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

Appendix VII. Other Incomprehensible Issues

Since there is only a loose connection between common sense to the official investigation of the crash, the author takes liberty to ask the following, rhetorical questions:

1. Given that the prudent man is aware of the danger of air travel, how was it possible for one machine to carry the president, many members of government, state institutions and generals? The matter of disaster survival and continuity of power should be part of the strategy of any government. [See Magladena Merta's interview on this page]

2. Anyone interested in aviation accidents, who has access to the photographic material, would note, after some thought, that this fragmentation of the structure is not justified by landing in the woods, no matter how unfortunate. In neither of the two official reports is the explosion considered as a hypothetical cause of the crash, despite the testimony of witnesses.

3. A few of the Polish delegations traveled to see the wreckage. All were taking pictures only, as if there were no technically competent person among them, who would have an idea of taking samples with him, even some small shrapnel. Metallurgical analysis could clarify some of the guesswork.

4. The way the Russian Federation employees treated the remains of the aircraft. Heavy machinery were used to move debris, dragging them along the ground and then dropped onto trucks, one on top of another, as if it were scrap metal. (The film is available on YouTube^v.) This procedure resulted in additional damage, which impedes the investigation. Knocking out windows with a crowbar by a Russian soldier in front of the television camera should not be treated as an individual act of vandalism.^vi

5. For what purpose were the debris cleaned? After all, it is very difficult to diagnose causes of the disaster by removing traces of what happened.