Dutch Safety Board publish reports on MH17 crash, Tuesday Oct 13

Status
Not open for further replies.
On October 13th 2015, DSB will publish its reports on the investigation into the crash of MH17. Times mentioned are UTC+2. Four themes will be dealt with:
- The causes of the crash
- The issue of flying over conflict areas
- The reasons why Dutch surviving relatives had to wait for two to four days for confirmation from the Dutch authorities that their loved ones had been on the aeroplane
- The question to what extent the occupants of flight MH17 consciously experienced the crash

The matter of who did it, will still be dealt with in the criminal investigation.


Publication of the MH17 reports: overview
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 the Dutch Safety Board will publish its reports on the investigation into the crash of flight MH17. Below, we provide an overview of the course of events.
  • At 11.00 a.m. surviving relatives of the victims will first be informed about the results of the investigation
    by Tjibbe Joustra, chairman of the Dutch Safety Board, in The Hague.
  • At exactly 1.15 p.m. the chairman of the Dutch Safety Board will present the investigation to the media
    at Gilze-Rijen air base. After this presentation, the reports will be published (around 1.45 p.m.).
  • At 4.00 p.m. the chairman of the Dutch Safety Board will be elucidating the investigation during a closed meeting with the Dutch House of Representatives in The Hague.
  • After the official publication of the report on Tuesday afternoon, Board members Erwin Muller and
    Marjolein van Asselt will be informing approximately 75 embassies about the investigation in The Hague.
  • The reports focus on four themes: the causes of the crash, the issue of flying over conflict areas, the reasons why Dutch surviving relatives had to wait for two to four days for confirmation from the Dutch authorities that their loved ones had been on the aeroplane, and lastly the question to what extent the occupants of flight MH17 consciously experienced the crash.
  • The investigation was not concerned with question of blame or liability. Answering those question is a matter for the criminal investigation.
  • During the presentation of the investigation at Gilze-Rijen air base the reconstruction will be shown that
    the Dutch Safety Board made of part of the aircraft. Using recovered pieces of wreckage,
    part of the cockpit and business class section were reconstructed. The Dutch Safety Board
    reconstructed the part of the aeroplane that was relevant to the investigation.
  • On Tuesday the Dutch Safety Board will also be presenting a video animation explaining the findings and conclusions of the investigation.
  • English is the language used in international aviation investigation. The reports on flight MH17 will be published in English as well as in Dutch.
  • It is common practice for the Dutch Safety Board to include a rationale for its investigations in its reports. For the publication of the MH17 reports the Board has opted not to do so for each report individually, but instead to provide a single document covering all of the various investigations. This document, entitled About the Investigation, will be published simultaneously with the reports.On Tuesday 13 October 2015
    the Dutch Safety Board will publish its reports on the investigation into the crash of flight MH17.
    Below, we provide an overview of the course of events.
Content from External Source
http://onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzo...ublication-of-the-mh17-reports-overview#fasen
 
For anyone interested, the presentation of the DSB report will be broadcasted live. The broadcast will start at 12:30 UTC+2, the presentation will start at 13:15 UTC+2. I am rather confident the second part will be in English :). A live stream can be found here.

EDIT: It was just confirmed that the presentation itself will indeed be in English.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So im was right with position of missile in 3D modelling.
Who is "im"?

It's a little confusing that Almaz-Antey was previously arguing for a launch from Zaroshens'kye, but in this report it seems they did simulations that indicate an area to the south of Snizhne, and excludes the area of Zaroshens'kye

 

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
It's a little confusing that Almaz-Antey was previously arguing for a launch from Zaroshens'kye, but in this report it seems they did simulations that indicate an area to the south of Snizhne, and excludes the area of Zaroshens'kye


According to the caption, this location was calculated by Almaz-Antey using NLR/TNO data. However, Almaz-Antey reported their own full-scale test, in which they detonated a BUK warhead next to the IL-86 cockpit. From those data they calculated a different location, similar to that in their previous claim. Here is a presentation of their version by BBC Russian:
http://www.bbc.com/russian/news/2015/10/151013_almaz_boeing_experiment

PS I have not found an English version of their presentation yet.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
According to the caption, this location was calculated by Almaz-Antey using NLR/TNO data. However, Almaz-Antey reported their own full-scale test, in which they detonated a BUK warhead next to the IL-86 cockpit. From those data they calculated a different location, similar to that in their previous claim. Here is a presentation of their version by BBC Russian:
http://www.bbc.com/russian/news/2015/10/151013_almaz_boeing_experiment

PS I have not found an English version of their presentation yet.

I've done a preliminary analysis of this video, and it seems to indicate a Snizhne launch when you factor in the speed of the missile.

https://www.metabunk.org/almaz-anteys-live-buk-explosion-tests.t6903/
 

doradcaR305

New Member
In the report p.127 one can find:

"The high-energy object damage was not caused by an air-to-air gun or cannon because:

- The number of the perforations was not consistent with gunfire, and

- Air-to-air gun / cannon fire does not produce fragments with the distinctive forms That were found in the wreckage and in the bodies of three of the crew members. "

The similar conclusion is about A-A missile.
This conclusion is completely alogical. Let me say this is nonsens. DSB investigators relied on the false assumption that demonstrate signs of firing a surface-air rocket automatically excludes the possibility of simultaneous use of other weapons.
In the same way someone could argue that on a particular day there was not a Mr. Smith in the park because the monitoring showed that there were 100 women, and Mr. Smith is not a woman.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
In the report p.127 one can find:

"The high-energy object damage was not caused by an air-to-air gun or cannon because:

- The number of the perforations was not consistent with gunfire, and

- Air-to-air gun / cannon fire does not produce fragments with the distinctive forms That were found in the wreckage and in the bodies of three of the crew members. "

The similar conclusion is about A-A missile.
This conclusion is completely alogical. Let me say this is nonsens. DSB investigators relied on the false assumption that demonstrate signs of firing a surface-air rocket automatically excludes the possibility of simultaneous use of other weapons.
In the same way someone could argue that on a particular day there was not a Mr. Smith in the park because the monitoring showed that there were 100 women, and Mr. Smith is not a woman.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
 

doradcaR305

New Member
Landru
Quote which I gave is sufficient to demonstrate the illogic of the conclusion in the report.

DSB has proven that there are traces of BUK , but this is insufficient to claim that another weapon was not used except BUK

If you're asking whether I know the evidence of another attack the answer is yes I know a lot of such evidence.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Landru
Quote which I gave is sufficient to demonstrate the illogic of the conclusion in the report.

DSB has proven that there are traces of BUK , but this is insufficient to claim that another weapon was not used except BUK

If you're asking whether I know the evidence of another attack the answer is yes I know a lot of such evidence.
Then provide it.
 

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.
In the report p.127 one can find:
This conclusion is completely alogical. Let me say this is nonsens. DSB investigators relied on the false assumption that demonstrate signs of firing a surface-air rocket automatically excludes the possibility of simultaneous use of other weapons.
On page 131 of the report they discuss the possibility of multiple weapons:

Finding
Considering the wreckage distribution, the damage patterns and the fact that only
once source of damage was found, the aeroplane was not struck by more than one
weapon.
Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This thread does not conform to posting guidelines, and has been closed. Examination of specific claims of evidence should go in individual threads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top