Various TV items on MH17 after publication of final report by DSB
A long 50+ minute interview with DSB head Tjibbe Joustra, Oct. 14, in Dutch: http://www.npo.nl/mh17-het-onderzoek/13-10-2015/KN_1675251
Crosstalk by Russia Today
Interview with Marcus Beinsmann of Correct!v (German language)
Der Fehlende Part. Program by Russia Today Deutschland (German language). Interviews with Joost Niemoller, Billy Six and Kees van der Pijl.
Discussion on NTV tv station in Russia (in Russian language). Oleg Storchevoy, Alexander Rutskoi, Oleg Smirnov Konstantin Knyrik Sergei Zheleznyak, Pieter Warerdrinker
A long 50+ minute interview with DSB head Tjibbe Joustra, Oct. 14, in Dutch: http://www.npo.nl/mh17-het-onderzoek/13-10-2015/KN_1675251
The interview was meaningless. Joustra made it appear as if the DSB had numerous important measurements to do at the crash site and only getting half an hour from the separatists was inadequate. Therefore, one had to wait many, many months. But I remember that when they finally arrived they were mostly flotsam to loading.
When it was objected that Australians and Malaysians directly got permission for seven consecutive days, he said that these people had a different task. The Dutch Ministry of Defense has discouraged DSB to go to the crash site.
There are only two bow ties and two cubes found while the rest is scattered in the unit. That may be, but that does not apply to the outer skin of the plane. BTW have I found a bowtie in the middle of this photo: http://tinyurl.com/p28v37t on page (20 of 72) of http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf. (figure 15)?
The interview was meaningless. Joustra made it appear as if the DSB had numerous important measurements to do at the crash site and only getting half an hour of the separatists was inadequate. Therefore, one had to wait many, many months. But I remember that when they finally arrived they were mostly flotsam to loading.
When it was objected that Australians and Malaysians all direct could be walking around at the crash site for seven consecutive days, he said that these people had a different task. The Dutch Ministry of Defense has discouraged DSB to go to the crash site.
There are only two bow ties and two cubes found while the rest is scattered in the unit. That may be, but that does not apply to the outer skin of the plane. BTW have I found a bowtie in the middle of this photo http://tinyurl.com/pbs9atp (on page 20 of 72 of appendix X. (figure 15))?
http://www.npo.nl/mh17-het-onderzoek/13-10-2015/KN_1675251
At (05.58 / 50.41) of the interview Mr. Joustra says DSB is pretty sure 9N314M is the warhead used. The question of the reporter whether he is 100% sure about 9N314M is avoided and Mr. Joustra keeps a detailed story in which the most important fact is the discovery of two bow-ties and two cubes. Only 9N314M has bow-ties. Further, the unsatisfactory cooperation with the Russians is discussed.
Apparently, already in an early stage DSB theoretically decided to 9N314M, the warhead with the bow-ties. But this means later JIT is expected to show to the court an exuberant amount of evidence of this proposition and JIT should be able to exclude numerous grounds of falsification of research data.
Hence, JIT should cite irrefutable physical evidence of the bow-ties just related to this very plane. Since aluminum and zirconium on the bow-ties can also be obtained by shooting a warhead against an identical Boeing after which the bow-tie could have been brought into the body of the captain of team A. Not that this is very likely but DSB – as a research institute – has taken a gigantic risk by possible backing the wrong horse. JIT certainly better comes with newly found butterflies on the wreckage.
TNO concluded the warhead exploded exactly in front of the plane on the horizontal X-axis, but then 3.7 meters above the plane on the vertical Z-axis, and 2 meters to the left on the Y-axis. The rocket came about head on, with -27 degrees Azimuth from Snizhne and ascended lightly with 10 degrees elevation.
In summer 2015 a draft of the report was sent to participating countries for remarks on the report. Ukraine and Russia have re-calculated and occasionally adjusted the models of NLR and TNO. They also concluded about the launch site of THIS design.
The RF came to -.40 on the horizontal X-axis and high: 3.7 on the Z-axis and -3.5 to the left on the Y-axis. It is about the same results as TNO and NLR but apparently RF only controlled the math delivered by DSB. It not necessarily was their conception of reality.
But here is our problem: It seems by re-calculating the math Russia implicitly was expected to endorse 9H314M as the warhead of MH17.
How possibly such a misunderstanding can result?
Uncertainty about on the one hand controlling the computational model of TNO and on the other hand endorsing the content of the DSB-model suggests a disturbed relationship between DSB and Russia.
Perplexed DSB noted in her report: ‘The Russian Federation provided this data to the Dutch Safety Board without confirming that a 9N314M warhead, carried by a 9M38-series missile and launched from a Buk surface-to-air missile system, had caused the crash.’
Well, if DSB organizes a panel it is her responsibility to prevent eventual misunderstandings in the first place. Apparently where model parameters were discussed Russia only simulated the model presented and gave no conclusions about the choice of 9N314M or 9N314.
Like us, the Russians also must have missed any proof of 9H314M in the (first draft of the) report. So, why should they agree with this kind of canvassing in non-information? Why should they confirm bow-ties without proof? Hence, apparently they only agreed with the presented model but not with its premises.
It was the responsibility of DSB to arrive at some diplomatic understanding and now they are not in the position to place inappropriate remarks in their report. Better DSB also ordered simulations of 9H314 to prove this type of warhead could not explain the results optimally.