9 Questions For Professor Wieslaw Binienda, Ph.D., F.ASCE

Smolensk Q & A

Dr. Wieslaw Binienda in his lab.

First question by Kamil Matynia

Q: Do you think that after almost 4 years since the tragedy, and multiple instances of [premeditated] destruction of the wreckage, that the aircraft remains are still a valuable piece of evidence that would corroborate your findings? If Russia agreed to allow you to travel to Smolensk, would you go there to examine it? What do you feel as a Pole, a patriot, and as a free and educated man, who is being viciously attacked by the majority of the [pro-Donald Tusk] Polish media for carrying out your scientific analysis? Thus far, no one has stepped forward to refute your findings?

Dr. Binienda: Dear Kamil, I’ll answer the last question first. It is sad that there are people who hate me, and hate other people like me, so much. Although I try to understand it, so far, I don’t know why they hate us so much. They are unable to discuss the merits, because they lack substantive arguments. I feel sorry for them that they are filled with such venom. While they can’t hurt me, they are hurting Poland, and I cannot forgive them for that.

As to the first question, I believe the wreckage, black boxes and all the remains of this aircraft belong to Poland and the Polish people. We have to get it all back sooner or later. I am even willing to go and see Putin himself, if he assures me of my security… No one can conclusively analyze the wreckage just by looking at it, or by using bare hands. Having these remains in Poland, we could subject them to a thorough analysis and learn a lot from it.

Second Question by Rafał Ch.

Q: Are you not afraid of being visited by [what was coined in Poland as ] "a Serial Suicider”? Do you still receive death threats? In one of your interviews you mentioned that while in Poland you are provided personal security. Hence my question: Was there a situation during one of your visits to Poland when you felt endangered? Was there any credible evidence suggesting that real danger to your life or limb existed? Do you feel that in addition to media attacks, you are also being opposed by powerful conglomerate interests that are connected to politics and business? Is it in their interest that the truth about [the real cause of this] crash will never be revealed? Thank you, and my best to you.

Dr. Binienda: Dear Rafał, I agree with your intuition. Of course, I'm afraid of this “Serial Suicider”, and because of that, I do everything I can to make it difficult for “him”. During my visits to Poland, I rely on the protection of former members of [Polish] “Grom” [special forces]. According to them, credible dangers existed numbers of times, but I did not enquire about the details. [See “Cover up by Suicide”, and “KGB Poisons”]

The third question asked by Rinah Devi

Q: Professor, is the U.S. scientific community interested in the Smolensk crash?

Dr. Binienda: I try to generate interest in my [scientific] findings, and the Smolensk crash. I do that in the United States and throughout the world. Overall, the world does not believe Putin, and the recent invasion of Ukraine has magnified the situation even more; it exposed Putin’s intentions.

The fourth question asked by Tomasz Kaminski

Q: Are your calculations based only on a hypothesis and do they require further verification? Were your conclusions based only on the available data? Regards.

Dr. Binienda: My greetings to you Tomasz as well. For my work I use all the data available from official reports, [specialized] aviation materials, and results obtained experimentally in my laboratory, or derived by other experts. It is a scientific work carried out using the latest technologies in such a way as to have the greatest certainty as to the conclusions. I am always open to refine my work further, but it requires fair [and unobstructed] cooperation of the governments in Poland and Russia.

The fifth question asked by Andrzej Bronikowski

Q: Professor, will you - in response to a number of suggestions by prof. Artymowicz - publish a file containing the computational model used in your analysis?

Dr. Binienda with Smolensk crash victim's family.

Dr. Binienda: Hello Andrzej. All input data and the results of my work are openly published and available for inspection by anyone. Dr. Szuladzinski [for example,] created his own model and received the results confirming my conclusions. This is a normal procedure in the world of science. Every scientist has a right to create their own model and to publish their results. If they differ, then one ought to have a substantive and polite discussion to find out the reasons for such differences. So far, and it is already almost four years after the disaster, no one has published results in any scientific journal contradicting my findings; by that I mean a peer-reviewed work utilizing materials’ sciences or high energy impact analysis. My work was reviewed, verified and published in technical and scientific publications. I am still awaiting an appearance of any credible publication by my opponents.

The sixth question asked by Dominic Kaspersky.

Q: Professor, what do you think about Professor Ronda’s "bluff", and the whole situation concerning him? One television channel cited a document that the plane never flew below 100m. When asked about his source, he said he cannot reveal it. He said later that he was only bluffing. Responding before the AGH ethics committee he said that the interviewer upset him and that is why he said it. He was suspended from lecturing.

Dr. Binienda: Dominic, I would like to point out that Professor Jacek Ronda, Ph.D. is a respected scientist, who is recognized throughout the world as a high-class expert in ballistics, construction of ammunition, and missiles. This is, therefore, an important area of research in the context of the Smolensk disaster. His answer to the question whether the plane descended below 100 meters was inappropriate. But, please remember that first and foremost , the question itself was deceptive. First of all, it did not pertain to a field in which Dr. Ronda specializes. Secondly, the issue is not whether the plane descended below 100 meters, but rather , why it descended below 100 meters. Thus far, no one asked the right question: Why the plane was at such a low altitude, despite the fact that the command “go around” was unequivocally and properly issued at the decision-altitude. This [command] was repeated, heard, received and confirmed by the second pilot.

So, what we see in the case of Dr. Ronda, is a classic example of purposefully nose-diving the narrative into a wrong direction. Being subjected to such an evident manipulation, Dr. Ronda became angry and made a mistake; a mistake to which he openly admitted. This type of media manipulations were also used in the interviews with Dr. Cieszewski, who learning from the experience of Dr. Ronda, carefully chose each and every word , and refused to be set up. Having failed to provoke him they manufactured allegations of his collaboration with the SB.

Seventh question asked by Anna See

Q: I would like to ask you - since you have lived for many years in the United States – how do you perceive the narrative concerning the Smolensk crash in the Polish media? Were you shocked by the [underhanded] methods used by M. Olejnik, T. Lis, and J. Sobieniowski, in particular; [aiming at discrediting one’s own natural desire to seek the truth]? I am curious if you explained to anyone, anything about these individuals' “professionalism” and “competencies”, in the United States? If so, how did they react?

Dr. Binienda: Dear Madam, I can only smile.

Eighth question asked by Marta Płuciennik

Q: Would it be better if your findings and the findings of other experts, among them those of the Parliamentary Committee, were publicized on the international stage; so that other countries, including NATO members, could learn about an alternative cause of the Smolensk crash? I believe that the truth must be publicized, because if the world considers only the version offered by [Polish government’s] Mr. Miller and [Russian MAK’s] Ms. Anodina, the real explanation of what had happened in Smolensk will never be found.

Dr. Binienda: Dear Martha, I agree with you, and do everything in my power to publicize this issue internationally. In order to bring us closer to the truth, each and every one of us, all those in our [scientific] circles, share new evidence as it is discovered. I hope that more and more people will begin to [openly] demonstrate their position in this respect for the good of Poland.

Ninth question asked by Karol Leszek, extended by us.

Q: Wouldn’t it be logical, if according to those in power [in Poland and Russia] you are wrong, then these governments should openly, and without delay, furnish their research results to prove you wrong once and for all? How do you assess the quality of research methodology offered by the governments [of Poland and Russia presented thus far]?

Dr. Binienda: Of course, this is logical. Disagreements are a natural part of healthy scientific discourse. To this end, each party must carry out its own research and [should feel compelled to] publish it in a credible scientific journal. For over a year my findings have been published on the Internet [and are readily available to all]. The only methodology employed by the Government thus far, has been to brutally discredit the independent scientists and to assault their integrity.

Translator’s Note:

Dr. Wieslaw Binienda, Ph.D. F.ASCE is a 2013 recipient of the prestigious Richard R. Torrens Award in recognition for his excellent editorial leadership and for contributions to the enhancement of the Journal of Aerospace Engineering.

2014 Independent Investigation Update. Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland.

Summary of Independent Investigation. Presented by Dr. Wieslaw Binienda, Ph.D., on Feb. 3, 2014 in Dublin, Ireland.

Synopsis:

- Separation of 1/3 of the left wing could not be caused by the impact with the birch tree. Most probably separation of a fragment of the left wing was caused by explosion in the air.

- Lack of visible crater at the crash scene, a large field of debris indicate that the airplane disintegrated in the mid-air.

- Open walls outside of the fuselage indicate mid-air explosion.

- The unprecedented degree of damage and the large number of shrapnel indicate high energy mid-air explosion.

- Without a mid-air explosion, most of the passengers in the center and aft section of the airplane should survive any crash from 30-40 meters into the soft soil.

- Official Russian report attributed death of the passengers to 100G accelerations. Such accelerations could be explained by (i) explosions in the fuselage, (ii) shock wave produced by explosion, and/or (iii) a direct impact of the passengers with the ground at 80m/s without any protection of the fuselage.