CATASTROPHE OF MILLER’S REPORT
ARTUR STELMASIAK
The official report concerning the Smoleńsk catastrophe is full of mistakes, lies and manipulation. Maybe that is why nobody of Miller’s commission counting over 30 people was courageous enough to attend a university debate which took place on 5 February 2013 at the University of Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński
In a quick time there are fewer and fewer Poles who are convinced of infallibility of decisions of the so-called Miller’s commission. Everything points to the fact that the process of distrust is still growing in scale. Nobody thinking reasonably can have illusions any more that the truth about the causes and the process of the catastrophe at Smoleńsk is different in many points than it was shown both in the Russian and the Polish reports. Not only did the families of the casualties have doubts, as well as scientists connected with the parliamentary team, but also the military procurators. Therefore so many threads are being investigated anew.
– Everything points to the fact that Miller’s commission set forth the thesis in the very beginning to which it added false facts and proofs. Today even the members of the commission are not convinced of the report. Maybe that is why they did not come to the debate – says Piotr Walentynowicz, a grandson of Anna Walentynowicz, one of the 96 casualties of the catastrophe.
Dr. Lasek versus prof. Binienda
One of the key arguments set forth by dr. Maciej Lasek (a director of the polish Commission for Investigation of Aviation Accidents), is essential questioning of the preparation of scientists cooperating with the so-called Smoleńsk team. However, facts are different. It turns out that nobody of the Polish commission is able to overturn the results of investigations by prof. Wiesław Binienda.
Prof. Binienda works, among the others, for NASA and Boeing. His knowledge is used not only to construct passenger airplanes, but also space ferries. Therefore people from the commission of dr. Lasek undertook a desperate attempt of finding somebody who could deny the results of the work of the arrogant professor. So, they found a prominent expert in processes of the collapse of the construction of dr. Grzegorz Szuladziński who lives in Australia at present. Similarly as dr. Lasek Szuladziński graduated from the same department of the Warsaw Polytechnics. However, the similarity ends here, because after his leaving for the West, the scientist started working, among the others, for the American army, and now he is a member of the scientific body specialising in the national security of Australia. – When he presented his calculations to me, he stated that he fully agreed with them. Now he is supporting the works of our team – explains Binienda. An American scholar arrived in Poland with his new simulations. He uses them to show how a wing weaker than the one in the tupolew cuts a tree four times stronger than the Smoleńsk birch tree. – In the recent months we and our PhDs have carried out dozens of further simulations. We took various material parameters and we used various angles of attack. In neither of the analysed cases the wing was not torn off because of the crash into the birch tree – explains a scientist from the university in the State of Ohio.
These investigations are endorsed with his surname also by dr. Wacław Berczyński. As one of the main engineers of the Boeing he knows the constructions of the competitor and the history of the Tupolew. – In the beginning the wings were too weak, so a massive girder was added into them. As a result the wings of the Tu-154 are much more massive than in other similar airplanes – explains Berczyński.
Prof. Binienda also presented the simulation of the energy distribution during the crash of the airplane. The braking distance of the airplane on this kind of muddy area should be from 200 to 250m. In Smoleńsk there were no traces proving it. – I used so many data that computers were working on one of them for three weeks. I was hitting a model of an airplane against the ground for a few times with five times higher speed of falling than it had been in Smoleńsk. Despite that, the hull was not so destroyed.
A riddle of the armoured tree
A physicist from the Gdańsk polytechnic, prof. Marek Czachor is trying to solve the riddle of the birch and the torn away wing. One of the hypothetical trajectory of the flight says that the airplane omitted the birch or gently touched it with the wing tip. – On one of the photos of the broken birch red discolorations are visible clearly – shows the professor. According to this theory, the airplane did not lose a wing, but only damaged it slightly. Let’s recall that slots visible on the photos (the front part of the wing) are untouched, as if – according to Miller’s commission – the birch hit into the wing from another side or the airplane was flying from the back. – Slight damage from the front is in the very tip of the wing. It is also the only fragment of the wing painted red – pointed the professor.
Such a slight damage of the tip of the wing would not have influenced the trajectory of the flight. – There is a known example from Kirgistan when at the moment of take-off, the Tu-154 crashed into another airplane and lost about 2 m of the right wing. However, pilots managed to take off, make a circle around an airport and land safely – says prof. Czachor.
However, in Kirgistan the Tu-154 crashed into an enormous airplane with a tank and in Smoleńsk it was to be a birch of about 30 cm thickness. – It can’t have been an obstacle for this airplane at all – emphasized dr. Grzegorz Szuladiński from Australia. So, scientists are convinced of the mystification of the birch in Miller’s report and the report of the MAK. Experts from the National Commission for Aviation Accidents Investigation do not know what happened in Smoleńsk or do not want to know it. So, they followed the Russian suggestions and blamed the birch completely. Now, when even procurators state that the tree was broken at the height of 9, not 5m above the ground, their concept is collapsing like a card house. For at this height the tree was only 10 cm thick.
If not a birch, so what?
Other proofs revealing the mystification of Miller’s report are shown by dr. Kazimierz Nowaczyk from University of Maryland. In his opinion the last message of the computer on the board of TAWS 38 was deliberately concealed by the commission. For it did not was not agreeable with the assumed hypothesis of the process of the catastrophe. Parameters which as the only proof were read out by American specialists show that the airplane had been in a different place and at a different altitude than it was assumed in the Polish and Russian reports. Data from the American computer show that the airplane did not detour from the route and was flying properly in the direction of an airport. In Miller’s report these data were not agreeable with the theory of the birch and auto-rotating barrel, so they were deliberately concealed.
– This last phase of the flight was not read out from any objective data of the type of black boxes. It was set forth on the basis of amateur photos of weak quality, which were found on Internet – notes dr. Nowaczyk. Basing on them, a version was made up about the fact that the airplane had tilted to the left wing and rotated itself. What is interesting, in the analysis of the Polish commission there appears a peculiar case when the tupolew is stopped from the auto-rotating barrel for a while (stops rotating around its own axis) in order to renew it later. – It is against the laws of physics and the common sense – emphasizes Nowaczyk.
Let’s recall that the theory of the auto-rotating barrel is not confirmed in the traces of the ground. If it was assumed, the airplane should have embossed furrows with the left wing. The version about the rotation of the tupolew in the air is not confirmed by the eye-witnesses of the event either.
The worldly-famous scientists do not have hard proofs for assassination or a bomb explosion. They are only analysing available data from the report of MAK, Miller’s commission or other gathered materials.
They do not know what exactly happened in Smoleńsk, but they are sure that it is impossible to make official decisions agreeable with the common sense or scientific knowledge. Dr. Szuladziński set forth a hypothesis that this kind of destruction of the airplane hull and its collapse into thousands of tiny parts can be explained by an explosion. It is also confirmed by other experts. I have worked in the Boeing for 12 years where we were analysing many crashes. The first thought, when I saw the photos from Siewierny…It is impossible that the airplane falling down from the altitude of 20m, with the speed of 250km/h, collapsed in such a way – emphasizes dr. Wacław Berczyński, one of the main engineers of the Boeing, an advisor of Pentagon, NASA and ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) which is the most important aviation institution in the world). On the example of a few fragments of the airplane wreckage of the tupolew and characteristically torn away rivets he stated that very high centrifugal pressure must have influenced the construction. – The tearing force works in such a way that torn away rivets fly like bullets in the air – notes Berczyński.
Let’s recall that one of the rivets was found in the body of Anna Walentynowicz. It is confirmed by an eye-witness of the exhumation Piotr Walentynowicz.
(AA)
"Niedziela" 7/2013