The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives [3] 
  
Account: Guest

Posts by KonradGB  

Joined: 19 Nov 2011 / Male ♂
Last Post: 20 Nov 2011
Threads: -
Posts: 6
From: UK
Speaks Polish?: yes

Displayed posts: 6
sort: Latest first   Oldest first
KonradGB   
20 Nov 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Gen.A.Blasik

Similarly, the Polish side was not in the position to respond to Finding 3.1.68 of the IAC Final Report that the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Air Forces General Andrzej Blasik was present in the cockpit at the time of the impact with the ground. Furthermore, the Polish Side was not in the position to respond to the statement that the coronary examination revealed 0.6‰ of ethanol in the blood of the Commander-in-Chief of the Polish Air Forces. Results of testing the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the Polish Air Force Commander Blasik cannot be independently verified because of the unavailability of the source documentation. No authorized toxicological data and information as to when and how the material was secured foranalysis was provided to the Polish side.6

6 The Polish Response in English, p. 143. In January 2011 IAC published on its website a document nr. 37
dated April 11, 2010 that purportedly represents testing of Gen. Błasik's blood. Medical experts point out that a natural alcohol is produced in the body within 24 hours from death and can reach even 1 percent. Therefore other tests are required to verify such findings. However the Russian side did not produce any other tests and did not present supporting documents.
KonradGB   
20 Nov 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

We still believe, Many politician start support us yet.

I do not talk about polish politician. Many scientist join to the team who support smolensk family.
KonradGB   
20 Nov 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

yes
J>Miller does not have access to main evidence.

List of the lack of evidence is on pages 1-24

freepl.info/uploads/pdf/Remarks-on-the-MAK-Report.pdf?PDFPTOKEN=3b2f6afc7fdb231006b245bdc002d74b106ebf1e|1321746940#PDFP
CV of dr. W.Binieda

uakron.edu/engineering/research/profile.dot?identity=1064521

page 17:
ndb2010.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/status-report-on-smolensk-crash1811-11.pdf

According to the IAC Final Report, "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 more seconds, inverted, the aircraft collided with the ground and was destroyed."71 Accordingly, the encounter with the birch that resulted in the loss of a part of the wing caused the plane to invert and crash. This scenario was illustrated by an animation demonstrating IAC's interpretation of the last moments of the airplane before the crash. This animation was not supported by any scientific or forensic analysis of the crash scene, but rather represented a work of art contrary to basic law of physics.

On September 8, 2011, Dr. Wieslaw Binienda, an expert on high-energy impacts on materials and structures testifying before the Polish Parliamentary Committee, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the collision with the birch could not have ripped the outer portion of the wing from the aircraft. While applying all parameters presented in the IAC Final Report in a rigorous finite element analysis, he demonstrated through a virtual experiment that the high- energy impact causes the wing to act like an ax, cutting the birch with only a small amount of damage to the edge of the wing but without any damage to the lifting area of the wing.72 These findings directly challenged the scenario presented by the IAC.

However, even if the scenario presented by the IAC is assumed whereby the birch rips off 1/3 of the length of the wing at the height of 6.5 meters from the ground, the ripped-off portion of the wing could not have fallen as far as 111 meters from the birch where it was found. The aerodynamic simulation shows that the ripped off part would crash to the ground no further than 12 meters from the birch at velocity of 100 km/h. The inspection of the crash scene showed that the ripped off portion of the left wing was found leaning against the trees 111 meters from the birch and on the right side of the path of the airplane. The observed damage to the trees and to the ripped off segment of the wing excludes the possibility of a velocity of

100 km/h at the point of impact.

In order to explain the final location of the ripped off segment of the wing, the aerodynamic analysis of free flow of the segment was conducted, requiring that the landing spot of the segment corresponds with the location at which it was found.73 The results obtained indicated that the separation from the wing at velocity of 80 m/s happened at a distance of 70 meters from the birch and 26 meters from the ground. Thus, the aerodynamic analysis demonstrates that the IAC's assumed path of 6.5 meters above the ground was 20 meters too low and the location of the separation of the wing was off by 70 meters.

Furthermore, the IAC's conclusion that the airplane traveling at the height of 6.5 meters from the ground could overturn is also impossible because the span of the wing is 19 meters. After presumably losing 6.5 meters on the birch, the remaining 12.5 meters of the wing was still longer than the distance to the ground of 6.5 meters. Thus, the IAC conclusion that "after intensive left bank" the airplane "inverted" is obviously impossible and erroneous.

So, possibly in anticipation of this problem, the IAC version of the crash assumes that the airplane after losing 1/3 of the wing is gaining height. This scenario also poses a fundamental problem because after losing a significant part of the wing, the airplane would be unable to gain any height. Accordingly the scenario presented by the IAC is incorrect in all fundamental aspects and thus impossible.

----------------------------------------
KonradGB   
20 Nov 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Apoligise,I cant answer you because- moderator delete any post.

Free disscusion...he,he

Please read

ndb2010.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/status-report-on-smolensk-crash181 1-11.pdf
KonradGB   
19 Nov 2011
News / Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash [859]

Merged: The 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash status report/November 2011

The 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash status report/November 2011

This document entitled „Smolensk Crash Status Report” was prepared by Esq (Esquire) Maria Szonert-Biniendę with the cooperation of experts in support of the Association of Families of Smolensk Plane Crash „Katyn2010″.

Version with automatic transition to the chapter table of contents is at the link below.

(www) ndb2010.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/status-report-on-smolensk-crash181 1-11.pdf

Facebook Page

(www) .facebook.com/pages/The-2010-Polish-Air-Force-Tu-154-Crash-Status-Repo rt/220383771364767?sk=wall