MH17 Crash- Investigation reconstruction and conclusion

BigZ said:
There's also a separate report with a IL front section being blown up to prove the point that the calculated orientation of the missile would not produce the shrapnel field as evidenced by the damage. Namely there would be no damage to the left engine or the stab and the copilot side windows would have also been desintegrated - while neither is the case with the MH17.
Hence the report (and the field test) suggest that the Buk was located much further west. Moreover the blown up IL displays multiple "butterfly" punctures to the skin of the cockpit (indication of the newer model warhead) - absent from the 777 wreckage, even though a small number of the shrapnel of that shape has been recorded present in the crew remains.
Click to expand...

A supposition has come between the static IL-86 test from the missile manufacture and the official investigation animations and mock up. This is what @BigZ is referring to:

Around 06:20: https://www.rt.com/news/318613-usa-rebels-mh17-buk/

In contrast to (around 09:20):



That is quite confusing. A few questions can be formed from this disagreement - if it was a BUK 9M38 - whose was it?

The IL-86 test:



I must ask though - The right said windows (co-pilot) appear to be intact in the wreckage, the left side windows partially as well (which is not the case against the IL test). Where is there damage to the left engine and stab?

r
 
Last edited:
For the love of humanity, please stop watching RT. What happened to their report about it being a Ukrainian SU-25 that they had "proof" had downed the airplane? Or the "fact" they put out there about the airplane actually being MH-370 filled with cadavers by the CIA to make it look like Russia shot it down. What happened to the "Spanish ATCer from Ukraine"? That was hysterical when they tried saying a Spanish guy was in ATC in Ukraine. Where did those "facts" go?

I must ask though - The right said windows (co-pilot) appear to be intact in the wreckage, the left side windows partially as well (which is not the case against the IL test). Where is there damage to the left engine and stab?
Click to expand...
You do understand there will be a huge difference between a static test on the ground, and an airplane flying at 470 Kts or so, right? Add 470 Kts to the results, and what do you get? They found the "bowtie" shrapnel in the cockpit crew. Not sure how much more you need to prove it was the same warhead used as they claim that it wasn't used...

I'm not saying the US and International press do a good job, or that their facts are always correct, but seriously, anybody who watches RT for their "facts" on international or Russian news needs to really examine what they are getting from that channel. They have had numerous people quit, some even live on the air, due to the ridiculousness of their lies.

Was it a BUK missile or not? The Russians have even said it was a BUK, but then changed it. I think, anyways. They've changed their response to this so many times, I've lost where the "official" line is. Why did the Donetsk Republic or whatever their title is, post online that they had shot another plane down right after the fact, only to have it disappear. Yeah, funny thing about the internet...once it's out there, it's there for good.

Were they in Crimea or not? I think they finally admitted to using force there. Are they in Syria, I think they finally admitted to using ground troops there, but they are battling ISIL, even where ISIL isn't. Ukraine, they are still denying being there, even though Russian troops "on holiday" are being captured there. It's comical if there weren't so many people buying the crap they put out.
 
Stone Cold said:
For the love of humanity, please stop watching RT. What happened to their report about it being a Ukrainian SU-25 that they had "proof" had downed the airplane?
Click to expand...

The SU-25 theory would be akin to an A-10 climbing up to high altitudes and having the speed to somehow chase down an airliner, get within about 1-2 miles of it, and down it with a Sidewinder.
 
MikeD said:
The SU-25 theory would be akin to an A-10 climbing up to high altitudes and having the speed to somehow chase down an airliner, get within about 1-2 miles of it, and down it with a Sidewinder.
Click to expand...
Oh, I understand that completely, but this was put out as "fact" by RT with the Russian government providing "proof" of this. They also said it was shot down with guns, and not missiles, by the SU-25. They claimed they had satellite proof of it. That was debunked, and has not been brought up in a long time. I'm just tired of hearing the stupidity being repeated even when they have been proven to be liars over and over again.
 
Last edited:
n57flyguy said:
I must ask though - The right said windows (co-pilot) appear to be intact in the wreckage, the left side windows partially as well (which is not the case against the IL test). Where is there damage to the left engine and stab?
Click to expand...
That's exactly the maker's point: they oriented the missile according to Dutch report (made adjustment for the velocity of the missile and the aircraft) and detonated it, and found the damage is different from what was observed on the Boeing. they also put metal sheets at where the left engine would be located and claim that no damage was found on them (if this is what you are asking about)
 
Stone Cold said:
Oh, I understand that completely, but this was put out as "fact" by RT with the Russian government providing "proof" of this. They also said it was shot down with guns, and not missiles, by the SU-25. They claimed they had satellite proof of it. That was debunked, and has not been brought up in a long time. I'm just tired of hearing the stupidity being repeated even when they have been proven to be liars over and over again.
Click to expand...

RT is best watched on mute for the blonde presenters. Other than that, I just assume skip it in my channel line up. Then again, I skip some US news sources for the same reasons.
 
Stone Cold said:
I'm just tired of hearing the stupidity being repeated even when they have been proven to be liars over and over again.
Click to expand...

So basically what you're saying is don't trust any news channel, ever? Because they've all been caught in lies. Every last one.

(The "major" news channels anyways)
 
uncreative said:
I think that's probably a pretty good policy. Blind trust of almost anything is bad. Try to understand the source's biases and prejudices and filter as appropriate.
Click to expand...

This.

Random answers to the random things higher up on the page:
- Su-25 - my assumption is that the tail section that separated from the midsection with wings was assumed to be the second aircraft. There are witnesses that claim they saw the second aircraft, there's a witness (tech from Ukie airbase) who ran off to Russia who claimes the Su-25 pilot was distressed after the sortie etc - that's where that's coming from I assume.
Personal experience being a witness - as I was taxiing in, a plane was taking off at the local airport. My take on it from the get go was either overweight or engine trouble. Spun into the grocery store trying to turn crosswind. Deck angle, taking 4000' of pavement (in FL) till rotating and struggling into the air - looked bad. What I saw was what I put into my share of the NTSB report. Surviving copilot stated there were no abnormalities and then the engine quit. Go figure.
- missing MH370 - plane broke up mid flight. Bodies that fell out of it didn't look like the bodies locals were used to seeing in the prior months of conflict. Stuff you are not used to causes weird theories.
- 470 knots and such. You'd imagine the people who do rocket science for a living would know more about it than we do, eh?
- RT - my father in law, who lives in central Ukraine, has that on all the time whenever he visits. Otherwise it's netflix or Xbox ;) I like to read - all sides - filter out the bs and come up with my own conclusions and viewpoint. It's fun, wish more people would do it. Would make for a better world.
 
BUK or not - yeah, BUK. Question is - whose BUK and what model missile.
OEM is surprised to see bowtie shrapnel in the bodies and no bowtie shaped holes. Unlike the IL cockpit that had numerous bowtie holes in the skin when blown up by the same model missile as claimed by the Dutch report.
This and the location of the launch and hence the orientation of the missile (as demonstrated by the vids above) are the only two open questions.
What's RT gotta do with this? Nothing, you'd think..
 
Stone Cold said:
For the love of humanity, please stop watching RT. What happened to their report about it being a Ukrainian SU-25 that they had "proof" had downed the airplane? Or the "fact" they put out there about the airplane actually being MH-370 filled with cadavers by the CIA to make it look like Russia shot it down. What happened to the "Spanish ATCer from Ukraine"? That was hysterical when they tried saying a Spanish guy was in ATC in Ukraine. Where did those "facts" go?

You do understand there will be a huge difference between a static test on the ground, and an airplane flying at 470 Kts or so, right? Add 470 Kts to the results, and what do you get? They found the "bowtie" shrapnel in the cockpit crew. Not sure how much more you need to prove it was the same warhead used as they claim that it wasn't used...

I'm not saying the US and International press do a good job, or that their facts are always correct, but seriously, anybody who watches RT for their "facts" on international or Russian news needs to really examine what they are getting from that channel. They have had numerous people quit, some even live on the air, due to the ridiculousness of their lies.

Was it a BUK missile or not? The Russians have even said it was a BUK, but then changed it. I think, anyways. They've changed their response to this so many times, I've lost where the "official" line is. Why did the Donetsk Republic or whatever their title is, post online that they had shot another plane down right after the fact, only to have it disappear. Yeah, funny thing about the internet...once it's out there, it's there for good.

Were they in Crimea or not? I think they finally admitted to using force there. Are they in Syria, I think they finally admitted to using ground troops there, but they are battling ISIL, even where ISIL isn't. Ukraine, they are still denying being there, even though Russian troops "on holiday" are being captured there. It's comical if there weren't so many people buying the crap they put out.
Click to expand...

Did you watch the video starting at 06:20?
 
Yeah, y'all enjoy this. I'm not going to argue with trolls supporting the crap coming out of RT and the Russian government. It's not worth my time.

I did get a chuckle out of the new spin you guys put on the SU-25 story. That's a new one, after the irrefutable evidence RT put out showing satellite proof of the airplane on their show.

https://www.rt.com/news/273943-mh17-crash-missile-ukraine/

http://russia-insider.com/en/why-mh17-was-most-likely-shot-down-ukrainian-su-25-jet/ri9362

http://m.aviationweek.com/awin-only/russia-shares-mh17-radar-data

https://mobile.twitter.com/rt_com/status/491220394355859456

I could keep going on just the subject of the SU-25, but it's not worth it to me. All of the other points I posted, have similar back up.

Best of luck guys. For those of you who haven't kept up, the radar data proves there was never a SU-25 near the 777. It's in the Danish report.
 
Stone Cold said:
Yeah, y'all enjoy this. I'm not going to argue with trolls supporting the crap coming out of RT and the Russian government. It's not worth my time.
Click to expand...

That is not what anyone here is doing, quite the contrary actually. While you poise rebuttal exclusively to source, they have covered some things worthy of inquiry, that one becomes able to research freely and corroborate their stories. Did you watch the video at 06:20? It provides exactly that avenue, which is why there is a discussion of the disagreement between a test and the report.

I am not sure what (besides the RT investigation to the SU-25 possibility) new spin "you guys" is referring to however I see that @BigZ is only repeating assumption as to why the SU-25 theory exists, not that it is a recognized fact, and actually not highly likely and improbable. Additionally, and more explicitly, no one here has claimed or even suggested that it was a SU-25 that downed MH-17.
 
Last edited:
n57flyguy said:
That is not what anyone here is doing, quite the contrary actually. While you poise rebuttal exclusively to source, they have covered some things worthy of inquiry, that one becomes able to research freely and corroborate their stories. Did you watch the video at 06:20? It provides exactly that avenue, which is why there is a discussion of the disagreement between a test and the report.

I am not sure what (besides the RT investigation to the SU-25 possibility) new spin "you guys" is referring to however I see that @BigZ is only repeating assumption as to why the SU-25 theory exists, not that it is a recognized fact, and actually not highly likely and improbable. Additionally, and more explicitly, no one here has claimed or even suggested that it was a SU-25 that downed MH-17.
Click to expand...
What I am telling you is I don't trust anything that comes out of RT or the missile manufacturers tests. It doesn't matter if they say their missile poops out unicorns before lodging butterfly projectiles into the cockpit crew. The fact is the butterfly projectiles were lodged into the crew.

With all the tampering with evidence that the "innocent" Donetsk guys did, I don't see how you miss the facts in front of you.

With that, I'm done. Удачи!
 
Stone Cold said:
With all the tampering with evidence that the "innocent" Donetsk guys did, I don't see how you miss the facts in front of you.

With that, I'm done. Удачи!
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you can substantiate that statement with something more credible than the bs statements by the ukie officials? Perhaps it was noted in the Dutch report?
Тебе тоже.
 
Stone Cold said:
Very first link in Google. Seriously, y'all need to research before supporting the crap you put out.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/mh17-pilots-body-tampered-attempt-6631499
Click to expand...

That article is based on the original Guardian publication which later revoked accusations about the tampering with the bodies:

The subheading and text of this article were amended on 14 October 2015. An earlier version wrongly stated that a “bungled autopsy” had been carried out on the pilot of Malaysian airlines flight MH17. In fact, Dutch forensic scientists carried out the autopsy on the body and removed “foreign objects”. The error was due to a difference in translation between the Dutch and English versions of the Dutch Safety Board’s report into the disaster.
Click to expand...

see Guardian publicaiton

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...orts-were-made-to-cover-up-causes-of-disaster
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top