Originally posted by Northwester
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Polish President and wife killed in Tu-154 crash
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Northwester View PostI will make easier for you. The left pic shows a typical condition of windows after the crash, the right one - windows after more than a year of storage.
Pfft grasping a non-existent straws.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwester View PostI don't know, maybe a photo that would confirm a position and condition of the plane at any given moment in the last 20 seconds of flight.
As Gabrielle asks how will we see anything with the fog anyway?
So, how will the whack jobs explain this lack of photographic evidence being revealed? Lemme guess - the CIA actually had 93 Ultra high resolution cameras set up all over the base, but a minute before the crash the deep cover agent the russians inserted in the CIA in 1972 pulls the plug at the last moment so there is no evidence... Either that or aliens ('cos they hate Poles too).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwester View PostI don't know, maybe a photo that would confirm a position and condition of the plane at any given moment in the last 20 seconds of flight.
I don't for a second think that the US will be spending, no wait, wasting, the utilization of a scarce resource worth billions of dollars in investment and operation (and I'm talking about a constellation of intelligence satellites) to take high-tech snapshots (that can see through thick solid fog with a high enough resolution) every 10 seconds or so on an insignificant target like this pathetic air base.
--- 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 SYDCBRWOD View PostAs Gabrielle asks how will we see anything with the fog anyway?
And it's not Gabrielle. It's Gabriel, and that's a huge difference (well, a bunch of inches anyway).
--- 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 Northwester View PostBtw, since you are free of the confirmation bias, maybe you could explain this one small discrepancy. At point A we hear from the cockpit "And five miles" which is 9.26 km, but the plane is only 8.3 km from the RWY. At point B we hear "Four", which is 7.4 km, but the plane is 6.28 km from the RWY.
In this case, for example: The source can be wrong (what is the source, by the way?). The person saying "Five" or "Four" could be wrong. The instrument that that person used to appreciate the distance could be wrong. The evidence could have been tampered with (something that I don't discard but I don't support either, simply because I don't have any reason to favour this hypothesis over the rest). Or another explanation that I didn't think of.
What I see in this accident is:
a- A whole bunch of evidence aligned with a busted minimums (intentional or not) + CFIT.
b- A good bunch of evidence showing that the investigation was not conducted in the most professional way, something that doesn't surprise me fro a Russian investigation (even if it was an Aeroflot crash).
c- No good set of consistent evidence showing that it was a conspiracy and that the plane was intentionally downed.
Again, I don't discard the point c. I'm just waiting for the evidence. And I'm sorry, but discrepancies in the investigation by themselves only supports point b, not point c.
--- 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 PostThe source can be wrong (what is the source, by the way?).
Again, I don't discard the point c. I'm just waiting for the evidence. And I'm sorry, but discrepancies in the investigation by themselves only supports point b, not point c.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SYDCBRWOD View PostHow does this prove anything? They are different bits of the same airframe. Can you prove that the windows further down the fuselage or on the opposite side were all equally crazed/opaque? Answer - you can't. Therefore this proves nothing. we don't even know for sure the windows have turned opaque due to heat. If it was heat from what source? Alcohol? Fuel? Explosive?
Pfft grasping a non-existent straws.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwester View PostIndications of an explosion.
"Shrapnel" could be any debris from the airplane or the ground. What you do when you check for explosions is you look for micropitting caused by molten steel or remnants of the explosive compound. Explosives leave patterns that are clearly visible under microscopes or cameras.
You dont check for explosive damage by looking at pictures from the outside. Conspiracy theorists would do that. Experts would not. Not that you can tell the difference, but anyway..
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostWhat I see in this accident is:
a- A whole bunch of evidence aligned with a busted minimums (intentional or not) + CFIT.
b- A good bunch of evidence showing that the investigation was not conducted in the most professional way, something that doesn't surprise me fro a Russian investigation (even if it was an Aeroflot crash).
c- No good set of consistent evidence showing that it was a conspiracy and that the plane was intentionally downed.
Again, I don't discard the point c. I'm just waiting for the evidence. And I'm sorry, but discrepancies in the investigation by themselves only supports point b, not point c.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwester View PostHave you watched Binienda's presentation at Carnegie Mellon?
I haven't. Any transcript available?
--- 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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwester View PostHere's the actual seminar recording on Carnegie Mellon youtube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u816y...KwLgBQ&index=7
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?
All in all, I can't technically judge his simulation of the wing vs. tree impact. I can only trust him or not, or simply not make a decision. But, in all honesty, I have no reason to say that he is wrong on that (other than now we have to explain the broken birch).
The rest of his presentation is, in my opinion, a bunch of speculation, sometimes weekly supported by evidence, sometimes biased, and sometimes plain wrong.
--- 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 PostNow I have seen it. What can I say? His presentation is a fruit salad. He mixes scientific investigation with comments like that the Russians discarded the TWAS data because it was an American piece of equipment and hence bad (he has no evidence of that), that the Russians intentionally invented a climb after the crash with the birch to make room for the broken wing to go under the plane during the roll (again with no evidence), he used very dissimilar accidents to explain what the result of the crash (as presented in the Russian investigation) would have been. He uses for example an airplane that rolled inverted immediately after take-off, a crash-landing of a Tupolev, and the 727 controlled experiment in the Mexican dessert. He uses all that to say that passengers in the middle and aft sections of the fuselage would have survived. But none of these accidents was a nose-first inverted dive with a high vertical speed. He says that, by barometric info from TAWS data, the airplane should have missed the birch by a few feet, but he ignores that there is a significant error when converting pressure information into altitude above ground, in part because of the precision of the instrument itself (that can be some 10ft), but mainly because of the uncertainty of the real atmospheric pressure at the point and time of the crash, and the setting of the QNH data by the pilots. He also says that, except for the birch, the rest of the vegetation was intact and should have been shaved by the airplane, but there are photos of dozens of trees that were clipped in a way resembling an airplane flying through them, then climbing, rolling inverted and falling.
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?
All in all, I can't technically judge his simulation of the wing vs. tree impact. I can only trust him or not, or simply not make a decision. But, in all honesty, I have no reason to say that he is wrong on that (other than now we have to explain the broken birch).
The rest of his presentation is, in my opinion, a bunch of speculation, sometimes weekly supported by evidence, sometimes biased, and sometimes plain wrong.
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.
A word of caution: in his portfolio he also has photographs taken during a training of Russian special forces inside a restricted military area.
I will try to find that link and post it here.
Comment
Comment