6 QUESTIONS TO MACIEJ LASEK AND THE AUTHORS OF THE OFFICIAL POLISH SMOLENSK CRASH REPORT

By GLENN JORGENSEN, EXPERT OF THE POLISH PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING THE SMOLENSK CRASH

SCND AUGUST 27, 2015

CRASH SITE:

20 000 - 60 000 PIECES and NO CRATER

OFFICIAL CRASH EXPLANATION:

THE PLANE HIT THE MUDDY GROUND WITH LOW VERTICAL SPEED AT SHALLOW ANGLE

AERODYNAMIC CALCULATIONS:

WING LOSS OCCURS IN FREE AIRSPACE WHERE NO OBSTACLES EXIST

British aviation expert Frank Taylor says that official Russian and Polish reports concerning the crash of the Polish Air Force One in Smolensk, Russia, on April 10, 2010 with Polish President on board, are full of major errors and neglect.

Dr. Maciej Lasek

QUESTION #1:

Officially the plane hit the muddy ground at a shallow angle with low vertical speed. How do you explain that in such conditions the plane broke up into 60.000 pieces, the people on board were exposed to 100G to 350G,  there was no crater and no marks in the ground?

QUESTION #2

How do you explain that a human hand was found deep into the ground before the main crash site? This implies that some force had to cut the hand, penetrate this through the fuselage wall with enough force to end 1m into the ground?

QUESTION # 3

Calculations clearly show the officially claimed trajectory during the descend is against the law of physics and would require the plane to fly from 248MSL at the birch tree (claimed to have cut the wing) to more than 294MSL at TAWS 38, a change of 44m in 1.6s or more than 28m/s vertical speed in average. The necessary vertical acceleration far exceeds the performance of the TU-154M. How do you explain this?

QUESTION #4

The published work of Professor Binienda from Akron University proves the 30-44cm diameter single birch tree by no means could cut the wing tip of the Tu-154M flying 80 m/s, as claimed. The birch tree needed to be at least 4 times stronger to cut the wing. The energy required to cut the tree by the wing is less than 1% the energy required for the tree to cut the wing. Have you done calculations that show such a tree can cut the wing? How do you explain this?

QUESTION #5

My work shows, in full agreement with a number of incidents with similar loss of wing span, that in this case the span loss of 15% as stated only explains about 30% of the recorded roll speed. The officially published recorded roll speed and final roll angle together with the vertical acceleration data tell us the plane lost more than double the lift power in at least two strikes 1.6 sec part. In light of this data, how can you claim the crash was caused by loosing just the wing tip?

QUESTION #6

The larger wing loss dictates that the plane was higher than 40 meter above runway when it lost the wing area. How do you explain the cause of the wing loss in the free air space at more than 40m height were no obstacles exist?