Germanwings Tragedy - Is it now all about the money?

[Bells]

I see six wheels in total... any sign of the missing 5?

The plane broke up into millions of little pieces. The missing 5 are probably in little bits or spread out all over the side of the mountain.

They made sure they photographed the finding of the FDR but for some inexplicable reason they failed to photograph and properly document the finding of the CVR. ( no location )

Huh?

They showed images of both. The CVR was located first and the FDR was located second, amongst the debris and it was charred and badly damaged. The CVR was pretty banged up, but the casing managed to protect what was inside, hence why they were able to hear what went on in the cockpit so well.

This is most irregular for a crash scene investigation.

It hit the side of a mountain. How inconsiderate of the co-pilot to not have selected a better spot to commit suicide and mass murder for you.

The CVR can not actually be evidential-ly placed at the crash site.

The CVR was found first.

Maybe they are keeping it a secret?

They didn't. They advised of everything that went on in the cockpit and what they could hear.

Someone is in trouble I bet...

Only in your imagination.

Or have you forgotten that they had found the CVR first?

what else is missing from this crash site .... ?

An impact crater for starters.

As explained, it hit a side of a mountain.. A near rocky cliff side of the mountain, where the rescuers are having to use climbing gear to be able to go through the wreckage.

Haven't we explained this to you many many times already?

It actually looks like the plane may have exploded, shredded, disintegrated just before hitting the ground. at a height of about 100- 200 meters.
and no bodies nor sign of body parts being present (blood)

Why do you think you would be able to see blood? The bodies would be in tiny little bits, in scraps, literally. The plane would have disintegrated on impact. This is what happens when someone flies a plane into the side of a mountain.

looks more like rubbish dump with some convenient aviation stuff placed strategically than a crash site...

"An A320 flies into a mountain at over 600kph with a force that totally disintegrates both engines (except one conveniently placed housing) and most other hard parts and leaves no impact crater"
?​

​

Are you pathologically incapable of respecting that the side of a mountain contains the remains of 150 people, 149 of which were murdered by a suicidal co-pilot?

there is still heaps to report... but maybe they are trying to work out how to deal with the truth rather than continue to perpetrate the charade.

Only for the paranoid sociopaths like you.

The look on one of USA senior news readers speaks volumes about his opinion as to the credibility of the interviewees, may be he took his journo intuition seriously and started checking...

Don't even know what you are talking about.

Maybe one of the passengers or crew have turned up somewhere, like my Iranian Asylum seeker friend...who was supposed to be on-board the missing MH370

Okay, I am going to make this as clear as I possibly can.

You currently exist on a hair's breath of my patience. And that hair is fraying. If you are going to keep lying about a victim of a henious occurrence, one that still haunts and plagues the families of all who were on board that plane, I will moderate you severely.

Have I made myself clear?

If you are going to keep using victims of crimes and lying about them to further your own paranoid agenda, I will moderate you severely.

Because we have had to put up with your paranoid stupidity for 28 pages now and we have run the full gamut of your narcissistic sociopathic rantings, to the point where you are giggling about people dying and going out of your way to contact the media with your paranoia just for your personal amusement and, as you put it, to throw a spanner in the works because you think it is funny to do so, disregarding the fact that you are doing so about a person having murdered 149 people..

Now this is even more interesting...
Families of the lost MH370 passengers have banded together in an attempt to offer a reward of $US5 million to a whistle blower regarding to what happened to the missing plane.

hmmm now that IS interesting.... Info dated June 2013
I wonder if they are still offering a reward...

You are repulsive.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The plane broke up into millions of little pieces. The missing 5 are probably in little bits or spread out all over the side of the mountain.

Actually I was corrected by Kittmanu the number missing is 9 not 5 ...

Huh?

They showed images of both. The CVR was located first and the FDR was located second, amongst the debris and it was charred and badly damaged. The CVR was pretty banged up, but the casing managed to protect what was inside, hence why they were able to hear what went on in the cockpit so well.

This would be great news ( about the CVR).. Can you provide a link that demonstrates what you have written (about the CVR)?

It hit the side of a mountain. How inconsiderate of the co-pilot to not have selected a better spot to commit suicide and mass murder for you.

Alleged mass murder suicide. It is unproven and waiting for a full assessment and judgement.

They didn't. They advised of everything that went on in the cockpit and what they could hear.

So they say, so they say...

As explained, it hit a side of a mountain.. A near rocky cliff side of the mountain, where the rescuers are having to use climbing gear to be able to go through the wreckage.

Haven't we explained this to you many many times already?

No you haven't

. see my later post #559

Okay, I am going to make this as clear as I possibly can.

You currently exist on a hair's breath of my patience. And that hair is fraying. If you are going to keep lying about a victim of a henious occurrence, one that still haunts and plagues the families of all who were on board that plane, I will moderate you severely.

Have I made myself clear?

You have decided as most of the world has that a man is guilty of an heinous crime of mass murder by way of suicide. Most reputed media outlets refer to it as "the co-pilot is suspected of" or "it is believed that he may have" or it is alleged that he" the less reputable presume guilt before the evidence has been formally processed and not mere hysterical speculation. I suggest you take note of how the better media report this terrible tragedy.
You are being terribly unfair to the victims and and the relatives of both the passengers and all the crew including the co-pilot.
I seriously recommend that you modify your approach so that Justice regarding this thread's topic can take it's course with out your hysterical bias.
Now can I ask you , have I written anything in the above paragraph that is offensive to you?

If you are going to keep using victims of crimes and lying about them to further your own paranoid agenda, I will moderate you severely.

I do have the drivers license details if necessary. Including photographs. I am currently preparing a brief for the AFP.

Because we have had to put up with your paranoid stupidity for 28 pages now and we have run the full gamut of your narcissistic sociopathic rantings, to the point where you are giggling about people dying and going out of your way to contact the media with your paranoia just for your personal amusement and, as you put it, to throw a spanner in the works because you think it is funny to do so, disregarding the fact that you are doing so about a person having murdered 149 people..

Not funny at all.. but the hysterical bias shown by posters to this thread is...
Most disrespectful of the situation. The evidence , all of it has to be thoroughly and impartially tested and so far it has proved inadequate. The victims and their families deserve that the truth be realized. For or against the co-pilot it doesn't matter...

Now can I Ask you , have I written anything in the above paragraph that is offensive to you?

You are repulsive.

The situation regarding MH370 is most bizarre even more so as it seems the passenger list is deliberately false. I am confident the Australian Federal Police will work it out.

Please remember family of both the deceased passengers crew and the co-pilot (of both craft) may very well be reading this thread. As will the AFP, if they haven't already done so.

 

[Kristoffer]

If family members were reading this thread they'd call you a despicable asshole.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If family members were reading this thread they'd call you a despicable asshole.

Why do you think that?
If you don't respond your post will be reported

 

[Quantum Quack]

If family members were reading this thread they'd call you a despicable asshole.

you offer no response, your post has been reported

 

[Kristoffer]

Why do you think that?
If you don't respond your post will be reported

Because you have the audacity to make countless excuses for the co-pilot who murdered their loved ones.
Report away, QQ.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Because you have the audacity to make countless excuses for the co-pilot who murdered their loved ones.
Report away, QQ.

Correction: Accused of murdering their loved ones..
Big difference between being accused and proven guilty.
Do you think trial by media is a good thing?

 

[Kittamaru]

who says it has to be a giant crater?

just think,
You have a cylinder of about 37.57 meters in length with 150 seats, a cock pit and other stuff all flying at 700kph (re: wiki) into a near perpendicular (to the craft) wall of dirt and rock with a little scrub.

I would expect that the cylinder would fully collapse head on into the near perpendicular wall with a penetration force of the equivalent to (194.45 meters/second).....
.5*83000kg = 41500
45100 * 195.45^2 = 1,722,851,683 joules.
So the total penetration force would be equivalent to 1,722,851,683 joules.
(thanks Kittamaru for the formulation to work from)

yes?

Or should we multiply that by the full weight instead of only half?
which would give us:

83000kg * 195.45^2 = 3,170,658,308 joules

I would therefore expect to see a dint in the wall at least and a radial output of wreckage indicating even subtly, a center of impact. Allowing for debris to move down the slope slightly after settling.

Is this reasonable thing to expect?

I see none of this at all which suggest that the craft may have inexplicably disintegrated above/before the crash site (probably about 100-200 meters) before hitting the wall of rock, soil and scrub. (Assuming it is a credible crash site to begin with)

A couple issues with your 'logic'...

1) It hit a mountain. It didn't hit a flat, level surface... so why in the world would you expect a "radial output of wreckage suggesting a center of impact"?

Now, I don't know about you... but that looks like some rather steep terrain, at places in excess of a 45 degree slope... it also looks pretty well charred and barren. Given how the debris is scattered, it looks like the plane impacted somewhere a bit further up the mountainside and the debris scattered down the slope... cause, you know, gravity and all that.

Shocker, I know - an object that magically defies gravity when in operation is no longer able to do so after splattering against a mountain.

2) No, that would NOT be the total penetration force... that is the total KINETIC ENERGY. Remember, you have to factor in the length of the crash (how long it took for the entire planes mass to impact the ground), as well as the area the impact was spread over (we aren't talking about a bullet impacting a soft target here - the front of the plane would have been crushed flat and the continued momentum would have carried the rest of the craft into the ground at an angle - it wasn't a 90 degree impact).

You are working on the faulty assumption that the entire force would be directed into (and burrow into) the ground - this is because you are ignoring (either deliberately or otherwise) the fact that the rocky mountain is a lot more dense and far more resistant to deformation and impact than the aircraft's aluminum. To illustrate this to the extreme, take a feather pillow, accelerate it to 600 kph, and slam it into a cinderblock retaining wall with dirt backfill and observe what happens.

3) Your suggestion that this is "not a credible crash site" is disgusting and disingenuous. You are not helping your argument at all with this pointless posturing and waffling.

see any seating in the images?

No, and I really wouldn't expect to see anything recognizable as "seating"... I would expect any such seats to be horribly mangled, most likely burned to a crisp, and otherwise disfigured beyond recognition...

 

[Quantum Quack]

A couple issues with your 'logic'...

1) It hit a mountain. It didn't hit a flat, level surface... so why in the world would you expect a "radial output of wreckage suggesting a center of impact"?

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polop...erivatives/article_635/france-plane-crash.jpg[/img

Now, I don't know about you... but that looks like some rather steep terrain, at places in excess of a 45 degree slope... it also looks pretty well charred and barren. Given how the debris is scattered, it looks like the plane impacted somewhere a bit further up the mountainside and the debris scattered down the slope... cause, you know, gravity and all that.

yes I would agree that it is about 45 degrees and with the plane coming in at an appropriate angle the crash would more or less be head on... the long length of the plane being approx. 90 degrees to the surface it hit.

2) No, that would NOT be the total penetration force... that is the total KINETIC ENERGY. Remember, you have to factor in the length of the crash (how long it took for the entire planes mass to impact the ground), as well as the area the impact was spread over (we aren't talking about a bullet impacting a soft target here - the front of the plane would have been crushed flat and the continued momentum would have carried the rest of the craft into the ground at an angle - it wasn't a 90 degree impact).

fair point although I would think it would be close to 90 degrees as in head on given the planes angle of approach .. but I am guessing.
what angle do you think it would be approx.?

You are working on the faulty assumption that the entire force would be directed into (and burrow into) the ground - this is because you are ignoring (either deliberately or otherwise) the fact that the rocky mountain is a lot more dense and far more resistant to deformation and impact than the aircraft's aluminum. To illustrate this to the extreme, take a feather pillow, accelerate it to 600 kph, and slam it into a cinderblock retaining wall with dirt backfill and observe what happens.

again a fair point..thanks for clearing that up...
Though as you say the plane weighed in at 83000kg (+ payload, including fuel, luggage, freight and passengers).. one heavy pillow yes?

3) Your suggestion that this is "not a credible crash site" is disgusting and disingenuous. You are not helping your argument at all with this pointless posturing and waffling.

There is not a point of impact that I can discern... it appears evenly distributed... any ideas are welcome...

No, and I really wouldn't expect to see anything recognizable as "seating"... I would expect any such seats to be horribly mangled, most likely burned to a crisp, and otherwise disfigured beyond recognition...

Well... to me it does not appear to be. Which is why I am questioning it...
There is not a lot of evidence of fire if you look closely at the wreckage on the ground ( not a lot of scorching nor blackening of the items yet the ground behind them is blacked in the main. Do you see any significant scorching of anything?

any ideas welcome...

 

[Kittamaru]

yes I would agree that it is about 45 degrees and with the plane coming in at an appropriate angle the crash would more or less be head on... the long length of the plane being approx. 90 degrees to the surface it hit.

fair point although I would think it would be close to 90 degrees as in head on given the planes angle of approach .. but I am guessing.
what angle do you think it would be approx.?

I'd guess probably closer to 75/80 degrees at most - a 45 degree descent is quite incredible - Billvon would be better qualified to assess this, but I believe at a 45 degree angle of descent a jetliner would be at serious risk of "flying itself apart" as it continues to accelerate.

again a fair point..thanks for clearing that up...
Though as you say the plane weighed in at 83000kg (+ payload, including fuel, luggage, freight and passengers).. one heavy pillow yes?

Indeed - however, the plane (much like the pillow would) pretty much splashed against the ground.

There is not a point of impact that I can discern... it appears evenly distributed... any ideas are welcome...

Best guess on my part - the point of impact itself is nearly indistinguishable from the photos we have seen due in part to the scorching of the land.

Well... to me it does not appear to be. Which is why I am questioning it...
There is not a lot of evidence of fire if you look closely at the wreckage on the ground ( not a lot of scorching nor blackening of the items yet the ground behind them is blacked in the main. Do you see any significant scorching of anything?

any ideas welcome...

Look at that first picture I posted again - I'm willing to bet most of the fire was contained on the hillside itself, and only stuff that was immediately flammable caught as it fell through the flames (hence, bodies, upholstery, etc). Thus, the bulk of the material we see in the crevice wouldn't be too scorched - just from the initial flare-up. If you look over the far hillside though, you can see scattered and scorched debris

 

[Quantum Quack]

Your suggestion that this is "not a credible crash site" is disgusting and disingenuous. You are not helping your argument at all with this pointless posturing and waffling.

I find it disgusting and terribly disingenuous to be attacked when questioning evidence.
Does questioning evidence mean that I doubt the interpretation of the evidence?
Of course it does.
Does doubting the interpretation of the evidence mean that I have an agenda and seeking to support it?.. Nope it means I might have a hypothesis or a theory but impartial questioning of the evidence is very important.
I presume nothing and call to no authority regardless of who they may be.
The presumed crash site appears to be full of inconsistencies and this is why I am questioning it.

This is why guilt is not presumed until proven.
I need to prove to myself that this is indeed a genuine crash site.
I also need to prove that the CVR's location was found documented and photographed.

 

[Quantum Quack]

see this image... notice the larger white pieces .. do they looked scrorched to you?

and

Not a lot of melting either for aluminum.

 

[Kittamaru]

I find it disgusting and terribly disingenuous to be attacked when questioning evidence.

You aren't "questioning the evidence"... you have been making increasingly wild and spectacular claims that are simply not backed by the evidence at hand...

Does questioning evidence mean that I doubt the interpretation of the evidence?
Of course it does.
Does doubting the interpretation of the evidence mean that I have an agenda and seeking to support it?.. Nope it means I might have a hypothesis or a theory but impartial questioning of the evidence is very important.

Impartial being the key word - your theories have all had one constant - that the co-pilot is somehow "not responsible" for what happened. That's not impartial...

I presume nothing and call to no authority regardless of who they may be.

Then you are a fool.
You presume nothing, and accept no authority? Okay, show me how you came to "approve" of gravity's existence... or that of infectious agents such as bacteria/virii? Do you drink pasteurized milk? Why? Did you run your own tests between pasteurized and unpasteurized?
If you answer with anything other than you have performed your own experiments with all of those, then you are admitting to answering to authority.

The presumed crash site appears to be full of inconsistencies and this is why I am questioning it.

It's a crash site... where an airplane damn near liquefied itself upon impact with a rocky mountain top...
Tell me... are you one of those people that believes in standardized testing as well?

This is why guilt is not presumed until proven.
I need to prove to myself that this is indeed a genuine crash site.
I also need to prove that the CVR's location was found documented and photographed.

You need proof that the CVR was found? I dare say the proof is the simple fact that they have it in hand. Where it was found? I think simple logic dictates it was found somewhere among the wreckage... or is there some OTHER way it recorded the last few moments of sound from the cockpit? Are you perhaps suggesting the CVR being analyzed was planted for the purpose of misleading investigators?

 

[Kittamaru]

see this image... notice the larger white pieces .. do they looked scrorched to you?

and

Yes, in fact, they do - they appear to have soot on them and the paint appears to be utterly gone.

Here is an example of an aircraft on fire - notice how the damage is localized around the actual fire, and the soot has spread out from there?

That is because this is a stationary object on fire.

Now, with the debris being scattered and flying about from the impact, I wouldn't expect to see a high-level of thermal damage, unless said debris was flammable (rubber, cloth, plastic, etc)

Last I checked, aluminum is generally not considered a flammable material, except under exceptional circumstances.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Impartial being the key word - your theories have all had one constant - that the co-pilot is somehow "not responsible" for what happened. That's not impartial...

The co-pilot is presume innocent until proven not to be.
big claims require big evidence...
It is the problems I find with that so called proof that I question.
I make no personal claim that the co-pilot is either.
I even posted such in my motive speculation in post#62. because that is all it is ...a speculation.

 

[Kittamaru]

The co-pilot is presume innocent until proven not to be.
big claims require big evidence...
It is the problems I find with that so called proof that I question.
I make no personal claim that the co-pilot is either.
I even posted such in my motive speculation in post#62. because that is all it is ...a speculation.

So the fact that his depression was intentionally kept from the authorities... the fact that he had been researching suicide on his personal computer... the fact that he intentionally locked the pilot out of the cockpit... the fact that he intentionally set the aircraft on a crash course with the ground... the fact that he was aware while this was happening (as evident by his increasing the speed and changing a few other parameters whilst the aircraft was plummeting)...

What else do you think it could be? Some kind of human error?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes, in fact, they do - they appear to have soot on them and the paint appears to be utterly gone.

Here is an example of an aircraft on fire - notice how the damage is localized around the actual fire, and the soot has spread out from there?

That is because this is a stationary object on fire.

Now, with the debris being scattered and flying about from the impact, I wouldn't expect to see a high-level of thermal damage, unless said debris was flammable (rubber, cloth, plastic, etc)

[/quote]Last I checked, aluminum is generally not considered a flammable material, except under exceptional circumstances.[/quote]

but it does melt, notice the background ground is darkened...obviously hot at some stage...maybe be the fire was out when those object landed there? OH dear that would mean ....

 

[Quantum Quack]

So the fact that his depression was intentionally kept from the authorities... the fact that he had been researching suicide on his personal computer... the fact that he intentionally locked the pilot out of the cockpit... the fact that he intentionally set the aircraft on a crash course with the ground... the fact that he was aware while this was happening (as evident by his increasing the speed and changing a few other parameters whilst the aircraft was plummeting)...

What else do you think it could be? Some kind of human error?

I am not going to bother going through all the logical problems I found with it all.. We shall wait to see what happens upon completion of the BEA assessment.
If it is a cover up as I am tending to believe we shall soon find out with the next inexplicable tragedy. Fortunately I do not fly...

 

[Kittamaru]

Last I checked, aluminum is generally not considered a flammable material, except under exceptional circumstances.

but it does melt, notice the background ground is darkened...obviously hot at some stage...[/QUOTE]

Yes... Aluminum can melt... and the melting point of aircraft grade aluminum (typically alloy 7075-T6 grade aluminum alloy), as well as it's other vital stats, can be found here:
http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA7075T6

890 - 1175 degrees Fahrenheit.

Now, do recall - this doesn't mean you can simply expose it to jet-a fire (which burns at around 1800 degrees Fahrenheit in open air) for a few moments and have it turn to slag - it takes time for the heat to transfer, so that metal would have to remain inside an area of burning jet-a for some time to even begin to become pliable, much less melt... and given that this wasn't likely a steady burn, but an explosive combustion, I highly doubt the thermal energy had enough time to transfer into a bulk of the metal to heat it to the melting point.

I am not going to bother going through all the logical problems I found with it all.. We shall wait to see what happens upon completion of the BEA assessment.
If it is a cover up as I am tending to believe we shall soon find out with the next inexplicable tragedy. Fortunately I do not fly...

Indeed, lets wait for the experts to go over all the evidence and pronounce their findings.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Now we wait for Bells to support his post that they photographed, and showed location of finding the CVR. Because I can't find it any where.
see:

They made sure they photographed the finding of the FDR but for some inexplicable reason they failed to photograph and properly document the finding of the CVR. ( no location )

They showed images of both. The CVR was located first and the FDR was located second, amongst the debris and it was charred and badly damaged. The CVR was pretty banged up, but the casing managed to protect what was inside, hence why they were able to hear what went on in the cockpit so well.

My response:

This would be great news ( about the CVR).. Can you provide a link that demonstrates what you have written (about the CVR)?

I look forward to seeing this as this would satisfy the biggest concern I have about this crash site.. the CVR

Of course as you well know the CVR is critical in showing the co-pilot did it.
maybe it ( the CVR documentation and location images) will show up later...

Do you think I am being unreasonable?