Findings of the Polish Parliamentary Committee for the Investigation of the Smolensk Crash
According to the IAC Final Report, “the aircraft collided with the birch with a trunk diameter of 30–40 cm, which led to the left outer wing portion of about 6.5 m ripped off and intensive left bank. In 5–6 more seconds, inverted, the aircraft collided with the ground and was destroyed.”71Accordingly, the encounter with the birch that resulted in the loss of a part of the wing caused the plane to invert and crash. This scenario was illustrated by an animation demonstrating IAC's interpretation of the last moments of the airplane before the crash. This animation was not supported by any scientific or forensic analysis of the crash scene, but rather represented a work of art contrary to basic law of physics.
On September 8, 2011, Dr. Wieslaw Binienda, an authority on high-energy impacts on materials and structures testifying before the Polish Parliamentary Committee, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the collision with the birch could not have ripped the outer portion of the wing from the aircraft. While applying all parameters presented in the IAC Final Report in a rigorous finite element analysis, he demonstrated through a virtual experiment that the high- energy impact causes the wing to act like an ax, cutting the birch with only a small amount of damage to the edge of the wing but without any damage to the lifting area of the wing.72 These findings directly challenged the scenario presented by the IAC.
However, even if the scenario presented by the IAC is assumed whereby the birch rips off 1/3 of the length of the wing at the height of 6.5 meters from the ground, the ripped-off portion of the wing could not have fallen as far as 111 meters from the birch where it was found. The aerodynamic simulation shows that the ripped off part would crash to the ground no further than 12 meters from the birch at velocity of 100 km/h. The inspection of the crash scene showed that the ripped off portion of the left wing was found leaning against the trees 111 meters from the birch and on the right side of the path of the airplane. The observed damage to the trees and to the ripped off segment of the wing excludes the possibility of a velocity of 100 km/h at the point of impact.
In order to explain the final location of the ripped off segment of the wing, the aerodynamic analysis of free flow of the segment was conducted, requiring that the landing spot of the segment corresponds with the location at which it was found.73 The results obtained indicated that the separation from the wing at velocity of 80 m/s happened at a distance of 70 meters from the birch and 26 meters from the ground. Thus, the aerodynamic analysis demonstrates that the IAC's assumed path of 6.5 meters above the ground was 20 meters too low and the location of the separation of the wing was off by 70 meters.
Furthermore, the IAC's conclusion that the airplane traveling at the height of 6.5 meters from the ground could overturn is also impossible because the span of the wing is 19 meters. After presumably losing 6.5 meters on the birch, the remaining 12.5 meters of the wing was still longer than the distance to the ground of 6.5 meters. Thus, the IAC conclusion that “after intensive left bank” the airplane “inverted” is obviously impossible and erroneous.
So, possibly in anticipation of this problem, the IAC version of the crash assumes that the airplane after losing 1/3 of the wing is gaining height. This scenario also poses a fundamental problem because after losing a significant part of the wing, the airplane would be unable to gain any height. Accordingly the scenario presented by the IAC is incorrect in all fundamental aspects, and thus, impossible.
71 Findings No. 3.1.69 and 3.1.70, IAC Final Report, English translation, p. 180.
72 Wieslaw Binienda, „Czy brzoza w Smoleńsku mogła złamać skrzydło Tu-154M 10 kwietnia 2010 roku?” as posted on November 7, 2011 at http://bit.ly/1d9y2vg.
73 The analysis was based on solid-fluid interaction and high velocity aerodynamic drag laws of physics.
Cover-up by "Suicide"
Remarkably convenient suicides ...
Remigiusz Mus, the flight engineer on Yak-40 whose landing immediately preceded PLF 101 and whose testimony implicated the Russian flight controllers, died of suicide.
This rounds out the death of the entirety of key witnesses whose testimonies could prove that the flight controllers bore at least partial responsibility for the mysterious crash that killed the Polish President Lech Kaczynski and 95 others near Smolensk, Russia, on April 10, 2010.
Suicide. So says the Polish Prosecutors office under the administration of Donald Tusk, Bronislaw Komorowski, and the Civic Platform party (Platforma Obywatelska, PO) - the people who came out on top following the disaster of Flight PLF 101. The position of the Prosecutors office is that the autopsy indicated death by hanging with no defensive wounds and and alcohol level of one permille (.01%).
General Konstantin Anatolyevich Morev, chief of the Federal Security Services (FSB), successor to KGB, office in Tver, who interviewed the Russian flight controllers, died at the end of August 2011. His body was found in his office. The official cause of death was a self-inflicted gunshot wound from his service revolver.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views the SmolenskCrashNews.com. All information is provided on an as-is basis, and all data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. The Smolensk Crash News DOT COM makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.