MH17: Evidence a Missile was Used. Shrapnel, etc.

[TEEJ]

The first apparent hard evidence that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was brought down by a surface-to-air missile is emerging from the crash site in eastern Ukraine, after experts confirmed on Monday there were signs of shrapnel damage to the aircraft. The photograph above, first published by the Financial Times over the weekend, shows a piece of the downed Boeing 777 about a metre square with a gaping hole in the middle, surrounded by smaller holes and apparent burn marks.

Content from external source

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/1d6a9ac2-10e3-11e4-b116-00144feabdc0.html#axzz387cQkALB

Other images of wreckage that possibly show warhead/shrapnel damage?








Further wreckage images at following link. I've checked and no graphic content at time of upload.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/sets/72157645790319631

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/sets/72157645790319631/page2/

 

[TEEJ]

European monitors say pieces of the Malaysia Airlines plane that was allegedly shot down in eastern Ukraine have been moved and "hacked into", adding to fears that pro-Russian rebels have been tampering evidence.

Officials from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe at the scene said that they saw uniformed men cutting into the Boeing 777's cockpit and part ofthe first-class cabin with a diesel-powered saw two days ago.

Other pieces were also later changed or moved, OSCE spokesman Michael Bociurkiw said.

"[They tampered with] major pieces, I'm looking at the tailfin ... they do look different than when we first saw them, in that they have been cut into," Bociurkiw told the BBC world service. "One main cone section has been almost split in half."

Content from external source

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mh17-evidence-tampering-fears-cockpit-was-hacked-into-says-osce-1457823

On UK Sky News today there was in interview with OSCE observer Michael Bociurkiw. He claimed that the cockpit section had been cut into and that he has documented it and will pass on his observations. Of course will all the photographs coming out it should be very useful for investigators to establish any suspicious activity. Of course it could be purely in relation to recovery of bodies.

If there was any tampering or removal or wreckage then they obviously missed the port nose section. That piece will be crucial to the investigators and obvously now very hard for that piece to go missing after it has been photographed. Morbid to think about it but the reality is that the bodies of the pilots are likely to hold the evidence of the type of warhead used.

 

[SR1419]

Also there is no concrete proof _yet_ that the plane was even shot down by an missile.

The shrapnel damage photos on the Flight MH17 News thread look pretty compelling. The photo source and discussion is in a report in the Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/1d6a9ac2-10e3-11e4-b116-00144feabdc0.html#axzz38D7cynSD

(Edit- sorry sort of OT for this thread.)

As David pointed out, the shrapnel damage is highly indicative of a fragmentary warhead which is designed to explode near the target and shower with projectiles- which is exactly what the SA-11 is.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...0140722&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=25300769&_r=0

Mr. Foster said the contour of the aluminum and the blistering of the paint around many of the holes indicate that small pieces of high-velocity shrapnel entered the aircraft externally. Mr. Foster said the two most likely causes were an engine explosion or an exploding missile...Most of the perforations are about the same size, and the fragments seemed to have entered from a front angle, Mr. Foster said. He said that fragmentary-warhead missiles try to “put as many consistently sized, low-drag fragments into the airframe as possible.” The shrapnel damage is different from what would be expected after an aircraft-engine explosion, Mr. Foster said, which would have caused “longer, thinner, oblique tears across the aircraft skin, with a slight hump toward the point where the fragment entered the skin, rather than the majority of punctures present.”.

Content from external source

 

[Mick West]

Shrapnel damage on an A-10 for comparison. This is flak from anti-aircraft artillery.
http://www.af.mil/News/Photos.aspx?igphoto=2000384288



http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/story0016.htm

 

[Mick West]

And some shrapnel damage on small WWII planes:
http://www.apsocal.com/forum/index.php?topic=1916.0


http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/yap/site2zero.htm

 

[Soulfly]

Would the shrapnel damage be able to show which direction the missile came from? Could the damage to he left side of the cockpit mean the missile came from the NE where the pics of the Buk are located? I would think the damage would be localized to the side of the plane facing the direction the missile came from. It is also possible the missile could pass the plane and detonate on the opposite side though.

 

[Mick West]

Would the shrapnel damage be able to show which direction the missile came from? Could the damage to he left side of the cockpit mean the missile came from the NE where the pics of the Buk are located? I would think the damage would be localized to the side of the plane facing the direction the missile came from. It is also possible the missile could pass the plane and detonate on the opposite side though.

The missile could in theory explode pretty much anywhere relative to the plane. It does not have to hit it, just explode in proximity.

 

[Soulfly]

The missile could in theory explode pretty much anywhere relative to the plane. It does not have to hit it, just explode in proximity.

I understand that. Some of the missiles are designed to do that. And that is what leads me to believe the damage would be more localized to one side of the plane. In any case the shrapnel damage will be able to show where the missile detonated. I'm just guessing it will be shown the missile was fired from the north or northeast from the crash site.

 

[Pete Tar]

Does this change reports or speculation that the tail was hit and caused the loss of flight as well as opening the plane?

 

[WeedWhacker]

Does this change reports or speculation that the tail was hit and caused the loss of flight as well as opening the plane?

I recall seeing a photo (somewhere, posted on MB) of shrapnel damage in the horizontal stabilizer. Yes, once the Stab is gone, the airplane will pitch nose-down violently, and begin to break up from extreme G forces and the aerodynamic stresses.

Center of Gravity is forward of Center of Lift, and the Stab acts downward, to "balance":

 

[Jason]

I recall seeing a photo (somewhere, posted on MB) of shrapnel damage in the horizontal stabilizer. Yes, once the Stab is gone, the airplane will pitch nose-down violently, and begin to break up from extreme G forces and the aerodynamic stresses.

Center of Gravity is forward of Center of Lift, and the Stab acts downward, to "balance":

Does anyone have a layout of the debri field yet showing where the tail ended up, fuselage, and cockpit etc etc etc. Couldn't a map of the debri field also give us a better idea of what happened after it was impacted.

 

[Jason]

Does anyone have a layout of the debri field yet showing where the tail ended up, fuselage, and cockpit etc etc etc. Couldn't a map of the debri field also give us a better idea of what happened after it was impacted.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/world/satellite-image-of-the-debris-field-near-hrabove/1197/

 

[Mick West]

Does anyone have a layout of the debri field yet showing where the tail ended up, fuselage, and cockpit etc etc etc. Couldn't a map of the debri field also give us a better idea of what happened after it was impacted.

 

[Jason]

I'm not an expert, but looking at this debri field, the main impact site in particular, one could summize the plane came down on a sharp angle, right. Sometimes in plane crashes you can see a trail of where the ground was moved prior to the explosion. I would think based on these images that the pilots had "0" control of this plane.

 

[Mick West]

I'm not an expert, but looking at this debri field, the main impact site in particular, one could summize the plane came down on a sharp angle, right. Sometimes in plane crashes you can see a trail of where the ground was moved prior to the explosion. I would think based on these images that the pilots had "0" control of this plane.

Quite clearly it had broken up in mid air. So control was not really a possibility.

 

[Juha]

http://stat.multimedia.mil.ru/multimedia/video/clips/more.htm?id=5086@morfVideoAudioFile

If we look this video, it shows last minutes heading was about NW or NNW. And speed drops dramatically. No alt though.
Sadly, video misses couple of bits of timeline.

 

[Jason]

Quite clearly it had broken up in mid air. So control was not really a possibility.

But if the plane landed on its belly first and pushed forward before blowing up we would see that impression or disturbed earth prior to the "charred site". We don't, so it probably came down in a steep angle. If it came down in a steep angle, and the lighter parts are close to it (within a few thousand feet or so), they probably broke up due to g's and much closer to the surface, rather than upon impact. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

 

[MikeC]

does this photo show the cockpit in relation to the other debris??



it comes from this article that is heavy on it all being a US conspiracy.

 

[Jason]

does this photo show the cockpit in relation to the other debris??

View attachment 8120

it comes from this article that is heavy on it all being a US conspiracy.

I can't zoom in close enough to get a good view of it, if it was then it would certianly help with the direction the plane was traveling

 

[MikeC]

I don't think it is - it might be the tail though - the cockpit an "one turbine" are said to be a kilometer "apart", and the tail 10 km away in this Daily Mail article - the photo there is zoomable, but there's not much definition so it doesn't really help.

 

[Mick West]

does this photo show the cockpit in relation to the other debris??

View attachment 8120

it comes from this article that is heavy on it all being a US conspiracy.

Rozsypne has been mentions as a debris location, but it's not entirely clear it that was simple used as a nearby village of size. It does not make much sense with the flight path.

The circled area in that image is something that was there before the crash.

 

[Chew]

A not-entirely-off-topic nitpick: fragments from a fragmentation warhead are technically called "fragments", not "shrapnel". "Shrapnel" is making its way into the common lexicon as a synonym for fragments even among experts so who cares but for now please be aware of the difference in case technical issues come up.

 

[Mick West]

A not-entirely-off-topic nitpick: fragments from a fragmentation warhead are technically called "fragments", not "shrapnel". "Shrapnel" is making its way into the common lexicon as a synonym for fragments even among experts so who cares but for now please be aware of the difference in case technical issues come up.

Might be a lost cause now, with the widespread usage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_fragmentation

Fragmentation is the process by which the casing of an artillery shell, bomb, grenade, etc. is shattered by the detonation of the explosive filler.

The correct technical terminology of these pieces is "fragmentation" (sometimes shortened to frag) - although "shards" or "splinters" can be used for non-preformed fragments. Preformed fragments can be of various shapes (spheres, cubes, rods, etc.) and size and are normally held rigidly within some form of matrix or body until the HE filling is detonated. The resulting high velocity fragments produced by either method are the main lethal mechanisms of these weapons, rather than the heat or overpressure caused by detonation, although offensive grenades are often constructed without a frag matrix.

These casing pieces are often incorrectly referred to as "shrapnel" (particularly by non-military media sources), though this is the result of the original term being culturally genericized due to its uniquely memorable phonology (similar to how bazooka is sometimes still used to refer to anyshoulder-fired rocket launcher)

Content from external source

It's probably pretty safe to assume that they mean fragments when they say shrapnel.

 

[Soulfly]

A not-entirely-off-topic nitpick: fragments from a fragmentation warhead are technically called "fragments", not "shrapnel". "Shrapnel" is making its way into the common lexicon as a synonym for fragments even among experts so who cares but for now please be aware of the difference in case technical issues come up.

I think you're getting into semantics.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shrapnel
shrap·nel(shrpnl)
n. pl. shrapnel
1. Fragments from an exploded artillery shell, mine, or bomb.
2.
a. A 19th-century artillery shell containing metal balls, designed to explode in the air above enemytroops.
b. The metal balls in such a weapon.

 

[MikeC]

I think general usage has trumped the original technical difference - from google's define function:

shrapnel
ˈʃrapn(ə)l/
noun
noun: shrapnel

1. 1.
   fragments of a bomb, shell, or other object thrown out by an explosion.
   "he was killed by flying shrapnel"
   
2. 2.
   informal
   small change.
   "little more than a few pounds and a handful of shrapnel"
   

Content from external source

and from Dic.com:

shrap·nel
/ˈʃræpnl/
noun
1. Military .
a. a hollow projectile containing bullets or the like and a bursting charge, designed to explode before reaching the target, and to set free a shower of missiles.
b. such projectiles collectively.
2. shell fragments.
Origin:
1800–10; named after Henry Shrapnel (1761–1842), English army officer, its inventor

Content from external source

 

[MikeC]

I don't think it is - it might be the tail though - the cockpit an "one turbine" are said to be a kilometer "apart", and the tail 10 km away in this Daily Mail article - the photo there is zoomable, but there's not much definition so it doesn't really help.

And no - apparently the tail isn't 10km away -



Still curious where the cockpit is in all this

 

[Jason]

Still curious where the cockpit is in all this

I agree! Media has been talking about how the rebels sawed it in half, but the only thing I found was this pick, and that it was located where the first bodies were found. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/22/ukraine-mh17-bodies-russia/12981325/

The cockpit was found in a section of the crash site that had been immediately cordoned off during the first two days after the plane went down. Witnesses tell USA TODAY that this was also the area where the first bodies were removed.

The cockpit apparently was cut in half with diesel-powered saws.

Content from external source

 

[Mick West]

And no - apparently the tail isn't 10km away -



Still curious where the cockpit is in all this

That's the remains of a wing in the bottom right there. [Edit: No, it's part of the tail]



This looks like it could be on the same road (with the light brown wheat field behind)


as does this (same pieces from another angle)

 

[MikeC]

That's the remains of a wing in the bottom right there.

I don't think MAS puts its logo on its wings, so I'm pretty sure that is the tail.

 

[Mumbles]

I agree! Media has been talking about how the rebels sawed it in half, but the only thing I found was this pick, and that it was located where the first bodies were found. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/22/ukraine-mh17-bodies-russia/12981325/

The cockpit was found in a section of the crash site that had been immediately cordoned off during the first two days after the plane went down. Witnesses tell USA TODAY that this was also the area where the first bodies were removed.

The cockpit apparently was cut in half with diesel-powered saws.

Content from external source

That's part of the tail section. The fairing at right is beneath the rudder, and the cutout where the horizontal stabiliser was.

 

[Mumbles]

I don't think MAS puts its logo on its wings, so I'm pretty sure that is the tail.

Agreed. That's the vertical stabiliser/tail fin. There is an identifiable section of wing or horizontal stabiliser in some of the pics though.

 

[Mumbles]

That's the remains of a wing in the bottom right there.



This looks like it could be on the same road (with the light brown wheat field behind)


as does this (same pieces from another angle)

That's the same section of tail wreckage and remnants of one of the horizontal stabilisers. It's lying inverted in these pics.

 

[Jason]

That's part of the tail section. The fairing at right is beneath the rudder, and the cutout where the horizontal stabiliser was.

Thanks, it was inlcuded with the story about the cockpit, so I thought it belonged to the nose

 

[Jason]

That's the same section of tail wreckage and remnants of one of the horizontal stabilisers. It's lying inverted in these pics.

Can you find any photos of the cockpit because I can't anywhere? Why would photos of the cockpit not be avialable I wonder?

 

[Mumbles]

The only definite cockpit area wreckage I have seen are the images already in this thread. There might be others, but accounts are emerging today that cockpit wreckage may have been tampered with or removed.

 

[Jason]

@TEEJ do you know where this peice was found by the way. I can't locate that concrete pole it's leaning against in any of the photos. This is part of the cockpit..

 

[BombDr]

Would the shrapnel damage be able to show which direction the missile came from? Could the damage to he left side of the cockpit mean the missile came from the NE where the pics of the Buk are located? I would think the damage would be localized to the side of the plane facing the direction the missile came from. It is also possible the missile could pass the plane and detonate on the opposite side though.

You are right, but you also have to consider secondary fragmentation, which in this case is pieces of the aircraft being broken up and becoming fragmentation themselves, and other secondary forces on the structure such as fuel ignition and combustion, any pressurised gasses being rapidly released etc.

This is why its so important that all the wreckage is carefully logged and recorded, forensically handled, and a robust passage of custody established, and not have a group of thugs, looters and locals all moving stuff around and posing for photos. You then have the worlds media turning up and doing their own rummaging, and some even having the nerve to be disgusted by the militiamen, whilst contaminating the crime-scene themselves.

 

[sulman]

Hello all, with regard to the remains of the cockpit, please see the following images (and do look at the rest of the gallery for other images of the site). I believe these are from a journalist working the site. None of the images are graphic.

The cockpit plus around 40 feet of the structure is here. In this image you are looking at the nose from the 2 O'Clock position. The flight deck floor is angled upward nearly vertical. Visible are the throttle console, the pedestal, standby flight instrument screens, the base of a control column, and the tracks for the seats.

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/14715119004/


Straight at the starboard side:

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/14694514176/


Another angle, broken window frames and the remnants of the windscreen wiper housing (helpful to visualise the actual aircraft).

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/14717505025/


The remains of a crew seat, forward of the wreckage, again notable for possible shrapnel damage.

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/14737377433/


Of note are the perforations in the flightdeck floor, particularly under the commander's seat (on the port side). These are the 5 pence size holes with the primer showing underneath.


I do not know where this is in relation to the whole crash site. Also, the entire roof structure appears to be missing, presumably it separated in the air as part of the breakup sequence.

 

[WeedWhacker]

This is chilling, because I am VERY familiar with the arrangement, and colors, of the cockpit (or "Flight Deck", in Boeing parlance).

Stunning, is all I can add.........

the primer ....

Here, you of course refer to zinc chromate...the 'lime-green' color most associated with airplanes, as a corrosion inhibitor.

 

[Jason]

This is chilling, because I am VERY familiar with the arrangement, and colors, of the cockpit (or "Flight Deck", in Boeing parlance).

Stunning, is all I can add.........



Here, you of course refer to zinc chromate...the 'lime-green' color most associated with airplanes, as a corrosion inhibitor.

If those are pictures of the cockpit, does it seem weird that none of the area is charred or burnt. Does anyone know where the cockpit landed in comparison to the main crash site. I see a sunflower farm in the backdrop and a brown house or blg