Komme mir also keiner und behaupte ich würde keine Nachweise zu meinen Aussagen bringen.
Kehren wir also zurück zum abschliessenden offiz.USB und seinen Schwächen, die ich ja schon mal (mit Seitenverweisen und Zitaten) aufgezeigt habe.
Äusserst interessant ist nun in diesem Zusammenhang der Anhang 5
w e i l hier die unterschiedlichen Auffassungen der Parteien zum Bericht niedergelegt sind, die Hinweise zur Achillesferse des offiz.USB geben. Ein paar Auszüge mit den wichtigesten Punkten, den ganzen Text lesen und sich ein Bild machen, muss jeder selbst!
General comment on section 2.19.4 «High-energy object analysis» of the report:
Almaz-Antei provided the data that did not identify the type of weapon system but rather characterized the damage and rocket trajectory if this rocket had indeed belonged to BUK anti-aircraft weapons system. The data on the aircraft structure damage was analyzed by Almaz-Antei on the basis of BUK performance data which were not publicly available and consequently not considered in the simulations accomplished by NLR and TNO.
Unfortunately after receiving the information from Almaz-Antei, the data used by DSB (NLR and TNO) were neither considered nor amended. As a result, the warhead detonation and damage models used by DSB (NLR and TNO) are not taking into account the full coverage area of the fragment spay. The models were using the source data acceptable for evaluation of efficiency of battle applications.
Such models evaluate only the damage on the outer skin (about 70 % of the surface) and damage degree of the most vital aircraft structure parts. The main result of such simulation is the probability of hitting (terminated/damaged/did not terminate).
Meanwhile, the full objective picture of the damage on the whole of the outer skin is not provided (up to 30 % of damage is not considered) as well as the damage to the inside cockpit equipment and aircraft structure bodywork
DSBKommentar johannes 100 : W a r u m ? Gibt es da was zu verbergen? Falls ja, was?
The presentation by JSC Concern Almaz-Antey that was contained in the Appendices to the draft Final Report has been withdrawn from the definitive version
Subsections 126.96.36.199 and 188.8.131.52 shall be reworked on the sequence of conclusions through the damage analysis, characteristics of high-energy objects, determination of weight and detonation point of the warhead and
then determination of the type of rocket.
In general, the version of hitting the aircraft with air-to-air rocket is practically not presented in the report. The approach to the analysis of the circumstances surrounding the hitting of the aircraft presented in this section is incorrect and insufficiently substantiating the reasons of hitting due to the following:
The report lists the conditions of aircraft hitting which more or less shall coincide with BUK type anti-aircraft rocket weapon system.
When considering air-to-air rockets, the report beforehand highlights only those used by Russia and Ukraine. The possibility of using rockets with fragmentation warheads manufactured by other States is not considered at all. The selection of rockets listed in Table 15 is made without a prior weight determination of the rocket warhead which hit
the Boeing 777-200 (MH17).
DSBKommentar Johannes 100: das ist, für jeden ersichtlich natürlich eine äusserte schwache Argumentation!
Reference is made to other weapon systems that are common in the region. The text of the report has been amended to only introduce the Buk system when evidence of its missiles is presented. Air-to-air weapons
are, based on the evidence, adequately addressed in the report. Only weapon systems that are common in the region are addressed because the Dutch Safety Board understood that there was very little likelihood that weapons from other parts of the world were in the inventory of any party in the region. The Dutch Safety Board is not aware of any evidence that suggests that other weapon systems both capable of causing the crash and containing
the distinct pre-formed fragments were present in the region.
Aber bezeichnend für die Voreingenommenheit und offenbar politische Beeinflussung des DSB.
Resumee: so klar, eindeutig und fehlerfrei wie hier von manchen dargestellt, ist der abschliessende DSB Bericht nicht.