Sunday, 1 January 2017

MH17: Location of the missile from entry holes

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





Notice, the bottom line of the second left windshield is not quite horizontal. Also the box becomes much smaller to the left of the plane:

http://tinyurl.com/zp6gb7x





http://tinyurl.com/gptxexv






http://tinyurl.com/hfp3j9r






Now I have it: From the nose fragments go down, from the other side they go up.

http://tinyurl.com/hv8q6z9








Titanium is very hard material, so we might set the 30 degree boundary on 45 degrees, but there is no need for. Firstly, we inspect the emission of fragments by the lancet of Almaz-Antey:

http://tinyurl.com/jjs787r





Because it must have been heavy shrapnel we look for bowties and squares for the second left windshield:

http://tinyurl.com/pypyptf





http://tinyurl.com/qd6fyj9





Then we inspect the examples from next figure which might conform to the situation:

http://tinyurl.com/jqnbznr






Now, we draw the red line of 117 degrees from the warhead to the plane:

http://tinyurl.com/j2p73j8







The left ricochet has a bit the form of a grazing mark which normally indicates the edge of the shrapnel cone. But this one is too deep and we are not on the edge.


http://tinyurl.com/gptxexv




More likely titanium is so strong that ricochets cannot make holes as easily as in aluminum. Therefore we can use the whole 30 degrees to explain ricochets:

http://tinyurl.com/zb5qmkd







Or we make ricochets with an angle of 40 degrees:

http://tinyurl.com/jza2ck2







 Eugene // June 27, 2016 at 8:01 pm // Reply


Because this is outer skin and there is no penetration, I think, that ricochet mark may not made by a ready fragment, but by some missile part. Does it tell us about the direction to the explosion? Probably yes. Unless it’s an elongated bit that hit the plane flat.



I think it does, at least some conditions. You really need 3d modelling software to find that out. But then I want to throw this hole in as well:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/132949552@N05/27882143571/in/dateposted-public/

Basic Dimension // June 26, 2016 at 8:44 pm // Reply

I think you drawed the intersection point wrong, it should be more to the left. Your reference line is below the edge of the window, but in the third picture you put it on the edge of the windows. Secondly I think you can’t convert a 2D situation to a 3D situation correctly with this method. Degrees vary depending on the point of view, that’s difficult. For example, with a view from above opposed to from the side, angle cannot stay at 18 degrees.



Rozem and Eugene:

Thanks for your comments.

Well, I hoped you would not notice the errors, though you apparently have no idea of dimensions in the parallel universe. By the way this is only a pilot study to bring the heuristic hypothesis of Admin further.

http://tinyurl.com/z7wzwv9




http://tinyurl.com/jycnq5t





http://tinyurl.com/zoujtl6





http://tinyurl.com/zsr3hmx


     Basic Dimension // June 29, 2016 at 12:57 pm // Reply




    Basic, how do you explain the penetration holes in the cockpit floor and the ricochets at the right cockpit roof with your model ?




    Well, I am not to blame for Admins brilliant ideas. And I am serious. But as a social scientist I only do the basic arithmetic for the guys, though I also have a scientific beta education.

    But to be serious: the bomb exploded near the floor of the cockpit. Anything may have happened. But by Admin noticed ricochets were from the first impact. That’s important for now we are rather sure of the launch spot. And remember, these are ricochets from 1.7 meter distance and no grazing marks from the edge of the fragment cone. And that means we have a very significant angle to the warhead.
    I do not know how many interactions with fragments happened within the cockpit. And if the right cockpit roof impacts are real and inaccessible from the new position, and they are not exit holes, then the warhead must be placed somewhat higher. But remember they are farther away than the ricochets in question.
    Very important is the place of detonation so far from the nose of the plane, since now it could be a BUK too. Also then it cannot come from Zaroshenske any longer. Further, if the detonation point is really so low then secondary fragments may have reached the left engine. And if parts of the missile are found in Petropavlivka and Rozsypne, then the missile likely torpedoed the aircraft first. Then the most likely launch site would be to the North of Snizhne. We have developed many scenarios. But this is not my model, it is also new for me. I am just a rudderless developer of scenarios.




    The new Albert_lex distance to the warhead at the moment of detonation is 1.6-1.8 meter. Then traveling time from fragments to the plane is about 0.00075 seconds. This means in the limit of time relative velocity between missile and airplane is about nil.

    But remember this is not true for the frac speed, since after detonation the lancet deploys further and expands into the direction of the sum vector.

    http://tinyurl.com/okb5y6m





    We have no evidence of the trajectory of the missile and therefore also not about eventual corrections by proportional navigation. Then we also do not know the exact elevation angle. Maybe the lancet started low and ended high. Also, the lancet deploys in a not linear way. There might be found different impact angles all over the plane, some of which are born curvilinear.


    http://tinyurl.com/pssa42o



    http://tinyurl.com/qg5vpb7





    http://tinyurl.com/jjblo9c





    http://tinyurl.com/hnyfthd




    So, with the lancet it cannot be a problem to reach the right side of the cockpit.





    You are digging deep into this, why don’t you assist yourself with a free 3D tool like Sketchup or a similar program instead of taking a screenshot of a model from a Youtube video? That is what I would do, and maybe in the future I will. Of course there is a learning curve, but at least as a beginner you can rotate the model instantly and take a screenshot from a different view. These models use polygon’s, that is not 100% accurate, but neither are some of the pictures you are using. Here is downloadable model from an 777-200:

    https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model.html?id=5c48afabcab4c790f4fb6842b3610149

    Example:

    https://s32.postimg.org/94k6yb28l/777_200.jpg



    Rozem:

    All science arises from the subconscious of man. The present process started with Admin having a wonderful but pre-scientific idea. In a pilot study I tried to bring this process one step further but it still is not scientific. It must become a falsifiable hypothesis in accordance with conventional test methods.
    Therefore I would welcome more professional initiatives. But remember, this is not my project. I have finished my contribution.
    Everybody has his profession. My center of gravity is the development of human thought scenarios in pre-scientific thinking. I study the origin of common sense, such as the origin of human religion. So I would welcome your eventual contribution very much.

     Basic Dimension // July 1, 2016 at 2:44 am // Reply



    Calculation of point of detonation not possible:


    http://tinyurl.com/jxlje73




    http://tinyurl.com/hyxwq34









    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.

     Basic Dimension // July 1, 2016 at 12:55 pm // Reply


    Thanks for your help Ole,
    I will investigate your contributions:

    http://tinyurl.com/z2t73db





    http://tinyurl.com/jet6rso




    http://tinyurl.com/zwnowvj





    http://tinyurl.com/gsz2cx7













     Basic Dimension // July 1, 2016 at 2:19 pm // Reply



    Now missile impact converged to the right again as a compromise:









    http://tinyurl.com/zb5qmkd







     Basic Dimension // July 2, 2016 at 12:32 am // Reply


    There is more evidence the impact entry holes of the fragments in the vertical plane had a negative angle of -15 to -20 degrees to the aircraft. Some distortion may be possible.
    In the horizontal plane fragments had an acute angle of 10 to 30 degrees with the second left window. According to Ole 10 degrees is realistic, since a piece of warhead ended between the window and the outer part of the cockpit frame. On the other hand we found rather surface normal impacts. But remember, so close to the warhead there is more variation.
    Further we accept a detonation distance to the warhead of 1.6 – 1.8 meter. By this the position of the warhead is reasonably defined:









    http://tinyurl.com/j2p73j8


     



    http://tinyurl.com/zb5qmkd


     
    http://tinyurl.com/jza2ck2





     Basic Dimension // July 2, 2016 at 9:15 am // Reply


    Liane, WTM, Charles Wood and Eugene:

    The detonation of the warhead is not the only force to reckon with. In addition to relative velocity there is also an interaction with a jet stream around the aircraft. This presses the air with big force against the hull.
    Now I do not believe even a BUK can manage to separate the cockpit from the fuselage within one second. And certainly not the half-plane within three seconds from STA888 and STA655. This because air pressure is minimal at 10 km altitude.
    But on the other hand 30kg shrapnel only weighs 30kg distributed over several grams per piece. And this means there must be a strong interaction between the jet stream and the impact from the warhead.
    So, if a cloud of shrapnel is brought into the jet stream from just 1.70 meter, it might come further around the cockpit than linearly thought. I guess, there must be a lot of simulation models with colored wind. But wind has no momentum.
    My question to you all is: What is about the probability that fragments of the missile ended in a non-linearly way somewhere at the other side of the cockpit? And were grazing marks pressed earlier or just later on the aircraft. Remember, this interaction does not happen with the static experiment of Almaz-Antey.
    Also, in case fragments entered the cockpit curvilineairly on the other side, by what resulting penetrating power were they pressed against the plane?


     Basic Dimension // July 4, 2016 at 12:33 am // Reply


    Ricochets below the second left window are very significant indicators of the position of the detonating warhead. Also a number of green arrows point in about the same direction. And more or less orthogonal impacts seem to indicate the warhead must have come from the left side of the plane.

    http://tinyurl.com/gnlrf3a



     


    But if the cockpit frame below has been hit from the right side of the plane, we have a problem with surface normality on the left side.

    http://tinyurl.com/h8udckf


     


    But there’s an escape if the missile flew two meters lower from the right from Zaroshchenske exactly at the ricochets and the cockpit frame in question, and notwithstanding that fragments of the lancet hit the cockpit hull from the left side. Who dares to argue there can be no interaction between the lancet and the wind?


    http://tinyurl.com/j8hpoxm





    http://tinyurl.com/zskyk6m





    http://tinyurl.com/jrafwby




     Basic Dimension // July 4, 2016 at 12:29 pm // Reply


    Launch from Zaroshchenske is not easy to explain. The first option from Z. might be possible, but the other two have the wrong approach to the ricochets. A missile from Z. could have lost its nozzle in the cockpit which must be found in Roszypne or in Petropavlivka:


    http://tinyurl.com/j8u8j9m





    http://tinyurl.com/zxpc6pt






    http://tinyurl.com/z3wu5qy







     Basic Dimension // July 5, 2016 at 10:26 am // Reply


    Rules for secondary fragments are different from primary fragments. Primary fragments as squares or cubes are shot from the warhead more or less perpendicular to the length axis of the missile onto the frame of the second left window.
    But the missile piece found in the cockpit frame does not come from the warhead, but was likely blown in line with the radius of the cylinder out of the front of the missile, where also the proximity fuse is situated. This gives us about an extra degree of freedom to position the length axis of the missile:


    http://tinyurl.com/zhttn4r






    http://tinyurl.com/hpzq3xq





    http://tinyurl.com/jaeds4r




    http://tinyurl.com/hqvwlg4






    Secondary fragment likely shot through the big hole punched first by primary fragments:


    http://tinyurl.com/hmqgemu








    In the reconstructed version of the second left window it looks like the cockpit frame is not broken. 

    http://tinyurl.com/zjxnbpj






    But in reality this frame contains a punched hole of about 10 cm below the alleged missile part caused by earlier primary fragments. No doubt the warhead was the first to explode. A tiny fraction later secondary fragments must have been launched. This means the alleged missile part needs no longer have come from the right side of the plane, but also can be launched in a head-on collision using the hole already made by primary shrapnel:

    http://tinyurl.com/zdo2my3





    This part is probably not broken at the crash site because pieces do not connect properly:


    http://tinyurl.com/zyflcrl






    Next we see the secondary part is clamped into the corner of the frame as if launched from the right side of the plane under an angle of about 10 degrees. But knowing the big hole under the missile part a head-on collision also might be possible, if we keep a slight angle to press the part into the corner of the window frame. If we do not succeed there might be other obstacles as zirconium glass, which got in the way.





    For the combination of the perpendicular impacts of primary fragments like squares next to alleged missile part in the cockpit frame of the second left window, we have about 60 degrees to fit the length axis of the missile. I think there is a unique solution satisfying all conditions: 

    - The two ricochets from which one looks like a grazing mark of the casing of the warhead.
    - The alleged missile part in the cockpit frame combined with about surface normality for the primary fragments.
    - The green lines of the grazing marks below the first left window.
    - The only problem might be the perpendicular impacts of primary fragments below the first left window: 

    http://tinyurl.com/gnlrf3a







    End conclusion:

    In case of undifferentiated ignition of the warhead:

    Secondary fragments launched in line with the axis of the missile do not combine with primary perpendicular fragments. Then the detonating warhead would be pressed exactly on the intersection of all vectors right below the second left window frame. Also then it would be impossible for primary fragments to reach the left side of the plane. Therefore secondary fragments must be skipped.

    The only solution to all imposed conditions is the missile parts were from the casing of the warhead and exploded into the same direction as primary fragments.

    Also there is no need to postulate the missile part shot into the window frame first came through the hole below. It is assumed to be shot directly between the glass and the frame with a very acute angle from a head-on collision.

    After detonation the lancet unfolded around the plane.

    http://tinyurl.com/hclpxeq








    Differentiated ignition of the warhead:


    After having worked through all scenarios I came out on this:

    http://tinyurl.com/js45b5b






    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