BLOCKING ACCESS TO MH-17
 

FWIW Donetsk, Ukraine (CNN) -- International investigators' quest to carry out their duties at the crash site of the downed Malaysian airliner hit another roadblock Wednesday: land mines, according to Ukrainian officials.

Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council claims that "terrorists" -- the term it uses to describe rebels -- have set up firing positions and laid mines on the access road to the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.

This makes the work of international experts "impossible," the agency said.

Dutch investigators in Ukraine did not cite mines specifically but announced Wednesday that unsafe conditions kept their contingent from visiting the crash site for the fourth straight day.:mad:

ABOVE FROM CNN

Ukraine officials: Rebels plant mines near MH17 site - CNN.com

OSCE Interview - Machine Gun
 

Rageye,

From the interview with Michael Bociurkiw,


Michael Bociurkiw is clearly not an expert and admits that in the video interview. He is clearly just highlighting as a non-expert holes that to him looks like machine-gun fire. I expect that if you showed him images from A-10 Warthog with SAM warhead damage then he would describe the damage as looking like "machine-gun fire".

The article is BS.
It is true, where the material is two layered in the enforced cockpit section the inner layer looks perforated from outside to inside and the outer layer is bent to the outside, as if a bullet has been shot from the inside.
The explanation is simple to understand.

When the hot fragments of the warhead (they are very hot, glowing at the beginning) hit a single layer of metal, they just penetrate, they nearly melt through. All the expansion of gases the fragment causes goes to the inside.

If the fragment meets a doubled layer metal construction the first sheet again is perforated, but at the same time a lot of pressure is building up between those two sheets of metal due to expanding gases and melting of parts of the first metal, thus bending the edges of the inlet hole to the outside. Then the second metal sheet is penetrated. This principle is used to protect armored vehicles by using multiple sheets of metal layers instead a thick one.

And this pilot in the article has no idea of how an air-to air gun is used and where a pilot intending to shoot down an airliner would aim at. A head on path with a closure rate of 1500 km/h to hit the cockpit area from the front quarter (like the damage would suggest) would be the last maneuver some pilot would try.

He would be better to comment on thing he has a basic understandig.

No. It is not like a shell burst that is reflected in a spray around the burst point. It is more akin to shotgun pellets that are projected forward and expand like a cone.

As I said before, the fuzing is designed to detonate before the target to give the optimum spread of shrapnel as it reaches the target.

If the frag damage is limited to a small area then is shows they were extremely unlucky.

It may be that I've missed them, but not seen any photos of what must be hundreds of passenger seats, is that unusual? Or just the random nature of where things have fallen?

There are lots of pictures of seats, most of which are too gruesome to show.

Just the sort of info I was looking for - guess it might be part of the missile then. Not sure if there is any aircraft part it could be at that size ?

The outer layer of the (perforated) cockpit area shows signs of being very close to detonation of the warhead, so close that it was touched by expanding hot ball of fire/gases, not only spreaded with shrapnel. The skin is blackened from the smoke, burned, almost scorched by high temperature, there is a pattern of thousands very small craters from light, tiny, high-speed particles.

So maybe the outer layer of fuselage was for a split of second heated to high temperature, to a point where the alluminium alloy was softened and edges of shrapnel holes were bent outwards by air escaping from the pressurised hull ? Or somehow by the external 0,9 Mach airflow ?

Re: the missile . . .

Missiles fired from the Buk system travel at approximately 3200km/h - or around 3000 fps.

The missile doesn't impact the target - but detonates in close proximity.

When it does detonate - it doesn't "stop" in the air - instead its momentum continues to carry it along its trajectory.

While some parts of the missile may impact the target and fall with it - many pieces of the missile will continue to fly past the target.

So - I highly doubt that you will find many "pieces" of the missile scattered about the debris. The plane came apart in a relatively wide area - and I suspect most of the parts of the missile (if it was a missile) came down some distance away from the aircraft. Best chance to find pieces would likely be if any are imbedded in the aircraft.

These objects all fell from high altitude and momentum carried them downrange of the point of impact (even if only slightly). The simple fact that the two were traveling at different speeds will create some distance between the debris field of the aircraft and missile.

More Parts
 

Added a piece of the forward bulkhead https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3839/...eddff506_o.jpg seen here...


and the piece held by a fence seen here...
http://cdn.salzburg.com/nachrichten/...1-53854440.jpg

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0...Cockpit_v2.jpg

Not to be pedantic, but the missile is designed to hit the target directly, that's what the seeker head is supposed to do. Therefore missiles have besides the proximity fuse also a contact fuse. A non maneuvering and non jamming big target like a T777 is prone for a direkt hit. The proximity fuse is there to ensure a kill, even if the missile would miss the target, because of bad steering, electronic jamming or target evasive maneuvering.

There is therefore a high probability that parts of the Missile system can be found in the vicinity of the cockpit section.

Well - then I learned something new today. I understood that the 9M38 and the 9M317 contained only (proportional nav) proximity fuses. I think the belief is that this was a 9M38. Is there a source that verifies the 9M38 also contains a contact fuse?

This describes the missile and its variants
Buk missile system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skin material?
 

What is the outer skin material and thickness on the cockpit area, and in particular is it different metal immediately around the windows and supporting the wipers?

I've noticed that some parts of the skin appear to crater while other parts are simply punched through.

A typical skin material near a cockpit is 2024-T3 or -T4, 0.040 THK.


A windshield frame is usually a complex shape of AL ( can be 7075) extrusions, may include steel parts.

do you have a photo to precise your question's location? No doubt lots of reinforcements behind the skin to withstand bird strikes etc.

re cockpit skin
 

I know that for protection against bird strikes on the 767, the ' skull' or " crown" portion above the windows was changed to titanium instead of thick aluminum. This was the result of a test ( chicken gun ) of an x pound bird at 400 mph at that area. On the early 767, the hydraulic system valves and certain switches were located in that area .

I do not recall for sure re the 777, but I believe that titanium was/is used for the area immediately above the windows for similar reasons. And its a good bet that the window surround channels are also titanium due to strength and weight considerations and corrosion .:8

https://flic.kr/p/otbtvY

closeup cockpit/port from Jeroen Akkermans

SA-11 ???
 

If flight MH17 was downed by a SA-11 like depicted below, than people on the ground should have noticed the noise and smoke trail.


https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...50463350_n.jpg

As you can see on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPtDy18Nk5I the SA-11 produces a lot of noise and leaves a clearly marked smoke trail.

I have not heard of any wittinesses confirming this.
There are several villages in the vicinity and there was an almost clear sky at the time of the accident

I don't suppose that anyone has been allowed to ask them. All visits to the area so far have been under the supervision of the pro-Russia militia. Not much upside and a lot of downside for the locals if they point the finger at the militia as having launched.

"If flight MH17 was downed by a SA-11 (...)"

And what could be any other cause ??

The evidence (as seen on pictures of plane parts) shows that a passenger plane flying at high altitude on eastern course was destroyed by detonation of big fragmentation warhead very close to the cockpit area ( distance was few meters at most - the small area of scorched and burned surface and pattern of the shrapnel holes says that).

This could be only SAM or AAM (with fragmentation warhead) and it could not came from the west (the proximity fuse would trigger much earlier then, hitting the rear or center part of the plane).

The fact that missile detonaded passing very close to the cockpit area suggests a nearly head-on intercept course (missle aiming at the target's radar "center-of-mass" - we don't know where it was at this angle aspect, probably somwhere near central part of the plane, but possible radar reflectors are also wing leading edges, whole engines and cockpit with it's windows and front radome). The rest of the plane surface is much less radar-reflective. Missile steers with some possible final miss distance, too. On it's way the missile passes near cockpit and proximity fuse works on.

If we exclude possibility of heavy AAM (with fragmentation warhead) fired by a fighter plane from the eastearn direction, the only other possibility is a SAM with big fragmentation warhead fired from the east too. The Buk system was reported to be in place and shooting other aircrafts, it is said that sattelite data confirms a SAM intercept, not AAM by plane.

Any other weapon (guns) or inside explosion (bomb) doesn't fit to known damage of cockpit area.

A screenshot (taken not by me) of a witness' confession:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bs5C9rVCcAALAz8.png
Translation: at a Snezhnoe town local web-community, on July 17:

- Yesterday that Buk was towed through the center of our town. (invective), we forgot ourselves in playing war games. I hate myself.

- I'm not sure that it was that same Buk.

- I saw the rocket launch myself, then I rejoiced at knocking out the Ukrainians. I repent before God.

Lightning in region
 

This archive shows lightning present in Central Ukraine, and in Eastern Ukraine shortly before MH17 passed over.

http://www.lightningmaps.org/blitzortung/europe/index.php?bo_page=archive&bo_hour_range=24&bo_oldmap=0&bo_ol dani=0&bo_map=0&bo_year=2014&bo_month=7&bo_day=17&bo_hour_fr om=13&bo_animation=1&lang=en#bo_arch_strikes_maps_form

PUUHHHLEESE
 

There are many previous posts in this thread re the missile vs fighter theories

Most all re fighter have been debunked.
There have also been posts re the typical buk missile flight profile which seem to summarize as follows

a) very high speed M= 3 plus
b) very high altitude capability 70 to 80 K feet
c) flight profile via radar and proximity mention the missile typically leads the aircraft, dives on it from a higher altitude and explodes via proximity and/or contact

d) left side Cockpit damage AND shrapnel " skid' marks on left wing UPPER surface indicate that missile was at at wing level or slightly above when detonated

e) not so obvious is that almost any kind of ' corner' angle of aluminum makes a good reflector- consider the wing to body junction for instance

f) U.S tracking claims it was a missile

ALL of which support a missile from a general head on position.

g) what remains to be proven is WHO and WHY fired. :ugh:

Looking at photos of the debris I'm puzzled by evidence of such a profusion of pitting around the cockpit area and relatively little elsewhere. Is that an expected outcome from such a blast?

Speaking of AN-26 shot down a day or two before MH17. It was widely reported that it was flying at 6000 m or higher, above the range of most portables SAMs, so a BUK may have had something to do with it. In the videos of the BUK on the trailer being moved around, we see only one missile missing. Did the rebels have more than one BUK? Where is the wreckage of the AN-26? Who controls that area? Is there an investigation of what downed the AN-26 by the Ukraine authorities?

The R-27 contains an expanding rod warhead, where as in the pictures the weapon effects indicate a blast/fragmentation warhead, as used in the SA-11 warhead.

2 Speedstra

Yes, that's the key point, agree. But until the fragments are found physically and thoroughly analysed, we can't say for sure. Pictures with traces are not enough to serve as a 100% evidence...

Yes they are!
If the debris shows a certain distribution pattern of shrapnel. That is bona fide, hard, physical evidence. And if that pattern points to something other than the typical pattern of an R-27, then that rules out the R-27 with enough certainty to move on to the next likely suspect. Yup, the SA-11.

Far more convincing than your suppositions.

Seriously, you're grasping at straws. Your conspiracy has been debunked. Suck it up and go find a new method of blaming someone else.

There is evidence elsewhere, for example in a frame of an engine inlet cowl:
http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-m...l/IMG_0688.jpg

and here:
http://s18.postimg.org/4r8wbeybt/shrap.jpg
Can anybody identify if this part is from ahead or aft of the entry door?

Does anybody know what material these fibers are made of? Is it aramid/kevlar, glass, or something else?

http://s29.postimg.org/9e1j4k3jb/fibre.jpg

There are images from EOSDIS which show cloud cover at around 11:35 UTC but this is obviously not ideal. There may be other sources with a better time match.


https://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worl...5742,53.334961


This image was captured at approx 11:35 to the left of the central line and approx 9:55 UTC to the right.

@OleOle: I only have experience doing maintenance on gliders, but that looks like glass to me, Kevlar/Aramid have more of a yellow tone.

Consider the ramifications if the Ukraine had indeed shot down Pres. Putin? This would have triggered a full on immediate invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces. I just don't see that as a valid strategy of the Ukrainian gov. Also even though the two jets looked remarkably similar in finish details any pilot can identify a 777 from miles away without seeing the detailed paint colors,

There may well have been fighter/bombers in the area considering the campaign
and the blast patterns are puzzling for sure, but I don't believe the fighter jet shoot down theory has much credence.

2 Olasek

You may not believe that but "Moscow TV" (even some chauvinistic channels which I hate) never elaborated on this idiotic conspiracy addressing the "attempt to shoot down the Putin's plane".

Regarding the "Russian invasion": The time for that option has gone long ago. Putin had already announced some 2 months ago he would not give such an order. Also the Russian parliament withdrew its formal permission to the president to use the military force abroad (read, in Ukraine). If they really needed that, it would be done in spring and took a couple of days.

I am not a fan of the current policy being carried out in Russia, but there is understanding here that "the stakes we are gambling are frighteningly high".

IMHO, now those rebels are a problem for Putin and actually he never liked them much. Recall that when they announced a referendum to separate from Ukraine (in March) Putin said "do not do that". They ignored his advice and arranged some chaotic voting. I am sure he was angry. Especially as the Ukrainian pres. candidate promised at that time he would not ban the Russian language in that part of the country (the point that actually started the fire) and that seemed enough for Kremlin. Then the rebels were asking for a military invasion in south-east and the answer was again "no". After that some voices were heard from there that the "rebels condemned Kremlin " who "let them down" and obviously it was not appreciated.

some "info" on CR/ER WARHEADS

TWA Flight 800 Shootdown

Vector of the missile ?
 

These two Akkermanns Images how the same item from different angles.
http://s10.postimg.org/ofgbli9rt/frontview.jpg
http://s30.postimg.org/9plqv9hvl/sideview.jpg

I think I identified the front skin above the starboard windshield. It has shrapnel and soot from the inside.

I added an image of the forward bulkhead with soot from here:
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/drugo...7_original.jpg

Click on image for larger version:

http://s29.postimg.org/nlt3s70iv/small.jpg

The cockpit assembly image is from here:
http://www.patrasevents.gr/imgsrv/f/full/889451.jpg

Yep, I think you have got it right. It looks like a large amount of structure was deformed or opened up by the pressure wave (the crown skin in other pictures is pressed in between frames), and the impact with the ground has caused it to splay out.

From the account of the B-52 flier here and some other pictures around of SAM damage it does appear that the missile was extraordinarily close when it fused.

The front of the cockpit looks like such a strong structure, too.

You may not believe that but "Moscow TV" (even some chauvinistic channels which I hate) never elaborated on this idiotic conspiracy addressing the "attempt to shoot down the Putin's plane".


You are not truthful.


Russian media launched this theory with the reference to a source in the Russian state authority, RosAviation.
TV included. E.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2lgMGzn498


You can see that this theory actually was elaborated by the Russian state TV.


Please, stop spreading propaganda, it's a professional forum here.

Speaking of AN-26 shot down a day or two before MH17. It was widely reported that it was flying at 6000 m or higher, above the range of most portables SAMs, so a BUK may have had something to do with it. In the videos of the BUK on the trailer being moved around, we see only one missile missing. Did the rebels have more than one BUK? Where is the wreckage of the AN-26? Who controls that area? Is there an investigation of what downed the AN-26 by the Ukraine authorities?


1. The official Ukrainian version from the very beginning (at least from July 15) was that the An-26 was shot down from Russian territory, not by the separatists. Buk was not mentioned in the official statement. Strong suspicion was on a Russian fighter jet.


2. Rebels did not and do not have a Buk launcher. The one that shot down the MH17 was brought to Ukraine and returned back to Russia within one day, July 17. The only missile spent was on the MH17.
Rebels are in possession of two or three disabled (scrapped) Buk launchers. No missiles though.


3. The An-26 wreckage is in a field near Lugansk.


4. Rebels control the area.


5. There was no any information about such an investigation. Definitely, some military investigation has to be conducted, I mean an operational aspect.