Crash of the Polish Air Force One, 2014 Status Report
By Maria Szonert Binienda, J.D.
SCNDMSB2014SR

VI. Russian Conclusions Proven Wrong

A. Key Technical Findings Proven False

The most important technical findings presented in the Russian Report have been proven false beyond a reasonable doubt by independent internationals experts from the USA, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Denmark, Germany, Poland and Russia. They all collaborated with the Polish Parliamentary Committee for the Investigation of the Smolensk Crash for an extensive period of time. Also, experts from all over the world presented their findings at two scientific conferences on the Smolensk Crash that took place in Warsaw, Poland, in October of 2012 and 2013. Their findings invalidate the Russian scenario that the aircraft rolled over as a result of intensive left bank caused by losing a fragment of the wing in the collision with a birch tree.⁷⁵ The most important findings of the independent experts are as follow:

Vertical and horizontal trajectory presented by the Russians is wrong; (K. Nowaczyk, G. Jorgensen,) ⁷⁶

[19] (above) Russian trajectory vs. TAWS trajectory; Source: K. Nowaczyk

[20] (above) Danish Engineer G. Jorgensen Rejects Russian Trajectory; Source: Ingenioren, 02. 21. 2014.

According to computer simulations, the birch tree could not cut off the left wing; (Prof. W. Binienda). The birch tree was already broken before the crash. (Prof. C. Cieszewski).⁷⁷

[21] (above) The birch tree that allegedly cut off the wing. Source: J. Gruszczyński, C. Cieszewski

[22] (above) Strength of the birch tree reduced due to numerous knots. Source: C. Cieszewski.

Even assuming that the birch tree cut off the wing, as claimed by the Russians, the lift loss caused by the loss of the wing tip should not cause the plane to roll-over. (Jorgensen)⁷⁸

The wreckage of the plane, shape of debris and conditions of the bodies point to explosion in mid air. (G. Szuladzinski, J. Obrębski, S. Zagrodzki).

[23] (above left) A piece of debris characteristic of explosion: Source: Analytical Services Pty Ltd; [24] (above right) A piece of debris showing signs of explosion; Source: Prof. J Obrębski.

Finally, a self-evident photograph showing a large part of the fuselage at the crash site proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the fuselage first opened up in the air, then inverted in the air, and hit the ground in the inverted position. Thus, the wreckage fell to the ground inverted with both side walls of the fuselage bent outside. One wall of the fuselage was turned outside to the left and the other wall was turned outside to the right. According to Prof. W. Binienda, this configuration of the fuselage at the crash site is only possible as a result of explosion in mid-air.⁷⁹

[25] (above) A part of the fuselage inverted and opened up. Source: Polish Parliamentary Committee

The fuselage burst into many pieces. The front parts of the fuselage and the cockpit were not inverted while rear parts of the fuselage were found in the inverted position. All cargo was blown away from the cargo space. Gears were in revers position. All passenger seats disintegrated into pieces and the bodies of the victims were either found in small pieces, or without external clothing, or not found at all. Pieces of burnt human remains were found far away from the fire zone. The evidence points out to several explosions in mid-air at a low altitude as the only explanation of the type of damage documented at the crash site.

________________

Footnotes:

⁷⁵ “Danish Engineer Rejects Official Explanation behind Polish Plane Crash,” Ingenioren, Feb. 21, 2014; http://bit.ly/1fC6VEN (retrieved March 14, 2014).

⁷⁶ Kazimierz Nowaczyk, „Analiza materiałów źródłowych dostępnych w raportach MAK, KBWL LP i ekspertyzach ATM, UA S.C.,” II Konferencja Smoleńska, October 21-22, 2013, Warsaw, Poland, http://bit.ly/1mgRmqN (retrieved March 14, 2014).

⁷⁷ Chris Cieszewski, Thomas R Jordan, Marguerite Madden, Roger C Lowe, Arun Kumar, Pete Bettinger, “Spatiotemporal analysis of broken tree signatures on high-resolution satellite imagery,” II Konferencja Smoleńska, October 21-22, 2013, Warsaw, Poland, http://bit.ly/1mgRmqN See also: C. Cieszewski, “Ocena właściwości drewna brzozowego za pomocą spektroskopii NIR I SilviScan dla probek z Polski, USA i Smoleńska,” Materiały Konferencyjne, I Konferencja Smoleńska, October 22, 2012, Warsaw, Poland. http://bit.ly/1mgRmqN (retrieved 3/9/14).

⁷⁸ Glenn Jorgensen,”Selected Aspects of the Polish Air Force One Crash,” II Konferencja Smoleńska, October 21-22, 2013, Warsaw, Poland, http://bit.ly/1fC78Ii; and http://bit.ly/1gbFDZo; See also article in Danish press: http://bit.ly/1fC7izp (retrieved March 14, 2014).

⁷⁹ Dr. W. Binienda, “Analysis of the Polish Governmental Airplane Crash in Smolensk, Russia, on April 10, 2010,” ASCE Earth and Space 2012 Conference, Pasadena, California, April 15-18, 2012. http://bit.ly/1fC6hXV. See: Video Presentation http://bit.ly/1fC6lXE; (retrieved March 24, 2014). See also: Dr. W. Binienda, “Analysis of the Crash of the Polish Governmental Airplane TU-154M Flight PLF 101, Smolensk, Russia, April 10, 2010,” Public Hearing on the Cause of Smolensk Crash, The European Parliament, March 28, 2012, http://bit.ly/1lQVQFe. See also: Zhang, C., Binienda, W.K., Horvat F.E., and Wang, W. “Application of Numerical Methods for Crashworthiness Investigation of a Large Aircraft Wing Impact with a Tree,” MCFNS, Vol.5, Issue 1 (2013). http://bit.ly/1fC6rP4 (retrieved March 14, 2014).