ORAC,
I do not object to what is written in the excerpt that you copied in your post. Was only meaning that the conclusion is obvious (a missile was the cause) and does not give any details or clear the picture.
Special disappointment comes from simulations that were performed by NLR and TNO (appendices x-z to the report). I know both organisations and really pay great respect to the experts that work there. However, I can imagine what administrative pressure they faced to agree conducting simulations with nearly no real data about the missile. Clearly, no matter what tool are you using (MATLAB, Simulink, NASTRAN, WEST, whatever) the devil is in (precise knowledge of) all the parameters of the object/process you are simulating. As far as the missile is concerned, here we have guidance and control laws/software, a seeker model, actuators, missile dynamics - hundreds of parameters, tens of dif. equations, non-linear, non-stationary. It usually takes years for the manufacturer to generate and validate such models. And all these data are quite secret. Entering arbitrary parameters instead of real ones will result in an arbitrary output , from "black through white". If so, the customer could just select what he likes to get. I am even skeptical that Almaz-Antey could absolutely correctly reconstruct the trajectory though they do know all the data (it is their stuff).