william wiley
Member
Do you think it's possible to rule out some directions?
Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location?
- Thread starter william wiley
- Start date
william wiley
Member
You have given no reason to think it is a spare part, or that it was in the cargo container. Can you explain why you believe it is a spare part rather than just making another assertion?
How do you know for sure it is a spare part? I assume such an expensive part is wrapped and put in a box to protect it during transport . It could have dropped from the cockpit and found somewhere. People took various parts like luggage and put it next to the road.
It is very very unlikely a spare part put in the cargo area is damaged like we see on the photo. All the cargo in the forward cargo bay seen at the cockpit site does not show any traces of burns.
Stating this is a spare part is cutting corners/jumping to conclusions.
ad_2015
Member
1. This part is in cargo box.
2. MH17 have a/c and helo parts in cargo manifest
3. Where is all connection wirings and how cubic box after knocked out force (under certain angle to horisontal surface) leaving his narrow well-fitted nest without any DAMAGE, SCRATCH or MISHAPING? Do you see any sign - this part was accidentaly pulled out from panel?
2. MH17 have a/c and helo parts in cargo manifest
3. Where is all connection wirings and how cubic box after knocked out force (under certain angle to horisontal surface) leaving his narrow well-fitted nest without any DAMAGE, SCRATCH or MISHAPING? Do you see any sign - this part was accidentaly pulled out from panel?
Herman Aven
Member
I'm not sure if you can claim all those holes as definite fragment hits assuming it's indeed the co-pilot's chair. However it doesn't matter because as I wrote, there's a few degrees of error margin supplied in Almaz-Antey's calculated missile orientation which would cover most of that chair if that would really be a requirement.
ad_2015
Member
4% of splinters as non-system strike elements cannot describe 4 holes in co-pilot chair. It just impossible because density of these damage too high for random non-system damage.
Ok, it just fact against Z missile, close eyes on it, continue search support for russian lie.
william wiley
Member
We don't know how many "holes" are there. All we know is that there are some that fit with a missile from Z.
There are very likely lots more evidence that we can't see from looking at photos
Foul deeds will rise, Though all the earth o'erwhelm them, to men's eyes.¬Hamlet
Last edited:
QUOTE="ad_2015, post: 157803, member: 6863"]1. This part is in cargo box.
2. MH17 have a/c and helo parts in cargo manifest
3. Where is all connection wirings and how cubic box after knocked out force (under certain angle to horisontal surface) leaving his narrow well-fitted nest without any DAMAGE, SCRATCH or MISHAPING? Do you see any sign - this part was accidentaly pulled out from panel?[/QUOTE]
I saw some photos taken on the evening of July 17 when the cargo was still at the cockpit section. Cargo was removed soon after. There is indeed burn damage to be seen on cargo. In particular the plastic covering of bulk cargo is melted.
So it cannot be ruled out this piece is indeed part of cargo.
My opinion is that the damage seen on this part is too severe for being in the cargo hold. People have been using chainsaws to search for bodies/remove parts. Maybe this part was removed from the cockpit.
We will never know I guess.
2. MH17 have a/c and helo parts in cargo manifest
3. Where is all connection wirings and how cubic box after knocked out force (under certain angle to horisontal surface) leaving his narrow well-fitted nest without any DAMAGE, SCRATCH or MISHAPING? Do you see any sign - this part was accidentaly pulled out from panel?[/QUOTE]
I saw some photos taken on the evening of July 17 when the cargo was still at the cockpit section. Cargo was removed soon after. There is indeed burn damage to be seen on cargo. In particular the plastic covering of bulk cargo is melted.
So it cannot be ruled out this piece is indeed part of cargo.
My opinion is that the damage seen on this part is too severe for being in the cargo hold. People have been using chainsaws to search for bodies/remove parts. Maybe this part was removed from the cockpit.
We will never know I guess.
ad_2015
Member
What number of cargo hold with burning on photo? One which right under/after cabine or which close to burning engines?
Im dont wait answer since you guys already choose a side and continue to repeal any fact or doubt.
P.S. BTW on your photo with burning cargo is presence another spare part from a/c or helo parts. But somehow you dont build damage pattern on this.
This picture was taken at the location where the cockpit and part fuselage was found. So forward cargo 1. The one closest to the cockpit.
I like to see some photos which supports the Snizhne launch and makes a Z. launch impossible.
ad_2015
Member
Then look on it
this is impossible for Z missile attack of plane and impossible disclosure angles for flying missile
This is impossible angles of penetration for Z missile
Not enough? Then continue trust in false missile from Z. Dixi.
Ole
Member
What part of the aircraft is this?
http://www.patrasevents.gr/imgsrv/f/full/889451.jpg
To me the spot in your red circle almost looks as if it was the spot where the molten remnants of the shrapnel ended up.
Last edited:
Ole
Member
Not without having more reliable information on the real world fragment distribution of the warhead and the distribution of debris originating from the missile itself.
Herman Aven
Member
But you keep on showing exactly the damage that would be perfectly explainable by the Z approach! Angles seem correct when the curvature of the front and window is taken into account. Some exit holes where they could be expected etc.
Not counting that co-pilot chair but I'd like to see more detail on the nature of its damage and if it's really the one of the co-pilot. Didn't you doubt as well the "narrow lancet theory"? You cannot have it both ways because if the spread angle was somewhat wider, the field of damage would increase and include your chair.
An 2nd pallet angle analysis:
I do believe this damage is caused by a pallet and not by fragments of the missile or the plane itself.
The angle to the edge of the blue paint is 43,5 degrees
This is a 2D picture the area of the damage i sligthly bending inwards to the left. A 772 is only behind the door (to the right in this picture) at its widest.
Request:
To make these kind of analysis i need high resolution photos of a 772, preferbly MAS. Specially both side, top and front in a (almost) 90 degree angle to the plane. Furthermore i am busy obtaining 3D software also for that i need very good photo's / drawings, to be able to make a 3D model. Please don't reply here, just send them in a PM to me.
I do believe this damage is caused by a pallet and not by fragments of the missile or the plane itself.
The angle to the edge of the blue paint is 43,5 degrees
This is a 2D picture the area of the damage i sligthly bending inwards to the left. A 772 is only behind the door (to the right in this picture) at its widest.
Request:
To make these kind of analysis i need high resolution photos of a 772, preferbly MAS. Specially both side, top and front in a (almost) 90 degree angle to the plane. Furthermore i am busy obtaining 3D software also for that i need very good photo's / drawings, to be able to make a 3D model. Please don't reply here, just send them in a PM to me.
To convince me you will need to publish better pictures plus a decription of the trajectory which is exclusive for a Snizhne launch. You basically show the same debris as what Almaz Antey uses to claim a Z. launch!
So who is right?
I want to see photos of shrapnel holes caused in steel running in the longitude axis of the aircraft. So shrapnel which clearly entered the left area of aircraft.
ad_2015
Member
Those scratches from splinters on outer skin - have same direction, going deep and going out when piece was curve, make wrinkle in places where skin dont fortified, present even in fossa area (after detach from plane), well fit with S missile (but who worry, lol).
ad_2015
Member
Last edited:
Rob
Member
mvdb22, you wrote this article :
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17...-meters-in-front-left-and-just-above-cockpit/
Did you change your mind about that assessment ?
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17...-meters-in-front-left-and-just-above-cockpit/
Did you change your mind about that assessment ?
Herman Aven
Member
It seems more realistic to see the left hole as exit hole as the angle might create deformations that could be interpreted as some entrance effect. If this is true then we have to be very careful with any determination of the direction in the various images. In this case I believe the "chipped off" base of the impact might be a clue. Also the impact might have pushed up the metal when burrowing through.
Last edited:
ad_2015
Member
Where is this part on plane?
ad_2015
Member
it very close to mine, lolA 3D visualisation from another Forum
bye-bye Z missile
A 3D visualisation from another Forum
Link?
Ole
Member
In this post the author considers this variant to be obsolete, because a fragment distribution was assumed that differs to the one of AA :
https://www.allmystery.de/themen/gw114908-158#id14460777
Additionally a climbing missile from S (24km distance) would be inconsistent with the flight profiles from the AA slides:
Glad you are not part of the team investigating the cause of this disaster. Your Pro-Kiev attitude will not help to solve this murder of 298 innocent people!
Having said that back to where this thread is all about!
At a first glance the angle of the missile does not look right. It is much too steep. I did a quick calculation based on this image but the distance from a Snizhne launch to the aircraft would be something like 16 km assuming the missile flies in a straight line. And such a straight line seems to be the case seeing what Almaz presented.
Almaz Antey presented this slide showing the angle of attack. For 16 km being the distance from Z to MH17 the angle of the missile would be like in the picture you presented.
For a Snizhne launch being roughly 24 km from MH17 the missile would attack from above.
Maybe lied Almaz about this. Would like to see additional sources for angle of attack.
taken from this source http://tass.ru/boeing-presentation/rayon-zapuska/2023531
I do not know the exact position. It was photographed at the cockpit section.
Pictures were posted first here as it seems http://www.allmystery.de/themen/gw114908-80
Ole
Member
Wikipedia has a total burn time of 15 sec for the 9M38 missile, which would mean the missile goes ballistic after ~15km. Additionally we have the post below, so the profiles by AA seem plausible.
jonnyH
Senior Member.
Not true, if AA's images showing the trajectory in the vertical plane are correct it is unlikely that the missile travels in a straight line to its target.
Due to the manner in which it tracks its target (proportional navigation), where the target is travelling in a straight line and the trajectory of the missile in the vertical plane is a curved path, the trajectory of the missile in the horizontal plane will also be a curved path in order to maintain a constant angle between the missile and the target.
There is also the issue of how the changing speed of the missile will affect its trajectory.
ad_2015
Member
1. AA give wrong fragment distribution.
2. AA give wrong range from Z to plane and about elevation angle of missile
3. AA give wrong targetting point for Z missile.
4. AA based calculation of range for S missile on geo-location which give variation on FoV on missile trail, but dont give confirmed position.
P.S. IF someone in geogebra can add vertical angle of missile (elevation) and relative height, then much easier to see how change penetration angles in horisontal and vertical proections.
2. AA give wrong range from Z to plane and about elevation angle of missile
3. AA give wrong targetting point for Z missile.
4. AA based calculation of range for S missile on geo-location which give variation on FoV on missile trail, but dont give confirmed position.
P.S. IF someone in geogebra can add vertical angle of missile (elevation) and relative height, then much easier to see how change penetration angles in horisontal and vertical proections.
