Sunday, 1 January 2017

MH17: Possibly torpedoed straight from the south of Snizhne

Basic Dimension

  1. time: 00:00 the missile is launched . 
  2. time: 00:35 when the missile warhead exploded near MH17. 
  3. time: 00:35 when the cockpit of MH17 separated from the main fuselage.
  4. time: +/- 01:20 cockpit section impact with ground.
  5. time: 02:05 when the main fuselage of MH17 hit the ground.

Scientists always rely on clear evidence. So what evidence do they have beyond LT 30 kg whitehead fragments of a cubic centimeter which would have broken up sufficient cockpit beams to break the cockpit from the fuselage within a second? 

Do not rely on physical laws alone for there is a lot of counter evidence. For example air pressure is reduced considerably at 10 km altitude. And the shockwave came before the fragments. So forget about air pressure and the pressure wave when looking for proof within one second.

Air pressure was equalized after the phase of decompression, so decompression cannot be the cause of the immediate further disintegration of the plane within three seconds. It might be effective later.

There is no written evidence of broken iron beams that carried the construction of the left side forward fuselage or the cockpit. Impact entry holes, allegedly from a BUK, only will have caused surface damage of the cockpit hull. We found just a single damaged cockpit beam from which we don't know if it failed to sustain the frame. 

Nothing has been recovered from the cockpit frame and large parts of the fuselage above the passenger floor in front of STA655, since all evidence has been removed from site 1 and 2 in Petropavlivka. Therefore, we can only make a prediction of the disintegration of the cockpit from the recovered lower fuselage in front of STA655. 

If the beams on the left side of the cockpit had been really cut off by BUK fragments  - for which I have no evidence yet -,  a progressive disintegration of the aircraft  ONLY FROM THAT POINT was to be expected. But then it would have taken more than a second before the cockpit would have been broken from the fuselage. 

So, the description by DSB of the disintegration of the MH17 - which started at STA655 and expanded to STA888 - within a second after impact looks completely unjustified.
Superficial damage by impact entry holes to the left side of the cockpit cannot be seen as cause of the disintegration of half the plane from STA888 in 3 seconds

Even if all beams would have been instantly broken in the recovered forward lower fuselage, which is very unlikely, then the disintegration of the plane would have started from the left side of the cockpit and not at STA655. But from that position there is no evidence for the instantaneous collapse of the construction.

So, has a BUK torpedoed the MH17? Maybe, we don't know but with a little disturbance in the trajectory followed by proportional navigation it could be true. But we also have some pictures of the partial forward fuselage roof without impact of a missile. So, it is not clear and we have no proof.  

If DSB would have noticed missile parts among the wreckage at Petropavlivka or Roszypne, they would have got the idea of a rocket crashed into the plane and then they likely would not have set their detonation point so high. 

But JIT and DSB are not bound to scientific norms and therefore we cannot trust their reports without proof. It might be DSB was so convinced to be right about the detonation point that they simply did not get the idea.

We are interested in the possible chain of remains of the missile on the crash site. If the missile did not crash into the plane from the proposed crash sites of DSB and NRC, then the remains must lie a few kilometers back from the last FDR. 

But if remains were found in the wreckage, especially in Petropavlivka and Rozsypne then the missile likely crashed into the plane. And a form of proof would be if not-secondary fragments like the nozzle of the engine were found, the exhaust pipe. But we must await withheld evidence of JIT.

We start with the most interesting article of Karel Knip:

Michael Kobs // June 27, 2016 at 8:02 am // Reply
Not to forget the Correct!v witness(es) who saw the missile lauched from a field north of Snizhne. Of course, according to Correct!v these witnesses have no names for their own security and were silenced by a ringing telephone. But they also saw a trail, felt the house shaking, ran to the street (wrong direction) and even saw the railway tracks burning.
I did a quick search on Twitter for any described BANG or rattle or any unusual lound noise in the first hour after the crash. I found nothing.

Error 2 : incorrect conclusion of the location of the launch site

Correctiv went to a small village just north of Snizhne called Puschkinsky. They spoke to a couple of people living in Puschkinsky who stated they heard a big noise caused by the missile launch on a field nearby. A second eyewitness stated he even saw the launcher which launched a missile.

Joint Investgation Team on the September 2016 press presentation  made public the missile was launched from a field south of Snizhne. Many kilometers from the location Correctiv had described.
It is unclear why Correctiv went to Puschkinsky for their investigation in the first place. There could be two reasons. First of all website Meduza reported about a place north of Snizhne in an online article which was later removed. An other reason for Correctiv to search in Puschkinsky could be a Zello conversation. Zello is a popular mobile phone app which allows real time voice communications similar to using a walkie-talkie. Website Ukraineatwar reported about a tapped Zello conversation in July. Someone stated in that conversation that she had seen a missile plume near the KhimMash factory. This factory is a few hundred meters from Puschkinsky.
Correctiv concluded solely on the interviews with very few people living in Puschkinsky  that the BUK missile was launched from a field nearby.

Max van der Werff visited the small village Puschkinsky himself. His blog about the visit can be read here. Max concluded the eyewitness who claimed he saw the launch of the missile, pointed in the wrong direction in the video published by Der Spiegel. Max spoke to the person who lives in the house indicated by Correctiv as the house of the witness. The man called Alexander told Max he did not ever talk to Correctiv and did not see a BUK missile launch.

Wind Tunnel Man

IMO most important is not a witness of the crash but the coordinates of the alleged missile.

[Her daughter Anastasia Kovalenko, 14, said she saw a rocket flying over the village, and then a plane in the distance blowing up. Olga Krasilnikova, 30, also said she saw a rocket, some time between 4 and 5 p.m. “I saw it was flying, flew right over me. From that side,” she said, pointing to the outskirts of the village. “I saw smoke in the sky, then I heard an explosion and I saw a huge blue (cloud of) smoke.”]

With testimonies we distinguish observations from interpretations, since interpretations caused by common sense reasoning of witnesses who are building a scenario can be confounded.

Anastasia Kovalenko, 14, and Olga Krasilnikova, 30, saw a projectile flying right over the village of Chervonyi Zhovten (Red October):

These are observations and not interpretations. If they were not lying we might have the trajectory from Red October to the FDR-point = 322 degrees. But even if they were honest the chosen methodology is wrong because of interviewer bias. Now the judge will wipe this ‘evidence’ away.

Also interviewers are important. They must not reward and reinforce witnesses in an unconscious way. Also, now it is much too late, since they interviewed after inhabitants could have made a common sense reconstruction:

[Villagers in eastern Ukraine told Reuters earlier this year [2015] they saw a missile flying directly overhead just before flight MH17 was shot out of the sky, PROVIDING THE MOST DETAILED ACCOUNTS to date that suggest the rocket was launched from territory held by pro-Russian rebels.]

Also Reuters is questionable and might be not transparent:

[To help to clarify the situation Russia Today has asked Reuters and the reporter to provide the raw footage of the interview [with Pytor Fedotov], which Reuters has so far not done.]

This all means we know nothing until excellent psychologists question the witnesses still with a sophisticated test for sheer facts and definitely show no interest in their interpretations. So, I am afraid we know nothing for sure.


This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attibution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.

No comments:

Post a Comment