Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash

[Gabriel]

... the inquiry was about the possibility of generating fog, impacting remotely plane's controls, and altering the transmission from the control tower.

Given the nature of the inquire, I suggest that the leak has two possible sources.

The mental hospital, or
Northwester

[Northwester]

So some guys had lunch, the pirogi were good there.

In addition to the guy not being too bright, the possiblity of a machine to fog a valley is still too much, it sounds like you are saying in effect that the Polish government does not want to know? They are lock step with Ivan?

No, I think they had just coffee and cake.

The guy was overseeing the investigation, so obviously he must have known something but at least, from what is being reported right now, you could say that he was looked on as trying to dig a bit too deep.

[Northwester]

This is the link. Easy to translate.

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114877,10543751,Prok__Pasionek_z_zarzutami_dyscyplinarnymi.html

[Evan]

Northwester, can you provide us with some graphs exploring the required volume and propagation of manufactured fog extending into a valley and to a height exceeding 100m AFE sufficient to create unbroken opacity over an area of about 15sq/km, and then extrapolate from this the size of such a machine and from there consider how concealable such a machine would be to those already present at said aerodrome? And then could you also provide us a diagram of the flight control systems on the TU-154 that are vulnerable to control from an external source? It's OK if they have lunch stains on them. Don't trouble yourself with motive. Thanks in advance.

[Northwester]

Northwester, can you provide us with some graphs exploring the required volume and propagation of manufactured fog extending into a valley and to a height exceeding 100m AFE sufficient to create unbroken opacity over an area of about 15sq/km, and then extrapolate from this the size of such a machine and from there consider how concealable such a machine would be to those already present at said aerodrome? And then could you also provide us a diagram of the flight control systems on the TU-154 that are vulnerable to control from an external source? It's OK if they have lunch stains on them. Don't trouble yourself with motive. Thanks in advance.

Very funny. So that means that if the overseeing prosecutor, sorry the former overseeing prosecutor, decided to ask some questions about the fog and the plane controls, presumably having some reasons to do it (or maybe not - maybe he just lost his marbles) and decided to go straight to CIA - that equals me maintaining that the fog was generated and someone else controlled the plane? Is that really the best you can come up with?

It would be much more interesting to talk about why this information was released, and why now.

[Evan]

Very funny. So that means that if the overseeing prosecutor, sorry the former overseeing prosecutor, decided to ask some questions about the fog and the plane controls, presumably having some reasons to do it (or maybe not - maybe he just lost his marbles) and decided to go straight to CIA - that equals me maintaining that the fog was generated and someone else controlled the plane? Is that really the best you can come up with?

It would be much more interesting to talk about why this information was released, and why now.

OK, it seems I misunderstood you. I'm glad that you also realize that this "inquiry" concerns a case marbles-gone-missing. I would also suggest that this delusional fantasy wasn't "released", it was spread. I'm sure there are bona-fide crackpots at the CIA who even balked at this one.

[Northwester]

This is what you call a "perfect landing".

http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,1342,title,Boeing-bez-podwozia-wyladowal-na-warszawskim-Okeciu-230-osob-na-pokladzie,wid,13948964,wiadomosc_video.html

A bit more on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyWoFX5YuRI

[Northwester]

Two teams of scientists doing independent research, one in US and one in Poland, after examining data from TAWS, FMS and flight parameters from both reports came to the following conclusions:
- the plane was flying at least 14 m above the trees that supposedly caused the separation of the wing fragment
- the part of the wing broke off about 69 m after the infamous birch at the altitude of 26 m above ground
- if the wing fragment separated at the birch as the Russian and Polish reports maintain, that fragment would have travelled not more than 12 m and not 111 m as shown in the reports (they conducted an aerodynamic simulation)
- right after losing the wing fragment the plane was subjected to 2 strong shocks that cannot be explained by known factors - as a result the plane changed its trajectory
- 2 seconds after that, 15 m above ground, plane systems lost power
- at no time the plane was below the runway elevation
The US team was led by prof. Binienda from Akron University with the participation of prof. Braun from NASA. The names of the scientists in Poland were not disclosed.

[Gabriel]

Unfortunatelly I can't find the blog where the photos I added to this post were originally published:

http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?p=548736&#post548736

In the blog, an enthusiast went personally to the site and took lots of pictures. Every single damaged tree and wire cut was photographed, some were measured, and all that information was combined with coordinates and elevation of each object in a 3D map of the zone to reproduce a 3D "slicing path" from which trajectory could be reliably determined (at least you could unite al the impact points) and bank was pretty clear by the inclination of the slicing plane (as seen in the trees)

It shows that the first tree was hit below runway elevation and, at the very least, that the brich that supposedly broke the wing was hit. Both things contradict the "findings" on the previous post.

Now, damaged trees and cut wires are a very real thing.
How could the plane slice the top of a small tree below runway elevation, and how could it cut a brich that it overflew by at least 14m?
I see only three options:

These objets (dozens of them) were intentionally damaged to look that way.
The blogger just invented the locations, height and elevation of these objetcs to look like it did.
The plane was below runway elevation and did hit the suspect brich, which make the above reports wrong.

I mean, and admitting that I have not red the mentioned reports, you can make a theoretical study that shows that the car could have not left the tire marks that it did and could have not bent the light pole that was bent a few meters before where the car finally came to stop. And still it did.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Or, as a former Argentinian president said, "reality the only truth"

[Evan]

These objets (dozens of them) were intentionally damaged to look that way.

This must be what happened then. They really had me fooled though.

Damn Russians.

Well... end of thread I suppose.

[Northwester]

There is going to be a presentation sometime soon (next week if I remember correctly) where those scientists are going to explain how they arrived at these conclusions. The thing is that two independent teams came up with the same results.

It is hard to believe though that the damage to the trees was not done by the plane. I am more inclined to "believe" the trees but it is also hard to believe that established scientists would put their reputation on the line here. I am really curious how they are going to explain it.

[3WE]

I read that once, in some fog, a corporate pilot, under a lot of pressure from the rich, powerful CEO, was "shamed/threatened" into to cheating and descended below minimums hoping that he might see the ground, but that unfortunately, he did not and then hit stuff and crashed.

I have been wondering if something like that might have happened here? I know it's odd that this sort of thing might have happened more than once.

[Northwester]

The idea the some Russians cut the trees to create a fake trajectory is so ridiculous that I don't even want to consider it as a very remote possibility. The only (and remotely) plausible explanation would be that the Russian IL-76 did some damage to the trees through some crazy manouvering during its 2 failed approaches in the fog.

But if in fact the trajectory was higher, it would explain at least one anomaly from the report: the length of the MM signal that would be correct for the altitude of 40m or higher. And also maybe that the radalt alert was set for 100m but went off, according to the report, at about 65m above ground.

Prof. Binienda is organizing a conference in Pasadena few months form now where he is going to open his findings to the scrutiny of scientific community.

[Spectator]

Two teams of scientists doing independent research, one in US and one in Poland, after examining data from TAWS, FMS and flight parameters from both reports came to the following conclusions: [snip]

"In the US" doesn't make it any more believable - quite a few folk from the States don't even believe what happened in their own country in 2001. I talking about the ones that are adamant that the aircraft did not actually take down the World Trade Centre towers. (I have no intention to start another discussion on the validity of these claims!)

[snip]I mean, and admitting that I have not red the mentioned reports,... [snip]

Sure, but where do we find the reports so that we can read them? Or are they vapourware?

[snip]The only (and remotely) plausible explanation would be that the Russian IL-76 did some damage to the trees through some crazy manouvering during its 2 failed approaches in the fog.[snip]

The IL-76 must be a vastly superior aircraft to the TU-154 if it can do all that damage and still successfully execute a go-around, but the same damage is regarded as sufficient to bring down the TU-154.

[Northwester]

The certain enthusiast (Sergey Amielin) who took a lot of pictures and created a 3-dimensional flight path is of course not beyond making errors. If you look at the second picture (03A), the parameters within the yellow rectangle show altitude between 6 and 7m and the roll between 30 and 60 deg. So somewhere inbetween we have the altitude of 6.5m and roll of 45 deg. How this looks like in reality shows the third picture (03Rotation). Even without the broken off section the wing is deep in the ground.