WielkiPolak
9 Nov 2013
News / Anybody watch Adam Michnik on Lis this evening? [50]
Hold on there delph. I think you're going to have to give me a few sources. Perhaps I have not kept up with as much mainstream media as you, but I never heard of any guy that admitted to making stuff up just to get TV time [unless you are just referring to some random guy on the street, claiming to be knowledgeable about planes].
As for me, I'm referring to experts like
Professor Chris Cieszewski, who discovered that the birch was broken 5 days before the plane supposedly crashed in to it. Maciej Lasek said the satellite photos were impossible to see properly, due to their poor quality, yet later said, that the broken tree part that Cieszewski saw, was just rubbish lying around. So could he see them or couldn't he see them? Lasek's area of work is in the mechanisms of flight, while Cieszewski has already done much work involving analyzing satellite photos of, yep, trees! He has done research at the Warnell school of Forestry and Natural Resources. Who is Lasek [or the mainstream media] to rubbish his claims about satellite images?
Another expert invovled, this one, in analyzing the geospace in damp terrain, Dr Deepak Mishra, has received funds from NASA for his research [even receiving up to $1 million for one of his research projects].
Daniel Markewitz is also involved with researching the thickness of the wood in trees and what effects that has in various situations. He has also received a multitude of financial grants for his research from high rated institutions.
You can also look up some names as Joseph Dahlen and Mike Strub [also involved in researching his disaster]. They were involved in analyzing pieces of the birch as well. These pieces were preserved and sent off to one of the 2 best laboratories in the world [this one was in Canada]. The research has shown that this particular tree, despite being weaker than other trees generally, was actually weaker than most birch trees as well [yet it supposedly broke the wing of a plane, despite, if you remember, being on 5th April that year].
For those still unsure of if this was murder or just an accident, Professor Cieszewski also found, in his satellite research, that in the wooded area that the crash took place in, no high quality satellite photos were taken for over 5 years, until just before the time of the crash, almost as if someone had demanded them [Putin?], to see what the area looks like, if they were to prepare some way of crashing this plane and making it look like an accident [that is just my view]. Not only this, but when comparing satellite photos of 11th April and 12th April, the left Ballast seems to have moved 50m, when nothing was supposed to be touched. Again, how very odd. Possibly to make it fit their false explanation better. Certainly suspicious isn't it? Hey I'm sure that those who don't like this topic will think of ways to mock this research or explain how it is of no relevance.
Macierewicz got various experts in many different fields to analyze different things, but they were all related in some way to this crash. Tree trunk experts might sound funny, but if one of these experts says that there is no way this birch can break the wing of a plane, while another says it was already broken before the crash, then surely if the 'official' report is saying the birch broke the win of the plane, then something is not right.
Hold on there delph. I think you're going to have to give me a few sources. Perhaps I have not kept up with as much mainstream media as you, but I never heard of any guy that admitted to making stuff up just to get TV time [unless you are just referring to some random guy on the street, claiming to be knowledgeable about planes].
As for me, I'm referring to experts like
Professor Chris Cieszewski, who discovered that the birch was broken 5 days before the plane supposedly crashed in to it. Maciej Lasek said the satellite photos were impossible to see properly, due to their poor quality, yet later said, that the broken tree part that Cieszewski saw, was just rubbish lying around. So could he see them or couldn't he see them? Lasek's area of work is in the mechanisms of flight, while Cieszewski has already done much work involving analyzing satellite photos of, yep, trees! He has done research at the Warnell school of Forestry and Natural Resources. Who is Lasek [or the mainstream media] to rubbish his claims about satellite images?
Another expert invovled, this one, in analyzing the geospace in damp terrain, Dr Deepak Mishra, has received funds from NASA for his research [even receiving up to $1 million for one of his research projects].
Daniel Markewitz is also involved with researching the thickness of the wood in trees and what effects that has in various situations. He has also received a multitude of financial grants for his research from high rated institutions.
You can also look up some names as Joseph Dahlen and Mike Strub [also involved in researching his disaster]. They were involved in analyzing pieces of the birch as well. These pieces were preserved and sent off to one of the 2 best laboratories in the world [this one was in Canada]. The research has shown that this particular tree, despite being weaker than other trees generally, was actually weaker than most birch trees as well [yet it supposedly broke the wing of a plane, despite, if you remember, being on 5th April that year].
For those still unsure of if this was murder or just an accident, Professor Cieszewski also found, in his satellite research, that in the wooded area that the crash took place in, no high quality satellite photos were taken for over 5 years, until just before the time of the crash, almost as if someone had demanded them [Putin?], to see what the area looks like, if they were to prepare some way of crashing this plane and making it look like an accident [that is just my view]. Not only this, but when comparing satellite photos of 11th April and 12th April, the left Ballast seems to have moved 50m, when nothing was supposed to be touched. Again, how very odd. Possibly to make it fit their false explanation better. Certainly suspicious isn't it? Hey I'm sure that those who don't like this topic will think of ways to mock this research or explain how it is of no relevance.
Macierewicz got various experts in many different fields to analyze different things, but they were all related in some way to this crash. Tree trunk experts might sound funny, but if one of these experts says that there is no way this birch can break the wing of a plane, while another says it was already broken before the crash, then surely if the 'official' report is saying the birch broke the win of the plane, then something is not right.