MH17 Was Struck By Multiple "High-Energy Objects From Outside The Aircraft", Crash Report Reveals

Tyler Durden's picture

Over a month after the crash of flight MH 17 over east Ukraine, and with the confiscated Air Traffic Control voice recording still kept confidential by a western-led task force for reasons unknown, overnight the Dutch Safety Board released its preliminary report on the causes of the crash. As the AP reported, it agency "stopped short of saying the Boeing 777 was shot down by a missile, but its findings appear to point to that conclusion. It also did not say who might have been responsible." Actually, what the Dutch report did say is the following: MH17 was struck by multiple "high-energy objects from outside the aircraft," causing it to break up over eastern Ukraine, a preliminary report into the deadly aviation disaster concluded Tuesday.

From the report: "The damage observed in the forward section of the aircraft appears to indicate that the aircraft was penetrated by a large number of high-energy objects from outside the aircraft," the report said. "It is likely that this damage resulted in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft, leading to an in-flight break up."

In essence what the board "reported" is what has been widely known by now: "The initial results of the investigation point toward an external cause of the MH17 crash," the board's chairman, Tjibbe Joustra, said in a statement. "More research will be necessary to determine the cause with greater precision. The Safety Board believes that additional evidence will become available for investigation in the period ahead.... Detailed examination of the structural damage is ongoing," the report said. "Forensic examination will be performed if the wreckage can be removed."

Not unexpectedly, by the time the Dutch conclude their report, nobody will care about MH 17 and the current Ukraine civil war foreplay will be long forgotten, having been either long since resolved or grown into something much bigger. To wit:

The board is leading the international investigation into the cause of the disaster. Its full report is expected within a year of the crash.

But while the report itself was largely neutral as expected for a preliminary report, the "experts" promptly jumped in to steer the discussion in the desired direction, starting with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott who said, "The findings are consistent with the government's statement that MH17 was shot down by a large surface-to-air missile."

Another that saw in the report what he wanted to see was Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who "welcomed the report, saying in a written statement that its key conclusion "leads to the strong suspicion that a surface-to-air missile brought MH17 down, but further investigative work is needed before we can be certain." Well at least he covered his bases by saying his conclusion is not really based on anything in the actual report.

Yet other, supposedly credible voices also took over "concluding" what was a very inconclusive report: next cited was an "aviation safety specialist" at Yates Consulting, Christopher Yates, who told the AP the report "is extremely consistent with damage from a missile for the simple reason there are penetration marks.

"It must have been moving at very high velocity to create the damage," he said. "It could only be a missile of the type that would reach the altitude that would have struck the aircraft, potentially a Buk missile. He said the report gave no indication whether the missile had been fired from the ground or from another aircraft, but it likely came from the ground as there were no military aircraft known to have been flying at the time. The missile could not have been shoulder-fired because it would not have reached the necessary altitude, he added.

So if it is so clear that a Rebel-fired missile destroyed the airplane, we should look forward to the undoctored ATC recordings finally beings released to the public? After all, they have been held in secret custody longer even than the MH 370 ATC recordings, another plane whose fate is still a mystery.

Finally, we are stunned that nobody has observed the obvious: "high-energy objects from outside the aircraft" like for example... bullets? As in a warplane-fired volley of high-powered bullets. Curiously, there is not even a single mention of the word "bullet" in the entire 34 page report: apparently even the mere possibility of such an "high-energy object" is too inconceivable to even consider?

Then again, one can see why this possibility was not even mentioned by the experts, the politicians and the pundits: for the simple reason that should bullets be noted as a culprit, that would immediately put all the blame on the Kiev government as only a Ukraine warplane could have shot down the Malaysian Boeing 777 over Ukraine airspace.

But we are confident this possibility will be extensively covered in the final Dutch Board report, some time in late 2015 or 2016, by which point we can only hope the ATC recording which may just reveal why the airplane was redirected, will be finally released...

* * *

Update: it appears that at least a part of the ATC transcript has been released and can be found in the report as follows:

This is the transcript immediately surrounding the crash and confirms the redirection from Dnipropetrovs’k air traffic control centre (Dnipro Radar) "due to traffic." From the report:

At the time of the occurrence flight MH17 was under control of Dnipropetrovs’k air traffic control centre (Dnipro Radar). Shortly after 13.20 hrs, both Ukraine and Russian Federation Radar lost contact with the aircraft. The last radio transmission made by the crew began at 13.19:56 hrs and ended at 13.19:59 hrs. Dnipropetrovs’k air traffic control centre made a radio transmission to flight MH17 which began at 13.20:00 hrs and ended at 13.20:05 hrs. The crew did not respond to this transmission or subsequent transmissions. No distress message was received from the aircraft at any point in time by ATC.

What is not disclosed is the actual transcript that notes the path redirection. Instead the Dutch report reveals the following in paraphrase:

According to the flight plan, flight MH17 would initially fly at Flight Level 330 (FL330)5 above Ukraine until the waypoint PEKIT, which is on the Flight Information Region (FIR) boundary between Kiev FIR (UKBV) and Dnipropetrovs’k FIR (UKDV). From waypoint PEKIT the flight plan indicates FL350 for the remaining part over Ukraine.

 

According to ATC data, at 12.53 hrs the aircraft was flying within the Dnipropetrovs’k FIR, Control Sector 2, at FL330, controlled by Dnipro Control. At that time, Dnipro Control asked whether MH17 was able to climb to FL350 in accordance with the flight plan of MH17 and also to clear a potential separation conflict with other traffic in the area, another Boeing 777 flying at FL330 and approaching from behind.

 

The crew replied they were unable to comply and requested to maintain at FL330. This was agreed by Dnipro Control. As an alternative to solve the separation conflict, the other traffic climbed to FL350. According to ATC data, at 13.00 hrs the crew of flight MH17 requested to divert the track 20 NM to the left, due to weather. This also was agreed by Dnipro Control, after which the crew requested whether FL340 was available. Dnipro control informed MH17 that FL340 was not available at that moment and instructed the flight to maintain FL330 for a while. At 13.07 hrs the flight was transferred to Dnipropetrovs’k CTA 4, also with call sign Dnipro Control.

The provided map, which however fails to note any military aircraft in the vicinity, something that the Russians had supposedly caught on their radar.

And previously from Russia:


Here is a screengrab of a Su-25 fighter jet detected close to MH17 before crash.

Considering the seriousness of this redirection and the pilot's alleged "inability" to comply, it would be far more useful if the Dutch Safety Board would release this part of the transcript as it certainly will reveal much more than the part of the conversation that is already well known.

And some more from the report, first on the fate of the Flight Recorders:

The flight recorders were not recovered from the wreckage site by investigators of the Annex 13 investigation team, but individuals unknown to the team took them from the site. On 21 July 2014, the recorders were handed over to a Malaysian official in Donetsk by representatives of the armed group controlling the area. The recorders were transported by train from Donetsk to Kharkiv in custody of a Malaysian official and accompanied by Dutch officials and then transported to Kiev also in custody of a Malaysian official and accompanied by Dutch and ICAO officials. In Kiev the recorders were handed over to the Dutch Safety Board on 22 July 2014.

 

Immediately after the handover to the Dutch Safety Board, the recorders were transported to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch’s laboratory at Farnborough, United Kingdom, accompanied by an international team of air safety investigators from Germany, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and representatives of ICAO. At Farnborough a French investigator joined the team whereupon the work to download the data of both recorders was started. Later on an air safety investigator of the Interstate Aviation Committee also joined the team.

 

No evidence or indications of manipulation of the recorders were found.

The Cockpit Voice Recorder:

The housing of the CVR (figure 4) had been damaged and, although the model and serial numbers were unreadable on the data plate, the serial number 1366 - matching the one provided by Malaysia Airlines - was found stamped on the underside of the chassis. The external damage found on the CVR is consistent with impact damage, the internal memory module was intact. The recording capacity of this recorder is 30 minutes.

 

The full 30 minutes were successfully downloaded and contained valid data from the flight.

 

The replay of the CVR matched ATC communications with the aircraft (see ATC transcript). The recording also included crew communication which gave no indication that there was anything abnormal with the flight. The CVR audio recording ended abruptly. A replay of the CVR did not identify any aircraft aural warnings or alerts of system malfunctions. Detailed analysis is ongoing.

 

No aural warnings or alerts of aircraft system malfunctions were heard on the cockpit voice recording, which ended at 13.20:03 hrs. Crew communication gave no indication that there was anything abnormal with the flight.

Finally, data on the wreckage:

Wreckage distribution

 

Wreckage from flight MH17 was discovered spread over a large area near the towns of Rozsypne and Hrabove in eastern Ukraine. The main wreckage site was located 8.5 km on a bearing of 080° from the last known position of the aircraft in flight. On the accident site, a large amount of photographs was made, which allowed identification of certain aircraft parts, including preliminary assessments of localization and the nature of damage on the fuselage skin and the engines.

The aircraft wreckage, identified from the on-site photographs and satellite images, consisted of many large and small pieces distributed over an area of approximately 10 km by 5 km (figure 6). Fuselage pieces, cargo and baggage were scattered throughout the wreckage site. There were many additional unidentified pieces that are not shown in the figure. For easy reference the wreckage site has been divided into sections as shown in figure 6. These sections match with the aircraft sections shown in figure 7.

 

 

Some pictures of relevant parts of which the location was known, are discussed hereinafter.

 

Cockpit and forward area damage

 

Large parts from around the cockpit and forward section were found in the area closest to the last recorded FDR position (figure 6). Among these parts were portions of the cockpit, the forward cargo bay floor and the cockpit side wall. The remains of the cockpit were located at the southern end of Rozsypne, 2.3 km east from the last recorded FDR position.

 

Photographs from the some wreckage showed that a number of pieces contained multiple holes and indentations. An example of a piece of wreckage containing such damage was a piece of skin from below the left cockpit window (figure 8) found in the town of Petropavlivka.

 

 

Around 1.7 km north of the position where the cockpit window structure was found, was a section of the cockpit roof also showing holes indicating penetration from outside (figure 9).

 

 

Noting that the investigation team has not yet had the opportunity to recover these components for forensic examination, photographs from the wreckage indicated that the material around the holes was deformed in a manner consistent with being punctured by high-energy objects. The characteristics of the material deformation around the puncture holes appear to indicate that the objects originated from outside the fuselage.

Full report below (link to original):


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
HardAssets's picture

Pearl Harbor was exposed years ago

WhyWait's picture

They are round.  We've all seen the photos. Panels with round holes from both sides. 

Remember when you were a todler, that board with different shaped holes to push matching-shaped blocks through?

Maybe those Dutch engineers weren't allowed to play with those as kids and now they're "hole-shape challenged"!

Seriously though, I bet there are some angry upset engineers over there.  It must suck, having high stakes bold-faced lies put in your mouth like that.

All of Europe is being pushed toward an "Enough is an Enough" moment. 

Rusty Shorts's picture

In other news...

 

TWA Flight 800 Was Shot Down: Anderson Cooper confirms

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h281mWd3qLo

BlindMonkey's picture

Being a gay Jew would certainly put him in the know.

Took Red Pill's picture

It was bullet holes as you can clearly see from the image in this article;

http://www.globalresearch.ca/support-mh17-truth-osce-monitors-identify-s...

You can't shoot bullets at a plane flying at 30,00 feet! It was the Ukrainian jets that shot it down obviously

beaglebog's picture

What shape is the shrapnel within a BUK? 

 

I imagine that it's little jaggy bits, like in some grenades ... but, I don't know.

 

If it is spherical shrapnel, could its profile be mistaken for bullet holes?

Citxmech's picture

Some folks here seem to be missing the point that there is a big difference between machine gun "bullets" and "cannon shells."  Once you step up from machine guns to cannon, the shells explode in the target.  

Everyone keeps saying Su-25, but I'm not sure it can fly high enough.  

conscious being's picture

Flying high enough. It can with adjustments.

Aussie V's picture

Yes it can mate for short periods of time like for around 15 minutes. The Pilot has an Oxygen supply and when that runs out they have to descend

philipat's picture

Aircraft can get well above their "Operational ceiling" when necessary, especially military aircraft if not fully loaded with fuel and providing they don't get into "Coffin corner" where the aircraft will either stall or overspeed. The oxygen supply would limit the period that a military aircraft of this type could get up to thoses altitudes. It might not even have been an SU-25 although the Russians, and the (Now deceased) Spanish ATC Officer, would probably not have been so specific unless they were sure.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

Everyone keeps saying Su-25, but I'm not sure it can fly high enough.

Generally speaking, you are correct. There are two limiting factors. One, it does not have a pressurized cabin, so operating at 10km altitude, except for very briefly, would require the pilot to have supplemental oxygen and warm clothing. Two, while the engines can take the plane above 10km, at such altitudes they do not perform well and a Boeing 777 could outrun it.

Nevertheless, the Saker presented a hypothesis showing that the combination of an Su-25 armed with the R-60 air-to-air missile could plausibly attack and bring down MH17.

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/08/just-the-baseless-hypothesis-o...

On the other hand, the Saker also posted links to a rather detailed analysis which takes into account the multiple vectors involved in shooting down MH17 using the Buk surface-to-air missile. This includes the altitude/velocity/heading of MH17, the range and velocity of the Buk missile, and the capabilities of the radar on a sole Buk launcher compared to the capabilities of the radar of the complete multi-vehicle Buk air defense system.

This analysis establishes a ground footprint from within which the missile would have to have been launched. It reaches the conclusion that it is unlikely that a single separatist-controlled launcher could have shot down MH17, but a multi-vehicle launch system, as operated by the Ukrainian military, could have easily shot it down from territory controlled by Kiev. This launch footprint also coincides with the satellite imagery from the Russian Defense Ministry presentation showing the Ukrainians moving a multi-vehicle Buk system into the area prior to the shootdown.

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/2014/08/detailed-expert-analysis-of-mh1...

Matt's picture

There was an article someone linked weeks ago about how a MiG-29 would look the same as an SU-25 on radar, and would have the speed and altitude to engage a Boeing 777.

Citxmech's picture

I think the important point in this analysis - is that a missile strike, via air to air, or surface to air, could have be accomplished beyond visual range.  Cannon fire would necessarily be within visual range, hence the pilot would know that he was shooting down a commercial airliner.

That would change the debate radically.

To determine whether the airliner was brought down by guns or a missile would require someone who has experience with identifying the typical shrapnel patterns from various Russian-built missiles look like when compared to cannon fire.   

Regarding the SU-25 - from what I know about that aircraft's speed and altitude limitations (it is a ground attack aircraft, after all) It seems like it would be one hell of a stunt to pull this event off.  Now with a real fighter like an Su-27 or MiG-29 - downing an airliner would be a turkey shoot.

Shropshire Lad's picture

That's why Air Traffic Control instructed MH17 to descend to a lower altitude.

Bunghole's picture

As someone who's been to General Dynamics OTS Marion Illinois facilty which manufacturers and test fires 20, 25 and 30 mm rounds (including air to air 20 mm PGU and FAP rounds), the entry holes in 1/8" aluminum skin are certainly round.  The exit holes tend to be ovate and approximately 40-50 mm for the SAPHEI PGU rounds while the Tungsten FAP rounds fragment and produce several 5-10 mm exits holes.

The SU-25 has a liisted ceiling of 25,000 feet due to the unpressurized nature of the cabin.

The plane can go much higher, but since the cabin is unpressurized, the pilot would suffer from oxygen starvation and freezing temps after about 10-12 minutes.

 

Citxmech's picture

OK - so what do you think about the holes in the skins?

Also, the aircraft's absoutel ceiling is only part of the equation - for instance, I'd love to know what the Su-25's rate of climb is above 25k'.

The Black Bishop's picture

Look at the map where alle the airplane pieces fell down. The closest parts to the "incident point zero" is the cockpit sections. Those are not very aerodynamic when it comes off. So it seems that something popped the cockpit and the rest of the plane continued uncontrolled further and probably breaking apart somewhat in the process.

 

From the pictures I have seen there isnt really much damage to the other pieces of fuselage (except being torn apart). The cockpit section however is completely riddled with holes. Some of them are obvious bullet holes, perfectly circular. If this was explosive cannonrounds it is likely shredded by shrapned coming back out after detonation.

 

It would also explain why there wasnt any distress call. Dead pilots dont make calls.

Matt's picture

Wouldn't it be easier to make and load missile heads with ball bearings, or something similar? If you loaded a weapon with jagged pieces and then set off an explosion behind it, wouldn't the jagged pieces behave eratically, maybe stick together as a lump, have way too much drag, flutter like leaves?

The Black Bishop's picture

No, because you give the pilots time to sound a warning before (if spotted) and after the missile detonates. In this incident they wiped out the pilots and the cockpit instantly. No mayday, no obvious evidence that it WASNT a BUK missile. I believe it was intended to seem like a missile strike from the get-go. That was the cover-story to set the blame on Russia and the rebels.

fredquimby's picture

Funny how this picture isn't anywhere. Although most of the really round holes are rivet holes no?

Also funny how not one of the MSM sites is allowing comments on their "MH17 report" story...

H/T TRPabove.

http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Cockpit-MH017.pdf

 

Edit: I wonder why no mention of how the passengers/crew died in the report? (apart from the obvious falling from 30,000ft) They do have bodies from the crash site so forensics could be performed i.e were there any traces of gunpowder on the bodies? If tracers or explosive anti-tank rounds were fired, then perhaps something could be found?

I remember there were also reports of partially decomposed bodies and bodies that didn't go splat when they hit the tarmac.

Againstthelie's picture

Good arguments with the corpses!

This report stinks to high heaven.

Againstthelie's picture

Thanks for this link.

 

Everyone should take a look at the photo in the PDF ( http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Cockpit-MH017.pdf )

I see two layers (can be seen very well on the upper left).

The inner layer has holes that are bent inside, while the outer coating is bent to the outside.

It must be extremely easy for experts with all the info about the plane's wreckage parts to identify the kind of the projectiles and the path of penetration. Even without a chemical analysis experts must be able to narrow down the weapon system. While the chemistry should be the confirmation.

That the report stays silent about the impacts, although the "investigators" have such excellent data and evidences, is like the hole in a shot person was ignored and it was stated in the report "somehow he died by external force but we have no clue how".

Urban Redneck's picture

Shrapnel leaves a hole in a shape correlated to the fragment that passed through.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words, see PICTURE/FIGURE 13 below -

http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/Mobile/article.as...

Paveway IV's picture

So apparently based on a bunch of holes in one suspiciously conveniently located 3 x 3 section of fuselage? Holes that were not there when the plane took off, they concluded objects pierced the skin and the plane fell apart? Outstanding, Sherlock! 

You've got to be f'king kidding me. Even the chimps at CNN had that figured that out based on the pictures posted on the internet.

How many freaking aerodynamic and airframe structural engineers did it take to make that exact same observation after an entire MONTH?? Don't those bastards have the internet or CNN? 

Screw the fake investigation. I'm going with the leaked phone conversation that some rogue oligarch had the aircraft shot with a surface-to-air missile, and then had the chase plane (not a damn MiG-25 BTW) clean up the mess with it's guns and/or an air-to-air missiles. All that doesn't explain the additional punctures from inside the skin going out, so you can't rule out the SBU or Mossad placing a bomb in the EE bay right under the pilot's seats to kill power to the black boxes first and start the whole sequence of events. 

CIA contractor Polish-piloted Uke-marked MiG-29s shadowing MH-17 and the massive US military signals and jamming presence for the fake NATO exercise. Nobody is going to cough up a legit tape on the Uke side. Damn near everyone except Russia and the separatists were shooting at that damn airliner -  from the ground and from the the air. This is anothe botched, zero-credibility false flag.  It's just like the USS Liberty operation: "God damn it, make sure that ship goes down and nobody survives!" 

 

Payne's picture


Bullet holes versus those from shrapnel should be discernible as shrapnel leaves a "key hole" puncture as it is called in the shooting world.


Bullet holes would be round.


 

Not very likely, have you ever shot at a target ?  How many clean holes did you see vs ragged.  Tensile strength of target vs impact speed and mass of projectile and angle will vary the shape of holes.  

Clearly was not an explosion.  If it was a surface to air missle it would have had to have a promixity trigger.  You would be able to follow the blast pattern as well.  Quick examination looks like bullets.

 

 

robobbob's picture

Bullet holes would be round......

unless striking at an angle, or if being fired at a long distance and the projectile starts to tumble, in which cases they would be elogated or oval,

 

but in any case, the Uke aircraft mostly carry 30mm auto cannon. the holes would be much more substantial than shown. as in golf ball plus size.

 

of course a missle strike from the air would look pretty much the same as one fired from the ground

 

and doesn't exclude Uke intentionally shadowing to draw ground fire

Bunghole's picture

A golf ball is 40mm.  I just measured the one on my desk.

Not all 30mm cannon fire is high explosive.  Some are designed only to fragment upon impact.

See http://www.gd-ots.com/MCA_20x102FAP.html

 

JRobby's picture

This is how wars are started.

Axenolith's picture

Those holes are not from "bullets", they're from a fragmenting anti aircraft missile warhead or, remote possibility, a proximity fused antiaircraft cannon shell.  The latter is unlikely because I don't believe anyone utilizes proximity fused cannon shells as a general aviation loadout, and the SU 25 is a ground attack aircraft.  If the aircraft was struck with 30 mm cannon fire the look would be way different, and the crew would probably have more time to radio "we're being shot at".

If you want to see what fragments impinging on a softer metal look like take a rifle (.223 or higher caliber) with jacketed bullets and shoot a plate of hard (like 400+ Brinell) steel with a couple of empty soda/beer cans close to each side of it.  Shoot the cans, shoot softer steel, get some eyeball time on this shit.

You'll have fun to boot :-)   

The Black Bishop's picture

Must-watch video pointing to cannon-fire, not missile:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms3iDoiWqy4

Bunghole's picture

20, 25 and 30 mm cannon shells are not jacketed in copper with a lead core like a M193 round for the M4/M16.

The projectiles are made from steel or tungsten and may or may not have a high explosive charge inside.

 

kill switch's picture

Newly minted experts...

flapdoodle's picture

Did anyone doubt that the report would be a nebulous whitewash?

Rakshas's picture

..... well it's no 911 Ommission report..... but meh...

Winston Churchill's picture

Shot down from the grassy knoll.

813kml's picture

Or Edward Snowden with 12,000 gauge shotgun from window of Tolstoy book suppository.

Rakshas's picture

...... Really ....... No shit Sherlock ..... comes to mind

demoses's picture

And I was thinking the whole time that it just ran out of gas... DOH

 

Its best that this clowns don't start looking at Car crashes -> "we took a look and found out that the reason three people died was the sudden stopping of two movable cars".

Ms. Erable's picture

The correct terminology for the cause of death would be 'sudden deceleration trauma'; also see 'flat as a pancake' and 'FUBAR'.

SickDollar's picture

Took them that long to find a BS explanation to give to the Sheeples

 

 

 

Bangalore Equity Trader's picture

Listen. Even I could have told you that!

Now. Tell us why the fuckers diverted their flight plan?

Pumpkin's picture

Well, that part should be a bit obvious by now.

drdolittle's picture

And, while you're at it, give us the control tower tapes. Why is that taking so long? Usually black box investigation is releaseed a day or two later. I've never seen a black box up close but bet I could get it downloaded in a day or two. And, I'm by no means computer fancy but still bet I could do it. Give me the black boxes.

Aussie V's picture

The guy they go to who is teaching/preaching is a Kiwi called Barry Smith. Barry is dead now and is an ex School teacher. He was a good guy but I don't know if I'd be basing any of my doctrines or beliefs on what he taught. He was probably in the ball park sometimes and way off other times. He did teach some weird stuff.

I don't know who wrote the video but I was finding it hard to follow whether he was saying Putin was a sheep in wolfs clothing or the guy who is standing up to the NWO. Maybe it was me but it seemed difficult to follow what they were trying to say. Although there is some good info in it about Putin not trusting the Britsh for food or water while visiting and the weapons that Syria has received from Russia etc

 

GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Look like someone just blew 150K on a college degree.

 

Israel is bad.....here's your diploma.