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 Gabriel View Post
    Where is that web page that was cited in the early days of this thread, where a person took lots of photos and made measurements and used terrain data to draw conclusions? I can't find it anymore. Do you have a link by chance?
    This should have most of his work:

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      Now I have seen it. What can I say? His presentation is a fruit salad.
      Any mention of nanoprobes?
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        Any mention of nanoprobes?
        Or Tin Foil hats?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
          The strong parts of his presentation are in the areas where his expertise and experience come from. The collision with the birch and the plane impact with the ground. These were strong simulations based on solid scientific principles. He has done such simulations before and the results were frequently confirmed by actual physical experiments.
          The simulation of the wing-vs birch looks more convincing (whether it's correct or not is another subject).

          The simulation of the impact with the ground, I don't buy it (again,whether it's correct or not is another subject). An impact with the ground, inverted, nose first at somehow high speed (more that approach speed) and a very high vertical speed, is hardly survivable and has the potential to kill everybody on-board and totally destroy the plane. And he finally convinced me AGAINST his presentation on this point when he used totally incomparable crashes to calibrate (or give credit) to his model. The part where he explains that the top of the fuselage should have remained under the floor is simulated using a free fall of a perfectly cut cylinder. He doesn't seem to take into account the friction forces and the ripping-off effects of the fuselage fragmenting by impact forces (in the simulation, the section of the fuselage is previously and neatly cut BEFORE the impact, hence no forces are transmitted from other parts of the fuselage).

          However, all this is just my personal impression. I can't say he is wrong. Only that he looks wrong to me.

          And, on top of all, nothing in his presentation explains what the hell was that airplane doing there (even by TAWS data).

          [/quote]The photographs you are talking about came from Sergey Amelin, an "aviation and photography enthusiast" as some call him. He took a series of photographs on April 13th showing damaged trees, and recreated the path and roll of the plane based on these photographs. Some of his photographs were subsequently used in the official reports.[/QUOTE]

          It's a pity that his blog is apparently gone. One things is a bunch of photos and another is the same photos in a logical order and with the explanations of what each of them are and what they could mean. His blog was more convincing that any of the investigations, official or not.

          --- 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
            The simulation of the wing-vs birch looks more convincing (whether it's correct or not is another subject).

            The simulation of the impact with the ground, I don't buy it (again,whether it's correct or not is another subject). An impact with the ground, inverted, nose first at somehow high speed (more that approach speed) and a very high vertical speed, is hardly survivable and has the potential to kill everybody on-board and totally destroy the plane. And he finally convinced me AGAINST his presentation on this point when he used totally incomparable crashes to calibrate (or give credit) to his model. The part where he explains that the top of the fuselage should have remained under the floor is simulated using a free fall of a perfectly cut cylinder. He doesn't seem to take into account the friction forces and the ripping-off effects of the fuselage fragmenting by impact forces (in the simulation, the section of the fuselage is previously and neatly cut BEFORE the impact, hence no forces are transmitted from other parts of the fuselage).

            However, all this is just my personal impression. I can't say he is wrong. Only that he looks wrong to me.

            And, on top of all, nothing in his presentation explains what the hell was that airplane doing there (even by TAWS data).
            The photographs you are talking about came from Sergey Amelin, an "aviation and photography enthusiast" as some call him. He took a series of photographs on April 13th showing damaged trees, and recreated the path and roll of the plane based on these photographs. Some of his photographs were subsequently used in the official reports.[/quote]
            It's a pity that his blog is apparently gone. One things is a bunch of photos and another is the same photos in a logical order and with the explanations of what each of them are and what they could mean. His blog was more convincing that any of the investigations, official or not.
            When I mentioned plane's impact with the ground, I meant his simulation where the whole plane is used, not just a section of the fuselage. He used different angles, vertical speed (up to 40 m/s if I remember correctly), different plane's position, and never was able to create results where so much fragmentation would occur.

            I cautioned you about Amelin because I remember some issues with his work. He re-created the path of the plane showing altitude and roll angles (see pic 1), but when you look at the data inside the yellow ractangle, the alttude between 6 and 7 m, and the roll between 30 and 60 deg, and plot it in a vert. view, you get what's shown on pic 2. Quite impossible, with the wing deep into the ground.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View Post
              Or Tin Foil hats?
              If you wear a tin-foil hat, how can you know about the nanoprobes?

              Or does the conspiracy go even deeper?
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                You are wrong. Te explosion hypothesis is supported by a number of strong indications. The number and size of fragments is directly related to the strength of the explosion. Thousands of small fragments measuring only few centimeters indicate an explosion that was caused by something else, and stronger, than the fuel vapors (Szuladzinski). The lack of a crater in the ground shows that the plane's fragmentation occured in the air.
                There's another crash that was apparently caused by a bomb, the Afriqiyah A330 crash.
                Look, no crater, small fragments.. must be a bomb, right?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Taliesin View Post
                  There's another crash that was apparently caused by a bomb, the Afriqiyah A330 crash.
                  Look, no crater, small fragments.. must be a bomb, right?

                  http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/...38395e88_b.jpg
                  Do you know details of that crash? Obviously not.
                  The plane was climbing after TOGA, reached 670 ft, then turned nose down and dove to the ground with a vertical speed of 73 ft/s. After it slammed against the ground there was a huge fire that burnt a big part of the fuselage. And yes, there was a crater - see the pic.

                  Comment


                  • Clearly that crater was dug by libyan intelligence agents. Get your facts straight

                    Comment


                    • Here are results of lab tests of a seatbelt provided by the family of one of the victims.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                        Here are results of lab tests of a seatbelt provided by the family of one of the victims.
                        And? I see nothing there.

                        --- 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


                        • ...someone with the Russian Ballet knows something!
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            ...someone with the Russian Ballet knows something!
                            How to dance?

                            --- 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
                              And? I see nothing there.
                              Components of explosives.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                                Components of explosives.
                                Yes, the purple line which was intended to be just that.

                                --- 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