Live updates on DSB report
by 
Dutch Safety Board
The Rupty registration can be seen
Download all the reports
- Shrapnel from Russian made BUK surface-to-air missile found inside crew
RTL Nieuws has live blog here
- to determine the exact launch location additional forensic investigation is required
- a passenger was found wearing an oxyen mask (source)
The Guardian has a live blog here.
- Buk missile shrapnel found in bodies of crew
- Buk missile hit cockpit first
- investigators concluded that the missile was fired from a 320km sq area.
- investigators concluded that death occurred quickly. He added: “We can’t be 100% sure [that nobody suffered on the flight] but we’ve got to sort of think that was the case.
dutch TV West reports:
- MH17 had to deviate for storm and entered a dangerous area
Dutch Volkskrant
- Airspace over Eastern Ukraine should have been closed
Dutch television
Interview with Joustra, chairman of DSB
Other reports
http://www.theage.com.au/world/malaysia-airlines-flight-mh17-what-it-was-like-walking-inside-the-reconstructed-wreck-20151013-gk8dkq.html?utm_campaign=echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1444775285
by
The differences of the suggested launch location areas by Ukraine, Russia and the Netherlands are rather startling, aren’t they? I’m surprised that the Dutch would suggest SUCH a wide area for the possible launch. I also had hopes that they would have said something about the likely direction that the missile came from. Not a word about this in the presentation. Will we be able to read more on this in the actual report? Will it be publicly available soon?
You had eyes closed?
DSB + UA + RU calculated the same area between south of snizhne and torez.
“DSB + UA + RU calculated the same area between south of snizhne and torez.”
That isn’t what the table in the report says. Look at Model IIIC, which is the Almaz Antey model they have presented twice now.
So tired.
Anyone knows why so many fuselage parts are missing?
They did not put some well known large fragments onto the mock-up. There were at least two large pieces from the cabin roof well photographed and mentioned plenty of times on this site. This makes me think that the top priority for the DSB was to figure out how to blame Russia. Things like gathering all possible evidence were of a secondary concern.
Here is a link to the report, read it for yourself:
http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf
Better read also appendices: http://mh17.onderzoeksraad.nl/
(very good job by DSB, a lot more thorough than I expected)
+ignored fake satellite images pushed by russia and I did not see US satellite intelligence either used.
Soltilspassi:
“ignored fake satellite images pushed by russia”
Can you explain how you know the images are fake?
You have alternate images of Zaroshchens’ke from July 17?
My version:
(+ it was a cloudy day)
Bellingcat has a lot of valid material of RU MOD lie-briefing.
And as that direction is 3x impossible for BUK vs MH17. (proximity fuse, navigation, shrapnel paths, DSB calculation, RU calculation, etc etc etc …)
THEN there are those eyewitness, photos and plume… that Z direction lack totally.
“it was a cloudy day”
Was it at that time? Looked sunny in Torez when the BUK was supposedly photographed there right around the same time the Russian satellite was passing overhead. Looks like a lot of blue sky in the Shakhtersk videos taken by Vostok Battalion at the same time. You can see them on Greidanus’ artilce on this site in case you forgot.
So you don’t have any real evidence showing the photo is false at all, do you?
“THEN there are those eyewitness, photos and plume… that Z direction lack totally.”
And its all back to social media and eyeiwtnesses then? But not social media like this from pro-Ukraine partisans: Twitter @ystirya 16:55 pm 7/17: “Terrorists shot down Ukrainian plane near Thorez; locals say it was shot at from around Shakhtersk town.”
As to Bellingcat they could not even be bothered to find or read a single military report or social media report regarding facts on the ground at that time. Their report has very little valid material at all since it is based on no actual substance. Lots of smoke and mirrors and “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” stuff along with a bit of ipse dixit.
Thanks Andrew
>So you don’t have any real evidence showing the photo is false at all, do you?
The google drive link did not work for you?
Does our solar system have two sun?
TELAR hovered to fields so they did not leave any track marks etc…
You now post tinhat gategory stuff, sorry.
sotilaspassi:
“Does our solar system have two sun?
In order to truly demonstrate your point, you would first need to identify which satellite took the photo, at what elevation it was at, what time of day it was locally, where the sun was in relation to those two things, and the heights the various vehicles in the picture and whether the pixels you think are a shadow are actually a shadow or a dark part of the undercarriage viewed obliquely. You would also need to have a higher resolution image in all likelihood.
I will give you some hints. The satellite is real, really passed overhead when stated, and was launched in 2013. It was obviously not directly above the site, but taking an oblique angle picture that may distort the views from our initial view. You will remember the Russian statement that the resolution was deliberately lowered in the image to conceal the capabilities of the satellite. The vehicle at the intersection is not a BUK and is at a completely different angle than the two BUK’s so it should be expected its shadow might look slightly differently – you are looking at the long side of what may be a higher vehicle like a covered KAMAZ or URAL with a platoon of troops or a lower vehicle like a BTR APC. To me all the shadows look in the photo like they are falling in the NNE, so perhaps you are just seeing things in your own mind?
“TELAR hovered to fields so they did not leave any track marks etc…”
Can you please point to the track marks in this picture of No. 322 and show how the BUK got to its position?
http://censor.net.ua/forum/755432/buk_pod_nomerom_322
These type of example pictures of BUK’s in grassy fields without tracks can be endlessly multiplied if needed.
Maybe all TELAR’s hover, or perhaps really the pressure mark is not great when the ground is dry and hard in mid-summer.
I will note that CORRECT!V did manage to find track marks on the road edge when they visited in person. Perhaps you read their report and saw their pictures? Or are you claiming the marks aren’t there because you can’t see them in either a grainy Russian or fuzzy low resolution Digital Globe photo?
There is also the evidentiary issue that no one else feels like releasing a satellite photo of Shakhtersk-Zaroshchenske-Amvrosievka from July 17, even though US and European satellites clearly passed overhead there on July 17 before it became cloudy. Were they not interested in confirming the results of signals intelligence about rebel convoys at the time? The “private” Digital Globe satellite that took pictures of Donetsk and Lugansk on July 17 also likely took a picture of this area on its pass since it falls in between those photos. But it is not publicly available in its catalog. Interesting omission, no?
So in the end your dismissal of the Russian image boils down to you not liking the information it conveys, since in reality there is no contradictory imagery available to us and you have not even bothered to do the most basic research about the photo.
Andrew, please go to the Lexus gas station is situated at the entrance of Snizhne, and explain to me why on all the satellite images the tracks stand out so plainly.
Coordinates – 48° 1’6.84″N 38°43’52.03″E
That still stand bold and beautiful today.
You know those ones that magically appear July 17th 2014 that Arnold pointed out?
I am sure your going to tell me the tanks weigh considerable more then a BUK.
A BUK weighs considerably more then my lawn mowing tractor, but I can still leave a trail that is noticeable from flying over it when I mow my lawn in July.
And it does not take much for me to turf it up even with bald tires.
Fare thee well
Andrew, I was a “believer” when I first saw RU MOD material. Piece by piece I investigated into those lies.
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
sotilaspassi:
“Andrew, I was a “believer” when I first saw RU MOD material. Piece by piece I investigated into those lies.”
I’m not asking you to be a believer. I am asking that if you wish to dismiss a piece of evidence as false, that you first actually investigate the evidence you are dismissing and provide a basis for its dismissal.
To start with I again point out that a new working Russian satellite really passed overhead at Zaroshchenske at the stated time and date and that the sky there really was clear enough to take a space image at that moment. As long as you cannot even name the satellite and its azimuth, you cannot begin to offer an analysis of the picture taken, and most especially a shadow analysis beyond stating your own feelings because you don’t even know the perspective of the camera to the ground!
Russia just stated in comments to the published appendix to the DSB report that the DSB report is incomplete for not including the evidence of this very picture we are discussing – two Ukrainian BUK’s sitting in Zaroshchenske. Do you really think that if the picture was a complete fake and easily dismissed by the release of contrary imagery that they would make this continued effort to stand behind it? And if it is a complete fake, where is the contrary evidence showing reality? Seriously, we are discussing legal evidence in a potential criminal proceeding, and the highest military authorities of Russia have said they stand 100% behind this evidence when questioned repeatedly about it and accused of it being a fake they themselves created, and now they have requested it be entered into an international document.
The same considerations apply to the working deployment map and count of BUK radars released in the same briefing, also mentioned in the appendix of the DSB report.
I certainly did not have my eyes closed. UA’s suggested launch spot specified a very, very small area. The RU one was much bigger. But DSB was significantly bigger than the previous two. They suggested an area of 320 km2 if I remember the video correctly. Reading through the report now to find out what more it has to say on the matter.
Its amazing that Ukraine maintains with a straight face that all of its primary radars were either undergoing maintenance or not in use on July 17 because no military aircraft were flying.
What kind of tinhat believes UA primary radar signal show more than RU pirmary radar signal?
btw. to my understanding RU provided no primary radar data except the public video. But it was enough. There was no tinhat fighterjet.
Actually, neither country provided primary radar. We now see they provided a video feedback of the ATC control panel.
“What kind of tinhat believes UA primary radar signal show more than RU pirmary radar signal?”
We will never know as we know now that neither country wishes to tip its hand. I’m not sure which claim is more far fetched and preposterous – that Russia did not keep primary radar recordings of the most significant aviation event near its borders in 15 years (and in which it was immediately accused of complicity) or that all of Ukraine’s primary radars in the area just happened to not be working on July 17, even its entire military defense radar system along the Russian border.
It must be frustrating to be the DSB investigator in the middle.
Very good comment indeed. It is interesting both Ukraine and Russia did not make primary radar data available to DSB.
IIRC, DON had a primary radar but it was not in use any more around 17Jul.
Did Ukraine have civilian primary radar coverage on the area where MH17 crashed?
Do mobile military primary radars record the data for later inspection?
soltilspassi:
“Did Ukraine have civilian primary radar coverage on the area where MH17 crashed?”
There was a supposedly functional civilian radar at Mariupol airport and Dnipropetrovsk airport, both of which should have been able to capture the events. I have not looked for one near Kharkov, but I would think one was there also. The various fixed position military and civilian radars within the conflict zone at Donetsk, Lugansk, and Severodonetsk (I think I have the right town – could be Seversk though) were all destroyed by the Militia in May/June, with a final round of destruction at Donetsk around July 15.
“Do mobile military primary radars record the data for later inspection?”
I would think this would normally be done if for no other reason that to help commanders in creating military after action reports and reviewing the course of aerial combat events. However, I am no expert on that and could be completely wrong.
Regarding mobile working military radars, Ukraine had ST-68UM and BUK KUPOL units deployed on the ground on July 17 – I think this is beyond dispute. It strains credulity that none were working. Russia insists that the Ukrainian mobile military radars were working in its comments to the report.
From what I’ve read so far in the DSB papers, they were not as much frustrated by the very absence of the primary radar data as by another fact they specifically mentioned:
10.4.5 Retention of ATC data
The Russian Federation did not comply in all aspects with the ICAO standard contained in paragraph 6.4.1 of Annex 11.
Annex 11, Air Traffic Services
6.4.1 Automatic recording of surveillance data
6.4.1.1 Surveillance data from primary and secondary radar equipment or other systems (e.g. ADS-B, ADS-C), used as an aid to air traffic services, shall be automatically recorded for use in accident and incident investigations, search and rescue, air traffic control and surveillance systems evaluation and training.
6.4.1.2 Automatic recordings shall be retained for a period of at least thirty days. When the recordings are pertinent to accident and incident investigations, they shall be retained for longer periods until it is evident that they will no longer be required.
MH17 About the investigation
From Ukraine the Dutch Safety Board only received the data from the secondary surveillance radar (raw and processed). In addition, Ukraine also provided a video replay of a radar screen from the processed secondary surveillance radar data.
During the second progress meeting in May 2015, the Russian accredited representative announced that the data from the primary and secondary surveillance radar were not available. The Russian Federation declared that it had not saved this information, because it was not obliged to do so since the crash had not taken place on Russian territory. In July 2014, the Russian Federation supplied a video recording of the processed primary and secondary radar data.
Thanks Andrew, you are making more sense than anyone else here
I think one of the biggest things that surprised me that I had not heard about before was the manipulation of the pilot’s dead body to supposedly remove BUK fragments from it before the autopsy could be performed.
Whoever did it, Ukraine in Kharkiv or the DNR at the site of MH17’s destruction, it is appalling to contemplate.
The appendices are good to read through as well as far as what people disagreed about during deliberation aft June 2 2015 and that DSB gave a reason for leaving the report as it is.
Fare thee well
If 300 bodybags would have been reopened in Kharkiv, I imagine it would not have been unnoticed. So the it must have happened on crash site.
DSB saw through RU previous lies and they very politely did the sane thing:
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
It is disturbing that some people still believe what RU informs about MH17 events.
What is missing from the report is any satellite evidence from America. Very suspicious. Maybe the evidence they have doesn’t show that Russia or the anti coup forces shot down the plane?
Neither did I spot mention about it yet. Only confirmation that AWACS were out of range.
As I’ve tried to point out elsewhere, SBIRS data is just file with numbers. No images. Heavy US support + believing in them needed to take any such numbers seriously.
IIRC, JIT team confirmed they have the data. +not an image. They are more interested in “who did it”, so perhaps they will use it. Perhaps not.
>Maybe the evidence they have doesn’t show that Russia or the anti coup forces shot down the plane?
Not possible. The published SBIRS data plotted on map match with what DSB calculated. It can not give more info.
soltilspassi:
“The published SBIRS data plotted on map match with what DSB calculated.”
Do you have a link to where this is published?
IIRC. Bellingcat located the US blurry map vs google maps.
I’m wondering on findings provided on pages 81-82. The parts are claimied originated from a missile of “9M38 series”. How DSB did the conclusion, worked with finnish air defense or maybe supported by russian A-A knowledge? The text is very cautious “suspected to be”. They arent sure?
In addition, here is interesting information that more fragments found but not published because of ongoing criminal investigation. (Page 80, bottom)
Im curious how PETN exlosive came into site. It is not used in Buk missile. DSB states it on page 93 and notes it can be contamination or result of the armed conflict on the site.
It is used maybe in artillery shells and they found its traces?
http://www.britannica.com/science/PETN
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/01/cargo-bomb-plot-petn-explosive
See this post. It shows fragments of GRAD. There were a couple of GRAD rockets which exploded close to the crashsite
Was there any mention of how the passenger seat fabric ended up in left side engine nozzle?
(did not yet spot a mention)
We need to know what information Ukraine kept out of the report, and what role Ukraine had in any evidence that was used. Their being a party to the report invalidates it, sadly.
Noting a mention I had overlooked before…
Appendix X, ch2.4, two exit holes shown on right side of the cockpit.