Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Smolensk 2010 crash - new technical report

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Northwester View Post
    Glenn Jorgensen showed that the plane was on a proper go-around trajectory.
    Well, no...he didn't, not yet anyway. He showed that the airplane might have been on the proper trajectory, and showed it using data, the credibility of which has been put into question by quite a few people, including yourself.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
      Well, no...he didn't, not yet anyway. He showed that the airplane might have been on the proper trajectory, and showed it using data, the credibility of which has been put into question by quite a few people, including yourself.
      Not quite. He examined different sets of data, and used the one that was consistent.

      But there is a fallacy in your arguing. If you assume that Russian data is credible, then you have to accept Glenn's conclusions. On the other hand, if you assume that Russian data is not credible, then you also cannot accept Russian conclusions. You cannot have both ways.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Northwester View Post
        But there is a fallacy in your arguing. If you assume that Russian data is credible, then you have to accept Glenn's conclusions. On the other hand, if you assume that Russian data is not credible, then you also cannot accept Russian conclusions. You cannot have both ways.
        I could say the same thing about your arguing also, as regards the same data, but that's beside the point. To be clear, I'm perfectly willing to stipulate (at least for the purposes of this discussion) that the Miller report is hogwash. It's entirely possible also that there are issues with the Russian report, although MAK investigators at the very least had the advantage of ostensibly having access to ALL of the evidence, something neither the Miller Group, nor this "Committee" can claim. The issue I'm having is that I see no reason (at least so far) to believe that this "technical report" is any better than either of the other reports, seeing as how it suffers from the same handicap the Miller one did (no access to evidence) on top of being made eight years later on top of being very obviously agenda-driven (the Committee makes no attempt at hiding that fact).

        It seems to me that this "technical report" (or whatever final report "The Committee" comes up with) should be attached to the Miller Report as a dissenting opinion (there is precedent), but it holds no water on its own. In fact, I fear it's even worse than that, it's not an investigative piece at all, it's a political paper designed to be a statement on Donald Tusk and his government a lot more so than anything truly concerned with what actually happened in Smolensk.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
          I could say the same thing about your arguing also, as regards the same data, but that's beside the point. To be clear, I'm perfectly willing to stipulate (at least for the purposes of this discussion) that the Miller report is hogwash. It's entirely possible also that there are issues with the Russian report, although MAK investigators at the very least had the advantage of ostensibly having access to ALL of the evidence, something neither the Miller Group, nor this "Committee" can claim. The issue I'm having is that I see no reason (at least so far) to believe that this "technical report" is any better than either of the other reports, seeing as how it suffers from the same handicap the Miller one did (no access to evidence) on top of being made eight years later on top of being very obviously agenda-driven (the Committee makes no attempt at hiding that fact).

          It seems to me that this "technical report" (or whatever final report "The Committee" comes up with) should be attached to the Miller Report as a dissenting opinion (there is precedent), but it holds no water on its own. In fact, I fear it's even worse than that, it's not an investigative piece at all, it's a political paper designed to be a statement on Donald Tusk and his government a lot more so than anything truly concerned with what actually happened in Smolensk.
          I could have not said all that better. I totally agree. No mater how many other reports are fake, that doesn't make this one good. And you can't at the same time say that the evidence of the other reports was fabricated and tampered with and, at the same time, use that evidence to make conclusions in your report.

          And I can see the opening statement of the kick off meeting of this committee (probably unspoken but implicit): "Let's start with the investigation on the assassination of the President". It's so obvious that this investigation STARTED with the CONCLUSION.

          --- 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


          • #50
            It is interesting that the new report is questioned, but no one addresses facts pointed out in the report, that are not connected to the flight data, but clearly indicate several explosions. I see attempts to redirect the conversation to the motives, or practicality, but away from crash site findings. Try to first explain the presence of small body fragments in the area where the fuselage was still above ground, or the fact of the left door shot into the ground with 10 times the speed of the plane. These are indisputable FACTS.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Northwester View Post
              I see attempts to redirect the conversation to the motives, or practicality, but away from crash site findings.
              Not practicality Northwester, plausibility. Because the plot you are alluding to would have to involve both motive and plausibility. Without these two things, it would be just a random act of insanity.

              I've already asked you how the Russians could have anticipated the events that made this appear to be CFIT. That annoying detail cannot be brushed aside. You haven't answered that because you can't.

              And without that CFIT sequence, any diabolical plot involving an explosion would have been obvious to everyone.

              So, put aside the so-called evidence and explain to us how this supposed plot is even plausible.

              I know it's a buzz-kill but, unfortunately, logic has to step in at some point.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                It is interesting that the new report is questioned, but no one addresses facts pointed out in the report, that are not connected to the flight data, but clearly indicate several explosions. I see attempts to redirect the conversation to the motives, or practicality, but away from crash site findings. Try to first explain the presence of small body fragments in the area where the fuselage was still above ground, or the fact of the left door shot into the ground with 10 times the speed of the plane. These are indisputable FACTS.
                I did address all that: I don't know. But "I don't know" doesn't mean "It was an explosion of linear explosives in the wing tank that was masked to avoid detection and getting in contact with the fuel followed shortly thereafter by one or more huge explosions in the fuselage that, other than spreading pieces of bodies and airplane all over the place, also shot the door down (?) at huge speed so fast that it penetrated the ground deeply, but said explosion left this piece of aluminum pretty much intact, and all this happened after the pilot did everything 100% ok with zero mistakes or violations and a brilliant display of airmanship despite the ATC giving him misleading cues".

                And as it happened in all conspiracy theories, there are a bunch of things that point in the same direction but don't add up. If someone placed explosives in the wing that would make the plane unflyable, why place more explosives in the fuselage? Or the other way around, if you place enough explosives to basically pulverize the center of the fuselage (except the door that is), why put the other ones in the wing? And why put them in the wing near the tip when the plane would have been controllable if it wasn't for the flaps and slats, and not more towards the root? And why would the ATC then give intentional incorrect instructions to make it crash if they were going to shot it down anyway? And on top of that sabotage the AP so it doesn't perform the go-around? And, of course... What the heck was the pilot doing there after being told twice that the conditions were not suitable for landing (first one time, and then again when the pilot replied asking for the conditions), and then when the officer in the ATC room tells the controller "ok, if the pilot wants to attempt the landing, let him do it", and that is suddenly "a decision made by the officer to clear the plane to land in unsuitable conditions"????

                Sorry Northwester, this investigation is bullshit, it decided the conclusion before start, and then worked their way in reverse constructing the story as necessary to match that conclusion.
                I don't trust the Russian investigation, but I trust this one even less. I would not be surprised if they are cherry-picking (and cherry-discarding), interpreting, and even inventing the evidence to fit the agenda.

                You can show me the facts and reports that prove that the Earth is flat, that we never went to the Moon, that the planes spray chemtrails, or that the planes don't use jet fuel, and that the planes fly much slower than what we are told they do (which in turn proves that the Earth is much smaller than what we are told), or that no plane crashed in 9/11, or that the WTC collapsed due to explosions from explosives detonated inside the building.

                I might believe some of those before I believe in this report. Because it has a clear pre-existing agenda and a clear tone and (lack of) logic of the best (worst) conspiracy theories.

                --- 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


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  And as it happened in all conspiracy theories, there are a bunch of things that point in the same direction but don't add up. If someone placed explosives in the wing that would make the plane unflyable, why place more explosives in the fuselage? Or the other way around, if you place enough explosives to basically pulverize the center of the fuselage (except the door that is), why put the other ones in the wing? And why put them in the wing near the tip when the plane would have been controllable if it wasn't for the flaps and slats, and not more towards the root? And why would the ATC then give intentional incorrect instructions to make it crash if they were going to shot it down anyway? And on top of that sabotage the AP so it doesn't perform the go-around? And, of course... What the heck was the pilot doing there after being told twice that the conditions were not suitable for landing (first one time, and then again when the pilot replied asking for the conditions), and then when the officer in the ATC room tells the controller "ok, if the pilot wants to attempt the landing, let him do it", and that is suddenly "a decision made by the officer to clear the plane to land in unsuitable conditions"????
                  Oh and don't forget to ask how they controlled the weather conditions to prevent the crew from spotting their errors visually.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    Oh and don't forget to ask how they controlled the weather conditions to prevent the crew from spotting their errors visually.
                    What errors?

                    --- 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


                    • #55
                      "I don't know" is not good enough. For someone with your experience and expertise you should be able to come up with some plausible explanation of these findings. All of these findings are documented in a way that is hard to fake. That you cannot logically connect them, does not mean that there is no connection. One could come up with a possible course of events that would fit into the puzzle. The ATC got an order to bring the plane to the MDA - we know that. There are big questions about ATC work and how the plane was led. Maybe option A was to try to fly it into terrain - the navigation aids were rigged. If that failed, there was an explosive in the wing. Still to make it look like pilots error. The explosion in the fuselage was to eliminate all witnesses, and eliminate the president. The survival rate in low altitude crashes like that is usually quite high. You would not want a survivor to testify about seeing an explosion in the wing. I wonder why Russians erased all memory cards of phones and cameras found on the crash site. What were they afraid of?

                      And in a case, where a president and all top brass of a country perishes on a territory of a not so friendly country, you bring up chem-trails and flat earth? Really?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                        "I don't know" is not good enough. For someone with your experience and expertise blah blah...
                        Sorry, that's what I've got. And it is much better than inventing what I don't know.

                        But ok, let's start with an easy one.
                        The ATC got an order to bring the plane to the MDA - we know that.
                        Who is "we"? Because I don't know that. You do? Prove it to me.


                        And in a case, where a president and all top brass of a country perishes on a territory of a not so friendly country, you bring up chem-trails and flat earth? Really?
                        I am so sorry that you don't like what reading this report reminded me. It did and I don't control 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


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                          One could come up with a possible course of events that would fit into the puzzle.
                          Indeed, this is the preferred method of conspiracy theorists. Whereas actual investigators use pieces of the puzzle to come up with the course of events.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	ATC 01.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	34.2 KB
ID:	1027796
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            Who is "we"? Because I don't know that. You do? Prove it to me.
                            At 6:26:19 Krasnokutsky says to ATC: Pasha, bring him to 100 meters. 100 meters. No discussion, shit, ...

                            Krasnokutsky is the commanding officer from Tver.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              Indeed, this is the preferred method of conspiracy theorists. Whereas actual investigators use pieces of the puzzle to come up with the course of events.
                              Nice try, Evan. Taking a sentence out of the context, and assigning to it a meaning that fits your argument.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Northwester View Post
                                Nice try, Evan. Taking a sentence out of the context, and assigning to it a meaning that fits your argument.
                                How is that out of context? Those are your words attempting to make your case by asking Gabriel to think like a conspiracy theorist. Gabriel is not one to cherry-pick the facts to FIT an argument. He has a scientific mind and follows a scientific method, in which doubt plays an essential role.

                                True scientists challenge their own conclusions and make them stand up to ALL the observable evidence and ALL aspects of logic.

                                Conspiracy theorists nurture their conclusions by cherry-picking or weighting the observable evidence and disregarding any problematic aspects of logic. This is why they so easily and convincingly deceive themselves and the non-scientific community around them.

                                But, to quote a scientist named Einstein: “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you anywhere.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X