What Almaz Antey presented on October 13
by 
Almaz Antay, the maker of the BUK missile, organized a big press conference at October 13. About 250 journalists attended the press conference. Accomodation and flight of abut 30 foreign journalists were paid by Almaz.
Almaz did two simulations in which they exploded a warhead. First simulation they put various large pieces of aluminium and exploded a missile.
For the second simulation done at October 7 they used the cockpit section of an old IL86 passenger aircraft. The cockpit section was cut off from the fuselage at an airport. Then the section was transported to a field. There a construction was made to hold the Buk missile in the same position as where Almaz believes it exploded.
The video can be seen here.
The statements of AA are: (and this blogpost will be updated )
- MH17 was shot down by an old BUK missile of type 9M38.
- This missile is from around 1986.
- There are no butterfly shaped (Doube T shaped) holes to be seen in MH17 debris. This butterfly is typical for 9M38M1 missile which has three shapes of fragments.
- Russian Armed forces do not use this missile. It is not certified to use anymore because it can exploded all of a sudden. It is past its lifetime
- The missle was launched from an area near Zaroshens’kye
- Almaz Antey did not comment on who controlled the area around Zaroshens’kye
- A single BUK TELAR has a reach of maximum 25 km. From south of Snizhne a missile could not hit MH17
- The costs for the two simulations are around 10 million Ruble
- Ukraine Army had at certain time 502 9M38 missiles
The complete press conference can be see here.
by
Did quick summary:
DSB info + A-A info = 9M38M1 missile.
A-A math spotted also in DSB report:
vs my hunt for launch site:
Hmm….
If you read the appendix with Russia’s comment, you will realize this isn’t actually A-A’s work.
AA were ill advised to do this presentation,seemed confused and uncomfortable at times,went back on some previous claims and seemed to be reacting to the mistakes that were pointed out in earlier presser,all in all a poor attempt at countering DSB report
btw. DSB found butterfly shrapnels from crew and from debris.
So missile was M1. Final nail to A-A lies.
They may have found one only , or possibly two or three. Page 95 of the report says.
“43 of the 72 fragments were made of unalloyed steel and 4 of these fragments although heavily deformed deformed and damaged had distinctive shapes, cubic and in the form of a bow tie.”
So they had between 1 and 3 heavily deformed shapes that appeared like a bow tie.
Doesn’t sound like strong evidence
I’ve read and understood it differently. The mater is 100% sure, even if only one clear and clean bow tie was pictured.
(there was more, A-A lies confirmed it)
Also it is irrelevant, because the missile came from ahead and the key thing is now to pinpoint who did the launch.
Great use of the scientific method! First decide the missile came from ahead and then try to support that idea with whatever you can.
Admin:
“There a construction was made to hold the Buk missile in the same position as where Almaz believes it exploded.”
No, the construction was made to hold the missile as if it was launched from Snizhne in the way the DSB/Bellingcat believes it happened. See 55:00 and onwards of the RT video.
The detonation was too far from the cockpit as everybody see.
(and shrapnel lacked 1000m/s momentum etc. etc.)
The AA guy mentioned that a solo BUK launcher could theoretically fire at a range of 30km, but in practice 15km was the maximum range.
Also revealed was a 17 second burn time, a theoretical 40 seconds flight time from Shnizne, and an engagement velocity of ~ 730 m/s.
It was good to see a fair bit of the technical presentation was about the lancet pattern and specifically why internet (e.g. metabunk) speculation on the fragment vectors was wrong.
Charles, if the technical presentation was on the wrong warhead, I guess there would be a lot of differences in dispersal patterns compared to the warhead
which everyone was using for figuring.
A-A seemed to use some strange numbers, but it was nice they left it open for questions afterwards, even though they refused questions from many.
Do not forget, the plane was flying at the missile at a speed of 600 m/s while the missile was coming at it at 850 m/s or faster, I have seen numbers as high as 996 m/s for some of the 9M38 missiles pre M2 variety which jumps another 500 kph in the M2.
This link describes some of the calculations of booster time versus fuel used to sustain flight as well as the ability of SBIRS to see the missile.
http://www.ultimax.com/whitepapers/2014_1.html
I am not sure of the partitions in seconds of those is correct, but probably close.
There has to be a reason for the varieties of velocity varieties from A-A which says 730 (probably pre M class) , to the common 850(M – M1) , to the highest speed I saw of 996 m/s(M1-2 not M2 though, M2 was about 500kph higher).
That is a broad range.
Fare thee well
Boggled.
The DSB selected a figure of 730m/s for missile velocity as does AA. DSB also modelled a 600m/s velocity.
The 9M38 series missile has a fixed burn time and thrust is not controllable. Your link is ridiculous. They guy knows just enough facts to get into trouble and then comes along with lots of guesses. Many of his guesses are proven wrong by both DSB and AA figures.
For reference the missile motor burns for 17 seconds. It uses changes in grain geometry to have two different thrust regimes. Higher thrust at launch and lower thrust further down-range. However this is partially compensated for by the missile being lighter further down-range
Your units are all over the shot. Make up your mind m/s or kph.
A-A lies.
Warhead 9N314 dont have lancet.
Do you have a source or is this yet another of your many claims with no.backing
Boggled:
“the plane was flying at the missile at a speed of 600 m/s”
~600 mph or 915 km/h or 250 m/s.
“the missile was coming at it at 850 m/s or faster”
No, it was not, because it reached the end of its burn time if from Snizhne and had to be slowing down do to lack of impulse and air friction.
“I have seen numbers as high as 996 m/s for some of the 9M38 missiles pre M2 variety which jumps another 500 kph in the M2.”
Please keep you units straight. I think you are the only one seeing such high numbers of M and M1.
I tend to agree with Almaz Antey’s test which indicates the alleged Buk 9M38(M1)’s trajectory, at the moment of detonation, was unlikely to have been at 7 degrees to the Boeing’s longitudinal axis. In the static test they changed the angles to represent both the aircraft and missile in motion and found that shrapnel penetration of the target’s left, rear, lower cockpit window area was approximately at right angles in the horizontal plane. MH17 in contrast had shrapnel damage in the same area which was almost parallel with the aircraft’s longitudinal axis in the horizontal plane.
If the 9M38(M1) missile with a 9N314(M) warhead has a fragmentation pattern as Almaz Antey claim (which I haven’t seen disproved) and the missile engaged the target only with minor deviations from a direct path to the point of interception then it seems hard to imagine a launch from an area to the south east from where the aircraft was hit.
FYI, finnish sources list 1250m/s max speed for BUK M1.
(even before trolls messed up our wikipedia)
Max speed for low flying target at close range. This is dont mean missile have same speed during climbing on alt 10km.
How is that in the least relevant to the DSB and AA figures of an interception velocity of 730 m/s and DSB modelling at 600 m/a?
Seems many bowtie shapes in AA experiment.
http://cdn2.img.sputniknews.com/images/102850/10/1028501068.jpg
Only DSB didnt find such ones or MH-17 debris really lack such shaped holes?
Using Mick West’s http://tube.geogebra.org/material/simple/id/FP58nKZJ plan view graphics I got a near perfect match of the fragment distribution when comparing Almaz Antey’s theoretical dynamic “Snizhne” launch and their reoriented missile positioning, also simulating a “Snizhne” launch, in the static test.
Settings dynamic: Spread 72 degrees, plane speed 234m/s, missile speed 600m/s, frag speed 2000m/s, plane track 118 degrees, missile track 314 degrees, warhead positions: in line with the outside of the left main fuselage and at a right angle to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft in line with the front of the nose.
Setting static: Spread 72 degrees, plane speed 0m/s, missile speed 0m/s (10m/s for the graphic to work), frag speed 2000m/s, plane track 118 degrees, missile track 331 degrees, warhead positions: in line with the outside of the left main fuselage and at a right angle to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft in line with a point slightly aft of the front of the nose.
Of course this does not take into account any changes to the frag spread due to missile speed, the height of the warhead above the aircraft’s centre line nor Almaz Antey’s change to the vertical angle of the missile, i.e. from 7 degrees to 16.5 degrees for the static test, but it certainly demonstrates that shrapnel penetrations to the left, rear, lower cockpit window area would probably be at a right angle to the aircraft’s skin.
Placing the detonation spot right to the plane (1-1.5 m.!!) and the nosetip, taking a 20 degrees approach angle, a 72 angle fragmentation psread (has Mick finally adopted the “backward” flying frags?) the model seems consistent with a launch area more to the west.
Furthermore it could account for the predicted damage to the left wing.
BTW, the Snizhne model predicts heavy outward perforations to the starboard site of the cockpit, as I understand. Is the found damage consistent with this?
Furthermore I understand frags have been found in bodies of passengers in business class. This also would be consistent with the the main frag vectors the 20 degree angle predicts.
DSB final report, page 136:
The 3 crew in the cockpit sustained fragment injuries:
“Three fragments, made of unalloyed steel, had a distinct bow-toe *or cubic* shap. Such fragments were not found in the bodies of any other victims.”
Because the payload of a 9M314N warhead only exists of two types of cubic and bow-tie elements, I read this implicitly that there were not found fragments in other bodies??
To me it seems from south of snizhne the shrapnel do not come out from right side of the cocklpit (except on A-A silly drawings with silly shrapnel distribution).
In the reconstructed MH17 there are some punch marks and small holes after cockpit on the right side, IIRC near cargo bay door area. Not necessarily done by shrapnel.
Also, as far as I inspected, I did not yet spot exit holes on the right side of Ilyshin destroyed by A-A either.
soltilspassi:
“Also, as far as I inspected, I did not yet spot exit holes on the right side of Ilyshin destroyed by A-A either.”
Slide 57 of their presentation is titled “Holes in Starboard side”. Slide 58 titled “Damages” contains the text: “Exit holes on the right-hand side”. There are plenty of pictures on those slides.
I assume you have gone through their slides and just missed these? Particles passing through the right hand side were also quite visible in the slow motion video during their press conference.
Not yet gone through slides.
On video there was shrapnel seen going in from the right side of the plane.
Slides were available at metabunk. (anywhere else?)
So it seems there would seem to be more exit holes on IL than on Boeing.
The static test seemed to demonstrate that shrapnel penetrations to the left, rear, lower, cockpit window area, as seen in the full Almaz Antey presentation don’t seem to match the damage that one sees in a similar area on MH17. If the missile, at the point of detonation, was heading in a more northerly direction then such shrapnel penetrations would be closer to parallel with the aircraft’s longitudinal axis which one sees in the damage to MH17 rather than at right angles to the skin of the static target.
So if the missile was heading in a more westerly direction, i.e. the “Snizhne” launch, then it’s difficult to imagine the damage done, in one particular area of MH17, to have been done with slightly varying fragmentation patterns, angles, speeds and positions that appears to be the consensus view.
But shrapnel along the longitudinal axis would predict passengers would have sustained injuries from frags too.
I read today thats indeed not the case. Only in the three people attending the cockpit at the moment of the impact were found pre-formed fragments.
On the other hand, there were many examples of shrapnel entry perforations in mainframe and other parts along the longitudinal axis. How can these two observations be reconciled?
Detonation point delta DSB vs A-A demo:
forward DSB +0,0m
forward A-A -0,25m
left DSB +2,0m
left A-A +3,3m
heightDSB +3,7m
heightA-A +7,0m
DSB ~900m/s extra “speed boost” vs A-A
A-A demo compensated 600m/s forward movement with turning the missile 16 degrees away from airplane body.
A-A demo lacked the kinetic energy of the 900m/s collision speed
Please don’t forget the change in the vertical angle of the missile in the A-A static test, i.e. from 7 degrees to 16.5 degrees, which would influence the height calculation.
sotilspassi:
“A-A demo lacked the kinetic energy of the 900m/s collision speed”
What kinetic energy? In a near head on collision when looking at fragments spraying sideways in a lancet, forward kinetic energy does not change the sideways kinetic energy vector.
Shrapnels of the missile, shot at MH17 from ahead, had kinetic energy of speed vectors of 1100..2500ms sideways and ~900ms forward.
The energy difference for slow but heavy fragments is high and difference for fast and light is small.
Btw. It is said that kill radius of the shrapnel is 17m.
I wonder if that is defined because then shrapnels start to miss a ballistic missile target or do they not penetrate enforced structures any more?
Against humans the shrapnel is vaguely said to be lethal to 40m distance.
Perhaps that means at 40m distance speed of shrapnel is down to (a few) hundred meters per second???
There should be found m u c h more than o n e (bow-tie) and on o n e (cubic-shaped) “BUK shrapnel” in the Pursers body and the body of the first officer.
In the body of the third person in the MH17 cockpit, the captain, n o shrapnel at all from a warhead, was found.
btw. After looking from images of A-A set-up.
The height of detonation in A-A case does not look like it’s 7m from plane nose.
It must have been 7m from ground level of the test site?
“btw. After looking from images of A-A set-up.
The height of detonation in A-A case does not look like it’s 7m from plane nose.
It must have been 7m from ground level of the test site?”
Yes 7m from ground level: that would put it just above the top of the fuselage, i.e. approximately 3.5m above the aircraft’s centre line. Please note: that height position was a result of their calculations when simulating the movement of the aircraft relative to the warhead.
For clarity I should have also said “…simulating the movement of the aircraft relative to the warhead and the missile’s forward speed effecting the frag spread distribution.”
I agree with the Dutch when they say that shrapnel from the warhead could be deflected after it passed through the outer structures of the aircraft, so any internal puncture holes or impact marks (or exit holes through the right side of the cockpit and internal damage in the case of the A-A static test – especially since the relative impact speed of the shrapnel was less) may not accurately indicate the position of the warhead when lined up to the entry holes. However the direction of entry holes through the outer structures would give a more accurate indication of the warhead’s position and orientation.
Hector Reban:
I wouldn’t like to comment about the business class area and what happened there but from photographs of the forward parts of the MH17 wreckage it certainly does appear that the port side suffered penetrations parallel to the longitudinal axis of the plane. When one takes into account the contours of the forward part of the aircraft up to door 1L then shrapnel has punctured the skin and gone through adjacent bulkheads in the cockpit area and further back only grazed and ricocheted off the skin.
I don’t understand why the port side forward roof was not positioned on the re-construction because that would have given a clear indication of both blast (dishing) effects and shrapnel direction.
Can you imagine if the report had indicated that the initial accusations were wrong? That would be unthinkable
But passengers didn´t sustain injuries from pre-formed frags, the DSB report claims. Then the fragments along the longitudinal axis would have had a downward direction towards the horizontal plane (and possibly be found in the luggage area).
Despite the potentiality of deflection there were shrapnel holes in MH17’s cockpit floor indicating a hit from above. In the area of the captain’s seat the penetrations do appear to be almost parallel to the aircraft’s longitudinal axis.
In the A-A static test it would be interesting to see if similar floor penetrations were at right angles to the target’s longitudinal axis. Certainly they do appear to be higher up in the rear window area which wouldn’t be subjected to shrapnel deflection.
There is a photo of a actuator part of a Boeing 737 landinggear showing a hole. This could be caused by a fragment. The actuator was carried as cargo in the cargo bay. I have seen cargo container with shrapnel dagage. https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/identify-mh17-debris-at-crash-site/
I would be more interested in the port side forward roof structures of MH17.
Regarding a possible “Zaroshens’ke” launch and a simulation of a static test, as in a wind tunnel, I would give the aircraft an angle of attack equating to the warhead’s height above the aircraft’s centre line and an angle of yaw equating to the warhead‘s position to the left of the aircraft‘s centre line – both angles also based on the warhead‘s position on the aircraft‘s longitudinal axis. This would be like air travelling straight along a wind tunnel hitting the aircraft as shrapnel would from one point on the warhead. Then at points on the aircraft’s roof I could measure the air pressures and hence calculate the airspeed. Thus would equate to the shrapnel impact speed (obviously much faster than airspeed since we have the combined speed of a moving aircraft and extremely fast moving shrapnel.)
From such a simulation the direction from which the claimed frag spread originated could be calculated when one takes into account the penetrations and damage to the forward roof surfaces and underlying structures and thus help to verify the warhead, at the moment detonation, was travelling in a direction away from Zaroshens’ke.
Section 2.8 of appendix x tells us that “The right hand side of the cockpit shows no high energy impact damage”
Yet the AA test showed exit holes in the right hand side of the cockpit when the missile was placed as if coming from Snizhnoe.
http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf
This shows the missile did not come from Snizhnoe
Also if one looks at the slides presented by A-A of their static test on the II-86 it can be seen that, based on their claimed 9N314M frag spread, that for a “Snizhne” launch the forward pressure bulkhead would also have to have been penetrated in order to get the damage pattern seen below the rear port cockpit window on MH17. The area of penetrations/impact marks on MH17 doesn’t begin until just aft of the pressure bulkhead – this makes the nature of the frag spread, which includes sub-munitions and parts of the missile – “shrapnel”, absolutely critical to any analysis of the warhead’s position and direction of travel.
I think there exist a few holes in the pressure bulkhead. (not sure if they are done by shrapnel, though)
The Dutch said there was a distinct line of shrapnel penetrations beginning just aft of the forward pressure bulkhead on the left side of the aircraft extending almost diagonally across the front left window, also the windscreen wiper panel was not damaged. These shrapnel penetrations would indicate the rearmost area of the frag spread for both of the launch scenarios.
If one compares the angles of shrapnel penetrations on MH17’s cockpit and those on the Il-86 (A-A’s simulation of a “Snizhne” launch – missile orientation and warhead position adjusted to represent the motion of the aircraft relative to the warhead) they are quite different. If one uses the frag spread characteristics of a 9N314M warhead, as presented by A-A, and one considers the damage done to the forward parts of MH17’s and the Il-86 cockpits then the angles of shrapnel penetrations on MH17 would probably have been created from a warhead further forward from the aircraft’s nose and created numerous penetrations to the pressure bulkhead in a “Snizhne” launch scenario.
However if one uses the Dutch model of a 9N314M frag spread that version may fit with the surface damage seen on MH17 (including the lack of any distinctive shrapnel penetrations to the forward pressure bulkhead) for a “Snizhne launch”. But for me the angles of the penetrations don’t seem to match the orientation of the missile and position of the warhead that the Dutch used even with their version of the warhead’s frag spread.
IMO:
A-A demo can be ignored as it does not have primary and secondary fragmentation cones of a moving missile.
In A-A demo the secondary cone was mainly shot to sky (even though a few holes appeared to “engine” plates).
And especially the primary fragmentation “disc” of the A-A demo ignores the fact that missile speed affects more the slow & heavy fragments. In real life slow and fast shrapnel penetrate the plane in different angles.
Main issue that I have with DSB analysis is the detonation point of the missile. It looks clear that BUK explosion at ~4m from Boeing777 nose can not blow the cockpit into pieces.
Thank you sotilaspassi for that link to the metabunk thread below this one from Oct 26 where AD discussed that this missile has two layers of fragments(shrapnel).
An inner layer and an outer layer of shrapnel housed in a metal casing.
Which explains a lot of why I-beam or H fragments are so changed in shape and hard to find those penetrations.
They are disfigured with the explosion (mostly) before they are by penetrating the target.
That adds an interesting wrinkle to shrapnel fragment simulations.
Changes in velocity of the three kinds of fragments, trajectories by them bouncing against each other.
It just keeps getting more complicated!
But it does help to explain some strange issues that have come up.
A good read, thanks for sharing.
Fare thee well
Just to clarify: the above would give a point of reference to the speed, distance and direction of the shrapnel between the warhead and the roof. We know that shrapnel didn’t penetrate the forward pressure bulkhead but just aft of it there were penetrations through the cockpit skin, though not through the wiper blade panel, so this would indicate the rear of the frag spread. Penetrations and damage could be seen on the port side window frames and penetrations to remains of the forward port side roof plus grazing and ricochet damage to the top of the starboard side cockpit roof.
From an analysis of these features: the speeds of fragments, their direction and location in a frag spread should verify whether or not they originated from a warhead which, at the moment of detonation, was heading from the direction of Zaroshens’ke and range distance from Zaroshens’ke given the frag spread data we have from A-A. This analysis could be incorporated into a static non-destructive model something like one would use in a wind tunnel test.
Metabunk about A_A demo:
https://www.metabunk.org/almaz-anteys-live-buk-explosion-tests.t6903/
It wound be interesting to know at what distance BUK change from lead point calculated course to pure proportional navigation.
Anyway, IMO, the path will/should curve slightly (away from the center of target) at the last moments of flight before detonation.
(lead point is calculated close to the center of target (sum of echos) while proportional phase I assume it is vs strongest echo of target, for Boeing777, it’s the nose of the plane, especially when coming from ahead and not from side.)
there is some interesting comment from ad_2005 on that site (from our good old friend, I assume 🙂 ), which explains a certain AA slide about bowtie fragments destruction. it reveals that the ca 70% of bowtie fragments deformed at the moment of exposion (due to different layers of preformed fragments in warhead), which can explain why no well recognisable bowtie holes are on MH17 parts.
but for me, the question still remains why there are so well noticable and many bowtie holes Il86 test cockpit in russian experiment? if the fragments deformed already at the explosion, why so many bowtie holes?
someone also posted some photo links about possible bowtie holes (but not from the DSB investigation, but from earlier site photos) – but you really need use your imagination compared to the AA experiment holes.
this mystery lead some people to think that the few bowtie fragments found by DSB was put intentionally or faked. atm I feel this morbid and think very low possibility, in the same time I would expect more holes and bowtie fragments from MH17.
also, he put an interesting information about fragment distribution in warhead which I didnt see yet before:
“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.”
there is some interesting comment from ad_2005 on that site (from our good old friend, I assume 🙂 ), which explains a certain AA slide about bowtie fragments destruction. it reveals that the ca 70% of bowtie fragments deformed at the moment of exposion (due to different layers of preformed fragments in warhead), which can explain why no well recognisable bowtie holes are on MH17 parts.
but for me, the question still remains why there are so well noticable and many bowtie holes Il86 test cockpit in russian experiment? if the fragments deformed already at the explosion, why so many bowtie holes?
someone also posted some photo links about possible bowtie holes (but not from the DSB investigation, but from earlier site photos) – but you really need use your imagination compared to the AA experiment holes.
this mystery lead some people to think that the few bowtie fragments found by DSB was put intentionally or faked. atm I feel this morbid and think very low possibility, in the same time I would expect more holes and bowtie fragments from MH17.
also, he put an interesting information about fragment distribution in warhead which I didnt see yet before:
“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.”
https://www.metabunk.org/almaz-anteys-live-buk-explosion-tests.t6903/#post-167297
If the detonation is closer to cockpit surface and with more shrapnel velocity (especially for heavy bowties), I imagine bowtie caused damage is slightly different looking etc. And the shrapnel cloud is more dense.
IL demo show how the cockpit was not broken into pieces like it happened in Mh17 case.
And I wonder if we ever see the missing/stolen pieces of MH17 cockpit…
BigaC:
If this would be true after 40 years of technical progress by AA it would be sad for our Russian friends, for it would mean a lot of energy of the explosion would be lost in the battle among bow-ties and cubes killing each other. And I don’t buy this obstruction is meant to build maximal tension for the blast.
Makes sense what you say. Shrapnel deforming by itself would be a big waste of energy. I don’t buy that statement either.
maybe the percentages are incorrect but it is a fact that there are many deformed shrapnels seen in AA experiment. and they definitely werent deformed when hitting the thin cockpit hull. but deforming doesnt mean big effect loss, I assume. a deformed I-shape is still dangerous even compared to cube fragment. (and ofc cubes are also deformed if you see AA slide mentioned in earlier post)
BigaC:
Maybe we talk on different wavelength but when we speak about deformed bow-ties it is very important in which stage they were deformed.
1: If they were deformed with the blast it would be too bad because then they could make round holes in the hull. In what case 9N314M would be proven without proof. That’s why we must be critical on alleged blast deformation of bow-ties.
2: The second stage is passing the hull. Only if bow-ties arrive in good shape we can test butterflies. Now you also said ‘they definitely weren’t deformed when hitting the thin cockpit hull’, hence we agree bow-ties came in good order to the hull. Then 80 from 350 holes must be made by intact bow-ties. And because no butterfly was detected in normal science the hypothesis of 9N314M would be falsified.
3: After passing the cockpit hull it is quite uninteresting if bow-ties were demolished meanwhile.
What we see in this report is the over-emphasis on deformed bow-ties AFTER passing the hull, without considering the fact that for penetration into the cockpit the imprint of butterflies on the hull is conditional. And the conditional probability of bow-ties in the cockpit given butterflies on the hull is nearly zero given the fact no butterflies were found from 80 chances out of 350 independent trials. In normal science the hypothesis of 9N314M would be dismissed and the alternative hypothesis 9N314 would be accepted. However this conclusion is not arrived because then it would be questionable how the bow-tie came in the captain’s body in the first place.
MH17 Crash Appendix X.
6.10 Type of damage (page 52 of 72)
The 9M38(M1) missile has a preformed fragmentation warhead. (…) The fragments of a preformed fragmentation warhead are arranged regularly around the circumference of the warhead and stay intact after detonation of the warhead.
AD said AA used ‘specific engineering tool for study high speed penetrations called light-gas gun!’ This gun accelerates bow-ties smoothly apart from each other so they will not be damaged. IMO AD thinks AA first shot bow-ties with light-gas gun on IL86. Then they manipulated photos as if these butterflies came from the blast of a 9N314M warhead. I think AD means otherwise IL86 got no butterflies, just like MH17.
AD wonders why AA did not use squares as with 9N314. But he also says bow-ties are developed especially to cope better with the gas from the explosion. Though deformed they have enough sharp edges to penetrate a hull. Though AD does not like me I like him for his creative mind and outstanding points of view 🙂
“”IL demo show how the cockpit was not broken into pieces like it happened in Mh17 case.”
That was another important aspect of the test: the main frames were not damaged so severely as was the case with MH17. The structural integrity of MH17 was lost due to the striking angles of shrapnel: the lancet/scalpel frag spread cut through and weakened the main frames from STA 143.5 to approximately STA 298.5 on the port side of the cockpit. This was not the case with the A-A test on the IL-86 because the shrapnel penetrated the cockpit at different angles to that seen on MH17 and the structural integrity may not have been so severely weakened. Also, of course, the IL-86 was not subject to the same aerodynamic forces and depressurization issues that MH17 had flying at an altitude of 10 kilometres.
well my rough calculations, if 1870 I-beam fragments exists in the specific warhead:
I assume if 1/6 of fragments reached the cockpit from 360 degree distribution, there are 311 should entered to hull. if the above data from the site is correct, ca 70% of fragments will be deformed at explosion, which means we should get 93 I-beam recognisable, or at least in this magnitude. ofc it is just a voodoo calculation, Im not sure in 1/6 (maybe less), there is a specific calculation about it maybe on this site? though I have no exact sum total of I-beam holes on Il-86 cockpit, I assume it can be around this number, but definitely more than 1-2 “maybe” holes on MH-17.
It’s possible that any distinctive holes made in the contours of MH17’s skin made by I-beam fragments would have been perpendicular and at angles near to perpendicular in relation to the position of the warhead, rather than at more acute angles?
If one considers the lancet/scalpel characteristics of a 9N314M frag spread, as disclosed by Almaz Antey, and the position/orientation of the missile it’s possible that relevant areas of skin were too broken up/missing for any useful analysis of I-beam penetration. I’m thinking, in particular, about the area of the cockpit roof adjoining the port side cockpit windows on MH17 – similar areas of skin seen on the IL-86 (simulating a “Snizhne” launch) do indicate I-beam penetration but, of course, they were still in position.
I would discount any possible internal “I-beam puncture holes” since shrapnel would have probably passed through either the cockpit wall, windscreen or roof of MH17 and become distorted . I believe a photograph taken by Jeroen Akkermans has been circulating on the internet and purported to be an I-beam puncture hole in the what is probably the underside of the cockpit floor and I don’t think that is conclusive – i.e. just a “maybe”.
DSB report: Appendix X (page 18 of 72):
2.5 Number and density of hits:
Number of counted independent hits on the found wreckage: 350. Extrapolation to all hits: 800. Density of cockpit hits 250 per square meter.
2.13 Damage examination conclusion:
Over 350 hits are present on the wreckage of the cockpit and over 800 hits are estimated in total, accounting for the structure of the cockpit that was not available.
So, there are found 350 independent hits on the wreckage of the cockpit. Coming from Shnizhne shrapnel was projected PERPENDICULAR on the cockpit which must have given the biggest chance on butterflies. A quarter of 350 were bow-ties: 87 butterflies for 350 INDEPENDENT holes in the wreckage of the cockpit. So, we expect about 80 butterflies on the wreckage of the cockpit, what is significantly more than zero.
I don’t mind if a 9M314M is used instead of a 9M314 but it goes way too far to accept no butterflies on the wreckage as proof of bow-ties because chances of impressions on the wreckage are low.
It also has been very difficult to grasp from the report that the bow-tie ‘found’ in the body of the captain of team A contains aluminum and zirconium. Linguistic analysis of the text was necessary.
Much better would have been if DSB also made a TNO analysis with 9M314. But that was impossible, for in doing so they implicitly would have acknowledged the possibility of fraud and criminal intent. And now they are trapped in their own tunnelvision with very doubtful proof.
“Coming from Shnizhne shrapnel was projected PERPENDICULAR on the cockpit which must have given the biggest chance on butterflies”
I don’t know by what amount the I-beam fragments might tumble in flight but I would imagine that over a very short range their 2 dimensional shape would be apparent from puncture holes in the skin if their direction was perpendicular or nearly perpendicular to the point of impact. Over a longer range, or on contoured surfaces where the angle of impact is more acute, then evidence of a 2 dimensional I-beam shape having punctured the skin may be far harder to detect and verify.
I would expect the number of detectable I-beam fragment puncture holes on MH17 to be very limited, if indeed there are any, simply because so much of the relevant surfaces are missing. But I agree a “Snizhne launch” scenario would probably create a greater number of perpendicular detectable holes caused by I-beam fragments than a launch from the Zaroshens’ke area if a 9N314M warhead had been used and we use A-A’s frag spread pattern. However too much of MH17’s port side upper cockpit is missing, or not seen by us, to draw any probable conclusions. Certainly an older 9N314 warhead (without I-beam fragments) launched from the direction of the Zaroshen’ke area can not be ruled out on the photographic evidence that I have seen.
– Firstly, it does not matter how much of the cockpit hull has gone and will not be retrieved. What matters is 350 independent holes are found in the hull from which statistically about 80 must be caused by bow-ties. Now it might seem problematic to detect a butterfly on wreckage, but to me it seems a much bigger problem not to see a butterfly with 80 independent and nearly perpendicular shots on very short distance.
– Secondly it is not morbid to hypothesize the golden bow-tie has been shot into the captain’s body by criminals. All hypotheses are valid until falsification. We also hypothesized MH17 can be shot from criminal intent.
– And remember a real scientific institute would have tested 9N314 as well as 9N314M. They simple would have taken 9N314 as control on 9N314M. The latter must explain the damage better. Only a political institute would hesitate, for testing 9N314 implicitly acknowledges the possibility of fraud or criminal intent.
“– Firstly, it does not matter how much of the cockpit hull has gone and will not be retrieved. What matters is 350 independent holes are found in the hull from which statistically about 80 must be caused by bow-ties.”
Sorry I must disagree with you, please see page 14 of appendix x of the DSB report, where it says that the highest density of hits was on the port side middle cockpit window. That area was shattered by shrapnel and the roof above the windows is missing. Beyond that area the shrapnel probably hit the surfaces at more acute angles and with a differing distribution (if one uses A-A’s description of the frag spread) and might not leave reliable indications of I-beam/bow-tie shaped fragment penetrations. Hence the proportion of differing size holes may not be statistically significant beyond the point of highest impact density
Only at the point on the aircraft where there was the highest density of hits due to the orientation/position of the missile and the impact position in the frag spread can one reliably determine the shape and proportions of shrapnel used. If there are no identifiable I-beam/bow-tie fragment penetrations in that area then it’s probable that a 9N314M warhead was not used – unfortunately much of that area is missing.
I agree that if a 9N314M warhead is detonated and the target is left intact there should be a proportion of identifiable I-beam/butterfly/bow-tie shaped holes in the target, which does seem to be the case with A-A’s test on the IL-86 cockpit simulating a “Snizhne launch” where the missile’s position/orientation was different to an alternative “Zaroshens’ke launch“. But in the case of MH17 too much of the relevant areas of skin are missing to draw any probable conclusions regarding the warhead used based on the photographs publicly available.
Just to add:
According to A-A the older 9N314 warhead has two types of striking elements: 4740 8mm x 8mm x 5mm and 1790 13mm x 13mm x 8mm cubes. Where there is an acute angle of strike, i.e. a significantly elongated puncture hole on the skin of MH17, it is quite possible that the hole caused by a 13mm x 13mm x 8mm cube shaped striking element from a 9N314 warhead would not differ markedly from a 13mm x 13mm x 8.2mm I-beam/bow-tie shaped striking element from a 9N314M warhead.
Wind tunnel man:
What you said means 9N314M cannot be proven from the hull:
[But in the case of MH17 too much of the relevant areas of skin are missing to draw any probable conclusions regarding the warhead used based on the photographs publicly available.]
[it is quite possible that the hole caused by a 13mm x 13mm x 8mm cube shaped striking element from a 9N314 warhead would not differ markedly from a 13mm x 13mm x 8.2mm I-beam/bow-tie shaped striking element from a 9N314M warhead.]
And because the probability of bow-ties in the cockpit p(b) is conditional on butterflies in the hull p(b|h), 9N314M could still be true but cannot be proven. But we could accept the alternative hypothesis for squares of 9N314, since the holes in the hull are reasonable according squares. Science can be damned difficult if we want the other way round 🙂
“Secondly it is not morbid to hypothesize the golden bow-tie has been shot into the captain’s body by criminals. All hypotheses are valid until falsification”
and how it could be falsified? and by whom?
and why didnt these criminals shot more fragments into more bodies/parts?
it isnt just morbid but illogical imo…
It could be falsified by DSB by proving p(b|h)> 0.
Why criminals ‘didn’t shot more fragments into more bodies/parts’ is not part of the hypothesis. One bow-tie will do as we have seen in this investigation. Under circumstances it can be quite logical to shoot a bow-tie in a victim of crime.
We are talking about the NLR-CR-2015-155-PT-1 report known as MH17 Crash Appendix X.
‘Investigation of the impact damage due to high-energy objects on the wreckage of flight MH17’.
Personally I don’t mind if it was a 9N314 or a 9N314M but if I was a research institute I would investigate 9N314 as well as 9N314M and certainly would not base my conclusions on circular reasoning as NLR seems to have done. (But maybe there is a lot more proof of 9N314M than given in the DSB-report.)
Besides 9N314M an independent scientific institute should always fit and report the 9N314 model as control on 9N314M. For, maybe 9N314M fits the damage on the wreckage much better. And modeling 9N314 is definitely needed for validation of the end conclusion: it was a 9N314M.
But now it seems NLR has ‘proven’ it was a 9N314M, thereby taking for granted the earlier results of DSB it was a 9N314M. But remember DSB is not a scientific institute. That is the flaw in the NLR report and that’s why this whole operation will not work for court. It looks like circular reasoning unless DSB hides a lot of bow-tie holes found on the hull of the cockpit.
9N314M still might be acceptable but only conditional on the proven passage of the bow-ties through the hull of the cockpit and only measured at the form of the holes in wreckage of the hull itself. Aluminum and zirconium has been evaluated on face value with the naked eye. So if JIT has a lot of proof we will see in their report.
First conclusion NLR report (page 3 of 72):
Results and conclusions
Damage examination
Based upon the damage examination it is concluded that the impact damage on the wreckage of flight MH17 is caused by a warhead with various types of preformed fragments in the 6-14 mm size range,
including one type with a bowtie shape, detonating to the left of, and above, the cockpit.
[We all know cubes of 9N314 are 13x13x8 MM and bow-ties of 9N314M are 13x13x8.2 MM (13×12.75×8 MM). Both fall into the 6-14 mm size range. So, where can I find proof of 9N314M if NLR did not investigate on 9N314?]
Sub-Conclusion NLR:
Scenario 3: Surface-to-Air Missile
Of the investigated warheads only the 9N314M contains the unique bowtie shaped fragments found IN the wreckage. The damage observed ON the wreckage in amount of damage, type of damage, boundary and impact angles of damage, number and density of hits, size of penetrations and bowtie fragments found IN the wreckage, is consistent with the damage caused by the 9N314M warhead used in the 9M38 and 9M38M1 BUK surface-to-air missile.
[This is all crap; this is a scientific mess, since 9N314 will prove the results ON the wreckage of the cockpit hull as good as well. No quite on the contrary, 9N314 will explain the holes IN the hull much better than 9N314M because no bow-ties were found. NLR better separated IN the wreckage from ON the wreckage]
End-Conclusion NLR:
Based on the results of the investigation is concluded that the high-energy object damage observed on the wreckage of flight MH17 is caused by the 9N314M warhead used in the 9M38 and 9M38M1 BUK surface-to-air missile.
[Now, this seems a complete form of circular reasoning as far as 9N314M concerns. They only concluded validly it is no Air to Air Gun and no Air to Air Missile. But the conclusion about 9N314M is not valid]
6.18 Kinematic Fragment Spray Pattern Simulation (page 62 of 72)
We know the two layers of fragments of 9N314M have different speed according to aerodynamic drag and other effects. Now it could be squares arrive earlier at the hull than bow-ties. But remember this does not matter because we found 350 independent holes from which 89 has to be bow-ties. And bow-ties are much larger than squares or filler, so in the conditional probability of bow-ties WITHIN the cockpit we at least expect about 40 bow-tie holes IN the hull.
Basic Dimension you make some valid observations regarding the Dutch report but please also consider that a 9N314 warhead mounted on a 9M38 type missile might not be available for a test firing (if that’s what you mean) because they have been decommissioned and are no longer serviced/maintained, according to A-A. Perhaps the Dutch knew that and didn’t consider the possibility of their use even as a theoretical model.
However unless the merits of A-A’s live static tests are convincingly disproved, on balance, I would favour the scenario of a 9M38 type of SAM missile approaching from a direction much further to the south, at the moment of detonation, than the more easterly direction of Snizhne – this being based primarily on the direction of shrapnel (either I-beam and cubes of two sizes or only cubes of two sizes) through MH17’s outer structures.
Wind tunnel man:
Thanks for your information about outer structures of MH17. At another time I like to hear more about it.
According to A-A, nowadays 9N314 warheads can explode any time after passing their expiration date of 25 years. But I suppose NLR also did no test firing on 9N314M, which is available. If NLR only restricted to theoretical models, there was no compelling reason not to fit 9N314.
You write: ‘Perhaps the Dutch knew that and didn’t consider the possibility of their use even as a theoretical model.’
Well, that’s humor, then they would have chosen 9N314M as corpus delicti because it was available. That settles the matter.
I agree with a SAM missile of the 9M38 type somewhere between Zaroshchenske and Snizhne since I am looking for the combination of:
1: No reaction of the pilots on an incoming missile from the right.
2: Parallel shrapnel makes no butterflies on the hull. (Weak argument)
3: Not enough information and proof about secondary damage on the wing. (Not found)
4: The SBU could be the connection between the alleged BUK in Donetsk and the alleged BUK of a launch site more in the south. Said differently, if separatists on July 17 were touring around Donetsk throughout the day it would be very unlikely they shot down a (civilian) plane at the same day. (Strong argument)
Basic Dimension:
I believe the Dutch based their case on weapons that were currently operational at the time of the MH17 tragedy in an area extending well beyond eastern Ukraine. If 9M314 warheads were unserviceable, or even no longer existed, in that area one can fully understand why they were not included in their analysis.
From what I have heard and read it seems that it was A-A who suddenly introduced the possibility of a 9M314 warhead being used when it was suggested at their press conference in October this year. And that, as we now know, was apparently based on the absence of evidence of I-beam shaped fragments.
So we have a dilemma: one party says there are no 9M314 warheads that could be considered and the other party says that there are no I-beam fragments that could be considered…
Wind tunnel man:
That’s a quite interesting opening:
[So we have a dilemma: one party says there are no 9M314 warheads that could be considered and the other party says that there are no I-beam fragments that could be considered…]
We must stick to the facts:
– Apparently (fragments of) bow-ties are found IN the cockpit, but NO butterflies in the hull.
– What is the likelihood of no butterflies in the hull, given a 9N314M?
– What is the likelihood of found damage to the hull, given 9N314?
– How strong is the demand of the conditional probability of bow-ties in the cockpit given at least one butterfly hole in the hull?
– How strong is proof of aluminum and zirconium on the found bow-tie?
– Are 9N314 warheads still in use in Ukraine and in other countries in the world?
– Can criminality have caused all this misunderstanding?
I think we must make a sharp distinction in mathematical modeling (TNO) and physical inspection and experiments (NLR). What has been the precise relation among DSB, NLR and TNO? Maybe first there was NLR giving their conclusions about bow-ties to DSB. Then DSB asked TNO to fit only 9N314M. But somewhere in this chain it must have gone terribly wrong.
Wind tunnel man:
I sometimes interchanged the roles of NLR (physical inspection) and TNO (mathematical modelling) which gave confusion. But I maintain all of my conclusions.
Basic Dimension:
All I would say about the shrapnel is once it has passed through the outer surfaces and underlying structures of the cockpit (remember forward areas of a cockpit will be reinforced to withstand bird strikes, hail, etc.) it may become deformed and lose some mass. The only sure way of discovering such material’s origin would be to analyze it’s composition and trace that back to a batch of manufactured sticking elements and into which warheads they were installed.
There might be some I-beam/bow-tie striking elements recovered from MH17 that are not badly deformed or lost minimal mass and thus recognizable but I haven’t seen any photos of them.
fact remains,bow-tie frags found,that ties it to 9N314M warhead,claims off no/few bow-tie impact holes as proof they can’t be there are pointless,counter claim is then many more cubic holes needed for 9N314 warhead which is all cubic,Russia’s defense seems to be fixated on claiming it does not have missile used,this switched from ardent but false claims it had no 9M38M1 to even older 9M38 as the first claim fell flat
+1
Part of the Kreml strategy of trying to slow down official and open source investigations. Progress in pinpointing the exact origin of the missile and person that fired the missile is not working for Kreml agenda.
And I’m absolutely sure, if they wanted, RU would have no difficulties in arranging old 9N314 warhead in missile, given to “rebels”. But I’m sure they were/are using 9N314M. (After all, they did not have difficulties either in giving y2013 tanks (with crews) to Ukraine “rebel” forces as well.)
RB2:
[fact remains,bow-tie frags found,that ties it to 9N314M warhead]
is correct but this does not prove 9N314M was the warhead used. It only increases the likelihood.
[,claims off no/few bow-tie impact holes as proof they can’t be there are pointless]
is incorrect since butterflies in the hull or cockpit windows are conditional for shrapnel to enter the cockpit. There are some exceptions of shrapnel going through already-made holes in the hull and butterflies which are not visible by acute angles. But we found 350 independent holes and in statistical sense some butterflies of about 90 should be noticeable in the hull. If not, this lowers the likelihood of 9N314M significantly.
[counter claim is then many more cubic holes needed for 9N314 warhead which is all cubic,]
Falsifying a theory (9N314M) does not mean the duty of proving another one (9N314).
[Russia’s defense seems to be fixated on claiming it does not have missile used,this switched from ardent but false claims it had no 9M38M1 to even older 9M38 as the first claim fell flat]
This might be true but this does not interfere with this investigation.
bow tie frags found does indeed mean 9N314M warhead was used,its core evidence as other possible warhead does not have them and only one SAM detonated
bow-tie like holes have been spotted in MH17 more deformed than AAs test but with added energy off being a real world dynamic event at high alt,you treat AAs test as empirical evidence yet it was static and at a low alt,all key factors and contrary to what actually occurred
Russia claims 9N314 warhead composed of ALL cubes which then according to Russia’s claims should be even clearer on MH17 damage due to amount striking you say has nothing to do with it,it does,Russia’s claim of 9N314 warhead use fails its own “criteria” for 9N314M non-use,a clear folly
> bow tie frags found does indeed mean 9N314M warhead was used
Ukraine could have easily sneaked in a few bow-ties. It would be as easy as tossing them onto the open train transporting the remains of the plane.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/ws/624/amz/worldservice/live/assets/images/2014/11/23/141123145824_mh17_traine_624x351_epa.jpg
But making bow-tie shaped holes would be a lot harder, especially after most fragments have been photographed.
Looking at how many clearly identifiable bow-tie shaped holes were visible on the skin of the plane from the AA experiment was eye opening. It finally convinced me that the board’s priority was a clear political goal: make it look like the Buk was Russian.
To achieve that they also had to:
-Close their eyes to the fact that there are no exit holes on the right side.
-Close their eyes to the fact that the left engine and left wing had shrapnel damage, while it should not.
-Close their eyes to the fact that the right engine and wing had no shrapnel damage, while it should.
-Ignore roof parts from consideration.
-Come up with the dodgy explosion point.
-No to question witnesses on the ground.
-etc, etc, etc
Eugene:
“Ukraine could have easily sneaked in a few bow-ties. It would be as easy as tossing them onto the open train transporting the remains of the plane.”
Please see pages 88 to 95 of the DSB report: one alleged “bow-tie” was found in the cockpit and another alleged “bow-tie” in the captain’s body – these were the only fragments resembling “bow-ties” discussed in the report. The Dutch classed both to have the same composition of elements, i.e. probably manufactured from the same steel plate.
For a few damaged “bow-ties” to be “sneaked in” that would presumably require identical unalloyed steel from the same source steel plate to be found in both locations? Historically maybe all “bow-ties” destined to be installed in all 9N314M warheads operational in that region were manufactured from steel plate(s) having the same composition of elements?
If Ukraine planted a few fragments, the chances are they came from the same source (e.g. picked on a test field somewhere). So I really fail to get your point.
Wind tunnel man:
I can even tell you to where to go to collect a handful of bow-ties from the same missile, if you want to do it yourself. The following is a footage of a premature warhead detonation. The location is known – Chauda firing range. If you look closely you can even see a dust cloud due to the striking elements hitting the ground first, so you’ll know where to look.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b282/Kran2/NTV_2_zpsltvrslpd.gif
Eugene:
So you are accusing some mischievous Ukrainians of planting what could be “bow-tie” shaped fragments, composed of exactly the same type of steel, that they might have picked up from a field test somewhere. I guess you are entitled to propose that theory but it does seem rather far fetched.
Personally I’m not convinced that the two fragments discussed in the DSB report are actually I-beam/bow-tie shaped sticking elements, although the micro CT-image of the fragment found in the captain’s body, shown in the DSB report figure 39, certainly looks as if it could be, i.e. two prongs attached and the other two prongs deformed or missing.
Wind tunnel man:
I was closely watching all the happenings in Ukraine during the past time (being a Ukrainian myself), and have a good feel for their methods. I have no slightest doubt that if Ukraine could affect the outcome of the investigation in their favor they would.
Look from the opposite direction. If Ukraine was forthcoming with help and had no intention to hide anything, why they did not do a field test of their own? They have hundreds of the missiles the DSB report has come up with. Those missiles are aging anyway and past their expiry date. That would be at least an honest way to show that Russia is manipulating the facts. But Ukraine, during the past time, had been so successful with various false flag style provocations, that they simply don’t need to resort to anything honest. I am not delving into Ukraine being a complete puppet state of the US after the revolution.
So, no, that does not look to be a far fetched accusation in the slightest.
I’ll tell you why they would not do a test of their own. Because it would show the same thing as the AA test: the approach from Snizhne must lead to the exit holes on the right side, and lead to other visual consequences not observed on the Mh17 aircraft.
A question to you. Haven’t you seen abundant cases of corruption in real life? Why would you not consider the investigation board being corrupt as a plausible theory?
bow-ties found in remains,claiming they were planted is simply easy way to avoid an uncomfortable fact with zero evidence
bow-tie impacts are visible on MH17 not clean as in static test but to be expected
Exit damage shown on lower right hand side in DSB report
left wing and engine had secondary damage,size ranged from 1mm to 200mm with only 5 impacts between 6mm-14mm and they lacked energy
RB2:
“left wing and engine had secondary damage, size ranged from 1mm to 200mm with only 5 impacts between 6mm-14mm and they lacked energy.”
Sorry I must disagree: please see page 60 of the DSB report where there is a picture of the left engine intake ring showing signs of high energy impacts which penetrated the aluminium structures on the rear of the ring. A-A also has pictures (slides 12 and 13) of the rear of the intake ring showing very similar penetrations through the aluminium that can be seen in the cockpit area.
“left wing and engine had secondary damage, size ranged from 1mm to 200mm with only 5 impacts between 6mm-14mm and they lacked energy.
Sorry I must disagree: please see page 60 of the DSB report”
figures i quote are from the DSB report
http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf
No, windtunnelguy is right. NLR/TNO seems to have misrepresented the damage done to the left engine cowling for example. They only count 5 non-penetrating impacts of preformed frags.
AA slide 12-13 show many full penetrations by preformed fragments, that is: *primary* fragmentation.
Also this finding would be inconsistent with a Snizhne launchsite.
no,DSB report gives figures i quoted
up to you to disprove
http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf
2.11
Other impact damage
They gave figures all right, but they seem to be very wrong here.
I already pointed to you on which AA slides you can watch a far more reliable damage assessment of the left engine cowling.
> bow-ties found in remains,claiming they were planted is simply easy way to avoid an uncomfortable fact with zero evidence.
The usual info-warrior rhetorics. Is it the same RB2 who claimed that the shrapnel distribution presented by AA is physically impossible? For the bow-ties to get inside they must first penetrate through the surface and leave appropriately shaped entry holes visible on the cockpit. There should be roughly the same proportion of bow-tie holes as in the AA experiment or in a rough calculation on paper. Until I see those holes I’ll assume that Ukraine, who had a big role in the investigation, had planted them. It was clearly in their interest to blame Russia. They do this all the time on any pretext they can find no matter how small or ridiculous (anyone remember Ukraine claimed Russia used nuclear bomb against them?). And why the autopsy reports were made classified, again?
> bow-tie impacts are visible on MH17 not clean as in static test but to be expected
This is just another claim of an info-warrior that does not make any scientific sense. Why should the holes made on the speed of 2400 m/s be bow-tie shaped, but the holes made on the speed of 2700 m/s not?
And, please, don’t tell me that you know that when the shrapnel fragments fly they don’t spin.
> Exit damage shown on lower right hand side in DSB report
Care to show me exit holes on this picture, where should be plenty of them?
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/f8a0b1a38e02e79e22d9b4594313feb3-jpg.15635/
Appendix X, section 2.8: No high energy fragments perforated the right hand side of the cockpit. This seems to be inconsistent with south-of-Snizhne launch site
not a good test because kinetic energy is different in real engagement,that changes frag impact behavior and is therefore an unknown,alt can change kill radius so that also in an unknown in their ground test
DSB report shows exit on right side
The info-warriors are so fixated with filling the ether with their inane arguments that they even fail to notice that the AA test, being static, actually works in their favour. In a real world situation we should expect MORE penetration on the right side, not LESS.
From which source have you grabbed this? I recognize it from other pro-Kievites who get their counter evidence out of the Great Unkown.
to be clear,this is AAs second presser event in 4 months on MH17 and core claim of missile used changed radically ,hardly inspires confidence
unfair and ironic to call me an info warrior when your main contention is a super plot that planted frags inside human remains
AAs test was static and at ground level not 10km altitude only relevant if MH17 was hit on the tarmac by basically an IED,kinetic energy of frags much less so all impacts comparisons are guesswork
you believe AAs contention that an all cubic warhead downed MH17 due to lack off clear bow-tie frags impacts of a sufficient (to you) number but same criteria applied to 9N314 cubic frag warhead fails also,this mean criteria is wrong
frags do spin,that point does not help your case on clear impact shapes
exit hole on right side is shown in DSB report suggest you read it
R2B, if you want to make an argument against an experiment under lab conditions, you can always make a case it doesn’t represent reality in full. But thats how science works. It creates models of reality, simplified and controlled.
This having said AA accounted for impact vectors by correcting the angle of detonation, according to the experiment that validated their model. So now its your task to show why *this* simulation, that is of a dynamic situation under static conditions, is not a good representation. Just claiming it isn’t reality won’t do, thats very unscientifical.
Furthermore, if the simulation is adequate, the speed of the missile and plane only add value to velocityvectors, not direction. But my guess is the hihger the kinetic energy of the frags, the higher the probability they will penetrate with high energy through the right side of the cockpit, exiting there.
So if AA proves there are high energy exits at the right side of the cockpit and MH17 doesn’t show these, as is confirmed by the NLR in section 2.8, then you have an argument against een Snizhne launch site.
Great reply as always, Hector.
> the speed of the missile and plane only add value to velocity vectors, not direction
The info-warriors are so fixated with filling the ether with their inane arguments that they even fail to notice that the AA test, being static, actually works in their favour. In a real world situation we should expect MORE penetration on the right side, not LESS.
Well, we all want to find the perpetrators of this assault and RB2 is no exception. His comments show a lot of technical insight which is very much needed. For all of us it is difficult to fight this battle till the end in good harmony. But we have to do it for the victims, nobody wanted this.
“the speed of the missile and plane only add value to velocity vectors, not direction”
velocity is directional aware
RB2:
Please consider the the frag spread angles of a 9N314M warhead, as disclosed by A-A: in a static situation the front most angle of the frag spread is 68 degrees and the rearmost angle is 126 degrees relative to the missile’s longitudinal axis. If we change the horizontal angle of the missile by 16.5 degrees the angles of the front most and rearmost spreads will change by 16.5 degrees from their original position – I’m not considering any changes to the missile’s vertical angle nor position in this example. A-A calculated this modified angle for their test in order to simulate the relative movements of the aircraft and missile (see slides 34 to 47.) On the IL-86 target it looks like the frag spread did impact as would be predicted from a static missile placed at that horizontal angle. If their calculations are correct for the missile’s orientation and position simulating a “Snizhne launch” then the damage seen must surely give some indication of the damage that one might expect to see on MH17 also from a “Snizhne launch”.
For me the angles of shrapnel impact on MH17 don’t correspond to the impact angles on the IL-86, so I think a “Snizhne launch” is very unlikely given the pattern of damage that one sees caused by A-A’s test. Admittedly the lancet/scalpel form of the fragmentation spread would not occur from a static missile but never-the less I think it has some validity.
would disagree,kinetic energy is less and low alt test is ignoring reality of what happens at high alt,these are all factors that are ignored in AA test therefore tells us little,if Russia as represented by AA had real faith in this they could as many believers thought they were going to do have performed a live downing with DSB reps present,they chose not too and instead leaves ppl once again going “what if”
they could also have released a report on this,have yet to see one,relying on a few slides etc is not really good enough
A live test for me always has greater validity than any theories, A-A demonstrated 9N314M firings on targets and it’s only the authenticity of those tests that can be questioned. If authentic, which I have no reason to doubt, then it’s only the validity of the tests and the results that matter. On analysis of the tests and results people can decide whether they have any merit or not, personally I think they have some merit but that is just my opinion based on the data that A-A presented.
Wind tunnel man
“I think they have some merit but that is just my opinion based on the data that A-A presented.”
as is your right.each to his own,boring World otherwise
“The info-warriors are so fixated with filling the ether with their inane arguments that they even fail to notice that the AA test, being static, actually works in their favour”
again you are getting over excited and being insulting,very unseemly
static test also works in no ones favor,tells us very little we did not know just aids AA in causing confusion,
> static test also works in no ones favor
Shell I remind you that we’ve been talking about the exit holes on the right side? We do observe them in the AA experiment. To which you presented the counter argument stating that the AA experiment is not appropriate as it is only static (obviously implying that if it was not static then we would not see the exit holes, and thus cannot use the test for judgement). To which Hector replied, that in the real life we should see more holes because the shrapnel pieces would have a bit greater kinetic energy. It is in this sense I meant that the static test works in your favour.
An alternative explanation: if static test shows holes then in real life there must be holes. But the contrary is not generally true: static test not showing holes does not immediately lead to the conclusion that in real life there cannot be holes.
I am getting trivial here.
> [static test] tells us very little we did not know just aids AA in causing confusion
It quite convincingly tells us, for example, that we should see quite a few bow-tie shaped holes in the cockpit. It also tells us that we should expect to see the high energy exit holes on the right side. I understand, that it can make you uncomfortable, as it speaks against the theory you so keenly support.
Please refrain from propaganda statements like “The Russians are only adding confusion”. It shows arrogance and fundamentalism.
“Please refrain from propaganda statements like “The Russians are only adding confusion”. It shows arrogance and fundamentalism”
I stated AA only adding to confusion not Russians,please be sure to read posts before commenting.
AA did indeed cause confusion,including their claims of what missile was used and what missiles Russia has is on record,this record is not good
their strong claim to DSB of bow-tie weight at minimum weighing 7.2g after penetration seems to be contradicted by their own test,
claims that engine was hit by primary fragments also seems erroneous.
We are also discussing a test and counterclaim which they did not see fit to release a report on merely slides
nice to see the site back up
Site was down again because of bandwidth exceeded. My website hosting company limits the bandwidth.
PDF’s are being accessed very frequently. This takes relatively a lot of bandwith.
I had to remove those. And will restore them on another location.
If the pdf’s were downloaded as a part of a sort of DOS attack (to exhaust your bandwidth), then by removing them you will not achieve much, as they can start downloading other large files, such as pictures. Of was it a naturally heavy traffic?
PS: it’s great to have the site back
The PDF’s are by far the largest files. So for now the issue is fixed and I learned a lesson.
RB2:
So now AA isn’t just a tool of Putin’s evil schemes? You never cease to suprise me, though I must say the feeling is coming over me you are just playing some semantic game here.
Furthermore, the assertion AA (or Russians or Putin) are adding confusion is completely dependent of your position in this debate. I think, on the contrary, they have clarified a lot.
Their claims about warhead (and missile used) resulted from the experimental results. Where do they say bow-ties should weigh 7.2 g or more after penetration?
The claim about the left engine erroneous? You must be joking. In their first experiment they proved them in the “trap” set up to catch them after a Zaroschenskoye compliant detonation. They even provided a number of hits to be seen at MH17.
Second, they perfomred a far more better damage assessment of the left emgine cowling than the DSB, as it seems.
Third, the only model we have access to, the one from metabunk’s Mick West, corroborates these finding.
Hector
you accuse me of playing semantics yet i said AA were causing confusion and not as you maintained Russia and accused me of “fundamentalism”,the courtesy of an apologize is beyond you it seems but however ppl seem to overreact to things so we will move on.
Hard to deny AA caused confusion,claimed in one presser 9M38M1 missile downed MH17 then switched to 9M38 in the next,reason given no proof off bow-tie frags fact DSB found and showed them met with a shrug, fact they were caught out also claiming Russia had no 9M38M1 may be a point to note,
In reason given to DSB to disallow bow-tie frag found,they stated one was 5.5g which they claimed should be 7.2g at least,yet their own test show ones much less,
Damage to left engine measured and checked,only 5 measured in primary frag range of 6mm-14mm and these lacked full penetration,these are figures from DSB report and simply denying them is not good enough
Mikes model shows engine in path of secondary frags as DSB proved
no,again exit hole on right side is included in DSB report,direction of impact from upper left side,why keep saying no exits on right side? and if this is the case and you claim Snizhne launch requires it does that confirm Snizhne launch?
> exit hole on right side is included in DSB report
One piece can easily be a result of a ricochet (do you know the exact location of that one hole, btw?). The problem is that we need to see multiple exit holes right here:
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/f8a0b1a38e02e79e22d9b4594313feb3-jpg.15635/
RB2:
The NLR says clearly in section 2.8 NO *high energy fragments* exited the right side.
That is alluding to (preformed) fragments having lost relatively less energy after perforating the left side of the cockpit hull.
They found exits from other parts allright, frags from the inner side of the cockpit for example, but that is another matter.
now you assume there is only one when before you assumed none,why not more? you seem to be changing the goalposts as we go
Eugene:
“A question to you. Haven’t you seen abundant cases of corruption in real life? Why would you not consider the investigation board being corrupt as a plausible theory?”
(Sorry I’m not sure how one replies to a question on this page, in the correct place, if there is not a reply option.)
Accusations of falsifying evidence is extremely serious, you may indeed have witnessed corruption, but unless there is irrefutable proof that it happened in the MH17 inquiries then it is probably wise not to comment.
> there is not a reply option
The site does not allow too deep replies.
> Accusations of falsifying evidence is extremely serious
Surely governments want you to believe this. The difficulty is that most corruption happens below the “provable beyond a reasonable doubt” level. They’ve learnt how to do it (I can send you to look into the lecture fees of the members of the Clinton family, if you want examples).
> irrefutable proof that it happened in the MH17 inquiries then it is probably wise not to comment.
As I posted before, I could not come up with other explanations than corruption to the obvious miscalculation of the detonation point (as can be seen in an earlier post here.
https://whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/simulation-versus-facts-of-mh17-missile-damage/)
Can you please help me? Please, give me another possible explanation.
It says there “The Dutch argued the the stringing method could not be used to decide the exact location of the missile blast”. But I fail to see why. Anyone knows their argumentation? I can speculate they meant that the shock wave bends the surface before the shrapnel leaves marks, but this would not apply to the near-tangential marks, and those are enough to pinpoint the location (different from the one by the DSB).
Eugene:
“Can you please help me? Please, give me another possible explanation.
It says there “The Dutch argued the the stringing method could not be used to decide the exact location of the missile blast”. But I fail to see why. Anyone knows their argumentation? I can speculate they meant that the shock wave bends the surface before the shrapnel leaves marks, but this would not apply to the near-tangential marks, and those are enough to pinpoint the location (different from the one by the DSB).”
That’s a good question, perhaps they thought the stringing method was more applicable to a static target as opposed to a moving target travelling at 252m/s. Imagine if you had a high powered rifle and were allowed to take two shots on a calm day at the side of a high sided lorry travelling from left to right at 80kph across your aiming position. The first shot you take, at very close range, goes straight through the lorry and from that the stinging method could be used to easily determine your position if the lorry was moved back to it’s position when you fired. Now the second shot you take is at a much longer range and the bullet does not hit where you aimed but further back, yet the bullet still goes through the lorry. When the lorry is moved back to it’s position when you fired you would be left of the stringing direction. The amount the stringing was from you would equal the distance the lorry travelled between you pulling the trigger and the bullet hitting. So we have to account for the speed of the bullet, the range distance and the speed of the lorry.
So for the stringing method with MH17, although the range distances would be small between warhead and aircraft and practical, perhaps they didn’t have any definable points further aft, particularly the top of the roof, from which to calculate the warhead’s position accurately.
Yes, I see what you explain might be confusing to some. But for me, however, it is not. I do professionally work with analytical mechanics and things such as the Galilean transformation (the one that is directly related to what you say) are not hard for me to understand (even the Lorenz transform is easy if you practice a bit).
> When the lorry is moved back to it’s position when you fired you would be left of the stringing direction.
If you look in the reference frame of the lorry then the apparent problem that you describe disappears. This is exactly what we do with the Mh17 detonation point. We don’t search for it in the world r.f but in the plane r.f.
So, try looking for another explanation, please.
Assuming that we know speed and direction of the plane quite precisely. The transformation will be trivial indeed. But I guess, what Wind tunnel means, is that the trajectories from the explosion point to the holes will not be straight lines anymore. Hence, string method will fail.
However, DSB should have still identified the expected spread on fuselage assuming static explosion, and then, using known speeds of plane and rocket and direction of the plane, demonstrated the modification of the spread for different directions of the rocket. This way they would have to deal with differences and not with absolute values, which would drastically improve sensitivity of the analysis. It is quite unprofessional for them not to do it. Especially if A-A provided them the starting point. Obviously they could put missile speed as another parameter.
> But I guess, what Wind tunnel means, is that the trajectories from the explosion point to the holes will not be straight lines anymore.
They will be straight. Galilian transformations transforms trajectories of particles moving at constant speed from straight lines to straight lines. There will be some deceleration of the fragments due to drag, but the resulting deviation of trajectories from being straight will be measured in microradians if not less.
And don’t get me started on the quality of the technical research in the report. But I’ll mention one thing. If you try to reproduce anything from the report related to their core conclusion (the one about about the launch location) you’ll immediately fail for the lack of exposed details and their vague language.
Eugene:
“So, try looking for another explanation, please.”
OK, how about this – relevant to MH17’s “missing” roof: you are on a tower with a low velocity rifle and two large birds are approaching you. They are close together, one directly behind the other, in straight and level flight and slightly lower than you. You take aim at the leading bird, pull the trigger but miss and hit the following bird.
The point of aim that you used is the equivalent to the theoretical point of impact of a shrapnel fragment on MH17’s roof if it was static. When you pulled the trigger that was the equivalent of the detonation but MH17 wasn’t static it was moving toward the warhead’s point of detonation and thus the actual impact point is further back on the roof that the theoretical static impact point, but the angles of penetration would be the same relative to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. Like you on the tower not having changed the vertical angle of the rifle, the range distance being the same and the birds flying straight and level.
So any stringing done from the impact puncture would not point to the actual position of the warhead at the moment of detonation it would be slightly higher. The forward movement of the aircraft would have be taken into account and the warhead’s calculated position lowered. The amount may be small but it could be significant if attempting to demonstrate the position of the warhead relative to the other penetrations further forward with stringing alone.
Just to add: unless the shrapnel fragments were subjected to a very strong crosswind their paths from the point of detonation would not curve or bend over the range relevant to the MH17 tragedy.
However if the target was turning then, from the perspective of the target, the shrapnel would appear to take a distinctive curved path. In relative terms: the aircraft swerved away from the direction of shrapnel or the shrapnel swerved away from the aircraft. From the perspective of the missile, at the moment of detonation, the shrapnel would maintain a straight path.
Any notions of the shrapnel taking a curved path over the range being discussed here must be dismissed since the aircraft was flying straight and level and the effect of any crosswind on the shrapnel is insignificant.
> but the angles of penetration would be the same relative to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft
No, they would not be the same because of the birds’ speed.
I see, you are getting confused. Most people, reasoning like you, would get confused. There is nothing wrong with this. But it would be very wrong if the board used your reasoning, as it would mean they are incompetent to solve the problem at hand.
The phenomenon you describe should disappear if you start drawing things on paper. I will try to explain to you now, but before you come back with the issue again, you must try to carefully reproduce the problem on paper for yourself.
Newton has taught us that there are inertial reference frames and if something moves without acceleration in one inertial reference frame, it will move without acceleration in ALL other inertial reference frames. Moving without acceleration in an inertial reference frame means moving along a straight line. Thus the shrapnel fragments will be moving along straight lines regardless of whether you are watching them from the point of view of the missile, the plane or the ground. These lines will not be parallel to each other in general, but they’ll be straight.
To your bird example. Imagine you are the bird. What you’ll see is that at one point a bullet appears and starts moving along a straight line (in you bird r.f) till it hits you. The hole the bullet will make in you will be directed along this line – the line along which the bullet was moving in your (bird) reference frame.
In reality the shrapnel fragments will decelerate a bit due to air drag, which would mean that in the plane r.f. their trajectories will not be straight lines but parabolas (for constant deceleration, or something more complicated for a more complicated deceleration law). But the deviation of the parabolas from straight lines will be so minuscule that it will be dwarfed by any other errors in the analysis. A rough conservative estimation gives the figure for the deviation from straightness of 0.13 degrees (for perpendicular approach, less for a Z-launch, and even less for an S-launch). You will not be able to distinguish with your eyes a curve curved that much from a straight line. The stings in the stringing attempt by the investigators bent much more than that.
Does your nickname has anything to do with your profession, may I ask?
> However if the target was turning then, from the perspective of the target, the shrapnel would appear to take a distinctive curved path.
You are obviously not a technical person as you don’t have an out-of-the box grip for numbers. The shrapnel will spend only around 2 ms in free flight/interaction. During this time the plane can turn no more than a tenth of a degree (if it was turning at all).
Eugene:
The following bird will take the position of the leading bird due to it’s forward speed relative to the speed of the bullet; the angle of hit will be the same relative to your position since you took aim at the leading bird, but whilst the bullet was travelling the following bird moved forward to your point of aim.
So any puncture holes in the roof, where there is an indication of direction, would be further aft of any calculated theoretical puncture hole (your aiming point at the leading bird) if the aircraft was not moving toward the point of detonation. Hence with any stringing done from puncture holes, indicating the warhead’s position, the further aft one goes the greater the inaccuracy of the result due to the relative speeds of shrapnel and aircraft.
The swerving aircraft was just an exaggerated example of how the shrapnel would appear to have a curved path from the perspective of the aircraft. Which was not the case with MH17 so I used that extreme example to show that a curved shrapnel path was not possible from the perspective of the aircraft.
Yes wind tunnel R&D on Airbus – the complex contours on the forward section of the fuselage were quite a challenge.
Wind tunnel man:
What you are missing is that while the hole in the bird is being made the bird is moving. This results in the hole in the bird not being directed at exactly towards the shooting location. If you drew it on paper you’d get it.
Imagine you are scratching a polystyrene block. You get a scratch mark. But if someone is moving the block as you are scratching it the scratch mark will be directed differently. Got it now?
Eugene:
“What you are missing is that while the hole in the bird is being made the bird is moving. This results in the hole in the bird not being directed at exactly towards the shooting location…”
The bird at the aiming point (the leader) and the bird actually hit (the follower) will have been hit at the same angle. I agree that the greater their speed relative to the speed of the bullet the greater the direction to which the shooting position would have to be adjusted (when considering the angle between the entry and exit holes determined by the relative speeds of the bullet and the bird.)
I think the distance between the point of aim and the point of hit, i.e. the distance travelled by the following bird, would be more significant in determining the shooting position than the small change in angle due to the relative speeds of the bird and projectile. Remember I’m using this example where a projectile hits a moving target from a very acute angle when range distance is critical to determine a shooting position.
> I think the distance between the point of aim and the point of hit, i.e. the distance travelled by the following bird, would be more significant in determining the shooting position than the small change in angle due to the relative speeds of the bird and projectile.
That correction will be exactly equal to the amount needed to bring your example in agreement with what I keep saying. The hole on the bird will be pointing to exactly where the shooter was in the birds frame when he pulled the trigger.
Unfortunately you fail to see this from the argument about the inertial reference frames.
Newton and Einstein taught us that all inertial frames have equal rights. So when sitting in the bird r.f. you don’t even have to take existence of other frames into the consideration. You just observe: “here comes a bullet and makes a hole”. If the hole was not aligned with the bullet trajectory (in that frame!) then Newton and Einstein would have a problem with their postulates.
What is worrying is the the DSB could have had similar problem with applying high school physics principles. Their head certainly could, judging by his background.
Eugene:
“What is worrying is the the DSB could have had similar problem with applying high school physics principles. Their head certainly could, judging by his background.”
Perhaps that’s why they failed to convincing indicate the warhead’s position relative to a forward moving target using the stringing method.
> What is worrying is the the DSB could have had similar problem with applying high school physics principles. Their head certainly could, judging by his background.
Possibly. If their argumentation against the stringing method is like yours then it’s best to keep it to themselves, which seems to be what they are doing.
But more likely, the real argumentation against the stringing method is that it unambiguously points to a correct explosion location, which does not work well with the narrative they were set to drive.
Whatever the exact position of the warhead which exploded left and up and very near to the MH 17 cockpit, there is a contradiction in the DSB report.
page 92 , table 11
One (!!) bow-tie formed shrapnel (nr.20, 5,7 g) was found in the pursers body, another one (!!) cubic formed (nr.15, 1,3g) in the body of the first officer. None (0!) shrapnel in the captain.
Purser and 1.officer had 100 to 120 (respectively) metal parts (no warhead shrapnel) in their bodies. Source? Outer parts of a BUK warhead? Metallurgical investigation of these little parts? A lot of question-marks!
Besides the fact that these two shrapnels are missing about 25 % of their weight (compared to a BUK shrapnel) they seem to be DSBs only h a r d evidence for a BUK. The other shrapnells were collected in Nov.2014 in wreckage parts.
There should be much more than 1 (one!) shrapnel in a body, when a BUK explodes about 5 m from the cockpit. If in this sector we have let us say about 10 % of 7600 shrapnel, we would expect in an area of 2x2m= 4 sqm about 19 shrapnels in a 10x10cm area.
This number is the minimum to expect in a body so near to a BUK detonation, as assumed.
Reality check also to this thread.
9M38 and 9M38M(1) launched from Zaroshchenske:
-would detonate on right side of the MH17.
-would cause shrapnel movement from right to left
-would have been seen by eyewitness
On MH17 we see the exact opposite:
-detonation happened on the left side of the plane
-shrapnel traveled from left to right
-missile launch (+launcher) was seen from south of snizhne, not from Z
A-A chopping off another cockpit for new demo:
Just kidding… but look how strong the forward fuselage is on tiny airliner!
Now image a jumbo-jet, like MH17.
I might one day have my summary/review of A-A material, but it seems I would have too much to write about…