Sunday, 1 January 2017

MH17: HOW THE COCKPIT FELL APART

Basic Dimension












MH17: HOW THE COCKPIT FELL APART

There were simply not enough fragments to tear the cockpit with the lower fuselage from the hull within a second. We must develop better theories and combine fragments with the blast wave. 


DSB Main report page 255 of 279
8. Blast

[Simulation of the blast after detonation of the 9N314M warhead revealed a shock wave near the cockpit. The simulation showed that the blast would cause structural damage to the aeroplane up to 12.5 metres from the point of detonation. This was consistent with the damage found on the aeroplane wreckage.]


Well, this consistency must be anchored in the cockpit wreckage, which is missing for the bigger part, and the distance of the warhead to the plane, which DSB had completely wrong. So what will be heir authority?

We must make the blast much more important by bringing the point of detonation of the warhead extremely close to the plane. Then in letting the missile crash into the aircraft we have won two forces to get down the cockpit in a second. Without this Deus ex Machina it is impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/hhdo95e






Shock wave and blast wave.

When a wave moves faster than the local speed of sound (343 m/s) it is a shock wave. High explosives also create shock waves but in restricted areas. This are explosive overpressures (blasts) giving fragments their initial velocities. In other words, a blast wave from a bomb is an area of pressure expanding supersonically outward from an explosive core. It has a leading shock front of compressed gases. Fragments and the blast, by themselves or in combination, damage the airplane. And if the density of the fragments alone cannot have torn the cockpit from the fuselage, then it must be done in combination with the blast.

In next scenario the cockpit is brought down within three steps:

Missile from the right side scenario:

1: The first step is a BUK missile wide passing the cockpit from the right side at a distance of only one meter. This is conceivable because part of the casing of the warhead was shot between the frame and the glass of the second left window under an angle of say 10 degrees off the windshield:






But these 10 degrees off the second left window can be relaxed to 30 degrees to get the missile against the plane.

Further, ricochets have been shot downwards under an angle of 18 degrees to the bottom line of that second left window. These are the facts:








http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/does-this-ricochet-tell-us-something-about-the-location-of-the-warhead/

Therefore, the warhead likely detonated at the right side of the plane at 18 degrees above the bottom line of the second left window and about 10 degrees off that windshield: 





https://www.allmystery.de/themen/gw117164-53#id15045534

A head-on collision is also possible but far more critical. It has already been developed and depends completely on the proximity fuse from which we have little information. Then the missile would have crashed into the upper left side of the cockpit and the forward first class section:


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)



























2: The second step is the shock- or blast wave which likely increased the pressure on the cockpit from a distance of 1 meter. This must have damaged the cockpit more than thought earlier and possibly ruined the cockpit frame at essential points.

In the static experiment of Almaz-Antey we saw rectangular impressions in the hull. So what happens at 1 meter?







- It is concluded from the trajectory of the fall of the cockpit to Rozsypne that it must have been torn from the hull immediately and within a second, meaning there was no time for the effects of decompression or (thin) air pressure. Therefore, we need a third and conclusive step to rip the cockpit from the fuselage.

3: This third step must be an extremely powerful combination of several effects. Sequential in time but for us seemingly together, casing parts of the warhead first hit the cockpit at the left side, followed by primary fragments like bow-ties which impacted the cockpit perpendicularly, while at last the cockpit with the lower fuselage broke off from the hull completely by the crash of the BUK missile (690 kg) against the already torn cockpit, losing its nozzle. This all must have happened within one second:














Relative velocity and momentum: The BUK missile of 690 kg possibly crashed with 600 m/s against the left side of the plane with its 255 m/s and 278.000 kg. It was no head-on collision but it is the only energy which could have broken the cockpit from the fuselage in a second. There simply is no other explanation, since there are too few fragments.

We must conclude to an interaction among the shock wave, the primary fragments hitting the frame and the crash of the missile against the already damaged left side of the cockpit. This all must have happened within one second. 

Nevertheless our doubts, the shock wave might have had a general weakening effect on the hull. Considering the fragments, it is not likely they would make such longitudinal cracks. 

If both, shock wave and fragments, had no important impact on the formation of the crack, it must have been totally caused by the crash of the missile itself against the cockpit. Remember decompression and (very thin) air pressure cannot be used as explanation within a second. We are stuck to the devastating energy of BUK for the cockpit ripped loose from the fuselage.

FACTS SUBSTANTIATING THIS SCENARIO:

An interaction exists between the shape of the warhead and the impact angles on the MH17:






In this post we suppose the missile was a BUK. Then, from the albert_lex histogram we know the only profile passing the test is warhead 9N314M with the bow-ties. But warhead 9N314M itself is not proven.

There is a second interaction in time and place which also determines the angles of entry holes. We must combine both interactions for a possible explanation of the damage to the MH17.

Remember: On short distance shock or blast waves are faster than fragments. Only after around 10-15 meters shock waves from BUK explosions degrade into normal sound waves, traveling with the speed of sound. 


DSB MAIN REPORT Page 112 of 279:

[A detailed analysis of the Cockpit Voice Recorder, covering the last 20 milliseconds [0.020 seconds] of the recording at 13.20:03 (15.20:03 CET) as described in paragraph 2.11.2, was performed. The analysis showed that two peaks of sound were identified in this time frame. (..) The first sound peak had a duration of 2.1 milliseconds [0.0021 seconds] and the signal was recorded on the cockpit area microphone [CAM] channel only. (..) Wave spectrum analysis suggested that the [first] sound peak was representative for an ‘electrical spike’ as it showed the form of an electro-magnetic pulse that could have been caused by static discharge or similar:






The second peak had a duration of 2.3 milliseconds and was recorded by all four channels. The time difference between the first and the second sound peak was determined to be 2.3 milliseconds [0.0023 seconds]. (..)
Difference in time [between the microphones] showed that the second sound wave originated outside the aeroplane starting from a position above the left hand side of the cockpit, propagating from front to aft (see  Figure 43)]:





There is no official information about the origin of the event causing the sound peaks (DSB). We think the static discharge of the first sound peak likely was caused by the shock or blast wave first hitting the cockpit and well at the roof. (the CAM is attached to the roof). 

The second sound peak could be the hit of casing parts which preceded primary fragments. It is a decaying sound of short duration. Both sound peaks seem not impressive enough to tear the cockpit from the fuselage. We miss an effect what disrupts all connections between the cockpit and the fuselage. We miss sound peak 3 which teared the cockpit from the fuselage within one second.

Though both sound peaks happened within a flash of a second, we are able to rank the effects so far postulated on speed:


SPEED OF THE MH17, THE 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 or blast 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. 

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. Fragments and the crash of the BUK will be our combined factor on the third sound peak.

RANKING THE IMPACTS:

Sound peak 1:
1: Shock or blast waves are the fastest (> 2000 m/s).
- Shock wave preceded casing parts with 2.3 milliseconds [0.0023 seconds]. It is faster and started earlier than fragments.

Sound peak 2:
2: Then followed fragments from the casing of the warhead (2000 m/s).

Sound peak 3:

3: Primary fragments followed casing parts in time (2000 m/s).
4: Co-propagating shock waves may have overtaken primary fragments (> 2000 m/s).
5: BUK crashed into the cockpit roof.
6: Sound waves in cold air are not important (300 m/sec).







What is our conclusion? Was sound peak 2 the ultimate blow? Was sound peak 2 so devastating that it indeed effectively teared the cockpit from the fuselage in less than a second. But not all fragments arrived at the same moment in time. Also primary fragments like bow-ties, fillers and squares are distributed on a scale of a few milliseconds (0.001 - 0.003 seconds). This in case of differentiated and undifferentiated ignition. Also we see no activity of the impact of the missile. It must be not the sound was dying out or fading away, but the current. So at the peak of sound peak 2 the current was disconnected:






Unlike the first sound peak, the second effectively invaded the cockpit and was heard on all internal microphones. It definitely were fragments but that's not enough to tear the cockpit from the fuselage in one second. The third sound peak must have been the crashing missile, disconnecting the current on which the second peak died out as if sound diminished:








FRAGMENTS TO CONSIDER:










We see green arrows of elongated strikes but also perpendicular entry holes. The idea is the elongated strikes came from the first impact of fragments (sound peak 2) while the perpendicular ones were later shot backwards or sideways (and are not registered on the microphones). This while the missile wide passed the plane from the right to the left side.

Notice this picture gives way too little fragments for a BUK within one meter distance. But placing the warhead further from the aircraft makes the power of fragments totally insufficient to tear the cockpit from the fuselage within just one second. So we need the BUK for its mass as battering ram, but cannot use it for its poor fragment density.

As said earlier we see a rocket piece shot into the second left window frame:





This rocket piece apparently came from the right side of the plane under an angle of about 10 degrees, while primary fragments (squares, bow-ties) impacted perpendicular by rounded holes.


We already developed the head-on collision and now develop the missile from the right side:

In case of a DIFFERENTIATED IGNITION of the warhead, starting at the front of the warhead and ending at the rear, we expect casing parts to be launched first and primary fragments as bow-ties, fillers and squares to be fired backwards more or less perpendicular to the plane.

Missile at 1.70 meter:




Missile at 1 meter:




The gap between missile positions seems still too wide and better would be a distance of about 1.5 meters = 0.0024 seconds pass time.




BUK is made and programmed for little missiles and small fighter jets. But now we placed it too close to this giant plane and it was too late to escape the crash. In this scenario the nozzle of the missile (exhaust pipe) hit the MH17 and fell in Rozsypne(?):





Then part of the rocket crashed onto the left wing:





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

Looking at the entry holes of fragments on the MH17, different impact angles can be noticed. Partly this is caused by the shape of the warhead:




But a detonation in all directions at one moment in time is not enough. We know the alleged missile had a velocity of 600 m/s, so if the warhead detonates in time than also in place. In fact it could be understood better if the warhead exploded twice and on different places. Which means different impact angles are given by the form of the warhead but also by the elongated detonating in time. 

 Basic Dimension // November 15, 2015 at 8:28 pm //


Wind tunnel man:

In 9N314M the smallest layer of shrapnel is at the backside of the warhead (bowties and fillers). Dependent on from where the explosion originates shrapnel is easily projected to the rear of the missile. 

http://tinyurl.com/pypyptf





The question is: What exploded first, the front side of the warhead or the back side. Here we need the front side to explode first if we want the casing parts to impact the cockpit frame of the second left window in the first place. Then next moment the replaced missile fired backwards with only bowties and fillers.





http://tinyurl.com/ncmtkjs





[The inner layer consists of bowtie and filler fragments and spans the entire length of the warhead. The outer layer consists of squares and spans approximately three quarters of the warhead length as can be seen by the change in diameter on the top half of Figure 49:

http://tinyurl.com/p5kygsq





 Wind tunnel man // November 14, 2015 at 3:35 am // Reply 
Basic Dimension:
Almaz Antey emphasised the scalpel/lancet form of the frag spread when a 9M38(M1) missile carrying a 9N314M warhead is detonated when travelling at speeds of more than 600m/s. When detonated at that speed 42% of the total payload of striking elements, in terms of weight and energy, is directed in a narrow area approximately between 75 to 95 degrees to the missile’s longitudinal axis – this is the scalpel core of the spray zone.

 http://tinyurl.com/q9galdq




Below we see the left side of the cockpit hull:









We see the green arrows of elongated strikes but also more perpendicular entry holes. The idea is the elongated strikes came from the first impact while the perpendicular ones are backfired. This makes it possible to let the missile pass the plane from the right to the left side:





Without the separated time and space blast theory a head-on collision is needed:

http://tinyurl.com/jjkk9xs





Secondary and primary fragments explode in different directions. But we know the casing of the warhead explodes first. If the part found in the cockpit frame of the second left window was part of the casing it must be classified as primary fragment for its direction:





We earlier concluded the impact of the (rocket) part in the cockpit frame of the second left window came from the right side of the plane. We think this happened under a very acute angle exactly between the glass and the frame:








Notice though the rocket piece apparently came from the right side of the plane, primary fragments (squares, bow-ties) impacted perpendicular and were shot sideways.




The second possible casing mark is one of the ricochets below the second left window. We conclude this fragment also came from the right side of the plane:







Further we see a kind of grazing marks of fragments on the left side of the plane. It might be these are shot directly after the impact of the casing parts and before the missile moved from the right side to the left side of the plane:




Finally,above we see a kind of backfire from the rear part of the warhead which give more or less perpendicular impacts on the left side of the cockpit hull.

So we think the missile could have come from the right of the plane under the condition of the separated time and space blast theory:





Whether the direction of the ricochet is from the right to the left or reverse, I wouldn’t be sure.
In the final reconstruction the vertical part of that titanium frame is cut off. This is very close to where the alleged missile part was found stuck in the cockpit window frame. I had put pictures here:

https://www.allmystery.de/themen/gw117164-53#id15045534

IMHO the missile fragment must have entered almost parallel to the pane of the windshield, there is no other way it could have gotten between the windshield and the outer part of the frame.
In the Zaroshneskoye scenario this is possible. In that scenario the missile crossed the flight path of MH17 just in front of the cockpit, an it could be that the rear end of the missile didn’t get out of the way of the aircraft’s flight path. I.e. in that scenario the aircraft flew into the rear end of the missile and collided with it.
I don’t see a way how that could have happened in the DSB scenario. Another indicator is the fact that the missile’s nozzle was found. In the DSB scenario the missile was heading in nearly the opposite direction as MH17 with 600-800 m/s. One would expect the remnants of the missile to keep on heading north west for several kilometers due to their inertia. The investigators never got to that area, they weren’t even able to collect the missing roof part or any other parts of the missile’s body. So probably the nozzle was found among the debris of MH17, which would be another indicator for the rear end of the missile to have collided with the cockpit.
The ricochet mark of this post has a slightly different direction than the scratch marks on the vertical frame adjacent to the impact of the missile part (see third photo in my link above), but maybe it is also connected to a collision of the missile with the cockpit.


https://www.allmystery.de/themen/gw117164-53#id15045534

http://tinyurl.com/jl9d5vh






A BUK missile has a speed of 600 m/s. For 1 meter it needs only .0016 sec. The displacement of the BUK missile is 5.77 meter or .009 seconds. Speed of fragments is 2000 m/s. Distance fragments to the plane is about 1.70 meter = .0027 seconds. But fragments must start their launch from zero speed. So there is an acceleration phase to 2000 m/s. So it takes slightly more time to reach the plane, maybe .003 seconds.


Missile at 1.70 meter:








Bring the missile closer to the plane:


In case of differentiated ignition of the warhead:




DSB MAIN REPORT Page 112 of 279:

A detailed analysis of the Cockpit Voice Recorder, covering the last 20 milliseconds of the recording at 13.20:03 (15.20:03 CET) as described in paragraph 2.11.2, was performed. The analysis showed that two peaks of sound were identified in this time frame. (..) The first sound peak had a duration of 2.1 milliseconds [0.0021 seconds] and the signal was recorded on the cockpit area microphone [CAM] channel only. (..) Wave spectrum analysis suggested that the [first] sound peak was representative for an ‘electrical spike’ as it showed the form of an electro-magnetic pulse that could have been caused by static discharge or similar.





The second peak had a duration of 2.3 milliseconds and was recorded by all four channels. The time difference between the first and the second sound peak was determined to be 2.3 milliseconds [0.0023 seconds]. (..) This difference in time [between the microphones] showed that the sound wave originated outside the aeroplane starting from a position above the left hand side of the cockpit, propagating from front to aft (see  Figure 43):




Peak 1 might be the hit of the second left window by casing parts in the first phase. Difference between Peak 1 and 2 is 2.3 milliseconds: 0.0023 seconds. Displacement of missile below is 3.12 meter or 0.005 seconds:

Missile at 1 meter:





This gap could be still too wide and better would be a distance of about 1.5 meters = 0.0024 seconds:






Nozzle of missile (exhaust pipe) hit the MH17:



Then the missile turned onto the left wing:




In case of undifferentiated ignition of the warhead:

http://tinyurl.com/hclpxeq
















Maybe Peter, but remember the speed of fragments while passing the plane might give quite different holes in time and place:






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