If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
According to the prosecutor and the cell service provider, someone was using the president's cell phone 3 times after the crash on the 10th and the 11th. The first time the cell phone was used at 10:46 on the 10th, so 5 minutes after the official crash time. It took the first firefighters more than 10 minutes to arrive at the crash site. Whoever was using the phone logged into the network and checked the voicemail. The voicemail was checked again on the 11th at 12:40 and 4:20 PM.
That is a bit vague. I can check my cell voicemail from any phone in the world. Are you saying that EXACT phone was used OR did someone (wife, etc) check the cell phones voicemail from another phone?
EDIT: I apologize for stepping in the manure of this thread , but Northwester seems to either link , or quote what was said.
That is a bit vague. I can check my cell voicemail from any phone in the world. Are you saying that EXACT phone was used OR did someone (wife, etc) check the cell phones voicemail from another phone?
Wife was with the boss on the plane. You can check it from any phone but in order to do it you need to have the PIN handy. If you do it from your phone, you get the voice mail without any extra hassle
Not to pick nits, but if only one person can answer the President of a Countries Cell phone ( I assume he'd have more than one)... They got bigger problems than missing phantom trees.
There are several issues connected to the use of the president's phone after the crash. Known facts: someone was logging several times into a cell network and checking president's voicemail from the president's phone - not from some other phone; the president's phone was returned to Poland destroyed (burnt) in an unusable shape; the prosecutors decided not to pursue the matter since only few minutes were used and the cost was minimal (this is really strange - someone steals president's phone and uses it to get access to privileged information and the prosecutors are talking about the cost?).
The simplest explanation is that the phone was found burnt at the crash site, the sim card was removed, and placed in a different phone to access the voicemail. Some people say that it is also possible that the phone was destroyed after it was used. This is not as improbable as it sounds. There were confirmed cases where some ID documents were photographed on the site in a perfect shape but later returned half way burnt.
SO Russians did probably cause the Polish Air Force crash and it's not pilot error if you jam the signal.
Well well Russians say they have (to jam signals from the ground or cause parameter readings to malfunction,' said the unnamed intelligence official
A headline to a story in Russia's biggest newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda today read: 'Are the Americans implicated in the Superjet crash?'
'We know that they have special technology - that we also have - to jam signals from the ground or cause parameter readings to malfunction,' said the unnamed intelligence official, highlighting a US military presence at Jakarta Airport from where the plane took off on May 9.
The Sukhoi Superjet 100 is the first entirely new passenger plane unveiled by Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Sukhoi Superjet 100 was on a demonstration flight aimed at securing lucrative orders when it slammed into a mountain killing all 45 passengers and crew.
'We know that they have special technology - that we also have - to jam signals from the ground or cause parameter readings to malfunction,' said the unnamed intelligence official, highlighting a US military presence at Jakarta Airport from where the plane took off on May 9.
And they put those fog generating machines on the side of the vulcano...
And they put those fog generating machines on the side of the vulcano...
Not to mention that machine that causes you to appoint an inexperienced and ill-prepared crew who will definitely choose, without VIP pressure of any kind, to attempt a risky and fairly hopeless approach while transporting Poland's most valuable passengers. Because they have that machine too.
But please explain to me this existing technology that can jam radar altimeters, pressure altimeters, yokes and thrust levers...
Scientists gathered at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, on May 23rd, 2012, after examining the results of prof. Binienda's research, stated that there is no doubt that if the wing hit the tree, the tree would have been broken, not the wing, and the wing would have maintained its aerodynamic characteristics. Therefore the crash could not have been caused by the tree breaking off the wing.
Confirmed by: Prof. dr hab. eng. Janusz Kawecki – Director of the Mechanical Department of Cracow Institute of Technology Prof. dr hab. eng. Andrzej Michal Oles – Department of Physics, Astronomy, and Applied Computer Sciences of the Jagiellonian University Prof. dr hab. eng. Jacek Ronda – Department of Metals Engineering and Industrial Computer Sciences of the Mining-Smelting Institute of Technology Prof. dr hab. Edward Malec – Director of the Physics, Astronomy, and Applied Computer Sciences of the Jagiellonian University Prof. dr hab. eng. Piotr Witakowski – Department of Geomechanics, Construction, and Geotechnics of the Mining-Smelting Institute of Technology
Prof. Binienda has been visiting Poland in the last few days presenting the results of his and dr. Szuladzinski's research at several universities, amongst many at the Warsaw Institute of Technology, his alma mater, and the Jagiellonian University. The reception at all places has been overwhelmingly positive. He also got an invitation to meet with the prosecutors still conducting the crash investigation.
Scientists gathered at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, on May 23rd, 2012, after examining the results of prof. Binienda's research, stated that there is no doubt that if the wing hit the tree, the tree would have been broken, not the wing, and the wing would have maintained its aerodynamic characteristics. Therefore the crash could not have been caused by the tree breaking off the wing.
Confirmed by: Prof. dr hab. eng. Janusz Kawecki – Director of the Mechanical Department of Cracow Institute of Technology Prof. dr hab. eng. Andrzej Michal Oles – Department of Physics, Astronomy, and Applied Computer Sciences of the Jagiellonian University Prof. dr hab. eng. Jacek Ronda – Department of Metals Engineering and Industrial Computer Sciences of the Mining-Smelting Institute of Technology Prof. dr hab. Edward Malec – Director of the Physics, Astronomy, and Applied Computer Sciences of the Jagiellonian University Prof. dr hab. eng. Piotr Witakowski – Department of Geomechanics, Construction, and Geotechnics of the Mining-Smelting Institute of Technology
Ok, Northwester, you've almost won me over. There's one thing left to do...
Put Prof. Binienda's and his colleagues above in a Tu-154. Find a suitable tree of the same specifications as the one in the report. Fly them into it, knocking the tree down with the wing at the same point along the leading edge. Then make a safe landing and issue them my congratulations on solving this mystery. Do you think they would take me up on this? If not, why not?
I wish I spent immense amounts of time weaving in and out seeming less data. It just makes you sound soooooo impressive and the "ooooooh and ahhhhh" effect is just awesome.
How did they speciatate the tree in the winter? Did they use leaves or leaflets? If so, how did they determine the origin. What of the bark, how many species and how did they extrapolate the dimensions? If so, did they use a "foresters prisim" which would be the conventional means to determine bark and leaf litter on the ground? Or, perhaps aviation essperts are more adept than dendrologists at such determinations. Yes, that must be right or planes would fall from the sky. But wait, planes do fall from the sky so .... "bother said mouse".
Did they do a Geno-type cross match with litter found in the structural components? Big fancy words like "university" have no effect on me and usually PhD means just "piled higher and deeper". Did they factor the temp and the strength as the one went down the other would go up?
Oh dear?
Last edited by guamainiac; 2012-05-29, 00:31.
Reason: I confused myself.
The accurate altitude data that puts the craft above the trees has been recorded by the board computers that were read in the US at the Universal Avionics lab. The first pic shows the TAWS numbers, 47 ft (or 14.3 m) at 10:41:02 when the FMS froze, and 120 ft (or 36.6 m) one second earlier (10:41:01). Considering the climb rate of 603 ft/min (or 3 m/s) slightly less than 3 seconds before the FMS froze the aircraft was at 30 m at TAWS #38 - way above the tree tops.
The official reports (second pic) place the aircraft at alt of 15.6 m at 10:41:04.5 (TAWS time 10:41:01). That's less than half of the actual altitude recorded by TAWS.
--- 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 ---
Considering the climb rate of 603 ft/min (or 3 m/s) slightly less than 3 seconds before the FMS froze the aircraft was at 30 m at TAWS #38 - way above the tree tops.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment