The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 921

Is it possible that Polish president was assasinated? If so then, by whom?


f stop 25 | 2,513
15 Apr 2010 #241
The pilot had to obey the order!

No he did not. You are wrong.
Olga 1 | 330
15 Apr 2010 #242
Technical failure, not pilot. What the hell would dumping fuel be about then? By order of Kaczynski? Get real.
Velund 1 | 498
15 Apr 2010 #243
Boeing 737 & 757 do not have fuel dumping ability. Tupolev-154 absolutely has fuel dumping capability.

There is nothing about 154 on this wikipedia page.
Sasha 2 | 1,083
15 Apr 2010 #244
That's fine--I'll just ignore any more smarmy "Olechka" references by him.

Olga, no offence. Olga is just my sister's name, and diminutive "Olechka" sounds tenderly in Russian. :) Feel free to further ignore my questions and points I bring up though.
Olga 1 | 330
15 Apr 2010 #245
Tell me, oh great dismissive condescending geniuses:
What weather conditions do you see in this video that would result in the annihilation of 97 Polish top brass? Oh, do tell...I can't wait to hear it.
anton888 - | 82
15 Apr 2010 #246
If the Russian really so scare of Poland that they need to plan and kill the president, they can do it anytime, even when he sleeps at home without all this trouble.

Unfurtunate accident happened, no one wants it, accept the fact. Is not as exciting as in those communist times serials, that's real life.

Pls protect your country's image, there are many sensible Poles' names get hurt because of a couple of outspoken idiot.

Non-Poles member pls ignore those low intellegent post, majority of Poles have high enough IQ to understand accident do happen, especially to an very old plane with previous records.
Olga 1 | 330
15 Apr 2010 #247
majority of Poles have high enough IQ to understand accident do happen, especially to an very old plane with previous records.

Majority of Poles have high enough IQ not to trust Putin as far as they can throw him.
Jed - | 165
15 Apr 2010 #248
I belive they have enough IQ not to listen paranoids and make their own conclusions based on the real facts.

People believe that Stalin and stalinists are evil - yes, but why? Because stalinizm is a special way of thinking with a deep fog in the head - and everything outside such a head looks very clear. And they make conclusions without any proofs - they rather prepare proofs based on their conclusions. Don't you see your face in that mirror, Olga? The way of thinking is just the same...
Filios1 8 | 1,336
15 Apr 2010 #249
Pls protect your country's image, there are many sensible Poles' names get hurt because of a couple of outspoken idiot.

Olga certainly doesn't speak for all of us reasonable Poles, Anton.
RADO - | 12
15 Apr 2010 #250
Z_darius - awesome post, thanks!
Olga 1 | 330
15 Apr 2010 #251
Olga certainly doesn't speak for all of us reasonable Poles, Anton

I've been called many things in my lifetime, but never naive and gullible. You're blind to anything other than what Russian reports are feeding you, and refusing to consider anything else than this version is a betrayal to your fallen countrymen. Any time a tragedy of this magnitude occurs, I would hope people are capable of thinking critically and not like sheep. Especially when the motives for something like this were MANY and the consequences so great. Because of this, the political landscape is turned on its head and many people benefit as a result.
mafketis 21 | 7,619
15 Apr 2010 #252
Majority of Poles have high enough IQ not to trust Putin as far as they can throw him.

Of course, trusting Putin is something most sensible people have on their list of things to never do.

On the other hand, a majority of Polish people also realize that in the absence of credible evidence (which has certainly not yet surfaced) there's no reason to assume this is anything but a tragic accident.
Olga 1 | 330
15 Apr 2010 #253
On the other hand, a majority of Polish people also realize that in the absence of credible evidence (which has certainly not yet surfaced) there's no reason to assume any particular grand conspiracy

Yes, but notice how what Russia earlier claimed as facts are slowly being refuted? Examples:
1) Great fog--the fog of all fogs! Greatly exaggerated. See this video:...
2) Rapid dismissal of technical failure (according to witness accounts, plane was circling and dumping fuel--not repeatedly attempting to land. Only one attempt to land that ended in catastrophe. Aviation 101: dump fuel as last resort when you have no other choice to prevent explosion on impact). Testimony of aviation experts is that those claims were made much too prematurely. Reconstructing the events leading up to this and thorough examination of plane components take MONTHS).

If you knew me, you'd know I'm the last who buys into conspiracy theories. I live by the laws of logic and common sense. If it looks bad, smells bad, and many people stand to benefit greatly, you would be stupid not to consider all sides, especially considering the highly suspect information that was so prematurely put forth.
RADO - | 12
15 Apr 2010 #254
That's my take on it.

Great write up, Polishmeknob!

I've read that conspiracy theories are psychological devices used by people to cope with high negative emotions. They use bits of real and made-up information to create a version of the world most convenient for their emotional discharge. The fact that this imaginary world has nothing to do with the reality does not concern them, as long as they feel emotional relief.

That means it's totally pointless to use logic and facts trying to change their opinion - it kills the very purpose of the conspiracy theory (emotional venting). The best we can do is probably ignore their posts and don't try to argue with every nonsense they write. There are enough interesting and sane people on this forum besides them.
Olga 1 | 330
15 Apr 2010 #255
You can consider anything under the sun and mostly hit a dead end, but it always comes back full circle to 2. That's what's so damn peculiar.

it kills the very purpose of the conspiracy theory (emotional venting). The best we can do is probably ignore their posts and don't try to argue with every nonsense they write.

In case you got lost, check the title of this thread...
convex 20 | 3,978
15 Apr 2010 #256
Great fog--the fog of all fogs! Greatly exaggerated. See this video

That looks like 400m of visibility as was reported, and the ceiling is obviously very low. That gives you 3 seconds to react to a changing situation.

Aviation 101: dump fuel as last resort when you have no other choice to prevent explosion on impact

Aviation 101: dump fuel as a last resort to make your plane lighter

Reality 101: the Tu-154 doesn't have the ability to dump fuel

The reality is that the pilots were experienced, the navigator and the flight engineer weren't. There was bad weather, communication problems, and a hand flown approach.

- (captain) kpt. pil. Arkadiusz PROTASIUK - total time: 3528h (on Tu-154M - 2937h)
- (first officer) mjr pil. Robert GRZYWNA - total time: 1939h (on Tu-154M - 506h)
- (navigator) por. pil. Artur ZIĘTEK - total time: 1069h (on Tu-154M - 59h, as navigator)
- (flight engineer) chor. Andrzej MICHALAK - total time 330h
Olga 1 | 330
15 Apr 2010 #257
Reality 101: the Tu-154 doesn't have the ability to dump fuel

Yes it does!! Boeing 737 & 757 do not. You are confusing the two. Find me one article that states Tupolev 154 cannot dump fuel. Please! And I will shut up forever. Just make sure it's a from a credible source, not from some alternate-universe dubious "Matrix" source.
Jed - | 165
15 Apr 2010 #258
1) Great fog--the fog of all fogs! Greatly exaggerated.
2) Rapid dismissal of technical failure (according to witness accounts, plane was circling and dumping fuel--not repeatedly attempting to land.

(1) I visited the local Smolensk forum of 10.04 - they were talking about thick fog (doesn't mean it lasts forever).
forum.smolensk.ws/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=48375&start=0
One of the first replies:
"Странно, что в такой туман (я из окна 9-го этажа землю с трудом вижу) вообще кто-то решился на полёт." - "Strange that in such a fog (the ground is hardly visible from my 9th floor) somebody dared to fly"

And a lot of Poles in the airport, including journalists were witnesses.

(2) From several sources I know that Tu-154 is not able to dump fuel. Are you aviation specialist and may prove it with something different than journalists first opinions?

You are looking in the wrong places. For such catastrophe any possibilities should be taken into account and I'm sure they will be taken by professionals from both countries.
Viacheslav K - | 7
15 Apr 2010 #259
Dear Olga,
you shouldn't be so arrogant. The argument on video conditions is really very easy to drop. You should just think of the fact that the video must have been taken after the fog is gone.

Is it possible? Ultimately, yes.

Let's go to the weather archive site. Here it is,
rp5.ru/archive.php?wmo_id=26781&lang=ru

Select 10th of April, 1 day. Look at 10 am.

10 0.9 746.7 769.1 100 ЮВ 3 неопр. туман/ледяной туман, небо не видно Туман или ледяной туман. Мгла. (видимость < 1 км) <=5 баллов, ясно 0.5 0.5 0.9

Translated:
At 10 am. T = 0.9 C. Weather conditions: ice fog, sky can't be seen. Low level clouds: fog or ice fog, visibility < 1 km.

On the same day, 7 pm. T = 11.8 C, no clouds. This is exactly what we see on the video. It was filmed in the evening. :)

There is no surprise. What was in Smolensk that morning, was a classical weather inversion. The cooler air at the ground level led to development of an intensive fog, and it prevented the sun to warm it up until the end of the day. This is when the pilots tried to land. When the air became warm enough, the fog simply dissolved in the same way as the morning fogs normally do in summer.

You can also look at the first news reports from there, and you'll see this fog.

There is little perspective to develop conspiracy theories with such weak arguments in hands.
Olga 1 | 330
15 Apr 2010 #260
From several sources I know that Tu-154 is not able to dump fuel

Give me your sources, please.

(captain) kpt. pil. Arkadiusz PROTASIUK - total time: 3528h (on Tu-154M - 2937h)

Do you have any idea how much time that actually is? 147 days of non-stop flight! More than 6 months of 24 hour flying, with 83% comprising Tu-154 exclusively. Imagine being on a one-way non-stop flight for 6 months straight--get the picture? You are defeating your own arguments. This guy knew damn well what he was doing and was damn good at it. Next silly argument, please...

Please read this:

"Scent of Shale Gas Hangs Over Katyn"
themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/scent-of-shale-gas-hangs-over-katyn/403877.html

"Poles wary of Nord Stream pact"
globalpost.com/dispatch/poland/091221/poland-russia-nord-stream

"Nord Stream Ensures Unrestricted Access to Polish Ports"
nord-stream.com/en/press0/press-releases/press-release/article/nord-stream-ensures-unrestricted-access-to-polish-ports.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=24&cHash=a13375ae49
mafketis 21 | 7,619
15 Apr 2010 #261
In any situation like this, there will be initial contradictory information (often speculation or rumors passed off as 'information') for lots of reasons:
each media outlet wants to be first to make information public (so they publicise things in the rumor stage which later turn out not to be true);

officials feel pressured to say something, anything before they have the facts themselves; confused witnesses;
people making stuff up to be on tv etc.

A lack of initial contradictory or later refuted data is in fact more suspicious than the presence of some amount of same.

The passengers were a mixed enough group that it's hard to figure out who the targets were (there are problems with Kaczynski as main target - related to the mostly ceremonial role of president) or what the motives might be or why such an awkward, unsure method would be chosen or set up under such short notice.

I'm open to something that passes the smell test as evidence something fishy's going on, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.
convex 20 | 3,978
15 Apr 2010 #262
The 737 doesn't have a problem landing with full fuel, neither does the Tu.

The POH is in Russian, but I'll try to find it. There should be a pdf floating around somewhere.

Here's a quick one though, can you find on the Tu where the fuel is supposed to come out?

Do you have any idea how much time that actually is?..

Did you read the post?

- (navigator) por. pil. Artur ZIĘTEK - total time: 1069h (on Tu-154M - 59h, as navigator)
- (flight engineer) chor. Andrzej MICHALAK - total time 330h

Re-read it. Experienced pilots, fairly low time flight engineer and navigator.
Olga 1 | 330
15 Apr 2010 #263
You should just think of the fact that the video must have been taken after the fog is gone.

LOOK closely at the boy's video--he shot it when Tu-154 was flying overhead. Do you not know what Tu-154 even looks like? Well, I do--I've seen a few of them close up. That is EXACTLY Tu-154.

Next argument...?
Viacheslav K - | 7
15 Apr 2010 #264
Boeing 737 & 757 do not have fuel dumping ability. Tupolev-154 absolutely has fuel dumping capability.

Sorry, but this is false.

Look at this:
w w w.aviatehnic.ru/index.php?link=aviatehnicrutoplivnayasistema

and you see that the airplane only has systems that allow to dump fuel into the ground vessels, but not in the air. Such systems are not the same.

The fuel dumping systems are installed on: Il-62, Il-86, Il-96, Tu-204, Tu-214, Yak-40.
Not installed on Tu-134 and Tu-154.
Jed - | 165
15 Apr 2010 #265
Give me your sources, please.

The discussion of TU-154 emergency landing in Simpheropol, 04.07.09 red-forum.com/showthread.php?t=8764
DesKV:
дык не сразу садили. Вырабатывали топливо полтора часа (ТУ 154 с полными баками приземлиться не в состоянии, слишком тяжёлый будет) - It was landed not immideately. They worked-out fuel for 1,5 hours (TU-154 with full tanks of fuel is not able to land because it's too heavy).

- so why in this case they didn't dump fuel?

LOOK closely at the boy's video--he shot it when Tu-154 was flying overhead.

It is TU-154 - but with wrong colours. Polish plane had red colours on it.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
15 Apr 2010 #266
Geez, people, it's amazing how instincts and reading of evidence is so wrong. 9/11 was clear yet people still dearly clung onto the bogus official line yet here a conspiracy is suspected? The only real possibility is that sth was planted underground that had the ability to tamper with the smooth operation of the onboard equipment. Otherwise, LK is the one who unduly influenced the pilot.
Viacheslav K - | 7
15 Apr 2010 #267
Olga,
if you mean that few seconds mobile phone recording, it is very simply NOT the shots of Kaczynsky's Tu-154 on that day before crash. ;)

Would it be, we would have seen that video everywhere. But the guys didn't film the crash, they had to explain what had happened.
Olga 1 | 330
15 Apr 2010 #268
The 737 doesn't have a problem landing with full fuel, neither does the Tu.

737 was designed for shorter flights with decreased fuel capacity. Fuel dumping capacity not required.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping

can you find on the Tu where the fuel is supposed to come out?

It is jettisoned out from rear of wings. You can see it in this photo: plane-spotter.com/JanKertzscher/Tu154.pdf

Majority of aircraft with increased fuel capacity have fuel dumping capability, for safety reasons--trust me.
mafketis 21 | 7,619
15 Apr 2010 #269
9/11 was clear

It was? Can you give the 100 word version here? (or pm me if you don't want it in this thread).

I don't believe the official story, but I've never sifted through everything enough to decide for myself what did happen.
Olga 1 | 330
15 Apr 2010 #270
Would it be, we would have seen that video everywhere.

Heheheh....not if Putin wants everyone to believe there was big fog. Then you would not see it everywhere. Media in Russia is state-controlled and approved. Everyone knows that.

Home / News / Is it possible that Polish president was assasinated? If so then, by whom?
Discussion is closed.