Russia: Don't look for who did the MH17 shootdown

[Ford]

And no, debris can not make secondary holes consistent with missile shrapnel.

...

 

[barbos]

What disinformation am I spreading? The left engine covering was damaged. clearly by fragments. Can you explain this if the missile was fired from head on?

You have a simplistic idea of how the missile works. When missiles first came out you would be right but a modern missile has more brains than that--the BUK is programmed to fly above it's target and detonate.

And you mister have no clue at all. Otherwise you would not post such unrelated and random posts.
Missile flying head on would not be able to damage both cockpit and left engine, that's what russians are saying and demonstrating it with their simulation and fucking experiment. They actually blew off 2 aircraft frames.

 

[bilby]

And when that shrapnel hits near the front a commercial airliner with a pressurised cabin at FL330, travelling at M0.82, it generates a whole heap more shrapnel that used to be part of the aircraft, which the rest of the airframe will plow into at high speed. As the OVV report explains in some detail, the missile did enough damage to separate the entire cockpit and front portion of the aircraft from the rest of the fuselage; How you could break up an internally pressurised airframe in this way without generating further shrapnel, to strike the wings, engines, and other parts aft of the initial impact is a total mystery.

Catastrophic failure of a pressurised cabin is quite easy to achieve; as the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am 103 showed, even a small bomb that can be hidden in a tape recorder can destroy a large jetliner, due to the effects of internal pressurisation combined with a slipstream at nearly 1,000km/h. A small hole doesn't stay small for long in such conditions.

I am glad you agreed that there are problems with dutch theory which does not explain the damage distribution.
And no, debris can not make secondary holes consistent with missile shrapnel.

I am glad you agree that Russian backed separatists are responsible.

Now that you finally admit that, you need take no further part in the debate.

- - - Updated - - -

You have a simplistic idea of how the missile works. When missiles first came out you would be right but a modern missile has more brains than that--the BUK is programmed to fly above it's target and detonate.

And you mister have no clue at all. Otherwise you would not post such unrelated and random posts.
Missile flying head on would not be able to damage both cockpit and left engine, that's what russians are saying and demonstrating it with their simulation and fucking experiment. They actually blew off 2 aircraft frames.

Ah, that explains why the majority of the aircraft debris was found all in one location.

Oh, no, hang on, it wasn't.

 

[Ford]

that's what russians are saying

Yes. We know you're repeating the Russian talking points. This is painfully obvious.

 

[Deepak]

You have a simplistic idea of how the missile works. When missiles first came out you would be right but a modern missile has more brains than that--the BUK is programmed to fly above it's target and detonate.

And you mister have no clue at all. Otherwise you would not post such unrelated and random posts.
Missile flying head on would not be able to damage both cockpit and left engine, that's what russians are saying and demonstrating it with their simulation and fucking experiment. They actually blew off 2 aircraft frames.

Honest question - have you looked at the Dutch report or received your information second hand?

The report does not have the missile coming in on the plane longitudinally. The missile swept across the flight path at an angle and detonated left, and above the cockpit.

Does anyone know if an English version of the A-A report exists? I'd like to square their simulation with the Dutch report. So far the only thing I've found is an hour long dubbed presentation that I don't have the appetite to sit through.

 

[tupac chopra]

What disinformation am I spreading? The left engine covering was damaged. clearly by fragments. Can you explain this if the missile was fired from head on?

You have a simplistic idea of how the missile works. When missiles first came out you would be right but a modern missile has more brains than that--the BUK is programmed to fly above it's target and detonate.

Nothing you have said refutes the claim. As usual you are clutching at straws, pretending you have some answer.

 

[tupac chopra]

And you mister have no clue at all. Otherwise you would not post such unrelated and random posts.
Missile flying head on would not be able to damage both cockpit and left engine, that's what russians are saying and demonstrating it with their simulation and fucking experiment. They actually blew off 2 aircraft frames.

Honest question - have you looked at the Dutch report or received your information second hand?

The report does not have the missile coming in on the plane longitudinally. The missile swept across the flight path at an angle and detonated left, and above the cockpit.

.

Source please. The DSB report has a huge area of "possible" launch places, which includes Snizhne, which is almost head on, and which is the place touted by America and the Ukraine
But can you quote the report so we can discuss.

 

[tupac chopra]

Missiles don't explode and "become" shrapnel. They contain a warhead containing shrapnel. A warhead designed to explode in a very specific way.

And when that shrapnel hits near the front a commercial airliner with a pressurised cabin at FL330, travelling at M0.82, it generates a whole heap more shrapnel that used to be part of the aircraft, which the rest of the airframe will plow into at high speed. .

You need to explain the square perforations that are not from random debris but from warhead fragments. Random pieces of debris don't leave those signature perforations.

 

[bilby]

And when that shrapnel hits near the front a commercial airliner with a pressurised cabin at FL330, travelling at M0.82, it generates a whole heap more shrapnel that used to be part of the aircraft, which the rest of the airframe will plow into at high speed. .

You need to explain the square perforations that are not from random debris but from warhead fragments. Random pieces of debris don't leave those signature perforations.

I don't need to explain shit; You are making an absurd claim, and I am calling you on it. The OVV report indicates that the missile detonated above and to the left of the cockpit; All of the damage to the aircraft is entirely consistent with their assessment (the wreckage is described in detail in section 2.12.2 or that report, starting on page 53). If you don't agree with their explanation, made on the basis of expert examination of the wreckage, then YOU need to explain why not. Are you more experienced in the examination of crashed airliners than the OVV staff? Why would anyone accept your opinion ahead of theirs?

You also need to explain why, if they didn't shoot down the plane, the Russian-backed separatists were crowing about shooting down a plane on the day of the incident - a day when no other planes were shot down in the area.

You also need to explain why, if the plane was shot down by someone other than the Russians or their separatist friends, it was shot down with a modern BUK warhead that nobody else had access to; and if it was shot down by Ukrainian forces, why they were shooting at planes in an airspace where the only military aircraft were their own?

Each individual piece of evidence has an explanation that fits both the Russian claim that the separatists didn't do it; and the Dutch and Ukrainian claim that they did. But only one of those sets of information is internally consistent - only one set of information provides means, motive, opportunity and physical evidence all of which are consistent with each other. To believe the Russian version of events would require the same suspension of reason and blindness to internal contradiction that is needed to believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

 

[barbos]

And you mister have no clue at all. Otherwise you would not post such unrelated and random posts.
Missile flying head on would not be able to damage both cockpit and left engine, that's what russians are saying and demonstrating it with their simulation and fucking experiment. They actually blew off 2 aircraft frames.

Honest question - have you looked at the Dutch report or received your information second hand?

The report does not have the missile coming in on the plane longitudinally. The missile swept across the flight path at an angle and detonated left, and above the cockpit.

Does anyone know if an English version of the A-A report exists? I'd like to square their simulation with the Dutch report. So far the only thing I've found is an hour long dubbed presentation that I don't have the appetite to sit through.

No, I did not read it, and I am certainly not going to check angles with protractor.
But the part about misrepresentation turned out to be true. Dutch did in fact misrepresent Almaz-Antey simulation.
If dutch feel so confident about russians being full of shit they should demonstrate it instead of simply ignoring it.
It all looks like dutch want to end this whole thing as fast as possible and have result as inconclusive/vague as possible.
I have said it before and will repeat it again Almaz-Antey has nothing to gain by lying and the amount of effort they put so far is inconsistent with a lie. The fact is, they are almost certainly correct and it was not Snezhnoe.

 

[barbos]

You need to explain the square perforations that are not from random debris but from warhead fragments. Random pieces of debris don't leave those signature perforations.

I don't need to explain shit; You are making an absurd claim, and I am calling you on it.

Yes you need to explain shit you are making on the spot.

 

[Will Wiley]

You need to explain the square perforations that are not from random debris but from warhead fragments. Random pieces of debris don't leave those signature perforations.

I don't need to explain shit; You are making an absurd claim, and I am calling you on it. The OVV report indicates that the missile detonated above and to the left of the cockpit; All of the damage to the aircraft is entirely consistent with their assessment (the wreckage is described in detail in section 2.12.2 or that report, starting on page 53). If you don't agree with their explanation, made on the basis of expert examination of the wreckage, then YOU need to explain why not. Are you more experienced in the examination of crashed airliners than the OVV staff? Why would anyone accept your opinion ahead of theirs?

Where did tupac say the missile did not explode above the and to the left of the cockpit? I don't think you understand Almaz Antey's (the weapon manufacturer's) position.

Almaz Anteys case (which tupac seems to echoing) is that the missile flew laterally across in front of the plane and exploded above and to the left of the cockpit. Because of that angle it sprayed the cockpit and the left wing. This can't have happened if the missile came from separatist held positions in front of the plane.

Here are independent images (which may be slightly inaccurate) of where the fragments should have struck the plane both from the American/Ukrainian hypothesised launch site and that proposed by Almaz Antey.
Sinzhne, where there should be no warhead fragment damage (the rectangular holes) to the left wing



And from the side where we expect the left wing to be damaged by warhead fragments


The missile must have come from the side

 

[dystopian]

Honest question - have you looked at the Dutch report or received your information second hand?

The report does not have the missile coming in on the plane longitudinally. The missile swept across the flight path at an angle and detonated left, and above the cockpit.

Does anyone know if an English version of the A-A report exists? I'd like to square their simulation with the Dutch report. So far the only thing I've found is an hour long dubbed presentation that I don't have the appetite to sit through.

No, I did not read it, and I am certainly not going to check angles with protractor.

You don't have to say anything else.

Anyone who insists a report is wrong when they haven't even read it and also casually states that they're not even going to check evidence to begin with is someone who isn't worth listening to and whose statements on any subject whatsoever will never be credible again.

 

[barbos]

No, I did not read it, and I am certainly not going to check angles with protractor.

You don't have to say anything else.

Anyone who insists a report is wrong when they haven't even read it and also casually states that they're not even going to check evidence to begin with is someone who isn't worth listening to and whose statements on any subject whatsoever will never be credible again.

I read the necessary part and can confirm that dutch misrepresented Almaz-Antey.

 

[dystopian]

I read the necessary part and can confirm that dutch misrepresented Almaz-Antey.

 

[barbos]

Dutch are full if shit

 

[dystopian]

Dutch are full if shit

warning, the true and subtle meaning of the following response is hidden beneath the more apparent yet still quite subtle meaning, and will likely fail to be understood. This is to be expected.

 

[Jayjay]

Russia is acting exactly like a guilty party would act: trying to delay, obstruct, and shift blame. The report did consider Russia's request, and even made some changes based on it (such as not explicitly saying that Russia is party to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine), but regarding the evidence:

3.8 Simulations to assess the origin of the damage

3.8.1 Introduction
Using the results in Section 3.7 that the aeroplane was struck by a warhead, a number of simulations were run. These were intended to corroborate the findings and to calculate the volume of space of the warhead's detonation location and the missile's possible flight path from the ground to the detonation. Simulations performed by three parties delivered results that were consistent with the damage observed on the aeroplane's wreckage. A study provided by the Russian Federation had results that were not consistent with the damage.

The data that Russia tried to peddle was rejected because it did not match the damage, and furthermore because it contradicted with three other parties.

That's complete and utter bullshit.

Thank you for clearing that up; I was inclined to accept the findings of the Onderzoeksraad Voor Veiligheid report, but having read the detailed information you provide here, and weighed it against the casual denial without evidence, as presented by the OVV, I am forced to agree that your evidence massively outweighs theirs.

Dutch are assholes, they made it look like russian study was just bad and JayJay fell for it exactly.
In reality dutch asked to simulate certain trajectory and russians did so, and result did not match the damage, that only says that particular trajectory is wrong. That's why they accuse dutch report in misrepresentation.
As for 2 other simulations, these are most likely using intentionally wrong data on missile to fit favorable for ukrainian trajectory with damage
Dutch are lying. And Almaz-Antey are behaving as someone who knows that.
What is probably gonna happen is Almaz saying what I just said "You used wrong "data" on missile" and Dutch will keep ignoring and if Russia decides not to play along and press the issue they will say "Sorry, me speak no russian, me can't read specification and used specification for US made missile"

Did you enve read the report? It has point-by-point rebuttal of Russian claims, which explain why the method used by Russia to determine the location of the explosion is inaccurate. It seems that Russia didn't run any simulation, because the position and size of the warhead that Russia suggested does not match the observed damage. We know this because the dutch ran the simulation with the Russian parameters.

It's Russia who desperately wants to create enough uncertainty as to the trajectory so they could pretend they weren't involved. The Dutch investiation didn't start with the trajectory, they started with the damage observed and the possible type of the warhead. It just happens that multiple teams came to the same conclusion about it, and it just happens that the possible area of launch is where BUK missile was seen and photographed. Multiple lines of evidence pointing to same conclusion.

Almaz Antey is acting like a Russian state-owned company that is trying to weasel out of sanctions for its involvement in Ukrainian conflict, not somene who's after truth in any shape or form.

 

[Jayjay]

What disinformation am I spreading? The left engine covering was damaged. clearly by fragments. Can you explain this if the missile was fired from head on?

The Dutch Safety Board report takes the damage to the engines into account:

Using the shape and orientation of the witness marks, including the perforation holes in the left engine intake ring and left wing tip, a trajectory direction [for the shrapnel, not the missile] was derived. The results show trajectories of perforation damage converging to a single source to the left of, and above, the cockpit.

So clearly, there is no contradiction between this damage and the safety board conclusion. Also if there was, Russia did not bring it up in any official forum. This is a textbook example of disinformation: some weird-ass rumours that sound technical but aren't based on any real fact, with intent to obfuscate, and to support conclusions that aren't in any way related.

 

[Jayjay]

I don't need to explain shit; You are making an absurd claim, and I am calling you on it. The OVV report indicates that the missile detonated above and to the left of the cockpit; All of the damage to the aircraft is entirely consistent with their assessment (the wreckage is described in detail in section 2.12.2 or that report, starting on page 53). If you don't agree with their explanation, made on the basis of expert examination of the wreckage, then YOU need to explain why not. Are you more experienced in the examination of crashed airliners than the OVV staff? Why would anyone accept your opinion ahead of theirs?

Where did tupac say the missile did not explode above the and to the left of the cockpit? I don't think you understand Almaz Antey's (the weapon manufacturer's) position.

Almaz Anteys case (which tupac seems to echoing) is that the missile flew laterally across in front of the plane and exploded above and to the left of the cockpit. Because of that angle it sprayed the cockpit and the left wing. This can't have happened if the missile came from separatist held positions in front of the plane.

Here are independent images (which may be slightly inaccurate) of where the fragments should have struck the plane both from the American/Ukrainian hypothesised launch site and that proposed by Almaz Antey.
Sinzhne, where there should be no warhead fragment damage (the rectangular holes) to the left wing
View attachment 4463


And from the side where we expect the left wing to be damaged by warhead fragments
View attachment 4464

The missile must have come from the side

What you are seeing is an example of Russians fudging the numbers and presenting a powerpoint to fool laymen. The position that you see is not consistent with the damage, or the type of perforations seen in the left wing. The report clearly states that the "band" where there were most perforations was clearly near the cockpit, and not alongside the plane or the wing as you see in the bottom image. The holes in the wing were outliers and of different size, which is what you'd expect from the secondary fragmentation.

So basically, Russia didn't like that the trajectory was pointing to Snizhne, so they started with the assumption what the trajectory would have to be if it had been fired from where they wanted it, then interpreted the evidence to match. They must have been taken lessons from Christian apologia.