Header
Smolensk Crash News Digest
Independent News, Research, Scientific Analysis, and Commentary on the Smolensk Crash and its Implications. Flag of the United States of America
"The dismantling of the Polish State has just ended. Now people will start to disappear." Dr. Janusz Kurtyka Contact | About
  • Smolensk Crash DisinformationNo one saw anything, no one heard anything, no one filmed anything ...
  • Russian Image Management by Euguene PoteatRetired CIA Senior Scientific Intelligence Officer Euguene Poteat speaks out
  • TNT and other explosives detected on the wreckage of Polish presidential planeC4, TNT, RDX, HMX (octogen), p-MNT and Nitroglycerine detected ...
  • Smolensk Crash related deaths"The Serial Suicider" Strikes Again. Key witness dead!
  • Countdown to the crash of Flight PLF101Countdown to the crash of Polish Governement Tupolev TU-154M flight PLF101.
  • Smolensk Widow Beata Gosiewska exposes the Smolnesk Crash LieSmolensk Crash Widow exposes the "Smolensk Lie"
  • The List of 96 Victims of Polish Air Crash In Smolensk, Russia, on April 10, 2010.The list of 96 victims
  • 9 Questions for Professor Binienda.Is the U.S. scientific community interested in the Smolensk crash?
  • The destruction of the plane was initiated while it was still airborne, approaching landing.The destruction of the plane was initiated while it was still airborne, approaching landing.
  • Lech Kaczynski's Security Was Purposefully CompromisedPolish president's security was purposefully compromised!
  • Slide 11 Title Goes HereThe main causes of the Polish Tu-154M crash were two explosions onboard.
  • Facts presented in this report demonstrate a clear and convincing evidence of obstruction of justice in the one-sided and superficial investigation that violates basic norms of any airplane crash investigation, elementary standards of due process of law, and rights of the families of the victims.Was the official investigation an obstruction of justice?
Polish air crash disinformation. Russian Image Management by Retired CIA Senior Scientific Intelligene Officer, Eugene Poteat, LL.D Traces of explosives detected on remains of Polish president's plane. Serial Suicider on the loose. The crash of Flight PLF101 Timeline. Polish air crash lie exposed. Victims of Polish air crash. 9 Questions for the lead scientist in the independent Smolensk crash investigation. Mechanical and structural aspects of 2010 crash of Polish Government Tupolev TU-154M in Smolensk, Russka. Polish president's security was intentionally compromised. Scientific analysis of Smolensk crash points to the invalidity of the official findings. 2014 independent Smolensk Crash Raport: What do we know about Smolensk crash today.

Some Mechanical and Structural Aspects of the Smolensk Crash
By Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski, Ph.D., MSME
SCND2014GS

Appendix I. Collision of the Wing with a Tree (birch)

The issue has somewhat wider aspect than was previously considered. Namely, the results of such collisions depends inter alia on the impact speed. If the speed is high, say 100 m/s or more, the wing would cut trees and other objects stronger than wood. If the speed is low, say 10 m/s, the wing will probably be broken by a tree. If the case is still of interest, it can be resolved quite accurately, using the Finite Element Method, as described below.

Dr. Wieslaw Binienda Comments:

Since the time Dr. Szuladzinski published his first report, new important findings have been obtained. Dr. Szuladzinski himself built his own wing model of Tu154M and conducted several simulations. His results confirmed my results that the wing cuts through the birch tree under the conditions described in the official reports. His simulations also show that the wing with the same speed of 75m/s cuts through even medium size steel poles. It is important to know that steel is 3 times stronger than aluminum while a birch tree is 30 times weaker than aluminum. Also, the speed is the essential factor in assessing the ability of any aluminum structure to cut through other material. Dr. Cieszewski investigated available photographs of the birch tree, studied the sample from the tree to determine material characteristic of this particular birch tree, and investigated satellite images made between January and April 2010. He concluded that the physiology of the birch tree and satellite images of the tree crown show that the birch was broken at least five days before the Smolensk Crash. Finally, experts Jorgenson and Kowaleczko independently have shown through aerodynamic analysis that Tu154M had to fly above the birch tree in order to fall into the location of the crash site. Hence, all of the above work as well as parallel investigation of the fragmentation of the airplane on the crash site and the analysis of the debris prove that the airplane had no contact with the birch tree and crashed due to the explosions in the wing and fuselage at a low altitude. Accordingly, all independent scientist analysing the birch tree scenario from various fields of expertise, come to the same conclusion that the birch tree could not cut a fragment of the left wing of Tu-154M on April 10, 2010.

- Dr. Wieslaw Binienda, Ph.D., F.ASCE, March 25, 2014

The most important aspect of an aircraft wing colliding with a tree is a local phenomenon, namely, which of these two objects causes more damage to the other in the vicinity of the collision. It is therefore sufficient to build a small FEA model with a relatively short segment of the wing and a tree. Such a model should be inexpensive to prepare and execute, in terms of time needed for the task. In subsequent repeats of simulation, one must also reduce the impact speed, until a certain critical speed is reached when the wing is weaker than the tree.

There is also something more important about such a collision. A typical "cross" collision of two slender objects end up breaking or shearing only one of them. There is a very little chance that the two objects become broken. This means that if the tree was cut, the wing survived (with superficial damage) and vice versa. This should close the discussion on the possible role of the birch in this case.

Even if the MAK is right and contrary to recent research there was contact between the birch and the wing, neither the change of course was not noticeable, nor wing did not suffer much, so the role of the birch should be completely removed from consideration.

Despite a protracted discussion about which was stronger, the birch or the wing, no one has done a simple calculation based on the nominal static strength. Both for the birch and the wing the strength is the product of the effective cross section and the shear strength of the material.

The analysis should begin at this point, before using advanced methods. The difference in strength of these two elements may be so large that the dynamic approach may prove unnecessary. It should be noted that the velocity makes the cross section of the wing stronger.

 

Parts of this Report
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

 
Explosives Found on the Wreckage

Conclusive evidence of explosives detection emerges! Antoni Macierewicz Press Conference, July 19, 2013. Examples of Spectrometer readouts released to the public.

Conclusive evidence of explosives detection emerges! Antoni Macierewicz Press Conference, July 19, 2013. Examples of Spectrometer readouts released to the public.

Read more here

 

The translation of all materials included on this website into English language, unless otherwise noted, is Copyright ©2008 - 2016 by DoomedSoldiers.com. All Rights Reserved. All materials on this website are subject to the United States and International Copyright Laws and are the property of their respective owners, appearing herewith under The Greater Public Good Doctrine.

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.

Word Press WP3.8.1a b1.1