Smolensk disaster was not an accident
Gazeta Polska, September 14, 2011
Leszek Misiak and Grzegorz Wierzchołowski talk to Antoni Macierewicz, head of the
Polish Parliamentary Team Investigating the Cause of the Tu-154M Catastrophe
on April 10th, 2010.
The research conducted by Prof. Wiesław Binienda, member of Expert Group for FAA / NASA Air Accidents, presented to the Parliamentary Team Investigating the Cause of the Tu-154M Smolensk Catastrophe, proved that the wing of the Tu-154 should have cut through the birch tree, not the other way round, as stated by general Anodina and Jerzy Miller. The research results have also proved that such damage to the wing does not decrease its lift area or the plane’s stability. This overturns the fundamental thesis of both MAK and Miller’s reports.
Indeed, it is like that. Let’s add that Professor Binienda took part in the investigation of causes of catastrophe of Columbia space shuttle in 2003. His laboratory has applied the methodology that had been used to investigate the space shuttle catastrophe to find answer to the question if the birch tree could break the wing of Tu-154. We have started cooperation with Professor Binienda thanks to contacts and recommendation of Professor Nowaczyk from Maryland University. We have provided Professor Binienda with much data, first of all, the original version of Tu-154 service manual together with detailed technical description of the airplane’s wing. The research took almost three months. It was incredibly laborious, each stage of partial computations required at least a week of preparations.
I stress this to make clear to anyone that it was not a ‘cartoon’ presentation, made for visual effect without professional computations just to demonstrate a concept. To the contrary, we have received results of professional research, reflecting real course of events. Professor Binienda has developed a mathematical model of the plane’s wing and of the birch tree and then conducted many simulations and experiments verifying what happened with the plane after the wing had hit the tree. The result was unambiguous. Regardless of the value of angle of attack (AOA) the plane cut the birch tree and did not suffer damage.
At the same time I want to underline that from the meteorological point of view there is no difference between Miller report and Anodina report. These reports – especially with regards to the reconstruction of last seconds of the flight and to their determination of direct cause of the catastrophe, i.e. the plane hitting the birch tree – have an identical base. In both cases there is lack of even one proof or even a premise pointing to the armoured birch tree breaking the plane’s wing. We learn about this as a fact, not requiring a proof from Anodina report. Minister Miller simply copied it’s description from Russian text.
To what conclusions lead the results of Professor Binienda investigations?
What had happened at Smolensk – because the fate of the Polish delegation was a foregone conclusion, before it fell to the ground – had external cause. The hypothesis about involvement of third party, which was investigated by public prosecutor’s office (unfortunately, it was not taken up in further investigation), is in the light of current scientific knowledge the most probable. The thesis of breaking wing promoted by Russians and Miller’s commission is untrue and it is the duty of public prosecutor’s office to start a new investigation of previously rejected suspicion of third party perpetration.
Minister Miller experts have not executed any simulation or research in the direction of confirmation of their thesis about armoured birch tree.
That fact dismisses completely – both the report of minister Miller and its prototype – Anodina’s report. In both reports there is neither an attempt of analysis how it came to breaking of the plane’s wing nor an attempt to prove that it had indeed taken place. This section of the report strikes with arrogance and confidence that nobody will verify the veracity of given statements. The main part of the report which writes about the essence of the catastrophe has no confirmation in any proof ! It is based on groundless statements that the plane hit a birch tree 30-40 cm in diameter, which caused breaking off of the wing and subsequently the turn of the plane. I stress – both reports do not contain analyses evidencing that it had happened that way. This is, I think, the first such case in the history of air catastrophes’ investigations. And the first case in the Polish history, to present a national tragedy to Polish public opinion in such adulterated way.
In Poland there exist academic centers, starting with MEL Department (Power and Aeronautical Engineering) of Warsaw Technical University to Physics, Chemistry institutes, there exist aerodynamic chambers, all instruments to conduct such research.
It is astonishing that among thousands of Polish engineers, scientists, professors, members of sciences academy we have not found persons, who would question the complete groundlessness of Miller report. Not until the work of Professor Binienda laboratory from the USA and the actions of parliamentary team have proven groundlessness of statements contained in the Miller and Anodina reports. Our team turned to many faculties and scientific laboratories in the country to prepare such expert opinions and analyses. Indeed, we have received anonymous help and suggestions with regard to directions of further research. Polish scientists and experts, unfortunately, were not able to overcome the resistance of administrations of scientific centers and laboratories and were not able to obtain consent for official use of scientific equipment for research of the catastrophe’s cause. Only officially confirmed, authorized expert opinions can be used in judicial proceedings. Also now such research can and should be undertaken. Professor Binienda appealed to minister Miller, in order that experts who had signed the government report, verified
his computations and conclusions. They would of course have access to all data used by the American laboratory.
What do the Parliamentary Team intend to do with the knowledge delivered by Professors Nowaczyk and Binienda ? How do the Parliamentary Team want to use it in practice?
Last Friday I signed a document on behalf of the Parliamentary Team, addressed at the Chief of Prosecutor’s Office Andrzej Seremet, Prime Minister Donald Tusk, general Krzysztof Parulski and minister Jerzy Miller. In the document, (to which presentations prepared by Professor Binienda and Professor Nowaczyk were attached), we state that we treat the document as notice about the possibility of committing a crime by minister Jerzy Miller, from paragraph 231 of penal code, by neglecting of duties and abuse of authority and also from a paragraph stating about forging of a state document, which is the report of minister Miller. We know with absolute certainty that the birch tree has not broken off the plane’s wing. Experts who had signed minister Miller’s report, on February 2nd 2011 also signed a letter to minister Grabarczyk, stating that due to activities of colonel Edmund Klich they could not perform complete research of the plane’s wreckage. And in October 2011 during sitting of parliamentary commission colonel Edmund Klich replied to my question that he did not examine the wing. That was the acting – with full awareness of lack of proof in this case!
Results of Professors Nowaczyk and Binienda research are the argument for establishing an international experts commission.
The postulate of establishing an international commission is obvious in this situation, similarly as the postulate of legal prosecution of those who machinated in the case of finding cause of the catastrophe. First of all it is necessary to uncover what had really happened at Smolensk. It means carrying out all examinations from the beginning by independent experts. Expert opinion of Professor Binienda constitutes the key proof determining that the course of events was quite different then it is described by Anodina and Miller reports. The first proof is is expert opinion made in Poland stating the button “departure” may be effectively used to depart in automatic mode for a second approach to land. The second one – chronologically – the research of Professor Binienda showing that the wing did not break off after the hitting the birch tree. The third one – the information to which our team has pointed out many times – that the tragedy has occurred in the air, 17-15 meters above the level of the landing stripe, when electricity supply had been disconnected. Let us add to that the results of research of Professor Nowaczyk, who has proved that Tu-154 did not turn immediately after passing the birch tree, but much, much further and that it could not fly in the upside down position. And also that just beyond the birch tree two strong vertical shocks ! We have reconstructed main moments of Smolensk tragedy. It was not an accident and it was not the result of the pilots’ mistake…