The white painted area below the windshield is burnt to a gun metal gray.

Speculatively, I would guess the missile fused very close and slightly above the port side of the nose, and this is where the break up began.

Why?

The port window cockpit window frame is severely damaged, the skin panel is heavily sooted and perforated, the commander's floor shows evidence of shrapnel damage. The remaining glass laminate has signs of soot.

There is a photograph of the crown skin that is sooted and shows over pressure where the skin has been dished in between the supporting structure frame.

One crew seat is visible at the cockpit crash site, the other was possibly ejected early in the event. Or perhaps it was taken or moved during the recovery.

There's a huge amount of structure missing from the crucial part of the aeroplane - the front - and I hope the investigation turns it all up.

It has been published this morning in the Russian news that there is an internal investigation being carried on by the security service of Ukraine concerning potential unintentional launch of a BUK missile by the army on the day of tragedy.
Do not trust any press, but here is the original article:


http://ria.ru/world/20140725/1017459906.html

Just briefly explaining what is there.

It is written that after some BUK batteries arrived into the Donetsk area a few days prior to the event, a training campaign for the BUK crews was planned and implemented (as the crews were untrained). To be closer to the reality, a couple of Ukrainian Su-25 flew over from the Nikolaev and Dnepropetrovsk area to simulate the real targets that the ground crews should train with. Everything should have been "real", except for after "pressing the launch button" the missile should not be ignited and the whole BUK complex should remain in a simulation mode. A version to be investigated in detail implies that the ground crew of a particular BUK complex deployed near the village/town of Zaroschenskoye (south of Shakhtersk, close to the line between the rebels and the regulars) indeed acquired one of Su-25 as a target and the system started followed him. The ill-fated 777 was flying above Su-25 entering into the beam cone of the BUK radar. Then for unknown reasons the missile was launched (some experts say it indeed may happen if the system hardware was not duly reconfigured - AV) and since that radar cross section of 777 is much higher than that of Su-25, the missile chased the MH17. System wise, having two angular variables identical for both planes should not be enough, as there always is the third one - range. Was it because just the wrong plane was selected by the operator, or maybe the range channel did not work properly is difficult to say.
Again, could well be another piece of disinformation, but the whole situation is very similar to what happened in 2001 when the Ukrainian army was training in Crimea and hit (with S-200) the Tu-154 flying over the Black Sea coming from Israel to Siberia. Moreover, in 2001 the S-200 operators had enough time to realise that the missile was kept flying for much longer time and distance than to the target and could issue a self-destruction command (but did not do that probably being not trained/attentive enough). Here, the ground operator obviously did not have enough time to divert/destruct the missile.

Not every explosive creates a bright fireball. Here is a good example. How about the stuff used in SAMs? If the explosion does not hit the fuel tank, is it likely to be visually noticed from an aircraft 20NM away? From the Ground?

I think we can rule out any objectivity in the Russian press. A few journos from Russia Today have resigned due to their inability to report facts detrimental to the Russian government.

The US know the location of Ukrainian resources, and they were not in range of a missile strike on MH17.

2 no sponsor

Objectivity of the Russian press is in big question, yes. I did not say that I took that article as a complete true. But the same for UK and US press, for sure. BBC recently erased the footage of their correspondent in the "MH17 area" just because it contradicted with the baseline. That's the common problem of all the media.

Mentioning that US new the location of all the Ukrainian resources does not rule out the fact the Russians new them too. And with better resolution, technically speaking. Just because they are closer. And with better knowledge of their own missile and radar capabilities.
When high officials of the Russian DoD were saying (during the open briefing) that some BUKs of the Ukrainian army could reach MH17, I see no reason not to trust them. Because these data are verifiable.
Here is the map they showed:
http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/9f...ElemFormat=jpg

And they were very careful during that briefing, did not blaming anybody directly.

Wantion, that is an excellent Photoshop job in post # 926.

I know it will be really hard, but can you try and Photoshop the port central windshield frame shown at the bottom of the following picture, plus the blackened wiper lower part of that windshield frame shown in the middle of that picture onto that same overall picture that you show in your post?

I know it will take a lot of editing and turning and reduction of size, but I suspect that the eventual result might be horrifically dramatic.

Here is the relevant picture.

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jer...s/14717505025/

Nonsense. This piece is barely 10 frames wide, less than half the size of the lower forward fuselage found so far.
However, size does not matter. The piece which gives the biggest clue so far, is quite a small one. It the new piece tells a story, it is important, no matter how large.
The whole upper forward fuselage is still missing, and given the fact that the lower forward fuselage was found in one piece and away from the main crash site, that part should have survived as well. Maybe in small pieces?
If I see that correctly, the fuselage crown beacon is located a little aft of door two, around the wing root leading edge position, and well visible in one of the Akkermanns pictures attached to a larger piece of skin. So it looks like the upper fuselage skin was torn away at least up to the strong frames attaching the wing.
I have seen nothing from the cockpit crown so far, that is probably a very important piece, too.

Probably because that was carted off by the rebels seen cutting the cockpit up with petrol powered circular saws.

Why else would they have been cutting the wreckage up?

Why else ?

As has already been mentioned,it's possible they were looking for bodies and cutting some wreckage might have been necessary

Or even because they had already found bodies and wanted to recover them. It is like the monkey toy picture, a rebel seen with a saw cutting debris does mean nothing.

Why else ?

Possibly so as to be able to cart off electronics boxes like the guy in some BBC footage taken of the cockpit. But then, maybe he believed there was a body in it? Why assume conspiracy when looting has the same effect.

After the DoD briefing claimed that the video showing the Buk allegedly driven in the direction of Russia was shot in Krasnoarmeysk (Ukrainian controlled territory), and that was subsequently thoroughly debunked when Ukrainians released the actual location where it was shot (Luhansk), credibility of the rest of the information in that briefing was seriously shaken.

As to the linked map, it is showing three Buk batteries within range of the assumed hit location. All of them were inside separatist-controlled territory (the one near Donetsk was near the front lines, the other two were deep inside).

In addition, we know that the shrapnel damage to the fuselage is concentrated in front, with particularly heavy density in front of the cockpit on the left side, so we can pretty safely rule out the westernmost two batteries (they would have left damage to the rear and to the right wing), and even the eastern battery would be stretching it. A launch from straight ahead or slightly to the left of the route would be more likely. If you look at any recent map of combat activities in the area, you can see that front left quadrant from the assumed hit location is all separatist-controlled territory at least for 40 km in all directions (and, except for the pocket straight ahead along the Russian border, there's no Ukrainian territory closer than ~70 km.)

And, of course, there's still the question "why would those Ukrainian Buks, if they were in fact there, possibly be shooting at MH17?" We have a reasonable explanation why separatists could have shot it down (they thought it was a Ukrainian transport plane). It's extremely hard to find an explanation for this action if it were committed by Ukrainians. This is not an active homing missile like S-200 that you can "lose" (like Ukrainians themselves did with Siberia Airlines 1812 in 2001). Separatists have no air force. MH17 was approaching from the heart of Ukraine and could not have been mistaken for a Russian military plane.

@ A_Van, re: Russian theory of a gross error during training by UKR forces.

Notwithstanding the serious indications tending to show that the Russian side is trying to mud waters on the whole MH17 story, it is interesting to examine the logic of the scenario described.

So, you're a (young?) UKR soldier, doing training, and you shouldn't launch any missile (and you know it).
But, you make a mistake, and a missile is launched. And in addition, bound to the wrong target (perhaps you didn't notice that).
The BUK is a semi-active radar system. That means that the radar emitter is on the ground, and the missile seeker only has a passive radar receipter.
If you cut your radar illumination (from the ground) the missile cannot steer itself anymore. I think it auto-destructs in such a case (anyone more knowledgeable on that matter?).
In the control shelter, you also may have the ability to initiale missile self-destruction by other means (i.e. specific function to send such a command to the missile, notwithstanding your ground radar status).

I guess you would do anything to stop a missile, even if you're not sure towards who it's bound, if you know you shouldn't have launched one in the first place.
And if you've one or two simple means to do that, I think there is a good chance you would have succeeded.

Conclusion: this Russian theory is unlikely, and far less likely than the target identification error by a separatist team.

Upper or lower fuselage?

http://f.blick.ch/img/incoming/origs...kage-from-.jpg

A truly free press simply does not exist in Russia; any media organization with any objectivity or independence of thought has been brought under control of the Kremlin or snuffed out. When the Kremlin has a particular party line, no-one dares publish anything that contradicts that view. As has been reported recently, the Russia Today journalist Sara Firth resigned in protest citing editorial interference and use of misinformation in the presentation of the MH017 story.

Personally, I would simply disregard anything broadcast or published by any russian media organization, because it cannot be trusted to be independent or impartial.

The BBC are a far from a perfect organization, but they are at least editorially independent of the British Government.

Center luggage bins? So I would assume upper.

They (the Russians) were 'very careful' to claim that the video of the BUK battery with a missing rocket heading back to Russia being transported by a tractor-trailer was filmed in Krasnoarmeysk (Kiev controlled area). The evidence is now incontrovertible that the video was shot in Lughansk as initially claimed by the Ukrainians.

Cockpit Window Parts
 

Not 100% sure but I think the window frame at the bottom of Jeroen Akkermans photo here is the Starboard centre window.


https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-0...Windowpane.jpg




https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-g...Windowpane.jpg


The image of the 777 cockpit comes from here

Cockpit Centre Window - Closeup
 

To get an illustration of the cynical manipulation by Russian TV have a look at this compilation where the same person (apparently an actor) is seen to portray different people: a crying political refugee, an election observer and as a capm organiser. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny...

Zo worden Russen voorgelogen | Opmerkelijk | Telegraaf.nl

Cockpit Window - Closer Closeup
 

http://cdn-new-europe1.ladmedia.fr/v...red/P5_038.jpg
http://cdn-new-europe1.ladmedia.fr/v...red/P5_039.jpg

They have something like "ballistic channels". I'm not yet totally convinced it's the center window.

@Mudman: good job

fragment paths
 

If i am not misled this frame shows

1) 2 green circles. Probably places of penetration for 1 fragment. Seems that explosion was at same level as plane. Not above

2) 2 red circles. Presumably places where fragments failed to penetrate frame. Shows size and shape.

http://s29.postimg.org/7l4qepvqr/Bt_..._jpg_large.jpg

Centre Window ?
 

@OleOle Excellent Find :D ....I have my doubts as well - Centre Window ?

@MudMan yes Excellent work :D

Perhaps this is the correct position for that frame? Port side aft window rotated.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-J...aft+window.jpg

Temperatures high enough to pit the remaining glass. It amazes me those window bolts have simply popped right off in tension. Incredible forces involved in what must be a very strong structure.

just newly registered and wanted to thank you for this very interesting thread.

I'm a former SAM operator and want to give you some information from the "other side":
Of course do SAM units train with the real peace time airpicture, so any airliner is a legitimate practice target. However safety rules dictate that no live rounds are available at that training and launching stations must be in standby mode.

The idea of a training exercise directly at the front and having your own flying assets playing game over a hot zone is just riduculous.

The SA-11 uses command guidance. Such weapons will definitely support a "command destruct", where the operator can destroy a missile in flight should it do something erratic or the target itself does no longer be clear under the ROE. This is definitely part of the training, recognition of such a situation and correct and timely reaction.

However we dont know how educated that crew was, setting up the system, tracking a target and launching a MSL is one thing, but applying ROE and behaving tactically correct is a world of difference.

@MudMan: Great work! If you rotate it furthermore 90 degrees clockwise it might also be the left front window???

To recover bodies or parts of bodies ?

As the lower, center corner of both front windscreens is visible in this picture, and the skin joint (including a but strap) is missing for the first position, I assume the second one: port aft.
The only thing that is confusing, is that this window frame lies at the cockpit impact side, on the starbord side, while the other panel clearly very close to the explosion was far away. This frame would have broken away at a very early stage of the breakup, so why is it found with the lower forward fuselage section, when it clearly is not connected to the other debris? Something is fishy here... As well as the fact that the most important piece of debris is found leaning at a telegraph pole, positioned to be found. I can imagine somebody took it as a souvenir, and later gave it away when he realized what it could mean?

I read the person who discovered it found it in their garden behind the house and felt it important so they carried out to the road and propped it up for investigators to see.



It looks like a good portion of the upper fuselage ended up in this garden.

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jer...s/14728364922/

Sawing the cockpit
 

@Hyperveloce

There is a video showing the 'sawing of the cockpit' and 'emergency rescuers' loading electronics into an emergency vehicle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNXf_HncM20#t=189

Looks more like they steal equipment from the galley to be re-used in their home, than higly specialiced spies removing important evidence.
Probably somebody sitting in fromt of a computer posting in a forum will never understand what a farmers or miners life in eastern ukrania means...

As a former professional photographer, there is another thing people probably don't get from the footage of a high-interest scene: there might be literally hundreds of journalists and photographers flocking the place. Even if some official is hostile towards the media, it doesn't mean they are preventing those entitled to be there - usually quite the opposite.

A Russian website has a photo of the site at an earlier time. The site obviously was changed for reasons mentioned by Hyperveloce.

In that photo I'cant see the windshield frame.

@Volume

I agree ..its stealing..and yes I am sitting in front of a computer posting in a forum... for the rest we will have to agree to have our own viewpoint.

Good spot in your previous post...Ive been looking at that picture for some time...and did not see the centre frame and glass!...hope Mudman can superimpose it.

Anyone see a resemblance here?

How very understanding of you Volume. During collection of Air India debris, I met a relatively poor, old gentleman who in passing mentioned he had tried to burn a seat cushion in his fire place.


I don't think we ever found actual evidence of explosive device or effects on any of the recovered pieces.

I see many people are curious about BUK operations without auxiliary radar(and command) vehicle so here it is how it operates autonomously, copied from russiadefence.net forum :

"You have to know few things about Buk. TELAR with missiles have only tracking radar and TV camera for back up. Crew in TELAR could recognize target only through TV camera and if sky was in clouds, that they could not make an ID of the target. Target ID with radar IFF and ID numbers for civil flight could be done through search radar, which for Buk is in special vehicle. Tracking radar doesn't make any ID of target. It only show the object in the air, which it lock. You could not distinguish in tracking radar, if it is civil plane, military plane, helicopter, missile, drone, etc. In the video you could see tracking radar scope picture at 6:44.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X8dvKtBAQk

It is tracking radar scope picture from OSA, but in Buk from the eighties, radar scope picture is no different than in Osa or in other SAMs from that time. Actually even today are similar, only screens are more modern.

When you work in radar mode and your tracking radar lock the target and you launch the missile, than the system works automatically with radar and computer and operator could only watch the screen. Operator have to work with tracking radar only in case of ECM.

So, if sky was cloudy and Ukrainian Sukhoi escape in the cloud, than operator in Buk TELAR could only search and lock with tracking radar, where all objects in the sky are seen as a hill on the line. So without visual ID with TV camera he could not know, what he locked. Ukrainian Buk batteries have all components with battery command posts and search radars, so they have situation awareness picture from CP and they could know, which target is which without visual ID with TV camera."

Any idea on the beige box, that seems to have taken a shrapnel hit?

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/drugo...4_original.jpg

The video does not show anything being loaded and driven away.
Yes, it suggests it, a shot pulled from the hours of rushes to best match a line in the script.
Evidently they couldn't find a better shot.

You havn't watched the video, see 3:25. I would post a screen shot but I can't figure it out??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNXf_HncM20#t=189