Polish final report on Smoleńsk aircrash

Hey how about not having double standards and saying the same to Sobieski. I do not see him sourcing his information. Oh of course but what he says suits you more so you say nothing about it.

I use words like 'apparently' and 'from what I gather' as I am not arrogant and I do not falsely claim to state facts when I am not absolutely sure.

there is no sense to argue now with representatives of the league of mental and/or moral midges on this forum. There will be soon( or soon enough) Polish report on the Smolensk crash !

I won`t say it to Sobieski because that is what I learnt on my own.

However, I couldn`t locate any sources which prove your apparent claims. :):):):)


That is the favourite method of PiS leaders to suggest things which are untrue. They love using such words as "apparently" and "from what I gather."


I don`t mind being in that league. :):):):):

However, if I am a mental/moral midget, then you are a mental/moral plankton. :):):):):)


You mean PiS report, of course.

PiS is not all Poland, never forget it.

pawian my source is the Polish media although now that you mention it, who can trust them,or most media for that matter? So who can we trust, unless we actually go out and see something ourselves.


Oh you mean like the PO and Russian reports we already have so far? Yeah those are obviously unbiased. You can believe tt was a 30cm twig that did it, took the win right off and flipped the plane over.

This has nothing to do with belief. Do not mix religion into this. Deal with facts.

2012-05-23
Dr. Wieslaw Binienda, an adviser to the parliamentary committee of Antoni Macierewicz, in TVP1 program: "Politics over coffee":
- My model shows that the tree will be cut through (by the wing of the Tu-154M) and the damaged aircraft will be able to continue flying.

But he qualifies that statement with:
- It is possible that they (the other experts) have made a mistake, it's possible that I have made a mistake:

Dr. Wieslaw Binienda , adviser to the parliamentary group Macierewicz , arms in the TVP1 "Politics over coffee " his thesis : " My model says that the tree will be cut ( by wing Tu- 154M ) , and a damaged aircraft will be able to continue to fly ." We reserve the right , however : " It is possible that they ( other experts ) made ​​a mistake , it's possible that I made ​​a mistake ."

Dr. Wieslaw Binienda from the American University of Akron, who prepared for the parliamentary expert team Macierewicz for . Study of the Smolensk disaster , occurred today in the TVP1 "Politics over coffee ." He is the author of the thesis that the tu- 154M could lose wings when hitting the birch in Smolensk. - It is possible that they [ other experts - editor. eds. ] made ​​a mistake , it's possible that I made ​​a mistake - he said.

Now I am beginning to like him. He is no longer presumptuous. He finally displays traits of a real resercher: SOME DOUBTS about his own work.

And trees of the 30-40cm diameter can easily shear off wings of airplanes.

There are several documents on youtube showing simulated crash of DC-7 (if I remember it correctly) against several obstacles: a bump on a runway, one shallow and one steep hill and two telephone poles. With a bunch of dummies inside, red-coloured water simulating aviation fuel, many accelerometers in fuselage and in wings (monitoring both horizontal and vertical vibrations) and a bunch of high speed cameras inside and out they ran the plane against those obstacles. One telephone pole was broken, the other one went through the wing like a knife through butter.

But there are plenty of examples of real life plane crashes, where one or both wings were sheared off by trees. Here are few, randomly chosen.

There was a case, very similar to the one I described in the message #465. The difference was in tree sizes: in Russian case there was just a bush (oversized Christmas trees), in the following case the trees were mature.

date: 1943-01-29, plane: B-23 Dragon Bomber, operator: USAF, location: Loon Lake, Idaho, USA
Emergency landing on frozen lake. Sliding across the ice and through the trees. With both wings sheared off, the plane came to rest 150 feet from the shore of Loon Lake in the timber. All eight men survived and rescued 21 days later.


To be fair, 20-inch trees, sound thicker than the Smoleńsk's birch, so this is not the strongest proof here. But look at the pictures of the wreck - still there!

date: 1950-12-22, plane: Douglas C-47A-20-DK, operator: Canadian Pacific Air Lines, location: Penticton Airport, BC, Canada
Approching Okanagan Mountain, the DC-3 hit the trees. The port tail of the plane and elevator were almost immediately sheared off by the trees while the port wing struck a large tree shearing the wing off. The wreckage rotated to the left and slid until coming to rest approximately 400 feet from the first contact with the trees. Both the co-pilot and pilot-in-command sustained fatal injuries.

aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19501222-0[/url]

date: 1978, plane: DC-8, location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Pilot, uncertain whether or not the landing gear was down and locked, decided to circle around to burn off fuel. It was against an advise of several crew members, and specifically a visiting captain, who said: "I know these DC-8s and one thing I know for sure - they don't fly well without fuel". Upon final approach, the plane ran out of fuel, crashed into two large (empty) homes, skidded across a busy street, had its wings sheared off by trees, and broke in half.

aaahq.org/pubs/AESv16/chapter6.pdf

Somebody asked the Smoleńsk question (birch vs. wing) on AllExperts forum. The answer came from Kevin Parker, who has the following credentials:


He says:


en.allexperts.com/q/Aviation-Flying-1651/2012/4/air-crashes-impact-trees.htm

Funny though, that you know where you belong, I have never named members of the league,


is that even mean anything.


no if about it you volunteered


Where I mentioned PiS ?
The truth is that so far there wasn't Polish rapport about Smolensk crash.


Don't be ridiculous in your case everything has to with believes, your believes ! You don't have even know what a proper scientific analysis look like.

Iron, do you have a younger brother or sister?

Sometimes I have an impression you gave away your password and allow them to take over for a night.....


And this English of them is really out of this world...


Am I right?


Actually, that 30 cm twig was a tree trunk.


He realised that he had let PiS make a fool of him, so he started to back off.

Boletus, good research done.

changing subject are you ?
anyway I'm exhausted - bed time !

Boletus, someone has done research on that Binienda. He is neither a physicist nor a professor (according to Polish standards), nor NASA expert, as PiS claims.

kajetanskalski.salon24.pl/410242,brzoza-czy-lipa

He is bending facts like an amateur, not scientist.

You will never learn, will you? And what do you know about science? So far, you are just a fuzz-ball. Poof!

Says you.

My question, if he is nobody, who are the government experts running away and hiding like rats (sick, busy, unavailable)?
Less than nobodies?

How difficult it would be to send just one expert and prove this 'nobody' wrong?

Any volunteers?

Yes mister, Binienda was asked yesterday by Polish Prosecutors' Office to meet with them for technical presentation and discussion. So far, he declined. Antek Macierewicz played the delay game by setting the initial condition that the meeting could take place on grounds of American Embassy (or in Parliament?). Let us see, what happens next? Then they requested the official email from the prosecutors. The email was sent early in the morning today. No response from Antek.

Rats? The prosecutors wanted the technical documentation, which includes all the input data for the simulation Binienda did, long time ago. It was ignored or declined so far. I can present any visualization slides whatsoever, to prove that earth is flat. Any half-wit can do it. The proof is in the pudding.


Pawian, I do not want to go this route. I do not really know who he is and I have no time to do any detective work. I take it for granted that he is what he claims to be - as long as he sticks to his major field of expertise, which involves strength of materials, composites, and generally speaking "mechanics of continuous media" - and specifically elasticity theory, and rheology. I have no idea how good he is in Finite Element Analysis, but any modern graduate from technical universities, specializing in these areas, should know something about this kind of numerical computations. Something does not mean "an expert".

But I know who he is not by any stretch of imagination. He is definitely not an expert in "Solid State Physics". This field has very little to do with mechanical properties of solid bodies; it is mostly about quantum mechanics, crystallography, electromagnetism, and a bit about metallurgy. The direct applications are transistors, conductors, semiconductors, etc. So no, the direct quote from Polish wikipedia: "he specializes in computational methods of Solid State Physics" is a blatant lie. Unfortunately, when one finds one little lie, then he becomes immediately suspicious about other possible lies.

pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wies%C5%82aw_Binienda

And yes, he is not a physicist, as many PiS promoteurs try to make him be. But as I said, this is not that important at this stage.

Pawian, the author the article you quoted, tries very hard to discredit Binienda, but unfortunately he knows too little about engineering. For example the hardness data he quotes has no direct relationship with dynamical collisions, etc. He should have talked instead about elastic properties (not hardness), such as Young modulus. Here are few numbers for the latter:

Pine wood, oak wood, birch wood - along the grain => 9, 11, 11 GPa (that's Giga Pascals. 1 GPa = 144,710 psi)
Alluminum => 69 Gpa, about 6 times more than Young modulus for birch.

I really want to see dr. Binienda's input data. Then we can talk about various things. Otherwise it is all speculation.

I am sure he will meet with the prosecutors. I think right now they want to ensure that the meeting will be with technical experts.

Regarding input, he said he used many ranges of inputs since he didn't have the actual aircraft data. So insted of him providing input

data, shouldn't the officials provide measurements he asked for? In the official document it says the tree was 30-40 cm. Why didn't they

actually measure the tree and provide actual data (something like 35.5 cm)? Whatever you want to say about professor Binienda (and dont
hide behind "he is not professor in polish standards") he is not running away but presenting his data to Polish and international scientists.

He is just an expert that wants to present and validate his theory.

Did I say that? Read my message #485. Don't twist what I said.

Sorry it was #481, not you. But it was said, and it means nothing.

Yes, probably he tries too much.

So, here is another expert: prof. Artymowicz. He sounds more neutral. :):):)
In Polish.

In short: he calls Binienda`s findings unscientific.

1. Unfortunately I cannot find Mr. Artymowicz on University of Toronto Physics department professor list:
physics.utoronto.ca/people/membertypes?membertype_id=1
I got this: Your search for "artymowicz" has returned 0 results:
2. anybody who speeks Polish and English can easlily see that Mr. Artymowicz is not an everyday English speaker (his Polish says it).
3. his reaction to an offer to invite prof. Binienda and other international experts (to basically de-politicize the investigation) as well his participation
in such body, is very shady. I believe any scientist would be enthusiastic towards discussion with other experts. Instead he proposes to assembly
another body controlled by the government (experts from Polish Accademy of Science).

Nice try though.

I do not believe I got sucked in such stupid game...


It supposed to be an irony, right? Then get this: you failed massively in this respect.

Prof. Paweł Artymowicz is a member of two departments of U of T:
+ Astronomy& Astrophysics department, located at Astronomy and Astrophysics Building (AB) on the St. George Campus (downtown).
astro.utoronto.ca/people/faculty,
where his research is described as "The birth and evolution of binary stars and planetary systems, dynamics of astrophysical disks, physics of circumstellar dust, with occasional diversions to binary blackholes and AGNs"

+ Department of Physical & Environmental Sciences, Scarborough Campus,
utsc.utoronto.ca/~physsci/faculty_staff.html
Research: Origin and evolution of planetary systems.


I see no sense in this statement of yours. Do not be so desperate to discredit the man. He is a faculty member in both departments, and as such he must do some teaching, in English of course.

utsc.utoronto.ca/~pawel
His own page - list some undergraduate and graduate courses of his. He also gives lectures as a visiting professor in other universities, and conferences.

Just in case you start hollering about proof of his papers, here they are:

Citations & papers by P. Artymowicz, statistics from ADS Harvard Database (current)

With all due respect, grow up and don't even start playing these stupid games here, named "whose credits are better". Both Binienda and Artymowicz deserve good credits for what they do in their respective professions.


That's your over-interpretation. I have read some of his responses to Binenda's simulation, on several blogs. I do not like some of his charges, as some are "below the belt". But he has made few good points and it would be nice to get those clarified.

1. Garbage in, garbage out.
I know it so well from my own experience. Anyone can made all sorts of errors - in methodology, or input data. Give us access to your input, so others can verify it. For example, every year hundreds of people invent hundreds of supposedly unbreakable cryptographic algorithms. Every inventor swears by them, and most of them fail after simple verification process. How is it possible to verify secret algorithms? For this reasons that the algorithms are no longer secret: the scientists realized long ago that the secrecy should be a sole function of a secret data, but the algorithms should be open, accessible for everyone. Every crank who wants to become famous crypto-analyst must accept this: if you want to keep your algorithm secret, no one will care for it at all, and you can take it to the grave for all we care.

2. Use "pen and paper" modelling before you embark on lengthy and costly simulations on supercomputers. Through simple modelling you should get a rough idea what to expect from the "big boy". This is what I have learned from my first boss here. When he asked me to perform some numerical calculations it was more of reassurance of his best guess; 30 years experience in that particular field gave him enough confidence to negotiate timing and pricing based solely on his "gut feeling". My reports were more like "a window dressing".

3. Correct simplifications, adaptable mesh.
I have some experience with Finite Element Analysis, but I am not an expert in this field. However I cooperated with people who knew FEA Ansys program in and out; with 20 or so years experience. We cooperated this way: I used to be their scout so to speak ("pen and paper" - in big simplification, since my "pens" were fast computers and my "papers" were sophisticated programs I wrote). So I understand how important it is to select correct set of simplifications of the model. It is impossible to have an exact model - too many parameters, too many unknowns. I also understand how important it is to select adaptable mesh: few big finite elements in no-critical region, many small elements in critical sections.


Yes, nice try. :-)

It is really mysterious because the guy writes this on his website:

I am a tenured full professor of Physics and Astroph. at the University of Toronto. I split my time between the Dept of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the St. George (downtown) campus, and Department of Physical and Env. Sciences of UTSC (U of T at Scarborough).

And I found this

Graduate Faculty
Full Members
Abraham, Roberto - BSc, DPhil (Associate Chair, Graduate)
Artymowicz, Pawel - MS, PhD

sgs.utoronto.ca/calendar/2011-12/programs/ast.htm

I am not sure what it really means.

In result, you have sown grains of suspicion in my mind.... :):):):)

For those who understand Polish and are not able to watch TVP info, watch the above link. In the programs he basically states that he wanted to discuss his findings with experts in Poland but there were no takers. Not only that but the presenter of the program 'Bliżej' tried to get in contact with many of the people involved in the investigation so they could retort what was said by Binienda in the program and debate his findings but he was rejected by pretty much everyone he called [as you can see at the beginning of the program]. Binienda might be supported by PiS guys like Macierewicz but he seems like a legit guy to me who simply finds there to be some serious lack of logic to some of the stuff that is written up as what 'officially' happened.

One of them replied: I have no time for crap/boolshit.

PS. That Pospieszalski guy who runs the programme looks and sounds like a possessed maniac. That is my impression.

And what do you want to prove with this response from a 'scientist' asked to defend his research in front of another scientist?
You still want to contest prof. Binienda credentials? Pleeeease.


I may say the same thing about you, and you about me and it only means that we are mean and nothing else.

I do have a problem with Pospieszalski though, and it is that this guy let's his guests get away with crap, does not pressure them.

For example when calling government experts he should had said "I am such and such from TV station, making a program (not programme)
about Smolensk tragedy, I'd like to invite to this program Mr such and such. And that's it, when they refused, he should restate what they said

and add that Polish public has a right to hear from experts in such an important matter. Instead he was too emotional, kind of begging

them to come. But we cannot complain as he is the only guy representing national interests on all official TV stations. Other stations/programs
reduced themselves to attacking opposition and defending government. Nice freedom of speach we have in poland, don't we?
In addition the government is trying to shot down the only TV station that does not subscribe to official propaganda, TV Trwam.

boletus


OK boletus you asked for it.
I will sacrifice some of my precious time on you. I generally treat every poster as my equal but you are crying out lout to become my student. I pity your cry for help and hence I'm going to help you.

Are you an expert on aviation accidents? If you are then I would like you to ask you few questions.
However I'm certain that you are no such an expert and the only connection with aviation you have are those brief moments when you are sipping martini while you fly to holiday destination as a jet-passenger.

It means that you are in the same boat like any other poster in this thread. Your opinion is worthed exactly the same as any other Joe or Harry on the PF.

For some reason which is hard to fathom you strongly believe that your posts are more valuable than others and you are some kind of expert.

Your post do not give this imprecision and anybody who even brushed with science can see through your bluster.
First of all they are long and boring, strenuously constructed and laboriously thatched with links but with tenuous effect.
Examples ?there you are :


I think that they can but I'm not an expert/


Sure but there is also plenty examples when threes where cut down by plane wing or wings


Ah ? discovery ! Is it America ? Call me ...er call boletus Columbus !




hey I wasn't paying attention, was plane in Smolensk C-47A, DC - 8 or B23 ? No ?
Why would you present those "random" cases ?What is has to do with Tu-154?
To give any meaning to your presentation you should find examples of crashes with Tu-154 or with a plane whose construction is at least similar to that of TU-154.

Is that your "scientific" comparison ? 12 years old kid could do the same!
You should use this site :
aviation-safety.net/database/type/type-general.php?type=475
Tu-154 is very sturdy.Even loosing 2,5 m of a wing the plane is able to take-off and then land.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manas_International_Airport


I wonder why all countries, employ experts and investigate their air-crashes, spent a lot of money and time, the answer is simple - ask Kevin Parks!

To make it perfectly clear I'm not determining what has happened in Smolensk, I don't know. However Russian and governmental explanation is not good enough,

If that new wonder guy with some scientific theory about crash is not right, I gather that it is easy to contradict him for any expert in the field, isn't not ?

If so where is he or them ?Take your abacus and notes and make an end to this dude mucking about !!!!
If not .......


So would I! What business have Prosecutor Office in this ?Are they experts on aviation accidents ? what are they doing in Prosecutors office pretending to be lawyers?



Finally an expert I'm deeply impressed !!!!
Is he going to prove that Binieda's calculations are wrong (and I'm not saying they are right) by a very modern and advanced method of observing and calculating the movement of celestial bodies.

You are priceless boletus ! Can I call you bolek ?

Ironside, you better start paying attention. Bending and twisting reality does not help.


To which I responded:


Mind you the word "airplanes" is in plural. And then I provided some examples, just to demonstrate the above.
And then there came a passionate response from :


Oh, thank you, thank you.


Never claimed to be. All I said "And trees of the 30-40cm diameter can easily shear off wings of airplanes"


True, but so what? I stated one possibility that the 30-40 "twig" can do damages.


And again: reading comprehension problem, mister. Are you lost in your own world?


Thank you, but you should have noticed that I used the exactly same source in #477, when describing crash of DC-3 in Okanagan. Irony lost...


That's the only statement of yours that makes sense. So you are not an expert on the subject, right? Neither did I claim to be.

So what was that tirade of yours about - other that going personal again? So yes, you will never learn how to be objective.


Now, what do you think Artymowicz uses at work as his main astrophysics modelling tool? Pen and paper perhaps? Yes, he does. Supercomputers? Of course, he does. Do you have any idea what is involved in modelling and simulation of superstars, etc.? Both he and Binienda face the same of modelling problems, and yes he is more than qualified to check what Binienda did. It does not matter what is his background, the issue is computing and modelling, which I described in some other message. If you do not understand it, than that's too bad...

I did find out what the deal with the Prosecutor Office is, it is actually very smart. According to Polish law a person that is interviewed

by a Prosecutor becomes an official 'witness' in a case and as such he/she is not permitted to talk to anyone about the case anymore until

the end of case.
Not even to say what questions the Prosecutor asked. So they can ask, 'how was your day Mr. Binienda?' , 'enjoying your stay in Poland?' and

'I think that would be it, we thank you for coming'. It's basically a perfect way to shut up anybody, totally legal.

To avoid it, the parlamentary commission said that they (the prosecutors) could interview prof. Binienda, ask any questions they wanted,
but within framework of a parlamentary hearing, not an official prosecutor interview.

So here is the answer why prof. Binienda is 'running away' from prosecutors, I believe that's exactly what he should do to.


Wow, Wow, Wow. Do you really want us to believe that modeling real, physical, earthy (how else to describe to you the things that
we can touch) material response to different stresses has anything to do with ET (extra terriestial) body movements and processes?
I didn't understand why he was so hesitant to join the expert group. I would be too.

Well, dr. Binienda is no expert in fluid dynamics (I checked his CV, only one publication related to flows), but yet a big part of his Smoleńsk report deals with description of the dynamics of the broken wing tip travelling through air. I presume dr. Artymowicz has the same or greater experience in this particular field.

I you are open minded I am ready to explain the similarities between dynamics of tangible and intangible objects in lesser or greater detail. Otherwise it will be a waste of our time. All I can say now that at some abstraction level there is no difference between the two.

There is a discipline called "mechanics of continuous media", which actually means "mechanics of solid bodies, fluids and gases". With proper abstraction in place one can also add "mechanics of celestial bodies and celestial dust" to the above definition. Each medium is governed by specific set of static or dynamic equations.

Binienda specializes in static and dynamics of solid bodies (of complex structures, including composites) described by theory of elasticity and the strength of materials. Materials used here can be either isotropic or anisotropic, and can be characterized by various elastic properties and critical stresses.

People specializing in fluid dynamics use their specific bunch of equations, such as Navier-Stokes equation, modified for various definition of flows: viscous vs. inviscid, comprehensible vs. incomprehensible, laminar vs. turbulent, etc. In either case the problems can be either two- or three-dimensional.

Are there any similarities between these two groups? Of course they are. When the problems grow in complexity, like during a transition from a simple beam to a 12-story building, they can no longer be handled analytically by hand and the numerical methods must be used instead.

Finite Element Analysis is the most popular such method. Its steps are as follows:
1 - Replace the real stuff (solid body or fluid) by a mesh of 2D or 3D elements. Enter various mechanical properties of the medium.
2 - Apply external sources and torques to some nodes of the mesh
3 - Introduce boundary conditions: Substitute foundations, supports, etc. by reaction forces and torques, handle the flow around obstacles, etc.
4 - Introduce initial condition if the problem depends on time: set initial displacements and velocities in various nodes.
5 - Select appropriate set of discrete equations to be used during computation
6 - Start the number crunching, using the same set of equation in each node in turn. Stop if no numerical convergence is observed, re-model and start again.

7 - Present the data

Garbage in => Garbage out
If you screwup #1 you are toasted. Make sure that you use many small elements in critical areas of high stress concentration (case of solid bodies), such a collar around a chimney attached to a main structure. This is the most time consuming part, because it cannot be done in fully automatic mode. It may take few hours to enter such data.

If you screw up #3 or #4 you are also toasted. This is a very important part of your modelling process.

Astrophysical modelling

What does it have to do with Prof. Artymowicz? Here comes the fun part: a lot. For example in few of his team's works they simulate migration of Jupiter-sized planets embedded in a protoplanetary disc filled with particle dust. The equations akin to 2D fluid flow equations are used to simulate the particle dust. The motion of planets is handled by Runge-Kutta numerical integration method. It is a complex dynamic problem, so initial flow conditions must be properly handled. They use adaptive-mesh, parallelized simulation code capable of handling general compressible flow problems. The code is designed to allow users to configure initial and boundary conditions, change algorithms, and add new physics modules.

So, in other words, they had to go through the very similar set of seven steps, outlined above.

The hardware guy
During his stay in Stockholm he was engaged in design, implementation and administration of several computers, such as Antares - a parallel mini-supercomputer; 2002: 20 nodes, 2005: 38 nodes,

planets.utsc.utoronto.ca/~pawel/antares/index.htm

Fizyka Smoleńska
He runs his blog Smolensk Physics,
fizyka-smolenska.salon24.pl/posts
where he has criticized some of Prof. Binienda's findings (in 23 pieces). I read some of them, I like some, though I disliked certain attitudes.

Well, I don't question that but it is counterweight by the fact that there is possibility that a plane wing can cut down the "twig".


OK boletous once again:
You provided examples of accidents when a plane looses wing or wings against threes.
I'm just telling you that you should provide examples either of Tu-154 or planes of similar construction. Otherwise your examples are waste of typing power.

If your approach is a plane is just a plane then why not provide examples of planes loosing wings during the time when they enjoyed canvas and wood construction for wings.


What about ? That contrary to your claims you are not objective nor scientific in this thread.


I don't care what he uses. He is scientist yes but he is not specialist and his field has nothing to do with aviation.

Even if their work intervene at times( as does most of science ) it doesn't mean that it is the same.
Again your approach is oversimplified - any scientist will do.
I understand that when you have problem with your eyes you go to gastrointestinal. After all a doctor is a doctor both do the same in their work, deal with human health.

If Artymowicz would support the other dude theory you would dissolve him as non specialist in the field - we both know that. So, why don't you stop pretending to be impartial?

Nothing personal about it eh?

Myth #1: Aviation expertise
Again you do not understand a lot of things here and then try blaming me for oversimplifications. So let me put it loud and clear for you: doctor Binienda is not the right doctor - to use your own irony. He is not an expert in aviation in any way. He is an expert in solid mechanics: elasticity theory, strength of materials, composites. The list of courses he teaches or have taught at Akron, Drexel or Temple University does not contain anything related to "aviation", "flying", "fluid mechanics", "flows", "aerodynamics", "hydrodynamics". Nada, nil. Here is the full list of his courses:

The University of Akron:
Plates and Shells, Advanced Composite Mechanics, Introduction to Composite Mechanics, Elasticity, Damage Mechanics in Composites, Design with Advanced Composite Materials, Polymer Composites for Civil and Structural Engineering. Tools for Engineering Lab Statics

Internet Lecture, available at
ecgf.uakron.edu/~civil/statics
Introduction to Mechanics of Solids, Engineering Materials Lab

Drexel University:
Solid Mechanics II, Statics, Dynamics

Temple University:
Introduction to Fortran 77

Composites aside, the rest of the courses are a standard offer in Polish Universities of Technologies. And I suppose. some Universities specialize in composite materials too.

His list of publications has also zero references to those keywords. However his CV contains plenty of references to "aerospace": he was a guest editor, member editor, associate editor and editor-in-chief of "Journal of Aerospace Engineering" (JAE) in various years, he has kept few managerial positions in Aerospace division of ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineering) and he published substantially in JAE. Not about flying of course, but about composite materials used or to be used in aerospace industry.

Yet somehow he has been promoted by Macierewicz to become such an expert in aerodynamics. Myth #1: poof!

Myth #2: NASA aviation expert
His CV produces a list of 20 internal NASA publications - they are again about composites, plates, fractures in solids. He managed to get some NASA founded research projects (NASA Lewis Research Center). Most of the projects are/were related to his main research field: composites, plates, fractures as well as about jet engine impact penetration and containment in airplanes. He collected a very impressive number of grants - some as high as $800, 000.

He was awarded several times by NASA:
+ NASA for "Turning Goals Into Reality Award" for valuable contribution to Jet Engine Containment Concepts and Blade-Out Simulation Team and Exceptional Progress Toward Aviation Safety (September 2, 2004).

+ NASA Glenn Patent Award for "Strain Rate Dependent Analysis of Polymer Matrix Composites STRANAL-PMS Version 2" - LEW-17910-1, June 3, 2009.
+ NASA Glenn Technical Brief Award for "A Modeling Technique and Representation of Failure in the Analysis of Triaxial Braided Carbon Fiber Composites" - LEW-18435-1 June 10, 2009.

But his CV does not mention anything about him being an NASA adviser during investigation of "Shuttle Columbia disaster". Actually, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board

caib.nasa.gov/board_members/default.html
lists 12 board members plus the chair, two standing support board members, and about 30 Independent Analysis and Support Team members, investigators and other support staff. None of them is named Binienda. But then, he might have been a subcontractor of some sort. After all I was also involved in few NASA projects, but they know nothing about me there.

In his Smoleńsk Report prof. Binienda mentions that for his analysis he used the same technology as employed by NASA to analyze the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.

From this statement there was a very short step towards the following advertisement on polishnews.com by Polish American Congress, New Jersey Division, Polish Cultural Foundation in Clark, New Jersey, "Gazeta Polska" Club in New York

polishnews.com/index.php?view=details&id=641%3Asmolensk-catastrophe--current-status-of-investigation&option=com_eventlist
Prof. Wieslaw Binienda, Chairman of the Civil Engineering Department at the University of Akron, Ohio, Expert NASA and Federal Aviation Administration in aviation disaster investigation, a member of the group examining the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE.

And of course Macierewicz is full of this, all the time. In meantime, Myth #2: poof!

The right doctor in aerodynamics and aviation
Dr. Artymowicz has 25+ years of experience in numerical hydrodynamics (aerodynamics). He is also an FAA-certified pilot, with experience in the design, maintenance and operation of experimental aircraft. He flies his private RV6A the length and breath of American contingent. Notwithstanding that his is not a professional pilot, I would not hesitate for a second whom to consult in aviations matters: dr. Binienda or dr. Artymowicz.

Well, actually I would consult yet another doctor: Sebastian Kawa, Polish extreme glider
sebastiankawa.pl
doctor of medicine by profession, currently #2 on the IGC Ranking List
igcrankings.fai.org/index.php
But I would not consult him in medical matters. :-)

Just one thing, how does the science of astrophysics deal with temperature of their objects? Obviously the temperature ranges
of objects involved in aircraft crashes are very limited. I think we know how important the temperature is to behavior of objects, right?
Simple H2O can feel and act very differently in temperatures of just 100C different (e.g. below freezing and above boiling).

Boletus, I am under an increasingly great impression after reading your lectures to Ironside and other members. Hats off! :):):)

I am only worried that most of it is wasted on Iron. Pearls before swines...... :(:(:(:(