william wiley
Member
Snizhne can't explain the damage to the left wing. Look at the angle.
https://www.metabunk.org/does-damag...-buk-launch-location.t6345/page-8#post-157536
Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location?
- Thread starter william wiley
- Start date
https://www.metabunk.org/does-damag...-buk-launch-location.t6345/page-8#post-157536
Why not? Shrapnel of one form or another will be going in all forward directions, so anything in front of the missile has the potential for damage.
ad_2015
Member
wing dont have damage from strike elements - it is result of collision
engine can be hitted by forward flying splinters of missile (yellow cone on Mick's simulation)
BTW all kremlin liers proclaim wing have damage from
1. rods
2. bullets
3. missile which glance hitted wing and continue fly to cabine
choose one of this fairytale and continue trust in damage here
P.S. For understanding should we watch on damage somewhere, need to know:
1. is it vital damage which can bring plane to death (or damage happen in same area)
2. can this damage happen after death (in cause MH17 it moment when equipment knocked down and pilots dead so voice and parameters record system dont have even second for leave alarm signal - instant death) and can be result of destruction of plane in air or meeting with ground
3. this is definitelly damage from system splinters so understanding their movements give a clue for finding deotnation point and missile course
If we start describe any scratch what we find then we should describe damage from separatists firing in area - they tried to conceal real damage by shelling with mortar/shells and rockets. I believe Ukraine can did same thing but with other purpose - for free area from terrorists.
Last edited:
william wiley
Member
Yes, you are right. We can't automatically rule it out. It could be a coincidence.
I think we can agree it was not some of the fragments from the warhead, if the missile came from Snizhne, but possibly some "random" pieces of the missile that all were about the same size and very close together.
Accounting for that angle of these "random" pieces of the missile will require some very specific assumptions about their speed etc...and may or may not be possible.
On the other hand it seems to fit easily with a launch from Z.
( I'll try to put this into a better presentation if I can find some time this weekend)
Last edited:
ad_2015
Member
Yes, please present how missile from Z fit easily with main damage holes like co-pilot chair
and compare to version of AA with dynamic field of strike elements for flying missile
I wanna see your calculation because even wrong disclosure angles of flying missile from Z (in AA presentation) cannot penetrate co-pilot chair under these angles.
But if we believe in geometry then we see even more different picture of disclosure angles.
So in your calculation please find how geometry dont work for Z missile and how magic pellets can penetrate co-pilot chair under angle 50-60 degree to plane course.
We know - plane was killed after penetration in cabine area. All damage what you selective find in other areas can be additional (or random, or even damage not from missile), not main. Building damage pattern and missile course on insignificant and unconfirmed damage is usual trick of russian propaganda during last year.
Last edited:
william wiley
Member
One place that a Zaroshens’kye launch predicts there will be fragment damage is right down the left side of the plane. A Snizhne launch predicts there will not be.
The following part of the plane, apparently showing fragment damage seems to have only recently come to light.
Is it the very back part of the fuselage?
Also, right at the back of the 2nd picture is another largish section of the plane that almost looks like it has a window. Yet that doesn't jibe with the picture of the plane I posted. Can anyone see what part of the plane it is and or see if the picture I posted is actually how the plane is coloured?
Added in edit: AA don't point to this section so there may be a reason they don't include it
The following part of the plane, apparently showing fragment damage seems to have only recently come to light.
Is it the very back part of the fuselage?
Also, right at the back of the 2nd picture is another largish section of the plane that almost looks like it has a window. Yet that doesn't jibe with the picture of the plane I posted. Can anyone see what part of the plane it is and or see if the picture I posted is actually how the plane is coloured?
Added in edit: AA don't point to this section so there may be a reason they don't include it
Last edited:
ad_2015
Member
Wait! Now you believe in damage from Z missile with lancet which penetrate all plane ( 209 feet length) and coming out in tail area? I want these pellets for tank guns so they can make holes in any armored units.One place that a Zaroshens’kye launch predicts there will be fragment damage is right down the left side of the plane. A Snizhne launch predicts there will not be.
The following part of the plane, apparently showing fragment damage seems to have only recently come to light.
Is it the very back part of the fuselage?
For ppl who wanna understand why tail area have holes and fractures - plane meet air pressure on speed around 250 m/s with open mouth (cabine was penetrated and detached) so all what can moving start move under this pressure to back. Plane lost aft pressure bulkhead
from this pressure so whole plane become a air-tube length 209 feet with speed inside up to 250 m/s. On this speed anything can struck into tail skin and make hole or fracture (even just air can blow up skin or debris from aft pressure bulkhead can scratch tail skin).
Last edited:
william wiley
Member
No ..I asked if it was the tail. I didn't say it was the tail.
As I point out in my post, there appeared to be a red section with a window in the background of the picture I posted, which made me wonder if the diagram I posted accurately reflected the colouring of the plane
Last edited:
ad_2015
Member
Linear size of debris close to tail skin.
william wiley
Member
In the OP there is a series of slides about Almaz Anteys presentation with some explanation. Has anyone in this thread read it? Does anyone reading this thread read Russian and English?
I can manage to copy some portions into google translate but other parts which seem to explain how they see specific parts of the plane that were damaged aren't able to be copied such as.
I can manage to copy some portions into google translate but other parts which seem to explain how they see specific parts of the plane that were damaged aren't able to be copied such as.
Last edited:
I have strong doubts about the rightside of the cockpitfloor as that part can be seen on:
Original photos:
www.flickr.com/photos/podpolkovnikvvs/15357840390/in/dateposted/
www.flickr.com/photos/podpolkovnikvvs/15357334658/in/dateposted/
Last edited:
Rob
Member
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.
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:
I see what you mean, and yes that makes sense.
So we are looking at the LEFT side of the pilot chair here, if I'm not mistaken.
More specifically the seat and the base. The back-rest is gone, right ?
Regarding the two (what we think is) fragment damages to this chair :
For the damage hole on the seat itself I find it hard to determine the exact direction it came from, other than that it looks like an entry hole.
About the damage on the label (at the back of the base of this chair) looks like an entry hole to me.
Here is a better view of that damage :
Do both damages look like entry holes to you too ?
And if so, how does that distinguish between a Zaroshens'kye or Snizhne approach ?
Last edited:
ad_2015
Member
It just another lie from AA - they found strong damage in left engine.In the OP there is a series of slides about Almaz Anteys presentation with some explanation. Has anyone in this thread read it? Does anyone reading this thread read Russian and English?
I can manage to copy some portions into google translate but other parts which seem to explain how they see specific parts of the plane that were damaged aren't able to be copied such as.
This photo provides another strong clue to determine the location of the explosion. A hole in thick metal obviously created by shrapnel. The location of this hole is 100% at the area where the fuselage meets the nose cone, lefthand side in front of the cockpit.
The hole clearly shows a vertical penetration.
The area in purple is the part seen above
Original here
The hole clearly shows a vertical penetration.
The area in purple is the part seen above
Original here
Lets keep the discussion clear and professional by not using the word lie.
There IS damage observed at the engine nacelle. And I am pretty sure it is the left engine front we are seeing here.
There is a good reason the Dutch Safety Board took this part to the Netherlands for reconstruction.
And there are more parts of the engine damaged by what could be shrapnel
ad_2015
Member
Im have a few questions:Lets keep the discussion clear and professional by not using the word lie.
There IS damage observed at the engine nacelle. And I am pretty sure it is the left engine front we are seeing here.
There is a good reason the Dutch Safety Board took this part to the Netherlands for reconstruction.
And there are more parts of the engine damaged by what could be shrapnel
1. What engine parts it is?
2. How vital the damage on these part is?
3. Is it clearly damage from strike elements with confirmed series of damage by one type near which can allow to draw a model of flights for such pellets?
4. Does DSB had open access on MH17 crush area or grab anything what seen near their team under control of armed terrorists and under danger of opening fire when they want visit another areas with parts?
You can dont answer since these questions just show how stupid to ignore vital damage from known place and from known source and concentrate on magic bullets. During last year we have enough lie about everything what can damage MH17 plane and even swapped with MH370 full of frozen bodies. Enough tricks.
The location of three of these engine parts is explained here. Including the argumentation why these are most likely of the left engine.
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/damage-of-mh17-does-not-rule-out-a-launch-from-zaroshenskye/
There are many lies spread by both Russia and Ukraine. Tomorrow Dutch TV program KRO Reporter will show that Ukraine knew days before July 17 the separatists had a BUK! Ukraine officials including Minister of foreign affairs so far denied Ukraine knew about the BUK. This is a different discussion but Ukraine should have closed their airspace!
Also let me remind you that the area of the crash site was under control of the separatists. Days after July 17 Ukraine army stated an offensive from Debaltseve towards the crashsite. The fighting was so intense the recovery mission has to stop.
Wondering why the Ukraine army did this?
Last edited:
ad_2015
Member
1. Im dont trust in propaganda. if im cannot receive same result from my own experience based on knowledge or if info dont confirmed by independent source - im ignore it.
2. Your site dont describe how it is parts of left engine. Im see identical engines - left and right with same parts. You believe it left engine, but im dont believe in it without facts.
3. You trying support launch from Z. Well but your site dont give enough info about these parts so im cannot join it.
4. Anyone know where is 200kg of seeker+fuse section? What happen with them afte exploding?
5. What happen with rocket engine which weight another 100kg? Both viariant Z and S have these parts close to plane and BEFORE it.
6. What happen with MISSING parts of skin which dont found on debris? Where it going, with what speed and what direction?
After that please told me about SCRATCHES on wings, engines, tail etc.
Destruction of plane skin with detachable parts can damage surface of parts afterward.
P.S. About Ukraine and info about SA-11. Both sides have heavy weapon, but usage with massive civilian human loss is only separatists/terrorists routine. Ukraine involved in war with strong and weird enemy so usual things like knowledge about presence of SA-11 on battlefield dont work. Im already told to you - SA-11 is army air-defense complex and solo TELAR cannot be used in regular army against passenger airliners. It how Ukraine have SA-11 and dont use it yet. But country which lied on DoD briefing and AA briefing too, on TV and newspapers - can use anything against humanity and dont cry about it.
Last edited:
william wiley
Member
But if the missile came from Zaroshens’kye, wouldn't that mean they are "armed terrorists"?
I think it is more conducive to clear thought if avoid too much emotion, at least in our analysis
Last edited:
ad_2015
Member
Sure it is armed terrorists, since Ukraine dont control this area at July 17 and dont have SA-11 TELAR here (despite on russian DoD lie and manipulation with satellite photos).
JFYI SA-11 TELAR can launch one missile against ONLY target coming on launcher or from it. Then probability for kill it close to 90% and one missile is enough. It is in soviet-russian manuals for TELAR crew. But for Z firing sequence is 2 missiles.
Last edited:
Herman Aven
Member
So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that damage to the wing/engine could be "forward flying splinters" allowed by the cone of Mick's simulation but the damage of the co-pilot chair could never be caused by any splinter of the fragment beam as suggested by AA or any other process during the crash?
Here's a merge of the AA suggested impact zone with a layout from this Austrian Airlines 777 200 seat map as I could not find a more official cockpit floor map, not with a quick search anyway,
It goes too far to say that in this scenario the copilot seat never could have been hit at all by anything. It's unclear how exact the zone is or if there are any strays possible or which error margin or seat position range would be allowable to account for. Since everything is derived by AA from their photo observations, this kill zone cannot be presented as very exact either.
It would be fair to conclude the observed damage to the co-pilot chair does not necessarily exclude any scenario. What might count here would be the amount and direction of impact and exit holes (the Z scenario obviously causing more exit holes left from the cockpit considering the resulting vector of fragments). And the ability to verify if damage is really caused by HE fragments or something else.
Last edited:
ad_2015
Member
Even if we believe in AA lie about disclosure angles of strike elements (for flying missile relative to plane) then still missile from Z dont have chance for penetrate co-pilot seat like on this picture (yellow is direction of penetration, compare with AA picture)So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that damage to the wing/engine could be "forward flying splinters" allowed by the cone of Mick's simulation but the damage of the co-pilot chair could never be caused by any splinter of the fragment beam as suggested by AA or any other process during the crash?
Here's a merge of the AA suggested impact zone with a layout from this Austrian Airlines 777 200 seat map as I could not find a more official cockpit floor map, not with a quick search anyway,
It goes too far to say that in this scenario the copilot seat never could have been hit at all by anything. It's unclear how exact the zone is or if there are any strays possible or which error margin or seat position range would be allowable to account for. Since everything is derived by AA from their photo observations, this kill zone cannot be presented as very exact either.
It would be fair to conclude the observed damage to the co-pilot chair does not necessarily exclude any scenario. What might count here would be the amount and direction of impact and exit holes (the Z scenario obviously causing more exit holes left from the cockpit considering the resulting vector of fragments). And the ability to verify if damage is really caused by HE fragments or something else.
So missile from Z cannot "kill" co-pilot in a head but missile from S can. But you still believe in magic bullet which scratch engine rings, wings and other non-vital areas which dont affect on plane's fate. Its what im calling selective thinking.
Ole
Member
For the impact that scratched the seat cushion there cannot be much doubt:
Also the impact in the axle of the armrest of the captain's seat can only originate in front or above.
So if we accept the detonation was above and in front of the captain's seat and only slightly to the left from the perspective of the captain, then for the Shnizhne scenario we have to explain all the damage behind and to the port of the captain's seat by fragments leaving the missile almost directly in the direction of the missile's flight path. That is what this graphic makes clear:
ad_2015
Member
Sorry what is 25 degree, 31.6 and 2-3 degree damage?
The problem with all this discussion of angles it that real life is a lot messier. The warhead is designed so the majority of the shrapnel goes in a particular range of directions, but this does not prevent some pieces going outside that range, and certainly pieces of metal will go in every direction. They will go fastest in the forward direction, but more energy is directed sideways.
So a few pieces of damage in a particular location will not tell you what direction the missile was traveling in (assuming that damage came from the missile at all, as was not damage during the fall, or even after the fall). We need to know the distribution of the total damage, and the real-world distribution of shrapnel from the suspected warhead. AA offers one distribution, but it does not seem to match their static model. I offer another, but that's simply based on taking the static model, and adjusting for velocity. There's a lot of uncertainly here.
So a few pieces of damage in a particular location will not tell you what direction the missile was traveling in (assuming that damage came from the missile at all, as was not damage during the fall, or even after the fall). We need to know the distribution of the total damage, and the real-world distribution of shrapnel from the suspected warhead. AA offers one distribution, but it does not seem to match their static model. I offer another, but that's simply based on taking the static model, and adjusting for velocity. There's a lot of uncertainly here.
william wiley
Member
Do we have any evidence of fragment damage to the right side of the plane?
A Snizhne launch should leave damage on the right side of the planes wings and exit holes on the right side of the front of the plane.
Isn't it a little odd that in almost 12 months we are yet to see any damage to the right side of the plane or any exit holes from the right side of the front of the plane
A Snizhne launch should leave damage on the right side of the planes wings and exit holes on the right side of the front of the plane.
Isn't it a little odd that in almost 12 months we are yet to see any damage to the right side of the plane or any exit holes from the right side of the front of the plane
Last edited:
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Why is that a little odd?
Finally was able to identify the location of this part of the fuselage. The various holes made by shrapnel provides an important clue of the direction of the missile. A Snizhne launch could impossible create these holes!
The red vertical lines marked 1,2 and 3 represent steel construction with holes in it. These holes are in the longitude axis of the aircraft.
The area enclosed with black lines is the area being recovered in the small picture.
Mind those two holes in the blue part of the cheatline.
A situational overview. The part is in the red box
Here is a close up taken from this video http://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/multimedia_russian/2014/11/141124_ru_mh17_new_transporting.shtml
You can see a few holes. You can also see some black stains what could be the result of the explosion.
Those two irregular shaped holes can be seen in the picture below. Mind the blue part of metal bended inwards. See the holes of shrapnel at various places.
Original here.
This is a section of that same part. You are watching from the cockpit to the tail. That wooden rod provides some insight of possible trajectory
Some more photos of the same area.
The red vertical lines marked 1,2 and 3 represent steel construction with holes in it. These holes are in the longitude axis of the aircraft.
The area enclosed with black lines is the area being recovered in the small picture.
Mind those two holes in the blue part of the cheatline.
A situational overview. The part is in the red box
Here is a close up taken from this video http://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/multimedia_russian/2014/11/141124_ru_mh17_new_transporting.shtml
You can see a few holes. You can also see some black stains what could be the result of the explosion.
Those two irregular shaped holes can be seen in the picture below. Mind the blue part of metal bended inwards. See the holes of shrapnel at various places.
Original here.
This is a section of that same part. You are watching from the cockpit to the tail. That wooden rod provides some insight of possible trajectory
Some more photos of the same area.
Last edited:
Why would these entry holes rule out Snizhne ? they are quite compatible with it,with Zaroshens’kye however they really should be egressing the fuselage at that pointFinally was able to identify the location of this part of the fuselage. The various holes made by shrapnel provides an important clue of the direction of the missile. A Snizhne launch could impossible create these holes!
The red vertical lines marked 1,2 and 3 represent steel construction with holes in it. These holes are in the longitude axis of the aircraft.
The area enclosed with black lines is the area being recovered in the small picture.
Mind those two holes in the blue part of the cheatline.
A situational overview. The part is in the red box
Here is a close up taken from this video http://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/multimedia_russian/2014/11/141124_ru_mh17_new_transporting.shtml
You can see a few holes. You can also see some black stains what could be the result of the explosion.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
How are you determining those holes are shrapnel damage?
Ole
Member
The only clue I found so far is the green bottle in the background, but that bottle can have been moved. If not, the location among the debris would indicate it's some part of the cockpit floor from behind the captain's seat.It looks like the right part of the cockpit was bended
full image here
Ole
Member
The point of the two holes in the blue stripe is not, that it's shrapnel damage ( probably it's not), but the holes help to verify that the photos from the outside show the identical part as the photos from the inside.
william wiley
Member
It's odd if the launch was from Snizhne. Because everywhere a Z launch predicts there should be fragment damage we do indeed find damage most of it clearly fragment damage, some damage disputed as to what caused it.
Yet a launch from S predicts there should be fragment damage in a rather large area on the right of the plane. Not only that but any sort of fragment/missile shrapnel damage there will rule out a launch from Z.
But even after one year we have nothing. the one place that could rule out a launch from Z (from the evidence we ourselves have) and there is nothing, no evidence at all.
So an S launch requires a growing set of coincidences for it to be true.
1.It requires the damage on the left wing to not be fragment damage but some other sort that just happens to look like fragment damage (from the direction it appears to have traveled)
2.It requires that somehow no evidence has surfaced, even after one year, of any damage to the right hand wing, even though that wing should have been damaged.
3.Somehow no evidence has surfaced of fragments exiting the right hand side of the front of the plane.
If the missile came from Snizhne I find that an odd set of coincidences.
What are the chances that after one year no evidence at all has surfaced of any damage to the right wing? the one place that could settle this?
Added in edit: Just to be clear I am referring to damage from the warhead as fragment damage. Shrapnel damage could include random pieces of the missile.
Last edited:
ad_2015
Member
Im sorry but you looking on ENTRY holes
in left side
and somehow cancel damage from S missile?
May be you want said it is Z missile impossible?
Really, how missile from Z can have ENTRY holes on left side? HOW?
So magic missile - can blow up beore plane and cut right side of cabin, then make a hook and hit plane in left cheek below. Is it really possible or you just readying for Dutch TV with their version of ukrainian missile based on wikipedia experts?
If we look on missile from S then all fit well
Missile from S can make ENTRY holes in blue line under left cheek and angles is allowed by Mick's simulation.
