The Sejm: Berczyński’s Commission reveals new facts about April 10th, 2010. New details question the official version of events.
Published: October 26, 2016
The outcomes of the recent analyses have been presented by the Commission’s expert, Marek Dąbrowski, at a conference with the Sejm’s National Defense Commission.
“Over 700 volumes of prosecution files have been analyzed. (…) our sub-commission prepared four opinions for the prosecution, and 15 witnesses have been interviewed. A comparison analysis of the parameters is still ongoing. (…),” stated Dąbrowski.
“These tasks are basically the work that had been left undone by our predecessors. We established that the main factors, which affected the safety of approach, were: third turn, executed too early; Russian flight commander’s order; distance from runway entrance point, wrongly understated by a landing zone manager. Those maneuvers reduced the time available to the crew. (…)
If the pilots followed instructions regarding the runway entrance point, they would end up a kilometer before the runway’s threshold. (…) the crew precisely followed instructions, and all available sound materials were listened to in the cockpit. None of the crew recognized General Błasik’s voice. (…)”
Dąbrowski also mentioned the confirmation of a go-around, and Barczyński’s Commission checked information about the discovery of 18 cell phones.
“The MAK Commission’s theories are not confirmed, they were simply a botched attempt to cover up the real cause of the crash. (…) the team cannot confirm the pressure put on the crew, in particular on General Błasik. (…)
With regards to the engine usage on the approach path, following the engine usage instructions, it was confirmed that the crew monitored the engine work correctly, keeping the engine rotation under 61%. Therefore, the crew obeyed the usage instruction during the Tu-154M’s flight.”
The Commission has been analyzing discrepancies in the official version of events. Dąbrowski said that the radio altimeter’s sound signal was incompatible with altitude, so it wouldn’t have been picked up by the cockpit voice recorder. The main hydraulic system had also been out of order.
Dąbrowski confirmed that the fragments of recordings were cut out. A new team was assigned to recover those fragments. “Having completed the source file analysis, we know that the excerpt cut out contained data about faults in the first engine, first generator and both radio altimeters,” Dąbrowski informed.
Another significant fragment of Dąbrowski’s statements was the discovered remains in front of the birch tree. “In 2012, our investigators recovered one part of the aircraft, about 60 meters before the birch tree, but reports state otherwise.” (…)
“The most dramatic issue is the reconstruction of the wreckage, position of victims’ remains, and reconstruction of injuries. We can be a 100 percent sure of certain things. First of all, the body of General Błasik, who was said to be standing behind the pilots, has been found among other passengers’ bodies. The crew’s remains were scattered. (...) Fragmentation of bodies from cabin no. 3 was the most dramatic. The average number of victims from that cabin was ten. One of the victims was found in five different sectors in five pieces… Half of the victims in sectors no. 5 and 6, which were subject to ground fire, were burnt,” stated Dąbrowski.
He added that at least two bodies with traces of high temperature were found away from the sectors subject to the fire. “Ground fire cannot be a cause for such injuries,” concluded Dąbrowski.
He also read out a Russian witness statement about the explosion and the last moments of the flight.
Click on the thumbnails below to view screen dumps from the detectors used to examine the wreckage and seats from the Polish president's plane crash in Smolensk. An "X" denotes the presence of the detected explosive substance and its type. The underlined Polish word "Probka" or "probka" in the screen dump 1 and 2, means "Sample"
Why did they all fly on the same plane?
Synopsis: January 12, 2013, Toronto, Canada. The wife of the late Deputy-Minister of Culture Tomasz Merta: "What I am about to tell you now, are suspicions - and not even my own - but, rather the [suspicions of the] individuals in the inner-circles of the [Polish] military... I heard a statement that was made - but, I am not taking any responsibility for how credible, or not credible it is. [I heard that] had the generals and journalists' not been re-assigned to different aircraft, it wouldn't have been the Tupolev [Tu-154M], but rather the Casa [transport aircraft] that would have been taken out.
Because the Generals were no longer onboard the Casa, there was no reason for it to get airborne. And for this reason it was the Yak[-40] that flew off to Smolensk. This Casa [transport aircraft] was never examined in any way. It was not subject to any examination. Aside from a single note in the deposition given to the military, no one was interested why this aircraft didn't fly [to Smolensk]. Perhaps, this is someones crazy phantasy, but perhaps it isn't.
Some [Polish] military personnel had suggested, that it [the Casa] had to stay behind at the Okecie military [tarmack], so that the explosives could be removed from it - because they were no longer needed [...] I am only repeating what I was told."
"Disarming" Explosives ...
It is worth for us to retrace the entire process of "disarming" the case of explosive substances at the crash site. It all started with the publication of Cezary Gmyz in "Rzeczpospolita" on October 30, 2012, and information that the detectors, which were used by experts in Smolensk (in late September and October) showed traces of TNT and nitroglycerine.
As it turned out, the journalist was also reporting about the indication of Hexogen. The storm broke. The prosecution denied the publication, and ultimately, the editor-in-chief of "Rzeczpospolita," Cezary Gmyz and two other journalists lost their jobs. The entire editorial staff of one of Poland’s most popular weeklies, "Uważam Rze", was also silenced.
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.