Header
Smolensk Crash News Digest
Independent News, Research, Scientific Analysis, and Commentary on the Smolensk Crash and its Implications. Flag of the United States of America
"The dismantling of the Polish State has just ended. Now people will start to disappear." Dr. Janusz Kurtyka Contact | About
  • Antoni Macierewicz, Vice Chairman of the Law and Justice Party (PiS)Chairman of the Polish Government Re-Investigation Commission of the Crash of Polish Air Force One on April 10, 2010 in Smolensk
  • Russian Image Management by Euguene PoteatRetired CIA Senior Scientific Intelligence Officer Euguene Poteat speaks out
  • Smolensk Crash DisinformationNo one saw anything, no one heard anything, no one filmed anything ...
  • TNT and other explosives detected on the wreckage of Polish presidential planeC4, TNT, RDX, HMX (octogen), p-MNT and Nitroglycerine detected ...
  • Smolensk Crash related deaths"The Serial Suicider" Strikes Again. Key witness dead!
  • Countdown to the crash of Flight PLF101Countdown to the crash of Polish Governement Tupolev TU-154M flight PLF101.
  • Smolensk Widow Beata Gosiewska exposes the Smolnesk Crash LieSmolensk Crash Widow exposes the "Smolensk Lie"
  • The List of 96 Victims of Polish Air Crash In Smolensk, Russia, on April 10, 2010.The list of 96 victims
  • 9 Questions for Professor Binienda.Is the U.S. scientific community interested in the Smolensk crash?
  • Lech Kaczynski's Security Was Purposefully CompromisedPolish president's security was purposefully compromised!
  • Slide 11 Title Goes HereThe main causes of the Polish Tu-154M crash were two explosions onboard.
  • Facts presented in this report demonstrate a clear and convincing evidence of obstruction of justice in the one-sided and superficial investigation that violates basic norms of any airplane crash investigation, elementary standards of due process of law, and rights of the families of the victims.Was the official investigation an obstruction of justice?
Chairman of the Polish Government Re-Investigation Commission of the Crash of Polish Air Force One on April 10, 2010 in Smolensk Russian Image Management by Retired CIA Senior Scientific Intelligene Officer, Eugene Poteat, LL.D Smolensk Crash Disinformation Explosives Found on the wreckage of Polish Air Force One. Coverup by Suicide Smolensk Crash Timeline Smolensk Crash Lie Exposed. Smolensk Crash Victims 9 Questions for Dr. Binienda. Polish president's security was intentionally compromised. Scientific analysis of Smolensk crash points to the invalidity of the official findings. 2014 independent Smolensk Crash Raport: What do we know about Smolensk crash today.

Wings of Tu-154M at the center of Smolensk crash dispute
thicker than anticipated

In 2012 a team of researchers from the University of Akron published an academic paper that presented results of the extensive numerical analysis of a Tu-154M aircraft wing impact with a birch tree of 44 cm diameter wide in the impact area. A detailed finite element model of a full scale Tu-154M aircraft was developed on the basis of data available form public sources.

Published: February 22, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On January 12, 2011, the Russian Federation released the final report (“MAK report”) on the investigation into the crash of the Polish aircraft Tu-154M in Smolensk, Russia, on April 10, 2010 (“Smolensk Crash”). In its final report, the Russian Federation blamed the Polish crew for the crash. In the final conclusions no. 3.1.69-70, the Russians wrote:

“In 4-5 seconds after the first collision with the obstacle, the aircraft collided with the birch with a trunk diameter of 30-40 cm, which led to the left outer wing portion of about 6.5 m ripped off and intensive left bank. In 5-6 seconds, inverted, the aircraft collided with the ground and was destroyed.”

The same conclusions were repeated in the first Polish report released on July 29, 2011 by the government of Donald Tusk (“Miller’s report”). This report stated that an impact with a terrain obstacle resulted in separation of a part of the left wing with aileron and consequently led to the loss of aircraft control and eventual ground impact.

In 2012, a team of researchers from the University of Akron published an academic paper that presented results of the extensive numerical analysis of a Tu-154M aircraft wing impact with a birch tree of 44 cm diameter wide in the impact area.1/ A detailed finite element model of a full scale Tu-154M aircraft was developed on the basis of data available form public sources. The researchers conducted parametric studies to (i) analyze how the thickness of the skin and the spar in the wing structure influences the degree of damage to the wing, and (ii) investigate what is the critical thickness for the spar failure.

In general, the thicknesses of the wing skin may vary from 1.6 mm to 5 mm on the whole wing surface. For this parametric study, the thicknesses of the spar, rib and skin were assumed to be constant along the wing length. The skin thickness was assumed to be between 1 mm and 5 mm, the thickness of the spar was assumed to be between 5 mm and 20 mm, while the thickness of the ribs was assumed to be 3 mm based on knowledge of the aircraft structure. Assumptions were made to keep the geometry of the aircraft simple and parameters conservative. Stringers, joints and bolts were ignored.

The Finite Element simulations successfully reproduced the aircraft's wing impact with a birch tree scenario. The results conclusively ruled out the possibility of a birch tree of 44 cm in diameter cutting off 6.5 m of the Tu-154M wing.

These conclusions were vehemently opposed not only by the Russian investigators but primarily by the Polish supporters of the Miller’s report. Wide-ranging attempts were undertaken in Poland and abroad to discredit the findings of this research. The main arguments used in the attacks focused on the incorrect input data. The supporters of the Miller’s report argued that the elements of internal structure of the wing used in the study were too thick, in other words the wing was made too strong, and therefore the study do not represent the real situation in Smolensk.

In 2016, a new Polish government of Prime Minister Szydło formed a new Polish Commission for Re-Investigation of the Smolensk Crash (“Reinvestigation Commission”).

Between 2017-2019, a detailed measurement of all critical parts of the twin Tu-154M aircraft was conducted by the Reinvestigation Commission in Poland. The painstaking work of technical experts who located, measured and analyzed every element of the structure of the Tu-154M aircraft confirmed that the input data used for the finite element model of Tu-154M wing in the 2012 study was very conservative, meaning that parameters used in 2012 study were much smaller than the real parameters confirmed by the subsequent measurement of the real twin Tu-154M.

To illustrate to what extent the Tu-154M model used in 2012 study aired on a conservative side some comparison is in order. The thickness of the skin for initial 2012 parametric study was assumed to be between 1 and 5 mm. But as we see in the picture above, the real thickness of the lower surface of the wing structure near the fixed leading edge at the place of a hypothetical contact with a birch tree was as high as 15.99 mm. It means that the model of the wing used in the 2012 study used the skin almost three times thinner than the skin in the real wing of Tu-154M.

The above comparison of the parameters used in the 2012 study with the real parameters of the Tu-154M wing are critical in evaluating the credibility of the 2011 Russian MAK and Polish Miller’s reports that incorrectly attribute to the birch tree the ability to cut off 1/3 of the Tu-154M wing that led to the Smolensk Crash.

by: SCND

1/ APPLICATION OF NUMERICAL METHODS FOR CRASHWORTHINESS INVESTIGATION OF A LARGE AIRCRAFT WING IMPACT WITH A TREE, Mathematical and Computational Forestry & Natural-Resource Sciences, Published: Mar. 30, 2013; https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2d81/2a4ded71d63889dcef972d1aef2c53b36636.pdf

comments powered by Disqus

 
Smolensk Spectrometer Screen Dumps

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"

Explosives detected on 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" - SCREEN DUMP 1 Explosives detected on 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" - SCREEN DUMP 2
Explosives detected on 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" - SCREEN DUMP 3 Explosives detected on 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" - SCREEN DUMP 4
Why did they all fly on the same plane?
Why was the Polish government delegation flying to Smolensk onboard a single aircraft?

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.

Independent Experts Confirm Detection of Explosive Substances on Crashed President Jet.

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.

Read more here

 

The translation of all materials included on this website into English language, unless otherwise noted, is Copyright ©2008 - 2020 by DoomedSoldiers.com. All Rights Reserved. All materials on this website are subject to the United States and International Copyright Laws and are the property of their respective owners, appearing herewith under The Greater Public Good Doctrine.

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.

Word Press WP3.8.1a b1.9