1. WeeBee

    WeeBee New Member


    Like many of you I have spent some time behind my computer the last 3 weeks, in search of any information objective enough to be deemed trustworthy. My work ethos is following a line of logical thinking, provided by factual information. I hold a Master's degree in behavioural research. I am close to someone that lost both her aunt and uncle in flight MH17.

    One analysis that I had not seen until today, which I found on Reddit is located here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByibNV3SiUoobnpCVDduaHVORHM/view?sle=true

    From what I can gather, it seems the author does not agree with other information on the possible location of a BUK-M1 launcher south of Snizhne that could have brought down flight MH17.

    I am having difficulties with following the line of reasoning in the analysis, so I would be very grateful if someone could help me with the following:

    • The location of impact of the missile with MH17 seems to be crucial in the analysis, as this location ultimately excludes the possibility of a BUK-M1 launcher south of Snizhne

    To answer the question of impact location we can not rely on 1) auditory information or 2) visual information. One way of pinpointing this location is by knowing the exact location of loss of radar contact. However, this requires an answer on the following questions to assertain loss of radar contact as an accurate and valid measure of missile impact location:

    • How often does the airplane collect radar position data?
    • How often does the black box send out this data to the Ukrainian Air Traffic Control?
    • How long is the delay of information relay to the UATC (i.e. how far could MH17 have travelled before the data of the last know location is obtained by the UATC)?

    I hope you guys can help answer these questions and provide further re-analysis of this data.

    Thank you.

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Aug 7, 2014
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The last location on the Flight Aware track is 48.135, 38.503 within range.

    The final location in the FR24 ADS-B derived data is 48.0403,38.7728, this is beyond the actual crash site, and is likely an extrapolation.

    Yellow line here is 35 km. The range of a BUK.


    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Aug 7, 2014
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. WeeBee

    WeeBee New Member

    Thanks Mick. However, these are data from flight tracking websites, and I can not find any information on how often these are refreshed. From Wikipedia I gather that a standard FDR collects data on most parameters several times a seconds, and may increase this when there are sudden changes in the parameter.

    So in short, how accurate are the data you have given?

    EDIT: It looks like Flight Aware only gathers once every minute from that table. That could come down to a maximum of 15 kilometers difference (900/60).
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Probably only within a minute. Apparently there is some more accurate ADS-B data available somewhere.

    But the actual radar used by ATC is accurate down to about a few seconds.
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That's FlightRadar, which uses ADS-B. The position are extrapolated from actual data which is recorded every few seconds.
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And the point here is that they are not inconsistent with the proposed launch location near Snizhne.
  7. WeeBee

    WeeBee New Member

    Thanks for the info, I am really grateful for what you do and how you do it. Your answer leaves me with some questions:

    1) Why does FR24 or FA extrapolate data? Wouldn't the absence of data return an invalid or non-existent number? Or is this what is represented by the FR24 parameters 'radar_id' 1032 and 5913?

    2) We still do not know the data on the FDR, which is a crucial part of the validation of the last known position.

    3) The biggest difference between the two theories is that in the article the authors assume that after missile impact:

    In other to verify this assumption it is important to know whether:

    1) A missile with such specifications as hypothesized will bring an airplane to an almost (2-3 km further for the furthest away debris, 'piece of fuselage from behind cockpit', hitting the earth in around 3 minutes) dead stop or whether it will allow the airplane to continue travelling (20-30 km). Is this known?

    2) How strong the effect of the wind (and which direction it) was blowing the parts away from its original location when starting to fall towards the earth. Did anyone (e.g. a physicist) do an estimated calculation on this?

    Thanks again.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2014
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Regarding a "ballistic trajectory", an airplane is not a cannonball. Once it has disintegrated it will decelerate quite rapidly.
  9. Master Yoda

    Master Yoda New Member

    Please keep in mind that only Flightradar24.com has ADS-B coverage over Ukraine. Flightaware.com doesn't so they have to estimate the flight path over that area.

    Can be found here:

    Isn't it possible that the ADS-B transmitter from MH17 didn't send reliable data anymore after the plane was hit? Other than that my only guess would also be that their last 2 position reports (after 13.19 UTC) are extrapolated.
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It extrapolates data to provide a nice smooth line in the web browser. The figures given above are from the database, which is not the same as the raw ADS-B data.

    But it's unclear why the last figure is so far beyond the crash site. There's some discussion here:
    The other source is:
  11. Juha

    Juha Member

    Attack patterns of BUK M1.


    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 7, 2014
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    We have the plane travelling at 500mph speed, round figure. Missile approaches at three times that, ie 1500. If the missile were a large brick wall, that would be a sudden stop. If the top of the missile just flipped open and loose shrapnel came out, that would also be doing 1500. Actually the shrapnel is thrown out by detonation, in a hollow cone about 60 or 65 degrees. They're not brick walls, either. Imagine rocks thrown at your car -- they won't stop it.

    BUT - the missile is pushing a "bow wave" ahead of it, I really don't know the pressure of that but the speed must be at least the same as the missile is moving. So that is a head-wind three times the speed of the plane. That is a sudden stop. On top of that there is a shock wave from the detonation, some of which gets inside.

    This is an instant stall, so it would start to drop. It won't go nose down immediately, but with the port engine out and some port wing control surfaces damaged, it will start to yaw and bank to the left. The starboard engine is still working. This might turn the stall into a slow spiral dive. As the g forces tear off the damaged forward fuselage, parts of the skin and all the front passengers fall onto Petropavlivka. (Everyone is dead or at least unconscious from the shock waves of the sudden stop, very seriously concussed. Everyone who was belted in also has fractured hips or pelvises and possibly skulls from hitting the seat in front).

    In two miles it is over Rozspyne where the floor tears through enough to shake off the cockpit area. This changes the centre of gravity enough to slightly flatten out the dive. It also turns fairly sharply left. Another 5 miles away it is over Grabovo, where the left wing tip, tail and rear fuselage finally rip off (g forces), spilling passengers and cargo. The centre section and 1 1/2 wings, right engine still running, continue on nearly another mile to crash, in a fairly flat attitude and not going fast, maybe only 200 mph by now. Remaining passengers are ejected (up and sideways, which is how so many ended outside the burn area). The fuel tanks break and the fuel catches fire.

    This is under 300 yards from a residential area, so the fire brigade is there within minutes. The fire is not very hot, it is just evaporated fuel, though some items catch fire and smoulder for a day. (I suspect a lot of the interior walls would burn, they don't seem to be anywhere at all; and of course seat cushions and carpeting).

    Natural wind speeds should not too relevant when there is so much directional air pressure applied by the missile and detonation shock waves. Things fell apart from that, and the decompression, and the g forces of the stop and the stall dive.

    I think it was no more than about 3 miles west of Petropavlivka when the missile detonated. Witnesses there saw it "spinning down" before bodies started to fall out. I've not seen interviews with direct witnesses from Rozspyne. Witnesses in Grabovo "heard the hum of a plane, then it turned towards us and bodies started to fall out" then it crashed and caught fire. Many in both places at first thought they were being bombed, until the falling objects came close enough to recognise.

    If it had been just 1 mile further east when hit, there would have been substantial casualties on the ground in the two end villages.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    Just a couple of inaccuracies I spotted.

    Military Today - "So if required each TELAR vehicle can operate autonomously. The radar detects aircraft flying at altitude over 3 km at a range of 65-77 km. Detection range is reduced to 32-41 km when aircraft fly at 30-100 m above the ground. Low-flying aircraft are detected at a range of 21-35 km."

    "A Buk TELAR vehicle is fitted with radar, digital computer, missile erector and launcher, friend or foe identification system."

    According to Interarms the range of the 9M38M1 is 42Km.

    As a general aside, it sure gets ranty at the end, removing any pretence of it being an unbiased piece.

    Ray Von
  14. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    The various crowd-sourced radar tracking sites originally gave different routes for MH17 and numerous other planes in that area. This was explained by their not having enough receivers on the ground, so "joining the dots" to fill in gaps of true recording. I know at least one of them will give you a receiving unit for free, if you're in a poorly covered area and agree to run it 24/7. I also recall one of them contributing some of the early strange altitude figures for MH370. So I would not trust them to be much more accurate than the guy who wrote that document, who based his location on what time people in another town heard an explosion.

    Yes that document does get a "bit ranty" at the end. The author was advised to keep that tone out of the main document, to make it more credible and neutral looking.

    HERE I thought I lost it in the last browser crash. But no

    There are some very cogent comments on that blog, a good view of how the "other side" sees this.

    Definitions: "junta" is the separatists' word for the government in Kiev, "terrorist" is that government's word for the separatists, "pro-Russian rebel" is a Western expression for them.
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal Member

    Exactly my thoughts. Also I am wondering about these numbers a bit. It's not like the radar waves magically disappear after 77 km but rather the returning signal is to weak to be received by the station. As far as I know these numbers are used for military airplanes. Here is an example of what I mean:

    RCS stands for Radar Cross Section and measures the detectability of an object by radar.

    Now I am no radar expert but shouldn't a radar, which can detect a MiG-21 at let's say 65 km, be able to detect a Boing 777 at a far greater distance?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    That depends on what is limiting the distance. At some point the curvature of the earth will limit you.

    If it's just signal strength, doubling the distance will quarter the signal. But I think that a larger target would be trackable at a larger distance.
  17. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    I think the report is a bit suspect as it takes all Russian data as fact and all opposing data as being from unreliable sources. When it comes to the Russian media presentation and data, there are many postings on this site that show contradictory evidence. The "SU25" shown on RADAR, for example, mysteriously hovers in mid air before disappearing. Aircraft can't do that and the return appears to be debris from MH17.

    It is also loaded with hyperbole in places:

    I certainly have not seen any clamor for a global war from western countries and I read the news every day.

    The closing is an impeachment of the premise that the report fairly reviews the known data:

  18. Sgt.Tinfoil

    Sgt.Tinfoil Member

    I don't see nothing wrong with this.

    Maybe it would be usefull to stick with official Russian data not reprinted Russian media stuff and tinfoil theories from there.

    So let's see what is wrong with this

    Fairly hard worded statement but the endgame is Nazi Svobodan party has now 3 ministers of cabinet thus making it second biggest party in cabinet.

    Well that has been proven right that Ukrainian army has been attacking residental areas killing civilians. Just go to youtube and search "residental area shelling donetsk". What comes to ballistic misles there was one report
    which claimed so. I think that was a bogus news because no other media picked up the story. To be honest that can be an honest mistake because media which was reporting that was USA so there was no reason to thnk that it was propaganda.

    This really did happend. Don't know about raping but she was strangled with telephone cord.

    Sorry for offtopic but since the sources reputation is questioned by the data then it should be shown where the source was wrong.
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal Member

    Correct me if I am wrong but for an objekt in 10 km altitude the curvature of the earth should be no problem unless it is veeeeery far away.

    This goes along with the following data:

    Aso let's not forget that size is just one parameter:
    http://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedia/Navy handbook/4.11 Radar Cross-Section (RCS).pdf
    A Boeing 777 is not really stealthy when it comes to its shape...
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, 400+km. So other factors will likely be more important first.

    • Useful Useful x 1
  21. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Guys don't forget radar is a bounced signal. Imagine shining a flashlight on a distant mirror. A larger mirror will be easier to aim at from a distance, and a huge torch with D cells will go further than a button-battery keyring toy light. And a smashed mirror won't give a good reflection back. With "acquisition" for shooting purposes, you also want to be able to keep following it once you've seen it, which implies fast mechanical movement, coupled with electronics that will keep it turned in the right direction according to the movements of the target. Radar that locks on and follows you is fancier than a static one that just paints whatever happens to pass by, then lets them go.

    A very simple cheap homing missile won't even emit its own radar, it will just pick up scatter from one YOU aim at the target from the ground. So it's up to you to illuminate the target for it. Someone bumps your elbow, it lights up your friend alongside the target, OOOPS, friendly fire error.
  22. Hannibal

    Hannibal Member

    The new government was elected by the same parliament that was elected in 2012. The government was elected by 371 of 449 members of the Verkhovna Rada and even the Party of the Regions voted 94 to 1.
    And the Svobodan is only second biggest party because besides the 6 Batkivshchyna and the 3 Svoboda ministers there are 11 non-partisan ministers. So your statement is very missleading.

    The claim that "the neoNazis in Ukraine overthrow a democratically elected government" is just plain wrong.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. WeeBee

    WeeBee New Member

    I think it is going a bit off-topic know. At least I lost track.

    What I was wondering about the missile impact is, how do small vs. large parts of the plane travel? For example, why did the passengers fall relatively early on and more 'vertical' so to speak than other parts of the plane, or were they simply the first ones out? Also, I'd like to know how much gravitational force is required to pull an airplane apart. Lastly, how is it possible that some people were still in their seats with seatbelts on, while wearing no pants?

    I realize these points may seem trivial, but I am trying to grasp the situation of a plane falling after loss of pressure.

    @KAT: I appreciate your information, what is your source for this though if I may ask?
  24. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    It's the inverse square law twice; once going out, and again coming back. Double the distance and you get 1/16th the signal strength.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    They didn't. There were bodies and wreckage at all locations. There were bodies at locations further east than the main crash site.

    Give a body and an unattached wing at the same velocity, I think the body would likely go a longer distance.

    For a thought experiment, try throwing a sheet of cardboard, and then a tennis ball.
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Attached Files:

  27. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    WeeBee, I got which bit came off when, from spending weeks now piecing together the aircraft, from photos. The pressure waves I read up on, with help on detonation effects from someone at the PpRuNe forum who seems to have worked with missiles, certainly knows a lot more functional detail than Wikipedia will tell you. Likely injuries I got from years of reading NTSB reports as a "hobby" (after a light plane I used to travel on crashed once), and again, reading up, trauma surgery reports on blast injuries. A big enough pressure wave can kill, with no visible external injury, just by its effects on the lungs causing a "heart attack" and/or by temporarily shutting off blood to the brain which causes immediate swelling. I don't think you need or want more detail than that.

    Clothes? a LOT of wind up there, blast, shock wave, decompression, a longish tumbling "rag doll" fall for the first ones, that would rip the clothes off. Clothes might also catch on debris, while the person would be moving up and down under the seat belt. Even after relatively low-speed crashes, like crash landing at airports, people who've been throw from the plane at ground level have been found lying in the grass naked. (And for a crash landing they'd be belted up and in some authorised crash position).

    By contrast, those who rode the plane down and were ejected only on or just before impact, with or without their seats, mostly ended up with most of their clothes still on, though twisted or pulled up. (Take my word for it, don't go looking for yourself). I don't think a single person ended up still wearing their shoes. Remember that taped conversation, when a rebel leader said the plane was loaded with corpses? he said the guys on the scene said nobody was bleeding. Quite so. They were all several minutes dead when they landed, the heart no longer pumping, so no bleeding. They said only the pilots had blood on them. One news agency also found blood and burns on one woman; she was in business class and may have been actually hit by the hot shrapnel (oddly though she had her clothes).

    Falling -- things go faster as they fall, until they reach "terminal velocity" which is the fastest they can go. This is the speed at which the downward force of gravity equals the drag force (upward resistance) of the air. Small compact heavy things (eg people, luggage) fall faster than light large spread-out things (eg parachutes, huge pieces of flapping aircraft fuselage roof). The smaller panels near the cockpit may have fallen edge on, so faster. The big pieces came down as "sails" and you can see on the photos how they folded back on themselves when they landed. Hard pieces like the floors could not sail, so they plonked down hard and then broke from the impact. A skydiver lying flat in freefall can only go about 122 mph, but can get up to 200 mph if he tucks himself up small and head down like diving (this is how big groups manoeuvre to catch up to each other to make giant circles). So our poor passengers and crew would not be doing more than about 130-150 mph, not much more force than in a very bad head-on car smash.

    I don't know what g forces there were on the plane, but there would have been some. They are built to be solid and strong, as they have to keep in the pressure and not shake apart when landing (which is at 160 mph or more, true the undercarriages have huge shock absorbers in them). But a lot of the strength is in the shape -- cylindrical, same as LPG and oxygen and other pressure bottles (eve your household spray can). This plane, full of shrapnel holes, would have torn along the perforations, then along rivet lines. They are made in sections, and those joins would also be weak spots that would give way first.
    http://www.spiritaero.com/Capabilities/Product_Responsibility/Boeing_777.htm different sections are actually made by different suppliers.

    Get a medium cardboard box and cut/tear a few big strips partly off one or two sides. Then put some weight in it and toss it out a second floor window a few times. See how the strips rip more with each throw. Better still get two shallow boxes and roughly tape them together and see how long that lasts.

    We know the port engine got hit by shrapnel, as parts of the cowling (the outside cover) were found
    at the first village, while broken fan blades were found much further along. Also bits of the port wing were found way before the final crash spot, so they'd fallen off earlier. So we know that engine was not working. The other was, partly from witness statements saying they heard it, and from the damage visible on it, matching damage on other engines that hit the ground (in crash landings) while running. Normally, if flying on one engine, the pilots can keep it going level by adjusting flaps, slats airlons etc to adjust airflow over the wings. This time there were no pilots, especially after the cockpit fell off, so it had to turn left (as the left wing was slowing down from no engine running). This would tend to put a plane into a spin, but when the front fell off, it would level off a bit. That was where it turned sharply left towards the last village.

    So there you are,that's some of my source for my story of what happened. Just piecing it together from evidence and assorted knowledge, old and new.
    No, from ordinary loss of pressure they don't fall. The pilots grab their oxygen masks, then descend as soon as possible to a level where nobody is freezing to death, everyone breathing from their masks on the way down. Then they go somewhere closest to land properly.
    This was loss of cockpit = loss of pilots and loss of instruments and controls. Plus loss of all automation, as that section got shot up and broke off, too. And one engine got mangled. Losing the pressure was the least of their problems. Look at this for loss of pressure with loss of roof -- they still landed ok.
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  28. David Coulter

    David Coulter Active Member

    Here is a youtube of a 777 wing being tested to failure. Reportedly equivalent to 6.6g's:

    It is interesting that some of the MH17 ground photos show similar looking damage to the wings. Of course, could have sustained that on impact with the ground.
  29. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    While I'd admit I'm no rocket surgeon, this bit from the article intuitively looked incorrect to me.

    Taking 20-30km to fall from a height of ~10km just seemed too far.

    As a "bear of little brain" I'm unable to do the working myself, but given that he describes a ballistic trajectory I figured there'd be calculators out there to show me what that would be, and found this one.

    I used an initial velocity of 250m/s (560mph/900kmh), an initial angle of 0 degrees (plane flying level is an assumption obviously) and an initial height of 10000m. The calculator states it doesn't take drag into account, though I believe this would reduce the distance rather than increase it.

    The resulting distance is just over 11km, ~33-50% of the distances he's used to work back from ground impact to the point where the missile intercepted MH-17.

    I can see other factors would need to be taken into account to get a completely accurate distance, such as how long the plane structure retained any form of aerodynamic integrity, if and for how long the engines continued to run and so on, but he claims a "ballistic trajectory" which I don't believe includes those factors.

    Like the author, this calculation assumes that the distance travelled is in a straight line. It doesn't seem logical that the missile strike would simply divert the plane northwards and it would then travel straight on, more likely that the plane performed an arc or spiral downwards, which would mean the distance the plane travelled while descending on a ballistic trajectory would be more than the distance between the missile impact and the wreckage hitting the ground. In the case of a spiral that'd be much more.

    In short I think he's overestimating the distance the plane wreckage travelled after the missile impact and using it to rule out the possibility of a separatist BUK shooting down MH-17.

    Please feel free to pick holes in the above - I'm no expert on any of this!

    Ray Von
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    If you take two packs of playing cards, one still in the packet, and one with the cards just loose, and throw them as hard as you can horizontally you will get a wide spread of landing zones. The pack by itself will likely go the furthest, the pack of individual cards will explode in the air, with cards going in all directions. Some might even end up behind you.

    "Ballistic" means ignoring the air resistance, and with no thrust. It gives a maximum possible distance. But it's a very unlikely distance if you actually account for the air.

    The calculations are just high school stuff, you can repeat them fairly easily without an online calculate. The plane is travelling at 250m/s at 10,000m. The ballistic distance is how far forward it can travel in the time it takes to drop 10000m.

    Time to fall n meters is sqrt(2*n/9.81)
    sqrt(2*10000/9.81) = 45 seconds

    A handy tool to ask these questions, to verify your answers, is Wolfram Alpha.

    250 m/s * 45 s = 11.25 km

    And really that's only going to be approached as a maximum by solid fairly round objects, with a low surface area to mass ratio.
    • Like Like x 1
  31. skudiv

    skudiv New Member

    According to Interarms the range of the 9M38M1 is 42Km.

    That is true, but the missile in question is the 9K37M BUK-M1 (SA-11) with a range of 35km.

    Which suggests the missile would have had to have been fired before the aircraft was in range, which is possible, and intercepted the aircraft at maximum range. As well as the aircraft falling pretty close to straight down.

    Most likely the trajectory of the plane once hit was not ballistic, it is still a plane after all, and can reasonably be expected to somewhat glide down, rather then drop. The pressure wave from the actual missile would be too small to be relevant, when you think of the aerodynamics of a missile with a 40cm diameter. The compression wave from the explosion which appears to be centred on the port side likewise would not affect forward momentum.

    From KAT up top

    In two miles it is over Rozspyne where the floor tears through enough to shake off the cockpit area. This changes the centre of gravity enough to slightly flatten out the dive. It also turns fairly sharply left. Another 5 miles away it is over Grabovo, where the left wing tip, tail and rear fuselage finally rip off (g forces), spilling passengers and cargo. The centre section and 1 1/2 wings, right engine still running, continue on nearly another mile to crash, in a fairly flat attitude and not going fast, maybe only 200 mph by now. Remaining passengers are ejected (up and sideways, which is how so many ended outside the burn area). The fuel tanks break and the fuel catches fire.

    Which gives 8 miles of travel, or for those who like standard units 12.8km which is close enough a ballistic trajectory of 11.5km. Which is in the range of 30% of the max range of the BUK M1. Or another way of putting it, the launch site should be within 25km of the debris field. Which it does not appear to be from the maps I have seen.
  32. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Back to the OP - no-one is going to manage to identify anything specific from the photos - it's just a pointless exercise. If you recall how much of TW800 they rebuilt - THAT is the sort of level the real investigation will get into:

    "TWA800reconstruction" by User Skybunny on en.wikipedia - Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is (was) here. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/...jpg#mediaviewer/File:TWA800reconstruction.jpg
  33. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Except the site is being cleaned up by someone
    closed thread https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh17-developments-after-a-month-aug-17.4227/#post-122089
    and at least one of the villages involved has been badly shot up, with people dead or run away, in the 10 days since the investigators had to leave. There may be nothing left by the time there is enough peace for them to consider returning.

    Really they just need to find enough shrapnel to be able to tell for sure if it was a BUK or something air to air. From the future air safety aspect there is no need, as it clearly was not an aircraft failure that caused it. From the responsibility aspect it is geopolitical, so in a way the less certainty about it forever, the better (and eternal CT of course). .
  34. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Indeed - and we discussed the "amateur cleanup" thing before - your point reinforces why it is a bad idea.
  35. KAT

    KAT Active Member

    Bit late now. The front line of a war has been through there since, and back again. It was no man's land at the time of the crash.
  36. JustMe

    JustMe New Member

    The map in report from the Dutch Safety Board now clearly suggests, that the impact was at the front top RIGHT side.


    The reason is, that the parts with the largest holes (left side cockpit below window, cockpit roof) were found to the North of the flightpath, a huge deviation only explicable by the force of an explosion from the right side.

    Top position, because the holes in the top appear to be entrance holes.

    Then, the big holes in that famous cockpit left side piece are EXIT holes (though there may still be additional entry holes from a machine canon).

    This is then consistent with a shoot down by a Ukrainian BUK as reported by Russia and investigated here:


    It is also consistent with the information leaked to Robert Parry from US intelligence sources:

    "What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms."



    "But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts ... are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity."

    • Informative Informative x 1
  37. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    I assume you calculated the force caused by the detonating warhead and compared it to the aerodynamic pressure caused by the aircraft's forward velocity?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  38. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Why is it not consistent with claims it was launched by the rebels?
  39. Ray Von Geezer

    Ray Von Geezer Senior Member

    The report shows the pieces from the left cockpit side and cockpit floor, and says "The characteristics of the material deformation around the puncture holes appear to indicate that the objects originated from outside the fuselage." - so that would have to be left and above the cockpit.

    Are there any pictures of the left cockpit showing holes that look like exit holes? All the ones I've seen show holes that appear to show ingress, some have areas of outer skin folded outwards, but the holes themselves go in.

    Ray Von
  40. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Is there some point of significance that being from the right or the left would prove?