Sunday, 1 January 2017

MH17: THE TRACK OF THE BUK THROUGH THE MH17


Basic Dimension




     MH17: THE TRACK OF THE BUK THROUGH THE MH17

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.



  1. time: 00:00 the missile is launched . 
  2. time: 00:35 when the missile warhead exploded near MH17. 
  3. time: 00:35 when the cockpit of MH17 separated from the main fuselage.
  4. time: +/- 01:20 cockpit section impact with ground.
  5. time: 02:05 when the main fuselage of MH17 hit the ground.



WTM, there are a couple of factors which make an exact calculation difficult, even if the witness reported very accurately what he observed (loud boom before the aircraft fell).
First, the aircraft did not just drop instantly, since its forward momentum kept it going for some time. Its direction was almost ‘horizontal’ at the very start of the fall, before it lost its speed as a result of air resistance on the ripped-apart fuselage.
The aircraft fell ten kilometres, but a large part of it also travelled forward about 6 km in the same time, about one-and-a-half minutes. So it could have taken several seconds before an observer might notice it dropping. 


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.

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.
















– 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.









DSB Main report, Page 256 of 279:

9.  Failure sequence:
After the initial impact, the aeroplane broke up as follows:

a. There  was  an  almost  instantaneous  separation  of  the  cockpit  from  the  forward part of the fuselage when the pre-formed fragments penetrated the cockpit. The cockpit came to rest 2.3 kilometres from the last position recorded on the Flight Data Recorder.


http://tinyurl.com/jev6gkp









The possibly lowered speed of the MH17




The takeoff weight of the MH17 at Schiphol was 278691 kg and its velocity was 905 km/h. The mass of the BUK was about 690 kg with a velocity of 600 m/s.

Questions:

- What was their relative velocity just before the crash?

- In case BUK torpedoed the MH17, what was the new velocity of the MH17, 3 seconds after the crash? I suppose the BUK stopped in front of STA655 or ended at STA888/909.

If BUK really has torpedoed the MH17 and would have lowered its velocity then this has consequences for the calculation of the trajectory of the wreckage to the ground.
















 Liane Theuer // June 1, 2016 at 7:05 pm //

Basic – to your point 7 :
If I would be one of the 5 men you presented with a photo, I would spit on you for your „could be to get rid of evidence“.
These men did a great job in recovering the bodies.
Only two bodies are missed within the huge desaster area. And most of the bodies were recovered within a few days.
They even searched with dogs. But mostly it was not necessary, because you could smell the body parts under the wreckage.
The use of power saws : There are a lot of pictures with the OSCE or the MH17 rescue team close to workers with chainsaws.
Would you in this case also insinuate they wanted „to get rid of evidence“ ?
Be fair and use your common sense.


 Basic Dimension // June 1, 2016 at 10:34 pm //
Liane,

This is a criminal investigation and „could be to get rid of evidence“ are not my words. I am fair and use my common sense. It is not the use of the chainsaws but the removal of just those parts of the wreckage wherein the BUK might have disappeared. If the wreckage was untouched and left on the crash site I had no case.

Well okay, then let those people explain JIT their helpful activities on their own initiative and let the separatists explain where the missing parts of the cockpit and the forward fuselage disappeared. My theory is they might have hidden this wreckage because of the remains of BUK. Beware, I do not claim that the separatists have fired a BUK. In those days nobody had a clue.

Though I understand your feelings and I do admire your reaction, this is an attitude I simply cannot afford. I must be totally entitled to have an amoral approach to any possible perpetrator in this investigation. I am an independent scientist and have no affiliations with the Dutch, the Ukrainians, the separatists, the Russians or anybody. Nobody should criminalize my suspicions against people for then I would not be impartial any longer. So, if the separatists are really innocent, fine and let them show the remains of the cockpit and the forward fuselage.

http://tinyurl.com/hfoj5ps




http://tinyurl.com/z4xjn4v






CENTRIFUGAL AND CENTRIPETAL POWERS DOWNED THE MH17

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/could-the-1400-kg-of-lithium-batteries-have-contributed-to-downing-of-mh17/#comment-18260


Almaz-Antey used the coordinates of DSB to simulate the impact of fragments in a static experiment. They used only centripetal forces and made impact entry holes on the IL-86:



Would they have done a dynamic experiment they could have steered the BUK with 600 m/s through the cockpit:









Then, within the plane the BUK would behave as a bomb without explosion but with enormous centrifugal power. 

So, all people who thought it must have been a bomb are partially right: it was a centrifugal force but only after centripetal fragments made mostly entry holes.

What we see is that the static experiment of Almaz-Antey falsified the DSB hypothesis completely. It was not the centripetal force of BUK fragments of warhead 9N314M which disintegrated the MH17 within 3 seconds. Noway DSB!

It must have been centrifugal powers from the BUK itself as its momentum of 690 kg times its velocity of 600 m/s which rolled out enormous forces on the internal structure of the MH17. 
It is right the IL-86 was not subject to decompression but that does not collapse a whole plane within three seconds.



The track of the BUK through the MH17

Long we tried to prove it cannot be a BUK. But below is shown it has to be a BUK without proof. Here the scenario is completed concerning the unbelievable disintegration of the MH17 within one second. Nobody can neglect this theory without setting a better one. They must prove it was no BUK:

http://tinyurl.com/h976odn



Though a bomb in the MH17 is very unlikely, possibly an enormous missile entered the cockpit from above the left windshields, which might have cut the steel structure on the right side of the forward fuselage in front of STA655.










http://tinyurl.com/hhdo95e




White parts are missing. Remarkably in front of STA888 only the part with the hypothetical trajectory of the BUK through the plane has disappeared:

http://tinyurl.com/hr6nenl





All parts of the forward upper fuselage in front of STA888 came down in Petropavlivka.






We miss the fuselage top parts in front of STA655. Also the upper part fuselage above business class (aft) is missing:

http://tinyurl.com/z4xjn4v




(The pressure relief valve (PRV) is a type of valve used to control or limit the pressure in a system or vessel which can build up for a process upset, instrument or equipment failure, or fire.)

But we found the right hand fuselage with partial text "Malaysia" in Petropavlivka:

http://tinyurl.com/jolf4zu




By breaking all vertical steel beams WITHIN A SECOND, the total structure of the forward fuselage became unstable and could have disintegrated easily. Losing vertical binding on the right side might have bent the fuselage top relatively upwards, while at the same time bending the fuselage lower parts downwards, including the cockpit. This because the fuselage was weakened at the left side also because of fragments of BUK. This all might have happened WITHIN THREE SECONDS.

This is a logical theory for the breaking up of the MH17 for which there was no conclusive theory yet.  No further conditions need to be postulated. The missile entered from above the left windshields and left the forward fuselage on the right side in front of STA655, breaking all iron beams. Then the forward fuselage and the cockpit broke apart:

http://tinyurl.com/h9cmr39





DSB Main report, Page 256 of 279:

9.  Failure sequence:
After the initial impact, the aeroplane broke up as follows:


a. There  was  an  almost  instantaneous  separation  of  the  cockpit  from  the  forward part of the fuselage when the pre-formed fragments penetrated the cockpit. The cockpit came to rest 2.3 kilometres from the last position recorded on the Flight Data Recorder.













Differences with the Almaz-Antey static test:

Almaz-Antey conducted a static test with a BUK on the cockpit of an old IL-86. They placed the warhead conform the coordinates given by DSB. We expected the cockpit would disintegrate within 3 seconds, just as the MH17. But nothing happened and there was no structural damage to the cockpit. This means there must be something rotten in the theory of DSB.  









Of course decompression happened with the MH17 but then the front part of the plane would not collapse within three seconds. And there was no time for drag pulling the plane apart. 

Note the vertical squares of pressure images on the IL-86:

Also we must consider the pressure wave accompanying the explosion, but it is ruled out that this could have pulled the plane apart, since this force presses the skin together. Destruction might come later, but not within three seconds.

Never can a BUK by external force alone break a mega plane into pieces within three seconds. But the momentum of a missile torpedoing the MH17 could have impacted the internal structure of the plane. Then the plane would break up by internal powers without explosion. This is impossible with an A2A (Air to Air missile) or a little SAM (Surface to Air). But I guess it might have happened with a BUK, a missile of 690 kg and a velocity of 600 m/s.

And if it was a BUK then it must have been a 9M38M1 with warhead 9N314M (bowties). This because we earlier falsified the other BUKs on the albert_lex histogram: the old Ukrainian warhead 9N314 (no category 6) and the modern Russian 9N318 with squares of (8x8x6.5), which are too wide where a width of 6 mm is expected. 

And only in a head-on collision a BUK can shoot fragments through the windshields AND torpedo the cockpit at the same time. This means, if it was a BUK it must have been a BUK with bowties coming from below Snizhne in a head-on collision with the MH17.



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)



But this scenario does not tell what party shot the BUK at the MH17. And remember, we have no proof from Petropavlivka.

That's why I want to remain objective and close with this touching picture:






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