Rob
Member
I'm sorry William, but can you answer the question ?
How could an approach from Zaroshens'kye create entry holes on the left side of the plane ?
Please use Mick's tool to clarify your argument.
Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location?
- Thread starter william wiley
- Start date
I'm sorry William, but can you answer the question ?
How could an approach from Zaroshens'kye create entry holes on the left side of the plane ?
Please use Mick's tool to clarify your argument.
Let me be more clear. These two rather large irregular shaped holes in the outer skin showing the blue of the cheatline is not what I meant with shrapnel damage. This area just behind the cockpit has various small holes which are likely caused by fragments entering from the front of the aircraft towards the end.
I am pretty sure there are a lot more photos on the internet showing this area.
I am pretty sure there are a lot more photos on the internet showing this area.
What happened to the models Mick West made on GeoGebra?
They are all gone!
Like this one http://tube.geogebra.org/student/m1350995
Models made by other users of Geobra are available so the site is up and running.
They are all gone!
Like this one http://tube.geogebra.org/student/m1350995
Models made by other users of Geobra are available so the site is up and running.
Herman Aven
Member
Im sorry but you looking on ENTRY holes
in left side
And that's a left-side entry hole how exactly?
Wouldn't you expect entry holes there from anything exploding that that side of the plane? All one can see here is somethign torn off by the way.
Really, how missile from Z can have ENTRY holes on left side? HOW?
So magic missile - can blow up beore plane and cut right side of cabin, then make a hook and hit plane in left cheek below. Is it really possible or you just readying for Dutch TV with their version of ukrainian missile based on wikipedia experts?
You're now claiming random entry holes while the case of AA appears to be that there's no photo available yet displaying them at that location.
These 2 photos provides another important clue to determine where the missile exploded.
99% sure this hole is made by a fragment.
The photo shows the part where the angle of attack sensor was located.
If we look at the area on the fuselage there are hardly any fragments holes to be seen. This rules out this is an entry hole. If the missile exploded next to this area there mus thave been much more holes!
So we are looking at an exit hole (the fragment left the outer skin of aircraft from inside to outside).
The reason there are not more exit holes in this area is probably because the energy of the other fragments was absorved by steel parts inside the cockpit.
I am BTW still surprised by the limited damage of the BUK missile. Maybe the thick cockpitwindows and strong area around it (to prevent damage from birds) can explain this.
The hole in the previous photos is indicated by the red arrow. The blue lines represent trajectory of fragments towards holes we discovered in the cockpit.
The three purple lines represent the damage as seen in this post https://www.metabunk.org/does-damag...-buk-launch-location.t6345/page-9#post-157692
Many holes are in the area near the seat of the captain. Far less in the area near the co-pilot seat.
A few go in a horizontal line toward the headrest of one of the jump seats.
We need a 3D model to map confirmed shrapnel holes!
99% sure this hole is made by a fragment.
The photo shows the part where the angle of attack sensor was located.
If we look at the area on the fuselage there are hardly any fragments holes to be seen. This rules out this is an entry hole. If the missile exploded next to this area there mus thave been much more holes!
So we are looking at an exit hole (the fragment left the outer skin of aircraft from inside to outside).
The reason there are not more exit holes in this area is probably because the energy of the other fragments was absorved by steel parts inside the cockpit.
I am BTW still surprised by the limited damage of the BUK missile. Maybe the thick cockpitwindows and strong area around it (to prevent damage from birds) can explain this.
The hole in the previous photos is indicated by the red arrow. The blue lines represent trajectory of fragments towards holes we discovered in the cockpit.
The three purple lines represent the damage as seen in this post https://www.metabunk.org/does-damag...-buk-launch-location.t6345/page-9#post-157692
Many holes are in the area near the seat of the captain. Far less in the area near the co-pilot seat.
A few go in a horizontal line toward the headrest of one of the jump seats.
We need a 3D model to map confirmed shrapnel holes!
Ole
Member
Just for the sake of completeness, there are even more holes in the frames than you indicated. The one in the skin (blue circle) seems to have entered from the outside almost parallel to the skin.
Last edited:
Ole
Member
And that's another hint. Shrapnel hitting the cockpit from the side would probably have a much more devastating effect to the inside.
ad_2015
Member
Im still trying understand:
1. Two big holes in left skin - is random holes, they must be ignored because Z missile cannot make hook and did it.
2. Three little holes which come from forward (how u think it Z missile) is another deal, despite on their low damage and danger to plane.
3. Missile from Z have disclosure angles up to 90 degree or even 180 so can hit at once co-pilot seat (vital damage with angle 60 degree to plane or course or 45 degree to missile course or 30 degree to AA beam), hit roof with numerous scratches (same 60 degree to plane course or 30 degree to even false AA beam), at same time can hit from outside left skin (angle impossible to calculate because point of detonation should be a few meters to left).
So im wanna see clear model of detonation for missile from Z which definitely point to coordinates of detonation relative to plane, elevation of missile and missile course. Because for any magic hole for Z missile im receive absolutely different pictures how missile can hit it. Choose one and shoot! But when and if im show it impossible then forgot about Z missile, ok?
1. Two big holes in left skin - is random holes, they must be ignored because Z missile cannot make hook and did it.
2. Three little holes which come from forward (how u think it Z missile) is another deal, despite on their low damage and danger to plane.
3. Missile from Z have disclosure angles up to 90 degree or even 180 so can hit at once co-pilot seat (vital damage with angle 60 degree to plane or course or 45 degree to missile course or 30 degree to AA beam), hit roof with numerous scratches (same 60 degree to plane course or 30 degree to even false AA beam), at same time can hit from outside left skin (angle impossible to calculate because point of detonation should be a few meters to left).
So im wanna see clear model of detonation for missile from Z which definitely point to coordinates of detonation relative to plane, elevation of missile and missile course. Because for any magic hole for Z missile im receive absolutely different pictures how missile can hit it. Choose one and shoot! But when and if im show it impossible then forgot about Z missile, ok?
william wiley
Member
That depends on the characteristics of the lancet and the distance from the lancet.
There are definitely lots of entry holes not too far away. These are apparently from the lancet.
As we get further from the lancet area, we expect less holes firstly because it is not the lancet area and secondly because the angle increases as we move down the plane.
So, how do we decide how many entry holes are "too few"?
.Maybe the missile just "does it's job" and no more. I suspect a lot of resources go into making the missile explode in the right place, and if you can get that part right you don't need to do more damage than you need to.
Ole
Member
If you read the snippet I replied to, you will notice that the front part of the aircraft is hardened against bird strike. That might explain the "moderate" damage to the inside of the cockpit, whereas the parts of the aircraft that are not directly exposed to bird strike will be more fragile. This is of course not hard science but it gives another hint.
We discussed hard science earlier in this thread, and I came to the conclusion that higher shrapnel speed does not necessarily mean deeper penetration due to the faster melting of the shrapnel.
So 250 m/s more or less may not matter much for penetration depth
@ad_2015
I have posted many photos showing a Z launch is quite likely. I suggest it is time that some prove is posted showing fragments holes which could *only* be caused by a Snizhne launch.
Do not use that Almaz Antey scalpel picture for this, as you stated yourself, this does not seem to be completely correct.
For a Snizhne launch there must be multiple, clearly caused by shrapnel, entry holes in the left hand side, upper area abeam the windows.
I have posted many photos showing a Z launch is quite likely. I suggest it is time that some prove is posted showing fragments holes which could *only* be caused by a Snizhne launch.
Do not use that Almaz Antey scalpel picture for this, as you stated yourself, this does not seem to be completely correct.
For a Snizhne launch there must be multiple, clearly caused by shrapnel, entry holes in the left hand side, upper area abeam the windows.
You seem to know a lot about the working and procedures of the BUK SA-11.
Can you explain me why a launch from a TELAR positioned on the side of the target requires TWO missiles, while a launch when the TELAR is ahead of the target just needs one?
I can only image a launch from the side has a higher miss rate.
Maybe that explains the missile almost overshoot MH17?
The person in the TELAR probably KNEW he was targetting a civil aircraft and KNEW a single missile would for sure destroy it.
william wiley
Member
The new religion is believing it came from Snizhne despite there being no evidence of damage to the right wing and no evidence of any fragments exiting the front of the plane on the right side.
It will help making your point by indicating to us where this part was located in the aircraft?You so funny, guys!
Why you dont show photo with ENTRY hole in skin for your magic holes in carcass?
Doesnt fit well with Z missile?
Do you know?
And what exactly is your entry point? That hole with red paint?
Ole
Member
You so funny, guys!
Why you dont show photo with ENTRY hole in skin for your magic holes in carcass?
Doesnt fit well with Z missile?
You are aware that this is in the conical section of the nose (around STA 246.5)? The skin points away from the longitudinal axis, so the direction of the impact in your photo is close to longitudinal.
Last edited:
Same question. What hole do you think has been caused by scrapnel and what has likely been caused by falling debris hitting the fuselage, or damage because of the part hitting the ground?
you really have not,you have posted many pics and all were contested as to what they showed,you now seem to be saying all holes in portside window are exit holes in order to explain a forward sweeping dynamic fragmentation pattern
ad_2015
Member
Sure im can.
BUK TELAR crew have manual which describe their action during firing.
For target coming ahead (or running away) TELAR crew should fire ONE missile because probability for hit target is close to maximum (near 0.9). If TELAR firing into other targets (from side, group targets, targets using ECM or missiles) then crew should use TWO missiles - both from TELAR or one from TELAR + one from TEL ( if firing as battery). You can offten see this on video.
Now reasons why manual talk about one and two missiles. One missile is for easy target, two missiles for hard target so both multiple chances to hit.
Physical reasons:
1. Inbound or outbound target have HIGH RADIAL VELOCITY and radar receive answer from target as signal with Doppler Shift, more radial speed (part of plane speed which have direction to radar point) then more change of frequence = much easier for detect it, measure and track it.
2. Calculation of Meeting Zone for in/outbound target is easy (because missile fly faster then target so will meet target almost on same distance as calculated), but for cause side-flying target it can be changed fast by maneur and missile can fly too high or too low for intercept in next Meeting point or dont find target when turning on seeker.
3. Radar on Telar have Wind Correction which cancel effect from wind-moving objects which blink screen with false targets. But it is also decrease lower limit of Radial Speed which radar designated as target (read #1)
4. Missile on SA-11 before and after launch receive information about doppler shift so tune up seeker on this frequency. If this difference between main signal and re-emitted signal is low it can be gone under noise signals. Then missile lost target. Same happen if frequency changed and radar cannot transmitt new shift.
5. TELAR crew have 2 modes for lock targets - by range and by speed. If speed (radial speed) too low or change too much then radar can lost this track and should remark target (by moving marker on new speed position)
6. Firing to side-flying target (with course parameter) have limitation for difference between directions radar-target and radar-missile.
7. Sequence of firing for two missiles launch first and second missile with two different guidance modes so one of missile always look on target by seeker, another only when reach close area.
Last edited:
not sure where you are getting that,not what i said,i do believe missile exploded portside high
I think it is very important to support any statement about where the missile exploded by various photos showing shrapnel damage. The photos plus explaining text should make clear where the part was originally located in the aircraft. The STA numbers will help.
So I am requesting anyone to look into the various albums of Jeroen Akkermans and https://www.flickr.com/photos/podpolkovnikvvs/albums to find that evidence.
jonnyH
Senior Member.
You cannot conclude anything useful about the origin of the missile by looking at individual bits of damage. You can estimate the location, but not orientation to any degree of accuracy.
To have any chance of pinpointing the orientation accurately you need:
(1) accurate figures for the shape of the blast and distribution of fragments and
(2) a complete map of the damage to the plane.
We have neither of these things.
Anyone saying this or that hole must/couldn't have been made by a missile coming from Zaroshens'kye/Sniznhe is jumping the gun.
To have any chance of pinpointing the orientation accurately you need:
(1) accurate figures for the shape of the blast and distribution of fragments and
(2) a complete map of the damage to the plane.
We have neither of these things.
Anyone saying this or that hole must/couldn't have been made by a missile coming from Zaroshens'kye/Sniznhe is jumping the gun.
Maybe you missed the 9 other pages of this thread. What we are trying to accomplish is to get an understanding at which places in and near the cockpit shrapnel holes are to be found.
Based on that it is perfectly well possible to locate the position where the warhead exploded.
We have come quite far in locating the various locations.
This is not rocket science.
Herman Aven
Member
You'll need a really tight sideways "lancet kill" for that move! Considering you want to explain the shredding of the top-left of the cockpit but still spare major (found so far) parts of the left side and also most of the fuel loaded wing. But all the damages shown so far are still better explained by a beam of fragments following somewhat the plane's long side, from the top, which can only be done by a missile coming from the side with the claimed limited fragment spread.
One addition to the supposed "lancet": at 39 minutes in the video of the press conference they mention an error margin in the horizontal and vertical missile orientation. These are the ranges: 72-78 degrees horizontal and 20-22 degrees vertical. At 39m30s in the video a rotation example is given. Which means that if the co-pilot chair would indeed show fragment damage this will actually fall in full range of the model. Not to mention that they claim 96% of the fragments are in the 56 degrees field (at around 13:30) meaning for over 7800 fragments, a few hundred will be smashing into parts outside the 56 degrees field. Therefore one cannot falsify anything by showing some hole somewhere as long as there's a straight trajectory possible.
Herman Aven
Member
I partially disagree. You don't need to have all fragments holes and angles of entry, since they will all come from the same point of detonation, assuming a hit from one BUK missile. You cannot have here some fragments coming from the front, there from the back and here some from the side, or all at conflicting angles.
If one can find enough images of entry and exit holes and position them on a model of the plan, a reasonably accurate picture can still be drawn. Perhaps not 100% conclusive but that's not the task. At least some theories might be excluded.
Herman Aven
Member
It's not clear at which exact position inside the craft you have located these holes, if you mean entry or exit holes, what the angles of impact mgiht be and if some larger holes might be explained by decompression or other forces tearing up the craft. What is easier to conclude is that several thousands of fragments from the missile coming right at the plane would have left a bit more holes in the side of the plane than currently being shown on all the imagery.
Geogebra asked me to make them accessible by link only, as their site is most aimed at children, and they did not want children finding "military" stuff by mistake.
So I removed all the older (less accurate versions), and now there's just one, accessible by link:
http://tube.geogebra.org/student/mFP58nKZJ
jonnyH
Senior Member.
You are misreading me, I specifically said it WAS possible to estimate the location of the missile:
If estimating the location of the explosion was all that people had been doing for the last 9 pages that would be fine, but many posts seem to just select a hole or two on which to hang their whole case for their chosen launch site. You yourself say:
There is a large range of inconsistency in the details of the missile blast within the information we have which must be dealt with before we can start saying (on the evidence of the damage alone) that one site is more likely than the other.
Last edited:
ad_2015
Member
4% from 7800 fragments is 312 fragments
distribution of annular warhead is 360 degree so lesser then 1 fragment per degree, ok lets think it = 1 pellet per degree
but 56 degree disclosure beam is only part of 180 degree, which now equal for non-system pellets
so 1 pellet per degree (disc around warhead) * 1/120 (angles different from disclosure beam) = 0.008(3) pellets per degree
now we look on co-pilot chair - it is around 1 sq.m on distance near 3-5m from detonation point under angle 50-60 degree = 8 degree linear size
8 deegree * 0.008(3) pellets per degree = 0.066 pellets in co-pilots chair
lesser then one pellets in 10 chairs!
but co-pilot chair have 4 good visible holes with understandible angles
ooops, it just 40 times! better then theory about 4% of fragments
Last edited:
jonnyH
Senior Member.
You can locate the missile with a few data points, but I was talking about calculating the angle of the missile which would require a much better picture of the pattern of damage and better data on the warhead before an accurate conclusion could be drawn.
Pete Tar
Senior Member
Perhaps people should limit their speculation to confirmed shrapnel damage only which is backed by the investigators. Picking through static pictures of jumbled wreckage which you believe has shrapnel damage is not really strong enough evidence.
For example, the pilot and co-pilot chair damage - has the assumed shrapnel damage been officially confirmed? I can't make out exactly what damage is meant to be caused by the missile and which is just damage from being ripped from a plane in mid air.
For example, the pilot and co-pilot chair damage - has the assumed shrapnel damage been officially confirmed? I can't make out exactly what damage is meant to be caused by the missile and which is just damage from being ripped from a plane in mid air.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member
I have a question: How much of the plane wreckage was actually recovered? I know they had trouble with access.
Exactly!
Whitebeard
Senior Member
And the site was not a 'clean' one either, the locals and the press corps had picked over the wreckage for at least 2 days before any experts arrived on the scene. Thus the fact of contamination of the site and moving / removal of wreckage must be considered and the possibility of evidence tampering / removal cannot be dismissed either.
Auldy
Senior Member.
ohhh, the irony..
Ole
Member
I don't believe it's possible with the material available on internet to make any definite statements on the direction the missile came from. Yet the more information at hand the better one can judge wether a theory (and the final report of the JIT which is yet to come) is plausible.
The box on the bottom/center of this photo is one of the Primary Flight Displays (PFD). Which one is unclear. The knob (red arrow) helps to determine the orientation of the box in the cockpit (i.e. impact traces on the top side):
original from here:
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/drugoi/484155/9529984/9529984_original.jpg
The box on the bottom/center of this photo is one of the Primary Flight Displays (PFD). Which one is unclear. The knob (red arrow) helps to determine the orientation of the box in the cockpit (i.e. impact traces on the top side):
original from here:
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/drugoi/484155/9529984/9529984_original.jpg
I do believe it is possible to locate where the missile exploded. It is a matter of combining as much as possible confirmed burn damage and shrapnel damage. The PFD image above is another small piece of the puzzle.
This is like a puzzle. If you have a single piece of the puzzle you will not know what the total picture looks like.
There are many photos on the internet showing damage. Some photos are not very well distributed over many sites.
Only when combined you get the picture.
Regarding the DSB final report. Do not expect much of that. The main task of the DSB is to determine the cause of the accident. Not who did it. I expect the report will conclude it was a missile and that is it. It will probably even not disclose the type of missile nor the direction it came from. That is a task of the Joint Investigation Team.
Remember, this is a very very very sensitive case.
This is like a puzzle. If you have a single piece of the puzzle you will not know what the total picture looks like.
There are many photos on the internet showing damage. Some photos are not very well distributed over many sites.
Only when combined you get the picture.
Regarding the DSB final report. Do not expect much of that. The main task of the DSB is to determine the cause of the accident. Not who did it. I expect the report will conclude it was a missile and that is it. It will probably even not disclose the type of missile nor the direction it came from. That is a task of the Joint Investigation Team.
Remember, this is a very very very sensitive case.
