Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
    Because they are local Russian people that don't have any interest in not telling the truth.
    Are you sure about it? At least that buss driver smoking a cigarette during the entire interview looks like somebody that can instantly produce any kind of statement for an equivalent of 0,5 L of Vodka.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Peter_K View Post
      Are you sure about it? At least that buss driver smoking a cigarette during the entire interview looks like somebody that can instantly produce any kind of statement for an equivalent of 0,5 L of Vodka.
      Are you sure that they are not telling the truth?

      Comment


      • I thought the Russians generated a thick, vision-obscuring, fog bank. What good are local witnesses- whether you pay them with Wodka or not?
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          I thought the Russians generated a thick, vision-obscuring, fog bank. What good are local witnesses- whether you pay them with Wodka or not?
          The visiblity was 200 - 400 m.

          Comment


          • And the comedy continues. It would be almost funny if not that it is a part of such a tragic event.

            Few weeks ago someone got hold of some early Russian sketches of the crash site. The only mention of a clipped birch says that the birch was cut 1m from the top. There was also something that some interpreted as the birch cut at 9 m from the bottom. As you all remember, the official reports said that the birch was cut at 5.1 m from the ground.

            So last week the officials come out and stated that they made a mistake and the tree was cut at 7.7 m above ground. Almost 3 years after the crash! But wait, this is not the end of it yet. Today the same officials stated that they made a mistake last week and the birch was cut actually at 6.66 m above ground.

            These guys are investigating a plane crash and they cannot measure a height of a broken tree? The day after the crash no one had a tape measure to check how high the breakage point is? Of a tree that is the main culprit in the crash? For without the tree there is not a broken wing, no roll, and no crash.

            Comment


            • I think it is beyond any doubt that the birch played no role in bringing the plane down. Even if the plane grazed the birch, it was higher, the trunk was thinner, and there was no chance for it to clip the wing.

              But somehow a part of the wing was found on the ground outside of the crash area. The plane lost it somewhere before TAWS 38. Does that mean that the plane was doomed? No. Every plane has to be designed for asymmetrical loads on the wings, and even if one wing is carrying only 80% of the load, the plane cannot start an uncontrolled roll, it has to stay stable. Tu-154 lost about 18% of the left wing. Berczynski, a Boeing structural engineer explained it durng the second Smolensk conference in Warsaw on February 5th. The plane was stable and already in an ascent. Something else brought it down.

              Comment


              • If there is a crime there must also be a motive. What was the motive?

                Okay, guys - this can soon turn ridiculous. Somebody get me some popcorn

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                  I think it is beyond any doubt that the birch played no role in bringing the plane down. Even if the plane grazed the birch, it was higher, the trunk was thinner, and there was no chance for it to clip the wing.

                  But somehow a part of the wing was found on the ground outside of the crash area. The plane lost it somewhere before TAWS 38. Does that mean that the plane was doomed? No. Every plane has to be designed for asymmetrical loads on the wings, and even if one wing is carrying only 80% of the load, the plane cannot start an uncontrolled roll, it has to stay stable. Tu-154 lost about 18% of the left wing. Berczynski, a Boeing structural engineer explained it durng the second Smolensk conference in Warsaw on February 5th. The plane was stable and already in an ascent. Something else brought it down.
                  Oh, man. How much shit con be in one place at the same time?

                  I don't care if the Boeing engineer is God itself. If he explained what you did as you did and showing the same evidence that you did, then he is full of shit too.

                  And only because I don't like saying these what's without saying the why's, here are the why's:

                  1- This FAR 25.349 is, as you can see in your very picture, under subpart C: STRUCTURE. I basically says that the plane shall not break from the rolling moment created by an asymmetric gust that leaves one wing with 80% of its lift. Not that it must remain controllable is that 80% load is sustained indefinitely.

                  2- This 80% is calculated reducing a 20% the full load distribution. I guess that even you understands that the rolling moment created by the lost 20% of the wingtip is much greater than that because it's concentrated on the tip, and not distributed along the span. Are you aware that there is alink between "moment" and "arm"?

                  3- I challenge you, or anybody, to find in the FARs any chapter that the airplane must be able to survive after having its wing sliced.

                  4- Even then, the loss of the wing would not be the worst part. The loss of the aileron and possible effects on the opposite ailerons are worse. It's not a stability issue. It's a controllability issue. How much of the wing did the GOL 737 lost over the Amazon?

                  5- The plane was already climbing before hitting the birch and the load factor was greater than 1, meaning that the vertical speed was even increasing. While loosing 20% of the semi-span can be catastrophic in terms or rolling moment and roll control, it's effect on total lift is small. If the plane was climbing and accelerating at 1.5Gs, it will keep climbing and accelerating at say 1.3Gs after loosing that portion of the wing. Except that with the uncontrollable roll that will START at that point, the acceleration vector will be sooner o later pointing to the wrong direction and you'll be accelerating down.

                  6- While nothing of the above proves that the tree was a critical factor, all of the above together discards this argument. And I still have to find a theory that fits better than the birch. Preferably, one that doesn't involve:

                  - Intentionally misplacing a glideslope aid that wasn't supposed to be there in the first time.
                  - Intentionally misplacing the search-lights.
                  - Intentionally switching off the search light at a critical time.
                  - Fabricating fog.
                  - Controlling the pilots' minds so they attempt an impossible approach.
                  - Controlling the pilots' minds so they don't go around when they didn't have the runway in sight at minimums.
                  - Detonating two loads of TNT at about the time that the search lights were being turned off.
                  - Having dozens of trees damaged BEFORE THE CRASH to make them look as if the damage was done by a crash that had not happened yet.
                  - All of the above together.
                  - And another dozen of conspiracies.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    Oh, man. How much shit con be in one place at the same time?

                    I don't care if the Boeing engineer is God itself. If he explained what you did as you did and showing the same evidence that you did, then he is full of shit too.

                    And only because I don't like saying these what's without saying the why's, here are the why's:

                    1- This FAR 25.349 is, as you can see in your very picture, under subpart C: STRUCTURE. I basically says that the plane shall not break from the rolling moment created by an asymmetric gust that leaves one wing with 80% of its lift. Not that it must remain controllable is that 80% load is sustained indefinitely.

                    2- This 80% is calculated reducing a 20% the full load distribution. I guess that even you understands that the rolling moment created by the lost 20% of the wingtip is much greater than that because it's concentrated on the tip, and not distributed along the span. Are you aware that there is alink between "moment" and "arm"?

                    3- I challenge you, or anybody, to find in the FARs any chapter that the airplane must be able to survive after having its wing sliced.

                    4- Even then, the loss of the wing would not be the worst part. The loss of the aileron and possible effects on the opposite ailerons are worse. It's not a stability issue. It's a controllability issue. How much of the wing did the GOL 737 lost over the Amazon?

                    5- The plane was already climbing before hitting the birch and the load factor was greater than 1, meaning that the vertical speed was even increasing. While loosing 20% of the semi-span can be catastrophic in terms or rolling moment and roll control, it's effect on total lift is small. If the plane was climbing and accelerating at 1.5Gs, it will keep climbing and accelerating at say 1.3Gs after loosing that portion of the wing. Except that with the uncontrollable roll that will START at that point, the acceleration vector will be sooner o later pointing to the wrong direction and you'll be accelerating down.

                    6- While nothing of the above proves that the tree was a critical factor, all of the above together discards this argument. And I still have to find a theory that fits better than the birch. Preferably, one that doesn't involve:

                    - Intentionally misplacing a glideslope aid that wasn't supposed to be there in the first time.
                    - Intentionally misplacing the search-lights.
                    - Intentionally switching off the search light at a critical time.
                    - Fabricating fog.
                    - Controlling the pilots' minds so they attempt an impossible approach.
                    - Controlling the pilots' minds so they don't go around when they didn't have the runway in sight at minimums.
                    - Detonating two loads of TNT at about the time that the search lights were being turned off.
                    - Having dozens of trees damaged BEFORE THE CRASH to make them look as if the damage was done by a crash that had not happened yet.
                    - All of the above together.
                    - And another dozen of conspiracies.
                    Oh man all your stuff is BS, where due you get your information from?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by justLOT787 View Post
                      Oh man all your stuff is BS, where due you get your information from?
                      Hopefully not from right-wing, ultra-conservative, pseudo-catholic, non-expert conspiracy websites like other people on this thread here

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                        Oh, man. How much shit con be in one place at the same time?

                        I don't care if the Boeing engineer is God itself. If he explained what you did as you did and showing the same evidence that you did, then he is full of shit too.

                        And only because I don't like saying these what's without saying the why's, here are the why's:

                        1- This FAR 25.349 is, as you can see in your very picture, under subpart C: STRUCTURE. I basically says that the plane shall not break from the rolling moment created by an asymmetric gust that leaves one wing with 80% of its lift. Not that it must remain controllable is that 80% load is sustained indefinitely.

                        2- This 80% is calculated reducing a 20% the full load distribution. I guess that even you understands that the rolling moment created by the lost 20% of the wingtip is much greater than that because it's concentrated on the tip, and not distributed along the span. Are you aware that there is alink between "moment" and "arm"?

                        3- I challenge you, or anybody, to find in the FARs any chapter that the airplane must be able to survive after having its wing sliced.

                        4- Even then, the loss of the wing would not be the worst part. The loss of the aileron and possible effects on the opposite ailerons are worse. It's not a stability issue. It's a controllability issue. How much of the wing did the GOL 737 lost over the Amazon?

                        5- The plane was already climbing before hitting the birch and the load factor was greater than 1, meaning that the vertical speed was even increasing. While loosing 20% of the semi-span can be catastrophic in terms or rolling moment and roll control, it's effect on total lift is small. If the plane was climbing and accelerating at 1.5Gs, it will keep climbing and accelerating at say 1.3Gs after loosing that portion of the wing. Except that with the uncontrollable roll that will START at that point, the acceleration vector will be sooner o later pointing to the wrong direction and you'll be accelerating down.

                        6- While nothing of the above proves that the tree was a critical factor, all of the above together discards this argument. And I still have to find a theory that fits better than the birch. Preferably, one that doesn't involve:

                        - Intentionally misplacing a glideslope aid that wasn't supposed to be there in the first time.
                        - Intentionally misplacing the search-lights.
                        - Intentionally switching off the search light at a critical time.
                        - Fabricating fog.
                        - Controlling the pilots' minds so they attempt an impossible approach.
                        - Controlling the pilots' minds so they don't go around when they didn't have the runway in sight at minimums.
                        - Detonating two loads of TNT at about the time that the search lights were being turned off.
                        - Having dozens of trees damaged BEFORE THE CRASH to make them look as if the damage was done by a crash that had not happened yet.
                        - All of the above together.
                        - And another dozen of conspiracies.
                        I don't want to get sidetracked here so I will say only this. There are 2 possibilities here:
                        A - the plane hit the tree, broke it, and continued flying to TAWS 38, without a roll, ascending
                        B - the plane flew above the tree and continued flying to TAWS 38, without a roll, ascending

                        "B" is more probable for there were tall trees right behind the birch and they were untouched. I am saying "without a roll" for as you are saying the plane had positive vertical acceleration and if it started a roll, the direction would have changed too. But the plane headed perfectly straight to TAWS 38 without any deviation. And there were witnesses that saw the plane flying wheels pointing down quite a distance beyond the alleged collision with the tree.

                        Btw, it is puzzling why rational people cannot even remotely consider a possibility of a conspiracy here, given the political, geopolitical, and historical circumstances.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          Oh, man. How much shit con be in one place at the same time?...
                          - And another dozen of conspiracies.
                          Gabriel:

                          Please acknowledge that there could be some sort of Russian cover up, perhaps the inspector drank too much wodka when he measured the tree and had generated a number of lies to cover his butt...

                          OR

                          Don't feed the troll.

                          I know it's never happened before, but with someone of great power on an important trip, could the pilots have "been forced" into doing a normally-ill advised approach with the hope of maybe seeing the ground, and botched things and got too low and hit the ground?
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • Indications of an explosion.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                              Btw, it is puzzling why rational people cannot even remotely consider a possibility of a conspiracy here, given the political, geopolitical, and historical circumstances.
                              I consider myself quite rational and open-minded, and I can consider a possibility of conspiracy. But the simple fact that there might be some contradictory information doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy. It means that there are things that need to be sorted out and understood.

                              I am the one that, if I looked up to the night sky and saw a strange light that moves in ways that are apparently impossible to be achieved by known technology, says "that's an unidentified flying object", not "that's a spaceship made and flown by an extraterrestrial intelligence".

                              And while I can accept (and have accepted) conspiracies, I am particularly not prone to accepting those where:
                              - Only part of the evidence is used to explain the conspiracy.
                              - The part that doesn't match is discarded and not explained.
                              - Change from conspiracy 1 to conspiracy 2 to conspiracy 3 to fit the dynamic "finding" and interpretation of the evidence.
                              - Have lots and lots of "special" features that try to "reinforce" the conspiracy theory, to a pint of ridiculous exaggerations.

                              Just look at point 6, that's just some of the issues raised by you, do you seriously think that all this can be true at the same time? That all that can have been actually part of the conspiracy, had there been one?)

                              To make it clear. Maybe there was a conspiracy there, but I see no evidence of that and I see no conspiracy theory that is consistent with all (or even most of) the evidence. Instead, only partial conspiracy theories that partially fit some of the evidence and many times contradict each other.

                              Whenever you find two contradicting theories, you decide that the one that matches one of your conspiracy theories is right and the other one is wrong. Why couldn't it be the other way around? Also, you include a piece of evidence in your theory but discard the SAME piece of evidence for "fake" when it doesn't match. For example, you use the FDR to explain that the co-pilot attempted to land, but the roll is fake. The same with the CVR.

                              And how do I explain the contradictions in the evidence? I don't. Not that I don't want to. I can't (an UFO for me is an UFO, not an extraterrestrial spaceship). I hope someone will explain it. You are certainly NOT doing it.

                              Again, look at point 6, try to make one consistent conspiracy theory that takes all that into account, be fair with the evidence (i.e. avoid confirmation bias), and maybe I'll start to rationally believe you. In the meantime. I rationally don't. I can't believe that the plane was shot down (explosives) AND that they tampered with all the approach aids to make the pilots crash themselves AND that they knew that there was going to be fog or fabricated it AND that they had faith knew that the pilots would attempt that approach in such conditions so they preemptively destroyed dozens of trees to fake a potential crash BUT they forgot to cut the a critical tree so you would have the proof that they were wrong AND that they would tamper with the recorders but poorly so you could find the lies AND that they would do all that but let some recording devices to be analyzed in the US even when they knew that the info would contradict their fabricated findings. Can you?

                              Seriously, who is the one acting irrationally here?

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                                Seriously, who is the one acting irrationally here?
                                Guilty!

                                I am. For keep engaging in this discussion. That's seriously irrational.

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X