Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Smolensk 2010 crash - new technical report
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Northwester View Post[ATTACH=CONFIG]15321[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]15322[/ATTACH]
This is all work of Glenn Jorgensen
And remind me please how much above the runway is 45 m above the local ground?
(And don't you love the 50% probability area? So the plane could have been outside that area with equal probability)
--- 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 ATLcrew View PostWho is Mr. Jorgensen?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostA guy who got 560 hours of community service and 3 years’ probation for falsifying documents?
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/...day-1.11217002
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostA guy who got 560 hours of community service and 3 years’ probation for falsifying documents?
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/...day-1.11217002
The recent change of the Government in Poland paves the way for the Danish civil engineer to participate in a new study of the plane crash that has racked Poland for nearly six years. Many believe that the crash was a Russian assassination operation sanctioned by Putin himself.
--- 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 PostWrong, it is a Danish civil engineer. As reported by the independent and impartial Somlensk Crahs News Digest:
http://www.smolenskcrashnews.com/dan...stigation.html
I make a motion that this entire thread be conducted in blue font.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostWhere does all the raw data for this analysis come from?
And remind me please how much above the runway is 45 m above the local ground?
(And don't you love the 50% probability area? So the plane could have been outside that area with equal probability)
I think the 50% probability refers to the range of possible trajectories, as indicated by min. and max.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwester View PostI will get you answers soon.
I think the 50% probability refers to the range of possible trajectories, as indicated by min. and max.
--- 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
-
Glenn was using GPS and black boxes data checking its reliability through comparing recorded sink rate with recorded altitude in given time intervals. The most consistent was the GPS data that allowed him to plot the most accurate trajectory. He used a statistical method with added data noise to create the possible and the most likely range to confirm that his trajectory is within this range. The trajectory is with 99.9% certainty above the dashed line which means that in the worst case the plane was 45 m above ground at the lowest point of the trajectory, but more likely it was about 60m above ground. The runway elevation is on the left side of the graph, so the spot where the tree is shown is about 12m below runway elevation.
What is interesting is that the go-around trajectory from the initiation point corresponds with the one shown in Russian specifications for TU-154 (dH=46m with specs showing dH=50m).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwester View PostGlenn was using GPS and black boxes data
--- 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 PostAnd where or whom did he get this data from? Not the Russians, I hope!
Northwester, to see the folly in what you are suggesting, just ask yourself this? What would have happened if the Russians had sabotaged/fired a missile at the aircraft and it hadn't botched the go-around/disregarded minimums? It would have been quite obviously a Russian bomb/missile/whatever you are suggesting. In other words, the "cover" for this entire scheme lay in the actions of the crew themselves, which were not predictible and which the Russians had no control over. So either you are suggesting that the Russians intended to carry out a blatantly obvious assassination of the Polish leader, or you are suggesting that they also used a mind-control ray. So, before you post any more technical "evidence", please resolve the logical, motivational aspect of this by answering that question. You can't have a conspiracy without a logical motive, something conspiracy theorists often fail to understand...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostWell, the flight recorder data was tampered with and cannot be believed UNLESS it supports your argument.
Northwester, to see the folly in what you are suggesting, just ask yourself this? What would have happened if the Russians had sabotaged/fired a missile at the aircraft and it hadn't botched the go-around/disregarded minimums? It would have been quite obviously a Russian bomb/missile/whatever you are suggesting. In other words, the "cover" for this entire scheme lay in the actions of the crew themselves, which were not predictible and which the Russians had no control over. So either you are suggesting that the Russians intended to carry out a blatantly obvious assasination of the Polish leader, or you are suggesting that they also used a mind-control ray. So, before you post any more technical "evidence", please resolve the logical, motivational aspect of this by answering that question. You can't have a conspiracy without a logical motive, something conspiracy theorists often fail to understand...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Northwester View PostEvan, you are a very smart person, and you must know that redirecting this conversation to what would have happened, or what could have happened, if something else happened, is trying to avoid discussion about what really HAPPENED. Glenn Jorgensen showed that the plane was on a proper go-around trajectory. And the facts of hundreds of small body fragments spread in the area before the plane hit the ground, the door shot into the ground with speed ten times the speed of the plane, the fragmentation of plane into 60 thousand pieces, and many others point to only one conclusion. This is something that you obviously fail to understand.
So, before you present any evidence to support a conspiracy, you have to define the motive and the logic of the conspiracy itself. What you are suggesting is that either the Russians had no intention of making this look like an accident (this provoking certain war with Poland and subsequently NATO), or some sort of mind control ray. I find both of those possibilities to be a bit far fetched...
Comment
Comment