The surprising results of the MH17 criminal investigation

[Jayjay]

Suit yourself. I guess it would be hard to do when all the facts are against you.

Jay Jay ,you are being disingenuous. AA had the missile coming from the side, which explained the damage to the plane.

To keep trying to make out tey agreed by carefully choosing your words here is wrong. They came up with a very different conclusion.

Of course they came up with a different conclusion, because their methods were flawed and politically biased. But here the issue is not whether DSB agreed with the conclusions, it's whether DSB misrepresented or distorted Almaz-Antey's results in any way. They did not: the report clearly states that the simulation results they used from Almaz-Antey was based on TNO data (the figure I posted before). It also clearly states the disagreement Almaz-Antey had regarding the detonation point (Table 19 in the report), and they run the fragment simulation with those numbers also and they were rejected because it did not match the observed damage. The report is very clear and transparent about this. So where is the distortion? For once, I'd like to see you or barbos provide some actual evidence. For example, quote the part of the report where Almaz-Antey was allegedly misrepresented. Page or figure or annex number.

No? Can't find it? Then concede the argument.

The JIT presentation doesn’t address the difference in impact evidence between the two engines as they were found on the ground. The Russian presentation makes this an important source of evidence for proving which side of the aircraft was struck by the warhead. The Russian presentation also distinguishes between simulation models of what happened – a Dutch model, as reported by the DSB reports last October and the JIT report this week; a Russian model, as reported by Almaz-Antei – and the actual evidence of the aircraft parts recovered from eastern Ukraine and reassembled at a military base in The Netherlands.

So the question for Dutch prosecutor Fred Westerbeke (lead image, left) and Dutch policeman Paulissen, along with the 100 members of the JIT staff, is which engine is which in their evidence? Why does it appear that the MH17’s port engine – left-side looking forward, compass north for the plane flying east — not impacted by warhead blast or shrapnel? Why are there shrapnel hits on the starboard engine (right-side looking forward , compass south) and why was it deformed so differently? Why has the JIT omitted to analyse the engine positions and report this evidence?

http://johnhelmer.net/?p=16468

The report in fact does address the damage to the port engine, and clearly there is damage. It's secondary fragmentation from the missile itself, as per Annex X, page 58:

On detonation the missile disintegrates and forms the secondary fragmentation described in Section 6.16. Extrapolating the missile trajectory in the Kinematic Fragment Spray Pattern Simulation shows that the secondary fragmentation caused 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 Almaz-Antey experiment tells us nothing about the engine damage, because the plate they had as a stand in for the port side engine was not placed correctly. Almaz Antey conducted the experiment on a stationary missile, and turning it so that the primary fragments would hit the cockpit roughly from the same angle as if the missile was moving. But obviously, this also changes the direction where the secondary fragmentation is going, which is perpendicular to the primary fragmentation. They should have moved the plate representing the engine to match.

 

[Jayjay]

Jay Jay here is the representative of Almaz Antey explaining why the Dutch theory appears to be wrong.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od8hg-UL3nc[/YOUTUBE]

I'm not going to watch an hour long video and spend another two hours tracking down the claims they may be making there, just to find out it's all bullshit. Summarize the specific points you think have merit and we'll discuss those.

Why didn't Almaz-Antey provide this information to the JIT, I wonder?

 

[Will Wiley]

The report in fact does address the damage to the port engine, and clearly there is damage. It's secondary fragmentation from the missile itself, as per Annex X, page 58:
.

They came up with some silly hand waving. Nothing more. There looks to be obvious fragment damage. They don't consider it.

 

[Will Wiley]

delete.

 

[barbos]

When?

Ukraine hasn't.

Ukrainian SBU fabricated that intercept. I mean they knew damn well, that some of it had no relation to MH17 and that interpretation which was circulated in the West was false.

Somehow I think Russia is on the right here.

There was a supposed satellite image showing a Su-24 firing on it. Obvious photoshop.

Actually it was Su-27, and Russia have never officially subscribed to it. One TV channel received that image from god knows who (they claim american expert) and that's it. Russian government or any investigator have never mentioned it. As for SBU then these intercepts were obviously released by them.

 

[barbos]

Jay Jay ,you are being disingenuous. AA had the missile coming from the side, which explained the damage to the plane.

To keep trying to make out tey agreed by carefully choosing your words here is wrong. They came up with a very different conclusion.

Of course they came up with a different conclusion, because their methods were flawed and politically biased. But here the issue is not whether DSB agreed with the conclusions, it's whether DSB misrepresented or distorted Almaz-Antey's results in any way. They did not:

They most certainly did, otherwise Almaz-Antey would not have accused them of distortion.

 

[barbos]

Jay Jay here is the representative of Almaz Antey explaining why the Dutch theory appears to be wrong.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od8hg-UL3nc[/YOUTUBE]

I'm not going to watch an hour long video and spend another two hours tracking down the claims they may be making there, just to find out it's all bullshit. Summarize the specific points you think have merit and we'll discuss those.

The point is, JIT is most certainly biased against Russia.

Why didn't Almaz-Antey provide this information to the JIT, I wonder?

Because they would have ignored it or distort it again?
Or maybe they did and JIT ignored it?

 

[Jayjay]

The report in fact does address the damage to the port engine, and clearly there is damage. It's secondary fragmentation from the missile itself, as per Annex X, page 58:
.

They came up with some silly hand waving. Nothing more. There looks to be obvious fragment damage. They don't consider it.

How do you know what it is supposed to look like? Some power point handwaving from Almaz-Antey is pretty much on par with the "Russian Engineers Union" claim that the holes looked like bullet holes. It's a just-so story. And conveniently, Almaz-Antey did not run a test that would show any secondary fragmentation even though they could have easily done that (just put a plate in front of the missile).

I think it is such an obvious oversight that Almaz-Antey must have done it intentionally because they knew their interpretation of the holes in the photographs wouldn't survive any experimental evidence.

 

[Jayjay]

Of course they came up with a different conclusion, because their methods were flawed and politically biased. But here the issue is not whether DSB agreed with the conclusions, it's whether DSB misrepresented or distorted Almaz-Antey's results in any way. They did not:

They most certainly did, otherwise Almaz-Antey would not have accused them of distortion.

Oh really. I guess you think OJ Simpson is innocent because he said so?

Almaz-Antey are obviously lying. What they say is irrelevant, if they can't back it up with facts, and the fact of this matter is that AA shared some simulation results with JIT that doesn't fit with the Russian narrative and they wanted to have it excluded from the report. Maybe next time, when you commit a crime get your story straight before talking to the police?

 

[Jayjay]

I'm not going to watch an hour long video and spend another two hours tracking down the claims they may be making there, just to find out it's all bullshit. Summarize the specific points you think have merit and we'll discuss those.

The point is, JIT is most certainly biased against Russia.

Calling spade a spade is not biased. Russia very likely shot down the plane, and is falsifying and hiding evidence to try to obstruct the investigation and throwing tantrums like these press conferences as propaganda tool. That by itself doesn't show any bias on part of JIT.

Why didn't Almaz-Antey provide this information to the JIT, I wonder?

Because they would have ignored it or distort it again?
Or maybe they did and JIT ignored it?

JIT has not ignored any information provided to it. They addressed all concerns made by Russia for the DSB report (and documented them in the annexes), and very likely did the same with JIT though not all of it is public.

Russia just doesn't want anyone else around when it's faking evidence, that would ruin the whole thing!

 

[funinspace]

According to Wikipedia, the BUK has the ability to identify commercial aircraft so thinking it was something other than kind of falls by the wayside.
Bronzeage has the most plausible assessment. Some dickhead just had to push the button.

Too bad the BUK didn't come with an Aegis Combat System and a known trained crew. Then we would know that any shooting down of a large passenger aircraft would have to be intentional...

 

[barbos]

They most certainly did, otherwise Almaz-Antey would not have accused them of distortion.

Oh really. I guess you think OJ Simpson is innocent because he said so?

Your analogy does not work that way becasue OJ Simpson here is JIT.

Almaz-Antey are obviously lying. What they say is irrelevant, if they can't back it up with facts, and the fact of this matter is that AA shared some simulation results with JIT that doesn't fit with the Russian narrative and they wanted to have it excluded from the report. Maybe next time, when you commit a crime get your story straight before talking to the police?

AA backed up their claims.

- - - Updated - - -

The point is, JIT is most certainly biased against Russia.

Calling spade a spade is not biased.

But they did not call a spade of spade, they did exactly opposite of that

 

[Will Wiley]

They came up with some silly hand waving. Nothing more. There looks to be obvious fragment damage. They don't consider it.

How do you know what it is supposed to look like? Some power point handwaving from Almaz-Antey is pretty much on par with the "Russian Engineers Union" claim that the holes looked like bullet holes. It's a just-so story. And conveniently, Almaz-Antey did not run a test that would show any secondary fragmentation even though they could have easily done that (just put a plate in front of the missile).

I think it is such an obvious oversight that Almaz-Antey must have done it intentionally because they knew their interpretation of the holes in the photographs wouldn't survive any experimental evidence.

But Almaz Antey did put a plate where the damage occurred. They placed a plate right where the left engine was.

Watch from about the 3 minute mark

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/rG0Bi_wf7JM[/YOUTUBE]

Their experiments show the missile did not come from Snizhne (which is head on) but from the side.

You can rely on all the photos and videos and phone taps that Ukrainian intelligence produced, but the damage to the plane can't be faked.

 

[barbos]

This is once again turning into technical discussion. It's doubtful that anybody here is qualified to do that at necessary level.
My point is that JIT has demonstrated bias and Jayjay seems understood and agreed with me. This is why he keeps accusing Almaz-Antey in bias as well. I don't dispute that either.

 

[Will Wiley]

This is once again turning into technical discussion. It's doubtful that anybody here is qualified to do that at necessary level.
My point is that JIT has demonstrated bias and Jayjay seems understood and agreed with me. This is why he keeps accusing Almaz-Antey in bias as well. I don't dispute that either.

There is nothing technical about pointing out that Almaz Antey did in fact place a plate in front of the missile.
AA were accused here of bias based on the erroneous claim that they did not place a plate there.

 

[Jayjay]

How do you know what it is supposed to look like? Some power point handwaving from Almaz-Antey is pretty much on par with the "Russian Engineers Union" claim that the holes looked like bullet holes. It's a just-so story. And conveniently, Almaz-Antey did not run a test that would show any secondary fragmentation even though they could have easily done that (just put a plate in front of the missile).

I think it is such an obvious oversight that Almaz-Antey must have done it intentionally because they knew their interpretation of the holes in the photographs wouldn't survive any experimental evidence.

But Almaz Antey did put a plate where the damage occurred. They placed a plate right where the left engine was.

Watch from about the 3 minute mark

The plate was in the wrong place. It isn't clean from that 5 minute sumary video, but you can refer to the Almaz-Antey slide show, page 43, which shows that the missile was tilted 7 degrees up and 17 degrees right to compensate for the relative movement of the missile. However, this means that the missile was no pointing further away from the engine, and therefore the secondary fragmentation would miss it. In fact the entire presentation deliberately ignores the secondary fragmentation altogether, even though AA must have know that this was how the DSB explained the engine and wing damage.

What AA could have easily done was to simply move the plate per the adjustment in velocity, or add another plate (to catch both primary and secondary fragmentation damage). But they did not, why? This is because they deliberately wanted that experiment to fail.

In addition to this, AA did not use the best match for detonation position from DSB (see table 19 in the DSB report). And they did not invite the dutch investigators to participate in the "experiment" so nobody would question these problems. It's a rigged setup made to produce a desired result.

Their experiments show the missile did not come from Snizhne (which is head on) but from the side.

You can rely on all the photos and videos and phone taps that Ukrainian intelligence produced, but the damage to the plane can't be faked.

I agree on the latter point. Too bad that the damage to the plane does not match Almaz Antey's claims: DSB run their simulations with multiple scenarios, including the one from Almaz-Antey, and the best match was consistent with launch from Snizhne.

(Edited to add: Just realized I fucked up the numbers above but too lazy to open the document again and fix it. Instead of 7 and 17 degrees, I think the delta is 9 and 20 or something. It does not change the point in any way.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But Almaz Antey did put a plate where the damage occurred. They placed a plate right where the left engine was.

Watch from about the 3 minute mark

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/rG0Bi_wf7JM[/YOUTUBE]

Their experiments show the missile did not come from Snizhne (which is head on) but from the side.

You can rely on all the photos and videos and phone taps that Ukrainian intelligence produced, but the damage to the plane can't be faked.

There's a big difference between a ground test and an actual intercept: In the air the plane is moving rapidly. This will change the point at which the fragments hit. The farther from the warhead the greater this deviation will be--no possible static model will show all the fragments hitting where they would in reality.

(For an extreme example of this--you're firing a SAM at an inbound ballistic missile. Your SAM passes right next to the target and the warhead fires. The ballistic missile laughs--because the fragments are a clean miss. A lesser example of this proved a big problem in Desert Storm--the Patriot warheads passed within "lethal" range of the inbound missile and the fragments missed.)

 

[Will Wiley]

But Almaz Antey did put a plate where the damage occurred. They placed a plate right where the left engine was.

Watch from about the 3 minute mark

The plate was in the wrong place. It isn't clean from that 5 minute sumary video,

Hang on ...first you claim they didn't put a plate in front of the missile. Then when I point out they did you claim it wasn't in exactly the right place.

But you have more problems . no damage to the right wing. No fragments passing out the right side of the cockpit. Fragment damage running down the length of the plane.

But look.Why don't you keep making incorrect statements, don't admit you are wrong, and keep coming up with unlikely explanations. It's fun to watch.

 

[Jayjay]

The plate was in the wrong place. It isn't clean from that 5 minute sumary video,

Hang on ...first you claim they didn't put a plate in front of the missile. Then when I point out they did you claim it wasn't in exactly the right place.

No, this is what I actually said when I first brought up the plate (emphasis added):

The Almaz-Antey experiment tells us nothing about the engine damage, because the plate they had as a stand in for the port side engine was not placed correctly. Almaz Antey conducted the experiment on a stationary missile, and turning it so that the primary fragments would hit the cockpit roughly from the same angle as if the missile was moving. But obviously, this also changes the direction where the secondary fragmentation is going, which is perpendicular to the primary fragmentation. They should have moved the plate representing the engine to match.

I never said they did not have a plate. But it was not in front of the missile, because the missile was pointed several degrees away, so as far as disproving the DSB conclusion it might as well not have been there at all.

But you have more problems . no damage to the right wing. No fragments passing out the right side of the cockpit. Fragment damage running down the length of the plane.

But look.Why don't you keep making incorrect statements, don't admit you are wrong, and keep coming up with unlikely explanations. It's fun to watch.

No damage to the right wing or lack of damage running down the length of the plane is disingenious, when the experiment did not in fact represent the most likely scenario from DSB. Why did Almaz-Antey pick these particular parameters for the experiment, rather than the ones DSB concluded was the most likely scenario? Because they wanted to knock down a straw man.

Furthermore, Almaz-Antey did not conduct a similar experiment with their own alleged detonation position. This is because the actual damage would have most likely contradicted with that as well.

 

[bilby]

...

But look.Why don't you keep making incorrect statements, don't admit you are wrong, and keep coming up with unlikely explanations. It's fun to watch.

Pot, have you met kettle?