More on Ly Tong’s alleged jump from the Airbus

It’s been several weeks since the Bolsavik sent his emails to Ly Tong seeking clarification on his claim of jumping out the cockpit window of an Airbus 320-200.

The question first came up in one of the email listservs. A person named Hatien asked, based on a feature story on Ly Tong on the Philadelphia City Paper, which cockpit window Tong could have jumped from.

Read Bolsavik’s posting here about that magazine story and the alleged jump.

Now, the original email by Hatien included a number of photos of Airbus planes, inside and outside. Some were of different models (Airbus 319, Airbus 400, etc.). There was one photo of a SwissAir Airbuss 320-200. An image of that part of Hatien’s email is to the left.

That photo of the SwissAir plane was what Ly Tong used in his response.

Using that photo as reference, Tong said:

“Look at the 320-200 plane, from the word ‘Swiss’ the window no. 1 (first) or window no. 6 (last) are identical. I jumped from window no. 6 because the cockpit window has 6 (six) windows.”

Click on the image to access an image of the full email that includes the original question.

A firm, precise response that undeniably shows that Ly Tong knew exactly what he’s talking about. He knew there were 6 small windows and he jumped from the last one, counting from left to right if you’re inside. No chance of confusion or lack of memory there – he’s clear that he jumped from the farthest starboard-side window.

The problem, though, as pointed out by Bolsavik.com’s commenter C17adoc here, is that window no. 6 cannot be opened from the inside. The one that can be opened is window no. 5, which is not the last window.

Well, that contradicts Ly Tong’s claim.

So the Bolsavik went and asked the experts. Two aero engineers. Both of whom work for Vietnam Airlines, both of whom are working on the Airbus 320.

They both said, the windows that can be opened from the inside are not the rear-most windows, but the ones next to them. So, using the above numbering, it’s either window no. 2 or window no. 5, not window no. 6. Just like C17adoc wrote.

Hmmm — maybe Ly Tong had bad memory? So the Bolsavik emailed him and asked. Three times.

A simple “I meant to say window no. 5″ would have sufficed.

But, instead, no responses. It’s been more than two weeks ago.

In related news, a former South Vietnamese military officer who was Ly Tong’s cellmate in the communist prisons also spoke up. Tran Manh Quynh had been living a quiet life, but then Ly Tong brought up his name in one of Tong’s emails, so Quynh spoke up. Quynh told of how Ly Tong was humiliating himself kissing up to the prison guards while imprisoned — generally behaving in very undignified manner.

After a few email exchanges, a local Vietnamese paper in San Jose organized a public debate between the two, which Ly Tong avoided, saying he had to “travel on business.” (Is there a pattern here?)

Tran Manh Quynh then showed up by himself and re-told his stories, which prompted Ly Tong’s supporters to assail him for “causing division in the community.”

(The Bolsavik has always considered such arguments to be cheap cop-outs. If unity were so valuable, why not unite behind, say, Tran Manh Quynh? Or, the Bolsavik? Or, God forbid, Madison Nguyen?)