Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location?

ad_2015

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):
9529984_original (1).jpg
Boeing_777-2H6-ER,_Malaysia_Airlines_AN0561319.jpg
original from here:
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/drugoi/484155/9529984/9529984_original.jpg
This is spare parts. Big box is cargo container with this damaged PDF and luggage bag.
 
This is spare parts. Big box is cargo container with this damaged PDF and luggage bag.
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?
 

mvdb22

Member
This is spare parts. Big box is cargo container with this damaged PDF and luggage bag.
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?
 

Herman Aven

Member
but co-pilot chair have 4 good visible holes with understandible angles
ooops, it just 40 times! better then theory about 4% of fragments

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
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.
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.
 
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.
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
Ok, it just fact against Z missile, close eyes on it, continue search support for russian lie.
Foul deeds will rise, Though all the earth o'erwhelm them, to men's eyes.¬Hamlet
 
Last edited:

mvdb22

Member
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.
0_a4df4_81b2884a_orig.jpg
 

ad_2015

Member
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.
0_a4df4_81b2884a_orig.jpg
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.
 

mvdb22

Member
What number of cargo hold with burning on photo? One which right under/after cabine or which close to burning engines?
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
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.
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.
 

Herman Aven

Member
Then look on it
this is impossible for Z missile attack of plane and impossible disclosure angles for flying missile

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.
 

Robert E

New Member
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.
Side Angle 43,5.PNG
The angle to the edge of the blue paint is 43,5 degrees

Fragment 002 - Angle 43,5.JPG
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.
 

ad_2015

Member
Ok im got my point of detonation different from Z missile. Anyone can help with high-res nose section in all dimensions? Or with realistic 3D model? PM please.
 

mvdb22

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.

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.
 

mvdb22

Member
I am wondering if these are exit holes made by fragments entering from the front of the cockpit going throught the cockpit and leaving the roof. And those scratches are caused by the cockpit sliding over the ground.
This hole is from the inside of the cockpit roof
 

ad_2015

Member
I am wondering if these are exit holes made by fragments entering from the front of the cockpit going throught the cockpit and leaving the roof. And those scratches are caused by the cockpit sliding over the ground.
This hole is from the inside of the cockpit roof
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).
 

mvdb22

Member
Another interesting photo. It shows the safety belt which is clearly severely damaged by something.
Look near the black buckle.
The black buckle is located near the belly button of the pilot when strapped on. 16678684600_ca8cb304b6_o.jpg
I am not sure if this is the seat of the captain.
 

ad_2015

Member
Another interesting photo. It shows the safety belt which is clearly severely damaged by something.
Look near the black buckle.
The black buckle is located near the belly button of the pilot when strapped on. 16678684600_ca8cb304b6_o.jpg
I am not sure if this is the seat of the captain.
This is captain's seat, look on pic
 
Last edited:

Herman Aven

Member
This is an interesting photo. It seems there are two shrapnel holes in opposite direction!

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.

strike-through.png
 
Last edited:

mvdb22

Member
it very close to mine, lol
bye-bye Z missile
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
4023228.jpg
 

Ole

Member
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.

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.

common to use kinetic energy after burn out off fuel,9M38M1 missile retains quite high g rating in kinetic phase 10-13g afaik,will quickly bleed off when engaging a maneuvering target however,its boost-sustain vs boost-glide
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Please avoid simple accusations of "lying", as that's generally a subjective interpretation. Focusing instead on if a particular claim of evidence holds up.
 

jonnyH

Senior Member.
assuming the missile flies in a straight line. And such a straight line seems to be the case seeing what Almaz presented.
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
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.
You should carefully read wikipedia. For example, 9M38 and 9M38M1 is different missile - first have burn time 15 sec, another have burn time raised to 19 sec. It give to missile additional 5 km range and 2 km alt.
 

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.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Rory Claim: Pfizer's own data shows that their vaccine "does more harm than good" Coronavirus COVID-19 81
Edward Current Does the beginning part of Gimbal debunk the claim that the object rotates? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 18
T How much research does a truther have to do to get any respect around here? 9/11 170
W What exactly does “Explained:” mean in a thread title? Site Feedback & News 2
S Does this video footage show a dragon (sea serpent) attacking a manatee? [No] Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
Jeff Semenak Does Benford's Law apply to Elections? Election 2020 2
P What does "genuine UFO" mean in the Condon Committee report General Discussion 5
Edward Current Needs Debunking: That the GPS does not implement time corrections from Einstein's relativity Science and Pseudoscience 7
Mick West What does "Off-World" mean to the US Military? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
J Why Does the Sun Rise and Set In a Straight Line? Flat Earth 14
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
J Does google earth pro simulate refraction [No] Flat Earth 7
brad fuller Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
creatonez Explained: Why the Earth does not look oblate in photos from space Flat Earth 5
Mick West Why Does the Atmosphere Not Fly off into the Vacuum of Space? Flat Earth 21
Mick West What does the Flat Earth Look Like From Space, with Perspective? Flat Earth 19
Tom Binney Does my FE Debunk in this case make sense to you guys? Practical Debunking 23
ConfusedHominid Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
S Explained: Why does this Apollo11 photo act so weirdly? Conspiracy Theories 13
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
Mick West Explained: Why a Spirit Level on a Plane Does Not Show Curvature "Corrections" Flat Earth 98
Trailblazer Why does Polaris appear stationary on a rotating Earth? Flat Earth 16
Mick West Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
Supreme Logic Why does the equator stay warm all year? Conspiracy Theories 7
P Does Orlando victim switch legs when he switches languages [No] Conspiracy Theories 8
Rory Does the Earth's Curvature Vary with Latitude? [No, not significantly] Flat Earth 34
Z.W. Wolf Does Sundial Disprove Flat Earth? Flat Earth 17
Gamolon Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge? 9/11 25
aka How does this Domino Tower Collapse relate to 9/11 Collapses 9/11 75
mrfintoil Study: When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not) Practical Debunking 3
Tony Szamboti Does the exclusion of stiffness from Nordenson's falling girder calculations demonstrate anything? 9/11 288
Hama Neggs Where does "Scientist" end and "debunker" begin? Practical Debunking 16
Steve Funk Does Guy McPherson believe in chemtrails? [No] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Ogmion Does DNA emit light General Discussion 8
T How Does This Failed Demolition Relate to the Collapse of the WTC Towers? 9/11 14
Leifer Erin Brokovich does not believe in chemtrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 64
Trailblazer SkyderALERT: where does the money go? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Leifer does Social Media + Ego help drive conspiracy theories ? General Discussion 63
David Fraser Super/subscript, how does one do it? Site Feedback & News 4
qed Why does the Lunar Lander leave not tracks Conspiracy Theories 44
Mick West The Johnson and Johnson Settlement, where does it fit in the conspiracy world Conspiracy Theories 13
qed Does concrete melt? 9/11 84
hiper Does Seismic Evidence Imply Controlled Demolition on 9/11 9/11 101
Mick West How Much Does Metabunk.org Cost to Run? Site Feedback & News 17
MikeC Video that does actually support hypothesis with evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 1
fonestar Why does JFK's Head go back after he's shot from the back? [warning: contains gore] Conspiracy Theories 178
Cairenn How much does a storm weigh? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West How Much Money Does Alex Jones Make? People Debunked 17
Critical Thinker What does Greenpeace think about chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 34
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top