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

[barbos]

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.

You don't not appear to have read my post, Read it again.

 

[barbos]

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.

Dutch are doing all the fudging here, and they suck at it.

 

[barbos]

Meanwhile current Ukrainian government is not happy about report either, specifically about part where it says air space should have been closed.
Also their current Attorney General admitted that Russia had nothing to do with sniper fire during Maidan mess. they basically say their previous guy was full of shit when he said Russia was responsible.

 

[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.

You don't not appear to have read my post, Read it again.

Yes, I did read it. You seem confused because you have not read the report, just Russian propaganda and disinformation.

The Almaz-Antey simulation to determine the launch position is quoted in the Dutch Safety Board report. It explicitly states, that it was based on the parameters provided by the simulations from Dutch and Ukrainian sources. That's not misrepresentation, that's the fact. And this data is based on the simulations regarding the observed damage.

The Russians are suggesting that the Dutch data is wrong, so they ran their own simulation assuming a different position for the explosion and different size for the warhead. This input gives them a convenient launch position from Zaroschenskoye, but it's not consistend with the damage on the plane. The Russian methdology to determine the position of the explosion is flawed, as explained in the report.

 

[barbos]

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.

You don't not appear to have read my post, Read it again.

Yes, I did read it. You seem confused because you have not read the report, just Russian propaganda and disinformation.

The Almaz-Antey simulation to determine the launch position is quoted in the Dutch Safety Board report. It explicitly states, that it was based on the parameters provided by the simulations from Dutch and Ukrainian sources. That's not misrepresentation, that's the fact. And this data is based on the simulations regarding the observed damage.

The Russians are suggesting that the Dutch data is wrong, so they ran their own simulation assuming a different position for the explosion and different size for the warhead. This input gives them a convenient launch position from Zaroschenskoye, but it's not consistend with the damage on the plane. The Russian methdology to determine the position of the explosion is flawed, as explained in the report.

I read part which YOU posted. it is clear misrepresentation.
Almaz did what dutch asked them to do, it's just result was not what dutch wanted. And they made it look like simulation was wrong.
That's completely backward. What it really means is that Dutch trajectory is bullshit because it does not match with damage.

It's not really about trajectory, it's about dutch misrepresenting what Almaz did and said.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It's quite possible for a missile exploding above the aircraft to damage both the cockpit and an engine.

 

[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.

It's quite possible for a missile exploding above the aircraft to damage both the cockpit and an engine.

Not according to specs. And even if it could do such a thing it would damage both engines.

Anyway, I did skim over dutch report. It's a bit weird because it says Almaz simulation agrees with with other simulations including one from Kiev.
Also, Kiev simulation is ridiculously precise. Anyway, I don't recall Almaz ever agreeing with dutch, therefore dutch claiming they agree with Almaz is clearly inconsistent with Almaz.

 

[barbos]

I had to go read what Almaz said again.
Yes, it's page 146 and Almaz basically says "we never calculated that!"

So dutch must have been smoking some legal weed when they compiled that report.

 

[Will Wiley]

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.

except that this simulation was made by an Englishman who lives in America who who favors a launch from Snizhne! But he is it seems an honest man who is interested in the truth.

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.

You still dont understand the missile or the diagram

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.

Again, this is not made by Russians

 

[Will Wiley]

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. .

There is unless they can show their reasoning, but they don't. All they do is assert it. Why do you believe them??
So there is nothing "clear" about it.

 

[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.

You don't not appear to have read my post, Read it again.

Yes, I did read it. You seem confused because you have not read the report, just Russian propaganda and disinformation.

The Almaz-Antey simulation to determine the launch position is quoted in the Dutch Safety Board report. It explicitly states, that it was based on the parameters provided by the simulations from Dutch and Ukrainian sources. That's not misrepresentation, that's the fact. And this data is based on the simulations regarding the observed damage.

The Russians are suggesting that the Dutch data is wrong, so they ran their own simulation assuming a different position for the explosion and different size for the warhead. This input gives them a convenient launch position from Zaroschenskoye, but it's not consistend with the damage on the plane. The Russian methdology to determine the position of the explosion is flawed, as explained in the report.

I read part which YOU posted. it is clear misrepresentation.
Almaz did what dutch asked them to do, it's just result was not what dutch wanted. And they made it look like simulation was wrong.
That's completely backward. What it really means is that Dutch trajectory is bullshit because it does not match with damage.

It's not really about trajectory, it's about dutch misrepresenting what Almaz did and said.

No, it is not. It's about you misrepresenting what the report (that you admit that you didn't even bother reading) says. Which is this:

3.8.6 Simulations of the missile's flight path
The investigation into the detonation of the warhead included fly out simulations which also comprised the weapon's possible fligjt paths. NLR, Ukraine, and JSC Concern Almaz-Antey performed siulations to calculate the missile's flight path based on the detonation positions calculated in the simulations as describe in paragraph 3.8.5. These simulations are described below, commencing with the work performed by NLR.

[...]

JSC Concern Almaz-Antey performed a simulation of the effects that would be expected from this weapon using detonation data that TNO had calculated and was included in the draft version of this report. This was done without confirming that a 9N314M warhead, carried by a 9M38-series missile and launched from a Buk surface-to-air missile system had caused the crash. The material provided by JSC Concern Almaz-Antey was used by the investigation as a validation of the models used by NLR and Kyiv Research Institute for Forensic Expertise.

Emphasis added. The report is very clear that the data of the possible locations and orientations of the explosions were provided to Almaz-Antey by the TNO, and that just confirms the models of the missile's possible flight paths. Almaz-Antey's role in this part of the investigation is accurately reflected in the report.

As for the damage to the plane, you are wrong about that too. The Dutch data of the possible points of detonation are derived from the simulations of the damage to the plane, so it is consistent with it. It's the Russian data that doesn't match with the damage. This was addressed in the Appendix L of the "About MH17 investigation" which tabulates the Russian comments with feedback:

The Dutch Safety Board investigated whether the detonation of a smaller warhead could have caused the damage found. TNO simulations, however, proved that the effects of the detonation of a smaller warhead at the detonation point established by the Russian Federation are not consistent with the damage pattern observed, in particular with regard to the boundaries of the impact pattern.

 

[Jayjay]

It's quite possible for a missile exploding above the aircraft to damage both the cockpit and an engine.

Not according to specs. And even if it could do such a thing it would damage both engines.

No, it wouldn't. The details are in Appendix X of the report.

The holes in the engine and the wing come mostly from secondary fragmentation of the front of the warhead, not the primary charge. This is a cone aligned with the direction of the missile, and it wouldn't hit the other side unless the missile was pointing that way (or if it was coming from the side as Almaz-Antey suggested):



This is supported by the observation that most of the holes in the engine were much larger than the holes in the cockpit (which you'd expect, because it wasn't the primary shrapnel, but just fragmented parts of the top of the warhead). The report says that only 5 of of the 47 holes were smaller ones, and none of them had gone all the way through the engine ring so it was not possible to determine direction where they came from (i.e. they could have been ricochets at lower velocity).

Yes, the warhead is designed to do most of the damage to the sides, which it did. But it's not like if you are standing in front of this type of missile when it explodes you'd be unscathed. There are always some parts that go to other directions.

 

[Jayjay]

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


So clearly, there is no contradiction between this damage and the safety board conclusion. .

There is unless they can show their reasoning, but they don't. All they do is assert it. Why do you believe them??
So there is nothing "clear" about it.

They have hundreds of pages of their reasoning as a matter of public record now. Just because you are too lazy to read it, and prefer to get your news from "altenative" conspiracy theorist nutter websites doesn't mean the reasoning isn't there.

 

[Will Wiley]

There is unless they can show their reasoning, but they don't. All they do is assert it. Why do you believe them??
So there is nothing "clear" about it.

They have hundreds of pages of their reasoning as a matter of public record now. Just because you are too lazy to read it, and prefer to get your news from "altenative" conspiracy theorist nutter websites doesn't mean the reasoning isn't there.

Well, why is it you are unable to quote the part that explains this?

 

[Will Wiley]

Not according to specs. And even if it could do such a thing it would damage both engines.

No, it wouldn't. The details are in Appendix X of the report.

The holes in the engine and the wing come mostly from secondary fragmentation of the front of the warhead, not the primary charge. This is a cone aligned with the direction of the missile, and it wouldn't hit the other side unless the missile was pointing that way (or if it was coming from the side as Almaz-Antey suggested):

View attachment 4468

This is supported by the observation that most of the holes in the engine were much larger than the holes in the cockpit (which you'd expect, because it wasn't the primary shrapnel, but just fragmented parts of the top of the warhead). The report says that only 5 of of the 47 holes were smaller ones, and none of them had gone all the way through the engine ring so it was not possible to determine direction where they came from (i.e. they could have been ricochets at lower velocity).

Yes, the warhead is designed to do most of the damage to the sides, which it did. But it's not like if you are standing in front of this type of missile when it explodes you'd be unscathed. There are always some parts that go to other directions.

The red section contains the "preformed" fragments that cause the sqaurish shaped holes. The green section contains debris which does not leave the squarish holes. See page 130 of the report
We should not find the squarish holes in the part hit by the green section if the missile came from head on (Snizhne).

IOW America lied (when they pointed to Snizhne) which is why they won't release their data. Their data will likely show that the missile came from the side.
NYT Plays Games with MH-17 Tragedy

In the weeks after the shoot-down, I was told by another source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts that they had concluded that a rogue element of the Ukrainian government – tied to one of the oligarchs – was responsible for the attack, while absolving senior Ukrainian leaders including President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. But I wasn’t able to determine whether this U.S. analysis was a consensus or a dissident opinion.

 

[bilby]

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.

It's quite possible for a missile exploding above the aircraft to damage both the cockpit and an engine.

No, no; look at the diagram - the explosion produces shrapnel in defined areas with perfectly straight lines in precisely known positions delimiting the affected from the unaffected areas. You could stand three feet in front of the exploding warhead and be completely safe, because explosions are known for being precise and perfectly predictable. /sarcasm

 

[fromderinside]

bilby again pointing out what it means when a rationalist claims to know gravity.

 

[Will Wiley]

It's quite possible for a missile exploding above the aircraft to damage both the cockpit and an engine.

No, no; look at the diagram - the explosion produces shrapnel in defined areas with perfectly straight lines in precisely known positions delimiting the affected from the unaffected areas. You could stand three feet in front of the exploding warhead and be completely safe, because explosions are known for being precise and perfectly predictable. /sarcasm

It is important to distinguish between warhead fragments, and debris from the other parts of the missile. The damage from warhead fragments looks different from debris damage.
If you stood in front of a exploding buk missile you would not be hit by the preformed fragments in the warhead but you would be hit by other debris and the shockwave.
So when we look at the plane, we need to explain why there is preformed warhead fragment damage on the left engine. This damage is not consistent with a missile coming from head on in front of the plane

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Also, the plane was made out of steel and that doesn't melt, so it's not like the missile could have damaged it to turn it into fragments in the first place.

 

[Will Wiley]

Also, the plane was made out of steel and that doesn't melt, so it's not like the missile could have damaged it to turn it into fragments in the first place.

Thank you for yet another intelligent comment full of content. Well done. Each one of your comments overflows with content which adds tremendously. Thank you again