MH-17 case: the damaging elements were not from the Buk missile

But independent technical expert Yuri Antipov continued his analysis of the case materials. And this time he noticed a very strange discrepancy.

Yuri Antipov, Independent Technical Expert

So, the Dutch (JIT) in their report were shown photographs from where come from the striking elements. Okay, they found these pieces of metal. But to make an elementary analysis of the directions of their flight inside the aircraft - the Dutch, apparently, were not able to.

In other words, to conduct research on the scattering pathology of these metal fragments is above their professional expert level. Anyway. The Dutch found a few striking elements - so they found. After all, it was necessary to find something - that’s what they found. Almost like from a song by Vl. Vysotsky - "Anything, at least bring a devil in a mortar." What did you find?

See photo No. 1 and No. 2.

Photos of striking elements from the Dutch report. Almaz-Antey at its press conference already made its conclusions that according to the mass-dimensional parameters these pieces of metal found by the Dutch can be attributed to deformed striking elements from the Buk missile, if only one has a very developed violent imagination. But now I will analyze the problems with these pieces of metal from a completely different perspective. In other words, I will also call into question that this Dutch “crop” refers to the striking elements of the “Beech”, but I will do it from a different angle.

So, the Dutch conducted a chemical analysis of the metal from which these shapeless pieces are made. Well, well done. See photo No. 3.

And what immediately catches your eye is that the chemical composition of these discovered pieces of metal is DIFFERENT. The percentage of alloying additives differs by about 1.5 times! This is such a big difference in chemical content that the Dutch were forced to split their metal "crop" into two groups.

Now imagine - the product (Buk missile) is one, and the striking elements in it are made of different grades of steel. Those who are familiar with production will say this is nonsense. And they will be right. The manufacturer of striking elements, of course, has a certain contract for the supply of a certain grade of steel and cuts out (or casts) from it all its I-beams and cubes as striking elements. Reassortment of steel grades cannot be here. But that is not all.

According to the main alloying metals in the composition of the detected metal pieces, and this in this case is manganese, copper, molybdenum, vanadium, tungsten, the so-called Dutch “damaging elements” have almost identical chemical composition with 6XC and 9XC steels. See photo No. 4 and photo No. 5.

And what? - you'll say. And the fact that these steels belong to the class of INSTRUMENTAL steels. Look at these photos (No. 4,5) the purpose (scope) of these steels.

And now the main thing. Those who are in close contact with “iron” understand that it is practically unrealistic to flatten tool steel. Especially - when you hit the aircraft structure, consisting mainly of much less durable aluminum alloys.

And now again we look at the harvested Dutch crop. See photo No. 1, and No. 2.

The metal of the steel pieces after collision with the aluminum structures of the aircraft is flattened to form thin plates. And this means that the metal from which these Dutch so-called “striking elements” were made was very ductile, which is completely not inherent in tool steels. And it does not correspond to the true striking elements of the “Beech”, designed not to flatter on aluminum, but to flash it through. And many times.

Consequently, the metal "plasticine" found by the Dutch during their harvesting harvest has nothing to do with Buk. And this is another argument in favor of my version that the plane was blown up by bombs inside, and not a missile from the Buk at all.

Like this. And this again is not the end of my investigation of flight MH17. There will be a continuation...