Malaysia wades into the MH17 debate

[Bamspeedy]

The missile company and the Dutch report agree on what type of missile was used, do they not? The claim is since Russia was purchasing a newer missile type (and Ukraine was not) therefore it could not have been Russian. Just because Russia has newer missiles in their inventory, doesn't mean they didn't still have old missiles lying around. What better way to get rid of your old missiles than to give them to rebels you support.

The key difference between the two reports was the angle of trajectory to figure out where it was launched from.
The missile company based their calculations based on pictures of part of the wreckage on social media. Actual crash investigators examined the wreckage up close when brought back to the Netherlands and reconstructed.

http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/the-pressconference-of-almaz-antey-has-two-major-errors/

 

[Ajidica]

I was under the impression that it was pretty well established that pro-Russian Ukrainian separatists accidentally shot down the Malaysian airplane because they were operating the Buk without a proper target acquisition radar and were using the radar built into the missile itself which wasn't smart enough to identify the target as a civilian airplane.
However, the Russian government's reaction to the shootdown was so farcical it really looked like they were trying to hide something.

 

[red_elk]

The claim is since Russia was purchasing a newer missile type (and Ukraine was not) therefore it could not have been Russian.

The company reacted to the claims that the plane was shot down by a company-made missile. The missile was made in USSR, this type is decommissioned in Russia, but still used by Ukrainian regular army.

The key difference between the two reports was the angle of trajectory to figure out where it was launched from.

Yes. According to the company investigation, damage model confirms that the missile could only come from the side, not from the front.

 

[Bamspeedy]

That's why the damage is on the right side despite the launch site being on the left side.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2015/10/17/dsb-launch-site/

 

[red_elk]

The damage was mostly on the left side of the plane, IIRC, and the launch area was on the front (according to Dutch commission) or on the right side (according to Almaz-Antey).
The key difference is about the detonation point, as the article by your link suggests.

 

[Bamspeedy]

The missile type wasn't decommissioned in 1999, that's just when they stopped manufacturing them. Nobody uses up all their missiles the minute the missiles are stopped producing.

Well, I call it the 'right side' based on looking at the nose of the plane, I guess that's not the way it's supposed to be oriented. So if you are sitting on the plane, the detonation site was indeed on the left, near the cockpit.

Now look at the suspected launch sites. The Russian proposed site was on the opposite side. Feel free to show maps that I'm wrong, as I'm finding it difficult to re-find stuff I had seen earlier, especially detailed analysis from the Russian point of view (generic news sites giving very basic coverage is all I'm getting from both sides besides Bellingcat). So the Russians say the missile went around the plane and then exploded?

Let's just ask Carlos, he's the witness that 'proves' it was all done by a Ukranian jet instead of a Buk.

Edit: So we are to believe a missile that is designed to explode when reaching within a certain 'proximity' to a plane, didn't explode until after it passed the plane.

 

[red_elk]

So the Russians say the missile went around the plane and then exploded?

On the previous page you were explaining how this might happen:
"That's why the damage is on the right side despite the launch site being on the left side."
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-part-of-ukraine.530244/page-44#post-15465594

What happened so you changed your mind so suddenly?

So we are to believe a missile that is designed to explode when reaching within a certain 'proximity' to a plane, didn't explode until after it passed the plane.

When the SAM is able to determine plane coordinates and speed with 100% accuracy, and missile detonation is perfectly timed, I guess that would be impossible.
In reality, modern high-precision weapons have circular error measured in at least several meters.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I already explained what I called the 'right' of the plane is actually the left because I was looking at it from the nose, when that is not how you are supposed to refer to the sides of a plane. So I had the launch site backwards as well.

The damage is on the left, the launch site (supposedly) on the right. Missile is supposed to explode when it gets within 10 meters of target, but doesn't until it's .5 meters past the plane.

 

[red_elk]

Missile is supposed to explode when it gets within 10 meters of target, but doesn't until it's .5 meters past the plane.

And you think this is impossible?

 

[Bamspeedy]

What do you think is more probable?

 

[red_elk]

What do you think is more probable?

Neither one.

More probable is this (watch at 1:30)

When missile explodes, the fragments go by specific disc-shaped pattern. The experiment show the position of missile relative to the plane and damage caused by fragments, corresponding to the damage on Mh-17

 

[Bamspeedy]

And how would the damage look if the missile was still in the same spot, but turned differently (a different launch location)? I don't think it's disputed what side of the plane the missile exploded at.

Edit: 2:10 in the video is a better angle of the missile's position. So it's designed to hit the plane with debris if it was behind it? I suspect the missile debris hits in all directions.

 

[red_elk]

The fragments hit in disc-shaped pattern perpendicular to missile axis. Since the pattern is non-spherical, I suppose if missile had different orientation, the damage would look differently as well. But I'm not an expert.

(Missile speed is taken into account)

 

[Akka]

Wow, there is still people bothering to argue about this ?
That's not grasping at straws, that's digging into the bedrock.

 

[Kyriakos]

I am reminded of the ridiculous Sarkozy ruin when he appeared to journalists, in his press conference with Putin and after their discussion, looking as if he had been threatened to be sent to be taken back and shot, and all his family sent to Siberia.

 

[r16]

Only they were not. It was well on route when shoot down. The air space above the war zone was closed only below 30,000 feet or so, since there was not way a plane flying above that altitude could be hit by any weapon the rebels had, until the Russian lend them the SA-11 that morning.

It is well stated that it was an ID error by the rebels/russians. Shortly after the accident they claimed to have shot down an Ukrainian military transport at Russian social networks, the post being quickly deleted after they noticed it was an airliner.

after my thing about the plane was 200 miles off route . As it was all over the web in the early days . The thing is Malaysians were committed to losing a Boeing 777 , which had killed no one by the time . South Koreans (as ı remember ) tried very hard and a Chinese female was run over by the emergency fire truck and all that . Then the lost plane , which could have added another 10 years to the then Malaysian PM's reign , because its pilot was anti-goverment or something . And amazing how the plane was full of AIDS specialists and all that , now that AIDS is no longer the thing it was . And then a couple , ı think parents of or similar relatives of some who disappeared in the first 777 . Russians would of course fire on anything they can , they are paranoid and all that . See , the world shames Russia and Russia gives up Ukraine . Like ı am the only one on earth who knows Russians are shameless .

(post # 4800 . In some other forum , ı was banned after a round 400 and it's a tradition of mine to remind ı am still alive . )

 

[Bamspeedy]

Wow, there is still people bothering to argue about this ?
That's not grasping at straws, that's digging into the bedrock.

Sorry, I do suffer from a bit of this:

I have spent more time on this than I'd like, so after this I will (hopefully) drop this.

The fragments hit in disc-shaped pattern perpendicular to missile axis. Since the pattern is non-spherical, I suppose if missile had different orientation, the damage would look differently as well. But I'm not an expert.

(Missile speed is taken into account)

And why did they move the missile in the test compared to where it was positioned in the press conference?

And if the missile debris shoots out the side of the missile when detonating, why couldn't the Danish report be correct? Airplane in real life is also moving forward at high speed, unlike the stationary plane in the test.

Don't tell me the missile head would hit the wings from the Danish angle, as the Russian positioning shows, the missile is going upwards from being shot from the ground so the missile head would clear the plane.

Unfortunately any drawings are 2-D, so my drawing was a bit misleading because it didn't show the missile could go over or under the plane. With 3D models I suspect there are multiple angles and posiitions that can give similar damage (but perhaps not exact if you look at the debris with a microscope, which the Danish actually had the debris, the missile company was basing their models off pictures on social media).

I'm sure there are actual experts debunking the Russian tests, and I'm sure the Russians are debunking the Danish test. Both sides have their 'experts' who say the other one is wrong, just like with everything.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Wow, there is still people bothering to argue about this ?
That's not grasping at straws, that's digging into the bedrock.

Katyn Forrest was denied until when? The 90s?

Sigh, and theres probably an RT video about Katyn.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Katyn Forrest was denied until when? The 90s?

Sigh, and theres probably an RT video about Katyn.

It was a joint CIA-Nazi fabrication!

 

[red_elk]

And why did they move the missile in the test compared to where it was positioned in the press conference?

IIRC it was done to account for different conditions during the test and real missile detonation.
Namely, both plane and the missile were moving (though much slower than the fragments, but fast enough to affect the damage pattern). Also the altitude of 10 km affected distribution of fragments as well.

And if the missile debris shoots out the side of the missile when detonating, why couldn't the Danish report be correct?

According to the Dutch report, the left engine should be damaged only by secondary fragments (pieces of missile hull, etc), while Russian report places it in the area where it should be hit by primary fragments (shrapnel from warhead). Russian report also demonstrates few images of engine with (supposedly) shrapnel holes.

I'm sure there are actual experts debunking the Russian tests, and I'm sure the Russians are debunking the Danish test. Both sides have their 'experts' who say the other one is wrong, just like with everything.

'Russian' and 'Dutch' versions may be right or wrong, but I can assure you neither is so dumb that it can be proven wrong by people without expert knowledge.