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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conspiracy theorists seem to be picking up on an interview given by Michael Bociurkiw of the OSCE.
Yeah, that's getting repeated a lot. However Bociurkiw really isn't seeing anything that's not in the Ackkermans photos.

If it was a missile, with thousands of fragments detonated some distance from the plane, then of course some of the hole will look like bullet holes, but there's a wide variety in hole shapes and sizes that seem to suggest a variety of irregular shaped projectiles.

foto_3_3__Flickr_-_Photo_Sharing_2014-07-30_06-13-08_2014-07-30_06-13-16.jpg


Now some holes do superficially look like exit holes, but look at the hole in the green substrate here:
14542042599_5c0c931dd7_o_2014-07-30_06-22-25_2014-07-30_06-22-28.jpg

That looks like an entry hole. It also looks like it's steel (there's some rust around the edges).

I think what is happening there is the projectile, combined with the aluminum skin, partially exploded, and pushed up the skin. Compare with these videos of bullets hitting various things, note the extreme blowback even when the bullet passes through the target.


1_million_fps_Slow_Motion_video_of_bullet_impacts_made_by_Werner_Mehl_from_Kurzzeit_-_YouTube_2014-07-30_06-27-51_2014-07-30_06-27-57.jpg


And notice in the video just how nice and regular the bullet holes are, nothing at all like what we see on MH17.
 
Now some holes do superficially look like exit holes, but look at the hole in the green substrate here:
14542042599_5c0c931dd7_o_2014-07-30_06-22-25_2014-07-30_06-22-28.jpg

That looks like an entry hole. It also looks like it's steel (there's some rust around the edges).
Could it also be the result of the explosive decompression pushing that metal out?

The fragment goes in making a small hole but the air rushing out gets between the layers and pushes the metal out.
 
We should also keep in mind that a proximity warhead will also have diffraction loading. This is a good link that discusses the different energies right down to the shrapnel, and what is needed to take down an aircraft and what the effects are.
External Quote:
Diffraction loading is the rapid application of pressure to the target from all sides as the shock wave passes over it. It is associated with diffraction because the shock wave front will bend around and engulf the target as it passes.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/dam_crit/dam_crit.htm
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part13.htm
 
Last edited:
Entry And Exit holes from bullets in the area of the Cockpit. This is not speculation, but analysis of clear facts: the cockpit shows clear evidence of bullet holes. You can see the entry holes and some exit points. The edges of the bullet holes are bent inwards, these are much smaller and round in shape. A 30mm calibre. The exit holes are less well formed and the edges are torn outwards Furthermore it is visible that the exit holes have torn the double aluminium skin and bent them outwards. That is to say, splinters from inside the cockpit blew through the outside of the cabin. The open rivets have also been bent outwards….There is only one conclusion one can make, and that is that this: the aircraft was not hit by a missile. The damage to the aircraft is exclusively in the cockpit area….

See, this is what really irks me: People using phrases like "analysis of clear facts/clear evidence/30mm calibre/ there is only one conclusion"

Some guy has seen some pictures on a laptop screen and has the case sown up. Why bother with an investigation then? From my extremely limited armchair investigation of the images, I see no evidence of cannon fire, but plenty of evidence of fragmentation damage. I speak as someone that had scooped up a lot of broken metal from explosives, and even so I'm not prepared to commit myself to a cause from looking at a few snapshots.

Generally speaking there are three types of Aircraft rounds, FAP type (Frangible Armour Piercing) API (Armour Piercing Incendiary) and HE (High Explosive) and variations of these, and they would indeed shred the soft skin of a 777 that is not designed to take any type of hostile damage. But for this to be the case, a whole new set of variables need to be met, and they would indeed include fragments of the rounds themselves being embedded in the harder parts of the aircraft. Then you have the air-crew, that armourers, the aircraft itself etc, and we are now in multiple people all sworn to silence, which as we know is problematic in the modern media world...
 
I noticed this on PPRuNE forum. Possible missile O-ring or part of MH17?
upload_2014-7-31_8-55-51.png



https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/14678873646/in/set-72157645790319631

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/543733-mh17-down-near-donetsk-51.html#post8585622

External Quote:
For Buk, the missile diameter would be 0.4m. Gut feeling is that this ring looks a little small, but very difficult to tell as there is not much in the picture to give scale (grass comes in lots of sizes...).
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/543733-mh17-down-near-donetsk-53.html#post8586368

External Quote:
Looks about right. The rod in the picture is a galley or toilet or wardrobe upper attachment, diameter of the rod end housing would be around 25 mm. So 0.4m might even be a little small.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/543733-mh17-down-near-donetsk-53.html#post8586404
 
My apologies as I believe someone posted this link before but I could not find it...but someone I know is pushing this guy's story I am fairly certain its complete bunk.

what is MB's take:


http://www.anderweltonline.com/wiss...lysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/


External Quote:
The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likeley that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that at these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent – outwardly! Furthermore, minor cuts can be seen, all bent outward, which indicate that shrapnel had forcefull exited through the outer skin from the inside of the cockpit. The open rivets are are also bent outward....In the case of flight MH 017 it becomes abundantly clear that there also an explosion took place inside the aircraft.

...I am not given to hover long in the realm of speculation, but would like to invite others to consider the following : The MH 017 looked similar in it’s tricolor design to that that of the Russian President’s plane. The plane with Presdient Putin on board was at the same time ”near” Malaysia MH 017. In aviation circles “close” would be considered to be anywhere between 150 to 200 miles. Also, in this context we might consider the deposition of Ms. Tymoshenko, who wanted to shoot Presdient Putin with a Kalashnikov.

But that this remains pure speculation. The shelling of the cockpit of air Malaysia MH 017, however, is definitely not.
 
I'd say it's not credible at all. The Russian Presidential airplane:

a624170df797209980d774c2d47d71b9.jpg


Looks nothing at like the Malaysia Airlines paint scheme....oh, and the Russian airplane (Ilyushin Il-96-300) has two extra engines!

Hardly likely an experienced fighter pilot would possibly mistake a B-777 in broad daylight (nor, at night for that matter...).


So, the "speculation" of 30mm cannon fire is not plausible...oh, and there is actually no evidence to support this claim.
 
My apologies as I believe someone posted this link before but I could not find it...but someone I know is pushing this guy's story I am fairly certain its complete bunk.

what is MB's take:


http://www.anderweltonline.com/wiss...lysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/


External Quote:
The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likeley that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that at these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent – outwardly! Furthermore, minor cuts can be seen, all bent outward, which indicate that shrapnel had forcefull exited through the outer skin from the inside of the cockpit. The open rivets are are also bent outward....In the case of flight MH 017 it becomes abundantly clear that there also an explosion took place inside the aircraft.

...I am not given to hover long in the realm of speculation, but would like to invite others to consider the following : The MH 017 looked similar in it’s tricolor design to that that of the Russian President’s plane. The plane with Presdient Putin on board was at the same time ”near” Malaysia MH 017. In aviation circles “close” would be considered to be anywhere between 150 to 200 miles. Also, in this context we might consider the deposition of Ms. Tymoshenko, who wanted to shoot Presdient Putin with a Kalashnikov.

But that this remains pure speculation. The shelling of the cockpit of air Malaysia MH 017, however, is definitely not.
If I remember correctly, Obama and Putin were on the phone when this happened discussing the first round of sanctions that only the US went ahead with. While they were on the phone (before Obama's fund raising speech) in NY, I believe, Putin alerted the President that there was a downed plane in the Ukraine, and that he had to go to sort this out. Now how could Putin be on the phone with the President when this occurred if he was on a plane, and secondly if Putin was in the vacinity of this plane coming down I'm pretty sure the Russian Government would've went on high alert. I don't believe the story for a second, it was propaganda that RT news was spewing a day after the accident to combat western media.
 
Last edited:
I'd say it's not credible at all. The Russian Presidential airplane:

a624170df797209980d774c2d47d71b9.jpg


Looks nothing at like the Malaysia Airlines paint scheme....oh, and the Russian airplane (Ilyushin Il-96-300) has two extra engines!

Hardly likely an experienced fighter pilot would possibly mistake a B-777 in broad daylight (nor, at night for that matter...).


So, the "speculation" of 30mm cannon fire is not plausible...oh, and there is actually no evidence to support this claim.
Not too mention it would be national suicide for the Ukraine if they did shoot down the plane of a PM, President or King of another nation. There is no way in hell they would've shot it down even if Putin was flying in a bright pink plane with a bullzeye on it. lol
 
My apologies as I believe someone posted this link before but I could not find it...but someone I know is pushing this guy's story I am fairly certain its complete bunk.

what is MB's take:


http://www.anderweltonline.com/wiss...lysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/


External Quote:
The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likeley that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that at these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent – outwardly! Furthermore, minor cuts can be seen, all bent outward, which indicate that shrapnel had forcefull exited through the outer skin from the inside of the cockpit. The open rivets are are also bent outward....In the case of flight MH 017 it becomes abundantly clear that there also an explosion took place inside the aircraft.

...I am not given to hover long in the realm of speculation, but would like to invite others to consider the following : The MH 017 looked similar in it’s tricolor design to that that of the Russian President’s plane. The plane with Presdient Putin on board was at the same time ”near” Malaysia MH 017. In aviation circles “close” would be considered to be anywhere between 150 to 200 miles. Also, in this context we might consider the deposition of Ms. Tymoshenko, who wanted to shoot Presdient Putin with a Kalashnikov.

But that this remains pure speculation. The shelling of the cockpit of air Malaysia MH 017, however, is definitely not.
It should also be noted that SU-25's are specifically for "ground" attacks. They aren't designed to be a fighter jet.
 
It should also be noted that SU-25's are specifically for "ground" attacks. They aren't designed to be a fighter jet.
Also, the Russians said the Su-25 was 3-5km away from MH-17, if it was closer I'm pretty sure they'd have said so. Would I be right in thinking that hitting even something the size of an airliner from that distance with a cannon would be a feat of Skywalkeresque proportions?

" You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likeley that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles."

He seems to be saying that not only was there an explosion from inside, but that the same piece of metal shows both entry and exit holes, meaning the plane would have had to be attacked from two sides? Unless it rolled presenting the other side as a target.

Ray Von
 
Last edited:
So, the "speculation" of 30mm cannon fire is not plausible...oh, and there is actually no evidence to support this claim.

To be fair, he is suggesting the shrapnel patterns has he described them is evidence.

I am skeptical that his interpretation is correct but I am not a ballistics expert and wondered if others had commented on his interpretation yet.
 
Could it also be the result of the explosive decompression pushing that metal out?
The fragment goes in making a small hole but the air rushing out gets between the layers and pushes the metal out.
Explosive decompression like this is a Hollywood thing. It doesn't actually happen.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/explosive-decompression-minimyth.htm
It's pretty severe, and you don't want to be in the closest seat, but aside from the plastic facade on the interior walls there's no damage to the plane's structure from escaping air, it's just not that powerful. And the more punctures there are the less severe it becomes, as air is escaping through all the holes instead of just one like in the video.

You still get blowback like that in shrapnel or bullet holes with no pressure difference. It's just how the physics works when two pieces of metal hit at high enough speeds that they start behaving more like liquids than solids.
 
"Juha", can you say that those two photos were taken "in situ" at the MH17 (or, 'MAS17') crash site?

Can you provide confirmation?

EDIT: Because, those (and the post above) are great at disputing the "30mm cannon shoot-down" scenario!
 
Last edited:
No, I didn't mean that they are from site. Just showing the pictures from pprune.

No idea where the pictures are taken from and as default, don't suppose that they are from site. :)
 
It's definitely not 'confirmation' of bullet holes - it's just a repeat of the statement that it looks similar to bullet holes, discussed in this post already - #119
That site is also just another conspiracy content farm.
 
External Quote:
For the story of the German aviation experts to set the reference to the damage to the wreckage of MH17 force at; bullet holes from machine gun fire, today was an interview with Michael Bociurkiw out.

This gives Canadian OSCE observers without much diplomatic words that the version of the disaster in which fighter planes of the Ukrainian Air Force MH17 have the best shot at with machine gun fire could be possible.

"We have two or three pieces of the fuselage seen by the board. It has the characteristics of bullets from a machine gun. On the question of whether we found that looked like a missile damage something, the answer is "no, we have found no evidence of it."
http://www.ohln.nl/index.php/opmerkelijk-1/13746-ovse-waarnemer-bevestigt-kogelgaten-in-mh17-toestel

SU-25 doesn't have a machine gun!
 
External Quote:
For the story of the German aviation experts to set the reference to the damage to the wreckage of MH17 force at; bullet holes from machine gun fire, today was an interview with Michael Bociurkiw out.

This gives Canadian OSCE observers without much diplomatic words that the version of the disaster in which fighter planes of the Ukrainian Air Force MH17 have the best shot at with machine gun fire could be possible.

"We have two or three pieces of the fuselage seen by the board. It has the characteristics of bullets from a machine gun. On the question of whether we found that looked like a missile damage something, the answer is "no, we have found no evidence of it."
http://www.ohln.nl/index.php/opmerkelijk-1/13746-ovse-waarnemer-bevestigt-kogelgaten-in-mh17-toestel

SU-25 doesn't have a machine gun!
The SPPU-22 gun pod can be equipped though.
http://weaponsystems.net/weapon.php?weapon=HH13+-+SPPU-22
 
External Quote:
For the story of the German aviation experts to set the reference to the damage to the wreckage of MH17 force at; bullet holes from machine gun fire, today was an interview with Michael Bociurkiw out.

This gives Canadian OSCE observers without much diplomatic words that the version of the disaster in which fighter planes of the Ukrainian Air Force MH17 have the best shot at with machine gun fire could be possible.

"We have two or three pieces of the fuselage seen by the board. It has the characteristics of bullets from a machine gun. On the question of whether we found that looked like a missile damage something, the answer is "no, we have found no evidence of it."
http://www.ohln.nl/index.php/opmerkelijk-1/13746-ovse-waarnemer-bevestigt-kogelgaten-in-mh17-toestel

SU-25 doesn't have a machine gun!
A lot of planes don't. And ones that do rarely use them. Fighters almost universally kill planes with missiles, the days of machinegun dogfights are long past.
Is there some confusion over machine-guns and cannons?
 
SPPU-22 contains 23mm cannon, not machine gun.
http://shelf3d.com/i/Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23
I didn't call it a machine gun or a cannon. I called it a gun pod, which is what they are called.


I think everyone needs to stop being so anal about machine gun or cannon.

I understand the difference. But they are both pretty much exactly the same thing. One fires big bullets the other fires bigger ones. Guns can be made to fire HE rounds and so can cannons.

I'll be referring to machine guns as cannons and cannons as machine guns from now on. Purely for spite though! :p
 
Last edited:
I didn't call it a machine gun or a cannon. I called it a gun pod, which is what they are called.


I think everyone needs to stop being so anal about machine gun or cannon.

I understand the difference. But they are both pretty much exactly the same thing. One fires big bullets the other fires bigger ones. Guns can be made to fire HE rounds and so can cannons.

I'll be referring to machine guns as cannons and cannons as machine guns from now on. Purely for spite though! :p
I know what you mean and normally I would not be so anal.

But in this case there is huge difference. You can make cannon holes with MG, but with cannon you can't make MG holes.

If you look those cockpit windows bolts, which are about 1/4" bolts(?), then the holes are max .50 cal?
I haven't found anything, which can verify the size, but I don't believe they are very far from that 1/4" size. 30mm is ~1 and 1/4", 23mm is little less than 1"

External Quote:
Keep in mind that there is no official or absolute definition of these terms. But this goes back to WW2 when the difference was more obvious:

machine guns - high rate of fire, high muzzle velocity, damage by kinetic energy, smaller calibre
cannons - low rate of fire, low muzzle velocity, damage by explosive energy, higher calibre

But already back then there were a lot of different ammo types with various effects used in both machine guns and cannons, so the difference wasn't always totally clear. There is no 'threshold' both in calibre and in ammo type that a gun has to surpass to count as a cannon.
 
I know what you mean and normally I would not be so anal.

But in this case there is huge difference. You can make cannon holes with MG, but with cannon you can't make MG holes.

If you look those cockpit windows bolts, which are about 1/4" bolts(?), then the holes are max .50 cal?
I haven't found anything, which can verify the size, but I don't believe they are very far from that 1/4" size. 30mm is ~1 and 1/4", 23mm is little less than 1"

External Quote:
Keep in mind that there is no official or absolute definition of these terms. But this goes back to WW2 when the difference was more obvious:

machine guns - high rate of fire, high muzzle velocity, damage by kinetic energy, smaller calibre
cannons - low rate of fire, low muzzle velocity, damage by explosive energy, higher calibre

But already back then there were a lot of different ammo types with various effects used in both machine guns and cannons, so the difference wasn't always totally clear. There is no 'threshold' both in calibre and in ammo type that a gun has to surpass to count as a cannon.
Since they can attach a cannon, I don't find it a stretch that a machine gun could be attached to an SU-25. So instead of arguing over semantics, everyone should bring the evidence that either confirms or refutes that it was something other than a missile or rocket strike. Debunk or prove both and you don't need to argue semantics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top