.jpg)
DSB X-report page 18
Investigation of the impact damage due to high-energy objects on the wreckage of flight MH17
14|NLR-CR-2015-155-PT-12.5
2.5 Number and density of hits
The total number of hits of all types of impact damage on the initially available wreckage was counted and found to be 304. After this, additional parts of the wreckage became available. Accounting for the additional hits on these parts the total number of impacts is assessed to be more than 350.
Extrapolating the number of hits on the affected area of the fuselage and accounting for the structure that was not available gives an estimate of the total number of hits of high-energy objects of over 800.
The highest density of hits was on the middle window on the captain’s left-hand side of the cockpit (window number 2).
Figure 11: Left cockpit window 2 layer and location (Source: DSB)
The cockpit windows are made of multiple layers of glass and plastic and one of the layers of this window was recovered. See Figure 11 for this window layer and its location in the cockpit. The density in this area is calculated to be around 250 hits per square meter.
2.6 Size of penetration damage
On the piece of cockpit skin with the highest number of penetrations, the size of the holes caused by these penetrations was measured (Figure 12).
Only the damage that was assessed to be the result of single objects fully penetrating the plate was taken into account. Of each hole the dimension perpendicular to the impact direction was measured ( Figure 13).
http://tinyurl.com/j37gog8
Only this dimension gives an indication of the size of the object that caused the damage. The larger dimension, parallel to the projection of the impact direction on the plate, is the result of the speed and the angle at which the object impacts the plate. As can be seen in Figure 14, the size was found to range from 6 mm to 14 mm.
The selection of 31 holes from 350 impacts
The critique on DSB is it has been cherry picking from the data to construct the bowtie scenario from 9N314M:
https://hectorreban.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/the-mh17-13-october-verdict-dsb-versus-almaz-antei/14|NLR-CR-2015-155-PT-12.5
2.5 Number and density of hits
The total number of hits of all types of impact damage on the initially available wreckage was counted and found to be 304. After this, additional parts of the wreckage became available. Accounting for the additional hits on these parts the total number of impacts is assessed to be more than 350.
Extrapolating the number of hits on the affected area of the fuselage and accounting for the structure that was not available gives an estimate of the total number of hits of high-energy objects of over 800.
The highest density of hits was on the middle window on the captain’s left-hand side of the cockpit (window number 2).
Figure 11: Left cockpit window 2 layer and location (Source: DSB)
The cockpit windows are made of multiple layers of glass and plastic and one of the layers of this window was recovered. See Figure 11 for this window layer and its location in the cockpit. The density in this area is calculated to be around 250 hits per square meter.
2.6 Size of penetration damage
On the piece of cockpit skin with the highest number of penetrations, the size of the holes caused by these penetrations was measured (Figure 12).
Only the damage that was assessed to be the result of single objects fully penetrating the plate was taken into account. Of each hole the dimension perpendicular to the impact direction was measured ( Figure 13).
http://tinyurl.com/j37gog8
Only this dimension gives an indication of the size of the object that caused the damage. The larger dimension, parallel to the projection of the impact direction on the plate, is the result of the speed and the angle at which the object impacts the plate. As can be seen in Figure 14, the size was found to range from 6 mm to 14 mm.
The selection of 31 holes from 350 impacts
The critique on DSB is it has been cherry picking from the data to construct the bowtie scenario from 9N314M:
This led to this histogram:
Eugene //
May 15, 2016 at 2:17 pm // (..) By the way, the reason the DSB showed extreme hesitation with collecting the wreckage (only got there in November!) I explain by them realizing that the more holes they’d pick of the wreckage the harder their job of stitching a Buk bowtie warhead to the case would be. The DSB hoped that some evidence would disappear and their job would be simpler. The DSB also were not trying hard to bring other parts too, as, for example, they only brought to the hangar the “Separatist scorpion” piece only after RT issued a report on them ignoring the evidence with the bit mentioned.
http://tinyurl.com/hb28t8z
Eugene // May 15, 2016 at 2:41 pm //
To me it seems that the Il86 piece has still higher hole density than the Mh17 piece. Do you agree with me?
We know that the DSB had placed the detonation point too far away. The likely reason was to equalize the observed hole density to the hole density of a Buk warhead, if it was placed at the detonation point. But the higher observed hole density on Il86 tells us that they were not very successfully at the task, and the detonation point needs to be moved even further away to match Buk (while the stringing method and the damage cover area tell us the the detonation point needs to be moved 2-3x closer).In a nutshell, if calculations were done thoroughly and honestly, they’d show that the kill weapon warhead contained a lot fewer number of fragments than a Buk warhead. One can almost see the DSB’s hard job of balancing between various BADs to justify a Buk warhead as a kill weapon.
admin // May 15, 2016 at 2:52 pm //.png)
http://albert-lex.livejournal.com/68374.html
IsThatSo //
May 25, 2016 at 7:21 pm //
What you’re calling the VK report is perhaps better known as the
albert_lex report or the Albert Naryshkin report. If you check the
document properties the author is “Uzzer” and the title is Министерство
обороны Российской Федерации (Russian Ministry of Defense).
The report’s string analysis and hole analysis have already been discussed. It probably would be more widely discussed if it was available in an accurate English translation.
Even with its language limitation the report annoys Buk conspiracy trolls and forces questions to be asked such as “How could a 70 kg Buk warhead detonating 3-4 meters away produce the pattern of damage seen on the Boeing’s skin?” and “How could a Buk warhead detonating 3-4 meters away produce grazing marks that point to a detonation point about 1 meter away?”
As for the credibility of the AA test, no amount of transparency would have removed all suspicions that it was a less than honest experiment. Questions would arise if the experiment was repeated with DSB/JIT experts on hand and broadcast live by all networks. Buk conspiracy theory trolls would ask, “How do we know AA didn’t tamper with the warhead?” and demand the impossible — for AA to prove a negative.
The report’s string analysis and hole analysis have already been discussed. It probably would be more widely discussed if it was available in an accurate English translation.
Even with its language limitation the report annoys Buk conspiracy trolls and forces questions to be asked such as “How could a 70 kg Buk warhead detonating 3-4 meters away produce the pattern of damage seen on the Boeing’s skin?” and “How could a Buk warhead detonating 3-4 meters away produce grazing marks that point to a detonation point about 1 meter away?”
As for the credibility of the AA test, no amount of transparency would have removed all suspicions that it was a less than honest experiment. Questions would arise if the experiment was repeated with DSB/JIT experts on hand and broadcast live by all networks. Buk conspiracy theory trolls would ask, “How do we know AA didn’t tamper with the warhead?” and demand the impossible — for AA to prove a negative.
Logic Reason (@gsobjc) //
May 31, 2016 at 1:55 pm //
> For a A2A missile I want strong evidence, no bullshot stories.
It seems you have different quality standards for different versions.
Buk version is built only on the impression created by pictures, videos, social network messages and dilettantes’ work – very fragile things to make conclusions. No hard facts support it. It IS a “bullshit story”.
Because the undoable things (that is the damage with ballistic and math applied) are against it:
– the real point of blow is 1.6-1.8m from the cockpit;
– the hole density (the number of holes) points to a smaller (than Buk) warhead;
– some holes have the size ~30mm;
Easy to check. So i have to point you that the right approach in any investigation is to make conclusions from facts not vice versa
It seems you have different quality standards for different versions.
Buk version is built only on the impression created by pictures, videos, social network messages and dilettantes’ work – very fragile things to make conclusions. No hard facts support it. It IS a “bullshit story”.
Because the undoable things (that is the damage with ballistic and math applied) are against it:
– the real point of blow is 1.6-1.8m from the cockpit;
– the hole density (the number of holes) points to a smaller (than Buk) warhead;
– some holes have the size ~30mm;
Easy to check. So i have to point you that the right approach in any investigation is to make conclusions from facts not vice versa
The albert_lex selection of 186 holes
(The albert_lex report published by a Russian journalist Albert Naryshkin)
Without the amazing research of albert_lex we had no possibilities to do scientific research on the holes in the fuselage of the MH17. For this we are grateful.
Albert_lex took a much bigger sample of 186 holes out of 350 to measure the transverse dimensions perpendicular on the direction of impact:
http://tinyurl.com/jv22t82
From this histogram we derived the following square. This fragment can impact on a target from all points of a sphere:
http://tinyurl.com/hn25huv
Brendan //
May 29, 2016 at 8:31 pm //
Yes, a cube can leave a hole that’s a bit rounded if it strikes at the right angle, as Basic D illustrated:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZFGqLylNPJ3ZvpNaUjSihLuk8hORfN-aLv6Efu9aBEs0jZv_RsCyaK0Fjxp0LYkfk0GcspClGOKChZb6vO2ahGGQxJYIuYHLyD9-m3S0RNwu4NM_KczripLIG-3MKlriTw9ZhCebsM9Q/s1600/Almaz-Antey+%25282125%252C5%2529.png
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZFGqLylNPJ3ZvpNaUjSihLuk8hORfN-aLv6Efu9aBEs0jZv_RsCyaK0Fjxp0LYkfk0GcspClGOKChZb6vO2ahGGQxJYIuYHLyD9-m3S0RNwu4NM_KczripLIG-3MKlriTw9ZhCebsM9Q/s1600/Almaz-Antey+%25282125%252C5%2529.png
And fragments that are placed beside each other in the warhead would be expected to strike the target at almost the same angle. That might explain the presence of a number of ’round’ holes close together on the 777.
It would also appear to make more sense for the missile maker to use fragments with sharp edges, which are better than spheres at puncturing an aircraft’s surface.
Still, It’s strange that there are hardly any holes with a distinct rectangular shape. There are more round or oval holes, like under the window shown here:
http://i.imgur.com/AFf9c5i.jpg
Source: http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/10/13/photos-mh17-reconstruction-and-dutch-investigation/
By rotation of width = 8 to the hypotenuse the width of a rib may become larger 9, 10 but not smaller. Only diagonals will become smaller after rotation 11, 10, 9:
http://tinyurl.com/hpyok6x
Above we have rib categories 8 (64) and 6 (33). Categorie 10 (30) might be from diagonals, as all diagonals come to the right or the left of the rotated ribs.
Somehow nature arranged the angles of impact from the square into less than 15 categories. What is the mechanism? That will be explained later.
As said, Albert_lex results suggest a parallelepiped of 8x8x6 mm, which is about the content of the Russian warhead 9N318 (8x8x6.5 mm), if it has to be a BUK. Though 6.5 mm differs only slightly from 6 mm, it is structural. Which means most transverse measures must be wider than 6 mm, for a rib cannot be smaller than its width. That's why the Russian warhead 9N318 (8x8x6.5 mm) is questionable. I think 9N318 is falsified by this histogram.
http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr
To proceed with the sample of DSB, their histogram has been recoded into the format of the albert_lex histogram:
Old Ukrainian warhead 9N314
Proceeding with the albert_lex research.
Following the histogram of albert_lex we can forget about the old BUK-warhead 9N314 because category 6 (33) is missing:
http://tinyurl.com/h2vg9f3
Warhead 9N314M (bowties: Ukraine and Russia)
But can we also forget about bowties in the albert_lex histogram? Forget about warhead 9N314M? I'm afraid not. Following the requirement of conditional probability we did not found butterflies in the fuselage, but the facts of albert_lex do not make the profile of 9N314M impossible.
And if we cannot discard the profile of 9N314M there might come a moment we also have to accept bowties. But remember, warhead 9N314M self is not proven, because other warheads with the same profile can have done the job. With the research of albert_lex we only proved the conditional probability of the profile of 9N314M, not of warhead 9N314M self.
Hence, in the sample of albert_lex warhead 9N314M is not impossible:
http://tinyurl.com/jbhtfau
This is not on the basis of chance, for then we would expect a smoother transition over classes:
So, a certain ordering principle might affect translations by earlier rotations:
And that means we cannot falsify the bowtie scenario by the histogram of albert_lex. On the other hand warhead 9N314M is also not confirmed, because with this profile more warheads can do the job. Only the profile of 9N314M is confirmed, not the warhead itself.
It looks like acute angles splendidly strip categories from any fringe. Just what we need to identify the fragments.
It might be only squares are brought well in line with their front ribs. For bowties a different mechanism might be working.
Anyway, if the histogram of albert_lex gives the real measures of squares, then acute angles bring squares to their ground form without many rotations:
Also warhead 9N318 from missile 9M317 was falsified. This because its rib of 6.5 mm cannot be narrower and I guess albert_lex found mostly 6 mm ribs. Nearly all 6.5 ribs would have fallen into (6.5-7-7.5) which received only two observations.
Remember DSB report: 'Only the damage that was assessed to be the result of single objects fully penetrating the plate was taken into account.'
Ricochet jumps out the entry hole, which creates a much larger hole.
Before I start the 'arithmetic' I suppose all squares exploded with their face (8x8 mm) to the target. But later this turns out not always to be the case:
So, it is not squares which turn themselves in line with the direction of the frac speed vector but they were already born in that position. But remember, this does not happen after a quarter rotations as below:
Suppose the frag speed of squares is 2000 meter/sec. Following DSB the distance of the point of detonation to the fuselage of MH17 is ~3 meter. Hence within 3/2000 = 0.0015 seconds fragments enter the fuselage. But following scientists on the internet it must be 1.5 meter and 0.00075 seconds flying time. Furthermore:
IsThatSo // May 10, 2016 at 8:25 pm //
We will take this example:
1,000 revolutions per minute is 1000/60=17 revolutions per second. Then a revolution would take 1/17=.06 seconds (from 8x8 front side to 8x8 mm front side). But we only have 0.00075 seconds. In this time a square can make .00075/.06=.0125 revolutions.
Half a revolution (from 8x8 mm front side to 8x8 mm rear side) would take 0.03 seconds. A quarter of a revolution (from 8x8 front side to the 8x6 side needs 0.06/4=.015 seconds. Sigh, that's good news. Now, we can conclude squares have about sufficient time to rotate to their 8x6 mm side in a natural way. This means for categories 6 (33) and 8 (64) to be possible (in relation to rectangle 6x8 mm) we only have to relax somewhat the no rotation assumption.
But there is more, also the diagonal of side 8x6 mm (10 mm, n=30) comes within reach:
The diagonal of the (8x8 mm) front side has a low probability (score=11, n =8), because in case of impact on the front side usually no rotation happened and the hypotenuse as transverse dimension is less likely. But in case of a quarter rotation, yielding side (8x6 mm) a diagonal of 10 mm is also more likely (n = 30). So we are able to force reality into our tunnelvision.
What can we conclude? In case of translations we get more of category 8 (n=64) (with some from rotation to 8x6 mm). And in case of quarter rotations we get the combined categories 6 (n=33) and 10 (n=30). Did we find the connection between categories 6 and 10? For some unconscious reason this makes sense.
In most cases we still need the following assumption:
Why rotations?
So, we might already use a quarter rotations on the left windshields. And towards the rear of the cockpit there is more room for rotation to fill category 13 (12.8, n=4).
We only have very limited information about this disaster. But sometimes you feel you can trust somebody. I am inclined to trust the histogram of albert_lex more than that of DSB. Albert_lex has seen the holes and probably has more information. Squares passed the requirement of conditional probability, maybe different sorts of squares. I would give it a try.
IsThatSo // April 28, 2016 at 6:08 pm //
albert_lex reported about 2000-4000 fragments of 3 gram. With 2000 fragments the fragments would weigh 6 kg. That leaves 5 kg for the explosives. Mind albert_lex report carefully ignores that Ukraine does not have the Python missile.
IsThatSo // April 28, 2016 at 9:52 pm //
http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr
To proceed with the sample of DSB, their histogram has been recoded into the format of the albert_lex histogram:
It looks like DSB forced the sample into the format of 9N314M and it could be cherry picking:
Old Ukrainian warhead 9N314
Proceeding with the albert_lex research.
Following the histogram of albert_lex we can forget about the old BUK-warhead 9N314 because category 6 (33) is missing:
http://tinyurl.com/h2vg9f3
Shrapnel is falsified if a certain width observed in transverse measures does not happen for a certain square. This apart from pitting.
Statistically, if a square has lowest width of 5 mm (n=3), we do not expect most of the scores pile on category 6 (n=33). Though some change of the value 5 over 6 into the direction of the hypotenuse (9.4) is possible by rotation.
Hence, warhead 9N314 absolutely is not used in the shooting down of the MH17. Only the combination of 9N314M (bowties) placed on missile 9M38 (the Buk 3×2, the Buk-M1 missile launcher that "is widely believed to have downed MH17") might be used. But Almaz-Antey denies this possibility, which has no other purpose than to combine bowties with the old BUK-missile 9M38 from Bellingcat. And why would Ukraine place 9N314M warheads on very old 9M38 missiles, being left with hundreds of newer missiles 9M38M1?
Also 9N314M can be used with 9M38M1, which must be proven first.
Also 9N314M can be used with 9M38M1, which must be proven first.
That's why Bellingcat must be falsified. Would this be the right conclusion then we have lost a lot of energy chasing old Ukrainian or alleged old Russian 9M38 BUK-missiles with warhead 9N314 in Donetsk and Russia.
Warhead 9N314M (bowties: Ukraine and Russia)
But can we also forget about bowties in the albert_lex histogram? Forget about warhead 9N314M? I'm afraid not. Following the requirement of conditional probability we did not found butterflies in the fuselage, but the facts of albert_lex do not make the profile of 9N314M impossible.
And if we cannot discard the profile of 9N314M there might come a moment we also have to accept bowties. But remember, warhead 9N314M self is not proven, because other warheads with the same profile can have done the job. With the research of albert_lex we only proved the conditional probability of the profile of 9N314M, not of warhead 9N314M self.
Hence, in the sample of albert_lex warhead 9N314M is not impossible:
http://tinyurl.com/jbhtfau
The development of categories of the histogram
Inspecting the histogram of albert_lex it must be concluded categories are sharply identified:
This is not on the basis of chance, for then we would expect a smoother transition over classes:
So, a certain ordering principle might affect translations by earlier rotations:
What kind of principle makes categories 6 and 8 of albert_lex so sharp come forward?
First, I thought fragments choose position in line with the frac speed vector in order to balance weight and to minimize air resistance:
First, I thought fragments choose position in line with the frac speed vector in order to balance weight and to minimize air resistance:
But that was a wrong idea. It is untenable because then there were no diamonds of perpendicular impacts. It all would have been squares because perpendicularity is also an impact direction.
Anyway, all conditioning of fragments into only a few categories must come from the target. It seems the fuselage forces squares to pass with their sides aligned to the impact direction. This must be done in the track made by the acute angle.
Little squares (8x8x5MM) of old Ukrainian warhead 9N314 have insignificant mass and so their velocity vector was bent straight through the fuselage. This means the pile of category 6 cannot be caused by category 5 of this square. Our conclusion is the old warhead 9N314 has not been used to shoot down the MH17. This conclusion is in line with the albert_lex histogram which states: "The results of evaluation of hole sizes available in the photos suggests that the submunitions were in the form of a parallelepiped with sides 8x8x6 mm with a tolerance of +/- 0.5 mm.
But then we have a problem, for now it depends on the form of the fragment how it will be conditioned by the target:
This means bowties are disadvantaged in the histogram of albert_lex. They possibly are normally distributed around some value.
Only if ribs and 'flat' surfaces of bowties are already perpendicular on the direction of impact, their measures will be reproduced like squares. Which means on category 13 we will find only a portion of the bowtie impressions:
Only if ribs and 'flat' surfaces of bowties are already perpendicular on the direction of impact, their measures will be reproduced like squares. Which means on category 13 we will find only a portion of the bowtie impressions:
And that means we cannot falsify the bowtie scenario by the histogram of albert_lex. On the other hand warhead 9N314M is also not confirmed, because with this profile more warheads can do the job. Only the profile of 9N314M is confirmed, not the warhead itself.
Resume
It looks like acute angles splendidly strip categories from any fringe. Just what we need to identify the fragments.
It might be only squares are brought well in line with their front ribs. For bowties a different mechanism might be working.
Anyway, if the histogram of albert_lex gives the real measures of squares, then acute angles bring squares to their ground form without many rotations:
Then we made amazing progress. We could conclude warhead 9N314 from missile 9M38 must be falsified because a rib of 6 mm does not exist and Bellingcat is falsified:
Also warhead 9N318 from missile 9M317 was falsified. This because its rib of 6.5 mm cannot be narrower and I guess albert_lex found mostly 6 mm ribs. Nearly all 6.5 ribs would have fallen into (6.5-7-7.5) which received only two observations.
Only the profile of warhead 9N314M (bowties) passes the test of the histogram of albert_lex. The warhead self is not confirmed, because more warheads can pass the test and one of them has done the job. But I think we must conclude 9N314M is the only warhead not falsified by this histogram:
Remember, though the width of the rib cannot be narrower than 8.2 mm for bowties and fillers, it is allowed for little squares with the biggest share in ribs of 8 mm.
admin // May 15, 2016 at 2:52 pm //
Shrinking of fragments by ricochet
https://www.flickr.com/photos/132949552@N05/26902500581/in/dateposted-public/
These must be ricochet. The transverse dimensions of the entry holes are much wider than the dimensions of the pieces on the exit holes on the vertical plate. Fragments will have lost half their mass?
admin // May 15, 2016 at 2:52 pm //
Lets assume it was not a BUK. Other options include a different type of SAM or an A2A missile.
Suppose it was an A2A missile, what type? What type has the characteristics which can make the damage as we see on MH17? I have not found any weapon capable. What do we know of fragments shapes and sizes of A2A weapens? Not a lot.
Suppose it was an A2A missile, what type? What type has the characteristics which can make the damage as we see on MH17? I have not found any weapon capable. What do we know of fragments shapes and sizes of A2A weapens? Not a lot.
Shrinking of fragments by ricochet
https://www.flickr.com/photos/132949552@N05/26902500581/in/dateposted-public/
These must be ricochet. The transverse dimensions of the entry holes are much wider than the dimensions of the pieces on the exit holes on the vertical plate. Fragments will have lost half their mass?
Remember DSB report: 'Only the damage that was assessed to be the result of single objects fully penetrating the plate was taken into account.'
Ricochet jumps out the entry hole, which creates a much larger hole.
Attachment albert_lex histogram
IsThatSo // May 10, 2016 at 8:25 pm //
The question I haven’t seen addressed is how fast must a fragment rotate to affect its orientation at impact? The fragments reached MH17 in a tiny fraction of a second.
If a fragment is rotating at say 1,000 revolutions per minute and travels 5 meters at whatever effective speed then will it complete even a single revolution before striking the aircraft?
It takes energy to rotate fragments, and I doubt that AA or their predecessor would have wanted much energy lost that way. Then again, given the power of the explosive, maybe rotation doesn’t matter to a manufacturer.
IsThatSo //
May 19, 2016 at 12:09 am //
Eugene //
May 19, 2016 at 9:19 am //
IsThatSo //
May 19, 2016 at 12:09 am //
We don’t know much about fragment rotation, and I believe that we don’t need to know much.
Consider the math. Let’s assume the explosion and other forces spin the average fragment at 5,000 revolutions per minute. Assume also the fragment flies 1.5 meters at a closing speed of 2,000 meters per second before striking MH17. At that speed and distance it reaches MH17 in 0.00075 seconds. 5,000 r.p.m. is 83.33 revolutions per second. In 0.00075 seconds this fragment makes 0.0625 revolutions before striking MH17. That is only 22.5°.
Go ahead and play with the numbers. Assume a fragment rotates at 10,000 rpm and travels 3 meters at 2,000 meters per second before striking MH17. The fragment travels this distance in 0.0015 seconds. In that amount of time is has completed 1/4 of a revolution, a mere 90°.
Bottom line: A warhead with about 2,000 bow-tie shaped fragments definitely will have made bow-tie shaped holes in the skin of MH17.
Where are the bow-tie shaped holes?
Consider the math. Let’s assume the explosion and other forces spin the average fragment at 5,000 revolutions per minute. Assume also the fragment flies 1.5 meters at a closing speed of 2,000 meters per second before striking MH17. At that speed and distance it reaches MH17 in 0.00075 seconds. 5,000 r.p.m. is 83.33 revolutions per second. In 0.00075 seconds this fragment makes 0.0625 revolutions before striking MH17. That is only 22.5°.
Go ahead and play with the numbers. Assume a fragment rotates at 10,000 rpm and travels 3 meters at 2,000 meters per second before striking MH17. The fragment travels this distance in 0.0015 seconds. In that amount of time is has completed 1/4 of a revolution, a mere 90°.
Bottom line: A warhead with about 2,000 bow-tie shaped fragments definitely will have made bow-tie shaped holes in the skin of MH17.
Where are the bow-tie shaped holes?
Eugene //
May 19, 2016 at 9:19 am //
Agree. Fragments cannot spin too much so that they don’t leave a
distinctive impression. By a large margin. Even if a fragment is
accelerated by being hit at one edge only, this still will not give
enough rotation. Besides, in the AA test there are bowtie holes. There
is no reason to believe that the 6% speed increase will drastically
change the picture.
1,000 revolutions per minute is 1000/60=17 revolutions per second. Then a revolution would take 1/17=.06 seconds (from 8x8 front side to 8x8 mm front side). But we only have 0.00075 seconds. In this time a square can make .00075/.06=.0125 revolutions.
Half a revolution (from 8x8 mm front side to 8x8 mm rear side) would take 0.03 seconds. A quarter of a revolution (from 8x8 front side to the 8x6 side needs 0.06/4=.015 seconds. Sigh, that's good news. Now, we can conclude squares have about sufficient time to rotate to their 8x6 mm side in a natural way. This means for categories 6 (33) and 8 (64) to be possible (in relation to rectangle 6x8 mm) we only have to relax somewhat the no rotation assumption.
What can we conclude? In case of translations we get more of category 8 (n=64) (with some from rotation to 8x6 mm). And in case of quarter rotations we get the combined categories 6 (n=33) and 10 (n=30). Did we find the connection between categories 6 and 10? For some unconscious reason this makes sense.
In most cases we still need the following assumption:
Little squares (8x8x5MM) of old Ukrainian warhead 9N314 have insignificant mass and so their velocity vector was bent straight through the fuselage. This means the pile of category 6 cannot be caused by category 5 of this square. Category 5 is from 4.5 - 5.5. Our conclusion is the old warhead 9N314 has not been used to shoot down the MH17. This conclusion is in line with the albert_lex histogram which states: "The results of evaluation of hole sizes available in the photos suggests that the submunitions were in the form of a parallelepiped with sides 8x8x6 mm with a tolerance of +/- 0.5 mm.
Why rotations?
Warheads are made purposely to reach certain goals. There are different effects caused by the start position of ignition, in the front or in the rear. The highly esoteric and almost religious fake discussion around that 'Lancet' has also to do with it. But the co-propagating shockwave seems to be a real effect:
Also in old warheads there might be a gas-effect which can rotate squares:
[Previous design with square elements reveal a problem - square under stressing pressure start to exploding in size. As any metal - direction of this exploding depend from lowest density. Lowest density happen on edge. Cube/Square exploding on edges and become as flatten sphere. Spheres have holes for gas leaking between them, also shpere have lesser penetration. Outnormous pressure during explosion can even destroy square on a few debris which can be too small for penetrate armored targets (main idea of heavy strike elements is penetration of armored targets like close-support war plane Su-25 or A-10).]
So, we might already use a quarter rotations on the left windshields. And towards the rear of the cockpit there is more room for rotation to fill category 13 (12.8, n=4).
We only have very limited information about this disaster. But sometimes you feel you can trust somebody. I am inclined to trust the histogram of albert_lex more than that of DSB. Albert_lex has seen the holes and probably has more information. Squares passed the requirement of conditional probability, maybe different sorts of squares. I would give it a try.
If albert_lex is right and only parallelepipeds with sides 8x8x6 mm were on the scene, then we must think of the Russian warhead 9N318?
IsThatSo // April 27, 2016 at 3:18 am //
IsThatSo // April 27, 2016 at 3:18 am //
No, not a 9N318 in the context of the entire albert_lex report. The report determined the location of the warhead relative to the aircraft at the moment of detonation. Then it studied a sample of 186 holes to produce the histogram that you linked.
According to the report the warhead detonated 0.8 to 1.6 meters away from the pilot’s window. A 70 kg 9N318 warhead with 7,000 – 8,000 striking elements would have produced a narrower pattern of destruction with a higher hole count and tighter spacing between holes.
So not a 9N318 or any other Buk warhead. Albert_lex concluded it was a smaller warhead weighing 10-40 kg with fewer than 4000 striking elements. That was at a 95% confidence interval if I recall correctly.
The DSB failed to do a thorough analysis of the holes. This failure is summarized in the first two paragraphs of section 2.2 of the attachment to Oleg Storchevoy’s letter to the DSB dated 1/14/2016. Here is the attachment’s description of the DSB’s negligence regarding hole analysis:
According to the report the warhead detonated 0.8 to 1.6 meters away from the pilot’s window. A 70 kg 9N318 warhead with 7,000 – 8,000 striking elements would have produced a narrower pattern of destruction with a higher hole count and tighter spacing between holes.
So not a 9N318 or any other Buk warhead. Albert_lex concluded it was a smaller warhead weighing 10-40 kg with fewer than 4000 striking elements. That was at a 95% confidence interval if I recall correctly.
The DSB failed to do a thorough analysis of the holes. This failure is summarized in the first two paragraphs of section 2.2 of the attachment to Oleg Storchevoy’s letter to the DSB dated 1/14/2016. Here is the attachment’s description of the DSB’s negligence regarding hole analysis:
IsThatSo thanks for the explication.
I agree with this opinion. Following the Russian reports and albert_lex it cannot be a BUK. In their line of reasoning BUK is disconfirmed in relation to MH17. It is a rather convincing combination of the properties of BUK and statistics.
But it did not falsify a BUK in relation to the downing of MH17. Somewhere in a hole of reality there might be a little chance it was still a BUK. And the fact that DSB did not investigate holes in a thorough analysis is irrelevant for the cause of the crash.
http://tinyurl.com/hb28t8z
Following the requirement of conditional probability we found different sizes of diamond impressions in the fuselage. Now we might agree with albert_lex and accept different sizes all indicate the same type of square of about 8x8x6 mm. Then we accept only parallelepipeds of about 8x8x6 mm as passing the requirement of conditional probability. In that case, strictly speaking, we must still include the Russian warhead 9N318 from missile 9M317 fired with a range of 50 km from Russian territory, what of course would be a crazy scenario.
IsThatSo // April 27, 2016 at 12:37 pm //
I agree with this opinion. Following the Russian reports and albert_lex it cannot be a BUK. In their line of reasoning BUK is disconfirmed in relation to MH17. It is a rather convincing combination of the properties of BUK and statistics.
But it did not falsify a BUK in relation to the downing of MH17. Somewhere in a hole of reality there might be a little chance it was still a BUK. And the fact that DSB did not investigate holes in a thorough analysis is irrelevant for the cause of the crash.
http://tinyurl.com/hb28t8z
Following the requirement of conditional probability we found different sizes of diamond impressions in the fuselage. Now we might agree with albert_lex and accept different sizes all indicate the same type of square of about 8x8x6 mm. Then we accept only parallelepipeds of about 8x8x6 mm as passing the requirement of conditional probability. In that case, strictly speaking, we must still include the Russian warhead 9N318 from missile 9M317 fired with a range of 50 km from Russian territory, what of course would be a crazy scenario.
IsThatSo // April 27, 2016 at 12:37 pm //
Yes, strictly speaking if we accept that only parallelepipeds with sides approximately 8x8x6 mm produced the holes, then the cause could have been a 9M317 missile with a 9N318 warhead that was fired from Russian territory and that somehow produced self-contradictory evidence on the skin of the aircraft. It is indeed a crazy scenario, perfect for a BBC documentary.
IsThatSo // April 28, 2016 at 6:08 pm //
Basic Dimension and I were discussing on this page what is possible based on the conclusions of the albert_lex report. Not what is probable.
Here’s a brief recap of the conclusions of the albert_lex report:
1. Based on string analysis the warhead exploded 0.8 to 1.8 meters from the pilot’s window.
2. The distribution of hole sizes is unipolar, so the warhead contained only 1 size of submunition.
3. The submunitions were cube-shaped with 8x8x6 mm sides, give or take 0.5 mm. The minimum size was 7.5×7.5×5.5 mm. The maximum size was 8.5×8.5×6.5 mm. The minimum mass of each submunition was 2.4 g. The maximum mass of each submunition was 3.7 g. That is assuming submunitions made of steel.
4. The calculated mass of the submunitions was between 4.88 kg and 14.80 kg. At a 95% confidence interval the overall mass of the warhead was between 10 and 40 kg. There’s a 2.5% chance it was smaller than 10 kg and a 2.5% chance it was larger than 40 kg.
5. The quantity of submunitions was between 2000 and 4000.
The closer the detonation coordinates are to the aircraft the less submunition mass is needed. The albert_lex report calculates that if the detonation was 0.8 meters away then the observed damage is consistent with a submunition mass of only 4.88 kg. At double that distance (1.6 meters) the calculated submunition mass is 14.80 kg, which is 3 times as great.
The reasonable size of the warhead is very sensitive to the detonation coordinates. The closer the detonation coordinates, the more likely the Buk scenario is wrong.
Whatever missile it was, the actual warhead did not rip the aircraft to pieces all by itself. It caused an instant loss of flight control. Because of the loss of flight control the 777-200 exceeded its design limits and natural forces did the rest. It isn’t necessary for a missile warhead to rip apart a high speed target.
We concluded that if one assumes the albert_lex report is accurate then it is strictly speaking possible for MH17 to have been shot down by either a Python missile or a Buk 9M317 missile with a 9N318 warhead. We said possible, not probable. The conclusion is correct.
Here’s a brief recap of the conclusions of the albert_lex report:
1. Based on string analysis the warhead exploded 0.8 to 1.8 meters from the pilot’s window.
2. The distribution of hole sizes is unipolar, so the warhead contained only 1 size of submunition.
3. The submunitions were cube-shaped with 8x8x6 mm sides, give or take 0.5 mm. The minimum size was 7.5×7.5×5.5 mm. The maximum size was 8.5×8.5×6.5 mm. The minimum mass of each submunition was 2.4 g. The maximum mass of each submunition was 3.7 g. That is assuming submunitions made of steel.
4. The calculated mass of the submunitions was between 4.88 kg and 14.80 kg. At a 95% confidence interval the overall mass of the warhead was between 10 and 40 kg. There’s a 2.5% chance it was smaller than 10 kg and a 2.5% chance it was larger than 40 kg.
5. The quantity of submunitions was between 2000 and 4000.
The closer the detonation coordinates are to the aircraft the less submunition mass is needed. The albert_lex report calculates that if the detonation was 0.8 meters away then the observed damage is consistent with a submunition mass of only 4.88 kg. At double that distance (1.6 meters) the calculated submunition mass is 14.80 kg, which is 3 times as great.
The reasonable size of the warhead is very sensitive to the detonation coordinates. The closer the detonation coordinates, the more likely the Buk scenario is wrong.
Whatever missile it was, the actual warhead did not rip the aircraft to pieces all by itself. It caused an instant loss of flight control. Because of the loss of flight control the 777-200 exceeded its design limits and natural forces did the rest. It isn’t necessary for a missile warhead to rip apart a high speed target.
We concluded that if one assumes the albert_lex report is accurate then it is strictly speaking possible for MH17 to have been shot down by either a Python missile or a Buk 9M317 missile with a 9N318 warhead. We said possible, not probable. The conclusion is correct.
IsThatSo // April 28, 2016 at 9:52 pm //
First an error correction. I wrote “0.8 to 1.8 meters”, but the actual range of dimensions in the albert_lex report is 0.8 to 1.6 meters.
“albert_lex reported about 2000-4000 fragments of 3 gram. With 2000 fragments the fragments would weigh 6 kg. That leaves 5 kg for the explosives.”
In section 4.3.1 the report cites a range of sizes and weights:
7.5×7.5×5.5 mm weighing 2.4 g. 2000 of them would weigh 4.8 kg.
8x8x6 mm weighing 3 g. 2000 of them would weigh 6 kg. as you noted.
8.5×8.5×6.5 weighing 3.7 g. 2000 of them would weigh 7.4 kg. 4000 of them would weigh 14.8 kg.
7.5×7.5×5.5 mm weighing 2.4 g. 2000 of them would weigh 4.8 kg.
8x8x6 mm weighing 3 g. 2000 of them would weigh 6 kg. as you noted.
8.5×8.5×6.5 weighing 3.7 g. 2000 of them would weigh 7.4 kg. 4000 of them would weigh 14.8 kg.
Although the report specified 2000 to 4000 fragments it specifies a maximum quantity of 3650 in section 4.3.2. The minimum size isn’t specified, but considering Figure 16 it appears the calculated minimum is 2350.
“Also, judging by the stringing, the warhead exploded around 2,5 meters from the cockpit. It would require over 14,80 kg of submunition.”
If the warhead exploded 2.5 meters from the cockpit then far more than 14.8 kg of submunition would be required to produce the observed hole damage. The explosion coordinates are absolutely critical! Albert_lex calculated 0.8 to 1.6 meters based on a quantity of 6 tangential (grazing) strikes in section 4.2.1. The explosion coordinates need very careful attention. Are there known tangential strikes that albert_lex didn’t use? Or did albert_lex draw the lines incorrectly? This is an area where your future Python article should go into significant detail.
A Python article will force you to address both technical and political considerations. The starting point for the political evaluation is whether the event was an accident or a false flag. If it was an accident then the choices narrow down to either Ukraine or separatists. If it was a false flag then the pool of suspects is larger and you have to consider qui bono (who profits?). The conflict was and is far larger than Ukraine vs. separatists. There is way more at stake than a small chunk of eastern Ukraine. We don’t know whether it was accident or false flag, but we do know that the cover-up has been extensive. The cover-up points to a false flag although not with certainty.
When you include a false flag motive, as I believe you must, then it becomes harder to label the Python scenario as nonsense. The best way to “kill” the Python scenario is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the explosion occurred farther than 1 meter from the cockpit.
Eugene // May 16, 2016 at 2:40 am //
http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr
We must understand to be manipulated by the ever during Bellingcat narrative, which only purpose is to send the public astray.
We better show precisely where BUKs are not confirmed and what Buk-warheads are disconfirmed or even falsified.
We must start with the corpus delicti, the wreckage with the impact holes, and not let us be distracted by false tracks that are placed on the internet by Bellingcat.
We must understand even if Bellingcat is right with his Buk through Donetsk, then the connection with the downing of the MH17 is not confirmed or already falsified. We must not disqualify his BUK narrative, but he must prove separatists or Russians have put a relatively modern warhead 9N314M on the very old BUK-missile 9M38. So, we must change our strategy.
– Which BUK-warhead might pass the requirements for conditional probability of passing the fuselage of the MH17? This we conclude from the histogram of albert_lex. Then only warhead 9N314M meets this standard; 9N314 is falsified and 9N318 is not confirmed.
Remember this histogram only confirms the profile of warhead 9N314M and not the warhead itself, for more warheads can have the same profile. I think about small SAM or A2A. But not A2A with squares and rods.
Some conclusions:
– Old warhead 9N314 in combination with the very outdated missile 9M38 is falsified completely by the histogram, missing category 6.
– Then, what is the likelihood the separatists had engineers available to put the relatively new 9N314M on the very old 9M38? And for what reason? This is a completely unconfirmed scenario, a complete nonsense scenario; it might possibly work for Ukraine but not for separatists or Russians. This, Bellingcat has to prove in the first place.
– Because BUK-missile 9M38 with warhead 9N314M used by separatists or Russians is extremely unlikely, this line of research of Bellingcat has no connection with the alleged bowties of DSB.
– By the way bowties allegedly found in the bodies of the crew are not confirmed, the bowtie of RTL is almost completely falsified by Admin.
– If bowties are falsified and it still must be warhead 9N314, because it has to be a BUK, then this is already falsified by albert_lex, missing category 6.
– Then it must be the modern Russian 9N318 on BUK-missile 9M317, which is very unlikely and almost falsified by the histogram of albert_lex, because the width of 8x8x6.5 mm is not structural in the sample. Albert_lex found 8x8x6 mm +/- 0.5 mm. If squares of 8x8x6.5 were found categorically then we would not expect lots of width 6, because a rib cannot be smaller than 6.5. Then albert_lex would have spoken about squares of 8x8x6.5 mm. I agree we are not fully informed about the raw data of albert_lex. We need all the raw data available.
– What I want to say is we must work from the wreckage to the scenario and let Bellingcat try the other way around. But in the end he always has to disprove above impossibilities.
And this is just one element of the long list of unconfirmed and falsified BUK results.
http://tinyurl.com/oqwc6qr
We must understand to be manipulated by the ever during Bellingcat narrative, which only purpose is to send the public astray.
We better show precisely where BUKs are not confirmed and what Buk-warheads are disconfirmed or even falsified.
We must start with the corpus delicti, the wreckage with the impact holes, and not let us be distracted by false tracks that are placed on the internet by Bellingcat.
We must understand even if Bellingcat is right with his Buk through Donetsk, then the connection with the downing of the MH17 is not confirmed or already falsified. We must not disqualify his BUK narrative, but he must prove separatists or Russians have put a relatively modern warhead 9N314M on the very old BUK-missile 9M38. So, we must change our strategy.
– Which BUK-warhead might pass the requirements for conditional probability of passing the fuselage of the MH17? This we conclude from the histogram of albert_lex. Then only warhead 9N314M meets this standard; 9N314 is falsified and 9N318 is not confirmed.
Remember this histogram only confirms the profile of warhead 9N314M and not the warhead itself, for more warheads can have the same profile. I think about small SAM or A2A. But not A2A with squares and rods.
Some conclusions:
– Old warhead 9N314 in combination with the very outdated missile 9M38 is falsified completely by the histogram, missing category 6.
– Then, what is the likelihood the separatists had engineers available to put the relatively new 9N314M on the very old 9M38? And for what reason? This is a completely unconfirmed scenario, a complete nonsense scenario; it might possibly work for Ukraine but not for separatists or Russians. This, Bellingcat has to prove in the first place.
– Because BUK-missile 9M38 with warhead 9N314M used by separatists or Russians is extremely unlikely, this line of research of Bellingcat has no connection with the alleged bowties of DSB.
– By the way bowties allegedly found in the bodies of the crew are not confirmed, the bowtie of RTL is almost completely falsified by Admin.
– If bowties are falsified and it still must be warhead 9N314, because it has to be a BUK, then this is already falsified by albert_lex, missing category 6.
– Then it must be the modern Russian 9N318 on BUK-missile 9M317, which is very unlikely and almost falsified by the histogram of albert_lex, because the width of 8x8x6.5 mm is not structural in the sample. Albert_lex found 8x8x6 mm +/- 0.5 mm. If squares of 8x8x6.5 were found categorically then we would not expect lots of width 6, because a rib cannot be smaller than 6.5. Then albert_lex would have spoken about squares of 8x8x6.5 mm. I agree we are not fully informed about the raw data of albert_lex. We need all the raw data available.
– What I want to say is we must work from the wreckage to the scenario and let Bellingcat try the other way around. But in the end he always has to disprove above impossibilities.
And this is just one element of the long list of unconfirmed and falsified BUK results.
Basic Dimension // May 16, 2016 at 11:38 am //
In case warhead 9N314M (bowties) was used by separatists or Russians in combination with more modern BUK-missile 9M38M1, this must be proven in the first place. Then, if proven, remains a hurdle to prove the profile of 9N314M (bowties) in the MH17.
This is one of the problems for bowties in the albert_lex histogram:
Because of 0.00075 seconds flying time, fragments in the albert_lex histogram are determined by translations and quarter-rotations. Translations make 8×8 mm impacts of squares most probable. Quarter rotations make 8×6 mm side impacts likely:
http://tinyurl.com/hn25huv
Quarter rotations are disadvantageous for bowties with their rounded corners because they are not fully corrected by this proposed principle working for squares with right angles:
They might easily land on their rounded corners and do not come on their quarter side (13×8.2 mm), because this causes an additional rotation in the hole:
http://tinyurl.com/zht48cb
So, for bowties quarter rotations force unpredictable additional rotations:
http://tinyurl.com/hanjk82
This makes bowties are normally distributed around categorie 13 at the expense of score 13.
Explanation:
1,000 revolutions per minute is 1000/60=17 revolutions per second. Then a revolution would take 1/17=.06 seconds (from 8×8 front side to 8×8 mm front side). But we only have 0.00075 seconds. In this time a square can make .00075/.06=.0125 revolutions.
Half a revolution (from 8×8 mm front side to 8×8 mm rear side) would take 0.03 seconds. A quarter of a revolution (from 8×8 front side to the 8×6 side needs 0.06/4=.015 seconds. Sigh, that’s good news. Now, we can conclude squares have about sufficient time to rotate to their 8×6 mm side in a natural way. This means for categories 6 (33) and 8 (64) to be possible (in relation to rectangle 6×8 mm) we only have to relax somewhat the no rotation assumption.
IsThatSo //
May 19, 2016 at 12:09 am //
Eugene //
May 19, 2016 at 9:19 am //
In case warhead 9N314M (bowties) was used by separatists or Russians in combination with more modern BUK-missile 9M38M1, this must be proven in the first place. Then, if proven, remains a hurdle to prove the profile of 9N314M (bowties) in the MH17.
This is one of the problems for bowties in the albert_lex histogram:
Because of 0.00075 seconds flying time, fragments in the albert_lex histogram are determined by translations and quarter-rotations. Translations make 8×8 mm impacts of squares most probable. Quarter rotations make 8×6 mm side impacts likely:
http://tinyurl.com/hn25huv
Quarter rotations are disadvantageous for bowties with their rounded corners because they are not fully corrected by this proposed principle working for squares with right angles:
They might easily land on their rounded corners and do not come on their quarter side (13×8.2 mm), because this causes an additional rotation in the hole:
http://tinyurl.com/zht48cb
So, for bowties quarter rotations force unpredictable additional rotations:
http://tinyurl.com/hanjk82
This makes bowties are normally distributed around categorie 13 at the expense of score 13.
Explanation:
1,000 revolutions per minute is 1000/60=17 revolutions per second. Then a revolution would take 1/17=.06 seconds (from 8×8 front side to 8×8 mm front side). But we only have 0.00075 seconds. In this time a square can make .00075/.06=.0125 revolutions.
Half a revolution (from 8×8 mm front side to 8×8 mm rear side) would take 0.03 seconds. A quarter of a revolution (from 8×8 front side to the 8×6 side needs 0.06/4=.015 seconds. Sigh, that’s good news. Now, we can conclude squares have about sufficient time to rotate to their 8×6 mm side in a natural way. This means for categories 6 (33) and 8 (64) to be possible (in relation to rectangle 6×8 mm) we only have to relax somewhat the no rotation assumption.
IsThatSo //
May 19, 2016 at 12:09 am //
We don’t know much about fragment rotation, and I believe that we don’t need to know much.
Consider the math. Let’s assume the explosion and other forces spin the average fragment at 5,000 revolutions per minute. Assume also the fragment flies 1.5 meters at a closing speed of 2,000 meters per second before striking MH17. At that speed and distance it reaches MH17 in 0.00075 seconds. 5,000 r.p.m. is 83.33 revolutions per second. In 0.00075 seconds this fragment makes 0.0625 revolutions before striking MH17. That is only 22.5°.
Go ahead and play with the numbers. Assume a fragment rotates at 10,000 rpm and travels 3 meters at 2,000 meters per second before striking MH17. The fragment travels this distance in 0.0015 seconds. In that amount of time is has completed 1/4 of a revolution, a mere 90°.
Bottom line: A warhead with about 2,000 bow-tie shaped fragments definitely will have made bow-tie shaped holes in the skin of MH17.
Where are the bow-tie shaped holes?
Consider the math. Let’s assume the explosion and other forces spin the average fragment at 5,000 revolutions per minute. Assume also the fragment flies 1.5 meters at a closing speed of 2,000 meters per second before striking MH17. At that speed and distance it reaches MH17 in 0.00075 seconds. 5,000 r.p.m. is 83.33 revolutions per second. In 0.00075 seconds this fragment makes 0.0625 revolutions before striking MH17. That is only 22.5°.
Go ahead and play with the numbers. Assume a fragment rotates at 10,000 rpm and travels 3 meters at 2,000 meters per second before striking MH17. The fragment travels this distance in 0.0015 seconds. In that amount of time is has completed 1/4 of a revolution, a mere 90°.
Bottom line: A warhead with about 2,000 bow-tie shaped fragments definitely will have made bow-tie shaped holes in the skin of MH17.
Where are the bow-tie shaped holes?
Eugene //
May 19, 2016 at 9:19 am //
Agree. Fragments cannot spin too much so that they don’t leave a
distinctive impression. By a large margin. Even if a fragment is
accelerated by being hit at one edge only, this still will not give
enough rotation. Besides, in the AA test there are bowtie holes. There
is no reason to believe that the 6% speed increase will drastically
change the picture.
Eugene // May 16, 2016 at 8:01 pm //
I think Eugene is right and we must not worry about how the assumed
SAM or A2A were brought to the plane. Now we must collect warheads with
squares and without rods. If we cannot find them we must not try to
construct a logical scenario for the last BUK warhead, from which only
the profile passed the test: 9N314M. Nothing from 9N314M self past the
test, nothing is proven so far.
It is to be expected SAM or A2A passing the test of conditional
probability but not yet detected by the internet will be kept strictly
secret. Then we must accept a dead end in our investigation without
embracing the dubious warhead 9N314M to get at least one scenario.
Whistleblowers will give the right answers in the future.
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attibution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.
Suppose it was an A2A missile, what type? What type has the characteristics which can make the damage as we see on MH17?
I have not found any weapon capable. What do we know of fragments shapes and sizes of A2A weapens? Not a lot.
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence which shows a BUK is not likely. But this is not common knowledge and in the public debate it has no status. It is also too complicated. Therefore, it is important to reformulate all arguments in a simple way so that people will understand. Most importantly, we must make a statement just at this moment of the MH17 investigation. It must be before JIT comes in summer with all kinds of allegations concerning the use of BUK. If we succeed to relativize or even refute the role of BUK then whistle blowers likely will give us the right types of SAM or A2A sooner or later. That is not our task, not at this moment of time.