Sunday, 1 January 2017

MH17: Falsifying 9N314M by RF

Basic Dimension





                MH17: Falsifying 9N314M by RF


January 22, 2016.
Independent blog.


http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=284722224&access_key=key-qtfE8MB3HxMrZ1r7qtZI


http://www.favt.ru/novosti-novosti/?id=2311
http://tinyurl.com/hcvjg6g


Almaz-Antey made a methodological error and must repeat their practical experiment of bowties shot through aluminum. Their fault is they erroneously combined the results of loss of weight of bowties from the blast on the written-off-IL86 airliner with the bombardment on the 5 aluminum plates. Moreover the last experiment failed in methodological sense.


The Russian static tests of A-A must be split into two parts.

1: The most important investigation is on the written-off IL-86 airliner. This is the best controlled static experiment matching the dynamic situation of MH17. From this experiment we need the total number and the average weight of bowties and their standard deviation. Then we see how significant the alleged bowties of MH17 differ from the average weight of bowties in the IL-86 airliner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG0Bi_wf7JM
http://tinyurl.com/hptearr





In the second test all plates were blown away in the shock wave.

http://tinyurl.com/jffgh6t





Hopefully the blast causing the speed of bowties was quicker than the shock wave. 

http://tinyurl.com/gumlcc4






Brendan
In the Almaz-Antey experiment with the plates of aluminum, we saw the blast of shrapnel seems earlier than the pressure wave:
http://tinyurl.com/gumlcc4
http://tinyurl.com/jffgh6t
But looking at the holes in this piece of wreckage it seems the pressure wave came before the blast with shrapnel. Since bigger squares are made with already impressed aluminum than the square exactly on 228.5:
http://tinyurl.com/hzcy85w
Or the hot hole has been widened by the pressure wave coming later? So what is faster, the shock wave or the transport of shrapnel?

 Liane Theuer // April 10, 2016 at 11:40 pm //
“So what is faster, the shock wave or the transport of shrapnel?”
The shock wave on a short distance. The greater the distance the more likely the fragments overtake the shockwave.

===================

MH17: SHOCK WAVE LIKELY BROKE UP THE MH17


SPEEDS OF MH17, MISSILE, SHOCK WAVE, SOUND AND FRAGMENTS:

- MH17 was traveling 915 km/h = 255 m/s = 0.255 m/millisecond

- BUK missile speed = 600 m/s (1 m = .0016 sec).

- Speed of shock wave unknown but faster than fragments (2000 m/s).

- Fragments go 2000 m/s = 2 m/millisecond = 1 m in 0.0005 seconds. So, fragments of warhead reached the MH17 already in 0.0005 seconds.

- Speed of sound in very cold air is about 300 m/sec = 0.300 m/millisecond.

- The sound of the detonation reached the plane in 0.0033 seconds (0.0033x300=1m)


- In this post we suppose the warhead detonated at a distance of 1 meter from the plane. Then in 0.004 seconds (4 x 0.255 = 1.02 m) the MH17 reached the earlier position of the warhead.

Note: After detonation the MH17 went forward with 255 m/s and reached the earlier position of the missile in 0.0039 seconds, which constant must be subtracted evenly from all speeds (0.0039 x 0.255 = 1 m)

In this analysis the BUK missile is positioned very close to the windshields of the cockpit. We think of about 1 meter. 

CONCLUSIONS FROM A DETONATING WARHEAD AT 1 METER FROM THE MH17:

- The shock wave reached the MH17 earlier than fragments in less than 0.0005 seconds.
-  Fragments of warhead reached the MH17 in 0.0005 seconds.
- The sound of the blast by detonation reached the MH17 in 0.0033 seconds. 

Note: The sound of the shock wave on the first sound peak is only received by CAM.
The sound of casing parts impacting the cockpit is received by all microphones. This sound factually is the combined factor of casing parts, primary fragments and the crashing missile.

Note: Casing parts are launched before primary fragments like bow-ties, fillers and squares, which in turn impacted before the crash of the BUK against the cockpit.

RANKING THE IMPACTS:

1: Shock waves are the fastest (> 2000 m/s).
2: Then follows fragments from the casing of the warhead (2000 m/s).
3: Primary fragments follow casing parts in time (2000 m/s).
4: Co-propagating shock waves follow primary fragments (> 2000 m/s).


5: Sound waves in cold air are not important (300 m/sec) .

===================

Fortunately plates were numbered. From inspection of the number of holes in the first plate (plates 1.0-1.5) we find the maximum amount of shrapnel pierced through aluminum. Then we want to know how many shrapnel elements succeeded to pierce the second plate, etc. We are very interested in the rank order.

http://tinyurl.com/jtsw2pe





In the YouTube film it is said all bowties were gathered. That's fine but they were blown everywhere and we do not know how many plates individual shrapnel has pierced.

If most bowties pierced most plates we accept the average weight of bowties as after piercing all plates. If not we may use all kinds of estimation formulas to estimate the total effect on plates. But that would unwise.

Since, if bowties allegedly found in MH17 significantly differ from the static test on the IL-86 then the RF is almost there. Then they must be prepared to repeat the test with the aluminum plates. Then they must perform three separate tests with massive aluminum plates of respectively 4 mm, 6 mm and 8 mm thickness. This time the plates must be very stable and must not be blown away. Bowties in the wooden construction must not be counted. If bowties can pierce these plates without substantial loss of weight, then the bowtie hypothesis of MH17 is not confirmed. It might even be seen as falsified. Depending on earlier specified interactions. This test must be controlled by independent scientists.

Remarks: 

- In Dutch parliament a delegation of DSB spoke condescendingly to A-A on their remarks about too much loss of weight of bowties. They spoke of rules of thumb from statistical handbooks from which they concluded bowties found in MH17 have the right and low weight.


-  Indeed there might be statistical handbooks with tables with univariate or bivariate data for loss of weight for different kinds of shrapnel, made of different kind of metal, for different relative velocities of missiles, planes and speed of shrapnel. But the problem is practical rules from tables in handbooks are worthless in situations where interactions have taken place, which cannot be found in handbooks.

- And the problem is two bowties is not enough to refer to statistical data. And the mere fact that the crash site was unattended for many months and all kinds of suspects had free access corrupts the uninhibited acceptance of these bowties.  

- Evidence for 9N314M is almost completely based on the two allegedly found bowties. Other evidence is circumstantial and highly questionable. For example, NLR (Dutch Aerospace Laboratory) and TNO (The Netherlands Organisation of Applied Research) projected the configuration of shrapnel of the alleged warhead identically on the cockpit or MH17. But there's not much left of that cockpit and also this projection is but a wild guess. Also doubtful is the calculation of the relative velocity of rocket and aircraft as well as the found angles are only valid for a warhead 9N314M.

- Consequently circumstantial evidence is very weak if true and only proving the discutability of the alleged bowties as coming through the windshield of the hull is already sufficient to crumble the 9N314M hypothesis. It might be true, but there is no convincing evidence. DSB is skating on thin ice.




> the RF is almost there

I actually not worried about Russia. If Ukraine did it they have a full landscape of ways for proving that. I suspect that AA got an order from above to hold the horses and not press much, they’ve become quite quiet at recent time. The hard thing for Russia will be to work against the massive machine of western MSM, and this is probably where they are going to lose.
For me it’s only a sport interest to get to the truth before the cards are opened, if this ever happens.









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