News /
Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [870]
boletusYou will never learn, will you? And what do you know about science? So far, you are just a fuzz-ball. Poof!
OK boletus you asked for it.
I will sacrifice some of my precious time on you. I generally treat every poster as my equal but you are crying out lout to become my student. I pity your cry for help and hence I'm going to help you.
Are you an expert on aviation accidents? If you are then I would like you to ask you few questions.
However I'm certain that you are no such an expert and the only connection with aviation you have are those brief moments when you are sipping martini while you fly to holiday destination as a jet-passenger.
It means that you are in the same boat like any other poster in this thread. Your opinion is worthed exactly the same as any other Joe or Harry on the PF.
For some reason which is hard to fathom you strongly believe that your posts are more valuable than others and you are some kind of expert.
Your post do not give this imprecision and anybody who even brushed with science can see through your bluster.
First of all they are long and boring, strenuously constructed and laboriously thatched with links but with tenuous effect.
Examples ?there you are :
trees of the 30-40cm diameter can easily shear off wings of airplanes
I think that they can but I'm not an expert/
there are plenty of examples of real life plane crashes, where one or both wings were sheared off by trees
Sure but there is also plenty examples when threes where cut down by plane wing or wings
he difference was in tree sizes: in Russian case there was just a bush (oversized Christmas trees), in the following case the trees were mature.
Ah ? discovery ! Is it America ? Call me ...er call boletus Columbus !
date: 1943-01-29, plane: B-23 Dragon Bomber
date: 1950-12-22, plane: Douglas C-47A-20-DK
date: 1978, plane: DC-8,
hey I wasn't paying attention, was plane in Smolensk C-47A, DC - 8 or B23 ? No ?
Why would you present those "random" cases ?What is has to do with Tu-154?
To give any meaning to your presentation you should find examples of crashes with Tu-154 or with a plane whose construction is at least similar to that of TU-154.
Is that your "scientific" comparison ? 12 years old kid could do the same!
You should use this site :
aviation-safety.net/database/type/type-general.php?type=475
Tu-154 is very sturdy.Even loosing 2,5 m of a wing the plane is able to take-off and then land.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manas_International_Airport
The answer came from Kevin Parker,
I wonder why all countries, employ experts and investigate their air-crashes, spent a lot of money and time, the answer is simple - ask Kevin Parks!
To make it perfectly clear I'm not determining what has happened in Smolensk, I don't know. However Russian and governmental explanation is not good enough,
If that new wonder guy with some scientific theory about crash is not right, I gather that it is easy to contradict him for any expert in the field, isn't not ?
If so where is he or them ?Take your abacus and notes and make an end to this dude mucking about !!!!
If not .......
Yes mister, Binienda was asked yesterday by Polish Prosecutors' Office to meet with them for technical presentation and discussion. So far, he declined
So would I! What business have Prosecutor Office in this ?Are they experts on aviation accidents ? what are they doing in Prosecutors office pretending to be lawyers?
Prof. Paweł Artymowicz is a member of two departments of U of T:
+ Astronomy& Astrophysics department,
Research: Origin and evolution of planetary systems.
Finally an expert I'm deeply impressed !!!!
Is he going to prove that Binieda's calculations are wrong (and I'm not saying they are right) by a very modern and advanced method of observing and calculating the movement of celestial bodies.
You are priceless boletus ! Can I call you bolek ?