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

If the speed of missile is reduced to something like 480 meters/sec fragments will hit that area on top of the roof with the angle we see on the photos.

The original post was information/claim that AA showed evidence that the SAM did not originate in Snizhne - all of the basic speed and fragmentation parameters in the simulation are from the AA presentation. The simulation shows that the AA claim starts breaking down when the vector calculations based on these speeds are resolved. Resorting to modifying the claimed speeds from AA would seem to me to further impeach their evidence.

Based on the next 3 pictures:

It shows the cockpit roof.
This photo shows the same two scratches in the little red box above the cockpit window

A larger photo here
http://www.diena.lt/sites/default/files/Vilniausdiena/Vartotoju zona/rutaa/47rs141120b032.jpg

The reconstruction looks like this

Conclusion: missile exploded very close to the cockpit window in front of the captain seat.

The centre of the warhead was at the level of the red line/arrow in first picture, maybe a few centimeters higher or lower. The damage of photo 2 & 3 is mostly not a direct penetration, hit the plane under a very small angle. Also the damage is on the starboardside of the plane, and the missile exploded on the portside of the plane, that means the fragments had cross the middle of the plane, which is sligthly higher than is location of the damage shown in picture 2 and 2.

Even if the point of exploding of AA is correct, there is still a big variable which is unproven in the AA point of exploding, the angle (or heading) of the missile.
At this moment is assumed the trajectory of the missile is 20 degrees, which is for me still a very big questionmark. This trajectory doesn't match with the basic principle of the radar of the missile and with the functionality of the proximity fuse (although i have to admit, i need more information on that to be sure).
Almaz-Antey spread out information about meeting course plane-missile for both Zaroschenskoe and Snizhne.
The velocities involved are big, the errormargins so very small. 1/10 of a second difference in timing means a gap of 125 meters between the plane and missile (252 m/s of the plane and 1000 m/s of the missile), even 0,05 of a second already means the difference between 'succes' and 'failure'.
It is absolutely nothing for work fuse. Detonation happen with speed 8000 m/s which much more then other speeds.
The radar of the missile has a variable angle between 30-60 degrees.
It wrong information - radar have angle from -90 to +90 to both axis.
The missile will adjust its trajectory depending on the result of this radar, but at the same time always makes sure the new trajectory is never outside the margins of the radar angle of 30-60 degrees.
Missile dont adjust trajectory. Trajectory pattern for missile is result of calculation next things:
1. Mode of fire
2. Location of Meeting point
3. Type of target
4. Speed and course of target
5. Relative position of TELAR (TEL) to target course
When missile readying to start all that info downloading to missile computer so missile know what angle must choose radar seeker for lock target on final stage. All other targets ignored as false/wrong.
At launch of the missile the width of the angle in km is big, but the closer it gets to its target, the narrower it gets. A launch from Zaroschenskoe will show a curved (in 2D horizontal spectrum) trajectory then a launch from Shizne.
Missile dont have target for seeker almost all flight except last km. But radar seeker have very wide radiation pattern so dont target narrow angle but measure power of signal in a few position of antenna during scanning. Correction to course is result of choosing best power of signal.
Look on picture

My personal opinion is the trajectory of a missile launched from Zaroschenskoe should be bigger, how much i can't tell (yet).
Do you have theory how proportional navigation work for Z and dont work for S?

What i am traying to explain:
there are several variables that needs to be proven (launchlocations and angles) we cannot proof variable 1 with using one of the other variables. We have to do step by step.
1st: the best estimate of the point (both vertical and horizontal) of the moment of exploding.
2nd: the precise functionality of the radar and proximity fuse
Based on those answer, we could draw a conclusion on the possible launchingside.
We cannot pinpoint location of launch missile just because we cannot measure penetration angles on MH17 debris. We only can debunk lie about possible penetration angles based on math. And include such scenarios like launch from S in possible (or Z as impossible) just because it fit well in math model which simulated by Mick West.
Moment of exploding missile cannot be calculated with radar or fuse precision. Seeker dont know distance to target and measure angle to power center. Fuse know range only on terminal stage when seeker end his work and give to fuse command to ready exploding. But radiation pattern for fuse is wide enough for cover 180 degree area around missile (each antenna).
P.S. Another reason why missile from Z is impossible shown on picture above - seeker should choose best power position of target and from side it is fuselage near centerplane, dont nose part.

Last edited:
Here a photo (same one as above) but a bit zoomed out
It shows the cockpit roof.
This photo shows the same two scratches in the little red box above the cockpit window
A larger photo here
http://www.diena.lt/sites/default/files/Vilniausdiena/Vartotoju zona/rutaa/47rs141120b032.jpg
The reconstruction looks like this

Conclusion: missile exploded very close to the cockpit window in front of the captain seat.

These marks seem to fit very well with AA's theory of a missile from Zaroshens’kye

These marks seem to fit very well with AA's theory of a missile from Zaroshens’kye
Sure! Just need add only 45 degree to their lie and then AA theory is right!
But if you miss simulation of Mick West then you should know - AA give wrong lancet (and pellets flight) angles.
Wait! AA lie about lancet too.

Sure! Just need add only 45 degree to their lie and then AA theory is right!
How did you calculate 45 degrees?
But if you miss simulation of Mick West then you should know - AA give wrong lancet (and pellets flight) angles.
Wait! AA lie about lancet too.
It has not been established that the missile manufacturer is wrong WRT the lancet.
If you think it has then perhaps you can explain it in plain English.
I've always been in agreement with a quote attributed the Albert Einstein.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
thank you

It is absolutely nothing for work fuse. Detonation happen with speed 8000 m/s which much more then other speeds.
it is more relevant for the radar of the missile, that is what i meant.

It wrong information - radar have angle from -90 to +90 to both axis.
Please could you provide us the source of that claim. In previous messages in this thread, proof is shown about the 30-60 degrees (depending on velocity).

Do you have theory how proportional navigation work for Z and dont work for S?
proportional navigation is much more relevant for Z than for S, based on the lauchsides compared to the position of the plane.

seeker should choose best power position of target and from side it is fuselage near centerplane, dont nose part.
that is my assumption as well, but i would like to find proof for that.

How did you calculate 45 degrees?
It has not been established that the missile manufacturer is wrong WRT the lancet.
If you think it has then perhaps you can explain it in plain English.
I've always been in agreement with a quote attributed the Albert Einstein.
thank you
At least 45 degree or even more? Not enough for debunk their version with missile from Z?

it is more relevant for the radar of the missile, that is what i meant.
When fuse receive signal from target's surface no time for radar, time for explode.
Please could you provide us the source of that claim. In previous messages in this thread, proof is shown about the 30-60 degrees (depending on velocity).
proportional navigation is much more relevant for Z than for S, based on the lauchsides compared to the position of the plane.
Proportional navigation good for both scenarios. But for Z is meeting point is wrong. It little AA lie which should describe better damage of plane.
that is my assumption as well, but i would like to find proof for that.
Sorry, proof for your assumption from me?

At least 45 degree or even more? Not enough for debunk their version with missile from Z?
agree with that,lancet much exaggerated,barrel is simply the wrong shape for the desired effect,may have concentration of heavier frags on centreline but thats it

#### Attachments

147 KB · Views: 368
You linked to an anonymous document, that might or might not be reliable. I'm not sure how that is supposed to convince anyone.

What sentences
You linked to an anonymous document, that might or might not be reliable. I'm not sure how that is supposed to convince anyone.
is hard to understand for you? May be you have better description how barrel-like warhead 9N314 can produce lancet when all other warheads cannot? Or you want to dispute with vector addition (in my doc - for dummies, or in Mick's simulation -very cute and understandible visualisation of math/geometry)? Then shoot it pls.

These marks seem to fit very well with AA's theory of a missile from Zaroshens’kye
if we are to believe this detonation angle claimed by A-A with forward sweeping frag beam,how can that explain entry holes with regards to cabin curvature at this point,frags don't boomerangView attachment 13525 View attachment 13525

if we are to believe this detonation angle claimed by A-A with forward sweeping frag beam,how can that explain entry holes with regards to cabin curvature at this point,frags don't boomerangView attachment 13525 View attachment 13525
I don't see where anything has to necessarily boomerang. The best way would be to look at a 3D reconstruction. There is a video in the slides of how AA sees the detonation. Did you see that? I won't link to it right now as I'm unable to post a screenshot right at this moment.

These marks seem to fit very well with AA's theory of a missile from Zaroshens’kye

The simulation shows that the red bar and first 2 green arrows (on the left) are impossible given the missile and aircraft speed, and the data provided by AA.

The main peculiarity of rocket 9M38M is the special area which is called a "lancet", or the killing lancet, which is perpendicular [inaudible] basically the area of concentration of more than 40% of the all splinter mass, and one half of the whole kinetic energy.
Content from External Source
That means even though the area of severest damage is within the lancet, more than 50% of the shrapnel mass will be outside of the lancet. Some of it behind the lancet and some of it in front of the lancet.

Looking at these two photos:

it doesn't appear the lancet moved along those two red arrows in the second foto. That is not where the area of main destruction is, nor is it the area where most of the shrapnel went.

Last edited:
The simulation shows that the red bar and first 2 green arrows (on the left) are impossible given the missile and aircraft speed, and the data provided by AA.
What specific assumptions are you using WRT to the missile?
Added in edit: What do you specifically know about the way this missile detonates and what is your source?

Last edited:
The trajectory of the fragments is the best proof there is. Photos do not lie (if not Photoshopped). We know very little about the BUK missile. What is being told about missile characteristics could or could not be the truth. The interests of both Ukraine and Rusland are very high.
Find those photos, place them in this thread and ask others to help locate the debris.

These marks seem to fit very well with AA's theory of a missile from Zaroshens’kye

William, in your presentation above, the direction in which the fragments move is at least 45 degrees, if not more, off with how these marks actually appear on the hull :

So apart from the fact that you still seem to use the unadjusted AA fragment pattern (hint: please use Mick's dynamic tool to make your case), it is not clear AT ALL from your pictures why these marks seem to fit very well with AA's theory of a missile from Zaroshens’kye.

In fact, they seem to contradict it outright.

Last edited:
It's not very helpful to depict what the damages would look like on the much smaller 767:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_767_Nose_Section.jpg
The cabin width of the 767 is 4.72 meter as opposed to 6.20 meters for the 777, so the way the sheets are arrange and the angles involved may differ.
Nose section of B767 and B777 is same, but you right - better compare angle on B777 skin.

give a very understandible angle which dont fitted with AA version about launch from Z (even with their lie about disclosure angles of warheads splinters), but fit well with missile from S.

William, in your presentation above, the direction in which the fragments move is at least 45 degrees, if not more, off with how these marks actually appear on the hull :.
Rob you posted a photo of a different plane. <scratches head>

Rob you posted a photo of a different plane. <scratches head>

Do you think this damage would look much different on a (wider) 777 hull ?

give a very understandible angle which dont fitted with AA version about launch from Z (even with their lie about disclosure angles of warheads splinters), but fit well with missile from S.
ad 2015. Can you explain what angles you are imagining?
1.What angle do you think the marks are?
2.What angle do you think a Z launch predicts?
3.What angle does an S launch predict?

Thanks

Do you think this damage would look much different on a (wider) 777 hull ?
There was no damage on the photo you posted , just a funny red mark on a different plane that didn't seem to be relevant

William, your have a more than 45 degree angle to deal with.

There was no damage on the photo you posted , just a funny red mark that didn't seem to be relevant

Just a funny red mark ?
That did not seem relevant ?

William, your have a more than 45 degree angle to deal with.

Just a funny red mark ?
That did not seem relevant ?
Yes. You posted a different plane, put your own red mark on it (I presume) on your own invented angle, and tried to say it meant something <scratches head>

When it comes to facts, I guess some people are hard to convince.

There is a certain difference in the shrapnel distribution.
When the missile was lauchned from Zaroschenskoe some fragments will have a trajectory running from the nose of the aircraft towards the tail. It is impossible for a Snizhne launch to have this trajectory.

When the missile was launched from Snizhne,some of the fragments will go from the left side of the aircraft towards the right, almost perpendicular to the route of the plane. This is impossible for a Zaroschenskoe launch.

Go find that difference!

I found three separate photos which I stiched together to a single one to get a better view of the part.
Many shrapnel holes are visible. I assume the part is upside down and only one side of the steel bar is damaged.
The high resolution photos of this can be found in this album.

Question: where in the aircraft is this piece located? And what is front, back etc?
The Flickr album has various photos of these part. It might help to id the location.
The parts where photographed at the site where the cockpit crashed.

Last edited:
This is an easy one. It is part of the nose cone, lefthand side
Some damage of what could be fragments on the top closest to the cockpit window of captain.

Just found old soviet picture of SA-1 Guild missile with disclosure angles and dynamic field of strike elements.
Warhead (shape is serve for concentrate most splinters in backward direction but still disclosure angle around 30-40 degree because have barrel-like shape)

And dynamic field of strike elements with VECTOR ADDITION

On top vector addition in graphic form
Vp (missile speed) + Vц (target speed) = V отн (relative speed)
Below disclosure angle of strike elements varied from 84 degree to 118 degree.
Important - even constricted to end barrel-like warhead give only 11 degree rotation to backward (84-118 degree with center near 101 degree)! But this is angles of disclosure for static missile.

On graph below angles 84-118 degree (disclosure angles of splinters for static missile) magically (for AA) rotated to forward on 30 degree (result of adding relative speed missile/target to splinter speed/direction), on picture Delta дин (Angle dynamic) varied from 52 to 87 degree (compare with static 84-118 degree).
Important - no lancet, center of dynamic strike field near 68 degree.
This is another proof for debunk AA lie about lancet and angles of dynamic strike field (and confirmation of Mick's simulation).

Last edited:
If the missile came from Snizhne can somebody explain this damage? It shows the lefthand side of the cockpit roughly just next to the seat of the captain. The black round instrument is part of the angle of attack sensor.
There are various hole which run from the nose of the aircraft towards the back. The other photo shows the reconstruction. There is no damage to be seen of fragments entering this part of the side.

Original photo here

The same part is seen on the right, low
http://storage1.censor.net.ua/images/b/5/e/a/b5eab0f53ec2ba0c9de808ed3e67f73c/original.jpg
That silver circle is where the angle of attack sensor used to be attached to.

If the missile came from Snizhne can somebody explain this damage? It shows the lefthand side of the cockpit roughly just next to the seat of the captain. The black round instrument is part of the angle of attack sensor.
There are various hole which run from the nose of the aircraft towards the back. The other photo shows the reconstruction. There is no damage to be seen of fragments entering this part of the side.

Original photo here

The same part is seen on the right, low
http://storage1.censor.net.ua/images/b/5/e/a/b5eab0f53ec2ba0c9de808ed3e67f73c/original.jpg
That silver circle is where the angle of attack sensor used to be attached to.

Fragments entered in curved cabine section before this place (look on missing skin under first and second windows on left side - it possible entrance) and from above to below.

And dynamic field of strike elements with VECTOR ADDITION

On top vector addition in graphic form
Vp (missile speed) + Vц (target speed) = V отн (relative speed)

More correctly:
Vp (missile velocity) - Vц (target velocity) = V отн (relative velocity)

"Speed" is a scalar (just a magnitude), velocity is a vector (magnitude and direction). You have to subtract the velocity of the plane to get the relative velocity, but as they are in roughly opposite directions, the result is like adding speeds.
Important - no lancet, center of dynamic strike field near 68 degree.
This is another proof for debunk AA lie about lancet and angles of dynamic strike field (and confirmation of Mick's simulation).

Is this diagram actually the exact same type of warhead?

Is this diagram actually the exact same type of warhead?
The SA-1 is a different warhead than used on the SA-11 BUK surface to air missile. Sa-11 uses the 9N314 warhead.
I guess the purpose of ad_2015 was to show that the barrel shaped warhead of the SA-1 has the same fragmentation beam as the SA-11 warhead which is barrel shaped as well.
However we do not know if the SA-1 is a single primer or multiple primer warhead.

My preference for this thread is to debunk one or both launch locations based on the observed damage of the aircraft.

My preference for this thread is to debunk one or both launch locations based on the observed damage of the aircraft.

Are you suggesting the angle of dispersion of fragments is irrelevant? Surely if the angle is known, then analysis of the damage can be more accurate. AA's entire thesis was based on these angles.

The sequence of research should be as transparant as possible:
1. find locations with confirmed shrapnel damage
2. match the debris with location of the fuselage
3. draw lines from the various parts to get to the source of explosion
4. try to find a match with the fragmentation beam pattern