Parts of MH17 cockpit found in December 2015
by 
Photos of a recently found cockpit instrument belonging to MH17 were published at a Russian website. The photos show a so called EFIS Control Panel. The piece clearly shows two holes caused by shrapnel of a missile. DSB concluded in their final report MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile carrying a 9N314M warhead.
The damage observed on this cockpit instrument confirms MH17 was hit from a missile which exploded above the cockpit.
One of the holes seems to have been caused by a bowtie shaped (butterfly/double t) fragment of a BUK warhead.
The pieces were found at December 19 2015 at Petropavlovka by the photographer of the photos shown below. The man who originally found the part is not alive anymore and nobody knows the exact location of finding. But likely in a garden of a deserted farm.
A Boeing 777 cockpit has two EFIS Control Panels located at the top of the cockpit. The photo below shows the position of the EFIS
This photo shows the location of the EFIS
by
Admin:
Thanks again for the photos – the penetrations certainly could have caused by a “bow-tie” shaped fragment (13mm x 13mm x 8.2mm) and possibly a filler fragment (6mm x 6mm x 8.2mm) or cube fragment (8mm x 8mm x 5mm) from a 9N314M warhead. However it’s rather difficult to judge the scale with certainty and the fact that it’s internal damage creates even greater uncertainty.
Saturday, December 26, 2015
The discovery of new wreckage of MH17 might confirm 9N314M:
http://tinyurl.com/jjqoorq
Photos of a recently found cockpit instrument belonging to MH17 were published at a Russian website. The photos show a so called EFIS Control Panel. The piece clearly shows two holes caused by shrapnel of a missile. DSB concluded in their final report MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile carrying a 9N314M warhead. One of the holes seems to have been caused by a bowtie shaped (butterfly/double t) fragment of a BUK warhead:
http://tinyurl.com/na84dcv
http://tinyurl.com/pbhaqby
http://tinyurl.com/ptce6wf
http://tinyurl.com/ox85yeh
If bowtie impressions in cockpit instruments have really been found this would be further evidence for the use of 9N314M. Then we would have already two or three alleged bowties found in relation to the cockpit. And as we are scientists eventually we are prepared to review our scenario of 9N314M. But we desperately need a link with a butterfly in the hull. Maybe we found what we are looking for.
With MH17 the question is if the total likelihood of all bowtie events in this assault can be seen as credible or that they are possibly deliberately construed and concatenated to a string of credible events. For the moment we skip all problems with bowties in crew members.
1: Where have these cockpit elements been found?
These parts must have been broken off in the air and fallen in Petropavlovka, while the cockpit later fell in Rozsypne. This might be quite possible. But remember false flag operations in this disaster. We also would place the cockpit element in Petropavlovka:
http://tinyurl.com/hfoj5ps
2: One of these accidentally found cockpit instruments also has a bowtie impression. Is not that an amazing coincidence? There is no other butterfly impression in the plane. What gives the product rule of independent chances as likelihood?
3: Have other cockpit debris been found without bowtie impressions?
Yes other parts are found. Would you let find only parts with butterflies?
4: Are these loose parts of the cockpit interior broken off in the air or by falling on the ground? If broken off in the air, how come?
Yes, they must have been broken off in the air or torn away from the wreckage in Rozsypne afterwards. How they can come loose only by decompression is yet unclear.
5: Why took it so long before someone grasped the importance of this amazing discovery? And how did the poor owner of the place of this find come to his end?
– [The pieces were found at December 19 2015 at Petropavlovka by the photographer of the photos shown below. The man who originally found the part is not alive anymore and nobody knows the exact location of finding. But likely in a garden of a deserted farm.]
As said, this part possibly broke off from the cockpit in the air and has fallen in Petropavlovka, while the cockpit fell later in Rozsypne. This might be possible.
Pity the poor man did not immediately recognize the significance of his discovery.
Hence, it is not clear why he took the find home in the first place. And now we also do not know where he found the pieces and he also died. What a coincidence.
6: A growing problem arises since no bowtie impressions were found in the cockpit hull. And the more bowties found within the cockpit the greater their omission in the hull.
But not in this case, for this bowtie could have come through the window pane. And about this pane we already gathered a lot of information. May be we already found the butterfly in the pane:
http://tinyurl.com/qd6fyj9
http://tinyurl.com/jcglnzo
http://tinyurl.com/oaey37u
http://tinyurl.com/p3kxynt
http://tinyurl.com/nngv55z
http://tinyurl.com/q4r9o2t
http://tinyurl.com/ncctzo3
Is this the butterfly in the window pane?
http://tinyurl.com/h3dmoj3
http://tinyurl.com/jjqoorq
7: Remember, complicated accidents are chains of events that could be perceived as permutations. The real permutation has to do with causality and time order. But in case of false flag operations these elements can easily be
interchanged. In our investigation there are too many improbabilities with bowties, of which there are too little to be credible.
– [The damage observed on this cockpit instrument confirms MH17 was hit from a missile which exploded above the cockpit.]
This could be true only if the bowtie hole has not been made afterwards, after removing this instrument from the wreckage.
Conclusion:
It is our task to falsify hypotheses, but now we made an important step to 9N314M. What we need is a chemical analysis on the piece of wreckage to see if it has been broken off in the air at once, or that it is bent and twisted on the crash site.
If it can be proved this instrument has been broken off in the air then it would have been very difficult to find this piece of debris in the first place. Then bowties probably are confirmed.
Basic Dimension:
A day or so after the crash one of the flight deck principal flight, navigation and engine information display units (LCD monitor) was found some distance from the cockpit site – the unit had a penetration hole through it’s casing that may have been caused by shrapnel.
If this is an EFIS Control Panel, they are above the monitors as can be seen in Admin’s posted photos.
Wind Tunnel Man
If we had that LCD monitor available we could draw a line through the EFIS Control Panel and the window pane to the point of detonation:
http://tinyurl.com/jtz85yl
This is a photo of one of the displays
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/t4629c6_flightdisplay2ckwdhya78.jpg
I am not sure where it was found. Not at the cockpit site. Could be near Petropavlivka
More here
http://www.vmir.su/uploads/posts/1405953995_samolet-8.jpg
Other screens were found at the cockpit site
http://i.imgur.com/ltR1SzQ.png
Basic Dimension:
Only a very small percentage of cockpit structures and components were mentioned in the DSB report. Much of that “jigsaw puzzle” of damaged parts seem to be either missing or were not included in the reconstruction.
Studying photographs taken at the crash site of the forward section of the aircraft – it’s structures and components – is still probably the best way to analyze what happened to MH17.
Please keep up your good work – it’s a very valuable study of how, in particular, the aircraft was hit by shrapnel and by what type of shrapnel.
Basic Dimension:
I think we are onto something: a “bow-tie” shaped penetration would probably not be caused by two 8mm x 8mm x 5mm cube shaped fragments, flying very close together, from a 9N314 warhead over such a short range. Two 8mm x 8mm x 5mm cubes would probably make a larger hole than a 9N314M 13mm x 13mm x 8.2mm “bow-tie” and two 13mm x 13mm x 8mm cubes (also from a 9N314) would make an even larger hole. An impact area where the shrapnel hit perpendicular (or nearly perpendicular) to the surface would probably be best for such analysis – please keep up your excellent work on the front port side cockpit windows area.
Wind Tunnel Man:
You conclude the ‘butterfly’ in the window pane will not be caused by 9N314 because two cubes (8x8x5) would make a bigger hole. The same goes for two bigger cubes (13x13x8). Kind of evidence from the absurd. And the surface normal at only 3 meters distance will be an optimum. In other words you conclude 9N314 is not able to make that kind of ‘butterfly’. But how do you think about a single cube of (13x13x8)?
Now my problem: At 10 km altitude it is about minus 60 degree Celsius. A white hot bowtie pierces zirconium with Mach 6 (2000 m / s). The window pane immediately melts and solidifies again, at once. Could a bowtie cause this kind of ‘butterfly’ in a window pane under these circumstances? What is your opinion about that?
Wind Tunnel Man:
Well thought. Your proof is as follows: The ‘butterfly’ in the window pane can only be made as the result of two shrapnel elements or from a single bowtie.
As combinations of cubes from 9N314 likely make a bigger hole it is obvious the hole must be made with a bowtie of 9N314M, or possibly with two fillers. (6x6x8.2).
Wind Tunnel Man:
At Gilze-Rijen, the exact position of the ‘butterfly’ in the window pane can be determined. Boeing knows the exact position of the bowtie impression on the EFIS Control Panel. Then in a 3D animation they can draw the line and see if it ends within the cubic meter of the detonation point. If the line does not fit exactly, it may be bent off within the EFIS Control Panel under the assumption that the ‘butterfly’ must be from a bowtie and because of the proximity argument.
It’s hard to find the right balance projecting the window panes of MH17 on a Boeing 777. I warn I can be wrong. The ‘butterfly’ in the window pane and the bowtie in the EFIS Control Panel are awfully close together. Definitive measurements must be made on the spot in Gilze-Rijen.
We know the exact position of the ‘butterfly’ in the window pane, we also know the EFIS Control Panel and hence we will find the exact point of detonation. If it works we have confirmed 9N314M, since we combined a bowtie within the cockpit with a butterfly in the window pane on a distance of only a few decimeters.
http://tinyurl.com/jcglnzo
http://tinyurl.com/nvpqo5v
http://tinyurl.com/zq8rro3
http://tinyurl.com/zgrx233
Note, MH17 has about the same angle as the Boeing 777:
http://tinyurl.com/op4h86h
Basic Dimension:
“Now my problem: At 10 km altitude it is about minus 60 degree Celsius. A white hot bowtie pierces zirconium with Mach 6 (2000 m / s). The window pane immediately melts and solidifies again, at once. Could a bowtie cause this kind of ‘butterfly’ in a window pane under these circumstances? What is your opinion about that?”
Maybe the steel shrapnel only reaches red hot and higher temperatures due to friction during the penetration of thick, dense materials? A red hot steel object can be very easily reshaped, i.e. very malleable. According to the DSB report there was re-solidified glass on surfaces of some of the recovered shrapnel, so the local surface temperature of that steel shrapnel must have been very high but perhaps not enough to significantly distort it’s shape?
We must also consider that objects other than steel cubes and “bow-ties” are also in the detonated warhead’s fragmentation cloud…A-A had examples of these which they collected after their live static test.
P.S. It is quite possible that if “bow-ties” are made from low grade steel they could break into two separate pieces due to the force of the detonation and that might be significant if we see too many small penetrations that we might otherwise consider to be caused by 6mm x 6mm x 8.2mm filler cubes.
Wind Tunnel Man:
Yes, but remember the bowtie impression into EFIS seems complete. The distance from the window is nihil, about 10 cm. Maybe the upper casing of EFIS was soft material.
No, it is wrong; MH17 is pictured (nearly) from the midst. It is the two bent bars which are eccentrically placed to the left in relation to the windows of MH17.
http://tinyurl.com/zgrx233
This means the projection of the windows of MH17 must be turned somewhat because now it is the Boeing 777 which has been photographed a bit right from the middle line of the plane.
This means we must draw the right side of the projection a bit in our direction and press the left side with the ‘butterfly’ somewhat backwards. The result is that the ‘butterfly’ in the window pane and the bowtie in the EFIS come to lie even closer to each other and the yellow line will be more vertical.
Basic Dimension:
“Maybe the upper casing of EFIS was soft material.”
Yes, probably a relatively soft aluminum alloy.
It does seem that the fragment(s?) did pass through the window before it(they?) hit the EFIS and I would image that the window glass would not have distorted it’s(their?) shape significantly. It’s possible that we are seeing penetrations both by a “bow-tie” and a filler cube in the EFIS casing? If so, because they are located together in the warhead, one would expect them to separately penetrate surfaces near to each other over such a short range…
Wind Tunnel Man:
I agree and if DSB would be right only fillers and bowties entered through the window panes:
http://tinyurl.com/qd6fyj9
I think zirconium with glass melts by the passage of bowties. Then it loses shape and stretches as blown glass. When it solidifies again by minus 60 degrees Celsius, glass matter is pushed back by decompression. But then there is too much stretched matter for too less space. Hence it fills up space and some matter is blown away, that’s what we see. This mess we do not have with aluminum.
Take care, from within the cockpit we see the bottom side of the impression of the bowtie on the window pane. If this impression agrees with our bowtie impression of EFIS, we also see the casing of EFIS upside down:
http://tinyurl.com/jbddqe5
Here is the post were you assume that we are looking at top side of EFIS, while it is actually bottom side.
The agreement between the ‘butterfly’ in the window pane and the bowtie in EFIS is striking and seems significant. Almost all line segments of the bowtie of EFIS can be found back in the shape of the butterfly of the window pane. However, glass-zirconium is less stable and shows conjugations in the image.
http://tinyurl.com/zyubne4
Basic Dimension:
There are some excellent pictures of the puncture holes in the EFIS casing posted on the Russian website that Admin provided a link to. What I found particularity interesting were some photos where the size of the puncture holes were indicated with a ruler – the size of the “bow-tie” shaped hole is possibly to large. Also I’m not convinced that the holes were made by shrapnel because the shape of the fracture on the brown painted surface is half circular.
Wind Tunnel Man:
I have no information and I cannot find those amazing pictures.
At the moment I would be interested in measures of the ‘bowtie’ of the photos Admin published in his article, measures which can be determined by Boeing.
Of course I know this all can be disconfirmed but that is the sinister process we are in: a lot of very important stuff on a garbage dump in Ukraine about what we haven’t the slightest information. It is ridiculous. And of course I am prepared for failure and only give this hypothesis a fair chance.
Basic Dimension:
Its from the link “Russian website” near the top of this page provided by Admin. When that site opens look for post number 56 on page 2 and below the photo you will see a + sign, click the + and you will see more photos.
I think that post was added yesterday (27th December) and the image quality is very good. If you can open that site and see the photos I would be very interested to hear your opinion regarding the punctures that are in the EFIS casing.
I just added these photos to this blogpost
You know DSB also took measures perpendicular to the acute angle of impact. Maybe width (8.2)is that direction, so only take length = 13 cm:
http://tinyurl.com/jxg2bot
– Holes must get the measure perpendicular on the direction of impact:
(http://tinyurl.com/o7ndf9u).
Admin:
“I just added these photos to this blogpost”
Thanks.
I’ve just measured the possible “bow-tie” puncture again from your addition to the blogpost and now i think it’s about the right size, i.e. 13mm x 13mm, to have been caused by a “bow-tie” fragment.
Wind Tunnel Man:
In case of mirror images between the ‘butterfly’ in the window pane and the ‘bowtie’ in EFIS we are back to our earlier dilemma:
Translation or rotation of bowties:
At the moment of detonation the distance between the missile and MH17 is 3 meters, what makes the shrapnel in 0.0015 seconds. The distance between the window pane and EFIS is 10 cm what makes a bowtie in 0.00005 seconds. If bowties do not translate but rotate how many degrees can they make in 5E-5 seconds after passing the window pane? If they rotate 180 degrees around their vertical axis their left arm becomes their right arm. Then bowtie impressions on EFIS will also rotate 180 degrees.
Eugene:
‘Again, why the fragments spin:
-The detonation wave front is not that uniform.
-The detonation wave front approaches the wall at an angle, so a force starts pushing on one side of each fragment first.
-The fragments are held in a strong compound that needs to break. There is no way that the breaking of the compound will be smooth and uniform.
-In general, it is hard to push little things without inducing rotation. The physical reason being that the inertia depends on size (r) as r^5, while torques due to the non-uniformity are roughly proportional to r^3. As things get smaller the inertia gets smaller a lot faster than the torques.’
“The detonation wave front is not that uniform.”
Exactly. Which means that not only speeds but also acceleration for different fragments will be different, making spread calculations by DSB erroneous with their assumption of uniform and constant speed. And mistake, when your relative speed between plane and missile is nearly 1000 m/s will be quite large. I would say that spread will be totally different
The bending of metal in the holes indicates that direction of propagation is from metallic surface side ( not from brown coating side). Hence it can only be the bottom cover of EFIS and thus, bow tie had to first go through the window, then top cover, then electronics inside and then reach bottom cover. That will make any parallel projections questionable. The discolorations around the hole are also suspicious. Particularly the oily mark on the coating. Can it be a lubricant used in machining tool. The second shapeless hole doesn’t have the oil markand could have been just punched through. Just a suggestion, don’t have much to confirm my suspicion.
Also, can we identify which of the 2 EFIS from the cabin we are looking at, right or left one? If it is right one than window projections will be redundant
Antidyatel:
Firstly, we have the proximity principle. If the alleged butterfly in the window pane on the left lies within 10 cm of the alleged bowtie of EFIS, then this is a strong argument for a relation.
Secondly (I think) the window of EFIS on the right side has no perforations in the neighbourhood of that EFIS, nor in the roof. But we can ask Boeing for the identification numbers.
Just as Eugene you have good arguments that the theories of DSB are questionable, but here we are not arguing different kinds of shrapnel.
I told already that I am not sure about the upper side and the underside of EFIS. But remember, there are no rules or norms for agreement of holes from different materials. It is fine if holes agree but this is no law. And going through the window can alter the form and direction of the bowtie. And what form must be leading?
Below you see in both cases I had to do concessions to reach agreement. Form is important but possibly not of fundamental importance.
http://tinyurl.com/z46fx2o
“I told already that I am not sure about the upper side and the underside of EFIS. But remember, there are no rules or norms for agreement of holes from different materials. ”
I feel that you misunderstood my argument. Let me repeat, the deformation of holes and the bending of metal indicates the direction of propagation. I think it is reasonable to assume that metallic surface is internal one. Thus shrapnel had to go through window, top cover, electronics inside and only then reach bottom surface. We can skip this for now but should keep this at the back of the mind. The whole thing might end up as an implant. I start to suspect machining
Antidyatel:
Well, that’s what I understood and I think to agree. Please let us not jump to wrong conclusions, confirming just what must be falsified.
Our next problem is what Wind Tunnel Man already stipulated and that is the size of the alleged butterfly in the window pane. Though the bowtie is the biggest element and a cooperation of two cubes is unlikely, it still is a very large and (too) visible impression. Is not it too big for a butterfly? Could it be a cooperation of a bowtie and a filler?
Yes, I am still skeptical that the EFIS has been removed and fitted with a bowtie impression.
We also could connect the two holes in the window pane with two holes in the EFIS:
http://tinyurl.com/q26q2mh
Just noticed the writing on the side of EFIS – HONE… and so on. So it is clearly a bottom cover of EFIS. In this case you projection is wrong. The bottom part of bowtie in the windshield should be the closest to the cable side of the EFIS. If I understood your attempt correctly, otherwise is opposite
Antidyatel:
The windshield makes an acute angle of 60 degrees with EFIS. The bottom of the alleged butterfly on the windshield is projected closest to the cable side, as you said.
If it was a human figure it would fall on his nose on EFIS.
Though here we see a rotation, in fact it is a translation:
http://tinyurl.com/jdhqgwa
We made a lot of progress in thinking and are very glad with the new photographs, especially the measures. Only the connection with the window pane must be better established.
Therefore I changed the configuration of the alleged butterfly in the window pane and the bowtie impression in EFIS. We are approaching the end setup:
http://tinyurl.com/phqchco
You’re looking in the wrong area. To hit the EFIS, the shrapnel could not have come through the window pane. It must have come though either the bottom of the window frame or the skin just in front of it. The control panel in a 777 does not have a large top like on a car dashboard.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffreyklm/8127891952
The hole doesn’t look muck like a bow tie or butterfly to me anyway. When there are thousands of pieces of shrapnel flying through multiple layers at various angles, they could easily be deformed to create all kinds of hole shapes.
Or maybe the control panel’s top is deeper than it appears in that photo? Need an image from a more forward position to be sure.
I am sure I have seen a see through of the cockpit of a B777 which shows the location of the pedals and instruments. I think it was at mh17.webtalk.ru
Also I have seen photos of shrapnel damage at the pedals of the likely the captain.
Here is another photo of the cockpit display from a different angle
http://visualrian.ru/en/images/zooms/RIAN_2464676.jpg
Brendan:
Yes, I puzzled with the same problem, but indeed the window pane is lower than EFIS. And of course the form of butterflies may differ, but here it is their position near EFIS which is important. It is proximity what plays the fundamental role in this case.
Looks like I was completely wrong and was misled by the angle and position of the photo I linked to. The 777’s control panel has a very large curved top area that appears to slope down towards the window. Judging by the photos below (zoom in on flight deck), you should be looking at a much higher part of the window.
http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/354503
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=554419
The outline of the top of the control panel is seen more clearly here, thanks to better lighting inside the cockpit (my previous comment with other photos is still awaiting moderation):
http://www.jetphotos.net/photo/6112113
Brendan:
Maybe you are right. Admin offered new photos and now the EFIS is partly in the nose of the plane. Well thought. That makes this scenario questionable.
http://tinyurl.com/h8fvtyx
Basic Dimension,
No, my original estimate of the position of the EFIS was wrong. It’s actually located quite a distance from the window and the nose.
The second picture of the cockpit in the article (below the text “This photo shows the location of the EFIS”) is taken from below and shows the EFIS protruding into the cockpit.
The photo just below that (with the blue screens) is not of a 777 200ER (MH17) cockpit, even though the control panel looks the same. The control panel in the 777 200ER has a more curved and downward sloped top surface, as can be seen from the outside in the last comment I posted.
Antidyatel:
I think we need to see a photo or diagram of an installed left-hand side EFIS showing the underside fittings etc. Perhaps the larger square shaped hole was caused during the general breakup of the flight instrumentation hardware and not by shrapnel. The half circular fracture in the brown painted mounting plate and the edges of the fracture in the EFIS itself (seen from the underside) possibly suggest a component was actually pulled away from below.
The other smaller puncture may certainly have been caused by shrapnel though…there were many small shrapnel impacts in the window frames and penetrations through the window glass just forward of the left EFIS location.
The way the brown casing is pulled around the punctures is quite peculiar indeed. Why would two sides of bowtie cause bending in orthogonal directions? I can’t imagine physics of this phenomenon. However two consecutive punctures might be more plausible to cause this.
P.S. If the smaller hole was caused by shrapnel (and the shrapnel was not deflected) then it gives us a very clear indication of the position of the warhead. Assuming the fragment was from the rear of the fragmentation spread then that locates the warhead at an angle of approx 45 degrees in the horizontal axis ahead of, and to the left of, the left EFIS position – the rear of the frag spread being approx 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the missile. Obviously the warhead would also have to have been above the EFIS to cause this damage also.
My believe based on photos of the cockpit is that the warhead exploded right in front of the captain’s window. I have seen a photo of the captains body missing arms and legs. However the body of the co-pilot was intact with some wounds probably caused by shrapnel.
I think it is remarkable the area in the middle of the cockpit (where the windscreen wipers are located) does not have any shrapnel damage.
Added a new post showing the instruments panel located between the seats of the pilots. No shrapnel damage to be seen here.
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/cockpit-panel-in-middle-of-cockpit-has-no-indications-of-shrapnel-damage/
So the concentration of the shrapnel is near the left cockpit window and the area below.
I’m not sure how one hole can give you “clear indication”?
But I assume that you are talking about EFIS cover surface that would not have been damaged in such manner from Almaz-Antey location and orientation.
Maybe…. Few alternative explanations are still feasible:
1) this EFIS part was manipulated by some puncturing tool. I’m very suspicious of the way the brown casing is bent around the holes;
2) similar to light refraction, high speed objects penetrating windshield from a bit top and front direction will deflect the shrapnel downwards – closer to the surface normal. But I don’t dare to give estimates of such deflection
EFIS has date of 1997, which is the year of MH17 production. So at least on this front the part is genuine
Admin:
“I think it is remarkable the area in the middle of the cockpit (where the windscreen wipers are located) does not have any shrapnel damage.”
Yes I believe that indicates the rearmost extent of the warhead’s fragmentation spread.
Antidyatel:
“I’m not sure how one hole can give you “clear indication”?”
Very true, but taken with other evidence and assuming it was shrapnel damage and the shrapnel was not significantly deflected then it could be very important in any analysis.
This post provides some photos of damage of the cockpit.
Mind the possible shrapnel damage of the safety belt of the captain
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/locating-the-cockpit-parts/
Admin:
I think there are still questions to be convincing answered regarding whether a 9N314 or 9N314M warhead was involved. However I still prefer Almaz Antey’s general analysis of the event rather than that of the DSB’s.
– Unless the physical device of EFIS has been investigated by an independent scientific institute we cannot proceed in the development of this scenario. We need a thorough metallurgical investigation to see if the device has been broken off (in the air or falling on the ground) or that it has been bent and torn by criminals.
– The institute of investigation must be found in one of the remaining sovereign states of Europe.
– From the beginning there were questions about the place of find of the device. There were questions about the finder of this EFIS, about his death, about all kind of witnesses.
– Is the photograph real? Is it manipulated? And if not is the bowtie hole real or artificially fabricated?
– And where is JIT, the Joint Investigation Team? Have they already been seen in Gilze-Rijen to identify the exact place of the alleged butterfly in the left windshield? Boeing knows the exact position of the alleged bowtie hole. Did JIT already make a 3D animation of the line from the EFIS through the hole in the windshield to the cubic meter of detonation? They are eager to prove 9N314M, so where is JIT?
– Now, to be fair, if criminals had the intention to make an artificial bowtie hole in a removed EFIS, this would be a very tricky and difficult task. Then they first had to check if there was a hole in the windshield. Would they have so much insight?
– From our simulation we know there is a chance the hole in the EFIS is real. And it seems inconceivable that anyone could overthink this fine tuning at the crime scene.
– Despite our distrust we developed a scenario for this EFIS. But now we stop until the EFIS device will be proven true, as said earlier.
Deviation from the optimum angle of impact:
http://tinyurl.com/npx2ql4
We made a lot of progress in thinking and are very glad with the new photographs, especially the measures. Only the connection with the windshield must be better established.
Therefore I changed the configuration of the alleged butterfly in the windshield and the bowtie impression in EFIS. We are approaching the end setup:
http://tinyurl.com/zdqun4j
Projection of windshield butterfly on EFIS bowtie:
http://tinyurl.com/qhyc6ta
To understand the following, imagine the butterfly in the windshield is your left hand. Please raise your left hand. Open your hand and look at the inside. The thumb of your left hand turned to the left side. Now turn your hand and your thumb will be on the right side by rotation. Please turn your hand back.
See the bowtie in the EFIS as your right hand and bring both hands together, thumbs will meet each other. Now we see how the underside of the alleged butterfly in the windshield finds its mirror image in the upperside of the alleged bowtie in EFIS. This is a translation.
As follows:
Below the alleged bowtie in EFIS:
http://tinyurl.com/pnarzr3
http://tinyurl.com/omhljq4
From the cockpit we see the underside of the alleged butterfly in the windshield, which we project on the upper side of EFIS. Thumbs are pressed together. This is a straightforward translation which gives a mirror on EFIS, the alleged bowtie on EFIS. Remember the windshield bends over to the EFIS with about 60 degrees:
http://tinyurl.com/z4n2rah
Now we see if butterfly and bowtie have there form in common:
http://tinyurl.com/nzrp3y4
Raise your hands again and put your fingers together.
Twist your wrists to the left. Now you see from the underside of the bowtie in EFIS to the underside of the butterfly in the windshield. Both undersides must have the same form. But it is difficult to extract this form from the bowtie, for the bottom of EFIS consists of two materials:
http://tinyurl.com/jado9ga
Hence we reverse the EFIS upper side to get its underside:
http://tinyurl.com/nh57b5y
http://tinyurl.com/pm4eaga
Of course these forms match:
http://tinyurl.com/z4edh2y
Is this all proof of the bowtie? No, it is not but it might become circumstantial evidence.
EFIS in a Boeing 777 could be placed parallel to (and above)the windshield bottom line and within the cockpit. Then individual parts can easily be removed. But it can also be placed partly below the windshield bottom line and also partly in the nose of the plane. Then the hypothesis of a butterfly in the windshield is falsified in relation to the bowtie in EFIS. For me it is very difficult to judge the situation. Anybody who knows the right answer?
http://tinyurl.com/pr2dst9
EFIS in a Boeing 777 could be placed parallel to the windshield and within the cockpit. Then it could be placed partly or fully above the windshield bottom line. But it can also be placed partly in the nose of the plane. The hypothesis of a butterfly in the windshield in relation to the bowtie in EFIS if falsified if EFIS cannot be reached through the window. For me it is very difficult to judge the situation. Anybody who knows the right answer?
http://tinyurl.com/pr2dst9
And here is the frame of a Boeing 777:
http://www.gettyimages.nl/detail/nieuwsfoto's/boeing-employees-work-on-the-cockpit-of-a-boeing-777-at-nieuwsfotos/51187603
Brendan:
Thanks, that was helpful. I was misled by Boeing 787. Now to make up my mind again, I’ll take your photograph from the front of Boeing 777. Would it be possible for EFIS to lie horizontally. Then, it could still be reached through the windshield.
http://tinyurl.com/zzqv5cn
Alternative butterfly position in the windshield:
http://tinyurl.com/j79bqk9
I tried to post the following as a reply above but it did not get posted. The first image that you show seems to support what I say, even though it shows a 787 and not a 777 cockpit:
No, my original estimate of the position of the EFIS was wrong. It’s actually located quite a distance from the window and the nose.
The second picture of the cockpit in the article (below the text “This photo shows the location of the EFIS”) is taken from below and shows the EFIS protruding into the cockpit.
The photo just below that (with the blue screens) is not of a 777 200ER cockpit, even though the control panel looks the same. The control panel in the 200ER has a more curved and downward sloped top surface, as can be seen from the outside in the last comment I posted.
Well, the butterfly (upper side) seen from the outside on the windscreen could have a somewhat better match with the bowtie upper side of EFIS (in parallel). But as science is no politics it is not always as flexible and cooperative:
http://tinyurl.com/z6rby9t
Confirmation of the alleged bowtie found in EFIS from the cockpit is mainly dependent on its (conditional) passage through the hull or the windshield.
[Now the problem is the probability of bowties in the cockpit (p(b)) is dependent on – or conditional on – the passage of bowties through the cockpit hull (p(bh)) or through the windshield.
In theory we also could accept the passage of fillers through the hull (p(fh)), because they correlate perfectly with bowties. Then, DSB has to prove the conditional probability (|) of: p(b|bh)>0 or p(b|fh)>0. In other words DSB has to prove butterfly holes or filler holes in the cockpit hull.
DSB until now hasn’t been able to check the piles of roof plates in the sheds of Donetsk on bowties.]
Remember this alleged bowtie in EFIS might be the last chance to proof p(b|bh)>0.
I think only succeeding this conditionality test will confirm 9N314M as main evidence.
Normally we would take a bowtie in the body of a crew member for granted without conditionality check. But this is a criminal investigation with tougher standards.
There also will be circumstantial evidence:
– The bowtie in EFIS and the butterfly in the windscreen do not need to have identical form. It is already fine if the bowtie goes through the butterfly hole. But the proximity principle is very important.
– If it can be proved EFIS only can be hit through the windshield and our butterfly is the only one on say 20 cm distance that will be very strong circumstantial evidence for a causal relation.
– Then at last we need a string from the bowtie through the butterfly to the cubic meter of detonation. Of course the bowtie can have deflected by the butterfly.
– So, we have conditionality as main evidence and proximity as first circumstantial evidence. But the more or less straight line from the point of detonation also is circumstantial evidence, though this detonation point has not yet been proven:
1: Conditionality.
2: Proximity.
3: A logical connection.
– How funny, main evidence depends on circumstantial evidence. Yes, I see, proximity is the main evidence and stringing the second. Fulfilling conditionality is but the conclusion from these.
– Also we have circumstantial evidence from a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Imagine the EFIS broke off far from the crash site. Would criminals first check the left windshield on butterflies? And drilling an artificial bowtie in a difficult EFIS is about the stupidest you can do. There are much easier ways to drill holes in roof plates and so forth. This is so unlikely that we investigated this scenario with priority.
– But there are also contra indications. Why do we just now see more and more roof plates with sort of butterflies? Why do we see just now this EFIS with that alleged bowtie? That’s possibly because the DSB report has been finished and accepted as a fact.
Why has DSB been so lazy not to check all roof plates? They could have written attachments until the last day of their report. They just did not want. And now in the rebound possibly criminals are changing the attitude of the public into the direction of confirmation of 9N314M. Might be an action of JIT.
– Therefore, the EFIS must be investigated physically by an independent research institute in one of the last sovereign states of Europe. Is it a real EFIS device? Do the numbers indicate a left EFIS of a Boeing 777? Is it broken off in the air or during the crash falling on the ground? And where has the EFIS been found? And last but not least has it been bent and torn by criminals?
http://tinyurl.com/z4edh2y
Clarification. The idea that EFIS was manipulated to create bowtie impression is not necessary connected to the hole in the window. You made this connection as you were focused on the topic. Hence, you cannot ridicule that possibility based on the fact that criminals would have to make too complex calculations in order to match the two. In reality they can be totally ignorant of the hole in the window and just make a bowtie impression in a part available for them.
Which doesn’t mean that such act happened but you cannot dismiss it on such reasoning.
Antidyatel:
I agree with you EFIS can have been manipulated without any knowledge of cause and effect. But I think this less likely than a real bowtie. On the other hand secret services nowadays also know a lot of cause and effect from DSB and the DSB report.
And since the crash, far too much time has passed for new information to be very credible. So in the rebound secret services could have set a trap:
[7: Remember, complicated accidents are chains of events that could be perceived as permutations. The real permutation has to do with causality and time order. But in case of false flag operations these elements can easily be interchanged. In our investigation there are too many improbabilities with bowties, of which there are too little to be credible.]
Of course I am focused on this topic. That’s why I am on this site. I am focused on falsification and on confirmation of 9M314N. I have to investigate every chance, every scenario to find the truth about this mass murder.
Do I believe in this case? I will not tell you because that’s totally irrelevant. I only investigate this scenario thoroughly hoping DSB replaced the remains of the left windshield in good order. And remember, there is a big hole between the pieces of glass as a possible entry of a lot of other shrapnel. But we have to investigate, we have to develop scenarios since time is running out and soon nobody is interested in MH17 any longer.
In an earlier article I disconfirmed 9N314M as cause, so I am not prejudiced:
Falsifying 9N314M:
[Because DSB refuses to give the raw data of holes in the cockpit hull in an orderly and systematic manner, we use logical reasoning to debunk 9N314M. We think warhead 9N314M is not confirmed. What not means we attach to 9N314.]
[– All this evidence together and no bowties or fillers detected falsify 9N314M from Snizhne.]
Confirming 9N314M in another article:
[Of course I know this all can be disconfirmed but that is the sinister process we are in: a lot of very important stuff on a garbage dump in Ukraine about what we haven’t the slightest information. It is ridiculous. And of course I am prepared for failure and only give this hypothesis a fair chance.]
Basic Dimension:
Without a doubt there will be be internal damage caused by shrapnel passing through the port side front cockpit windows. Any damage done in close proximity to the windows, where any deflection of the shrapnel’s direction will be at it’s most minimal extent, is very valuable in determining the warhead’s position at the moment of detonation. Please continue your research and analysis into the damage caused to that area of the cockpit since I’m certain that will greatly contribute to any probable conclusions regarding the warhead type and the missile’s position and orientation.
Perhaps we must assume, until proven otherwise, that any recovered, damaged components photographed in the area of the crash site have not been tampered with by malicious individuals?
Wind Tunnel Man:
All we need are the exact coordinates of the butterfly in the two dimensional frame of the left windshield. This all placed into the three dimensionality of the cockpit, since the windshield itself might be curved in three dimensions.
Maybe NLR (Dutch Aerospace Laboratory) could be so kind as to give us this information. Then we ask TNO (The Netherlands Organisation of Applied Research) in a 3D-simulation to draw a line from the alleged bowtie in EFIS through the butterfly in the windshield to see if it ends into the alleged cubic meter of detonation.
Then we will have set an enormous step in our mini research. Of course NLR and TNO do not really need us. But remember, this time measurements must be very precise in millimeters.
The proximity argument must be defined better. On reflection, it is not the hole in the windshield closest to the bowtie in EFIS, but the hole in the windshield which is closest to the line from EFIS to the point of detonation under the condition it is big enough for a bowtie. Hence, it is the hole in the windshield closest to the projection of the bowtie of EFIS on the windshield.
I expect the angle of impact to vary from 30 – 35 degrees.
http://tinyurl.com/gvzmk4m
Basic Dimension:
Nice work – your projected angles also correspond to the angles of the impact marks in the forward port side window frames. I believe we can now probably position the warhead, at the moment of detonation, just forward of abeam of the forward pressure bulkhead, above the level of the upper part of the window frame but below the level of the main fuselage (since there appear to be no ricochet marks on the roof beyond door L1) and well within the line of the port side of the main fuselage (again because there are no ricochet marks beyond door L1.)
If we use A-A’s description of the fragmentation spread and we consider that the shrapnel impacted the skin of the aircraft below the rear port side cockpit windows approx in line with the aircraft’s longitudinal axis, in the horizontal plane, then that orientates the missile’s approach angle to be close to the Zaroshenske direction.
I think we still need to establish whether, in all probability, a 9N314 or 9N314M warhead was involved though…
Wind Tunnel Man:
Well thought:
[I think we still need to establish whether, in all probability, a 9N314 or 9N314M warhead was involved though…]
FINAL CONFIGURATION EFIS
This is our problem:
http://tinyurl.com/qeeq42f
An EFIS has been found with an alleged bowtie hole. It is expected to be the left EFIS.
http://tinyurl.com/ptce6wf
This EFIS lies right under the left windshield, about in the middle. Now we already know a lot of the portside windshield because it is part of the nearly surface normal area where the warhead more or less perpendicular hit the plane:
http://tinyurl.com/qd6fyj9
Though the window is at the end of that rectangle shrapnel still managed to pass the windshield.
The cockpit gives a very sad picture and shows the left windshield:
http://tinyurl.com/nvpqo5v
http://tinyurl.com/ncctzo3
Is this the butterfly in the windshield?
http://tinyurl.com/h3dmoj3
Next we project this windshield on a Boeing 777, where we first erroneously have taken a Boeing 878:
http://tinyurl.com/z4qk2al
Fortunately, now we get a much better fit in which the projection from MH17 can be placed on the Boeing 777, integral enlarged and without bias in length or width:
http://tinyurl.com/zwm5ngh
The angle of impact is about 30 degrees, but I expect the real angle to be 35 degrees.
Now we go to the front of the wreckage:
http://tinyurl.com/gulldez
And we combine the angles of impact from the inside and the outside:
http://tinyurl.com/gvzmk4m
We already know the alleged bowtie in EFIS can only have entered through the windshield. And from the angle of detonation we expect 35 degrees. So, if we can draw this line from the alleged butterfly in the windshield to the alleged bowtie in EFIS we possibly confirmed this damage from shrapnel in case the EFIS was not manipulated by criminals.
And in case we assume a real bowtie hole in EFIS, we take it for sure it came through the windshield, in which case we confirmed 9N314M as the used warhead. This because we proved the conditional probability (|) of: p(b|bh)>0 or p(b|fh)>0. In other words we proved butterfly holes or filler holes in the cockpit hull or windshield.
But this is not quite true because just in the windshield in front of EFIS we see a big hole. It depends on the point of detonation if EFIS can be reached from there. So possibly we can prove nothing. That is precisely measure.
http://tinyurl.com/h92om3o
This can turn into a balanced opinion in which many aspects are taken into account, and in which the form of the alleged butterfly in the windshield will be decisive. Without precise measure on the spot we get no answer.
Basic Dimension:
Antidyatel previously made some very valid arguments regarding the acceleration rates of the shrapnel and thus it’s average speed over various range distances. A-A gave us some data about the speeds of different shrapnel elements and it is possible that the lighter “filler” cubes were the first to impact the aircraft in the area of the port side front windows (this might explain the high proportion of smaller puncture and impact marks that we see.) The majority of heavier “bow-tie” elements within that part of the fragmentation spread may have impacted that area of the cockpit moments later, due to the forward motion of the aircraft, and virtually obliterated it. This may explain why we are seeing so few larger holes possibly caused by “bow-ties” in an area of the aircraft that was closest to the warhead.
Wind Tunnel Man:
Yes, I agree. In the lancet, the blast throws light metals (blue) farther away in the outer radial region while heavy metals (red) remain more in the inner region. Maybe the windshield indeed was just too early for the majority of bowties.
And in accordance with the staged building of warhead 9N314M with and without little cubes (8x8x5mm) we also do not expect many little cubes so early in the windshields, mostly fillers (6x6x8.2) and other non-shrapnel materials. So, we might be able to indicate some filler holes in the windshield: p(b|fh)>0.
But with 9N314, little cubes (8x8x5mm) might be expected in the front port windshield since they are much lighter than bowties and apparently are fired at the same time as big cubes (13x13x8mm), which are too heavy. So with 9N314 we expect a lot of little cubes (n= 4740) in the front port windshield but not so many big cubes (n=1790).
Now we know the windshield is 5 cm thick. On the back side of the shield we see a lot of holes of small shrapnel and otherwise materials, which entered the cockpit. From the length of their trajectory through the glass we can estimate the angles of impact.
The average angle must be used for shaping the alleged bowtie in EFIS to the alleged butterfly in the windshield and from there to the point of detonation. In this way we can see if the alleged bowtie in EFIS has gone through the very big hole in the windshield or through the alleged butterfly. This work is very specialized.
Basic Dimension:
If the 8x8x5 fragments are packed only into the forward portion of a 9N314 warhead perhaps we would expect mainly 13x13x8 fragments to be in the rearmost portion of the fragmentation spread?
If that is correct and the frag spread characteristics are very similar to those of a 9N314M as described by A-A then any speed differential between fragments of the same size and weight would be minimal when they impacted the limited area of front port side windows. Also if the window area was hit by 13x13x5 cubes, that are possibly the main constituents forming the rear of a 9N314 frag spread, perhaps one would expect to see mostly impact marks and penetrations that one could attribute to that size of shrapnel?
At this stage of our investigation I tend to favor a 9N314M simply because of the high proportion of small impact marks and penetrations that may have been caused by 6x6x8.2 filler cubes that we see in the forward port side windows area.
Wind Tunnel Man:
[If the 8x8x5 fragments are packed only into the forward portion of a 9N314 warhead perhaps we would expect mainly 13x13x8 fragments to be in the rearmost portion of the fragmentation spread?]
I assume the warhead explodes a meter earlier than expected from the angles of impact. Then 8x8x5 little cubes admittedly are packed in the forward portion of a 9N314, but despite less time to travel, they will be quicker at the windshield then big cubes (13x13x8).
Despite 13x13x8 big cubes are slower they have somewhat more time for arrival at the windshield. Hence I expect, both will arrive, but big cubes somewhat later.
[If that is correct and the frag spread characteristics are very similar to those of a 9N314M as described by A-A then any speed differential between fragments of the same size and weight would be minimal when they impacted the limited area of front port side windows.]
As said, lighter little cubes will arrive sooner at the windshield.
[Also if the window area was hit by 13x13x5 cubes (13x13x8 cubes), that are possibly the main constituents forming the rear of a 9N314 frag spread, perhaps one would expect to see mostly impact marks and penetrations that one could attribute to that size of shrapnel?]
No, because little cubes (8x8x5) need less time to expand as far as big cubes (13x13x8), which need more time. And little cubes will arrive sooner.
But remember, it might be bowties (13x13x8.2) from 9N314M and big cubes (13x13x8) from 9N314 do not expand enough to reach the front port window, despite an extra meter.
So I would expect more fillers (6x6x8.2) and little cubes (8x8x5) from 9N314M and more little cubes (8x8x5) from 9N314 at the left port windshield. I would expect less heavy shrapnel.
[At this stage of our investigation I tend to favor a 9N314M simply because of the high proportion of small impact marks and penetrations that may have been caused by 6x6x8.2 filler cubes that we see in the forward port side windows area.]
I cannot agree. Maybe we better determine the size of the holes in the windshield and their angle of detonation through this shield.
Basic Dimension:
Thanks for your very informative reply and the correction of my error when I said “13x13x5 cubes” rather than 13x13x8 cubes.
Do you think a 9N314 warhead has a similar “scalpel/lancet” fragmentation spread to that of a 9N314M warhead as described by A-A? A 9N314M warhead has 4100 + 1870 smaller striking elements and a 9N314 has 4740 smaller striking elements. The 1870 “bow-ties” of a 9N314M also weigh less individually than the 1790 13x13x8 cubes of a 9N314.
Guys. Cubes have all three sides equal. I know that it is easiest to write cubes than parrallelipipids. But 13x13x8 just sounds very funny.
Good work otherwise.;)
Do you have a link to summarised spread pattern from A-A explosion trials.
Wind Tunnel Man:
[Do you think a 9N314 warhead has a similar “scalpel/lancet” fragmentation spread to that of a 9N314M warhead as described by A-A? A 9N314M warhead has 4100 + 1870 smaller striking elements and a 9N314 has 4740 smaller striking elements. The 1870 “bow-ties” of a 9N314M also weigh less individually than the 1790 13x13x8 cubes of a 9N314.]
How would I know? I got all my information from you 🙂
A 9N314 warhead has 27 % heavy parallelepiped (13x13x8) and a 9N314M has 24 % heavy bowties (13x13x8.2). I think the weight differences are marginal just like the proportions from total amount of shrapnel.
If this would be true:
[If the 8x8x5 fragments are packed only into the forward portion of a 9N314 warhead perhaps we would expect mainly 13x13x8 fragments to be in the rearmost portion of the fragmentation spread?]
Then heavy parallelepiped (13x13x8) would hit later and eventually totally miss the left port windshield. But they have somewhat more time to arrive on the target.
In 9N314M, bowties are placed everywhere meaning the same: we do not expect many bowties in the front left port windshield, since they are too slow.
Heavy shrapnel resides in the inner radius of the lancet. But maybe bowties in the back part of 9N314M are fired backwards so they reach the target in the backlash with more time.
[Do you think a 9N314 warhead has a similar “scalpel/lancet” fragmentation spread to that of a 9N314M warhead?]
Yes if the radius would be projected on the wall, but not on the time dimension.
I think we first must understand why they replaced 9N314 by 9N314M:
Eugene: – DSB has n’t noticed that the geometric shape of the warhead [9N314M] contained two segments, not one: one fully convex (barrel-like), and another is concave on the chord direction. Again they haven’t been much troubled by the fact that the model they’ve fed into their simulator was different from the real thing.]
IMO they invented 9N314M to enlarge the fract spread range on the target:
[Range differences between warhead 9N314 and 9N314M.
The main problem of warheads is overshoot of small fighter aircraft by too early or too late detonation.
Fighter aircraft are fast and so missiles must be much faster. The maximum speed of a BUK-missile is Mach 3 (1000 m/s) on a very short distance. But this speed also is the enemy of precision. And a BUK cannot slow down near the target.
So what is the problem of a BUK-missile? It is the sum vector formed by the frac speed vector (2000 m/s; Mach 6) and the speed of the missile (1000 m/s; Mach 3), by which the fast missile might fire behind the fighter jet from a too sharp angle.
Hence, the predecessor of A-A invented a means of firing backwards from the rear part of the warhead: He divided the warhead into two parts. In the back part he placed early exploding bowties and fillers to acquire an angle of more than 90 degrees in case of late detonation. And at front of the warhead he placed cubes, bowties and fillers which fired forwards for a sharper angle by early detonation.
Conclusion: The overall strategy of a 9N314M is to broaden the range of the blast compared to 9N314. The range had to be broadened since the reach of the frac speed vector itself is extremely short and the point of detonation is almost on the fighter jet.]
Hence the “scalpel/lancet” fragmentation spread will be comparable in the lancet but will have very different effects on the target. The projection on the wall will be the same but in 9N314M the lancet will be stretched in time.
Remember good old AD who gave a very interesting opinion in Metabunk:
https://www.metabunk.org/almaz-anteys-live-buk-explosion-tests.t6903/
Inner layer contain 1870 bow-tie heavy strike elements with 1870 filler strike elements between them.
Outer layer contain 4100 square strike elements.
Layers isolated from explosive filling, between them and from open air with textile.
During explosion inner layer work as liner and prevent gas leaking at first moment. Elements of inner layer have outnourmos thermal and pressure stress from explosion from one side. At same time inner layer exchange energy with outer layer, it is adding stress to inner elements from another side.
As result bow-tie elements start to lose shape and receive oblateness.
In extreme cause bow-tie elements can even lose shape completely and decay on 2 debris. It happen if bow-tie element situated in area with highest pressure – middle of warhead (in really this area start approx. at 1/4 and continue to 3/4 of warhead length).
Very interesting why inner layer contain bow-tie elements, instead of old design with only square elements (heavy and light).
Technically, square elements have very good penetration on high speed – sharp edge can “cut” target material with lower density. Also square have best ratio weight/size. But warhead 9N314M lose heavy strike elements – square, during development. Why it happen despite on square penetartion?
As im said – inner layer work as liner for outer layer during explosion. Liner prevent gas leaking during time when elements receive acceleration from explosive force as gas pressure per square. Very important on this stage prevent destruction (decay or mis-shape with holes between nearby elements) for elements which isolate gas. Previous design with square elements reveal a problem – square under stressing pressure start to exploding in size. As any metal – direction of this exploding depend from lowest density. Lowest density happen on edge. Cube/Square exploding on edges and become as flatten sphere. Spheres have holes for gas leaking between them, also shpere have lesser penetration. Outnormous pressure during explosion can even destroy square on a few debris which can be too small for penetrate armored targets (main idea of heavy strike elements is penetration of armored targets like close-support war plane Su-25 or A-10).
All these troubles solved with new design exchanged square heavy elements for bow-tie elements.
Bow-tie shape still have weight and sharp edges but more protected from sphere exploding (bow-tie have lesser length of edges so density not so low). That mean layer with bow-tie transmit more energy to outer layer before gas leaking play role. Also bow-tie elements even when decay on a few debris produce only one main big debris with little losing of weight or two debrises with almost half of weigth each. This is enough for designed effect – penetration of armored targets.
How good bow-tie layer as liner? Outer layer receive speed up to 2400 m/s. It have only a few difference from Gurney equation fragment speed (maximum speed which can receive strike element for warhead case shape, weight ratio, explosive) near 3000-3100 m/s.
For example, inner layer with bow-tie lose some many energy in exchange and after it receive additional force from explosion only when gas-leaking happen so bow-tie strike elements receive almost half of inner layer speed – near 1200-1800 m/s.
Conclusion – bow-tie elements will lose shape in most causes so Almaz-Antey slide with typical hole is manipulation and lie.
Wind Tunnel Man
Do you think a 9N314 warhead has a similar “scalpel/lancet” fragmentation spread to that of a 9N314M warhead?
Highly unlikely,Almaz-Antey in their first MH17 presser stated clearly the main peculiarity ie (difference) of the 9M38M missile is the scalpel frag beam also they state it was designed in the 80s to deal with armored aircraft which matches 9M38M1 time line not 9M38.
Herein would be a major problem for some AA claims,damage match to Zarochenske relied heavily on scalpel frag damage as a match,they now no longer it would appear claim scalpel involved at all
RB2:
“…Almaz-Antey in their first MH17 presser stated clearly the main peculiarity ie (difference) of the 9M38M missile is the scalpel frag beam also they state it was designed in the 80s to deal with armored aircraft which matches 9M38M1 time line not 9M38.”
Thanks RB2 – I will study A-A’s first presser and the slides that they published at that time again.
Basic Dimension:
Thanks for your detailed and very thorough reply.
Shortly after the crash of MH17 when photographs of the damaged cockpit section were published it was apparent to me that the striking elements probably originated from a point just above the forward port side windows – impact damage to the window frames and the penetrations in, plus the extensive damage to, the cockpit floor to the left of the captain’s position seemed to illustrate that scenario.
If a Buk missile had been used to down MH17 it’s orientation and direction of travel relative to the aircraft puzzled me. It was only in the summer of 2015 when Almaz Antey made their presentation based on a hypothetical 9N314M warhead (they were lead to believe that “bow-tie” shaped strike elements had been recovered from the cockpit environment) that an explanation of a Buk missile’s orientation and position became plausible. Their description of the characteristics of the fragmentation spread (the scalpel/lancet etc.) from a moving missile engaging a moving target seemed convincing.
Now we have a situation where A-A believe a 9N314M warhead may not have been used since they are possibly not convinced that “bow-tie” shaped elements actually hit the aircraft or were found in the wreckage and the captain’s body. Unfortunately I’m not aware of A-A having made an explanation of a hypothetical 9N314 detonation scenario.
We do have the DSB’s theoretical version of the event but that seems to be based on the finding of “bow-tie” shaped striking elements, hence a 9N314M warhead, and in many respects that differs from A-A’s presentation that they gave in the summer of 2015 and their experimental live firing tests done in the autumn of 2015 concerning 9N314M warheads.
Personally I would give greater credibility to an experimental live firing test than to any theoretical modeling. Obviously the experimental tests had their drawbacks since neither the missile nor the target were moving but I’m certain that can be compensated for in our analysis.
Wind Tunnel Man:
We will never prove bowties in crewmember and EFIS came through the hull or through the windshield. Hence 9N314M still is falsified along this way.
http://tinyurl.com/z7v5gg8
Wind Tunnel Man:
You see the surface normal rectangle works perfect. When I tried to measure the angles of impact from the inside of the shield I noticed a nearly perpendicular entrance, so I went back to the video…
Wind Tunnel Man:
Maybe a 9N314 came from Zaroshchenske and detonated right in front of the left pilot as Admin already expected. The first little cubes exploded one meter earlier than bigger cubes, which we see at the port side of the cockpit hull. Then the alleged bowtie in EFIS could be a very early big cube of a falsification:
[[If the 8x8x5 fragments are packed only into the forward portion of a 9N314 warhead perhaps we would expect mainly 13x13x8 fragments to be in the rearmost portion of the fragmentation spread?]
I assume the warhead explodes a meter earlier than expected from the angles of impact. Then 8x8x5 little cubes admittedly are packed in the forward portion of a 9N314, but despite less time to travel, they will be quicker at the windshield then big cubes (13x13x8).
Despite 13x13x8 big cubes are slower they have somewhat more time for arrival at the windshield. Hence I expect, both will arrive, but big cubes somewhat later.]
Basic Dimension:
As RB2 suggested the 9N314M warhead probably has very different detonation and fragmentation characteristics to that of the earlier 9N314 warhead. I’ve just looked at the A-A June 2015 video presentation again (up to a point 31 minutes into the video) and from a translation of the chief designer’s words it does seem that the 9N314M was a fundamental redesign of the earlier 9N314 type.
From A-A’s illustrations of a moving 9N314M warhead it does appear that it’s fragmentation characteristics, over a very short range, show the heavier striking elements might follow only a few centimeters behind the lighter elements. Knowledge of the average speed of individual striking elements over a particular range distance are necessary in order to verify any damage patterns.
Wind Tunnel Man:
Thanks. Well that’s obvious because in 9N314M heavy bowties and lighter fillers are distributed evenly over the warhead. And maybe that’s different for 9N314:
[If the 8x8x5 fragments are packed only into the forward portion of a 9N314 warhead perhaps we would expect mainly 13x13x8 fragments to be in the rearmost portion of the fragmentation spread?]
Could be a 9N314 has been used…
Wind Tunnel Man:
[And in case we assume a real bowtie hole in EFIS, we take it for sure it came through the windshield, in which case we confirmed 9N314M as the warhead used. This because we proved the conditional probability (|) of: p(b|bh)>0 or p(b|fh)>0. In other words we proved butterfly holes 0R FILLER HOLES in the cockpit hull or windshield.]
Now we cannot prove the bowtie hole in EFIS by inspection of the window. But in this special case it is completely legitimate to check the windshields on fillers (6x6x8.2 mm). Has this already done before? Look at this left port little front windshield. We know at the blast shrapnel and non-shrapnel hits the target. Can we draw a conclusion?
http://tinyurl.com/zdlwes7
Basic Dimension:
“Look at this left port little front windshield. We know at the blast shrapnel and non-shrapnel hits the target. Can we draw a conclusion?”
That is the windshield that opens from the inside – over-pressure from the initial blast wave may have pushed it into the cockpit and perhaps only smaller shrapnel elements penetrated it as it was being dislodged. The other windshields are fitted from the outside and held in place by (stainless steel?) phillips head screws and an alloy border piece.
With an easygoing setting DSB thought to solve the assault on MH17. Just as JIT, which relies on unproven internet intelligence of the SBU (DSB) and Bellingcat, DSB thought to prove 9N314M with two bowties and two squares ‘found’ in the cockpit.
Not a moment they seem to have considered that this is no ordinary accident in which these data would have been accepted to be true. They did not realize they have to fight a legal battle in which bowties in the cockpit will be understood as a conditional probability.
Hence, DSB and JIT will have to provide evidence that bowties came through the hull or through the cockpit windshields. They definitely did not realize what they had to do and finished their job half way.
Therefore, it also is not determined if some holes in the windshield are caused by fillers from 9N314M. They simply did not come up with the idea that the conditional presence of bowties in the cockpit had to be proved.
But as long as they cannot deliver this evidence, for court the counter party will claim that the bowtie was shot into the body of the crew member by criminals.
Next, DSB tried to prove 9N314M starting from the premise 9N314M was used. They are trapped into circular reasoning.
DSB commissioned TNO to investigate only 9N314M while real scientists would take 9N314 as control group to support their findings.
And now: EFIS. Probably this alleged shrapnel came through the big hole in the left windshield; hence its conditional presence cannot be proven. Now there has been no fire in the cockpit and the huge plastic dashboard should still be checked for holes.
If the bowtie cannot be proven in the windshield then it can possibly in the dashboard. Then in any case we know it is shrapnel.
But DSB left the entire inventory of the cockpit on the garbage dump. Yes then you do not earn to be right:
http://tinyurl.com/jycj2mq