And descending below minimum permitted and decision altitudes was also caused by explosives? Flagged
Boeing engineer: more evidence on the assassination of Polish president in 2010
21–29 of 29 posts
Re: Boeing engineer: more evidence on the assassination of Polish president in 2010
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Occam's razor? What about any common sense? Note that within minutes from the catastrophe there was already the government camp claiming that this was clearly an accident with no fault on either side and the president camp speculating that this was an assassination. The fact that investigation after that was kind of a bad joke didn't help to silence the second camp.
Because "accident" is how you call such disasters? Also, people in the industry knew the less-than-sterling reputation of governmental transport service. EDIT: I should clarify that "accident" is a specific class of event in aircraft accident investigation, together with "incident". It's literally "aviation terminology" stuff.
A plane crash caused by pilot error is the definition of an accident. Not intentional, unexpected, and uncontrolled. The scale or tragedy of the accident doesn't remove the fact that it's an accident.
accident:
[1] An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
[2] A crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury.
Re: Boeing engineer: more evidence on the assassination of Polish president in 2010
#23There would be traces of explosives. " But the tree impact that supposedly precipitated the crash wouldn't have caused enough wing damage to down the plane, said Binienda ... It's absolutely impossible that the wing sheared and then it crashed the way [government investigators] described " - that's all they have, an opinion of a conspiracy nut. I don't buy this for a second, and here's why: http://aviation-safety.net…
Poland has still no access to the airplane remains: http://www.wbj.pl/article-59216-russia-to-return-smolensk-cr...
The wreck was left on open air for several months: http://en.rian.ru/world/20110112/162110789.html
..than washed by Russians: http://freepl.info/2380-tu-154-wreckage-washed-itself
Re: Boeing engineer: more evidence on the assassination of Polish president in 2010
#24This article is a load of hogwash. "The heart of the pro-Western Polish leadership"? This is silly on so many levels. I hope this kind of conspiracy theory raving will not make it onto the HN frontpage too often. As to the crash, it was a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain). There are cockpit recordings right until the moment the plane hit the tree and then the ground. No explosions.
> I hope this kind of conspiracy theory raving will not make it onto the HN frontpage too often. Yep, it's very off topic. Conspiracy theory debates are about the last thing you want on a site like this.
Yes, definitely looks like a conspiracy theory (sarcasm):
http://goo.gl/YREux (by www.simulate-events.com)
Re: Boeing engineer: more evidence on the assassination of Polish president in 2010
#25How does one go from speculations about explosions on the aircraft to claims of assassination? How about applying an Occam's razor every once in a while?
Airplanes don't blow up randomly.
A proof of an explosion (which this is not) would be proof of an assasination.
Re: Boeing engineer: more evidence on the assassination of Polish president in 2010
#26There would be traces of explosives. " But the tree impact that supposedly precipitated the crash wouldn't have caused enough wing damage to down the plane, said Binienda ... It's absolutely impossible that the wing sheared and then it crashed the way [government investigators] described " - that's all they have, an opinion of a conspiracy nut. I don't buy this for a second, and here's why: http://aviation-safety.net…
Poland has still no access to the airplane remains: http://www.wbj.pl/article-59216-russia-to-return-smolensk-cr... The wreck was left on open air for several months: http://en.rian.ru/world/20110112/162110789.html ..than washed by Russians: http://freepl.info/2380-tu-154-wreckage-washed-itself
I'm not saying that it wasn't a conspiracy and assassination.
I'm saying there's no good evidence of it. So far there are natural explanations of what happened, plus the douchebaggery of the Russian politicians.
Re: Boeing engineer: more evidence on the assassination of Polish president in 2010
#27The official explanation of catastrophe was hitting the birch during landing attempt... while the airplane was at about 30 meters of altitude (yes, it was a birch not sequoia).
At that speed, it could easily cut through the rather delicate construct that is an airliner's wing, especially close to tip as it did.
Not a lot of 30m birch trees around.
Re: Boeing engineer: more evidence on the assassination of Polish president in 2010
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poland has still no access to the airplane remains: http://www.wbj.pl/article-59216-russia-to-return-smolensk-cr... The wreck was left on open air for several months: http://en.rian.ru/world/20110112/162110789.html ..than washed by Russians: http://freepl.info/2380-tu-154-wreckage-washed-itself
I'm not saying that it wasn't a conspiracy and assassination. I'm saying there's no good evidence of it. So far there are natural explanations of what happened, plus the douchebaggery of the Russian politicians.
The problem is that official explanations hidden facts (http://www.doomedsoldiers.com/MAK-crash-report-analysis.html) and forged the evidence (source: http://freepl.info/2512-millers-comission-has-forged-its-own...). The official report was based on... voting of commission members on the conclusions (what a "scientific" approach).
Alternative research done by the independent experts from US and Australia (like http://goo.gl/YREux by www.simulate-events.com) is being ignored and / or silenced.
Re: Boeing engineer: more evidence on the assassination of Polish president in 2010
#29Aircraft pilots, even highly trained ones, overreact in non standard situations. The simulation argues that the plane could not have been significantly damaged by the tree. The simulation doesn't say anything about pilot's reaction to the collision event. An attempt by the pilot to compensate for impact is more likely to have caused damaged than the impact itself.
The simulation also didn't agree with facts, without proposing anything regarding why it the plane might end up where it was found. Pity the facts, right?
And which specific facts the simulation didn't agree with?