william wiley
Member
What lies did he tell? And can you provide sources.Another "Haisenko" expert which lie about missiles.
What lies did he tell? And can you provide sources.Another "Haisenko" expert which lie about missiles.
AA demonstrated it here.How so? You need to demonstrate why this makes everyone mistaken, not just assert it.
No idea, I'm sure one can be made.AA demonstrated it here.
https://www.metabunk.org/does-damag...clude-a-particular-buk-launch-location.t6345/
Mick then altered some of the input, but it showed the same problem. I pointed that out here and it was unrefuted.
https://www.metabunk.org/does-damag...buk-launch-location.t6345/page-13#post-158170
I then pointed it out again in this thread.
https://www.metabunk.org/almaz-anteys-live-buk-explosion-tests.t6903/#post-167239
Is there a credible argument against it?
I'm not so sure. AA, the weapon manufacturer, made this point. It was perhaps the major point they made. Yet, the Dutch report completely sidestepped the issue. Or perhaps the Ukrainians vetoed this issue from the report?No idea, I'm sure one can be made.
No worriesI just wanted to make sure your assertion had some demonstrated reasoning behind it, as it wasn't in that post.
Just same arguments as before.AA demonstrated it here.
https://www.metabunk.org/does-damag...clude-a-particular-buk-launch-location.t6345/
Mick then altered some of the input, but it showed the same problem. I pointed that out here and it was unrefuted.
https://www.metabunk.org/does-damag...buk-launch-location.t6345/page-13#post-158170
I then pointed it out again in this thread.
https://www.metabunk.org/almaz-anteys-live-buk-explosion-tests.t6903/#post-167239
Is there a credible argument against it?
How 3rd layer affect on fragment distribution by angle? Why static warhead must have strip without impact?View attachment 15604
As we can see 3rd layer of fragments do not cover end of warhead. It is not have sense for equal angle distribution of fragments. Because it is have as result the strip without impacts. I suppose that end parts of warhead must provide another speed of fragments and another direction that must give a matching the affected area with low speed fragments from top of warhead. And as I can see real warhead have a reverse curvature for end (fig. 4.3).
One of good sourceWhat lies did he tell? And can you provide sources.
http://www.anderweltonline.com/wiss...bschuss-durch-ukrainische-su-25-ist-bewiesen/What lies did he tell? And can you provide sources.
So you claim the Dutch willinging faked a report concerning the death of 193 of their citizens to cover up for the Ukraine?Yet, the Dutch report completely sidestepped the issue. Or perhaps the Ukrainians vetoed this issue from the report?
Сontrariwise, were is no 3rd layer must be anoter distribution by angle. I suppose that may controlled by geometry of warhead surface. The strip must be missing as for static so for dynamic.How 3rd layer affect on fragment distribution by angle? Why static warhead must have strip without impact?
For a theory to be correct it must explain evidence not ignore it. This is at the heart of scientific inquiry.
One part of the evidence is fragment damage from the warhead to the left side of the plane.
The holes are squarish indicating they are not from debris but from warhead fragments.
It is impossible for a missile coming from Snizhne to cause that damage. Impossible.
There is a photo of this on page 60 of the report. http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf
Here is another photo.
View attachment 15569
Here again is the predicted pattern from a Snizhne launch.
No warhead fragment damage (as opposed to debris) should have been observed on the left wing if the missile came from Snizhne, yet is exists
Here is what the report said on page 95
Not awfully strong evidenceExternal Quote:"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."
A moving missile from Zaroshens'ke looks like:
Do you agree with fork from MH17 report? If yes it is enough. It is example how to make uneven angle density, only in wrong direction.1. warhead dont have lancet
2. barrel-like warhead design developed for produce wide angle fragment distribution for cancel error in guidance and detonation point, so illegal to talk about maximum damage
I see on your 4 question and i think that you dont understand what I wrote about 7A. I suppose that you dont understand AA too.3. AA presented absolutely stupid presentation which based on wrong idea - simulating dynamic field of strike elements (and damage pattern from it) by static warhead
4. can you show on 7A Fig how co-pilot was killed? and what splinters leave visible tracks on roof (glance hits which clearly show direction to detonation point)?
Im agree with launch from direction on Snizhne.Do you agree with fork from MH17 report? If yes it is enough. It is example how to make uneven angle density, only in wrong direction.
Why illegal? It is profitably to get distribution like probability target position. If your algorithm of intercept get normal direction to target, will be right use warhead with max density of fragments in normal direction.
I see on your 4 question and i think that you dont understand what I wrote about 7A. I suppose that you dont understand AA too.
You do realize that this is just a 2D modell? The Fragments of the warhead would of course travel in a 360° from the detonation.For a theory to be correct it must explain evidence not ignore it. This is at the heart of scientific inquiry.
One part of the evidence is fragment damage from the warhead to the left side of the plane.
The holes are squarish indicating they are not from debris but from warhead fragments.
It is impossible for a missile coming from Snizhne to cause that damage. Impossible.
There is a photo of this on page 60 of the report. http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf
Here is another photo.
View attachment 15569
Here again is the predicted pattern from a Snizhne launch.
No warhead fragment damage (as opposed to debris) should have been observed on the left wing if the missile came from Snizhne, yet is exists
Which how real disinformation works. Why should any government bother to spread lies when all they need to do is pose a few questions and twist a few facts and then let the conspirasphere do the work for them.The Russians do like to dangle these type of questions and let the rumour mill do their work for them. This was evident in the Russian Ministry of Defence briefing and it allowed the conspiracy mill to run riot with them.
You said that Oleg Storchevoy told lies. What lies did he tell. Otherwise you should withdraw it.One of good source
Peter Haisenko talks nonsense about MH17
Source?Im agree with launch from direction on Snizhne.
Again - barrel-like warhead have wide disclosure angles of pellets so you cannot have maximum damage. You have instead of maximum damage - maximum area with good density. For maximum damage need to use aimable warhead or specific shape.
What is your point?You do realize that this is just a 2D modell? The Fragments of the warhead would of course travel in a 360° from the detonation.
I'm saying the report sidetepped the issue. It didn't explain it. The rest is speculation until we know more about how the whole investigation operated and what Ukraines role wasSo you claim the Dutch willinging faked a report concerning the death of 193 of their citizens to cover up for the Ukraine?
You said that Oleg Storchevoy told lies. What lies did he tell. Otherwise you should withdraw it.
there is no evidence that this was their idea. In fact we know they already debunked Snizhne (to their own satisfaction at the very least). You seem to be trying to change their motive. You may believe Snizhne is poossible , they no longer do.
Having already discounted Snizhne, the idea was to confirm the type of missile.
Almaz Antey, in their test, placed a missile in the position it would have been had it come from Snizhne. When they did this fragments came out the starboard side.Im agree with launch from direction on Snizhne.
My point is that the fragments are moving in a cone away from the detonation thus damage to the left engine is not only possible but very likely.What is your point?
There are no fragment exit holes in that photo!Who said starboard side dont have exit holes?
View attachment 15635
http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf Section 2.8 whichs appears to be page 21External Quote:The right hand side of the cockpit shows no high energy impact damage
but the decided not to say precisely whereExternal Quote:lower right hand side of the cockpit
Not according to the missile manufacturer or according to Mick's simulation. So why is your simulation different to both AA's and Micks?My point is that the fragments are moving in a cone away from the detonation thus damage to the left engine is not only possible but very likely.
One last try: Mick's model is (and he wrote that himself several times) two-dimensional which is realistic enough when we talk about the damage to the cockpit only. But the 9N314M warhead naturaly explodes three-dimensional. And even on the 2D model you can see that the left engine lies in the path of the debris of the missile.Not according to the missile manufacturer or according to Mick's simulation. So why is your simulation different to both AA's and Micks?
But not in the path of warhead fragments. Any claim that this damage is from debris needs to be weighed against the actual test done by AA and their arguments. This occurs from the 45.00.00 mark in the video linked to in post 66. Unfortunately it is an English translation and because the whole video is only 2 hours they don't go into enough detail. So hopefully they will present a reportOne last try: Mick's model is (and he wrote that himself several times) two-dimensional which is realistic enough when we talk about the damage to the cockpit only. But the 9N314M warhead naturaly explodes three-dimensional. And even on the 2D model you can see that the left engine lies in the path of the debris of the missile.
According to report, elevation angle was only 10 degrees
Almaz Antey, in their test, placed a missile in the position it would have been had it come from Snizhne.
No they did both. If you tune in to the video at the 58 minute mark you will see the second test.No, they placed the missile in a position that conforms to their conclusion..
According to report, Almaz-Antey's model elevation angle was 22 degrees (see page 140 of the report)According to report, elevation angle was only 10 degrees