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

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
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
Isn't that exactly what the past 7 pages of analysis and debate have being doing, or have I been reading it all wrong?
 

mvdb22

Member
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
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.

I have seen many pictures. The area with the highest density of shrapnel damage is the part of the cockpit just below the window of the captain. Based on published pictures. Some parts of the fuselage are gone/not on photo.

What do you think is the area with highest density of shrapnel damage?
 

Ole

Member
cone_sim.jpg
I grabed a copy of Mike's project and messed around with it, so that the direction of the shrapnel sector at rest can be changed ( by dragging the blue vector).
http://tube.geogebra.org/student/mRBI9STOa
As in some other slides AA has problems beeing precise, yet the presentation was tuned for the public, the data they provided to the JIT will be scrutinized. I'm not yet at the point to decide if they are just unprecise or plain wrong.
 
Last edited:

Ole

Member
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.

I marked 3 characteristic feature 1,2,3:

mvdb.jpg

Here is where these features 1,2,3 are in the reconstruction:
mvdb1.jpg
The small arrows in your stiched foto point downward, and the frame is lying on the side that pointed towards the blast.

That window frame was fotoed many, many times from different perspectives. Another perspective of that frame with entry holes can be seen here:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/543733-mh17-down-near-donetsk-55.html#post8591794

To your other question. I'm quite certain the warhead detonated in front of the captain's center window (I'm not yet sure whether below the upper window frame or not). It is more or less where your two arrows start in the foto of the reconstruction. That foto is made along the longitudinal axis. To me the main damage is to the right of the start of those arrows and not to the left.
 
What part of the plane is this vand is it a missile fragment damage
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!
Are you suggesting the angle of dispersion of fragments is irrelevant?
It looks to be irrelevant as far as Snizhne goes. How can Snizhne explain the damage? So that is one part of the topic dealt with. Unless we can explain the damage to the plane.

Surely if the angle is known, then analysis of the damage can be more accurate. AA's entire thesis was based on these angles.
Even if Almaz Antey, the missile manufacturer made the whole lancet story up . the missile still seems to have come from the side.
But here we are 8 pages in and people are still presenting a different kind of missile warhead as some kind of proof that Almaz Antey just invented the whole lancet idea.
 
Last edited:

Ole

Member
Just found old soviet picture of SA-1 Guild missile with disclosure angles and dynamic field of strike elements.

Actually this drawing kind of backs up some general points that are necessary for the perpendicular concentration of fragments claimed by AA:
- For warhead at rest the shrapnel cone points backwards
- The cone is only 34° wide
- The "center of mass" of the shrapnel sector is behind the center line of the shrapnel sector
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It looks to be irrelevant as far as Snizhne goes. How can Snizhne explain the damage? So that is one part of the topic dealt with. Unless we can explain the damage to the plane.
Even if Almaz Antey, the missile manufacturer made the whole lancet story up . the missile still seems to have come from the side.

What? What part, and where was it dealt with? There seems to be no clear evidence that the missile "came from the side". And the dispersion angle seems very much a part of an examination of the evidence.
 

David Coulter

Senior Member.
It looks to be irrelevant as far as Snizhne goes. How can Snizhne explain the damage? So that is one part of the topic dealt with. Unless we can explain the damage to the plane.

William, I am a bit confused by your line of questioning which seems to be turning the problem around. You started the thread on this discussion board and presented a video that challenges the widely accepted (outside Russia) concept that Ukrainian separatists fired a missile that brought down MH17. The AA presentation in itself was somewhat inappropriate as that information should have been provided only to the investigation team. But, as it was presented publicly, it is now subject to open discussion and analysis. I don't think the discussion is to prove that the missile came from Snizhne, it is to thoroughly analyze the data and conclusions of the AA theory (and IT IS a theory). If you expect total agreement with the video then this might not be the place to get it.
 

ad_2015

Member
Is this diagram actually the exact same type of warhead?
It is example of old Soviet SA-1 Guide missile. This example show on real warhead how initial beam 84-118 degree rotated by relative vector speed missile+plane to dynamic beam 52-87 degree.
Why this example is useful?
1. Independent source. Hard to blame soviet developers for support one of the side. Somehow they draw same simulation like Mick West - with rotation to forward for all splinters.
2. Example is wide-know and cannot be manipulated for one purpose.
3. Understanding basic design principes - how warhead can produce splinters in certain beam.
Im sorry if it confuse about 9N314 warhead.
 

Robert E

New Member
This photo of fragment damage on the top of the plane gives a good indication of the direction where fragment came from. i have tried to transfer this as accurate as possible into a bigger picture.
Akkermans-close up fragment damage top cockpit-angle.PNG

The angle between the joint of the 2 panels and one of the caused damage of a fragment is 31,6 degrees.

The section of the photo can be found here:
BOEING010412-blue.JPG

The caused damage (2 point only) is marked in a cutout:
Boeing-cutout.PNG

In a bigger picture:
Boeing direction fragments.PNG

Transfer this into a 2D top view of a 777:
777 nose from top + naad + fragmentrichting.PNG
The blue line is the joint between the panels and the red line is the direct from which these fragments came from.
 
Last edited:

ad_2015

Member
Actually this drawing kind of backs up some general points that are necessary for the perpendicular concentration of fragments claimed by AA:
- For warhead at rest the shrapnel cone points backwards
But warhead 9N314 have zero inclination of surface (except barrel-like shape) but 9Zh51 have inclination from top to end.
- The cone is only 34° wide
But 9Zh51 warhead have barrel-like shape more plain then 9N314.
- The "center of mass" of the shrapnel sector is behind the center line of the shrapnel sector
Dont understand this sentence. How center can be behind line?
 
William, I am a bit confused by your line of questioning which seems to be turning the problem around. You started the thread on this discussion board and presented a video that challenges the widely accepted (outside Russia). concept that Ukrainian separatists fired a missile that brought down MH17.
That's not true. That theory is questioned all over the world. But that is off topic so I'm not sure why you bothered to even say it.
The AA presentation in itself was somewhat inappropriate as that information should have been provided only to the investigation team.
I disagree but why mention it.
But, as it was presented publicly, it is now subject to open discussion and analysis. I don't think the discussion is to prove that the missile came from Snizhne,
Mick refined the topic to include whether the evidence excludes anywhere, so it seems appropriate.
it is to thoroughly analyze the data and conclusions of the AA theory] (and IT IS a theory). If you expect total agreement with the video then this might not be the place to get it.
in the OP I asked if there were any reasons AA's presentation might not be correct.
thank you
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The left wing would be one place. Up until now it's generally been claimed to be damage from a buk, though JIT will know for sure.



This damage if from a missile doesn't square with this (or AA's similar take)
[/QUOTE]

It squares EXACTLY with it, as the left wing is directly in the path of the main forward fragmentation volume of the missile.

Please use the latest version of the simulator, as it got progressively more accurate.
http://tube.geogebra.org/student/m1350995
 
It squares EXACTLY with it, as the left wing is directly in the path of the main forward fragmentation volume of the missile.
Exactly? IIUC you are saying that the mark on the wing is from part of the missile rather than the metal "fragments."
In the diagram the path of the missile continues straight, but that would be the wrong angle, as the damage moves across the wing on a very different angle than the course of the missile.
So I guess you are suggesting that part of the missile is projected sideways from the detonation, so that the line the missile would be travelling in would line up with the damage on the wing. But, if that is the case then how is is that the damage is "directly in the path" of the forward fragmentation? Shouldn't it then be to the side?
have I misunderstood your idea?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Exactly? IIUC you are saying that the mark on the wing is from part of the missile rather than the fragments.
In the diagram the path of the missile continues straight, but that would be the wrong angle, as the damage moves across the wing on a very different angle than the course of the missile.
So I guess you are suggesting that part of the missile is projected sideways from the detonation, so that the line the missile would be travelling in would line up with the damage on the wing. But, if that is the case then how is is that the damage is "directly in the path" of the forward fragmentation? Shouldn't it then be to the side?
have I misunderstood your idea?

I'm saying parts of the missile go forward, so they hit the plane's left wing.
 

ad_2015

Member
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.
BTW it can be piece of right side
 

ad_2015

Member
The distribution of shrapnel is not symetric to the center line (101°) of the sector. There is more shrapnel behind the center line than before. The distribution resembles more a Poisson distribution than a Gaussian distribution.
If you talking about 9Zh51 then distribution of shrapnel in that cause depend from shape of warhead.
 

Rob

Member
This photo of fragment damage on the top of the plane gives a good indication of the direction where fragment came from. i have tried to transfer this as accurate as possible into a bigger picture.
Akkermans-close up fragment damage top cockpit-angle.PNG

The angle between the joint of the 2 panels and one of the caused damage of a fragment is 31,6 degrees.

The section of the photo can be found here:
BOEING010412-blue.JPG

The caused damage (2 point only) is marked in a cutout:
Boeing-cutout.PNG

In a bigger picture:
Boeing direction fragments.PNG

Transfer this into a 2D top view of a 777:
777 nose from top + naad + fragmentrichting.PNG
The blue line is the joint between the panels and the red line is the direct from which these fragments came from.


Very good analysis of that top damage, Robert ! Thank you !

Based on the angle, it does not completely exclude a Zaroshens'kye as a launch location, but it sure makes it much less likely, for TWO reasons :

(1) the angle of this damage points at a point of detonation further to the left of the plane than Almaz Antey suggests.
And IF the detonation happened further to the left of the plane, then the approach from Zaroshens'kye becomes extremely unlikely, since the entire forward pointing cone of fragments would have missed the plane completely.

(2) if the angle of this damage is larger (due to misinterpretation of surface angles etc.) and close to the 60-70 deg or so needed to point to the Almaz Antey detonation location in front of the pilot's window, then this implies that the fragments that made this damage BACKFIRED by 30 deg.

Using Mick's tool, that backfiring angle to get to that location is way outside the 95% cone for the normal parameters :

Screen Shot 2015-06-26 at 2.44.44 AM.png


In fact, for this damage at that location (and all damage around it) to be plausible (within the 95% cone) the missile would have had to come to a virtual stand still (some 110 m/sec) :


Screen Shot 2015-06-26 at 2.15.03 AM.png
Needless to say that a missile moving this slow is not realistic.

Conclusion : both based on angle, AND on location, this top damage makes it extremely unlikely that the missile came from Zaroshens'kye and detonated where Almaz Antey tells us it did.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-06-26 at 2.15.03 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-06-26 at 2.15.03 AM.png
    202 KB · Views: 287
Last edited:

Ole

Member
The Snizhne scenario has even more problems. Placing the detonation here you can't explain the damage to the captain's side of the cockpit:
snihzne.jpg

Placing it here you get problems explaining the damage on the "angle of attach sensor" piece (impacts in longitudinal direction but none in perpendicular):
snihzne2.jpg
It is even more difficult to explain why the skin between door and cockpit has no perpendicular impacts:


The spars in the upper part and close to the cockpit have some longitudinal impacts:
 
Last edited:

ad_2015

Member
The Snizhne scenario has even more problems. Placing the detonation here you can't explain the damage to the captain's side of the cockpit:
snihzne.jpg

Placing it here you get problems explaining the damage on the "angle of attach sensor" piece (impacts in longitudinal direction but none in perpendicular):
snihzne2.jpg
It is even more difficult to explain why the skin between door and cockpit has no perpendicular impacts:


The spars in the upper part and close to the cockpit have some longitudinal impacts:
Need 3D version of damage of missile from S (real damage, not fake inspired by AA) for understanding how it happen. I have feeling the problem have easy solution but cannot show it without 3D simulation.
My opinion - missile exploded above plane, just passed nose and have elevation 10-20 degree.
 

Rob

Member
The Snizhne scenario has even more problems. Placing the detonation here you can't explain the damage to the captain's side of the cockpit:
snihzne.jpg

Since in the damage analysis done so far, the Snizhne scenario has not shown ANY problems, but the Zaroshens'kye approach is increasingly unlikely, you must be either joking or not paying attention.

For your argument, here is the captain's chair (as identified by mvdb22) :


The damage to the side of this chair, and the absence of damage to the front suggests that the fragments came from the side, and supports the Snizhne approach, and decidedly NOT from the front (Almaz Antey's alleged Zaroshens'kye approach).
 
Last edited:

Ole

Member
Since in the damage analysis done so far, the Snizhne scenario has not shown ANY problems, but the Zaroshens'kye approach is increasingly unlikely, you must be either joking or not paying attention.

For your argument, here is the captain's chair (as identified by mvdb22) :


The damage to the side of this chair, and the absence of damage to the front suggests that the fragments came from the side, and supports the Snizhne approach, and decidedly NOT from the front (Almaz Antey's alleged Zaroshens'kye approach).
Where do you see an impact from the side? The big one is close to vertical, if you look at the scratch in the seat cushion:
 

Rob

Member
Where do you see an impact from the side? The big one is close to vertical, if you look at the scratch in the seat cushion:

To be honest with you, if this is the captain's chair, to explain both these holes, and the way the metal bends inward, it looks to me like the impacts were made from the right. Excluding both scenarios.
Now what ?
 

Rob

Member
Where do you see an impact from the side? The big one is close to vertical, if you look at the scratch in the seat cushion:

Also, are you sure this is the same chair ?
After all, the bottom section of this chair looks completely different in these pictures.

Compare this :

f150a644b48ffcaa4fc84f9e17325b76.jpg

with this :

15620058806_326500423e.jpg

These are not the same chairs, or at least these are not the same bottom sections of these chairs.
 

Ole

Member
These are not the same chairs, or at least these are not the same bottom sections of these chairs.

Those are not different seats, the only thing that differs is the point in time the seat was photographed. It would be resorting to a freak coincidence to claim there were two seats in that plane that received the identical impact marks.
f150a644b48ffcaa4fc84f9e17325b76_.jpg
The hole in the yellow circle is not an impact. It has a clean rim as opposed to the other two impacts. That hole is were the axle for the backrest is led through the metal, so the backrest can be adjusted by this hand wheel:
15649952932_111f972910_.jpg
 

Robert E

New Member
The seats were identified as which one belongs to who. The relating messages in this thread were deleted as we included photos which weren't allowed (photos of the body of the co-pilot)
To make matters clear:
Captain/pilot seat:
Sunflower seat orange.JPG Seat Off centre 001.JPG

Co-pilot seat:



Edit:
The back of the Captainsseat appears to be different, but that is unnatural damage that is caused between the two photo's. The damage to both chairs is unique, for example the hole at the right bottom corner of the label at the back of the captains chair, is in these photos very strong evidence the photos are made of the same chair.

Whether the unnatural damage is intentionally caused (looting, tempering, etc) or unintentionally (moving it out of the sunflowerfield) is not relevant.
 
Last edited:

Ole

Member
This looks very much like the backrest of the captain's seat:

Lower part back side (right side points to floor):
Same part from the front side (right side points to floor):
Same part from the front side (bottom points to floor) (note the perpendicular impact into the axle to the armrest, that definitely didn't enter along the axle from the side ):
Upper part front side:
Upper part back side (topside down):

For comparison the copilot's seat from the back side:
 
Last edited:

Robert E

New Member
The Snizhne scenario has even more problems. Placing the detonation here you can't explain the damage to the captain's side of the cockpit:

Since in the damage analysis done so far, the Snizhne scenario has not shown ANY problems, but the Zaroshens'kye approach is increasingly unlikely, you must be either joking or not paying attention.

In my analysis of the angle of caused damage on the top of the plane, is good but still thin evidence for several variables. In total there are 6 variables to proof, most likely with 4 or 5 proven variables we could make a solid case with multiple 2D vectormodels (we need 3 of them:1. top, we have, 2. front and 3. side) or 1 3D model.
To describe an exact position in a 3D area, you need to determine the X, Y and Z values.

The angles of the missile itself:
Xa: angle of being tiled around its longitudinal axes, as the warhead is round, this variable is irrelevant
Ya: angle of being tiled around its latitudinal axes, as the warhead measures 50-60cm in height, relevant
Za: angle compared to planedirection, the exact coarse of the missile (at this moment set at 314 degrees, but not yet proven), relevant

The position of the missile itself compared to the plane:
Xp, Yp and Zp all of them relevant and all of them unknown (unproven)

Different variables are linked to eachother and can be used to proof a variable but only if a the used variable is proven.

My analysis of 31,6 degrees should be relevant for the variables Ya, Xp, Yp and Zp.

The damage as i have used in my analyses, is the best damage to analyse. That kind of damage can only be caused when the angle between fragment and hit surface/skin of the plane is small (less then 10-15 degrees). A hole in surface/skin can be caused with much bigger angles then 10-15 degrees and therefor are less usefull to proof directions of fragments or the position of the missile.

The absence of damage is no proof for any of the variables: the absence of physical markings on a human body doesn't mean he/she died of natural causes.
 

mvdb22

Member
There is a picture showing the cockpit floor. There are a few shrapnel holes in the area of where the most right jump seat was located. Roughly in the right back corner of the cockpit. This makes a Snizhne launch more likely. I hope to publish the photo when I find it.
 

Ole

Member
There is a picture showing the cockpit floor. There are a few shrapnel holes in the area of where the most right jump seat was located. Roughly in the right back corner of the cockpit. This makes a Snizhne launch more likely. I hope to publish the photo when I find it.
You probably are referring to one of these:
I can see one single impact to the starboard of the captain's seat. That impact could well be of the same piece of shrapnel that caused the impact in the base of the copilot's seat, that is very prominently visible in the image I posted above.
 
Last edited:

mvdb22

Member
You probably are referring to one of these:
I can see one single impact to the starboard of the captain's seat. That impact could well be of the same piece of shrapnel that caused the impact in the base of the copilot's seat, that is very prominently visible in the image I posted above.
Indeed I was reffering to this picture. I believed it was more towards the back of the cockpit. It is not.
 
Top