Preliminary Summary of the Smolensk Conferences - Abstract.
SCND: December 30, 2015
The Smolensk Catastrophe took place in Smolensk (Russia) on April 10, 2010. It represents the greatest post-war Polish national tragedy, in which the President of the Polish Republic and 95 accompanying persons, the country's political elite, were killed in mysterious circumstances. To explain the course of the Catastrophe on the basis of scarce evidence, that was accessible for investigation, represented a scientific challenge. As all official scientific institutions have chosen to refrain from participation in such an analysis, this inquiry was carried out within the framework of what is known as academic investigation.
Three Smolensk Conferences took place: in 2012, 2013 and 2014. More than a hundred of eminent professors, from all the relevant technical as well as natural science domains, were engaged in their organization. These include mechanics and physics, aviation and aerodynamics, electrotechnics and chemistry, geodesy and archaeology, and later on also medicine, sociology and law. In 78 scientific papers presented, all essential aspects of the Smolensk Catastrophe have been analyzed by a variety of methods offered by contemporary science. The results have been published in Conference Proceedings, diffused afterwards among the libraries of all of Poland’s academic institutions. The Proceedings have been also posted to the Conference website http://konferencjasmolenska.pl.
The hypothesis presented both by the Russian MAK Commission as well as by the Polish Governmental Commission (hereafter called the MAK/Miller hypothesis) was a subject of especially careful investigation. According to this hypothesis the Tu-154 plane decreased its altitude, close to the Bodin’s property, down to several meters above the ground, which resulted in the collision of its left wing with a birch tree, the left wing tip being lost in this way. Due to this, the plane would rotate upside down, then hit the ground and disintegrated into thousands of fragments. The Conference related investigations have shown, that this hypothesis is wrong as contradicting both the laws of physics as well as an extensive photo and video documentation showing the fragments’ distribution on the ground and their deformation. Formulation of this false hypothesis was possible exclusively when neglecting the basic evidence i.e.:
- neglecting the report of the team of Polish archaeologists that proved the plane has been crushed into roughly 60 000 pieces and showing the fragments’ real distribution,
- neglecting the absence of the crater, which would result due to the plane’s collision with the ground,
- neglecting the wreckage investigation,
- neglecting investigation of the airport recorders,
- and, first of all, by the shameful failing of the victims’
The scientific investigation performed has shown undoubtedly, that:
1) the plane’s altitude was larger than it is indicated in the MAK/Miller hypothesis. Thus, it could not hit the Bodin’s birchtree,
2) if, however, the plane hit this birch tree, the tree would not shear off the wing tip, but instead the birch would be cut,
3) if, nevertheless, the wing tip was shear off, the airplane could not turn upside down,
4) if the airplane still hit the ground after turning upside down, the degree of disintegration as seen on
photographs, could not happen.
Among many evidence that indicate the actual course of the Smolensk Catastrophe are those, which have the character of the irrefutable evidence. As follows from the laws of mechanics, the fuselage being torn longitudinally (documented by many photographs) is a fingerprint of an internal explosion. Another irrefutable evidence is the position of the debris that come from the inside of the airplane and are found before the plane’s first contact with the ground. This proves the Catastrophe was a 2B type, i.e. the breaking of the fuselage happened in the air, before its contact with the ground.
The conclusions of the papers covering various domains of science, and presented during the Smolensk Conferences, coincide and support one another. Whatever scientific domain is taken into account, whether it is geodesy and geotechnics, archaeology, medicine, physics and chemistry, mechanics and aerodynamics, electrotechnics and acoustics, all the Conference papers point to a coherent picture and allow for drawing the following conclusions:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. The overall course of the Smolensk Catastrophe is known. Although the course 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, therefore the closure of the investigation at this stage would be impermissible.
The Scientific Committee of the Smolensk Conferences
Warsaw, October 3, 2015
Books You May Like:
THE MAN WITHOUT A FACE
BLOWING UP RUSSIA
From the Editor's Desk: A real-life political thriller about an American financier in the Wild East of Russia, the murder of his principled young tax attorney, and his dangerous mission to expose the Kremlin’s corruption.
In 2007, a group of law enforcement officers raided Browder’s offices in Moscow and stole $230 million of taxes that his fund’s companies had paid to the Russian government. Browder’s attorney Sergei Magnitsky investigated the incident and uncovered a sprawling criminal enterprise. A month after Sergei testified against the officials involved, he was arrested and thrown into pre-trial detention, where he was tortured for a year. On November 16, 2009, he was led to an isolation chamber, handcuffed to a bedrail, and beaten to death by eight guards in full riot gear.
From the Editor's Desk: A chilling and unflinching portrait of one of the most fearsome figures in world politics.
In 1999, the “Family” surrounding Boris Yeltsin went looking for a successor to the ailing and increasingly unpopular president. Vladimir Putin, with very little governmental or administrative experience - he’d been deputy mayor of St. Petersburg, and briefly, director of the secret police - nevertheless seemed the perfect choice: a “faceless” creature whom Yeltsin and his cronies could mold in their own image. Russia and an infatuated West were determined to see in him the progressive leader of their dreams - even as Putin, with ruthless efficiency, dismantled the country’s media, wrested control and wealth from the business class, and destroyed the fragile mechanisms of democracy.
From the Editor's Desk: "Blowing Up Russia" contains the allegations of ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko against his former spymasters in Moscow which led to his being murdered in London in November 2006. In the book he and historian Yuri Felshtinsky detail how since 1999 the Russian secret service has been hatching a plot to return to the terror that was the hallmark of the KGB.
Vividly written and based on Litvinenko's 20 years of insider knowledge of Russian spy campaigns, Blowing Up Russia describes how the successor of the KGB fabricated terrorist attacks and launched a war. Writing about Litvinenko, the surviving co-author recounts how the banning of the book in Russia led to three earlier deaths.
Already during the first night of the crash, the Russians were removing the most important pieces of evidence from the crash site, that is, the remains of the Polish President’s Tupolev, TU-154M. Parts of the aircraft were transported away without any prior planning, and some of them were purposefully destroyed. Read more here
"Russian Image Management"
The trip to Smolensk was expected to highlight Russia finally admitting culpability in the massacre, after long having blamed it on the Germans, an atrocity they had tried to conceal for over 70 years.
As for the reception committee, it had different ideas. Putin wasn’t looking forward to such an occasion. Into this poisonous reception brew was President Kaczynski’s well-known public criticism of Moscow and Putin, a habit that has ended the lives of others within Russia – and abroad. A few discouraging Russian requirements – that Kaczynski could not attend in any official capacity – did not halt the Poles. Kaczynski would go anyway on non-official, “personal” business. To Russians, such a distinction would be meaningless, not lessening the possible international excoriation of such an event. A problem ripe for a modern, Russian solution: a tragic, ‘natural’ accident.
World-renowned forensic pathologist goes on the record: "I have been doing autopsies for 50 years, and I've investigated more than fifteen, twenty airplane crashes […] I've been in countries all over the world where families think that the government is hiding something. Whether it is Zimbabwe or Israel, or Philippines, the government may not like an outside person checking to make sure they got it right. [But,] they never interfered with that. The family, the next of kin, always has the right to do what the wishes of the family are. In the 21st century, the body of the dead person no longer belongs to the state. It belongs to the family. So, it is unusual - something that I have never experienced before - where the government [of Poland] has not permitted the famil[ies]" to conduct independent forensic examinations of their loved ones' remains [...] I've never heard of a body coming back to a country and the family being unable to open up a casket. I've never heard of the family not being able to get an autopsy… Read more here
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.