s that the section which came down
outside Rozsypne wasn’t cut off by direct effect of the shrapnel. The cargo door is part of that section, so it broke away aft of the front entry door, where no shrapnel damage is visible.
>Everything above floor level, from pilot chair towards passenger section almost vanished in explosion.
The pilot chair is visible on many photos from Rozsypne and shows remarkable little damage. The only missing parts of the cockpit are the left half of the roof and the part that was found in Petropavlika. Even much of the charts and paperwork remained in the cockpit. The mortal remains of both pilot and copilot where found at the cockpit crash site.
>I have limited experience of explosives from military + from what I have gathered, the exlosive damage match with BUK caliber of warhead.
Military experts from the conservative ‘Royal United Services Institute’ were quick in explaining the expected damage of a BUK:
“Shrapnel-based SA-11 missile, known as a Grizzly, will have ‘shredded’ the plane on impact, expert says
Will have perforated wings, engines, fuel tanks, and highly-pressurised cabin, which will have exploded ‘instantly’
Passengers will have been ‘oblivious’ to hit, claims Justin Bronk, aircraft expert at Royal United Services Institute. … It will have perforated the plane at various points, ignited the fuel, and taken out the engines and the wings within a split second”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2697669/Almost-board-known-happening-Expert-describes-effect-missile-hit-MH17.html
That was before pictures of the actual damage were published. Maybe the experts now adjusted their expectations to the actual damage, instead of realizing the damage doesn’t match the expectations.
>Everything above floor level, from pilot chair towards passenger section almost vanished in explosion.
Take2:
>Military experts from the conservative ‘Royal United Services Institute’ were quick in explaining the expected damage of a BUK:
That is ridiculous AND YOU KNOW IT !!!!
>Will have perforated wings, engines, fuel tanks, and … which will have exploded ‘instantly’
Ridiculous.
If hit at the center of the plane, it would have broken the plane into pieces. But BUK does not work that way. BUK can ignite the fuel and cause mid flight explosion. But if you ignore trolling for a while, you KNOW when the missile comes from ahead it is unlikely that hot shrapnel hit the fuel tanks.
>highly-pressurised cabin,
See aloha accident. Even large holes do not make the pressure to break the plane.
>It will have perforated the plane at various points, ignited the fuel, and taken out the engines and the wings within a split second”
Everyone (except TROLL) know that BUK “kill sideways”. Fireball is only 10m in radius, shrapnel is effective 17…40m to the sides of the missile.
Missile coming from ahead is not able to ignite fuel and damage wings (much).
But you knew it too well didn’t you. But you still had to post it. 🙁
Some experts seem to adjust their expectations of a typical BUK damage constantly to the damage that is observed, first it will shred the whole plane, then the limited damage suggests the BUK exploded 15m away from the plane, and when it becomes clear the warhead detonated 1-1.5m away the damage still is typical. So no matter what the damage looks like, it’s always clear that it’s typical for a BUK.
My take is, looking at all these constantly adapted expert opinions, it appears far from clear that the damage is typical for a BUK
BTW:
“According to the (DSB) calculations, the weight of the warhead was no more than 33kg, and the main warhead was equipped with between 3,000 and 4,000 ‘pre-formed fragments’ (flechettes) that weighed around 3g each. These do not correspond with the BUK at all.”
http://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/10/russians-angered-dutch-probe
btw.
The debris field hint to very similar breakup as in this previous insident:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BurLrRiCcAAeO7T.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BurLru2CQAAlpNK.png
(that was suspected to be caused by bomb in front cargo bay or US SAM, IIRC officially the bomb was “confirmed”)
Almaz-Antay have done the test detonation just yesterday, the 7th of October. They’ll release the data on the 13th of October.
https://news.mail.ru/economics/23569732
Interesting times ahead!
Pure propaganda.
(Unless they created matching conditions air speed, altitude, launch angle etc., with matching plane and used a verified stock standard missile. And under international observation.)
I predict: They detonated a BUK warhead on ground near some airplane, without DSB or JIT personnel.
(Not relevant scenario vs proximity fuse etc., not relevant velocity conditions.)
A-A version is not worth many thoughts:
The bending of the shrapnel cone forward (as is is transfered into the plane’s reference frame) can be reasonably accurately substituted by an appropriate rotation of a static warhead by ~17 degrees. The reduced bast effect by missile going away can also be roughly estimated too. Having these in mind, the field experiment can shed enormous amount of light onto the actual physics of the event.
If some parties find the AA’s findings doubtful, they can reproduce the test. It is well within even Ukraine’s capabilities to put a warhead on a high speed sled and explode near a decommissioned Boeing 777.
Expectedly, trolls will continue call propaganda anything not aligned with their narrow point of view/agenda.
“The bending of the shrapnel cone forward (as is is transfered into the plane’s reference frame) can be reasonably accurately substituted by an appropriate rotation of a static warhead by ~17 degrees.”
Yes, the comments that any sort of static test cannot reproduce the correct results show an ignorance of how engineering tests are performed all the time.
“If some parties find the AA’s findings doubtful, they can reproduce the test. It is well within even Ukraine’s capabilities to put a warhead on a high speed sled and explode near a decommissioned Boeing 777.”
The US has such a test range in New Mexico, where the sled can accelerate objects up to around Mach 4. It would of course also be possible to fly a plane by remote control over a test range and fire at it.
The bending of the shrapnel cone forward can be reasonably accurately substituted by an appropriate rotation of a static warhead by ~17 degrees. The reduced bast effect by missile going away can also be roughly estimated (the difference will be less ~20%). Having these in mind, the field experiment can shed enormous amount of light onto the actual physics of the event, and refute or support doubts of some people like me, who find the limited damage observed to be too little for a result of an explosion equivalent to 5 anti-tank mines going off at 1.5 metres from the pilot window.
If some parties find the AA’s findings distrustful, they can reproduce the test. It is well within even Ukraine’s capabilities to put a warhead on a high speed sled and explode near a decommissioned Boeing 777, if they want
Expectedly, trolls will continue call propaganda anything not aligned with their narrow point of view/agenda, even physical experiments.
“substituted by”
No it can not.
Non moving warhead will explode like a disk/donut. Not like a cone. The effect of pressure wave can be compared, though.
“put a warhead on a high speed sled and explode near a decommissioned Boeing 777, if they want”
High speed sled with tuned proximity fuse going 1000m/s to identical explosion spot would help to get the idea of how shrapnel flies. I doubt Ukraine has capability for that. Boeing could do it, though.
> No it can not.
It can. All experiments have a degree of approximation. The approximation of the said substitution can be shown to be small. Scientific language, however, is not the one I wish to talk with you in. Your comments are riddled with so many trivial mistakes, that replying them makes it not a worthy task, resource-wise. The last example of such a trivial mistake by you: where did you get the idea that the detonation was performed within the Hummer, and not outside. While clearly the blast point was below the wheel.
I noticed later that explosive might have been below the hummer. But it is not said where it was. On the second car the explosive was underneath and did no do much damage.
Note also. If the explosive would be above those cars the explosive forte is 50% smaller.
BUK exploded in free air beside boeing.
Is that the same day the Dutch report will be released?
I also see Dutch media are trying to get more information released through the courts.
http://nos.nl/artikel/2061685-nieuwsmedia-naar-de-rechter-voor-mh17-documenten.html
“Almaz-Antay have done the test detonation just yesterday”
so it seems they will be sticking to the defense of it was a BuK missile 9M38M1 which they erroneously claim Russia do not have,not their brightest moment
“Unless they created matching conditions air speed, altitude, launch angle etc.”
seems not,detonated beneath a decommissioned Boeing for what it is worth which is not a lot
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20151009/1028254007/russia-MH17-experiment.html
(Not relevant scenario vs proximity fuse etc., not relevant velocity conditions.)
yes ground test little real worth but will however be a closer match to their unrealistic near static frag dispersal beam claims made earlier so suits them
The ground test will show the shape of the fragment holes, so I’m not sure why that makes it of little worth.
If the AA test confirms the type of missile used this will be HUGE. It will give the public some important information in what has been an extremely secretive investigation
A+A already showed 9M38M1 frag entry holes and confirmed they are similar to MH17,both sides in fact seem to agree that a 9M38M1 missile was used,A static ground test that ignores alt and velocity of missile and target with the addition of reflection of blast damage will not add much more its why its rarely done in real life and frag capture screens are used,though it will be interesting to see if this test is followed by the previous erroneous claim Russia does not have 9M38M1 missiles,interesting times
9M38M1 further confirmed by DSB material and interview. (initially suggested by A-A, then denied, but butterfly frag leave no doubt according to A-A info)
9M38 detonation (by A-A) ~5m from cockpit did not break Ilyshin cockpit (should hint that smaller than 70kg does not do it either).
DSB material confirms that BUK exploded 1m…2m from cockpit surface.
(just like found out in metabunk and elsewhere)
DSB released illustrative videos do not show the real warhead explosion point vs cockpit.