The surprising results of the MH17 criminal investigation

[Elixir]

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.

You seem to have mistaken Jayjay for Donald Trump.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

My understanding is they turned it to compensate for the fact that the target wasn't moving. Unfortunately, this is only accurate for one distance. Everything not at that distance will have some error. Furthermore, it will only be accurate for one fragment velocity.

For simulating the effects on one target it's good enough, but errors on secondary targets are inevitable.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

My understanding is they turned it to compensate for the fact that the target wasn't moving. Unfortunately, this is only accurate for one distance. Everything not at that distance will have some error. Furthermore, it will only be accurate for one fragment velocity.

For simulating the effects on one target it's good enough, but errors on secondary targets are inevitable.

Yes, they turned it to compensate for the movement. But the original coordinates that they picked, were not the ones that DSB deemed to be the best match for the damage (per simulations):



Almaz-Antey used model 1a, without really explaining why. Furthermore the Almaz-Antey experiment ignores secondary fragmentation, i.e. the warhead guidance system and other pieces that are blown forward, rather than to the side. This was the explanation that DSB report had for the damage to the engine and wings, which had more irregular holes than the fuselage.

 

[barbos]

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 didn't really want to go into technical discussion which this thing turned into, but it seems AA did everything that was humanly possible in that situation and were not disingenuous at all.
Now to my clearly technically inadequate understanding of the details, I don't believe secondary fragmentation can make nice and uniform holes resembling holes from primary fragments which if I remember correctly were present. In fact I don't believe they are even capable of making any kind of holes. What are secondary fragments anyway?
And why secondary fragmentation is perpendicular? I would think it would be quite random.

 

[barbos]

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.

My understanding is they turned it to compensate for the fact that the target wasn't moving. Unfortunately, this is only accurate for one distance. Everything not at that distance will have some error. Furthermore, it will only be accurate for one fragment velocity.

For simulating the effects on one target it's good enough, but errors on secondary targets are inevitable.

So in other words AA did everything humanly possible in that situation.

 

[barbos]

I think Jayjay failed to show AA bias and dis-ingenuity. On the other hand he effectively admitted that dutch distorted AA report but his excuse for doing so was said bias from AA.
My view is that AA could be right but it does not matter because even if they are right it does not put the blame on any of the parties, it just says that initial launching place West claimed was wrong.

 

[Jayjay]

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 didn't really want to go into technical discussion which this thing turned into, but it seems AA did everything that was humanly possible in that situation and were not disingenuous at all.
Now to my clearly technically inadequate understanding of the details, I don't believe secondary fragmentation can make nice and uniform holes resembling holes from primary fragments which if I remember correctly were present. In fact I don't believe they are even capable of making any kind of holes. What are secondary fragments anyway?
And why secondary fragmentation is perpendicular? I would think it would be quite random.

Some of the holes are not nice and uniform. Arguably some are, but that could be a coincidence:

As for why it is perpendicular, it is really not entirely so because the missile explodes in every direction. But in front of the warhead there are the guidance systems and other stuff that's going to disperse forward from the explosion. The primary fragmentation on the other hand is designed to disperse sideways. So the two main sources of fragments are approximately perpendicular.

 

[Jayjay]

My understanding is they turned it to compensate for the fact that the target wasn't moving. Unfortunately, this is only accurate for one distance. Everything not at that distance will have some error. Furthermore, it will only be accurate for one fragment velocity.

For simulating the effects on one target it's good enough, but errors on secondary targets are inevitable.

So in other words AA did everything humanly possible in that situation.

Well, given that live experiments are expensive and cumbersome to carry out, it would be a bit much to ask AA to conduct several different live experiments with different parameters. In this regard simulations are much better. But even if we were to concede that they could only do one full-scale experiment, Almaz-Antey could have chosen the best scenario from DSB. And as I pointed out before, to take into account the secondary fragmentation damage to the engine would have been a simple matter of moving the plate (or installing another) in the right location. That's not too much to ask, is it?

 

[Jayjay]

I think Jayjay failed to show AA bias and dis-ingenuity. On the other hand he effectively admitted that dutch distorted AA report but his excuse for doing so was said bias from AA.
My view is that AA could be right but it does not matter because even if they are right it does not put the blame on any of the parties, it just says that initial launching place West claimed was wrong.

No, I did not admit that the Dutch distorted anything. I brought up bias from AA, because you used Almaz-Antey's say-so as evidence of Dutch distortions (or Dutchtortions). In my view AA is biased in accusing the Dutch for bias, and AA has ample political and financial motives to do so.

 

[barbos]

I think Jayjay failed to show AA bias and dis-ingenuity. On the other hand he effectively admitted that dutch distorted AA report but his excuse for doing so was said bias from AA.
My view is that AA could be right but it does not matter because even if they are right it does not put the blame on any of the parties, it just says that initial launching place West claimed was wrong.

No, I did not admit that the Dutch distorted anything. I brought up bias from AA, because you used Almaz-Antey's say-so as evidence of Dutch distortions (or Dutchtortions). In my view AA is biased in accusing the Dutch for bias, and AA has ample political and financial motives to do so.

Since I could read and comprehend I have to disagree with you. Dutch clearly took AA data out of the context and presented it as if it agreed with them.

 

[barbos]

I didn't really want to go into technical discussion which this thing turned into, but it seems AA did everything that was humanly possible in that situation and were not disingenuous at all.
Now to my clearly technically inadequate understanding of the details, I don't believe secondary fragmentation can make nice and uniform holes resembling holes from primary fragments which if I remember correctly were present. In fact I don't believe they are even capable of making any kind of holes. What are secondary fragments anyway?
And why secondary fragmentation is perpendicular? I would think it would be quite random.

Some of the holes are not nice and uniform. Arguably some are, but that could be a coincidence:

That's not the issue here. Of course there will be holes which don't match fragments because missile contains other part.
If I remember correctly, dutch simply declared holes that did not fit into their theory as secondary to which AA said - bullshit and showed the picture with a lot of nice and uniform holes. And I had to agree with AA.

As for why it is perpendicular, it is really not entirely so because the missile explodes in every direction. But in front of the warhead there are the guidance systems and other stuff that's going to disperse forward from the explosion. The primary fragmentation on the other hand is designed to disperse sideways. So the two main sources of fragments are approximately perpendicular.

Oh, you call that "secondary" I thought it was debris from the plane. I doubt "secondary" fragments are that significant. Circled hole could be two "primary" fragments hitting the same spot.

 

[barbos]

So in other words AA did everything humanly possible in that situation.

Well, given that live experiments are expensive and cumbersome to carry out, it would be a bit much to ask AA to conduct several different live experiments with different parameters. In this regard simulations are much better. But even if we were to concede that they could only do one full-scale experiment, Almaz-Antey could have chosen the best scenario from DSB. And as I pointed out before, to take into account the secondary fragmentation damage to the engine would have been a simple matter of moving the plate (or installing another) in the right location. That's not too much to ask, is it?

Has anybody actually asked that? If not then what is you problem? AA did what they thought was right at the time. You are little late with your suggestion. And I think it's pretty hopeless to guess where and how "secondary" fragments go, they are not designed to fragment with any consistency.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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 didn't really want to go into technical discussion which this thing turned into, but it seems AA did everything that was humanly possible in that situation and were not disingenuous at all.
Now to my clearly technically inadequate understanding of the details, I don't believe secondary fragmentation can make nice and uniform holes resembling holes from primary fragments which if I remember correctly were present. In fact I don't believe they are even capable of making any kind of holes. What are secondary fragments anyway?
And why secondary fragmentation is perpendicular? I would think it would be quite random.

Even if they did all that is humanly possible (and I don't think they did) that's not the same thing as getting the right answer.

As I said above, it's impossible for a static test to correctly reproduce the exact pattern other than at a fixed range and bearing. In all other cases the lack of the relative speed (and to a lesser degree, the lack of absolute speed--air drag) will change the flight path of the fragments.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So in other words AA did everything humanly possible in that situation.

Well, given that live experiments are expensive and cumbersome to carry out, it would be a bit much to ask AA to conduct several different live experiments with different parameters. In this regard simulations are much better. But even if we were to concede that they could only do one full-scale experiment, Almaz-Antey could have chosen the best scenario from DSB. And as I pointed out before, to take into account the secondary fragmentation damage to the engine would have been a simple matter of moving the plate (or installing another) in the right location. That's not too much to ask, is it?

Obviously.

I'm addressing the issue of how much we can read into the results--and I'm saying, not a lot.

 

[Will Wiley]

The important thing to remember is that the Ukrainian Secret Service told the investigators (and Ukraine is one of the investigators) that the Russians did it. the Ukrainian Secret Service supplied all the "proof" too.

So there was no need for the investigators to even consider that the missile might have not come from head on, from Snizhne.
Despite the fact that.
1. There is no evidence of fragments passing from left to right through the cockpit.
2. There is no damage to the right wing.
3.There is fragment damage to the left wing.
4. There is fragment damage running length ways down the plane.

These facts don't matter because the Ukrainian Secret Service already told us who did it.
So the investigation looked for anything that supported this and ignored evidence that did not.

This is known as "science"

 

[Jayjay]

The important thing to remember is that the Ukrainian Secret Service told the investigators (and Ukraine is one of the investigators) that the Russians did it. the Ukrainian Secret Service supplied all the "proof" too.

So there was no need for the investigators to even consider that the missile might have not come from head on, from Snizhne.
Despite the fact that.
1. There is no evidence of fragments passing from left to right through the cockpit.
2. There is no damage to the right wing.
3.There is fragment damage to the left wing.
4. There is fragment damage running length ways down the plane.

These facts don't matter because the Ukrainian Secret Service already told us who did it.
So the investigation looked for anything that supported this and ignored evidence that did not.

This is known as "science"

1. How do you know there are supposed to be fragments passing through the cockpit? Almaz-Antey deliberately used a different angle and position for the detonation than what DSB concluded was the most likely one.
2. See (1).
3. Secondary fragmentation, as explained by the NLR report. Besides, if the AA explanation was correct, there should be more damage to the wing between the engine and the fuselage, than there is to the engine. Why is that not the case?
4. See (1).

Science is about looking at all the evidence, whichever way they point. Almaz-Antey rigged their "experiment" to produce a particular result and rejected peer review. DSB on the other hand ran multiple scenarios in simulations and worked together with AA throughout the process, and addressed all their feedback.

As for SBU providing all the evidence, the sheer amount of the evidence debunks that claim. Fact is that there are dozens if not hundreds of photos and witnesses for the launch near Snizhe, and exactly zero for the one near the location claimed by AA. Reality tends not to contradict itself, and a scientific approach demands you consider all the evidence rather than cherry-picking.

EDITED TO ADD: For your convenience, here are the DSB response to the "damage running lengthwise down the plane" claim (from appendix V):

The comments regarding the damage to the aeroplane’s structure
whereby the perforation holes are almost parallel to the direction (’at the
angle of 90 degrees) address an aircraft part that was photographed but
was not recovered by the Dutch Safety Board. A photo of the part is shown
in paragraph 2.12.2. The image contradicts the notion that the perforation
holes are at ‘an angle of nearly 90 degrees’.

And the claim about the damage to the left wing:

The Dutch Safety Board has performed an in-depth evaluation of the
damage. Although there were a number of perforations noted, there was
no large scale damage found on the engine cowling lip ring and the left
hand wing that was caused by high energy fragments in the primary
fragmentation spray.

Emphasis mine. The methodology used by Almaz-Antey was basically looking at photos, drawing random circles and arrows on there and then flailing their arms wildly.

 

[barbos]

I didn't really want to go into technical discussion which this thing turned into, but it seems AA did everything that was humanly possible in that situation and were not disingenuous at all.
Now to my clearly technically inadequate understanding of the details, I don't believe secondary fragmentation can make nice and uniform holes resembling holes from primary fragments which if I remember correctly were present. In fact I don't believe they are even capable of making any kind of holes. What are secondary fragments anyway?
And why secondary fragmentation is perpendicular? I would think it would be quite random.

Even if they did all that is humanly possible (and I don't think they did) that's not the same thing as getting the right answer.

As I said above, it's impossible for a static test to correctly reproduce the exact pattern other than at a fixed range and bearing. In all other cases the lack of the relative speed (and to a lesser degree, the lack of absolute speed--air drag) will change the flight path of the fragments.

All of this applies to dutch even more.

 

[Jayjay]

Even if they did all that is humanly possible (and I don't think they did) that's not the same thing as getting the right answer.

As I said above, it's impossible for a static test to correctly reproduce the exact pattern other than at a fixed range and bearing. In all other cases the lack of the relative speed (and to a lesser degree, the lack of absolute speed--air drag) will change the flight path of the fragments.

All of this applies to dutch even more.

The Dutch used computer models that simulate the relative speed and air drag better than a static real-world experiment actually.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even if they did all that is humanly possible (and I don't think they did) that's not the same thing as getting the right answer.

As I said above, it's impossible for a static test to correctly reproduce the exact pattern other than at a fixed range and bearing. In all other cases the lack of the relative speed (and to a lesser degree, the lack of absolute speed--air drag) will change the flight path of the fragments.

All of this applies to dutch even more.

A simulation that takes into account the speed of the objects will do a better job of showing what happens than a real boom at the wrong speed.

 

[barbos]

All of this applies to dutch even more.

The Dutch used computer models that simulate the relative speed and air drag better than a static real-world experiment actually.

So? AA used computer simulation too. And how computer simulation can help with "secondary" fragmentation?