Shocking Analysis of the ‘Shooting Down’ of Malaysian MH17
By Peter Haisenko Zur deutschen Version bitte hier anklicken
The
tragedy of Malaysian MH 017 continues to elude any light of clarity
being cast over it. The flight recorders are in England and are
evaluated. What can come of it? Maybe more than you would assume.
Especially the voice recorder will be interesting when you look at the
picture of a cockpit fragment. As an expert in aviation I closely looked
at the images of the wreckage that are circulating on the Internet.
First,
I was amazed at how few photos can be found from the wreckage with
Google. All are in low resolution, except one: The fragment of the
cockpit below the window on the pilots side. This image, however, is
shocking. In Washington, you can now hear views expresssed of a
“potentially tragic error / accident” regarding MH 017. Given this
particular cockpit image it does not surprise me at all.
Entry and exit impact holes of projectiles in the cockpit area
I recommend to
click on the little picture to the right. You can download this photo as
a PDF in good
resolution. This is necessary, because that will allow you understand what I am describing here. The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likeley that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that at these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent – outwardly! Furthermore, minor cuts can be seen, all bent outward, which indicate that shrapnel had forcefull exited through the outer skin from the inside of the cockpit. The open rivets are are also bent outward.
resolution. This is necessary, because that will allow you understand what I am describing here. The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likeley that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile. The edge of the other, the larger and slightly frayed exit holes showing shreds of metal pointing produced by the same caliber projectiles. Moreover, it is evident that at these exit holes of the outer layer of the double aluminum reinforced structure are shredded or bent – outwardly! Furthermore, minor cuts can be seen, all bent outward, which indicate that shrapnel had forcefull exited through the outer skin from the inside of the cockpit. The open rivets are are also bent outward.
In
sifting through the available images one thing stands out: All wreckage
of the sections behind the cockpit are largely intact, except for the
fact that only fragments of the aircraft remained . Only the cockpit
part shows these peculiar marks of destruction. This leaves the examiner
with an important clue. This aircraft was not hit by a missile in the
central portion. The destruction is limited to the cockpit area. Now you
have to factor in that this part is constructed of specially reinforced
material. This is on account of the nose of any aircraft having to
withstand the impact of a large bird at high speeds. You can see in the
photo, that in this area significantly stronger aluminum alloys were
being installed than in the remainder of the outer skin of the fuselage.
One remembers the crash of Pan Am over Lockerbie. It was a large
segment of the cockpit that due to the special architecture survived the
crash in one piece. In the case of flight MH 017 it becomes abundantly
clear that there also an explosion took place inside the aircraft.
Tank destroying mix of amunititon
So what could
have happened? Russia recently published radar recordings, that confirm
at least one Ukrainian SU 25 in close proximity to MH 017. This
corresponds with the statement of the now missing Spanish controller
‘Carlos’ that has seen two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the immediate
vicinity of MH 017. If we now consider the armament of a typical SU 25
we learn this: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type
GSh-302 / AO-17A, equipped with: a 250 round magazine of anti-tank
incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum), arranged in
alternating order. The cockpit of the MH 017 has evidently been fired at
from both sides: the entry and exit holes are found on the same
fragment of it’s cockpit segment!
Now just
consider what happens when a series of anti-tank incendiary shells and
splinter-explosive shells hit the cockpit. These are after all designed
to destroy a modern tank. The anti-tank incendiary shells partially
traversed the cockpit and exited on the other side in a slightly
deformed shape. (Aviation forensic experts could possibly find them on
the ground presumably controlled by the Kiev Ukrainian military; the
translator). After all, their impact is designed to penetrate the solid
armor of a tank. Also, the splinter-explosive shells will, due to their
numerous impacts too cause massive explosions inside the cockpit, since
they are designed to do this. Given the rapid firing sequence of the
GSh-302 cannon, it will cause a rapid succession of explosions within
the cockpit area in a very short time. Remeber each of these is
sufficient to destroy a tank.
What “mistake” was actually being committed – and by whom?
Because the
interior of a commercial aircraft is a hermetically sealed pressurized
chamber, the explosions will, in split second, increase the pressure
inside the cabin to extreme levels or breaking point. An aircraft is not
equipped for this, it will burst like a balloon. This explains a
coherent scenario. The largely intact fragments of the rear sections
broke in mid air at the weaker points of contstruction most likely under
extreme internal air pressure. The images of the widely scattered field
of debris and the brutally damaged segment of cockpit fit like hand in
glove. Furthermore, a wing segment shows traces of a grazing shot, which
in direct extension leads to the cockpit. Interestingly, I found that
both the high-resolution photo of the fragment of bullet riddled cockpit
as well as the segment of grazed wing have in the meantime disappeared
from Google Images. One can find virtually no more pictures of the
wreckage, except the well known smoking ruins.
If
you listen to the voices from Washington now who speak of a
“potentially tragic error / accident”, all that remains is the question
of what might have been the nature of this “mistake” perpetrated here. I
am not given to hover long in the realm of speculation, but would like
to invite others to consider the following : The MH 017 looked similar
in it’s tricolor design to that that of the Russian President’s plane.
The plane with Presdient Putin on board was at the same time ”near”
Malaysia MH 017. In aviation circles “close” would be considered to be
anywhere between 150 to 200 miles. Also, in this context we might
consider the deposition of Ms. Tymoshenko, who wanted to shoot Presdient
Putin with a Kalashnikov.
But that this remains pure speculation. The shelling of the cockpit of air Malaysia MH 017, however, is definitely not.
Supplement, 2014-08-01:
Time
and again it is stated that the SU 25 has a maximum flight altitude of
7,000 meters and that’s why this jet couldn’t be able to bring down MH
017. Seeking for an answer on Wikipedia – this statement will be
confirmed. If you go to the trouble of broadening your knowledge by
questioning a specialist book, you’ll get completely different
information: the maximum flight altitude of the SU 25 is 14,600 meters.
Check here: http://www.fliegerweb.com/militaer/flugzeuge/lexikon.php?show=lexikon-50
Until
beginning of july 2014 Wikipedia gave the maximum flight altitude for
the SU 25 with “ca. 10.000 Meters”. As well in the english version as in
the german one. Now one finds it “corrected” to 7.000 meters. In the
Wikipedia discussions-forum roared up an intensive discussion about the
correct value.
The
handbook “Flugzeuge der Welt” by W. Green (1984), a standard work which
essentially quotes the facts of the military “Janes Manuals” (also used
to be NATO reference), already 1984 determined the maximum flight
altitude of SU 25 (SU 25 MK, export version) with 10,670 meters (page
208 f.). The performance of the SU 25 has been upgraded since that time.
Here
a link to the statement of a canadian OSCE-participant, who observed
evidence on parts of the wreckage, that the aircraft had been hit by
rounds of heavy machine-gun-fire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76PG9RQStFU#t=470
No comments:
Post a Comment