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

[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.

Thank you for another intelligent comment full of content. Well done.

It's all the topic is worth, dude. Your arguments aren't more substantive then those of a 9/11 Truther.

If you're going to make those arguments, you're just going to have to deal with people laughing about how stupid your arguments are. It's the natural consequence of what you're doing, so it's unjustified to then complain about it.

 

[Will Wiley]

Thank you for another intelligent comment full of content. Well done.

It's all the topic is worth, dude. Your arguments aren't more substantive then those of a 9/11 Truther.

If you're going to make those arguments, you're just going to have to deal with people laughing about how stupid your arguments are. It's the natural consequence of what you're doing, so it's unjustified to then complain about it.

Post after post.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=212939&viewfull=1#post212939
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=211939&viewfull=1#post211939
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=211955&viewfull=1#post211955
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=211965&viewfull=1#post211965
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=211969&viewfull=1#post211969
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=212566&viewfull=1#post212566

It says a lot. At least JayJay makes an effort to read the material understand the arguments and contribute something.

So your example is, that if a member of the forum is unable to contribute some rational argument, some evidence, some fact, then one course of action is to engage in infantile sniping, over and over and over?

Is it too much to ask for you to read the report, understand what is being said and present some rational contribution?

 

[RavenSky]

~~ an annoyed moderator

 

[Ford]

It's all the topic is worth, dude. Your arguments aren't more substantive then those of a 9/11 Truther.

If you're going to make those arguments, you're just going to have to deal with people laughing about how stupid your arguments are. It's the natural consequence of what you're doing, so it's unjustified to then complain about it.

Post after post.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=212939&viewfull=1#post212939
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=211939&viewfull=1#post211939
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=211955&viewfull=1#post211955
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=211965&viewfull=1#post211965
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=211969&viewfull=1#post211969
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=212566&viewfull=1#post212566

It says a lot. At least JayJay makes an effort to read the material understand the arguments and contribute something.

Tom realizes what he's dealing with, so poking fun is appropriate. Kudos to Jay for making the effort, but it is a wasted effort. You and your fellow members of Team Moscow (tupac and barbos) aren't here to have an honest debate. Your conclusion was arrived at long before the Dutch (assholes, apparently) got involved:

Ukraine did it.

As the evidence otherwise mounted, the denials became more convoluted. The CIA was accused. Western media was said to be complicit. Ukrainian Nazis were invoked. Facts never mattered to those dedicated to advancing Moscow's narrative, because the Kremlin isn't exactly concerned with facts in the first place. Propaganda is more important, and the moment that it became clear that what was shot down was a plane full of non-rebel civilians, the propaganda machine went into overdrive...even going so far as to send in loyalists to argue the case on a little forum that mostly deals with atheism.

I don't know what others were expecting, but when this report came out, I already knew what the response would be from the little Kremlin Fan Club here. Denials and conspiracy bullshit. What I wasn't expecting was the level of vitriol aimed at the Dutch for doing a thorough investigation. Apparently when you get a Russian cornered they turn nasty!


Now there's no doubt in the mind of anyone not distributing official Kremlin propaganda what happened. A civilian airliner was shot down by a ground to air missile. A missile that was made by Russians, sent into Ukraine by Russia, and operated by Russians. Did the Russians intentionally down a civilian airliner? Almost certainly not. But the evidence that they did so - even by accident - is conclusive.


I await your further denials...because that's all we'll ever get out of you.

 

[Will Wiley]

Post after post.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=212939&viewfull=1#post212939
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=211939&viewfull=1#post211939
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=211955&viewfull=1#post211955
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=211965&viewfull=1#post211965
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=211969&viewfull=1#post211969
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...MH17-shootdown&p=212566&viewfull=1#post212566

It says a lot. At least JayJay makes an effort to read the material understand the arguments and contribute something.

Tom realizes what he's dealing with, so poking fun is appropriate. Kudos to Jay for making the effort, but it is a wasted effort. You and your fellow members of Team Moscow (tupac and barbos) aren't here to have an honest debate. Your conclusion was arrived at long before the Dutch (assholes, apparently) got involved:

Ukraine did it.

As the evidence otherwise mounted, the denials became more convoluted. The CIA was accused. Western media was said to be complicit. Ukrainian Nazis were invoked. Facts never mattered to those dedicated to advancing Moscow's narrative, because the Kremlin isn't exactly concerned with facts in the first place. Propaganda is more important, and the moment that it became clear that what was shot down was a plane full of non-rebel civilians, the propaganda machine went into overdrive...even going so far as to send in loyalists to argue the case on a little forum that mostly deals with atheism.

I don't know what others were expecting, but when this report came out, I already knew what the response would be from the little Kremlin Fan Club here. Denials and conspiracy bullshit. What I wasn't expecting was the level of vitriol aimed at the Dutch for doing a thorough investigation. Apparently when you get a Russian cornered they turn nasty!


Now there's no doubt in the mind of anyone not distributing official Kremlin propaganda what happened. A civilian airliner was shot down by a ground to air missile. A missile that was made by Russians, sent into Ukraine by Russia, and operated by Russians. Did the Russians intentionally down a civilian airliner? Almost certainly not. But the evidence that they did so - even by accident - is conclusive.


I await your further denials...because that's all we'll ever get out of you.

Another lame attempt to avoid dealing with any facts any evidence or present any rational argument. You guys talk about evidence but never present any.

 

[Will Wiley]

What I wasn't expecting was the level of vitriol aimed at the Dutch for doing a thorough investigation. !.

You haven't even read the report. How would know it is thorough?

Did the Russians intentionally down a civilian airliner? Almost certainly not. But the evidence that they did so - even by accident - is conclusive.

What evidence?
You probably believed Sadaam had WMD and cheered on the invasion of Iraq.

 

[Will Wiley]

delete

 

[Jayjay]

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?

Because some of the PDFs in question are somehow protected so that I can't copy-paste. When I quote something from it, I have to either take a screenshot or type it out. Appendix X, page 58:

6.18 Kinematic Fragment Spray Pattern Simulation
[...]
On detonation the missile disintegrates and forms the secondary fragmentation described in Section 6.16. Extrapolating the missile trajectory in the Kinematic Spray Pattern Simulation shows that the secondary fragmentation aused by this disintegration, as depicted in Figure 55, will travel in the direction of the left engine. This secondary fragmentation damage is consistent with the damage observed on the left engine cowling ring shown in Section 2.11. The secondary damage on the left wingtip is assessed to be caused by a larger missile fragment grazing the upper surface of the wingtip.

The picture you included is not inconsistent with this. You can see clearly that if the missile came from Snizhne, the secondary fragmentation would hit the left engine and wing:

 

[Will Wiley]

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

Because some of the PDFs in question are somehow protected so that I can't copy-paste. When I quote something from it, I have to either take a screenshot or type it out. Appendix X, page 58:

6.18 Kinematic Fragment Spray Pattern Simulation
[...]
On detonation the missile disintegrates and forms the secondary fragmentation described in Section 6.16. Extrapolating the missile trajectory in the Kinematic Spray Pattern Simulation shows that the secondary fragmentation aused by this disintegration, as depicted in Figure 55, will travel in the direction of the left engine. This secondary fragmentation damage is consistent with the damage observed on the left engine cowling ring shown in Section 2.11. The secondary damage on the left wingtip is assessed to be caused by a larger missile fragment grazing the upper surface of the wingtip.

The picture you included is not inconsistent with this. You can see clearly that if the missile came from Snizhne, the secondary fragmentation would hit the left engine and wing:

So are they talking about just the large hole, or all the small ones too?
How could those small sqaure ones be caused by a larger piece?

Can you link to the appendix please, so we can all see.

 

[Jayjay]

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).

Nonsense. This is like the Russian Engineer's Union argument from last year that determined the damage was from bullet holes, based on nothing but "they look like bullet holes". If you look at the damage on the engine cowling, there is maybe one or two holes that could be described as "squarish", and even then it's a stretch. Also, how do you explain the distribution of the holes (only 5 out of 47 are within range of preformed fragment size)? How do you explain that none of the smaller fragments in the engine went all the way through? How do you explain lack of ricochet damage on the side of the plane? How do you explain the lack of regular patterns on the engine which you'd expect from pre-formed fragmentation?

Sorry, if you or Almaz-Antey wants ot make a better case, just saying that the holes aren't "squarish" enough in your layman opinion is hardly convincing.

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.

Or they don't have the data. Or the data is inconclusive. Or they are saving it for the criminal trial. Or they don't want to release it because it would show the capabilities of their military satellites. But why didn't Russia release its radar data?

EDITED TO ADD: And actually, if such imagery exist, the US satellite would not show "the missile coming from the side". It wouldn't show any missile at all, but rather the infrared flash of the launch and perhaps the detonation.

 

[Jayjay]

Because some of the PDFs in question are somehow protected so that I can't copy-paste. When I quote something from it, I have to either take a screenshot or type it out. Appendix X, page 58:

6.18 Kinematic Fragment Spray Pattern Simulation
[...]
On detonation the missile disintegrates and forms the secondary fragmentation described in Section 6.16. Extrapolating the missile trajectory in the Kinematic Spray Pattern Simulation shows that the secondary fragmentation aused by this disintegration, as depicted in Figure 55, will travel in the direction of the left engine. This secondary fragmentation damage is consistent with the damage observed on the left engine cowling ring shown in Section 2.11. The secondary damage on the left wingtip is assessed to be caused by a larger missile fragment grazing the upper surface of the wingtip.

The picture you included is not inconsistent with this. You can see clearly that if the missile came from Snizhne, the secondary fragmentation would hit the left engine and wing:

So are they talking about just the large hole, or all the small ones too?
How could those small sqaure ones be caused by a larger piece?

Big pieces fragment to smaller pieces. There are probably some rivets and screws and bolts in there. And the front of the warhead contains electronics and navigation components, i.e. parts of various sizes. Also, while the report doesn't say it, I don't see why some of the perforations wouldn't be due to preformed fragments either ricocheting off the plane, or from each other. This would explain why the none of the smaller holes had matching exit holes on the back.

Can you link to the appendix please, so we can all see.

They're all on the Dutch Safety Board page so I figured separate links aren't needed. But for your convenience: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf

 

[Will Wiley]

Because some of the PDFs in question are somehow protected so that I can't copy-paste. When I quote something from it, I have to either take a screenshot or type it out. Appendix X, page 58:

6.18 Kinematic Fragment Spray Pattern Simulation
[...]
On detonation the missile disintegrates and forms the secondary fragmentation described in Section 6.16. Extrapolating the missile trajectory in the Kinematic Spray Pattern Simulation shows that the secondary fragmentation aused by this disintegration, as depicted in Figure 55, will travel in the direction of the left engine. This secondary fragmentation damage is consistent with the damage observed on the left engine cowling ring shown in Section 2.11. The secondary damage on the left wingtip is assessed to be caused by a larger missile fragment grazing the upper surface of the wingtip.

The picture you included is not inconsistent with this. You can see clearly that if the missile came from Snizhne, the secondary fragmentation would hit the left engine and wing:

So are they talking about just the large hole, or all the small ones too?
How could those small sqaure ones be caused by a larger piece?

Big pieces fragment to smaller pieces. There are probably some rivets and screws and bolts in there. And the front of the warhead contains electronics and navigation components, i.e. parts of various sizes. Also, while the report doesn't say it, I don't see why some of the perforations wouldn't be due to preformed fragments either ricocheting off the plane, or from each other. This would explain why the none of the smaller holes had matching exit holes on the back.

Yes they do! And they pass through two layers according to AA. But the first point is easily shown. http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.../2015/06/34f858c2ce1de9419bc85fba359e3bac.jpg

They're all on the Dutch Safety Board page so I figured separate links aren't needed. But for your convenience: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf

Where is the photo or figure or whatever they were referring to of the left engine?

 

[Jayjay]

Because some of the PDFs in question are somehow protected so that I can't copy-paste. When I quote something from it, I have to either take a screenshot or type it out. Appendix X, page 58:

6.18 Kinematic Fragment Spray Pattern Simulation
[...]
On detonation the missile disintegrates and forms the secondary fragmentation described in Section 6.16. Extrapolating the missile trajectory in the Kinematic Spray Pattern Simulation shows that the secondary fragmentation aused by this disintegration, as depicted in Figure 55, will travel in the direction of the left engine. This secondary fragmentation damage is consistent with the damage observed on the left engine cowling ring shown in Section 2.11. The secondary damage on the left wingtip is assessed to be caused by a larger missile fragment grazing the upper surface of the wingtip.

The picture you included is not inconsistent with this. You can see clearly that if the missile came from Snizhne, the secondary fragmentation would hit the left engine and wing:

So are they talking about just the large hole, or all the small ones too?
How could those small sqaure ones be caused by a larger piece?

Big pieces fragment to smaller pieces. There are probably some rivets and screws and bolts in there. And the front of the warhead contains electronics and navigation components, i.e. parts of various sizes. Also, while the report doesn't say it, I don't see why some of the perforations wouldn't be due to preformed fragments either ricocheting off the plane, or from each other. This would explain why the none of the smaller holes had matching exit holes on the back.

Yes they do! And they pass through two layers according to AA. But the first point is easily shown. http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.../2015/06/34f858c2ce1de9419bc85fba359e3bac.jpg

I don't know what that photo is supposed to show or what is the context, but I'll take your word for it. However:

2.11 Other impact damage
[...] The size of the damage caused by objects that penetrated both front and rear plate is significantly larger than the impact damage found on the wreckage of the cockpit. The size of all penetrations of the front of the ring was measured and found to range from 1 to 200 mm. Only 5 of the 47 penetrations were in the same 6-14 mm size range as the ones found on the cockpit panel of Figure 14. None of the objects that caused these 5 penetrations also penetrated the back plate.

So penetrating two layers is different. But nevertheless, the ricochet idea was just my own musing rather than anything from the report so it could be total nonsense. But there still aren't exactly square shaped holes or holes in clear pattern of holes that would conclusively show that the engine was hit by the primary fragments.

They're all on the Dutch Safety Board page so I figured separate links aren't needed. But for your convenience: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf

Where is the photo or figure or whatever they were referring to of the left engine?

"This secondary fragmentation damage is consistent with the damage observed on the left engine cowling ring shown in Section 2.11"

 

[Will Wiley]

"This secondary fragmentation damage is consistent with the damage observed on the left engine cowling ring shown in Section 2.11"

What page of the report or appendix?

 

[Will Wiley]

2.11 Other impact damage
[...] The size of the damage caused by objects that penetrated both front and rear plate is significantly larger than the impact damage found on the wreckage of the cockpit. The size of all penetrations of the front of the ring was measured and found to range from 1 to 200 mm. Only 5 of the 47 penetrations were in the same 6-14 mm size range as the ones found on the cockpit panel of Figure 14. None of the objects that caused these 5 penetrations also penetrated the back plate.

That is disputed in this picture, where we can see an exit hole in the photo in the bottom right. It sure looks the same size as the holes in the cockpit.
View attachment 4475

 

[Will Wiley]

Almaz Antey demonstrated that had the missile come from Snizhne, from head on then we should have seen warhead fragments exiting the right side of the cockpit. You can see that here just after the 1 hour mark.
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/LKAXKwnUTg0[/YOUTUBE]

Yet the DSB report on page 31 section 2.8 says.

The right hand side of the cockpit shows no high energy impact damage.

http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf

This is perhaps a simpler more conclusive way to show the missile cannot have come from Snizhne.

 

[beero1000]

Almaz Antey demonstrated that had the missile come from Snizhne, from head on then we should have seen warhead fragments exiting the right side of the cockpit. You can see that here just after the 1 hour mark.
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/LKAXKwnUTg0[/YOUTUBE]

Yet the DSB report on page 31 section 2.8 says.

The right hand side of the cockpit shows no high energy impact damage.

http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf

This is perhaps a simpler more conclusive way to show the missile cannot have come from Snizhne.

Why in the world would anyone trust a report on this from a Russian state-run arms manufacturer? That would be like believing a toddler when they said they didn't eat the candy, no way, no how, it was totally the dog.

 

[Will Wiley]

Almaz Antey demonstrated that had the missile come from Snizhne, from head on then we should have seen warhead fragments exiting the right side of the cockpit. You can see that here just after the 1 hour mark.
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/LKAXKwnUTg0[/YOUTUBE]

Yet the DSB report on page 31 section 2.8 says.

http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendix-x-nlr-report-en.pdf

This is perhaps a simpler more conclusive way to show the missile cannot have come from Snizhne.

Why in the world would anyone trust a report on this from a Russian state-run arms manufacturer? That would be like believing a toddler when they said they didn't eat the candy, no way, no how, it was totally the dog.

Why in the world would we trust a report involving Ukraine where they can veto anything they don't like?
Why would we trust a report which does not include American intelligence, when the Americans told us they know who did it and saw who did it?
Why didn't the DSB report do a live test too? They can do one now to see if the weapons manufacturer is correct.

Do you really belive no warhead fragments from a buk missile would exit the cockpit? Do you genuinely believe that?

 

[beero1000]

Russia is an accused party - they have an obvious interest for the culprit to be not-Russia. I wouldn't trust a Ukrainian report either.

Maybe if some third-party investigated and released some sort of report...

 

[bilby]

Why in the world would anyone trust a report on this from a Russian state-run arms manufacturer? That would be like believing a toddler when they said they didn't eat the candy, no way, no how, it was totally the dog.

Why in the world would we trust a report involving Ukraine where they can veto anything they don't like?
Why would we trust a report which does not include American intelligence, when the Americans told us they know who did it and saw who did it?
Why didn't the DSB report do a live test too? They can do one now to see if the weapons manufacturer is correct.

Do you really belive no warhead fragments from a buk missile would exit the cockpit? Do you genuinely believe that?

Do you really believe jet fuel can melt steel beams? Do you genuinely believe that?