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

jonnyH

Senior Member
Which is a bit nonsensical from a use of energy point of view, as a chunk of the KE of the explosion is then cancelled out by the KE of the missile. To get a sideways velocity of 2400, you'd need it angled back at 22° and starting at 2600 m/s
This was my back of fag packet calculation:BUK Vp.jpg
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
What's the goal of this analysis? It's starting to seem a bit abstract, albeit fascinating.
I'm seeing what seem to be only minute changes in dispersal patterns, but I don't understand what they either prove or rule out about the launch location?
 

Rob

Member
What's the goal of this analysis? It's starting to seem a bit abstract, albeit fascinating.
I'm seeing what seem to be only minute changes in dispersal patterns, but I don't understand what they either prove or rule out about the launch location?
It's difficult to completely rule out launch from either Snizhne or Zaroshens'kye until we understand two important "static" (seen from the missile) distributions of how fragments leave the warhead :

The "static" VELOCITY distribution (how fast do fragments leave the warhead in any particular direction).
Almaz Antey presents a graph of what they say is the "dynamic" (which takes missile and plane speed into account) velocity distribution, but that graph does not make any physical sense as Mick points out very convincingly.
Maybe the graph presents the "static" velocity distribution after all ?

But even more important is the "static" DENSITY distribution (how many fragments leave the warhead in any particular direction). That is the "spread" in Mick's animation.
Almaz Antey explains that for the static case, 96% of the fragments leave in a 56 deg spread roughly symmetrical around a right angle away from the missile.
They also mention also that 42% goes into a much narrower spread (a "lancet"), but it is not entirely clear how wide that spread is nor if it is also roughly perpendicular to the missile path.

It is really unfortunate that Almaz Antey is so ambiguous about these two important "static" distributions of the warhead, which make all the difference between ruling out one launch location or the other.
 
Last edited:
It's difficult to completely rule out launch from either Snizhne or Zaroshens'kye until we understand two important "static" (seen from the missile) distributions of how fragments leave the warhead :
What trajectory do you propose for a Snizhne launch, and where do you propose the missile exploded.
Almaz Antey has to their credit proposed a testable hypothesis. There is no testable hypothesis for a Snizhne launch. All we have is a "maybe it came from Snizhne, but we don't have a falsifiable hypothesis"
It is really unfortunate that Almaz Antey is so ambiguous about these two important "static" distributions of the warhead,
Well they do give quite a bit of information, for a press conference.
which make all the difference between ruling out one launch location or the other
I think Snizhne could be ruled out, unless there is a way the damage can be explained by a missile from Snizhne
 
Last edited:

jonnyH

Senior Member
What's the goal of this analysis?
AA conclude Zaroshens’kye is the likely launch site having estimated the location and orientation of the missile at detonation by analysing the pattern of damage to the plane, and; extrapolated back to the launch site.

In order to estimate to position of the missile AA present the following evidence:

(a) the maximum velocity of the shrapnel (somewhere between 2000 m/s and 2400 m/s)
(b) the angle at which the shrapnel spreads when a warhead detonates at rest (56 degrees), and
(c) a full velocity profile of the shrapnel spread of a warhead travelling at 1000 m/s.

Mick used (b) and (c) to calculate a figure for (a) but found the result was nearly 3 times that stated by AA.

I used (a) and (c) to estimate a velocity profile for the warhead at rest but what I found is completely incompatible with what AA tell us about (b).

It looks like their numbers just don't add up. At least one of the three bits of evidence that AA rely on in making their estimate of the missiles position must be very wrong and thus their estimate itself must be wrong. It follows that the subsequent extrapolation cannot reliably conclude that the launch site was Zaroshens’kye.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What trajectory do you propose for a Snizhne launch, and where do you propose the missile exploded.
Almaz Antey has to their credit proposed a testable hypothesis. There is no testable hypothesis for a Snizhne launch. All we have is a "maybe it came from Snizhne, but we don't have a falsifiable hypothesis"
Well based on analysis so far, it seem like their hypothesis has been falsified, as it has been shown their velocity profile makes no sense.

And how is their hypothesis testable exactly?

The Snizhe hyposthesis is quite simple. The missile came in at about 314 degrees, it exploded roughly as shown here:


There's lots of unknowns. But AA's velocity vectors are inconsistent nonsense, so it's impossible to base a hypothesis on them.
 

Rob

Member
For a launch from Zaroshens'ke, the missile would be heading at 20 deg, (85 deg from the right of the plane's heading).
Since the fragments blast almost exclusively forward, this makes it very difficult to find a detonation location on the left and above the plane where ANY damage would be done.

In fact, the only detonation location where some serious damage could be done to the left side would be smack ON the left pilot's window. Assuming the 56 deg spread that Almaz Antey says holds 96% of the fragments, that would result in this pattern :

Zaroschske-56.png




Note that the main blast of fragments (along the dotted orange line) rips out the entire left front of the plane.

Also note that this picture is only valid if the missile exploded RIGHT ON the left pilot's window, and BELOW the plane's ceiling.

If it exploded a couple of meters ABOVE the cockpit, or a few meters IN FRONT of it then the main blast would have missed the plane completely (since also along the z axis, the fragments move away from the plane).

And that is just the first issue that casts doubt on the Zaroshens'ke launch location.
 
Last edited:
For a launch from Zaroshens'ke, the missile would be heading at 20 deg, (85 deg from the right of the plane's heading).
Isthat the same angle Almaz Antey propose?
Since the fragments blast almost exclusively forward, this makes it very difficult to find a detonation location on the left and above the plane where ANY damage would be done.
Do you have the missile in the horizontal plane in your calculations (as I think Mick's model does) or still rising as AA seems to (not that that helps them)
If it exploded a couple of meters ABOVE the cockpit, or a few meters IN FRONT of it then the main blast would have missed the plane completely (since also along the z axis, the fragments move away from the plane).
This sounds strange. It sounds strange because AA tell us that they went to quite a bit of trouble over quite some time to design a missile that would take out a plane.
Yet according to what you are saying they could fire the missile well within range from the side have it detonate within a couple of metres of the cockpit and yet miss the plane completely.
I'm wondering on that basis if something is being missed here.
they deliberately designed the missile to hit a narrow area, so there must be some way they make sure that narrow area will hit the cockpit where ever the missile comes from.
 
Last edited:

vitorino

Member
This sounds strange. It sounds strange because AA tell us that they went to quite a bit of trouble over quite some time to design a missile that would take out a plane.
Your trust on the manufacturers is dumbfounding.

What have they ever done? Build a missile? that blows up airplanes? What kind of expertise does that give them? Do you really think more than internet-people that can learn about anything online, build models and acquire proficientness on tackling the complexities of mid-flight explosion, shrapnelling and satelite picture forgery?
 
Your trust on the manufacturers is dumbfounding.
What have they ever done? Build a missile? that blows up airplanes? What kind of expertise does that give them? Do you really think more than internet-people that can learn about anything online, build models and acquire proficientness on tackling the complexities of mid-flight explosion, shrapnelling and satelite picture forgery?
I guess you're right. Internet people probably know more.
 

Rob

Member
This sounds strange. It sounds strange because AA tell us that they went to quite a bit of trouble over quite some time to design a missile that would take out a plane.
Yet according to what you are saying they could fire the missile well within range from the side have it detonate within a couple of metres of the cockpit and yet miss the plane completely.
I'm wondering on that basis if something is being missed here.
they deliberately designed the missile to hit a narrow area, so there must be some way they make sure that narrow area will hit the cockpit where ever the missile comes from.
Thank you for bringing this point up.
Yes, of course Almaz Antey designed the missile in such a way that it will take out an airplane, no matter which direction the missile approaches the plane.

For that, detonation of the missile is controlled by a proximity fuse, which triggers if the missile is a set distance (typically 10-15 meters) from the target.

That is why the Almaz Antey assessment of the detonation point (right in front of the left pilot's window), does not make any sense at all.

If the missile would have come from Zaroshens'ke, and it would have operated properly, it would have detonated on the RIGHT side of the plane, with a blast pattern something like this :

Screen Shot 2015-06-18 at 10.58.09 PM.png


But there was NO significant damage on the right side of the cockpit, and there was significant damage on the left side, so for the Almaz Antey conclusion (that the missile detonated smack in front of the left pilot's window) to be correct, the missile's proximity fuse should have malfunctioned, to the point where just a few milliseconds later the warhead fragments would have missed the plane entirely.
 
Last edited:

Ole

Member
For that, detonation of the missile is controlled by a proximity fuse, which triggers if the missile is a set distance (typically 10-15 meters) from the target.
Around 17:00 in the video AA explains why their fusing logic is different. According to them, they use a delay of 3-5 meters between the proximity fuse detecting something abeam and the triggering of the detonation. This is to hit the center of the target and not the heavyly armoured cockpit.
delay.jpg
 
Around 17:00 in the video AA explains why their fusing logic is different. According to them, they use a delay of 3-5 meters between the proximity fuse detecting something abeam and the triggering of the detonation. This is to hit the center of the target and not the heavily armoured cockpit.
Ok so why do they allow for the missile hitting the cockpit, rather than the middle?
The distance makes sense though
 

Rob

Member
Around 17:00 in the video AA explains why their fusing logic is different. According to them, they use a delay of 3-5 meters between the proximity fuse detecting something abeam and the triggering of the detonation. This is to hit the center of the target and not the heavyly armoured cockpit.
View attachment 13425
Ole. In that screenshot, they talk about detonation 3-5 meter from the "top part (the cockpit) of the plane".

How is that detonation 3-5 meter from the cockpit achieved with a "delay" fuse regardless of the direction the missile approaches from ?

And if that "delay" fuse that you suggest was supposed to hit the "less protected" areas of the plane rather than the cockpit (as the interpreter explains), why did the missile explode right in front of MH17's left pilot's window according to Almaz Antey ? Did that "delay" fuse system fail as well ?

Or is there simply a 3-5 millisecond (3-5 meters for the missile) delay between the proximity fuse triggering and the fragments leaving the warhead ?

If so, the picture they present is misleading, and the delay has nothing to do with any attempt to target any particular part of the plane...
 
Last edited:

Ole

Member
And if that "delay" fuse that you suggest was supposed to hit the "less protected" areas of the plane rather than the cockpit (as the interpreter explains), why did the missile explode right in front of MH17's left pilot's window according to Almaz Antey ? Did that "delay" fuse system fail as well ?
Taking into account the 777 fuselage width of 6.20 meters an explosion in front of the captain's window sounds reasonable with a delay of 3-5 meters.

I don't like to be in the position of defending neither AA nor the quality of their presentation, but to asses their statements one should consider (among other) the following:
- Missile manufactures in general shall be reluctant to have information about their intercepting and fusing algorithms in the public domain.
- The presentation was probably made by the tech people, then revised by security and "political" people, presented by some marketing guy and translated to English by an interpreter who has little idea of any of the above. That wouldn't help to enhance the presentation's quality.
 

Rob

Member
Taking into account the 777 fuselage width of 6.20 meters an explosion in front of the captain's window sounds reasonable with a delay of 3-5 meters.

I don't like to be in the position of defending neither AA nor the quality of their presentation, but to asses their statements one should consider (among other) the following:
- Missile manufactures in general shall be reluctant to have information about their intercepting and fusing algorithms in the public domain.
- The presentation was probably made by the tech people, then revised by security and "political" people, presented by some marketing guy and translated to English by an interpreter who has little idea of any of the above. That wouldn't help to enhance the presentation's quality.
Sure.
That does not make their assessment right, though.

And in fact, based on simple physics (such as Mick's animation tool) a launch from Zaroshens'ke would imply a failing proximity fuse and a bizarre detonation smack in front of the left pilot's window, below MH17's ceiling.

And that is even without looking at damage details.
 
Last edited:

Rob

Member
Taking into account the 777 fuselage width of 6.20 meters an explosion in front of the captain's window sounds reasonable with a delay of 3-5 meters.
No Ole, that does NOT sound reasonable.

Please give the missile designers some credit will you ?
After all, the designers KNOW the time it takes between the proximity fuse triggering and the fragments leaving the warhead.

That is why the fuse is designed to trigger 10-15 meters BEFORE the target, so that the fragments leave the warhead early enough (7-10 meters ahead) for the bulk of the fragments to cause maximum damage knowing the cone of expansion.

Which means that IF MH17 was shot down by a missile from Zaroshens'ke, that the warhead would still have exploded on the RIGHT side of MH17, similar to what I pictured in post #92.

And since there was NO significant damage on the right side of the cockpit, the missile cannot have been launched from Zaroshens'ke if the proximity fuse operated properly.

Is that so hard to accept ?
 
Last edited:

Ole

Member
Is that so hard to accept ?
Well yes, it's always hard to accept arguments by authority, be it the authority of the manufacturer or the authority of somebody else.

With a perpendicular pattern of fragments it makes more sense to trigger the warhead when the target is abeam, with a forward pointing cone it makes more sense to trigger the warhead when the target is still ahead.

This thread established that AA's explanation of the way the warhead produces a perpendicular pattern is inconsistent/misleading/wrong. It would be nice to establish more facts on the actual fragmentation pattern other than that its explanation is bad or that we would like it to be a cone.
 
Sure.
That does not make their assessment right, though.

And in fact, based on simple physics (such as Mick's animation tool) a launch from Zaroshens'ke would imply a failing proximity fuse and a bizarre detonation smack in front of the left pilot's window, below MH17's ceiling.

And that is even without looking at damage details.
Yet somehow a missile from Snizhne managed to detonate on the far side of the plane after passing the nose of the plane. Interesting.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yet somehow a missile from Snizhne managed to detonate on the far side of the plane after passing the nose of the plane. Interesting.
That depends on the missile's criteria for detonation, and where it actually ends up. If it's just a certain distance from the center of mass of the target, then there's a variety of scenarios:
 
Perhaps though it's simply proximity to anything, meaning 3-5 meters, if AA are correct here:
The translator says..at around 15.30 to 15.40
and the explosion point was on the distance 3 to 5 metres from the top part of the plane..from the cockpit of the plane
It's not clear that this is specifically what will always happen or what happened this time, according to their calculations
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Perhaps though it's simply proximity to anything, meaning 3-5 meters, if AA are correct here:
Ah, missed this post.

Around 17:00 in the video AA explains why their fusing logic is different. According to them, they use a delay of 3-5 meters between the proximity fuse detecting something abeam and the triggering of the detonation. This is to hit the center of the target and not the heavyly armoured cockpit.
View attachment 13425
But they don't actually say that. Can you quote what they say, and where they say it?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Some detail on the fusing mechanism here:
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17...he-buk-sa-11-which-could-have-shot-down-mh17/ (http://archive.today/8Rfi3)
 

mvdb22

Member
It would be good if that site sourced it's information.
That could be more valuable
The source is someone who appears to know a lot about the working of the BUK system.

This thread is BTW one of the most informatives ones on MH17. Well done everyone. And big thumbs up for Mick for making the model.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
At 3:15 into this (70 year old) video, there's a description of how proximity fuses worked back then. The basic principle is still the same, trigger the warhead where it will do most damage, so the fuse looks where the fragments will go, not just forward, or around.



 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Another inconsistency in the AA presentation. Overlaying the A10 graphic for scale:


For it to detonate in their claimed location, it would have to be triggered much earlier than it is in the A10 diagram.
 

Ole

Member
Ah, missed this post.



But they don't actually say that. Can you quote what they say, and where they say it?
This is my transcript of the video, begining at 16:15 ending at 17:42 :
During the later part of that sequence this sketch is shown:

The sketch depicts a warhead detonating after having traveled 3-5 meters from the point where it first had a part of the plane abeam.
 

Ole

Member
Another inconsistency in the AA presentation. Overlaying the A10 graphic for scale:


For it to detonate in their claimed location, it would have to be triggered much earlier than it is in the A10 diagram.
The scale of this sketch is screwed:

According to the scale on the bottom right, the blue arrow has a length of ~8 m and not 3-5 m.
 

mvdb22

Member
The fragment damage done to the seat of one of the pilots (I believe this is the co-pilot seat) gives some clues about the position of the missile. Very likely the missile exploded just a few meters left, and above the cockpit.
 

Robert E

New Member
A few questions:

-1 spreading pattern:
Could the pattern be (more or less) compared to a Gaussian distribution (or "normal distribution)?
normaal verdeling six sigma sigmaniveau.jpg
if spreadingpattern is indeed comparable with a Gaussian distribution, would it be possible to include this (roughly) in the vectormodel?

- 2 radar:
Is it unlogic to assume the missile is guided to the centre of the object, based on radar reflection which could differ from the metric centre of the object?

- 3 verticale angle of missile:
the verticle angle of the missile has much influence on the actual distribution of the fragment, is it possible to make a vectormodel with a front view of the plane?

-4 proximity fuse
In post #107 is written the proximity fuse used line 2 (no electronic counter measures). Why is assumed line 2? MH17 clearly an aircraft without electric counter measures, but i assume "they" didn't not intend to shoot down a civil aircraft, but a military aircraft, with possible electronic counter measures. Does the missile itself contains enough 'intelligence' to detect the presence of electronic counter measures and adjust functioning of the proximity fuse during the flight of the missisle to its target?
Is it possible to make a model for proximity fuse, with the different relevant variables for both possible launchsites and with topview and frontview?
 

Ole

Member
streubereich.jpg
The caption of this image is :"Static distribution of splinters". It is from here. The original of the scan has the look and feel of a book for the army of the former GDR which maybe was translated from russian.

Translation (by "google translate" with corrections by me) of the text below that image:
So a splinter cone pointing to the stern of the missile doesn't seem to be something unusual. A backward pointing cone is achieved by locating the primer on the forward side of the waread. This image is from here:
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/buk-warhead.pdf

bukwarhead.jpg
My russian is nonexistent but by the look of it, I would guess that "3 - ПНМ" is the primer, 4- is the connection to it and 10- is the electrical cabel to the primer whereas 17- Безопасность is something like a safety mechanism.

If that is the case, the primer would be located at the front end of the warhead, thus producing a backward pointing cone?
 
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