A Brief History of Explosives on the Wreckage

SCND: May 28, 2016

After the crash in Smolensk in April 10 2010 several experts pointed out massive destruction of the structure of the airplane. Supposedly, Tu-154M hit the muddy ground with relatively low velocity and under shallow angle. Polish official report confirms “this type of crash is classified as a low energy low angle impact”. Moreover, “the swampy ground and shrubbery suppressed energy of the impact”. [1] There was neither fireball nor explosion of the fuel. So, what caused such a massive destruction and instant death of all passengers?

According to the ICAO guidelines for investigation of aircraft incidents: “Shattering of metal into very small and numerous fragments and minute deep penetration of a metal surface are not characteristics usually found in aircraft accident wreckage”. [2]

Therefore the obvious question is whether the plane may have been destroyed either by a fuel explosion in the tanks or by explosives? Fragments of the wreckage were never subjected to any metallurgical and forensic analysis. Such an investigation could have revealed features attributed to explosion such as pitting, cratering, petalling, rolled edges and hot gas washing. Photographic evidence suggests that some parts of the wreckage bear signs of explosion, namely rolled edges on the left wing:

In first weeks after the crash Polish authorities did not perform any analysis in order to rule out the possibility that the plane was destroyed by explosion. In June 2010 only 8 samples taken from victims personal belongings were analysed by Military Institute of Chemistry and Radiometry with negative outcome. Samples from the wreckage were not taken and according to the report this institute is accredited for analysis of chemical weapon residues and radioactive substances but not explosives.

The first serious attempts to check the wreckage for the presence of explosives were taken two and half years after the crash, long after official report was released by Polish authorities. Growing doubts about the course of events during Smolensk crash lead Polish Chief Military Prosecution Office to send to Smolensk, where the wreckage is still stored, in autumn 2012 (2.5 years after the crash) group of experts in order to take samples from debris for forensic examination. During on field screening tests 3 different mobile spectrometers positively identified several signals from explosives. Two used spectrometers worked in the field symmetric ion mobility (FAIM) mode: MO-2M (Sibel) and Pilot-M (Russian production Lawada-Ju). One spectrometer worked in the ion mobility mode: Hardened Mobile Trace (Safran Morpho). Below printout from one of the device with positive signal for TNT and different explosives along with the date and time alerts were recorded:

Positive detections of explosives by mobile spectrometers were initially not revealed by military prosecutors although information about it soon leaked into the public domain. On October 30, 2012 journalist Cezary Gmyz published in the large and respectable Polish daily newspaper "Rzeczpospolita" article highlighting findings about detections of explosives by mobile spectrometers on the wreckage of Tu-154. (See: Disarming of the Smolensk Crash Explosives) After the article was published all hell broke loose. Military prosecutors on an ad hoc special press conference made frantic efforts to deny those findings trying to explain that "actually, positive signals from mobile spectrometers do not equal presence of explosives". The journalist who revealed the fact of positive detections, Cezary Gmyz was immediately sacked (on demand of former Polish government) from his job followed by several other journalists from the same journal. As we know now, Polish secret services undertook illegal surveillance operations against Cezary Gmyz and many other journalists (52 in total) (Read Details Here)

Meanwhile, few hundreds samples in the form of cotton swabs taken in Smolensk from the wreckage of Tupolev - for unknown reasons - were confiscated from Polish experts and sent to Moscow where those samples were kept for around 6 months. There is no information under what conditions samples were stored and why they had to be deposited in Moscow for several months. Eventually, samples arrived to Warsaw for further laboratory analysis which took place in the Central Forensic Laboratory of the Police. The samples were analyzed by 4 methods:

- gas chromatography thermal energy analysis (GC-TEA)
- gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS)
- gas chromatography with electron capture detector (GC-ECD)
- high-performance liquid chromatography with photo-diode array detection (HPLCDAD)

Soon concerning detections occurred. Two chemists and members of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Prof. Krystyna Kamienska-Trela and Prof. Slawomir Szymański pointed out that on the actual chromatograms attached to the report there are several analytical signals that correspond with the peaks from explosive analytes in the sample:

- For GC-ECD method there were around 150 samples with detected signal of a substance corresponding to the pattern signal of RDX (hexogen).
- For majority of these samples also GC-TEA method detected a peak corresponding to the pattern peak of RDX.
- For HPLC-DAD method (device working in automated mode) there were 112 detections of explosives (20.6% of all analyzed samples): 72 detections of PETN, 53 2,6-DNB, 2 detections of tetryl, TNT and RDX, and 1 detection of TNB and 2am4,6DNTn (See detailed analysis here)

Yet, the summary report of the Central Forensic Laboratory of the Police claimed that no traces of explosives have been detected. The base for this claim was very strange methodological principle, namely all aforementioned 4 methods had to confirm presence of explosive in each sample. Thus, even if 3 independent analytical methods positively identified traces of explosives in one sample that was not sufficient to actually confirm such presence if the fourth method did not detected any traces. That is extremely peculiar assumption as different analytical methods differ from each other in terms of sensitivity and substances they can detect.

The Central Forensic Laboratory of the Police claimed that all detections of explosives in samples were false positives. Particularly phthalate esters were to blame for false positives with diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP) giving a peak signal overlapping with the peak from RDX. According to the Police experts it was not possible to separate the chromatographic band of diisobutyl phthalate from the band of RDX.

This explanation was heavily criticized by Kamienska-Trela and Szymanski. Analytical signals of RDX were detected also by the GC-TEA analyzer. According to the manufacturer of this device (Ellutia 800 Series) the analyzer is uniquely sensitive to those samples which contain nitrogen. As diisobutyl phthalate (molecular formula C16H22O4) does not contain nitrogen it is not possible to detect such substance by properly used GC-TEA analyzer. Below is the chromatogram GC-TEA for the sample number 4-287 with explosive standards in the background. Highlighted in red peaks that may correspond to the explosives. The peak corresponding to RDX was later manually labelled on the chromatogram as FDiB (diisobutyl phthalate) even if this analyzer under normal operational conditions cannot detect such substance.

Kamienska-Trela and Szymanski pointed out that most of positive detections, both by mobile spectrometers and laboratory analysis come from samples taken on seats what may suggest internal explosion.

Apart of chemical analysis experts pointed also out that certain characteristics of the wreckage bear signs of explosion. For instance, Dr Gregory Szuladzinski explained that sharp, fractured and rolled edges from the inside out clearly visible on many parts of the wreckage indicate explosion.

When the new investigation committee was formed in the beginning of this year the question rises whether this new body can decisively judge the matter of presence explosives on the wreckage and victims personal belongings. Key evidence as wreckage and black boxes is still held in Russia without any viable prospect for returning to Poland. Yet, there are bits of physical evidence that are available and can be useful for analysis right now such as:

1. There are victims personal belongings held by family members. As mentioned above some can retain traces of explosives

2. Some smaller parts of the aircraft came back to Poland by different means

3. New group of prosecutors involved in the investigation wants to exhume bodies of the victims and perform full autopsy procedure with involvements of the world renewed pathologists

4. There can be still available duplicated samples taken from wreckage in Smolensk in 2012 and still possibly kept by the Central Laboratory of the Police.

5. There is large amount of raw flight data retrieved in June 2010 from Flight Management System (FMS). Units of FMS and TAWS – that survived the crash - were transported to the US in June 2010 and subsequently data was retrieved by Universal Avionics (manufacturer of this device). Previous Polish investigation committee requested only portion of this data which was decoded and converted into human-readable parameters.

6. There is photographic evidence (including high-resolution satellite images) of the site crash and airplane parts that may give some clues about pattern of destruction

7. There are advanced modelling and testing techniques that can shed a light on the probable destruction of the airplane.

8. Thus, even without full access to the evidence substantial progress can be made and hopefully, new investigation committee is working on it right now.

References:

1. Final Report – Annex 5. Description of Damage to the Aircraft, p. 5/25.
2. Manual of Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation. Part III - Investigation.
ICAO, Doc 9756-AN/965. III-19-6, 19.2.4, p. 524.

Written by Piotr Kubicki

About the author: Piotr Kublicki is an engineer with more than a dash of writer. He graduated in Poland with a degree in humanities and worked few years as journalist, editor and freelancer in the subjects of politics, social, religious and science. In 2000s he moved to the United Kingdom where he graduated with a degree in computing at the Plymouth University. He works in the areas of systems analysis and integration as well as software engineering.

Books You May Like:

RED NOTICE	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. Buy this book	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. Buy this book	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. Buy this book