Summary of Prof. Chris Cieszewski, Ph.D., findings concerning the Birch Tree, alleged to have caused the crash of the Polish government Tupolev Tu-154M, on April 10, 2010, in Smolensk Russia.
(The entire report is forthcoming).
We have conducted four types of studies regarding the Bodin's birch, which allegedly caused the crash of the Polish Government Tupolev TU-154M, in Smolensk, Russia, on April 10, 2010:
Estimation of wood and tree mechanical parameters;
Analysis of the tree brake characteristics;
Analysis of the birch physiological properties;
and, Satellite imagery analysis.
Ad. 1. Studies of the wood mechanical properties can be summarized as follows:
Using state of the art technology of SilviScan and NIR Spectroscopy and mathematical modeling scientists determined the wood properties' parameters for the Bodin's birch tree as equivalent, in the live birch (green wood), to the analogous parameters of the US southern pine kiln-dried polls, which were tested in the past with the DC-9 airplane crash experiment (in these tests polls were determined to be weaker than the wings).
The derived parameters were fed into simulations studies of Prof. Wieslaw Binienda, Ph.D. and determined that the birch could not break off the wing of the TU-154M aircraft even if it's wood were four times stronger than it actually was according to the analysis of the wood sample from this tree. The analysis of the tree limb and knot frequency determined that the tree had particularly structurally weak trunk due to many limb knots and high taper (large proportion of early wood as opposed to late wood, which is stronger) even on the clear part of the trunk. The significance of this finding is in the fact that LSDINA simulations assume that the wood parameters are corresponding to a clear wood (without knots), which means that the actual strength of the birch in the simulations of prof. Binienda were based on grossly overestimated wood quality parameters.
Ad. 2. The studies of the brake characteristics determined the further following mechanical reasons why the birch could not be broken by a collision with the airplane, since the brake of the trunk was typical for bending and atypical for shear, which would have been the result of lasting only several milliseconds collision with an airplane flying 80 m/s:
presence of a residual long splinter overlapping with a part of the standing snag;
wood split along curvy fiber lines perpendicular to the direction of the flight;
cleanly extracted tree limb knots in directions inconsistent with the flight instead of sheared or shattered knots;
lack of shatter on the exit side of the brake;
partial outer cuts in inconsistent directions;
and wrong fall direction of the broken off trunk;
Ad. 3. The study, grounded in tree physiological characteristics, determined that the birch could not have been broken on Apr. 10, 2010, because:
The snag on April 10, and days after, appeared to be "air dry" showing no signs of birch sap presence, abundant expulsion of which is the typical physiological response to cambium damage in this species during the beginning of the vegetation season, presence of which was evidenced on ground photos of other trees of this species in the same region at the same time;
There was a complete lack of leave or flower development on the broken part of the tree trunk, which would be a typical response of practically all tree species broken on the beginning of the vegetation season, which, as mentioned above, was already active at that time and location.
Ad. 4. Study of the satellite imagery conducted after concluding that the birch story was a "red-herring", and that the birch had to be broken before April 10, 2010, had a purpose to see if the birch had been broken already before April 5th, 2010. If we could see clearly the tree standing tall on April 5, it would simply mean that it had to be broken between April 5 and 10, 2010. The satellite imagery shows that there was no more change in scenery between April 5 and 11, then there was between April 11 and 12, which clearly means that nothing significant took place at this site between April 5 and 12, 2010, which in turn implies that the birch had to be broken before Arp. 5, 2010.
Also See: "Smolensk Crash, Summary of Independent Investigation. Presented by Dr. Wieslaw Binienda, Ph.D., on Feb. 3, 2014 in Dublin, Ireland".
- 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.
Moreover, since the white stable object visible on April 5, 11 and 12, appeared to be white plastic garbage bags and some other light and volatile debris, which in addition could not be visible under the standing tree, and which would be dispersed broadly flying all over the site if even the smallest jet flew low over this location, it means that the airplane didn't even fly over this location at all at the altitude of 5 meters above the ground, which is the height at which the wing was supposed to allegedly cut the birch. The white objects, be it garbage or the birch broken trunk, or anything but a concrete sidewalk, could not have been unmoved by the airblow capable of moving 80 ton plane at the speed of 80 m/s and accelerating.
Furthermore, other studies noticed that the parts of metal embedded into the birch trunk, claimed to be allegedly parts of the plane, do not match in terms of their surface oxidization the plane parts; and therefore, must have been embedded in the birch for quite some time before the tragic crash (hence the heavy oxidization), while the sawdust sprinkled on the broken wing part, claimed to be allegedly part of the birch tree, is really either a bad taste practical joke of the local population, or a really impudent fabrication of false evidence.
Although unintended, perhaps the most valuable additional revelation associated with the birch study, was that it identified and exposed top-down disinformation and smear campaign carried out by the Polish government-affiliated and supported media, the Public TV, Polish intelligence services, the Polish Military Prosecutor's Office, and even the Polish Institute of National Remembrance.
All these institutions coordinated and carried out slanderous at persona attacks on the senior author of this study, in order to discredit him publicly, and to jeopardize his position at the University in the United States, where he is employed. The public persecution campaign went as far as to even attempt to falsify historical records of his past from over 30 years ago over which he had to subject himself to the Polish courts investigation of his past in a process called "auto lustration", whereby the IPN prosecutor investigates all the past confidential documents (42 years back in this case) from the communists' phone and house surveillances of invigilated individuals, invigilation reports by communist snitches and recruiters, past records of interrogations, and any private dealings or attempts of cohorting the person in the past by the former communist secret police.
This, in itself, is perhaps the greatest discovery resulting from the author's study, which exposes and explains why, to this day, there has not been any sincere investigation of the Smolensk tragedy by the current Polish government establishment. It clearly shows why the independent efforts to solve the mystery of this yet unexplained tragedy is being hindered, thwarted, and paralyzed. Similarly, it brought to light, and exposed, the persecution of two distinguished senior Polish scientists, Dr. Jacek Rońda, Ph.D., Eng., and Dr. Piotr Witakowski, Ph.D., Eng. - both spearheading the independent multidisciplinary scientific investigation of the April 10, 2010 crash of the Polish Air Force One aircraft in Smolensk, Russia.
Above: Comparative analysis of four satellite photos showing the crash site of the Polish government Tupolev TU-154 near Smolensk, Russia. Top left - April 11, 2010; top right - April 12, 2010; bottom left - April 5, 2010; bottom right - January 26, 2010.
Retired Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Senior Scientific Intelligence officer Eugene Poteat, goes on the record:
"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."
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.