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.


http://oi57.tinypic.com/2n1fepx.jpg

http://oi60.tinypic.com/j64rhi.jpg


.

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

No euphemism, simply a statement of the findings that are supported by the evidence to date.

"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"

Air-ground communication is published on:

??? ?????? :: ??????????? ????????? ????? ??????? ????? 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? :confused:

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.

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"

Absolutely.

The prelim report 2.4.3 touches on the subject and I think most of us realise the clear skies over Ukraine today show us correlation isn't causation but it sure is a hint.

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.

I remember that video and it is not linked to MH17 although some people claimed so. The video for reference that was used referencing to MH17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RnDhZDQwYI

Why plane must burn if no fuel in strike place?

Apparently, the high velocity of the fragments causes such a high friction on impact and therefore heat that the aircraft starts burning. Just hearsay.

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.

"..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?

Not enough heat for start burn metal. Also penetration distribute heat from kinetic energy on all penetrated layers (with losing that energy) instead of one point absorption (in cause of armored object like tank).

9M38M1 have rocket fuel for 20 seconds of flight so when this missile can hit Boeing it already dont have any energy except inertia.
9M38M1 have limitation on full rocket (on start) 19g. After use all fuel rocket decrease her limitation to 13g.
But missile dont plane and cannot glide. Her aerodynamics is very unstable so only a few seconds flight after detonation possible (with yaw or pitch in any random direction during expllosion) and dont have a way for compensate increasing distortion of flight.

Hard to conceive of a ballistic trajectory that would result in fragments arriving at a point 30km away from MH17, but at the same altitude.

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.

@anonymousdefender,

this information comes from an ex Warsaw Pact colonel having worked with Soviet made SAM´s in the air defence role. So make of it what you want. :ok:

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.

@wondering this information comes from company which producing SA-11

The two targets identified as "B777" were:

SIA351 B772 CPH-SIN (to the NW of MH17)
EVA88 B77W CDG-TPE (to the SW)

The target identified as "A330" is a mystery. It may be significant that there is no target shown that corresponds to AIC113 B788 DEL-BHX, so they may be one and the same.

This is just a preliminary report. Pretty sure the final report (made available after the investigation has been concluded) will answer lots of questions.

Very interesting that report omits official Russian primary radar plot with Ukraine military plane very near of MH17 in the moment of accident. Not a word in article about another traffic!

I don't believe in story of SAM Buk. When launching and climbing the sound is extremely loud, everyone in radius 15 km should hear it. In war zone, everyone is aware of sounds like this. On both sides. In such high populated area, it should be hundreds or thousands of witnesses. But there is no one. I believe that no side launched any SAM, regardless if deliberately or by mistake.

Karel_x

If you read the report properly they did mention that two aircraft were close to MH17 heading east and one aircraft heading west.

"Wonder if we will ever really know the truth."

In war, truth has always been the first casualty. These days there is no truth, just points of view, based on politics, not logic, for the general public. All governments lie to both their own people and to other nations to advance the careers of politicians and the wealth of those who back them. The average person, be they a passenger on the plane, a civilian on the ground, or a third party in another country are pawns in a game were only the Kings matter.

I'm of the opinion that the US, the EU, NATO, and Russia all know exactly what happened and why (Russian provided system, provided to blunt Ukrainian air power, mistakenly targeted MH17). They all agree that the unvarnished truth about the cause of dead of these 298 people, as well as thousands of other in Ukraine, isn't a truth their public will meekly accept. The mutual economic benefits of minimizing and obscuring this event are all too obvious to all parties.

The only lesson to be learned from this tragedy is that civilian aircraft must stay out of the engagement envelope of modern missile systems. However, I fully expect this too will be soon forgotten in the name of economic benefits. This will happen again.

"In such high populated area, it should be hundreds or thousands of witnesses. But there is no one."

There have been witnesses who reported the presence of the BUK system in the area at the time. You choose to ignore them. There are pictures of BUKs with their numbers painted over in both Russia and eastern Ukraine. Why would the rebels and/or the Russians hide the identity of such military equipment? There are fighters on both sides who have killed civilians. Why would large numbers of civilians report what they have seen, knowing the wrong story could get them killed by either side?

Russian plot of primary radar:

http://avherald.com/img/malaysia_b77...k_140717_9.jpg

2 a/c west, 1 a/c east and fourth military a/c north-east. Target 3505. Map of Ministery of Defence RF.

I spoke about very, very loud noise. Nobody heard it!

I can read Russian and I may declare, that Russian facebook (v kontakte) is FULL of photoshop FAKES at both side. The similar war like on the ground goes in the internet.

This video shows several Buk-M2 launches:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0

The sound is not particularly quiet, but it's very short-lived because the missile heads for altitude very rapidly.

In another picture in the same bunch that ministry lied about MH17 heading north-east. Compare with the track in the preliminary report (from FDR). Do you still trust that ministry?

Karel_x

Does it show another aircraft near MH17? Does it simply show the break-up of the Boeing 777 which has produced the radar returns? Has Russian military
intelligence messed up just the same as they did with the claim in the same brief of the Buk on the trailer video? Not Krasnoarmeisk as the Russians claim but Lugansk.

Transcription of the Russian Military brief at following UK Russian Embassy link.

Special Briefing by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 in the Ukrainian air space, July 21, 2014

If they can't even geo-locate a video and have to spin a story then think what they have misinterpreted with the radar picture?

Dutch preliminary report
 

The dutch preliminary report did end some of the controversial theories that went around:

1. The claim that Ukraine ATC deliberately had MH-17 descend to FL330. The report states that Ukraine ATC wanted MH-17 to climb to FL350, but that the MH-17 crew reported that they were unable to comply.
2. The claim that there CVR/FDR was tampered with: The report found no eveidence of tampering.
3. The claim that Ukraine ATC deliberately changed the route of MH-17. MH-17 requested the reroute themselves, not on initiative of Ukraine ATC.
4. The 'gun-down' theory is now even more unlikely, as both FDR/CVR ended their recording at the same time without indication of trouble. This means that both systems were damaged simultaneously, a very unlikely event in case of canon fire, but fitting the case of a missile hit.
5. The claim that the holes were both entry as well as exit holes: the holes were caused by high speed objects entering the plane from the outside.

Probably some other theories went bust that were both too bizar and too unimportant to remember.:ugh:

Despite the earlier DSB claim they could carry out the investigation in their offices using satelite images and using the internet, I sense a strong urgency to go to the crash site and do some field work. With the present cease-fire, what are they waiting for?:zzz:

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 week, a Belgian dentists working on the identification process also explained that every body/bodypart is scanned for metal fragments as part of the identification process.

silverstrata says

When quoting some outside analysts please put the link so we can take deeper look. I find it hard to believe you did that analysis, based on that single piece of wreckage, and managed to miss the thousands of other pieces of evidence giving a different picture.

a) damage on the cockpit areas is soot and blistering from a nearby high heat source eg detonating missile, NOT FROM FIRE
b) there is NO fire or even heat damage on any other parts of the plane, apart from the centre section containing the fuel, which caught fire only on impact
c) the video purporting to be MH17 falling and spinning on fire was proven to be of an Antonov transport downed 2 days earlier. This has been known since about July 20.

No other air crash in history has ever been this thoroughly photographed for public consumption. Grabbing .001% to build theories on is conspiracy theory stuff, not an attempt to seek truth.

Sadly, all operators in the area use identical equipment, so finding pieces of shrapnel etc won't answer WHO???

SLF305 asks
yes MIG29s look them up in Wikipedia for all the armament possibilities.


EARLY ON all parties tried to use whatever partial data they had, to blame others with. Since then they have more recent propaganda incidents, and have stopped promoting the MH17 theories.

It is time people interested in how aircraft break up drop the odd theories, too. The solution to who shot MH17 and why is geopolitical. Dragging up debunked "evidences" won't get you there.

The two recorders stopped because of lack of power, not because of other damage.

Power to the recorders comes via the Main Equipment Bay which is located below and behind the flight-deck. MEB remnants were seen in the same wreckage cluster as the flight-deck indicating they separated at the same time.

I totally disagree with the theory it was cannon fire, but at the same time, you can't claim simultaneous cutoff of recorders proves this. All that's required is the MEB is catastrophically damaged. This can (did) result from in-flight breakup of the front section from whatever cause.

I've never seen an airliner hit by a SAM but when I was making my living flying over North Vietnam i saw plenty of my colleagues flying U.S. Navy fighter and light attack aircraft (and in one case a SH-3A helicopter) hit by SA-2 missiles. The results varied widely. In some instances there was warhead detonation resulting in a huge fireball of burning aircraft fuel with no large pieces of the aircraft exiting the short-lived fire. What came out of the fireball looked like confetti. Yet, in some cases, the pilot survived.

In other cases the aircraft seemingly survived the warhead detonation (which by itself produced a pretty good sized fireball) and remained essentially intact, or at least in one large piece without any fire other than the result of the missile warhead. Some pilots subsequently ejected and some did not. Sometimes the aircraft impacted the ground and burned. Others either didn't burn or perhaps I didn't notice. It's usually a busy time when the air is filled with SAMs, some of which seem to have your name on them.

In one case, I saw the aircraft main fuel cell rupture producing a big ball of white fuel vapor which did not ignite.

I would say that a large and very noticeable in-flight fuel fire might be expected when any aircraft is shot down by a large SAM, but that outcome is certainly not guaranteed. The fact that MH 17 apparently burst into flames only after impact with the ground is not all that surprising, at least to me.

http://s27.postimg.org/iniopl137/555.jpg
Left side - actual path of MAS017.
Right side - path of MAS017 according to russian ministry of defence.
Why did they lie about it? As truth could be find out from black boxes and ukrainian radar recordings.

The scale of two maps is completely different. Russians probably reflect MAS017 request to avoid the weather, a maneuver too small to be shown on Ukrainian map.

The two recorders stopped because of lack of power, not because of other damage.

I didn't write it proved it, only mentioned it is even more unlikely. This is because the recorders didn't record impact or other noises/data associated with shelling. It would mean that the first hit severed the recorders.
From other accidents (silkair 1997), we know that the CVR keeps recording about 250 msecond after power is severed (yes different CVR, but lets assume not different in this aspect), and some impact noise could have been recorded, even if power was severed at first hit.

http://avherald.com/img/malaysia_b77...k_140717_9.jpg

That is quite some relevant information. The SU-25 at 10.000 meters with a speed of 400 km/h against the MH17 at 10.000 meters with 900 km/h.

Whoever likes to believe that, , i don't.