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

ad_2015

Member
Not really. But the graphics you posted seem to leave the designers some degree of freedom by the way they arrange heavy an light fragments, and by the way they shape the actual surface of the warhead.

My models from post #515 take your numbers at face value and still run into serious problems with the Snizhne scenario. If one wants to talk away these problems with some 3D inclination of the missile at the intercept point, then the missile must have been launched much closer to the last FDR position thus no longer being a Snizhne-missile but becoming a Torez-missile.

Taking into account AA has the roof debris located wrong, a missile in a diving inclination would make more sense, moving the expected damage to the roof of the a/c further to the port side and moving the expected damage below the point of detonation further to the starboard side. Thus the impacts on the copilot's seat would be even easier to explain. So taking your numbers at face value IMHO the least unlikely scenario is a long range shot from somewhere close to 180°.

Another data point that has to be taken into account is the fact that the fuel didn't ignite until the a/c hit the ground, so it's unlikely that a large amount of shrapnel or the missile itself hit the tanks.
Do you have math which describe freedom of deisgners?
What the shape of actual surface of warhead you talking about?
Im dont see any problems with Snizhne scenario - you look on half of picture.
S missile dont have certain location so im can talk about S missile with any range from last FDR point if eleveation angle of missile will good for damage pattern. At same time, Z missile have fixed point. So missile from Z cannot have diving inclination.
And damage pattern for Z missile dont have any chance to leave concentrated damage on co-pilot chair, but should leave exit holes on left skin.
Right now im fight with believers in myths "Lancet" and "Perpendicular saw".
After debunk this falsification, can built simulation what missile can leave present damage pattern on B777.
 

Robert E

New Member
The blue paint is not 'something' left after removing the paint of "Freedom of Space".
Using Occam's Razor I would say the blue paint is a remnant of the "Freedom of Space" special painting 9M-MRD was sporting between Sep 2005 - Sep 2008.
http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/777/28411,9M-MRD-Malaysia-Airlines.php
The blue paint is not 'something' left after removing the paint of "Freedom of Space".
The next photo clearly shows that specific part wasn't even painted blue:
http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2007/9/10/7066.jpg
http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2007/8/14/6378.jpg
 

Brendan

New Member
P.S: One possibility could be, the blue fabric is a part of the business class carpet that was sucked towards the engine during breakup:

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Malaysia_Airlines/Malaysia_Airlines_Boeing_777-200.php
The piece of whatever materiaal seems to be a bit too light for being carpet. It could be some materiaal like to wrap something up.

It could be the covering of a seat that had been ejected towards the left engine.

That seems believable, considering the likelihood that the front overhead bins were ejected in the same general direction, on their way to their landing location to the left of the aircraft's last FDR position.

The edge of a seat could have struck the engine, causing that hole, and the hole's sharp edges could have caught the seat cover. A synthetic material could easily get melted onto a surface so close to a hot engine, especially if it's pressed against it by high air pressure.
 

ad_2015

Member
What if the missile was not launched from either S or Z? What if the track of the missile was 325? And the remains of the missile body hit the left wing. Photos show some green paint which is not the primer paint.
Eyewitnesses said they saw the missile launched near Saurivka / Stepanivka . http://nos.nl/artikel/2035923-in-het-spoor-van-de-buk.html
View attachment 13714
View attachment 13715
This is NOT damage from strike elements. This is
1. damage from rods by kremlin bots
2. damage from air cannon shells (same source)
3. damage from glance missile which continue fly to cabine (same source)
4. damage from collision
Choose one.
Compartment #1 can continue fly to forward, but course can be changed since it random process after explosion.
For test, you can build model of compartment # 1 with glass-ceramic radome and seeker. Both have diameter of 340mm and dont have green paint. Then try to place it on wing by green paint for leave this scratch. Good luck.
 
Last edited:

Joq

Closed Account
...But dynamic field of strike elements (5Ж91) rotate angles to 52-87 degree (forward rotation is near 32 degree from static angles).
Once again. Could you prove your statement? I don't see these angles in the picture.
 

Ole

Member
What if the missile was not launched from either S or Z? What if the track of the missile was 325? And the remains of the missile body hit the left wing. Photos show some green paint which is not the primer paint.
Eyewitnesses said they saw the missile launched near Saurivka / Stepanivka . http://nos.nl/artikel/2035923-in-het-spoor-van-de-buk.html
View attachment 13714
View attachment 13715
The "scratch" is very close to the wingtip, note the end of the dark grey area on the surface of the wing.


It must have been caused by something quite massive, the darker area can be walked upon, and the spars below seem to be damaged/cut as well:

Some basic thoughts concerning the "scratch":

Its direction is far off the normal direction of flow. If it had been caused by debris coming loose from the plane, then the plane would have had a massive yaw angle to make the direction of flow pointing into the direction of the scratch.

For debris coming loose from the front section of the plane to be decelerated sufficiently by the wind drag to cause that scratch, the debris must have a much higher air drag in relation to its weight than the rest of the plane. Otherwise the debris would be exposed to similar aerodynamic forces as the rest of the plane, and thus could not gain sufficient speed difference to cause the scratch.

All parts of the disintegrating plane start at the same speed. Speed differences could only be caused by differing weight/drag ratios of the parts.

So only light parts with a much lower weight/drag ratio than the plane itself could be decelerated significantly. But those parts are not massive enough to cause that scratch. The bottom line is, it's not very plausible the scratch was caused by debris from the plane itself.

Then it probably was caused by some massive debris of the missile. It's hard to predict how the debris of the missile will behave after the detonation, yet the law of conservation of momentum applies, so there is no reason for the missile to change its direction immediately. Direction will change by aerodynamic forces acting on the debris of the missile, but those forces need some time to effectively change the course of the debris.

If we think the debris of the missile just stays on course, then we have to see the picture in the frame of reference of the plane, or with other words: We have to take into account the plane is moving into the flight path of the debris. The vector of the debris (in the frame of reference of the plane) can be calculated with Mick's tool by setting the Fragment speed to zero. For the debris of the missile to fly into the direction of that scratch the missile must have had a course of ~340°.
missile_0.jpg
IMHO the Saurivka / Stepanivka hypothesis is what fits the data best (as of yet).
 
Last edited:

Rob

Member
Fitting the 2D flight path of the missile into that information together with the trajectories identified so far, I get something like this:

For the lighter fragments:
View attachment 13701

For the heavier fragments:
View attachment 13702
The missile itself would go this way (in the frame of reference of the aircraft):
View attachment 13703
Decelerated parts of the missile would point some more into the direction of the wing.


And this is what makes the "pure" Snizhne scenario unlikely.
View attachment 13704

PS: My modified project, that allows to tweak the direction of the frag sector, is here:
https://tube.geogebra.org/m/YaP2MqdF
It's a bit cumbersome because the frag vector doesn't turn when turning the missile vector.
Ole, why do you place the missile detonation for the Snizhne approach so close to the plane ?

And what makes the "pure" Snizhne scenario unlikely exactly ?
 

Ole

Member
Ole, why do you place the missile detonation for the Snizhne approach so close to the plane ?
Because the evidence is overwhelming, feel free to look up all the photos further up in this thread.

Picture from here:
http://mh17.webtalk.ru/viewtopic.php?id=171&p=11#p20833
And what makes the "pure" Snizhne scenario unlikely exactly ?
As already stated in this thread: The lack of impacts to the inside of the starboard cockpit wall, and the big number of impacts to the area behind the captain's seat.
 

Ole

Member
These videos include footage of MIM-104 Patriots intercepting jet fighters. The patriot warhead has a mass of 90kg compared to the 70kg of the BUK.


I put the single frames around the moments of intercept in these galleries:
http://postimg.org/gallery/kcweltig/
http://postimg.org/gallery/1hx9qsigy/
http://postimg.org/gallery/1zw4y9pdo/
http://postimg.org/gallery/eueq7mzo/

e.g:




IMHO this demonstrates, that SAMs with a large kill radius don't need to detonate ahead of their target. Additionally they give some credibility to the fusing algorithm sketch of AA:



IMHO a missile intercepting the aircraft head on from Snizhne could not have fused the way AA depicts in their sketch. The first radar echo perpendicular to the missile would have come from the pressure bulkhead (the idea of the radome is being transparent to radar microwaves ). Yet the detonation obviously happened very close to the plane of the pressure bulkhead. For a missile coming from S that would mean the detonation happened in the instance of seeing the pressure bulkhead in a perpendicular direction and not 3-5 ms afterwards.

The following sketch isn't exactly to scale, it just demonstrates the thought:topview_.jpg
 
Last edited:

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member
IMHO a missile intercepting the aircraft head on from Snizhne could not have fused the way AA depicts in their sketch. The first radar echo perpendicular to the missile would have come from the pressure bulkhead (the idea of the radome is being transparent to radar microwaves ).
I don't think this is correct. The radome doesn't block RADAR, so surely the first return would be from whatever is inside or behind the radome, be it the equipment within the radome or the first point of the bulkhead to come into range of the proximity sensor, which likely wouldn't be the point closest the missile as in your diagram?

Ray Von
 

Herman Aven

Member
What if the missile was not launched from either S or Z? What if the track of the missile was 325?
View attachment 13714
You'll need several things in place for that theory and so it could be falsified. Some basic requirements:

1. extensive starboard wing damage or even partial disintegration.
2. extensive perforation front starboard engine
3. no fragment holes port wing and engine.
4. no fragment holes anywhere in the fuselage roof section behind the first doors
5. no fragment damage tail section

The investigation board doesn't appear to have shown any heavily perforated parts to the invited press which might strenghten your case since the recontruction of the left wing has been shown in the hangar but no sight of the right wing to my knowing. Although there are some penetration marks on the left wing as well.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31719040 from the 1:43 minute mark and later. Not the first "punctuation marks" but note the damage at 2m16s which is from the wing part displayed in front of the tail section.

mh17-left-wing-damage-hall.png

Can it be confirmed that this is indeed the left wing and could the damage be caused by anything else but two or three high velocity projectiles? Tiny missile parts or fragments?
 

ad_2015

Member
My results of calculation for dynamic field of strike elements. Light pellets.

Working on fix errors and next - heavy pellets.
 

Ole

Member
I don't think this is correct. The radome doesn't block RADAR, so surely the first return would be from whatever is inside or behind the radome, be it the equipment within the radome or the first point of the bulkhead to come into range of the proximity sensor, which likely wouldn't be the point closest the missile as in your diagram?
Partially I agree, but counting pixels and taking into account the fuselage with of the 777 is 6.20m, I get a length of 1.05 meters for the radome. So that doesn't change much for the argument. For a BUK intercepting head on, the "earliest" point of detonation should then be 2 meters aft of the bulkhead or 3 meters aft of the tip of the nose. Counting pixels again that is at (was STA 265.5 corrected to) 228.5:
STA.jpg
 
Last edited:

Ole

Member
Can it be confirmed that this is indeed the left wing and could the damage be caused by anything else but two or three high velocity projectiles? Tiny missile parts or fragments?
This seems to be the port vertical stabilizer. I wouldn't be surprised if those damages were caused be debris coming loose from the plane.
 

ad_2015

Member
IMHO this demonstrates, that SAMs with a large kill radius don't need to detonate ahead of their target. Additionally they give some credibility to the fusing algorithm sketch of AA:

AA again manipulated with picture.
On picture with A-10 they write delay equal to distance 3-5 m. But place detonation point on 6-8 m. And with their false fragmentation beam - this missile is slightly hurt right wing and right stabiliser (dont count direct hit in wing even because first missile 9M38 dont have contact fuse).
Why AA provide this false info? They very need 6m distance from right side of B777 to point of detonation. Then their fake with missile from Z look like real. Sorry, but 9M38M1 missile dont have delay on target from side.
If you look on more modern Patriot missile with much better guidance thru missile (very precision and very fast) then you can see how missile detonate after 1-2 m from nose and almost immediatelly from side.
So picture from AA is kiddish fairytale.
P.S. Well im found fact about AA manipulation with detonation point even faster then think.
Just compare two pictures from Almaz-Antey.
Above - picture from press-release of Almaz-Antey about MH17 (link here).
Below - screenshot of briefing of Almaz-Antey about MH17 (link on video).

Just compare, lol, how work magic!
 
Last edited:

Herman Aven

Member
AA ...manipulated... false ... fake .. kiddish fairytale....etc
You would sound some much saner and reasonable if you'd stop making those additional claims I just quoted. Almaz Antey put forward their theory and calculations for external review and submitted it to other experts on the case. Then they organized a press conference about their actions. They may have made big mistakes but it's entirely off topic to keep adding claims of intentional fakery, lie and conspiracy. That's all just speculation on how such mistakes (if any) could be made. It's also speculation on possible motive. It doesn't belong in this discussion at all in my view.
 
Last edited:

ad_2015

Member
You would sound some much saner and reasonable if you'd stop making those additional claims I just quoted. Almaz Antey put forward their theory and calculations for external review and submitted it to other experts on the case. Then they organized a press conference about their actions. They may have made big mistakes but it's entirely off topic to keep adding claims of intentional fakery, lie and conspiracy. That's all just speculation on why certain analysis might be mistaken. It's also speculation on possible motive. It doesn't belong in this discussion at all in my view.
Almaz-Antey just show 2 different versions of one thing - functional delay of detonation.
On first picture, radio-fuse activated as developed - on 20-30 degree to target, it is also first radiation pattern peak.
Detonation happen when signal continously raise with moving target to angle 80-90 degree (best peak of radiation pattern). Since missile fly from forward then this delay happen when signal have maximum amplitude (or reach certain value as function of summing previous signals) or signal raise become to fall (another check for prevent noise attack from target ECM). And warhead detonate will penetrate all vital area of plane (by wide beam of pellets).
On second picture Almaz-Antey trying play with unprepared minds and talk about LANCET under perpendicular to missile axis (dont present on 9N314 warhead). They trying to describe how lancet should penetrate plane in middle-rear area, instead of armored cabin. This is false info.
Another proof on wrong info about delay for penetrate tail instead of armored cabin is history of design 9N314 warhead. Old missile 9M38 had 9N130 warhead full of equal cuboids inside. But testing (and introducing close-support planes with armored elements, also adaptation 9M38 and 9M38M1 missile for naval use against ships) show not enough killing ability of these cuboids (we still see them in outer layer of 9N314). Then developers tried to fill warhead with bigger cuboids, but density of strike field fallen dramatically. Solution was found with X-shape fragments which was enough heavy and strong for penetrate armored targets (density of heavy pellets was enough since plane or ship is big target), filling by cuboids between X-shape + outer layer of cuboids dont lowering density against little targets like missiles (which very weak for even light pellets damage but need density more then density of heavy pellets). So, developers solve problem of armored targets by introducing 9N314 warhead with 3 pellets - X-shape (heavy in inner layer) and cuboids (light, in iner layer fill space between X-shape, and in outer layer). So question - why AA invent incredible lancet for penetrate armored parts, incredible delay for penetrate unarmored middle-tail, if engineers spent time for exchange only cuboids for cuboids + X-shape pellets? Reason? No reason, it fairytale.
Radio-fuse dont know where is cabin and where is tail. This parts is equal to him. Just raising power of signal. But on second picture power of signal falling down, so missile should think warhead will miss target. No delay in this cause, by any cost.
Collision of 2 pictures from Almaz-Antey clearly show how they trying to manipulate with facts - by moving after possible point of detonation in area where mythical lancet should work. They also want to show why missile from Z pass nose section of fuselage and only then detonate. Nothing to add, when you want 2+2=5...
All knowledge about non-directed radio-fuse and non-directed barrel-shaped warheads dont support falsyfied theory about lancet and passing target more then 90 degree angle to target before start detonate.
This is tricks with certain reason. No, engineers and scientist cannot forgot about vector addition and dynamic distribution of fragments or radiation pattern of radio-fuse. It like forgot digits or letters.
 
Last edited:

Rob

Member
Partially I agree, but counting pixels and taking into account the fuselage with of the 777 is 6.20m, I get a length of 1.05 meters for the radome. So that doesn't change much for the argument. For a BUK intercepting head on, the "earliest" point of detonation should then be 2 meters aft of the bulkhead or 3 meters aft of the tip of the nose. Counting pixels again that is at (was STA 265.5 corrected to) 228.5:
View attachment 13741
I do not understand where you get your assessment "the "earliest" point of detonation should then be 2 meters aft of the bulkhead or 3 meters aft of the tip of the nose" from.

To clarify, the 9M38M1 missile claims to target aircraft of all sizes, as well as other missiles.
If it were designed to deposit its fragments 2-3 meters as you claim (or even 3-5 meters as Almaz Antey seems to claims) BEYOND the 'first metal' that its proximity fuse detects, then the bulk of fragments would miss smaller targets (like other missiles)...

So could you elaborate on where your obtained your 2-3 meters "earliest" point of detonation claim from ?
 
Last edited:

Rob

Member
You would sound some much saner and reasonable if you'd stop making those additional claims I just quoted. Almaz Antey put forward their theory and calculations for external review and submitted it to other experts on the case. Then they organized a press conference about their actions. They may have made big mistakes but it's entirely off topic to keep adding claims of intentional fakery, lie and conspiracy. That's all just speculation on how such mistakes (if any) could be made. It's also speculation on possible motive. It doesn't belong in this discussion at all in my view.
Herman, it is rather arrogant to demand that anyone here needs to stay within the bounds of the claims that you quoted.

Almaz Antey made at least one conclusion-altering blunder, and numerous other mistakes, which ad_2015 (and anyone else) should be allowed to point out and label appropriately, especially since they came from a company who claims authority on this matter (and thus any technical mistake they make is likely deliberate).
 
Last edited:

Herman Aven

Member
Almaz-Antey just show 2 different versions of one thing - functional delay of detonation. On first picture, radio-fuse activated as developed - on 20-30 degree to target, it is also first radiation pattern peak.
Detonation happen when signal continously raise with moving target to angle 80-90 degree (best peak of radiation pattern). Since missile fly from forward then this delay happen when signal have maximum amplitude (or reach certain value as function of summing previous signals) or signal raise become to fall (another check for prevent noise attack from target ECM). And warhead detonate will penetrate all vital area of plane (by wide beam of pellets).
On second picture Almaz-Antey trying play with unprepared minds and talk about LANCET under perpendicular to missile axis (dont present on 9N314 warhead). They trying to describe how lancet should penetrate plane in middle-rear area, instead of armored cabin. This is false info.
To me it seems obvious that both missile and warhead were designed to be effective with many scenarios, targets, approach angles and attack vectors. Exactly because they are not Patriot which has a way better tracking of the target. The supplied images just illustrate the problem if proximity would not be the trigger for the delay, how to get to your target (cockpit or engines). You can also see how a lack of delay would be less effective in chances for a good hit, at least under demonstrated angle but many more examples could be drawn up.



Collision of 2 pictures from Almaz-Antey clearly show how they trying to manipulate with facts - by moving after possible point of detonation in area where mythical lancet should work. They also want to show why missile from Z pass nose section of fuselage and only then detonate. Nothing to add, when you want 2+2=5...
It all boils down to you not accepting the claimed lancet. Without it, you can pepper the plane with a wide angle cloud of fragments, hoping something will be hit. It doesn't read like any believable weapon design from the 1980's as the idea is to stop a fast, armored target, not just hurting it.

All knowledge about non-directed radio-fuse and non-directed barrel-shaped warheads dont support falsified theory about lancet and passing target more then 90 degree angle to target before start detonate.
In a few scenarios a delay might worsen the hit-ratio but you have to look at the complete set of all possible approaches. It has no use to detonate right at the rear of the target or at the nose when the missile would be straight in line with it but explosion starts at 90 degrees of it and even when resulting in 45-55 degree angles it would miss most of the target in all these common cases! If as you say the fuze would be non-directional, it indeed could not know. Hence it really needs a few meters extra passing to have on average the maximum damage. Perhaps it takes a few hundreds of drawings or simulations to see this more statistical theory in action.
 
Last edited:
according to A-A diagram these should be exit holes not entry for Z launch,well forward of missiles burst point in which even they say frags are sweeping forward
According to the AA diagram it they would be entry holes. Here is the diagram

Entry holes that fit with a Z launch but not with a Snizhne launch, in the light of damage to the cockpit, and the diagram I pointed to. Just look at that diagram again in post 482.
 
Last edited:
Almaz Antey made at least one conclusion-altering blunder, .
No one here has demonstrated any blunder. People such as yourself have speculated that they understand the missile better than the manufacturer, but that hardly counts as a demonstration.
 

Joq

Closed Account
Is it possible for Buk personnel to choose a trigger delay, if they know the target variables (e.g. speed, range, type)?
 

ad_2015

Member
Withount understanding dynamic field of strike elements, it is impossible to understand how work radio-fuse and selection of detonation point.

Of course, im can show how it all work on 9M38M1 missile, but you can just ask AA - they have nice fairytale about lancet.
Im calculated trajectories of 32 pellets and dont receive lancet on 90 degree with 42% of pellets. My calculation based on ballistic science and can be compared with well-known scientific works.
 
Last edited:

Herman Aven

Member
Withount understanding dynamic field of strike elements, it is impossible to understand how work radio-fuse and selection of detonation point.
Could you provide a source and page number of that information? It appears to me as a somewhat selective find and indicative of a very general abstract analysis. Many papers stress how field tests and experiments might shape design choices and not necessarily only formula and simulation (and computer power was also limited at the time). See also "Estimation of velocity distribution of fragmenting warheads using a modified Gurney method", a thesis from 1979 which would fit the Buk warhead design period in terms of available means.

Im calculated trajectories of 32 pellets and dont receive lancet on 90 degree with 42% of pellets. My calculation based on ballistic science and can be compared with well-known scientific works.
But your trajectories do match to a reasonable degree, you just do not include kinetic energy and mass distribution. That way you have a waver but cannot point to the most effective zone for the kill yet. You miss information because it's more complex (see document above for some of the considerations involved, I suspect there are more).
 

ad_2015

Member
Could you provide a source and page number of that information? It appears to me as a somewhat selective find and indicative of a very general abstract analysis. Many papers stress how field tests and experiments might shape design choices and not necessarily only formula and simulation (and computer power was also limited at the time). See also "Estimation of velocity distribution of fragmenting warheads using a modified Gurney method", a thesis from 1979 which would fit the Buk warhead design period in terms of available means.


But your trajectories do match to a reasonable degree, you just do not include kinetic energy and mass distribution. That way you have a waver but cannot point to the most effective zone for the kill yet. You miss information because it's more complex (see document above for some of the considerations involved, I suspect there are more).
Sorry but how you can know what im dont include if you dont see my calculation? And yes, im know this work and many others, with theory and experiments.
Im based on Gurney equation, Taylor angle, fragment distribution by speed and angle for one side position of detonator, detonation speed of explosive filling etc.
So how my work miss information but your link not? It same science, im just use it for own calculation.
 
Last edited:

Herman Aven

Member
Sorry but how you can know what im dont include if you dont see my calculation? And yes, im know this work and many others, with theory and experiments.
Im based on Gurney equation, Taylor angle, fragment distribution by speed and angle for one side position of detonator, detonation speed of explosive filling etc.
So how my work miss information but your link not? It same science, im just use it for own calculation.
Im see troll which ready for cancel any theory even if it science-based with argue to manufacturer's falsification. Its not first time when Russia lie about MH17 incident.
Well, I just asked for the source of your documentation. Perhaps you gave it earlier in the thread, in that case I'll look.

My point was that Gurney equations and Taylor angles are used for abstract modeling and not always might describe the actual performance of a weapon system. It's not something one so easily should assume as the paper I linked to remarks a few times as well. Why calling me a troll for asking questions? I don't even doubt your own calculations but just remark it doesn't seem to conflict the way you seem to imply it would as the lancet would be a combination of angle, energy and mass for maximum damage zone. But perhaps I misunderstood?
 

RB2

New Member
According to the AA diagram it they would be entry holes. Here is the diagram

Entry holes that fit with a Z launch but not with a Snizhne launch, in the light of damage to the cockpit, and the diagram I pointed to. Just look at that diagram again in post 482.
According to the AA diagram it they would be entry holes. Here is the diagram

Entry holes that fit with a Z launch but not with a Snizhne launch, in the light of damage to the cockpit, and the diagram I pointed to. Just look at that diagram again in post 482.
not really,all frag at that stage are traveling both forward and to the side,there are no known exit holes which Z burst point should have on the left side with dymanic frag beam,only entry
 

ad_2015

Member
My point was that Gurney equations and Taylor angles are used for abstract modeling and not always might describe the actual performance of a weapon system.
Do you seen results of calculation and experiments in link which you give?
Where you see "not always might describe actual perfomance of a wepon system"?

Please find where theory and practice is very different?
Im see big (impossible) difference in Almaz-Antey briefing:
This barrel-shaped warhead with fragmentation beam as in data info

cannot give such dynamic field of strike elements with magical angles and lancet

Did Almaz-Antey invented new science with another fragment distribution, speed, angles after vector addition?
Really?!
So in my calculation im use current knowledge about pellets. When and if Gurney, Taylor and whole army of ballistics will be debunked by AA experts then im surrender and built another simulation, but before im open to use science as tool for describe damage pattern for missile.
Any appealing to AA info i want to see with proof on independent well-known source based on science or it going to trash where is place for it.
 

ad_2015

Member
Is it possible for Buk personnel to choose a trigger delay, if they know the target variables (e.g. speed, range, type)?
trigger delay for 9M38M1 based on 3 types of target:
aeroballistic - missiles without rotating parts
aerodynamic - planes with rotating parts which including deviation of frequency in re-emitted signal
hover - hovercraft with low speed and rotating parts
Trigger delay for first is nothing, for second is based on range/relative speed and course, for third range/own speed.
 

Herman Aven

Member
not really,all frag at that stage are traveling both forward and to the side,there are no known exit holes which Z burst point should have on the left side with dynamic frag beam,only entry
You're of course applying a different fragmentation "beam" to arrive at that conclusion. But the same could be said for any Snizned scenario assuming you're using the "Metabunk" model.




The right side of the cockpit and business class should be peppered with various exit holes, also impacts on the right wing. Haven't seen any visual confirmation of that yet.

And I'd like to see a calculation for missile speed - 850m/s, as listed at ausairpower.net for M38M1 velocity as it might as well better corresponded to a Mach 3 at higher altitudes (colder air)? Then adjust the frag-speed to 2400 m/s as mentioned by Almaz-Antey, although it's not clear to me if that's the initial velocity or a striking velocity as resulting vector. All I know is that Almaz-Antey talks about heaviest fragments having 2400m/s going through material (between 31m and 39m in the presentation or slide 10 elsewhere). Which would not equal the velocity at explosion time. If this already has been hashed out elsewhere my apologies.
 
Last edited:

Herman Aven

Member
Do you seen results of calculation and experiments in link which you give?
Where you see "not always might describe actual perfomance of a wepon system"?

Please find where theory and practice is very different?
Are you suggesting the field test of an actual missile approaching a target in the actual atmosphere at realistic speeds could not differ much from laboratory experiments and calculations? In fact, Almaz-Antey makes exactly that point during their presentation stressing field tests for establishing the most effective kill zone. In other words, throwing some text book at them seems to be nicely preempted here by AA. Calling it all lies does not change a thing. It's pointless to dismiss a claimed result coming from a undisclosed set of field tests. And it's also not possible to accept it as proof. So other approaches are needed but not just dismissing the whole engineering as lie.

Im see big (impossible) difference in Almaz-Antey briefing:
This barrel-shaped warhead with fragmentation beam as in data info

cannot give such dynamic field of strike elements with magical angles and lancet
Those two images show different things but angles are the same. The first image in the static realm and only maximum distribution angles while the second image shows some actual dynamic situation, implying all the backwards aimed fragments receive forward thrust resulting in the highest energy in the red zone, which AA claims to has >40% of mass and >50% of kinetic energy of the resulting explosion. This effect might be reached when mounting the heaviest fragments lower in the warhead pointing backwards but perhaps there are other effects as well. It's true that lancet is close to double in mass and energy of what any generic formula would suggest. It's perhaps surprising but not necessarily false unless people can show me field experiments of this actual warhead being detonated at Mach 3. ....
 

ad_2015

Member
You're of course applying a different fragmentation "beam" to arrive at that conclusion. But the same could be said for any Snizned scenario assuming you're using the "Metabunk" model.




The right side of the cockpit and business class should be peppered with various exit holes, also impacts on the right wing. Haven't seen any visual confirmation of that yet.

And I'd like to see a calculation for missile speed - 850m/s, as listed at ausairpower.net for M38M1 velocity as it might as well better corresponded to a Mach 3 at higher altitudes (colder air)? Then adjust the frag-speed to 2400 m/s as mentioned by Almaz-Antey, although it's not clear to me if that's the initial velocity or a striking velocity as resulting vector. All I know is that Almaz-Antey talks about heaviest fragments having 2400m/s going through material (between 31m and 39m in the presentation or slide 10 elsewhere). Which would not equal the velocity at explosion time. If this already has been hashed elsewhere out my apologies.
1. 850 m/s is average speed as result of distance/time (38000 m /45 sec).
2. Heavy pellets cannot have speed 2400 m/s. They situated in inner layer and use as liner for projectors from outer liner. Cannot have speed more then light pellets then but AA info give maximum velocity ~2400 m/s. Also heavy pellets distributed between all surface of warhead, but initial speed of pellets falling down on end of warhead.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
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 0
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
izz 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
iKnowWhoYouAre why does this site even exist? General Discussion 134
Canadasix If its just contrails why does it start from the east and work it's way west? Contrails and Chemtrails 10
scombrid Does drug use cause paranoia or do paranoids seek out psychoactive drugs? General Discussion 7
Leifer Rabies does not exist. Conspiracy Theories 8
U Why does this site not debunk government and corporate wrongdoings? Site Feedback & News 4
Juror No. 8 Does the U.S. government manufacture terrorism? If so, why? General Discussion 99
firepilot Does Roxy Lopez have callers on her friday internet show? Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Pogopoint99 Does Rosalind Peterson believe in chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 17
SR1419 Does more dust equal more contrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top