Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 93

Thread: Smolensk 2010 crash - new technical report

  1. #41
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    Glenn was using GPS and black boxes data
    And where or whom did he get this data from? Not the Russians, I hope!

    --- 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 ---

  2. #42
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    And where or whom did he get this data from? Not the Russians, I hope!
    Well, 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 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...

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    And where or whom did he get this data from? Not the Russians, I hope!
    You must remember from previous conversations that data came from different sources, Russian black boxes, Polish ATM-QAR, and American TAWS and FMS.

  4. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Well, 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...
    Evan, 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.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwester View Post
    Evan, 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.
    I'm smart enough to keep the conversation on motive first and I am not talking about what might have happened, I am talking about what did happen. If, as you suggest, this was a PLOTTED conspiracy, then the conspirators, in plotting their conspiracy, would have had to either a) intend for their action to be clearly an assassination (aircraft descends to MDA, executes a go-around and then suddenly explodes at or above MDA, or b) intend to cover up their action in some way to make it appear to be an accident (in this case pilot error, CFIT). However, the ONLY reason that we have come to conclude that this was pilot error is because the pilots flew below MDA and failed to execute a go-around (for whatever reason) and impacted terrain ahead. The Russians could not have made that happen, therefore they could not have included in in their conspiracy plot.

    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...

  6. #46
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #48
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    671

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote 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 ---

  10. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    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.

  11. #51
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,663

    Default

    Quote 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.

  12. #52
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote 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 ---

  13. #53
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,663

    Default

    Quote 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.

  14. #54
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote 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 ---

  15. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    "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?

  16. #56
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote 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 ---

  17. #57
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,663

    Default

    Quote 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.

  18. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ATC 01.JPG 
Views:	13 
Size:	34.2 KB 
ID:	15505
    Quote 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.

  19. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    816

    Default

    Quote 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.

  20. #60
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,663

    Default

    Quote 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.”

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •