OleOle... for what it's worth, the picture of the 777 flight deck photo is a mirror image. ie. that is the captains window. Not that it matter I suppose in the context, as the windows are the same. Just showing I am paying attention :)

re cockpit photos captain side
 

for those who are wondering how evyjet noticed the difference

BOEING 777 COCKPIT

A major clue is the two red switch guards visible in the boeing photo and the posted photo- unique to the captain side.

IMO pretty well proves the missile was on the port side ..

Malaysian Airlines rebranding?
 

From today's FT.
Malaysia Airlines considers rebranding - FT.com

Photo collection of parts found
 

Started couple days ago collecting together all the various photos of identifiable parts out there to build a better overall picture what's out there. Would appreciate feedback especially if something's obviously wrong. I'll continue updating this as long as there's something identifiable that pops up in the photos from the crash sites.

https://storify.com/vpkivimaki/mh17-hull-parts

What time was contact lost?
 

Malaysia Airlines first press release stated contact was lost at 14:15 (GMT).
Media Statement 1: MH17 Incident

Malaysia Airlines confirms it received notification from Ukrainian ATC that it had lost contact with flight MH17 at 1415 (GMT) at 30km from Tamak waypoint, approximately 50km from the Russia-Ukraine border.

But flight radar websites reveal MH17 took off at 10:15 UTC and contact was lost at around 13:15 UTC. (GMT)

This wrong timing has been and continues to be quoted thousands of times in reports and articles.
Part of the reason the problem persists could be that many in the UK think that GMT is always local UK time even in summer when it is not and should be termed BST.

It is an example of how quickly crap-facts can be spread around the world and then persist without correction.

Those who are keen to rush to judgement based on early reports of such incidents, take note, have you got your basic facts straight?


http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n...psedb19957.jpg

The last line/position in flightradar data is fictitious (apparently extrapolated).

No doubt lots of viewers like to comment on wreckage on an open forum

This stuff is timid and harmless compared to the unedited links that popped up recently in this thread.

Your stuff so far saves me the trouble of searching through tons of images most of which are useless to investigations. At least your collation has some science behind it addressing typical questions.

Points well made both of you and you too Mod :)

piece of engine?
 

Can this be a little bit of engine?? from the Tail Field of debris. Solid cast-looking metal.

edge-on view
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jer...57645908125941
top side
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jer...57645908125941
turned over, bottom view
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jer...57645908125941

I'm thinking, port engine would have ingested a fair bit of shrapnel (and not survived in one piece).

Map of debris on WSJ
 

Map of a Tragedy: How MH17 Came Apart Over Ukraine - WSJ.com

about as good as you will find at this time
:sad:

First picture I've seen of an "engine pod part".

ypgeek's link identifies a part as forward cargo which Sampublius's link says is roof over cockpit. Hard to say - it does look like it used to be white, which means upper section (lower half is painted grey) BUT the identification as cargo bay is based on part numbers visible on the back.

https://storify.com/vpkivimaki/mh17-hull-parts

Either way, obvious from the location it's a front part. Looking at the back, part of it has no shrapnel holes at all. That looks like it curled up instantly from the decompression, so the front parts protected the back section.

"missile o-ring"
 

Some pages back someone was looking for the photo of a green o-ring they thought might be part of the missile.

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jer...57645790319631

It was in the Tail debris field.

Parts
 

Not sure if this is helpful, however here is a quick photoshop of some parts in relation to each other....

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-I...17_Cockpit.jpg

Looks like forged Titanium bonded as two halves of a fan blade. Certainly badly overstressed.

Considering the separated bits of the front of an engine in earlier pictures at the crash site, this piece was likely found at the crash site and due to the crash itself.

Anything else this small if departed at altitude, would just be well scattered flotsam and jetsam among all the war debris in that part of the country.

disclaimer: it's had to get interested in minute details if one accepts a missile strike as the cause.

This image is crawling through the net. Direction of the green line would be interesting to know.

http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor.../images/B3.gif

The read dots represent the skid marks on the wingtip.

That would the Captain's field of view on the 777-9 with the fold-up wingtips... :cool:

Not engine attachment
 

@KatSLF

The item shown and described as 'engine support' is something else. Both engines were still attached to the wing and spar at impact. Looked more like a fuselage to spar attachment section.

I dont think so. The seeker head of the missile is semiactive homing, and it heads for the biggest radar return, which is not the engine.
To explain that a bit further, the head does not aim directly to the radar return, which would lead to a pure persuit intercept course, but the seeker gadgets compute a direct lead persuit intercept course. A head on shot against a non maneuvering big aircraft like a 777 will have most probably be a direct hit, although the proximity fuse would detonate the warhead just prior impact.
From the damage observed in the cockpit section i would guess this happened level to slightly high in the front left section.

Concerning this special piece of wreckage, which got my attention from the beginning, there could be another explanation. It could be part of an steering fin of the missile and its resting place would support this possibility.

That item was identified as such in the wsj mapping. It was found on the trajectory of the cockpit close to Right-Hand Door Two. I too suspect it's part of the fuselage.

That is the way of the modern world. Look at a simple case, boy stabs teacher in front of 30 witnesses and then confesses. Police carry out a though crime scene and case investigation in what is an open and shut case.

If the diagram shown by OleOle is correct it shows that it was an unlucky hit with the missile exploding too late and too far ahead from optimum.

Aside from the civil criminal investigation I believe many intelligence agencies and the missile manufacturer will also have an intense interest and not from humanitarian interests.

Detailed debris field analysis from the Wall Street Journal

Map of a Tragedy: How MH17 Came Apart Over Ukraine - WSJ.com

I think what KatSLF meant was that the missile exploded to the port side of the flight deck at a distance not yet known. This means the No.1 engine would stand a good chance of ingesting debris from the missile.


My two pence on the "skid marks" on the wing: There are images of bare metal sporting a green "skid mark" on it. Metal that is not primered (leading edge of the wing, for example), so I doubt the marks are actually the primer.

I warrant that after the missile went bang, what was left of the none explosive parts hit the wing as they began the fall back to earth. With the forward motion of the aircraft, the wing probably travelled into their path. Either that, or it is damage from the explosive shrapnel.

engine pod/cowling piece on WSJ
 

WSJ says this is from the engine because of the RR logo, so I double checked them. Hard to tell at the magnficiations, but certainly something there. To me it seems likely, as there was heavy shrapnel activity in front of that engine.

imgur: the simple image sharer
original
http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-m...l/IMG_0688.jpg

That's definitely an RR logo and that does look like part of the inner workings of the cowl.

Wing leading edges on most modern passenger jets are not painted. (Same for the stabiliser and engine cowl leading edges) Hence no primer. It's to do with them being heated to prevent ice build up. Bare metal conducts heat better. Or so a 767 wrench-monkey told me.

Rolls Royce Logo
 

This side has photos of 9M-MRD.

9M-MRD Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-2H6(ER) - cn 28411 / ln 84 - Planespotters.net Just Aviation

Chronologically ordered, most recent above.

It's definitely the Engine Logo! Port or starboard?

How that part separated and remained close to the front fuselage - while the engine remained attached to the wing - is hard to imagine.

Shrapnel could easily have hit the cowling, damaged a latch or two allowing the cowling to open and thus depart the premises.

mh17
 

ole-ole
Engine disintegrated (blew apart)

Engines have let go on the 777 before, sometimes in spectacular fashion, and have never caused the cowl to separate from the engine. Though admittedly, none had been attached to a plane shot out of the sky at the time.

The only frame on the nacelle is at the inlet side, forward of the fan housing (and attached to it by multiple bolts, which I can not see in the picture). The thrust reverser has two half-circular frames, but I would expect more systems parts installed to it, which are not present. Looking at the RR logo, I would assume this is a piece of the forward inlet frame. It is highly unlikely that engine debris would hit it, so I would assume shrapnel damage from the front side as most probable. On page 6 of this brochure you can see the according frame in the lower left picture.
Fits the other damage, if this is the port side engine nacelle frame.

Check out the photos on Page 8 of this report on the fan blade failure of an RR engine. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/33974/tr200100445_001.pdf

Looks quite similar to the part in the photos above.

article
 

Article published today by former airline pilot Peter Haisenko
http://www.anderweltonline.com/wisse...alaysian-mh17/

parts of engine cowling?

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3912/...e40fee2f_b.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3874/...942342df_b.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3837/...c8b8a9e9_b.jpg

Ditto, the skidmark doesn't appear to me the making of a high speed ballistic impact.

Machine gunfire?
 

Interview OCSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ze9BNGDyk4

The back of the roof/cargo bit

imgur: the simple image sharer

a full back image shows STA numbers, which is the spars or ribs that go all around the "tube". So the same number can be roof or cargo bay or either wall. STA number was used for identifying the location and WSJ themselves wavered about it in different editions. The colour being white, I vote for roof.

imgur: the simple image sharer
centre image is the rest of the roof over business class, folded over on the port wall. The open section is the door in front of the wing; the section broke clean at rivet line behind the first porthole.


bottom is Missile fin???
most images of BUKs show them very green, including fins, maybe a white tip. But I found some that have shorter side fins and larger tail fins, in BARE METAL, so those strange bits of metal are possibles.

First picture? possible, the air inlet/outlet should be easily identifyable. Might be cabin interior as well.
Second picture? no. Should be composites, not metal. This is fuselage debris.
Third picture? probably a Railroad crossing...(or the wrong link)

On further thought, the diagram presented by OleOle shows a port quarter missile path.

If that is the case, could that diagram show the missile came from Government held terrain? As it purports to show a passing shot it suggests that the aircraft was the missile engagement zone for about 4-5 minutes.

Such a long time in the MEZ would thus suggest sufficient time to determine that the target was a fast high flyer and probably not a legitimate target. OTOH it could have been considered a high altitude reconnaissance flight returning to the east.

Now I am not saying that this proves anything one way or the other and that the diagram could conceivably be disinformation.

For Buk, the missile diameter would be 0.4m. Gut feeling is that this ring looks a little small, but very difficult to tell as there is not much in the picture to give scale (grass comes in lots of sizes...).

This photographer has taken a huge number of excellent pictures of the crash site, but I can't help thinking I really want to buy him a ruler...

Looks about right. The rod in the picture is a galley or toilet or wardrobe upper attachment, diameter of the rod end housing would be around 25 mm. So 0.4m might even be a little small.
Of course a ruler would be a little more precise...