Sunday, 1 January 2017

MH17: BUK AS BATTERING RAM


Basic Dimension








JayDi // July 7, 2016 at 1:06 pm // Reply

It need some time to tear off base parts of aircraft:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzlAtqdRmik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdF5IbsWgMY


See A-A experiment: BUK can’t damage aircraft frame.


Has a BUK torpedoed the MH17. Maybe, 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 yet. 

On the other hand we have the total disintegration of the plane within 1 to 3 seconds which is very difficult to explain. But it might be the aircraft broke down on the edges of the compartments as the weakest parts of the plane (ST655 and STA888).

Further 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 the remains must lie a few kilometers back from the last FDR. 

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


MH17: BUK AS BATTERING RAM

Before the proximity fuse we had the contact fuse which allowed the warhead to explode on the target. Now we already know the missile detonated just in front of the MH17. But remember, the new height of albert_lex and a lot of internet scientists is very critical:

http://tinyurl.com/gtfd2uq




http://tinyurl.com/hb28t8z




From the wreckage we miss the cockpit completely from the upper left side just as big parts of the forward upper fuselage:

http://tinyurl.com/j4j96uc



We know BUK has not been developed for mega planes but for missiles and small fighter jets. We also know the newly agreed height of detonation could have severe consequences for the BUK as battering ramAre we sure BUK did not detonate its fuse within 1.5 meter from the cockpit and somewhat later torpedoed the left side just before the fragments reached the upper side of the cockpit?







What could be the evidence for this scenario:

- We found no butterflies in the hull of the cockpit, and there are missing butterflies in the windshields which could be caused by the slower speed of heavy fragments as bowties (red):

 http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq





-  Then, some early bowties could have entered the cockpit a very fraction of a millisecond later than BUK and got free entrance into the body of the captain of team A.

- A foreign (rocket) part is found in the frame of the cockpit:

http://tinyurl.com/je4qn6y






-  I think by stringing, the impact of fragments has been measured accurately from the supposed and corrected point of detonation. But the angle of the missile itself is relatively undetermined. The missile may have been launched somewhat more from the north of Snizhne and otherwise we do not know exactly the approach mechanism of the proximity fuse. Maybe it tacked the plane, approaching from the left side beneath Snizhne but possibly it made a too strong correction and turned back into the fuselage of the mega plane:

http://tinyurl.com/jzwyw7m





Now, for the requirement of conditional probability this all means there are no butterflies to be expected in the left side of the cockpit and in the forward upper fuselage. This simply because the battering ram was earlier or ruined the holes.


Eugene123 // May 30, 2016 at 7:16 am // Reply
BUK strike elements are very high speed. Metal fragments struck the aeroplane at a speed of 4,500 – 9,000 km/h (Appendix N). You can’t make ragged edges of holes as MH17 at so high speed.

Little squares (8x8x5) are faster than bowties (13x13x8.2) and could have been found below the left windshields. But then also we might have expected butterflies somewhat later amidst the holes on the roof of the forward fuselage from which we have only pictures. 

Last but not least and following albert_lex we cannot falsify the profile of 9N314M, while we definitely falsified 9N314 and 9N318:


http://tinyurl.com/jbhtfau









So, maybe we must upgrade our pictures of Almaz-Antey with the old coordinates of DSB:


http://tinyurl.com/jjmxkba





http://tinyurl.com/j3dly28




http://tinyurl.com/hcs3ux9






Then we also understand the following:


Breaking off the cockpit

The cockpit of the Boeing 777 has no self-supporting structure. In the air it needs iron bars to stay upright, just like this model which is only for illustration:



If we propose the lower half of the cockpit is the heaviest, then the green bars bear most of the cockpit attached to the fuselage: 




So, if these green beams break at the red points, the cockpit collapses with its nose a bit down. If the plane has a speed of 905 km/h and there is a lot of drag then the fuselage breaks off the cockpit by pressing relatively upwards:




















Falling time to the ground

The BUK missile must have been launched at around 16:19:33 local Ukraine time. MH17 likely was destroyed at 16:20:03 as the FDR and CVR stopped recording from this point. Flight time should be about 30 seconds. 90 seconds until main debris hit the ground (DSB calculated 60-90 sec. And the main debris was last). Speed of the airplane was 905 km/h, at 10 km altitude. With 905 km/60= 15 km per minute. The falling speed is ultimately 200 km / h. Within one minute the plane crashed on the ground. 90 sec for the main debris with drag from the wings. But according to Hector 60-90 seconds estimate time for falling to the main crash site is very short – free fall is 45 secs. 2 minutes is more like it, but people on this blog first said 3-5 minutes.

Liane: 1.5 minutes is ludicrous. It would mean he took the pic before the plane fell on the ground. 60-90 seconds estimate time for falling to the main crash site is very short – free fall is 45 secs. 2 minutes is more like it, but people on this blog first said 3-5 minutes.


Remember, BUK missiles from Zaroshchenske (South) or from the other side (North) cannot have drilled themselves into the MH17, because at the same time their fragments had to go through the windshields. These BUKs stood in front of the plane and were perpendicular on the azimuth of the MH17.

This means the head-on scenario from Snizhne has much more explanatory power for the downing of the MH17, because only then the BUK can serve as a battering ram. And what is the momentum of a 690 kg 9M38M1 BUK missile with a velocity of 600 m/s?

Up till now the impact of the missile on the cockpit and the forward upper fuselage is completely unpredictable, which means part of the missile might have ricochet and have hit the left engine.

So, only by postulating the BUK missile as a battering ram we created a completely different set of requirements for conditional probability. Now, we can tunnel our vision completely into what we have found, or better into what we have not found.

We legitimized the omission of bowtie holes, we explained the rocket part in the left engine, we explained the immediate collapse of the cockpit and we explained the disappearance of all parts where the missile entered the plane. Only the pictures of the roof plates better had to show at least some bowties.

Is there perhaps a methodological dilemma? Of course there is, because now we must first prove the BUK missile as a battering ram.

The foreign (rocket) part found in the frame of the cockpit was only the result of the detonation, not of the battering ram. And the alleged rocket part in the engine ring can only be caused by the BUK which first must be proven as a battering ram. So we have no proof.

And if we cannot prove the battering ram, then this is just another unproven scenario. But remember every scenario can be the impetus for the next one. Maybe the battering ram gives a launch from Snizhne more credibility. Maybe we do not need A2A and little SAMs any longer in a desperate attempt to explain this assault.


 Basic Dimension // May 28, 2016 at 8:58 am //


CONSTRUCTION KIND OF PROOF LAUNCH FROM SNIZHNE

We postulate the following premise:

An A2A or even a BUK warhead of 70 kg is unable to separate the cockpit from a mega plane immediately after impact.

By the way this has been proven already by Almaz-Antey with the IL-86:





The immediate separation of cockpit and fuselage can be backed up by the following facts. We can calculate exactly the path to the ground of the cockpit from the following pictures. This shows us the cockpit must have been separated from the fuselage instantly:

http://tinyurl.com/hfoj5ps





http://tinyurl.com/z4xjn4v








http://tinyurl.com/jgsrk5g




– The cockpit was found near Rozsypne AT 2.5 KM FROM the last FDR point which means it must have been broken from the fuselage immediately after impact. The speed of the plane was 905 km/h and the trajectory to the ground was 10 km. Then the cockpit must have been fallen as deadweight without much drag to the ground instantly.

– The crashsite of Petropavlivka is LESS THEN 1 km from last FDR point, which fall has to be corrected for strong winds and drag. But after a missile impact into the cockpit we never expect the forward fuselage to fall down immediately:

Petropavlivka – flight deck window with shrapnel damage, both forward door frames, overhead bins, engine pod parts, lower forward cargo floor.

Petropavlivka (just north of town) – forward fuselage wall and roof and upper fuselage skin.

In sequence:

1: Upper Fuselage Skin.
2: Forward Fuselage Roof.
3: Forward Fuselage Wall.
4: Lower Forward Cargo Floor.
5: Flight Deck Window Cutout
6: Overhead Bins.
7: Left Hand Door Frame.
8: Right Hand Door Frame.
9: Overhead Bins.
10: Engine Pod Parts.

Also we know it must be seen as totally impossible any missile can turn off all communication from this mega plane in 20 milliseconds:

http://tinyurl.com/josbev4



Theoretically, only the physical confrontation between a BUK of 690 kg with a velocity of 600 m/s and the MH17 is able to establish these facts. Lighter SAM and A2A are excluded because they cannot generate enough forward momentum.

The takeoff weight of the MH17 at Schiphol was 278691 kg and velocity was 905 km/h:

http://tinyurl.com/h6b7utv



If we can prove the power needed to separate the cockpit from the fuselage physically can be brought up only by BUK as a battering ram, then we have set a major step in making acceptable a BUK must have been launched from Snizhne, since no other launch site can combine fragments shot straight through the windshields and the missile successively torpedoing the plane.


 IsThatSo // May 28, 2016 at 12:05 pm //


If a missile as massive as a Buk torpedoed MH17 as you have described, then would you expect to find physical evidence such as rocket debris in the bodies of the passengers?



 Basic Dimension // May 28, 2016 at 1:27 pm //


IsThatSo // May 28, 2016 at 12:05 pm //

Yes, indeed, but it depends on where the missile impacted the Boeing. We need to find the weakest part of the construction where it can break off the cockpit easily from the fuselage. That must be the place. I do not know if there were any passengers. Apparently not. But the missile itself did not explode; hence the parts did not necessarily spread through the victims.

And remember, just where the missile allegedly impacted, all cockpit and forward fuselage is gone, and that is very weird. This would not happen normally. And indeed, if those parts of the wreckage would ever be found also we found the missile.

So, our new complot theory is the missile must have been removed by the party which did not want investigators to explore the crashsite. Yes, the party who shot down the MH17 must have cleared the scene from the missile. That’s why it took them half a year. Of course, and then they placed the detonation point so absurd high that the public got the impression this missile disappeared in nowhere’s land.



















Circuit board fell a few km north from where cockpit landed, also some light engine cover debris fell there. The rest of engines flew 6…8km to east.

(Circuit board is part of the electronics in the nose of the BUK)


Basic Dimension // May 29, 2016 at 4:14 pm //           

WHO HIDES THE COCKPIT AND THE FORWARD FUSELAGE?

[Land where cockpit was found was cordoned off by separatists for two days]

[Officials investigating the incident believe large parts of the cockpit and every part of the fuselage were carried off questioning why such important pieces of evidence were tampered with.]

Evicence-tampering on an industrial scale
( Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott) 

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/legitimate-questions-and-answers/

In the same interview Michael Bociurkiw said something else interesting. 
Going almost daily to the cockpit scene that has been at its stark the way in terms how it has been changed. When we first arrived there again a horrifying substantion of death the cockpit appears to have slammed down to earth. It was pretty much intact. Over the days we have seen that the piece of cockpit kind of spread out like this (spreading out gesture). Day two I believe it was there were actually many men hacking into with a power saw. They could have been actively in body recovery or human remains recovery we do not know. But even since then I would say in the last three days it has been spread out even more.

http://tinyurl.com/guxmly9




7. Why were people using power saws cutting large parts of the aircraft?
Many reports in the press of uniformed people cutting the aircraft with heavy equipment. Parts are reported to have been removed. Some parts of the aircraft were used as a check point by the rebels. 
A reason could be the rescue team were looking for bodies. Another reason could be to get rid of evidence. More on this here. and on the Daily Mail. ABC news has a video.

[Two days ago they observed that the cockpit section and part of first class were being cut into with a diesel power saw by uniformed men.]

"After the crime comes the cover-up," Australian prime minister Abbott  was quoted by the Guardian as saying.


A touching picture:

I have reached the conclusion that we don’t know a missile which is able to separate the cockpit from a huge passenger plane as the Boeing-777 within seconds. The latter is a fact!

Even the 70 kg warhead of a BUK will not succeed. To me it seems it is only the physical power of the momentum of a very heavy missile in combination with its warhead that could have split the cockpit from the fuselage instantly. Then a BUK of 690 kg is the only candidate:

http://tinyurl.com/j7jazo2







We have circumstantial evidence which proves and disproves BUK.
For example a detonation point of 1.6-1.8 meters from the cockpit must give a much more saturated fragmentary pattern on the wreckage if a BUK:

http://tinyurl.com/z5hksdu




On the other hand, we are sure an A2A or a small SAM definitely will not separate the cockpit.
And if I must choose between the diluted pattern of fragments or the split cockpit, then I would decide a BUK. The problem is I cannot prove a BUK split the cockpit. Not yet, but I want JIT to interrogate these 5 identifiable men in Donetsk:

http://tinyurl.com/guxmly9




7. Why were people using power saws cutting large parts of the aircraft?
Many reports in the press of uniformed people cutting the aircraft with heavy equipment. Parts are reported to have been removed. Some parts of the aircraft were used as a check point by the rebels. A reason could be the rescue team were looking for bodies. Another reason could be to get rid of evidence. More on this here. and on the Daily Mail. ABC news has a video.

[Two days ago they observed that the COCKPIT SECTION AND PART OF THE FIRST CLASS were being cut into with a diesel power saw by uniformed men.]

“After the crime comes the cover-up,” Australian prime minister Abbott was quoted by the Guardian as saying.

http://tinyurl.com/hdsjo2s





So remember, in case someone proves an A2A or a small warhead, he cannot prove the separation of the cockpit from the fuselage in a few seconds.

RESUME



MH17: BUK AS BATTERING RAM









Before the proximity fuse we had the contact fuse which allowed the warhead to explode on the target. But we already know the missile detonated 1.6-1.8m just in front of the MH17. But remember, the new and lowered height by albert_lex and a lot of internet scientists is critical:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9abQEIv3w5U/VoOsfTmmhgI/AAAAAAAAOg4/6H4FeD9W_rc/s1600/Almaz-Antey%2B%2528825%252C1%2529.png

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UwWSWxZQ3_U/VxNG74qJ9AI/AAAAAAAAPoI/h8YXuzU52Q0UE5MnvTPFJR0_aP2U01tHgCLcB/s1600/Almaz-Antey%2B%2528165%252C2%2529.png

From the wreckage we completely miss the upper left side of the cockpit and big parts of the forward upper fuselage:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jKg9EqUZ8Jo/V0gDCoPduAI/AAAAAAAAQkU/0CT1Lrv9TugrwitAm_tlQ1TrTdsy5eL0QCLcB/s1600/Almaz-Antey%2B%25282140%2529.png

We know BUK has not been developed for mega planes but for missiles and small fighter jets. We also know the newly agreed lowered height of detonation could have had severe consequences for the BUK as a battering ramAre we sure BUK did not detonate its fuse within 1.6 meter from the cockpit and somewhat later torpedoed the left side just before the fragments reached the upper side of the cockpit? Definitely not, on the contrary:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-j9RVhfZYrm8/V0gGP_txsfI/AAAAAAAAQkg/sLAd3ZoC7LQuiPo_RqW7yhCndctPZB09wCLcB/s1600/Almaz-Antey%2B%2528825%252C2%2529.png

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v-J8xwsoFbk/V0rHAyGq0CI/AAAAAAAAQps/4iuMEF8bqY8l6rA3D9D20XEQMJPMaoTgACLcB/s1600/Almaz-Antey%2B%2528620%252C2%252C5%2529.png

But only a BUK from Snizhne could have disappeared into the MH17. And only from Snizhne the cockpit would have been separated from the fuselage within seconds. A BUK from Zaroshchenske flew orthogonal to the azimuth of the MH17 to be able to fire fragments through the windshield. This all would be a strong indication for Snizhne as the launch site.

What could be the evidence for this scenario:

- We found no butterflies (bowtie impressions) in the hull of the cockpit (red color), and in the windshields we found only lighter and faster fragments (blue color): 

-  Then, early bowties could have entered the cockpit a very fraction of a millisecond later than the BUK-missile and so got free entrance into the body of the captain of team A. Or the invading missile destroyed all butterflies already on the cockpit hull.


-  I think by stringing (i.e. plastic pipes from impact hole to detonation point)  the impact of fragments has been measured accurately. But the angle of the missile itself is relatively undetermined:

The missile may have been launched somewhat more from the north of Snizhne and otherwise we do not know exactly the approach mechanism of the proximity fuse. Maybe it tacked the plane, approaching from the left side beneath Snizhne but possibly made a too strong correction and turned back into the fuselage of the mega plane:

Now, for the requirement of conditional probability this all means there need no butterflies be found anymore in the left side of the cockpit and in the forward upper fuselage. They are not needed for proof of warhead 9N314M (bowties), simply because the battering ram was earlier or later ruined it all the holes. 

But if this theory is correct we still would expect some butterflies among the holes on the roof of the forward fuselage from which we have only some pictures. But they were not found.


New pictures:

So, maybe we must upgrade our pictures of Almaz-Antey and remove the old coordinates of DSB:




Only then we will understand the following:

Breaking off the cockpit

The cockpit of the Boeing 777 has no self-supporting structure. In the air it needs iron bars to stay upright, just like this model which is only for illustration:

If we propose the lower half of the cockpit is the heaviest, then the green bars bear most of the cockpit attached to the fuselage: 

So, if these green beams break at the red points, the cockpit collapses with its nose a bit down. If the plane has a speed of 905 km/h and there is a lot of drag then the fuselage breaks off the cockpit by pressing relatively upwards:


I think this is the only way the cockpit can break off within seconds. I think this is strong evidence for a BUK from Snizhne.



WHO HIDES THE COCKPIT AND THE FORWARD FUSELAGE?

[Land where cockpit was found was cordoned off by separatists for two days.]

[Officials investigating the incident believe large parts of the cockpit and every part of the fuselage were carried off questioning why such important pieces of evidence were tampered with.]

[Evicence-tampering on an industrial scale]

( Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott) 


These identifiable men must be interrogated by JIT. What were their motives and what they have taken away from the crash site?






cc-by-nc-sa





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

No comments:

Post a Comment