Flight MH17 Downed By 'High-Energy Objects

a reply to: Zaphod58

So two BUKS hit on both sides of the plane at the same time?

a reply to: _Del_

The combined effects warhead damages by both the pressure resulting from the HE part of the warhead and from the fragments. Some combination of the blast and fragment damage was enough to cause catastrophic damage.

According to the investigation it was probably only due to penetrating objects.

The report from Dutch experts says the plane "broke up in the air probably as the result of structural damage caused by a large number of high-velocity objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside".

a reply to: AntiDude

It's entirely possible yes. Some reports said a launcher was seen with two missiles missing from it, some said one. But if you want to have a better chance of a hit, especially if you're not overly confident in the operation of the system you fire yep missiles. If they manage to turn away grim one, they'll probably turn into the other one, if it's a military aircraft that can detect missile launches.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Does the launcher shoot two at the same time? In order for the damage on that panel to occur 2 BUKS would have to explode at both sides of the plane at the same time.

a reply to: AntiDude

They can salvo fire any SAM launcher that has multiple rails, and the launches would be within about a second of each other. Close enough that the second would hit as the first was exploding.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And what makes them go left and right of the plane?

a reply to: AntiDude

That slight delay in launch changes the intercept angle just a tiny bit, so the second missile heads towards a slightly different point than the first missile.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Mmm, sounds far fetched to me.

originally posted by: AntiDude
You are really trying hard not to get it.

There are entrance and exit holes in the same panel from the left side, meaning something penetrated from both the left and the right side. If it was a BUK it could've only penetrated from one side. Is it that hard to understand?

The skin on most aircraft can be broken with a screwdriver. The skin on a B777 is made of an aluminum alloy 2mm thick. It is entirely possible for a high-velocity (energy) object to travel through the thin skin, hit a spar, bulkhead or other sturdy fuselage component and come barreling right back out of the surface skin.

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: AntiDude
You are really trying hard not to get it.

There are entrance and exit holes in the same panel from the left side, meaning something penetrated from both the left and the right side. If it was a BUK it could've only penetrated from one side. Is it that hard to understand?

The skin on most aircraft can be broken with a screwdriver. The skin on a B777 is made of an aluminum alloy 2mm thick. It is entirely possible for a high-velocity (energy) object to travel through the thin skin, hit a spar, bulkhead or other sturdy fuselage component and come barreling right back out of the surface skin.

He is also failing to understand the damage caused by the actual airplane breaking up and crashing into itself.

originally posted by: AntiDude
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I can say that you are doing the same thing. Everything you say is equally unsure.

The difference is I don't say "it definitely was..." or "it definitely was not...".
I am aware of the possible error - which is why I say that a BUK is the best fit for what we know at the moment - not that it was definitively what shot the a/c down.

Since the investigators have said they have recovered fragments I hope that elemental analysis will tell us where those came from and that might be the smoking gun required for a definitive answer.

Until then I am satisfied that a BUK is the most likely one.

That said, logic tells me that outward bent holes were penetrated from the other side.

Logic says that you haven't got the wreckage in front of you and you are not doing a forensic analysis, so you don't actually know that there were any such holes in the first place!

And IF there are such holes, you have already been given many reasonable possible explanations.

One can say you base it on preconceived notions.

One could say I base it on what my invisible purple dragon told me.

One could say anything one wants.

Nonetheless a BUK remains the best fit for what we do know.

If it wasn´t a BUK you can be sure that every effort is made to make the public think it was a BUK. I don´t have to tell you what the implications would be.

so what? Yo haven't' actually made a reasonable case for it being anything else - and neither has anyone else.

That´s your opinion. It could just as well been multiple AAM´s or maybe still even cannon fire, or a combination of both.

There are many reasons why it could not have been these that have been explained to you - perhaps you didn't want to read them?

Foremost among them is there was no intercepting aircraft in the area at the time - not even on RUSSIAN radar.

You might as well suggest that the 777 was destroyed by a Martian shrapnel ray that makes marks that look just like AA missile fragments.

Suggesting it "might have been" something else does not make a skerrick of difference to what the evidence points to - it points to a SAM.

a reply to: Denoli

I am starting to have flash backs of TWA Flight 800.

It is amazing to think in this modern age an airliner can just disappear -- yet even though we don't know a thing about where it is. We can say it was taken down by "a large number of high energy objects."

Something smells.

a reply to: TheMalefactor

I think you have your flights confused. MH370 went missing, MH17 was shot down.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Logic says that you haven't got the wreckage in front of you and you are not doing a forensic analysis, so you don't actually know that there were any such holes in the first place!

I can clearly see them in the pics.

There are many reasons why it could not have been these that have been explained to you - perhaps you didn't want to read them?

I have seen nothing conclusive that would completely rule them out.

Foremost among them is there was no intercepting aircraft in the area at the time - not even on RUSSIAN radar.

I don´t know how to read radar images so I can´t pass judgement on the image. Did the Russians think noone would notice that the image didn´t show a fighter plane in the vicinity?

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: AntiDude
You are really trying hard not to get it.

There are entrance and exit holes in the same panel from the left side, meaning something penetrated from both the left and the right side. If it was a BUK it could've only penetrated from one side. Is it that hard to understand?

The skin on most aircraft can be broken with a screwdriver. The skin on a B777 is made of an aluminum alloy 2mm thick. It is entirely possible for a high-velocity (energy) object to travel through the thin skin, hit a spar, bulkhead or other sturdy fuselage component and come barreling right back out of the surface skin.

Judging by the location of the specific panel on the plane, and the amount of exit holes in a small area this seems highly unlikely and also far fetched.

Dutch experts say Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 broke up in mid-air after being hit by "objects" that "pierced the plane at high velocity"

So did the the plane break up due to explosive decompression because of the pierced hull or did those objects cause fatal structural damage causing it to break up?

a reply to: AntiDude

Explosive decompression doesn't cause aircraft to break up. It's nothing like in the movies.

A shockwave combined with massive damage from shrapnel on the other hand would cause an immediate breakup of the airframe. There's no way to measure shockwave impact damage though.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That makes a bit more sense. Thanks for the setting me straight.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Explosive decompression doesn't cause aircraft to break up. It's nothing like in the movies.

My bad. What I meant was exposure to the windforce after the skin was penetrated.

A shockwave combined with massive damage from shrapnel on the other hand would cause an immediate breakup of the airframe.

Is that the same airframe that high velocity objects bounce back of to create exit holes in the same panel through which they entered?

I know you didn't suggest that, but still.

a reply to: AntiDude

There are documented cases where a person is shot point blank range in the head where the bullet is ricocheted / deflected by the skull.

Anything is possible, especially at 35k feet.