Dr hab. inż. em. prof. ITB and AGH
TRAGEDIA
Home
Smolensk 10.04.2010
FESTIVAL LIE
A CATASTROF, WRACK AND FIELD TEST
Test methodology and key evidence for disaster testing
Agreement between the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Poland and the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
KONVENTION CHICAGOWSKA AND HER ZENGINE 13
Exclusion of Poland from the disaster investigation
Political decision to analyse the Russian side
Investigation of the crash site without Polish specialists
Investigation of wreckage without Polish specialists
Study of bodies of victims without Polish specialists
HYPOTHEZA MAK/MILLERA
Preparation of the hypothesis by MAK and Polish protest
MAK reports and Miller Commission
The essence of the MAK/Miller hypothesis
VERIFICATION OF HYPOTEZA MAK/MILLERA
THE PARLIAMENTary Assembly TESTS ON THE REASONS OF CATASTROPHY TU-154 M OF 10 APRIL 2010
SOLELINES
CLASSIFICATION OF AIR CATASTROF
Two types of disasters
Flight trajectory of aeroplane fragments
The detonation during the crash
A REAL CATASTROPHY
Definitive evidence
Deformation of remains
Dislocation of remains
Controlled demolition - CONTROLD DEMOLITION
ARCADE PROTASOV REPORT
SUBCOMMITTEE FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF AIR Accident
Appointment of a Subcommittee
Difficult Work
Results
GROUNDS FOR STATE INSTITUTIONS
Preparation of the aeroplane
Flight preparation
Official disaster investigation
THE CHALLENGE OF TEACHING INSTITUTIONS
Political and intellectual Pressure
Attacks on organizers and participants of the Smolensk Conference
Attempt to save discipline honour
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Basic problem
Attempt to reconstruct the wreckage
Action needed
Smolensk 10.04.2010
On 10 April 2010, 96 prominent representatives of the Republic of Poland and president Lech Kaczyński were killed in an air crash close the Smolensk North Airport in the Russian Federation. There have been disasters in the planet with more casualties, but the planet does not know any another catastrophe in which the head of state, all the commanders of types of armed forces and a large part of the political elite would die. The Smolensk disaster deprived the Republic of simultaneously the chief command of the army and the head of state, but its consequences go far beyond the death of these people. The main consequence was the political coup in Poland and the removal of all barriers to the political and military penetration of Poland by Russia. In the individual of president Lech Kaczyński, the only politician who had the ability to integrate countries neighbouring Russia and build opposition against Russian aggression, an example of which was Georgia's defence in 2008. Russia gained all media of information that were in possession of advanced NATO commanders in Polish uniforms and gained access to many military secrets. In Poland alone, however, there has been a major political change and all state positions have been taken over by political forces who have succumbed to Russia. The "reset" policy towards Russia has begun. Military units to the east of the Vistula River were gradually liquidated [1], Russian intelligence was allowed to penetrate Polish counterintelligence services [2, 3], the construction of the rocket shield [4] which was to defend Poland with the aid of the US. On 2.09.2010, i.e. 5 months after the crash, abroad Minister Sergei Lawrow was invited to a gathering of Polish ambassadors, to whom he gave an information lecture [5]. The Polish State Election Commission has been trained in Moscow by the Russian Central Election Commission [6]. In December 2011, the visa request for Russians from the Kaliningrad region was abolished [7]. Russia besides gained economical dependence on Poland by monopolizing imports of energy natural materials (gas, oil and coal) with highly unfavourable gas contracts for Poland and simultaneously exempt Russia from transit charges [8, 9, 10]. The Smolensk disaster gave the Russian Federation the benefits that the state could gain only if it won the war and the devastating defeat of its opponent. In the event of war, this would affect losses in the form of killed and wounded soldiers of their own. The Smolensk disaster gave all these benefits to the Russian Federation without losing even 1 soldier. The Smoleńska disaster besides brought large political benefits to the governing group in Poland, i.e. the Civic Platform. Without even waiting for the authoritative announcement of the death of president Lech Kaczyński Bronisław Komorowski entered the Presidential Palace [11] and took over all papers from the seat of the President, and in peculiar not published annex to the WSI liquidation study [12].
The day of the disaster ended with very crucial events. The autocar with the Smolensk-going Jarosław Kaczyński was stopped by the Russian service and let go only after he was overtaken by the vehicle that Donald Tusk was going to meet Putin. The gathering between Tusk and Putin was very cordial. Both gentlemen, after each other's hugs, “they nailed the turtles” (Fig. 1) and went to talk in a prepared tent. no of them found time to meet the dead brother The president or his condolence.
FESTIVAL LIE
Even on the day of the disaster, both Russian and Polish propaganda measures began a communicative which boils down to the claim that the origin of the disaster was the pilot's insatiability, which, despite the deficiency of conditions for landing (the fog and deficiency of adequate visibility) at all costs tried to land in Smolensk and consequently killed himself and 95 remaining people on board the Tu-154 aircraft. General Sławomir Petelicki revealed that on April 10, PO politicians received from the most crucial people on the SMS Platform with the following instructions on how to talk about the Smolensk disaster: "The crash was caused by pilots who went down in the fog below 100 metres. To find who made themIt’s okay. ” According to the general, the author was either Donald Tusk, or Tomasz Arabski, or Paweł Graś [13]. Shortly after his statement, General Petelicki abruptly ended his life [14].
Fig. 1. The smiles of both prime ministers show common knowing and satisfaction.
Immediately after the crash, the media in Poland began to proclaim that the origin of the disaster was the senseless stubbornness of the pilot Tu-154 Captain Arkadiusz Protasiuk, in order to land in Smolensk despite the deficiency of conditions. The proof of this stubbornness was to be as much as 4 times the approach to landing (Fig. 2). TVN24 in a peculiar program argued that the reason for this stubborn pilot was to fear alleged revenge for not landing. The proof of this was to be that the words that the pilot had to say a fewer seconds before the crash were read from the CVR tape. ‘If I don't land/land, it will kill/kill me” [15]. This completely imaginary quote was repeated in subsequent broadcasts so many times that the viewers would be remembered permanently. TVN24 never called off that lie, nor was he punished for it. What's more, for the credibility of this lie, another 1 was made up. Captain Protasiuk was allegedly to be punished for refusing to land in Tbilisi while flying with president Kaczyński in 2008 to Georgia (the first pilot was then Grzegorz Pietruczuk and Arkadiusz Protasiuk was then the second pilot), so he was afraid to exposure the President's anger for not landing. Further lies afraid the alleged force on pilots by Air Force Commander Gen. Andrzej Błasik. He was expected to scold Captain Protasiuk for refusing to fly inactive at the airport in Warsaw [16], and during the flight he was expected to get drunk and after drinking entering the cockpit [17, 18, 19] putting force on pilots to absolutely land in Smolensk [20, 21]. many statements were besides blamed for the disaster straight by Lech Kaczyński [22] and Jarosław Kaczyński [24]. A separate stream was lies about pilots' deficiency of ability to fly and even the deficiency of aircraft privileges [25]. TVN 24 stated that ‘The crew should not be allowed to fly on April 10, 2010” and that “such a selection of the crew was no accident, and 1 of the causes of the Smolensk disaster was the distribution of the elite 36th peculiar Transport Regiment” [26].
All of these most absurd lies constantly and continuously repeated by the dominant media established in public consciousness even before any investigation of the disaster was made to believe that the origin of the disaster was devoid of meaning to effort to land by skillsless pilots who were forced to do so by force from Gen. Błasik and president Lech Kaczyński. Social awareness has been introduced into the alleged well of consciousness [27], from which it is hard to get out, due to the fact that the previously established belief is hindered. It was only to specified a public opinion that the Russian side began to supply information as a consequence of its investigation on disaster.
Fig. 2. first version of the Smolensk Disaster presented widely in Polish media. On the photo, the title page of the diary "Fact" dated 10.04.2010 citing "witnesses and Russian air control services“ 28.
A CATASTROF, WRACK AND FIELD TEST
Test methodology and key evidence for disaster testing
The examination of each disaster can be divided into the following 3 stages.
Establishing the course of the disaster; otherwise, determining what happened.
Finding the causes of the disaster; knowing what the course was, we find what caused the disaster to have specified a alternatively different course.
Knowing the causes of the disaster, we find the guilty who allowed the origin to occur.
These are general principles for the investigation of transport accidents in both road, rail and air traffic. In each case, the basic material evidence for the tests shall be:
the site of the disaster,
remains of the wreckage and
victims' bodies if there were fatalities.
The condition for a credible survey is to submit this evidence to investigation analyses in the condition that the disaster led to it. Apart from cases of life-saving or non-expandation protection, this requires maintaining the above-mentioned evidence in an intact state, thus excluding access to the site of the disaster bystanders, changing the location and form of the remains of the wreckage and bodies of the victims, as well as taking the evidence or "enrichment" it by dropping off items not active in the crash – alleged false evidence. In order to fulfil this condition, disaster investigators must safe the crash site as shortly as possible from another persons' access and interference.
A key component in the survey of the Smolensk Disaster was the complete exclusion of the Polish side and from the investigation of the site of the disaster and wreckage and bodies of the victims.
Agreement between the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Poland and the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
On 14 December 1993, it was concluded in Moscow “Agreement between the Ministry of National Defence of the Republic of Poland and the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on rules of common air traffic of military aircraft of the Republic of Poland and the Russian Federation
in the airspace of both countries” [29]. This agreement was written in 2 identical copies, each in Polish and Russian, both of which have the same power. Article 11 of that agreement states:
‘The explanation of air incidents, accidents and disasters caused by Polish military aircraft in the airspace of the Russian Federation or Russian military aircraft in the airspace of the Republic of Poland will be conducted jointly by the competent Polish and Russian authorities. At the same time, the Parties shall guarantee access to the essential papers in compliance with the rules on the protection of public secrecy which apply to them."
This agreement concerns military aircraft and regardless of the location of the incidental gives both countries equal rights in access to evidence and in the application of investigation procedures.
Chicago Convention and its Annex 13
On December 7, 1944, during planet War II, a conference was held in Chicago, where an global civilian aviation convention called the Chicago Convention was signed. Under this convention, the global civilian Aviation Organisation was established by ICAO. International civilian Aviation Organization) based in Montreal, the intent of which was to be (Article 44 of the Convention) "developing global air navigation rules and techniques and promoting the planning and improvement of global air transportIt’s okay. ” Currently, ICAO members are 193 countries [30]. Article 3 of the Convention entitled Civil and state aircraft provides as follows [31]:
This Convention shall apply only to civilian aircraft and shall not apply to State aircraft.
Aircraft utilized in military, customs and police service shall be considered to be state aircraft.
The Chicago Convention itself has had a text fundamentally unchanged since its inception. However, as it concerns an area in which method changes happen very quickly, the content of the Convention includes the rule that ICAO
‘will adopt and amend global standards and recommended methods and rules of conduct at certain times, where necessary” (Art. 37) and that for greater convenience they will be placed in the form of annexes to the Convention (Art. 54). The Convention contains 18 specified Annexes (Anexes) among which it exists Annex 13 entitled Investigation of aircraft accidents and incidents. Annex 13 distinguishes between the 5 types of countries that should or may be active in an accident investigation. These are: the Constructor State, the maker State, the Event Site State, the Operator State and the Registration State. And Chapter 5 of that Annex reads:
The State of the scene shall initiate an investigation into the circumstances of the accident and shall be liable for carrying out specified an investigation. However, it may transfer the investigation in full or in part to another State or regional accident investigation organisation on the basis of common agreement and agreement. In any case, the State of the scene will usage all the means to facilitate this examination.
A recommendation. The State of the place of the incidental should launch an investigation into the circumstances of a serious incident. That State may transfer the conduct of the investigation in full or in part to another State or regional accident investigation organisation on the basis of common agreement and consent. In any case, the State of the scene will usage all the means to facilitate this examination.
5.1.2. The State of the place of the incidental shall examine the circumstances of a major aircraft incidental with a maximum mass exceeding 2250 kg. That State may transfer the conduct of the investigation in full or in part to another State or regional accident investigation organisation on the basis of common agreement and consent. In any case, the State of the scene will usage all the means to facilitate this examination.
Exclusion of Poland from the disaster investigation
Political decision to analyse the Russian side
The adoption as the basis of the investigation of the disaster of each of the 2 abovementioned legal acts gives emergence to radically different consequences - the agreement of 14 December 1993 between MON RP and MO FR provides a joint Polish-Russian survey, while Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention gives the full survey into the hands of the Russian Federation. Aleksei Morozov, Vice-President of the Interstate Aviation Committee (MAK), shortly after the crash connected by telephone to Edmund Klich [32], the then president of the State Air Accident Investigation Commission, and announced that the Russian side wanted the investigation of the disaster to take place in accordance with Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention, as Klich agreed [33]. In order to accomplish this, a fewer political decisions and a media run were needed. Initially, the existence of the above-mentioned agreement between MON RP and MO FR was classified to the public. The next step was to accept Appendix 13 as the basis for the investigation of the disaster by Prime Minister Donald Tusk. This acceptance has been
given in a individual conversation with Vladimir Putin in the form of alleged silent consent. tacit agreement) and was never recorded in writing. The Government Information Centre Communication of 8 August 2013 explains that "no notes were drawn up from the talks of the Prime Minister of Poland with the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation held on 10 April 2010 as they were, in principle, of a courtesy nature.It’s okay. ” The Prime Minister silently accepted the Russian legal basis of the survey and on this basis on 15 April 2020. Minister of National Defence Bogdan Klich gave the power of lawyer to Edmund Klich to represent Poland in the MAK committee acting in accordance with Annex 13 [34]. Silent consent was an global agreement, which required the approval of the Council of Ministers, but the Prime Minister never sought and never obtained specified consent, so he broke the law [35]. Donald Tusk did this with full awareness due to the fact that he stated:
‘He besides assumes work for organising the Smolensk investigation on the Polish side, for Polish-Russian relations and for all decisions that his officials made on his behalf. "I take full political work for all decisions," he stressed” [36].
A political agreement with the Russian Federation was thus concluded. It was inactive essential to convince the public about the correctness of the investigation of the disaster according to Annex 13, namely that the flight to Smolensk was not a military flight. This task seemed impossible due to the fact that the tupolev belonged to the 36th peculiar Transport Regiment [37], performed a flight at the command of the regiment commander, operated by military personnel and was marked with a distinctive chessboard as an aircraft belonging to Polish military aircraft (Figure 3.
Figure 3. recognition of TU-154M 101 aircraft which was destroyed in the alleged Smolensk disaster on 10.04.2010
Nevertheless, specified efforts were made. The Russians concluded that the flight was civil, but besides in Poland "Shortly after April 10, the crash investigators considered the tupolev to be a civilian aircraft due to the fact that in fact the Polish delegation at the ceremony in Katyń was a civilian” [38]. There were besides more "fine" statements that said the flight was not military but "special" [39]. Thus, that it is justified to apply Annex 13 contrary to the explicit provision in the Chicago Convention that "The Convention applies only to civilian aircraft and does not apply to public aircraftIt’s okay. ” In consequence to the parliamentary interpellations, the Head of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister Tomasz Arabski claimed that
‘The application of Annex 13 allows the examination of any aircraft accident within the definition of aircraft referred to in that Annex which de facto covers all aircraft” [40].
All considerations on flight position – civilian or military – were meaningless, as the Chicago Convention does not deal with "flight status” but the kind of aircraft, and this 1 was definitely military.
The global civilian Aviation Organisation (ICAO) spokesperson Denis Chagnon cut all doubts, stating in January 2011 that due to the fact that TU-154 was a state aircraft alternatively than a civilian aircraft, ICAO cannot be active in explaining the causes and circumstances of the "Smolensk disaster" [41].
However, even if adopted as the legal basis for the investigation of Annex 13, it allowed (cf. Chapter 5 of the Annex) that Poland as the State of Operator and the State of Registration could participate in the investigation of the disaster, but the Government of Poland never made specified a request. On the 1 hand, this shows the intentions of the government. On the another hand, the consequence was a complete disengagement of Polish specialists from researching both the site of the crash and the bodies of the victims.
Investigation of the crash site without Polish specialists
Sent on 10.04.2010 to Smolensk prosecutors and experts from the State Commission for Investigation of Air Accidents were not entitled to execute activities outside the territory of the Republic of Poland [42]. Only on 15.04.2010 by Decision No 130 of the Minister of National Defence Bogdan Klich was appointed the Commission for the Investigation of Aviation Accidents (KBWL LP), whose president was appointed Edmund Klich [43]. On 5.05.2010 he was replaced by Jerzy Miller [44], and in February 2012 the chair of the KBWL LP was taken over by Maciej Lasek [45].
Prosecutors and experts from GDPWL (not to be confused with KBWL LP), even though they had already arrived in Smolensk on 10.04.2010, were not allowed by the Russians to survey due to the fact that they had no authority. They did not show their own initiative, and despite the anticipation they did not execute any investigative or analysis activities, and acted like tourists confined to observing the activities of the Russian services. After the appointment of the KBWL LP, its members had already had the right to work besides outside the territory of the Polish Republic, but at the time the Russians had already conducted a survey according to Appendix 13, so they did not let them to survey either – the only associate of the Polish organization accredited to the MAK was Edmund Klich, who, due to the humiliation of the Russians, shortly resigned from this function. And the members of the KBWL LP themselves did not undertake any research. No own documentation was drawn up, either written or photocopied. This is shocking, but the first papers in Polish with Smolensk were prepared by Polish archaeologists, who in October 2010 made the first Polish survey of the crash site. Polish prosecutors and experts from both the aforementioned commissions have never done it and have not even tried it. Contrary to this, on 29.04.2010, Deputy Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz made a fiery message in the Polish Parliament that the land was being dug to a depth of over 1 m [46]. She was never held accountable for her lying statements.
Figure 4. Speech by Ewa Kopacz in the Sejm on 29.04.2010.
The culmination of the inactivity of Polish prosecutors and experts was the flight tour of the disaster area with the taking of aerial photographs of the site. Polish specialists were not allowed to participate in this block and never received photos taken at the time.
These archaeological studies were conducted by a squad of archaeologists from the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences from 13 to 27 October 2010. The Russian side only agreed to stay archaeologists for 2 weeks. Prior to their arrival, a thorough removal of any remains from the wreckage was arranged. A peculiar tyralizer of soldiers picked out of the wreckage all visible, the smallest even remains. In 14 days, however, Polish archaeologists have found 30,000 fragments of the wreckage and bodies of the victims. Taking into account the remains in the area that the Russians had no longer allowed to investigate, it was established that the full estimated number of remains in the ground was 60,000. The investigation description and their results were published in a peculiar study [47].
It should be stressed that the remains of the crash victims were besides found in the area for the Tu-154 flight earlier than the first traces of the plane's hull contact with the ground. This proves that the remains of the bodies got out of the hull before it hit the ground, and due to the fact that the hull was opened while the plane was inactive in the air.
The work of Polish archaeologists was closely supervised by Russian services. All excavated remains were taken from archaeologists by their accompanying Russian services. The Russians promised to send them by post at a later date, but no 1 from the Polish squad saw them anymore and everything indicates that the Russians had kept them in their home [48] against the promise.
Archaeological investigation and their results were completely ignored by both the Russian MAK committee and the Polish Miller committee. There is not even a trace in any of the reports of these committees that specified studies were carried out, even though both committees had full information about the studies.
Fig. 5. study of Polish archaeologists from the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences [47].
Investigation of wreckage without Polish specialists
Perhaps the most crucial fact with respect to the investigation of the crash is that no examination of the wreckage remains was carried out at the site of the crash. This was not done by representatives of the Russian MAK or representatives of the Polish side. No analysis of the dislocation of the remains or their deformation has been performed. The Russian side only focused its efforts on moving the individual remains so as to make it look like an established disaster (Figure 6) and the removal of evidence to the contrary.
On the later question why Polish specialists did not undertake investigation on the remains in the wreckage, then president of the KBWL LP Maciej Lasek explained that they considered it unnecessary to explain the causes of the disaster. Black boxes containing Tu-154 recorder records The Russians shortly after the crash took them out of the crash site on 10 April 2010 and dropped them back into the wreckage site in the afternoon, although in places another than their first location [49]. On 31 May 2010, then acting president of the KBWL LP, Jerzy Miller signed a memorandum in Moscow, in which he agreed to stay black boxes and the full wreckage in Russian hands until the investigation was concluded by the Russian prosecutor, which in practice permanently deprives the Polish side of access [50, 51]. This situation continues until now. Polish specialists only received copies of recordings from recorders made by the Russians together with their assurance that these copies are in line with the content of recorders.
Visits of Polish experts in Smolensk in 2011, 2012 and later dates were connected with an independent investigation already started on 10.04.2010 by the Military territory Attorney's Office in Warsaw. It needs to be stressed that the Prosecutor's Office had no uncertainty that Tu-154 was a military aircraft, but the investigation itself was limited to the investigation "inadvertently bring disaster to air traffic” [52]. respective trips of Polish prosecutors each time required approval from Russian not only to arrive, but besides approval for all investigation activity. In 2010, 2011, 2012 Polish prosecutors were allowed to take pictures, at later trips they could only ask the Russian side to take a image of the indicated object. The photograph taken by the Russian side promised to send at a later date to Warsaw.
Figure 6. The following day after the crash, Russian soldiers carry fragments of the wreck to the west side of Kutuzów Street, where there are the first traces of the plane's impact on the ground [53]. It's expected to prove they're detached as a consequence of hitting the ground.
The Polish government opposed actions to return the wreckage. The draft resolution calling on the Russian government to hand over the Tu-154 M wreck to Poland was rejected by the Sejm and Prime Minister Tusk described it with words:
‘In the past of Poland, specified actions have passed into the past of national betrayal, only people possessed by hatred of their own state, contempt for their opponents, deficiency of natural respect for the homeland in which they live here and now, today, are ready to submit a draft resolution, address to the authorities of the Russian Federation, address to Duma, address to the Tsar, in order to conclude that the Polish state is acting badly" [54].
None of the black boxes were taken from the wreckage and tested by Polish experts. The theatre, which was set up on the evening of 10.04.2010, erstwhile “in front of” the Polish prosecutors were taken distant in Smolensk, the dropped boxes afraid only boxes with electronic recording [55] and without any warrant that they were first boxes (Fig. 7.) Of the 8 recorders, the Russians revealed only 7 in which the evidence was held electronically, so it could easy be replaced by electronic methods. The only another recorder was the KZ-63 recorder, in which the recording is made optically on the movie tape, and there is no anticipation of falsifying it without a complete strip replacement [56]. This recorder “not found”.
Within a fewer years, MAK specialists made “and better” disk copies of content and ready disks to be delivered to Polish prosecutors. From the MARS sound recorder there were respective (all different). Copies received in 2010 and 2011 were utilized to draw up a study of the KBWL LP ( Miller Report).
An crucial issue is the presence of explosives on the wreckage. During the visit of Polish prosecutors in Smolensk in 2012 and 2013, traces of explosives were detected on 190 parts of the wreckage [57], and in peculiar on seats. Samples taken from the seats after being brought to Warsaw in 2013 [58] were tested at the Central Crime laboratory of the Police. These studies adopted the rule that to confirm the presence of explosives they must give consistent results as many as 4 different methods (including 1 completely inadequate for the subject of the research). Results indicating the presence of specified materials were attributed to another chemical compounds (phthalans). Therefore, despite the fact that CLKP had been found not to be present [59]. The methodology of the survey utilized by CLKP became the subject of the expert opinion of 2 prominent scholars - prof. Krystyna Kamieńska-Trela and Prof. Sławomir Szymanski from the Institute of Organic Chemistry of the Polish Academy of Sciences, who presented a devastating opinion on the investigation of the CLKP [60]. The final conclusion was brought by Dr. Jacek Wójcik’s publication, published in a renowned global magazine “Journal of Forensic Sciences[61, 62] in which he provides technological evidence that a thermobaric detonation occurred inside the wreckage.
Figure 7. Personnel from the movie Sławomir Wiśniewski showing the location of the black box on the wreckage on 10.04.2010 at 8:50, i.e. 9 minutes of disaster [63].
Study of bodies of victims without Polish specialists
On 10.04.2010 a group of specialists from the Department of Molecular Genetics and the Judicial Department of Judicial medicine Collegium Medicum UMK under the direction of prof. Tomasz Grzybowski offered to the lawyer General Andrzej Seremet to assist in the medical and judicial investigation of bodies of victims of the disaster and to identify with DNA technology. However, this proposal was not accepted and the prosecution gathered another team. Specialists of those who arrived in Moscow on 11.04.2010 were not allowed to carry out sections –
‘on 11.04.2010 after arriving in Moscow and transporting the squad to the Institute of Forensic medicine (no time of arrival) we have been informed that the autopsy of all the victims of the crash, which was transported from Smolensk to Moscow until now, has already been carried out by experts from Russian” [64]. Polish specialists returned to Warsaw without any participation in sections. In spite of this, Deputy Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz stated on 29 April 2010 that the Sejm "– I was very attentive to the work of our pathomorphologists for the first hours. The first hours were not easy, and you request to know. For a minute our Polish doctors were treated as observers of what is happening. It lasted possibly a twelve minutes, and then, erstwhile they put on their aprons and got to work with the Russian doctors, they didn't gotta say anything to each other.[ 65].
The medical and judicial documentation prepared by the Russian services was made available to the families of the victims. 11 families decided to submit the received verification documentation. It was found that all the papers examined were falsified [66].
The Russian side desecrated the victims' bodies by packing the remains of various bodies into the same coffin and throwing garbage and cigaret butts into the coffins. Exhumations carried out after 2015 brought shocking results:
‘The findings of experts who have worked on exhumations and sections of Smolensk disaster victims so far are shocking. 69 human remains were found, coming from 26 people, in the coffins of another victims of the disaster – the spokesperson for the National Prosecutor's Office Ewa Bialik informed PAP .... ‘Analysis of medical and judicial documentation provided by the Russians, carried out by experts at the Medical University of Wrocław. It contained gross errors that active 90 percent of the victims. In medical records the Russians described, for example, organs that they did not have (in life removed as a consequence of surgery). In the case of more than 1 3rd of the victims - as determined by experts from Wrocław - no section was carried out in Moscow” [67].
Guilty forgery of documentation has never been punished.
Representatives of the Polish authorities and the dominant media participated in the falsification. After the bodies were transported to Poland, the prosecution, contrary to its obligation, withdrew from the execution of the autopsy, which later became the subject of criminal proceedings [68]. The authorities besides banned the beginning of coffins to the families of the victims [69], and the dominant media began media campaigns to prevent the beginning of coffins [70].
The families of the victims, who demanded the examination of the bodies of their relatives in Poland, were peculiarly humiliated. In respective cases, the demands were supported by specified evidence that the prosecution agreed to exhumation and examination of the bodies [71], but did not let the participation in the examination of independent experts, and in peculiar the celebrated American pathomorphologist Michael Baden [72, 73]. The main exhumations and sections of the body were carried out only in 2016-2017, i.e. after the change of government and changes in the composition of the prosecution, but so far the results of the section have not been made public.
HYPOTHEZA MAK/MILLERA
Preparation of the hypothesis by MAK and Polish protest
After obtaining the consent of then Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk to analyse the disaster in accordance with Appendix 13 to the Chicago Convention (p. 3.4) Russian MAK committee [74] entered the survey by eliminating Polish experts from it. However, the Republic of Poland could, and in this case, benefit from the rights provided for in Annex 13 of the Operator and the Registration State. But even those reduced powers of the Republic were not used. As already mentioned in p. 3.4.1 Poland has not submitted any of the proposals provided for in Chapter 3 of Annex 13, which clearly demonstrates the intentions of the Polish Government.
When the MAK committee submitted to the Polish side a draft final study on the disaster study, according to the evidence of chapter. 6 Annex 13 Polish page on 19 December 2010 submitted to this study its Notes [75], in which the following can be read at the outset (emphasis in the original).
‘On 20 October 2010, the Russian Federation submitted to the Republic of Poland, in accordance with point 6.3 of Annex 13, the draft Final Report. The Republic of Poland, as the State of Registration and Operator, on the basis of point 6.3 – 3rd conviction – Annex 13, has the right to formulate and submit its comments on the draft final study submitted by the Russian Federation. The Republic of Poland hereby submits observations on the draft Final study of the Tu-154 aircraft accident survey with side number 101, requesting their inclusion in the final report. At the same time, the Republic of Poland declares its willingness to supply additional explanations on the position submitted to the draft final report. If the Russian Federation does not agree to change the findings of the draft Final study of the Tu-154 aircraft accident investigation with side number 101, The Republic of Poland requests that comments be annexed to the Final study in so far as they are not taken into account, which fulfils the authority of the Republic of Poland resulting from the 3rd conviction of point 6.3 of the Annex 13It’s okay. ”
This text clearly explains the legal basis of the Notes, as well as the Polish side's anticipation of further actions of the Russian side in relation to the MAK Final Report, which are straight based on Annex 13. The Polish paper on 148 pages lists errors and weaknesses of the Russian side during the survey and ends with the conviction (emphasis in the original):
‘In the light of the above, the Polish side requests that the causes and circumstances of the accident of the Tu-154 aircraft be reconsidered and preventive recommendations taken into account, taking into account all factors affecting the occurrence of the accident, including those described in this documentIt’s okay. ”
It is clear from this text that the authors of the paper reject the submitted draft in its entirety and demand
‘rewording the causes and circumstances of the accidentIt’s okay. ”
MAK reports and Miller Commission
Unfortunately, the work of the authors of this paper was in vain – the Russian side completely ignored Polish Notes and contrary to the clear provisions of Appendix 13, which were cited at the outset of the Polish Notes, nor did it include Polish comments in the MAK Report, nor did it include them as an annex to this study by clearly violating Annex 13. Ignored entirely Polish comments, the MAK committee presented its uncorrected study [76, 77] to the public at a press conference on 12 January 2011 [78]. Prime Minister Tusk's reaction was to accept the MAK study with the remark that the study inactive needs to be completed [79]. MAK president Tatiana Anodina referred to this message stating that the presented version of the MAK study is final and will not be amended [80].
The position of the Prime Minister was besides adapted by the Miller Committee (i.e. the KBWL LP cf. p. 3.4.2) and on 29 July 2011 made its final study [81] publically available in full in line with the MAK report. A clear question arises as to what happened between 19.12.2010 and 29.07.2011 that the same Commission has produced a paper denying its erstwhile position. However, the reasons for the change of position were surely not due to the examinations of the wreckage, the disaster site and the bodies of the victims. It is simply a kind of curiosium that the Miller Commission issued its study just without examining the wreckage, without examining the disaster site and without examining the bodies of the victims. This is the only specified case in planet aviation history. Only information and material provided by the Russian organization to the Commission was the basis for drawing up the Miller Commission report. There is besides no evidence of the reliability of the material submitted to the Commission by the Russians. The Commission has accepted them uncritically.
The title pages of the above 3 authoritative papers are presented below.
Figure 8. 3 authoritative state reports - Notes of the Republic of Poland [75], MAK study [76] and the Miller Commission study [81].
The essence of the MAK/Miller hypothesis
According to the authoritative version given by the Interstate Aviation Committee – MAK and repeated in the study of the Committee on Aviation Accidents Investigation - the Miller Commission - the course of events during the Smolenska Disaster was as follows.
"The plane in the dense fog went below an acceptable tallness of 100 m and despite attempts to leave (to the second circle), it continued to decline due to the pilot's error, which attempted to execute an technically impossible exit manoeuvre "in the machine". After losing valuable time, the pilot made this maneuver by hand, but by the time the plane began to rise, it was only a fewer metres above the ground. He struck with his left wing in the increasing birch line, resulting in the cutting of a wing tip about 6 m long, and the birch itself was broken [82]. This caused the asymmetry of aerodynamic forces acting on the aircraft, resulting in it turning around its longitudinal axis by about 180 o (made a alleged half barrel) and then headed for the ground to which he struck the advanced part of the hull. due to the fact that the advanced part of the hull has a much weaker plan than the lower one, the impact on the ground caused the full structure to break down into many fragments of different sizes and spread them across a large space."
There is simply a description of the Smolensk Disaster and its causes – pilot error.
VERIFICATION OF HYPOTEZA MAK/MILLERA
In terms of mechanics, the hypothesis given by the MAK and the Miller Commission consists of 5 events – stages each of which can be examined separately and verified by technological methods:
flight of the aircraft according to the specified trajectory before hitting birch on Bodin's plot,
hitting the birch,
plane flight between birch and hitting the ground,
plane impact and disintegration,
flight of individual aeroplane fragments to their final location.
Furthermore, the different stages must show causality. due to this dependence of the various stages of the hypothesis, it is simply a circumstantial logical chain, and for its overthrow, it is adequate to prove the falseness of 1 of its stages - the links of the logical chain.
As part of the 4 Smolensk Conferences held between 2012 and 2015 [83], many lectures devoted to the analysis of the various phases of the hypothesis were presented. It has been shown that each of the stages consisting of the MAK/Miller hypothesis is false, as it conflicts with the laws of physics and evident factual evidence. In particular, the following was found.
The plane did not fly according to the trajectory indicated in the MAK/Miller hypothesis and could not hit Bodin's birch - lectures by Kazimierz Nowaczyk, Marek Czachor, Michał Jaworski, Marek Dąbrowski and Glenn Jorgensen. The experimental studies conducted by WAT on the free flight of aircraft fragments showed that the aircraft close Bodin's birch was at least 20 m higher than the site of its fracture.
However, if the plane hit the birch, the end of the wing would not be cut off, but it cut the birch – the papers by Wiesław Binenda and Grzegorz Szuladziński. Bodin's birch was broken not in the direction of flight Tu-154, but in the direction of flight. After cutting off the part of the birch below and above the fracture and their folding, it turned out that there were no defects, which excludes as a origin the impact of the wing of an aircraft flying at 270 km/h [84]. After reconstructing the left wing, it turned out that it had no signs of impact on the outer obstacle [85].
But if the end of the wing was cut off, the aircraft could not turn to the back for this reason – lectures by Kazimierz Nowaczyk, Marek Czachor, Michał Jaworski, Marek Dąbrowski and Glenn Jorgensen. The most crucial evidence is that the failure of a wing tip of about 6.5 m in dimension results in a decrease in the load-bearing force on this wing by about 8 %, and the aircraft is constructed in accordance with the requirements of the air law so that it is unchangeable at a drop in the load-bearing force on 1 wing to 80 % of the current force on the another wing [86].
Figure 9. On the left side broken, not cut birch on Bodin's game [87]. The existence of a gazebo and a wooden barrier proves the false hypothesis of MAK/Miller. If the Tu-154 engines were at 6,5 m above ground, the remains of the gazebo and the wooden barrier would have been blown at least a fewer twelve meters away. On the right side the effects of Kościuszko plane crash on 9 May 1987 in the Kaback Forest close Warsaw. An aircraft flying a mowing flight before it crashed to the ground cut out a forest belt 50 m wide and 370 m long. After hitting the ground, there was a fuel detonation that the crew had not yet dropped [88].
However, if the plane hit the ground after turning on its back, there would not have been any disintegration of it as seen in all the pictures from the wreck site. This is demonstrated by many roofing disasters [89]. An example of specified a disaster illustrates Figure 10.
Numerous photographs and videos from the crash site in Smolensk show that there are no traces of debris moving on the ground, which would should be linked to gutters etched in the ground by moving debris. There's besides no crater. If the force of impact was so large that it caused the plane to crash into 60,000 fragments, then according to law III Newton would gotta emergence up in the ground due to this force a large crater. There are no craters or traces of moving debris on the site of the crash.
Figure 10. Example of a disaster with rolling. On 28 December 2011, while landing in fog at Osz Airport in Kyrgyzstan TU-134 with 95 passengers on board and 6 crew members in a dense fog hit the runway. He broke his left wing and undercarriage and then fell on his back. There was an detonation on the plane and the device caught fire. No 1 died [90].
THE PARLIAMENTary Assembly TESTS ON THE REASONS OF CATASTROPHY TU-154 M OF 10 APRIL 2010
On 08.11.2011, a "Parliamentary squad on the Investigation of Causes of the Tu-154M Disaster of 10 April 2010" was formed, chaired by Antoni Macierewicz [91], who worked until the end of the Sejm's word of office in 2015. The squad members were 82 MPs and 12 senators. 57 Group meetings were held [92]. The squad published the results of its investigation and findings in 5 studies. Published:
June 2011 - "The White Paper of the Smolenian Tragedy” [93],
in August 2012 - "28 months after Smolensk” [94],
in May 2013 – "Smolensk study – state of research” [95],
in April 2014 – "Four years in Smolensk. How the president of Poland died” [96],
December 2014 – "Investigation of Russian government Vladimir Putin on the Polish government plane crash in Smolensk 10 April 2010.” [97].
Figure 11. 5 further studies on the work of the Parliamentary Group on the Investigation of Causes of Disaster TU-154 M of 10 April 2010.
Using the powers of Members and Senators, the Parliamentary squad held its meetings within the Sejm, its members benefiting from immunity had a sense of security, and the costs associated with the Team's operation and its publications were covered by the Sejm's resources.
The published papers by the Parliamentary Group paper the circumstances surrounding the preparation and implementation of the Tu-154 renovation. As a consequence of a number of political decisions, a bid for the Tu-154 renovation had to be won by a consortium of MAW Telecom SA and Polit-Elektronics companies, and consequently the renovation had to take place by the Russian company Aviakor in Samara controlled by the peculiar services of the Russian Federation. papers presenting the circumstances related to the preparation of the President's flight on 10.04.2010 show that the visits of the Prime Minister and the president were deliberately separated, and the flight to Smolensk with the President's participation on 10.04.2010 was deliberately stripped of the required safety and safety measures. another papers show irregularities in the authoritative investigation of the disaster and show the cooperation of Polish and Russian institutions in the investigation, concealing and falsifying evidence. The work of the Parliamentary Group reveals the breach by the MAK during the investigation of the principles of Annex 13 and besides presents a number of analyses of independent experts disproving the MAK/Miller hypothesis and indicating the actual causes and course of the disaster. The most crucial information in the drafting of the Parliamentary Group is the evidence of 46 witnesses to the crash which clearly indicates that the plane crash caused interior explosions [96] and information that Prime Minister Tusk's Government opposed the appointment of an global committee to analyse the Smolensk disaster and rejected assistance in investigating the disaster from NATO, EU and Polish experts [94].
SOLELINES
The key thesis of the MAK/Miller hypothesis is the claim that the aircraft fell apart as a consequence of an impact on the ground, but this thesis is clearly contradicted by the form of demolition visible after the wrecking on the plane of Smolensk Airport – cf. Rys. 12. Regardless of any problems and ambiguities related to the course of the flight, the causes of the crash, etc., for everyone who is poorly acquainted with the mechanics 1 thing is clear - the plane's hull was not crushed, but torn. Thus, the demolition was not caused by external forces, but by those working from within.
The awareness of the contradictions of the MAK/Miller hypothesis with reality has thus become highly acute for the technological environment associated with mechanics. Maintaining in public awareness a version contrary to mechanical discipline caused the request to talk and attest to the truth. This request was understood as the necessity of fulfilling the work that academics take upon themselves during their doctoral oath, in which they commit to investigating the truth. Each student commits in this vow to analyse the fact even if this fact is uncomfortable for many people.
Fig. 12. The hull of the wreckage, which according to the MAK was created by crushing resulting from the action of external forces - impact on the ground. message of false MAK/Miller hypothesis.
Due to the apparent falseness of the MAK/Miller hypothesis on the mechanics of the demolition of the wreckage, the first attempts of interest in technological explanation of the course of the Smolensk Disaster were made in a mechanical environment in the belief that first of all those circumstances which fall within the field of mechanics should be clarified. On 6 June 2011, Professors Grzegorz Jemielita, Jacek Rońda and Piotr Witakowski addressed a peculiar letter to the Committee of Mechanics of the Polish Academy of Sciences to inspire investigation in this field. In response, the president of the Mechanics Committee, Prof.
Witold Gutkowski stated that the Committee could not take the initiative to conduct investigation related to the plane crash close Smolensk, as it had no permanent headquarters, permanent staff and bank accounts.
Thus, in order to supply financial resources, 15 professors sent a joint letter to the manager of the National Centre for investigation and improvement on 21.10.2011 asking for the anticipation to finance the essential investigation and, first of all, to finance the costs of the conference on this subject. In order to supply organizational assistance to the Committee of Mechanics of the Polish Academy of Sciences, one-sounding “Letter to Deans and Directors“ addressed to the 27 directors of the institutes and dean of the university departments, who had the word “mechanics” in their name, asking for organizational assistance in research, and primarily for assistance in organising the conference. NCBiR president Prof. Kurzdłowski replied that "I am obliged to inform you that I cannot accept your demands for implementationIt’s okay. ” Only 2 replied to the 27 directors and dean to whom letters were sent. The Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics of the University of Warsaw stated that it could not engage in research. Only the WAT consequence contained declarations of participation in numerical studies provided that funds were found for this purpose. The remaining 25 dean and principals did not respond at all. In view of specified positions of authoritative technological and academic institutions, a number of professors already identified with the requests expressed in the above-mentioned lists at the gathering on 20.02.2012 decided to initiate the alleged academic investigation concerning the Smolenska Disaster and the organisation of the First Smolenska Conference, whose deadline was 20.10.2012. The content of these letters and the genesis of conferences and organisational details are presented in the survey "Introduction to the Conference” [98].
The aim of the conference was to "Create a forum to present interdisciplinary studies on flight mechanics and aircraft demolition mechanics TU-154 in the “Smolensk Catastrophe‘’. As a condition of the conference, full substantive and financial independency from any authoritative institution was recognised. The conference was to be financed only by the membership fees of its participants. The results of this 1st Smolensk Conference became the basis for the organisation of the next 3 Smolensk Conferences, which took place on:
21 and 22 October 2013 - 2nd Smolensk Conference,
20 October 2014 – 3rd Smolensk Conference,
14 November 2015 – 4th Smolensk Conference.
The conference’s motto was the words of Cyprian Norwid “There is no request to bow down to the Circumstances, and to command the fact to stand byIt’s okay. ” It was aptly selected in view of the constant media attack on those active in the Smolensk Conferences [99].
Unlike the first conference, the following conferences included, in addition to mechanical aspects, besides medical, sociological and legal aspects. Their nonsubjective is defined as “Create a forum for presenting interdisciplinary investigation on technical, medical, sociological and legal issues of Smolensk DisasterIt’s okay. ” The course and level of the Smolensk Conference were supervised by 3 committees – the Inspiring and Advisory Committee, the Organisational Committee and the technological Committee. The Inspiring and Advisory Committee was a technological background for investigation and was composed of 115 professors – signatories "Letter to Deans and DirectorsIt’s okay. ” The Organisational Committee of 7 technological staff prepared and ensured further conferences.
The technological Committee ensured the level of the submitted papers and decided to let them to attend. The Committee consisted of 45 professors and was divided into subcommittees bringing together experts from 10 different fields of science:
Mechanicals and Structures
Mathematics and Computer Science
Electrical Engineering and Electronics
Physics and Geotechnology
Chemistry and Structural Research
Aviation and Aerodynamics
Geodesy and Archaeology
Medicine
Sociology
Right
The work of the technological Committee was chaired by the Bureau, chaired by Professor. Tadeusz Kaczorek - president of the Central Committee on Degrees and Titles, and Professor. Kazimierz Flag - rector of the Cracow University of Technology and Doctor honoris causa a number of Polish and abroad universities.
Participation in the Conferences was open to all volunteers, and the proceedings were broadcast via the net and re-transmitted by tv stations. any 200 people attended the individual meetings of the Conference. But the number of spectators via the net and tv stations amounted to about 200,000 people for the 2nd Conference, and for the 300,000 Conference (in words, 3 100 thousand) [100]. The first Conference was a alleged brainstorm, the second was a verification of the MAK/Miller hypothesis, the 3rd showed the actual course of the disaster, and the 4th was a gathering of evidence and summation. The results of each conference were published in the form of conference materials [101, 102, 103, 104]. Conference materials were distributed primarily among participants of the Conference, with members of the Smolenski Families receiving copies free of charge. another copies were distributed among libraries and representatives of the journalistic world. Copies received libraries of all state method universities, all universities and all institutes of the Polish Academy of Sciences – a full of 72 libraries.
At the end of the Smolensk Conference, the technological Committee adopted a paper entitled "What do we know about the Smolensk Disaster? Smolensk Conference. Preliminary summary” [105]. This paper summarises the results of all 91 papers delivered at the 4th Smolensk Conferences and presents the course of the Smolensk Disaster, which is evident from the analyses presented. The summary on the last page of the paper states:
‘The technological studies carried out clearly show that:
The aircraft flew higher than indicated in the MAK/Miller hypothesis, so it could not hit Bodin's birch,
However, if the plane had hit the birch, the wing tip would not have been cut off, but the birch cut off,
But if the wing tip were cut off, the plane could not turn in the air on the back,
However, if the plane had hit the ground after turning on its back, it would not have been as disintegration as seen in all the pictures from the wreckage...
The Smolensk disaster was what is referred to in planet literature as controlled demolition and was implemented by a series of explosions of explosives that occurred in closed aircraft profiles and thus were not available for pyrotechnic inspections.’
This paper was handed to all 560 Polish parliamentarians – 460 Members and 100 Senators. It was besides translated into English, French and German, and the summary was besides translated into Russian and Spanish.
Figure 13. Conference materials from the 4th Smolensk Conference and a summary of conferences "What do we know about the Smolensk Disaster?” [101, 102, 103, 104, 105].
A set of conference materials including movie coverage from all conferences, Conference materials, Preliminary Summary and another material related to the organisation and conduct of the Smolensk Conference have been placed and are constantly available on the website http://conferencesmoleńska.pl/which is the individual merit of prof. Grzegorz Gładyszewski.
CLASSIFICATION OF AIR CATASTROF
Two types of disasters
Aviation disasters are divided according to whether the disaster occurred above the ground or on the surface of the earth [106]. It recommends that the investigation of the disaster be initiated by Annex 13 to the ICAO Convention. So there are 2 basic types of aviation accidents.
Type 1. The aircraft - primarily its hull - falls entirely to the surface of the area - earth or water. The impact of the plane on the surface of the area is dependent on the angle of attack, the velocity of the aircraft,
the kind of structure and another factors. In many disasters of this kind there is no defragmentation of the structure. Most of the passengers and crew stay alive, and very frequently the disaster does not origin any fatalities. Under adverse circumstances, the construction as a consequence of the impact on the ground breaks down into parts, but in specified cases many people travelling by plane hold their lives.
Type 2. The structure of the aircraft is broken up in the air, and the full falls to the ground in the form of many separate fragments. Disasters of this kind are most frequently caused by an detonation on board, but this is not a regulation and may be due to another causes. In catastrophes of this type, as a consequence of the decay of the hull, passengers lose the natural shield that it creates and the effects of specified disasters are much more tragic – as a rule, all passengers and crew lose their lives if not at the time of the decay of the structure, then at the time of impact on the ground.
In both types of disasters, the structure of the aircraft can be divided into many fragments of different sizes. However:
shape and size of fragments,
the area of demolition – the edge of the breakthrough and
Dislocation of fragments and traces of their flight trajectory
allow for a clear definition of the kind of disaster. In kind 1 catastrophes, the demolition of the structure occurs as a consequence of an impact on the ground, and thus as a consequence of external forces working to the mediate of the structure. The harm is thus caused by the crushing of the hull shell structure. In the event of division in the air, usually as a consequence of an interior explosion, the structure is torn by interior forces. In both types of disasters there is so a fundamental difference in the mechanics of demolition – either by crushing or by tearing. These differences are so fundamental - illustrated Fig. 14 – that even a individual deprived of mechanical education will not hesitate to separate them. It should be remembered, however, that even the structure torn in the air after its parts fall to the ground will bear traces of compression forces resulting from the impact on the ground of each individual fragment.
Figure 14. 2 mechanisms to destruct the coating structure. By tearing and by crushing.
Flight trajectory of aeroplane fragments
In a kind 1 disaster, the fragmentation of the structure occurs at the site of impact on the ground, i.e. on the surface of the site. The movement of the individual fragments is the consequence of the velocity at which the aircraft hits the ground, begins on the surface at the place of that impact, and the trajectory of each fragment is horizontal. Movement occurs either on the surface (rolling or moving) or just above the surface. Possible field obstacles are hit horizontally - Figure 15.
Figure 15. kind 1 disaster. Fragmentation occurs as a consequence of impact on the ground. Track the debris horizontal.
The movement of these passages is completely different erstwhile the division of the structure occurred at a certain tallness above the ground. The flight trajectory is then the consequence of the plane's velocity at the minute of the rupture and the energy causing the decay. It is so a superposition of the plane's motion before the teardrop and ballistic curve, according to which the free movement of each of the fragments in the field of gravity would take place as a consequence of the action of a force causing division (e.g. explosion). During the descent of each of the fragments, its first movement progressing in accordance with the direction of the plane's motion fades as a consequence of air resistance, and expanding value becomes vertical component as a consequence of gravitational forces. On the ground, the individual fragments fall from the top with the lower horizontal velocity, the higher the fragmentation of the structure - Figure 16.
Figure 16. kind 2 disaster. Fragmentation occurs in the air. A way of debris akin to a ballistic curve.
In the kind 2 disaster, the remains of the aircraft can settle on buildings and trees creating alleged tin birds, and in peculiar may fall between vertical obstacles, e.g. between trees. This is not possible in a kind 1 disaster, so this is simply a basic discrimination between both types of disasters.
The detonation during the crash
The second fundamental component of the different aviation disasters is the possible detonation accompanying the disaster. In the first kind of disaster, the detonation is usually caused by a fuel detonation and occurs after hitting the ground. The detonation of fuel is always accompanied by a fire, with an earlier fire itself capable of initiating the detonation of fuel.
In second-type disasters, an detonation is usually the beginning of a disaster. The detonation may besides be accompanied by a fire and burning remains may fall on the ground, but this is not a rule. Tearing off a plane at advanced altitude may consequence in the fact that even after any of the flames are ignited, the debris will no longer burn as it descends and on the ground.
The presence of an detonation or its absence during the disaster allows for discrimination in each kind of disaster of 2 subtypes, leading to the division of all aviation accidents into 4 categories - Figure 17.
The following are examples of disasters in each of the 4 categories. As you can see in the kind 1A disaster, the hull breaks down into 2 or more parts by fractures perpendicular to the hull axis Figure 18. In a kind 1B disaster, the detonation causes tragic effects. In the WTC disaster, which was the consequence of a terrorist assassination, 2,602 people were killed. This disaster besides shows how destructive the plane is flying at advanced velocity – in this case, the aircraft cut a gap in the exterior structure of the WTC1 building by cutting through steel profiles of 36 cm [107] thick. Figure. 19 shows the effects of the plane's disintegration in the air in the event of a rocket being shot down and in the event of a bombing.
Figure 17. Breakdown of aviation accidents into 4 main categories.
1 A
1 B
Figure 18. kind 1. harm from hitting the ground.
1A – Disaster without explosion. TU-154M crashed under Moscow on 4.12.2010. Of the 169 people on board, 2 died [108].
1B – Disaster with explosion. planet Trade Center disaster on 11.09.2001. The inlet beginning in the WTC1 tower corresponds to the profile of the Boeing 767 aircraft [109]. Wings cut steel structure 14 inches (36 cm) [107].
2 A
2 B
Figure 19. kind 2 disasters. Destroyed by a burst in the air.
2A – Disaster without explosion. Launch of Boeing 777 aircraft, Flight No. MH17 on July 17, 2014 in the Donetsk Oblast of Ukraine, about 40 kilometres from the Russian border guided by a rocket ground-to-air Buk M1 from Launcher No. 332, belonging to the 53rd rocket Anti-aircraft Brigade of the Kursk Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Aircraft Reconstruction [110].
2B – Disaster as a consequence of explosion. A disaster in Lockerba, Scotland on December 21, 1988. As a consequence of a terrorist attack on a Pan American planet Airways passenger aircraft over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland. As a consequence of the bomb being planted on board, an American Boeing 747 aircraft exploded. The photograph shows the reconstruction of the aircraft structure from the found remains as recommended in Annex 13 to the ICAO Convention [111].
The reconstruction of the aircraft's structure in both cases allowed a clear determination of the causes of the crash and the guilty. In both cases, court cases were held in which the guilty were convicted.
A REAL CATASTROPHY
Definitive evidence
The falseness of the various stages of the MAK/Miller hypothesis showed many lectures presented at the Smolensk Conferences independently. In many cases their knowing requires any cognition in a given field. However, there is simply quite a few evidence that is convincing and understandable for everyone, even for those without professional cognition from any field of science, and which clearly indicate only 1 anticipation and exclude any other. specified evidence shall have the character of conclusive evidence. specified evidence shall include in particular:
deformation of remains,
Dislocation of remains.
Deformation of remains
The character of the debris lying at the site of the Disaster clearly indicates that they were created by the rupture of the structure of the aircraft alternatively than its crushing as a consequence of the impact on the ground. The central part of the hull presented on Figure 12 and Figure 20 is apparent to everyone torn, and rolled and thrown outside the sides and the ceiling attest to the harm caused by a massive interior explosion. specified demolition must not be caused by external forces.
Moreover, the above-mentioned drawings show that the destructive detonation occurred above the ground at an altitude greater than the dimension of the crafted sides. Only then could they make their movement beginning the interior hull. In the light of the mechanics of the coating structures, it is not possible to teardrop and open the hull shell along the forming (as shown in Fig. 12 and Fig. 20. as a consequence of forces acting as a consequence of impact against external obstacles, any of them would not be, and regardless of which side, the structure would hit these obstacles. The force of the detonation was powerful adequate to not only teardrop the fuselage, but besides origin a "blowing" from the hull of the full content. Not just the passengers, but even all the seats, despite their solid attachment to the level and even the interior cladding, as Rys proves. 21. As a consequence of the explosion, the sides and the hull ceiling were thrown outside, and after turning it down to the top of the fuselage fell so that the level was adjacent to
land. After the lift, however, it turned out that under the level there were neither crushed bodies of passengers nor even seats – so all the contents had to vanish before the level fell to the ground.
Figure 20. The central part of the hull from the frame 40 to 64 [112]. The teardrop along the hull and the retracted and ejected on the outer sides and the ceiling attest to a massive detonation inside. specified demolition must not be caused by external forces.
Fig. 21. View of the plane level Tu-154 while lifting the hull [113]. Throwing out the torn ceiling and side of the hull and reversing it in the air led to a fall so that the level was adjacent to the ground before lifting. There were no passenger bodies or even seats under the floor. Only rails for seat mounting are visible.
Evidence of an interior detonation is besides evidence of alleged explosive curls visible on many fragments (Fig. 22), as well as gunshots resulting from the impact of shrapnel resulting from an detonation in the left wing -Figure 23 and Figure 24.
Fig. 22. Explosive locus of the hull of the pants torn off tip of the left wing [114].
Fig. 23. The fan of the left wing flap drive. photograph by Dr Jan Gruszyński on 11.04.2010. Shot through a fragment ripped from the mediate of the wing as a consequence of an explosion. Around the shot (in the blue circle) there are explosive curls.
Figure 24. Blue circles indicate gunfires made by fragments thrown from the mediate of the wing at advanced velocity by an detonation [115].
Dislocation of remains
The distribution of debris on the surface of the earth is simply a basic proof of the course of events during the plane crash – the surface of the earth is simply a book on which the location of the individual remains indicates the order of events. This distribution of remains shows a satellite photograph dated 11.04.2010 (Fig. 25) and thousands of aerial photographs and films. These films and pictures are mutually credible due to the fact that they were made by different operators independently of each other.
According to archaeological studies, the Tu-154 aircraft was broken up into estimated 60,000 remains. In the distribution of the main remains of the aircraft, 8 zones can be distinguished on Fig. 25, and the distance between the first 1 found (a fewer twelve meters before Bodin's birch) and the last remains is 500 m. A detailed description of the dislocation of remains is provided in the survey “What do we know about the Smolensk Disaster? Smolensk Conference. Preliminary summary” [105]. The individual areas of remainder of the remains are characterised as follows.
Areas B1, B2 and B3 contain only the remains of the left wing. He started the plane's destruction. It began at least 100 m before Bodin's birch. According to experimental studies of WAT conducted at the Central Air Force Polygon, specified a distance is essential for ‘plated birds’ to brake from the plane's velocity to the velocity at which they do not intersect the branches of the Rys tree. 26. In region B2, there is simply a tip of the left wing about 6.5 m long. The almost linear edge of the cut-off shows that it was cut off with a detonation strip.
Important information is recorded in region B4. Between the trees at Kutuzów Road there are 4 pieces of the airplane (Figure 27, Figure 28:
the fan of the left wing flap drive,
the rated plate of the left chassis shock absorber,
part of the left horizontal ballast,
Interceptor (deflector) from the left wing.
The meaning of this fact is twofold. Firstly, it is evidence of decay in the air, not as a consequence of an impact on the ground (type 2 disaster), and besides proves that demolition of another parts of the aircraft but the wing has begun in the section from Gubenko to Kutuzów Street. The demolition included the lowest (lead) and highest (lead) (lead)
horizontal) the aeroplane parts located. Thus, she could not have had 1 reason, indicating the firing of further explosives.
In region B5, there is simply a solitary rear part of the left horizontal ballast with a rudder of tallness (Fig. 29). The fact that the rear part, alternatively than the front part, has been removed excludes as a origin the impact on the field obstacle. In order to make it look as though it had been torn from the impact on the ground, it was moved by Russian soldiers by respective decades to the west on 11.04.2010 so that it would be behind the Earth's projection portrayed as a trace of the first impact of the plane to the ground. Over region B5, the hull opened and in region this archaeologists in October 2010 found the remains of disaster victims.
Figure 25. Trajectory Tu-154 and distribution levels of the main remains. The B letters marked the centre of gravity of the subsequent areas behind the remains. A letters indicate the approximate location of the detachment point from the structure of the aircraft moving at about 270 km/h.
Fig. 26. Fragments of the left wing on Bodin's birch at the tallness of the breakthrough [116]. ‘Blood birds’ must have fallen off the aircraft not little than 100 metres earlier and not little than 20 metres higher than the points where they settled.
Figure 27. Location of 4 large fragments of the aircraft on the west side of Kutuzowa Street based on films by Anita Gargas and CNN. Until the first signs of the plane's impact on the ground, it's inactive over 100 meters from here.
Fig. 28. 1) The fan of the left wing flap drive. photograph by Dr Jan Gruszyński on 11.04.2010. 2) Rate plate of the left chassis shock absorber. Personnel from a movie made available by ed. Anita Gargas made in Smolensk on 10.04.2010. 3) Part of the left horizontal ballast. photograph by Dr Jan Gruszyński on 11.04.2010. 4) Interceptor (deflector) from the left wing. Personnel from a movie made available by ed. Anita Gargas made in Smolensk on 10.04.2010.
Figure 29. The rear part of the left horizontal ballast with the left tallness rudder lying in region B5 [ 117].
Zones B6, B7 and B8 are the main debris field. In this field, going toward the flight, first is the tail section with engines, then the hull debris, and the westernmost lies the cockpit debris. This order besides indicates an interior explosion. The distance between the vertical ballast and the cockpit remains is about 150 m, so 3 times the full dimension of the Tu-154, which is 48 m. The interior detonation opened the fuselage by throwing all its contents out and simultaneously directed the cockpit's remains forward, and the tail part backwards, resulting in an increase in the distance between these parts.
Controlled demolition - Controlled demolition
Both the deformation of the remains and their dislocation at the site of the crash indicate clearly that the Smoleńska disaster was a kind 2B catastrophe (a decay in the air due to explosion). However, the distribution of debris at the crash site proves that the breakdown of the aircraft structure was not the consequence of a single explosion, but of a full series of explosions of explosives located in the aircraft structure. The conclusions of the investigation presented at the Smolensk Conferences from various fields of discipline are consistent and mutually reinforcing. Geodesic and geotechnical research, archaeological and medical, physical and chemical, mechanical and aerodynamic, electrical and acoustic - all presented at the Conferences are structured into a coherent image and let the following conclusions to be formulated.
MAK/Miller's hypothesis is false, as each of its 5 phases is contrary to commonly known laws of physics and irrefutable factual evidence.
Smolensk disaster was what in planet literature is referred to as controlled demolition. Controlled demolition) and was carried out by a series of explosions of explosives deployed in closed aircraft profiles and thus unavailable for pyrotechnic inspections. Basic information on technologies utilized for Controlled demolition is presented in an annex to work [105]. This technology is widely utilized in the demolition of large construction structures and in the demolition of large steel structures, e.g. ships. The nonsubjective is usually to divide into items of size adapted to the means of transport available. There are many companies specialized in Controlled demolition. A detailed description of the technology and the materials utilized is given in that annex. In the Russian Federation, the Novosibirski ISKRA Mechanical Plant [118], which was established in 1942, is simply a prominent maker of materials for controlled demolition. It produces all components for detonation installations, and the quality of its products does not give way to the latest production in the West.
The Russian squad controlling the crash site has made efforts to make the MAK/Miller hypothesis credible. This intent was served by moving the remains to designated locations, destroying evidence that contradicted the hypothesis, and concealing these evidence that could not be destroyed.
ARCADE PROTASOV REPORT
In 2016, a study was published on the Internet, the author of which is known as Arkady Protasov. A study covering 106 pages and 64 drawings is written Cyrillic in Russian. It is entitled “Report based on analysis of freely available information about the Tu-154 disaster No. 101 10 April 2010” [119]. The date of publication of the study 05.10.2016 is stated on the website containing the report. On the same page there are inactive respective movie lectures, in the guess of the same author. At the beginning of his report, the author writes:
‘This study has been drawn up by a private individual who is not bound by any financial, political, administrative or another relation to any of the state, public, political or another structures. The study was created on its own initiative on the basis of an analysis of publically available information, and its aim is to clarify the circumstances of the Tu-154M disaster in/n101 on 10 April 2010 and to effort to identify its causes. The author of the study assumes that the reader had previously seen at least the actual side of the tragedy and the material of the MAK investigation and the Miller Commission. The conclusions contained in the study are logical conclusions of the author, based on the presented analysis, the author reserves the right not to disclose his individual dataIt’s okay. ”
|
|
Fig. 30. The title page of the Protasov study and the table of contents [119].
- The content of the Protasov study indicates professional preparation of the author and cognition of aviation issues. The author presents the Tu-154 aircraft and its crew, Smolensk airport and its equipment, weather data, deformation and dislocation of wreck debris, available medical data and recorded calls. On this basis, it reproduces the descent way of the aircraft and presents the operations of the aircraft crew and ground services. In his report, he uses only the information available to both the Russian MAK committee and the Polish Miller committee. However, he draws completely different conclusions from his analysis and at the end of the study indicates the following causes of the disaster:
- Reason for premature descent to geometric tallness 10-15 m at ~1100 m from the end of the runway of the airport The Siewer was setting the instrumental descent way of the TLS landing strategy deployed at the airport, utilizing which the crew made an automatic approach to landing. To confuse the crew to accept decision tallness = 60 m, false position lights were set.
- The origin of the plane's demolition and human death was a series of explosions that led to the complete demolition of the aircraft's structure in the airIt’s okay. ”
SUBCOMMITTEE FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF AIR Accident
Appointment of a Subcommittee
The Subcommittee for the Air Accident Reinvestigation was established by Decision 16/MON of the Minister of National Defence on 4 February 2016 [120]. The legal basis for setting up the Subcommittee was Decision No 274 MON of the Minister of National Defence of 31 August 2016 on the appointment of a subcommittee for re-examination
Air accident. The intent of the Subcommittee was to re-examine all the circumstances of the Smolensk Disaster. The anticipation of establishing it was created by a regulation of the Minister of National Defence from the same day amending the regulation on the organisation and operation of the Commission for the Investigation of Aviation Accidents (Dz. U. 2016 item 148). This regulation was signed in agreement with the Minister of the Interior and Administration and allowed the creation of an autonomous Subcommittee with the abovementioned nonsubjective to be established within the KBWL LP. The decision to appoint the Subcommittee was accompanied by a message of reasons [121], in which as the reasons for that appointment were given:
inappropriate basis for the work carried out by the KBWL LP (Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention alternatively of the agreement of December 1993 between the MON of the Republic of Poland and MO of the Russian Federation),
the deficiency of compliance by the PSC with the recommendations of Annex 13, despite the adoption of that Annex as a legal basis,
a number of documented errors, misconceptions and even deliberate concealment of facts in the final study of the KBWL LP presented publically at the press conference on 29.07.2011,
disclosure of fresh facts and papers after the Commission has completed its work.
The subcommittee, which was briefly referred to as the Smolensk Subcommittee, was composed of 21 people on the day of its appointment, and its president was Dr. Wacław Berczyński [122]. After his departure from the position of Minister of National Defence in January 2018, Antoni Macierewicz became the president of the Subcommittee. The composition of the Subcommittee during its work has undergone many changes [123]. The final study of the Subcommittee was signed on 10 August 2021 by the following persons: 1) Antoni Macierewicz – president, 2) Kazimierz Nowaczyk – I z-ca, 3) Wiesław Binienda – II z-ca, 4) Marta Palonek – secretary, members: 5) Jacek Kołota, 6) Andrzej Łuczak, 7) Beata Majczyna, 8) Bogdan Nienaltowski, 9) Grzegorz Szuladziński, 10) Aleksandra Śliwowska, 11) Janusz Więckowski, 12) Tomasz Ziemski, 13) Krystyna Zieniuk. Among the signatories to the final study were only 10 people from the first Subcommittee [124].
Difficult Work
Working in the Subcommittee in addition to expertise besides required opposition to a number of obstacles that the members of the Subcommittee had to face. In addition to the media assault on the Subcommittee, it was hard to persuade the president to agree to the survey or analysis requested by members of the Subcommittee. The president was incapable to convince the state authorities to get approval to access the crash site and examine the remains of Smolensk. Despite repeated requests from members. An authoritative address by letter dated 1.03.2017 by Wiesław Binienda, Piotr Witakowski [125] and Glenn Jorgensen on this substance to the then national defence minister Antoni Macerewicz [126] was completely ignored. The same demands were made by the 3 members of the Subcommittee in a letter dated 6.07.2018 to the next national defence minister, Mariusz Błaszczak, but this letter was ignored as well.
The management of the Subcommittee's work by a individual deprived of engineering method cognition and having no experience in conducting investigation teams was a origin of constant stress and many humiliations for academics. The subcommittee was treated by the president as his individual property and made his own decisions on all matters. Despite repeated requests, he never agreed to the Subcommittee's adoption of any investigation programme and their timetable. Each survey required its separate individual consent. All personnel and financial matters remained confidential to the Subcommittee members. Nor did the members know the financial statements of the following years of work. At the same time, a number of non-dead studies were blocked. A slight attitude towards members resulted in further departures from the Subcommittee of high-ranking people. The most reprehensible case was a series of harassments against Glenn Jorgensen, who was appointed a associate of the Subcommittee on 31 August 2016 [127]. The Danish engineer and designer, already known from the Smolensk Conference, devoted his individual assets to investigation and made a immense contribution to the Smolensk Disaster. It was him who was liable for the cooperation with abroad investigation centres, in peculiar with NIAR (National Institute of Aviation Research) [128]. Since May 2018, for almost 2 years, he has been driving regular to Minsk Mazowiecki and has been measuring the structure of the aircraft standing there for many hours and periodically passing the results to NIAR maintaining regular contact with this centre. In March 2020, Macerewicz deprived Jorgensen of his right of free access to Subcommittee materials. At the same time, he requested NIAR to halt contacting Jorgensen and prevented Jorgensen from continuing measurements in Minsk. This became the subject of a conflict with NIAR, which demanded the provision of missing measurements. Finally, on 21 April, Antoni Macierewicz wrote in another letter to Jorgensen “I suspend your participation in the ongoing work of the SubcommitteeIt’s okay. ” The string of these harassments toward a well - deserved investigator forced me to talk publically in his defence [122].
The president's decisions towards cooperation with external actors for the Subcommittee were disastrous. He blocked the conference prepared for 17.05.2017 by WAT [130] and then blocked the distribution of conference materials prepared for that conference [131]. In 2017, it blocked the LARE investigation programme implemented by WAT (Large Aircraft Reverse Engineering) [132] and thus prevented WAT's participation in the measurements in Minsk, resulting in the totality of the work in Minsk, in which they were to be performed by a multi-man investigation team, falling on the lone Jorgensen. At the same time, he blocked the previously promised assistance in measuring by the armed forces. Macierewicz blocked conducting interrogations of crucial witnesses, and demanded that work on virtual reconstruction of the wreckage be stopped. He torpedoed cooperation with specialists agreed with Prof. Frank Taylor - an outstanding British specialist in the investigation of aviation accidents. Emphasising the criminal treatment of his fellow specialists in a letter to Antoni Macierewicz dated 19 March 2020. Frank Taylor wrote “ Under the circumstances... I don't want to be active in this investigation anymore. I consider it a more appropriate way to resign than if it were filed in the course of the current agreementIt’s okay. ”
As a consequence of dealing with independent abroad researchers, as with its subordinates, all cooperation with centres outside Poland has been broken and relations with NIAR have been brought to legal dispute. No little arrogant conduct was seen in relations with the media. For example, at the request of Macerewicz, my speech on 26.08.2019 at the Ronina Club [133] was removed from the Internet, and the issue in TVP of the movie "Emergency“ directed by Ewa Stankiewicz was blocked for over a year by Macerewicz’s letter addressed to the maker and to TVP. The letter contained an unwarranted accusation that the movie was utilized without him, Macierewicz, consenting the results of the Subcommittee's work and threatening to go on trial in case of its issue [134].
Results
The subcommittee during its work conducted a survey of extended documentation previously collected by the prosecution, performed a number of numerical analyses and experimental experiments. The basis for many experimental and numerical studies was the execution of the Tu-154 numerical model through the alleged reverse engineering, which was utilized by Tu-154 aircraft No. 2 standing at the airport in Minsk Mazowiecki (Fig. 31) . The exterior plan of the Tu-154 was obtained with 2 methods – photogrammetric and laser scanning method, obtaining a millimeter compatibility of both methods. A complete method documentation of the Tu-154 interior was besides made on the basis of precise laser measurements and scans, to which Glenn Jorgensen contributed greatly. On this basis, NIAR prepared a complete numerical model of the Tu-154 aircraft.
Scanning the outer surface of the aircraft allowed to execute physical models that were subjected to experimental investigation in the aerodynamic tunnel and in the open space. For investigation in the aerodynamic tunnel, a number of models were made on an expanding scale: 1:100, 1:50, 1:40, 1:20, 1:14 [135] and were successively subjected to more detailed investigating in the aerodynamic tunnel (Fig. 32. both in undamaged condition and with the severed tip of the left wing. These studies were performed in the aerodynamic tunnel of the Institute of Aviation and in the WAT tunnel. The final experimental survey was a survey in the open space of the flying model. A 1:10 scale model was prepared for these tests, which was equipped with its own engines. The survey was conducted at the military airport in Minsk Mazowiecki and consisted of an experimental simulation of the Smolensk Disaster by cutting off the tip of the left wing and observing the behaviour of the aircraft ((Figure 33).
The numerical model prepared by NIAR was created by the alleged reverse engineering, i.e. based on measurements of the actual object. It is characterized by different accuracy and it maps even the smallest structural elements specified as rivets or screws. The calculations were done by MES (Method of Finished Elements) by a software called LS-din. In this method, the full structure is divided into tiny elements and erstwhile calculating each of them is determined in accordance with the laws of physics and the forces acting on it. The smaller the division, the more accurate the calculation. The Tu-154 plan in the NIAR model was divided into 37 million elements (37 million) [136], meaning it was the largest facility in the planet that had always been subjected to MES simulation tests. With so many elements and the accuracy of the calculations required, these studies required tremendous computing power of the computer. They were conducted in 2 calculation centres - by NIAR at Wichita University in the USA and by WAT in Warsaw. The most crucial numerical survey performed utilizing the model was the simulation of the Tu-154 impact to the ground to show what the deformation of the aircraft would look like if the crash had taken place in accordance with the MAK/Miller hypothesis (Fig. 34). A number of another simulation studies showed how the wing would be struck into the birch and how the plane's door would have been pushed into the ground.
Figure 31. Numeric model of the Tu-154 aircraft. The millimetre compatibility with the actual structure was obtained by scanning with 2 methods - photogrammetric (executor - WAT) and laser (executor - Waldemar Kubisz from Leica Geosystems).
Figure 32. Model Tu-154 on scale 1:14 during the survey in the aerodynamic tunnel of the Institute of Aviation. investigation conducted in a unique tunnel with a diameter of 5 m allowed to find the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft in full configuration and in the event of being deprived of the tip of the left wing.
Fig. 33. Flying Tu-154 model on scale 1:10 during the survey at the military airport in Minsk Mazowiecki. The experimentation was to detach the tip of the left wing during the flight and observe the behaviour of the aircraft.
Figure 34. Computer simulation of the impact of the Tu-154 hull into the ground in reverse position according to the MAK/Miller hypothesis. The results of the simulation conducted by both WAT (calculation at a vertical velocity of 12 m/s) and NIAR (calculation at a vertical velocity of 18 m/s) showed that the roof is not thrown out but always pressed inside the hull [137].
A)
B)
Figure 35. 2 most crucial papers published by the Smolensk Subcommittee. A) method study 2018 [138]. B) Final study 2021 [137].
The results of the Subcommittee's investigation deserve an awesome name. It was obtained thanks to the stubbornness and commitment of individual investigators of the Subcommittee and frequently against the position of chairman. The work of the Subcommittee was presented annually at peculiar conferences organized on the anniversary of the Smolensk Disaster. The most crucial results of the survey were presented in 2 reports – the method study [138] published in 2018 and the study [137] adopted on 10 August 2021 and published in April 2022. The "Technical Report" was created by Glenn Jorgensen and contains a number of his own analyses. It was of large importance because, in consequence to it, the Council of Europe in September 2018 adopted resolutions demanding the Russian Federation to immediately return the Tu-154M wreck and the remainder of the own evidence [139]. This second study is treated as a final study on the work of the Subcommittee and indicates the identical course of the Disaster and its causes as the method Report.
All studies and analyses carried out as part of the Subcommittee's work full confirm the advancement of the Smolensk Disaster presented in p. 9.4. The Smolensk disaster was a kind 2B disaster, so the origin was the disintegration of the plane in the air due to interior explosions, and the debris and the victims fell separately on the ground.
GROUNDS FOR STATE INSTITUTIONS
Preparation of the aeroplane
All studies and analyses carried out so far full explain the course and causes of the Smolensk Disaster. It was a typical controlled demolition – "Controlled demolition” [105]. The location of individual cargoes in enclosed spaces not available for average pyrotechnic checks (adjacent wing part, slots, fuel tank) indicates that the installation could only be carried out during the refurbishment of the aeroplane in Samara. However, the intention to renovate in Samara (cf.The White Book” [93]), depriving the aircraft of Polish supervision during the renovation and then putting the aircraft into service without detailed pyrotechnic checks would not be possible without interacting with the Polish side.
Flight preparation
The flight to Smolensk, announced for respective months by the President's office, was separated from Prime Minister Tusk's flight, and the decision-making head of Prime Minister's office Tomasz Arabski gave him a completely different position than the Prime Minister's flight on 7.04.2010. Flight 10.04.2010 was devoid of the “head” position required for the head of state flight and treated as a tourist flight. The airport in Smolensk was not inspected, nor was Polish safety ensured. The commanders of the aircraft were given outdated maps of the approach to the airport and were deprived of current meteorological information. The full flight organization was prepared so that on the day of departure there was no replacement device and there was only 1 aircraft to fly. Even from the 2 airplanes at the airport AS 1 just crashed and the another journalists flew away. In order to fly to the Smolensk president and his accompanying delegation they had to board the TU-154 No. 101 aircraft.
Official disaster investigation
By the decision of the Prime Minister, the Polish side transferred the full investigation of the catastrophe into Russian hands, and subsequent decisions of the Polish authorities excluded the participation of Polish specialists in access to the most crucial evidence – the site of the disaster, the remains of the plane and the bodies of the victims (cf. 3.4). A separate investigation initiated by the territory Military Prosecutor's Office in Warsaw was limited to the investigation "inadvertently bring disaster to air traffic“ and it was blamed on the management of the 36th peculiar Transport Regiment, which included the aircraft and its crew [52]. All the results collected during this investigation that could contradict the MAK/Miller hypothesis have been carefully hidden. All attempts at independent investigation of the course and causes of the disaster met massive opposition of the media and state institutions. The slogan was dominant “We already know everything about Smolensk Disaster, so we can't analyse it.It’s okay. ” Families of Smolensk Victims were denied the most basic information about the death of their loved ones – neither were they allowed to open coffins nor execute an autopsy of the corpses despite the demands of the families. The clearly falsified Russian papers presented as sectional protocols were not corrected. Under force from families, only in a fewer cases the D.A. agreed to exhumation and section. An example is the case of Zbigniew Wassermann, to whom the exhumation and dissection of the prosecution's body agreed only erstwhile the daughter of the deceased threatened to make public the Russian "sectary protocol" in which her father was portrayed as a woman. All without exception, the authorities sought to prevent independent disaster investigations. Notable is the destiny of recorders who recorded the crash. In addition to recorders from the Tu-154 deck (their test is described in p. 3.4.3) the crash was registered by Smolensk airport service recorders and an on-board recorder from the JAK-40 aircraft, which had previously arrived by journalists standing at the airport in Smolensk. According to the Russian side, the Tu-154 approach was not recorded on the airport radar recorder "Because the recorder's wires crossedIt’s okay. ” On the another hand, the only recorder outside Russian control, i.e. the recorder from the JAK-40 aircraft, was immediately after the return of 10.04.2010 to Warsaw taken by the military prosecutor and for 5 years classified. In 2015, I personally asked the investigating prosecutor Kopczyk to make the recorder available for investigation or to disclose the evidence if it had already been made. The prosecutor refused and explained that erstwhile reading the recorder his media had broken down. During my work in the Subcommittee, I performed respective times to make the recorder available to analyse the location of the vehicle break [140]. The D.A. never agreed to make the test recorder available.
All these circumstances show that the state institutions have done everything to prevent independent investigation of the Smolensk Disaster, and information proving the false MAK/Miller hypothesis both the state authorities and the dominant media sought to disengage and ridicule or hide. No fundamental survey has always been carried out on the crash site, the remains of the wreckage and the remains of the victims. The Polish Government never made a diplomatic note demanding the return of the wreck [141], and the Sejm blocked specified an effort [54]. The Polish government besides never applied to global organizations for assistance in the investigation, even though NATO officers died in the crash.
The most amazing thing is that no of the peculiar services or military (SKW and SWW) nor civilian (ABW and AW) did anything to prevent the catastrophe in Smolensk. It is even more astonishing that after the crash they did not bring any information about the disaster and its circumstances. The explanation of this phenomenon is that the solution applied by the head of government, Prime Minister Tusk, made him full supervised the peculiar services on 10.04.2010 and was straight liable for coordinating the activities of the services after the Smolensk disaster [142]. peculiar attention should be paid to the fact that when, on 10.04.2010 a individual with cognition of the bombing as the origin of the Tu-154M disaster came to the Polish embassy in Moscow, the then head of the AW released "in view of the investigation in Russia‘order to forward the data to the Russian FSB [142]. The destiny of a condemned individual is unknown.
The ratio of peculiar services to investigating the Smolensk Disaster has not changed after the political transformation in 2015. The subcommittee did not receive any assistance from these services. Even as prosaic as the altitude map of the crash site. The absence of this map caused many investigation problems.
No 1 from government institutions or the President's office was curious in either investigation or persons active in the Smolensk Conferences. Similarly, the work of the Subcommittee did not rise any interest in these institutions. There was never a desire for a gathering active in the survey with a typical of the Government or the President, and there was never even a question from these institutions about the state of investigation or their conditions. State authorities showed a complete deficiency of interest in the Smolensk Disaster Survey
THE CHALLENGE OF TEACHING INSTITUTIONS
Political and intellectual Pressure
After the Smolensk disaster on 10.04.2010, both statements by all state institutions and the media atmosphere (the government of Donald Tusk had a media monopoly) generated intellectual force on the technological community ordering the confirmation of the MAK/Miller hypothesis. The force was so strong that it took courage to engage in independent research. Thus, all technological institutions (except WAT) addressed by the organizers of the Smolensk Conference (PAN, NCBiR, universities) refused to support their organisations (cf. 7) and any engagement in the investigation of the Disaster. At the time, the Minister of discipline and Higher Education, Prof. Barbara Kudrycka, who described the questioning of the MAK/Miller hypothesis as contrary to the Code of Ethics of the technological individual [143], wrote his expectations towards the technological community.
Attacks on organizers and participants of the Smolensk Conference
The institutions of authoritative discipline did not limit themselves to the boycott of the Smolensk Conference, but started action against its organizers and participants. In April 2013, AGH Rector blocked the previously agreed technological seminar on Smolensk Disaster research. However, the management of the Warsaw University of Technology blocked the anticipation of attending a gathering of the technological Committee at the university. Rectors of both universities - prof. Tadeusz Słomka and prof. Jan Szmidt - besides published before
II Smolensk Conference a peculiar message condemning professors active in the investigation of Smolensk Disaster. All these statements made clear the position of the then political authorities and gave assumpt another actions. According to these statements, a number of universities began to repress these scientists, including professors Ronda, Nowaczyk, Czyszewski and others, who became active in the Smolensk Conferences. At the same time, the authorities of many universities began to conceal information about the Smolensk Conferences, and their representatives publically declared that they knew nothing about them. Since invitations to participate in the Conference were sent to all deans of all Polish universities (totaling about 500 invitations were sent), the lie that universities did not have specified cognition [144] sounded highly cynical. The invitation to participate in each Smolensk Conference was besides forwarded to the then president of the Polish Academy of Sciences prof. Michał Kleiber and all organizational units of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Faculty, technological Committees and Institutes) [145]. Neither the president nor any of the technological units of the Polish Academy of Sciences expressed interest in participating in the Smolensk Conferences, and the president of the Polish Academy of Sciences, pretending to know nothing about them, made a public proposal to organise the conference in autumn 2013, which he rapidly withdrew from.
The origin was purely political. It is simply a fear not to discover the truth, for it may be uncomfortable for those in power. Expressis verbis the president of the Polish Academy of Sciences expressed this by justifying his inactivity by receiving a wage from the state budget [144]. This licky attitude towards political power is, of course, justified by the welfare of subordinate workers and the fear of losing grants, grants, promotions, promotions. This is called “concern for improvement opportunities” your own discipline facility. It is hard to find more clear evidence of the moral decline of the leaders of Polish science. The saddest thing, however, is that this mistrust of basic compulsory discipline does not rise the opposition of most academics.
Fig. 36. president of the Polish Academy of Sciences Prof. Michał Kleiber in an interview with ed. Anita Gargas - “I have a wage from our country's budget. I feel about this liable citizen who can't, due to the fact that he represents a state institution, calling a squad to criticize the authoritative papers that our country has issued” [144].
Attempt to save discipline honour
The effort to save the honor of organization discipline was made by the participants of the Second Smolensk Conference, who, in a peculiar appeal of 22 October 2013, addressed to members of the legislature of Polish universities requested
"to adopt appropriate resolutions that will enable your university staff to participate in investigation on the course of Smolensk Disaster with all the rules in force in technological life". In consequence to the arguments about "no resources", the authors of the appeal wrote "We want to emphasise, however, that even in the absence of funds, it is essential to organise technological seminars enabling specified analysis and evaluation of the results presented in the materials, in order to break the sense of indifference in the academic community to the top post-war tragedy in the country. After all, we are all aware that in a situation of keen public interest in the circumstances of the Smolensk Disaster, this manifestive indifference from authoritative academic institutions does not bring them glory, but gives them a sense of shame for many honest people."
This appeal was first sent to each associate of the legislature 48 Polish method universities and universities. They are about 3,000 officers of Polish science. It's shocking, but no of these 3,000 have even responded.
An crucial effort to influence the interest of the technological community in the Smolensk disaster was the appeal of all AKOs (Academic civilian Clubs) in Poland of 3 December 2019[146]. Referring to the aforementioned appeal of the II Smolensk Conference, the Clubs' appeal ended with the following statement:
"The silence of all universities in consequence to this appeal illustrates the atmosphere in the academic community. We are renewing this appeal today. The results of all 4 Smolensk Conferences and the Subcommittee's investigation achievements can now be utilized for analysis. The explanation of the circumstances of the Smolensk disaster cannot stay the domain of politicised publicist. So we call not only on senators, but on the full technological community to make efforts to explain this disaster through technological methods.
We call on the Minister of Science, the president of the Polish Academy of Sciences and the NCBiR to announce applicable investigation programmes and grants in order to supply the essential backing for people and teams wishing to join the research.”
Unfortunately, too, this appeal has been omitted from complete silence. It is hard to have a more meaningful evidence to the moral condition of the Polish academic world.
The last effort of interest in the authoritative discipline institution was my letter opened in July 2020 addressed to the Rectors of Warsaw University of Technology Prof. Jan Szmidt and Rector of AGH prof. Tadeusz Słomka [147]. In this letter I write:
"The situation in which authoritative technological institutions that are tasked with investigating the fact refuse to do their occupation has disastrous social consequences. Social awareness without the voice of authoritative discipline becomes defenseless against propaganda instilling a circumstantial message dictated by political considerations....
Gentlemen Professors,
You have actively contributed to limiting the technological investigation of Smolensk Disaster. Thus, you are jointly liable for differences in public opinion about the causes and course of the Smolensk Disaster. So if you did not want to let the disaster to be studied scientifically, then it is your work as academic staff to explain at least those problems that are even perceived by people with no higher method education.
So explain, for example, the above 4 problems and the associated mystery, how it happened that more than 100 m before the first footprints of the impact on the ground were found between the trees close to each another 4 fragments of the aircraft with specified deformation marks and separated from so different places of the structure of the aircraft – 1 of the lowest parts, and another of the highest ones.
You have condemned those workers who, contrary to your will, have joined the research, and as a reason you have given them an alleged deficiency of competence – by default, only “air crash experts” can be active in the analysis of the disaster. Now is not the time to prove the absurdity of specified a position. But in that case, utilizing your capabilities – after all, each of you is the rector of a large multidisciplinary university – choose the most competent of your subordinates and explain even the 4 identified problems. The public has the right to request this from you."
To be sure, this letter was sent not only to both rectors, but besides to each of the dean's subordinate departments at both universities. This letter remained unanswered.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Basic problem
Thirteen years after the Smolensk Disaster and the death of the president and 95 representatives of the Republic, it is clear that the greater tragedy than the disaster itself is the attitude towards it and the attempts to explain it on the part and
State and institution of authoritative science. Despite the passage of time, it is inactive a problem that gives emergence to social emotions - mainly due to the existence of 2 conflicting versions of events. According to the alleged MAK/Miller hypothesis, the origin of the disaster was a pilot error, in which - The plane hitting the tree lost its wing tip and then turned its wheels upwards with a sliding flight hit the ground, resulting in everyone on board being killed, and the plane disintegrating into over 60,000 shrapnel.
According to the second version, to which the participants of the 4th Smolensk technological Conference from 2012-2015 and another independent studies reached
- I'm sorry. The aircraft crashed in the air many meters above ground as a consequence of a series of interior explosions spreading its parts on the ground over a distance of about 500 m and any pilot's actions were irrelevant to the full tragedy.
It seemed that verification of both versions and deciding which of them was real and which was false was easy. After all, the surface of the earth is the book on which the course of the plane crash is recorded, due to the fact that in the disaster the conclusive evidence is the deformation and dislocation of the remains (cf. Chapter). 0). Nevertheless, we frequently hear the question of whether after all these years we will know the origin of death of those who died in the ministry of the Homeland. specified a question is evidence of many doubts concerning Poles. In both private and public debates, we are profoundly divided. The division runs not according to knowledge, but according to religion – any believe that there was an assassination in Smolensk and others believe that an air accident. The reason for this division of society is desertion of all authoritative technological institutions. In the public sphere, there is no technological opinion, but only fierce publicists with no material knowledge. This causes tremendous harm to public awareness. Most readers, listeners, and viewers do not have access to evidence or the anticipation of self-analysis and base their conviction on the narration of the media. These, for respective years after the Disaster, were dominated by media obeying the power of the time and repeatedly repeated that the MAK/Miller hypothesis was applicable. As already stressed, this has brought social awareness into the alleged well of consciousness [27], from which it is hard to get out, due to the fact that the previously established conviction is hindered. The TVN station and the media performing tasks financed by the Russian Federation play a peculiar function [148].
All these circumstances are the consequence of political conditions. Hostility and fear of taking independent investigation into the period up to 2015 is understandable due to the position of the political authorities at the time. The directors of technological units provided evidence of their loyalty and obedience, which explained their concern for the welfare of subordinate individuals. To avoid hazard and receive funding, grants, and evidence of gratitude from power. However, it is hard to realize the reasons for the reluctance and deficiency of support from the state authorities following the 2015 political changes. Comparing the working conditions of the Smolensk Conference and the Smolensk Subcommittee, I gotta say that working in the Subcommittee was not any easier. Blocking all initiatives by the management, not being able to finance even tiny investigation spending, media hostility, manifest aversion of the academic world, highly unfriendly relations between the management of the Subcommittee, and the prosecution and cutting off from the Subcommittee of government factors and the President. All of this made members of the Subcommittee feel alone and unsupported in their work.
Attempt to reconstruct the wreckage
The efforts I personally made to reconstruct the wreckage are worth the attention. By imposing a survey of the Smolensk Disaster in accordance with Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention, the Russian side was given the chance to destruct Polish specialists from the investigation, but at the same time accepted the request for reconstruction of the wreckage provided for in that Annex. As the Russian side refused to return the wreckage, I prepared a letter to the Ministry of abroad Affairs in November 2017 to ask the Russian side for approval to reconstruct the wreckage by the Subcommittee in Smolensk. Since the Subcommittee cannot execute reconstruction in Poland, we will come to Smolensk and there together with Russian colleagues we will execute reconstruction. The letter contained a justification:
"We would like to clarify that in order to meet the obligations of the Subcommittee and to find the causes of the disaster, it is essential to reconstruct the aircraft from parts collected at the site of the disaster. This is simply a procedure recommended for the ICAO investigation of aviation accidents. Thanks to this reconstruction, the causes of many known air accidents have been identified. An example is the Boeing 747 aircraft crash in Lockerba on 21 December 1988 as well as the Boeing 777 aircraft (MH17 flight), which crashed on 17 July 2014 in Ukraine. In both cases, the origin of the disaster was determined only by reconstructing the wreckage from the remains."
After perturbations, this letter was addressed to the Ministry of abroad Affairs on 29.03.2018. At the time, Minister of abroad Affairs Jacek Czaputowicz sent this request to the Ministry of abroad Affairs of the Russian Federation via the Polish Embassy in Moscow on 10.04.2018, to which the ministry replied on 22.05.2018 in a letter, which reads, among others, "Polish competent authorities were besides notified of the impossibility of reconstructing the aircraft from fragments collected at the scene without affecting them, their external appearance and circumstantial featuresIt’s okay. ” The content of this answer did not scope me until 18 July 2018. Within 4 days I prepared another speech to the Ministry of abroad Affairs with the following request:
"Dear Minister,
We ask to talk on behalf of the Republic of Poland as a associate of ICAO to the president of the ICAO Council, who is presently Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu, to convene a gathering of the ICAO Council, in accordance with Article 52, to establish a peculiar Committee for the Evaluation of Compliance of Annex 13 by another ICAO member, i.e. the Russian Federation. In peculiar Committee should be authorised by the Russian Federation to reconstruct the wreck provided for in ‘Manual of Aircraft Accident and incidental Investigation. Part III. Investigation ” [149]. This manual not only regulates the way in which aircraft accidents are investigated in accordance with Annex 13, but indicates circumstances requiring reconstruction of the wreckage in Smolensk Disaster. As we wrote in our letter dated 29.03.2018, The subcommittee considers the reconstruction of the wreck as a essential condition for the completion of its work, and in accordance with Article 55(e) the ICAO Council has the full right to undertake reconstruction studies at the request of the Republic of Poland. If the Russian Federation does not agree to the reconstruction of the wreckage by Polish experts, Committee should establish an global squad of experts to reconstruct the wreckage.
It must be stressed that the Russian Federation will not be able to block this initiative, as it will not have a vote in the substance at all as a organization to the dispute under Article 53. If, despite the Council's position, Committee The Russian Federation will proceed to block the fulfilment of the powers of the Republic of Poland under Annex 13, Poland under the Chicago Convention will have the full right to request suspension of the Russian Federation in the voting law both in the Council and in the ICAO Assembly."
The breach by the Russian side of Annex 13 gives the chance to include an crucial global institution on the Polish side. It must be remembered that by 2015 the state authorities had actively opposed any engagement of global institutions in the investigation of the Smolensk Disaster. After 2015, the state authorities are simply passive and anticipate that time will origin a deficiency of interest in the Disaster and everyone will forget it. This is besides the policy pursued by the National Prosecutor's Office, which, after taking over the investigation from the Military territory Prosecutor's Office in Warsaw, has not yet presented the desired results of the exhumation or commissioned research. This results in global public opinion believing in the MAK/Miller hypothesis. Despite the work of the Smolensk Conference and the Smolensk Subcommittee in databases collecting information on aviation accidents as required by ICAO, the MAK/Miller hypothesis is continuously placed in the first version with 4 approaches. The following is the text for the Smolensk Disaster, which is contained in the largest database containing 34422 flight crash documentation. It is simply a database run by The Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A) established in 1990 in Geneva. On the page dedicated to Smolensk Disaster, we read [150]:
"During the approach to Smolensk airport in bad weather conditions, the crew was forced to leave for the second ellipse and the approach was interrupted 3 times. During the 4th approach, At 260 km/h, the aircraft exceeded minimum safety altitude, hit tree tops, lost its left wing and crashed into a massive explosion. All 96 people on board died, including the president of Poland Lech Kaczyński and his wife. He flew to Smolensk to participate in the celebration of the 70th anniversary of the Katyn crime in which the russian Army killed 20,000 Polish officers. Among the delegations were besides members of the legislature and the Government of the Republic of Poland; erstwhile President, Vice president of the Lower House, Vice president of the Senate, president of the NBP, Head of the Military Staff, Head of the Land Forces, Head of the Air Force,
Probable cause: The immediate origin of the accident was to descend below the minimum level of descent at an excessive rate of descent at atmospheric conditions that prevented visual contact with the ground and delayed completion of the second circle. These circumstances led to an impact on the field obstacle resulting in the separation of the part of the left wing along with the darts and consequently the failure of control of the aircraft and possible impact on the ground.’
This is the consequence of the deficiency of cooperation in the investigation of Smolensk Disaster with global institutions. Not supported by any state activity remained without effect both the proceeding in March 2012 in the European Parliament [151] and the October 2018 Resolution of the Council of Europe on the return of Poland to wrecks and black boxes [152].
Action needed
There is no major problem in Poland than dramatic social division and the request to reduce it. The symbol and frequently the origin of this division is the attitude towards the Smolensk Disaster. Just as the foundation of the Polish People's Republic was the "cathin lies", so present the attitude to the Smolensk Disaster is fundamental to social disputes. In fact, we already know everything about its course and causes. However, the fact that for 13 years a large part of society was put into the heads of the MAK/Miller hypothesis caused it to be stuck in a well consciousness [27] and no statements from persons and institutions which are not reliable to her can change that state. The change can only be achieved by a clear position expressed by a individual or institution whose authority will respect and recognise the supporters of both beliefs and which will carry out a technological review of the MAK reports, the Miller Committee and the Smolensk Subcommittee [153]. This is simply a conventional tradition of learning - only works that receive affirmative reviews can be utilized to gain a degree in science. The works not reviewed have no technological value, but only public value.
This could be done by authoritative discipline institutions, e.g. a peculiar committee under the direction of the PAN Mechanics Committee, accepting to carry out Scientific Review reports from the Miller Commission and Subcommittee. But with the current attitude of technological institutions to analyse the Disaster, it is hard to imagine specified a commission in Poland.
Another solution is the publication of articles in renowned technological journals of global scope or at global technological conferences where individual studies would be presented. Publications at specified conferences and journals are always reviewed by technological authorities and due to the advanced technological level are out of scope of slanderous propagandaists without cognition to realize and attack them. Many specified publications have already appeared. These include papers at many global conferences and publications by specified authors as Prof. Binienda and his colleagues, Prof. Olejnik and his colleagues from WAT, Jorgensen, Krzysiak and others [154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170]. All these publications and conferences were positively reviewed by competent bodies, which guarantees their technological correctness. It must be recalled here that neither the MAK study nor the Miller committee study nor the Subcommittee study were reviewed, so they have only public value, not technological value. The many partial publications cited above already have this value. They concern many passages of the Subcommittee study and in this respect give these passages technological value. However, it is hard to find a reputable technological diary to review and print all subsequent chapters of the report.
Therefore, only the implementation of the request made continuously since 2011 by the Solidarity Association 2010 [171] remains. This association demands:
Judgement and just punishment: Donald Tusk, Radosław Sikorski, Bogdan Klich, Tomasz Arab, Jerzy Miller for suspected betrayal of the interests of the Polish state
Setting up an global commission to analyse the causes of the disaster
Immediate consent to exhumation of victims' bodies
Disclosure of satellite photos of the crash site on 10.04.2010
The first of the demands is not related to the survey of the Disaster, and the 3rd and 4th have already been met. It is crucial to call for an global committee, albeit with a somewhat changed task. A competent committee should be appointed to examine and review reports. To make specified a review credible and convincing for all, it is best to address bodies that are called upon to analyse disasters. For more power to convince doubters about the review, 2 specified bodies must be addressed. Could be an American NTSB-- National Transportation Safety Board – i.e. National Transport Safety Board. It is an American, government, independent organization that investigates accidents: air, road, water and rail in the United States [172]. This organization is maintained by the United States Congress. The TSB performs a akin function in Canada - The Transportation Safety Board of Canada - The Canadian Transportation Safety Council. It is an independent agency that increases transport safety by examining incidents in air, maritime, pipeline and railway transport [173]. In France, the function of specified a full BEA - Bureau Enquętes-Accidents - BEA is an authoritative French organisation liable for method investigation of accidents and incidents in civilian aviation [174]. Established in 1946, BEA falls under the Ministry of Transport. BEA conducts investigations and issues reports in an entirely independent manner [175]. In the UK, the aviation crash survey is conducted by AAIB - Air Accidents Investigation Branch - I'm sorry. Air Accident Investigation Branch as a branch in the British Department of Transport [176].
There will be no problem uncovering a competent and reliable for all reviewers of MAK and Subcommittee reports. The review will most likely not halt TVN's speeches, but will make everyone aware of the difference between propaganda and technological research. 1 thing to remember is asking for an independent review of the reports. Reviewers must take into account that the organisation of the flight to Smolensk on 10.04.2010 was prepared so that The president and the Polish delegation had to board Tu-154 No 101. There was no another plane, just this one.
Warsaw, 22.07.2023
Bibliographic footnotes
- https://www.tvp.info/66005067/za-po-psl-disposed-629-military units-semonic-natural-process-
- https://polska-gunna.pl/home/articleshow/24255?t=Retention-general-Pytla
- https://www.polskieradio.pl/399/7977/article/3076187,controversies-wokol-investigation-ws-general-pytla-w-tle-related-to-Russian-specifics
- https://www.wnp.pl/defence industry/American-shield-antiracite-in-polska-in-2020-r,329005.html
- https://tvn24.pl/world/lawrow-u-ambasadorow-w-polsce-dot-unimaginable-ra144903-3588915
- https://www.rp.pl/politics/art5548921-State-election-committee-on-training-in-Russia
- https://www.money.pl/archive/news_agency/pap/article/move; visa-free;with;circuit; Kaliningrad;juz;after tomorrow,178,0,988338.html
- html
- https://www.money.pl/economy/awareness/article/waldemar-pawlak-moze-hear-claims,103,0, 2410343.html
- >TABLE>
- https://www.money.pl/archive/news_agency/pap/article/duda;o;takeover;obligations of the President;through;commorative;10;April,100,0,702052.html
- Following the change of government in October 2007, the WSI verification committee by decision of its president Jan Olszewski was transferred to the BBN office in the presidential palace and there found the archive of the verification commission as well as the WSI liquidation commission; https://archivem.rp.pl/article/734792-What-documents-WSI-tratly-to-Palacu.html
- https://nielezna.pl/9155-petelicki-demasks-author-sms-from-10 April
- "General drove to the garage at 3:16 p.m. to get water from the car's retention compartment due to the fact that his wife asked him to do so", but alternatively of bringing water to his wife, "he committed suicide"; https://www.wprost.pl/country/10334901/death-gen-slawomir-petelic-creation-grom-osma-annual-new-facts.html
- https://www.tvp.info/62755765/jezeli-no-land-to-mnie-kill-internauts-write-o-fake-newsie-tvn-na-themat-catastrophe-smolensk
- https://news.journal.pl/events/Articles/323638,May-sensational-film-ex-clot-before-exit-here-154.html
- https://tvn24.pl/polska/sa-proof-ze-general-blasik-byl-w-kokpicie-ra197513-3489608
- https://news.wp.pl/tak-gen-blasik-nazl-sie-w-kokpicie-tu-154-stenogram-with-meeting-commission-miller-6187519615899777a
- https://news.wp.pl/mystery-press-on-zaloge-tu-154-soon-to-know-truth-60378578144 18049a
- https://news.onet.pl/country/mak-alcohol-we-blood-gen-blasika/new5
- https://news.wp.pl/mystery-press-on-zaloge-tu-154-soon-to-know-truth-60378578144 18049a
- https://www.rp.pl/politics/art15115801-palikot-lech-kaczynski-ma-blood-na-rekach
- https://www.se.pl/news/Polish/palikot-o-Smolensk-dunk-lecha-kaczynski-aa-8TZL-YVSx-gE57.html
- https://election.pl/7,75398,12824105,valesa-i-palikot-obarzeja-brothers-kaczynski-wine-za-catastrofe. html
- The crew of the Tu-154 aircraft were people with very advanced qualifications and aviation experience. It is worth noting that aircraft commander Arkadiusz Protasiuk knew Smolensk North Airport well and on 7 April 2010 served as a co-pilot. He was 1 of the best pilots and spent until the end of 2009 behind the rudders of the aircraft 3473 hours.
- https://tvn24.pl/polska/zaloga-no-should-be-accepted-to-flight-in-day-10-April-2010-year-ra533780
- https://wpoliticy.pl/smolensk/335042-only-u-nas-prof-witkowski-in-7-year-old-catastrophe-smolensk-universal-zaloba-polakow-discrete-with-joy-some-environment
- https://www.fakt.pl/issue-specific/issue_special_10042010.pdf
- https://static.presspublica.pl/red/rp/pdf/country/Agreement_z_14_grudnia_1993%20r._(616%20KB).pdf
- http://www.icao.int/publications/Pages/doc7300.aspx
- http://www.ulc.gov.pl/_download/law/international law/conventions/convention_101010.pdf
- https://3opic.pl/boss-pkbwl-dr-maciej-lasek-is-a liar-and-swindler/
- https://news.onet.pl/country/badal-cause-catastrophe-Smolensk-who-is-edmund-klich/0sm9r57
- Piotr Pszczółkowski "Legal basis for researching causes of Smolensk Disaster", Conference Materials, 2nd Smolensk Conference 21-22.10.2013, Organizational Committee of the Smolensk Conference, Warsaw 2014
- Piotr Daranowski "Agreement defining the legal basis and mode of investigating Smolensk catastrophe", Conference materials, 2nd Smolensk Conference 21-22.10.2013, Organizational Committee of the Smolensk Conference, Warsaw 2014
- https://news.wp.pl/tusk-collection-responsibility-for-all-decision-6036804387164801a
- https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/36_Special_Pu%C5%82k_Aircraft_Transport
- https://www.rmf24.pl/reports/report-lech-kaczynski-nie-zyje-2/facts/news-still-in-know-what-status-mial-do-smolenska,nId,298973#crp_state=1
- https://news.wp.pl/is-document-which-period-status-flight-to-Smolenska-6036656974099073a
- https://orka2.sejm.gov.pl/IZ6.nsf/main/40072E80
- http://www.gasetarawna.pl/news/articles/479258,report_mak_international_organisation_civil aviation_no_zamie_sie_polskie_revocation
- Ordinance of the Minister of National Defence of 26 May 2004 on the organisation and functioning of the Air Aviation Accident Investigation Commission, OJ 2004 No 138, item 1464
- https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e67487f5cc05f676059cff0/t/5e675aedf1442d1a13bf582f/1583831793 535/Justification.pdf
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Research_accident%C3%B3in_Aircraft_Pa%C5%84in
- https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maciej_Lasek
- https://www.youtube.com/embed/6zl3XgP7vds
- https://podkomisjasmolensk.mon.gov.pl/file/report/block_C/Appendix_nr_28/_ReportArcheo/Arch_Report.pdf
- [48] In agreement with Prof. Andrzej Buko of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences on 7 June 2016, I organized a gathering of members of the archaeological squad with members of the Smolensk Subcommittee.
- The first location of the black box was documented on his celebrated movie by Polish tv editor Sławomir Wiśniewski.
- html
- https://bliskopolski.pl/catastrofa-smolenska/investigation/
- The decision to initiate the investigation was issued on 10.04.2010 by the Prosecutor of the Military territory Prosecutor's Office in Warsaw – Colonel Karol Kopczyk. The investigation was given a signature of P. Sl. – 54/10 and was conducted "on a case occurring on 20 April 2010 at around 9.00 a.m. Polish time close the military airport in Smolensk in the Russian Federation inadvertently bringing the crash into air traffic, resulting in the death of all passengers of the Tu-154 aircraft side number 101 of the Polish Air Force, including president of the Republic of Poland Lech Kaczyński and crew members of the designated aircraft, i.e. acts a Article 173 §2 and 4 kk" (Tom 1, p. 242).
- The camera from Anita Gargas's video.
- https://www.gasetaprrawna.pl/news/articles/609954,sejm-no-occupy-project-return-wreck-tu154m.html
- In addition to many navigation and pilot equipment, it had a full of 8 recorders. These were 2 disaster recorders recording data on magnetic tape, i.e. the flight data recorder MŁP-14-5 (FDR - Flight Data Recorder) and the sound recorder MARS-BM No.323025 (CVR - Cockpit Voice Recorder) recording conversations conducted in the cockpit of the aircraft and with external centers. In addition, Tu-154 had 6 operating recorders: 1) FMS (Flight Management System) produced by UASC; 2) TAWS (Terrain Awareness and informing System) - Earth proximity informing system; 3) TCAS (Traffic Collision Aviation System) - collision hazard informing strategy with another aircraft; 4) ATM-QAR/R128ENC (Quick Access Recorder) - an electronic flight data recorder based on a removable data recorder; 5) KBN-1-1 - operating flight data recorder with a KS-13 tray and cassette; 6) KZ-63 - three-channel electromechanical operating recorder.
- https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_K3-63. In the KZ-63 recorder, flight parameters are recorded by optical method on about 10 metres of perforated 36 mm wide movie tape adequate for about 25 hours of flight.
- https://subcomisjasmolensk.mon.gov.pl/file/report/block_C/Annex_nr_27/Annex_nr_27.pdf
- https://events.interia.pl/report-lech-kaczynski-no-lives/news-prosecutions-turn-with-samples-ze-smolenska,nId,1007219
- https://wpolitics.pl/smolensk/229550-tej-juz-da-sie-translation-clkp-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w
- Krystyna Kamieńska-Trela, Sławomir Szymanski, ‘Notes on the opinion of the CLKP on physicochemical investigation of evidence’, Conference materials, 3rd Smolensk Conference 20 October 2014, Organizational Committee of the Smolensk Conference, Warsaw 2015
- Jacek Wójcik, "Mass spectrometry of the soot left after ethylene oxide detonation Answers any questions on the crash of Polish Air Force Flight 101", diary of Forensic Sciences, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, https://doi.org/10.111/1556-4029.14943,
- https://wpolityka.pl/smolensk/575376-prof-vitamin-cause-break-up-kadlub-in-Smolensk
- https://www.youtube.com/embed/BP3lInh8yrg
- Letter No ZMS 205/A2010 of 10 May 2010 of the Warsaw Medical University from the Department and Department of Judicial Medicine, addressed to the Military territory Prosecutor's Office in Warsaw
- https://www.tvp.info/53377540/eva-kopacz-po-katastrofi-smolenska-co-and-when-we-have-translations-former-premier-interviews-press-conferences-nt-section-promotion-victim-check-calendar
- Grażyna Przybylska-Wendt "Credibility of the Judicial and Medical Documentation of the Victims of Smolenska Disaster", Conference Materials, 3rd Smolenska Conference on 20 October 2014, Organizational Committee of the Smolenska Conference, Warsaw 2015.
- https://www.gasetarawna.pl/news/articles/1116287, summary-exhumation-victimal-catastrophe-smolenska.html
- html
- https://wpoliticy.pl/smolensk/335691-discovery-makabra-discovery-after-exhumation-victims-1004-o-to-what-we were-talent-Russians-thanks-can-opening- coffins
- In this case, I personally conducted a polemic with the onet.pl portal, on which false information was placed, that the ban on beginning coffins was derived from the Act of 31 January 1959 on cemeteries and burying the dead.
- https://www.tvp.info/69211378/woroknicza-17-malgorzata-wassermann-disclosure-injury-results-section-provision-my-father
- https://www.rmf24.pl/reports/report-lech-kaczynski-nie-zyje-2/facts/news-American-pathologist-very-ostro-o-Russian-research-sophie,nId,593659#crp_state=1
- https://www.sejm.gov.pl/sejm7.nsf/InterpellationTresc.xsp?key=4DF3C760
- To give the committee meaning, the Russians called it international. Its short name MAK comes from the words Межгосударственный Aвиационный Kомитет. The Commission was headed by 71-year-old aviation general Tatiana Anodina. Considered 1 of the most powerful and likely richest women in Russia; https://bliskopolski.pl/catastrofa-smolenska/mak/
- https://factssmolensk.nonzniknelo.com/files/files/files/files/report/Note-in_polska.pdf
- https://mak-iac.org/upload/iblock/807/finalreport_rus.pdf
- Polish translation of the MAK study is available at: https://doc.rmf.pl/rmf_fm/store/Translation-final-project-report-final.pdf
- https://bliskopolski.pl/catastrofa-smolenska/mak/
- https://www.bankier.pl/news/Premier-report-MAK-not-including-all-note-2271862.html
- https://www.rp.pl/events/Article6861431-mak-union-report-from-catastrophe-Smolensk
- https://doc.rmf.pl/rmf_fm/store/rkm.pdf
- It's about a birch increasing on Bodin's land, called Bodin's birch.
- http://conferencesmoleńska.pl/
- An experimental survey at Akron University showed that hitting the birch of the metallic part at 270 km/h results in spreading to the sawdust a fragment of a tree straight subject to impact. The impact of the TU-154 on Bodin's birch would gotta turn a part of birch into sawdust, and the matching parts of the birch prove that there was no specified thing.
- The reconstruction of the left wing by Tomasz Ziemski was verified and confirmed by specialists from the University of Wichita.
- https://www.youtube.com/embed/62EXJMFGHxs
- The photograph was taken on 13.04.2010 by Jan Gruszyński.
- http://n744pm.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/lot-5055catastrophe-%E2%80%9Ecots
- Piotr Witakowski "Mechanism of demolition in Selected Aviation Disasters"; Conference Materials, Smolensk Conference 22 October 2012, Organizational Committee of the Smolensk Conference, Warsaw 2013
- http://www.baaa-acro.com/Fiches%20d%27accidents/ 2011/EX-020.htm
- https://www.sejm.gov.pl/sejm7.nsf/agent.xsp?symbol=ZESPOL&Zesp=94
- https://smolenskzespol.sejm.gov.pl/zespolsmolensk.nsf/meetings.xsp
- https://static.presspublica.pl/red/rp/pdf/country/bialaksiega.pdf
- https://orka.sejm.gov.pl/ZespolSmolenskMedia.nsf/EventsByLink/MJAI-97K9UE/$File/Report_28_mie się _po_Smolensk.pdf
- https://orka.sejm.gov.pl/ZespolSmolenskMedia.nsf/EventsByLink/MJai-97K9TJ/%24File/Ksiazka_Rap ort_Smolenski_wyd2.pdf
- https://orka.sejm.gov.pl/ZespolSmolenskMedia.nsf/files/ZSMK-9J2HEM/%24File/Four%20years%20by%20Smole%C5%84sk.pdf
- https://onedrive.live.com/View.aspx?resid=F2B2D4565888AE3F%21192&wdEmbedFS=1&authkey=%21ACI-J0EDFu33m8w
- Piotr Witakowski “Introduction to the Conference”, Conference Materials, Smolensk Conference 22.10.2012, Organizational Committee of the Smolensk Conference, Warsaw 2013
- In addition to average media assaults, specified as against prof. Jack Ronda, TVN organized peculiar groups that went to the jobs of professors working abroad with a mission to discredit them before the management of their university. It was highly vile to keep specified a delegation during a visit to the University of Georgia, Athens, where it was attempted to lead to dismissal from the work of prof. Cris Czyszewski, who was employed there.
- Piotr Witakowski "Introduction to the Conference", Conference Materials, 4th Smolensk Conference 14.11.2015, Organizational Committee of the Smolensk Conference, Warsaw 2016
- Conference materials, Smolensk Conference 22.10.2012, Organizational Committee of the Smolensk Conference, Warsaw 2013.
- Conference materials, 2nd Smolensk Conference 21-22.10.2013, Organizational Committee of the Smolensk Conference, Warsaw 2014.
- Conference materials, the 3rd Smolensk Conference 20.10.2014, Organizational Committee of the Smolensk Conference, Warsaw 2015
- Conference materials, 4th Smolensk Conference 14.11.2015, Organizational Committee of the Smolensk Conference, Warsaw 2016
- http://conferencencesmolenska.pl/summary/zal2.pdf
- Piotr Witakowski "Mechanism of demolition in Selected Aviation Disasters", Conference Materials, Smolensk Conference 22.10.2012, Organizational Committee of the Smolensk Conference, Warsaw 2013
- /https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105
- http://www.baaa-acro.com/Photos-62/RA-85744-21.jpg
- http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/ wtcfires2.html
- https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_17_line_Malaysia_Airlines
- http://www.3news.co.nz/Britain-asks-Libya-for-help-with-Lockerbie-bombing-investigation/tabid/417/arti cle ID/227396/Default.aspx
- http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/ZespolSmolenskMedia.nsf/EventsByLink/MJAI-97K9EU/$File/ Report_28_mie się _po_Smolensk.pdf
- film Anita Gargas "Anatomical of the Fall", Independent Polish Publishing House, December 2012.
- Subcommittee to the Aviation Accident Investigation “Technical Report”, Warsaw 2018; https://subcomisjasmolensk.mon.gov.pl/file/report_technical.pdf
- http://centralaanti-communism.blogspot.com/2011/08/i-yet-one- find.html
- http://orka.sejm.gov.pl/ZespolSmolenskMedia.nsf/files/ZSMK-9RHD7/%24File/ (PHP 4 = 4.0.0)
- http://www.actysmolensk.gov.pl/zdjeciowa/articles/pole-szczatkov
- http://www.nmz-iskra.ru/eng
- https://plf101.livejournal.com/
- https://podkomisjasmolensk.mon.gov.pl/en/index.html
- https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e67487f5cc05f676059cff0/t/5e675aedf1442d1a13bf582f/15838317 93535/Justification.pdf
- The first composition of the Subcommittee: 1) Wacław Berczyński – Chairman, 2) Kazimierz Nowaczyk – I z-ca Chairman, 3) Bogdan Gajewski – II z-ca Chairman, 4) Marcin Gugulski – secretary and members: 5) Wiesław Binielda, 6) Janusz Bujnowski, 7) Wiesław Czerzanowski, 8) Szczepan Cierniak, 9) Marek Dąbrowski, 10) Zdzisław Gosiewski, 11) Kazimierz Grono, 12) Ewa Anna Gruszczyńska-Ziołkowska, 13) Jacek Kołota, 14) Beata Majczyna, 15) Bogdan Nienaltowski, 16) Jan Obrębski, 17) Piotr Stepnowski, 18) Grzegorz Szuladziński, 19) Janusz Więkowski, 20) Krystyna Zieniuk, 21) Andrzej Ziółkowski
- Both the first composition of the Subcommittee as well as any changes in personnel were decided by Antoni Macierewicz personally, but the personnel changes in the composition were not informed by its members, which Macierewicz justified with concern for the safety of the members. This caused difficulties in the work of the Subcommittee, as its members did not know the current composition of the Subcommittee.
- It is worth noting that, as in erstwhile years, the activities of the Subcommittee were extended until the end of August 2023 and are now inactive in operation.
- Piotr Witakowski was appointed to the Subcommittee on 7 March 2016 and served as coordinator of the construction team. On 23.09.2016, he resigned from office and on 31.08.2018 from membership of the Subcommittee.
- In a letter dated 1.03.2017, the authors write, among others, "There are 3 basic tasks on each commission of investigation of air accidents 1) examination of structural debris, 2) examination of the site of the crash, 3) examination of the remains of the victims. The Miller Commission has not carried out any of these tasks, which is understandable for not doing them. This work is presently on the Subcommittee to re-examine the air accident. The fact that the Subcommittee has not done any of these tasks to date besides threatens to negatively measure our work."
- Decision No 274 MON of the Minister of National Defence of 31 August 2016 setting up a subcommittee to re-examine an aviation accident
- Glenn Jorgensen was inactive active as a Danish citizen in the Smolensk Disaster investigation. associate of all Smolensk conferences. He ensured cooperation between the Subcommittee and NIAR and prof. Frank Taylor from the UK. He accepted Polish citizenship. During his work in the Subcommittee, he developed and presented 59 comprehensive analytical studies with a full of 2168 pages. He measured the Tu-154 standing in Minsk 1 by one, recreating the full interior plan of the aircraft. The scope of this work is evidenced by the fact that the results of measurements sent to NIAR included a full of 21868 pages (nearly 22 000 pages). He has carried out a number of model, numerical and experimental pyrotechnic studies bearing the cost of PLN 37 1000 from his own resources for investigation for the Subcommittee.
- Piotr Witakowski "About the conditions of the Smolensk Disaster survey. We must bear witness to the truth’ https://wpoliticy.pl/smolensk/541458-prof-witakowski-o-1004-distorting-subcommittee statement
- http://news.onet.pl/only-in-one/recall-conference-ws-smolenska-po-wantexplained/hdtcess
- Collective work under the editorial board of A. Olejnik "Analysis of results of investigation conducted in WAT to explain the causes of the Smolensk catastrophe", edited by WAT, Warsaw 2017.
- I intervened personally in this substance by letter to the Minister of National Defence, Mariusz Błaszczak.
- After respective months, as a consequence of Ewa Stankiewicz's efforts, my speech returned to the Ronina Club portal.
- [134]On 15.05.2020 to maker of the movie Robert Kaczmark and to then president of TVP Maciej Łopinski Antoni Macierewicz wrote a letter threatening to sue.
- The 1:100 scale model was made by Glenn Jorgensen. The another models were made by WAT.
- https://subcomisjasmolensk.mon.gov.pl/file/report/block_C/Annex_nr_23/Appendix_23-Research NIA_NIAR.pdf
- https://podkomisjasmolensk.mon.gov.pl/file/RAPORT.pdf
- https://subcomisjasmolensk.mon.gov.pl/file/report_technical.pdf
- Annex 38 to the Report: Resolution and study of the Council of Europe
- The recorder on the JAK-40 aircraft records sounds on magnetic wire. In the event of a break, it is crucial to test it to find whether it is only a break or whether the full section of the vehicle has been cut from the place.
- It is said that during many diplomatic meetings the Polish side verbally requested this, but the diplomatic note was never sent, so there is no paper that could be in the diplomatic trade and service as evidence in global contacts.
- Annex 33 to the Subcommittee study to the Air Accident Re-examination ‘Special Services activities after 10.04.2010’; https://subcommissionsjasmolensk.mon.gov.pl/file/report/block_D/Annex_nr_33.pdf
- http://www.pswbp.pl/index.php/updates-work/71-updates-employees/2137-codes-ethics-employee-scientific
- Anita Gargas "Special Task" episode 24 of 19 March 2014
- Invitations to the first conference were sent to the president of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 7 branches of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 23 technological Committees of the Polish Academy of Sciences, 27 institutes of the Polish Academy of Sciences. At the next conferences, due to the broadening of the topic, this number was higher.
- http://ako.poznan.pl/9697/
- Piotr Witakowski "List opened to professors Tadeusz Słomka and Jan Szmidt", https://wpoliticy.pl/politics/510724-list-open-to-professors-tadeusz-slomki-i-jana-szmidta
- The Discovery Channel company for the movie "Death of the President" from the Disaster in the Sky series aired on 27.01.2013 on the National Geographic channel received $18 million from the Russian Federation.
- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8aiechh7K6iX2w3bE5Ua09FWlk/preview
- https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-tupolev-tu-154m-smolensk-96-killed
- http://solidarni2010.pl/2820-public hearing-quotkatastrofa-smolenska---rejected-truthquot-bruxela-28-March-2012-parliament-European.html?PHPSESSID=fd6594a736f350393d1cca321106720d
- https://www.gasetarawna.pl/news/articles/1298965,rada-europy-resolution-calling-rosje-to-return-polska-wrack-smolensk.html
- All papers admitted by the technological Committee to deliver at the Smolensk Conferences received affirmative technological reviews.
- Wieslaw K. Binienda, Keynote Address: “Simulation of Tu154M airplane crash in Smolensk Russia”,Polish-French Symposium on Mechanicals, Warsaw, Poland, May 21, 2012
- Wieslaw K. Binienda, Keynote Address: "Advances in investigating and Analysis of Aerospace materials and Structures as applied for crash of Tu154M", peculiar Plenary Session at ASCE Earth and Space Conference, April 17, 2012
- C. Zhao, W. K. Binienda, F.H. Horvat, and W. Wang, “Application of Numerical Methods for Crashworthiness Investigation of a Large Aircraft Wing Impact with a Tree”, Mathematical and Computing Forestry & Natural Resources Sciences, Vol.5, Issue 1, pp.71-85, 2013
- C. Zhao and W.K. Binienda, “Number and Experimental survey on Deformation and Failure of Trees under High-Velocity Impact Loads” Earth and Space Conference, Cleveland, April 2018
- M. Ding and W.K. Binienda, “Simulation of Trajectory of Separated Objects after Impact”, Earth and Space Conference, Cleveland, April 2018
- Łukasz Kiszkowiak (WAT) “Aerodynamic Modeling Process utilizing Reverse Engineering and Computer Fluid Dynamics” Earth and Space Conference, Cleveland, OH, USA, 10-12 April 2018
- W.K. Binienda, “Application of Reverse Engineering for Large Airplanes Comprehensive Impact Modeling”, ICILSM Xian China, May 7-11, 2018.
- W.K. Binienda, “Technical study of Smolensk Crash Investigation”, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. May 14, 2018
- Aleksander Olejnik, Łukasz Kiszkowiak, Adam Dziubiński, Piotr Witakowski "The application of reverse engineering methods and numerical fluid mechanics for the analysis of aircraft collision resistance", PTMTS, XVIII Conference "Mechanics in Aviation", Kazimierz Dolny 2018
- M. Ding, W. K. Binienda, “Numerical Approach to a Reverse Problem utilizing LS-DYNA3D Analysis: Collection of an Airplane Door with the Ground”, global diary of Crashworthiness, Jan 18, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2018.1549008, 2020.
- Andrzej Krzysiak "Wind Tunnel Tests of harm to the Tu-154M Aircraft Wing", diary of Aerospace Engineering, 2019, 32(6): 04019083
- M. Ding, C. Zeng, and W.K. Binienda, “Assessment on Aerodynamic Degradation for Wing-damaged Transport Aircraft”, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, © Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1748-8842], 2020. DOI 10.1108/AEAT-11-2019-0220, https://www.emerald.com/insight/1748-8842.htm.
- A. Olejnik, L. Kiszkowiak, M. Jędrak, J. Milczarczyk, A. Dziubinski "Crash Analysis of Wing of Large Airplane with a Tree", Earth & Space Conference, Pasadena, April 19-23, 2021
- Dr. Menglong Ding,Dr. Wieslaw K. Binienda "Numerical Impact survey on a Wing of Transport Aircraft with a Birch Tree", Earth & Space Conference, Pasadena, April 19-23, 2021
- M. Ding, W.K. Binienda, “Characterization of Nonlinear Birchwood Model with Strain Rate Effect”, JAE, 35(4), 2022, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0001415.
- Kelly S. Carney, Paul DuBois, Stanisław Cudziło, Glenn A. Jorgensen, Wieslaw K. Binienda, “The Effect of TNT Mass and Standoff Distance on the consequence of full Clamped Circular Aluminum Plates to Confined Air-Blast Loading”, global diary of Impact Engineering, Vol. 170, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijjjimpeng.2022.104357
- Wiesław Binienda "Polish Air Force One, Smolensk, Russia, 2010", global Conference oh Terrorist Attacks on Pasanger Planes, April 2022, Washington, DC
- http://solidarni2010.pl/subpage-postulates-19.html
- https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/home.aspx
- https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/
- https://bea.aero/
- https://www.skybrary.aero/articles/bureau-denquetes-et-danalises-france-bea
- https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/air-accidents-investigation-branch
