Recommended:
- The Smolensk Conferences. A Preliminary Summary and Conclusion
- NEW STUDY: Putin's Russian inquiry into the Polish Air Force One crash in Smolensk
- 15 SIMPLE FACTS THE WORLD SHOULD KNOW
- Smolensk Reader's Digest. 23 pages, all the facts.
- Polish Military Intelligence was warned of a possible terrorist threat against one of the EU Member States' aircraft.
- Story behind the "1:24"
Prof. Binienda conducted computer simulations of a crash landing for the Tu-154M aircraft. Dr. Szuladzinski from Australia analysed the debris and a multitude of small shrapnel at the crash site that point to explosions. Mr. Jorgenson and Dr. Kowaleczko conducted independent study of aerodynamic behaviour of the airplane upon losing 1/3 of the left wing. They both concluded that the airplane had to fly above the birch tree that is blamed for damaging the left wing in order to crash in the location where the crash site is. Dr. Cieszewski studied satellite photographs and concluded that that the birch tree was likely broken at least on April 5, 2010, i.e. five days before the crash. The above and other recent findings were briefly discussed in this seminar presented at the Dublin Institute of Technologies in February of 2014.
The main conclusions were: 1) a part of the fuselage found on the crash scene in inverted position with walls open outside, indicates explosion in mid-air, 2) under the conditions described in the Russian report, the fuselage should break into three large segments and some people should survive. The crash scene of the Tu-154M does not show such pattern, 3) the unprecedented degree of damage to the airplane and the large number of shrapnel at the crash scene indicate high energy mid-air explosion. Without a mid-air explosion, most of the passengers in the centre and aft sections of the airplane should survive any crash from 30-40 meters into the soft soil, 4) the Russian report attributed death of the passengers to 100G accelerations. Such accelerations could be explained by: i) explosion in the fuselage, ii) shock wave produced by explosion, and/or iii) direct impact of the passengers bodies with the ground at 80m/s without any protection of the fuselage. All these alternatives contradict Russian findings. 5) Lack of visible crater at the crash scene and a large field of debris indicate that the airplane disintegrated at a low altitude before hitting the ground.