Miller's report tautology | Niepoprawni.pl
Dr. Babe
Gregory Januszko, the father of the youngest victims of the Smolensk disaster Natalia ccw Januszko asked 10 questions on the one hand Team Dr. Laska, on the other Parliamentary Team (http://www.rp.pl/artykul/600898,1008967-Smolenski-decalogue-ojca.html?p = 1) :. The scope of these questions shows how inept was created Miller's report. Before specifically about the individual questions a few sentences Admission: But definitely overtake the current era, because for most of the issues I wrote a long time ago. Mr. Gregory Januszko asks whether it is possible this and that? Now, many are possible. As I said a few people ccw survived prolapse of aircraft / helicopter with a large amount and survived. On the other hand - you can fall out of the chair and break his hand. But does that mean that if someone says that he fell off the chair and there is a broken arm is lying? And if we can clear the parachutes, because a fall from a mile harmless? Sometimes there are some unlikely coincidences, but these last three years, Dr. Wood should at least justify convincingly the possibility of a specific course of events. Meanwhile, he did nothing. If anyone thought that the report will go cloudy (turbidity his alleged scholarship is justified and containment of matter), this is very wrong. It was obvious right away that people will read it and naznajdują lot of variety. 13 may 17 April 2010 you could ask ourselves such questions. Specific evidence (not prejudge their authenticity here) have raised some hypotheses, such as. Birch. Except that it was necessary to look for confirmation of these hypotheses by physical evidence, and by the theoretical models that have just demonstrated that the possibility of a specific course of events. Nothing here has been done in this regard by the Commission Miller. And she only had the duty and the capacity to carry out appropriate action. Parliamentary team has limited however, so I can confidently say that does what it can but it has some limitations. And now my answer to the questions: 1 Is it possible that part of the wing was broken off after a collision with a birch? Firstly, from the point of view of the position of the tree, and secondly, from the point of view of its thickness, wood technology, aircraft speed, etc..? Location does not exclude the impact of the birch, and the second one did not work. Pisiory not have the capacity and the Commission Miller in case of no interest to. 2 Does the alleged hit a tree at a height of several meters and breakage of wing aircraft could fly again and do so. barrel? Maybe he could, and maybe he could not. Could happen to such a coincidence that it happened. Miller, the Commission does not penetrate it because why? 3 Do and how is it possible that the plane falling from a few / several meters at a speed of approx. 270-280 km / h. could be so utterly shatter, hitting the muddy ground? It is possible above. ccw 4 Do similar disaster does not happen that some people survives? The plane with the president of Mozambique crashed, hitting the side of the mountain at a speed of approx. 400 km / h., At an angle, and some people ccw survived. It happened in the 80s, it was about Tu-134 - similar design at TU-154. It happens. 5 Do your research of the wreck, his security, securing ccw the site and search the area to find the remains of the victims and the evidence you consider appropriate? I do not consider it appropriate, sufficient, or at all compatible with civilization. 6 The father of the youngest victim takes the initiative, which is to start a discussion among experts and government Macierewicz team. Do you have the knowledge, what kind of Polish experts were in the disaster and what studies have been done immediately after the disaster (hours, days)? I do not have. 7 Does anything - if so, what - could make the appointment of an international ccw commission or restart KBWLLP? (Commission on Aircraft Accident Investigation State Aviation - ed.) List of shortcomings and negligence? However, there is a chance that an international commission podżyruję Anodine and Miller. I'm talking about criminal negligence. 8 Do your research during and after the autopsies, as well as research aircraft debris in sufficient detail ccw to confirm or rule out the explosions on the plane? They were not. After studies in progress, is 200 samples ccw on the shelf, untouched. 9 To what extent do you assess ccw the IAC committee as an institution ccw independent, international, credible, and one in which the action ws. Smolensk catastrophe no conflicts of interest? The negligible (0/10). 10 Are there other institutions / centers ccw which you consider competent and reliable in the study of air disasters, particularly bearing in mind that our country is a member of NATO and the EU? It does not know the answer. Dr. Lasek team also does not explain anything special, because at the time did not withdraw. How birch not investigated then so now I have examined. Can only say that because slammed into it blew. How do we know that blew? Because slammed into.
Instead, they use the phrase with delight - "the cause of any
Dr. Babe
Gregory Januszko, the father of the youngest victims of the Smolensk disaster Natalia ccw Januszko asked 10 questions on the one hand Team Dr. Laska, on the other Parliamentary Team (http://www.rp.pl/artykul/600898,1008967-Smolenski-decalogue-ojca.html?p = 1) :. The scope of these questions shows how inept was created Miller's report. Before specifically about the individual questions a few sentences Admission: But definitely overtake the current era, because for most of the issues I wrote a long time ago. Mr. Gregory Januszko asks whether it is possible this and that? Now, many are possible. As I said a few people ccw survived prolapse of aircraft / helicopter with a large amount and survived. On the other hand - you can fall out of the chair and break his hand. But does that mean that if someone says that he fell off the chair and there is a broken arm is lying? And if we can clear the parachutes, because a fall from a mile harmless? Sometimes there are some unlikely coincidences, but these last three years, Dr. Wood should at least justify convincingly the possibility of a specific course of events. Meanwhile, he did nothing. If anyone thought that the report will go cloudy (turbidity his alleged scholarship is justified and containment of matter), this is very wrong. It was obvious right away that people will read it and naznajdują lot of variety. 13 may 17 April 2010 you could ask ourselves such questions. Specific evidence (not prejudge their authenticity here) have raised some hypotheses, such as. Birch. Except that it was necessary to look for confirmation of these hypotheses by physical evidence, and by the theoretical models that have just demonstrated that the possibility of a specific course of events. Nothing here has been done in this regard by the Commission Miller. And she only had the duty and the capacity to carry out appropriate action. Parliamentary team has limited however, so I can confidently say that does what it can but it has some limitations. And now my answer to the questions: 1 Is it possible that part of the wing was broken off after a collision with a birch? Firstly, from the point of view of the position of the tree, and secondly, from the point of view of its thickness, wood technology, aircraft speed, etc..? Location does not exclude the impact of the birch, and the second one did not work. Pisiory not have the capacity and the Commission Miller in case of no interest to. 2 Does the alleged hit a tree at a height of several meters and breakage of wing aircraft could fly again and do so. barrel? Maybe he could, and maybe he could not. Could happen to such a coincidence that it happened. Miller, the Commission does not penetrate it because why? 3 Do and how is it possible that the plane falling from a few / several meters at a speed of approx. 270-280 km / h. could be so utterly shatter, hitting the muddy ground? It is possible above. ccw 4 Do similar disaster does not happen that some people survives? The plane with the president of Mozambique crashed, hitting the side of the mountain at a speed of approx. 400 km / h., At an angle, and some people ccw survived. It happened in the 80s, it was about Tu-134 - similar design at TU-154. It happens. 5 Do your research of the wreck, his security, securing ccw the site and search the area to find the remains of the victims and the evidence you consider appropriate? I do not consider it appropriate, sufficient, or at all compatible with civilization. 6 The father of the youngest victim takes the initiative, which is to start a discussion among experts and government Macierewicz team. Do you have the knowledge, what kind of Polish experts were in the disaster and what studies have been done immediately after the disaster (hours, days)? I do not have. 7 Does anything - if so, what - could make the appointment of an international ccw commission or restart KBWLLP? (Commission on Aircraft Accident Investigation State Aviation - ed.) List of shortcomings and negligence? However, there is a chance that an international commission podżyruję Anodine and Miller. I'm talking about criminal negligence. 8 Do your research during and after the autopsies, as well as research aircraft debris in sufficient detail ccw to confirm or rule out the explosions on the plane? They were not. After studies in progress, is 200 samples ccw on the shelf, untouched. 9 To what extent do you assess ccw the IAC committee as an institution ccw independent, international, credible, and one in which the action ws. Smolensk catastrophe no conflicts of interest? The negligible (0/10). 10 Are there other institutions / centers ccw which you consider competent and reliable in the study of air disasters, particularly bearing in mind that our country is a member of NATO and the EU? It does not know the answer. Dr. Lasek team also does not explain anything special, because at the time did not withdraw. How birch not investigated then so now I have examined. Can only say that because slammed into it blew. How do we know that blew? Because slammed into.
Instead, they use the phrase with delight - "the cause of any
No comments:
Post a Comment