MH17 Hypotheses

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, from everything I've been reading, an internal bomb, although for the most part written off as a cause, is said to be indeed very characteristic of the wreck. That, or a SAM.
Just a thought, but if the bomb was constructed with shrapnel inside of it wouldn't we see similar damage with the puncture wounds on the metal. I don't buy it though, because the damage we've seen for the most part is in the front of the plane under the cockpit window which leads me to believe the blast originates in close proximity to that location since the puncture holes are so close together
 
Last edited:
While I was in the Navy my life revolved around air defense. My primary mission was protection of the ship using the MK99 Fire Control System and the SM-2 missile. While the systems are more than likely different, our objective when we shot a missile was not a skin-on-skin impact. We considered those bad. Most, if not all, anti-air missiles are primarily designed with directional warheads. Without going into great detail, and avoiding classified info, we intended for our missiles to pass by the target. Skin-on-skin impacts were no guarantee of a kill. From what I saw of the incident, and I think I saw something on it, the strongest candidate was the SA-11. I figured it was either it or the SA-17. Either one only would need to compromise the structural integrity and from there the physics of flight will take care of the rest.
 
Just a thought, but if the bomb was constructed with shrapnel inside of it wouldn't we see similar damage with the puncture wounds on the metal. I don't buy it because the damage we've seen for the most part is in the front of the plane under the cockpit window which leads me to believe the blast originates in close proximity to that location since the puncture holes are so close together

Most of the damage seen in field photography is damage with punctures going from the outside in at the front of the aircraft. I can't come up with a theory for inward secondary punctures on the port side of the cockpit from a bomb onboard the aircraft (fragments would have to blow out faster than the aircraft was flying and return like boomerangs at ballistic speed). Added to this is apparent external scorching of the cockpit skin. A SAM or a bomb would produce a similar breakup, but a bomb would be more likely to start an on board fire which did not happen based on video and photographic evidence.
 
Nearly all these systems are computer controlled - any possible event recorded is then logged, and controllers will review the data and see what it is. There's just going to be too much data to keep eyes on - every satellite in the constellation will require round-the-clock monitoring, and any detected event is going to be very brief, meaning one person sipping their coffee or going for a pee is going to miss it unless the system is recording possible events, and as soon as it's doing that you don't need eyes on it when nothing is happening.

Since the systems are designed to detect strategic ICBM threats I doubt there is only one person monitoring the system, probably more like many dozens at redundant locations. When it comes to reacting to these types of threats computers only help, decision making is still in the hands of humans. A SAM is not an ICBM but it is still an event that probably raised an alert to a threat assessment team very quickly, likely while it was still heading to the target. I think a caveat might be naval vessels in an active engagement wherein automated threat response might be computer controlled.
 
I can only attest to naval systems that I am familiar with, but with the time I spent in nearly all engagements on active, hostile targets was still manual. The command and decision computer was set to give threat analysis and prioritize targets accordingly. There was a way to go "full auto", for lack of a better term, but was rarely (I never saw it) used even in training scenarios. The only system that we typically set to an automatic response setting was CIWS. We only did that for short amounts of time since it has no way of establishing friend or foe.

Typically in an air engagement the TAO (tatical action officer) would send a "kill track" order to the AAWC (anti-air warfare coordinator). AAWC would then manually input the engagement and send it over to MSS (Missile Systems Supervisor), who would then take that track number and put it in close-control (hook the target) and establish if it was truly hostile. In the hectic environment of air engagements it was very easy to engage a civilian aircraft. We could usually tell from altitude and airspeed whether it was civilian or not. If it was uncertain you could do an IFF inquiry on it to find out for sure. The lack of checking an engagement is the primary cause behind the USS Vincennes shooting down the airliner.

As far as the MH17 flight I would figure they would have something similar for engaging targets or at least making positive ID before firing, since, unlike the movies, once the bird is in the air it is really tough to self-destruct one due to the short flight times. 30nm at Mach 2+ goes by quick.
 
But the alleged SAM used to shoot down MH17 was said to be in flight for about 11 seconds if I rember correctly. Is that amount of time long enough for our advanced satellites to train their eyes on. Based on what I've read on this forum the satellites are stationed to form a constellation so information can be passed along. How quickly does the information get passed along so that it can be brought to someone's attention. Were these satellites even designed with locating SAMs in mind. ICBMs are aloft for 7 minutes or so, not 10's of seconds.
 
But the alleged SAM used to shoot down MH17 was said to be in flight for about 11 seconds if I rember correctly. Is that amount of time long enough for our advanced satellites to train their eyes on. Based on what I've read on this forum the satellites are stationed to form a constellation so information can be passed along. How quickly does the information get passed along so that it can be brought to someone's attention. Were these satellites even designed with locating SAMs in mind. ICBMs are aloft for 7 minutes or so, not 10's of seconds.

I believe what is claimed is that the satellite detected a launch event, so the top speed of the missile is irrelevant.
 
I believe what is claimed is that the satellite detected a launch event, so the top speed of the missile is irrelevant.
Do you suppose there are filter layers on these satellite programs to avoid the "noise". I mean with the recent hostilities in Israel/Gaza our satellites would've been in overdrive (on another note, these hostilities would've been good practice for the satellite systems). So do you think they have filters in place to disregard such events like a SAM being fired or iron dome missiles, or rockets like the ones used in Gaza, so they don't have alerts going off all the time which lets them do the job they were intended to do, like detect ICBMs
 
Do you suppose there are filter layers on these satellite programs to avoid the "noise". I mean with the recent hostilities in Israel/Gaza our satellites would've been in overdrive (on another note, these hostilities would've been good practice for the satellite systems). So do you think they have filters in place to disregard such events like a SAM being fired or iron dome missiles, or rockets like the ones used in Gaza, so they don't have alerts going off all the time which lets them do the job they were intended to do, like detect ICBMs

ELINT can also be used to collect the unique signature of the BUK tracking radar. It's not just imagery.
 
ELINT can also be used to collect the unique signature of the BUK tracking radar. It's not just imagery.
Great point Landru, and I remember the US discussing this early on after the plane crash. They were able to detect the Buk system when it was turned on to acquire the target and they were even able to detect when the Buk system locked on to the target. So there is no way the US wouldn't have known exactly which type of hardware was used to shoot down MH17.
The data gathered are typically pertinent to the electronics of an opponent's defense network, especially the electronic parts such asradars, surface-to-air missile systems, aircraft, etc. ELINT can be used to detect ships and aircraft by their radar and other electromagnetic radiation; commanders have to make choices between not using radar (EMCON), intermittently using it, or using it and expecting to avoid defenses. ELINT can be collected from ground stations near the opponent's territory, ships off their coast, aircraft near or in their airspace, or by satellite.
Content from External Source
 
Great point Landru, and I remember the US discussing this early on after the plane crash. They were able to detect the Buk system when it was turned on to acquire the target and they were even able to detect when the Buk system locked on to the target. So there is no way the US wouldn't have known exactly which type of hardware was used to shoot down MH17.
The data gathered are typically pertinent to the electronics of an opponent's defense network, especially the electronic parts such asradars, surface-to-air missile systems, aircraft, etc. ELINT can be used to detect ships and aircraft by their radar and other electromagnetic radiation; commanders have to make choices between not using radar (EMCON), intermittently using it, or using it and expecting to avoid defenses. ELINT can be collected from ground stations near the opponent's territory, ships off their coast, aircraft near or in their airspace, or by satellite.
Content from External Source

The method used is identifying the pulse repetition frequency (PRF) that is unique to the BUK in tracking mode. This is not difficult.
 
The method used is identifying the pulse repetition frequency (PRF) that is unique to the BUK in tracking mode. This is not difficult.
So why isn't this discussed in the media more often? The "so called" proof everyone is asking for. It seems like the easiest and safest way for our government to confirm it was a buk system without devulging our assets in the area.
 
So why isn't this discussed in the media more often? The "so called" proof everyone is asking for. It seems like the easiest and safest way for our government to confirm it was a buk system without devulging our assets in the area.
People in the media are usually lazy.
 
Last edited:
So why isn't this discussed in the media more often? The "so called" proof everyone is asking for. It seems like the easiest and safest way for our government to confirm it was a buk system without devulging our assets in the area.
The ("our") government isn't obligated to keep you or anyone else (except for other countries in the investigation) up to date on anything. It really isn't the U .S. obligation to tell anyone anything but they are helping out just the same.
 
fyi...

The official MH17 narrative still prevails: the “pro-Russian rebels” shot down Malaysian airlines MH17 with a Buk missile system provided by Russia.

In a new and rather unusual twist, however, according to the Kiev regime, the Donetsk militia did not intend to shoot down Malaysian airlines MH17. What the “pro-Russian rebels” were aiming at was a Russian Aeroflot passenger plane.

The MH17 was shot down “by mistake” according to an official statement by the head of Ukraine’s Secret Service, Valentyn Nalyvaichenko (Ukraine News Service, August 7, 2014)

According to SBU Chief Nalyvaichenko:

“Ukraine’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies have established during the investigation into a terrorist attack on the Boeing… that on that day, July 17, and at that time military mercenaries and terrorists from the Russian Federation planned to carry out a terrorist attack against a passenger aircraft of Aeroflot en route from Moscow to Larnaca… as a pretext for the further invasion by Russia,”

This cynical terrorist attack was planned for the day when the [Malaysia Airlines] plane happened to fly by, planned by war criminals as a pretext for the further military invasion by the Russian Federation, that is, there would be a casus belli,” he added.

Thus, according Nalyvaichenko, the terrorists downed the Malaysian airliner by mistake.” (Ukraine Interfax News, August 8, 2014)

Nalyvaichenko said that the Kiev government reached this conclusion “in the course of its own investigation into the downing of MH17″.

According to Britain’s foremost news tabloid, The Mail on Sunday, quoting the head of Ukraine intelligence, the insidious design of the pro-Russian rebels (supported by Moscow) was to shoot down a Russian commercial airline plane, with a view to blaming the Ukrainian government. The objective of this alleged “false flag” covert op was to create a justifiable and credible pretext for Vladimir Putin to declare war on Ukraine.

In an utterly twisted logic, according to Ukraine’s head of intelligence:

“the [Donesk] rebels were meant to down [the] Aeroflot plane… to justify the invasion [of Ukraine by Russia]“,

Valentyn Nalyvaichenko (right), head of Ukraine intelligence confirms that the pro-Russian rebels were “aiming at a Russian passenger plane “so Putin had reason to invade”.

“the crime was planned as a ground for bringing of Russian troops into Ukraine, that is – CASUS BELLI for the Russian military invasion.” (Official statement of Ukraine Security Service, in annex below)

In a bitter irony, the alleged “false flag” covert op got muddled. The Donesk rebels got it all wrong and hit the MH17 plane by mistake.

That’s the “official line” now emanating from Kiev’s “intelligent” Secret Service (SBU), yet to be corroborated by their Western intelligence counterparts including the CIA and Britain’s MI6 which are actively collaborating with Ukraine’s SBU.

The head of Ukraine’s secret service has claimed rebels intended to down a Russian airliner to give Vladimir Putin a pretext for invasion – but blasted Flight MH17 out of the sky by mistake. (ibid)

In its authoritative report, the British news tabloid fails to beg the important question: why on earth would pro-Russian rebels who are at war with the Kiev regime shoot down a Russian passenger plane AFL-2074 allegedly with a view to harnessing Russia’s support?

What’s more, according to SBU Chief Valentyn Nalyvaichenko’s statement, Moscow was helping the pro-Russian rebels in their alleged false flag op to shoot down Russia’s Aeroflot plane by providing them with a Buk missile system, which had been discretely smuggled across the border to the Donesk region of Eastern Ukraine. The Aeroflot plane was slated to be “shot down over territory controlled by Ukrainian government troops”:
Content from External Source
www.globalresearch.ca


To me this is about 90% of what happened.. the other 10% is the kind of missile they used ,how did it hit the front nose of the airplane if always missiles chase or explode on a side or under the airplane. And it really seems to be a larger missile anyways even bigger than a sa 11 ,close to what they used to call the perfect missile (sa 17). On the other hand looks like a premeditated act ,not an error. Crime of war some said.. but really the real name is State terrorism (terrorism sponsored/financed/promoted by a government) is what it looks like. The missile was not launched in a narrow window of time without previous radar data. It was launched before time to catch the plane there. At least one of the holes in the cockpit shows rust from the first day ..dont they wash their hands when they manufacture those expensive missiles? arent those heads sealed?
 
Last edited:
To me this is about 90% of what happened.. the other 10% is the kind of missile they used ,how did it hit the front nose of the airplane if always missiles chase or explode on a side or under the airplane. And it really seems to be a larger missile anyways even bigger than a sa 11 ,close toi what they used to call the perfect missile (sa 17). On the other hand looks like a premeditated act ,not an error. Crime of war some said.. but really the real name is State terrorism (terrorism sponsored/financed/promoted by a government) is what it looks like. The missile was not launched in a narrow window of time without previous radar data. It was launched before time to catch the plane there. At least one of the whose in the cockpit shows rust from the first day ..dont they wash their hands when they manufacture those exxpensive missiles? arent those heads sealed?

Nothing of what you said makes any sense.
 
Actually, from everything I've been reading, an internal bomb, although for the most part written off as a cause, is said to be indeed very characteristic of the wreck. That, or a SAM.

Characteristic as in breaking up in the air while moving? and scattering pieces all over under its path? ANY cause of aerial breakup would show a similar pattern. Missile, internal bomb, accidental explosion of fuel tanks etc. Or even the de Havilland Comets, 3 of which in the 1950's broke up in flight from metal fatigue.

But here we have clear visible evidence of numerous small somethings entering the aircraft, which would not be characteristic of an internal explosion from any cause. We are also lacking signs of fire before ground impact, which again seems to rule out explosion in the air. We also have evidence of a group of people (the separatists) who thought they had shot it down, after weeks of regularly shooting down various planes, which indicates they had at least aimed for a plane around that time

If MH17 had just been seen crashing into the ocean, with no parts recovered, then it might be reasonable to suspect a bomb. Even so, given the number of shootdowns in the area, that would have to be considered more likely, even without seeing the wreckage.
 
how did it hit the front nose of the airplane if always missiles chase or explode on a side or under the airplane

Missiles don't always chase a target or explode on the side or underneath a target. Many times they are fired straight at the targets. The missile find their target through radar and sometimes there is enough error in the data being transmitted that they can and do hit skin-on-skin. Some missiles have semi-active homing radars and receive their course guidance from a radar station (land, sea, or air) until they reach a certain point then it can take over from there and seek it's own target. This is the time when a skin-on-skin is most likely to occur.
 
how did it hit the front nose of the airplane if always missiles chase or explode on a side or under the airplane
Ahh.. blame Hollywood for the chasing idea. Actually, in truth, real missiles "chase" too, especially air to air heat seekers. You'll see these in movies or real footage of fighter planes shooting each other -- the missile goes out and chases the heat signature of the other fighter. The hottest spot there is always the afterburner, so the missile is always chasing.

With MH17 we're talking BUKs, which are surface to air missiles that home in by radar and detonate with a proximity fuse. They are launched towards the target aimed by ground radar attached to the missile launcher. This cannot be 100% accurate because the target is moving anyway, and moving a lot more if it's trying to dodge the missile. So when it gets closer, the missile uses its own radar to find and home in on the target. Whether it is above or below it depends largely on the initial launch angle and whee the target moved to meanwhile.

Once they get within a certain distance of the target (quite close, 50 to 100 metres (or yards) the proximity fuse causes the detonation, which blasts out the warhead (which is continuous rods or formed shrapnel). These go off in every direction, so some of it is sure to hit something. This gets a much surer hit than hoping the nose of the missile will do a direct hit. If the missile was launched from the side or in front of the target, it is more likely to hit in the front area.

Draw an imaginary line from the left wing tip to the cockpit. The missile detonated in the middle of that imaginary line, coming up at a shallow angle from below, when the missile nose was about level with the bottom of the plane. The blast is a cone shape of fragments. So most of them hit the cockpit, some even the floor of it, but none on the roof. A few (5 or 6 that I've seen) hit the roof over the business class section.

A lot on the other side of the missile missed, as it only had the thin wing to go for. It got a bunch of holes into the wing (all from the bottom) and a bunch into the engine. The engine cowling broke off over Petropavlivka (the first village). The engine fans got mangled, and enough pieces probably went in to grind the engine to a halt. A piece of front fan fell out of it later, over Grabovo near where the wing tips fell down.

looks like a premeditated act ,not an error. Crime of war some said.. but really the real name is State terrorism (terrorism sponsored/financed/promoted by a government) is what it looks like.
The missile did not go off by itself, true. So launching it was premeditated only in the sense of deliberate. But hitting a civilian plane with it was NOT premeditated. It was not planned at all. They made a mistake about what kind of plane it was.

So far it looks like the mistake was made by separatists not the government, so you can't call it state terrorism. Even if it turns out the mistake was by Ukrainian fighter planes, it is not terrorism unless they shot on purpose knowing full well it is a civilian plane. What if they shot at an approaching Russian plane, and the missile self-homed on the wrong target (the B777 being much bigger)??

It was launched before time to catch the plane there.
If it was launched from front or side, it didn't have too far to go. Even from behimd it would catch up, as the missile goes 3 1/2 times faster than a B777. It didn't have to be shot an hour before to wait for the plane to come past.

At least one of the holes in the cockpit shows rust from the first day
No rust there. Only iron rusts. Everything there is aluminium or titanium or fibreglass. Aluminium will discolour badly from high heat.

Nobody has anything to gain AT ALL from deliberately shooting down a commercial jetliner, not even a Russian one. The Ukrainians would only be inviting a Russian invasion by doing it. The Russians have a handful of other excuses to invade already, they don't need any more. The separatists want Russian help only to become independent, not Russian slaves.
 
Ukraine SSU accuses that MH17 was wrong plane, they (rebels) tried to hit AFL2074.
http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en/publish/article?art_id=129860&cat_id=35317
It must be the same guy who writes all their stuff: The grammar is atrocious (which we may excuse as English may be a learned language). And there are those rectangles and arrows over the maps.
The claim of the pro-Kiev author (sbu website) is that the terrorists (those are the bad guys, very bad) accidentally shot down MH17 believing it to be a Russian airliner - not a Kiev transport as previously suggested. The terrorists, the author contends, then planned to blame Kiev in the hope Russia would accept that as cause to enter the conflict on the terrorist side.
This is simply more BUK bunk from Kiev. Indeed, it looks like a reverse confession. *Kiev* actually shot down MH17 and then tried to blame it on the separatists. Besides, the story doesn't fit with Kiev's other stories. They need to stick with one lie or another.
 
They need to stick with one lie or another.
This is a kids' war of You DID I did NOT you DID No DID!! NOT!! DID SO TOO!! NO was YOU!! I'm telling Dad HA! My Dad can beat yours MUUUUMMMM!

This story is to counter the earlier joke that Kiev planned to shoot down Putin's plane. That turned out to have (sensibly) bypassed Ukraine, so they went looking for what WAS there.

Another version ( I am not going to go looking for it) double twisted this to say Russia shot it down (directly or via the separatists) to BLAME Kiev for doing it. That version kindly absolved the separatists from murder by suggesting they had not been told it's a civilian plane they're aiming at (the Aeroflot).

Russia has stopped coming up with new versions, and is planning to fix the whole problem by sending in "humanitarian aid".

If anyone stood up now and admitted he'd launched it, accident or not, I won't believe it. And even less if someone is "found" and charged for it. Unless they are in a neutral country with no extradition to anywhere.
 
Besides, the story doesn't fit with Kiev's other stories. They need to stick with one lie or another.

which "lie" do you think it does not fit with?

AFAIK Kiev has not put any particular reason why they think rebels would have shot down MH17 other than this one.
 
Missiles don't always chase a target or explode on the side or underneath a target. Many times they are fired straight at the targets. The missile find their target through radar and sometimes there is enough error in the data being transmitted that they can and do hit skin-on-skin. Some missiles have semi-active homing radars and receive their course guidance from a radar station (land, sea, or air) until they reach a certain point then it can take over from there and seek it's own target. This is the time when a skin-on-skin is most likely to occur.

Correct.. but where is there another picture of a plane., even a military plane with shrapnel on its nose?
 
Ahh.. blame Hollywood for the chasing idea. Actually, in truth, real missiles "chase" too, especially air to air heat seekers. You'll see these in movies or real footage of fighter planes shooting each other -- the missile goes out and chases the heat signature of the other fighter. The hottest spot there is always the afterburner, so the missile is always chasing.

With MH17 we're talking BUKs, which are surface to air missiles that home in by radar and detonate with a proximity fuse. They are launched towards the target aimed by ground radar attached to the missile launcher. This cannot be 100% accurate because the target is moving anyway, and moving a lot more if it's trying to dodge the missile. So when it gets closer, the missile uses its own radar to find and home in on the target. Whether it is above or below it depends largely on the initial launch angle and whee the target moved to meanwhile.

Once they get within a certain distance of the target (quite close, 50 to 100 metres (or yards) the proximity fuse causes the detonation, which blasts out the warhead (which is continuous rods or formed shrapnel). These go off in every direction, so some of it is sure to hit something. This gets a much surer hit than hoping the nose of the missile will do a direct hit. If the missile was launched from the side or in front of the target, it is more likely to hit in the front area.

Draw an imaginary line from the left wing tip to the cockpit. The missile detonated in the middle of that imaginary line, coming up at a shallow angle from below, when the missile nose was about level with the bottom of the plane. The blast is a cone shape of fragments. So most of them hit the cockpit, some even the floor of it, but none on the roof. A few (5 or 6 that I've seen) hit the roof over the business class section.

A lot on the other side of the missile missed, as it only had the thin wing to go for. It got a bunch of holes into the wing (all from the bottom) and a bunch into the engine. The engine cowling broke off over Petropavlivka (the first village). The engine fans got mangled, and enough pieces probably went in to grind the engine to a halt. A piece of front fan fell out of it later, over Grabovo near where the wing tips fell down.


The missile did not go off by itself, true. So launching it was premeditated only in the sense of deliberate. But hitting a civilian plane with it was NOT premeditated. It was not planned at all. They made a mistake about what kind of plane it was.

So far it looks like the mistake was made by separatists not the government, so you can't call it state terrorism. Even if it turns out the mistake was by Ukrainian fighter planes, it is not terrorism unless they shot on purpose knowing full well it is a civilian plane. What if they shot at an approaching Russian plane, and the missile self-homed on the wrong target (the B777 being much bigger)??


If it was launched from front or side, it didn't have too far to go. Even from behimd it would catch up, as the missile goes 3 1/2 times faster than a B777. It didn't have to be shot an hour before to wait for the plane to come past.


No rust there. Only iron rusts. Everything there is aluminium or titanium or fibreglass. Aluminium will discolour badly from high heat.

Nobody has anything to gain AT ALL from deliberately shooting down a commercial jetliner, not even a Russian one. The Ukrainians would only be inviting a Russian invasion by doing it. The Russians have a handful of other excuses to invade already, they don't need any more. The separatists want Russian help only to become independent, not Russian slaves.

Sorry ,but excuse me..you said there is no rust in the edges of the major holes in the largest remaining piece of the mh 17 cockpit?



May I know what is that supposed to be.. here in this picture as well?



By the way when I say/said they were waiting for the plane I didnt say they fired the missile and waited for 6 hours for the plane to show up ,I meant they where waiting as they knew the plane was coming ,and didnt have to wait visually to see it up there or with a short range radar to shot it. They knew in advance it was coming and launched the missile to encourter the plane not to go after it while it was leaving their viewable space.
 
Is this a piece of the skin? If so, aluminum doesn't rust.


I think the upper layer is an aluminum alloy ,(dont know its name ). Aluminum doesnt rust like iron in the sense of the color of the rust ocre-brown.. but aluminun does rust and normally looks white-grey ash. The lower layer is titanium if I am not mistaken,
 
I think the upper layer is an aluminum alloy ,(dont know its name ). Aluminum doesnt rust like iron in the sense of the color of the rust ocre-brown.. but aluminun does rust and normally looks white-grey ash. The lower layer is titanium if I am not mistaken,
Aluminum oxidizes but that oxidation layer acts as a protection against further corrosion. It doesn't rust.
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/00/aluminum511.html
Scientific discovery: Why aluminum doesn't rust
Did you ever wonder why airplanes never seem to rust, despite their constant exposure to rain, sleet and snow?

The quick answer is that most aircraft are made of aluminum -- a chemical element that seems to resist corrosion even when exposed to air and water.

But the fact is that pure aluminum reacts so readily with water that, according to the laws of chemistry, the aluminum shell of an airplane should actually dissolve in the rain.

Fortunately for the airline industry, when aluminum metal is placed in the atmosphere, a thin layer, known as aluminum oxide, forms on the metal's surface and acts like a protective, rust-resistant shield.

Scientists have long known that aluminum oxide does not corrode rapidly in water, but they have been unable to fully explain why.
Content from External Source
 
The lower layer is titanium if I am not mistaken...

Titanium is not used as extensively as people seem to think. (In commercial aerospace structural applications, that is...).

The benefit of the (much more expensive, and thus used sparingly) titanium is a lighter weight when compared to a similar-sized shape of aluminium alloy, and a higher heat tolerance.

However aluminium (being more abundant, therefore more economical) is also easier to work, to shape and form. There are a small variety of aluminium alloy formulations used in the aerospace industry in the construction of airliners.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_alloy#Aerospace_alloys
 
Aluminum oxidizes but that oxidation layer acts as a protection against further corrosion. It doesn't rust.
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/00/aluminum511.html
Scientific discovery: Why aluminum doesn't rust
Did you ever wonder why airplanes never seem to rust, despite their constant exposure to rain, sleet and snow?

The quick answer is that most aircraft are made of aluminum -- a chemical element that seems to resist corrosion even when exposed to air and water.

But the fact is that pure aluminum reacts so readily with water that, according to the laws of chemistry, the aluminum shell of an airplane should actually dissolve in the rain.

Fortunately for the airline industry, when aluminum metal is placed in the atmosphere, a thin layer, known as aluminum oxide, forms on the metal's surface and acts like a protective, rust-resistant shield.

Scientists have long known that aluminum oxide does not corrode rapidly in water, but they have been unable to fully explain why.
Content from External Source


For the same reason is why I bring these pictures here. That rust comes from Shrapnel! or whatever punctured the plane. I really doubt a bullet could have rust ,the rifled barrel would simply explode in one thousand pieces..
 
For the same reason is why I bring these pictures here. That rust comes from Shrapnel! or whatever punctured the plane. I really doubt a bullet could have rust ,the rifled barrel would simply explode in one thousand pieces..
Just seems like you're trying to make anything fit your theory. To be honest I'm not even sure what that is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top