WingNews logo WingNews GitHub [2]
top | item 4659223

Boeing engineer: more evidence on the assassination of Polish president in 2010

30 points| seele | 13 years ago |dianawest.net | reply

27 comments

order
[+] jwr|13 years ago|reply
This 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.

[+] davidw|13 years ago|reply
> 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.

[+] klearvue|13 years ago|reply
Audio recording of their final minutes is available on YouTube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPjzMwAFrmc ) and is in line with the official version (for instance, pilots start swearing and screaming a couple of seconds before the end, right after the controller says something about height and a second approach)
[+] rubyrescue|13 years ago|reply
Sabotage seems incredibly unlikely as the pilot made repeated passes in heavy fog - attempting to land.
[+] seele|13 years ago|reply
They made only one attempt and were on about 30 meters when the series of failures (engines, electrical power, deck computer, steering, etc.) were recorded by black box devices. The airplane broke into thousands of pieces over the swamp near the Smolensk airport.
[+] lrem|13 years ago|reply
Wasn't this rumor debunked quite early in the investigation?
[+] osipov|13 years ago|reply
How 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?
[+] lrem|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] tomjen3|13 years ago|reply
Airplanes don't blow up randomly.

A proof of an explosion (which this is not) would be proof of an assasination.

[+] yread|13 years ago|reply
And descending below minimum permitted and decision altitudes was also caused by explosives? Flagged
[+] osipov|13 years ago|reply
Aircraft 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.
[+] p_l|13 years ago|reply
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?

[+] seele|13 years ago|reply
The overreaction of pilots couldn't make 100 tons of steel to break into pieces 30 meters over the ground.
[+] seele|13 years ago|reply
The 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).
[+] p_l|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] seele|13 years ago|reply
There was only one landing attempt.
[+] rorrr|13 years ago|reply
There 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/database/record.php?id=19550616-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freckleton_Air_Disaster

EDIT:

Oh, and the explosion would be heard by both people on the ground (some random guy was right next to the crash scene, he even put a video on youtube), and on the black box recording (transcript available).

[+] osipov|13 years ago|reply
Agreed. Most the crashes are consequences of pilot reaction to an unusual event. In short, pilot error. Occam's razor people. Learn it, use it.