*sigh* are we really going back to fog machines and executions?
In that case, I will stick by the "aliens took over the bodies of the crew and caused them to descend below their minimums" as my entry.
Enjoy...
C'mon Convex, the accident happened in Russia and therefore Seanus' reference to a fog machine must've been a joke. Obviously! You know, he was only poking fun of some right-wingers' ideas, fortunately left-wingers never have any crazy ideas. LOL
Now, had the very same accident happened in the US our own Seanus here would've shown us how the US government downed the aircraft and blamed poor, innocent arabs and/or muslims for it. As an excuse to steal oil! From the oil-less Afghanistan!!! Better yet, they'd have rigged a building with explosives and rammed the Tupolev into it. After all, the American government is always guilty of cover-ups, the Russian government is a peace seeking, kumbayan entity. That's a "fact".
PS. Yes, I do believe the official version is correct, I'm simply highlighting some inconsistencies in Mr. Conspiratorky's attacks.
The final report of Jerzy Miller is different from the latest one of this month? I wonder how that woman would feel if her work were seen as one and the same. That's why I'm asking Konrad if there are any significant differences.
According to the IAC Final Report, "the aircraft collided with the birch with a trunk diameter of 30-40 cm, which led to the left outer wing portion of about 6.5 m ripped off and intensive left bank. In 5-6 more seconds, inverted, the aircraft collided with the ground and was destroyed."71 Accordingly, the encounter with the birch that resulted in the loss of a part of the wing caused the plane to invert and crash. This scenario was illustrated by an animation demonstrating IAC's interpretation of the last moments of the airplane before the crash. This animation was not supported by any scientific or forensic analysis of the crash scene, but rather represented a work of art contrary to basic law of physics.
On September 8, 2011, Dr. Wieslaw Binienda, an expert on high-energy impacts on materials and structures testifying before the Polish Parliamentary Committee, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the collision with the birch could not have ripped the outer portion of the wing from the aircraft. While applying all parameters presented in the IAC Final Report in a rigorous finite element analysis, he demonstrated through a virtual experiment that the high- energy impact causes the wing to act like an ax, cutting the birch with only a small amount of damage to the edge of the wing but without any damage to the lifting area of the wing.72 These findings directly challenged the scenario presented by the IAC.
However, even if the scenario presented by the IAC is assumed whereby the birch rips off 1/3 of the length of the wing at the height of 6.5 meters from the ground, the ripped-off portion of the wing could not have fallen as far as 111 meters from the birch where it was found. The aerodynamic simulation shows that the ripped off part would crash to the ground no further than 12 meters from the birch at velocity of 100 km/h. The inspection of the crash scene showed that the ripped off portion of the left wing was found leaning against the trees 111 meters from the birch and on the right side of the path of the airplane. The observed damage to the trees and to the ripped off segment of the wing excludes the possibility of a velocity of
100 km/h at the point of impact.
In order to explain the final location of the ripped off segment of the wing, the aerodynamic analysis of free flow of the segment was conducted, requiring that the landing spot of the segment corresponds with the location at which it was found.73 The results obtained indicated that the separation from the wing at velocity of 80 m/s happened at a distance of 70 meters from the birch and 26 meters from the ground. Thus, the aerodynamic analysis demonstrates that the IAC's assumed path of 6.5 meters above the ground was 20 meters too low and the location of the separation of the wing was off by 70 meters.
Furthermore, the IAC's conclusion that the airplane traveling at the height of 6.5 meters from the ground could overturn is also impossible because the span of the wing is 19 meters. After presumably losing 6.5 meters on the birch, the remaining 12.5 meters of the wing was still longer than the distance to the ground of 6.5 meters. Thus, the IAC conclusion that "after intensive left bank" the airplane "inverted" is obviously impossible and erroneous.
So, possibly in anticipation of this problem, the IAC version of the crash assumes that the airplane after losing 1/3 of the wing is gaining height. This scenario also poses a fundamental problem because after losing a significant part of the wing, the airplane would be unable to gain any height. Accordingly the scenario presented by the IAC is incorrect in all fundamental aspects and thus impossible.
No politicians are strong enough here. Not one Polish politician has the stature to instigate any meaningful changes. The Russian govt learned from 9/11 how to wangle evidence and get off the hook. You need a hard hitter to represent you and it's that simple.
Similarly, the Polish side was not in the position to respond to Finding 3.1.68 of the IAC Final Report that the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Air Forces General Andrzej Blasik was present in the cockpit at the time of the impact with the ground. Furthermore, the Polish Side was not in the position to respond to the statement that the coronary examination revealed 0.6‰ of ethanol in the blood of the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Air Forces. Results of testing the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the Polish Air Force Commander Blasik cannot be independently verified because of the unavailability of the source documentation. No authorized toxicological data and information as to when and how the material was secured foranalysis was provided to the Polish side.6
6 The Polish Response in English, p. 143. In January 2011 IAC published on its website a document nr. 37 dated April 11, 2010 that purportedly represents testing of Gen. Błasik's blood. Medical experts point out that a natural alcohol is produced in the body within 24 hours from death and can reach even 1 percent. Therefore other tests are required to verify such findings. However the Russian side did not produce any other tests and did not present supporting documents.
Wikileaks - 'Russia tried to prevent Kaczynski landing in Smolensk' 09.03.2012 13:41 The email- released by the Wikileaks whistle blowing web site as part of its Global Intelligence Files series - shows a former KGB officer recruited by the Americans thought the Russians deliberately tried to stop President Kaczynski landing in Smolensk.
Smolensk air traffic control told the plane it was unsafe to land due to heavy fog, but the plane eventually tried to land at the airport in western Russian, however, killing all 96 on board.
But the secret email released by Wikileaks, sent by iphone to Reva Bhalla, director of analysis at the global intelligence company Stratfor Forecasting Inc, from Fred Burton, the company's vice-director of counter intelligence on 24 April 2010, quotes a former KGB agent, 'Comrade J'.
Comrade J told Stratfor, a company once described as a 'shadow CIA': "The Russians purposefully denied the aircraft the ability to land knowing that the Polish President would either force the pilot to land [...] or the plane would return and not land at the location."
Another Stratfor officer, Marko Papic, is also quoted as saying: "This was actually one of the theories that one of my contacts also gave me. But the intention was not to kill Kacynzki [sic] just make his life difficult by forcing him to land in Minsk and therefore miss the Katyn Massacre ceremonies set to begin in an hour from landing. But instead, the pilots tried to land anyways and crashed the flight."
so this commander J, is he speculating or was involved at the time, someone told him or her...they said he was interviewed at a nuclear conference by intelligence officers.
exactly, why did they allow the airplane with the journalists to land and not the presidents plane? ;)
They didn't. The YAK-40 pilots were/are being prosecuted for this - they did not receive landing clearance at Smolensk-North (and - given the conditions which they reported, there was absolutely no way they could have received it) and made an incredibly risky landing.
The mystery, which will probably never be explained, is why they went below their minimums. But - when humans are concerned, they make mistakes under pressure.
The psychological analysis in the Russian report makes for interesting reading - they hammer home the point that the captain was under immense stress at the time, and such a mistake could easily be made. It doesn't forgive the dreadful breaking of endless rules by the PAF, but it goes a long way to explain why he did what he did.
wasnt the airport closed, not cleared for landing?
No. The airport was open. Some people have clung desperately to the concept that the Russians are to blame for not closing the airport, but the facts do not change - the plane was only cleared to 100m. The Tupolev had its own minimums, which allowed them to descend only to 130m.
except it was open for Tusk to land?
Different day.
so was it closed due to weather or because it was decommissioned?
It wasn't closed.
A thoroughly unsuitable airport for the top people in Poland to land at, mind you.
Based on the experience of the crew, it would seem that they were used to flying approaches which relied on decision height and not decision altitude.
you would think adjusting the altimeter and essentially turning off TAWS, is a sure sign that they were reading the barometric meter. (white numbered dial)
"...fact that the airport wasnt in the database..."
1.8.2 Maps and approach charts The crew had at their disposal approach charts of SMOLENSK NORTH, which were copies of materials passed off to Polish Embassy in Moscow by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russian Federation. On 09.04.2009, that outpost forwarded 29 said materials to the Military Air Traffic Service Office of The Polish Armed Forces which passed them to the 36 Regiment
29 According to a statement by an employee of the Polish Embassy in Moscow, made on 5.05.2010, a representative of the Polish Dep. at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation informed on 05.04.2010 that procedures for the year 2010 are just like those from 2009.
what pilot would adjust one altimeter to turn off TAWs and not use the other? is this guy serious? and they knew the airport wasnt in the database?
Shortly after the crash, a certain fellow was invited onto a panel of "experts" hosted by my Father-In-Law to discuss these matters. My teść wasn't very receptive to the gentleman's opinions and let him know so. Here is the open letter this fellow wrote to complain about his treatment, and his demand for apology from Radio Wrocław. The responses then are as poignant as the responses now.
In any case - why on earth would the Russians want to assassinate an unpopular one-term Polish Head of State?
why the hell did Russians kill Litvinienko???
how do I know - I am not the alpha and omega - but I'm pretty sure we can exclude the engines exploding because it would simply destroy them and AFAIK at least one engine is visible on the photos of the crashed plane quite intact - explosions on the other hand could have easily destroyed controls and fuel supply to the engines causing them to stop as was testified by those witnesses I mentioned
