Highlights of desinformation and active-measures campaign in mass media after the crash
Disinformation plays key role in historical propaganda – similarly to every other type of propaganda. The following techniques are applied: intoxication (denying, reversing facts); manipulation (true thesis used in such a way that leads to false conclusions); modification of motives or circumstances (describing motive or reason for particular action in a way that they become advantageous only to one party); and interpretation (particular selection of words that evoke positive or negative association among the recipients). Russian historical propaganda embraces broad spectrum of disinformation techniques. In practice, it is accomplished by thematic campaigns with participation of the Russian (as well as selected – western) mass media, including the Internet." - Aleksander Marek Szczygło died on April 10, 2010 in Smolensk, Russia
On the 10th of April 2010, the Polish military plane, Tu-154, was involved in a fatal crash in the city of Smolensk, Russia, killing all the crew and passengers aboard. The deaths included the Polish President and First Lady, the last Polish President in exile, the Chief of the General Staff, Commanders-in-Chief, the Chairman of the Polish National Bank, the President of the Institute of National Remembrance, as well as a number of MP's, senators and prominent figures of the Polish elite, among the 96 dead.
This incident, which includes these prominent deaths, naturally calls for a complete and transparent investigation - the natural work of international aviation agencies with extensive experience is just such investigations. Yet, on the day of the crash, the Polish government decided to leave the investigation solely in Russian hands, without securing the rights to appeal to international organizations, aviation organizations, and relinquishing the right of an inspection, or any efficient supervision over examination procedures.
Specifically, the Polish government refused to consider any help from NATO, and did not attempt to gather any support from other European Union countries. As a result, all the evidence gathered has been left on Russian soil, including confidential military and security codes belonging to NATO's armies, "black boxes", and other flight recording devices containing all flight parameters. None of this evidence, as well as any debris of the wreckage, has ever been returned to Poland.
Above: Russian PM Putin with Polish PM Tusk at the crash scene on April 10, 2010.
Consider the record to date of investigatory procedures and government actions that incline one to suspicion:
Such capricious actions and obscured procedures, running contrary to both the scientific rigor and general Western trend towards transparency naturally invites wariness as to the methods and conclusions of the investigation. No detached observer, cognizant of the influence of loyalty to faction and party in overwhelming loyalty to the people and to the truth, would readily accept such results given the morass of Polish and Russian politics and diplomacy. Among the issues are the degree to which present sitting politicians may have cooperated with the SB (Polish Communist Secret Police), WSI, and KGB, and Polish dependence on Russian Oil. There is much to hide and much to lose through non-acquiescence.
"The MAK’s report raises many doubts. If we were to accept the credibility of this document [the MAK report] on its face value, we ought to base it on the evidence. After all, it [the evidence] is missing. What we are left with are suspicions and emotions, because we don't know any facts […] there are other unknowns as well. Why was the control tower [in Smolensk] receiving instructions from Moscow? After all, in these kinds of situations the decisions are to be made by the men in charge of the airport". Viktor Yushchenko, former president of Ukraine, interviewed by "Uwazam Rze", February 15, 2011.
The death certificates of the victims are cursory, barely containing any basic information, and some certificates are missing. There is doubt (no proof has been provided) that any post-mortem examinations were ever performed in Russia; none were undertaken in Poland, as opening the coffins was strictly forbidden. Families received the bodies of their relatives in sealed coffins, under the threat that they would be prosecuted under Russian criminal law, if coffins were opened or tampered with. No medical evidence has been produced so far.
Shortly after the funerals took place, Russia sent a number of coffins back to Poland with anonymous human remains inside, and claimed that thorough DNA examinations had been performed. Even these unidentified remains, released for burial, had never been inspected. There is no post-mortem examination data available.
All legal evidence is kept in secrecy. Polish authorities have had admittance only to some of the Russian reports, but not to the evidence itself, allegedly accumulated in Russia. The only interrogation ever performed in the presence of Polish army prosecutors in Russia has been withdrawn from files and replaced with a designated updated version, contradicting the original.
The Georgian Times: "The following is not a conspiracy theory; it is a meticulously detailed analysis of evidence from the highly placed sources and professional experience of a retired CIA officer who believes that the death of the 96 passengers aboard Polish Air Force Tu-154 was not an accident. Gene Poteat is an electrical engineer and a retired CIA scientific intelligence officer. He has served abroad in London, Scandinavia, the Middle East and Asia. He is president of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO), writes and lectures on intelligence matters and teaches at the Institute of World Politics graduate school in Washington.
Seven months ago Gene Poteat published an analysis of the “Russian Role in a Polish Air ‘Accident,’” under the title “Russian Image Management.” This analysis was first published on June 1, 2010 in the Charleston Mercury newspaper and was recently republished several months later in a quarterly journal of U.S. Intelligence Studies called The Intelligencer, which is prepared exclusively for the use of future, current and retired U.S. intelligence officials". Read Mr. Poteat's Polish plane crash analysis here ...
The only Polish inspections allowed were archeology and geology surveys, and these were strictly limited to narrowly outlined areas. Usage of any specialized equipment was strictly forbidden, reducing inspections to a "bare hands" retrieval method. All these survey results were confiscated by Russian officials. There were no Polish crash investigators, criminologists or explosives experts allowed to inspect the scene.
The scene of the crash investigation has not presently been secured and may have never been secured, except in regard to keeping independent investigators out. In the subsequent days and months following the tragedy, victims' relatives and mourners of the dead gathered at the nearby Polish War Memorial for murdered Polish prisoners of war, still in deep shock and pain in the acknowledgment that human remains still remain in the field where the crash took place.
The investigation in Russia is flawed, as no impartiality can be assigned. MAK (the Interstate Aviation Committee) is closely connected with the manufacturers of the crashed Tu-154 aircraft,and is responsible for certifying both the aircraft and the airfield.
The Russian Prosecutor's Office Chief, Mr. Tchayka, is the very same man who refused the British government's attempt to investigate Alexander Litvinenko's death in the Russian Federation, and curbed their attempts to extradite the suspect of politically motivated murder.
Within days following the tragedy, there was an unprecedented media disinformation campaign - in both Poland and Russia - to cover up and blur many of the facts, such as:
1. Within minutes of the crash the Russian government, with the acquiescence of the Polish government, newly headed by Bronislaw Komorowski of the opposition Civic Platform party, stated that the crash was due to "pilot error, lack of training and poor communication skills (i.e. that the pilot could not speak Russian)" After the investigation these accusations turned out to be complete false, as the captain of the aircraft was one of the most experienced, master class pilots of the regiment, with over a thousand flying hours completed on this aircraft type. He was also well versed in the specifics of the Russian airports, ground personnel habits, all the procedures, and spoke fluent Russian.
2. False reports of four abortive landing attempts were made afterwards, though only one look-and-see attempt was made.
3. It was reported that the aircraft's left wing hit a tree with a 40 cm (16") diameter trunk. This has been officially confirmed to be false.
4. Within hours after crash, and before any inspection had been completed, the Russian and Polish governments refused to consider the possibilities of either a mechanical/equipment failure or the possibility of a terrorist attack (a reasonable possibility, in this post-9/11 world, as well as Russia's penchant for blaming so many incidents on Chechen "terrorists".
5. Reports were filled with erroneous information about the exact time of the crash. The official time given by the Premier of the Russian Federation Ministers is over a dozen minutes later than it was finally set.
Examples of Disinformation & Premeditated Destruction of Evidence:
The entire landing navigation, performed by the Russian airfield ground personnel (the flight control tower), misled the crew, falsely confirming their positions, which led to the crash. This conclusion is based on the hard evidence of the flight controller's recordings, and forced the officials to admit this fact. According to military procedures (both the crew and the ground personnel were military) and have a decisive power, in permitting or disallowing an aircraft to land. In this case, all the flight controllers were Russian.
All independent inquiries and examinations show incoherency and incompatibility of the Russian version of events. There was no fuel explosion as the plane crashed ("emergency-landed") into a swampy forest ground, weakening the pressure - which was the Russian version of events. What, then, would have caused the crash?
The death of ALL the passengers on board, the total dispersal of wreckage (annihilating 40% of its mass), the unexplainable range and scale of the injuries, the carnage left from the crash, whereby most of the bodies were unrecognizable: all of these facts do not coincide with the Russian "perspective" on the crash.
In addition, there is the mysterious, unexplained phenomenon, at the Russian airport in Smolensk, between 8:20 and 9:14 Warsaw time, when the airport had no outside communication, no power supply, and no eye-witnesses present.
There are hundreds of examples of evidence being destroyed, or simply being overlooked and never considered for examination.
This whole investigation has been characterized by misinformation so prolific as to indicate intentional fabrication, and conscious disinformation, delivered through the main media by both Colonel Putin and the Polish Prime Minister Tusk.
Even the media has been forced to acknowledge the most obvious falsehoods.
Given these irreconcilable reports, accumulating in real time, independent Polish citizens have commenced their own inquiries, using on-line sources to tease out the story. Among these are pilots, flight controllers, physicians, mathematicians, engineers and scientists from several disciplines. Their efforts established that the Russian "final cockpit recordings transcript" shows signs of editing and splicing, and note that the protocol (report) delivered by the Russian Aircraft Accidents Investigation Committee contains neither technical data nor even official source documentation of the inspection. The investigation report fails to answer the questions that independent citizen inquiries have raised. Some of its crucial statements are at variance with known facts, and it is puzzling why the report met with such an easy acceptance by Polish officials assigned to review this tragedy.
The preliminary stages of this investigation revealed that the aircraft Tu-154 was deliberately driven to the outside of the landing path. There is a hypothesis that the "meaconing" (the interception and rebroadcast of navigation signals) might have been used. Russian flight controllers insisted until the very last seconds, and reassured the crew that they were "on the course and on the approach lane". This was despite the fact that the aircraft had not been on course, on the final approach lane, throughout the whole approach look-and-see procedure.
All public protests and demands for a thorough investigation and explanation of the "catastrophe" are being refused, blocked and prevented by both the Russian and Polish governments. The Polish people want to know what happened to that aircraft: the last minutes of the flight, the crash ("emergency landing"), the mysterious loss and restoration of communications - everything that occurred, up until the public was informed about the crash and President's death.
All original recordings related to this accident disappeared in Russia. There is neither any photographic evidence being presented, nor video or audio, which would assuredly provide the answers for how this flight progressed to its fatal end. There is no electronic trace of the evidence, no eye-witness testimony of the circumstances of the crash. No one saw anything; no one heard anything; no one filmed anything; and no one recorded anything with his mobile phone.
In this situation, only the world's public opinion can force the Polish government,and the government of Colonel Putin, to disclose the documents and all the evidence. Only military services of NATO, of which Poland is a member, who may possess or have access to the satellite pictures of the accident scene, can help establish the truth.
The truth is what victims deserve. The truth is what we are obliged to deliver.
Polish National Broadcasting Council
Skwer Kard. S. Wyszyńskiego
01-015 Warszawa Poland
RE: "(Im) pure theories" program broadcast in “Black on White” series by TVN24 on October 11, 2016, and posted online.
On October 11, 2016, TV station TVN24, a nationwide network owned by TVN, broadcasted in the prime time a report by Peter Świerczka entitled "A (Not) clean theory." This program was shown under TVN24 "Black on White" series led by Patricia Redo. Damian Denel and Mariusz Ćwik were responsible for photographic and video montage. Two people appeared in the program: a publicist Michael Setlak and a former participant in the Smolensk Conference Michal Jaworski.
On the Internet this program is very popular. For example, until November 16, 2016, the report was transmitted just by Facebook 4982 times.
The program "(Im) pure theories" represents a brutal and dangerous disinformation attack on the experts of the Parliamentary Committee and the current State Subcommittee for the Investigation of the Smolensk Crash (“Subcommittee”). The purpose of this disinformation operation is to discredit individual experts and the entire Subcommittee in order to obstruct and frustrate the investigation of the Smolensk crash. The program contains premeditated manipulations and blatant lies and presents carefully fabricated material in a refined, professional manner in order to gain trust and support of the viewers. This is yet another disinformation campaign with regard to the crash of the Polish military airplane that killed the Polish President and the Central Command of the Polish Armed Forces. Disinformation on this subject aims at changing attitudes of the Polish people against the ongoing investigation, thus negatively affects the ability of the Subcommittee to properly investigate the cause of the Smolensk tragedy and any efforts to take corrective measures.
Thus, TVN24 and its owners TVN and (US based) Scripps Networks Interactive violated the Broadcasting Act of December 29, 1992, which requires that the broadcaster provide reliable information to the public and prohibits broadcasts that promote illegal activities, activities harmful to the raison d'etat of the Polish State, attitudes and beliefs contrary to morality and social good. Also TVN24 violated the [Polish] Press Law of 26 January 1984, which imposes an obligation on the broadcaster to present truly and fairly discussed events.
The program "(Im)pure theories" contains blatant lies and manipulations committed intentionally and with premeditation. In particular, it is aimed at the complete destruction of all credibility, scientific achievements, and the image of Prof. Binienda, who is a respected scientist of international reputation, professor at the American university, a distinguished member of the American Society of Civil Engineers awarded with ASCE Fellow recognition, and editor-in-chief of a respected international scientific magazine "Journal of Aerospace Engineering." This complaint concerns the attack on Prof. Wieslaw Binienda.
At the outset of “(Im)pure theories" the narrator criticizes the exhumations of the victims of the Smolensk tragedy: "Opening the graves and the families ask: what for?" He then argues why exhumations are unnecessary: "The question is even more dramatic when it comes to light how Macierewicz’s experts challenge the official determination of the causes of the Smolensk Crash." Next, a brutal attack on the individual members of the Subcommittee begins with the following opening statement:
• 2:30 - 2:46 Setlak - "... you cannot understand how people with the titles of professors can say such nonsense ..."
• 2:46 - 3:00 Jaworski - "... you cannot do this unconsciously, it's not even manipulation, it is simply a fraud."
Everything that follows next is presented as exposing the "fraud" committed by these professors.
Defamation of Prof. Binienda
A person who is especially appallingly dishonored in this program is Prof. Wieslaw Binienda. In the attack on him TVN24 committed forgery and disparaged him on the unprecedented scale, unmatched by any other attacks undertaken previously. Acting with a sense of total impunity, authors of this program first falsified selected fragments of Prof. Binienda presentations in order to accuse him of forgery and fraud. Mr. Jaworski, who openly lies and deliberately confuses viewers, publicly states that Prof. Binienda committed forgery and fraud.
The attack on Prof. Binienda was conducted by confusing and distorting complex scientific concepts, falsifying his simulations and explanations, presenting obviously incorrect translations from English, ridiculing his work, etc. To understand the perfidy and size of this manipulation perpetrated by the authors of this report it is necessary to delve into the field of knowledge on the strength of materials. Clearly, the authors of this charade prey on the ignorance of the public, which is not able to notice and understand their cunning manipulations.
In the attack on Prof. Binienda, fragments of the several presentations available on the Internet were used. Various fragments were compiled in such a way as to convince the public that Prof. Binienda conducted research in a dishonest and incompetent manner. For this purpose, TVN24 uses the following presentations of Prof. Binienda:
• Presentation of the First Smolensk Conference from October 22, 2012 (link here)
• Presentation of the UKSW Smolensk Conference from February 5, 2013. (link here)
• Presentation in English posted on the University of Akron website of 25 November 2012. (link here)
Discrediting under the catchphrase "Errors of Binienda"
Challenging Knowledge and Competence
TVN attempts to crush Prof. Binienda using the strategy of "Operation Binienda" from 2013 conducted under the slogan "Errors of Binienda." Between minutes: 4:25 - 5:30 the narrator shows a fragment of the presentation from 2013 UKSW Conference and comments: "... the joke is yet to come.” As we can see, Jaroslaw Kaczynski is watching a presentation by Professor Binienda." In the background, the viewer sees Prof. Binienda speaking at the UKSW  Conference. Then TVN shows a fragment of his presentation from the 2012 Conference.
Then, while showing a slide of one of the presentations posted on the University of Akron website, the narrator says: [President Kaczynski] "does not know that a simple mistake is hidden in there [the presentation]. One parameter "GHARD" equal zero, which has the effect as to if and how the airplane wing cuts the birch tree." As an alleged proof of this mistake, the camera shows a close-up portion of the instructions for the program LS Dyna Wood Material Model Mat143: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04097/04097.pdf, where you can see information about the parameter Ghard = 0
So, TVN seeks to discredit Prof. Binienda by accusing him that he incorrectly used the parameter Ghard = 0, whereas it is not a mistake at all. To the contrary. This is the central and most important premise of the scientific method used by Prof. Binienda. The method adopted by him to analyze the impact of the wing hitting the birch tree involves the analysis of two extreme cases for the two extreme material models of a birch tree.
- The first analyzed model is "basic," which refers to a linear material model, or material with an elastic behavior, which represents the case of the smallest energy absorption. This model applies to dry wood.
- The second analyzed model is extremely non-linear - that is - of the plastic behavior, which represents the case of the largest energy absorption by the birch tree when in contact with the wing. This applies to a wet tree.
If the simulations in both these extreme cases show that the airplane wing cats through the birch tree, it means that all intermediate cases of energy absorption by the birch tree were taken into account, and it can be concluded with certainty that the wing cuts the birch tree in all cases falling between the two extremes. Both material models were presented with all their parameters and this method was well explained in the presentations of prof. Binienda used by TVN as a source material. TVN ignored these explanations hoping probably that the viewer would not reach to the entire original presentation.
For the extremely nonlinear model, which consumes the most energy, Ghard parameter must be zero. This is explained precisely on page 29 of the Instruction to LS Dyna Program: "A value of zero for Ghard will produce perfectly plastic behavior. The default value is zero." The Polish translation of this quote follows here..…
Thus for Ghard = 0, the behavior of the material is the most non-linear, which means that when using the same force (stress) the greatest deformation (strain) is obtained. And because the impact force multiplied by the amount of strain gives the work of the airplane needed to cut the tree, it means that it is the most difficult to cut the [tree] material with the nonlinear parameter Ghard = 0. This is due to the following formula for unit volume of the tree material:
Work W = ∫ σdε
So, the work needed to cut the tree is represented by the area under the stress strain curve, mathematically calculated by using the above integral. In contrast to prof. Binienda, who presented the research method, the adopted parameters, and the results obtained, [his] critics in no way show how the assumptions they make (eg. Ghard different from zero) would lead to different conclusions.
The authors not only do not explain that the rupture of the material corresponds to the "toughness," which is the energy required to break the molecular structure of the material, which is represented by the area under the curve of stress and strain. The greater the deformation (strain), the greater the area under the curve, other words a more energy absorbing material before rupture. Thus, although from a scientific point of view it is clear that the inelastic material model is stronger, TVN suggests that the opposite is true.
Discrediting by ridiculing the work of Prof. Binienda:
Animation, Play-Doh, Noodles, Graphics
Similarly to the earlier attempts to discredit the notion that Tupolev’s hull was destroyed by explosion by ridiculing the analogy to bursting hotdogs, this time Mr. Setlak tries to ridicule the work of Prof. Binienda by comparing the behavior of a birch tree in the presented simulations to Play-Doh and noodles, and mocking scientific simulations as "animations", i.e. mere products of free imagination.
Mr. Setlak states: "After setting the parameter [Ghard], the wood behaves just like Play-Doh. We see it in these animations when the birch tree bends like noodles."
The use of the word "Play-Doh" and "noodles" in relation to the computer model of a birch tree with Ghard = 0 has to convince the public that the tree model used is weak, where in fact the opposite is true because the nonlinear tree model with the parameter Ghard = 0 absorbs the most energy in contact with the wing.
The simulation clearly shows that the tree bends, but its trunk is not flatten at the point of contact. This means that comparing the tree to Play-Doh in this simulation is unacceptable because the Play-Doh would flatten as a result of this blow while the tree in this simulation bends. Therefore, the analogy to the Play-Doh is inappropriate and deceives the viewer. The material used in the simulation does not behave like Play-Doh, since the diameter of the tree is not flattened as a result of the impact, in other words the trunk is not flattened like a pancake.
This simulation shows that the behavior of the given model of the birch tree is non-elastic (i.e. plastic), it means it causes large deformation when bending. In the event of impact, such material absorbs the most energy. Materials that are subject to large deformation such as low carbon steel or aluminum absorb the most energy during a collision. That is why they are used to build cars in order for the car body to absorb as much energy as possible during the accident, hence protect the passengers and the driver.
Thus, the more non-linear the tree model is the more energy [the tree] is able to absorb. So it is stronger. Such tree is more difficult to cut. But Mr. Setlak suggests to the viewers exactly the opposite conclusion. Because such an interpretation is contrary to the fundamental laws of physics it must be assumed that the authors of this program consciously and deliberately lie and mislead the audience in order to discredit Prof. Binienda.
The very use of the word 'animation' instead of computer simulation, which represents a virtual experiment that accurately reflect reality, is inappropriate and shows bad intentions and negative attitude of the authors of the program. Animations are cartoons made by a graphic designer or the artist to visualize desired imaginary picture, whereas simulations represent visualizations of the behavior of the material and structures precisely calculated by a sophisticated computer program based on input data. These calculations are made on the basis of scientific studies that precisely define the initial and boundary conditions and the material model behavior used. Mr. Setlak thus lies when calling computer simulations as animations, and debases their importance.
While showing a fragment of another simulation from 2012, the narrator says: "This image presented since 2011 supposed to prove that the birch tree had nothing to do with causing the crash," and soon thereafter we hear a voice Prof Binienda "in none of the cases under examination the birch tree breaks the wing." Thus, the research of Professor Binienda is here discredited as "this image" even though it is the scientifically calculated computer simulation.
Fraud in translation
In minutes 5:30 - 5:35 the narrator says: "while in the manual for LS-DYNA ..., used by prof. Binienda, the value of zero means complete elasticity," and the camera zooms at this moment at a definition of the parameter Ghard from page 69 of the LS Dyna manual, as shown below:
As shown in the above English text, the second to last sentence reads: "A zero-value models perfect plasticity (no increase in strength with increasing strain)." Although the used term here is clearly "perfect plasticity," in other words “total plasticity,” the authors of this reportage put on the screen the following (Polish) translation of this text: "the zero value means total elasticity," thereby wrongly translating plasticity as elasticity. In science of material behavior, the notions of plasticity and elasticity represent two opposite extreme concepts - the opposite behavior of the material. "Elastic" means a linear behavior while “plastic" means a non-linear or non-elastic behavior. By using such an obvious and ostentatious error in translating a simple text TVN intentionally and deliberately misleads the viewers. [The English words “plasticity” and “elasticity” are translated into Polish as “elastycznosc” and “plastycznosc.”]
Falsification by manipulating simulations
Minute 5:40. The authors show a simulation of an airplane wing hitting the tree that represents the non-linear material model Mat143, in other words the plastic model. Then the narrator says: "Interestingly, after the impact on other materials the Play-Doh tree returns to the vertical position." At this moment, the camera jumps from this simulation to the end of another simulation with the linear material, which is elastic, in other words no longer the "Play-Doh tree." But the narrator continues that "the Play-Doh tree returns to the vertical position," in other words he talks as if it was the same simulation, thus suggesting this way that we watch still the same (plastic model) simulation. Even though for a moment titles of the two different simulations are visible on the screen - that is the first simulation using a non-linear (plastic) model and the second simulation using the basic linear elastic model - not plastic – with the title: "Models for Basic Materials", the authors comment as if this was one and the same simulation. The camera quickly zooms on the trunk to hide the title, which disappears from the screen. The effect is ominous. The camera turns at smiling Prof. Binienda, sending the viewers a message that he is happy albeit wrong. In the background his voice is heard: "... the ultimate effect is the same." This is how TVN presents Prof. Binienda as a fool and fraud.
Fragments of two different simulations, which demonstrate the behavior of two different material models of a trees, TVN combines and presents as one simulation. Prof. Binienda presents them separately under two different titles, as shown above. TVN, however, suggests that this is one simulation, which serves as a proof of the errors committed by Prof. Binienda. It is a reprehensible falsification, outrageous lie, and a deliberate effort to harm Prof. Binienda.
TVN does not show that on the previous slides of the same presentation two contrasting models of tree material behavior were explained, and all their parameters were shown. TVN does not show that for the aluminum material also two contrasting models were analyzed and all the parameters used were shown. TVN does not explain that in previous slides presented by Prof. Binienda the parametric method of research is fully explained. This method is widely used in scientific research throughout the world. This method requires that two extreme models (eg. linear and non-linear) with extreme initial conditions are thoroughly analyzed. If each extreme model under the same initial and boundary conditions produces the same result it means that all models within the ranges studied must produce the same final results. In this case, both results generated a negative answer to the question whether a birch tree could cut the wing.
More specifically, for both models of the birch tree, that is for 1) linear elastic model named in the presentation as the basic model, and for 2) a non-linear, plastic, or Mat143 model with parameter Ghard = 0 that gives the maximum nonlinear effect named in the manual as plastic and called by TVN as "the Play-Doh tree", the effect is always the same: the wing cuts through the birch tree for all the density of mesh elements used, for all the angles of attack of the aircraft, and for extreme material models linear and non-linear. So it means that the material of the Smolensk birch must be within the examined range, hence it will produce the same result. This conclusion, made by Prof. Binienda as follows: "in none of the cases under examination, the birch tree cuts through the wing" is ridiculed by TVN.
The analysis presented by Prof Binienda is professional, interesting and convincing. However, the TVN narrator manipulates with the voice and choice of audio-visual combination, with the selection of facial expressions and gestures, in order to undermine the credibility of reliable scientific work, shown many times on international scientific conferences for experts in the field and published in the preeminent peered reviewed scientific journals.
Manipulations by omitting key information and explanations
6:00 – With the crash site in the background, TVN narrator says: "Another presentation of Binienda was to prove that the fuselage could not fall apart the way it happened in Smolensk in any other way but as a result of a bomb." Then, he shows a simulation of Prof. Binienda in which the middle part of the fuselage drops vertically at a speed of 9.8m / sec. This time TVN wants to draw the viewers’ attention to the title of the slide, whereas in previous passages either did not notice it or hid it. The narrator says: "Here you have to zoom in to small font at the bottom. Binienda drops the fuselage down and crushes it with a speed of almost 10 m / s. But he does not say that there was also 75m / s speed at which the aircraft was moving forward."
This computer simulation shows how a fuselage would behave when dropped vertically. Prof. Binienda explains that the purpose of this simulation beyond the illustration of the behavior of the portion of the fuselage was to validate the computer model of the structure of the fuselage, which can be correlated with a similar real experiment by NASA Langley, which is described in the publication A SURVEY OF RESEARCH PERFORMED AT NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER'S IMPACT DYNAMICS RESEARCH FACILITY (page 7 FIGURE 11): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.7 .8068 & rep = REP1 & type = pdf 10
On this point TVN hides the fact that in the next group of slides of the same presentation Prof. Binienda shows simulations of the entire aircraft striking the ground at the speed of 80m / s moving forward, at an angle of 10 degrees or 30 degrees, with the wheels down and up. TVN does not show either any simulations contained in the same presentation and made by the Sandia National Lab, which show the tearing of the fuselage by an explosive charge that gives the same effect as the one visible on crash site in Smolensk. This simulation can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PPDJzh2C9Es
The next series of slides from the original presentation of Prof. Binienda that was hidden by TVN included the following: Slides 32 and 33 showing a vertical straight fall and a vertical fall with the rotation, Slide 34 shows simulations by Sandia National Lab of a portion of the fuselage subjected to an explosive chargei Slide 35 shows destruction of the portion of the fuselage in Smolensk similar to the simulation results of Sandia National Lab, Slide 36 shows a simulation of the vertical drop of the fuselage after an explosion in the air. Slides 41-46 show the initial conditions for parametric simulation of the impact of the whole plane Tu154M into the ground with a speed of 80m / s and the results of this impact.
However, this publication, in particular the research results shown in Figure 14 of this publication (Appendix 1 below), clearly shows that the pilots can counter the loss of a portion of the wing with the aileron on the other wing, even if the loss is as big as 55% of one wing. The pilots would have only to reduce the climbing angle to 2.5 degree. With the loss of 33% of the wings they may be climbing with an angle of 3.5 degrees.
9: 45 - Mr. Setlak misleads the viewers stating that "after losing such [1/3] part of the wing Tupolev could keep flying, could retain stability, but only at speeds above 650km/h." Such assertion is clearly contradicted by the Pan Am airplane accident from 1965, in which Boeing 707-321B, after losing 1/3 of the wing, landed without any loss of life. Boeing 707 landed safely without 1/3 of the wing even though it had to slow down to come to a complete stop. While landing, it did not fall over, which means it was a stable landing. The whole event was recorded by a passenger and can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw2RW7xybmU
The cited NASA Publication and the Boeing 707 case clearly support the conclusions presented by Prof. Binienda and Dr. Berczyński and contradict hypotheses disseminated by Mr. Setlak on TVN24.
In light of the above, I hereby request that:
1. The National Broadcasting Council (“KRRiT”) issue a statement condemning unethical and socially harmful actions of TVN24 resulting from lack of due diligence by the broadcaster, which is responsible for broadcast content.
2. Immediate removal of the libelous program "(Im)pure theories" from the Internet.
3. Punishment of TVN24 with a fine proportional to the number of people who watched the defamatory disinformation "(Im)pure theories." I recommend that the fine be calculated as the product of (10,000zl) * number of viewers TVN24 * number of users on the Internet * number of days on the Internet.
4. Requesting the TVN or TVN24 to produce a report with the participation of Prof. Binienda and other attacked experts to unmask and expose all manipulations and lies contained in the program "(Im)pure theories," and to give prof. Binienda the opportunity to exonerate himself in the eyes of the public opinion from the charges of lies incompetency and forgery.
5. To cause that such program be shown by TVN24 in the "Black on White" series, in the same prime time as the defamatory lampoon.
6. When making a decision on the renewal of the broadcasting license for TVN and TVN24, the National Broadcasting Council KRRiT should take into consideration this serious case of 1) the manipulation of public opinion through harmful action of disinformation to the detriment of Polish raison d'etat, 2) brutal discrediting of scientists who showed great moral courage and worthy civic attitude in the most difficult time for Poland since WWII.
7. To issue a recommendation to punish individual journalists responsible for the highly detrimental and malicious disinformation program and unethical behavior by the Association of Polish Journalists or similar professional association.
Maria Szonert Binienda
Attorney at Law Akron, Ohio , USA
December 2, 2016
 To see the link, please use the link at the bottom of the slide.
Five years have passed since the national tragedy over Smolensk, the tragedy which has become a turning point in the recent history of Poland and the whole Europe. The elite of our nation perished while on duty in service for Poland. Our representatives were on their way to Katyn to pay tribute, on behalf of each and every one of us, to the thousands of Polish people murdered on Stalin’s order in 1940. To this day, we do not know what caused the tragic death of the entire official Polish Delegation on route to Katyn. To this day, we do not know why our representatives were unable to bow their heads at the graves of our forefathers, victim to the brutal genocide perpetrated by the Stalinist regime on the Polish nation.
The dramatic death of the President of Poland, the entire Central Command of the Polish Armed Forces, government and parliamentary officials as well as families of the Katyn victims was to bring the Polish people to their knees. It was to humiliate, brake and set us against each other. The brutal attack at the Polish President, the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Air Forces, top NATO generals, and the best Polish pilots was to destroy our national dignity and pride; to weaken our moral strength and our ability to fight for Poland. This tragedy was to force us forget about the Katyn crime, too.
Yet, the Smolensk Tragedy was not aimed only at the Polish people. It was a warning to the whole world that imperial Russia returns. Regrettably, the Smolensk Tragedy, like the Katyn crime, has been covered up with the conspiracy of silence, both in Poland and in the West. Appeasing Russia by holding back the truth about Smolensk has encouraged more Russian aggression. This is why, today, the whole international community faces the Russian threat.
Only now, when Europe, at last, senses the threat from the East, the Smolensk Tragedy begins to jolt the world’s conscience. Only today, in the face of the Russian aggression on Ukraine and the threats directed at the entire Central Europe, the Polish people start to understand that the death of the Polish elite on their way to Katyn was not coincidental. It was an act of eliminating a strong opponent who stood in the way of Russian imperialistic ambitions.
The Smolensk Tragedy has revealed to the world that the present-day Russia carries on the imperialistic tradition of the murderous Soviet system and aims brutally at the restoration of the lost sphere of influence in Europe. The same Russia has no intention to condemn the criminal Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of August 23, 1939 that led to World War II, or to acknowledge its responsibility for the aggression against Poland in September 1939 and the Katyn genocide of April 1940 directed at the Polish nation. Quite the contrary: it openly justifies these international crimes.
For the past five years, the Polish people have been battling for truth, dignity, justice, democracy, protection of human rights, and the rule of law. We have not won this battle yet, but the passage of time works in our favor. The people in Poland are waking up from the lethargy caused by the Smolensk trauma, but they need a helping hand in this difficult moment.
This is why I call upon the Polish Community Abroad and all people of good will to respond with strength and courage to the historic challenge of resurgence of Russian aggression in Europe. We must join forces because only by acting together we will be able to support our fellow countrymen, defend dignity of the Polish people, and protect free, fair and democratic Europe.
Maria Szonert Binienda
Vice President of Polish Affairs
Polish American Congress
Cleveland-Toronto-Chicago-Doylestown, April 10-12, 2015
Already during the first night of the crash, the Russians were removing the most important pieces of evidence from the crash site, that is, the remains of the Polish President’s Tupolev, TU-154M. Parts of the aircraft were transported away without any prior planning, and some of them were purposefully destroyed. Read more here
"Russian Image Management"
The trip to Smolensk was expected to highlight Russia finally admitting culpability in the massacre, after long having blamed it on the Germans, an atrocity they had tried to conceal for over 70 years.
As for the reception committee, it had different ideas. Putin wasn’t looking forward to such an occasion. Into this poisonous reception brew was President Kaczynski’s well-known public criticism of Moscow and Putin, a habit that has ended the lives of others within Russia – and abroad. A few discouraging Russian requirements – that Kaczynski could not attend in any official capacity – did not halt the Poles. Kaczynski would go anyway on non-official, “personal” business. To Russians, such a distinction would be meaningless, not lessening the possible international excoriation of such an event. A problem ripe for a modern, Russian solution: a tragic, ‘natural’ accident.
World-renowned forensic pathologist goes on the record: "I have been doing autopsies for 50 years, and I've investigated more than fifteen, twenty airplane crashes […] I've been in countries all over the world where families think that the government is hiding something. Whether it is Zimbabwe or Israel, or Philippines, the government may not like an outside person checking to make sure they got it right. [But,] they never interfered with that. The family, the next of kin, always has the right to do what the wishes of the family are. In the 21st century, the body of the dead person no longer belongs to the state. It belongs to the family. So, it is unusual - something that I have never experienced before - where the government [of Poland] has not permitted the famil[ies]" to conduct independent forensic examinations of their loved ones' remains [...] I've never heard of a body coming back to a country and the family being unable to open up a casket. I've never heard of the family not being able to get an autopsy… Read more here
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.