What we know about the course of the Smolensk crash? Findings of the Organizing Committee and the Scientific Committee of the Smolensk Conferences.
“The picture that emerges from the presented papers, is quite clear. It indicates that the hypothesis saying that the Tu-154 plane near Smolensk on April 10, 2010 lost a piece of wing due to the collision with a birch and then disintegrated completely after hitting the ground (catastrophe type 1A) - - this hypothesis is entirely false. There is the irrefutable evidence that the plane disintegrated in the air and its fragments fell to the ground separately (catastrophe type 2B). The surface of the ground represents a kind of book in which the course of the catastrophe is registered. The appearance of the fragments as well as their distribution on the ground and upon the terrain obstacles are documented in thousands of pictures and videos taken by many independent operators. This huge documentation shows, both as a whole and in detail, that the laws of physics rule out the course of events presented in the reports of the MAK Commission and of the Miller Commission. It is clear to anybody, even to those without any knowledge of mechanics, that the fuselage resting on the Smolensk airport was torn, not compressed (...) “
FULL DOCUMENT (PDF, EN)
FULL DOCUMENT (PDF, DE)
The scientific results of the three Smolensk Conferences 2012, 2013,2014 are related to all disciplines represented in the Scientific Committee. A particular emphasis was on sciences and technology, but non-technical domains such as medicine, sociology and law were represented as well. The Conferences allowed for examination of all available evidence and information concerning the Smolensk Catastrophe. Usually a catastrophe investigation team needs additional assistance of external experts representing those domains of science, that are not represented among air-safety investigators. The Smolensk Conferences had no problem with this, because the Committees of the Conference, in particular the Scientific Committee and the Advisory and Inspiring Committee incorporated specialists from all branches necessary in such investigation. This scientific versatility, offered by the Committees as well as that represented in 78 presentations delivered from all the related domains, enabled the complex investigation of the available evidence and information.
The conclusions of the Smolensk Conferences that can be drawn from the various domains of science are consistent and mutually confirm each other. These domains include: geodetic survey, geotechnics, archaeology, medicine, physics, chemistry, mechanics, aerodynamics, electric technology, acoustics. All the corresponding papers presented at the Conferences produce a coherent picture and allow to draw the following conclusions.
1. The MAK/Miller hypothesis is not supported by the evidence, since each of its five phases contradicts the laws of physics and irrefutable evidence.
2. The Smolensk Catastrophe represented, what in the scientific literature is known as a controlled demolition, and has been carried out by a series of explosions, which took place in closed plane profiles, not available for pyrotechnic inspection. Some basic information concerning controlled demolition are provided in the Appendix.
3. The Russian team that controlled the Catastrophe site disturbed evidence to favor the MAK/Miller hypothesis. Transfer of some fragments to predefined locations and concealing of the evidence that would deny the hypothesis, it served this aim.
4. The general course of the Smolensk Catastrophe is known. Although it can be determined based even on the scarce evidence available to independent research, it is clear, that investigation concerning causes of Catastrophe cannot be completed without examining crucial evidence, such as the wreckage and the victims’ bodies. Without conducting such studies it is impossible to determine some very important details.