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

Status
Not open for further replies.

sulman

New Member
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
I think with regard to burnt or sooted parts most of those things would be the outer skin which would have failed away. If you look at some of the pictures there's definite heat damage around the edges and window pieces. I'm curious where the top half of it all is.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
does it seem weird that none of the area is charred or burnt.
No, not "weird" at all. The airplane was likely hit by fragments (aka "shrapnel") in other parts of the airframe. As already indicated in some other photos, there is indication of fragment ('shrapnel') damage in the rear, and horizontal stabilizer.

Again..."IF" the horizontal stabilizer (or "Stab") is compromised, then there is NO CONTROL possible.

Repeating an earlier image (actually, this one is different, but points out the same laws of aerodynamics):
 

Jason

Senior Member
No, not "weird" at all. The airplane was likely hit by fragments (aka "shrapnel") in other parts of the airframe. As already indicated in some other photos, there is indication of fragment ('shrapnel') damage in the rear, and horizontal stabilizer.

Again..."IF" the horizontal stabilizer (or "Stab") is compromised, then there is NO CONTROL possible.

Repeating an earlier image (actually, this one is different, but points out the same laws of aerodynamics):
We do have evidence that the cockpit or pilot side window was hit with shrapnel from an earlier post here;


 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
We do have evidence that the cockpit or pilot side window was hit with shrapnel from an earlier post here
Oh. Wow, that is interesting. Can we surmise (then) that the SAM exploded on the left side of the airplane? Sending fragmentation widely dispersed?

The forensics will have to determine this.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Oh. Wow, that is interesting. Can we surmise (then) that the SAM exploded on the left side of the airplane? Sending fragmentation widely dispersed?
Or just as easily right in front of the nose of the plane and perhaps the right side looks equally as messed up. I wonder how far out the fragmentation goes, could it have also entered the engines and damaged the wings. Probably?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Or just as easily right in front of the nose of the plane and perhaps the right side looks equally as messed up. I wonder how far out the fragmentation goes, could it have also entered the engines and damaged the wings. Probably?
Thing is......the debris IF NOT DISTURBED would have provided ample evidence as to the break-up sequence. NOW? This will be much, much more difficult, because of DAYS of contamination of the scene.
 

Chew

Senior Member
The elongated holes will indicate direction of travel. Some pics of the wings show extremely shallow entry angles.
 

Boriswatch

New Member
I do not know where this is in relation to the whole crash site.
I do, it's at approximately 48.122889,38.557966 on the southern tip of Rozsypne village, 10km west of the tail (note the semi-derelict brown building to the north). There's a problem in many of the media reports and satellite imagery of concentrating on the big wreckage sites in the east and not understanding that in a crash like this the thing to look for is what came off first, which is why you won't find the cockpit on the satellite pictures. Jeroen Akkermans found it all right, having done a lot at the eastern sites and the NYT were smart enough to look even further west out beyond the village of Petropavlivka, finding the curved panel with the obvious shrapnel marks in a field around 48.155322,38.518911. That piece is critical, it's from the crown of the fuselage immediately behind the cockpit (look at the station numbers on the frames and compare them to a diagram of the 777's nose).

Putting it together, the western wreckage seems to be exclusively front fuselage (including the starboard and port Malaysian flags, which are both well forward, while a piece of skin with the starboard 'ia' of 'Malaysia is photographed at the eastern site) and the eastern wreckage is central and rear fuselage, wings, tails and engines, it's not hard to hypothesise that the first breakup was that the front came off as far as the wings, landing around Rozsypne while the back carried on, subsequently losing the tail and rear fuselage before crashing to the north. The wreckage trail is actually banana shaped, veering about 30 degrees to port of the original course.

If those are pictures of the cockpit, does it seem weird that none of the area is charred or burnt.
It's 10km from the nearest source of fuel, which explains it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BombDr

Senior Member
Oh. Wow, that is interesting. Can we surmise (then) that the SAM exploded on the left side of the airplane? Sending fragmentation widely dispersed?

The forensics will have to determine this.

I'v examined a lot of explosive events, but never a plane crash (helicopters only, and only as a medical responder). I was wondering about the secondary frag again, and thought about the effect of the engines breaking up. What kind of RPM would the blades be turning at during cruising speed? Presumably if the blades broke up and left the engines, that would be quite chaotic too?
 

Boriswatch

New Member
"@Boriswatch, is this correct?"

Spot on, matches my map pretty well - https://mapsengine.google.com/map/viewer?mid=zJyuR2_5jeDk.ks-VMaE-uFRs

I suspect there's an awful lot of wreckage dotted around Petropavlivka and Rozsypne that we don't know about, in people's gardens (the shredded port cockpit was found in a garden and moved, apparently). Akkermans found some earlier, but it's frustratingly hard to locate it, although given the proximity to buildings it must be in the western villages.


Another thing to bear in mind - the wind was east to west, so lighter bits would end up west of heavier bits that separated at the same time.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Blades leave quite distinctive marks because they have considerable rotational component at the time of disintegration. Also the engines are designed to contain disintegration, so any damage from them tends to appear in quite limited areas and be highly concentrated in those areas - often it is massive damage in a "straight line" in line with the original position of het blades in eth airframe.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine_engine_failure
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
What kind of RPM would the blades be turning at during cruising speed? Presumably if the blades broke up and left the engines, that would be quite chaotic too?
YES!! Very intuitive question.

The internal components of a typical multi-stage turbo-fan engine can be rotating upwards of 30,000 RPM. Thus, "IF" an engine disintegrates in-flight (and the nacelle or cowling, usually designed to contain such fragmentation are gone)....however in a "shoot-down" scenario, then all bets are off....
 

Jason

Senior Member
"@Boriswatch, is this correct?"

Spot on, matches my map pretty well - https://mapsengine.google.com/map/viewer?mid=zJyuR2_5jeDk.ks-VMaE-uFRs

I suspect there's an awful lot of wreckage dotted around Petropavlivka and Rozsypne that we don't know about, in people's gardens (the shredded port cockpit was found in a garden and moved, apparently). Akkermans found some earlier, but it's frustratingly hard to locate it, although given the proximity to buildings it must be in the western villages.


Another thing to bear in mind - the wind was east to west, so lighter bits would end up west of heavier bits that separated at the same time.
@Boriswatch are all the red becons on your map the identities of known debri from the plane. Do you have another list to identify each of the markers with plane parts, it would be extremely beneficial
 
Last edited:

Juha

Member
YES!! Very intuitive question.

The internal components of a typical multi-stage turbo-fan engine can be rotating upwards of 30,000 RPM. Thus, "IF" an engine disintegrates in-flight (and the nacelle or cowling, usually designed to contain such fragmentation are gone)....however in a "shoot-down" scenario, then all bets are off....
Don't know the N1, but B772 EPR is about 1.25 at cruise with RR Trent engine. Depending of many things.
 

Boriswatch

New Member
Red dots are intended to be FR24 co-ordinates for the plane's flightpath*, yellow are eyewitnesses, mostly with pictures, pink are sightings of BuK launchers, blue are waypoints it should have been travelling betweenm (I admit as a WIP it's not entirely consistent).

That Akkerman shot of wreckage including the port side Malaysian flag I suspect is at 48.141728,38.5358 again very far west.

I'm now searching for this, which is the starboard side 'malaysia' name, upper half only.


It's very interesting as it was originally just to the rear of one of the first widely circulated pieces of wreckage:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/140722105334-mh17-wreckage-620xa.jpg

* At least the last two seem to be generated by FR24 itself based on extrapolation, as the plane was no longer flying at those times.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Don't know the N1, but B772 EPR is about 1.25
That is not relevant to an actual RPM...sorry.

Also, a R/R Trent is a 3-spool engine...and the N1 is only one aspect...there is also N2 and N3...both of which turn at a much higher RPM.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Yep. Trent gives EPR as default. If there is a pilot online, he may know, if N1 is possible to get.
But as a rule of thumb, larger the first stage fan, less RPMs it takes.
Yeah, I know....I have used EPR in the PT-9D engines too. On the B-757 that I flew, with the R/R, we used N1. Guess it depends on the customer of the airplane, and how to train the crew.

But. Even WITH an EPR Gauge, we still could read....HAD to read the N2 (or N3, depending)....that was the key to throwing fuel to the engine, during the start. ALSO....once at idle, a "good" engine would indicate with EPR (or N1), N2 and F/F all showing properly, "down the line".
 

Jason

Senior Member
Red dots are intended to be FR24 co-ordinates for the plane's flightpath*, yellow are eyewitnesses, mostly with pictures, pink are sightings of BuK launchers, blue are waypoints it should have been travelling betweenm (I admit as a WIP it's not entirely consistent).

That Akkerman shot of wreckage including the port side Malaysian flag I suspect is at 48.141728,38.5358 again very far west.

I'm now searching for this, which is the starboard side 'malaysia' name, upper half only.


It's very interesting as it was originally just to the rear of one of the first widely circulated pieces of wreckage:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/140722105334-mh17-wreckage-620xa.jpg

* At least the last two seem to be generated by FR24 itself based on extrapolation, as the plane was no longer flying at those times.
Excellent job Boris. Isn't this the location of the main site were the explosion happened. https://www.google.com/maps/@48.0697795,38.7254319,1000m/data=!3m1!1e3
 

Boriswatch

New Member
That 'malaysia' remnant is here - 48.155193,38.529178 - well to the north-west again, like almost everything I've found from the forward upper fuselage. This seems to have 'unzipped' very early on in the sequence to be that far west.

@Jason - that's too far south east, at a guess it would need to be more like 48.135392,38.499606, in order to shed enough bits over Petropavlivka and Rozsypne. That's about 27km from the suspected launch site though.
 

Jason

Senior Member
That 'malaysia' remnant is here - 48.155193,38.529178 - well to the north-west again, like almost everything I've found from the forward upper fuselage. This seems to have 'unzipped' very early on in the sequence to be that far west.

@Jason - that's too far south east, at a guess it would need to be more like 48.135392,38.499606, in order to shed enough bits over Petropavlivka and Rozsypne. That's about 27km from the suspected launch site though.
Thanks, so you're thinking this plane came apart rather quickly at high altitude in order for the parts to be so far apart.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Thanks, so you're thinking this plane came apart rather quickly at high altitude in order for the parts to be so far apart.
THAT is what happens, unfortunately, when a large airplane like a B777 is "shot-down".

In THIS case (unlike previous mistaken shoot-downs) the debris landed on land....(KAL 007 as a reference...and Iran 655 too).
 

Boriswatch

New Member
@Jason Basically, yes - the nose section appears to have split with the top part landing to the north and west and the lower parts in Petropavlivka and Roszypne, the rest carried on for six miles before disintegrating quite near the ground.
 

Boriswatch

New Member
Being French, and a bit gruesome, they point out that the first body found along the trail is unusually badly damaged and burnt compared to the others from the forward section, and suggest she was very near the explosion on the left side. No, I'm not going to link to it.

Jeroen Akkermans has published another 87 photographs, mostly from the western area, including close ups of some of the fragged panels https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/sets/72157645471359080

@sulman - excellent point, given that the forward fuselage parts barely moved forward while the main plane carried on past you'd easily see a nearly stationary and a moving return.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Being French, and a bit gruesome, they point out that the first body found along the trail is unusually badly damaged and burnt compared to the others from the forward section, and suggest she was very near the explosion on the left side. No, I'm not going to link to it.

Jeroen Akkermans has published another 87 photographs, mostly from the western area, including close ups of some of the fragged panels https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/sets/72157645471359080

@sulman - excellent point, given that the forward fuselage parts barely moved forward while the main plane carried on past you'd easily see a nearly stationary and a moving return.
Do you suppose a majority of the passengers survived the initial missile attack, and perhaps died from lack of O2 or hitting the surface
 

BombDr

Senior Member
YES!! Very intuitive question.

The internal components of a typical multi-stage turbo-fan engine can be rotating upwards of 30,000 RPM. Thus, "IF" an engine disintegrates in-flight (and the nacelle or cowling, usually designed to contain such fragmentation are gone)....however in a "shoot-down" scenario, then all bets are off....
So if the engine housing is damaged, that is a lot of titanium flying around in an unfortunate rotary manner...

Im also assuming that regardless of any shrapnel, 150lbs of explosives with a blast wave of 800m/s is not good for the airflow over flight surfaces already travelling at 400mph...?
 

BombDr

Senior Member
Do you suppose a majority of the passengers survived the initial missile attack, and perhaps died from lack of O2 or hitting the surface
Not that its pleasant to think about, but I imagine they would have mercifully lost consciousness within seconds of the attack.
 

LarryLat

New Member
I'd love to hear the entire interview with the local in the yellow shirt.@ 1:32 the audio cuts in with this guy speaking and it sounds like he is implying that he saw a second plane: "the plane, which was encroaching... it appears was going nearby it [MH17] then approached him around and from the front [shows a hook gesture with his right hand going in front and around his left hand @ 1:36]"

Russian language just like French or German has three genders for objects. The guy was definitely not talking about a missile because rocket in Russian is of a feminine gender. He was talking about another plane "him" - masculine gender. So this was likely one of the witnesses from whom the story about an attack plane started.

He goes on to mention that seconds after both MH17 and "second plane" entered significant clouds (that obscured all the view for the guy) there was an explosion and pieces started falling.

Once I reviewed the video again I noticed another fragment when it appears that he talks about this second plane.

0:28 - here he states that no one actually saw the big plane (MH17). Second voice behind the camera also states "the big one [MH17] was not visible"
0:38 - "it was very far. it was just a dot. he [it = second plane, not a missile, which is a "she"] dived into the clouds"
0:41 - repeats hand gesture, and restates "flew [he, not she] into the clouds"

1:07 they are not near the main crash site. I think they are near the business class section. they are talking about bodies that were falling out of the falling debris. 37 bodies in total just in that area surrounding where they stand.

In no part of the video it is absolutely perfectly clear that the guy in a yellow shirt and his friend talk about two distinct airplanes. This is because neither of them makes comments such as "first plane", "second plane", "another plane", "interceptor", "attacker" or anything like that. Nonetheless, it does sound a lot like they are talking about two planes. If the full video was available then it would have been much clearer.

While I hear that the witness is stating that he saw what he believes was a second plane, I personally continue to support the theory that it was a missile from the BUK, and that at an altitude of almost 10KM a trail of a large missile did resemble a trail of an interceptor jet.
 
Last edited:

sulman

New Member
The eyes can deceive, too. It's very possible he did see separate pieces but they may have just been parts of the whole.

It's not inconceivable - dependent on the procedures of the missile battery - that a follow up missile was also fired but there's no evidence of this.

As regards surviveability, it is the forces one must consider. Those same forces that dismantle the aircraft will also render anyone unconscious (or killed) very rapidly. Fighter pilots that have been struck by large SAMS and survived have been well-restrained in their seats and normally don't have the violent decompression to deal with, but ejection at high speed is not always something they stay conscious or unscathed through. The body has a way of shutting down during these things.

The Columnbia STS-107 Surviveability report mentioned that the crew were dead or seriously injured before the catastrophic event as their belts did not restrain them sufficiently during the loss of control.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The eyes can deceive, too. It's very possible he did see separate pieces but they may have just been parts of the whole.

It's not inconceivable - dependent on the procedures of the missile battery - that a follow up missile was also fired but there's no evidence of this.

As regards surviveability, it is the forces one must consider. Those same forces that dismantle the aircraft will also render anyone unconscious (or killed) very rapidly. Fighter pilots that have been struck by large SAMS and survived have been well-restrained in their seats and normally don't have the violent decompression to deal with, but ejection at high speed is not always something they stay conscious or unscathed through. The body has a way of shutting down during these things.

The Columnbia STS-107 Surviveability report mentioned that the crew were dead or seriously injured before the catastrophic event as their belts did not restrain them sufficiently during the loss of control.
Yeah....but, relevance to MH17?
 

sulman

New Member
The more I look at that window panel image on the lampost, the most confused I get. Some of those marks look definitely like entry holes, but then there are some (view them at full resolution) that look turned outwards.
 

Jason

Senior Member
The eyes can deceive, too. It's very possible he did see separate pieces but they may have just been parts of the whole.

It's not inconceivable - dependent on the procedures of the missile battery - that a follow up missile was also fired but there's no evidence of this.

As regards surviveability, it is the forces one must consider. Those same forces that dismantle the aircraft will also render anyone unconscious (or killed) very rapidly. Fighter pilots that have been struck by large SAMS and survived have been well-restrained in their seats and normally don't have the violent decompression to deal with, but ejection at high speed is not always something they stay conscious or unscathed through. The body has a way of shutting down during these things.

The Columnbia STS-107 Surviveability report mentioned that the crew were dead or seriously injured before the catastrophic event as their belts did not restrain them sufficiently during the loss of control.
And from most of the footage I've seen, and I'm guessing here but due to the velocities involved once the missile detonates, the tube and motor still continue on as well as other parts. Which could look like an aircraft is continuing on. Here's a video to represent that (starts at 21 seconds or so)
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Do you suppose a majority of the passengers survived the initial missile attack, and perhaps died from lack of O2 or hitting the surface
they would have been unconscious in seconds from he "instantaneous" decompression when the aircraft came apart - if not before.

The autopsies will determine cause of death, but it is probably not lack of O2 - I'd guess more likely massive injuries from the flailing around of the wreckage as it fell, plus probably some from shrapnel (sic :))
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Related Articles

Top