MH17 down near Donetsk
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High energy objects
The 'high energy objects' euphemism is actually from the Dutch report:
Quote:
"The wreckage indicated that the material around the holes (in the fuselage) were deformed in a manner consistent with being punctured by high-energy objects. The characteristics of the deformation appears to indicate that the objects originated from outside the fuselage."
Although the report does not explicitly say this, this explanation is consistent with a large fragmentation weapon detonating close to the upper left of the cockpit area, with fragmentation projectiles then penetrating through the cockpit roof and then through the cockpit floor from above.
.
One thing to note, is that this evidence invalidates the widely disseminated Russian story that a Ukrainian SU25 was on the tail of MH17 - with the clear implication that Ukraine was responsible for the shooting down of the airliner.
Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash - Moscow ? RT News
This report was always a fantasy as the SU25 has a 23,000 ft ceiling, so is an unlikely adversary to an airliner at 33,000 ft. But now we see that the weapon used is also incompatible with the SU25 proposal. As far as I am aware the SU25 only carries lightweight contact missiles, rather than large fragmentations weapons (for obvious weight considerations).
Thus the evidence appears to completely refute the Russian arguments, and exposes them as mere disinformation and propaganda. The question then becomes: 'why would Russia be spreading disinformation'? The logical conclusion has to be that Russia was directly implicated, in being the only regime with the equipment and motivation to shoot down an airliner in eastern Ukraine.
Remember that the Russio-rebels in Eastern Ukraine had already shot down a Ukrainian transport plane the previous month.
Dozens Killed as Ukrainian Transport Plane Is Shot Down by Rebels in Luhansk - WSJ
The progression from short-range shoulder-lanched weaponry to complex long-range and high-level missiles, is a simple and logical increase in capabilities, to escalate the conflict. This would have achieved all the political goals of Putin and the Russio-rebels, had they not chosen the wrong target.
Silver
Quote:
"The wreckage indicated that the material around the holes (in the fuselage) were deformed in a manner consistent with being punctured by high-energy objects. The characteristics of the deformation appears to indicate that the objects originated from outside the fuselage."
Although the report does not explicitly say this, this explanation is consistent with a large fragmentation weapon detonating close to the upper left of the cockpit area, with fragmentation projectiles then penetrating through the cockpit roof and then through the cockpit floor from above.
.
One thing to note, is that this evidence invalidates the widely disseminated Russian story that a Ukrainian SU25 was on the tail of MH17 - with the clear implication that Ukraine was responsible for the shooting down of the airliner.
Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash - Moscow ? RT News
This report was always a fantasy as the SU25 has a 23,000 ft ceiling, so is an unlikely adversary to an airliner at 33,000 ft. But now we see that the weapon used is also incompatible with the SU25 proposal. As far as I am aware the SU25 only carries lightweight contact missiles, rather than large fragmentations weapons (for obvious weight considerations).
Thus the evidence appears to completely refute the Russian arguments, and exposes them as mere disinformation and propaganda. The question then becomes: 'why would Russia be spreading disinformation'? The logical conclusion has to be that Russia was directly implicated, in being the only regime with the equipment and motivation to shoot down an airliner in eastern Ukraine.
Remember that the Russio-rebels in Eastern Ukraine had already shot down a Ukrainian transport plane the previous month.
Dozens Killed as Ukrainian Transport Plane Is Shot Down by Rebels in Luhansk - WSJ
The progression from short-range shoulder-lanched weaponry to complex long-range and high-level missiles, is a simple and logical increase in capabilities, to escalate the conflict. This would have achieved all the political goals of Putin and the Russio-rebels, had they not chosen the wrong target.
Silver
Good euphemism.
"The damage observed in the forward section of the aircraft appears to indicate that the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft"
With the usual caveats that accompany a preliminary report including, in this case, the statement that further work will include (among other things)
"forensic examination of wreckage if recovered and possible foreign objects, if found"
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lost in EU
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air-ground communication is published on:
??? ?????? :: ??????????? ????????? ????? ??????? ????? MH17 / ???????????
??? ?????? :: ??????????? ????????? ????? ??????? ????? MH17 / ???????????
Is the damage shown in the pictures consistent with a fragmentation warhead? If so, where are the remains of the SAM missile used? The smoking gun?
I read somewhere else that high energy SAM fragmentation particles have such a high velocity/energy that an aircraft will start burning when being hit. Looks like MH17 parts started to burn on the ground and not in the air. Any experts?
I read somewhere else that high energy SAM fragmentation particles have such a high velocity/energy that an aircraft will start burning when being hit. Looks like MH17 parts started to burn on the ground and not in the air. Any experts?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: HK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have the bodies of the flight crew been recovered?
Were they sujected to autopsy in the Netherlands?
Have their autopsy reports been released?
Do they reveal shrapnel?
Has the shrapnel been identified?
Is the shrapnel from a Buk SAM?
I would be very surprised if the answer to any of these questions is negatve.
Thankyou: The most interesting news came from the chairman of the Dutch safety board. He explained to the press that metal fragments (using the word 'sharpnel' would imply missile parts) were recovered from the bodies of the pilots and these fragments were now being investigated wether these are parts of the airplanes or something else.
Were they sujected to autopsy in the Netherlands?
Have their autopsy reports been released?
Do they reveal shrapnel?
Has the shrapnel been identified?
Is the shrapnel from a Buk SAM?
I would be very surprised if the answer to any of these questions is negatve.
Thankyou: The most interesting news came from the chairman of the Dutch safety board. He explained to the press that metal fragments (using the word 'sharpnel' would imply missile parts) were recovered from the bodies of the pilots and these fragments were now being investigated wether these are parts of the airplanes or something else.
Last edited by GunpowderPlod; 10th Sep 2014 at 01:57. Reason: Response from other.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Ireland
Age: 51
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rebels shot down an AN-26 transport plane above 21,000 feet on Monday 14th of July over the village of Izvaryne, ~95 km to the west of MH17 crash site. There was a realisation at the time that the Rebels had used a more advanced missile system.
Ukraine: "Latest AN-26 downing more advanced"
According to a press release the transport aircraft was cruising at more than 21,000 feet, which should normally make it out of reach of most small arms and simpler shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) used successfully by the separatist forces in the east of Ukraine. Some Ukrainian sources even blame the Russian military to have fired the more advanced missile from Russian territory. If true, that would mean the first direct fire from the Russian military in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wondering
Is the damage shown in the pictures consistent with a fragmentation warhead? If so, where are the remains of the SAM missile used? The smoking gun?
I read somewhere else that high energy SAM fragmentation particles have such a high velocity/energy that an aircraft will start burning when being hit. Looks like MH17 parts started to burn on the ground and not in the air. Any experts?
Is the damage shown in the pictures consistent with a fragmentation warhead? If so, where are the remains of the SAM missile used? The smoking gun?
I read somewhere else that high energy SAM fragmentation particles have such a high velocity/energy that an aircraft will start burning when being hit. Looks like MH17 parts started to burn on the ground and not in the air. Any experts?
Yes, the damage is definitely from a fragmentation warhead, and not from a gattling-gun or a contact warhead.
The missile would have been semi-vaporised. It is unlikely that any pieces would be found, especially as investigators have had no access to the site. As the report states, no forensic investigation was allowed, and all analysis is merely from the photos.
Regards burning, the forward fuselage section in my previous post shows evidence of inflight fire/smoke damage. The smoke staining is directionally streaked, demonstrating this was inflight. The rivet and paint streak gradients indicate that the source was to the upper left of the cockpit. This would be consistent with charring and staining from the intense heat of the warhead as it exploded nearby, and sent fragments and a supersonic heat-wavefront from the upper aft left, down to the lower forward right.
Interestingly, the smoke staining pattern seems to indicate that the aircraft was fully pressurised when the staining happened. You will note that there is less staining on the riveted sections, in comparison to the panels in between. This is probably due to the fuselage panels bowing out slightly, due internal pressurisation, in between the stronger structural elements of frames and stringers. Like the panels on a quilt bed-spread, the fuselage panels also bow outwards (slightly) when the aircraft is pressurised. Again, this indicates that the smoke staining happened at cruise altitude, (just) before the fuselage was ruptured.
So yes, much of the fuselage would have been on fire, after this intense heat-explosion. There is a video on line showing a burning aircraft descending from great altitude, but I have no idea if this video is genuine. The truth was the first casualty of this incident.
Last edited by silverstrata; 9th Sep 2014 at 14:48. Reason: Addition of pressurisation observation.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LSZG
Age: 52
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So yes, much of the fuselage would have been on fire, after this intense heat-explosion. There is a video on line showing a burning aircraft descending from great altitude, but I have no idea if this video is genuine. The truth was the first casualty of this incident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RnDhZDQwYI
Why plane must burn if no fuel in strike place?
Quote: "The missile would have been semi-vaporised."
Not true. The missile fore-body immediately behind the seeker and guidance electronics, contains the fragmentation warhead.
Detonation will still leave a large part of the rocket motor and control fins intact which can then fly uncontrolled with residual fuel burn. Even if the motor is punctured in the explosion, it will cause the structure to tumble uncontrollably but unlikely to break it up completely. Don't forget, this is a SAM system capable of high-g manoeuvres (typically 30 - 50g) of monocoque construction and so of very high strength.
Given the initial kinetic energy of the missile at detonation (typical velocity 800 - 1000 m/s at altitude), large parts of the missile will travel some considerable distance in semi-ballistic trajectory away from the detonation point.
These parts will reach the ground perhaps tens of kilometres from the main crash area and therefore makes the missile parts recovery area huge.
Not true. The missile fore-body immediately behind the seeker and guidance electronics, contains the fragmentation warhead.
Detonation will still leave a large part of the rocket motor and control fins intact which can then fly uncontrolled with residual fuel burn. Even if the motor is punctured in the explosion, it will cause the structure to tumble uncontrollably but unlikely to break it up completely. Don't forget, this is a SAM system capable of high-g manoeuvres (typically 30 - 50g) of monocoque construction and so of very high strength.
Given the initial kinetic energy of the missile at detonation (typical velocity 800 - 1000 m/s at altitude), large parts of the missile will travel some considerable distance in semi-ballistic trajectory away from the detonation point.
These parts will reach the ground perhaps tens of kilometres from the main crash area and therefore makes the missile parts recovery area huge.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"..large parts of the missile will travel some considerable distance in semi-ballistic trajectory away from the detonation point. These parts will reach the ground perhaps tens of kilometres from the main crash area and therefore makes the missile parts recovery area huge"
From what you say, is it feasible that the closest aircraft to MH17 mentioned in the report (2.5.3) could also have been in danger?
From what you say, is it feasible that the closest aircraft to MH17 mentioned in the report (2.5.3) could also have been in danger?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Mos Espa
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently, the high velocity of the fragments causes such a high friction on impact and therefore heat that the aircraft starts burning. Just hearsay.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Mos Espa
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Detonation will still leave a large part of the rocket motor and control fins intact which can then fly uncontrolled with residual fuel burn
Don't forget, this is a SAM system capable of high-g manoeuvres (typically 30 - 50g) of monocoque construction and so of very high strength.
Given the initial kinetic energy of the missile at detonation (typical velocity 800 - 1000 m/s at altitude), large parts of the missile will travel some considerable distance in semi-ballistic trajectory away from the detonation point.
From what you say, is it feasible that the closest aircraft to MH17 mentioned in the report (2.5.3) could also have been in danger?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Danger - Deep Excavation
Posts: 338
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raises more questions than it answers
For example:
What were the 3 aircraft in the area?
What more was on the ATC transcipts
The Dutch were under massive pressure to produce a report, but what has been published today is limited information in extremis.
What were the 3 aircraft in the area?
What more was on the ATC transcipts
The Dutch were under massive pressure to produce a report, but what has been published today is limited information in extremis.
@anonymousdefender,
this information comes from an ex Warsaw Pact colonel having worked with Soviet made SAMīs in the air defence role. So make of it what you want.
this information comes from an ex Warsaw Pact colonel having worked with Soviet made SAMīs in the air defence role. So make of it what you want.
So the report still leaves this:- AnderweltOnline: Shocking Analysis of the ?Shooting Down? of Malaysian MH17 open to interpretation.
Wonder if we will ever really know the truth.
Wonder if we will ever really know the truth.